W7

EMMANUa

STOR

THE LIBRARY

of

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto

A
PROTESTANT DICTIONARY

PROTESTANT DICTIONARY

CONTAINING ARTICLES ON THE

HISTORY, DOCTRINES, AND PRACTICES OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

EDITED BY THE REV.

CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., M.A., PH.D.

Donnellan Lecturer (1880-81) in the University of Dublin; Bavipton Lecturer (1878),

Public Examiner in Semitic Languages (1894-1895), and late Grinfield Lecturer

on the Septuagint (1893-1897), in the University of Oxford

AND THE REV.

CHARLES NEIL, M.A.

Vicar of St. Mary's, Stamford Brook, London; Aiithor of " The Expositor's Commentary

on the Epistle to the Romans ;" Joint-Editor of1' Thirty Thousand Thoughts ; "

Editor of" The Comprehensive Scripture Lesson Scheme "

WITH PLATES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

LONDON
HODDER AND STOUGHTON

27 PATERNOSTER ROW

1904

STOR

/ 0

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co.
At the Ballantyne Press

PREFACE

As the word " Protestant," which occurs in the title of this work, is often
misrepresented, a few remarks respecting its meaning may be useful.
"Protestant" and "Catholic" are terms which, when rightly understood,
are not conflicting. True Protestantism holds firmly to the truths set forth
in the Creeds of the Apostolic Church, and protests only against unscriptural
additions made to the Primitive Faith. Protestantism is the re-affirmation
of that Faith combined with a distinct protest against those errors of doctrine,
ritual, and practice which were brought, as St. Peter says, " privily " into the
Church of Christ (2 Pet. ii. 2), but which were accepted as " Church teach
ing " in mediaeval times, and are still too prevalent. The word Protestantism
stands for the return to Primitive and Apostolic Christianity. It is the re-
assertion of " the faith once for all delivered unto the saints " (Jude 3). When
Protestantism is negative in its declarations, it is only to preserve and ac
centuate some truth which is being perverted. Like the great " Ten Words,"
as the Jews were wont to term "the Ten Commandments," truths sometimes
appear to be simply negations, when in reality they are very far from
having that character, as our Lord's summary of that Law (Matt xxii. 36-40)
abundantly proves.

The present work, therefore, although constructive, is necessarily contro
versial. Persons who object to controversy ignore the fact that the teaching of
Christ and His Apostles was controversial. Truth was set forth by them in
contrast with the errors of their times. The first teachers of Christianity were
compelled to draw attention to " the weakness and unprofitableness " of the old
Mosaic Law (Heb. vii. 18) then passing away, and to oppose the "tradition of men "
(Mark vii. 7-9) which had perverted and misrepresented the nobler elements
of that Law. The Apostolic Age has been described by the inspired writer
as " a time of Reformation " (Heb. ix. 10). The Creeds of the Church were the
outcome of controversy. The most brilliant periods of the Church's history
were times of controversy. The battle of truth will not be finally won until
He that is " Faithful and True" Himself appears on the scene of conflict (Rev.
xix. 11, /.), and until that day arrives, it is faithlessness on the part of the
soldiers of Christ to lay aside their armour, and to put into its scabbard "the
sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" (Eph. vi. 17).

The book now presented to the public may, no doubt, be found fault
with both for containing too much and for containing too little. Certain
subjects necessarily recur in articles by different writers. The object of
providing a handy work of reference for Protestants on the Romish contro
versy had always to be borne in mind. The Protestant Dictionary does not
profess to be complete as a historical or theological lexicon.

The work, as it is, covers an extensive field of discussion. It is, perhaps,
the first attempt made on the Protestant side to deal with the points in dis
pute by means of a dictionary. But on the Roman Catholic side such aids

vi PREFACE

have been long ago provided. The Catholic Dictionary, which appeared in
a revised and enlarged form (Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co. Ltd.) in
1897, is a work of considerable merit; and in Germany a new Kontrovers
Lexicon : Konfessionelle Streitfragen zwischen Katholiken und Protestantem,
under the editorship of Dr. Jos. Burg, is now in course of publication.

As the present work has been produced under the auspices of the Pro
testant Reformation Society, questions connected with the Book of Common
Prayer had to be specially treated. Many of those questions had necessarily
to be viewed from the legal as well as the theological standpoint. Hence
it has been necessary to enter into many details which at the present time
interest peculiarly the Evangelical members of the Church of England. The
advice often given on liturgical points by Mr. J. T. Tomlinson, who is a well-
known expert on all such questions, has been of great advantage, and he has
afforded much assistance in the general revision of the work.

The Editors have received valuable help, not only from distinguished
personages in the Church of England, but also from many distinguished
scholars and theologians belonging to the Churches of Scotland, and to the
principal Free Churches of Great Britain and Ireland. The Protestant
Dictionary thus affords a practical illustration of the substantial unity which
exists on all essential points between the great Churches of the Reformation.

Many able writers on the Protestant side have, from no lack of sympathy
but from overpressure of work, been unable to contribute articles. Several who
had promised larger assistance have found themselves unable to give it. The
list of writers is a large one, and the Editors desire to thank them all heartily
for their valuable contributions. The writers are to be held responsible only
for their own articles.

The Editors, and the Protestant Reformation Society which they represent,
earnestly trust that the publication of the volume may in some measure tend
to remove that ignorance and uncertainty on the points at issue between
Protestants and Romanists, which, alas, is too common at this critical period
of our history.

They hope that the work may to some extent arrest the wave of indefinite
religious opinion now spreading over the length and breadth of the land, even
among Protestant Churches. They trust that it may enable Protestant
preachers, lecturers, and Christians unversed in the Romish controversy, to
bear witness to the truth with more power, and to testify in a spirit of love
against all Romish errors. Those errors confuse divine verities; and they
prevent that exercise of private judgment, which Holy Scripture everywhere
assumes to be one of the first duties of man. They tend to weaken personal
responsibility, destroy Christian liberty, sap "the virility" of the Nation and
imperil the salvation of souls.

LONDON, Jan. 7th, 1904.

LIST OF WEITEES' NAMES

INITIALS LIST OF WRITERS

W. H. M. H. A. . Rev. W. H. M. H. AITKEN, M.A., Canon Residentiary of Norwich.
Author of Mission Sermons (3 vols.) ; The School of Grace ;
The Highway of Holiness ; The Doctrine of Baptism, Mechanical
or Spiritual, &c.

F. W. A. '. . Rev. FRANCIS WILLIAM AMES, Theol. Assoc., King's College
London, formerly Chaplain in Royal Navy, and Vicar of Roade
Diocese of Peterborough.

M. E. A. . M. E. AMES, Author of Abra of Poictiers, A Story of the Days of

St. Hilary ; Popular Lectures on Church History.

J. A. B. . . Rev. Professor J. AGAR BEET, D.D., Wesleyan College, Richmond.
Author of Commentaries on Romans (9th edit.), Corinthians
(7th edit.), Galatians (5th edit.), Ephesiam, Philippians, Colos-
sians (3rd edit.) ; Credentials of the Gospel through Christ to
God (4th edit.) ; New Life in Christ (3rd edit.) ; The Last
Things (3rd edit.), &c.

H. B. . . Rev. HUBERT BROOKE, M.A., St. John's College, Cambridge,

Incumbent of St. Margaret's, Brighton. Author of The Vision
of the Candlestick ; The Temple of His Body ; Personal Con
secration ; Studies in Leviticus, &c.

R> B. . . Rev. ROBERT BRUCE, M.A., D.D., Trin. Coll. Dub., D.D. Oxon.,

Rector of Littledean, Gloucester, late Vicar of St. Nichola
and Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly C.M.S. Missionary in
India and Persia, sometime Professor of Persian in University
College, London. Translator of the Bible and Book of Common
Prayer into Persian, &c.

•Vy. B. . . . Rev. WILLIAM BURNET, M.A., Ex-Scholar of Trinity College,
Dublin, Vicar of Childerditch.

C. J. C. . • Rev. C. J. CASHER, D.D., formerly Scholar of St. John's Coll.,
and 1st Theol. and Denyer and Johnson Schol., Univ. of
Oxford.

T. C. . Rev. THOMAS CONNELLAN, Editor of The Catholic, Dublin.

F' Q* Q t F> c. CONYBEARE, M.A., formerly Fellow of University Coll.,

Oxford. Author of The Armenian Apology and Acts of
Apollonius, and other Monuments of Early Christianity; The
Dreyfus Case ; Editor of Armenian Texts.

H. C. . Kev. HENRY COWAN, D.D., Prof, of Church Hist, in the Univer

sity of Aberdeen. Author of Influence of the Scottish Church
on Christendom, &c.

N. D. . . . Kev. N. DIMOCK, M. A., St. John's College, Oxford. Author of
Doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence; Missarum Sacrifice;
Dangerous Deceits ; Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium, &c.
vii

LIST OF WRITERS' NAMES

INITIALS LIST OF WR1TEES

A. R. F. . . Rev. ANDREW R. FAUSSET, D.D., First Class Gold Medallist and
University Scholar of Trinity College, Dublin, Rector of St.
Cuthbert's and Canon of York. Author of Englishman's Bible
Cyclopedia ; Scripture and the Prayer Book • Guide to Study
of the Prayer Book; of two vols. in the Critical and Explana
tory Pocket Bible ; of three vols. on The Critical and Experi
mental Commentary ; Commentary on Judges ; Editor of Bengel's
Gnomon of the New Test, in English ; Horce Paulina}, &c.

J- F. . • Rev. JAMES FLEMING, B.D., Magd. Coll., Camb., Canon of York

and Rector of St. Michael's, Chester Square, London.

H. F. G. . . Rev. H. F. GASTER, M.A., Corpus Christ! Coll., Cambridge, Curate
of St. Michael, Chester Square, London.

M- D. G. . . MARGARET DUNLOP GIBSON, LL.D., of St. Andrew's Univer
sity, D.D., Heidelberg. Editor of Arabic Version of Epist. to
Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians in the Convent of
St. Katharine, Mount Sinai (Studia Sinait, ii.) ; Catalogue of the
Arabic MSS. in the Convent of St. Katharine (Stud. Sin. iii.) ;
Apocrypha Sinaitica (Stud. Sin. v.), &c. Cambridge. Didas-
calia Apostolomm in Syriac and English.

S- R- G- • Rev. S. R. GILPIN, Theol. Assoc. of King's Coll., London,

Chaplain to Hackney Union and Infirmary.

J- G- G- • • Rev- J- GORDON GRAY, M.A., D.D., Presbyterian Chaplain,

T> *•

Rome.

A W. G. . . Rev. A. W. GREENUP, M.A., Camb. and Dub. ; Carus Greek Test.
Prizeman, Tyrwhitt Heb. Schol., &c., Principal of St. John's
Hall, Highbury. Author and Editor of Targum on Lamenta
tions ; The Commentary of R. Tobia ben Mieser, on Lamentations,
and other works.

F- J" H" • Kev- F- J- HAMILTON, D.D., Wall Bibl. Schol., 1st Prizeman

in Hebrew, Chald., and Syr., and 1st Cl. Div. Test., Trinity
College, Dublin. Joint-Translator of The Chronicle of Zachariah
of Mitylene; Author of The Best Book of All and How it Came
to Us, &c.

G- H- • • Rev. GEORGE HANSON, M.A., of Royal Univ., Ireland, D.D., &c.

Minister of Marylebone Presbyterian Church, London.

J- B- H- • Rev- J- B. HEARD, M.A., formerly Schol. and Exhib. of Caius

College; 1st Class Mor. Sci. Trip., Hulsean Prizeman (1852),
and Hulsean Lecturer (1892), in the Univ. of Cambridge.
Author of Tripartite Nature of Man, 5th edit. ; Old and New
Theology, &c.

J- H. . . Rev. JOHN HERKLESS, D.D., Regius Professor of Eccl. Hist, in the

University of St. Andrews. Author of Cardinal Beaton, Priest
and Politician ; Richard Cameron ; Francis and Dominic, &c.
. THOMAS HODGKIN, D.C.L. Author of Italy and her Invaders.
. Rev. CHARLES HOLE, B.A., Trin. Coll. Camb. (Wrangler), Lecturer
on Eccl. Hist., King's Coll., London. Author of A Manual of
the Book of Common Prayer; Early Missions in the British
Islands ; By-Paths of English Church Histoi-y, &c.
J< E- H- • •••' Rev. J. E. HUTTON, M.A., Moravian Minister, Belfast.

LIST OF WRITERS' NAMES

IX

INITIALS LIST OF WRITERS

M. E. W. J. . Rev. M. E. W. JOHNSON, Th.A., 1st Cl., and Prizeman of King's
Coll., London, Rector of Thelveton, Scole.

J. C. L. . . Rev. J. C. LAMBERT, M.A., B.D. Author of The, Sacraments in the
New Test. (Kerr Lectures, 1903).

T. H. L. L. . . Rev. T. H. L. LBARY, D.C.L., Oxon. ; late Editor of The Re
visionist, and the Rock ; Author of Christian Jeicels, &c. Vicar
of St. Philip's, Avondale Square, London, N.E.

W. A. L. . ' . WALTER A. LIMERICK, Secretary of the Protestant Reformation
Society.

W. L. . . . The Yery Rev. WM. LEFROY, D.D., Dean of Norwich, Donnellan
Lecturer in the Univ. of Dublin, 1887-88. Author of The
Christian Ministry; History of Norwich Cathedral; Im
mortality of Memory and other Sermons, &c.

T. M. L. . . Rev. T. M. LINDSAY, D.D., Principal of New College, Glasgow.
Author of The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries ;
Luther and the German Reformation ; Luther, in the Cambridge
Modern Hist.

R. L. . . . Rev. RICHARD LOVETT, M.A., Sec. of the R.T.S. Author of The
Printed English Bible, 1525-1884; The English Bible in 1he
John Rylands Library, &c.

A. M. . . . Rev. ALEX. MACKENNAL, D.D., Bowdon, Cheshire; Chairman of
the Council of Mansfield Coll., Oxford. Author of Story of the
English Separatists ; Homes and Haunts of the Pilgrim Fathers ;
Sketches in the Evolution of Congregationalism (Carew Lect.
1900-1) ; TJie Eternal Son of God and the Human Sonship, &c.

D. S. M. . . Rev. D. S. MARGOLIOUTH, M.A., D. Litt., Fellow of New College,
Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford.
Author of Lines of Defence of the Biblical Revelation, &c.
Editor of Comm. of Japhet Ibn Ali the Karaite on Daniel
(Anect. Oxon.), &c.

J. P. M. . . J. PAYNE MAKGOLIOUTH, Oxford. Editor of A Compendious Syriac
Dictionary.

H. J. R. M. . . Rev. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., Hatfield Hall, Durham, Univ. Clas.
Schol. and Fell, of Univ. of Durham, Incumbent of Belgrave
Chapel, London.

F. M. . . . Rev. FREDERICK MEYRICK,M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trin. Coll.,
Oxford, Rector of Blickling, Norwich, and Non-Resident Canon
of Lincoln. Author of The Doctrine of the Church of England
in the Holy Communion re-stated; Scriptural and Catholic
Faith and Worship ; Old Anglicanism ; Sunday Observance, &c.

H. C. G. M. . . The Right Rev. HANDLEY C. G. MOULE, D.D., late Norrisian
Prof, in the Univ. of Cambridge, Lord Bishop of Durham.
Author of Comm. on Romans and Ephesians in Cambridge
Bible ; Comm. on Philippians ; Philippian Studies ; Colossian
Studies ; Bishop Ridley on the Lord's Supper, &c.

R. H. M. . . R. H. MURRAY, Worcester.

C. N. . . . Rev. CHARLES NEIL, M.A., Trin. Hall, Camb., Vicar of St.
Mary's, Stamford Brook, London. Author of The Expositor's
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans; The Teacher's

LIST OF WRITERS' NAMES

INITIALS LISX op WRITERS

Synoptical Syllabus ; Joint-Editor of Thirty Thousand Thoughts
(6 vols.).

. Rev. JAMES NEIL, M.A. Author of Palestine Explored, &c.

T- ^- • • Rev. THOMAS NICOL, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical

Criticism in the Univ. of Aberdeen. Author of Recent Archsso-

logy and the Bible (Croall Lect. 1898), and Recent Exploration

of Bible Lands, &c.

T. C. O'C. . . Rev. T. CLIFFORD O'CONNOR, M.A., Rector of Donoughmore,

Canon of Christ Church, Dublin.

J- °- • • Rev- Professor JAMES ORR, D.D., Professor of Apologetics and

Systematic Theology, United Free Church College, Glasgow.
Author of Christian View of God and the World as Centering
in the Incarnation (Kerr Lecture, 1890-91) ; Ritschlian Theology
and the Evangelical Faith ; Neglected Factors in the Study of
the Early Progress of Christianity ; Ritschlianism ; Expository
and Critical Essays; David Hume: His Influence on Philo
sophy and Theology.

A- S- R • ARTHUR S. PEAKE, M.A., late Fellow of Morton College, and

Lecturer in Mansfield College, Oxford, Professor in the Primi
tive Methodist College, Manchester, and Lecturer in Lanca
shire Independent College.

F> J> R Rev- FRED- J- POWICKE, Ph.D. Author of John Norris ofBemerton;

Henry Barrow, Separatist, &c., Hatherlow Parsonage, Stockport.

J- H> R • Rev- J- H- RIGG, D.D., late Principal of the Wesleyan Training

College, Westminster; twice President of the Wesleyan
Methodist Conference. Author of Oxford High Anglicanism
and its chief Leaders, 2nd edit, enlarged with Appendix ; A
Comparative View of Church Organisations, Primitive and
Protestant, 3rd edit, enlarged; Modern Anglican Theology,
3rd edit, with Memoirs of Charles Kingsley and Personal Remi
niscences ; The Living Wesley, 3rd edit., &c.

A> K ' Rev- ALEX- ROBERTSON, D.D., Cavaliere of the Order of St.

Maurice and St. Lazarus, Italy. Author of Fra Paolo Sarpi ;
The Bible of St. Mark; Catholic Reform; The Roman Catholic
Church in Italy, &c.

G- St • • Rev- GEORGE SALMON, D.D., Hon. D.C.L., Oxon., Hon. LL.D.,

Camb., &c., Hon. D.D., Edinburgh, F.R.S., Provost of Trinity
College, Dublin, and formerly Regius Professor of Divinity in
the University of Dublin. Author of Conic Sections, and other
mathematical works ; Introd. to New Test. (7th edit.) ; Infalli
bility of the Church, &c.
. Rev. JAMES SILVESTER, M. A. , Worcester Coll., Oxford, Vicar of Great

Clacton, Colchester. Author of The Christian Covenant, &c.
J- S< S- • • Rev- Professor J. S. SIMON, Didsbury College, Manchester.
J- W. S. • • J- W. STANDERWICK, Hon. Sec. of the Wyclif Society.

. C. P. STEWART, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., J.P. Author of Vatican
Influence under Pius V. and Gregory XIII. ; The Revival of
Religious Mendicant Orders; Memorials of the Stewarts of
Fothergill, &c.

LIST OF WRITERS' NAMES xi

INITIALS LIST OF WRITERS

E. S. . . . EUGENE STOCK, late Editorial Sec. Church Missionary Society.

Author of History of the Church Missionary Society, in

3 vols., &c.

G. W. T. . . Rev. G. W. THATCHER, M.A., B.D., Mansfield College, Oxford.
J. T. T. . . J. T. TOMLINSON, Author of The Prayer Book; Articles and

Homilies, and other works.
T. V. T. . . Rev. T. VINCENT TYMMS, D.D., Principal of Rawdon College,

Leeds. Author of The Mystery of God.
H. W. . . Very Rev. HENRY WAGE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, Bampton

Lecturer, 1879, Boyle Lecturer, 1874-75, sometime Prof, of Eccl.

Hist., Principal of King's Coll., London, Hon. Chaplain to the

King, Preb. of St. Paul's, London, and Preacher of Lincoln's Inn.

Author of Christianity and Morality (Boyle Lect. 1874-75) ;

Foundations of Faith (Bampton Lect 1879); Christianity and

Agnosticism ; Editor of Speaker's Comm. on the Apocrypha ;

Joint-Editor of Diet, of Christian Biography, &c.
W. W. . . WALTER WALSH, F.R.Hist.S. Author of the Secret History of

the Oxford Movement ; Homeward Movement in the Church of

England ; The Jesuits in Great Britain, &c.
H. W. W. P. . Rev. H. W. WEBB-PEPLOE, M.A., Pembroke Coll., Cambridge,

Vicar of St. Paul's, Onslow Square, Preb. of St. Paul's

Cathedral, Select Preacher at Cambridge, 1896.

A. R. W. . . Rev. A. R. WHATELY, M.A., late Schol. of Corpus Christi College,

Cambridge, sometime Vice-Principal of St. John's Hall, High
bury.

B. W. . . BENJAMIN WHITEHEAD, B.A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-

at-Law. Author of Church Law, and other works.

C. H. H. W. . Rev. C. H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., M.A., Ph.D. (Leipzig), Donnellan

Lecturer, Univ. of Dublin (1880), Bampton Lecturer (1878),
Public Examiner in Semitic Lang. (1894-95), and Grinfield
Lecturer in the Univ. of Oxford (1893-97), &c., Clerical and
General Superintendent of the Protestant Reformation Society.

E. A. W. . . Rev. ERNEST ALEXANDERSON WRIGHT, M.A., of Trinity College,
Dublin, Vicar of St. John's, Hull.

E. B. W. . . E. BLACKWOOD WRIGHT, B.A., LL.B., of the Middle Temple,
Barrister-at-Law. Author of Saunders' Law of Negligence, 2nd
edit. (1898) ; The Law of Principal and Agent, 2nd edit. (1901).

W. H. W. . . Rev. W. HEBER WRIGHT, M.A., of Trinity College, Dublin, Vicar
of St. George's, Worthing.

xiv DESCRIPTIVE KEY

above his shoulder the hooded Campanella (Italian philosopher, 1568-1639); to the
extreme right, Machiavelli (the great Florentine statesman, born 1469, died 1527).
In the near foreground, touching the lyre, almost lost in the shadow, is Jacobus Balde
(poet, 1603-1668).

Now we must turn to the figures in the background. Immediately behind
Columbus is the side face of Morus (Sir Thomas More) (Chancellor of England,
1480-1535) ; he wears a cap, and is looking towards Queen Elizabeth, the central
figure under the pillar. Go up a step • just over Morus at the extreme left there is
an old man wearing a ruff, being helped forward by a younger one who bends over
him ; they are typical English people of the time. In front of Morus, in bishop's
robes, carrying a book, and next to the white-robed English nun, is Archbishop
Cranmer (H89-1555). Just above these, and looking from left to right, are The
Earl of Essex (Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1567-1601), Lord Burleigh (English
Secretary of State, 1520-1598), Sir Francis Drake (the great commander, 1545-1598).
Almost unseen, behind the three last mentioned, with head resting on his hand^
Cardanus (physician, 1501-1576). Immediately behind the heads of Cranmer and
the nun, the head of an English gentleman.

Queen Elizabeth appears to point with one hand to the little group who seem to
be receiving the Sacramental bread from the hands of Calvin (reformer, 1509-1564),
who turns so as to face them. Let us commence with the old man with white beard
just above the Queen's arm. He is Coligny (the French Admiral, one of the first
who was massacred on St. Bartholomew's day, 1516-1572); Maurice of Saxony
(the Elector, d. 1553) wears a winged helmet; a Huguenot gentleman stands next to
a peasant of the south of France (Sud franzosischer Bauer}. There are four figures
facing Calvin, Swiss and Alsatian natives; a peasant Rathsherr receives the bread,
whilst the head of another peasant is almost undistinguishable just beneath the hand
of Calvin. Carry the eye downward : the two men with backs towards the spectator
are William of Orange (the Silent, 1533-1584), and Olden Barneveldt (a Dutch
statesman, d. 1619), who looks sideways towards the spectator.

Luther (the great Reformer, 1483-1546) stands with uplifted (Bible, the central
figure of the picture. To the left of him is Zwinglius (the Swiss reformer,
487-1531), to the right Justus Jonas (principal of the College of Wittenberg,
1493-1555). Bending forward, in the act of passing the cup to another little group
is Bugenhagen (the German theologian, 1485-1558). The two kneeling figures in
the group are John the Constant (Elector of Saxony, 1467-1534), in front, with
flowing robe and ermine cape; next to him, the head of John Frederick (the
Magnanimous) (Elector of Saxony, 1503-1554). Just under the pillar, occupying the
same position to the right of the picture as Queen Elizabeth does on the left, a tall
commanding figure with hat in one hand, sword in the other, stands Gustavus
Adolphus (King of Sweden, 1594-1632), to the left, a little behind him, Albrecht of
Brandenburg (Duke of Prussia, 1490-1568). The three figures side by side are
representative men of the upper and lower classes— and Hansestddte = senators,
common councillors, or aldermen.

Now look on the same level, the other side of the pillar. Guttenberg (inventor
of printing, 1400-1467) is about to nail up a notice on the wall; Lorenz Coster,
(printer,**. 1440), Peter Vischer (sculptor, 1455-1529), are on a line with his shoulder.
The two painters in shadow, apparently conversing, are Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519),
with flowing beard; Baffael (painter, 1483-1520), folio in hand, looks up at him,'
whilst the great Michael Angelo (painter and sculptor, 1474-1564), with folded
arms, appears quietly to be looking on at the scene before him.

DESCRIPTIVE KEY xv

On the left-hand side of the picture, half hidden behind the pillar, a dark figure,
one hand on the balustrade, is Giordano Bruno (philosopher, 1550-1600). Galileo
(the Florentine astronomer, 1564-1642) carries a telescope ; Copernicus (who over
threw the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, 1472-1543) is the most prominent figure,
with back towards the spectator, inscribing something on the wall ; there is Tycho
Brand (astronomer of Denmark, 1546-1601) talking to Kepler (astronomer and
mathematician to the Emperor Rudolphus of Bohemia, 1571-1630); an unknown
figure stands between them. Passing the pillar, seated side by side are Wycliffe (called
"the Morning Star of the Reformation," 1324-1384), with heads together, Geiler
von Kaisersberg (reformer and German pulpit orator, 1445-1509), John Wessel
(Dutch theologian, 1430-1489), John Huss (of Bohemia, professor of theology,
1369-1415). On the same line, the other side of Luther, are Peter Waldo
(merchant of Lyons, founder of the sect called Waldenses, d. 1179), Arnold von
Brescia (religious and political reformer, 1105-1155); in monk's cap, Abalarde
(teacher of philosophy, 1079-1142); Savonarola (a Dominican Florentine preacher
and reformer, 1452-1498), points upwards; Tauler (theologian, 1290-1361). Pass
the pillar and we see the colour-grinder passing up some paint to Albert Diirer
(painter and engraver of Nuremberg, 1471-1528), who is busily at work on the
platform. Above all these we see another row of people ; perhaps they stand for
the numbers unknown to fame, but none the less helpers in the work of the
Reformation.

FRANCES H. NEWTON.

ERRATA

Page 280, col. 1. The initial letter of " Iconoclast " has dropped out.
„ 370, „ 1, line 2, for " [F. G. P.] " read " [F. J. P.]."
,, 378, ,, 2, for " see Bloxam" read " see Bloxom."
,, 530, ,, 1. In Select Literature, for "Canon J. C. Kobinson" read

" Canon J. C. Robertson."

„ 581, ,, 2, last line, for " Worchester " read " Worcester."
„ 656, „ 2, lines 3 and 4 from bottom of page, for " raised " and

" raise" respectively, read "revised" and "revise."

THE PEOTESTANT DICTIONAEY.

ABJURATION

ABLUTION

ABJURATION.— A renouncing by oath. In
the case of Abjuration of heresy, the penitent,
uncovered and kneeling, made his recantation
laying his hands on the Gospels. Those so-
called heretics who refused to abjure were
frequently given over to the secular arm. A
form for admitting Romish and other recusants
into the Church of England was drawn up by
the Upper House of Canterbury in 1714, but
did not receive royal or parliamentary sanction.
On admission to the Roman Catholic Church
a usual form of abjuration is as follows : — " Is
it your firm purpose to abandon the eccle
siastical communion to which you have be
longed up to this day, and to enter the Church
which alone saves and sanctifies " (Wetzer and
Welte, i. 22). The form shows the view which
the Church of Rome holds concerning the
chance of salvation outside its pale. This is
also stated with sufficient precision in the
Creed of Pope Pius IV., although modern
attempts have been made by Roman theo
logians to explain away the full significance
of the statement in that Creed. [B. W.]
ABLUTION. — A word derived from the Latin
meaning washing. The cleansing or washing
of the sacred vessels used at the Holy Com
munion is called by Romanists and Ritualists
" The Ablutions," and is erected by them into
a religious ceremony.

The following is the Ritualist account of it : —

"The Ablutions are small quantities of
wine and water which the server pours into
the chalice and which the priest consumes.
Some take two ablutions, the first of wine,
the second of wine and water mixed. Others
add a third of water, which was the old
English custom.

" The priest revolves the chalice while the
server is pouring in the first ablution, in order
to let the wine absorb any drops that may
have adhered to the inside of the chalice.

" In making the second ablution the priest
sets the chalice down on the Epistle corner
of the altar, and holds the fingers and thumb
of each hand in the bowl of the chalice, while
the server pours first a few drops of wine and
then a larger quantity of water over his fingers
in the chalice. The priest having wiped his
fingers, then drinks the ablution.

"These acts are designed to insure the
entire consumption of the Sacred Species,
this being essential to the integrity of the
Sacrifice (compare Exod. xxix. 33), and also
to prevent any profane treatment of the Holy
Mysteries. Wine is used because it more
readily draws to itself anything that remains
of the Sacrament of the Blood ; water is
afterwards added to neutralise the species
of wine, whence a considerable quantity is
added. Lastly, the second ablution is poured
over the priest's fingers, in order that if any
fragment or crumb of the Bread of Life adhere
to them it may be consumed when the priest
drinks the ablution. For the same reason,
before the first ablution, he carefully consumes
what remains on the paten and wipes it with
his thumb over the chalice.

" If the priest is going to celebrate again
that morning the priest does not take the
ablutions ; but putting them into some fitting
vessel he reserves them till the end of the
second service, when he partakes of both
together, in order that he should not break
his fast" (Ritual Reason Why, 397-404).

Bishop John Wordsworth objects to the use
of wine for cleansing the chalice, on the
grounds that the wine so used would become
itself ipso facto consecrated, and " to consecrate
fresh wine is to defeat the object of cleansing
the vessels" (Letter to his Clergy, 1898, p. 82).

The Roman Missal orders that any small
fragments be brushed from the paten into the
chalice (which Bishop John Wordsworth also
advises) ; that the priest hold out the chalice
to the deacon for him to pour a little wine in
for the priest to purify himself with ; that he
wash his fingers, wipe them, and drink the ablu
tion in which he has washed them ; and finally
wipe his mouth and the chalice, put a covering
on the chalice, and place it upon the altar.

St. Alfonso de' Liguori, on the authority of
Pope Pius V., advises that so much wine be
used in the first ablution as there had been
wine consecrated, but he reassures his priestly
readers by telling them that their sin is not
more than venial if they use water instead of
wine in the first ablution ; and the second time,
when they are washing their fingers, they may
use water alone without any sin at all, if they

A

ABSOLUTION

[2]

ABSOLUTION

have a Papal dispensation to that effect
(Theol Mor., vi. 403).

The Church of England rules that "if any
remain of the Bread and Wine which was
consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the
church, but the priest and such other of the
communicants as he shall then call unto him
shall immediately after the blessing reverently
eat and drink the same" (Rubric). No doubt
she would further expect that the vessels
should be washed ; but whether that were done
in the vestry or in the parsonage, or how it
were done, is a matter of indifference to her,
so that it be done reverently.

The whole matter might be regarded as too
slight for sober notice or reprobation, but
that is not the case. For the practice of
ablutions, as exercised by Romanists and
Ritualists, involves the theory of the Objec
tive Presence in the elements, or of Transub-
stantiation, and therein lies the danger.

It has been held by the decision in the case
of Read v. the Bishop of Lincoln that cere
monial ablutions are not permissible in the
Church of England. See Miller's Guide to
Eccl. Law, § 122. See MASS. [F. M.]

ABSOLUTION (from ab-solvo "to release from,"
"to declare innocent") is used in two senges.

(1) It is employed in the sense of remission
of sins. In this sense it is God only that
absolves. It is argued that the power of ab
solving or remitting sin after confession was
given to the Apostles by the words of our Lord,
" Whosesoever (genitive plural) sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever
sins ye retain, they are retained" (John xx.
23). But this is a misapprehension. The
words, spoken by our Lord after His Resurrec
tion, are clearly a conveyance to the Apostles,
who were going forth to convert the world, of
their commission, authorising them to admit
those whom they judged fit into the kingdom
of grace and forgiveness, or to refuse ad
mission into it to those whom they judged
unfit. Hence the words are addressed still to
every one ordained to the presbyterate. For
by ordination the presbyter is commissioned
to receive into Christ's kingdom (a) adult con
verts from among the heathen when, but not
until, he counts them worthy ; and (&) infanis
whom he judges fit subjects for admission into
the covenant on the promise of their future
repentance and faith when they come of age.
That this is the Patristic understanding of the
text may be seen by the comment of Cyril of
Alexandria (A.D. 412-444) on John xx. 23.1 It

1 There is another interpretation of John xx.
23. As persons in Scripture are said to do
that which they were commissioned to announce
would be done (compare 1 Kings xix. 17 ; Jer. i.

has nothing whatever to do with an ordinance
of Confession and Absolution.

2. In the sense of a release from the cen
sures of the Church which had been imposed
upon an offender. In early times whoever
was guilty of any great crime was laid under
the censures of the Church and debarred from
communion. The offences requiring ecclesi
astical censure were, according to Gregory
Nyssen (A.D. 373-395), Apostasy, Witchcraft,
Adultery, Fornication, Murder, Homicide,
Robbery, Robbery of graves, Sacrilege. Who
ever had been guilty of any of these offences
was excluded from the Lord's Table for variou*
lengths of time, and during those periods he
had to do public penance before the congre
gation, who were thus assured, so far as was
possible, of his repentance, and were moved
to pray to God for his forgiveness. When he
had finished the appointed time of his penance,
having passed through the four orders of peni
tents as a "weeper," a "hearer," a "kneeler."
and a "non-communicating attendant," he was
restored to "the peace of the Church," and
absolved from the censure which had been
imposed upon him. There was no marked
form by which this absolution was conveyed.
The Bishop and clergy present laid their handi
upon him for the last time with prayer, but
this same form had been used at the beginning
of the penance, and every day that he had
remained in the class of the " kneelers ; " and
it meant no more than that prayer was being
offered for the individual by the ministers
of the congregation. After this absolution
he was readmitted to Church communion.

It was only by slow degrees that the doctrine
of Sacramental Confession as linked with ab
solution grew up in the Church. For twelve
hundred years there was no formula of absolu-

10 ; Hos. vi. 5), our Lord's words in St. John may
be paraphrased : — You are commissioned to go
forth and preach that My blood has been shed
to take away sin, and whosoever believes your
message and accepts the Gospel offered will be
freely forgiven. Compare Luke xxiv. 47. It
is well to note that our Lord on that occasion
addressed the whole body of disciples, and not
the Apostles only. This fact is proved from a
comparison of the accounts given by St. Mark,
St. Luke, and St. John. It was unanimously
agreed at the Fu'.ham Conference that the words
in St. John's Gospel were not addressed only to
the Apostles or clergy, but were "a commission
to the whole Church " (Fulham Conference, 1902,
pp. vii, 109). Furthermore, as the word whosesoever
(plural as the Greek has it, though the fact is
often unnoticed) proves, it is classes of men and
not individuals which are referred to, viz., those
who "repent and believe the Gospel." — ED.

ABSOLUTION

[3]

ABSOLUTION

tion from sin (as distinct from censure) known
in the Church of Christ, but only prayer for
the forgiveness of the sinner. For the first
six hundred years this prayer was offered
publicly by the congregation. Then men
began to think — Leo I. (A.D. 440-461) had led
the way in thinking — that the prayer of the
priest might be regarded as a substitute for
that of the congregation ; and then there
grew up the practice, adopted by some not
by others, of confessing to the priest those
sins which up to that time used to be con
fessed publicly, and receiving his prayers in
place of those of the congregation, which
for the particular purpose he represented.
Imperceptibly the idea of the priest as repre
senting the congregation was exchanged for
that of the priest representing God, and finally
at the end of another six hundred years, during
which this change was being matured, the
formula of absolution was changed from a
prayer for pardon to a conveyance of forgive
ness. But twelve hundred years had to pass
before so presumptuous a claim could be put
forth. One more step followed. In 1215 ab
solution after confession was declared obli
gatory on all men and women by the most
arrogant of the Popes, at that Lateran Council
which also formulated the dogma of Transub-
stantiation.

In order to show how widely England and
Rome differ from one another in regard to
confession and absolution, also how the teach
ing of the Ritualists is more in harmony with
the Lateran doctrine (and later the Tridentine)
than that of the Church of England, we shall
give a brief account of the teaching of each.

The Roman Doctrine, — The Roman Church
teaches that our Lord Jesus Christ established
a Tribunal of Penance in which the priest is
judge, and that it is necessary for every Chris
tian to address himself to that Tribunal for
the forgiveness of his sins. History demon-
strably proves that that Tribunal was in fact
not established by our Lord but by Innocent
III. in 1215, and that it was the fourth Council
of the Lateran, of that date, not our Lord,
which ordered all Christians to submit them
selves to it. The Church of Rome teaches
further that Penance is a Sacrament, and
that this Sacrament consists of four parts —
(1) Contrition or Attrition, (2) Confession,
(3) Satisfaction, (4) absolution.

Attrition, which is distress at sin through
fear of its punishment in this world or the
next, has to be substituted for contrition,
which is distress at sin through sorrow at
offending God, because Roman Doctors do not
dare to deny, in face of the declarations of
Holy Scripture, that contrition on the part of
man is immediately accompanied by forgive

ness on the part of God ; and in that case
what is the use of confession, satisfaction, and
absolution to effect what has been already
done ? Contrition is allowed to be enough
without these ; but with them, attrition is
pronounced sufficient ; from whence it follows
that a man may be forgiven without any love
of God in his heart if he have a fear of His
punishments and submit himself to the priest.

Confession, on the Roman theory, must
be made (a) in secrecy, (b) to the priest, not
as in early times before the congregation ;
and the penitent is ordered to enumerate all
grave sins, and to answer any questions asked
by the priest, who is instructed to make in
quiries on any points which may have been
concealed through modesty.

Satisfaction, instead of being regarded as
making amends to another who had been
wronged, is represented as the satisfying God's
justice by suffering or by performing a pain
ful penance imposed by the priest. When God
pardons the sinner on the priest's absolution,
He is supposed not to be content unless the
sinner undergoes some pain, which must be
undergone either on earth or in an imaginary
place called Purgatory, unless the Pope
presents him with an Indulgence which
shortens or removes it.

Absolution, instead of being a release from
the censures of the Church, or a prayer for
God's forgiveness of the trespass committed
by the sinner, becomes a judicial pardon of sin
by a man acting in the place of God.

Doctrine of the English Church. — At the Re
formation the Church of England swept away
the whole of the system which was established
by the fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and is
continued still in the Roman Communion.
She could not bring back the early Penitential
Discipline of the public acknowledgment of
great offences before the congregation, but she
left each man to the rule of his God-given
conscience as had always been the case of
old, except in regard to such scandalous
offences as those enumerated by Gregory
Nyssen. She made conscience the judge
whether the man was or was not in a state
to attend the Table of the Lord, introducing
into the Daily Prayers and into the Com
munion Service a declaration of God's forgive
ness of the penitent, by which each person
might judge and reassure himself, and a prayer
for His forgiveness after the public confession
of sin. For the ordinary Christian life the
mediaeval and unprimitive practice of private
confession and absolution was abolished, and
has no more existence.

But yet the Church recognised that there
might be souls so overwhelmed by the horror
of a sudden fall or by the stings of an awakened

ABSOLUTION

[ 4 ] ABSOLUTION (FOEMS OF)

conscience that they could not assure them
selves of the possibility of God's forgiveness
before Holy Communion (which ought to be
received with the quiet mind of a child of
God conscious of acceptance by his Father)
or before death. In these exceptional cases
she allowed and advised the troubled soul to
open its grief to the ministering clergyman,
or some other discreet and learned minister
of God's Word, in order to receive from him
assurance that his sin did not shut him out
from God's mercy, and that he might enjoy
the benefits of absolution, which are restora
tion to the communion of the Church. In
these two cases only does the Church of
England allow private absolution, and that,
not for the removal of sin, but for assurance
to the sinner that God certainly forgives or
has forgiven him, if he is truly penitent.

Ritualist Teaching.— Kitualists make as little
as possible of the public absolutions (Ritual
Reason WJiy, p. 325), because they wish to drive
people to what they call "sacramental absolu
tion" (ibid.), a title which they say is given
to private absolution by Bishop Cosin (Catholic
Religion, p. 269). That the title is given to it
by Bishop Cosin is not true. It is employed
in an anonymous series of Notes, probably
written by one Hay ward, which has been
without reason assigned to Cosin in the Oxford
Edition of 1855, but certainly is not his. The
Ritualist teaching on "sacramental absolu
tion " is essentially the same as the Roman.
In one respect it goes beyond it, for whereas
Roman authorities teach that only grave sins,
and such as they pronounce mortal, have to
be necessarily confessed in order to obtain
absolution, Ritualists require all sins that the
ransacked memory can recall to be confessed
for that purpose, on pain of the guilt of sacri
lege. They have found it necessary to reject
the substitution of attrition for contrition, as
they could not bear the thought of forgiveness
being secured by a man who was without any
love towards God ; but then they are left in the
difficulty, that in that case there is no need of
auricular confession, and no place for priestly
absolution to release from sin, when that sin
has been pardoned already, as it certainly is
on contrition. They argue that " God demands
confession as a condition of pardon " (Catholic
Religion, p. 268). That is true, but it is con
fession to Himself that He demands, which is
a necessary part of contrition, not an act sub
sequent to and apart from it. They further
tacitly reject the Roman explanation of Satis
faction, and substitute for it "Amendment."
That is well ; but " Amendment" is a result of
repentance, not a part of an ecclesiastical ordi
nance. The Ritualist view of the final act of
"absolution " does not differ from the Roman.

The Scriptural authority for absolution is com
monly declared by Kitualists to be John xx. 23
(Catholic Religion, p. 264), which, as we have
seen, has nothing whatever to do with " sacra
mental confession and absolution." (See p. 2,
note. ) Some are driven into finding " the in
stitution of the Sacrament of Penance" in our
Lord's washing the disciples' feet, John xiii. 10
(Mason, Faith of the Gospel, p. 335). The word
Absolution was also applied to other prayers
besides those which besought God for the for
giveness of sinners. The "Absolutions" used
at Nocturns, printed on the last page of the
preface to the Breviary, are simple prayers or
collects. See CONFESSION. [F. M.]

ABSOLUTION (FORMS OF).

1. Early Church. The forms of Absolution in
the early Church were generally of a precatory or
declaratory character, and were always accom
panied by the imposition of hands; which cere
mony did not imply the transmission of any gift
from God, but symbolised that prayer was being
made specially to God over the penitent
(Augustine, DC Sapt., iii. 16). The following
specimens of these forms, the first two pre
catory, the last declaratory, from the Peni
tential of Johannes Jejunator, bishop of
Constantinople, 585, will suffice to indicate
their general character : —

(1)

" God, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Ruler
and Governor, pardon thee all thy sins
which thou hast confessed to me His un
worthy servant in His all-seeing presence."

(2)

"God, who by His servant Nathan par
doned the sins of David upon his humble
confession ; who, moreover, forgave Peter,
though he had denied Him, upon his weeping
bitterly ; and absolved the harlot lying
prostrate and wailing at His blessed feet ;
and showed mercy unto Manasses, and the
publican, and the prodigal son ; He who
also said, Confess your sins to one another ;
may that same Lord Jesus Christ forgive
you every sin which you have here confessed
in His sight, to me, His unworthy servant,
and present you faultless before His judg
ment-seat, who is blessed for evermore."

(3)

" God, who for our sakes became man and
bore the sins of the whole world, will also
relieve thee, my beloved, from the burden
of those sins which thou hast now confessed
before Him to me His unworthy servant, and
will pardon them both in this life and in that
which is to come ; inasmuch as He wills and
longs for and grants salvation to all, who is
Himself blessed for ever."

ABSOLUTION (FORMS OF) [ 5 ] ABSOLUTION (FORMS OF)

It is incorrect to say with Bingham (Antiq.,
xix. 2, 5) that there were no instances of the
indicative forms of Absolution current before
the twelfth century, since we find such forms
in the Pontifical of Egbert, archbishop of York,
734-767, published by the Surtees Society (vol.
xxvii. ). In the MS. of this Pontifical there is in
serted in an eleventh-century hand a Form of
Absolution in Anglo-Saxon, of which the follow
ing is a translation : —

" Brethren beloved, we absolve you of the
bands of your sins, as representing Peter,
chief of the Apostles, to whom our Lord
gave the power to bind for sins and to loose
again ; and so far as the accusation of your
sins belongs to you, and the forgiveness of
them to us, so far be God Almighty life and
preservation against all your sins, forgiven
through Him who with Him liveth and
reigneth through worlds and worlds."
It is important to notice that this indicative
form of Absolution occurs in a Pontifical,
which is a bishop's service-book, containing
those offices which could only be performed by
a bishop, or by a person specially authorised
to act in his place. And any indicative forms
of Absolution current before the twelfth cen
tury were used only by bishops, or delegates
specially appointed, to authoritatively pro
nounce sentence of restoration to those who
had been cut off from the communion of the
Church.

2. Mfdiceval and Roman. The first writer to
defend formally the (judicial) indicative form
was the celebrated Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274)
in his short work, De forma absolutions. That
at this time the practice was a novel one is
clear from the account Aquinas himself gives
of a certain learned man who found fault with
it on the ground that up to within thirty years
of his writing, i.e. about the year 1220, the
only form used by the priests and known to
the objector was the deprecatory one, "Al
mighty God give thee remission and forgive
ness" (see Usher's Ansu-er to Jesuits' Challenge,
c. 5). And Aquinas acknowledges that " in
some absolutions, which were even then allowed
of, the form was still optative and not indica
tive" (Summa TheoL, iii. 84, 3).

It was in the thirteenth century that we find
beginning a mixture of the deprecatory and
indicative forms of Absolution ; and many con
temporary theologians asserted that the depre
catory procured from God the sinner's pardon,
the indicative reconciled him to the Church.
So Alexander of Hales (ob. 1245) the dis
tinguished Franciscan schoolman, speaking of
Absolution and of the twofold office of the
priest as suppliant and superior says : —

" In the first way, he is qualified for ob
taining grace by his supplication on the

sinner's behalf. In thu second way, his pro
vince is reconciling the sinner to the Church.
In token of this there is premised to the
formulary of absolution a prayer, by way
of deprecation ; and then absolution itself
follows, which is pronounced indicatively.
The prayer obtains it ; the absolution itself
pre supposes the grace of forgiveness, since
the priest would never absolve but on the
presumption that the party was already
absolved by God."

It was not till 1268 that the indicative form
of Absolution was authoritatively ordered to
be used in respect to sins against God. The
Constitution of Cardinal Othobon in a national
council held that year at St. Paul's in London,
enjoined that those who heard confessions
should absolve in the precise words subjoined,
" By the authority vested in me I absolve thee
from thy sins " (Ego te a peccatis tuis auctoritute
qua fungor te absolve).

The recognised form of Absolution in the
Roman Church is, "I absolve thee from thy
sins, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost " (Eyote absolve a
peccatis tuis in nomine Pains et Filii et Spiritds
Sancti) ; and the sense of this form is defined
thus, "I judicially bestow on thee the grace
of the remission of all thy sins, or grace of
itself remissive of all thy sins, as far as is in
the power of my ministry." The interpretation
"I declare thee absolved" is anathematised
by the Council of Trent (sess. 14, can. 9) :—

" Whosoever shall affirm that the sacra
mental absolution of the priest is not a
judicial act, but merely a ministry to pro
nounce and declare that the sins of one con
fessing are remitted. ... let him be ana
thema."

3. Church of England. In our English Prayer
Book we have three forms of Absolution,
Declaratory, Precatory, and Indicative.

(1) Declaratory.— -In the Order for Morning
and Evening Prayer,

"He pardoneth and absolveth all them
that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe His
Holy Gospel,"

it is simply a solemn declaration of God's
pardon to each penitent believer ; and that no
forgiveness is conveyed in this absolution is
evident from the exhortation following the
declaration: "Wherefore let us beseech Him
to grant us true repentance, and His Holy
Spirit," &c.

Up to the time of the Hampton Court Con
ference this form was entitled "The Absolu
tion," the explanatory words " or remission of
sins " being added at the revision to meet the
objections of those who considered the ex
pression " the Absolution " standing by itself
to be too popish. The form was probably

ABSOLUTION (FORMS OF) [ 6 ] ABSOLUTION (FORMS OF)

based on that in the Liturgy of John b, Lasco,
whose Absolution is in many phrases identi
cal with our own. (See Procter's Book of
Common Prayer, appendix to ch. 2. )

(2) Precatory. — (a) In the Order for the Visita
tion of the Sick. The former clause of the Ab
solution in that office runs : —

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left
power in His Church to absolve all sinners
who truly repent and believe in Him, of His
great mercy forgive thee thine offences."
(/3) In the Order of the Administration of the
Lord's Supper, and in the Forms of Prayer to
be used at Sea : —

" Almighty God . . . have mercy upon you ;
pardon and deliver you from all your sins."
It is to be observed that this Absolution is
addressed to the whole congregation as
sembled ; and so, as is fitting in the case of
those who are assembled to join in this solemn
act of Christian worship, or of those who are
in imminent danger of death, there is a tone
of greater assurance and solemnity about it
than in the form used in the daily services.

This Absolution, which assumed its present
form in 1549, is based on that in the Sarum
Missal, and ran : —

"Almighty God have mercy upon you, and
forgive you all your sins, deliver you from
all evil, preserve and strengthen you in good
ness, and bring you to everlasting life."
This Absolution was pronounced by the
ministers l assisting the priest, after which
the celebrant, who had previously confessed
to them, heard their public confession of sin,
and the same Absolution was then repeated
by him with the addition : —

"Almighty and merciful God grant you
absolution and remission of all your sins,
space for true repentance, and amendment
of life, and the grace and consolation of the
Holy Spirit."

It is interesting to note that the absolution
given by the Church or congregation to the
priest furnished the wording which our Ke-
formers selected and retained.

In the " Order of Communion " 1548 the pre
amble was added : —

"Our blessed Lord, who hath left power
to His Church to absolve penitent sinners
from their sins, and to restore to the grace
of the Heavenly Father such as truly believe
in Christ ; have mercy upon you, pardon "
&c. (as in the present form).
The Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea were

1 i.e. The minor clergy, or lay quasi-clergy.
For much interesting light on the gradual steps
by which the Lay Absolution by the Church of
the priest came to be obscured, see Simmons
Lay Folks' Mass Hook, p. 257.

inserted in the Prayer Book in 1662. When
there is imminent danger, the service consists
merely of the Confession and Absolution taken
from the Communion Office. The rubric is
particularly worthy of notice : —

"When there shall be imminent danger,
as many as can be spared . . . shall be
called together, and make an humble con
fession of their sin to God ; in which every
one ought seriously to reflect upon those
particular sins of which his conscience shall
accuse him."

Observe that here nothing is said of auricular
confession or private absolution.

(3) Indicative. — In the Order for the Visita
tion of the Sick. The latter clause of this
Absolution runs : —

" By His authority committed to me, I ab
solve thee from all thy sins ; in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost."

The rubric preceding this Absolution lays it
down that the sick person is to be moved to
make a special confession of his sins if he be
troubled in conscience by any weighty matter ;
and that Absolution is to be used only if he
heartily desire it ; and further that the priest
has no "judicial" discretion as to refusing
Absolution, "if he humbly and heartily desire
it." By the Reformers the use of this Abso
lution was restricted to this particular case ;
and by Canon 67 the use of the whole service
is rendered optional to a clerk who has received
a licence from the bishop to preach : —

"When any person is dangerously sick in
any parish, the minister or curate . . . shall
resort unto him or her ... to instruct and
comfort them in their distress, according to
the order of the Communion book if he be
no preacher ; or, if he be a preacher, then
as he shall think most needful and con
venient."

This Absolution probably has reference to
Church censures, for, in the prayer following,
which was itself the original Absolution and is
found in the Sacramentary of Gelasius (Palmer,
Orig. Lit., 8) the sick man

(a) is described as still "earnestly desir
ing pardon and forgiveness," which there
would be no occasion to do had he already
received that pardon ;

(/3) is prayed for that he may be " pre
served and continued in the unity of the
Church," which implies that by the fore
going Absolution he had been restored to
that unity (cf. Article XXXIII.).
If moreover, this Absolution conveyed forgive
ness of sins against God, the Church would
surely have pressed it earnestly upon all men,
and not have left it for the benefit of one making
" a special confession of his sins." See, further,

ABSOLUTION (FOEMS OF)

7 ] ADORATION OF THE CROSS

Wheatley, On the Common Prayer, c. xi., where
the view here taken is ably argued. Another
view has been maintained — that the Absolu
tion is declaratory, " the declaration of God's
will to a penitent sinner, that upon the best
judgment the priest can make of his repent
ance, he esteems him absolved before God,
and accordingly pronounces and declares him
absolved " (Bingham, Antiq. xix. 2, 67 ; see also
his Two Sermons on the Nature and Necessity
of the Several Sorts of Absolution — well worth
study). To this view the difficulty attaches
of accounting for the prayer following the
Absolution ; we should expect first prayer for
deliverance, then the declaration of it.

At the Savoy Conference it was proposed
that the form should run, " I pronounce thee
absolved if thou dost truly repent and believe."
The answer of the bishops was : " The form
of absolution in the liturgy is more agreeable
to the Scriptures than that which they desire,
it being said in John xx., 'Whose sins you
remit, they are remitted,' not 'whose sins you
pronounce remitted ' ; and the condition needs
not to be expressed, being always necessarily
understood" (Cardwell, Conferences, p. 361).

This form of Absolution, together with pre
fixed rubric on special confession, is entirely
omitted in the Prayer Book of the American
Protestant Episcopal Church. It was permitted
by the Irish Form for Visitation of Prisoners
of 1711 in the case of criminals under sentence
of death.

In the Church of Scotland the following
form was formerly used for the restoration of
penitents to Church Communion : —

"Whereas thou hast been shut out for
thy sin from the congregation of the faithful,
and hast now manifested thy repentance,
wherein the Church resteth satisfied : in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, before the
congregation, I pronounce and declare thee
absolved from the sentence of excommunica
tion formerly pronounced against thee, and
do receive thee into the communion of the
Church, and the free use of all the ordinances
of Christ, that thou mayest be partaker of
all His benefits to thy eternal salvation."
4. Absolution of the Dead. We have some
instances of forms of Absolution in the case of
persons who had died excommunicate. A stone
coffin was discovered in Chichester Cathedral
in 1826, and by it a thin leaden plate on which
was engraved a form of Absolution granted to
Geoffry, bishop of Chichester in 1088. It ran
as follows : —

" Absolvimus te Gode
fride Epe vice Sci
Petri principis
Apto cui Dnus dedit
ligandi atque solvendi

potestatem ut qnaatu tua expetit
accusatio et ad nos pertineat remisio
sit tibi deus redemptor omps salus omni
peccatorum tuorum pius indultor. Amen."

In 1326 a commission was issued from the
Archbishop of Canterbury to enable one who
had died excommunicate to be buried with
Christian rites ; and an Absolution is ordered
to be pronounced over the dead man. Another
was granted in 1369, also by the Archbishop
(Maskell, Monum. Rit. Eccl. Ang., 2, clxxviii.,
2nd edition). The student may see the text
of these commissions in Wilkins's Concilia
(1737), vol. ii.

5. Literature.

Aquinas : De forma Absolutionis — Opuscula,
xxii.

Morinus : De Pamitentia, viii. cc. 8 ff.

Maskell : Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Angli-
canae.

Martene : De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibui.

Bingham : Antiquities of the Christian Church.

Marshall : Penitential Discipline of the Early
Church.

Pusey's Tertullian, pp. 376-408.

Reichel (Bp.) : Histcry and Claims of the Con
fessional.

See also the articles ABJURATION, ABSOLU
TION, ASSURANCE, CONFESSION, in this Dic
tionary ; and the literature mentioned under
these heads. [A. W. G.]

ABSTINENCE.— See FASTING.
ABYSSINIAN CHURCH. — See EASTERN

CHURCHES.
ACCIDENTS.— See MASS and TRANSUBSTAN-

TIATION.

ACOLYTE. — A minor order in the Church of
Rome. See ORDERS. The acolyte (i.e. "fol
lower") has the duty of lighting the lamps, and
assisting the priest at mass by handing to him
the bread and wine, holding the Gospel for him
to read, and in other ways. All such ceremonies
were declared unlawful in the Church of
England by Judgment of the Court of Arches
(Sir Robert Phillimore) in the case of Elphin-
stone v. Purchas.

ACT OF FAITH.— See AUTO DA Ft
ADMONITION or Monition is an order of an
ecclesiastical judge directing the performance
of a certain act — e.g. to reside on a benefice, to
remove illegal ornaments, &c. The order has
to be formally served, and disobedience is
punished by inhibition, and ultimately by de
privation or imprisonment. Execution of a
monition may be suspended during an appeal.
The formalities as to monitions vary under
different Acts of Parliament. See Chitty's
Church and Clergy Statutes, by Lely and White-
head.

ADORATION OF THE CROSS.— A service of
the Church of Rome used on Good Friday, during

which a crucifix is unveiled, kissed, and adore
on their knees by the priest and congregation
Ihis service has been of recent years intro
duced by Ritualists into the service of th
Church of England. See CROSS
ADORATION OF THE EUCHARIST.-
The practice of worshipping the Sacrament 'o
the Body and Blood of Christ.

This is one of the consequences of the dogma
of the Objective Presence in the elements If
Christ has entered into the bread and into the
cup when the priest consecrated them and
thereby made them to be His body and blood
their worship becomes intelligible, though still
open to the charge of the Nestorianism which
worships a part of Christ instead of His person
If the bread is the symbol of Christ's body and
the wine of His blood, and if their participation
is an appointed means of conveying to the duly
qualified soul the benefits of His passion, to
worship them is a superstition as unreason
able as it would be to worship the water
through means of which the grace of baptism
is conveyed. The first of these views, originat
ing in the ninth century, was authorised for
Latin Christendom in the thirteenth century
under the name of Transubstantiation, and it
was rejected by the Church of England in the
sixteenth century. With it fell the practice of
Adoration of the Sacrament. When the doc
trine of the Objective Presence in the bread
d wme, encouraged by Dr. Pusey and taught
by Archdeacon Wilberf orce, crept back into the
Church of England, with it came a doctrin
^distinguishable from Transubstantiation, an
the practice of Eucharistical Adoration

Christ said that His absence from earth in
His human nature was expedient for Hi
Church which should be ruled by the Holy
Spirit, His only Vicar. But men would no
continue to believe this. They would them
selves create His bodily presence on earth
as He had not vouchsafed it. In heaven He
was too far off; they could not lift up their
hearts so high. They could raise them as far
as to the altar, but not to heaven. Christ
must be here in His humanity as well as by
His divine Spirit, and they must be able to
bring Him down (comp. Exod. xxxii. 1), and
to cause Him at their will, to appear under
the form of bread and wine, which, however
were not bread and wine but Himself in
person. So the weak and timid faith, which
was not brave enough to launch itself up
wards to the throne of God, called Him down
to be within reach, and having Him thus an
object of sight felt relieved from making the
too great effort that had been demanded of
it, and sank lower and lower till it worshipped
ie Sacrament, outward part and all, as God
and m place of God. Image worship arose

and justified itself in the same way. Christ in
heaven was lost to view, hidden by the inter
vening clouds, but the crucifix could be seen •
there it was-before the eyes-near at hand
-and it could be reached by a far feebler
effort of the soul. In Eucharistic adoration
and in image worship alike spirituality is lost
and a superstitious materialism is substituted.
Is it conceivable that when our Lord held
3ut the bread to His Apostles at the Last
Supper they prostrated themselves and wor
shipped it as being Himself that He was hold
ing in His hand ? Did they worship the wine
that they drank in turn as bein- Christ in all
the integrity of His soul and body, and did
the Evangelist say no word of such an act ?
Could the Corinthians have worshipped the
bread and the wine which they confounded
with the ordinary bread and wine that they
were eating and drinking at a social meal ?
)uld the early Apologists hare been full of
their scornful taunts of the heathen for wor-
shipping the material representations of their
divinities, if they had been open to the retort
that they habitually did the same ? It was
not possible that Adoration of the Sacrament
could exist until the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation, sanctioned in 1215, was admitted,
ft was hardly possible that it should not arise
after that dogma had been adopted. At the
'formation it necessarily fell to the ground
on Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the
Mass being repudiated. When this took place
there were some that objected altogether to
kneeling at reception, lest it should counte
nance Adoration of the Sacrament. To meet
this objection, and at the same time to stamp
with condemnation adoration whether of the
elements or of Christ in the elements, there
was inserted, in 1552, the so-called Black
Rubric, declaring the adoration of the elements
o be idolatrous and the corporal presence of
Christ "here" to be impossible, as He had
;it one natural body and that was in heaven
while it expressed approval of kneelin- as
signifying humility and thankfulness and°pre-
venting disorder. In 1559 it was thought that
this rubric might be safely dropped, but as
the objection to kneeling still prevailed in
1662 and the danger of a recrudescence of
adoration was discerned, it was reinserted
with a verbal alteration, at the final revision
in 1662, and it still stands as the rule of the
English Church.

Ritualist manuals have a great difficulty to
find authority for Eucharistical Adoration in
the Anglican divines. It is easy to find exhor
tations to worship Christ in" heaven while
commemorating in the Sacrament of the Holy
Communion His sacrifice on the Cross. But
these passages not only do not commend the

ADORATION OF EUCHARIST [ 9 ]

ADVERTISEMENTS

worship of Christ in the Sacrament but they
teach the truth which this practice parodies ;
yet these words are taken as though they
contained an approval of the practice. Even
Ridley, though he has distinctly declared that
"adoration" in this connection means no more
than "reverent treatment" (according to the
old signification of the word), is quoted as
favourable to the worship of the Eucharist
(Ritual Reason Why, 359), and Jeremy Taylor is
paraded as a supporter of the same tenet (a
passage, lending itself to a misunderstanding,
being cited) although he has discussed the
point at length and condemned the practice
unreservedly. The following are some of his
words: "The commandment to worship God
alone is so express ; the distance between God
and bread dedicated to the service of God is
BO vast ; the danger of worshipping that which
is not God, or of not worshipping that which
is God, is so formidable, that it is infinitely
to be presumed that if it had been intended
that we should have worshipped the Holy
Sacrament, the Holy Scripture would have
called it God or Jesus Christ, or have bidden
us in express terms to have adored it. . For
concerning the action of adoration this I am
to say, that it is a fit address in the day of
solemnity, with a sursum corda, with our
hearts lift up to heaven, where Christ sits (we
are sure) at the right hand of the Father ; for
Nemo digne manducat nisi prius adoraverit,
said St. Austin, 'No man eats Christ's body
worthily but he that first adores Christ ' ; but
to terminate the divine worship to the sacra
ment, to that which we eat, is so unreasonable
and unnatural and withal so scandalous, that
Averroes observing it to be used among the
Christians with whom he had the ill-fortune
to converse, said these words : Quandoquidem
Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea
cum philosophis, ' Since Christians worship what
they eat, let my soul be with the philo
sophers ' " (Real Presence of Christ in the Holy
Sacrament, § 13). Again : " We may not render
divine worship to Him as present in the blessed
sacrament according to His human nature,
without danger of idolatry ; because He is not
there according to His human nature, and
therefore you give divine worship to a non ens
which must needs be idolatry. ... He is
present there by His divine power and Hi
divine blessing and the fruits of His body, the
real effective consequents of His passion ; but
for any other presence, it is idolum, it is
nothing in the world. Adore Christ in heaven
for the heaven must contain Him till the time
of thft restitution of all things. . . . God is a
jealous God; He spake it in the matter of
external worship and of idolatry ; and there
fore do nothing that is like worshipping a

mere creature, nothing like worshipping that
which you are not sure is God ; and if you
can believe the bread, when it is blessed by
the priest, is God Almighty, you can, if you
please, believe anything else. ... If it be
transubstantiated, and you are sure of it, then
you may pray to it and put your trust in it,
and believe the holy bread to be co-eternal
with the Father and with the Holy Ghost. . . .
But I am ashamed of the horrible proposition "
(Letter to a Gentleman that was Tempted to the
Communion of the Romish Church}.

Yet this is the author especially relied upon
as an Anglican witness to Eucharistical Adora
tion (Ritual Reason Why, 359 ; E.G.U. Declara
tion of 1900).

The Ritual Reason Why attaches great im
portance to the priest's adoration and gives its
reasons for " the priest worshipping after each
consecration," which, professing to describe
English practice, it calmly says that he does.
"By his twofold adoration he expresses the
truth that ' Christ being dead dieth no more ' "
(Tbid. 362). We are at a loss to see how that
signification is attached to a second act of
worship, done to the wine. The real reason of
Roman priests making this "twofold adora
tion" is that Anselm formulated the tenet
(consequent upon Transubstantiation) that the
whole Christ is made to exist under each
species. Therefore not only is the bread Christ
but the wine also is Christ. Why then should
not the wine be adored as well as the bread, and
separately from the bread ? Ritualists often
adopt Roman practices without at first appre
hending their real purpose, and then the
practice leads to the doctrine. [See Lord
Halifax in Lord's Day and Holy Eucharist, p. 3,
and note Ch. Assoc. Tract No. 219 on " The
Gospel of Expiation."— ED.] [F. M.]

ADVERTISEMENTS, i.e. Official Notices.—
This name, though used of various public
notices given by authority, is now usually
connected with the celebrated regulations de
scribed in the twenty-fourth Canon as "the
Advertisements (admonitiones) published anno 7
Eliz." That description, however, was inexact,
as the Advertisements were not, in fact, " pub
lished" until March 1566, whereas the " seventh
year of Elizabeth" ended on November 16,
1565. The explanation is that the legal force
of the Advertisements depended entirely on
the Queen's Letter directing the Primate and
his fellow " Commissioners under the great seal
for causes ecclesiastical " (in other words, the
episcopal members of the High Commission,
who formed a quorum for such matters), t«
publish "Orders or Injunctions" for carryii
out the Queen's disciplinary plans. A 1<
time necessarily intervened, because the C
missioners were directed first to inquire into

ADVERTISEMENTS

[ 10 J

ADVERTISEMENTS

the existing " varieties " and irregularities then
common in Divine service, and after tabulating
the returns to lay down such rules as would
force the clergy to a more careful observance
of uniformity. The Royal Letter is dated
January 24, 1565 (New Style), and the title of
the Advertisements when published described
them as "by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's
letters commanding the same the 25th day of
January in the seventh year of the reign.'
Thus the date of the Royal authority was the
only date specified, because that alone fulfilled
the requirements of the provisoes at the
end of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity which
had authorised the Queen to take " other
order" as to ornaments, and to "ordain and
publish further ceremonies " besides those pre
scribed in the Prayer Book. " There was no
particular form required by statute or by law
in which the Queen was to take order, and it
was competent for her Majesty to do so by
means of a Royal Letter addressed to the
Metropolitan. The Advertisements were issued
by the prelates as orders prepared under the
Queen's authority " (Judgment of the Privy
Council in Ridsdale v. Clifton). As, however,
the object of the Queen was to secure uni
formity, only a very small part of the orders
relate to any proposed changes ; the only
material alteration being that in Cathedrals
copes were, for the first time, directed to be
worn by the celebrant and by his two assistants.
It was at one time thought that the dress of
the clergy was simplified by these orders ; but
no hint of such a change is to be gleaned from
any contemporary writer, and the mistake was
due to overlooking the fact that the ornaments
rubric of 1552, which ordered the surplice to be
worn at Holy Communion, was re-enacted bv
Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, whereas the
printed rubrics, substituted in 1559 for those of
the Second Prayer Book, were mere illegalities
and were treated as such, being never once
acted upon or recognised by the authorities in
Church and State. The Advertisements, there
fore, which contradicted the rubrics of 1549,
were nevertheless enforcements of the legally
re-enacted rubric of 1552-59, and at the same
time were the " publishing further orders " as
regards cope-weariug in Cathedrals. This last
alteration was partially confirmed by the
Canons of 1603-4, but only as to the five
"principal Feast Days" which have "proper
Prefaces" (viz. Christmas, Easter, Ascension
Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday), the
events commemorated on those days being
further honoured by requiring the most eminent
dignitary in residence to be the celebrant.
The disputed questions as to the date and legal
warrant of the Advertisements are discussed
exhaustively in Tomlinson, On the Prayer Book ;

and the section of the Advertisements relating
to ritual is given in Miller's Guide to Ecclesiastical
Law. See ORNAMENTS RUBRIC, VESTMENTS,
COPE. [j. x. T.]

The contents of the Advertisements, so far
as they are material, are as follows :—

" In the ministration of the Holy Communion
in cathedral and collegiate churches, the prin
cipal minister shall wear a cope, with gospeller
and epistoller agreeably ; and at all other
prayers to be said at the Communion Table to
use no copes but surplices.

"That the dean and prebendaries wear a
surplice with a silk hood in the choir; aiid
when they preach to use their hoods.

"Item. — That every minister saying any
public prayers, or miuisteriugthe sacraments, or
other rites of the Church shall wear a comely
surplice with sleeves to be provided at the
charge of the parish."

The importance of the Advertisements de
pends upon the view taken of the celebrated
25th section of Queen Elizabeth's Act of
Uniformity (1559) (see ORNAMENTS RUBBIC).
The theory of the Privy Council was that the
effect of this section was to cancel for the
time the Ornaments Rubric of 1552 (which
required the surplice only), and to provision
ally restore the use in church or the Mass vest
ments of 154.9. On this supposition they found
it necessary to hold that "other order" had
been taken under section 25, and they consider
that this was done by means of the Advertise
ments in 15G6. The difficulty of this solution
is, that it leaves seven years during which the
Mass vestments were compulsory and the
surplice illegal, and no evidence can be pro
duced to prove what is obviously so contrary
to the facts. The other construction of the
25th section (that of Mr. J. T. Tomlinson and
others) is, that this section had nothing what
ever to do with the wearing of vestments in
church, but simply had for its object the reten
tion of the illegal Mass vestments until " other
order " was taken as to their sale or disposal.
This view certainly harmonises la wand fact, and
under it the Advertisements become merely a
directive and administrative enforcement of
the Ornaments Rubric of 1552, with a "further
order " under the 26th section for the wearing
of copes in cathedrals and collegiate churches.
It will thus be seen that, according to the
Ridsdale judgment, the Advertisements lowered
the ritual standard, while on Mr. Tomlinson's
view they raised it. The latter view is alone con
sistent with contemporary evidence and facts.
In any case, the royal authority of the Adver
tisements is undoubted. For details see Tom
linson, On the Prayer Book, ch. iv. ,and article by
B. Whitehead in Churchman, for February 1899,
and see ORNAMENTS RUBRIC. [B. W.]

ADVOWSON

AGAPE!

ADVOWSON (Jus patronatus) is the perpetual
right of presentation to an ecclesiastical
benefice whenever a vacancy occurs. The
person entitled to present is the successor by
purchase, or otherwise, of the original founder
of the benefice, and is called the advocate,
advowee, or patron, i.e. the protector of the
benefice. He cannot grant the glebe or tithes
as a distinct property ; these remain insepar
ably annexed to the advowson, and belong to
the incumbent for the time being as a kind of
life tenant. The owner of the advowson has
simply the right of presenting a duly qualified
clergyman on a vacancy. (See Whitehead,
Church Law.)

In the earliest Saxon times, the government
of the churches was exclusively in the hands
of the bishop. Bishop and clergy lived together
in a convenient centre, and collected what con
tributions they could from the faithful. The
clergy were sent out on circular tours, as
occasion arose, according to the directions of
the bishop. Then parishes were marked out,
and particular curates appointed, although
there was still a common fund, "and it was
therefore," as Mirehouse says, "not material
to what church any parishioner presented his
bounty." But later, when affairs became more
settled, laymen desired to have a priest to
live permanently among them, and conse
quently undertook his maintenance. The lord
of a manor set apart a piece of land for the
use of the clergy, upon which he built a church
and parsonage, devoting the remainder as
glebe land, and sometimes as a burial ground.
In return for these gifts, the perpetual right of
nominating the incumbent was vested in the
donor, and the advowson became appendant
to the manor. If afterwards separated from
the manor it was called an advowson in gross.
By this time, payment of tithes, originally
purely voluntary, had been rendered compul
sory by the State, but in what way exactly is
not quite clear. They were payable at first
by the taxpayer to the central fund or to any
church he pleased ; but upon the permanent
settlement of the parish priest, the tithes
arising from his parish were, with the consent
of the bishop, allocated to him, and the
system subject to appropriation has remained
in force ever since.

Advowsons of this kind were called donative,
because the right of appointing the incumbent
was in the donation of the patron independently
of the bishop. All advowsons were originally
donative, but in some cases the right of
donation was vested by the lord of the manor
or by the tithe-payers permanently in the
hands of the bishop. In these cases the
advowson was called collative. Later, a third
class sprang into being, from the fact that

some patrons, anxious to stand well with their
bishop, presented their nominee to him for
his approval before admission. The bishop
then put him into possession of the living by
institution and induction. If this process was
once allowed the advowson thenceforward
became presentative. The number of donative
advowsons consequently gradually diminished,
until very few were left, and recently by the
Benefices Act, 1898, they have been abolished
altogether.

The entire advowson or the next presentation
or any number of presentations, being the
whole interest of the vendor, may still be sold,
subject to the rules against simony, which have
been made more stringent by the Benefices
Act, 1898 (Whitehead, Church Law, pp. 6, 281).
Advowsons may be vested in trustees, and
the trust-deed may require the appointment of
a clergyman of a particular school of thought.
Thus moneys may be given to promote the
Evangelical cause by the purchase of advow
sons. This is a good charitable gift, and the
trustees are bound to present an Evangelical
clergyman (Whitehead, p. 68). See BENE
FICE, PRESENTATION, &c. [B. W.]

AFFUSION.— The pouring of water on the
recipients of Holy Baptism. Trine immersion
was the rule of the Primitive Church, as we
learn from Tertullian (De Corona, § 3). Affusion
seems to be justified by the Didache, cap. vii.
It is permitted by the rubric, which says, " If
they certify that the child is weak, it shall
suffice to pour water upon it." See BAPTISM.

AGAPliJ. — A common meal or feast of brother
hood in the course of which the Holy Com
munion was originally administered. When
giving the Bread and the Cup at the last
Passover our Lord instructed His Apostles that
they should do as He had done ; and His
Church has ever done so since that time in
obedience to His command. But His first
disciples (the Apostles who had been present
when He gave the command) were not content
with repeating His action merely in the de
livery and eating of the bread and in the
delivery and drinking of the wine ; they re-
enacted, so far as was possible, the whole of
the Last Supper on the evening of every Lord's
Day with only such alteration as circumstances
made necessary. They could no longer sacrifice
and eat the Lamb — its antitype had been
offered, and for it was substituted any other
kind of meat ; they would no longer use un
leavened bread — that belonged only to the
Paschal week, and instead of it they used
leavened bread "such as was usual to be
eaten " (Rubric) ; they would no longer insist
on the traditional number of the cups of wine
—the one cup of blessing had been substituted
for them ; the bitter herbs were no longer

suitable— the Lord's victory over death had
turned sorrow into joy, and milk, honey, and
a took their places. But with these altera
tions the form of the Lord's Last Supper was
etained. The greater part of the food eaten
was supplied by the richer brethren, but all
that could, made their offering or oblation of
such simple viands as the bread that they
•dmarily ate and the tempered wine that they
ordinarily drank; and these provisions, by
whomsoever supplied, were shared by all the
faithful. At the proper moment— no doubt
towards the end of the meal, after the pre
cedent set by Christ— a solemn silence was
called, all the guests rose to their feet, a loaf
and a cup of the wine, selected from the
general oblations, were placed before the pre
siding presbyter, who set them apart by a
joyous prayer of dedication, at first extem
poraneous afterwards formal, in which he gave
thanks to God for the blessing of the fruits
of the earth which supplied men's bodily needs
and for the spiritual benefits derived from the
sacrifice of Christ's body broken on the Cross
and His blood there poured out, of which the
bread and the wine were symbols. All the
guests responded with an Amen, and then the
presbyter or Bishop or Apostle who was offi
ciating placed some of the bread, and the cup
which he had blessed, in the hands of the
deacon, who carried his portion to each guest
for reverent consumption in thankful remem
brance of the Master. After a pause, all
resumed their scats, and the social meal was
continued, and brought to a conclusion by the
thanksgiving appropriate to the Eucharist.

When the gathering consisted of men of a
coarse spirit this beautiful ceremony became
perverted to evil. Selfishness forced its way
in. Those who had brought the better food
stuffs were not willing to share them with their
poorer brethren ; there was noise and clamour ;
some came early and some came late ; so that
they did not even " discern " or distinguish by
devout behaviour and grateful recollection the
sacred elements blessed by the president of
the feast, which represented the Lord's body
and blood, from the other materials of the
feast. This was the case at Corinth, and
St. Paul, as we should expect, sharply reproved
the Corinthians for their conduct, and ordered
any that were so hungry as to misbehave
themselves to dine at home before coming to
the brotherly meal.

But St. Paul did not abrogate or alter the in
stitution on account of its having been abused
by one of his congregations. The Agape was
still held on the evening of every Lord's Day,
and the participation of the consecrated ele
ments continued to make a part of it. It was
a prohibition of the Empire, not of the Church,

which compelled a change in its form and
the hour at which it was held.
Early in the second century the Emperor
Trajan sent imperative orders to all the Roman
Prefects to forbid all evening meetings of
Societies, through fear of the conspiracies
which he suspected might be hatched in them.
The Prefects issued their Edicts in the year 110,
and the Agapai (plural) were caught in the net
their prohibitions. What was to be done ?
The Church could not abolish the Lord's
Supper. The only alternative was to transfer
b to the forenoon. This was done, and then
it became necessary to adapt its use to the
hour at which it was held. It would have
been unreasonable to begin by sitting down
to a meal in the early forenoon (say at
o'clock A.M.) and therefore the order of pro
ceeding was changed by the transposition of
the administration of the Holy Eucharist to the
beginning and of the brotherly meal to the
end. St. Chrysostom thus describes the prac
tice as it now existed : " When the congre
gation broke up, after hearing the sermon and
the prayers and receiving the Communion, all
the faithful did not immediately go home, 'but
the wealthy and better-to-do members brought
food and eatables from their houses, and in
vited the poor, and made common tables
common dinners, common banquets, in the
church itself. So from this fellowship of the
table and from the reverence of the place, they
were bound to one another in love for every
reason, and much pleasure and much profit
were derived from them ; for the poor enjoyed
great consolation and the rich reaped the fruit
of the kindly feelings of those whom they fed;
and God for whom they did this was pleased
with them; and so they went home" (Horn.
Op. t. iii. p. 244, Ed. Ben.). The meal was
still made out of the oblations brought by the
faithful to the church, from which the Eucha
rist ical elements had previously been selected
(St. Jerome on 1 Cor. xi.).

Again another change took place. The vigil
ance of the Emperors relaxed— a Commodus
was not a Trajan or a Marcus Aurelius ; Trajan's
suspicions were forgotten, and evening meet
ings of clubs and societies were connived at.
About the year 185 therefore the Agape" was
quietly re-transferred to the evening. But the
Eucharistic part, which had already been half-
severed from it, was not re-transferred with it.
That continued to be celebrated in the forenoon
and occasionally was even appended to the
Ante-lucan, or before-daylight, service (Tertull.
DC Cor. § 3). Tertullian, A.D. 195, tells us that
the Agape took place in the evening, and de
scribes it as follows :— " Our supper shows its
purpose from its very name ; it is called Agape",
which in Greek means Love. Whatever it cost

[

AGAPE

us, it is an advantage to spend it on a
object, for we give relief and comfort to the
poor by it. ... It does not cive occasion for
anything vile or iiuruov'.est. Wo do not sit down
till we have first offered prayer to God. We eat
as much as hunger bids us to eat ; we drink no
more than is good for modest men. We satisfy
our appetites as men who remember that they
have to worship God by night as well as by
day. We talk as men who know that the Lord
hears us. When we have washed our hands
after dinner, arid lights are brought in, every
one is urged to chant God's praises either out
of the Holy Scriptures, or according as he is
able of his own composition — a proof of the
measure of our drinking. Prayer concludes
the feast as well as opening it. Then we go
away, not to insult or quarrel with those we
meet, nor to give way to lasciviousness, but
still having care for modesty and chastity,
as men who have not so much supped as been
to a school of philosophy " (Apol. xxxix.).

But the character of the Agape was lowered
when the sacred part had been severed from
it. In its new form it was no longer a re-
enactment of the Lord's Supper, but merely a
common or public meal ; similar to those cus
tomary among the Essenes, and not unknown
in Greece and other countries. Its religious
character gradually fell out of sight ; and it
became in some places a social meeting of the
well-to-do, in others a charity dinner to the
poor. In either form it was too degenerate to
last. In the north of Italy St. Ambrose's
authority abolished it at the end of the
fourth century, and St. Augustine followed
his master's example in North Africa. Here
and there it still lingered on till the seventh
or eighth century, and then it disappeared
totally.

Romanists and Ritualists have great diffi
culty in dealing with the Agape, because it
proves that in the first century the Holy
Communion was administered (1) in the even
ing, (2) to recipients who were not fasting, and
(3) that St. Paul did not teach that an objec
tive presence of the body and blood of Christ
in the bread and wine was wrought by con
secration. Had he done so the Corinthians
could not have been guilty of an ii reverence
which carelessly failed to distinguish between
the consecrated and unconsecrated elements
of the feast. On the contrary, they might
easily have paid such respect to the elements
as to have fallen into the superstitions which
did in fact spring up when that doctrine had
arisen, but they could never have treated them
with such irreverence as they displayed.

To confine within as narrow limits as pos
sible the evidence derived from the joint
celebration of the Eucharist and Agape, it ha?

] AGNUS DEI

suggested (Congregation in Church, p, 47)
that St. Paul transferred the Eucharistical
service to the morning and ordered fasting
reception, on his next yisit to Corinth, to
which he referred in his Epistle. Had this
been so, it could not take away the witness of
the Church from A. D. 30 to A.D. 60 ; but the
suggestion has no basis or evidence on which
to rest. It is disproved by St. Paul's own
words, the Teaching of the Apottlet (ch. x.),
and by Ignatius's Letter to the Church of Smyrna
(ch. viii.), which show that the Agape and the
Eucharist were still combined. This carries
us down to A.D. 110, the very year in which
Trajan's command compelled their transfer
to the forenoon.

The Agape then proves (1) that the Church
of the fiist century did not believe in an Objec
tive Presence in the elements, and that St. Paul
did not teach it ; (2) that it did not regard fast
ing either as a necessary or as an appropriate
preparation for communicating ; (3) that it
saw no objection, under the circumstances of
the day, to Evening Communion. Therefore,
that Objective Presence is not an Apostolic
or Primitive doctrine. Fasting Communion is
not an Apostolic or Primitive practice. The
hour at which the Holy Communion should be
administered is in itself indifferent, and is left
to the discretion of the Bishops and Pre>byters
of the Church in each age. (See Bp. Kingdon,
Fasting Communion.) [F. M.]

AGNUS DEI is the name given

I. To the well -known prayer which occurs both
in the Litany and in the "Gloria in Excelsis"
in our present Prayer Book : " O Lamb of God,
that takest a way the sins of the world, have mercy
upon us," or " grant us Thy peace." It is one of
our oldest prayers, being adapted from John i.
29. It is found in the Apoitotic Conttitutions,
Book vii. as an evening hymn, and in the Codex
Alexandrinus it is described as a morning hymn ;
and its original use had no connection with
Holy Communion. Pope Sergius I. (in A.D. 688)
is said to have been the first to insert the ''Agnus
Dei" in the Mass. He placed it between the
''Pater" and the "Commuuio." The original
direction was that it should be chanted by clerks
and people. At the beginning of the ninth
century it was chanted by the choir alone, and
in some churches with the threefold repetition.
After the doctrine of Transubstantiation began
to be received, the place of the " Agnus Dei " in
the Mass, i.e. between the consecration of the
elements and their reception by the people,
became fraught with danger, for the wafer
itself was addressed as a living person under
this title. From about the fourteenth century
the*' Agnus " was said in a low voice by the priest,
and later the third petition was changed into
"dona nobit paean*' probably on account of

AGNUS DEI

[ 14 J

ALBIGENSES

the then troubled condition of the Church.
The present practice in the Roman Catholic
Church is for the priest to strike his breast
three times, pronouncing as many times the
"Agnus Dei." The practice in the Romish
Church at date of the Reformation is thus de
scribed by Preb. Becon, chaplain to Archbishop
Cranmer: "Then do ye say the 'Agnus,' which
Pope Sergius also commanded that it should be
said at mass a little before the receiving of the
host. And here again ye play the abominable
idolaters. For looking upon the bread ye look
yourselves and worship it, saying in Latin
' Agnus Dei,' &c. Thrice do ye call that bread
which ye hold in your hands 'the Lamb of
God that taketh away the sins of the world.'
> intolerable blasphemy, was there ever an
idolater who worshipped a piece of broken
bread for God ? "—" a piece of thin wafer cake
for God ? " (Works, iii. 278 ; cf. Jewel's Works
ii. 586).

By the first Prayer Book of King Edward
(1549) the "Agnus Dei" was retained in the
Romish position, but with a rubric directing
that the clerks Bhonld sing it as a hymn
"during communion time." And in 1550
Bishop Ridley issued an injunction forbidding
the minitter to counterfeit the Romish Mass by
saying the "Agnus " before the communion. '
By the second Prayer Book (1552) the "Agnus
Dei " was omitted altogether from this place, no
doubt on account of the difficulty there was,' so
long as the words remained, in preventing some
ministers from counterfeiting the Romish Mass
by mumbling the "Agnus" and idolatrously
adoring the bread as if it were the Lamb of
God. For the same purpose— i.e. the prevention
of idolatry— "the prayer of access" and the
"Gloria" were transposed, so that the former
should precede tne consecration while the latter
was removed from its place near the beginning
of the service to its present position at the end.
[t is thus said after the elements have been
consumed or at any rate hidden from sight.

Some have thought, however (like Archbishop
Benson), that the omission was simply due to
the desire to prevent repetition, the "Agnus "(as
we have seen) occurring also in the " Gloria "
But that would hardly have been the reason, as
the repetitions in the "Gloria" were actually
increased in 1552. At any rate the "Agnus " has
been omitted from the Romish position since
1552. In 1661 a proposal to reinsert the
"Agnus" was carefully considered and de
liberately rejected. It was actually proposed
id adopted by the committee, but struck out
again afterwards. Therefore the courts of
law held that it was illegal to sing the "Agnus
i during the partaking of the Communion
In 1892, however, in their Lincoln judgment the
Privy Council changed their opinion, and sanc

tioned the interpolation of the "Agnus Dei"
as a hymn (in spite of the fact that it had been
expressly omitted for good reason) on the
ground that "a hymn may be sung at any
convenient time" in a service, provided that
such service is not thereby "let or hindered "
This would not cover the case of the "Agnus
Dei " being merely said by the minister. It is
just possible that the Privy Council may on
some future occasion return to their earlier
and in our opinion, more correct judgment!
(See Smith, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities •
Whitehead, Church Law, article "Singing";
and Tomlinson, Historical Grounds of tin
Lambeth Judgment, 6th ed. pp. 69-73.)

II. The name "Agnus" or "Agnus Dei" is also
applied to the figure of the Holy Lamb, i.e.
a lamb with a nimbus bearing a cross or flag
with the sign of the Labarum. Wax medallions
bearing such figures were anciently blessed and
given to worshippers on the first Sunday after
Easter. They were considered to have magical
virtues and gave rise to much superstition. In
modern times such medallions are still used in
the Church of Rome but are blessed by the Pope
only— first of all on the first Sunday after Easter
after his consecration and every subsequent
seventh year. The number of persons to whom
the distribution is made is now much restricted.
(See Smith, Diet, of Christian Antiq. ; and La-'
rousse, Diet. Univ.). rg -yy i

ALACOQUE (Margaret Mary).— See SACKED

HEART.

ALB [Lat. tunica alba].— A. tight-fitting cassock
of linen which used to be worn by the officia
ting clergy at the celebration of the Holy
Communion and other offices. In later times
it was of silk and sometimes coloured, but
always was a close-fitting garment, because
originally intended to be worn underneath
other vestments. The 58th Canon prescribes a
surplice, which was a loose-fitting dress with
sleeves, not worn underneath vestments and
never worn at "Mass." In the first Prayer
Book of Edward VI., the alb was directed to
be used at the Lord's Supper, and the rubric
after the Communion office ordered that at
the Wednesday and Friday services the priest
should wear "a plain alb or surplice," as there
was no communion, and then might have "a
cope." The cope and the surplice were not
used at Mass in England before the Reforma
tion. See ADVERTISEMENTS, COPE, ORNA
MENTS RUBRIC.

ALBIGENSES.— The origin of this name is
uncertain. Roger of Wendover supposed the
derivation to be "Albi," the city where
the Albigenses were first condemned. Others
derive it from the district of the Albigeois,
and say that it was Simon de Montfort's
crusaders, in 1208, who first called the sec-

ALBIGENSES

I

ALTAR

taries, whom they were destroying, by that
name.

In the first year of the thirteenth century,
the Albigenses formed the larger part of the
district of Provence in Southern France, whose
inhabitants retained traces of the ancient
Roman civilisation, and were on a higher level
of civilisation than those who lived farther to
the north. Opposition to the doctrines and
hierarchy of the Church was very rife among
the people, and was fostered and encouraged
by the nobles. Innocent III., soon after his
accession, commissioned Simon de Montfort
to carry out a crusade for the extermination
of the whole heretic population, and this, as
is well known, was ruthlessly executed. There
are three points of great intricacy connected
with this subject : —

(1.) Whence did the inhabitants of Provence
derive their "protestant" opinions?

(2.) What relation do the Albigenses bear
to the Paulicians of the East and the Wal-
densians of the Alpine valleys ?

(3.) What opinion are we to hold respecting
their doctrines ?

(i.) We may suppose that inasmuch as the
twelfth century exhibited in many parts of
Europe a spirit of revolt from Rome, mission
aries from various quarters found their way
to Provence, as it was from many causes a
soil eminently favourable for the circulation
cf opinions hostile to the dominant ecclesias-
ticism.

(ii.) The Paulicians had been driven out of
Asia Minor into South-Eastern Europe, owing
to the repressive policy of the Byzantine
Emperors. In Thrace or Bulgaria they would
be on the confines of Greek and Latin
Christendom, and many would emigrate to
the ports of Europe or follow the course of
the rivers. The Waldensians had in very early
times a law that all who took orders in their
churches should work for three years as
missionaries. They would travel far and wide,
disguised as merchants or as troubadours,
with MSS. of the Scriptures copied out by
themselves. In 1200, there were scattered
communities of Waldensians as far as the
provinces of Russian Poland. Peter Waldo of
Lyons had, about this time, been labouring
energetically at a similar work.

(iii.) With regard to the doctrines of the
Albigens«s, after making allowance for dif
ferences of opinion amongst them, the existence
of several distinct currents of thought, due to
the widely sundered districts from whence
their teachers had been derived and the
tendency of extreme persecution to engender
fanaticism and undue enthusiasm, we have yet
certain facts which cannot easily be explained
away. And the chief of these is the fact that

the knowledge which we possess respecting
their doctrines comes from hostile sources,
either from the polemical writings of their
bitterest opponents, or from confessions alleged
to have been made by individuals in the pro
spect of a terrible death. It has been well
remarked that if we had only the pagan
authorities in our hands, we should find it
difficult to clear the early Christians from the
very similar moral accusations brought against
them. There is also the fact, that the parallel
movement in the Waldensian valleys can be
clearly proved guiltless of any heresy against
the common truths of Christianity. The Re
formers very soon accepted both the Hus-sites
and the Waldenses as brethren, and the Church
of Rome branded them equally without draw
ing any distinction. It would be strange if
one particular stream of opposition to the
Papacy should exhibit totally different prin
ciples. G. S. Faber in his Inquiry into the
Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses strongly main
tains their orthodoxy. [C. J. C.]

ALL SAINTS' DAY. —A festival of the
Church which falls on November 1. It was
originated in 607 in place of the heathen
festival " To all the Gods " celebrated in the
Pantheon at Rome. This temple was then
dedicated as a Christian Church "To all the
Martyrs," and the last word was subsequently
changed to " Saints," for in the early Church
"Saint " was equivalent to " Christian." The
collect appointed in the Prayer Book for All
Saints' Day is beautiful, and essentially diffe
rent from that in the Roman Missal. The
Epistle and Gospel in the Missal are the same
as in the Common Prayer Book, which tends
to show that the festival was not exclusively
a commemoration of martyrs.

ALL SOULS' DAY.— A day (November 2) in
the Calendar of the Church of Rome for the
commemoration of all the faithful departed.
The Mass used is that for the dead, and the
Office for the dead is added to that of the day.
It has no place in the Prayer Book Calendar.
Early traces are no doubt to be found of the
observance of some such day for commemora
tion of all those who died in communion with
the Church. But the earliest mention of the
special day (November 2) cannot be traced
higher than the tenth century, when Odilo,
Abbot of Clugny, having heard of an awful
dream seen by a pilgrim from Jerusalem, in
which he beheld the suffering of souls in
Purgatory, set apart this day of intercession for
them. If All Saints' Day be observed All Souls
is superfluous, unless superstitious doctrine
be held respecting the state of the dead.

ALTAR.— A high place [Lat. altus] on which
sacrifices were anciently offered.

The first altar spoken of was that erected by

ALTAE

[ 16 J

ALTAE

Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii. 20). The
altars of early times were generally built for
sacrificial purposes, though in a few cases
they appear to have been intended mainly as
memorials. They were probably originally
made of earth, in some cases the earth being
enclosed in a chest of wood. It was permis
sible, under the Mosaic Law, to make altars of
unhewn stories (Exod. xx. 26), but no iron tool
might be used in their construction. This was
ordered to avoid the figures with which they
were generally adorned. Under the Mosaic
dispensation there were two altars belonging
to the Tabernacle and the Temple — the Altar
of Burnt Offering, and the Altar of Incense on
which nothing else than incense was offered.

In Christian worship there can be, properly
speaking, no place for any altar, the one " full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world "
having been once for all offered in and by our
Lord Jesus Christ as the Founder of Christi
anity. On this point Protestants and Romanists
differ widely. "Altar" is thus defined and
described by the latter: "Place of sacrifice;
an altar for Mass must be of stone, duly
consecrated, and contain relics of martyrs ;
portable altar-stones are also used." In the
Greek and Russian Churches the name altar is
given to the entire chancel or "sanctuary," and
is not applied to the " Holy Table."

The word "altar" is a favourite one with
Ritualists. Yet it is plain the Church of Eng
land knows nothing of any altar, since the
word never occurs in the Prayer Book, while the
word "Table" is found fourteen times. The
English canons require that the Communion
Table shall be of " joiner's work," evidently as
contradistinguished from an altar, which is of
mason's work. It is true that in Ezekiel
xli. 22 and Mai. i. 7, 12 an altar may possibly
be called the table of the Lord, though that
is open to serious doubt ; see Abbott's Reply
to Supple, Preface to Second Edition, pp. vi,
xv, ff. It would, however, not therefore follow
that a table can be rightly called an altar.
The name altar, as applied to the Lord's Table,
springs from a total misconception of the
meaning of one text, Heb. xiii. 10, in which
reference is made to Jewish, and not to
Christian usage. That fact is clear from the
context, in which the services of the Day of
Atonement are spoken of. The Jews of our
Lord's time assigned much value to the partici
pation of "meats" offered in sacrifice to God.
To disprove that superstition, the Apostle points
to the fact that in the case of the sacrifices
on the Day of Atonement not even the priests
(those who served the Tabernacle) were per
mitted to eat, although it might have been
regarded as of peculiarly sanctifying power.

There is no emphasis on the pronoun " we " in
the Greek. The expression "we have" is in
the Greek ^o/xej'. That identical expression is
used of the Jews, i.e. of Christian Jews, in re
ference to Jerusalem (which was probably then
compassed with armies) in v. 14. "We have
here no continuing city," where similarly no
emphasis is placed on the pronoun.

Further no one really can eat of an altar,
or off an altar. Hence altar must be (as in
1 Cor. x. 18) a metonym for the sacrifice
offered thereon. What that special sacrifice
was is plainly stated in the context in Heb. xii.
12, 13. The sacrifice on the Day of Atonement,
offered for the whole nation, was considered so
contaminating (even that for the High Priest
himself) and so sin-defiled, that no part of the
one or the other was permitted to be eaten, but
both bullock and goat (Lev. xvi.) were "burned
without the camp." There can be no doubt
that the Lord's Supper was instituted when
the Apostles were reclining at a table, not at
an altar.

The early Christians had no desire for
material altars. Clement does not allude to an
"altar." Ignatius indeed uses language liable
to be mistaken. He speaks sometimes of " the
altar" figuratively in the sense of the whole
"altar enclosure"; compare Rev. xi. 1. Poly-
carp (Ep. c. Iv. ) speaks of Christian widows as
" God's altar." The Didache does not mention
the word. Nor does Justin Martyr. Aristides
(Apol.) says, " God asks no sacrifice and no obla
tion" ; and Minucius Felix (Octavius, x.) states
that the Christians had " no altars, no temples,
and no acknowledged images." Origen, reply
ing to a charge that they were without one,
says : " Every one of them has his own soul
and thought for an altar" (Contra Cels., Lib.
viii. p. 389); and Ambrose writes: "As our
sacrifice, v/hich is no other thing but our
prayers and thanksgiving, is not visible but
invisible, so our altar also is not visible but
invisible " (Epist. ad Heb. c. viii. ad. x.). In
the fifth century, when the Eucharist began
to be considered an actual sacrifice, altars of
stone were considered necessary. A decree of
the Council of Paris in 509 ordered stone altars
to be made, and they were ordered in England
by Egbert, Archbishop of York, in 705.
Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester (1062-1095), is
said to have destroyed the wooden tables
still remaining in his diocese, and in 1076
Lanfranc, Bishop of Winchester, condemned
them. By an Order in Council, November 12,
1550, letters were sent to every Bishop to
"pluck down the altars"; and Archbishop
Grindal in 1567 asked, in his Visitation
Articles, " whether all altars be utterly taken
down and clean removed even unto the founda
tion, and the place where they stood paved,

ALTAR

AMERICAN CHURCH

and the wall whereunto they joined whitened
over." Even before Bishop Grindal's Articles,
Archbishop Parker's of 15(53 were to the same
effect. In Bishop Goodriche's Register is a
memorandum of the Injunction issued by the
Commissary of the Bishop, "sitting judici
ally," to various rural deaneries to "thoroughly
and utterly (pcnitus et funditus) destroy and
overthrow all altars and super-altars erected
in former times and made or constructed of
stones or in any other manner (ex lapidibus seu
alioquocunque modo constructa), whether in their
churches, or in chapels, oratories, or other
places within their parishes ; and to devoutly
and solemnly set up and put in the room
thereof one honest and decent Table or Board
(Tabulam vel Mensam congruum et dccentem)
for administering the sacrament of the body
and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ there in
each parish church."

As Bishop Goodriche had been Lord Chan
cellor, his Commissary maybe supposed to know
what the law required. Dr. Matthew Parker,
who preached the sermon at the Visitation
(December 7, 1550) was afterwards the first
Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, and
publicly destroyed all " altars," as did the
other Elizabethan Ordinaries. In our own
days, by the decision of the Judicial Committee
(1857), a stone structure in place of an ordin
ary table of wood was declared illegal, and the
same judgment records that "the Reformer;-
considered the Holy Communion not as a
Sacrifice but as a Feast to be celebrated at
the Lord's Table."
ALTAR CLOTHS. — The altars were always
covered with some decent cloth, used for orna
ment not for mystery as in after ages. Optatus
pleading against the Donatists that the altars
could not be polluted by the Catholics touch
ing them, as the Donatists vainly pretended
uses this argument to confute them : "That ii
anything was polluted, it must be the coverings
not the tables, for every one knew that the
tables were covered with linen cloth in time
of Divine service, so that while the Sacrament
was administering, the covering might be
touched but not the table. And for thi
reason they pretended to wash the palls, as
he calls them in another place, in order to giv
them an expiation. ..." Isidore of Pelusium
takes notice also of the " sindon " or fine linen
upon which the body of Christ was conse
crated. But sometimes they were of riche
materials and more sumptuous. Palladiu
speaks of some of the Roman ladies, who
renouncing the world, bequeathed their silk
to make coverings for the altar. And Theodore
says of Constantine, " that among other gift
which he bestowed upon his new-built chura
of Jerusalem, he gave /3acriXiKa

a royal pall, or piece of rich tapestry, for the
altar." Bingham, however, notes that this
may refer to the adjacent curtains and hang
ings (Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian
Church, Book viii., c. 7, sect. 21). [C. J. C.]
AMBO.— The ambo (Greek fapuv), centre or
rim, is applied (a) in the Russian Church to the
middle point of the raised platform (solea)
before the Holy Door in what we might call
the chancel in Russian churches. At that step
the people receive the Eucharist. It is also
(b) more generally used for the reading-desk
or pulpit, which does not stand in that place.
AMERICAN CHURCH is the name com
monly given to the Church whose correct de
signation is " The Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of America."

It owes its origin to the Church of England,
a fact acknowledged in the Preface to its
Prayer Book as follows : " The Church of
England to which the Protestant Episcopal
Church in these States is indebted, under God,
for her first foundation and a long continuance
of nursing care and protection." It still re
mains in almost entire accord with the Mother
Church, being "far from intending to depart
from the Church of England in any essential
point of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or
further than local circumstances require."

Its origin is usually dated from the year
1606, when the Virginia Company obtained its
charter, and the Rev. Robert Hunt ministered
to the earliest settlers. Protestant Episcopa-
lianism also had followers in the Carolinas and
Georgia, and for a time was the Established
Church of some of the southern States founded
by England ; a favoured position which did the
Church no good and led to trouble. But it
never gained the hold upon the people which
Protestant so-called "Dissent" achieved, and
it always was (except in certain localities), as
it is now, the Church of a small minority. In
the north the colonies were chiefly founded
by the English Puritans, who first arrived in
the Mayflower in 1620, and formed a New
England ; and by the Dutch, who planted the
settlement of New Amsterdam, now known as
New York. In these States the Church of Eng
land was barely tolerated. However, in 169;",
Christ's Church, Philadelphia, was founded,
and in 1696 Trinity Church, New York.

Congregationalism was the Established Re
ligion of the State of Connecticut, but a body
of Protestant Episcopalians gradually grew up
who were tolerated as " dissenters."

At the date of the Declaration of Independ
ence the adherents of the Church of England
found themselves much in the position of the
Roman Catholics in England during the reign
of Elizabeth. A considerable number of the
clergy considered themselves bound by their

B

[

AMERICAN CHURCH

ordination vows to allegiance to the King of
England and to the Bishop of London as their
diocesan, and consequently took sides against
their compatriots. And although many thought
otherwise, and the first chaplain of Congress
was a Protestant Episcopalian, much harm was
done to the cause.

After 1783 it became necessary that the
Church should stand on an independent basis,
and a meeting was held — the first meeting
which can be called a Convention — in 1785, at
which Dr. White presided and the question of
obtaining bishops was considered. In 1786
testimonials were signed on behalf of Dr.
White, Provoost, and Griffith, requesting the
archbishops and bishops of the Church of
England to consecrate them bishops. The
two former proceeded to England and were
duly consecrated as Bishops of Pennsylvania
and New York respectively at Lambeth Palace
in 1787. Dr. Madison was subsequently con
secrated in England, and completed the
triumvirate considered necessary for the full
equipment of an Episcopal Church. To them
was added Dr. Seabury, who had previously
obtained Scotch consecration, but whose inde
pendent action had been disapproved by
American churchmen generally.

The question of a Constitution and Prayer
Book next demanded the attention of the
Church. At the first meeting in 1785 a Prayer
Book, modelled on the English Book of Com
mon Prayer (and adopting some of the altera
tions proposed at our attempted Eevision of
1688), had been drawn up and issued for
use, and from it the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds were both omitted, as also the clause
" he descended into hell " from the Apostles'
Creed. But, owing to representations from the
English bishops, the Americans agreed to rein
state the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, but
utterly refused to admit the Athanasian in any
shape or form. It was on these terms that the
English bishops consented to consecrate Drs.
White and Provoost. In 1789, therefore, Con
vention under the presidency of Bishop White
revised their original Prayer Book, known as
the " Proposed Book." The main difference
between the Eevised Book and the English Book
consisted of the excision of the Commination
Service, the Athanasian Creed and the in
dicative form of Absolution, and the inser
tion in the Communion Service (between our
" Prayer of Consecration " and the Reception)
of two or three prayers called the Oblation and
Invocation. This latter departure from Angli
can practice was due to the High Church views
of Seabury, and to the idea of the Greek Church
that consecration is the result of the Invoca
tion, and not of the recital of our Lord's words.
The English Reformers were careful to remove

all prayers and hymns from that place in the
service, for fear of peril of idolatry. (See AGNUS
DEI and OBLATION.) The Prayer Book, altered
in these and other respects, which are detailed
later on, was duly ratified by Convention in
1789, and remained in use till 1892, when a
few more alterations were made.

In 1789 also a constitution was drawn up
by which the nature and powers of the Con
vention were defined. A House of Deputies,
consisting of clerical and lay members in equal
numbers, was established, the concurrence of
both orders being necessary to constitute a
vote of Convention. A House of Bishops was
also formed, which has the right both to origi
nate acts and to veto those of the Lower
House. All Acts of Convention have to be
authenticated by both Houses.

Canons have also been framed for regulating
details, and No. 13 shows that the American
Church shares the views of Protestants gene
rally as to divorce. "No minister of this
Church shall solemnise matrimony in any case
where there is a divorced wife or husband of
either party still living, but this canon shall
not be held to apply to the innocent party to a
divorce for the cause of adultery, or to parties
once divorced seeking to be united again."

In 1792 Convention settled the Ordinal,
under which the words " Whose sins thou dost
forgive they axe forgiven, and whose sins thou
dost retain they are retained " may be omitted
in the ordination of a priest.

In 1799 a form for the consecration of
churches was set forth.

In 1801 the Articles of Religion were settled.
They are our " XXXIX. Articles " with the
following variations : —

Art. VIII. omits mention of Athanasius's
Creed.

Art. XXI, as to General Councils, is omitted
altogether, "because it is partly of a local and
civil nature, and is provided for as to the
remaining parts of it, in other Articles."

Art. XXXV. This article is received so far as
it declares the Books of Homilies to be an ex
plication of Christian doctrine and instructive
in piety and morals. But all references to
the constitution and laws of England are
considered as inapplicable, and the order for
reading the Homilies in churches is suspended
until a revision can be made for clearing them
of obsolete words and phrases, and also from
the local references.

Art. XXXVI. substitutes a reference to the
Ordinal of 1792 above referred to.

Art. XXXVII. is omitted, and the following
substituted: " Of the power of the Civil Magis
trates. The power of the Civil Magistrates ex-
tendeth to all men as well clergy as laity in all
things temporal ; but hath no authority in

AMERICAN CHURCH

AMERICAN CHURCH

things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be
the duty of all men who are professors of
the Gospel to pay respectful obedience to the
Civil authority, regularly and legitimately con
stituted."

The subsequent history of the American
Church does not call for comment up to the time
of the secession of Bishop Cummins and the
foundation of the Reformed Episcopal Church.
In 1892 the Prayer Book was again revised,
a service for Ash Wednesday introduced, a few
minor alterations made, some of them in the
direction of a rapprochement to the Anglican
Book (see Church Intelligencer, 1893, p. 40) the
chief differences at the present time being as
follows : —

Calendar.— Only the red letter saints' days
have been retained.

Morning Prayer.— There are many more
"sentences" of Scripture, some inserted as
being specially suitable for certain festivals,
also rubrics for shortening the service on
any day not a Sunday or on any day when
Holy Communion is immediately to follow.
"The Absolution" is termed "The Declara
tion of Absolution " and our Communion form
is given as an alternative. The "Venite" is
shortened and varied. The " Gloria in Excel-
sis" may be substituted for the "Gloria Patri"
at the end of the whole selection of Psalms.
The Nicene Creed may be used as an alterna
tive for the Apostles' Creed, and any churches
may, instead of the words " He descended into
hell," use the words " He went into the place
of departed spirits," which "are considered as
words of the same meaning in the Creed." The
Prayer for the King is changed to "behold
and bless Thy servant the President of the
United States and all others in authority."
The Prayer for all Conditions of Men and
the General Thanksgiving are included in
"Morning Prayer" except when the Litany is
said, but they may be omitted when Holy
Communion is immediately to follow. The
words "Catholic Church" in the former are
changed into "Thy holy Church universal,"
no doubt as being much less liable to misin
terpretation, the " Catholic Church," in America
as elsewhere, being improperly used as equiva
lent to " Roman Catholic Church." The par
ticular thanksgiving is not limited as in the
English Book to those who have been " prayed
for."

Evening Prayer may begin with " Let us
humbly confess our sins unto Almighty God "
as an alternative to " Dearly beloved." Psalm
xcii. is given as a further alternative for " Mag
nificat," and Psalm ciii. for "Nunc Dimittis."

Litany contains a supplication, " That it may
please thee to send forth labourers into thy
harvest."

Prayers and Thanksyivinys contain prayers
for Congress, Convention, for Unity (as in our
Accession service), for Missions, for Fruitful
Seasons, for a Sick Child, for Malefactors after
condemnation, and thanksgiving (as at church
ing), child's recovery from sickness, and for a
safe return from sea.

Penitential Office for Ash Wednesday consists
of our Commination Service from and including
the 51st Psalm to the end, with the addition
of the prayer, " O God, whose nature, &c." The
Minister has a discretion to use this office at
other times.

Lord's Supper,— The Communion Table as in
our rubric is to stand in the body of the church
or in the chancel, but the minister is directed
to stand at the right side of the Table, or where
Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to
be said. The Lord's Prayer may be omitted
" if Morning Prayer hath been said immediately
before," and " The Decalogue may be omitted
provided it be said once on each Sunday,
but whenever it is omitted the minister shall
say the Summary of the Law." After the
Gospel shall be said or sung, " Glory be to
Thee, O Lord." The Apostles' Creed may
be substituted for the Nicene except on the
five chief festivals, and other provisions are
made for shortening the service. The " Holy,
Holy, Holy" is to be said by "priest and
people." Certain prayers and a hymn are in
serted immediately before the Reception, an
unfortunate deviation which has already been
alluded to. "Some proper hymn from the
selection" may be substituted for the "Gloria."
So much only of the Warning is to be read as
the minister may think convenient.

Baptism.— The sign of the cross may be
omitted if those who present the infant desire
it. Parents are allowed to be sponsors.

Catechism.— The well-known answer as to
the inward part in the Lord's Supper runs,
"The Body and Blood of Christ which are
spiritually taken and received by the faithful
in the Lord's Supper." Compare the new
Prayer Book of the Church of Ireland (see
IRELAND, CHURCH OP). The comma after the
word grace has been omitted in the phrase
" sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given
unto us," &c., as most English Prayer Books
were then incorrectly printed in this respect.

Matrimony.— The introductory address is
shortened and improved.

There are many other differences, but enough
have been given to show that the tendency of
the American Church is in favour of Protes
tantism. In some cases archaic words have
been modernised, e.g. "truly and impartially
ad-minister justice" for "truly and indifl
ently minister justice."

The American Church now has about

AMERICAN CHURCH

[ 20]

ANATHEMA

bishops, including missionary jurisdictions.
The presiding bishop at present is the Bishop
of Rhode Island. It numbers nearly 5000
clergy, about 700,000 communicants and
1,600,000 adherents. To appreciate the numeri
cal position of the Church it must be, however,
stated that the population of the United States
in 1900 was returned at 76,295,220.

Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church of
the United States are allowed to officiate and
hold benefices in the Church of England under
the provisions and restrictions of an Act of Par
liament "respecting colonial and certain other
clergy" passed in 1874 (see Colonial Clergy
Act). Its bishops also attend the Pan-Angli
can Conference which is now held every ten
years at Lambeth. [B. W.]

AMICE. — An oblong piece of linen worn by
Roman priests and some Ritualists. It is first
placed over the head, then round the neck, next
on the shoulders beneath the alb, and finally
turned back to form a kind of collar. It is
generally explained to mean the cloth with
which the Jews blindfolded our Lord in the
house of Caiaphas. According to the Roman
Missal it typifies the " helmet of salvation " I
See Catholic Dictionary. The amice is an
illegal ornament in the Church of England,
but has not yet been brought before the law
courts.

AMULETS.— These are superstitious emblems
or charms used by Roman Catholics. They are
of many kinds, and are supposed to protect
from temporal dangers, and to promote the
spiritual welfare of the wearer. Such is the
" Scapular," a word derived from " scapula,"
the shoulder-blade. It is mentioned in the
rule of St. Benedict as worn by monks over
their other dress when at work, and it now
forms a regular part of the religious dress in
the old Orders. But the Scapular is best known
amongst Roman Catholics as the name of two
little pieces of cloth, worn out of devotion over
the shoulders under the ordinary garb and con
nected by strings. It has a legendary origin,
and was first common amongst the Carmelites.
The Blessed Virgin, it is said, appeared to
Simon Stock, General of the Carmelite Order,
and gave him a Scapular that by it the Order
might be known and protected from the evils
which assailed it ; and it is asserted that "no
one dying in the Scapular will suffer eternal
burning." These and other like fables about it
are, however, questioned by many Roman
Catholic writers of great weight. See Catholic
Dictionary, sub voce. See SCAPULAR.
ANABAPTISTS.— See INDEPENDENTS.
ANACLETTJS.— Irenasus (Hcer. iii. 3) makes
Anacletus the successor of Linus as Bishop
of Rome, but the name is very dubious. It
is Anencletus according to the Greeks. But

there is considerable confusion respecting this
matter. For there is another list followed in
many popular Roman Catholic books, e.g.
Di Bruno's Catholic Belief, according to which
Anacletus was the fifth (instead of the third)
Pope. It has been conjectured, too, that
Cletus, an otherwise unknown name, arose out
of a corruption of Anencletus.
ANATHEMA.— The original meaning of this
word in both its Greek and Hebrew form
signified " devoted." " Scripture spoke of two
ways in which objects might be holy, set apart
for God, devoted to Him. The children of
Israel were devoted to Him, God was glorified
in them : the wicked Canaanites were devoted
to Him ; God was glorified on them " (Trench,
Synonyms, p. 17, sect. v.). In the Old and New
Testaments, an anathematised person denoted
one in a state of spiritual separation as distinct
from the later patristic and ecclesiastical use
of the word " excommunicated " — the state of
one alienated from God by sin, and not of one
lying under a state or sentence of alienation
from the Church (see Bishop Lightfoot on
Galatians i. 8, 9). In the Roman Pontifical in
the service for the Benediction and Consecra
tion of Virgins, the Pontiff publicly pronounces
Anathema on any who may draw them away
from the service to which they have devoted
themselves, purloin their goods, or disturb them
in the possession of them. Not only are the
curses of the Law of Moses invoked upon the
offender, but unless he make restitution, his
soul is consigned to everlasting fire.

There are 125 canons that stand connected
with the Council of Trent, and every one of
these closes with the words "Anathema sit."

In the archives of the diocese of Rochester
may be seen a form of anathematisation used in
England in the thirteenth century. This prob
ably represents the most extreme instance that
could be placed on record. Nearly every power
in heaven and earth, including the Virgin Mary
herself and the Cross upon which Christ was
crucified, is bidden to take part in the maledic
tion. Nearly every part of the man's body is
separately marked out for malediction, and the
curse is specifically instanced as that of eternal
damnation and not merely of loss or suffering
in this life.

Denouncing from the altar, or cursing with
bell, book, and candle, is still practised in Ire
land, and the forms which are used are gene
rally of the same sort as those in the Roman
Pontifical and in the archives of Rochester.
The bell is tolled and the tapers are extin
guished to signify the spiritual darkness and
ruin to which the accursed person is consigned.
The curse denounced upon John Hus involved
the suspension of all divine service in any
town or village which he might pollute by his

ANATHEMA

ANGELS

presence. Persons were directed to cast stones
at any house in which he might lodge. (See
Blakeney, Popery in its Social Aspect, pp. 124-
128 ; Wratislaw, Life of John Hus, in the Home
Library Series, S.P.C.K.) [C. J. C.]

ANCHORITES.— See MONKS.

ANGELS, THE.— An order of beings called
into existence by the will and power of God
before the creation of man. They were created
pure ; but, when put upon their trial, a number
of them fell into a state of apostasy from God
in which they have ever continued, and they
are " kept in everlasting bonds under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6).
At their head is Satan, and they are called
"his angels" (Matt. xxv. 41); he is "the
prince of the power of the air," and they are
" the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places " (Eph. ii. 2 and vi. 12). On
the other hand, the "elect" angels remained
steadfast under probation, and came forth
from it perfect in holiness with heaven's glory
for their portion and God's service for their
everlasting joy. Mention is made in Daniel
(x. 13, 21 and xii. 1) of Michael, who is there
called "one of the chief princes" and "the
great prince " ; and his name appears again
in the New Testament (Jude 9 and Kev. xii. 7),
where he is spoken of as "the archangel"
and as the leader of the hosts of light in their
conflict with the powers of darkness ; so that
he may be regarded as occupying among the
holy ones much the same position of autho
rity as the devil does among the fallen and
the evil.

With respect to the nature of the angels and
their place in the economy of God's providence
and grace, we can only make a few passing
remarks in an article of such limited scope.
They are immeasurably inferior to the Lord
Jesus both in essential being and in regal
power (see Eph. i. 21, Phil. ii. 9-11, Heb. i.
and ii., and 1 Peter iii. 22) ; but they are
superior to man on earth in wisdom, strength^
ability to do God's service, and, of course, in
spiritual purity. The risen saints, however,
will be equal to them in holiness and glory
(Luke xx. 36), and will even surpass them in
authority (1 Cor. vi. 3). Besides this, hints
are given to us in the Word of the control
over the forces of Nature which these mysteri
ous servants of the Almighty are allowed to
exercise. And, also, the veil is at times drawn
aside a little, and we obtain glimpses of the
glory beyond ; and there we behold them
ofi'ering due homage and adoration to their
eternal King.

But as our main purpose is to consider them
in their relationship to man, we shall now
proceed to discuss (1) the titles accorded to them
in the Bible, (2) their ministry unto the heirs of

salvation, and (3) their invocation as taught in
the Romish system.

1. In the Old Testament the usual designa
tion for angel is ^NpDj which simply means a
messenger. Out of some 215 passages in which
it occurs in the Hebrew Bible about one half
refer to human agents, and have the rendering
" messenger " in our version ; while the other
half refer to angels properly so called, and
have the translation accordingly. Other words
are occasionally found, as D'rpXj gods (compare
Ps. viii. 5 and xcvii. 7 with Heb. ii. 7, 9 and
i. 6);1 BH1J5, Ebp, D'Khp holy one, holy ones
(see Dent, xxxiii. 2, Dan. iv. 13, 23 [chald
^?2], an(l viii. 13, possibly Job v. 1, xv. 15,
and Ps. Ixxxix. 5, 7) ; N^V) ^0 st"> army (see
1 Kings xxii. 19, Ps. ciii. 21, and cxlviii. 2,
with which may be compared 2 Kings vi. 17,
Ps. Ixviii. 17, Matt. xxvi. 53, and Rev. xii. 7) ;
rnt'Pj one who serves, a minister (see Ps. ciii.
21 and civ. 4, and such passages as Matt. iv.
11, and Heb. i. 14, which speak of angelic
ministrations).

In the New Testament their regular title is
($776X05, which is expressed in our English
version by angel. We must bear in mind,
however, that, like its Hebrew equivalent, it
simply means messenger, and is so translated
when it describes human agents (e.g. Matt.
xi. 10, Luke vii. 24, 52, and James ii. 25).
Qualifying epithets are often found in connec
tion with this word, as "of God," "of the
Lord," "of heaven," "from heaven," "of the
Son of Man," "of light," "holy," "elect";
and they all serve to set forth more clearly
the kind of messenger (#776X05) to which the
text refers.2

2. Having briefly reviewed their Scriptural
titles, we are in a better position to examine
their office and ministry towards the people
of the Lord. Probably the most important
revelation which the Holy Spirit has been
pleased to make upon this subject is Heb. i.
14. "Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to do service for the sake of them

1 The use of this word (D\T>tf) does not
implv that the angels are endowed with Divine
capacity and should receive Divine honour, for
it is similarly employed to denote men of dis
tinction (see Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 9, 28, and
Ps. Ixxxii. 1, 6, as explained by John x. 34-36).

2 It may be well to state, without entering
into any detailed discussion of the subject, that
the angels of the Churches (Rev. ii. and iii.)
are generally interpreted to be the presiding
ministers of those Churches, though some com
mentators understand by them heavenly beings
severally charged with the guardianship of each
Church.

ANGELS

[22]

ANGELS

that shall inherit salvation ? " They are spirits,
able to come and go unseen, and to work
without making their presence known ; able,
also, to communicate with human spirits with
out the intervention of bodily agency. They
are ministering spirits, serving God, for so we
understand the word \firovpyiKd. They are
sent forth, messengers from the presence of the
Almighty to fulfil His behests. They have a
distinct mission, namely, to do service, or ad
minister help (see this meaning of ets SiaKov
in Acts xi. 29). They render this service on
behalf of them that shall inherit (possess)
salvation (salvation in its perfect glory), i.e.
on behalf of the ransomed saints. And they
are all sent, whatever degrees of rank or
authority there may be among them, they aU
are God's messengers, doing His command
ments and hearkening to the voice of His
words.

Many examples are given of how they
exercise this ministry for the sake of believers.
They bring messages to them from God (e.g.
Gen. xviii. 9, 10, Matt. i. 20, Luke. i. 13, 28,
and Acts v. 20). They defend them from
dangers and enemies (e.g. 2 Kings vi. 16, 17,
Dan. vi. 22, Acts v. 19, and xii. 7-10). They
guide their path and course of action (e.g.
Exod. xiv. 19, xxxii. 34, and Matt. ii. 13, 19).
Under exceptional circumstances they may
supply bodily wants (e.g. 1 Kings xix. 4-8
and Matt. iv. 11). They bear the spirit after
death to its blissful resting-place (e.g. Luke
xvi. 22). And at the Saviour's second coming
they will sever the wicked from the just and
gather the glorified saints together unto Him
(e.g. Matt. xiii. 39, 41 and xxiv. 31).1

Under this head comes the question of
guardian angels. Has each believer one angel
specially appointed to take care of him ? We
cannot say that there is anything necessarily
wrong in this theory, for God is free to assign
and limit angelic duties as He pleases ; but we
must admit that it has been made the excuse
for much superstition and creature-worship.
It has suggested the idea of a spiritual being
ardently devoted to his human protege", on
whose behalf he acts spontaneously without
the restrictions of specific Divine commands.
It has imagined in this spiritual being a
mediator and intercessor between the soul of
man and God. And it has, further, regarded
this supernatural protector as continually
hovering above his earthly charge, and there
fore as one to whom appeal may be made, at
any moment and directly, for guidance and

1 These passages are merely given as instances
of angelic ministry : they do not by any means
exhaust the Scriptural references to this great
subject.

for help. Arguments in favour of this theory
have been drawn from Acts xii. 15 and Matt.
xviii. 10 ; but it can hardly be maintained
that these passages afford conclusive evidence.
In the first instance, as the form and voice
were those of Peter, and as they had not
strong enough faith to believe that their
prayer had been actually answered, that
company of Christians in Mary's house seem
to have caught at the notion that a super
natural apparition of the imprisoned Apostle
was before them. And they exclaimed in
their trepidation, "It is his angel."2 As to
the second instance (Matt, xviii. 10), it is to
be carefully noted that our Lord was not
dealing there with an individual case, but
with a general truth respecting His "little
ones." Their angels, i.e. those who serve
them by God's appointment, have the glorious
privilege of beholding the face of God con
tinually in heaven ; seeing then, that these
"little ones" have such exalted ministers, men
are to beware of despising any one of them.
In fact, the Saviour's words may be taken to
endorse the doctrine of Heb. i. 14, but they
cannot require from us the belief in indi
vidual angelic guardianship.

On the other hand, as against this theory, it
is to be observed that many angels may be
sent to one man (Gen. xxxii. 1, 2), one angel
may be sent to several men, and the same
angel may wait upon different persons (Dan.
viii. 16 and Luke. i. 19, 26); and that the
general tenor of Holy Scripture concerning
these heavenly beings presents them as not
restricted in their services to special indi
viduals, but as ready and waiting to speed
upon God's errands separately or collectively,
whenever and wherever the occasion may
require.

Here, too, we may fitly glance at another
point upon which there has been much specu
lation, viz. angels in the Christian assemblies.
Among St. Paul's directions for the proper
observance of public worship is one that the
women ought to have their heads veiled.
And after assigning as reason that the woman
was created for the man and was in subjec
tion to him, he goes on to say, "For this cause
ought the woman to have a sign of authority
upon her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor.
xi. 10). Many suggested explanations of this
passage may be passed over as practically
impossible or purely imaginative ; but we must
briefly notice two main lines of interpretation :
(1) that the angels are present in the congrega-

2 Even if any one thinks that they meant, "It
is his guardian angel," their supposed ideas on
the subject form no sufficient foundation for a
doctrine which has no other warrant.

ANGELS

[23]

ANGELS

tion; and they see and mark all which occurs ;
in consideration, then, of their august presence
everything should be done decently and in
order — the men should uncover their heads for
prophesying and praying, while the women
should wear veils as tokens of modesty and
subordination. Or, (2) that the earthly con
gregations should bear resemblance to the
heavenly ; as then the angels show becom
ing reverence and humility in the courts
above, so should the women in the church
below.

There is another subject of the greatest
importance which demands attention under
this head, namely, The Angel of the Covenant.
This title (JV13H ^JNpO) is applied in prophecy
to our Lord Jesus Christ (Mai. iii. 1). Again,
in Hosea xii. 3, 4, it is said of Jacob, "in
his strength (manhood) he had power ('"HE')
with God, yea he had power (~IB>M} same word)
with the angel and prevailed," so that the
angel with whom he wrestled was God Him
self. Again, in Exod. iii. 2, we read that the
angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the
flame of fire in the midst of the bush ; while
the rest of the chapter shows that this angel
was the Lord Himself. A comparison of Gen.
xviii. 10 with 22, of Josh. v. 13 with vi. 2, of
Judges vi. 12 with 14, of Zech. iii. 1 with 2,
and of other similar passages, will satisfac
torily prove that this angel is the Son sent
forth from the Father, "the Word before He
was made flesh," "Christ in His preincarnate
or eternal spirit."1 In this way may be ex
plained Gen. xlviii. 16, Judges xiii. 17-22,
Zech. i. 12, or any other reference which
would, if understood of a created angel, con
travene either the Divine command, "Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him
only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10), or the
emphatic statement, "There is one God and
one Mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus." 2

3. The invocation of angels. As the ficti
tious distinctions of worship, Latria, Hyper-
dulia, and Dulia, are dealt with elsewhere
(WORSHIP), and as the Ritualistic imitations
of Romish devotions belong to another article
(RITUALISTIC MANUALS OF DEVOTION), we
omit any detailed reference to them here.

By the decree of the Council of Trent (Sess
xxv.) the faithful should be diligently instructe
that "the holy ones,3 reigning with Christ

1 See Scripture Proofs, p. 29, by the Rev. C
H. H. Wright, D.D.

2 For the incarnate Saviour as the channel o
angelic communications see Gen. xxviii. 12 an<
John i. 51.

3 So I render Sancti, as the doctrine applies t
both canonised saints and angels.

offer their prayers for men to God ; " and that
"it is good and profitable to invoke them
suppliantly, and to betake oneself to their
prayers, aid, and assistance for the purpose of
obtaining benefits from God through His Son
Jesus Christ." Numerous examples of the
practical effect of this doctrine may be culled
from authorised devotional books. Here are
a few from the Garden of the Soul : —

"0 angel of God, who, by Divine appoint
ment art my guardian, to watch over me in all
my ways, be pleased this day to illuminate,
preserve, rule, and govern me, whom the
goodness of our God has committed to thy
charge, and to defend me from all the powers
of darkness" (Extract from A Morning
Exercise).

"Blessed St. Michael, defend us in the day
of battle, that we may not be lost at the
dreadful judgment. Amen."

"0 my good angel, whom God by His Divine
mercy hath appointed to be my guardian,
enlighten and protect me, direct and govern
me this night. Amen" (Extract from Night
Prayers).

"All ye blessed angels and saints of God,
pray for me, a poor miserable sinner, that I may
now, for good and all, turn from my evil ways,
that so henceforward my heart may be for ever
united with yours in eternal love, and never
more go astray from the Sovereign Good.
Amen" (Extract from Devotions for Confes
sions).*

"Glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Heavenly
Host, and thou, my angel guardian, and you,
my blessed patrons,^intercede for me and assist
me in this my last and dreadful passage"
(Extract from The Holy Viaticum).

Such are a few of the examples of creature-
worship which forms so large a part of the
practice of the Church of Rome. We have
already answered by anticipation (when treat
ing of the Angel of the Covenant) the excuse
for it which some try to adduce from Holy
Scripture ; we shall therefore conclude this
article with the statement of a few solid
reasons against it.

1. As in the case of Mariolatry, so it supposes
that Michael and the other angels are endued
with omniscience, and can receive myriads of
petitions addressed to them from all parts of
the globe at the same time.

2. It is nowhere enjoined in the Word of
God, and consequently it comes under the cate
gory of the "commandments of men " (Matt. xv.
9 and Col. ii. 22).

3. On the contrary, it is distinctly ccn-

* It is also to be noted that in the form of con
fession occur the words, "to blessed Michael the
Archangel, to all the saints."

ANGELS

[24]

ANNATES

demned in the Bible (see Col. ii. 18, 19 [E.V.],
Rev. xix. 10, and xxii. 8, 9).

4. It detracts from the unique glory of ou
ascended Lord, who is the alone Mediate
between God and men ; and sends the sup
pliant to seek other intercession than His
Among the Colossians the effect of this here
tical doctrine of angelic mediation was tha
they ceased to " hold the Head " ; and the sam
effect must ever follow from the same cause
And what, indeed, has He done to us that w
should turn away from Him to others ? His
heart is still touched with the feeling of ou
infirmities, His patient love still bears with ou:
frailties, His ear is attentive to our sighs anc
cries, His tender voice calls the weary anc
heavy-laden to Himself, and His Hand is ever
outstretched to succour the tempted and the
tried. As long, then, as our great High-Pries
lives in the heavens to make intercession for
us, as long as His infinite treasures of grace
and power are open to us, as long as His un
wearied loving-kindness bids us welcome, let
us come boldly to the Throne of Grace that we
may obtain mercy and find grace to help in
time of need. [F. J. H.]

ANGELTJS.— See AVE MARIA ANGELUS.
ANGLICAN COMMUNION, or Anglican
Church, is generally considered to include the
Church of England and the other Protestant
Episcopal Churches which are modelled upon
the constitution of the English Church, viz.
the Church of Ireland, the Protestant Epis
copal Churches of Scotland, the United States,
Spain, Canada, India, South Africa, Australia,
and other colonies. The bishops of the Anglican
Communion now number about 250, and its
nominal adherents about 25,000,000.

The Churches of England and Ireland formed
one Protestant Episcopal Church from 1800 to
1869, but with the other Protestant Episcopal
Churches our Church has never had any formal
legal connection (except in a limited degree
with the Indian Church). They are all free
autonomous churches ; and in Scotland the
Protestant Episcopalians are a dissenting
body.

They have, therefore, none of the privileges
and disabilities of established churches.
Their bishops are not "lords," and their
ministers have no precedence over those of
other churches. However, by virtue of various
Acts of Parliament (particularly the Colonial
Clergy Act, 1874, 37 & 38 Viet. c. 77, and the
27 & 28 Viet. c. 94), clergymen ordained in

1 " There was an officious parade of humility
in selecting these lower beings as intercessors,
rather than appealing directly to the Throne of
Grace." (From Bishop Lightfoot's comment on
the passage.)

Episcopal churches (other than those of Eng
land and Ireland) are allowed to officiate in
Church of England churches in England and
Wales under certain conditions. There are
no restrictions upon the clergy of the Church
of Ireland. Pan-Anglican conferences of
bishops are now held every ten years. See
Whitehead's Church Law.

These Churches are more fully described
under separate headings. See IRELAND,
CHURCH OP, &c. [B. W.]

[It may be well to note that by several
Acts of Parliament, such as 22 George II. c.
30, passed in 1749, and by divers earlier
" Orders in Council," the Moravians are recog
nised as "an ancient Protestant Episcopal
Church," and moreover, that the National
Lutheran Churches of Sweden, Norway, Den
mark, and Finland are Episcopalian and not
Presbyterian.— C. H. H. W.]
ANNATES.— The claim of the Pope to the first
fruits (i.e. one year's income) of all benefices
throughout Western Christendom was partly
based on his feudal rights as the over-lord
of the clergy, partly as furnishing a source
of revenue to aid the Crusades. Their pay
ment was imited and restricted by the Eng
lish Parliament from time to time, as by the
Statute of Carlisle, 1307, and the 6. Hen. IV.
c. 1. in 1404. Owing to this resistance, an-
nates in England could not be collected from
the benefices of the inferior clergy (see Pla-
tina, in vitd Bonifacii IX.) ; but the exactions
from the English bishops were loudly com
plained of. Henry VIII. utilised this discon
tent, by getting passed a remarkable statute,
reducing the Pope's claim to five per cent,
of its original amount, but enabling the king
either to postpone the execution of the Act,
to vary its terms, or even to suppress it alto
gether. Great secrecy was observed in order
to give to Henry's " orators " at Rome a free
hand in working upon the fears and hopes
of the Roman Court. "This hope, however,
or despair," said the king, "ye shall so in
crease according to the reason of the moment,
that it may be free to us to pronounce freely
whenever the time comes." The king also
suggested that other nations would probably
follow his example if the Pope and his
advisers should "oppose us in their ingrati
tude, so that we publish to the world what
is now hid." This letter is printed in the
Church Intelligencer, xii. 172, and it is re
markable that both in that letter and in
Ghinucci's reply the pressure was said to
come entirely from the Lords and Commons,
and that Convocation was not even referred
to. The bribe, however, was ultimately de
clined by the Pontiff, who refused to grant
the divorce, and thus annates were finally

ANNATES

ANNUNCIATION

abolished as payments to Rome, July 9, 1533.
In a State paper still extant the first rough
draft of this proposal, though unsigned and un
finished, is of great interest because it contains
the first hint of " withdrawal of the obedience
from the See of Rome." This draft was pre
sumably drawn up by Cromwell, or some other
of the king's advisers, and it speaks of an Act
"of this his Grace's High Court of Parliament."
Mr. Gairdner accordingly catalogues it in his
Calendar of State Papers, as a petition ema
nating from Parliament, which was then the
customary form of bills in Parliament. In
the Cotton Collection the MS. is headed simply
"CAPITA REBUM" (heads of things). Un
fortunately, Strype, who first published the
paper, took into his head that it might have
originated in Convocation, and boldly inserted
a heading to that effect. He has been fol
lowed by a whole host of copyists. J. H.
Blunt (while professing to copy from the
original) reproduces every one of Strype's
numerous mistakes and adds some of his
own. Canon Dixon (Hist. ii. 114) alters the
words "by act of this his high court" by
leaving out the word "this." The unaltered
document is given in full in the same number
of the Church Intelligencer as above cited, and
it will be seen that Strype's guesses, two
hundred years after date, are shown to be
simply "impossible." The Church legislation
of "the great Reforming Parliament" of Henry
sprang for the most part from the king and
his political advisers. Nor was this question
of annates any exception. A comparison of
dates shows that the bill was introduced into
the Lords during the third week of February
1532, for Chapuys wrote to the emperor on
February 28: "Since writing last (February
14) the king has proposed to Parliament to
reduce the annates paid to the Pope." Up
to that time no bill directed against the Pope
had been brought forward, yet on February 24
Archbishop Warham (though ill at home)
lodged his formal written protest against any
statute "in derogation of the Supreme Pontiff,
or of the See Apostolic" (Burnet, III. ii. 48).
This collation of dates suggests the relation
of cause and effect, because the remaining
anti-Papal legislation was not brought in until
after the passing of the Annates Bill, and
after the subsequent adjournment of Parlia
ment. It was in spite of this protest from
the primate that the bill passed on March 19,
and Chapuys, in reporting what had hap
pened, added, " The prelates would not consent.
The king sent to tell the Nuncio that these
measures were not taken by his consent, but
were moved by the Commoners" (Gayangos1
Letters, etc., from Simancas, vol. iv. p. 390).
The bill passed on March 20, and M. de la

Pomeroy wrote on March 23, 1532, to Car
dinal Tournon, "The clergy in Convocation
have consented to nothing, nor will they,
till they know the pleasure of their master
the Holy Father ; but the other estates being
agreed, the refusal of the clergy is treated as
of no consequence " (Froude, i. 354, Gairdner's
State Papers, H. 8. v. 71).

Such was the history of the 23 Hen. VIII. c. 20.
Apart from their Papal leanings, the clergy
had good reason to dread Henry's protection,
for he obtained from Parliament shortly after a,
grant of these same first fruits (by 2G Hen. VIII.
c. 3, 1534), not only from the bishoprics, but
from every benefice in the kingdom, adding
also a yearly tenth from each benefice. After
being restored to the Church by Mary, these
first fruits and tenths were resumed by the
Crown under Elizabeth (1 Eiiz. c. 4), and
wei-e finally handed over by Queen Anne in
1703 to the fund for augmenting poor livings,
which is still known as Queen Anne's Bounty.

[J. T. T.]

ANNE, or ANNA.— The name given to the
mother of the Virgin Mary in the Apocryphal
Protevangelium of James and in the Gospel of
the Pseudo- Matthew. Her husband is, in the first-
named Apocryphon, called Joachim, in the
other Cleophas.

ANNUNCIATION.— By this term is meant
the announcing to the Virgin Mary by the
Angel Gabriel that she was to be the Mother
of our Lord. On what day this occurred Holy
Scripture does not inform us, but the date
of Christmas having been already decided
upon, the day for the Annunciation was ap
pointed probably about the seventh century.
This same day had been dedicated among the
ancient heathen to Cybele, the mother of the
gods, and this may have been one of many
cases of the adaptation of pagan festivals to
Christian use.

Some have claimed the authority of Atha-
nasius or of Gregory Thaumaturgus for an earlier
origin ; but Bingham considers the passage in
their writings as doubtful. It was only in the
seventh century that sermons began to be
delivered on the occasion. See Bingham's An
tiquities, Book xx. 4.

Wheatley, On the Prayer Boole, observes that :
" Whereas some Churches keep four holy-days
in memory of the Blessed Virgin, viz., the
Nativity, the Annunciation, the Purification,
and the Assumption, the Church of England
has only two : the Purification and the Annun
ciation—which, though they may have some
relation to the Blessed Virgin, do yet mor
peculiarly belong to our Saviour. The Ann
ciation hath a peculiar respect to His in
tion ; the Purification is principally o
in memory of His presentation in the Temple.

ANOINTING

[26]

ANTICHRIST

ANOINTING.— See EXTREME UNCTION.
ANTEPENDIUM.— The frontal which hangs
before the communion table. In Ritualistic
churches it is of cloth, in different colours
adapted to the Christian seasons. These colours
are generally five : white, red, violet, green,
and black. But according to old English use,
olive, brown, grey, and yellow were also em
ployed. See COLOURS.

ANTHEM.— A hymn originally sung antiphon-
ally or in alternate parts. The word " anthem "
indeed appears to beacorruption of "antiphon."
The term was formerly applied to certain de
tached verses appended to the Psalms and
Canticles. In the Eastern Church an anthem
is an alleluia psalm sung after the psalms of
the day. In the modern sense " the anthem "
(See rubric before the "Venite") is, in the
Church of England, a passage of Scripture or a
collect set to music for use after the third
collect in the Orders for Morning and Evening
Prayer. Anthems are said to have been first
introduced in the reign of Elizabeth to supply
the loss of the hymns, which Cranmer wished
to have translated for the reformed services but
could not obtain. The present rubric about
them was added at the last Revision in 1661.
ANTICHRIST.— The name Antichrist occurs
only in two Epistles of St. John. It is not
found elsewhere in the whole range of Biblical
literature — not even were we to include in that
designation the Apocryphal writings of the
Old Testament. There are no doubt passages
of the Scriptures which have been popularly
supposed to refer to something of similar im
port. But popular expositions are seldom
accurate, and this is no exception. It is
necessary to carefully observe the sense in
which St. John uses the name.

The word occurs Jive times in his writings.
The first two instances occur in 1 John ii. 18.
The Revised Version is here the more accurate :
" Little children, it is the last hour : and as
ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now
there have arisen many antichrists : whereby
we know that it is the last hour. They went
out from us, but they are not of us ; for if
they had been of us, they would have con
tinued with us : but they went out that they
might be made manifest how that they all are
not of us."

This passage is the only instance in which
"antichrist " is found in the singular number,
without the article — that is, " antichrist " in
place of "the antichrist." But several im
portant Greek MSS. actually supply the article.
The word occurs again three verses further
on in the same epistle: "I have not written
unto you because ye know not the truth, but
because ye know it, and because no lie is
of the truth. Who is the liar, but he that

denieth that Jesus is the Christ ? This is the
antichrist, even he that denieth the Father
and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the
same hath not the Father : he that confesseth
the Son hath the Father also" (1 John ii. 22).

The fourth instance is 1 John iv. 1, 2, 3 :
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove
(test) the spirits, whether they are of God :
because many false prophets are gone out into
the world. Hereby know we the Spirit of
God : every spirit which confesseth that Jesus
Christ is come in the fiesh is of God : and
every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not
of God : and this is the spirit of the antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it cometh ; and
now it is in the world already."

The fifth and last case is 2 John vii. : " For
many deceivers are gone forth into the world,
even they that confess not that Jesus Christ
cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and
the antichrist." The last passage conclusively
proves that St. John did not employ the term
"the antichrist " to indicate a single individual
person, but as a collective designation of the
false teachers who in the name of Christ taught
doctrines contrary to the truths of Christ and
His Gospel. In the Psalms "the wise man,"
"the perfect man," "the righteous "and "the
godly man " are frequently contrasted with the
fool, the wicked man, the ungodly, and the
transgressor. St. John states that the man
who — instead of believing the testimony of the
Father and the Son, and setting his seal to the
acknowledgment that God is true (John iii.
33, R.V.) — denies that Jesus is the Christ, or
Messiah predicted by the Prophets, places him
self in the ranks of those that fight against
God, as "the liar," or "the Antichrist."

In other places of the New Testament
mention is made of " the spirit of the world "
(Cor. ii. 12), the spirit of cowardice (2 Tim. i.
7), and the spirit of error (1 John iv. 6). Simi
larly St. John speaks of the "spirit of the
antichrist" — of which the prophets had pre
dicted before that it was to come, and which
the Apostle was inspired then to announce was
"in the world already." For St. John was
constrained to testify that " even now " in
Messianic days, there have arisen "many anti
christs : whereby we know that it is the last
time."

The fact, however, must not be lost sight of
that St. John in speaking of " the antichrist"
refers to earlier prophecies. While the antici
pations of the Prophets of Israel concerning
the Messianic age were generally of a bright
character, there were not a few indications
given by some of them that there would be
much darkness intermingled with the light
that should then eradiate the world.

The prophet who spake most clearly of the

ANTICHRIST

ANTICHRIST

days of Messiah as days of storm and conflict
was Daniel. In his exposition of Nebuchad
nezzar's dream the four empires are [depicted
which were to last until the times of the
restitution of all things. In that remarkable
picture the Kingdom of Messiah was repre
sented as a stone cut out of the mountain
quarry without human interposition. In the
days of the fourth kingdom that stone was to
smite the metallic image upon its feet of iron
and clay, break it into pieces and become a
mountain, which would fill the whole earth.
No indication, however, is given in Daniel's
prophecy of any long struggle between the
kingdom of darkness, and the kingdom of light.
Had his prophecies stood alone one might
suppose that there would be one tremendous
collision and the power of evil would be broken
and crushed for ever.

In a later vision new details are given (Dan.
vii.). The same four kingdoms are represented
under the figure of four wild beasts which
came up, one after the other, from the waters
of the Mediterranean Sea. Those four world-
powers are noticed because they were sever
ally brought into contact with the ancient
people of Jehovah, and trode it under foot
"upon the mountains of Israel."

By God's sovereign decisions one after the
other of those world-powers were cast down.
The dominion of the three first wild beasts
was taken away on account of their abuse of
power. Their lives, or their existences, how
ever, as subjugated nations, were prolonged for
a season and a time (Dan. vii. 12). Zechariah
throws light upon the statement of Daniel.
The former saw in vision four horns belong
ing to some wild animals scattering Judah,
Israel, and Jerusalem. And while he contem
plated the ruin the horns were causing, he
saw four "smiths" (R.V.) raised up by God to
check the ravages of those wild animals. The
smiths cut off the horns of the animals, and
thus rendered them powerless for evil, though
their lives were still preserved.

When Daniel in vision beheld the fourth
wild beast coming up from the western sea,
about in turn to extend his dominion over the
lands of the rising sun, he saw " one like unto
a son of man," that is, one in human form,
coming in the clouds of heaven, who as he
came before the throne set in heaven, upon
which the Ancient of Days was sitting, was
brought near amid acclamations and rejoicings.
To him was accorded power and dominion
over all, although for a while he was to
"rule in the midst of his enemies." In Ps. ex.
where the phrase just quoted occurs, Messiah
is represented under two distinct characters :
(1) as the priest-king like Melchizedek sitting
on the throne at the right hand of Jehovah,

and (2) as the champion warrior toiling in the
conflict below, and refreshing himself, like
Samson of old when wearied in battle, by
drinking of the brook in the way. The picture
presented in Dan. vii. is somewhat similar to
that in Rev. xii., where also under two aspects
Messiah is pictured, first as a child just born,
and saved from the great red dragon ; then,
under another character, as Michael the warrior-
prince, putting to flight the great dragon and
his army. In the vision of Daniel Messiah is
not represented as personally engaged in the
battle. The enemy of the Lord's Christ was,
however, there seen making war with the
saints and overcoming them, until the Ancient
of Days came, and the time arrived that the
saints possessed the kingdom.

We cannot here discuss the interpretation of
that prophecy of Daniel. All we want to call
attention to is that the saints are represented
in it as engaged in a bitter struggle during the
Messianic age. In all ages the Lord's people
have been, and are to be, "a poor and afflicted
people." Hence with true spiritual intuition
St. John perceived that Daniel's prophecy was
being fulfilled before his very eyes. He ac
cordingly designated the false teachers who
then manifested themselves as "the Antichrist."
Those false apostles were the vanguard of the
vast army of deceivers, liars, and Antichrists,
who by force or fraud, even up to the time
of the Second Advent, are to be persistent
in efforts "to withstand the truth; men cor
rupted in mind, reprobate concerning the
faith " (2 Tim. iii. 8).

We can only glance at the particular form
or error to which the Apostle John specially
alludes. The Church of Christ had to contend
in that day on the one hand, against attempts
on the part of Judaisers to place the Gentiles
under the bondage of the Mosaic Law, and
against the encroachments of Greek philosophy.
The Greeks were not altogether unwilling to
accept new light, and were somewhat disposed
to welcome Christ as a teacher, and Christianity
as a new power in the world. They were ready
to admit that God might appear among men in
the likeness of man. But that the Word should
"become flesh" (John i. 14), and "being found
in fashion as a man, humble himself" (Phil.
ii. 8), even to "the death of the cross" was
opposed to all their ideas. Hence some of
them maintained that on the cross of Calvary
some person was substituted in place of Christ.
Others regarded the crucifixion as a mere
illusion ; and some imagined that the Divinity
which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus was with
drawn from Him on the cross. Greek philo
sophy could not conceive it possible that (
who was both God and man could die ; and
hence men trained up in that philosophy deni

ANTICHRIST

[ 28]

ANTICHRIST

that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. All
such teaching was contrary to " the truth as it
is in Christ Jesus." The apostle John in the
opening of both his Gospel and First Epistle
emphatically proclaimed the Divinity of the
Redeemer. With equal emphasis he asserted
the reality of Christ's incarnation, for the union
of the Divine and human in one Person is a
fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

The Church had, however, to fight for
centuries a hard battle on the question of the
Person of Christ, because men were unwilling
to accept Christianity as taught by those who
"from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word." Their minds were pre
occupied with the ideas which they had learned
under other masters (2 Cor. iv. 4, R.V.).
The Greek, by conclusions drawn by "the
wisdom of the world," was led to transform
"the Christ of the Gospels" into a being in
harmony with his philosophy.

As men were led to reject the Christ of the
Prophets and of the Gospels and to invent a
Messiah of their own devising, so it was with
regard to Antichrist. They first conveniently
ignored the fact that St. John had applied the
term "the Antichrist" to the false teachers of
the time in which he lived, although early
Fathers like Cyprian, &c., often employed the
term as applicable to all opponents of the
Gospel. "The spirit of truth" given to the
people of God was to "guide them into all
truth " (John xvi. 13), and they had an anoint
ing from the Holy One whereby they might
know all things (1 John ii. 27) concerning truth
and godliness. But there was also another
spirit, the " spirit of error" ready to lead aside
the unwary, If Christ was with His people,
Antichrist was with them also.

Fantastic notions, introduced by good men,
concerning an imaginary Antichrist by degrees
became popular. The Antichrist was incor
rectly identified with St. Paul's " man of sin
(2 Thess. ii. 1-8). "The Antichrist" spoken
of by St. John was a collective term for the
false teachers of that apostle's time, and the
name was applicable to false teachers of a
later age. See MAN OF SIN.

Early Christian writers preserved for a con
siderable time the correct sense of St. Paul's
prophecy, and interpreted it of an apostasy in
the visible Church. Tertullian (who died A.D.
220) says: "We (Christians) are temples of
God, and altars and lights, and sacred vessels "
(De Corona, cap. 9.) Hilary of Poictiers (who
died A.D. 366) protests against the false inter
pretation which was then coming in, and says :
"Because of that Antichrist ye do wrong to
attach importance to the walls of temples, or
to regard a building as the Church of God.
Is then (he asks) it doubtful that Antichrist

may not establish his throne there?" Theo-
doret (who died A.D. 457) says: "The Apostle
calls the Churches the temple of God in which
endeavouring to show himself as God he (the
man of sin) shall seize the pre-eminence."

We cannot here discuss St. Paul's prediction.
We may safely, however, draw the following
conclusions: (1) St. Paul's "Man of Sin" is
not to be identified with St. John's Antichrist ;
and (2) that St. Paul like St. John speaks of
an apostasy within the professing Church of
Christ.

" The Antichrist " was thus detected by St.
John within the Church of his day ; while the
"man of sin" was not to usurp authority over
the Church until the Roman Empire was broken
up into separate kingdoms.

It should be remembered that men in all ages
have likened their enemies to wild and ravenous
animals. Such comparisons may, perhaps, be
traced back to the days when men had every
where to contend in deadly contest with the
wild beasts of the earth. In the Old Testa
ment Scriptures those comparisons abound;
nor are they wholly absent from the New
Testament writings, in which Satan is compared
to a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ;
and Christ is described as the Lion of the tribe
of Judah.

Victories over hostile nations were often re
presented by the ancient Assyrians and Baby
lonians under the figures of such symbolical
contests. The idea can be traced in the earliest
Hebrew Scriptures, but it is common in the
book of Daniel. It was quite natural that
Daniel's writings should exhibit traces of the
allegorical pictures sculptured in stone in the
palaces and temples of the great city of
Babylon.

The student of folk-lore and the investigator
of comparative religion may be justified in
tracing the Babylonian dragon-myth back to
the early times of mankind, and of their
struggles with huge monsters. Those struggles,
handed down by tradition and magnified by
frequent recital, may after centuries have
formed the basis for allegories. But that
possibility does not justify the attempt now
being made to dissolve into mythical legends
prophecies constructed on ideas drawn from
such common events of human history. In John
Bunyan's allegories ordinary incidents, as fall
ing into a quagmire, being attacked by a dog,
robbed on a highway, eating of forbidden apples,
ascending a steep mountain, falling asleep in an
arbour, are related alike side by side with super
natural events such as combats with Apollyon,
fights with giants, and battles with a seven-
headed monster. Bunyan's pictures are not to
be traced back and explained as legends of con
tests in pre-historic ages, but, as is well known,

ANTICHRIST

APOCRYPHA

represent spiritual experiences and spiritual
struggles.

We ought then to be on our guard against
permitting the modern sceptic who enters upon
the path of Biblical exposition to unite pas
sages which, when honestly interpreted, are
not to be united; or, by what he chooses to
term a " felicitous combination," resolving into
fable the prophecies of Scripture.

An able German Professor well observes :
" The temptation to yield to fancy flights is all
but irresistible." His own work is, however, a
striking example of the truth of the saying.1
He endeavours to show that the prophecies
concerning Antichrist are simply "a legend,"
"a chapter in Christian and Jewish folk-lore,"
an " anthropomorphic transformation of the
Babylonian dragon-myth," which is " doubtless
one of the earliest known to primitive man."
The author constructs his imaginary " legend"
by weaving together passages which have
no connection with one another. From the
Futurists he borrows the misinterpretation that
St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, was
thinking of the unbelieving Jews and of Anti
christ as seated in their material temple. He
affirms that of this " there can scarcely be any
doubt" (p. 133), and that our Lord's words in
John v. 43 refer to Antichrist. Both state
ments we regard as fanciful. With equal
dogmatism he erroneously identifies the Anti
christ with the "abomination of desolation,"
which our Lord refers to in the prophecy on
the Mount of Olives. The Babylonians in their
story represented the dragon as warring against
the gods. The writer therefore argues that St.
John in Rev. xii. repeats that legend. In St.
Luke's Gospel we read that when the seventy
disciples told their Lord the success which
they had experienced in their mission, the
Master exclaimed, " I beheld Satan as lightning
fall from heaven" (Luke x. 18). Those words
of Christ are similarly explained to refer back to
the old legend. The grotesque fancies of some
of the Fathers that the tyrant Nero would be
raised from the dead to war a second time
against the saints of God, that Satan would
become incarnate in the person of a man, are
all adduced as interesting fragments of the
same story.

The misinterpretations of passages in Daniel
in Professor Bousset's work are as numerous as
" the poisonous flies," which according to the

1 The A ntichrist Legend. A Chapter in Christian
and Jewish Folk-lore. Englished from the German
of W. Bousset, with a prologue on the Babylonian
dragon-myth, by A. H. Keane, F.R.G.S., late Vice-
President Anthropological Institute, author o:
Ethnology, &c. London: Hutchinsou & Co., 3^
Paternoster Row ; 1896.

wise man make the oil of the perfumer to
stink and ferment (Eccl. x. 1). His cari
catures of the book of the Revelation are
painful reading. The solemn parables and
discourses of Christ in Matt. xxv. 15 ff., are,
without a scintilla of evidence, supposed to be
fragments of some lost Apocalypse of the Anti
christ (p. 214). If the Master's words are
thus misrepresented, it is not strange that the
Apostles' writings are subjected to similar treat
ment. [C. H. H. W.]
ANTIMENSIUM. — A Grecised Latin word
meaning a pro-table or pro-altar. The upper
cloth placed upon the Holy Table in the Greek
Church, specially consecrated by the bishop.
In this cloth a relic is generally inserted in
order to recall the fact that the Christians
were wont in early days to hold Divine Service
at the graves of the martyrs.
ANTIPHON. — A hymn or song one part of
which is a response to another. Antiphonal
singing is alternate singing, i.e. first by the
voices of one side of the choir and then by
those of the other. It is of very great anti
quity, since Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, de
scribes the early Christians as singing a hymn
by parts or in turns to Christ as God. An
antiphon is a verse generally of Holy Scripture,
which was sung in the Middle Ages before
and after the Psalms and Canticles, and, like
the Invitatory, gave the keynote to the Psalm.
See Wheatley, On the Prayer Book, p. 158. See
ANTHEM.

APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. — The designation Apocrypha (con
cealed, or hidden) is the title under which
"the other books" mentioned in Article VI.
of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of
England are generally known. It is often
forgotten that three of those books, namely,
the "Prayer of Manasseh" (Manasses), with
"Third" and "Fourth" Esdras, were not re
garded as canonical by the Council of Trent,
although they were appended to the Latin
Vulgate in order to prevent their being lost,
which was considered undesirable, because
they are often cited in the writings of the
Fathers. Those three books are, therefore,
not included in the Roman Catholic accredited
English Translation of the Bible, popularly
termed the Douay Version.

Several books in the list given in Article
VI. are not found under the same titles in the
Greek (LXX.), Vulgate, or Douay Versions.
For (1) "the Rest of the Book of Esther" con
sists of portions which in those Versions are
appended to different chapters. These por
tions, disconnected enough in their original
shape, are still further damaged in the Eng
lish Apocrypha by being severed from their
connection and placed together. Those ad-

APOCRYPHA

[30]

APOCRYPHA

ditions are, indeed, later than the canonical
Esther, and are marked by a highly religious
tone. (2) The three small books in the English
Apocrypha, severally designated as the Song
of the Three Children, the Story of Susanna,
and Of Bel and, the Dragon, are similarly
additions to the Book of Daniel, and in the
Greek, Latin, and Douay Versions are to be
found in various parts of that book.

Following the order of these books given
in Article VI. we proceed to give a brief sketch
of them. Not one of them belongs to an age
higher than B.C. 150. Not one of them was
ever included in the threefold division of the
Jewish Scriptures referred to by our Lord in
Luke xxiv. 44. They are never quoted in the
New Testament, and were never recognised
by the Jews as inspired books. Most of
them were included in the old Greek Septua-
gint Version. They were generally derived
from Egypt, in which country the Jews were
not so strict as those living in Palestine. The
Egyptian Jews had a Temple of their own,
in which sacrifices were offered contrary to
the Law of Moses, and which was served by a
rival High Priest and priesthood. When the
Christian Church lost contact with the Jews,
the knowledge of Hebrew became rare, and
hence many of the Fathers believed that all
the books included in the Greek Septuagint
Version belonged to the Sacred Scriptures.
Our Reformers, however, soon returned to the
faith of the Primitive Church, and refused to
acknowledge any Old Testament books not
recognised by Christ and His Apostles.

" Third " Esdras (called " First " in the LXX.
and Syriac and by A.V., but called " Third " in
the Vulgate) is probably a production of the
century before Christ. It is partly compiled
from the canonical Ezra, termed in the LXX.
"Second Esdras," is apparently an unfinished
work, and was known to Josephus. The earli
est form in which it has come down to us
is the Greek, in the LXX. Version. Both
author and exact date are unknown.

"Fourth " Esdras, styled in the A. V. and R. V.
"Second" Esdras, is a composite work, probably
belonging to the first century after Christ,
but possibly founded upon earlier writings.
It is sometimes termed the Apocalypse of Ezra.
Its original language appears to have been
Greek, but the work is now extant only in
translations, the earliest of which is the Latin.
There are also translations in Syriac, Arabic,
&c. Some sixty-nine verses belonging to chap
ter vii., and not found in the authorised Vulgate
editions, were discovered by Professor Bensly
of Cambridge, in 1875, in a ninth-century MS.
at Amiens, and since that time in other MSS.
also. The page which contained those verses
was deliberately cut out of the Latin MS. from

which the majority of Latin MSS. in Europe
were copied, no doubt owing to the fact that
the doctrine taught in those verses concerning
the state of the dead was opposed to that
of the Roman Church. The verses are not
to be found in the Authorised English Transla
tion of the Apocrypha, but are duly given in
the Revised Version of the Apocrypha.

Fourth Esdras is a work of considerable
importance, written originally by a Jew, al
though it contains not a few interpolation-,
some of which seem to have had a Christian
origin. The book was regarded as a genuine
book of prophecy even by the writer of the
Epistle of Barnabas (ch. xii. 2), who does not
seem to have been acquainted with Hebrew.
The main portion of the work, which consists
of seven visions alleged to have been seen by
Ezra in Babylon, is to some extent modelled
on the Book of Daniel.

The Boole of Tobit is probably a composition
of the century prior to the Christian era and
may even be older. It is extant in Greek,
Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic. None of the
extant versions appear to be the original. It
is uncertain where the book was composed.
It contains a romance, possibly resting on some
historical basis, the angelology and demon-
ology of which is interesting, and which occa
sionally contains valuable information. Owing
to its teaching concerning justification by
works, and its assertion of the intercession
of angels, it is a book much valued by Roman
controversialists. Its ethical teachings have
given it also considerable popularity. It is
never referred to in the New Testament.

The Book of Judith may be as old as B.C. 135,
but by many scholars is assigned to B.C. 50.
The story it contains of Holofernes, chief
captain of Nebuchadnezzar, his siege of
Bethulia, and his assassination by Judith, a
noble Jewish widow, is unhistorical, and may
be a historical fiction composed with a moral
object. It has been maintained by some
scholars that the work is to some degree of
an allegorical character (partially founded on
some facts of history), even though the allegory
is not sustained throughout ; and this is the view
we are inclined to adopt, though it is not the
view generally accepted by scholars. The vivid
character of the story and the earnest religious
tone of the work has rendered it popular
throughout many ages. The original of the
book was probably Hebrew or Aramaic, though
it has come down to us only through the Greek
version contained in the Septuagint Version.

The Book of Wisdom was written at some
time between B.C. 150 and B.C. 50. Its author
was an Egyptian Jew, and it was written
originally in Greek. The writer assumed the
name of Solomon, partly to counteract false

APOCRYPHA

[31 ]

APOCRYPHA

teaching ascribed to that king. The book
describes the influence and power of wisdom
in the history of man. Although the patriarchs
and leading characters of the Old Testament
are noticed, no proper name occurs in the
book. Their works are spoken of as those of
the righteous. The general teachings of the
book concerning the life to come are excellent.
It teaches the immortality of the soul, but
does not mention the resurrection, nor speak of
the Messiah. Many passages are remarkable
for their beauty and force of expression.

The Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ben
Sira, is more popularly known as the Book of
Ecclesiasticus, and was so termed because it was
widely used as an ecclesiastical reading book.
It is also termed the Wisdom of Jesus the
Son of Sirach. Its original language was
Hebrew or Aramaic. Fragments of the book
in both languages are found embedded in
the Talmud. Large portions of it in Hebrew
have been lately discovered, but whether they
belong to a Hebrew translation of the tenth
century, or are remains (in a more or less
mutilated form) of the original Hebrew, is a
matter at present under the serious discussion
of eminent scholars. The Greek translation of
the book was preserved in the LXX. Ancient
translations are extant in Greek, Latin, and
Syriac. The Greek text has been translated into
English in the Authorised Version and the Re
vised Version. The Greek translation professes
to have been made by the author's grandson
in Egypt, and cannot have been later than B.C.
132. Consequently the original work cannot
be assigned to a later period than B.C. 170.
Scholars, however, have maintained that those
dates ought to be fifty years earlier. The book
contains a remarkable collection of sententious
proverbs, closing with a section in praise of
the great men of Israel, followed by a short
epilogue with a final chapter containing a
prayer of Jesus the son of Sirach.

The Book of Baruch the Prophet is formed
of three distinct parts written by different
authors, (a) Ch. i. to iii. 8 professes to have
been written by Baruch in Babylon after the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
That portion may have been originally written
in Hebrew or Aramaic. The prayer it contains
was evidently based on Daniel ix. 7 ff. (b) Ch.
iii. 9 to the end of ch. v. is an exhortation to
Israel to return to God. It contains some fine
passages, especially that in ch. iii. which several
of the Fathers considered to be a prophecy of
Christ. Whether its original language was
Hebrew or Greek is much disputed, (c) The
so-called Epistle of Jeremiah or Jeremy given in
ch. vi. is a pungent description of the folly of
idolatry. This part of the book was written in
Greek, and probably composed by some Hellen

istic Jew in the first century after Christ. This
third part in the Greek Septuagint is regarded
as a separate book, and is placed after the Book
of Lamentations. The present arrangement of
that chapter as the closing portion of the book
is derived from the Latin Vulgate.

The three additions made in the Apocrypha
to the Book of Daniel are of no historical
value. The Prayer of Manasseh is also un-
historical, and is not regarded as canonical by
the Church of Rome. It is extant in Greek
and Latin, the former being possibly its original
language.

The First Book of the Maccabees is a work of
great value, containing a history of the Jews
in Fabstine for forty years, from B.C. 175 to
B.C. 135, during the great Maccabean struggle.
It was probably written about B.C. 105. Its
original language was Hebrew, as Origen and
Jerome testify, but it is extant only in
Greek.

The Second Book of the Maccabees is much in
ferior to the first. It is divisible into two
distinct parts, (a) The first contains two
fictitious documents, one (ch. i. 1-10) purport
ing to be a letter from the Palestinian Jews to
their brethren in Egypt concerning the Feast of
the Dedication ; the second (ch. i. 11-ch. ii. 18)
is an epistle which gives a portentous account
of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. (b) The
second part (ch. ii. 19 to the end of the
book), in the Revised Version rightly divided
off from the former by a considerable space,
professes to be an epitome of a lost work
by Jason of Cyrene. This portion contains
the history of sixteen years from B.C. 176
to B.C. 160. It is the work of an Egyptian
Jew, and was originally composed in Greek
some time in the first century before Christ.
The story of the martyrdoms related in
ch. vii. made the work popular among the
Christians of the early ages ; and the approba
tion of prayers for the dead expressed in ch.
xii. has rendered the book popular among
Roman Catholic controversialists. But it is,
however, more than doubtful whether the
narrative in the latter chapter has been cor
rectly explained. See Dr. Wright's book on
the Intermediate State, ch. ii. § 3.

The above-mentioned books are popularly
"the Apocrypha." There are, however, a con
siderable number of other books which might
fairly be for the most part comprehended
under the same heading, though usually known
as Pseud-epigraphal — that is, books falsely
ascribed to the persons whose names they
bear. Many of them have been described
in Dr. Wright's work. The following may be
mentioned : — (1) Third Book of the Maccabees,
which is not a history of the Maccabees, but
of a professedly earlier attempt to destroy

APOCRYPHA

[32]

APOCRYPHA

the Jewish nation in the days of Ptolemy
Philopator (B.C. 221-204). The book can
scarcely be regarded as historical. It is in
Greek, and is included in several editions of
the Septuagint. It was composed at some time
prior to A.D. 70. (2) The Fourth Book of the
Maccabees was written in Greek about the same
period, and like it is included in several
editions of the Septuagint. It praises Jewish
martyrs, and gives another narrative of the
martyrdoms recorded in 2 Mace. vii.

(3) The Book of Enoch is a still more import
ant work. It is composed of fragments, some
large and some smaller, belonging to differ
ent ages. The most important parts of this
work are : — Section i., which comprises some
thirty-six chapters, and was written not later
than B.C. 170. This portion contains the
prophecy of Enoch quoted by St. Jude (vv. 14,
15). Section ii. extends from ch. xxxvi-lxxi,
and is assigned to B.C. 94-79 or B.C. 70-64^
This part is specially interesting because of
its angelology and demonology. Section iii. i
of ten chapters, and is termed the Book of
Celestial P/iysics. Its date is unknown. Section
iv. embraces seven chapters of Dream- Visions
written before A.D. 64. Section v. embrace
some thirteen chapters written before B.C. 94.
The book was long supposed to have been lost,
but was discovered in an Ethiopic Version in
Abyssinia by the traveller Bruce in 1773.
Fragments have since been discovered of the
Greek and Latin Versions. The original lan
guage was probably Hebrew or Aramaic. The
best English translation, with critical notes and
commentary, was published in 1893 by Rev.
Prof. R, H.Charles.

(4) The Psalter of Solomon, or the Psalms of
the Pharisees, containing eighteen Psalms, is
extant only in Greek, but probably was origin
ally in Hebrew. These Psalms were composed
not later than B.C. 40, and may belong even to
a much earlier period. They express the belief
in a coming Messiah. (5) The Books of the
Sibyllines, extant only in Greek, contains many
Jewish portions, with some passages of Christian
origin. Their dates are wholly uncertain. (6)
The Book of the Ascension of Isaiah in its present
form is a composite work which was put to
gether in the second century after Christ. It
was, however, based on older works. Professor
Charles has also published an English edition
with valuable commentary and introduction,
but which needs to be read with caution.
(7) The Assumption of Moses is extant only
in an incomplete Latin version. Fragments
are to be found in Greek but the work
was probably originally in Hebrew. It is
supposed to have been written between B.C. 7
and A.D. 30. The best edition, with an English
translation, is that of Rev. Professor Charles.

(8) The Apocalypse of Baruch was originally
in Hebrew, but the original has been lost,
and also the Greek translation. There is, how
ever, a Syriac translation made from the Greek.
The work is of some interest, and has been
edited with an English translation by Charles.

(9) There is also an important Christian work,
The Rest of the Words of Baruch, a Christian
Apocalypse of the year A.D. 136, which has been
edited in Greek, with English translation of
part, by Professor J. Rendal Harris, 1889.
(10) The Testament of Job is based on the Book
of Job, and is an Essenic book, probably much
older than the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus. (11) The Book of the Jubilees, or the
Little, Genesis, was known to the early Fathers.
Professor Charles, who has published the
Ethiopic text (1895), and an English transla
tion with notes (1902), considers the book
written prior to B.C. 105. Fragments are
extant in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin.
The book gives the narratives of Genesis and
the opening chapters of Exodus with some
additions and strange omissions. (12) The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a curious
book, extant in Greek and Aramaic, which
has been edited by Dr. Sinker (1869, 1879)
and translated into English by him in Clark's
Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xxii. (13) The Greek
Epistle of Aristeas which gives the story of the
LXX. version (partly perhaps historical) is pos
sibly as old as B.C. 96, and is translated into
German in the second vol. of Kautzsch's great
collection (1900). [C. H. H. \V.]

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. -Under this heading it is
convenient to group a number of writings,
written some of them with the view of sup
plementing the New Testament history; and
other works not composed with that special
object, but pretending to be the writings of
Apostolic men. These may be classified under
the sub-divisions of Gospels, Acts, and Apoca
lypses.

1. Gospels.— These are from a historical
standpoint of no importance, and they are
acknowledged by all scholars to be transparent
forgeries. They are useful, however, to have
for comparison with the genuine gospels, and
in tracing the growth of legends. Some of
them go back possibly to the second century,
and show how the corruption of Christianity
began. The larger portion of these works will
be found translated into English in the volume
of Clark's Ante-Nicene Library entitled TJie
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. The
account given in Hone's Apocryphal New
Testament is antiquated and unreliable. The
Protevangelium of James describes the history
of the Virgin and of the birth of Christ. The
Gospel of the Pseudo- Matthew goes partly over

APOCRYPHA

[33]

APOSTLE

the same ground, and describes the infancy and
boyhood of Jesus. The Gospel of the Nativity of
Mary, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the
Gospel of Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel of the
Saviour's Infancy, all write on the same theme.
These gospels contradict St. John's teaching
(ii. 11 ; iv. 54), by stating that a number of
prodigies were performed by Christ in His
infancy and boyhood. The character of Jesus
as a boy is in them pictured as that of a self-
willed and passionate wonder-worker. The real
growth of the humanity of Christ as described
in Luke's Gospel (ch. ii. 52) is wholly ignored.
The newly-discovered Gospel of Peter exhibits
marked traces of that Docetism which denied
the true humanity of Christ. The Gospel of
Nicodemus professes to give an account of what
occurred in the other world between Christ's
death and resurrection. There are numerous
fabulous stories about Pontius Pilate contained
in documents bearing his name.

2. Acts and Apocalypses. — These are somewhat
better than the Gospels, but are all fictitious.
The best is that of the Acts of Paul and Thecla —
a very ancient romance. The Acts of Peter and
Paul contain the legends connected with the
closing scenes of those apostles. The Acts of
Barnabas, Philip, Andrew, Thomas, and other
apostles, are all late and legendary. The Acts
of John, published by Dr. James in the Cam
bridge Texts and Studies, is strongly Docetic
and denies the reality of Christ's death, which
is represented as having been a delusive ap
pearance. It is not necessary to give a full list
of these works. The number of Apocalypses
is very numerous. Some have been mentioned
in the article on the APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT. The fragment of the Apocalypse
of Peter recently discovered is interesting from
its description of hell and paradise.

3. The fragment of papyrus containing eight
Sayings of our Lord, now commonly known as
the Logia, discovered very recently, is older
than any other document mentioned above,
and has some claim to be acknowledged as
partly independent of our well-known gospels.
The Sayings are of a different stamp and im
portance, but may perhaps conveniently be
mentioned under this heading. [C. H. H. W.]

APOLLINARIANISM.— Apollinarianism de
rived its name from Apollinaris, Bishop of
Laodicea, who died A.D. 390. In his zeal to
uphold the Divinity of Christ, the Unity of
His person, and the Sinlessness of His char
acter, Apollinaris fell into the denial of the
perfect human nature of our Lord. He taught
that man's nature was divided into body,
Animal Soul, (^xt) and Rational Soul or
Reason (coCj), and affirmed that there was no
Rational Soul in Christ, its place being supplied
in Him by the Divine Logos. Apollinaris

believed it was impossible that a complete
human nature could be united with a perfectly
Divine nature in one person. He conceived
that the Rational Soul owing to its necessarily
possessing freewill has a tendency to evil.
According to his doctrine the Rational Soul
dominates the Animal Soul and through it
the Body, and thus leads both these parts of
man's nature into sin. Hence he regarded it
as impossible that Christ could have taken upon
Him that part of man's nature, otherwise His
sinlessness might have been destroyed. The
Divine Logos which according to his view took
the place of the Rational Soul was able to con
trol the sinful tendencies of the Animal Soul.

Apollinaris was a learned and pious man, and
the author of several books. Athanasius held
him in high esteem — His heresy was condemned
at the second general Council, which was held
at Constantinople, in the year A.D. 381, which
affirmed both the perfect humanity and the
perfect Divinity of Jesus. [E. A. W.]

APOLOGY OF BISHOP JEWEL.— This
work, published originally in Latin in 1562 by
Bishop Jewel of Salisbury, and translated into
English by Lady Bacon (mother of Lord Bacon)
in 1564, may almost be regarded as one of the
authorised books of the Church of England.
It is referred to in Canon 30 of the Canons
of 1603, and Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I.
commanded a copy of "Bishop Jewel's works
in defence of the Church of England to be
had in all Churches." See Bishop Cosin's
Works, iv. 508.

APOSTASY.— The renunciation of the Chris
tian religion formerly punishable by civil
penalties by the law of England. It can still
be punished by excommunication.
APOSTLE. — The word a.Tr6ffTo\os in Greek, and
its equivalent n^K> iu Hebrew, means simply
a messenger. The term is found in the LXX.
Version, and in the translation of Aquila, to
designate the prophet Ahijah in 2 Kings xiv.
6, and by Symmachus also in his translation
of Isaiah xviii. 2. The Hebrew term was used
to denote any delegate of authority, and
specially after the destruction of Jerusalem for
persons deputed to collect the dues paid by "the
dispersed " to the Jewish Patriarch in Palestine
(see Schurer, Gesch. des Judischen Volkes, ii. 532,
548). The title is not restricted in the New
Testament to the Twelve. Barnabas was an
apostle (Acts xiv. 14). St. Paul speaks of "all
the apostles " in 1 Cor. xv. 8, and as the
mention of " the twelve " in verse 5 proves, the
latter body was larger, and probably even in
cluded James the Lord's brother. " Apostles of
the churches " are mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 23.
False apostles are referred to in 2 Cor. xi. 13,
14, and in Rev. ii. 2. This shows that the
statement is mythical that out of respect for

APOSTLE

APOSTOLIC FATHERS

the twelve Apostles nominated by our Lord those
who succeeded later to their office and ministry
assumed the lower title of " bishops," overseers,
which was originally identical with "presby
ters." The discovery of the long-lost book
known as the Didachthas proved that "apostle"
was in common use in the sub-apostolic age
to designate what we would term itinerating
missionaries. The itinerants spoken of in the
Didache were not "lords over God's heritage,"
but some of those who aspired to that position
were " not examples to the flock," and the
Church had to be put on her guard against
such who said they were apostles and were not
(Rev. ii. 2). The Twelve held no doubt a pre
eminent position in the early Church as having
been chosen by Christ as His companions in
trials (Luke xxii. 28-30). They were also
special witnesses of His resurrection (Acts i. 22).
So no doubt were many others (1 Cor. xv. 6-8),
but in the case of the first Apostles this was
regarded as a necessary qualification. But the
powers delegated to them, and the signs wrought
by them under the power of the Holy Spirit, can
scarcely be proved to have been greater than
were exhibited by the great prophets of Israel.
Matthias, who was by lot selected to fill the gap
left by the apostasy of Judas, is never after
wards mentioned, and the far greater number
of the Twelve do not seem to have greatly dis
tinguished themselves in the apostolic age.
The legendary account of their work and
miracles transcends indeed all ascribed to the
greatest wonder-workers in the New Testa
ment, just as the miracles of St. Patrick ascribed
to him by legend-mongers of later age far
transcend all the miracles wrought by Moses,
or by Christ Himself. St. Paul was specially
delegated by Christ when He appeared to him
as an apostle, and in mighty deeds, signs, and in
trials and sufferings for Christ excelled all the
apostles that were before him.

Not one of the preceding remarks must be so
construed as if it were intended to deny the fact
that the Twelve occupied a pre-eminent position
in the Christian Church. Their position of pre
eminence was, however, quite undefined. The
Twelve Apostles had no " successors " in the
mediaeval sense of that term. The "powers"
for- the office were imparted as the Holy Spirit
vouchsafed to bestow. The office of apostle
was not like that of the patriarchs or bishops
in the later Church, one chiefly of rule, or an
office necessarily possessing the power of con
ferring grace. The circumstances recorded in
Acts viii. 15-18 were altogether peculiar, and
the Holy Ghost was imparted only in con
sequence of the prayer that preceded. St.
Paul's statement in 1 Cor. xii. 7-13 ought
carefully to be noted. The office of apostle
belonged to the Twelve because they were

appointed by Christ Himself. But James the
Lord's brother and Barnabas soon occupied a
very similar position. St. Paul, who was not
inferior to any of the Twelve, and who, on ac
count of the peculiar character of the work
performed by him, stood on the same level as
St. Peter (Gal. ii. 7-10), had an able helper in
the person of Barnabas spoken of also as an
apostle. St. Paul indeed speaks of the apostle-
ship as something peculiar in its character and
authority, and claims that he had been endowed
with its full powers (see 1 Cor. ix., &c.). But
when we remember the powers of insight im
parted to the prophet Ahijah (1 Kings xiv. 5,
6), to Elisha (2 Kings v. 25 ff.), the wonders
performed by both Elijah and Elisha and other
of the prophets of Israel, it is strange that
those facts of Old Testament history are so
often left out of sight when discussion turns
upon the position and authority of the Apostles.
God raises up men as He chooses, and a man
in an inferior official position like Ezra was
made the second Lawgiver over Israel and its
Church. [C. H. H. W.]

APOSTOLIC FATHERS.— Under this head
are generally grouped the following Patristic
writings : — 1. The Epistle of Barnabas (sometimes
classed among New Testament Apocrypha),
which is a writing probably of the first cen
tury, though not by Barnabas the fellow-
traveller with St. Paul. The writer does not
seem to have been acquainted with Hebrew,
and makes serious mistakes respecting the
ritual of the Day of Atonement. Sometimes
he exhibits a mystical tendency, and spiritua
lises too much, but his theology is on the
whole evangelical. Though he speaks much of
baptism, he never refers to the Lord's Supper.

2. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians now
completed by Archbishop Bryennius' discovery
in 1875, is a very important letter from the
Church of Rome to that of Corinth, in which
only presbyters and deacons are mentioned.
The letter is on the whole highly evangelical.

3. The so-called Second Letter of Clement to the
Corinthians is now proved to be part of an
ancient Homily, and has no real claim to be
classed among the Apostolic Fathers. It may be
older, however, than A.D. 200. 4. The Epistles
of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was
martyred between A.D. 100 and 118. These
seven letters exist in a larger and shorter
form, the former much interpolated. Ignatius
is the first writer who speaks of "the Catho
lic Church" (Smyrn. viii.). His language is
often extravagant, his burning anxiety was to
uphold the unity of the Church ; hence his
struggle for episcopacy. He earnestly opposed
the Docetic heresies. The language of Igna
tius is often highly allegorical. There are
extant also some nine confessedly spurious

APOSTOLIC FATHERS

[35]

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

letters. 5. The Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of
Smyrna, martyred between A.D. 155 and 160.

6. The Epistle to Dioynetus which used to be
ascribed to Justin Martyr (A.D. 114-165), but
is now generally thought to be older. The
letter is a gem of early writing, which gives
an account of the manners of the early Chris
tians and of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

7. The Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas, a writing
in three books — (a) Visions, (b) Commandments,
and (c) Similitudes. The work is allegorical,
somewhat ascetic in its tendency; it holds
extreme views about baptism, even teaching
the administration of that rite beyond the
grave (Sim. ix. 6), but it never alludes to
the Lord's Supper. Its date is not certain,
although it is referred to by writers as early as
Irenasus and Clement of Alexandria. 8. Frag
ments of Papias, a hearer of St. John, are pre
served in the writings of Irenasus and Eusebius.
Papias is most unreliable. The saying of the
Lord found in Papias about the future fertility
of the earth is apocryphal, and is found in the
Apocalypse of Baruch which is probably of the
first century after Christ, and in that book
(xxix. 5) in such a manner as to prove that
the idea is far earlier. See Professor Charles'
Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. 54, 55. Papias'
account of the death of Judas contradicts that
in the Gospels and Acts.

Modern discoveries have presented us with
other writings which are genuine works of
Apostolic Fathers. These are : 9. The Apology of
Aristides, a philosopher of Athens. His defence
of the Christians must be ascribed to some
time prior to A.D. 140. He disclaims all
sacrifices and makes no reference to baptism
or the Lord's Supper. 10. The Didache, or
Teaching of the Apostles, is probably as old
as A.D. 120, is evangelical in its teachings, and
casts much light upon early Church govern
ment. It shows that " apostles " were at that
time simply itinerant preachers. The book has
no reference to episcopacy ; it gives the earliest
liturgy of the Eucharist, and it is entirely
free from sacerdotal and sacrificial elements.

[C. H. H. W.]

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.— The following
extracts from Whitehead's Church Law, pp.
17-19, may suffice on this point, in addition to
what has been stated under APOSTLES : " All
Christian ministers may be said to be successors
of the Apostles, inasmuch as they are trying to
do the same work ; but the question which has
been so much debated is, Under what circum
stances do they receive a valid commission ?
Extremists on one side say the spiritual call
is sufficient ; extremists on the other, that a
particular form of ordination is absolutely
necessary. The Apostolic Succession may
therefore be said to be of two kinds: (1)

spiritual, (2) ceremonial, or " tactual." Again
this "tactual" succession may be of two
kinds: (1) through a succession of bishops, or
episcopal, (2) through a succession of priests,
or presbyterian.

"The argument of the Greek and Roman
Churches is, that Christ founded a Church,
and gave his Apostles power to ordain bishops
with Apostolic powers in a continuous succes
sion, and that only persons duly and episco-
pally ordained (i.e. priests of their communions)
can effectually celebrate the sacraments, so as
to convey grace and forgiveness of sins.1 But
assuming that an unbroken episcopate is an
essential, it is necessary for these Churches, in
order to maintain their position, to prove to
demonstration the Apostolical pedigree not
only of their Church, but of every one of their
priests; for evidently, in a matter of such
alleged importance, nothing can be assumed.
This is most difficult, and it is still more diffi
cult to show that there is no "grace" in
other Churches.

" The Church of England teaches that there
have beer, from the Apostles' time these orders
of ministers — bishops, priests, and deacons2;
and since 1662 (when about 2000 non-episcopal
ministers were ejected) it has insisted on epis
copal ordination within the limits of its own
body 3 ; but it does not deny that men chosen
in other ways are lawfully called to the
ministry, and, in fact, from 1559 to 1662,
presbyterian ministers often officiated and held
dignities in the Church.4 It has, however,
always been laid down that it is not lawful
for a man to preach or minister the sacraments
before he is " lawfully called." 6 What the
Church of England maintains is that episco
pacy is necessary to the " well-being," but not
to the "being" of a Church; in other words,
that it is the best form of ecclesiastical polity.6

" The Apostolical succession of the Church of
England is said to be derived through three main
sources: (1) the long line of our Welsh bishops,
culminating, as tradition says, in Aristobulus,
one of the seventy said to have died in A.D. 67 ;
(2) through the bishops of Rome, commencing,
as tradition says, in Clemens ; 7 (3) through the

1 Yet Roman Catholics admit that lay baptism
is valid.

2 Preface to Ordinal.

3 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 4, ss. 13, 14.

4 See 10 Cl. & Fin. p. 789.
6 Art. XXIII.

6 See Bishop Lightfoot's Dissertation on the
Christian Ministry, and the Bishop of Worcester's
address at Birmingham Church Congress.

7 See list in Milman's Latin Christianity, and
in Gr. E. Tamer's Concise Tabular View of Chris
tian History (Oxford University Press: 1891), in

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

[36]

APOSTOLICAL CANONS

Irish Church, which sent its missionaries to
lona, and thence to the north of England.
But it must be admitted that all these lists
of bishops are broken in the early times, and
more or less apocryphal,1 especially the British,
and there is some doubt as to the exact position
and function of the bishops of those days.2 At
any rate, the succession of our bishops is as
good as that of any Church of the West ; but
the most authentic successions of early bishops
are those of the Greek Churches of Antioch3
and Alexandria.4 There is, however (in the
eyes of those who adhere to strict ecclesiastical
order), a fatal flaw in the English succession
(and, consequently, in English orders), inas
much as it lacks patriarchal confirmation. An
other fatal flaw from the Romish point of view,
is that at the Reformation the clergy ceased
to be "sacrificing priests," the ordinal being
altered to suit the change of doctrine/"' Greek
and Roman orders are everywhere admitted as
valid."

APOSTOLICAL CANONS, THE.— A body
of eighty-five canons, purporting to have been
issued by the Twelve Apostles, through Clement
of Rome, to the bishops of the Church. They
may be seen textually in the Greek, with
a Latin translation, by Gentianus Hervetiis,
1561, in Mansi's Collection of the Councils,6 in
Beveridge's Collection,7 in Hefele's History of
the Councils? and elsewhere. The literature of
the subject is very copious.

Historically these canons are first met with
in 494, when a synod of seventy bishops at
Rome, under Pope Gelasius, decreed their re
jection as apocryphal.9 About the year 449 10
(about 530, others) a learned monk at Rome,
Dionysius Exiguus, desired by Stephen Bishop
of Salona, a see of the Western Church, trans
lated from Greek into Latin a number of
canons, placing at their head a set reported
(he said) to have been given by the Apostles,
though very many doubted. They are given

which lists are given of the Patriarchs and Popes
of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Con
stantinople, and Moscow, with dates, &c.

1 See Macaulay's Essay on "Gladstone and
Church and State."

2 See BISHOP, and Dr. Hatch's Bampton Lec
tures.

3 See list in Neale's Patriarchate of Antioch,
and in Tamer, ut sup.

4 See Le Quien, ii. 386 ; and Tarner, ut sup.

5 See SACRIFICE.

6 Mansi, i. 29.

7 Beveridge, Codex Canonum Ecclesice Primitives
Vindicatus, 1678.

8 Hefele, i. 458, Eng. ed.

9 Decree v., Mansi, viii. 151 B.

10 Hefele, i. 449, Eng. ed.

by themselves in Mansi (i. 49), Latin only, fifty
in number, the final one being on trine immer
sion. Dionysius in some subsequent issue of
his collection suppressed those fifty.11

Towards the middle of the sixth century
there was practising at Antioch, as an advo
cate in civil law and church canons, one John
surnamed Scholasticus (Lawyer),12 who for his
business classified the canons according to sub
jects, assigning eighty-five, which he placed
at the head, to apostolic origin. This digest
of the canons originated that department of
professional knowledge understood by the name
canon-law, in Greek t>ofj.o-Kavut>.

While John Scholasticus was thus employed
at Antioch the Emperor Justinian was reign
ing at Constantinople (527-565), much engaged
in systematising the civil law of the empire,
and it was between 534 and 545 that those
new laws of his named Novellas, or Novels,
for the most part appeared. The sixth novella
must have issued in 534 or 535, as the preface
to it was addressed to the Patriarch Epiphanius,
who died in 535 ; and by this law the distinc
tion assigned to the eighty-five canons in the
classification of John Scholasticus was con
firmed, their direct origin from the Apostles
being asserted.13

In April 565 John Scholasticus was advanced,
on a vacancy, to the See of Constantinople by
the Emperor Justinian, who died six months
later, and now the eighty-five canons appeared
with Patriarchal sanction added to the Im
perial. Synodical confirmation followed in
692, when the Trullan Council at Constanti
nople accepted in its second canon the apos
tolic origin of the eighty- five canons.14 Some
time about A.D. 750 John of Damascus, a monk
of the widest Oriental fame, formally pro
nounced for them in his treatise Concerning
the Orthodox Faith, the chapter of it concerning
Scripture, after an enumeration of the books
of the Old and New Testaments, ending
thus: "The Canons of the Holy Apostles
by Clement." 15

In 787 the finishing touch of conciliar autho
rity was added, when the Seventh Synod
(second Nicene), reckoned Ecumenical in the

11 A letter to this effect from Dionysius to
Bishop Stephen in Mansi, i. 3.

12 JOANNES (125) in Diet. Christ. Biog.

13 Novella vi. , in situ, may be seen in Kriegel'.s
Corpus Juris Civilis, 1849, pt. iii., p. 34, the
passage, beginning TOVTO d£ foeadai, occurring
in the above-mentioned preface, near the end,
It is quoted in Beveridge's Works, xi. 89, Anglo-
Cath. Lib.

14 Mansi, xi. 939 ; Hefele, i. 450, Eng. ed.

16 Joan. Damasc. De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iv.,
cap. 17, in P. G., xciv., 1180 c.

APOSTOLICAL CANONS

APOSTOLICAL CANONS

East, confirmed, by its first canon, the canons
of the previous six synods,1 and by conse
quence the canons of the Trullan (G'J2), which
are involved in the sixth. From that time
the canons called apostolical have remained
firmly established in the Eastern Church.2

Their fortune in the West was very different.
The condemnation by the Roman synod of 494,
and the eventual suppression by Dionysius
Exiguus, were followed by other slights. None
of the subsequent western original collections
include the eighty-five Apostolical Canons
among them. In the Middle Ages they were
lost to view in the West.

The question as to their actual origin brings
us first to their own account of themselves,
and unless they were a fabrication, the
Apostles were personally their authors. In
the 29th Canon occurs the expression — "by
me Peter"; in the 82nd, "our Onesimus";
in the 85th, " of me Clement." At the Refor
mation their apostolic source was powerfully
controverted in 1562 by the Magdeburg Cen-
turiators, whose arguments have been repeated,
with additions, by later objectors.3 In 1572
the Spanish Jesuit Turrianus combated the
Centuriators, maintaining that the canons
were a genuine production of the Apostles.4
In 1653 D'Aille", the French Protestant, sup
ported the Centuriators.6 He again was shortly
followed by Beveridge, arguing for the apos
tolic authority of the canons, a surprising line
for a son of the English Reformation to have
taken. It was apparently a devotion to Oriental
studies, then rising in England, which moved
Beveridge in this direction. In 1672 appeared
his Synodicon,s comprehending all groups of
canons received by the Greek Church. In 1678
arrived his Codex7 of. canons singling one of the
groups in particular, the Apostolical, for a more
special and elaborate treatment, with the aim

1 Mansi, xiii. 748 A.

2 So Beveridge, Works, xi. 93, in An>/l. Cath.
Lib.

3 Ccnturia I., lib. ii. cap. vii. in its last head
ing, "Judicium de Canonibus." In the Basel
fol. ed. 1562, the place is in col. 544 of lib. ii.;
in ed. 1564 col. 418.

4 In his Adversus Magdeburgcnscs Cent uria tores,
a folio in five books devoted to the refutation of
the Centuriators, in the opening passage.

6 In his De Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis, dealing
with the Apostolical Canons in lib. iii. , and the
Apostolical Constitutions in i., ii.

6 'ZwodiKov, sive Pandectce Canonum SS. Apos-
tolorum et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia, Grceca recep-
torum, 2 vols. fol.

7 Codex Canonum Primitive Ecdesice Vindicatus
ac lllustratus, reprinted in vol. xi. of his works
edited for the A. C. Lib.

already mentioned. These publications of
Beveridge, combining with other circum
stances of the period, led the sympathies of
a school of Englishmen in the direction of the
Greek Church, until in 1818 the Codex Canonum
was adopted entirely by the promoters of so im
portant a series as the Anylo- Catholic Library,
greatly augmenting attention to these canons
in England. As an illustration of this remark,
the article " Beveridge " (inDict. National Biog
raphy), referring to Beveridge claiming
apostolic origin and sanction for canons that
were long post-apostolic, much regrets that
the Anglo-Cath. Libr. should have included
this work of Beveridge in their reprint of his
writings.

It is now time to refer to some principal
reasons for which the apostolicity of these
canons is denied. It has been argued, for
instance, that they were nothing but adapta
tions from the Apostolical Constitutions, in
which work nineteen of the canons are trace
able, implying an origin probably not earlier
than about A.D. 250. It has also been urged
that the Apostolical Canons were a reproduction
of those of various known Councils, five being
found among the Canons of Nicsea (325), twenty
among the twenty-five Canons of Antioch (341)
five among the Canons of Ephesus (431). Alto
gether sixty of the eighty-five can thus be
traced.8 The argument from resemblance alone
is inconclusive, for the question remains, which
were the borrowers ? It has been further
reasoned, then, that the canons could not
have preceded Bishop Basil's treatise On the
Holy Spirit,9 wherein it is stated (1) that no
written church authority for trine immersion in
baptism was known,10 whereas Canon 55 ex
pressly orders that ceremony ; and (2), that no
authoritative written form of consecration in
the Eucharist was known,11 whereas Canon 85,
by sanctioning the Apostolical Constitutions,
does virtually give such forms.

From this reasoning the conclusion is that
the Apostolical Canons reached their present
shape late in the fourth century at the earliest.
How much sooner they may have begun to
gather form can for the present be only un
certain.

Professor Harnack has pointed out that the
original editor of the eighty-five canons had
before him the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,1'2
the publication of which document in 1883 he
considers as having shed much light upon this

8 Hefele, i. 454 (Eng. ed.) gives particulars.

9 Written during his episcopate, A.D. 371-
380.

10 DC Sanct. Spir., cap. 27, P.G., xxxii. 187 C.

11 Ibid. 187 B.

12 Harnack, Lehre der zwolf Apostel, 1893, p. 193.

APOSTOLICAL CANONS [ 38 ] APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS

important fragment of the canon-law previ
ously so enigmatical.1

In the present state of knowledge, then, the
best conclusion seems to be that the eighty-
five canons certainly lacked the apostolicity
asserted for them, Justinian's decree resting
on no proper foundation. If they had some
elementary existence in the period of the
Teaching, dr. 120, they were not completed
as we now know them earlier than about 380
when Basil died. They must be considered as
having originated in the East, probably Syria.

A point of much practical interest to our
selves may be noted in conclusion. The 85th
Canon, as Dr. Salmon has pointed out,3 associ
ates certain apocryphal writings with the
canonical books of the Bible. Were it capable
of demonstration that these eighty-five canons
were in any sense apostolic the conclusion
would be fatal to current views of Scripture
canonicity. It is assuredly, (hen, of some im
portance that the result of historic research
and the weight of modern argument have
drawn, as it can confidently be said they have,
the Apostolical Canons, and with them a body
of untenable literature, quite away from apos
tolic or even sub-apostolic times, and entirely
beyond the reach of apostolic sanction.

[C. H.]

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, THE
— a Greek work in eight books, preserving to us,
in a volume of two hundred and eighty-four
solid pages of modern Greek print,3 a body of
liturgic forms, customs, church official titles,
and homiletic teaching once prevalent in the
East. The standard editions, with Latin
version and accompaniments, are those of
Cotelerius4 and Migne.5 There is also an
English translation by Whiston. The book
has been adequately examined both on the
Cortinent and in England, from the sixteenth
century. An article upon it in the Christian
Remembrancer of April 1854 introduced it
to a wide circle of present - day English
readers.

These Constitutions assert in the most direct
manner the authority of the Twelve Apostles,
who are represented as assembled together,
St. Paul included, with Clement of Kome for
their amanuensis, delivering the various ordi
nances which the Church must observe to all
time. Each Apostle dictates in the first person
his separate constitution, Peter first and Paul

1 Harnack, Sources of the Apostolical Canons,
1895, p. 1.

2 In his General Introduction (p. xxv.) to Dr.
Wace's edition of the Apocrypha.

3 Ueltzen's edition, 1853.

4 In his Apostolic Fathers, 1672, 2 vols. fol.

5 In his Patrologia Grceca, 4°, vol. i. 1857.

last ; " I Peter say,'' " I James say," " I Philip,"
"I Bartholomew," &c.6 Were all these the
genuine utterances of the Twelve they would
be so much additional Scripture, doubling the
New Testament in bulk. They are, in fact, so
regarded in the Apostolical Canons, where
Canon 85 reckons these Constitutions among
the books of Scripture, which they truly are
if not a fabrication.

In 1653 the French Protestant D'Aille main
tained their apocryphal character, declaring
them tainted with A nanism.7 In 1711 Pro
fessor Whiston of Cambridge, who was then
lapsing into Arianism, claimed to have demon
strated8 that the Constitutions were "the
very doctrines, rules, laws, and liturgies, which
our blessed Saviour Himself delivered to His
Church by his Holy Apostles." Whiston's main
argument for Arianism was that the theology
of the Church before the Council of Nicaea
(325) was to be found in these Constitutions,
which reflected the teaching of Arius, Atha-
nasius being "that grand corruptor of the
Christian faith."9 The Constitutions reveal
their own attitude to Arianism in a passage
wherein they formally expound the Catholic
faith to be a belief in One Almighty God,
who must be worshipped through (5ia) Christ
our Lord, in (&) the All-holy Spirit.10

The date of the work in its present form is
undetermined ; but the impossibility of an
apostolic date is sufficiently obvious from a
mention made n of the post-apostolic Gnostics,
Cleobius, Dositheus, Cerinthus, Marcus, Me-
nander, Basilides, Saturninus. The Christian
Remembrancer added to its proofs of the
spuriousness of these Constitutions such a
gross anachronism as the following, taken up
also by Mr. Benjamin Shaw (Diet. Christ. Antiq.,
i. 12) : " Apostles," these two articles say, "are
brought together who never could have been
together in this life. St. James the greater
(after he was beheaded) is made to sit, in
council with St. Paul (lib. vi. c. 14), though
elsewhere he is spoken of as dead (lib. v.
c. 7)."

The publication in 1883 of the Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles gave fresh interest to the
Apostolical Constitutions, one-half of the seventh
book of which was seen to be simply an

6 Apost. Const., viii. 4, 12, 16, 17, &c.; De
Ordinationibus, Patr. Or., i. 1070.

7 " Ariana, labe infectum," Dallseus, De Pseud-
epigraphis, p. 411.

" 8 Whiston's Essay, p. 673.

9 Ibid., p. 482.

]° Apost. Const., vi. 14, P. G., i. 945. Migne's
note observes that the language here is that
customary with Arians.

11 Lib. vi. 8, Patr. Grceca, i. 924.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ 39 ] APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS

expansion of the Teaching.1 The forger of
that book, writes Salmon, was evidently ac
quainted with the entire Teaching, which he
may have used so early as 350, as suggested
by Harnack. Hefele2 thinks the work may
have originated in the second half of the third
century.

Perhaps then, in the present state of opinion,
the safest conclusion is that the Apostolical
Constitutions gradually took their present
shape within the period of about A.D. 260-360,
and the reader learns from them what Eastern
church life and worship were like within thnt
hundred years which beheld in the important
see of Antioch an unsaintly despot like Paul
of Samosata, the terrible persecution of Dio
cletian, the conversion of Constantino, and
the Arian dispute convulsing the whole Christian
world. Amid her many dangers the Church
of Christ, was upheld by the presence of Holy
Scripture, with trained readers to voice it in
the sacred assemblies. There was her hope
of continuing her existence ; teachers and
disciples were born of the incorruptible seed ;
the martyr spirit lived on. Yet, as these Con
stitutions witness, a fatal leaven was working
present and future ill. Human tradition was
getting a standing - ground ; superstitious
worship was creeping in ; the servants of
the congregation were coveting a sacerdotal
exaltation ; an artful and endless elaboration
of ceremonies, requiring a multiplicity of
subordinate ministers, was practically turn
ing the helpers of men's salvation into authors
of it.

For such weighty accusations there should
be, and there are, some definite materials.

1. More insidiously than in the constituting
Synod, but no whit less inexcusably, tradition
thus mingles its voice with the familiar record
of our Lord's action in the Supper: "In like
manner also He took the cup and mixed it of
wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered
it to them. " 3

2. For an instance of in-creeping supersti
tion : the catechumen, after his renuncia
tion of Satan and profession of belief, but
before actual baptism by water, has to be
anointed with oil,4 the oil being first "blessed
by the high priest (apxiepets) for the re
mission of sins and the first preparation for
baptism ; for he calls thus upon the unbegotten
God . . . that He would sanctify the oil in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it

1 Dr. Salmon's article on the Teaching in the
Diet, of Christian Biography, iv. 809. In his Intro
duction to Dr. Wace's Apocrypha, p. xxv., the
conclusion is nearly the same.

2 In his History of the Councils, i. 454, Eng. ed.

3 Lib. viii. 12. 4 Lib. vii. 42.

spiritual grace, and efficacious strength, the
remission of sins, and the first preparation for
the confession of baptism, that so the candi
date for baptism, when he is anointed, may be
freed from all ungodliness, and may become
worthy of initiation, according to the command
of the only-Begotten."

3. The aggrandisement of the ministerial
oftice is thus pressed upon the people5 : " Why
do not ye also esteem the mediators (TOVS
yue<r/ras) of the Word to be prophets and rever
ence them as gods ? For now the deacon is to
you Aaron and the bishop Moses. If therefore
Moses was called a god by the Lord, let the
bishop be honoured among you as a god and
the deacon as his prophet." Keferring to
the honour due to parents6: — "How much
more should the Word exhort you to honour
your spiritual parents and to love them as
your benefactors and ambassadors with God,7
who have regenerated you by water and
endued you with the fulness of the Holy
Spirit ; who have fed you with the Word as
with milk, who have nourished you with
doctrine, who have confirmed you by their
admonitions, who have imparted to you the
saving body and precious blood of Christ, who
have loosed you from your sins, who have made
you partakers of the holy and sacred Eucharist,
who have admitted you to be partakers and
fellow-heirs of the promise of God ; reverence
these and honour them with all kinds of
honour ; for they have obtained from God the
power of life and death, in their judging of
sinners, and condemning them to the death of
eternal fire, as also of loosing returning sinners
from their sins and of restoring them to a new
life ; account these worthy to be esteemed your
rulers and your kings,8 and bring them tribute
as to kings." It was a scheme of ministerial
domination here weaving ; and the Apostles,
notwithstanding the solemn warnings they
received from their Lord, are audaciously made
to be the very weavers of it.

Regarding the book before us as a mirror of
visible church-life in the East, within the
period that has been indicated, we note the
following office-bearers in the congregation : —
High priest and priest9; subdeacou1" ; reader11 ;

5 Lib. ii. 29, 30. 6 ii. 33, 34.

7 ..a Ti- TTOO? Qe&V

8 apxovras V/J.&V Kal pa<ri\eis. In another chapter
(lib. ii. 26), the bishop is the people's mediator
with God (fj.falTi)s Qeov Kal vuuv) ; their prince
and leader (apxuv Kal rjyotifjievos) ; their king
and lord (SvvdffT^) ; next to God their god on
earth (vpuv firiyeios 0ebs fiera Qe&v. )

9 Apost. Const., ii. 25 ; viii. 12. 'Apxtepw*, Jepei/7.

10 viii. 13, 21.

11 ii. 25; viii. 13, 22.

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS [ 40 ]

ARCHBISHOP

singers1 ; exorcist2 ; door-keeper3 ; deaconess.4
The high priest and the priest minister at an
altar.5 There are prayers for the dead6 ; and
commemorations of the dead, at which gifts
to the poor are made out of the goods of the
dead.7 There are prayers for the Church, in
cluding the faithful departed.8 The baptism of
infants is enjoined.9 In baptism submergence
(KardSwis) and emergence (dvdSvvis) symbolise
dying with and rising with Christ 10. The
baptized are anointed with chrism by the
bishop.11 The " Gloria in Excelsis " 12 (substan
tially), the expressions13 — "Lift up your mind.
We lift it up unto the Lord ; Let us give
thanks to the Lord God ; It is meet and right
so to do," occur among these early Greek
formularies. In the administration of the
Lord's Supper the minister delivers the ele
ments with the following form of words :
" The body of Christ " ; " The blood of Christ,
the cup of life " ; the recipient in each case
responding with "Amen."14 [C. H.]

It may be observed that eminent scholars
like Bishop Pearson, Bishop Lightfoot, Kraus,
and Lardner, regard the Apostolical Constitutions
as considerably later than the date which the
writer of the foregoing article assigns to that
production. The ordinary reader will find in
the No. of the Church Intelligencer for May 1884,
at p. 62, some useful proofs of the fraudulent
character of the Liturgy embodied in the eighth
book. See also the Church Intelligencer for April
1889. An excellent translation into English of
the whole work is given in the Ante-Nicene
Library, vol. xvii. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.

APPARELS.— Small pieces of embroidery in
use among Romanists and Ritualists, sewn on
albs, amices, and other vestments.

APPARITOR.— An officer of the ecclesiastical
courts (so-called from his summoning persons
to appear) whose duties are to attend in court
to receive the judge's commands, to convene,
and cite defendants, to admonish or cite the
parties to produce witnesses and the like. The
138th canon relates to such officers. See
Hook's Church Dictionary, sub voce.

APPEALS.— Under pro-Reformation Canon
Law, appeals went, theoretically, to the Pope,
who had also a concurrent jurisdiction in this
country. But, in fact, as Professor Maitland
has shown, where the charge was one of
heresy, the appeal was useless, because the
"criminal" was burnt before the "appeal"
could be heard, and this by express provision

1 ii. 25 ; viii. 13.

2 viii. 26.

3 ii- 25.

5 dv

7 viii. 42.

10 iii. 17.

13 viii. 12.

4 ii. 25 ; viii. 13, 20.
, viii. 12, freq. " viii. 41.
8 viii. 13. 9 vi. 15.

n iii. 16. 12 vii. 47.

» viii. 13.

of the Canon Law itself (see English Historical
Review, Jan. 1901, p. 40, &c.). The struggle
of our English parliaments and sovereigns
with the Papacy was not, as is sometimes re
presented, to abolish papal jurisdiction, but to
confine it within limits properly ecclesiastical,
and to prevent its interference with secular
matters, such as matrimony, inheritance,
bastardy, and the like. Heresy was appellable
to the Pope, but for reasons above explained
such appeals were necessarily abortive. The
Reformation, as regards jurisdiction, consisted
in giving an appeal from all courts of the
archbishops in all suits. This, of course, in
cluded both ritual and doctrine, and such ap
peals have, ever since Henry VIII., been carried
to the Crown as the supreme Ordinary. Of
late years the priest party have succeeded in
eliminating this remedy. For example, under
the Pluralities Act there is no appeal from the
archbishop except from his own refusal to
grant a dispensation for holding two livings.
Under the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 the
Provincial Court or the Privy Council are open
as alternatives to the appellant. Under the
Benefices Act of 1898 there is no appeal beyond
the re-constituted Archbishop's Court. Thus
the appeal to the Crown is being gradually
filched away, in order to rehabilitate hierarchi
cal pretensions to an exclusive possession of
judgment, justice, and truth, in all matters con
cerning the "Church." (See Professor Mait-
land's Canon Law in the Church of England
(Methuen) ; Tomlinson's Lay Judges in Church
Courts ; and Whitehead's Dictionary of Church
Law, sub voce.) [J. T. T.]

APSE. — The recess at the end of the church
in which the holy table was usually placed.

AQUILA.— The writer of a very literal Greek
translation of the Old Testament, fragments of
which have been preserved in the remains of
Origen's Hexapla. Some connected leaves of
Aquila's Translation of the Boole of Kinys, in
Greek in uncial characters, discovered in the
Cairo Genizah, have been published in 1897
at the Cambridge Press, by F. C. Burkitt, M. A.,
with a preface by Dr. C. Taylor.

AQUINAS.— See THOMISTS.

ARCHBISHOP.— The title seems to have come
into vogue about A.D. 400 to denote the chief
ecclesiastic of a province in the Roman Empire.
It is due to the organisation of the Church on
Imperial lines, and cannot be traced to the
Apostles. In Roman times there were probably
three archbishoprics iu our country, viz.,
London, York, and Caerleou (afterwards trans
ferred to Meuevia or St. David's). Lists of
names have been handed down to us which are
no doubt mainly apocryphal, but that of
" David, Archbishop of Menevia," mentioned
under 1st March in the Prayer Book Calendar,

ARCHBISHOP

[41 ]

ARCHDEACON

is of a more historical character. He is said to
have died about A.D. 540. London and York
and all the British bishops, and indeed the
entire organisation of the Church in eastern
Britain, were swept away during the Anglo-
Saxon invasion. When the conversion of the
Saxons commenced in the sixth and seventh
centuries two new archbishoprics were founded,
viz., Canterbury and York, and placed under the
patriarchal jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome,
St. David's continuing a more or less indepen
dent course until its amalgamation with
Canterbury about A.D. 1147. Lichfield also was
for a few years in the eighth century the seat
of an archbishopric, but was merged in Canter
bury. The latter province is consequently
much larger than that of York, and now com
prises no fewer than twenty-five dioceses, viz.,
twenty- one English and four Welsh. York
now consists of ten dioceses. The jurisdiction
of the Archbishop of York formerly extended
over part of Scotland.

In Ireland there were originally four arch
bishoprics, viz., Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and
Tuam. These have all been kept on foot by the
Roman Catholics, but the Protestants have
reduced the number to two, viz., Armagh and
Dublin. The Protestant Episcopal Churches of
Scotland and the United States have no arch
bishops, nor were there any in the colonies ten
years ago. But recently several of the leading
colonial Protestant bishops have taken the title,
e.g. Rupert's Land, Ontario, Cape Town, Sydney,
and Jamaica. The duties and privileges of an
English archbishop over and above those of a
bishop are to visit, i.e. to inspect the bishops
and inferior clergy of his province and to de
prive them on notorious cause ; to confirm the
election of bishops; to call meetings of Con
vocation upon receipt of the Sovereign's writ
but not without; to hear appeals from the
bishops; when a see is vacant to provide for
the ecclesiastical administration of the diocese
to present by lapse to livings if the bishop
neglects to do so for six months. The peculiar
privileges of the Archbishop of Canterbury are
to crown the sovereigns of England, to grant
special marriage licences, and to confer the
academical titles known as "Lambeth degrees.'
The Archbishop of York is said to have the
privilege of crowning the queen consort and to
be her chaplain.

An archbishop of the Church of England i
addressed as " His Grace" and " Most Reverend.'
The Irish archbishops are also entitled to b<
styled "Most Reverend." The Bishop o
Meath, in Ireland, has precedence over the othe
Bishops, and for centuries has borne the titl
of " Most Reverend" which is still legally re
tained. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who i
styled "Primate of All England," ranks iininedi

ately after the Royal Family ; the Lord Chan
cellor comes next, and then the Archbishop of
York, styled Primate of England. Formerly the
Protestant Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin
had precedence immediately after his Grace of
York, but they have now no civil rank. In all
cases ecclesiastical titles assumed by ministers
of religion not belonging to the Established
Churches of England or Scotland give no pre
cedence to the holders. Thus Irish, Scotch, or
colonial archbishops and bishops, the Presi
dents of the Wesleyau Conference and Con
gregational Union, the archbishops and bishops
of the Roman Catholic and Free Churches, have
none of them any civil rank as such nor are
they entitled to be addressed as " My Lord."
In a similar way most foreign prelates have a
certain civil status. Thus in Austria some of
the (Roman Catholic) archbishops, viz., Vienna,
Salzburg, and Prague, have the title of "Prince,"
in some parts of Germany that of " Excellency"
and the right to speak of themselves as " we."
In Prussia they are or were styled " Your
Grace." In France "Grandeur" and " Mon-
seigneur" (Wetzer and Welte).

The two English archbishops are quite inde
pendent of each other and are of equal and
co-ordinate authority and alike subject to the
Crown. The legal decisions of the Archbishop
of Canterbury are therefore not binding on the
province of York. But the same lay official
(who is commonly known as the Dean of
Arches) acts as judge of both Provincial Courts
so that uniformity is secured. In special cases
only has an archbishop taken the law into his
own hands, as in that deplorable decision
known as the Lincoln Judgment, in which Arch
bishop Benson set at defiance the rulings of
the superior Court, the Privy Council, on
various points of ritual. This was followed
by the lamentable spectacle of an ultimate
court of appeal reversing its own decisions and
meekly supporting the judge below on nearly
every point. See Whitehead. Church Law, sub
voce. [B- W.]

ARCHDEACON, or chief deacon, was origin
ally, as the name implies, a deacon only, and
was no doubt inferior to the priests in dignity
He watched over the education of young clerks
and supervised the inferior church officers,
and eventually his office became one of great
importance; he was called " oculus et manus
episcopi" and no one was admitted to orders
without his testimonial. At the present time
in the Church of England, a clergyman is not
qualified for the office unless he has been six
years in priest's orders. By the common law
an archdeacon is in all things the bishop's
vicegerent. He is usually appointed by the
bishop himself, and has a kind of episcopal
authority originally derived from the bishop,

ARCHDEACON

[42]

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX

but now independent of and distinct from his
(Burn, Ecc. Law). His duties are to hold
visitations of parochial clergy (when the bishop
is not there) ; examine and present candidates
for ordination (see ORDINAL) ; institute, induct,
excommunicate, inspect, and reform abuses
among the clergy. He can either in person or
by his official (who is usually a lawyer), hold a
court, and he has special statutory powers as to
parish clerks. He also admits churchwardens
and sidesmen, receives their presentments, and
is legally entitled to visitation fees, and also in
some cases to certain fees called procurations.
An archdeacon is styled "The Venerable."
In dignity he is inferior to the Dean.

The income of an archdeaconry is small, so
another benefice is usually held with it, but
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have power
to raise the income of an}- archdeaconry to
£200 per annum. In most cases an arch
deaconry is a division only of a diocese, but it
may comprise the whole.

An archdeacon must reside in the diocese for
eight months in every year unless he has a
licence. He is entitled to a seat in the Lower
House of Convocation. See Whitehead, Church
Law. [B. W.]

ARCHES, COURT OF.— This was so called
from the arches of Bow Church ("Sancta
Maria de Arcubus ") where the Dean of Arches
used to hold his Court. It is a Court of first
instance by Letters of Request from a suffragan
bishop, and the Court of Appeal from all the
Diocesan Courts of the province of Canterbury,
and till 1532 was a Court of first instance in
all ecclesiastical cases. The Dean had juris
diction over thirteen peculiars of the Arch
bishop of Canterbury in the city of London.
Since the Public Worship Act, 1874, the official
principal or judge of the Court has been ap
pointed by the two Archbishops subject to the
approval of the Crown, or in default by the Crown
alone. He hears appeals from the Consistory
Courts of both provinces. The judge must be
a member of the Church of England, and either
a barrister who has practised for ten 3rears, or
a retired judge of the Supreme Court. An
appeal lies to the Queen in Council.

ARIANS.— See HERESIES.

ARMENIAN CHURCH. — See EASTERN
CHURCHES.

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX.— The Confession
of Faith promulgated by the Church of England.
They are thus unhesitatingly designated by
such authorities as Bishop Andrewes (Sermon
before Frederick the Count Palatine) and Arch
bishop Laud (Conference with Fisher, § 24).
Andrewes says that "our Confession con
tained in the XXXIX. Articles " shows " that
nowhere does there exist a religion more in
accord with the true Zion, that is, with the

institutions of the Gospel and of the Apostles,
than ours." Laud says that "the positive truths
delivered in the Synod of 1562 are more than
the polemics," though "true it is, and we must
thank Rome for it, our Confession must needs
contain some negatives, for in a corrupt time or
place it is as necessary in religion to deny false
hood as to assert and vindicate truth ; indeed,
this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently
done but by the former, an affirmative verity be
ing ever included in the negative to a falsehood."

There are two ways in which attempts are
made to overthrow or undermine the authority
of this Confession of our belief : (1) It is urged
that the XXXIX. Articles are not a Creed,
and it is left to be inferred from thence
that their authority is inconsiderable. (2) The
Articles condemnatory of Rome are represented
as not intended to condemn Roman doctrine,
but as opposing some extravagant tenets con
demned by Rome as well as by ourselves.

1. It is true that the Articles are not a
Creed in the same sense that the Apostles',
the Nicene and the Athanasian symbols are
Creeds ; for they have not been promulgated
by the whole of the Catholic Church as
the exposition of the Christian Faith like the
Nicene Creed in its original and authentic
form, nor have they been generally accepted
like the Apostles' and the Athanasian Creeds.
But they have been promulgated and accepted
by the Church of England as the exposition
of her faith on the points with which they
deal ; and consequently they are as morally
binding on members of the Church of England,
because they express the faith of the Church
of England, as the Creeds are binding upon
them, because they express the faith of the
Church Catholic. The Congregation in Church,
after stating that "the Articles were first pub
lished in 1549 and then numbered forty-two,"
and "after undergoing several revisions they
were settled in their present form by the Canons
of 1604," both of which statements are incor
rect, continues : "The Articles, although con
taining an account of certain leading doctrines,
are in no sense a Creed, and it is to the Prayer
Book that Churchmen go for an expression
of their faith " (p. 170). On this passage
we have to say that "containing an account
of certain leading doctrines " is not synony
mous with " declaring the faith of the Church
on certain doctrines," which is what the
Articles do, and that there is no justification
for depreciating the Articles in comparison
with the Prayer Book as an expression of a
Churchman's faith. The English Churchman
"goes for an expression of his faith" to the
Prayer Book and to the Articles alike, and he
finds no contrariety between them. The infer
ence intended to be drawn from the Articles

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX

[43]

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX

being "in no sense a Creed" is plainly that
they may be disregarded as a statement of
Anglican belief ; but that inference does not
follow from their not being a Creed. In the six
teenth century the different reformed Churches
were charged by their Papal opponents with
being solely destructive and having no positive
faith of their own. To obviate this calumny and
to give stability to their own members, who
might easily be carried too far in their hostility
to Popery, each put forth its own Confession
of Faith. The most important of these was
the Confession of Augsburg, A.D. 1530, in
which the positive teaching of Protestants
was laid down, and especially that cardinal
doctrine of St. Paul, revived by Luther after
long sleep, of free Justification for Christ's
merits grasped by our faith, which constitutes
the most fundamental distinction between
Popery and Protestantism. On the Confession
of Augsburg our Confession, known as the
XXXIX. Articles, was founded, with some
variations from that of Augsburg which adapted
it to English use, but essentially the same
with it, not only on the question of "justifica
tion by faith only," the Article stantis aut
cadentis ecclcsiac, but also on almost all the
other points of the faith of Protestants. Just
as Lutherans are bound by the Augsburg Con
fession and Romanists by the Tridentine Con
fession, embodied in the so-called Creed of
Pope Pius IV., so Anglican Churchmen are
bound by the XXXIX. Articles, which are their
Church's Confession of Faith, though not, like
the Romanist Confession, thrown into the form,
and called by the name of a Creed.

2. The more specific method of doing away
with the force of the anti-Papal Articles is to
represent them as not aimed at Romish or
Papal doctrines, but at some extravagant
tenets which it is presumed that some one,
often unknown to history, held. This sophism,
first suggested by Dr. Newman in Tract XC.,
is employed in dealing with Articles XXII.,
XXVIII., XXIX., and XXXI.

On Article XXII., the manual called Catholic
Religion says: "This Article is not meant
to condemn the Catholic doctrine of the
Intermediate State, as we have stated it,
but only the Romish doctrine which so largely
obtained at the time we are speaking of, and
which could claim no support from the teach
ing of antiquity " (p. 185). And again : " The
English Church in Article XXII. condemns
what is called the Romish doctrine of Invoca
tion of Saints ; that is to say, what was put in
practice by the people at the time of the Reforma
tion" (p. 211). This is a mere subtle evasion
of the force of the Article; "the practice by
the people at the time," "the doctrine which
so largely obtained at the time" were the

practice and the doctrine of the Roman Catho
lic Church, gathered up and expressed almost
contemporaneously by the Council of Trent :
and what is condemned in the Article is the
doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic
Church on the subject of Purgatory, Pardons,
Images, Relics, and Invocation of Saints — •
nothing less than that.

The weapon forged by Newman is used
most frequently for invalidating the condem
nation of the Sacrifice of the Mass in Article
XXXI. The Article condemning in the plain
est manner the Romish Church's doctrine of
a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass as "a
blasphemous fable " (namely, that a man could,
by a formula of words, place Christ on the
altar and then sacrifice and eat Him) " and
a dangerous deceit " (that is, an imposture to
which men trusted for their salvation, to the
great peril of their souls, instead of to faith
in Christ, working by love), Dr. Newman per
forms some acts of logical legerdemain over it
and then claims that we shall acknowledge
that the Article "neither speaks against the
Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering
for the quick and the dead for the remission
of sins ; but against its being viewed, on the
one hand, as independent of or distinct from
the sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy,
and on the other, its being directed to the
emolument of those to whom it pertains to
celebrate it, which is imposture in addition "
(p. 63). Disciples follow in the master's steps.
"A moment's reflection will serve to show
that the XXXIst Article does not condemn the
Mass," says the Ritual Reason Why (No. 284).
"The Church could not condemn the Mass,
without condemning the Institution of Christ "
(ibid.). " The Article could not have been aimed
against the term Mass, nor against any doctrine
involved in the term " (No. 285). " The Sacri
fice of the Mass," says the Catholic Religion
(p. 252), "must be distinguished from the
Sacrifices of Masses, of which the Article
speaks. The latter expression refers to the
erroneous idea that it was the number of
Masses which was the source of benefit to
the departed. The idea condemned is that
of cumulation and repetition independent of
the one and only availing Sacrifice of Calvary.
When the true doctrine of the Eucbaristic
Sacrifice is more perfectly understood amongst
us, the term Mass from its very convenience
will probably reassert itself." Similarly, the
Congregation in Church declares the Article
" directed against the heretical," (and there
fore not the Roman) "doctrine of reiteration."
This method of argument is borrowed direct
from the Roman Casuists, who meet any con
demnation of a doctrine which they favour
witli a distinyucndum. If they have to allow

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX

[44]

ARTICLES, THE XXXIX

that A. B. is condemned, they divide A. B. int
A. B. and a. b. Then say they, ' You may
condemn A. B. (e.g. ' the Sacrifices of Masses'
as much as you please, but we may still hole
a. b. ("the Sacrifice of the Mass ").

Rev. F. W. Puller, of Cowley, in his corre
spondence with the Ultramontane French
priests of the Revue Anglo- Romaine, assures his
friends that the Church of England never
intended to condemn the Roman doctrine in
Article XXXI., which " was expressly drawn
up to repudiate a monstrous doctrine touching
the Encharistic Sacrifice which had been
widely spread abroad in England during the
first years of the sixteenth century." The
author of this doctrine was Catharinus ; so it
must be understood that it was Catharinus anc
his doctrine that were condemned, not Rome
nor Roman doctrine. Mr. Puller's Ultramon
tane correspondent, Dr. Paulus, laughed in his
face ; he was quite sure that Catharinus had
not taught "the monstrous doctrine" attri
buted to him. It was "the Catholic doctrine "
which " the innovators of the sixteenth cen
tury " were condemning ; and instead of
"justifying their apostasy," the only thing
for Mr. Puller to do was to repudiate the
Article.

One more instance of the method may be
taken from the same correspondence. Article
XXVIII. condemns Transubstantiation. Yes,
says Rev. T. A. Lacey, Vicar of Madingley, but
it is only what Bishop Ridley meant by Tran
substantiation that it condemns, and Ridley
did not mean Transubstantiation at all, but
Metaphysiosis — that is, a visible and tangible
change of substance. It is true that Ridley
thought he rejected Transubstantiation, and
so did his Roman Catholic judges, and there
fore the latter sentenced him to be burnt, and
he himself gladly underwent death by burning
for his faith. But it was all a mistake. He
was mistaken, they were mistaken, everybody
was mistaken, till the year 1896, when Mr.
Lacey invented the word Metaphysiosis to ex
press what it was Ridley really rejected. This
singular mistake of Ridley, Gardiner, Pole, and
every one else, except Mr. Lacey, has led to
the idea that Article XXVIII. denies Tran
substantiation, which it does not do, for " the
Englishmen who deny Transubstantiation do
it through resting on the opinion of Ridley,
and for the same reasons that he had " (Revue,
p. 646). As Ridley when he said that he rejected
Transubstantiation, did not reject Transub
stantiation but only Metaphysiosis, which he
mistook for Transubstantiation, and was, in
fact, only " maintaining what we are all agreed
upon" (ibid.), so the Church of England in
rejecting Transubstantiation, does not reject
Transubstantiation, but only the monstrous

misconception of Transubstantiation, which,
according to Mr. Lacey's brand-new discovery,
Ridley entertained. What she denies is not,
must not be, shall not be Transubstantiation,
which Mr. Lacey calls "the doctrine of the
Church," but only Metaphysiosis. It is true
that Ridley never said that he had such an
ignorant conception of the doctrine of Tran
substantiation or of the meaning of the word
"substance" ; but he must have had it, or he
would have denied, and the Church of England
after him would have denied, " the doctrine of
the Church," which, of course, they cannot
have done. The Article states that Transub
stantiation "overthroweth the nature of a
sacrament." Mr. Lacey acknowledges with
surprise and apparent pity that "a number
of Anglicans still think the expression well
founded," but he knows that when the Article
says Transubstantiation it means Metaphy
siosis, the condemnation of which is unob
jectionable in his eyes because it is a tenet
unknown to the Roman Church.

There is another application of the method
looming before us. It has got over the diffi
culty caused by the denial of Purgatory,
Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images
and Relics, Invocation of Saints, Transubstan
tiation, and the Mass. There remains Papal
Supremacy and Infallibility. The modern
formula for the evacuation of "Anglican nega
tions " may be applied here too. Some one
answering to Catharinus may be found (no
doubt, he is at present being anxiously searched
for), who has promulgated some extraordinary
exaggeration as to the Papal power and omni
science, and we shall be gravely assured that
it was that doctrine and not the Roman doc
trine that the Church of England has rejected.
Then, the Papal Supremacy and Infallibility
will be no longer the obstacle to union that it
now is.

We thank God that we have the XXXIX.
Articles to serve as a permanent breakwater
against the inrush of Mediaevalism and Popery.
The last twenty years have proved to us more
clearly than ever how great and how ronstant
is our need of them. Though they are not a
Creed of the Catholic Church, yet because they
unequivocally condemn the chief doctrines of
Romanism and maintain all the great truths of
Christianity, they are the palladium of the
Church of England. The XXXIX. Articles
form part of the statute law of England. For
their legal construction, see Whitehead, Church
Law.

[The Ritualists have striven to make out that
Article XXXVI. declares that there is nothing
that " of itself is superstitious or ungodly " in
the Communion Office as found in the First
Prayer Book of Edward VI. But Mr. Tomlinson

ARTICLES, HISTORY OF THE [ 45 ] ARTICLES, HISTORY OF THE

has ably shown that the Ordinal referred to did
not exist in the First Prayer Book, nor till
March 1550, after the close of the third year
of Edward VI. See his important chapter xii.
in his work on The Prayer Bool:, Articles, and
Homilies. London : Elliot Stock, 1897. On the
special importance of Article XXV. see CON-
SUBSTANTIATION.] [F. M.]
ARTICLES (HISTORY OF THE). — The
history of the series of Articles of Faith,
culminating in the XXXIX. Articles, is a record
of the attempts which the Church of England
made in the sixteenth century to define her
doctrinal position after that she, like the
Reformed Churches on the Continent, had
broken away from the corrupt Church of Rome.
These Articles, drawn up at different times
and despite many obstacles, exhibit a growing
clearness and accuracy of statement, till
in their last revision they appear definite
and unmistakable in meaning, and pure and
scriptural in doctrine. This progress of the
Articles towards scriptural truth, from their
inception in 1536 till their final recension in
1571, will be evident from the following facts,
stated in the briefest possible manner. (1)
The X. Articles of 1536 rejected four of the
seven Romish sacraments, acknowledging only
" the sacraments of Baptism, Penance, and
the Altar." (2) The XIII. Articles of 1538
found among Cranmer's papers were based upon
the Augsburg Confession and the previous X.
Articles, and were "evidently designed to be
the basis of a Concordat with the Lutherans "
(Bishop Barry). A check to progress was given
by (3) The VI. Articles of 1539 (see p. 47) which
were intended to put a stop to the Reforming
movement. They enjoined : 1. Transubstantia-
tion ; 2. Communion in one kind ; 3. Clerical
celibacy ; 4. Vows of Chastity ; 5. Private
Masses; 6. Auricular Confession. (4)TheXLII.
Articles of 1552. Of these Cranmer and Ridley
(both martyred afterwards for protestingagainst
Romish errors) were the chief compilers. To
quote the words of Canon R. W. Dixon, "the
broad soft touch of Cranmer lay upon them as
they came from the furnace." (5) The XI.
Articles of 15591 approved of the restoration
of the Cup to the laity which had actually
been restored by the first Parliament of Eliza
beth, and they rejected private masses and
the veneration of images and relics. (6) The
XXXIX. Articles of 1563 were remodelled on
the basis of the XLII. Articles, and bear the
mark of Archbishop Parker's influence. One
of these was omitted by the printers at the
bidding of the Queen, but restored in 1571

1 This is the date given by Hardwick, but the
true date is 1561. See Perry on the Purchas
Judgment, p. 170 note, and p. 453.

(7) The XXXIX. Articles of 1571. These are
our present Articles, and must be described
more in detail. They contain a clear and com
prehensive statement of the fundamental doc
trines of the Christian faith, a repudiation of
the chief corrupt novelties of the Church of
Rome, and a condemnation of the doctrines of
the fanatical sects of their time. They were
edited by Bishop Jewel, and appeared both in
Latin and English. The Latin and English
copies were subscribed by both houses of Con
vocation, but not by Parliament, which enacted
only the English Version. Both versions are
valuable in determining the exact meaning of
the other. The first five Articles treat of the
doctrine of the Trinity ; the next three estab
lish the Rule of Faith ; the ten following relate
to Christians as individuals ; the next eighteen
deal with Christians as members of a society
—the Church — whose nature, authority, dis
cipline, and sacraments are defined ; and the
last three Articles treat of the Church and
individuals in their relation to the civil power.
"In these Articles we have a reference to
existing heresies, and find in them not only
the positive doctrine of the Gospel asserted, but
also the principal errors and corruptions of the
Church of Rome and most of the extravagances
in which Protestant sects fell at the time of
the Reformation rejected and condemned"
(Bishop Tomline).

"In the interpretation" of the Articles,
Bishop Harold Browne wisely remarks, "our
best guides must be, first, their own natural,
literal, grammatical meaning ; next to this,
a knowledge of the controversies which had
prevailed in the Church and made such
Articles necessary ; then, the other authorised
formularies of the Church ; after them, the
writings and known opinions of such men as
Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, who drew them
up ; then, the doctrines of the primitive Church,
which they professed to follow ; and lastly,
the general sentiments of the distinguished
English divines, who have been content to
subscribe the Articles, and have professed
their agreement with them for now 300 years.
These are our best guides for their interpreta
tion. Their authority is derivable from Scripture
alone." (Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,
1882. Introduction, pp. 10, 11.) The XXXIX.
Articles must be subscribed by candidates
before Ordination, also before Institution, and
they must be read in church after Induction.
Although the laity are exempt from subscrip
tion, their assent to the doctrines of the
Articles is required if they would lay claim to
be loyal members of the Church of England.
This fact requires to be stated, as some writers
on the Articles have asserted that all that is
necessary in the case of the laity is an assent

AKTICLES, HISTORY OF THE [ 46 ] ARTICLES, THE LAMBETH

to the Apostles' Creed. A reference to th
Service for the Public Baptism of Infants
however, demonstrates the absurdity of thi
assertion, for we there find the God-parent
exhorted to take care that the child baptized
" may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer
and the Ten Commandments in the vulga
tongue, and all other things which a Christian
ought to know and believe to his soul's
health."

The history of the nineteenth century pre
sents no sadder sight than that of men, pro
fessedly seekers after truth and defenders of
the same, yet setting themselves to undermine
the scriptural teaching of the Articles. This
is the task, however, to which the Tractarian
applied themselves in the tracts from which
they derived their name. In Tract XC.,
written by John Henry Newman, " it was
deliberately maintained," says Archbishop
Whately, "that the XXXIX. Articles do not,
when rightly interpreted, condemn the doctrine
of Transubstantiation, or the Invocation of
Saints, or the Adoration of Belies, or Purgatory
or Indulgences, as sanctioned by the Council
of Trent ; and that the true rule for interpret
ing the Articles is, not to take the words in
their plain natural sense, but in such a sense —
often 'non-natural' — as the person signing
them may think to be most in accordance
with Catholic tradition " (Cautions for the
Times, 1854, p. 231). No wonder that the
publication of this notorious tract provoked
a storm which was not quickly allayed, and
that the Heads of Houses at Oxford condemned
it for " evading rather than explaining the sense
of the XXXIX. Articles and reconciling subscrip
tion to them ivith the adoption of errors which they
were designed to counteract." In spite of its
almost universal condemnation, Dr. Pusey
and other supporters of the Tractarian move
ment defended it. In a letter penned in the
year 1865 (twenty years after his reception
into the Church of Rome) Newman writes to
Pusey: "You have from the first, as all the
world knows, boldly stood up for it, in spite
of the obloquy which it brought upon you ;
you are now republishing it with my cordial
concurrence." And we find Pusey in his
Eirenicon (published in 1865) boldly main
taining that the Articles of the Church of
England and the Decrees of the Council of
Trent are reconcilable, the differences between
them being only in appearance and not in
reality. Almost, it would seem, with a pre
science of the evil which has befallen us in
this century, a royal declaration was issued
as far back as the year 1628, by Charles I.,
directing " that no man hereafter shall either
print or preach to draw the Article aside any
way, but shall submit to it in the plain and

full meaning thereof; and shall not put his
own sense or comment to be the meaning of
the Article, but shall take it in the literal
and grammatical sense." Newman, by a pro
cess of verbal juggling, strove to maintain that
the Articles would harmonise with Romish
doctrines and practices which they were de
signed to oppose. Archbishop Whately says :
" To bring the Articles to bear such a sense as
what Mr. Newman thought Catholic tradition
required, was a task of no little difficulty.
Indeed, he set such an example of hair-splitting
and wire-drawing — of shuffling equivocation
and dishonest garbling of quotations — as made
the English people thoroughly ashamed that
any man calling himself an Englishman, a
gentleman, and a clergyman, should insult
their understandings and consciences with
such mean sophistry" (Cautions for the Times,
1854, p. 231). In 1883 Newman wrote (Via
Media, ii. 351-6), " What the Article abjures as
a lie is just that which the Pope and Council
declare to be Divine truth. Nothing can come
of the suggested distinction between ' mass '
and ' masses.' " [S. R. G.j

ARTICLES, THE LAMBETH.— These Arti
cles, nine in number, were drawn up by Dr.
W. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity at
Cambridge. They were approved of by the
Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and other
prelates in private synod assembled, and were
sent to Mr. Barrett of Cambridge, who had
preached in that University against certain
Calvinistic doctrines, by Dr. Whitgift, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, for his subscription,
November 24, 1595. Barrett, however, appealed
against such an exercise of authority, and
Archbishop Whitgift was severely taken to
task by Queen Elizabeth for holding a private
synod and drawing up new articles of faith
without the consent of the Crown and proper
authorities. The Articles in question were
strongly Calvinistic. The first affirmed pre
destination to life and to eternal death. The
second, that God's election alone was the mov
ing and efficient cause of salvation. The third,
that the number of the elect was fixed and
could not be added to or taken from. The
fourth, that the reprobate were necessarily
damned because of their own sins. The five
other articles affirm conclusions which naturally
follow from the dogmas mentioned. At the
Hampton Court Conference Dr. Reynolds pro
posed to adopt the nine Articles, but his
proposition was rejected (Cardwell's Confer
ences, pp. 184 ff.). Their adoption was, however,
often advocated by the Calvinistic Puritans.
The Articles in question are given in Latin in
the third volume of Whitgift's Works, published
by the Parker Society, pp. 612, 613. The
original form in which they were drafted was

ARTICLES, THE SIX. OF 1539 [ 47 ]

ASCENSION DAY

subsequently somewhat modified. They never
were accepted authoritatively by the Church of
England. [C. H. H. W.]

ARTICLES, THE SIX, OF 3539.— In the

year 1539 Henry VIII. finally turned his back on
the "Reformation "and its "principles." Bishop
Gardiner, the leader of the anti-Reformation
party, pressed on Henry the importance of
giving to foreign courts some proof that the
king was still in heart a " Catholic," and that
he rejected only the court, but not the Church
of Rome.

A yet more potent reason for the change of
policy is mentioned by Strype. " In the year
1539, the king took occasion to be displeased
with the archbishop and the other bishops of
the ' new learning,' as they then termed them,
because they could not be brought to give their
consent in Parliament that the king should have
all the monasteries suppressed to his own sole
use. They were willing he should have all the
lands as his ancestors gave to any of them ; but
the residue they would have had bestowed upon
hospitals, grammar-schools for bringing up of
youth in virtue and good learning, with other
things profitable in the common wealth"
(Memorials of Cranmer, i. 160).

Henry himself undertook, with the aid of
Bishop Tonstal, to answer his late allies, the
German theologians, and his defence of private
masses, compulsory celibacy, the denial of the
cup to the laity, and other " abuses " is printed
by JBurnet (Hist. Ref. I. ii. 517). As Archdeacon
Hardwick says, " the influence of Gardiner was
sufficient not only to baffle all their negotiations
[with the Protestants of Germany] but to carry
both in the Convocation and the Parliament,
an 'Act for the abolishing diversity of
opinions,' — by burning those who differed
from Bishop Gardiner's views. This Act, com
monly called the Six Articles Act, enforced
under a death penalty, transubstantiation, ac
quiescence in the denial of the cup to the laity,
celibacy of clergy, masses for dead, and com
pulsory confession " — precisely the dogmas
against which the Lutheran envoys had directed
their assault. (Hist. XXXIX. Articles, p. 67.)
Cranmer had at once to send away his wife ;
Bishops Shaxton and Latimer resigned their sees ;
and the active persecution of the English Pro
testants forthwith began. Cardinal Pole wrote
afterwards to the Protector Somerset that the
Six Articles Act was " the best thing Henry
ever did in this world. " This murderous statute
popularly known as "the whip with six strings,"
came into force on July 12, 1539, after an
eleven days' debate in which Cranmer, Latimer,
and Shaxton, supported feebly by Heath, strug
gled to prevent its adoption, but they were
overborne by the personal intervention of Henry
himself, who came down to the House to silence

all opposition. Gardiner's influence, says Arch
deacon Hardwick, carried it " both in Convoca
tion and in Parliament." " Specific questions
having been handed by Thomas Cromwell into
the hands of the Prolocutor, were debated and
particularly answered by the Synod before the
statute was enacted. . . . the authority of the
Spirituality and of Convocation for the doctrinal
contents is twice asserted in the preamble itself"
(Joyce's Civil Power in Relation to the Church,
p. 130). The Act is printed in Gee and Hardy's
Documents, and abridged in Foxe's Monuments,
v. 262. During the first twelve months 500
persons were prosecuted in London alone, and a
list, by no means complete, of executions under
the Act is given in Miller's Church of England
Almanack, 1893. The Marian martyrs, however,
did not suffer under this Act, which was not re
vived in Mary's reign, but under the older Heresy
Acts. Nevertheless it made any doctrinal reform
impossible during the remainder of Henry's
reign, and throughout the first year of that of
Edward VI. , when its repeal on Christmas Eve
1547 liberated thought and again permitted
some freedom of discussion. Hence the Neces-
sarylDoctrine and Erudition, or " King's Book,"
was necessarily a reactionary formulary, because
even the " holding opinions contrary " to the
Six Articles was then punishable by fire and
without any option of recantation. This fact
destroys altogether the " spiritual authority"
claimed for the "King's Book" by the
followers of Bonner and Gardiner. See
Jacobs' Lutheran Movement in England, pp.
150-59. [J. T. T.]

ASCENSION DAY.— The day which, in the
Calendar of the Church of England, commemo
rates our Lord's Ascension into heaven. It
falls forty days after Easter Day, therefore
occurs always on a Thursday. The importance
of the doctrine of Christ's Ascension is great,
because it plainly declares the Lord's depar
ture from the earth with " His body, with flesh,
bones, and all things pertaining to the perfec
tion of man's nature," so that in body He is
ever in heaven and not upon earth (Acts i. 11,
iii. 21). It follows from this that He is not,
as the Church of Rome and Anglican sacer-
dotalists maintain, present on the "altar" or
there represented as a sacrifice. On the other
hand, Ascension Day assures us of His per
petual intercession for His people, and reminds
us that in His last act, until the "cloud re
ceived Him out of their sight," His hands
were outstretched as those of our High Priest
in blessing. By the Lord's Ascension we are
linked in thought with Him in heaven and
with those blessed dead in the Lord who have
gone before us, and we are thus moved "in
heart and mind thither to ascend and with
Him continually to dwell."

ASCETICISM

[48]

ASCETICISM

ASCETICISM. — Asceticism in religion may be
defined generally as a voluntary mortification
of self, or denial of natural desires, with a
view to the benefit of the soul, whether by
way of discipline, or by the acquirement of
merit. The self-denial may be of all grades
of severity, from simple abstention from grati
fications or indulgences in themselves legiti
mate, to the renunciation of all physical
comforts or even the infliction of extreme
tortures. Fasting is an example of the first ;
the life of the hermit or solitary is an example
of the second ; flagellation, the wearing of a
hair shirt or spiked girdle, and similar forms
of penance, are examples of the third. It is
disputed whether by the " bodily exercise," of
1 Tim. iv. 8, St. Paul means ascetic discipline
or literal gymnastic : in either case he sets
little store on it. "Bodily exercise," he says,
" profiteth for a little " (or " for little "). No
widespread error or abuse, however, can be
pointed to which does not owe its vitality to
some germ of truth which it contains, and so
it is here. Both Old and New Testaments
recognise the close relation which subsists
between body and soul, and the need of a
regimen of the former for the sake of the
latter. That temperance in eating and drink
ing, and strict moderation in the use of this
world's pleasures, should be observed by the
man of God, always and everywhere, goes
without saying. A subtle connection subsists
between over-indulgence of the bodily appe
tites and luxurious living generally, and
decline or loss of spiritual susceptibility.
When Jeshurun waxed fat, he kicked. Special
seasons of the spiritual life, again, like special
vocations, demand special self-denials, and
peculiar susceptibility to certain temptations
may make avoidance of the occasions of them
a positive duty. Both law and Gospel accord
ingly give a certain place to practices which
may be called ascetic. Considerable promi
nence is given in both to "fasting" — less,
however, as a prescribed duty, than as a
voluntary aid to devotion. Under the law,
fasting is prescribed only in connection with
the Day of Atonement (in the phrase "afflict
your souls," Lev. xvi. 29, 31 ; xxiii. 29) ; but
it was a customary form of piety (1 Sam.
vii. 6 ; 2 Sam. xii. 1G, 21 ; Dan. ix. 3 ; Joel ii.
12, &c.). It is doubtful whether Jesus ever
enjoined fasting on His disciples (the Revisers
reject Matt. xvii. 21, and the words " and
fasting " in Mark ix. 29) ; but He recognised
and practised it, whilst warning against
ostentation (Matt. iv. 2 ; v. 16-18 ; Matt. ix.
15). The Nazarite law of the Old Testament
required abstinence from wine and strong
drink, with other ascetic peculiarities (Num.
vi.), and in cases of specially consecrated in

dividuals this rule was made perpetual (Sam
son, Judges xii. ; John the Baptist, Luke i.
15 ; cf. the Rechabites, Jer. xxxv.). In the
case of Daniel and his companions, an ascetic
diet was motived by the resolve not to
" defile " themselves with the king's meat
and wine (Dan. i.). In the New Testament
it is the same apostle who tells us that " bodily
exercise profiteth little," who speaks of
"buffeting" or "bruising" his body and
bringing it "into bondage" (1 Cor. ix. 27).
Still sterner is the language of Jesus about
plucking out a right eye or cutting off a right
hand if it is an occasion of sin (Matt. v. 20, 30)
— language which means that even the dearest
gratification is to be parted with if it becomes
a peril to the spiritual life. Self-denial in
relation to marriage is spoken of as befitting
(Matt. xix. 10-12), and is even recommended
(1 Cor. vii.) in special circumstances, or for
ends of the Kingdom ; but marriage itself is
held in honour (Matt. xix. 4-6 ; John ii. 1-11 ;
Heb. xii. 4), and "forbidding to marry" is
named as one of the marks of the apostasy
(1 Tim. iv. 3). Finally, St. Paul recognises
the obligation to refrain from the use of that
which is in itself lawful, where that use might
be an occasion of stumbling to others (Rom.
xiv. 23 ; 1 Cor. viii. 13).

We gather that the Scripture thus recognises
a legitimate field for bodily self-denial, or
asceticism, from evangelical motives, and this
in a threefold direction — (1) In subordination
to the ends of the spiritual life, or of one's
vocation ; (2) as a protection against habitual
temptation ; (3) as removing offence from
others. Whilst doing this, however, it un
ceasingly warns against the perils which
attend even legitimate asceticism. The out
ward action, it is constantly reminding us,
means nothing in itself ; if exchanged for
true religion, or unaccompanied by the graces
of the latter, it is worse than useless, and is
an abomination to the Lord (e.g. Isa. Iviii.) ; as
mere form it may be the veil for hypocrisy,
ostentation, and spiritual pride (Matt. vi. 16 ;
xxiii.); if regarded as "merit" — a piece of
one's own righteousness — it is a denial of the
Gospel (Rom x. 3, 4 ; Gal. v. 1-4 ; Col. ii. 20-23 ;
1 Tim. iv. 1-4). But deceitful above all things
is the human heart, and out of this root of
what is true and good in asceticism, there have
never failed to be evolved in the history of
religions vast overgrowths of pernicious error.
With the natural tendency of the carnal mind
to substitute outward appearance for inward
religion, and to gain repute by artificial and
extravagant forms of piety, other principles
have co-operated. There is the strong bent
of the natural heart to self -righteousness ;
there is the influence of the idea that God

ASCETICISM

[49 ]

ASCETICISM

delights in the pains more than in the joys of
men, and is propitiated for sin by their self-
inflicted tortures ; there is the idea widely
prevalent in Oriental religions of the inherent
evil of matter, and the consequent duty of
freeing the soul from all dependence on the
body. As the fruit of the working of these
principles, we have in all lands and in nearly
all religions, marked developments of a per
verted asceticism. We find this in the ancient
religions of Babylonia and Egypt ; in Zoroas-
trianism ; in Brahmanism and Buddhism ; in
the lower religions generally. It will suffice
in the present sketch to confine the view
mainly to Christianity.

The first form in which asceticism signally
appears in the Christian Church, apart from
the prominence early assumed by fasting, is
in relation to marriage. Already in the second
century the idea of the superior sanctity of
virginity, and of the unmarried over the married
state, was steadily asserting itself. This idea,
partly a recoil against the unbridled sensuality
of heathenism, was one of the roots out of
which sprang the belief in the perpetual vir
ginity of Mary, followed in after times by the
doctrines of her freedom from actual sin (fifth
century), then of her freedom from original
sin (scholastic age). The writings of the third
century abound in proofs of the exalted respect
in which virginity was held ; so much so that
descent from this state was viewed as a species
of discredit, and, in stricter circles, second
marriage was regarded almost as a heinous sin
(Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Methodius). In
the numerous sects outside the Catholic Church
(Ebionites, Marcionites, Montanists, Novatian-
ists), ascetic tendencies in this and other re
spects were even more powerfully developed.
In some of these sects, (e.g. Marcionites, Aquarii)
the Lord's Supper was observed with water
instead of wine. As illustrating the strong
views held on celibacy, Origen's unhappy act
of self-mutilation — the result of a literal inter
pretation of Matt. xix. 12 — may be mentioned.

A second important form assumed by the
ascetic tendency was in the doctrine of penance.
It was right that in the exercise of discipline
the Church should require from penitents some
palpable evidence of their change of mind,
and should impose forms of restoration which
tended to impress the sense of sin and of for
giveness. But the Church's penitential dis
cipline early assumed a character which rested
in part on false ideas, and gave undue promi
nence to the outward as compared with the
inward. The idea was that post-baptismal sin
— at least of the more serious sort ("mortal
sin") — required to be atoned for by "satis
factions" and "merits" of the sinner's own,
and through the entrance of this idea of

"satisfaction" (Tertullian) a mischievous turn
was given to the act of contrition which led
to its development later into the full-blown
"sacrament" of penance. The term of pro
bation was unduly prolonged (often for three
or four years) ; penitents were grouped into
classes (weepers, hearers, kneelers, standers),
and the abasement required was public and
severe (e.g. in the first stage of his humiliation
the penitent had to prostrate himself outside
the Church door in mourning garb imploring
restoration). It is well known how far this
doctrine of penance was subsequently carried
in the Church of Rome. History will not
readily forget Henry IV. at Canossa, or the
flagellations of Henry II. of England at the
tomb of A Becket.

More familiar, because more conspicuous, is
the form which asceticism assumed in Mon
asticism. This is, if one may so speak, the
peculiar creation and classical embodiment of
the ascetic spirit. Monasticism is not of
Christian origin, but springs from tendencies
inherent in human nature in all ages. It is
found, e.g. in Brahmanism and Buddhism,
among the Therapeutae in Egypt, the Essenes
in Palestine, and elsewhere. It began in
Christianity about the end of the third century,
and took root and spread with extraordinary
rapidity in the fourth. The two names speci
ally connected with its rise are those of Antony
and Pachomius— the former the founder of
the solitary (anchorite, hermit), the latter of
the social (coenobite), types of monkery respec
tively. Earlier than Antony was a hermit
named Paul, who had retired to the desert
from the fury of the Decian persecution
(A.D. 250). Antony (A.D. 251-356) was the
son of wealthy parents. Voluntarily surrender
ing his possessions, he betook himself to
solitudes in the desert of the Thebaid in
Egypt, and soon attained unprecedented re
pute. He gathered round him an enormous
number of disciples, who, after his model, lived
apart, each in his separate cell. Pachomius,
likewise a native of the Thebaid (A.D. 292-348),
after twelve years spent as a hermit, was moved
to found a society of his own on an island of
the Nile. This grew till, by the time of his
death, it embraced eight monasteries with
3000 members. By the beginning of next
century the number of monks had risen to
50,000. The society of Pachomius differed
from the hermit monasticism of Antony in
that it introduced the principle of monks living
together under a common rule. The monks
lived in cells containing each three, and these
were grouped into monasteries, each governed
by an abbot. The sister of Pachomius intro
duced similar societies for women, the inmates
of which were called nuns. In these monkish

D

ASCETICISM

[50]

ASCETICISM

fraternities the principles of asceticism were
enforced in their utmost rigour. Not only was
celibacy required, but the life was one of
continuous hardship and privation. Absolute
silence, e.g., was enjoined on the monks of
Pachomius ; nor were they ever allowed to
take off their goatskin dress, but had to sleep
with their clothes on, and in a sitting posture.
The hermits subsisted on the scantiest fare,
slept on the bare ground, declined ablu
tions, &c. Whatever higher motives led to
this renunciation of the secular life, the ulti
mate results of a system so contrary to nature
could not but be pernicious. The monastic
mania soon ran into the most fantastic excesses
of self-inflicted privation. Some, e.g., known
as boskoi, or grazers, lived like wild beasts on
the mountains, without shelter, almost without
clothing, feeding on grass, herbs, and roots.
But perhaps the most curious type of monkish
extravagance was that of the stylites, or pillar-
saints, in the beginning of the fifth century.
The originator of this form of fanaticism was
Symeon, a Syrian, who built for himself a
succession of pillars, each higher than the
former, and lived on them for more than
thirty-seven years. His role was taken up
by a monk called Daniel, who built a pillar in
the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and lived
on it for thirty years. Such strange delusions
could men entertain of what was pleasing to
Deity !

It was not long before monasticism had
spread, not only through Egypt, but into
Palestine and Syria, and even into Mesopo
tamia and Armenia. The chief name con
nected with its entrance into Palestine is that
of Hilarion. In the West, it was introduced
into Rome by Athanasius and Jerome, and
into Gaul by Martin of Tours. Basil the Great,
one of the renowned Fathers of the fourth
century, established a monastery in Poutus,
and gave his monks a rule, which afterwards
became the rule of the whole East. The
Fathers of the age threw all the weight of
their influence into the monastic form of piety
— "the philosophic life," as it was sometimes
called. Many of the monks were no doubt
sincere and good men (for a picture of the
better side, see Kingsley's Hypatia) ; but the
evils of the system soon overpowered its better
elements. The monks were generally intensely
ignorant, turbulent, and fanatical ; mixing
themselves up as they did with doctrinal and
other controversies, they soon became a posi
tive peril in society. Discipline was relaxed ;
degeneracy set in ; and, in the state of un-
settletnent everywhere prevailing, the monkish
Orders fell in the fifth century into decay and
barbarism.

It was then that Benedict of Nursia, in Italy

(A.D. 480-545 ?), arose — he who gave his name
to the Benedictine order. Himself an ascetic
of the strictest order (when he first came to be
known he was taken for a wild beast), his rule
was nevertheless somewhat milder than the
Eastern, and provided for the monks engaging
in manual occupations — agriculture, or some
form of useful industry. " The Benedictine
monks," says Guizot, "were the agriculturists
of Europe ; they cleared it on a large scale,
associating agriculture with preaching." Part
of the monks were employed in the training of
children : in the monastery of Vivarium, in
Lower Italy, founded by Cassiodorus (A.D. 538)
special encouragement was given to learned
studies. The Order thus founded rapidly
spread over all Europe, and soon had absorbed
into itself all other forms of monasticism, the
Celtic alone excepted. With the growth of
wealth and repute, corruption again set in, and
by the time of Charlemagne (ninth century),
morality in monasteries and convents was at a
very low ebb. A new check was attempted to
be put to these evils by a second Benedict —
Benedict of Aniane (about A.D. 817) — but his
austerities were so severe that he frightened
his own followers. "He macerated his body,"
we are told, "with excessive fasting, his dress
was of rags, swarming with vermin, he took
little sleep and that on the bare ground, he
never bathed, he courted derision and insult
as a madman." The tenth century is one of the
darkest in the history of the Papacy, but it saw
also the beginnings of reform. From the tenth
to the thirteenth centuries were founded most
of the New Monastic Orders — some, like the
Brethren of Clugny (A.D. 910) and its great
rival Order, the Cistercians (A.D. 1098), re
formed offshoots of the Benedictines ; others
like the Carthusians (A.D. 1086), distinguished
for the rigour of their rule, entirely new Orders.
In the thirteenth century were constituted the
Mendicant Orders — the Franciscans (A.D. 1223)
and Dominicans (A.D. 1216) — who lived on
charitable gifts either paid voluntarily into
their cloisters, or collected by monks sent out
for the purpose. Once again the law of cor
ruption asserted itself, and by the time of the
Reformation the monasteries all over Europe
were in a state of unspeakable demoralisation.
Nor can the evils of the monastic system ever
be thoroughly eradicated from it. In many
countries monasteries and convents are still
the abodes of idleness, tyranny, and vice ; and
though in a country like Britain, public opinion
exercises a salutary restraint, numerous in
stances that come to light show that the
unnatural repression of the ascetic life cannot
be prevented from bearing many evil fruits.

Intimately connected with monasticism is
the subject of celibacy. The vow of celibacy

ASCETICISM

[ 51 ] ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN

is taken by all monks, and in the Latin Com
munion is made a requirement of the whole
clergy. In the Greek Church priests cannot
marry after ordination, but if married earlier
are allowed to live in matrimony. It was not
without a long contest that this rule of the
celibacy of the clergy came to prevail in the
Church of Rome (its decisive victory is due
to Hildebrand) ; and the fruits of the practice
in licentiousness and concubinage formed one
of the crying scandals of Christendom before
the Reformation.

Finally, notice should be taken of the self-
inflicted tortures frequently practised by those
aiming at higher holiness under ascetic rule.
The records of monasticism show the extremes
to which self-mortification can go in starva
tion, vigils, sleeping on cold floors, scourging,
wearing articles fitted to inflict pain, &c. In
times of popular excitement the passion for
self-torture has infected communities and be
come a species of madness (e.g. the Flagellants
of the fourteenth century). Saintly men and
women have sought to further their soul's
health by wearing hair shirts, dropping melted
wax on their arms, &c. (e.g. Pascal and his
sister). One would be glad to record that
such practices were things of the past, but
this unhappily is far from being the case. The
Catholic revival in the Anglican Church has
led to a recrudescence of this whole class of
superstitions, and the "discipline" of monkish
asceticism is strenuously advocated and en
couraged by those who desire the restoration
of the confessional and other adjuncts of
sacerdotalism. We have before us the adver
tisement, with prices, of penitential articles,
including knotted ropes, hair shirts, crosses
with steel points, armlets, cinctures, and ank
lets with points, issued by a leading London
house. Dr. Pusey's avowal to Dr. Keble, his
father Confessor, will be remembered : " Hair
cloth I know not how to make pain. ... I
have it on again by God's mercy. I would try
to get some sharper sort ... I think I should
like to be bid to use the discipline " (scourge :
Life, iii. p. 100). It is depressing to think
that such barbarism should again be lifting up
its head in the name of Christianity.

The whole ideal of asceticism, as seen in its
historical manifestations, is a false one. It is
a heathenish notion that suffering as such can
ever be pleasing to the God of love, or can
be a means of expiating sin, acquiring merit,
or fostering holiness. The one all -perfect
sacrifice needs no supplement of ours. The
misguided crushing out of natural instinct can
only breed worse evils. The Christ who came
both eating and drinking, who graced the
marriage feast with His presence, and who
declared " I will have mercy and not sacrifice,"

can lend no sanction to most of the practices
that come under this head, or to the ideas and
ends that inspire them. [J. O.]

ASHES. — Used for sprinkling persons by the
Romish Church. Before use, the ashes are
dedicated previously by a special prayer
offered by a bishop. In that prayer, invoca
tion is made to God "that whosoever shall
sprinkle themselves with these ashes for the
redemption of their sins may obtain health of
body and protection of soul."

ASH -WEDNESDAY.— A mediaeval title given
to the first day of Lent. It had formerly two
names: (1) "Caput jejunii," the "head of the
fast," and (2) "Dies cinerum." The forty
days of Lent, being appointed in memory of
our Lord's fast in the wilderness as a season
of abstinence, date from the Wednesday of
the first week, because it was never the custom
to fast on Sundays, and in this way the full
number of forty is made up. The name of
"Ash-Wednesday" was given in reference to
an ancient discipline, described by Gratian,
according to which penitents had to appear
before the Bishop and Clergy clothed in sack
cloth. The seven penitential Psalms were
then sung, after which ashes were thrown
upon them, and they covered their heads with
sackcloth. The Church of England, however,
has in no way retained or sanctioned those
superstitions. By the Scriptures appointed to
be read and the prayers to be used, she has
rather exhibited the true ideal of a fast. The
old title of Ash-Wednesday is only employed
as an alternative for the " first day of Lent,"
because before the Reformation it was "com
monly so called." The revival of such prac
tices is therefore entirely foreign to her
prescribed ritual and is illegal.

ASPERGES.— The ceremony of sprinkling the
people with Holy Water before the Romish
High Mass. The name is taken from the first
word of the Latin Version of Ps. li. 7, and
signifies, "sprinkle (me)."

Before the Reformation the priest, after
blessing the water before the Sunday morning
service, went round and sprinkled the people
with a bunch of hyssop, whilst the choir sang,
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean :
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

ASPERSION.— A sprinkling. The term de
scribes a mode of administering Holy Baptism
to infants sometimes adopted in place of
pouring or dipping. But that mode of bap
tizing is not authorised by the Church of
England.

ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED
VIRGIN.— A mediaeval festival. The Ritual
Reason Why regrets that the feasts of the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Corpus
Christi, and St. Thomas of Canterbury have

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN [ 52 ] ASSUMPTION OP THE VIRGIN

been "removed from the Church's Kalendar
by order of Henry VIII. without canonical
authority, and not since restored." The Con
gregation in Church states that "the feast of
the Assumption is kept on August 15. It com
memorates the death of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. A common name for this festival
in the Kalendar of the Eastern Church is the
Koimesis of the Blessed Virgin Mary (a Greek
word meaning 'the falling asleep'). The
Roman Church teaches that her body as
well as her soul was taken up to heaven."
There is much in this statement which is
misleading. The feast of the Assumption is
not kept in the Church of England, and does
not commemorate the death of St. Mary, but
the taking up of her body into heaven. The
words Koimesis and Assumption are not inter
changeable, as Koimesis means no more than
"falling asleep," while Assumption means much
more. The history of the institution of this
festival is as follows : —

There were legends, theories, and specula
tions of the Gnostics on almost all things
in heaven and earth in the early centuries,
and among them were stories first about St.
Mary's Birth (Protevangelvum and the Gospel
of the Birth of Mary) and at a rather later
date about her death. The latter took form
in a book written about the beginning of
the fourth century, or possibly a little earlier,
called DC Transitu Virginia Marine Liber. The
legend embodied in this book told how St. Mary
lived at Bethlehem after her Son's death until
an angel came to say that she must die ; then
she was wafted in a cloud to Jerusalem and
carried by the Apostles to Gethseraane, where
her soul was received by Gabriel and taken to
Paradise ; but the Apostles bore her body to
the Valley of Jehoshaphat and laid it in a
new tomb ; then suddenly the Lord Christ
appeared, and ordering Michael to bring back
her soul from Paradise, reunited it to her
body and gave her to angels to convey to
heaven. The Church knew that this was an
idle fable and regarded it as they did the
worship of St. Mary by the Collyridians. " The
whole thing," they said, " is foolish and
strange, and is a device and deceit of the
devil" (Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxxix.). And the
book was condemned by Pope Gelasius as
heretical in the year 494. Nevertheless, this
Gnostic tale was by-and-by imported into the
Church, and upon it rests the present Koman
doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin Mary.

The chief means by which this was done was
forgery. First men assigned the name of an
orthodox author to the heretical De Transitu,
and called it a work of Melito's, who was a
well-known Bishop of Sardis in the second

century. Next they grew bolder and attributed
it to St. John the Apostle. Then two Sermons
affirming the Assumption were foisted into the
works of St. Athanasius, and a treatise De
Assumptione Beatce Virginis Marine was assigned
to St. Augustine, and a spurious letter was
attributed to St. Jerome, AdPaulumetEustochium
de Assumptione Beatce Virginia, and an inser
tion was interpolated into Eusebius' Chronicle,
that "some wrote that it had been revealed
to them that Mary the Virgin was taken up to
heaven in the year 48," and the very words of
the De Transitu were put into the mouth of
Juvenal of Jerusalem as having been received
by him from "an ancient and most true tra
dition." Amid the darkness which began to
gather over the Church in the sixth century
and increased century by century, these for
geries led some writers honestly to believe the
Gnostic and Collyridian legend on the supposed
authority of Melito, Athanasius, Eusebius,
Augustine, Jerome, Juvenal, or even St. John.
The first writer that we meet with who was
thus misled is Gregory of Tours, a man of
learning, but of little judgment. He lived in
the sixth century, and copied the De Transitu
story without apparently any knowledge of its
heretical parentage. Andrew of Crete did the
same thing in the seventh century, and John
Damascene in the eighth. From them it was
handed on to Nicephorus Callistus in the
thirteenth century and to the compilers of the
Roman Breviary, where it holds its place in the
Services for August 15. Nicephorus says that
the Festival of the Assumption was instituted
by the Emperor Maurice at the beginning of
the seventh century. It was not acknowledged
by Charlemagne at the beginning of the ninth
century, but was admitted by his son Louis
in 818. This is the festival which the Ritual
Reason Why says " is kept " on August 15,
evidently meaning that it is kept and ought
to be kept by members of the Church other
than or besides those belonging to the Church
of Rome. We see that it is nothing else than
an heretical fable.

The following is an abridgment of the
later part of the Gnostic fairy-tale brought
over into the Church by Gregory of Tours,
adopted by the medieval Church, and stereo
typed in the Breviary and Missal Services for
August 15th : —

"In the twenty-second year after the Ascen
sion of the Lord, Mary felt her heart burn with
an inexpressible longing to be with her Son ;
and behold an angel appeared to her and
announced that her soul should be taken up
from her body on the third day, and he placed
a palm branch from Paradise in her hand and
desired that it should be carried before her.
And Mary besought that the Apostles might

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN [ 53 ]

ATHANASIAN CREED

be gathered round her before she died ; and
all of them were snatched away in a bright
cloud and found themselves at Jerusalem.
And Gabriel stood at blessed Mary's head and
Michael at her feet and they fanned her with
their wings, and Peter and John wiped away
her tears. Then on the sixth day of the week
the Holy Spirit commanded the Apostles to
take up Mary and to carry her from Jerusalem
to Gethsemane. Then drew;near Juphia, one
of the high priests, and attempted to over
throw the litter. But as soon as Juphia had
touched the litter, the angel smote off his
arms with a fiery sword, and the arms re
mained fastened to the litter. Then he cried
to the disciples and Peter for help, and they
said, 'Ask it of the Lady Mary,' and he cried,
'0 Lady, O Mother of Salvation, have mercy
on me ! ' Then she said to Peter, ' Give him
back his arms,' and they were restored whole.
But the disciples proceeded onwards and they
laid her down in a cave, as they were com
manded. And the angel Gabriel announced
that on the first day of the week Mary's soul
should be removed from this world. And on
the morning there came Eve and Anna and
Elizabeth and they kissed Mary and told her
who they were. Afterwards came Adam, Seth,
Shem, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David,
Enoch, Elias, Moses, and twelve chariots of
angels innumerable. And then appeared the
Lord Christ in His humanity, and He stretched
out His hand and blessed her, and she took His
hand and kissed it. Then she said, ' O Lord,
take me to Thyself.' And He said to her,
' Now shall thy body be in Paradise to the day
of the resurrection, but thy pure spirit shall
shine in the Kingdom, in the dwelling-place
of My Father's fulness.' And Mary stretched
out her hands and blessed the Apostles, and
her Son put forth His hands and received her
pure soul and bore it to His Father's treasure-
house. And there was a light and a sweet
smell, sweeter than anything on earth, and a
voice from heaven saying, ' Hail, blessed
one ! blessed and celebrated art thou among
women 1

" And the Apostles carried the body to the
Valley of Jehoshaphat, to a place which the
Lord had told them of, and John went before
and carried the palm branch. And they placed
her in a new tomb and sat at the entrance of
the sepulchre. And suddenly there appeared
the Lord Christ, surrounded by a multitude of
angels. And Peter and the Apostles besought
Him that He would raise the body of Mary
and take it with Him in glory to heaven.
And the Saviour said, ' Be it according to
your word ! ' And He commanded Michael to
bring down the soul of Mary. And Gabriel
rolled away the stone, and the Lord said,

' Rise up, My beloved, thy body shall not suffer
corruption in the tomb.' And immediately
Mary arose and bowed herself at His feet and
worshipped, and the Lord kissed her and gave
her to the angels to carry to Paradise. But
Thomas arrived just after these things were
accomplished, and he demanded to see the
sepulchre in which they had laid his Lady.
' For ye know,' said he, ' that I am Thomas,
and unless I see I will not believe.' Then Peter
arose in wrath and haste, and the other dis
ciples with him, and they opened the sepulchre
and went in ; but they found nothing therein
save that in which her body had been wrapped.
Then Thomas confessed that he too, as he was
being borne from India in the cloud, had seen
her holy body being carried with great triumph
into heaven ; and that, on his crying to her
for her blessing, she had bestowed upon him
her precious Girdle, which when the Apostles
saw they were glad. Then the Apostles were
carried back each to his own place." [F. M.]
ATHANASIAN CREED (Quicunquc vult)—
This ancient confession of faith which, as our
Prayer Book says, is "commonly called the
creed of St. Athanasius," is not now supposed
to have been written by the great Greek
Father but by some Latin divine of the fifth
century. The difference of opinion as to its
authorship has been wide. Baronius, Cardinal
Bona, Bellarmine, Rivet, Bishop Andrewes, and
others say that the}' believe it to have been
composed by Athanasius himself when an
exile in the West. Bishop Jewel says it was
written, as some think, by Athanasius, or as
some others by Eusebius Vercellensis. Bishops
Usher and Pearson and Hamon Lestrange and
Cave all ascribe it to a Latin author. Water-
land refers the Creed to Hilary, Abbot of
Lerins and afterwards Bishop of Aries, and
places the date about A.D. 430. But Bingham
says the best and latest critics of his day
ascribed it to Vigilius of Thapsus, an African
bishop who lived at the latter end of the fifth
century. Their arguments are : 1. The Creed
is wanting in almost all the MSS. of the
works of Athanasius ; 2. The style is that
of a Latin not a Greek author; 3. Neither
Cyril of Alexandria, nor the Council of
Ephesus, nor Pope Leo, nor the Council of
Chalcedon have even so much as mentioned it ;
4. Vigilius published other works under the
borrowed name of Athanasius (Bingham, iii.
374 ; Wetzer and Welte, Diet : Tit. Foi, symbolc
de). This last fact would account for the
pertinacity with which the name "Athanasian
Creed" has adhered to this symbol. It is
also curious, if the Creed had been written by
Athanasius of Alexandria, that its general use
should have been practically confined to the
Western Church and should date only from

ATHANASIAN CREED

[54 ]

ATONEMENT

about the ninth century, and that Athanasius'
favourite expression " consubstantial " should
not appear in it (see views of Montfaucon ex
pounded by Ffoulkes, App. 16 and sqq. ).

Of modern savants, Professors Swainson,
Lumby, and Harnack have advocated " the two
portions " theory, i.e. that the Creed originally
consisted of two parts, the former on the
Trinity and the latter on the Incarnation, and
that the whole is a compilation which assumed
its present form in the ninth century. The
Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes also looks upon it as a
compilation not an original work, and attri
butes its present form to Pauliuus, Archbishop
or Patriarch of Aquileia in the ninth century,
the damnatory clauses being due to Charle
magne. The Rev. Preb. Omrnanney and Dr.
Heurtley maintain that the Creed was extant
complete as at present in the fifth century.
And lastly, the Rev. A. E. Burn, writing in
1896, also rejects the "two portions" theory
and practically adopts the view of Waterland.
He attributes the Creed to a Gallican student
of St. Augustine connected with Lerins and
Aries, but thinks that the actual author was
Honoratus and not Hilary.

The Creed was composed with a view to
defining the Catholic faith, having especial
regard to certain theological disputes which
had troubled the Church up to the date of its
composition ; and the omission of certain of
these disputes is a material factor in deter
mining its date. Thus the following heresies
are aimed at, viz., those of the Monarchians,
Patripassians, Sabellians, Arians, Semi-Arians,
Adoptionists, Docetae, Apollinarians, Mono-
physitcs, Monothelites, Nestorians, Eutychians,
Montanists, and Macedonians (Daniel On the
Prayer Uook, and for particulars of these
heresies, see separate headings).

Our Reformers thought highly of the Atha-
nasian Creed and introduced it into the Prayer
Book of 1549 for recital (possibly in addition
to the Apostles' Creed) on the feasts of Christ
mas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost,
and Trinity Sunday. In 1552 (the Second
Prayer Book of Edward) seven other occasions
were added, and in 1662 its recital was ordered
to be instead of the Apostles' Creed. Arch
bishop Whitgift considered it " not only an
excellent confutation of Arius' heresy but a
plain declaration of the mystery of the Trinity
such as is necessary for all Christian men to
learn and know " ( Works, ii. 481). The eighth
Article of religion declares that it ought
thoroughly to be received and believed, for it
may be proved by most certain warrants of
Holy Scripture. The French Protestant Church
also approves of it as being agreeable to the
written Word of God (Bingham, ix. 142). On
the other hand many persons strongly dis

approve of the damnatory clauses, and indeed
they form no part of the positive teaching and
are characteristic of the age rather than
portions of the gospel. However, it would
seem to be very reasonable that the anathemas
should be omitted as has been done in the
case of the Nicene Creed. In addition a large
party in the Church of England has always
been desirous that the use of the whole Creed
should be made optional, not because they
disbelieve it, but because they consider it
quite unsuitable for liturgical use (see
Earnest Remonstrance against the Recital of the
Athanaaian Creed: Ridgeway, 1886). In the
proposed revision of 1688 a rubric was drawn
up declaring that "the condemning clauses
are to be understood as relating only to those
who obstinately deny the substance of the
Christian faith " ; but this revision, excellent
in many ways, unfortunately never took
effect. The Protestant Episcopal Church of
the United States eliminated the Athanasian
Creed from Articles and Prayer Book. In the
Church of Ireland its use in the public services
of the Church is no longer permitted (except
as a hymn), though it is still printed in the
Prayer Book. It has been thought by some
that the objections to the Creed might be
removed by means of a revised translation, and
a motion on the subject was carried by Canon
Stanbridge in York Convocation in February
1901. But it is difficult to see what good this
will effect. The change of " whosoever will
be saved " into " whosoever willeth to be safe "
e.g., is hardly likely to remove a conscientious
objection to this medieval Creed.

An important recommendation was made in
the Fourth Report of the Ritual Commission,
p. 13, that a note should be added at the end of
the Creed to the effect '•' that the condemna
tions in this Confession of Faith are to be no
otherwise understood than as a solemn warning
of the peril of those who wilfully reject the
Catholic Faith." [B. W.]

ATONEMENT.— This is a strictly English
word [at-one-ment], and may signify either the
fact itself of being or setting at one, or the
means or agency whereby the difference which
once separated two parties has been healed
and a good understanding effected. Thus, in
ordinary parlance, when used in a religious
sense, atonement is spoken of as either the
reconciliation which has taken place between
God and man, or the death of Christ which
is the procuring cause of it. Frequently, too,
the word atonement is viewed as the compre
hensive term by which both the sacrifice of
Christ and the effects flowing from it are
embraced and expressed. Such usage of the
word causes confusion of thought and leads to
doctrinal error. It is by far the safer course

ATONEMENT

[55]

ATONEMENT

to restrict the term atonement (and we intend
to do so throughout this article) to the sacri
ficial work of Christ in His humiliation, suffer
ing, and death ; and to reserve the words
reconciliation and redemption to the blessed
consequences which flow from that atonement.
By marking the distinction between these three
terms important aspects of truth are brought
out. For example, it is God, not man, who
receives the atonement, but believers who re
ceive the reconciliation through Christ. Again,
atonement takes effect by changing the rela
tions of God towards the guilty ; redemption
by changing the relation of the guilty towards
God : atonement is the price paid for the
redemption of the Church ; redemption the
freedom of the Church which was itself pur
chased by the atonement.

Besides observing the fundamental differ
ences between atonement and reconciliation
and redemption, it is helpful to make our
selves acquainted with the family group of
words — such as expiation, propitiation, satis
faction, sacrifice — of which atonement stands
at the head, and the various phases of the
Saviour's work to which they respectively
allude. Expiation is the enduring of the full
penalty due to a wrong or crime, and forms
the ground for the pardoning of the offender.
Propitiation is an offering, action, or sacrifice
that makes the governing power propitious
towards the offender, and presents a reason
or motive for pardoning the sinner. Expia
tion has immediate reference to the condition
of the offender ; propitiation to the disposi
tion of the judge. Again, Satisfaction denotes
the rendering a full legal equivalent for the
wrong done. Propitiation appeases the law
giver; satisfaction meets the requirement of
the law ; although both terms equally imply
the deliverance of the wrong-doer. Once more,
atonement is oftentimes convertible with sacri
fice, the latter term being then used figura
tively. They both necessarily involve a com
pensative principle and a retributive process,
mercifully turned aside from those on whom
it should have fallen because entirely directed
towards and rigorously exacted from another.

The consideration of the meaning and use
of atonement would not be complete without
noticing its Hebrew and Greek equivalents.
The Hebrew word "Ig!), kipper (of which "to
atone" is a translation), signifying primarily
"to cover,'" "overspread." The word comes,
however, in the secondary sense, to signify to
atone, to appease, to pacify, to procure favour
(Gen. xxxii. 20 ; Num. xvi. 46, 47 ; Prov. xvii.
14 ; Ezek. xvi. 63), because the effect of these
is to cover, or, in Scripture meaning, to remit
offences. Under the law all ceremonial pro
pitiation was effected by sprinkling or covering

over with the blood of sacrifice when shed.
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean"
(Ps. li. 7) is evidently metonymy of the instru
mental cause. The bunch of hyssop (the caper
plant, Caparis spinosa) is put for the blood which
it was employed to sprinkle — and the petition
signifies " purge (or cleanse) me by the sprink
ling (or covering) of the blood of sacrifice." In
accordance with this meaning of the word, the
Septuagint renders it by t£i\d<TKe<r9a.i, "to ap
pease," to make propitious, the word which, in
its uncompounded form, is employed in the New
Testament with regard to the object of the
Saviour's death (Heb. ii. 17), and which, as a
noun (iXa<ryu6s), occurs in 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10.
In Rom. v. 11 the Greek word is not 1X0107x61,
but Kara\\ayri, and should be rendered not atone
ment, as in A.V., but "reconciliation," as in
R.V.

Having explained the proper signification of
the word, we are now prepared to consider the
doctrine of the atonement and describe its
nature as far as revealed in the Scriptures.
In approaching this part of the subject it is
advisable to briefly state a few well-known
facts respecting reconciliation generally, before
treating the complicated problems connected
with the fall of man and his restoration. It
will be readily admitted that in order to re
store friendly relations which have been in
terrupted, there are two courses which can be
taken. The first is that the parties estranged
may directly approach each other, either the
offending party may come to the offended, or
else the offended to the offending. The second
course is that of mediation, when a third
party, either at his own prompting or at the
request of one or other or both of the parties,
endeavours to bring about an amicable settle
ment. The difficulties in the way of effecting
reconciliation are increased when the two
parties estranged are not on an equality, and
especially when one of the parties is a sove
reign. In this latter instance the offended has
to consider the conduct of the offender not
merely in relation to himself personally, but
to his other subjects, whose rights and interests
have to be taken into account. Further com
plications arise when the offender has incurred
the displeasure of the sovereign, not through
some passing circumstance or unpremeditated
action, but when he has been born into a position
of active hostility which he has maintained by
his own deliberate act and deed. In such a
case it is obvious that other than benevolent
sentiments must influence the offended party
in order to secure a perfect reconciliation.
Provision must be made for the removal of
the guilt incurred by the offender (such as
may be consistent with the character, dignity,
and majesty of the offended party), and also

ATONEMENT

ATONEMENT

for the removal of his aversion and alienation
This provision will be an atonement in som
form or other.

Now, if we keep in mind the above recognise*
and common-sense principles, we shall hav
little difficulty in understanding the Word o
God respecting the atoning work of Christ
We require, however, so to study the subjec
that the teaching of the Old and New Testa
ments be read in relation to each other, anc
then interpret the language used upon natura
principles and without subtle refinements am
rationalistic attempts to explain away Divin
mysteries.

The general teaching of the Old Testamen
upon atonement may be well summed up by thi
enunciation of the principle that withou
shedding of blood there is no remission o:
sin, no acceptance of the worshipper, no re
storation to the Divine favour. Respecting
the Levitical sacrificial system, nothing can
be plainer to a reader of a simple and un
sophisticated mind than that two principles
were distinctly exhibited. The first of these
was that " there was something in the character
and government of God which objectively (that
is, in itself) presented a hindrance to the ob
taining of pardon, or getting anew into a
state of favour and fellowship with Heaven."
Then, secondarily, corresponding to this re
cognised and real obstacle, there was pre
scribed for its removal "the sacrificial sub
stitution of an animal's life for the forfeited
life of the sinner — a substitution appointed by
God, and presented by the sinner who sought
to be atoned." Combining these two ideas,
we have as the total import of the sacrifice :
satisfaction by substitution.

In perfect harmony with these typical adum
brations is the language of the New Testament,
in which the atoning work of Christ is ex
hibited in a fourfold light.

First and foremost, the atonement is repre
sented by means of sacrificial analogies.
It is described as a work of priestly mediation,
which reconciles God to man, removing enmity,
not from the offending but from the offended
party (Rom. v. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Heb. ix. 11,
12) ; a sin-offering, presented on behalf of trans
gressors (John i. 29 ; Heb. ix. 14, 22-26 ; 1 Peter
i. 18, 19) ; a propitiation, which satisfies the
demands of violated holiness (Rom. iii. 25, 26 :
Heb. ii. 17; 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10); and a
substitution of Christ's obedience and sufferings
for ours (John x. 11 ; Rom. v. 6-8; 1 Peter iii.
18 ; cf. Isa. liii. 5, 6).

The atonement is also represented by means
of legal analogies, being mentioned as an act of
obedience to the law which sinners had violated
(Rom. v. 19, x. 4; Gal. iv. 4); a penalty borne
in order to ruscue the guilty (Rom. iv. 25,

viii. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Heb. ix. 28) ; and an ex
hibition of God's righteousness, necessary to the
vindication of His procedure in the pardon and
restoration of sinners (Rom. iii. 25 26 • Heb
ix. 15).

The atonement is further represented by
means of commercial analogies, being, for in
stance, regarded as a ransom, paid to free us
from the bondage of sin (Matt, xx. 28 ; 1 Tim.
ii. 6).

Lastly, the atonement is represented by
means of -moral analogies, and is viewed as a
provision originating in God's love and manifest
ing this love to the universe (John iii. 16 ; Rom.
v. 8 ; 1 John iv. 9) ; an example of unparalleled
love, to secure our deliverance from selfishness,
and furnishing a source of moral stimulus to
men (Luke ix. 22-24 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Gal. i. 4 ;
Eph. v. 25-27 ; Col. i. 21, 22 ; Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Peter
ii. 21-24). See Strong's Systematic Theology.
pp. 390-393.

When carefully examined these fourfold
analogical representations will be found to be
capable of a further classification. The first
three relations — the sacrificial, legal, and com
mercial — refer to the principle of Divine justice,
and may for convenience' sake be called the
Vicarious, or Substitutionari/, aspects of the
atonement. The fourth relation— the moral —
forms a class by itself and refers to the prin
ciple of Divine love.

If, then, the Word of God is to be our guide,
no description of the atonement can be adequate
which does not properly combine both the
substituttonary and the moral aspects, or which
does not assign the first place in order of
thought to the former, to which such scriptural
prominence is given. As right interpreters of
the Word, we must not speak of the substitu-
tionary aspect of the atoning work of Christ
without bearing in mind its moral ; and much
less ought we to lay such stress on the moral
aspects as to lose sight of the substitutionary.
The early Fathers, and in fact more or less
the doctrinal writers who followed them up
to the time of the Schoolmen beginning with
Anselm, make use of the scriptural expressions
concerning Christ's work without developing
any theory. Nevertheless as we find there is
among those Fathers and writers so much
confusion and haziness of thought upon the
subject, and in our day so much defective,
inaccurate, and oftentimes erroneous teaching,
it seems imperatively necessary to carefully
formulate our views. This, perhaps, may best
be done by the aid of the two following pro
positions : —

Firstly, Christ obeyed and suffered in our
stead to satisfy an inherent demand of the
Divine holiness and justice, and to uphold the
principles of the Divine government, and thus

ATONEMENT

ATONEMENT

to remove an obstacle in the Divine mind to
the pardon and restoration of the guilty.

Secondly, the sacrifice of Christ furnishes
the most powerful stimulus to effect such a
change in man's disposition as will fit him
to return to God ; and since the saving benefits
resulting from such return are received only
by union with Christ, the Redeemer and Head
of mankind, holiness of life is secured.

With our limited powers, and owing to the
veil which has been designedly allowed to
conceal Divine verities, we cannot furnish a
full explanation of the redemptive plan nor
give complete replies to all speculative objec
tions that have been raised against it. But
the following considerations will be found to
anticipate several difficulties which may be
experienced in regard to the doctrine as above
stated : —

First, the problem which had to be solved in
the redemption of mankind was in what way
mercy could be extended to offending creatures,
the subjects of the Divine government, without
encouraging vice by lowering the righteous
and holy character of God and the authority of
His government, in the maintenance of which
the whole universe of beings is interested.

Secondly, Christ's Incarnation and Death on
the Cross did not procure God's love to us, but
were the result and manifestation of that love.

Thirdly, Christ, though personally innocent,
yet, as the Saviour of His people, was so in
volved with us in the consequences of the fall,
that the guilt and penalty of the race belonged
to Him to bear.

Fourthly, Christ could justly bear the pen
alty, because in a sense, as the Son of Man, He
may be said to have taken upon Himself and
inherited our guilt. Since this guilt is not His
personal guilt, but the guilt of that one sin in
which " all sinned," the guilt of the common
trangressions of the race in Adam— the guilt
of the root-sin from which all other sins have
sprung — He who is personally pure and imma
culate can vicariously bear the penalty due to
the sin of all.

Fifthly, Christ's death satisfied the interests
of God's government because it satisfied that
justice of God, of which government is an
expression.

Sixthly, the infinite dignity of Christ, as the
Divine Eternal Son of the Divine Eternal Father
Himself, "God over all blessed for evermore,"
enhances His sufferings for the sins of all
His blood-bought people. This is an infinitely
valuable offering, and therefore a full equiva
lent in the eye of infinite justice.

Seventhly, Christ's death was the crowning
act of a perfectly holy life. His active obe
dience and His passive obedience are insepar
able. The latter is essential to the former ;

and both are needed to secure for the sinner,
on the one hand, pardon, and on the other hand
restoration to the Divine favour.

Eighthly, Christ's taking our nature upon
Him and suffering for us in our stead was His
own voluntary act. He was so one with us that
His acts are not to be viewed as His own, in a
merely individual capacity, but as those of the
human race whom He represented and who
are summed up in Him as the second Adam —
the Lord from heaven.

We need to be on our guard against destroy
ing the comfort of the scriptural teaching of
the atonement by the doctrine of human merit,
and forgetting that salvation is all of grace
from the first to the last step in the life of the
believer. Faith, for instance, must not be re
garded as the ground of our acceptance with
God, but only the medium of appropriation. We
are saved, not on account of (proptcr) faith, but
only through (per) faith. It is not faith, but the
atonement which faith accepts, that satisfies the
justice of God. Nor must we consent to the
doctrine of Rome that the yood works of the
just merit an eternal reward, and that God
accepts sinners " because they are renewed by
grace of Christ, and that He accounts them
just and good because they really had become
just and good, because Himself had washed
and cleansed them and reformed their nature
more wonderfully than He had formed it at the
first." Such false teaching arises through con
fusing Justification with Sanctification, and
overlooking the fact that good works which
follow after justification, though they are the
evidence of faith, pleasing and acceptable to
God in Christ, yet cannot "endure the severity
of Ood's judgment" (Article XII.). Not upon
faith, repentance or good works, nor yet upon
anything else than the atoning death of Christ
dare we rest our hopes of heaven. In Christ
alone we stand complete. Once again, we
must not take from the completeness of the
atonement by denying its finality. The officiat
ing minister does not in the Sacrament repeat,
continue, or re-enact the sacrifice on Calvary
(Heb. x. 10-14). See MASS.

As the atonement is perfect and cannot be
added to or altered without destroying its
efficacy, so also it is sufficient for salvation
for all who by grace receive it. If men perish
they will have to blame themselves for their
wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to
Him. But we here approach the borderland
of a deep and mysterious subject, and a
favourite and fruitful field of controversy.
Whatever view, however, Christians may take
as to the extent of the atonement, there is a
general agreement in the doctrine that it secures
for all men a delay in the execution of the
sentence against sin, and a space for repent-

ATONEMENT

[58]

AUTO DA FE

ance, together with a continuance of the
common blessings of life which have been
forfeited by transgression (Acts xvii. 30, 31
Rom. iii. 25). See PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
In regard to the doctrine of the atonement
at the present time, there is great danger of in
cautious, inaccurate, and incomplete statement
respecting it, and an inclination to lay almost
exclusive stress upon what are valuable but
subsidiary aspects of the redemptive work of
Christ. No doubt it may at times be useful to
let our minds dwell upon the death of Christ
as that of a noble martyr in the cause of truth,
or as the manifestation of God in Christ suffer
ing for the sins of His creatures. Helpful, too,
it may be, as some imagine, to contemplate our
Lord in our nature acknowledging our sins and
the justness of our exclusion from the Divine
favour ; and to think of Him as affording to
the whole human family, a perfect example of
obedience to the Divine will, "an obedience
climbing to its highest pinnacle in an un
flinching submission to death." Certainly it is
desirable to sit at the foot of the Cross and
realise the love of God in Christ when our
hearts feel cold and earthbound, and thus to
find an incentive to return to our heavenly
Father and enjoy unbroken fellowship. But
such uses of the death of Christ depend alike
for their value and comfort upon our first of
all regarding His sacrificial work from the
true standpoint, and resting upon His atone
ment, as such, for our one hope of Divine
acceptance. PC. N.I

ATTRITION.— A term defined by Roman theo
logians as an imperfect sorrow for sin, and dis
tinguished from "Contrition" or sorrow for
sin, which has for its motive the love of God.
Attrition is said to arise from a motive which
is supernatural, that is to say, apprehended by
faitli, but still falls short of contrition. Such
motives are the fear of Hell, the love of Heaven,
the turpitude of sin. Attrition is declared by
the Council of Trent (Sess. xiv. c. 4) to be "a
true gift of God and an impulse of the Holy
Spirit. " But the question was long debated by
Casuists whether, if a man came in attrition
to the Sacrament of Penance and received
absolution, he was restored to God's favour.
At present the opinion is universally held that
attrition with penance suffices. Liguori calls
it certain (Catholic Dictionary, sub voce).
Such a doctrine is indeed dangerous. Bishop
Jeremy Taylor said: "Therefore there is no
necessity of contrition at all, and attrition is
as good to all intents and purposes of pardon ;
and a little repentance will prevail as well as
the greatest, the imperfect as well as the
perfect." But all these quibbles and subtle
distinctions vnnish like mists of earth before
the shining of God's full and free forgiveness

in Christ, and are scattered by the assurance,
"If we walk in the light, as He is in the
light. ... the blood of Jesus Christ, His
Son, cleanseth us from all sin." See CONTRI
TION and ABSOLUTION.
AUGUSTINE.— See FATHERS.
AUREOLE. -The nimbus, halo, or cloudy
circle of (properly, according to the etymology
of the word, golden coloured) rays with which
in art the head of Christ or of saints is repre
sented as surrounded. It originated in the
metal discs by which the images of the gods
were in pagan times protected from defilement
by birds. In the Romish Church the word also
has the significance of a special "accidental"
reward bestowed in heaven upon martyrs,
virgins, and doctor.
AURICULAR.— Pertaining to the ear, told in

the ear, secret. See CONFESSION.
AURORA.— Dawn. In the Romish Church the
dawn preceding sunrise, before which Mass
may not be celebrated, except in cases of grave
necessity and on Christmas day (See MASS :
and the Ritual Reason Why, p. 161).
AUTO DA FE.— The Portuguese form of the
Spanish auto dc fe, an act of faith, sometimes
called an "auto" or "act" simply. Strictly
it is a public declaration of the judgment
passed on accused prisoners tried before the
Inquisition, which court had cognisance of
various ecclesiastical offences, of which heresy
was the chief (see INQUISITION). But popu
larly the word is used to signify the in
human punishment with which such offences
were visited, especially in Spain, e.g. flogging,
branding, maiming, and burning to death. And
it is particularly applied to an execution by
burning. It is said that the Spanish tribunals
carried out about 50,000 autos da fe, and the
villainies connected therewith are by no means
exaggerated. Napoleon put an end to them in
1808, and used these words, "In Spain as at
Rome the Inquisition shall be abolished and the
fearful spectacles of auto da fe shall not be
renewed." In this article we do not deal with
the Inquisition, but only with the terrible cere
mony during which were burnt with great pomp,
ad majorem Dei yloriam, the victims of the In
quisition.

The day of the auto da fe (usually All Saints'
Day or a Sunday between Easter and Advent)
was a day of triumph for the Inquisitors. It
had been announced long before from the
pulpits in all parishes. The officers of the
" Holy Office," preceded by their banners and
escorted by instruments of music, perambulated
in cavalcade the public places, to spread the
news. Rendezvous having been given to all
around the holy wood pyre, woe to any man
of position, woe to the grandee of Spain who
failed to be there. The King himself, sur-

AUTO DA Tt [ &

rounded by his court and the princes of his
family, had his place marked in the lugubrious
festival, and had to make it a point of honour
to increase its splendour by his presence. On
the appointed day, a little before dawn, the
big bell of the cathedral gave the signal, to
whicli responded the funeral knell of all the
bells in the city calling the people to the
horrible spectacle, and on all sides people
hastened, fearing to be accounted indifferent,
or even hostile to the faith by staying away.

Meantime the victims are got ready. Dressed
first in a sort of coat the sleeves of which
reached to the middle of the hands and in
drawers which came down to the feet, they
ranged them in file in a corridor of the prison
still ignorant of the fate which awaited each,
for the Inquisition prided itself on merciful
j'ustice ; she desired the death of sinners and
above all their fortunes, but she did not wish
their eternal damnation. Also to induce them
to deserve their salvation she had devised this
distinction, full of humanity ; if at the last
moment any confessed their errors and re
pented they lovingly strangled them before
committing them to the flames, while those
who persevered and refused to affirm the
catholic faith were burnt alive, doubtless to
give them a foretaste of the everlasting punish
ments which await hardened sinners.

On one and all they threw over the shoulders
a sort of dalmatic of grey colour called san-
benito, in form like a priest's stole. On this
vestment was seen, the portrait of the victim,
his name written in red letters, and a descrip
tion of the crimes for which he was condemned,
all coloured red with demons and flames. For
those who repented, these flames were reversed
towards the earth, but they shot up straight for
those who persisted in their errors. The head
was covered with a large cap of pasteboard
and also decorated with flames and fantastic
demons. This cap, ending in a point, resem
bled a bishop's mitre. Jews, Mohammed
ans, sorceresses, and renegades, wore dresses of
the same shape, made of yellow cloth, exhibit
ing behind and before great St. Andrew's
crosses painted red. It may be said that
the grotesque disputed with the horrible. The
Inquisitors knew the superstitious spirit of the
unhappy countries delivered to their merciless
fanaticism, and they struck the imagination
and doubled the terror of the punishment by
surrounding it with ghastly and ceremonious
accessories. There was then placed in the
hand of each victim a large taper of yellow
wax ; then they were made to pass into a
hall where the Inquisitor awaited them, sur
rounded by persons of every class. As each
of the victims came in the Inquisitor indicated
one of the persons present to serve as his

| AUTO DA Tt

godfather in the "act of faith." They were
lastly given a confessor, and about seven in
the morning the procession formed in the
following order : 1. The Dominicans, whose
founder, St. Dominic, was also the founder of
the Inquisition, carrying in their midst the
banner of the Holy Office, decorated with
the image of St. Dominic holding a sword in
one hand, and an olive branch in the other,
surrounded by this singularly ironical device,
justitia et miscricordia. 2. The victims, walk
ing without distinction of sex in the order of
the enormity of their crimes, the most guilty
last, head and feet bare, carrying tapers, and
accompanied by their sponsors. 3. A great
crucifix. 4. The effigies of those who were
condemned for non-appearance before the
court, or who had been fortunate enough to
escape from prison, carried on the top of
sticks and clothed with the same vestments
as the actual victims. 5. Little boxes painted
black covered with demons and flames, con
taining the bones of dead persons condemned
by the tribunal, either before or after their
death, and even of those whom the Holy Office
had thought it well to accuse long after their
death, and to attaint by a posthumous con
demnation with the sole object of confiscating
their goods and despoiling their heirs, which
was done with unwonted rigour. After having
thus paraded the principal streets of the city,
the sombre cortege arrived at the church
designated for the fulfilment of the second
part of the ceremony. This church had been
carefully draped entirely in black, as well
as the altar on which was placed the great
crucifix which had been carried in the pro
cession. On a throne at the right the Grand
Inquisitor seated himself. On another at
the left the King took his place. At the foot
of the steps of the altar were arranged the
benches for the victims and their sponsors.
Behind them the crowd filled the church.
Then the preacher went into the pulpit and
treated those present to an address, the sub
ject of which was always a panegyric of the
Inquisition. Then he read the sentences,
interrupting himself at times to recite an
act of faith, after having invited the victims
and the faithful to join him with heart and
voice. At last the Grand Inquisitor, clothed
in his pontifical vestments, surrounded by
all the officers and supporters of the Holy
Office, left his place, and from the altar
steps solemnly gave the absolution to those
whom the Inquisition had let off with tl
lives — though they generally lost their
liberty for life, and always their fortunes.
As to the others, after a question as to tl
religion in which they wished to die, t
Inquisitor struck them on the breast, signify-

AUTO DA FE

[ 60]

AVE MARIA

ing that the Church repelled them from her
bosom, and that they were delivered to the
secular arm, i.e. to the executioner, for the
sentences of the Inquisition did not order, but
involved death, an abominable distinction and
subterfuge.

Then the victims were led to the wood-pile,
the executioners tied them to stakes, garottec
those who by their repentance had earned this
signal favour, and in the midst of sacred chants
and the victims' cries of pain, and in the
presence of an inquisitive and cowed mob, they
set fire to the pile where, in one heap, the living
victims, the strangled victims, the effigies, and
the bones of the dead were burnt. Sometimes
other tortures were inflicted. The next day,
before the doors of the churches, were to be seen
portraits of the persons burnt, with their name
at foot, and those of their father and country.
A very curious thing is that many of the
victims abjured their errors and were confessed
like real penitents, and were consequently from
a Roman Catholic point of view in a state of
grace, and were yet garotted and burnt. Thus,
by a strange anomaly, a man converted and in
a state of grace, according to the Church itself,
suffered like a heretic in what the Inquisition
called an act of faith.

According to Llorente, the Spanish Inquisi
tion, from 1481 to 1808, judged 341,021 persons,
of whom 31,912 died by burning, 17,669 were
burnt in effigy, the others suffering minor but
always severe penalties. And this author is
not a declared enemy of the Inquisition. The
first solemn auto dafe took place at Valladolid,
Trinity Sunday 1559, minute details of which
are recorded. It is said the last auto da fe took
place in Mexico in 1815. The greater part of
the above account has been translated from
Larousse, Diet. Univ. [B. W.J

The first public auto dafe was held at Valla
dolid on Trinity Sunday, May 21, 1559. It
lasted from 6 A.M. until 2 P.M. Two Protes
tants were burnt and twelve were strangled.
The two were Cazallo, parish priest of Hermigos,
and Herezuelo, a lawyer of Toro. The second
was held at Seville on September 29, 1559 ;
the third at Valladolid on October 8, 1559.
At Seville on December 22, 1560, two English
men, Nicolas Burton, a London merchant,
and William Burke, a Southampton mariner,
perished with the rest. Between 1560 and
1570 there was one auto dafe held every year
in each of the twelve cities where the In
quisition was established.

After 1570 Protestantism was practically ex
tirpated, but autos were held though with in
creasing rarity. In the Plaza at Madrid, there
were autos in 1621, 1623, and 1632 ; on the latter
occasion, seven persons were burnt. One was
held at Cuenca in 1654, and on June 30,

1688, eighty-five grandees of Spain acted as
familiars of the Holy Office, and the King sent
with his own hands the first faggot to the pile.
Twenty-one persons were burned alive. A
woman was burnt at Seville as late as November
7, 1781, the last instance on record. Through
out the eighteenth century, sixteen hundred
thus suffered in Spain and the colonies. See
McCrie, The Reformation in Spain, pp. 131-162 ;
Stoughton's Memories of the Spanish Reformers,
ch. xii. ; Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic,
vol. i. pp. 280-285 ; Lea's Hist, of the Inquisi-
tion- [C. J. C.]

AVE MARIA.— Hail, Mary ! An invocation
of the Virgin. It is repeated frequently in the
services of the Romish Church. It is com
pounded of the words of the angel Gabriel in
Luke i. 28 with those of Elisabeth in Luke i. 42,
and with the late addition of a petition for the
Virgin's intercession "now and in the hour of
death." It is, to use the words of the Church
of England in her Article XXII., "a fond
thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to
the Word of God."

AVE MABI A AND ANGELUS.— The Ange-
lus is described by the Ritual Reason Why, and
the Congregation in Church as a " devotion in
tended as a memorial of the Incarnation,"
as "long used by Christians as a memorial of
the Incarnation," and it is given at full length
in the second of these manuals for the use, no
doubt, of members of the English Church.
This statement of the purpose and devotional
use of the Ave Maria and the Angelus is in
exact and incomplete.

The Ave Maria consists of two parts— (1) an
address ; (2) a prayer to Mary. (1) The address
is formed by the angelic salutation to Mary, as
translated incorrectly by the Vulgate version
of the Bible (with the addition of the name
Mary) and the salutation of Elisabeth, and runs
thus: "Hail, Mary! full of grace (instead of
" thou that art highly favoured "), the Lord is
with thee : blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus "
(where the name Jesus also is added). The use
of this first part of the Ave Maria (without the
prayer subsequently added, be it noted) sprang
up in the twelfth century, and was first enjoined
by the Constitutions of Odo, Bishop of Paris,
in the year 1196. In the same century, which
was fruitful of superstitions, there emerged a
devotion called "The Crown of the Virgin,"
which consists of sixty-three recitations of the
Ave Maria as above, the number being fixed
at sixty-three because St. Mary was imagined
to have lived sixty-three years. This devotion
is attributed to Peter the Hermit. A little
later in the century there arose " The Rosary
of the Blessed Virgin," consisting of 150

AVE MARIA AND ANGELUS [ 61 ] AVE MARIA AND ANQELUS

recitations of the said Ave Maria, divided at
equal distances by fifteen Paternosters.

The Angelus originated in the next century.
It was "a devotion," says one of the above-
quoted manuals, "consisting of three antiphons,
three Hail Marys, and the Collect for the Feast
of the Annunciation." The following is the form
of the " antiphons " and " Hail Marys " : —

" The Angel of the Lord announced to Mary
and she conceived by the Holy Ghost. Hail
Mary ! full of grace, the Lord is with thee :
blessed art thou among women and blessed is
the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ! Behold the
handmaid of the Lord : be it unto me accord
ing to Thy word. Hail, Mary ! full of grace,
the Lord is with thee : blessed art thou among
women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus ! The Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us. Hail, Mary ! full of grace, the Lord
is with thee : blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ! "

The above formula was to be recited three
times a day (involving a ninefold daily repe
tition of Ave Maria) at the sound of a bell,
which has thence been called the Angelus bell.
It was a Milanese monk, named Da Riva, who
first began the practice of ringing a bell at its
recitation, in 1227. Minor indulgences were
granted by Pope John XXII. and Pope Calixtus
III., and in 1518 Pope Leo X. gave 500 days'
indulgence to every one who used the devotion
three times a day at the sound of the Angelus
bell, which he ordered to be rung three times
daily. Succeeding Popes exchanged the 500
days' indulgence of Leo for a plenary indul
gence to be earned once a month.

(2) We have not yet come chronologically to
the direct prayer to Mary which constitutes
the second part of the Ave Maria as it is now
daily used in the Roman Church. The prayer
is " Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us
sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen." This prayer is first heard of in the
fifteenth century and was first sanctioned in
the year 15G8 in the Breviary of Pope Pius V.
Appended to the earlier salutation it forms
the Ave Maria which at the present time
is the favourite Roman prayer, and which
Roman priests are bound to say seven times
a day : before Matins, Prime, Terce, Sext,
Nones, Vespers, and after Compline.

The purpose of the devotion is not to serve
for "a memorial of the Incarnation," as stated
by the manuals above-mentioned, but it is the
natural expression of the ever-growing devo
tion to Mary which, beginning in the Middle
Ages, threatens to supersede the worship of
Christ in popular estimation throughout unre-
formed Christendom. Leo XIII. has been
called "the Pope of the Rosary." In the
thirteen years from September 1883 to Sep

tember 1896 he has issued sixteen Papal de
crees, commending, inculcating, and enforcing
the devotion of the Rosary. In 1885 he
dedicated the whole month of October to the
Rosary. In 1894 he gave the rationale of the
Rosary as follows : " The succour that we
implore of Mary in our prayers has its founda
tion in the office of Mediator of Divine Grace,
which she exercises constantly before God,
being most acceptable in dignity and merits,
far excelling all saints in her power. This
office does not find its expression so well in
any prayer as in the Rosary, where the part
which the Virgin has taken in the salvation of
men is, as it were, given in present effect, and
where piety finds such great satisfaction by
the successive contemplation of the sacred
mysteries, or by the repeated recitation of the
prayers. We begin, as is meet, with the Lord's
Prayer, addressed to the Heavenly Father.
After having invoked Him in these most
sublime petitions, the suppliant voice turns
from the throne of His Majesty to Mary, in
conformity with that law of compassion and of
prayer of which we have spoken, and which
St. Bernardino of Siena has expressed in these
terms, ' All grace that is communicated to
this world arrives by three degrees. For from
God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from
the Virgin to us, it is dispensed in perfect
order' " (Encyclical, Jucundus Semper).

The writer of Catholic Devotions for Young
People (1901), which the Rev. G. C. Ommanney,
Vicar of St. Matthew's, Sheffield, has made
himself responsible for by commending it for
use in the English Church, is as warm an advo
cate of the Rosary as Pope Leo XIII. himself.
Of the "Angelus" with a prayer to St. Mary
attached, he says, addressing the children :
" It would please Jesus and His Mother very
much if you learnt it by heart and said it at
the appointed times, usually at 6 A.M., 12 noon,
and 6 P.M." (p. 28). For the Rosary he instructs
the children to provide themselves with a string
of beads, and carefully follow his directions in
the use of them, which are as follows : —

"How to Use the Beads.— Make the sign
of the Cross. Say the Apostles' Creed, on
the crucifix ; ' Our Father ' on the first
large bead; 'Hail, Mary!' on each of the
three following smaller beads. Now stop
for a moment and think of the first Mystery,
of either the Joyful, Sorrowful, or Glorious
Mysteries. Example, the Annunciation. Then
say one ' Our Father ' on the next large bead
and ' Hail, Mary 1 ' on each of the ten following
smaller beads (you will find that the small
beads are divided into groups of ' tens ' ; that
is called a ' decade'); then say a ' Glory be
to the Father' on the chain before the next
large bead. Continue in the same manner

AVE MAEIA AND ANGELUS [ 62 ]

BAPTISM

with all the Mysteries round the chaplet. . .
At the end of the five decades it is usual to
say the ' Salve Regina,' ' Hail, holy Queen
Mother of Mercy, our Life, our Sweetness, anc
our Hope, all hail ! To thee we cry, poor
exiled children of Eve. To thee we senc
up our sighs, weeping and mourning in this
vale of tears. Turn thou, most graciou
Advocate, thy merciful eye towards us, anc
after this our exile show unto us the blessec
fruit of thy womb, Jesus, 0 merciful, O loving
O sweet Virgin Mary ! Queen of the holy
Rosary, pray for us that we may become
worthy of the promises of God ' " (p. 158).

This Manual, commended to the use oi
the children of the Church of England by a
beneficed clergyman of the Church of England
in the diocese of. -York, begins with a request:
" The author begs a ' Hail, Mary I ' of al]
who use this book," and it ends as follows :
"The Rosary is very dear to the Mother of
Jesus. It is like a golden chain which bind
us to her. Each time ' Hail, Mary ! ' is said it
increases the joy of all the Heavenly Host and
draws down countless blessings and graces
upon earth. How we should love the Holy
Rosary which repeats so often that blessed
prayer! Let us pray that by a devout use
of it, it may become dear to us as it is dear to
the hearts of Jesus and Mary ! " See ROSAEY.

[F. M.]

B

BALDACCHINO. — A canopy used in the
Romish Church in processions ; or erected in
churches over an " altar," or above a bishop's
throne. The word is supposed to be derived
from Baldeck or Babylon, and to have been
applied originally to cloth of gold made there.
The canopy over the consecrated bread and
wine was condemned as an illegal ornament
when used in the Church of England (in the
case of White v. Bowron), and moreover is ob
jectionable as tending towards making the
table a fixture when it ought to be a movable
piece of furniture. See Whitehead's Church
Law, p. 175 ; Miller, Guide to Eccl. Law, § 97.
Bishop Jewel devoted the ninth chapter of his
reply to the Jesuit Harding ( Works, ii. 553) to the
question of the canopy over the Lord's Table.

BANNERS.— Flags employed by Romanists
and Ritualists for " mystical " reasons in re
ligious processions and services. In the Ritual
Reason Why, p. 160, they are said to be in
tended partly " to kindle the devotion of the
people, and partly for mystical reasons. Thus,
in festal processions, to signify yet more
clearly the progress and future triumph of
the Church according to that description of

her in Canticles vi. 10. So in penitential
processions (though more sparingly), to show
that in her pilgrimage here she is the Lord's
host, or to express her hope of deliverance."
Such appeals to the senses are not necessary
for really devout minds, and are not in uni
son with " the simplicity which is in Christ."
Banners may be allowable as mere decorations,
but are illegal when employed as "ornaments"
in the Church of England. See Whitehead,
Church Law, p. 205.

BANNS OF MARRIAGE.— An audible and
solemn proclamation in the form prescribed by
Act of Parliament in the parish church or some
public chapel licensed for marriages, of the
names, condition, and parish of each of the
two persons intending to marry. The Banns
must be thus published, on three Sundays
preceding the solemnisation of the marriage,
during the time of morning service, or (if there
be no morning service in such church or chapel
upon the Sunday on which such Banns shall
be published) immediately after the second
lesson at evening service. When the parties
dwell in two different parishes or chapelries,
the Banns must be published in both parishes
or chapelries. "In all cases where Banns shall
have been published, the marriage shall be
solemnised in one of the churches or chapels
where such Banns shall have been published,
and in no other place whatsoever" (4 George IV.
c. 76, s. 2). The place during Service for the
publication of Banns was fixed at the last
review of the Prayer Book as " immediately
before the sentences for the offertory " ; but
by the Act just quoted it was enacted to be
immediately after the second lesson (see Cripps,
On Clergy, ch. iii. ; Whitehead, Church Law),
Banns are good for three calendar months
after complete publication. Their publication
is dispensed with by a licence being granted.
A Registrar's certificate of marriage will, of
course, also exempt from Banns. The Banns
may be forbidden for any just cause or im
pediment either by notice to the minister or
publicly in the church ; but if no valid or suffi
cient reason be alleged the publication would
hold good. In the case of a minor the publica
tion of Banns publicly forbidden by the parents
or those in loco parentum is absolutely void.
BAPTISM. — This word is Greek, and signifies
prop, dipping, a ceremonial washing with water,
and is the name of one of the two Sacraments
ordained by Christ. It is of equal importance
with the other Sacrament, for both are "generally
necessary to salvation." By Baptism persons
are admitted into the visible Church. Baptism
of a certain kind, as well as circumcision, was
practised by the Jews of our Lord's time for
the admission of proselytes to Judaism, and,
it is said, of their families, into the Jewish

BAPTISM

congregation, and was used by the Baptist
under divine direction "unto repentance for
the remission of sins." But Christian Baptism
was ordained by Christ just before His Ascen
sion (Matt, xxviii. 19). According to His words
on that occasion, the essentials of the ordi
nance are the application of water whether
by immersion or by affusion in the name of
the Trinity. This is laid down in the rubric
at the end of the office for private Baptism.
The sign of the Cross is therefore not essential,
though it is an expressive symbol enjoined by
the Church of England. Baptism is valid, even
if thus administered by a lay person or a
schismatic or a heretic. But the rubric in
the office for private Baptism limits the per
formance of that rite to "the minister of the
parish, or in his absence any other lawful
minister." There is certainly no authority for
the re-baptism of those who have been thus
baptized in another Communion. When, how
ever, after inquiry it may be doubtful whether
it has been properly administered, a conditional
form is supplied at the end of the office for
private Baptism. But in both the Prayer
Books of Edward VI. and in Elizabeth's it
was ordered that "one of those present" should
baptize the child. The present rubric dates
from the Hampton Court Conference. The
Church of Rome (C. Trent, sess. iv. c. 11)
anathematises any one affirming that Baptism
administered even by a heretic, with the in
tention of doing what the Church does, is
not true Baptism. The third article of th,-
Creed of Pope Pius IV. also declares that
Baptism, Confirmation, Orders cannot be re
iterated without sacrilege. Nevertheless Roman
priests re-baptize Protestants and thus incur
the charge of sacrilege. It is asserted,
however, that such baptism is performed
only conditionally on the supposition that
the persons have not been baptized. The
condition is, however, in most cases not openly
stated. There are other contradictions in
which the Church of Rome is involved on
this subject. As she asserts the absolute
necessity of Baptism (C. Trent, sess. vi. c. 4),
her theologians are forced to discuss such
questions as whether infants can be baptized
before birth through their mothers, whether
abortions should be baptized, and the like.
These questions are affirmatively answered by
Dens and Benedict IV. But this is surely to
limit the sovereignty of God by tying His grace
to His own ordinances, and seems designed to
increase the power of the priesthood.

As to the effects of Baptism there is a
marked contrast between the doctrine of
Rome and that of the Church of England.
The Church of Rome teaches that "Everything
which has the true and proper nature of sin

[ 63 ] BAPTISM

is in Baptism taken away, and that not only
is its condemnation remitted, but that con
cupiscence, called sin by St. Paul because it
inclines to sin, is removed" (see C. Trent,
sess. v. 5). This makes Baptism, not faith,
the means of justification. "The point" (says
Bishop Harold Browne on Article IX.) on
"which these canons differed from the ninth
Article of our Church is in the entire cancelling
of original sin in Baptism. The Council of
Trent determined that in Baptism the soul
was restored pure into the state of innocency,
though the punishments which follow sin be
not removed." Our Reformers, on the con
trary, maintained that the tendency to sin is a
symptom of spiritual disease, and is itself sin.
Article IX. declares that "the infection of
nature doth remain, yea in them that are re
generated," and that " concupiscence and
lust hath of itself the nature of sin." Article
XV. adds that "all we the rest, although
baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend
in many things." All this agrees, not only
with experience, but the teaching of God's
Word — e.g. Romans vii. ; 1 John i. 9, 10 ; St.
James 1. 14, 15.

The language of the baptismal offices, in which
the baptized, whether adult or infant, is de
clared regenerate, is understood by many of our
best divines as that of charitable assumption,
and of faith in God's promises, nor is it any
where asserted in the Prayer Book that every
baptized person is changed in heart and nature.
Repentance and faith, which are prayed for in
the Baptismal Service for Infants, are absolutely
necessary to the realisation of the full benefits
of Baptism. This view is well expressed
by Bishop Harold Browne (Article XXVII.).
He wrote : " If a person has been baptized, but
still remains with his carnal nature unre-
newed, we are not to conclude that God was
unfaithful though the man has been unfaith
ful. But we are still to look upon that person
as practically unregenerated, and we ought to
try to bring him to conversion of heart, to a
real change of soul and spirit. We may in
deed still hope that God's Spirit promised in
Baptism will be ever ready to aid him, when he
does not continue obstinately to resist Him."
In this he fully agrees with Article XXVII.,
which defines Baptism as " a sign of re
generation or new birth, whereby as by an
instrument" (i.e. a legal deed of conveyance),
"they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted
into the Church, the promises of forgiveness
of sins and of our adoption to be the sons of
God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and
sealed ; faith is confirmed and grace increased
by virtue of prayer unto God." On the other
hand, the Council of Trent (sess. vii. ch. 8)
anathematises those who deny that grace is

BAPTISM

[ 64 ] BAPTISM, ROMAN EITUAL OF

given by the Sacraments of the new law ex
opere operato. But it is evident, from such
cases as those of St. John the Baptist and of
the penitent thief, that it is possible to receive
the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins
without Baptism, or previous to it ; and also,
from the case of Simon Magus (Acts viii.
13-23), that a person may be baptized and
remain unrenewed. The new birth is spoken
of sixteen times at least in the New Testament,
but only once is water connected with it
(John iii. 5). Once regeneration is associated
with washing or the bath (1 Peter iii. 21), and
there it is expressly added that it is ''not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God, by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead." Twice believers are said to be born
of the "Word of God," or the "Word of
truth" (James i. 18; 1 Peter i. 23). Augustine's
language on this point is very clear. " Out
ward Baptism," he says, " may be administered
where inward conversion of the heart is
wanting, and, on the other hand, inward con
version of the heart may exist where outward
Baptism has never been received " (Treatise
on Adoption). Again he wrote, "the laver of
regeneration is common to all who are baptized
in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Ghost ; but the grace itself of
which they (?) are the sacraments and by
which the members of the Body of Christ are
regenerated is not common to all" (On Psalm
Ixxvii.).

So, according to Bishop Harold Browne,
Augustine taught that Baptism is not in itself
conversion of heart, and of adults he says that
a person may be baptized with water and not
born of the Spirit. In infants he also says
that the sacrament of regeneration precedes
conversion of heart. As regards the Baptismal
Services for infants, whilst their language is
so strong and apparently absolute, it should be
interpreted by that of Articles XXV. and
XXVII. It clearly presupposes the existence
of repentance and faith in adults, and in the
case of infants relies on the virtue of the
prayers of faith offered on their behalf, as
answered according to St. John's assurance
(1 John v. 14, 15) and our Lord's loving de
claration that "of such is the Kingdom of
Heaven." Such views were in the Gorham
case pronounced by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council to be consistent with
subscription to the Prayer Book, and they are
in harmony with the doctrine of Holy Scrip
ture and the Articles. See Mozley, Baptismal
Regeneration ; See GoEHAM DECISION.

[W. B.J

BAPTISM, ROMAN RITUAL OF.— The
water used in baptism must in the same year

have been blessed, either on Easter Eve (Holy
Saturday) or on the Eve of Pentecost, unless
unavoidable necessity should require the use
of water consecrated at the time. The lawful
minister is the parish priest who must use the
Latin form, but in urgent cases any may bap
tize whether cleric or laie, man or woman, using
the same form in the vernacular language.

The sacred chrism and holy oil needful in
baptism must have been blessed by a bishop
on Holy Thursday in the same year.

The following are some of the special and
distinctive rites and ceremonies : —

(1.) Exorcism. After .the prie.-t has ques
tioned the child as to what he seeks from the
Church, he blows thrice into the child's face
bidding the unclean spirit to come forth, and
give place to the Holy Ghost. Later on in
the form, the exorcism is repeated, Satan
being directly addressed and bidden not to
violate the sign of the holy cross.

This exorcism is repeated a third time before
proceeding to the Baptistery, only it is now
directed against every unclean spirit.

Salt. — A scrap of salt is put into the mouth
of the baptized, supposed to be the first food
of his regenerate life. The priest says:
"Receive thou the salt of wisdom, let it be
to thee a propitiation unto eternal life." The
salt has been blessed in a long prayer, previ
ously uttered, that it may in the name of the
Holy Trinity be made a saving sacrament for
putting the enemy to flight.

Spittle. — The priest is to take with his right-
hand thumb, some of the spittle of his own
mouth and touch therewith, in the form of a
cross, first the right ear of the infant and
then the left, saying "Ephphatha," (Be thou
opened) and then touching the nostrils he
adds, "In odorem suavitatis."

Oil. — The priest dips a small silver rod or
his thumb into the oil of catechumens, and
anoints the infant in the breast and between
the shoulders in the form of the cross, saying,
"I anoint thee with the oil of salvation in
Christ Jesus our Lord, that thou mayest have
eternal life."

Water. — The godfather or godmother, holding
the infant, the priest takes the baptismal
water in a small jug and pours it thrice over
the infant's head in the form of a cross. The
pouring takes place in connection with the
name of each person of the Trinity. Immedi
ately after the water has been poured, the
priest anoints the infant on the crown of the
head in the form of a cross with the oil.

(2.) Other Ceremonies. Presentation of a
white linen cloth, which is laid upon the head
of the infant, or a white robe to the adult.

Presentation of a lighted candle either to
the child or to the godfather.

BAPTISM, ROMAN RITUAL OF [ 65 ] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

Admonition to the sponsors of the spiritual
kinship which they are supposed to have con
tracted with the baptized and with its parents.
This kinship was held to hinder matrimony un
less a dispensation intervened. [C. J. C.]
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.— In con
sidering this subject, we shall do well to begin
by endeavouring to ascertain the true meaning
of the word Regeneration, as employed in the
New Testament ; and then proceed to inquire
into the connection of this spiritual experience
with the ordinance of Christian Baptism.

It is a singular but instructive fact that the
desire on the part of some to exalt this sacra
ment, as the means of inducing regeneration,
has led to a depreciation of this term, by a
lowering of the spiritual value of its connota
tion. Inasmuch as facts will not allow us to
affirm that the administration of the ordinance
is followed, in the vast majority of cases, by
any moral results that can be discerned, it has
been concluded by many who belong to the
High Church school that the benefits of re
generation are not to be looked for (at any
rate directly) in the moral region ; the grace
that is bestowed is a capacity or potentiality
rather than any thing that affects us consciously;
it is the implanting of a germ, which may or
may not develop and fructify, rather than the
occurrence of a moral or spiritual revolution.

The New Testament, on the other hand, repre
sents regeneration as the most radical and far
reaching that the mind can conceive of, con
stituting him who is the subject of it a new
creature, with whom old things are passed
away, and all things have become new (2 Cor.
v. 17). It is the initial step in the process of
salvation by cleansing from .sin, and spiritual
renewal (Titus iii. 5). It produces, according
to St. John, deliverance from conscious and
habitual sin, and victory over the world ; it is
a birth by the Spirit, which constitutes him
who undergoes it "spirit" (John iii. 6). It in
duces a sense of freedom and spontaneity in
religious life, which is in the strongest contrast
to all legal bondage and restraint (ibid. v. 8).
It carries with it the privilege of a new and
spiritual sonship towards God, and the blessed
assurance of it.

That all this represents something more
than a mere " capacity " goes without saying ;
but the case becomes immeasurably stronger
when we observe that, while regeneration and
its cognate terms are but seldom employed,1

1 The word translated regeneration (ira\iy-
ytvetria) only occurs twice in the New Testament :
(1) in Matt. xix. 28, where by "the regeneration"
is meant the new birth of the world, or its restitu
tion to its original state of blessedness ; (2) in
Titus iii. 5, where " the washing of regeneration "

there can be no reasonable doubt that the
word indicates that one supreme and radical
change which is insisted on as necessary in
the New Testament Scriptures under many
differing designations. This change is spoken
of as Justification, Salvation, Remission of
sins, Cleansing from old sins, Translation from
darkness into light, Passage from death into
life, Death and burial with Christ and resur
rection into newness of life. It is represented
as inducing consequences affecting our con
sciousness, condition, and experience, such as
inward joy, peace, and hope, love to God and
to the brethren, deliverance from sin and devo
tion to God, the holy intimacy of sonship and
the blessedness of acceptance, all resulting in
actual righteousness, and at any rate incipient
holiness.

One other aspect of regeneration needs to
be noticed, inasmuch as it is the most import
ant of all, and that is its close connection with
the gift of spiritual life. The natural life of
the human spirit having become forfeit through
sin, regeneration is effected by the imparting
of a new life, which is God's gift to man
through the atoning work of Christ. It is this
introduction of a new life that constitutes the
recipient a new creature ; for the new and
divine life thus communicated carries its own
proper moral characteristics along with it.
Our reception of this new life is dependent
upon our death to sin, in the person of Christ,
and our rising up with Him into a new condi
tion, in which we live unto God. Regeneration
may therefore be defined as that supreme
change which takes place when by faith we
regard ourselves as dead to sin in the death of
Christ, and claim with Him to be raised to a
new life, "through faith in the operation of
God." Where faith is thus exercised God re
sponds to its claim, by imparting that new life
which is in His Son — a life that carries with
it its own moral characteristics, and renders
him who receives it a new creature.

If this be regeneration, what is the nature
of the relation of Baptism to it ? Three dis
tinct answers may be returned to this inquiry ;
and between these our decision lies. First,
some hold that this change, called regeneration,
is directly dependent upon Baptism, so that
when Baptism takes place it also occurs.
Secondly, others hold that Baptism is only a
sign or symbol of this change, witnessing to
the fact, that it already has occurred in the
case of the true believer, and also a public
confession of its occurrence. Third, it may be

or " the laver of regeneration " — i.e. the laver of
baptism, which symbolises "regeneration" — is
spoken of. See note p. 141, and C. H. H. Wright,
Roman Catholicism, R.T.S., p. 39.— EDO.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION [ 66 ] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

answered that the ordinance is designed to
bear witness to the specific provision for onr
regeneration, made in Redemption, and to
concentrate our faith upon this, as a definite
issue, and, in normal cases, to be its sacra
mental expression.1

The first of these answers might seem to be
justified by the fact that, in the memorable
words of our Lord to Nicodemus, the birth by
water and that of the Spirit seem to be spoken
of as elements in the same great change ; and
by the further fact that the Apostles seem ever
to refer to the moment of Baptism as the time
when that change took place. But a small
amount of reflection suffices to show that to
this view there are many and insuperable ob
jections. A large amount of confusion of
thought has been caused on this subject by
the habit of theorising on the subject of infant
Baptism, and the benefits that are believed to
flow from it, instead of basing our conclusions
on that which was actually revealed with re
spect to the Baptism of adults. Few will have
the temerity to affirm that the mere process
of baptizing an adult, whatever his moral con
dition or attitude, will produce real spiritual
regeneration. A man may submit to baptism
merely because the chief of his tribe has be
come a nominal Christian, and he desires to
keep in his favour ; or he may be baptized, as
multitudes of Jews recently were in Russia,
merely to escape persecution. To suppose
that, in response to a sacrilegious abuse of the
sacrament, the Holy Ghost confers on the
recipient the blessing of regeneration, and

1 [Note by Editors. — The phrase used by John
the Baptist, "He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire" (Matt. iii. 11), is
essentially the same as "born of water and of
the Holy Spirit " (John iii. 5), used by onr Lord,
and explained by Him in the subsequent verses
The first refers to the work of the Spirit as
"the Spirit of burning," predicted in Isaiah
iv. 4, the second to that of the Spirit pre
dicted in Isaiah xliv. 3, and Ezekiel xxxvi.
25-27, which a "master of Israel" ought to
have understood. The first phrase might, exe-
getically considered, have reference to a rite
or ceremony, for " baptize " is used ; the second
refers only to an inner birth unto righteous
ness, and therefore ought, we contend, to be
explained by such passages as 1 John ii. 29,
1 John iii. 9. Both phrases speak of the work of
the Spirit as a cleansing and purifying work, and
both use language drawn from the prophets of
Israel. Christ's words are of universal refer
ence, and ought not, we maintain, to be inter
preted primarily to refer to Christian Baptism
which was not ordained till Christ had risen
from the dead.]

works in him, as the reward of his impiety,
the greatest and most beneficent change that
supernatural power can effect, is to come peril
ously near blaspheming the Holy Ghost. But
as soon as the admission is made that the act
of Baptism does not produce regeneration in
such cases, logic constrains us to conclude that
Baptism is not the cause of regeneration ; nor
is it even, if we regard God Himself as the
cause, a condition upon which it is absolutely
dependent. In such cases as we have suggested
unquestionably the man is not regenerated ;
but he may become so, if he comply with
certain other conditions ; that is to say, if he
subsequently exhibits that frame of mind
which ought to have accompanied his Baptism.
His regeneration, then, will have been depend
ent, on man's side, not on his Baptism, but on
the sincerity of his repentance and the reality
of his faith.

But if Baptism be not the cause of regenera
tion (on man's side), is it one of two alternative
causes ? Are we, for instance, to believe that
God sometimes regenerates through the act of
Baptism without faith, and sometimes by faith
without Baptism ? To ask such a question is
to answer it. God does not deal in alternative
methods, saving one man through a mere
mechanical act while he saves another by a
moral process. On this point nothing more
need be said. But are we then driven to be
lieve that Baptism and faith are two co-ordinate
causes of regeneration ? For a full discussion
of this important point the reader may be re
ferred to a book which has recently appeared
on the subject of this article (Canon Airken's
Doctrine of Baptism : Nisbet). In this volume
the writer points out that in both the Acts
and the Epistles one and the same great
change is represented as sometimes conditioned
on Baptism and sometimes on faith ; and
argues that this could never have occurred if
it were the case that two entirely distinct and
co-ordinate conditions had to be fulfilled before
regeneration could occur. If peace were offered
to China on the two co-ordinate conditions
that the Celestial authorities should pay down
sixty millions and also abolish a score of their
forts, what should we think of an ambassador
who should at one time affirm that peace could
be secured by the payment of sixty millions,
without referring to the forts ; while at another
time he averred that it could be obtained by
the destruction of the forts, without referring
to the millions ?

There is only one way in which this pheno
menon can be explained. The sacramental act
was regarded as the appointed means of ex
pressing the faith, which it concentrated on
the specific provision of divine grace ; and
therefore it was the means whereby the spiritual

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION [ 67 ] BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

grace of regeneration was received while it
was also a pledge that assured us of its re-
csption. To say this is not to affirm, in accord
ance with the second of the three views of the
relation of regeneration to the sacrament stated
above, that the ordinance is a mere symbol of
the spiritual experience, or a public confession
that it has taken place. This explanation of
the case is forbidden by the fact that the
spiritual benefits symbolised by the ordinance
are invariably spoken of in the New Testament
as being realised in and through the ordinance.
The ordinance is nowhere described as a mere
sign of a spiritual benefit independently
realised, and Protestants do untold damage to
their cause when they put themselves in the
position of having to explain away numerous
clear and definite expressions to this effect.
The true statement of the case would seem to
be, that regeneration is conditioned upon faith
in Christ and His atoning work ; while Baptism
has been appointed to concentrate that faith
upon the specific features of that atonement,
and to give it definite expression when so con
centrated. Thus, in strictly normal cases the
moment of the believing reception of Baptism
would be the moment of regeneration, but in
many cases the faith may precede the^rdinance,
with the result that the spiritual regenera
tion will take place before Baptism, as in the
instance of Cornelius and his friends. Where
this occurs the ordinance will be the outward
and formal expression of a faith already existing
(Rom. iv. 11 ; Col. ii. 11) ; and on God's side the
pledge assuring us of a benefit already received.
It will be to the Christian very much what his
coronation was to our King. It did not make
him king, yet it was the complement of his
accession, and who will say that it was un
necessary to the recognition of his kingly
position ? Besides this, Baptism will be the
sacramental admission of the recipient into the
spiritual society called the Christian Church, j
which the kingdom of heaven upon earth iden
tifies itself with, and by which he is assured
of the enjoyment of all the rights of our
heavenly citizenship.

Where, on the other hand, the ordinance is
performed upon an adult without that faith
being exercised which it was specially designed
to evoke (cxcitat, Art. xxv. ), as, for instance, in
the case of Simon Magus, regeneration does not
occur. It is clear that Simon Magus could not
have been born of God, and made a new creature
in Christ Jesus, and yet have remained " in the
bond of iniquity and the gall of bitterness."
He could not have been received into that
Church of the first-born whose names are
written in heaven, and yet have been " without
part or lot in the matter." In all such cases
regeneration, if it occurs at all, must occu

apart from the sacrament ; and this in itself
suffices to show that the ordinance, considered
apart from the faith which it should express,
does not stand to regeneration in the relation
of cause to effect. Yet, even in such a case,
upon the occurrence of repentance and faith,
the penitent would find in the ordinance an
assurance of his pardon, and a pledge of the
specific divine grace to which the ordinance
bears witness. See Homily of Salvation.

With regard to Inward Baptism we may point
out that we have strong ground for inferring
that God has a provisional economy of grace
for our little ones, resulting, at any rate in
certain cases, in their regeneration, and thus in
their final salvation, if they die in infancy. Why
then should not the Christian parent plead that
this economy of grace may be extended to his
child, inasmuch as it is needed, as for death
so also for the perils of continued life ; and
why should he not prove the faith of his prayer
by submitting his child to the ordinance, which
is the means whereby this grace of regenera
tion is normally received ? In such a case,
whatever benefit may be granted through the
ordinance by Him who sees the faith of those
who bear the helpless infant and lay him at
the Master's feet, that benefit must needs be
provisional in its character. The condition on
which the enjoyment of the new life is depen
dent, i.e. faith in the Life-giver, cannot be
evaded or dispensed with ; and if special
adaptations of divine grace to the case of
helpless infancy are not met by such a repent
ance as forsakes sin, and such a faith as stead
fastly believes the specific promise of God
made in the sacrament, all such benefits must
needs be forfeited.

The point of cleavage between those who
hold the crude theory of Baptismal regenera
tion, ex opere operate, and those who maintain
what is usually spoken of as the " Hypothetical
Theory," lies just here. The former believe
that the recital of a formula and the perform
ance of a particular action necessarily produce
the spiritual effect of regeneration ; the latter
hold that where believing prayer is offered for
a blessing, which we have reason to believe it
is God's will to grant, that prayer will be pro
visionally answered. The former believe that
this spiritual result is absolute, and admits of
being neither reversed nor supplemented ; the
latter maintain that the result, whatever it is,
must needs be provisional in its character, and
cannot be made absolute until the condition
upon which in the case of an adult it is con
tingent is complied with. The former maintain
that the saving effect of this ordinance may be
lost by wilful sin ; the latter maintain that such
saving effects only remain if the condition on
which they are contingent is complied with,

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION [ 68

BEATIFICATION

and, even where wilful sin does not occur, are
forfeited by the non-fulfilment of the appointed
condition. According to the former theory, no
baptized member of our congregations needs
to be born again, or, indeed, can be, although
his life may be a discredit to our common
humanity, and it would seem that the only
hope for him lay in the possibility of so
radical a change ; according to the other, all
who have never consciously exercised faith in
the special promise of God made in Baptism
need to be told, " Ye must be born again."
The difference between the two positions,
which may seem to be slight, is really radical.
The Gorham judgment given on appeal by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
affirmed that the hypothetical explanation of
the formularies of the Church of England was
a perfectly reasonable and legitimate one,
though it did not affirm that it was the only
possible interpretation. See GOKHAM CASE.
[W. H. M. H. A.]

BAPTISTERY.— A building or place set apart
for the performance of baptism. The baptistery
was often a place or building separate from the
church. The receptacle for water was in the
West styled a piscina. See FISH.

BAPTISTS.— See INDEPENDENTS.

BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF.— See under
APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

BASIL, LITURGY OF.— See under LITURGY.

BEADS. — A string of small globes of glass or
other substance in use in the Romish Church
as a method for a worshipper to count the
prayers said. A large bead represents a Pater
noster and a small bead an Ave Maria. In
order to gain the indulgences attached to the
use of a rosary (or string of beads), the rosary
itself must have been previously blessed. With
regard to the numbering of prayers Matt. vi. 7
should be consulted. See AVE MAKIA.

BEATIFICATION AND CANONISA
TION. — The Roman Church recognises a
difference of degrees between these titles of
honour. When a departed saint is beatified
the honour attaching to him is generally con
fined to a particular diocese, province, or
monastic order; but the honour of Canonisa
tion extends to the whole Catholic world. The
cultus of the beatified is permissible ; that of
the canonised is enjoined.

The processes attending Beatification and
Canonisation belong, in the first instance, to
the Congregation of Rites and are afterwards
brought before the General Consistory. The
practices now observed are regulated by the
decrees of Pope Urban VIII., issued in 1625,
1634, and 1642, to which others have been
added by later pontiffs.

The bishop of the diocese to which the
departed saint belonged in his lifetime draws

up and signs two processes : (1) that the saint
enjoyed a reputation for sanctity and miracles ;
(2) that no public veneration having yet been
paid to him, Pope Urban's rule that such vene
ration cannot be paid without the permission
of the See of Rome, has been duly observed.

On receipt of these documents, a cardinal
and others who are to sue for the beatification
petition the Congregation of Rites. The Pope
then appoints a cardinal to report on the
progress of the case. Then the Congregation
examines the writings of the saint if he has
left any. The scrutiny is very rigid, sometimes
lasting several years. If the result be satis
factory, a period of ten years having elapsed
since the first application to Rome, letters are
sent to the original diocese directing a com
mission of three bishops to examine the
candidate's local reputation for sanctity and
power of working miracles in general. If
approved a second commission is appointed
to report upon the saint's specific virtues and
miracles. Three different Consistories in
Rome debate upon the result of these in
quiries, the first discussion being held in the
Pope's presence. A similar series of processes
has to be gone through with respect to the
miracles, and if the saint be finally proved
the possessor of "heroical" virtues and un
doubted miracles, and if at least fifty years
have elapsed since the death of the saint, then
the Pope appoints a day for the Beatification.

Canonisation follows after a longer or shorter
interval, as soon as there is reason to believe
that the saint who has been beatified has in
some way or other wrought additional miracles.
The whole laborious process from first to last,
has to be repeated, and then the Pope fixes a
day, which is constituted a holiday of obliga
tion, for the performance of a solemn cere
mony in St. Peter's. The clergy, regular and
secular, walk in procession with lighted tapers
from the Vatican to St. Peter's, the Pope in
tones the Hymn "Ave Maris Stella" in the
Sixtine Chapel. The Pope is conducted to
his throne, and receives the homage of the
cardinals. Formal application is then made
to the Pope to receive such and such a person
as enrolled into the ranks of Christ's saints.
After other ceremonies the Pope pronounces
the decree — "We declare the blessed ( . . .
names are then read) to be saints and enrol
them in the catalogue of saints, enjoining the
Universal Church to worship their memory
yearly upon their natal day (i.e. of departure
from this life) in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost." The above are but
a few out of a vast number of ceremonies.
For an account see Foye's Romish Rites,
pp. 406-416, whose narrative is based upon
Cardinal Wiseman and the Romanist Picart.

BEATIFICATION

BENEDICTINES

Alphonso Liguori died in 1787 ; he was beati
fied by Pope Pius VII. in 1816, and canonised
by Gregory XVI. on Trinity Sunday 1839.

Catherine of Siena died in 1380 at the age
of thirty-three ; she was canonised by Pope
Pins II. in 1461.

St. Elizabeth, Queen of Portugal, died in
1336, and was canonised by Pope Urban VIII.
in 1625. These few instances may suffice.
Canonisation has a practical bearing upon the
Roman controversy in general in such a case
as Liguori, whose writings by this very act of
the Pope are invested with a special authority,
and thus the Roman Church is specially com
mitted to their teaching. [C. J. C.]
BEATITUDE. — Blessedness ; heavenly happi
ness. In the Roman Church the word is
specially used to denote that blissful sight of
God which is termed the Beatific Vision. The
blessings in Matt. v. 3-10 are termed the
Beatitudes.

BELFRY. — Originally meant a "movable
wooden tower," used in Middle Ages in besieg
ing fortifications, then a watch-tower, and had
nothing to do with bells. It was written
berfrey or befroi, and in English the form
bdfraydid not appear before the fifteenth cen
tury ; " being probably at first a literary imita
tion of the mediaeval Latin its acceptance wat-
probably due to popular association with bell."
Hence the term has become limited to the
bell-tower attached to a church, and even to
the room or upper storey of the tower where the
bells are actually hung (Murray, Dictionary).
The term was also applied in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries to the space under the
tower where the ringers stand, and which is
sometimes separated from the church by a
curtain. This was the seat of the poor, and was
sometimes used as a schoolroom, but according
to Murray this meaning is now obsolete.

The earliest examples of bell-towers con
nected with churches appear to be those of
Ravenna in the sixth century ; and the first in
the East was added to the Church of St.
Sophia at Constantinople in the ninth century.
(Smith, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.)

[B. W.]

BELLS, CHURCH. — Seem to have come into
general use soon after the time of Constantine.
Originally, in the days of persecution, the
signal for the assembly of Christians was no
doubt a silent one ; but when the necessity
for secrecy ceased, trumpets, gongs, and bells
began to be used in Africa and the West.
In the East, planks struck by a hammer were
in vogue, and there is no mention of bells
before the ninth century, when the Duke of
Venice gave twelve large bells of brass to the
Greek Emperor. In Ireland bells appear to
have been used at an early date, and to have

been reckoned among the necessary insignia
of a bishop ; thus we are told that when
Patrick conferred on Fioc the degree of bishop
he gave him a box or satchel containing a
bell (Petrie, Kound Towers of Ireland, cit. Smith,
Dictionary). The earliest of these Irish bells
now extant is of quadrangular form, of thick
sheet-iron, six inches high and five inches by
four at the mouth, and in shape similar to a
Swiss cow-bell.

Bells were anciently used in the West in
processions, but there is no trace up to the
age of Charlemagne of the ringing either of
great or little bells at the elevation of the
Host, as is now the practice of the Church of
Rome. An attempt was made to introduce
into the Ritual of the Lord's Supper in the
Church of England, the ringing of the little
bell, known as the "sacring" bell, during the
Prayer of Consecration, but this ceremony
was held to be illegal (see Whitehead, p. 174).
The benediction of bells is thought to date
from the time when they became part of the
furniture of the church.

The bell was also used at excommunication,
and " bell, book, and candle " has passed into
current phrase. The naming and baptizing
of bells is said to have originated with Pope
John XIII., who consecrated a bell and called
it John, but in some places the name may
have been given simply to indicate ownership.
(Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities:
Wetzer and Welte. )

At the Reformation the blessing, baptizing,
and superstitious ringing of bells was done
away with, but the bells themselves were re
tained for purposes of utility. Thus in Canon 15
the congregation are directed to be summoned
by the tolling of a bell, and by Canon 67 a bell
known as the passing bell is ordered to be
tolled "when any one is passing out of this
life," and also at and after the Burial Service.
See CALENDAR [B. W.]

BEMA.— Greek p^a, a raised part of a church
reserved in Eastern churches for the higher
clergy. It sometimes signifies a pulpit. But
the word is seldom used in the Western Church.
BENEDICT AND BENEDICTINES.— The
first and chief monastic Order of the West,
founded by St. Benedict at Subiaco and re
moved to Monte Cassino in 529. St. Augustine,
to whom the conversion of England was partly
due, belonged to this Order.

Benedict of Nursia was born A.D. 480, and
died about A.D. 542. The headquarters of the
Order was moved to Monte Cassino in A.D. 520,
where paganism still prevailed. Benedict
sought by his famous Rule to reform and
regulate the monasticism then widely pre
valent among Christians. (See AMULETS.) I
introduced the monastic arrangement of the

BENEDICTINES

[ 70]

BENEFIT OF CLERGY

Hour Services of the Roman Church, deriving
it from the Egyptian hermits. He first insti
tuted the custom of saying the Lord's Prayer
aloud at two of the " Hours," viz., Lauds and
Vespers. It does riot fall within the scope of
this work to give an account of his Rule o
the history of the Order which ultimately
absorbed into it those who followed the Rule
of Columbanus. Very important work was
often done by those who embraced the Order,
forests were cleared, swamps drained, and
learning kept alive in a dark and cloudy day.
The Benedictine Order became very corrupt,
and partial reformations were made at differ
ent times and places. The Venerable Bede
was a monk of the Order.

BENEDICTION, BITE OF.— A ceremony in
use in the Romish Church for blessing the
congregation with the monstrance, or pyx, con
taining the Host, or consecrated wafer, which
has been previously adored as the Body of
Christ.

BENEDICTIONS.— The term is applied to
various blessings pronounced by Popes, Patri
archs, bishops, or priests over persons or over
things, such as ashes, oil, salt, water, palms, and
vestments, rosaries, &c. Importance was often
attached to the form in which such benedictions
were bestowed (see EXORCISMS) and even to the
shape made by the hand in the act of benedic
tion. Such points, properly treated at some
length in a Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,
may well be passed over in a work of the present
character, which must needs be restricted to
more important subjects.

BENEDICTUS.— The song of Zacharias (Luke
i. 86-79), so called from the first word of the
Latin version, signifying "Blessed." It may
be used as a canticle in the Order for Morning
Prayer of the Church of England, instead of
the Jubilate (Psalm c.). The name is also ap
plied to a short anthem used in the Roman
Mass, and by Ritualists, "Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord." It is sun°-
after the Prayer of Humble Access, in reference
to the supposed coming of our Lord which is
about to take place through the consecra
tion. While the Benedictus is being sung, the
taper-bearers fetch their candles and kneel
on the floor of the sanctuary opposite the
Gospel and Epistle sides of the altar. This
Romish ritual is unauthorised by the Prayer
Book.

BENEFICE.— Originally a term of Roman law
for a life interest in land granted to soldiers
and others. It had a similar meaning, in feudal
law, of a fee or estate for life only in land held
ex mcro beneficio. The term afterwards became
restricted to such interests in land when held
by the clergy in consideration of the perform
ance of spiritual duties. But benefice may

now be defined as an "ecclesiastical living,"
and, strictly speaking, includes bishoprics, rec
tories, vicarages, perpetual curacies, and chapel-
ries, but not " curacies."

In the Middle Ages benefices were divided
into "single" and " double," e.g. a chantry
was " single " but if with cure of souls attached
" double."

Since 1662 no one has been eligible for a
benefice in the Church of England unless in
priest's orders by episcopal ordination. See
ADVOWSON, PRESENTATION, VACANCY, &c.

[B. W.]

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.— Privilegium deri-
cale was originally a kind of imperium in im-
perio, and consisted in the right of the clergy
to be free from the jurisdiction of the lay
courts and to be subject to the ecclesiastical
courts only, as if they were foreigners resident
in the land and having peculiar customs of
their own.

"In Bracton's time (Henry III.) the claim of
the ordinary went so far as to require that the
clerk should be delivered up to him as soon as
he was imprisoned on suspicion of any crime
whatever. ;> This claim was subsequently much
restricted by Parliament, and it was settled
that a clerk must be convicted before he could
claim his "clergy"; next that he might be de
livered to the bishops either to make his " pur
gation," which was a ridiculous method of
trial adopted by the bishop (and abolished in
1576), or absque purgatione, in which latter case
he was to be imprisoned in the bishop's prison
for life.

The privilege was originally confined to those
who had " habitum et tonsuram clericcdem," but
in 1350 it was extended to "all manner of clerks
as well secular as religious." This was probably
intended to cover only persons in minor orders,
but the courts extended the privilege to every
one who could read, except women (unless
professed nuns) and bigami, i.e. "a man who
hath married two wives or one widow." The
large number of persons interested in keeping
up these privileges prevented them from being
abolished. The ordinandi were very nume
rous, as Bishop Stubbs points out in his
Constitutional History, and were so simply
in order to obtain these privileges. The
privilege was extended to the bigamus in 1547.
Subsequently the privilege was again extended
first to Peers who could not read, then to others,
so that, at the beginning of the eighteenth
century, " women were entitled to it as well as
men, and those who could not read as well as
those who could." On the other hand, the
common law had always excluded certain
crimes from benefit of clergy; thus treason
against the king himself, highway robbery and
wilful burning of houses.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY

BERENGARIUS

Various other crimes were also excluded by
statute. Hence a great difficulty arose as to pro
per punishments for offences which happened
to be clergyable and those which were not. As
to death penalties in the reign of George IV.
Sir J. Stephen says: " All felonies except petty
larcenyand mayhem were theoretically punish
able with deatli, but clergyable felonies were
never punished with death, nor were person>
convicted of such felonies sentenced to deatli.
When asked what they had to say why sen
tence should not be passed upon them, they
fell upon their knees and prayed their clergy,''
upon which they were liable to certain slighter
punishments. It will thus be seen that
benefit of clergy was not without its value, at
one time, in mitigating the rigour of the com
mon law ; but great anomalies grew up under
the system, and it was finally abolished in
1827. (See Sir J. F. Stephen's Hiatory of the
Criminal Law of Enylar.d, vol. i. pp. 459, and
«?.)• [B. W.]

BEBENGABIUS (or Berengar, Berenger) was
born in the early years of the eleventh cen
tury after Christ. The exact date of his birth
is not recorded. He is known to history as
Berengarius of Tours, his native town, the scene
of his labours and sufferings during many years,
and near which he died at an advanced age
in 1088. His life thus extended over a large
portion of the eleventh century. He was a
contemporary of Hildebrand, Lanfranc, and
Anselm, and was in the full maturity of his
powers when William Duke of Normandy con
quered England.

Berengarius was a pupil of Fulbert, Bishop of
Chartres, justly celebrated in that day for piety
and zeal in the instruction of youth. The
scholars of Fulbert included many men after
wards famous in Western Christendom. The
most famous of them was Bereugarius. He was
always distinguished by an acute and speculative
intellect and a thirst for knowledge, and a dispo
sition to think for himself, a disposition which
the cautious Fulbert seems to have regarded
with uneasiness. Berengarius himself became a
teacher in the school connected with the Church
of Tours and attracted to it, by his reputation
and his powers, numerous disciples, who em
braced and disseminated his opinions through
out France and the adjacent parts of Germany
and Italy. He devised a purer method of
teaching grammar which excited the resentment
of those who clung to the older fashions, and
he inspired his pupils with an independent tone
of thought which provoked hostility, especially
when displayed with indiscretion. The first
book of importance written by Berengarius was
his Discourxe to the. Hermits. This work, which
he wrote by the request of those in authority for
the monks of Southern France, proves that his

mind was already possessed with purer con
ceptions of Christianity, as essentially inward
and spiritual, than were prevalent in that age.

These conceptions were deepened in the mind
of Berengarius by, if not originally derived from,
the study of the works of St. Augustine, whose
profound and impassioned spirituality, despite
occasional vagaries and distortions, has main
tained a salutary influence over the Church up
to the present day. The teaching of the
greatest of the Africans found a ready entrance
into the earnest and subtle mind of Berengarius,
and produced in him a change of sentiment
which brought him into life-long antagonism
with the doctrines and practices then dominant
in the Church.

The Church in that age was in the West
governed by the Roman Pontiffs. During the
boyhood and early manhood of Bereugarius
the see of St. Peter was occupied by a succes
sion of Popes, the nominees of the Counts of
Tusculum. They were by birth Italians, their
interests and sympathies were confined to
Italy, and ordinarily to the meanest objects
which engaged the attention of the dissolute
people and the worldly priests of that country.
The personal character of these Popes was so
bad that at last, in the year 1046, the Emperor
of Germany was invoked by a deputation from
Rome itself to cross the Alps and to deliver the
Church from her misery, by dismissing three
Tusculan Antipopes then fighting one another
in the streets of Rome, each encamped in a
church as if in a fortress. The cry then was,
to de-Romanise the Papacy ; and the Tusculan
Popes were accordingly succeeded by Germans,
men respectable in character and zealous in
their calling. But the rule of the German was
detested in Rome, and the Papacy soon again
became Italian. At length in the year 1073
the Pontificate passed into the hands of
Hildebrand, the most commanding figure of
the eleventh century, whose connection with
Bereugarius was very remarkable. The doc
trine and the average life of the Church were
like its government.

Mosheim gives the following description
of religion in this century : — " It is not neces
sary to draw at full length the hideous portrait
of the religion of this age. It may easily be
imagined that its features were full of de
formity, when we consider that its guardians
were equally destitute of knowledge and virtue,
and that the heads and rulers of the Christian
Church, instead of exhibiting models of piety,
held forth in their conduct scandalous examples
of the most flagitious crimes. The people were
sunk in the grossest superstition, and employed
all their zeal in the worship of images and
relics, and in the performance of a trifling
round of ceremonies, imposed upon them by

BERENGARIUS

[ 72]

BERENGARIUS

the tyranny of a despotic priesthood. The
more learned, it is true, retained still some
notions of the truth, which, however, they
obscured and corrupted by a wretched mixture
of opinions and precepts, of which some were
ludicrous, others pernicious, and the most of
them equally destitute of truth and utility."

That Berengarius was deeply sensible of the
miserable state of the Church, we know from
his writings. Neander quotes important pas
sages which make this plain (see Neander, vol.
vi. pages 209 sqq.— Bonn's translation).

Two principal causes had brought about this
lamentable state of things — the forgeries of
pseudo-Isidore (see FORGEKIES) and the doc
trine of Trausubstantiation. The first corrupted
the moral sense and the public administration
of the heads of the Church; the second en
slaved the people to the priesthood, and almost
changed the religion of the New Testament
into an august but deadly fetish. The specula
tive mind of Berengarius qualified him to be
a reformer of doctrine rather than of practice ;
and he came into collision with the central
error of Latin theology sooner than with the
abuses and corruptions of the Church's life.

He is noteworthy in history for having
made a courageous and persistent stand against
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and for
having abridged the period of its baleful as
cendency by postponing its triumph for three-
quarters of a century. Nearly two hundred
years before the birth of Bereugarius, Radbert,
(known as Paschasius), abbot of Corbie in
France, composed a work upon the Eucharist
about A.D. 831. In that work he taught that
after the consecration of the elements what
was bread before became the natural body of
Christ and what before was wine became the
natural blood of Christ. There remained of
the bread and the wine nothing but the appear
ance, seemingly indeed perceptible by the
senses, but really only a veil to screen the
presence of the Redeemer on the altar. This
doctrine was invented by Radbert, who is said
to have given it the name Transubstantiation,
though Milman throws doubt upon the state
ment. The novel opinion of the abbot of
Corbie was contested from its outset. One of
his own monks, Ratramnus, wrote abook against
him, entitled De Corpore et Sanguine Domini.
A great controversy ensued, and lingered,
especially in France, till the times of Beren
garius, when it broke out with augmented
fervour. In this controversy, the opinion of
Radbert, though opposed by a series of good
men, gradually obtained hold over the clergy.
In order to appreciate the significance of the
work of Berengarius, and justly to estimate
his character, it is necessary to form a correct
notion of the motives which led him to contro

vert, with so much zeal and persistence,
the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Nor is it
difficult to do this, for we may safely dismiss
the idea favoured by Milman that Berengarius
was kept up in this controversy by a jealousy of
Lanfranc, who hotly espoused Trausubstantia
tion, and whose rising school at Bee may have
competed with that of Tours. Nor are we
to believe that Berengarius maintained his
struggle for nearly fifty years through in
tellectual vanity or love of wrangling. His
mind was prepared for defending the true
view of the Lord's Supper by the influence
of St. Augustine and by the book of Ratramnus.
As he meditated upon the true nature of
Christianity, he felt more and more the con
tradiction between it and the prevailing be
liefs and practices of the Church. He was
impelled by an honest and religious heart
to attempt a reformation. A man of the
schools, caring chiefly for truth itself, he
commenced to reform opinion. He quickly
found that the doctrine of Transubstautia-
tion was the central error of the time, and
therefore assailed that doctrine. This view
of Berengarius is substantially that of Mos-
heim and Neander.

Berengarius taught that the bread and wine
were not changed into the body and blood of
Christ in the Lord's Supper, but preserved
their natural and essential qualities, yet were
effectual means to the faithful of participa
tion in the benefits of redemption by the
Saviour's body and blood. This teaching was
spread through the West by the scholars of
Tours. It reached the ears of Lanfrauc, who
corresponded with Berengarius upon the sub
ject. Leo IX., in 1050, in a Council held at Rome,
attacked Berengarius' opinion with severity ;
and Lanfranc, by an ungenerous reference to a
personal letter, incriminated Berengarius for
holding the heresy of John Duns ScotusErigena.
Berengarius was censured by the Council and
commanded to appear before another held at
Vercelli a year later. The King of France for
bade him to leave the kingdom, and, for some
reason not very clear, shut him up in prison.
Berengarius was condemned at Vercelli un
heard. These proceedings exasperated the
friends of the reformer in France, who were
numerous and powerful. His adversaries
pressed on the prosecution. A petty synod
was held at Brion, and a Council was held at
Paris at which the most violent threats against
Berengarius were heard. So alarming was the
agitation that, in the year 1054, Hildebraud the
cardinal was sent as Papal legate to compose
the troubles of the French Church. With char
acteristic adroitness and intrepidity he con
voked a Council at Tours, and put Berengarius
on his trial in his own town. The records of

BERENGAKIUS

[73 ]

BIBLE

the trial are imperfect, but it is said that
Berengarius had not the courage of his convic
tions and designedly adopted such ambiguous
language that Hildebrand professed to be satis
fied by it, and cleared Berengarius from the
charge of heresy. In 1059 Pope Nicholas II.
summoned Berengarius to Rome, and by terrific
threats made him profess himself willing to em
brace as de fide whatever doctrine the Council
might impose. Cardinal Humbert drew up a
confession which Berengarius publicly sub
scribed and swore to. This confession declared
"that the bread and wine after consecration j
were not only a sacrament but also the real ;
body and blood of Jesus Christ ; and that this !
body and blood were handled by the priests j
and consumed by the faithful, and not in a j
sacramental sense but in reality and truth as j
other sensible objects are." Thus the Caper- |
naite heresy contradicting the impassibility of j
Christ's body was affirmed by Pope Nicholas (see j
POPE AND COUNCIL, JANUS), and Berengarius i
was forced to confess it. Full of shame and !
remorse Berengarius returned to France ; and j
once safely there he published a written recan
tation of those opinions which at Rome he had
subscribed under terror of death. Notwith
standing his compliance with the Pope's de
mands, Berengarius seems to have lost neither
influence nor reputation . His disciples in France
grew in number from day to day, convinced,
we must believe, that their master sincerely
loved the truth and sincerely repented of his
fall. Eighteen years passed by, and in 1078
Hildebrand, then Pope Gregory VII., found him
self obliged to examine the controversy about
the Lord's Supper afresh. Again Berengarius
appeared in Rome to answer for his teaching.
Hildebrand treated him with strange mildness
and generosity. He allowed Berengarius to
renounce the confession drawn up by Humbert
twenty years before, and to draw up a confession
of faith for himself. Again, as at Tours, so it
seems Berengarius resorted to, and Hildebrand
connived at, a studied ambiguity in terms.
For he declared that the bread laid on the
altar became after consecration the true body
of Christ which was born of the Virgin,
suffered, and now is seated in glory; and
that the wine placed on the altar became
after consecration the true blood which flowed
from the side of Christ. This language would
satisfy Hildebrand, who not improbably agreed
with Berengarius about the Lord's Supper,
and who had little time or talent for pure
theology. But the zealots of Transubstantia-
tion would not let the confession pass, and
a year later they compelled Berengarius once
more to sign a declaration that he believed
the doctrine of Radbert. The old man's spirit
was now broken. He returned to Tours, and

again recanted what at Rome he had recently
professed. He retired to St. Cosmas, a small
island washed by the familiar waters of the
Loire, and passed his remaining years in peni
tence and seclusion. Berengarius left upon
the mind of his contemporaries and his scholars
the impression, which momentary lapses could
not obliterate, of integrity, sanctity, and devo
tion to Christian truth. An ingenious papist
has tried to show that Berengarius died be
lieving in Transubstantiation ; but all evidence
contradicts this fancy. Berengarius presents
a fine parallel to our English Cranmer : each
was a student and man of books, each
laboured earnestly for the reform of opinions,
each displayed unmistakable sincerity, and
relied upon moral and spiritual persuasion
rather than upon force or political cunning,
each when tried by the fear of death failed
to witness a good confession, yet each was
understood and forgiven by good men in his
own time and will be loved for their work's sake
by good men in all time. [H. J. R. M.]

Literature —

D. Lanfranci: Contra Berengarium Liber. D.
OuUmundi, contra eundem Libri Tres. Acta
Concilii liomce contra Berengarium Hugonis
Episcopi.

Lingonensis : Contra eundem Epistola. A.D.
1551, 8vo.

Lanfranci : De Eucharistia; Sacramento ad-
versus Berengarium Liber. A.D. 1555, fol.

Tractatus duo de Eucharistice Sacramento con
tra Berengarium, Hugonis Lingonensis Episcopi,
et Durandi Abbatis Troarnensis. A.D. 1745, fol.
Berengarii Turonensis quae supersunt tarn
edita quam inedita. Typis expressa, mode-
rante A. Neandro. Berolini, A.D. 1834, 8vo.

Berengarius : Dissertatio de multiplici Beren
garii damnatione, Fidei professione, et relapsu.
Bibliotheca Historise Hseresiologicae, torn. i.
J. Mabillon. A.D. 1723, 8vo.

Epistola ad Adelmannum. A.D. 1770, 8vo.
Encyclopcedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, vol.
iii. pp. 585, 586. (R. F.)
Church Histories, <&c. —

(a) Gieseler, vol. ii. pp. 396-411. (English
Translation.)

(b) Neander, vol. vi. pp. 221-260. (English
Translation.)

(c) Prantl, vol. ii. pp. 70-75.

(d) Haureau, vol. i. pp. 225-238.

(e) Robertson, vol. ii. pp. 652-665. (A.D.
1862.)

Rev. N. Dimock, M.A. : The Ego Berengarius.
London : Elliot Stock, 1895.
BIBLE.— This name of the Holy Scriptures is
derived from the Septuagint Version, through
the Vulgate : in Greek Bi/3X*a, in Latin Biblia,
English ' Books." The Bible as we have it is a
collection of sixty-six distinct books, composed

BIBLE

[ 74 ]

BIBLE

by different writers in several languages,
separated from each other by intervals of
time extending over at least 1600 years. The
collection of the Old Testament writings is
supposed by some to have been completed about ;
300 B.C. The popular tradition that assigns
to Ezra and the Great Synagogue the task
of having collected and promulgated these
sacred books is open to question. [The con-
clus-iveness of the modern objections to that
tradition put forth by Kuenen and Robertson
Smith has been questioned by C. H. H. Wright
in an Excursus to his work on the Book of
Ecclesiastes.] The account in 2 Maccabees
ii. 13, whicli attributes to Nehemiah a collec
tion of books, favours the idea of a gradual j
formation of the Sacred Canon during a
lengthened interval beginning with Ezra and
extending through a part or the whole of the
Persian period. This tradition of the Macca
bees omits the books of the Law. The various
classes of books in the Old Testament may j
have been completed in succession, and the j
work may have been finally completed at or I
after the persecution of Antiochus (160 B.C.).
That king sought out the books of the Law
(1 Mace. i. 56) and burnt them ; and the posses
sion of a "Book of the Covenant " was a capital
crime (see Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, sub
voce). The books of the New Testament seem
to have been all written by about A.D. 100.
The canon of both the Old and New Testaments
as we now have it, but including six Apocry
phal books of the Old Testament, was ratified
by the third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397.
But that Council was a Provincial not a General
Council, and its decrees are in no way binding
upon the Church. Athanasius (A.D. 340) gives
a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament,
as the English Church receives them now,
and mentions as not canonical the Wisdom
of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the Apocry
phal books of Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Cyril
(A.D. 360) distinguishes between the Apocryphal
and the Canonical books, giving the number of
the latter as twenty-two, the same as Augustine's ,
number, with the addition of Barnch and the
Epistle to the Book of Jeremiah. The Council
of Laodicea (A.D. 364) gives exactly the same
list as Athanasius and Cyril (see Browne on
Article VI.). What is generally known as the
Authorised Version in English, translated from
the Hebrew and the Greek, was issued in 1611.
It has been adopted in the Prayer Book, except
as regards the Psalter and the offertory and
other sentences in the office of the Holy
Communion. The Psalms are taken from the
translation of Tyndale and Coverdale (1535),
revised by Cranmer (1539). Wycliffe's Version
was made in 1358. The Revised Version, a
more scholarly and exact rendering, was

published in 1885. Roman Catholics use the
Latin Vulgate, in which are many and often
serious inaccuracies. From it has been derived
the Douay, for English-speaking Romanists, in
1610. A revised Douay Bible has been since
authorised, in which many Protestant render
ings have been adopted, so that it is more
correct.

As to the nature and degree of the inspira
tion of the sacred books, Christians differ
considerably ; whilst as to the fact of its in
spiration they are agreed. One remarkable
feature of the whole Bible, which indirectly
attests its divine origin, is the general agree
ment of the inspired penmen (though they
wrote independently of each other in different
times and places), as to the character and
purposes of God, the Fall of man, the nature
and desert of sin, and especially on the great
questions of the Person and work of Christ
and His Redemption. This last essential truth
so pervades the whole as to be like a golden
thread in a many-coloured fabric. In fact
God's chief purpose in giving us His written
Word was evidently to testify of the Divine
Saviour and of His great Salvation, as well
as to furnish a guide of life and a rule of
faith to men. The Bible is unique. There
is no book like it in human literature, for
it contains the purest moral teaching, the
sublimest poetry, the noblest sentiments and
principles of action, the clearest information
about both the origin and the end of all things.
No doctrine clearly taught therein, and no
important fact related in it, however much
questioned, has ever been disproved.

As to the interpretation of the Bible, it has
often been argued by Roman Catholics and
Ritualists that, since the Church has given us
the Bible, she alone can correctly and authori
tatively explain its meaning ; but this reason
ing is fallacious. It is true that the inspired
books have been handed down by human
agency, the Old Testament by the Jews, the
New by the Christian Church ; but neither
part is the work or gift of the Church. On
the contrary, both Old and New Testaments
are the " living Oracles " of God and inspired by
the Holy Spirit. "All Scripture," St. Paul
declares, to be " God-breathed," and he refers
to the Old Testament (1 Tim. iii. 16). St.
Peter, too, assures us that " The prophecy came
not in old time by the will of man ; but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost" (2 Peter i. 20, 21). The fact is,
that the Old Testament has come to us through
the Jews from God Himself and endorsed by
Christ and His Apostles ; and the New Testa
ment was written by the Apostles and Evan
gelists, whom He promised to guide into all
truth. Neither the Old nor New Testament,

BIBLE

BIDDING PRAYER

therefore, can be truly said to have emanated
from the Church as such, nor can she claim to
be the only interpreter of its meaning. This
is a fundamental point of difference between
Rome and Protestant Churches. The Church
of England, indeed, in her twentieth Article,
declares with perfect truth that the Church
"hath authority in controversies of faith,"
but not that she is the paramount authority ;
and it is added that "although the Church
be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet, as
it ought not to decree anything against the
same, so besides the same ought it not to
enforce anything to be believed for necessity
of salvation."

Entirely opposite on this point are the teach
ing and practice of the Church of Rome. Her
doctrine on this point has naturally led her to
deny the right of private judgment and to
put various restrictions on the private study
of God's Word. The Council of Trent (Sess. iv.)
ordered, that if any one without a licence pre
sumed to read or keep by him translations of
the Scriptures made even by Catholic writers,
he should not be capable of receiving absolu
tion, unless he should have given up the Bible
to the Ordinary. Cardinal Bellarmine (De,
Controv. (?) p. 70, 1720) wrote: "We maintain
that the Scriptures ought not to be read publicly
in the vulgar tongue, nor allowed to be read
indifferently by everybody." In England, of
course, Romanists cannot be debarred from
the possession or use of the Bible ; but in
Roman Catholic countries, especially Italy and
Spain, there is on the part of the priests
strong opposition to the circulation of the
Bible. The inevitable result of this system is
the darkening of men's minds and the riveting
of the chains of priestcraft and superstition.
See APOCRYPHA, RULE OP FAITH, TRADI
TION. [W. B.]
BIBLE SOCIETIES.— Societies for printing
and circulating the Holy Scriptures. The
largest and best known of these societies is
the British and Foreign Bible Society, which
was founded in 1^04. It now translates the
Scriptures into some 350 different languages.
These translations find their way into all parts
of the world. The great missionary societies
are supplied with them in enormous numbers.
The aim of Protestants in these societies is
to sow the "bare grain" of the Word of
God broadcast over the world, in the hope
that that seed will grow by its own in
herent divine power, and fostering its growth
by the ministry of the Gospel and all ap
pointed means of grace. The reverse position
is taken up by the Church of Rome, which
holds that it is not right to put the Scriptures
into the hands of any person without the
Romish accredited explanation. That Church

has often exhibited great hostility to such
societies. A Bull was issued against them by
Pope Pius VII. in 1816, in which he charac
terises their circulation of the Scriptures as
"a crafty device, by which the very founda
tions of religion are undermined ; a pestilence
which must be remedied and abolished ; a
defilement of the faith, eminently dangerous
to souls," &c. In the same spirit Pius IX.
termed Bible Societies pests equally with
Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies.
The author of The End of Controversy, Bishop
Milner, declared that it was evidently im
possible to add any notes whatever to the
sacred text, which shall make it a safe and
proper elementary book of instruction for
the illiterate poor, and actually expressed his
conviction that "Public crimes go on year
by year in proportion to the progress of the
Bible Societies " (Supplementary Memoirs of
English Catholics, p. 241). He also considered
that penny catechisms, mere human composi
tions, were better for his priests to distribute
to unlearned persons than the Word of God
(ibid., p. 306). [M. E. W. J.]

BIDDING PRAYER is a so-called prayer
which bids or directs certain prayers to be
made, and begins "ye shall pray for.1' As
the Bidding is not actually a prayer itself,
the term may possibly be a contraction for
"bidding of prayer." Before the Reforma
tion, prayers for the dead were bid in this
way, but, as Strype says, bidding the prayer
is now turned into bidding the praise.
What is now known as the Bidding Prayer
is that mentioned in Canon 55 of 1603,
which directs that "before all sermons,
lectures, and homilies, the preachers and
ministers shall move the people to join with
them in prayer, in this form or to this effect
as briefly as conveniently they may." The form
given is as follows : " Ye shall pray for Christ's
holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole
congregation of Christian people dispersed
throughout the whole world, and especially for
the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland :
and herein I require you most especially to
pray for the King's most excellent Majesty our
Sovereign Lord James, King of England, Scot
land, France and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith and Supreme Governor in these his
realms, and all other his dominions and
countries, over all persons, in all causes, as
well Ecclesiastical as Temporal : ye shall
also pray for our gracious Queen Anne, the
noble Prince Henry, and the rest of the King
and Queen's royal issue : ye shall also pray for
the Ministers of God's holy Word and Sacra
ments, as well Archbishops and Bishops, as
other Pastors and Curates : ye shall also pray
for the King's most honourable Council, and for

BIDDING PRAYER

[76]

BISHOP

all the Nobility and Magistrates of this realm ;
that all and every of these, in their several call- j
ings, may serve truly and painfully to the glory
of God, and the edifying and well governing
of his people, remembering the account that
they must make : also ye shall pray for the
whole Commons of this realm, that they may
live in the true faith and fear of God in humble
obedience to the King and brotherly charity
one to another. Finalty, let us praise God
for all those which are departed out of this
life in the faith of Christ, and pray unto God
that we may have grace to direct our lives
after their good example ; that, this life
ended, we may be made partakers with them
of the glorious resurrection in the life ever
lasting; always concluding with the Lord's
Prayer."

Before using the above prayer, of course, the
names and correct style of the sovereign and
members of the royal family must be inserted
according to the Order in Council for the time
being in force.

The above form is interesting from the defi
nition given of the "Catholic Church" and for
its reference to the Church of Scotland, then,
as now, Presbyterian. The Bidding Prayer is
now rarely heard except in Cathedrals, the
Universities, and Inns of Court, where a some
what longer form than that given above
(though modelled on the same lines) is used.
The use of a Bidding Prayer before a ser
mon is also sanctioned by the Act of Unifor
mity Amt-ndment Act of 1872 (Whitehead,
Church Law). rj^ \yn

BIRETTA.— A square cap of black silk or
other material worn by Romish priests. It
is also used by the Ritualists as being "the
non-episcopal form of the mitre," and signify
ing, with that, "the helmet of salvation and
the glory of the priesthood." See Wright,
The Mass in the Greek and Roman Churches,
p. 42. The biretta is illegal in the Church
of England. See Whitehead, Church Law;
Miller's Guide to Eccl. Law.

BISHOP.— This title, derived from the Greek
'ETT/O-KOTOS, originally meant one who has
the oversight of others— a superintendent,
The name had been formerly applied to the In
spectors or Commissioners, sent by Athens to
her subject States. It was still current and
beginning to be used by the Romans in the
later days of their Republic. The Hellenistic
Jews found it employed in the Septuagint
for certain officers in Israel (Numbers iv. 16 ;
xxxi. 14). So when the early Christians found
it necessary for the organisation of their
churches in Gentile cities to assign the work
of superintendence to a distinct order, that
title presented itself as convenient and-jwas
therefore adopted as readily as the word Elder

pos) had been in the mother Church
of Jerusalem (see Acts xi. 30 and xv.). There
can be no doubt that the office of Pres
byter had the priority in order of time. The
president of a company of Presbyters pro
bably soon became known as a Bishop or Over
seer, and was primus inter pares in his parish
or diocese. Still the two titles appear to have
been at first equivalent (see Acts xx. 27, 28;
Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 17 ; Titus i. 5, 7 :
1 Peter v. 1, 2). At the same time we find,
from his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, that
towards the end of his own Apostleship St.
Paul appointed others, who had previously re
ceived their appointment to the ministry from
God by the laying on of his hands (1 Tim.
iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6), that they might, as the
Apostles had hitherto done, " ordain Elders in
every city " (Titus i. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 3, v. 21, 22,
&c.), and set in order things that were wanting.
Although the title of "Bishop" was not ap
plied to either of them, it seems evident that
they exercised some of the functions of the
modern bishops, either provisionally or per
manently. Thus may be traced the germs of
a threefold ministry in the Apostles, the
Presbyters or Episcopi, and the Deacons. It
has, too, been maintained that when the
Apostles were about to be withdrawn by
death, they delegated some of their ordi
nary functions and authority to such leading
ministers as Timothy and Titus. Moreover, it
is well worthy of notice that, in the Revelation
of St. John, the Seven Churches are addressed
through one presiding minister, who is called
an Angel, a name of similar import to that of
Apostle. These Angels are compared to stars
placed to give light to the Churches (i. 20).
One of these Churches is that of Ephesus
where there were many Elders, and at one
time Timothy was appointed "Overseer." [This
explanation of the Angels of the Churches is
not universally accepted by critics.] These
and the like facts point towards a threefold
ministry even in New Testament times. When
we read the annals of the Primitive Church
and the writings of the early Fathers, indica
tions of this become more and more distinct,
and it is certain that in the beginning of the
third century, i.e. one hundred years after
the Apostles, there existed in the Church the
three orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons
(see Browne on Article XXIII., Smith's Dic
tionary of the Bible, sub voce). In early times
Bishops appear to have been elected by the
clergy and laity. At a much later date the
Sovereigns of Europe took their appointment
to some extent into their own hands. The
Crown is said to have appointed them in
England even in Saxon times. This will
account for the present system of selecting

BISHOP

[77 ]

BLACK RUBRIC

men for this office by royal letters patent,
addressed to the Dean and Chapter of the
Cathedral, directing them as to the choice
they are to make. The clergyman thus
nominated is then consecrated by the Arch
bishop and Bishops.

A Bishop's chief duties are to ordain, to
confirm, to consecrate Bishops and churches,
lo visit and direct the clergy, and exercise a
godly discipline over them, to institute to
livings, to license curates, to appoint honorary
canons, to grant marriage licences, and some
minor dispensations. Most of the English
Bishops have seats in the House of Lords.
See ARCHBISHOP, EPISCOPACY, ORDINARY.

[W. B.]

BLACK GOWN, THE. — The black gown
in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth
was part of the ordinary dress of the clergy.
(See Injunctions of Elizabeth, 1559, No. 30,
which was probably aimed at the minister
ing dress of the clergy quite as much as at
their outdoor dress; and Tomliuson, On the
Prayer Book.) When ministering in church
they consequently wore the surplice over the
gown, or exchanged the gown for the surplice.
Upon preaching, the surplice was removed and
the preacher appeared in the gown, since tlie
sermon was not a time of " ministration.'
(See Archdeacon Harrison, On the Rubrics.'
Hence for 300 years subsequent to the Re
formation the gown was the universal preach
ing dress of the clergy of the Church of
England. The surplice, however, may be also
legally used for this purpose, and its use has
become now very general. The legality of the
black gown, which had sometimes been ques
tioned by Ritualists, has been fully decided in
the case of Robinson Wright v. Tugwell, and
aflirmed by the Court of Appeal (see White-
head, Church Law, and Miller's Guide to Keel.
Law). Under such circumstances it is perhaps
a pity that the black gown should be discon
tinued. Its use, moreover, forms a visible bond
of union with the Church of Scotland and other
Protestant Clmrches. [B. W.]

BLACK RUBRIC, THE, is the popular name
for the Declaration on Kneeling suffixed to the
Communion Office. It got the title "black"
from its being printed in black letters and not
rubricated. [In some modern editions this has
been altered, but on what authority ?] ; for
like the similar Declaration about the use of
the cross at baptism, it was not intended
"for the better direction of them that are to
ofticiate in divine service "—as the rubrics,
properly so called, are. Both were pro
bably after-thoughts added to the Prayer
Book subsequently to its being tendered by
Convocation to the King for submission to
Parliament. Both, therefore, are found, unlike

the rest, in the handwriting of Bancroft, and
had to be crowded into a small space obviously
not intended for them in the MS. which was
" annexed " to the last Act of Uniformity, as
the schedule enacted by the 13 & 14 Car. II.

Both of these so-called "rubrics" were
official apologies intended to meet the scruples
of those who objected either to the use of the
sign of the cross (not "in baptism," but) after
baptism, or to the communicants kneeling
during the act of reception.

It is a curious illustration of the complete
revolution in doctrine effected during the
last half century, that both these "rubrics"
emanated from the anti-Puritan party which
represented wLiat alone could be termed the
"High Church" view, as "High Churchism"
was then understood.

It must be remembered that the revision of
1550-1, in which the Second Prayer Book of
Edward VI. originated, was by no means a
"Puritan" change. It raised the standard of
ritual and worship in several important parti
culars. For example, it made the minimum
attendance at Holy Communion to consist of
reception three times a year, instead of only
once ; it required the "chancels to remain, as
in times past," although Hooper and Bucer
among others advocated their abolition ; it
directed the daily use of morning and evening
prayer, and required kneeling at Communion,
which was not prescribed by the First Prayer
Book.

This last-named alteration gave great offence
to John Knox, who was one of the royal chap
lains, as well as to Hooper and Alascc, and
through their influence pressure was brought
to bear upon Cranmer and the "Bishop of
London," i.e. Ridley, to induce them to consent
to strike out the new rubric which had
already been printed in the new Prayer Book.
Cranmer's letter in reply is printed in Tom-
linson's On. the Prayer Book, p. 256. The
primate urged that this very point had been
"with just balance weighed at the making of
the book" and had been adopted by the
Commission of the "best learned men within
this realm and appointed for that purpose " as
well as by Parliament and with the royal
assent. He urged, therefore, that it was ultra
vires to set this rule aside without any authority
of Parliament, and also that "if the kneeling
of the people should be discontinued for the
time of the receiving of the sacrament, so that
at the receipt thereof they should rise up and
stand or sit, and then immediately kneel down
again, it should rather import a contemptuous
than a reverent receiving." There is no doubt
that Ridley took the same line, for he wrote
afterwards to Grindal that he would have
required Alasco to conform both in respect of

BLACK RUBRIC

BLACK RUBRIC

the surplice and the kneeling, "if he might
have done so much with our magistrates "
( Works, p. 534, Parker Society Supplement).

The "Black Rubric" was not forced into the
Prayer Book in despite of Cranmer and his
fellow-reformers. Bps. Grindal and Horn affirm
that it was an " explanation, or rather caution,
that the very authors of the kneeling, most holy
men and constant martyrs of Jesus Christ,"
adopted (Zurich Letters, i. p. 180). "To avoid
the profanation and disorder which about the
Holy Communion might else ensue" is the very
objection which Cranmer's letter to the Council
had urged. Cranmer had promised to " accom
plish his Majesty's commandment " and here
we have the result. It was accordingly issued
as a Koyal Proclamation which was duly en
rolled as such, and Bishop Goodrich was
directed to see that it was "joined unto
the Book of Common Prayer lately set forth."
Thus, in law, it formed no part of the statutory
Prayer Book to which it was "joined " by royal
authority alone. When, therefore, Elizabeth's
Parliament re-enacted the Second Prayer Book
(and repealed Mary's Act of Repeal) that did
not in any way revive Edward's Proclamation.
Hence the "Black Rubric," though never
formally set aside, dropped out of the printed
Prayer Books, and of course did not exist in
the black-letter book used by the Revisers in
1661. At the Savoy Conference the Noncon
formists asked for its restoration ; but the
Bishops replied that it was no part of the
Prayer Book, that its sense was declared in
the XXVlIlth Article, and that " the world was
now in more danger of profanation than of idola
try." The concession was, therefore, refused.
But the Revision was happily not effected by the
Savoy Commissioners, and at a later stage the
very alteration which the Baxterians had urged
was granted. One verbal alteration was, how
ever, made to exclude the Socinian view that
there is no "real presence " of Christ in the use
of His own ordinance. With that object the
repudiation of "any real and essential presence
there being" was altered into a denial of
"any corporal presence." For, in one sense,
a "presence" of Christ's natural body and
blood, the only body and blood, be it observed, that
He ever had, or can have, is recognised as re
sulting from the "hypostatic" or Personal
union of the Godhead with the manhood, so
that the omnipresent Logos, in virtue of the
Personal union of the two natures, gives to His
absent humanity a " presence " everywhere of
a certain sort, viz., of efficacy and virtue for all
purposes of blessing and "benefit" which j
His death and blood-shedding had procured I
for the faithful.

Yet any residence of his Corpus "in, with,
or under," the outward elements would consti

tute a "corporal presence," which, however
invisible or mysterious, would give occasion to
worship of "the visible shows." Therefore
"ANY " corporal presence was formally denied.
If we remember the degradation and irrever
ence which had resulted from the disorders of
the Great Rebellion and the consequent out
breaks of fanaticism and of unbelief which
such confusion and disregard of lawful authority
had given rise to, this precaution will not seem
unnecessary : only it must be also remembered
that the phrase "Real Presence" (or indeed
the question-begging word "presence" itself)
still remains utterly and absolutely unauthorised,
and that the Church of England never speaks
of any bodily eating or drinking of any im
agined "spiritual body," or " spiritual blood,"
but only of the "spiritual eating" of "the
Natural body of Christ " which "is in Heaven "
and "is not here." This effectually excludes
every form of the so-called "objective pre
sence," which was the object aimed at by this
Declaration, and by Article XXIX.

It has been contended by some recent
writers that Dr. Gunning was the author of
the change in the wording, and that he held
some sort of doctrine of an "objective"
presence. Both statements, however, rest on
mere gossip. As Mr. Scudamore says, "Burnet
evidently speaks on hearsay, and in a manner
that does not inspire confidence" (Not. Euch,,
p. 957, note). Burnet charges Gunning with two
absurd notions : (1) That corporal presence
means ' ' such a presence as a body naturally
has" — which no Romanist (or any body else)
ever held ; and (2) with asserting that " there
was a cylinder of a vacuum made between the
elements and Christ's body in heaven ! " But
there is a much more simple and natural
account to be given of the matter. In 1552
the Article which is now numbered XXVIII. in
our XXXIX. Articles was worded " non debet
quisquamfidelium carnis ejus et sanguinis Realem
ct Corporal^em (ut loquuntur) prcescntiam in Eucha-
ristia vel credere vel profiterc.'' Thus " corporal
and real " were regarded as words of the same
meaning ; but the change of mental attitude
toward sacramental truth had, in 1661, made
the one term ambiguous and misleading, while
the other necessarily imported at least the
"presence" of a Corpus. It was obviously
natural to return to the use of the word
"corporal" which was then additionally
strengthened by the addition of the exhaustive
prefix "ANY." No Romanist or Romaniser
could honestly profess that the body of Christ
was located in the outward elements and yet
at the same time deny "any corporal presence."
Accordingly, they are now driven to invent
theories about a " Spiritual body " which they
think might be so "present," though "the

BLACK RUBRIC

!

BODY OF CHRIST

Natural body" which "is in heaven," could
not 1 See Dimock's Vox Ecclesice Anglicance
p. 128 ; Goode's Nature of Christ's Presence in
the Eucharist, p. 621. [J. T. T.]

BODY OF CHRIST, THE. — The several
senses in which this expression is used by
many writers lead to much confusion of
thought.

By it is signified either —

1. His natural Body, which He took at His
Incarnation, with flesh, bones, and all things
appertaining to man's nature, in which he
suffered and was crucified.

2. His glorified Body. This is the same as
His natural Body (Article IV.), but with certain
additional characteristics, latent probably in
the natural Body until after His resurrection,
but then exhibited ; as we may suppose will be
the case with our own bodies when raised from
the dead. The glorified Body is not so changed
as to cease to be the natural Body ; and there
fore the rubric at the end of the Communion
Service quite rightly states that "the natural
Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in
heaven," and the objection taken to that
statement by Canon Mason (Faith of the Gospel)
on the ground of His Body being now glori
fied, is untenable. (Canon Mason's other ob
jection to that statement, that there is no
such place as heaven distinct from earth,
ignores the constant representation of Holy
Scripture and the fact that we human beings
can only think under the condition of time
and space.)

3. His symbolical Body. This is the bread
which symbolises His Body and is eaten by
the mouth and teeth and enters the stomach
and is digested. (Of late years young people
in the Roman Communion have been taught
not to use their teeth in consuming the wafer
lest they tear the flesh of Christ ; they go
through a rehearsal with an unconsecrated
wafer to learn how to avoid this.) It is called
His Body because it is the appointed sign or
symbol of His Body.

4. His crucified Body. This is the Body
which is symbolised by the bread ; not His
glorified Body, as some have taught, but the
Body as offered on the Cross [and that body
deprived of the blood ; as in all Levitical
sacrifices].

5. His spiritual body. This expression is
used in several senses.

(1) St. Paul divides bodies into natural and
spiritual, the first of which are animated by
the animal soul and are sometimes therefore
called psychical ; the second are controlled
by the spirit or pneuma. Thus regarded,
our Lord's body was from the first a spiritual
Body. To think or say otherwise would be
blasphemy.

(2) The expression is sometimes used as
synonymous, or nearly synonymous, with His
glorified Body. There is no objection to this,
provided that an explanation is given of the
sense in which the word is taken.

(3) But it is also employed in a manner that
is inadmissible. Some have been found to
maintain that Christ's body became spiritual,
or fully under the control of the pneuma, only
after the Resurrection, having been up to that
time psychical ; and others, who do not go so
far as that profanity, have argued that His Body
was so spiritualised after His resurrection as
to possess the qualities of spirit rather than of
body. We see what is the purpose of this
contention. It is to make the presence of
His Body on many altars conceivable. In
direct opposition to this error, Hooker writes :
" Nothing of Christ which is limited, nothing
created, neither the soul nor the body of
Christ, and consequently not Christ as man,
or Christ according to His human nature, can
possibly be everywhere present. . . . The man
hood of Christ can neither be everywhere
present, nor cause the Person of Christ so to
be. . . . The substance of the Body of Christ
hath no presence, neither can have, but only
local. ... If his majestical Body have now
any such new property, by force whereof it
may everywhere really, even in substance,
present itself, or may at once be in many
places, then hath the majesty of His estate
extinguished the verity of His nature. . . .
We hold it a most infallible truth that Christ,
as man, is not everywhere present" — (Eccl. Pol.
v. 55). In short, it is a Body still and not so
spiritualised as to have become Spirit.

(4) The expression, " His spiritual Body,"
is sometimes used inexactly instead of " His
Body spiritually imparted.' Men speak of
Christ's spiritual Body being given in the Holy
Communion, and this leads to very erroneous
conceptions. What is the meaning of " This is
My Body: Do this in remembrance of Me?" It
means (1) that the bread broken was a symbol
of the Body about to be broken on the Cross,
and was for ever to remind Christians of the
Cross and Passion. But beyond this it teaches
(2) that the devout eating of the bread with
the mouth would enable the faithful recipient
to feed upon Christ in the heart, and not only
to feed upon Him in His divine nature, but
specially as the Redeemer who "gave" His
Body to be offered on the Cross as the one
sin-offering of the world. It is not that the
devout communicant receives a spiritual Body
of Christ into his mouth, but that he spiritually
(that is, as spirit communicates with spirit)
receives in his soul, penitent and faithful, the
benefits derived from the sacrificed Body.
Thus, Article XXVIII. teaches, not that a

BODY OF CHRIST

[80]

BODY OF CHRIST

spiritual Body of Christ is "given, taken, and
eaten in the Supper," but that the Body of
Christ — that is, Christ in His character of the
suffering Saviour — is given, taken, and eaten
or fed upon, "after a heavenly and spiritual
manner," "the mean (medium quo) whereby the
Body of Christ is received and eaten in the
Supper being faith." Instead, therefore, of
speaking of His spiritual Body, we should say
His Body spiritually imparted.

6. There is another sense in which the ex
pression, Body of Christ, is taken, and taken
rightly, though it does not exclude or supersede
that numbered (4). Just as the thing repre
senting frequently takes the name of that which
is represented by it (whence the bread is called
the Body), so occasionally the instrumental
cause of a thing takes the name of that which
is caused by it. In sacraments there are two
parts, an outward part and an "inward
spiritual grace.'" Accordingly in the Lord's
Supper there are two parts, "an outward
part" and "an inward part." But this "in
ward part" must be a " spiritual grace," to
accord with the definition of a sacrament im
mediately preceding it in the Catechism.
This inward part or spiritual grace, signified
by the outward part, is called "the Body and
Blood of Christ." That cannot be a material
thing, for it is received in the soul which
admits nothing material, and, as we have seen,
there is no such thing as a spiritual Body and
Blood of Christ received by the communicant ;
it is not a material thing, but a grace — a grace
which effects " the strengthening and refresh
ing of our souls." Why is this grace called
" the Body and Blood of Christ ? " Because it
is the grace of His broken Body and the
shedding of His Blood ; in other words, because
it was the offering of Christ's body on the
Cross and His blood-shedding there which is
the instrumental cause of the grace conveyed
in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. There
fore, when we say that we receive the Body
and Blood of Christ, we say in effect that we
receive the grace purchased for us by the
offering of the Body and Blood of Christ on
the Cross. None of our English divines have
stated this aspect of a mysterious truth so
plainly as Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who writes:
" His natural Body, being carried from us into
heaven, cannot be touched or tasted by us on
earth; but yet Christ left to us symbols or
sacraments of this natural Body, not to convey
that natural Body to us, but to do more and
better for us — to convey all the blessings and
graces procured for us by the breaking of that
Body and the effusion of that Blood; which
blessings being spiritual, are therefore called
' His Body ' spiritually because procured by
that Body which died for us; and [these

blessings] are therefore called our food because
by them we live a new life in the Spirit, and
Christ is our bread and our life because by
Him, after this manner, we are nourished up
to life eternal" (Worthy Communicant, i. 3).
Beside its other signification, then, the Body of
Christ sometimes means the benefits that we
derive from that Body having been sacrificed
for us. Even Aquinas and Liguori teach that
the " inward part or thing signified " in the
Eucharist (res sacramenti) is at once the grace
which refreshes the soul (refcctio animae) and
the Body of Christ, the latter of which is itself
also the sign (sacramentum) of that refreshment,
Corpus Christi siynijicatur a speciebus et gratiam
xiynificat. They have just escaped the truth,
that by the Body of Christ, as received in the
Holy Communion, is meant the grace which re
freshes the soul owing to the offering of the
Body of Christ. See Liguori, Theologia Moralis,
vi. 3, 189 ; and Aquinas, Summa, Part III. suppl.
73.

It will be noted that the Body of Christ
which we feed upon is absent, and we feed upon
it by devout memory and warm affection ;
but the Body of Christ which we receive into the
soul is present, being a grace, a blessing, a
benefit, flowing from His sacrificed Body and
bestowed upon us in Holy Communion.

Canon Gore has published (1901) a book
called " The Body of Christ," in which he gives
that title to the glorified body of Christ " sacra-
mentally identified" with the bread and wine
consecrated upon the altar. He does not
define the term " sacramentally identified,"
but we may note that the Council of Trent
contrasts "sacramentally and really" with
" spiritually," anathematising those who held
that Christ was eaten in the Eucharist
"spiritually" and not " sacrameutally."
Canon viii. of Session xiii. runs: " If any one
say that Christ exhibited in the Eucharist
is only spiritually eaten and not also sacra
mentally and really, be he anathema." " Sacra
mentally " therefore does not mean ' ' spiritually. "
The manner in which the sacramental identifi
cation of the bread and wine with Christ
is supposed by Canon Gore to be effected
is as follows : He holds that at the moment
of consecration by the priest (rather by the
thousands of priests throughout the world)
the bread and wine are conveyed to heaven
by an agency which he does not define and
laid upon an altar which he conceives as
existing in heaven. Lying there, they are
converted into or made one with the glorified
Body of Christ who is in heaven, and then they
are returned to the several altars and are a
legitimate object of worship to the congrega
tions assembled in the churches, having become
Christ's Body and blood. The origin of this

BODY OF CHRIST

[81 ]

BODY OF CHRIST

almost grotesque imagination is a prayer in
serted apparently by Gregory I. at the end
of the sixth century into the Roman Mass j
immediately after the consecration, which j
prays God to " order these things to be
carried by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thy
altar on high in sight of Thy divine Majesty.'
To this day no one can tell what are " these j
things " (the bread and wine having, to Papists, j
already been converted into Christ) or who is j
"Thy holy angel" or what is "Thy altar on j
high." But upon the words used in this prayer
Paschasius Radbert— the same that first taught
the doctrine (though not the word) of Tran-
substantiation— based in the ninth century the
theory which Dr. Gore has adopted and em
bellished as a substructure for the doctrine
of the Objective Presence of Christ in the
elements, which appeared to require under
pinning. Canon Gore justifies his assertion
of the existence of an altar in heaven by
appealing to a passage of Irenasus, which
equally proves the existence of the Tabernacle
and the Temple in heaven and is plainly meta
phorical. He does not venture, like Gregory,
to define the agency by which is effected the
transference of the bread and wine to heaven
and of the bread and wine identified with
Christ's body back again to the altar after
which the worship of the congregation is
" focussed " upon them. The agency, whatever
it is, must be very swift in its action, for
worship of the Host is ordered in the Missal
as soon as ever the priest has said, " This
is My body," and if that worship was offered
before the passage to heaven and back had
been successfully accomplished, any worship, ,
thus "focussed" (p. 105), would be acknow
ledged on all hands to be the idolatrous worship
of a piece of unleavened bread with which
Christ's Body was not yet united or identified.
According to Pope Gregory the carriage to
heaven — he says nothing as to its return
to earth, which is a further development
attributed to Gregory's prayer by Dr. Gore
(p. 186)— is made by a single angel however
many Masses may be in course of celebration
in the world. If the Body of Christ is to be
" identified " with the bread, it is far simpler
to accept the theory of either Transubstantia-
tion or Consubstantiation than that of the
heavenly altar, for which there is no authority
whatever in Scripture or in the belief of the
Primitive Church, and which creates a com
posite Body of Christ similar to that which the
advocates of Consubstantiation are charged
(rightly or wrongly) with holding. There is '
no such Bod}' of Christ as that which
Paschasius Radbert and Dr. Gore, misunder
standing Irenaeus and Pope Gregory I., have
imagined.

We need hardly state that when Christ is
present where two or three are gathered to
gether, it is by His Spirit not by His Body in
any of its various senses that He is present.

6. His mystical Body. This is the company
of the faithful, or the Christian Church, of
which Christ is the mystical Head. It is
this Body of Christ, and none other, that
can possibly be offered to God in the Holy
Eucharist. No one can make an offering
or sacrifice to God of anything that is not
either himself or his own in such a way
that he can divest himself of the ownership
thereof and give it wholly to God. But Christ
is not the possession of any man or priest so
that the latter can own Him, nor so that
he can divest himself of the ownership
of Him, declaring that he will henceforth have
nothing to do with Him as any more belong
ing to himself. It is the height of presumption
for any man to propose to offer or give away
Christ as though He belonged to him, and it
is great profanity to declare by his act (as
a sacrificial offering would do) that he will
henceforth have no interest in Him. Therefore
no man can sacrifice Christ nor the Body of
Christ either in its glorified or crucified estate.
But St. Augustine has a devout fancy — it is
hardly more — that the Church, being the
mystical Body of Christ, can and does offer
herself to God in the Holy Eucharist. " The
whole redeemed city, that is, the congregation
and fellowship of the saints, is offered up to
God an universal sacrifice through the great
High Priest. This is the sacrifice of Christians,
many constituting one Body in Christ" (De
Civ. Dei, x.). "If you want to understand
what the Body of Christ is, listen to the
Apostle, saying to the faithful, 'Ye are the
Body of Christ'" (Serm. ccxxix). "We our
selves, that is, the City of God, are the most
noble and best sacrifice " (De Civ. Dei, xix.).
Carrying out this idea, Bishop Buckeridge
writes, "This offering up of ourselves is, in
deed, the true and daily sacrifice of the
Christian Church, which, being the mystical
Body of Christ, cannot offer Christ's natural
Body, which Christ offered once for all upon
the Cross, but offereth His mystical Body, that
is, herself, by Christ her High Priest and
Head, unto God " (Discourse). There is nothing
untrue or objectionable in this conception ex
cept this — that in each particular celebration
of the Eucharist, it is not the whole Church
that is celebrating it, but only the members of
the congregation then and there assembled.
It is better, therefore, in accordance with the
Anglican form, for the oblation to be not of the
whole Church (which one congregation could
not make) but of ourselves who form tbe con
gregation, as is done in the familiar words,

F

BODY OF CHRIST

[82 ]

BRAWLING

"And here we offer and present unto Thee,
0 Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to
be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto
Thee ; humbly beseeching Thee, that all we
who are partakers of this Holy Communion
may be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly
benediction. And although we be unworthy,
through our manifold sins, to offer unto Thee
any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept
this our bounden duty and service " (Communion
Service).

In the Holy Communion we can offer the
bread and wine before their consecration, and
therefore before they have become the sym
bolical Body and Blood of Christ, for the
service of God in His Ordinance and as a
sign of homage to the Creator for His good
ness in supplying us with the food necessary
for the support of life, according to the
practice of the first two centuries and a half
after Christ ; and we can offer to God ourselves
who make a part of Christ's mystical Body the
Church ; but we cannot offer the natural
Body of Christ, which is in heaven and not
on an earthly altar, nor, if it were there,
could we offer it in sacrifice, because we
are not the owners of it, willing to divest
ourselves of our ownership and of our in
terest in it. We cannot offer His crucified
Body, for that no longer exists except as
revivified in His glorified body. And we
cannot offer His glorified Body, for that is
the same as His natural Body with some
new qualities added or evolved, which the
heavens must contain till the time of the
restitution of all things. The essential pur
pose of a sacrament is not that we may offer
but that we may receive. What we receive is
(1) the symbolical Body of Christ — that is, the
bread and wine, unchanged in substance, set
apart to represent Christ's Body ; (2) the graces
and blessings flowing from the crucified Body
of Christ which effect in the devout communi
cant the strengthening and refreshing of the
soul. We do not receive Christ's natural Body,
neither the Body crucified nor the Body glori
fied, but in our souls we feed on the Body,
once crucified for us, by a faithful and loving
remembrance of the Incarnate Saviour's pro
pitiatory death upon the Cross, and in our
souls we receive the graces and blessings
thence flowing, which, being purchased for us
and brought about by His giving His Body to
be sacrificed for us, may be and sometimes
are for that reason called His Body. [F. M.]
BOWING. — The inclination of the head as a
sign of respect or reverence. Hence it is an
instinctive and natural gesture accompanying,
and significant of, humble adoration in divine
worship. We bow the head, as we kneel,
before the realised, spiritual presence of God.

As a custom in public worship, bowing at the
name of Jesus, especially where it occurs in
the Creeds, is probably based upon a misap
prehension of Phil. ii. 10, "that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow." In the Revised
Version this is rendered "in the name of
Jesus," which, it cannot be doubted, is the
meaning of the original Greek. The passage
simply means that prayer must now be offered
up by all persons (angels or men) in the name
of Jesus. The general sense of the whole
passage in which that verse occurs is not
concerned with a mere bowing of man's head
or knee, when pronouncing or hearing the
word "Jesus." Canon 18 enjoins the practice,
"when in time of divine service the name
of the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned," but
there is no rubric to that effect. When the
canon was drawn up it was customary to bow
whenever the names of King, Queen, or any
noble personages were mentioned. Instances
may be seen in the account of the Final Ex
amination of Bps. Ridley and Latimer at
Oxford (see Foxe's Acts and Monuments and
Ridley's Works, Parker Society). And as canons
do not bind the laity, this is a matter which
may well be left to the conscience and judg
ment of each worshipper, if it be done not from
superstition but as an expression of reverence.
Bowing has been extended, as a Ritualistic
practice, to the Gloria Patri. Bowing to the
"altar," as the Communion Table is termed
by those who do so, would seem decidedly
to involve the holding of false doctrine, for
the Communion Table can be no holier, in
the sense of necessity to bow to it, than the
Font, unless the Roman doctrine of the sacri
fice of the Lord's Body upon an altar is held.
The canon of 1640 which sanctioned it has
no legal validity. See CANONS ; GENU
FLEXION. [M. E. W. J.]
BOY-BISHOP. — A descriptive appellation given
in the Middle Ages to one of the boys of the
choir of a cathedral who, at the Christmas
time, from St. Nicolas' Day to that of the
Holy Innocents, assumed the episcopal dress
and occupied to some extent the place of
"bishop" among his companions. The custom
is supposed to have been an allusion to our
Saviour's inculcation of the childlike [not
childish] spirit to His Apostles when He took
a little child and set him in their midst (see
the Ritual Reason Why, p. 195).
BRAWLING. — Riotous, violent, or indecent
behaviour in a place of worship during divine
service or at any other time, or in any
churchyard or burial-ground. Brawling is a
misdemeanour under several statutes (see
Whitehead, Church Law), and involves liability
to penalties. A mere protest was held not to
be brawling by the London Quarter-Sessions

BRAWLING

[83]

BREAD

in the case of Mr. Kensit, but elsewhere, as in
the Rev. Mr. Fillingham's case, a different view
has been taken. The penalties apply to the
clergy as well as the laity, and words spoken
by them during divine service by way of ad
monition of a passionate tenor, though ex
pressed without any tone of passion, have
been ruled within the words of the statute.
Brawling by a clergyman is also punishable
in the Ecclesiastical Courts. [E. W.]

BREAD. — One of the elements used in the
administration of the Lord's Supper, represent
ing (1) the Body of the Lord offered on the
Cross, (2) the common food of man. It bears
the first of these significations by our Lord's
own appointment at the Last Supper, and
the second according to the understanding
of the Fathers of the Church to the middle
of the third century, who, while not forgetting
the first signification, regarded it also as a
sign of homage and of thanksgiving to the
Creator for providing sustenance for the life
of man. Since the time of Cyprian, A.D. 250,
this latter signification of the offering of bread
has been so obscured as to be practically
forgotten, but it is very prominent in the
earliest Church writers. The Teaching of the
Apostles, about A.D. 100, combining the two
ideas, orders the following thanksgiving to be
given after Reception : " To thee be glory for
ever. Thou didst create all things for Thy
Name's sake, and didst give food and drink
to men for their enjoyment, that they may
give-thanks (Kucharistisc) to Thee; and on us
Thou bestowedst spiritual food and drink and
eternal life through Thy Child ; and above
all we give thanks to Thee that Thou art
mighty" (c. x.). Here the presence of the
bread and wine is made the occasion of man's
acknowledgment of God's goodness and power
in giving food to support human life and in
supplying spiritual sustenance to Christians.
Justin Martyr, half a century later, represents
the bread and the wine as offered "in memorial
of our food, both dry and liquid" (as well as
in memorial of Christ's Passion), " that we may
thank God for having created the world, with
all the things therein, for the benefit of man "
(Dial, cum Tryph.). And Irenaeus (if the
Fragments are his) writes : "We offer to God
the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks
to Him that He has commanded the earth to
bring forth these fruits for our food, and then,
having finished the offering, we call on the
Holy Spirit to exhibit this sacrifice, the bread
the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of
Christ, in order that those who partake of these
emblems may obtain remission of sins and
eternal life " (Fragm. Securi'L). In this respect
the Eucharist was the antitype of the meal-
offering (unfortunately translated meat-offer

ing) of the Jews, which was a gift of homage to
God ("of Thine own have we given Thee")
signifying an acknowledgment of God's sove
reignty, just as in another respect it was the
antitype of the peace-offering, in which the
offerers partook of the offering, not for the
purpose of becoming, but in token of being in
communion with God.

As the gift of homage to the Sustainer of
man's life, nothing could be so suitable as
bread, which is the staff of life, and that in
its simplest form, "such as is usual to be
eaten, but the best and purest wheat bread
that conveniently may be gotten."

As an emblem of Christ's body, bread is
used solely because Christ so appointed. He
might have selected some other emblem, but
He had at hand, in the Last Supper, the bread
and the wine, well adapted to be signs of
His body about to be broken and of His
blood about to be poured out, and accordingly
He adopted them for that purpose and stamped
upon them that signification. The earliest
Church writers saw a reason for the selection
of bread in the fact that the Eucharistic loaf
which was one, was formed out of many
separate grains of wheat, and so symbolised
the unity of the Church made up of many
members. In the Teaching of the Apostles
we find the early Christians taught to say, in
the Consecration prayer, " To Thee be the glory
for ever I As this bread which we have broken
was once scattered over the hills, and gathered
together it became one, so may Thy Church
be gathered from the ends of the earth into
Thy kingdom ; for Thine is the glory and the
power through Jesus Christ for ever" (c. ix.).

If the Last Supper was the Passover Feast,
the bread then used would have been neces
sarily unleavened ; and controversialists, both
Roman and Ritualist (The Congregation in
Church, p. 58), argue from thence that un
leavened bread should be now used. The
argument is only employed to excuse and
justify a practice adopted for other reasons,
but it does not justify it. The reason why
it is inferred that unleavened bread was used
at the Last Supper is that the Paschal meal
fell on one of the days of the Festival of
Unleavened Bread. For that reason unleavened
bread was appropriate and necessary in that
week, but in no other week in the year — appro
priate because the Apostles were Jews, not
because they were Christians. In obedience
to our Lord's command, " Do this in remem
brance of Me," the Apostles and earliest
Christians re-enacted the Last Supper every
week with such alterations as circumstances
made necessary. Every Sunday evening the
Agape was celebrated, in the course of which
the bread and wine were distributed by the

BREAD

[84]

BREVIARY

presiding presbyter. When the week of the
Feast of Unleavened Bread came round,
the partakers, as long as Jewish converts
formed the majority, would no doubt, as
Jews, have used unleavened bread ; in all the
other weeks, that is, on fifty-one days out of
fifty-two, they would have employed the ordi
nary, that is, leavened bread. Nor are we
left to conjecture on this point ; for we are
told that the bread and wine which were
consecrated on those occasions were taken
from the viands brought by those present to
form the social meals, that is, it was the bread
"such as was usual to be eaten" — which was
leavened. The real reason for the adoption of
unleavened bread in the Latin communion and
by Ritualists at present is that it is more
readily made up into little cakes or wafers and
is less likely to drop crumbs. The employment
of separate cakes for each communicant does
away with the primitive idea, already spoken of
(which rests on St. Paul's teaching, 1 Cor. x.),
that the one bread or loaf symbolises the unity
of the Church, made up of many members.
That objection should be taken to the crumb
ling of ordinary wheat bread is more serious,
because it rests on a false and dangerous doc
trine as its foundation. As long as the bread
was regarded as the sign or symbol of the body
of Christ through partaking of which grace was
conveyed to the faithful soul, it was an in
different matter whether there were crumbs
on the paten or not, provided that they were
subsequently reverently consumed. But when
it came to be believed that the bread was
Christ Himself, then what were the crumbs ?
Was each crumb Christ ? or was it a part of
Christ ? or what was it ? This question could
not be answered, and therefore those who had
accepted the tenet had to get rid of the crumbs.
This they did by giving to each communicant
a separate cake or wafer made of unleavened
bread which would not readily crumble. "It
is made into wafers for convenience and to
guard against the dropping of crumbs, which
might result from having to cut or break it "
(Cotujregation in Church, p. 58). So the sym
bolical representation of the broken body
shared by all, as well as the lesson of the
unity of the Church, was lost on the demand
of a gross material superstition. The exact
date at which the Latin Church began the use
of unleavened bread is not proved. It was
after the year 867, when Photius formulated
his charges against the Western Church,
making no mention of the practice, and it
was before 1054, when Michael Cerularius gave
it a prominent position in his similar complaint.
It was in the ninth century (the earliest of
these dates) that Transubstanliation was first
taught, and in the eleventh century (the latest

of the dates) that it was accepted by the
authorities of the Latin Church. For the
reason given above, the use of unleavened
bread would be more suitable to Transub-
stantiation than to primitive doctrine, and it
probably made its way in the West pari passu
with the new tenet. The Oriental Church has
always employed leavened bread. [F. M.]

BREAKING OF BREAD.— See COMMUNION,
FREQUENCY OF, and footnote to that article.

BREVIARY.— An abridgment (as the name
evidently denotes) of the ancient Church offices
which was drawn up by Pope Gregory VII.
about 1085. In 1241 another compilation by
Haymon, General of the Franciscan Minorites,
was approved by Gregory IX. and was intro
duced by Nicholas III. in all the churches of
Rome. Different communities followed this
example, compiling as they pleased, so that
there were at least 150 Breviaries in use in the
West prior to the Reformation. That this
diversity existed in England is plainly mani
fest by the "Uses" of Salisbury, Hereford,
Bangor, York, and Lincoln, referred to in the
Book of Common Prayer. The Breviary is
divided into four parts, one part being devoted
to each season of the year. Each part is sub
divided into daily portions and consists of
selections from Scripture, the Fathers, and
lives of saints, also antiphons, prayers and
responses. For each day there are eight por
tions corresponding to the Canonical Hours
(q.v,), all of which must be repeated by a
priest without omission under pain of mortal
sin. In the case of the secular clergy, who
would experience a difficulty in reciting the
services at the specified times, permission is
given to rearrange the services to suit their
convenience. The Breviary has been revised
several times. In 1536 it was revised by
Cardinal Quignon, but this revised version was
suppressed by Paul IV. In 1568 Pius V. pub
lished another reformed Breviary, and this in
turn was corrected by Clement VIII., who, in
his Bull Cum in Ecclcsid of May 1602, blamed
the printers for his predecessors' errors. In
1631 Pope Urban VIII. completed the task, and
his is the Breviary now in use in the Roman
Church. In France in the early part of the
eighteenth century, owing to the influence of
the Port Royalists and others, a revision of
about half the Breviaries was effected, and
with excellent results. The services were
shortened and simplified ; the Psalter was
ordered to be read weekly ; and prayers to
saints and angels were expunged. Unfortu
nately during the pontificate of Pius IX. the
Ultramontane party, under the Count de
Montalembert, succeeded in getting these re
formed Breviaries suppressed.

The contents of the Breviary are of a remark-

BREVIARY

85 ]

BURIAL

able character. Although professing to be an
abridgment of Christian Church offices, the
book is rather a collection of pagan fairy tales
clothed in Christian phraseology. Divine
honours are given to the Virgin Mary, who is
set forth as Mediatrix and capable of bestow
ing both spiritual and temporal blessings upon
man. The invocation of saints and angels is
inculcated ; and round the lives of the saints
there gather legends which shock the under
standing and often the moral sense. The
following are instances of such legends, the
date after the saint's name being the date
under which the story will be found in the
Breviary. St. Denis (Oct. 9), after he was
beheaded, walked two miles carrying his head
in his hand. St. Stanislaus (May 7), in order to
prove that he had bought a certain piece of
land, raised from his grave (where he had lain
three years) the man from whom he had pur
chased it, and the latter after attesting the
fact fell asleep in the Lord. The murdered
body of this saint, cut up in pieces and
scattered in the fields, was defended by eagles
from the wild beasts. Subsequently the
canons of Cracow, guided by a brilliant
heavenly light, gathered the pieces together,
fitting them in their proper places, and these
suddenly uniting left no trace of the wounds.
The cloak seems to have been a useful article
to some of the saints. Spreading one under
him, St. Francis of Paula (April 2) with a
companion crossed the straits of Sicily.
Another saint, Raymond of Pennafort (Jan. 23)
in a like manner performed the voyage from
Majorca to Barcelona, a distance of one hun
dred and sixty miles, in six hours, and entered
his monastery although the gates were closed.
To the body of St. Januarius (Sept. 19) many
miracles are attributed. In its last resting
place at Naples it extinguished an eruption
of Mount Vesuvius ; and his blood preserved
in a glass phial liquefies and bubbles up (as if
recently shed) when brought into the presence
of the saint's body. Of St. Francis Xavier
(Dec. 3) we read that when wrapt in devout
contemplation he was at times elevated high
in the air, and that this happened to him on
many occasions when officiating at the Mass.
Many miracles are recorded as having been
wrought by him, such as converting sea water
to fresh, raising the dead, and others equally
astounding. Of St. Philip Neri (May 26) we
read that owing to his heart burning so much
with love to God it could not be confined with
in its bounds, and therefore the Lord won-
drously enlarged his breast by breaking and
elevating two of his ribs. He, too, like Xavier
was at times elevated in the air, and was seen
to shine on all sides with a wonderful light.
Another saint, Peter of Alcantara (Oct. 19).

experienced so greatly the love of God and his
neighbour that his heart burned so that he was
compelled to rush into the open field to cool
the burning heat within.

It is to the Breviary which abounds with im
pious falsehoods such as the above that the
Church of Rome has given the very highest
place, requiring her clergy, as before stated,
under pain of mortal sin to recite the appointed
portion of it daily. And to all these lying
legends that Church which claims to be holy
and infallible has set her seal. As one reads
them and remembers that Roman Catholics,
like the late Cardinal Newman, have frankly
stated that they not only believed such fables
but gloried in them, the terrible language of
Scripture comes to the mind as the only ap
parent solution of this strange mental obliquity
— " God shall send them a working of deception
(tvepyeiav TrXctJ'T??) that they should believe the
lie (T$ \{/et8ei) " 2 Thess. ii. 11. [S. R, G.]

BULL. — A solemn brief or mandate from the
Pope, so called from the Latin bulla, a seal,
the document having attached to it a seal of
lead or of gold on which are engraved the
effigies of St. Peter and St. Paul, the name of
the reigning Pope, and the year of his Pontifi
cate.

BURIAL. — The committal of human remains to
the ground. Every person has a right to
burial in the burial-ground of his own parish.
No buried human remains may be taken up
or removed without a licence from the
Secretary of State, except under a faculty to
remove a body from one consecrated place to
another. According to the rubric preceding
the Order for the Burial of the Dead in the
Prayer Book of the Church of England this
office is " not to be used for any that die tm-
baptized l or excommunicate, or have laid
violent hands upon themselves." With regard
to the word " excommunicate," it is to be noted
that it has been decided (Kemp v. Wickes, 1809)
that this means excommunicate from the Chris
tian Church generally, and not merely from
the Church of England.2 In cases of suicide,
where "while of unsound rnind or temporary
insanity" is appended to the verdict, the fact
of self-destruction is no bar to the use of the
office. By the Burial Laws Amendment Act,
1880, upon notice in proper form being given

1 According to Cripps (Laws of Church and
Clergy, p. 772) the clergyman cannot constitute
himself a judge of what is or is not baptism,
because that is determined by the law (see
BAPTISM).

2 By Canon 68 this is explained to mean
denounced majori excommunication e for some
notorious and grievous crime, and no person able
to testify of his repentance (see Cripps).

BURIAL

[86]

CALENDAR

to the incumbent, the burial of any persoi
entitled to interment in any graveyard maj
be carried out with or without any Christian
service. The incumbent is entitled to a " con
venient warning" and the usual fees. The
clergyman who buries or performs any biiria
service without a coroner's order or registrar'
certificate being delivered to him, must, within
seven days after the burial, give notice in writing
to the registrar, or he is liable to a penalty no
exceeding £10. Under the above Act, sec. xi.
the person having charge of or performing the
funeral is liable to the like penalty whether he
be one in "holy orders" or a layman. A de
ceased child must not be buried as if it were
still-born, and no child may be buried as still
born without a proper certificate. In any case
where the burial service may not be used, and
in any other case at the request of the person
having charge of the burial, any clergyman of
the Church of England authorised to perform
the burial service may use such service con
sisting of prayers from the Prayer Book and
portions of Holy Scripture as may be approved
by the Ordinary.

The burial service of the Church of England
is at once one of the most impressive and most
comforting compositions of which human
language is capable. The full burial service
of the Church of Rome is extremely long and
tedious and does not so much impress as
harass by a variety of superstitious ceremonies
such as the frequent lighting, blowing out, and
re-lighting of candles, the burning of incense,
and the sprinkling of the grave with holy water.
BTJRSA. — A kind of square case or pocket in
use in Romish and Ritualistic rites. It is
formed of cardboard covered with silk or some
rich material, and in it is kept the corporal,
or napkin, used at the Eucharistic service.

CALENDAR.— To modern readers the chief
interest of this table lies in the proper lessons
and the carefully planned readings of Holy
Scripture secured by the Lectionary Act of
1871, which adopted the recommendations of a
Royal Commission. Of a few of the "saints"
i.e. Christians (for all Christians are in New
Testament language "saints") it maybe said
that their words and "acts" are recorded in
the Scriptures, so that some real interest
attaches to their memories : but of the " black-
letter" saints mentioned in the Calendar, little
is known for certain, and they are, for purposes
of edification, hardly more than mythical.
Hence at the Reformation a clean sweep was
made of the apocryphal persons, not a single

black-letter saint finding place in the First
Prayer Book of Edward. The Royal Visitation
articles which accompanied the issue of that
book directed that "none keep the ABROGATED
holy days other than those that have their
proper and peculiar service." Thus omission
was prohibition.

The Act 5 & 6 Edward VI. cap. 3, which
immediately followed upon the issue of the
Second Prayer Book of Edward, ordered that
" all the days hereafter mentioned shall be kept
and commanded to be kept holy days, and none
other." The list corresponds with our present
" table," and shows by its addition of the names
of George, Laurence, and Clement, and of
Lammas, that these black-letter insertions of
1552, like "sol in aqua," &c., were intended
merely for the convenience of the public, as
in our modern "almanacs." That statute was
repealed by 1 Mary, sess. 2 cap. 2, and Queen
Mary issued on the purely " Erastian " authority
of the Crown, in March 1554, articles com
manding " that all such holy days and fasting
days be observed and kept, as was observed and
kept in the latter time of King Henry VIII."
The Act of Uniformity (1 Elizabeth, cap. 2) gave
the sanction of law to the Calendar of Edward's
Second Book : and we find accordingly that
the earliest copies of Elizabeth's book had no
black-letter days save those above mentioned.
But on January 22, 1561, Queen Elizabeth
issued letters under her signet, directing the
Royal Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes
to draw up a new Calendar, which was ready
on February loth. This Calendar contained
(all but three of) our present black-letter list.
But it was preceded by a Table of Feasts
headed "these to be observed for holy days and
none other " ; and this list corresponds verbatim
with that given in 5 & 6 Edward VI. cap. 3.

The Rev. Wm. Harrison, chaplain to Lord
Cobham, in his Description of England, A.D.
1577-87, said: "Whereas we had under the
Pope fourscore and fifteen, called festival, and
thirty profesti, besides the Sundays, they are
all brought unto twenty-seven " (p. 78, of Scott's
reprint). To prevent any misunderstanding, the
Elizabethan bishops in April 1561 drew up

some "Resolutions," among which was this:

"That there be no other holy day observed be
sides the Sundays, but only such as be set out
in the Act of King Edward, An. 5 et 6 cap. 3."
Cardwell notes that those words in italic were
inserted by Archbishop Parker's own hand,
instead of the words crossed through in the
original draft, viz. "in the Calendar of the
Service Book, with two days following the
Feasts of Easter and Pentecost." In 1564 it
was further explained in the Precex Privates
published by authority, that the black-letter
days were retained for secular reasons only :

CALENDAR

[87 ]

CANON

"We have not done it because we hold them
all for saints, of whom we do not esteem some to
be even among the good. . . . but that they may
be as notes and marks of some certain things,
the stated times of which it is very important
to know, and ignorance of which may be a
disadvantage to our countrymen."

Canon 88 forbids "bells to be rung supersti-
tiously upon the holy days or eves abrogated
(antiquatce), by the Book of Common Prayer."

The passing of 1 James I. cap 25 (repeal
ing 1 Mary, sess. 2 cap. 2), in May 1604 fol
lowed close upon the issue (in March of the same
year) of the Jacobean revision of the Prayer
Book. In this way the 5 & 6 Edward VI. cap. 3
became thenceforth the legal standard.

Lastly, at the final revision of the Prayer
Book, the Bishops at the Savoy Conference
declared "the other names are left in the
Calendar, not that they should be so kept as
holy days, but they are useful for the preserva
tion of their memories, and for other reasons,
as for leases, law days, &c." Bishop Cosin, in
his Regni Anglice Religio Catholira, written to
give foreign churches a just idea of our Prayer
Book, takes no notice whatever of the black-letter
people, but heads the red-letter days with the
words, "sacrati Deo apud nos sunt." The
American Church omits black-letter days.

Sir Robert J. Phillimore, Dean of the Arches,
in Elphinstone v. Purchas, condemned as un
lawful the practice of giving notice for the
observance of "the feasts of St. Leonard, St.
Martin, and St. Britius," under the rubric
which bids the announcement of all days that
" are in the week following to be observed."

In 1870, the Ritual Commissioners added
this note: "That although some other days
are marked in the Calendar, yet the above
mentioned [i.e. the red-letter days] are the
ONLY fasts and feasts appointed to be observed
throughout the year." [J. T. T.]

CANCELLI.— See CHANCEL.
CANDLEMAS. — The mediaeval name of a
festival of the Romish Church, in honour of
the Purification of the Virgin Mary, on 2nd
February, and so called from the number of
candles used in procession and at Mass. The
candles used have been previously blessed,
and some of them are subsequently used at
the bedside of dying persons. The Reformed
Church of England has retained the Festival,
but in the Prayer Book it is entitled "The
Presentation of Christ in the Temple, commonly
called the Purification of Saint Mary the
Virgin." In the Middle Ages there were
seven festivals in honour of the Virgin Mary,
of which the Church of England has retained
only two, viz., the Annunciation and the Pre
sentation, purely as expressions of reverence
for her who is blessed among women, if indeed

they may not rather be regarded as festivals
of our Lord Himself (see Procter on Prayer
Book, p. 302). Cranmer on behalf of the
Privy Council forbade these lights to be used,
Jan. 27, 1548, N.S., i.e. just before the com
mencement of the second year of Edward VI.
(see Cardwell, Doc. Ann. No. 8), which year
did not commence till the day following. Still,
the Ritual Reason WTiy (p. 196) justifies this
practice as though it had never been abolished.

CANDLES.— In the Romish Church, two
candles are considered necessary at Low Mass,
six at High Mass, and twelve at Benediction.
Lighted candles in the Church of England on
the Lord's Table or on a ledge immediately
above it are illegal, except when necessary for
the purpose of giving light. By the Judgment
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
1868, in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie, it
was ruled that "lighted candles are clearly not
'ornaments,' within the words of the rubric,
for they are not prescribed by the authority of
Parliament therein mentioned, namely, the first
Prayer Book, nor is the injunction of 1547 the
authority of Parliament within the meaning of
the rubric " (See Procter on Prayer Book,
pp. 202, 203). In the case cited the Judges
maintained that the use of lighted candles "is
not, nor is any ceremony in which it forms
part, among those retained in the Prayer
Book" (Brooke, p. 125). See Tomlinson, His
torical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment Ex
amined, 6th edit. London: Church Association.
On Archbi>hop Benson's view, see Whitehead,
note on p. 168. See LIGHTS.

CANON.— A residentiary member of a cathe
dral chapter. Canons are variously appointed.
The bishop was always considered to have the
patronage of canonries; now the appointment is
vested in either the bishop of the diocese or the
Crown. To be eligible for a cancnry a clergy
man must have been in priest's orders for
six years, except as regards a canonry annexed
to a professorship or any other office in any
university. They are supposed to hold them
selves in readiness to preach in the cathedral,
collegiate, or other churches throughout the
diocese. Minor canons are appointed by the
chapter.

By the statute of 3 & 4 Viet. c. 113 it was
enacted that honorary canonries should be
founded in every cathedral church in England
in which there are not already founded any
non-residentiary prebends, dignities, or offices.
They are entitled to stalls, and take rank in
the cathedral church next after the canons.
The number is fixed at twenty-four, and the
appointment is with the bishops and arch
bishops respectively. They have no emolu
ment. See Cripps, Laws of the Church and
Clergy, ch. vii. ; Whitehead, Church Laic.

CANONS

[88]

CANON LAW

CANONS are bye-laws made by Convocation
which become binding on the clergy but not
on the laity, after they have received the royal
assent, provided that they do not conflict with
the prerogatives of the Crown or the Common or
Statute law. Unlike the last named, they may
be abrogated by disuse ; and many of those of
1604, which code "superseded and embodied"
the previous canons, as the Ecclesiastical Courts
Commission reported in 1883 (p. 36), are now
obsolete and incapable of enforcement. The
Canons of 1640 were reported by the same
Commission "as having no authority at all."
Sir H. J. Fust and Sir R. Phillimore have judi
cially rejected them when cited in argument.
(See also Ayliffe's Parergon, Introd., p. xxxv. and
Bishop Stillingfleet's Eccl. Cases, Pt. i. p. 258.)
In 1865, Canons 36, 37, 38, and 40 of the Canons
of 1604 were altered so as to correspond with
the Parliamentary alterations of the rules relat
ing to subscription. York Convocation passed
them on the same day on which the Act was
read a third time, viz, July 5, ] 865. The Crown
refused to ratify a proposed alteration of
Canon 29 adopted by Canterbury Convocation.
In 1888, Canons 102 and 62, bearing on the
hours for marriage, were altered for like reasons.
And in 1892 the following canon was passed
owing to the statutory requirements of the
Clergy Discipline Act : " If any beneficed priest
shall, by reason of any crime or immorality
proved against him, become legally disqualified
from holding preferment, it shall be the duty
of the bishop of the diocese wherein his bene
fice is situate to declare without further trial
the benefice with cure of souls (if any) vacant,
and if it should not be so declared vacant with
in twenty-one days it shall be declared vacant
by the Archbishop of the Province, or under his
authority." The doubtful regularity of the pro
cedure adopted in passing some of these Victo
rian canons is shown in Makower's Constitutional
History of the Church of England, pp. 366, 374,
and 488 ; also in the Church Intelligencer, v.
47, ix. 84, 104. [J. T. T.]

CANON LAW (I) rests theoretically upon St.
Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18, John xx. 23. The first
of these relates, not to persons, but to things,
and includes the making church regulations as
to such matters as "eating blood and things
strangled " (Acts xv. 28, 29). The same remark
applies also to Matt, xviii. 18, which in verse 17
also suggests the exclusion, in the last resort,
of the defaulting Christian from the fellowship
of the disciples.1 The use of the word "king-

1 NOTE. — It should be observed that, widely as
Matt, xviii. 17 has been interpreted as referring
to an excommunication pronounced by "the
Church," no such reference can be proved.
Lightfoot (Horce Heb., in loco), long ago not only

dom " has suggested to some minds the ideal
of a monarchical empire dominated by royal
" delegates," who in the absence of the king, or
rather viceroy (Matt, xxviii. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 28)
may wield in his name all the powers of
the absent monarch, as "King," no less than
as "Prophet " and as "Priest." This claim is
rested on John xx. 21, and it is even claimed
(v. 23) that it includes a judicial discretion
which places forgiveness of sin at the disposal
of every ordained priest. Every priest is thus
a vice - Christ ! The Mediaeval Church em
braced these notions and endeavoured to carry
them out in detail. They forgot that the
" church " and the " kingdom " are not con
terminous, that the word rendered " kingdom "
properly means " reign " or " royal rule " (jSao-t-
Xe/a, not (3aai\{vfj.a.), that the King is omni
present and omniscient, and has, moreover,
appointed a "Vicar," the Holy Spirit, to per
petuate His rule in the hearts of all His people.
Again and again did our Lord repudiate earthly
sovereignty and point out that His Royal rule
(basileia) was neither from this world nor of
the same kind with any earthly sovereignty.
Litigation in courts, and the handing over His
subjects to the secular power to be put to the
sword or burned at the stake were certainly
not among the covenanted resources and
machinery of His heavenly "kingdom." In
primitive times we know that the discipline
of the Church was exercised by the Church
over the clergy and not, as in later ages, by
the clergy over the Church. The Apostles
themselves were bidden to " hear the Church.
Clement of Rome described the clergy as

called attention to the fact (which other com
mentators have noted) that our Lord was speak
ing of quarrels among individuals, and of such
quarrels only ; and also to the equally important
point that the words employed by our Lord were
"Let him be to thee (the party against whom the
offence was committed) as a heathen man and a
publican." He did not say, "Let him be to the
Church." Professor Hort rightly maintained that
by "the Church" the local synagogue must be
meant (Christian Ecclesia, p. 10). The Church
or the Synagogue were to act as mediators, and
if that mediation was unsuccessful in bringing
about justice the offended party was entitled to
treat the offender as he would " a heathen and
a publican." The case contemplated is that
which, in reference to the Christian Church, is
enlarged on by St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi., where the
apostle urges the thought that believers hereafter
shall judge angels, and therefore might well act
as arbitrators between brethren. The importance
of abstaining from quarrelling among brethren
about the affairs of this life is that urged both
by the Master and the Apostle.— C. H. H. W.

CANON LAW

[89]

CANON LAW

persons appointed " with the consent of the
whole Church," and complains of the Corin
thians, not for removing their clergy, but for
having exercised their disciplinary powers
on some "men of excellent behaviour." Had
"Pope" Clement held other than democratic
ideas of Church government he would have
excommunicated these Corinthians for usurp
ing powers which did not belong to the Church,
as such, but were peculiar to the clergy, as
such. But, on the contrary, he bids the authors
of the schism to do "whatever the majority
commands." His " Decretal" is in the form
of a letter which does not even name either
the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Corinth, j
but is addressed directly by the Church at
Rome to the Church at Corinth. Polycarp.
the disciple of St. John, writing to the Church
at Philippi, ignores their bishop and mentions
quite as a customary incident, that Valens, a
Presbyter, had been deposed by that Church.
This was in exact accordance with St. Paul's
account of the method of exercising discipline
(2 Cor. ii. 6, 10), the punishments and the
pardon being alike inflicted or bestowed by
" the many." Tertullian thus describes their
gatherings for Church discipline: "We meet
together for the commemoration of the Divine
Scriptures, &c. In the same place, also, ex
hortations, rebukes, and sacred censures [are
administered]. For with a great gravity is
the work of judging carried on amongst us,
as among men who feel assured that they are
in the sight of God. . . . Certain seniors pre
side over us, obtaining that honour not by
purchase, but by established character."

It must be remembered that the clergy were
at that time elected by and from the people,
and therefore represented the " laity " as truly
as members of Parliament now "represent1'
their constituents. Thus the Didache" (xv. 1)
bids the Church " elect for yourselves bishops
and deacons," and Cyprian, long after, de
clares this popular election to be of "Divine
right," a "Divine tradition." He exhorts the
laity to " separate themselves from a sinful
prelate . . . especially since they themselves
have the power either of choosing worthy
priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones." It was
not till six hundred years after Christ had
elapsed that the laity lost this control, the
political importance then gained by the hier
archy leading the emperors to usurp the electo
ral rights formerly lodged in the congregation
(See Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
pp. 213, 599, 827, and 1503). Meantime the
system of arbitration recommended by St. Paul,
not for Church matters exclusively, but to avoid
litigation of every kind, had naturally become
inadequate to deal with the complex questions
which sprang up in a Society claiming to be

"Catholic," and which had taken root among
men of every race and under varied forms and
degrees of civilisation. Centralisation became
therefore inevitable, and the fact of their
having been popularly elected naturally made
the clergy to be the depositaries of " Church "
power. Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians
that their bishop had "obtained the ministry
which pertaineth to all in common " ; and to
the Magnesians, "I beheld your whole multi
tude in the person of your bishop." The
forms of procedure were naturally modelled on
those of the Imperial Courts, and the civil law
of the Empire was largely imitated or adapted.
Hence the canons (i.e. rules) devised in Church
assemblies, and the Institutes of Justinian,
both alike claimed obedience in the name of
the chief ruler. Soon, therefore, the bishops
who dispensed the revenues of the Church, and
were endowed with coercive powers by the
State, became also the lawgivers. The mono
poly of learning by the clergy after the irrup
tion of the Goths left the Western Churches at
the feet of the priesthood, and in perfect accord
ance with the feudalism which grew up in
the State it came to be an axiom in Church
legislation and in Church Courts that the autho
rity of canons and constitutions was derived
from the president of the Council. The clergy
acquiesced in this the more readily as it gave
them a feudal head to fight their dangerous
battles with the tyrants great and small whose
unbridled excesses, in those days of incessant
private war, threatened at times to efface
civilisation altogether. Thus the autocracy of
the prelates grew by natural evolution and
culminated in the Papacy ; a visible " kingdom "
needed a visible Head, and the suzerainty of
the overlord was quite in accordance with the
genius of the institutions of the West. Hence
the Decretal Epistles of the " Supreme Pontiff "
came to possess equal authority with the
canons enacted by bishops alone, and these
jointly formed what is known in history as the
" Canon Law." The Norman bishops imported
by William the Conqueror brought with them
the Roman canon law, a system much more
completely codified than the local church-
rules of this island, which latter were soon al
most entirely supplanted. Professor Maitland
has demonstrated in his Canon Law of the
Church of England how absolutely and com
pletely Roman canon law prevailed in Eng
land. A Divine right was claimed both in
jurisdiction and in legislation for the clergy
alone to govern every department of human
life which could be termed "spiritual." This
claim was acquiesced in for centuries by the
nation, and the occasional resistance of the
Crown and Parliament was limited to inva
sions of temporal rights, such as patronage, or

CANON LAW

CANON LAW

tithe, or the marriage laws regulating inherit
ance. In the sixteenth century the oppressions
of the laity and their exasperation against
the clergy at length found a remedy in the
determination of Henry VIII. to break the
power of the clergy and to put an end to their
imperium in imperio. By the celebrated Act oJ
25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 he reduced the Convocations
to the position of being powerless to legislate
without the royal consent, and their canon law
was declared by Parliament itself to be " over
much onerous to the King's subjects." The
entire code was declared to need a thorough
sifting to be effected by Royal Commissioners
acting with "the authority of Parliament,"
who should select and codify afresh such of
the by-laws as might be approved, but subject
always to "the King's most royal assent
under his Great Seal" being first had and
obtained. No such sanction has ever yet been
"had." The bishops in the House of Lords
were able to tack on a proviso at the end of
the statute giving temporary validity to such
of the existing canons as were not in conflict
with the laws and customs of the realm or
with the royal prerogative, but as the King's
judges had to determine this point, and as the
King had himself abolished the teaching of
canon law in both universities, and the
King's Vicar-general, a layman, presided in
the muzzled Convocation, it followed even on
the principle of the canon law itself that, as
Cardinal Pole expressed it, "on withdrawal of
the obedience, the authority of the ecclesi
astical laws was simultaneously abrogated."
Fuller says, "When the Pope's power was
banished out of England, his canon law, with
the numerous books and branches thereof, lost
its authority in the King's dominions." It
could not be otherwise, seeing that the authority
both of the laws and of the courts was held to
emanate from the presidents of the Council,
or the presiding ecclesiastic. Thenceforward,
the legal authority of all ancient church-
rules rests solely on the ground of their
forming part of the common law of England.
Continuous usage and reception in the King's
courts is the test of legality. Since the Refor
mation there have been added to these scanty
survivals of the fittest, the canons of 1604
several of which have been amended during
the present reign. These canons are by-laws
binding only on the clergy, and even on the
clergy only so far as they are not either obsolete
from disuse, or contrariant to any statute or
legal custom. [J. T. T.]

CANON LAW.— II. Canon law in a general
sense may be said to be the body of rules by
which a church is governed, but the term is
usually restricted to the canon law of the
Church of Rome ; the body of law contained in

the Corpus Juris Canonici. That compilation
begins with what is known as the Dccretum
Magistri Gratiani. The Decretum. was merely
the private work of Gratian, a Benedictine monk
of Bologna, who is known as "the father of canon
law." It was published about the year 1150 in
three books, to which Gratian himself gave the
title of Concordia discordantium canonum. It was
a very successful attempt to codify the scattered
and conflicting canons of the Roman Patriarch
ate on the lines of the civil law, and very
soon superseded till previous works. The first
book is entitled De Jure Natures et Constitutions,
and treats of the sources of canon law and of
ecclesiastical persons and officers. It is divided
into one hundred and one sections called
distinctiones, which in turn are subdivided
into canones. The second book consists of
thirty-six causes, i.e. cases for solution. These
cases are subdivided into qucestiones, i.e. the
points solved in each case together with the
authorities bearing on each question. The third
book is entitled, De Consecratione, and gives in
five distinctiones the law on church ritual and the
sacraments. The original notes of Gratian
(dicta Gratiani) are of great weight, as also are
the passages headed " Palea " and supposed to
be the notes of his pupil Paucapalea. Gratian's
book contained the canons of the Second Council
of Lateran, 1139, and decretals of Innocent II.,
which seem to have been written between 1130
and 1148 (Richter, p. x.). The next hundred
years were very fruitful in legislation, so that at
the end of that time the Dccretum had become
antiquated. During this period Innocent III.
alone" (Dr. Hunter says) published 4000 laws,
which went by the name of decretales extrava-
gantes, i.e. extra (decretum Gratiani) vagantes, and
some of which are incorporated in the Compila-
tiones A ntiquce. The compilatio prima has formed
a pattern for all subsequent compilations, the
matter being divided into five books, the
subject "of each being sufficiently indicated in
the following hexameter: —

Judcx, Judicium, Clerus, Connubia (or Spon-

salia), Crimen.

Neither the Decretum nor the Compilations
(except tertia and quinta) ever received solemn
Papal sanction. That is to say, they did not
form part of the Papal statute law in the
same way as the collections promulgated by
the Popes themselves.

The second part of the Corpus Juris Canonici
comprises the Decretals of Gregory IX., which
took four years to complete, and were offi
cially promulgated by the Pope in 1234.
They are known as the Libri extra (Decretum)
and comprise decided cases in Jive books. The
Decretals of Boniface VIII., promulgated by
the Pope in 1298 as a sort of supplement
to Gregory's five books — and hence called

CANON LAW

[91 ]

CANON LAW

Liber Sextus. The Decretals of dement V., pro
mulgated by him in 1313, but withdrawn and
promulgated again in 1317 by John XXII.
They are known as the Climentlncc. As to
these Papal Decretals, Professor Maitland re
marks : "Each of them was a statute book
deriving its force from the Pope who pub
lished it, and who being Pope was competent
to ordain binding statutes for the Catholic
Church and every part thereof."

The Corpus Juris Canonici closes with the
Extravngantes of John XXII., and with seventy-
three decretals of Popes from Boniface VIII.
to Sixtus V. (1298-1484), known as extrava-
gantes communes.

The method of citing the canon law is very
complicated and varies for the different parts.
It is explained at somelengthin the Encyclopedia
Metropolitana, article " Law, "and the Encyclo
paedia Britannica, article "Canon Law," e.g.
cap. 9 X. iv. 13, or cap. 9. X., de eo qui cognovit
(iv. 13) means the Fourth Book of Gregory's
.Decretals, title 13, chapter 9.

The Roman canon law (as indeed most
things relating to the Roman Church) will be
seen to be modelled on imperial lines, and in
imitation of the civil law. Thus the Dccretum
corresponds to the Pandects ; the Decretals of
Gregory to the Code ; the Liber Sextus, Clemen
tines, and Extravagantes to the Novels.

The Roman canon law forms the jus commune
or common law (a term which among canonists
includes statute law) of the whole Roman
Catholic Church. It is the law common to and
binding on the whole of Popedom. Before the
Reformation, it was just as binding in England
as in any other country ; in fact, it has been
maintained that the Papal law was more strictly
observed in England than elsewhere, and our
country was called " the Pope's garden." It is
true that in all countries limits have been
placed by the civil power at different times and
in different places to the ecclesiastical authority
The canon law has always been, in Blackstone's
words, "a law under a weightier law." But
in pre-Reformation times, no dignitary of the
Church, no archbishop or bishop could repeal
or vary the Papal decrees. As Lyndwood says,
" tolltre vel alterarc non potest episcopus nee aliquis
papa inferior." The theory put forward by
some Anglican writers that the pre-Reforma
tion Church in England was autonomous is un
founded. Much of the canon law set forth in
archiepiscopal constitutions is merely a repeti
tion of the Papal canons, and passed for the
purpose of making them better known in
remote localities ; part is ultra vires, and the
rest consisted of local regulations, which are
only valid in so far as they do not contravene
the jus commune. In England the legatine
and provincial constitutions do not even touch

upon ''half the recognised topics of ecclesias
tical jurisprudence." The legatine constitutions
are those of Otho and Othobon, in the thirteenth
century. Together with the provincial consti
tutions (principally of Canterbury) they will be
found collected in Lyndwood, Johnson's Eng
lish Canons, and Wilkins.

At the Reformation it was enacted that the
Pope of Rome should have no jurisdiction in
the realm of England. The teaching of, and
the granting of degrees in, canon law were
abolished by royal edicts in the Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge. The canon law
would therefore have dropped altogether had
it not been to a limited and provisional extent
kept on foot by statute, so far as it was not
repugnant to the law of the land or the king's
prerogative, and until a review should be
had (25 Hen. VIII. c. 19). Cranmer and
other learned divines drew up a code called the
" Reformat io Legum," but this never became
law, although it serves to show how much of
the canon law was at that time deemed to be
obsolete or repugnant. In fact no systematic
statutory review of the canon law has ever
been published with the required sanction
under the Great Seal. Various statutes deal
more or less with its subject matter piecemeal :
and the XXXIX. Articles and the Prayer Book
rubrics, and also indirectly and to a limited
extent the Homilies, are of statutory force. It
may, however, be said that the Roman canon
law is now superseded and of no authority in
England. Thus Sir J. P. Deane, the Vicar-
General of Canterbury, in the yenr 1892, speak
ing of the government and discipline of the
Church of England, said : "Will anybody put
his finger on one single title of the canon law
from the first title in the Decretum to the very
last title in the Extravagantes which is not at
once met by the statute law of this country ?
Take simony. There are in the canon law several
articles on simony, but no lawyer would refer to
the canon law. He would refer to the Acts of
Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria. Again, if there
is one thing which is called spiritual as distinct
from the ecclesiastical, it is pluralities, the
residence of the clergy, and matters of that
kind. But no lawyer would refer to these
titles in the canon law. He would go at once
to the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 106, i.e. to the statute
law. That is where we look for our govern
ment ; that is where we laymen look for the
discipline of the Church of England" (see
Church Intelligencer, 1892, p. 169).

See also Corpus Juris Canonici, by Richter and
Friedberg : Leipsic, 1879-81 ; F. W. Maitland,
Roman Canon Law in the Church of England ;
J. T. Tomlinson, Lay Judges; W. F. Hunter in
Ency. Brit. ; Whitehead, Church Law.

For post-Reformation rogulat;ons, which are

CANON LAW

[92]

CASSOCK

non-statutory, see ENGLISH CANONS, INJUNC
TIONS, ADVERTISEMENTS. [B. W.]
CANON OF THE MASS.— That part of the
Mass iu the Romish Church which extend*
from the Sanctus to the Paternoster. It is so
called as being the rule which embodies thf
unchanging form to be used in their Eucharist,
See MASS.

CANON OF OLD AND NEW TESTA
MENT.— See BIBLE.

CANONICAL HOURS.— Nocturns or vigils
may be traced back to the days of heathen
persecution, when the early Christians met at
night for worship, to elude observation. The
custom was afterwards perpetuated, especially
by the monks.

Lauds were early morning prayers. The
Apostolical Constitutions allude to them in the
fourth century.

Prime was an office used in the first hour of
the day, 6 A.M. It cannot be traced further
back than St. Jerome's sojourn at Bethlehem.
A.D. 400.

Tierce, sext, and nones were prayers used at
nine, twelve, and three o'clock respectively.
The monasteries of Mesopotamia and Palestine
first introduced prayers at these hours.

Vespers, or public evening service, existed
in the Eastern Church in the fourth cen
tury.

Compline, or the last service of the day, was
first introduced by St. Benedict early in the
fifth century (Latin— complcre = to finish).

These hours were called canonical because
the services attached to them followed a canon
or prescribed rule. See Blakeney on the
Prayer Book, larger edition, pp. 241-242. Noc
turns and lauds were afterwards combined,
so that the canonical hours were reduced to
seven. [C. J. C.]

CANONICAL OBEDIENCE is the obedi
ence due by the clergy to their superior officers,
though in some cases the oath taken by certain
lay officials to obey a bishop or a deau and
chapter is termed an oath of canonical obedi
ence.

The oath, which has to be taken by every
curate and incumbent, is as follows "I, A. B., do
swear that I will pay true canonical obedience
to the Lord Bishop of , and his suc
cessors, in all things lawful and honest. So
help me God." It has been held by the Privy
Council lhat this oath "does not mean that
the clergyman will obey all the commands of
the bishop against which there is no law, but
that he will obey all such commands as the
bishop by law is authorised to impose." Every
clergyman, also, at his ordination promises that
he will reverently obey his ordinary, and other
chief ministers of the Church, and them to
whom the charge and government over him is

committed, following with a glad mind and
will their godly admonitions.

The oath of canonical obedience to be taken
by every bishop is as follows : " In the name
of God. Amen. I, A. B., chosen bishop of the
church and see of N., do profess and promise
all due reverence and obedience to the arch
bishop and to the metropolitical church of N.
and to his successors. So help me God, through
Jesus Christ." (See Whitehead's Church Law,
Art. "Oath.") [B. W.]

CANONISATION.— An enrolling in the list
or canon of saints. This is a proceeding on
the part of the Romish Church whereby, through
the decree of the Pope, a person departed this
life is credited with the honours due to those
who are reigning with God in heaven ; he is
inscribed in the catalogue of the saints and
invoked in public prayers ; churches are dedi
cated to God in memory of him, and feasts
kept, and public honours paid to his relics.
See INFALLIBILITY and BEATIFICATION.
CANOPY.— See BALDACCHINO.
CAPA OR CAPPA.-See COPE.
CARDINAL.— See ROMAN CHURCH.
CARNIVAL. — The word is variously derived,
meaning either solace of the flesh, a removal
of flesh, or farewell to flesh. The name is
given to a season of feasting and mirth in
Roman Catholic countries during the three
days immediately preceding Lent ; also to a
similar pause in the middle of Lent.
CASSOCK. — A long coat, buttoning over the
breast, reaching to the feet, and confined at
the waist by a broad sash or cincture : the
collar fastens round the throat. It is usually
black in colour and is the ordinary dress of
Romish priests, and is said to signify separa
tion from the world. It is of late frequently
worn by clergy of the Church of England, and
the male members of a choir under their
surplices. (See Whitehead, Church Law, p. 90.)
The cassock was an ancient Church of England
dress. Ritualists attribute a great deal of
mystical meaning to the cassock. Thus, it
" entirely hides the ordinary dress," and so " is
emblematical of the spirit of recollection and
devotion which becomes those who serve
in the sanctuary." Black, blue, scarlet,
and purple cassocks are sometimes used,
especially by choir-boys. "Where there are
two sets, scarlet cassocks are generally used
for ordinary Sundays and feasts, blue, black
or purple for week days, Advent, Lent, &c.
According to an eminent Ritualist, the chor
ister's cassocks should be ordinarily black ;
scarlet in churches which are royal foundation;
purple in Episcopal foundations ; and perhaps
blue in churches dedicated in honour of the
Blessed Virgin." See Ritual Renaon Why,
pp. 34, 35. [M. E. W. J.]

CRYPT OF THE EPISCOPOI (BISHOPS) IN CALLISTLTS' CATACOMB. (See p. 701.)

PLATE I

CASSOCK

[93]

CATHOLIC

CASUISTRY.— See JESUITS, MORAL THEO
LOGY.

CATACOMBS.— See SEPULCHRES.

CATECHISM.— Li terally, instruction by word |
of mouth ; a summary of Christian doctrine j
usually in the form of question and answer. :
The Catechism of the Church of England is
described in the Prayer Book as "an instruc
tion to be learned of every person before he be
brought to be confirmed by the bishop." The
insertion in the Prayer Book of such a form of
instruction belongs to the Reformation. It
was included in the First Prayer Book of 1549,
as far as to the end of the explanation of the
Lord's Prayer, the remainder being added in
1604, and generally attribuied to Bishop Overall,
being abridged from Nowell's Little Catechism. \
Several slight verbal emendations were made i
by Convocation in 1661-2. See the Photo-
zincograph of James Parker's Hist. Revis.
pp. 265-66. The rubric at the end of the
Catechism as to instruction in the Catechism
upon Sundays and Holy Days after the
Second Lesson at Evening Prayer is now often
disregarded on account of its inconvenience ;
but the canon which directs that this instruc
tion shall take place before evening prayer,
is complied with as to the "youth," though
not as to "ignorant persons," by means of
the Sunday Schools, as well as by Children's
Services, Bible Classes, &c.

CATECHUMENS.— Persons under instruction
for baptism. The course and manner of in
struction varied at different ages of the
Church, and the catechumens were sometimes
divided into various classes distinguished by
different names.

CATHARINUS.— See ARTICLES, p. 44.

CATHEDRA AND CATHEDRAL.— Liter
ally, a seat ; the seat of a bishop. The Cathe
dral is the parish church of the diocese, because
a diocese was originally the same as a parish
is now. Cathedrals are controlled by the dean
and chapter, and to some extent are not within
the jurisdiction of the bishop's court. A Cathe
dral is the most natural and appropriate place
for a more ornate and elaborate service, which
in a village church would be most unnatural and
inappropriate. See Whitehead, Church Law.

CATHOLIC. — Universal, common to all.
(1) The Catholic Church. The Jewish Church
was confined to a single nation ; the Christian
Church was made up of believers in all
nations. Therefore it was Catholic. See
BIDDING PRAYER. " Go ye and teach all
nations" (Matt, xxviii. 19). "Go ye into all
the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature " (Mark xvi. 15) was the Apostolic
commission, and accordingly7 the Apostles and
preachers of the Gospel formed local churches
in every city that they visited without respect

to persons or race. These local churches
coalesced, each keeping its individuality and
relative independence, into a church covering
a wider area which was called provincial, and
again the provincial churches into larger wholes
which became national churches. The different
national churches were supposed externally to
constitute the Catholic Church, and for that
reason each provincial church and each local
church was also styled Catholic, and every one
belonging to the provincial or local church
was a Catholic Christian. Christendom there
fore and the Catholic Church are commensu
rate. "Wherever Christ is," says Ignatius,
" there is the Catholic Church" (Ep. ad Smyrn.
c. viii.).

(2). The Catholic Faith. This was the
common faith held by those churches which
were considered to form the Catholic Church.
Thus when King Reccared and his court aban
doned the Arian beliefs of Spain they were
said to have adopted the Catholic faith— that
is, the common faith of Christendom, in place
of the faith peculiar to this or that nation, as
the Goths. The nature of the common faith
is not specifically marked by the word Catholic
but by the| word Orthodox ; as, however, the
faith common to all the churches was the
true faith, the two words Catholic and Ortho
dox came incorrectly to be used interchange
ably. The Catholic or common faith, found
expression in the Creeds — the Apostles' or
baptismal Creed, the Nicene Creed issued to
exhibit the Catholic or common faith of Chris
tendom in contrast to the peculiarities of
Arianism, and the Athanasian Creed which
declares the Catholic faith to consist of the
doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarna
tion, the Atonement, and the final Judgment.

The Roman use of the word Catholic is the
exact opposite to that of the early Church.
There the orthodoxy and catholicity of any
particular church was tested by its confor
mity with the teaching of all the other
churches of Christendom as exhibited at all
times. On the Roman theory the orthodoxy
and catholicity of the rest of Christendom is
tested by its conformity with the teaching
of one Church (which has forced its tradi
tions upon certain other churches) at one
(that is, the present) moment. In other words,
the Roman Church has adopted the position
of sectarianism and isolation and calls it
catholicity.

Ritualists ordinarily give the title of Catholic
to any mediaeval tenet or practice which they
desire to introduce. Sometimes they dispense
with even the authority of the Middle Ages,
as, for instance, when they pronounce Catholic
the theory (formulated by Paschasius [see
BERENGARIUS], but never universally or com-

CATHOLIC

[ 94 ]

CELEBRANT

monly adopted) of an angel carrying the
Eucharistic Bread and Wine to heaven every
time that a priest celebrates the Holy Com
munion, whereupon the Holy Ghost conse
crates it and Christ presents it to His Father
or when they interpret "do this "as "sacrifice
this" (The Catholic Religion, p. 247; Th
Congregation in the Church, p. 49), for which
interpretation only one of the Fathers can be
claimed, and that falsely. Generally, however
hey require the sanction either of the present
Koman use, or of a Schoolman, or of the earlier
Church, as when they say, "We speak of a
person as being Catholic who agrees with the
creeds, doctrines, dogmas, canons, traditions,
and practices of the one undivided Church "
(ibid., p. 175), but in the last case the usual
method is to attribute to the " traditions " of
the undivided Church whatever they desire
individually to hold or practise, and then to
pronounce that thing Catholic because agree
able to what they have agreed to term the teach
ing and practice of the undivided Church.

In sum, a Catholic is a man who belongs to
the universal Church ; the Catholic Church is
the Church universal; the Catholic faith is
the faith of the Church universal ; a Catholic
doctrine is a doctrine considered to have been
at all times held by the Church universal-
such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the
Atonement ; a Catholic practice is a practice
maintained by the Church universal— such as
the observance of the Lord's Day, the adminis
tration of baptism and of the Lord's Supper.
No doctrines or practices should be called
Catholic except those which have been of
universal obligation at all times in the Church
of Christ. No man should be allowed the
name of Catholic who claims that title for
the inadequate reason that he belongs to one
rather than to another section of the Church
universal. The Church of England is Catholic
as forming part of the universal Church and
holding the Catholic faith as embodied in
the Creeds. It is Protestant because it holds
that faith in its purity, rejecting the corrup
tions with which the Roman Church has over
laid it. In the present circumstances of
Western Christendom none can hold the
Catholic faith aright who are not also, and
for that reason, Protestants. [F. M.]

CELEBRANT. — A name sometimes given to
the officiating minister at the Lord's Supper.

It is proper to speak of "the celebration
of the Holy Communion," as the rubric does
which precedes the first Exhortation in the
Communion Service, for we speak of celebrat
ing a victory or celebrating a feast ; but the
officiating minister is no more Celebrant of
the Holy Communion than any of those who
partake of it. The person who presides at the

celebration of an anniversary or at a feast
which is being celebrated is never called the
Celebrant, but he is sometimes called the
president or principal minister, and this is the
title given to the officiator at the Lord's Supper
by Justin Martyr in the first recorded descrip
tion of its celebration (Apol. i. 67).

The reason why it is important that a name
should not be given to the officiator which
distinguishes him, as the Celebrant, from the
rest is this : In Koman Catholic theology a
sharp line of distinction is drawn between the
Sacrifice (which is held to be a propitiatory
and expiatory sacrifice— not only a sacrifice of
thanksgiving) and the Sacrament. The Sacra
ment is a rite common to priest and congrega
tion alike ; the Sacrifice is supposed to be
performed by the priest alone. His words
change the bread and wine (each of them)
into Christ. By the words of the priest Christ
is supposed to be offered up as a sacrifice to
God the Father. The priest's consumption
of the bread and wine causes the mystical
death of Christ, the death of the victim being
necessary for the completion of a sacrifice.
"And the priest's eating," says Dean Field,
"is not for refection, but for consumption,
that he may destroy Christ in that being
wherein He is present, as the fire on the altar
was wont to consume and destroy the bodies
of those beasts that were put into it" (Of
the Church, Append., Book iii.). When the
priest has consumed what was bread and wine
but has now become Christ, the Sacrifice
is finished. With it the congregation has
nothing to do, but to "assist," like non-com
municating attendants. Then begins the ad
ministration of the Sacrament, the celebration
of the Sacrifice having been accomplished. All
this is alien from the teaching of the reformed
Church : the celebrant no more offers a sacri
fice than the rest of the congregation, all of
whom offer the sacrifices of their praise and
thanksgiving, of themselves and of their sub
stance, as well as commemorating, by the
whole ceremony, the Sacrifice of the Cross.
The humblest communicant is a sacrificer as
much as the priest who officiates.

Here, then, we see why the title Celebrant
is so constantly used by Kitualist manuals.
It is to suggest the idea that the officiating
priest celebrates and accomplishes a Sacrifice
by himself, and after that administers the
Body and Blood of Christ to the congregation
in the Sacrament — a conclusion which legiti
mately follows from the doctrines of Transub-
stantiation and the Mass, repudiated by the
Church of England. It is noteworthy that
although the Prayer Book twice uses the ex
pression "to celebrate," it does not term the
officiating minister "the celebrant."

CELEBEANT

[95 ]

CELIBACY, CLERICAL

There is another reason why the word cele
bration, standing alone, is acceptable to
Ritualists. This is, that it may answer
to the word Mass in such phrases as High
Celebration and Low Celebration. We are
told that there are three kinds of celebrations :
Low Celebration, Choral Celebration, and High
or Solemn Celebration. At a Low Celebration,
which takes place on Sunday mornings, "the
celebrant is unassisted except by a server,"
and he celebrates "in a side chapel when
there is one, or at the side altar." (Here we
see why faculties are asked for second "altars.'')
Choral Celebrations are held at midday on
Sundays, and "much of the office is sung by
the choir." In High Celebrations "there is
always a gospeller and epistoller in addition
to the celebrant," "more elaborate music,"
"incense," -'more imposing ceremonial,"
"more altar lights than usual," "banners
carried in processions." "A Choral Celebra
tion, however dignified and imposing with
lights, incense, &c., but with only acolytes
assisting, is not properly a High Celebration.
Missa solcnnis and I/a messe solennelle means
neither more nor less than a celebration with
deacon and sub-deacon assisting" (Congrega
tion in Church, p. 112). It is plain that Cele
bration is here used for Mass, because the
English mind is not yet prepared for the word
Mass, which, however, "will probably re-assert
itself when the true doctrine of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice is more perfectly understood among
us" (Catholic Religion, p. 253).

The Church of England knows nothing of
servers, acolytes, High, Low, Choral, or
Solemn Celebrations. She has one Eucharis-
tical office, and to that she gives the name of
"the Order of the Administration of the Lord's
Sapper, or Holy Communion." See Tomlin-
son's Prayer Book, &c., pp. 89, 120. [F. M.]
CELIBACY, CLERICAL.— The single or un
married state of the clergy. In the Romish
Church this is compulsory ; amongst the Ritu
alists it is rapidly spreading. The idea of the
superiority of the unmarried to the married
state is derived from a falsely limited applica
tion of the passage (1 Cor. vii. 25-40). For
in this passage St. Paul is not addressing the
clergy only but the Corinthian Christians
generally, and he gives his advice, as he is
careful to say, on account of the "present dis
tress" (ver. 26), the peculiar circumstances of
the time at Corinth. He also specially de
clares that he does not give this counsel
" that I may cast a snare upon you" (ver. 35).
Other passages of Scripture make it clear
that marriage is permitted to the clergy. The
Apostle Peter was called when he was a
married man by Christ. St. Paul must have
been a married man, since it seems evident

that he was at the time a member of the Jewish
Sanhedrin (see Acts xxvi. 10, R.V.). He asserts
his right (i.e. as a widower) to be married
like St. Peter and other Apostles (1 Cor. ix. 5).
In the Pastoral Epistles, St. Paul refers to
marriage as required, or at least permitted,
in presbyters or bishops and in deacons
(1 Tim. iii. 2-4, 10-12 ; and Titus i. 6). On
the other hand, one of the marks of the
apostasy is forbidding to marry (1 Tim. iv. 3),
and no Church should dare to impose a burden
upon clergy or laity which the Lord has not
imposed (Matt. xix. 11 ; 1 Cor. vii. 9). The
priests and prophets of the Old Testament were
generally married men.

But inasmuch as the Church of Rome con
siders ecclesiastical tradition of equal weight
and value with the Word of God, she has
allowed that " the law of celibacy is not of
divine but of ecclesiastical institution " (Palmer,
Of the Church, ii. p. 444). The facts of
ecclesiastical history are opposed to Rome's
position on this subject. It is certain that in
the earliest ages the clergy were allowed to
marry. Polycarp speaks of the wife of one
Valens a presbyter (Ep. ad Philip. 11) ; Eusebius,
of an aged bishop of Nilus who perished with
his wife in a time of persecution (H. S., vi. 4).
Cyprian was a married man like Caecilius, the
presbyter, who converted him. Eusebius also
tells us that Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis and
Philorimus, had both wife and children. In
fact there are abundant instances of a similar
kind to be found in the history of the first
three centuries (Bingham, B. iv. ch. 5). At
the Council of Nicsea it was proposed to
separate all married clergy from their wives,
but the proposal was frustrated. In the Latin
Church clerical celibacy crept in slowly, and
by the seventh century it absolutely disallowed
a married priesthood. From the prohibition
of lawful marriage, terrible immoralities
ensued ; and the very means which was in
tended to increase the sanctity of the clergy
proved the fruitful source of their degradation.
So much was this the case, that the Council of
Paris declared in 1429 that "the Church of
God and the whole clergy is held in derision,
abomination, and reproach among all nations."
Gregory VII., A.D. 1074, first effectually im
posed it. It is clear that the objections to
the practice of auricular confession and the
dangers connected with it are increased in the
case of an unmarried priesthood.

The idea of a celibate order of ministers is
abhorrent to the English people, yet clerical
celibacy is rapidly increasing among the Ritu
alists. By the XXXIInd Article of the Church
of England it is lawful for bishops, priests,
and deacons "as for all other Christian men
to marry at their own discretion as they shall

[96]

CEREMONIES

judge the same to serve better to godliness.'
The Greek Church still adheres to a fixed rule
laid down for the Eastern branch of the Church
by the Trullan Council (692). Priests and
deacons are allowed to live with wives married
before ordination ; bishops, if married, must
be separated from their wives. lu fact, "the
whole Eastern Church," says Dean Stanley,
" allows, and now almost enjoins, marriage on
all its clergy before ordination, without per
mitting it afterwards." So too the Coptic. It
seems strange, indeed, that the Church of
Rome, which exalts matrimony to the position
of a sacrament, should insist upon her clergy
not partaking of it. See CONFESSION, MAK-
RIAGE, ASCETICISM. [M. E. W. J.]

CEMETERY.— Literally, sleeping - place. A
piece of ground set apart by public authority
for the burial of the dead. A cemetery,
technically so called, differs from a church
yard as being under a board of ratepayers,
not under the control of the church or any
religious body, and from its being legal to
purchase a permanent grave in it. No burial-
ground can be opened within one hundred
yards of a dwelling-house without the consent
in writing of the owner, lessee, and occupier.
Part of each new burial-ground may be
consecrated, and part unconsecrated, fences
not being necessary between them. The new
burial-ground, when consecrated, shall be the
burial-ground of the parish, in which all
parties shall have the same rights, fees, &c.,
as in the old ground. Chapels may be built
thereon for churchmen and dissenters. See
Whitehead, Church Law ; CHURCHYARD.
CENSER, OR THURIBLE.— A vessel usually
of brass or silver, in the shape of a cup, with
a perforated cover, in which incense is burned
by Romanists and Ritualists. The ritual use
of incense has been repeatedly condemned
by judgments of the Court of Arches. See
Miller, Ecd, Law, p. 54. The censer is there
fore necessarily illegal. See INCENSE.
CEREMONIES.— Gestures or acts preceding,
accompanying, or following the utterance of
words ; the external acts of worship. Cere
monies entered abundantly into the worship
of the ancient Jewish Church, for in the in
fancy of mankind God dealt largely with His
chosen people as with children, teaching them
by pictures and primers, so to speak, and
suffering them to express their thoughts and
feelings of devotion to Him. by outward
gestures and acts. But the case is very
different with regard to the worship of the
Christian dispensation. Whereas in the Jewish
Tabernacle or Temple the material predomi
nated greatly over the spiritual, in the ]
Christian Church God has evidently intended
the spiritual to predominate over the material.

In proof of this we may point to that regu
lar development and advance in point of
spirituality in faith and worship which can
be traced from the first dawn of revelation
to its present full noonday light. Our Lord
also surely laid down in the New Testament
once and for all the true principle of Christian
devotion — that it must be spiritual — when He
said to the woman of Samaria, in connection
with this very subject of worship, that " God
is a Spirit and they that worship Him must
worship Him in Spirit and in Truth," adding
that " the Father seeketh such to worship
Him " (John iv. 2, 3).

Yet how differently do Rome and her imi
tators view this matter ! By a vast retrogres
sive movement they have revived with tenfold
gorgeousness the " beggarly elements " of a
superseded dispensation. The whole tendency
of the Romish system is to suffocate the spirit
of piety beneath a mass of outward ceremonies,
and to encourage the great majority of her
worshippers to rest contentedly in these
forms as the sufficient and proper expres
sion of true religious service. For each par
ticular Mass alone Rome prescribes no less
than 330 external acts or gestures.

In the chastened ritual of the Church of
England, when the Prayer Book is rightly
interpreted, the spiritual part of divine
worship is exalted while the material is re
legated to a subordinate place ; in fact, use
is made of just so much outward form as
may foster, and not carnalize, the religious
sensibilities, and quicken, without stifling,
the spirit of devotion. It has been well said,
with regard to the Romish system of worship
(and that of the Ritualists may be included
also as affected by this statement) that " if, as
all experience testifies, every religious cere
mony, however calculated in itself to im
prove the heart, is thus liable to grow into
an empty form, what madness, yea, what
wickedness it is to make such ceremonies,
not merely the accessories, but the prime
elements of worship, and by an elaborately
constructed ritual to foster the native super
stition of the heart into portentous vigour
and luxuriance."

The following ceremonies have been decided
by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
or by the Archbishop's Court to be illegal : —
Kneeling or prostration before the consecrated
elements ; the use of lighted candles on the
Communion Table except when required for
the purpose of giving light ; the use of incense
for the purpose of censing things and persons ;
standing before the holy table with back to the
people while reading the Collects next before
the Epistle (See EASTWARD POSITION), or the
Collects following the Creed at Evening Prayer ;

CHANCEL, HAYLE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. (Sec p. 377.)

PLATE II. (1)

CHANCEL. WINCHCOMBE. GLOUCESTERSHIRE. (See p. 377.)

PLATK II. (2)

CEREMONIES

CHANCELLOR

the mixing of water with wine during the ad
ministration of the Lord's Supper ; elevating the
paten or cup ; the using of wafer bread instead
of such bread as is usually eaten ; the using
of crucifixes or images ceremonially as a part
of the service. The Archbishops have also
recently published an Opinion that the cere
monial use of incense and of processional
lights is not ordered or permitted by the law
of the Church of England. Also that Reserva
tion of the Sacrament for any purpose is
illegal. For a longer list of condemned cere
monies see Miller's Guide to Ecd. Law.

[M. E. W. J.]

CHALICE. — A cup ; the ancient name for the
cup used for Holy Communion. Chalices were
made in early times of glass, pewter, or wood.
They are almost universally now of silver, or
plated metal, occasionally of gold. There
appears to be no direction in the Church of
England as to the material of which the cup
.should be made; but the 20th canon directs
that "the wine shall be brought to the Com
munion table in a clear and sweet standing pot
or stoop of pewter if not of purer metal." See
COMMUNION IN ONE KIND, MIXED CHALICE,
&c. The cup and the paten are specifically
spoken of in the administration, and the
minister is to lay his hand upon every vessel
(be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any
wine to be consecrated. As these vessels
belong to the parish, they are sometimes under
the custody of the churchwardens and kept
in a strong chest deposited in the vestry, or
the parsonage, or the churchwarden's house.
Generally they are entrusted to the incumbent.
See Dr. Pinnock, The Laws and Usages of the
Church and the Clergy, p. 594, and seq. ;
Whitehead, Church Law.
CHALICE, DENIAL OF, TO THE LAITY.

— See COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
CHANCEL.— The choir or uppermost portion of
a church. The name chancel was originally
given to this portion of the building, because
it was divided from the body of the church
by rails (Latin cancdli). This, although a
division, did not intercept the sight. In
later times, a specially sacred character was
attributed to the chancel, so that the laity
were debarred from entering it during
divine service. This was altered at the
Reformation, since which time a lay rector
has a general right to a pew in the chancel.
The parishioners are entitled to the use
of the chancel for Holy Communion and
marriages, and, according to the rubric before
the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,
for those offices also. Chancel screens there
fore, although not illegal, are objectionable,
as tending to maintain the obsolete distinction
between the chancel and the body of the

church, and also as possibly interfering with
the seeing and hearing of the congregation
(see Whitehead, Church Law). The Ritualists
teach, without warrant, that the body of the
church signifies the Church militant, the choir
the Church triumphant in heaven, and the
screen, the gate of death. The rector (not the
vicar), lay or clerical, has the freehold of the
chancel ; but it is maintained that the lay-rector
has no freehold in the church or the churchyard.
He may not make a vault or affix tablets without
leave of the Ordinary. The burden of repairing
the chancel, in the absence of a custom to the
contrary, rests of common right on the rector.
See Cripps, Wheatley, Procter, Whitehead,
also Hatch, Growth of Church Institutions,
chap. xii.

CHANCELLOR was an official of the old
Roman Empire. He was originally a sort of
usher in the law courts, and derived his name
from the fact that his station was intra or ad
cancellos, that is the lattice-work partition which
protected the Emperor from crowding when he
sat in judgment. Afterwards in the Eastern
Empire he rose to be a secretary, and later a
judge, hence some have thought the name
derived from cancellare, to cancel or cross out,
as one of his chief functions was to cancel
charters. From the Roman Empire the office
passed into the Roman Church, which was,
as Blackstone says, "ever emulous of imperial
state," and into most of the European nations.
There was a chancelier de France from very
early times. And the modern German Empire
revived the office of Imperial Chancellor in
the person of Prince Bismarck. The title is
said to have been introduced into England by
Edward the Confessor.

The Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper
(which is another name for the same office),
is with us the most important of function
aries, though he ranks after the Archbishop
of Canterbury in point of precedence. He
has the custody of the Great Seal, and is
" Keeper of the King's conscience," is patron
of the King's livings, and a member of the
final Court of Appeal in causes ecclesiastical.
In pre-Reformation times he was usually an
ecclesiastic, the profession of the law being
then chiefly in the hands of the clergy. The
last clerical chancellor was the celebrated
John Williams, Archbishop of York, who was
appointed in 1621. No Roman Catholic is
eligible for the office.

Diocctan Chancellor. —In the Church of Eng
land every diocese has an official called the
chancellor. He is the judge of the Bishop's
Consistory Court (see CONSISTORY), and his
duties usually include those of official Principal
and Vicar-General. Though appointed by the
bishop under letters patent, he is an iude-

G

CHANCELLOR

I 98 ]

CHAPLAIN

pendent judge and cannot be controlled by him ;
hence a bishop may institute a civil suit in his
own Court (Whitehead, p. 100). The judicial
position of the chancellor has been recently
considered by the learned Dr. Tristram, Chan
cellor of London, and it appears that the
relation of chancellor to bishop is similar to
that of judge to king. Thus Dr. Tristram
says: "Archbishops and bishops for conveni
ence vested by letters patent their jurisdiction
in such matters in their chancellors, as the
king vested the decision of civil and criminal
matters in the judges of the king's courts "
(Law Reports [1901] p. 123). A bishop can be
compelled to appoint a chancellor. Diocesan
chancellors are usually laymen and barristers,
but in some cases solicitors, and in others
clergymen have been appointed. Under the
canons of 1604 they must be twenty-six years
of age, and learned and practised in the civil
and ecclesiastical laws, and at the least a
Master of Arts or Bachelor of Law. There
are certain oaths and declarations required of
them. They may not appoint a substitute or
surrogate except he be a grave minister and
a graduate, or a licensed public preacher
beneficed in the neighbourhood of the Court,
or, if a layman, qualified as above. Under the
Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 the bishop may
appoint a deputy chancellor for the purposes
of that Act, who must be a barrister of not
less than seven years' standing or the holder
of a judicial appointment. See Whitehead,
Church Law, title "Judges."

Chancellor of a Cathedral, is a sort of secre
tary to the dean and chapter. He affixes the
seal, writes letters, keeps the books, &c. (See
Murray, Dictionary.)

Also the heads of Universities are called
"chancellor," and the name is given to other
officers whose duties are purely civil, e.g.
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster. [B. W.]

CHANCERY (cancdlaria). — The court in which
a Chancellor sits, e.g. Chancery Division of
the High Court of Justice, Chancery Court
of York. See ARCHES. [B. W.]

CHANTRY (cantaria). — A private religious
foundation, of which there were many in Eng
land before the Reformation, established for
the purpose of keeping up a perpetual succes
sion of masses and prayers for the prosperity
of some particular family and the repose of
the souls of deceased members of it, but
especially the founder and other persons named
in the deed of foundation. They owed their
origin to the belief in the efficacy of prayers
and masses for the dead, and were swept away
as superstitious at the Reformation.

Chantries were usually founded in a church
already existing, in monasteries, cathedrals, or

parish churches. All that was wanted was an
altar with a little area before it, and a few
appendages. Remains of these can readily be
detected even now.

It was by no means unusual to have four,
five, and six different chantries in a common
parish church, while at cathedral and collegiate
churches, such as St. Paul's, there were thirty,
forty, and fifty at the time of the Reformation.
Between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries
there are said to have been 2000 founded in
England, and there were over 180 in the city
and suburbs of London. When there was no
more room in the church itself chantry chapels
were added, and were sometimes erected
separately and remote from the church. These
chantries sometimes served as chapels-of-ease
and where the living was held by a person in
minor orders, as was very frequently the ca^e,
the chantry priest may have said Mass for the
parishioners. (Penny Cydopcedia ; Cutts' Parish
Priests in the Middle Ages.) [B. W.]

CHAPEL. — Properly, according to the ety
mology, a covering or canopy over an " altar " :
then, the recess containing the "altar" ; then.
a place of worship. Chapels may either form
part of a church or have been erected in a
parish in addition to the parish church. Side
chapels in a church must be separated from the
body of the church by walls or screens before
a faculty will be granted for placing an addi
tional Lord's Table therein. Private chapels
belong to persons of rank or to Institutions ;
and by the Private Chapels Act, 1871, the
bishops may license a clergyman to perform
all offices therein save matrimony. Public
chapels are generally divided into chapels of
ease and proprietary chapels. The former are
so called because built in aid of the original
church ; the latter are the property of private
individuals, but must be licensed for divine
service by the bishop, nor can any one become
the minister or officiate in them without his
licence. A chapel-of-ease at a distance from
the parish church having a chapelry, township,
or district belonging to it, may (if endowed with
a competent stipend for the minister) be made
by the bishop, with consent of incumbent and
patron, a " separate and distinct parish for all
spiritual purposes" (1 & 2 Victoria c. 107, s. 7).
The nomination to chapels of ease rests almost
invariably with the incumbent of the mother
church, unless it be otherwise established by
either prescription or agreement. A chapel
may be specially licensed for the solemnisation
of marriages. (See Dale, ch. v. ; Cripps, B. iii.
ch. 2 ; Whitehead, sub voce. )

CHAPLAIN (Lat. capellanus). — A minister who
regularly performs divine service in a chapel
(q.v.), or private house. Originally applied to
those who had charge of sacred relics. By

2? » ^
2. p»^oo 3

|?!gl

a2-VB-§

c&- ' g- -.

• I" p" *

•K" 5

r^l

9&S*

jj 01 5' 3 a

I S, ft ?' !•

§ « s !

* El ^r
»»"

P>e^

"_>5fg •-

g. P
1 I

«» £-•

> 1

S °"

P «r

^r?

CHAPLAIN

[99]

CHASUBLE

ome the word is derived from capsa, or capsetta,
a box in which relics are kept, by others from
capa, a cloak, in particular the " holy cloak" of
St. Martin ; the building or tent in which this
and other relics were kept being called capella,
chapel. The cloak of St. Martin was at first
moved about with the court of the French
kings, and the clergy who had charge of it
performed the, duties which are still associated
with the office of court chaplain. The capellani
are said, therefore, to have been " first of all
what are still called court chaplains, charged
with worship in royal chapels" (Wetzer and
Welte).

Royal chaplains in Great Britain are divided
into chaplains in ordinary and honorary chap
lains, and consist of episcopal and presbyterian
clergy. The chaplains in ordinary are forty-
two in number, thirty-six being ministers of
the Church of England (Episcopal) and six of
the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian). His
present Majesty is, however, understood to be
making some alterations in the staff, and has
ordered the wearing of a distinctive badge.

Private chaplains are those who " depend
upon" a man of worth for the instruction of
himself and his family, the reading of prayers,
and preaching in his private house where usually
they have a chapel for that purpose. An arch
bishop or duke is said to be entitled to six
private chaplains, a marquis or earl five, a
viscount or bishop four, a lord chancellor or
a baron three, and various other personages
two or one each. A nobleman's chaplain (if of
the Church of England) by custom wears a
black tippet (wider than the ordinary clergy
man's), called the chaplain's scarf (Whitehead,
Church Law}. The ministrations of a private
chaplain become public if persons not constitut
ing part of the household are admitted, and in
such cases the services must be conducted in
strict accordance with law (Whitehead, pp.
89, 99).

Chaplains to public institutions (e.g. schools,
hospitals, &c.), if clergy of the Church of Eng
land, are now appointed under the provisions
of what is somewhat curiously called " The
Private Chapels Act, 1871." They have to
obtain the bishop's licence, which must not in
clude the solemnisation of marriage, and which
is revocable by the bishop at any time. The
chaplain so licensed is not subject to the control
of the incumbent of the parish in which the
chapel is situate, but nothing in the Act is to
prejudice the right of such incumbent to the
entire cure of souls in his parish elsewhere than
within the institution and its chapel. The
offertories at the chapel are at the disposition
of the chaplain, subject to the direction of the
ordinary.

Army chaplains have their sphere of duty

marked out under Act of Parliament and orders
in Council. There is a Chaplain-General for
the Church of England, who receives a stipend
of £1000 a year. There are also chaplains
belonging to the Church of Scotland, and to
Roman Catholics and other dissenters. See
Whitehead, Church Law.

Navy Chaplains. — The head Church of
England chaplain is styled Chaplain of the
Fleet, and receives a stipend of £759 a year.
For further particulars see Whitehead, Church
Law.

Cemetery, Lunatic Asylum, Prison, and Work
house chaplains are also the subject of special
regulations, as to which see Whitehead. The
Houses of Parliament have also their chaplains.
See CHAPEL. [B. W.]

CHAPTER.— Literally, a head. A cathedral
chapter is so called because "as a head" it
advises the bishop in many things, and it
anciently ruled and governed the diocese when
ever the see was vacant. Since the thirteenth
century this latter is the case only with
regard to an archiepiscopal see. The chapter
is generally composed of the canons and pre
bendaries presided by the dean. See White-
head, Church Laio.

CHARACTER. — Literally, a mark cut or
engraved ; then the peculiar qualities of a
person or thing. Character is the disposition
produced by the thoughts, words, and works
of any one during the passing of years.
It is especially affected by the dealings of
God with the soul through the providences of
life, which frequently leave, under grace, a
lasting impress on the character. The Church
of Rome travesties this solemn truth by using
the term "character" in a technical sense
for "a mark or seal," supposed to be made
"on the soul, which cannot be effaced," but
adds that "it is given by the Sacraments of
Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Order," ir
respectively of the life and disposition of the
person receiving any of those sacraments.

CHARMS.— See AMULETS.

CHASUBLE.— A cloak at first commonly worn
by peasants ; afterwards adopted as an ecclesi
astical vestment.

The first writer that speaks of the casula, or
chasuble, is St. Augustine, A.D. 354-430. He
tells a story of a poor tailor at Hippo, a little
before his own time, who lost his chasuble,
and not having money to buy another, went
to the Chapel of the Twenty Martyrs at Hippo
and prayed that it might be restored to him
on which the boys laughed at him for seeming
to ask the Martyrs for 500 "folles," which
shows us what was about the price of a
chasuble, as a large-sized fish could be bought
for 300 "folles" (De Civ. Dei, xxii.). In his
own time, he speaks of the chasuble as a

CHASUBLE

[100]

CHASUBLE

common article of dress. "Will you go on,"
he says, "with a bad chasuble or a bad boot?
Then why with a bad soul ? " (Serm. 107). It
was at this time a cloak enveloping the whole
person, like the manta still worn in Spain,
with the addition of a hood that might be
drawn over the head. Being the ordinary
dress of the poor, it was worn by monks,
and Bishop Fulgentius, about A.D. 500, strictly
ordered that bis monks' chasubles should not
be of a high price, or of a bright colour. Pro-
copius, A.D. 530, speaks of the chasuble as
being a cloak of a slave or of a common person,
which a general, or a private soldier, would
be ashamed of (De Bello Yindal. ii. 26). Arch
bishop Caesarius, A.D. 540, left to his successor,
in his will, a long-napped chasuble, which he
distinguishes from his church robes. Pope
Gregory I., A.D. 600, presented three pieces
of money and a chasuble, that is, a cloak,
to a Persian abbot who saluted him in the
streets of Rome. Boniface III., A.D. 606, sent
to King Pepiu a chasuble made partly of silk
partly of goat's hair with a long nap, on which
he says that he might wipe his feet dry —
a very singular use of a chasuble. Isidore of
Seville, A.D. 620, in his De Originibus, describes
the chasuble as a garment with a hood, and
states that its name is a diminutive of casa,
a house, because it covers the whole man
like a little house (Lib. xix.). St. Boniface
and a Council held at Ratisbon in 742, order
presbyters and deacons not to wear the
short military cloak, but the chasuble, as
befitting the servants of God (Labbe, vi.).

Hitherto we have had no indication of the
chasuble being a ministerial vestment, or a
garment in any way peculiar to the clergy,
but, with the ninth century it becomes more
specially clerical by ceasing to be the common
dress of the people ; and symbolical meanings
become now attached to it. Rabanus Maurus,
A.D. 800, repeating Isidore's derivation of the
name from cam, a house, says that it covers
all the other vestments, and therefore sym
bolises charity. Amalarius, A.D. 824, says that,
as the chasuble is worn by all the clerical
body of whatever degree, it symbolises " the
works which belong to all, namely, hungering,
thirsting, watching, nakedness, reading, psalm-
singing, prayer, toil, teaching, silence, and
everything else of that kind ; when a man is
clothed with them he has on his chasuble."
The double fold of the chasuble between the
shoulders indicated that good works should
be performed both towards men and towards
God ; the double fold on the breast implied
the need both of learning and of truth (De
Eccl. Off. ii.). In a treatise of the eleventh
century, wrongly attributed to Alcuin, the
writer repeats that the symbolical meaning

of the chasuble is charity (De Div. Off.). Ivo
Carnotensis, A.D. 1100, knows no signification
of the chasuble except charity ( De eccl. sacram.
ct ojfiais), nor Hugo a Sancto Victore, A.D. 1120,
nor Honorius Augustodunensis, A.D. 1125.
To Innocent III. it also means charity, but
he likewise sees in it the symbol of the Pre-
Christian and Post-Christian Church, because
it hangs in front and behind, which, he says, is
right because on Palm Sunday both those who
went before and those who followed after
cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David I " (De
sacro altaris mystcrio). Durandus, A.D. 1250,
repeats the signification of charity, but adds
that it also represents the wedding garment
of Matt. xxii. 12, and the Catholic Church,
and the vestment of Aaron, and the purple
robe of Christ. By hanging both in front and
behind, he says that it symbolises love to God
and man, whilst its width shows that charity
must reach to enemies. Its three folds on
the right arm teach the duty of "succouring
monks, clergy, and laity," and the three folds
on the left arm the duty of "ministering to
bad Christians, Jews, and Paynims."

Thus it appears that the chasuble, beginning
as the ordinary outer garment of the poor,
was retained by the clergy when other people
changed the fashion of their clothes, and thus
became their ministerial dress. But down to
the end of the thirteenth century the idea of
its being a sacrificial garment had not arisen.
Its accepted meaning was charity. But in the
thirteenth century Innocent III. and the Fourth
Lateran Council introduced such wide reaching
modifications of the Christian faith as almost
to change its character. In 1215 Transub-
stantiation became the authorised belief, and
auricular confession the authorised practice of
the Latin Church. Transubstantiation, which
is the basis of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and
compulsory confession profoundly altered the
conception entertained of the priesthood. The
presbyter now became a sacrificing priest, and
the victim that he sacrificed was no other than
Christ Himself, while in the confessional he
sat as the representative of God. His vesture
must indicate the stupendous office which he
held. The most noticeable, because the out
side, garment that he wore was the chasuble ;
the chasuble therefore must symbolise sacri
fice. By degrees it attracted to itself this
character, and in the course of the subsequent
centuries it became recognised as the priestly
sacrificial vestment, while it underwent con
siderable changes in form.

But if the chasuble did not symbolise sacri
fice for at least 1300 years, why should it be
supposed to symbolise it now ? The whole
theory of the symbolical meaning of vestments,
which first grew up in the ninth century, is

CHASUBLE

partly a pretty and quaint, partly a fantastic
and foolish imagination. Ritualist fancy has
again declared the chasnble to be necessary
for the priest who offers the Sacrifice of the
Mass, or celebrates the Holy Eucharist. Mr.
Passmore pronounces it to be "an ecclesiastical
vestment indispensable to, and characteristic
of, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar" (Sacred
Vestments, vii.). The Ritual Reason Why tells
us that the priest removes his chasuble when
preaching "because the sermon is not directly
a part of the sacrifice," and that "he lays it
on the altar because it is a sacrificial vest
ment" (No. 430). The Congregation in Church
is daring enough to state, without any regard
to historical fact, that the alb, girdle, amice,
maniple, stole, and chasuble " have been worn
at Holy Communion from the days of the
Holy Apostles"; the cloak which St. Paul
left at Troas having been, no doubt, his
chasuble. And it states that it is "the
sacerdotal or priestly vestment worn by the
celebrant at the Holy Eucharist" (pp. 54, 176).
This theory is a reason why so strong a desire
is entertained for restoring the use of the
pre-Reformation vestments in the Church§ of
England. It is not merely a matter of aesthe-
ticism, but of doctrine, although the sketch
above given of the history of the chasuble
proves that the connection between it and the
doctrine which it is now supposed to symbolise
is an arbitrary dictum of the later Middle
A^es unknown for more than a thousand
ye^rs. [F. M.]

In England the chasuble was blessed "that
all clad with this chasuble may have power to
perform a sacrifice acceptable to Thee for
quick and dead" (Mon. Rit. i. 144). It was
placed by the bishop on the shoulders of the
priest with the words "receive the Sacerdotal
vesture" and was followed by the blessing of
the priest's hands to " consecrate Hosts which
are offered for the sins and negligences of the
people." When Sawtre was degraded from
the priesthood in 1401 the form ran "we
pull from thy back the chasuble and take
from thee the priestly Vestment and deprive
thee of all priestly honour." Archbishop
Parker and the High Commissioners in 1566
published a letter from Bullinger who de
nounced the "Massing apparel, that is in
an alb and in a Vestment," and opposite the
word "Vestment," they inserted in the margin
" Casula," thus showing beyond all doubt
what was then understood by the word
"Vestment." In the English Pontificals the
bishop was directed to come in procession
to church in a cope, but to lay it aside for
the "Vestment" when he was about to say
Mas?. The cope being unblessed, and not
given to the ordinees, but worn by laymen, by

children, and even by women, often out of
doors, was not held to be a "sacrificial dress,"
and was therefore tolerated when the "Vest
ment" of the Mass-priests was finally laid
aside. (See Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica.
pp. 67, 70 ; Tomlinson on the Prayer Book, pp.
56, 96, 117, 119, 274; Mr. Edmund Bishop in
the Dublin Rtview for January 1897, p. 17.)

[J. T. T.]

CHERUBIM.— The plural of cherub ; a compo
site winged creature-form, which finds a parallel
in the religious insignia of Assyria, Egypt, and
Persia. Two of these symbolical figures were
commanded by God to be made of gold and
placed one at each end of the mercy-seat
which was above the ark of the covenant
(Ex. xxv. 17-22). Two others, of colossal size,
overshadowed the ark in Solomon's temple
(2 Chron. iii. 10-13). Ezekiel i. speaks of
four, and similarly the Apocalyptic "living
creatures " are four (Rev. iv. 6-9). At the east
of Eden were posted "the cherubim" as if
of a recognised number ; but that point is
doubted by competent authorities. In Heb.
ix. 5 the "cherubim of glory are referred to."
Notwithstanding the commandments of God
and the manifold precautions taken under the
Old Testament dispensation to guard Israel
from the sin of idolatry the Church of Rome
actually draws from these cherubim an argu
ment in favour of the use and adoration of
images ! But the real facts of the case are
that the cherubim, so far from being " vene
rated," were never even seen by the people
or by the ordinary priests and Levites, but
by the high priest alone, and then only
on the great annual Day of Atonement,
and then only in a darkened chamber, and
through a cloud of incense ("lest he die").
Even on the march the ark would seem
to have been concealed as well as the holy
vessels of the sanctuary (Num. iv. 5, 15, 20).
Thus the adoration of these figures was made
impossible for Israel. See IMAGE-WORSHIP.

[M. E. W. J.]

CHOREPISCOPUS.— The word properly means
country -bishop. This class of bishops seems to
have come into existence in the latter part of
the third century. They discharged all kinds
of episcopal duties including that of ordination,
but had not the same jurisdiction as ordinary
bishops.

CHRISM. -— Oil consecrated by a bishop in
the Roman and Eastern Churches and used for
baptism, confirmation, orders, and extreme
unction. The Ritual Reason Why, p. 56, calmly
informs its readers, as though it was the authi
rised practice of the Church of England to-day,
that "three kinds of oil are blessed by the
bishop on Maundy Thursday : one the c
the sick for the sacrament of nnction ; another

CHRISM

[ 102 ]

CHURCH

the oil of catechumens ; and the third a mixture
of oil and balsam, called the chrism, served for
the anointing of altars, of the sovereign at con
secration, and for use at baptism and con
firmation." In the first Book of Edward VI.
a form of anointing infants in baptism was
prescribed, which Wheatley connected rather
with confirmation which had often immedi
ately followed baptism. Prior to the Refor
mation infants in arms were often confirmed,
as is the practice in the Greek Church. This
superstitious practice was wisely abolished by
our reformers and has never been revived (see
Wheatley, pp. 347-49). In the Roman Pontifical,
the consecrating bishop, after breathing over
the jar of oil three times in the form of a
cross, exorcises from all evil spirits the oil,
and then, mixing balsam with the oil, says,
"Be this mixture of liquors atonement to all
that shall be anointed of the same, and the
safeguard of salvation for ever and ever."
What must be thought of a system which con
siders the Atonement of the death of Christ
insufficient and the anointing with oil a "safe
guard " for eternal salvation ? Surely any such
so-called Christianity must carry with it its
own condemnation. [M. E. W. J.]

CHRIST.— Anointed. The official title of our
blessed Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. The
Greek name Christ is equivalent to the
Hebrew Messiah. As prophets, priests, and
kings were anointed with oil under the Old
Testament dispensation, so our Lord was
anointed to His threefold offices by the visible
descent of the Holy Spirit at His baptism.

CHRISTIANS.— The baptized, professing be
lievers throughout the world in the Lord Jesus
Christ as the God-Man and in the doctrines of
His religion. The name occurs three times in
the New Testament, viz. : Acts xi. 26 ; xxvi.
28 ; 1 Peter iv. 16. Whitehead, in Church Law,
p. 70, estimates their total number at the present
time to be about 420,000,000, or about one-third
of the population of the globe. Of these, the
Romish Church is computed to number about
200,000,000 ; the Orthodox, or Greek Church,
80,000,000; other Eastern Churches, 10,000,000,
and Protestants, 130,000,000.

CHRISTMAS.— The season at which we speci
ally commemorate the birth of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The actual day (December 25) was
fixed in Rome about the year 380, and Chry-
sostom says that the day was chosen in order
that the Christians might perform their holy
rites undisturbed, while the profane ceremonies
of the pagan festival of Saturn (held on that
day) were in progress. Nothing is known with
certainty as to the precise date of our Lord's
birth. It has been variously supposed to have
occurred in December, April, and May. The
earliest mention of Christmas is that of Clement

of Alexandria (200), who says "there are some
who over curiously assign not only the year
but even the day of the birth of our Saviour,
which they say was in the 28th year of Augustus,
on the 25th day of Pachon" (May 20). The
greatest part of the Eastern Church from very
early times celebrated the Nativity on the
Epiphany, or January 6 ; so does the Greek
Church still. But it seems hardly possible
that the birth of Christ could have taken place
in the winter, as the shepherds of Palestine do
not remain in the fields at that season. As to
the year in which our Lord was born, it is
considered for several reasons by the best
authorities to have been four years before the
received commencement of the Christian era.
Sir Isaac Newton says: "The times of the
Birth and Passion of Christ, with such like
niceties, being not material to religion, were
little regarded by Christians of the first age."
The Epistle and Gospel are the same that
were used in the most ancient liturgies ; the
Collect was composed in 1549. [M. E. W. J.]
CHURCH, THE— I. The foundation of the
Christian Church was laid by our Lord's charge
to His disciples after His resurrection, recorded
in St. Matt, xxviii. 18: "Jesus came and spake
unto them, saying, ' All power is given unto
Me in heaven and in earth ; go ye therefore
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you ;'
and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world.' " Our Saviour after His re
surrection, and just before His ascension, thus
addresses His eleven disciples, and solemnly
declares that all power is given unto Him in
heaven and in earth ; and in the exercise of
that power, He charges them to go and make
disciples of all the nations of the earth. He
explains also what He meant by making dis
ciples. First, it involved baptizing them into
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit — revealing to them, that is, those Divine
persons, that they might believe in them and
love them, and enter by baptism into cove
nant with them ; and in the second place, it
involved teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever Christ had commanded them. The
great work of revealing God, as the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, of bringing men into
covenant with Him, and of teaching them to
obey all Christ's commands, was thus entrusted
by our Saviour to His eleven disciples. It is
evident, moreover, that they were to hand on
the same commission to their successors, since
our Saviour says, " I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world." Here, there
fore, we have a definite body of men, charged
with a great commission, which is to last until

CHURCH

[ 103]

CHURCH

the end of the world; and the Saviour gives
them a promise that He will be with them in
the discharge of it. We know how the Apostles
understood this commission. (See APOSTLE.)
They, in the first place, completed their number
to twelve by electing Matthias in the place of
the traitor Judas, and then waited patiently
at Jerusalem until, according to our Lord's
promise, He had sent the Holy Ghost upon
them at the Day of Pentecost ; and from' that
time they went forth, as St. Mark says (xvi. 20),
"and preached everywhere, the Lord working
with them."

But they were not content simply to preach,
and then to leave their words to their fate ; as
men do who come into a place, and give ad
dresses, and leave it ; or as others do who write
books, and cast them upon the surface of
society to find their own way, and to be read
or neglected. But wherever they went, the per
sons who accepted their message were bound
together in association by certain observances,
and were placed under the direction of certain
authorities. We are told respecting the first
community of three thousand souls that they
were first baptized, and that they then (Acts
ii. 42) "continued stedfastly in the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of
bread and in the prayers." (See BREAD.) In
other words they were first brought into cove
nant with the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit by baptism ; and then they continued to
be guided by the Apostles' teaching, and met
together for the Sacrament of the Holy Com
munion and for common prayers. As long as
the community was comparatively small, and
was confined to Jerusalem and its neighbour
hood, there was no need for other preaching
than that of the Apostles ; and the Apostles
were also able to superintend the offices of
mutual charity in which Christian love soon
found its expression. But before long these
administrative duties were found to consume
too much of the Apostles' time; and a new
order of men, called deacons, or servants, were
solemnly set apart by the laying on of the
Apostles' hands for this work of administra
tion, discharging also, as in the cases of Stephen
and Philip, a very important part in the work
of teaching. (See DEACON.) But, soon after,
St. Peter was reminded, by a special vision, of
our Saviour's commission to him and his fellow-
Apostles, that they should teach all nations;
and St. Paul was miraculously converted and
added to the Apostles for this express purpose.
St. Paul proceeded to preach the Gospel in
Asia Minor, and made disciples in various
towns ; and then we find him at once making-
provision for the regular instruction and
government of these various communities or
churches. We read at the conclusion of his

first missionary journey (Acts xiv. 23), that
" when they had ordained them elders in every
Church, and had prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord, on whom they
had believed."

Such is the simple account, presented to us
in the New Testament, of the manner in which
the Apostles carried out our Lord's commis
sion. In the various cities and centres of
life they made disciples, and they formed
those disciples into societies, under the guid
ance and authority of elders (see PRESBYTERS),
who are also called overseers (see BISHOP);
and these societies are described by a Greek
word which means an assembly summoned by
a formal call, and which is translated in our
Bible by the word " Church." Each particular
society, by itself, is called a Church; and in
the last chapter of the last, if not the latest
book of the New Testament, we read of our
Lord pending messages to "the Churches"
(Rev. xxii. 10). "I Jesus have sent mine
angel to testify unto you these things in the
Churches." But we further learn that the true
members of these Churches were regarded as
forming one Church, for St. Paul, especially in
the Epistle to the Ephesians, speaks again and
again of "the Church" which is the Body of
Christ, " God," he says (Eph. i. 22), " hath put
all things under His feet, and gave Him to be
the Head over all things to the Church,
which is His Body, the fulness of Him which
filleth all in all"; and he declares (iv. 11).
that our Lord " gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the Body of Christ . . . that we
may grow up into Him in all things which
is the "Head, even Christ, from whom the
whole body fitly joined together, and com
pacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part, maketh increase of the
body unto the edifying of itself in love."

We observe, then, as the conclusion of the
work of the Apostles themselves in discharging
Christ's commission, that they established
bodies of disciples, called congregations or
Churches, under the guidance of elders and
deacons, those elders and deacons holding
their commissions from the Apostles them
selves; and towards the end of the Apostolic
period, we also find St. Paul appointing men
like Timothy and Titus to supervise the elders
and deacons, or, as we now say, to be bishops
(or overseers) over them, in the Apostles
place. Each of these distinct congregate
is required to continue in the Apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in the breaking of
and in common prayers. By this fellowship

CHURCH

104 ]

CHURCH

and these sacraments the various Churches
were kept in fellowship with one another, and
we read of their being united in brotherly friend
ship, and giving each other mutual assistance.
But we do not read of their being united
under one general government, or of their
being subject to the authority of any single
Apostle. The Churches which had been
founded by St. Paul looked naturally to him as
their supreme guide during his lifetime; but he
expressly disclaimed, in remarkable passages,
any interference with other men's labours or
provinces (Rom. xv. 20; 2 Cor. x. 13-16). When
a difficult question arose as to the obligations
of Christians in the Gentile Churches, how
to carry out what Christ had commanded in
such matters as the observance of the Jewish
law, instead of appealing to any one supreme
authority, the Apostles and elders came to
gether and discussed the question among
themselves, praying for the guidance of God's
Spirit ; and the decision which they came to
in this Council was accepted as the guidance
of God's Spirit for them. In Apostolic times,
therefore, the external union of the Church
of Christ was simply that of distinct com
munities who believed in the same truth, and
accepted the same discipline, who entered into
mutual consultation on important points of
difficulty which might arise, and who sub
mitted to the decisions which resulted from
such consultations as expressing the judgment
of the Spirit of God for them. But they
were not all subject to the administration of
any single visible authority, and in that respect
did not present the characteristic of one single
society. The Empire of England offers the
spectacle of a single visible society because
there is one visible authority which is acknow
ledged throughout it, to which, with certain
qualifications, all its various parts submit.
There was no such single administrative
authority in the Churches of Apostolic times ;
and in this sense the various Churches did
not form one visible body. There was, indeed,
one authority to which they all submitted,
but it was an authority ordinarily invisible —
that, namely, of the Lord who, by His commis
sion to His Apostles, had really founded the
various Churches, who had promised to be
with them until the end of the world, and who
was believed through His Spirit to intimate
His will to His representatives, when solemnly
assembled in such a Council as that which
met at Jerusalem. The various Churches, or
rather the faithful members of them, were
invisibly united to Jesus Christ as their Head ;
and they believed that their whole life and
work, the work of their teachers and rulers,
their own obedience and learning, their
struggles and their prayers, were gradually

bringing them all, more and more, into con
formity and unity with that great Head ; that
His Spirit was working within them, and build
ing them up into one great body, in which the
glory of God would be fully manifested.

To the question then : What is the Church ?
the answer must be twofold. There is, first, the
one great body, of which St. Paul speaks in the
Epistle to the Ephesians as the Body of Christ,
which is obviously not confined either to any
one of such particular Churches as those which
the Apostle founded, or to any single com
munity existing on earth and at any one time,
but is composed of all who, in every age, have
been united to Christ their Head, by His Spirit.
They are His members ; they will be found, at
the consummation of all things, when Christ
is revealed in His full glory, with all His Saints,
to form one vast organism, in union with Him,
each with his place, his gift, his office, and
his special blessing. But this Church — the
Church in the highest sense of the word — is,
and always has been, invisible. There are
alas ! members of the visible Churches who do
not belong to it, because they do not belong to
Him ; they are false to Him in belief or
practice, and are liable to His sentence: "I
never knew you ; depart from Me, ye that work
iniquity." To the revelation of this great
and glorious, though now invisible, Church
we look forward as the great consummation,
towards which the whole of God's dispensation
in this world is directed ; but, being as a whole
an invisible body, it is not one which we can
approach, to which we can appeal for guidance,
or which can exercise any direct authority over
us. We are in union with it, if we are true
Christians, through Christ ; and the Spirit which
animates it is the same Spirit by which it is
our privilege to be animated ; and with this
spiritual union with the one everlasting, but
now invisible, Church we must in this world
be contented.

But if we are to use the word Church of a
visible body of which we are visible members,
and towards which we have recognisable
duties, then, according to the New Testament,
any congregation of Christians who have re
ceived Christ's word and have been baptized,
and who continue in the Apostles' doctrine
and fellowship and in the breaking of bread
and in the prayers, is a Church of Christ ; it
is a congregation of believers in Christ, who
acknowledge the truth, and who submit to
the discipline, which He and His Apostles de
clared and appointed ; or, in the words of the
Article of the Church of England, "the visible
Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful
men in the which the pure word of God is
preached and the Sacraments be duly mini
stered according to Christ's ordinance in all

CHURCH

[ 105 ]

CHURCH

those things that of necessity are requisite
to the same." There may be any number of
such Churches, and no one of them has any
inherent authority over others. But as they
are pledged to the same truth, the same
fellowship, and the same Sacraments— as they
acknowledge one God the Father, and one
Lord Jesus Christ who is their Head, and one
Spirit by whom they are regenerated and
illuminated— there is a real though not, for
ordinary purposes, an external unity among
them ; they are bound, so far as in them lies,
to cultivate mutual communion and brotherly
love, and to take one another into consultation
in difficulties of faith and practice, such as
those which arose in Apostolic times. Though
not forming, either individually or in combi
nation, the one Church of Christ, they are the
visible bodies out of which that one invisible
body is being evolved ; and in ordinary circum
stances it is through union with one of them
that our union with that invisible body is
effected and maintained. Such, in its main
outlines, is the ideal for the visible Churches
of Christ which is set before us in the New
Testament. That ideal, therefore, which has
captivated and distracted so many minds, of
there being one single visible society, under
one government, which alone can claim to be
called the Church of Christ, and to whose
authority every individual Christian must
submit on peril of his salvation, is an ideal
which has no foundation whatever in the
New Testament. There the various distinct
Churches, such as those described in the last
book of the New Testament, have their distinct
life and distinct responsibilities, as they have
their distinct dangers and temptations. On
their own responsibility, they are bound to be
true to their Head, which is Christ, and faith
ful to the Apostolic doctrine and fellowship,
maintaining with one another communion and
union in all essential matters of faith and
practice — a union for the maintenance of
which Councils like that held at Jerusalem are
the Apostolical method. But there is no
standing human authority to which they have
to give account. Subject, however, to this
recognition of the freedom and responsibility
of individual Churches, there are few obliga
tions more incumbent on them than that of main
taining unity. It is not given to one man, or
to one nation, to grasp the whole of so grand
and mysterious a revelation as that of the
Gospel ; it needs the experience of many men
and of many minds to apprehend its various
aspects ; and, consequently, any Christian man,
or Christian community, who separate them
selves unnecessarily from their brethren, are
maiming and marring their own opportunities
and means for entering into "all the truth.'

The Church of England separated from the
Church of Rome under the pressure of dire
necessity ; but only the most deadly errors
and the most violent action on the part of the
Church of Rome led the English Church to that
course ; nor did the best divines of the English
Church think that anything less than the con
viction that the errors of Rome were of that
character would have justified the separation.
Every separation from the body of Christians
to which a particular man or a particular com
munity naturally belong, for less cause than simi
lar necessity, is contrary to the fundamental
principles of Christian charity, and cannot but
be the source of incalculable misfortunes to the
Church. The nature, however, of schism is the
proper subject of another article. It is important
to add that heresy and schism do not necessarily
separate men or communities from the visible
Church. So Hooker says (iii. 1, 7): "If by
external profession they be Christians, then are
they of the visible Church of Christ . . . yea, al
though they be impious idolaters, wicked here
tics, persons excommunicable, yea, and cast out
for notorious improbity." Again (§ 8) : "Of the
visible body and Church of Jesus Christ those
may be, and oftentimes are, in respect of the
main parts of their outward profession, who in
regard ... of some parts of their very profes
sion, are ... in the eyes of the sounder parts
of the visible Church most execrable." Again
(§11): "We must acknowledge even heretics
themselves to be, though a maimed part, yet a
part of the visible Church." The following
passage from the fifth book of Hooker (Ixviii.
6) affords an authoritative and comprehensive
statement on this subject: "Because the only
object which separateth ours from other reli
gions is Jesus Christ, and whom none but the
Church doth believe ... we find that accord
ingly the Apostles do everywhere distinguish
hereby the Church from infidels and from
Jews, accounting 'them which call upon the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be His
Church.' If we go lower, we shall but add
unto this certain casual and variable accidents,
which are not properly of the being, but make
only for the happier and better being of the
Church of God either in deed, or in men's
opinions and conceits. This is the error of all
popish definitions that hitherto have been
brought. They define not the Church by that
which the Church essentially is ; but by that
wherein they imagine their own more perfect
than the rest are. Touching parts of emiuency
and perfection, parts likewise of imperfection
and defect in the Church of God, they are in
finite, their degrees and differences no way pos
sible to be drawn unto any certain account.
There is not the least contention and variance,
but it blemisheth somewhat the unity that

CHURCH

[ 106 ]

CHURCH

ought to be in the Church of Christ ; which
notwithstanding may have not only without
offence or breach of concord her manifold
varieties in rites and ceremonies of religion,
but also her strifes and contentions many
times and that about matters of no small
importance, yea, her schisms, factions, and
such other evils, whereunto the body of the
Church is subject, sound and sick remaining
both of the same body, as long as both parts
retain by outward profession that vital sub
stance of truth which maketh Christian religion
to differ from theirs which acknowledge not
our Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Saviour of
mankind, give no credit to His glorious gospel,
and have His Sacraments, the seals of eternal
life, in derision." In connection with these
broad statements, it may be well to notice the
question, Whether the possession of Episcopal
government, derived by succession from the
Apostles, is of the essence of the Church. It
is essential, in the belief of the Church of
England, to the perfection of a Church ; it
is a condition of its bene esse, but it is not
essential to its esse — requisite, in Hooker's
phrase, to its " happier and better being," but
" not properly of the being " of a Church.
The statement in the Preface to the Ordinal
of the Church of England is substantially
justified by historical research. "It is evi
dent unto all men diligently reading Holy
Scripture and ancient authors, that from the
Apostles' time there have been these orders of
ministers in Christ's Church : Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons." But though the Church of
England maintains this constitution for her
self, she has never refused communion with
other Protestant Churches, on the sole ground
of their having lost it : and one of the most
decided High Churchmen, Bishop Cosin, ad
vised English Churchmen who were in Paris
during the troubles of the Commonwealth
to receive the Holy Communion from a French
Protestant minister. As has been said, there
are errors, like those of the Church of Rome,
which render it a duty to renounce com
munion with a Church which holds them,
though it remains a Church ; but the mere loss
of an Episcopal constitution, or of a breach in
the Apostolic succession of ministers, is not, in
the view of the most of authoritative divines
of the Church of England, an error or fault of
this nature. See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

[H. W.]

[The Editors append a second article which
was in type before Dr. Wace's was received,
as it contains some additional matter.]
CHURCH.— II. The old English word "church,"
or " kirk," may be traced to the Greek
KvpiaKbs (oZkos), the "Lord's House." It is
used to designate alike a material fabric used

for worship, a particular body of Christians, the
whole body of baptized professing Christians,
and the inner circle of true believers, whether
now living or departed in the faith of Christ.
The Greek and Latin term, translated as
"church," is ecclesia, which originally, as
at Athens, meant "a legislative assembly of
citizens." It is thus used in Acts xix. 32, 39,
41, and is also applied to the Congregation of
Israel as the ancient Church and people of
God in Acts vii. 38. In its Christian accepta
tion the term is employed in the New Testa
ment in at least five different senses, which
are closely connected together, and represent
distinct aspects of the same truth. There is
(1), as Hooker says, a mystical Church invisible
whose members are known only to God ; or in
the language of the Communion office, "the
mystical Body of Christ, which is the blessed
company of all faithful people." (2) There
is the outward visible Church, whose members
• are known to and may be counted by men,
and is, according to Article XIX., "a con
gregation of faithful men, in the which the
pnre Word of God is preached, and the Sacra
ments be duly ministered, according to Christ's
ordinance, in all those things that of neces
sity are requisite to the same " (see Matt,
xvi. 10, xviii. 17). Again (3), in the Epistles
(e.g. Rom. xvi. 5 ; Coloss. iv. 15), the Christians
of any particular family, or who met for worship
in any house, are called a Church. (4) Also
the Christian societies of a town or district
are addressed by the Apostles as Churches —
e.rj. Corinth (1 Cor. i. 2 ; 2 Cor. i. 1) ; Galatia
(i. 2) ; Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1).
(5) There is once more the Church triumphant
in heaven, for which the Church militant on
earth is intended to prepare her members (see
Hebrews xii. 22, 23).

The true and ideal Church is the spiritual
and invisible, the living Body of the risen
and glorified Redeemer, which consists of all
believers in Him, who are led by His Spirit
and build, and are being built, upon Him as
the one foundation of their trust and hope.
He is the Vine, of which they are the living
branches. He is the Bridegroom, and they
collectively are His bride. This is God's
peculiar possession, purchased with His own
blood, "the fulness of Him that filleth all in
all " (see Acts xx. 28, Eph. i. 23) ; and it is
His purpose eventually to "present it to Him
self a glorious Church, not having spot or
wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should
be holy and without blemish (Eph. v. 27).
Purity of character and life and the faithful use
of the appointed means of grace are the chief
signs of membership in this ideal society.

Such was the teaching of the early Fathers
— e.g. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), Clement of

CHURCH

[ 107 ]

CHURCH

Alexandria (A.D. 220), and Augustine (A.D.
48P). The principal notes of this invisible
Church are : (1) Unity, as distinguished from
uniformity — its members are all being taught
by one Spirit and agree in the essentials of
Christian truth ; (2) Sanctity, for all its mem
bers hate sin, are seeking separation from
evil, and conformity to the image of their
Divine Master, and are being gradually trans
formed into that image from glory to glory,
even as by the Lord the Spirit (2 Cor. iii.
18) ; and (3) Catholicity, for their union is
not limited by nationality or particular forms
of worship and of church government. This
Church is also (4) in the truest sense Apostolic,
for its members are "built upon the foundation
of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone " (Eph. ii.
20). Apostolic faith and practice are the main
objects at which they aim. Such is the Church
of Christ in the truest and highest aspect.

But it is at the same time a visible institution,
set up by our Lord Jesus Christ as a Light
house in the world, and organised by His
Apostles (see Matt. xvi. 18 ; xviii. 17 ; xxviii.
19, 20). The fact that Christ did found such
an ordered society is evident from His
ordaining the two Sacraments with outward
and visible signs, the one for the admission
of members, the other for their spiritual
sustenance and edification. It also is evi
denced from His giving to the Twelve, perhaps
also to the Seventy, special commissions not
extending to all Christians alike. This society j
He intended to continue to the close of this
dispensation, for He promised to be with it
always to the end of the age, and that " the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
This Church He intended to be at once a
standing witness of His truth to the un
godly world, and a spiritual Home for the
training of His faithful people. It is also like
the scaffolding of His spiritual Temple, by
means of which its inward and spiritual
building could best advance, necessary at
present but afterwards to pass away when
that which is perfect shall come. This
Church in its outward and visible character is
(as Hooker says) divided into a number of
distinct societies every one of which is
termed a Church within itself. A Christian
assembly may be called a Church, but the
Church is not merely an assembly, but a
society, and remains when all assemblies
are dispersed. The communion its members
enjoy consists in the public exercise of such
duties as those mentioned in Acts ii. 42 :
instruction, breaking of bread, and prayer.
Twice only in the Gospels is mention made of
the Church. In the second passage (Matt.
xviii. 17), it must mean the particular Church

or branch of the Church, to which the offended
person should belong. In the Acts and Epistles
the term is frequently used of local and par
ticular Churches (e.g. Acts xiv. 27 ; xv. 3, 22 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ; Gal. i. 22 ; Rom.
xvi. 4, &c.). Thus, there gradually grew up an
outward visible Body, a Body with many
different members, loosely connected together
by the authority of the Apostles and of the
overseers whom they appointed, but never, as
Bishop Westcott points out, absolutely in union.
At best this was an imperfect, struggling,
fallible representation of the true spiritual
Body of Christ, of which only some Christians
were genuine living members. Thus this visible
Church grew and extended itself, not as an
end in itself, but as a means to a far more
glorious end, "the perfecting of the saints,
the edifying of the Body of Christ," and so
preparing the way for the fulfilment of the
Apocalyptic vision, in which St. John saw
"the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down
from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband " (Rev. xxi. 2). Mean
time this earthly institution, however imperfect
though divine in origin, retains in some
measure the marks of the heavenly society.
It is called "catholic" ; because it is intended
to be universal, extending itself "throughout
all the world ; " " holy," because all its members
are called to be holy, and its ministrations are
designed to make them such ; and "one," not
because it imposes one cast-iron yoke of uni
formity, but because its members profess "one
Lord, one faith, one baptism," and should
endeavour to " keep the unity of the spirit
in the bond of peace." In those respects
it is now an object of faith, not of sight,
and as such it is proposed to our contem
plation in the Creeds. Very great and irre
concilable is the difference between the
doctrine on this subject of the Church
of England and of other truly Protestant
Churches and that of Rome. She claims to
be the one true Catholic Church, " the mother
and mistress of all Churches " (Creed of Pope
Pius IV. Article x.) ; and declares that "out
side her communion there is no salvation "
(ibid., Article xii.). This monstrous claim is
chiefly based on the assumption that "the
Pope has received by divine right authority to
teach and govern the whole Church." This
arrogant assertion rests chiefly on the false
interpretation of our Lord's words to St. Peter
(Matt. xvi. 18, 19). This cannot be discussed
in the present article (see PETER, POPE,
&c.). With the failure of that passage to
establish this dogma, especially when it is
examined in the light of other Scriptures and
of Church history, the whole superstructure
of Papal supremacy and of Romish exclusive-

CHURCH

[ 108]

CHURCH ASSOCIATION

ness immediately collapses. So far from being
the " one true Catholic Church," the Church
of Rome, if she be still a branch of that Church,
is indeed a thoroughly corrupt and unsound
branch, for she has adopted and teaches many
of the worst heresies and unscriptural doc
trines. Her arrogance and presumption would
seem to be foreshadowed by St. Paul in the
eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans.
The Church of England does not owe her
origin any more than her allegiance to Rome.
Centuries before Augustine converted a part
of England to Christ there was an independ
ent British Church in this country, and both
previously to his arrival and long afterwards.
Christianity was spread by Celtic missionaries
from lona. Even ecclesiastically our position
as a Protestant Church is secure. As defined in
her Articles and formularies it is both compre
hensive and scripturally sound. Her funda
mental principle on this subject is that whilst
the Church of Christ is one it has many
branches. In her XlXth Article she defines
"a visible Church of Christ as a congrega
tion of faithful men, in the which the pure
Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments
be duly ministered, according to Christ's
ordinance, in all those things that of necessity
are requisite to the same." And it is added
that, "as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria,
and Antioch " (the three great Patriarchates
recognised in the sixth canon of the Council
of Nice), "have erred: so also the Church of
Rome hath erred, not only in their living and
manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of
faith." Accordingly, the Church of England
makes no attempt to unchurch those who do
not belong to her communion. Whilst she
pronounces these Churches to have erred, she
does not exclude them from the Catholic
Church ; so, on the other hand, whilst she
declares her own ministers to be scripturally
ordained (Article XXXVI.), she does not say
that others not episcopally ordained are not
true ministers of Christ. In the preface to
the Ordinal she does indeed assert that there
have always been from the Apostles' time
bishops, priests, and deacons in the Church.
She does not infer that where these orders are
not found, there is no true Church. To do so,
would be to contradict the principles which,
since the Reformation, she has maintained, as
well as to oppose the large and comprehensive
teaching of Holy Scripture. Thus she proves
herself at once truly catholic and scriptural.

[W. B.]

CHURCH ASSOCIATION.— This powerful
organisation was originally called into being to
resist the pressure exerted on the bishops and
on the Established Church by the numerous
Associations which, as early as 1844, the priest-

party had formed for that purpose. At length,
in 1860, their various local Guilds and Unions
were welded to form the present "English
Church Union," which has ever since menaced
the purity of the faith and subverted the disci
pline of the Church of England. Litigation
also had been freely resorted to by the Sacer-
dotalists.

The earliest suit under the Church Discipline
Act was theirs. Not only Bishop Hampden
and Mr. Gorham, but Mr. Langley, Mr. Starkey,
Mr. Piers, Mr. Shore, Mr. Edouart, and Mr.
Faulkner figure among the Evangelicals thus
attacked. Pusey and Keble were among the
guarantors of the costs incurred by " nominal
objectors " put forward to represent the assail
ants of Bishop Hampden. Jowett was proceeded
against by Dr. Pusey himself ; and The C/iurch
Review, founded by the E.C.U., and edited by
its secretary, clamoured for the prosecution
of Bishop Waldegrave. The official organ of
the English Church Union said : "Dark will be
the gloom which obscures the horizon of Eng
land's Church when there shall not have been
found among her sons any who will have the
moral courage to bring before the courts to
which they be amenable those who are engaged
in poisoning the streams of religious knowledge
at their very fountain head."

The bishops were afraid to exercise their
disciplinary powers, when they knew that the
offender would be screened by the E.C.U., and
they sought to excuse their own inaction by
professing that they were in doubt as to what
the actual requirements of the law were. It
became necessary, therefore, for defensive pur
poses, that Protestants should combine to
protect the Reformation Settlement which was
being so rigorously assailed. This led to the
formation in 1865 of the "Church Association
to uphold the Principles and Order of the
United Church of England and Irelaud, and to
counteract the efforts now being made to assimi
late her services to those of the Church of
Rome." In the very first report of the C.A. it
was plainly stated that, " Its object is to defend
the Church. A revision of the Liturgy forms
no part of its plan." At the same time it ap
pealed to the bishops and to a Royal Com
mission to lay down with authority what needed
to be done ; and also to the laity, by holding
meetings and distributing educational literature
in order, as their report said, to " stop Romanis
ing by assisting aggrieved parishioners to obtain
protection from practices which drive them
from their parish church"; remarking that
" those who have set aside the usage of three
centuries and defied the concurrent voice of
the great body cf the English clergy and laity,
are not likely to be restrained by warnings
which seem nugatory to them because not

CHURCH ASSOCIATION

t 109 ]

CHURCH ASSOCIATION

enforced by penalties." Thus at the very out
set it was made clear that the legal rights of
churchmen were intended to be vindicated by
an appeal to the courts of justice. No one
could have joined the C.A. even in its first year
without knowing fully that litigation was con
templated. In 1867 a formal Declaration was
drawn up which has since been renewed year
by year and which embodied the main issues
of their contention : —

"While we freely allow to every member of
the Church the same liberty of conscience,
within the latitude of her Articles and other
formularies, which we claim for ourselves, we
protest against the public inculcation, by
clergymen ministering within her pale, of
doctrines repugnant to the letter and the spirit
of her authorised formularies.

" The doctrines against which we specially
protest at the present time, are as follows : —

" 1st. That the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper is a sacrifice for sin and an oblation
to God the Father of the body and blood of
Christ, corresponding on earth to the inter
cession of our Lord and Master in Heaven.

" 2nd. That the body and blood of Christ
are objectively present, under the outward
visible part or sign, or form of bread and
wine.

" 3rd. That the wicked receive the body of
Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper, albeit
they do not receive it to salvation.

" 4th. That ministers of the Church of Eng
land are Sacrificing Priests, representatives of
the Great Head of the Church, and exercise
by delegation His powers and prerogatives.

" 5th. That, in the exercise of these powers,
the clergy of the Church of England possess
judicial authority to forgive sin, and that the
forgiveness of sin is not complete without
the absolution of the priest.

"6th. That in order to exercise the dis
ciplinary powers of their office, for the ex
clusion of unbelieving or impenitent persons
from Communion, clergymen of the Church
of England are authorised to hear Confes
sion?, as a habitual part of religious practice,
and to give formal absolution from sin.

" 7th. That ' Christ himself, really and truly
but spiritually and ineffably, present in the
Sacrament, is therein to be adored ' (that
is, under the form of bread and wine).
" We utterly reject the seven doctrines above
enumerated inasmuch as they are innovations
on the faith once delivered to the saints, and
are ' grounded upon no warranty of Scripture,
but rather repugnant to the Word of God.'

" We protest against the attempt to represent
these doctrines as the doctrines of the Church
of England, not only because her authorised
formularies do not contain them, but also

because they specifically exclude and condemn
them."

In the volume of Essays published in 18(58,
of which the late Bishop of Guildford was
editor, will be found evidence from its
own official reports that the English Church
Union was a standing menace to the bishops
in the discharge of their duty, and that the
Union offered to protect the Romanising clergy
from their bishops (Principles at Stake, pp.
7-11). The Primates of that day assured the
Council of the Church Association that the
bishops were ready to enforce the law if its
exact requirements were duly laid down by
authority. In July 1871 the Archbishop of
Canterbury again replied to a deputation
that " he could not answer for what other
bishops might do," but that " he was fully
prepared to act in his own diocese, if sufficient
evidence of direct violation of the law was
brought before him." He added "that the
bishops if called upon, would no doubt act"
(C.A. Seventh Report, p. 35). Relying on this
promise and in order to aid the bishops in
doing their duty, a series of suits was com
menced by the Association with the result
that in no fewer than sixty instances, the law
was declared to condemn as illegal the in
culpated practices of the Ritualists. Unhappily
the leaders of both the great parties in the
State were themselves sacerdotally inclined,
and this fact had a very demoralising effect
upon the right reverend bench ; so that, instead
of "ministering discipline" according to their
consecration vow, their lordships actually
vetoed prosecution after prosecution ! The
Superior-General of the leading Ritualistic
"Confraternity" was protected from trial no
fewer than three times by successive vetoes !
After a time, extreme partisans were selected
even for the Episcopate itself, so that all hope
of obtaining redress at the hands of a bishop
was seen to be a thing of the past. Under
these conditions it was recognised that the sole
chance of reform was from the lay members
of the Church of England combining to remedy
the defects of the ecclesiastical law, and also
to send to Parliament staunch and convinced
Protestants, so as to improve the administra
tion of the higher patronage of the Crown.
At the present moment this policy is being
furthered by itinerating vans and colporteurs,
and by electoral rolls, worked by a staff of
able agents, employed in organising the Pro
testant electorate for combined action. Mean
time information on disputed points of doctrine
and ritual as well as on the laws regulating the
conduct of public worship is being continually
put forth in leaflets, tracts, pamphlets, »nd
larger works, as well as in the montblj °rS
of the Association, the Church

CHUROH ASSOCIATION

CHURCHING OF WOMEN

in which the controversial writings of the
Romanisers are reviewed and subjected to a
searching exposure. Never during the thirty-
six years of its activity was the work carried
on with so much vigour, or receiving from the
Protestant public nearly so large a measure of
support as now. Full use is made also of the
platform, and an enormous correspondence is
carried on for advising parishioners or in
cumbents who are suffering from the Romanis
ing plague. See ENGLISH CHURCH UNION.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.— See DISCIPLINA
AKCANI, EXCOMMUNICATION, PENANCE, &c.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT OF 1840, by
its 23rd section, abolished all other procedure
in a criminal suit against a clergyman "for
any offence against the laws ecclesiastical."
Thus the summary jurisdiction of the bishops
was got rid of. Since 1874, however, the
Public Worship Regulation Act has offered an
alternative procedure in matters of ritual ;
and the Clergy Discipline Act of 1892 has re
moved suits for crime or immorality from the
jurisdiction and procedure of this Act. The
Benefices Act, 1898, has also dealt with non-
residence, or neglect of duty, by a different
process. The Act enables any person to
complain ; but the bishop may refuse to
entertain the complaint. Or, he may ap
point a Commission to report whether a
primd facie case exists. If the Commission
reports in favour of the accused, the trial
cannot go on ; but after the appointment of
a Commission, the bishop can no longer
refuse to let the suit proceed. The bishop
may either summon the accused to appear
before himself and by consent pronounce
sentence himself without appeal ; or else,
articles of charge having been served, hear the
case in person sitting with three assessors ; or
else he must send the case direct by" letters of
request" to be dealt with in the Court of the
Province, thus saving the expense of an appeal
from the bishop. From the decision of the
Judge of the Province further appeal lies to the
King in Council, and is heard by the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council aided by four
bishops as assessors, appointed under the rules
of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876.
The Royal Order in Council, which follows
their " advice," is a very brief document, and
does not embody the reasons assigned for the
advice offered by the Judicial Committee.

[J.T. T.]

CHURCH MILITANT, THE, PRAYER
FOR. — This is a prayer in the Communion
office of the Church of England. Intercession
is herein made, as the word "militant" im
plies, for all Christians on earth who are fighting
against sin, the world, the flesh, and the devil.
No petition is preferred for any other than

living Christians ; the allusion which the prayer
contains to departed saints having reference
only to their good example, our thankfulness
for the grace given to them, and our hope of
future reunion with them in God's heavenly
kingdom. The Ritualists most disingenuously
assert that we here pray for "all who died in
the faith," and they thus seek to maintain the
doctrine of prayers for the dead. See PRAYERS
FOR THE DEAD.

CHURCHING- OF WOMEN (Fr. benediction
des accouchees) is a rite which has been re
tained in a modified form by the Church of
England, but which is rejected by some Protes
tant Churches as having no Scripture warrant.
Anciently child-bearing was supposed to defile
a woman (see Leviticus xii.), but now among
Christians generally this is not considered to
be the case, and consequently no purification
is necessary. The woman is perfectly free to
enter a church ; but, nevertheless, from very
early times the custom has prevailed, that
pious women, some weeks after accouchement
(among the Greeks strictly on the fortieth
day), should present themselves in church and
receive a blessing. This is usually accorded
to lawful mothers only, but exceptions are
allowed. Sometimes the child is taken also to
church. This is usually the case in the East.
The rite may only be administered in private
houses in very exceptional cases. According to
the Roman form the priest receives the woman
at the porch. She kneels, holding a lighted
taper, and after some prayers the priest hands
her the end of his stole, which she grasps.
He then leads her, still carrying the lighted
taper, into the church and up to the altar,
where he formally blesses her and sometimes
sprinkles her with holy water (Wetzer and
Welte).

The Church of England has, of course, re
jected these formalities and also the mislead
ing phrase, " The Order of the Purification of
Women," which appeared in the transition
Prayer Book of 1549, but which was expunged
in 1552, the title being changed to "The
Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth, com
monly called the Churching of Women." This
rite is intended by the Church of England
for all women safely delivered in child-birth,
and therefore it cannot be refused because
the child is illegitimate or the mother a dis
senter. The woman must be "decently," i.e.
neatly apparelled, but a white veil cannot be
enforced (Whitehead, Church Law, p. 70).

[B. W.]

The Puritans objected to this rite, and not
without solid grounds. Cotton Mather, in his
valuable work on the Types, characterised it
as "an apish imitation of the purification of
women." The second title of the service in

OHUROHINa OF WOMEN

CIBORIUM

the Book of Common Prayer is "commonly
called the Churching of Women." Now " com
monly called" in a second name of any service
is uniformly used in that book to indicate
something erroneously so termed. See heading
of " Presentation of Christ in the Temple," &c.
There has been a great deal of superstition
with regard to "churching" which prevails
in many districts of our country, and bad con.
sequences have been caused thereby. Women
of the working classes, to conform to custom,
often attend church for this service too soon,
and lay up the seeds of future bodily illness.
It is not considered respectable in many places
to appear in public until that service has been
gone through. Hence even a bar- woman will I
be "churched" as soon as possible so as to be j
able to attend to her customers. The attempt :
to justify the practice by an appeal to Psalm |
li. 5 is a gross perversion of Holy Scripture. |
There is no sin connected with "conception,"
and the Psalmist had no such idea in his mind.
Women in the Christian Church are subject to
no disability arising from the laws of nature.
"In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor
female" "but a new creature," Gal. iii. 28,
and vi. 15. The service in the Prayer Book
is, however, far from giving any support to
the superstitions referred to, but alas ! they
are still common in England.

[C. H. H. W.]

CHURCHWARDENS.— Wardens or guar
dians of the parish church and its goods.
Generally, two are elected annually for each
parish— one by the incumbent and one by the
parishioners ; but frequently there is only one
churchwarden. In some places there are more
than two ; but they are a kind of corporation,
and should always act jointly if possible.
They have no right to alter anything
in the church, or to do more than ordinary
repairs without a faculty. By Canon 89 all
churchwardens or questmen shall be chosen
by the joint consent of the minister and the
parishioners ; if they cannot agree, the mini
ster shall choose one and the parishioners
the other. This does not, however, alter the
ancient custom to the contrary. The elec
tion takes place in Easter week, and the
newly-elected churchwardens should make a
declaration before the Ordinary at a visita
tion, as soon as possible after the election,
that they will serve the office faithfully.
Certain persons are exempt, but poverty is no
bar. Churchwardens may receive goods for
the benefit of the church, but cannot dispose
of them without consent of the parishioners.
Only in London can they hold land. They
cannot set up monuments or add to the fabric
or utensils of the church without the consent
of either parishioners or the Ordinary. The

principal duties of churchwardens are to levy
voluntary contributions for church purposes,
sometimes to collect pew rents and hand them
to the minister to collect alms and oblations
in the church, to arrange for the seating of
the congregation, to enforce orderly behaviour
in church and churchyard during divine
service, to provide for the duties of a benelice
during a vacancy, to receive and duly publish
the bishop's notice of his intention to admit
a new incumbent, and to make presentments
or reports to the bishop or archdeacon of any
misconduct of the clergy or parishioners.
Churchwardens are entitled to ask a strange
clergyman officiating to produce his letters of
orders ; but when this is done their authority
ceases. By Canon 52 they are to see that a
record is kept of all strange preachers, and
that no one preaches who is not duly licensed.
One of two churchwardens cannot safely act
alone even in matters beneficial to the parish,
but one may promote a suit in opposition to
the other. See Whitehead and Cripps.
CHURCHYARD. — The burial-ground around a
church. The freehold of the churchyard belongs
(subject to the parishioners' right of burial) to
the incumbent. He may not turn cattle in so
as to disturb the graves or injure the trees or
tombstones, nor remove monuments without
the bishop's consent, nor remove the soil nor
cut down trees, except for the repair of the
chancel. He may lease the herbage. He is
not bound to repair or fence in the church
yard, which must be done by voluntary sub
scriptions of the parishioners. Additions to
churchyards must be consecrated. The "con
secration " is in law effected by a formal " sen
tence" of the bishop: the "service" being
voluntary. The effect of such consecration ia
to place the land under the perpetual juris
diction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Private
rights of interment in closed churchyards may
be exercised by leave of the Secretary of State
when the burial is not prejudicial to health.

The clergyman is the proper person to pro
ceed, with the consent of the Ordinary, in
order to prevent the erection of improper
monuments, as if an inscription be contrary
to the Articles, or obscene, &c. Sir H. Jenner
ruled that an inscription on the grave of a
Romanist exhorting to prayers for the dead is
not so contrary to the Articles as to necessitate
its removal. He admitted that the Church
of England discouraged such prayers. See
Cripps, The Laws of the Church and Clergy^;
Dale's Clergyman's Legal Handbook ; and Hook's
Church Dictionary, s.v.

CIBORIUM.— Literally, a receptacle for f
The name is variously employed by the Roman
Church for a cauopy (otherwise called a baldac-
chino, under which the sacred elements are

CIBORIUM

[

CLEMENTINES

placed in a vessel suspended by a cord from
the interior of this canopy) resting on columns
or suspended from the roof above the altar,
for the pyx in which the consecrated elements
are kept. By Ritualistic imitators of the rites
and ceremonies of Rome, the term is applied
to a kind of shallow cup or chalice with a
cover to it. This is sometimes used instead
of a paten at the Holy Communion, and the
consecrated bread is also reserved in the ci-
borium for the sick. " The bottom of the bowl
is slightly elevated inside to enable the sacred
particles to be readily removed." All this is
illegal in the Church of England. See Ritwd
Reason Why, p. 27 ; Bingham, viii. vi. 19 ;
Catholic Dictionary, under " Baldacchino."

CINCTURE.— In Ritualistic nomenclature a
broad sash confining the cassock at the
waist. See Wright, Mass in Greek and Roman
Churches, p. 43.

CIRCUMCELLIONES.— See DONATISTS.

CIRCUMCISION.— The Jewish rite for initiat
ing male children at eijiht days old into the
Abrahamic covenant made with the Jews by
God. Circumcision, therefore, prefigured the
Christian sacrament of baptism, which, for
this reason as well as others, is administered to
infants. Female children were not circumcised
(though even that is done sometimes by Mo
hammedans), because^the female sex was under
disabilities from which St. Paul informs us the
sex was relieved under the Christian dispensa
tion (Gal. iii. 28). St. Paul, in 1 Cor. vii. 14,
speaks of the children of Christians as " holy,"
i.e. holy, in some sense, by birth and parentage.
The child is " holy " as a covenanter's child ;
the sign and seal of admission to the covenant
position may, therefore, surely be given to
it. In the hereditary sense, the child is a
Christian. Our Lord submitted to both cir
cumcision and to baptism. But He was
baptized only with "the baptism of John."
His circumcision is commemorated by the
Church of England on 1st January in order
to point to the active obedience of our Saviour
in fulfilling all righteousness, and to teach us
our need of the "true circumcision of the
Spirit." The feast of the Circumcision is not
of any great antiquity. The first, mention of
it under this title is in Ivo Carnotensis, who
lived about the year 1090, a little before St.
Bernard, who has a sermon upon it. By earlier
writers it is called the " Octave of Christ
mas," and because it fell on a day celebrated
amongst the heathen with disorder and revel-
lings, its observance was forbidden by the
sixth General Council. This, however, has
not hindered Christians in later ages from
observing it.

CLEMENT, EPISTLE OF, TO CORIN
THIANS. —See APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

CLEMENT, HOMILY, GENERALLY
TERMED SECOND EPISTLE OF.— See
APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

CLEMENTINES, THE.— Certain Greek writ
ings, probably of Eastern production about the
close of the second century, running in the
name of Clement of Rome, with whose history
and opinions they purport to be occupied.
One of the set is entitled Homilies; another,
Recognitions 1 ; and there is an Epitome, abridg
ing the Homilies. They can be seen learnedly
edited, with a Latin version, in the first and
second volumes of Migne's Patrologia Grcsca.
The Recognitions, which have attracted most
attention, are in form an autobiography of
Clement. The plot which suggested the title
of this fiction is the scattering into Eastern
lands, through a series of mishaps, of a noble
Roman pagan family during the infancy of
the autobiographer, one of its members, and
their all coming together again, in his man
hood, in Palestine, through a succession of
surprising recognitions, to find each other
Christian or ready to become such. The main
thread of the tale carries us in the steps of
Clement, who, starting from Rome in quest of
his long-lost relatives, and landing at Caesarea,
met the Apostle Peter, by whom he was con
verted to Christianity. Thenceforth Clement
was Peter's companion in travel, the one pur
pose of which was to follow the track of Simon
Magus andeverywhere refute that arch-heretic's
teaching. Victorious contests with Simon recur
again and again in the course of this romance ;
and it transpires that while Simon is nominally
the heretic dealt with by Peter, the doctrine
Peter wants to put down is in reality PAUL'S.
That momentary difference which once at
Antioch (Gal. ii. 11) placed the two inspired
Apostles apart, is by this apocryphal inventor
thus audaciously exaggerated into a radical
and permanent breach affecting their whole
lines of teaching, the purpose of the Clemen
tine writer being to depreciate the theology of
Paul and exalt certain Ebionite views of his
own, which he dares to ascribe to Peter. Not
that Paul's name is ever openly brought in —
the standing opponent is always "Simon,"
that typical father of all heresy ; but the allu
sion is not to be mistaken, and on one occasion
comes out in the grossest manner, as when
" Simon " is challenged to show why Christ
should have remained on earth with his dis
ciples and instructed them an entire year, if
one might be formed into a teacher and an
apostle in the vision of a moment.2

The Clementines must be regarded as a
serious and dangerous attempt to discredit

1 Now known in a Latin version only.

2 Horn. xvii. § 19, Patrol. Grcev. ii. 401.

CLEMENTINES

[ 113 ] COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN

among the Hebrew race, who formed a power
ful body in the religious world still, the Pauline
view of Christ's relation to Moses. That view
taught, as was so largely set forth in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Mosaic Law
was but a preparation for Christ. No, say the
Clementines; the Law was perfect and com
plete in itself from the beginning, needing no
supplement, carrying no prophecy. It revealed
the Divine unity ; it taught the true way of
pleasing God— obedience. All that Christ did
was to renew that revelation when it had
become obsolete. Christ is the great Teacher,
re-proclaiming a forgotten moral law. The
Gospel, rightly understood, declares nothing
new ; proclaims no work of Christ. Let but
the Jew hold fast the Mosaic law in its
integrity, in the path of obedience, and he
need not become a Christian ; rather he is
already one, provided he blaspheme not Christ.
The Gentile Christian need only adhere to
the simple instruction of the Christ of the
Gospels ; he can discard all the pretended
supplements and developments of this spurious
new apostle.1

So early in Church history is seen that
emasculated Christianity which, when taught
over and over again in divers manners, ripened
into Peiagianism and prepared the corruptions
in doctrine and worship which have deadened
the Church of Christ in all its periods of de
cadence. As though for an undying antidote
to the assertion that the Gospel proclaims
no work of Christ, the Lord himself planted
in the very heart of it the words — "My
body given for you"; summoning Paul, by
a special conversion, to be the expositor,
along with Peter, of their meaning and their
consequence to both Jew and Gentile. A
translation of the Clementines is given in
Clark's Ante-Nicene Library. See Clemen
tines in CANON LAW. [C. H.]

CLETUS.— See ANACLETUS.

CLINIC BAPTISM.— See VISITATION OF
SICK.

CLOISTER.— See MONK.

COLLECTS.— Short prayers used at Morning
and Evening Service and before the Epistle
and Gospel. The term probably meant prayers
said when the people were collected. The
collects are condensations of scriptural teach
ing, and the name has also been explained in
that sense. It afterwards was applied to
prayers of a like character. See Smith and
Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.

COLL YRIDIANS.— The Colly ridians were a
sect of female devotees who appear to have

1 See Homily viii. 7, in connection with the
comments of Neander, Church History, ii. 33, 34,
35 : tr. Torrey, 1847.

existed in the latter part of the fourth century.
Their original locality was Thrace, from whence
they migrated to Arabia. Their name is de
rived from the Greek word KoXXvp/s, a cake,
owing to their practice of offering cakes to the
Virgin Mary in their acts of worship. Their
rites are thought to be closely akin to the
pagan cultus of Ceres. Epiphanius condemns
the sect in severe terms in his book on the
Heresies (Section 79). Bishop Burnet remarks
how the severe criticism which Epiphanius be
stows upon them clearly proves that no prayers
were then offered to the Virgin Mary by the
orthodox (Burnet on Article XXII.). Bishop
Harold Browne (On the Articles, pp. 513-514)
says: "Epiphanius tells us that whereas some
had treated the Virgin Mary with contempt,
others were led to the other extreme of error,
so that women offered cakes before her, and
exalted her to the dignity of one to be wor
shipped. This, he says, was a doctrine in
vented by demons. ' Let Mary be honoured
(ev ri.tj.-g &TTW), but let Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit be worshipped. Let no man worship
Mary (/wjSeJs wpoaKwdru')' " (See Robertson's
Church Hittory, vol. ii. p. 62 ; also Schaff ;s Post-
Nicenc Christianity, vol. i. pp. 417, 418.)

[C. J. C.]

COLOURS, CHURCH.— The employment of
colours for symbolical uses is medieval, and
was unusual in the first eight centuries. White,
however, was often viewed as the emblem of
purity. The significance attached to red,
green, violet, and black was of later growth.
"According to Old English use, blue, brown,
grey, and yellow were also employed."
Colours are employed by Ritualists for the
stoles of the clergy, which are illegal. They
are used also in the Church of England,
and for the frontals of the communion table,
in order to make the " table " look like an
"altar." The sequence of colours in the
"uses" of Sarum has no sanction from the
Church of England. The colour of the
"carpet" is subject to the discretion of the
Ordinary.

COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN.— The origi
nal form of the Ten Commandments is, no
doubt, that of Exod. xx. With God for their
author and written upon tables of stone they
cannot have been intended to be a temporary
but a permanent expression of the will of that
God who " changes not " (Mai. iii. 6). Although,
therefore, Christians are not "under law"
but under grace, yet are they "under law
to Christ " (1 Cor. ix. 21). Thus the Decalogue
is the guide to the Christian as to his duty
both towards God and his neighbour. It is,
of course, understood and observed by the
disciple of Christ according to the spirit and
not according to the letter, as regards inward

H

COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN [ 114 ]

COMMINATION

thought and desire no less than outward act
and deed, as interpreted by our Lord and
His Apostles (Matt. v. 28 ; 1 John iii. 15).
The Church of England is careful to teach
the Ten Commandments in her Catechism,
ordering them to be learnt in the Office for
the administration of Baptism, and to be
committed to memory by the Christian child
before coming to confirmation. She also
directs them to be publicly read in the Office
for the Holy Communion. By the 82nd canon
the Ten Commandments must be set up on
the east end of every church and chapel
where the people may best see and read the
same, or (according to the order of the Privy
Council) as nearly so as the nature of the
structure will permit (Whitehead, Church Law,
p. 298).

The division of the Commandments in use
in the Romish Church (though this may not
have been the original purpose) serves to
conceal from her people the strictness of God's
law with regard to the worship of images. The
second commandment is joined to the first as
one, and the first clause of the tenth command
ment, " Thou sbalt not covet thy neighbour's
wife," forms the ninth, and the remainder the
tenth. In comparatively few Romish Catechisms
are the Commandments set forth in full. This,
perhaps, is scarcely to be wondered at, since
Rome maintains that her system is not founded
upon the Bible but upon tradition. It should
be added that the mode in which the Com
mandments are divided in our Service Book
agrees with the most ancient authorities,
Jewish as well as Christian, and with the usage
of the Eastern Church. It appears to be based
on the clearest view of the subject matter,
as it is set forth in the sacred text. On the
other hand, the other arrangement, which is
first found distinctly stated by St. Augustine
of Hippo, was used by the Church in Britain
before the Reformation, and is still retained
by the Lutheran as well as the Romish Church
(see note on Exod. xx. , Speaker's Commentary}.
It is certain that the Ten Commandments form
the basis of all codes of law in all truly civilised
or Christian countries. [M. E. W. J.]

The Ten Commandments are called in
Hebrew " the ten words " (Exod. xxxiv. 28 ;
Deut. iv. 13, x. 4). According to the common
Jewish division, the first paragraph in Exod.
xx. commences at the words, " I am Jehovah
thy God," and includes all up to the end of
ver. 6. That passage contains both the First
and Second Commandments. The second
paragraph, according to the Hebrew division,
is that which contains the third, given in
ver. 7. The Tenth Commandment is in the
Hebrew Bible divided into two paragraphs, (1)
" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,"

and (2) " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
wife or his servant, &c." Such are the ten
paragraphs in the Massoretic text. Exactly
in the same way the Ten Commandments are
paragraphed or divided in Deut. v. In Deut.
v., however, the clause "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife," forms the Ninth
Commandment, and precedes "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's house, &c."

This division is incorrect. The First and
Second Commandments are essentially differ
ent. The Massoretic divisions are not in
spired. But that is the ordinary Jewish divi
sion, and on it is based the division in use in
the Roman Catholic Church. In a shortened
form of the Commandments, therefore, the
real Second Commandment might possibly
bs omitted as an explanation of the first
clauses. The Hebrew paragraphing was de
signed to prevent the text in Deuteronomy
being altered to that found in Exodus. The
Roman division is retained in the Lutheran
Church.

There is, however, a better Jewish division,
and one probably more ancient than that
in the Hebrew Bible. This division makes
"the first word" consist only of "I am
the LORD thy God which brought thee out
of the land of Egypt." According to that
arrangement also, what are commonly known
as the First and Second Commandments
are united into one. But it avoids that
stupid division of the last Commandment
into two. See the Speaker's Commentary on
Exod. xx. 12, and Dr. C. Taylor, Excursus iv. in
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 2nd edit. Camb.
Univ. Press : 1897. [C. H. H. W.]

COMMENDATION OF THE SOUL.— A
technical term in the Roman Church for the
recitation of prayers by the priest at the bed
side of a dying person. The Order for the
Visitation of the Sick in the Prayer Book also
contains a thoroughly scriptural " Commen
datory Prayer for a sick person at the point
of departure."

COMMINATION.— A threatening. The name
is applied to a service in the Prayer Book to
be used on the first day of Lent and at other
times as the Ordinary shall appoint. It is
sometimes ignorantly and flippantly objected
that members of the Church of England meet
at this service to curse their neighbours, but
the alternative title of the service is the
" Denouncing of God's Anger and Judgments
against Sinners." What is read is " the general
sentences of God's cursing" — not man's —
"against impenitent sinners " taken from His
Word. It is also objected that the "godly
discipline " referred to in the opening address
as having existed "in the Primitive Church"
dates only from about the ninth century, and

COMMINATION

COMMON PRAYER

that its restoration is not " much to be wished "
as the service asserts that it is. But these
words evidently refer only to the discipline
of the early Church, not to the superstitious
practices of later ages. The "open penance "
in the address excludes the idea of private
"Auricular Confession." The ceremony of
applying ashes to penitents, revived by some
Ritualists, is a Jewish superstition which has
no sanction in the Prayer Book and is illegal
(see Whitehead, p. 242). Still, the service as
here prescribed has been often found edifying.
The opening exhortation is impressive, the
recitation of the fifty-first Psalm kneeling ap
propriate and helpful, aud the other prayers are
such as Christians can join in with devotion.
The service is omitted from the American and
the Spanish versions of the Prayer Book, but
has been partially reinstated in the former.
It is retained in the Irish Prayer Book, but the j
reference to the restoration of discipline has
been expunged. The Office was composed by
our Reformers. [M. E. W. J.]

COMMON PRAYER.— Worship in a tongue
understanded of the people is the principle
of the Church of England as embodied in j
her Prayer Book and expressed in the XXIVth
Article. The principle and practice of the
Church of Rome in her services are thus
completely opposite to those of the English
Church. The Decrees of the Council of Trent
on this subject run as follows : "Although the j
Mass contains great instruction for the faith- !
ful people, nevertheless it has not seemed
expedient to the Fathers (i.e. of the Tridentine
Council) that it should be everywhere cele
brated in the tvulgar tongue" (Sess. xxii.,
canon 9); and again, "If any one saith . . .
that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the
vulgar tongue only . . . let him be anathema"
(ibid. c. 9).

As regards the teaching of the Apostles,
1 Cor. xiv. is the sole passage bearing on the
subject. The " gift of tongues," of which St-
Paul is there speaking, seems to have been
granted for (1) the conviction of unbelievers,
(2) the assistance of private devotion. At
Corinth an unedifying display had resulted
from the introduction of this miraculous gift
into the public services of the church. This
St. Paul reproves, and in the course of his
reproof he makes it abundantly clear that one
great end of public worship is general edifica
tion. When power to speak in unknown
tongues hindered this, it was forbidden in
public worship. And St. Paul adds emphati
cally, "In the church I had rather speak five
words with my understanding that by my
voice I might teach others also, than ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue." How
much more is the practice reprehensible now

that miraculous gifts have ceased ! That the
practice of the Church of the ages immediately
succeeding to the Apostolic was alien from that
of the Church of Rome, learned Romanists, e.g.
Lyra, Thomas Aquinas, and Harding, have con
fessed. Nor is it possible for them to avoid
doing so in the light of early Church history.
The primitive Christians joined together in the
responses and in the singing of psalms and
hymns, as we find from Cyril and Chrysostom
and Hilary and Justin Martyr. In a very dis
tinct and decisive passage, Origen (A.D. 184-255)
says : " At prayer the Greeks use the Greek lan
guage, the Romans the Latin, and so every one in
his own dialect prays to God, and gives thanks
as he can, and the God of all languages hears
them pray in all dialects" (Contra Gels., viii.).
The same testimony is borne with regard to
the responses of the congregation. Justin
Martyr (A.D. 114-164), in the earliest extant
account of worship after the Apostolic age,
speaks of the assenting "Amen " of the people,
and Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386),
mentions the response to the words " Lift up
your hearts," which is still used at Holy Com
munion in the Church of England, viz., " We lift
them up unto the Lord," and the words follow
ing, "Let us give thanks unto the Lord. It is
meet and right so to do."

The liturgy of the primitive Roman Church
when chiefly composed of Greek-speaking
people was Greek. See Warren's Liturgies of
the Ante-Nicenc Church, pp. 108, 164. But later
the Romans strove to impose their own tongue
on their colonial subjects. The old Latin
liturgies came thus to be used and imposed.
So the Latin tongue was employed in the
worship of Western Christendom, and the
error of Rome to-day in this matter is her
perpetuation of what had become an obvious
abuse, even to the extent of fencing it round
with an anathema (Council of Trent, xxii. 9).
It can hardly be doubted that selfish and un
worthy reasons have in part led to the con
tinuance of the evil. The maintenance of the
Latin tongue tended to foster Rome's influence
over the European churches, and also in the
case of an illiterate and superstitious people,
threw an air of mystery over religious rites
and thus helped to increase the power of the
priesthood. In spite of some honourable efforts
in the other direction, the Council of Trent
rendered any general reformation in this matter
hopeless by establishment of the Latin tougue
in all important offices. The Church of Rome
supports her practice in this particular by four
principal arguments, viz. (1) that by offering
everywhere prayer and praise in one and her
same language the Church testifies to her
unity throughout the world ; (2) that it is
essential to the preservation of the right faith

COMMON PRAYER

[116]

COMMUNION, EVENING

that the formularies of the Church should be
embalmed in a dead language and so incapable
of change ; (3) that it is practically very diffi
cult, if not impossible, to adapt Church services
to the changes of a vernacular tongue ; and (4)
that by means of translations and expositions
the people are enabled to follow mentally the
priest's prayers.

To these arguments it may be replied (1) that
such a forced uniformity as that of the use of
an unknown tongue, is external, fictitious,
valueless, and therefore no true unity at all. As
Pope John VIII. (880) says, "We are admonished
to praise the Lord not in three tongues only (i.e.
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin), but in all : for
Holy Scripture directs, ' Praise the Lord, all ye
nations : praise Him, all ye people ' ; and St.
Paul strikes the same note, ' Let every tongue
confess to God ' (Labbe, Concil. vol. ix. Ep.
Joann. Ps. cxlviii.) ; (2) that this argument
applies to some extent in the case of Creeds
and Articles of religion but not to common
prayer — symbols may require the protection of
a dead language, united prayer demands
the elasticity and vigour of a living tongue ;
(3) that a sufficient answer is returned by the
services of the English Prayer Book, which for
more than 300 years has suffered scarcely any
verbal alterations, and to-day there is hardly a
book in the English language more intelligible
to the poor and uneducated; (4) that for forms
of prayer especially, translations and exposi
tions are at once cumbrous, incomplete, and in
accessible. (See Bishop Browne on the Articles
(XXIV.), and Bingham's Antiquities, Book xiii.
ch. 4.) [M. E. W. J.]

COMMUNION.— See LOKD'S SUPPER.

COMMUNION, EVENING.— The Church of
England has laid down no rule respecting the
time at which the Holy Communion should be
celebrated. Therefore she leaves the question
open to be decided according to the judgment
of her ministers. They may fix the early
morning, or midday, or the evening, according
as they think will be most conducive to godli
ness. They will be guided in their judgment
by two inquiries which they will make of
themselves — (1) At what hour is it likely that
the minds and souls of the parishioners will
be in the best state for so solemn a rite ?
(2) What has been the practice of the Primitive
Church, and of the English Church, and why 7
It is a matter of experience that our feelings
are not the same in the early and the later
hours of the day. The morning is the more
suitable time for grave thoughtfulness and
calm reasoning. In the evening, imagination
and warmth of feeling have more power over us.
So far, there is no reason for confining the ad
ministration of the Lord's Supper either to the
morning or to the evening — both thoughtful

gravity of soul and warmth of devotion are
wanted in the communicant. The morning
hours do not exclude enthusiastic devotion,
nor does the evening as such prevent the
solemnity of soul with which we ought to
approach God's table. The case against even
ing Communions is rested by some on the fact
that the communicants will not at that
time be fasting ; but, as we show under the
head of Fasting Communion, there is no
reason why they should be, provided they
are not oppressed, nor their devotional facul
ties clouded, by food and drink lately taken
in abundance. It is urged that this must be
the case in the evening after a late dinner,
but it is forgotten here that the very great
majority of our communicants do not eat a
late dinner. They have their chief meal soon
after midday, and its effect of making the
body or soul heavy will have quite passed
away, if it existed at all, before the evening.
The argument may hold good for the upper
classes, particularly in the case of those who,
according to a late and evil practice, make
Sunday a day of entertainment. But it does
not apply at all to labourers, servants, or shop
keepers. Whenever, therefore, a congregation
mainly consists of those classes, and there are
very few congregations which do not, then an
evening celebration of the Holy Communion
cannot on this ground be regarded as undesir
able ; the more, as the early morning com
munions now popular are impossible for the
large class of domestic servants to attend.
In parishes where the early morning adminis
tration prevails, followed by a so-called High
Celebration at midday when individual com
municating is discouraged, this vast and
important class of Church people is excluded
from the Lord's Table. It is not a matter to
be wondered at that earnest pastors should
ask themselves whether it is not their duty to
supply this need, if that can be done without
transgressing Church order.

2. The practice of the primitive Church from
the second century onwards is unfavourable to
evening Communion. The Holy Communion
was from that time usually celebrated at the
forenoon service, or even occasionally at the
Ante-lucan service. The usual hour was nine
o'clock in the morning. One of the spurious
Papal Decretals attributed to Pope Telesphorus,
A.D. 127, orders "that no one should presume
to offer the sacrifice before the third hour " (nine
o'clock). Damasus, A.D. 366, is made to issue
the same regulation. This shows what was
the belief on the subject of those who composed
the Decretals and such like spurious documents
in respect to earlier practice. Epiphanius
(fourth century), Sidonius Apollinaris (fifth
century), Gregory of Tours (sixth century),

COMMUNION, EVENING

[117]

COMMUNION, PASTING

Gregory I. of Rome (sixth and seventh
centuries) state that nine o'clock was the
usual hour. On days other than Sundays it
was celebrated sometimes at twelve o'clock ;
on fast days at three o'clock ; on Christmas
Eve, Christmas Day, Easter Day, the Vigil of
Whitsunday, and the Saturdays of the four
Ember Weeks at midnight. Only on Maundy
Thursday was the custom of evening Com
munion kept up. But if the example of the
early Church from the second century onwards
is adverse to evening Communions, that of
the first century is just the reverse. It is
probable that not one of the Apostles or of
those who were converted by the Apostles
ever communicated except in the evening.
The order followed by the Church of the first
century was a service of prayers, hymns,
psalms, Bible-reading, and exhortation held
before daylight, and the Agape, including the
Lord's Supper, in the evening. This order
continued till Trajan's jealousy of club meet
ings compelled the Christians of the second
century to transfer the Holy Communion, and
for a time the social meal also, to the forenoon.
It was not any objection to evening Com
munions, as such, which produced this change
of practice, but the pressure of Imperial law
enforced by secular magistrates through fear
of conspiracies being hatched at evening meet
ings. Can we be justified in condemning a
practice followed by all the Apostles and pro
bably by all their immediate converts, a practice
which was ordered by St. Paul in all the
churches which he established, and which he
refrained from altering when some great evils
showed themselves as a seeming consequence
of it, a practice which was not changed on
any religious or ecclesiastical motive, but
simply because the law of the land at the
time required it ? Staley in Catholic Religion
says, "The rapidity with which the change
was accomplished, and its universal accept
ance lead to the conclusion that it was made
on the authority of the Apostles themselves "
(p. 257). But (1) no Apostle was living when
the change was made, and (2) it was the
compulsion of the Imperial law which caused
the rapid and universal alteration and accept
ance.1

It is true that evening Communions have
not been usual, perhaps not known, in the
English Church till of late. This raises a
presumption against the practice, but it is
only a presumption and not one of much force.
It is easily overborne if reasons can be given

1 But it should be noted that Tomlinson, in
Review of Knox- Little, p. 25 and p. 26, shows that
evening Communions are referred to without
condemnation by Cyprian and others. — EDO.

for the contrary practice. Our ancestors
observed earlier hours for all the functions of
life. We rise later, we dine later, we go to
bed later than they did. Evening services,
in the form of evensong, have been the growth
of little more than a generation in place of
afternoon services. It is probable that the
idea of evening Communion did not present
itself to our reformers ; but they have nowhere
condemned it, and it is one of those indifferent
things which is left to each generation to
decide for itself.

The Congregation in Church pronounces even
ing Communion to be a "strange, irreverent,
and possibly sacrilegious custom" (p. 46). Were
all the Apostles and their contemporaries
" irreverent and sacrilegious ? "

The Ritual Reason Why says St. Paul com
manded early and fasting celebrations amongst
other things which he set in order when he
came " (p. 407). We have proof to the contrary.
He settles the question of evening and fasting
Communion in his epistle, and says that it is
only the rest — that is, other things — that he would
set in order when he came (1 Cor. xi. 34). And
we know from the Teaching of the Apostles,
(ch. x.), and from Ignatius' Epistles (Ad Smyrn.
viii., with Lightfoot's note) that the evening
Lord's Supper continued in A.B. 100 and
a little later. See on this whole subject
J. T. Tomlinson's Review of Canon Knox-Little's
Answer to Archdeacon Farrar. London : Church
Association. [F. M.]

COMMUNION, FASTING.— The facts with
regard to Fasting Communion are as follows.
There is no injunction in its favour in Holy
Scripture ; there is no suggestion in Holy
Scripture from which it might be gathered
that it is a desirable practice. It is certain
that not one of the Apostles practised it,
nor any of those who were converted by the
Apostles. It is certain that St. Paul instituted
the Holy Communion in the churches that
he founded at such an hour and with such
an environment that it was impossible that
it could have been received fasting. It is
certain that when some abuses in its admin
istration had been reported to him he did
not alter the hour or the environment of its
reception, but on the contrary ordered his
converts to eat before they received it in case
they felt hungry. It is certain that, till about
the year 110, no Christians received it fasting,
although they were in the habit of fasting
before receiving adult baptism. It is not known
bow soon after that date they may have begun
to fast before reception of Holy Communion,
but it is evident that by the fourth century
they counted it a rule to do so.

When, however, we say that fasting before
Communion was the rule of the fourth and

COMMUNION, FASTING

COMMUNION, FASTING

following centuries, we must remember that
the fasting then demanded was a totally dif
ferent thing from the fasting ordered by the
Papal Church, and urged by some Ritualists,
which dates only from the thirteenth century.
The rule laid down by Thomas Aquinas, A.D.
1270, which is binding on the members of the
Papal Church, is that no meat or drink must
have passed the lips since the previous mid
night, in order that the stomach may be empty
of food when Christ enters it. But in the
early Church any one was considered fasting
who communicated before the midday dinner.
The order of meals was this. In the early
hours a light refection or breakfast, called
jentactilum, was taken ; about midday came the
dinner, called prandium ; and in the evening
the supper, called cocna. Until a person had
eaten his prandium he was said to be impransus
and was regarded as fasting. There is hardly
any, if any, distinction to be drawn between
such a communicant and a communicant of
the English Church, who approaches the Lord's
Table three or four hours after a moderate
breakfast at which no intoxicant and no
oppressive amount of food has been taken,
and before his luncheon or early dinner.
What we should aim at is such a state of
body as would not interfere with the sober
devotion of the soul. Are we more likely to
be nearer that state after a hurried rush from
our beds, which we have left at an unusual
hour, or after the quiet family prayers and the
modest breakfast, and an hour's public worship
in the church with the well-known confessions,
and prayers, and hymns, and lessons used at
morning prayer ? Can any one believe that
the mere fact of our not having eaten since
twelve o'clock at night will make our service
more acceptable to God, or make us more fit
to offer it ?

In matter of fact, the real reason why Fast
ing Communion is demanded by its advocates
to be made a rule of the Church is not because
they believe that the recipient's soul will thus
be in a better state of preparation, but some
thing quite different. Since the origin and
growth of the theory of the objective presence
of Christ in the elements — introduced into
the Western Church in the ninth century by
Paschasius and into the Church of England
about fifty years ago by Robert Isaac Wilber-
force — it has come to be believed by some that
it is an irreverent thing to admit into the
stomach anything on the day of Communion
before Christ, who, according to this theory, is
supposed to be taken into the mouth and to
descend into the stomach of the communicant.
Such a juxtaposition as (1) common food and
(2) Christ is regarded as profane, though the
necessities of nature have obliged these theorists

to see no profanation in the juxtaposition of (1)
Christ, and (2) common food, there being no
difference except the order in which the two
are taken. Logically, no common food should
be taken until the Host, which has become
Christ, had been digested. But a fast of five
hours after every communion would be too
great a trial for even the most ascetic to bear,
so the necessary consequence of the theory is
ignored.

If there were no other argument against
obligatory Fasting Communion than the en
couragement it gives to the false imagination
that the elements are made to become Christ,
that alone would be sufficient to show that the
practice is most dangerous. But there are
many other serious practical objections as
well. Cases have been known where sick
women have been forbidden by their self-chosen
directors to attend the Lord's Table because
they were too ill to rise early in the morning
and too weak to go without food till after
midday. And the controversy on Reservation
has been sharpened by the necessity that the
priest feels to go without food himself until
he has received the bread and wine with
the sick person at whatever hour of the day
that may be. According to the Roman and
Ritualist theory the priest's consumption is
necessary for a consecration (else there would
be no sacrifice), whereas if he could bring a
Host and wine already consecrated, he would
not himself have to communicate with the sick
person, and would thus escape much bodily
distress.

The Church has laid down certain require
ments for those that come to the Lord's
Supper. They are : Self-examination, repent
ance, steadfast purpose, faith, thanksgiving,
charity. It is in the highest degree presump
tuous for any one to add another requirement
which she has not laid down, and to say,
Beside the spiritual conditions required by the
Church, I enjoin a further bodily or mechani
cal condition without which you shall not
come.

The Congregation in Church says : "If
you are really desirous of venerating the
Blessed Sacrament, you will be jealously
careful that no other food shall pass your lips
before it" (p. 95). If by "venerating the
Blessed Sacrament" is meant worshipping the
Host, and if that is considered desirable, the
advice is sensible.

The Ritual Reason Why tells us that "mys
tically the fast before Communion from pre
vious midnight . . . may serve to recall the
'new tomb wherein was never man laid,'"
Here the conceit rests on the supposition of
the read being the Body of Christ in the
stomach.

COMMUNION, FASTING [ 119 ] COMMUNION, FREQUENT

The Practical Religion states : " The Eng
lish Church holds the custom of fasting re
ception of the Holy Sacrament to be binding,
not for anything she herself has said, but
because, as part of the Catholic Church, she
inherits the obligations of a practice which
has universal tradition on its side " (p. 233).
Here the whole of the first century's tradition
is ignored, and further a principle is laid down
which cannot be acquiesced in. See Bishop
Kingdon, Fasting Communion. [F. M.]

COMMUNION, FREQUENCY OF.— When
we have found by experience that a thing is a
good thing, we have a natural inclination to
repeat it. What is good once, we argue to
ourselves, will be good twice : but unfortu
nately, this is not always the case. Experience
soon teaches us the contrary in physical
things. Neither food nor medicine will bear
an immediate repetition. If we attempt it, we
find not only that the second meal or dose
does us no good, but that it takes away the
good derived from the first. Mental actions
are subject to the same law. An act of re
pentance and confession to God, deeply felt at
ten o'clock, cannot be re-enacted at eleven
o'clock with the same fervency, though its
effects may and do remain in permanence.
Prayer, kept up with great earnestness for one
hour, cannot be continued for a second hour
without becoming dull and languid. If a
spiritual exercise be performed too seldom, it
ceases after a time to be valued. If, with too
great frequency, the devoutness which char
acterised it on the first occasion will become
less and less in a systematic progression until
it becomes merely mechanical ; and in either
case the person most concerned will be the
least aware of the deterioration which has been
wrought in him. Is the Lord's Supper a rite
which produces more beneficial effect on the
soul according as it is celebrated very fre
quently or at comparatively longer intervals ?
There are good reasons for its comparatively
frequent celebration, but it is clear that there
are objections to its very great frequency.

1. One of the most valuable parts of habitual
Communion at certain intervals is the prepara
tion made for it by the earnest soul. Our
Catechism has taught us, best of all, what that
preparation should consist in, namely —

(1) Self-examination.

(2) Repentance for the past.

(3) Steadfast purpose for the future.

(4) Faith, (a) lively, (b) in God's mercy, (c)

through Christ.

(5) A thankful remembrance of Christ's
death.

(6) A spirit of love or charity.

Many of us know well the immense value of
such a book as Bishop Ashton Oxenden's Earnest

Communicant. It consists of a meditation, self-
examination and prayer for each day of the
week from the Invitation Sunday to the Com
munion Sunday. What an infinite amount of
spiritual good the 650,000 copies of that little
book have done, especially in the first years
after confirmation, none can say. How solemnly
does the young Christian listen to the Church's
invitation on the previous Sunday to the cele
bration of the Sacrament, and in the evening
before going to bed turn to his or her Earnest
Communicant, and each evening of each day
during the week pour out the soul's heartfelt
supplication^as it meditates and examines itself,
and prays on Repentance, Faith, Holiness, God's
Word, Prayer, the Sufferings of Christ, Love.
Such earnest communing with God as a prepara
tion of this nature supplies stamps a character
blessed and lasting on the young communicant,
and fits him or her to receive the grace which
is bestowed through the ordinance on the
humble, faithful, loving soul. This preparation
would not be feasible with weekly, much less
with daily communion. The special prayers
and meditations and exercises, having become
an ordinary practice, would lose their effect and
force, which they borrowed from the practice
being extraordinary ; and after a time they
would assuredly be dropped, thrust out by other
spiritual needs and aspirations, which must
have room for their expression. The week's
preparation would very soon become the Satur
day's preparation, curtailed as would then be
necessary. And the solemn feeling which
renders it impossible either to turn the back
on the Lord's Table, or to come to it except
with a clean heart and a guileless spirit and
kindest thoughts towards others — how would
it bear the trial of familiarity ? Would not the
service cease to be the sacred thing that it
had been ? Would it not be approached with
no more awe and no stronger resolution than
Matins — unless, indeed new ideas were attached
to it, to which the Church of England gives
no sanction, or unless it might be witnessed
without being partaken of ?

2. The natural consequence of the intro
duction of very frequent Communions is the
growth of a practice of non-communicating
attendance. Encompassed with infirmities as
we are, we cannot be at all times fit for the
joyous feast which is celebrated at the Lord's
Table in glad recognition of t he state of peace
in which we are with our Father through the
adoption in Christ ; nor can we at all times
gather ourselves up into that state of spiritual
energy and warmth which the service demands.
What is one accustomed to very frequent
Communions to do in such a case — to come in
spite of the remonstrances of conscience ? That
would end in substituting ritual observance

COMMUNION, FREQUENT [ 120 ] COMMUNION, FREQUENT

for true penitence. To stay away ? But he
has been taught that it is his duty to come,
and he recognises the ordinance as a means of
grace from which it is wrong to abstain when
opportunity of being present is given. Is there
no middle course ? There is not, but men invent
one. It was shortly after daily Communion
had grown up, introduced not authoritatively
but by the action of individual Presbyters in
the fifth century, that the practice of attend
ance without communicating first made its
appearance. It was unknown to St. Augustine
and was denounced by St. Chrysostom. Never
theless it spread, and in the Middle Ages
became the chief devotion of the people,
known by the name of Hearing Mass. Ana
logously, the same practice, under the title of
non - communicating attendance, has been
springing up amongst ourselves for the first
time after its repudiation at the Reformation,
since, and not until, the enormous increase in
the frequency of the celebrations of the Holy
Communion which the last forty years have
witnessed. Assuming (for this is not the place
to exhibit the easy proof) that non-communi
cating attendance is alien to the spirit and to
the principles of the Church of England, we
have a right to point to the tendency which very
frequent celebrations of the Communion have
to produce that unhappy practice, as an objec
tion to them.

3. The question of frequency in communicat
ing depends to a great extent on the view that
we take of Holy Communion. Is it a memorial
or a means of grace, or an offering, or a sacrifice,
or, if it be all four of these, which is the domi
nant idea of it ? Its memorial character
militates against a very great frequency of
repetition. If we must be reminded of Christ
and His work for us so constantly, it follows
that our love for Him must be slight. If we
think that God requires to be so often reminded
of it, we must have a very inadequate appre
hension of the effects of Christ's passion and
the reconciliation wrought by it, and our con
sequent sonship in Christ — a state that is not
lost and renewed every day, but is per
manent in the faithful Christian. It is not
of the nature of a memorial to be repeated
daily.

If the sacramental character of the Lord's
Supper, as a means by which grace is conveyed
to us, is the dominant idea, a greater frequency
may be looked for, but only such a frequency as
will not interfere with the due and solemn
preparation of our souls for the grace which is
only given to those who are duly prepared. If
that grace followed necessarily upon the opus
operatum, then celebration of the rite should
be continuous ; but this is not so. No good
but harm will be derived if the frequency is

such as to dull the soul's recipient powers of
a benefit which is only a benefit if rightly
received.

If, however, we hold that the chief purpose of
the rite is to offer a sacrifice, greater frequency
no doubt becomes reasonable. But this is a
false view of the Sacrament, which consists in
receiving something from God rather than
giving something to Him. It is true that while
seeking His grace we do make offerings of
our praises and thanksgiving, of ourselves
and of our substance, which may be called
sacrifices — but that is a secondary part of the
ordinance ; while the theory that in it we offer
the sacrifice of Christ to His Father is not only
a dangerous fable and deceit, but an impossi
bility, as in many other ways, so from the
very nature of a sacrifice. For no one can
sacrifice anything unless it is his very own,
first to offer, and then to divest himself of the
ownership of it, whereas no man owns Christ,
nor can he divest himself of Him, as some
thing which he wholly parts with, without the
perdition of his soul. Another effect, then, of
very frequent Communion is to foster the
impression that the sacrificial character of
the Eucharist is of more importance than the
sacramental, and this is an error, although in
a loose and figurative sense the Sacrament may
be regarded as sacrificial.

4. A further mistaken conception is encour
aged which is of grave import. There are two
great classes of Jewish offerings, propitiatory
and thanksgiving. Propitiatory sacrifices have
ceased, propitiation of God having been fully
accomplished on the Cross, and now only to be
commemorated. Thanksgiving must always
exist, and the Eucharist may, as we have seen, be
regarded as an offering of thanksgiving to^God.
But let a man day after day attend the Euchar-
istic rite, and there will insensibly grow up in
him the notion that its purpose and effect is
not only to thank God and to rejoice in the
light of His countenance, but to propitiate
Him ; and so the rite passes over from the peace
offerings to the sin offerings. God is regarded
as still unreconciled until appeased by our
ritual observances. If a man be a non-com
municant worshipper, he will the more readily
fall into this very serious error.

An objection is offered. It is urged that
Holy Scripture and Apostolic practice close the
question, because we read that the Apostles
"broke bread" daily (Acts ii. 46). But it is
impossible that this "breaking of bread" can
mean the celebration of the Holy Communion.
We will examine the other passages in which
the expression occurs. In Acts xxvii. 35, when
St. Paul's vessel was in danger of shipwreck,
and the Apostle was assured of the escape of
the crew, he said to the heathen sailors, "I

COMMUNION, FREQUENT [ 121 ] COMMUNION, FREQUENT

pray you to take meat (food) : for this is for
your health : for there shall not a hair fall from
the head of any of you. And when he had thus
spoken he took bread and gave thanks to Gocl
in presence of them all : and when he had broken
it he began to eat. Then were they all of good
cheer, and they also took meat (food)." Is it
possible to imagine that this means that he
celebrated the Holy Communion at such a
moment and with such an environment ? In
St. Luke xxiv. 30 we find that our Lord, as He
"sat at meat" with the two disciples at
Kmmaus, "took bread and blessed and brake
it, and gave to them." The two disciples, it
will be remembered, had no idea who He was.
Could they have received the Holy Communion
from an unknown stranger ? From these two
passagesit seems clearthat " breaking of bread"
was a Hebrew expression for any meal, and the
blessing or giving thanks was a pious Jewish
practice, answering to our saying grace. The
very passage on which has been founded the
idea of the Apostolic daily Communion, when
examined carefully, shows that it will not admit
of such a construction. " They continuing
daily in the Temple and breaking bread from
house to house (at home) did eat their meat
(food) with gladness and singleness of heart,
praising God and having favour with all the
people" (Acts ii. 46.) "Breaking bread at
home" by itself might be understood of a
Communion, but when we find that the break
ing of bread is epexegetically described as
"eating food with gladness," we see that, as
in the other cases, breaking of bread merely
means partaking of a meal. In the Clemen
tines Peter's eating his meals with a glad heart
and taking his daily bath is emphasised with
the view of showing that the Christian life
was not one of asceticism, like that of John the
Baptist, but one which the Master had deigned
to commend as His own practice under the
name of "eating and drinking." In the two
other passages of the Acts where breaking of
bread is mentioned (ii. 42, xx. 7) it is probable
that the meal specially meant is the Agape".1

1 It is no doubt true that when the Lord's
Supper is referred to in 1 Cor. x. 16 the breaking
of bread is mentioned. But so is also " the cup
which we bless." The Lord's "breaking of
bread" recorded on other occasions prior to the
institution of the Lord's Supper was accompanied
with solemn thanksgiving. See Matt. xiv. 19 ;
xv. 26, Mark viii. 6, 19, John vi. 11, 23. In all
those cases an ordinary meal took place. In the
case of the shipwreck recorded in Acts xxvii. 35,
36, St. Paul after he had taken bread and given
thanks and had broken the bread "he began to
eat," and then those on the ship were of good
cheer and "they also took some meat." The ex-

That the Apostles and their converts held a
weekly Agape, in the course of which the
sacred elements were administered, cannot
reasonably be doubted. At the same time it
should be observed that an administration so
conducted could not lead to the evil practice
of non-communicating attendance, nor to the
belief that the Holy Eucharist is primarily a
sacrifice, seeing that the bread and wine were
received, in the evening, as the commanded
memorial of the departed Lord, nor could it
have led to the idea that the consumption of
that memorial food was a propitiation of God.
It was not till the social meal and the sacred
feast were separated, about the year 110, that
any such misconceptions could arise ; nor did
they arise till five or six centuries later when old
traditions and conceptions were overthrown by
the barbarians being swept into the Church, at
the time of their irruption into the Empire,
without knowing what the continuous belief
of Christians up to that time had been.

We do not fix on any interval between cele
brations of the Holy Communion as neces
sarily the right interval. The Church of
England has not done so. She has ordered
that where there is a staff of many clergy, as
in Cathedrals, the Communion shall be cele
brated weekly. But that she has not intended
that to be the universal rule she has shown,
first by ordering it only as an exceptional case,
and next by ruling that the Exhortation to
Holy Communion shall be read, not every
Sunday, but only when the minister is pro
posing to celebrate the Lord's Supper ; and it
is also, perhaps, indicated by her appointing
how the Ante-Communion service shall con
clude when there is no Communion. The
minimum she fixes is three times a year, the
maximum for the clergy, a weekly celebra
tion. Perhaps a monthly reception may be
regarded as a reasonable medium between the

pression "breaking of bread" occurs in the Old
Testament in Isaiah Iviii. 7, Jer. xvi. 7, Lam. iv. 4,
&c. The act of "breaking of bread " by the father,
or chief person of the family, among the Jews was
considered of peculiar importance, and was
always accompanied with " thanksgiving." Such
"thanksgiving before the breaking of bread"
in all social gatherings is enjoined in the
Talrnuds. See Berachoth, 35 a, 46 a, &c. It should
be also noted that in Acts ii. 42 the article "the"
is found in the original before both "breaking of
bread " and prayers, indicating that those were
both Jewish ordinances still observed by the
believers— " the breaking of bread," the rite in
connection with the family meal "at home," and
"the prayers" those in the Temple, at which
Peter and John attended as before (Acts iii. 1).

[C. H. H. W.]

COMMUNION, FREQUENT

122 ] COMMUNION IN ONE KIND

two, though this, in populous places, would
imply an administration more frequent than
monthly to give adequate opportunities of
attendance. Bishop Cosin declares this to be
the custom of the Church in the seventeenth
century (Reyni Anglice Religio, xvii. ).

[F. M.]

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.— The Church
of Eome mutilates the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper by withholding the cup from the laity.
Her rule is that the celebrating priest only shall
receive the chalice, so that when others of the
clergy are present and communicate, even theirs
is, at best, but half-communion. Four authori
tative arguments were advanced by the Council
of Trent in support of the practice. These
are as follows : — (1) Christ said not merely,
" Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood
hath eternal life " (John vi. 54), but also,
" The bread that I will give is My flesh which
I will give for the life of the world " (John
vi. 51), and, "He that eateth of this bread
shall live for ever " (John vi. 58). But the
teaching in John vi. as to feeding on Christ,
although it undoubtedly illustrates very clearly
the nature and use of the Lord's Supper, yet
it cannot have had direct reference to that,
since this Sacrament was not instituted until
about a year after the words were spoken,
and they would have been utterly without
meaning to those Jews to whom they were
first addressed. Even accepting Rome's in
terpretation for the sake of argument, that
larger statement of John vi. 54 must, by the
well-known rule of interpretation, be held to
include the narrower of verses 51 and 58.
Another similar case occurs with regard to
baptism as mentioned in Matt, xxviii. 19, and
Acts viii. 16, and xix. 5. In the first text
our Lord enjoins baptism "in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost," in the two texts in the Acts baptism
" in the name of the Lord Jesus " is referred to.
Yet the Roman Church does not hesitate to say
that baptism by the latter formula is invalid and
that the narrower statement must be read in
the light of the broader one. (2) The practice
of withholding the chalice is defended on the
ground of its having been practised by the
early Church in time of persecution, and for
sending to the sick, &c. ; as also on the plea
that all the Apostles at the institution of the
Lord's Supper were priests and so might receive
in both kinds. Replying to the first of these
two arguments it may be pointed out that all
the cases contemplated were exceptional Com
munions, made out of church and apart from
the Liturgy. They were also all cases of
necessity. Judging, too, from the continued
custom of the Eastern Church, of moistening
from the chalice the Sacrament reserved for

the sick, it is highly probable that such was the
ancient custom also ; and therefore that these
Communions were really Commuuions in both
kinds. The argument that the Apostles were
priests and so might receive in both kinds seems
hardly appropriate, since Rome excludes all
priests also from the cup when not celebrating.
This is, in fact, no argument, since our Lord
did not take the chalice Himself and withhold it
from the Apostles. (3) Those who receive one
kind only are "not defrauded of any grace
necessary to salvation," because Christ is re
ceived entire under each kind. This doctrine,
that of "concomitance," is based chiefly on
the words, "Whosoever shall eat this bread or
drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "
(1 Cor. xi.27— R.V.) The "or" of the first clause,
however, on which the argument is built is
a doubtful reading. The A.V. reads "and."
But in any case, the language of 1 Cor. x. 16
is perfectly plain, for the grace conferred
under each kind is distinguished, "The cup
of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of
the body of Christ ? " Further, 1 Cor. xi. 27
merely proves intimate association of the two
parts of the Sacrament and not a mutual in
clusion of each in the other. (4) The Church
has the right to change details in the ad
ministration of the Sacraments, and her custom
is to be considered as a law. But if custom mili
tate against the truth of the Sacrament, it can
not be allowed. The early Fathers were of this
opinion. The earliest account, that of Justin
Martyr, tells us that "The Deacons gave to every
one that was present to partake of the bread . . .
and of wine mixed with water." Tertullian
says (De Vel. Virg., i.) : "Our Lord Jesus
Christ called Himself the Truth and not the
Custom . . . Whatever savours of opposition
to the truth, this is a heresy, even if an old
custom." Cyprian speaks of the Deacons
offering the cup to those who were present,
and he says, "Custom without truth is only
antiquity of error " (Ep. Ixxiv.) ; and Augustine,
"Let no man prefer custom to reason and
truth . . . when the truth is made plain
custom must give way to truth " (De Bapt.
cont. Donat. iii. 11 ; vi. 71).

Certain other unsatisfactory reasons are ad
vanced by modern Romanists for withholding
the cup, such as, " The danger of spilling the
blood of Christ, which could hardly be avoided
if all were to receive the cup; the con
siderations that wine soon loses its virtue,
and that the Sacrament could not well be
kept for the sick in both kinds ; that some
constitutions can endure neither the taste nor
the smell of wine ; that genuine wine in some

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND [ 123 ] COMMUNION OF SAINTS

countries is very hard to be met with ; and
the opposition of those heretics that deny
Christ is received, whole and entire, under
either kind" (Grounds of Catholic Doctrine,
p. 31 : Dublin, 1838). It may be sufficient to
say that if these objections had any weight
at all they would have had so much weight
that our Lord would never have instituted
the Lord's Supper in two kinds. Such reasons
can, however, have no influence with any
thoughtful and really devout mind.

The testimony of Scripture is against the
practice of Rome in this matter. It is at
least remarkable that our Lord laid a special
emphasis upon the reception of the cup by
all the apostles — which emphasis he did not
lay upon the other part of the Sacrament.
"Drink ye all of it" (Matt. xxvi. 27), and
another evangelist records that "they all
drank of it " (Mark xiv. 23). St. Paul is care
ful to mention both parts of the Sacrament
in writing to the Corinthians, and if his
words mean anything they must mean that
he expected the laity would continue to re
ceive the cup until the Lord's return (1 Cor.
xi. 26, 28).

The testimony of history is opposed to this
modern innovation of Rome's. The later ad
vocates of this practice freely confess that
for twelve centuries there is no instance of
it, except a few cases in private administra
tion. The Council of Constance (1415), which
condemned priests persisting in giving the
cup to the laity under penalty of excom
munication and burning, admitted that "in
the primitive Church this Sacrament was re
ceived in both kinds by the people." But
Cardinal Bona admits that anciently all, both
clergy and laity, men and women, received in
both kinds in public, but in the twelfth century
many bishops forbade it to the people to avoid
the risk of irreverence and effusion." The
Greek Church, more ancient than the Roman,
still communicates her members in both
kinds.

Finally, the testimony of four Popes condemns
the innovation as a heresy. Pope Leo the
Great declares abstinence from the chalice
to be a Manichasan heresy (Horn. xli.). Pope
Gelasius I., in a letter embodied in the Roman
Canon law (Corp. Jur. Can. Decret. III. ii. 12),
speaking of persons abstaining from the cup,
says, "Let such persons . . . either receive
the Sacrament in its entirety or be repelled
from the entire Sacrament, because the divi
sion of one and the same mystery cannot take
place without great sacrilege." His reference
is evidently to laymen, not to priests, especi
ally since there is no threat of suspension or
deposition. Pope Urban II. presided in 1095
over the Council of Clermont, which decreed,

in its 28th canon, that "No one shall com
municate at the altar without he receive the
Body and Blood separately and alike, unless
by way of necessity, and for caution." Pope
Paschal II. wrote in 1118 to Pontius, Abbot of
Cluny, "We know that the Bread was given
separately, and the Wine given separately, by
the Lord Himself, which custom we therefore
teach and command to be always observed in
Holy Church, save in the case of infants and of
very infirm people who cannot swallow bread"
(Ep. 535, t. 163, p. 442, ed. Migne). The with
drawal of the cup from the laity is forbidden
by Article XXX. Yet in defiance of that fact,
the Roman custom is copied by some Ritualists
who are wont to appeal to ancient usage in
support of the practice, with what little justice
has been already shown. [M. E. W. J.]

COMMUNION OF SAINTS, THE.— This
is the third clause in the third section of the
common Creed of Western Christendom (the
Apostles' Creed in its present form). It is
not found in any Eastern Creed ; certain Creeds
in Greek contain it, but they are comparatively
modern translations from the Latin. In the
Western Creed The Communion of Saints is the
last inserted article. It first appeared, pro
bably, in any widely used form, about the latter
half of the fifth century. The evidence is
briefly as follows : —

There is a well-known Commentary on the
Apostles' Creed (symbolum apostolorum) by Tyran-
nius Ruffinus, of Aquileia, in Italy, written
about 390. He comments on the Creed as
recited at Aquileia, with occasional notices of
variant details in other forms, notably in the
Roman. For instance, the clause, He de
scended into hell (inferno) was used at Aquileia,
but not at Rome. But he makes no allusion to
the existence anywhere of a clause, The Com
munion of Saints. As a fact, we find no indica
tion of the presence of those words in any form
of Creed till at least a century later. The
(probably) first such reference is found in a
baptismal Creed of the South-Gallican Church,
collected from certain sermons ascribed to the
bishop Eusebius Gallus. His date is about
600. Heurtley (Harmonia Symbolica, pp. 57-60)
prints the Creed and discusses the authorship
of the sermons, inclining to assign them to
Gallus. But Caspari, with whom Swainson
(D.C.B., i. 710) concurs, assigns them to
Faustus, bishop of Riez, in Provence, whose
date is about 480. This view is taken also by
Ad. Harnack (Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyclopadie,
s.v. Apostolisches Symbolum). In the Creed, as
restored from these sermons, the three clauses
occur consecutively, as now, The Holy Catholic
Church, The Communion of Saints, The Remission
of Sins. Next may be cited a sermon included
in the works of Augustine (vol. vi. , de Tempore,

COMMUNION OF SAINTS [ 124 J COMMUNION OF SAINTS

clxxxi., in vigilia Pentecostes, i.), but which
must be assigned not to Augustine himself
(06. 430), but to "his school" (Swainson, I.e. ).
Here the preacher, or rather, as it appears, the
compiler, expounding the Apostles' Creed,
quotes this article thus (c. 13), " The com
munion of saints : that is, let us be united to
those saints who have departed in this faith
which we have avouched (suscepimus), in fellow
ship and in the communion of hope." This
sermon is, of course, of doubtful date. That
it is not Augustine's, by the way, is certain
from the fact that Augustine remarks (in two
passages, Enchiridion, c. 64, and Serin, ccxiii.)
that, in the Creed, The Holy Church is followed
at once by The Remission of Sins. " The
clause," says Heurtley (Harmonia, p. 146, but
we note his opinion, given above, regarding
Eusebius Gallus), "can hardly be considered
as established before the close of the eighth
century."

The question arises, what was the probable
motive for this comparatively late insertion ?
Ad. Harnack (I.e.), attributes it to a growth
of views of the Church alien from those of the
second and third centuries (referring pro
bably to the theory of the intercessory power
of departed saints) ; and boldly labels it a mis
taken idea (Missyriff). Others have sought an
origin in the Donatist conflicts (fourth cent.) ;
the clause would thus assert the "holiness"
of the Catholic Church, in spite of its mixed
membership, against the stern purism of the
Donatists. But Kostlin (Herzog-Plitt, s.v.
Gemeinschaft der Heilirjen) points out that the
first trace of the clause meets us in Gaul,
whereas Donatism was a North-African pro
blem, so that an immediate link of cause and
effect is unlikely. On the whole, Kostlin's
explanation seems adequate, that the state
ment did but express the general Christian
thought that the individual member was in
beneficial fellowship with all holy persons and
their divine blessings. No doubt, he proceeds,
as the word " saint " tended (inconsistently as
regards the New Testament conception) to
denote specially the blessed departed (and still
more particularly the eminent among them,
martyrs, and the like), a special reference of
thought in that direction would afterwards
come in. Already the (entirely unauthorised)
belief in the mediating power of such " saints "
was present in common thought, and was ready
to appropriate the phrase. Thus Augustine
himself (contra Faustum, xx. 21) says that
Christians, while never sacrificing (as they
were said to do) to martyrs, celebrate their
memories (or shrines, memorias) with religious
solemnity, "both to excite the living to
imitate them, and to get a share in their merits
and prayers " (ut mentis eorum consocietur

[populus Christianus] atque orationibus ad-
juvetur).

But no individual exposition of the clause,
and no assimilation of its terms by unscriptural
beliefs, in the total absence of any really
authoritative primeval exposition, necessarily
affects its value as an expression of scriptural
truth. And assuredly it is a truth that in the
Christian Church a profound community exists.
in and through Christ, and by His Spirit,
between every true member and all the rest.
We may, and should, in the light of Scripture,
wholly repudiate the thought of a transference
of supposed " merits " from member to member,
and tlie assertion (as if it were revealed) of an
intercession by the glorified Church for the
militant, and the dream of an intercession by
the militant Church for supposed purgatorial
sufferers. But we are not the less therefore
to prize the fact that : —

"One family we dwell in Him,

One Church, above, beneath,
Though now divided by the stream,
The narrow stream of death."

Nor are we the less to prize the living contact
in Christ of all the members of the One Head
still in pilgrimage; "knowing that the same
sorts of suffering are being carried to their
goal for your brotherhood in the world " (TO. afro.
T&V TraOijfJ.aTiav rrj ev T<£ KOfffiy v^Civ dSeX^TTjri
twtTe\ei08ai : 1 Peter v. 9).1

We trace briefly the history of interpretation
of the clause in the Roman and other Churches.

As we have seen, the earliest extant com
ments, whatever be their worth, explain "sanc
torum " to refer to persons rather than things.2
This, however, was evidently not the uni
versally recognised view. For example, in
Heurtley's Harm. Symbolica (pp.91-93)is printed
a curious trilingual Creed (given in Old English,
Norman French, and Latin, clause by clause)
preserved in the library of Trinity College,
Cambridge. Here this clause stands thus :
Halegan hiniunesse ; la communiun des seintes
chases ; sanctorum communionem. In the Cate
chism of the Council of Trent (sixteenth cent.),
where the Creed is explained throughout, the
communio sanctorum (i. x. 21) is taken to refer
rather to things than to persons ; in fact, it is

1 In other words, all Christ's people should
expect trials and temptations. In consciousness
that they form a brotherhood in which such
things are common to all the members, Christ
Himself forewarned His people to expect (John
xv. 33) such trials. And St. Paul speaks of the
common sufferings and of the common consola
tions amid such sufferings in 2 Cor. i. 5-7. — EDD.

2 See by all means Swete, The Apostles' Creed,
S viii.

COMMUNION OF SAINTS [ 125 ] COMMUNION OF SAINTS

applied to participation above all in the Sacra
ments and their blessings, notably, of course,
those of Baptism and the Eucharist. But the
reference to persons is also, subordinately, ad
mitted ; each pious member of the Church has
beneficial share in the holy doings and suffer
ings of all other pious members. Lastly, the
clause is taken to teach that "the truly
Christian man possesses nothing which he is
not to think common to all other Christians
with himself." Here a great truth is well
stated, but one which is not, perhaps, in dis
tinct view in this clause of the Creed.

In the Churches of the Reformation, some
differences of interpretation appear. Luther
(see Kostlin, in Herzog-Plitt, I.e.) interpreted
the clause as if strictly expository of the
previous clause, The Holy Church. He explained
communio to mean the Christian community
(G!ewiemdeder//eiZi>en),andtoteachdistinctively
that all blessings in it are common property.
It is at least very doubtful whether the word
communio can historically bear this meaning ;
certainly its proper reference is not to a body
of participants, but to the participation enjoyed
by such a body. With Luther agree many of
the "Reformed" theologians, though they add
a more explicit reference to the doctrine that
' the elect alone constitute the true Church.

Calvin (Inst. iv. i. 3) deals carefully with
the clause, and gives the right reference to
communio: "Every one of us must maintain
brotherly concord with all the sheep of the
flock, give due authority to the Church, and, in
short, conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock.
Hence the additional expression, the 'com
munion of saints ' ; for this clause, though
usually omitted by ancient writers, must not
be overlooked, as it admirably expresses the
quality of the Church ; just as if it had been
said that saints are united in the fellowship of
Christ on this condition, that all the blessings
which God bestows upon them are mutually
communicated to each other ... If they are
truly persuaded that God is the common Father
of them all, and Christ their common Head,
they cannot but be united together in brotherly
love, and mutually impart their blessings to
each other ... In the very term, communion,
there is great consolation ; because, while we
are assured that everything which God bestows
on his members belongs to us, all the blessings
conferred on them confirm our hope."

The Heidelberg Catechism takes much the
same view, as might he expected. The question
(55), "What understandest thou by the Com
munion of the Saints ? " is answered thus :
" First, that believers, all and several, have
communion in Christ and all His blessings, as
His members; then, that each member i
bound promptly and gladly to contribute the

blessings he has received to the common good
and to the salvation (Heil, solus) of all."

The same is the explanation given in the
Westminster Confession (xxvi. 1).

In Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed
the clause is, of course, treated. We present
a summary of his remarks.

After a brief examination (supported by a
careful note on authorities) of the date of the
clause, as "something later than any of the
rest," he tabulates the different aspects of the
truth confessed " both according to the Fathers
who have delivered it, and according to the
Scriptures from whence they derived it." He
finds it thus to refer to the communion of the
saints with the several Persons of the Holy
Trinity, with the angels, with unworthy mem
bers o'f the Church (in respect of external con
nection), with true saints in this life, and with
all saints " departed out of this life, and ad
mitted to the presence of God." He quotes,
on this latter head, Heb. xii. 22, &c., as refer
ring to " that part of the Church which is in
heaven " ; and cites from the Prcefatio Passioncs
S.Per-peiwce (third cent.) the (not fully scriptural)
words, communionem habeatis cum sanctia mar-
tyribus et per ittos cum Domino Jesu Christo.

This part of the exposition is prefaced by
an inquiry into the proper meaning of the word
"saints." Pearson decides that in this con
text it means the true and living members of the
Church, " who do not only profess the Gospel,
but are sanctified thereby . . . called with
an holy calling, and not disobedient thereto . . .
endued with a holy faith, and purified thereby
. sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and by
virtue thereof leading a holy life."

" The spiritual conjunction of the members
to the Head is the true foundation of that
communion which one member hath with
another." Such " conjunction " is, of course,
not broken by death, and thus our "communion"
with the blessed departed is unbroken.

"This communion of the saints in heaven
and earth, upon the mystical union of Christ
their Head, being fundamental and internal,
what acts or external operations it produceth,
is not so certain. . . What they do in heaven
in relation to us on earth ... or what we
ought to perform in reference to them i
heaven, beside a reverential respect and study
of imitation, is not revealed unto us in tl
Scriptures nor can be concluded . . . from any
principles of Christianity. They which first
formed this part of the Creed, and delivered
their exposition unto us, have made
greater enlargement of this communion, a
to the saints of heaven, than the society of
hope, esteem, and imitation on our * de, o
desires and supplications on their side ; ai
what is now taught by the Church of ]

COMMUNION OF SAINTS [ 126 ] COMMUNION OF THE SICK

is, as unwarrantable, so a novitious in
terpretation."

He quotes under this last statement, in a
note, from Bellarmine (in Symbolum : Opp. vii.
1227 B.) as follows : "The Church on earth . . .
communicates her suffrages to the Church in
purgatory, and the Church in heaven communi
cates her prayers and her merits to the Church
on earth." Which statements, adds Pearson (as
regards the "suffrages" and the "merits")
"are novel expositions of this Article not so
much as acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas,
in his explication of the Creed, much less to
be found in any of the ancienter expositors
of it."

Finally, Pearson discourses on the benefits
of a belief in the Communion of Saints. It
promotes holiness, gratitude to the Giver of
our union in Christ, "ardent affection" for
living saints, "reverent respect" for the de
parted, and practical benevolence. The ex
position closes thus : " They [the truly sancti
fied] have an intimate union . . . with all the
saints on earth, as the living members of
Christ; nor is this union separated by the
death of any, but as Christ in whom they lived
is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world, so they have fellowship with all the
saints that from the death of Abel have ever
departed in the true faith and fear of God,
and now enjoy the presence of the Father and
follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth."

In conclusion, we call attention to an im
portant passage on the Communio Sanctorum in
Dr. C. H. H. Wright's Intermediate State (1899,
pp. 298-303). He refers to the decision with
which, in some recent Anglican writings (e.g.
Dean Luckock's After Death), this clause of
the Creed is claimed as testifying to the belief
of the Church in the duty and benefit of prayers
for the departed. The late Dr. R. F. Littledale
writes without reserve (in a leaflet on Prayers
for Hit, Dead) ; " When we say in the Creed, 'I be
lieve in the communion of saints,' we pledge
ourselves, if we mean what we say, to prayer
for the dead. . . If the departed do not pray
for us, and we for them, there is no interchange
of good offices, and therefore no communion
between us at all." Such positive assertions
assume what we do not possess, certainty as to
the intention with which the words r.ommunio
sanctorum first came into the Creed. As we
have seen, the very date of their first appear
ance is uncertain ; the first expositions of them
are only private ; and in the clause itself some
obscurity attaches to the precise meaning of
communio, and more still to that of sanctorum.
Dr. Wright refers to an article by Theod. Zahn
(Expositor, August 1898), in which he cites
"many reasons to show that . . sanctorum com-
munionem not improbably referred to the par

ticipation of ' holy things,' or sacraments,
rather than the communion or intercourse of
'holy beings.'" " We are not fully prepared,"
continues Dr. Wright, "to endorse this latest
interpretation as necessarily the correct one.
But surely it may be urged that when an article
of a Creed is so doubtful and obscure, it cannot
be employed to establish any disputed doctrine
or practice." [H. C. G. M.]

COMMUNION OF THE SICK.— The ap
pointment of a special Office for the Com
munion of the sick in their own houses is one
of many strong evidences of the Church's
disapproval of the practice of Reservation.
In 1549, when the first tentative Prayer Book
was issued, all reservation was rejected except
that the priest was permitted to reserve a
sufficient amount of the bread and wine for
any sick person who wished to receive it on
the same day as the celebration of the Holy
Communion in church, and if such a case
occurred, he was "to go and minister the
same so soon as he conveniently may after
the open Communion in the church." Or if
more sick persons than one had to be visited
on the same day, the "curate" was ordered
to "reserve" at the first administration "as
much of the sacrament of the Body and Blood
as shall serve the other sick persons," on the
condition that " he shall immediately carry it
and minister it to them." This did away with
the pernicious practice, which up to that time
had been usual, of keeping the bread in the
church for adoration and for bestowing benedic
tions. It was never to be in the church, except
possibly for a few hours if the priest were
accidentally unable to go direct from the
church to the sick beds. These regulations,
valuable as they were, were not considered
stringent enough when the first Prayer Book
was revised. The permission to reserve any of
the consecrated elements even for immediate
use in the sick room was withdrawn. The
whole of the bread and of the wine used at a
celebration of the Holy Communion was to
be consumed in the church immediately after
the blessing, and for each sick person there
was to be a fresh administration in the sick
man's house. Reservation for both its pur
poses, for adoration and for private com
munion, was thus absolutely prohibited,
and a substitute for the unreformed use was
found in the Office for the Communion of the
sick.

These rules of the Church were founded on
the rejection of the doctrine of the objective
presence of Christ in the elements, and of the
prevailing tenet of the opus operaturn. If the
bread were not Christ, then to worship it,
reserved in a pyx or exhibited in a monstrance,
could not but be idolatry, against which the

COMMUNION OF THE SICK [ 127 ] CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE

Church must guard its children ; and if tbe
benefit of the Communion arose not ex opere
operate, from the mere swallowing of the
elements changed into or containing Christ,
but was dependent on the frame of mind — the
repentance, the faith, the love — with which
they were received, then the value of the
service in preparing the soul by prayer and
lesson and recital of the Lord's acts and
words, became apparent. One of the points
in which the Church of England is superior
to any other body of Christians is its Office
for the Communion of the sick.

The English practice is not favoured by clergy
of extreme views. If they could carry with
them the reserved bread and wine they would
not have to communicate, whereas if they con
secrate afresh they must, because they think
that the priest's reception is necessary for
the "sacrifice" which they suppose is offered
by him in consecration, and only completed
by his communion. Having to communicate
themselves, they have to be fasting until
the rite is finished at whatever hour it may
be, because they think (erroneously) that that
is the law of the Church and a "catholic"
custom. This involuntary fasting on non-fast
ing days is a painful process causing irritation
of mind through the craving of the body,
whereas carrying the bread — that is, " Christ "
— in a procession of choristers and with the
sound of a bell, would be a delight, even
though it should as yet be necessary to carry
the wine, that is, according to Anselm's dictum,
"a second Christ," together with " the Host."
Probably it would soon be found that the risk
of spilling the wine or some other difficulty
was an " insuperable " objection to carrying it,
and the bread in the form of a wafer would
then alone be taken, according to the present
modern Roman custom.

Another reason why the Communion of the
sick, as ordered, is not favoured in the same
quarter is that the rubric desires that two or
three persons should communicate with the
sick person, except in cases of plague and
other like contagions. This order, like the
analogous rubric at the end of the Commu
nion Service, forbids the practice of private
Masses, which is displeasing to those that wish
to restore them.

The above are the real objections to the
Office (in addition to there being no consecrated
"altar" in a cottage on which to offer Christ)
on the part of those whose desire it is to
assimilate the ceremonies of the Anglican and
Roman Churches. The objections sometimes
put forward, such as that no " convenient
place in the sick man's house " could be found,
or that the service would be too long for the
sick man if the prayer of consecration were

used, need not be considered, for they are
unreal. Those who in ministering to the sick
have used the Offices of the Visitation of the
sick and the Communion of the sick, not
being themselves at the time distressed by
the importunities of hunger, would grieve in
deed to see pious sick folk deprived of them in
favour of the Roman custom. [F. M.]

COMMUNION, SPIRITUAL.— This is ex
plained by Romanists and Ritualists to be an
earnest desire, or so-called act of faith, by
which a person present at the Lord's Supper,
but not communicating, is said to be able to do
so in thought and intention. Such teaching is
plainly contrary to the doctrine of the Church
of England and the rubrics in the Order for Holy
Communion in the Prayer Book, and is un
known among Protestants generally. The third
rubric after the Office for the Communion of
the sick contemplates spiritual communion, but
of a very different kind. There is no analogy
between persons physically prevented from
receiving the outward symbols of bread and
wine, and persons who deliberately refuse to
<;draw near" to the Table of the Lord when
publicly and solemnly invited to do so.

COMMUTATION. — A term in use in the
Romish Church for the change of a good
work, promised or of obligation, to another
considered approximately equal by compet
ent authority. Thus commutation money is
money accepted for pious uses in lieu of
penance.

COMPLINE.— This is the name given by the
Church of Rome to the service which completes
the daily course of services called the canoni
cal hours. It is held about nine o'clock P.M.,
the hour in which it is supposed by some
that our Lord was buried, and in which He
agonised in Gethseinane. Such services have
no place in the Prayer Book, and yet they
have been revived, and forms have been
prescribed for them somewhat differently
arranged from the Roman.

CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE.— On De
cember 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX. decreed that the
Immaculate Conception of St. Mary was a
dogma of the faith, and since that day belief
in that dogma has been as necessary on the
part of a Roman Catholic as in any doctrine of
the Christian religion. Ritualists do not gene
rally hold this dogma, but there is a tendency
amongst them to allow it as a pious opinion
that may, or may not, be entertained, and they
searched diligently for some support for it in
the early history of the Church. At the first
Bonn Conference, in 1874, Dr Dollinger was
asked by an Englishman present whether there
might not be found some almost hidden rill
of tradition in favour of the doctrine although
the main stream ran in the opposite direction

CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE [ 128 ] CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE

and he shook his head and replied, " None
whatever."

The growth of the opinion of the sinlessness
of St. Mary, which has culminated in the doc
trine of the Immaculate Conception, may be
traced through five phases as follows :

Period I. Centuries i.-v.

II. Centuries vi.-xii.

III. Century xiii.

IV. Centuries xiv.-xviii. and a half.
V. The second half of Century xix.

I. In the first period we must carefully dis
tinguish between opinion within the Church
and without it. In Holy Scripture, it need
hardly be said, there is no indication of any
view which could lead up to such a doctrine
as St. Mary's Immaculate Conception. Holy
Scripture does not tell us who her parents
were, and we do not know. Perhaps her
father's name was Heli, perhaps not : of her
mother's name we are left quite ignorant. As
to herself, it is noticeable that on the two
occasions when she comes most prominently
forward, at the marriage of Cana and when
she and His brethren would have restrained
our Lord from preaching, there is a sound of
reproof in the words addressed to her by Christ.
The opinion entertained within the Church
during the whole of the period was that she
was a pious and holy Hebrew woman, "highly
favoured," but yet liable, like all the children
of Adam, to fall into the sins of infirmity, into
which she in fact fell. Tertullian in the second
century (De carne Christi, vii. 315, and Adv.
Marc., iv. 19), Origen in the third (Horn, in
Luc. xvii. ), Basil in the fourth (£p. 260),
attribute unbelief to her. Chrysostom in the
fifth century declared her guilty of "foolish
arrogancy " (vii. 467), and Cyril of Alexandria
spoke of her failing in faith and understand
ing (iv. 1064, vi. 391). These Fathers represent
on this, as on other points, the sentiments of
the Church of the first five centuries, and we
are surprised at the strength of the expres
sions they use.

But meantime there was an opinion growing
up outside the Church, in the Gnostic and
Collyridian sects, which becoming at a later
date admitted within the Church, has in the
course of nineteen centuries been developed
into the dogma of St. Mary's perfect freedom
from sin, original as well as actual.

As early as the third century, possibly the
end of the second century, legendary tales
about the birth of St. Mary (formed after the
model of St. Luke's history of our Lord's birth)
were composed and published. A little later
appeared similar legendary tales about her
death. These Apocryphal Gospels of her Birth
and Death contained the germ of the "deifica
tion" of St. Mary (to use Dr. Newman's ex

pression in his Essay on Development, p. 409).
The whole affair was outside the Church and
belonged not to it but to Gnostics and Colly -
ridians. It is a "device and deceit of the
devil," said Epiphanius, voicing the sentiments
of the Church of the fourth century.

II. Centuries vi.-xii. In the sixth century,
when the irruption of the barbarians overthrew
old traditions, an exaggerated veneration for
St. Mary crept across the border into the
Church, and the belief gradually spread that
she had probably been saved from the actual
commission of sin by the special grace of Christ.
This was the prevailing sentiment from the
sixth to the twelfth century, the veneration
changing as time went on into adoration, and
the verse in Solomon's Song, " Thou art all fair,
my love ; there is no spot in thee " (iv. 7) being
regarded as scriptural proof of her immaculate
life. In the last century of this period her holy
conception as well as her immaculate life began
to be obscurely advocated, but was vehemently
condemned by St. Bernard as trenching upon
the prerogative of Christ, of whom alone it
might not be said that He " was shapen in
iniquity and conceived in sin " (Psalm li. 5).

III. Century xiii. In opposition to the idea
of a Holy Conception, which equalled St. Mary
with Christ, Bernard urged the theory of a holy
birth. Like Jeremiah and John Baptist, she
had been sanctified before birth. The differ
ence does not seem at first sight great, but in
Bernard's eyes it was vital, because a holy birth
did not involve exemption from original sin and
a holy conception did. The Christian tradition
in this form assimilated itself to the earlier
Mohammedan tradition, which taught that
while others were touched by the devil at their
birth (which made them cry), God drew a veil
between Mary and her Son and the evil spirit, so
that he could not reach them ; for which reason
they were neither of them guilty of sin like the
rest of the children of Adam. Peter Lombard,
followed by Alexander of Hales, Albert the
Great, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, Innocent
III., Honorius III., and Innocent V., allaccepted
and adopted Bernard's compromise, and it was
the authorised belief of the thirteenth century.
But things could not rest there.

IV. Centuries xiv.-xviii. and the first half
of xix. In 1303, Duns Scotus, a Franciscan
friar, went" to Paris to take his doctor's degree,
and he advocated before the University the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with
so much ability that he earned the title of the
Subtle Doctor; and he is said to have con
verted the University to his view. His palmary
argument was that God could do anything and
loould do whatever was most to the honour of
Christ's mother, and as it was more to her
honour to be conceived without sin than in sin,

CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE [ 129 ] CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE

her conception must have been immaculate.
This A priori method of arguing was excellently
adapted to an audience already willing to be
convinced. "Two hundred arguments" of his
adversaries were triumphantly refuted by Duns
Scotus, with the assistance of St. Mary, who
came on purpose to help him ; and St. Bernard
was seen by a monk, dressed indeed in white,
but with a dark patch over his breast, because
"he had written what he ought not about the
conception." All was not, however, yet plain
sailing. If St. Bridget had a revelation that the
Immaculate Conception was true, St. Catharine
of Siena had another, that it was not, for
St. Catharine belonged to the Dominican party-
A fierce struggle between Franciscans, followers
of Duns Scotus, and Dominicans, followers of
Thomas Aquinas, ensued throughout the Roman
Catholic world. The University of Paris re
fused to grant a degree to any one who would
not profess the dogma of the Immaculate Con
ception, and it bound itself by an oath to bring
about the triumph of the Franciscan doctrine.
One section of the divided Council of Basle
pronounced in favour of it. Still, however, the
Dominicans were too strong to be ignored, and
Sixtus IV. ordered that the Immaculate or
Maculate Conception should be regarded as an
open question. But the more superstitious side
was sure in the end to prevail. The oath of
the University of Paris was taken by the theo
logians of Mayence and of Cologne. In Spain
the Franciscans and the Dominicans hurled
stones at one another, but the Franciscan side
was the popular one, and the whole weight
of the Jesuit organisation and influence was
thrown on their side, not because the Jesuits
were interested in the question, but because,
being engaged in a deadly strife with the
Dominicans on the subject of Free Will and
Grace before the Roman congregation called
De Auxiliis, they found it necessary to create
a diversion by organising a Franciscan attack
on their adversaries and destroying their popu
larity in the Peninsula. " Let your Reverence
see that you and yours take pains," wrote
Cardinal Lugo to a brother Jesuit at Madrid,
"to reawaken the devotion of the Conception,
which is very popular in Spain, in order that
by this means we may turn off the attacks of
the Dominicans who are pressing us hard here
(at Rome), having taken up the defence of St.
Augustine on grace. If we don't occupy them
with some other matter, they will beat us on
the principal point of the controversy in the
De Auxiliis." Accordingly the Jesuits threw
themselves into the fray. " By St. James," said
the Jesuit Father Aquete, preaching to the
mob that had attacked the houses of the
Dominicans at Alcalh,, "we must defend the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin with

sword and dagger, by blood and fire ; for the
Virgin would rather be damned eternally, and
live with the devils than have been con
ceived in original sin." The Dominicans made
answer by hurling stones through the Father's
windows (Guette"e, Histoire ties Jesuites, ii. 210).
But the Jesuits had better weapons than stones
or sermons ; they had on their side royal
authority, backed up by popular superstition.
What were the Dominicans to do when the
King of Spain issued an ordinance commanding
all preachers, before beginning their sermons,
to declare belief in the Immaculate Conception,
and the people would not listen to any one that
did not obey the ordinance ? The Dominicans
lost all their popularity, and the Immaculate
Conception became the universal faith of Spain,
as well as the prevailing belief in France and
Germany.

V. Century xix., second half. In 1854, the
Jesuits came to the conclusion that the belief
had now sufficiently permeated the whole
Roman communion to make it safe to declare
the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, and
this they did by the mouth of Pius IX., who,
after a vain effort to walk alone, had become
their puppet, and was known to have a deep
personal devotion to St. Mary, and a conviction
that he could add to her glories by his pro
clamation. A few French theologians and
one Spanish Dominican protested ; the rest
of Latin Christendom for the time acqui
esced.

It may be asked, What harm can be done by
belief in so preposterous a doctrine? What
has it to do with the Christian faith, or with
Christian practice ? Much, in many ways. In
respect to the faith, it takes away from Christ
the unique position of the Sinless One. If it
were true, there would be not one only person,
but two persons, exempt from all sin, original
and actual. And next, it is hardly compatible
with the doctrine of the Incarnation. For if
it were true, the nature which our Lord took
of his mother could hardly be said to be the
nature of man, but a nature peculiar to itself.
With respect to practice, it crowns the system
of Mariolatry, which from beginning to end
we regard as wrong, and it invites to still
further extravagances of devotion to her,
which have already made their appearance.
Being sinless, how can she be considered by
the people, and how can she be, anything
but divine, and a fitting object of worship in
herself ? Furthermore, it must not be forgotten
that the manner in which the dogma has been
imposed on the Latin Church commits those
who accept it to the theory that the Church
and the Pope can fabricate new doctrine on
the false plea of development, and as soon
as it has become sufficiently popular, demand

I

CONCLAVE

[ 130]

CONCORDAT

its belief on pain of the eternal damnation
of those that hold to the earlier faith.

[F. M.]

CONCLAVE.— Alexander III. (1159-1181) de
prived the clergy and the people of Rome of
their right to elect the Pope and vested the
right in the College of Cardinals. In 1274
Gregory X. issued a bull definitely settling the
method of election. Nine days were allowed
for the obsequies of the deceased Pope and for
the journey of non-resident cardinals to Rome.
On the tenth day they were to be shut up. each
with only one attendant, in a common room
called a conclave, without separation of walls
or curtains ; a small window is removed for
introducing the necessaries of life, but the
doors are doubly locked and guarded by the
civil magistrates of Rome. If the election be
delayed more than three days their meals are
reduced to a single dish at dinner and supper.
After the eighth day they were allowed a mere
pittance. Cardinals were obliged to suspend
all their governmental duties and privileges
during the interregnum except in any serious
emergency. See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol.
xii. ch. 69, pp. 295-297, ed. 1819 ; also Cart-
wright, Papal Conclaves : London, 1868.

[C. J. C.]

CONCOMITANCE.— The Roman and Ritual
istic doctrine of Concomitance means that the
Body and Blood of Christ are both received by
communicating in one kind only. The twofold
words of administration in the Office for the
Holy Communion show that this doctrine is not
held by the Church of England. The theory
of Transubstantiation naturally led to the be
lief that, inasmuch as the elements were wholly
changed into the substance of Christ, therefore
the whole Christ, His Body and Blood, was
contained in either element ; and hence that, if
only one element was received, yet Christ was
fully received under that one element. But
once this false and unscriptural figment is
overthrown, the superstructure falls with it.
See Browne on Article XXX., and COMMUNION
IN ONE KIND. It may be also noted that at
the original institution the words were not pro
nounced over the cup until the Apostles had
actually partaken of the bread — for the bread
was eaten at the close, and as part of the
passover feast, while "the cup" is distinctly
termed "the cup after supper" (1 Cor. xi. 25)
— there was an interval between the two parts
given. This fact is fatal to all ideas of cere
monial fasting, and proves the separateness
of the two parts of the sacraments. The
separation was the sign and witness of the
actual death of Christ which the sacrament set
forth and proclaimed.

CONCORDAT.— A concordat was an act of
agreement between a prince and the Pope

usually upon the question of benefices. There
are several notable instances. The Concordat of
Worms, ratified September 23, 1122, between
the Emperor Henry V. of Germany and Pope
Calixtus II., put an end to the long struggle
between the Papacy and the German Empire
on the question of investitures. The Emperor
ceded the power of nomination to bishoprics,
and outside Germany he claimed no jurisdic
tion over the appointments. Within Germany
the investiture by the Emperor was to precede
consecration, and the bishop was acknowledged
to be the vassal of the Crown rather than of
the Church (Robertson's History of the Church,
vol. v. pp. 26-28, ed. 1875).

At the close of the Council of Constance in
1417, separate concordats were drawn up by
Pope Martin V., immediately after his election,
with the German, French, and English repre
sentatives at the Council. The framing of
separate concordats was a device to foster
international divisions and jealousies, and so
to lead to the postponement of genuine
measures of reform. In the German con
cordat, Martin agreed that the number of the
cardinals should be limited so as not to exceed
twenty-four, and that the dignity should be
distributed amongst the various nations. The
English concordat provided that Englishmen
should be admitted to hold offices in the
Roman Curia. The French concordat aroused
opposition and was rejected by the Parliament
of Paris (Robertson, vol vii. pp. 398-400).

The Concordat of Bologna in August 1516
was between Francis I. and Pope Leo X. It
was afterwards ratified by the Lateran Council.
" In case of the vacancy of a see, the king
was within six months to present to the Pope,
a person not under twenty-seven years of age
and having certain other qualifications. If he
should present one not so qualified he might
within a further time of three months present
another ; and in case of delay the Pope might
appoint a bishop, as he was also authorised to
do when a vacancy was caused by the death
of a prelate at the Roman court. Exceptions
were, however, made as to some of the quali
fications in the case of persons of royal or
high title, and of friars who in the statutes of
their order were unable to take the prescribed
degrees. A like rule was established as to
monasteries where the heads were to be chosen
from persons of the same order to which the
monks belonged, and not under twenty-three
years of age. . . . The Pope in order to con
ciliate the king made over to the Crown a
large part of the privileges of the French
Church " (Robertson, viii. pp. 329-330).

Descending to later times, Benedict XIV.
concluded a concordat with Spain in 1753.
He renounced the right of appointment to the

CONCORDAT

[ 131 ] CONFESSION, AURICULAR

smaller Spanish benefices, except in the speci
fied cases of fifty-two, and the King of Spain
pledged himself to compound by a sum of
34,300 scudi annually for the loss which the
Curia would suffer by its concession.

The Concordat of Fontainebleau was ar
ranged between Napoleon and Pius VII.
January 25, 1813. Herein, the Pope consented
to reside in France, and promised to abandon
Rome as the seat of the Papacy. This con
cordat was, of course, rendered null and void
soon after by Napoleon's fall. A former con
cordat in 1801, when Napoleon was First
Consul, had been much more favourable to
the Papacy, for it re-established the papal
authority in France, and gave the Pope the
right of investiture in the case of the Galilean
bishops (Ranke, History of the Popes, vol. ii. pp.
434, 459-464). [0. J. 0.]

CONFESSION, AURICULAR.— Confession
of sin whispered, or uttered secretly, into the
ear (Lat. auris) of a priest. This form of con
fession is also sometimes called " sacramental
confession " because closely connected with
the Romish "sacrament" of penance. The
Lateran Council (1215) ordered every man and
woman to privately confess their sins to their
own priests at least once a year, and the
Council of Trent (canon 6) pronounces an
anathema on any one who shall deny that "sac
ramental confession was instituted by Divine
command, or that it is necessary to salvation
or . . .is foreign to the institutions and com
mand of Christ, and is a human invention."

With regard to the question of "Divine
command," we do not fear to examine Scripture.
In the Old Testament, Lev. v. 5, 6 and Num.
v. 6, 7 are quoted upon Rome's side. But upon
comparing these together it is clear that what
is spoken of is public confession to the Lord,
not private confession to a priest. The Levitical
laws regarding leprosy, again, are cited to as
little purpose. For they have to do with a
bodily not a spiritual cure, and the priest
merely gave the cured leper a certificate of his
cleansed condition. Once more, Romanists
adduce Joshua vii. 19-21 as an example of con
fession to the priest. But Achan's confession
was made to Joshua the civil magistrate, and
was extorted from him that the justice of his
punishment might be manifest to all. In the
New Testament, Matt. hi. 6 and Acts xix. 18,
to both of which Rome appeals, speak again
of public and not private confession. Another,
and indeed Rome's chief locus classicus on this
point, is James v. 16 : " Confess your faults one
to another, and pray for one another that ye may
be healed." Yet no one, probably, would have
imagined ft priori that this text could be
supposed to inculcate confession to a priest
with a view to absolution. Is it not apparent

that the confession is a mutual one, as the
prayer is, and that the object sought is not
absolution at all but rather bodily healing ? It
is highly probable that St. James was alluding
to a custom of the Jews of his day in regard
to sickness. When this experience befell a
member of a synagogue, the elders were wont
to visit the sick person to remind him that
sickness and death came from sin, and exhort
him to confession if any sin lay on his mind,
and then to pray for his recovery (cf. James v.
14, 15). The enumeration of all sins committed
was never required under either the Old Testa
ment or the New Testament, and the Jews
were entirely unfamiliar with the idea of
human absolution. The claim of Rome with
regard to this, as based upon Matt. xvi. 18, 19
and xviii. 18, has been dealt with in another
place [ABSOLUTION].

While no text of Scripture can be fairly
quoted as commanding or even implying
secret confession of sin to a human priest,
many might be cited, both from the Old
Testament and the New Testament, direct
ing or taking for granted confession of sin
to God. It is to this only that the early
Church Fathers exhort. Chrysostom and
Augustine, both canonised saints of Rome,
may be called as witnesses. The former
says : " I entreat and beseech you to confess
continually to God. For I do not bring thee
into the theatre of thy fellow-servants, nor
do I compel thee to uncover thy sins to men."
( De Incarn. Dei Nat., Horn. v. 57, torn. i. p. 490).
Augustine, in his Confessions, wrote : " To what
purpose do I confess my sins to men as if
they themselves could heal my distresses ? —
to a set of men inquisitive in inquiring into
the lives of others, but indolent in amending
their own. And how shall they, who know
nothing of my heart but by my confession,
know whether I say true or not ? " (Confessions,
lib. x. 3, torn. i. p. 171 : Paris, 1672). In
fact, in early times confession was public and
voluntary. It was made compulsory for the
first time in 763 (Fleury, Ecc. Hist., vol. xiii.
p. 390: Oxford Library). In this matter
Rome's own champions contend against her.
Bellarmine says : " The secret confession of all
our sins is not only not instituted or com
manded Jure Divino, by God's law, but it was
not so much as received into use in the ancient
Church of God " (De Perit., lib. iii. c. 1,) and the
Jesuit Maldonatus says : " All state that confes
sion was only introduced by ecclesiastical law "
(Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, Part ii. p. 250).

The objections to Auricular Confession are
not few, and are of an extremely grave char
acter. Indeed to Englishmen, and to Protes
tants generally, they appear insuperable and
impossible of exaggeration. They may be

CONFESSION, AURICULAE [ 132 ] CONFESSION, AURICULAE

grouped for convenience under four heads :
(1) The claim of the priest infringes the sole
right of Almighty God. To Him alone it ap
pertains to forgive sins, and the Jews of our
Saviour's day were right when they exclaimed,
"Who can forgive sins but God only." But
the priests sit in the Confessional as "judges"
in "the tribunal of penance" and possess
(they say) power from Christ to grant or with
hold absolution at their discretion. In the
Catechism of the Council of Trent (Part ii.
quest. 7 ch. ii.) it is asserted that "they are
deservedly called not only angels but even
Gods, because they hold amongst us the
energy and divinity (vim et numen) of the
immortal God." Hence (2) the power of the
priesthood is enormously, unwholesomely, and
unnaturally increased. The priest becomes ac
quainted with all the secrets of a family, and
although what he hears in the Confessional
is received under the seal of silence and
he is supposed to know less than what he
does know, instances have not been wanting
where the information thus supplied has been
used for purposes of betrayal. At any rate
the whole household is at his mercy ; and it
cannot be fitting or right for a husband and
father to know that thoughts which his wife
could not reveal to himself or his daughter
disclose to her mother, are confided to "the
priest." On the other hand should the priest
become acquainted through the Confessional
with contemplated murder or other crime he
is forbidden to divulge his knowledge. Thus
we reach (3) the third objection, viz., that the
confessional is immoral. Priests and peni
tents must there converse on subjects most
immodest. Here, then, is afforded a fertile
source of extreme danger to both penitent and
priest. No shame is allowed to stand in the
way of a full confession, for it is a mortal sin
for any one, even a female, to conceal any
thing in the Confessional from shame. Cor
rupt and corrupting questions are often asked,
details must be inquired into, especially as to
the mental pleasure experienced in the con
templation of sins, defiling thoughts, and the
like. The Roman Catholic Treatises on the
nature of sin by Liguori, Dens, and others,
for guidance in the Confessional, are recog
nised as unfit for publication. The "Exami
nation of Conscience " as prescribed in The
Garden of the Soul, a well-known Romish Prayer
Book, is full of obscene suggestions. Even
children have been thus initiated into the
knowledge of sins whose very names are
unknown to children in Protestant schools.
The priest himself must store his own mind
with all that is filthy and contaminating. It
is not, therefore, surprising, that many priests
have, through the Confessional, fallen into

sin, and many penitents have been thrust by
those who should have rescued them, deeper
into those waters from which they were trying
to emerge. These awful dangers are admitted
by Liguori and others. Thus Liguori exclaims,
" Oh, how many priests who before were inno
cent have lost both God and their soul ! "
(Mor. TheoL, vol. ix. p. 97). Two Popes issued
Bulls against the abuses of the Confessional.
(4) The last objection is that Auricular Con
fession is opposed to the doctrines and inten
tions of the Church of England. The practice
of secret confession was revived in the Estab
lished Church by Dr. Pusey in 1838. It is
still maintained by the Ritualists equally with
the Church of Rome though not so systemati
cally. They teach that the priest "acts in
God's stead," that "he is like a judge pronounc
ing judgment"; that "he acts in the person
of Christ " (Gresley's Ordinance of Confession,
p. 96). They say, "the man who confesses to
God may be forgiven ; he who confesses to a
priest must be forgiven " (Six Plain Sermons, by
Richard Wilkins, Priest, pp. 28, 29. London :
E. Longhurst), while perfect identity with
Rome at this point is thus confessed in The
Ministry of Consolation (p. 34) : "The mode of
making and receiving a confession is sub
stantially identical. The same questions are
asked .... it appears to us somewhat dis
honest to pretend that it is otherwise." Rome
on her side acknowledges that the Ritualists
are doing her work. The notorious book,
The Priest in Absolution, issued under the
directions of the Ritualistic secret Society
of the Holy Cross, 1866-1872, to be used as a
vade mecuni by Ritualistic clergy acting as
confessors, was exposed by Lord Redesdale
in the House of Lords, and severely censured
by the then Archbishop of Canterbury and all
the Bishops present in the Convocation of
Canterbury in 1877.

Dr. Pusey confessed to the existence of the
same dangers to Ritualistic clergymen of the
Church of England as assail the celibate
priests of Rome. "You may," he says to
the former, "pervert this sacrament into a
subtle means of feeding evil passion and sin in
your own mind " (Manual, p. 102). The Ritual
ists have not scrupled to appeal to the Warn
ing before Communion in the Prayer Book in
support of the doctrine of systematic Auri
cular Confession. But if that passage be
fairly examined it will be apparent that the
circumstances contemplated are quite ex
ceptional ; that the benefit sought is, in
part at least, "ghostly counsel and advice" ;
that the minister need not be a priest
at all, but may be a deacon or even a
godly layman (see Homily of Repentance) ;
that the presence of a third party is not

CONFESSION, AURICULAR [ 133 ] CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS

prohibited ; and that the benefit of absolu
tion, so far as it is sought and conferred,
is "by the ministry of God's holy word,"
not by the word of a human priest. That
here "is intended by the Church of Eng
land no licence for Auricular Confession
is evident from the fact that in the Second
Prayer Book of Edward VI. the word
" secretly " which was before attached to the
above Warning was expunged, together with
every allusion to such kind of confession, and
has never been replaced, while the form of
absolution, now confined to the Visitation
of the Sick, was also removed. The rubric
in the Visitation of the Sick concerning
the moving of the sick person to a special
confession of his sins has also in view pecu
liar circumstances, showing clearly that no
regular, systematic, private confession is in
tended, and the absolution is to be pro
nounced only "if he humbly and heartily
desires it." The intention of the Church of
England on the matter is shown by the
Homily on Repentance which declares ex
plicitly against the practice in question in
the words, "It is most evident and plain that
this Auricular Confession had not his warrant
of God's word," and in these, "it is against
the true Christian liberty that any man should
be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it
hath been used heretofore in the time of
blindness and ignorance " (Part ii.). Finally,
as with individuals so with regard to the
nations which individuals compose, religious
doctrines and practices must be testified by
their effects. " By their fruits ye shall know
them." It is the Roman Catholic Continent
which is the home of superstition, irreligion,
infidelity, and immorality. See case of Poole
v. Bishop of London in Brodrick and Fre-
mantle's Ecd. Cases. [M. E. W. J.]

CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS.— The early
Church denoted by a creed either a confession
of faith for public use, or a short formulary
containing a summary of certain articles of
belief held to be necessary for the salvation
or at least for the well-being of him who pro
fessed his belief in them. The earliest names
by which creeds were known were KO.VWV TTJS
iriareus or TTJS a\i)6das, regula fidei, reyula
veritatis, which phrases occur in Irenasus
(A.D. 170) and Tertullian (A.D. 200). " Symbol "
is an expression first used by Cyprian (A.D. 250).
It has been observed that a creed does not
precede faith but presupposes and expresses it.
In Protestant Churches the authority of
creeds depends upon their fidelity to the teach
ing of Holy Scripture (Article VIII.). Both the
Greek and the Roman Churches claim absolute
authority for their Confessions of Faith. Creeds
have been classified under three heads : (1) those

of the Ancient Church before the separation of
East and West in the eleventh century ; (2) the
distinctive creeds and confessions of the Greek
and Latin Churches after the separation; (3)
the Protestant creeds and confessions of the
age of the Reformation.

The Apostles' Creed was originally and essen
tially a Baptismal Confession, the need for
which was the probable origination of all creeds,
our Lord's words in St. Matthew xxviii. on
baptism in the name of the Trinity constituting
alike the starting-point and the model.

Its first commentator is Rufinus (A.D. 390),
who regards it as containing the " first elements
of the Church and of the Faith " (Sect. 38). The
Greek text comes to us from Marcellus of Ancyra
(A.D. 336-341). It may date from the second
century when Greek was the vernacular lan
guage of the Roman Church. It did not super
sede other forms in the Western Church till the
eighth century. The Creed of Pirminius is the
first that agrees in all respects with our present
Apostles' Creed.

It is called " Apostolical " because it contains
the doctrines of the Apostles and the historic
truths which they preached. The tradition
that it was written by the Apostles is valueless,
for (1) the early Fathers made creeds for them
selves which would have been needless had
there been a literally Apostolic Creed ; (2) the
141 Greek bishops at the Council of Florence
in 1439 when the Apostles' Creed was presented
to them replied " we neither have nor do we
know any creed of the Apostles."

The Nicene Creed closed originally with
the words "And in the Holy Ghost." It was
the authorised form of the creed from the
Council of Nicasa in 325 to the Council of
Chalcedon in 451. The present form with the
added clauses (except the clause "And from
the Son") can be traced to the two creeds
drawn up by St. Epiphanius in 374, and most
of them appear as early as 350 in the Creed of
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. There is no evidence
that the last paragraph as it now stands was
officially authorised by the Second General
Council in 381, but it was read by Aetius the
deacon at Chalcedon, in 451, as the " Creed of
the 150 Fathers" (i.e. of A.D. 381) and accepted
as orthodox together with the older form called
" The Creed of the 318 Fathers," i.e. of Nicsea.
The words, " And from the Son," were added
by a Spanish Council at Toledo in 589.

The creed put forth respecting the union of
two natures in the one Person of the Incarnate
Christ by the Council of Chalcedon has great
dogmatic and historic value. But it is not used
as a creed in any part of the Church, and is
merely a " Defiuitio Fidei" on one great point of
doctrinal interest.

The Athanasian Creed is only used in the

CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS [ 134 ] CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS

Greek Church for private devotion ; in fact it has
a higher place in the Church of England than in
any other part of Christendom. It is justly
called Athanasian as containing the teaching
of Athanasius, though it states the Trinitarian
doctrine rather in the Augustinian than in the
Oriental form. But its original form is Latin,
its earliest MSS. are Gallican, and its author
ship is most probably to be traced to Hilary of
Aries or Vincent of Lerins, in the period between
the Nestorian and Eufcychian controversies ( A.D.
428-451). It deals with some matters which
were not under dispute in the lifetime of Atha
nasius. It is rather a hymn in the form of a
creed than a creed proper, and it has some
analogies with the " Te Deum Laudamus."
See ATHANASIAN CREED.

The Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent, 1545-1563, the Creed of Pope Pius IV.,
1564, summarising the former, and the Canons
and Decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870 con
stitute the modern body of doctrine held by
the Roman Catholic Church. But the Triden-
tine Creed holds the highest place as definitely
summing up the judgment which the Eoman
Church passes upon the theology of the Refor
mation and the doctrinal position which it
intends to assume for all future time in con
nection with Protestant controversy.

The Evangelical Confessions range chiefly
from 1530 to 1577, the period of creative activity
in the Reformation epoch. They combine three
elements ; (1) the ecumenical, which they share
in common with the early Church ; (2) the
Augustinian doctrines of grace characteristic
of the later Western Church ; (3) the distinctive
evangelical element revived in the sixteenth
century. The Augsburg Confession is the most
highly esteemed among the Lutheran Churches,
and the only one generally recognised (A.D.
1530) ; next comes the Shorter Catechism of
Luther (1529), used for catechetical instruction.
Melanchthon's Apology is a contemporary com
mentary upon the Confession and is used for
doctrinal purposes. The Formula Concordice
was drawn up by six Lutheran divines in 1577,
and was subscribed by all the Lutheran princes
except Frederick II. of Denmark. It is in
cluded in the Libri Symbolici of the Lutheran
Church, as are also the Articles of Smalkald
signed by the Lutheran divines in 1573. See
CONSUBSTANTIATION.

The Reformed or Galviuistic Confessions em
brace a larger and more national area. The
most widely accepted are: (1) the Heidelberg
Catechism, 1563, used in the Palatinate ; (2) the
second Helvetic Confession, 1566 [the first
was in 1536] ; and (3) the Canons of the Synod
of Dort in 1618. Of the thirty Reformed Con
fessions nearly all have merely an historic
interest. They may be divided into the Swiss,

the German Reformed, and the Franco-Nether-
land Confessions.

The English Formularies. — (1) Semi- Reformed.

(a) Articles to stablish Christian quietness
and unity, 1536.

These were ten in number, put forth by the
king, and are in great measure his own com
position. They are Roman in doctrine but not
papal. The tenth article on purgatory is waver
ing and uncertain. The Pope is called "the
bishop of Rome."

(b) The Bishop's Book, or "The Institution
of a Christian Man," 1537.

This contains an exposition of the Apostles'
Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Ten Com
mandments, the Lord's Prayer, the "Hail
Mary," with Articles on Justification and Pur
gatory. It was the work of the Reforming
party on the Episcopal bench, and represents
the most advanced stage to which Reformation
doctrines attained in Henry's reign.

(c) The King's Book, or "The Necessary
Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian
Man," 1543.

This contains a declaration of faith, the
Apostles' Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the
Paternoster, the Ave Maria, articles on Free Will,
Justification, and Good Works, and a prayer
for souls departed. The Formulary belongs to
the reactionary period of Henry's reign and its
tone is more Romanising than that of the
" Institution." At the same time the papal pre
tensions are even more strongly denounced.

(d) The London Articles of 1538, thirteen in
number, agreed upon by a Committee of
English and Lutheran divines in order to
form a basis of union between English and
Continental Protestantism. This proved abor
tive by the action of the king, but these
Articles are important as showing a link of
connection between the Augsburg Confession
and the XXXIX. Articles.

(2) Authoritative.

The XXXIX. Articles, appearing first as the
XLII. Articles of 1553, and modified at the
Elizabethan Settlement. 1563, and finally com
pleted in 1571.

"The Catechism first appeared in the Con
firmation Service of the first book of King
Edward ending at the answer to the question,
' What desirest thou of God in this prayer.'
The remainder was added in 1604." " In 1552
a Catechism, knows as Poynet's, was sanctioned
by Convocation. In 1561 it was determined to
improve upon it, and Dean Nowell was em
ployed for the purpose. His work, commonly
called Nowell's Catechism, was approved by
Convocation in 1562, but, says Procter, ' not
formally sanctioned, apparently because it was
treated as part of a larger design which was
not realised,' that design being to publish in

CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS [ 135 ] CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS

one book the Articles, Nowell's Catechism,
and Jewel's Apology, with public approval.
The only authorised Catechism of the Church
of England is that contained in the Prayer
Book" (Blakeney: Larger edition, chap. xiv.
sect. 1).

It has often been supposed that the Sacra
mental Section in the Church Catechism was
the work of Dean Overall, but in reality it was
only edited by him from Nowell. But the
edition of the Catechism from which the
materials were taken was not the larger or
Middle Catechism published by the Parker
Society, but the Shorter Catechism of Dean
Nowell approved by Convocation in 1562, 1571,
and 1603. It is alluded to in No. 79 of the
Canons of 1604, "On the Duty of School
masters."

The Homilies (so called from the Greek
word 6/M\ta, meaning a familiar discourse) were
sermons upon the subjects contained in the
XXXIX. Articles, and intended to serve as
explanations of and commentaries upon them
(cf. Article XI.). They appeared in two separate
books — the first, in Edward's reign, the work of
Cranmer, Becon, Latimer, and others ; the
second, in Elizabeth's reign, largely the work
of Bishop Jewel.

Later Formularies which are not authorised
may be briefly mentioned: (1) Nowell's Cate
chism of 1570, which may possibly be a larger
and distinct work from that already alluded to.
(2) The Lambeth Articles of 1595, nine in
number, which are confined to the distinctive
tenets of Predestinarian doctrine. (3) The Irish
Articles of 1615, put forth in a Convocation
held at Dublin. They consist of 104 paragraphs
arranged under nineteen general heads. Many
are borrowed from the XXXIX. Articles, and
some are of a homiletic character. They are
strongly Predestinarian. In 1635 they ceased
to retain their position of authority, the XXXIX.
Articles gradually taking their place (see Hard-
wick, On the Articles, ch. viii.). (4) At the West
minster Assembly of Divines, 136 in number,
held in July 1643, the Presbyterian majority
adopted the Solemn League and Covenant ;
and drew up the Directory for Publick Worship,
the Westminster Confession, and the Largei
and Shorter Catechisms, which are still used
in the Church of Scotland. See Dr. Schaff's
work on Creeds and Confessions. [C. J. C.]
CONFESSOR.— See CONFESSION.
CONFIRMATION.— The act of confirming 01
strengthening ; an establishing or making
good ; a ratification. Confirmation is an ordi
nance in the Church of England in whicb
persons come to years of discretion, and previ
ously baptized as infants, publicly take upon
themselves the vows and promises made for
them in their baptism by their godparents, and

in which the gift of the Holy Spirit is specially
sought for to strengthen in their resolutions
those who submit themselves to the ordinance.
Confirmation is also administered to persons
baptized as adults, since the ordinance is con
sidered as a necessary step previous to coming
to the Holy Communion. (See rubrics at end
of the Office for the Ministration of Baptism to
such as are of Riper Years, and at end of the
Order of Confirmation.) At the same time this
rule is relaxed in the latter rubric in favour of
those who are "ready and desirous to be con
firmed." The rite must be performed by a
bishop in the English Church, and also in that
of Rome, but may be by a priest in the Greek
Church, and it is performed by pastors in the
Lutheran churches and in the Reformed
Church of France. In the Greek Church
there is no imposition of hands, and confir
mation follows immediately after baptism.
By the Canon Law there must be a confirma
tion in every parish once in three years
unless the bishop is unable by reason of
some infirmity, and the ministers are to see
that the candidates are properly prepared.
Although of ancient date, being mentioned by
Tertullian (ob. 225), there is no proof that con
firmation was instituted by Christ, for which
reason the Church of England does not regard
as a sacrament. The Church of Rome, how
ever, does, assuming that our Lord instituted
confirmation either " at the Last Supper or
between the Resurrection and Ascension." We
cannot even aflirm that confirmation, as we
understand the ordinance, was instituted by the
Apostles. But the Church of England claims
in her office the example of the Apostles as
a warrant for the practice of laying on of
hands, and is justified in doing so by Acts viii.
15-17, xix. 6, and Hebrews vi. 1, 2, although the
imposition of hands was then used especially
for the communication of the extraordinary
gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophesying and
speaking with tongues. Confirmation, in fact,
as retained in the Church of England is the
solemn ratification of baptismal promises and
vows with imposition of hands as a sign|of
Divine blessing, and as such was instituted at
a later date. In the Romish Church, the
person confirmed takes the name of a patron
saint and requires a sponsor. See CHRISM.

[M. E. W. J.]

CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS is an
authoritative attestation of the regularity and
validity of the election of a candidate (where the
bishopric is elective) and is also the conferring
upon him jurisdiction over a limited area.
From the fourth century at least, Van Espen
says, "confirmation was held to confer upon
the bishop, not yet consecrated, the power of
Jurisdiction but not that of Order" (Smith's

CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS [ 136 ] CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS

Diet. Christian Antiq., p. 221, col. 1). Jurisdic
tion is not derived from, nor conveyed by
ordination. As, on the one hand, "we give
not to our Princes the ministering either of
God's word, or the sacraments," as our Thirty-
seventh Article declares, so, on the other hand,
all jurisdiction both civil and ecclesiastical is
derived (either by formal grant, or by passive
connivance) from the civil ruler. In England
this is done either by Orders in Council, as in
the case of Bristol, Wakefield, Sodor and Man,
&c., where no Cathedral Chapter has been
organised to conduct the " election," or else as
in most of the older dioceses, by Eoyal Com
missioners delegated by the Crown for that
purpose. These Commissioners are commonly
themselves bishops, but this is not required by
law. and their acts are purely ministerial. The
Eoyal Letters Patent commonly addressed to
the Archbishop of the Provinces run in such
words as these: "We signify you by these
presents requiring and strictly commanding
you by the faith and love by which you stand
bound to Us to confirm the said election," &c.
The Primate's commission runs: "We therefore
being desirous with that duty that becomes us
to fulfil and obey Her [or His] Majesty's
commands in that behalf," &c. And the
Vicar-Geueral, in executing this commission
says: "In obedience to the commands of our
Sovereign, we do take upon us the duty of the
confirmation of the said election, and do
decree that it be proceeded with according
to the force, form, and effect of the said
Letters Patent." Accordingly, this lawyer
pronounces the words : " We do commit
unto the said bishop elected and con
firmed the care, government, and administra
tion of the said bishopric." In the case of
Archbishop Parker, the first Protestant Arch
bishop of Canterbury, the language of the
Commissioners was: "We confirm the election
of the venerable man, Mr. Matt. Parker, by the
supreme authority of the said most Serene
Lady our Queen, committed unto us in this
behalf." Under Edward VI. in England, and
in Ireland from 1560 till 1860, jurisdiction was
imparted (without any election) merely by the
Royal Letters Patent : and in renewing the
charter of the old East India Company, the
Act 53 Geo. III. cap. 155, sec. 51, provided
that no bishop appointed should either have or
use any jurisdiction but such as should be
" limited to him by His Majesty by letters
patent." Even now, under 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20,
the Crown appoints by Letters Patent whenever
the Dean and Chapter refuse to elect the
royal presentee. If the candidate thus ap
pointed, or else elected and confirmed as afore
said, be a layman, he has from that very
moment all the jurisdiction of the diocesan.

Again, during the vacancy of a bishopric the
jurisdiction is exercised by the Dean and
Chapter either of the diocese itself, as at
Durham and at Salisbury, orof the Metropolitan
Church of the Province, as is now more usual.
The Church Times, in an editorial answer to
its correspondents, January 5, 1883, said : —

"Jurisdiction has nothing to do with Orders.
A newly elected Pope even if still a layman
receives at once jurisdiction over the Roman
Church before his ordination or consecration, and
the same holds good of any priest or layman
nominated to be bishop of a Roman diocese,
for he enters at once on all legal powers with
in it. It is thus a mere creature of human
law."

Hence, though the form may vary (as in a
Republic, or in a disestablished Church) the
fact remains always that jurisdiction does not
belong to the office of bishop as such, but is
conferred by consent of the civil ruler upon
the office-bearer to whom the Church has
delegated its representation for the time being.
As Hooker says (Eccl. Pol., viii. vi. 2 and 3), "the
power which Christ did institute in the Church,
they from the Church do receive " ; its exercise
being controlled by the Civil Executive when
ever coercion is needed, or the mundane inter
ests of society are in any way affected.

[J. T. T.]

CONFRATERNITY.— A brotherhood. In
the Church of Rome a confraternity is defined
as "a society or association instituted for the
encouragement of devotion, or for promoting
works of piety, religion, and charity, under
some rules and regulations, though without
being tied to them so far as that the breach or
neglect of them would be sinful." Similar
societies have been introduced into the Church
of England by the Ritualists, e.g. the "Con
fraternity of the Blessed Sacrament," &c. See
GUILDS. [M. E. W. J.]

CONGE D'lSLIRE.— A licence to elect a bishop.
In Saxon times bishoprics were royal donatives
(see Blackstone, Commentaries), but in the Nor
man and Plantagenet period the clergy, backed
up by the immense power of the Church of
Rome, were able to wrest the right of appointing
bishops from the king, who retained only the
useless form of granting a licence to elect. In
the reign of Henry VIII., the ancient right of
nominating the bishops was restored to the
Crown, but the form of cong6 d'dire was retained.
The royal licence is sent to the dean and chapter,
but accompanied by a letter missive from the
sovereign containing the name of the person
whom they are to elect, and if the dean and
chapter delay their election above twelve days
the nomination devolves on the sovereign, who
may by letters patent appoint such person as
he pleases (Whitehead's Church Law}.

CONGfc D'fcLIRE

CONSUBSTANTIATION

It is often charged as a blot on our church
system that the dean and chapter, before elect
ing the sovereign's nominee, pray for guidance
in making their choice, knowing full well that
they have no choice. But it is conceived there
is no legal obligation upon them to use any
such prayer, which is, to say the least, inappro
priate at the present time ; and in some cases
certainly no such prayer has been used. (See
Church Intelligencer, 1892, p. 77.) [B. W.]
CONGREGATION.— The word is of a peculiar
significance in the Old Testament, in the trans
lation of which the LXX. render it sometimes by
ffvvayujr] (our English synagogue) and €KK\ijffia.
It might often be rendered convocation. The
name is sometimes used so as to include aliens,
but at other times it is applied only to Israelies
properly so called (Num. xv. 15). It is used in
the Book of Common Prayer for " church " (see
Article XXIII.), and signifies persons convened
together for public worship. See CHURCH.
CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX.— One
of the most important of the seven Congrega
tions or Committees of Cardinals, and appointed
for the special purpose of literary censorship.
The index (Index Expur;/alorius) is the catalogue
of books prohibited by the Church of Rome. It
was first drawn up by the Inquisition, approved
by the Council of Trent, and confirmed by a
Bull of Clement VIII. in 1595. The earliest
instance of prohibiting books was the action
of Archbishop Berthold of Mayence in 1486,
who inhibited both the printing and sale of
books without a licence. In 1502 a censorship
was established in Spain, which was first exer
cised by the Crown, but afterwards transferred
to the authority of the Inquisition. The Lateran
Council of 1513 established a similar censor
ship when the Bull for the setting up of the
tribunal of the Inquisition in Italy was issued
by Paul III. in 1542. Cardinal Caraffa (after
wards Paul IV.) issued a decree that no book
new or old was to be printed without his
permission. [C. J. C.]

CONGREGATIONALISTS.— See INDEPEN
DENTS.

CONSECRATION.— A making holy ; a setting
apart for sacred uses. In the Communion
Office of the Church of England the prayer
immediately before the administration of the
elements is called the Prayer of Consecration,
and the symbol of consecration is the laying of
the priest's hand upon the bread and the
chalice or flagon in which there is any wine to
be consecrated. The teaching of the Church
of England is that this is merely setting apart
for sacred use and that no change in the bread
and wine takes place, for they "remain still
in their very natural substances .... and
the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour
Christ are in Heaven and not here." (Black

Rubric at the end of Communion Service.)
The doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the
Ritualists is, of course, very different. [TRAN-
SUBSTANTIATION.] In the English Church the
ordination of a bishop is called his consecra
tion. Churches and burial-grounds are conse
crated by the judicial "sentence " of a bishop,
but Archbishop Whately (06. 1863) never used
a consecration service, considering it forbidden
by the Act of Uniformity. In the Romish
Church water, ashes, bells, &c. are consecrated
by a bishop. [M. E. W. J.]

CONSISTORY.— The name given to the Bishop's
Court for the trial of ecclesiastical causes.
The original meaning of the word (Lat.consistere)
is that of a "standing place," or " waiting
room," and was given to the Roman emperor's
ante-chamber when he held his councils and
delivered judgments. It was then applied to
the Pope's senate of cardinals and to bishop's
courts. In several of the Reformed non-
episcopal churches it means a court of presby
ters — a presbytery. But the names of such
courts are not always alike.

The Consistory Courts of the Church of
England were, in mediaeval times, instruments
of great oppression. They are now shorn of
much of their dignity, as their jurisdiction in
matters of probate and divorce was taken
away in 1857, and much litigation which for
merly took place in them is now dealt with
by the secular courts, e.g. matters relating to
tithes, pews, brawling, &c.

The judge of the Consistory Court is called
the Chancellor. See ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS
and Whitehead's Church Law. [B. W.]

CONSUBSTANTIATION.— The doctrine of
the Lutheran Church concerning Consubstan-
tiation is entirely different from that taught by
the Ritualists in the Church of England, as is
admitted by Dr. Pusey and others of that party.
The most important authoritative Formu
laries of the Lutheran Church are the four
following: (1) The Augsburg Confession (Aug.
1530) ; (2) The Apology for the Augsburg Con
fession, drawn up by Melancthon (in 1531) in
reply to the Papal Confutation of the Augsburg
Confession presented to the Diet of Augsburg
by the Roman Catholic theologians; (3) The
Articles of Smalkald, drawn up by Luther in
1539 ; (4) The Formula of Concord, drawn
up thirty-six years after Luther's death, which
set forth the final teaching of the great majority
of the Lutheran Churches of Germany.

The Lutheran Church teaches in these that
in the Lord's Supper there is an actual presence
| of the real body and blood of Christ " in, with,
and under" the bread and wine. Ritualists
maintain that " the Real Presence is attached
to the elements by the words of consecration,"
and is in the consecrated elements prior to

CONSUBSTANTIATION

[ 138 ]

CONSUBSTANTIATION

the reception of those elements by the com
municants. But the Lutheran Church holds
that the Heal Presence is not connected with
the bread and wine by virtue of any priestly
"consecration." The Real Presence does not
adhere to the bread and wine lying on the
Holy Table, either before or after consecration.
The Real Presence is imparted by Christ only
at the time when the bread is being eaten and
the wine being drunk by the communicants.

Thus the Formula of Concord (pars i. cap. vii.
De Coena Domini iii., iv.) affirms: (iii.) "As
regards consecration we believe, teach, and
confess, that no human work, nor any pro
nouncing (of words) by the minister of the
Church, is the cause of the presence of the
body and blood of Christ in the Supper, but
that this is to be attributed to the sole omni
potent power of our Lord Jesus Christ."
(iv.) "Nevertheless, we unanimously believe,
teach, and confess that in the use of the
Supper the Lord's words used by Christ at
its institution are by no means to be omitted,
but are to be publicly recited, as it is written
(1 Cor. x. 16), ' The cup of blessing which we
bless is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ ? ' &c. But that blessing is made by the
recitation of the words of Christ."

Further, the Formula Concordice (in pars ii.
cap. vii. De Coena Domini) quotes, as ought
specially to be noticed, from an earlier
"Formula," signed by Luther and other theo
logians in 1536, the following : —

"And although they deny that transubstan-
tiation takes place, nor believe that any local
inclusion in the bread takes place, or that
there is any durable conjunction outside the
use of the sacrament : yet they grant that by
sacramental union the bread is the body of
Christ ; that is, when the bread is handed out
(porrecto pane), there is also (simul) present and
truly exhibited the body of Christ. For out
side the use (extra usum) while it is being
replaced or preserved in the pyx or [taber
nacle], or shown in processions, as is done by
the Papists, they believe that the body of
Christ is not present."

Thus the Lutheran churches deny that the
priest has that very "power over the Lord's
body," which Lord Halifax, in his essay on
"Worship," maintains is " the distinctive glory
and possession of the Catholic Church.1

1 In The Lord's Day and the Holy Eucharist,
treated in a series of Essays by Various Authors ;
with a Preface by Robert Linklater, D.D., Vicar
of Holy Trinity, Stroud Green. London : Long
mans, 1892. See p. 23. The awful meaning of
such a pretended "power over the Lord's body"
is drawn out more fully by Alphonsus Liguori in
his Visits to the Holy Sacrament. See the quota-

Hence an anathema is hurled against the
Lutheran doctrine in Canon iv. of the Thir
teenth Session of the Council of Trent : " If
any one shall say that when consecration has
taken place there is not the body and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ in the wonderful
sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in its
use while it is being taken (sed tantum in usu,
dum sumitur), but not before or after, and that
in the hosts or consecrated particles, which
are reserved or remain over after communion,
there does not remain the true body of the
Lord, let him be anathema."

Moreover, in the Russian office for the re
ception of a Lutheran into the so-called Ortho
dox Church, the following question is put : —
" Dost thou renounce the erroneous opinion
that in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist
the bread is not changed into the body of
Christ, and does not remain the body of
Christ; and that the wine is not changed into
the blood of Christ, and does not remain the
blood of Christ ; but that the presence of the
body of Christ is in some manner only for a
short time in contact with the bread, which
still remains simple bread?"2 The question
shows clearly the interpretation the Russo-
Greek Church puts upon the teaching of the
Lutheran Church.

The Lutheran Church denounces in distinct
terms the doctrine that the Lord's Supper is a
sacrifice, and denies that it is offered up for
the sins of the living and the dead. The
Lutheran doctrine on that point will be
found in the Articles of Smalkald. It is
there affirmed that "the Mass" is "the
greatest abomination in this Popish Church,"
"the most specious of all Popish idolatries."
The Mass is asserted to have produced "many
abominations and idolatries," and it is af
firmed, "When the Mass falls, Popery will
fall also."

Erroneous, therefore, as the Lutheran doc
trine may be, it is still Protestant, because it
distinctly denies the idea of a sacrifice being
made in the Lord's Supper, and opposes the
notion of "Eucharistic adoration," and the
idea of any veneration being paid to the con
secrated bread and wine. The Lutheran doc
trine puts an end to all " reservation " of the
elements. The Lutheran doctrine on the
Lord's Supper is, therefore, far from identical

tion in my Primer of Roman Catholicism (Religious
Tract Society, price Is. ), p. 54, also at pp. 78-9.

2 We quote from the translation given by
Mr. W. J. Birkbeck in The Guardian of April 7,
1897. See also my Service of the Mass in the
Greek and Roman Churches (published by the
Religious Tract Society in two forms, at Is. and
8d.), at pp. 94 ff.

CONSUBSTANTIATION

[ 139 ]

CONTRITION

with the Ritualistic teachings of the present
day, and it may fairly be pronounced clear
from idolatrous tendencies.

The Church of England, however, distinctly
denies that the wicked eat the body of Christ
in the Lord's Supper, which is affirmed by the
Lutherans. The Articles of Smalkald state that
" the true body and blood of Christ is not only
given and received by pious, but also by im
pious Christians." That doctrine is expressly
repudiated in the 29th Article of the Church
of England, entitled, "Of the wicked which
eat not the body of Christ in the use of the
Lord's Supper." The Article reads: "The
wicked and such as be void of a lively faith,
although they do carnally and visibly press
with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet
in no wise are they partakers of Christ : but
rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink
the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."

The phrase there quoted from Augustine is
"do carnally and visibly press with their teeth
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ."
The words of the Article which follow were
inserted in opposition to the well-known doc
trine of Luther. For the doctrine of Luther,
as set forth by his adherents in the Formula
Concordice (pars ii.), is that there is a double
eating (manducatio) of the flesh of Christ.
" One spiritual, concerning which principally
Christ treats in the sixth chapter of the Gospel
of St. John, which takes place in no other way
(non olio modo) than by the spirit, and by faith
in the preaching of, and meditation on, the
Gospel, no less than when the Supper of the
Lord is taken worthily and in faith. This
spiritual eating is by itself useful and salutary,
and is for all Christians, and, indeed, at all
times is necessary for salvation. . . . There
fore, to eat spiritually is nothing else than to
believe in the Word of God which is preached : "
in which, the Formula proceeds to say, Christ
is set forth as the way of salvation, saving
us by His blood, applied by faith. But the
Formula further goes on to state that there is
another eating of the body of Christ, namely,
"the sacramental eating which is done with
the mouth." In opposition to the latter theory
the 29th Article asserts that "the wicked in
no wise (nutto modo is the Latin of the Article)
are partakers of Christ." Hence that Article
distinctly negatives the Lutheran dogma.

[C. H. H. W.]
CONTRITION.— Deep sorrow for having dis
pleased God by wrong conduct.

Contrition in man is the one condition of
forgiveness by God. It is not necessary to
quote passages from the Bible in proof. It is
the lesson of Holy Scripture from one end of
it to the other, that where there is contrition

there is forgiveness ; and that lesson is incul
cated so clearly that none dare deny it. But
this creates a difficulty in the theory of the Con
fessional. (See ABSOLUTION.) For if contrition
at once brings Divine pardon, what is the use of
a subsequent absolution ? On the Protestant
view of absolution it is of value, because it con
veys an assurance, to one who cannot assure him
self, of that forgiveness which is granted on true
contrition ; but on the late mediaeval and modern
Roman theory of absolution being the actual
conveyance of pardon by a priest to the con
trite penitent, we have to ask why the forgive
ness which has been already given on contrition
should be given a second time on absolution ?
This cuts at the root of the Confessional, that
is, of the habitual practice of confession as a
part of the normal life of a Christian for the
purpose of procuring pardon. There are
moments doubtless in the lives of one and
another when the soul may be so overwhelmed
with the horror of realised sin as to be unable
to convince itself of God's forgiveness, and
then a solemn assurance by God's minister of
the infinite mercy of God may hold up and
comfort the troubled spirit. But these are
exceptional cases ; the rule is, that whenever
there is contrition, then the sinner may be
certain of forgiveness whether or no an absolu
tion follows. This being so, the advocates of
obligatory confession and absolution are em
barrassed to find a valid reason for insisting on
their use. This they think they do by dis
covering another way to forgiveness beside
that of contrition. Contrition brings with it
pardon : it cannot be denied. But suppose
that a man, instead of having grief at having
displeased God, has only dread of punishment
in this world or the next, will that be sufficient
for securing his pardon ? By itself, it is
argued, it will not ; but add to it sacramental
confession and absolution, and then it will.
This grief arising from dread is called attri
tion. A way is thus found for forgiveness
without the love of God, or grief at having
offended Him. "If attrition were not suffi
cient to effect remission," says Alfonso de'
Liguori, "but contrition was required, all
penitents would come to the sacrament (of
penance) already justified, for contrition justi
fies a man without the sacrament " (Theol. Mor.,
vi. 440). The reason why attrition is sufficient,
is that "the sacrament has the virtue of doing
away with sins" (ibid. 442). Attrition and
"the virtue of the Keys" are equivalent to
contrition (ibid.). We see therefore that, in
stead of being a way of drawing souls nearer
to God, the Confessional is a device whereby a
sinner can obtain pardon for his sins without
having love of God, provided he "elicits in
himself an act of sorrow," arising from the

CONTRITION

[ 140 ]

CONVERSION

lower motive, within a day or so of his con
fession, and shows that his sorrow still exists
by asking or waiting for absolution (ibid. 445)
God says, I will pardon all contrite sinners and
none that are not contrite. But I, says the
Church of Rome, will grant pardon to those
who are not contrite : be attrite, confess, be
absolved and do the appointed penance, and
you secure pardon as well as if you were
contrite.

Ritualist manuals do not yet seem to have
accepted the theory of attrition. The Catholi
Religion says bluntly, "without contrition con
fession is of no avail. " The Practical Religion
goes further : " Repentance from any such
lower motives as fear of punishment, vexation
at present loss, or a suffering resulting from
sin, or wounded pride, is imperfect, if not sin
ful : it is to be regretted and even needs to be
repented of" (p. 80). That is satisfactory;
but those who demand the presence of contri
tion in confession must give up belief in
absolution as a conveyance of pardon, and
with Protestant Churchmen must regard it
only as an assurance of pardon already given.
See ABSOLUTION and ATTEITION. [F. M.]
CONVERSION. —This term is commonly used
to denote a decisive change or act of turning
to God, as the primary manifestation of the
spiritual life which has begun in any soul.
The word, however, as will be seen, has a much
wider application in Holy Scripture. The
etymology of " conversion " and the cognate
verb "convert," derived as they are from the
Latin converto, to turn, undoubtedly indicates
as the root meaning of "Conversion" that
change of position or relationship which we
understand to be effected by the motion of
turning. This is equally the case with regard
to the Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament
viz., n-IB', and rn-1K> (isa. xxx. 15, only), and the
Greek words of the Septuagint and the New
Testament, <npt(j>ei.v, tiriffrptyfiv tirivrpoip-t) (Acts
xv. 3, of New Testament only). Indeed these
same words are used in the Scriptures alike of
bodily motion and of an intellectual or spiritual
change of attitude (e.g. Matt. ix. 22 ; 1 Peter ii.
25). Hence Conversion, in its moral and spiritual
sense, is a turning of the witt through its submission
to grace, in a new direction, whereby a person breaks
with the past, and that whether it has been the way
of sin or a fahe way of righteousness. In fact,
Conversion is ever in some way a turning from
sin to holiness, or from the love of self and the
world to the love and service of God. A highly
important question, then, with respect to
Conversion is, in what sense and to what extent is
it necessary ? In other words, is Conversion a
definite act necessarily referable to some exact
time and place ? Is such a conscious act
needful for all, and must such act be effected

once for all, or is it capable of repetition ?
Now, there can be no doubt that for some,
indeed for very many alas ! such an entire and
absolute turning round, such a complete
change in the whole tenor of their lives, is
necessary and indispensable. Some persons
have lived so completely away from God, have
been, whether positively or negatively, so
entirely opposed to Him, that for them to
serve Him, to walk with Him at all, there must
be a complete, if not more or less sudden,
turning round. A case in point was that of
the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who, although
a Pharisee of the Pharisees as concerned strict
observance of the Law, harassed the Church of
God, and therefore must needs be humbled to
the dust and ask of the Jesus whom he had
persecuted, in tones of whole-hearted submis
sion, "Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?"
(Acts ix. 6). But not even in such cases is it
always obligatory or even possible that Con
version be dated from some particular moment
of time and environment of circumstances.
There are sometimes, and possibly usually,
certain steps and stages which precede any
great spiritual crisis. Even with respect to
St. Paul's conversion, sudden as it may appear
to have been, that moment on the road to
Damascus had been prepared for or led up to
by the experiences of the Apostle himself. This is
evident from the words uttered by the Divine
Voice, " It is hard for thee to kick against the
goad" (Acts xxvi. 14, R.V.). The goad of
conviction, the sharp sting of conscience, the
striving of the Spirit, haddoubtless been going
on in the heart of the persecutor at least since
" the witnesses " who stoned the Proto-Martyr
"laid down their clothes at a young man's
feet whose name was Saul " (Acts vii. 58). But
for other persons, for many who are brought up
by Christian parents, or sponsors, or guardians,
to "lead a godly and a Christian life" in
harmony with that beginning which was made
at the font, no such Conversion may happen
as one great, conscious, and clearly-defined
dividing line in their religions life, and none
such can be rightly declared to be, in their case,
necessary. For the New Testament does not
appear to teach that this first and clearly-
marked Conversion is necessary for salvation
to every baptized Christian. But that portion
of God's Word does teach that there are other
Conversions or turnings than this first original
one, and that many more than one Conversion
may take place as regards the same person. It
cannot, for instance, be doubted that the
Apostles had experienced the original Con
version already referred to a considerable
time before our Lord addressed to them the
warning, " Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not (ov /u??) enter into

CONVERSION

CONVERSION

the kingdom of heaven " (Matt, xviii. 3). Evi
dently, in Scripture language, since Conversion
means a turning of the soul to God (though the
time of this act may not be known to the
believer), subsequent turnings may, in a sub
ordinate sense, be termed Conversions (see
Luke xxii. 32). In fact, subsequent turnings
are consequences and evidences of the first turn
ing (cf. John xiii. 10). Conversion, then, must
be a turning at any time from any recognised sin
or want of likeness to God to that holiness
of life which such sin or imperfection has
hindered. This may occur clearly many
times in a life, and, doubtless, the scriptural
view of Conversion is not so much that it is a
single definite act in a Christian's experience
as that it is an act which expresses itself in
a repeated process, being, like repentance, a
habit or reiterated action rather than a soli
tary act or experience.

Thus, it is sometimes said that "since the
Church teaches that Christians are born again
in Baptism, Conversion cannot be necessary."
But, as everybody who falls into sin after
Baptism needs Conversion, there is no difficulty
here. It is also asserted that "the one thing
needful is to be born again : this is Con
version ; therefore Baptism, when we pray
for Regeneration1 in the case of an infant,
and which is the sign and seal of it in the
case of adults, is not really needful." Conver
sion, however, is not identical with Regenera
tion, but, strictly speaking, is a consequence
following upon Regeneration, and regards
rather the human side of the great spiritual
change, while Regeneration views it from the
Divine side. Conversion differs from Re
generation, because it is not a change in the

1 The word " regeneration " occurs only in two
passages, Matt. xix. 28 and Titus iii. 5, and the
second passage is the only one in which baptism
is spoken of. But it is open to question whether
" the laver of regeneration " imparts regeneration
or symbolises it. The word \ovrp6v there used
occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in
Eph. ii. 36, where it signifies washing. It is
employed uniformly in that sense in the LXX.
The LXX. use for laver another word (\ovr-/ip).
Our Lord's words in John iii. 6 distinctly mean
a thorough change, such as is described in
Rom. viii. 6 and 14. We may well affirm that
those who do not exhibit the fruit of the spirit
(Gal. v. 22-24) cannot have been born of God.
Furthermore St. John constantly speaks of be
lievers as "children of God." See 1 John ii. 29,
1 John iii. 9, 1 John v. 1, 4, 18. We contend
that these passages perfectly justify the identifi
cation for all practical purposes of "regenera
tion" and "conversion," or a true and complete
turning to God.— C. H. H. W.

governing disposition, but a manifestation of the
change already taken place. It is the soul
evidencing its new or higher life. Regeneration
is the passive reception of a Divine life, a change
wrought by the Holy Spirit only, and is the
beginning of a new kind of life, which gives
another direction to the judgment, desires,
aims, pursuits, and conduct ; whereas Con
version is the active returning to the Lord in
repentance and faith. "Regeneration and
Conversion," it has been said, " may be dis
tinguished as a man's being disposed to go in
a certain road and his actually going in that
road may be distinguished. For Regeneration
is God's disposing the heart to Himself, but
Conversion is the actual turning of the heart
to God" (R. Cecil, Remains, p. 362, 12th
Edition).

The relation of Conversion to Repentance
and Faith is an important topic, because in
volving the subject of the agency in Conver
sion. Can a man play any part, and, if so, what
part, in his own conversion ? Upon the answer
to this question one of our Lord's parables —
that of the Prodigal Son— throws light. In the
two parables which immediately precede this
— those of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Piece
of Silver — Conversion is viewed from the Divine
side only, being shown to be the outcome and
effect of the free grace, loving mercy, and
sovereign power of Almighty God. But in the
parable of the Prodigal Son an addition is
made to the truth already disclosed, viz., that
man also has his part to play in Conversion,
that in this he is a co-worker together with
God. The conversion of the Prodigal Son
follows upon his "coming to himself" and
forming a resolution. " When he came to him
self he said ... I will arise and go to my
Father" (Luke xv. 17-19). In the words of
another parable "he repented, and went"
(Matt. xxi. 29). Conviction is ever the pre
cursor of Conversion, and conviction is a special
portion of the work of the Holy Spirit (John
xvi. 8). But repentance and faith are neces
sary concomitants of any true conversion
though they do not terminate in and with it,
but rather are prolonged and continued as part
of its effects. But the grace being given, or
proffered, effectual Conversion is conditioned
by man's free will. The Holy Ghost may be
"resisted" (Acts vii. 51) and even "quenched"
(1 Thess. v. 19), the man's conversion may be
delayed and hindered (Luke xiii. 3, 6-9). The
Prodigal in the parable might have stifled his
convictions on coming to himself, might have
faltered in, and failed to carry into effect, his
resolution. On the other hand, a person may
play a part in bringing about his own conver
sion by putting himself in the way of good
influences and avoiding the opposite. An

CONVERSION

[ 142 ]

CONVOCATION

instance of this is seen in the case of Lydia,
"whose heart," as she listened to the Apostle,
"the Lord opened, that she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul " (Acts xvi.
14). As one of our Lord's parables, so one also
of His miracles illustrates the truth of man's
co-operation with God in the important matter
of Conversion. In the case of the Restoring
of the Man with the Withered Hand (Matt. xii.
10-13), the command " Stretch forth thy hand "
carried with it the power to obey the order,
which gift of power was realised by the man
upon exercising his will. With the representa
tion of man as unable of his own power to
convert himself, the Church of England is in
entire accord. In Article X. she says : " The
condition of man after the fall of Adam is
such, that he cannot turn (sese convertere) and
prepare himself, by his own natural strength
and good works, to faith, and calling upon
God : wherefore we have no power to do good
works pleasant and acceptable to God, without
the grace of God by Christ preventing us that
we may have a good will, and working with us,
when we have that good will."

Such appears to be the doctrine relating to
Conversion as given in the Holy Scriptures, viz.,
that while the original and potential con
verting impulse comes from God Himself, to
man also belongs an active share in the perfect
completion of that Conversion. The Word of
God does not seem to countenance that view
of the subject which is not infrequently held,
especially outside the Church of England, i.e.
that towards Conversion man can, and is ex
pected to do nothing, but to remain passive as
far as goodness is concerned, or even actively
opposed to it, till some Divine afflatus con
verts him perforce to God. There can be little
doubt that the A.V.'s unfortunate rendering
in the passive form of the Greek words for
"convert" in the New Testament, and in one
instance of the Hebrew in the Old Testament
(Ps. li. 13), has had a large share in producing
this erroneous view of Conversion. Isa. vi. 10 is
quoted three times in the New Testament, viz.
in Matt. xiii. 15, Mark iv. 12, and John xii. 40.
In every one of these cases the A.V. has " be
converted," whereas the word is rendered in
the passage itself intransitively, "and con
vert." Our Lord's words in Matt, xviii. 3,
which are translated, " except ye be converted,"
&c., and are frequently quoted as implying the
universal necessity of a first conscious con
version, in reality had reference to a necessary
specific change in the disposition of the Twelve
at the time, and should read, " except ye
convert," or, as in the E.V., "Except ye turn
and become as little children," &c. Even Acts
iii. 19 (the only remaining passage in the New
Testament in this connection not hitherto

referred to) should be rendered in the same
way, "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that
your sins may be blotted out, that so there
may come seasons of refreshing from the
presence of the Lord" (R.V. ). In connection
with the mention of "seasons of refreshing,"
it is interesting to note that the Hebrew word
3-l£>, which means to "turn " or "bring back,"
when followed by &?£>?., soul, is used in the sense
of to bring back life or to refresh. Comp. Ps.
xix. 8 and Judges xv. 19.

The great test of Conversion is the character
of the life, and the only complete proof of con
version is ultimate victory. The importance of
the true doctrine of Conversion cannot but be
very great, but greatly dangerous and fanatical
also are those perversions of the true doctrine,
which, on the one hand, assert that where
there has been baptism there is no need of
Conversion, or on the other hand, demand
that rare and extraordinary examples of so-
called sudden Conversion are to be made the
general rule, or which (as is done by the Salva
tion Army) elevate Conversion so far beyond
its true position as to render the sacrament
of Baptism, not only insignificant by compari
son, but unnecessary. Here also the truth of
the ancient direction holds good — "7n mediis
tutissimus ibis." [M. E. W. J.]

CONVOCATION is the English term for what
is known on the Continent as a "provincial
council." It is an assembly of the clergy of
a "province." In Canterbury and York there
are two Houses, the Upper comprising the
archbishop and bishops, and the Lower com
prising deans, archdeacons, and suffragan
bishops, and proctors, who are the elected
representatives of the beneficed clergy and
cathedral chapters. Non-beneficed clergy and
the laity have no vote and are not repre
sented. The Lower House of Canterbury num
bers about 160 members, and that of York
about 80 members (Whitehead, Church Law).
The Convocations were really assemblies of
clerical freeholders, and were modelled upon
Parliament thus : "In his convocation the arch
bishop sat as king, his suffragans sat in the
Upper House as his peers, the Lower House
represented the Commons." The Lower House
has its Speaker called the Prolocutor. Convo
cation "in some shape is probably older than
Parliament. In the time of Edward I. and
Edward II. there were attempts made, partially
and temporarily successful, to incorporate it
into Parliament. The clergy are still summoned
in the writs addressed at the beginning of each
Parliament to the archbishops and bishops of
England, though this has long ceased to be
anything more than an obsolete form. The
old writ remains as a piece of evidence, but
the separation of Convocation has been com-

CONVOCATION

[ 143]

COPE, THE

plete since the days of Richard II. if not of
Edward III. In Convocation the clergy not
only passed canons but also taxed themselves."
This was part and parcel of the preposterous
claim of the clergy in Romish times to be out
side the ordinary laws of the realm, a subject
discussed under BENEFIT OF CLERGY. They
were practically under the control of the Pope.
The raison d'etre of Convocation was rudely
shaken by the Reformation, the effect of which
was to make clergy and laity alike subjects of
the Crown only, and to destroy their allegiance
to any foreign prince or potentate, and their
claims to privileges as aliens. The Convocations
continued, however, to meet for the purpose
of taxing themselves till 1665, after which,
having become obsolete, they only met spasmo
dically and intermittently as debating societies.
From 1717 to 1852 only formal meetings were
held ; but in the latter year Canterbury Con
vocation met and discussed various matters,
an example followed by York in 1861. The
Convocations are, however, obviously not cal
culated to play the part of a representative
Church body, and various schemes of reform
have been prepared. One of them has been
presented to Parliament in the shape of the
Convocations Bill, 1901 ; the weak spot in which
is that no provision is made for the adequate
and independent representation of the laity.
The laity are the Church, the clergy are merely
those members of the Church who are selected
to teach and hold office. It follows, therefore,
that the laity must have a preponderating
influence in any Synod which claims to be the
governing body. This view has been adopted
by the Church of Ireland, its governing body
being the "General Synod" which consists
of a house of bishops of 13 members, and a
house of representatives comprising 208 clerical
and 416 lay members.

The defects in the constitution of the
English Convocations are, however, counter
balanced by the fact that those bodies are per
fectly powerless. They have little legislative
powers, and no control over the clergy. See
Whitehead's Church Law.
COPE, THE. — An ecclesiastical vestment.

The cope, like the chasuble, was originally
an outdoor garment worn by laymen, monks,
and clergy. Isidore of Seville is the first person
that mentions it, A.D. 620, and he derives its
name, capa, from its embracing, capit, the
whole man. It originally had a hood to draw
over the head, and was sometimes called
pluviale as being a protection against bad
weather. It was a long cloak, reaching to
the ground behind, open in front, but brought
together by a clasp or button. It was natu
rally used by ecclesiastics at ceremonial meet
ings and outdoor processions, and so it came to

be regarded as a processional dress. Durandus'
account of its symbolical meaning, A.D. 1250,
is as follows : " It is embroidered with fringes,
which are labours and cares of this world. It
has a hood, which is heavenly delight. It is
long, reaching to the feet, which signifies
perseverance to the end. In front it is open,
to denote that eternal life is open to men of
holy life, and that the wearer's life ought to
be an open example to others. By the cope
we also understand the glorious immortality
of our bodies, for which reason we only wear
it on the greater festivals ; having respect to
the future resurrection when the elect, laying
aside the flesh, will receive two garments, rest
of soul and glory of body. This vestment is
very properly of ample size, and its sides are
joined in front by only one necessary fastening,
because in that day the body, rendered spiritual,
will not shut in the soul by any narrowness.
And it is provided with a fringe, because then
nothing will be wanting to our perfection, but
what we now know in part, we shall then
know even as also we are known" (Rationale
divinorum officiorum, Bk. iii.).

Amidst all these fantastic significations it
will be seen that there is no idea of sacrifice
imposed on the cope as one of its symbolical
meanings ; and for this reason probably it was
admitted as an occasional robe by the Reformed
Church of England. In 1549 the minister at
the Lord's Table was allowed to wear either a
chasuble (called a vestment) or a cope. This
was a step onwards, the chasuble up to this
time having been regarded as indispensable.
In 1552 both the chasuble and the cope were
forbidden, the surplice being substituted. All
the Mass garments were restored under Queen
Mary. In 1559, Queen Elizabeth being on the
throne, a cope was used by the Bishop of
Chichester and two of the Archbishop's chap
lains at the consecration of Archbishop Parker.
In the same year a clause of the Act of
Uniformity, commonly called the Ornaments
Rubric, was added, without authority, to the
Prayer Book of 1559, by which the ornaments
which" were in use in the second year of
Edward VI. (that is, the 1549 ornaments) were
to be used, "until other order should be
taken" by the authority of the Queen with
the advice of the Metropolitan. In 1566 the
"other order," foreshadowed in 1559, was
"taken" by the Advertisements drawn up by
the Queen's direction, and issued by Arch
bishop Parker, which ordered that in cathe
drals and collegiate churches the principal
minister, the gospeller, and the epistoler should
wear copes, and all other clergy, in all their
various ministrations, the surplice. In 1604
the canons of that year ordered that the
minister of highest rank in Cathedral and

COPE, THE

[ 144]

COPE, THE

Collegiate Churches, on the chief feasts, should
at the Holy Communion wear the cope, and all
other ministers the surplice. This is the last
rule respecting English ecclesiastical dress, as
the repetition of the so-called Ornaments
Rubric in the Prayer Books of 1604 and 1662,
carries with it, in each case, a simultaneous
authorisation of "the other order" which was
" taken " at the royal instance by Archbishop
Parker in 1566, and sanctioned by the Church
in 1604, superseding the order relating to the
Edwardine ornaments. [F. M.]

Before the Reformation, the cope was re
garded as a suitable festive decoration,
which might be worn by women, boys, and
laymen, as well as out of doors. But it was not
even permitted to the " sacrificing " celebrant
at Mass. The language of our 24th Canon
about "principal feast days "is explained by
such passages as the following. Rupert of
Deutz ( d. 1130) says, " we put on copes also in
greater feasts " ; but he was then speaking,
not of the priest, but of the "Cantors," i.e.
"rectores chori," or rulers of the choir
(Dublin Review, cxx. 17). Durand says, "illam
non nisi in majoribus festivitatibus induimus "
(Marriott, Vest. Christicmum, p. 167). " Festis
duplicibus, sive praecipuis, quae, ob id, 'Festa
in Cappis ' dicebantur," says Matthew of Paris
(Watt's edit., p. 227. Compare North's Chronicle
of St. Martin's, Leicester, p. 103). And this
probably was the origin of the custom at
Oxford for the " Heads " to appear on such occa
sions in dress gowns (Notes and Queries, 2nd
series, i. 230). Silk copes for the "principal"
rulers of the choir were ordered by Bishop
Gravesend in the thirteenth century to be used
at Lincoln Cathedral ; and the Qreyfriar's
Chronicle, p. 68, records how, in A.D. 1550,
" Item at Xtmas was put down at Powle's the
Rectores Chori, with all their coppys at pro
cession, and no more to be used." Indeed, the
rubric then in force, under the First Prayer
Book (p. 97), prescribed the cope to be worn
" after the Litany ended " on Wednesdays and
Fridays " if there be no Communion." The
non-sacrificial and even " secular " character of
this dress explains why Cranmer and his
fellow-bishops secured for themselves the
right to wear the cope at Holy Communion in
lieu of the Mass "Vestment" (i.e. chasuble),
and also why, with a view of destroying the
"distinctive" dress of the Mass, the bishop
was required to wear the same dress at "all
other" ministrations (see p. 157 of Parker Soc.
edit, of First Book of Edward VI.).

In the larger and richer churches, the copes
were not only used in sets of three, as before
explained, but were made to match the
celebrant's chasuble, varying with the season.
Mr. Walcott's Westminster Inventories mentions

(p. 16) " copes and Chezabulls agreable," temp.
Henry VIII., and in his Parish Goods in Kent
(p. 66) we find at Dartford " one cope with
one vestment to the same, sutcd with th'albe
thereto belonging." This explains the meaning
of "agreably" in the Advertisements of 1566
and in Canon 24.

In 1548, when the First Prayer Book was
enacted, the Reforming party among the
bishops were, if not in a minority, at least
balanced by a powerful and compact phalanx
of Romish prelates, and were unable or afraid
to attempt to give to their clergy the same
liberty which they had secured for themselves.
Under that book, therefore, no parish clergy
man might shirk wearing a " distinctive dress "
at Holy Communion ; while his " epistoler and
gospeller " might not at any time wear the
" distinctive " dress in question. But when
the Rubric of 1552 abolished this " distinctive "
difference between the Lord's Supper and
"all other times of ministration," and had
been re-enacted in 1559, under penalties, by the
1 Eliz. c. 2, it becomes of extreme interest
to notice how the Government and the bishops
dealt with the cope. In the vast majority of
the poorer parishes its use was either unknown
or was abolished forthwith by authority. The
strict letter of the law said, "shall wear neither
alb, vestment, nor cope," but shall have and
wear " a surplice only." Accordingly, as the
contemporary Machyn's Diary (p. 208) and
Stow's Annals (p. 639, b) testify, the copes were
generally destroyed by the royal Visitors act
ing in the High Commission, which included all
the bishops newly nominated and most of the
M.P.'s and peers who had personally taken part
in the passing of the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz.
c. 2. Canon T. W. Perry (the champion em
ployed by the E.C.U. to defend the vestments)
admits that in twenty-four instances the Lin
colnshire copes had been destroyed or converted
before the Advertisements of 1566 were issued
(On Purchas Judgment, p. 237). But that ad
mission gives no adequate idea of the actual
facts. Out of the first seventy-nine Lincoln
parishes recorded as visited by Archdeacon
Aylmer in 1565, before the Advertisements
issued, fifty-one had no copes at all, fifteen had
been "defaced," twelve had been "sold"; and
in several returns it is spoken of as "popish,"
and is reported to the Visitors as being an
" illegal" ornament, though "yet remaining"
in the custody of the wardens. These facts
appear from Peacock's Church Furniture. Mr.
Tyssen's Surrey Inventories also throws light on
the varied ways in which the copes were held
to be " in use." Inter alia, twenty-nine copes
were assigned to be made into coverings for the
Lord's Table. The official "assignments" for
the Hundred of Reigate run in this form : " De-

COPE, THE

145 ]

CORPUS CHRISTI

livered unto the hands of the said wardens
unto the use of the Church, there to be occupied
according to the effect of the commission
directed unto the Commissioners appointed for
the sale of church goods and other order to be
tfarcin taken for the same, as followeth," — and
then follow such entries as "Item, a cope
to make a communion table cloth," "Item,
a cope of blue dornix and an old coverlet to
cover the communion table," "Item, iiij vest
ments to make a communion table cloth."

So at Carshalton, we read " Md. that the ij
albes . . are now made into surplices to the use
of the Church" : and at St. Saviour's, Southwark,
" Item, xix albes . . whereof the wardens have
made xvi surplices for the quere which was all
that could be made of them." When we com
pare this language with the proviso " such
ornaments shall be retained and be in use . .
until other order shall be therein taken," we see
at once that it merely prescribed for the care
ful retention and utilisation of the ornaments
in the hands of the wardens, and that the
"other order" was "therein taken" by the
Commissioners at the royal visitation.

Thus, as Bishop Horn testifies, the copes were
'• taken away " in the Visitation of 1559 (Zurich
Litters, i. 142 and App. 84) in parish churches ;
while we learn from Puritan writers and from
Bishop Sandys that in Cathedrals and collegiate
and some of the " larger" churches they were
temporarily retained (in sets of three), as also
in the Royal Chapel and on certain occasions
of State ceremonial and display.

It is singular that the actual compromise
thus brought about was left to the discre
tion of the royal Visitors to determine by
"taking order" in each parish, according to
circumstances, and does not correspond ex
actly with any theory as to the then exist
ing statutory standard of ritual. If it were
true that from 1559 to 1566 the rubrics of 1549
were in force, it is an astounding fact that
not one single instance of compliance with the
alleged "law" has ever yet been discovered.
Not even in Elizabeth's private chapel was the
ritual of the First Prayer Book followed even
for a single day. Yet a small and uncertain
percentage of churches were connived at in
their "retention" of the cope, provided that
they did not allow the Epistoller and Gospeller
to be arrayed in " albs, tunicles, or dalmatics "
or any otherwise than the officiating clergy
man himself. In this way the Executive were
enabled to humour the love of pomp and
dignity in the more florid services and to
change the symbolism. It was no longer in
honour of the Mass, as such, bub of the events
commemorated on the "principal feast days"
(i.e. those which had "proper prefaces") in
honour of Almighty God (Canon 24). Yet the

fact that the cope was a costly dress, extremely
inconvenient, hot and heavy, and disabling
the clergyman from "using both his hands"
with "decency" and unfettered freedom, led
to the rapid discontinuance of this cumber
some dress. And since the Restoration, it has
rarely been seen anywhere in England. A
disuse of forty years even by the Canon Law
itself evacuates the obligation of mere canons.
So that it would now need fresh legislation to
legitimatise the re-iu'uxxliictionof such belated
" survivals of the [««] fittest." [J. T. T. J
COPTIC CHURCH.— See EASTERN CHURCHES.
CORONATION SERVICE. — See STATK

SERVICES.

CORPORAL.— According to the Roman defini
tion, " the linen cloth on which the body of
Christ is placed when consecrated." In Ritual
istic language, "a napkin of fine linen spread
on the altar at the time of the Eucharistic
service." Much importance is attached by
sacerdotalists to its arrangement. " When the
altar-breads are on the altar the lower right
hand corner of the corporal is turned back
over them except during the oblation and con
secration " (Ritual Rtason Why, p. 28). In
the Prayer Book there is no mention of a
corporal. The fourth rubric before the Com
munion Service simply orders that " the table
at the Communion time is to have a fair white
linen cloth upon it " ; and the rubric after the
administration directs that " the minister shall
reverently place upon the Lord's Table what
remaineth of the consecrated elements, cover
ing the same with a fair linen cloth."
CORPUS CHRISTI.— There is no more re
markable instance of following Roman prac
tices because they are mediaeval and Roman
in their origin and tendency than the obser
vance of the festival of Corpus Christi, which
has become popular with a section of the
English clergy. It is a "feast in honour of
the Blessed Sacrament occurring on the Thurs
day after Trinity Sunday," says the Congrega
tion in Church (p. 180). " It was set apart in
the Western Church," says the Ritual Reason
Why, "in the thirteenth century in honour of
the Mystery of our Lord's Presence in the
Blessed Sacrament because it was felt that
this Sacred Mystery could not be adequately
commemorated on the day of its institution,
which occurs in the midst of the mournful
celebration of His Passion. Corpus Christi,
together with the feast of the Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin, a festival which commemo
rates the falling asleep of the Blessed Virgin
and her triumphal reception into heaven by
Her Divine Son, and the feast of St. Thomas of
Canterbury, were removed from the Church's
Kalendar by order of Henry VIII. without
canonical authority, and have not since been

K

CORPUS CHRISTI

COSIN, BISHOP

restored, though they are marked in the yearly
Kalendars" (pp. 550, 551).

In the year 1215 Innocent III. revolutionised
the Christian religion by proclaiming, on the
authority of the Fourth Lateran Council, the
dogma of Transnbstantiation and the neces
sity of universal confession to a priest at least
once a year. One of the many consequences
of the acceptance of Transubstantiation was
the institution of the festival of Corpus Christi.
The Fourth Lateran Council was held in 1215.
In 1230, fifteen years after the sanction of
Transubstautiation, Juliana, a nun of Lie"ge
was gazing at the moon and she saw a gap
in its orb. A heavenly revelation was vouch
safed to her that the moon represented the
Church and that the gap meant the want of
a festival for the adoration of the Body of
Christ in the consecrated Host, and she was
further instructed that she was to announce
this heavenly revelation to the world and to
begin at once to celebrate the feast of Corpus
Christi. This she did, and the devotion, singu
larly adapted to the sentiments of the age,
spread so rapidly that at the end of thirty-four
years Pope Urban IV. was able to sanction
the feast for Western Christendom, in the
year 1264.

There are two things specially connoted
oy the observance of the festival of Corpus
Christi. One is approval of the adoration of
the outward sign of Christ's Body, known
technically as the sacramentum, as though it
were the Body itself of Christ, or rather as
though it were not only the Body of Christ
but the Person of Christ in His divinity aud
His humanity with all things appertaining to
both His natures. On this point we refer our
readers to our articles on ADORATION OF THE
EUCHARIST and the BODY OF CHRIST. The
other thing is the promotion of processions
of the Host, in which the Bread is "carried
about" with great pomp, like a king making
solemn progress through his subject's terri
tories. It is not to be denied that the Corpus
•Christi procession is a pretty and a touching
spectacle as carried out abroad. On the
Thursday after Trinity Sunday, the various
guilds and brotherhoods, with their distinctive
habits and banners, the boys in their best, and
the girls in white gauzy dresses, gather in
the long line of the procession, headed by
richly robed priests bearing under a canopy
what the people believe and the priests assert
to be a descended Deity ; and as the proces
sion moves along, it is accompanied by hymns
nnd chants in which all join, and pauses are
made from time to time for prayers to be
offered by the priests to their Sovereign as He
rests at stated points in his line of progress. It
is a very pretty sight in the bright June

sunshine and must make a lasting impression on
the younger participants in it. But what is it
that is being thus honoured ? It is not Christ.
It is a piece of bread set apart by consecration
for quite a different purpose.

We have not yet arrived in England at
the Corpus Christi processions ; but already
"hosts" are "reserved" for adoration in
churches with the lamp burning before them
to show the Divine presence, and already the
"reserved hosts" are carried privately to the
sick. It only requires the shadow of a sanc
tion for reservation to be practised, and proces
sions with bells and banners forthwith follow.
Already the long list of churches where Corpus
Christi is observed by celebration of the holy
Eucharist is a grave symptom of a widespread
disloyalty and a superstitious belief.

It is further to be noted that the festival
thus adopted and honoured originated in the
fancy of a mediaeval nun, who either hysteri
cally believed or falsely stated that she had
received a divine commission, conveyed to her
in a manner altogether incredible, to institute
it. Juliana is the prototype of St. Mary
Alacoque, who, in much the same manner, has
introduced the worship of the Sacred Heart of
Jesus, which has become one of the most
favoured devotions of Roman Catholics, especi
ally in France. The festival of Corpus Christi
popularises Transubstantiation, a fundamental
doctrine of the Church of Rome since 1215 ; the
festival of the Sacred Heart (held in the week
following the octave of Corpus Christi) is popu
larising the belief that worship may be offered
to a part of Christ's body instead of to His
Person, which is a Nestorian heresy accepted
of late by the Church of Rome. Thus we see
that the faith of the modern Roman Church
to a great extent springs from, or depends upon,
the supposed revelations of visionary young
women. [F. M.]

COSIN, BISHOP. — Misrepresented as author
of First Series of Notes on the Prayer Book.

Bishop Cosin is known as the author of the
most learned and most convincing work against
Transubstantiation ever written. In condemn
ing that doctrine he condemns also the Sacri
fice of the Mass and the tenet of the objective
presence of Christ in the elements. It may
be asked then how it is that he is frequently
quoted by Ritualists as favourable to their
views on the subject. The Ritual Reason Why
appeals to him : " Bishop Cosin, who was chiefly
employed by the Church in the last revision of
the Prayer Book, says, ' We call the Eucha
rist a propitiatory sacrifice, both this and that
(i.e. the Sacrifice on Calvary), because both of
them have force and virtue to appease God's
wrath against this sinful world ' " (§ 284).
How are we to account for such words in the

COSIN, BISHOP

COSIN, BISHOP

mouth of the author of the History of Tran-
substantiation? The explanation is simple.
They are not Cosin's words, but Maldonatus
the Jesuit's. It has become quite a habit
during the last thirty years to assign these
and other similar sentiments to Cosin, whose
name thus becomes a tower of strength to
Romanism. With how little reason, the follow
ing statement will show.

In the year 1707 Hickes, the Non-juror,
found an interleaved Prayer ]?ook with manu
script notes written in it. The notes were
anonymous, and Hickes could not learn who
was the compiler of them. It appeared that
they had been written in 1G18 by some one
who had a great admiration of Bishop Overall,
and who was already the author of a volume
of sermons containing four sermons the sub
jects and texts of which Hickes mentioned.
This note of authorship absolutely excludes
Cosin, who at the time was a young man of
twenty-four and had published no sermons,
and who never published any on those texts
and subjects. Till the year 1855, that is, for
237 years after they had been written, no one
dreamed of Cosin being the compiler of these
notes, though they were carefully examined
and scrutinised, not only by Hickes, but by
Nicholls and by Canon Pickering in 1709, both
of whom knew well what works Cosin had
written and were acquainted with his hand
writing, In 1855 the late Dr. Barrow, having
to edit for the "Anglo-Catholic Library " one
volume of Cosin's works, found these Notes
lying in " Bishop Cosin's Library " at Durham
as a waif and stray unclaimed by any author.
He eagerly grasped at them, and resolved that
they should be Cosin's. It was true that their
teaching in many points was quite different
from and adverse to that of another series of
Notes acknowledged to be Cosin's, but then
it was suggested that Cosin miyht have changed
his mind in the interval between the compila
tion of the two series. And it was true that
the handwriting was not like the well-known
handwriting of Cosin, but then he miyht have
-written in one way when he was a young man
and in another way when he was an old man.
Dr. Barrow thought he could see some likeness
in the manuscripts, though no one else had been
able to discover it. At any rate the book con
taining the Noteswas in the "Bishop's Library,"
and so they should be his compilation. Accord
ingly Dr. Barrow published them in the "Anglo-
Catholic Library's" edition of Cosin's works as
a composition of Cosin's, imposing upon them
the name of The First Series of Notes, a
name till then unheard of. Since that time
the real author of the Notes has been dis
covered (almost with certainty) by Mr. James
Parker of Oxford. He found in the Bodleian

Library another copy of the Notes in Arch
bishop Bancroft's handwriting, to which San-
croft had prefixed a note saying that he had
transcribed them " out of Mr. Hayward's
book." Mr. Hay ward was a nephew of Bishop
Overall, and Mr. Parker at once acutely and
rightly concluded that it was " Hayward's
book " that Hickes and Nicholls and Pickering
had had in their possession. It is possible
that Hayward, like Sancroft, was only a trans-
scriber, not the compiler, but it is more prob
able that he was the author. In any case
Cosin had nothing to do with them, not even
so much as transcribing them.

We have proved that the Notes are not
Cosin's ; still it may be thought that they are
at any rate Hayward's, who was a member of
the Church of England, not Maldonatus', as
stated above. Not even that ; for if the com
pilation is Hayward's, the passage quoted is
Maldonatus'. It was the habit of Hayward,
as it is of all compilers, to copy on the
interleaved pages passages gathered from all
quarters illustrative of the text. Among others
he inserted passages from the Jesuit Mal
donatus ?uid the Roman Catholic theologian
Cassander. The editor has carefully pointed
out that these are mere extracts, by marking
them with inverted commas and setting the
original Latin texts at the bottom of the page.
Nevertheless they are constantly quoted by un
scrupulous controversialists as Cosin's. This
was done in a flagrant manner by Dr. Little-
dale in 1886 (see Foreign Church Chronicle, vol. x.
pp. 141 seq., on the " Methods of the Neo-Eu-
charistical System"), and it is done still.

To show what the real Cosin taught on the
subject of the Holy Eucharist, we quote the
following passage from him :—

" As soon as ever Transubstantiation was
established, a foundation was laid for a number
of superstitions and errors which God-fearing
men could not sanction or endure ; and among
the believers in Transubstantiation themselves
there grew up a forest of questions, inextri
cable and portentous, with which the School
men occupied themselves to such a degree that
it may be truly affirmed that a perfectly new
and monstrous theology, unheard of by all the
ancients, about the Holy Eucharist and the
adoration of the Host, then took its birth "
( Historia Transubstantiatlonis, vii. 22).

Having set down some of these " portentous
questions " and their solutions, such as whether
mice and dogs eat the very body of Christ,
and about corrupted or undigested Hosts, &c.,
he continues : —

"Further, this doctrine of Transubstantiation
has given occasion to wicked men of treating
in a shameful manner what they believe to be
the Body of Christ, There have been bad

COSIN, BISHOP

COUNCILS

priests who have sold consecrated Hosts to
Jews or magicians, by whom they were stabbed,
or burnt, or used for incantations. Nay, we
read that St. Louis himself delivered a Host to
the Turks and Saracens as a pledge of his
fidelity. But who can believe that our Lord
Christ willed to institute a Presence of His
most Holy Body in His Church of such a
nature that He Himself or His Body could be
given into the hands of unbelieving Jews and
Turks, or could be swallowed by dogs or mice,
or cast into the fire, or burnt, or used for
magical incantations ? I cannot go on. I
shudder at what I have already quoted "
(ibid. 24).

To exhibit the difference between thepseudo-
Cosin appealed to above and the real Cosin on
the subject of the propitiatory sacrifice, the
following will be sufficient : —

Pseudo-Cosin : "We call the Eucharist a
propitiatory sacrifice because it has force and
virtue to appease God's wrath against this
sinful world" (First Series of Notes).

Real Cosin: "We totally differ from the
Roman Catholics in these points ... 5. That
the priests offer up our Saviour in the Mass as
a real, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the
quick and dead " (Works, iv. 332).

Whenever the authority of Cosin is claimed
for any mediaeval or modern Roman doctrine,
as is constantly done, we may be sure that it is
the pseudo-Cosin that is being meant. Dr.
Littledale being challenged to find any such
passage in Cosin's genuine works, was unable to
do so. See also " The Cosin Myth " in Tomlin-
son's Prayer Bool:. [F. M.]

COTTA. — A shorter form of the surplice ; not
quite so full and either entirely wanting in
sleeves or with short ones reaching to a little
below the elbows. The bottom of the cotta and
the ends of the sleeves are frequently edged
with lace.

COUNCILS. — ByaGeneral or Ecumenical Coun
cil of the Church is meant a gathering that shall
be lawfully convoked, adequately representative
of Christendom, and generally accepted as to
its canons and decrees by the whole Church of
Christ. The 21st of the English Articles lays
down that the right to convoke such an
assembly rests with the princes of Christendom,
and that no Council can claim in its decisions to
be infallible, unless its decisions are conform
able to Scripture, since an assembly of fallible
men cannot collectively be anything else than
a fallible assembly.

The first eight Councils were called together
by the Roman or Byzantine Emperors, while the
later medieval Councils which claim an ecumeni
cal character were usually convoked by the Pope.
The Reformers constantly appealed to a future
Council of the Church in order to settle the

controversies in dispute at the time of the
Reformation, but they demanded that such an
assembly should not only be general but also
free from papal control, since the Pope ought
not to be judge in his own cause.

Local or provincial councils needed neither im
perial convocation nor extended representation.
They have been very numerous from the third
century onwards, and only a few have acquired
special importance owing to some particular
subject decided or debated.

Of the General Councils so called, the first
four are of primary importance because of
their objects and results, but it is a debatable
point whether any council has precisely realised
the ideal of perfect representation. Thus
even the Council of Nicasa very inadequately
represented the Western Church, while that of
Constantinople scarcely represented it at all.
Chalcedon perhaps came the most nearly to a
perfect representation, but this was the very
Council whose decisions were the most bitterly
resisted in the Eastern Church, and led to the
most grievous schisms. While it settled many
doctrines, it alienated many minds. No divi
sion of Episcopalian Christendom agrees with
any other division as to which Councils should
be regarded as General. The Anglican accepts
unhesitatingly the first four, regarding the
fifth and sixth as supplementary to the former
two, the Greek numbers eight, and the Roman
nineteen, eight in the east, and eleven in the
west (Bishop Browne, On Article XXL, Di
Bruno, Catholic Belief, ch. 28).

The first General Council met at Nicaeain A.D.
325, summoned by Constantine the Great. Its
object was to define the Church's faith in the-
perfect Godhead of Christ as against Arius and
his party. It adopted the famous phrase " Of
one substance with the Father " as the watch
word of true belief in Christ's Person. There
were 318 bishops present. These were 310 East
ern and eight Western representatives. Hosius
Bishop of Corduba in Spain, presided together
with Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and
Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. The aged
Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, was represented by
two presbyters, and so was Metrophaues, Bishop
of Byzantium. Yet Di Bruno says it was held
under Pope Sylvester I. and omits all mention
of Hosius and the paucity of Western represen
tatives.

The second General Council was held at Con
stantinople in 381, summoned by Theodosiu*
the Great. It met to consider the Macedonian
heresy respecting the Deity of the Holy Spirit,
and to confirm the Nicene party in their victory
over Arianism. It is significant that Di Bruno
does not say that it was held under a Pope,,
but alters the expression to "confirmed br
Pope Damasns I." There were no Western

COUNCILS

[

COUNCILS

bishops present. The heresy of Apollinarianism
which limited Christ's true humanity to the
possession of a human body only, was also con
demned.

The third General Council summoned by
Theodosius II. met at Bphesus in 431. It con
demned the Nestorian heresy, which affirmed
the existence of two Persons in Christ after His
incarnation, thus making the Son of God in
dwell within a human Jesus of Nazareth. Di
Bruno tells us that the Emperor was present,
which is an historical mistake.

The fourth General Council was held at
Chalcedou in 451, summoned by the Emperor
Marcian. It condemned the heresy of Eutyches
and the party called Monophysites, who taught
in their extreme opposition to Nestorianism that
after the Ir carnation there was only one
nature in Christ — the Divine.

We may summarise the doctrinal teaching of
these four Councils respecting our Lord's
Person by saying that they held Him to be
truly God, perfectly Man, iudivisibly God-Man,
distinctly God and Man.

"Papal supremacy was acknowledged" says
Di Bruno, i.e. at Chalcedon. The Council de
creed that New Rome (Constantinople) should
enjoy the same privileges as the Elder Rome
because both were seats of the imperial rule.
They then decreed that the Metropolitan
bishops of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace should
be consecrated by the Patriarch of Con
stantinople. The papal legates protested, but
in vain, and the decree was carried against
both them and the Pope himself (see Dr.
Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, ch. 21, for a
full account).

The fifth General Council was held at Con
stantinople under Justinian in 553. Di Bruno
admits that neither the Pope nor his legates
were present, but that it afterwards received
the papal sanction. A full account of the dis
graceful conduct alike of the Pope and the
Emperor will be found in Hodgkin's Italy
and her Invaders, vol. iv., in the chapter
significantly headed "The Sorrows of (Pope)
Vigilius."

The Sixth Council was held at Constantinople
in 680-681 under Constantino IV. The Mono-
thelite heresy, which affirmed that our Lord
had but one will, was condemned, as Di Bruno
truly states ; but in enumerating its leaders he
mentions Cyrus Sergius and Pyrrhus, but he
omits Honorius, Bishop of Rome, whose name
was anathematised by the Council along with
the others. After 680 we enter upon the field
of doubt and discrepancy.

The Seventh Council was held at Nicasa in
787. It decreed the worship of images in
the Eastern Church. This Council was not
accepted in the W<-st without long and strenu

ous resistance. The eighth was held at Con
stantinople in 869. Landon says: The 869
Council "has not the slightest claim to be
considered ecumenical, it was annulled in the
following Council, and has always been re
jected by the Eastern Church."

Sir W. Palmer says: "The Catholic Church
has never received or approved more than six
Synods as ecumenical" (On the Church, ii.
p. 128). "This Synod (869) was rejected in
the West, the Chronicle of St. Bertin alone
describes it as the Seventh Synod of Con
stantinople. Launoy says that some Eastern
writers called it the Eighth Ecumenical, that
others considered it a pseudo-synod. To this
day it has not been reckoned at any time by
either the Eastern or Western Churches among
ecumenical Synods" (ibid., p. 162).

The Seventh General Council. — The fact that
at this Council, A.D. 787, it was decreed that
incense and lights should be offered before the
cross and the images of the saints, and the
general assumption that this Council is un
doubtedly ecumenical, and therefore that all
its decrees are binding, renders it necessary, in
view of present controversy, to consider whether
the claims of this Council can after all be re
garded as beyond dispute. Sir W. Palmer, voL
ii. pp. 150-161, has amassed a large body of
evidence to show that very serious doubts
exist as to this often admitted claim. He
shows (1) that until the final triumph of image-
worship in the Greek Church in 842, it was only
regarded as the monument of a temporary
success on the part of one of the contending
parties ; (2) that it was not admitted to be Ecu
menical (or General), by the majority of writers
till many years afterwards ; (3) that as late as
1339 some of the Orientals still reckoned only-
six General Councils ; (4) that in the West, it
was rejected for at least five centuries and a
half ; (5) that Cardinal Bellarmine, in his trea
tise on images, admits that Thomas Aquinas
and other of the schoolmen never make any
mention of it; (6) that it was definitely re
jected by the English Church in 792 ; (7) that
writer after writer in France and Germany
styles it " a pseudo Synod," or use equivalent
terms.

We shall now speak of some of the local
councils which possess features of special im
portance. The Council held at Laodicea in
A.D. 320 condemned the growing practice of
praying to Angels (Beveridge, On Article XXII.).
Doubt exists as to the exact date of this
Council.

Between A.D. 390 and 419 six local councils
were held in North Africa, four of which
were at Carthage. The third Council of Car
thage, A.D. 397, is the first Council which
enumerates the books of Scripture, for the

COUNCILS

[ 150]

CROSS

canon of the Council of Laodicea, which alsv,
contains a list which is not held by some scholars
to be genuine. The Council of Carthage was
only local and attended by forty-four bishops
It is not an authoritative utterance of the
whole Church. Its decree on the canon of
Scripture was not confirmed till 692 by the
Trullan Council of Constantinople, when it was
accepted by the Eastern Church. In the West
it was not till 1435 that the deficiency of the
canon was removed, and then only by the
solitary act of Pope Eugenius IV. Not until
Trent did a Western Council make a decree
upon the subject, and its results were much
less accurate than were those of the smaller
assembly at Carthage (Charteris, On Canonicity,
p. 20, note).

The Trullan Council of 692, held at Con
stantinople, had no papal legate present, but
only the ordinary representatives of the Roman
Bishop. Rome does not recognise all its de
crees as binding (ibid. p. 18, note).

The Council of Frankfort, held under the
Emperor Charlemagne in 794, 300 Western
bisao^s being present, condemned in its 42nd
Canon the invocation of saints — " Ut nulli
nobis sancti colantur aut iuvocentur" (Beve-
ridge, On Article XXII.). There were five
Councils held at the Lateran in Rome during
the Middle Ages, in 1122, 1139, 1179, 1215,
1516. Of these the fourth was the most famous.
For the Fourth Lateran Council was that which
required heretics to be put to death without
mercy, and absolved from their allegiance the
subjects of all princes who refused to obey that
command, and who did not deprive heretics
of their property. Transubstantiation was de
clared to be an article of the Faith, and
confession to a priest was made compulsory.
The largest General Council of the West
was that of Constance in 1414-1416. At
this Council the three conflicting Popes were
deposed from the papal seat and Martin V.
elected. The most important Council of the
East was the Synod of Bethlehem, which
practically eliminated from the Greek Church
the Protestant doctrines which the Patriarch
Cyril Lucar had sought to introduce.

The Council of Trent, which met in 1545, was
famous for three reasons: (1) its great length,
the twenty-five sessions being held at intervals
over a period of eighteen years ; (2) its connec
tion with the history of the Reformation, since
it decided for ever the question of the possible
reunion of Protestantism with Rome; (3) its
effect upon Rome herself. The Council stereo
typed Roman doctrine, corrected some abuses
in practice, and provided the Roman Church
with clearly defined weapons wherewith to
combat her adversaries.

The Council held its early sittings at Trent

(1545-1547), then it was removed to Bologna
where it sat for part of 1551 and 1552, and
then it remained suspended for ten years, the
closing sessions, 1562-1563, being held at
Trent.

The Vatican Council of 1869-1870 met to
consider and define the dogma of Papal Infalli
bility, and it passed many canons denuncia
tory of modern philosophical systems and
ideas. It should be carefully noted that this
last Council was not dissolved, but, by the
Pope's decree suspended, on alleged political
reasons, so that any future Council must take
up and continue the work of the Vatican
Council. [C. J. C.]

COWL. — The Ritual Reason Why draws attention
(pp. 49, 50) to what is no doubt considered by
the author an important distinction: "On
entering and leaving church, and in some
parts of the church during the singing of the
Psalms, members of religious orders use the
hood of their habit (sometimes, but improperly
called the cowl) in place of the biretta. The
cowl is a loose vestment worn over the frock
in the winter season and during the night
office."

CREDENCE TABLE.— The exact meaning of
credence table is doubtful. It is a table on
which the bread and wine are placed before
being put upon the Holy Table. Credence
tables were not in use before the Reformation.
See Micklethwaite, Alcuin Club Tract on the
Ornaments of the Rubric, p. 10.

There is no allusion to the credence table in
the Book of Common Prayer nor can its use be
regarded as necessary. Its use was condemned
by Sir H. Jenner Fust in the case of Faulkner
v. Litchfield as an adjunct to an altar of sacri
fice, but, in the case of Liddell v. Westerton,
was sanctioned by the Privy Council for the
purposes of a side table. See Miller, Guide to
Eccl. Law, 166 ; Whitehead, Church Law, p. 162.

[C. J. C.l

CROSIER.— See PASTORAL STAFF.
CROSS.— (1) Shape of.— The Greek word <rravpo*
simply denotes a stake. There were four kinds
of crosses used in punishment by the Romans :
(a) the crux simplex or stake; (b) the crux
decussata (X) commonly known as St. Andrew's
cross, in memory of that Apostle's traditional
martyrdom ; (c) the crux immissa ("[") and the
crux commissa (T) which closely corresponds to
the Hebrew letter Tau in its most ancient
form. This is thought to have been the "mark"
set upon the people of Jerusalem in Ezekiel's
vision (ix. 4). The shape of our Saviour's cross
is thus quite uncertain, the chief evidence in
favour of the traditional representation being
the fact of the inscription fastened above
His head by order of Pilate. Crucifixion
was abolished by Constantine after tho legal

CROSS

[ 151 ] CROSS, ADORATION OF THE

recognition of Christianity in deference to
Christian sentiment.

(2) Sirjn o/.— This has no warrant nor pre
cedent in Scripture, although the cross is
frequently alluded to. In the early Church
signing the forehead with the cross is alluded
to in the writings of the Fathers, especially
Tertnllian, Rufinua of Aquileia, and Basil, but
the passage quoted from the latter (De Spiritu
Sanc.to) is of doubtful genuineness. Those
ordained to the ministry had the sign of the
cross made in their hands, so that imposition
of hands was called oraupo«5rjs ff<f>payls (Bing-
ham, iv. c. 6, sect. 12). The Christians put this
honour upon the cross as a protest against the
mockeries of the heathen. (See Whitaker's
Disputation on Scripture : Parker Society, pp.
590-591 ; also Willett, Synopsis Papismi, vol. iv.
p. 252.) The practice seems to have been largely
confined to the North African and Alexandrian
Churches. Later, the idea grew up that demons
could be repelled by the sign of the cross.
The use of the cross in baptism in Canon 30 is
defended by Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity,
Book v., against the objections of the Puritans.
This was one of their grounds of complaint
against the Book of Common Prayer at the
Hampton Court Conference in 1604.

Use of the Cross in Churches, dkc.— Even in the
Catacombs of Rome the cross as now familiarly
figured ("f") rarely occurs before the fourth
century. It is disguised in various forms, so as
to be confounded with the initial Greek letter
of the name of Christ. During, and after the
reign of Constantino it is often associated with
the Labarum. The progress from the cross to
the crucifix was still more gradual. First there
was the cross only, which even when placed in
churches had no special connection with the
Lord's Table. Sozomen speaks of the cross
placed upon the altar in his time, but Eusebius,
though he describes minutely Christian
churches, has no reference to it (Canon
Robertson, Church History, vol. i. p. 245, ed.
1875). Then came the cross with the lamb
figured at the foot of it, then the Saviour on
the cross, but with hands uplifted in prayer
and not nailed, then Christ as fastened with
four nails, but still living. The dead Christ
was not represented till the tenth or eleventh
centuries. The very portraiture of the Cruci
fied underwent a long process of development,
as Dean Milman points out (History of Chris
tianity, iii. pp. 398-9). The 82nd Canon of the
Trullan Council, held at Constantinople under
Justinian II. (685-711), forbade the ancient
figure of the lamb, and ordered that Christ
should be represented in the human form.
This proves how long the principle underlying
the crucifix was resisted.

As to adoration of the cross, Minuthrs Felix,

A.D. 220, in his Apology, expressly disclaims the
existence of such a feeling amongst Christians
in the famous words, "Cruces neccolimus, nee
optamus ' ' — we neither worship crosses nor desire
them. Ambrose, in his account of the alleged
discovery of the true cross by Helena, the mother
of Constantine, in her pilgrimage to Jerusalem,
expressly denies that she worshipped the wood
of the cross— "quia hie gentilis est error
et vanitas impiorum" — a pagan error and
vanity of the impious. Some doubt whether
this be a genuine work of Ambrose, but if it be
of later date, such a statement is all the more
striking. Julian, the pagan emperor, accused
the Christians of worshipping the cross, and
St. Cyril of Alexandria is obliged indirectly to
admit the superstition as existing in his day
(A.D. 413-443).

Respecting the supposed discovery of the
true cross by Helena, Eusebius, who writes as a
contemporary, does not allude to the discovery.
There is also a large degree of contradiction
in the details. Paulinus says that the means
of discovery were revealed to the Empress, viz.
to ascertain which of the three crosses sup
posed to be found possessed miraculous virtue
by raising a dead man to life. Rufinus at
tributes the device to Maximus, Bishop of Jeru
salem, and says that it was a sick woman re
stored to health. Socrates states that Helena
kept part of it in a silver case at Jerusalem and
sent the other part to Constantine, who placed
it within his own image at Constantinople, a
clear proof that it could not have been used as
an object of worship. It is also very strange
if the true cross were at Jerusalem that Theo-
dosius II. (A.D. 408-450) should have sent a
cross of gold to be set up in the shrine of
Mount Calvary. See Willett, Synopsis, vol. iv.
pp. 235-240.

Note.— The Homily, " Against Peril of Idola
try," the most complete and exhaustive of the
Homilies as regards patristic illustration, deals
fully with the entire question of image-worship
both from the scriptural and the ecclesiastical
standpoint. It does not deal directly and
separately with the use or adoration of the
cross, but it covers the whole ground of the
question in its discussion of the rise, progress,
and results of image-worship.

May 3rd is the date in the Roman and English
Calendar for the Feast of the Invention of the
Cross. The lessons read on that day give an
account of Helena's supposed discovery at
Jerusalem. Cc- J- C>1

CROSS, ADORATION OF THE.- An idol
atrous service performed in the Church of
Rome on Good Friday, and also carried out in
certain Ritualistic churches of the Church of
England. In this service a cross is uncovered
by the priest and is then adored by priests and

CEOSS, ADORATION OF THE [ 152 ]

CUEATE

congregation. The adoration consists of pro
stration before the cross, kissing the foot of it,
and addressing prayers and hymns to it. The
defence which is set up for these superstitious
and idolatrous ceremonies is that they are "no
more than exterior expressions of that love
which we bear in our hearts toward Jesus
Christ crucified, and that the words adoration
and adore as applied to the cross, only signify
that respect and veneration which is due to
things immediately relating to God and his
service." To which it may be replied, first,
that this explanation may be sufficient to
justify reverence for the emblem of that
on which Christ died, but cannot justify
the addresses of prayer and praise and
acts of veneration which are made to the
cross itself. Secondly, that though the more
highly educated and intelligent may be able
to look through the material cross to the
Atonement of Christ, the less educated and
thoughtful may be gradually led to adore the
actual cross of wood, &c., which they see.
Thirdly, that these idolatrous forms of prayer
were in use long before the Reformation, but
that in no accredited writings was there any
thing to show the people that this service was
in honour of the Saviour, and that the cross
was only a memorial of Him.

The service as used by the Ritualists is con
tained in a book entitled "Services of the Holy
Week," published by the Society of St. Osmund.
This is a Society for restoring the use of the
Rubrical directions of the " Sarum Liturgical
Books " in the Church of England, i.e. a ritual
which is far more elaborate and superstitious
than that of Rome, was in use in England before
the Reformation, and had as great authority
and sanction from the Pope as the " Roman "
Ritual.

Such adoration of the cross proceeds from an
entirely unscriptural view of the "tree" on
which Christ suffered, apart from the question of
idolatry. St. Paul does not speak of the cross
as a " sweet cross," as do Romanists and
Ritualists, but as an accursed tree (Gal. iii. 13).
See IMAGE-WORSHIP. [M. E. W. J.]

CROSS, INVENTION OF. — See under
CROSS.

CRUCIFIX.— (Lat. crucijixus, fastened to a
cross. ) An image of Christ on the cross. The
peril of idolatry in regard to this is great, in
proportion as an image differs from a mere
cross. Of the actual idolatry of many Roman
Catholics there can be no doubt. More particu
larly must this be the case with regard to the
less intellectual and uneducated amongst them,
who must often fail to "look through" the
image to Christ. It is illegal to set one up in
a Church of England building in a position
corresponding to that occupied by the rood

before the Reformation, i.e. over the chancel
screen. An isolated crucifix generally is illegal.
One which hung lately by the pulpit in St.
Ethelburga's Church, Bishopsgate Street, was
ordered by the Consistory Court to be removed.
In this case the question of the legality of the
crucifix was exhaustively discussed.
CRUETS. — Unauthorised vessels of glass or
metal, not mentioned in the Prayer Book, but
introduced by the Ritualists into the admini
stration of the Lord's Supper. According to the
Ritual Reason Why, " one " of these cruets "con
tains the wine to be used for the celebration of
the Eucharist ; the other the water for mixing
therewith, and also for the washing of the
priest's hands." See ABLUTION. The name
"cruets" is singularly inappropriate, and is
defined in the dictionaries as "a small jar or
phial for sauces and condiments." If such
vessels they must have, it seems strange that
Ritualists, of all people, could not have invented
a name of more reverence for vessels connected
with the Table of the Lord.

CRYPT. — A concealed or underground passage,
applied by Jerome and others to the Catacombs.
Crypt is generally now applied to underground
chambers under churches, which were often
used as places of burial.
CUCULLA.— See HOOD.

CULDEES. — The word is a corruption of a
Celtic term, which has been variously inter
preted as meaning " servant of God," and pos
sibly indicated "monks," in which sense it is
found, under different forms, in old Irish docu
ments. Traces of the Culdees were found in
Ireland down to Reformation times. In Scot
land the term Kcledei indicates a body of monks
of a peculiar kind, and the Colidei were also
known in the north of England. The classical
monograph on their history is that by Dr. Reeves
(Dean of Armagh), afterwards Bishop of Dowu,
Connor, and Dromore.
CUP. — See CHALICE, DENIAL OF CUP TO THE

LAITY.

CURATE.— Formerly, a clerk in Holy Orders,
having a cure of souls (French, curt). The
word is used in this sense in the Book of
Common Prayer. Now, however, the term is
applied only to an assistant of such a clerk or
to one appointed by the bishop to officiate in
his absence. It is uncertain whether there
were in the church before the Reformation,
any persons answering to our present stipen
diary curates, but they certainly existed at the
beginning of the seventeenth century. A
deacon may be a curate, but is unable to ad
minister the Lord's Supper. He must be
licensed by the archbishop or bishop, and the
licence may be revoked. Before the licence is
granted the "Stipendiary Curates' Declaration "
must be made, and signed by both incumbent

DAILY SERVICES

[ 153 ]

DEACON

and curate. The curate must also in the pre
sence of the bishop or his commissary make and
subscribe the "declaration of assent," which
must be read in the presence of the congre
gation on the first Lord's day on which he
officiates in the church to which he is licensed.
He must also take the oaths of canonical
obedience. Before being licensed, he has
to send in his letters of orders and "letters
testimonial" from three beneficed clergyman
countersigned by their bishop or bishops. A
curate may be dismissed at six weeks' notice by
a new incumbent if such notice be given within
six months of the incumbent's admission to the
benefice. In all other cases the incumbent
must obtain the written permission of the
bishop, and may then give the curate six
months' notice to quit. If the bishop refuse
consent, the incumbent may appeal to the
archbishop, whose decision is final. A curate
wishing to leave his curacy must give three
months' notice to the incumbent and bishop,
unless with the bishop's written consent.

DAILY SERVICES.— A service is provided
in the Prayer Book for every day, but there
is no rubric directing it to be used daily.
If there were no such provision, there would
be no legal service which could be used daily
if it were needed. The fourteenth Canon
assumes that there will not be daily service,
for it directs service to be used on Sundays
and Holy-days, a direction which would be
meaningless if service were ordered to be held
daily. The Statute of Uniformity, 13 & 14
Ch. II. c. 4, sec. 2, contains the following
directions as to the use of the Prayer Book.
" All and singular ministers in any cathedral,
collegiate, or parish church or chapel, or other
place of public worship within this realm of
England, dominion of Wales and town of Ber
wick upon Tweed, shall be bound to say and use
the morning prayer, evening prayer, celebration
and administration of both the sacraments,
and all other the public and common prayer
in such order and form as is mentioned in the
said book annexed and joined to this present
Act . . . and that the morning and evening
prayers therein contained shall upon every
Lord's Day, and upon all other days and
occasions, and at the times therein appointed,
be openly and solemnly read by all and every
minister or curate in every church, chapel, or
other place of public worship within this realm
of England and places aforesaid."

Here also, if it had been intended to require a
daily service, it would have been simpler to do so
directly, than only order one on the Lord's Day
and the other days appointed, viz. Holy-days.

That this is the understood rule of the
Church of England was strongly felt by the
Kitual Commission ; and consequently in their
fourth report, August 1870, they proposed to
append a note to the passage in the Preface to
the Prayer Book, which Preface appears to
make daily services compulsory, as follows :
"The directions concerning the daily use of the
Church services are retained, not as a com
pulsory rule, but as a witness to the value put by
the Church on daily prayers and intercessions.
and on the daily reading of the Holy scriptures.'"
No legal proceedings have been successfully,
or, it is believed, ever instituted to enforce
daily services. In re Hartshill Endowment
(30 Sevan. 130), the Trustees of a church en
dowment fund refused to pay the incumbent
because he did not hold daily services. The
deed made the income payable to the in
cumbent for conducting the services in the
said church according to the rites and cere
monies of the Church of England in strict
and literal accordance with the order of the
Book of Common Prayer, so long and during
such time as he should so conduct the same.
The Trustees argued that services on Sundavs
and Holy-days only was not a compliance
with the deed, but Sir John Romilly, the
Master of the Rolls, ordered the money to be
paid to the incumbent. [E. B. W.]

DALMATIC, THE.— A loose robe partly open
at the sides, worn by the gospeller at Mass.
(See plate.) It was declared illegal in the
English Church by Judgment of the Dean of
Arches in Elphinstone v. Purchas, and the
judgment was affirmed on appeal. (3 Ad. and
Ecd. p. 67.) See Miller's Ecd. Law, p. 50.

DEACON. — The .Diaconatc is usually traced back
to the appointment of the "Seven," recorded
in Acts vi. The "Seven" are, however, no
where called " deacons " (Acts xxi. 8). If Acts
vi. gives a full account of the institution of that
office, the duties of the diaconate were confined
to administering the alms of the Church. But
though the Apostles laid their hands on the
" Seven," that act is no distinct proof of "ordi
nation." The "laying on of hands" was em
ployed in cases of healing, and often indicated
mere delegation, or the transfer of authority of
any kind. The Church at Antioch laid hands
on Barnabas and Saul (Acts xiii. 2, 3), which
was, however, not "ordination" (see Gal. i. i).
Moses transmitted his secular authority to
Joshua by laying on of hands, and Jacob laid
his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh when he
blessed the lads. The Apostles transferred by
the solemn laying on of hands the business of
"serving of tables" to the "Seven," which
business had been forced upon the Apostles
for a time when the believers laid down their
money at the Apostles' feet (Acts iv. 32). Two,

DEACONESSES

[ 154 ]

DEAD LANGUAGE

if not more, of the " Seven," no doubf, became
powerful preachers — Stephen, the protomartyr
and Philip, the evangelist (Acts xxi. 8). Bui
it is more natural, with Bishop Lightfoot, to
maintain that "the work of teaching may be
traced rather to the capacity of the individual
officer than to the direct function of the office'
(Philippians, p. 190).

Bishop Lightfoot maintains that the office
created according to Acts vi. was a new
institution, and "not borrowed from the
Levitical order, nor from the synagogue."
The first statement is correct, the second is
doubtful. Bishop Lightfoot maintained cor
rectly that the Chazzan (t'JH^ or attendant
in the synagogue, whose duties were con
fined to the care of the building, and the
preparation for service, has more in common
with the modern parish clerk than with the
deacon in the infant Church of Christ. But
the Bishop seems to have forgotten that there
were other officials among the Jews, namely,
"the Receivers of Alms" (Him *K3|),
of which two or three were appointed to
r-ach synagogue, who were required to be men
of good report and of probity and wisdom
(see Schlirer, Oesch. desjudischen Volkes, Part II.
§ 27) — which were the very qualities insisted
on by the Apostles in the account of Acts vi.
If, therefore, Acts vi. records the institution
of the "diaconate," the diaconate, in all but
name, can be traced to the synagogue, and
was an office tenable by an honest layman.
Chrysostom, in the fourth century, distinctly
asserted that the office of Acts yi. was differ
ent from the " diaconate " existing in his
day ; and (Ecumenius, Bishop of Tricca, who
lived in the ninth or tenth century, was
equally honest on that point.

The "diaconate" is not mentioned among
the Church offices numbered up by St. Paul in
1 Cor. iii. 5 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, vi. 4 ; Eph. iii. 5. It
is not alluded to in the Epistle to Titus,
though alluded to in Phil. i. 1, and specially
mentioned in 1 Tim. iii. The " diaconate," what-
ever were its beginnings, however, soon grew
into a Church "order." The Church of the
fourth or fifth centuries first began to dream
of those Levitical pretensions set forth in
the apocryphal Apottolical Constitutions, the
treasure-house of those theories of "Divine
right " which have worked such damage to
the Church of God. (See Hatch's Bampton
Lectures on The Organisation of the early
Christian Churches.) [C. H. H. W.]

DEACONESSES. — See preceding article.
Phoebe is mentioned in Rom. xvi. 1 as a
" deacon " (Std/covoj) of the Church at Cenchrea.
ioifl to what her special duties were, there is no
a Chumation. The word deaconess (8ia.K6vi<rffa)
correspo filiblical . Possibly female deacons may

be alluded to in 1 Tim. iii. 11, although it is
also possible that the wives of the deacons re
ferred to in the previous verse may be there sig
nified. The masculine word StdKovos, "deacon"
was certainly employed in post-Biblical times
of women. Into the later history of deaconesses
we cannot here enter. [C. H. H. W.]

DEAD, COMMEMORATION OF THE.—
In the Prayer Book there is only a very
general reference to this subject. It occurs
in the prayer for the Church militant, and is
expressed in the words, "We also bless Thy
holy name for all Thy servants departed this
life in Thy faith and fear, beseeching Thee
to give us grace so to follow their good ex
ample that with them we may be partakers
of Thy heavenly kingdom." The prayer for All
Saints' Day is also of the same scriptural char
acter as that for the Church militant, as well as
those appointed for the Burial of the Dead.

The Ritualists, however, have certain gestures
and silent interpolations at this and a subse
quent point in the Communion Service, the
"priest disjoining his hands" at the words, "de
parted in Thy faith and fear," and being ex
pected to pause after these words in order to call
to mind various saints, virgins, and martyrs.
The most unsatisfactory reason for this silent
prayer is said to be that "it gives the people
an opportunity of offering the Sacrifice for
their own intentions." This is in indirect con
travention of the Prayer Book, for the only
Sacrifices that the Church of England in her
Communion • Office refers to are those of
prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, our alms
and oblations, and the consecration of our
selves. The XXXIst Article, too, condemns
the Sacrifice of Masses as "blasphemous fables
and dangerous deceits." [10.] See MASS ;
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, &c.
DEAD LANGUAGE, DIVINE SERVICE
IN A. — The Roman Canon law forbids the
translation of the Mass from Latin into any
other language. A bell is rung at certain parts
of the service, that the congregation may know
when the priest is performing the most important
part of the service. The practice of conducting
Divine Service in a dead language is open to
grave objection. Even in the case of well-
instructed persons it leads to the employment
of private books of devotion instead of follow
ing intelligently the public services. Dr. Di
Bruno, however, in Catholic Belief (p. 83 and
pp. 212 ff.), attempts to defend the practice.
By the use of an unknown tongue the con
gregation is to a considerable extent at the
mercy of the celebrant, while its use is contrary
to the ancient practice of the Christian Churoh.
The Kyrie Eleison, and other Greek words re
maining in the Missal, show that the Mass,
even in the Roman Church, was once said in

DEAD, MASS FOR THE

[ 155 ] DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE

Greek. The Latin translation of the Service
must have been made when Greek began to
fall into disuse in the Roman Empire, and
Latin was more or less generally understood.
The practice is opposed both to the spirit and
letter of Holy Scripture. St. Paul, speaking
of praying or praising in an unknown tongue,
asks (1 Cor. xiv. 16): "When thou shalt bless
with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth
the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy
giving of tbanks, seeing he understandeth not
what thou sayest?" Some commentators
maintain also that the references to the
giving of thanks (evxapicrria) and the response
"Amen," show that the Apostle (in 1 Cor.)
was specially referring to the celebration of
the Lord's Supper. Cardinal Bona, following
Aquinas, affirms that point as a fact (Res
Liturg. iv. 4). The point is one which cannot
be proved, but if correct, Rome's practice of
celebrating " the Mass " in a dead language
to-day becomes still more difficult to justify.
Article XXIV. of the Church of England, on
the other hand, declares that "It is a thing
plainly repugnant to the Word of God and
the custom of the Primitive Church, to have
publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister
the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded
of the people." [M. E. W. J.j

DEAD, MASS FOB THE.— See under MASS.

DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE.— There are
many exhortations in the New Testament to
offer up prayer for living saints and for other
men. Our Lord exhorts us to pray that God's
"kingdom may come, and His will be done in
earth as it is in heaven." But there is no
passage in the Old or New Testaments which
enjoins or recommends prayer for the dead.

The souls of the righteous at death enter
"Paradise," where they "are in joy and
felicity," as the Church of England affirms in
her Burial Service. Into that place the Lord
Jesus promised to bring the penitent thief
(Luke xxiii. 43). The Jews gave the name of
Paradise to the place of the blessed dead,
which was also termed "the Garden of Eden."
See PARADISE. The righteous will not indeed
': inherit the kingdom prepared for them"
until the Resurrection-day (Matt. xxv. 34 ; 1
Thess. iv. 15). They are "waiting for the
adoption (to wit), the redemption of our
body " (Rom. viii. 23) ; but they are in a place
of joy "with Christ, which is far better"
(Phil. i. 21-23) than to be on earth, and are in
no want of our prayers or intercessions.

How the saints may be employed in
"Paradise," Scripture does not inform us.
They may pray for us, but we cannot tell. We
hava no warrant to pray to them, or for them.
God has drawn a veil between this world and
the Unseen (Hade?), which men are not per

mitted to lift (see HADES). We ought not to
intrude "into those things which are not seen,
vainly puffed up by our fleshly mind " (Col. ii.
18, A.V.). Rev. vi. 9-11 does not draw aside
that veil, for it presents only a symbolic
picture. The "soul" in Old Testament Scrip
tures is often spoken of in connection with
the "blood," and the picture drawn in the
Revelation describes souls " slain for the word
of God" as sacrifices lying "under the altar,"
where in Jewish times the blood of the victim
was always poured out. The blood of the
saints cries out, like that of Abel, for ven
geance. But the martyred saints are not
occupied in praying for that vengeance.
Stephen, the first martyr, prayed for his
murderers (Acts vii. 60).

There are some glimpses given into the state
after death even in the Old Testament ; Job xix.
23-26 is one of these. So is Psalm xvi. with
Psalm xvii. 15, " I shall be satisfied, when I
awake, with thy likeness." Even Eccles. xii.
14, speaks of a day when "God shall bring
every work into judgment."

It is an error to affirm that after the
Captivity prayers for the dead were publicly
offered up by the Jews. The only passage
cited in favour of such a practice is in 2 Mace.
xii. But there are, however, still extant a
large number of Jewish works written between
B.CJ. 160 and A.D. 200. Not one of those works
(some twenty-five in number) except 2 Mace.,
alludes to prayers for the dead. Some of them,
like Tobit, speak of burying the dead as a re
ligious duty which ought to be performed even
at the risk of imminent danger. The Jewish
writings referred to (see the extracts given in
Wright's Intermediate State and Prayers for the
Dead, London, Nisbet, 1900) set forth the
teaching that death is the end of man's pro
bation, and that after death, even prior to
the resurrection, men are fixed in a permanent
state, either of bliss or of misery. Such a
dogma necessarily excludes the notion of
praying for the dead as popularly understood.
It has been asserted that our Lord must have
prayed for the dead when He attended the
synagogues of Palestine. This assertion is
founded solely on 2 Mace. xii. No allusion,
however, is there made to Synagogue usages.
Prayers for the dead have, no doubt, been in
use among the Jews for many centuries. That
practice cannot be proved to have been in use
as early as that among Christians, among
whom it commenced at the end of the second
century, and steadily grew. The ancient Jew
ish prayer known as the Kaddish, now used
by modern Jews as a prayer for the dead,
contains no mention whatever of the dead,
which were in later times supposed to be in
cluded under the term '-'all Israel."

DEAD, PRAYERS FOE THE [ 156 ] DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE

Dean Luckock, in ten editions of his work
After Death (first published in 1879), has ad
duced Jewish inscriptions to prove that prayers
for the dead were used nearly three centuries
before Christ. The inscription, however,
which the Dean assigned to B.C. 282 is un
questionably one of the year A.D. 718, while
the dates of the other inscriptions have been
proved to be falsifications ; and Dr. Luckock
has at last, though tardily, withdrawn all re
ferences to those inscriptions.

In the Second Book of the Maccabees it is
said "it was a holy and wholesome thought to
pray for the dead " (2 Mace. xii. 46, Douay
Version). That passage cannot, however, be
relied on. There is considerable variety both
as to its reading and translation. Whatever
the opinion of the compiler of that book may
have been, it is almost certain that Judas
Maccabeus did not, on the occasion mentioned,
pray for the dead. He sent to Jerusalem to
offer "a Bin-offering" for his army. Some of
his soldiers had fallen on the battle-field
because guilty of idolatrous practices. Hence
Judas Maccabeus made every one of his sur
viving soldiers contribute to the cost of the
sin-offering. For Judas feared lest his army
might suffer a reverse like that recorded in
Joshua vii. The epitomist of 2 Mace, (for the
editor of 2 Mace., as we have it, is merely an
epitomist, see 2 Mace. ii. 23) believed no doubt
in prayers for the dead. That epitomiser was
an Egyptian Jew, who lived some time be
tween B.C. 140 and B.C. 50, when the Jews
in Egypt were schismatics, having a priest
hood and temple of their own, a rival to the
Temple at Jerusalem, in which sacrifices were
offered in distinct violation of the Law of
Moses. Hence the opinions of Egyptian Jews
are of no weight in any questions of religious
practice. Positive proofs that the Jews in
early Christian times did not believe in prayers
for the dead are given in that section of Dr.
Wright's work which speaks of " the Testimony
of the Talmud." See Intermediate State, p.
]32,ff.

The New Testament passages supposed by
some to justify such prayers, have no real
bearing on the subject. The "world to
come " spoken of in Matt. xii. 32, means, ac
cording to Jewish phraseology, " the Messianic
Dispensation," and the phrase is even used in the
New Testament in that sense : see Heb. ii. 5,
and vi. 5. The passage in 1 Cor. iii. 12-15, speaks
of the " fire " in the Day of Judgment which will
test the reality of work done by the labourers
in Christ's vineyard. In 2 Tim. i. 18, it is im
possible to prove that Onesiphorus was dead
when St. Paul wrote. St. Chrysostom be
lieved that he was alive; and "tradition"
states that he was afterwards a bishop. Other

passages need not be discussed here. They
are all duly noted in Dr. Wright's book.
The so-called "Primitive Liturgies" did not
come into existence until centuries after Christ
(See LITURGIES), while " the mystery of ini
quity " was working even in the Church of
Apostolic times (2 Thess. ii. 7.) Not one,
however, of the Apostolic Fathers alludes to
prayers for the dead, whether Clement, or
Ignatius, or Polycarp. No, nor yet Henna*,
though he actually speaks of persons being
baptized after death, in another world. Justin
Martyr never refers to the subject.

Prayers for the dead do not, however,
necessarily involve any belief in a Purgatory
after death. The Greek and Oriental Churches
pray for the dead and yet reject the notion
of a place of purgative punishment. These
Churches offer up prayers for the Virgin Mary,
the Apostles,and the great martyrs of antiquity,
although they believe that they are in assured
rest and blessedness. Even in the Roman
Missal (in the Canon of the Mass) there is a
" Commemoration for the Dead " which runs
thus: "Remember, 0 Lord, Thy servants,
male and female, N. and M., who have gone
before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in
the sleep of peace. To them, 0 Lord, and to
all who rest in Christ, we pray that Thou
wouldest grant a place of refreshment, of
light and peace. Through the same Christ
our Lord. Amen."

Prayers for the dead are not sanctioned
by the Church of England. The prayer "for
the whole state of Christ's Church/' which
included such a petition (in the First Prayer
Book of Edward VI.), was revised in 1552, and
the petition struck out, and the words " mili
tant here on earth" added to exclude the
idea. In the "Form of Intercession with
Almighty God on behalf of her Majesty's
Naval and Military Forces now in South
Africa" (1900), there was, indeed, introduced
(unlawfully and surreptitiously in No. V.
form) a prayer "For all those who have
fallen in the true faith of Thy Holy Name-
that they may enter into the rest which Thou
hast prepared for them that believe in Thee ;
Hear us, good Lord." In the Special "Form
of Service in commemoration of her late
Majesty Queen Victoria of blessed and glori
ous memory" (1902), a petition was inserted:
"May the Lord of His mercy grant to us,
with all the faithful departed, rest and peace."
But no Archbishop, Bishop, or Privy Council
has any right to add to, or take away from,
any doctrine taught in the Book of Common
Prayer without the consent of the nation in
Parliament assembled, and hence all such
prayers must be regarded as unlawful.
In the case known as Breeks r. Woolfrey,

DEADLY, OR MOETAL SIN [ 157 ] DEADLY, OE MORTAL SIN

in 1838, in which the Vicar of Carisbroke
objected to a tombstone erected by a Roman
Catholic lady over her husband's grave with
the words " Pray for the soul of J. Woolfrey,"
and with the text 2 Mace. xii. 46, the then
Dean of Arches, Sir H. Jenner Fust, maintained
that although the Church of England "dis
couraged prayers for the dead " yet the action
of the defendant would not subject the party
to ecclesiastical censure.

The Reformers in their earlier days approved
of such prayers, but they rejected that practice
in their later writings. It is unfair to quote
the early writings of such men in favour of
that practice, when those writings have been
corrected in later works. The Church of
England speaks against the practice in the
Homily on Prayer, Third Part ; and the Homi
lies are endorsed as authorised expositions of
her doctrines in Article XXXV. Prayers for the
dead were contained in the First Prayer Book
of Edward VI., but were omitted in all sub
sequent revisions of the Book of Common
Prayer. This is a fact which no sophistry
can get over. Ritualists have been forced to
deplore it. See Rev. E. W. Sergeant's Essay
on " Catholic Worship and the Book of
Common Prayer " in the work entitled The
Lord's Day and the Holy Eucharist, p. 126. See
DESCENT INTO HELL. [0. H. H. W.]

DEADLY, OR MORTAL SIN.— In one sense
all sin is deadly, because it is a trangression
of God's law, and all transgression works aud
deserves death. Some sins, however, are clearly
of a graver character than others, and if these
graver sins are called deadly or mortal, while
the others are designated venial, it is not
worth disputing about the terms. Neverthe
less, the division into mortal and venial sins,
as made by the casuists, has, it has been truly
said, " foully corrupted the mass of their moral
theology." See MORAL THEOLOGY.

Because there is a difference in heinousness
between sins and sins, the Roman Casuists
undertake to divide all sins, according to their
external characteristics, into two heaps. On
those in one heap they impose the name of
deadly or mortal sins. On those in the other
heap the name of venial sins. Then they
explain that the mortal sins cause the death
of the soul, and that the venial sins do not
even lessen God's love towards the sinner, but
only dull his affection towards God, and they
go on to strengthen the sinner in wickedness
by assuring him that if he committed every
possible venial sin — nay, if he deliberately
resolved to commit every possible venial sin —
he yet would still be sinning venially, would
not have to confess it as a fault, and would be
as much the object of God's love as if he had
committed no sin at all.

This theory of morals is intellectually ludi
crous and morally unprincipled. Let it be true
that one sin differs from another in its hein-
ousness, but what is it that makes that dif
ference ? It is the state of the soul of the
man who commits the sin. The same material
act may be a most grave or a light sin, accord
ing to the frame of mind in which it is per
formed. And to divide sins into groups, and
to teach that he who commits a sin classed
in one group is mortally sinning, and he who
commits a sin belonging to another group is
venially sinning, is an altogether unspiritual
way of dealing with the science of morals.

We will exemplify in the case of theft. For
an act to be sinful, a man must perform it
with a consciousness of what he is about, and
consenting to it in spite of its being wrong.
Let him, then, steal with the full consciousness
that stealing is wrong, and that he is stealing,
and with a perfect resolve that he will steal.
That is not all according to Roman Theology.
It is not yet decided whether he is committing
a mortal or a venial act of theft. That de
pends upon the amount stolen. If the amount
is " notable," the act belongs to the first group,
and is a mortal sin ; if not, it belongs to the
second group, and is venial. What then is
a "notable" amount? Some said 2 ^d., some
said £2, 10s., the majority fixed it at
lOd. As long as this tariff lasted, the theft
of lOd. was mortal, and caused spiritual death,
but the theft of 9d. was venial, and did not
diminish God's love to the agent. After a
time the tariff was changed. Men were
divided into different classes, and a sum was
fixed for each class. Above that amount,
mortal sin followed by eternal death ; below
it, venial sin easily atoned for in this world or
in purgatory. The sums fixed by the present
tariff of the Roman Church, as laid down by
Liguori, Tbeologin MoraJis, iv. 528, are as
follows : —

s. d.

With respect to mendicants .... 0 5
With respect to labourers ..... 0 10

With respect to artisans 1 (>i

With respect to moderately rich men . 1 S
With respect to absolutely rich men . 2 ti
With respect to very rich noblemen . 5 0
With respect to a very rich community 7 6
With respect to kings 10 0

Mark the consequence resulting from scales
of this nature. Let there be 2s. 6d. on the
table. Let a man with full knowledge that
God's law forbids him to appropriate it, yet
wilfully and deliberately steal it for present
gratification. Nay, let there be added in his
mind a malicious feeling of hatred ngainst the
owner. Is it not clear that he has been guilty

DEADLY, OR MORTAL SIN [158]

DEAN

of a perfect act of theft, and must bear bis
burden accordingly ? Distinguendum, says
Rome. We must first ask to whom that 2s. 6d.
belonged. If it belonged to a mendicant, a
labourer, an artisan, a moderately rich man, or
an absolutely rich man, then the sin of theft
was mortal. But in case it belonged to a very
rich nobleman, a very rich community, or to
a king, the character of the act is changed.
Two conditions of a mortal act of theft are
present, but the third is wanting. True, the
man's mind and spirit remain in exactly the
same disposition, but he has not stolen enough.
He is excused from mortal sin ; he has com
mitted only a venial act of theft, and for this
God's love is not diminished towards him.
He need not confess what he has done.

Again, suppose a man standing between a
country squire and a rich peer. Let him be
affected in exactly the same manner and de
gree towards each. Let him know and bear
in mind that God has forbidden him to take
what does not belong to him, but let him
Avilfully determine to do so. He puts out
his right hand and steals 3s. from the
peer. God's love is not thereby diminished
towards him. It is a venial act of theft. He
puts out his left hand and steals the same
sum of 3s. from the squire. He has earned
to himself eternal hell fire, and his soul is
dead. It is a mortal act of theft.

Once more. A man is sitting in a railway
carriage. The temptation comes upon him,
and although he is aware of the wicked
ness of the act, he steals 2s. from his
neighbour's pocket. Has he sinned mortally
or venially ? He does not know. If his
neighbour was an absolutely rich man, he
einned venially ; if a moderately rich man, he
sinned mortally. Purgatory and everlasting
death are in the balance.

Is it not plain that the greater or less sin-
fulness of a theft depends upon the dis
position of mind in which it is committed ? If
a man commits a theft with full advertence of
the intellect and consent of the will, he has
committed a perfect act of theft whether the
sum stolen be great or be little. If by steal
ing much he has brought ruin on a neighbour,
he has committed another sin, against charity;
but the sin of theft, being the trangression of
the law of justice, was perfect without the
additional crime against the law of charity.
The same principle applies in all classes of
sin.

We conclude that acts cannot be distin
guished beforehand into acts of deadly or
of venial sin, but that it depends upon the
disposition of the agent in each case whether
the sin be grave or light, while the slightest
sins are in their nature deadly unless forgiven

for the infinite merits of an all-sufficient
Saviour, which forgiveness we are assured is
granted to all the true children of God.

[F. M.]

DEAN, — Latin Decanus, was originally an
officer set over ten, e.g., over ten soldiers or
over ten monks in a monastery. The decanus
episeopi originally presided over a tenth part
of a diocese or over ten parishes. As a
cathedral officer the decanus dates from the
eighth century, when, after the monastic
pattern, he was subordinate to the prtepositus
or provost, who was the bishop's vicegerent,
as head of the chapter. The office in its full
development dates only from the tenth or
eleventh century, and the first English dean
was the Dean of St. Paul's, A.D. 1086. (Smith,
Diet, of Ohr. Ant.). In the Church of England
at present there are four sorts of deans : — (1)
the dean of a chapter ; (2) the dean of a
peculiar, who in some cases has a chapter, but
is not subject to the bishop's visitation, e.g.,
the Dean of Westminster ; (3) a dean who has
no cure of souls, but holds an ecclesiastical
court, e.g., the Dean of Arches ; (4) a rural
dean.

The Dean of a chapter or cathedral is the
arch-presbyter of the diocese, and is inferior
in dignity to the bishop only. He is styled
"Very Reverend," and has a seat in the Lower
House of Convocation. He must reside at
least eight months in the year. His duty is
to preach the Word of God and keep good
hospitality. (Canon 42). Most dioceses in
the Church of England have a dean, whose in
come varies from £3000 a year at Durham,
downwards.

The Dean of Arches. — An officer who anciently
had jurisdiction over thirteen peculiars (now
abolished) of the Archbishop of Canterbury in
the City of London. The office is now ob
solete, but the name is given to the official
Principal or Judge of the Provincial Court of
Canterbury, who is now appointed under Act
of Parliament. (See ARCHES).

The Rural Dean was a very ancient and
formerly important Church officer, but even
in Blackstone's time "almost grown out of
use" in the Church of England. The office
has been revived in modern times, but Rural
Deans are now mere deputies of the arch
deacon or bishop, except in cases where they
are by statute appointed to act as com
missioners, as in the case of resignations and
dilapidations. (See Whitehead, Church
Law.)

In the Protestant Episcopal Church of
America the president of a convocation is
styled dean, and there are deans of the
Chapels Royal in the Established Church of
Scotland. The term is also employed in the

DECALOGUE

[ 159 ]

Universities and Medical Schools, and often
denotes the senior member of a corporate
body. (Fr. doyen.) [B. W.]

DECALOGUE.— See COMMANDMENTS.

DECRETALS. — Decretal epistles, epistles
wherein the Popes, when appealed to, de
clared their decisions. A synodical letter of
Siricius in 385, the earliest genuine decretal
extant,* is addressed to a Spanish bishop, and
decides for the celibacy of priests.2 In a
Roman Council under Gelasius in 494 the
decrctales epistolce (an expression then first
occurring3) of previous Popes are to be re
ceived with reverence.4 Such decisions of
Popes, at first in their synods, afterwards inde
pendently of them, represented essentially their
personal ruling as distinct from the canons
enacted in and by councils, which made
Church Law or Canon Law. In or about 782,
when papal pretensions had made little, if
any, advance since the days of Gregory the
Great (ob. 604), Hadrian I. called his see head
of the whole world and of all the churches of
God ; 5 and if Rome's vaunt had some truth in
it, Rome being the only visible centre of re
ference for a wide-stretching ecclesiastical
network in a very broken condition of the
secular power, the tempting moment had ap
parently arrived for some one who recognised
the splendid opportunities of the Roman posi
tion to seek for a seeming good by unwarrant
able means. So there was fabricated a serie*
of "decretal epistles" running back to A.D.
93,6 inventing an historic right, from even sub-
apostolic times, for the pontiffs to impose
their will on the Church. The new collection,
thought to have originated in or about A.D.
800, was published as a whole between 829
and 845 7 in Eastern France, the fabrication
being probably due to Autcar or Otgar, Arch
bishop of Mainz (82G-847).8 The forger
assumed the name of Isidore Mercator (or
Peccator), evidently wishing his compilation
to be attributed to the noted Isidore bishop
of Seville (ob. 636). As their spuriousness

1 Canon J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian
Church, i. 432, ed. 1875 ; Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, 1869, ii. 292.

2 Dionysius Exiguus, Collectio Decretorum Ponti-
ficum Romanorum in Pat. Lat. Ixvii. 231 ; Mansi
iii. 655.

8 Schaff, ii. 292.

4 Mansi, viii. 148 i>.

6 " Sedes Apostolica caput totius mundi et
omnium Dei ecclesiarum," Pat, Lat., xcviii. 333 B ;
Mansi, xii. 807 A; Neander, v. 155 n. 1 (Clark);
Hardwick, Middle Age, 43 n. 10.

« Hardwick, 145, n. 1.

' Ibid.

8 Ibid.

DECRETALS

has been demonstrated, and is now universally
admitted, they are called without reserve
"false" and "forged," and their author is
"Pseudo-Isidore." Down to the period of
this great imposture, Church Law had been
found in the work of Dionysius Exiguus, the
monk at Rome in the sixth century, who, to
nearly two hundred canons of general and
provincial Councils in East and West (Greek
canons appearing in a Latin version), added
the pontifical decretals from that of Siricius
in 385, which were thus placed on the pedestal
of the canons, and a way opened for their
future exaltation. But as yet Church Law
meant Canon Law, and the decretals, with all
their dangerous elevation, probably in practice
occupied a lower level. In the new compilation
all the decretals before 385, and they were
a large number, were fabricated mostlv by
Pseudo-Isidore ; some after that date, as were
some canons. Their obvious intention was to
exaggerate the privileged standing of bishops
and clergy, but above all things to advance
the pontiff to a pinnacle never before reached.
Beside the forged decretals must be placed
that twin forgery the Donation of Constantine,
both which together made the mediaeval
Papacy what it was, the one on its spiritual
side, the other on its temporal and territorial.
The discredit of their origin rests as much on
the pontiffs as on the actual fabricators ; for
an imposture that was so completely unveiled
in Germany in the sixteenth century, was far
more easily discoverable amid the papal
archives of the ninth, had there been the lease
honest inclination to know the facts at Rome.

In 857 the decretals were cited as authori
tative at the Council of Quiercy by the French
king Charles the Bald.9 It was a warm debate,
from 862 to 865, between Pope Nicholas I. and
Hiucmar Archbishop of Rheims10, that first
brought the question of decretals versus
canons into historic prominence. Nicholas's
letter of January 865 n is a laboured argument
for the decretals as standing on a par with the
canons, though as documents not formally
ranking and paged 12 with them.

In 871 Hincmar had a similar controversy 1S
with the next Pope Hadrian II., to whom a
younger Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, the
Archbishop's nephew, deposed by the Synod

9 Robertson, iii. 319.

10 Related in Robertson, iii. 389-396 ; Neander,
vi. 117-122.

11 Ad Universes Episcopos Oallice, Mansi, xv.
695 D ; Hardwick, 147, n. 11.

12 Compaginatse, i.e. conjunctas, copulatse,
in unum volumen congestse, Ducange.

1J Neander, vi. 122-129. Robertson, iii. 402-
406.

DECRETALS

[ 160 ]

DECRETALS

of Douzi, had appealed, in circumstances only
to be justified by the forged decretals, which
asserted the Pope's power not merely to revise
the ruling of a local Synod, which even the
canons (in particular the Sardican of 343 or 7)
allowed, but to override its jurisdiction
altogether.1 The Synod of Douzi, in an epistle
to Hadrian2 requesting his confirmation of
their sentence, insisted on the primary
authority of the canons * and the Sardican
limit to appeals.4 In a tract of fifty-five
chapters addressed to his nephew,5 the Arch
bishop speaks his mind on the inferiority of
decretals to canons, assertingthat the former had
no application to the present case, however they
may have suited particular circumstances in
past times.6 He also uses expressions hardly
consistent with a belief in their genuineness,
as "compiled fictions,"7 "a deleterious cup
besmeared with honey."8 He says the king
will abide by the known rules of Scripture,
tradition, and the canons, but reject anything
which may have been forged or compiled to
the contrary.9 Hadrian's successor John
VIII. (872-882) had the opportunity of serving
Charles the Bald politically, and royal support
was no longer continued to Hincmar's cause.
By the king's allowance, a primate over the
French Church with enormous spiritual powers
as papal vicar,10 a " Pseudo-Isidorian primate,"
Gieseler calls him,11 was appointed in the
person of Ansegis Archbishop of Sens, though
Gieseler, and with him Robertson,12 does not

I Neander, vi. 126 ; Rob., iii. 401.

3 Mansi, xvi. 569.

* Mansi, xvi. 677 A. " Secundum sacros sanc
torum conciliorum canones, Spiritu Dei conditos
et totius mundi reverentid consecrates."

4 Mansi, xvi. 677 A. Requesting the Papal
confirmation, the Synod begs that the privileges
of the Gallican Church may be respected (681 B),
and the Sardican limit in appeal observed (682 B).

8 Opusculum Iv. capitulorum, P. L., cxxvi. 282.

8 Opusc., cap. xxv. De Auctoritate ct Differ entid
Conciliorum et Epistolarum Sedis Apostolicae
Pontijicum, in P.L., cxxvi. 385 D, 386 A ; Neander,
vi. 126, 127 71. i ; Hardwick, 148 n. 1.

7 Figmenta compilata, Opusc., cap. xlvi. ; P.L.,
cxxvi. 460 D ; Neander, vi. 127.

8 " Poculum quasi ad ora melle oblitum et in
discrete commixtum," P.L., cxxvi. 461 A;
Neander, vi. 127.

9 Hincmar (in nomine Caroli) to Hadrian II.
in P.L., cxxiv. 896 A, "a quoquam fuerit con-
ficturn " ; Rob., iii. 404.

10 In Hincmar's Annals, ann. 876, P. L., cxxv.
1275 ; Neander, vi. 128 : Hardwick, 148 n. 2 ; Rob.,
iii. 408.

II Gieseler, ii. 127, Eng.
12 Rob., iii. 411.

allow that Charles had any intention of
conceding "a Pseudo-Isidorian subjection"
of the French Church to the Roman see. All
that Hincmar could then do he did, appealing
to the bishops of France to uphold the rights
of their metropolitans against these encroach
ments ; 13 drawing from them a declaration that
they would never sacrifice those rights or the
ancient laws of the French Church to papal
decretals.14 The stand made by Hincmar did
not avail much, as there was no serious effort to
test the genuineness of the great forgery, while
all conspired to flatter the pontiffs in the most
exalted terras of address. So papal authority
in France continued to grow.15 It was when
the mastery of the decretals over the ancient
andcomparatively genuine canons was virtually
won in the tenth century that the clergy sank
into the gross ignorance related by Church
historians, and the Papacy was disgraced by
infamies unexampled in previous days.18 It
vvasabsolute in the eleventh, when the pontifical
ideals of Hildebrand (Gregory VII., 1073-1085)
were ripening all over the Continent,17 and
moulding our own ultramontane Archbishop
Anselm (1093-1109).

By the appearance, in or about 1150, of the
Italian monk Gratian's Decretum, Church Law
received an altered form, being no longer
expressed in a series of canons, but as a
scientific system elaborated from both canons
and decretals, arranged by subjects, with divi
sions and subdivisions. The principles of the
False Decretals ran through the work, " which
thus served to establish those principles in
stead of the older canonical system."18

Room was found in the Decretum for a long
quotation from Constantino's reputed Edict of
Donation.19 This important and bulky work'-0
gave birth to the professional study of Canon
Law at the universities, leading to Canon Law
degrees, for the venerable title of "Canon
Law," nomocanon, remained for what was quite

13 Hincmar, Ep. xxx., Ad Episcopos de jure
Metmpolitanorum, in Pat. Lat., cxxvi. 189;
Neander, vi. 128.

14 Hincmar's Annals, ann. 876, in P.L., cxxv.
1275 0 : Neander, vi. 129.

15 Hardwick, 148.

16 Rob., iv. 1-2.

17 Ibid., 292-3.

18 Rob., v. 432. Robertson also says (iii. 326),
" Gratian made the False Decretals the founda
tion of his Decretum."

19 Beginning "Utile judicavimus" (in the Edict,
P.L., cxxx. 248 c; in the Decretum, Part I. dis-
tinctio 96, cap. 14, P.L., clxxxvii. 460 C), and
going down to the end.

20 Gratian's Decretum occupies all vol. clxxxvii.
in Migne's Patrologia Latina.

DECRETALS

[ 161 ] DEFENDER OF THE FAITfi

as truly " Decretal Law." It was with the
Decretum at his back that Becket won for the
spiritual power against Henry II. of England;
and it was in 1170 that the Isidorian decretals
received their first serious wound, about the
time of Becket's triumph, through the impugn- j
ment of their genuineness by Petrus Comestor,
a professor at Paris ; 1 but they were still in
public credit as embodied in the Decretum
during the pontificate of Innocent III. (1198-
1216). In the thirteenth century, the meridian
period of the Papacy, a great development took j
place in the decretal branch of the Canon Law j
(as it always continued to be called). This j
was mainly in the pontificate of Gregory IX. I
(1227-1241), under whose direction a Spanish
Dominican, Raymond of Pegnafort, made a j
copious collection of decretals almost equal
in bulk to the Decretum itself, to which work
Gregory ordered it to be annexed, and in com
bination with it to be studied in the schools.
By this time the Decretum had disclosed many
imperfections in the shape of obscurities and
discrepancies, and the new decretals were
largely occupied in elucidating, harmonising,
and supplementing them.2 The Gregorian
decretals were digested under similar heads
to those of the Decretum, and were arranged in
five books. A second collection, much smaller,
was made by Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), and
being added to the previous one, was named
Liber Sextus Decretalium. A third collection
by Clement V. (1305-1314) was entitled
Clementina. Another, chiefly by John XXII.
or XXIII. (1410-1415), being miscellaneous,
bore the name of Extravagantes,3 in the etymo
logical sense of that word. See CANON LAW.
In the middle of the fifteenth century, when
the decretal system was about complete, and
in authority practically above the Decretum
(which required decretals to make it work),
Churchmen were loudly demanding to be
ruled by The Church, meaning by Councils
and canons, rather than by papal decretals and
a despotic papal monarchy. The persistent
resistance to this demand down to the Council
of Trent is well known. When in 1520 Luther
at Wittenberg burnt the Bull Exurge, he cast
the Decretals first into the flames,4 as though
he would say, Let us at length be governed
by genuine Councils, not by papal dictation.
A few years after that those learned Reforma
tion historians the Magdeburg Centuriators,
bringing the papal system under the closest

1 Gieseler (Eng.), vol. ii. p. 117 n. 17.

2 Rob., vi. 409, 410.

3 Mosheim, ii. 179. n. 4.

4 Exustionis Antichristianorum Decrctalium Acta,
Luther's Latin Works, Wittenberg Ed. 1558,
vol. ii. p. 123.

scrutiny, for the first time discovered that the
Isidorian decretals were a gross and clumsy
fabrication, leaving them the undying epithets
"false" and "forged," which disgraceful words
such PapalistB as Baronius, Bellarmine, Fleury,
have been forced to acquiesce in. But " while
the foundation has long been given up even by
the extremest writers of the Roman Catholic
Church, the superstructure still remains."5

An English scholar, Dean Comber, in the
Restoration period, when Rome wras pressing
her authority so hard, in his very timely work
Roman Forgeries, entered on a detailed histori
cal, and very damaging examination of the
False Decretals, which can be consulted in a
modern reprint of his treatise,8 showing that
the forgery was even then cited by papal
writers to prove against Protestants such
points as the supremacy and infallibility of
the Pope, his right to appeals, and various
other things.

In the Corpus Juris Canonici, as the Canon
Law in its completed official form is entitled,
may be seen Gratian's Decretum and the
various collections of Decretals which followed
it, from Gregory IX.'s, but the whole called
"Canon Law," though "Decretal Law"
would seem the more appropriate designation.
The most recent edition of this work, Fried-
berg's, published at Leipzig, is in two large
handsome quartos, vol. i. (1879) being entirely
occupied with the Decretum, vol. ii. (1881)
with the Decretals, three quarters of it being
taken up with the decretals of Gregory IX.
alone. See CANON LAW. [C. H.]

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.— A title
conferred by Pope Leo X. in 1521 upon Henry
VIII. and his successors. In that year Henry
had sent to the Pope his book against Martin
Luther. The selection of the title caused
much discussion in the papal Councils ; it was
ratified by a papal Bull and despatched to
England, accompanied by a letter from the
Pope commending the king's zeal. The choice
by the Pope of this particular title arose
partly out of the circumstances of the case,
partly from the difficulty of selection, as the
titles "Most Christian," "Most Catholic,"
"Eldest Son of the Church," were already
the appanages of the kings of France and
Spain. The title was, after Henry's breach
with Rome, confirmed by Parliament (35
Hen. VIII. c. 3) ; consequently the title no
longer rests upon the papal grant. The Act
referred to orders that the said "stile declared
and set forth by this Act in manner and form
as is above mentioned, shall be from hence-

5 Robertson, iii. 326.

6 In Cumming's edition (1848) of Bishop
Gibson's Preservative, vol. xv. pp. 98-243.

L

DEFENDER OP THE FAITH [ 162 ]

DEFINITIONS

forth by the authority aforesaid, united and
annexed for ever to the Imperial Crown of his
Highness' realm of England."

When Richard Lalor Shiel, who was a
Roman Catholic, was Master of the Mint in
1850, a new florin was struck without either
"F.D." or "Dei Gratia." When the matter
came up in the House of Commons, Mr. Shiel
alleged that the design had been approved by
the Privy Council, and that in some of the
Indian silver coinage in use at Calcutta the
same omissions were made (Life, by W. T.
McCullagh, vol. ii., p. 396). After the atten
tion of the House had been called to the
matter, the florins were withdrawn. (See
Hansard's Part. Debates, Third Series, vol. cxi.
August 14 to June 17, 1850, p. 422.)

[C. J. C.]

DEFINITIONS OF THEOLOGICAL
TERMS. — A very common fallacy in framing
definitions is to embrace within the wording
of the definition something which the framer
desires to prove, and then to argue from the
definition as though the thing in question was
proved because accordant with the definition,
and as though anything not accordant with
the definition, similarly framed by omission
instead of addition, was thereby disproved.
We will give a few instances in which the
Church of Rome has employed this fallacious
method of argument.

The Church. — Bellarmine defines the Church
as "the company of Christians, knit together
by the possession of the same faith and the
communion of the same sacraments, under the
government of lawful pastors, and especially
of the Roman Bishop, as the only Vicar of
Christ on earth" (De Eccl. Mil,, iii. 2). It
will be seen that this definition excludes all
Protestants and all members of the Oriental
Church. And this is its purpose. Devoti, ob
jecting to a more reasonable definition by
Febronius and Cavallarius, cries out, "What
is there in their definition which heretics could
not accept and will satisfy Catholics ? It does
not mention the chief Pontiff, who is divinely
constituted the Head of the Church " (Inst.
Can., i. 4). Hooker, with his usual sagacity,
points out the falsity of such definitions, and
bids us beware of them : "This is the error of
all Popish definitions that hitherto have been
brought. They define not the Church by that
which the Church essentially is, but by that
wherein they imagine their own more perfect
than the rest are" (Eccl. Pol, v. 68, 6). A
controversialist is lost who accepts any specifi
cally Roman definition of a theological term —
which is often expressed in such a way that
its assumptions or omissions are much less
obvious than in Bellarmine's definition of the
Church.

Sacrifice. — Bellarmine defines a sacrifice as
"an external offering made to God on high, by
which something visible and permanent is in
mystical rite consecrated by a lawful minister
and transmuted so as to be altogether de
stroyed " (De Missa, i. 2.). Here Bellarmine
has composed a definition applicable to one
class of sacrifices (material sacrifices), and
covering, as he thinks, the so-called sacrifice
of the Mass, and has adopted it as the defini
tion of sacrifice in general, and then it is easy
to argue from his definition against the sacri
ficial character of all sacrifices that do not be
long to the one specific class of sacrifice that
has been defined by his formula (such as the
immaterial sacrifices of praise and prayer), and
of all offerings in which the thing offered is
not destroyed. Again, Aquinas says, " The
term sacrifice is applied to anything done for
the honour properly due to God with the view
of propitiating Him " (Summa, part iii. 9, 48),
whence it may be argued that the Eucharistic
offering is not a peace-offering, not an offering
of thanksgiving, but a propitiatory sin-offering.

Sacraments. — "A sacrament is a thing subject
to the senses, which by the institution of Christ
has the power of effecting (and therefore
signifying) sanctity or justifying grace"
(Liguori, Theol. Mor., vi. 1). Here, by a side-
stroke, sanctification is assumed to be the same
as justifying grace, whereas sanctification
differs from, and is not the cause of justifica
tion. Justification is the act of God, whereby
of His free mercy He regards us as acceptable
for the merits of Jesus Christ, and it precedes
sanctification, which is the act of the Holy
Ghost in which we are allowed to co-operate
by yielding ourselves to be moulded by His
influences. The great doctrine of Justification
by Faith is undermined by the definition.

Confirmation. — "Confirmation is an anoint
ing with oil by a bishop on the forehead of
one baptized, with an appointed form of
words" (Bellarmine and Liguori, Theol. Mor.,
vi. 2). Then those who are confirmed by
laying on of hands (which is the true form)
are not confirmed, and those confirmed by
anointing without laying on of hands are
confirmed — neither of which things is true.

The Eucharist. — " The Eucharist is the sacra
ment of the Body and Blood under the species
(whether ' kinds ' or ' appearances ') of bread
and wine, instituted by God for the spiritual
refreshment of the soul " (The Schoolmen
and Liguori, Theol. Mor., vi. 5). The words
"under the species of bread and wine" beg
the question of the manner of Christ's presence,
and teach that the presence is in the elements.

Extreme Unction. — "Extreme Unction is a
sacrament instituted by Christ, to confer on
one in danger of death, health of soul, or even

DEFINITIONS

[ 163 ] DELEGATES, COURT OF

of body, by anointing with blessed oil and
by prayer of the priest" (Aquinas, iv. 23, 1).
Here it is assumed that Extreme Unction is
a sacrament, that it was instituted by Christ,
and that it is effective for soul and body —
none of which things are true.

The Priesthood. — This was defined by Car
dinal Vaughan and the Anglo- Roman bishops
in 1897 as "the power to cause the Body and
Blood of Christ to become present on the
altar under the appearance of bread and wine,
and thereby to offer Him up in sacrifice."
If this definition were true, none would be
priests in the sense of presbyters, except they
were priests (to the exclusion of others) in
the sense of hiereis, or sacrificers, and not
only sacrificers of an animal, like the Jewish
priests, but sacrificers, and therefore sacra-
mentally slayers (see Bellarmine's definition
given above) of the Son of God.

Ordination. — " In the Decrctum pro Armenis,"
says Dollinger, "there is found, in regard to
ordination, the perfectly astonishing declara
tion that the matter of the sacrament is —
not the laying on of hands, which is not
even mentioned, but — the porrectio instrumen-
torum, the delivery of the chalice and paten.
And yet the porrectio instrumcntorum, is purely
a ceremony, and in truth such an one as first
arose after the year 1000, and only in the
West ! Here, undoubtedly, a Pope has erred
in a solemn dogmatic decree, in that he has
marked the unessential ceremony of the por
rectio instrumentorum as essential in ordina
tion, and has not mentioned the essential
laying on of hands " (Report of the Bonn
Conference of 1875). The Decretum was pro
mulgated in England by Cardinal Pole.

Ordination Formula. — Romanists having
adopted the formula "Receive power to offer
sacrifice to God and to celebrate masses for
the living and the dead," argue from it (and
the Jansenists of Holland do the same) that,
as the Anglican formula does not contain
these words, Anglican orders are invalid.
But it is certain that the " Receive power," &c.,
formula was never used earlier than the tenth
century. Consequently, if the Romish formula,
defined as above, is to be accepted as neces
sary, there was never any presbyter in the
Latin Church for more than nine hundred years,
and therefore, on the Roman theory of orders,
there is none now. Ignoring this consequence,
Romanists and Jansenists argue from their
formula against the sufficiency of the "Form
of ordaining of priests " in the English Church.

The above are a sufficient number of in
stances to show that we must be very careful
in accepting Papal definitions, lest we thereby
unconsciously concede the point at issue
between us. [F. M.]

DEGRADATION.— An ecclesiastical censure
whereby a person in holy orders is deprived
of them. By Canon Law (see Boniface VIII. 's
Decretal, Sexti Decretal, lib. v., tit. 9, c. 2),
no person in any order above sub-deacon can
be "degraded" by a bishop alone, nor even
by an archbishop, but as Ayliffe in his Partr-
gon says, a deacon must be "degraded" by
three bishops, a presbyter by six bishops, and
a bishop by twelve (see p. 207).

The power to inflict degradation originally
appertained to a Synod or convocation, and
that authority has never been delegated lower
than to a certain number of bishops propor
tioned to the rank and order of the defendant.
See note to Clarke v. Heathcote, 1 Robt., p. 381.
By Statute "the Ordinary" was allowed to
degrade for certain crimes (see 23 Hen. VIII.,
c. 1., sec. 6 ; now repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. IV.,
c. 27, sec. 1). The Official Principal in the
case cited above held that he had no power
to inflict the punishment. The decretal above
mentioned gives a solemn form of degradation.
The last person degraded in the English Church
under the Canon Law appears to have been
Dr. Leighton, for publishing a seditious book
in 1631 (6 Car. I.). " The deposition from the
ministry " mentioned in the 122nd Canon, was
said in Clarke v. Heathcote to mean deposition
from the "office" of the ministry and not
from " orders."

The Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, 55 & 56
Viet. c. 32, sec. 8, gives the bishop power,
where a living has become vacant by virtue
of any sentence passed under the Act, to
depose a clergyman from holy orders by sen
tence and without any further formality, if
it appears to him that that is the proper
course, and this has since been done in a
number of instances. [E. B. W.]

DELEGATES, COURT OF.— This Court was
composed of persons nominated by the sover
eign until abolished in 1832. It was the
ancient practice of the sovereign on any ap
peal to him in his Court of Chancery (to be
distinguished from the Judicial Court of that
name) to nominate persons to hear such ap
peal, called "delegates." They were ap
pointed only to hear the particular case, and
not to hear that and similar cases. The king
could, on petition to him, also grant a
commission to review any decision the dele
gates had come to. Until the Act of 25 Henry
VIII., c. 19, abolishing appeals to Rome, the
cases referred to such delegates were princi
pally Admiralty matters. When that Act, by
sec. 3, abolished such appeals to Rome from
the archbishop, the Act directed that upon
an appeal for lack of justice in the arch
bishop's Court "a commission should issue
under the great seal to such persons as

DEMONS

[ 164]

DENUNCIATION

should be nominated by the king to hear and
determine these appeals." Those persons
heard such appeals as delegates of the king
who now became in all Courts ecclesiastical
throughout his dominions, supreme. As the
Pope had been in the habit of reviewing
sentences given by him, so the King's Bench
in Queen Elizabeth's reign held the sovereign,
having the Pope's authority, might also do
so (4 Coke's Institutes, p. 340). The commis
sioners named by the king included, as a rule,
some of the lords spiritual and temporal, one
or more of the judges, and one or more Doctors
of Civil Law. In 1832, by the Act of 2 & 3
Will. IV., c. 92, it was provided that no more
such commissions should issue under the
great seal, but the right of appeal should be
to the king in Council. The same Act enacted
that every judgment, order, and decree given
by the Privy Council should be final and de
finitive, and that no commission should there
after be granted or authorised to review any
judgment or decree made by virtue of the Act.
In 1833 it was provided by 3 & 4 Will. IV., c.
41, that such appeals should go to a Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, who were all
to be persons having held high legal office,
except two persons whom the king might
nominate, who might be ordinary Privy Coun
cillors. The exact composition of the Judicial
Committee has been altered from time to
time, the last Act dealing with it being the
50 & 51 Viet., c. 70. By section 14 of the
Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Viet.,
c. 59), the sovereign may, by order in Council
with the advice of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, or any five of them, of
whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one, and
of the Archbishops and Bishops, being Privy
Councillors, or any two of them, make rules
for the attendance on the hearing of ecclesi
astical cases as assessors of the committee of
such number of the archbishops and bishops
of the Church of England as may be deter
mined by such rules. [E. B. W.]
DEMONS. — The word Sai^viov, with its plural
5ot/x6»'ta, are frequently met with in the New
Testament, and used in the sense of evil spirits.
In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testa
ment the neuter noun is used as the rendering of
different Hebrew words, several of which mean
inferior deities worshipped by the heathen. The
word is not, in that translation, employed in
the sense of an "evil spirit," as popularly
understood, except in the Books of Tobit and
Baruch, and possibly in the translation of
Ps. xc. 6 (LXX., Ps. xci.) and in Isaiah xiii. 14.
The masculine noun da.lfj.wv is only found once
in the LXX, in Isa. Ixv. 11, where the meaning
may be doubtful. It is once employed in the
New Testament, in Matt. viii. 31, in the sense of

evil spirit. In the Theology of the Greek Plat-
onist philosophers, both the neuter noun and
the masculine noun are employed in the sense
of inferior deities between the gods and man.
Joseph Mede in his Apostasy of the Latter
Times (Mede's Works, Book iii.) has given
copious proofs of this fact. Mede maintained
that St. Paul used the terms in 1 Tim. iv. 1,
in 1 Cor., and probably St. Luke in Acts xvii.
18, and St. John in Rev. ix. 20, and xvi. 14, in
that sense.

Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, among the
ancient Fathers, held that evil spirits who had
once tenanted human bodies, were the actors
in cases of demoniacal possession, and a some
what similar idea has been propounded by G. S.
Faber. But there is no Scripture evidence to
support the theory. The plurality of fallen
angels is clearly enough taught in Scripture
(Matt. xxv. 41 ; Eph. vi. 12 ; Rom. viii. 38 ;
Col. ii. 15), but they are never called by the
plural of "devil" (5ia/36\oi), but are indicated
in various other ways. Satan (the adversary)
is termed in one place (Matt. xii. 24) the
"prince of the demons," and victory over
unclean spirits is said to be victory over him
(Luke x. 18). He is also constantly termed
6 5i<fy3o\os or "the Devil" (the Slanderer), and
is styled " the prince of the power of the
air" (Eph. ii. 2). Satan and his angels are
described as roving up and down in this
world. But lost spirits of the human race,
when spoken of (in all undisputed passages),
are described as in prison, under darkness,
and unable to escape even for a season from
their awful lot (Luke xvi. 19-31).

[C. H. H. W.]

DENUNCIATION (Denunciatio).— Is used by
Roman Catholic theologians in two senses. By
an edict of the Roman Inquisition promul
gated A.D. 1677, all persons are commanded,
under pain of excommunication, to denounce
to the Holy Office, within a month, all known
or suspected heretics and the abettors of
heretics ; all persons known to be addicted to
magic, witchcraft, and the black arts ; all per
sons who keep or promote the circulation of
heretical books ; all persons who have broken
their religious vows by contracting marriage ; all
persons who have committed bigamy, uttered
heretical sentiments, profaned the sacrament
of penance, shown disrespect to holy images,
frequented heretical conventicles, made con
verts to Judaism or to any sect contrary to
the Roman Catholic faith, or who have been
guilty, not being priests, of usurping the
priestly office.

There are a whole host of condemned pro
positions (Pius IX. embodied most of them in
the Syllabus), and Roman Catholic theologians
teach that any one who teaches any of those

DEPRIVATION

[ 165 ]

DESCENT OF CHRIST

condemned propositions is to be denounced
to the Inquisition. But we are informed by
Ferraris that in countries where heretics arc
intermixed with Roman Catholics, the bishops
being aware of the fact, the obligation of
denouncing them to the Holy Office does not
bind, "as no one is under an obligation to do
what is useless." Neither, in lands exclusively
Roman Catholic, does a probable risk of serious
injury to person or property release from the
obligation of denouncing formal heretics. A
formal heretic is one who is aware of his heresy
and perseveres in it.

Formal heretics, because of the contagious
nature of their crime, are to be denounced
even after their death, so that, if they have
not been buried, they may be deprived of
ecclesiastical sepulture, and if they have been
buried, they may be disinterred and their
bones burned. This has been frequently done,
notably in the case of John Wycliffe. The
Council of Constance declared, A.D. 1415,
that the writings of Wycliffe were heretical,
and commanded that " his body and bones, if
they could be distinguished from those of the
faithful, should be disinterred and cast away
from consecrated ground." For a period of thir
teen years the decree was disregarded ; but at
the end of that time, by the express command
of the Pope, it was carried into effect. The
bones of the heroic rector of Lutterworth
were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into
the rivulet Swift.

.Denunciation. — As found in the treatises
on Censures (De Censurix) has a more limited
signification. In the seventh volume of
Liguori's Theology, for example, we read that
before excommunication can validly be in
curred the excommunicated person must be
denounced publicly. ' ' Concerning which," says
Liguori, "it is not enough that the denuncia
tion take place before the contending parties,
but it should be made in a public place (as
in the church, during Mass, or at a sermon),
and on a card exhibited in a public place.
If this is not done, the faithful are not
bound to avoid the excommunicated person."

[T. C.]

DEPRIVATION.— The taking away from a
clergyman his benefice or ecclesiastical pre
ferment. This is effected by sentence of the
proper ecclesiastical court for certain fit and
sufficient causes, but for some offences the
benefice becomes ipso facto void without any
formal sentence.

Deprivation is to be distinguished from
Deposition or Degradation (see DEGRADA
TION), which means the taking away of Holy
Orders, thus reducing a clergyman to the status
of a layman. (Whitehead, Church Law.)

[B. W.]

DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO HELL.—

The "hell" into which our Lord descended
when He gave up the ghost on the cross
was " Paradise," where the spirits of the just
await the resurrection (see HADES, HELL). He
had promised the dying robber that he would
be with Him in Paradise (Luke xxiii. 43). St.
Paul in Eph. iv. 9, terms that place of departed
spirits in "the Unseen " (Hades), "the lower
parts of the earth," i.e., places lower than the
earth ; the LXX. Version in Ps. Ixii. 10 (Hebrew,
Ps. Ixiii. 10) speaks of Hades in geneial as
"the lowest parts of the earth." St. Peter
speaks of the descent of Christ into " Hades"
and His resurrection from it in Acts ii. 27-31.

The article of "the descent into hell" in the
Creed is only important as setting forth the
reality of Christ's death, the actual separa
tion of soul and body, and the fact of His
having had a " reasonable soul and human
flesh" like other men. Notwithstanding all
that has been written on the question, we
emphatically deny that 1 Peter iii. 19, has the
slightest reference to Christ's descent into the
regions of the dead. It should be noted, how
ever, that several of the early Fathers believed
in a preaching of Christ during the interval
between His death and resurrection. Hennas
does not speak of any such preaching of
Christ Himself. The preaching he alludes to
was that of the Apostles and the teachers
who not only, according to his speculation,
preached when alive, but who preached to,
and actually baptized in Hades, the saints
of the Old Dispensation who had slept in
righteousness but had not the seal of baptism
(see Hermas, Shepherd, iii. ; Similitudes, ix. 10).
Justin Martyr does not quote 1 Peter, but
quotes an apocryphal passage in Isaiah, and
in Dial, against Trypho, cap. 72, says that
"the Lord God the Holy One of Israel, re
membered His dead who slept in the sepulchre
and descended to them to preach the glad
tidings of salvation." Irenaeus, too, in his work
Against Heresies, iv. 27, 2, speaks of Christ
preaching in Hades to " the righteous men, the
prophets and the patriarchs." Irenasus has
also elsewhere expressed even broader views
(Against Heresies, iv. 22, 1). But 1 Peter iii. 19
does not speak of any persons but the ante
diluvian sinners. Clement of Alexandria re
fers to the passage in Hermas, and expands
his words as referring also to the pious
Gentiles who had lived and died before Christ's
advent. The latter writer suggests that the
Lord or Christ also may have joined in the
preaching. He refers also to the passage in
1 Peter, regarding it as possible that some of
those who perished in the flood might have
been saved at that time, and tries, moreover,
to utilise even Matt, xxvii. 52 in favour of the

DESCENT OF CHRIST

[ 166 ]

DEVELOPMENT

same opinion. All this should be noted, for
it proves that the doctrine set forth was in
advance of that of Hermas. See Clem. Alex.
Stromata (or Miscellanies, vi. 6). The story of
the preaching of Christ in Hades is further
developed in the apocryphal Gospel of
Nicodcmus, which work is not earlier than the
third, and probably as late as the fifth century.
That book, however, only records the deliver
ance of the patriarchs, prophets, and fore
fathers from the power of Hades, and does
not allude to " the spirits in prison " spoken
of in 1 Peter. (See Nicodemus, Part II.
cap. 8.) The embellishment of the story,
and the different opinions with regard to
the persons preached to and saved, should
carefully be noted. The additions made to
the tale by the later Fathers need not here
be referred to.

Our objection to 1 Peter iii. 19 being ex
plained concerning Hades is based on the fact
that the Apostle evidently speaks there of
something well known to his readers. But no
preaching in Hades is elsewhere alluded to in
the New Testament, while the destruction of
the notorious sinners of the era of the flood,
alluded to in 1 Peter iii., is often referred to.
St. Peter does not state that he was making
a new revelation. He speaks of "spirits in
prison " who were aforetime (irbre) disobedient,
"when (fire) the long-suffering of God waited
in the days of Noah." Those sinners are spoken
of elsewhere by him as "kept under punish
ment unto the day of judgment " (See also
2 Peter ii. 9), i.e. where similar phraseology
is used. In doing so he calls attention to
the long-suffering which Christ as the Pre-
incarnate Word, " Christ in spirit," mani
fested in the olden days and still exhibits
towards men. Augustine indeed made havock
of the passage by interpreting the " spirit " to be
the Holy Spirit, and failing to see the contrast
between the (rapid ("in the flesh") and the
iri'evfj.ari ("in spirit ") as both parts of the same
Divine Person, which contrast is found also in
1 Peter iv. 6, in reference to believers who, like
their Master, though put to death in the flesh
were made alive in the spirit. The passage in
1 Peter iii. 19 simply speaks of " spirits in
prison, disobedient once when, &c." It does
not affirm that they were in that condition in
a former state, but were now reconciled. All
those additions are commentary and not the
text of Scripture. Horsley's deductions from
the passage are not fairly deducible. The
contrast is between the work of Christ in His
Pre-incarnate condition and the work He now
performs. Those who have maintained that
the expression "went," iropevBds, is in opposi
tion to this interpretation, have often strangely
forgotten that the same verb in the same form

is used beyond all controversy of Christ in
verse 22.

There is, we contend therefore, no informa
tion afforded in the New Testament of the
work performed by Christ in Hades. We may
admit that such work must have been import
ant but it has not been revealed. We do not
dare to affirm that the door of mercy is abso
lutely shut against those who die out of Christ.
All we affirm is that Scripture gives us no in
formation of salvation beyond the grave, and
gives us very terrible hints of the contrary, at
least as a rule. The passage in Peter has been
discussed by numbers in all ages of the Church.
Dean Plumptre's Spirits in Prison is one of the
latest English contributions. Our monograph
on it in Biblical Essays (T. & T. Clark, 1886), he
only alluded to in a note to his second edition,
his work having then been stereotyped. In
our monograph we have cited some valuable
German literature on the subject. Prof. A.
Schweizer of Zurich is the writer who has best
handled the subject. Our view is not that of
Augustine, for though it arrives at a similar
conclusion, it avoids all those critical difficul
ties which Alford and others harp on. No
writer has yet ventured on a refutation of our
argument. We claim to have shown decisively
that there was no current tradition in the
Church on the subject till comparatively late
times. All the ideas of the Fathers have been
derived from the passage itself, and from the
apocryphal prophecy of Isaiah alluded to
above. [C. H. H. W.]

DEVELOPMENT, NEWMAN'S THEORY
OF. — When Dr. Newman became a Roman
Catholic, it was necessary for him in some
way to reconcile that step with the proofs he
had previously given that certain distinctive
Romish doctrines were unknown to the early
Church. This was the object of the celebrated
Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,
which he published simultaneously with his
submission to the Roman Church. The theory
expounded in it in substance is, that Christ
had but committed to His Church certain seeds
and germs of truth, destined afterwards to
expand to definite forms; consequently, that
our Lord did not intend that the teaching of
His Church should be always the same ; but
ordained that it should go on continually im
proving under the guidance of His Holy Spirit.
This theory was not altogether new. Not to
speak of earlier anticipation of it, it had been
maintained, not many years previously, by the
German divine Mohler in his work called
Symbolik ; and this mode of defending the
Roman system had been adopted in the theolo
gical lectures of Perrone, Professor in the Jesuit
College at Rome. But Newman's book had
the effect of making the theory popular to an

DEVELOPMENT

[ 167]

DEVELOPMENT

extent it bad never been before, and of causing
its general adoption by Romish advocates,
who are now content to exchange tradition,
which their predecessors had made the basis of
their system, for this new foundation of de
velopment. Roman Catholic advocates are not
now ashamed to confess the novelty of articles
of their creed, and have even occasionally
taunted Anglicans with the unprogressive
character of their faith, because the latter are
content to believe as the early Church believed,
and as our fathers believed before us.

Thus, to take an example of a practice in
the Roman Church, it is not denied that the
refusal of the cup to the laity is absolutely
opposed to the custom of the Church for
centuries ; but it is thought to be sufficient
justification of Roman usage if Protestants are
unable to prove that in the early ages absolutely
no such thing ever occurred as communion in
one element without the other. Or, to take an
example of a doctrine, Protestants inquire
whether a Church of the first three centuries
thought it necessary to seek for the inter
cession of the Virgin Mary, or thought it right
to pay her the extravagant honours which
Roman Catholics have now no scruple in be
stowing on her. There is no pretence of
answering these questions in the affirmative.
It is thought reply enough to ask in return,
Did not the ancient Church teach the fact of
the intimate relation that existed between the
Blessed Virgin and the human nature of our
Lord ? Surely yes, all would acknowledge this.
Then it is urged, the later Church is entitled
to draw out by legitimate inference 1 all that
it can discover as to the privileges which that
intimate relation must needs have conferred,
even though the earlier Church had been blind
to them.

But how can this new theory be brought
into harmony with the old ? For the old
theory was that the teaching of the Church
bad never varied. Scripture proof of the
identity of her present teaching with that of
the Apostles might fail ; but tradition could
not fail to prove that what the Church teache
now she had also taught from the beginning.
Thus, for example, the Council of Trent, in
the celebrated decree passed in its fourth

1 But, as persons may not agree as to the
justice of the inferences drawn above, no one
Church, not even a General Council, could pro
pound a dogma respecting the Virgin Mary
which would be binding upon the conscience
of all members of the Church for all time, unless
it could support it "by most certain warrants ol
Holy Scripture," and demonstrate that it was
taught as a necessary truth from Apostolic
times.— EDO.

session, in which it laid the foundation of its
whole method of proceeding, clearly taught
that all saving truth and moral discipline had
been delivered either by the mouth of Christ
Himself, or by His inspired Apostles, and had
since been handed down either in the Scrip
tures, or in continuous unwritten tradition ;
and the Council, in particular decrees passed
subsequently, claimed that its teaching was
what the Church had always taught. No
phrase has been more often on the lips of
Roman controversialists than that which de
scribed the faith of the Church, as what was
held ' everywhere, always, and by all.' Bishop
Milner, in his well-known work, The End of
Religious Controversy, writes : " It is a funda
mental maxim never to admit any tenet but
such as is believed by all the bishops, and was
believed by their predecessors up to the Apostles
themselves." The constant language of the
Church is nil innovetur, nil nisi quod traditum
esi. Such and such is the sense of Scripture,
such and such is the doctrine of her pre
decessors, the Pastors of the Church, since the
time of the Apostles." Dr. Wiseman said:
"We believe that no new doctrine can be
introduced into the Church, but that every
doctrine which we hold has existed, and been
taught in it ever since the time of the Apostles,
having been handed down by them to their
successors."

The theory of development sets aside com
pletely the old Roman Catholic rule of Scrip
ture and tradition. It gives up tradition ; and
it must in consistency abandon as completely
irrational that respect for the Fathers which
even still distinguishes uneducated Romanists
from uneducated Protestants. In earthly
science Lord Bacon pointed out that the
Fathers were the children. If we think an old
man likely to be wiser than a young one, it is
because he has had so much more experience,
and is likely to know many things of which the
young man is ignorant. But the world is older
now than it ever was. To ask us to defer to
the opinion of men who lived two centuries
ago, and who consequently were ignorant of all
that the world has learned in the last two
hundred years, is as absurd as to ask a trained
philosopher to defer to the opinion of a youth
just commencing his studies. And if the
theory of the development of Christian doctrine
be true, the same rule exactly ought to hold
with regard to religious truth ; and a Romanist
cannot consistently censure a Protestant if he
thinks Luther and Calvin teachers likely to be
twelve centuries wiser than Chrysostom and
Augustine. But if in the theory of Develop
ment the Fathers lose all claim to respect, it
still worse with Scripture: the Fathers may
have been but children, but the Apostles were

DEVELOPMENT

[ 168 ]

DEVELOPMENT

only infants. They lived when the Church
had but just come into being, and before it
had learned all that the Holy Spirit has taught
it in the course of twenty centuries. If so, it
ought to be only for curiosity that we need
look into books written in the very infancy of
the Church ; and to seek for our system of
Christian doctrine in the Bible would be as
absurd as to try to learn the differential cal
culus from the writings of Archimedes. In
other words, the theory of Development, as
taught by Cardinal Newman, substantially
abandons the claims of Christianity to be re
garded as a supernatural revelation which is
likely to be preserved in most purity by those
who lived nearest to the times when it was
given.

And yet there is such a thing as a real de
velopment of Christian doctrine. We acknow
ledge that all the precious truth of Scripture
does not lie on the surface, and that continu
ous study applied to the Bible, by holy men
who have sought for the aid of God's Spirit,
does elicit much that might have escaped a
hasty reader, but which, when once pointed
out, remains for the instruction of future
generations. But we draw a distinction be
tween things essential to salration and things true,
but not necessary.1 The way of salvation does
not alter from age to age ; those truths which
were effectual for the salvation of souls in the
second or third century are sufficient for salva
tion still. A Church, then, takes a step unjusti
fiable, and which must lead to schism, if she
imposes new articles of faith to be held of
necessity for salvation which were unknown
to the Church of past times.

Again, there is a development of Christian
doctrine due to the increase of human philo
sophy and learning. It is impossible to pre
vent these from playing their part in modifying
our way of understanding the Bible. For
instance, in the case of Galileo (see GALILEO)
we see that the progress of astronomical know
ledge not only modified the manner in which
texts of Scripture were understood which
seemed to teach the immobility of the earth,

1 Our views of Biblical criticism and exe
gesis are in advance of those of the early Church.
We see, too, Christian truths more in focus,
clearer in their connection with each other. We
understand better the relations of the Church
and the world, the laws and principles of the
kingdom of God, and are able to construct a
sounder philosophy of religion. But, unless we
can claim and prove a special revelation from
heaven, carrying with it the same credentials as
those of the Holy Scriptures, we have no right
to add a new doctrine to " the faith once for all
delivered to the saints." — EDO.

but also made Christians understand that God,
who does not work miracles to do for men
what He intended them to learn to do for
themselves, did not mean the Bible as a super
natural revelation of the truths of astronomy
or other sciences, but left the attainment of
knowledge of this kind to stimulate and reward
the exercise of men's natural powers.

Well, when it is agreed on all hands that the
Church of one age may be on several points
wiser than the Church of a preceding age, the
Gallican theory of infallibility at once breaks
down. According to that theory it is consis
tent with God's promise to His Church that
disputes, and consequently that uncertainty,
on several important points of doctrine, should
prevail for a considerable time ; only it is
maintained that when once the majority of
Christians have agreed in a conclusion about
them, that conclusion must never afterwards
be called in question. But why not, if the
Church has in the meantime become wiser ?
If God, without injustice and without danger
to men's souls, can leave many of His people
for a considerable time imperfectly informed,
and even in erroneous opinion as to certain
doctrines, what improbability is there that He
may have left a whole generation imperfectly
or erroneously informed on the same subject,
and reserved the perception of the complete
truth for their successors ?

The method of Newman's celebrated Essay
on Development is to make frank confession that
neither Scripture nor Tradition will furnish
any adequate proof of Koman doctrines. But
then Newman contends that the same confes
sion must be made about doctrines which
Roman Catholics and Anglicans hold in
common, and he puts forward his theory of
Development as able to supply the deficiency
alike in either case. Thus, then, while he
owns (p. 164) that the Pope's supremacy is a
development, so also, he contends, is Episco
pacy. He draws attention to the fact that St.
Ignatius in his Epistles is silent on the subject
of the Pope's authority; but that this is be
cause that authority was not, and could not
have been, in active operation then. While
Apostles were on earth, they exercised the
powers both of bishop and Pope. When they
were taken away, " Christianity did not at
once break into portions ; yet separate locali
ties might begin to be the scene of internal
dissensions, and a local arbiter would, in con
sequence, be wanted." "When the Church
was thrown on her own resources, first local
disturbances gave exercise to bishops, and
next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to
Popes." Newman quotes with assent some of
Barrow's topics of proof that Roman Supremacy
did not exist in the first ages of the Church,

DEVELOPMENT

[169]

DEVELOPMENT

namely : (1) that in the writings of the Fathers
against the Gnostic heretics of the second
century they never allege the sentence of the
universal pastor and judge as the most com
pendious and efficacious method of silencing
them ; and (2) that heathen writers are quite
ignorant of the doctrine, although no point of
Christian teaching would be so apt to raise
offence and jealousy in pagans, no novelty be
more suspicions or startling than this creation
of a universal empire over the consciences and
religious practices of men, the doctrine also
being one that could not but be very conspicu
ous and glaring in ordinary practice. Newman
also assents to Barrow's assertion that "the
state of the most primitive Church did not
well admit such a universal sovereignty." For
that did consist of small bodies, incoherently
situated and scattered about in very distant
places, and consequently unfit to be modelled
into one political society, or to be governed by
one head, especially considering their condi
tion under persecution and poverty. What
convenient resort for direction or justice could
a few distressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia,
Parthia, India, Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia,
Cappadocia, and other parts have to Eome ?

Newman is quite consistent with the thesis
of his Essay in abandoning tradition as a
basis for the doctrine of Papal Supremacy ;
but the basis of Development on which he
attempts to build it is altogether insufficient
to constitute any firm foundation. The cases
of Episcopacy and Papal Supremacy are not
parallel ; because the former institution dates
from apostolic times ; and if it can be shown
that it was established by Apostles, then it
can claim a right to permanent continuance.
But what claim for permanence can be made
on behalf of any form of Church govern
ment, which confessedly shaped itself at least
two or three centuries after the Apostles were
all dead? Let us liberally grant that an
ecclesiastical monarchy was the form of
government best adapted to the needs of the
Church at the time, when in temporal matters
the whole civilised world was governed by a
single ruler ; and yet it might be utterly unfit
for her requirements in subsequent times
when Europe has been broken up into inde
pendent kingdoms ; and we might be as right
now in disowning papal authority as ou:
ancestors were in submitting to it.

The Most High ruleth in the kingdom o
men in temporal matters as well as in spiritual
and we can trace the working of His Provi
dence in guiding events in the one as wel
as in the other. We can see, for example
how the establishment of the Empire o
heathen Rome tended to the furtherance o
the Gospel, which never could have spread s<

rapidly from land to land, if it had not been
for the facility of intercourse resulting from
the Roman peace. Yet no evidence that the
Roman Empire was for a time beneficial to
the world, would show that it was divinely
intended to have perpetual duration, or that
we now commit any sin in not belonging to
it ; and if we recognise the guiding hand of
God's Providence in the formation of that
Empire, we might equally do so in its dissolu
tion. In like manner, a citizen of the United
States of America cannot help owning that
his country was originally colonised from
Great Britain; that the authority of the
Sovereign of England was recognised in those
States without question for a century or two ;
that English rule was of the greatest advan
tage in protecting the infant colonies from
enemies, and conferring other benefits on
them ; yet he would hold that the time came
when English rule was no longer beneficial,
and that now the sovereign of England neither
hath nor ought to have authority in the United
States. Thus, then, in like manner, the most
that the theory of Development could do for the
doctrine of Papal Supremacy, would be to
establish a proof that there have been times
when the Pope's Supremacy has been beneficial
to the Church (or, to speak more cautiously,
to the Western Church) ; that there have been
bishops of Rome whose aims were high, whose
lives were good, and by whose rule it was at
least better to have been guided than by any
other likely at the time to have been substituted
for it. But surely it will be granted, that
there have been bishops of Rome whose aims
were not high, whose lives were not pure,
and whose guidance it was not good to follow.
What claim to obedience can such make out ?
Unless it be held that God's Providence ceased
to exert itself three centuries ago, or else that
it has merely a local operation, and does not
extend to England, Scandinavia, or Germany,
the theory of Development will afford as good
a justification for the revolt from papal
authority in the sixteenth century, as for its
rise and growth in the third or fourth and
subsequent centuries. And this theory would
not prevent a historical student from pro
nouncing Papal Supremacy to be now a useless
or mischievous survival of a form of Church
government which has had its day, but which
is unsuited to the character of the present
age. If, therefore, we are to establish any
justification of Papal Supremacy, we must
fall back on the old sources of proof, Scripture
and tradition ; for Newman's proposed substi
tute, the theory of Development, completely
breaks down.

[Extracted by permission from Dr. Salmon s
work on The Infallibility of the Church.]

DEVIL, THE

[ 170 ] DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

DEVIL, THE — The name Devil, or didj3o\os,
means the slanderer. In the Old Testament
he is termed Satan or the Satan, the adversary,
for the article is used in the Old Testament
with the term, except in 1 Chron. xxi. 1. The
name Satan is also often used in the New
Testament, and generally has the article. The
idea that he is "the servant of God repre
sented as carrying out His trying, sifting
Providence" as advocated by some moderns,
has no support in Scripture. There he is re
presented as from the beginning "the liar"
and the adversary of men. There may have
been good reason why he was not prominently
spoken of in the Pentateuch, but even there
he is depicted as "the serpent," who in that
form seduced in Eden our first parents, and as
" Azazel," which ought not to be rendered in
Lev. xvi. 8 "scapegoat," but is the spirit who
has turned himself away from God, and who
is personally contrasted with Jehovah. See
Wright, Biblical Essays (Essay on the Book of
Job) ; also his Bampton Lectures on Zechariah.
The Devil is spoken of as a spirit (Eph. ii. 2)
with angels subject to him (see DEMONS),
as one who fell through pride (1. Tim. iii. 6) ;
Rev. xii. 9, however, is wrongly quoted as re
ferring to Satan's fall from heaven, though our
Lord's words in John viii. 44 may refer to that
fact. The word " Hillel," rendered " Lucifer "
in Isaiah xiv. 12, refers to the King of Babylon,
and not to Satan. The Devil is termed in the
New Testament Beelzebub (lord of flies], perhaps
rather Beelzebul (lord of the heavenly mansion —
the sun) from the Philistine god of that name
mentioned in 2 Kings i. Belial, often spoken of
in the Old Testament, or Beliar (2 Cor. vi. 15),
is, properly speaking, not a proper name, but
means worthlessness ; " a man of Belial " being
a worthless (or wicked } fellow. [C. H. H. W.]
DEVOTED.— See MONKS and NUNS.
DEVOTIONS.— External religious acts or pious
exercises which, in the view of the Romish
Church, possess merit when springing from
internal devotion or readiness to perform the
will of God.

Feasts of Devotion are certain festivals, the

observance of which is not obligatory, but is

"left to the devotion of the faithful." The

observance of such feasts is therefore supposed

to be specially meritorious.

DIATESSARON.— See FATHEBS.

DICERIUM. — A candlestick with two tapers

designed to symbolise the two natures of

Christ, used in the Russian and other Churches.

There are also candlesticks with three tapers

symbolising the Trinity. The words are spelled

also dicir and trikir. (See Wright, Service of

Mass in the Greek and Roman Churches, p. 20. )

DIES IRAE.— " Day of Wrath." A hymn of

the Romish Church occurring in the Mass for

for the Dead. It was written in 1230 by
Thomas of Celano, and has been translated
into English verse by Sir W. Scott, Dr. Irons,
and others.

DIGAMY (Gr. Siyauia).— A marriage to a
second wife after the death or lawful divorce
of the first. Digamy is not to be confused with
bigamy, which is the criminal offence of having
two wives at once. [B. W.]

DIOCESE.— See NATIONAL CHURCH.

DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.— In the
year 533, at a meeting in Constantinople be
tween the Severians and the orthodox, refer
ences were made to the writings of Dionysius
the Areopagite. The authenticity of these
writings was rejected or suspected on the
ground that they had not been known to any
of the Christian Fathers. The record of this
conference affords the first existing notice of
the books which bear the name of Dionysius.
While there was controversy in the East, even
into the ninth century, regarding these books,
they came gradually to be accepted as authen
tic, and John of Damascus (De Fide Orthodoxa,
c. 730) illustrates the respect in which they
were held. In the West, though Gregory the
Great had previously referred to them, and
Pope Paul I. had sent copies of them to Pepin
of France, special attention was paid to them
in 827, when Michael the Stammerer pre
sented copies to the Emperor Lewis the Pious.
These copies were deposited in the Abbey of
St. Denis, near Paris, where the patron saint
of France, according to legend, was buried ;
and the tradition arose that Denis and Diony
sius the Areopagite were one and the same
man. John Scotus Erigena, in the reign of
Charles the Bald and at his instigation, trans
lated the Dionysian writings into Latin ; and
his own work shows how strongly they in
fluenced his thought. From the period of
Erigena till the Renascence the writings were
almost universally accepted as authentic, and
many commentaries were written on them,
such as that of the famous English ecclesiastic,
Robert Grosseteste. At the Renascence, how
ever, when the critical spirit was awakened, the
authenticity was finally rejected by scholars,
among whom were Valla, Erasmus, and Cajetan.
The reasons for the rejection were simple.
The books were unknown to the early Chris
tian writers, and to Eusebius, who, on the
authority of Dionysius of Corinth, described
the Areopagite as the first bishop of the Church
at Athens. By internal evidence it was shown
that the writer, from his thought and his re
ferences to certain customs and men, could
not have belonged to the Apostolic Age. The
late Bishop Westcott, arguing from the re
lation of the thought of the Areopagite to that
of the Neo-Platonist Proclus, from resemblance

DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE [ 171 ]

DIPTYCHS

between it aud the teaching of the Mono- :
physites, and from the reference to Hierotheus,
a name known at the end of the fifth century, j
suggested the years 480-520 as the period when '
the books were composed.

The books are pseudonymous rather thai:
forged, since the writer made but a slight
attempt to identify himself with the Areopa-
gite. They consist of four treatises and ten
letters. The treatises are : I. On the Heavenly
Hierarchy. II. On the Ecclesiastical Hier-
archy. III. On the Names of God. IV. On
Mystic Theology. They are addressed by
Dionysius the Presbyter to his fellow-presbyter ,
Timothy. Of the letters, one is addressed to
Titus and another to the Apostle John. A
hierarchy is defined as " a sacred order, and
science, and activity, assimilated as far as
possible to the godlike, and elevated to the '
imitation of God proportionately to the divine
illuminations conceded to it" (Westcott's ,
Translation).

The " Heavenly Hierarchy" treats of the be
ings who are ministers of God for raising men
nearer to Him. Of these ministers or angels j
there are nine orders grouped into three ;
triads: (a) Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones. |
(b) Dominations, Virtues, Powers, (c) Princi
palities, Archangels, Angels. Their work is
through purification, illumination, and per
fection to elevate men towards the Divine.
The beings of the first triad, who are nearest
to God, influence those of the second, who,
in turn, affect the members of the third ; and
the last intervene in the affairs of man.

The " Ecclesiastical Hierarchy " sets forth
that there is an earthly counterpart of the hier
archy in heaven ; and that what God is to
the higher, Jesus is to the lower. As is the
heavenly so is the ecclesiastical, in the division
into three triads. The first comprises Baptism,
Communion, Holy Chrism, corresponding to I
purification, illumination, perfection. In the
second are the three orders of the clergy, the
deacons engaged in purifying, the priests in
illuminating, and the bishops in perfecting.
In the third triad are the catechumens who
are undergoing purification, the holy laymen
who are being illuminated, and the monks
who are being perfected. The monk repre
sents man in his highest attainable perfection,
and the two Hierarchies treat of the scheme
or order of the spiritual world by which the
divine revelation, through which he approaches
perfection, is given to man.

In the third treatise, " On the Names of God,"
there is an inquiry concerning the knowledge
of God to be obtained from His names as
found in Scripture. In reference to God as
good arises the question of the origin of evil.
Evil is represented as having no positive, but

only a negative reality. God as One is the
highest and final idea, and to it thought must
tend.

The " Mystic Theology " attempts to show
how thought may reach this idea. Manifesta
tions to the senses indicate, but do not reveal
God. His names, save the One, are definitions,
and therefore do not reveal Him. In order to
reach God as the One, to obtain a revelation
of Him, thought must negate all that makes
its conceptions of Him definite, since defini
tion is limitation. But the thought of a
man is finite, and it is consequently only by
transcending its own limitations, only by self-
denial, that it can attain to the idea of the
infinite, of the One. The Hierarchies deal
with the manifestations, and the means for
effecting these, of God to man. The third
and fourth treatises are concerned with a
deeper knowledge of God to be obtained, not
through manifestations of the Divine, but
through a mystic union of man with God. A
clear distinction is thus drawn between a
6eo\oyia. /carcK/xmKTj and a 8fo\oyia airo^aTiK'/i.
Together the writings attempt to furnish a
Christian metaphysic, but if in the first place
they are allied to Christianity they are also
akin to Neo-platoni.sm. Proclus, it was even
alleged, had borrowed from Dionysius. But
it was the pseudo-Areopagite who was affected
by Neo-platonism, and he, in turn, gave a
mystical cast to the religious thought of the
Middle Ages. Erigena, the forerunner, if not
the first of the scholastics, illustrates the
influence of the Areopagite ; and to his name
may be added those of Peter Lombard,
Thomas Aquinas, and Albertus Magnus. At
the Renascence, while the authenticity of the
writings attracted the attention of scholars,
their teaching commanded the interest of
thinkers like Dean Colet of St. Paul's.

Literature. — Migne's edition of Dionysii
Opera. The works of Dionysius the Areopayite,
translated into English by Rev. J. Parker.
Milman, Latin Christianty. Ueberweg, Ges-
chichte der Philosophic. Dean Colet on the
Hierarchies of Dionysius, edited by J. H.
Lupton. Dionysius the Areopayite, by B. F.
Westcott (Contemporary Review, May 1867).
Review of the English Translation, by the Rev.
D M. Mclntyre (Critical Review, vol ix.).

[J. H.]

DIPTYCHS (oiiTTii^a, pi. neut.), a pair of
folding boards or tablets, containing, presum
ably on interior leaves, a register of names,
and used in civil as well as in Church life.
The term SArot (tabeUce, tablets) sometimes
occurs as an equivalent. An early appearance
of the ecclesiastical diptychs in literature
meets us after the death, in 407, of John
Chrysostom, the deposed and exiled Patriarch

DIPTYCHS

[172]

DIPTYCHS

of Constantinople, on whose behalf it was
claimed, as in the case of other deceased
prelates,1 that he should be remembered in
the diptychs of his own Church. His numer
ous friends, the " Johnites " of Constantinople,
insisted on this point, refusing communion
with Atticus, who then occupied the patri
archal chair, until it was yielded. Their
demand was urgently promoted in person by
Alexander the Patriarch of Antioch, intent
on promoting a general peace among the dis
tracted Churches of the East through the
insertion of Chrysostom's name in their dip
tychs,2 the example3 of which he had himself
set at Antioch. Atticus, seeing no other way
of peace at Constantinople, complied, though
compliance was an admission of his own
original intrusion. He also, in 417, urged
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, whose see had
long been at feud on various points with
Constantinople, to do the same, and after
much delay the Alexandrian diptychs, the
last of several, were opened to Chrysostom's
name. This one instance shows the immense
practical importance of the diptychs in Church
life. They were not the mere office books of
a modern vestry. They were holy registers of
Church amity, brotherhood, and communion,
occupying a place in the public services,
especially valuable in an ecclesiastical system
which was not a monarchy and could not
submit to Home's dictation. They were links
to combine, if anything could, those great
patriarchal independencies in a single unity.
Unity there begun, extended to the humblest
members, and those diptychal names, or some
selection from them, being read from between
the solemn tablets4 in the celebration of the
Lord's Supper, became stored in the common
memory. Thus, if the names were those of
persons who were truly worthy, like Chrysos
tom's, the records taught successive generations
to know who had been their spiritual fathers,
and whose words they should hold fast amid
earth's Babel tongues. Even if things went
wrong, the diptychs could, as they often did,
by the same rule, perpetuate the bad. One
more episode in diptychal history will suffice for
giving a vivid impression of what this Church
ordinance was on its better side. The Fourth
General Council, that of Chalcedon in 451.
was opposed by the monophysite heresy on
the nature of Christ, threatening the founda-

1 Socrates, H.E., lib. vii. c. 25.

2 D.C.B., ACACIUS of Beroea, i. 13 a, b ;
ATTICUS, i. 208 b, 209 a.

3 Theodoret, H.E., lib. v. c. 35, in P.O., Ixxxii.
1265 C.

4 TCIIS /J.V<TTIKCUS SArois, Atticus calls them in
his letter to Cyril, Put. Or., Ixxvii. 349 C.

tions of the faith. Successive patriarchs of
Constantinople were loyal to the Council until
Timotheus (511-517), an open opponent. His
successor, John the Cappadocian, had hardly
come to the chair, under great suspicion,
when in 518 a new Emperor, Justin 1., a deter
mined " Synodite," supporting Chalcedon, suc
ceeded to the throne, which had been occupied
by a line of anti-Synodites. The Constanti-
nopolitans, warm friends of Chalcedon, but
long in despair under heterodox tyranny,
joyfully seized the unhoped-for opportunity
when the Emperor within a week of his acces
sion entered the Cathedral. The day follow
ing, July 16, 518, their proceedings reached a
climax in the same great church, by their
frantically demanding of the patriarch an
open recognition of the Fourth Council.5 The
excited multitude would take no denial and
not a moment's delay. The whole robed body,
patriarch and suffragans, priests, deacons,
choristers, were prisoners behind the screen
until assent was given, and given it was. The
patriarch's professions seem to have been dis
trusted and a cry arose : " The diptychs, the
diptychs, the diptychs to the ambo (pulpit) ! "
They were produced, and in no long time
there were inscribed in them the names of
recent faithful patriarchs, Euphemius and
Macedonius, who had been passed over ; and
also that of Pope Leo I., who had done real
service by his share in the Council of Chal
cedon. But above all the Council itself was
inscribed, and along with it its three great
predecessors, Nicaea (325), Constantinople
(381), Ephesus (431), as the four strong Church
pillars of Catholic orthodoxy on the special
subject of the Person of Christ. Those prompt
entries within the folding tablets giving them
a public and an authoritative position not to be
trifled with, completely satisfied the people, who
kept enthusiastically chanting above an hour,
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He
hath visited and redeemed His people I "
Holy Communion followed, and the old Trisa-
gion or Tersanctus, divested of its monophysite
addition, came back as music to their ears.
At the proper moment the diptychs were pro
duced, as usual in this service, and when the
deacon read out the names, which had been
just before entered, the victorious multitude,
recognising the completeness of their success,
burst out with " Glory be to Thee, 0 God ! "
Those scenes became historical as the Acclama-

s See D.C.B., TIMOTHEUS (24), died April 5,
517 ; JOANNES (124) Cappadox, succeeded
517 ; Anastasius, Emperor, died July 9, 518.
Justin I. entered the Cathedral his first Sunday,
July 15, 518. Acclamations, Monday, July 16,
158.

DIRGE

[173]

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

tions of Constantinople.1 Nothing could have
produced them but the occasion of a vital
truth, as they believed it to be, visibly re
turning to them from the grasp of civil and
ecclesiastical power. In honour of a triumph
which put the four principal Councils in the
diptychs, the Sunday nearest to July 16 is
still annually observed in the Greek Church.
That day re-united the Eastern and Western
Churches after an open schism of thirty-five
years. It also produced imperial orders to
the patriarch of Jerusalem, and to the great
Church of Tyre, for the insertion in their
diptychs of the Council of Chalcedon. In these
events the diptychs figure largely. Without
them nothing seemed completed. Conspicuous,
too, is the record in diptychs of deceased bishops,
who were doubtless prayed for in centuries
when prayers for the dead had become habi
tual. The primary object, however, of the
diptychal record was not to secure such
prayers, but to forward the purposes of the
living Church in the manner above described.
The English prayer for the Church Militant
might, as some have suggested, carry a reminis
cence of the ancient diptychs ; if so, it bears
but a single name, that of the living sovereign,
and it mentions the blessed dead without
prayer for them. The bidding prayer of the
55th Canon before the sermon could also be
mentioned.

In Church history patriarchs or bishops are
seen immediately on their consecration an
nouncing the fact formally to brother prelates,
expecting recognition by insertion in their
diptychs as a pledge of peace and communion.
Refusal would be formal notice of a breach.
This practice made an organic solidarity in the
body of the Church, which had no central
coercive authority. It is another example of
the great practical use of the diptychs, and of
the large figure they made in the Eastern
Church more especially.

Finally, it may be remarked that in the East
the medieval Church system grew up a feder
ation of sisters, through Councils and canons,
by the instrumentality of diptychs ; in the
West, by the rise of one dominant mistress
over the rest through the means of forged
decretals in a single Church. [C. H.]

DIRGE. — An office for the dead in the Romish
Church. The name is derived from the Latin
dirige (direct thou), the first word in the auti-
phon. It ceased to form part of the public
service at the Reformation. See Private Prayers
of Queen Elizabeth (Parker Soc.), pp. x., xi. 57.

1 Noticed briefly in Robertson, ii. 286 ; D.C.A.,
DIPTYCHS, i. 562" b; fully in D.C.B., JOANNES
(124), iii. 364, 365 ; in Latin, Mansi, viii. 1063 A,
1066 C.

DISCALCED CARMELITES. — There are

two divisions among the Carmelites, viz., the
Calced, who wear shoes, and the Discalced,
who wear sandals. The Carmelite Order owes
its origin to Berthold, a Calabrian monk
who left Italy in 1156, and established himself
on Mount Carmel. Of course he had visions,
the prophet Elias appearing to him, and the
Carmelites claim that their order is merely the
succession of the Sons of the Prophets founded
upon Mount Carmel by Elijah. When Pape-
broke, a Jesuit, and one of the Bollandists,
published the Acta Sanctorum, he described
Berthold as the first general of the Carmelites.
A sharp controversy immediately sprang up,
the Carmelites publishing many volumes claim
ing the prophet Elijah as their first general.
The style of reasoning adopted by the editors
of the Catholic Dictionary is characteristic :
"These hermits may have had a long line of
predecessors, nor is there any historical or
moral impossibility in the assumption that holy
men had lived on the mountain without inter
ruption since the days of Elias, although
positive evidence is wanting."

It was about 1500 that the custom of going
without shoes was introduced. A man named
John of Guadaloupe seems to have been the
author of the innovation among the men, and
St. Teresa among the women. The successors
of the " Sons of the Prophets," popularly known
as " Whitefriars," seem to have become worldly
and luxurious, and for this reason St. Teresa
started a work of reformation. She met with
much opposition, and had to endure great
persecution, but at the date of her death, in
1582, she had succeeded in reforming seventeen
convents for women and fifteen for men.
These latter wore sandals, and became known
as Discalced, or barefooted Carmelites, while
the others did not consider the wearing of
shoes a bar to their salvation.

The old spirit must be creeping in again, for
Carmelites on mission tours may be seen
wearing comfortable boots and socks in the
train, yet, when nearing their destination,
discarding these for sandals, in which they
march to the church, chanting hymns, and
making a deep impression upon the beholders.
They also go in sandals when begging from
house to house. The Discalced Carmelite
friars have houses at Kensington and Wincan-
ton in England, and in several places in
Ireland. The nuns have convents at Fulham,
Netting Hill, Chichester, Wells, Laherne,
Darlington, &c. [T. C.]

DISCIPLINA ARCANI.— This term, although
descriptive of ecclesiastical practice in the early
Church, does not appear to have come into use
until the latter part of the seventeenth century.
It was first employed apparently, by DalJaeus

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

[174]

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

in 1666,1 and afterwards by G. Meier in 1672 ; "
a few years later it was the title of controver
sial treatises by the Jesuit Schelstrate and the
Lutheran Tentzel (1678, 1692).

The term denotes Christian training com
municated privately to those only who are
regarded as qualified to receive it.

1. Under this category is included the special
instruction given at the celebration of the
Sacraments and other rites, when all except
baptized believers were excluded. This exclu
sion originated in the twofold danger, during
early Christian times, of persecution and pro
fanation. While zeal for the propagation of
the Faith induced the Church to welcome the
unbaptized to certain parts of Divine Service,
fear of informers on the one hand, and of those,
on the other, who might turn what they saw
and heard into subjects of mockery, led to the
most sacred part of the Church's worship being
reserved for the " initiated " alone. Even cate
chumens were removed, partly, doubtless, from
the difficulty of drawing a distinct line except
between the baptized and the unbaptized, but
also from the conviction that even genuine
candidates required often to be taught " line
upon line " as they were able to bear instruc
tion. After the establishment of Christianity
as the imperial religion, when, along with a
large influx of heathens into the Church as
merely nominal adherents, there came also into
the Church's thought and life not a few pagan
ideas and associations, the exclusion was con
tinued ; partly, as before, to avoid the risk of
profanation, and partly through conformity to
the pagan practice of separating the initiated
from the uninitiated in the celebration of
" Mysteries." There is evidence, in particular,
that from the latter part of the second century
at latest, all unbaptized persons were excluded
not only from participation in, but from pre
sence at the celebration of the Eucharist,3 the
service being divided into what was called
Missa Catechumenorum, at which any one
might be present, and Missa Fidelium, previous
to which all unbaptized persons, as well as
all heretics, were enjoined to withdraw.4 The
Missa Fidelium included on special occasions
a Mystagogia, or detailed instruction regard
ing the mysteries of the Faith, in the form of
a confession of belief.5 The unbaptized were

1 In his De Scriptis sub Dionysii Areopagitce
nomine.

2 In his De recondita Veteris Ecclesice Theologia.

3 Tertullian, Prcescr. adv. Hceret. c. 41 ; Apostol.
Constit., ii. 57 ; Chrysostom, 23rd. Horn, on Matt.

4 From this term Missa ( = missio, dismissio)
comes the word " Mass."

5 A specimen of Mystagogia is contained in the
ancient Testament of Our Lord, i. 28, recently issued

also not allowed to be present at the adminis
tration of Baptism, at the Unction of Confir
mation, and at the Ordination of the Ministry.6
However desirable in some respects such ex
clusion may have been, and however excellent
the motives which prompted to it, the usage,
on the whole, occasioned more evil than it pre
vented. During the period of persecution, the
secrecy of divine services gave occasion to
the gravest calumnies: to charges against
Christians of cannibalism and promiscuous
sexual intercourse, arising apparently out of
garbled reports about communicants " eating
the flesh of the Son of man" and sealing
Christian fellowship with the kiss of peace
and charity.7 The emphasis, further, which
was laid on the exclusion of the uninitiated,
led, even in Ante-Nicene, but still more in
Post-Nicene times, to the sacramental rites
losing their primitive simplicity, and to super
stitious ideas being generated and fostered,
culminating eventually in such doctrines as
Transubstantiation.

2. The term Disciplina Arcani is used to
describe the special instruction (apart from
divine services) communicated only to the
baptized and to catechumens at the close of
their course of training, regarding (a) the
nature and significance of the sacraments
and other rites ; (b) the Lord's Prayer, which
was called the Prayer of the Faithful (ei^
T&V iriffruv), and mystically interpreted ; (c) the
more mysterious doctrines of the Church's
creed, as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the
Atonement, and the Resurrection of the
Body.8 In the case of catechumens this in
struction was communicated shortly before
baptism under a pledge, more or less formal,
of silence as regards the heathen. Thus
Gregory of Nazianzus, referring to Baptism,
reports himself as saying to an audience of
catechumens, " You have heard as much of
the mystery as we are allowed to speak
publicly ; and the rest you shall hear privately,
which you must retain secretly within your
self and keep under the seal of baptism." 9
So, too, Cyril of Jerusalem, in one of his

by Rahmani (1899), and translated by Cooper and
Maclean (1902).

6 Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 27 ; Augustine, Comm.
on Psalm 103 ; Chrys., 18th Horn, on 2 Cor., Council
of Laodicea, Canon 5.

7 See Minucius Felix, Dialogue of Octavius, 9,
and Tertullian's Apology, 1. The repetition of such
gross charges by the cultured pagan Cecilius in
the former work indicates that belief in them
was not confined to the uneducated multitude.

8 Testament of our Lord, ii. 10 ; but cf. Cyr.
Cat. 15.

9 Oratio 40, De Baptismo ; cf. Tert., Apol. 7.

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

[ 175 ]

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

Catechetical Addresses, writes that " it is not
the custom to speak to heathens about the
mysteries concerning Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit ; nor even before catechumens do we
discourse plainly about such mysteries."1 By
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries the
Lord's Prayer was regarded as suitable to
be taught only to the baptized and to cate
chumens shortly before baptism, on the ground
that only through that sacrament is "the
charisma of adoption received."2 Sozomen
refrained (with exceptional scrupulosity, how
ever, apparently) even from inserting the
Nicene Creed into his History, on the ground
that heathens were likely to be among his
readers.3

3. Finally, the term Disciplina Arcani is
employed to describe instruction in the early
Church which was not to be communicated
even to baptized and orthodox believers in
discriminately, but to be reserved for those
capable of understanding, appreciating, and
benefiting by it. Such esoteric teaching was
suggested apparently by the practice of the
philosophical schools,4 and was specially notable
in Alexandria, the chief seat of philosophical
speculation. Clement and Origen, the Heads
of the Christian Catechetical and Theolo
gical School of Alexandria in the second and
third centuries, were affected so far by their
Gnostic as well as pagan environment ; and
while opposed decidedly to Gnostic heresy, they
recognised the tenet which Gnosticism empha
sised, viz., that for the enlightened members
of the Church, Christianity had much higher
teaching, which the ordinary believer (7ricm/c65)
was incapable of apprehending. Clement
indicates his belief that part at least of this
esoteric instruction had been handed down from
Apostles. He speaks of those who " preserved
the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived
directly from the holy Apostles Peter, John,
and Paul, son receiving it from father ; 5 and

1 Catech., vi. 29 ; cf. Theodoret, Qucest. in
Numb.

2 Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. Comp.,v. 28; he adds,
"None of the uninitiated dares say "Our
Father " ; cf. Chrysostom, 2nd Horn, on 2 Cor.
" Catechumens as yet have not the appointed
Prayer which Christ introduced ;" Apost. Const., vii.
44.

3 Hist. EccL, i. 20.

4 Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 7., writes: "That
there should be certain doctrines not made
known to the multitude, which are revealed
after the exoteric doctrines have been' taught,
is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but
also of philosophic systems, in which certain
truths are exoteric and others esoteric. "

5 Strom., i. 1.

elsewhere he refers to the Gnosis " which has
descended by transmission to few, having been
orally imparted by the Apostles." 8 Origen
distinguishes things communicated to Apostles
which were to be " committed to writing," from
"things by no means to be written," and
"words uttered by Christ, which have not
been preserved, because it appeared to the
Evangelists that they could not be adequately
conveyed to the multitude in writing or in
speech." 7

That some tradition, more or less trust
worthy, must have existed in the second
century regarding what Apostles said, or re
ported Christ to have said (apart from the
records of Scripture), can hardly be doubted,
"granting that the Apostles conversed, and
that their friends had memories." 8 But it is
equally indisputable that certain Gnostic
teachers, wittingly or unwittingly, fathered on
Apostles doctrine inconsistent with the author
ised tradition of Holy Writ ; and it is probable
that some early orthodox Christians also ac
cepted in good faith, as apostolic, certain oral
traditions which had no claim to that title ; so
that it is far from certain that Clement of
Alexandria, at the close of the second century,
was really in possession of any important and
at the same time reliable addition to what has
come down to us in acknowledged apostolic
writings. The " Gnosis " of which he speaks
as having been handed down, may have re
lated, not to any fresh doctrines unrevealed in
Scripture, but rather to fresh illustrations of
doctrines there set forth, and to additional
evidence (real or fancied) of their truth, ob
tained through those allegorical interpretations
on which early Christian writers laid inordinate
stress.9 The anxiety, moreover, of the Christian
School of Alexandria to conciliate philosophers
and supplant Gnostics, by harmonising, in some
measure, the method of instruction with the
systems of exoteric and esoteric teaching pre
valent in surrounding schools of philosophy and
religion, may have caused writers like Clement
unconsciously to over-estimate and thus unduly
to emphasise the available amount of unwritten
apostolic tradition.

The Disciplina Arcani is of interest as re
gards the controversy between Romanists and
Protestants, in so far as it is set forth by the
former as a ground of defence against the
Protestant objection to certain Roman doc-

8 Strom., vi. 7.

7 Contra Celsum, vi. 6.

8 Newman, Arians in the Fourth Century, p. 60.

9 e.g. the petition in the Lord's Prayer, " Give
us this day our daily bread," was interpreted as
referring to Christ and to the Eucharist. Ter-
tullian, De rat., 6; Cyprian, De. Oral. Dom. 18.

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

[ 176]

DISSENTERS

trines — transubstantiation, purgatory, image
veneration, hyperdulia of the Virgin, &c. — that
these doctrines are not found in Holy Scrip
ture, nor even in the early Fathers. Such
dogmas, it is urged by Romanists, from Bellar-
mine and Schelstrate downwards, were really
taught by the original Apostles to their imme
diate followers, but as a secret deposit not to
be committed to writing, and only to be orally
handed down. It is sufficient to reply that if
there had really been a secret doctrinal deposit
of vital importance, reserved either for the
baptized membership as a whole, or for the
more enlightened portion of it, the secret
could not have been kept for any considerable
length of time, much less for centuries.
" What ye have spoken in the inner chambers
shall (eventually) be proclaimed upon the
house-tops." As Newman observes,1 " Apos
tates would reveal the doctrines if these
escaped in no other way." In the numerous
doctrinal controversies, moreover, with heretics
of various kinds, from the second to the fifth
centuries, it was impossible for the orthodox,
with a view to any complete and effective re
futation of their adversaries, to avoid reference
to the whole truth authoritatively communi
cated and transmitted. Even in the case of
such writers as Clement and Origen, who
emphasised the distinction between exoteric
and esoteric teaching, there is no evidence, as
we have seen, of any diversity between the two
on essential or important points of doctrine
being intended ; while Irenaeus and Augustine,
in controversy with heretics, distinctly repudi
ate the idea of divergence between what the
Apostles taught at different times or to differ
ent persons.2

Literature. — Tentzel's Dissertatio de Disciplina
Arccmi ; Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian
Church, Book x. ch. v. ; Mosheim, De Rebus
Chr. Comm., xxxiv. ; Rothe, De Discipline
Arcani Origins ; Newman's Arians in the Fourth
Century, ch. i. sect. 3 (published in 1833) ;
Articles in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities, and in Herzog's Real-
Encyklopddie. [H. C.]

DISCIPLINE (THE).— The word signifies first
that which is learned, instruction ; and then
that which is taught, i.e. science or doctrinal
system ; then training, order, regulations, as
in an army, family^or society. Ecclesiastically,
it sometimes means rules of conduct as dis
tinguished from the doctrines of the faith.

The word " Discipline," however, is applied
in a material sense to an "instrument of

1 Arians in the Fourth Century, p. 58.

2 Iren., Adv. Hcer., iii. 1, cf. Augustine, In
Advers. leg. et proph., ii. 4-6. (See Newman, pp.
59, 60.)

penance " in the form of a kind of cat-o'-nine
tails, made either of knotted cord or steel,
with which the penitent is whipped on the
bare back by himself or another. Dr. Pusey im
ported the " Discipline " from Rome into the
English Church. He both used it himself,
and directed confessors to impose it upon
Ritualistic Sisters of Mercy (Manual for Con
fessors, p. 243). Walsh, in the Secret History
of the Oxford Movement,^. 40,quotes Miss Povey's
terrible account of the infliction of the "Dis
cipline" upon herself (when Sister Mary
Agnes, O.S.B.) in a Ritualistic convent. There
is great reticence as to the extent to which
the "Discipline" is used, but there is reason
to fear that it is on the increase and is more
prevalent than is generally supposed.

DISPENSATION.— A relaxation of the law;
a permission to do something otherwise un
lawful, e.g. for a clergyman to hold two livings
in the Church of England at one and the same
time, which is possible by dispensation of the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop
of Canterbury, the bishops, and the registrars
of marriages have the power of dispensation
in respect of granting licences to marry with
out the preliminaries otherwise needful.

All dispensing powers require to be jealously
watched, as they not unfrequently lead to
abuse, e.g. in the case of James II., and in
recent days the Episcopal veto under the
Public Worship Regulation Act. The setting
aside of the law should only be allowed when
there are proper safeguards in the way of
appeal. See INDULGENCE. [B. W.]

DISSENTERS.— Those who think differently,
and consequently secede from any Church or
body to which they happen to belong. Bishop
Jewel says, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and all
Protestants are dissenters from the Church of
Rome. From the point of view of English
law, dissenters are seceders from an Established
Church. In Ireland there are no "dissenters,"
because there is now no Established Church.
The Established Church of Scotland is Presby
terian, therefore the adherents of the Episcopal
Church of Scotland (although in communion
with the Church of England) are " dissenters,"
so also are the Free Church of Scotland and all
the Free Churches in England. In England there
are (1) Episcopal dissenters, such as Roman
Catholics, the Free Church of England (of
Evangelical principles, founded in 1844),
possibly even the Moravians. (2) Non-Epis
copal, such as Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Con-
gregationalists or Independents, Baptists,
Unitarians, and the Salvation Army. All
dissenters formerly were subject to political
disabilities. Roman Catholics are still not
permitted to hold certain offices, or to present
to a benefice, or publicly to exercise some of

DIVORCE

[ 177 ] DIVORCE

their religious rites and ceremonies, although
in practice such disabilities are to a large
extent disregarded. A dissenting minister is
entitled to be styled "Reverend," and may act
as registrar of marriages solemnised by him
if duly authorised.

DIVORCE. — Dissolution of marriage. The
Congregation in Church, commenting on the
Marriage Service states, "The use [employ
ment] of our Lord's own words, ' Those whom
God hath joined together let no man put
asunder,' is an important peculiarity of the
English Marriage Service. They [those words]
are a solemn declaration by the Church of
the inclissolubility of marriage— a declaration,
repeated at every administration of the sacra
ment, that not [indicating that no] secular
law, Court of Divorce, or other human power
can loose the bond now tied, or operate in
any way during the lives of the parties to
make them less man and wife than they now
are, or to empower them to contract other
unions. The Church can, indeed, declare a
marriage void which has been unlawfully
contracted ; but in such a case the sacrament
has never been duly administered, so there
is no dissolution of an actual marriage "
(p. 145).

The above is an ill-expressed statement of
the Koman, not the Anglican doctrine on
Divorce and Remarriage. No one who reads
the Gospels can doubt that our Lord gave
permission to put away an unfaithful wife.
The Jews had no such ceremony or practice
as the Separation which has since been called
Divorce, a mensa et toro. The following is a
typical example of a Bill of Divorce such
as was used by the Jews: "You may go to
what man you will ; this is a Bill of Divorce
between me and thee ; a letter of quittance
and instrument of dismissal ; so you may
marry whom you please" (Selden, Uxor
Ebraica). Among the Jews, therefore, after
divorce, both parties, the divorcer and the
divorcee, might remarry, and marriage might
be broken for the lightest causes. Our Lord
took away the right of divorce for any light
cause, and for any cause at all but the
wife's infidelity ; and by the exception that
He made, He gave a distinct permission to
the man who had put away his wife for her
unfaithfulness, to marry again (Matt. xix. 9).
But He gave no such leave to the guilty wife ;
her second marriage was nothing else than
adultery : "Whoso marrieth her which is put
away (for fornication) committeth adultery "
(Ibid.).1

1 The clause " who so married her which is
put away committeth adultery " is omitted by
several ancient authorites (see margin of R.V.)

The Early C Lurch followed the Master's rule.
The Civil Law was, as might be expected,
laxer, but in the eyes of the Church there
was one, and one only cause that was regarded
as adequate for the dissolution of Christian
marriage, and that was the wife's unfaithful
ness ; and the rule was that the guilty party
might not be married again, any such union,
though allowed by the State, being looked
upon by the Church as adultery. But the
Church had no rule with respect to the innocent
party. She might give advice, but that was
all. Some of her teachers held that there
was nothing to prevent the marriage of the
innocent party, some disapproved of it, some
said they did not know. But as time pro
ceeded, a difference of practice exhibited
itself in the West and in the East. When the
papal authority had been firmly established in
the West, and the power of dispensation by
the Pope was acknowledged, the Latin Church
came to the opinion that it was best to pro
claim the entire indissolubility of marriage,
leaving the power of practically dissolving it
in the hands of the Roman Pontiff. As the
Latin Church, conscious that it had reserved
to itself a loophole, thus stiffened its formal
rule and hardened its practice, the Eastern
Church not only retained the ancient view
of the permissibility of the marriage of the
innocent party, but made it part of her
Ecclesiastical Law, that such a marriage was
to be allowed, and that no priest was to be
molested for performing it. This regulation
took shape in the Synodical Decision of
Alexius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the
eleventh century : " Women divorced by men
whose conduct has been the cause of the
divorce are not to be blamed if they choose
to marry again, nor are the priests to be
blamed who gave them the benediction. So
too with regard to men." This has been the
law of the Eastern Church ever since.

The indissolubility of the marriage tie, there
fore, never has been the doctrine of the
Church Catholic, but only of the Roman
section of it in its later developments, and
even here exceptions are made, as is usually
done by her moral theologians when a general
principle or law has been laid down. There
are three exceptions now allowed in spite of
the general prohibition of the Council of
Trent. These are : (1) the conversion of one
of the two, in which case the converted

Many regard these words as referring to the
marriage, not of a woman put away for unfaith
fulness, but of a woman divorced for some
frivolous or insufficient cause as often occurred
among the Jews, and similar cases are sadly
frequent in America. — EDO.

DIVORCE

[ 178 ]

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

man may leave his wife and the converted
woman her husband (if her confessor order
her, she is bound to do so, unless he will be
converted too), and he or she may marry
again ; (2) the retirement of one of the two
into a monastery or nunnery within the first
two months of marriage, and before consum
mation, which ought to be delayed for two
months in order to give to each of the parties
time for consideration ; (3) Papal Dispensa
tion exercised on account of impotence,
scandal, or sterility, and, as some think, on
account of disparity of social state, a con
tagious disease, the likelihood of dissen
sions, and mutual consent (Liguori, Theol.
Moral, vi. 6, 3).

It is argued by some that because our Lord,
in the passage above quoted, uses the word
fornication and not adultery, His concession
of divorce is only granted to those whose
wives have been guilty of immorality before
marriage. This is a philological error ; the
word translated fornication is a generic term
embracing adultery and fornication. Dr. King,
the Bishop of Lincoln, says, "The arbitrary
limitation of the word iropvela to prenuptial
sin is unsupported either by the use of the
LXX., of the Ecclesiastical Canons, or of
modern Greek" (Charge, 1896).

It is argued by others that Mark x. 11 and
Luke xvi. 18, not containing the exception,
override Matt. xix. 9, in which it occurs.
Bishop King replies, "An exception to a
general enactment, made by the same autho
rity, might surely be regarded as qualifying
that enactment, and not as cancelled by it"
(Ibid.). The Bishop adds, "The direct state
ments and the hesitations of the oldest and
greatest of the ancient Fathers would not
have been possible if the absolute indissolu
bility of marriage under all circumstances had
been the accepted traditionary teaching of the
Church" (Ibid.).

Again, it is argued that the Church of Eng
land has committed itself to the indissolubility
of marriage by the wording of its Order of
Administration of Matrimony. But this is a
mistake arising from a want of consideration
of the necessary character of the Marriage
Service. The Church regards those to whom
she ministers as children of God, and deals
with them as such. The idea is monstrous
that in the solemn rite of marriage, while each
of the parties is giving himself or herself to the
other, the Church should tell them that they
are united until one or the other of them com
mits adultery. She speaks to them as what
they ought to be, without specifying the ex
ceptions which she trusts will never occur in
the case before her.

Again, it is argued that if the Church has

not specifically abolished the pre-Reformation
canons, which recognised indissolubility, she
is still bound by them and must not look
further. The answer in the present case is,
that whether such canons were before or after
the Reformation, the principle laid down in
Article VI., that the Church has not power to
interpret one text of Scripture so as to be in
contradiction to another, nullifies any such
canons if they exist. Holy Scripture plainly
tells us that our Lord Himself has declared
one cause to be sufficient to dissolve marriage,
and no Church canon or interpretation can
override that authority.

In case, then, that any presbyter or layman
find fault or interfere with another presbyter,
who remarries the innocent party after divorce,
or with any bishop, who gives his permission
or licence for such marriage to be performed,
he is playing the part of a busybody in another
man's affairs in a way wholly unjustifiable.

Nevertheless, it were best that, to avoid
scandal or any oppression of conscience on the
part of the clergy, all marriages of divorced
persons should be required to be performed at
a registrar's office, although the innocent party
would be within his rights in asking for a
marriage in church, and no clergyman who
performs such a marriage is blameworthy.

[F. M.]

DOCETISM.— The Docetics taught that Christ
had not a real, but only an apparent or
phantom body. The word is derived from the
Greek word " to seem, to appear." The theory
of Docetism arose from the Gentile repug
nance to admit that God could be born, suffer,
or die. According to their doctrine it was not
correct to say that when Christ was crucified
He suffered, nor to believe that He really died
or rose again. Such events in His life were
in their opinion merely appearances, without
any objective reality. Docetism iu its early
stages is alluded to by St. John in his First
and Second Epistles, see 1 John iv. 2, and
2 John 7. Some early Docetic writings have
been recently discovered, such as the Apocry
phal Gospel of Peter, and the A cts of John. See
HERESIES, APOCRYPHA OF N. T. [E. A. W.]

DOGMA AND DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.—
Christian dogma is Christianity as accepted
and interpreted by the Christian community,
or by some particular Christian community.
On the one hand it is not doctrine just as it
stands in the Scriptures, nor, on the other, is
it the mere theories or opinions of any given
individual. It involves (1) the acceptance of
a certain body of teaching on authority, as
the Church as a whole accepts the teaching of
Christ and the Apostles ; (2) its interpretation
by the mind of the community ; (3) the em
bodiment and presentation of that interprets-

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

[ 179 ]

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

tion in the form of definite doctrines, whether
in Creeds or Articles, or simply in the regular
instruction given to the people, and especially
to the young. This third point must be care
fully noted. The idea of dogma suggests to
some minds narrowness, intolerance, repres
sion of the intellect, perhaps even persecution.
But the mode in which any particular Church
seeks to promulgate and establish its dogmas,
is quite a different question from that of
dogma in itself. A religious community must
as such, and as distinguished from its in
dividual members, hold certain doctrines, and
this need only mean that the religious instruc
tion it provides in any form is on the lines of
those doctrines, and consequently that its
official teachers are committed to that par
ticular creed.

The necessity for definite Christian doctrine
is to be found in the very essence of Chris
tianity itself. Christianity is essentially a
Gospel, the announcement, not of abstract
truths, but of infinitely significant facts. In
explanation of these facts, God has revealed
definite truths, otherwise unknown and un
knowable, yet capable of being intelligently
accepted and set in various lights according
to the needs of the hour. Those who stumble
at a definite Divine revelation are those who
inadequately perceive the need of a Divine
interposition. In other words, Rationalism has
its root in a defective conception of sin. A
definite historical Redemption must surely in
clude an explicit revelation. This may be
seen the more clearly from a very brief sketch
of the development of dogma in the Church.
It may be convenient to mark stages in this
development, beginning with the ministry of
Christ.

1. The Preparation. Christ carried on a
twofold ministry, which ran, as it were, in two
parallel lines, one in Galilee, the other at
Jerusalem. The ministry during the visits to
Jerusalem began with an early disclosure of
His mission, and was hurried to its consum
mation by the pressure of opposition from the
ruling and learned classes. The ministry in
Galilee was of a more tentative and educational
character. It consisted of simple teaching on
the relation of man to God, in form carefully
adapted to the intelligence and spiritual
capacity of the hearers ; in substance wholly
uncompromising and supremely ideal. It is
commonly urged that this teaching, as con
tained, for instance, in the Sermon on the
Mount, must constitute the sum and substance
of His Gospel, and that nothing else, even in
the New Testament, is to be accepted as a
fundamental article of faith. This idea has
been frequently refuted, and, indeed, it begs
the whole question of Christ's mission. Of

course, if we start with assuming that Christ
came rather as a Teacher than to carry out a
work of Redemption, then we must judge the
Apostolic theology from that standpoint. But
— to say the very least — this is an assumption
which we have no right to make. In the eyes
of St. Paul, Christ is essentially the Redeemer ;
and assuredly, if we accept the Gospel from
this its earliest and greatest interpreter, we
shall find no difficulty in the fact that Christ
did not fully expound the work of Redemp
tion before it was enacted. The Gospel of
Redemption has no place if Christ was mainly
a Teacher. On the other hand, the Galilean
teaching has its due place if Christ is essen
tially a Redeemer. What then is that place ?
We may answer this question roughly, but
sufficiently for our present purpose, by observ
ing three points, (i.) It prepared the soil.
Socrates made it his aim to help men to form
ideas for themselves ; to train rather than to
furnish their minds ; not to teach them truths
so much as to teach them to teach themselves.
Other teachers, adopting an opposite method,
have taught systems of doctrine ready-made.
In this latter case the mind had merely to re
ceive ; in the former, it had to create. Christ's
method was different from either extreme.
He did not invite His hearers to think out
their own religion ; for, unlike Socrates, He
came even from the first with a Gospel, though
not its final expression. Nor, on the other
hand, did He force upon them cut-and-dried
propositions for mechanical acceptance. In
other words, He did not ask too much or too
little of the human mind. The Parable of the
Sower illustrates the aim and scope of His
ministry. The soul does not in itself — as
Socrates might have said— contain the living
truth of God. And yet it may provide for
that living truth — as the soil provides for the
seed — the true conditions for its growth and
fruit-bearing. The soil does not produce the
seed, yet the seed depends upon the soil for its
growth. Christ did not come either to water
a field already sown, on the one hand, or to
plant a full-grown plant on the other : He
came to sow. Dogmatic theology is not to be
despised because Christ did not give it to the
world just as it is. It required to be sown
into a soil morally and spiritually prepared.
For it is an organism, not a piece of intel
lectual mechanism. And its appropriate soil is
the heart in sympathy with the mind of God.
(ii.) Christ sought by His teaching to con
centrate attention on Himself. This, surely,
was the supreme, though not the immediate
object. He taught from such an altitude of
perfect spiritual knowledge, perfect holiness,
and perfect jealousy for the Law of God, that
the teaching became merged in the Teacher.

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

[ 180 ]

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

Men were led to feel that to disobey the moral
law as He taught it, was to disobey Him.
They were led to recognise Him as God
because He drew to Himself and absorbed in
Himself, by an inevitable process, all the I
feelings and sentiments that men have towards
God. As He drew out their spiritual faculties
He concentrated them upon His own Person,
(iii.) The third object of His ministry was to {
train those who should teach others. And i
this brings us to the second stage of the growth
of doctrine.

2. The Proclamation of the Facts of Redemption.
It cannot be too strongly insisted on that j
Christianity was first given to the world as an j
announcement of facts. It pre-supposes, not
man's fulness, but his emptiness, not his com
munion with God, but an alienation so radical |
as to call for a historical intervention from the i
side of God. The form in which the Gospel is j
presented in the preaching recorded for us in
the Acts, is exactly suited to this early stage,
and so bears the mark of authenticity. Its;
basis is simply an announcement of the death
and resurrection of Christ with immediate re
ference to the future Advent. Even the vital
truth of His spiritual presence was not so much
an element in the original substratum, as the
necessary filling-in of a schema of past and
future facts. Now these definite facts, with
their necessary accompaniment of divinely
authorised explanation, afforded a basis of
definite doctrine. And just as the facts of
Redemption are the centre of all history, and
stand out in sharpest outline against all else
that has happened on the face of the earth, so
the doctrine which explains them stands out
against all human thought and science, and
defies all criticism and philosophy to explain it
in terms of ordinary knowledge, or to blur its
outlines. Christian doctrine is anchored for
ever to historical fact. And again, a religion
that is in the first instance a " Gospel," a piece
of good tidings, naturally made its first appeal,
not to the developed intellect, but to the heart.
Men felt it before they began to think it out ;
and had they not done so, it would have
been lost and merged in mere philosophy. As
it was, when they began to think, their thoughts
were not idle speculation about far-off things,
but an endeavour to interpret actual spiritual
experience.

3. The next stage is the unfolding of Chris
tian truth in the teaching of the Apostles,
especially of St. Paul. We may speak of this
as the beginning of Christian theology, and yet
it stands quite apart from all later theology.
St. Paul does not try to systematise the Gospel,
or to bring it into relation with human thought.
Even to say that he draws deductions from it
does not take us to the very essence of his

method. He simply unfolds it. But note the
advance. In the first days of the Church it
had been a message ; it now becomes also
" wisdom." Yet St. Paul does not regard his
Gospel as an interpretation of divine facts by
human wisdom. Rather, the wisdom is in the
Gospel itself ; it is God's wisdom, and stands in
sharp antithesis to the wisdom of this world.
Most certainly, from another point of view,
divine truth gives the widest scope for the
highest exercise of the intellect. But the
Spirit of God did not reveal this at so early a
stage. The supreme need first of all was to
vindicate the supremacy, the independence,
the completeness of the newly revealed mystery
of the Gospel ; to preserve it in a form which
should be the standard and norm for all ages ;
then, not till then, to open the door to a
Christian philosophy. The Gospel had to
vindicate its distinctness from human wisdom
before it revealed its alliance ; its authority,
before its philosophic truth. St. Paul's
teaching, that it may be an authority for all
ages, is definite and explicit. But though
definite, not formulated. It does not cut and
dry the truth, and pack it into separate com
partments, and define and label it. The Church
has done so, rightly and necessarily, in later
days. But the Spirit of God set apart St. Paul,
not to elaborate a theology, but to provide a
starting-point, a centre, for all theology. His
teaching does not hamper the intellect, but
enriches and stimulates it. Its completeness
is the completeness, not of a building, but of an
organism. And therefore it is that for those
who are in sympathy with St. Paul's funda
mental standpoint, there is no real difficulty
about accepting his authority. And the same
is true of the New Testament as a whole. It is
the Gospel developed from within, with clear
outlines but unfathomable depths. The in
tellect of man through all the ages can never
get beyond it, yet never, in the long-run, finds
it a fetter.

4. The Apostolic revelation was not imme
diately taken up by Christian theology. The
age of the "Apostolic Fathers " is the age of
unsophisticated receptivity, with little ability
to grasp the doctrine, much less to speculate
upon it. The contrast between the writings of
this age and the New Testament is most strik
ing and significant. And we need not wonder.
The New Testament writers wrote by the Spirit
for all ages ; they are the foundation, not the
first of a series. The age of revelation had
ended ; the age of interpretation had barely
begun.

5. Christian theology began as a defence of
the truth against heathenism and against
heresy. In refuting the attacks of philo
sophers it was necessary to show, not that

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

DOMINICANS

Christianity was above all philosophy, but
that it was the crown of philosophy ; not that
it scorned the questionings of the human
mind, but that it gave them the answer that
they most needed. But even in very early times
it was not pure heathenism that had to be met.
The work of philosophising about the Christian
revelation, from which the orthodox generally
shrank, was undertaken by the Gnostics, a
class of writers who were Christian in so far
that they set themselves to interpret the Chris
tian message of Redemption, but pagan in the
nature of their interpretation, pagan in their
conception of God, of man, of the world. It is
obvious that the Gospel could only meet a
philosophy like this by becoming itself a
philosophy. In defence it developed its re
sources. Yet more fully was this the case,
when the Church was called upon to resist the
later heresies relating to the Trinity and the
Person of Christ. Only a passing allusion to
this tremendous subject is possible in this
article ; but such an allusion will be sufficient
to supply the needed link. Take as an
example the arch-heresy Arianism, which de
nied both the true humanity and the true
Godhead of Christ. We are familiar with the
attempt to represent this great conflict as a
mere verbal or philosophical dispute. Jesus, it
is said, was ethically and spiritually Son of
God ; why contend so earnestly for an incom
prehensible, metaphysical Sonship ? Why spoil
the beauty and simplicity of the Divine
message by disputing about " substance" and
" eternal generation " 1 Such a plea entirely
misses the point of the controversy. The
question at issue was : Are the events which
we sura up as the " work of Redemption " the
acts of God ? Has God personally interposed
for man's salvation ? That new and rich and
soul-satisfying view of God which has become
the possession of the Church just because she |
has recognised Godhead in Jesus Christ — is it
a truth or a delusion ? The Christian God has
come down to us in Jesus Christ, the Arian God
is the distant abstract Deity of the heathen
philosopher, who never enters into the sphere
of human life. Such a God is unmeaning to
us when once we have realised that sin is a
gulf between man and his Maker, which can
only be crossed from above.

But, further, there is one point that must
not be overlooked. An attempt was made at
the Council of Nicaea, which condemned
Arianism, to preserve the Christian faith by a
Creed which practically reproduced the words
of Scripture. But it was soon perceived that
a Creed, being an authorised explanation of
Scripture, was ineffectual if it merely repro
duced Scriptural language. As long as the
divine revelation is misinterpreted, so long will

the Churches be unable to dispense with
authorised interpretations. And to deny that
Scriptural doctrine can be reproduced in
other than its exact original form, is to deny
that it is properly intelligible.

We have now traced the development to its
climax. Had we more space we might show
how, by a gradual process, doctrine became
hardened and stiffened, claiming dominion
rather by imposition from without than through
its inherent vitality and power. Suffice it to
say that, by God's providence, this very harden
ing and materialising of the truth, gave it
an easier hold over the minds of the rude
barbarians who overran the Roman Empire,
and bound them to the Church, till the great
thaw of the Reformation set free the nations
to a new liberty of thought and life.

Brief as this outline has necessarily been, it
will perhaps help us to answer the main objec
tions to the principle of Christian dogma,
which we will endeavour to do in the fewest
possible words.

Referring back to our remarks at the opening,
we note that dogma implies a union of reason
with authority. This union is opposed both in
the interest of the freedom of faith and in the
interest of the freedom of reason. It is urged
that the intellect must be free from the fetters
of authority, and faith from the limitations
and questionings of reason. But this is to
lose sight of the very character of Christian
truth. If truth it is indeed, it is life as well as
truth ; it has a power in itself to possess the
heart and the intellect, to become the very
life of the soul, to impose its authority by an
inward revelation that does not cramp the
mind, but enlarges and enriches it. Of course
the Christian apologist must appeal to the
reason before he can assert the claims of
authority. But within the sphere of Church
life, the truth is imparted on authority before
the intellect has asserted its independence,
that thus it may take possession of the soul and
become so truly the very atmosphere that it
breathes, that doubt will be impossible for
ever. Dogma is the faith of the Christian
community, and every child that grows up in
the life of that community must grow up in
its faith. Dogma, as the Reformed Churches
understand it, is not a mere petrified system.
It is a necessity, not because it is, as in the
Roman Church, a condition of salvation exter
nally imposed ; but because salvation is life,
and life is to know the only true God and Jesus
Christ whom He has sent. [A. R. W.]

DOMINICANS.— Dominic, the founder of the
Order, was born A.D. 1170 in Calaruega in
Castile. His parents were of noble birth ; and
as they were pious, he was reared in an atmos
phere of religion. At the age of fifteen he

DOMINICANS

[ 182 ]

DOMINICANS

entered the school or university of Palencia,
where he remained for ten years. Leaving
Palencia, he became one of the canons regular
of the Cathedral of Osma, and in a short time
was chosen sub-prior. In 1203 Dominic was
associated with Azevedo, Bishop of Osma, in an
embassy ; and passing through Languedoc they
saw the religious condition of that territory,
which was soon to be the scene of a tragic
religious war. On their return journey to
Spain they again entered Languedoc, where
they met the papal legates who were conferring
regarding the heresy which was widespread.
Azevedo, seeing the poverty adopted by the
heretical teachers, advised the legates to cast
away all pomp ; and he himself, dismissing
his retinue, remained in Lauguedoc with
Dominic as his assistant, for the purpose of
working among the heretics. Dominic proved
a powerful preacher and a formidable rival of
the teachers of the Cathari, the heretics oppos
ing the Church. In the course of his missionary
labours he organised a convent at Prouille,
that female converts might be instructed in
the orthodox doctrines; and in 1218, Pope
Honorius III. formally recognised this associa
tion as the Second Order of Dominic, the
members of which were in time to devote
themselves to the education of girls.

In 1208 a papal legate, Peter of Castelnau,
was murdered, and Raymond, the Count of
Toulouse, was charged with complicity in the
crime. As Raymond would do nothing to
avenge the murder or to check the heresy in
his territories, the Pope, Innocent III., inaugu
rated a crusade under Simon de Montfort, a
French noble ; and a war against the heretics
was waged, which was one of the fiercest ever
carried on in the name of religion. Through
out the years of the crusade, Dominic was in
the invaded territory, which is now a part of
France ; and his biographers have related that
the famous victory of the Count de Montfort
at Muret, in 1213, was due to the prayers of
the future saint. Little, however, is known
of his missionary labours beyond the fact that
they attracted the notice of a citizen of Tou
louse, who, in 1214, presented Dominic with a
house to be used as a school for the education
of preachers. For the support of the house the
local bishop set apart certain tithes. Dominic's
purpose was to found an Order of preachers
educated in theology. At first he adopted the
Rule as well as the habit of the canons regular,
though he desired that the association might
be recognised as an Order with its own Rule.
At the Lateran Council of 1215 he obtained
the papal recognition of the convent of
Prouille, though he had difficulty in securing
sanction of any kind for his Order, as the
Council opposed the multiplication of religious

associations. The sanction was given, how
ever, on condition that the brotherhood should
be allied to an existing society ; and the
Brothers Preachers, as Innocent III. styled
them, united themselves to the Augustinians.
The Brothers, sixteen in number, represented
different nations, of which one was England.
In 1216, Honorius III., the successor of Inno
cent, granted a Bull constituting the Brothers
Preachers an independent Order, to be under
the protection of St. Peter and the Bishop of
Rome. After the reception of the Bull, Dominic
instituted a mission to Paris, and some of the
Brothers were sent to Spain. Shortly after
wards houses were established in Oxford and
Bologna, and one in Rome, over which Dominic
himself presided. In the Imperial city he
attracted notice by his preaching, and in the
Papal Palace he began to speak to the servants
of those who had audiences of the Pope, and
arranged for lectures to the members of the
Court. Thus was begun the office of Master
of the Palace, which has continued to be held
by Dominicans. According to Dominican
tradition, a third Order was instituted in 1218,
the Militia of Jesus, which was afterwards
changed into the Order of Penance, containing
women as well as men. The members were to
practise penance and charity, to infuse piety
into social life, and, as far as possible, to realise
the monastic ideal. In 1220, at the first
Chapter of the Order, it was resolved to adopt
the principle of poverty, after the fashion of
the Franciscans, and this resolution was in
1228 included in the Constitution of the Order.
In the fifty-first year of his age, in 1221,
Dominic died, after a busy life made hard
through fatigues, vigils, and fastings. Ke was
buried in Bologna, and thirteen years after
his death was canonised. His ideal was the
organisation of a learned ministry, and in his
own day he succeeded in having trained men
to answer the heretics.

The Brothers Preachers, or Dominicans, as
they came to be called, spread with great
rapidity. Four years after the mission had been
arranged there were sixty convents, established
in Italy, Spain, Provence, France, England,
Germany, Hungary, Lombardy, Romagnuola.
Dominic himself desired to proceed to Persia,
and, though unable to go, he inspired the
Brothers with missionary zeal. His successor
in the leadership of the Order was Jordan of
Saxony, who sent missionaries to Germany,
Venice, Poland, and Denmark. In 1225 there
was a mission to Morocco, and about the same
time, one to the Nestorians and the Eastern
schismatics. In 1274 two Dominicans were
sent to the kingdom of Kubla Khan, and at
the same period schools were founded at Tunis,
and Murcia, for the training of friars in

DOMINICANS

[ 183 ]

DOMINICANS

Oriental languages. The missionary work of
the Preachers was no slight task, and many
suffered death as martyrs. At one time ninety
of them perished in Eastern Hungary.

The settlement of the Dominicans in
England took place in 1220 or 1221, when
Gilbert de Fraxineto and twelve companions
were received by the Archbishop of Canter
bury, Stephen Langton, who, after testing
them as preachers, permitted them to estab
lish a house at Oxford. At Oxford the famous
Robert Grosseteste welcomed them, and very
soon members of the University began to join
the Order. The progress of the Dominicans,
like that of the Franciscans, was extraordinary,
and at its beginning, at least, marked a very
genuine revival in religion. At the close of
600 years from the foundation of the Order,
the Dominicans counted among their numbers
four popes, seventy cardinals, four hundred
and sixty bishops, four presidents of councils,
twenty-five legates a latere, eighty apostolic
nuncios, and one prince-elector of the Holy
Roman Empire. They made mention, too, of
four thousand writers, among whom the most
celebrated was Thomas Aquinas. The first of
the Dominicans who ascended the papal
throne was Peter of Tarentaise, Innocent V.
In the history of philosophy the Scholastics
have no insignificant place. Of the Domini
cans who turned to philosophy, the most
noted were Albertus Magnus and Thomas
Aquinas. With the help of Aristotle as inter
preted by themselves, they endeavoured to
furnish a rational explanation of the doctrines
of the Church, and to prove that in them
reason was not contradicted ; while they
sought to show that revealed religion is above,
but not contrary to, reason. Aquinas was
pre-eminently the Apologist of the Church's
doctrines, and rendered great service to
Christian thought by his scientific presenta
tion of theology. It was a notable event in
the history of theology when the Scholastics,
among whom he was the most distinguished,
made use of philosophy to establish the
truth in the accepted doctrines. It was also
an event of importance when Albertus, eager
to foster the study of physics, published his
Summa Philosophies Naturalis. Yet Aquinas,
from the very success of his work, proved a
hindrance to speculative thought, and his
followers, recognising finality in his con
clusions, came to be the upholders of con
servative orthodoxy. When Scholasticism
was declining, the Mystics attempted to free
religion from the grip of logical formulae ; yet
they did not sever religion altogether from
philosophy, but sought to give it a rational
form which would commend it to the people,
and to find for the soul a method, through

thought, of securing union with God. Of the
German mystics the most noted were Domini
cans, and the first of these was Eckhart, who
in the early years of the fourteenth century
was Provincial of the Order in Saxony, and
then vicar-general in Bohemia. Eckhart was
the master of mystics like Tauler, who inspired
the German Theology which Luther caused to
be published.

In the course of their history the Domini
cans had a special connection with the
Inquisition, and many of them have claimed
Dominic as its founder. There is no proof,
however, that while labouring among the
Cathari he inflicted any punishment. The
Inquisition, on the contrary, interfered with
his scheme of converting heretics through
the ministrations of learned men. Yet the
Dominicans were always the chief supporters
of the Inquisition from the year 1227, when it
was instituted by Gregory IX. appointing a
commission, with a Dominican friar as its
head, to try the case of Filippo Paternon, in
whose Italian diocese Catharism was rife. It
was in Languedoc, however, the scene of the
crusade, that the Inquisition began its cruel
work, and its agents were Dominican friars.
Throughout the whole course of the Inquisition
the Dominicans were its most willing sup
porters ; and though its work really contra
dicted the purpose of Dominic, yet the friars
of his Order had the aggressive orthodoxy and
ecclesiastical zeal which fitted them to be
Inquisitors, and they counted themselves the
special guardians of the doctrines of the
Church.

In another fashion the Brothers Preachers
were untrue to the ideal of the founder, and
through the divergence from that ideal the
corruption of the Order began and continued.
Dominic wished his friars to be mendicants in
accordance with their rule of poverty, but
very early they ceased to be poor, if not to be
mendicants. By the Consuetudines fratrum
prcedicatorum, passed in 1228, houses were to
be occupied by the friars, and gradually the
Order came to possess property. In 1233
Gregory IX. pointed out that the vow of
poverty was taken to be kept. Yet Popes after
him bestowed privileges on the Order, and
wealth was acquired, and corruption ensued.
These privileges interfered with the established
rights of the parochial clergy, and feuds arose
between them and the friars. But the Domini
cans, with the Franciscans, were in a special
way the upholders of the Papacy and the
servants of the Popes ; and their privileges,
such as the right to hear confessions in any
parish, rendered them free from poverty. The
worldliness associated with wealth was not the
only prevalent vice of the Dominicans. Among

DOMINUS VOBISCUM

[ 184 ] DONATION OF OONSTANTINE

the crowds of men who entered the Order
there were always some who were pious, as
there were some who were learned ; but among
these crowds there were always those who
through licentiousness brought dishonour on
the brotherhood. Before the Reformation there
was none more fierce than Erasmus in holding
up the mendicants to scorn for their ignorance
and immorality ; and the vicious lives of the
friars who disgraced their Order added to the
corruption of the Church, which required a
drastic reformation. At the Reformation the
power of the Dominicans was checked, as the
authority of Papal Rome was limited, and the
day closed when mendicants could be rich.
Since the Reformation the Dominican Order,
though weakened, has continued to exist, and
exists to-day ; but even in the Roman Church
itself it has had a successful rival in the Order
of the Jesuits. It may be well, for the sake of
ordinary readers, to note that the Dominicans
were the Black Friars so well known in English
history. See INQUISITION.

Literature. — Life of Dominic in Acta Sanc
torum. Helyot, Histoire dcs Ordres Monastiques.
Lacordaire, Vie de Saint Dominique. Drane,
The History of St. Dominic. Lea, A History of
the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Herkless,
Francis and Dominic (The World's Epoch-
makers Series). [J. H.]

DOMINUS VOBISCUM.—" The Lord be with
you," is employed as a salutation in the Mass
Office. The salutation is borrowed from the
Jews (see Ruth ii. 4), and was early prevalent
even in the Western Churches. It is used ki
the Prayer Book, followed by a response from
the congregation, " And with thy spirit."

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.— By this
term is meant the alleged grant by Con-
stantine of the city and territory of Rome,
with other parts of Italy, to Pope Silvester
and his successors. After Constantine's with
drawal from the West, reckoned to have been
in 324, under which year it is related in
the Annals of Baronius and Muratori, the story
appears to have gained ground at Rome of his
having been previously baptized and cured of
leprosy there by Pope Silvester, and of muni
ficent grants made to the see in consequence.
That Coustantine was baptized in 337 at Nico-
media in the East by Eusebius the bishop of
that city, is an undisputed fact, one deeply
affecting the credibility of the "Donation."
The earliest glimpse in authentic history of
any grant of the kind occurs in a letter of 777
or 778,1 wherein Pope Hadrian I. exhorts Charles

1 The letter " Dum nimio " is dated 777 in
Hardwick's Middle Age, p. 43, n. 9 ; Jaffe, Regesta
Pontificum, May 778. The passage in Mansi, xii.
820 D, E ; Migne, Pat. Lat., xcviii. 30C A, B, C.

king of the Franks (afterwards the Emperor
Charlemagne) to imitate Constantine's muni
ficence to the Roman Church by demanding
for it the restitution of its alienated patrimony.
If this language is but vague, there comes to
light among the Isidorian decretals, some time
between 829 and 845, the definite statement
of an edict2 representing the Emperor as con
ferring upon the Catholic Pope Silvester the
administration of "our palace, the city of
Rome, and the provinces of all Italy." ^neas
Parisiensis, Bishop of Paris (858-870), is the
earliest known writer who distinctly refers
to the Donation, which he does in his treatise,
Adversus Grcecos, where, without naming Sil
vester, he states that Oonstantine after his
baptism relinquished Rome to the Apostolic
See.3 This Donation and the document sup
porting it remained undisputed all through the
mediaeval period, down to the middle of the
fifteenth century, and was the grand basis of
the Pope's temporal power. That it was
received by the educated Churchmen of Italy
is shown in the typical instance of Dante, who
was much more than a poet, a public man
whose great work is a record of contemporary
Italian politics. To Constantine's mistaken
kindness he puts down all the administrative
corruption of his own day, the rapacity, the
simony, the nepotism, the luxury of the
Church's chief shepherds, the undoing and
mangling of her fair form, the place in the
lost world found by two Popes of his time, all
described in the terrible canto xix. of his
Inferno,4 written in and about 1300, within
the meridian period of the papal power and
grandeur, all the fruit, as he considered, of the
gift which gave to the Church of Rome its first
wealthy pastor. An exposure of the fable was
made in England and in Italy about the same
time, the middle of the fifteenth century ; in
England by Bishop Reginald Pecock in his
Jtepressor,6 about 1449 ; in Italy by a lay scholar,
Laurentius Valla, who in 1443 settled at Rome,

2 For its text see ISIDORUS MERCATOR in Pat.
£a£.,cxxx. 245, and a quotation from it in Milman's
Lett. Christ., i. 72 n. For the date assigned see
our article DECRETALS. The various editions of
the Edict, Greek and Latin, are described by J. A.
Fabricius in his BiUiotheca Graeca, vol. vi. pp. 4-7,
ed. Hamburg, 1726.

3 Cap. 209, Migne's Pat. Lat., cxxi. 758 A.
Robertson's Church History, iii. 178 note g, dates
the treatise dr. 868.

4 "AhiOonstantin,"/n/ern., cant. xix. 115-118.
See also Parad., xx. 55-57 " sotto buona 'ntenzion
che fe' mal frutto."

8 Vol. ii. 323, ed. Babington, 1860, among the
Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain, by the
Master of the Rolls.

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE [ 185 ]

DONATISM

strongly hostile to the Pope's temporal power,
dying at Naples in 1457. l The fifteenth
century was the period of the three great
Western Councils, when loud cries were
heard for a reform of the Church " in its head
and its members." Cardinal Nicolaus de
Cusa (ob. 1464), in his Catholic Concordance,'*
addressed to the Council of Basel, made a
formidable attack on the Donation. Another
Italian assailant was Antoninus, Archbishop of
Florence (1448-1459), in his Summa Historialis,^
or Chronicle, an important historical work in
three large folios, printed in 1484, one of the
early books produced by the new art. Another
early printed book to damage the authority of
the Donation was Raphael Maffei's Commentarii
Urbani, Rome, 1506, which, in a very scholarly
account of Constantine, entirely ignores both
the baptism by Silvester and the Donation.4
The Italian poet Ariosto (ob. 1533), whose
Orlando Fwioso came out in 1516, the year
before Luther's Theses, likened the gift "which
Constantine to good Silvester made" to a
malodorous bed of flowers.5 In 1520, which
was the year in which Luther burnt the Papal
Bull at Wittenberg, the fifteenth century
writings we have noticed as produced in manu
script, began to appear in print, and so got a
wider circulation, as e.g. Valla's.6 An early
English edition (in German letter) of his im
portant treatise is preserved in the British
Museum under the suggested date 1525, in
which year there were strong anti-Papal
currents at both Oxford and Cambridge.
Prefixed to it is an English translation of the
Donation edict sent in Latin to Pope Julius II.
by one Bartholomew Pincerne, who had found
it in Greek. At the end of the volume are
English versions of the passages we have already
noticed from Cusa, Antoninus, and Maffei-
These and other comments adverse to the
Donation, widely diffused by the press, could
not but have their effect with the friends as
well as the foes of Rome. Baronius (ob. 1607),

1 Biographie Nouvette Qinerale.

- One of the works in Schard's collection of
writers on Imperial Jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical
Power, Basel, 1566, fol. Cusa'spassage, Cath. Cone. ,
lib. iii. c. 2, is at p. 608 of Schard's volume.

8 Vol. or Part I, titulus viii. cap. 2, § viii. fin.,
p. 567 of ed. 1586.

4 Maffei or Maffejus, also called Volaterranus,
was born at Volaterra in 1451, and died at Rome
Jan. 25, 1552 (N. S.). The passage referred to
in the text occurs in lib. xxiii. fol. 244 a., ed.
1511, Paris.

5 0. P., canto xxxiv. stanza 80.

6 The earliest British Museum copy, which has
no date of its own, is marked in the catalogue
"1520?"

Bellarmine (ob. 1621), Baronius's critic Pagi
(ob. 1721), all abandoned the cause as utterly
hopeless, Baronius taking the ground that
Rome became Papal by no secular grant what
ever, but solely through St. Peter,7 the forger
having been some schismatic Greek jealous of
the Apostolic honour of Rome. Pagi contests
the idea of a Greek author and argues for a
Latin one, probably Isidorus Mercator.

It would be a mistake to centre the interest
of this subject in the proof of a documentary
imposture, and find in it one more curiosity
of literature. Its true importance is not so
much literary as historical and political. The
forged Douation of Constantine contributed
enormously to the erection of the temporal
power and mundane polity of the Papacy, and
that it was about which the writers of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries cared, their
business being not to detect a fraud but to
combat a ruinous usurpation. That alone it
is which interests the inquirer who now seeks
to penetrate the meaning of this Donation.
Robertson, in the course of his Church History,
returns to it again and again. Gibbon calls
it and the Isidorian Decretals "the two magic
pillars of the spiritual and temporal monarchy
of the Popes." 8 We are not, however, to
imagine the temporal power, like any private
estate, a mere logical result of an Office
forgery. The ability and the character which
made several Popes necessary to Rome civilly
in the absence of the Emperor, was their great
opportunity, which, with an organised body
of skilled agents, drew everything into their
hands. But the imaginary Donation was a
material help all along by making a historic
basis for their temporal assumptions and
theories, adding the cement which kept the
fabric together. By the time the forgery was
exposed, its work had been accomplished, and,
as Robertson observes, when the foundation
had been destroyed the superstructure survived.
If we may judge from the fact of an edition
of Valla with a French version having appeared
so late as 1879, at Paris, small in bulk, but
evidently intended for educated readers, accom
panied with the Edict of Donation in full, in
the Latin as well as in French, the question
of the actual foundation of the Temporal
Power has by no means become obsolete in
modern discussion among Continental peoples,
whose politics are, in fact, to a large extent
dominated by it. [C. H.]

DONATISM.— This name is applied to the
schism that broke out in the Churches of
North Africa after the close of the last great
pagan persecution at the beginning of the

7 Baron., Ann. 324, cxviii., Pagi, xvi.

8 Gibbon, vi. 161, Smith.

DONATISM

[ 186 ]

DOSSAL

fourth century. The Christians in those regions
had long been noted for their zeal in the
endurance and pursuit of martyrdom, for their
rigorous ideas as to the sanctity of the outward
visible Church, and for their austere asceti- j
cism. The Novatian schism which refused re- j
turn to the Church to those who had incurred
excommunication, had started from North
Africa, and the errors of Montanus, who
claimed supernatural illumination, had found
their great champion in the Carthaginian
Tertullian.

Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage, who had
discouraged an eager hankering after martyr
dom, had died in 311, and on the election of
his archdeacon Cascilian, who had fully shared
his views, the revolt commenced. The dis
affected alleged that his consecration was
illegal, since Felix, Bishop of Aptunga, who
had taken part in it, was a "traditor," that
is one who had given up copies of the Scrip
tures to be burnt by the pagan officials. The
Donatists elected Majorinus as the rival bishop,
and were at first called the party of Majorinus.
The case was argued first before a Synod in
Rome, next before a great Council of the
Western Church at Aries in A.D. 314, and
finally before Constantine himself, the Donatists
constantly appealing to the civil power. On
each occasion judgment was given against
them. Majorinus died about 315, and was
succeeded in the schismatic episcopate by
Donatus, called by his party, the Great, to
distinguish him from an unimportant bishop
of the same name. Under him the sect became
an organised community extending over all
the provinces of North Africa, almost every
town having its rival bishop and congregation.
Their aim was a very noble one — to embody
in each individual the holiness which is ascribed
by Scripture to the whole Church of Christ.
Outside North Africa, they had only one small
congregation in Rome, and only one private
chapel in Spain in the house of a female
disciple. It is this which constitutes the
glaring absurdity of their claim to represent
exclusively the true Church of Christ. Palmer
points out that as the Church of England
nowhere asserts any such claim, the imagined
resemblance between our position and that of
the Donatists is destroyed (Treatise on the
Church, i. pp. 197, 198).

The movement was still in active force in
the fifth century, when Augustine met the
arguments of the Donatist Bishop Petilian at
a great Council in Carthage (June 411).
Some remains of it were still in existence in
the time of Gregory I. (589-604). Under the
imperial rule laws of very cruel severity were
passed against these sectaries, though they
were not always carried into execution.

Circumcelliones. This name signifies literally
"those who beg around the cells or cottages
of the country people." It was applied to the
poorest and most ignorant class among the
Donatists, who mostly spoke the original
Punic dialect of North Africa. They earned
an evil name for their fanaticism, outrages,
and excesses, on one occasion even resisting
by force the imperial army on the field of
battle. The Donatists themselves condemned
and disavowed this later and more extreme
movement. The Circumcelliones would) often
compel Jews, pagans, and even passing
travellers to slay them, that they might win
the crown of martyrdom.

The tenacity of the Donatist movement is
remarkable in the face of the severe repressive
laws of the State, its total failure to win any
support in other regions, and the absence of any
commanding personality in its ranks. A com
parison between Donatus and Tertullian, or
even Novatian, would be absurd. The way in
which it was split up afterwards into parties,
and compromised by the sins and follies of
the Circumcelliones, are all strong proofs of
the grandeur of the one fruitful idea for which
it strove, namely, the holiness of the visible
Church in its individual members. But in its
extreme antagonism to the civil power — for
Donatus repelled the conciliatory overtures of
Constans in 347 by saying: "What has the
Emperor to do with the Church 1 ") — the move
ment soon displayed its weakness. And in the
wild enthusiasm by which it was manifested,
and in its excommunication of other Churches,
Donatism presents features unlike the English
Church, and has indeed more in common with
the Church of Rome. Our own Church in her
26th and t37th Articles condemns the very
principles of Donatism. [C. J. C.]

DONATIVE was a spiritual preferment,
whether a church or vicarage, which was in
the free gift of the patron. The parson of a
donative was not liable to the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction as to matters relating to his
church, though he was for personal offences.
A spiritual court could not, therefore, deprive
him, but for drunkenness, &c., might censure
him. If the patron of a donative presented
his nominee to the bishop, and the latter
instituted and admitted him, the living ceased
to be a donative. This was said to be because
the law does not favour exceptional rights,
and favours harmony. Bishoprics are royal
donatives, and there are some livings which
were such. (See Coke's Institutes, i. 344, and
Burn's Ecdes. Law, vol ii.) Donatives were
abolished by the Benefices Act of 1898.

[E .B. W. ]

DOSSAL.— Latin, dorsale, is a curtain hung on
the walls of a church, whether behind the

DO THIS

[ 187 ]

DO THIS

table, or behind the stalls of the clergy or
choir.

DO THIS.— It is strange to have to argue that
"Do this" means "Do this." It is only the
exigency of modern controversy which has
required that it should mean anything else.
Our Lord did a certain act; He ordered His
disciples to continue to do it after He had
left them, and told them, when they did it, to
do it iu remembrance of Him. What more
natural explanation of the Lord's injunction
could be given than that which it bears on its
face, namely, that His followers were to do as
was being then done, in remembrance of Him ?
But after the idea of Sacrament, in which God
gives something to man, has been swallowed
up by the idea of Sacrifice, in which man gives
something to God, it has become controversially
necessary to see in our Lord's words a declara
tion that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and
to find in them a command tc offer it as a
sacrifice. All this is effected by a new sense
being assigned to the words " Do this."
But how is that possible ?
The word "Do ' being a generic term, can,
like all such terms, be used very widely
according as its context differs. In the New
Testament its Greek equivalent (n-otetj') is
employed about 550 times, and while commonly
translated by "do " or " make," it is sometimes
rendered by another word which the context
seems to require. Thus in one passage it is
translated "ordain," in another "go," in
others "commit," "fulfil," "be," "prosper,"
" appoint," " continue," " keep." There is no
help in these renderings, for "offer" is not
one of them ; so the controversialist turns to
the Old Testament. There he finds that the
Alexandrian LXX. translators occasionally
made use of the generic term "do" for the
specific term "offer," in such expressions as
"offer an offering," in order to avoid an
awkward tautology. Diligent search will dis
cover as many as twenty passages in the Old
Testament where this usage occurs. Typical
instances are: "And he brought the burnt
offering, and did (offered) it" (Levit. ix. 16).
"He did (offered) burnt offerings and meat
offerings" (1 Kings viii. 64). "I will do (offer)
unto Thee burnt sacrifices" (Psalm Ixvi. 15).
On these passages is founded a justification for
understanding "Do this "as "Offer this" in
the New Testament passage, where there is no
substantive affixing a special meaning to the
verb, or leading to the use of the generic
instead of the specific term to avoid tautology
To strengthen their case, as they think, these
controversialists have sought out nine passages
in which the Alexandrian translators have
rendered the Hebrew expression "Keep the
Passover " by " Do the Passover." Here, they

say, sacrifice of the lamb being one part of the
celebration of the Passover Feast, the word
"do" no doubt means "sacrifice." One of
these passages is Matt. xxvi. 18 : "I will keep
(do) the Passover at thy house." But no
sacrifice could be offered in a private house,
and accordingly St. Mark (xiv. 14) and St.
Luke (xxii. 11) render the words "I will eat
the Passover." Eating or doing the Paschal
feast in a house was not sacrificing the Paschal
lamb, which had been sacrificed long before in
the Temple and brought thence to the house.

It is hardly credible that there is no other
ground than that which is supplied by these
passages for justifying the translation of "Do
this (thing) in remembrance of Me " by "Sacri
fice or offer this (bread and wine) in remem
brance of Me." Mr. Staley's Cntholic Religion
is not content with even the last rendering,
but assures its readers that " in saying ' This do
in remembrance of Me,' our Lord used words
which signify literally [!] 'Offer this as My
memorial before God ' " (p. 247). Even Canon
Mason condescends to say that there would be
no dogmatic objection to such an interpretation
(as " offer this thing "), though he cannot accept
it, on the ground "that it is of recent origin."
"All the Greek fathers," he writes, " with the
exception of S. Justin Martyr, treat the word
as meaning ' Perform this action ! ' Although
they certainly see a sacrificial connotation in
the words as a whole, they do not give so much
as a hint that another meaning of the word
' this ' had occurred to them. Such could
hardly be the case if the Evangelists and
Apostles had understood the words so differ
ently " (Faith, of the Gospel, p. 328). Even if
this word could be grammatically taken in its
secondary sense without a context that de
manded that sense (which is quite impossible
by every rule of exposition), the fact stated by
Dr. Mason that it is a novel invention would
be sufficient to dispose of such a sense. Not
even Justin Martyr is an exception, for he is
making a quasi-quotation, and therefore he
echoes the word employed in the passage to
which he refers. (See Life and Times of Justin
Martyr, Nisbet, 1893.)

Reputable Roman Catholic theologians
(Aquinas, Maldonatus, Estius) do not con
descend to grasp at an argument from the
misinterpretation of " Do this. " Indeed they
are precluded from doing so. For even the
Liturgies formerly and still in use contradict
the new gloss. In the Roman Liturgy the
text still runs, "As often as ye do these things,
ye shall do them in remembrance of Me ; " and
another ancient Liturgy reads " Do thus." An
unprimitive doctrine has to be supported by
an unprimitive wresting of Holy Scripture and
of ancient ecclesiastical documents. "Do

DOUAY VERSION

[ 188 ]

DOUAY VERSION

this " means " Do this thing," and nothing else.
No student of language, and no one acquainted
with Church history, could doubt it. (See Abbott,
T. K., Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of the
Old and New Testaments, 1891.) [F. M.]

DOUAY VERSION.— The Church of Rome
has never exhibited any anxiety that the laity
should possess the Holy Scriptures in their
vernacular languages. This statement is fully
confirmed by the Preface to the Rhemish
Testament in English, first published at Rheims
in quarto in 1582. The Preface says : "We
do not publish upon erroneous opinion of
necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should
always be in our mother tongue, or that they
ought, or were ordained by God, to be read
indifferently by all ... but upon special con
sideration of the present time, state, and con
dition of our country, unto which divers things
are either necessary, or profitable and medici-
nable now, that otherwise in the peace of
the Church were neither much requisite, nor
perchance wholly tolerable." The Douay Ver
sion was made because it was hopeless to
exclude Englishmen at that time from the
perusal of the Scriptures, and the ablest of the
Roman Catholics saw that the only way to
counteract the Reformation and to givea chance
to the Roman Catholic Church to recover the
ground it had lost in England, was by setting
forth a version of their own, and exposing
what they termed " false and shameless trans
lations containing manifest and wilful corrup
tions to draw it (Scripture) to their own
purpose." Hence Allen, then President of the
College at Douay, afterwards Cardinal, 1587,
set on foot a Roman Catholic Version to
counteract the effect of the various Protestant
translations publishedin England. The English
College at Douay, was founded 1568, in connec
tion with the University of Douay established
in 1562 by Philip II. of Spain. It was forced
in 1578 to migrate to Rheims. The College
contained a number of learned English priests,
such as Allen, Martin, Bristow, Reynolds,
Worthington, several of whom had formerly
held important positions at Oxford. The
College at Douay made it a special object to
prepare an English Roman Catholic Version,
translated from the Vulgate Latin, although
with occasional use of the Hebrew, and of the
Septuagint Greek Version. The New Testa
ment was published at Rheims in 1582, with
notes under the ' ' approbation " of four Doctors
of Theology. The Old Testament translation
did not appear till twenty-seven years later,
when the complete Bible was published at
Douay (where the English College returned
in 1593) in two volumes, dated 1609 and
1610. That Douay Bible was furnished with
notes and other additions, and with " approba

tions" of some six Professors and Doctors of
Theology. Though permitted, and therefore ac
credited to a certain extent, it was years before
the Douay Version was formally accepted by any
considerable number of the Romish episcopate.

Gregory Martin, who was one of the principal
translators, a few months after the New Testa
ment Version appeared, published at Rheims,
1582, a book against the Protestant translations,
entitled, A Discovery of the manifold Corrup
tions of the Holy Scriptures by the Heretics of our
days, specially the English Sectaries, &c. This
work was replied to by Dr. Wm. Fulke, Master
of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, in 1583. His
learned volume was termed A Defence of the
sincere and true translations of the Holy Scrip
tures into the English tongue against the mani
fold cavils, frivolous quarrels, and impudent
slanders of Gregory Martin. Fulke's work is
most important, and was reprinted by the
Parker Society, 1843. Dr. Fulke published a
larger work in 1589, in which he reprinted the
Rheims New Testament along with the trans
lation then in use in the Church of England,
and with copious notes and confutations. A
work of equal, if not greater importance,
dealing with the same subject, was published
in 1588 by Wm. Whitaker, Regius Professor of
Divinity and Master of St. John's College,
Cambridge, which was also reprinted by the
Parker Society in 1849. Fulke's and Whitaker's
works led to the production of a considerable
literature, partly set forth in Rhemes and Douay,
An Attempt to show what has been done by Roman
Catholics for the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures in
English, by Rev. Henry Cotton, D.C.L., Arch
deacon of Cashel (Oxford : University Press,
1855). The book is now comparatively rare.

Dr. James G. Carleton, in a work, " The
Part of Rheims in the Making of the English
Bible " (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1902), has,
by a careful induction of passages, pointed out
that the Rheims Version exercised a material
influence on the Authorised Version of the New
Testament. A claim to that effect was put
forth in the folio edition of the Rheims
New Testament issued without mark of place
or publisher in 1738. (See Cotton, Rhemes and
Doivay, p. 46). Dr. Carleton's collation does
not extend to the Old Testament, and does not
even embrace the Psalter. The curious fact,
however, is that there is no standard edition of
the Douay Bible, or of the Rheims New Testa
ment ; that is, a standard recognised as one
which ought to be faithfully adhered to, or set
forth by the highest authorities of the Church
of Rome. To this day the Douay Version is
accredited but not "authorised." Cotton has
given a chronological list of editions from
1582 to 1854. Many of those editions, however,
have departed from the text of the original

DOUAY VERSION

[ 189 ]

DOUAY VERSION

issued in Rheims and Douay. Dr. Challoner's
edition, issued in 1749 (New Testament), 1750
(Old Testament, and 2nd ed. of New Testa
ment), has been taken as the general basis of
later editions. But, as Cotton has shown by a
collation of the three earliest editions of Chal-
loner (1749, 1750, 1752, 3rd ed., of New Testa
ment), the translation is in many places
different. The third edition differs from the
first in more than two thousand places
(Cotton, Rhemes and Doway, p. 49). Dr. Chal-
loner, moreover, borrowed not a few words and
phrases from the Authorised Version (see
Rhemes and Doway, p. 51).

It should be noted that between 1635 and
1738 (for Dr. Witham's edition in 1730 was not
a Koman Catholic edition) no edition was
published by Roman Catholics. A long space
of time intervened between the publication of
the New Testament in 1582, and 1609, when
the first edition of the Old Testament was
issued. There was thus little anxiety shown
to supply English Roman Catholics with the
Word of God in a translation made by their
own divines. Furthermore, nearly all those
editions were supplied with notes. The notes
are by no means the same in all the editions.
Many of the earlier notes were violent in
language, and vindicated in the plainest terms
putting "heretics" to death. The story of
the notes has been set forth in a work of Rev.
Robt. J. M'Ghee, in 1837, with a very long
title which summarises its contents : The
Complete Notes of the Douay Bible and Rhemish
Testament extracted from the quarto editions of
1816 and 1818, published under the patronage
of the Roman Catholic Bishops and Priests of
Ireland as the authorised Interpretation of the
Church, and the infallible Guide to everlasting
Life. With a Preface embodying the Facts and
Documents connected with the publication of both
Editions : Dr. Troy's and Dr. Murray's denial of
them, ; the List of Subscribers throughout Ireland ;
the List of certain Notes suppressed in some copies
of the Second Edition. With a copious Index
referring to all the Principles of the Church of
Rome wrthy of remark in the Notes, which
appear utterly subversive of the Gospel of Christ
and of all Christian charity among men
(Dublin: Richard Moore Tims; Hatchard and
Sons, Piccadilly, London, 1838). Mr. M'Ghee,
whatever the merits or demerits of his work,
fully proved his case. But the sad story of
the evasions and underhand operations of the
Roman Catholic prelates, Dr. Troy and Dr.
Murray, both Archbishops of Dublin, need not
now be disinterred.

The first edition of the New Testament
without notes was issued in 1820, and was
soon withdrawn, as it met with decided op
position on the part of leading Roman Catholic

personages. See Khemcs and Doway, pp. 1 19-122.
An edition in three volumes was published
by Coyne, in 1829, with "approbation" from
all the Roman Catholic prelates. The stereo
type plates of a copy of this edition, with the
approbation of Dr. Troy, Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, passed into Protestant
hands at Coyne's death, and form the source
from which cheap editions of the Douay Testa
ment, as it is popularly called, are printed up
to the present day.

While there are translations in the Douay
Version designed to shelter Romish error, the
translation is on the whole a fair one. The
translation of the Latin phrase agere pcenitentiam
given in the Douay Old Testament and Rheims
New Testament is by no means consistent. The
noun repentance occurs some twenty-five times
in the New Testament, and the verb repent
fifty-four times. In forty-nine of these fifty-
four times it is rendered do penance. Penance
is, however, an old word for repentance; but
penance in the Roman Catholic sense is em
ployed to denote one of the " seven sacra
ments," and is a " sacrament " designed only
for persons who have sinned after baptism.
Hence the exhortation to do penance in the
latter sense could not possibly apply to the
persons whom John the Baptist addressed, but
must be explained as meaning in that case do
repentance. If that simple fact were known, and
pressed home on the consideration of Roman
Catholics, the translation would be rendered
comparatively innocuous. In the Old Testa
ment the passage, Gen. iii. 16, where the Douay
(after the Latin Vulgate) reads, "she shall
bruise thy head," the " she " is explained in
the notes of the Douay as meaning "the
woman" (Eve), and not the Virgin Mary. It is
also thus explained by Vercellone, Varies Lect.
Vulg. Lat. BibL, torn, i., Romas, 1860, pp. 12, 13.
This work was dedicated to Pius IX. The
mistranslation found in John ii. 4 is more
serious, because, although it is baldly literal
("What is it to Me and to thee "), it gives the
English reader a false impression of the mean
ing of our Lord's words, which express rebuke,
though not necessarily of a severe character.
The same phrase, being a common Hebrew
idiom, is frequently used in the New Testa
ment to signify what is there in common between
us, namely, the speaker and the person spoken
to, and fully justifies the' A.V. rendering,
" What have I to do with thee ? " The phrase
is found both in the Hebrew original and the
Greek translation of 2 Sam. xix. 22, as also in
many such passages as that in Mark v. 7, of
the possessed of the devils, where the Rhemish
Version does not dare to translate ' ' what is it
to me and to thee," but follows the Protestant
Versions.

DOVE

[ 190]

EASTERN CHURCHES

On the Douay Version it may be well for the
student to consult Bishop Westcott's remarks
in his History of the English Bible (Macmillan,
2nd ed. 1872), and Dr. Eadie in History of the
English Bible, 2 vols., also has a section on
that version. [C. H. H. W.]

DOVE. — The Dove bears several meanings in
Christian symbolic art. Representations of
Noah's dove are found in the Roman Cata
combs, often connected too with the symbol
of the fish (see FISH) ; and also of the descent
of the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Christ.
The dove is also used symbolically of Christians,
the idea being based on the words of Christ
in Matt. x. 16, and also those of the Psalmist
(Psalm Iv. 6). Doves made of gold and silver
were often suspended above the fonts of early
Christian Churches as symbols of the Spirit ;
Pyxes, or receptacles for the reserved Host,
were made of gold and silver in the shape of
a dove and suspended over the Holy Table.
The custom probably came to Gaul from the
East ; it never seems to have existed in Italy.

[C. J. C.]

E

EAST, TURNING TO THE, AT THE
CREEDS. — This practice has become common
in the Church of England, although there is no
rubrical direction to that effect in the Prayer
Book. The custom of turning to the east was
originally connected with sun worship. In
the Early Church converts turned to the west
when renouncing the devil, and to the east
when confessing their belief in the Holy Trinity.
Pope Leo the Great, who died in 461, censured
those who were wont, on the steps of the
Church of St. Peter, to turn towards the rising
sun and bow down towards it. It is sometimes
argued that the Jews in prayer turned towards
Jerusalem. But a Jew who lived eastward of
Jerusalem would have faced the west. The
Holy of holies, moreover, was the west end of
the Temple. Early Christian churches were
built with the entrance to the east and the
Communion Table to the west. So, again, it
is said that Christ was born in the East. The
mediaeval idea seems to have been to turn to
wards the " altar," as peculiarly sacred. See
EASTWARD POSITION.

Dean Hook observes that in the ancient
Church it was an almost universal practice to
turn to the east at times of solemn adoration,
and that the custom was derived from the
ceremonies of baptism, when it was usual to
renounce the devil with the face to the west, and
to turn towards the east to make atonement
with Christ. The dayspring was regarded as a
symbol of Christ, the Sun of Righteousness,

and Christians turned to the east because our
Lord appeared on the earth in the east, there
ascended, and will come again there at the last
day. The turning to the east may be regarded
as a survival of a practice which dates at least
from the time of Tertullian in the second
century. [M. E. W. J.j

EASTER.— The feast of the Resurrection of
our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. The
name appears to be derived from that of a
Teutonic goddess (A.S. Eastre, Germ. Ostern)
possibly corresponding with Astarte or Venus.
Easter Day is always the first Sunday after
the full moon which happens upon or next
after the 21st March. From it the other
movable feasts are reckoned. The day and
even the month in which our Lord suffered
and rose again are uncertain. The probable
dates assigned for these events are March 18th
and 21st, and April 7th and 9th in the year
A.D. 29.

In token of the glory and majesty of our
Lord's Resurrection, and the spiritual joy with
which it should be celebrated, Ritualists place
an extra candle called the Paschal taper on the
floor of the sanctuary, on the Gospel side of
the altar. The taper is lighted every day
at High Celebration and Evensong till Low
Sunday, and thence on Sundays and festivals
till Ascension Day, when it is removed after
the Gospel.
EASTERN CHURCHES.

1. The Armenian Church. — Armenian tradition
of the fifth century held that the faith was
brought from Jerusalem by way of Edessa long
before Gregory the Illuminator. This isprobable.
For Dionysius of Alexandria wrote about 250
a letter about Repentance to one Meruzanes,
Bishop of Armenia. Syriac was at first used
in Armenian churches, and the oldest ecclesi
astical terms and appellations are Syriac.

Under King Tiridates, a contemporary of
Constantine, Christianity became the State
religion, through the efforts of Gregory, the
hereditary head of the Arsacid priestly family,
which owned the shrine of Vahakn, the
Armenian Herakles, at Ashtishat in S.E.
Armenia. This shrine, re-dedicated to John
the Baptist, became the mother-church of
Armenia.

Gregory won over the old priestly families
by allowing the pagan sacrifices for the dead,
for forgiveness of sins, or in fulfilment of vows,
to continue ; for the priests relied on these to
feed themselves and their families. Christian,
or rather Levitical, formulas were substituted
for the pagan ones. In other respects also the
transition was made easy. The hereditary
priests of several clans became bishops, and
their dignity passed from father to son. The
Catholicate, or headship of the entire Church,

EASTERN CHURCHES

[191 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

was also hereditary for generations in the
family of Gregory, to whom, even as late as
the twelfth century, the Catholici traced their
descent. Monkery was introduced by Basil
in the course of the fourth century, but the
first monasteries were also schools and rest-
houses for travellers. For a few generations
the Catholici, beginning with Gregory, went
to Caesarea of Cappadocia for ordination.
The Greek influence, thus sanctioned, largely
shaped the creeds and rites of the young
Church. National feeling, however, began to
assert itself soon after 400, when Mesrop and
Sahak, having elaborated from old local hiero
glyphics a new Armenian alphabet, capable of
expressing the sounds of their language, began
to translate Greek liturgies and homilies and
the Old Testament. The New Testament had
already been translated from the oldest Syriac
Version, but this translation was now recast
with the help of new Greek MSS.

Already, about the year 370, in the age of
Basil, the Armenian king Pap or Bab had
broken with Caesarea. The breach widened,
and towards the end of the fifth century the
Armenians definitely rejected the Council of
Chalcedon, whose decrees affirming two natures
in Christ seemed in their eyes a concession to
Nestorius. Thenceforward the Armenians
were Monophysites. They held that the flesh
of Christ was divine and incorruptible, for had
it not been so, the God in Christ would not
have suffered, and there could have been no
redemptory significance in His death.

This view of Christ's flesh was held, especially
in the western regions of Armenia, in so ex
aggerated a form as to become Docetic ; and
it was denied that He derived His body at all
from woman. The extreme upholders of this
view, which was oddly combined with the
Adoptionist Christology of Paul of Samosata,
were known as early as the seventh century as
Paulicians. They were iconoclasts, and hostile
to Mariolatry. By their persecution of these
devout but warlike people, the Byzantine
Emperors drove them into the arms of Islam,
and paved the way for their own ultimate de
struction by the Turks.

The Armenians rejected the Christmas feast
of December 25, adopted in other Churches
between 370 and 440. They subsequently,
about 500, added a commemoration of Christ's
human birth to that of the baptism, which
was feasted at Epiphany, and very generally
regarded as the spiritual birth or regeneration
of Jesus, whereby He became Christ and Son
of God, through the descent of the Spirit
on Him. The Sabbath was kept as well as
Sunday.

Mariolatry was a late growth in Armenia,
and the feast of the Annunciation was not

fixed before the ninth century. In an earlier
age the Church was venerated as the Bride
and Virgin Mother of God in Christ, as of all
believers. Her intercession was asked for in
elaborate hymns which still exist. In a later
age, by a change of inscription, these hymns
were appropriated to Mary, whose day was
fixed on the older feast of Anahita, the old
Armenian goddess answering to Aphrodite.

As early as the eighth century infant baptism
was established, and the old adult rite, bor
rowed from the Greeks, was cut down to suit.
Adult baptism, however, accompanied with an
Adoptionist Christology and with a Marcionite
or Manichean rejection of the Old Testament,
still survives among a sect of Armenian dis
senters, called by others Thouraki from the
region where, in the tenth and eleventh cen
turies, they were numerous, but by themselves,
the Catholic Apostolic Church. Their ritual,
entitled the " Key of Truth," was discovered
and printed with a translation by the present
writer at Oxford in 1898. This sect is violently
iconoclast, and rejects pictures, images, the
worship of the cross, and the teaching of the
intercession of Mary and the saints. Their
priests are entitled " Elect ones " — a Manichean
appellation, and their rite of election has
much in common with the corresponding
Albigeois rite preserved in a twelfth-century
Provenyal MS. in Lyons.

Since the Crusades a section of the Armenian
Church has recognised the Latin Popes. These
Uniats are numerous in Turkey, and have
printing presses in Vienna and Venice.

Many Turkish Armenians have espoused the
teaching of Protestant missionaries, and reject
pictures, Mariolatry, cult of saints, and other
excrescences that never had a firm hold on
their esteem. After the extinction in 428 of the
native Arsacid dynasty, the loyalty of patriotic
Armenians crystallised round the person of
the catholicos, who has generally resided and
kept up a certain state in his monastery of
Edgmiatzin at Valarshapat in Ararat. In
matters of faith and religion he wields ecu
menical authority over all Armenians ; but
since 1828 the Tsar has controlled his move
ments and the decisions of his Synod, through
a Russian procurator living on the spot.

Authorities. — V. Langlois, Collection des
Historiens Armenians. Chamich, History of
Armenia, tr. by Audall, Calcutta, 1827. J.
Saint-Martin, Memoircs Historiques sur I'Ar-
menie. E. Dulaurier, Histoire, dogmet, tradi
tions de VEglise Armenienne, Paris, 1859. J,
Issaverdens, Armenia and the Armenians.
Arsak Ter-Mikelian, Die Armenische Kircht.
Leipzig, 1892. H. Gelzer, Art. Armenien in
Realencydopadie fur Protest. Theoloyie, Leipzig,
1897. Karapet Ter-Mkrttschian, Die Pauli-

EASTERN CHUECHES

[ 192 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

kianer, Leipzig, 1893. Brosset, Collection
d'Historiens Armeniens, Petersburg, 1874, and
other works by same author. Al. Balgy, His-
toria Doctrinal Catholicce,, Vienna, 1878. F. C.
Conybeare, The Key of Truth, a Manual of the
Paulician Church of Armenia. H. F. B. Lynch,
Armenia, Travels and Studies, London, 1901.
L. Petit, Art. on Anninie in Diction, de Theol.
Cathol. [F. C. C.]

2. The Georgian Church. — The Georgians
were anciently known as the Iberians of the
Caucasus, and are still called the Virq by their
neighbours, though they have always known
themselves by the name of Karthli.

Both they and the neighbouring petty king
dom of the Albanians of the Caucasus were
evangelised before 400, from Armenia. Mesrop
and Sahak, one the Armenian missionary and
the other the catholicos, elaborated about the
year 400 written characters for both these
races, and aided the translation of the Bible
and other works into their tongues. The
catholici of both these sister Churches went to
Armenia for consecration, but the Georgians
broke away and allied themselves with the
Greek Church about the year 574, submitting
to the decrees of Chalcedon. The Albanians,
whose catholicos resided at Partav, in the main
adhered to their union with the Armenians.
It is to their glory that their bishop Israel,
towards the end of the seventh century, con
verted the Huns to Christianity.

The great Armenian translators and saints
of the fourth and fifth centuries, are venerated
in old Georgian hagiologies ; and the oldest rites
and customs of the Georgian Church, particu
larly in respect of hereditary priesthood, of
animal sacrifices — which still endure — and of
Epiphany, were identical with those of Armenia.
Georgian tradition, already reported by
Rufinus in his history before 400, gave the
leading role in the conversion of the Caucasus
to a female saint, named Nino or Nouna. This
lady had been brought up in Jerusalem in the
first half of the fourth century. She settled
in Mtzkhet, the Canterbury of the Georgians,
a little west of Tiflis, and began her evangelical
work among the Jews, who then had numerous
colonies in the Caucasus, as all over Armenia.
She claimed the right to baptize, surrounded
herself with twelve disciples, and by her acts
of healing converted first the queen and then
the king, whom she baptized with her own
hands. The tradition about her is very cir
cumstantial, and seems to be trustworthy ; in
it she bears all the traits of a Montanist
prophetess of the second century.

Before their rupture with the Armenians, the
Georgians already had monasteries in common
with them at Jerusalem and Bethlehem as early
as about 450. After the rupture they re

sorted to Greek monasteries, especially those
of Sinai and Athos, where the well-known
Iveron monastery is that of the Iberians. In
both these centres, and also in and around
Tiflis, great stores of their ancient MSS. are
preserved. Many of their service books and
Bibles belong to the tenth and eleventh cen
turies, and some written on Egyptian papyrus
belong to a still earlier epoch. But little
attempt has been made to edit these valuable
codices, and in Europe there are barely half-a-
dozen scholars who have faced the intricacies
of their tongue, which is neither Aryan nor
Semitic nor Tartar.

The Georgian petty kingdom survived till
the end of the eighteenth century, when it
was incorporated in the Russian Empire. To
this fact is due the survival not only of their
Church and monastic literature, but of a
secular literature of epic and romance, partly
of native origin, partly translated at an early
date from Pehlevi and Arabic.

Authorities. — Brosset, Chronique Georgienne
and other publications. 0. Wardrop, Residence
in Georgia. Oliver and Marjory Wardrop, Life
of St. Nino, in Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1901.

[F. C. C.]

3. The Syriac Church. — This is properly
speaking the Church of the Syriac-speaking
races, who in antiquity were spread over the
earliest Roman province of Syria, which lay to
the south and west of the Euphrates, and in
cluded the great cities of Antioch, Apamea,
Emesa, Damascus, and Palmyra, and beyond
the Euphrates over Mesopotamia, and Baby
lonia in the lower course of the two great
rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. Beyond the
latter river they occupied the district of
Adiabene, the great Zab valley, and stretched
up to Lake Urumiah on the confines of Media,
and southwards they inhabited the provinces
of Garamea and Susiana.

The earliest centre of Syriac Christianity
was Edessa, an important walled city and em
porium on the river Dai9an, "the leaper, " in
Greek Skirtos. Its situation made it almost
inexpugnable, and it commanded the routes
northwards into Armenia and east and south
into Mesopotamia.

A Christian community existed here as early
as A.D. 150, and the toparch or local prince,
Abgar IX., was converted in 207, from which
time on Christianity was the State religion.
After 216 the city belonged to Rome. The
orthodox bishops of Edessa traced back their
succession only to Serapion, Bishop of Antioch,
190 to 203.

This first Christian communion was formed
among the Jews, who were numerous in this
region, and it is to them that we probably
owe the Syriac version of the Old Testament

EASTERN CHURCHES

[ 193 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

made direct from the Hebrew. It is the earliest
monument of Church Syriac. The early Syriac
New Testament contained nothing but the
Gospels, Epistles of Paul, and Acts ; and no
other books of the New Testament were read
in church. It is not clear whether Tatian's
Harmony of the four Gospels, made about 160,
was not rendered into Syriac before the four
Gospels. In any case an early version of these
was already current in the third and fourth
centuries, which was recast about A.D. 400
from later Greek MSS., and has come to be
known as the Peshitta. Two MSS. of this
earlier version have survived, of which one is
in London, the other, a palimpsest, in Sinai.
Both texts have been published, and the Sinai
text is remarkable as containing in Matt. i. 16,
instead of the usual text, the statement that
Joseph begat Jesus.

The earliest Syriac monument apart from
the Scriptures is the book of the Acts of
Thomas, a not wholly legendary account of
the conversion of India. Imbedded in this
is the beautiful Hymn of the Soul, ascribed
to Bardesanes,' the first great Christian theo
logian and poet who wrote in Syriac, about 170
to 200.

Mani. the dualist, wrote in Syriac about 270,
butnothingof him remains. Anothermonument
of that age was the Refutation of him by the
bishop Archelaus, preserved only in Latin and
a few Greek fragments. This book proves
that the Syriac faith of the third century was
Adoptionist ; that is to say, it was held that
Jesus became Son of God and Christ through
the descent upon Him in the Jordan of the
Holy Spirit.

The first great theological work preserved in
Syriac is the collection of twenty-one homilies
of Aphraates, the Persian sage, who wrote
about 325 to 350. These reflect the faith and
institutions of the Syriac Church of that age
outside the limits of the Roman Empire.
The following is the creed of Aphraates, as
translated by Mr. Burkitt from the first
homily "On Faith."

" For this is Faith :

When a man shall believe in God, the Lord
of all,

Who made the heaven and the earth and the
seas and all that in them is,

Who made Adam in His image,

Who gave the Law to Moses,

Who sent of His Spirit in the Prophets,

Who sent moreover His Messiah into the
world.

And that a man should believe in the com
ing to life of the dead,

And believe also in the mystery of Bap
tism :

This is the Faith of the Church of God.

And that a man should separate himself
from observing hours and sabbaths and
months and seasons and enchantments
and divinations and Chaldaism and
magic, and from fornication and from re
velling and from vain doctrines, the
weapons of the evil one, and from the
blandishment of honeyed words, and
from blasphemy and from adultery,
And that no man should bear false witness,
and that none should speak with double
tongues :

These are the works of the Faith that is laid
on the true Rock, which is the Messiah,
upon Whom all the building doth rise."
The subsequent history of Syriac Christian
ity may be told in a few words. Towards the
close of the fourth century it was invaded by
the jarring disputes of the Greek theologians,
whose works on both sides of every issue began
to find Syriac translators. At the Council of
Ephesus in 431, the 'main current of Syriac
Christianity was ruled out of the Ecumenic
Church ; and because their bishops supported
Nestorius, whose refusal to call Mary the
mother of God agreed with their old tra
ditions, they came to be known as Nestorians.
This branch of the Syriac Church, in the cen
turies which followed, evangelised Central
Asia, South India, and even as early as 635,
the east of China, where there is still pre
served a vast stone slab engraved in Syriac
and Chinese characters with an outline of
their faith and a history of their missions up
to the ninth century. The Nestorian Church
of to-day numbers a few thousand ignorant
believers in Urmi and the surrounding
country, who are continually yielding to the
rival proselytisers of the Russian and Roman
Churches. Animal sacrifices are still kept up
among them, as among the Armenians and
Georgians.

In 451, the Council of Chalcedon, by affirm
ing two natures in Christ, drove out of the
great Church most of the Syriac- speaking
believers who had survived the Council of
Ephesus twenty years before. This branch
came to be known as the Monophysites, and
later on as Jacobites, from Jacob of Sarug,
who died in 521. The greater part of the sur
viving Syriac literature is Jacobite. Not only
were the great Christian rhetors of the fourth
and fifth centuries translated into Syriac, but
a great deal of Aristotle and of the old Greek
medical writers. These Syriac versions were
in turn rendered into Arabic, and the^ Arabic
in turn into Latin in the eleventh century.
It is from these Latin versions that the school
men of the Middle Ages drew their knowledge
of Aristotle.

References.— F. C. Burkitt, Early Christi-

N

EASTERN CHURCHES

t 194 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

anity outside the Roman Empire. Rubens
Duval, La Litt6rature Syriaque, Paris, 1899.
W. Wright on Syriac Literature in Encyclo
pedia Britannica, vol. xxii. J. S. Assemani,
Bibliotheea Orienlalis. G. P. Badger, The Nes-
torians and their Rituals. A. J. Maclean, The
East Syrian Daily Offices. F. E. Brightrnan,
Eastern Liturgies. [F. C. C.J

4. The Abyssinian Church. — Christianity
is said to have been introduced into Abys
sinia in the year A.D. 333 by a certain
Frumentius, called by the Abyssinians Abu
Salama. The evidence of an inscription, how
ever, makes it improbable that the conversion
of the Abyssinians was quite so early ; but
there is no doubt that by the end of the sixth
century a Church had been organised among
them on Monophysite lines, and dependent
on Alexandria, whence it is regularly supplied
with patriarchs. The Mohammedan conquest
of Egypt in the seventh century cut Abyssinia
off from connection with the rest of the
Christian world, and it is chiefly owing to this
that its form of Christianity contains a variety
of elements which other parts of the Church
have either discarded or never possessed.
Thus they retain the Jewish Sabbath while
also observing the Sunday ; and have pre
served in their sacred literature the Books
of Enoch and Jubilees, which the rest of the
Church has neglected. In the case of some of
their practices it is hard to assign their proper
shares to Judaism and pre-Islamic paganism ;
for though it is clear that the Abyssinians are
the offspring of a colony from South Arabia,
at some periods they were subject to Jewish
influence, and even after the establishment of
Christianity as the national religion, have at
times been under Jewish political supremacy.
Ludolf proved that they owe to pagan Arabia
their circumcision, and perhaps their poly
gamy and leviratic marriages (the two last
customs being tolerated by the State, though
discountenanced by the Church), but the pro
hibition of certain foods (and especially the
' sinew of the thigh') seems to be due to the
influence of Judaism, the terminology of which
has certainly affected their language. In
their adoration of the Virgin, and their belief
in the intercession of saints, they do not fall
behind the most idolatrous portions of
Christendom ; and monasticism and asceticism
were at one time rife in the country, having
been introduced by Eg-yptian monks, and en
couraged by St. Tekla Haimanot (circ. 1255),
one of their most distinguished saints. Re
ligious wars would seem to have been from
early times of frequent occurrence ; anc
Mohammedan writers assert that an Abys
sinian king, whose capital was Axura, not
only helped the beginnings of Islam by pro

viding a refuge for the followers of Mohammed,
but even went to war with his subjects in de
fence of Mohammed's doctrine of the nature
of Christ. With the European Church they
had no connection till the early sixteenth cen
tury ; but about 1499 a certain Pedro Colvil-
ham brought the news of their existence to
the Court of Portugal, resulting in some 130
years of devil's work done by Jesuits, of which
many accounts have been written ; those by
Major W. Cornwallis Harris (Highlands of
^Ethiopia, London, 1844, iii. 95-131), and
Theodore Bent (Sacred City of Ethiopians,
London, 1893, 103-114) are vivid and accurate.
Relations having been established between the
Portuguese and Abyssinian courts, the assis
tance of the former was requested in the year
1540 by the Abyssinians, who for twelve years
had been suffering from the inroads of Mo
hammed Gran, ruler of Harrar, who was
endeavouring to conquer their country for
Islam ; and one Bermudez was made by Pope
Paul III. Patriarch of Ethiopia, and with him
were sent out some Portuguese troops with
artillery, who shortly defeated the invaders
and restored tranquillity. The price which
was demanded, viz., the submission of Abys
sinia to the authority of the Pope, was re
garded as too high, and successive detach
ments of Jesuit missionaries made but little
progress in converting the people ; though
one of these went so far as to lay the whole
country under a ban. In 1603 a more adroit
envoy, Peter Paes, reached the country after
serious difficulties, and succeeded in convert
ing the Emperor Za Denegel, whose conversion
was followed by a general rebellion. After
much bloodshed the Roman Catholic religion
was formally proclaimed in Abyssinia, and all
who refused it were threatened with death;
at the Jesuits' instigation, hanging, burning,
and even the violation of graves were com
menced on the system approved by the
Inquisition. The Abyssinian Highlanders,
however, refused to be coerced by these
means, and repeatedly rose, having on their
side, besides the horror which Jesuitry natur
ally inspired, the national dislike of foreign
advisers, who by the building of forts (such as
that of Fremona) had roused the jealousy even
of their royal converts. After some unsuccess
ful attempts at shaking off the Jesuit yoke,
the abdication and death of the Emperor
Susenyos in 1632 gave the signal for a success
ful rising, resulting in the re-establishment of
the old Church, and the expulsion of the
Jesuits from the length and breadth of Ethiopia.
From that time the country remained closed
to European missions, though some attempts
at renewing them were made by the Roman
Catholics, and only in the middle of the nine-

EASTERN CHURCHES

[ 195 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

teenth century were Protestant missions on a
small scale attempted.

Accounts of the present condition of the
Abyssinian Church are given by a number of
travellers (e.g. Kiippell, Reise in Abyssinien,
1840, ii. 33-57, &c. ; von Heuglin, Reise nach
Abissinien, 1768, 253-263 ; G. Simon, L'Mhiopie,
1885, 249-257 ; Theod. Bent, op. cit. passim ; Max
Schoeller, Colonia Eritrea, 1895, 108-110). All
these writers describe the intellectual and
moral condition of the Abyssinian Church as
terribly degraded : " Dans 1'ordre intellectuel
comme dans 1'ordre moral on sent le relache-
ment, le servilisme, la ve"nalite\ Point d'elans
superieurs, point d'aspirations elevees ; les
vraies sources de vitality semblent complete-
ment taries " (Simon). The head of the Church
is the Abour,a (more correctly Aboun), sent,
when one is required, by the Alexandrian
patriarch, who receives a fee of some 60,000
francs for the service. The Aboun ordains the
clerics, and his residence, like most of the
monasteries, is inviolable. The clergy have
also a temporal head called Etchigeh ; next to
him is the Nebrid, or head of the priesthood ;
"he superintends all the'services of the Church,
looks after the working clergy, and generally
sees to the executive ; he is the guardian of
the tables of the law, and all the treasures of
the Church at Axum " (Bent). Then there is
the Lij Kaneat, or judge in ecclesiastical affairs.
After them the priests who minister to parishes,
the monks who live in monasteries or solitary
caves, and wear yellow leather or skins of
wild beasts. Finally there are the defteras,
or unordained clerks, who sing and dance
during religious processions, and earn their
livelihood to a large extent by writing magical
prayers and charms. The priests ordinarily
marry before ordination, since they are not
allowed to do so afterwards. In their liturgy
the old Ethiopian language is used ; the
ministers are separated from the congregation
by a curtain or wall ; Communion is adminis
tered in both kinds. The attention of many
travellers has been attracted by the enormous
number of feast-days and fast-days, which
together cover some two-thirds of the year ;
baptism is performed in church, forty days
after birth in the case of boys, eighty in that
of girls. Marriage is in theory indissoluble if
religiously solemnised ; whence, in order to
facilitate divorce, the ceremony is usually
omitted.

A list of 110 works extant in the Ethiopic
and Amharic languages is given by Major
Harris (I.e. iii. 387-391), to which few addi
tions of importance have been made by the
discoveries of later travellers. Their code
called Fetha Negest, containing both Civil and
Canon Law, of which an analysis was given by

Riippell (I.e. ii. 186), has been published by I.
Guidi. [D. S. M.]

5. The Coptic Church. — This Church claims
to have been founded by St. Mark, as whose
successor the patriarch of Alexandria regards
himself. Though this tradition is probably
valueless, it seems certain that at a very
early period Christianity was greatly influ
enced by the Grasco - Jewish philosophy of
Alexandria, whence we are justified in infer
ring the spread of the new religion in that
region. From a persecution of Christians in
the Thebais under the Emperor Septimius
Severus, we learn that by the end of the
second century it had made progress even
in Upper Egypt ; and some of the Saidic
(or Upper Egyptian) translation of the Bible
is thought to be of the third century ; in
Lower Egypt, Greek was at this early period
the ecclesiastical language. Certain of the
practices connected with the ancient cult of
Osiris were long retained by the Egyptian
Christians; and, indeed, the belief in Osiris
as the " first-born of them that slept," as the
resurrection and the life, as at once god and
man, whose resurrection not only guaranteed,
but in a way was identical with the resurrec
tion of his worshippers, prepared the Egyp
tians for much in the Pauline doctrine which
created greater difficulty elsewhere. The ease
with which Egyptian ideas could be rendered
in terms of Christianity probably facilitated
the introduction into the latter of the fancies
called Gnosticism, in which certain outgrowths
of the Egyptian sacerdotal wisdom seem to
have luxuriated. " Till the close of the second
century the predecessors of Demetrius (patri
arch of Alexandria) were the only prelates of
the Egyptian Church ; three bishops were con
secrated by Demetrius, and the number was
increased to twenty by his successor Heraclas "
(Gibbon, ed. Smith, ii. 210). The patriarchate
of Cyril, 412-444, was marked by fanaticism
and bloodshed; and his follower, Dioscurus,
adopting the heresy known as Jacobite or Mono-
physite, was after the Council of Chalcedon
(451) deposed and banished. From that time
till the Arab conquest of Egypt, the Egyptian
Church was in a disturbed condition, since the
great majority of the people were in favour
of the Jacobite doctrine, which the Byzantine
rulers endeavoured to suppress. The successor
of Dioscurus, Proterius, was murdered, and
his throne occupied by the Jacobite Timotheus
^Elurus. In the reign of Justinian, advan
tage was taken of internal disputes among
the Monophysites themselves to suppress the
popular religion with armed force. The patri
arch Theodosius (537-568), in whose cause the
imperial forces had ostensibly been sent, was
removed in favour of the Catholic Paul of

EASTERN CHURCHES

[ 196 ]

EASTERN CHURCHES

Tanis. He and his successors were able to
maintain themselves at the capital by the aid
of the imperial forces, while rival Jacobite
patriarchs reigned in the monasteries of the
Thebais. During the Persian invasion of
Egypt the Jacobites again became dominant
at the capital, whence, however, their patri
arch Benjamin was driven after the victory
of Heraclius ; to return to his throne in the
year 640, when Alexandria was taken by the
Arabs under " Amr, son of Al-As," whose
task had been rendered easy for him by the
insane policy of the Byzantines. The Catholic
patriarch was compelled to flee to Constan
tinople, and till the year 730 there was no
orthodox patriarch appointed to succeed him,
and few priests of the same sect were to be
found in Egypt.

The hatred inspired by the Byzantine per
secutions found expression in the disuse of
the Greek language for ecclesiastical pur
poses ; for which the vernacular of Egypt
was substituted, the two dialects known as
Saidic and Bohairic being used in Upper and
Lower Egypt respectively. Unlike the Syrians
and Armenians, the Copts have, under Arab
domination, forgotten their vernacular, whence
their MSS. are ordinarily accompanied by
Arabic translations, and indeed the Arabic
language is used in one part of their service ;
the exact date at which Coptic became a
learned language is not accurately known,
but even in the eleventh century it appears
to have fallen into desuetude. The literature
which survives in it is almost entirely eccle
siastical, though there is some which is rather
mystical, or magical, than religious ; a popu
lar account of it is to be found in A. J. Butler's
Ancient Coptic Churches (Oxford, 1884, ii. 238-
261). The same work also contains an accurate
account of the rites and ceremonies in use in
Egypt. The Copts acknowledge seven sacra
ments : "the Jewish practice of circumcision
on the eighth day is general, but neither com
pulsory, nor counted a religious ceremony ;
yet circumcision after baptism is very strongly
prohibited." "Immersion is the only form
of baptism recognised by the Greeks of Alex
andria ; for the last three or more centuries
the custom has been for the priest to dip the
body first up to the middle, the second time
up to the neck, and the third time over the
head." The immersion is followed by a double
chrism, and also by Communion, after which
the infant receives milk and honey mingled.
The Communion service is highly elaborated,
and the doctrine of the Real Presence held in
its most physical literalness. The orders re
cognised are patriarch, metropolitan, bishop,
chief priest, priest, archdeacon, deacon, reader.
The seat of the patriarch was transferred to

Cairo when the Fatimite sovereigns made
that city their capital, and it has practically
remained there ever since. He has under
him four Metropolitans or Archbishops, viz.
of Alexandria, Manufiah, Jerusalem, and Abys
sinia. Whereas the patriarch must be un
married, it is only necessary in the case of
the bishops that they should not have married
a second time. As in other branches of the
Eastern Church, the crown is used at the
marriage ceremony, for the removal of which
there is a special service on the eighth day
after marriage. The employment of unction
for the sick is not confined to cases in which
the illness is supposed to be mortal.

On the liturgies in use among the Copts
there is a very considerable literature, of
which the most important work is probably
that by Renaudot (Liturg. Orient. Coll.,i., Paris,
1716, reprinted London, 1844). Three such
liturgies appear to have been used from early
times, viz. those ascribed to Basil, to Gregory
of Nazianzum, and to Cyril (called also
the Liturgy ofj St. Mark) ; "that of Gregory
is reserved for three solemn festivals, the
midnight masses of Epiphany, Easter, and
Christmas; that of Cyril during the seasons
of the Great and Little Fast, i.e. Lent and
Advent" (Butler, i.e. 283), or, according to
another authority, once a year. According to
Renaudot the Liturgy of Basil, which is in
ordinary use, is regarded by the Copts as
of authority only second to that of Holy
Scripture.

For the history of the Coptic Church a work
of importance by an Armenian, Abu Salih,
who lived in the twelfth century, called " The
Churches and Monasteries of Egypt," was
published by Mr. B. Evetts in Arabic and
English in the Anecdota Oxoniensia (1895).
This work gives some account of 707 churches
and 181 monasteries, with some notices of
their origin, and also contains references to
the vicissitudes of the Christians during the
succession of Mohammedan dynasties. The
notice of the Egyptian Church in the account
of Egypt by Makrizi (1441) is also of consider
able interest, and has been rendered accessible
by S. C. Malan in his Documents of the Coptic
Church, together with other matter bearing
on the subject. Many lives of Coptic saints
have in recent times been published by M.
Amelineau in the Annalcs du Musee Ouimet,
but their fabulous character renders them
difficult to use for historical purposes. The
account of the existing community given
in Lane's Modern Egyptians (1871, &c., ii.
273-307), is both succinct and accurate ; the
very unfavourable view of the Copts which
it embodies is confirmed by the experience
of many visitors to Egypt. The Arab domina-

EASTER OFFERINGS

EASTWARD POSITION

tion long prevented them from coming under
the influence of Western Christianity. Since
the English occupation, attempts have been
made to infuse new life into the old Church,
with no great prospect of success ; it is possible
that the American mission, which endeavours
to obtain proselytes to Nonconformist Protest
antism, has been more successful. See GKEEK
CHUECH, JACOBITES, MARONITES, MEL-
CHITES, RUSSIAN CHURCH.

[D. S. M.]

EASTER OFFERINGS are, in the Church
of England, gifts presented to the clergy at
Easter. Some authorities maintain that these
are due by the common law at the rate of
2d. per head for all parishioners of and over
the age of sixteen years. Others consider
that these offerings are due by custom only.
In a case where the customary Easter offer
ings were proved by terriers to be for " every
communicant 2d. ; every cow 2d. ; every plough
2d. ; every foal Id. ; every hive of bees Id ;
every horse 3^d.," it was held (1) that the
common-law right was excluded ; and (2) that
each item was an independent charge and
payable by every parishioner, even though
not a communicant ; (3) that, evidence to the
contrary being absent, "communicant" must
mean only those who actually communicated ;
(4) that the custom attached not merely to an
cient houses but to any house as soon as built
and occupied. (See Whitehead, Church Law.}
The custom of giving Easter Offerings to
the clergy has considerably fallen into disuse.
But the incomes of the clergy have been so
greatly reduced by the fall in the value of
tithes and by agricultural depression that the
custom might well be revived. In some
churches the offertory on Easter Day is given
to the incumbent. A rubric at the end of the
Communion Service directs that "yearly at
Easter every Parishioner shall reckon with the
Parson, Vicar, or Curate, or his or their Deputy
or Deputies, and pay to them or him all
Ecclesiastical Duties accustomably due, then
and at that time to be paid."

[M. E. W. J.]

EASTWARD POSITION.— A posture some
times adopted by the minister officiating at the
Lord's Table. There is no reason whatever why
one side of the Table of the Lord should in itself
be better than another for the officiating mini
ster to stand at. North, south, east, west — what
can it matter ? — except, indeed, that the east
ward position is clearly the most inconvenient,
because it makes an obstacle to the sight of the
congregation. But just as an unreasonable
idea sprang up shortly before the Reformation
that the chasuble was a sacrificial garment,
which idea was totally unknown, not only to
the Primitive Church, when it was merely an

outer cloak, but to the earlier Middle Ages also,
so a sacrificial character was assigned to the
eastward position of the minister before the
altar. There is no adequate ground for this
opinion. Indeed, it was maintained, rightly
or wrongly, by Dean Stanley that the fact of
the minister standing in front of the congrega
tion, and looking in the same direction with
them, symbolised that he was with them
humbly offering prayer to God, and not that
he was Christ's representative offering the
sacrifice of Him to the Father; but however
this may be, the notion more and more pre
vailed that the eastward position of the
minister was that which meant the sacrifice
of Christ, and that any other position ignored,
if it did not condemn, that suggestion. Hence
it has been reintroduced in many churches
where doctrines identical with, or approaching
to, that of the Sacrifice of the Mass have
been believed and taught.

As there are no grounds in reason for the
eastward position, so there is no authority for
it. Not even did the Jewish priest, who was
really a sacerdos, stand either facing eastwards,
or with his back to the people, as his duties
kept him moving from side to side of the altar.
The Christian priest or presbyter never took up
such a position in the early Church. For many
centuries the Table of the Lord stood, not
against the wall of the church, but in the centre
of the arc of the semi-circular apse, which
ordinarily formed the end of the church
(Bingham, Ant., viii. 6.) Behind the Lord's
Table, in the bay of the apse, was situated the
bishop's cathedra or throne, and on each side
of him were the seats of the clergy. The old
throne with the seats on either side of it, still
remains in situ in the cathedral of Norwich,
which was built in the twelfth century ; and
the same spot is the place of the bishop's
throne in the Eastern Church, as marked by
Dr. Wright in his Service of the Mass, p. 18,
where he gives a plan of a Greek Church.
When the administration of the Eucharist took
place, the bishop or the officiating presbyter
proceeded from behind to the Lord's Table and
took his stand on the farther side of it, looking
over it, and facing the people ; and in this
position he performed the service, the com
municants kneeling on either hand at the north
and south sides of the Table. That such were
the primitive positions of priest and people is
clearly shown in Mr. Tomlinson's The Liturgy
and the Eastward Position.

The Italian and Spanish Old Catholic re
formers have so far resumed the primitive
position that their officiating clergy stand to
the east of the Communion Table, facing west ;
and Signer Ugo Janni, arguing for the practice
has shown it to be the ancient position by

EASTWARD POSITION

[ 198 ]

EASTWARD POSITION

quotations from the Abb£ Guillois' Catechism,
Canon Salmon, of Chalons, Histoire de I'art
Chretien, and Canon Martigny's Ainico Cattolico.
(See the Labaro for June 1899, and the Foreign
Church Chronicle, vol. xxiii. p. 138, 1899.) Canon
Farquhar, in confirmation of the same fact, has
pointed to the frescoes in San Clemente, Rome
(of the eleventh century), and in Raffaelle's
Loggia (of the fifteenth century), representing
the priest on the east side of the altar, and has
stated that a picture by Sacchi, in 1600, is the
first painting that represents the omciator with
his back turned to the people (F. C. C,, ibid. p.
141). The well-known Dr. St. John Mivart in
his Esssays and Criticism (i. 192), says, "In the
ancient Ambrosian rite of Milan . . . the priest
never turns round to the people at any Dominus
Vobiscum. The last circumstance is due to the
fact that according to the strict Ambrosian rite
the priest should celebrate facing the people
(i.e. standing on the farther side of the altar),
and no doubt the former existence of a similar
custom in Spain accounts for the fact that the
priest does not turn round to the people at the
Dominus Vobiscum in the Mozarabic rite. The
whole Mass (Gallican) bears traces of having
been originally said with the celebrant facing
the people. In the Ambrosian rite the
assistants pass behind the altar instead of in
front" (F. C. C., xxiii. 72). In the Mozarabic
Missal the position of the officiator, which was
looking westwards, has been somewhat ob
scured by some modern rubrics, framed in
accordance with the later Roman use, having
been inserted by Ortiz, the compiler of
Ximenes' edition of the Mozarabic Liturgy in
1500. Cardinal Lorenzana, in his edition of
Missa Gothica in 1770, explaining the reason
why the priest turns only once or twice towards
the congregation (instead of six times, as in
the Roman Canon), writes, "It is only in this
(the final) benediction, and in the offertory,
when it was customary for him to have with
drawn a little from the altar, that the priest
turns towards the people in the Mozarabic
Mass ; the chief cause of which is the
antiquity of the Mozarabic rite, for in the
first ages of the Church the altar was in the
same direction as the faithful, and the priest
faced the people, so that he had not to turn in
order to address them, as is now necessary, for
now the people stand behind him" (p. 132).
See further the illustrations in Mr. Tomlinson's
The Liturgy and Eastward Position, and Canon
Swainson's Greek Liturgies, pp. 77, 117, 139,
141, 144.

On account of the practice of early times,
and the false signification attached at present
to the eastward position, the Old Catholic
Reformers of Italy hold tenaciously to the
westward position as a "reform of great im

portance." "In modern Churches of the
Papal Confession the altar is generally against
the wall, and the priest celebrates Mass
standing between the people and the altar,
and turning his back on the people. Our
Catholic Reformed Church of Italy has abol
ished this use, moving forward the Eucharistic
Table from the wall, so that there is no
difficulty in walking round it, and the minister
who celebrates places himself behind the Table
with his face toward the people. This reform
has met with, and meets with the approval of
our congregations, and of all those who come
into our churches and chapels. In truth, to
turn the back to the people is not in accordance
with the rules of aesthetic, nor indeed of
sound belief. . . . This reform of ours is not
an innovation, but a return, pure and simple,
to the practice of the ancient Church " (Labaro,
June 1899).

Signer Ugo Janni sums up his estimation of
the difference of teaching in the two positions
as follows: "The position of the priest at
the altar, according to the use of the Roman
Church, signifies that the priest, who puts him
self between the people and the altar, turning
his back to the people, is a sacerdote, a medi
ator, in virtue of the sacrifice of the Body and
Blood of Christ which he offers on the altar.
This is the reason why some Romanising
Ritualists of the Anglican Church, who would
cancel the glorious page of the Reformation,
hold to this position as a thing of vital
importance. For the opposite reason, we are
firm in retaining this most beautiful practice
of the ancient Catholic Church " (Labaro,
June 1899).

In England the eastward position was
ordered in 1549, no alteration being made in
the then prevalent use. But the position was
felt to be unsuitable to a reformed Prayer Book,
and the rubric was not generally obeyed.
"There were so many exceptions taken and
opposition made to that order," says Bishop
Cosin, " (some standing at the west side of the
altar with their faces turned towards the
people, others at the east, others at the south,
and others at the north), that at last they
agreed to set forth this rule [the present rule
ordering the priest to stand at the north side],
in the fifth of King Edward, instead of the
former set forth in the second year" (Notes,
p. 458). Therefore the position ordered for
the clergyman since 1552 is the north of the
Table (which seems to have been adopted as a
compromise between east and west, and to
prevent unseemly difference of use), and he is
to keep that position throughout the service,
except that immediately before the consecra
tion prayer he is desired by a rubric inserted
in 1662 to " stand before the Table " to " order

EBIONISM

[ 199 ] ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

the Bread and Wine, that he may with the
more readiness and decency break the Bread
before the people, and take the Cup into his
hands." In other words, he is to place the
paten and chalice, which had been standing
since the offertory in the middle of the Table,
nearer to the north end of it, in order that he
may reach them easily from thence. Having
done so, he resumes his place to the north
of the Table, where he is able readily and
decently to break the Bread before the people,
which he cannot do if he stands on the west
side of the Table, and to reach the Cup and
take it in his hands.

A difficulty has been raised from the use of
the word "side" instead of "end" of the
Table. It is probable that the word "side"
was originally preferred, because at the same
time as the enactment of the rule " at the north
side," permission was given (confirmed in 1559)
to remove the Table into the chancel or church
at the time of Communion, where it would,
sometimes at least, have been placed length
wise from east to west, and then the word
" end " would not have been applicable ; it
would have meant either the eastward or the
westward position. But every parallelogram
or square is a four-sided figure, and the term
"side " would cover the longer or the shorter
side, which the term "end" would not. The
" north side of the Table," therefore, where the
priest is ordered to stand, is the same thing
as the "north end." Accordingly, Laud's
biographer, Heylin, arguing against Bishop
Williams, wrote, " It is plain that if we speak
according to the rules of art (as certainly they
did that composed that rubric), every part of
it is a side, however custom hath prevailed to
call the narrower parts by the name of ends "
(A Coale from the Altar, p. 21). And Bishop
Wren said, "Custom of speech led men to
call the north end or north part of the Table
the north side thereof" (Answer to Impeachment).
The Scottish Liturgy, authorised in 1637,
directs the presbyter to stand " at the north
side or end," the terms being equivalent.

[F. M.]

EBIONISM.— This name is derived from the
Hebrew word which means "poor," poverty
being in the Early Ages a characteristic of
Jewish Christians. Judaism long exercised a
great influence over the Primitive Christians
of the House of Israel, specially those who
lived in the Holy Land. Some of them main
tained that all Jewish Christians ought to
continue to observe the Mosaic Law. Others
who were more extreme, held that the Law
was binding on all Christians whether Jew
or Gentiles. The latter party were known as
Ebionites. They taught that Christ was a
mere man, the child of Joseph and Mary

They believed, however, that He was the
Messiah, and that the Holy Ghost descended
on Him at His Baptism, when His Messiahship
was revealed to Him by Elijah in the form of
John the Baptist. The Ebionites separated
from the Catholic Church, and, according to
some authorities, formed an independent sect
in the reign of Domitian ; according to others,
about A.D. 107. [E. A. W.]

ECCLESIA.— See CHUECH.
iOCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS
FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.—
These are about fifty in number, and include
the archbishops, bishops, some deans, judges,
officers of state, and eminent laymen. They
form a corporate body established by Act of
Parliament in 1836, holding a large amount of
Church property. They have power to make
schemes with regard to this, and these pro
posals, when confirmed by an Order in
Council and gazetted, have the force of Acts
of Parliament. The funds of the Commis
sioners are devoted to church buildings, aug
mentations of poor livings, the endowment
of new churches, &c. In augmenting poor
livings the Commissioners frequently contri
bute a certain sum on the condition that an
equal sum be raised by the persons locally
interested. The Commissioners may receive
contributions towards the endowment funds
of new benefices. A report of their doings is
handed in annually to one of the Secretaries
of State, and laid before Parliament. See
Whitehead's Church Law. [B. W.]

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.— Every orga
nised body must have some means of enforcing
its own rules upon its constituent members.
In Apostolic times, this was done by a meeting
of the brethren in each " church " ; they voted
(2 Cor. ii. 6), in the last resort, for the exclusion
from Communion of the impenitent and contu
macious law-breaker (1 Cor. v. 7, 9, 12, 13),
and appointed the judge (1 Cor. vi. 4. See
Bishop Ellicot in loco). The bishop, in his
executive capacity, administered rebukes and
heard complaints; but the final rejection of
any "heretic" was preceded by " a first and
second admonition," which implies a refer
ence to the ecdesia according to our Lord's
command in Matt, xviii. 17. To treat the
offender as a "heathen man" was to reduce
him to the condition of the unbaptized ; to
treat him as a "publican," was to regard him
as a disloyal outcast shunned by the rest of
the faithful (compare Titus iii. 10). Herein
the bishop was merely the " president of the
brethren," the mouthpiece of the "Church,"
which the Founder of the Church bade fl
Apostles to "hear," and whose judgment was
final. The need of co-ordinating the rules
agreed upon by the different local churches,

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

[ 200]

ECCLESIASTICAL COUETS

naturally led to the appointment of regular
judges, so as to form a common tribunal of
appeal. Naturally, too, the procedure and
forms of the civil tribunals were instinctively
followed ; and when the Church became
" established," the forms of the Civil or Im
perial Law were imposed by the decree of
Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian (A.D. 376),
which prescribed the manner of proceeding to
be adopted and followed in what had been
originally merely customary, voluntary tri
bunals of domestic discipline. " Qui mos est
causarum civilium, idem in negotiis ecclesi-
asticis obtinendi sunt" (Codex Thcod., lib.
xvi. tit. ii. c. 23).

The decrees of the Emperors and the subse
quent legislation of Christian states, when rele
vant, were recognised and enforced as the " law
of the Church" ; and hence, too, it arose that
in England civilians superseded the canonists
when the royal mandate closed the schools
of Canon Law, and abolished degrees in Canon
Law at Oxford and Cambridge in the reign of
Henry VIII. In the article on CANON LAW
(supra, p. 90) it is explained how the Ponti
fical Canon Law of Rome was discredited and
virtually cast out, except so far as its subse
quent reception in the King's Courts validated
certain portions of it on the ground of custom,
thus constituting it a portion of "the King's
Ecclesiastical Common Law." But, in Eng
land, the Courts themselves were left intact ;
yet the co-ordinate jurisdiction of the primate
in original suits was abolished by the 23 Hen.
VIII. c. 9, unless the diocesan judge were
himself the wrong-doer, or "dare not or will
not " act. An appeal to the Crown in Chan
cery, from .all and every Court of the Arch
bishop, was also substituted for the appellate
jurisdiction previously wielded by the Pope.

Professor Maitland has shown that the Pope
also "ran" Courts of first instance, side by
side with the ordinary diocesan Courts of every
grade ; and of course the abolition of the Papal
Supremacy destroyed all such at a blow. With
these exceptions, the pre-Reformation Courts
continued as before. The lowest of these was
the Court of the Archdeacon, which took
especial cognisance of neglects in divine ser
vice, failure to provide the prescribed orna
ments of the church or of the minister, or to
repair the church fabrics, disputes as to pews,
church rates, and the appointment or the
alleged misconduct of the parish clerk or other
minor officer. But its chief employment was
the attempt to regulate the conduct of the
laity on mere gossip or "scandal" relating to
bastardy, swearing, slander, drunkenness and
the like. Archdeacon Hale's two volumes of
" Precedents " give an amusing and vivid
picture of the minute inquisition into English

family and social life which went on when
these Courts were in full swing. Blackmailing,
perjuries, bribery, were among the direct fruits
of this nominally " spiritual " system. Bishop
Stubbs, in the third volume of his Constitu
tional History, repeatedly refers to " the ever-
spreading and rankling sore produced by the
inquisitorial, mercenary, and generally disreput
able character of the Courts of Spiritual Dis
cipline, an evil which had no slight share in
making the Reformation inevitable, and which
outlived the Reformation, and did its worst in
alienating the people from the Church re
formed" (pp. 299, 373, 523, &c.).

From the Archdeacon's Court an appeal lay
to the Consistory Court of the Bishop which
is ordinarily presided over by the chancellor
of the diocese, or, at Canterbury, by the
Commissary of the Archbishop. But the total
abolition of the contentious jurisdiction of the
archdeacon was recommended by the Royal
Commission of 1833, and public opinion so
utterly condemned their mischievous action,
that as Courts of Discipline for the laity they
have practically ceased to exist ; but by statute
(7 & 8 Viet. c. 59, § 5) the archdeacon may
now suspend or remove a lay parish clerk by
judicial process. As regards the clergy, the
jurisdiction of the Archdeacon's Court was
abolished by the Church Discipline Act of
1840. (See above, p. 110. The procedure in
the Bishop's Court under that Act is there
described.) In the Isle of Man the jurisdic
tion of the archdeacon was abolished and
transferred to the Consistory Court in 1874.

In 1874 an alternative procedure was pro
vided by the "Act for the better administra
tion of the laws respecting the regulation
of Public Worship" in suits relating to ritual.
Under that Act, the bishop might decide with
out appeal any question of ritual, provided both
parties had agreed beforehand to be bound by
his ruling. The bishop had also the power of
vetoing any suit by filing in his own registry
his " reasons " for deciding to prevent access
to the Courts of justice. The rest of the pro
cedure is described in the article PUBLIC
WORSHIP REGULATION ACT, which see.

Side by side with these Courts, the King's
Courts also take cognisance of clerical non
conformity, or persistent disregard of the
directions given by the rubrics of the Prayer
Book on the part of the officiating clergy. In
such suits, the bishop is entitled by all the
Acts of Uniformity to join himself to the
judges of Assize in criminal proceedings under
those Acts — of which the 1 Eliz. c. 2 is the
leading standard. But the sentences which
under that Act the judges are bound to inflict,
are so severe (not to say savage), that this
method has not been resorted to since 1795.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

201 ]

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

Recent legislation has provided civil penalties
to be imposed on clergymen, who from age,
incompetence, or indolence, neglect their
parochial duties. Under the latest of the ' ' Plur
alities Acts Amendment Acts " (48 & 49 Viet,
c. 54) passed in 1885, the bishop is enabled to
issue a commission to inquire into the inade
quate performance of the ecclesiastical duties
of any benefice, and on the report of such in
adequacy by the commissioners, he may require
the incumbent to appoint one or more curates,
and may fix his or their stipends according to
the population and the income of the benefice
itself. This form of remedy is not in the
ordinary Consistory Court, but in a new Court
erected by statute only. And by the Benefices
Act, 1898, the bishop is further enabled, on the
report of the commissioners, to directly choose
the curates himself, and to inhibit the incum
bent from interfering in any way with, or
taking part in, the duties of the parish, or from
exercising any patronage belonging to the
benefice. The Benefices Act permits an appeal
by the incumbent "within one month" to the
brand-new Court erected by that Act. This
Court of Appeal "consists of the Archbishop of
the Province and of a judge of the Supreme
Court, who shall be nominated by the Lord
Chancellor from time to time " ; the king's
judge is to find as to the law and the facts,
and the archbishop to "give judgment accord
ingly," but with power to rescind or vary the
penalty iwhenever the judge decides against
the accused. There is no appeal to the Crown
under this Act — a significant abridgment of
the Royal Supremacy as established by the
Reformation Settlement— and it may be added
that an appeal to the same Court, without any
direct access to the Crown, is all that is per
mitted under the Benefices Act of 1898 to
presentees who are wrongfully refused institu
tion by the bishop — except where his refusal
is rested on grounds of ritual or doctrine.
The way had been prepared in 1892 for this
grave innovation, by giving, under the Clergy
Discipline Act, a choice of going either to the
Arches, or direct to the Privy Council ; but in
the former event, the decision of the Dean of
the Arches is to admit of no further appeal.

In 1892 the Clergy Discipline Act was passed,
dealing with offences of the clergy against
morality, or against Ecclesiastical Law, other
than questions relating to doctrine or ritual.
For this purpose the procedure of the Consis
tory Court was then modified by requiring
that the Chancellor of the diocese shall preside,
and shall be the sole judge of questions of law,
but shall be aided by five assessors chosen in
the manner prescribed by that Act (55 & 56
Viet. c. 32). Questions of fact are decided by
the unanimous decision of the assessors, or by

the Chancellor and at least a majority of the
assessors. The Chancellor fixes the costs, and
decides whether a given question is one of law
or of fact. Deprivation may be pronounced in
the first instance, or may be inflicted by the
Consistory Court in cases of disobedience to
the original sentence, and the bishop may, at
his discretion, depose from Holy Orders a
clergyman so deprived "without any further
formality."

But with the exceptions above noted, the
ordinary course of appeal lay from the bishop's
Consistory (or, as in case of licensed curates,
from his personal judgment) to the Archbishop
of the Province. The Primate of all England
retained by Statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21, certain
prerogatives formerly claimed by him as Legatus
natus of the Pope. Hence, in his Court of
Faculties he still grants degrees in Arts, and
(till 1858) in medicine, &c., and grants dis
pensations, as in the familiar instance of
marriage licences. Similar functions of a more
judicial character attached to him in his Court
of Prerogative, in which he formerly exercised
that testamentary jurisdiction which has now
been transferred by Parliament to the Probate
Court. In his Court of Audience (or some
analogous tribunal) he tried his suffragans,
and an excellent summary of the precedents
will be found in the preliminary Judgment in
the case of the Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. King),
the materials for which Archbishop Benson
obtained from Hody's MS. now in the Lambeth
Library, which had been originally prepared
for the use of Archbishop Tenison in the trial
of Bishop Watson for simony. In the foot
notes to the cheap edition of Archbishop
Benson's Judgment (published at twopence by
the Church Association), will be found some
further illustrations bearing on this little
understood Primatial Jurisdiction.

Again, in the "Court of the Vicar General"
(almost the sole function of which is the con
firmation of bishops), the so-called "judge,"
even when the Primate presides in person, is
really a ministerial officer of the Crown, acting
under mandate from the sovereign, and with
out any real choice, "judicial" or otherwise,
to decide on the merits of the Crown nominee.
But by far the most important Court of the
Archbishop is that presided over by the " Dean
of the Arches," who, under the Public Worship
Act, is now nominated by the two archbishops
and confirmed by the Crown, or, in their default,
is directly appointed by Letters Patent of the
Crown. He must have held the office of Judge
in one of the Superior Courts, or been in actual
practice for ten years as a barrister, and now
holds both the office of Auditor of the Chancery
Court of York, and Dean of the Arches, and
is also Official Principal of both the arch-

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS [ 202 ]

ELEVATION

bishops. To this Court an appeal lies from
the several Consistory Courts of the Province,
except when the appellants, under the Clergy
Discipline Act of 1892, prefer to go direct to
the Privy Council. By granting " Letters of
Request" (which the provincial judge has no
power to refuse), every diocesan bishop may
pass on cases arising within his diocese to the
Court of the Archbishop of his own Province
(i.e. for Canterbury, the "Arches" — for York,
the "Chancery Court"), so that the Arch
bishop's Court becomes then the Court of first
instance, and the expense and delay of a first
hearing in the bishop's Consistory is thereby
saved. The Dean of the Arches issues process
in his own name, and can deprive an incumbent
without any reference to the Archbishop.
Under the Act of 1874, he can also wield in
either province any powers which belong to
him, as provincial judge in the other province.

The Court of Appeal from all courts of the
archbishops is now the Judicial Committee of
Privy Council. By the Appellate Jurisdiction
Act, 1876, four bishops sit as assessors to aid
the Privy Council Judges in their consideration
of ecclesiastical appeals. In strictness, the
"Judgment" is that of the "Crown in Council!" ;
but as it is statutably directed to be given
with advice of the Council, the Report of the
Judicial Committee is popularly regarded as
" the Judgment," because it alone embodies
the reasoning and gives the authorities upon
which the Judgment is based. That " the
grounds of the Judgment being thus known
and reported, tend to settle principles, and to
establish uniformity of decision," was one of
the reasons assigned by the Royal Commission
of 1832 for preferring the Privy Council to the
abolished , Court of Delegates in Chancery,
which had been erected by Henry VIII.

Beside the above, which constitute the ex
isting Ecclesiastical Courts proper, it must
be remembered that ecclesiastical questions
may also be raised indirectly in the King's
Bench, as under the old writ of quare impedit,
upon a refusal of the bishop to institute a
presentee on grounds of ritual or doctrine.
In such cases the House of Lords may be
called upon to decide, as the ultimate Court
of Appeal.

The fact that conflicting principles of inter
pretation, and, as a result, conflicting decisions,
may be arrived at by this system of dual
tribunals, added to the singular usage now
created and established by the Privy Council
itself, viz. that in ecclesiastical suits there
can be no finality in any judgment of the
Crown, tends greatly to weaken the authority
of these Courts. Under pretence of " new
light " any litigant whose purse is long enough
to wear out his opponent and "break his back,"

may reopen any "decided" question, so that
all ascertained law is thrown afresh into the
melting-pot. In secular matters this would
be held to be intolerable. Fresh legislation
ought to be the only method of setting right
any undesirable state of the law as revealed
or "laid down" by the Supreme Court.

See Makower's Constitutional History of the
Church of England, ch. v. ; Reports of the Ecclesi
astical Court Commissioners of 1832 and 1883 ;
Archbishop Tait's Preface to Brodrick and
Fremantle's Ecclesiastical Judgments of the Judi
cial Committee ; Dibdin's Church Courts; White-
head's Church Law; Tomlinson's Lay Judges
in Church Courts ; Professor Maitland's Roman
Canon Law in England. [J. T. T.]

ECCLESIASTICTJS.— See APOCRYPHA.

EILETON.— The name for the " corporal " in
the Greek Liturgies. See CORPORAL, MASS.

ELEVATION.— The practice of the Latin
Church of lifting up the sacrament for adoration
immediately after its consecration. This is one
of the "superstitions" resulting from Tran-
substantiation, which is condemned by the
Church of England in Article XXVIII. The
doctrine of Transubstantiation having been
first promulgated in the ninth century, con
firmed by Pope Hildebrand in the eleventh,
and authorised by Innocent III. in the thir
teenth century, we should expect Elevation
to have originated about that time. It was,
as a matter of fact, in the twelfth century that
the practice began to creep in, and at the end
of that century it first received sanction by a
local ecclesiastical authority. In 1197 Odo,
Bishop of Paris, issued some Constitutions,
and in them he ordered his presbyters not to
raise the Host above the level of the breast
until they came to the words in the consecra
tion prayer, " This is my Body," and then to
lift it up so as to be seen by all. Another
Bishop of Paris, William of Auvergne, in 1228
added another feature of the modern practice
by desiring a bell to be rung at the time of
the Elevation, to move the faithful to prayer.
Durandus, the Liturgiologist, in 1280, plainly
states what one of the purposes of the ceremony
was. " The Host is elevated that the people,
knowing from it that Christ has come upon
the altar, may reverently prostrate themselves
to the ground" (Rationale, iv. 41). And a
Synod of Exeter, in 1287, gives the reason for
the particular practice which we have seen
enjoined by Odo. "Because by these words
' This is my Body,' and none other, the bread
is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ,
let the priest not elevate the Host until he has
fully brought out those words, lest the creature
be worshipped by the people for the Creator "
(Wilkins, ii. 132).
These quotations and references are sufficient

ELIZABETH'S EXCOMMUNICATION [ 203 ] ELIZABETH'S EXCOMMUNICATION

to show both the date and the purpose of the
ceremony of Elevation. Cardinal Bona ac
knowledges that " there is not a trace of it to
be found in the old Sacramentaries " nor "in
any of the old expositors of rites." Of course
there are none, because there was no tenet of
Transubstantiation. When that dogma was
accepted, equally of course the practice of
Elevation ensued. The original purpose with
which it was fostered was to help on the
establishment of the new dogma of Transub
stantiation in opposition to the sounder teach
ing of Berengarius, and the present purpose
with which it is kept up, or introduced, is to
encourage the worship of the bread — which is
the logical consequence of Transubstantiation.
Wherever that doctrine, whether in its de
veloped form, honestly professing itself to be
Transubstantiation, or in its undeveloped form,
calling itself the Objective Presence in the
elements, prevails, there the practice of Eleva
tion will sooner or later be found. (See Bishop
Cosin, Notes on the Prayer Book, p. 340, and
Bishop Bull, Corruptions of the Cliurch of Rome,
and Canon Venables' Article in Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities.)

There is a rite in the Oriental Church, some
times called Elevation, of a character quite
different, and practised for a different purpose.
When the officiating priest says " Holy things
for holy persons," he reverently lifts the con
secrated bread from the Table, and lays it
down again. That this is not done, like the
Western Elevation, for the purpose of offering
an object of worship to the eyes of the people,
is certain, because the act is performed behind
the closed iconostasis, a solid wooden screen
which divides the people from the sanctuary.
After this ceremony, the priest breaks the
bread in an elaborate manner, takes the Com
munion himself and gives it to the deacon,
and says various prayers, and then, but not
till then, the door of the solid wooden screen
is thrown open, and the deacon, going to the
doorway, lifts up the chalice containing both
the bread and the wine, and shows it to the
people, to give them to understand that it is
now time for them to come forward, saying at
the same time, " Approach with the fear of God,
faith, and love." They that are to communicate
at once draw near without further prayer or pro
stration. This form of Elevation behind the
screen has led to the erroneous idea that il
was introduced to represent the Mosaic wave-
offering. Cardinal Bona adopts the idea in
order thereby to defend the Western Eleva
tion, with which it has nothing in common.

[F. M.]

ELIZABETH'S EXCOMMUNICATION
BY PIUS V. — The bull, named from its
opening words, Regnans in excelsis, and launchec

against the Queen of England, Feb. 25, 1570,1
took the world by surprise by its surreptitious
publication on the gates of the Bishop of
London's palace, St. Paul's Churchyard,
early on May 25, 1570. In the most ponti
fical strain it begins : " He that reigneth on
high, to whom is ascribed all power both
in heaven and earth, hath committed the
absolute government of His one Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church (out of which there is
no salvation) to only one upon earth, namely,
to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and to
Peter's successor the Bishop of Rome. Him
alone has He made Prince over all nations and
kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, con
sume, plant, and build. " In the same lofty
style the document proceeds to speak of "the
pretended Queen of England abandoned to
all wickedness, " as having usurped the sup
remacy over the whole Church of England, and
reduced that kingdom, "lately reclaimed to
the Catholic faith," to a miserable apostasy ;
as having abolished the sacrifice of the mass,
prayers, fastings, the choice of meats, celibacy,
and the rites of the Catholic Church ; as having
presumed to eject bishops, rectors, and other
Catholic priests out of their churches and bene
fices, and to determine ecclesiastical causes :
"We therefore, by virtue of our Apostolic
power, declare Elizabeth a heretic, to have
incurred the sentence of excommunication,
to be deprived of her pretended title to the
said kingdom ; and the nobility, subjects, and
people, of the said kingdom absolved from
their oaths of allegiance."

The person to affix a copy of this bull to the
Bishop of London's gates between two and
three o'clock of the morning mentioned, was
no desperado of the lower orders, but a gentle
man of position, Mr. John Felton, madly zealous
for the old religion, belonging to an ancient
Norfolk family, and then residing with his
lady at the dissolved abbey of Bermondsey in
Surrey, now represented by a parish church
and spacious churchyard in South London.
Mrs. Felton had been a maid-of-honour to
Queen Mary, and in her younger days a com
panion to the Princess Elizabeth. When the
bold deed of Mr. Felton became known at
court, general search was made for the culprit,
who had laid the train for his own discovery

1 It occurs textually with this date in Cheru-
bini's Bullarium, 1617, vol. ii. 305; Jewel's
Works (Parker Soc.), vol. iv. 1131, from Cheru-
bini ; but in Camden's Latin Annals of Elizabeth,
ed. Hearne, 1717, ii. 215, the document is
dated Feb. 25, 1569 (old style); in Wilkins,
iv. 260, it is 1570, 5 kal. "Maii," evidently
a clerical error for the "Martii" of the Bul-
larium.

ELIZABETH'S EXCOMMUNICATION [ 204 ]

ENCRATITES

by having distributed other copies of the bull
to various people. He knew his danger, yet
made no attempt to escape, and on seeing the
abbey beset by soldiers quietly put himself in
their hands. A full account of his apprehen
sion is given by the Roman Catholic Church
historian Dodd,1 whose references are Stow
and a narrative in his own possession written
by Mr. Felton's daughter. The prisoner, being
taken to the Tower, was on Aug. 4, 1570,
arraigned at Guildhall, and on Aug. 8 drawn
on a sledge to St. Paul's Churchyard, where
a gallows had been erected for him early that
morning before the bishop's palace at the
north-west corner of the Yard, by Ludgate
Hill, where London House- Yard preserves its
memory. Before suffering he took from his
finger a diamond ring, valued at £400, which
he delivered to the Earl of Sussex for presen
tation to the Queen. His plate and jewels,
reckoned worth £33,000, were confiscated to
the Queen's use. Mrs. Felton, by reason of
her early connection with Elizabeth, was
favoured with a special grant allowing a
priest to dwell in her house for the use of
herself and family while she lived. Camden
relates2 that most of the moderate Papists
secretly disliked this bull, because there had
been no previous admonition as justice re
quired, foreseeing also the storms that hung
over their heads, when they had previously
exercised their religion securely, within their
own private houses, or had made no scruple
of frequenting divine service as it was received
in the English Church. Many of these con
tinued from that time firm in their allegiance,
especially on seeing neighbouring princes and
Roman Catholic countries keep up their usual
correspondence with the Queen, and the bull
slighted as an empty noise of words.

It should not be forgotten that this Roman
assault on the throne and the Reformed Church
of England was delivered in the early years
after the close (Dec. 4, 1563) of the Council of
Trent, when, on the basis of its decrees, the
entire Papal world was gathering its ranks for
a recovery from its recent humiliations. On
Nov. 13, 1564, the Pope's bull formulated that
Profession of Faith commonly known as the
Creed of Pope Pius IV., embodying the
Tridentine points, which every member of the
Roman hierarchy and of the monastic commun
ities was compelled to adopt on oath. Then
again, late in 1566, by command of Pius V.,
there appeared a Roman Catechism, in the
sense of the same decrees, with a view of
popularising the new Papal doctrine in every
direction. The bull Regnans came as an

1 Church History, ii. 151.

2 English ed. 428, col. 2 : Hearne, ii. 215.

attempt, in the very shadow of St. Paul's, to
burst open the English door for this impossible
theology, and Parliament before long replied
with the statute of 1571, for English " ministers
to be of sound religion " — which was the reverse
of the Tridentine— by accepting the Thirty-
nine Articles on entering Holy Orders or obtain
ing preferment. Thus the bull intended to
humiliate Elizabeth did but occasion the last
stone, the doctrinal, being set to her Reforma
tion settlement. [C. H.]

EMBER DAYS.— The word Ember is pro
bably derived from " quatember," a corruption
of the Latin words quatuor tempora, the four
seasons. By the 31st Canon of 1604 it is
directed that ordinations shall take place at
those times: "No deacons or ministers be
made and ordained, but only upon the Sun
days immediately following Jejunia quatuor
temporum, commonly called Ember Days," &c.
The Preface to the Ordinal allows, however,
that a deacon may be admitted " on urgent
occasions upon some other Sunday or Holy-
day." The Ordinal was composed in 1550, but
somewhat altered in 1552, and again in 1662.

The first of the two Ember Collects was
drawn up in 1661. The second is from the
Ordinal of 1550, from which it was transposed
to its present place in the Scottish Liturgy of
1637. The Ember Days are the Wednesdays,
Fridays, and Saturdays after December 13th,
the First Sunday in Lent, Whitsunday, and
September 14th. Their date of observance was
variable at first, but was settled according to
the present form by the Council of Placentia,
in A.D. 1095. Prayers and fasts were used in
the early Church in connection with the
ordination of ministers, following the early
apostolic precedent set by the Church at
Antioch, though the case there recorded was
not actual ordination, but delegation to a
special work (Acts xiii. 3). [C. J. C.]

EMBOLISM. — A prayer "intercalated" or in
serted after the Lord's Prayer. Such prayers
were common in the ancient liturgies.

EMINENCE.— The title given to a Cardinal by
a decree of Urban VIII.

EMPIRE, HOLY ROMAN.— See ROMAN.

ENCLOSURE. — Latin, clausura, is a name given
to the rule of the Roman Catholic Church which
prevents intercourse between persons in a con
vent and persons outside.

ENCRATITES.— The Encratites were Gnostic
sectaries of the second century. The founder
of the sect was Tatian, an Assyrian by birth,
and sometime a pupil of Justin Martyr. Tatian,
who flourished A.D. 170, attempted to do service
to the cause of Christianity by writing an
Apology, which took the form of a doctrinal
treatise. (See FATHERS). But all the germs of
Gnosticism are found in his system. Although

ENCYCLICAL

[ 205 ]

ENGLISH CHURCH, THE

he allows that matter was created by God, he
holds it to be the ultimate source from which
the evil influence proceeds. His views of
creation approximate to the Alexandrian
theories of emanation. The name Encratites
means, " people who practise self-control."
Asceticism was at this time carried to greater
lengths without than it was within the Church,
but though the sects were condemned, some
of their principles reacted upon the Church
itself. (See ASCETICISM.) The Encratites
abstained _from eating flesh, and from the use
of wine even in the Lord's Supper. They also
denounced marriage, and would not receive any
married person into their order.

[C. J. C.]

ENCYCLICAL.— An Encyclical, a circular
letter ; in the Church of Rome it is applied to
a letter from the Pope to all the bishops in com
munion with him. Encyclical letters generally
condemn prevalent errors, or point out impedi
ments to the work of the Church, &c. In early
times the term was used in a wider sense, e.g. the
letter of the Church of Smyrna which describes
the martyrdom of Polycarp, was termed an En
cyclical.

ENERGUMENI.— The term literally signifies
" worked upon, or in, by a demon." It corre
sponds to the " demoniacs " in the Gospels, and
was applied in the early Church to sufferers
from insanity, epilepsy, or similar diseases.
A special discipline was provided for such
persons, in the third century. It died out
in the East during the fourth century, but in
Spain it continued until the seventh. Energu-
meni were divided into the Baptized and the
Catechumens. They were registered and main
tained by the Christian communities, and were
lodged near the church. Sometimes an exor
cist exorcised them privately, sometimes the
bishop, assisted by the other clergy, exorcised,
using prayers, the sign of the cross, laying on
of hands, water, salt, saliva, breathing, &o.
The energumeni were often admitted to public
worship, but not to the Lord's Supper, except
before death. (See Dr. Hook's Dictionary and
Catholic Dictionary.) See DEMONS, EXOR
CISM. [W. B.]
ENGLISH CANONS are rules and regula
tions made by the proper ecclesiastical author
ity within the realm of England, whether
before or since the Reformation. They are
sometimes called Domestic Canons, in pre-
Reformation times they were not valid as
canons of the Church if they contravened
the Roman Canon Law, and, on the other
hand, they were not valid as part of the law
of the land if repugnant to that law and that
law declined to receive them. There was
always a debatable land lying between the
jurisdiction of Pope and King, i.e. of Church

and State, the confines of which were never
accurately determined. See CANON LAW.

The pre-Reformation domestic canons com
prise Archbishop Theodore's canons of 673,
which enjoined the keeping of Easter accord
ing to the Roman rule, as against the Welsh
and Irish rule, and canons made under
various Saxon Archbishops of Canterbury,
also those of Lanfranc, Anselm, Langton,
Peckham, and other pre-Reformation Arch
bishops. The most important of all were the
legatine constitutions of Otho and Othobon
in 1237 and 1268. The following, dealing with
the administration of the Eucharist to the
sick, is a specimen of a pre-Reformation canon,
" Let him (the priest) have a silver or tin vessel
always to carry with him to the sick appropri
ated for this special purpose, that is for giving
the Washings of his Fingers to be drunk [? by
the sick man] after the taking of the Eucharist."
The above is Canon 21 of Archbishop Edmund,
A.D. 1236. (See Johnson, Canons, vol. ii.)i

Of post-Reformation canons the most im
portant are the 141 canons of 1603-4 passed by
the Convocation of Canterbury, ratified and
published by the authority of King James I.
under the Great Seal of England. They deal
with the king's supremacy ; divine service,
and the administration of the sacraments ;
ministers, their ordination, function, and
charge ; schoolmasters ; things appertaining
to churches ; churchwardens or questmen, and
side-men or assistants ; parish clerks ; eccle
siastical courts and judges ; ecclesiastical
proctors, registrars, and apparitors ; and con
clude with three canons on the authority of
synods. The legal effect of these and also of
the canons of 1640 will be found dealt with
under CANONS, and CANON LAW. [B. W.]
ENGLISH CHURCH, THE, to the Refor
mation.

I. Brito-Roman Period (c. 177-410). Reasons
could be given for tracing the origin of
the Church in Britain to the Asiatic-Greek
Churches in the Celtic region of Lyons and
Vienne on the Rhone, about A.D. 177, Britain
being then occupied by the Romans. The
story of a mission from Rome by Pope Eleu-
therus is unfounded. In the second, third,
and fourth centuries, A.D., the British Church is
frequentlynoticed by Greek and Latin Christian
writers of the Mediterranean countries. Its
own first historical event is the martyrdom of
Alban, c. 304 ; after that comes the presence
of three British bishops at the Council of
Aries in 314. There is no proof that British
bishops attended the Councils of Nicaea (325)
and Sardica (343). They certainly did that
of Rimini in 359. That the British Church
was untainted with Arianism is testified by
Hilary in 358, and by Athanasius in 363.

ENGLISH CHURCH, THE [ 206 ] ENGLISH CHURCH, THE

II. British Church before the Saxons, c. 410-
450. The Koman armies in or about 410
withdrew from Britain. It is computed that
c. 412-432 the British bishop Ninian, seated
at Whithern on the Galloway coast, evange
lised the regions below the Grampians as the
"Apostle of the Southern Picts." In 429
Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, came by invi
tation from Gaul with Lupus Bishop of Troyes,
and again in 447 with Bishop Severus, to oppose
the Pelagian heresy with which Britain was
then troubled. Their efforts proved successful.
III. British Church before Augustine (c. 450-
597). About 450 the pagan Saxon invaders
began their colonisation of Britain, the Chris
tian British gradually retiring westward to
the Cumbrian, Welsh, and Devonian hills.
About that time probably the British mis
sionary Patrick became the Apostle of Ireland.
(See IRISH CHURCH.) In 520 a victory of the
British King Arthur at Badon Hill checked
the westward advance of the Saxons, and con
temporary with him was David the saint of
Wales. In 563 Columba, an Irish Christian
Celt, settling on the islet lona, became the
"Apostle of the Northern Picts" above the
Grampians, dying in 597. In 585 another
Irish Celt, Columbanus, went as a missionary
to the pagans of N.E. Gaul, proceeding
afterwards to the Apennines, where he died
in 615. These Celtic missions began before
Augustine's.

IV. The Anglo-Saxon Church of the Heptarchy
(c. 597-827). In 597, the monk Augustine,
sent by Pope Gregory the Great, reached
Kent, in 598 was made a bishop, and in or
about 600 baptized Ethelbert the sovereign
of Kent, the first Anglo - Saxon king who
received Christianity. In 602 or 603 Augustine
went into the West, hoping to gain the
British Church to his authority, but failed.
In or about 605 he died. In 627 Christianity
was received in Northumbria, on the baptism
of King Edwin by Bishop Paulinus from Kent,
but after his fall in battle, 633, Northumbria
relapsed to paganism. It was recovered in
634 on the accession of Oswald. This king,
baptized in exile among the Celtic Scots,
restored Christianity, which had been pre
viously Kentish or Roman, in a Celtic form
and spirit. A Celtic see was established in
Lindisfarne under the Scottish bishop Aidan,
who was the Second Apostle of Northumbria,
and Lindisfarne continued the Celtic centre
of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, as Canterbury did
of the Roman. Under Celtic influence or under
Roman, the other heptarchal nations received
Christianity, but the great bulk of Anglo-
Saxon Christians were of Celtic conversion.
In forms of worship and points of discipline
they were afterwards Romanised by the ener

gies of a young Northumbrian named Wilfrid,
of noble rank, who, with the support of his
Queen Banned, a princess from Kent, visited
Canterbury, and afterwards Rome, to study
the whole Roman method, much of which
was in 664 publicly adopted in a conference
at Whitby. The heptarchal kingdoms, having
been separately converted, had each its own
established Church, with, as a rule, its one
bishop ; and it was Archbishop Theodore
(669-690), who, in conjunction with the vari
ous kings, succeeded in reducing episcopal
power by subdividing bishoprics. In this
process there was a special difficulty with
Wilfrid, who had become bishop over the
large kingdom of Northumbria, where, with
an immense following and a towering ambi
tion, he was all but a Pope. In 673 Theodore
convened at Hertford a Synod of all the
bishops, who sat under his presidency (even
Wilfrid sending his legates), and consulted
as one body for all the heptarchal Churches
in common, agreeing to do the same periodi
cally in future. Thus, in 673 the heptarchal
mission - churches had practically coalesced
into one CHURCH OF ENGLAND under the
see of Canterbury, a century and a half
before the heptarchal kingdoms became a
monarchy. Wilfrid's enormous power had to
be broken, and Archbishop Theodore, with
the Northumbrian king Egfrid on his side,
was resolute. In 678 ecclesiastical Northum
bria was partitioned, and Wilfrid appealed
to the Pope, the first Anglo-Saxon who ever
did this. Having begun with Roman usage
and ceremony, he went on to Roman Autho
rity, and was the earliest English ultramontane.
He was banished for his pains, and in his
exile brought (681) the South Saxon kingdom
(Sussex), the only pagan one left, to adopt
Christianity. In the eighth century there
was a great flocking of the Anglo-Saxons to
the Christian Latin schools which Archbishop
Theodore had established all over the country,
and the learning thus propagated produced
Latin writers, especially Bede of Jarrow,
historian and commentator (d. 735), and
Alcuin, a great teacher in the school at York
(d. 804). The heptarchal Church in this
century was conspicuous in Europe, for
learning had elsewhere perished, and Charle
magne had to send for Alcuin to re-light
the torch in his realms. A natural conse
quence was an eighth - century flocking of
Anglo - Saxons to Rome, which they had
learnt to reverence as once the mistress of
the world, their predecessor in Britain, the
see of St. Peter, foundress of the Kentish
Church. There was a great turning of the
Anglo-Saxon heart to Rome.

V. Church of the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy

ENGLISH CHUECH, THE

[ 207 ]

ENGLISH CHURCH, THE

(c. 827-1066). The unification of heptarchal
civil rule by the predominance of Egbert,
King of Wessex, in 827, came about by arms,
without any visible aid from the unified
Church of 673. It was almost battered to
pieces by the Danes, who, beginning their
depredations on English soil in 832, had
nearly paganised England in 878, when
Alfred's victory saved it. His restorations
in learning and religion then went on till
nearly his death in 901. The tenth-century
revival of Benedictinism began with the ap
pointment of Dunstan, a young Thane, in
943, as Abbot of Glastonbury, and the fer
vour of that movement survived till near the
accession in 1042, of Edward the Confessor.
The object was to restore monasteries ruined
by the Danes below the Humber, build others,
acquire the control of cathedrals and col
legiate churches, by violence if necessary, and
establish a celibate clergy in full possession
of the Church. The conflicts produced in
the Council Chamber and in the field in
every corner of the land, chiefly in Edgar's
reign, ultimately broke up England and
placed a Danish family (Christian) on the
throne (1016-1042). Edward the Confessor
(1042-1066) had little, perhaps deserved little,
authority, and the country was under the
domination of great earls, as in another
heptarchy. The Church of the Anglo-Saxon
monarchy, without a Church Court, without
the strictly clerical Synod of the heptarchal
period, managed itself by laymen and ecclesi
astics deliberating together, and in that sense
only was a national Church, an institution
hardly possible perhaps where there is no
firm central authority, which England scarcely
had for long together between the heptarchy
and the Conquest. In one very important
matter, the transmission of the ministerial
office, this Church confessed a dependency
upon the Papal hand. We refer to the
pallium, without which ornament from Eome
an archbishop was not, in public opinion,
validly equipped for his office, and could not
therefore confer the priesthood.

VI. The Anglo-Norman Church (1066-1154).
The Conqueror (1066-1087), as sees and
abbeys became legally vacant, nominated to
them only Normans or other foreigners.
Then, by establishing Church Courts for
trying ecclesiastical cases, till then unknown
in England, and reviving Synods, which had
been long disused there, he created a more
pronounced CHURCH LIFE than he found.
Bishops were allowed to have strong places
for their sees if not already possessing such,
and grand Norman cathedrals speedily arose,
altogether constituting a powerful body of
men to be kept in hand. Against encroach

ments by Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand)
after 1073 he stood on his guard. His arch
bishop was Laufranc. Under Rufus it was
Anselm (1093-1109), the first ultramontane
primate of English history. Against Henry I.
(1100-1135) Anselm gained a triumph for the
Papacy in Investitures, when in 1107 the
Crown ceased to bestow the ring and crosier
on new bishops, allowing cathedral chapters
the leave to elect, but retaining the Crown's
right to confirm, practically to nominate. In
1127 Archbishop William of Corbeuil held at
Westminster the first true legatine Synod, a
Papal Court of decree, possessing the highest
significance, an unconstitutional assembly
brought about by ecclesiastical encroachment
with the royal connivance. Stephen (1135-
1154), may be considered in this sketch Anglo-
Norman. His doubtful title made him look
for ecclesiastical support, and at his coronation
he swore to allow the clergy exemption from
secular course of justice in civil matters, the
first instance of that momentous concession
in English history, at a time, too, when
bishops had become a castled spiritual nobility,
with little pretension to be pastors in the
Scriptural sense. In or about 1150, Theobald,
Archbishop of Canterbury, became by virtue
of that office the Pope's legate, and thence
forth to the Reformation every one of his
successors was legatus natus, native legate, by
no English constitutional right, by ecclesias
tical encroachment with royal connivance.
The clerical body, drifting off from the Crown,
were anchoring themselves increasingly on the
Papal shore.

VII. The Plantagenet Church (1154-1485).
Henry II. (1154-1189), resolved on establishing
legal order in his realm after civil war, encoun
tered a keen opponent in Archbishop Becket
(1161-1170), who stood for clerical exemption
from secular control in civil as well as eccle
siastical causes. Becket, being required to sub
mit to the laws and customs of England, which
were formulated for this occasion at Clarendon
Palace (1164) in a body of " Constitutions," pro
fessed his acceptance when face to face with
the king, but afterwards recalled his word and
fled to France, where, with Papal encourage
ment, he behaved himself with intolerable
insolence to Henry's authority year after year,
until the king, unable to endure the violence
he could not punish, and seeing Church and
State alike disordered by the contest, allowed
him to return home without making the least
submission. That return constituted Henry's
surrender and Becket's triumph, the triumph
of the priest over the civil courts in civil
cases. The murder of Becket soon afterwards,
December 29, 1170, by knights of the court,
added the glory of martyrdom, and for a long

ENGLISH CHUKCH, THE

[ 208]

ENGLISH CHURCH, THE

while afterwards priests could defy all justice
but synodic. This defiance of the crown by
the mitre lasted almost a century, the century
in which the Papacy from Innocent III. to Boni
face VIII. (1198-1303), stood at the meridian
height of its Hildebrandine perfection. To
this period belongs St. Hugh of Lincoln
(d. 1200), who in his enormous diocese, from
Humber to Thames, was styled "Staff of
Pontiffs, Hammer of Kings" ; and there were
three Archbishops of Canterbury meriting a
like fame, Boniface of Savoy (1245-1272), who
threatened sheriffs with excommunication and
royal castles with interdict ; Peckham (1278-
1292), who declared excommunicate any who
should procure letters from a lay court in
obstruction of an ecclesiastical ; Winchelsey
(1293-1313), who procured a bull forbidding
taxes to be levied on, or paid by, ecclesiastics
without Papal sanction. Within this period
also spread those powerful bodies, exempt
monasteries, whose mitred lord abbots, re
leased from their bishops, owning only the
Pope, had seats in Parliament, where they could
represent no interests but Papal ; houses like
St. Albans (exempted 1163), Glastonbury,
Reading, Canterbury, Abingdon. Then, too,
the friars, from 1221, acknowledging only
the pontiff, ministering to parishoners inde
pendently of the parish priests, with whom
they were in consequence at deadly feud,
breaking up parochial unity as exempt abbots
broke up diocesan. Thus while civil and
national solidarity was destroyed by ecclesias
tical usurpation, ecclesiastical was made im
possible by a loyalty divided with the Papacy.
To this confusion had come that CHURCH LIFE
which seemed to promise so much at the Con
quest. But the promotion of spiritual religion
through Holy Scripture among the people, so
characteristic of Lindisfarne teaching before
Wilfrid's propagandism, was no part of the
Hildebrandine reform ; contemporary theo
logy at Franciscan Oxford being hardly, if
at all, biblical, but a fabric whose arches
were scholastic philosophy, Mariolatry, Pel-
agianism, or even Socinianism ; two pillars
sustaining the entire system, viz. Papal
Supremacy and Transubstantiation.

Above a century had passed after Henry II.'s
mournful surrender in 1170, when signs of con
stitutional recovery, and afterwards of doctrinal,
became apparent under the Edwards. In
1285 Edward I.'s statute Circumspect^ agatis
curbed the Church courts, which were gradu
ally drawing all causes to themselves. In 131,
Edward II.'s Articuli Cleri abridged the im
munity of the clergy from secular authority.
In 1350, 1352, under Edward III., when Papal
decadence had commenced, the two historic
statutes Provisors and Pnemunire — the first

parliamentary enactments by any nation what
ever against Rome, one seeking to check Papal
nominations to English sees and livings, the
other the carrying any cause to Rome belonging
to the king's court— indicate a reviving civil
nationality in England, as did the fields of
Crecy and Poictiers in 1346 and 1356, those
two blows reaching the Papacy at Avignon, as
well as France. In 1366 Wyclif, on the side
of the secular or parochial clergy, dealt a
literary blow on the ultramontane monastics.
In Richard II.'s reign (1377-1399) Wyclif's main
tasks are executed ; in 1381 his opposition to
transubstantiation and the Papacy ; dr. 1378-
1382 his translation of the Bible ; dr. 1382 his
Poor Priests sent forth to carry it about. In
1395 his followers, the Lollards, attained their
meridian, and in 1396 Archbishop Arundel
vowed the rest of his life to their destruction.
Standing by two kings of doubtful title, Henry
IV. and V., Arundel obtained two murderous
statutes (1401, 1414), to extinguish Lollardism.
In 1417 their powerful chief Sir John Oldcastle,
Lord Cobham, died in the flames. In 1431, in
the reign of Henry VI. (1122-1461), the worst
of this persecution ended, but the Lollards
survived the Wars of the Roses (1460-1485),
which ended the Plantagenet line and brought
in the Tudors.

VIII. In the Tudor Cliurch (1485-1603) there
was under Henry VII. (1485-1509) a gradual
revival of learning in grammar schools and
colleges ; in divinity, through Margaret pro
fessorships. At Oxford Greek was studied and
taught by Colet and others, St. Paul's Epistles
taught by Colet alone. No doctrinal reforma
tion was encouraged by authority. On the
contrary, private masses for the dead, chanted
by solitary priests in small chapels called
chantries, paid for by the dying or by surviving
relatives, were multitudinous, producing great
revenue. In 1512, under Henry VIII. (1509-
1547), a convocation sermon by Colet, then
Dean of St. Paul's, reveals to us that the people
as a rule, could have had no spiritual teaching
worthy of the name except what was concealed
in Lollard homes. In 1516 the press began
carrying to every University Erasmus's Greek
Testament with its Latin version ; in 1517
Luther's 95 Theses ; in 1520 his " Three Refor
mation Treatises " ; in 1521 Erasmus's Latin
Paraphrases of St. Paul's Epistles; and that
all these quickly found their way to Oxford
and Cambridge may be taken for granted,
while there is evidence that in 1524, 1525,
gownsmen at both those universities were in
touch with this literature. In 1526 unlearned
Englishmen were beginning to handle Tyndale's
New Testament, pouring in from the translator
on the Continent. Thus there was more than
begun a vigorous Reformation spirit among

ENGLISH CHURCH, THE [ 209 ] ENGLISH CHURCH UNION

English scholars, citizens, yeomen, perhaps
even ploughmen, years bef ore 1529, when Henry's
separation from the Pope began, while it was
not until 1532 that his first anti-Papal statute
was passed. The people's Reformation, if
counted from 1520, when Luther's writings
were publicly burnt at Cambridge, had thus
twelve years' start of Henry's, and had even pro
duced a martyr in 1531, Bilney.1 The leading
Reformation statutes of Henry VIII. abolished
annates in 1532 (partially and provisionally),
appeals to Rome in 1533, annates in 1534
(completely) ; enacted the convocational sub
mission of the clergy in 1534, the king's
supreme headship over the Church of England
in 1534, leading to the executions of Fisher,
More, and the Charter-house monks in 1535 ;
the suppression of the small monasteries in
1536, the surrendered great monasteries to be
vested in the Crown in 1539. Henry's main
purpose was to make the Church of his realm,
which had been gradually Romanised from
Wilfrid's day. and was entirely papalised by
Becket, English and national. It was a con
stitutional and legislative reform that he took
in hand with admirable success. The popular
and private reform descending from Wyclif,
continued by Tyndale's New Testament, was
quite distinct, purely doctrinal, with a separate
life of its own, a supreme effort to recover
Scriptural truth and rid the Church of ac
cumulated superstitions. Under Edward VI.
(1547-1553) the constitutional reform pre
viously accomplished was held fast, but in
conjunction with it was now legislatively
secured that doctrinal Christianity which the
common people had been finding in the Bible,
and labouring for individually by suffering and
martyrdom. The two branches together con
stituted the English Reformation, and its
birthday was Whitsunday, June 9, 1549, when
the Book of Common Prayer (for that too was
doctrine in worship) came first into use legally.
In 1552 an improved edition (called the Second
Prayer Book), substantially the one now in
use, took its place. The form of ordination
was materially revised, and the sacrificer of
other days was now a minister of God's Word
and Sacraments. The chantries of Henry VII.'s
period were abolished as superstitious, and
generally converted into grammar schools.
Archbishop Cranmer, Primate since 1532, was
the father of Edward's reforms. With a
hostile episcopate in front of him, and an
impatient people behind, but a capable and

1 But the burning of martyrs had begun in
England earlier. Warham burned five in 1511 ;
Denys was burned in 1512; Shoemaker in 1518;
Bernard, and five others in 1521 ; Hilton, 1529 ;
Benet, Tewksbury, and Bayfield in 1531.

resolute government at his right hand, he
carried all before him, owing to his literary
powers, his experience in affairs, and above all
his character with the nation. But before
England had time to get accustomed to the
new order, Edward's brief reign ended. Mary
(1 553-1558), aided by a sympathetic episcopate,
and by a House of Commons secured to her
side, repealed all Edward's doctrinal reforms
in one week (1553), all Henry's constitutional
in another (1554) ; but when she sought to
eradicate the Scripture doctrine from the
people's hearts by the stake, she proved the
very means of doing what Edward's premature
death left undone, rooted it deep and fast to
all future time. Mary's reign, however, proved
a permanent disaster, by dividing the reformers
in their exile. Elizabeth (1558-1603) in 1559
restored by the Supremacy Act Henry's con
stitutional reform, by the Uniformity Act
Edward's liturgical. The former of these, by
placing the entire episcopate at her disposal,
enabled her to carry out the latter without
difficulty. She had now the episcopate, the
parliament, the people, at her back all at the
same time, which neither Henry nor Edward
had. In this work she had but to revive the
measures of those two kings, a splendid testi
mony to the thoroughness with which Henry
and Cranmer had done their work. One thing
especially was added by Elizabeth, a legislative
sanction in 1571 of the thirty-nine Articles, and
then the Elizabethan Settlement was accom
plished in constitution, in worship, and in
doctrine. [C. H.]

ENGLISH CHURCH UNION.— An organ
isation founded in 1859, under the name of
"The Church of England Protection Society,"
for the purpose of furthering the interests
of the Oxford Movement. In May 1860, it
changed its title to that which it now holds.
Amongst its objects was the following : " To
advance and enforce the doctrine and discip
line of the Church." It was therefore, from
its birth, an aggressive movement, not merely
designed to advance what its founders believed
to be the doctrine and discipline of the Church,
but also to "enforce" those views as against
opponents. Accordingly, in the first year of
its existence it endeavoured to get up a prose
cution of those Evangelical clergymen who, at
that time, were preaching in London. To its
deep regret it was unable to succeed, owing to
the want of an aggrieved parishioner willing to
act the part of a prosecutor. For several years
after, the English Church Union, through its
leading members and in the Church Review —
which for a few years was the property of the
Union — advocated the prosecution of those who
broke the Church's laws, and it did not abstain
from that advocacy until the Courts of Law

O

ENGLISH CHURCH UNION [ 210 ] ENGLISH CHURCH UNION

had decided that the Ritualists were law
breakers. The first President of the Union was
the Hon. Colin Lindsay, who seceded to the
Church of Rome in 1868. At an ordinary
meeting of the Union, on April 6, 1862, a
resolution was passed urging that the law
should be altered so as to make it easier to
prosecute archbishops and bishops as well as
ordinary clergy, "if they should offend against
the law." In 1863 the Union opened a fund
to defray the cost of prosecuting Bishop
Colenso for heresy. The Rev. W. Gresley, a
Vice-President of the Union, wrote in June 1864
to the Church Review, complaining that the
Union was being used for the promotion of ex
treme ritual, and announcing that under such
circumstances he could no longer hold office
in its ranks.

In 1864 the Union began its attack on the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council, as the
final Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes,
and at its monthly meeting on Nov. 14thi
passed a resolution in favour of "an amend
ment of the Court of Final Appeal in ecclesias
tical matters ; " and in a petition to Parliament,
demanded that "all appeals from the lower
Ecclesiastical Courts concerning doctrine and
discipline should be finally determined by the
authority of the Church, and not by that of
the State."

At the present time it is of interest to note
that at the ordinary meeting of the Union in
April 1866, a resolution was passed against
the enforcement of the Conscience Clause in
Church of England schools, in the following
terms : " That it is the duty of Churchmen to
make every effort to induce the Committee of
Council not to enforce a Conscience Clause in
any schools of the Church of England." Two
months later, at its annual meeting, the Union
passed a resolution expressing pleasure at the
publication of Dr. Pusey's eirenicon, advocat
ing the Corporate Reunion of the Church of
England with the Church of Rome. At this
meeting Dr. Pusey was one of the speakers,
and defined his position as being that "the
Council of Trent, whatever its look may be,
and our Articles, whatever their look may be,
each could be so explained as to be reconcilable
one with the other."

In 1867 the Church Association commenced
the prosecution of the Rev. A. H. Mackonochie,
Vicar of St. Alban's, Holborn, for illegal
practices. The case lasted for many years,
and in all its stages Mr. Mackonochie was de
fended by the English Church Union. Since
then it has given assistance to every ritual
istic law-breaker prosecuted for illegal
practices. It may, therefore, be fairly de
scribed as being, to a large extent, a Rebel
Defence Union. In 1867 the Union offered

the Archbishop of York £500 towards the
costs of prosecuting the Rev. Mr. Voysey for
heresy. The offer was declined ; but it lent
the sanction of the Union to the principle of
ecclesiastical prosecutions. The Council ap
pointed, in 1869, Sir Charles L. Young, Bart.,
as Secretary of the Union. After holding
office for about seven years he resigned, and
subsequently, like the first President of the
Union, seceded to the Church of Rome. Since
then secessions to Rome from the ranks of
the Union have become quite common. How
many of the lay members have gone over no
one can ascertain, but in my History of the
Homeward Movement, published in 1900, the
names of seventy-eight clerical perverts to
Rome from the ranks of the Union are setforth.
On Feb. 17, 1871, the Union presented a
petition to both houses of the Convocation
of the Province of Canterbury, protesting
against the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, and refusing to accept its decisions.
The petitioners declared : " We feel in con
science constrained to declare, that we are
unable consistently with our duty to God and
the Church to acknowledge the authority in
spiritual matters of the said Judicial Com
mittee." The petition was signed by 910
clergymen.

Evening Communion, though sanctioned by
our Lord, has always been disliked by the
Union. At its ordinary meeting on Feb. 13,
1871, it passed a resolution expressing "deep
regret at the increasing number of Churches
throughout the country in which the Holy
Communion is celebrated in the afternoon and
evening." Two years later, on Jan. 31, 1873,
it supported a public demonstration in London,
at which a resolution was carried protesting
against "any mutilation of the Athanasian
Creed." Evangelical Churchmen, as well as
Ritualists, were on the Committee which
organised this latter demonstration. At the
annual meeting on June 18, 1873, great op
position was shown to Mr. Osborne Morgan's
Burials Bill, and it was affirmed: "That
this Union is determined to use every effort to
uphold the right of the Church of England to
the exclusive possession of her own consecrated
churchyards." About this time the Bishop of
Durham (Dr. Baring) refused to license a curate
to St. Oswald's, Durham, unless the vicar gave
a written promise that his curate should not
wear coloured stoles, take part in the burning
of incense, or turn his back to the congrega
tion during the celebration of Holy Communion.
The English Church Union, which never objects
on principle to prosecuting its opponents, at
once went to law against the bishop, and
applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a
rule calling upon him to show cause why a

ENGLISH CHURCH UNION [ 211 ]

EPACT

writ of mandamus should not issue against him.
The Court, however, refused to issue the rule,
maintaining that a bishop has an absolute
discretion as to licensing stipendiary curates.
Since this decision of the Court, the bishops,
however, have rarely used the power they
possess as to refusing licences to Romanising
curates. In 1874 the Public Worship Regula
tion Act became law. Ever since it has met
with the bitter hostility of the English Church
Union.

At the annual meeting on June 15, 1875, it
was resolved that: "The English Church
Union is of opinion that, in order to bring
about a generally satisfactory settlement of
the Ritual Controversy in the Church of Eng
land, there should be no prohibition of the
following usages when desired by clergy
and congregations — viz. (1) the Eastward
Position ; (2) the Vestments ; (3) the Lights ;
(4) the Mixed Chalice ; (5) Unleavened Bread ;
(6) Incense."

At a special meeting of the Union on Jan.
16, 1877, it was resolved: "That any Court
which is bound to frame its decisions in ac
cordance with the judgments of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, or any other
secular Court, does not possess any spiritual
authority with respect to such decision ; " and
that : " Suspension a sacris being a purely
spiritual act, the English Church Union is
prepared to support any priest, not guilty of
a moral or canonical offence, who refuses to
recognise a suspension issued by such a Court."
When, in 1877, public indignation was aroused
against the Secret Society of the Holy Cross,
more particularly on account of its indecent
Confessional book, The Priest in Absolution,
which it circulated among its members, several
branches of the English Church Union passed
resolutions of sympathy with the Society. On
several occasions the Union has opposed any
alteration in the Book of Common Prayer, but
in almost every instance with the saving clause,
"at the present time." In the year 1886 the
Union made a new departure by the institution
of an annual Requiem Mass for the repose of
the souls of its deceased members, an un-
scriptural service which it has continued ever
since. Many of its branches now have special
annual Requiem Masses, in addition to the
General Requiem offered in London. Begin
ning with the year 1866, the English Church
Union has frequently advocated the Corporate
Reunion of the Church of England with the
Church of Rome. At its annual meeting in
1888 it adopted an address to the Lambeth
Conference, in which it expressed a hope that
one result of its deliberations would be "to
win back those who have separated from its
(Church of England's) fold ; and, above all, to

prepare the way for the restoration of visible
unity between the Anglican Communion and
the rest of the Western Church, and the Re
union of East and West, and to hasten the
dawn of that blessed day of restored peace
and goodwill among all Christian people, when
there shall be One Flock and One Shepherd."
Two years previously, speaking from the
Presidential chair, Lord Halifax said: "Cer
tainly those who are willing to recognise an
appeal from the Archbishop of Canterbury to
the Judicial Committee need not scruple to an
appeal to a Christian bishop. Is there a single
instructed Christian who would not prefer
Leo XIII. to the Privy Council ? " Since then
the President of the Union has frequently,
from the Presidential chair, advocated Reunion
with Rome in even stronger terms.

Many warning voices have been heard from
time to time against the work of the English
Church Union. The Earl of Selborne, a High
Churchman, wrote of it: "But its tendency
was not towards union : it was a disintegrating,
not a cementing power. It was lay and volun
tary in its essential character ; and it set itself
by degrees, more and more, against all exist
ing authority in the Church of England,
whether of Courts, or of bishops who followed
the judgments of Courts, having itself no
species of authority. The danger of such an
imperium in imperio and its fundamental incon
sistency with Church principles, may have been
the reason why such men as Sir John Patteson
and Sir John Taylor Coleridge, having at one
time joined, afterwards withdrew from it."
Archbishop Benson, also a High Churchman,
wrote : "I cannot help feeling still that in
the party (of the E.C.U.), its aims, tactics,
opinion of itself, style of criticism, motives,
there is something that is very far from heaven-
liness or Apostolicity."

Rev. G. B. Roberts, Hist, of the English
Church Union. E. C. U. Monthly Circular,
vols. 1865-70. E.C.U. Gazette, vols. 1870-1902.
TheE.C.U., a Romanizing Confederacy. Walter
Walsh, Ecclesiastical Prosecutions Advocated by
the E.C.U. ; History of the Homeward Movement
in the Church of England, pp. 408-420 ; Secret
History of the Oxford Movement, chap x.

[W. W.]

ENTHBONISATION". — This denotes the
solemn placing of a bishop on his throne. The
Greek word was also used of the enthroning
of relics of saints in the altar of a church
at its consecration. A church thus honoured
was regarded as higher than, and as distinct
from, an oratory. The Greek word was oc
casionally employed in the installation of a
presbyter in the church assigned to him.

[C. J. C.]

EPACT.— The epact (en-a/crat, scil. Tjtdpai) signi-

EPIPHANY

[ 212 ]

EUNOMIANS

fies the number of days required to bring the
lunar year up to the length of the solar. An
epact, therefore, embraces the days between
the last moon of the old year and the first
of January of the new year. The epacts
were carefully noticed in order to ascertain
the precise date of Easter.

EPIPHANY. —The feast of Epiphany is of
considerable antiquity, but cannot be traced
to the Apostolic Age. Jerome states that
it commemorated (1) the Baptism of Christ;
(2) His manifestation as the divine Son by the
voice from heaven. Bingham quotes Chrysos-
tom, Gregory Nazianzen, and others to the same
effect. Augustine speaks of the appearance of
the star and the miracle of Cana as the ground
of its observance, but Leo insists that the only
reason lay in Christ's manifestation to the
Gentiles.

The manifestation of Christ to the Magi,
at His baptism, and at Cana, are noticed in the
Collect, the Gospel and the lessons appointed
by the Church of England for that day
(Blakeney on the Prayer Book, p. 215). The
festival is first alluded to by Clement of Alex
andria, A.D. 200. It was general in the fourth
century, and was the usual season in the
West for the reception of Catechumens.

[C. J. C.]

EUCHARIST. — Eucharist means Thanksgiv
ing, and as the Communion Service is specially
an offering of thanksgiving, the name, so
understood, is unobjectionable. The Church
of England has shown wisdom in preferring
the title "Lord's Supper" and "Holy Com
munion." For the word Eucharist may be,
and by some persons is, understood somewhat
differently. In the account of the Lord's
Supper, the three Evangelists, St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Luke, tell us that our Lord
" gave thanks " before giving the Cup to the
Apostles. The word for "gave thanks" is
eucharistesas (whence the name Eucharist), but
St. Matthew (at least according to some copies)
and St. Mark in the institution of the Bread
use the expression " He blessed " instead of
"He gave thanks" — eulogesas instead of euchar
istesas. The A.V. translates eulogesas by "He
blessed it" (that is, the bread), the R. V. more
correctly "He blessed." Whom or what did
He bless ? St. Chrysostom and Theophylact
say that "He blessed God" (according to the
then universal custom before eating). If so,
the eulogesas before the bread is identical in
meaning with the eucharistesas before the cup,
which word is indeed used by St. Luke in
reference to the bread as well as the cup. We
do not doubt that this is the force of eulogesas
in the passage. Nevertheless, it will bear the
meaning of "He blessed the bread," and this
signification is supported by 1 Cor. x. 16, "the

cup of blessing which we bless." If that
meaning be accepted, and if the eucharistesas
be interpreted by the eulogesas instead of
the eulogesas by the eucharistesas, the term
"Eucharist" may be supposed to mean the
blessing or consecration of the bread and wine,
and then it would turn the attention rather to
the consecration of the elements than to the
general thanksgiving character of the service.
Even in this there would be nothing objection
able were it not for the extravagant notions
that have been connected with the effects of
consecration, which means no more than that
certain things or persons are set apart for some
sacred purpose. The Church of England has
adopted the title "Lord's Supper" and "Holy
Communion," which are expressive both of
the history and the purpose of the rite. The
title "Eucharist" may be, and has been used
as a not unbefitting name of a service in
which we offer the sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving for our redemption by Christ's
sacrifice on the Cross. Bishop Cosin speaks of
" the Church's solemn Eucharist or sacrifice
of praise offered to God in commemoration of
the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ once offered
on the Cross" (Notes on the Communion Service
— genuine series). [F. M.]

EUCHOLOGION.— Denotes the Service Book of
the Greek Church, which contains the service
of the Eucharist and other ecclesiastical rites.
It corresponds to the Missal, pontifical, or ritual,
in the Church of Rome.

EULOGIA. — In early times eulogia was used as
an equivalent for Eucharist. It was later applied
to portions of the consecrated bread which were
sent to those who were absent from the cele
bration. It was also still later used of the gifts
of cakes, &c., sent to divers persons in token of
Communion. Both in England and France
" blessed bread " was given to the non-
communicants. The custom is described in
Bishop Gardiner's Rationale of 1540.

EUNOMIANS.— Eunomius, the founder of this
Arian sect, was the friend and pupil of JStius,
a deacon, who died at Constantinople about 370.
Eunomius was made Bishop of Cyzicus in 360,
and died in 392. Both he and JStius were called
Anomaeans, because they taught the complete
difference in essence between the Father and
the Son. Eunomius denied the element of
mystery in the Christian faith, and believed that
men could know God perfectly. His tone of
mind was entirely intellectual ; Christ, with him,
was only the most perfect of created beings,
and the essence of religion consisted in mental
illumination. His doctrine of the Spirit involved
a denial of His divine creative power, for it re
garded Him only as a Sanctifier and Teacher,
the first in order of created beings after the Son.
In philosophy he was a disciple of Aristotle, and

EUTYCHIANISM

[ 213 ] EVANGELICAL COUNSELS

combated the influence of Platonism in the
Church, thus foreshadowing the philosophical
tone of thought in the later Middle Ages. His
Trinitarian opinions logically led to Tritheism.
He claimed to be an ardent supporter of tradi
tion, claiming the doctrine of the Fathers even
for his heretical views on the Holy Ghost. (See
Goode's " Divine Ruleof Faith and Practice,"
vol. i. p. 379.) He opposed the current sacra
mental teaching of the Church, and also asceti
cism. He is thought to have been the first to
substitute single instead of triple immersion in
baptism, perhaps as the outcome of his Trini
tarian errors, and to have rebaptized converts,
not only from the Church, but from other Arian
sects.

The denial of all sacramental grace not only
went further than the subsequent teaching of
the Reformation, but was plainly the result of
Eunomius' intellectual attitude. Though he pro
fessed to refer to Scripture, his system was realty
founded on reasoning. It was on that ground
that he differed from the Church, and not on
the testimony of Scripture. [C. J. C.]

EUTYCHIANISM.— Eutyches was the abbot
of a large monastery near Constantinople, and
was greatly esteemed for holiness of life and
learning. His teaching was condemned by the
Fourth General Council, which was held at
Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The heresy which goes
under his name was in some respects the
opposite of the heresy of Arius. Arius denied
the divine nature of Christ, Eutyches and his
followers practically denied the humanity of
our Saviour. The Eutychians asserted that the
human nature of our Lord was absorbed in
His divinity, like a drop of honey in the ocean.
After the Incarnation, Christ's Body, it was
maintained, was no longer of the same substance
as other men's, but became divine. But that
doctrine is opposed to the teaching of St. Paul,
that Christ was in all points tempted like as we
are, and consequently it, to a large degree, de
stroyed the comfort and the power derived from
the true doctrine of the Incarnation. Eutyches
was wont to employ the expression " that there
was only one Incarnate Nature in God the
Word." Eutyches maintained that there was
only one nature, the divine nature in Christ.

[E. A. W.]

EVANGELICAL COUNSELS or COUN
SELS OF PERFECTION.— The word
" counsels " is here used in distinction from com
mands or precepts ; " evangelical " implies that
those counsels are meant to be drawn from the
teaching of the gospel in particular, rather than
the Old Testament ; " perfection," that they
who follow such counsels attain a more com
plete spiritual state than others. Acquaintance
with this subject among Roman Catholic writers
seems derived ultimately from the Summa

Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, the great
Dominican of the thirteenth century. For refer
ence a convenient edition of it is Migne's, which,
though published in 1841, was not adopted into
his Patroloyia Latino, until after that collection
was completed in 1855 and its indexes in 1864.
It must therefore be looked for in later volumes
commencing a second series. The Summa,
nearly occupying four volumes (i.-iv. ) of the
2nd series, is in three parts, each containing
many " quaestiones," subdivided into " articuli."
The second part consists of two portions, the
Prima Secundce and the Secunda Secundce. The
Prima Secundce, with 114 quaestiones, fills vol. ii.
Quaestio cviii. in four articuli alone concerns
us, and what may perhaps be considered the
locus dassicus of this subject, exhibiting all its
leading words, is the paragraph in Art. IV., be
ginning " Bona autem hujus mundi." l The
leading ideas are as follows. Observance of
God's commandments and precepts in the law
is a necessity for every one without exception,
who would be saved. But a person who seeks
the readiest and surest means of obeying those
precepts and so securing salvation is greatly
helped by the counsels, which teach the most
perfect method of obedience and the most
certain path to heaven ; not indeed obligatory
on all, or even on most, but recommended by
way of advice to those who have a vocation.
Three counsels are put forward as serviceable
in particular. Aquinas several times calls at
tention to that number,2 and especially in the
passage of Art. IV. above referred to, which
deals with the well-known text 1 John ii. 16.
The good things, he says, of this world per
taining to the present life, are three : riches,
having relation to the lust of the eyes ; pleasures
(deliclce), to the lusts of the flesh ; honours,
to the pride of life. But to effect the com
plete abandonment, so far as is possible, of these
three, belongs to the evangelical counsels (haec
autem tria totaliter relinquere, secundum quod
possibile est, pertinet ad consilia evangelica) ;
in which three also is founded all religion which
professes a state of perfection (in quibus etiam
tribus fundatur omnis religio quse statum per-
fectionis profitetur) ; for riches are abdicated
by poverty ; carnal pleasures by perpetual
chastity ; pride of life by absolute obedience
(per obedientiae servitutem). These counsels,
poverty, celibacy, obedience, are, as is well
known, the three distinctive rules of the
monastic profession, and the evangelical
counsels, as inculcated by its friends, must be
understood to mean that, while heaven is to be
obtained through obedience to God's precepts,
the conventual calling is the best one possible

1 Pat. Lat., series ii. vol. ii. col. 902.

2 See Art. III. of Qu. cviii, cols. 900, 901.

EVE

[ 2H]

EXCOMMUNICATION

for ensuring that end. The teaching was de
signed in :fact, as might have been expected
from a monk of the period, to promote the
credit of monastic life and the prosperity of
monasteries. [C. H.]

EVE.— See VIGIL.

EVENING COMMUNION. — See COM
MUNION.

EXARCH.— The bishops of the chief cities of
the political " dioceses" of the Empire in the
age of Constantine were known in the East by
the title of Exarch ; the highest of them came
later to be called "Patriarchs." Exarch was
also the title borne by the Byzantine governors
of Italy, between the times of Justinian and
of the Frankish conquest. They, as represen
tatives cf the Eastern Emperors, confirmed
the elections of the Roman Pontiffs.

[C. J. C.]

EXCOMMUNICATION. — In Jewish times
discipline was carried out by the authorities
and not by the deliberations of the assembled
people (as in the case of the Corinthian Church,
2 Cor. ii. 6). Exclusion from the congregation
was common after the Exile (Ezra x. 8), but
existed long before, even in Mosaic times.
There are allusions to Jewish discipline in
Luke vi. 22 ; John ix. 22 ; xii. 42 ; xvi. 2,
although it is doubtful whether the various
degrees of exclusion recognised in later
Judaism, were clearly distinguished so early.
The practice of anathematising in syna
gogues is alluded to by Justin Martyr and
Epipbanius. The bulk of the people nowhere
exercised jurisdiction after the Exile. The
term " the Jews " in the fourth Gospel often
signifies the ruling classes (cf. Schurer, Jewish
People in time of Christ, div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 60-
62, Eng. Trans.). In the New Testament we
have the instance of the Corinthian offender
(1 Cor. v.), upon whom sentence was pro
nounced by St. Paul, though not without the
concurrence of the assembled Church (2 Cor.
ii. 6), and that of Hymenaeus and Alexander
(1 Tim. i. 20) ; in both cases it is said that
those sentenced were "delivered to Satan,"
which may mean either the infliction of some
bodily disease, or mere relegation to the heathen
world over which Satan ruled. The instance
in Titus iii. 10 may be appealed to, but
Matt, xviii. 17 may be fairly disputed. (See
p. 88.) The excommunication mentioned in
1 Corinthians was temporary, the offender on
repentance having been received back again.

In the early Church there was a milder
excommunication which excluded from the
Eucharist, but not from the earlier portions of
the service, while the greater, which excluded
from all participation in Christian worship,
was reserved for crimes of impurity, idolatry,
and murder. Sometimes in the latter cases

the punishment was life-long, but it was never
regarded as taking effect beyond the grave.
(See Bp. Harold Browne on Article XXXIII.;
Robertson's Church History, vol. i. pp. 242, 243.)

In the early centuries there is the case of
the Emperor Theodosius (A.D. 378-395) excom
municated by Ambrose Bishop of Milan, on
account of the massacre of Thessalonica. It
was essentially different from the case of
Henry IV. of Germany, or of John of England,
who were punished for resistance to the Pope.
In the Middle Ages, a whole country might be
placed under an interdict, whereby a multitude
of innocent persons had to suffer. Civil dis
abilities were in later times added to eccle
siastical penalties.

Article XXXIII. affirms that persons, who by
open denunciation of the Church are rightly
cut off from its unity, ought to be avoided by
the faithful. The rubric prefixed to the Com
munion Service provides that for notorious
moral offences offenders may be denied the
Lord's Supper, but the offence must obviously
be proved by the judgment of some competent
Court. This is the only safe rule, and the
rubric enjoins that the minister must give
notice of his action to the bishop within
fourteen days. No. 109 of the Canons of
1604 covers the same ground, Lthe offences
specified being "notorious crimes and scan
dals." No doubt the Church of England is
"restrained in her practice" of discipline, as
Bishop Harold Browne expresses it. The
same, however, might be said with regard to
the Roman Church, and is often so admitted
and regretted by her. All Courts depend upon
the civil power to carry out their decisions
into practical effect. Ecclesiastical authority
is subordinate to statute and common law.
Our present tribunals are not secular but eccle
siastical, in the sense that they were historically
derived from Church tribunals, and also
because the Church is mostly composed of
laity, headed by a layman, yet administering
laws which have in many cases originated in
Synods of the clergy. The Dean of Arches
represents "the Church," every whit as much
as does the Primate.

Every baptized adult, if confirmed or ready
and desirous to be so, has a common-law right
and also a statutory right (under 1 Ed. VI., c. 1)
to receive the Holy Communion in his own
parish, subject to the right of the celebrant to
suspend the applicant pending the bishop's
decision. If the bishop ruled against the
minister, and he still refused, or if the Court
disallowed the procedure undertaken by the
bishop, and the minister persisted in refusal,
the layman would have the right to proceed
against the clerk so offending (see Jenkins v.
Cook). The jealousy of the laity against any

EXOMOLOGESIS

[ 215 ]

EXORCISM

abuse of this right on personal or party grounds
is the real cause of the abeyance of lay dis
cipline, coupled with the fact that when in
full force it did more harm than good, and
proved a less efficient safeguard than the
power of conscience.

The disciplinary jurisdiction of the Eccle
siastical Courts over the laity was never abo
lished and still exists. But a bishop would be
often unwilling to incur great expense, and the
Toleration Acts have made certain canonical
offences legal, and therefore unpunishable.
Yet in any case of flagrant immorality, public
opinion would support the minister.

For the law of burial, see under BURIAL.

[C. J. C.]

EXOMOLOGESIS. — This word, which signifies
acknowledgment of sin, is much used in the
writings of the Early Fathers, and is often
quoted by modern Romish controversialists
as if equivalent to confession to the priest.
Tertullian (De Penitentia, cap. ix.) thus defines
it. " Exomologesis is a discipline for man's
prostration and humiliation, enjoining a de
meanour calculated to move mercy. With
regard also to the very dress and food, it
commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth
and ashes, to cover his body in mourning, to
lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for
severe treatment the sins which he has com
mitted ; moreover, to know no food or drink
but such as is plain — not for the stomach's
sake, to wit, but the soul's ; for the most part,
however, to feed prayers on fastings, to groan,
to weep and roar unto the Lord your God ; to
roll before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel
to God's dear ones ; to enjoin on all the
brethren to be ambassadors to bear his depre
catory supplications (before God)." J Whatever
may be thought of Tertullian's views on the
point, this is sufficient to show that he refers
to a public and not private auricular confession.
When public discipline was in general use,
and persons were disposed to submit to it,
there was little occasion for private con
fession.

EXORCISM. — Exorcism and Exorcist are
derived from a Greek word (e£opK6w), which
in classical Greek means to put a person upon
oath. In ecclesiastical Greek it has the sense
of driving out by adjuration. We are aware
from the Gospels that Christ drove out demons,

1 By caros, "dear ones," as the annotator in
Migne observes, reference is made by Tertullian
to the martyrs and confessors of those days,
and not to the presbyters spoken of in the pre
ceding sentence: "All the brethren," and not
only the officers of the Church, were to be
besought to add their intercessions to God for
pardon.

and gave this power to His disciples. It seems
to have been an extraordinary gift, however,
given only for extraordinary circumstances.
The Church of Rome includes the exorcist
among her minor orders. The bishop gives
the book of exorcisms into the hand of the
person about to be ordained, bidding him learn
the contents by heart, and receive power of
laying hands on the possessed. Pope Inno
cent I. prohibited exorcists from exercising
their power on the possessed without the
express permission of their bishops, and this
order is still in force. Consequently the office
of exorcist has come to be regarded as a mere
step to the priesthood. The Church of Rome
uses exorcisms over inanimate as well as ani
mate objects, and the practice is so strange that
many have thought it owes its origin to the
Manichean idea that all matter is evil. The
exorcism for the making of Holy Water is
a good specimen. If the officiator be a bishop,
he must wear the mitre and carry the pastoral
staff ; if a priest, he is arrayed in stole and
surplice. He first exorcises the salt, then the
water : —

" I exorcise thee, thou creature of salt by
the living ^ God, by the true *%t God, by the
holy *J* God" (whenever a cross appears in the
Pontifical the celebrant makes the sign of the
cross over the creature to be exorcised) "by
the God who ordered thee to be cast into
water by Elijah the prophet, that the unwhole-
someness of the water might be healed ; that
thou be made exorcised salt, for the salvation of
those that believe ; and be to all that use thee
health of soul and body ; and that from the
place where thou shalt be sprinkled, every
spectre, and malice, or subtlety of the devil's
illusions, and every unclean spirit, flee away
and depart, adjured by Him who shall come
to judge the living and the dead and the
world by fire.

" I exorcise thee, thou creature of water, in
the name of God the Farther Almighty, and
in the name of Jesus Christ His *J< Son, our
Lord, and in the might of the Holy >J« Spirit,
that thou be conjured water for putting to
flight all the power of the enemy : and that
thou avail to root out and banish the enemy
himself, with his apostate angels, through the
might of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall come to judge the living and the dead,
and the world by fire."

The priest then mixes the salt with the
water, and the " Holy Water " is poured into
the stoups for the people to cross themselves
with on entering the church ; it is carried
away in bottles for use in private houses, and
put to a hundred other uses. Exorcisms are
used over the ashes for Ash Wednesday, in
cense, bells, oils consecrated by the bishops

EXORCISTS

[ 216 ]

EXTREME UNCTION

on Holy Thursday, and many other things.
In former times exorcisms were used to drive
the devil out of "haunted houses," but the
latter practice has fallen somewhat into dis
use. [T. C.]
EXORCISTS were persons appointed at the
latter end of the third century to take care
of demoniacs. In later days it was judged
necessary by the bishops to ordain such officers.
The office of an exorcist is the third of the
minor orders in the Church of Rome. See
EXORCISM.

EXPOSITION OF THE BLESSED SAC
RAMENT. — This is popularly known among
Roman Catholics as "the Benediction," and
usually takes place in the evening. A large
consecrated wafer is kept in a lunette in the
tabernacle. At the appointed hour a priest,
attended by acolytes and thurifer, comes from
the vestry vested in alb and cope. While the
choir sing the Litany of the Blessed Virgin,
or some hymn, the priest mounts the altar,
places the lunette in the monstrance, and
after genuflecting before it, sets it upon the
top of the tabernacle. He then incenses the
wafer, while the choir sing the hymn " Tantum
ergo Sacramentum." After this he mounts
the altar again, takes the monstrance in his
hands, faces the congregation, and slowly
elevates and lowers the wafer for the adoration
of the people. During this part of the cere
mony one of the acolytes rings a small bell.
The priest then puts the lunette containing
the consecrated wafer into the tabernacle, and
retires to the vestry. At what is known as
the Forty Hours Adoration, the consecrated
wafer is exposed during that period.

[T. C.]

EXTRA VAGANTS.— See CANON LAW.
EXTREME UNCTION. —A ceremony in
which a dying person is anointed by a priest
with oil on his eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands,
feet, and (except in the case of women) reins.
Its effects are supposed to be (1) to strengthen
the soul in the death agony against the tempta
tions of the devil ; (2) to wipe out all the
remains of sin ; (3) to remove all punishments
still due ; (4) sometimes to restore to health.
The oil is to be applied by help of a piece of
tow, or some such material, with the following
formula : "By this holy unction and His most
gracious mercy may God forgive thee (indulgeat
tibi) whatsoever thou hast done wrong by thy
senses, namely, thy sight, hearing, taste,
smelling, and touch " — in which formula, how
ever, the words "and His most gracious
mercy " may be omitted at the discretion of
the ministering priest. The oil is consecrated
once a year, but if his supply becomes low,
a priest may add common oil to it. In the
thirteenth century this ceremony was declared

to be one of the seven sacraments, and to have
been instituted by Christ.

The origin of the rite is to be found in "a
corrupt following of the Apostles." Extra
ordinary or miraculous powers were bestowed
on the Apostles for the building up of the
Church — powers of prophecy, speaking with
tongues, interpretation of tongues, raising from
the dead, and healing sickness. St. James
refers to the last-named of these miraculous
powers in these words, "Is any sick among
you ? let him call for the elders of the church ;
and let them pray over him, anointing him
with oil in the name of the Lord : and the
prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up ; and if he have com
mitted sins, they shall be forgiven him "
(James v. 14, 15). When the miraculous gifts
ceased, about the end of the first century, the
practice should in all reason have ceased too.
But it seems that it was occasionally and
sporadically continued, being administered to
the sick person, if he desired it, either by a
presbyter, or by a lay friend (man or woman),
or by himself. It was thought in these cases
that some good might accrue to body or soul
from a pious ceremony, which was not confined
to the dying, but, as in the Oriental Church at
present, used in any grave sickness, and some
times repeated again and again. In the ninth
century (the beginning of the Middle Ages)
the administration of the oil was confined to
a priest, and gradually it became not a rite,
from which restoration to health was hoped,
but a preparation for death. For this reason
it came to be called, in the twelfth century,
the Last, or the Extreme Unction, because it
followed after previous unctions at baptism
and confirmation ; and very soon the expression
Extreme Unction was identified with unction
of one in extremity. Then followed its in
clusion in the list of the Seven Sacraments,
first drawn up in the thirteenth century.
Combined with the Viaticum it thus became
one of the institutions of the new religion into
which traditional Christianity was resolved by
Innocent III., the most salient features of
which were Transubstantiation and the Con
fessional, supplemented by Extreme Unction
and the Viaticum.

The Congregation in Church instructs its
readers "that this sacrament, which has existed
from Apostolic times, is still perfectly valid in
the Church of England" (p. 184). But it is
not a sacrament, nor is it a rite in any way
recognised by the Church of England. Bishop
Forbes of Brechin says that "there is nothing
to hinder the revival of the Apostolic and
Scriptural custom of anointing the sick, when
soever any devout person may desire it"
(Explanation of Articles). " Nothing to hinder "

FACULTY

[217 ]

FAITH, RULE OF

— except that not being Apostles, we have not
the miraculous gifts which they had. Speaking
with tongues is equally a " Scriptural custom."
There is "nothing to hinder the revival" of
both these Apostolic customs except that (1)
we are conscious of not possessing Apostolic
powers or the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit ;
(2) we are bound to be loyal in the observance
of the Church's rule. The Prayer Book of
1549 — which was transitional in its character
— permitted anointing, if the sick person de
sired it still, but "on the forehead and breast
only " instead of on seven parts of the body ;
and it appointed the use of a prayer which did
not attribute any spiritual efficacy to the
material and visible oil. This was a step
towards the abolition of the rite, which was
finally effected in 1552. [F. M.]

FACULTY. — The technical name for a licence
from the Consistory Court to make alterations
in any church or churchyard, or to allow the
exclusive use of a pew. The power of grant
ing or withholding faculties is vested in the
Chancellor of the diocese. An appeal lies from
him (ultimately) to the Privy Council, which,
however, only with reluctance interferes with
his decision. A faculty should always be
sought for any alteration of importance in a
consecrated building of the Church of England.
(See Whitehead, Church Law.)

FAITH, RULE OF.— The ultimate criterion
or test to be applied to doctrines in order to
ascertain their truth or falsity. In the view of
Protestant Christianity, this is Holy Scripture,
pure and simple. (See Article VI. of the Church
of England.) In supportof this position, we turn
first of all to the Old Testament, and find that
under that dispensation the law of God was to
be made known to all (Deut. vi. 7-9 ; xxxi. 12,
13 ; Josh. i. 8 ; Mai. ii. 7, 8) ; and the Court of
Appeal to which resort was to be made to
determine whether prophets were false or true,
was "the law and the testimony" (Isa. viii.
20). In the New Testament we have the practice
of our Lord and His Apostles. The Saviour
appealed to Scripture to repulse Satan (Matt. iv.
1-10 ; Luke iv. 1-12), to reprove the Sadducees
(Matt. xxii. 29) and to establish the truth of
His Messiahship (Luke xxiv. 27 ; John v. 39).
Of a similar kind was the Apostolic practice ;
e.,7. Peter quotes Scripture when urging the
appointment of a successor to Judas (Acts i.
20) ; Stephen's mingled defence and indict
ment of the Jews is from first to last an appeal
to Old Testament Scripture ; the Bereans are
commended for pursuing this very course (Acts
xvii. 11), and the same line of reasoning was
adopted by St. Paul to the Jews at Rome (Acts

xxviii. 23). This appeal is oue to which it is
intended that all persons shall have recourse.
The books of the New Testament abound in
references to those of the Old Testament, on
the supposition that they were generally read
and known. The Gospel written by St. Luke
(i. 4) and all St. Paul's Epistles were meant for
general perusal. Private judgment is recom
mended and even commanded in such passages
as Luke xii. 57 ; 1 Cor. z. 15 ; 1 Thess. v. 21 ;
1 John iv. 1.

Entirely opposed to this view is that of the
Church of Rome. The Rule of Faith is asserted
by that Church to be, not the Word of God,
but the Word of God plus tradition, or rather,
tradition plus the Word of God, for in the
Creed of Pope Pius IV. tradition is given the
first place in the following declaration :
(i.) " I most steadfastly admit and embrace the
apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and
the other observances and constitutions of the
same Church, (ii.) I also admit sacred Scrip
ture, according to the sense in which Holy
Mother Church has held and does hold, whose
right it is to judge of the true sense and inter
pretation of the sacred Scriptures ; nor will I
ever take and interpret them unless according
to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
But "the unanimous consent of the Fathers "
is a thing impossible to discover. They are
hopelessly divided even upon Matt. xvi. 18, the
text on which Rome builds her monstrous
claims to Papal Supremacy. It will be well,
therefore, to examine the real position and
value of tradition. For this we appeal in the
first instance to Holy Scripture. Our Lord
more than once rebuked the Jews of His day
for doing the very thing which Rome does, i.e.
for exalting tradition above the Word of God
so as actually to "transgress" the latter, and
make it "of none effect" (Matt. xv. 3 ; Mark
vii. 7-13). St. Paul warns the Church of
Colosse against the "tradition of men" as a
source of hurt and damage. His reference to
"traditions" in 2 Thess. ii. 15, is to his own
discourses and epistles, not to oral " tradition "
properly so called. (Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 5 and
iii. 6.)

The writings of the Fathers, again, are
appealed to by Rome as supporting the supreme
value of tradition. But the term employed by
them means the written truths of the New
Testament. It is so used by Irenseus in the
second century (Against Heresies, Bk. iii. c. iv. 1
and c. v. 1), and by Cyprian in the third cen
tury (Epist. Ixii. Ixiii. and Ixiv.). " If," says
Cyprian, ",we find it prescribed in the Gospel, or
contained in the Epistles, or in the Acts of the
Apostles, let us observe this divine and holy
tradition." The unreliable nature of Rome's
much vaunted tradition may be readily under-

FALDSTOOL

[ 218 ]

FALL, THE

stood from the facts that Jnstin Martyr (second
century) informs us, on the authority of tradi
tion, that when the Lord was baptized in
Jordan by John, a fire was kindled in the
river, and that, contrary to John ii. 11, the
Apocryphal Gospels narrate many miracles of
Christ's infancy and boyhood.

The necessarily evil result of the Roman Rule
of Faith is to exalt the priesthood, and, on the
principle of sacerdotalism, to make the de
pendence of the people upon the priests'
teaching absolute. As Rome's Rule of Faith
includes all the writings of the Fathers,
decrees of Church Councils, and Papal Bulls,
it is manifest that the people must depend
completely upon their priests, even though
they were the false teachers of which St. Paul
and St. Peter warned and prophesied. (Acts
xx. 30 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1.)

Ritualists follow the Church of Rome in
denying the supreme authority of the Bible,
and regarding Scripture and tradition as the
Rule of Faith. In Tract XC. of The Tracts
for the Times, we are told, " In the sense in
which it is commonly understood at the present
day, Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican
principles, the Rule of Faith " ; and again, in a
lecture by the Rev. T. S. Vaux ("An Open
Bible," p. 18), it is declared that "The Church
is not the Church of the Bible, but the Bible
is the Book of the Church." [M. E. W. J.]

FALDSTOOL.— This word is the English form
of the faldestolium, a low crossed or folding
stool used either to kneel at or to sit upon.
In the King's Coronation there was such a
faldstool, on which the sovereign knelt. In the
Church of Rome, faldstool is the name of
a bishop's seat in the sanctuary, when he
does not occupy his throne. In many of our
cathedrals and some parish churches the term
is applied to a small, low desk at which the
Litany is sung or said. Dean Hook, in his
Church Dictionary, observes that in the rubric
before the fifty-first Psalm in the Commination
Service, a peculiar place distinct from that in
which the ordinary office is performed, is
implied. Bishop Andrewes says, " The priest
goeth from his seat into the body of the
church, and at a low desk before the chancel
door, called the faldstool, kneels and says, or
sings the Litany." Whether the practice be
desirable and necessary or not, it can hardly
be objected to as Romish. [W. B.]

FALL, THE. — The possibility of temptation
in the case of creatures who were formed
perfect, presents to some minds difficulties
which a little reflection, however, is sufficient
to dispel. All finite creatures being neces
sarily limited in some way, because they are
finite, are liable to temptation ; and, if they
be also free agents, may be drawn away by the

temptation. For they possess various affec
tions, bodily or mental, tending towards
particular objects ; and such desires must be
felt when their objects are present, whether
they can be lawfully enjoyed or not. Conse
quently, the only security against falling must
come from within, from habits of goodness,
from the habit of keeping their lower nature
(if these creatures possess such), in obedience
to their higher, and their higher in subjection
to the Divine Will.

The very notion of a free moral agent implies
an exemption from all forcible constraint, and
its guidance by moral persuasion only. But
since a finite creature cannot possess infinite
knowledge, the communication even of know
ledge must have its laws and limits, and
the limitation, in the case of highly-gifted
creatures, may prove a temptation. The
creature may be tempted to overpass the
bounds assigned to its power or wisdom. Its
only safety lies in obedience to, and trust in,
God. Its danger lies in an over-bold assertion
of its own independence, and in its self-will —
a danger probably increased in proportion to
knowledge. Absolute security appears attain
able only by a voluntary surrender of the
creature's will to that of the Creator, and by
the creature's partaking in some way of the
divine nature.

Sin, in the Shorter Catechism of the Church
of Scotland, is defined as "any want of con
formity unto, or transgression of, the law of
God." This definition includes (1) sin in its
positive aspect, as passing over any limit laid
down by God, which is primarily expressed in
the Greek word Trapdpaais ; (2) in its negative
aspect, as missing or coming short of the mark
which ought to be hit (afiapria). Both ideas
may be included in St. John's definition sin
is laivlessness (rj a/j.aprla «mc 17 dvo/j.ta), as
the R.V. renders the phrase in 1 John iii. 4,
explained partially by the A.V. "sin is the
transgression of the law." If a line were
drawn by competent authority across any plot
of ground which previously was fully open, and
one portion reserved, it would be a transgres
sion to cross the limit thus fixed. The bound
ary between what is and is not permitted may
be at first slight, and the beginning of moral
transgression a slight deviation from the right
path. The creature must not seek to pass
whatever limits God has assigned to it by a
distinct declaration of His sovereign will.

But if free agents should appear about to be
overcome by any special temptation which may
have come across their path, then, it may be
asked, ought not God to remove the temptation
itself when it becomes too heavy for them to
bear ? Mr. Birks well remarks : " The tempta
tion itself, apart from its special form, arises

FALL, THE

[ 219 ]

FALL, THE

immediately out of the very laws and limitations
of the created will ; and hence its entire re
moval must be simply impossible. It is the
prerogative of God alone, that He cannot be
tempted with evil. While there is an active
energy of thought and will, and a wide region
of the unknown, which it has not yet traversed,
there must be temptation to break loose from
the commands of God, and rove into those
fields in search of some higher degrees of
unknown felicity. It is the province of Divine
Wisdom to dispose and control the forms under
which these temptations may appear, so far as
they depend, indirectly, on positive agencies ;
but it is equally its province to discern that the
temptation itself is the serious and solemn
ordeal which every free agent, besides God
Himself, must undergo."

But, it may be asked, cannot God put forth
His power, and in the moment of weakness
constrain the creature to keep on in the right
track ? We may answer, yes ; but such con
straint would destroy the creature as a free
moral agent. That course might perhaps be
fraught with deeper ills to the rest of God's
universe than our limited faculties can at
present comprehend. Or might not God at
once, by the same Almighty fiat by which He
created out of nothing, annihilate the creature
which He had made ? We can only answer,
this He has not done, and no doubt there are
deep reasons why such a course was not adopted
by Divine Wisdom. The only remaining course
is that sin should be allowed to develop itself
and show its fearful consequences, while a
remedy at the same time should be provided.
This has been what has taken place with
respect to man ; and the plan has this great
advantage, that by it, at the same time, sin is
proved to be "exceeding sinful," and God's
eternal love and justice have been manifested in
a way which it could not have entered into the
heart of man to conceive.

Such considerations lessen the force of the
difficulties which beset the idea of tempt
ation itself in the case of man when created
perfect- It is of importance, too, to note
here the distinction between holiness and
innocence. Innocence in the lowest sense is
simply harmlessness. It is thus a lamb is
called innocent, and a babe is so in the same
sense. The innocence of Adam was probably
of a higher type. He had a sense of God and
of the duty he owed to Him. His nature was
well balanced. Holiness could be obtained only
by perseverance in the path of innocence, by
continuance in the way of obedience. But
man had to meet temptation in some form
before he could become holy. Had he been
perfectly holy he would at once have rejectee
the temptation of Satan. But perfection in

holiness could only be obtained through pro
bation. The tree of knowledge in the midst
of the garden was no arbitrary avenue of
temptation, no stumbling-block purposely cast,
as it were, in our first parents' way. It was
a mitigation of the temptation which in some
form or other the creature had to meet. (See
T. R. Birks' Difficulties of Belief. ) The creature
must learn implicit obedience to the com
mand of the Creator, must believe that what
He forbids is evil, and what He commands
is good. Adam would have obtained the
knowledge of good and evil from submitting
to the commands of God, but he ought not to
have sought to know it " as God, " which Satan
tempted him to do. For Adam would have
learned that any opposition to God's will must
be evil. As Heard well remarks (in the
Tripartite Nature of Man) : " We will have
nothing to say to such logical quibbles as
these, that a thing is commanded because
right ; not right because commanded. Dis
tinctions between positive and moral precepts
may have a certain relative use in the schools,
but they are not as deep as they are subtle.
They seem to overlook the gulf fixed between
the finite and infinite ; and that His thoughts
are not as our thoughts, or His ways as our
ways. Thus, while with God a thing is right
because He wills it, with all His creatures the
converse is to be the rule, we are to will it
because it is right."

But if Adam had to undergo some probation,
and if his probation by the prohibition to eat
of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was
a mitigation of the temptation which in one
form or other he must inevitably have en
countered, why was Satan permitted to press
the temptation on him ? We cannot with our
present knowledge completely remove this
difficulty. But it may be considerably lessened,
if not removed, by considering that it may
have been to manifest to the universe the
determination of that Fallen Spirit to abide
in sin and rebellion. It may have been, that
up to that time, the door of return was opened
to him. This, however, we know not ; but we
do know that the form and circumstances of
man's temptation alone were affected by him.
The temptation itself must one day have been
encountered by man, and if he fell, his moral
guilt would be all the deeper, if he himself
was the author of his own sin. Mr. Birks has
therefore, with some probability, suggested
that God permitted Satan to tempt man, powers
having been given man for resisting the attack,
in order that if the probability !of his fall was
thus increased, at least the possibility of his
recovery might be insured.

Joseph Mede long ago suggested (1) that
there may be a law with respect to the inter-

FALL, THE

[ 220 ]

FALL, THE

course of spirits and men, whereby spirits must
present themselves to man under some visible
appearance, and (2) that the appearance
assumed must more or less resemble the con
dition of the spirit itself. Whether the con
jecture has any truth in it or not, it may be
affirmed with more confidence that inasmuch
as Satan showed himself under the form of a
serpent, the sentence pronounced against him
was couched in language suitable to the form
assumed. There is no occasion to believe that
the serpent was ever different in appearance
from what it is now. The curse was pro
nounced not upon the animal, but upon Satan
under that form, and was to the effect that he
should never rise from the grovelling character
he had assumed, but should be condemned for
ever to the deepest degradation.

Satan, in order to insinuate hard thoughts of
God, suggested an exaggeration of the com
mand or prohibition which God had given :
"Is it even so, that God hath said ye shall eat
of no tree of the garden ? " Such is the proper
translation of Gen. iii. 1. The woman, in her
reply, was faulty in several points ; first, that
she failed to perceive the point of the tempta
tion, and entered into a discussion with the
tempter ; secondly, that even she represented
God's prohibition as stronger than it really
was, making it to refer even to touching, of
which God had said nothing, by which, perhaps,
she let it appear that the command of God was
in her opinion too strict ; and thirdly, she
weakened the threat of death attached to the
prohibition down to the mere expression "lest
ye die."

Satan's rejoinder was true in the letter, and
false in the spirit : " Ye shall not surely die ;
for God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened ; and
ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil/'
"Ye shall not surely die," for though your
spiritual life shall be gone: death shall not yet
for a season seize upon your souls or bodies.
"Your eyes shall be opened," for you shall
then apprehend God in a way that you know
not now, and shall flee from beholding Him.
"You shall be as God, knowing good and evil."
You will be as God, for you will have made
your own will your only law, you will have cast
off God's yoke, but only to be brought in
bondage to the yoke of sin. You will have
obtained the gift of wisdom, but you will find
that it is a wisdom " earthly, sensual, devilish."

The temptation by which the woman was
overthrown, and after her the man, was pre
eminently a temptation to selfishness. She
saw that "the tree was good for food" — there
was self-indulgence inviting, the "lust of the
flesh " alluring. It was " pleasant to the eyes,'
there was the first dawn of covetousness, "the

lust of the eyes " had appeared. It was a tree
"to be desired to make one wise," there was
pride unveiling itself, " the pride of life."

They took, they ate, they fell. "In the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,"
was the sentence, and it was executed. The
image of God in which they were created, was
in some aspects lost, though still partially re
tained (James iii. 9) ; the light that lighted
their bosoms was extinguished, their spirits
were deadened ; severed from the only Fountain
of Life, that is God, they died the death. In
nocence was gone ; their spirits were empty of
God, and lost their grasp of Him, their souls
revolted against their spirits, and their bodies
against their souls.

Thus the penalty was immediate. The spirit
died through sin. That is, it died to any
present enjoyment of God, and lost all the
capacity it had of attaining holiness by its own
powers. It lost its real life : it became
shattered and fallen. Conscience was no
longer a joy, it was a terror. It was felt
only as a reprover, not as a comforter,
Shattered as it was, no longer powerful to rule,
nor able to guide, it still remains, in the form
of a capacity for receiving spiritual influences,
as the distinguishing faculty of man, whereby
even though fallen he is yet superior to the
brute creation, having a sense of moral account
ability to his righteous Creator. The soul or
intellect and the body no doubt suffered also
by the fall, but the crowning loss after all was
in the spirit. Hence, whatever increase man
may make by his own powers in knowledge,
he can make no advance in spiritual mindedness.

The restoration of man was achieved by
Christ descending from heaven and putting
Himself in the place of those to be ransomed.
He contended with the tempter by whom they
were vanquished, and overcame the " wiles of
the devil." He placed Himself under the law
which they had broken, and kept that law
completely. He endured the penalty which
they had deserved, and, in mortal conflict with
the Evil one, submitted to have His heel stung
and crushed by the jaws of the old serpent, while
He was in the act of bruising that serpent's
head for ever. He " through death destroyed
him that had the power of death, that is, the
devil."

Scripture unquestionably teaches us that
eternal justice required an expiation. But
Father, Son, and Spirit combined in the
eternal counsels as to the mode of atonement.
The highest proof of love which God the
Father could give was that He gave up His
only-begotten Son. "God so loved the world
that He gave His only-begotten Son." Nor is
the modern doctrine that the Father gave His
Son to live, to suffer, and to die, merely as an

FANON

[ 221 ]

FASTING

example of holiness to be followed by man,
beset with one difficulty less than the old,
simple, and comforting doctrine of Holy Writ,
the doctrine taught so clearly by St. Paul,
that Christ died in our stead, as a substitute
for us, and that He bought us with His
precious blood, so that justice and love are
reconciled together, and that God can be " just
and the justifier of him which believeth in
Jesus."

In the Paradise lost by Adam God did not
reveal Himself as a Father, nor had man any
claims on God as being His son.1 In the
Paradise regained by Christ we are gifted with
the blessings of sonship, and in that glorious
relation we need no more a legal mediator.
Yet as while still on earth we stand partly in
the one relation and partly in the other, the
Lord Jesus stands related to us as both our
Mediator and our Elder Brother. In the
realms of bliss we shall yet see the blessed
unity of the two relations, when, as sons
redeemed and regenerated, we shall praise and
bless Him for ever. [C. H. H. W.]

FANON. — A head-dress used by the Pope at
the celebration of Pontifical High Mass. Mar
riott considers the word to be connected with
German Fahne, in the sense of a piece of
cloth (of wool or linen). Hence it is applied
to a banner, or flag, a clerical vestment, or
a corporal. In the inventories of English
churchwardens, the maniple is often called
the "fannel," and the loose sleeves of butchers
are still so termed. Alcuin gives the name to
the "sudarium " or handkerchief used at Mass
to wipe off perspiration. Possibly this is the
oldest and most common signification of the
word.

FASTING. — There is no command to fast in the
New Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount
our Lord, speaking to Jews who were then
accustomed to fast, says : "When thou fastest,
anoint thine head and wash thy face ; that
thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto
thy Father which is in secret ; and thy Father,
which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly '
(Matt. vi. 17, 18). Under the Old Testament
there was but one fast distinctly enjoined
namely, "the fast" on the great day of atone
ment (Lev. xvi. 29-31), which is referred to in
Acts xxvii. 9. Other fasts were, however,
enjoined on special occasions by the direction
of the civil or religious authorities (e.g. Jer,

1 That is, in the highest sense. As a creature
made by God, man is in an inferior sense even
His son. For the name "father" is used ir
the Old Testament as a synonym for maker
creator. So Job xxxviii. 28 ; Jer. ii. 27, and in
Israel's repentant expostulations, as Isaiah Ixiii
16 ; Ixiv. 8, Mai. ii. 10. Compare Luke iii. 38.

xxxvi. 9). After the destruction of the Jewish
State fasts became more numerous (Zech. vii. 5).
But when the Lord was inquired of concerning
those fasts, the answer given by the prophet
Zechariah showed that those fasts were neither
enjoined nor forbidden, and that persons were
at liberty to make use of such days or not,
according as they found fasting beneficial or
otherwise to themselves ; such acts not being
regarded as in themselves meritorious in the
sight of God (Zech. vii. 5/.). The Lord, by
the mouth of Isaiah (ch. Iviii. 5-7), asks, " Is
it such a fast that I have chosen ? a day for a
man to afflict his soul '? is it to bow down his
head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and
ashes under him ? wilt thou call this a fast,
and an acceptable day to the Lord ? Is not
this the fast that I have chosen ? to loose
the bands of wickedness ; to undo the heavy
burdens? . . . Is it not to deal thy bread to the
hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are
cast out to thy house ? When thou seest the
naked, that thou cover him ; and that thou
hide not thyself from thine own flesh ? "

Our Lord's teaching concerning the times
most suitable for fasting is set forth in the
following passage : " Can the children of the
bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bride
groom is with them ? but the days will come,
when the bridegroom shall be taken from
them, and then shall they fast" (Matt. ix. 15),
which passage has been explained by the
Church of England in her Homily of Fasting,
Part II., as follows: "Ye shall note, that so
long as God revealeth His mercy unto us, and
giveth us of His benefits, either spiritual or
corporal, we are said to be with the Bridegroom
at the marriage. . . . But the marriage is said
then to be ended, and the Bridegroom to be
gone, when Almighty God smiteth us with
affliction, and seenieth to leave us in the midst
of a number of adversities. So God sometimes
striketh private men privately with sundry
adversities, as trouble of mind, loss of friends,
loss of goods, long and dangerous sicknesses,
&c. Then it is a fit time for that man to
humble himself to Almighty God by fasting,
and to mourn and bewail his sins with a
sorrowful heart. . . . Again, when God shall
afflict a whole region or country with wars,
with famine, with pestilence . . . and such
other calamities, then is it time for all states
and sorts of people . . . to humble themselves
by fasting, and bewail their sinful living
before God."

The principle here laid down can be exempli
fied from Scripture histories. David fasted
when his child was sick (2 Sam. xii. 16) ;
Esther, with her maidens, fasted ere she went
in to Ahasuerus (Esth. iv. 16) ; Ezra fasted at
the river of Ahava (Ezra viii. 21); Daniel set

FASTING

[ 222 ] FATHEES OF THE CHURCH

himself to seek the Lord by prayer and fasting
(Dan. ix. 3). Christ said of certain demons,
"This kind can come forth by nothing but by
prayer and fasting" (Mark ix. 29), but the
oldest MSS. omit the words "and fasting."
(See R.V. and marginal note on Matt. xvii.
21.) And prior to the solemn ordination of
elders, Paul and Barnabas "prayed with
fasting" (Acts xiv. 23).

Our Lord Himself fasted forty days and forty
nights, but during that time He did not ex
perience the pangs of hunger. The Gospels
which record the Temptation, all call atten
tion to that fact. St. Matthew says, " He
was afterward an hungered " (Matt. iv. 2).
St. Mark does not mention the fasting (Mark
i. 12, 13). St. Luke says of those days,
"And when they were ended, He afterward
hungered." The forty days appear, therefore,
to have been spent in rapt ecstasy and con
templation. The actual temptation occurred
at the close of that period.

Fasting, therefore, appears to be of value
only when employed for the purpose of giving
oneself up to continuous prayer, while abstin
ence from special kinds of food is nowhere
enjoined or recommended in Scripture, al
though Daniel, in his penitential sorrow of
three weeks, abstained from all pleasant food
(Dan. x. 2, 3). St. Paul alludes to the
"commanding to abstain from meats" as a
mark of the apostasy (1 Tim. iv. 3), and a sign
of weak faith in persons who attached impor
tance to such trifling matters. " The kingdom
of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost " (Rom.
xiv. 17, and the whole of that chapter). In
fine, when fasting is employed in order to
be able to spend the time in prayer, it may be
recommended ; but abstinence from food as a
means of punishing the body and laying up
" merit " is to be strongly condemned. An
abstinence from certain food may be useful
for "bodily exercise" or discipline — "bodily
exercise profiteth a little," or "for a little
while " (1 Tim. iv. 8) — such exercise has
occasionally been useful, but is not to be
regarded as really a spiritual work.

The prohibition to eat meat on fast days,
prescribed by the statute 2 & 3 Edward VI.,
c. 19, which may be alluded to in " the Tables
and Rules " attached to the Book of Common
Prayer which mentions " the Fasts, and Days
of Abstinence to be observed in the year," is
further dwelt on in the Homily on Fasting,
Part II., which states that the statute of Edward
VI. referred to, was framed for political reasons.
It was " in consideration of the maintaining
of fisher-towns bordering upon the seas, and
for the increase of fishermen, of whom do
spring mariners to go upon the sea, to the

furnishing of the navy of the realm. . . . Such
laws of princes and other magistrates are not
made to put holiness in one kind of meat and
drink more than another, to make one day more
holy than another, but are grounded merely
upon policy," namely, as afterwards explained,
for the increase and support of the English
navy, and "for the sooner reducing of victuals
to a more moderate price, to the better sus
tenance of the poor." [C. H. H. W.]
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, A.D. 1-
100.— The so-called "Apostolic Fathers"
were : (1) Barnabas, who must not be con
founded with St. Paul's companion in travel,
but probably a Jewish Christian. The exact
date of his Epistle is uncertain. (2) Clement of
Rome wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth,
very shortly after 100. The Epistle is speci
ally important. It speaks only of two orders
of the clergy. There was no idea as yet of
any analogy being drawn between the High
Priest, Priests, and Levites of the Jewish
Church, and the threefold ministry in the
Christian Church, although even Clement
went too far in speaking of the Christian
dispensation in language drawn from Jewish
times. Bishop Lightfoot, however, has con
clusively shown (Clement, vol. ii. p. 135) that
Clement's language is not susceptible of a
sacerdotal interpretation. (3) Ignatius, Bishop
of Antioch, about 100-118. The language of
Ignatius in his Epistles is too fervid and highly
figurative to admit of the deductions which
have been made from it, as if he held doctrines
like those taught in mediaeval days. He speaks
of "faith and love" as Christ's flesh and
blood (Trallians, viii. ) and of the Gospel itself
as "the flesh of Jesus" (Phifyip. v. ). Ignatius
was the first to make use of the term "the
Catholic Church" (Smyrn. viii.). (4) Polycarp,
Bishop of Smyrna, about 160, speaks of Chris
tian widows as "God's Altar " (6vaia.<rT-f)piov
9eoO). (5) The Author of the Epistle to Diognetus
is unknown. The Epistle is early, although its
date is uncertain. (6) Hermas, probably second
century. (7) Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,
contemporary with Ignatius. (8) Aristides of
Athens wrote a remarkable Apology, which has
recently come to light. He says that God
"asks no sacrifice and no libation, nor any of
the things that are visible. " Its date is prior to
A.D. 140. (9) The writer of the Didache lived
probably about A.D. 120. (See APOSTOLIC
FATHERS.) (10) Quadratus of Athens wrote,
probably between A.D. 123-131, an Apology
which is lost. (11) Xystus or Sistus, said to
have been Bishop of Rome, is regarded by some
as a writer of the same period. But the frag
ments of the Sentential ascribed to him were
probably (as Jerome thought) the work of a
heathen writer.

FATHERS OF THE CHUECH [ 223 ] FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

The first menace to Christian doctrine came
from without, in an attempt to combine the most
striking features and tenets of Christianity
with Oriental and other systems of philosophy.
Heresy (if the word can be correctly used)
commenced with Gnosticism. An innate love
of mystery has ever exercised a fascination for
the human mind, and even exhibits itself to
day in a preference for the indefinable rather
than a sober acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. The first attempts to assimilate
Christianity to systems of Natural Religion
and Theosophy were widely different in char
acter from the heretical departures and dis
sensions that afterwards sprang from within.
The latter heresies, from their insidious char
acter, were more dangerous a menace, and
were more difficult to combat.

The most noted Apologists of the Christian
Church, from A.D. 100 to 200, were : Flavins
Justinus (circ. 114-166). Without fixed abode,
office, or ordination, he accomplished more
than any ecclesiastic of his time. Vainly
searching for truth as a scholar in every school
of human lore, Justin's conversion was of
incalculable value. He was martyred at
Rome. He wrote, The Two Apologies, Dialogue
with the Jew Tri/pho, and other works.
Tatian of Assyria (110-172), was converted to
Christianity, like his master Justin, by a study
of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote an
Apology To the Greeks in vindication of Chris
tianity. In it he points out that Moses
and the prophets were older and wiser than
the Greek philosophers, and exposes the
superstitions and immoralities of the Greek
mythology. The most valuable of his writings
is the Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four
Gospels, which commences with the prologue
of St. John's, "In the beginning was the
WORD," &c. It is a powerful witness to the
authenticity of St. John's Gospel. Its exist
ence was long called in question, but it was
first discovered in an Armenian version of
Ephraem's Syriac Commentary on the work,
and was edited in 1876, and afterwards by
Zahn. An Arabic translation of a large por
tion was discovered by Ciasca and published
in 1888. Athenagoras (A.D. 161-189) in an
Apology termed the Embassy, replied to the
charges of cannibalism, incest, and atheism
brought against Christianity. His treatise De
Resurrectione was, for that day, masterly, but
shows a singular forgetfulness of the fact set
forth in 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37, that it is only the
germ of the body laid in the grave which will
be raised again.

Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (168-181),
was author of Three Books to Autolycus, in
which Socrates and Plato are charged with
having stolen their ideas from the Hebrew

prophets. He was the first to use the word
"Triad" of the Holy Trinity. He speaks of
St. John as the author of the fourth Gospel.
In another work, which has been lost, he is
known to have referred to the Apocalypse as
the work of St. John. Melito, Bishop of Sardis
(177), was the author of twenty works, mostly
lost. He omits the Apocrypha in his list of
Old Testament Books. The works of Claudius
Apollinarius (160-180), and of Miltiades (170 ?)
have been lost. Hermias (not to be confounded
with Nermas), wrote (190 ?), Mockery of Heathen
Philosophers, a satire designed to prove St. Paul's
dictum that the wisdom of this world is
foolishness with God. Hegesippus, who died
circ. 180, was a Christian Jew. He wrote
Church History subsequent to "Acts." His
works were extant in the sixteenth century,
and have since been lost. Dionysius, Bishop of
Corinth (170) wrote a large number of pastoral
letters, only fragments of which are extant.

Irenceus (born 115-125, died 192-202), was a
pupil of Polycarp. He points out the unity
and accord subsisting between the Old and
New Testaments. Zealous of the Catholic
character of the Church, he was vehemently
opposed to ecclesiastical despotism, and con
tended that all rule should be by faith and
love. His most important works are : Re
futation of Gnosticism, or knowledge falsely so
called, in five books. The work is generally
known under the shorter title Against Heresies.
Of his other works only fragments are extant.
Irenseus' language with regard to the Lord's
Supper is highly mystical, but there are proofs
enough to show that he only used metaphorical
language. Hippolytus' precise date is uncertain.
He was probably an anti-pope, and opposed
the Roman '; bishops Zephyrinus (202-218),
and Callistus (218-223). His chief work was
The Philosophumena, against the heresies of his
times. It was supposed to be lost, but was
found as late as the nineteenth century. The
Roman Church has canonised him, and given
him a niche among her saints and martyrs.
On the controversy between Hippolytus and
Calixtus, Bishop of Rome, see Dr. Salmon on
the Infallibility of the Church, at the close of
chap. xx. Clement of Alexandria (circ. 150-200)
was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria,
and may be regarded as the Father of the
Alexandrian Christian philosophy. His cita
tions from lost works of poets, philosophers,
and historians give him a high rank among
the early Christian writers. Author of Ex
hortation to the Greeks ; The Pedagogue, or Tutor ;
The Stromata (or Miscellanies), and writer of the
oldest Christian hymn on record.

Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (150-220
-240), was the Father of Latin theology
and a voluminous writer. He was converted

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH [ 224 ] FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

to Christianity after a licentious career, when
between thirty and forty. Being a Puritan in
faith, he associated himself with the Montanist
movement (see MONTANISM), and became the
champion of Puritanism as opposed to the
worldliness of the Roman clergy ; but with all
this antagonism to Rome, he was a most
persistent defender of the Old Catholic ortho
doxy. Tertullian, like Hippolytus, protested
to the last against the spirit of the Romish
hierarchy, and their often worldly, and some
times even licentious, lives. He was author of
The Apologeticus ; On the Testimony of the Soul ;
On the Prescription of Heretics; Against Marcion;
with numerous other works.

Origen, surnamed dSa/ndvTtvos (185-253), was
the most illustrious of all the Ante-Nicene
Fathers. He endured cruel torture in the
Decian persecution, from the effects of which,
although subsequently liberated, he died in
his sixty-ninth year. He was a great exegetical
scholar, and always based his doctrines on
Scripture. He was in the main orthodox, but
his language on many points has exposed him
to the charge of being a precursor of Arianism.
His greatest works were The Hexapla, and the
DC Principiis. He wrote also voluminous Com
mentaries, which are only partly extant.

A.D. 200-800. Gregory, surnamed Thaumatur-
gus, or "the Wonder-worker" (214-270), was
a convert of Origen to Christianity. The story
of Gregory's miracles appears to have been
invented in later times with the object of
introducing certain doctrines. He wrote, A
Eulogy of Origen ; A Paraphrase of the Boole
of Ecdcsiastes. His Declaration of Faith is of
considerable interest. Dionysius of A lexandria,
surnamed the Great (190-265), was a pupil
of Origen, and with his master opposed Chili-
astic views. He denied St. John to have been
the author of the Apocalypse. Only fragments
of his writings remain. Julius Africanus (circ.
170-240), was a philosopher and not an eccle
siastic. He was the first Christian chrono-
grapher, and maintained the consistency of
the two genealogies in St. Matthew and St.
Luke from an account handed down from his
ancestors ; his opinion being that St. Matthew
gives the natural, and St. Luke the legal descent
of our Lord.

fferaclas, Bishop of Alexandria (233-248),
and Plutarch (230-250?), his brother were
pupils of Origen. Theognostus who succeeded
Dionysius the Great, and wrote books known
to us only by a few fragments. Pierius
(300) was called "the younger Origen."
Pamphilus (309 ?) was a martyr. He founded
a school of theology and large library. Caius
of Rome (circ. 200-225) was a Roman presbyter
of great learning. Only fragments of his
works are now extant. Marcus Minutius Felix

(200-250 ?), is often termed "The Christian
Cicero," and wrote a remarkable work Octavius.
The vivid descriptions in it of the torments
of the lost have given it an unenviable noto
riety. Thascius Ccccilius Cyprianus (200-258),
Bishop of Carthage, was the most eminent
bishop of the third century. He was converted
to Christianity by the presbyter Csecilius in
245. He was an ascetic, and in some aspects
may be considered as the founder of the
sacerdotal school. He was an upholder of
the divine authority of bishops, and con
fronted boldly the Bishop of Rome in his
day. His martyrdom occurred September 14,
258. He was a voluminous writer.

Novatian — precise time unknown — was the
second Roman anti-pope, as Hippolytus may
be viewed as the first. Like Minutius Felix,
Commodiati, (220-250 ?) was converted to
Christianity by the study of Old Testament
Scriptures. He wrote bad Latin prose and com
posed still worse verses, which are interesting
from the strange views propounded about a
double Antichrist. Arnobius was a convert
from heathenism. When he lived is not quite
clear, but it was probably in the third century.
His only extant work is An Apology of Chris
tianity, in seven books. Victorinus of Petau
(303), Bishop of Patavium, wrote Commen
taries (in Greek) on various Old Testament
books and on the Apocalypse.

Eusebius, Bishop of Cassarea, surnamed Pam
philus (265-340), styled "The Father of Ecclesi
astical History," wrote the history of the
Christian Church for the first three centuries
down to the Council of Nicsea. His theological
position, as established in Dorner's " Person of
Christ," was that of one who held vague
ideas on the important doctrines then dis
cussed. Although as a friend he defended
Arius, he was not himself an Arian. His sub
stantial orthodoxy has been established, not
only by the work of Dorner, but also by the
translation of the Theophania by Dr. S. Lee
of Cambridge (1843), from a Syriac MS. He
was a voluminous writer, his most important
works being the Ecclesiastical History, in ten
books; Chronicle; Life of Constant ine ; Martyrs
of Palestine ; The Onomasticon ; Prcparatio Evan-
gelica, &c. Lactantius, who died in the early
decades of the fourth century, was a pupil of
Arnobius and tutor to the eldest son of Con-
stantine the Great. His most important work
was his Institutes, in seven books.

The third century witnessed many depar
tures from the faith, such as the Valentinian,
Marcionite, and other Gnostic heresies. The
most formidable heretic of that era was Manes,
or Manichaeus, a Persian, who amalgamated
the principles of the Persian philosophy with
Christianity. (See HERESIES.) He was exe-

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH [ 225 ] FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

cuted by order of the Persian monarch
Varanes I. The Novatians also produced a
schism in the Church at this time by the
severity of their discipline, refusing to "ad
minister to," or acknowledge any person who
fell into notorious sin after baptism, even
though duly repented of, although they allowed
the lapsed to have some chance of future
restoration hereafter. Marcion's heresy was
in the main a revival of Docetism. See
DOCETISM.

Athanasius took part as a young theologian
in the Council of Nicsea (325), and later
became Archbishop of Alexandria, and was
Metropolitan of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
He was deposed half-a-dozen times from his
office, and as often reinstated. Though a
mark for bitter persecution, he was not himself
a persecutor. He was an ascetic, a remark
able orator, and during all his life an inflexible
champion of orthodox truth against Arianism.
His works may be divided into (1) the Apolo-
getical, in defence of Christianity; (2) his
dogmatic and controversial writings ; (3) works
in self-defence ; and (4) his exegetical and
practical works. See ATHANASIAN CREED.

Basil the Great (329-379), Bishop of Csesarea
and Metropolitan of all Cappadocia, also
contended against the Arian doctrines which
were patronised by the Emperor Valens. He
was a distinguished writer. Gregory of Nyssa
(between 333-395), Bishop of Nyssa. As
a writer he did lasting service in his accu
rate distinction between Essence and Hypos-
tasis. He wrote, Against Eanomius ; Against
Apollinaris ; On the Deity of the Son and
Holy Ghost; many Homilies and Commen
taries, &c. Gregory Nazianzen (330-390) was
for a time preceptor of Jerome, and, with the
exception of Chrysostom, the greatest orator
of the Greek Church. He wrote among other
books, A Defence of the Nicene Doctrine, many
Orations, and 243 Epistles.

Didymus of Alexandria (309-395), surnamed
Csecus, became blind in his fourth year.
He was a strong opponent of the Arians.
He wrote On the Holy Ghost, and On the
Trinity, as well as numerous Commentaries
and Treatises. Cyril of Jerusalem (between
320-386) was Bishop of Jerusalem. He is said to
have predicted the miscarriage of the apostate
Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple.
He was a distinguished writer, and taught
a doctrine somewhat akin to Transubstantia-
tion. Epiphanius (between 320-403), probably
of Jewish parentage, was a strong advocate
of Monasticism. He, however, shared the
primitive Christian abhorrence of pictures and
images. He also opposed vigorously the rising
Mariulatry. His writings are of value, though
the style is poor. They (especially "The

Panarium," or Medicine Chest— antidotes for
the poison of all heresies) contain much in
formation about the early heretics.

John Chrysostom (347-407), Patriarch of Con
stantinople, was a convert to Christianity, and
the greatest expositor and preacher of the
Greek Church. While strictly orthodox, he
laid a greater stress on practical piety than on
purity of doctrine. He was chiefly renowned
for his pulpit oratory and pastoral care. Cyril
of Alexandria, who died in 444 as Patriarch of
Alexandria, was a fanatic whose character was
deeply stained with bribery and cruelty. He
was, however, canonised as a saint by the
Roman Church, and was a man of extensive
learning. He upheld Mariolatry, although
he did not maintain the sinlessness of the
Virgin. His Christological writings against
Nestorius and Theodoret are of considerable
importance. He was a vigorous defender of
Christianity against Julian, and wrote among
other books many Commentaries.

Ephraem the Syrian, who was at the Council
of Nice (325), and died in 379, was the divine
of the ancient Syrian Church. Expelled from
home by his father, who was a priest of the
god Abnil, he early became famous for learning
He lived as a hermit in a cave at Edessa. His
writings evince excessive admiration of the
Virgin Mary, the saints, and relics. He was a
prolific authorof Commentaries, Homilies, and a
great hymn writer. Hilary of Poictiers (Bishop
350 ; died 368) was the Athanasius of the West.
He was a great Biblical scholar, and a staunch
defender of the orthodox faith against Arian
ism. To him the Incarnation of God was the
source and centre of Christian truth and life.
He wrote a work in twelve books, On the
Trinity ; On Synods ; a Tract against the Arian
bishop Auxentius of Milan ; Commentaries,
hymns, &c. Ambrose (circ. 340-397), Bishop of
Milan, is said to have been guided to the
episcopal chair by a prophecy of Probus, Pre
fect of Italy. That summons was afterwards
confirmed at a stormy gathering assembled to
elect a successor to the Arian bishop Auxentius,
when the shrill voice of a child suddenly ex
claimed, "Let Ambrose be bishop," to which
both Arians and Catholics replied, "Amen."
He wrote an exposition on the Psalms ; Com
mentary on St Luke's Gospel ; Commentary
on Pauline Epistles (?) ; On Faith ; On the
Holy Ghost ; On the Sacraments ; On Duties ;
On Virgins; other works on "Virginity";
ninety-one Epistles, &c. Jerome (340-419)
was the most erudite of the Latin Fathers.
Possessed of a remarkable memory and keen
discrimination, he combined qualities calcul
ated to render him a consummate master in
the art of rhetoric. With Jerome, however,
the Bible was held in greater esteem than the

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH [ 226 ] FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

classics. Jerome, with all his great qualities,
was vain and ambitious, and fanatically dis
posed to monkish extravagance. His great
work was the translation of the Holy Scriptures
from the original languages. His commentaries
are of great value. He wrote also on many
other subjects.

Augustine (Aurelius Augustinus, 354-430),
Bishop of Hippo, born at Tagaste (Tajelt) in
Numidia, November 13, 354. He was con
verted at the age of thirty-three, and was bap
tized by Ambrose on Easter Day. No Father has
ever exercised such a spell over the Christian
Church. He was more profound than Ambrose,
and more original, though far less learned,
than Jerome. He grappled with the Mani-
cha3an, the Donatist, and the Pelagian heresies
in turn, and his labours have left their mark on
the Church for all time. He was evangelical,
or Pauline, in his conceptions of sin and grace,
but his writings have no few traces of the mud
and mire into which he fell when a Manichaean.
His great work on The City of God was
written when the Roman Empire and Rome,
its capital, were tottering to their fall. He
was a voluminous writer. The Confessions,
which contains his autobiography, is still
popular, and his commentaries and other works
are among the most read of the Patristic
writings.

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (circ. 300-311),
noted for his views in favour of moderate
treatment of the lapsed, was beheaded by
order of Maximinus, in the Diocletian perse
cution. He was the author of fifteen Canons
on Discipline, and some Homiletic fragments.
Hieracas (Hierax, 300-320 ?) lived during
the Diocletian persecution, and was dis
tinguished for his varied and extensive learn
ing. He, however, denied the resurrection
of the body, and viewed celibacy as the
only road to the highest degree of blessed
ness. He held other extravagant opinions.
Methodius (or Eubulus), Bishop of Olympus,
and then of Patara, was also a rigorous celi
bate. He was martyred in the Diocletian
persecution. He wrote, The Symposium, or
Banquet of Ten Virgins; On the Resurrec
tion; On Things Created, and other works.
Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch (311), also
an ascetic, is the reputed founder of the
Antiochian school of theology. He died as a
martyr. Author of a Creed, and of a Critical
Revision of the text of the Septuagint and
New Testament. Theodoret (390-457), Bishop
of Cyprus, the most scholarly advocate of a
moderate Nestorianism. Author of an Ecclesi
astical History in five books, from A.D. 325
to 429 ; Historia Religiosa ; Heretical Fables ;
Commentaries on Old and New Testa
ments, &c.

A.D. 400-500. Maynus Aurelius Cassiodo-
dorus (circ. 477-580), senator, consul, and
Praetorian prefect. After 550, Cassiodorus the
statesman became Cassiodorus the monk. He
was an erudite and prolific writer, and his
services to classical literature cannot be over
estimated. He also did useful service by
instituting monastic libraries, and employing
monks for copying old MSS. He was the
author of numerous books.

A.D. 500-600. Theodorus Lector (500 ?),
author of Historia Tripartita, being a com
pendium of Church History from 431 to 594.
This work is an important authority on the
Nestorian and Eutychian controversies. Cas
siodorus (562), consul and monk. Author of
Historia Tripartita, a useful abstract of the
works of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, in
twelve books. Georgius Florentius (or Gregor-
ius), St. Gregory of Tours (538-594), Bishop
of Tours, wrote Ecclesiastical History of the
Franks, in ten books, which is the only full
and reliable source of the history of France
during the fifth and sixth centuries ; The
Miracle of St. Martin, &c. St. Isidore of
Seville (560-638), saint and doctor of the Latin
Church, was the greatest scholar of his day,
and the recognised leader and mouthpiece of
the Spanish Church. He was admired alike
for his eloquence and for his private virtues.
He wrote, Scripture Allegories; Lives and
Deaths of Biblical Saints ; Introduction to
the Old and New Testaments; Sentences
(his most important dogmatic work) ; Syno
nyms ; The Order of Creation ; The Eccle
siastical Offices ; A Monastic Rule ; Etymologies,
(his greatest achievement — an Encyclopedia
of the seven liberal arts); The Differences;
On the Nature of Things (a Natural Phil
osophy), «&c. St. Maxius (Confessor) (circ. 580-
662), was an able and voluminous writer.
Forty-eight of his treatises are printed, while
some remain in MS. form only, and others
are lost. In his theology, Christ is perfect
God and perfect Man, and he speaks of the
Virgin as the Mother of God.

A.D. 600-700. " The Venerable Bede " (Baeda)
(673-735), known to his contemporaries as
" Presbyter," or "Dominus." "Venerable" is
a term found in his writings which was sub
sequently applied to himself. Posterity is
indebted for the learning of Bede to his patron,
a nobleman-monk, named Benedict Biscop,
who took interest in Bede's studies, and col
lected a valuable library for his use. He
wrote on a great variety of subjects, but
his works on ecclesiastical history are of
the greatest value, such as, Lives of the Jive
Holy Abbots of Wearmouth ; Life of St. Cuthbert
of Lindisfarne ; Life of Felix of Nola, Con -
fessor ; Martyrology. The Ecclesiastical History

FEASTS

[ 227

FIRE, KINDLING OF

of the English (gentis Anglorum), was his greatest
work. John of Damascus (circ. 676-754), sur-
named " Chrysorrhous " ( = streaming with
gold) from his eloquence; "Father of Scholasti
cism," saint and learned doctor of the Eastern
Church, and last of the Greek Fathers, of
whom he has given an important summary.
He was an advocate for the veneration of
images. He also wrote many books.

[F. W. A.]

FEASTS. — Days of holy and joyful commemo
ration of persons, doctrines, or events con
nected with the history of the Christian
religion. Some are "movable," e.g. Easter
Day (en which all the other movable feasts
depend). This is always the first Sunday
after the full moon which happens upon or
next after the twenty - first day of March.
Other feasts are immovable, or fixed, e.g.
the Epiphany, which always falls on Janu
ary 6th. All Sundays in the year are feasts.
Hence the Sundays are not reckoned in the
forty days during which Lent extends. A Table
of the Feasts recommended to be observed
in the Church of England is given in the
Prayer Book. The Eitualists, imitating Roman
distinctions, divide all days into feasts, fasts,
or ferice, i.e. days which are neither of the
former ; and also divide all feast days into
"classes" of various importance, and into
"double" or "simple" feasts. But there is a
distinction made in the Prayer Book between
"principal feast-days" (Canon 24), i.e. those
for which "Proper Prefaces" have been pro
vided in the Communion Service, and ordinary
saints' days, for which no such prefaces have
been provided. The only direction in the
Prayer Book regarding the reading of Scripture
is as follows : " If any of the Holy Days for
which Proper Lessons are appointed in the
Table, fall upon a Sunday, which is the first
Sunday in Advent, Easter Day, Whitsunday,
or Trinity Sunday, the Lessons appointed for
such Sunday shall be read, but if it fall upon
any other Sunday, the Lessons appointed
either for the Sunday or for the Holy Day may
be read at the discretion of the minister."

FEBRONIANISM.— This is a name given by
Romanists to opinions as to the relation of
the Church to the State, which they regard
as an extreme form of Gallicanism.

John Nicholas von Hontheim (1701-1790),
who assumed the literary name of Febronius,
was, in 1748, suffragan bishop of Treves.
In 1763 he published a book on the status
of the Church and the lawful authority of
the Pope, in which he held that the power
of the keys was conferred on all the faithful,
though its actual administration belonged to
the bishops. The Pope had the Primacy from
Christ, but this was not necessarily attached

to the Roman Church, and he is only supe
rior as a Metropolitan is superior to the
other bishops of his province. While greater
than any individual bishop, the bishops as
a body are greater than he, he can do nothing
against the canons of the Church, his duty
being only to guard their observance. He
exercises his primacy in the Church, not
over it, and is not a supreme, much less an
infallible judge. An appeal might always be
made from him to a General Council. The
book was condemned by Clement XIII. in
1764, the prohibition being resisted in some
German dioceses. Pius VI. induced him to
retract in 1778, but in 1781 he published
another work which clearly evidenced that
his retractation must have been very partial.
In 1786, the archbishops of Cologne, Treves,
and Mayence sought to carry out his prin
ciples and make themselves independent of
Rome, but the inferior bishops, dreading their
autocratic rule, took sides with the Pope, so
that the threatened schism soon came to an
end. Febronius, who had taken no active
part in this later contest, died in peace with
Rome in 1790. (See Catholic Dictionary, also
Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i. pp.
251-252.) [C. J. C.]

FEES. — Money paid for services. Speaking
generally, the rites of a Christian Church
cannot be withheld because a fee is not
paid. Action may be taken subsequently for
the recovery of fees. Surplice fees are
customary in the Church of England, and
are payable on marriages and burials, but
not now on baptisms. Fees customarily pay
able to a sexton and deputy clerk, may be
assigned to the incumbent when those offices
are unnecessary and in abeyance. Tables of
fees are given in Whitehead's Church Law,
pp. 137-140.

FERMENTUM properly means leaven. It
was used to designate a portion of the conse
crated bread or wafer which was reserved on
certain occasions of the celebration of mass,
and put into the chalice as a token of the
union between congregations separated from
one another. The fermentum was sent by the
bishop from the mother church (sometimes
called the "baptismal church" to the district
church in Rome. Thus, "all ate of the one
loaf." The fermentum is spoken of in the
earliest Ordo Romanus, which may be as old as
the time of Gregory the Great. The practice
is long since obselete, though curious survivals
of it in much later times are mentioned by
Scudamore in his article in Smith <k Cheetham's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.

FESTIVALS.— See FEASTS.

FIRE, KINDLING OF.— On Easter Eve fire
which had been produced from flint on Maundy

FISH AND FISHERMAN

[ 228 ]

FORUM

Thursday was wont to be solemnly blessed.
The custom is alluded to by Pope Leo (A.D.
855) as then an established custom.

FISH and FISHERMAN. — The Greek
word for fish (fyflus) was used at a very early
date as a Christian anagram ; the several
letters forming the initial letters of the
Greek word in the phrase, " Jesus Christ God's
Son (our) Saviour." Hence the device of the
fish is so often found on Christian inscrip
tions ; and inasmuch as the fish was so inter
preted, the spiritual feeding on Christ was
represented as feeding on the fish. From the
use of the fish, too, in Christ's parable of the
draw-net (Matt. xiii. 47-49 ; Luke v. 4-10), and
from His calling His disciples to be " fishers of
men" (Matt. iv. 19), the symbol of the fisher
man was also employed to designate Christ
Himself and His disciples. The connection
of the symbols of the fish and the dove has
been ably handled by Ferd. Becker in his
Darstellung Jesu Christi unter dem Bilde des
Pitches (Breslau, 1866), and by many other
writers.

FISTULA. — A pipe through which communi
cants received the sacramental wine from the
chalice, to avoid the hair about the mouth
being dipped in the chalice. This method is
mentioned in the most ancient Roman Ordines,
the oldest of which is attributed to Gregory
the Great ( 589-604 ).J The fistula was made
usually of gold or of silver. Fine silver gilt
fistulas are enumerated among the sacramental
vessels of the Church of Mayence. Pope
Victor III. (1086-1088) bequeathed two to the
monastery of Monte Cassino.

The practice fell, of course, into disuse
owing to the practice of communicating in the
bread only, but traces still survive. Thus, at
Papal masses, a cardinal brings the sacra
mental wine to the Pope, who receives it
through a fistula. It was not used in the
Eastern Church, a spoon being substituted.
The originating cause of the usage was to
prevent a drop of the sacramental wine from
being accidentally spilt, or adhering to the
hair. (See Catholic Dictionary, and Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities.) [C. J. C.]

FLABELLUM. — A fan used to drive away
flies from the bread and wine used in the
Lord's Supper. In Greek it is termed purloiov.
These fans were especially necessary in the
East, and were also used in the Western
Church. They were ornamented in var?'-

1 The received date of this Ordo Romanus is
A.D. 730. Gregory II. died in 731, and was suc
ceeded by Gregory III. (Robertson, Ch. Hist.,
vol. iii. p. x.). For date of Ordo see Diet, of
Christ. Ant., p. 1521, and Scudamore, Not.
Euch., 2nd edit., p. 597.

ous ways, and made of different kinds of
materials.

FLAGELLANTS. — Religious fanatics in the
Middle Ages, so called from the flagella which
they carried in processions, and with which
they lashed their bare arms and shoulders.
They first appeared at Perugia in the thirteenth
century, when vice and corruption of every
kind abounded. So men, women, and children
collected, with wild faces and uncovered
shoulders, and sought by prayers, tears,
groans, and mutually inflicted scourgings, to
appease the divine wrath. Clement VI. re
pressed the sect ; but it was revived again
about the time of the Council of Constance,
which condemned it. After thirty days of
such penances, these misguided people
imagined that their guilt was expiated, and
were so well satisfied that they did not even
care for the sacraments. [W. B.]

FLOWERS. — The Communion Table "is in
some churches decked with flowers in token of
spiritual joy, under the plea that Christ is
described as the Rose of Sharon and the Lily
of the Valley " (Cant.). Such a use of flowers
is unauthorised by the Prayer Book. The deck
ing of "altars" with flowers is of heathen
origin. In an advanced publication, Services
for Holy Week, the service for Palm Sunday
(p. 53) commences with a " sprinkling of holy
water," after which the priest exorcises the
" flowers and leaves " used in the service.

FONT, THE.— The basin, usually of stone,
which contains the water used in the sacra
ment of baptism. The font stands sometimes
in a baptistery, at other times at the west end
of the church.

FOOT WASHING, or PEDILAVIUM.—
This is a mediaeval practice still observed in
the Church of Rome, and founded on a literal
superstitious view of our Lord's words spoken
a'fter His washing of the disciples' feet (John
xiii. 14, 15). It takes place on Maundy Thurs
day in Holy Week, supposed to be derived
from the Latin mandatum, or command. But
see MAUNDAY. The first antiphon sung
during the ceremony begins with mandalum
novuw. The principal priest or bishop of the
Church, assisted by a deacon or sub-deacon,
washes the feet of twelve poor men. The
Pope washes the feet of thirteen poor men, all
of whom are priests, and some Romish Churches
follow the Papal custom. The observance
was enjoined under penalties by the Council
of Toledo in A.D. G94.

FORUM. — Originally a market-place ; later, a
tribunal. The Church of Rome divides the
tribunals of the Church into the internal and
the external tribunal. By the internal tribunal
is meant forum conscienticc, the court of con
science, "established," as Rome teaches, "in

FRACTION

[ 229 ]

FRANCISCANS

the Sacrament of Penance." The external
tribunal includes every exercise of ecclesias
tical jurisdiction external to the other tribunal.
It is in fact the exercise of an external, coercive
jurisdiction supposed to be inherent in the
constitution of the Church. The Roman
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, previous to the
Reformation, overspread Europe like a net
work. Rome accuses Anglicans of Erastianism
for submitting to the jurisdiction of the
temporal power, and considers such a position
as involving the holding of "a degrading
view of the Church which God Incarnate
founded upon earth." As the XXXVIIth
Article says, "We give ... to our Princes
. . . that only prerogative, which we see to
have been given always to all godly Princes
in Holy Scriptures by God Himself ; that is,
that they should rule all states and degrees
committed to their charge by God, whether
they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and re
strain with the civil sword the stubborn and
evil-doers." It is manifest, however, that the
question of the forum externum involves the
whole of the vexata qucestio of the relations of
Church and State on "one of the most involved
and difficult questions," as Bishop Harold
Browne writes on Article XXXV1L, "that
have agitated Christian men : the question,
namely, of the due proportions and proper
relations between the civil and ecclesiastical
powers in a Christian Commonwealth. The
whole course of Church History, from the
time of Constantine to the present, seems to
have been striving to unravel the difficulty
and solve the problem. Perhaps it never will
be solved, until the coming of the Son of Man,
when there shall be no king but Christ, and all
nations, peoples, and languages shall bow down
before Him." [M. E. W. J.]

FRACTION. — The rite of breaking the bread
in the Lord's Supper. Some curious instances
of the meaning attached to the various pieces
of the bread, are given in Wright's Service of
the Mass in the Greek and Roman Churches, pp.
30, 31.

FRANCISCANS.— Francis, the founder of the
Franciscans or Minorites, was born in 1182 in
Assisi. His father was a rich trader, and his
mother a woman of noted piety. After the
ordinary school education given to the sons of
rich men, Francis entered his father's business,
and his wealth enabled him to associate with
the young nobles of the district. He knew
French, and was strongly influenced by the
Troubadours, whose songs he learned to sing.
In a fight in Assisi he took the popular side,
and after a battle between Perugia and Assisi
he was a captive for a year. Returning to
Assisi, he prepared to take arms for the Pope
against the Emperor, but a severe illness

changed his plans. He began to show special
kindness to the poor, and when his friends
tried to win him back to pleasure, and then
taunted him as one in love, he gave the well-
known answer : " I am thinking of taking a
wife more beautiful, rich, and pure than you
could ever imagine." This was the "Lady
Poverty " whom Dante has wedded to the
name of Francis, and who appears in one of
Giotto's frescoes.

A crisis was reached when one day Francis
was praying in the Church of St. Damian.
The Christ of the Cross seemed to accept his
service. Difficulties arose with his father,
whose house he left, returning to him his
clothes, and going forth in old garments
obtained through charity. He found refuge in
the Church of St. Damian, which he repaired,
extending his labour to other churches, one of
which, Santa Maria of the Portiuncula, better
known as Santa Maria degli Angeli, became
the cradle of Franciscanism. One day, in 1209,
he heard a priest reading from the Gospel the
injunction to the disciples to go and preach,
but to provide neither gold nor silver. He
interpreted the words as a commission to him
to preach and to be poor. He adopted as a
dress the brown woollen gown, tied with a
rope, which the poor men of the district wore.
Converts were made, who adopted the life of
poverty and engaged in preaching. Penitents
of Assisi, and later, Minores, they called them
selves. Francis wished to found no Order,
but he and his companions must have a bond
of association. The Papal sanction was ob
tained, and the tonsure was given to bind them
to the Church.

The chapel of Santa Maria degli Angeli was
obtained, and around it they built rude huts
which formed their first convent. In their
poverty the friars were to beg, but they were
first to labour for their daily bread. They were
to be poor that they might follow Christ, be
separated from the temptations of the world,
and be one with the humblest. The brother
hood increased rapidly, as rich and poor,
scholars and peasants were added, and their
mission extended throughout the West and
reached even to Syria. In 1219 Francis him
self proceeded to Damietta to preach to the
Mohammedans, but his zeal was not rewarded
with success.

During his absence some of the friars in
Italy were changing the habits of the Brother
hood, so as to make them more formal.
Francis, on his return, was forced to nego
tiate with the Pope for the recognition of a
Rule, which constituted the Brothers into an
Order. The Papal Bull of recognition was
published in 1220, and the Rule itself, as finally
formulated, required the appointment of a

FRANCISCANS

[ 230 ]

FRANCISCANS

minister-general, and ordained that the friars
should give themselves to poverty and work,
and in their conduct generally should imitate
Christ. It could not have been at the desire of
Francis that begging was made the mark and
privilege of the Order. The Rule was really
as much the production of Honorius III. as
of Francis. The Pope was anxious to have a
minister-general who should be his servant,
and to reduce the Order to obedience to a
formal Rule rather than to the visions and
ideals of Francis. To the year 1224 has been
assigned the incident of the stigmata. The
mountain-peak of Verna was the scene of a
vision in which Francis beheld a seraph, which
represented the image of a man crucified.
He had prayed to have the pain which Christ
bore in His passion, and when the vision faded
there was in his flesh a copy of the wounds of
Christ. The Minorites accepted the genuine
ness of the stigmata, counting them signs of
divine favour to Francis and the Order. In
the last years of his life Francis suffered from
an affection of the eyes which threatened
blindness. Yet with failing strength he con
tinued his labours. Before the end he was
borne to the Portiuncula, where he died on the
bare earth. The death took place on the eve
of October 3, 1226, and in 1228 he was canon
ised. A magnificent basilica was eventually
erected to the memory of the saint, and Giotto
adorned it with frescoes.

In 1212 Francis had admitted to the life of
poverty Clara, daughter of a noble of the
district. She and certain maidens found a
convent in the chapel of St. Damian, where
they lived in the spirit of the Rule which
guided the Brothers. They were styled the
Poor Ladies, and afterwards formed the Second
Order of St. Francis. In 1221 the Tertiaries,
or Third Order, were founded. They were
men and women who, unable to join the
Brotherhood or Sisterhood, desired to imitate
Christ, as Francis taught, in the conduct of
life.

To Francis, who had a tender feeling for
birds and beasts, and spoke to them as brothers
or sisters, has been attributed the Canticle of
the Sun, in which sun and moon, wind and
water, are addressed in the same fashion.
Piety and lyric feeling mark the Canticle.
Francis' love of song affected his companions,
and thus he influenced the rise of the verna
cular verse of Italy. Writers before Dante,
like Giacopone di Todi, were inspired by
him ; and others, such as the writers of the
Dies Irce and the Stabat Mater Dolorosa, were
members of his Order.

Many of the Franciscans were unlettered
men, yet their sincerity and simplicity fitted
them for work among the poor. Their preach

ing created a revival, and people were reached
beyond the sphere of the Church's influence.
In 1224 a band of Franciscans arrived at
Dover, and in a short time there were Francis
can houses in Canterbury, London, and Oxford.
In 1229 the first Franciscan convent was estab
lished in Rome. The Minorites claim that in
1381 there were in the different countries
fifteen hundred convents, though by another
version there were in 1264 eight thousand
cloisters with two hundred thousand friars.
Among the distinguished men were counted
five Popes and fifty cardinals. The first of
these Popes was Nicholas IV. In the move
ment of Scholasticism the Minorites took a
prominent place, Alexander of Hales, a Glou
cestershire man, was the first of the Mendicants
to press philosophy into the service of theology.
Francis had not desired his friars to engage in
theology lest they should be turned from piety,
and Alexander was the first to bear the title
of doctor. Known as Doctor Irrefragabilis,
he sustained his reputation by his Summa
Universes Theoloyice. John Fidanza, or Bona-
ventura, elected general of the Franciscan
Order in 1256, was a Platonist in philosophy.
Setting forth the doctrine of illumination, he
attempted to give a metaphysic of mysticism.
Among the Scholastics who were members of
the Franciscan Order were John Duns Scotus,
William of Occam, and Roger Bacon.

Early in the history of the Order many of the
friars departed from the ideals of Francis. The
connection of Franciscans with the Inquisition
was a violation of the love and pity which led
to the foundation of the Brotherhood. Rivalry
probably induced them to engage in the Inquisi
tion, in which the Dominicans were taking a
part. Portions of France and Italy, and also
Bohemia and Dalmatia, were entrusted to them.
But their connection with the Inquisition, the
machine for crushing heresy, did not endure,
and throughout the period of their influence the
ordinary friars were not concerned with theo
logy, and the thinkers among them, in their
freedom of speculation, were not accounted the
guardians of orthodoxy.

In other ways the actions of many of the Fran
ciscans were opposed to the intents of Francis.
Wealth corrupted them, though they were
Mendicants. Four years after the death of the
saint some of the friars consulted the Pope re
garding the right of the Order to hold property,
and Gregory IX. replied by a bull that Francis
had had no authority to bind his successors to
poverty, and that agents could hold and spend
money on behalf of the friars. The same Pope
granted indulgences to visitors to the church
erected to the memory of Francis by Elias of
Cortona, and succeeding Popes enriched the
Brothers by associating indulgences with

FRANCISCANS

[ 231 ]

GALILEO

shrines of the saints of the Order. The re
laxation of the vow of poverty created dispeace,
and within the Brotherhood there were two
parties, the Spirituals, who kept the Rule strictly,
and the Conventuals, so styled because they
lived in convents, who desired the Rule to be
relaxed, as experience dictated. Crescentius,
minister-general from 1244 to 1248, erected
splendid monasteries. John of Parma, who
succeeded him, returned to the simplicity of
the Rule. The question of poverty disturbed
the Franciscans down to the century of the
Reformation. Writers, such as Alexander of
Hales, Thomas Aquinas, and William of Occam,
were involved in the controversy. Pope
Alexander IV. renewed the interpretation of
the Rule made by Innocent IV., and allowed
the Roman See to hold, and agents to ad
minister, property for the Order. Gregory X.
sought to force the Conventuals to return
to simplicity. Nicholas III. confirmed the
arrangement of Innocent IV., though he
declared that Christ and the Apostles had no
property. In the reign of Clement V. the
Spirituals asked to be disjoined from the
Conventuals. Before the negotiations were
concluded some of the Italian Spirituals se
ceded, and the Pope used the Inquisition to
punish them. His successor, John XXII.,
gave superiors the right to determine the vest
ments of the friars, and the amount of grain,
wine, and oil to be stored in a convent.
The extreme Spirituals denied the Pope's
right to legislate on such matters, but the
Pope declared that those who rejected his
bull would be punished as heretics. Thus a
new heresy was created. In 1322 the Fran
ciscans decided, in reference to a case
brought before a Dominican inquisitor, that
Christ held no property, and quoted the de
claration of Nicholas III. John XXII., on an
appeal, asserted that this doctrine was contrary
to Scripture. The Franciscan Order was now
in open revolt, when the minister-general,
Michael of Cesena, joined the political oppo
nents of the Pope. A battle of books was waged.
In the Protest of Sachsenhausen, inspired by the
Franciscans, Lewis of Bavaria examined the
Pope's treatment of the Order, and charged him
with heresy. The chief combatants in the battle
were Michael of Cesena, William of Occam, and
Marsiglio of Padua. These men separated the
spiritual from the political power, and rejected
the idea of a Papal headship of the Church.
Thus were seen beginnings of the Reformation.
In due time, however, the Conventuals returned
to obedience, while the extreme Spirituals, as the
Fraticelli in Italy, were dealt with as heretics.
Ultimately the Brethren of the Hermitages,
strict observants of the Rule, obtained confir
mation, and at the Council of Constance the

separation of the Observantines was recognised.
The Conventuals objected, and continued their
opposition till Leo X. gave the Observantines
the right to select a minister-general. The
Observantines marked a revival of the Fran
ciscans, and to them are to be added the
Capuchins, Cordeliers, and Alcantarines. In
spite of this revival, many of the Franciscans
illustrated the immorality and ignorance, so
prevalent in the Church, which necessitated the
Reformation.

Literature. — Lives of Francis in Acta Sancto
rum. Speculum Perfections, edited by Paul Saba-
tier, in Collection de Documents pour I'Histoire
Rdigieuse et Litte'raire du Moyen Age, torn. i.
Speculum Vitcc S. Francisci et Sociorum Ejus.
Fioretti di S. Francesco. Sabatier, Vie de S.
Francois d'Assise. Mrs. Oliphant, Francis of
Assist. Miiller, Die Anfawje des Minoritcnordens.
Thode, Francis von Asiisi. Wadding, Annales
Minorum. Brewer, Monumenta Franciscana.
Herkless, Francis and Dominic (The World's
Epoch-Makers). [J- H.]

FRONTAL.— The decorative cloth or em
broidery which is suspended in front of the
Lord's Table, in order to make it look like an
altar. The colour of the frontal varies with the
seasons according to the Missal of the Church
of Rome. The colours used are generally
white, red, violet, green, and black, but
according to the old English use, blue, brown,
grey, and yellow were also employed. See
COLOURS.

FUNERAL CELEBRATIONS.— The object
of the celebrations of the Holy Communion at
funerals by the Ritualists. At the eighteenth
anniversary of the C.B.S. 1880, in a paper
read by Hon. C. Wood (now Lord Halifax), we
read: "Are we troubled about those who in
the shadow of death are awaiting the judg
ment ? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches
down to the prisoners of hope, and the dead
as they are made to possess their old sins in
the darkness of the grave, thank us as we
offer for them the Sacrifice which restores to light
and immortality." See PRAYERS FOR DEAD,
PURGATORY.

6

GALILEO.— Galileo had already a high place
in the scientific world, when, in 1609, he was
the first to turn a telescope on the heavens.
All Europe soon rang with the news of the
surprising announcements he was able to
make, which entitled him to rank as the
greatest philosopher of his age. The new
facts thus brought to light speedily removed
all doubts in Galileo's own mind as to the
truth of the theory which Copernicus had put
forward concerning the motion of the earth.

GALILEO

[ 232 ]

GALILEO

Galileo was a firm believer in the truth o
Scripture, and as soon as he came to believ,
that the Copernican theory was true, he could
not help also believing that it was not contrary
to the Bible. Accordingly, in 1613, he wrott
a letter, defending this view, to Castelli, who
was Mathematical Professor at Pisa. He saic
that the Bible was beyond doubt infallible
but that though the Scripture could not err,
its interpreters might. Clearly we are not to
interpret every word of Scripture literally ; for
if so, we should have to attribute to God
hands, feet, and ears, and human and bodily
emotions, such as anger, repentance, and
hatred. There were obvious reasons why, in
speaking incidentally of the sun, or of the earth,
or other created bodies, the Scriptures should
conform to popular language. For had a dif
ferent course been pursued, the vulgar would
have been only perplexed, and have been
rendered more difficult of persuasion in the
articles concerning their salvation : —

" I believe that the intention of Holy Writ
was to persuade men of the truths neces
sary to salvation, such as neither science nor
other means could render credible, but only
the voice of the Holy Spirit. But I do not
think it necessary to believe that the same God
who gave us our senses, our speech, our intel
lect, would have us put aside the use of these,
to teach us instead such things as with their
help we could find out for ourselves, particu
larly in the case of those sciences of which
there is not the smallest mention in Scripture ;
and above all in astronomy, of which so little
notice is taken, that none of the planets
except the sun and moon, and once or twice
only Venus, under the name of Lucifer, is so
much as named there. Surely, if the intention
of the sacred writers had been to teach the
people astronomy, they would not have passed
the subject over so completely."

This letter was the occasion of the first
collision between Galileo and ecclesiastical
authorities ; for though it was a private letter,
a copy fell (either through indiscretion or
treachery), into the hands of Dominicans at
Florence, one of whom denounced it to the
Holy Office at Rome. And naturally it gave
much offence that a layman should presume to
teach theologians how to interpret Scripture.

It is a commonplace with Roman Catholic
apologists to say that Galileo had only himself
to blame for the trouble he got into, through,
as one of them expresses it, poking his nose
into what was other people's business. " Why
did he not stick to his mathematics, and leave
the interpretation of Scripture to theologians ?
He seemed determined to ruin himself. Had
he not got a message from Cardinal Barberini
(afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), telling him

that he ought not to travel out of the limits
of physics and mathematics, but confine him
self to such reasonings as Ptolemy and Coper
nicus had used? Declaring the views of
Scripture theologians maintain to be their
own particular province." Cardinal Bellar-
mine also had said that if Galileo spoke with
circumspection, and only as a mathematician,
he would be put to no further trouble.

It is necessary to explain how a collision
had been avoided before, and what was meant
by saying that Galileo ought to speak "only
as a mathematician." The reason why Coper
nican speculations about the earth's motion
had been tolerated by ecclesiastics, while the
writings of Galileo on the same subject were
rigidly condemned, was that Galileo's pre
decessors, in order to avoid shocking existing
prejudices, had taken some pains to represent
the notion of the earth's motion, not as a true
account of what actually takes place, but as
a mathematical fiction imagined for the more
convenient calculation of the places of the
heavenly bodies. There is great virtue in an
if. Theologians insisted in saying, without
contradiction, that the earth does not move ;
but they had no objection to allow mathe
maticians to amuse themselves with the pro
blem. // the earth and the planets went
round the sun, what appearances would the
planets on that hypothesis present? Galileo
found that the answer to that question was,
Exactly the appearances which we observe
now; while, on the contrary, the observed
appearances were not explained by the older
theory. He could not then resist the convic
tion that the Copernican doctrine of the earth's
motion was no mere mathematical fiction, but
the absolute truth.

Holding this belief, how could he acquiesce
in the conclusion that the Bible teaches the
direct contrary ? From the language used
by Roman Catholic writers, one would imagine
that Galileo had attempted to establish the
earth's motion by an array of Bible texts, and
to prove that the opposite doctrine was an
anti-Scriptural heresy. Far from this, all he
contended for was toleration for his own
belief. He only endeavoured to make out
that there was nothing in the Bible that
forbade him to believe that the earth moved.
And unless he imagined that the same thing
could be scientifically true and theologically
false, how was it possible for him, who be
lieved that nothing false is taught as an article
of faith in the Scriptures, when he had come
to believe that the doctrine that the earth
does not move is false, to avoid asserting that
the doctrine that the earth is at rest is not
taught in the Bible as an article of faith?
Nothing is so puzzling as a real love of

GALILEO

[ 233 ]

GALILEO

truth to people who are not possessed of it
themselves.

When Galileo's letter was brought under the
notice of the Roman Inquisition there was
great unwillingness to deal harshly with the
philosopher, who was then at the height of his
reputation, and who had many and powerful
friends at Rome itself, where he had recently
exhibited his telescope, amid general admira
tion. Now, in every criminal trial there are
two questions — a question of law, and a ques
tion of fact. In the case of a trial for heresy,
the question of fact is, What are the words
which the accused person has spoken or
written ? the question of law i.«, Whether these
words contain heresy. The practice of the In
quisition is only to deal directly with the
question of fact ; while the question of law is
referred tc a special Board of skilled theo
logians, under the title of Qualifiers, their
business being to state the quality of the pro
positions submitted to them, and in particular
whether or not they are heretical. The In
quisition was able to pronounce Galileo's
acquittal on the question of fact. The docu
ment submitted to them only purported to be
a copy of a letter written by Galileo ; where
was the original ? It could not be produced.
Hence the Inquisition were content, in the
absence of positive evidence, to pronounce a
verdict of Not Guilty ; only they took care
that the verdict should be, Not Guilty, but
don't do it again.

They obtained a report from their "quali
fiers," which ran in the following terms : —

1. The proposition that the sun is the
centre of the world, and immovable from its
place is absurd, philosophically false, and
formally heretical, because it is expressly con
trary to Holy Scripture.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the
centre of the world, nor immovable, but that
it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is
also absurd, philosophically false, and theo
logically considered at least erroneous in faith.

Galileo was not required to make abjuration,
or to do penance, because he had not been
convicted of heresy ; but, by order of the
Holy Office, Cardinal Bellarmine summoned
him before him, and admonished him in the
name of the Pope and of the Holy Office, under
pain of imprisonment, that he must give up
the opinion that the sun is the centre of the
world and immovable, and that the earth
moves, and must not hold, teach it, or defend
it either by word or writing, otherwise pro
ceedings would be taken against him in the
Holy Office. Galileo submitted, and promised
to obey.

But it was not enough that Galileo should
be personally warned against holding the

heliocentric theory of the universe ; the whole
world must be similarly instructed, and this
was done by another tribunal. On March 5,
1616, the Congregation of the Index, a Com
mittee of Cardinals appointed by the Pope for
the prevention of the circulation of dangerous
books, published the following decree: —

" Since it has come to the knowledge of this
Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean
doctrine, altogether opposed to the Divine
Scripture, of the mobility of the earth and the
immobility of the sun, which Nicolas Coper
nicus, in his work, De Revolutionibus Orbium
Cvdestium, and Didacus & Stunica in his Com
mentary on Job, teach, is being promulgated
and accepted by man)', as may be seen from a
printed letter of a certain Carmelite Father
(Foscarini), entitled, &c., wherein the said
Father has attempted to show that the said
doctrine is consonant to truth, and not op
posed to Holy Scripture ; therefore, lest this
opinion insinuate itself further to the damage
of Catholic truth, this congregation has decreed
that the said books, Copernicus, De Revolutioni
bus, and Stunica on Job, be suspended till they
are corrected, but that the book of Foscarini
the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and
condemned, and all other books that teach the
same thing."

The Congregation of the Index continued its
war on the Copernican theory for about two
centuries. The Index of 1704 contains the
comprehensive prohibition, "all books that
teach the mobility of the earth, or the im
mobility of the sun." A striking proof that
this prohibition did not remain a dead letter
is afforded by the preface to what is commonly
called the Jesuits' edition of Newton's Prin-
cipia. Whether apprehensive that their own
book might be placed on the Index, and its
sale forbidden, or that they might suffer in
some other way for the publication of a book
so plainly teaching the mobility of the earth,
they tender in the preface the following
apology : —

" Newton, in this third book, supposes the
motion of the earth. We could not explain
the author's propositions otherwise than by
making the same supposition. We are there
fore forced to sustain a character which is not
our own ; but we profess to pay the obsequious
reverence which is due to the decrees pro
nounced by the sovereign Pontiffs against the
motion of the earth."

These prohibitions continued in force for a
century longer. At the beginning of the
last century the astronomer Lalande made
great exertions at Rome to have the names
of Galileo, Copernicus, and Foscarini removed
from the Index ; but in vain. Accordingly,
the Index for 1828 contains the names of these

GALILEO

[ 234 ]

GALILEO

three culprits ; but the prohibition against all
books teaching the mobility of the earth was
quietly dropped out of the later editions of
the Index. It was only on the accession of
Gregory XVI., the predecessor of Pius IX.,
that the important step was taken, and the
attempt to insist on believing on the immo
bility of the earth was finally abandoned.
For the first time for some two hundred years,
an Index of prohibited books was published,
in which no confession of previous error was
made, but the names of Galileo, Copernicus,
and Foscarini were silently withdrawn. Even
then there were some at the Papal Court who
regarded this as a weak-minded concession to
modern prejudice.

To return to the history of Galileo. He went
back to Florence much disheartened at the
condemnation of the Copernican doctrines,
but professing outward submission to the
Papal decisions. It would be unreasonable to
suppose that he accepted them in his heart ;
and we cannot help regarding as ironical some
of the language he used. Thus, for instance,
in a tract which he published on the motions
of comets, he says: "Since the motion at
tributed to the earth, which I, as a pious and
Catholic person, consider most false and not
to exist, accommodates itself so well as to ex
plain so many and such different phenomena,
I shall not feel sure but that, false as it is, it
may not just as deludingly correspond with
the phenomena of comets." He preserved the
same verbal conformity to the commands of
his superiors in the work which he published
in 1632, which was the cause of his subsequent
troubles. He gave it the form of a dialogue,
which enabled him to state the arguments on
both sides without committing himself to an
adoption of either ; and be said that he pro
posed to discuss the Copernican system as a
mere mathematical hypothesis, and to show,
not its absolute truth, but its superiority to
some bad arguments by which it had been
assailed. The disguise, however, was found to
be a little too thin. So the sale of the dialogue
was forbidden, and a summons was served on
Galileo, ordering him to appear before the
Inquisition at Rome. He made every effort to
escape obedience, pleading inability to under
take the journey (a more formidable business
then than now) on account of his age (he was
seventy) and the bad state of his health, and
asking for at least a reprieve. His excuses
were not accepted by the Pope, who said he
might come in a litter if he pleased ; but come
he must. The Florentine Inquisitor visited
Galileo, and found him confined to his bed,
and professing himself unable to undertake
the journey in his then state of health. A
certificate was forwarded, signed by three of

the most eminent medical men in Florence, to
the effect that Galileo was suffering from
hernia, and could not be moved without danger
to his life. The answer from the Inquisition
was, that if he did not come, the Pope and the
Holy Office would send down a commissary
and a physician of their own, whose expenses
would have to be defrayed at Galileo's cost.
If they should find him able to travel, they
were at once to deprive him of his liberty, and
send him up in irons;; if they should find
that the move would involve danger of life,
they were to send him up bound and in irons
as soon as the danger was over.

Under this persuasion Galileo was induced
to face the journey to Rome, where he met
with as much indulgence as the rules of the
Inquisition permitted. Until personal examin
ation was necessary, he was allowed to lodge
in the Florentine ambassador's palace, but on
condition that he was to observe strict seclu
sion, and receive the visits of none but inti
mate friends. When personal examination was
necessary, the three or four weeks he spent
within the walls of the Inquisition were not
passed in any close or unwholesome dungeon,
but in the apartments of the Fiscal of the
Inquisition, where the attendance of his own
servant was allowed him. Even this mitigated
confinement had an unfavourable effect on his
health.

The result of the trial is well known. Galileo
pleaded in vain that he had not infringed the
injunction laid on him by defending an opinion
already condemned, and the condemnation of
which had been made known to him. When
he urged that he had left the question un
determined, and had only discussed the pro
bability of the Copernican hypothesis, he was
told that therein he had committed a grave
error, for that an opinion can in no manner be
probable which has already been declared and
defined to be contrary to the Divine Scriptures.
The Inquisitors were certainly justified by the
evidence, when they arrived at the conclusion
that there were very strong grounds for sus
pecting that Galileo held the heretical doctrine
of the earth's motion, and also the heresy that
an opinion can be held and defended as pro
bable after it has been declared and defined
to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Accord
ingly, in order to remove from the minds of
all Catholic Christians this vehement suspicion
legitimately conceived against him, he was
ordered to swear that with a sincere heart and
faith unfeigned he abjured, cursed, and de
tested the above-named and all other heresies ;
and to swear further that for the future he
would not assert, either by word of mouth or
in writing, anything to bring upon him similar
suspicion. And in order that his grave and

GALILEO

[ 235 ]

GALILEO

pernicious error might not remain altogether
unpunished, that he might be more cautious
for the future, and be an example to others to
abstain from offences of this sort, his book
was prohibited by public edict ; he was con
demned to the prisons of the Holy Office
during the Pope's pleasure, and was com
manded for three weeks to recite the seven
Penitential Psalms once a week.

Galileo made his abjuration accordingly, but
for the remaining eight or nine years of his
life never completely recovered his liberty ;
for though his confinement was as little dis
agreeable as such a thing could be, he was
never permitted to have quite free intercourse
with his friends. He was for five months a
guest with the Archbishop of Siena ; after
wards, when his residence in a city was thought
to lead to a mischievous propagation of his
opinions, he was allowed to reside in his own
country-house, a little distance from Florence,
but not to occupy his house in that city. He
must remain in solitude, and neither invite
nor receive guests for conference. When he
asked special permission to go to Florence for
medical advice, he was told that if he was
troublesome the liberty he already en joy eft
would be taken from him. At length he was
once allowed to go. He was not permitted
either to reprint his old books, or to print new
ones. When he died, his power to make a
will was disputed, and the question was raised
whether his body might be placed in conse
crated ground. That was decided in his
favour ; but when the Grand Duke proposed
to raise a marble monument to him, he received
a message from the Pope that such an inten
tion, if carried out, would be most pernicious,
and that he must remember that Galileo during
his life bad caused scandal to all Christendom
by his false and damnable doctrine.

In considering Romanist apologies for the
treatment of Galileo, I have chiefly in view
one of the ablest, published in the Clifton
Tracts in 1854, and founded on two articles, one
in the Dublin Review for July 1838, the other
in the Rambler for January 1852.

The apologist begins by informing us that
Protestants (we are not told who) had asserted
that Galileo had been kept for five years in the
dungeons of the Inquisition, that he had been
put on the rack, that his eyes had been put out
by the cruel Inquisitors ; whereas, his penance
had been nothing more than the recital of the
Penitential Psalms once a week, and his place
of imprisonment only the Dominican Convent,
where the officers of the Inquisition them
selves resided, or the "delightful palace" of
the Tuscan ambassador at Rome, and finally
Galileo's country -place near Florence.

Although we accept the statement that

Galileo was not put on the rack, it is right to
mention that the point has been contested.
It appears from the sentence on Galileo that
his answers not being thought satisfactory, it
was deemed necessary to proceed to a rigoroso
esamc, and it is sufficiently proved that in the
language of the Inquisition this phrase meant
an examination in which torture might be used.
Torture was an established method with the
Inquisition. It was used in secular courts at
the time, and the Inquisition considered that
they were less able than other Courts to dis
pense with it, because the offence of heresy
being a secret one, residing in the mind alone,
and therefore one which an accused person
could easily deny, special means were necessary
to elicit his real opinions. In the case, how
ever, of children and very old persons a minor
form of torture was commonly used, that of
threatening torture ; and accused persons in
the hands of the Inquisition had good reason
to take such threats very seriously. There is
clear evidence that torture was threatened in
Galileo's case ; but, as far as we can judge, not
good reason to think that it was actually
used. But the point seems of quite small im
portance. The opinion expressed in Galileo's
abjuration, that the doctrine of the earth's
motion was false, was certainly not that with
which he had entered the walls of the In
quisition ; and the arguments which induced
him to express a change of mind were certainly
not addressed to his intellect.

The question, however, whether or not the
Inquisitors dealt mildly with Galileo is irrele
vant to the subject of this article. What we
are concerned with is, Did the Inquisitors,
acting under the Pope's authority, and with
his personal concurrence, oblige Galileo to
profess belief in what we now know to be
false; and if so, how can Infallibility be
claimed for an authority guilty of such a
prodigious blunder? Our apologist contends
that it was right to require a retractation,
because the scientific arguments by which
Galileo supported his opinion were not as good
as have since been obtained on the same side ;
and that his doctrine being likely to prejudice
in men's minds their respect for the Bible, he
might properly be called on to condemn and
renounce it, and declare it to be " false in the
sense of unproved."

The Inquisitors did not claim to know more
about scientific arguments than ^Galileo, but
they did claim to know better than he how to
interpret Scripture. Yet sit turns out now
that, with regard to the interpretation of
Scripture, Galileo was right, and they were
wrong. The condemnation of Galileo has
been a good deal discussed with reference to
the question of the Pope's personal infalli-

GALILEO

[ 236 ]

GALILEO

bility. But the question is much deeper
and affects the question of the Church'
infallibility, speaking by no matter wha
organ. The Council of Trent declared tha
it is the province of Holy Mother Church to
judge of the true sense and interpretation o
the Holy Scriptures. Now there are man;
texts of Scripture which we hold that the
Roman Church interprets wrongly ; but we
have no means of forcing her to own that we
are right and she wrong. We have the
means in the case of such texts as " He hath
made the round world so fast that it cannot
be moved."1 From such texts it was inferred
in the sixteenth century that the physical fact
of the immobility of the earth was a revealed
truth. Every one entitled to speak on behalf
of 'Holy Mother Church' asserted it. If
general consent, universal long tradition, ab
sence of opposing view, can prove any in
terpretation of Scripture to be lawfully im
posed by the head of the Church, this certainly
was so. And yet it has now to be confessed
that that interpretation was wrong. It must
be owned, therefore, that whatever respect
the Church may claim when she interprets
Scripture, she is not infallible, and that the
Church of a more learned age may wisely
review and correct the decisions of its pre
decessors.

Yes ; but it will be said that the Church's
infallibility when she interprets Scripture is
limited to questions of faith and morals, and
that the question of the earth's mobility is not
one of faith. But this is to accuse the heads
of the Church in Galileo's time of a far graver
mistake. It is surely a less error to decide a
question that belongs to your province wrongly,
than not to know what belongs to your pro
vince, and what does not. If modern apologists
are right, the Church in Galileo's time not
only was wrong in pronouncing it to be heresy
to hold that the earth went round the sun ;
but was utterly wrong in imagining that either
of the opinions — the sun goes round the earth,
or the earth goes round the sun — possibly
could be heresy, the whole subject being out
side the domain with which faith has to deal.
On the contrary, the Church in Galileo's time
held that it was of faith to maintain the
absolute correctness of everything asserted in

1 The Prayer Book Version of Psalm xciii. 2
is: "He hath made the round world so sure
that it cannot be moved." But as Driver (The
Parallel Psalter) well remarks, "The reference
is not to the physical globe (the 'round world ')."
The Authorised Version and the Revised Version,
and the New Version of Driver all render correctly,
"the world is established that it cannot be
moved." — EDD.

express words of Scripture, and that the doc
trine of the earth's fixity was so asserted.

It remains to discuss how the condemnation
of Galileo directly affects the question of
Papal infallibility. It is certain that the
decrees of the Inquisition and of the Congre
gation of the Index expressed the sentiments
of the individual Pope who was the prime
mover in the whole business, and who even
personally presided at some of the meetings.
But on various pleas it has been contended
that the tribunal which published the decrees
was not the Pope speaking infallibly. That he
did not speak infallibly then, we need not dis
pute; but if he did not speak infallibly then,
it will be impossible to know that he ever
speaks infallibly.

We need not then tarry over the plea that
either Paul in 1616, or Urban in 1633, erred
but only as a private doctor, not as a Pope
speaking ex cathedra. With regard to the
question when the Pope speaks ex cathedra,
the only rational distinction is between his
official and non-official utterances. We do
not hold the Papacy responsible for everything
Urban may have said in conversation with
Galileo, but in all the transactions which we
are discussing it is clear that neither Urban
nor Paul acted as a private doctor, but as
Pope. It is said, however, that the Pope is
both teacher and governor of the Church,
and that though infallible as teacher, he may
err in the steps he takes as governor, for the
preservation of the Church's discipline. But
when the punishment of heresy is concerned, it
is impossible to separate the Pope's disciplinary
from his teaching power. It may be assumed
as certain that the Pope would not punish a
man for heresy without having first ascertained
that the doctrine which he held was heresy ;
and the Pope could not teach the world more
distinctly that a certain doctrine is heretical
than by setting the example of punishing a
man for holding it.

Neither need we linger over a plea in which
some Romanistsfind much comfort, that the con
demnation of Galileo does not contain what is
called the customary clause of Papal confirma
tion at the end. We may be sure that Paul V.
did not knowingly omit anything necessary
to give validity to his sentence ; and the fact
is, that the "custom "in question has come in
since Paul's time, and that this clause does
not appear in previous decrees of the Congrega
tion of the Index.

Sixtus V. appointed fifteen Congregations of
Cardinals, assigning to each its proper function,
but with the limitation " that they refer to us
all the more important and difficult matters
under consideration." It is now customary
that the secretary of the Congregation should

GALILEO

[ 237 ]

GALLICANISM

certify when a matter has been thus referred
to the Pope; but clearly the only important
question is whether the matter has been thus
referred, and not whether the secretary has
certified it. Such a certificate was certainly
not necessary in the case of the Holy Office,
the highest of all the Congregations, having
jurisdiction over every member of the Church
of whatever rank. On account of its supreme
importance, the Pope was wont to be its pre
sident, and the votes to be taken in his pre
sence ; so that no important decree could go
forth without having been first submitted to
the Pope. The Pope indisputably did thus
take part in the decision in Galileo's case.

Assuredly Galileo and the Copernicans of
his day were not allowed to suppose that to per
sist in their heresy would be to resist anything
short of infallible wisdom. They were pressed
with the words of the bull of Sixtus V., by
which the Congregation of the Index was re
modelled : "They are to examine and expose
the books which are repugnant to the Catholic
doctrines and Christian discipline, and after
reporting them to us, they are to condemn
them by our authority." (See INDEX Ex-
PURGATORIUS. ) What was done by the In
quisition in Galileo's case was not a mere
verdict on a matter of fact on which the judges
might pardonably go wrong, but it was the
decision by the Pope's authority on a question
of doctrine. Pope Urban made that decision
his own by directing (in 1633), that in order
that these things might be known to all, copies of
the sentence on Galileo were to be transmitted
to all Apostolic Nuncios, and all Inquisitors
of heretical pravity, especially the Florentine
Inquisitors. These were to summon the pro
fessors of mathematics, and to read the sentence
for their instruction. This sentence refers to
the interference of the Congregation of the
Index as made " to the end that so pernicious
a doctrine" as the Copernican "might be alto
gether taken away and spread no further to
the heavy detriment of Catholic truth." It
states that the Congregation was held in the
Pope's presence in which Galileo was ordered
to give up this false opinion. It relates that
Galileo had been formally made acquainted
with " the declaration made by our Lord the
Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congre
gation of the Index," the tenor whereof is that
the doctrine of the motion of the earth and
the fixity of the sun is contrary to the sacred
Scriptures, and therefore can neither be de
fended nor held. It may be added that the
desired Papal confirmation in express terms
was given by a later Pope, Alexander VII., in
1664, who republished and confirmed the pre
vious decrees with the words, "Cum omnibus
et singulis in eo contentis, auctoritate Aposto-

lica tenore presentium confirmamns et appro-
bamus." We recommend, therefore, Roman
apologists to consider again whether it may
not be possible to maintain that the sun actu
ally does go round the earth, this being in our
judgment quite as hopeful a line of defence as
to deny that successive Popes officially asserted
that it does.

To conclude, then, the history of Galileo
makes short work of the question : Is it pos
sible for the Church of Rome to err in her in
terpretation of Scripture, or to mistake in what
she teaches to be an essential part of the
Christian faith? She can err, for she has
erred. She has made many errors more
dangerous to the souls of men, but never com
mitted any blunder more calculated to throw
contempt on her pretensions in the minds of
all thinking men, than when she persisted for
about two hundred years in teaching that it
was the doctrine of the Bible, and therefore
an essential part of the Catholic faith, that
the earth stands still, and that the sun and
planets revolve daily round it. — Extracted by
permission from Dr. Salmon's Infallibility of
the Church. [G. S.]

GALLICANISM.— The Four Gallican Proposi
tions of 1682, drawn up by the celebrated
Bossuet, are as follows : (1) The first declared
that the power possessed by Peter and his
successors was in things spiritual, not in things
temporal, in accordance with the texts, "My
kingdom is not of this world ; " " Render unto
Caesar," &c. ; " Let every soul be subject to
the higher powers." Consequently, kings are
not, by the law of God, subject to any ecclesi
astical power with respect to their temporal
government, nor can their subjects be released
from the duty of obeying them, nor absolved
from their oath of allegiance. (2) The second
defined the power of the Pope in things
spiritual, viz., as such that the decrees of the
Council of Constance, approved as they are by
the Holy See and the practice of the whole
Church, remain in full force and perpetual
obligation ; and it declared that these decrees
must not be depreciated as insufficiently ap
proved, or as restricted to a time of schism.
These decrees declared that a general Council,
legitimately assembled, derives its authority
immediately from Christ [and therefore not
from the Pope], and that every person of what
dignity soever, even Papal, is bound to obey it
in what relates to the faith, or to the extirpa
tion of schism, or to the reformation of the
Church in its head and members. These de
crees were absolutely necessary at the time.
The object was to heal the schism, there being
then three claimants of the Popedom ; and
although the whole Christian world longed for
an end to the schism, all the claimants had

GALLICANISM

[ 238 ]

GALLICANISM

shown great reluctance to a voluntary resigna
tion. The Council deposed all three, and
elected a new Pope ; but since each of the
candidates had some who believed him to be
the real Pope, it is evident the act of the
Council could not meet with universal recogni
tion unless it was maintained that the Council
had an authority higher than the Papal, and
was able even to depose a real Pope if the
good of the Church required it. (3) The third
Gallican decree declared that the exercise of
the Apostolic authority must be regulated by
the canons enacted by the Spirit of God, and
consecrated by the reverence of the whole
world ; in particular that the ancient rules,
customs, and institutions of the realm and
Church of France must remain inviolable.
(4) The fourth, that though the Pope has the
principal power in deciding questions of faith,
and though his decrees extend to all Churches,
nevertheless his judgment is not irreversible
until confirmed by the consent of the Church.
Thus these decrees took away altogether the
Pope's temporal power over countries of which
he was not the civil sovereign ; in spiritual
things they limited his disciplinary power
by general and local canons ; even in matters
of faith they held that his decisions needed to
be ratified by universal consent.

A point has been made by a Roman Catholic
controversialist who wrote in answer to Janus,
that the French bishops were not unanimous
on this occasion. But the fact is, that the
chief opposition Bossuet encountered was
from those who went farther than himself in
denying the prerogatives of Rome. His chief
opponent, the Bishop of Tournay, held that
the Apostolic See was liable to fall into heresy.
Bossuet's own opinion was that, though in
dividual Popes might be carried away by some
temporary blast of false doctrine, the See
would never fall permanently into misbelief,
as some Eastern Sees had done, but that by
the interposition of right-thinking people,
either the erring Pope himself or his successors
would be brought back to the true faith. In
this way the fall of Liberius or the monothelism
of Honorius presented no difficultytohistheory.

Though the four Gallican propositions ex
pressed the real opinion of the French Church,
yet but for Court pressure Bossuet and his
colleagues would not have engaged in the
controversy with Rome which the act of formu
lating these propositions involved. And this
was one cause of the want of permanence of
Gallicanism, that so much of its strength con
sisted in the Royal support ; or rather that
the contest was not so much one between the
French nation and a foreign power as between
the King and the Pope, which of the two should
have the filling up of livings and so forth. It

was exactly in the same way that Henry A' ill.
gave a national character to what may also be
represented as a conflict in which only his
personal interests were involved. It is evident
that in such a conflict, if the king failed to
persuade the nation that his interests were
theirs — if, for instance, his appointments to
offices were not made to deserving men — then
really religious men would be indifferent to a
contest which they might look on as one be
tween a self-seeking king and a self-seeking
foreign bishop ; and they would be on the
side of the bishop if they thought his govern
ment on the whole likely to be guided by
higher aims. On these grounds, much as we
are inclined to sympathise with the anti-
papalism of the Gallican bishops, it is doubt
ful whether these hangers-on of the Court of
Louis XIV. really carried the religious mind of
the nation with them. The doctrine, however,
was no new invention of theirs ; it but stated
the tradition of the Gallican Church, which
had been expressed on many former occasions.

Ultimately the dispute between Louis and
the Pope was settled. The king withdrew
measures he had taken for enforcing the
Gallican declaration in his dominions, and the
bishops seeking consecration were allowed to
say that they were sorry it had been made,
which did not at all imply that they believed
it was not true. A great magazine of argu
ments in this controversy is the book which
Bossuet wrote in defence of the Gallican de
claration. It was more than once withheld
from publication by the royal authority, lest
it should impede the desired reconciliation
with Rome, and was not actually published
until after Bossuet's death.

The subsequent history of Gallicanism will
not take long to state. The fruits of the zeal
of Louis in suppressing heresy showed them
selves after his death. The Jansenists, whom
it had been the work of his life to put down,
whatever may have been their doctrinal errors,
were some of the holiest and best men in his
kingdom. (See JANSENISTS.) Much of true
religion was lost to France by the driving
out of the Huguenots (see HUGUENOTS) ;
and Christianity, represented in that kingdom
by its most superstitious form, revolted the
philosophic and enlightened. The principle of
blind submission to authority was found to be
too weak to maintain the hearty faith of the
people, and a great wave of infidelity swept
over the land. In an early stage of the revolu
tionary troubles an attempt was made to
maintain a national Church in France, though
robbed of the greater part of its worldly
wealth. A new distribution of sees was
made : bishops were to be elected by their
flocks, and were to seek for no institution from

GALLICANISM

[ 239 ]

GALLICANISM

the Pope, but merely notify to him the fact of
their appointment. By a very unwise step on
the part of the framers of this new constitution,
all the clergy were required to swear their ac
ceptance, and a number of the most respected
refused. Thereupon ensued an immediate
schism between the constitutional clergy and
the non- jurors; and as in the progress of
events the leaders of the revolutionary party
showed more and more hostility to religion, so
the respect of religious men refused to attach
itself to the constitutional clergy, who were
found in alliance with deists and atheists.

When the first Napoleon discerned the
political necessity of coming to terms with
Christianity, he saw that an agreement with
the Pope afforded him the only practical
means. Even more than Louis XIV., Napoleon
sought to make himself absolute over Church
and State in France, and he thought that if
he could make the Pope absolute over the
French clergy he could direct the Pope as he
pleased. The Pope proved less flexible than
Napoleon had anticipated, but in the first
stage of the reconciliation his help was ab
solutely necessary, and was given. The terms
of a new Episcopate were arranged, into which
survivors both of the constitutional clergy and
of the non-jurors were to be admitted. But
however desirable this reconciliation was in
every way to the cause of the Church in
France, it involved a complete abandonment
of Gallican principles. For it was by the
Pope's authority that the existing bishops
were forced to resign and a new distribution
of sees effected. This course of events pro
duced a natural reaction in France in favour
of Ultramontanism, all the abominations and
impieties of republican fanaticism being im
puted, however unjustly, to the opposite system.
This reaction found an eloquent representative
in the Count Joseph de Maistre, whose writings
exercised a prodigious influence in France ; so
that the dying away of Gallicanism in its birth
place and stronghold seemed to make things
easy for its formal condemnation by Pius IX.

In Ireland, before the establishment of May-
nooth, Irish priests commonly got their educa
tion in Continental schools where Gallican
principles predominated, and so imported them
into this country. At Maynooth itself French
text-books were used. In the agitation for
Emancipation a prevalent argument against
granting it was that Roman Catholics could
not be loyal subjects, since they would serve
two masters, or rather indeed only one, inas
much as they must obey the Pope if he forbade
them to obey their sovereign. In reply to this,
great pains were taken by the advocates for
Emancipation to show that Irish Roman
Catholics did not believe in the Pope's power

to release subjects from their allegiance, and
that the Ultramontane doctrine of the Papal
power was not recognised as any part of the
doctrine of their Church. The Irish Roman
Catholic bishops were examined before a
Parliamentary Committee, and gave evidence
which was afterwards cited by the American
bishop Kenrick, himself an Irishman, at the
Vatican Council. As a sample of their evidence,
it is sufficient to give Archbishop Murray's
answer to the question whether the Irish
bishops had adopted or rejected what are
called the Gallican liberties. He said, " These
liberties have not come under their considera
tion as a body. The Irish Catholic bishops
have therefore not either adopted or rejected
them. They have adopted, however, and that
on their oaths, the leading doctrines which
these liberties contain ; that is, the doctrines
which reject the deposing power of the Popes
and their right to interfere with the tempor
alities of princes. That is distinctly recognised ;
not as one of the Gallican liberties, but as a
doctrine which the Gospel teaches." Bishop
Doyle said that if the Pope were to intermeddle
with the temporal rights of the king, they
would oppose him even by the exercise of their
spiritual authority ; that is, as he explained it,
by preaching the Gospel to the people, and
instructing them, in such a case, to oppose the
Pope. Besides this repudiation of the temporal
power of the Pope, the Irish Roman Catholic
bishops declared their opinion thattheauthority
of the Pope in spiritual matters was limited by
the Canons and by the Councils, and they
swore, as they could then with truth, that the
doctrine of the Pope's personal infallibility
was no part of the Christian faith. Soon after
they gave a practical proof of their indepen
dence of the Pope ; for when a negotiation
bttween the Pope and the English Government
resulted in an agreement that, as a condition of
Emancipation, the English Government should
be given a veto on the nomination to Irish
bishoprics, the Irish bishops remonstrated with
the Pope in such strong terms that the project
had to be abandoned. — Extracted by permission
from Dr. Salmon's workon The Infallibility of the
Church, 2nd edit, 1890 (pp. 264-68).1 [G. S.]

1 It should be noted that although there was
among the Irish Roman Catholic clergy at the
time above referred to, a disposition to uphold
Gallican principles to a certain extent, matters
have long since been completely changed. All
the text books which contained any leanings in
that direction have been struck out of the May-
north Calendar. St. Patrick's College, Maynooth,
is completely under Jesuit influence— Gallicanism,
both in France and Ireland, has for a long time
been a thing of the past. — EDO.

GEHENNA

[ 240]

GOOD WORKS

GEHENNA.— See HELL.

GENUFLEXION.— This is defined in The
Congregation in Church as "a temporary bend
ing of the knee as distinguished from actual
kneeling." It is frequent in Roman Catholic
worship. Genuflexions are mostly made
towards the " altar," for the purpose of ador
ing Christ supposed to be "present" in the
consecrated Host or Elements. "A double
genuflexion," i.e. one of both knees — " is made
on entering or leaving a church where the
Blessed Sacrament is exposed." No such
genuflexions are directed in the Book of
Common Prayer or in Holy Scripture. See
BOWING.

GIRDLE.— The Girdle in the Roman Church is
a white cord used to confine the alb at the
waist. It is sometimes furnished with three
knots, signifying the three vows of poverty,
chastity, and obedience, and is often explained
as representing the cord by which Christ was
bound in the Garden.

GLEBE (Lat. gleba, a clod, soil).— Originally,
soil. The technical name for land belonging
to a benefice. Such land may be, under certain
conditions, sold, or exchanged for other land.
(See Whitehead, Church Law.)

GLORIA PATRL— This is the Latin name for
the Doxology. It is of frequent occurrence in
the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer of
the Church of England, being used at the end
of every Psalm, ami at other points of the
service. The American Church uses the Gloria
Patri once at the end of all the Psalms appointed
for morning or evening prayer. A proposal to
this effect with regard to the English Liturgy
was made in 1689, but was not adopted.

GNOSTICISM, from the Greek r/nosis (know
ledge), derived its name from the fact that
those to whom the name of Gnostic was
applied, claimed to know the truth. It was a
mixture of Judaism, Christianity, Platonic and
Greek Philosophy, combined with ideas and
conceptions largely drawn from the East.
The general features of Gnosticism were :

1. That God lived in the Pleroma, or fulness
of light.

2. From the Pleroma there emanated a
number of aeons, or spiritual beings, of which
Christ was one.

3. The particular work which Christ per
formed on earth was the deliverance of man
kind from the power of a lesser Being, styled
the Demiurge, or Creator.

4. Matter produced by the Creator was
essentially evil, being the work of an evil
Being.

It was supposed by some of them that the
divine emanation descended on the man Jesus
at His baptism, and deserted Him at His
crucifixion. Others of them believed that

Christ merely assumed the appearance of a
body, and did not take to Himself a real
body of flesh and blood, on account of matter
being, according to the Gnostic doctrine, es
sentially evil.

Thus, by the teaching of Gnosticism, Christ
was neither "perfect God," but only an emana
tion from God, nor was He " perfect man,"
because He had not a real human body. Gnos
ticism was the earliest form of Rationalism.

[E. A. W.]
GODFATHERS and GODMOTHERS.— See

SPONSORS.

GOOD FRIDAY.— The Friday before Easter
Day, so called because it commemorates the
day on which our Lord suffered death upon
the cross. It is strange that it has now
become unusual to have the Lord's Supper
administered on Good Friday, although St.
Chrysostom mentions consecrating on that
day, and it was general in the Church of
England up to very recent times. The mass
doctors say that as Christ is there Himself
offering sacrifice the Church should forbear
from doing so. But such an argument would
surely tell in favour of the abolition of all
such pretended sacrifices. The Church of
England provides special Collects, Epistle and
Gospel for the day, and the religious obser
vance of Good Friday, apart from superstition,
seems proper and desirable. See ADORATION
OP THE CROSS.

GOOD WORKS.— Acts of Christian piety which
spring from faith in Christ, are pleasing and
acceptable unto God, and will in the end
receive "great recompense of reward," even
that " crown of righteousness which the Lord,
the righteous Judge, will give ... in that day
. . . unto all them . . . that love His appear
ing " (2 Tim. iv. 8). In this both Romanists
and Protestants are fully agreed. But the point
on which they fundamentally differ, is that the
Romanist declares that good works may even
in certain cases be works of supererogation, i.e.
works in excess of that obedience which it is
the bounden duty of man to render to God ;
and that all good works merit reward, and
grace of congruity, and even satisfy for sin.
See Cat. Concil. Trident., ii. v., quasst. Ixvii.
(Donovan's English translation, or in other
editions, qucest. cii.) The Protestant doctrine,
on the other hand, maintains that good works
can never merit reward, or further grace, at the
hands of God, but that whatever spiritual as
sistance or recompense He is pleased to vouch
safe, is bestowed not of debt, but of God's free
grace and mercy. The Church of Rome, more
over, teaches that the excess of merit obtained
by supererogatory works accumulates into a
kind of deposit, which, by his use of "the
power of the keys," the Pope can dispense to

GOOD WORKS

[ 241 ]

GORHAM CASE, THE

the faithful by way of indulgences, and for
the remission of temporal punishment. By
retaining indulgences in the Church the
Council of Trent necessarily admits the ex
istence of good works in a supererogatory
sense.

Nothing in the earliest Fathers bears much
upon the latter subject, except that some of
them attached undue importance to martyrdom
and virginity, and it was from a belief in the
mei'its of martyrdom and voluntary celibacy
and poverty — "counsels of perfection," as they
were called, in order to distinguish them from
precepts of obedience — that, in process of time,
the doctrine of works of supererogation grew
up. In the fourth and fifth centuries there is
no lack of Patristic testimony against such a
doctrine. Ambrose (A.D. 394-897) asks,
"What can we do worthy of the heavenly
rewards?" (on Psalm cxviii.). "Everlasting
rest," writes Basil (A.D. 370-379) "is laid up
for them that strive lawfully in this life, not
to be rendered according to the debt of works,
but vouchsafed according to the grace of a
bountiful God to those who hope in Him " (on
Psalm cxiv.). Jerome (A.D. 331-420) writes,
" If we consider our own merits we must
despair" (on Isa. Ixiv.). Augustine (A.D.
387-430), Rome's great authority, writes, " We
hold God our debtor. How ? Because of His
promises. We say not to God, ' Pay what Thou
hast received," but ' Pay what Thou hast
promised'" (on Psalm Ixxxiii.). The Holy
Scriptures contain many passages at variance
with the doctrine of supererogation, and
entirely inconsistent with it. The Word of
God "concludes all under sin," declaring that
"there is none that doeth good, no not one"
(Psalm xiv. 3), that "in many things we all
offend " (James iii. 2), and that " if we say we
have no sin we deceive ourselves " (1 John i. 8).
It is therefore clear that no man can be so
perfectly holy as not only to fulfil the whole
of God's will, but even to exceed it. And even
were such a thing as absolute sinlessness in
thought and deed possible for man, yet our
Lord teaches us that even so perfect an
obedience would leave us undeserving of a
reward. " When ye shall have done all those
things which are commanded you, say, We are
unprofitable servants ; we have done that which
was our duty to do " (Luke xvii. 10). This is the
view of Article XIV. of the Church of England.

Some think that Christ spoke in solemn
irony, for when can we truly say, "We have
done that which was our duty to do " ? But
even if we could render perfect obedience to
all the divine precepts, we should be unpro
fitable, and so merit merely exemption from
punishment, and not reward. The idea of a
common treasury by means of which the ex

cess of holiness of some may supply the de
ficiency of holiness of others, is contrary to
the parable of the Ten Virgins, in which the
wise virgins could spare no oil for the foolish.
Moreover, the standard of holiness is the All
Holy God Himself, " Be ye perfect, as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt.
v. 48). Unless, therefore, a man become as
perfect as God, he cannot be said to have
rendered a perfect obedience to the precepts
of the Gospel. The whole idea of works of
supererogation rests upon a false view of the
principle of obedience in man. Christian
obedience is not viewed in Scripture in the
light of a task of so much work to be com
pleted for so much payment. It was in
answer to St. Peter's question, "What shall
we have therefore?" (Matt. xix. 27) that our
Lord uttered the parable of the labourers in
the vineyard, to show "that God is debtor
unto no man." Rewards in Christ's kingdom
are of grace, not of debt. Christian obedience
is not the task-work of a slave, but the
freedom of a son, and springs from a true
faith and a holy love. The Articles XII., XIII.,
XIV. of the Church of England treat this
subject sufficiently. See INDULGENCES.

[M. E. W. J.]

GORHAM CASE, THE.— According to the
judgment of the Privy Council in the case of
Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter, the validity
of the doctrine of the conditional (or hypo
thetical) regeneration of infants in baptism
was declared consistent with the teaching of
the Church of England. The Gorham Case
proved to be one of far-reaching importance in
the history of the Church of England. It was
the first great decision on a doctrinal question
since the Reformation, and though its effects
were minimised by the leaders and sympa
thisers of the then incipient Tractarian Move
ment, the decision of the Court was nevertheless
viewed by them as a serious blow to their
theory of Sacramental Grace. The circum
stances of the case were as follows.

The Rev. Geo. Cornelius Gorham, B.D.,
Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, and a
clergyman of over thirty years' standing, in
curred, when vicar of St. Just, Cornwall, the
displeasure of his diocesan, Bishop Henry
Phillpots of Exeter, on account of certain
phrases,such as "National Establishment, "used
by him in a circular relating to a new church
in Pendeen, and in advertising for a curate
"free from Tractarian Error." The vicar, on
his part, protested against the bishop's deter
mination to institute a particular inquiry into
any curate nominated by him. This was the
first indication of that friction which developed
into a serious and protracted controversy. In
1847 Lord Chancellor Cottenham offered Mr.

GORHAM CASE, THE

[ 242 ]

GOEHAM CASE, THE

Gorham the living of Brampford Speke in the
same diocese. The required signatures of
three beneficed clergymen were, on his accept
ance of the offer, appended to the Letters
Testimonial. These, on being submitted to
the bishop for his counter-signature, were
endorsed to the effect that he must conscien
tiously withhold his signature, inasmuch as he
considered that the affixing of his name would
imply his personal belief that the party to
whom it relates had not held, written, or
taught anything contrary to the doctrine of
the United Church of England and Ireland,
and that his own experience attested that Mr.
Gorham did hold, write, and maintain what
was contrary to the discipline of the said
Church. This drew forth a remonstrance
from Mr. Gorham. The bishop refused to
alter his determination. The Lord Chancellor,
on being appealed to, ordered the Presenta
tion to be made out, which was done on
November 2nd. Mr. Gorham in due course
applied to the bishop for institution. That
application led to a correspondence which
resulted in the signification of the bishop's
intention to test the presentee's soundness as
to doctrine by examination. This examination
began on November 17, 1847, lasting six days
in spite of Mr. Gorham's protest against its
continuance, " on the ground that his doctrine-
had been sufficiently tested, and that the
examination was becoming over-minute and
inquisitorial." Notwithstanding, for three
days in the following March (1848) it was
resumed, and finally terminated on the llth
of that month. The examination was con
ducted partly by written questions and partly
viva voce. When the latter method was used,
the bishop's chaplain and Mr. Gorham took
down both question and answer. The whole
examination was eventually published by Mr.
Gorham, and acknowledged to be correct by
the bishop, who subsequently incorporated
the book in his Act of Petition to the Court of
Arches. No less than 149 questions were put
at this examination, most of which were
answered by Mr. Gorham, while some were
declined on the ground of irrelevancy.

To Questions V., VI., and VII., which were
to the effect, "Does the Church hold, and do
you hold, that every infant lawfully baptized
is by God made a member of Christ, the child
of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven — that such infants are born again of
water and of the Holy Ghost, and received by
the laver of regeneration into the number of the
children of God ? " Mr. Gorham replied that
these propositions being stated in the words of
the Book of Common Prayer must be held to
contain nothing contrary to the Word of God or
to sound doctrine, "and therefore may be

deemed to be fairly defensible, if it shall be
allowed such just and favourable construction
as in common equity ought to be allowed to all
human writings, especially such as are set
forth by authority." (See Preface to Book of
Common Prayer.)

"Just and favourable construction" of
passages like these must be sought, argued Mr.
Gorham, ( 1 ) by bringing them into j uxtaposition
with the precise and dogmatical teaching of
the Church in her explicit standard of doctrine,
the XXXIX. Articles ; (2) by comparing the
various parts of her Formularies with each
other ; (3) by ascertaining the views of those
by whom her services were reformed and her
Articles sanctioned.

The real point involved in these questions
was the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism,
not merely in infants, but in adults, and that
question could not, he argued, be fairly dis
severed from the efficacy of the other Sacra
ment, that of the Lord's Supper. (See Article
XXIX.)

The Articles were cited as teaching that, in
addition to right administration of both sac
raments, " worthy reception " is essential to
their becoming " effectual signs of grace." No
distinction is made in this respect between
adults and infants. "They that receive bap
tism rightly (recte baptismum suscipientes, i.e.
not merely by lawful administration, but by
worthy reception) are grafted into the Church ;
the promises of the forgiveness of sins and of
our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy
Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed."

Such, Mr. Gorham contended, is the doctrine
of the Articles on the efficacy of both Sacra
ments — where there is no worthy reception,
there is no bestowal of grace.

The Formularies fairly construed are con
sistent with the Articles. In the Catechism
"the inward and spiritual grace" is carefully
distinguished from "the outward and visible
sign " which is its token, pledge, and mani
festation when rightly received. The condi
tions of ' ' repentance and faith " are expressly
required even of infants, who must enter into
these stipulations by their representatives.
Faith and repentance are declared by the
adult in his own person, and are stipulated by
the infant through bis sponsors as dispositions
which exist, or shall hereafter exist, in the
mind of the candidate. The whole Baptismal
Service, therefore, is constructed on the as
sumption that these promises are sincere, and
are pledged on behalf of the infant by its
sponsors as conditions which should be forth
coming in the mind of the candidate for
baptism. In this charitable hope the Formu
laries of the Church affirm that the subject of
baptism is "a member of Christ, the child of

GORHAM CASE, THE

[ 243 ]

GORHAM CASE, THE

God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven " (Question V.).

Question VI. In the same strain of chari
table hypothesis it is affirmed that infants " so
baptized," namely, not merely according to the
institution of Christ, but, with "the stipula
tion (the answer) of a good conscience towards
God," are born again of water and of the Holy
Ghost ; (Question VII. ) it being impossible that
such dispositions and fruits should exist, ex
cept when the Holy Ghost has imparted a new
nature, which He may do before baptism, in
baptism, or after baptism, "as He listeth."

The examination resulted in the refusal on
the part of the bishop to institute Mr. Gor
ham. on the ground of the unsoundness of the
doctrines enunciated by him.

In compelling the bishop by legal proceed
ings to grant institution, the form known as
Duplex Querula was adopted, which consisted
of a complaint tendered to the archbishop
against his Ordinary for some alleged denial
of justice. The Dean of Arches (Sir H. J. Fust)
issued a monition to the bishop to institute
Mr. Gorham within fifteen days, or show cause
for refusing ; institution to be proceeded with
by default. The bishop responded by what is
called an "Act on Petition," in which he in
cluded the book published by Mr. Gorham
containing a detailed account of his examina
tion. The bishop expressed himself convinced
that Mr. Gorham was of unsound doctrine in
respect to the efficacy of the Sacrament of
Baptism, inasmuch as he held that spiritual
regeneration is not given or conferred in that
Holy Sacrament. This elicited a defensive
rejoinder from Mr Gorham. The case came on
for hearing in the Arches Court in February
1849, and judgment was given in the following
August in favour of the bishop. Sir H. J. Fust
concluded his judgment by stating that "the
doctrine of the Church of England undoubtedly
is that children baptized are regenerated at
baptism, and are undoubtedly saved if they
die without committing actual sin. Mr. Gorham
has maintained, and does maintain, opinions
opposed to that Church of which he professes
himself a member and a minister."

From the decision of the Court of Arches Mr.
Gorham appealed to her Majesty in Council.
The case came on for hearing on Appeal,
before the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, December 11, 1849. The appellant's
points, as put by his Counsel, were principally
these : The Articles are the Code of Doctrine
in the Church of England, the Prayer Book
the Code of Devotion. It is not imputed to
Mr. Gorham that he holds anything incon
sistent with the Articles, but that he holds
doctrine inconsistent with opinions gathered
by the bishop inferentially from the Services

of the Church. The doctrine which Mr.
Gorham is alleged to contradict may be
stated as that of unconditional regeneration
in baptism, which is substantially the same
as that opus operatum of the Council of
Trent, which Article XXV. condemns, as is
shown by the version of that Article in the
edition of 1552 (their Article XXVI.), where
the words used were " and in such only as
worthily receive the same, have they a whole
some effect, and that not on account of the
work wrought, " idque turn ex opere (ut quidam
loquuntur) operate." The present Article XXV.,
though leaving out the particular words ex
opere operato, as effectually condemns the idea
of unconditional grace. The question is not
whether the doctrine of Mr. Gorham is laid
down in the Articles, but whether it is tenable
consistently with them.

A true view of the baptismal services shows
that they all admit of explanation on that
same charitable hypothesis which is con
fessedly the true explanation in the service
for adult baptism, and which charitable hypo
thesis necessarily pervades the entire Prayer
Book from Morning Prayer onward to the
close.

Mr. Gorham, on his part, denied the allega
tion of the bishop that he maintained, or
had at any time maintained, unsound doctrine
respecting the efficacy of the Sacrament of
Baptism, or that he had held, or persisted
in holding, any opinions thereon at variance
with the plain teaching of the Church of
England in her Articles and Liturgy.

The construction put upon Mr. Gorham's
doctrine by the Judicial Committee was as
follows : —

" Baptism is a Sacrament generally neces
sary to salvation, but the grace of regeneration
does not so necessarily accompany the act of
baptism that regeneration invariably takes
place in baptism ; that the grace may be
granted before, in, or after baptism ; that
baptism is an effectual sign of grace, by which
God works invisibly in us, but only in such as
worthily receive it — in them alone it has a
wholesome effect ; and that without reference
to the qualification of the recipient, it is not
in itself an effectual sign of grace. That
infants baptized, and dying before actual sin,
are certainly saved ; but that in no case is
regeneration in baptism unconditional."

The concluding words of the judgment given
in the Court of Appeal, reversing that of the
Court of Arches, are as follows : —

"The judgment of their lordships is, that
the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham is not con
trary or repugnant to the declared doctrine
of the Church of England as by law estab
lished, and that Mr. Gorham ought not, by

GOSPEL

[ 244 ]

GKACE

reason of the doctrine held by him, to hav
been refused admission to the vicarage o
Brampford Speke. We shall therefore humbl
report to her Majesty that the sentence pro
nounced by the learned Judge of the Arche
Court of Canterbury ought to be reversed, an<
that it ought to be declared that the re
spondent, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, has no
shown sufficient cause why he did not institute
Mr. Gorham to the said vicarage.

"We shall humbly advise her Majesty t
remit the cause with that declaration to the
Arches Court of Canterbury, to the end tha
right and justice may be done in this matte:
pursuant to the said declaration " (March 8
1850).

As the result of this judgment, the Dean o
Arches, acting for the archbishop, duly insti
tuted Mr. Gorham to the living of Brampforc
Speke.

Literature. — Brodrick and Freman tie's Judg
ments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, London, 1865. Letter to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury from the Bishop oi
Exeter, 91 pp., London, 1850. By the same to
the Churchwardens of the Parish of Bramp
ford Speke. A Pastoral Letter by the Bishop
of Exeter to his Clergy on " The Present State
of the Church," 126 pp., London, 1851. This
last contains an Address of sympathy from
thirty - seven ministers in Prussia. J. B.
Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy,
new edition, 1895, and his Primitive Doctrine
of Baptismal Regeneration, 1856. Among Mr.
Gorham's publications relating to the case, the
following maybe quoted: "Examination be
fore Admission to a Benefice, by the Bishop
of Exeter, followed by Refusal to Institute,"
London. This is the book mentioned as
having been filed in the Register of the Court
of Arches. The Rev. W. Goode issued a re
markable pamphlet by way of comment on the
Bishop of Exeter's Letter to the Primate
above mentioned, 107 pp. [W. H. W.]

GOSPEL.— This is derived from two Anglo-
Saxon words, god (good), and spell (news), and
therefore is equivalent to the Greek term
" good tidings." The complete revelation of
the goodness of God was reserved until in the
fulness of time the Lord Jesus Christ appeared.
It is in His Person and work that God's way
of salvation, through faith in Him, was made
known to men. In that revelation we discover
four cardinal and essential features. (1) His
Incarnation, by which God was manifested in
human nature, as full of grace and truth.
(2) His atoning Sacrifice on the Cross, by
which the barrier between God and sinners
was removed, and their reconciliation made
possible. (3) His Resurrection, by which that
Atonement was sealed and ratified, followed

by His Ascension in our nature to the right
hand of God, there to plead the sacrifice
offered upon the cross, and to pour down the
gifts and graces of His Holy Spirit. (4) His
second coming in power and glory to set up
His kingdom upon earth, to gather His living
saints to Himself, to raise from death those
who are asleep in Jesus, and then finally to
call all the buried myriads of mankind from
their graves and to judge the quick and the
dead, thus to effect the final triumph of good
over evil. Such in the main is the Gospel
message on its historical side, and because it
is such, it is the "power of God unto salva
tion to every one that believeth." [W. B.]
GRACE (x<fy"s> charis). — A term of frequent
occurrence in the Scriptures, especially of the
New Testament, in which it occupies a very
important place. Without a proper under
standing of the import of this word, we can
never make any satisfactory progress in the
knowledge of the Bible, or, indeed, compre
hend the general design of divine revelation.
Owing partly to the variety of application of
the term "grace," and partly to its familiar
and careless use in religious conversation, a
good deal of indefinite, if not confused, thought
exists. Consequently it will be necessary to
enter somewhat into details in treating this
subject.

Before considering our main topic, namely
its special Christian aspect, it will be useful
to notice its various applications. The word
Xap'S (charis) is connected with xaip& (chairo)
" rejoice," and it has five meanings.

1. It signifies, according to its etymology,
that which causes pleasure or joy, outward
grace (as we say well or ill-favoured), loveliness,
agreeableness, acceptableness. "All bare him
witness, and wondered at the gracious words "
(A.V.) i.e. "words of grace" (R.V.) \6yoi
X&PITOS (the genitive of quality) Luke iv. 22.
"Let your speech be always with grace," i.e.
with all pleasantness (Col. iv. 6.) See also
Eph. iv. 29, though possibly the meaning is
different there.

2. It signifies favour, goodwill. ' ' Fear not,
Mary, for thou hast found favour with God."
Xapw -rrapa rif Gey, there where God is, i.e.
God's favour (Luke i. 30). " And the child
grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom,
and the grace of God was upon him " (Luke
ii. 40). "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and
stature, and in favour with God and men"
(Luke ii. 52). See also Acts ii. 47; vii. 46
(" favour in the sight of God " contrast " favour
with God," Luke i. 30; ii. 52). "Desiring to
gain favour with the Jews " (Acts xxiv. 27 ;
cf. xxv. 9). " Asking favour (i.e. to be shown to
them but which would operate) against him "
(Acts xxv. 3 ; c/.ver. 15).

GRACE

[ 245 ]

GRACE

3. It signifies kindness, goodness. " For ye
know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that,
though he was rich, &c." (2 Cor. viii. 9). If
the context be considered in which these
words occur, " the grace " here means pro
bably not so much "spontaneous love" as the
"gracious beneficence" of our Lord.

4. It signifies the favour manifested or be
stowed, a gracious act. "And God is able to
make all grace (i.e. all earthly blessings)
abound " (2 Cor. ix. 8 ; 1 Pet. v. 10).

5. It signifies that which results in the re
cipient of the favour. Grace stands for the
emotion of joy, " For I had much joy (\a.pa>,
charin, A.V., but R.V. reads, •)(a.p6.v, charan),
and comfort in thy love" (Philem. 7); for a
sense of thanks for benefits, services, and
favours, also, possibly, matter of thankfulness.
"What thank have ye?" (Luke vi. 32 ; cf. 33,
34) ; " Doth he thank (lit. hath he favour or
thanks to) that servant" (Luke xvii. 9). See also
Rom. vi. 17; vii. 25 (R.V. marginal reading);
1 Cor. x. 30 (marginal rendering "thanks
giving" for "grace"); 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii.
14 ; viii. 16 ; ix. 15 ; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 3 ;
1 Pet. ii. 19, 20 (where charts is rendered
"thankworthy," A.V., "acceptable" R.V.).

The significance of the term x^P". then,
may be briefly thus stated. It means origi
nally acceptableness, pleasingness, the attribute
of one vrell-favoured. But its two chief usages
may be represented by our word favour, which,
in the singular number, means a disposition of
mind, and in the plural (favours) the marks and
outward manifestations of such a disposition.
Then, by a very simple change, the word was
applied to the reflex acts and operations of
the grace manifested, such as joy and thanks,
on the part of the recipient.

Having thus prepared the way, we will now
consider the term "grace" with its special re
ference to God's redemptive purposes. In this
usage of the term, there are four meanings
which need to be carefully noted in the order
in which we now give them.

First, grace is God's free, sovereign, un
deserved favour or love to man when in his state
of sin and misery by reason of the fall.1 In this
signification grace is a quality of the divine
administration, and is connected with God's
mercy as distinguished from His justice.
When thus viewed, grace is the cause of the
electing purpose, the reason of our personal
justification ; the germ of the renovating pro
gress ; the present motive to all piety, as it
is the prolific source of all favour. In a word,
it is the source and fountain-head of all
spiritual blessings.

1 Numerous proof texts of this usage are
given further on in the article.

Secondly, "grace" is used as signifying
grace as manifested in the provision made by God
for man's salvation. "The grace of God hath
appeared, bringing salvation " (Titus ii. 11).

Thirdly, "grace "is used for grace as mani
fested in the application of the plan of salvation,
viz., the grace enabling the sinner to embrace
the means provided for his recovery and re
storation.2

In the first of these meanings we think
chiefly of the purposes of God the Father ; in
the second, of the work of God the Son ; in the
third, of the influence of God the Holy Spirit.
Put briefly, grace, then, may be regarded as
the free, unmerited favour of God the Father,
by which He has provided for man salvation in
Christ, and by which God enables man, through
the Spirit, to enjoy salvation's blessings.

Fourthly, by a very natural extension of the
meaning of the word,3 it is applied to the
reflex acts and operation of the grace mani
fested from God to the sinner — to the exercised
love, beneficence, spiritual joy, &c., which
are at once the fruit and the evidence of
imparted grace.

Although the main aspect of grace is that
of a quality in the divine administration, it
cannot be properly discussed apart, but must
be viewed, in order to be understood aright,
in connection with the diverse purposes and
acts which peculiarly exemplify it. Thus
"purpose and grace " are joined together when
tracing redemptive privileges to their source
in 2 Tim. i. 9.

With a view to illustrate the doctrine of
divine grace we will take the passages in
which the word " grace " occurs in groups.

The first of these groups to be noticed is the
well-known salutations of grace which occur in
the Epistles. They are similar in character,
but in some instances slightly varying in form.
The opening salutations are as follows : " Grace
to you and peace" (1 Thess. i. 1 ; cf. Rev. i. 4).
" Grace to you and peace, be multiplied " (1 Pet.
i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2). "Grace to you and peace
from God our Father "(Col. i. 2). "Grace to you.
and peace from God our Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ " (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor.
i. 2 ; Gal. i. 3 (" our Lord Jesus Christ ") ; Eph. i.
2 ; Phil. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 2 ; Philemon 3).
"Grace and peace from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Saviour" (Tit. i. 4). "Grace,
mercy, peace 4 from God the Father and Christ

2 Ibid.

3 This application of the word is called by gram
marians the metonymy of the instrumental cause.

4 xaPiS (charts) is the divine favour extended
to the sinful; Aeos (eleos) is mercy to the
miserable; eip-f]v^ (eirene) is peace, the result of
grace.

GRACE

[ 246 ]

GRACE

Jesus our Lord " (1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; Tit. i.
4 (A.V.) "our Saviour" for "our Lord").
"Grace, mercy, peace shall be with us, from
God the Father, and from Jesus Christ, the Son
of the Father " (2 John 3 ; cf. Jude 2). In
these salutations grace, the well-spring of all
mercies, and peace, the crown of all blessings,
are mentioned in connection with both God
the Father and God the Son. These blessings
come from the Father as their source, and from
the Son as the Medium, and (though not
directly stated in these salutations) imparted
through the Holy Spirit.1 In the closing
salutations which are fewer in number, and
briefer in form, with one exception, grace is
mentioned in reference to the Saviour only.
They are as follows : The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ be with you (1 Cor. xvi. 23).
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you " (Rom. xvi. 20 ; 1 Thess. v. 28). " The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you
all" (Rom. xvi. 24, in A.V. not in R.V. ;
2 Thess. iii. 18). " The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with your spirit " (Gal. vi. 18 ;
Phil. iv. 23; Philem. i. 25). " The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the communion of the Holy Ghost be with
you all " (2 Cor. xiii. 14).

The second group of passages for our study
is that which contains statements respecting the
connection between salvation (whether viewed as
a whole plan or in its various parts), and the
grace of God. For convenience they may be
arranged as follows.

Salvation is most definitely spoken of as being
gratuitously bestowed, and its ultimate source
is traced to the free, unmerited goodness of
God, "by grace" we "are saved" (Eph. ii. 5) ;
redemption is "according to the riches of his
grace;" (Eph. i. 7) the design of salvation
from first to last is " that God might shew
the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness
towards us in Christ Jesus " (Eph. ii. 7) ; and
He has "fore-ordained us unto adoption as
sons ... to the praise of the glory of his grace "
(Eph. i. 5, 6). The recovery of man from the
effects of the Fall, and the restoration of him
to higher blessings than those lost in Adam, is
spoken of as the abounding of " the grace of
God, and the gift by the grace" (Rom. v. 15;
cf. verses 17, 20, 21). Salvation, too, in all its
various processes and parts is traced to grace.
1v»ere is " the election of grace" (Rom. xi. 5) ;

1 The iToly Spirit's work is not mentioned in
these saluta\ionS) possibly because the blessings
sought are vit^e(j from their objective rather
than from their Abjective side. The Apostles
in their opening gret>ingS <jo not stop to mention
the process by whic, the blessings implored
reach the soul.

we are " called . . . according to his own
purpose and grace" (2 Tim. i. 9); we are
"justified freely by his grace" (Rom. iii. 24; cf.
Eph. i. 5-7) ; we are completely sanctified, and
shall be glorified by His grace, and so are
warned against falling short of " the grace of
God " (Heb. xii. 15), and are inexcusable if we
do so, as "God is able to make all grace
abound" to us (2 Cor. ix. 8). The death of
Christ, which is the chief manifestation of
God's grace, and the ground upon which the
blessings of salvation are conferred, is specially
stated to have been on behalf of every man
without distinction, " That by the grace of
God he should taste death for every man "
(Heb. ii. 9). "Eternal comfort and good hope,"
two choice blessings of salvation, are named
as being "through grace" (2 Thess. ii. 16). In
order to prevent any possible mistake about
the gratuitous character of salvation, we have
contrasted for us in an emphatic manner, the
principle of "grace" with that of "works"
(Rom. xi. 6 ; cf. iv. 4), and are told that
salvation does not originate in ourselves, but is
"the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8); and the
promise is " of faith, that it may be according
to grace " (not law), that it may be " sure to
all the seed " (Rom. iv. 14-16). Even though
the doctrine of grace was abused, and used as
an encouragement to the continuance and
abounding in sin, the Apostle does not tone
down these statements, but forcibly contends
that salvation by grace, because it is wholly
by grace, ought to have the opposite effect,
and prove an incentive to holiness. "Shall
we continue in sin, that grace may abound ?
God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we
any longer live therein 1 " (Rom. vi. 1, 2).

The two groups of passages we have dealt
with practically exhaust those in which the
grace of God is used for the free, unmerited
love of God. We now pass to a different class
of passages in which grace is used for the mani
festation and modes of the grace ; and these
cover a wide range. There is a great variety,
and there are also nice shades of meaning in
the use of grace in this secondary sense.
These need to be carefully discriminated if
we are to understand the true meaning of a
large number of important and precious pas
sages in God's Word. The following is an
attempt to classify grace when used meta
phorically, (or, to put it more technically, by
the trope of metonymy) i.e. where the cause
stands for the effect.

1. Grace is a synonym for salvation in its
various aspects and the divine provisions made
for it.

Grace stands for salvation foretold by the
prophets and now revealed, " Grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ" (John i. 17); former-

GRACE

[ 247 ]

GRACE

feet salvation, "Concerning which salvation
the prophets sought and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come
unto you " (1 Pet. i. 10) ; complete redemption,
" Set your hope perfectly on the grace that is
to be brought unto you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ " (1 Pet. i. 13) ; for the proffered
reconciliation, " That ye receive not the grace
of God in vain " (2 Cor. vi. 1) ; for the pro
visions made for salvation, " This is the true
grace of God" (1 Pet. v. 12) ; for the spiritual
^rovision which God has made for us in Christ,
"It is good that the heart be stablished by
grace" (Heb. xiii. 9), "Turning the grace of
our God into lasciviousness " (Jude, 4) ; for
the atoning death of Christ, " I do not frustrate
the grace of God " (Gal. ii. 21).

2. Grace is a synonym for the blessings of sal
vation. "Of his fulness have all we received,
and grace for grace," i.e. in successive com
munications and fresh measure as each fresh
supply became necessary (John i. 16) ; " Full of
grace and truth," i.e. fully manifested the bless
ings of salvation and God's faithfulness to His
ancient (Messianic) promises (John i. 14).

3. Grace is a synonym for the message or teach
ing of the Gospel. " Since the day ye heard and
knew the grace of God" (i.e. the message of
salvation) " in truth " (Col. i. 6 ; cf. Acts xx.
24) ; "To continue in the grace of God," i.e.
the teaching of the Gospel (Acts xiii. 43).

4. Grace is a synonym for the status of salva
tion. Grace stands for the state of gratuitous
justification. " Through whom also we have had
our access by faith into this grace wherein we
stand " (Rom. v. 2) ; for the condition of accept
ance with God into which faith in Christ brings
us, "Ye are fallen away from grace " (Gal. v. 4).

5. Grace is a synonym for the gracious in
fluence of the Holy Spirit, enabling, sustaining,
directing us, and also for supplies of divine grace.

Grace stands for the enabling influence of
the Holy Spirit. " By the grace of God I am
what I am : and his grace which was bestowed
upon me was not found vain ; . . . yet not I,
but the grace of God which was with me"
(1 Cor. xv. 10) ; " Singing with grace in your
hearts unto God" (which enables you to lift
your hearts as well as your voices to God),
(Col. iii. 16) ; " And great grace was upon them
all," i.e. working in them, leading them to
impart their goods to the poor (Acts iv. 33)
" Helped them much which had believed
through (the assistance of divine) grace " (rrjs
XtipiTOS,1 tes charitos), (Acts xviii. 27); "Let us

1 Bishop Lightfoot commenting on Phil. i. 7
remarks, " In this case i) x<*Pts> wi^ ^he de
finite article, stands absolutely for 'the divine
grace,' as frequently (e.g. Acts xviii. 27 ; 2 Cor
iv. 15 ; Gal. v. 4 ; Eph. ii. 8).

have (and turn to good account) grace (R.V.
margin, 'thankfulness') whereby we may offer
service well-pleasing to God " (Heb. xii. 28).

The grace of God stands for the sustaining
grace of God. "And he hath said unto me,
My grace is sufficient for thee " (2 Cor. xii. 9).
The grace of God stands for the directing
grace of God. " In (i.e. in the sphere of, and
actuated and guided by) the grace of God, we
behaved ourselves in the world, and more
abundantly to you-ward" 2 Cor. i. 12. Grace
stands for supplies of divine grace : " But
he giveth more grace," and "giveth grace to
the humble" (Jas. iv. 6); "For God re-
sisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble" (1 Pet. v. 5); "Ye all are par
takers with me of grace" (TTJJ x<*Ptros)' *•*•
supplies of divine grace sustaining me under
"my bonds," and nerving me "in the defence
and confirmation of the Gospel" (Phil. i. 7) ;
"That the grace, being multiplied (i.e. the
supplies of the grace which preserves us in
trial and works life in you) through the
many (sharing in it), may cause the thanks
giving (which it excites) to abound unto the
glory of God" (2 Cor. iv. 15. See also Heb.
xii. 28).

Grace stands for the power qualifying an
Apostle or a minister to fulfil the various duties
of his office. " Unto me, who am less than the
least of all saints, was this grace given, to
preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable
riches of Christ" (Eph. iii. 8); " Whereof I
was made a minister, according to the gift of
that grace of God which was given me accord
ing to the working of his power " (Eph. iii. 7) ;
" If so be that ye have heard of the dispensation
(i.e. the arrangements made for dispensing as
a steward) of that grace of God which was
given me to you-ward" (Eph. iii. 2) ; "For I
say through the grace that was given me "
(Rom. xii. 3) ; "Because of the grace that was
given me of God " (Rom. xv. 15) ; "According
to the grace of God which was given unto me,
as a wise master-builder " (1 Cor. iii. 10) ;
' ' Perceived the grace (i.e. the call, the spiritual
outfit, and success) that was given unto me "
(Gal. ii. 9) ; " They sailed to Antioch, from
whence they had been committed to the grace
of God for the work which they had fulfilled "
(Acts xiv. 26 ; cf. xiii. 3) ; " Being commended
by the brethren to the grace of the Lord"
(Acts xv. 40). The reference in Acts xiv. 26,
xv. 40, is not only to the protection and
helping favour of God, but to divine power
from God to enable those sent to fulfil the
duties of their office.

Grace stands for the power qualifying for
fulfilling special offices in the Church. " Accord
ing as each hath received a gift, ministering
it among yourselves, as good stewards of the

GRACE

[ 248 ]

GRACE

manifold grace of God" (1 Pet. iv. 10) ; "And
having gifts differing according to the grace
that was given to us, whether prophecy, &c."
(Rom. xii. G).

Grace stands for the power qualifying members
of a Church to have a rich supply of spiritual
gifts (xapifff^ara, charismata). " I thank my
God always concerning you, for the grace of
God which was given you in Christ Jesus ;
that in everything ye were enriched in him, in
all utterance and in all knowledge ; ... so
that ye come behind in no gift " (1 Cor. i. 4-7).

6. Grace in one instance is a synonym for the
spiritual life itself. " But grow in the grace
and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ," i.e. the spiritual life of which Christ is
the Dispenser through the Holy Spirit, and in
the knowledge of which He is the object
(2 Pet. iii. 18).

7. Grace is a synonym for a spiritual blessing
conveyed by the means of one sen-ant of God to
another.

Grace stands for the effusion of the divine
grace to be expected by the visit of an Apostle,
"And in this confidence I was minded to come
before unto you, that ye might have a second
benefit," or "grace" as in margin of both A.V.
and R.V. (2 Cor. i. 15) ; for the spiritual benefit
to be conveyed by the edifying conversation of
ordinary believers, "But such (speech) as is
good for edifying as the need may be, that
it may give grace to them that hear "
(Eph. iv. 29).

Grace is a synonym for the fruit and evidence
of imparted grace. This reflex use of "grace"
it not common in the New Testament, and
we really only find it in the Epistles to the
Corinthians. "We made known to you the
grace of God — i.e. the spirit of liberality —
which hath been given in the churches of
Macedonia" (2 Cor. viii. 1) ; "That as he had
made a beginning before, so he would also
complete in you this grace also," i.e. this
spirit of liberality (2 Cor. viii. 6) ; "Them will
I send to carry your bounty (liberality, A.V.)
unto Jerusalem " (1 Cor. xvi. 3) ; "See that ye
abound in this grace also," i.e. charitable
helpfulness (2 Cor. viii. 7) ; " Who was also
appointed by the churches to travel with us
in the matter of this grace," i.e. the alms
collected for the poor (2 Cor. viii. 19).

Having completed the examination of the
groups of passages in which the word "grace"
is found, there are a few phrases in which
this term occurs that require notice. Perhaps
the most important of these is the phrase
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, or its
simpler form the grace of Clirist. " Grace "
in this expression does not mean "the spon
taneous love of the Saviour," nor " the whole
work of Christ as a manifestation of His

redeeming love." But it means either the
salvation secured to us by the atoning death
of Christ, or the blessings of salvation im
parted by Him to us by the agency of the
Holy Spirit, or both these ideas combined in
one. " That called you in the grace of Christ,"
i.e. in the sphere and by the means (of the
preaching) of the salvation secured by the
work of Christ (Gal. i. 6); "And the grace
of our Lord (i.e. the divine favour and pardon
ing mercy, which I received on account of
the atoning work of Christ) abounded exceed
ingly with faith and love which is in Christ
Jesus " (1 Tim. i. 14) ; " The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ (i.e. the blessings of salvation
secured by His atonement), and the love of
God, and the communion (with the Father
and the Son) of the Holy Ghost," i.e. by the
agency of the Holy Ghost (2 Cor. xiii. 14) ;
"Through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (i.e.
through the efficacy of the salvation secured
by the work of the Lord Jesus) we shall be
saved even as they (Acts xv. 11). The
following phrases call for a passing com
ment : The throne of grace means the throne
upon which God is seated, who gratuitously
dispenses favours to believing suppliants
(Heb. iv. 16). The grace of life (1 Pet. iii. 7)
signifies the eternal life given by grace. The
election of grace points to the selection (choice
of some out of the whole number) not for their
own personal worth, but of God's free mergy
(Rom. xi. 5). The wwd of grace is the word
proclaiming this grace as revealed in the Gospel
(Acts xiv. 3 ; cf. xx. 24). The Spirit of grace
(Heb. x. 29) refers to the Holy Spirit that con
fers grace. The riches of His grace (Eph. i. 6),
termed also " the exceeding riches of His
grace " (Eph. ii. 7), is the overflowing abun
dance of unmerited love, inexhaustible in God,
and f reely accessible through Christ. The glory
of His grace (Eph. i. 6) is the divine excellence
of His goodness exercised towards us, and
possibly the sanctifying effect produced in us.
The grace that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. ii. 1),
the supply of the spiritual life which is ever
ready to be given to those who are savingly
united to the Saviour. To continue in the
grace of God (Acts xiii. 43) means either,
continue in loyal adherence to the principles
and teaching of the Gospel, which you, by
divine grace, have embraced ; or continue in
your new heavenly experiences of divine grace
and your Christian course. Grace and apostle-
ship (Rom. i. 5) is used to teach us that
St. Paul was called to the apostleship through
the mercy of God despite his unworthiness,
and that he was qualified by divine power
to discharge his office. Purpose and grace
(2 Tim. i. 9) is employed to indicate that the
redemptive blessings are sure because they

GRACE

[ 249 ]

GRACE

were fixed by the divine purpose, and that
purpose was due to the sovereign free favour
of God, and that the carrying out of that
purpose is from first to last a manifestation
of His grace.

Upon such a subject as the grace of God,
full of divine mystery, it is easy to indulge
in speculations which lead to little profit.
Some have endeavoured to tie regenerating
grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the
Sacrament of Baptism. But in the Gorham
case it was held that regenerating grace, as
befits its free and sovereign nature, is not tied
to baptism, which is its appointed sign and
covenant seal.

Others have made nice distinctions between
common and special grace — grace which all
who hear the Gospel receive, which renders
them guilty if they reject its offers, and
grace which secures its acceptance. But for
this distinction there is no foundation in
Scripture. Such a theory really removes no
difficulty on the subject, but creates further
difficulties.

Others, again, speak of grace as irresistible.
But here we need to be cautious in adopting
such a term. If grace were absolutely irre
sistible, then man would be a mere machine
in the process of salvation, and his freewill
would be entirely destroyed, if, at least, no
room be left for its action. The XVIIth Article
states that grace works first, and then we
work with the grace. Of course, if all barriers
to the inlet of divine grace were removed,
and our faith in Christ was perfectly child
like, grace would flow in as a mighty stream.
In so far as grace works in the soul, its power,
since it is divine, is able to convert the heart,
illumine the understanding, and rectify the
conscience to the highest possible degree.

Pelagianism holds that men can, unaided by
divine grace, turn to God ; the Eoman Cath
olics and Ritualists teach that every baptized
child can do so : the Arminians hold that,
along with the preaching of the Gospel, power
is given to enable all to embrace salvation.
The Calvinist contends that only the elect can
or do receive grace which enables them to
believe, and that none who have received
divine grace will be finally lost.

Upon a subject which is profound and
highly speculative, upon which we have so
little revealed, and upon which the holiest
men have differed, and will to the end probably
differ, it is well to be not unbecomingly dog
matic. It is a comfort to know that, as a
matter of practice, Arminians and Calvinists,
in their earnest appeals to sinners, often use
very similar language.

Before closing this article it may be well to
offer a few criticisms upon the definition of

grace which Romanists and Ritualists give of
this term. Our comments need only be brief,
as the underlying fallacies in such definitions
have been anticipated in the previous summary
and analysis.

The definition of grace given in the Catholic
Dictionary is that "Grace is a supernatural
gift freely bestowed by God on rational or
intellectual creatures, in order that they may
attain eternal life." This, of course, is rather
an evasion of a definition than a definition,
besides being a strange medley of theological
ideas, and if it teaches anything, is a misre
presentation of Gospel truth. Before telling us
that grace is " a gift," we want to know what
the gift is. If we ask what is "the (not "a")
gift " that enables us to have " eternal life,"
the answer would naturally be the Saviour,
who is " the true God, and eternal life" (1 John
v. 20), " The Lord our Righteousness " (Jer.
xxiii. 6). But, then, that cannot be the mean
ing of grace in the definition, for how can we
talk with any regard to propriety of language
and congruity of ideas, of the Saviour, or
justifying righteousness being "a supernatural
gift freely bestowed on " men or angels ?
Again, take " a supernatural gift " to be the
gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, then we
remark that in the Bible the Holy Spirit is
spoken of as the "gift" rather than His
gracious influences, and also His gracious
influences are the process by which we become
holy and qualified for the enjoyment of eternal
life, not the means by which we attain it. Our
holiness to the end is imperfect. Justifying
righteousness is the "gift by grace " (Rom. v.
15 ; c/. ver. 17) which alone furnishes a title to
heaven. The definition under consideration
neither suits justifying nor sanctifying grace.
In it the one thing which is indispensable to be
defined, and professed to be done, is conveni
ently omitted, whether through carelessness
or design. Nothing which we can name as the
"supernatural gift" would make the definition
conform to the laws of common sense and sound
Scriptural teaching. The truth is that this
definition fails (as all other definitions of
grace in like circumstances must fail) because
it leaves out of sight the fact that the grace of
God is a quality of the divine administration
which manifests itself in the provisions made
for salvation, and in the power enabling us to
embrace the salvation provided and to have
eternal life. Roman Catholics, especially the
mediaeval writers, delight in exercising their
ingenuity in making minute and artificial dis
tinctions about divine grace, but in them all
there is the radical fault of confusing justify
ing and sanctifying grace. Upon no strictly
theological point, perhaps, are Protestants
and Romanists more directly at variance than

GRACE

[ 250 ]

GRACE, MEANS OF

respecting sanctifying grace. Komanists regard
sanctifying grace as " shed abroad in our hearts
by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us " (Council
of Trent, Sess. vi. canon 11), and consider in
fused virtues as another form of habitual
grace. The teaching of the Holy Scriptures,
however, is that the Holy Spirit sheds abroad
the love of God in our hearts (Rom. v. 5), and
hence are produced the graces which adorn
the soul. There is no such thing as grace in
the sense of "a supernatural gift," when by
the phrase is meant a sort of deposit or germ
left by the Holy Spirit in our souls ; a some
thing existing by its own inherent power apart
from Himself ; a something which at last be
comes " infused virtues " possessing a vitality
in themselves. The simple and sound Scrip
tural teaching concerning the sanctifying
process is, that from first to last it is carried on
by the direct and immediate operation of the
Holy Ghost in our souls and upon our lives.

Sanctifying grace is an enabling poiver, not
"a supernatural gift" in the sense of the
Roman Catholics (see SANCTIFICATION). It is
worthy of notice that the need of grace as
"a supernatural (and undefined) gift" readily
lends itself to the sacerdotal and mechanical
system of Rome ; " grace " then becomes some
thing, though indefinite, yet apparently more
tangible, and possessing a transferable char
acter through human instrumentality, than the
true grace of God which in its every aspect
is sovereign and free in its character. A
better way could not have been devised
whereby to exclude from the Church the
Person and work of the Holy Spirit. To such
an extent is this sin against the Holy Spirit
carried in all the other doctrines of the
Church of Rome, more especially in her teach
ing concerning the Sacraments, that many
simple, pious Romanists might well exclaim in
the language of the Ephesian disciples, "We
did not so much as hear whether there be a
Holy Spirit" (Acts xix. 2).

In further justification of the way in which
Roman doctrine respecting grace does dis
honour to the work of the Holy Spirit, allu
sion may be made to the materialistic theory
of Aquinas adopted by the Ritualists, viz., that
the glori6ed body of Christ imparted by
means of Sacraments is what they understand
by "grace." In Blunt's Annotated Prayer
Hook, the index refers you under "Grace,
what it is," to the following statement (p.
158), "the body and blood of Christ are the
true recuperative substance which is repre
sented in the New Testament by the word
"grace"; the antidote to the Fall, and the
germinating nucleus of the restored Life."
Cobb's Kiss of Peace (p. 408) says the
Eucharist is " the food which should nourish

by its substance that supernatural life, the germ
of which was implanted in them at Holy
Baptism." This "substance" is clearly sup
posed to be ubiquitous, and the office of the
Holy Spirit is reduced (as by Wilberforce's
Doctrine of the Incarnation) to impregnating
portions of " consecrated " matter with this
insensible "substance," so that on the " Sacra
ment " being swallowed (as in the Lord's
Supper), or applied to the skin (as in baptism),
this "germ " or " nucleus" grows and fructi
fies. Thus a pantheistic materialism sup
plants the Holy Spirit in His special work and
office as the " Giver of Life " acting directly upon
the created spirit. Some better definition of
sanctifying grace is needed than that given by
Roman divines. Grace was said by S. Wilber-
force to be " God's love in action " : perhaps it
would be better to define it as the "diversity of
gifts " wrought by the Holy Spirit directly and
immediately within the soul of man.

[C. N.]

GRACE AT MEALS.— The custom of giving
thanks before meat was one strictly observed
among the Jews. The first treatise of both
the Talmuds (of Jerusalem and of Babylon) is
largely occupied with the point. Our Lord
put His seal of approval upon the practice on
the several occasions on which He fed the multi
tudes in the wilderness. The same Greek word
is there employed (Matt. xiv. 19) which is
found in the narrative of the institution of
the Lord's Supper in Matt. xxvi. 26 (euXo-y^o-as),
which need not necessarily be explained of
any consecration of the bread or fish used on
those occasions. Even the word employed in
the next verse (ver. 27), that is ei)xaP'°"T7?°"aS)
is that also employed in the "grace" or
"blessing" pronounced over ordinary food
(1 Cor. x. 30, 31, and so also in Acts xxvii.
35). The food partaken of after such "bene
diction " is said by St. Paul to be "sanctified
(ayid^erai) by the word of God ^and prayer "
(1 Tim. iv. 4. 5). The practice passed from
the Jews to the Christians, and is mentioned
by several of the Early Fathers, e.g. repeatedly
by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and
others. [C. H. H. W.]

GRACE, MEANS OF.— These are appointed
channels, through which the grace of God is
generally conveyed to the souls of men.
These channels are various. The principal
are these: (1) The Holy Scriptures, which,
as the divine treasure-house of revealed truth,
are to be searched and devoutly studied (John
v. 39; 2 Tim. iii. 15-17; Acts xvii. 11). (2)
The preaching and teaching of the Word of
God. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the Word of God" (Rom. x. 17 ; compare
1 Pet. i. 25). (3) Prayer, private, public, social,
addressed directly to the Father through the

GRADUAL

[ 251 ]

GREEK CHURCH, THE

Son and by the Holy Spirit, and not through
any human or angelic mediators (Luke xi. 9-
13 ; John xiv. 13 ; Heb. iv. 16 ; Eph. ii. 18).
(4) The two Sacraments (a) Baptism (Matt,
xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal.
iii. 27); (b) The Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi.
26-29; Mark xiv. 22-26; Luke xxii. 15-21;
1 Cor. x. 16, 17; xi. 17 to end). To these
divinely appointed ordinances may be added
others, such as Confirmation, although only of
Church authority. The efficacy of them all
depends entirely on the power and presence of
the Holy Spirit. [W. B.]

GRADUAL.— The name of the book containing
the music for the Mass, though more properly
it is an antiphon sung after the Epistle, and
so called because it was chanted on the altar
steps, or whilst the deacon ascended the steps
of the " Ajabo " or chanting pulpit.
GREEK CHURCH, THE.— Christianity, in
the first stages of its progress, spread in places
where, with some notable exceptions, such as
Rome itself, Greek was the official language.
In consideration of the facts that Christianity
had its historical origin in Palestine, that the
preaching of the Apostles, of whom we have
definite knowledge, was confined almost en
tirely to Eastern lands, and, also, that the
New Testament Scriptures circulated in Greek
versions, the early Church may not incorrectly
be described as Eastern and Greek. The
mediaeval Church, on the other hand, from its
influence in the civilised world, is properly
styled Western and Latin. In spite, then, of
the Church being Greek in its beginnings, to
so great an extent, the chief area of its influence
came to be found among the Latin communi
ties ; and at last, in the eleventh century, the
Greek and Roman Churches were formally
separated. While the position of the bishopric
of Rome was unique, in virtue of its associa
tion with the ancient capital of the Empire,
there was no Church in the East, after the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70, which obtained
supremacy over all others. The Council of
NicEea recognised Alexandria, Rome, and
Antioch as Patriarchates ; while Constanti
nople and Jerusalem, at a later time, obtained
the same rank. Moscow, after a lapse of
centuries, was also styled a patriarchate. Rome
was pre-eminent among the Churches of the
West, and the bishop was styled by the great
Augustine, "President of the Church of the
West ; " but no patriarchate stood alone in
the East, giving its bishop the primacy in the
Church.

Unity was expressed, not through the govern
ment of one man, but through creed, ritual
and historical tradition. The true Catholic
Church, which knows no geographical bounds
was first manifested in the most visible fashion

possible, when bishops from various parts of
Christendom assembled at Nicaea, in 325, to
hold a General or (Ecumenical Council. They
claimed to act under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, and their chief business was to
settle the Creed. The Councils, of which the
Nicene was the first, determined the formula
of the faith, but the assertion that these
Councils were guided by special divine revela
tion is denied by the Protestant Churches, as
the XXXIX. Articles and the Westminister
Confession, for example, show. The Nicene
Creed, which marked off the orthodox from
the Arians— the most notable heretics of the
period — came to be generally accepted in the
East and in the West ; but in the course of
the explication of its terms— those especially
which applied to the Saviour — many and dif
ferent sects of the Greek Church were formed.
At the second Council, which met at Constanti
nople in 381. an addition to the Nicene formula
was adopted in order to set forth with clear
ness the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which
had been the subject of dispute between
the orthodox and the Macedonians, a sect
of semi-Arians, who followed Macedonius, a
bishop of Constantinople. In the addition the
most significant phrase was rb fK TOV irarpos
tKiropfv6/j.evov, to which the Latins, at a
later date, made in their translation the further
addition offilioque. The third General Council,
which met at Ephesus in 431, was mainly con
cerned with the question of the divine and
human elements in Christ. The Creed had
declared Him to be 6/j.oov<nos as regards the
Father, and had described Him as (va.t>6pw7rri<ra.s.
The Nestorians, so named from Nestorius, a
bishop of Constantinople, admitted the double
nature of Christ, but made the union of the
natures unreal. They refused to describe the
Virgin as 0eor6/cos, asserting that God could
not have a mother. Mary was simply
the mother of the man who is the instru
ment of the Godhead. The Council, eager
to assert the reality of the union of the two
natures, determined that Mary is rightly de
scribed as 6eoTt>Kos. The theological troubles
did not end with this Council. The Nestorians
continued to be suspected of asserting two
separate natures in Christ, while over against
them the followers of Eutyches, the abbot of
a monastery near Constantinople, seemed to
deny the two natures. The fourth General
Council, held at Chalcedon, 451, affirmed the
creed of Nica?a and Constantinople, and issued
a declaration regarding the faith, in which
Mary was described as QtorbKos, and Christ as
bein? IK 5i>o <f>vffeuv or, according to the Latin
translation, in duabus naturis. In consequence
of the declaration, the Nestorians separated
from the Church. The spread of their

GREEK CHURCH, THE

[ 252 ]

GREEK CHURCH, THE

doctrines was largely due to the teachers of
the theological school of Edessa, which was
a centre of thought for Armenia, Syria,
Chaldea, and Persia. According to the testi
mony of a writer of the sixth century (Cosmas
Indicopleustes), the Nestorians had established
themselves in Persia, India, and Ceylon, and
were to be found among the Bactrians, Huns,
Armenians, Medes, and Elamites, and also
among the Tartars and Chinese. The declara
tion of Chalcedon, with the phrase, " in two
natures, without confusion, without change,"
had still further effect on the unity of the
Church. The Monophysites, who may be
traced back to Eutyches, held the doctrine of
one nature, and they, separating from the
Church, afterwards formed distinct sects. It
was not, however, till the middle of the sixth
century that they were organised. Jacobus
Baradaeus was ordained by the Monophysite
leaders Bishop of Edessa, and through him, as
Gibbon says, " the expiring faction was revived,
and united, and perpetuated." The Monophy
sites have sometimes been styled Jacobites from
this man, though the name has been more
commonly restricted to the Syrian Monophy
sites. (See JACOBITES.) In Egypt, the Coptic
Church, in its separation from the Catholic
Church, owed its existence to Dioscurus, who
was deposed from the see of Alexandria by the
Council of Chalcedon for his advocacy of Euty
ches. The Copts, following their founder, con
tinued to be Monophysites. In the Abyssinian
Church Monophysitism further established it
self, and in Armenia found its most important
centre. At the fifth General Council, held in
Constantinople, 553, an attempt was made, by
granting certain concessions, to reconcile the
Monophysites to the Church, but the attempt
ended in failure. The sixth Council, 680,
which was also held at Constantinople, con
demning the Monothelite heresy, and deter
mining as an article of faith that Christ had
two wills, indirectly created a new sect. The
Monophysifces in general were Monothelites, but
apart from them, the Maronites on Mount
Lebanon organised themselves into a new
Church. In the twelfth century they were
united, not to the Greek, but to the Roman
Church ; though from the proceedings of the
Council of Constance it appears that some of
them, still holding the Monothelite doctrine,
were found in the fifteenth century in the
island of Cyprus.

The sixth Council condemned Honorius,
Bishop of Rome, as a Monothelite heretic, and
in consequence strained the relationship of
the two great divisions of the Church. During
the period of the Christological controversies
sects were formed, which were in reality sects
of the Greek Church, though the ecclesiastical

separation of East and West was not then
accomplished. Estrangement, however, was
gradually but constantly manifesting itself
through such events as the condemnation of
Honorius. This estrangement was fostered by
political changes in the Empire. The founda
tion of Constantinople was followed by the
transference of the chief seat of Government
from Rome to the new city, and if the West
had for a time to submit to the political rule
of the East, there was no sign of ecclesiastical
Rome yielding to Constantinople. The Church
in Rome claimed to be of Apostolic origin,
and, in the course of time maintained that its
bishops inherited the privileges bestowed on
St. Peter, who was alleged to be the first of
the Roman bishops. It was beyond question
the sole Western patriarchate, and was associ
ated with the ancient capital. The Church of
Constantinople, without the asset of long
tradition, could not obtain supremacy over
the Roman Church, and Rome had therefore
no formidable rival in the race for power.
The only question was, was there to be a Pope
or supreme pontiff of the whole Church ?
Towards the end of the fifth century Gelasius,
Bishop of Rome, declared in a letter to the
Emperor Anastasius, that the primacy of the
Roman Church had been erected by the word
of Christ Himself, and was acknowledged by
the universal Church. The acknowledgment
was supposed to be based on the sixth canon
of the Council of Nicaaa, which the Romans
interpreted or altered to suit their new
claims ; but the 28th Canon of Chalcedon,
which gave equal privileges to Constantinople
and Rome, was ignored. The bishops of Rome
increased in dignity and power in the West,
and did not hesitate in their assertion of
supremacy over the whole Church. The supre
macy, however, was not admitted in the East,
and towards the close of the sixth century the
bishops of Constantinople styled themselves
GEcumenical patriarchs. The sixth General
Council, as has been shown, condemned a
bishop of Rome for heresy, and some years
later, at a Council known as the Quinisext, the
Greeks condemned the Roman practice of
fasting on the Saturdays as well as on the
Wednesdays of Lent. The estrangement
between the Greek and Roman divisions of
the Church was still further marked when a
Synod of Constantinople, 754, which claimed
to be the seventh General Council, condemned
the veneration of images. In the ninth cen
tury a dispute regarding the bishopric of
Constantinople, begun in the reign of Pope
Nicholas I., brought Rome once more into
touch with the ecclesiastical affairs of the
East. Nicholas acted as if he had to settle an
appeal, and attempted to obtain an admission

GREEK CHURCH, THE

[ 253 ]

GREEK CHURCH, THE

of the supremacy of Rome. But though the
dispute in Constantinople was protracted
through many years, Rome gained nothing ;
and when the troubles ceased the separation
of the Churches was all but complete. In the
time of Nicholas ecclesiastical affairs were
still further confused by a bitter quarrel
regarding the Bulgarians. Christianity was
introduced among them in the ninth century,
and a question arose regarding the relation of
the new Church to the patriarchate of Con
stantinople, or to the bishopric of Rome. In
869 a Council was held at Constantinople,
which, in spite of the meagre attendance, the
Roman Church regards as the eighth General
Council. The dispute regarding the bishopric
of Constantinople, and the business of the
Bulgarian Church, were both settled to the
liking of the Latins, but the Greeks refused
to recognise the Council. They, in turn, held
a Council in 879 which anathematised that
of 869, and during its sittings the Bishop of
Constantinople, supported by the Greek
bishops, acted as if Rome had not asserted or
claimed supremacy. Bulgaria was eventually
retained by the Greek patriarch, and the
troubled association of the Greek and Roman
divisions of the Church was the prelude to
their final separation. That separation took
place in the year 1054. The Greek provinces
of Apulia, through the action of the Normans,
became connected with the see of Rome ; and
the patriarch of Constantinople warned the
people of those provinces against certain
practices in the ritual of the Latin Church.
Once more there was open feud, and at last
the Pope, Leo IX., sent legates to Constanti
nople, who, unable to end the dispute to their
satisfaction, entered the church of St. Sophia
and placed on the altar a document containing
the excommunication of the patriarch and his
friends. In this fashion the final rupture
between the Greek and Latin Churches was
brought about.

Futile attempts at reconciliation were made
by the Popes Gregory IX., Innocent IV., and
Clement IV. ; but the Greeks would not
accept the proposed conditions, especially
that dealing with Papal Supremacy. Nego
tiations were again begun in the reign of
Gregory X., who was anxious to obtain the
support of the Greek Emperor Michael for a
crusade. Michael, on the other hand, desired
for political reasons to be strengthened in his
possession of the Imperial throne, and sought
an alliance with the bishop of Rome. The
Emperor sent ambassadors to the Lateran
Council, 1274, who in his name accepted the
proposed conditions for the union of the
Churches. The union effected was political
rather than ecclesiastical, and did not endure

beyond the lifetime of Michael. In the
fifteenth century another union was formed,
which was no more lasting than that of the
thirteenth century. Certain Greeks appeared
at the Council of Florence, who accepted, or
were tricked into accepting, terms which they
would have repudiated but for their dread of
the Turks, who were threatening the Imperial
power in the East. The help of the Western
powers was sought by the Emperor, John
Palaeologus ; and he and his political associ
ates were willing to pay the price of the
autonomy of their Church for the needed help.
A ceremonial of union was carried out, but
there was no reality in it. The attempt made
in 1721 by a few non-juring bishops in
Scotland and England to secure union with
the Greek Church, seemed like an echo of the
mediaeval negotiations.

The Orthodox Greek Church, as it has long
been styled, is the Church which had its
centre in Constantinople, and which the
Roman Church cast forth from its communion,
or from which the Roman Church separated
itself. Associated through doctrine with the
Orthodox Greek Church are the national
Churches of Russia, Georgia — now incor
porated in the Russian — Servia, Roumania,
Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria.

So far as the doctrine is concerned, which
gives unity to the Greek Church, the point of
chief historical importance is the rejection of
the filioque clause, which was added in the
West to the Nicene Creed. The phrase,
which implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son as well as from the Father, was
formally inserted into the Creed at a Synod of
Toledo, 589, and the use of it passed into
France and England. At a Synod of Friuli,
796, and a Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, 809, it
was accepted by Charlemain (Charlemagne) and
his bishops. The Greeks in their rejection of
the Double Procession adhered to the words
set forth by an (Ecumenical Council, and so
doing, maintained their own independence,
and acted according to their sense of their own
nationality. At the Council of Florence, in
the fifteenth century, when the union of the
Churches was under consideration, it was ar
ranged that the Greeks should continue to hold
their own form of the creed. Purgatory was
another subject of discussion. The Latins
spoke of the fire of purgatory, while the Greeks
held that it should be described as a place of
darkness, gloom, and exclusion from the divine
presence. Another point of debate was the use
of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, which
the Greeks counted heresy. These three
matters, with the question of Roman Papacy,
obtained special prominence at the Council,
though the Latins asserted that there were in

GREEK CHURCH, THE

[ 254 ]

GREEK CHURCH, THE

all fifty-four points in which the Greeks were
heretical. There are six sacraments which all
priests of the Greek Church may administer :
baptism, confirmation, penance, Eucharist,
matrimony, unction of the sick ; but bishops
alone can confer ministerial orders. The
clergy may be married, except the bishops,
who are selected from the monks. Second
marriages are not permitted to the clergy.
At baptism immersion is practised, while the
unction of the sick is the anointing with
oil, after the fashion of the Apostolic Age.
Further, the Eucharist is administered to
infants. In protest against the Roman custom,
the Greeks condemn the practice of kneel
ing at public worship and at the celebration
of the Eucharist, and also the custom of
fasting on Saturdays during Lent. Instru
mental music is strictly forbidden in the
churches, and the buildings contain no images,
though pictures of the saints may be seen,
which receive the highest veneration. The
Liturgy of St. James, as it is styled, is in
constant use, either in its longer form, known
as the Liturgy of St. Basil, or in its shorter,
associated with the name of Chrysostom.
The language, whether in the Greek or the
Slavonic, is archaic. In government, doctrine,
and worship, the Greek Church is essentially
conservative of ancient forms, and recognises
little or no need of changes or adaptations for
modern wants. Nowhere is the conservatism
better seen than in the monasteries. The
monks of the West, throughout their history,
have been alive in thought and action, seek
ing to monasticise the Church itself. But in
the East the monks have been for the most
part united in lifeless associations. In the
earlier centuries they affected the form of the
creed, as they speculated in their cloisters,
and in later times they have given the bishops
to the Church. But they have not entered
into the life of the Church, and have formed
but dull or lifeless associations existing out
side the ordinary work of the Church.

The buildings which serve as churches are
constructed according to symbolic designs,
and symbolism permeates the ceremonies of
worship, and especially the service of the
Mass. In the Russian Church, the best repre
sentative of the Eastern Church at the present
time, the symbolism is most complete. In the
sacred building the name "altar " is given to
the portion of the Church often called "the
sanctuary." This is in accordance with the
statement of Ignatius in which forks TOU
BvffiaffTrjplov is spoken of (Ephes. v. ; cf. Trail,
vii. ). The altar is separated from other parts
by a screen. Inside "the altar," are the Holy
Table and the Preparation Table. On the first
of these are three candlesticks ; one with two

candles representing the two natures in Christ ;
one symbolical of the Trinity ; and one repre
senting the seven gifts of the Spirit. Fans,
with pictures of cherubs, and the artophoriou,
or bread- holder, on which is placed the bread
soaked with wine, are also to be found with
other things on the Holy Table. The Table
itself is regarded as God's throne, and is
covered with two cloths, the upper of which
is elaborately ornamented. The Preparation
Table stands on the left side of the altar, and
on it are such articles as the cross, the chalice,
in which is the wine mixed with water, the
knife used as a spear for piercing the bread,
and the censer.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist there are
three parts : (1) the preparation of the
materials ; (2) the preparation of the com
municants ; (3) the Eucharist proper. Five
cakes are prepared with symbolical rites. One,
called "the Lamb," represents Christ, and
when the preparation of this cake is complete,
the priest pours wine and water into the
chalice. The second cake is in honour of the
Virgin ; the third is in honour of the saints ;
the fourth is associated with living members
of the Church ; and the fifth with the dead.
The Eucharistic elements, when prepared, are
covered with beautiful coverings indicative of
the glory of Christ. The second part, the
Liturgy of the Catechumens, consists mainly of
prayers and hymns to the Trinity, and the
reading of Scripture. The Liturgy of the Faith
ful follows. The first part of this liturgy is
the final preparation of the Eucharistic ele
ments or "gifts " ; the second part is the pre
sentation of the sacrifice, the arrangement of
the sacrifice, and the memorial for the members
of the Church. The third part is the pre
paration for the reception, followed by the
reception of the Holy Communion. The com
municant receives at the hands of the priest a
spoonful of the bread and wine which had
been mixed together in the chalice. The
cake called "the Lamb" is the bread which,
soaked in the wine, is given to the communi
cant. The last part of the liturgy is the
Thanksgiving after Communion. The whole
service of the Mass, of which the foregoing is
but the slightest indication, is an elaborate
series of ceremonies associated with the central
rite. The rite represents an expiatory sacrifice ;
and, further, according to the doctrine of the
Church, the true body and blood of Christ, sub
stantially present in the bread and wine, are
partaken of by the communicant.

Literature. — Hefele's History of the Councils.
Baur, Die Christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit.
Dorner's History of the Doctrine of the Person
of Christ. Neale, The Holy Eastern Church.
Stanley, The Eastern Church. Littledale's Holy

GREGORIAN

[ 255

GUILDS

Eastern Church. Schaff's Creeds of Christendom.
Sinclair, The Churches of the East. Wright's
Service of the Mass in the Greek and Roman
Churches. [J- H.]

GREGORIAN.— See Music.

OBEMIAL.— A piece of cloth or linen placed
on the lap of a bishop in the Romish Church,
when celebrating Mass, or conferring orders.
Romanists think it important to distinguisli
this vestment from one somewhat similar, the
subcinctorium, which is worn exclusively by
the Pope.

GUILDS.— The Guild Movement within the
Church of England has spread to a vast
extent. It has been of the greatest value to
the Oxford Movement. The Guilds are not all
equally advanced in a Romeward direction,
but it must be confessed that, with but few
exceptions, they are of a distinctly non-
Protestant character. In only too many in
stances Guilds have been used for the purpose
of teaching the members, in their private
meetings, those, more extreme doctrines which,
for a time, it may be injudicious to proclaim
publicly from the pulpit.

Guilds may be divided into (1) General:
with branches throughout the country, but
with a central office, which is usually located
in London ; (2) Class Guilds, for members of
Universities, medical men, members of Theo
logical Colleges ; and (3) Local, confined to
one parish. There is also a Federation of
Guilds of all these classes, known as "The
Church Guilds' Union."

The oldest of the existing Guilds is known
as The Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity, Oxford.
It was founded in 1844, and only those who
are members of Oxford University are ad
mitted into its ranks. At present it has about
270 members. It is a child of the Oxford
Movement, and has ever been worked in its
interests, and has always avoided publicity as
far as possible. The Confraternity of the Holy
Trinity was founded in Cambridge in 1857, and
is really an off-shoot of the Oxford Brother
hood, working unitedly, but under separate
government. As at Oxford, so at Cambridge
admission is only accorded to members of
the University. At present it has about 400
members, and is worked on distinctly High
Church lines. The Society of the Holy Trinity
was founded in Durham in 1885, for members
of the University, and is in union with the
similar organisations at Oxford and Cam
bridge, and is distinctly High Church in its
tendencies. Protestant parents sending their
sons to either of these Universities should
warn them against joining either of these
organisations.

The Guild of St. Alban the Martyr was
founded in 1851. Laymen and women are ad

mitted as members, and bishops and clergy
are admitted as associates. Laymen and
women who do not wish to become full
members, may join as associates. The section
of the Guild open to men is known as " The
Brotherhood " ; that open to women as " The
Sisterhood." One of the objects of the Guild
is "To establish communities of men and
women devoted to works of charity and
mercy." The Guild promotes the Ritualistic
Movement, and has branches in various parts
of London, and also in Birmingham, Nor
thampton, Liverpool, Knaresborough, Rams-
gate, Nottingham, South Australia, and British
Columbia.

The Army Guild of the Holy Standard is
under the patronage of several bishops. It is
intended for soldiers of every rank, being com
municants of the Church of England. A few
Protestant Church dignitaries have given their
patronage to this Guild, but on the whole it
is worked on High Church lines, though not
of an extreme type. Branches of this Guild
have been formed in all the principal garrisons
and camps at home and abroad. The Guild
of St. Helena is for the wives and daughters
of soldiers, and is an offshoot from the Guild
of the Holy Standard, and worked on similar
lines.

The Guild of All Souls was founded in 1873
for the purpose of spreading a belief in the
doctrine of Purgatory within the Church of
England. It advocates the offering of Prayers
and Masses for the Dead. In connection with
this Guild about 5000 Masses for the Dead,
to deliver them from Purgatory, are offered
every year in England and Wales alone. In
1902 it possessed 86 branches in England,
Scotland, India, Prince Edward Island, Bar-
badoes, Montreal, and Port Elizabeth. Its
membership included 3665 of the laity and
749 of the clergy. The Guild issues to its
members a Quarterly Intercession Paper, but
it is very rarely that any Protestant is allowed
to see a copy. A list of its clerical members
has never been seen in print, so far as I am
aware. Manual of the Guild of All Smils. The
Secret History of the Oxford Movement, chap. viii.

The Guild of St. Mattheio was founded in
1877 for the purpose of influencing Secu
larists in favour of the Church of England.
-- It was founded, and has been mainly sustained,
by a band of Ritualists, most of whom would
probably term themselves Broad Churchmen.
The Guild takes a special interest in socialistic
questions. It had in 1901 about 283 members,
of whom 90 were clergymen. The names of
the clerical and lay members— excepting a few
officials — are unknown to the public.

There are many special Guilds for various
professions. Of these the following may be

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE

[ 256 ]

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE

mentioned here : The Guild of St. Barnabas,
for nurses. Each member wears a medal
which, when she is received into the Guild, is
solemnly blessed by a priest, who prays God
"to bless >f« and sanctify this medal." Each
nurse is expected to pray for the dead. There
is a division of this Guild to which medical
students are admitted. The Guild of St. Luke
has for its object "to promote and defend the
Catholic Faith amongst the members of the
medical profession." Its Provost in 1902 was
a member of the English Church Union, and
its Warden a member of the secret Society of
the Holy Cross. St. Martin's League is for
postmen, and is mainly under the control of
an ultra-Ritualistic clergyman. The Railway
Guild of the Holy Cross is for members of the
railway service, being members of the Church
of England. Clergymen are admitted as asso
ciates. The Guild was founded in 1872. In
the " Form of Admission of the Brethren " it
is provided that : "The crosses, with their
cords, being placed upon the altar, or held by
one of the Brethren, shall be blessed by the
priest."

There are also special Guilds for members of
particular colleges, in addition to those already
mentioned for the Universities of Oxford,
Cambridge, and Durham. The Guild of St.
Mark is for members of Keble College, Oxford.
In its Manual the members are recommended
to use " in connection with Private Confession
to a Priest, Hints for a First Confession." This
book is distinctly Romish in its teaching on
this subject.

There are, in addition, many hundreds of
Parochial Guilds, each being independent of all
others. They vary greatly in character, some
being of a very moderately High Church char
acter, while others are of the most advanced
Romanising character. A Kalendar oftheEnglish
Church: The Year Book of the Church of England.

[W. W.]

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE.— In recent times
it has been denied that there ever was a
Gunpowder Plot, and Father Gerard has at
tempted to overthrow the evidence in its
favour, while Professor Gardiner has written
a satisfactory reply.

The idea that Gerard advocates is, that the
plot never had any existence, but was merely
a device of the Earl of Salisbury. This con
tention he seeks to establish by the evidence
of Father John Gerard, who, although a
contemporary of Salisbury, had no special
knowledge or means of acquiring knowledge
concerning Salisbury and his motives. Ac
cording to Father Gerard, Bishop Talbot is
reported to have said that Cecil was the con
triver of the plot. This is asserted on the
authority of one of his household, "who

advertised a certain Catholic, by name Master
Buck, two months before, of a wicked design
his master had against the Catholics." But
if Salisbury had decided to invent a plot,
he would scarcely have confided the matter to
one of his domestic gentlemen. He might
have declared in private conversation his deter
mination to keep down the Roman Catholics.
Osborne the Puritan, and the Anglican Bishop
Goodwin are brought forward as witnesses on
behalf of Gerard's contention ; Osborne having
expressed his opinion that the discovery of
the plot was " a neat device of the treasurer's
[Salisbury], he being very plentiful in such
plots"; and Bishop Goodman writes that
Salisbury knew all about the plot, and to
"show his service to the State, he would
first contrive and then discover a treason."
Father Gerard further adduces evidence that
Bishop Ussher was heard to say, that " if the
Papists knew what he knew, the blame of
the Gunpowder Treason would not be with
them." Still further, Father Gerard quotes
a book of 1673, in which Lord Cobham and
others are reputed to have said that King
James frequently remarked, when he had time
to think the matter over, that the 5th of
November was Cecil's holiday.

A moment's reflection, however, shows that
all these statements only prove that rumours
were current at the time that Salisbury was
the author of the plot, but they are not
evidence of the fact. Father Gerard brings
forward also certain notes of an anonymous
correspondent of Anthony Wood, in which it
is stated that the plot was without doubt a
State one. The second Earl of Salisbury is
alleged to have confessed to William Lenthall
that it was his father's contrivance — that
Lord Monteagle knew all about the letter
hinting at the plot, before it arrived. It is
also stated that the plot was invented to
allow King James to break the promise he
had made to the Pope and the King of Spain,
that he would be tolerant to the Roman
Catholics. All such statements are merely
talk. The most important is that about the
second Earl of Salisbury, but it is most un
likely that the first earl would reveal such a
secret to his son, who was only twenty-one
years of age at his father's death.

The traditional story of the plot is as
follows. In 1604, three men, Robert Catesby,
John Wright, and Thomas Winter, determined
to blow up the House of Lords. Later on they
joined to them Thomas Percy and Guy Fawkes ;
still later, Christopher Wright was added, with
Robert Winter, Robert Keys, and a few others.
All were gentlemen of position except Thomas
Bates, Catesby's servant. Percy, who was a
cousin of the Earl of Northumberland, hired a

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE [ 257 ] GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE

house, or part of a house, adjoining the House
of Lords — the design being to make a subter
ranean passage underneath the House of Lords,
and to blow up with gunpowder the king and
his family when assembled for the opening of
Parliament. They began their work in the
cellar of the house on December 11, 1604, until
they came to the wall of the House of Lords.
After a short interval the work was resumed
in January, but at the end of two months they
had not got more than half through the wall.
They then learned that a cellar was to be let
under the House of Lords, which Percy hired
as though it were for his own use. They then
ceased the excavation, and stowed away in the
cellar thirty-six barrels of powder, covering
them with heaps of coal and firewood, and
placing them under the care of Guy Fawkes.
On the night of November 4, 1605 — the day
before Parliament was opened — Sir T. Knyvet
and a party of men were ordered to search the
cellar ; Fawkes was met emerging from it, and
arrested. After a careful search the gun
powder, of which warning had been given in
a letter to Lord Monteagle, was discovered.
The conspirators fled to Warwickshire, where
some of them were arrested, several being shot
before they were captured.

The evidence for the plot mainly rests on
the disclosures of Guy Fawkes. Fawkes was
examined six times, one of these examinations
being by torture. His examiners were Chief
Justice Popham and Coke. In his first exami
nation he stated (1) that he was the servant of
Percy, that Percy hired Wynyard's house at
£12 a year, and that at Christmas 1604, he
brought gunpowder to the cellar under the
House of Lords, and that he covered it up
with faggots in order to conceal it, and that
the powder was placed there for the purpose
of blowing up the king and lords. (2) He
admitted that he had fellow-conspirators,
though he would not reveal their names.
(3) He denied on oath that he had taken the
sacrament.

He was subsequently obliged to confess (1)
the names of his fellow-conspirators ; (2) that
he had taken the sacrament on his oath not to
divulge their names ; (3) that he had falsified
the date ; (4) the existence of the mine, the
earth from which had been carried into the
garden of the house ; (5) that while the others
worked he stood sentinel, and when any man
came near he gave warning, and they ceased
working till the person had passed ; (6) that
they heard, as they were working, a noise in
the cellar above, which they learned was caused
by Bright selling coals there. Seeing the con
venience of the cellar for their purpose, it was
hired by Percy. Twenty barrels of powder
were brought to the house previously hired

near the Upper House of Parliament, and sub
sequently from thence into the cellar. A letter
of Salisbury's, written before Fawkes' subse
quent confessions, confirms the fact that the
Government only knew what was contained in
Fawkes' first confession, for they issued a
proclamation for the arrest of Percy alone.

Commissioners were appointed to prosecute
the investigation, viz., Nottingham, Suffolk,
Devonshire, Worcester, Northampton, Salis
bury, Popham, and Coke. It would have been
impossible to have falsified the evidence of the
prisoner without the consent of all these men
— a consent which would not have been given,
for some of them were Roman Catholics, and
others in favour of toleration.

After Fawkes' first confession a pair of
brewer's slings were discovered for carrying
barrels ; which led the Government to infer
that some one had aided Fawkes. Evidence
was also forthcoming that Fawkes, who posed
as Percy's servant, had asked Mrs. Bright to
let the vault under the House of Lords to his
master. She consented to do so in case Mrs.
Wynyard, the owner, would give her permission.
Mrs. Wynyard confirmed Mrs. Bright's state
ment. She also said that Percy had begged
her to let him a lodging near the Parliament
House, which Percy ultimately secured. The
Government do not seem to have distinguished
between the house and the vault. Later, the
Government got information about the other
conspirators, and a proclamation was issued for
their arrest. They were charged with assem
bling in troops in Warwick and Worcester,
and with stealing horses.

Father Gerard styles the document contain
ing Fawkes' examination of the 8th, a draft
of the examination of the 17th, which is in
correct. He states that in the original of the
so-called draft, five paragraphs were ticked
off for omission. In Winter's Declaration of
Nov. 23, every paragraph was marked off in the
same way, and not one of the five paragraphs
thus ticked off was omitted in the copy sent
to Edmonds.

But the real question is, Does the document
contain Fawkes' confession, or was it an in
vention of Salisbury's? One of the crossed-out
passages proves the document was genuine, for
(1st) it mentions that the king was guarded
carelessly ; (2nd) that the conspirators hoped
that not only Roman Catholics but Protestants,
who disliked the union with Scotland, would
join with them in a rising. None of the com
missioners could have dreamt of inventing
such statements, and they would desire to
keep such information from the king. Further,
Gerard alleges against the document that the
signatures appended are all in the same writing,
and that none of the signatures are officially

K

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE [ 258 ] GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE

correct, and further that Fawkes is represented
as speaking in the third person. But those
points are evidences of its genuineness. Salis
bury, if he were the inventor, would not have
scrupled to forge Fawkes' name, nor could
original signatures be expected in what is
merely a copy. The signatures are, as Gardiner
shows, according to official usage. The fact
that Fawkes is made to speak in the third
person causes no difficulty, for he did so in all
the three confessions.

Gerard mentions that the questions framed
by Coke upon the examination of the 7th for
use on the 8th were not founded upon informa
tion obtained, but were intended to obtain
information. If so, it is evident the Govern
ment were in need of information. Father
Gerard suggests, however, that Salisbury not
only deceived the public, but his fellow-com
missioners. According to this hypothesis,
Salisbury got an altered copy of a confession
drawn up. But the clerk who did it must
have known that fact ; also the second clerk,
who sent the copy to Edmonds, for the hand
writing is different, and not only Edmonds
received it, but all the other ambassadors.
How could Salisbury rely on none of these
ambassadors divulging his secret ? Moreover,
if any of his brother-commissioners had found
their names appended to such a document,
they would certainly have taken steps to let
the king and the nation know, as Salisbury
was far from popular with them.

Father Gerard's contention is that the whole
information concerning the plot is gathered
from two documents, one a Declaration by
Thomas Winter on the 23rd, another by Guy
Fawkes on the 17th. But as a fact, the whole
story of the plot could be made out without
these documents, from the five previous con
fessions of Guy Fawkes. Fawkes' confession
of the 17th was probably a continuation of
his previous statements. Winter's Declara
tion of the 23rd raises a more difficult question.
There are two sources from which we derive
our knowledge of it, namely, the original at
Hatfield, and the copy in the Record Office.
Those two documents are so similar as to leave
no doubt of their identity of origin. The copy
is dated November 23, the original November
25. That dating of the original is not a
slip, for Winter had written 23, and corrected
to the 25th. But though the original docu
ment was witnessed by Coke alone, it appears
in print witnessed by all those whom Salisbury
had chosen for the purpose two days before
it was made. Father Gerard insinuates that
the copy was drawn up by the Government on
the 23rd, and that Winter was forced to sign
it ion'the 25th. This argument rests on the
assertion that Winter wrote the figures 23 and

corrected them to 25th. There is, however,
another alteration or addition on the top of
the page, viz., "Voluntary Confession of
Thomas Winter, Nov. 26, 1605," which words
were evidently added in after the confession
had been written — the 5 of the substituted
date and the 5 of the added heading are the
same, and both are different from the 5 in 1605,
written by Winter. The heading was written
by Coke, and as the writing of the changed
figure is the same, we may infer that the
changed figure is his also. Why did he change
the date ? In the case of Fawkes, on one day
he was examined under torture, only Coke,
Wood, and Fawcett being present, on the 10th
his confession was attested before the com
missioners. The same was probably done in
the case of Winter. His confession was on
the 23rd, which was officially attested by the
commissioners on the 25th. Coke changed the
date to the 25th, as that was the official date.

The next difficulty Gerard raises is the
structural one. The house, he says, which
was used by the conspirators, could only be
let when Parliament was not sitting — How
then, he asks, could Percy have kept pos
session of it when Parliament was as
sembled ? It is clear, however, that Percy
took two houses. The one adjoining the
House of Lords, which Father Gerard re
fers to, was used as a with-drawing-room
by the Lords. The second house adjoined
the other. Gerard asserts that the second
house could not have been the house, be
cause it was too small, for Mrs. Wynjrard
stated that the house only afforded accom
modation for one person. But what Mrs.
Wynyard said was, that there was only one
bed in the house.

Gerard's next point is that such proceedings
could not have escaped notice in such a
populous neighbourhood. Gardiner, however,
proves by diagrams that the house was ex
tremely secluded, and eminently fitted for
such work.

The story of the mine presents some diffi
culties. How, it is asked, could men like
these conspirators, who were all amateurs,
have dug through one wall, have made a
tunnel through earth and propped it up over
head — operations that require a considerable
amount of skill ? The reply is simple enough.
The wall of Percy's house was probably made
of soft brick, and although six of the workers
were unskilled labourers, the seventh, Fawkes,
had served for eight years in the service of the
Archdukes in the Low Countries, and had been
instructed in the best school of military en
gineering in the world, where he must have
learnt to make tunnels of much greater length
than that required by the conspirators.

GUNPOWDER PLOT, THE [ 259 ]

HADES

The next difficulty raised concerns the earth
dug out of the mine. Fawkes says that it
was carried into the garden of the house,
and most probably a large portion was de
posited in the river, as the garden was washed
by it. The only entrance to the mine was
from Percy's house, and the conspirators were
careful to conceal the entrance.

Professor S. K. Gardiner has carefully ex
amined and disposed of other objections raised
by Father Gerard, as to the supposed difficulty
of the communication between Percy's house
and the cellar. Fawkes states that when he
took the cellar he caused a new door to be
made into it, in order that he might have a
nearer way into it from his own house. But
how, Mr. Gerard inquires, came he to be
allowed to knock a door into a royal palace ?
Gardiner, however, points out that there was
a doorway in the wall, which was closed with
an iron grating, which iron grating Fawkes
appears to have removed, and substituted a
door in its place. Hence there was no need
to knock a hole in the royal palace.

As regards the discovery of the plot, Father
Gerard has a theory that Salisbury knew of
it before the letter to Lord Monteagle was
sent, and that Percy was Salisbury's secret
agent among the conspirators. This is based
on the statement of Goodwin that Percy was
frequently seen at Salisbury's house at night,
which does not prove that he betrayed the
plot to him ; as many other reasons may
have brought him there, as the trusted servant
of Northumberland.

Was Tresham, then, the traitor ? for it is
agreed that it was he who wrote the letter
to Lord Monteagle. It is certain that Lord
Monteagle knew of the existence of the plot
before he received the letter, and it is clear
from the way he acted in regard to it that he
wished to put an end to the plot, and at the
same time to allow the conspirators to escape.
But the more evident this is, the more mani
fest it is also that Salisbury had no previous
knowledge of the plot, otherwise he would
not have so arranged it that he had no evi
dence of its existence except an ambiguous
letter, while the conspirators were afforded
opportunity to escape. We need not, either,
be surprised at the Government not doing
anything till November 4th, as they would
hope to come on the conspirators preparing
their work, and would be careful not to
frighten them by premature action.

In fact, the more closely the story is in
vestigated, the more clearly it comes to light
that the Gunpowder Plot was no invention of
the Government of the day ; while the carefully
written chapter on the subject in the able
work of Rev. Ethelred L. Tauuton, himself a

Roman Catholic priest, The History of the Jesuits
in England, 1580-1773 (London, Methuen and
Co., 1901) shows distinctly that the Jesuits
were at the bottom of the whole conspiracy,
which was not a conspiracy which was ap
proved of by the general body of the English
Roman Catholics. [E. A. W,]

HADES. — See HELL. This word simply means
the invisible world, and is so employed even
in Luke xvi. 23. The fact that the rich
man in the world beyond the grave was "in
torment " is no proof that the word " Hades "
is employed specifically in a bad sense. The
place of the punishment of the wicked, where
named, is termed Gehenna, or the Gehenna of
jire (see HELL), or in one place, in the Greek
original, even by the heathen name Tartarus
(2 Peter ii. 4 ; comp. Jude 6). The place of
the righteous dead up to the resurrection is
spoken of as Paradise, which word is used
only three times in the New Testament, namely,
in Luke xxiii. 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; and Rev. ii. 7.
The abode of the righteous is figuratively
spoken of in Luke xvi. 22, as "Abraham's
bosom," and the righteous souls are also
represented as lying under God's altar (the
earth), upon which their blood was shed
(Rev. vi. 9-11).

The expression "gates of Hades" is only
found in the New Testament in Matt. xvi. 18,
but the phrase occurs several times in the
Greek version of the Old Testament, and in
apocryphal books. " The gates of death " are
in Psalm ix. 13, contrasted with "the gates
of the daughter of Zion." The phrase is also
found in Psalm cvii. (LXX. cvi.) 18, and in
Job xxxviii. 17 (first clause). Job is fond of
such expressions, for he speaks of the gates
of his mother's womb (Job iii. 10), and the
gates of the face of leviathan (Job xli. 14, in
LXX. Job xli. 6). When the gates of the
shadow of death are mentioned in Job xxxviii.
17, in the second clause, the LXX. render "did
the door-keepers of Hades quake when they
saw thee ? " The expression "the door-keepers
of darkness " is used in the apocryphal Test.
of Job, xx. 16, and similar phrases in other
apocryphal [writers (see Wright, The Inter
mediate State, pp. 291 ff.). In Isaiah xxxviii.
10, in the LXX., the phrase "the gates of
Hades" is employed as a translation of "the
gates of Sheol." It is also found in Wisdom
xvi. 13, and in 3 Mace. v. 51, and in the
Psalter of Solomon, Psalm xvi. 2. Even Origen
(Comm. on St. Matthew), who was the first to
give a metaphorical meaning to the phrase,
explaining it figuratively as "the powers of
darkness," does not dispute the fact that the

HAIL MARY

[ 260 ]

HELL

real meaning of the phrase, as used by our
Lord, properly meant "the gates of death."
Our Lord referred in Matt. xvi. to His final
victory over death and the grave, as described
in 1 Cor. xv. 54. Hence Matt. xvi. 18 is no
proof whatever that the Church on earth will
be preserved from all error. The meaning of
the text is gone into with more fulness in the
book referred to above. [C. H. H. W.]

HAIL MARY.— See AVE MARIA.

HAIR. — See TONSURE.

HALF COMMUNION.— See ONE KIND.

HEART OF JESTJS.— For particulars as to
this now popular devotion in the Church of
Home, see article on the SACRED HEART. The
devotion owes its origin to a French nun,
Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque, who lived in
the latter part of the seventeenth century. Her
Jesuit confessor, Colombiere, was one of the
chaplains at the court of James II., and he is
supposed to have advocated the cultus because
of the love borne by Englishmen to the person
of Christ. In 1765, Clement XIII. permitted
a partial celebration of the feast of the Sacred
Heart, and this permission was in 1856 ex
tended to the whole Church. Pius VI., in his
bull Auctorem Fidci in August 1794, attempts
to explain the principle on which the devotion
rests. The faithful, he says, worship with
supreme adoration the physical heart of Christ,
considered "not as mere flesh, but as united
to the Divinity." They adore it as " the heart
of the Person of the Word to which it is in
separably united." And if it be asked why
the heart is selected as the special object of
adoration, the answer is that the real and
physical heart is a natural symbol of Christ's
exceeding love and of His interior life. Sister
Alacoque, however, always pictures Christ as
still suffering and possessing a lacerated heart
in heaven. Independently of its late origin,
being unheard of till the close of the seven
teenth century, the devotion to the Sacred
Heart is unscriptural :

1. Because it represents Christ as still
suffering in heaven, while Scripture represents
Him as glorified there.

2. It represents the material heart of Jesus
as a distinct agent, and ascribes to it attributes
and powers that pertain to Christ and the
Holy Ghost. For example, in the Life of
Sister Alacoque (p. 282) the heart of Christ is
called the " Mediator between God and man."

3. It involves the adoration of two Christs,
for the worship is divided between Christ
Himself and a detached member of His body.

4. It teaches the adoration of Christ's,
humanity by itself (the bull Auctorem Fidei
notwithstanding), and the adoration of a
mutilated member of a dead Christ.

The feast of the Sacred Heart is kept on

the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi,
except in England, when it is kept on the
following Sunday. It is worthy of note that
the Congregation of Rites refused to sanction
the feast both in 1687 and in 1729. [T. C.]

HEART OF MARY.— The popularity of the
devotion to the Heart of Jesus was certain to
provoke emulation, so we find John Eudes,
founder of a congregation of priests, called
Eudists, propagating devotion to the "most
pure heart of Mary." Eudes died in 1680.
We are assured by Roman Catholic theologians
that the principle on which the devotion to
the heart of Mary rests is the same (mutatis
mutandis) with that of the Heart of Jesus. It
cannot be asserted here, however, that the
material heart of Mary is united to the Divine
Word. Hence, in order to try and escape the
charge of idolatry, we are assured that Roman
Catholics merely worship, or venerate, the
heart of Mary with the cultus called hyper-
dulia. That is, the theologians of Rome, like
Aquinas, 2a, 2ae, 103,4, make a metaphysical
distinction between the worship rendered to
God, to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Saints.
It is unnecessary to say that the common
people know nothing of such distinctions, and
the same outward marks of adoration are
rendered to God, to the Virgin, and to the
Saints. Pins IV., in 1799, authorised a mass
and office in honour of the "most pure heart
of Mary," and the devotion, especially among
the females, is even more popular than that to
the Heart of Jesus. [T. C.]

HELL.— In the A.V. of the Bible, and in many
other writings, the word hell (which etymolog-
ically means simply hollow; Germ. Hdlle,comp.
with tlohle, a hollow) is employed in the sense
of the invisible world, which is the proper
meaning of the Greek Hades. In other words
it means the place of departed spirits, or the
world beyond man's sight. In the Old Testa
ment the word used is Sheol (TIN^, or ^KK'),
which properly means the under-world. The
word is so employed in Job xxvi. 6 ; Psalm ix.
17 ; cxxxix. 8 ; Isaiah xiv. 9 ; Ezek. xxxi. 17 ;
xxxii. 21. Similar is its use in Matt. xi. 23,
when it is said of the city of Capernaum " thou
shalt be cast down to hell," or utterly destroyed.
So also even in Luke xvi. 23 ; Rev. i. 18 ; xx.
13, 14. Hence it is often synonymous with the
grave, as in Psalm ix. 17 ; Iv. 15 ; Proverbs
xxvii. 20; Isa. v. 14. In Numb. xvi. 30-33,
Sheol is rendered in the A.V. by the pit. So in
Proverbs v. 5 ; xxiii. 14 ; &c. In a compar
atively small number of passages, the word
hellin the English version means the place of lost
souls. So Matt. v. 22, 29, 30 ; x. 28 ; xxiii. 15,
33 ; Mark ix. 43, 45, 47 ; Luke xii. 5 ; James
iii. 6. But in these cases the word in the
original is not Hades, but Gehenna, or the

HERESY

[ 261 ]

HEEESY

Of henna of fire. Gehenna was originally the
same as Gehinnom, or the Valley of Hinnom,
where human sacrifices were offered to Moloch
(2 Chron. xxviii. 3). The valley was defiled by
Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10) to destroy all idea of
sanctity connected with the place, and it was
afterwards used as a place of burial (Jer. vii.
32). Even in earlier times it was used for
burial, for it was in that place that the Assyrian
soldiers of Sennacherib's army, who perished
before Jerusalem, were buried, and Isaiah
refers to that fact in chap. xxx. 31-33. That
valley was called Topheth, which meant a place
of burnin;/ (the dead), or perhaps a place to be
spit on, abhorre'f. On account of the reference
wliich is made to the Valley of Hinnom in
Isaiah Ixvi. 24, the word Gehenna was popularly
employed by the Jews as the name of the place
of the future punishment of the ungodly.
See HADES. [C. H. H. W.]

HERESY. — False doctrine held obstinately
in place of that which has been revealed.
The chief heresies by which the Christian
faith was in early times assailed, were con
demned by the first four Councils of the
Church, and a contradiction of them was
stereotyped for later ages in the Nicene, the
Niceno - Constantinopolitan, and the Athan-
asian Creeds. These heresies were Arianism,
which was repudiated by the Council and
Creed of Nicasa ; Macedonianism and Apol-
linarianism, by the Council and Creed of Con
stantinople ; Nestorianism, by the Council of
Ephesns and the Athanasian Creed ; Euty-
chianism, or Monophysitisin, by the Council of
Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed. Besides
these, the better known early heresies are, in
the first century, Gnosticism ; in the second,
Docetism and Montanisrn ; in the third,
Manichseism and Sabellianism ; in the fourth,
Photinianism, Priscillianisni and Collyridian-
ism ; in the fifth, Pelagianism, to which may
be added in the seventh, Monothelitism. The
heresies rejected by the early Church are also
repudiated in the first, second, and fifth of the
XXXIX. Articles.

Arianism denied the Godhead of the Son,
regarding Him as the creation of the Father,
created, indeed, before any other works of
God's hands, and His instrument in the subse
quent creation of the world, but yet a creature,
not sharing the one unique nature of the
Godhead, not of the substance of the Father,
though like Him — like Him in all things, said
some of the Arian school — but there was a
time, a long, long way back, when He did not
exist ; He is not therefore eternal, not in the
highest sense God. The controversy on this
subject began in the year 318 in Egypt, when
Arius charged his bishop with erring on the
other side, and confounding the Personality

of the Son with that of the Father. Arian
doctrine was condemned in 325, at the Council
of Nicaea, by the introduction of the words "of
the same substance with the Father," the word
"substance " meaning essence or nature. For
the next forty or fifty years there was a re
action in favour of Arianism, headed by the
Imperial Court of Constantinople. In 381 the
question was settled by the Council of Con
stantinople, and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed (there is no adequate ground for con
sidering this creed of later composition) was
enforced by the orthodox Emperor Theo-
dosius I. Arianism, expelled from the empire,
maintained itself for a while among the
barbarous nations outside of the empire
(Goths, Vandals, Lombards), and it has been
adopted as a personal belief by some few
English thinkers (Clarke, Whiston, Whitby) ;
but, as a rule, it has in modern times de
generated, almost as soon as adopted, into
Socinianism and Unitarianism, the counterpart
of the Photinianism of the fourth century.
Newman placed St. Mary in the middle position
between God and man, which he says was left
vacant by the failure of the Arian theory.

Macedonianism was the heresy which denies
the divine Personality of the Holy Ghost. It
takes its name from Macedonius, Bishop of
Constantinople, who, after his deposition in
360, put himself at the head of a semi-Arian
party. With regard to the Son, the semi-
Arians accepted the phrase " of like substance,"
or " of like substance in all things," as their
watchword, but they still held Him to be a
creature, and the Holy Spirit they affirmed to
be also a creature, as Christ was. Hence they
were called Pneumatomachi, or fighters against
the Spirit. A more extreme party of the
Arians, called Eunomians, declared the Holy
Spirit to be the creation of the Son, who was
Himself created, which made the Holy Ghost
doubly a creature. Pope Liberius sided with
the semi-Arians, but on the accession of
Damasus to the Papal seat, the latter co
operated with Athanasius in restoring the
faith in the Holy Ghost, as being uncreated,
and of one majesty, substance, and power, with
the Father and the Son. In 381 the Council
of Constantinople anathematised both the
Eunomian and the semi-Arian doctrines, and
defined the truth as follows : " I believe in the
Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who
proceedeth from the Father, who with the
Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorified, who spake by the prophets."
The Emperor Theodosius enforced the decision
of the Council by expelling the Pneumatomachi
from all the churches in their possession.

Apollinarianism was the heresy which denied
the perfection of the human nature of Christ

HERESY

[ 262 ]

HERESY

by substituting the Divine Logos for the human
understanding or rational spirit. Apollinaris
was a warm adherent of the Nicene faith
during the first period of the Arian contro
versy, but in 375 he formulated the above
theory, which was condemned by the second
General Council. Apollinarians became ab
sorbed into either the orthodox or the Euty-
chian party.

Nestorianism was the heresy which regarded
Christ as not only having two natures, but
being two Persons, the divine and the human,
in such sort that it was only a human being
that was born of His mother, to whom a
divine being afterwards united itself. It
derives its name from Nestorius, Bishop of
Constantinople, who was its most prominent
supporter, though not its originator. His
chaplain, Anastasius, having created some
scandal by denying that St. Mary ought to be
entitled Theotokos (one who brought forth
Him who was God), Nestorius took up his
defence. Cyril of Alexandria hearing this,
wrote with characteristic fervour on the
opposite side, and the controversy between
the two Patriarchs grew so bitter, that it led
to the Council of Ephesus, the third (Ecu
menical Council, being called in 431, at whicli
Nestorianism was condemned. The Emperor
thereupon deposed Nestorius, and Nestori
anism passed away from the West into the
further East. There it made Edessa its head
quarters till the flourishing school there
existing was dissolved by the Emperor Zeno in
489. After that, Bagdad and Mosul became
the centres of Nestorian activity, which spread
the Gospel, says Gibbon, "to the Bactriann,
the Huns, the Persians, the Indians, the
Persarmenians, the Medes, the Elamites ; the
pepper coast of Malabar and the Isles of the
Ocean, Socotora and Ceylon, were peopled
with an increasing multitude of Christians ;
the missionaries of Balkh and Samarcand
pursued without fear the footsteps of the
roving Tartar, and insinuated themselves into
the camp of the valleys of Imaus and the
banks of the Selinga " (ch. xlvii.). "The power
of the Nestorian Patriarch," adds Neale, " cul
minated in the beginning of the eleventh cen
tury. He had twenty-five Metropolitans, who
ruled from China to the Tigris, from the Lake
Baikal to Cape Comorin. It may be doubted
whether Innocent III. possessed more spiritual
power than the Patriarch in the city of the
Caliphs" (Holy Eastern Church, i. 142, 3).
This flourishing Church was overthrown, and
its members massacred by Tamerlane and
other Eastern ravagers. Its remains still
exist, and have attracted the sympathies of
the English Church. Owing to the early date
at which they separated from their co-reli

gionists, they know nothing of many of the
medieval tenets, and have hence been called
the Protestants of the East. See article on
NESTORIANS.

Eutychianism was the heresy which taught
that Christ had but one nature, compounded
of the divine and human ; hence called also
Monophysitism. It arose as a reaction from
Nestorianism. Not content with denying that
Christ was two persons, Eutyches, archi
mandrite, or head of a monastery near Con
stantinople, denied that He had two natures,
the divine and the human. On the accusation
of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, he was summoned
by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople before
a synod in 448, which deposed and excom
municated him. Theodosius II., who had a
favour towards Eutyches, summoned what
was intended to be an (Ecumenical Council at
Ephesus in 449, at which Eusebius and Flavian
were in turn deposed. So great violence was
displayed at this Council that it came to be
known as the Latrocinium, or Robbers'
Meeting. In 450 Theodosius died, and the
aspect of things was changed by the accession
of Marcian. The Council of Chalcedon was
summoned in 451, the acts of the Latrocinium
were cancelled, and Eutychianism was con
demned. Imperial edicts followed, prohibit
ing all meetings of Monophysites, and banish
ing Eutyches. Monophysitism, however, still
exists, or is alleged to exist (for Nestorian and
Monophysite traditions can hardly now be
said to involve a living heresy) among the
Armenians, Jacobites, Copts, and Abyssinians.
See Archbishop Mouradiantz's History of the
Armenian Church. See Armenian under
EASTERN CHURCHES.

Gnosticism, the multiform heresy which
taught in its main forms that from a supreme
deity there issued a series of emanations, one
of which was the creator of the universe, and
attempted thus to account for the existence
of evil in the world. In the Epistle to the
Colossians we find it in its earliest form
united with a Judaical heresy.

Docetism, the heresy common to some forms
of Gnosticism, which taught that the Lord's
Body was not a real human body, but only
the appearance of it. Marcion explained
Luke xxiv. 39 as meaning " A spirit hath not
flesh and bone, and you see that I have them
only in such wise as a spirit hath them " — a
description of the present body of our Lord
adopted by some moderns for controversial
reasons other than those of Marcion.

Montanism, the heresy which perverted
Christianity into an asceticism, which Mon-
tanus declared himself authorised to insist
upon as he was himself the Paraclete (which
he distinguished from the Holy Ghost), whose

HERESY

[ 263 ]

HERMAS

office it was to perfect the Gospel. But see
article MONTANISM.

Manichceism, the heresy combining Zoroas-
trism and Christianity, which taught that
there are two rival powers, good and bad,
ever striving for the mastery. See FATHERS.

Sabellianism, the heresy which refused to
distinguish the three Persons of the Holy
Trinity, representing them as manifestations
of one Person. Sabellius lived at the begin
ning of the third century, and passed most of his
life at Rome in the episcopates of Zephyrinus
and Callistus. His theory, which had led by
a revulsion to Arianism, was condemned by
name in the Council of Constantinople. In
the West the Sabellians were called Patri-
passians, because their hypothesis required
the Father to have suffered at Calvary, the
Father and the Son being the same Person.

Photinianism, the heresy which regarded
Christ as a mere man, actuated by the Logos.
Photinus was a pupil of Marcellus of Ancyra,
who in the fourth century revived Sabellian
doctrine in respect to the relation of the
Father and the Logos, while he looked on
Christ as a man in whom the Logos specially
energised. Pbotinus learnt his doctrine from
him, but laid stress on one side of it — the
humanity of Christ, who, he bluntly taught,
had no existence before His birth on earth.
See Pearson, Exp. of the Creed, note f. to art.
ii., for the judgment passed on him by early
Christian writers. Vincentius Lirinensis, A.D.
400, states his heresy as follows : " He affirms
that God is singular and solitary, and to
be acknowledged by the Jews, denying the
fulness of the Trinity, not believing that there
is any Person of the Word of God or of the
Holy Ghost; he affirms also that Christ was
only a mere man, who had His beginning from
the Virgin Mary, teaching very strongly that
we ought to worship the Person of God the
Father alone, and to honour Christ as man
alone " (Comm. on xii.).

Priscillianism, was a Spanish heresy com
pounded out of Gnosticism, Manichseism, and
Docetism, holding the characteristic tenet of
each. Priscillian was the first teacher of error
who was put to death for his doctrine.

Collyridianism, the heresy of some women
who had come from Thrace into Arabia, which
regarded St. Mary as an object of worship.
Her devotees offered her a cake (/coXXupt's),
whence their name. Epiphanius, referring
to the sect, says, " The whole thing is foolish
and strange, and is a device and deceit of the
devil. Let Mary be in honour; let the Lord
be worshipped. Let no one worship Mary "
(H(er., Ixxxix.).

Pelagianism, the chief Western heresy of
the fifth century, which denied the doctrine

of original sin, and maintained the freedom
and uprightness of man's will unbiassed by or
toward evil. Pelagius was of British or Irish
blood, and his heresy spreading in his native
country, Bishops Germanus and Lupus were
invited from Gaul to resist it. Its chief
opponent was Augustine of Hippo, who formu
lated, in contravention of it, an exaggerated
doctrine of Grace, which led to the Augus
tinian view of Predestination.

Monothditism, the heresy which taught
that Christ had but one will. This was an
attempt at a compromise between the Mono-
physite and the orthodox doctrines, and was
condemned at the sixth General Council at
Constantinople in 681. Its condemnation was
virtually involved in the condemnation of
Monophysitism in the fourth Council. A
similar dogma, not yet condemned by the
Church, is Monognosticism, which teaches
that Christ had on earth but one knowledge,
and that the fallible human knowledge.

We conclude with the memorable words of
Hooker : " There are but four things which
concur to make complete the whole state of
our Lord Jesus Christ : His Deity, His Man
hood, the conjunction of both, and the dis
tinction of one from the other being joined
in one. Four principal heresies there are
which have in those things withstood the
truth : Arians by bending themselves against
the Deity of Christ ; Apollinarians by maiming
and misinterpreting that which belongeth to
His human nature ; Nestorians by rending
Christ asunder and dividing Him into two
Persons ; the followers of Eutyches by con
founding in His Person those natures which
they should distinguish. Against these, there
have been four most famous ancient General
Councils : the Council of Nice to define against
Arians ; against Apollinaris the Council of Con
stantinople ; the Council of Ephesus against
Nestorians ; against Eutycbians the Chalce-
donian Council. In four words, a\r)OG>s, reXetas,
dSicup^Tws, affvyxvTus, truly, perfectly, indivisibly,
distinctly ; the first applied to His being God,
and the second to His being Man, the third to
His being of both One, and the fourth to His
still continuing in that One both, we may
fully, by way of abridgment, comprise what
soever antiquity hath at large handled either
in declaration of Christian belief, or in refu
tation of the aforesaid heresies. Within the
compass of which four heads, I may truly
affirm that all heresies which touch but the
Person of Jesus Christ, whether they have
risen in these later days or in any age hereto
fore, may be with great facility brought to
confine themselves" (Eccl. Pol., v. liv. 10).

[F. M.]
HERMAS. — See APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

HERMIT

[ 264 ]

HOLY WATER

HERMIT.— See MONKS.

HIPPO, COUNCIL OF.— A local Council of
the Church of Africa was held at Hippo in
A.D. 393, which, until the third Council of
Carthage, passed decrees relating to the cano
nical books of the Old Testament, and included
among them the books ordinarily known as
the Apocrypha. The Alexandrian or Egyptian
Canon was followed. This was done, because
the Jewish Canon was practically unknown.
St. Augustine, as bishop, took part in this
Council. But it must be remembered that
however widespread its influence, it was not a
General Council. See COUNCILS.

HOLINESS.— The state of being holy, i.e.
separated from sin and dedicated to God.
That such a state is not brought about by
attention to external ceremonial observances,
appears from the following passages of Holy
Scripture, viz., 1 Sam. xv. 22 ; Ps. li. 16, 17 ;
Micah vi. 6-8 ; Matt, xxiii. 23-26 ; Rom. ii.
28, 29. Holiness implies conformity to the
divine standard, or likeness of Christ (Rom.
vi. 4 ; vii. 22 ; 1 John i. 6), and while impos
sible of accomplishment, or even of compre
hension, to the natural man (1 Cor. ii. 14;
Gal. ii. 20), is the gradual (not sudden) result
of the working of the Holy Ghost upon the
heart of man (John xiv. 8-13 ; Phil. i. 6 ;
1 Pet. i. 2).

Holiness is claimed, however, by the Roman
Church as one of the four notes of the Church
belonging to it as a corporate society, " because
she teaches a holy doctrine, and is distin
guished by the eminent holiness of so many
thousands of her children." The presence,
however, of holy people within a Church at
times during the centuries of that Church's
existence, does not necessarily make the Church
holy at any and every time, any more than the
existence of holy people in Israel of old pre.
vented that Church from being as a whole
apostate in the days of Ahab (1 Kings xix. 17;
Rom. xi. 3). So many of the lives of Rome's
Popes and clergy have been unholy, that this
consideration alone should operate to prevent
Rome's claim of holiness as a corporation. The
Roman Catholic historian Baronius himself
shows plainly the awful state of things exist
ing in the Roman Church in the tenth century,
and is quoted at length by Dr. Salmon in his
Infallibility of the Church, p. 103. As to her
doctrines being holy, this Protestants deny ;
for she teaches not the doctrines of the
Apostles, but many erroneous doctrines which
have been added from time to time to the pure
apostolic teaching. The evil resulting from
such a claim as this of Rome is at once appa
rent, for inviting people to become members
of a body itself holy, tends to make many
imagine themselves holy by simple connection

with an external Church. See SANCTIFICA-
TION.

HOLY COMMUNION— See LORD'S SUPPER.
HOLY WATER,.— The Catholic Dictionary
(Addis and Arnold) derives the use of Holy
Water (aqua bencdicta ) from the practice of
the Jews. It quotes Ezekiel xxvi. 25 : "I
will pour out upon you clean water, and you
shall be clean," and refers to the laver, placed
between the altar and the door of the taber
nacle for the priests to wash their hands and
feet. Roman Catholic women keep bottles of
Holy Water blessed on Whit Sunday, in their
bedrooms, and consider it a remedy against
all evils, a cure for all diseases. The use of
Holy Water in the Roman Church owes its
origin to the False Decretals (see DECRETALS).
St. Paul (Heb. ix. 13, 14) says: "If the ashes
of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as
are defiled to the cleansing of the flesh, how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who by
the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted
unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead
works to serve the living God " (Douai).

The following passage from a forged letter
of Alexander I. is the original institution of
Holy Water: "We bless water, mixed with salt,
sprinkled on the people, that all sprinkled with
it may be sanctified and purified, which also
we command to be done by all priests. For if
the ashes of an heifer, sprinkled with blood,
sanctified and purified the people, much more
water, mixed with salt, and consecrated with
divine prayers, sanctifies and purifies the
people." Holy Water is thus put into the
place assigned by St. Paul to the blood of
Christ. Martene, the learned Benedictine, in
his famous work, Tractatus dc Antiqua Ecclcsice
Disciplina, says at page 58 : " Concerning the
solemn benediction of salt and water to be
made on every Lord's Day, I do not remember
that I have read anything before the ninth
century."

Goar, in his Rituale Grcecorum, tells us, speak
ing of the institution of Holy Water: "It
acknowledges as its author Pope Alexander,
who presided over the Church in the time of
Trajan" (p. 451).

Even Popes have been compelled to admit
the letter of Alexander a forgery, therefore
we have the institution of Holy Water traced
to a spurious letter of the ninth century. As
a matter of fact, the sprinkling of water was
common among the pagans. Ovid speaks of
the Aqua Lustralis in his Metamorphoses, and
so does Virgil, both in his Georgia and in the
^Eneid. The very brush used by the Romans
for sprinkling was called Aspevges, and is so
called by the Church of Rome.

The blessing of Holy Water by the priest
is a curious ceremony. With lighted candles

HOLY WEEK

[ 265 ]

HOMILIES, THE

and ritual in hand, he forms the sign of the
cross three several times over the salt and over
the water in the name of the true God, the
living God, and the holy God, praying that
He may banish all demons, all unclean and
malignant spirits from these elements of salt
and water. He then mixes the salt and water
together, and afterwards uses this mixture
to banish all fairies, demons, and evil spirits
that may be lurking in houses, in dairies, or
other places. Although the Catholic Dictionary
(Addis and Arnold), with the imprimatur of
Cardinal Vaughan, quotes Ezekiel in support
of Holy Water, the editors are obliged to
agree with Martene, and admit that : " There
does not seem to be any evidence that it was
customary for the priest to sprinkle the people
with Holy Water before the ninth century."

[T. C.]

HOLY WEEK. — The week immediately pre
ceding Easter, in which our Lord's Passion
is commemorated. In the Church of Rome
various ceremonies occur during this week,
such as (1) the Blessing of Palms, in which
palms or olive branches are blessed by the
priest and distributed among the people ;
(2) the Tenebrae, in which fifteen lighted
candles are placed on a triangular candela
brum, and at the end of each psalm one is put
out, till only a single candle is left lighted at
the top of the triangle ; (3) the Adoration of
the Cross, in which a cross is uncovered and
ki.ssed by priests and people ; (4) the Blessing
of the Paschal candle, in which a candle is
blessed by the deacon, who fixes in it five
grains of blessed incense in memory of the
wounds of Christ, and of the spices used at
His burial. See ADOEATION OF THE CROSS.
HOMILIES, THE.— The Homilies of the
Church of England are two books of sermons,
numbering in all thirty-three, which set forth
in popular style the leading truths of Holy
Scripture and its teaching on various practical
subjects. They are thus described in the
XXXVth Article of Religion : "ThesecondBook
of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have
joined under this Article, doth contain a godly
and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for
these times, as doth the former Book of
Homilies, which were set forth in the time of
Edward the Sixth ; and therefore we judge
them to be read in Churches by the Ministers,
diligently and distinctly, that they may be
understanded of the people."

History. Book I. — The first Book was pie
pared by Archbishop Cranmer before the Con
vocation of 1542, when " there were produced
the Homilies composed by certain prelates of
divers matters." That was towards the close of
the reign of King Henry VIII., after the re
actionary religious policy was adopted which

gave rise to the barbarous Six Articles. The
work was resumed by the Archbishop on the
accession of Edward VI. in 1547, when the fir.-t
book was published, with a preface in which
it was stated that the Homilies were to be read
"every Sunday in the year at High Mass.''
The mediaeval corruption of divine worship had
not yet been abolished, and this is how we are
to explain the language of the advertisement
at the end of the book, promising a Homily
" of the due receiving of (Christ's) blessed body
and blood under the form of bread and wine."
This advertisement was only a royal declara
tion, and had no ecclesiastical sanction, and
the Homily which was subsequently published
rejected the error of the Real Presence as con
trary to Holy Scripture. Even the preface of
1547 declared "the way to avoid corrupt and
ungodly living and erroneous doctrine, and
to put away all contention, is the true setting
forth and pure declaring of God's Word,
which is the principal guide and leader ur.to
all godliness and virtue." And two years
later, after the publication of the First Prayer
Book, the name " High Mass " was changed
for "the Celebration of the Communion" in
the preface to the Homilies, an incidental but
a conclusive indication that the idolatrous
Mass had been abolished in the Church of
England. The first Book of Homilies was
reprinted from time to time in a separate form,
and it was not till the year 1623 that the two
books were incorporated in one volume.

Book II. The second Book of Homilies was
published in the year 1563. The last of these
Homilies was occasioned by a rebellion in the
north of England in 1569, and was not incorpor
ated with the second Book of Homilies till the
year 1571, when the XXXIX Articles, includ
ing the XXXVth, " were deliberately read and
confirmed again by the subscription of the
hands of the archbishop and bishops of the
Upper House, and by the subscription of the
whole clergy of the Nether House in their
Convocation." It is not commonly known that
certain changes were made in the Homilies by
Queen Elizabeth herself, one of them being the
extension of the meaning of the word " sacra
ment " in the Homily of Common Prayer to
include Absolution and Ordination, and another
the omission of a declaration similar to that
in Article XXIX, denying that the unbeliever is
a partaker of Christ in the Sacrament. These
reactionary changes were not, however, sanc
tioned by Convocation, for the XXXVth Article
on the Homilies was subscribed by Convocation
in January 1563, but the Homilies as altered
were not published till the following July. This
subscription of Convocation did, however, give
sanction to certain omissions in a Protestant
direction made by Bishop Jewel. Thus, in

HOMILIES, THE

[ 266 ]

HOMILIES, THE

the Homily for Easter Day, in a reference to
the Holy Communion — "Call to thy mind,"
it said, "that therefore thou hast received
into thy possession that everlasting verity, our
Saviour Christ, in form of bread and wine to
confirm thy conscience." The words in italics
were struck out. And in the same sermon
the following passage occurs : " How dare
we be so bold as to renounce the presence of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost now
received in this Holy Sacrament ? " Here again
the words in italics were omitted.
Titles and Authors. BOOK I.

1. A Fruitful Exhortation to the Reading
and Knowledge of Holy Scripture (Archbishop
Cranmer).

2. A Sermon of the Misery of all Mankind
(Archdeacon Harpsfield).

3. A Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind by
only Christ our Saviour (Archbishop Cranmer).

4. A short Declaration of the True, Lively,
and Christian Faith (Archbishop Cranmer).

5. A Sermon of Good Works annexed unto
Faith (Archbishop Cranmer).

6. A Sermon of Christian Love and Charity
(Archdeacon Harpsfield).

7. A Sermon against Swearing and Perjury
(Thomas Becon).

8. A Sermon how dangerous a Thing it is to
fall from God (unknown).

9. An Exhortation against the Fear of Death
(Archbishop Cranmer).

10. An Exhortation concerning Good Order
and obedience to Rulers and Magistrates
(unknown).

11. A Sermon against Whoredom and Un-
cleanness (Thomas Becon).

12. A Sermon against Contention and Brawl
ing (Bishop Latimer, see Heylin, i. 68.)

BOOK II.

1. A Homily of the Right Use of the Church
(Bishop Jewel, or Pilkington).

2. A Homily against Peril of Idolatry
(Bishop Jewel, or Ridley and Bullinger).

3. A Homily for Repairing and Keeping
Clean of Churches (Bishop Jewel, or Pilking
ton).

4. A Homily of Fasting (ArchbishopGrindal).

5. A Homily against Gluttony and Drunken
ness (Bishop Pilkington and Peter Martyr).

6. A Homily against Excess of Apparel
(Bishop Pilkington and Peter Martyr).

7. A Homily concerning Prayer (Bishop
Jewel).

8. A Homily of the Place and Time of
Prayer (Bishop Jewel).

9. A Homily wherein is declared that
Common Prayer and Sacraments ought to be
ministered in a Tongue that is understanded
of the Hearers (Bishop Jewel).

10. An Information for them which take

Offence at certain Places of the Holy Scripture
(partly from Erasmus).

11. A Homily of Alms-deeds (unknown).

12. A Homily or Sermon concerning the
Nativity and Birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ
(unknown).

13. A Homily for Good Friday concerning
the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ
(Taverner's Postils).

14. A Homily of the Resurrection of our
Saviour Jesus Christ. For Easter Day
(Taverner's Postils).

15. A Homily of the worthy Receiving and
reverent Esteeming of the Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of Christ (Bishop Jewel).

16. A Homily concerning the Coming Down
of the Holy Ghost and the Manifold Gifts of
the same. For Whit Sunday (Bishop Jewel).

17. A Homily for the Days of Rogation Week
(Archbishop Parker).

18. A Homily of the State of Matrimony
(partly from Chrysostom; partly from Veit
Deitrick, a Lutheran).

19. A Homily againstidleness (Bishop Jewel).

20. A Homily of Repentance (partly from
Rodolph Gualter).

21. A Homily against Disobedience and
wilful Rebellion (Archbishop Parker).

Speaking generally, we may say that Arch
bishop Craumer was the principal author of
the first Book of Homilies, and Bishop Jewel
of the second.

Purpose and Authority. — The 80th Canon,
which is still in force, orders that a copy of
the Homilies shall be provided for every
parish church. The second rubric after the
Nicene Creed says, " Then shall follow the
Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set
forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by author
ity." The Homilies were evidently intended
to supply the lack of preaching power in
ministers, many, if not most of whom
were, to use the canonical phrase, "no
preachers."

How the Homilies are to be regarded
is illustrated by Article XL, which says,
" Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith
only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very
full of comfort, as more largely is expressed
in the Homily of Justification." This Homily,
by being thus particularly referred to, seems
of higher doctrinal authority than the others.
In 1553 the Article's wording was in eo
sensu quo, but this was changed in 1603 to
ut fusius explicatur. The Homilies amplify
and apply the teaching of the Church, and,
as even Dr. Newman admitted in Tract 90,
"they are of authority so far as they bring
out the sense of the Articles, and are not
of authority when they do not." Clearly,
therefore, they cannot teach such doctrines

HOMILIES, THE

[ 267 ]

HONORIUS I.

as the " Real " Presence, the propitiatory
value of good works, and justification by
a righteousness within us, as Newman
alleges in that Tract, seeing that all these
doctrines are condemned in the XXXIX.
Articles.

The least that can be said of the Homilies
is that they are of more authority than any
sermons preached by particular clergymen,
seeing that they are the Church's own
sermons, showing how the facts and doctrines
of the Word of God are to be brought home
to the consciences of men. But even their
statements _are to be brought to the test of
God's Word, seeing that " ignorance of God's
Word is the cause of all error" (Horn. I.). It
is true that the Homilies cite the practice of
the early Christian Church and the opinions
of the ancient Christian Fathers, but, faithful
to the vital principle of the Reformation, they
regard the Holy Scriptures as the supreme
authority in all matters of doctrine. And in
this sense it is true, however much denied,
that " the Homilies direct • 'us to the Bible
only." l

Bishop Burnet, that sound and sober Church
man, correctly sets forth and illustrates the
authority of the Homilies in the following
words, in which he is commenting on Article
XXXV. : " Upon the whole matter every one
who subscribes the Articles ought to read
them (i.e. the Homilies), otherwise he sub
scribes a blank ; he approves a book implicitly,
and binds himself to read it, as he may be
required, without knowing anything concern
ing it. This approbation is not to be stretched
so far as to carry in it a special assent to every
particular in that whole volume; but a man
must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine
that is taught in them.

"To instance this in one particular, since
there are so many of the Homilies that charge
the Church of Rome with idolatry, and that
from so many different topics, no man who
thinks that Church is not guilty of idolatry,
can with a good conscience subscribe this
Article, that the Homilies contain a good and
wholesome doctrine and necessary for these
times ; for, according to his sense, they contain
a false and an uncharitable charge of idolatry
against a Church that they think is not guilty
of it, and he will be apt to think that this
was done to heighten the aversion of the nation
to it ; therefore any who have such favourable
thoughts of the Church of Rome, are bound,
by the force of that persuasion of theirs, not
to sign this Article, but to declare against it,
as the authorising of an accusation against a

The Witness of the Homilies, p. 26.

Church, which they think is ill grounded, and
is by consequence both unjust and uncharit
able."

In the catalogue of the British Museum,
four pages of which are devoted to editions of
the Homilies, and various works upon them,
will be found "The Judgment of the Church
of England concerning Images and Pictures
in Churches. Being a Vindication of the
Lord Bishop of London's Court for removing
a scandalous picture lately set up over the
Communion Table in White-Chappel Church."
This was published in the year 1714, and is a
striking example of the practical use of the
Homilies in the suppression of Popish wor.-hip
in our churches. But Philpotts v. Boyd fixes
the legal status of the Homilies as standards
of doctrine.

A Protestant Dialogue, published by the Pro
testant Reformation Society, gives a summary
of the " wholesome doctrine " of the Homilies
in their own words, on Justification, Good
Works, the Word of God, Public Worship, the
Sacraments, Prayer, Confession, and the Church
of Rome, and is believed to be the first attempt
to popularise the teaching of the Homilies.
It contains also a valuable appendix by the
Rev. Dr. C. H. H. Wright, exposing the misre
presentations of the teaching of the Homilies
by Cardinal Newman and the Ritualists. See
also The Witness of the Homilies (Church Hist.
Society), and The Prayer Book Articles and
Homilies, by J. T. Tomlinson, chaps, ix. x. pp.
229-253. [J. S.]

HOMOOUSIOS, was the term used during the
disputes concerning the Person of Christ,
before and after the Council of Nice, to in
dicate cons-ufjstantial, or of the same substance
(o.uoownos). The term itself was not quite
satisfactory, but, as explained in the course
of the controversy, came to be understood as
asserting the full divinity of the Lord Jesus.
The term used by the Arian party was
homoiousios (o/uoio&rtos), of like or similar
essence, which indicated that Christ was not
of the same essence as the Father, but of a
somewhat similar. The great point of the
controversy was on the point whether there
was a time in which the Son was not in ex
istence, or whether He existed from eternity
as real and true God.

HONORIUS I. — Honorius I. (there were four
in all of that name), who was Pope from A.D.
625 to 638, was one of the Popes who fell into
heresy. However leniently we may be inclined
to judge of Monothelism or Monothelitism (see
HERESY), it was a distinct contradiction of
Catholic doctrine. Honorius, in official letters
addressed to Sergius and others (therefore ex
cathedra) teaches the heresy of only one will :
" Whence even we confess one will of our Lord

HOOD

[ ^68

HOST

Jesus Christ " (Mansi, xi. 538 /. ; Hefele,
Concil. Gesch. iii. 146 ff. ). He rejected the
orthodox view of two wills (human and divine)
in the same person. The letters quoted have
been denounced by some Roman Catholic
writers as forged ; others have had recourse to
forced interpretations to extract a Catholic
sense from the papal words. Honorius was
solemnly condemned by the Sixth General
Council held at Constantinople in A.D. 680-1,
and the anathema on him was repeated at the
Seventh Council held at Nicasa in A.D. 787.
The Romish authorities vainly attempt to get
over this by regarding the anathema as a con
demnation not of the personal heresy of the
Pope, but of his negligence in suppressing heresy.
So Gamier in the Appendix to his Liber Diurnus
Rom. Pontif., quoted and refuted by Hefele
(iii. 175). The same view is put forth by Di
Brunoin Catholic Belief, in his " List of Sovereign
Pontiffs." Dr. Di Bruno says, " he was greatly
censured for having been remiss in condemning
heretics." But Leo IT. distinctly condemned
Honorius, and his condemnation was embodied
in the Liber Diurnus (cap. ii. tit. 9, professio 2),
the official book of formulas of the Roman
Church. Full facts and documents are set
forth in Schaff's History of the Church (Mediaeval
Christ.), vol. ii. The matter was fiercely dis
cussed at the Vatican Council. Bishop Hefele,
who had, as above mentioned, written as a
historian against the orthodoxy of Pope
Honorius, was forced against his convictions
with others to accept the ruling of the Council.

[C. H. H. W.]

HOOD. — A kind of cape originally intended for
out-door wear. Hanging over the back, it
could be drawn forward as a covering for the
head. It was thus worn by the monks of the
Middle Ages. In a modified form hoods of
various colours are worn over the surplice, to
indicate the academical rank of the wearer.

HOST. — The name cf a wheaten cake supposed
to be changed into the Person of Christ by a
form of words used by a priest. (See TRAN-

SUBSTANTIATION, WAFER.)

The history of the word Host is singular
and instructive. It is used in the Vulgate
(Latin) Version of the Old Testament for the
animal offered as a sin offering, or a burnt
offering, or a peace offering. Each of them
was a Hostia, or Host. The sin offering sym
bolised the reconciliation of man to God, and
its meaning was exhausted in the Sacrifice of
Christ upon the Cross, by which that recon-
liation was effected. Christians can have
no Hostia pro peccato or Hostia pro delicto — no
Host for sin or trespass, except the one offer
ing of the Cross, the virtue of which is con
tinuous. The burnt offering symbolised Christ's
surrender of His own life for the life of man.

Its meaning likewise was exhausted in the
Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. Christians
can have no other Hostia in holocaustum — no
Host or victim for burnt offering. The peace
offering followed upon a consciousness of a state
of gracious acceptance, by virtue of which
man could feast joyously with his reconciled
Father. A Jew having this consciousness,
gratefully and humbly offered his Hottia
gratiarum — Host of thanks (Lev. vii. 13); his
Hostia pro f/ratiarum actione — Host for giving
of thanks (Lev. xxii. 29) ; his Hostia laudis—
Host of praise (Psalm cxvi. 17) to Jehovah.
Christians, too, bless God for the conscious
ness of their filial relation to Him as they
eat and drink at their Father's Table. They
therefore have their Host of praise and thanks
giving. But what is it? The Jews' Host of
thanksgiving, or peace offering, consisted of
an animal sacrificed and eaten with giving
of thanks. For Christians it consists of the
offering, not of an animal accompanied by praise
and thanksgiving, but of the praise and thanks
giving themselves. The author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, who enlightens us as to the
spiritual meaning of so much of the Jewish
ceremonial, says, "By Him let us offer the
sacrifice of praise to God continually," and as
though to prevent any misunderstanding or
materialising misconstruction of his words, he
adds, " that is, the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to His name (Heb. xiii. 15). Therefore
the " spiritual sacrifice " (1 Peter ii. 5) of prayer
and praise and thanksgiving is the Christian's
Host — the only Host that he has to offer ex
cept the surrender of himself, which is a
personal and private act. And this was the
emphatic teaching of the earliest Fathers.

Tertullian writes : " I offer Him a rich and
greater Host, which He has commanded : that
is, prayer from a chaste body, an innocent
mind, and a sanctified spirit ; not pennyworths
of frankincense, tears of the Arabian tree,"
&c. (Apol. xxx.). "Prayer (with Psalmody)
is the spiritual Host which has done away
with the ancient sacrifices. We (Christians)
are the true worshippers, the true priests
who, praying in the Spirit, in the Spirit offer
God's proper and acceptable sacrifice of prayer,
which He has demanded and appointed for
Hims-'lf ; this we must bring to the altar of
God," &c. (De Orat., xxvii.). " We do sacri
fice, but in the way which God has com
manded — that is, by prayer alone ; for God,
the Creator of the universe, does not need any
incense or blood" (Ad. Scap., ii.). "God is
to be served not with earthly but with spiritual
sacrifices, as it is written, 'A broken and a
contrite heart is the Host which should be
offered to God.' And elsewhere, 'Offer the
sacrifice of praise to God, and render thy vows

HOURS

[ 269 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

to the Most Highest.' This shows that spiritual
sacrifices of praise are demanded, and a broken
heart is the sacrifice acceptable to God" (Adv.
Jud., v. ). Origen says : " To praise God and to
offer our vows of prayer to Him, is to sacrifice
to God " (7;i. Num., Horn. xi.). Athenagoras
says : " As to our not sacrificing, the Creator
and Father of all does not want blood, or
fat, or sweet savour from flowers or incense,
being Himself the perfection of sweet savour,
wanting nothing, requiring nothing. But the
greatest sacrifice we can offer to Him is to
know who stretched out the vault of heaven
and fixed the central earth ; who gathered
the waters into the seas ; who covered the sky
with the stars and made the earth produce
seed ; who made the animals and created man.
When we apprehend the creative God as sus
taining aad watching over the universe with
that wisdom and skill witli which He ever
works, and raise up holy hands to Him,
what hecatomb is then wanted ?" (Leg., xiii.).
Lactantius writes: "There are two things
that must be offered, sacrifice and offering,
both incorporeal. . . . Offering is uprightness
of soul ; sacrifice is praise and hymn " (Instit.,
vi. 24.). Augustine writes: "Certainly offer;
you have within you what you may offer. Do
not look outside you for frankincense, but say,
'Within me, 0 Lord, are the offerings of praise
for me to render to Thee.' Do not seek out
side yon for a sheep to slay. You have some
thing within you to slay. The sacrifice to God
is a troubled spirit" (In Psalm., li.).

It was not till the Middle Ages, and more
particularly the thirteenth century when
Innocent III. in so many ways changed the
character of the Christian Faith, that the idea
of a Host in the modern sense arose. It could
not have arisen earlier, and it could not but
arise then. For when men were taught, and
came to believe that the bread and the wine,
which are the figures of the body and blood
of Christ offered on the Cross, were His living
Person (each of them), and that the priest sac
rificed this living Person to God the Father,
the Eucharistic or Thanksgiving offering
passed across from the class of peace offerings
(made by those who felt themselves accepted
and in peace with God) to that of sin offerings
(to make reconciliation), and the Christian
Host became not a humble presentation of
man's prayer and praise and thanksgiving and
penitence, but, like the Jewish offering, a
material object, not indeed now an animal,
but a transmuted piece of bread which Bishop
. Andre wes calls Christum vestrum ex pane factum
(Resp. ad Bellarm.). [F. M.]

HOURS.— See CANONICAL HOURS.

HOUSELLING CLOTH.— It was a long nap
kin held before the communicant, or spread

over the Communion rails, in order to prevent
any crumbs of bread from falling to the ground.
See HOST, TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
HUGUENOTS, THE.— The history of the
Huguenots is the history of the Protestant
movement in France, and of its followers
scattered abroad in many countries, owing to
numerous and terrible persecutions during a
period of three centuries, extending from the
first quarter of the sixteenth century, the be
ginning of the reign of Francis I., down to the
passing of " The Law of the Eighteenth of
Germinal," in the tenth year of the Republic.
This law was passed on 7th April 1802, and
was confirmed by Napoleon I., when he was
crowned Emperor a few months later. Mani
festly, only an outline of the history can be
attempted in this article. In fact, to decide
what to omit and what to insert has been a
difficult task.

The origin of the Reformation movement
in France can be traced to two prime causes :
the widespread circulation of French versions
of Luther's books, thanks to the recent dis
covery how to print rapidly, by using movable
type and improved presses : and the translation,
between 1522 and 1528, of the entire Bible
into French, by Jacques Lefevre, better known,
perhaps, as Faber Stapulensis, a native of
Etaples in Picardy, a distinguished Professor
in the University of Paris, and tutor to Charles,
Duke of Orleans, third son of Francis I. This
version was printed in Antwerp, whose printers
at the time were issuing thousands of copies of
Holy Scripture in various languages, as well as
books and pamphlets written by the leading
Reformers. It became the basis of all subse
quent editions of the French Bible.

About the year 1521, Jacques Lefevre and
his favourite pupil, Guillaume Farel, then a
young man thirty-four years of age, were
invited by Guillaume Bri9onnet, Count of
Montbrun, and Bishop of Lodeve and Meaux,
to occupy the pulpits of non-resident clergy
belonging to the diocese. The two scholars
made the town of Meaux their head-quarters.
Here Lefevre completed most of his transla
tion of the Scriptures ; here his printed version
was first circulated among the French populace,
with the bishop's help ; and here, we need
scarcely add, appeared the first signs of the Re
formation in France. Meaux was an important
town, situated some fifty miles north-east of
Paris, and inhabited chiefly by mechanics,
wool-carders, cloth-makers, and artisans.

A word, now, as to the derivation of the
name " Huguenot." There is much disputing
on this point. Some derive the name from
" Huguon," a term applied in Touraine to per
sons who walk about the streets at night ; others,
from the name of one " Hugues," a Genevese

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 270 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

Calvinist ; others, again, from a French and
faulty pronunciation of the German word
" Eidgenossen," meaning " confederates," a
term applied to those citizens of Geneva who
allied themselves with the Swiss cantons to
resist Charles III., Duke of Savoy. Mahn,
quoted by Samuel Smiles in his book The
Huguenots in England, gives no fewer than
fifteen supposed derivations of the word
" Huguenot." This much is generally ac
cepted. " Huguenots " was a nickname first
applied to French Protestants about March
1560, and was derived directly or indirectly
from Geneva : l it was soon held in high honour
by its recipients. Their foes also called the
French Protestants, "Lutherans," "Gospellers"
" Christaudins," " Religionaires," and in 1621
coined the opprobrious epithet "Parpaillots."
The name " Protestants " was not applied to
them till the end of the seventeenth century.

The first signs of the Reformation in France
appeared in the town of Meaux. In 1546 the
members of the Huguenot community there
adopted the Church organisation planned by
John Calvin for the regulation of the Protestant
Church in Strasbourg. Pierre Leclerc was ap
pointed to be the first chief pastor of Meaux.
In September 1555 John le Ma£on, surnamed
La Riviere, was set apart as the first Reformed
Minister in Paris, and a consistory of elders and
deacons was appointed to administer church
affairs for the Huguenots in Paris. The form
of Church government adopted by Meaux and
Paris became the prototype for many other
Huguenot communities in all parts of France.

Within the brief period of thirty years,
the number of adherents to the Protestant
cause in France increased very rapidly. So
early as 1534, the publication and wide dis
semination of controversial pamphlets, known
as the Placards, had roused Francis I. to try
to crush the new movement by systematic
persecution. Political apprehension inspired
the king's hostility. Francis dreaded lest a
celebrated saying of Pope Clement VII. should
come true: "A new religion established in
the midst of a people involves nothing short
of a change of prince." In fact, most of the
hostility and persecution directed against the
Huguenots during the three centuries of their
existence as an organised body, was inspired
by political considerations.

The determined opposition of Francis I.
forced the Reformation movement to become
a movement of the populace rather than of
the ruling classes ; it prevented Paris from
becoming a Reformation centre, and caused the

1 Spelled Huguenot, Hugenot, Haguenot, Hugu-
not, Hugonet, Hugonot. The meaning of Par
paillots is uncertain.

leaders of the movement to look to Geneva,
and to John Calvin, and Theodore Beza for
spiritual instruction, for counsel, and for en
couragement. Henceforth the theology and
Church discipline of Geneva were predominant
among the Huguenots.

During a period of thirty years, dating from
the accession of Francis II. in 1559, to the
close of the reign of Henry III. in 1589,
Catherine de Medicis and the Guises exercised
a paramount influence at the French Court.
Catherine was an Italian, a niece of Pope
Clement VII. , and wife of Henry II. of France.
Three of her sons, Francis II., Charles IX.,
Henry III., in succession occupied the throne
of France. The two Guises, Francis, Duke of
Guise, and his brother the Cardinal of Lorraine,
were uncles of Francis II. Catherine and the
two Guises were ardent Roman Catholics and
bitter enemies to the Reformation faith. Thus
the period is marked by almost continuous and
bitter persecution of the Huguenots, who at
length were driven in self-defence to appeal to
the sword, and for years France was harassed
with civil war. The abortive Colloquy at
Poissy, August to October 1561, was arranged,
mainly in order to give the Roman Catholic
party more time to collect forces wherewith
to crush the Huguenots, should their military
development ever mature into open warfare
against galling oppression. The sudden attack
on a Huguenot congregation while at wor
ship in a " temple " at Vassy, in Champagne,
by Francis, Duke of Guise, and 200 of his
retainers, on Sunday, 1st March 1562, was
the torch that set ablaze a prolonged warfare.
The favourable " Edict of January," 1562, was
granted too late to avert war.

During the earlier stages of the war, Louis,
Prince of Conde" (killed at the Battle of
Jarnac, March 1569), Henry, Prince of Conde',
Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, Henry
of Navarre (afterwards Henry IV.), Francois
de la Noue (called Bras de Fer), and D'Andelot
were the principal Huguenot generals ; and
Francis, Duke of Guise (assassinated, February
1563), Henry, Duke of Guise, Antoine of
Navarre (died from wounds, November 1562),
Anne de Montmorency, Constable of France
(died from wounds, 1567), the Marshal
Saint Andre, and the Duke of Anjou— the
principal Roman Catholic generals. At the
Battle of Dreux, December 1562 (the first en
gagement), the Huguenot forces met with de
feat. The Battle of St. Denis, November 1567
(the second engagement), was indecisive. The
Battle of Jarnac, 1st March 1569, resulted in
a severe defeat of the Huguenots, with heavy
losses. The Roman Catholics achieved another
decisive victory at the Battle of Moncontour,
October 1569. Not until Henry of Navarre

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 271 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

was old enough to take supreme command
during the Wars of the League, did the
Huguenots gain a decisive victory in an im
portant battle. The brilliant and successful
defence of La Rochelle by La Noue, from
December 1572 to June 1573, during the first
siege against that Huguenot stronghold, partly
atoned for the reverses met with in the open field.
A date ever memorable in Protestant annals
is that of 24th August to 27th August 1572,
the date of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.
The most celebrated among the victims
was Gaspard de Coligny. The massacre in
Paris was followed at once by massacres in
Lyons (1500 victims), Rouen (600 victims),
Dieppe, Havre. The massacres in the provinces
lasted more than six weeks. In all France
from 70,000 to 100,000 Huguenots are said
to have been slain. It is generally held that
Catherine de Medicis, Henry, Duke of Guise,
and the Cardinal of Lorraine, supported by
other representatives of the Roman hierarchy,
planned this general massacre of French
Protestants.

The Holy League, at first established by a
body of extreme Roman Catholics for the
protection of the interests of their religion, de
veloped into a powerful military and political
organisation about the year 1576. The King
of Spain was a leading supporter of the League.
Its military power was specially prominent dur
ing the Wars of the League, which were waged
between the years 1576 to 1593. Henry of
Navarre was the brilliant leader of the Hugue
nots ; Henry of Guise, the Duke of Mayenne,
and the Duke of Joyeuse commanded the
forces of the League. At the Battle of Coutras,
October 1587, the Huguenots won their first
victory in a big engagement ; and at the Battle
of Ivry, March 1590, they achieved a splendid
triumph, and routed the forces of the League.

Henry III. caused Henry of Guise to be assas
sinated in December 1588 ; but he was assas
sinated himself, August 1589, and Henry of
Navarre succeeded to the crown of France as
Henry IV. Catherine had died, January 1588.
Despite the remonstrances of Duplessis Mornay,
the great Huguenot statesman, and the en
treaties of the aged Theodore Beza, Henry
abjured the Reformed faith, and at St. Denis
was publicly received into the Roman Catholic
Church by the Archbishop of Bourges, 25th
July 1593. Consequently, it was not until
April 1598 that persistent, though respectful,
agitation by the Huguenots in numerous poli
tical assemblies of their adherents , accomplished
the passing of the Edict of Nantes, the great
charter of Huguenot liberties.

Henry IV. was assassinated in 1610 by a
fanatic named Frangois Ravaillac, and was
succeeded by his son, Louis XIII., then only

nine years old. Marie de Medicis, mother of
the young king, was appointed Queen Regent
during the king's minority ; but the control of
state affairs really was in the hands of Duplessis
Mornay, now Governor of the city of Saumur.

The political Assembly of Saumur, May 1611,
revealed the existence of certain grievances,
and of a certain amount of friction, among the
Huguenots. Under the presidency of Duplessis
Mornay, the assembly matured a scheme for a
more complete organisation of the Huguenots,
so as to secure better facilities for mutual pro
tection and intercourse. Another form of de
liberative body, known as " The Assemblies of
the Circle," was established. The National
Synod of Privas, held from May to July 1612,
completed the good work by enacting a solemn
oath, binding each community to loyalty and
Christian fellowship, and also by appointing
a " Committee of Reconciliation," who were
bidden to adjust the differences that threatened
to estrange the Huguenot nobility.

Ever since the abjuration by Henry IV. in
1593, the leaders of Roman Catholicism in
France had been agitating for the re-establish
ment of the Papacy within the little province
of Beam, situated at the foot of the Pyre
nees. The Reformation there had made rapid
progress under the fostering care of Jeanne
d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and mother of
Henry IV. Wearied with the pertinacity of the
bishops, Louis XIII. set about re-establishing
the Roman Catholic religion in B^arn. To
overcome the Protestant faith after fifty years
free course in the province, proved to be a
formidable task. The reduction occupied three
years, 1617-1620, and involved considerable
persecution.

The fate of Bdarn precipitated a renewal of
hostilities. From November 1620 to May 1621
a political assembly of the Huguenots met in
the city of La Rochelle, to determine the policy
to be adopted ; but the king's descent upon the
Huguenot country in the south, while the con
ference was sitting, clearly showed that a
military campaign was inevitable. Neverthe
less the step was deplored by the Duke of
Rohan, by his younger brother, the Duke of
Soubise, by Duplessis Mornay, and by a
large number of Huguenots. The assembly
thoroughly reorganised the Huguenot military
system. The territories occupied by them
were divided into eight military districts.
A Huguenot nobleman was appointed general
in command of each district. The Duke
of Bouillon, first marshal of France, was
chosen commander-in-chief , as well as general
of a district. The Duke of Rohan and the
Duke of Soubise, sad to say, alone proved
themselves worthy of the trust committed to
them. At the same time, a new seal was

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 272 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

adopted, bearing the motto " Pro Christo et
Eege."

Louis, meanwhile, by seizing Saumur and
ejecting Duplessis Mornay (died 1623) from his
governorship, had opened the first of the three
campaigns of a war that lasted practically from
1621 to 1629. The most prominent leaders were
Rohan, Soubise, and Jean Guiton, Mayor of
La Rochelle, on the Huguenot side ; and Louis
XIII., the Prince of Conde, (grandson of the
great Huguenot leader) and Cardinal Richelieu,
on the Roman Catholic side. The southern
provinces, Guyenne and Languedoc, and the
city of La Rochelle, were the battle ground.

Two or three prolonged sieges, a con
spicuous feature of this war, demand a brief
notice. The city of Montauban gallantly
withstood a three months' siege, combined
with several determined assaults. Louis was
bitterly chagrined at his failure. The next
year, 1622, the town of Montpellier successfully
beat off the royal forces. But the reduction
of La Rochelle was the cherished desire of the
Roman Catholic party. This had been
indicated to the king by the Bishop of Rennes
at the Assembly of Roman Catholic Clergy,
June to October 1621. A distinguished
deputation of the hierarchy offered Louis a
million livres for the purpose.

Although the king's army did not formally
begin the investment of the city till August
1627, offensive operations were begun so
early as 1622. The skill of the engineer,
Pompee Targon, and the industry of Arnauld
du Fort, accomplished during five years the
stealthy yet steady completion of formidable
works to aid the blockade. While these pre
parations were being made, Soubise was
defeated (1625), in a bold attempt to seize the
royal fleet anchored in the harbour of Blavet,
now called Port Louis ; and Rohan was
waging a successful guerilla warfare against
the Prince of Conde, who had been commis
sioned to stamp out the " southern revolt."

The capture of La Rochelle was due mainly
to the strategical ability and indomitable
energy displayed by Cardinal Richelieu. From
August 1627 to the capitulation on 29th Octo
ber 1628, a rigorous siege was maintained.
Charles I. three times sent powerful fleets
from England to succour the citizens. The re-
' spective commanders, the Duke of Buckingham,
the Earl of Denbigh, and the Earl of Lindsey,
in turn utterly failed in their mission, and mate
rially weakened, rather than strengthened, the
stubborn resistance maintained by the Rochel-
lese. Public feeling in England and Scotland,
for many years past favourable to the Hugue
nots, had been deeply stirred by tidings of
their sufferings. In 1621 the Archbishop of
Canterbury ordered a collection to be made

for the refugees. In 1622 a collection was
made throughout Scotland. On the other hand,
the consort of Charles I. was Henrietta Maria
of France, daughter of Henry IV., and sister
of Louis XIII. Appearances suggest, therefore,
that the policy which directed the despatch of
the three expeditions, directed also their dis
creditable failures. La Rochelle capitulated
29th October 1628. More than 15,000 persons
perished during the fourteen months' siege.
The city was deprived of its defences and of
all its rights and privileges. The fall of La
Rochelle sealed the fate of the Huguenots as a
political and military power in France. Thus
ended a period of almost ceaseless civil war
fare, extending from the attack on the wor
shippers at Vassy, by Francis of Guise, March
1562, down to the Peace of Alais, a Royal
Edict, signed June 1629. This Edict is known
as the " Edict of Grace " or " Pardon."

Cardinal Richelieu persuaded Louis XIII. to
grant generous terms to the Huguenots. This
great prelate, statesman, and military com
mander proved to be as magnanimous in peace
as he had been formidable in war. The pastor
of Montauban acknowledged his " clean repu
tation of incorruptible good faith," a tribute
which was confirmed in even stronger terms
by Zorzo Zorzi, the contemporary Venetian
ambassador to the French court. The cardinal's
tolerant policy secured about thirty years
(1629-1660) welcome freedom from religious
persecution. He died in December 1642.

Less than six months later, May 1643, Louis
XIII. died, and was succeeded by his son, Louis
XIV., who was only five years old. The queen
mother, Anne of Austria, held the regency.
Cardinal Giulio Mazarin was appointed prime
minister, and remained in power till his death
in March 1661, when Louis assumed supreme
power. The loyalty of the Huguenots, and
several important services that they rendered
to the crown during the " War of the Fronde,"
or Sling, and in other disturbances which took
place within the first ten years of the king's
reign, were warmly acknowledged by Louis
and by Cardinal Mazarin.

By the death of Oliver Cromwell in Septem
ber 1658, the great statesman whose genius
had made England's hostility an event to be
dreaded, the probability of English interven
tion was removed . The archbishops and bishops
perpetually were soliciting Louis to stamp out
the " Pretended Reformed Religion." The
close of 1659, and the first few months of 1660,
saw the convocation at Loudun of the twenty-
ninth and last National Synod permitted to
the Huguenots. The succeeding twenty-five
years were marked by a steady development
of persecution, culminating in the famous
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 17th

COINS OF CHARLES IX. AND LOUIS XIV.

Struck by Charles IX. of France, 1572. The king is represented as Hercules in battle
with the Lernsean hydra, which represents the Huguenots. The legend ^ on the
reverse means : " Lest it may despise the sword I will oppose it also with flames."

Mcdailles Frant-aises, 1892 : Kegne de Charles IX., No. 35.

Coin of the same king, 1572. The reverse represents the king in
robes with drawn sword, and bodies of Huguenots under his feet.
The legend means : " Valour against rebels."

Mcdailles Franyaises : Charles IX., No. 36.

Medal of Louis XIV., struck in commemoration of the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, 1685. The reverse shows Religion tramping on Heresy, whose
torch is extinguished. The legend is: "Heresy extinguished." The back
ground depicts a Roman Catholic Church.

Medailles Fran?aisex : Louis XIV., No. 169.

PLATE IV

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 273

HUGUENOTS, THE

October 1685. At first certain civil and social
disabilities were enforced, and fresh disabilities
were created; then Huguenot "temples" here
and there were demolished. The expostulations
and warnings of Jean Baptist Colbert , the famous
minister of finance, were unheeded by the king.

From 1681 more violent measures were
adopted. The " Terrible Law," passed in that
year, authorised children only seven years of
age to renounce the religion of their Protestant
parents, and to embrace Roman Catholicism.
In many cases the clergy found, herein, a pre
text forcibly to separate young children from
their parents, who were compelled to pay for
their education in Roman Catholic Schools.
In the same year also, Michel de Marillac, a
crown official, converted the oppressive custom
of billeting soldiers on private residents, into
a new way of molesting the Huguenots of
Poitou. He directed that an extra number of
dragoons should be quartered in each Huguenot
house, and gave them full licence to maltreat
the household in every possible way. This
ingenious form of oppression, notorious under
the name of the Dragonnades — derived from
the word dragoon — in 1685 was extended by
Francis, Marquis de Louvois, the celebrated
war minister, to the provinces of Beam,
Guyenne, and Upper Languedoc. About the
time of the Revocation, Louvois developed the
Dragonnades into a systematised and wide
spread military persecution of the Huguenots.
Thus the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
was really the outcome of a long course of pro
gressive persecution. Huguenot "temples"
everywhere without loss of time were razed to
the ground. The celebrated "temple" at
Charenton was among the first to be destroyed.
The Revocation with its attendant persecutions
shattered the Protestant movement in France.
Thousands fled into other countries ; thousands
more perished amid sufferings too varied and
too painful to detail.

The fate of the scattered communities now
demands a brief notice. The Huguenots of the
CeVennes near Languedoc revolted against their
Roman Catholic persecutors in July 1702, when
a body of them under Pierre Seguier, one of the
preaching prophets, slew the Abbe du Chayla,
a notorious persecutor, in his house at Pont de
Montvert, and released his tortured prisoners.
From this date till January 1705, when Jean
Cavalier arranged terms with Marshal de Villars,
a sanguinary guerilla warfare was waged, known
as the ' ' Insurrection of the Camisards." l

1 Camisards, a nickname of uncertain origin,
but said to have been derived from the word
" camisade," a name applied to soldiers engaged
in night attack, who wore a shirt, or "camise"
over their armour for purposes of identification.

The most prominent leaders of the Camisard
bands were Pierre Esprit, otherwise known as
Seguier, Laporte, his nephew Roland Laporte,
better known as Roland, Abdias Morel, sur-
named Catinat, the commander of the Garni-
sard troop of horse, Ravanel, and Jean Cavalier,
by far the most brilliant Huguenot leader since
the days of Henry of Navarre. The careers of
these men illustrate, once more, how formid
able as a military force may become mobile
bands of hardy and determined men, even
though matched against superior numbers of
disciplined troops led by trained officers like
the Count de Broglie, Captain Poul, and
others. In the spring of 1704 Cavalier gained
at the affray of Devois de Mortinargues, the
most decisive victory won by the Camisards.
With a handful of men he ambushed a con
siderable force of the enemy. The royal army
lost in this fight 25 officers and from 300 to
600 men. Despite his youth and lack of
previous military training, Cavalier gained
many successes against some of the most dis
tinguished generals in France. Great superi
ority in numbers and resources, however, proved
at length too strong for the Camisards. They
met with heavy reverses near Montpellier, at
Brenoux, near Euzet, at Magistavols, where
Cavalier's stores were discovered hidden in
caverns, and also near Pont de Montvert. To
quell the Camisard revolt required the services
of more than 60,000 troops, commanded by
three Marshals of France in succession, the
Marquis de Montrevel, the Duke de Villars,
the latter fresh from laurels ^won in the War
of the Spanish Succession, and the Duke of
Berwick. Cavalier afterwards became a major-
general in the British army, and died in
1740, as Governor of Jersey.

The wave of spiritual fervour that sustained
the Huguenots through this disastrous struggle
can be traced to a gentilhomme of Dieu-le-Fit,
in Dauphiny, named Du Serre. Impressed by
having read Pierre Jurieu's book, entitled
The Fulfilment of the Prophecies, or The Ap
proaching Deliverance of the Church, he founded
in 1689 a sect of enthusiasts, who claimed to
possess the gift of prophecy. He may have
erred in detail; but he and his followers
certainly rekindled a spirit of earnest prayer
among the Huguenots. The battle-cry of the
Camisards was Marot's metrical version of the
sixty-eighth Psalm. Their special enemy during
this period was Lamoignon de Basville, In-
tendant of Languedoc, who had been armed
with unusual powers by the Crown in order
to put down the revolt, and who made
strenuous use of them in persecuting the
Camisards.

The great organiser of the " Churches of the
Desert," or the scattered Huguenot communi-

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 274 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

ties in Languedoc and in other parts of Southern
France, was Antoine Court. The phrase, " in
the Desert," used originally in a metaphorical
sense, soon became a popular name employed
by both friends and foes. The Protestants
found it to be a convenient designation for
places of meeting which could not be specified
with safety. Antoine Court was born in the
district of Vivarais, in 1696. At the early age
of seventeen he was already an acceptable
preacher. He was ordained a pastor, in
November 1718, by Pierre Corteiz, a brother
preacher who had just been ordained by the
pastors in Zurich, since oppression had made
this rite impossible in France. In August 1715,
Antoine Court convened the Synod of Monoblet,
the first Huguenot Synod held since the Re
vocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Only
nine people were qualified or able to attend
the synod, but it is memorable as having
corrected sundry abuses that had resulted from
spiritual fervour unrestrained by church disci
pline, and as having restored sound organisa
tion to the Protestant communities that still
survived. In 1730 Antoine Court founded at
Lausanne, in Switzerland, a college for training
pastors for the " Churches of the Desert." M.
Duplan was appointed the first principal, and
George II. of England subscribed 500 guineas
annually towards its maintenance. The college
continued to do good work till 1809, when
Napoleon I. established the Theological Faculty
of Montauban, which superseded the college.
Having organised the " Churches of the Desert,"
and having provided them with an efficient
ministry, of which he had been both the edu
cator and the inspirer, Antoine Court con
cluded that he could best watch over their
interests by retiring to a safer place, where
he could work without being harassed by con
tinual peril. He and his family retired, there
fore, in 1729 to Geneva, from which city he
continued to be the life and soul of the Hugue
not cause till his death in 1760. The extent of
the revival awakened by Antoine Court may be
estimated from the fact that whereas in 1715
there was no settled congregation of Huguenots
in Southern France, by 1729 there were no
less than 112 organised, though secretly
governed, communities ; and Languedoc alone
could claim more than 200,000 recognised
Protestants.

The task of consolidating and extending the
movement was nobly continued by Paul
Babaut, a native of Languedoc. He began to
preach in public in 1738, when only twenty
years old, and during more than fifty years
he devoted himself to furthering the Huguenot
cause. From his numerous hiding-places, in
caverns, in clefts of rocks, &c., he directed and
inspired their communities year after year, till

his death in 1794. Exposed to dangers in
numerable, he seemed to bear a charmed life.
By means of his pamphlets he did much to
open the eyes of those powerful French writers
who were soon to arouse public disapproval of
this incessant persecution, and he lived to see
the reaction set in. Paul Rabaut more than
earned the honoured title, " The Apostle of the
Desert," by which his name is still revered in
Southern France.

At last brighter days began to dawn. In
1762 Voltaire, then residing at Ferney, near
Geneva, happened to hear about the execution
that year of a Protestant merchant, named
Jean Calas, by the Parliament of Toulouse, on
the charge of having murdered his son, in
order to prevent the son's contemplated seces
sion to Rome. Having interviewed the exiled
family, Voltaire took up the case with all his
characteristic energy and ability. By 1765-66
he had secured the withdrawal of the charge,
the vindication of the family, and 36,000
francs compensation to the widow. Soon
afterwards a strong reaction set in. It became
impolitic to seize and kill, or to condemn to
the galleys, law-abiding Protestants. Jean
Calas was probably the last Huguenot to suffer
death for his religious belief. A contemporary
dramatic piece, entitled L'Honn6te Criminel,
having for its theme the sufferings endured
by Jean Fabre, a young Huguenot who from
1756-62 had served in the galleys as a self-
surrendered substitute for his aged father —
the sole offence having been attendance at
a Protestant conventicle — performed a great
service, in that it roused popular outcry
against this form of persecution. The last
Huguenot galley-slaves were liberated in 1775,
about the time when Huguenot women ceased
to be imprisoned for life in the grim castle,
" La Tour de Constance," situated at Aigues
Mortes. Further remissions followed the dis
continuance of capital punishment, or of
committal to the galleys, simply for being a
Protestant.

In November 1787, the persevering efforts
of the Marquis de Lafayette, seconded by
the Petition presented by the Assembly of
Notables, and supported by frequent repre
sentations made by the crown ministers,
Anne Robert Turgot and Chretien de
Malesherbes — induced Louis XVI. to grant
the " Edict of Toleration." This edict pro
mised Protestants a safe abode in France,
and the enjoyment of the essential rights
of citizenship. In July 1789 the "Declara
tion of Rights," passed by the National
Assembly at the beginning of the Revolu
tion, declared all citizens, irrespective of
religious persuasion, to be eligible for public
offices. In June of the same year, a Protestant

COINS OF LOUIS XIV.

The reverse depicts Religion crowning Louis XIV., who is attired as a
Roman general. The king holds in his right hand a rudder resting
on the carcase of a heretic. The inscription is: " On account of tico
million Calrinists brought back to the Church." Struck 1685.

.Medailles Franraiscs : Louis XIV., No. 270 B.

"The reverse shows Religion with Gospels and cross planted upon the base of a
shattered column of a Protestant Church. The inscription is : " The temples
of the Calvinists overthrown," 1685. Struck to commemorate the destruction
of Huguenot Churches.

Medailles Fran Daises : Louis XIV. , No. 271.

Medal of the same date. The inscription on the reverse is : " The
temples of the Calrinists overthrown"

Medailles Franraises : Louis XIV., No. 271 B.

PLATE V

HUGUENOTS, THE

[ 275 ]

HUGUENOTS, THE

minister was permitted to address a congrega
tion in public in the heart of Paris. In 1791
Parisian Protestants were granted the old
church of Saint Louis in which to worship.
Another important concession was granted in
1790. The National Assembly decreed that,
where possible, the confiscated property of the
Huguenot fugitives should be restored to the
families of the former possessors, or their heirs,
if they returned to France.

The "Reign of Terror" (1793-94) cost the
Huguenots the life of a distinguished pastor,
in the person of Rabaut Saint Etienne, elder
son of the revered Paul Rabaut. By his
writings and his personal services rendered
to Lafayette and the crown ministers, he
had borne no small part in securing the
Edict of Toleration of 1787.

The constitution of 1795 provided that all
forms of worship should be free, although not
to be recognised by the State, nor supported
at public expense. Soon places for public
worship were rebuilt or secured by the Hugue
nots, and the expression "Churches of the
Desert" ceased to possess its former signifi
cance, and sank into disuse. Finally, by the
" Law of the Eighteenth of Germinal," enacted
in 1802, Napoleon Bonaparte, as First Consul,
reconstituted the Reformed Churches in
France. This law still remains in force.

It would be unfitting to conclude this
outline of the history of the Huguenots without
some notice, however brief, of their distribution,
numbers, " temples," &c. As will have been
observed already, the provinces of Languedoc,
Guyenne, Poitou, and Dauphiny never ceased
to be Huguenot strongholds. Therein were
situated the most famous of their cities,
viz. La Rochelle, Montauban, Nismes, Mont-
pellier, &c. At one time Normandy, Orleans,
Burgundy, and Be"arn contained many Hugue
nots ; but Paris and its immediate neighbour
hood never became one of their strongholds.

When the first National Synod met secretly
in Paris, in 1559, the Huguenots were esti
mated to number about 400,000. John Correro.
Venetian envoy in 1569, stated that they
comprised one-third of the nobility, and one-
thirtieth of the populace. About 1629, the
period of their greatest prosperity, the
Huguenots are said to have numbered a little
over 1,500,000 souls, in other words, from one-
fifteenth to one-tenth of the population of
France. They owned between 800 and 900
"temples," wherein ministered a little less
number of pastors, one pastor being assigned
to more than one "temple" in small dis
tricts. The largest " temples," e.g. those at
Charenton and at Quevilly, near Rouen, were
very fine buildings, which could accommo
date more than 7000 worshippers ; but usually

they were unpretentious both in size and in
appearance.

The Huguenot church government was non-
episcopaL The affairs of each community
were administered by a consistory composed
of the pastor or pastors, aided by elders and
deacons, who were elected to hold office, and
who were concerned chiefly with temporal
matters. The great National Synod met peri
odically, but the details connected with Hugue
not administration were controlled chiefly by
minor synods, called " Colloquies." The General
Assembly of the Circles protected their political
interests. The Huguenots, we have seen already,
followed Calvin's theological teaching. For edu
cation they made careful provision. They main
tained a good school in every town and village
where the number of Huguenots was sufficient ;
they founded thirty colleges, and several well-
known Protestant universities both in France
and in Switzerland.

It is impossible to enumerate here the many
Huguenot emigrations, through stress of per
secution, into the Netherlands, Switzerland,
Germany, England, the United States. Readers
are referred to works such as, The Huguenots
in England and Ireland, by Samuel Smiles,
and The History of the Huguenot Emigration to
America, by the Rev. Charles W. Baird, D.D.
Respecting England, it is difficult to name a
place of any size wherein Huguenot fugitives
have not settled at some time or other. London,
Canterbury, Sandwich, Winchelsea, South
ampton, Norwich, Yarmouth, &c., are rich in
Huguenot associations. Ever since the days of
Archbishop Parker, in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, Huguenots have been permitted to
conduct their own form of service in the Under
Croft, or Crypt, of Canterbury Cathedral. To
this very day they support their own pastor,
who ministers to Huguenots in Canterbury. In
olden days they also set up looms, and carried
on the weaving industry in another part of
the Crypt. Wherever the fugitives settled
they brought a knowledge of some skilled
trade. England, indeed, may be said to owe
mainly to successive Huguenot refugees her
present skill in the industrial arts. The Hugue
nots have more than held their own in pure
scholarship, in pursuit of the arts, and in
scientific investigation. In the industrial arts
they have been pre-eminent. Adversity pro
tected them from insidious luxury. Years of
persecution developed a resolute character.
The most recent National Synod of French
Protestants was held in 1872. Official returns
state that they number in France at the present
time about half a million. Those who wish to
obtain information respecting the large number
of families in England who can trace their
descent to Huguenot ancestry should com-

HUS, JOHN

[ 276 ]

HUS, JOHN

municate with the Hon. Secretary to the
Huguenot Society of London, 90 Regent's
Park Eoad, N.W. This society was founded
in 1885, " to form a bond of fellowship among
some of those who desire to perpetuate the
memory of their Huguenot ancestors."

Authorities. — Prof. Henry Martyn Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots, 2 vols. , 8vo,
1880; The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
2 vols., 8vo, 1886; The Huguenots and the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 2 vols., 8vo,
1895. The Rev. Charles W. Baird, D.D.,
History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
2 vols., 8vo, 1885. Samuel Smiles, The Hugue
nots in England and Ireland, post 8vo, 1867 ;
The Huguenots in France, post 8vo, 1873.
Eugene Bersier, D.D., Coligny (English Trans
lation), post 8vo, 1884. Fran9ois Guizot,
Histoire de France, 1872. Merle D'Aubigne, His
tory of the Reformation. English Translation of
abridged edition, published by Messrs. Jarrold
& Sons, 1899. R. L. Poole, History of the
Huguenots of the Dispersion, 8vo, 1880. Blie
Benoit, Histoire de I'Edit de Nantes, 5 vols.
4vo, 1693-95. John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion. Translated by H. Beveridge,
Edinburgh, 2 vols., 8vo, 1863. [H. F. G]

See also articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica,
under names of different Huguenot leaders.
HUS, JOHN, AND THE HUSSITES.— John
Hus was born at Hussinetz, a little town of
South Bohemia, in 1369. He entered the
University of Prague, which then, with Paris
and Oxford, was the third seat of learning in
Europe. He became Master of Arts and
Bachelor of Divinity ; and in 1401 was
elected Dean of the Faculty of Arts. About
two years later he became rector of the
University. Meantime he had taken Holy
Orders. He thus united in himself the two
principles destined ultimately to signalise
the Reformation, a love of learning and a
practical zeal for souls. He was appointed a
little later to preach in the Bethlehem chapel,
on the foundation made by Kritz, a pious
merchant of Prague, who desired the religious
welfare of the townspeople through preaching
in the native tongue. The earnest eloquence
of Hus, and bis denunciation of abuses, soon
attracted crowds of eager hearers who longed
for better things.

Sbynek, then Archbishop of Prague, an
illiterate but good-natured prelate, was at
first tolerant and even favourable to the
zealous young preacher, and granted him a
commission to report the misdoings of the
clergy. This commission evoked resentment,
which was exasperated by the popularity of
Hus's declamations with the common people.
Accusations began to be circulated against
him, which have been repeated ever since —

that he was seditious, that he was a heretic,
and that he was a Wycliffite. The last
charge, though for a long time disputed
vigorously by Neander, who drew his in
formation from the work of Professor Palaky,
a learned and impartial Bohemian, has been
proved to be correct. It is admitted freely
by Lechler, the historian of Wycliffe, as
well as by G. Macaulay Trevelyan in his
work on England in the Age of Wycliffe (Long
mans, 1900), and by Doctor Johann Loserth,
Professor of History in the University of
Czernowitz, in his book Wiclif and Hus,
translated by Rev. M. J. Evans, B.A. (Hodder
and Stoughton, 1884). Dr. Loserth has con
clusively shown that large passages in Hus's
work, De Ecclesia, are almost copied verbatim
from the works of Wycliffe, and the same
is true in the case of many other works of
Hus. So far from being a seditious person
age, Hus was of a mild character, and he was
by no means so far advanced in Evangelical
opinions as the great Englishman from whom
he drew a great deal of his inspiration.

Notwithstanding the latest effort by Dr.
Barry to save the reputation of Rome in the
fifteenth century, the Church of Rome in the
days of Hus was filled with corruption and
ignorance, torn with schisms, and urgently in
need of reform. Hus had grown up during
the schism of the anti-Popes, when, to quote
Janus, " All that any one knew of his Pope's
legitimacy was that half Christendom denied
it." Simony had long been the daily bread of
the Roman curia. Nepotism was chronic.
Infamy seemed incarnate in Pope John XXIII.
Bibles were scarce and seldom read. So great
was the disorder caused by the papal schisms,
that for thirty years no clergyman could be
sure that he was validly ordained, no woman
could be sure that she was validly married, no
parent could be sure that his child was validly
baptized. The vigour with which Hus de
nounced these abuses was the main cause of
his martyrdom, and, in addition, his enemies
accused him of being a Wycliffite. The Council
of Constance had condemned the doctrines of
Wycliffe early in its sessions, and Wycliffe
was denounced as the leader of heresy in
that age. Wycliffe's books were ordered to be
burned, and his body taken out of consecrated
ground. The charge of Wycliffism was made
against Hus with the object of arousing against
Hus the jealousy of race as well as the sus
picion of heresy, and it succeeded only too
well.

Wratislaw, in his Life of Hus, writes as
follows: "Well might Neander, fresh from
perusing the writings of Matthias of Janov
(Canon of Prague from 1381 to his death in
1394), make the unexpected statement before

HUS, JOHN

[ 277 ]

HUS, JOHN

the Academy of Sciences, that a student who
passes directly from the writings of Matthias
to those of Hus must feel that, quite indepen
dently of Wycliffe, a reaction formed itself in
Bohemia, proceeding immediately from a
religious interest, and from the religious wants
of the people ; and that this movement, though
outwardly attached to the Church system, was
really based on the principle of the German
Keformation, namely, on reference to Christ
alone, and to His Word in Holy Scripture."
The later examination, however, of Hus's
works in the light of the numerous volumes
which have been lately published of Wycliffe's
Latin works, shows clearly that while Hus
founded his whole teaching on the Holy
Scriptures, he was led by the English Re
former's writings to a real comprehension of
their meaning, even though he did not embrace
all Wycliffe's opinions.

The agitation respecting Hus still continued
and was important enough to receive the
notice of the Emperor Sigismund ; and when
the famous Council was to meet at Constance,
on All Saints' Day 1414, the state of Bohemia
was included in the agenda. Sigismund
promised Hus a fair hearing and a safe return,
if he would submit his cause to the judgment
of the Council. Hus, well knowing the things
that might befall him there, assented to the
Emperor's wish, and journeyed to Constance
amid the acclamations of multitudes who came
to meet him at various places on the road.
Notwithstanding the promised protection of
the Emperor, Hus, on arriving at Constance,
was arrested and imprisoned in a Dominican
convent. A judicial committee was appointed
to investigate the charges made against him,
and while Hus himself was furnished with
most meagre means for defence, his adversaries,
both numerous and powerful, used every effort
to inflame the Council against him.

On June 5, 1415, he first appeared before
the Council. Next, his writings were laid
before it. On June 7, he appeared in the
Council again. The first accusation was that
he denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The second, that he had taught the heresies
of Wycliffe. The third, that in order to
commend Wycliffe to simple folk, he had
circulated a garbled account of the "Earth
quake Council." The fourth, that he had
invited the people to take up"arms for religion
The fifth, that he had tried to set the civil
power against the spiritual in Bohemia. The
first charge Hus disposed of by confessing his
belief in Transubstantiation. The remaining
four, which were really one, he denied. He
avowed, indeed, his admiration for Wycliffe,
but repudiated what he conceived to be his
errors. He had sufficient witnesses to prove,

that in charging him with sedition his enemies
were guilty of malignant misrepresentation.
So convincing was his defence, that a Paris
deputy to the Council said if Hus had been
allowed an advocate, the charge of heresy
could not have been proved. The Council
finally condemned Hus as a heretic, and, in
the wicked euphemism of the Middle Ages,
handed him over to the secular arm to be
burned. Seven bishops performed the mockery
of degrading him from the priesthood. His
clerical garments were taken from him ; the
cup of the Eucharist, for the restoration of
which to the laity he had striven, was plucked
from his hands with the cruel gibe, "We take
from the condemned Judas the cup of salva
tion ; " a cap painted with devils, and inscribed
with the title " Arch-heretic," was placed on
his head, and, dressed for death, he was
handed over to the executioner. At the place
of burning he took a tender farewell of his
keepers. Amid the flames his voice was
audible in singing and prayer, as he passed
from the world not worthy of him with the
words, " Jesu, Son of the living God, have
mercy upon me."

Hutsites. — The followers of Hus can be di
vided into two sections : (1) The Calixtines,
which means men of the Cup. The name is
derived from Calix, or the Chalice. They were
also called Utraquists, as insisting on receiving
the Lord's Supper in both kinds (the bread and
the wine). (2) The Taborites : this name was
derived from Tabor, a title given to a certain
hill-sanctuary in Bohemia by the disciples of
Hus.

The Calixtines were moderate in the reforms
which they desired. The first of these was
that the cup should be restored to the people.
The second, that the Word of God should be ex
pounded by the clergy, who ought not to give
themselves up to covetonsness and ambition.

The Taborites were religious enthusiasts
who longed for a completely new order of
things in the Church, and who expected a
personal descent of Christ to extirpate the
wicked with fire and sword. The Hussite
wars lasted for many years, and were con
ducted by both sides with great cruelty. The
most distinguished general of the Hussites
was Ziska, who showed marvellous military
genius, and repeatedly defeated enormous hosts
with comparatively small numbers of men on
his side. Procopius the greater, and Procopius
the less were also remarkable commanders ;
the former was also a man of learning. Their
most remarkable theologian was John Rokya-
zana. The partisans of Hus appear to have
begun the war upon his death, inflamed to
warlike enthusiasm by the perfidy of the
Emperor and the cruelty of the Council, and

HYMNS ANCIENT AND MODERN [ 278 ] HYMNS ANCIENT AND MODERN

resolved to atone for his murder by the blood
shed of a generation.

Authorities. — Besides the works already
mentioned in the above article raay be noted,
Council of Constance to the Death of Hus, by
J. H. Wylie (Longmans, pp. 192 /.). The
Ford Lectures delivered at Oxford in 1900.
A Stanhope Essay, by H. Rashdall. History of
Hus, by Bercke. A Biographical Sketch of J/us,
in German, by Everlin (1788). Fabri v. Heil-
bronn (1528), published at Leipzig ; comparison
between doctrines of Hus and those of Luther.
Prebendary Gilpin (1765) included Hus in
Biographies of some Reformers. In 1865 Albert
Losscher, University of France, published a
work, Doctrine de Jean Hus sur I'Eglise. In
1857 Winkelman wrote on Hus. E. de Bonne-
chose, a Swiss scholar, edited ths Letters of
Hus with Luther's preface. This work was
translated into English by Mr. Mackenzie,
1846. There are two series of Letters. The
first series contains fifteen ; the second series
contains fifty-six by Hus and others. Luther's
preface is a generous vindication of Hus as
a saint and martyr. About forty of Hus's
Sermons survive. Neander devotes a large
part of his last volume of his Church History
to Hus. [H. J. R. M.]

HYMNS ANCIENT AND MODERN
(complete edition). — Lack of space forbids
anything like an exhaustive examination of
this well-known hymnal. Its general features,
musical and poetical, cannot be criticised here.
All that is possible in this article is to set
forth some of the serious objections which
may be brought against it from the Protestant
standpoint. The necessity for doing this is
especially laid upon us when we remember
that it has attained a wide circulation and
extensive use ; that many who would not take
into their churches and schools such Romanis
ing productions as the People's Hymnal and
the Hymnal Noted, scarcely seem to feel any
qualms about its adoption ; that it is fre
quently bound up with our Book of Common
Prayer, as if that honourable association were,
in some sense, its right ; and that the false
and the true are in it so skilfully blended,
hymns containing the grossest error being
carefully interspersed with many of the
soundest and most beautiful gems of sacred
poetry.

The principal charges, which may here be
brought against it, are that it insinuates or
inculcates Romish views concerning the Sacra
ments, the Virgin Mary and Saints, Prayers
for the Dead, Apostolical Succession, and
human merits. It will be sufficient to subjoin
extracts in proof of these charges, as refuta
tions of the several errors can be found in
other articles.

The ex opere operato theory of baptism ap
pears in the following verses :

" We love the sacred Font ;

For there the Holy Dove
To pour is ever wont

His blessing from above " (242, ver, 3).

" 'Tis done ! that new and heavenly birth,

Which re-creates the sons of earth,
Has cleansed from guilt of Adam's sin
A soul which Jesus died to win "(327, ver. 1).

" The pure and bright baptismal flood

Entombs our nature's stain :
New creatures from the cleansing wave
With Christ we rise again " (561, ver. 2).

Reference may also be made to hymns 129,
326, and 395.

Again, in hymns on the Holy Communion
the Real Presence in the consecrated elements
and the offering of Christ to the Father are
plainly expressed : e.g.

" ' One offering, single and complete,'

With lips and heart we say ;
But what He never can repeat
He shows forth day by day.

His Manhood pleads where now it lives

On heaven's eternal Throne,
And where in mystic rite He gives

Its Presence to His own.

And so we show Thy death, 0 Lord,

Till Thou again appear ;
And feel, when we approach Thy Board,

We have an Altar here " (315, vers. 2, 4, 5).

" Alleluia ! King Eternal,

Thee the Lord of lords we own ;
Alleluia ! born of Mary,

Earth Thy footstool, Heaven Thy Throne :
Thou within the veil hast enter'd,

Robed in flesh, our great High Priest ;
Thou on earth both Priest and Victim

In the Eucharistic Feast" (316, ver. 4).

" Still art Thou here amidst us, Lord,

Unchangeably the same,
When at Thy Board, with one accord,

Thy promises we claim ;
But lo ! the way thou com'st to-day

Is one where bread and wine
Conceal the Presence they convey,

Both human and divine.

How glorious is that Body now,

Throned on the Throne of Heaven !
The angels bow, and marvel how

To us on earth 'tis given ;
Oh, to discern what splendours burn

Within these veils of His, —
That faith could into vision turn,

And see Him as He is ! " (557, vers. 3, 4).

HYMNS ANCIENT AND MODERN [ 279 ] HYMNS ANCIENT AND MODERN

" And now, O Father, mindful of the love
That bought us, once for all, on Calvary's Tree,
And having with us Him that pleads above,
We here present, we here spread forth to Thee
That only Offering perfect in Thine eyes,
The one true, pure, immortal Sacrifice"

(322, ver. 1).

Hymns 309 and 311 contain the strange state
ment that Christ, at the Last Supper, gave
Himself in either kind, His precious flesh, His
precious blood, to His disciples ; and 472 is en
titled " Litany of the Blessed Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of Christ."

Again, the title "Son of Mary," which is
never applied to our Lord in the New Testa
ment, is found here frequently. Attention,
unwarranted by Holy Scripture, is directed to
the Virgin Mary. Full quotations would take
us beyond our limits, but two extracts must be
given.

" At the Cross her station keeping,
Stood the mournful Mother weeping,
Where He hung, the dying Lord ;
For her soul of joy bereaved,
Bow'd with anguish, deeply grieved,
Felt the sharp and piercing sword.
Who, on Christ's dear Mother gazing
Pierced by anguish so amazing,

Born of woman, would not weep ?
Who, on Christ's dear Mother thinking
Such a cup of sorrow drinking,

Would not share her sorrows deep ?
Jesu, may her deep devotion
Stir in me the same emotion,

Fount of love, Redeemer kind,
That my heart fresh ardour gaining,
And a purer love attaining,

May with Thee acceptance find" (117,

vers. 1, 3, 5).
" Shall we not love thee, Mother dear,

Whom Jesus loves so well ?
And to His glory, year by year,

Thy joy and honour tell ? " (450 ver. 1).
Again, in the hymn for the Burial of the
Dead, No. 398, the refrain occurs :
" Lord, all pitying, Jesu Blest,

Grant them Thine eternal rest."
And yet again, some, especially the hymns
for Lent, teach the doctrine of human merit,
which is so strongly condemned in the New
Testament ; as, for example :

"Christian, dost thou feel them,

How they work within,
Striving, tempting, luring,

Goading into sin ?
Christian, never tremble ;

Never be downcast ;
Smite them by the merit

Of the Lenten fast" (91, ver. 2).

Besides all this, the mechanical theory of
Apostolical Succession is presented in crude
form in hymn 352 :

" Christ is gone up ; yet ere He pass'd

From earth, in heaven to reign,
He formed one Holy Church to last
Till He should come again.

His twelve Apostles first He made

His ministers of grace ;
And they their hands on others laid,

To fill in turn their place.

So age by age, and year by year,

His grace was handed on ;
And still the holy Church is here,

Although her Lord is gone."

Among the hymns for " Festivals of Martyrs
and other Holy days," that for a virgin, 456,
insinuates some of Rome's worst errors con.
cerning nuns. In hymn 97 there is an idola
trous address to the material cross :

" Faithful Cross, above all other

One and only noble Tree,
None in foliage, none in blossom,

None in fruit thy peer may be ;
Sweetest wood, and sweetest iron,

Sweetest weight is hung on thee."

A longing for reunion with the apostate
Roman and Greek Churches may be found in
216, ver. 3 :

" O Christ, who for Thy flock didst pray

That all might be as one,
Unite us all ere fades the day,

Thou Sole-begotten Son ;
The East, the West, together bind

In love's unbroken chain ;
Give each one hope, one heart, one mind,

One glory, and one gain."

And finally, in the hymn for the "Restora
tion of a Church," the following verse occurs,
602, ver. 6 :

" Make, 0 Royal Priest, Thine Altar here
henceforth a Throne of Light,

Ever held in highest honour, and with many
a gift made bright

Ever blessed, ever peaceful, erer precious in
Thy sight."

It may be well to add in conclusion, that an
Archbishop of York, Dr. Thompson, said of
Hymns Ancient and Modern, " I am no ad
mirer of that work, nor should I select it for
a church where the choice lay with me ;" that
one Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Philpott, con
demned it as out of harmony with the true
principles of the Church of England ; and
another of the same diocese, Dr. Perowne, as
having " done more than almost anything else

HYPERDULIA

[ 280 ]

IDOLATRY

to foster Ritualism and Romish tendencies in
our own Church ; " and that a Bishop of Huron
(Dr. Hellmuth) criticised it severely as "a
masterpiece of the Anglican Romanisers to ad
minister the poison in small doses, not to be
perceived immediately, but to effect, never
theless, their purpose of undermining the
spiritual constitution of our Reformed Church."
For fuller information on this subject refer
ence may be made to Church Association
Tracts, No. 21, on Hymns Ancient and Modern,
and their Romanisiny Teaching, by the Rev.
James Ormiston ; and to a valuable pamphlet
by Mr. W. H. Tucker, entitled, Hymns Ancient
and Modern, tested by Holy Scripture and the
Articles, &c., of the Church of England (London,
Kensit, 18 Paternoster Row, E.G.)

[F. J. H.]

HYPERDULIA.— See LATEIA.

HYPOSTATIC UNION. — Theunionof Christ's
human nature with the hypostasis, or divine
essence, or person of the Divine Word. This
union was denied by many heretics. It is
dealt with at length in the Athanasian Creed.

CONOCLAST.— " A breaker of images." The
name was first given to a powerful party, which,
in the eighth and ninth centuries, set itself
against the religious use of images. The same
spirit was revived and carried to extreme
lengths by some Puritans in England in the
seventeenth century. The zeal of Cromwell's
Ironsides led them unfortunately to deface
many interesting monuments in the parish
churches, though such effigies were in no way
in danger of being worshipped. The Roman
Church holds that images are useful because
they raise the minds of the spectators to the
objects which the images represent. But
all experience shows that such lead on the
worshippers to worship the images themselves.
See IDOLATRY, IMAGE WORSHIP.

ICONOSTASIS is the name given in the Greek
and Russian Churches to the partition or screen
which separates "the altar "or "sanctuary"
from the part of the church set apart for the
laity. It is so called because icons or holy
pictures are represented on that screen.

IDOLATRY. — Idolatry etymologically is the
latria or worship of an idol, i.e. the religious
worshipping of any image or likeness of God, or
anything in heaven above or on the earth be
neath. The word is often used in a looser sense,
as when St. Paul speaks of eating things offered
to idols as connected with idolatry. Idolatry
has many and widely different forms, but the
thing is ever the same. The object before which
the devotee kneels may be a monstrous idol of
heathendom, or a statue or picture of some

saint, or even some reputed relic of a saint ; or
it may be anything supposed to represent, or
to be actually transformed into, or to contain
God. All worship of any such things or
persons is idolatry. In fact, idolatry may be
defined as any direct or indirect violation of
the opening Commandments of the Law given
from Mount Sinai. By the Commandment as
laid down in Exod. xx. 4, 5 ; Deut. v. 8, 9, not
only the making of a graven image or any like
ness whatever of anything for the purpose of
worship was forbidden. The act of prostration
or bodily reverence, which might be employed
harmlessly towards superiors, is expressly and
distinctly forbidden. The Hebrew word trans
lated bow down is employed in many places of
such a lawful prostration or reverence, like
that of Abraham to the Hittites when seeking
for a burial-place for Sarah (Gen. xxiii. 12).
The same word is employed of reverence done
to both God and King David in 1 Chron. xxix.
20.

Roman Catholic writers constantly press the
fact that images of the cherubim formed part
of the ark of the covenant into an argument
in favour of the lawfulness of images in reli
gious worship. They omit to call attention to
the fact that those images were in the Holy of
holies, never seen by the people, and therefore
not intended to help their devotions. They
were only seen even by the High Priest once
in the year. The Holy of holies had on that
occasion first to be filled with the smoke of
the incense which was to cover the mercy seat,
of which the cherubim formed part, " that he
die not" (Lev. xvi. 13). The Holy of holies
had no windows, all its light came from the
candlestick (or candlesticks, when the temple
took the part of the tabernacle) in the Holy
Place. The cherubim are never once alluded
to as having been worshipped. The brazen
serpent made by Moses (Num. xxi. 8, 9) is also
frequently referred to by Roman Catholic
writers. But the veneration paid to that relic
in later days was contrary to the law, and to
prevent its being worshipped even that vener
able relic was broken in pieces by good King
Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4).

Idolatrous practices manifested themselves
early in the history of even the Christian
Church. The epistles in the New Testament
contain many apostolic injunctions against that
sin. Note the warnings of St. Paul in 1 Cor.
v. 11 ; x. 7, 14 ; Col. ii. 18 ; probably also 1 Tim.
iv. 1 ; and of St. John in 1 John v. 21 ; Rev. ii.
14 ; ix. 20. Such warnings would be unmean
ing unless the inspired Apostles were aware
that idolatry had still to be guarded against,
and was even then a real danger, and likely to
be so in the future. It is quite true that the
idolatry referred to was, no doubt, outside the

IDOLATRY

[ 281 ]

IDOLATRY

Christian Church, or, in other words, was that
common among the heathen around, whose
practices the Christian converts from the
Gentiles were often in danger of relapsing
into. The writings of the Early Fathers show
clearly that the sin of idolatry was also common
in their days.

The Church of England Homily on Peril of
Idolatry sketches succinctly the early rise and
progress of this evil in later days. The Homily
states that in the fourth century Jerome com
plained " that the errors of images hare come
in and have passed to the Christians from the
Gentiles ; that Pontius Paulinus in the fifth
century caused the walls of the temples to be
painted with stories taken out of the Old
Testament, . . . but from learning from painted
stories it came by little and little to idolatry ;
that in the beginning of the seventh century
Gregory I., Bishop of Rome, allowed the free
having of images in churches ; that in the
eighth century Irene, mother of Constantine
VI., assembled a Council at Nicsea and pro
cured a decree that ' images should be put up
in all the Churches of Greece, and that honour
and worship should be given to the said
images. ' "

The Roman Catholic definition of idolatry
given in .4 Simple Dictionary for Catholics(C. T. S.)
is " Setting up anything directly in the place of
God." But the prohibition to "bow down"
to images, which occurs in the Second Com
mandment, ought to be remembered as well as
the "setting up of them." It should be noted
that the Romish division of the Decalogue (see
note at end of TEN COMMANDMENTS), though
not originally devised for this purpose, has, as a
matter of fact, concealed, and has been perhaps
purposely used to conceal from Rome's people
the strictness of God's law in this matter. Few,
if any, popular Roman Catholic Catechisms give
what they term the first Commandment in
full.

Scripture regards any breach of the Second
Commandment as idolatry (see Deut. iv. 15,
/. ; xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 15 ; Isa. xl. 18, /. ; Acts
xvii. 29 ; Rom. i. 21-23 ; Rev. ix. 20). Idolatry
was involved both in the worship of Aaron's
golden calf, and in Jeroboam's calf- worship at
Bethel and Dan (see Exod. xxxii. 4, 5. ; 1 Kings
xii. 28). But in neither of these cases was the
idol set up as a rival to God, but as a professed
help to His worship. Aaron inaugurated the
calf-worship in Horeb with the solemn an
nouncement " To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah "
(Ex. xxxii. 5). The calf was declared to be the
God who had worked so wonderfully for Israel,
and had brought them up out of the land of
Egypt. Jeroboam did likewise (1 Kings xii.
28). The Israelites who belonged to the
Northern Kingdom professed to be still wor

shippers of Jehovah though they upheld the
calf-worship. This is abundantly clear from
the Book of Hosea. But in both those in
stances the Second Commandment was broken.

The Church of Rome cannot be absolved
from the charge of idolatry. The charge is
justified by the following practices of that
Church. (1) She sets up images and pictures
in her churches, which pictures and images
are honoured with a reverence forbidden in
Holy Scripture. (2) The Virgin Mary and
the saints are addressed by Roman Catholics
in prayer in language never employed in Holy
Scripture towards any one except the Persons
of the Godhead. Prayers of the kind re
ferred to abound in " St." Alphonso Liguori's
Glories of Mary (London, 1868). (3) The
reverence done to material objects and objects
made by the hands of men, and the attribu
tion to these things of a power and sanctity
contrary to the word of God. Of this kind
are the relics of saints, supposed pieces of
the " true cross," the holy coat of Treves, &c.
(4) The worship of the " host," or consecrated
wafer, comes under this head. For Rome
herself admits that if, through some want of
"intention," the wafer happens to be nncon-
secrated, the people who worship it are,
though unwittingly, guilty of idolatry. Hence,
if the dogma of Transubstantiation be false,
the Roman Church is guilty of idolatry. On
the other hand we fully admit, if that doctrine
be true, Protestants are guilty of blasphemy.
For Roman Catholics maintain the host to be
Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary, very
God and very man, i.e. they worship the host
as God, while Protestants deny that it ought
to be worshipped at all.

The arguments advanced by Romanists in
defence of their idolatrous practices are mainly
as follows, viz. (1) They maintain that there is
a wide distinction between latria, the worship
due to God, and dulia (servitude), the
" worship " accorded to the saints. The
Second Council of Nicaea (reckoned by Rome
as the Seventh General Council) in A.D. 787,
decreed "to give them (images) the salutation
and honorary worship, not indeed the true
latria, which according to our faith belongs
to the divine nature only." In opposition to
this, " St." Thomas Aquinas, a great authority
in the Roman Church, says " The same rever
ence should be paid to the image of Christ as
to Christ himself. Since, therefore, Christ is
adored with the worship of latria, it follows
that the image is to be adored with latria "
(Thos. Aquin. lib. iii., Summ. Theol., dist. ix.
torn. ix. p. 136, Venice, 1780). Moreover,
practically there is no doubt that the great
bulk of Roman Catholics regard no such dis
tinction. (2) Roman theologians assert that

IMAGE WORSHIP

[ 282 ]

IMAGE WORSHIP

their Church is not guilty of idolatry because
images and pictures are designed to be merely
helps to devotion, and that the worshippers
in reality look far beyond these. They further
maintain that since Christ has become incar
nate, it is lawful and helpful to make pictures
and images of Him as a man. But if it be
argued that the fact of the Incarnation of
Christ in the form and likeness of a man did
away with the injunctions of the Second Com
mandment, it should be remembered that if the
Old Testament Scriptures be true, the Second
Person of the Blessed Trinity, long prior to
the birth of Jesus Christ, was manifested in
the likeness of a man to the Patriarchs (see
ANGELS), and yet ages after such appearances
had taken place, the Second Commandment
was given, and all attempts to make even a
human representation of the Deity were for
bidden. Moreover, the heathen in former
days, and also to-day, employ the same argu
ment to excuse their idolatry.

Some maintain that the charge of idolatry
is founded merely on an abuse of the true
doctrine by ignorant members of the Church of
Home, and that a Church containing so many
wise and learned men could not be guilty of
such a sin. Unfortunately, the language of
Roman Catholic books of devotion, used by the
most cultivated minds of lloman Catholicism,
is unmistakably clear upon the other side. In
Liguori's Glories of Mary above referred to,
and in the notorious publication, The Garden
of the Soul, language is addressed to the
Virgin Mary, which is nothing less than
idolatrous. See IMAGE WORSHIP.
IMAGE WORSHIP.— The adoration of re
presentations of God, or Christ, or saints.
There was nothing that so moved the scorn
of the early Church, as shown by the writings
of the Apologists, as the heathen practice of
image worship. When the hatred and con
tempt of heathen idolatry began to die out,
the Church was very earnest in taking precau
tions that so debased and debasing a form of
worship should not creep in unawares. The
first Council held after the Diocletian perse
cution, the Council of Elvira, A.D. 305, pro
hibited all frescoes and all paintings of any
kind in a church, " lest the object of our
worship and adoration be painted on the
walls." In the next century, Bishop Epiphanius
(who has been canonised) was so indignant at
finding the figure of Christ, or of some saint,
depicted or embroidered on a curtain hanging
in a church in Palestine, that he tore it down
with his own hands, though the church was
not in his diocese, and when he sent another
plain curtain to replace the one that had so
offended him, he wrote to the Bishop of Jeru
salem begging him to see that no such trans

gression of the canons and customs of the
Church was again permitted in his diocese.

Gregory I. at the end of the sixth century
took the first step towards the toleration of
images (as he led the way also to the tenet of
Purgatory). He condemned with the utmost
severity the worship of images, but he per
mitted them to be set up as historical
memorials, provided there was no danger of
their becoming objects of adoration. This was
a compromise very difficult to maintain, which
in the hands of his successors Gregory II.
and Gregory III. led to something further.

It was the second Council of Nicaea, falsely
called the Seventh (Ecumenical Council, which,
as the mouthpiece of the wicked Empress
Irene and her nominee Tarasius, first sanc
tioned a modified form of image or picture
worship, A.D. 787. The decrees of the Council
on the subject were at once impugned and
repudiated by the Council of Frankfort, and
by Charlemagne in his Caroline Books. But
while the rest of the West rejected the Eastern
lapse from ancient doctrine and practice, the
Popes were in favour of it, and the result was
that their steady pressure pushed the West
after a time into still greater excesses of
idolatry than anything that had been allowed
at the Second Council of Nicaea. The Nicene
superstitions did not go further than an ap
proval of veneration, worship, and adoration
of icons, that is, of pictures ; and to bestow
upon them the highest form of worship, called
latria, was distinctly forbidden. But when
we reach the thirteenth century we find
Thomas Aquinas declaring that "the Cross
and image of the Cross and of Christ must
be worshipped with the selfsame supreme
worship, latria, with which Christ Himself
is worshipped ; " and it is the authorised
teaching of the Romish Church now that
images or representations of God and of
Christ are to be worshipped with latria, be
cause God and Christ are so to be worshipped ;
that the images or representations of St. Mary
are to be worshipped with the next highest
degree of worship, called hyperdulia, because
St. Mary is to be worshipped with hyperdulia ;
that the images or representations of other
saints are to be worshipped with dulia, be
cause the various saints are to be worshipped
with dulia. And what becomes of the
Second Commandment and its prohibition of
"the likeness of anything" being "bowed
down to or worshipped " ? Where possible,
that Commandment is omitted ; when it can-
not be omitted, it is interpreted in a non-
natural sense. And what becomes of the
principle of the Second Commandment, which
is sprituality of worship ? It is lost. " To
take away all images," says Bishop Andrewes,

IMAGE WORSHIP

[ 283 ]

IMPOSITION OF HANDS

"God made sure work by forbidding all
manner of likeness in heaven, earth, waters"
(Catech. Doctrine, part iii.)- And again he
says, "The word 'worship' is taken from the
Second Commandment, and Christ Himself has
taught us that God alone may be worshipped.
Images become idols if they are worshipped,
and the worship of idols is idolatry. The
law says nothing about an ' idol,' but forbids
any 'likeness,' which covers both images and
idols. Religious worship is due to God only.
' Thou shalt not worship them,' is prohibition,
and there is no restriction or distinction about
this or that manner. 'Worship1 is declared
proper to God alone. ' Thou shalt not worship
any likeness " (Resp. ad Bell, p. 274). See
Roman Catholicism, by Dr. C. H. H. Wright
(Religious Tract Society). [F. M.]

Note, — Numerous passages from the Fathers
may be cited against the use of images.
Augustine says, " It is utterly unlawful to
erect any such image of God in a Christian
Church " (Ep. de Fide Sym., c. 7). Lactantius
affirms, " There is no doubt there is no religion
where there is an image" (Divin. Inst., c. 18,
lib. ii.) Ambrose avers, "Our Church knows
no vain shapes or figures of images " (De Fuga
Sccvli, c. 3). But the Creed of Pope Pius IV.
declares that "the images of Christ and of the
Mother of God, as well as of the other saints,
ought to be had and retained, and due honour
and veneration are to be given to them," and
the Council of Trent (Sess. xxxiv.) says, "By
the images which we kiss, and before which
we uncover the head and bend the knee, we
adore Christ, and venerate the saints whose
image they bear." From the Douay Version
it is argued that Jacob adored the top of his
rod, a figure or type of the sceptre or royal
power of Christ (Gen. xlvii. 31 ; cf. Heb. xi. 21) ;
and Roman controversialists maintain that in
Psalm xcix. 5, the Israelites were bidden to
adore the ark (God's footstool) as a type of our
Lord's humanity. But there is no doubt that
the LXX. translation of Gen. xlvii. 31 (which
is followed by the Vulgate and so got into the
Douay translation), gives a wrong sense ; the
A.V. and R.V. both there and in Heb. xi. 21,
give the true translation. The assertion that
the footstool of God means the ark cannot
be upheld. Our Lord calls the earth itself
God's footstool (Matt. v. 35). In Catholic
Belief, pp. 208, 209, Dr. Di Bruno says " The
meaning " (in Ex. xx. 4, 5, and Deut. v. 9)
" clearly is : Thou shalt not make unto
thyself a graven thing, or idol, for the sake
of adoring it as a false god or idol. The
words bow down in the Protestant version, in
stead of adore, are calculated unhappily to
mislead unreflecting persons. This command
ment cannot be taken to condemn the use of

images intended to promote the honour and
worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true
living God, or the inferior honour due to the
holy angels and the saints, as this is not
worship of strange gods, and therefore not
idolatry." Unfortunately for Dr. Di Bruno's
interpretation, the Hebrew word used for
adore is frequently employed of a man's harm
lessly bowing himself down to another man (see
Gen. xxiii. 7, 12 ; xxxiii. 3 ; xlii. 6, &c.), while
even such respect is forbidden in the case of
an image. Again, in the Roman Service for
Good Friday, at the words " Come, let us
adore," the clergy and laity kneel and kiss and
adore the cross which the priest has just un
covered. How, too, can the adoration of the
Pope by the cardinals in the Roman Pontifical
be got over ? See LATEIA. Actual proof of
idolatry is afforded when a particular image
or picture is also regarded as endowed with
miraculous powers, and reverenced accordingly,
which is idolatry in the strictest sense. See
IDOLATRY.

The teaching of the Church of England
against the use of images is clear and distinct.
The Homily On Peril of Idolatry, Part iii., states,
"I am sure that the New Testament of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, containing the word of
life, is a more lively, express, and true image
of our Saviour, than all carved, graven, molten,
and painted images in the world be." Article
XXII. mentions " worshipping and adoration
of images " as " a fond (or foolish) thing
vainly invented, and grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the Word of God."

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.— See CON
CEPTION, IMMACULATE.

IMPOSITION OF HANDS.— This form was
often used in connection with blessing in the
Old Testament. Jacob when blessing Joseph's
two sons, laid hands on them (Gen. xlviii. 15-
20), and Moses laid hands on Joshua, at God's
command (Num. xxvii. 18, 23 ; Deut. xxxiv.
9). The man who offered a sacrifice laid his
hand upon the head of the animal which he
brought for a burnt offering (Lev. i. 4 ; iv. 15 ;
viii. 14), and Aaron laid both his hands upon
the head of the scapegoat on the Day of
Atonement (Lev. xvi. 21), probably indicating
a transfer or substitution. In the New Testa
ment the laying on of hands is connected (1)
with the blessing of little children by Christ
(Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 16) ; (2) with the heal
ing of the sick and afflicted by our Lord and
His Apostles (Mark vi. 5 ; Acts v. 12 ; xxviii.
8) ; and (3) with the gift of the Holy Ghost
(Acts vi. 6 ; viii. 17 ; xiii. 3). It has been often
assumed that the last-named imposition of
hands was identical with the ordinance which
is termed Confirmation. But the apostolic

INCENSE

L

INCENSE

imposition of hands may well have been con
nected only with special gifts of the Holy
Ghost, such as the gift of tongues, which were
bestowed at that period of the Church's history.
While in the Church of England the laying on
of hands is a part of the ceremonials of Ordi
nation and of Confirmation, in the Church of
Rome it is held to have a sacramental efficacy.
There is no imposition of hands in the Greek
Church at Confirmation. In some Noncon
formist Churches the laying on of hands is an
accompaniment of the Ordering of ministers.
INCENSE. — A mixture of aromatic gums for
burning. Under the Old Testament dispensa
tion the use of incense in divine worship was
prescribed by God, and controlled by the most
stringent regulations. The necessary ingre
dients for its composition, and the method of
its use were expressly specified by God Himself
to Moses (Exod. xxx. 34-38). Incense could
be offered only by the priests, and had to be
lighted by fire from heaven. If any one com
pounded incense of other substances or in
other proportions, or if any one except a priest
burned it, or if any other fire than that from
heaven were employed to light it, the penalty
in each and every case was death (Lev. x. 1,2;
Num. xvi. 35, 40 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21). The
burning of incense was one of those cere
monies which belonged to the highly cere
monial and ornate ritual of Judaism. It
should, however, be borne in mind that the
burning of incense in the Jewish Tabernacle
and Temple took place within the Holy Place,
and was never beheld by the ordinary wor
shippers, but only by the priests. As an accom
paniment of the Jewish religion, the burning
of incense, like other parts of the Jewish
system, has vanished away. Secondly, even
if that were not admitted, incense cannot
be compounded now according to the Divine
direction, because not even the Jews them
selves know the actual spices to which the
names in Exod. xxx. 34 refer. Thirdly, if
incense be manufactured, it cannot now be
lighted by fire from heaven. Fourthly, that
there being now no Jewish priest since the
line of Aaron is extinct, no one is entitled to
offer incense.

Nevertheless, the Church of Rome blesses a
mixture of spices, pitch, burnt sugar, &c., which
she calls incense, "that all spirits of diseases,
and all spirits of infirmity, and the ensnaring
emissaries of the enemy, smelling its odour
(may) flee away" (Pontif. Rom., Second Part).
In the ritual of Rome, books and persons
and "altars" are smoked or "censed" with
the burning incense. "It signifies (i.e. typi
fies) the zeal with which the faithful should be
consumed, the good odour of Christian virtue,
the ascent of prayer to God " (A Simple

Dictionary for Catholics, London, 1878). But
since we have reached the days of antitypes,
what have we to do any longer with typifying
zeal, virtue, and prayer ? The Ritualists in the
Church of England copy the Romish practices
in this respect. The Catholic Dictionary, fifth
edition, London, 1897, says under INCENSE :
" It is certain from Tertullian, Apol. 42, and
from many other early writers down to St.
Augustine, that the religious use of incense
was unknown in the primitive Church."

A passage which is sometimes quoted in
support of the use of incense is Mai. i. 11.
" In every place incense shall be offered unto
my name, and a pure offering ; for my name
shall be great among the heathen. " That verse
refers to the Messianic dispensation. The
"pure" or unpolluted " offering" is to be pre
sented not at Jerusalem only, but " in every
place," and the offerings (including that of in
cense) are Gentile offerings, not merely Jewish.
Must it not therefore be inferred that the
" incense " ought to be spiritually interpreted ?
(See Psalm cxli. 2.) To the Jew, the smoke of
the incense rising towards heaven seemed to
embody and carry with it the prayers which
were being addressed to the Lord of Hosts,
and appeared to assure the human worshippers
of the divine acceptance of those prayers.
But the New Testament assurance of accept
ance is the name of the Lord Jesus (John xiv.
13 ; xvi. 24, &c.). Therefore there can be no
further need of incense. It is, however, argued
that in the Revelation (ch. viii. 3, 4, 5), incense
is offered with the prayers of saints. That,
however, was in heaven, not on earth ; by an
angel, and not by a man ; and the incense is
no earthly incense, but obtained from the
treasury of heaven. It can; therefore, form
no precedent or example for the offering of
incense upon earth.

In the Church of England since the time of
the Reformation, the burning of incense has
been abandoned until its comparatively recent
re-introduction by the Ritualists. Archbishop
Grindal directs in his injunctions to the laity
that "all censers . . . and all other relics and
monuments of idolatry, be utterly defaced,
broken, and destroyed" (Par. Soc. Ed., p. 134).
In the Prayer Book the burning of incense is
not for a moment contemplated. The Homily
on the Peril of Idolatry says, " Let us honour
and worship, for religion's sake, none but
Him ; not in lighting of candles, burning of
incense, &c., for all these be abominations
before God." The ceremonial use of incense
at a service of the Church of England was
held to be unlawful by the Ecclesiastical
Courts before the recent pronouncement on
this subject by the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York. The Archbishop also affirmed that,

INDEPENDENTS

[ 285

INDEPENDENTS

while incense may be burned for fumigatory
purposes, when no service is proceeding, the
ceremonial use of incense is opposed to the
intentions of the formularies of the Church of
England. A few of the clergy still oppose the
opinion of the archbishops and directions of
the bishops, and continue to use incense cere
monially. See Dimock's Light from History
on Christian Ritual; Winter's Incense Viewed
from Scripture (Mai. i. 11) ; Tomlinson's Tracts
on Ritual, No. 213. [M. E. W. J.]

INDEPENDENTS or CONGREGATION-
ALISTS.

I. Congregationalisti. — Congregationalism,
like the Established Church of England and
Presbyterianism, was a direct outcome of the
English Eeformation. The three systems
stand to one another in the relation of sisters
rather than of mother and daughters ; and
they were so nearly simultaneous in origin
that they are more like children of one birth
than elder and younger daughters.1

The Church of the later Roman Empire had
gradually become, in the Middle Ages, the
greatest political power in Europe. It was
also the dominant intellectual force, and
education was entirely in its hands. More
over, a definite type of spiritual and moral
character had come to be recognised as dis
tinctively Christian ; and this type of char
acter, preserved and fostered by spiritual
fellowships, was, to many members of the
Christian commonalty, as dear and as firm a
bond of union as was the Roman Primacy to
the hierarchy, or the Romish dogma to the
Universities and schools.

The corruption of the Church appeared in
each of these spheres of the life of Christen
dom. As an institution it was tyrannical,
unjust, self-seeking ; its teaching was super
stitious, out of harmony with the human mind,
especially it had lost touch with the simple
truths of the Gospel ; its morals were artificial
and debasing. The task of the Reformation
was to rid the Christian religion of all these
corruptions ; to purify the national Church,
and give religious freedom to the people ; to
construct a sound theology and enforce it by
the pulpit and the order of public worship ; to
establish a true spiritual fellowship on per
sonal faith and Christian character. These
three ends were not incompatible ; in days to
come we may hope that all Churches will work

1 Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity (1559) at once
produced Nonconformists. Travers's FuU and
Plaine Declaration of Ecclesiastical Discipline was
published in 1574 ; Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity
(first four books) in 1594 ; Robert Browne's
Boolce which sheiveth the Life and Manners of alt
true Christians, in 1582.

for them all with an equal devotion. But zeal
is commonly one-sided ; history compels most
of us to be partial in judgment and en
deavour. The Reformers in England broke up
into three parties : the Nationalist — bent on
purifying the institution ; the Puritan — bent
on purifying the teaching; the Separatist-
bent on purifying the fellowship.

It is not meant that any one of these parties
had a monopoly of the particular truth on
which the ecclesiastical system was founded.
Richard Hooker and Thomas Cartwright were
as zealous for personal godliness in the con
gregations as was John Robinson. Robinson
and Hooker were as strenuous teachers as was
Cartwright. Cartwright and Robinson were
as anxious for national religion as was Hooker.
It was the question how the Reformation was
to be secured and developed which brought
out their characteristic differences. "Give a
better form to the State Institution," said
the Nationalist, "and govern the people re
ligiously through the Crown and the Courts
of Law." " Safeguard the ministry," said the
Puritan, " and govern the people religiously
through the clerical consistories." "Gather
the converted into holy fellowships," said the
Separatist, "the influence of pure Churches
will act as a leaven on the faith and life of the
nation." These normative conceptions appear
in all their controversial writings, and in
every great crisis of the national religious life
they have come again into view. The sense of
their importance is as pronounced to-day as it
was in the times when each of the parties in
turn suffered for its doctrine.

The root idea of Congregationalism is that
every congregation of faithful men is a
Church ; that all Christ's promises of presence
and guidance are made to such a congrega
tion, individually and directly ; and that its
internal government is committed to its mem
bers under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
The literature of Congregationalism begins
with Robert Browne ; but there were self-
governing congregations before him. Glimpses
of permanent societies of worshippers outside
the parish Church are given us in English
History from the days of Wyclif to those of
Henry VIII.2 If these seemed likely to dis
solve when Henry undertook the work of Re
formation, they re-assembled and were con
solidated during the persecution under Mary.
There was such a gathering, for example, in
London, and some of its members are subse
quently found in fellowship with the martyr

2 See Beckett's English Reformation of the
Sixteenth Century, R.T.S. 1890; and Mr. Tre-
velyan's England in the Age of Wycliffe, Longmans,
Green & Co., 1899.

INDEPENDENTS

286

INDEPENDENTS

Church of Elizabeth's days, the Church which
sent " the brethren of the first separation " to
Holland in 1593. Through Henry Jacob this
community is associated with the Congrega
tional Church constituted in 1616, whose lineal
descendant still exists in Southwark. Before
this, however, the " troubled " Church in Frank
fort, which English historians have regarded as
the origin of English Puritanism,1 exercised the
right of self-government, and prepared an
elaborate constitution, providing for the exer
cise of authority and discipline in the Church
Meeting.2 These societies were, like the Apos
tolic and sub-Apostolic Churches in the Roman
Empire, simple gatherings of believers. They
were not conscious of making an experiment
in ecclesiastical constitution ; they regulated
their own assemblies, and decided points as
they arose. But they gave the starting-point
to English Congregationalism. The actual
experience of Christ's presence and mutual
edification came first ; when they perceived
that, perhaps unwittingly, they were primitive
and apostolic in their practice, some of them
went on to declare that this was the true
order and constitution of Christ's Churches.

A further point was reached when, in the
later years of Elizabeth, the duty of separation
from the national Church was set forth. The
Puritan assemblies, in her reign, resembled
the early Methodist Societies more than the
Protestant assemblies in Catholic England ;
they existed nominally within the parish con
gregation. They met under the protection of
Puritan nobles and gentry ; sometimes with
the connivance of the incumbent ; often there
was an ordained minister, the Puritan Lecturer
or the Chaplain of the Lord of the Manor, for
their director. Two impulses favoured the
development of the practice of gathered fellow
ships into a doctrine of Separatism ; the belief
that separated communities could best advance
the reformation of religion in England, and
the experience that these were the choicest
" means of grace."

The first motive is forcibly expressed in the
title of one of the sections of Robert Browne's
"Booke which sheweth, &c." — "A Treatise of
Reformation without tarrying for anie, and of
the wickednesse of those Preachers, which
will not reforme themselves and their charge,
because they will tarie till the Magistrate
commaunde and compell them." This was the
most prominent motive avowed in their con-

1 " Petty as this strife at Frankfort may seem,
it marks the first open appearance of English
Puritanism." Green, History of the English People,
ii. 282. See also Southey's Book of the Church.

2 Evolution of English Congregationalism (Jas.
Nisbet & Co.), p. 50.

troversial writings and their defence before
the Courts ; but the second often touchingly
appears in their pleadings and in their petitions
to the crown and to the magistrates. It is
forcibly set out by William Bradford, Governor
of New Plymouth, in his story of the origin of
the Church of the Pilgrim Fathers.3 "When,
as by the travell and diligence of some godly
and zealous preachers, and God's blessing on
their labours, as in other places of the land,
so in the North parts, many became in-
lightened by the word of God, and had their
ignorance and sins discovered unto them, and
began by his grace to reform their lives, and
make conscience of their wayes, the worke
of God was no sooner manifest in them, but
presently they were both scoffed and scorned
by the prophane multitude, and the ministers
urged with the yoak of subscription, or els
must be silenced, and the poore people were
so vexed with apparators and pursuants, and
the comissarie courts, as truly their affliction
was not smale ; till they were occasioned to
see further into things by the light of the
word of God." . . . "So many therfore of
these proffessors as saw the evill of these
things, in these parts, and whose harts the
Lord had touched with heavenly zeale for his
trueth, they shooke of this yoake of anti-
Christian bondage, and as the Lords free
people, joyned themselves (by a covenant of
the Lord) into a church estate, in the felow-
ship of the gospell, to walke in all his wayes,
made known, or to be made known unto them,
according to their best endeavours, whatsoever
it should cost them, the Lord assisting them."

This extract from Bradford is at once the
simplest and the most complete account we
have of a Congregational Church three hundred
years ago, and the three items enumerated
are the essentials of Congregationalism — (a)
the Church as a permanent fellowship of
persons "enlightened by the Word of God,"
men "whose hearts God hath touched;" (b)
the basis of the fellowship consisting not in
the performance of any rite, the fact of
nationality, or the acceptance of any tradition,
either of creed or worship, but in the mutual
covenant of the members to walk in the Lord's
ways; (c) the recognition that no experience
of grace nor confession of faith is final.

Closely connected with the doctrine of Con-
gregationalists as to the individual Church, is
their contention as to the responsibilities and
rights of the Church members. Discipline,
with them, is not under the regulation of
Canon Law or public enactment ; neither is it
the sole charge of the Pastor and Ruling Elders ;

3 Bradford's History of Plimoth Plantation
(Boston, 1898), p. 12.

INDEPENDENTS

[ 287 ]

INDEPENDENTS

it is the obligation each member is under to
care for the purity of the Church, the obliga
tion of the Church to watch over the spiritual
integrity of each of its members. " That there
should be no schism in the body, but that the
members should have the same care one for
another." The ministry is subordinate to
the Church, chosen by the members, and
appointed by them to office. An ordination
might, under special circumstances, be con
ducted by the Church without the presence of
any minister ; and where, as is almost always
the case, other ministers are present, the
declaration by some representative of the
Church, that the minister has been duly
elected, is of the essence of the ordination
service. The influence of the Pastor is no
where greater than among Congregationalists,
but he ha3 no more authority over the Church
than the Speaker over the House of Commons.
Liberty of prayer and prophesying was a con
tention of all Puritans ; hence their objection
to a Liturgy and to the use of the Homilies.
But, whereas the Presbyterians made this
demand on behalf of the ministers, the Con
gregationalists asserted it on behalf of any
member of the Church who has "the gift,"
and is moved by the Holy Spirit to exercise it.
The Congregational doctrine of the Church
Catholic is consistent with that of the indi
vidual Churches. The Catholic Church is an
ideal congregation of all true believers in Christ
on earth and in heaven; it is not an aggregate
of existing Churches. All faithful members
of Churches are, equally and in the same
sense, members of the Universal Church, which
also includes men and women whom Christ
would acknowledge as His own, although they
are members of no Church on earth. The in
visible Church is not the body of true believers
within any visible Church composed of Chris
tians by profession only, it is the body of Christ
sub specie eternitatis ; and the earthly evidence
of its reality is the identity of the Christian
consciousness everywhere and in all time.

Their loyalty to the Catholic ideal is one
reason why Congregationalists object to apply
the name Church to any organisation of
Churches, whether national or denomina
tional. They are not easy in using the name
in any other application than simply to a
permanent fellowship of Christians. It is a
modern habit to speak even of a Congrega
tional Church: the primitive title is: "The
Church of Christ of the Congregational order
in such or such a place." They are, indeed,
casting aside this strictness, and now speak
freely of the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, the
Methodist Church, as well as of Independent
Churches and Baptist Churches. The reason
is that they have ceased to believe that the

New Testament prescribes any order oi govern
ment, or method of administration, as essen
tial to a Church.

Of the two titles, Congregational and Inde
pendent, it is commonly asserted that Inde
pendent is the older, and Congregational a
word of modern introduction. That is not so.
Both words are of the same age, but they are
used with a slight difference. Henry Jacob,
in whose writings both occur, uses the term
independent with a small "i" ; it is to him a
mere predicative, he does not employ it as an
appellative. On one occasion, at least, he uses
Congregational with a large " C," in contra
distinction to Catholic. He lays down two
conceptions of Church government, which, he
says, must be " eyther Catholike, or Congrega
tional independent." Some of the fathers of
Independency did not like the word as a name.
The five "dissenting brethren" in the West
minister Assembly protested against it as a
"proud and insolent title." It came into use
indeed, as a nickname ; and then, not to be
continually disputing about a word, and be
cause the word did represent one aspect of
their polity, they let it pass, and finally adopted
it. The prevalence of one or the other name
in their own usage marks a difference in the
special aspect of their testimony, which seemed
for the time to be the more important.
Against any attempt to impose on their
Churches either doctrine or government from
without, they protest under the title Indepen
dent. When their immediate work is con
structive mainly, when they dwell upon the
spiritual obligations of membership, or en
deavour to organise their Churches for religious
work, they prefer to use the word Congrega
tional. The name Independent, moreover, dis
tinguishes them from the other great branch
of the Congregational family, the Baptists.

The "Brethren of the Congregational way"
were an influential, though not a numerous
body, in the time of the Commonwealth. The
Act of Uniformity (1662), by driving out the
Presbyterians from the Established Church,
greatly increased their numbers. So did the
Evangelical Revival, and the development of
the Methodist Societies. In both these cases
it was the Independency, rather than the
internal discipline of Congregationalism which
was the attraction. But the leavening influ
ence of the spiritual doctrine has been uni
formly felt ; throughout the nineteenth century
the continuous tendency of Churches which
became Independent was to lose their Presby
terian or Methodist tradition, and become, in
Church doctrine as well as in practice, Con
gregational.

Note.— For a detailed account of English
Congregationalism, the County Congregational

INDEPENDENTS

[ 288 ]

INDEPENDENTS

Histories, of which there are several, ought to
be studied. Hanbury's Historical Memorials
Relating to the Independents or Congregationalists,
in three volumes, are an admirable collection
of quotations from the "sources," well arranged,
well indexed, and well reported. Dr. Wadding-
ton's Congregational History in five volumes, is
a quarry of valuable materials, not always
correctly given, and mostly without refer
ences. Fletcher's History of Independency, in
four volumes, is clear and trustworthy. Dr.
Stoughton's nine volumes of the Ecclesiastical
History of England contain much information
on the subject of this article. Dr. Leonard
Bacon's Genesis of the New England Churches,
and Dr. Dexter's Congregationalism as Seen in its
Literature, may be consulted for Congregation
alism in America. Dr. Davidson's Congrega
tional Lecture on the Ecclesiastical Polity of the
New Testament is an able treatment of the
claims of Congregationalism as the Apostolical
polity. Dr. Dale's Manual of Congregational
Principles is a more modern exposition of the
system. [A. M.]

II. Baptists. — The distinctive tenet of the
Baptist denomination is that baptism can be
rightly administered only to those who ask for
it and profess repentance towards God and
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. They regard
the mode of administration as of secondary im
portance, butmaintain that we have no warrant
for making any change, and therefore adhere to
the ancient practice of immersion, which they
also value as a symbol of the believer's death
to sin, and burial and resurrection with Christ.
As an organised denomination, Baptists do
not claim any great antiquity, but they regard
themselves as the true representatives of the
Apostolic Church, and also of the Catholic
Church as it existed in the post-Apostolic Age.
They think it demonstrable from patristic
literature that psedobaptism was slowly in
troduced into the Church, and was not generally
practised until the age of Augustine. From
the fifth century, when Pope Boniface wrote
to Augustine objecting to the baptismal
service then in vogue, no indisputable record
of opposition can be quoted until the eleventh
century, when Bruno, Bishop of Angers, and
his associate, Archdeacon Berengarius, were
reported to the King of France as doing every
thing in their power to " overthrow the baptism
of infants." A little later, numerous bodies
withdrew from the Roman Communion. In
the twelfth century many party names dis
appear, but under the loosely applied name of
Waldenses these Puritans multiplied, and
became influential on the Continent and in
England. Some of these people, but not all,
were Baptists. In 1140 Enervinus wrote an
account of certain Baptists in the diocese of

Cologne. In 1139 Peter de Brueys and Arnold of
Brescia were condemned by the Lateran Council
for opposing infant baptism. De Brueys and
Henry converted many to their views in the
south of France, particularly in the city of
Toulouse, where they gathered many disciples
into an organised Baptist Church. Both these
men suffered martyrdom as did many of their
followers. The most severe measures were
taken to extirpate these people, who were
called Petrobrusians or Henricians. Bernard
of Clairvaux was sent by Pope Eugenius into
the district most affected by the teaching of
Brius, and reported that the churches were
forsaken by the people.

Continental Anabaptists. — The outbreak of the
Protestant Reformation early in the sixteenth
century brought to light great numbers of
Evangelical Christians who had been longing
for deliverance from the Roman yoke, and very
early in his career Luther encountered men
who thought his teaching defective, and tried
to convince him that no reformation could be
complete which did not reject the baptism of
infants, which they insisted was incompatible
with his doctrine of Justification by Faith.
From this time, and throughout the struggles
of the century, these people were known by
the misleading name of Anabaptists. Strictly
speaking, the Church of Rome deserves this
title, because she rebaptizes converts from
other Churches, whose baptism she admits to
be valid, but even she only repeats the rite con
ditionally, and as a precaution against some
possible irregularity. The impropriety of this
name is now generally recognised. It is
notorious that the Anabaptists were as fiercely
persecuted by Protestants as by Romanists.
It is frequently assumed that they brought
these sufferings upon themselves by revolu
tionary turbulence and by wild socialistic ex
cesses, but this view is unhistorical. That
many of them took part in revolutionary move
ments is indisputable, and that some of them
were guilty of deplorable acts is equally clear ;
but they were persecuted long before the
seizure of Miinster brought odium on their
name, and they neither started, nor had any
disproportionate share in the Peasant War.
Revolutionary movements were started by
Roman Catholics in the fifteenth century, and
for many years were carried on without any
religious aims. They were indeed an inevitable
consequence of the miserable condition to
which the common people were reduced under
the feudal system. Beginning in Bavaria in
1486, revolt was intermittent until 1524, when
the whole of Upper Germany was in commo
tion. Men of all creeds were participants in
this great uprising, and large numbers of the
poorer parish priests, as well as monks, were

INDEPENDENTS

[ 289 ]

INDEPENDENTS

prominent as leaders. Luther denounced the
Peasant War in its later stages, but indirectly
he had done much to liberate insurrectionary
forces. He had taught men to think for them
selves, and mental freedom once asserted in
evitably led to an independent trial of all
institutions in Church and State. The peasants
were surprised and aggrieved by Luther's
alliance with the princes and nobles against
themselves, and after their suppression large
numbers ceased to follow him, and became
Anabaptists. These facts leave the earlier
persecution of Baptists unexplained, but it is
not difficult to find a reason for their treat
ment. The most fundamental reason lay in
the fact that their refusal of infant baptism
brought them into an unavoidable collision
with the authorities. The history of the Ana
baptists in Zurich supplies a proof and illus
tration of this statement, for their struggle
with Predobaptist Reformers first took definite
form in this city. Under the leadership of
Zwingli the constitution of Zurich was built
up on a religious basis, which made infant
baptism the seal of citizenship, and those who
withheld it from their children were declared
to be guilty of "revolt, heresy, and schism."
On the ground that disobedience was at once
a civil and ecclesiastical offence, the Council
of Zurich issued a decree in 1525 giving eight
days' grace to Anabaptists, and condemning
all who failed to comply with the law within
that period to be imprisoned or banished. In
the following year the punishment was made
capital, and not a few Baptists were drowned
in the lake. In 1527 Zwingli published his
Elcnchus contra Catabaptistas, in which he pre
served the seven Articles of the persecuted
Church. Article I. states their view of baptism
in ordinary terms, but adds that the baptism
of infants is " the great abomination of the
Roman pontiff " ; II. provides for the excom
munication of those who lapse into sin ;
III. declares that the Lord's Supper should be
given only to members of the Church ; IV. en
joins separation from the world and its evil
customs ; V. defines the duties of pastors ;

VI. justifies the magisterial use of the sword ;

VII. forbids the use of oaths. As Articles of
religion there is little or nothing to account
for the hatred and scorn which their authors
had to endure, though Zwingli branded them
as "fanatical, stolid, and audacious." The
secret of their offensiveness to the Protestant
Council of Zurich can be discovered only in
the fact that a general rejection of infant
baptism«would have been fatal to the constitu
tion of the State. The misfortune was that
fidelity to a purely religious conviction was
by that constitution rendered absolutely in
compatible with civil obedience. These Zurich

Articles fairly represent the views of a majority
of Anabaptists, but in the course of time the
cruelty and injustice with which they were
everywhere treated had the natural effect of
driving some into more extreme opinions. It
was inevitable that men who were unwillingly
forced into civil disobedience for conscience'
sake should become more closely mixed up in
reality, and still more in appearance, with the
masses whose disaffection was primarily social
and political. The general opinion of Ana
baptists was against the use of physical force
for the redress of wrongs, but men like
Hoffman, Munzer, and Matthysz found a pas
sionate response when they broached visionary
communistic schemes, and justified the use of
the sword.. Through them the name of Ana
baptist was associated with excesses which
have no more to do with Baptist than with
Psedobaptist principles. The story of Miinster
has been told with many vindictive exaggera
tions by Roman Catholic writers, but the worst
excesses of the Anabaptists were mistaken
methods of promoting righteousness, whereas
Miinster before the rebellion was a hotbed of
flagrant vice. The struggle was at first be
tween the laity and the Romanist ecclesiastical
party, headed by the bishop, who was also the
sovereign prince. The chief cause of quarrel
was the carrying on of trades by priests and
monks. By degrees this became a struggle
for supremacy between Lutherans and Roman
ists, which issued in the handing over of all
the churches to the Lutherans, and their re
tention in spite of an armed attack by the
bishop. Rothmann, a distinguished preacher,
was deputed to organise a new Lutheran
establishment, but about this time he became
a Baptist, and was deposed by the Council
because he, followed by many other ministers,
refused to baptize infants. In 1534 Anabap
tists of the more martial type came from
Holland. In eight days 1400 persons were
baptized, and in a short time Anabaptists
became so strong that they were able to con
trol the election of the City Council, and the
government passed into their hands. They
at once used stringent measures to put down
profligacy, and thereby caused great numbers
to forsake the city. At this point many
Lutherans passed over to the camp of their
old Romanist enemies, and assisted the bishop
to besiege Miinster. During this siege, the
more extreme and visionary section gained an
ascendancy. Their idea was to transform
Miinster into a New Jerusalem. A king was
elected, and laws of more than Draconian
severity were passed. Houses were opened for
common meals. Gold and silver were gathered
into a common store. Strong drinks were pro
hibited except for the sick. But these efforts

T

INDEPENDENTS

[ 290 J

INDEPENDENTS

to reform society were discredited by an attempt
to restore the ancient Hebrew customs of
marriage. This grave error gave their enemies
the opportunity to hold them up to execration
as licentious profligates. They also incurred
odium by destroying every work of art in the
churches which they considered superstitious,
and many books and documents which they
considered hostile to human liberty. In June,
1535, Miinster fell, after prolonged sufferings
through famine, and the city was turned into
a shambles.

Baptists in Great Britain. — Ancient Welsh
traditions state that the British Church prac
tised believers' baptism, but all we know with
certainty is that she did not baptize according
to the Eoman custom, and that her bishops
refused Augustine's demand for conformity.
Bede does not state the nature of their dis
agreement, and Fabyan's Chronicle, which
favours the Welsh tradition, is not an authority.
Baptists were branded for heresy at Oxford
in 1166, and from that time forward we
hear of them at intervals, but solely in con
nection with their persecution. Some writers
have called Wicliffe an Anabaptist, but this is
a mistake. His doctrine of the Sacraments
would logically forbid baptism to any but
believers, but there is no evidence that he
departed from the general usage of the
Church in his day. It is practically impossible
to determine the opinions of the many English
Christians who dissented from the Eomish
Church between the death of Wicliffe and the
reign of Henry VIII. Their object was to
escape observation, and the traces they have
left are very slight. It is known that they
were very numerous, and that they were inti
mately connected with continental bodies ;
and there is good reason to believe that many,
probably a majority of them, repudiated infant
baptism. It is very significant that when
Henry VIII. revolted from Rome, he found
vast numbers of people eager to go much
farther than he wished to go as a reformer,
and that his royal proclamation of 1536 was
directed chiefly against Anabaptists. In 1537
several Baptists were burned in London, and
Hooper and Latimer wrote of them as exceed
ingly numerous. Throughout all the ecclesias
tical changes of the sixteenth century Bapists
continually suffered. The last Englishman
who was put to death for heresy was Edward
Wightman, a Baptist, who was burned at
Lichfield in 1612. There is good, though not
indisputable evidence, that there was a Baptist
Church at Highcliffe in the fourteenth century,
and one at Eyethorne in the reign of Henry
VIII., but the earliest authentic record proves
that such a church existed at Crowle in Lincoln
shire in 1598. Here John Smyth, Vicar of

Gainsborough, was baptized in 1606. In 1609,
he and nearly all his fellow-members fled to
Holland to escape persecution. In 1611 a
Baptist Church was formed in London, and
from this time the continuity of the denomi
nation has been unbroken. About this time
the Puritan element in the English Church
tended to become Separatist, and Churches
were established, variously known as Brownists,
Independents, and Baptists. They were alike
in maintaining that each company of Christians
meeting together for worship and fellowship
at the Lord's Table was a true Church, and
possessed the right of self-government.

As a political force opposed to Episcopalians
and Presbyterians, the Baptists were Indepen
dents, and many deprecated the formation of
a separate denomination, but others held that
according to the New Testament model, a
church should contain none but baptized
believers. In 1644 seven London churches of
this order published a Confession of Faith, in
which they described themselves as " commonly
though falsely called Anabaptist." Since then
until the present day Baptists have taken
different views on the lawfulness of communion
with those whom they regard as unbaptized,
and churches of corresponding order have been
founded. Many Baptists are satisfied to remain
members of Congregational churches. There
are a few "Union churches," in which the
minister may be either Baptist or Psedobaptist,
and neither view is collectively professed.
There are " Open Baptist" churches, in which
the minister must be a Baptist, and Psedo-
baptism may neither be taught nor practised,
but in which membership is free to all Chris
tians who seek it. There are others in which
membership is restricted to Baptists, but all
Christians are welcomed to partake of the
Lord's Supper. There are also many, though
an ever diminishing number of churches, in
which both membership and communion are
closed to all but Baptists. While thus differing
on the communion question, in the seventeenth
century Baptists were more sharply divided by
the Arminian controversy, and two denomina
tions were formed : the " Particular Baptists,"
who held the Calvinistic doctrine of a limited
or " Particular " Atonement, and the " General
Baptists," who held that the Atonement is
universal in its value and aim. These bodies
remained apart with separate organisations
and institutions until the end of the nineteenth
century, when they were amalgamated and
the titles "Particular" and "General" were
abolished. •

Soon after the Toleration Act was passed
the Particular Baptists convened a General
Assembly in London. Representatives of 130
churches attended, and a Confession of Faith

INDEPENDENTS

[ 291 ]

INDEPENDENTS

was drawn up mainly on the lines of the
"Westminster Confession," but with altera
tions in regard to Church government and
baptism. In 1G91 the General Baptists met
and drew up a similar manifesto. These con
fessions were not imposed as tests or conditions
of membership, but were designed to exhibit
the actual beliefs and practices of the two
bodies, and so dissipate prejudices and mis
understandings. In the eighteenth century Uni
tarian views were adopted by not a few General
Baptists, and in 1770 a " New General Baptist
Association " was formed on a basis of six
Articles, which embodied the original views of
the denomination. During the same period
the Particular Baptists had become more pro
nounced in their Calvinism, and evinced no
capacity for extension until Andrew Fuller
avowed and successfully vindicated more
liberal views of the Gospel, and inaugurated
a new epoch of evangelical activity. Fuller's
teaching convinced William Carey that it was
the duty of the Church to preach the Gospel
to the heathen. This thought took effect in
the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society
in 1792. This was the first effort of the
modern Church to carry out the great Com
mission on a world-wide scale, and from it
have sprung marvellous activities by which
the world is being religiously transformed.
Since this awakening of zeal for the diffusion
of the Gospel the Baptist Denomination has
rapidly increased in Great Britain and the
colonies. In the United States of America
it has a larger membership than any other
religious body except the Wesleyans. There
are many Baptist Churches in Germany. In
Russia and Sweden they have had to endure
great hardships which have driven many
into exile, large numbers of them settling in
Canada.

The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland
is a voluntary union of churches, but does not
profess to be itself a church. It reports the
existence of 2803 churches in these islands.
Of these a large proportion, but not all, are
within the Union. The Constitution, as re
vised in 1894, states that "In this Union it is
fully recognised that every separate church
has liberty to interpret and administer the
laws of Christ." Its chief objects are to
cultivate brotherly love ; " To spread the
Gospel of Christ;" "To afford opportunities
for conference, for the public declaration of
ypinion, and for joint action on questions
affecting the welfare of the churches ; " " To
confer and co-operate with other Christian
communities as occasion may require ; " and
"To maintain the right of all men everywhere
to freedom from disadvantage, restraint, and
taxation in matters purely religious." The

operations of the Union are conducted by a
council of sixty elected members, together
with representatives of various Associations,
Colleges, &c. Its officers are a President,
Vice-President, Treasurer, and Secretary, all
elected annually. In connection with the
Union are several important funds, viz., an
Annuity Fund for the benefit of retired
ministers ; an Augmentation Fund which sup
plements the inadequate incomes of ministers
of poor churches ; and an Education Fund for
the benefit of ministers' children. Assemblies
of the Union are held twice in each year,
once in London and once in a provincial town.
Outside the Baptist Union there are numerous
churches which maintain Calvinistic doctrines
in their most extreme form, and are rigorous
in declining fellowship with open communion
churches. There are also a few churches which
retired from the Union a few years ago, be
cause it refused to adopt a secondary standard
of belief as a basis of membership. In close
connection with the Baptist Union there are
also County Associations, and within these
again, District or City Councils, which meet
for consultation, and for the direction of
all common work within their respective
areas.

Ministerial Education. — Baptists have had to
overcome great difficulties in providing for the
education of their ministers. Until quite
recently they were excluded from the English
Universities, and until far on in the eighteenth
century no one could lawfully engage in the
work of teaching without a bishop's licence.
As soon as the way became clear they estab
lished Theological Colleges, viz., Bristol, 1770;
London, 1797 (now at Nottingham) ; Bradford,
1804 (now at Rawdon near Leeds) ; Stepney,
1810 (now at Regent's Park) ; Abergavenny,
1807 (now at Cardiff) ; the Pastors' College,
London, 1856 ; Bury, 1866 (now at Manchester);
Bangor, 1862. Many students in these colleges
graduate at London, or in one of the Scotch
Universities.

From a long list of memorable Baptists, a
few outstanding names may be mentioned, viz.,
John Milton, who wrote a Latin treatise on
Christian Doctrine, in which he fully discussed
the subject of baptism, which he described
as the immersion of believers in "running
water." This book had a curious history, and
was first published in 1825 in an English trans
lation by Bishop (then Prebendary) Sumner
of Winchester. John Banyan, whose works and
sufferings under Charles II. are known to all
the world, founded an open communion or
"Union" Church in Bedford which still
flourishes. We may also mention John Foster
the Essayist, William Carey, the founder of
modern Missions, and Robert Hall and C. H.

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS

[ 292

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS

Spurgeon, who stand foremost among the
preachers of the nineteenth century.

[T. V. T.]

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS.— The Roman
Church claims the strictest supervision over
the books which her votaries may read, and
for their guidance has drawn up a list of
works, the use of which is absolutely for
bidden under canonical penalties, or which
it is only permissible to use after official ex
purgation. This list (Index Librorum Prohibi-
torum et Expurgatorum} was, as will be shown,
mainly the work of the Council of Trent, and
has since, continually enlarged, gone through
about forty editions. The first known list of
prohibited (heretical) books is that ascribed to
Pope Gelasius (494). Later it became common
to condemn heretical works to the flames, and
to prohibit the possession and reading of them.
The Council of Constance in this way burned
the books of John Hus (1415), and caused
diligent search to be made for copies of them.
Leo X. did the same with the writings of
Luther. The invention of printing, followed
by the Reformation, gave a great impetus to
the exercise of prohibitory authority, and
vastly enlarged its scope. The University
Press of Louvain issued in 1546, and again in
1550, a catalogue of prohibited books. Similar
lists appeared by authority at Venice, Paris,
and Cologne. But if the need for prohibition
was greater, the new conditions made the
task more difficult. It became necessary to
anticipate, and if possible prevent, the publica
tion of books inimical to Rome : a censorship,
therefore, was established, and approval of
the censors was necessary before a book could
be lawfully published. Booksellers also were
put under the strictest rules as to the books
they were permitted to possess or sell (see
below). With the modern development of
the press, and the freer conditions of society,
the work of the censor, expurgator, and pro-
hibitor, has become wholly impracticable. It
is only in the most arbitrary and occasional
fashion that particular books can be now put
upon the Index.

The first authoritative Roman Index was
that of Paul IV. in 1557 and 1559. This was
speedily superseded by the Tridentine Index,
of the origin of which Liguori gives the follow
ing account. After telling how "Paul IV., in the
year 1557, committed to the inquisitors that
they should form this (the above-named) In
dex, which then was finished and published in
the year 1559 by order of the same Paul," he
goes on : "But because in that Index a better
method, and other declarations, and the names
of many other authors and books were want
ing, hence Pius IV. committed the framing of
a new Index to the Fathers of the Council of

Trent, which was then being held. For this
purpose the Council chose eighteen Fathers,
who (so far) completed and presented the
work ; and because the Fathers, overcome
with fatigue, were solicitous about returning,
and even now some had departed, they left the
matter to be finished according to the judg
ment of the Pope, together with the rules
made. Consequently Pius IV. (many learned
Fathers being applied to) completed the In
dex, and commanded that it should be ob
served by all the faithful everywhere, with his
own rules ; and decreed, that if any one after
wards should read any book condemned on
account of the suspicion of false doctrine, or
should have it in his possession, he should fall
ipso jure into excommunication ; and against
him, or if suspected of heresy, proceedings
should be taken. ... So in the bull of the
above-mentioned Pius IV., ' of the Lord's
flock,' given on the 24th of March 1564"
(A/or. ThcoL, Appendix on Index). A few years
later (1571) the Sacred Congregation of the
Index was set up by Pius V. The Congrega
tion consists of a number of Cardinals, aided
by a body of learned men called Consulters,
the chief of whom is known as the Master of
the Apostolic Palace. The first secretary was
chosen from the Dominicans. (The Master of
the Apostolic Palace in 1607 was F. J. M. Brassi-
chelli, who published an Index of Expurgated
Works, 1608 ; Eng. reprint, 1837.) l The rules
for the procedure of the Congregation are laid
down most fully by Benedict XIV. in a Con
stitution of date July 10, 1753.

The Index distinguishes three principal
classes of prohibited books. The first class
contains all the works of heretics containing
heresy, or professedly treating of religion-
These are forbidden absolutely under pain of
excommunication. Under this head, of course,
are included the works of Luther, Calvin,
Zwingli, &c. The second class comprises books
of Catholics contrary to faith and good
morals. The third class embraces books issued
without the name of the author, which con
tain bad doctrine. Censure is incurred for
the second and third classes only when the
books are specially designated, or fall under
certain general heads (cf. Liguori and Gury).
But besides those classes of books which are
entirely prohibited, there are many others the
use of which is forbidden only on account
of particular passages, and which are restored

— *—

1 The English reprint is by the late Rev.
Richard Gibbings, D.D., Prof, of Eccl. Hist, in
the University of Dublin. The preface to it
contains several notices of earlier attempts of
the Popes at the expurgation of the Index. The
work was published by Milliken, Dublin.

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS [ 293 ] INDEX EXPURQATORIUS

to use when "expurgated." Portions of the
writings of the Fathers are in this way taken
exception to ; even portions of the holy Augus
tine. From the Rules of Clement VIII. (pre
fixed to Brassichelli) we learn that bishops and
inquisitors together, or, where there were no
inquisitors, bishops alone, might execute this
work of expurgation, provided their piety and
erudition were adequate to the task. It does
not follow that books not prohibited by the
Index are free to be read by all Catholics.
By no means. The faithful are directed to
consult their respective confessors as to the
journals and books they may read, and con
fessors are instructed to follow the advice laid
down by St. Liguori : "In this matter it is
generally expedient to follow the more rigid
opinion " (Maurel's Cat., p. 254).

The spirit which pervades the Index can
perhaps best be gathered from the ten rules
laid down by the Council of Trent regarding
prohibited books. Only the chief points can
be mentioned. Rule I. renews the condemna
tion of all books condemned by Popes or
General Councils before the year 1513. Rule
II. condemns all books of heresiarchs (Luther,
Zwingli, Calvin, &c.), and the books of other
heretics treating professedly of religion.
Rule III. allows translations of ecclesiastical
writers, and also translations of the Old Testa
ment, " but only to learned and pious men, at
the discretion of the bishop." But translations
of the New Testament, made by heretical
writers, are allowed to no one, since little
advantage, but much danger, generally arises
from reading them. Rule IV. prohibits the
possession, sale or reading of the Bible in the
vulgar tongue without permission (this rule is
referred to below). Rules V. to IX. forbid books
of which heretics are editors ; books of con
troversy between Catholics and heretics ; books
treating of obscene subjects (the classics are
excepted because of " the elegance and pro
priety of the language ") ; books in which are
things tending to heresy and impiety, or having
prefaces, summaries, notes, &c. , of condemned
authors — these are not allowed till "after
they have been corrected by Catholic divines,
by authority of the general inquisition ;" books
of necromancy, magic, and the like. Rule X.
ordains that before a book is printed in Rome,
it must be "examined by the Pope's vicar, and
the Master of the Sacred Palace, or other
persons chosen by our most holy father for
that purpose ; " in other places, " the examina
tion of any book or manuscript intended to be
printed, shall be referred to the bishop, or
some skilful person whom he shall nominate,
and the Inquisitor of heretical pravity of the
city or diocese in which the impression is
executed." "Moreover," this rule proceeds,

"in every city or diocese, the house or places
where the art of printing is exercised, and also
the shops of booksellers, shall be frequently
visited by persons deputed for that purpose by
the bishop or his vicar, conjointly with the
Inquisitor of heretical pravity, so that nothing
that is prohibited may be printed, kept, or
sold. Booksellers of every description shall
keep in their libraries a catalogue of the books
which they have on sale, signed by the said
deputies ; nor shall they keep, sell, nor in any
way dispose of any other books without per
mission from the deputies, under pain of
forfeiting the books, and being liable to such
other penalties as shall be judged proper by
the bishop or inquisitor, who shall also punish
the buyers, readers, and printers of such
works." It need not be pointed out that the
enforcement of these rules amounts to an
intellectual enslavement of the most abject
kind. The system ;is as fatal to knowledge
and intellectual advancement, as it is crushing
to the moral and spiritual freedom of mankind.
Whenever Romanism has power, it is an in
cubus on the intellectual progress of nations.
These rules in part furnish the explanation.

It should not be overlooked that the third
and fourth of the Rules of the Index have re
ference to the reading and possession of the
Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. As this sets
in a clear light the policy of Rome in regard
to the Holy Scriptures, Rule IV. had better be
quoted entire. It reads thus: " Inasmuch as
it is manifest from experience, that if the
Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue,
be indiscriminately allowed to any one, the
temerity of men will cause more evil than
good to arise from it, it is, on this point, re
ferred to the judgment of the bishops or
inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the
priest or confessor, permit the reading of the
Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by
Catholic authors, to those persons whose
faith and piety they apprehend will be aug
mented, and not injured by it, and this per
mission they must have in writing. But if
any one shall have the presumption to read or
possess it without such written permission, he
shall not receive absolution until he have first
delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.
Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or other
wise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue,
to any persons not having such permission,
shall forfeit the value of the books, to be
applied by the bishop to some pious use, and
be subjected to such other penalties as the
bishop shall judge proper, according to the
quality of the offence. But regulars shall
neither read nor purchase such Bibles without
a special licence from their superior." Trans
lations of the Bible by other than Catholic

INDUCTION AND INSTITUTION [ 294 ]

INDULGENCE

authors are, of course, absolutely prohibited.
This fourth Rule of the Index has been con
firmed by many subsequent decrees of Popes.

[J. O.]

INDUCTION and INSTITUTION.— To put
a clergyman into full possession of a bene
fice, three things are required: (1) Ad
mission, which takes place when the bishop,
upon examination, approves of the person
presented by the patron as a fit person to serve
in the cure of souls for the parish to which he
has been presented. (2) Institution, which is
the name for the act whereby the bishop
commits to the presentee of the benefice the
cure of souls. Until Richard I.'s and John's
time this was not necessary, but was done by
the lay patron. Then by means of clerical
and papal aggressions it became the rule that
the spiritual superior should institute. The
Canonists insisted upon its being done by the
bishop of the diocese, or sometimes by the
archdeacon of the place. Decretals of
Alexander III. show that the contrary had
been the old custom up to then, and this is
also clear from some of the canons made at the
Council of Westminster, held under Anselm
in the third year of Henry I., and at the
National Synod held in the twenty-fifth year
of the same king. (See Selden on Tythcs,
ch. xii.)

In institution, the presentee kneels before
the bishop, and the document instituting him
is read, something like a feudal enfeofment by
a feudal superior. (3) Induction was the act
whereby the presentee of a benefice was put
in corporal possession of its temporalities, and
corresponds to the instalment of a bishop.
In induction, which is done by the archdeacon,
or a person acting under his mandate, the
archdeacon says, <: I induct you into the real

and corporeal possession of the church of

with all its fruits, members, and appurtenances,"
and taking his hand, lays it on the ring, key,
or latch of the church door, or delivers a clod
turf, or turf of the glebe. If the church is
exempt from archdiaconal visitation, then the
mandate is issued to the Chancellor of the
diocese for induction ; if a peculiar, to the
dean or judge. [E. B. W.]

INDULGENCE. — A word used in two senses.
(1) A Primitive Indulgence ; (2) A Medieval
Indulgence.

(1) By a Primitive Indulgence, a man who
had been excommunicated by the chief officer
of the Church, after confession of a scandalous
sin, made publicly in the congregation, for any
length of time, say twenty years, was excused
a certain part of the time, say five years, on
proof of real penitence on his part. In this case
the punishment was inflicted by the Church,
and the authority which had inflicted it mi^ht

and did refrain from exacting the full penalty
which she had herself imposed. In this there
is nothing objectionable. A schoolmaster often
acts so in the case of a boy whom he is punish
ing, and St. Paul ordered that that course
should be followed with the incestuous Corin
thian who had been excommunicated.

(2) By the Mediaeval Indulgence, the super
abundant merits and satisfactions that some
very righteous persons had earned and per
formed, which they were so pious as not to
require for themselves, were supposed to be
distributed to other people, who were in want
of them, by the Bishop of Rome, in return for
money or money's worth. The effect to the
recipient was supposed to be that the penance
or suffering, which he ought to have undergone
and had not undergone, and had still to under
go, either on earth or in an imaginary place
called Purgatory, was regarded as accomplished
by the satisfaction made by the over-pious
men and women whose merits were transferred
to him.

The Pope may either transfer merit enough
to deliver his protege" altogether, both on earth
and in Purgatory, in which case he is said to
grant a plenary Indulgence, or he may transfer
only so much as to cover a certain number of
days' or years' sufferings on earth, or their
equivalent in Purgatory, and then he is said to
grant a partial Indulgence. Bishops are allowed
to draw on the Pope's treasury of other people's
merits only to the extent of forty days (they
were thus limited by Innocent III. in 1215),
except on the occasion of the consecration of
a church, when they may grant a hundred
days. The Pope keeps to himself the right of
bestowing exemptions of hundreds of thousands
of years (for a single Mass in San Francisco in
Mexico, an Indulgence of 32,310 years, 10 days,
and 6 hours is granted), or of giving an entire
exemption and wiping the slate clean by a
plenary Indulgence. So unlimited is his power
that he can grant not only a "plenary," but a
"most plenary" Indulgence, which is gained
by the "pilgrims " to Rome in the year of the
Jubilee. We have seen accounts of English
and Irish episcopally conducted "pilgrimages "
in 1900, undertaken to gain this " most plenary "
Indulgence. But how a "plenary" or entire
Indulgence, which clears you altogether, differs
from a "most plenary" or most entire Indul
gence (which, however, cannot do more than all),
no one has been able to explain. Dr. Dollinger,
at the Bonn Conference of 1875, said, "The
so-named Jubilee Indulgence occasions the
Roman Theologians much solicitude. However
much trouble they may give themselves to
show its precedence of any other plenary
Indulgence, it is fundamentally no more a
complete Indulgence than the common perfect

te r

INDULGENCE

[ 295 ]

INDULGENCE

Indulgence, which one can obtain much more
easily and conveniently."

The most usual way of gaining an Indulgence
is to help build a Roman Catholic church
or monastery. The number of Indulgences,
plenary and partial, gained in the erection of
St. Peter's, Rome, or in our own day of the
church of Montmartre in Paris, might risk the
exhaustion of the treasury, but from time to
time the Popes remind their followers that
they need not be afraid, as they have an un
failing stock to draw on, for from fear of any
danger of this kind, Christ's merits have been
added to those of St. Mary and the saints, and
stored away with them in the treasury.

The next commonest way is saying an indul-
genced prayer. One Paternoster said before
the Cross cf Caravaca, or a representation of
it, earns 3600 days' exemption. The recital of
a hymn to St. Mary, consisting of 187 letters,
has 200 days of Indulgence attached to each
letter. It may be seen how easily by these
means the Pope can direct the prayers of his
subjects. To pray for the intentions of the
Holy Father is a condition of most Indulgences.

Another way is to fight the Pope's enemies.
Originally this Indulgence was granted to the
Crusaders, who were supposed to fight the
enemies of Christ, but the Pope being Christ's
vicar, the enemies of the Pope took the place
of Christ's enemies when there were no more
Saracens to fight. The men who marched to
massacre the Albigenses and Proven9als were
all indulgenced. Nay, a Crusaders' Bull is
published to this day every year, and to
enjoy the benefit of any Indulgences every
Spaniard must buy it every year for 5d. (it is
calculated that till of late, the Pope and the
Spanish Church made £200,000 by its sale
annually), and this Bull of the Crusade enables
its possessors to earn by very little trouble
89 plenary Indulgences in the year, and to get
10 souls out of Purgatory. If a man buys
two copies of the Bull, price 10d., he may
earn 178 plenary Indulgences, and get 20
souls out of Purgatory.

But the easiest way of all is wearing a
scapular (a little piece of woollen cloth) under
your clothes. By wearing the Carmelite
scapular a man is saved from hell, and from
more than six days of Purgatory ; by wear
ing the scapular of the Immaculate Concep
tion and saying a Pater Noster, Ave Maria,
and Gloria six times, he earns "433 plenary
or entire Indulgences and an innumerable
number of Indulgences for certain lengths of
time." So says S. Alfonso de' Liguori, the
appointed doctor or teacher of the Roman
Church, in his Glories of Mary, p. 661 (Ed.
Dunighan).

There is nothing that an apologist of the

Roman Church so shrinks from handling, as
the doctrine of Indulgences. But there is
nothing that the hierarchy and priesthood of
that Church is less willing to give up than
Indulgences and Masses for the sufferers in
Purgatory. If they are not godliness, they
are gain.

Mediaeval Indulgences originated in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with the
rest of the new religion then introduced.
Dr. Dollinger, speaking for the Old Catholic
reformers at Bonn, twice repudiated the
doctrine in their behalf. "Not merely In
dulgences for the departed, but the whole
papal system of Indulgence, we Old Catholics
must clear away." " We Old Catholics can
have nothing whatsoever to do with the entire
matter of Papal Indulgence." "We can men
tion with entire exactness the time, I might
almost say the day, when the doctrine of the
Church on this point was changed." Hooker
is stirred out of his usual composure to de
nounce "the mart of Papal Indulgences, a
gain inestimable to the priest, to others a
spoil; a scorn both to God and maij" (Eccl.
Pol., vi. 9). See Dr. Wright's Roman Catholicism,
(Religious Tract Society). [F. M.]

Tetzd's Indulgence. — Copy of the Indulgence
issued by Pope Leo X. for the rebuilding
of St. Peter's at Rome. It was sold by
Tetzel as sub-commissary under Albert
of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mentz
and Magdeburg, and led to the remon
strances of Luther. It is printed on
vellum, and bears the name of the re
cipient, " Philippus Kessel, Presbyter," in
manuscript, together with the date of
issue, loth April 1517, likewise in manu
script. The name inserted was originally
" Keschel," altered to " Kessel."
Words abbreviated in the original arc here
printed in full.

Albertus dei et apostolice sedis gratia . sancte
Moguntinensis sedis . ac Magdeburgensis ec-
clesie Archiepiscopus, primas . et sacri Romani
imperil in germania ar | chicancellarius . prin-
ceps : elector ac administrator Halberstat-
tensis, Marchio Brandenburgensis . Stettinensis,
Pomeranie : Cassuborum Sclavorumque dux |
Burggrauius Nurenbergensis, Rugieque prin-
ceps . Et guardianus fratrum ordinis minorum
de obseruantia conuentus Moguntini . Per
sanctissimum | dominum nostrum Leonem
Papam decimum . per prouincias Mogunti-
nensem et Magdeburgensem ac illarum et
Halberstattenses ciuitates et dioceses . necnon
terras | et loca illustrissimi et illustrium
Principum dominorum Marchionum Branden-
burgensium temporali dominio mediate vel
immediate subiecta nuncii et com | missarii : ad
infrascripta specialiter deputati . Vniuersis et

INDULGENCE

[ 296 ]

INDULGENCE

singulis presentes literae inspecturie Salutem
in domino . Notum facimus quod sanctissimus
dominus | noster Leo diuina prouidentia Papa
decimus modernus : omnibus et singulis vtrius-
que sexus christifidelibus : ad reparacionem
fabrice basilice prin j cipis apostolorum sancti
Petri de vrbe : iuxta ordinationem nostram
manus porrigentibus adiutrices : vltra plenissi-
mas indulgentias ac alias gratias et facultat { es
quas christi fideles ipsi obtinere possunt : iuxta
literarum apostolicarum desuper confectarum
continentiam misericorditer etiam in domino
indulsit atque concessit : vt idoneum possint !
eligere confessorem presbyterum secularem .
vel cuiusuis etiam mendicantium ordinis regu-
larem, qui eorum confessione diligenter audita,
pro commissis per eligentem | delictis et
excessibus : ac peccatis quibuslibet : quantum-
cumque grauibus et enormibus : etiam in dicte
sedi reseruatis casibus : ac censuris ecclesi-
asticis : etiam ab | homine ad alicuius instan-
tiam latis . de consensu partium . etiam ratione
interdicti incursis . et quarum absolutio eidem
sedi esset specialiter reseruata. Preterquam
machina j tionis in personam summi pontificis :
occisionis episcoporum aut aliorum superiorum
prelatorum et iniectionis manuum violentarum
in illos aut alios prelates . falsificationis ;
literarum apostolicarnm . delationis armorum .
et aliorum prohibitorum ad partes infidelium :
ac sententiarum et censurarum occasione alu
minum tulfe apostolice de partibus infi | delium
ad fideles contra prohibitionem apostolicam
delatorum incursarum semel in vita et in
mortis articulo quotiens ille imminebit . licet
mors tune non subsequatur | Et in non re
seruatis casibus totiens quotiens id petierint
plenarie absolouere et eis penitentiam salutarem
iniungere . necnon semel in vita et in dicto
mortis arti | culo : plenariam omnium pecca-
torum indulgentiam et remissionem impendere .
Necnon per eos emissa pro tempore vota que-
cumque (vltra-marino : visitationis | liminum
apostolorum : et sancti Jacobi in compostella :
religionis et castitatis votis dumtaxat exceptis)
in alia pietatis opera commutare auctoritate
apostolica | possit et valeat. Indulsit quoque
idem sanctissimus dominus noster . prefatos
benefactores : eorumque . parentes defunctos
qui cum charitate decesserunt in precibus : |
suffragiis : elemosynis : ieiunijs : orationibus :
missis : horis canonicis : disciplinis : perigrina-
tionibus : et ceteris omnibus spiritualibus bonis
que fiunt | et fieri poterunt in tota vniuersalj
sacrosancta ecclesia militante : et in omnibus
membris eiusdem in perpetuum participes
fieri. Et quia deuotus | Philippus Kessel1
presbyter ad ipsam fabricam et necessariam

1 This name has first been written Keschel —
Itered to Kessel.

instaurationem | supradicte basilice principis
apostolorum iuxta sanctissimi domini nostri
Pape intentionem et nostram ordinationem
de bonis suis contribuendo se gratum | ex-
hibuit. In cuius rei signum presentes literas
a nobis accepit. Ideo eadem auctoritate apos
tolica nobis commissa : et qua f ungimur in hac
parte | ipsi quod dictis gratijs et indulgentijs
vti et eisdem gaudere possit et valeat per
presentes concedimus et largimur. Datum
Anguste | sub sigillo per nos ad hec ordinato
. Die xv Mensis Aprilis Anno domini. M.D.
xvii.

Forma absolutionis totiens quotiens in vita.

Misereatur tui, &c. Dominus noster Jesus
christus per meritnm sue passionis te absoluat :
auctoritate cuius et apostolica mihi in hac
parte commissa : et tibi | concessa : ego te
absoluo ab omnibus peccatis tuis . In nomine
patris et filij et spiritus sancti Amen.

Forma absolutionis et plenissime remis-
sionis : semel in vita et in mortis articulo.

Misereatur tui, &c. Dominus noster Jesus
christus per meritum sue passionis te absoluat :
et ego auctoritate ipsius et apostolica mihi in
hac parte commissa : et tibi | concessa te
absoluo . primo ab omni sententia excommuni-
cationis maioris vel minoris si quam incurristi
. deinde ab omnibus peccatis tuis : conferendo
tibi plenissimam omnium | peccatorum tuorum
remissionem . remittendo tibi etiam penas
purgatorij in quantum se claues sancte matris
ecclesie extendunt . In nomine patris et filij et
spiritus sancti Amen.

Translation. — Albert, by the grace of God
and of the Apostolic See, of the holy see of
Mentz and the Church of Magdeburg Arch
bishop, Primate, and of the Holy Roman
Empire in Germany Arch-Chancellor, Prince
Elector and Administrator of Halberstadt,
Marquis of Brandenburg, of Stettin, of Pome-
rania, Duke of Cassuben and the Sclaves,
Burgrave of Nuremburg and Prince of Rugen,
and Guardian of the Order of Friars Minor of
the observance of the Convent of Mentz ; by
our most holy lord Pope Leo X., throughout
the Provinces of Mentz and Magdeburg and
the cities and the dioceses thereof, and of
Halberstadt, and throughout the territories
and places mediately or immediately subject
to the temporal dominion of the most illus
trious Prince and illustrious Princes, the Lords
Marquises of Brandenburg, Nuncio and Com
missary for the underwritten matters specially
deputed ; To all and singular who shall in
spect the present letters greeting in the
Lord.

We make known that our most holy lord
Leo, by divine providence Pope, the tenth,
that now is, to all and singular the faithful in
Christ of both sexes, who towards the repair

INDULGENCE

[ 297 ]

INFALLIBILITY

of the fabric of the Basilica of the Prince of
the Apostles, St. Peter of the City, according
to our ordinance, extend helping hands, beyond
those fullest indulgencies and other graces
and faculties which the faithful in Christ can
of themselves obtain, hath, in accordance with
the contents of the Apostolic letters above
executed, of his mercy also in the Lord in
dulged and granted that they have the power
to choose, as a fitting confessor, a priest
secular or a regular of any order, even of
Mendicants ; who, after diligently hearing
their confession — for the faults and excesses
committed by the person so choosing him ;
and for sins of any kind, however grave and
enormous, even in cases reserved for the said
See ; and from ecclesiastical censures, even
when borne by a man at the instance of any
one soever, and with the consent of the parties,
even from those incurred by reason of an
interdict ; and from those of which the absolu
tion hath been specially reserved to the same
see ; except from the crimes of machination
against the person of the Supreme Pontiff, of
the murder of bishops or of other higher pre
lates, and of the laying of violent hands upon
them or other prelates, of the forgery of letters
Apostolic, of the conveying of arms and other
prohibited things into heathen parts ; and
except from [crimes involving] sentences and
censures incurred by reason of the importa
tions of alums [such as those] of Apostolic
Tolfa from heathen parts to the faithful, con
trary to the apostolic prohibition — once in
life, and in the article of death as often as it
shall threaten, although death may not then
supervene, and in non-reserved cases as often
as they shall seek it, can and may plenarily
absolve them and enjoin upon them salutary
penance ; and also, once in life and in the said
article of death, grant plenary indulgence and
remission of all sins ; and also commute for
other works of piety any vows made by them
on occasion (vows of pilgrimage beyond sea,
of visiting the thresholds of the Apostles, and
of St. James in Compostella, of religion and
of chastity, alone excepted). The same our
most holy lord hath also indulged that the
aforesaid benefactors, and their parents de
funct who have died in charity, become par
takers for ever in the prayers, suffrages,
alms, fastings, supplications, masses, canonical
hours, disciplines, pilgrimages, and all other
spiritual benefits which are and can be in the
whole universal holy Church Militant, and in
all the members of the same. And whereas
the devout Philip Kessdl,1 priest, hath shown
himself acceptable by contributing of his goods

1 This name has first been written Keschel—
altered to Kessell.

to the fabric itself and to the necessary re
storation of the aforesaid Basilica of the Prince
of the Apostles, in accordance with the inten
tion of our most holy Lord the Pope and our
own ordinance, in sign whereof he hath received
from us the present letters ; therefore, by the
same Apostolic authority to us committed, and
which we discharge in this behalf, we grant
and freely give unto him by these presents
that he can and may use the said graces and
indulgences, and enjoy the same. Given at
Augsburg, under the seal hereunto by us
ordained, on the 15th day of the month of
April, in the year of our Lord 1517.

"Form of Absolution, as often as may be
during life : —

" ' Misereatur tui,' &c. [Almighty God have
mercy upon thee, forgive thee thy sins, and
bring thee into life everlasting]. Our Lord
Jesus Christ, by the merit of His Passion,
absolve thee ; by whose authority and by
the authority Apostolic to me in this behalf
committed and so to thee conceded, I absolve
thee from all thy sins. In the name of the
Father, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

"Form of Absolution and fullest remission,
once in life and in the article of death : —

"'Misereatur tui,' &c. Our Lord Jesus
Christ, by the merit of His Passion, absolve
thee ; and I, by His authority and by the
authority Apostolic to me in this behalf com
mitted and so to thee conceded, absolve thee,
first from every sentence of the greater or
lesser excommunication, if any thou hast
incurred, and next from all thy sins, by con
ferring upon thee the fullest remission of all
thy sins, by remitting to thee also the pains of
purgatory, so far as the keys of Holy Mother
Church extend. In the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
P.S. — A remarkable book has been published
with illustrations and facsimiles by Marshall
Bros., 10 Paternoster Row, which shows that
TetzePs methods are being still resorted to in
Spain, Romish Indulgences of To-day ; or, Is
Tetzel dead 1 An Exposure. Price 2s.
INFALLIBILITY. — A quality which prevents
its possessor from being deceived or mistaken.
The longing in the human mind for certainty
is so intense that men are tempted to create
for themselves a living and visible authority,
which shall be infallible. We see this tendency
in individuals. Let a young person be en
dowed with strong imagination and warm
affections, and he or she will probably take
a parent or an older friend as an object of
quasi-worship, who shall be to him or her,
infallible. The mistake is confusing authority
with infallibility. In the case of such individual
the mistake cures itself. As the mind ma
tures it is able to distinguish between facts,

INFALLIBILITY

[ 298 ]

INFALLIBILITY

and what it had desired to be facts, and it
finds itself disillusioned and saddened by the
supposed loss that it has undergone.

The same desire for certainty, and the same
mistake as to the limits of authority, produced
a belief in infallibility residing somewhere in
the Church. " The Church hath authority in
controversies of faith." Yes — authority ; for
no man of well-regulated mind will deny that
weight ought to be given to the judgment of
the National Church to which he belongs, and
of the whole Church in its earliest and purest
days, if such judgment exists, in respect to
any truth about which a doubt has arisen ;
but because it " has authority," it is not there
fore infallible. It is a help, an enormous help,
in the search after truth, but not the only
guide to it. Learning, criticism, common
sense, natural perception of possibility and
impossibility, of likelihood and unlikelihood, of
right and wrong, the affections, the imagina
tion, the reason, the moral sense — none of
these must be ignored ; all have their use, and
the rest must not be made subject to any one
of them.

Belief in the infallibility of the Church pre
ceded belief in the infallibility of the Pope, and
still holds its own in the Oriental Church. As
long as there was a Gallican Church, it was
held there likewise, and it appears to be the
theory of Dr. Pusey and of the Ritualists.
But the infallibility of the Church is no more
tenable than the infallibility of the Pope, for —

1. There is no promise of infallibility. The
texts of Scripture relied on for proving it are
inadequate for the purpose. They are Matt,
xvi. 18 ; xxviii. 20 ; John xvi. 13. The first,
which promises that the gates of hell shall
not prevail against the Church, is fulfilled by
the continued existence of the Church. For
the expression "gates of hell or Hades " is
almost certainly proved by Isa. xxxviii. 10 ;
Wisdom xvi. 13, Job xxxviii. 17, and Psalm
ix. 13 ; to mean the powers of death. In that
case the promise was that the Church should
not come to an end on the death of the first
believers, but should still go on, as we see
that it does, and, further, that the grave
should not be able to retain those who were
faithful members of it. (See Dr. Wright's Inter
mediate State, Nisbet.) Or if the words " gates
of hell " (see HADES) be interpreted powers of
destruction, the promise is still fulfilled with
out any thought of fallible or infallible. In
neither sense of the expression have the gates
of hell (hades) prevailed against the Church.
The second passage promises that Christ will
always be with His Church ; in like manner
God promised to be with His elder Church,
the Jews, but they are not thereby made
infallible. The third, referring to the expected

descent of the Holy Ghost, was addressed only
to His immediate disciples.

2. Men argue that God must have given an
infallible guide, but we have no right to
assume that God must do what we might A
priori expect Him to do.

3. Why should the Christian Church have
the gift of infallibility, .if God's earlier Church
was without it ? The argument from analogy
is against her infallibility.

4. The early Christian Church shows an
entire unconsciousness of possessing any such
power, for (a) the Fathers uniformly make
Scripture, not the living voice of the Church,
the infallible standard of doctrine ; (b) The
Councils did not merely meet and put the
question at once to the vote, knowing that they
would be infallibly led to a true decision by a
mechanical process, but they placed the Holy
Scripture in their centre as the judge, and
demanded of the various bishops the tradition
of their Churches as to its meaning on the
point at issue. All this would be surplusage
if they knew that they we're infallible, (c) Vin-
centius Lirinensis, writing an elaborate treat
ise to show how to distinguish between true
and false doctrine, does not say, "Ask the
infallible Church," but lays down a number
of propositions which issue in the famous
definition, "that which has been held in all
times, at all places, by all" — a rule which is
incompatible with the theory of a present
infallibility in the existing Church.

5. We have only to open our eyes and com
pare doctrines which have been held at various
times in particular parts of the Church with
the Scriptural standard of the truth, to see
how far from infallible the Church has been.
"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria,
and Antioch, have erred ; so also the Church
of Rome hath erred, not only in their living
and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters
of Faith." (Article XIX.).

We may well believe that God will not allow
the Church in its universality to fall into
fundamental and permanent error ; and we
may allow that if we find any truth taught by
the Church from the Apostles' time down
wards, and believed at all times and in all
places, such as the Divinity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, or the Atonement, or the Resurrection,
we may believe the testimony of the Church
that such doctrines are the true interpretation
of Scripture with so much certitude as to be
infallibly assured of them. But that an in
fallibility which can ex cathedra decide present
or future controversies, resides either in Ecclesi
astical Councils, as representing the Church,
or in the Church diffusive, has no basis to
rest upon beyond the unreasoning longing for
certainty that we have already mentioned, and

INFALLIBILITY

[ 299 J

INFANT BAPTISM

a presumptuous imagination that God must
have done what we think it would be best
for Him to do.

Papal infallibility is only a form or phase
of the infallibility of the Church— a phase
which must have arisen as soon as the doctrine
of the Papal Supremacy had been carried to
its full limit. For when men, believing in the
infallibility of the Church, came to believe
also that the Church is summed up in the
Bishop of Rome, as its head and ruler, it would
be in him, not in Councils or in Fathers or in
Schoolmen, that they would make the infalli
bility to reside. It was by the Gnostic fictions
(we should now call them novels) attributed to
Clement of Rome at the end of the second
century, that the idea of Peter standing in a
position of authority over the other Apostles
was first suggested. Stephen, first of the
Roman bishops, in the third century made
arrogant claim to a higher position than other
bishops in his controversy with Cyprian, which
was rejected calmly by Cyprian, indignantly
by Firrnilian. Adopted by Leo I. in the fifth
century, on the plea of the Bishops of Rome
being the successors of St. Peter, maintained
by later Popes, apparently proved by the False
Decretals in the ninth century, this claim
was at length acquiesced in by the Latin
Church, and on it was founded the temporal
despotism of Gregory VII. and Innocent III.
Time only was then required to conclude that
the supreme monarch of the Church was the
organ through whom her infallibility energised.
But this time stretched out into six or eight
centuries, for it was much more difficult to
maintain in argument the infallibility of a
definite line of bishops, than of a varying and
unsubstantial body like the Church, because
it was a patent fact that Popes had been
heretical — Callixtus, Liberius, Vigilius, Hono-
rius — and little doubt could be entertained
that some of the Mediaeval Popes were un
believers in Christianity. It was not till 1870
that the coping-stone was laid on the edifice
of Papal power by the declaration of the Pope's
personal infallibility. That was the work of
the Jesuits, who believed 'that they were thus
strengthening the Latin Church by centralising
authority, and throwing a religious awe round
the man who wielded it. Their work was
aided by Dr. Manning, who had run into the
extremes for which converts are proverbial,
and by the diplomatic arts of Mr. Odo Russell,
a Protestant, whose object was to strengthen
the hands of the Pope as a secular prince
against the assaults of Socialism. The de
claration of the dogma produced immediately
the revolt of the Old Catholics, who have
taught the world that there can be a Catholi
cism which is not Roman. The future effects

of the declaration are yet to be manifested.
Probably they will not be unlike the effect of
the "lump of pitch and fat and hair," which
Daniel, according to the story in the Apocrypha,
"put in the dragon's mouth" in Babylon.
But that consummation has to be waited for
till the members of the Latin communion have
realised what it is they have done in creating,
so far as they are capable of creating, an in
fallible man. On the question see Dr. Salmon's
learned Lectures on the Infallibility of the
Church (Murray, 1890). See GALLICANISM.

[F. M.]

INFANT BAPTISM. (See BAPTISM, BAP
TISMAL REGENERATION.) The right of chil
dren, and especially of the children of those
already within the Christian Church, to the
sacrament of baptism, has long been a subject
of dispute. The Roman, Greek, and Anglican,
with most Presbyterian, Congregational, and
Methodist Communions, maintain this right ;
the large and influential Baptist denominations
contest it. On the question of principle, there
fore, infant baptism is not a point of contro
versy between Roman Catholics and Protestants
as such, though in the doctrinal ideas, and, to
some extent, in the forms and usages connected
with the rite, there are wide divergencies.
The doctrinal aspects of baptism have already
been treated of in the above-named articles.
The present article will deal with the subject
chiefly on its scriptural and historical sides,
and doctrinally only in respect of certain pecu
liarities in the Roman teaching about infants.
The argument of those who oppose infant
baptism in every form is simple, and to many
minds conclusive. It is urged, in the first
place, that there is no warrant for the
ecclesiastical practice either in express com
mand of Scripture, or in apostolic usage.
Scripture, on the contrary, connects baptism
•with faith, and all the cases of baptism in the
New Testament are those of adult believers.
Infant baptism, therefore, it is held, is not only
ultra-scriptural but anti-scriptural. Further,
it is contended, infant baptism was unknown
in the early Church, and only crept in grad
ually as the result of the idea of baptismal
regeneration. Tertullian is said to mark the
time of its entrance by his opposition to it.
Those who favour the practice of infant bap
tism take, naturally, a different view of the
bearings both of the scriptural and of the
historical evidence. It is conceded at once
that there is no passage in the New Testament
directly commanding the baptism of infants.
It is not even regarded as essential to prove
that there was entire uniformity of practice
in the Apostolic Age. The Apostolic Church
was remarkably free and varied in its usages,
and it would probably be impossible to estab-

INFANT BAPTISM

[ 300 ]

INFANT BAPTISM

lish that there was on this, or on almost
any point, an absolutely unvarying procedure.
What is maintained is, that the deeper scrip
tural foundations on which the practice of
infant baptism rests are not thereby touched.
With reference to the passage, " He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved "
(Mark xvi. 16), from which it is frequently in
ferred that believers only are to be baptized,
it is pointed out that the declaration clearly
relates to adult believers, and has no bearing
on the case of children ; else, with equal
cogency, it might be argued that children, as
incapable of faith, cannot be saved. The
reading of Church history is contested. The
idea of baptismal regeneration had a powerful
influence ; but if it had the effect of sometimes
leading parents to seek baptismal grace for
their children, it is historically certain that it
operated quite as strongly in the other direc
tion of the postponement of baptism, lest the
grace of regeneration should be lost. It will
be seen below that this was really the motive
of the opposition of Tertullian.

The state of the case in the Apostolic Age
was really this. The Apostles were dealing
with the beginnings of the Church ; with con
verts from Judaism or heathenism to Christi
anity ; therefore, in the nature of the case,
with adults. The scriptural rule here is that
those who profess faith are to be baptized — a
rule which all Churches follow. As to what is
to be done with the children of those already
baptized and members of the Church, nothing
is said directly in Scripture, either one way or
the other. Their case is a totally different
one, and is left to be settled on general
principles. There is nothing that directly
enjoins the baptism of children, but there is
nothing that forbids it. In Christ's own origi
nal command, "Make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them," &c. (Matt, xxviii. 19), there
is assuredly nothing which precludes baptism
of children ; rather, as Alford has remarked,
the fact that baptism comes before instruction
would point to this as the normal way. The
question then comes to be, How ought we to
treat the children of believers ? Ought we to
treat them as within the Christian Church,
and forming part of it, and recognise that fact
by the ordinary symbol, mark them by baptism
at the outset as lambs of Christ's flock, anc
lay on them the corresponding obligations oi
service to Him ? or treat there as still no part
of the Church until they come to years of dis
cretion and make public profession for them
selves ? Those who favour the former of these
alternatives do not regard themselves as left
without very definite scriptural guidance in
the matter.

In the consideration of this subject, stress

has always justly been laid on the continuity
of the Church under the old and new dis
pensations. The New Testament form of the
Church began at Pentecost, but the Church of
God is older than its New Testament form.
It may be said to take its origin in the
covenant with Abraham, in which God bound
Himself to be the God of Abraham and of his
seed, gave them temporal and spiritual pro
mises, and established circumcision as the
sign and seal of the new relation and of
interest in the Covenant (cf. Rom. iv. 11).
The principle was there laid down which con
nected parent and child in the promise of
blessing. Every Jewish child was regarded as
born within the Covenant, received, if a male,
in his flesh the seal of it, and was reputed to
be a sharer in its blessings, unless by a personal
act of apostasy he separate*! himself from the
people of God.1 Was this law, then, based
on the divinely established relation between
parent and child, repealed in the Church
under the New Testament form ? We have
no reason to suppose that it was. The New
Testament lays stress on the connection be
tween the Old and the New ; declares that
believers are admitted to the privileges of the
Covenant with Abraham (Rom. iv. 11-13 ;
xi. 17-24; Gal. iii. 6-1 4, 29; iv. 22-31) ; but
says nothing to indicate that the privileges
which children possessed in the old Israel
were to be restricted in the new. On the
contrary, baptism is spoken of as if it had
come in the place of circumcision (Col. ii. 12).
and the Apostle Peter says on the day of
Pentecost, speaking to Jews in the old lan
guage, " Repent, and be baptized every one
of you ... for the promise is unto you, and
to your children " (Acts ii. 38, 39), by which
assuredly he means more than simply adult
posterity. This is quite in the line of the
teaching of Christ, who never spoke of diminu
tion of the privileges of children, but bade
His disciples receive them in His name
(Matt, xviii. 5), and said, "Of such is the
kingdom of heaven" (xix. 14).

When, in the light of this principle, we
look at the cases of baptism in the New
Testament, we find them to be what we might
expect. It is not always observed that there
is no case of adult baptism in the New
Testament which would not also be a case of
adult baptism in modern Churches ; even as
there is no case in which the Churches would

1 It is worthy of note that in several Moham
medan countries, as in Egypt, female children
are also circumcised. Women were under cer
tain disabilities under the Old Covenant, which
have been removed under the New. Comp. Gal.
iii. 28. [C. H. H. W.]

INFANT BAPTISM

[ 301 ]

INFANT BAPTISM

baptize children in which baptism is shown to
be withheld in the New Testament. Single
adults are baptized as adults, but where the
adult is the head of a household, as in the
case of Lydia (Acts xvi. 15), and the Philippian
jailer (xvi. 33), the narrative informs us
almost as if it were a matter of course, that
the " household " was baptized also. It is
usually replied that we have no evidence that
there were any young children in these house
holds. There may or there may not have been,
but that is not the point. The point is that
the household was baptized along with its
head, and evidently on the ground of con
nection with it. If there were young children
in any of these, or in similar households, it
is morally certain that they would not be
excluded from the sign of the New Covenant.
An interesting light is thrown on this usage
by what seems to have been the practice in
Jewish proselyte baptism. When a proselyte
was received from heathenism into the Jewish
Church, he was not only circumcised, but was
also baptized. But if the Talmudic notices
which refer to this practice can be relied upon
as evidence for the Apostolic Age (and we
think they can), this other important fact
emerges, that not only was the proselyte
himself baptized, but his household, if he had
one, down to its youngest member, was bap
tized with him (the passages may be seen in
Wall's History of Infant Baptism). This natu
rally would be the course to which the Christian
practice conformed. Accordingly, taking Paul's
Epistles, we find all through that children are
recognised as component parts of the Church.
They are exhorted as such, and it is never
suggested that they should not receive the
outward sign, or that the receiving of it is
something that awaits them in their later
years. It would, indeed, be easier to argue
that in the case of such children baptism was
not regarded as necessary at all (else why this
silence about their future reception of it, or
about preparation for it ?), than to argue that
they had not already received the symbol.
One passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corin
thians is specially interesting. The Apostle
is dealing with the case in which one parent
is believing and the other unbelieving. A
question might then arise, How would this
affect the Church status of the child? The
principle which Paul lays down is that the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the be
lieving wife, and vice versa, " else," he says,
"were your children unclean, but now are
they holy" (1 Cor. vii. 14), that is to say,
sanctified, separated, evidently in the sense of
being regarded as members of the holy com
munity. Without, as before remarked, press
ing for entire uniformity in the usage of the

Apostolic Age, these things make it fairly clear
that the baptism of the children of believers
is, to say the least, not hostile to, but in
harmony with the spirit and genius of Christ's
religion, and the true idea of the Church.

We may now look briefly at the testimony of
Church history on this subject (see the ample
collection of passages in Wall's History). It
will be found fully corroborative of the view
which has been taken of the practice in
Apostolic Churches. The immediately post-
apostolic literature yields nothing directly
bearing on the subject. When Justin Martyr
(A.D. 150), however, speaks in his Apoloyy of
" Several persons among us, of sixty or seventy
years old, of both sexes, who were discipled (or
made disciples) to Christ from their childhood,"
using the very word which Christ employs in the
command in Matt, xxviii. 19, it is difficult to
resist the impression that discipling by baptism
is alluded to. If this is correct, the ages of the
persons concerned carry us well back into the
Apostolic Age. The usage in the second century
is attested towards its close by Irenaeus, who
had been in his youth the disciple of Polycarp.
He speaks of " all who by Him (Christ) are re
generated unto God — infants and little ones,
and children, and youths, and elder persons"
(ii. 39). There can be no reasonable doubt
that by " regeneration " in this passage Irenseus
means baptism. His own usage, and the current
usage of the time, put any other explanation
out of the question. Further corroboration is
found in repeated statements of Origen (A. D.
230), who had travelled more widely and pro
bably knew more of the literature and usages
of different sections of the Church than any
other man of his time. In the Latin trans
lations of his works which have come down to
us we have the following : " Let it be con
sidered what is the reason that, whereas the
baptism of the Church is given for forgiveness
of sins, infants also are, by the usage of the
Church, baptized" (Horn. 8 on Lev. xii.) ; " In
fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins "
(On Luke i. 14) ; " For this also it was, that the
Church had from the Apostles a tradition to
give baptism even to infants " (Comm. on Rom.,
Book v.). Doubt, certainly, may rest on the
literal accuracy of the translations (of Rufinus),
but it is not to be supposed that the translator
would wantonly inrent the allusions to baptism
of infants ; and that he did not, we learn from
a passage in Jerome, in which this Father refers
the Pelagians to Origen's views on this subject
(3rd Dial. Against the Pelagians). Origen was
himself the child of Christian parents (born
A.D. 185), and must have known whether he
himself was baptized.

Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200), the great
Latin Father, is commonly cited as an opponent

INFANT BAPTISM

[ 302 ]

INFANT BAPTISM

of infant baptism. But, rightly construed, his
words are rather a witness for it. His argu
ment assumes that infant baptism was the cus
tom in the Church (there is no suggestion of its
being new), and his opposition is based, not on
grounds of Scripture or principle, but on the
expediency of delaying baptism till there is
less dangerof falling from grace. " Therefore,"
he says, "according to every one's condition
and disposition, and also their age, the de
laying of baptism is more profitable (utilior),
especially in the case of little children " (On
Baptism). For the same reason, he advises
delay in the case of unmarried persons, and of
those in widowhood, till they either marry,
or are confirmed in continence. This is weak
support for the opponents of the usage. That,
in any case, Tertullian's was not the general
view of the Church of Carthage is shown by
the Epistle of Cyprian and his Council to
Fidus (A.D. 250). The question dealt with by
the Council was not as to the propriety or
impropriety of infant baptism, but as to
whether baptism of infants must be delayed
(after the analogy of circumcision) till the
eighth day, or might take place earlier. The
Council emphatically declared that it might.
The usage of the Church is presumed. It is
hardly necessary to multiply testimonies
further. It is not disputed that from this
time infant baptism was common in the
Church, though the tendency also strengthened
to delay baptism. In the great Pelagian con
troversy in the beginning of the fifth century,
much was made of infant baptism, in confu
tation of the Pelagian denial of original sin.
Jerome and Augustine pressed the Pelagians
hard with this argument, which the latter
evaded by a distinction between eternal life
(a lower state of happiness), and being heirs
of the kingdom of heaven (the portion of the
regenerate). The important point is that the
Pelagians, as little as their opponents, chal
lenged the antiquity or apostolical authority
of the custom. Augustine could confidently
appeal to baptism of infants for forgiveness
of sins as supported by " the authority of the
whole Church, which was, doubtless, delivered
by our Lord and His Apostles" (On Remission
of Sins and Baptism of Infants, ch. xxvi.-vii.),
and declared that he did not remember ever
having heard any other thing from any Chris
tians that received the Old and New Testa
ment, " neither from such as were of the
Catholic Church, nor from such as belong to
any sect or schism " (ch. vi.). This was when
quoting the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus above
referred to. Jerome also goes back to the
works of Origen. Both fathers, therefore,
speak with a full knowledge of the past litera
ture of the Church. This must be felt to give

their opinion exceptional weight as respects
the great antiquity and practical universality
of the practice. But on neither side, as above
observed, was this disputed.

The ceremonies connected with the baptism
of infants in the Roman Church have already
been described in a special article (see BAP
TISM, ROMAN RITUAL OF), and in part fall
under baptism generally. In the ancient
Church the mode of baptism, even for infants,
was trine immersion (Bingham, Book xi.,
11, 5), and the rite was accompanied by the
usual ceremonies (sign of cross, tasting milk
and honey, imposition of hands and chrism,
and exorcisms). The professions and renun
ciations were made by sponsors (Tertullian,
On Baptism). The sponsors, in the early age,
were ordinarily, though not necessarily, the
parents (Augustine discusses the question in
his Epistle to Boniface) ; in the case of slaves,
foundlings, children whose parents were dead,
&c., others took their place. Already, in the
time of Cyprian, and for many centuries
thereafter, confirmation followed immediately
upon baptism, and the child partook of
the communion (see INFANT COMMUNION).
The modern godfathers and godmothers are
a later development.

In the Roman, as in the ancient Church,
baptism is held to be the divinely appointed
medium of regeneration, and a necessity for
salvation. Only while, in the case of adults,
a certain predisposition of mind is needed for
the right reception of baptism, in infants the
rite takes effect by its inherent virtue. To
render baptism valid, it is not required that
the priest be a holy man, but only that he ad
minister the sacrament in proper form, and
with a serious intention. He may personally
be the most wicked of individuals, but his act,
nevertheless, by the mere form which he uses,
has regenerating power. But it is not even
required that the ceremony be performed by
a priest. Baptism may be administered by
any one — Jew, heretic, infidel, even atheist —
and if only water is applied, and the proper
formula used, with intent to baptize, the bap
tism is valid. This is one of the most remark
able parts of Rome's doctrine, but the assertions
regarding it are most explicit. " For this office
is permitted," the Catechism of the Council of
Trent says, " if necessity compel, even to Jews,
infidels, and heretics ; provided, however, that
they intend to perform what the Catholic
Church performs in that act of her ministry."

The saving clause, "if necessity compel,"
means little, for practically all baptisms by
heretics are regarded as valid if performed in
the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This is a very important point in connection
with infant baptism ; for, on the ground of it,

INFANT COMMUNION

[ 303 ]

INFANT COMMUNION

Rome claims jurisdiction over all baptized
persons.

The necessity of baptism for salvation, even
in the case of infants, is asserted in the
strongest manner. This raises the difficult
question of the fate of unbaptized infants.
Augustine combats the view that there is any
middle place between heaven and hell, and
with ruthless logic consigns unbaptized infants
to eternal fire (Ser. 294), though he allows
that their doom will be " the lightest of all."
{Rem. of Sins and Baptism of Infants, ch. xv.)
The Council of Trent is hardly less piti
less. "The law of baptism," says its Cate
chism, "is prescribed by our Lord to all, in
so much that they, unless they be regener.
ated unto God through the grace of baptism,
whether their parents be Christian or infidel,
are born to eternal misery and perdition."
The Middle Ages provided a limbus infan-
tium for uubaptized infants, and doleful
enough are the descriptions and pictures that
are given of it (cf. Wall). Theologians,
however, have shrunk from these extremes,
and, following Aquinas, have succeeded by
ingenious refinements in limiting the punish
ment of unbaptized infants to "pain of loss"
(excluding "pain of sense"), and even in
converting the " eternal misery and perdition "
of the Council of Trent into a place of the
highest " natural " happiness (cf. Perrone).
Thus, by a wonderful dialectic, the Church of
Rome has come round to very much the same
doctrine of the future of infants as it con
demned in Pelagius. [J. 0.]
INFANT COMMUNION.— When the practice
of infant baptism had become established in
the early Church (see INFANT BAPTISM), there
grew up in its train the custom of giving the
communion to newly baptized infants — a cus
tom which continued in the Western Church till
about the year 1000, and which still prevails in
the Greek and other Eastern Churches. The
custom had its origin in the close connection
of the two sacraments, regarded as equally
essential to salvation. The main facts on the
subject are the following (cf. Bingham, book
xii., ch. i. ; Wall, Infant Baptism, ii., ch. ix. ;
Daille, Use of Fathers, book ii. ch. iv. and vi. ;
Church Histories and Dictionaries). The
earliest to mention infant communion is
Cyprian (A.D. 250). In his treatise on The
Lapsed this Father tells a curious story of the
effects of the Eucharist on a child to whom
bread mixed with wine had been given in
presence of an idol (ch. xxv.). The practice,
however, was apparently then of recent origin ;
at least, it is not referred to by Tertullian, who
would most naturally have mentioned it when
discussing infant baptism. Tertullian, on the
other hand, refers to the early custom of

giving the baptized person a mixture of milk
and honey. In Jerome (A.D. 400), this seems
changed in the Churches of the West to a
custom " of giving to those that are regenerated
in Christ, wine and milk " (in Wall). By this
time the usage was established of confirming
infants after baptism with imposition of hands
and chrism, and admitting them to partake of
the Eucharist (so Gennadius, patriarch of Con
stantinople, fifth century ; see Bingham). Up
to the fifth century nothing is heard of the
necessity of infant communion ; then Innocent I.
(A.D. 417) and Augustine (A.D. 400) go so far
as to declare that without baptism and the
sacrament of the Lord's body, infants cannot
be saved (see passages in Wall). These writers
found in the saying of Jesus in St. John vi. 53,
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."
" If then," says Augustine, " as so many divine
testimonies do agree, neither salvation nor
eternal life is to be hoped for by any without
baptism and the body and blood of our Lord,
it is in vain promised to infants without them."
This continued to be the view of the Western
Church for many centuries. Alcuin, e.g., who
wrote in the time of Charlemagne, says :
"After an infant is baptized, he is to be
clothed, and brought to the bishop, if he be
present, who is to confirm him, and give him
the communion ; and if the bishop be not
present, the presbyter shall communicate him :>
(in Bingham). About A.D. 1000, a change is
perceptible. The same causes which led to
the withholding of the cup from the laity
operated to bring about the withdrawal of the
Eucharist from the infant. We are informed
by Hugo St. Victor (A.D. 1000) that before his
time they gave to infants only the wine, and
that by the priest's dipping his finger in the
chalice, and giving it to the child to suck ;
afterwards this also was left off, and they gave
to the infant some drops of wine not conse
crated. This Hugo deprecates. Nevertheless,
as late as the thirteenth century the com
munion was given to children in danger of
death. Finally, the Council of Trent (1560)
decreed that the communion "is not at all
necessary for them (infants), since, being re
generated by the laver of baptism, and in
corporated into Christ, they cannot in that
age lose the grace of being children of God,
which they have now obtained." It adds :
" If any one shall say, that partaking of the
Eucharist is necessary for infants before they
come to years of discretion, let him be ana
thema." The Council had probably forgotten
that Pope Innocent I. had expressly declared
in a letter to the Council of Mileve, that if
infants do not eat of the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink His blood, they have no life in

INHIBITION

[ 304 ]

INQUISITION, THE

them (Wall). Here is a problem for the In-
fallibilists. Infant communion has thus long
been discontinued in the Latin Church, but it
is still maintained in the Greek Church, and
in other Churches in the East (Armenians,
Maronites, Coptic Church, &c.). In the Greek
Church the usual mode of administration is to
mix the bread with the wine, and place a drop
or two of the mixture on the child's lips after
baptism. He receives no more till he has
come to years of discretion. In the Roman
Church children usually take their first com
munion between eleven and twelve years of
age. [J. O.]

INHIBITION is the command of a bishop or
judge of an Ecclesiastical Court prohibiting
a clergyman from doing any duty. Under
sec. 14 of the Church Discipline Act, a bishop
may inhibit a clergyman charged thereunder if
it appears to him his continuing doing duty
would cause scandal. Under the Public Wor
ship Regulation Act, obedience to the court is
enforced by inhibition, which, if it continues
in force for three years, voids the benefice.
Obedience to such an order can be enforced by
imprisonment for contempt. (See Dale's Case,
6 Q. B. D. 376.) By the Benefices Act, 1898,
the bishop is also given the power of inhibiting
an incumbent if he finds him negligent in the
discharge of his duties, subject to the incum
bent's power of appeal to a court composed of
the archbishop of the province and a judge of
the High Court. [E. B. W.]

INJUNCTIONS are administrative direc
tions issued by lawful authority for the
guidance of clergy and laity, and to enforce
and explain the existing law, in Church matters.
They have been promulgated by royal as well
as episcopal authority. Thus Henry VIII.
issued Injunctions in 1536 and 1538, and Queen
Mary in 1554. But the most important are
those of Edward VI. (1547) and Queen Elizabeth
(1559). It is important to notice that Edward's
Injunctions of 1547 were modified in 1549, to
adapt them to the " First Prayer Book,"
which was enacted by Parliament in that
year, and which changed the creed and form
of worship of the Church of England. Thus,
under the Injunctions of 1547, transubstanti-
ation was taught, the mass was still the law
of the land, and " altar lights " were still used,
and these Injunctions were required to be
published quarterly in church. But in 1549
the Visitation Articles provide for the change
in the law as follows : " That all parsons,
vicars, and curates omit in the reading of the
Injunctions all such as make mention of the
Popish mass, of chantries, of candles upon the
altars, or any other such-like Thing " (see
Tomlinson, Historical Grounds of the Lambeth
Judgment, pp. 79,i82; citing Burnet, Cardwell,

Collier, and Gasquet, First Prayer Boole of
Edward VI., p. 114). As Mr. Tomlinson says, it
is clear that the bishops " would not have
dared publicly to forbid the reading and
enforcement of royal Injunctions, and this too
in London itself, unless they had the law at
their backs. In fact, we know that the sheriff,
Sir John Gates, was despatched by the
Government to enforce Ridley's Injunctions "
of May 1550, which were " That there should
be no reading of such Injunctions as extolleth
and setteth forth the Popish mass, candles,
&c."

Many bishops have issued Injunctions as
well as Visitation Articles. Of these Arch
bishop Grindal's Injunctions to the clergy and
laity of the Province of York, 1571, are very
instructive (Grindal's Jtemains, p. 122. Parker
Soc.) See ADVERTISEMENTS. [B. W.]

INQUISITION, THE.— This iniquitous insti
tution, miscalled the "Holy Office," presents
the Roman system under perhaps the most
hateful of all its aspects. Many histories of
the Inquisition have been written (reference
may be made to those of Limborch, 1692 ;
Baker, 1736 ; Llorente, abridged Eng. trans.,
1826 ; Rule, 2 vols., 1874 ; Lea, 3 vols., 1888),
and abundant materials have been collected
illustrative of its working, from its origin in
the thirteenth century to its final overthrow
in the nineteenth. With these aids the dis
passionate inquirer will have little difficulty
in disposing of the figment that the Papacy
had no responsibility for its enormities — that
it was a "state-engine," &c. How fallacious
this statement is, even in regard to Spain, will
be shown below. The Inquisition, in truth,
sprang out of the conditions created by the
Papacy ; it but reduced to precise system the
principles and practices of persecution already
sanctioned and enforced by the Papacy ; in
France, Spain, Italy, and elsewhere it was
the direct creation of the Papacy ; its officials
were monks and other persons in the service
of the Papacy ; the strongest means were
taken to effect its introduction into countries
that had not previously received it ; its pro
ceedings were applauded and blessed by the
Papacy ; if in certain cases a protest was made
against excesses, this generally had its origin
in some other motive than humanity, and im
posed no effective check ; its extremest cruelty
in burning heretics at the stake, or in the
Autos-da-Fe (Acts of Faith), was never repro
bated, but was called for, and made compulsory
on the secular powers ; the canonists and
doctors of the Papacy defended its methods,
including the torture, &c. No doubt the In
quisition has varied in character and in the
degree of its severities in different countries
and ages, and there have been inquisitors in

INQUISITION, THE

[ 305 ]

INQUISITION, THE

whom some spark of humanity lingered. But
the difference has been only in degree. In
dividual sentiment could not change the
essential nature and procedure of a long-
established institution. In all ages, and under
all its forms, the Inquisition must be pro
nounced a monstrosity of wickedness.

The origin of the Inquisition is usually, and
not improperly, connected with the name of
Dominic (1216), but the institution was really
the outgrowth of previous conditions, and only
gradually assumed a settled form. This was
the "ancient" or mediaeval Inquisition; the
" modern " may be said to begin with the re
organisation of the Spanish Inquisition under
Ferdinand and Isabella (1481), and with the
Roman Congregation of Cardinals of the Holy
Inquisition (Paul III., 1542 ; remodelled by
Sixtus V. forty years later). A few words may
be said on both.

Punishments for heresy, or for what was
regarded as such, date from the union of
Church and Empire under Constantine. There
was, however, for long, horror at the infliction
of the death penalty. The burning of heretics
does not appear till about the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. It was first made a law of
the Empire in 1238. So long as heretics were
few, and the Church and the secular powers
were in accord, there was little difficulty in
having the laws against heresy (imprisonment,
confiscation, banishment, &c.) enforced. It
was different in the twelfth century, when
Europe was literally honeycombed with here
tical sects, or sects reputed to be heretical
(Cathari, Waldenses, largely an effect of the
ignorance, sloth, and scandalous lives of the
clergy), and when the temporal powers, often
in conflict with the Church, could not be
depended on to act with the necessary prompti
tude and severity. The writers in Addis and
Arnold's Catholic Dictionary (article " Inquisi
tion ") put this with admirable ingenuousness.
"The Church," they say, "was as clear as
ever upon the necessity of repressing heretics,
but the weapon — secular sovereignty — which
she had hitherto employed for the purpose,
seemed to be breaking in her hands. The
time was come when she was to forge a weapon
of her own ; to establish a tribunal, the in-
corruptness and fidelity of which she could
trust ; which, in the task of detecting and
punishing those who misled their brethren,
should employ all the minor forms of penal
repression (what these " minor" forms are will
be seen below ; the article does not mention
torture), while still remitting to the secular
arm the case of obstinate and incorrigible
offenders." Even the Bishops' Courts proved
utterly inadequate to cope with the general
revolt against Church authority. " It became

evident that so great a work as the extirpation
of heresy could never be done effectually, even
by the most willing servants, unless there
were some one administrative power, having
oversight of all. ... It was found that in
the numberless imprisonments, trials, and exe
cutions now occurring, there was more than
enough work provided for a distinct ecclesias
tical department " (Rule I. p. 28). Hence
arose the Inquisition.

The Inquisition may be described generally
as a secret, irresponsible tribunal, armed with
practically absolute powers for the detection,
suppression, and punishment of heresy, and
seeking the accomplishment of its ends by
the most refined and ingenious applications
of cruelty the mind of man has yet proved
capable of devising. Preludes to its establish
ment are found in the acts of various Councils
(Tours, 1163 ; the Third Lateran, 1179 ; Verona
1184; the Fourth Lateran, 1215; Toulouse,
1229), laying on bishops the duty of diligently
searching out heretics, and latterly of associ
ating with themselves three or four men of
good character, or, if they pleased, the whole
neighbourhood, to aid them in discovering
heretics, and denouncing them to the secular
powers. The severest penalties were imposed
for failure in this duty. The secular powers,
in turn, were " to be moved and induced, and if
need be, compelled by ecclesiastical censures "
to second the labours of the bishops, and root
out heretics from the land. Innocent III.,
unwearied in his zeal against heretics, took a
further step in sending two emissaries, Rainer
and Guy, into France and Spain, with un
limited jurisdiction as inquisitors (1198). The
terrible Albigensian crusades followed from
1208. Dominic, who had been busy among
the heretics in France, obtained permission to
found his order of preaching friars in 1216,
directly with the view of combating heresy.
For its zeal in this work the new order earned
the name Domini Canes — the hounds of the
Lord. Dominic enlarged his order by a body
of married men whom he called "the militia
of Christ " ; these were sworn to use the sword
when required against heretics (germ of the
"familiars" of the Inquisition). In 1224 the
Emperor Frederick II. speaks of the Domini
cans as "Inquisitors whom the Apostolic See
had appointed in any part of the empire,"
and takes them under his special protection.
A series of papal bulls and Acts confirmed
this character; thus Gregory IX., 1233, and
in 1248, Innocent IV., established a special
tribunal, the chief direction of which was
vested in the Dominicans. The system thus
inaugurated was speedily extended into the
various countries (France, Spain, Portugal,
Italy; in 1255, e.g., Alexander IV. constituted

U

INQUISITION, THE

[ 306 ]

INQUISITION, THE

the Provincial of the Dominicans, and the
Guardian of the Franciscans in Paris In
quisitors - General for all the kingdom of
France), and the persecution and burning of
heretics went on apace. l>y the beginning of
the fourteenth century we find regular tribunals
in full action administered by three concurrent
authorities, the inquisitors, the bishops, and
the civil magistrates. Naturally there was
considerable difficulty in adjusting the respec
tive jurisdictions of bishops and inquisitors,
but the latter gathered power more and more
into their own hands. The attempt to intro
duce the Inquisition into Germany was only
partially successful.

The earliest of all the inquisitional tribunals
established was that of Toulouse. There is
fortunately preserved a book of this Inquisi
tion (reprinted by Limborch), giving its "sen
tences " at fourteen " Sermons " or Autos-da-Fe",
from 1308 to 1322. Besides burnings, these
reveal large groups doomed to the punishment
of being literally " immured " in cells built
into the wall of the "House of Inquisition"
for many years, or for life. The penalty of
perpetual immuring is meted out in 1312 as
an act of grace (!) to eighty-seven persons
who had received absolution. Three men, one
of them aged, and three women, two of them
widows, are doomed, because of their weightier
offences, to be " perpetually shut up in closer
wall and straiter place, in fetters and chains."
Another valuable document, as throwing light
on the proceedings of the early Inquisition,
is the famous Directory of Inquisitors of
Nicholas Eymeric, inquisitor of Aragon, in
Spain (1357). His book remained the funda
mental code of the procedure of this inquisi
tion to the last. The nature of the proceedings
based on it is described below.

The Inquisition, owing to the opposition of
the people, made but slow progress in Spain,
and seems almost to have fallen into desuetude,
when it was revived, and erected into a master-
engine of oppression in the reigns of Ferdinand
and Isabella. By a bull in 1232 Gregory IX.
had appointed Dominican friars inquisitors
in Aragon, and sought to set up the tribunal
in Navarre, Castile, and Portugal as well. In
the fifteenth century the special objects of per
secution were the nominally converted Jews,
whose wealth held out a strong inducement to
confiscation. From 1477 an agitation was set
on foot by the Dominicans and heads of clergy
for the creation of one undivided Court of
Inquisition on the Sicilian model. The king
and queen at length agreed, and, much against
the wishes of the people, the Supreme Council
of the Spanish Inquisition was set up, with
four subordinate tribunals, and the relentless
Torquemada as its first Inquisitor-General

(1481 ; confirmed in this office by Innocent
VIII.). Then the reign of terror commenced.
In the single year 1481 as many as 2000 persons
convicted of Judaism were burned. The next
year (1482), on pretext of these severities, the
Pope revoked the power he had given to the
king of nominating some members of the
Council ; and though, in later times, Pope
and king were again united in the administra
tion, the papal will was always predominant.
In Portugal the Inquisition on the Spanish
model was set up in 1531. It has been men
tioned how, in 1542, the Congregation of Car
dinals of the Holy Inquisition was instituted
at Rome. The Inquisition was soon put in
active and merciless operation for the up
rooting of heresy in Italy, the Netherlands,
Bohemia, India (Goa), &c.

We are now prepared to look at the mode
of working of this dreadful papal engine.
The machinery of the Inquisition consisted of
the inquisitors proper, one or more (appointed
by the Pope ; in Spain by the chief inquisitor) ;
his assistants ; assessors or counsellors, to ad
vise in law ; a fiscal ; familiars or attendants,
&c. The tribunal was secret, and not bound
to any forms of law. The crimes of which it
took cognizance embraced not only actual
heresy (i.e. deviation from Romish belief or
practice) of every shade and degree, but even
the slightest suspicion of heresy, favouring
heretics, refusing to lay information regarding
them, hindering the Holy Office in its work,
blasphemies, sorceries, witchcraft, Judaism,
infidelity, or any suspicion of these. The
people of a town or district were required, on
the visit of an inquisitor, to come voluntarily
forward and lodge information against any
who were guilty or suspected of these offences,
otherwise they were themselves liable to
punishment. Any kind of testimony was ac
ceptable, and from persons of any kind of
character. " Great weight was attached to
popular report or belief, and to ascertain this
the opinion of the witness was fully received,
whether based on knowledge or prejudice,
hearsay evidence, vague rumours, general im
pressions, or idle gossip " (Lea). Two witnesses
were enough to condemn a man ; one might
suffice in case of need. The testimony of one
witness (a "semi-proof") was at least sufficient
to base a suspicion of heresy warranting the
application of torture. Unwilling witnesses
might themselves be tortured. But the in
quisitor could proceed on common report or
suspicion of his own without any regular
witness. The victim was not allowed to know
the names of his accusers, or even at first the
nature of the charge against him. He was
bound to answer all interrogatories, was allowed
no means for his defence (the provision for

INQUISITION, THE

[ 307 ]

INQUISITION, THE

allowing him an "advocate " was a dead letter ;
cf. Lea, i. p. 445) ; was imprisoned without
sentence so long as his judges pleased ; was
plied with every ingenious artifice to make
him incriminate himself, could be forced by
torture to confess, or to incriminate others. If,
after all means had been tried, nothing could
be proved against him, he might be, but
rarely was, acquitted ; if the inquisitor be
lieved him guilty, his persistent assertion of
his inuocence was converted into proof of
" obstinacy " ; if he confessed, and under terror
or torture abjured his heresy, he was probably
tortured to make him confess more ; if ab
solved, the absolution carried with it in most
cases some form of life-long penance — per
petual imprisonment, easier or more strict,
sometimes, with fetters, in a small and loath
some cell, or the wearing of " the crosses," an
insignia that marked him with disgrace as a
penitent ; if obstinate, or if he relapsed, or
retracted his confession, he was "relaxed,"
i.e. handed over to the secular arm to be
burned. These sentences were generally pro
claimed at the great public spectacles of the
Autos-da-Fe. With consummate hypocrisy,
the formula for handing the victim over to
the secular authorities (bound to carry out
the Inquisition's behests) contained a prayer
to the judges so to moderate their sentence,
that no shedding of blood or peril of death
might follow.

Words fail to describe the terror and misery
which an institution of this kind, working not
by open accusation and public process of law,
but by suspicions, espionage, secret infor
mations, often prompted more by private
hatred or desire of confiscating wealth than
by real guilt in the victim, was capable of in
flicting. Unhappy was the wretch who fell
under its ban. Seized in his home at dead of
night, in the name of the " Holy Office," he
was hurried off, and without being even in
formed of the charges against him, was in
carcerated in a dungeon, where, waited on in
absolute silence by masked attendants, he was
kept till the inquisitors were ready to deal
with him. When he was brought forward, it
was to find himself entangled in a net of subtle
interrogations in which he was almost bound
at some point to trip. Threats of torture, if
confession was not prompt and adequate, were
speedily followed by torture itself. Up to the
thirteenth century torture was disallowed in
ecclesiastical procedure (cf. Lea, i. p. 421). It
began to be employed in the first half of that
century, and in 1252 Innocent IV. authorised its
employment for the discovery of heresy. But
it was the Inquisition that raised it to the per
fection of an art. The tortures it applied were
such as to appal the stoutest heart. There

was the rack, on which the limbs of the victim
were stretched asunder till they were torn from
their sockets, or cords fastened round the
lirnbs were tightened till they cut into the bone.
There was the favourite torture of the pulley
(squassation), in which the victim's hands were
tied behind his back, and a heavy weight was
attached to his feet, and he was then hoisted up
by a cord attached to his wrists and in this
excruciatingly painful position suddenly let
drop, with the result of dislocation. There
was the torture of forcing water into the mouth
till the victim was gorged and well-nigh
choked ; of fire applied by a brazier to the
soles of the feet ; of the pendulum, swinging
above the face of the victim, and gradually
descending till it cut through his nose, &c. If
torture was suspended, it was only at a later
stage to be renewed, till what was wanted was
obtained. It passes comprehension, almost
belief, that such deeds should be done in the
name of the Saviour of the world. The com
plicity of Rome in these enormities cannot
be doubted in view of the explicit vindication
of torture in Liguori and other authorities.

It has already been stated that the ad
ministration of the Inquisition was mainly en
trusted to the Dominican Order as a reward for
their zeal in suppressing heresy, and that its
spread was rapid into European countries. It
was naturally strongest in countries where the
Papacy had most power, as Italy and Spain.
Its introduction was successfully resisted in
England. It did terrible work in Bohemia,
Poland, and the Netherlands. The havoc it
wrought in the Netherlands may be learned
from reading Motley's Rise of the Dutch Re
public. Nevertheless, even in papal countries,
its introduction was, as a rule, violently resisted
by the people, who hated and execrated it, as
well they might. In Spain, its stronghold,
Torquemada, the inquisitor, had a bodyguard
of 250 soldiers to protect him from violence.
France would not allow its establishment. Its
barbarities in the Spanish and Portuguese de
pendencies in America, the West Indies, and
India (Goa) were such as might have been
anticipated. It was not, however, till the nine
teenth century that the Inquisition had its final
downfall. The Inquisition in Spain was over
thrown by Napoleon on his capture of Madrid in
1808 ; was formally abolished in 1813 ; next year
was restored by Ferdinand VII. ; lasted from
1814 to 1820, then again fell. An independent
Tribunal of the Faith which took its place in
1823, was swept away by the Revolution in 1868.
In Rome the Inquisition was likewise abolished
on the entrance of the French troops in 1809 ;
was revived after the fall of Napoleon (new
prisons were built by Leo XII. in 1825) ; was
again overthrown after the Revolution and

INQUISITION, THE

[ 308 ] INTENTION, DOCTRINE OF

flight of the Pope in 1849 (two persons were
found in the cells, one of whom had been there
for twenty years, and numerous skeletons were
found in the vaults) ; finally vanished when the
army of Italy entered Rome in 1870.

Thus ended the institution which one of the
Popes, Paul IV., described as "the sheet-
anchor of the Papacy." We may devoutly
hope it will never be revived. [J. 0.]

Nicolas Eymeric, Grand Inquisitor for the
Kingdom of Castile (1357) and Kingdom of
Aragon in 1357, flourished under the Ponti
ficates of Innocent VI., Urban V., Gregory
XI., Urban VI., and Boniface IX., and exer
cised his functions for forty years of the
fourteenth century. He published his Manual
for Inquisitors, which became the authority
and code for all inquisitors. It was so highly
thought of that it was reprinted by Francis
Pegna, a doctor of Theology and Canon Law,
in 1578, and dedicated to the Pontiff, who
approved of it. Pegna cites a crowd of ecclesi
astical writers and Cardinal inquisitors approv
ing of the reprint; and subsequent to him,
Sousa, Salleles, Masini, Delon, Marsollier, to
Limborch, glory in or recognise Eymeric and
Pegna as the great guides for Inquisitorial
Law.

The rules it contains are the most horrible
collection which ingenious cruelty and injus
tice can suggest, and by their application it
was practically impossible that any prisoner
could — though innocent — escape punishment,
always cruel, when not capital. (1) Prisoners
were compelled to furnish evidence against
themselves. (2) Depositions against them
could be received even from those guilty of
any crimes, however horrible. (3) They are
not to be confronted with the accused — nor is
he to know who are his accusers. (4) A
chapter is devoted to various deceptions prac
tised to entrap the accused into avowals of
guilt, even to promising " forgiveness," and
then burning him because "absolute im
punity" had not been also promised. (5) An
advocate is assigned to the accused, but
selected by the inquisitor ; yet the former is
chiefly to exhort to a confession of guilt, and
not to defend an acknowledged heretic in any
way. (6) No appeals were allowed. (7) A
whole chapter on the tortures of many kinds,
and the precedure throughout, including how to
treat those who go mad through terror prior
to torture, or from its effects. Others on fines,
confiscations of goods, dowry, lands, per
petual imprisonment, and of sentences against
the dead, so as to disinherit their heirs, even
•wives and children, though quite innocent
and orthodox, so that they shall receive nothing
whatsoever. An edition of this work pub
lished at Lisbon, 1762, by Abbe Morellet, is

now before us. See also Dr. W. H. Rule's
invaluable Hist, of the Inquisition, London,
1874, vol. i. p. 81. [C. P. S.]

INSPIRATION.— The Bible which contains
the written Word of God is a divine-human
book (or library of books), as Jesus Christ is
the Living Word and a divine-human person.
As the Word (Christ) became flesh, so the
divine Word became embodied in human
speech and writing. The Bible is like other
books in many particulars, but it is unlike all
other books in being the only authoritative
embodiment of the divine revelation to man.
The inspiration of the Bible, however, is not
mechanical, but supposes a human element
which must not be ignored. That human
element, however, is not inconsistent with the
doctrine that its teachings are to be regarded
as the teachings of God. The revelations were
communicated in the Old Testament in many
parts or portions (iro\v/j.fpus), and in many
forms (modes, TroXiTjO^Trws), as stated in Heb.
i. 1, until the revelation which was perfect
and complete appeared in the teaching of
Christ as "the Prophet," and in that of the
writers of the New Testament as taught by the
Holy Spirit "the things of Christ," The fact
of inspiration is clear, the mode of inspiration
has not been revealed. The Swiss or Helvetic
Consensus Formula (1675) went too far in
teaching the literal inspiration of the Scrip
tures, and involved itself in statements con
cerning the integrity of the Old Testament
text (even as respects the vowel-points and
accents) which could not be upheld. Interesting
parallels have several times been drawn between
the doctrine of Inspiration and that of the
Person of Christ, and errors, like those made
concerning the divine-human Person of Christ,
have been also put forward concerning the
sacred Scriptures which reveal Him to man.
Theologians have been too prone to dogmatise
on the subject of inspiration, instead of care
fully noting the facts and phenomena which
are exhibited in the Book itself.

[C. H. H. W.]

INTENTION, DOCTRINE OF.— The inten
tion of the priest is in the Church of Rome
necessary for the validity of the sacraments.
The Council of Trent decreed that, " if any one
shall say that, in ministers, while they effect
and give the sacraments, the intention is not re
quired, at least of doing what the Church
does, let him be anathema" (Canons of Trent,
p. 52, Paris, 1832). According to Roman teach
ing the sacraments are Baptism, Eucharist,
Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction,
Orders, Marriage. All these, in order to be
valid, require, according to this dogma, the
intention of the officiating priest. In what a
state of uncertainty every member of the

INTERCESSION OF SAINTS [ 309 ] INTERCESSION OF SAINTS

Roman Church is continually placed ? He can
never be sure that he has properly received a
sacrament. The married cannot be sure they
are married ; the penitent cannot be sure that
they are forgiven ; those who believe that they
worship God " under the form " of a wafer, can
not be sure that they are not worshipping that
which is not God. Even the dying cannot be
sure of the priest's intention of administering
the sacrament of extreme unction, nor indeed
can any member of the Roman Communion be
sure that he or his priest are members of that
Church, or even of the Church of Christ at all,
for the required intention may have been lack
ing to the priest who administered baptism to
them.

Cases in which want of intention nullifies the
Sacrament of the Mass, are mentioned in the
Latin Misgale Romanum, section vii. : " If
any one does not intend to consecrate but to
do something in mockery. Also, if any Hosts
through the forgetfulness of the priest remain
on the altar, or any part of the wine, or any
Host is hidden, when he intends to consecrate
only those that he sees. Also, if any one has
before him eleven Hosts, and intends to con
secrate only ten, not determining what ten
he intends — in these cases he does not con
secrate, because intention is required."

The dogma of intention invalidates the
"Apostolic succession," which the Roman
Church considers one of the necessary marks
of the true Church. For it is impossible to
prove that there was the necessary " inten
tion " in every case of priests baptizing or of
bishops ordaining. Many of them were con
fessedly heretics and unbelievers, and a single
lapse of intention would invalidate the whole
succession. According to this doctrine, Rome
cannot, upon her own showing, be the one
true Church which she professes to be, and
the Pope himself cannot be sure of the infalli
bility which he claims. Even Cardinal Bellar-
mine allowed, " No one can be certain with
the certainty of faith, that he has a true
sacrament, since the sacrament is not formed
without the intention of the minister, and no
one can see the intention of another" (torn.
i. p. 488, Prag. 1721). [M. E. W. J.]

INTERCESSION OF SAINTS.— The sup
posed prayers of departed souls for the Church
on earth.

We know nothing of the state of the soul
between death and the Day of Judgment. We
may entertain guesses and support them by a
word or two in Scripture, or a sentence or two
in early Christian writings, but we have no
distinct revelation, and therefore no real know
ledge. The most common belief entertained
by the early Church, is that the souls of the
faithful rest in peace and happiness in a place

(if we can speak of places in such a connection)
called Paradise, and that they will abide there
until the last day, when they will be reunited
with their spiritualised bodies, and advanced
from a comparative to a superlative state of
bliss in heaven. What is the occupation
of these disembodied souls in this interval?
We know not, and we need not know. Possibly
they are no more conscious than we are in
sleep. Possibly they are able to communicate
with each other, and are subject to hopes and
fears. We do not know. But there is a
possibility — no more — that they still interest
themselves in the Church Militant, to which
they belonged, and they may still have aspira
tions for its welfare.

But this can only be understood with two
limitations. First, their aspirations can only
be for the general good of the Church below,
not for any particular persons in it, except, it
may be, those whom they have themselves
known on earth. Secondly, their aspirations
must be simply the outcome of their charity,
which desires the blessing of God on the society
or persons that they love, not the presentation
of their own merits as a plea to God on behalf
of others.

1. A general aspiration would be no more
than a loving desire that God would bless the
Church Militant and sanctify it. If this be
called intercession, we have no knowledge that
the saints in Paradise do not exercise it, though
we have equally no knowledge that they do.
But certainly they cannot intercede for par
ticular persons as the generations pass, because
they have not knowledge of any, except, it
may be, by memory, of those with whom they
have lived. They can have no knowledge of
events subsequent to their own death unless
they possess ubiquity, and as this is proper to
God alone, Thomas Aquinas (taking a hint from
a rhetorical flourish of Gregory I.) invented a
hypothesis that they looked at God, and look
ing at Him, saw everything else in heaven and
earth and under the earth in what was called
the Glass or Mirror of the Trinity. But, in the
first place, according to the theory held till the
Council of Florence in the fifteenth century,
the souls of the faithful departed (except per
haps the martyrs) are not in the immediate
presence of God until after the Judgment Day ;
and next, if they were, God is not a Reflecting
Glass, nor by looking at a Being who knows
everything, does a finite creature come to know
everything himself. Such a hypothesis as this
gives up argument, and trusts to a mystical
fanaticism.

2. The modern Roman view of the Interces
sion of the saints departed, is, that in their
prayers they offer their merits to God to make
Him favourable to those who have not suffi-

INTERDICT

[ 310 ]

INTERDICT

cient merits or satisfactions of their own to
present, or have not piety of their own suffi
cient to make God listen to them. In this
there is contained an astonishing amount of
false teaching in small compass. That men
can lay up a store of merit ; that they can
offer their merits as a ground of acceptance
for themselves ; that whether alive or dead
they have merits which can make other people,
as well as themselves, acceptable ; that God is
more willing to listen to dead people pleading
their merits than to the penitent prayer of
those whom Christ has invited to come unto
Him in their distresses for free forgiveness
through His merits — these are some of the
perversions of truth which belong to this form
of the tenet of the intercession of saints.

In a word, intercession of the departed, if it
be general, that is, for the whole Church Mili
tant (as we intercede for the Church Expec
tant when we say, Thy Kingdom come), and if
it be merely supplicatory, is possibly true. We
neither affirm nor deny it. But if it be parti
cular, that is, for individuals (other than those
known in life), and if it be meritorious, that is,
offered on the score of the merits of the inter-
ceders, it is impossible to be believed and un-
evangelical, and as such is repudiated by us.
(See Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesice Anylicance,
ch. Iv. et seq.) [F. M.]

INTERDICT (Lat. Interdictio Divinorum offi-
ciorum) is an ecclesiastical sentence for
bidding a priest to exercise his holy office, or
depriving a certain place or district of the
exercise of public worship and the adminis
tration of the sacraments. Sometimes, also,
a personal excommunication is termed an
interdict.

Interdicts and excommunications were not
unknown to the pagans, but it was reserved
for the Roman Catholic Church to make
the greatest use of them. In the early Church
it would seem to have been quite contrary to
usage to punish the innocent with the guilty,
and to lay whole churches and nations under
interdict for the faults of a single criminal.
So much so "that St. Austin was amazed when
he heard of a young rash African bishop who
anathematised " not only the offender, but his
whole family (Bingham, 5, 549). It was a
noted saying in those days that "if any one
excommunicates another unjustly, he does not
condemn him, but himself " (p. 554).

Originally intended to bring people back to
the path of duty, the Popes and bishops of the
Middle Ages did not hesitate to use interdicts
for mere temporal matters, and often for their
personal interest. The most ancient instances
of interdict in France go back to the sixth
century, when the Bishop of Bayeux is said
to have interdicted all the churches of Rouen

until the murderers of the archbishop of that
city should be discovered. Another instance
in 870, that of the Bishop of Laon, is recorded.
In 998 Pope Gregory V. placed the kingdom
of France under an interdict to compel King
Robert to put away his wife Bertha.

In the eleventh century the kingdom of
Poland was placed under an interdict by
Gregory VII. on account of the murder of
Stanislaus, the "ambitious and perfidious"
Bishop of Cracow, by King Boleslaus, and, in
consequence, the Popes for 200 years refused
to acknowledge the right of the monarchs of
Poland to the title of king. In the twelfth
century Adrian IV. placed Rome itself under
an interdict, in order to drive away Arnaldo
de Brescia and his followers. In 1181, the
legates of Alexander III. placed the diocese
of St. Andrews in Scotland under an interdict
(Burton, 2. 6).

In the thirteenth century the kings of
Portugal were continually at variance with the
Church, and the kingdom was more than once
put under an interdict. France was again
placed under an interdict by Innocent III. in
1200, when for more than eight months the
churches were closed, no masses said, no marri
ages celebrated, no dead buried with religious
ceremony ; in consequence of which the king
had to give in to the Pope.

In 1208 the same Pope placed King John
and the kingdom of England under an interdict
for not receiving Stephen Langton as Arch
bishop of Canterbury, and for more than five
years the nation was deprived (as far as the
Pope could effect it) of all the public offices of
religion. The king ultimately gave way and
submitted to the Pope's election of Stephen ;
and obtained a relaxation of the interdict when
he had paid 40,000 marks to the Church. The
interdict had not snch an influence on affairs
as might be supposed, for John conducted a
successful expedition against Scotland during
this period. The bishops of Durham, Win
chester, and Norwich sided with the king, and
continued to officiate. But many of the clergy
implicitly obeyed the papal orders.1

xDr. J. Dunbar Ingram in England and Rome-'
A History of the Relations between the Papacy and
the English State and Church from the Northern
Conquest to the Revolution 0/1688 (Longmans, 1894),
says : " Notwithstanding his excommunication,
John observed his wonted religious observances,
and distributed his accustomed charities and
doles to convents in distress, and to the poor ;
nor is there any mention of those gifts from an
unholy hand being refused. He certainly met
with but little opposition from the bishops and
clergy. He held a convention of all the prelates
of England, says the chronicler, in 1210, to which

INTERSTICES

[ 311 ] INVOCATION OF SAINTS

Interdict was sometimes accompanied by
lugubrious ceremonies — statues were veiled,
and bells taken down. But baptism of children
and penance for the dying were always ex-
cepted ; the regular clergy usually preserved
the right to say their office with closed doors
and without bell-ringing,'and in some cases the
restrictions were removed at Christmas and on
other great festivals. But the use which the
Popes made of interdict brought it into dis
credit. Thus, in 1303, Boniface VIII. placed
France under interdict without avail, and in
1407 a sentence of Benedict's was publicly
torn up, and his ambassador and commis
sioner were condemned to make an apology,
dressed in white, carrying the arms of the
Pope reversed, and wearing paper mitres.
In 1512 Julius II. again placed an interdict on
France, and in 1606 Paul V. on Venice. But
in the latter case the senate forbade the bull
to be published, and ordered the clergy to
continue their duties as usual. The Jesuits
and other monastic orders pleaded their duty to
the Pope, and asked leave to depart, which
was granted. Ultimately, in the seventeenth
century, interdicts were abandoned. The
Roman Catholic Church now only uses them
against priests, and the sentence is pronounced
by the bishop. It suspends them from admin
istering sacraments and celebrating church
services (Larousse, Diet. Univ., Penny Cyc.)

[B. W.]

INTERSTICES.— A technical term in the
Roman Church for the intervals required be-

abbots, priors, abbesses, templars, hospitallers,
&c., repaired. The Cistercian monks throughout
the country continued to celebrate divine service
notwithstanding the interdict. Elections to
bishoprics and the consecration of the elect took
place as usual. It is manifest that if the inter
dict had been observed, no bishop could have
been elected or consecrated. Five bishops left
the country, but when three of these five by com
mand of the Pope ordered the other prelates of
the kingdom to publish the excommunication
against the king, the order was not attended to.
The hostility of the Papacy had in no way weak
ened John's prestige, or diminished his resources,
for he collected on Barham Downs the noblest
army which had been seen in England since the
Norman invasion. His fleet, too, was far more
powerful than that of France, from which an
attack was feared, and which he destroyed.
But unhappily, John irritated his own subjects,
and his cruelty and vices drove his barons into a
conspiracy against him. To save himself from
domestic danger, John suddenly altered his policy,
contracted a shameless alliance with the Papacy,
and betrayed the independence of the English
Church (p. 72)."

tween the reception of the various Orders of
the Church. The Church of England pre
scribes (as a rule) a year as the period of a
deacon's service before he receives the order
of the priesthood. See rubric at the end of
"The Ordering of Deacons."

INTONING-.— See Music IN RELATION TO
WORSHIP.

INTROIT.— Literally "entrance." This name
is given by the Church of Rome to the anthem
and psalm recited by the priest on ascending
the "altar" at the beginning of Mass. Both
the term and practice have been adopted by
Ritualists.

INVENTION OF THE CROSS, or the dis
covery of the Original Cross on which Christ
hung. See under CROSS.

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.— Prayer to good
men and women departed this life.

At the foundation of all religions lies the
axiom that worship must be paid to God and
to God alone. But this conception becomes
blurred in almost all religions in turn, and so
there grow up Polytheism and saint worship.
There are two main causes for this declension
from the original religious idea : (1) the desire
to do honour after death to those round whom
a religious awe had grown up in their lives
either for their piety or their superstition ;
(2) a disposition on the part of the human
mind to sink down from the heights of the
adoration demanded by the grandeur of the
Most Highest to the lower level of devotion
to one like ourselves, whom we can treat with
a greater familiarity than Almighty God.
The last of these causes is probably the most
efficient in inducing men to acquiesce in saint
worship when established, but it is the first,
which generally leads the way to the deifica
tion, or semi-deification of a man or woman,
which is its immediate parent.

When a great and good man dies, his
followers regard him with even greater re
verence than when he was alive. One of the
first steps is to provide a panegyric to be
spoken over his grave. The panegyrist re
counts the famous deeds of the deceased, and
very naturally, in the course of his oration,
apostrophises the dead, not with the least
idea of addressing him or expecting to be
heard by him, but as a rhetorical means of
stirring the feelings of his audience. After
wards, when the strong and warm feeling of
affection for the lost has passed away, the
words of the panegyrist are caught up and
claimed as an invocation of the dead, and
therefore a justification of the practice. One
of the most touching of these apostrophes
is addressed to Agricola by Tacitus in re
counting his death : " If there be any place
for the souls of the pious ; if, as wise men tell

INVOCATION OF SAINTS

[ 312]

IRISH CHURCH

us, great souls are not extinguished with the
body ; mayest thou rest in peace, and summon
us thy household from weak longings and
womanish laments to the contemplation of
thy virtues, over which there is no room for
wailing and beating the breast ; let it be by
our admiration, and, if our nature admits it,
by striving after thy likeness, that we honour
thee, rather than by our ephemeral praises."
These are the words of the student at his
desk ; when similar apostrophes were made
by the orator in the excitement lent by a
sympathetic crowd of hearers and the presence
of the dead body, they took the form of a
much more personal address. But whether
the speaker were heathen or Christian, there
was no thought of the dead listening to his
words, but of the audience being stirred by
them as he was stirred himself. This is the
account to be given of some words of St.
Basil in his sermon on the Forty Martyrs, and
of a few other fairly early writers, which are
improperly appealed to as justifying invocation
of the dead. With the increasing superstition
of the sixth and seventh centuries, addresses
made to senseless things (as in the Song of
the Three Children) degenerated into invoca
tions and prayers; but it was not till 787 that
in the Pseudo-Council of Nicasa II. the practice
was sanctioned, together with image worship,
in the East ; nor in the West till the Council
of Trent in the sixteenth century. Now the
worship of St. Mary has become so distinguish
ing a mark of the unreformed Church that
the natives of Tinnevelly gave the name of the
Mother-worshippers to the Roman Catholic
missionaries, while Protestants were called
Christians.

The attempt to justify invocation by dis
tinguishing the kinds of worship allowed to
God and to creatures fails, not only because
such a distinction can be made only by theo
logians, not by the people, but also because
that which is regarded as the lowest form of
adoration (irpoaK'uvricn.s) is expressly forbidden
in Holy Writ to be addressed to any but God
(Acts x. 26 ; Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9). And be
sides, any kind of worship of the departed
implies their omniscience or ubiquity, which
cannot be granted.

The wrong done to Christ by saint worship
is thus expressed by Bishop Andre wes : " Why
do we not go straight to Him without a go-
between, and ask of Him, but turn off and
ask of them to ask? Are there any saintly
spirits with whom we can converse with
greater safety and joy than our Jesus? Is
access to them easier? Have they more in
dulgent moments for speaking ? Do the saints
know more of our needs ? Are their bowels of
mercy more enlarged than Christ's? Should

our confidence be greater with them ? Should
any grace of theirs be more precious to us
than Christ's promise ? Should any nearness
to them be dearer to us than Christ's bidding
' Come to Me ' ? When you thus invoke the
saints, you give them Christ's place ; if you
go to them, you put them in the place of
Christ, for them to refresh you instead of Him.
You take them as mediators with God, to
obtain His pardon for you by their prayers.
Paul and John never made themselves such,
and had they done so, faithful Christians
would not have endured it" (Resp.ad Bellarm.
p. 242). See also Beveridge on the XXXIX.
Articles, p. 420. [F. M-]

IRISH CHURCH.— Under this heading we
have to consider briefly: (1) The Ancient
Celtic Church of Ireland ; (2) the Church of
Ireland as subject to the Roman See ; (3) the
Church of Ireland at the Reformation ; (4) the
Church of Ireland before the Act of Dises
tablishment ; (5) the Disestablished Church,
which, as identical with the Church before the
Act of Disestablishment, retains its former title.
1. The Celtic Church.— St. Patrick is com
monly accredited with having been "the
Apostle of Ireland," but there were Christians
in Ireland before Patrick began his evangel
istic labours. His own statement in his Con
fession (which contains his autobiography),
that he went "even to those distant parts
beyond which there were no inhabitants, and
where no one had ever come to baptize, or
ordain clergymen, or confirm the people," in
dicates that he was not the earliest Christian
labourer in this field. The ancient chronicle
of Prosper of Aquitaine, who lived in the first
half of the fifth century, and was the friend
of Pope Celestine, speaks of Palladius (who
was also called Patrick, but is not to be identi
fied with the great missionary of Ireland) as
having been consecrated by the Pope and
"sent to the Scots believing in Christ as their
first bishop."1 By the Scots are meant the
natives of Ireland ; Ireland was called Scotia
and its people Scots up to the twelfth century,
when the name Scotia, or Scotland, was given to
North Britain. Bede and other writers always
speak of the Irish as Scots ; and the Scots
who afterwards appeared in alliance with the
Picts, were originally emigrants from Ireland.

1 Palladius, according to Prosper's Chronicle,
which gives notes of events up to 455, was
sent by Celestine "to the Scots (or Irish) be
lieving in Christ " (ad Scotos in Christum credcntes).
The language of the old chronicler was in
later narratives transformed into ad Scotos in

Christum (or in fidem Christi) convertendos — "to
the Scots to be converted into the faith of

ihrist."

IRISH CHURCH

[ 313 ]

IRISH CHURCH

The mission of Palladius was not successful.
It took place in the year A.D. 431. That
missionary carried on his labours in Wicklow
and Wexford for scarcely more than a year.
He then left the country, is said to have
•worked in Scotland, and died shortly after.
St. Patrick is generally supposed to have
entered on his work a year after Palladius in
the counties of Down and Antrim. Dr. Todd
considers that the year A.D. 442 is . the most
probable date for the commencement of his
missionary labours.

St. Patrick never claims to have converted
the whole of Ireland. He speaks of himself
as labouring among those whom he terms
"proselytes and captives," and as one who
expected to have to pour out his blood for
Christ's sake, and even possibly to be deprived
of common burial, and eaten by dogs or
wild beasts. He speaks in the end of the same
passage (at the close of the Confessio} of living
among sun-worshippers. The latter passage
is a sure indication that the inhabitants of the
country were pagans. The passage is not
alluded to by Zimmer.1 That scholar's theory
is that Palladius and Patrick are one and
the same individual. Zimmer brushes lightly
aside all the evidence brought forward by Dr.
Todd to show in his great work on St. Patrick,
Apostle of Ireland (Dublin, 1864), that there were
a large number of Patricks mentioned in this
period of Irish history (Todd, p. 306). So in
the Hymn of St. Fiacc :—

"When Patrick died he went to the other

Patrick,

And both ascended together to Jesus, son
of Mary."

The Irish tradition is that Ireland was
pagan up to A.D. 431. Palladius was sent by
Pope Celestine to convert the Irish, but shortly
afterwards died. Patrick, who had been a
slave in Ireland, succeeded to the work, and
was successful in converting the whole of
Ireland. He founded churches everywhere, and
became finally Archbishop of Armagh.

Zimmer, however, rightly maintains that the
ancient Irish Church was not a properly epis-
copally organised Church, but "a monastic
Church with no organised centre." A similar
Christian Church existed in Britain, and was
not transformed into a regular episcopal Church
for centuries. " The very nature and develop
ment of the sixth-century Irish Church,"
he affirms, "are an emphatic protest against
the legend which grew up in the following
century concerning the introduction of Christi
anity into Ireland." The Irish Church was,

1 The Celtic Church in Great Britain and Ireland.
Translated by A. Meyer, London, Nutt, 1902.

however, by no means a barbarous Church.
Whatever its defects and peculiarities, it
possessed no inconsiderable amount of learn
ing. It was characterised also by a deep
reverence for the Word of God, and curiously
enough has preserved a not inconsiderable
portion of Pelagius's commentary on the
Epistles. The Pelagian doctrines are, however,
often condemned in the Wiirzburg Glosses.2
Pelagius's opinions, moreover, seem to have
been presented in an incomplete form in the
works of St. Jerome.3 The theory of the German
Professor seems to be that the Irish Church
in the early part of the fifth century was under
the influence of Pelagius, and it was to counter
act his work in Ireland that Patrick was by
the Pope "appointed a bishop in Ireland."
Patrick freely acknowledges, in both the
Epistle to Coroticus, and in the Confessio, his
want of learning ; and that defect, together
with the fact of his foreign orders, according
to Zimmer, account for a good deal of the
want of success which characterised Patrick's
efforts.

We cannot agree with the interpretation
which Zimmer puts upon the phrase "ap
pointed bishop in Ireland." The ancient Irish
writers explain it of a consecration in
Gaul. If it be interpreted of a commission
from Rome, it is directly in opposition to the
silence on that point which prevails in all the
remains we possess of St. Patrick's writings.
Patrick unquestionably had a great esteem for
Roman practices and civilisation, and was
proud of his noble origin. In his Dicta (pre
served in the Bool: of Armagh, at the close
of the Notes by Muirchu-maccu-Machtheni),
Patrick instructs his converts to chant like
Romans, and in the Coroticus he boasts of
being himself a Roman and a freeman, and
speaks of the Roman and Gallic Christians as
superior to other Christians. Why, then, should
he not have emphasised his commission from
the grandest Christian see then in existence ?

Patrick's account of himself is completely
at variance with the legendary stories of his
mission and labours which found credence in
later times, or with the wonderful and absurd
accounts of miracles performed by him,
mentioned in the Tripartite Life and in the
collection of similar marvels made by the monk
Jocelin in the twelfth century.

2 See The Holy Scriptures in Ireland One
Thousand Years Ago : Selections from the Wiirz-
burg Glosses. Translated by Rev. Thos. Olden.
Dublin : Hodges, Figgis & Co., 1888.

3 See Pelagius in Ireland, Texte und Unter-
suchungen zur patristischen Litteratur, Von Hein-
rich Zimmer. Berlin: Weidraannsche Buchband-
lung, 1901.

IRISH CHURCH

[ 314]

IRISH CHURCH

St Patrick, in his autobiography, lays no
claim whatever to the power of working miracles.
He speaks of himself as devoid of learning,
owing to the circumstances of his early youth.
He nowhere mentions the Pope or the See of
Rome ; still less does he allude to any com
mission received therefrom. In the creed in the
Confessio there is not the slightest allusion to the
peculiar doctrines of Rome. He does not speak
of "seven sacraments, "nor of the mystery of the
mass, nor of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
He does not allude to the invocation of saints
and angels, nor does he mention the Blessed
Virgin Mary, whose cultus is now such a con
spicuous feature of the Church of Rome. He
neveralludes to a purgatory, or to the offering up
of masses for the dead. His writings abound
with quotations from the Holy Scriptures,
although they naturally allude to several of the
books generally known as the Apocrypha as
of divine authority. Patrick did not dream
of the enforced celibacy of the clergy. His
father was a deacon, his grandfather a pres
byter. So far was the Church to which he
belonged from adhering in such points to the
teaching and discipline of the modern Church
of Rome,

The Writings of St. Patrick have often been
translated into English. It may be permitted
to refer to our edition.1 His Irish Hymn is
itself a masterpiece.

Among the number of less known workers in
Ireland in the days of the Celtic Church, the
most remarkable were St. Columba, or Columb-
kille (521-597), the apostle of the Picts, whose
life is related with various fabulous incidents
by Adamnan. Columbanus, an Irish mission
ary (543-615), was the apostle of Burgundy.
Many of the usages of the Celtic Church came
from the East, and the Celtic Church long main
tained the Eastern time of keeping Easter.

There is no room here to describe the Irish
saints whose names have been handed down to
posterity, or speak of the work performed by the
missionaries sent forth from Bangor in the north
of Ireland to other lands. Traces of their
labours can be pointed out in England, in

1 The Writings of St. Patrick, the Apostle of
Ireland ; a Revised Translation with Notes, criti
cal and historical, by Rev. C. H. H. Wright, D.D.
Third edition, considerably enlarged, R.T.S.,
1897, 2s. Also the Genuine Writings of St. Patrick ;
a Revised Translation with Life, published by
R.T.S. at 3d. Also Epistles and Hymn of St.
Patrick, by Rev. T. Olden, published by S.P.C.K.
in 1894. Rev. E. J. Newell's St. Patrick : His Life
and Teaching, published by the S.P.C.K., contains
much important and interesting matter. See
also Dr. J. T. Fowler's Preface to Adamnani Vita
S. Columbae, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1894.

Germany, in France, and in Switzerland. The
mediaeval Roman writers thought meanly of
Ireland and her Church. Cardinal Baronius,
whose Annalcs Ecclcsiastici were published in
Rome in twelve volumes folio between A.D. 1588
and 1607, asserts that in the middle of the
sixth century " the Church in Ireland, which
had so far been thriving well, became over
spread with thick darkness, having made ship
wreck in consequence of not following the
bark of Peter ; " and that " all the bishops that
were in Ireland" were then "schismatics,"
and " guilty, like them, of separation from
the Church of Rome."2

2. The Mediceval Church of Ireland. — The
Danes, who first attacked the Irish coasts in
795, and from that time onward made frequent
incursions into the country, had, at the begin
ning of the eleventh century obtained fixed
settlements in Ireland, especially at Dublin,
Waterford, and Limerick. Christ's Church
Cathedral was founded by them in A.D. 1040.
In 1074 Patrick, second Bishop of Dublin,
was consecrated at Canterbury, and promised
allegiance to that see. This was a step in
advance in the destruction of the Celtic
Church. Through the Danish bishops, the
Bishop of Rome obtained a footing in Ireland.
The Pope was powerfully aided by Lanfranc
and Anselm, the two Primates of England
under the Norman kings. Gillebert, the first
bishop of the Danish city of Limerick in 1106,
presided as legate of the Pope over the Synod
of Rathbreasail about 1110 or 1118. By the
decrees of that Synod diocesan episcopacy (as
distinct from monastic) seems to have been
first introduced into the country. Bishop
Malachy, who filled successively several sees
in Ireland, including that of Armagh, and who
visited Rome, and made the acquaintance of
St. Bernard in France, was full of enthusiasm
for the Papal See. Malachy strove hard to
induce the Irish bishops to accept palls from
the Pope. Palls were distributed after his
death to the four Irish archbishops at the
Synod of Kells in 1152. Those ornaments,
supposed to be marks of distinction, were
symbols of the subjection of the Church of
Ireland to the Roman Pontiff. The Church of
Ireland thus became, by its acceptance of
papal legates and of papal dignities, an integral
part and parcel of the Roman Catholic Church.

Henry II. of England, desirous of adding
Ireland to his dominions, obtained in 1155
from Pope Adrian IV. (the only Englishman
who ever attained to the papal dignity), a Bull
empowering him to invade the island. The
Pope was anxious to extend his ecclesiastical

2 See King's Church History of Ireland, vol.
iii., pp. 932-936.

IRISH CHURCH

[ 315 ]

IRISH CHURCH

authority, and it was "in order to widen the
bounds of the Church" that Henry was per
mitted to enter Ireland, "provided always
that ecclesiastical rights be uninjured and in
violate, and the annual payment of one penny
for every house be secured for St. Peter and
the Holy Roman Church." What the Popes
then thought of the Irish Church, notwith
standing its formal subjection to their authority
a few years before, may be gathered from the
Bull of Pope Alexander III., in 1172, in con
firmation of the Bull of Adrian IV.: "We
. . . ratify and confirm the permission of the
said Pope granted you in reference to the
dominion of the Kingdom of Ireland (reserving
to Blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church
as in England, so also in Ireland, the annual
payment of one penny for every house), to the
end that the filthy practices of that land may
be abolished, and the barbarous nation which
is called by the Christian name may, through
your clemency, attain unto some decency of
manners ; and that when the Church of that
country, which has been hitherto in a dis
ordered state, shall have been reduced to
better order, that people may by your means
possess for the future the reality as well as the
name of the Christian profession." 1

Henry landed in 1171 at Waterford. The
English rule was at first submitted to by the
Irish princes without bloodshed, who received
Henry "more in the light of a protector and
patron than as their enemy." By the decrees
of the Synod of Cashel in the following year
(1172) the ritnal of the Irish Church was more
closely assimilated to that of the Church of
Rome; and though Henry II. 's first episcopal
appointment was judicious, for he appointed
an Irishman to the see of Waterford then
vacant, yet his appointment, shortly after
wards, of an Englishman to the see of Dublin
(which bishopric was afterwards regularly sup
plied on every vacancy with English bishops for
nearly 500 years), and his establishment of a
number of abbeys in the land, all filled with
inmates from England, proved that a new era
had begun, in which the English element was
to be the predominant factor. The bishops,
who had been previously subject to the various
Irish chieftains, were raised in rank above
them, and were thus by degrees brought over
to be partisans of English rule.

The impolitic attempts made to compel the
native Irish to adopt English manners and
customs, however, alienated the native chief
tains and their retainers. Externally there
was then but one Church in Ireland, but the
Celtic and English elements were not fused

1 King's History, Appendix No. xi., p.
and No. xii., p. 1053.

1046,

together. In places where English settlers
were too few to receive adequate protection
from their race, attempts were made to unite
the two races ; but, as those settlers took part
with the Irish in various insurrections against
the Government, an attempt was made to
break up that union, and to compel the Anglo-
Irish to return both to their English customs
and their English allegiance. The infamous
Statute of Kilkenny was passed in 1367. By
that Act everything Irish was denounced as
infamous ; marriage with the Irish natives
was pronounced an act of high treason ; the
use of the Irish language by English settlers
was made liable to be punished by forfeiture
of lands and imprisonment. Priests of the
Irish race were rendered ineligible to be ap
pointed to any benefice of the Church among
the English of the land. That shameful Act
was sanctioned by the bishops and Court of
Rome. The names of eight Irish bishops were
appended to the document itself, three at least
of them being Irishmen by birth. No protest
was made on the part of those bishops who had
no direct hand in the matter, for nearly all the
bishops then in Ireland had received their
appointments through papal influence.2 The
Act, anti-Irish as it was in its character, thus
received the approval of the Church of Ireland,
English influence being all-powerful among
the heads of the Church.

3. The Church of Ireland and the Refor
mation. — In the reign of Henry VIII. the
English Parliament abjured the Papal Supre
macy and accepted the supremacy of the
Crown in matters ecclesiastical. Papal Supre
macy, however, was not so readily abolished in
Ireland. George Browne having, however,
been appointed to the Archbishopric of Dublin,
the Act of Supremacy was passed by the Irish
Parliament in 1537, and the bishops and clergy,
including the Primate, who had first made a
stout resistance, conformed and took the re
quired oath of supremacy. The Irish laity,
as represented by their great chieftains,
assented to the change, and expressed their
resolve to root out "the usurped authority of
the Roman Pontiff." The Church of Ireland
thus nominally shook off the bondage of the
Church of Rome.3 In a really National Parlia
ment, the Irish nation bestowed on Henry VIII.
the title of King of Ireland in 1542.

Little change was effected during Henry
VIII.'s reign in the Church of Ireland in
matters of doctrine, but the abjuration of

2 See Todd's St. Patrick, p. 234; and King's
Church History, vol. ii. pp. 656 seqq. ; and vol. iii.
App., pp. 1139 seq.

3 See King's History, vol. ii., and Killen's
Eccl. Hist., vol. i. p. 339 and pp. 349, seqq.

IRISH CHURCH

[316]

IRISH CHURCH

the Papal Supremacy by the Church and nation
was in itself of great significance. It is of
importance to note that no schism took place
in the Church of Ireland at that time. Some
progress was made in the way of enlightening
the minds of the Anglo-Irish in the doctrines
of the Reformation, but the utter absence of
education and of a printed literature in the
native Irish language, and the want of men
able and willing to labour for the enlightenment
of the native Celts through the medium of their
own language, were the main causes which led
to the Irish remaining substantially wedded
to their old opinions in matters of faith.
They were therefore ready to join the papal
ranks when, at a later period, the Pope de
clared against the king and nation of England.

During the reign of Edward VI. several pre
lates were appointed who were supporters of
the Reformation, among whom the most noted
was Bale of Ossory. Those bishops appear to
have been consecrated by Irish prelates. The
reformed English Liturgy was introduced into
Ireland, and directions were given for its
translation into Irish. The latter instructions
were not, unfortunately, at once carried into
effect. The Primate opposed the introduction
of the English Liturgy, and though he was
ultimately set aside and a new Primate ap
pointed, yet outside of the garrison towns
little progress was made in the way of reforma
tion ; and the death of Edward VI. and the
accession of Queen Mary led to the re-establish
ment of Romanism in Ireland. During the
reign of Edward VI. an edition of the English
Prayer Book was published in Dublin in 1551,
" being the first book ever printed in Ireland." 1

Queen Mary, shortly after her accession,
deposed from their bishoprics all the Irish
bishops who had favoured the Reformation.
She commanded also that the clergy who had
been guilty of contracting marriage should be
duly punished. In place of Archbishop Browne
of Dublin, who was Protestant in his con
victions, Curwen was installed as Archbishop.
He was consecrated in England by English
bishops. To become a bishop of a national
Church, it had never then been considered
essential that a prelate should receive con
secration from the prelates of the particular
country in which he might exercise his office.
His entrance upon the duties of the see and
his recognition by the bishops of the land were
all that was essential.

We cannot here detail the acts connected
with the reconciliation of the Irish Church
with the See of Rome, nor repeat the story
how, by God's providence, Queen Mary's de
sign of persecuting the adherents of the

1 King, vol. ii., p. 747.

reformed doctrines in Ireland, as she had done
in England, was singularly frustrated.

Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne in
November 1558. The English Liturgy was
again restored in Ireland, and used in Christ's
Church Cathedral, Dublin. A pretended miracle
was got up to defend the falling mass, and
the marble image of Christ seemed to shed
drops of blood, which rolled down from under
the crown of thorns. Archbishop Curwen,
anxious to ingratiate himself with the new
Queen, ordered the image at once to be exam
ined, when a sponge of blood was discovered in
the hollow of the head of the image. The
monk who had been guilty of the trick, and
his accomplices, were duly punished for the
cheat, and were compelled for three successive
Sundays to stand on a table before the pulpit
in the Cathedral, "with their hands and legs
tied, and their crime written on their breasts." 2
They were afterwards imprisoned, and then
banished from the realm.

In 1560 the Irish Parliament restored to the
Crown its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the
authority of the Pope was again repudiated.
In the same Parliament the Irish Act of Uni
formity was passed, enjoining the use of the
English Prayer Book, and authorising the use
of the Latin Service in places where English
was not understood. This strange expedient
was adopted, because no translation of the
Prayer Book had then been made into the Irish
language.3

Bishop Mant and Mr. King, in their histories
of the Church of Ireland, have asserted that,
with the exception of two individuals, all the
prelates of the Church of Ireland at this period

2 Mant's History of Irish Church, vol. i.
p. 256 ; King, vol. ii. p. 749.

3 The Book of Common Prayer was translated
later into Irish, and published in 1608 by William
Daniel or O'Donnel, Archbishop of Tuam, who
published also the first Irish Version of the New
Testament. The translation of the Old Testament
into Irish was by Bishop Bedell, mentioned later
in this article. The Irish Prayer Book has often
been reprinted, the latest edition being that
published by S.P.C.K. in 1861, with the English
text of the larger portion on the opposite page.
In the original Irish translation the word
"priest" is throughout rendered "minister,"
and the Irish names of some of the festivals are
given. The comma is even, in the latest edition,
put in its proper place in the answers of the
Cathechism. The Eccles. Hist. Society published
in 3 vols. in 1849, a copy of the MS. book
annexed to the Irish Act of Uniformity, 17 and
18 Car. II. c. 6, together with Notes, legal and
historical, by Dr. Archibald Stephens. See
Stephens's Introduction, p. xxix.

IRISH CHUECH

[317 ]

IRISH CHURCH

outwardly conformed to the Reformation and
continued in their respective sees. Statements
contradictory to this assertion have been made
by Mr. Froude in his History of England
and by Dr. Maziere Brady,1 who afterwards
seceded to the Church of Rome. A writer
alluded to by Mr. Godkin has characterised the
assertion as "the most impudent falsehood in
all history ; " 2 and Dr. Killen, in his Ecclesi
astical History, has adopted a similar view.

But whatever evidence may be adduced
against;the statement in the form in which it is
made by Mant and King, that statement, when
examined into, is not altogether without
authority. The Loftus MS. in Marsh's Library,
Dublin, to which reference is made by Mr.
King on p. 752 and on p. 760, contains the
following statement : " 1560. This yeare was
held a Convocation of Bishops, at the Queen's
command, for establishing the Protestant re
ligion ; but William Walch, Bishop of Meath,
would not conform thereunto, but for prac
tising against it was committed to custody,
afterwards imprisoned, and at length deprived
of his bishoprick ; unto whom succeeded
Bishop Brady, who was chaplain to Archbishop
Loftus, after a vacancy of above two yeares."
Such a statement proves that if all the
bishops did not conform, yet certainly that so
many did conform as to justify the assertion
that there was no break in the historical con
tinuity of the Church. The Irish Church of
that period was not a new body, but a con
tinuation of the Church of the years preceding.
Although several of the bishops appointed by
Queen Mary were afterwards deprived of their
sees for resistance to the reformed religion,
and their places supplied by other prelates
wherever the English authority could reach —
the country being in great confusion owing to
the frequent rebellions of that period — yet it
is clear that the Irish bishops did not assume
that attitude of determined resistance to the
Reformation which they afterwards took up,
but conformed generally, no doubt, from
personal motives. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry
in the reign of James I., and afterwards Arch
bishop of Armagh, asserts that " the olc
bishops complied and held their places, anc
joined in such ecclesiastical acts (as consecra
tion) until they had made away to their
kindred all the land belonging to their sees ;'
and Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his funeia

1 Froude's History of England, vol. x. Th
Alleged Conversion of the Irish bishops to th
Reformed Religion, &c." by W. Maziere Brady
D.D., Vicar of Donoughpatrick and Rector o
Kilbroney.

2 Ireland and Her Churches, by James Godkin
London : Chapman & Hall, 1867, p. 41.

sermon over Archbishop Bramhall, says : "At
the Reformation the Popish bishops and priests
seemed to conform, and did so, that, keeping
their bishoprics, they might enrich their
kindred and dilapidate the revenues of the
Church."

The rebellions in Ireland in the reign of
Elizabeth were not indeed primarily caused by
religious differences, although Rome, for her
own ends, threw the weight of her influence into
the scale against England. Thus the Reforma
tion came to be regarded as essentially English,
and was ultiaiately rejected by the masses,
though the heads of the Church seemed for a
time willing to accede to the change.3 Dr.
Todd says: "When the Anglo-Irish Church
had accepted the Reformation, the ' mere
Irish' clergy were found practically to have
become extinct. Their episcopacy had merged
into, or become identified with, the episcopacy
which was recognised by the law. Missionary
bishops and priests, therefore, ordained abroad,
were sent into Ireland to support the interests
of Rome ; and from them is derived a third
Church, in close communion with the See
of Rome, which has now assumed the forms
and dimensions of a national, established
religion." 4

4. The Church of Ireland up to its disestablish
ment. — The accession of James I. was followed
by a period of tranquillity in Ireland. The
tranquillity did not, however, long continue.
The Act of Uniformity was enforced, and the
non-conforming papal clergy were ordered to
leave the kingdom. A pastoral from Rome
was issued stirring up the people to disloyalty
and schism. There was at this time only one
titular Rornish bishop connected with Ireland ;5
the old stock of Romish bishops who had borne
office in the reign of Queen Mary had become
extinct. That bishop was also a non-resident.
Others were added in due course, but only one
was in the country in 1613, and at the Romish

3 An important work on this subject is : The
Titular Archbishops of Ireland in the Reign of
Queen Elizabeth; an inquiry into the facts of
the Roman Succession in that period, by Rev.
H. C. Groves, D.D. Dublin. Association for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 37 Dawson St.,
1897.

4 Dr. Todd's Life of St. Patrick, p. 241. The
two other Churches were "the Church of the
English Pale, which was at first strongly sup
ported by all the power of the Court of Rome,"
and " the Church of the native Irish, which was
discountenanced and ignored by Rome as well as
by England." The latter had merged into the
former by insensible degrees.

5 King's Irish Church, vol. iii. p. 889. Dr.
Grove's Titular Archbishops of Ireland.

IRISH CHURCH

[ 318 ]

IRISH CHURCH

Synod of Drogheda held in 1614 there does
seem to have been one bishop present. Even
seven years later, according to the Romish
statements, there were only four bishops con
nected with the Church of Rome in Ireland,
and only two of them were actually resident
in the country.1 While the Church of the
Reformation in Ireland can trace a connection
in several, if not in the majority, of its sees
with the native Church of older days, the
Church of Rome in this country had lost all
connection with the past, save through the
See of Rome.

The Plantation of Ulster, as it was termed,
took place in the early part of the reign of
James I. By it considerably more than
500,000 acres of land in the north, which had
belonged to rebel chiefs, were confiscated to
the Crown, and English and Scotch settler
were introduced into the country, chiefly the
latter. "The Plantation " was, on the whole,
of great benefit to the north, but it was not
unattended with many individual cases of
hardship inflicted on the native Celts. Many
of the settlers from Scotland were persons
who had been disgusted with the tyrannical
way in which their religious opinions, when in
opposition to episcopacy, had been dealt with.
They were Presbyterian in principle and in
sympathy. Some of their ministers were ad
mitted to benefices of the Irish Church ; and
no serious attempt was made at that time to
enforce strict uniformity in public worship.
Congregations distinct from those of the
Established Church were, however, formed
in 1611, and soon came into existence in many
places in the north. Those congregations
were the means of introducing the Presbyterian
Church into this country, and of extending
Protestantism in the Province of Ulster.
Individuals holding Presbyterian opinions had
before this time occupied positions of trust,
as, for instance, Walter Travers, appointed
the second Provost of Trinity College, Dublin,
in 1594. His successor, Henry Alvey, who
was appointed Provost in 1601, is also said
to have been a Presbyterian in sentiment,
although he appears to have conformed to the
Established Church. Presbyterian congrega
tions existed in Ulster from that time onward,
although Presbyterian ecclesiastical govern
ment does not appear to have been organised
in Ireland until 1642.2

The meeting of the Convocation of the
Irish Church in 1615, and the one hundred and
four Articles of Religion then agreed to were
drawn up by Ussher, Regius Professor of

1 King, p. 903.

2 Killen's Ecclesiastical History of Ireland,
vol. ii. p. 53.

Divinity and Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Dublin, afterwards Archbishop of Armagh.
Those articles, strongly Calvinistic in tone,
were practically set aside by the canons
drawn up and passed in the Convocation
which met in 1634, by which the XXXIX.
Articles of Religion of the English Church
were approved, under the powerful influence
of Lord Wentworth, afterwards Earl of
Strafford, the well-known abettor of the High
Church party.

During the reign of Charles I. the fatal in
fluence of Archbishop Laud and the High
Church party was much felt in the Church of
Ireland. For though the Irish Church had at
that time some excellent prelates, like the
learned Archbishop Ussher and the saintly
Bedell, and no doubt others of lesser note, yet
the greater number do not seem to have been
remarkable for their zeal or piety. In spite
of all the efforts of the more liberal-minded pre
lates, earnest men were deposed from Church
benefices because of their unwillingness to
sign the canons of 1634, which were objection
able to persons holding Presbyterian opinions.
The determination of Lord Wentworth to
crush the Puritan spirit in the north, and
the persecution carried on under his directions
against those who refused to take the objec
tionable form of oath of allegiance to the king
which had been devised, defeated the very
object those acts were intended to further, and
made Presbyterianism dearer than ever to those
who, from their connection with Scotland, pre
ferred that form of Protestantism.

In the awful massacre of 1641, many
thousand Protestants, chiefly belonging to the
National Church, perished. The horrors of
that time are narrated in the first volume of
Froude's work on The English in Ireland. Dr.
Killen has pointed out that that massacre was
not brought about by massacres committed by
the Protestant in habitants or settlers injthe land .
He has shown also, as has Froude in his in
teresting work just referred to, and Reid in bis
earlier History of the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland, that the Roman Catholics who perished
in the massacre of Island magee were murdered
in retaliation for outrages committed by some
of their party, and that the victims of that
massacre did not exceed thirty in number.

Bishop Bedell, amid all the horrors of that
time, was permitted by the rebels, out of the
profound respect felt for his character, to re
main uninjured, and even to assist his fellow-
Protestants. Chastisement was inflicted on
the rebellious Irish by Oliver Cromwell, and
the Church was disestablished during the rule
of the Independents. During the Common
wealth, in 1653, only one Roman Catholic
bishop remained in Ireland, and even after

IRISH CHURCH

[ 319 ]

IRISH CHURCH

the Restoration, in 16G3, there were only two
Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland.1

At the Restoration of Charles II. and the re-
establishment of the Church, many Presby
terians and other Nonconformists conformed
to the new state of things, some actuated
by a desire for peace, others from lower
motives. Those ministers who had received
only Presbyterian ordination were not per
mitted long in that reactionary period to con
tinue in possession of Church benefices. Many
good men were thus once more turned adrift,
and the state of the Church, which was not
permitted to legislate for itself, was mournful
to contemplate. There was, however, some
light amid the darkness, and the Bible was
printed in Irish for the first time in the reign
of Charles II. During the reign of James II.
things became naturally worse. The Protes
tants were gradually disarmed, the army was
filled with Roman Catholics. The Protestant
clergy were discouraged, while the Romanist
clergy were patronised. Bishoprics in the
National Church were kept vacant, Romish
sees endowed, and a daring attempt was made
to unprotestantise the University of Dublin,
which had been founded by Queen Elizabeth
in 15(Jl as a Protestant University.

The Revolution of 1688 and the victory of
the Boyne changed the aspect of affairs. The
Protestant Church was once more restored,
but, after such troubles and vicissitudes, it is
not to be wondered at that many abuses were
found to exist in its midst. The Church had
all along been treated, in accordance with the
ideas of that day, as a mere department of the
Government. The Government itself was too
much occupied with other matters to give its
attention to a thorough Church reform, even
had it been so disposed. The Regium Donum,
which was given first to the Presbyterian
ministers in the reign of Charles II., was re
stored to them and increased in the reign of
William III. and in the reigns of the succeed
ing sovereigns. Many of the bishops of the
Established Church during that period held
High Church views, and, with some bright
exceptions, a general deadness in religious
matters prevailed, and along with it an indis
position to tolerate " dissent " in any shape
whatever. This deadness of religious life char
acterised all the Churches in the reigns of
Anne and the Georges, though bright examples
may be cited of the contrary spirit. The names
of Richardson, Atkins, and Brown may be
mentioned with honour as those of clergymen
who, in the early part of the eighteenth century,
took an active interest in the work of evange
lising the native Irish through the medium

1 See Killen, vol. ii., pp. 117-146.

of their own language. Archbishop Boulter,
Bishop Berkeley, and others may be noted
among the members of the episcopal bench
who exhibited an earnest spirit of devotion
and practical godliness. Wesley and his
followers among the Methodists, in the end of
the eighteenth and the beginning of the nine
teentb century, did much by their labours,
first inside and then outside the Church, to
awaken evangelical life among all ranks of the
national clergy. But English influence was
during the period too often used in a wrong
direction. English clergy were too frequently
thrust into the best Church livings in Ireland,
and Irish bishoprics were filled with English
men, while the earnest parochial clergy of
the land were neglected and despised. Dean
Swift's witty description of the honest clergy
men nominated to Irish bishoprics being
waylaid and murdered by highwaymen on
Hounslow Heath, who then seized on their
"letters patent," came to Ireland, and got
consecrated in their room, shows what was
thought in some quarters of many of these
who at this dark era bore spiritual rule in the
Church of Ireland.

5. The Disestablished Church. — The Irish
Church was cut adrift from the State by the
Irish Church Act of 18G9. The Disestablish
ment came into full operation in January 1871.
To avoid possible difficulties the Irish Convo
cations were summoned ; and it was agreed to
summon a Convention, which met in Dublin
on February 15, 1870, and drew up a Con
stitution for the Church — providing that there
should be a General Synod composed of three
distinct orders, the bishops, clergy, and laity,
and two Houses, that of Bishops and of Repre
sentatives. The bishops, however, ordinarily
sit and debate in the House of Representatives,
but have power, when they consider it ex
pedient, to sit and vote apart by themselves.
The House of Representatives consists of 208
clerical representatives and 416 lay repre
sentatives, elected triennially by the Diocesan
Synods in certain fixed proportions from each
diocese. The Diocesan Synods are composed
of all the clergy, incumbents or curates, in
each diocese, and of two laymen for each
clergyman, elected by the vestries of the
several parishes. The Cathedrals are repre
sented in the Diocesan Synods; and Trinity
College, Dublin returns members to the Dublin
Diocesan Synod. The bishops are elected by
the clergy and laity of each Diocesan Synod,
peculiar arrangements being made for the
Arch-diocese of Armagh. The tribunals of
the Church consist of a Diocesan Court and
an Appellate Court, called the Court of the
General Synod. Diocesan Courts are com
posed of the bishop with his chancellor (a

IRISH CHURCH

[ 320 ]

IRREGULARITY

lawyer) as assessor, a clergyman, and a layman
chosen by the Diocesan Synod. The Appellate
Court consists of three members of the House
of Bishops, with four lay judges who have held
judicial office in the Civil Courts, and are elected
by the General Synod. The Crown granted a
charter in October 1870, incorporating "the
Representative Body of this Church of Ireland,'
and the property of the Church in general is
vested in that body.

The arrangement of the temporalities of the
Church need not be sketched here. A new
body of canons has been drawn up, and the
Book of Common Prayer revised. The Preface
to that Book states the principles of the re
vision. Very slight alterations have been made
in the Services for Holy Communion and
baptism. The objectionable form of absolu
tion in the Visitation of the Sick was dropped,
and the unobjectionable form in the Com
munion Service substituted in its place. The
Ordinal was left unchanged, lest it should in
jure the future of clergy ordained in Ireland,
and prevent their taking duty in the Church of
England. The Athanasian Creed was removed
from the public service, but left in the same
place in the Prayer Book as in the English
Book, the rubric directing its recital being
simply removed. The Lectionary has been
improved by substituting lessons from the Old
Testament in place of the lessons from the
Apocrypha which occur in the English Book,
and the whole Book of Revelation in the New
Testament is read in the daily lessons. By
the Preface which was duly passed by Act of
Synod, the liberty of explaining the Baptismal
Service affirmed in the Gorham Case was
secured. That Preface, moreover, states in ex
planation of the Ordinal that "no power or
authority is by them (the formularies) ascribed
to the Church or any of its ministers in respect
of forgiveness of sins after baptism, other
than that of declaring and pronouncing on
God's part remission of sins to all that are
truly penitent."

Thus the Church of Ireland is in many re
spects more distinctly Protestant than before
Disestablishment, and yet, as was clearly fore
seen by many, the general tone of the Church
has become more "churchy" than it was,
and there is less disposition on the part of its
clergy to fraternise with the other Protestant
Churches in Ireland. This is much to be re
gretted. The Church, we fear, is becoming
more like the Episcopal Church of Scotland
and, though in the main still strongly Evan
gelical in doctrine, it is in process of being
" levelled up," as the phrase goes. Ritualism
as expressed in outward dress and illega
services, is almost non-existent, for the revisec
canons of the Church provide an easy way of

hindering such excesses, but the vigorous and
manly Protestantism of forty years ago is de
cidedly on the wane.

Authorities. — Bishop Mant's History of the
Church of Ireland : from the Reformation to the
date of the Union. R. King, Primer of the
History of the Holy Catholic Church in Ireland
(3 vols.), vol. i. reprint, 1858; vol. ii. 1846;
vol. iii. Supplementary, 1851. Professor G. T.
Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church, 1888 ;
Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church, 1889.
The Right Hon. J. T. Ball, LL.D., D.C.L.,
The Reformed Church in Ireland; 2nd edit,
revised, 1890. [C. H. H. W.]

IRREGULARITY.— Gury, a Jesuit, whose
Moral Theology is now the text book in May-
nooth, defines an irregularity (in loco) as "a
canonical impediment which prevents a person
from entering the ranks of the clergy, or from
rising to a higher order, or from exercising
the order which he has received." The term
crops up for the first time in the decretals of
Innocent III. Irregularities may be :—

1. Ex dcfectu, that is, from some defect of
body or mind. 2. Ex delicto, that is, from
some crime committed by the candidate. It
is explained, however, that although an irregu
larity may arise from a crime, this i can be only
indirectly, in so far as it constitutes a defect
in the reputation desirable in a clergyman.
1. The following are examples of irregularities
ex defectu.-(a) Ex defectu animi (from some
defect of the mind). Lunatics are irregular,
as being without requisite knowledge. Ignor
ance is also mentioned as an irregularity.
Several Popes require that candidates for the
tonsure must be able to read and write ; those
for ordination must be able to instruct the
people. (&) Ex dejecta, corporis, from some
mutilation, such as in the famous case of
Origen, or when the deformity would cause
horror in the people. The loss of the left or
"canonical eye" is also an irregularity. It is
called the "canonical eye" becasuethe missal
is on the left side of the celebrant during the
reading of the Canon of the Mass, (c) Ex
defectu natalium, which excludes from the
priesthood children born out of wedlock, unless
their parents were afterwards married. We
are told in the CatMic Dictionary by Addis and
Arnold that this irregularity was necessitated
"by the prevalence of clerical concubinage
and the frequent promotion of priests' sons to
their fathers' office " (p. 507).

Irregularity is mentioned in Canon 113 of
the Church of England.

There are several other irregularities. The
Council of Trent (sess. xxiii.) decreed that a
sub-deacon must be twenty-two years of age,
a deacon twenty-three. The old canonical
age for the priesthood was twenty-five. Slaves

ITE MISSA EST

[ 321 ]

JACOBITE CHURCH

cannot be promoted to holy orders, nor married
persons, unless the wife consents to enter a
convent. Persons married twice, or even if
married once to one who was not a virgin,
are declared irregular on the extraordinary
authority of 1 Tim. iii. 2. Such marriages,
we are told, fail in the resemblance to Christ's
union with His Church. Soldiers are also de
clared irregular, as well as all who have
willingly concurred in the death or mutilation
of another. The reception of baptism from a
heretic, the exercise of an order never received
(or while under censure), heresy, and apostasy,
constitute irregularities. Bishops may dis
pense from irregularities arising from secret
crimes ; the Pope from those arising from
defect, or from homicide. [T. C.]

ITE MISSA EST.— In the early centuries the
catechumens were dismissed by the deacon
after the Gospel, with the words "Ite missa
est," "Go, you are dismissed," literally, "A
dismissal is made." The same formula was
repeated at the end of the Mass service. In
the liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, and St.
Chrysostom, we find the form, " Let us go in
the peace of Christ," the people answering, " In
the name of the Lord." The Greek equivalent
of "Ite missa est" was cbroXfertfe ev elpr)vjj.
'ATroXvecrBe and irpotXGere were "the solemn
words " used at the dismission of the catechu
mens first, and then of the whole assembly
afterwards, at the end of their respective
services. Hence the services themselves at
last took their names from those solemn dis
missions, the one being called "Missa cate-
chumenorum," and the other " Missa fidelium,"
neither of which ever signifies more than the
divine service at which the one or the other
attended. Bingham, Works, vol. iv., pp. 80, 81.

[C. J. C.]

JACOBITE, or OLD-SYRIAN CHURCH.

— In the middle of the sixth century the Mono-
physites (see article HERESY) had become
greatly weakened, especially in Syria, owing to
deprival of most of their bishops and clergy by
the orthodox Emperors Justin and Justinian.
Their revival was due chiefly to the indefati
gable labours and journeyings of Jacob
Baradaeus, and from him they are called
Jacobites till this day. The term is confined
in its stricter sense to the Old Syrians, but is
often used of all Monophysites, i.e. inclusive
of the Copts and Armenians with whom the
Old Syrians are in communion.

Jacob Baradaeus or Burde'ana=/<Mnes the
Ragged, or James of the horse-doth, so named from
his coarse and poor raiment, was a monk of

Pesilta, the Quarry or Hewn Stone Monastery, on
Mount Izla in Northern Mesopotamia. In A.D.
528 he went to Constantinople with another
monk, Sergius, to seek the aid of the Empress
Theodora ; and fifteen years later, Theodora
being urged by a Christian Arab king to send
bishops to Syria, Jacob was consecrated by
Theodosius, the refugee Patriarch of Alexandria,
as Bishop of Edessa with jurisdiction over all
Syria and Asia Minor. His first care was for
the^consecration of other bishops for his party,
and this he achieved by the aid of recommen
dations from Constantinople to the See of
Alexandria. In the following year, A.D. 544,
his friend and companion, Sergius, was made
Patriarch of Antioch, and six years later, three
years after the death of Sergius, Paul the Black
began his thirty years' tenure of the see. Since
then there has always been a Jacobite as well
as an orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

For thirty-seven years Jacob laboured with
ceaseless journeyings, chiefly on foot, visiting
his vast diocese, ordaining priests and deacons,
strengthening and exhorting, composing differ
ences, and welding various factions into one
whole. He died in 578, when journeying to
wards Alexandria to visit the new Patriarch
Damian. The Jacobite Church has always kept
the strongly monastic character which Jacob
Baradaeus impressed upon it ; there are many
monasteries, and the Patriarchs always and the
bishops mostly are chosen from these ; a
widowed priest, however, may become a bishop.

Since 1166 the Patriarch has resided at
Deir-al-Za'faran near Mardin. The Patriarch
always takes the name Ignatius, and each of
the sees under him in like manner has a special
name taken by each occupant. The Patriarch is
elected by the vote of the whole people, but must
be approved by the bishops. In the seventh
century there were sixteen bishoprics under
the Patriarch, now there are ten sees and six
titular bishops residing in various monasteries.

A title peculiar to this Church is that of
Maphrian (he who makes fruitful, from a root
N~)D, to be fruitful). The office was established
by Jacob Baradaeus on account of the heresy
(Nestorian) of the Persian Church. The
Maphrian's seat was formerly at Tagrit, then
since 1089 at Mosul in the Monastery of Mar
Matthew ; he ruled the whole Eastern Province
from Urmi and Tabriz to Baghdad, consecrated
bishops, and was practically independent of
the Patriarch. Now he only has the small
diocese of Mosul and first rank among the
bishops. The Bishop of Jerusalem also has the
historical title of Patriarch.

The priestly order is divided into Monks,
Priests, and Chor-episcopi, the leading priest of
a large town has the latter title. Priests marry
before ordination, and may not remarry ; there

X

JACOBITE CHURCH

[ 322 ]

JANSENISTS

is an office of ordination for the wife of a priest.
Priests are chosen by their flock, i.e. by the
Church Council of laymen and deacons.
Deacons form a really separate order and are
numerous, for any who continue their studies
till the age of fifteen usually take this order.
The lesser orders of Psaltes, Eeader, and
Hypodiaconus are obsolete, as also is that of
Deaconesses.

Jacobites keep five strict fasts during the
year, abstaining even from eggs, milk, and
cheese, and during Lent from oil. Baptism
and Confirmation are administered at the same
time by the priest, hence children are allowed
to communicate. The Liturgy of St. James
is used by the Jacobites and Melchites (see
article) alike ; the ecclesiastical language is
Old Syriac, but the lections and rubrics are in
Arabic. Jacob Baradaeus wrote a liturgy and
hymns, as did most of the writers of this
Church. The Jacobite, as well as the rival
Eastern Church (see NESTORIANS), had many
learned and prolific authors, such as the his
torians, John, Bishop of Asia or Ephesus (505-
585), and Dionysius Tel-Mahraya (died 845), the
commentator Dionysius Bar-Salibi, Bishop of
Amid (end of the twelfth century), and chief
of all, the Maphrian Gregory Bar-Hebraeus
(1226-86), who, while indefatigable as a bishop,
was not less so as a student ; his writings
cover the whole science of his time, linguistic,
medical, astronomical, philosophical, and theo
logical.

Both Arab and Turkish conquerors favoured
the Jacobites as being opposed to Greek rule,
and perhaps on this account the Jacobites re
sisted the persuasions of the Crusaders towards
union with the Eoman Church. Subsequent
missions of Rome have had and are having
partial success. The Jacobite Patriarch is ac
knowledged by the Porte, and his episcopal
representative at Constantinople has right of
audience with the Sultan. The number of the
Old-Syrian Church at the present day is
reckoned at 400,000 ; their communities are
chiefly in Northern Mesopotamia and North
ern Syria, round Damascus, Horns, and Aleppo.

The Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar,
who used to be connected with the Nestorians,
had, in the seventeenth century, fallen under
the dominion of the Roman Church in conse
quence of Portuguese settlements in India.
In 1673 they threw off this usurped and rigid
rule, and, for want of bishops, had recourse to
the Jacobite Patriarch. Since then they have
continued to receive Jacobite bishops, and
have also accepted the Liturgy used by the
Jacobites, their own books having been de
stroyed or garbled by the Roman Synod of
Diamper (1597).

Authorities. — Asseman's Bill. Orient., vol.

ii. ; Wright's Syriac Literature; Brightman's
Liturgies ; Parry's Six Months in a Syrian
Monastery. [J. P. M.]

JANSENISTS. — The name is given to a
party in the Roman Catholic Church in France
in the seventeenth century, marked by its
adherence to the tenets of Augustinian theo
logy, by its keen antagonism to the lax morality
of the Jesuits, and, in the chief period of its
influence, by the purity of motive and high-
mindedness of its leaders and members. It
was not a name chosen by the party itself, but
was bestowed on it by its opponents, from the
name of the originator of the movement,
Cornelius Jansenius, as a brand of reproach.
Its headquarters was the famous Port Royal,
near Paris ; it numbered among its repre
sentatives many of the most pious, gifted, and
learned men of the day — men like Antoine
Arnauld, and Blaise Pascal ; it was the subject
of bitter, cruel, and unremitting persecutions,
till ultimately Port Royal was destroyed ; it
exercised a powerful influence for good in its
time, and has left a memorial of itself in the
Jansenist Church of Holland, which still sub
sists. It was nevertheless a purely Roman
Catholic movement. The Jansenists disliked
Protestants (Calvinists) hardly less than Jesuits,
though their own theology had many affinities
to Calvinistic doctrine. Jansenius thought the
Protestants no better than Turks, and speaks
of them as having " much more reason to con
gratulate themselves on the mercy of princes
than to complain of their severities, which, as
the vilest of heretics, they richly deserved."
The Jansenists professed unshaken fidelity to
the Pope ; their piety was that of the cloister,
and was marked by even an excess of severity
of self -mortification. The following sketch will
give some idea of the character and chequered
fortunes of this interesting movement.

The doctrine of grace had long been a subject
of keen controversy in the Church of Rome.
The Dominicans, following Augustine and
Aquinas, held that in the case of the predes
tinate God bestows an "efficacious" grace,
which infallibly, yet in harmony with freedom,
secures their salvation. Others held that God
bestowed on all " sufficient " grace, and that
the will of man was the determining factor in
the acceptance or rejection of grace. The
latter was the view which found favour
with the Jesuits. In 1588 a new turn was
given to the controversy by the publication of
a work by a Spanish Jesuit, Molina, on The
Harmony of Free Will with Grace, <kc. Molina,
and those who adopted his views (Molinists),
exalted the power of natural freedom so far as
to maintain that "free-will, without the aid of
grace, can produce morally good works ; that
it can withstand temptation ; that it can even

JANSENISTS

[ 323 ]

JANSENISTS

elevate itself to this and the other acts of
hope, faith, love, and repentance. When a man
has advanced thus far, God then bestows grace
on him on account of Christ's merits, by means
of which grace lie experiences the supernatural
effects of sanctification ; yet, as before this
grace was received, so still, free-will always
holds a determining place."

These doctrines were eagerly accepted by
the Jesuits, but were as strongly opposed by
the Dominicans (Thomists). They were brought
under the notice of the Pope, Clement VIII.,
and were repeatedly condemned by " Congre
gations " appointed to examine them ; but in
the end Clement's successor, Paul V., decreed
that the question should remain an open one,
provided the theologians of each party refrained
from censuring their opponents. The ferment,
however, continued, and it was the disputes
arising from it which furnished the occasion
of the rise of Jansenism.

Cornelius Jansen or Jansenius was born of
humble Dutch parents in 1585. He studied
at Utrecht, Louvain, and Paris, and at Louvain
(1604), formed a friendship with Jean du Verger
de Hauranne, afterwards (from 1620) better
known as the Abbe of St. Cyran. Both young
men speedily attracted notice by their deep
piety, brilliant talents, and extensive erudition.
For years they studied together the works of
Augustine, and formed those views which were
subsequently stigmatised as Jansenist. Jan
senius, in course of time became Professor at
Louvain (1617), and finally Bishop of Ypres
(1635). At both of these places he occupied
himself with the production of a great work —
his Augustinus — in defence of the Augustinian
system of efficacious grace, and in opposition to
the views of Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. He
was engaged in this work for over twenty years ;
in preparation for it he read over ten times
every word of Augustine's works, and studied
thirty times all the passages that bear on the
Pelagian controversy. He was cut off by the
plague, however, before he got the work,
published ; and died (1638) submitting it to
the judgment of the Pope (a fact long
suppressed). Two years later the book was
published (1640), and caused a great sensation.
Jansenius, with his friend St. Cyran, who had
risen to extraordinary influence, had long
been the object of intense hostility to the
Jesuits. These put forth every effort, first to
prevent the publication of the book, then to
procure its suppression, but in vain. In 1641,
however, when a second edition was issued, it
was condemned by the Papal Inquisition ; and
in 1642 it was again condemned in general
terms by Pope Urban VIII. A powerful
defender of the book appeared in Antoine
Arnauld ; but the crisis was reached in the

years 1649-53, when five propositions alleged
to be extracted from it by Nicolas Cornet,
a Jesuit Father, were submitted first to the
Sorbonne (1649), and afterwards to the Pope
Innocent X. (1651), who, after two years' exam
ination by theologians, gave judgment in a
bull (1653). The five propositions were now
definitely condemned. They were these : " I.
Some precepts of God are impossible to just
men, wishing and striving (to obey them),
according to the strength which they then
have ; also they lack grace which would make
them possible. II. Resistance is never made
in the state of fallen nature to interior grace
III. For merit and demerit in the state of
fallen nature, there is not required in man
freedom from necessity, but freedom from
compulsion is sufficient. IV. The Semi-
Pelagians admitted the necessity of prevenient
interior grace for single actions, even for the
beginning of faith ; but they were heretical
in holding that grace to be of such a kind
that the human will could resist or yield to it.
V. It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ did
shed His blood for all men together."

Before tracing the further history of this
dispute, we must go back to look for a little
at Port Royal.

The Cistercian Abbey of Port Royal (founded
1204) was situated in the wooded valley of
Chevreuse, a few miles from Versailles. It
had fallen into great disorder when, in 1602, a
new abbess was appointed in the person of
Marie Angelique Arnauld, then a child of eleven
years ! (She was the sister of Antoine Arnauld,
born ten years later, 1612.) At the age of seven
teen the young abbess came under deep religious
impressions, and commenced a work of re
formation, which in a few years brought about
an entire change in the mode of life in her
own and many other convents. Frivolity was
banished ; severe self-mortification took its
place ; the power of religion was established
in thought and life. Five of AngtSlique's
sisters found their way to Port Royal, which
yearly grew in repute as an abode of
sanctity. The situation, however, proved un
healthy, and for safety the nuns removed to a
new establishment in Paris, known as Port
Royal de Paris, in distinction from Port Royal
des Champs. The removal took place in 1625.
Here Mere Angdlique became acquainted with
the Abbs' de St. Cyran, then at the height
of his reputation. He soon became the
spiritual director of the convent, and imbued
its inmates with the principles of Jansenism.
His influence quickly extended to the male
members of the Arnauld circle, and a company
of young men was formed, including Angelique's
brother Antoine, and her nephews, Le Maitre (a
renowned pleader), De Sericourt, and De !Saci

JANSENISTS

[ 324 ]

JANSENISTS

(translator of the Scriptures). Their numbers
increasing, they were induced by St. Cyran
(1638) to remove to the monastery of Port
Royal des Champs, deserted fifteen years
before by the nuns, there to form a community
of recluses, devoted to the study of the Scrip
tures, literary labours, agricultural and manual
occupations, and, very specially, the instruction
of youth. In this way arose the Port Royal
Society, adorned by the names of Arnauld,
Nicole, Le Maltre, Saci, Fontaine, Pascal, and
others, and knit together by a common attach
ment to the principles of Jansenius. All this
was gall and wormwood to the Jesuits, who
saw their own educational institutions eclipsed
by the schools of their rivals. In the very year
of this retreat (1638) Jansenius died ; in the
same year, the vindictiveness of Cardinal
Richelieu prevailed to send St. Cyran to a
dungeon at Vincennes. Then broke out the
storm over the book of Jansenius. A little
later a fresh change took place. The nuns in
Port Royal de Paris had so multiplied that it
became necessary to divide them. It was
accordingly resolved that Mere Angelique
should return, with a portion of her community,
to her old quarters at Port Royal des Champs,
while the remainder remained in Paris. Thus,
after twenty-five years' absence, the nuns of
Port Royal again took possession of their abbey-
The recluses were provided for in a farm in the
vicinity of the convent, called Les Granges,
and there continued their labours.

We return to the controversy over the five
propositions. St. Cyran had expired in 1643, a
few months after his release from prison on
the death of Richelieu, and his place was taken
as leader of the party by Antoine Arnauld,
whose controversial gifts eminently fitted him
for that position, if they also made inevitable
the troubles that befell him. He had already
given offence to the Jesuits by his book on
Frequent Communion (1643) ; now, on the pro
clamation of the Pope's condemnation of the
five propositions, he at once agreed to condemn
the propositions as heretical, but declared
himself unable to find the condemned proposi
tions in the work of Jansenius. He distinguished
between the question of right (of doctrine),
and the question of fact ; and professed himself
willing to submit to the Pope's judgment on
the former, but not on the latter. In doctrine
the Pope might be infallible ; on historical
questions he might err. His distinction only
fanned the flame of hostility to Jansenism.
Learned conclaves decided that the propositions
were in the book, and censured Arnauld ; the
Pope confirmed the sentence (1654) ; in two
letters Arnauld defended himself (1655) ; next
year (1656) Alexander VII. formally condemned
the propositions "in the sense of the author."

Arnauld's distinction between right and fact
was condemned by the Sorbonne, and in 1656
he, with sixty other doctors, was expelled from
that body. "To-day," he writes to his sister
Ange"lique, "they are erasing my name from
the list of doctors, but I hope our Lord will
not erase it from the number of His servants."
But in this drastic step his enemies outreached
themselves. The fraternity at Port Royal
made common cause in the trouble that had
overtaken their leader. They put their heads
together, and the outcome was the publication
of Pascal's first Provincial Letter, which took
Paris and France by storm. The Letters,
eighteen in all, exposing with infinite in
genuity, in a light, satiric style, the theological
quibbling, but, above all, the shockingly lax
morality of the Jesuits (see MOEAL THEOLOGY),
overwhelmed that order with ridicule, and pro
duced a revulsion of feeling in Arnauld's favour.
"This book alone," said Daniel, who forty
years after attempted a refutation, " has done
more for the Jansenists than the Augustinus
of Jansenius and all the works of Arnauld put
together."

But it was only for a time. The Court
joined with the Jesuits, and already, in 1656
(during the publication of the Letters), the ex
termination of Port Royal as a nest of heresy
was decreed, and was only averted by the
singular (supposed) miracle of the Holy Thorn.
This stayed the storm till 1661, the year of the
death of Mere Angelique, when it burst anew
on the little community in terrible and pro
longed persecutions. A formulary was drawn
up in 1660, requiring assent to the condemna
tion of the five propositions " contained in the
work of Cornelius Jansenius" from all the
clergy, all schoolmasters, all members of re
ligious houses, including nuns. A formulary
in these terms the nuns at Port Royal refused
to subscribe. A similar formulary was pro
mulgated by Pope Alexander VII. a few years
later (1665). Then the blow— or a succession
of blows— fell. The schools at Les Granges
were broken up ; confessors and directors
scattered ; scholars, novices, and postulants
in the convent expelled. After Mere Angeli-
que's death yet heavier trials were encountered.
Archbishop Perefixe, of Paris, found an ally in
one of the nuns, who, coveting the post of
abbess, apostatised to his side. On her advice
a large number of the nuns were imprisoned,
and many cruelties were inflicted. A new
friend was raised up for the afflicted com
munity in the repentant Duchesse de Longue-
ville, through whose influence Pope Clement
IX. was induced to agree to a compromise, by
which the nuns and others bound themselves
to "a respectful silence " on the debated
question of fact (1668). This " peace of

JANSENISTS

[ 325 ]

JESUITS

Clement " lasted only till the death of Madame
de Longuevllle (1679), when violent persecu
tions were renewed. Clement's agreement was
retracted by the Pope in 1694, and the original
formulary imposed in all its rigour. To com
plete this tale of woe, the nuns were finally
expelled from Port Royal in 1709, and the
place was razed to the ground in 1710.

The last phase of the Jansenist controversy
takes us into another country. Arnauld had
fled to Brussels in 1679, where, in 1684, he
was joined by a distinguished man, Pasquier
Quesnel, author of Moral Reflections on the
Gospels (1671). He, too, was of the Jansenist
faith, and had been forced to flee from Orleans.
In his arms Arnauld died in 1694. Quesnel
now enlarged his Moral Reflections to include
the whole New Testament. But the papal
thunderbolts were being got ready against him.
In 1705 Clement issued his bull " Vineam
Domini," in which it was affirmed that Catho
lics were bound to give full and undoubting
assent to the matter of fact affirmed by the
Pope, as well as to the points of doctrine.
Then, in 1713, came the famous bull " Uni-
genitus," in which 101 propositions from
Quesnel's book were condemned, including
one on the reading of the Scriptures. Quesnel
died in 1719.

The after history of Jansenism need not
detain us. In France its later course was one
of degeneration. Its adherents became fana
tical, and gave themselves up to excesses.
Great excitement was caused by the miracles
said to be wrought at the tomb of the Jansenist
Abbe de Paris (died 1727) — miracles of which
Hume makes much in his Essay on that subject.
The party obtained for themselves from this
cause the name of Convulsionnaires. In Holland,
on the other hand, a Jansenist Church con
tinued to maintain itself, and subsists till the
present day. Its numbers are small (under
5000), and its general doctrine and practice is
thoroughly Roman. But the Dutch Jansenists
maintain their independence. They reject the
bull " Unigenitus," and show an interest in
the circulation of the Dutch Scriptures. They
protested against the new dogmas of the
Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility
of the Pope. They consecrated Dr. Reinkens
bishop for the Old Catholics.1

It does not fall within the scope of this
article to discuss the merits of the Jansenist
theological opinions. In the depth, serious
ness, and Scripturalness of their theology,
they came at least immensely nearer the truth

1 The Jansenist Church in Holland is governed
by three bishops, the chief of whom is the Arch
bishop of Utrecht ; see Neale's Hist, of the Jan
senist Church in Holland.

than their supple, superficial, unscrupulous,
and casuistic opponents ; while, on the doctri
nal question, it cannot reasonably be doubted
that they represented with substantial fidelity
the positions of the great Latin Father to
whose teaching they attached themselves. One
feature in which they shone out brightly was
their attachment to the Scriptures. That,
notwithstanding their adherence to thePapacy,
they were essentially evangelical in spirit, is
amply proved by their published utterances
and writings. What could be finer than the
following sentences of De Saci, the translator
of the Scriptures, written as director of the
Port Royal fraternity? "Jesus Christ Him
self must be our light and our strength. The
sufferings of Christ are all our merits and plea ;
they are the source of all the mercies and
graces we receive ; it is by them only that we
become living members of Jesus Christ. . . .
Our confidence must be firm, as St. Paul says,
because it is grounded on the virtue of the
blood of Christ, which is infinite. It is faith
alone which inspires well-grounded confidence.
We trust, because Christ Himself is our trust,
who teaches us that our salvation is His glory ;
and that in saving us He obtains the price of
His death, and the fruit of His sufferings. . . .
That faith, by a vital reception of which we
are saved, and by which we are distinguished
from the angels of darkness, after showing us
this ground of corruption and sin, which ought
profoundly to humble us, shows us with it the
infinite mercy of God, founded upon the blood
of Jesus Christ, as Mediator and Reconciler of
men to God by His atoning sacrifice, who is
thus become our trust and our salvation. . . .
We must then unite these two views, which
ought never to be separated : the view of our
selves and our sins, and the view of Jesus
Christ and His merits. The first terrifies, the
second reassures. . . . This confidence is firm
because it is humble. Its prerequisite is the
entire annihilation of hope from man ; and it
is founded on the mercy of God, and the
efficacy of the blood of Christ, both of which
are infinite " (De Saci's Letters, ii. pp. 677-78).
We may close, as one other illustration, with
the words of Mere Angelique on her deathbed :
"The mercy of God ! the mercy of God I all
is included in that word mercy ! Jesus !
Jesus ! thou art my God, my strength, and my
justification." [J. 0.]

JESUITS. — The name given to members of
the .Society of Jesus. It must, however re
luctantly, be admitted that this Society has
been the most formidable opponent which
the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth
century has had to deal with, and therefore a
careful study of its history, constitution, and
operations, is of great importance to adherents

JESUITS

of the Protestant faith, as well as to Roman
Catholics. In an article like this it is im
possible to do more than to give the reader
an outline of the subject. When the Order
was born its Founder did not realise what
the main object of its existence would be
come. Indeed, his first thought seems to
have been mission work in the Holy Land.
In one point he showed considerable wisdom,
viz., in directing that the members of the new
Society should pay special attention to the
education of the young. He worked for the
generations to come rather than for the men
and women of his own time. Not that the
latter were overlooked, or their importance
underestimated. In the constitution and
history of the Society worldly wisdom may
be seen almost in perfection, though the
"wisdom that cometh from above" is sadly
wanting. Perseverance is one of the most
remarkable characteristics in its career.
Again and again have its efforts been
checked ; disasters after disasters have at
tended its operations, while from almost
every civilised nation in the world it has
been banished again and again ; and yet,
notwithstanding all these opposing forces, it
has after brief intervals renewed its work
as though nothing had happened ! It never
appears to realise that it has been defeated.
A well-known writer in the ninth edition of
the Encyclopedia Britannica speaks of " the
universal failure of the great Company in all
its plans and efforts." Temporary failure
there has been, no doubt, but it is a great
exaggeration to describe it as " universal."
For is it not a fact that at the present
moment its numbers and influence are
greater than ever before in its history ? Its
influence is almost supreme in Rome, while
in other countries its plans and operations
have succeeded — excepting in France — to an
extent which has been the marvel of its
opponents.

Those who, from the moral standpoint,
are the best men in the Society of Jesus
have no voice whatever in its governance.
The men who are naturally sympathetic,
kindly, and self-denying ; who sincerely —
however mistakenly — are anxious to do their
duty to God and benefit their fellow-creatures
are greatly valued by the Order as useful
agents, but are not allowed to rule. Only
the Professed Fathers, who have taken the
four vows, have any voice in the government,
or are allowed to vote at the deliberations
of the Society, and these form only a very
small percentage of the whole. From the
ranks of the Fathers who have taken only
three vows come the men whose work gives
to the Society amongst devout Roman

[ 326 ] JESUITS

Catholics a reputation for holiness, and, in
the foreign mission field, for heroic devotion
to what they believe to be their duty. These
priests know nothing of the secrets of the
Jesuit Order, nor are the ordinary Lay Coad
jutors ever allowed to penetrate its mysteries.
It is true that the priests professed of the
three vows, and the Lay Coadjutors, are real
Jesuits ; yet, after all, they are but the dupes
of the real wire-pullers. They do the work
which gains for the Order renown and praise ;
when evil work has to be done other instru
ments are generally chosen, though not
always. For every Jesuit, no matter what his
position in the Order may be, is vowed to
what is termed " Blind Obedience " to his
Superiors, and is bound to obey orders, no
matter what they may be. Disobedience, on
any pretext, would certainly lead to expul
sion. The commanding officers of the Jesuit
Army are the professed of the four vows only.
There may be exceptions in their ranks, but
as a rule the professed are men of great
subtlety of mind, crafty, worldly-minded
politicians, more men of the world than
anything else, whose great ambition is the
glorification of their Order by making it the
greatest power in the professedly Christian
world. These are the men whose operations
have justly given the Jesuit order a bad name
in the world. They hold the strings, and all
the other Jesuits are but puppets on the
world's stage, who perform mechanically as
the strings are pulled by their masters, or
rather, by the chief master of the whole
organisation — the General of the Jesuits.

The worldly wisdom of the Jesuit Order is
markedly seen in the selection of its members.
Scarcely any of them are able men all round.
But nearly all of them are more or less clever
in one thing, and one thing only. " It is,"
says the Canadian historian Parkman, " a
characteristic of the Jesuit Order, and one
of the sources of its strength, that it chooses
the workman for his work, studies the qualities
of its members, and gives to each the task for
which he is fitted best. When its aim was to
convert savage hordes and build up another
Paraguay in the Northern wilderness (of
Canada), it sent a Jogues, a Brebouf, a
Charles Garnier, and a Gabriel Lalemant, like
a forlorn hope, to storm the stronghold of
heathendom. In later times it sent other
men to meet other needs and accomplish other
purposes." As men pass through the Novi
tiate of the Order their natural abilities are
carefully studied by their Superiors, as well
as their moral character, and all the studies of
the novice are directed to polish and make as
perfect as possible his natural gifts. One
shows an aptitude for controversy, another

JESUITS

[ 327 ]

JESUITS

for preaching, or authorship, or teaching, or
political intrigue, or scientific study — every
thing comes in as helpful to the work of the
Society. Out of his own peculiar element the
Jesuit is almost useless to the Order, yet in
his own particular line of work he is above the
average of his co-religionists. Yet it must be
admitted that Mr. J. A. Symonds was very
near the mark when he declared that " No
really great man in any department of human
knowledge or activity has arisen in the Com
pany of Jesus."

Many causes have contributed to the
measure of success acquired by the Society of
Jesus. Amongst these a foremost place must
be given to the vow of " Blind Obedience," as
it is termed, which each member of the Order
must take. The vow is so stringent that it
makes every one who takes it the moral,
mental, and physical slave of his Superiors.
The Jesuits are a body of slaves, even when
living in a free country like England. It is
true they cannot be bought and sold like
negroes were in days gone by, and no one
compels them to become slaves by physical
force. They are slaves of their own free
will. A negro may be a slave in body, yet a
free man intellectually and spiritually. But a
Jesuit can call neither his body nor his soul
his own. They are at the disposal of his
Superiors, who can do with them what they
think best. Having become abject slaves
themselves — with fetters more powerful than
those of any other class of slaves — they seek
to make nations and peoples also, the moral,
intellectual, and spiritual slaves of the priest
hood, and especially of the chief priest of
their religion, the Pope. Liberty and Jesui
tism cannot live together ; they are irrecon
cilable enemies. The only liberty the Jesuits
allow is liberty to submit to slavery, in one of
its worst forms.

What the Jesuit's Vow of Obedience implies
is clearly seen in the well-known Epistle on
Obedience, written by Ignatius Loyola, Founder
of the Order, and dated March 26, 1553. I
quote from an English translation privately
printed by the London Jesuits, in 1863, for the
use of the members. Ignatius here declares
that all the members of his Society should "be
distinguished by this mark " of obedience above
all other Religious Orders. Every Superior
must be obeyed as Christ Himself ; and "true
and perfect Obedience " is said to consist in
"the abnegation of our will and judgment."
"Then perishes," wrote Ignatius, "that
renowned simplicity of Blind Obedience when
we call in question the justice of the command."
Obedience brings, he says, the understanding
"to be of the self-same opinion in all things
with the Superior." "Always seriously

endeavour to defend within yourself that
which your Superior commands or thinks good,
but never to disapprove of it." " Determine
within yourself whatsoever the Superior
commands, to bethe commandment of Almighty
God Himself." " In doing that which your
Superior commands, you must be carried with
a kind of blind impulse of your will, desirous
to obey. So it is to be thought Abraham did,
when bid to sacrifice his son Isaac." According
to this teaching, were a. Jesuit Superior to
order a Jesuit under his obedience to kill
his son, by a marriage contracted before he
joined the Order, he would be bound to obey
him, since, inasmuch as his obedience is to be
"a kind of blind impulse," he could not possibly
see anything wrong in the command, especially
as he is required, as we have just seen, " never
to disapprove" of his Superior's command. It
is true that in this Epistle Ignatius seems to
qualify this obedience, by asserting that it is to
be given " in all things where manifestly there
appears no sin." But, observe, he first of all
puts out the eyes of the man's judgment, so
that he becomes " blind " ; and then tells him
that if he can see anything sinful in the command
he is not to obey. But how is a blind man to
see anything ? The qualification in practice
becomes absolutely useless, while the "Blind
Obedience " is always a living and practical
reality. The principles laid down in this
Epistle by Ignatius would manifestly justify
the commission of any crime by a Jesuit, pro
vided it was commanded by his Superior.

In a volume published by the English Jesuits,
entitled The Spirit of St. Ignatius, containing
" The thoughts, feelings, words, and actions of
the Founder of the Society," we read: "I
ought to belong no longer to myself, but to
my Creator and to him who stands in His
place to guide me and to govern me, and in
whose hands I must become like soft wax
under the fingers of the artist. . . I ought to
consider myself like a dead body which has no
longer either will or opinion, like a statue
which is turned any way at will and does not
offer any resistance, like a stick in the hand of
an old man, who uses it at pleasure, and lays it
down anywhere as is convenient to him." It is
obvious that the Jesuit's vow of Blind
Obedience in the hands of domineering
Superiors may become an instrument of over
bearing tyranny, and of great suffering, both
mental and bodily, to those who have to
practise it. When Blind Obedience is given to
the manifest will of God it leads to true
Christian liberty ; but when given to man it
may become the instrument of intellectual
and spiritual slavery of a most degrading char
acter. Yet it must be admitted that the Blind
Obedience of the whole Jesuit Order to its

JESUITS

[328 ]

JESUITS

General cannot fail to greatly contribute to
the success of his schemes.

The Jesuit Order is a great political society.
It has ever relied on the arm of flesh. Like
the Papacy itself, it exercises both temporal
and spiritual power. Yet, strange as it may
appear, one of its laws forbids the members to
interfere in political affairs. In the " General
Admonitions " for the use of its members, it is
ordered that : " To take away all appearance
of evil, and, as far as possible, to prevent the
complaints which arise from false suspicions,
all of Ours are commanded, in virtue of Holy
Obedience, and under pain of inability to any
post, dignity, or superiority, and of privation
of active and passive voice, in no way to
meddle in public or secular affairs of Princes,
which appertain, as they term it, to matters of
State ; neither may they presume or take
upon them to treat of such political affairs,
however much and by whomsoever they may
be urged or importuned." The rule is cer
tainly stringent enough to prevent all political
intrigue on the part of the Order, and, if it
were faithfully observed, one great weapon of
attack against the Jesuits would be removed.
But, unfortunately, in this most important
point, the practice of the Order flatly contra
dicts its rules. The apparent contradiction
between the Society's theory and practice is,
however, explained by a reference to Part
IX., chapter Hi., section 8 of its Constitutions,
in which we read that: "As it belongs to
the General to see that the Constitutions of
the Society be everywhere observed, so shall
it belong to him to grant dispensation in all cases
where dispensation is necessary." The rule
forbidding political action is, therefore, not
binding on the Jesuits whenever the General
dispenses them from its obedience. A
'•' History of the Political Influence of the
Jesuits " throughout the world would fill
several large volumes. It seems a pity that no
Protestant writer has ever undertaken the
task.

The political work of the Jesuits in Great
Britain and Ireland has ever been of the most
mischievous character. During the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries they were the leading
agents in fomenting disloyalty, rebellion, and
even attempted assassinations. Ample evidence
of their political misconduct in England and
Scotland may be found in Father Taunton's
modern History of the Jesuits in England, in
Father Berington's Memoirs of Panzani, in
Father Tierney's edition of Dodd's Church
History, in Father Dodd's Secret Policy of the
Jesuits, and in my Jesuits in Great Britain.
The Jesuit Robert Parsons, who for many
years was the ruler of the English Jesuits, was
ever a ringleader in treasonable practices.

His great ambition was to suppress Pro
testantism in England and Scotland by means
of the armies of France and Spain. For this
purpose he was ever on the move, visiting the
Netherlands, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, and
Rome, soliciting money and soldiers from the
enemies of his country. To him is mainly due
the Spanish Armada, and also several plots to
upset Protestantism in Scotland by the soldiers
of France and Spain. Nearly all the political
plots in England for the assassination of
Queen Elizabeth were undertaken by the
spiritual children of the Jesuits ; and almost,
if not every one of the Gunpowder Plotters of
1605 were the spiritual offspring of the Order.
And certainly no modern Jesuit can deny that
in the unhappy reign of James II., his Father
Confessor, the Jesuit Petrie, exercised enor
mous political influence in England, and was
even sworn in as a member of his Majesty's
Privy Council.

In Ireland also the Society of Jesus has
frequently exercised a pernicious political
influence. As early as the year 1540 Pope
Paul III. sent two Jesuit priests, John Codure
and Alphonsus Salmeron, to Ireland to en
courage the rebels then in arms against Henry
VIII. " From this date," writes Dr. Killen in
his learned Ecclesiastical History of Ireland,
" we may distinctly trace the influence of the
Jesuits in the plots and wars which for so long
afterwards disturbed Ireland. Supported by
the money of foreign Princes, delighting in
intrigue, unscrupulous as to the means em
ployed, and reckless of consequence, they were
found wherever they hoped to be able to carry
out a scheme for the overthrow of the English
government." In the autumn of 1560 another
Jesuit priest, named David Wolfe, was sent to
Ireland as a Papal Nuncio, nominally to
strengthen the Irish in their attachment to the
Roman Catholic faith, but mainly to excite
disaffection to the throne of Elizabeth.
Another traitorous and prominent Jesuit who
very actively helped the Irish rebels in their
war against England at the close of Elizabeth's
reign was James Archer. The editor of the
modern edition of Pacata Hibernia states that
Archer " moved ceaselessly around the South
of Ireland seeking to impart to the insurgent
cause the fervour of a religious crusade. There
were many men like Archer, and their co
operation was very serviceable to the league.
These men, unlike the chieftains, were in dead
earnest. In the reign of James I. we catch
a glimpse of Archer at Court, disguised like a
gallant, cloaked, frilled, and feathered. Archer
was a very accomplished person, a gentleman
and a soldier."

The political influence of the Jesuit Order in
Ireland during the Great Rebellion of 1641

JESUITS

[ 329 ]

JESUITS

was of a decidedly mischievous character.
Before that Kebellion had ended, an Irish
Jesuit, named Con O'Mahony, sent to the Irish
rebels a book which he wrote specially for
their benefit, and had printed in Portugal. It
was entitled Disputatio Apologctica, De Jure
Rcgni Hibernicv pro Catholicis Hibernis adversus
Hcereticos Anglos. At the end of this book,
as an appendix, there was printed a letter to
the rebels in which he urged them not only
to kill all the Protestants in the country, but
also all the Roman Catholics who assisted
them. "My dear Irish," he wrote, "go on
and perfect the work of your liberty and de
fence, which is so happily begun by you ; and
kill all the heretics, and all that do assist and
defend them. You have in the space of four
or five years, that is, between the year 1641
and the year 1645, wherein I write this, killed
150,000 heretics, as your enemies do acknow
ledge ; neither do you deny it. And for my
own part, as I verily believe that you have
killed more of them, so I would to God you
had killed them all ! " The book from which
this extract is taken is acknowledged as a
genuine Jesuit book by Father Peter Walsh,
in his History of the Loyal Irish Formulary and
Remonstrance, and by Mr. John T. Gilbert, a
Eoman Catholic, in his History of Affairs in
Ireland, 1641-1652.

The political work of the Jesuits in foreign
lands is known to every student of history. In
France their influence has again and again
led to civil commotions and endless misery.
They were the chief instigators and advisers
of the " Holy League" of evil memory, which
was not only disloyal to the Crown, but sought
above all things the extermination of the
Huguenots from France by the sword. Trust
worthy historians hold them responsible for
the assassinations of Henry III. and Henry IV.,
and when those crimes were committed, Jesuits
sang the praises of the criminals. The Jesuits
were Father Confessors to several of the Kings
of France, and used their positions to further
the political schemes of their Order. It was
the Jesuits who urged Louis XIV. to issue the
infamous Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
by which untold misery and suffering were in
flicted on hundreds of thousands of innocent
Protestants. In the eighteenth century their
political power became so great in France,
and was so used to the injury of the country,
that it was found necessary to banish them, as
had previously been done on several occasions,
and also to take steps to induce the Pope to
suppress the Society of Jesus altogether. This
was done by the celebrated bull of Clement
XIV., dated July 21, 1773. In this docu
ment the Pope accuses the Jesuits of many
serious offences, including interference with

the secular affairs of states, and he declares
that his "dearly beloved sons in Christ, the
kings of France, Portugal, and Sicily, found
themselves reduced to the necessity of expel
ling and driving from their states, kingdoms,
and provinces, these very companions of Jesus,
persuaded that there remained no other remedy
to so great evils ; and that this step was neces
sary in order to prevent the Christians from
rising one against another, and from massacr
ing each other in the very bosom of our common
mother, the Holy Church." It may here be
well asked, has any Protestant writer ever put
forth a more serious indictment of the Jesuit
Order than this of the Roman Catholic kings
of France, Portugal, and Sicily, adopted as
correct by the Pope himself ? No one can deny
that he was fully acquainted with the facts of
the case, nor can any one assert that these are
the lying utterances of an evil-living Pontiff.
Clement XIV. has borne the character of being
one of the most moral Popes who ever sat on
the papal throne. And be it noted that in the
countries named in the bull, the work of the
Jesuits had produced, as the Pope states,
" dangerous seditions, tumults, discords, dis
sensions, scandals, which, weakening or en
tirely breaking the bonds of Christian charity,
(had) excited the faithful to all the rage of
party, hatreds, and enmities." In short, it was
necessary to suppress the Society of Jesus, in
order to prevent the Roman Catholics rising
against one another and cutting each other's
throats ! Yet this is the self-same and unre-
formed Order which is tolerated in the British
Dominions, contrary to the laws, and with
grave danger to the State. The political and
other operations of the Jesuits in France are
mainly responsible for the fearful French
Revolution. Mr. Frank Hugh O'Donnell, a
well-informed Roman Catholic, in his book on
The Ruin of Education in Ireland, declares
that: " The French Revolution was the work,
with hardly an exception, of pupils of the
clerical schools, which, previous to that catas
trophe, had monopolised the education of all
classes of the French nation. Voltaire and
Diderot, D'Alembert, Helvetius, and Robes
pierre were the pupils of clerical schools, and
mostly of Jesuits."

The history of the Jesuit missions in Para
guay is in itself a sufficient refutation of those
who assert that the Order never interferes
with political affairs. In the portion of that
country under their control, until about the
middle of the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
were sole masters of the natives in temporals
as well as spirituals. And what was the result
of their government ? Mr. Washburn, formerly
United States Minister at Asuncion, tells us,
in his History of Paraguay. " In effect, it

JESUITS

[ 330 J

JESUITS

was the worst government ever devised by the
perverted ingenuity, selfishness, and bigotry
of man. The Indians under it were abject
slaves, with no possible chance of rising into
a condition fit for free men, or men capable
of self-government, or self-support. . . . The
exercise of absolute power within the missions
only did not satisfy the Jesuits. Their influ
ence was to be seen and felt everywhere. It
was the same with them in Paraguay as
throughout Europe. They aimed at universal
dominion. They were not content with attend
ing to merely spiritual affairs, but they must
be all the while intriguing to get control of
the civil government. The frontiers of the
missions, and the dividing lines between them,
were guarded like a military camp, and the
enslaved Indians were not allowed to pass
from one to the other. They were as in great
prison pens, with Holy Fathers for overseers."
This Jesuit Utopia was, after all, but a nation
of slaves, with Jesuit priests as masters and
autocrats.

The Jesuits tried hard to form another
Paraguay in Canada. Happily, they failed,
but not before they had caused a vast amount
of trouble to the then rulers of New France, as
Canada was called in the seventeenth century.
Again and again the Jesuits were able to banish
the Huguenots and to prevent the intrusion of
Protestant worship into what then formed part
of the possessions of the King of France. In
1682 Frontenac, Governor of New France,
complained that, " Nearly all the disorders in
New France spring from the ambition of the
ecclesiastics " (by whom he meant the Jesuits
and the bishop who was but their puppet),
"who want to join to their spiritual authority
an absolute power over things temporal, and
who persecute all who do not submit entirely to
them." Parkman, the Canadian historian,
asserts that the Canadian Jesuits " frequently
did the work of political agents among the
Indians." At one period the Superior of
the Canadian Jesuits was one of the Council
of the Governor, when it consisted of five persons
only ; and Parkman adds that " Before the
end of the seventeenth century the functions
of the Canadian Jesuit had become as much
political as religious." In a book published in
Toronto in 1877, entitled Rome in Canada, the
author, Mr. Charles Lindsay, after referring to
the early political work of the Canadian Jesuits,
adds : " What the Jesuits were then doing,
under the French dominion, they are repeating
to-day ; " and he affirms that, " To-day Canada
is fast becoming the paradise of the Jesuits."

It was the political work of the Jesuits that
led to the fearful Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648.
Maximilian of Bavaria and Ferdinand of Aus
tria had been educated by them, and were, for

the purposes of the war, but mere puppets in
their hands. Gindely, in his History of the
Thirty Years' War, affirms positively that the
Emperors Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III.
were " affiliated " members of the Jesuit Order,
and that the war itself was at the time, and
since then, known as " The Jesuits' War."

In every section of work undertaken by the
Jesuit Order, it has ever relied, with unshaken
confidence, on the practice of equivocation and
mental reservation. Without the aid of these
evil weapons disaster would almost always have
attended its boldest projects. By crooked
dealing and deception it has won many of its
greatest victories. What is an "equivo
cation " ? It is thus defined by the Kev. John
Morris, a modern Jesuit writer : " An equivo
cation was a false expression used under such
circumstances, that if they to whom it was
addressed were deceived by it, it was their
own fault." In other words, equivocation
consists in the use of words or phrases having
a double meaning. A " mental reservation,"
says the Roman Catholic Dictionary, " occurs
when a person uses words in a sense other than
that which is obvious and which he knows
they are likely to convey. Thus, a man who
tells a beggar that he has no money in his
pocket, meaning that he has no money to give
the beggar, uses mental reservation. He in
serts mentally a qualification or restriction
which is not expressed." The notorious Jesuit,
Father Garnett, affirmed that it was lawful to
equivocate, not only in life, but also " at the
hour of death it is lawful to equivocate, with
such due circumstances as are required in this
life." He also declared that it was lawful to
confirm equivocation with an oath, or " by re
ceiving the Sacrament," if necessary. It is
notorious that Jesuits have used both equivoca
tion and mental reservation in a manner calcu
lated to undermine all confidence between man
and man, even in the ordinary affairs of life.
It would be well were judges and magistrates to
bear this historical fact in mind whenever a
Jesuit appears before them in the witness-box.

The Spiritual Exercises, written by Ignatius
Loyola, have proved most serviceable to the
Jesuit Order, especially in obtaining for it new
members. They were not written at once, but
in fragments. The book was approved by
Paul III. on July 31, 1548. It was written origi
nally in Spanish , but was immediately translated
into Latin. The volume was first printed, for
the private use of the Society, in 1548. It is
remarkable that the first Roman Catholic trans
lation into English was not published until
1736. The Rev. Orby Shipley, then a Ritualistic
priest, but now a Roman Catholic layman,
published an edition in 1870, for the use of
members of the Church of England, and, as was

JESUITS

[ 331 ]

JESUITS

stated in the preface, with only "a few trifling
omissions — not more than three or four — to
bring the work more in unison with the doctrine
and discipline of the Anglican Church." The
modern Roman Catholic author of The Jesuits:
Their Foundation and History, states that ' ' It
is not a book to be gone through alone, but
it needs a wise and experienced Director to
explain its precious lessons, and to apply them
to the strength and capacity of each individual
soul." The Spiritual Exercises are described
by the author as a " method of preparing and
disposing the soul to free itself from all in
ordinate affections, and after it has freed
itself from them, to seek and find the will of
God concerning the ordering of life for the
salvation of one's soul." The penitent taking
these Exercises is advised to go into a " Re
treat " for the purpose, lasting four weeks, or,
at the utmost, thirty days. The book is made
the basis of meditations during that period,
under the guidance of a priest. The main
object set before the penitent is the un-
scriptural one of acquiring more merit in the
sight of God. During the whole of the period
very little time is given to reading ; in fact,
all that is said on the subject in the Spiritual
Exercises is contained in the following brief
direction: "During the second week, and so
henceforward, it greatly helps to read occa
sionally out of the Imitation of Christ, or the
Gospels, or the Lives of the Saints." It will be
observed that in this list of books the Gospels
occupy only a secondary place, and that the
Bible, as a whole, is not once recommended.
In the first week the penitent meditates upon
sin, its nature, and its punishment. With the
eyes of his imagination he is to see " those
great fires " of Hell, " and the souls, as it were,
in bodies of fire ... to smell the smoke, the
sulphur, the filth, and the putrid matter" of
Hell. This particular meditation on Hell he
is to make "one hour before supper." It is
recommended that these exercises shall be
made " at one time kneeling, at another
prostrate upon the earth, or stretched on the
ground with my face upwards, now seated,
now standing." During the first week also,
the penitent "is not to desire to think on
pleasant and joyful subjects ; " and in order
to add to his gloom and sorrow, he is recom
mended to deprive himself " of all light,
shutting the shutters and doors " while in the
room ; and to be careful " not to laugh or
to say anything that may provoke laughter."
He is advised to "chastise the flesh; that is
to say, by causing it sensible pain, which is
inflicted by wearing a hair cloth, cords, or
iron chains, next to the skin, by disciplining
or bruising the body, and by other kinds of
austerities." It is declared that the object of

these self-imposed penances is to make "satis
faction for past sins" — a most unscriptural idea,
for the Bible recognises only the satisfaction
for sins made by the Lord Jesus Christ. In
the second week of the Exercises the penitent
must meditate on the Incarnation of our Lord
Jesus, and on certain incidents in His ministry
while on earth. During this period he is re
quired to think a great deal about the blessings
of poverty. He is informed, in the Sjnritual
Exercises, that, "It will help much to rooting
out of such an inordinate affection, to ask in
our colloquies, even though it be against the
flesh, that our Lord should choose us to actual
poverty, protesting that we desire, petition,
and ask for it, provided it be to the service
and praise of His divine goodness." Although
Ignatius orders that " He who gives the Exer
cises must not incline him who receives them
more to poverty or to a vow than to their con
traries," there is reason to fear that this is
often done, the penitent being urged to adopt
a life of voluntary poverty, giving up all his
property, the disposal of which is often given
to the Jesuits. This, at least, was the charge
brought against them as early as the year 1602
by Father William Watson, a secular priest,
who, in his Decacordon of Ten Quodlibeticall
Questions, mentions many instances, with
which he was personally acquainted, in which
Jesuits had so used the Spiritual Exercises as
to induce their penitents, male and female, to
give up to the Jesuit Order vast sums of
money and many valuable estate?.

In the third week the penitent's meditations
are on the later events of our Lord's earthly
life to His death. In the fourth week he
contemplates the events between the Resur
rection and the Ascension. Of course the
Confessional must be frequently used during
the whole of the four weeks. In the Spiritual
Exercises are printed eighteen "Rules for Think
ing with the Church." The sixth is " to praise
the relics of saints, showing veneration to the
relics, and praying to the saints, and to praise
likewise the stations, pilgrimages, indulgences,
jubilees, bulls of the Cruciata, and candles
lighted in churches." The thirteenth rule is
one which, perhaps more than anything else,
has tended to give the Jesuit Order a bad name.
It is as follows : " To attain the truth in
all things, we ought always to hold that we
believe what seems to us white to be black, if
the Hierarchical Church so defines it"— a rule,
alas I only too widely adopted in the papal
Church, and leading to the grossest supersti
tion. In 1606 a Jesuit priest, named Strange,
was asked by the celebrated Cecil, if the
Church were to teach that a subject might
kill a deposed king, would he think it lawful
to do the deed 1 To which the Jesuit replied,

JESUITS

[ 332 ]

JESUITS

"Yes." This is an illustration of the way in
which this thirteenth rule might act even in
the twentieth century.

The Spiritual Exercises from beginning to
end seem to present to the penitent a merely
mechanical religion, an attempt, from outside
sources, to galvanise a spiritually dead body
into life. There is one remarkable omission
in the volume which, so far as I can ascertain,
no Protestant writer has ever noticed. God
the Holy Ghost is banished from the book, except
as an historical personage mentioned in only
two very brief passages. The volume is in
tended to help the sinner from earth to
heaven, but he is never urged to seek the
enlightenment and aid of the Holy Spirit, who
is treated as though He were quite unneeded
by a soul seeking salvation and holiness I The
omission is significant and sinful, nor can we
doubt that it was made of set purpose by the
author. There are, of course, many good
things in the Spiritual Exercises, yet, taking
the book as a whole, it is not calculated to
promote vital religion on scriptural lines.

In studying the operations of the Jesuit
Order in the past and in the present, it is
important not to fall into the delusion that its
workers are confined to the vowed members,
whether they be priests or laymen. If these
were all, the Order could not have attained to
a tithe of the influence which it has exercised
so perniciously. The Jesuits have agents who
do most of their work for them, while the real
wire-pullers often remain in the dark, unseen
and unknown to the general public. Indeed, as
Mr. Cartwright proves, in his valuable work,
The Jesuits ; Their Constitution and Teaching,
modern Jesuits have themselves acknowledged
that a few prominent men have been secretly
admitted as members, such as Francis Borgia,
the rich Duke of Gandia, who subsequently
became General of the Jesuits. Mr. Cartwright
also mentions a few cases of Jesuits in disguise
as Protestant ministers, especially that of John
August Stark. It is also well known that in
India, during the sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies, Jesuit missionaries assumed the disguise
of Brahmins; while in China they disguised the
Christian religion itself by overlaying it with
heathen customs and ceremonies, leading to
the celebrated controversy on the " Chinese
Rites," in which eventually the Jesuits were
condemned by Rome. The celebrated Duke
of Saint Simon, in his well-known Memoirs,
affirms that the libertine Louis XIV., King of
France, was secretly admitted into the Society
of Jesus shortly before his death. Gindely, in
his History of the Thirty Years' War, distinctly
declares that the Emperors Ferdinand II. and
Ferdinand III., "and other Princes," were
also members of the Jesuit Order.

But the chief auxiliaries of the Jesuit Order
are found in the Sodalities for men and women
attached to it wherever the Jesuits possess a
church of their own. The first of these Sodal
ities was formed in Rome in 1563, since which
they have increased and multiplied on every
hand. The members are all admitted in the
name and by the authority of the General of
the Jesuits, and are pledged to obedience to
the priestly Directors placed over them, who,
in turn, are under vows of blind obedience to
their Superiors. These Sodalities are not all
known under one name. They are sometimes
known as " Children of Mary," the " Congrega
tion of Mary," " Children of the Holy Family,"
and many other names. All of these organisa
tions are affiliated to the central body at Rome,
known as the Prima Primaria. They are
formed for different classes of society. In
probably every Jesuit College and School a
Sodality is erected for the scholars, and in
every school for girls also, where Jesuit in
fluence is felt. The boys and girls do not
necessarily cease to be members when they
leave College or school ; they may remain in
the Sodality to the end of their lives. In
London, at the principal Jesuit Church in
Farm Street, W., Sodalities are established
for the upper ranks of society only, the lowest
rank admitted being that of gentleman or
lady respectively. The gentlemen have a
special chapel for their own private use. At
the present time the number of the gentle
men's Sodality is about 300. It will be
easily seen how serviceable to the Jesuit Order
these organisations must prove. The members
mix in private amongst the higher circles of
society, sit down to dinner, it may be, next to
a Cabinet Minister, or other influential per
sonage, learning thus what is going on under
neath the surface of the political world,
occasionally making a suggestion in the in
terests of the Papacy, and acting as Jesuit
spies on everybody, whenever required to do
so by their Directors, whom they are bound
to obey in all things affecting the interests of
the Church of Rome, and of the Jesuit Order
in particular. In what I may term these first-
class Sodalities of the Jesuit Order, men of
the most exalted rank have taken their place.
Amongst the more prominent members have
been Sigismund III., King of Poland; Ladis-
laus IV., King of Poland ; John Casimir, King
of Poland; Popes Alexander VII., Urban VIII.,
Clement IX., Clement X., Innocent X., Inno
cent XL, and Clement XL The celebrated
French Jesuit, Father de Ravignan, was,
during the early portion of the first half of
the nineteenth century, Director of the "Con
gregation of the Children of Mary " at Paris,
into which only ladies of high rank were

JESUITS

[ 333 ]

JESUITS

admitted. In his Life, by Father de Ponlevoy,
S.J., it is stated that this congregation " con
sisted of some six hundred ladies belonging
to the most distinguished circles of Paris
society."

There are Sodalities for different classes of
society and for various professions and trades,
every one of whose members is a Jesuit agent
for the promotion of the objects of the Order,
and a spy to collect information. The first
Sodality formed in England commenced its
operations about the year 1580, when the
Jesuit mission first arrived on these shores.
It was an Association of young gentlemen,
well-to-do, and some of them very rich. From
its ranks came many of the principal agents
who were afterwards executed for attempts
to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. The Jesuit
Sodalities have frequently been utilised by the
Order in furthering its political work. In 1576,
and in the subsequent years, they were used in
France to promote the infamous " Holy
League," having for its main object the ex
termination of every Protestant out of France
by exile or death. Writing early in the
eighteenth century, the Roman Catholic Duke
of Saint Simon, referring to the members,
says : " It answers the purposes of the
Company to insure to itself those hidden
auxiliaries whom it lets off cheaply. But
nothing must pass through their minds,
nothing must come to their knowledge that
they do not reveal to their Confessor." Early
in the nineteenth century, the Abbe de la
Roche Arnauld said, that in one of these Jesuit
congregations alone " there were to be seen of
every grade, from the Duke Mathieu down to
the Apostolic Nuncio ; multitudes of very
Christian barons, dukes, princes, marquises,
counts, cardinals, bishops, deputies, prefects,
and a host of men distinguished for celebrity,
wealth, influence, and especially for fanati
cism." Writing on Modern Jesuitism, in 1855,
Dr. Michelsen declared that in the working of
the various Jesuit Sodalities was to be found
" the Grand Secret of the immense influence
which they (the Jesuits) have for centuries
exercised upon European society." The number
of these organisations scattered throughout
the world is very great. From their ranks the
Jesuits can always select fit instruments for
promoting civil commotions and disturbances.
Their operations should be watched more care
fully in the future by Protestants than they
have been in the past. As a matter of fact,
the majority of Protestants are ignorant of
their existence.

In Canada, during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, the Jesuits possessed a
body of vowed servants, known as Donne's, or
Domestics, several of whom were professional

men, and not merely household servants. They
took a formal vow to serve the Jesuit Order for
life, without wages, while the Order, on its
part, gave them a promise to supply them
with food and clothing, provided they con
tinued "to live in uprightness, diligence, and
fidelity " in the service of the Order, as to
which the Jesuits were the sole judges. So
that, although the Order could turn off a
Donn£ whenever it pleased, the unfortunate
Donnd had to serve his masters for life, with
out any hope of escape from his self-imposed
slavery. Whether such an Order of Domestics,
or Donne's, exists in the twentieth century, in
any of the Jesuit missions, is more than I can
tell.

Our modern English Jesuits, in the official
Records of the English Province, S. J., state that
in the first half of the nineteenth century the
Jesuits employed in England, as a body of
literary servants, " a number of Catholic clergy
men, scholars of the English Jesuits, who,
though never entering the Society, always re
mained in the service of the English Province,
and subject to its Superiors." This mysterious
body of writers, of whom the late Rev. Dr.
George Oliver is named as one, wrote in praise
of the Jesuits, as persons who were not them
selves members of the Order; but they were
careful not to let the public know that all the
time they were "subject to its Superiors." In
what other capacities these Roman Catholic
priests served the Order, we are not informed.
In the Life and Letters of Father John Morris,
S.J., it is mentioned that "he came to London
in the beginning of 1888, and settled at Farm
Street, where the department of writers was
being put on a new footing. Father Coleridge
was still its Director, but next year he was
visited with a slight stroke, from which he
never fully rallied, and Father Morris was
appointed his successor, and continued in this
post till the end." In his Life extracts are
given from several of Father Morris' letters to
those outside the Jesuit Order, arranging for
the writing of new books. It seems, therefore,
that the work of Dr. Oliver is still carried on.

But in addition to these Sodalities and Con
gregations, the Jesuit Order possesses the
control of a vast organisation, larger than has
ever before been formed in any nominally
Christian Church. It was founded for both
men and women by the Jesuits at Vals, in the
diocese of Puy, as recently as 1844, and is
known as "The Holy League of the Sacred
Heart of Jesus," or "The Apostleship of
Prayer." The prayers offered up by the
members are mainly addressed to the " Sacred
Heart " ; but this " Holy League " has other
things besides offering prayers for its members
to do. They are required to devote themselves

JESUITS

334 ]

JESUITS

" to the regeneration of modern society, which
seems falling to pieces," says the official Hand
book for the use of the English members,
which " regeneration," if undertaken on Jesuit
lines, would, we may be quite sure, mean the
suppression of our civil and religious liberties.
This Handbook makes the singular statement
that " many even when out of the Church have
been, if inconsistent, at least sincere members
of the League." It would be interesting to
identify these disguised members of the " Holy
League of the Sacred Heart," doing the work
of the Jesuits while outside of the Roman
Catholic Church ! The members are required
to make a solemn promise never to belong to
secret societies, and especially to avoid the
Freemasons. Special efforts are made to in
duce monks and nuns, though not Jesuits, to
join this "Holy League," whose Director
General is the General of the Jesuits. The
Irish Handbook of the League states that, in
1897, it numbered no fewer than 25,000,000 of
members, scattered throughout the world.
From the ranks of this vast number an abund
ance of suitable agents may be found to carry
out the policy of the Jesuit Order. The fact
that the Order can control such a great multi
tude of men and women should be a lesson to
those Protestants who affect to despise the
Society of Jesus, as though it had but little
influence in the world. By the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act of 1829, the Jesuit Order is
an illegal body in this country.

It would be easy to enlarge upon the im
moral and even regicidal doctrines taught by
the Jesuits from time to time. I must, how
ever, from want of space, content myself with
referring my readers to a few of the many
sources of information on this subject. And,
first of all, I must mention a very scarce
pamphlet of eighty-eight pages, by a French
Roman Catholic, translated into English, and
published in 1611, with the title: Anti Coton ;
or a Refutation of Cotton's Letter Dedaratoric,
' ' in which it is proved that the Jesuits are
guilty, and were the authors of the late exe
crable Parricide, committed upon the person
of the French King, Henry IV. ; " and to which
is added a Supplication of the University of
Paris "in which their king-killing doctrine
is also notably discovered and refuted." The
evil doctrines taught by the Jesuits are also
exposed in a pamphlet of seventy-one pages,
published in English, in 1689, with the title
of The Argument of Mr. Peter de la Marteliere,
"Advocate in the Court of Parliament in Paris,
made in Parliament, the Chambers thereof
being assembled, A.D. 1611." The most power
ful exposure of Jesuit doctrines ever published
was the celebrated Pascal's Provincial Letters,
of which many editions have been published

in English. Another damaging criticism was
published in France, in 1762, but was not
translated into English until a hundred years
later, when it appeared in a well-known book
entitled A Glimpse of the Great Secret Society,
with the title of " Report on the Constitutions
of the Jesuits delivered by M. de la Chalotais,
Procurer General of the King to the Parlia
ment of Bretagne." In 1670 there appeared
in London, as a folio volume of 392 pages, a
translation of the Abbe Arnauld's The Jesuits'
Morals ; " Or, the Principal Errors which the
Jesuits have introduced into Christian Morality.
Faithfully extracted out of their own books."
In 1839 there was published an important
volume bearing the title of The Principles of
the Jesuits, " Developed in a Collection of ex
tracts from their own authors," in which it is
proved that the Jesuits have justified almost
every crime, under certain circumstances. This
book was reissued in 1860, edited by the Rev.
Challis Paroissien, M.A. In this connection
it is important to remember that by the Con
stitutions of the Jesuits the members are
forbidden to publish anything without first
submitting it to their Superiors for their appro
bation. One consequence of this rule is that
the whole Order may justly be held responsible
for anything its members may publish.

Before closing this article I must briefly
refer to the subject of female Jesuits. In the
year 1607 a young English lady, named Mary
Ward, founded at St. Omer's a company of
ladies who were always known as " Jesuitesses."
She acted under the advice of Father Roger
Lee, a Jesuit priest, and adopted the Rules
and Constitution of the Jesuit Order, with
some modifications, for her nuns. She formed
several branches of her new Order on the
Continent and in England, where, however, it
met with very strong opposition from leading
Roman Catholic priests. These priests pre
sented a Memorial to the Pope against them,
terming them "Jesuitesses," and affirming that
they were the occasions of " many scandals,"
were " idle and garrulous," " galloping girls,"
and asserting that they had " a very bad
character." Although, for several years, Mary
Ward received great pontifical encouragement,
yet the complaints against her Order multiplied
to such an extent that at last Urban VIII. issued
a bull suppressing it altogether. In no way
discouraged by the suppression, she at once set
to work to build it up again under a new name,
viz., "The Institute of the Blessed Virgin
Mary," by which designation it is known at
the present day, and works with papal appro
bation. It is still, though nominally inde
pendent, really under the guidance of the
Jesuits, whose Constitutions are its laws, so
that its members are as justly entitled to the

JOSEPH, SAINT

[ 335 ]

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

name of " Female Jesuits" as wore their pre
decessors in the early years of Mary Ward.
In 1887 this Institute possessed no fewer than
1490 houses in various parts of the world,
including nineteen in Ireland and five in Eng
land. The nuns devote themselves mainly to
the education of young ladies. To show how
far the influence of the Jesuit Order has ex
tended amongst Convents generally, it may be
mentioned that in no fewer than seventy-one
Convents in England alone, the Rules and
Constitutions of the Society of Jesus have
been adopted, so far as they are suited for
women.

For a list of books relating to the Society of
Jesus, see Appendix. [W. W.]

JOSEPH, SAINT.— The Gospels assign to
Joseph the position of husband of Mary and
foster-father of Jesus of Nazareth. We learn
from Smith's Bible Dictionary that the first to
institute a festival in his honour were the
Monophysite Christians of Egypt. His name
is found in the Western Martyrologies of the
ninth century, and the Greeks began to
commemorate him about the same time,
along with the saints of the Old Testament.
Thomassin tells us (TraiU des Festes, p. 439)
that the festival of St. Joseph was still un
known in the time of Gerson in the fifteenth
century. St. Teresa and St. Francis de Sales
seem to have been the joint authors of the
devotion to St. Joseph which has become so
popular in the Roman Church in modern times.
Gregory XV. in 1621, and Urban VIII. in 1642,
ordered his feast to be kept on March 19th as
a holiday of obligation ; while Benedict XIII.,
in 1726, ordered his name to be inserted in
the Litany of the Saints, immediately after
that of St. John Baptist (Gavant, torn. ii. p.
310). But Pius IX. outdistanced all his pre
decessors by establishing St. Joseph as pro
tector of the universal Church, and constituting
his festival a double of the first class. The
reason assigned for this innovation was that
as St. Joseph was the protector of the human
life of Christ, it was fitting to ask his inter
cession on behalf of Christ's mystical body,
that is, the Eucharist. Pius IX. also instituted
a new festival in September 1847, namely, the
Patronage of St. Joseph, to be celebrated on
the third Sunday after Easter.

Several communities in the Roman Church
claim St. Joseph as their patron, as : (1) The
Josephites, founded at Lyons about 1640, and
called Priests of the Mission of St. Joseph.
(2) The Lay Hospitallers, or Daughters of St.
Joseph, founded at Bordeaux in 1638, for
the education of orphan girls. (3) The Nuns
Hospitallers of St. Joseph, founded at La
Fleche in Anjou. (4) The Nuns of St. Joseph
of the Good Shepherd, founded by Henri de

Maupas at the suggestion of the Jesuits in 1650.
These nuns established Magdalen Asylums, and
have just now an unenviable notoriety in
France, because of their inhuman treatment of
orphan girls. (5) The Sisters of Charity of
St. Joseph, founded in Maryland in 1807.
(6) The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, founded
also in 1807. (7) The Sisters of St. Joseph of
Bourg, founded in 1828. (8) The Sisters of St.
Joseph of the Apparition, founded in 1853.
(9) The Sisters of the Daughters of St. Joseph,
an offshoot of the Good Shepherd nuns. The
devotion to the Sacred Heart seems to have
seriously interfered with that to St. Joseph.

[T.C.]

JUBILEE.— A technical term in the Ro
man Church for a solemn plenary indulgence
for a whole year. According to a Catholic
Dictionary, London, 1897, it occurs every
twenty-five years, and is granted for a three
days' fast, visits to certain rchurches, prayers
in accordance with the intention of the Pope,
the giving of alms, confessing and communi
cating. See INDULGENCES.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.— The Crown is the
fountain of jurisdiction, and from the earliest
times the ultimate appeal lay to the king,
either in Council or in Parliament. When the
Papal Supremacy was abolished at the Refor
mation, an appeal from all courts of the
archbishop was given by the 25 Hen. VIII. c.
19 to the king in Chancery, and was there
dealt with by delegates appointed ad hoc by
the Crown. On the Report of a Royal Commis
sion, the High Court of Delegates was abolished,
and its jurisdiction transferred in 1832 to the
king in Council by the Act 2 & 3 Will.
IV. c. 92. sec. 3. In the following year the
Judicial Committee was formed, and took over
all the judicial functions of the Privy Council
under the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41. The
Committee consists of the President of the
Council, the Lord High Chancellor, and all
members of the Privy Council who hold, or
have held, certain named high judicial offices.
In addition to these the Crown may appoint
two other persons, being Privy Councillors.
Under the Church Discipline Act of 1840, sec.
16, all archbishops and bishops who were
Privy Councillors were members of the Judi
cial Committee on ecclesiastical appeals, and
one of them at least must be present at every
hearing of such an appeal. But this section
now stands repealed by the Appellate Juris
diction Act of 1876, 39 & 40 Viet. c. 59, which,
by sec 14, directed that a number to be fixed
by Order in Council of archbishops or bishops
should sit as assessors to the Judicial Committee.
An order in Council subsequently provided for
the appointment of five assessors in rotation,
with a provision that at least three shall be

JURISDICTION

[ 336 ]

JUSTIFICATION

present at the hearing of all ecclesiastical
appeals.

Lord Selborne observes in his Defence of the
Church of England (p. 42) : " There was very
little, if any, difference in principle between
the appeal to the 'king in Chancery,' given
by the Act of 1533, and the old custom of the
Church of England before the allowance of
appeals to Rome, as declared by the eighth

• Article of the Constitutions of Clarendon.
. . . There cannot possibly be any difference
in principle between an appeal to the king in
Chancery, given by statute in 1533, and an
appeal to the king in Council, given by
statute in A.D. 1832 ; the latter may or may not
be a better Court than the former, but there can
be no difference in principle." [J. T. T.]

JURISDICTION.— See CANON LAW.

JUSTIFICATION.— Two different senses have
been attached to this term. The first is its
obvious and natural signification. The other
is certainly not that which it most naturally
conveys. In the view of those two senses and
the doctrines connected with them, we stand,
as it were, at the fountain-head of the con
troversies which divide us from the theo
logy of the Roman Church. Here is the
parting of the streams. On the one side
flows the stream which contains the Scriptural
and truly Catholic doctrines —the stream of
the pure water of life. On the other side is the
river which winds through artificial courses —
channels cut by the wisdom of human devices —
in which the water becomes corrupted by ad
mixture of the thoughts of men who esteemed
their thoughts higher than those of God.

From the nature of the case the doctrine has
to be regarded in connection with the general
view of the history of man given to us in
Holy Scripture. First, we have to consider
man as a fallen being. So far there is no
controversy. All theologians agree that the
justification of man has to do with the undoing
of the work of an enemy, and man's restoration
from a terrible fall. It must not, however,
be assumed that there will be found agree
ment as to man's fallen condition. The teach
ing of our Church 1 concerning " original sin "
— " the fault and corruption " of the nature
of every man — does not coincide with the
teaching of the Church of Rome. As lead
ing up to the Reformed doctrine of justi
fication, the Church of England declares

1 See Rogers on XXXIX. Articles, p. 97, P.S.
Such views, however, as those of Ruardus Tap-
perus, can hardly claim support from the decrees
of the Council of Trent. What the Council
declared was this : " If any man deny that the
guilt of sin is remitted by the grace of Christ
conferred in baptism, or shall even assert that

(Article IX.) of original sin, that " in every
person born into this world, it deserveth God's
wrath and damnation " (iram Dei atque damna-
tionem mcretur).

But secondly, our subject requires us to view
the history of man as given in Scripture in
connection with the revelation there made of
the divine purpose of undoing the works of the
enemy, and lifting up man from his fall. On
that point there is so far no matter of contro
versy. In the oracles of God we cannot fail
to behold the revelation of the glory of God
in carrying out this saving purpose ; and this
by a plan of Infinite Wisdom — a plan to man's
eyes marvellous indeed, and incredible save to
those who believe what is taught by the Holy
Spirit of God.

We have here to confine our attention to one
only point in the divine procedure. It may be
regarded as the culminating point in the divine
revelation. In the Reformed view, that cul
minating point is a judicial procedure which
is the marvel of marvels, the wonder of the
divinely wonderful, the very miracle of the
miraculous.

This divine marvel will be clearly seen in
the answers to the following questions : —

1. What is justification? It is, according to
the view of the Reformers, the accounting as
righteous, not the making righteous ; not the
infusing of righteousness into the soul, but a
judicial acquittal, and gift to man of the stand
ing of the righteous.

2. Who are the subjects of justification ?
Those who might righteously be regarded as
proper subjects of condemnation, who are not
innocent, but guilty ; who cannot do anything
to merit a sentence of acquittal, who have
nothing to plead, save that they are deserving of
the just sentence of the severity of judgment.

3. How then can divine justification be
obtained ? We must admit our guilt — in solemn
stillness before the Righteous Judge (Rom. iii.
19), and accepting our justification as a free
gift (dwpedv, Rom. iii. 24) ; not by putting in
any pleas of human infirmity or human en
deavour, nor by making appeal only to divine
compassion and tender mercy. We must
simply accept in faith God's gift of a justi
fication which we cannot merit.

It is scarcely necessary to say that in all
these answers the divergence between the
teaching of the Churches of England and
Rome is to be clearly seen.

the total of sin is not removed, but only shorn
(radi), or not imputed, let him be anathema "
(see Mendham, Memoirs of Council of Trent, p. 76).
There is still considerable variety of opinion
among Romish Theologians. See Catholic Dic
tionary, s.v. ORIGINAL SIN.

JUSTIFICATION

[ 337 ]

JUSTIFICATION

It is true, indeed, that a great diversity1
of view on the question of justification was
expressed in the Council of Trent, as it had
been in preceding ages, and as it has been
also in times which have followed since in the
history of the Romish Church. It is true also,
that some obscurity and considerable ambi
guity is to be found in the language of the
Council's decrees. And this was, no doubt, the
result of a politic design, that there might not
seem to be too distinct a condemnation of those
— who then formed a section too important
to be disregarded — who opposed the domi
nant theology of the Jesuits. Nevertheless, it
is sufficiently clear that the Council condemns
the teaching (1) that justification is to be
understood in the forensic sense of account
ing righteous ; and (2) that the subjects of
justification are rightly spoken of as persons
justly condemned ; and (3) that justification
is to be obtained by the faith which simply
accepts the free gift of justification whereby
the unrighteous are justified.

Rome teaches that justification — "non est
sola peccatorurn remissio, sed et sanctificatio,
et renovatio interioris hominis . . ." (Sess.
vi. 1547. Cap. vii.) And following upon this
we read : (1) " Si quis dixerit, homines justifi-
cari vel sola imputatione justitiae Christi, vel
sola peccatorurn remissione . . . anathema sit "
(Can. 11). (2) "Si quis dixerit, sola fide im-
pium justificari, ita ut intelligat nihil aliud
requiri . . . anathema sit" (Can. 9). (3) "Si
quis dixerit, hominem a peccatis absolvi, ac
justificari ex eo, quod se absolvi ac justificari
certo credat . . . anathema sit" (Can. 14). 2

1 Justification was a subject on which the
Tridentiue Theologians were confessedly very
much at sea (see Mendham, Memoirs, pp. 80,
100,101). Some in the Roman Church stilltaught
the ancient Catholic truth. Cranmer's Homily on
Salvation, referred to in Article XL, has many
points of contact with Cajetan's Commentary on
JRomant, a work which Cranmer is known to have
studied (see Canon Jenkins, Pre-Tridentine Doc
trine, pp. 69-73 ; also Church Intelligencer, March
1894, p. 42). Pole and Contarini, on this point, had
strong affinities to the doctrine of the Reformed.

2 "It is not only remission of sins, but also
sanctification and a renovation of the inner man."
" If any one says that men are justified either
by the imputation alone of the righteousness of
Christ, or by the remission alone of sins . . . let
him be accursed." " If any one says that the
unrighteous are justified by faith only, so that
nothing else is required ... let him be ac
cursed." " If any one says that a man is
absolved from sins, and justified, because he
believes certainly that he is absolved and justi
fied . . . let him be accursed."

It should be well observed that the tendency
of these teachings is obviously to derogate
from the miraculous character of the Christian
faith which is to be believed as a matter of
doctrine. And it should be noted that, in the
teaching of Holy Scripture, the marvel of the
doctrine is not only enforced in general and
comprehensive statements, but is strongly ac
centuated by the way in which it is set forth as
— if viewed apart from its divine connections
— being a doing of that which is contrary to
God's revealed character, a violation of His
justice, a breaking of His law, a procedure which
He will never allow in His judges ; nay, an act
which He declares to be an abomination in
His sight (Rom. iv. 5).

Thus the Christian faith is set before us in the
New Testament as that which teaches us to be
lieve " on Him that justifieth the ungodly." The
words of the original here should be specially
noted : Triffreuovri firl rbv SiKaiovvra. rbv daeprj
(Rom. iv. 5).

When in answer to the prayer of His ser
vant Moses, " I beseech Thee show me Thy
Glory," Jehovah vouchsafed to proclaim " the
name of the Lord " before him, the solemn
declaration was made that He will "by no
means clear the guilty " (Exod. xxxiv. 7).
And so, in view of the judicial proceedings of
His people, He warns them " I will not justify
the wicked " (Exod. xxiii. 7), which is rendered
in the LXX., ou 5i*catwcreis rbv dcrepij. And
again in Deuteronomy, the warning is repeated
that in matters which come up for judgment,
"they shall justify (StKcuwcrwcrt) the righteous,
and condemn the wicked" (TOVS d<re/3oi/j) (Deut.
xxv. 1). Again, it is declared in the Book of
Proverbs, " He that justifieth the wicked, and
he that condemneth the just, even they both
are abomination to the Lord," (Prov. xvii. 15).
And yet again, in the solemn words of the
Lord by His prophet Isaiah, we find an awful
woe denounced against those "which justify
the wicked for reward" (Isa. v. 23); where
again we must specially note that the LXX.
rendering is ol diKaiovvres rbv dfff(3rj. In other
words, their offence, their unrighteousness,
their sin is described in the very words which
are adopted by the inspired apostle to set
before us that which our faith is to see God
doing for us in the matter of our justification.
God's faithless people were to know that His
woe was upon them for justifying the ungodly.
God's faithful people now are to know that
their only hope is in believing in Him who
justificth the ungodly.

But how shall we believe that which is not
merely marvellous — not simply miraculous —
but absolutely incredible — that which, apart
from one connecting link, is clearly impossible,
impossible even to divine Omnipotence ? For

JUSTIFICATION

[ 338 ]

JUSTIFICATION

God's own Almighty power is limited by His
divine perfections. God cannot lie ; God can
not deny Himself. To believe in a divine
justification of the ungodly is to believe that
which is against God's law, against God's Word,
against the revelation of God's character, of
God's name, of God's glory. Is it possible that
our faith can be called to believe this ?

The answer to this question is this : We are
not called to believe this except in connection
with that which makes it credible, which leaves
it indeed still the wonder of wonders, the miracle
of divine miracles ; rather, which reveals its
wonder and its marvels in the wonderful light
— even the light of the knowledge of the glory
of God in the Person of Jesus Christ — the light
in which its wonder is seen as marvellously
meeting the need of the outcast, condemned l
sinner, man, and at the same time revealing
the divine wisdom of the divine plan, by
which not God's mercy alone, but His justice
— even that justice which seemed to make justi
fication impossible — is seen displayed in justi
fying ungodly through faith in Christ.

But besides considering the doctrine of justi
fication in connection with the history of the
Fall, it is necessary to view it in connection
with the doctrine of Christ's atoning work. In
looking at justification, we are contemplating
the divinely wonderful result of the divine pur
pose for the restoration of the sinner man to the
position of a reconciled child of God. The
revealed history of the ages before is the
history of a preparation for the incarnation of
the Son of God. For what purpose was the
Word of God incarnate ? No doubt there are
ulterior purposes to be taken into view. But
the main purpose set before us in God's Word
is this, that in our human nature He might
die upon the Cross for us. And for what
purpose did Christ die upon the Cross ? Take
the answer from the Word : "If righteousness
(i.e. the righteousness of our justification) come
by the law (that is by man's own works, or
efforts, or attainments), then Christ died in
vain" (Gal. ii. 21), died Supedv — died for no
purpose, died strictly and absolutely for
nothing. In other words, Christ's death was
either "for nothing," or for our justification.
Does not the testimony of the Law and of
the Prophets all point to the same truth — a
truth so abundantly testified to in the writings
of the New Testament ?

i "Grace is to 'justification,' as sin to 'con
demnation.' All these shew manifestly we must
imagine ourselves standing at the bar, or we
shall never take the state of this question
aright, nor truly understand the mystery of this
Name ['The Lord our righteousness']" (Bishop
Andrewes, Sermons, vol. v. p. 116, A.C.L.).

Do we ask, How does the death of Christ
affect the matter of our justification? We
may be satisfied to take for our answer so
much as is revealed in the inspired word of
the Apostle: "God made Him to be sin for
us, who knew no sin, that we might be made
the righteousness of God in Him " 2 (2 Cor.
v. 21).

But there is one other text which demands
some special consideration, in view of the
difficulty of believing in the righteous God
righteously justifying the ungodly. It is the
text which tells us of Christ, "Whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in His blood, to show His righteousness
because of the passing over of sins done afore
time, in the forbearance of God ; to declare, I
say, at this time His righteousness, that He
might Himself be just, and the justifier of
him that is of the faith of Jesus " (Rom.
iii. 25, 26).

We know that God's judgment is " according
to truth " against sinners. How then shall
this truth leave a door open for mercy ? And
how shall this judgment make a way for their
justification ? 3

2 Ov yapelirev eTroirjaeif afJ.apTdj\6v, dXV ' A/JLapriav.
oi^i rbv fj.rj afj.aprav6vra (JLOVOV, clXXd. rbv /j.r)5£
yvovra a/JLapTiav ' 'iva Kal T]/j.eis yevdi/meOa, OVK elrre,
SLKHLOL, dXXct A.LKaiocrijvi], Ktnl GeoO AiKaioffvvij,
(Chrysostom, In Ep. II. ad Cor., Horn. xi. § 3,
Op. torn. x. pp. 517, 518. Ed. Montfaucon,
Paris, 1718). "What" (says Bishop Andrewes)
" can be further said, what can be conceived more
comfortable ? To have Him ours, not to make
us righteous, but to make us ' righteousness,'
and that not any other but ' the righteousness of
God ' ; the wit of man can devise no more. And
all to this end, that we might see there belongeth
a special Ecce to this name, that there is more
than ordinary comfort in it ; that therefore we
should be careful to honour Him with it, and so
call Him by it: 'Jehovah our righteousness'"
(Sermons, vol. v. p. 113, A.C.L.).

8 " Here man's reason may be astonied. . . .
This reason is satisfied by the great wisdom of
God in this mystery of our redemption. ... So
the justice of God and His mercy did embrace
together, and fulfilled the mystery of our re
demption " (Homily Of Salvation, Part i.). "Sum-
mum hie habetur paradoxon Evangelicum.
Nam in lege conspicitur Deus Justus et condem-
nans ; in Evangelic, Justus Ipse et justificans
peccatorem " (Bengel). "Deus Justus est, et
Justus justificare non potest injustos : ideo in-
terventum voluit esse propitiatoris, ut per ejus
fidem justificarentur qui per opera propria justi-
ficari non poterant" (Origen, Com. on Ep. ad
Rom., lib. iii. Op. torn. iv. c. 946, Ed. Migne ; p.
513, Ed. Ben.).

JUSTIFICATION

[ 339 ]

JUSTIFICATION

The answer to these questions is to be found
in the only natural exegesis of this inspired
teaching concerning the atoning death of the
incarnate Son of God. There was a great
purpose in view. There was a great end to
be accomplished. There was a stupendous
difficulty in the way. But here we are taught
to see the removal of that fearful obstruction
in the Blood of Christ, and in that Blood to
see a propitiation, and in that propitiation to
see a work effected whereby Mercy and Truth
are made to meet together, Righteousness and
Peace to kiss one another. God spares not
His own Son, but gives Him up to die, the
Just for the unjust, that so He may Himself
be just, and at the same time the Justifier of
all who believe in Jesus (els rb elvat avrbv dtKaioi>
KO.I SiKaiovvra TQV e/c Tr/orews 'Itjcrov, Rom. iii.
26).1

This is the Protestant doctrine of justifica
tion, as it is so well expressed in our Article XI. :
" We are accounted righteous before God, only
for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or
deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified
by Faith only is a most wholesome doctrine,
and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the Homily of Justification."

So Bishop Andrewes : " Deus sanguine in
suo, 'God with His Blood' — what sin in the
world would not that serve for ? What justice

1 It will be found, we believe, that in the
Greek of the New Testament the conjunction
Iva. loses often much of its causative force (see
e.g. Matt. v. 29 ; Mark ix. 12 ; John iv. 34 ; vi. 28,
29, 39, 40 ; xvi. 7 ; Gal. v. 17 ; Eph. i. 17 ; v. 33 ;
Philip, i. 9, 10; Philem. 19; 1 John i. 9; ii. 19;
iii. 1, 23 ; v. 16 ; 2 John 5, 8 ; 3 John, 4 ;
Rev. vi. 11) which force is (not without excep
tions) most strongly expressed by the phrase,
els rb, with an infinitive pointing to the effect to be
aimed at, or the result to be attained (see, e.g.
Rom. i. 20; iv. 11, 1G, 18 ; viii. 29; Eph. i. 12,
18 ; Philip, i. 10 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Heb. viii. 3 ;
vii. 25 ; ix. 14, 28 ; xi. 3 ; xii. 10 ; James i., 18 ;
1 Pet. iii. 7 ; iv. 2) . When Iva. and els r6 occur in
connection, 'iva (says Westcott) "appears to
mark in each case the direct and immediate
end, while els r6 indicates the more remote result
aimed at or reached" (On Heb. v. 1, p. 118).
Bishop Moule writes : " For you . . . ' Redemp
tion ' cannot be named, or thought of, apart
from its first precious element, 'remission of
sins,' justification of the guilty. It is steeped
in ideas of Propitiation, it is red and glorious
with the Redeemer's Blood, without \vhich it
could not have been. The all-blessed God with
all His attributes, His character, is by you seen
evermore as 'just, yet the Justifier of him that
bdieveth in Jesus' " (On Rom. iii. 26, p. 95).

in heaven or earth would not that satisfy '/
If ye speak of an expiation, a ransom, an
ai>Td\\a-yna — Christ's own word — a perfect
'commutation,' there it is. This had, Justice
will meet, embrace, kiss Mercy, shake hands,
join now friends : Jnvcni enim in quo rcpro-
pitier. . . . And this is it the Christian religion
sets before us : how the Son of the Most High
God of heaven and earth took on Him our
nature, that in our nature, for our nature, He
might make to God ... a complete, full,
every way sufficient satisfaction. And this,
lo, makes the meeting. This honour hath the
Christian religion above all other ; this glor}>
doth dwell in our land ; that these four [mercy
and truth, righteousness and peace] by Christ's
birth in it are brought not only to olviaverunt
sibi; but even to et osculatce sunt" (Serm. xi.
Of the Nativity, vol. i. p. 184. Anglo-Catk. Lib.).

So Hooker, after setting out the erroneous
teachings of Rome in the matter of justifica
tion, says, "The righteousness wherein we
must be found, if we will be justified, is not
our own ; therefore we cannot be justified by
any inherent quality. Christ hath merited
righteousness for as many as are found in
Him. In Him God findeth us if we be faithful,
for by faith we are incorporated into Him.
Then, although in ourselves we be altogether
sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man
which in himself is impious, full of iniquity,
full of sin ; him being found in Christ through
faith, and having his sin in hatred through
repentance ; him God beholdeth with a gra
cious eye, putteth away his sin, by not imputing
it, taketh away the punishment due thereunto,
by pardoning it ; and accepteth him in Jesus
Christ as perfectly righteous, as if he had
fulfilled all that is commanded him in the
law ; shall I say more perfectly righteous than
if himself had fulfilled the whole law ? I
must take heed what I say ; but the Apostle
saith, ' God made Him which knew no sin, to
be sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him.' Such are we
in the sight of God the Father, as is the very
Son of God Himself. Let it be counted folly,
or phrensy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our
wisdom and our comfort ; we care for no
other knowledge in the world but this, that
man hath sinned, and God hath suffered ; that
God hath made Himself the sin of man, and
that men are made the righteousness of God "
(Sermon ii. § 6, vol. iii. pp. 490, 491. Ed. Keble).

Objections have been urged against accept
ing this view of God's dealings with men.
These difficulties must be dealt with in a few
brief words.

It is objected that the injustice of justi
fying the unjust cannot be justified by the
added injustice of condemning the just.

JUSTIFICATION

[ 340 ]

JUSTIFICATION

But human law holds, and natural justice
recognises, that two injustices (viewed apart)
may become perfectly just, when viewed in
connection with the voluntary substitution of
one for another in certain respects.1

It is unjust to charge to A the debt of B.
But A may voluntarily pay the debt of B, and
in consequence B may justly be as fully re
leased from the obligation of the debt as if he
had paid it himself.2

Human analogies, doubtless, can but im
perfectly interpret the whole truth of that
which is divine. But they may help us to
understand that which God would have our
faith to apprehend in His divine revelation.
It is written " Christ hath redeemed us (-^uas
egijy6pa.ffev) from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us " (Gal. iii. 13). Sin is
set before us in the teaching of Christ Himself
as a debt — a debt of ten thousand talents.
David could say, "Would God I had died for
thee (T^fl, 'Eyb tori <roD, LXX.), 0 Absalom,
my son, my son " (2 Sam. xviii. 33). This was
the utterance of a vain wish, but Christ declared
His purpose to give His life a ransom for many
(\vrpov dvrl -rro\\Civ) (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45).
And His apostle speaks of it as an axiomatic
truth that He gave Himself a ransom for all
(dvTt\vTpov vvep irai>TUi>) (1 Tim. ii. 6). It was
the mind which was in Christ Jesus which
moved the apostle to send this word with a
runaway slave, now converted, to his master
" If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
ought, put that on mine account" (Philem.
18).3

1 See Butler's Analogy, Part ii. ch. v. § vii.,
especially pp. 514-216. Oxford, 1844.

2 The analogy between the payment of a
debt and the atonement of Christ is prominent
in the writings of Athanasius, and it may be
that his influence tended to give prevalence to
the idea in after ages. But it is a mistake to
suppose that it was unknown to Theology in the
ages before. See Doctrine of the Death of Christ
(E. Stock), p. 78. See also Malan's Armenian
Liturgy, p. 39, and Introduction, p. 10. Bright-
man's Eastern Liturgies, p. 436.

3 Was there nothing in primeval (see Pro
fessor Curtiss on "Primitive Semitic Sacrifice"
in Expositor, August 1902) and patriarchal re
ligion — especially was not the substitution of a
ram for the offering of Isaac — in which offering
the Jews saw the basis of all sacrifice (with the
name "Jehovah Jireh," continually witnessing
to the prophetic word, "God will provide a lamb
for a burnt offering " ) ; and afterwards, was there
nothing in the law of condemnation in the
terrors of Sinai (with its ever-accompanying cere
monial witness — the witness of a shadow — to the
reality of an expiation to be expected) ; and in

Again in this connection, there is another
truth which should be kept in view. When
Christ gave Himself to pay the debt of
death to sin for us, He was giving Himself for
us into the hands of an enemy, by whose
hands it was not possible that He should be
holden. So that when He rose again, having
paid our debt, He rose with power to convey
His now redeemed and justified people through
conquered death to the life of salvation. "If,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of His Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by His
life" (Rom. v. 10).

But further, we are told that this doctrine
is open to the objection that it is obviously
liable to grievous abuse.

To this it must be answered first, that it
would not be the true doctrine of the New
Testament if it were not open to abuse. It is
perfectly evident that the writers of the New
Testament were conscious that the doctrine
taught by the apostles was open to this charge.
This fact calls for warning against the abuse,
but will not justify any deduction from the
marvels of the doctrine ''which is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth."4

the unfolding of history, was there nothing in
the sure word of prophecy with its awful warn
ings of the judgment of the law — the judgment
of God according to truth — and in its clearer
and yet clearer testimony to the coming Servant
of Jehovah, the Lamb of God, on whom the
Lord should make to meet the iniquities of all —
was there nothing in all these things educating
the people, who were God's school, to receive
the truth of a divine Saviour, "who, His own
self, bare our sins in His own Body on the tree,
that we being dead unto sins, should live unto
righteousness " ?

4 Very significant is the difference in the
method of guarding the doctrine in the teaching
of the Church of Rome and in that of the Church
of England. Rome declares : " If any one saith,
that men are justified either by the sole imputa
tion of the justice of Christ, or by the sole
remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace
and the charity which is poured forth in their
hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in
them : or, even that the grace whereby we are
justified is only the favour of God ; let him be
anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. vi. Canon 19).
The Church of England teaches, "That faith
doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread,
and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in
every man that is justified ; but it shutteth them
out from the office of justifying" (Homily Of
Salvation, Part i.). It will be seen that the
Tridentine teaching aims at defending the

JUSTIFICATION

[ 341 ]

JUSTIFICATION

It is not indeed to be denied that unscrip-
tural language may sometimes have been
employed by those who desired to magnify
the grace of God — language which should
stand as a warning against attempting to set
out the truth of God's revelation in terms
which may not unnaturally be suggestive of
Antinornian heresy.

It also must be kept in view that this
doctrine is to be seen in the light of God's
truth taught by the Holy Spirit of Truth. It
is truth taught to souls who, by the same Spirit
of Truth, have been convinced of the reality
of sin. That conviction would shut out every
soul from hope and light and life were it not
that this doctrine comes to the stricken heart
which cries, " I have sinned against the Lord,"
and comes to say, "The Lord also hath put
away thy sin ; thou shalt not die." And then
the justified soul, led by the same Spirit of
Truth, passes through this doctrine to walk in
the truth, and to walk in the light. It is in
the interests of true sanctification that we are
bound jealously to guard the true doctrine,
with all its marvels, of free justification.

The Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of
Truth, and sanctifies our souls by making the
light of God's Truth to shine in our hearts.
But how shall this light shine within, if we
shut our eyes to the Truth which shows us
the very reality of God's terrible condemnation
of sin — a reality which requires the reality of
free justification to open our prison doors, and

doctrine from abuse, by deducting from its
marvels and obscuring its distinctness, while
the Church of England is not less careful to
defend the doctrine of the grace of God from
misuse, but is supremely careful to guard its
marvels and its distinctness.

The Scriptural doctrine excludes all works from
sharing the glory which belongs only and all to
the redeeming work of the Son of God, who said
on the Cross, "It is finished" (cf. Ps. xxii. 31 ;
Isa. xxxviii. 15 ; xliv. 23). In this view faith
itself, qua a work, is as much excluded from the
office of justifying as any other work. Justifying
faith is indeed the parent of good works, which
are the fruits of faith. But we are justified per
fidem, not proptcr fidcm. It is admirably said,
"By this speech (that faith alone justifieth) we
never meant to exclude either hope or charit}'
from being always joined, as inseparable mates,
with faith in the man that is justified ; or works
from being added as necessary duties required
at the hands of every justified man ; but to show
that faith is the only hand which putteth on
Christ unto justification, and Christ the only
garment, which being so put on, covereth the
shame of our defiled natures " (Hooker, On Justi
fication, 31 ; Works, vol. iii. p. 530. Ed. Keble).

strike off the fetters of our bondage — a reality
which can do with nothing less than the
reality of " no condemnation," if we are to
arise and shake ourselves from the dust of our
captivity, and go forth, passing through the
gates from the darkness of death into the
light of life, from the bondage of Satan into
the glorious liberty of the Sons of God ?

(3) And so this doctrine must ever be
viewed in connection with the word " peace " :
"Being justified by faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Rom. v. 1). This doctrine brings us at once
into the apprehension of the Personalities of
Religion. Justification is the free gift of God,
the God against whom we have sinned. It
has to do with a restored relationship to a
Personal God. It comes to the sinner with a
voice from heaven, a voice from a now recon
ciled Father in heaven, saying to each, "I
have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy trans
gressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins ; return
unto Me, for I have redeemed thee." It is
the voice of Him " Who commendeth His love
toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us." It is the voice of Him
whose Litany comes down from heaven to
earth, beseeching sinners : " Be ye reconciled
to God " ; and it is'the heart's gracious answer
to this voice which is the true obedience of
the Gospel. Moreover, it is never to be for
gotten that the Gospel, not less than the Law,
is a call which must have its obedience
(2 Thess. i. 8), an obedience which includes
the putting on of " the new man, which after
God is created in righteousness and the holi
ness of truth." Indeed, the disobedience of the
Gospel exceeds in awfulness the disobedience
of the Law, as much as the ministration of
righteousness and life exceeds in glory the min
istration of condemnation and death (2 Cor.
iii. 9 ; Heb. x. 2!) ; xii. 25). [N. D.]

JUSTIFICATION is the act of God whereby He
looks favourably upon those that are in Christ
as accepted by Him for the merits of Christ.

Are we to earn our acceptance with God by
our good works, or are we to receive it as a
free gift of God bestowed on those who are
adopted in Christ? Human pride says, "I
will earn it"; the Gospel says, "Receive it
thankfully." Even in St. Paul's days there
was a controversy on the subject, which had
to be decided by Apostolic authority. In
Rome and in Galatia there were converted Jews,
who, bringing with them Jewish ideas, insisted
upon the necessity of earning God's favour by
the works of the law. " O senseless Galatians,"
exclaimed St. Paul, " who hath bewitched
you ? " His impassioned assault on the Gala-
tian false teaching, and his majestic argument

JUSTIFICATION

[ 342 ]

JUSTIFICATION

addressed to the Komans, determined the
question and closed it. He had not occasion
again to refer to it except in a passing way
in the Epistle to the Philippians. The doctrine
of justification by faith, which is only a
shortened expression for justification by the
merits of Christ grasped by faith, took its place
as the doctrine of the Gospel under the name
of salvation by grace, and all doubt of its
truth, and hesitancy in believing it, ceased.

But human nature was still the same. When
we reach the Middle Ages, the Bible was a
closed book, and the arguments of St. Paul in
the two Epistles were not known except in
shreds and pieces, the force of which could
not be understood when isolated from the con
text. Again, men were not content without
earning their right to a standing ground before
God, and an ingenious scheme was worked out
whereby man could earn for himself not only
the initiatory grace of justification, but his final
salvation also.

Let a man do natural good works, such as
acts of temperance, courage, liberality. Then
it became congruous or befitting to God's good
ness to give him His grace in return. Thus by
his own works of congruity he earned God's
grace. Having received this grace, he could
by its help do works of condignity, which de
served reward at God's hands ; and the more
he- did the more reward he earned, till at
length the sum of his merits deserved the
salvation to which he attained.

This thing roused the fierce indignation of
Luther. "If this be true," he cried, "then
Christ is dead in vain, for man can earn his
own salvation without Him, and has no need
of Him." Again he brought to the front the
forgotten arguments of St. Paul. Again he
preached aloud the great doctrine of justifica
tion by faith, and pronounced it the test
"stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae."

The Church of England laid down her
doctrine with unmistakable clearness in Article
XI. : "We are accounted righteous before God,
only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own
works or deservings : Wherefore, that we are
justified by Faith only is a most wholesome
Doctrine, and very full of comfort." And for
a further exposition of her teaching she refer*
to the Homily on Justification, or The Salvation of
all Mankind.

The Church of Home, in accordance with her
action on other points of doctrine, drew her
self back into the slough of medievalism, from
which she had neither the will nor the courage
to emerge, and in consequence confounded
justification and sanctification, making our
sanctification the cause of our justification
instead of the consequence from it.

Justification is, as we have said, an act
of God alone, whereby He looks upon us with
favour for Christ's sake. Sanctification is a
joint act of God and man, or, to speak more
exactly, is an act of God with which man co
operates by consciously yielding up his will to
be moulded by the Holy Spirit. The difference
between believing ourselves to be placed in a
state of acceptance by God's free mercy in
Christ and by our own righteous acts (though
they be supposed to be done by the Holy
Spirit's aid) is incalculable, and affects every
part of the Christian's conduct in daily life.
The man who feels that he is God's child,
adopted in Christ, passes his life performing
the good works that are prepared for him to
walk in, but he does not dream that he is
thereby earning merit before God and pur
chasing his acceptance by them. But if a
man believes that the more good works he does
the more he is justified before God, and the
more deserving of recompense at His hands,
he loses the freedom of a son of God, who
does right just because he is a son, and he is
busied with constantly imposing upon himself
tasks by which to earn God's favour and his own
reward. External works then become to him
all-important. Does he attend Mass ? or fast ?
or go on pilgrimage? or visit the poor? He
is either "satisfying" for past sins, or "merit
ing" for the future. Hence his acts are really
acts of selfishness done for his own benefit, not
with a single eye to the good of his neighbour
or the glory of God. He may multiply "good
works," but they are only materially good
works, that is, they are works which, if done
in a right spirit would be good works, but if
done selfishly, and with a view to earning re
ward, are no good works at all, but rather an
offence to God.

No one has better shown the difference of the
Eomanist and the Protestant doctrine of justi
fication than our great theologian Hooker.
He writes :

"Wherein do we disagree? We disagree
about the nature of the very essence of the
medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease.
When they are required to show what right-
eousness is, whereby a man is justified, they
answer that it is a Divine spiritual quality,
which quality, received into the soul, doth first
make it to be one of them that are born of
God, and secondly, endues it with power to
bring forth such works as they do that are
born of Him ; that it maketh the soul gracious
and amiable in the sight of God, in regard
whereof it is termed grace ; that it purgeth,
purifieth, washeth out all the stains and
pollutions of sins ; that by it through the
merit of Christ we are delivered, as from sin,
so from eternal death, the reward of sin.

JUSTIFICATION

[ 343 ]

KEYS, POWER OF THE

This grace they will have to be applied by
infusion, to the end that as the body is warm
by the heat which is in the body, so the soul
might be righteous by inherent grace; which
grace they make capable of increase, the
augmentation whereof is merited by good
works, as good works are made meritorious by
it. If they work more and more, grace doth
more and more increase, and they are more
and more justified . . . This maze the Church
of Rome doth cause her followers to tread
when they ask her the way of justification.
They make the essence of it a Divine quality
inherent ; they make it righteousness which is
in us. If it be in us then is it ours, as our
souls are ours though we have them from God.
But the righteousness wherein we must be
found if we will be justified, is not our own.
therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent
quality. Christ hath merited righteousness
for as many as are found in Him. You see
therefore that the Church of Rome in teaching
justification by inherent grace doth pervert
the truth of Christ, and that by the hands of
His Apostles we have received otherwise than
she teacheth . . . Then what is the fault of
the Church of Rome ? Not that she requireth
works at their hands that shall be saved, but
that she attributes unto works a power of
satisfying God for sin, and a virtue to merit
both grace here, and in heaven glory ... If
it were not a strong deluding spirit which
hath possession of their hearts, were it possible
but that they should see how plainly they do
herein gainsay the very ground of Apostolic-
Faith ? " (Discourse on Justification). [F. M.]

See SANCTIFICATION, ATONEMENT, RIGHTE
OUSNESS.

Notes. — The ground of justification is not (1)
as the Romanists hold, a new righteousnes>
and love infused into us, which constitutes ou:
moral character ; nor (2) as Osiander taught,
the essential righteousness of Christ's divine
nature, which has become ours by faith ; but
(3) the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as
the head of a new humanity, and as embrac
ing in Himself all believers as His members.

Justification and sanctification are con
founded by the Romanists, who regard them
as different stages of the same process of
making the sinner actually holy. Protestants,
on the other hand, hold fast to the Scripture
distinction between justification as a declara
tive act of God, and regeneration and sancti
fication as those operations of God commencing
in the soul and manifesting themselves in the
whole man by which justification is accom
panied and followed, and personal holiness
is produced.

A more formal definition would be that

justification is the judicial act of God by
which on account of the redemptive work of
Christ to whom the sinner is united by faith,
He declares that sinner to be no longer exposed
to the penalty of the law, but to be restored
to His favour. More briefly, justification is
the reversal of God's attitude towards the
sinner, because of the sinner's new relation to
Christ.— EDD.

K

KEYS, POWER OF THE.— The Council of
Trent affirmed that our Lord left " priests as
His vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom
all mortal crimes should be brought into which
Christ's believing people may have fallen, in
order that they, by the power of the keys, may
pronounce sentence of the remission or reten
tion of sins." The biblical texts assigned in
proof of such teaching are Matt. xvi. 19, and
John xx. 23. The power of "binding and
loosing" .-spoken of in Matt. xvi. 19, simply
consisted in declaring, under special inspira
tion of the Holy Ghost, those ordinances of the
Mosaic Law which were, or were not, to be bind
ing on Christians. To " bind " in Jewish phrase
ology, meant " to declare prohibited," while to
"loose" signified "to declare lawful or per
missible." That power was exercised by the
apostles and the Church at the first Council of
Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23-29), and by St. Paul in
declaring that the Jewish law of meats was
abrogated (Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. viii. ; Gal. v. 1,
2 ; Col. ii. 16, 17). The honour conferred upon
St. Peter consisted solely in the privilege given
to him of opening the kingdom of heaven by
the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews first,
and afterwards to the Gentiles. That power
was exercised in his sermon on the day of
Pentecost, when 3000 Jews were converted ;
and subsequently by preaching the good tidings
to the Gentiles, who were first admitted by
baptism into the Church of Christ in the
house of Cornelius (Acts x. 34-48).

The power of remitting and retaining sins
(John xx. 23) was simply a power to declare
forgiveness to all who would believe in Christ.
The retaining of sins is best explained by the
apostle's words : " Neither is there salvation in
any other ; for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must
be saved " (Acts iv. 12). The words used by our
Lord were not addressed to apostles only, be
cause one apostle (Thomas) was not present,
and, on the other hand, because several
persons were present who were not apostles,
such as Cleopas and his companion (Luke xxiv.
33-36). Probably, too, the holy women formed
part also of the company which was assembled
in the Easter evening when Christ appeared

KINGDOM OF GOD

KINGDOM OF GOD

(Luke xxiv. 22 ; cf. Acts i. 14). See note on
p. 2 under ABSOLUTION. It is important to
note that in the Conference on Confession
and Absolution held at Fulham Palace on
Dec. 30 and 31, 1901, and Jan. 1, 1902, edited
by Dr. Wace, now Dean of Canterbury, it was
unanimously agreed " That our Lord's words in
St. John's Gospel 'Whose soever sins ye remit,
&c. ,' are not to be regarded as addressed only
to the apostles or the clergy, but as a com
mission to the whole Church, and as conveying
a summary of the message with which it is
charged." At the said Conference even such
extreme Ritualists as Lord Halifax, Rev. V. S. S.
Coles, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, Canon
Body of Durham, and others took part. The
Report was published by Longmans, Green
& Co, 1902.

KINGDOM OF GOD.— This is one of the
great themes of the Bible ; indeed, it may, in
a certain sense, be said to comprehend them
all. Nevertheless, Kant, Schleiermacher,
Lepsius, Oosterzee and Maurice, gave a wrong
turn to theology, and lost sight of the dis
tinctively remedial character of the Christian
revelation when they taught that "the king
dom of God is the supreme and controlling
notion of Christian dogmatics as well as of
Christian ethics." The divines in question,
however, deserve thankful recognition for
their exegetical and scholarly labours, which
called more attention to the importance of
the subject, and prepared the way for other
writers, proceeding upon strictly scriptural
and evangelical lines, to take a truer concep
tion of the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God in its widest sense
denotes God's rule, the divine administration
in the universe, and is so used in the Old
Testament (Ps. ciii. 19 ; cxlv. 11-13 ; Isa.
xxxvii. 16 ; Dan. iv. 34 ; vi. 26) ; and also in
the Apocrypha (Wisd. x. 10 ; Tob. xiii. 1). This
universal kingdom or dominion of God em
braces all objects, persons, and events of in
dividuals and nations, all operations and
changes of nature and history. This idea of
God's unlimited dominion or rule in nature
and providence furnishes the basis on which
a higher kind of kingdom — a moral and
spiritual kingdom — is built up. It is with
this ethical or spiritual kingdom of God, "the
kingdom of God " of the New Testament, that
we are chiefly concerned in this article.

The meaning and history of the phrase
demand careful consideration. The "kingdom
of God" (17 pa(n\ela. TOU 0tov) is equivalent to
the "kingdom of heaven " — Gr. "the heavens "
— (•}] Pa<ri\fia T&V o'upavwv) used by St. Matthew.1

1 Heaven is a common metonymy for God
(Luke xv. 18, 21 ; John iii. 27; cf. Matt. xxi. 25;

That these expressions are used interchange
ably is clear, if we compare Matt. xiii. 11
with Luke viii. 10. It is spoken of as "the
kingdom " (Matt. viii. 12 ; xiii. 19 ; Luke xii.
32, &c.); "His [Christ's] kingdom" (Matt,
xiii. 41 ; Luke i. 33; "Thy kingdom" (Luke
xxiii. 42 ; Matt. xx. 21) ; "My kingdom" (John
xviii. 36); "My Father's kingdom" (Matt.
xxvL 29 ; cf. xiii. 43) ; " kingdom of our
father David" (Mark xi. 10); "kingdom of
Christ and of God" (Eph. v. 5.) ; "kingdom
of the Son of His love" (Col. i. 13); "His
own [God's] kingdom and glory" (1 Thess.
ii. 2, 12) ; "the eternal kingdom of our Lord"
(2 Pet. i. 11).

The phrase "kingdom of God" (or, "king
dom of heaven") was a well-understood term
among the Jews for the Messiah's kingdom,
and the doctrine about it was derived from
' Dan. ii. 44 ; vi. 26 ; vii. 13, 14, 27, &c. The
contemporaries of Jesus, however, took a
worldly, circumscribed, material view of the
kingdom of God. They regarded it too much
as an empire contrasted with the great world-
empires, more particularly the Roman which
held them in its iron grasp. They pictured
a Messiah who would deliver them from their
subject position and make them rulers of
the world. This was to be effected by a
catastrophe which would usher in a new order
of things, and so the kingdom in their thoughts
took a shape which was eschatological. So
deeply had this carnal view of the kingdom
taken hold of the Jewish mind, that we find
the Apostles themselves, notwithstanding all
our Lord's teaching upon the subject, asking
just before His ascension, " Dost thou at this
time restore the kingdom to Israel ? " (Acts i.
6 ; cf. Matt. xx. 20-28). It was not until after
Pentecost that the disciples seem to have
grasped the spiritual and more glorious nature
of the kingdom.

John the Baptist, in preparing the way of
our Lord, took up the conception which he
found existing respecting the kingdom, but
gave it a wider, deeper meaning, and laid
emphasis on its moral and spiritual aspects
(Matt. iii. 1-12). Our Lord, while discarding
false current conceptions, accepted any ele
ments of truth underlying the Jewish view
of the kingdom. He preached " the gospel
of the kingdom," a kingdom, however, not
of this world, a kingdom spiritual and uni
versal (John xviii. 36). The kingdom (as

Mark xi. 30 ; Luke xx. 4), and was used often by
the Rabbins, influenced by an overscrupulous
reverence, for the names of God Himself (cf.
Schiirer in the Jahrbb. f. Protest. Theol, 1876, pp.
178, scq.). 'H /SacrtXeta rSiv ovpavSiv is used thirty-
two times in Matthew.

KINGDOM OF GOD

[ 345 ]

KINGDOM OF GOD

foretold by Daniel) at least in its majesty
and glorious manifestation, was something
far off, something which belonged not to the
first but to the second Advent (Matt. xvi.
27 ; xxvi. 64 ; Luke xxi. 27).

The kingdom of heaven is both a compre
hensive and also complex idea. Each of its
various aspects has a twofold character, and
there is a constant shading off of thoughts the
one into the other.

The kingdom means both rule,1 the act of
ruling, the exercise of dominion (LXX., 2
Kings xxiv. 12 ; New Testament, Luke i. 33 ;
1 Cor. xv. 24), and also realm, the sphere ruled,
a kingdom proper (LXX., Esther i. 22; 2
Sam. iii. 28; in the Apocrypha, Wisd. vi. 4;
x. 10 ; New Testament, Matt. iv. 8; vi. 13 (not
in B.V.) ; xii. 25, 26 ; xvi. 28 ; xxiv. 7).

The kingdom is the reign of Messiah, the
new dispensation of grace which Christ in
troduces, of which He is Kuler and Dis
penser, and is both in its present conception
and its future consummation, a something
now to be in measure realised and en
joyed, but still a something in its fulness
of blessing to be yet revealed. There is a
kingdom of grace, and there is a kingdom of
glory. Those Rationalists who would limit
the kingdom to earth, and imagine that it
can be fully realised in the present order of
things, equally err with certain students of
prophecy who regard the kingdom as wholly
future, and the present period, from Christ's
first coming to His second, as a break in its
establishment.

The kingdom in its present phase is both
inward and outward. It is "the world of in
visible laws by which God is ruling and bless
ing His creatures " (Dr. Hort's Life and Letters,
ii. 223). But it is also the writing of these
laws, "which penetrate below the surface and
are gradually progressive and expansive in
operation. They are ever taking a concrete
form in the history of the world. The spiritual
forces of the kingdom take to themselves an
outward form, they are enshrined in a vessel
of clay, finer or coarser as the case may be,
not only of men as individuals, but in men in
community or communities."

The kingdom has its divine as well as human
side. It is heavenly and supernatural in its
origin and principles, " cometh " as a gift
from God, is built up of the creative activity of
God (Matt. vi. 10 ; xxv. 34 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke
xvii. 20), yet is to be entered into by man
when his will is renewed, and requires human
effort to be vigorously exerted for its enjoy-

1 ':Rule" is the commoner meaning in the
Talmud (Edersheim's Life and Times, &c., i.
267,/.).

ment and extension (Matt. xi. 12 ; vi. 33 ; Luke
ix. 60; xii. 31). The kingdom is brought into
existence through grace, but requires voluntary
obedience to the known will of God on the
part of all its subjects (Matt. vii. 21).

The kingdom is in its extent ecclesiastical,
but it is also extra-ecclesiastical. The Church,
as the organised congregation of the faithful,
is the visible expression of the kingdom
in the world, its proper (though often very
imperfect) representative, whose function it
is to manifest and extend by its worship and
ministry Christ's rule on earth. But there
are spheres of influence for the kingdom
beyond those of the Church and its organisa
tions. In every department of human life,
whether in science or art, philosophy, com
merce, the senate, the municipalities, and the
private or public philanthropic enterprises,
the principles of the kingdom, as Christianity
progresses, have increasing prominence in the
minds of thoughtful believers. But though
Christ, as the rightful King of all life, has for
society a law and ideal which must be de
clared, still, a watchful jealousy must be
exercised lest the Church forsake its primary
office — preaching the gospel; of the kingdom
(Acts xx. 25 ; xxviii. 23, 31) — and become
absorbed in merely humanitarian and social
movements.

There are several details respecting the king
dom mentioned in the Scriptures, which are
extremely profitable to study.

The Herald of the kingdom (as had been
predicted, Matt. iii. 1-3) was John the Baptist,
who stood on the borderland, so to speak, of the
Old and New Dispensations. The apostles were
bidden by the Master to take up the herald-
cry of John the Baptist, and cause it to re-echo
all around (Matt. x. 7). For a season, after
His forerunner's voice had been suddenly
silenced, ere His work was finally completed,
our Lord Himself took it up at the point
where John had been withdrawn from it. He
thus acted fur a season as His own herald
(Matt. iv. 17).

The Founder and Head of the kingdom (Matt.
xiii. 41 ; xxiv. 31 ; xxv. 34-46) is the Saviour
who is Son of man as well as Son of God —
ideal man. He is not only appointed by God
as the Leader, the Lord of the citizens in the
divine kingdom, possessing all power in heaven
and earth (Matt, xxviii. 18), but He also is the
Ideal Citizen. He is the living embodiment
of the principles of the kingdom, and the
actual life of the new relation of sonship to
God into which men enter through Him. In
His life alone has a perfect pattern been given
of how on earth God's will can be done as in
heaven. But besides being Exemplar of the
principles of the kingdom over which He rules,

KINGDOM OF GOD

KINGDOM OF GOD

He is also " the vital germ of it." He is the
living and life-giving Head to all its members.
The Subjects of the kingdom are admitted by
being born again, by change of heart, breaking
with the sinful past, reception of Christ's
Person and message, formally entering the
kingdom through submission to baptism (John
iii. 3, 5). As their birth is heavenly, so is
their life, in so far as it reaches its true ideal.
The royal charter of their rights, privileges,
and duties is given in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt, v.-vii. ; Luke vi. 20-49). A
brief and graphic description of the essential
features of the kingdom is given by St. Paul
in Rom. xiv. 17. The kingdom is not in word,
or mere outward observance, or aesthetic
idealism, but in soul-subduing, life-transform
ing power. " The kingdom of God is not meat
and drink ; but righteousness (in respect of
God), peace (in respect of men), and joy in the
Holy Ghost (i.e. joy in respect of ourselves)."

The laivs for the guidance of its members
come direct "from heaven," or from God;
they consist of a few leading eternal principles,
such as righteousness (Matt. vi. 33), truth
(John xviii. 37), faith (Matt. xvii. 20), and
love (Matt. xxii. 40; John xv. 12). The rules
of Christian life cannot be completely em
bodied in any code of ethics. An unction from
above is bestowed upon the heavenly citizens
(1 John ii. 20, 27). They are guided into all
truth by the Holy Spirit, and enabled to apply
Gospel principles to their daily needs and
requirements (John xvi. 13).

The Privileges of the kingdom are, in the
present, forgiveness of sins (Matt. xxvi. 28),
satisfaction of spiritual wants (John iv. 14 ;
vi. 35, 58), and fellowship with God (John
xvii. 21, 22); and in the future, the resurrec
tion of the body (John xi. 23-26), and life
everlasting (John iii. 16). Perhaps nowhere in
the Bible more than in the eighth chapter of
the Romans and in the first chapter of the
Ephesians (vers. 3-14) are portrayed the present
position and future prospects of the members
of Christ, and the inheritors of the kingdom
which is "eternal" (2 Pet. i. 11), and "that
which shall not be destroyed " (Dan. vii. 14).

The means by which the kingdom of God is
founded, sustained, and advanced, is primarily
the Gospel— the message of God's redeem
ing grace to men. It is not to be promoted
by worldly means of conquest and violence,
but by humility, loving service, deeds of mercy,
suffering and witnessing for the truth (Matt.
xi. 4-6, 29; xviii. 1-4; xx. 20, 25-28; xxvi.
52; John xviii. 36, 37).

The Consummation of the kingdom is a sub
ject upon which we have three definite state
ments in the Scriptures. First, there will be
on our Lord's return, then and not till then,

the visible manifestation of the kingdom. It
begins, not as the carnal Jews thought, from
without, but from within — spiritually ; but when
Christ shall return it shall be manifested out
wardly (Col. iii. 4 ; 1 John iii. 2). The Papacy
wrongly anticipates the visible leadership
which Christ shall assume at the end of the
present order of things, "reigning as kings "
without Christ (1 Cor. iv. 8). As the Church of
Christ begins at the Pentecost, so the visible
kingdom at the Second Advent, and we cannot
ante-date it, and all attempts to do so are futile
and injurious. "When, "as Bengel remarks,
"Christianity became a worldly power under
Constantine, the future hope was weakened by
joy over present success." Our proper attitude
during the present is to be looking for the visi
ble manifestation of the King, and the Personal
reign of Christ. Without entering upon the
vexed question of the Millennium, whether it
comes before or after the Second Advent, the
Scripture plainly teaches that our Lord at His
return will reign with the glorified saints in
visible majesty over a renovated earth. How
far the description of the Millennium is to be
taken figuratively or literally, we have not
time here to discuss. All we are here con
cerned with is the revealed fact that there
will be a visible and glorious manifestation of
the kingdom at the close of the present dis
pensation. Secondly, there will be a final
reckoning with the members of the kingdom.
From the parable of the Talents (Matt, xviii.
23-35) and that of the Pounds (Luke xix.
11-27), we learn that to the faithful the
rewards will be given on equitable principles,
and will be dependent upon the faithful use
made of opportunities of service. On the other
hand, neglect of spiritual gifts and oppor
tunities ends in forfeiture and eternal disaster.
Thirdly, there will be a final separation. In the
parable of the Tares (Matt. xiii. 24-30 ; 36-43)
we learn the impracticability of the separation
of the evil from the good during the present
dispensation ; while in that of the Draw-net
(Matt. xiii. 47-50) we have the assurance that
such a separation will be ultimately effected.

Nowhere, perhaps, can the various aspects
of the kingdom be studied better than in the
Parables of our Lord, which seem to fall into
four groups. There are those which treat of :
(1) Preliminary principles relative to Christ's
kingdom ; 1 (2) its establishment in the heart,

1 The Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33-44) ;
the Rich Fool (Luke xii. 16-21); the Marriage
of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-14) ; the Barren
Fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9) ; the Great Supper
(Luke xiv. 15-24); the Pearl of Great Price
(Matt. xiii. 45, 46) ; the Hid Treasure (Matt. xiii.
44); the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19-31).

KINGDOM OF GOD

[ 347 ]

KINGDOM OF GOD

and the general laws of its growth;1 (3) its
manifestation ; 2 and (4) its consummation 3
(see article on Parable by Prof. W. Milligan in
Fairbairn's Bible Dictionary, and also Neil's
Teachers' Synoptical Syllabus, p. 429). One of
the first necessities for a right understanding
of any of our Lord's Parables is to discover the
exact aspect of the kingdom which the Parable
is designed to illustrate. In connection with
this part of the subject, it may be well to re
mark that " the kingdom of God " is often used
by the trope of metonymy for the possession,
enjoyment, privileges, and advantages, &c., of
the kingdom (Matt. v. 20 ; xii. 28 ; xxi. 43, &c.).
The famous passage in which the expression
"the keys of the kingdom" occurs demands a
passing notice, as it has been adduced as a
proof in support of the alleged priestly power
of forgiving sins (Matt. xvi. 19, cf. xviii. 18).
The passage when calmly considered, either
by itself or in the light of other statements
upon the subject in the New Testament, does
not mean that the keys were given to St. Peter
for the purpose of admitting into heaven those
whom he chose and excluding those whom he
rejected. Obviously, Peter did not receive the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, for the purpose
of himself deciding who shall enter or be ex
cluded. Nor were they intended to confer
powers which would allow him to interfere
with the fixed principles and spiritual relations
of the kingdom of heaven. In fine, Peter was
not given the kingdom of heaven, but the keys
of it. The latter is very different from the
former. In regard to what they open, the
mastery over and possession of the keys may
imply ideas ranging from absolute ownership
down to a limited control. Although the keys
did not confer such priestly power as is fre
quently claimed, yet they did bestow high
special privileges. These were not neglected

1 The Sower (Matt. xiii. 3-8) ; the Seed Grow
ing Secretly (Mark. iv. 26-29) ; the Wheat and
the Tares (Matt. xiii. 24-30); the Mustard Seed
(Matt, xiii, 31, 32) ; the Leaven (Matt. xiii. 33).

2 The Two Debtors (Luke vii. 41-43) ; the
Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30-37) ; the Two Sons
(Matt. xxi. 28-32); the Unmerciful Son (Matt.
xviii. 23-35) ; the Unjust Steward (Luke xvi
1-9); the Friend at Midnight (Luke xi. 5-8)
the Unjust Judge (Luke xviii. 1-8) ; the Pharisee
and Publican (Luke xviii. 9-14) ; the Labourer;
in the Vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16) ; the Lost
Sheep (Matt, xviii. 12-14) ; the Lost Coin (Luke
xv. 8-10); the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32)
the Unprofitable Servant (Luke xvii. 7-10) ; the
Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1-13); the Talents
(Matt. xxv. 14-30).

3 The Pounds (Luke xix. 11-27) ; the Draw-ne
(Matt. xiii. 47-50).

and explicit mention is made of how they were
used. St. Peter used the power of the keys
on the Day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 14, &c.),
when he opened the gates of the kingdom to
the Jews, and also, when at Joppa he opened
the gates to the Gentiles (Acts x. 34-48), in
both instances simply by preaching the gospel
to them ; and, having opened, refused to close
them, notwithstanding the clamour raised
against him (Acts xi. 1-18).

An exceedingly interesting question has been
raised respecting the kingdom which occupies
so prominent a place in our Lord's teaching,
viz. "the kingdom" falling so completely into
the background in the Epistles,4 as is the
case if we except its eschatological aspects,
and the Church generally taking its place.
Much difficulty has been felt upon this point.
But, on a little consideration, it will be seen
that this was quite'the natural order of things.
The fundamental idea of the new economy is
that of the kingdom. It was well that this
idea should be clearly stated, and definitely
fixed in the minds of the believers at the
commencement of the Christian dispensation.
The kingdom, however, in its highest and
grandest conception, was not to be set up till
Christ's return, and meanwhile, its visible
manifestation was to be the Church, by whose
aid the kingdom in its preliminary stages was
to be mainly extended. When speaking of the
final issues of things, though the Church is not
wholly lost sight of (Heb. xii. 23 ; Rev. xxi. 2 ;
cf. Eph. v. 25-32), yet the fundamental concep
tion of the kingdom finds its due place in the
teaching of the Apostles (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; xv.
24, 50 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. v. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ;
2 Thess. 1, 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 18 ; 2 Peter i. 11).
In the one passage in the Bible that speaks
in detail of "the end of all things," beyond
which the vision of Christian eschatology
does not look, we are told that the media
torial kingdom is to be delivered up (1 Cor.
xv. 24). The divine kingdom, however, "shall
have no end " (Luke i. 33), and "shall not pass
away" (Dan. vii. 14). The final thought left
upon our mind is that of "the kingdoms of
the world " becoming " the kingdoms of our
Lord, and of his Christ" in the far-off vistas
of eternity (Rev. xi. 15).

See Bruce, The Kingdom of God. Candlish,
The Kingdom'ofGod. James Orr, The Ritschlian
Theology and' Evangelical Faith, chaps, v. and
viii. ; The Christian View of God and the World
(1893), Appendix. Articles in Hastings' Diction
ary of the Bible, by James Orr on the Kingdom
of God, and by W. Sanday on Jesus Christ, pp.
619-622. [C- N.]

4 In Col. i. 13, James ii. 5, Rev. i. 9, the
reference is to the kingdom in its present form.

KISS

[ 348 ]

KNOX, JOHN

KISS. — It is unnecessary here to notice at length
the use of the kiss in salutations in early times,
such as those mentioned in Gen. xxxiii. 4,
1 Sam. xx. 41, and many other places. The kiss
as a token of love in common use among the
civilised nations like the Greek and Romans
was enjoined by St. Paul on four occasions
(Rom. xvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ;
1 Thess. v. 26), and the kiss of love in 2 Peter,
v. 14. It was only natural that it should have
been imported into the Church, and " the kiss
of peace " be imparted at the Holy Communion,
as mentioned by Justin Martyr (Apol., i. 65).
That this usage should be prevented in later
days, and lead on to the unscriptural separation
of the sexes at the Christian meeting-places,
was only natural to fallen nature. The kiss of
peace in the Roman Mass is imparted by the
bishop, when present, and passed on to the
officiating priests. A survival of the old usage
was still extant in the thirteenth century, when
the osculatorium, or a plate with the figure of
Christ upon it (called also tabdla pads, or pax,
&c.), was kissed by the priest and then handed
on to be kissed by the congregation. The pax
is now not given at Low Mass, and at
High Mass an embrace is substituted, and
that given only to those within the sanctuary.
At baptism a kiss used also to be given, and
at ordination, and at espousals. The kiss was
also given to the dying, and in the Greek
Church even to the dead.

In the Mass the priest repeatedly kisses the
altar, in token of reverence and for other
reasons. The Gospel is also kissed. The Pope's
feet are kissed by those admitted to audiences,
the kiss being given on the golden cross of
the sandal of the right foot. This was really
an Oriental custom. The Pope's hand and foot
are also kissed by the cardinals after his elec
tion. See SALUTATIONS.

[C. H. H. W.]

KNOX, JOHN.— John Knox, the hero and
the historian of the Scottish Reformation, was
born at or near Haddington1 in 1505, of re
spectable, although undistinguished parentage.
He was educated, probably, at Haddington
School, and in 1522 entered Glasgow Univer
sity, where he had among his teachers John
Major, a native like himself, of East Lothian,
and then in the zenith of his fame. Major was
a conservative Reformer, who united adherence
to Roman doctrine with opposition to papal
aggression and ecclesiastical abuse. From him
the student would learn the Church's need of

1 The honour of being the Reformer's birth
place is now regarded as lying between Gifford-
gate, close to the town, on the other side of the
Tyne, and Morham, four miles off within Hadding
ton constabulary (Hume Brown's John Knox, i. 9).

practical reformation, and also the advanced
political doctrine which Kuox afterwards
strenuously upheld, that " the nation is above
the king, who exists for the good of the people,
not they for his."

While Knox was preparing for the priest
hood, Patrick Hamilton inaugurated the Refor
mation conflict by preaching Lutheran doctrine
at St. Andrews ; and his martyrdom in 1528
issued, on the one hand, in a policy of stern
repression and persecution under the succes
sive primateship of James and David Beaton,
on the other hand, in the wider propagation of
Reformed doctrine; for "the reek of Patrick
Hamilton " (so Knox records), " infected all on
whom it blew." There is no reason to suppose
that at this period Knox contemplated seces
sion from Rome, for, at some date prior to
1540 he was ordained as priest. He may have
begun, however, to have doubts as to Roman
doctrine, for he does not seem ever to have
sought a benefice, but occupied himself first
as a notary and afterwards as a tutor. The
earliest trace of Knox's sympathy with the
Reformation movement belongs to the year
1543, when he was already in middle life ; and,
as in the case of Luther, spiritual experience
was the precursor of ecclesiastical conviction.
The Earl of Arran was then Regent, and still
a supporter of the Reform cause. He had
appointed as his evangelical chaplains John
Rough, an ex-monk of Stirling, and Thomas
William, formerly a Dominican friar of East
Lothian. While listening to the latter preacher
(probably a personal acquaintance) Knox first
"received a lively impression of the truth"
(D. Buchanan's Life and Death of Knox, 1644).
The impression was deepened by intercourse
with George Wishart, who in 1544 or 1545
began his itinerating ministry in Scotland as a
Reformed preacher. Knox was at that time
tutor to Francis and George Douglas, sons of
the laird of Longniddry, and to Alexander
Cockburn, son of the laird of Ormiston. He
"waited" — so he tells us himself — "upon
Wishart carefully" when the latter was preach
ing in East Lothian ; and he was in Hadding
ton church when the Reformer preached his
last sermon there on the night of his arrest
(January 1547). He was eager to accompany
Wishart to Ormistou, where the latter was to
pass the night, but the future martyr, fore
boding what impended, refused his company
with the words, "Nay ; return to your bairns
(i.e. pupils) and God bless you : one is suf
ficient for a sacrifice." In the spring of 1547,
after Wishart's martyrdom and the subsequent
assassination of Beaton, Knox, whose ardent
love for the Reformer moved him to condone
(although he was not implicated in) the
conspiracy against the cardinal, repaired for

KNOX, JOHN

[ 349 ]

KNOX, JOHN

safety to the castle of St. Andrews, ac
companied by his three pupils at their
fathers' request. The castle was then held by
the conspirators and other adherents of the
Reformation. There Knox, who, when urged
to preach, had replied that he "would not
run where God had not called him," received
a call to the Reformed ministry by that vox
populi which, in this case at least, was also
vox Dei. The call was presented to him
by John Rough, ex-chaplain of the Regent,
in the name of the castle congregation.
After some days' consideration it was accepted
by Knox, and he inaugurated his ministry
with a trenchant sermon in the parish church
of St. Andrews — a sermon of which it was
said at the time, " Others hewed the branches
of the Papacy ; but he strikes at the root."
The Reform movement spread in the city, and
Knox further signalised his ministry there by
introducing for the first time (presumably in
the castle) the public celebration of the Holy
Communion with a Protestant ritual. The
Reform cause was thus developed into a
Reformed Church. In July 1547, the garrison
of the castle surrendered after a French fleet
had arrived to co-operate with the Regent's
forces ; and Knox, who had boldly warned
the besieged that the corrupt lives of a portion
of them would bring upon all a divine judg
ment, was sent, among others, to labour in the
French galleys. After nineteen months of
physical hardship, which seriously impaired
his health and strength, he was at length
liberated in the spring of 1549, his release
being due, apparently, to negotiations for
exchange of prisoners, initiated by the English
Government with those of Scotland and
France. Gratitude to his liberators, along
with the conviction that his vocation to the
Reformed ministry could not meanwhile be
effectively fulfilled in Scotland, induced Knox
to settle as a Reformed preacher in England
under Edward VI. He ministered for about
two years with marked success at Berwick,
where he became acquainted with his future
wife, Marjory Bowes, whom he married in
1553 (or 1555). In 1551 he removed to New
castle, where he had already distinguished
himself by a powerful address against the
idolatry of the mass, delivered in April 1550
before the " Council of the North." His ecclesi
astical standing and distinction in England at
this period are attested by his appointment in
1551 as one of six Royal Chaplains, and by an
offer made to him in 1552, at Northumberland's
instigation, of the bishopric of Rochester.
This offer he declined, partly from "foresight
of trouble" and disapproval of English "pre
lates' great dominions," but also, we may be
assured, because he looked forward eventually

to service of the Reform cause in his native
land. As a royal chaplain he had some share
in the revision of Edward VI.'s Second Prayer
Book, and also of the " Forty-two Articles " ;
in particular, to Knox's influence was ascribed
at the time what was afterwards called the
"Black Rubric" of the Prayer Book, disavow
ing adoration of the bread and wine. (But
see Black RUBRIC.) At Edward's death in July
1553, Knox was in no hurry to leave his post ;
but ultimately, yielding to the counsel of
friends, he sailed from England early in the
year after Mary Tudor's accession, and arrived
in Dieppe, whence he proceeded to Switzer
land. There he became acquainted with
Calvin at Geneva, and with Bullinger at
Zurich. In November 1554 he accepted a call
to minister to the congregation of English
Protestant refugees at Frankfort ; but after
a few months he resigned his charge, owing
chiefly to contentions which had arisen as
to forms of worship, and to strong personal
opposition towards himself by a section of
the congregation. In the spring of 1555 Knox
was appointed to the ministry of the English
Congregation in Geneva. He was in constant
communication, however, with friends at home,
and an account which he received from his
mother-in-law, Mrs. Bowes, of an improvement
in the ecclesiastical position of Scotland, in
duced him to visit his native land about the end
of September 1555. By this time Mary of
Guise had superseded Arran in the Regency,
and, with a view of securing the help of the
Reformed nobility in furthering a marriage
between her daughter Mary and the Dauphin
of France, was protecting Protestants from
persecution. During the winter and spring of
1555-56 Knox preached evangelical doctrine
in various parts of the country with much
success. He persuaded the Reforming leaders
to cease from attendance at mass, and to
follow the example which he had set at St.
Andrews eight years before, of celebrating
the Communion according to a Protestant
form of worship. He also made a bold,
although vain, attempt to win over the Regent
to the Reformation by a gracious acknowledg
ment of her clemency, and a conciliatory
counsel to decide between the two forms of
faith by "laying the Book of God before
your eyes." The hierarchy, alarmed at
Knox's success, cited him to appear before
them in May, hoping probably that he would
flee ; but when Knox appeared fearlessly in
Edinburgh to answer the citation, the bishops,
unable to count on the Regent's support, de
parted from the trial on pretence of some
informality in procedure. A summons from
Geneva, however, to return to his charge there,
along, probably, with the conviction that the

KNOX, JOHN

350 ]

KNOX, JOHN

Reform cause in Scotland would be benefited
by a period of quiet development after
nine months of agitation, induced Knox in
July to set out for Geneva, where he arrived,
accompanied by his wife and mother-in-law,
in September 1556. A year later, a letter
from Lords of the Congregation led to his
departure again for Scotland, but he was met
at Dieppe by communications counselling
postponement. By March 1558 he was back
in Geneva, which he finally left early in 1559,
and after a stay of six weeks in Dieppe, during
which he largely increased through his preach
ing the Protestant community, he reached
Scotland on the 2nd of May 1559.

During the three years which had inter
vened since his former visit, the way had
been gradually prepared for the final conflict.
The policy of the Reformers (largely owing to
a tonic administered by Knox through corre
spondence) had become more firm in resist
ance ; and a Covenant had been adopted by
which the signatories bound themselves to
mutual self-defence in the maintenance of the
principles of the Reformation. On the other
hand, the Regent's policy had been changed
from outward friendliness to undisguised
hostility. She had accomplished the marriage
of her daughter to the Dauphin; the co
operation of the Reformers was no longer
required ; and she now felt free to carry out
the anti-Protestant designs which character
ised the policy of her family. Finally, the
hierarchy, through more cordial relations with
the Regent, had become more boldly aggres
sive, and persecution had been renewed cul
minating in the martyrdom of Walter Mill at
St. Andrews in 1558. Immediately before
Knox's arrival, four notable preachers, Meth-
ven, Christison, Harlaw, and Willock, had
been cited to appear at Stirling on the 10th
of May ; a few days after Knox landed they
had been proclaimed as outlaws for non-
appearance. It was a virtual declaration of
war, and the Reform party took up the
challenge. A sermon by Knox at Perth
against Romish idolatry was followed by a
series of violent assaults on churches and
monasteries, without his sanction — the work
of what he calls the "rascal multitude "-
by a gathering of influential Reformers at
St. Andrews, where Knox, in spite of the
Primate Hamilton's threats, preached signifi
cantly on the Cleansing of the Temple ; and
by the assembling at Cupar of a considerable
Protestant army under the Earl of Argyle and
Lord James Stuart. The necessity of meeting
the increasing Reformed forces with an ade
quate counter-force caused the Regent to
employ French auxiliaries so largely that
patriotic Scotsmen, even outside the Reformed

party, began to be afraid of French political
aggression. The Reformers were thus en
abled, with less peril to their cause than
formerly, to enter into open alliance with
England, and to receive the support of an
English army. The conflict was already in
progress when in June 1560 the Regent died
in Edinburgh Castle. On her death-bed she
wisely advised the leaders of the two parties to
arrange for the departure of both French and
English troops ; and on the 6th of July a
treaty was signed at Leith, in accordance with
which all foreign soldiers were to leave the
country, and a Parliament was summoned at
once for the peaceful settlement of ecclesiasti
cal affairs without the trammels of foreign
influence.

In all these proceedings, Knox had been a
leading counsellor of the reforming nobility,
as well as the chief instrument, through his
sermons in St. Giles' and elsewhere, of en
lightening and arousing the people. One of
the first Acts of the Parliament now convened
was the acceptance of a Confession of Faith,
embodying Protestant doctrine, drawn up by
Knox, with the aid of his chief colleagues.
Simultaneously the papal jurisdiction was
abrogated ; all doctrine inconsistent with
the Confession was condemned ; and the
celebration of mass was interdicted under
penalty of confiscation for a first offence,
banishment for a second, and death for a
third.

The work of ecclesiastical demolition had
been accomplished ; the yet more arduous
task of ecclesiastical reconstruction remained.
Here also, Knox is the most prominent figure
on the historical canvas ; and his life continues
to be one of constant conflict, (a) Least
serious were his contendings with Roman
controversialists. A public debate in 1561,
arranged by the Estates, between Principal
Anderson of Aberdeen, along with Lesley,
afterwards "Bishop of Ross," representing
the Roman Church, and Knox, Willock, and
Goodman, representing the Reformed faith,
issued, according to Lesley (Hist., p. 293) in
" nothing being concludit " ; while, according
to Knox, the nobility declared, " We have been
miserably deceived heretofore." In the follow
ing year, a three days' discussion at Maybole
in Ayrshire between Knox and Abbot Kennedy
before forty gentlemen, drifted tediously into
a disputation as to whether Melchizedek's
bread and wine were meant to be a sacrifice
to God, or only a feast for men. And the
controversy between Knox and Ninian Win-
gate of Lirilithgow (who, like Kennedy, ad
hered to Roman doctrine while protesting
against Romish abuses), was cut short by civil
proceedings against Wingate, who escaped

KNOX, JOHN

[ 351 ]

KNOX, JOHN

penalty only by timely ilight to the Continent.
(b) More serious was the opposition, partly
active, partly passive, which Knox and his
fellow Reformers encountered from a large
portion of the population, especially in the
northern counties and in the extreme south
of Scotland. Multitudes, moreover, who sub
mitted to the destruction of a corrupt and
oppressive Roman Church and hierarchy,
clung tenaciously to various superstitious
usages. Such opposition and superstition
Knox met by an appeal to the civil power to
compel attendance on Sundays at Reformed
worship, and more laudably by an educational
organisation, which only want of funds (due,
as we shall see, to the selfishness of land
owners) prevented him from bringing to com
pletion, (c) Along with widespread popular
prejudice Knox had to struggle against the
undermining influence of the Queen. Mary,
who returned to Scotland in 1561, soon dis
cerned in Knox the chief opponent of her
policy to secure for Romanism present tolera
tion with a view to eventual reascendancy ;
while Knox, after his first interview with the
Queen, " espied in her such craft as I have not
found in such age," along with an " indurate
heart against God." Knox was as impervious
to her fascination as Mary was to his plain-
spoken remonstrances. In the earlier years of
her reign the Queen had, on the whole, the
best of the encounter. Through the influence
of Moray and Maitland of Lethington she
secured from her Council toleration for the
mass in Holyrood Chapel, notwithstanding
the recent statute, and Knox's protest in St.
Giles' that "one mass was more fearful than
if 10,000 armed enemies were landed to sup
press the whole religion." She won over to
her allegiance not a few Protestant courtiers
by what Knox sarcastically calls the " Holy
Water of the Court." During the first four
years of her personal government she earned,
in spite of Knox, what, from his point of view
as a Reformer, was a perilous popularity. Her
influence in Court and in country virtually
constrained the Earl of Moray and her other
Protestant Ministers of State to yield so much
to her personal wishes that a prolonged estrange
ment ensued between Knox and Moray, very
prejudicial to the Reform cause. After her
marriage with Darnley, when she was strong
enough to defy and to drive into exile leading
Protestant nobles, Knox was first silenced for
preaching significantly in Darnley's presence
about Ahab and Jezebel, and subsequently
constrained to retire into Ayrshire. Had
Mary at this juncture followed up her success
with moderate prudence, a counter-revolution
might have ensued adverse to Knox and his
fellow-Reformers. But, at the moment when

victory seemed to be within the Queen's grasp,
she lost all through a succession of follies or
worse. Her unwise partiality towards Rizzio,
through which her husband was exasperated
and her nobility alienated; her quarrel with
Darnley, and his subsequent assassination under
circumstances that appeared to many to indi
cate connivance ; finally, her mad marriage
with the murderer Bothwell — combined to
arrest the incipient Romish reaction, despoiled
her even of Romanist favour, paved the way
for her deposition, and became the occasion of
thorough reconciliation and cordial co-opera
tion henceforth between Knox and Moray.
The Reformer preached at the Coronation of
the infant James, and supported cordially the
appointment of Moray to the Regency, (d) To
Knox, the most disappointing, because the
least expected, hindrance in the work of
ecclesiastical reconstruction was the attitude
of the lay leaders of the Scottish Reforma
tion. In some particulars, indeed, Knox
and his ministerial colleagues had a free
hand. As we have seen, the Estates adopted
at once the Reformed Confession. No oppo
sition, also, was offered to the Book of Common
Order which had been composed by Knox (on
the basis chiefly of Calvin's liturgy), and
which supplied forms of worship, while leaving
to ministerial discretion some liberty of modi
fication in details. At this first stage of its
history, moreover, the Reformed Scottish
Church, under Knox's guidance, was allowed
to adopt freely, through the First Book of
Discipline, a moderate form of ecclesiastical
government, mainly Presbyterian, yet recog
nising, so far, the principle of episcopacy by
the temporary or tentative institution of
Superintendents; although these did not, like
the bishops, constitute a hierarchy, but were
subject to the jurisdiction of the General
Assembly. In regard, however, to what Knox
regarded as vital matters, his thorough-going
policy was opposed by what he regarded as
weak compromise and unworthy selfishness.
On the one hand, as already indicated, the
Protestant Lords sanctioned the Holyrood
mass, and they also refused to put in effective
operation the statutes which they themselves
had enacted against Romanism. What they
considered a needful concession to prevent
civil war, Knox judged to be the cherishing of
a snake which might by-and-by kill the Pro
testantism by which it was tolerated. On the
other hand, the Reformer found that many
who had been zealous in pulling down the old
Church opposed any liberal and adequate pro
vision for maintaining the new. In the First
Book of Discipline it had been assumed that
the ecclesiastical patrimony would be trans
ferred to the Reformed Church, and a distii-

KNOX, JOHN

[ 352 ]

KNOX, JOHN

butiou into three parts had been proposed —
one for the maintenance of the ministry,
another for the education of youth, a third
for relief of the poor — subject, presumably, to
temporary deductions for the subsistence of
the surviving unreformed clergy. But to such a
scheme the nobility, as a whole, were opposed ;
and the Book of Discipline (which Maitland
described as a " devout imagination ") was never
legalised ; mainly because in the pre-Reforma-
tion period, a large portion of the Church's
patrimony had been illegally and unrighteously
alienated from the Church, and had been
transferred for various " considerations " to
lay hands, so that justice to the Church
would have meant for Protestant landowners
extensive disgorgement. Eventually Knox and
his colleagues had to be content with one
half of an assessment of one-third imposed on
Church property, the other half being as
signed to the Crown. Even this residuary
sixth was trenched upon, and the inadequacy
of ecclesiastical revenue led to the "planting"
of Reformed churches being imperfectly
carried out, to the superintendentship never
receiving a fair trial, and to Knox's educa
tional system coming into operation only in
a mutilated form.

Under the regency of Moray (August 1567
to January 1570), when the danger of a Roman
Catholic counter-revolution had diminished,
Knox was able to co-operate cordially with
the Regent, who, notwithstanding national
troubles, was less hampered by politics than
before in his Protestant ecclesiastical policy.
Knox was now restored to the position of
power which he had occupied at the time of
the Reformation, and he had the satisfaction
of witnessing the full constitutional establish
ment of the Reformed Church in December
1567, as well as the inauguration by the State
of a more considerate treatment of the Church's
ministry. Moray's assassination clouded with
anxiety for the religious future of Scotland
the Reformer's declining years. That tragedy
— so Knox declared — left the Reformed Church
as a " flock without a shepherd, a ship without
a rudder in the midst of the storm." At this
crisis, however, under Knox's influence, the
Church, amid much vacillation and consider
able declension on the part of the Protestant
nobility, declined all opportunities of alliance,
however tempting, with the party which
favoured Mary's restoration, and preferred to
endure the grievance, under Morton's virtual
rule, of the State's interference with the
Church's government and inroads upon her
revenues. Knox was living at St. Andrews,
in poor health after an attack of apoplexy,
when the General Assembly, in the summer
of 1572, acquiesced in the Concordat of Leith

through which episcopacy, in a modified form,
was restored; the bishop, however, like the
superintendent, being subject to the General
Assembly. He made no express protest against
the Concordat, but urged the introduction
of certain safeguards against abuses. He
declared, however, his misgivings as to the
outcome, and declined to take part in the
inauguration of Archbishop Douglas, whose
appointment he anathematised as simoniacal.
When tidings of the massacre on St. Bar
tholomew's Eve and Day reached Scotland,
Knox was already back in Edinburgh, and
from his pulpit in the Tolbooth thundered
forth divine vengeance against that " cruel
murderer and false traitor, the King of France."
It was among his latest pulpit efforts. His
last public appearance was in November, when
James Lawson of Aberdeen was inducted as
his successor, and when Knox himself con
ducted the service. He praised God for giving
to his flock one in his room, and prayed
fervently that any gifts he had possessed
might be bestowed on his successor a thousand
fold. His voice was so weak that few could
hear. He went home from the church to his
death-bed, and fifteen days later — on the 24th
November 1572 — he breathed his last. Among
numerous death-bed sayings recorded of him,
none is more touching than his answer to a
lady who thought to comfort the dying Re
former with warm eulogy of his great life-work :
" Tongue, tongue, lady : flesh of itself is
overproud, and needeth no means to esteem
itself."1

The character of Knox is not perfect. A
certain hardness of disposition, due in great
measure to his experience and environment,
rendered him repellent to Queen Mary, and
generated that intolerance which characterises
most earnest men in critical times. But a
man of gentler mould could hardly have ac
complished the signal work which was given
him to do ; and he stands forth as the greatest
and noblest Scot of his age — heroic in his
absolute fearlessness, sublime in his single-

1 Recorded by Richard Bannatyne (Laing's
Works of Knox, vi. 640). By his first wife, who
died in 1560, Knox had two sons, Nathaniel and
Eleazer, born at Geneva in 1557 and 1558 re
spectively. They both became students of Cam
bridge University very soon after their father's
death. The former died in 1580; the latter
became Vicar of Clacton in the Archdeaconry
of Colchester, and died in 1591. By his second
wife, Margaret Stewart, daughter of Lord Stewart
of Ochiltree in Ayrshire, whom he married in
1564, the Reformer had three daughters, who all
married, the youngest becoming the wife of the
notable Presbyterian divine, John Welsh.

KYRIE ELEISON

[353 ]

LAMMAS

minded and disinterested devotion to duty;
with a love of country subordinate only to
his love of truth, and with even an underlying
tenderness,1 which was repressed only by the
constant necessity of conflict and the stern
sense of responsibility. To Knox might have
been applied the words which Racine put into
the mouth of the reforming High-Priest,
Jehoiada, "I fear God, and have no other
fear." " Here lieth," was Regent Morton's
memorable utterance over his grave, "a man
who in his life never feared the face of man."

Literature. — The Works of Knox. (Laing's
edition), especially his History of the Reforma-
tion ; Culderwood's Kirk of Scotland ; the
Biographies of McCrie and of Hume Brown;
Cunningham's History of the Church of Scotland ;
Lorimer's John Knox and the Church of England ;
Burton's History of Scotland ; Fronde's History
of England; Carlyle's Heroes and Hero Worship ;
Tulloch's Leaders of the Reformation; Mon-
crieff's Infl. of Knox and the Scottish Rcf. on
England. [H. C.]

KYRIE ELEISON.— This is the Greek for
"Lord have mercy (upon us)." The Greek
words are retained in the prayers of the
Roman Church. Such phrases, indeed, are
survivals of ancient practice at a time when
Greek was the language of even the Roman
Liturgy.

LABARUM. — The labarum, and probably even
its name, were familiar to the Roman army
from a much earlier period than the age of
Constantine the Great. The celebrated labarum
of Constantine was the ordinary "vexillum,"
or standard of the cavalry, a Christian char
acter being then for the first time (A.D. 312)
given to its symbols and decorations. It was
a piece of textile material of square shape,
elevated upon a pole, and suspended from a
cross-bar, by which it was kept, expanded. In
the upper part was a sacred monogram con
sisting of the first two Greek letters of the
name of Christ intersected together in the
form of a cross. This was enclosed within a
chaplet, and took the place formerly occupied
by the Eagle of Victory.

The labarum thus Christianised was for a
long time borne at the head of the Roman
armies, and was treasured as a sacred relic at
Constantinople. Eusebius of Cfesarea, in his
Life of Constantine (chaps, xxvii.-xxxi.), gives
a full account of the circumstances which led
to its adoption, viz., the vision which Con-

1 His correspondence with Mrs. Bowes, his
account of Wishart, and the impression produced
by his sermon at the Regent's funeral afford
ample evidence of this trait of character.

stanline alleged to have been seen by him of
the luminous cross in the sky, bearing the
inscription " Conquer by this." Constantine
declared that Christ appeared to him the same
night, and commanded him to procure a
standard made in the likeness of that sign,
and to use it as a safeguard in battle. This
event, if historical, took place either in the
beginning of Constantine's decisive struggle
with Maxentius, or on the eve of the final
battle of Saxa Rubra under the walls of Rome.
It may be noted that (1) Lactantius confirms
the story in all essentials ; (2) Constantine
related it to Eusebius at the close of his life,
when he could have had no motive for decep
tion ; (3) Eusebius is not at all a credulous
writer ; (4) if ever a miraculous intervention
was to be expected, it would be on the eve of
the final struggle with Paganism. Dean Mil-
man remarks that while modern inquiry has
destroyed the authority of the vision, it has
found no satisfactory explanation of its origin.
See article LABARUM in Diet, of Christian
Antiquities, and Milman's History of Christianity,
vol. ii. pp. 284-288. See CKOSS. [C. J. C.]

LADY DAY.— The feast of the Annunciation,
March 25, is known as Lady Day. This is
presumed to have been the date of the visit of
the angel Gabriel to Mary at Nazareth. Tille-
mont and other writers tell us that this date
was chosen because it is nine months before
Christmas. Benedict XIV. asserts that the 25th
of March was known by ancient tradition to
have been the actual day of the angel's visit. Yet
the Council of Toledo in the seventh century
ordered the feast of the Annunciation to be
kept on January 18th. The Bollandists, more
daring than Benedict, say the date may have
been of Apostolic institution. Among the
common people the 25th of March is not re
garded as a festival of special importance.
The 15th of August, the supposed date of
Mary's translation to heaven, and the 8th of
September, the feast of Mary's nativity, are
always known as " the two Lady Days." These
are always observed as high festivals, and in
Ireland a great amount of so-called devotions
at "patrons," holy wells, and such-like, are
crowded into the interval between the two
dates. In the Greek menologies, and the
calendars of the Copts, Syrians, Chaldeans,
and other Eastern Churches, Lady Day is
celebrated, as in the Latin Church, on March
the 25th. [T. C.]

LAMB. — See GREEK CHURCH.

LAMBETH ARTICLES. —See ARTICLES,
THE LAMBETH.

LAMMAS.— The word Lammas (Hlaf Mcesse)
is Anglo-Saxon, and most probably denotes
Loaf Mass, because on that day (August 1)
a thanksgiving was made for the fruits of

z

LAMPS

[ 354 ]

LAUDIAN THEOLOGY

the earth, and offerings were presented. In
the Sarum Manual, Lammas Day is called
Benedictio Novorum Fructuum. Some think
Lammas to be a corruption of Lamb Mass, on
the ground that lambs were presented at that
time. The tenants of the chapter of York
Minster formerly paid a tribute of a live lamb
on August 1. An ancient Welsh name for
the day signifies "lamb tithing day." The
festival is also called that of St. Peter's
Chains, and commemorates the release of that
Apostle. It is observed on August 1st in the
Roman Church, on January 16th in the Greek
Church, and on January 22nd in the Armenian
Church. None of these dates can well repre
sent the actual time of the deliverance, which
was that of Easter (Acts xii.). There is much
doubt whether the "chains" refer to the
Herodian persecution in Jerusalem, or to the
persecution under Nero at Rome (A.D. 64).
The Catholic Dictionary states that from the be
ginning of the seventh century, " and how long
before that it is impossible to determine,"
the festival of St. Peter ad Vincula was cele
brated at Rome on August 1st. The festival
is not found in the Sacramentary of Pope
Gelasius, nor in the Gallican nor Mozarabic
Liturgies ; it occurs in the Gregorian Sacra
mentary, where the reference points to the
Herodian persecution.

There are two churches in Rome, and not
one only, connected with this subject : (1)
that of San Pietro in Vinculis on the Esquiline
Hill ; (2) that of San Pietro in Carcere, on the
Capitoline. This certainly points to a double
stream of tradition. [C. J. C.]

LAMPS.— See LIGHTS.

LANCE or SPEAK-.— See GREEK CHUECH.

LAPSE (lapsus) is defined by Phillimore "as a
slip or departure from a right of presentation
to a void benefice, when the proper patron has
neglected to present within six months next
after the avoidance, and that benefice is
commonly said to have lapsed, to which he
that ought to present has lost his opportunity
to." In such a case the patronage devolves
from the patron to the bishop, from the bishop
to the Metropolitan, and from the Metropolitan
to the King. When the vacancy of the bene
fice is occasioned by deprivation, or resignation
into the hands of the bishop, the six months
date from the time that the bishop gives
notice to the patron. If the living becomes
vacant by the incumbent taking another
(cession), or death, no notice need be given.

[E. B. W.]

LATERAN COUNCILS.— See COUNCILS.

LATB.IA. — The term Latria (\arpela) means
service, whether offered to God or man. St.
Augustine (Contra Faust., xx. 21) adopted it as
a convenient technical term for that supreme

worship which can lawfully be offered to
God alone. But Latria is used classically of
service done to man. Since Augustine's time
the word has become familiar in Latin theo
logy. Roman theologians, when pressed on
the point that Roman Catholics broke the
Second Commandment in making and wor
shipping images, discovered two other terms
which have become familiar in the schools.
Hyperdulia, they assure us, is the worship
which Roman Catholics render to the Virgin.
That word, however, does not occur in biblical
Greek. Hyperdulia, Roman theologians affirm,
is incomparably inferior to the worship ren
dered to God, but is also a higher veneration
than that given to the saints. The latter they
designate by the term Dulia (SovXfia). Dulia
is, however, never used in the New Testament
of any religious worship. Nothing is said in
Scripture of the Hyperdulia or Dulia of the
Roman theologians. [T. C.]

LAUDIAN THEOLOGY.— The theology of
the historical High Church school in the
Church of England.

Laud is generally regarded as the head and
chief of English High Churchmen. Having
been Archbishop of Canterbury, he is naturally
selected from among the Caroline divines as
their representative, and it was the Caroline
divines of the seventeenth century who carried
High Churchmanship as far as is admissible
in the Church of England. The object of the
present article is to show that Laudian theo
logy, be it right or wrong, does not justify
the modern Ritualist school.

The first characteristic of the Ritualist
school is a depreciation of the Reformation.
Laud, on the contrary, describes it as a "re
formation of an old corrupted Church," "their
part remaining in corruption and our part
under reformation ; the same Naaman, and he
a Syrian still, but leprous with them, and
cleansed with us" (Epist. Dedic. to Conference
with Fisher). Would a Ritualist regard the
Roman Church as leprous and the Anglican
Church as cleansed from leprosy by the Refor
mation ?

Ritualists are also in the custom of con
demning, or sneering at the way in which the
Reformation was conducted. Neither in this
are they the disciples of Laud. Laud says,
"The Church of England cast off the Pope's
usurpation, and as much as in her lay, restored
the king to his right. That appears by a book
subscribed by the bishops in Henry VIII.'s
time, and by the records in the Archbishop's
office, orderly kept, and to be seen. In the
Reformation which came after, our princes
had their part, and the clergy theirs, and to
these two principally the power and direction
for reformation belonged. That our princes

LAUDIAN THEOLOGY

[ 355 ]

LAUDIAN THEOLOGY

had their part is manifest by their calling
together of the bishops and other of the
clergy to consider of that which might seem
wanting of reformation. And the clergy did
their part, for being thus called together by
regal power, they met in the National Synod
of 1562, and the Articles, there agreed on,
were afterwards confirmed by Act of State
and the royal assent. In this Synod the posi
tive truths which are delivered are more than
the polemics, so that a mere calumny it is,
that we profess only a negative religion. True
it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our
Confession must needs contain some negatives,
for we cannot but deny that images are to be
adored, nor can we admit maimed sacraments,
nor grant prayers in an unknown tongue ; and
in a corrupt time or place, it is as necessary
for a religion to deny falsehood as to assert
and vindicate truth. Indeed this latter can
hardly be well and sufficiently done but by
the former, an affirmative verity being ever
included in the negative to a falsehood"
(Conference, § 24).

Ritualists charge Reformers, whether of the
sixteenth century in England or of the nine
teenth century on the Continent, with schism.
Laud repels the charge, and throws it back on
Rome. "The cause of the schism is yours;
for you thrust us from you, because we called
for truth and redress of abuses. For a schism
must be theirs whose the cause of it is"
(Conference, § 21).

While depreciating the Reformation and its
methods, and charging it with schism, Ritua
lists make light of the corrupt doctrines of the
Church of Rome. But this is what Laud says
about them: "There is peril, great peril, of
damnable both schism and heresy and other
sins, by living and dying in the Roman faith,
tainted with so many superstitions, as at this
day it is, and their tyranny to boot." He
allows "the possibility of salvation" to
Romanists, not as Romanists, but as Christians,
" though they hazard themselves extremely
by keeping so close to that which is super
stition, and in the case of images, comes too
near idolatry " (ibid. § 35). " In some instances
they have erred in the foundation or very near
it" (ibid. % 38). "That there are errors in
doctrine, and some of them such as must
manifestly endanger salvation, in the Church
of Rome, is evident to those that will not
shut their eyes" (ibid. § 24). "I pray whose
device was transubstantiation, and whose,
communion under one kind, and whose, depo
sition and unthroning, nay killing, of princes,
and the like, if they were not yours ? . . .
Is there no superstition in adoration of im
ages ? None in invocation of saints ? None
in the adoration of the sacrament ? Is there

no error in breaking Christ's own institution
of the sacrament by giving it but in one kind ?
None about Purgatory? About common prayer
in an unknown tongue, none ? These and
many more are in the Roman religion ; and
it is no hard work to prove every one of them
to be error or superstition or both " (ibid. § 39)-
"A man may believe the whole and entire
Catholic Faith, even as St. Athanasius re
quires, and yet justly refuse for dross a great
part of that which is now the Roman Faith"
(ibid. § 38). Laud proceeds to condemn invo
cation of saints, adoration of images, Purga
tory and other definite Romish doctrines, and
scoffs at the idea of Trent having been an
(Ecumenical Council.

The dogma which makes Ritualism to be
what it is, is the objective presence of Christ
in the elements, for from it follow the doctrines
of the mass and all the practices and cere
monies appropriate to the mass. The objective
presence in the elements is merely an unscien
tific form of transubstantiation (or possibly
consubstantiation). Condemning transubstan
tiation and the mass, the Caroline divines
condemned the objective presence in the
elements, and that condemnation was firm
and unhesitating. "It cannot be proved by
Scripture, and taken properly, cannot stand
with the grounds of the Christian religion,"
says Laud of transubstantiation (Conference,
§ 33). "It is safest to leave the Church of
Rome, in this particular, to her superstitions,
that I may say no more," he writes about the
mass (ibid. § 35). Andrewes says that "Zion
would shudder at, and utterly repudiate the
idea of worshipping the Deity hiding there
under the species and formed in a flour-mill "
(Sermon before Frederick Count Palatine). Cosin
says that it was to exclude this notion that " the
words fiat nobis corpus et sanguis Domini were
altered into what they now are " (Notes on the
Prayer Book). Taylor says, "He is not there
according to His human nature " (Letter).
Bull declares the tenet "bids defiance to all
the reason and sense of mankind " (Corruptions
of the Church of Rome). Beveridge says that
from the truth that worthy receivers of the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper partake of the
body and blood of Christ, "the devil took
occasion to draw men into the opinion that
the bread which is used in that sacrament is
the very body that was crucified upon the
cross, and the wine, after consecration, the
very blood that gushed out of His pierced
side " (Discourse upon the XXXIX. Articles,
p. 470). The tenet was first introduced into
the Church of England by Robert Isaac
Wilberforce shortly before he joined the
Church of Rome about fifty years ago. No
previous authority can be found for it, though

LAUDS

[ 356 ]

LENT

Dr. Pusey's teaching, a little earlier, had
pointed in that direction.

In short, no justification of Ritualism, its
special doctrines, practices, and ceremonies,
can be derived from the old historical High
Church party, represented by Laud and the
divines of the seventeenth century. It is a
product of the last half of the nineteenth
century, an exotic without ancestry in the
Church of England. [F. M.]

LAUDS. — Part of the "hours" or services for
each day in the Roman Church. "Lauds"
(Praises) is generally included in " Matins."
LA VABO.— Literally, "I will wash." Occurs
in the Latin Version of Psalm xxv. 1. The
word is used to designate the washing of the
priest's hands in the " Mass." The Church
of England does not direct any such cere
monial.

LAY COMMUNION.— This term is frequently
made use of in dealing with offences com
mitted by the clergy for which they were
deprived of office, and reduced to "lay com
munion." The beginnings of the phrase are
to be found in the so-called " Apostolical
Canons." Cyprian speaks of the same, as does
Eusebius, and others. The matter is well dis
cussed by Scudamore in Smith and Cheetham's
Diet, of Christ. Antiq.

LAYMAN.— A marked distinction between the
people and the priests prevailed during the
time of the Old Testament. But, although
Israelites who were not priests could give no
" attendance at the altar," it is worthy of note
that they acted in some respects as sacrificers.
In the case of the Passover the father of each
family slew the paschal lamb, while circum
cision could be performed by any Israelite, and
did not require the presence of a priest. The
sprinkling of the blood upon the altar (and also
on the mercy-seat on the Day of Atonement)
seems to have been the function reserved in all
cases for the priests (see Lev. i. 5 ; iii. 8 ; xvi.
14, 15, 18). In the days of our Lord the rule
was that the blood of the victim should be
received by the priests in consecrated vessels
(see Edersheim, The Temple and its Ministry,
pp. 133, 191). But the fact is significant that
even under the old dispensation the presence
of priests was not essential in the case of the
two great sacraments of the Mosaic Law.
The distinction in the New Testament Dis
pensation between the ministers and the laity
to whom they ministered was simply a matter of
convenience or order, though it soon began to
be interpreted in a manner which led ultimately
to the establishment of that unscriptural posi
tion assumed in the Church of mediaeval times.
LAZAHISTS was one of those Orders in the
Roman Catholic Church, which had for its
main object to counteract the work of the

Reformation on the Continent. It was founded
by St. Vincent de Paul, the son of a Gascon
peasant born in 1576. The Society was called
Priests of the Mission, or Lazarists, from St.
Lazare in Paris. It worked especially amongst
the poor, and in the rural communities. It was
constituted a regular and legitimate Society in
1632 by Urban VIII. To fulfil the designs of
their founder, Lazarists must attend especially
to three things. First, to improve and amend
themselves daily by prayers, meditation, read
ing, and other duties ; secondly, to perform
sacred missions among the people living in the
country towns and villages, eight mouths in
the year in order to imbue the country people
with religious knowledge and quicken their
piety (from which service they derive their
name of Priests of the Missions) ; and lastly,
to superintend seminaries, in which young
men are educated for the priesthood, and to
train up candidates for the sacred office.
Under the counsel and patronage of the Priests
of the Mission are the Virgins of Love, or the
Sisters of Charity, whose business it is to
minister to the indigent in sickness. They
originated with a noble lady, Louisa le Gras,
and received the approbation of Clement IX.
in 1660. See Mosheim. [T. H. L. L.]

LEGTIONARY.— The use of regular Lessons
to be read in the services of the Church can be
traced back to a very early date, and a great
deal of interesting matter on the subject of
the Lectionary in use in the Greek Church,
and among the Western Churches, is given in
Smith and Cheetham's Diet, of Christ. Antiq.
On the portion of Scripture read in the
English Church, see under LESSONS.
LECTOR. — A title applied to one in inferior
orders whose duty it was to read the Scripture
lessons read in the Church. Lectors form one
of the minor orders of clergy both in the
Greek and Latin Churches. Lectors were occa
sionally assigned other duties besides that of
reading.

LEGATE.— See NUNCIO.

LENT.— The word is derived either from the
A.S. lencten (spring), or from the Dutch lenten (to
make mild), the severity of winter being then
relaxed. Lent is a period of forty days in the
spring, immediately before Easter, prescribed
as a time of fasting. The Greek and Latin
names for Lent simply indicate the number of
its days. Lent is asserted to have been of
early, and even of Apostolic origin, but, had
the latter been the case, some allusion would
have been made to it in the New Testament.
But in the New Testament there is no fast
prescribed, nor even a positive exhortation to
fasting (see FASTING). Our Lord's declaration
in the A.V. concerning the boy possessed with
an unclean spirit, is often quoted that "this-

LESSONS, THE

[ 357 ]

LIBERIUS

kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer
and fasting" (Matt. xvii. 21; Mark ix. 29).
All the best MSS., however, omit the entire
verse in the account in St. Matthew, and the
word " fasting " in that of St. Mark (see R.Y.).
The same omission is made by the R.V. on MS.
authority with regard to the word "fasting"
in two other verses, viz., Acts x. 30 ; 1 Cor.
vii. 5. That the oldest MSS. should agree in
omitting all reference to fasting in four passages
in the New Testament, where fasting was
supposed to be mentioned, is highly suggestive
of interpolations made in the sacred text to
suit the ideas of a non-Apostolic Age.

The forty days of Lent are often said to
have been instituted as a fast in memory of
our Lord's "fast" of a similar period in the
wilderness. But the Lord passed that period
in a state of exalted spiritual meditation or
ecstasy, for St. Matthew distinctly states that
Christ's hunger was subsequent to the forty
days, "When he had fasted forty days and
forty nights, he was afterward an hungred"
(Matt. iv. 2). Lent had originally no real
connection with the forty days' fast in the
desert. Lent seems to have been first estab
lished by a Pope, about A.D. 130, to be a tithe
of the year (thirty-six days only), and was for
centuries confined to that period. When the
additional four days were added is not certain,
probably not till the time of Pope Gregory II.,
who died in 731.

Our Lord, in Matt. ix. 15, indicated that the
providential circumstances of life were the
true guide as to seasons of fasting. Cassian,
a disciple of Chrysostorn in the fifth century,
contrasting the Primitive Church with that of
his own day, said, " It ought to be known that
the observance of the forty days had no
existence so long as the perfection of that
Primitive Church remained inviolate." Lent
helped in later times to increase the power of
the priests. For in the Roman and Eastern
Churches dispensations which permit the eat
ing of meat on fast days may be obtained for
a money payment, and fines are levied on those
who break the Church law by eating meat
on such days without a dispensation. See
FASTING. [M. E. W. J.]

LESSONS, THE.— Portions of the Old Testa
ment and New Testament appointed to be
read in the Order for Morning and Evening
Prayer. By 34 & 35 Viet. cap. 37, 1871, new
tables of lessons were substituted for those
before in use, and power was given to the
bishop to alter the appointed Psalms and lessons
on all occasions on which he might consider
such alteration to tend to edification.

LIBERIUS. — Liberius was ordained Bishop of
Rome A.D. 352. He is notorious as one of the
heretical Popes of the Roman Catholic Church,

which claims papal infallibility. It is only fair,
however, to observe that for a long time he
resisted the threats and declined the bribes of
the Emperor Constantius, who was the cham
pion of the heretical Arians and the persecutor
of St. Athanasius, the defender of the Ortho
dox Catholic Faith. Cyril of Jerusalem, and
Eusebius of Sarnosata, were also supporters of
the Semi-Arian heresy, although the Church
of Rome has canonised both of them as saints
in her Calendar. Before the Emperor would
permit Liberius to return to Rome from exile,
he insisted on the bishop's satisfying him by
renouncing orthodoxy and St. Athanasius.
With this demand Liberius weakly complied,
as is clear from the letters written by him, and
quoted and commented on by St. Hilary, who
accuses him of liArian perfidy," and brands
him as an "Apostate." The evidence of
the geniuneness of the letters of Liberius,
as quoted by Hilary, is exceptionally strong,
though rejected as we might expect by some
Roman Catholic writers. Not only do the
most authoritative Protestant critics and
historians accept the evidence but the most
eminent Roman Catholic writers accept it, such
as Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin,
Montfaucon, Mohler, and in recent times
Cardinal Newman (see Arians of the Fourth
Century). " ' Two ways have been resorted to
of excusing, in some degree, the compliance of
Liberius. One, taken by Baronius and Hefele,
is that the formula he subscribed was capable
of being understood in an orthodox sense, and
so subscribed by him, though otherwise
intended by the emperor : that, in fact,
Liberius renounced the formula 6/oiootfcrtos, not
because he had fallen from orthodoxy, but be
cause he had been made to believe that for
mula to be the cloak of Sabellianism and
Photinism ' (Hefele). Baronius, however, con
demns him so far as to say, that his envy of
the fortune of Felix, and his longing for the
adulation to which he had been used at Rome,
were the Delilah that deprived this Samson of
his courage and strength. The other way of
saving a Pope from the imputation of error on
matters of faith is with Bellarmine to acknow
ledge his external but deny his internal assent
to heresy — a view which saves his infallibility at
the expense of his morality. The fact remains
that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed to
the world his renunciation of Athanasius, and
his entire agreement and communion with the
Easterns, and that at Sirmium he signed a con
fession drawn up by Semi-Arians, which was
intended to express rejection of the orthodoxy
for which he had once contended. It has been
observed that Athanasius, Sozomen, Hilary,
and Jerome all allude to his temporary com
pliance with heresy in some form as a known

LICENCE, MARRIAGE

[ 358 ]

LIGHTS

and undoubted fact. Athanasius, however,
unlike Hilary, speaks of it in a spirit of noble
tolerance. He says, 'But they (i.e. certain
great bishops) not only supported me with
arguments, but also endured exile ; among
them being Liberius of Rome. For, if he did
not endure the affliction of his exile to the end,
nevertheless he remained in banishment for
two years, knowing the conspiracy against
me.' " Further, he states that Liberius assented
to heresy under dread of threatened death.
See Wace and Smith's Diet, of Christian
biography. [T. H. L. L.]

LICENCE, MARRIAGE.— By the 62nd Canon
a minister is forbidden to celebrate a marriage
without having first published the banns of
matrimony on three several Sundays or holy
days, unless he shall have obtained a faculty
or licence. The Marriage Act of 1823, sec. 2 & 9,
seems to have altered this canon by making it
necessary that the banns should be published
on three several Sundays ; therefore publica
tions on holy days will not count as one of
these days. Canon 101 provides that no one
should grant licences except the officers of the
bishops and archbishops. The canons contain
a number of requirements before a licence can
be given, such as the consent of parents or
guardians, and for the taking of a bond to
secure the licence not having been improperly
obtained. These conditions have been abol
ished by the above-mentioned Act of 1823.

The power to grant marriage licences with
out complying with the condition of banns
was expressly reserved to the archbishops and
bishops by the Act of 1533, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21,
which abolished the jurisdiction of the Pope,
and did away with his power to grant such
licences, or any dispensations. The right to
grant licences is limited by the Act to " causes
not being contrary or repugnant to the Holy
Scriptures and laws of God," which now con
fines the bishop's powers to persons not with
in the prohibited degrees published in the
Table of Affinities of 1563. Before a licence
can be granted, one of the parties to the con
templated marriage must take an oath that
there is no impediment in law ; that he or she
has lived fifteen days preceding the giving of
the licence within the parish within which the
marriage is to be solemnised. The marriage
must be solemnised within three months for
the licence to be of any effect. The licence
seems to be in substance only a licence to
marry without publication of banns. Its
wording is as follows : " To the end that this
marriage may be publicly and lawfully
solemnised . . . without the publication or
proclamation of banns of matrimony . . . we
for lawful causes graciously grant this our
faculty." The ordinary licence has to be

issued in conformity with the statutory re
quirements as to hours and place in a parish
church or chapel licensed for marriages.
As before the Reformation the Archbishop of
Canterbury exercised, as legatus natus of the
Pope, a power of dispensing not only with
banns, but of allowing the marriage to take
place at any time or place ; he has been
allowed to retain that power. These licences
are called special licences, and are sparingly
given and expensive.

The Superintendent Registrar can now also
grant marriage licences by a statute of Will.
IV. (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85) ; but these licences
do not enable the parties to be married in a
church, but only before a registrar, or in a
Nonconformist place of worship. The exact
conditions that have to be complied with in
order to satisfy the law are here immaterial.
The ecclesiastical authorities of the Church of
England have therefore a monopoly of grant
ing licences for marriages in the Church of
England. [E. B. W.]

LIGHTS. — For utilitarian purposes lights were
needed in the worship of the early Church
(Acts xx. 7, 3). Pliny describes the Christians
as meeting " before it was light," and Tertullian
speaks of their assemblies "held before dawn."
In the Catacombs artificial light was always
necessary. But it was not till the fourth
century after Christ that lights began to be
employed for ritual or symbolical purposes.
The Christian Apologists ridiculed the practices
of the heathen in this very matter. Tertullian,
A.D. 192, denounces the practice of "exposing
useless candles at noon," and by that means
"encroaching on the day." "Let them," he
says, "who have no light, kindle their lamps
every day " (Apol., xlvi. xxxv.). " They kindle
lights to God," says Lactantius, A.D. 303, "as
if He dwelt in darkness .... Is he then to be
thought in his right mind, who offers for a gift
the light of candles and wax tapers to the Author
and Giver of light ? But light of another kind
He does require of us, and that not smoky, but,
as the poet sings, liquid and clear, to wit, that
of the mind " (Div. Inst., vi. 2, and Epitome, cap.
58). Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 370 : " Let not
our houses blaze with visible light . . . for this is
indeed the custom of the Greek Holy Moon . . .
but with . . . lamps that light up the whole
body of the Church, I mean with divine con
templations and thoughts " (Orat., v. 35). Yet,
on occasions of jubilee an illumination seemed
appropriate as the mere expression of rejoicing
and festival. The last-named writer mentions
as the custom of his day for the newly baptized
to light lamps, which he couples withthe parable
of the Virgins meeting the Bridegroom. Bap
tism itself was called ^amoytos, the "Illumina
tion," the light of the Holy Spirit, being given

LIGHTS

[ 359 ]

LIGHTS

to the adult convert on his admission into the
" household of God." In the East, St. Jerome
tells us, they had a custom, then unknown in
the West, that "when the Gospel is about to be
read, lights are lit at noonday, not to disperse
the darkness, but to show gladness ... so
that under the type of a corporal light, that
light might be shown concerning which we
read in the Gospel, ' Thy word, O Lord, is a
lantern unto my feet and a light unto my
paths ' " (Contra Vigilant. 467). This Oriental
usage was adopted in Spain in the seventh
century. Isidore of Seville wrote, " Those
who in Greek are called acolytes, are in Latin
called ceroferarii, from their carrying wax
candles when the Gospel is to be read, or the
sacrifice to be offered ; " the practice being for
light-bearers to precede the bishop on his
going to the Lord's Table, the lights being
afterwards set down on the floor, or in the
case of the gospel lights, extinguished at the
close of the reading. For convenience, the
extinguished lights were set behind, or at the
back of the "altar." "In course of time,"
says Romsee, "it seemed more convenient
to set the candlesticks with the candles on
the slab of the altar, and to burn the
candles." In this way the modern altar-
lights originated.

At funerals, from the time of Constantine at
least, processional lights were used : the day
of the Christian's death being regarded as his
birthday into life arid immortality. Hero-
worship soon sprang up, for the immense influx
of adult pagans into the (now fashionable)
Church brought with them the habits and modes
of thought of their previous lifetime. Cardinal
Baronius admits (Annals, p. 551) that the cultus
of images by means of lights burning before
them was taken directly from the idolaters —
' ' the venerable ecclesiastical antiquity brought
it to pass that what used to hang before the
idols should be providently converted to the
worship of God." A clergyman named Vigi-
lantius complained to St. Jerome that, "Under
the pretext of religion we see a custom intro
duced into the churches which approximates to
the rites of the Gentiles, namely, the lighting
of multitudes of tapers while the sun is yet
shining. And everywhere they kiss in adora
tion a small quantity of dust folded up in a
little cloth, and deposited in a little vessel.
Men of this stamp give great honour, forsooth,
to the most blessed martyrs, thinking with a
few insignificant wax-tapers to glorify those
whom the Lamb, who is in the midst of the
throne, enlightens with all the brightness of
His Majesty."

St. Jerome in reply denied that it was the
practice of the Church. He said : " We do not
light candles in the daylight as you falsely ac

cuse us, but we do so that we may alleviate
the darkness of the night by this comfort."

Yet he admitted that the Ritualists were
beginning the practice complained of: "But
what if some do so, in honour of the martyrs
through the ignorance and simplicity of secular
men or even of religious women (of whom we
may in truth say, ' I bear them record that they
have a zeal of God, but not according to know
ledge'), what loss do you thereby sustain?"
(Epist. contra Vigilantium, xxxvii.)

Yet he ends by admitting the pagan origin
of the custom, saying, " That was done to the
idols, and therefore to be detested : this is
done to the martyrs, and therefore may be re
ceived." In vain had the laws of Theodosius
forbidden under severe penalties to "light
candles, burn incense, or hang up garlands to
senseless images."

Not only did these pagan observances be
come more and more fashionable, but at length
the Second Synod of Nicsea, A.D. 787, decreed
as of faith that " To these (i.e. the likenesses of
our Lord and His blessed ones) as to the figure
of the precious and life-giving Cross, and to
the Book of the Gospels, and to other holy
objects, incense and lights may be offered
according to ancient pious custom, for the
honour which is paid to the image passes on to that
which the image represents, and he who reveres
the image reveres in it the subject represented "
(Mr. Athelstan Riley's translation).

This was just what the heathen had always
pleaded, and as the Buddhist now pleads, in
defence of idolatry. The apostate Julian said,
" We do not think them gods, but that through
them we may worship the Deity : for we being
in the body, ought to perform our service in a
way agreeable to it." Canon Robertson, the
historian, says. "There was too much founda
tion for the reproach with which the Mani-
chean Faustus assailed the Church : ' The
sacrifices of the heathen you have turned into
feasts of charity : their idols into martyrs,
whom ye honour with the like religious offices'"
(Hist. Christian Church, ii. 43-45). The condi
tion of Christian society which made this
possible is depicted in Kingsley's Hypatia, and
in Dean Farrar's Gathering Clouds. The char
acter of the so-called Seventh General Council
is described in Palmer's Treatise of the Church,
ii. 151-161, and by Robertson (Hist., iii. 55). In
Perceval's Roman Schism, p. 418, is given a
long list of the Fathers who are anathematised
by this "Seventh General Council." Bishop
Stillingfieet says, " Christianity became at last
to be nothing else but reformed paganism as
to its worship " ( Works, v. 459). Baruch vi. 18,
19, Hislop's Two Babylons, chap, v., or Middle-
ton's Letters from Rome, p. 27, illustrate the
universal prevalence of candle- worship among

LIGHTS

[ 360 ]

LIMBO

all nations. For centuries the struggle went
on within the Church to resist this deteriora
tion. The Synod of Elvira, A.D. 306, condemned
the use of pictures in the churches, and de
creed "that candles be not burned during the
day in cemeteries, for fear of troubling the
spirits of the saints." This canon was only
one of a series directed against heathenish
rites then calling for repression ; yet Mr. Dale,
in his interesting Essay on the Synod of
Elvira (published by Macmillan), has shown
(pp. 207-22) that the "Fathers" who con
demned these rites were themselves infected
by a belief in necromancy. So soon had " the
fine gold become dim " ! Dupin honestly says,
"that the Fathers of this Council did not
approve of the use of images, no more than
that of wax candles lighted in full day
light."

Our English Bede, A.D. 730, tells us that the
Feast of Candlemas merely replaced the pre-
Christian lustrations — " this custom the Chris
tian religion did well to change when in the
same month," of February, the feast of the
purification was celebrated (De Temp. Hat., 10).

This "relative worship" of inferior deities
by means of tapers and lamps and torches
naturally culminated in the worship of the
Host when the doctrine of transubstantiation
bad been formally adopted, and Innocent III.,
the promulgator of that dogma at the Fourth
Lateran Council, was the firstto order two lights
to be set burning upon the altar itself. Car
dinal Langton, who took part in that Council,
promulgated the Lateran Decrees at the Synod
of Oxford, A.D. 1222, directing that "two
candles, or at least one together with the lamp"
(hanging before the reserved wafer), should be
burning at mass, and ordering the laity to
kneel to the corpus Domini as to "their Creator
and Eedeemer" (Wilkins, i. 593).

All the Lateran Decrees were made binding
as parts of the Canon Law duly published in
this country. In addition to the recognition
of the divinity of the wafer, it was claimed
that "sacrificial fire" was indicated by the
same symbol. Lyndwood, John de Burgh, Poly-
dore Vergi], and Suarez, all give this, and refer
to Lev. vi. 13 for scriptural warrant. In 1541
the Koyal Injunctions of Henry VIII. ordered
that " no offering or setting of lights or candles
should be suffered except To the Blessed Sacra
ment." In 1547 Edward's Injunction repeated
his father's direction that, "no torches nor
candles, tapers or images of wax to be set
AFORE any image or picture, but only two
lights upon the high altar, before the sacra
ment " (Doc. Ann, i. 7). It is important to re
member that at that date (July 31, in the first
year of Edward's reign) the bloody act of the
Six Articles was still in full force — no refor

mation of doctrine having been as yet even
attempted. But so soon as the First Prayer
Book had been enacted, the Royal Visitation
Articles of 1549 ordered these Injunctions to
be no longer read (Doc. Ann., 2nd edit., p. 25),
and Ridley and Hooper accordingly forbade the
(now illegal) lights to be anywhere placed upon
the Lord's Table, and " that the ministers, in
time of the Communion, do use only the cere
monies and gestures appointed by the Book of
Common Prayer." From that day forward,
save during the reaction under Mary, no lights
" before the sacrament " were anywhere seen
in the Church of England ; though Queen
Elizabeth, for reasons of Statecraft, introduced
a crucifix before which two candles were burned
at evening service in her own chapel. Both
the image and its attendant lights were unique,
and designed to create an impression that the
Queen was then hesitating whether to abandon
the Reformation or not ; but when they had
served the purpose of mystifying the Spanish
ambassador, the crucifix was broken and its
lights allowed to stand idle. As Bishops
Grindal and Horn reported in 1567, "the
Church of England has entirely given up the
use of a foreign tongue, breathings, exorcisms,
oil, spittle, clay, lighted tapers, and other things
of that kind which by Act of Parliament (ex
leyum prescripto) are never to be restored "
(Zurich Letters, i. 178).

Smith's Diet. Christian Antiq., ii. 993. Scuda-
more's Notit. Eucharistica, 2nd ed. , p. 121.
Dimock's Christian Ritual, p. 34. Tomlinson's
Historic Grounds of Lambeth Judgment, pp. 75-
104, and Tract on Altar Lights, their History and
Meaning. [J. T. T.]

LIMBO. — Limbo (from limbus, a fringe) has a
twofold signification in the works of Roman
Catholic theologians.

1. The Limbus Patrum means a fringe or
outskirt of sheol or hell, in which the saints or
righteous of the Old Testament dispensation
were confined awaiting the coming of Christ.

2. The Limbus Infantium, the place or state
assigned to infants who die without baptism.

The views of the Church of Rome on this
subject have an intimate relation with her
doctrines regarding the sacraments. Holding
that the sacraments are the only channel by
which the blessings of redemption are ordi
narily conveyed to men, she was bound to
hold that those who died before Christ were
not saved. The best that could be hoped of
them was that they were not lost ; hence she
retained them in a salvable state awaiting the
coming of the Redeemer. But although Rome
holds that Christ descended into Hades, she
does not teach (as to be consistent she should),
that He baptized there the saints of the Old
Testament dispensation before accompanying

LINCOLN JUDGMENT

[ 361

LINCOLN JUDGMENT

them into heaven.1 The Maynooth Catechism
teaches that Christ descended " to preach to
the spirits in prison, that is, to announce to
them the glad tidings of redemption." As to
the condition of uubaptized infants, Rome
teaches that neither at death, nor ever after,
are they admitted into the kingdom of heaven.
Perrone (Prcelectioncs T/ieologicce, vol. i. p.
494) distinguishes between the certain and
the uncertain. What is certain, yea, a matter
of faith, is, as taught by the Second Council
of Lyons and the Council of Florence, that
infants and idiots incur damnation, but suffer
a different punishment from that inflicted upon
adults. But, as to the nature of the punish
ment inflicted, Perrone tells us nothing is
certain. The Latin Fathers represent infants
as suffering a pain of sense, while the Greek
Fathers represent them as suffering a pain
of loss. This teaching is founded upon the
doctrine of original sin, and the theory that
baptism is the only means appointed for de
liverance from the sin of our first parents.

The existence of the Limbus Infantium has
never been defined by the Roman Church,
but when the Council of Pistoia sneered at
the doctrine as a Pelagian fable, Pius VI.
censured the Council. Infants who die with
out baptism are buried in unconsecrated
ground. [T. C.]

LINCOLN JUDGMENT.— The trial of Bishop
King for ritual nonconformity by Archbishop
Benson in 1890 is remarkable, perhaps even
"epoch-making," on account of the adoption
of certain principles as the basis of its judg
ment, every one of which had been decisively
rejected as unsound by the Supreme Court of
Appeal. The importance of these fundamental
principles has never yet received the attention
which is due to the far-reaching results which
were thus foreshadowed as possible.

Two preliminary questions had to be de
cided : (1) That a diocesan bishop is subject
to the jurisdiction of his metropolitan ; (2)
that a bishop is subject, like every other
"minister," to the rubrics and canons of the
Church of England when officiating in divine
service. The former of these points was de
cided by the Privy Council itself, which held
that "the archbishop has jurisdiction in this
case. They are also of opinion that the ab
staining by the archbishop from entertaining
the suit is matter of appeal to her Majesty."

Nevertheless Bishop King lodged a formal
protest " that the Provincial Synod is the only
Court before which a bishop can be tried," and

1 Hermas, in his Shepherd Sim., ix. 16, distinctly
teaches that the apostles and teachers baptized
in the Unseen World the saints of the old dis
pensation.

that " bishops are not included among the
' ministers' to whom the provisions of the Act
of Uniformity apply." The archbishop, how
ever, gave judgment on May 12, 1899, in favour
of his own sole jurisdiction ; and it is errone
ously stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica
that he was supported in this by his suffragan
assessors. Such was not the case ; their lord
ships dissented, yet were compelled to listen
to the very able judgment in which Archbishop
Benson ruled that he was competent to sit in
judgment upon them all ! A report of this
judgment, with illustrative notes, i.s published
by the Church Association (Tract 104).

Bishop King thereupon decided to appear by
counsel, but under protest, as not acknow
ledging the jurisdiction claimed. Nor has the
English Church Union, of which he was a
member, and which supported the Bishop of
Lincoln throughout, ever admitted the juris
diction of the primate to be well founded. The
archbishop further ruled that a bishop, when
officiating in any service contained in the
Prayer Book, is bound by the same rules as
any other "minister." In this ruling he was
supported by all his assessors except Bishop
John Wordsworth.

These preliminaries having been decided, the
hearing on the merits was reached in February
1900, and judgment was delivered on November
21 in the same year. It introduced the novel
claim that a Court of first instance is entitled
to review and set aside the previous judgments
of the Court of Appeal— a principle in itself
sufficiently revolutionary. But the decisions
ultimately reached did not greatly alter the
legal position, except as regards the singing of
the "Agnus Dei." The following summary
exhibits the changes actually effected : —

1st Charge. — Mixing water with the wines
during the service. Before the Lincoln Judg
ment this was illegal. After the Judgment it
still remains illegal; the "Judgment" given
being on a point not raised in the articles of
charge.

2nd Charge. — Hiding the Manual Acts.
Before the Judgment this was illegal. After
the Judgment it still remains illegal.

3rd Charge. — Making the sign of the Cross.
Before the Judgment this was illegal. After
the Judgment it still remains illegal.

4th Charge. — Ministering wine which had
been mixed with water during the service.
Before the Judgment this was illegal. After
the Judgment it still remains illegal ; the
"Judgment" given being on a point not raised
in the suit.

5th Charge. — Using lighted candles, " before
the sacrament." Before the Judgment this
was illegal. After the Judgment it still re
mains illegal ; the Judgment in the Supreme

LINCOLN JUDGMENT

[ 362 J

LINCOLN JUDGMENT

Court in Martin v. Mackonochie being unaffected
by the appeal. On this point the Privy Council
merely said that the bishop was not responsible,
but they did not legalise the use of lighted
candles.

6th Charge. — Drinking the ablutions during
divine service. Before the Judgment this was
illegal. After the Judgment it still remains
illegal. On this point the judges declared the
drinking of the rinsings after the close of the
service to be lawful.

7th Charge. — The eastward position during
the entire ante-Communion service. This was
a new point, and therefore could not affect
any previous judgment.

8th Charge. — The singing of the "Agnus Dei."
Before the Judgment this was illegal. After
the Judgment it is permitted to be done with
impunity. This, therefore, though a most im
portant point, is the only one on which a
judgment was given at complete variance with
former decisions.

But the really grave feature of this Judgment
was that it discarded the rationes decidendi,
upon which all former judgments in ritual suits
had been based. The Privy Council had laid
down the dictum that canons and constitu
tions relating to divine service prior to the
Reformation, and even royal Injunctions of
any earlier date, " must be taken, if of force
at the time of passing of any of the Acts of
Uniformity, to have been repealed by those
Acts" (Martin v. Mackonochie, L.R. 2 P.C.
389). In Westerton v. Liddell, the first of
these suits, it was held that "the word
'ornaments' applies, and in this ['the orna
ments '] rubric is confined to those articles the
use of which in the services and ministrations
of the Church is PRESCRIBED BY the Prayer
Book of Edward the Sixth" (Moore's separate
report, p. 156). The importance of these
elementary bases of Church Law (which were
adopted and followed in all subsequent judg
ments), arises from the fact that ritual mainly
centres around the doctrine of the sacraments
and the worship supposed to be due (or to be
prohibited) in reference to the supposed in
dwelling Deity within the consecrated species.
In other words, it involves the question of
the " continuity " of sacramental doctrine
before and after the " Reformation " in Eng
land.

The Privy Council had solved these ques
tions by saying, " The Prayer Book, in the
Preface, divides all ceremonies into these two
classes : those which are retained are speci
fied, whereas none are abolished by name; but
it is assumed that all are abolished which are
not expressly retained " (Martin v. Mackonochie,
ut supra). This elementary principle was fully
adopted by the two Archbishops of Canterbury

and York in their published " Opinion " on
Incense and Processional Lights, July 31, 1899,
when the ceremonial use of either was held to
be prohibited under section 27 of Elizabeth's
Act of Uniformity, which renders "void and
of none effect — all laws, statutes, and ordin
ances whereby any other service ... is limited,
established, or set forth to be used within this
realm."

In open defiance of this principle, Archbishop
Benson actually adduced such "authorities " as
Pope Leo IV., who directed that "Nullus cantet
sine lumine . . . et casula" in A.D. 847, and
Pope Honorius III., who ordered a priest to
be deprived because "sine igne sacrificabat et
aqua " (L.R. 1891, P.C., p. 95). This same Pope
instituted elevation of the Host and its
adoration, according to Fleury (xv. 663). See
Cranmer's Remains, p. 154, and Lord's Supper,
p. 238. These "authorities" were cited in
support of the decree of the papal legate,
Langton, in the Synod at Oxford in 1222, at
which he formally promulgated the decrees
of the Fourth Lateran Council ordering the
punishment by death of "heretics" who
denied the doctrine of transubstantiation (first
decreed at Lateran), and had himself taken
part in that "General Council." Another
" authority " cited by Archbishop Benson (L.R.,
p. 96) is John de Burgh, A.D. 1385, who warned
English priests to put out the light if the
wafer had been consumed, lest " idolatry "
ensue, and that if the priest gave an uncon-
secrated wafer, the communicant must needs
commit idolatry because " manducans adorat
quod manducat." He adduced Lev. vi. 13,
"fire shall ever be burning on my altar," as
the reason for altar lights ! Whereupon the
archbishop observes, "It would be contrary
to the history and interpretation of the two
lights on the Holy Table to connect them with
erroneous and strange teaching as to the nature
of the sacrament."

Edward's Injunction of 1547 was also ad
duced, ignoring the fact that the "Six
Articles " Act was then in full force, and that
the statute which gave "the authority of
Parliament" to these Injunctions was repealed
before the "second year of Edward VI." had
commenced. Lord Cairns had pointed out
that the Royal Visitation Articles of 1549,
published by Wilkins, Cardwell, and Burnet,
forbidding the "setting any light on the
Lord's Board at any time " as being a " counter
feit of the Popish mass," were evidence of the
meaning of the First Prayer Book, and were
acted upon by the Ordinaries under that book
(4<A Report Rit. Comm., p. 220, col. 2); whereas
this Judgment assumed that these were (un
like all other Visitation Articles) not enforce
ments of existing law, but irregular attempts

LINCOLN JUDGMENT

[ 363 ]

LITURGIES, ANCIENT

at legislation. In the same spirit they men
tion that Ridlej merely "exhorted" church
wardens in June 1550, to "remove" altars,
and urge that this was ultra vires (Judgment,
Macmillan's, p. 20); but are careful not to
mention that after the Order in Council of
November 23, Ridley at once "required and
commanded," in the king's name (Fox, vi.
744), this (no longer doubtful) alteration. The
so-called "historic" treatment is throughout
of the same one-sided character, having
always this uniform object, viz., to "dis
semble and cloak " the notorious fact that an
enormous alteration of ritual had designedly
resulted from the doctrinal changes which
took place in 1548-52, and that the inculpated
ritual was regarded by everybody, on both
sides, as the recognised expression of the
distinctive belief of the " Romanensians." In
pursuit of ,this object, the draftsman of the
Judgment was guilty of very numerous mis
quotations, oi glaring suppressions of evi
dence, and of downright misrepresentations
of fact. For detailed evidence of this, see
Historic Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment, pub
lished by J. F. Shaw. The very points on
which the Judgment turned, e.g. the alleged
fact that the communion tables were placed
lengthwise down the church at the time when
the north-side rubric was devised, is quietly
assumed as though it were indisputable,
though it is contrary to all the contemporary
evidence. Nor was the Judgment even con
sistent with itself. For example, mixing
water with wine during the service was dis
allowed because the rubric directing this to
be done had been struck out in 1552, and had
never been restored. Yet the "Agnus," which
was not merely struck out, but was, at the
last revision, again deliberately rejected by
Convocation when its restoration was pro
posed, was held to be perfectly legal I But
perhaps the chief objection to this extra
ordinary farrago of sham "learning" is, that
if papal decrees, pre-Reformation precedents,
and foreign bishops may be adduced as
evidence of the existing "law" of the
Reformed Church of England, there can be
no limit to the application of this Romanising
process until the Established Church has
been screwed up by clerical judges to the
Italian standard. The Judgment of the Privy
Council on appeal is hardly worth referring
to. Little or no trouble had been taken to
assign any reasons for accepting the conclu
sions of the Court below. The reasoned
judgments previously laid down by judges
like Lords Kingdown, Cairns, and Selborne
were set aside whenever necessary, and with
out any attempt at confutation ; nor was the
smallest particle of evidence adduced to

supply the lack of relevant vouchers in the
Archbishop's Judgment. The Lord Chancellor
seemed determined at any cost to avoid a
collision with the priest-party, and willing to
accept any way of escape which the Primate's
ingenuity had suggested, as a pretext for
avoiding the duty of enforcing the law as
laid down by a long succession of the foremost
judges in the land. [J. T. T.]

LITANY, THE.— The origin of the word
Litany is Greek. The Latin equivalent is
" Rogatio." In the East, accordingly, we find
that it is in early times applied to various
solemn Services of Prayer. In the Apostolic
Constitutions (not later than the fourth cen
tury), there is a responsive form of intercessory
prayer, with the reiteration of the Kyrie Eleison
at every clause. In the various ancient litur
gies, what are substantially litanies of depre
cation, obsecration, and intercession, are found
as integral parts of the service. But the name,
originally general in sense, came to be techni
cally applied in the fourth century to a form
of supplication in times of special need. The
two main distinctions between the Romish
Litany and that of the Church of England are
that the English Litany is in language " under-
standed of the people," while the Romish
Litany is in Latin, contrary to the Apostolic
injunction (1 Cor. xiv. 19). In the next place
the Romish Litany introduces invocation of
saints and angels, unwarranted by Holy
Scripture and apostolic usage. Such prayers
to the saints led to an undue exaltation of
the saints, and arose from a mere commemora
tion of them, and being abolished by the
Reformers have rightly no place in the English
Litany. [T. H. L. L.]

LITURGIES, ANCIENT.— Formularies used
at the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The
prayers originally used over the bread and
wine placed before the presiding minister in
the meal called the Agape were extempor
aneous. "The president," says Justin Martyr,
" offers up prayers as well as ever he is able "
(Apol., i.), and the treatise named "The
Teaching of the Apostles," which seems to
have been composed about fifty years before
Justin Martyr (about A.D. 100), says expressly
that "prophets," meaning there little more
than well-educated teachers, are to use what
words they like in setting apart the consecrated
elements. The forms provided for the less
learned are as follows : they are the first
liturgical forms used in the Christian Church ;
we now term such prayers Consecration prayers,
but they were then known as Thanksgiving or
Eucharistical prayers.

"About the broken bread," says the treatise,
"thus give thanks : ' We give thanks to Thee,
our Father, for the life and knowledge which

LITURGIES, ANCIENT

[ 364 ]

LITURGIES, ANCIENT

Thou makest known unto us through Jesus
Thy Child. To Thee be the glory for ever I
As this bread which we break was once
scattered over the hills, and gathered together
it became one, so may Thy Church be gathered
from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom ;
for Thine is the glory and the power, through
Jesus Christ for ever.'" "About the cup:
' We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the
holy vine of David Thy child (or servant),
which Thou hast made known to us by Jesus
Thy Child. To Thee be the glory for ever ! ' "
The above were the prayers before reception ;
the thanksgiving prayer after reception was as
follows : "After ye are filled" {that is, at the
end of the meal of Agape, during which the
memorials of Christ bad been received) " thus
give thanks, ' We give thanks to Thee, Holy
Father, for Thy Holy Name, which Thou
makest to dwell in our hearts, for the know
ledge and faith of immortality, which Thou
madest known to us through Jesus Thy Child.
To Thee be the glory for ever ! Thou, Almighty
God, didst create all things for Thy Name's
sake, and didst give food and drink to men
for enjoyment, that they may give thanks
unto Thee ; and on us Thou bestowest spiritual
food and drink and eternal life through Thy
Child ; and above all we give thanks to Thee
for Thy power. To Thee be the glory for
ever ! Remember, 0 Lord, Thy Church, to
deliver it from all evil, and to perfect it in
Thy love, and to gather it from the four winds,
the sanctified Church, into Thy Kingdom,
which Thou didst prepare for it ; for Thine is
the power and the glory for ever. Let grace
come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna
to the Son of David. If any be holy, let him
come ; if not, let him repent. Maranatha.
Amen '" (ch. ix. x.).

It was impossible that forms could be very
elaborate in the first century, when the cele
bration of the Holy Communion took place
towards the end of a social meal, the final
thanksgiving being both for the reception of
the symbolical elements and for the whole
meal. When, about A.D. 110, the Eucharist
was transferred from the evening to the fore
noon, the form would naturally become more
lengthy and more definite, and yet the liberty
granted to educated teachers to use their own
words instead of the assigned form, was con
tinued, as we see from Justin Martyr, down
to the latter part of the second century at
the least. But extemporaneous prayers and
thanksgivings for a particular object, again
and again offered, are sure after a time to fall
into a stereotyped shape. By the beginning
of the third century it is probable that a pre-
composed form of setting apart the sacred
elements was universally used. But it was

not the same form in every place. Each con
gregation at first had its own formula ; then
each bishop had a special form for his diocese,
which the various congregations under his
charge were invited, but not compelled, to
adopt ; when Metropolitans were instituted,
it was but natural for the suffragan or pro
vincial bishops to give up their forms for those
of the Metropolitan Cathedral, and in like
manner, the forms used by the Metropolitans
were naturally assimilated to those used by
primates or patriarchs, when those dignitaries
had come into being.

When sufficient time had passed for this
system to mature itself, all the various liturgies
coalesced into five types. (1) The Liturgy of
the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem ;
(2) the Liturgy of the Patriarchate of Alex
andria; (3) the Liturgy of the Patriarchate of
Rome ; (4) the Liturgy of the Churches of
Asia Minor, which preserved the tradition of
St. John's use ; (5) the Nestorian Liturgy, pre
vailing in the far East. Of these the first was
called the Liturgy of St. James ; Ritualist
Manuals ( Ritual Reason Why and Congregation in
Church) try to pass it off as a composition of
St. James, but the title means simply that it
was the Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem,
called the Church of St. James in later times
from the name of its first bishop, St. James,
the Lord's brother. The second was called
the Liturgy of St. Mark, meaning no more
than that it was the Liturgy of the Church
traditionally founded by St. Mark. The third
had the name of St. Peter given to it from a
mistaken idea, once entertained, that Peter
had been Bishop of Rome. The fourth was
carried in germ from Asia Minor into Gaul
by Irenaaus, and from it sprang the Gallican
or old French Liturgy, the Mozarabic or
old Spanish Liturgy, and the old British
Liturgy.

As soon as Rome consciously aimed at
supremacy over the Church, she exerted her
self to abolish all liturgies except her own.
She could not touch the liturgies of the
Eastern Patriarchates, much as she would
have desired to do so. On the contrary,
liturgies were composed by Basil, and in the
name of Chrysostom, on the basis of the
Liturgy of Jerusalem, for the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, thoroughly Eastern in their
character, which are still in use in the Oriental
Church. But in the West the Pope resolved
to sweep away all variations from the Roman
type. For this reason the Gallican and Moza
rabic liturgies which, far from being identical
with the Roman Liturgy, had not even sprung
from it, were the objects of his implacable
hostility. By papal instigation and urgency,
Charlemagne was induced, in the ninth century,

LOLLARDS, THE

365 ]

LOLLARDS, THE

to forbid the use of the old Gallican Liturgy
in France; and Pope Hildebrand (Gregory
VII.) drove King Alonzo VI. against his will,
and against the will of his people, to abolish
the Mozarabic Liturgy, in the eleventh century,
on the threat of separating him from his wife
and "unsheathing the sword of St. Peter over
his head," which he had explained as follows :
" I will excommunicate him, and will raise his
subjects against him; and if they are dis
obedient to me and are unfaithful to St. Peter,
I will go myself to stir up his kingdom, and to
prosecute him with fury as the enemy of the
Christian religion." Alonzo VI. was no match
for Gregory VII., who claimed the " ownership
of the kingdoms of Spain for St. Peter and the
holy Roman Church," on the ground that they
had been conquered for St. Peter by Count
Ebolo de Roceyo — a man who never even
existed. Archbishop Roderick describes " the
tears and lamentations of all" at losing their
national liturgy, quoting sadly the proverb
which originated from this unwilling act of
royal violence, Quo volunt reges, vadimt
leges.

Thus the Popes contrived to spread their
own Roman Liturgy (of which the Ambrosian
and the Mediaeval English were variations)
through the whole of the West. The original
character of the liturgy we are unable to dis
cover. The earliest Western formulas con
nected with the Eucharistic Office are three
so-called Sacramentaries, the first of which is
attributed, without reason, to Leo I., the second,
with little more reason, to Gelasius I., and the
third was compiled by Gregory I., who revised
the existing liturgical forms at the beginning
of the seventh century. Since that time such
additions and interpolations have been made
as new doctrines springing up required, but
the veneration with which Gregory's handi
work was regarded, has preserved more of
the comparatively ancient character of the
liturgy than might have been expected.

[F. M.]

LOLLARDS, THE.— For several years before
his death (Dec. 31, 1384) Wycliffe seems
seldom to have left his parish of Lutterworth.
He was far from idle — as a long series of
English pamphlets and Latin treatises re
main to show. He was busy, too, with his
translation of the Scriptures into English.1
But he left the work of propagating his views
to others. Itinerant preachers, whom he
named his "Poor Priests," carried them far
and wide. They were an imitation of the
Seventy Evangelists whom Jesus sent out
" two by two " ; but the idea of them was

1 As to WycliftVs share in the translation,
see article WYCLIFFE.

immediately suggested (perhaps) by the
"friars" — those degenerate sons of an origi
nally noble movement, whose baneful influ
ence on tlie people it had grown to be one of
his chief objects in life to counteract. Clad
"in russet-coloured gowns2 with deep pockets"
they soon became well known and welcome.
They could be recognised not only by their
dress, but by "their peculiar speech inter
larded with phrases of Scripture, the sanctity
of their demeanour, their habit of basing
every argument on some injunction found in
God's law, and their abhorrence of the
common oaths of the day — for which they
substituted ' I am sure/ ' It is sooth,' 'Without
doubt it is so."'8

Lollards was the nickname for these and
their sympathisers. Whether it was derived
from Walter Lollard — founder of a " heretical "
sect in Germany, " who began to disperse his
errors about 1315 ;"4 or from the habit prac
tised by that sect of singing or humming in
a low plaintive tone (Ger. lollen or lullen) ;B or
from the preaching of a friar at St. Paul's
against the doctrines of Wycliffe, which had
for its text the parable of the Tares (Mia),6
has been a matter of dispute. Anyhow, the
name won speedy acceptance like others of
contemptuous origin, as Christian, Puritan,
Methodist.7

In 1382 (May) Wycliffe's heresies were
brought up by Archbishop Courtenay before a
Synod of the province of Canterbury at Black-
friars, and formally condemned. This was the
first definite act of war against Lollardry on
the part of the Church. The great Peasant
Rising had taken place in the previous year,
and it has often been asserted that the
Lollards were partly, or mainly, responsible
for it. But though Wycliffe's teaching on the
subject of property might be, and by some
enthusiasts would be, applied to favour com
munism, it is remarkable that neither in 1382,
nor at any time, was this cited among the

2 " Vcstibus de russeto utebantur pro majorc
partc," Knyghton, ii. 184 ; Chronicon, Rolls Series
(82).

3 G. M. Trevelyan, England in the Age of
Wycliffe, p. 317.

4 Du Pin's New Ecclesiastical History, vol. v.
p. 113, translated by Timothy Childe (1699); cf.
Fuller's Church History, vol. ii. 406 (Brewer's
edition).

5 Capes, History of the English Church in the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, p. 179.

6 Brewer's note, Fuller, ii. 406.

7 Fuller (ibid.) says that since the Reforma
tion "Lollard" seemed to be "a general name
to signify such who in their opinions oppose the
settled religion of the land."

LOLLARDS, THE

[ 366 ]

LOLLARDS, THE

charges against him or his followers.1 These
charges were purely doctrinal, e.g. —

1. That in the sacrament of the altar the
material substance of bread and wine remains
after consecration.

5. That if a man be properly repentant all
outward confession is superfluous or useless
for him.

7. That God ought to obey the devil.

15. That it is lawful to any deacon or
priest to preach the Word of God without the
authority of the Apostolic See, or a Catholic
bishop, or some other (authority) sufficiently
sure.

23. That Friars are bound to get their
living by the labour of their hands, and not
by mendicancy.2

Courtenay had the king and the Lords on
his side — as is shown by an ordinance which
they agreed upon without the Commons'
knowledge, or, at least, consent (during the
short Parliament of 1382, May 7-22), charging
the king's officers and sheriffs to arrest any
heretic against whom the bishops lodged
complaint. Letters patent in the king's own
name granted authority and licence to the
archbishop and his suffragans to arrest and
imprison " all and singular those who should
wish secretly or openly to preach or maintain
the aforesaid conclusions so condemned."
And that these measures might not turn out a
dead letter, the archbishop followed them up
with a private letter of his own, urging the
suffragans to be alert and zealous. Yet
practically they came to little. Only a few
of WyclifTe's leading disciples seem to have
been proceeded against during his life-time.
In fact, whatever king, Lords, and bishops
might do, the prevalent sentiment of dis
gust at the corruptions of the Church was
too strong for them. Wycliffe's exposure
of the " Cassarean Clergy" evoked sympathy
even where his special doctrines made no
converts. A sign of this was the revocation

1 "... I have been able to find, between the
years 1382 and 1530 only one case of a Lollard
holding communistic theories, ..." Trevelyan,
p. 340 (ef. Appendix, p. 370).

2 The condemned " conclusions " number
twenty-four (ten heresies and fourteen errors).
Only the 10th (that it is contrary to Holy
Scripture that ecclesiastical men should have
temporal possessions), and the 17th (that tem
poral lords can, at their will, take away
temporal goods from ecclesiastics habitually
sinful, or that the public may at their will
correct sinful lords) touch on property, unless
the 18th (that tithes are puree eleemosynce)
be added, fasciculi Zizaniorum, 275-282 (Rolls
Series).

by the House of Commons in October of the
ordinance of May. "Let it be annulled,"
they said, " for it was not the intention of the
Commons to be tried for heresy, nor to bind
over themselves or their descendants to the
prelates more than their ancestors had been
in time past."3 On the other hand, the
Lollard cause suffered a severe blow at Oxford
— the place of its birth, and, for a time, of its
greatest strength. By an unnatural union
with the bishops, the friars, or regular
clergy of Oxford, just when their case seemed
desperate, were able to bring about (July
1382) a royal mandate,4 which forced the
University, on pain of forfeiting all privileges
held from the Crown, to banish Wycliffe,
Nicholas Hereford, Philip Repyngton, and
John Aston. There followed a triumphant
entry of the bishops in November — leading to
humiliating submission on the part of Aston
and Repyngton.5

Henceforth Oxford became a stronghold of
" orthodoxy," and the effect on the new move
ment was to withdraw it almost entirely from
that intellectual atmosphere of which Oxford
had long been the centre. Wycliffe himself
did not apparently regard this as an unmixed
evil, nor was it. But neither was it an unmixed
good that thus his cause must needs be left
more and more to the advocacy of " unlicensed "
preachers. For this meant an increasing
loss of restraint on fanatic tendencies, and
a sure loss of influence with the educated
and upper classes. But such a result did not
appear at once. During the years which
immediately followed the death of Wycliffe,
Lollardry grew apace. The recruits came
chiefly from the neighbourhood of Leicester,
the west of England and London.6 In
and around Leicester the preaching of the
Poor Priests had extraordinary success. Every
second man, it was said, might be accounted a
Lollard. Protected by powerful local magnates
like Sir Thomas Latimer, and by powerful
officials like John Fox, Mayor of Northampton,
the preachers had nothing to fear from hostile
clergy, and could defy even the bishop. Crowds
attended them, and armed knights of the shire
stood by them when they preached — sometimes
in a churchyard, sometimes in the church it
self — and listened eagerly to their outspoken
attacks on the worship of images or the sanctity
of shrines. The chronicler relates with horror
how they called " our Lady of Lincoln and our

3 Trevelyan, p. 311.

4 Fasc. "Zizan, p. 312 and pp. 272-333 for
whole proceedings against Oxford.

5 At a Convocation held in St. Frideswyde's
Nov. 18th. Wilkins' Concilia, iii. 172.

6 See Trevelyan, pp. 313-331.

LOLLARDS, THE

[ 367 ]

LOLLARDS, THE

Lady of Walsingham the witch of Lincoln and
the witch of Walsingham. " 1 Still more shock
ing was it to hear that one of the iconoclasts
had actually used a local ' ' Mary " for firewood ! 2
But " Nemesis " appeared on the scene in 1389.
In the October of that year the Primate held a
visitation at Leicester. William Smith, who
had burnt the image,3 was one of nine " hot
Gospellers " arraigned before him. Their cour
age vanished in the presence of trial. Five lay
hid ; four recanted, Smith being one of them.
He submitted to do penance with a crucifix
in one hand and an image of the insulted saint
in the other. This failure to stand fast caused
general discouragement, and the heretics, we
are told, thenceforth carried on their work
with greater privacy. There was, in fact, a
deficiency of the martyr spirit in the first
generation of Lollards. A few years after
Courtenay's visit to Leicester, the Archbishop
of York examined (in London) four tradesmen
of Nottingham, each of whom renounced on
oath the teaching of the Lollards. The leaders
were no braver. Aston, Nicholas of Hereford,
Purvey, Swynderby, Repyngton,4 enthusiasts
for a time — all gave way in the end. The
new faith did not take deep root, though
widely diffused, till it was felt to be
worth dying for. In the west, particularly
about Hereford, Worcester, Reading, and
Salisbury, Lollardry flourished as rapidly
as in the Midlands, and with greater im
punity. Aston, Purvey, Hereford, Swynderby,
were its most active apostles, with a notable
Welshman named Walter Brute, who left
behind him a MS. which shows what he,
at least, thought of the Pope. He is " the
beast ascending out of the earth having
two horns like unto a lamb, who compels
small and great, rich and poor, to worship
the beast and take his mark in their fore
head or on their hands," while the Papacy
he regarded as the centre whence most
evils emanated.8 Such language is one of
several signs that in the west the Lollards
moved fast. Another is the fact that "here

1 Knyghton, ii. 183.
- Ibid. ii. 182.

3 Ibid. ii. 182.

4 For Aston, Nicholas, Purvey, Repyngton,
see articles in Nat. Diet. Biogr. ; and for Swyn
derby, see Trevelyan, pp. 314, 315, 323, 326.
Nicholas ("chief leader of the Lollards after
Wycliff's death ") recanted in 1391, and was
appointed Chancellor of Hereford Cathedral.
He translated the Old Testament in conjunc
tion with Wycliffe as far as the Book of Baruch.
Repyngton became bishop, cardinal, and per
secutor.

5 Trevelyan, 325 (Bale's Scriptores, p. 503).

the Poor Priests first made the audacious ex
periment of creating their own successors." 8
This points distinctly towards "separation"
from the existing Church — a result not contem
plated by Wycliffe any more than by John
Wesley centuries later. London, the third
"cradle" of Lollardry, contained many ad
herents. " Nearly a hundred of the Lollards "
backed up an ex-friar, Walter Patteshall, when
he posted charges of murder and other crimes
against his late associates on St. Paul's door in
1387. Still more significant was the action
of certain powerful Lollard laymen, including
two Privy Councillors, in 1395. They boldly
laid the case for Lollardry before Parliament,
as if sure of its support, and their statement
is a fair measure of the Lollard position at
this date.7 The pretended miracle of the mass,
image- worship, pilgrimages, prayers for the
dead, auricular confession, exorcisms, vows of
celibacy, are among the things denounced.
Exception is taken also to superfluous luxury
in dress and food; and all war is said to be
unchristian. However friendly the attitude
of Parliament might be, the bishops could
count upon the king. Hurrying back from
Ireland at their urgent entreaty, he com
pelled the leader of the enterprise, Sir
Richard Stury, to forswear his opinions on
pain of death, and vowed to hang all Lollards.
Richard II. was not at all inclined to be
tolerant of heresy, though the Lollards of a
later and darker time sighed for the compara
tive mildness of his reign. He was only com
paratively mild because he was comparatively
helpless. There was, as yet, no statutory
power to arrest, try, far less to punish with
death.8 But the revolution which brought
Henry IV. to the throne effected a change in
this respect. The new king was too dependent
on the clergy to be lenient towards heresy, even
had he wished. When, therefore, Convocation,
and also the Commons, petitioned for some
thing which should strike terror to the heart
of Lollardry, the king readily agreed. Hence
the Act De herctico comburendo (1401), which
continued (with interruptions) to deform our
Statute Book till the reign of Charles II.9
Before this Act came actually into force,
William Sawtre, chaplain of St. Osyths, or
St. Syths, Wallbrook, was being tried by
Convocation on seven counts (e.g., that it is

6 Ibid. 326.

7 Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of
the Hisstory of the Church of England," No. xli.
(Fasc. Ziz., 360-369).

8 Stubbs, Constitutional History, iii. 383-93
(Legislation against Heresy).

9 Repealed by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 14 ; by 1
Eliz. c. 1 ; finally by 29 Charles II. c. 9.

LOLLARDS, THE

[ 368 ]

LOLLARDS, THE

not lawful to adore the cross, but only Christ ;
that priests and deacons are more bound to
preach than to say the canonical hours ; that
after consecration in the Eucharist there
remains bread of the same nature as before),
and, of course, was condemned.1 He was the
first for whom the fires of Smithfield were
kindled. John Purvey, who had shared the
home and literary labours of Wycliffe in his
last days, appeared before the same Convoca
tion, but could not face the flames. Three
days after Sawtre's death he stood at St. Paul's
Cross reading forth his retractation.2 The
archbishop (Arundel) gave him a benefice, and
he is said to have died in prison long after.
Prosecutions often ended, alas 1 in retracta
tion, bnt not always. Thus John Badby, a
tailor (or blacksmith) of Evesham in Wor
cestershire, did not recant his belief that
" Christ sitting at supper could not give
His disciples His living body to eat,"
though urged to do so by " two arch
bishops, eight bishops, the Duke of York, the
Chancellor of England,"3 and even by Prince
Henry. The Prince was present at the scene
of his death, and tried hard to turn him. " At
last the pile was lit. The man's agonies and
contortions were taken for signals of submis
sion. Henry ordered the faggots to be pulled
away, and renewed his offers and entreaties,
but again to no effect. The flames were lit a
second time, and the body disappeared in them
for ever. Henry V. could beat the French at

1 Degraded Feb. 24; burnt Feb. 26. He had
been priest at St. Margaret's Lynn, Norfolk
(1399), and is said (Fasc. Ziz., "Examination,"
411) to have abjured his heresies before the
Bishop of Norwich (Henry le De Spenser). It
is evident from the "Examination" that his
doctrine of the Eucharist was the great
heresy.

2 See Fasc. Ziz., 400-7. He revoked what
he had said about the Eucharist, confession,
holy orders, evil lives of priests, unlicensed
preaching, &c. For particulars of his career see
article in N.D.B. He was vicar of West Hythe,
Kent, for two years (Aug. 1401 to Oct. 1403). It
is doubtful if he ever really conformed. Im
prisoned (probably for heresy) in 1421, he seems
to have been still living in 1427. His great
achievement was to revise or render into pure
English Wycliff's and Hereford's translation of
the Bible.

3 He was first condemned in the diocesan
Court at Worcester. He is reported to have said
that " the Host is in no sense the body of
Christ, but something inanimate and less
worthy, therefore, of honour than a toad or a
spider, which, at least, has the gift of life "
(Wilkins, iii. 325-28).

Agincourt, but there was something here
beyond his understanding and beyond his
power, something before which kings and
bishops would one day learn to bow." 4 This
happened in the spring of 1410. It is
said to have been the bishops' answer to
the House of Commons, which, in the
same year, had petitioned the Crown to con
fiscate the Church's property and to modify
the statute de hceretico comlturcndo. The Com
mons for the nonce was anti-clerical. Its
mood varied according to its political com
plexion. Six years before, it had advised the
king to take the whole of the estates of the
clergy into his hands for a year ; 5 while four
years before, it had petitioned him for increased
strictness against the Reformers, and secured
a new statute to that effect.6 But the bishops
held the upper hand. Arundel's Constitutions
(agreed upon at Oxford, Oct. 1409) "to streng
then the common law " in respect of heresy, had
more force than the Commons' petition. After
burning Badby he flew successfully at higher
game. With Henry V. to aid him, he summoned
the king's old friend, Sir John Oldcastle, in St.
Paul's Chapter House (Sep. 23, 1413), and had
him "proclaimed a heretic, and handed over
to the secular arm." The brave knight escaped
from the Tower, organised a rising " in defence
of conscience " — which cost thirty-seven of his
co-religionists their lives — and three years later
suffered himself a martyr's death (1417).7
Churchmen said that Oldcastle's " sudden in
surrection," by estranging the "knighthood,"
"turned to confusion the sorry sect of
Lollardry " ; and certain it is that this, with
other causes,8 tended to its apparent extinc
tion. But, in fact, it was only driven under
ground. It never really died out. Again and
again during the next hundred years signs of
a vigorous life are met with. We find it in
the East, where, " in the neighbourhood of
Beccles, on the borders of Norfolk and Suffolk,
great congregations were formed, Lollard
schools started, and arrangements made with
a certain parchment-maker for smuggling in
the latest heretical tracts from the capital.

4 Trevelyan, p. 335.

5 1404, at Coventry, hence stigmatised as the
Parliamentum indoctum.

6 Not acted upon. Stubbs, Constitutional His
tory, iii. 388.

7 See N.D.B. for particulars. His alleged
abjuratio is given in Fasc. Ziz. : 414-16. The
processus against him is given in pp. 433-50.

8 E.g. the Act of 1414 (2 Hen. V.), which
greatly intensified the severity of the statute
of 1401, and became the final instrument of
persecution. Stubbs, Constitutional History, iii.
p. 391.

LOLLARDS, THE

[ 369 ]

LOLLARDS, THE

This was about the time of the accession of
Henry VI." We find it in the West, "as at
Langport, where, in 1447, the tenantry of the
Earl of Somerset drove their priest from his
oflice, stopped all his services, buried their
dead for themselves, refused to do penance,
beat the bishop's officers when they interfered,
and rid themselves of all ecclesiastical in
fluence and jurisdiction." We find it "at
Newbary, in Berkshire, and Amersham in
Buckinghamshire," where (previous to 1518)
" there had been congregations of Wycliffites "
in continuous existence for sixty or seventy
years. A preacher of that district, before
going to the stake in that year, "told his
judges that he believed he had converted
seven hundred persons in the course of his
life."

We find it even in Scotland, where, " in 1425
the sect was large enough to attract the atten
tion of the Scotch Parliament, which directed
the bishops to suppress it" — so ineffectually
that "three generations later, we come upon
their successors, known in history as the
Lollards of Kyle. Their home was Ayrshire,
and they numbered in their congregations
several lords and ladies of good family." 1
Their habitat was limited. There is no trace
of them in Wales ; or in the northern counties ;
or in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire,
Surrey (beyond the London area), Kent (except
in and near Canterbury) ; or in Oxford
(generally), Hertford, Bedford, Cambridge,
Huntingdon, Warwick (except Coventry and
neighbourhood) ; or in Scotland outside Ayr
shire.2 But within an area which largely con
tained the most active life of the nation, there
can be no doubt that they were a leaven of Pro
testant thought and feeling perpetually at work
right up to the Reformation ; and Tunstall, Bishop
of London, was right when he wrote to Erasmus
(1523) of the new Lutheranism that "it is no
question of some pernicious novelty, it is only
that new arms are being added to the great
band of Wycliffite heretics." With the equi
vocal exception of Reginald Pecocke, who, in
his Jteprcssor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy
(circ. 1455), essayed to dislodge the Lollards

1 Trevelyan, 340 /., 353-54. One might mention
the Lollards who went from Oxford to Bohemia,
especially Peter Payne (see article in N.D.B.),
said to have stolen the seal of the University
and affixed it to a document declaring (to the
Bohemia reformers) that all England was on the
side of Wycliff e, except for some false mendicant
friars. From 1417 to his death in 1455 he lived
in Bohemia and took a prominent part in Hussite
controversies.

" See map of "Lollardry in England and
Scotland " (Trevelyan, p. 352).

from their entrenchment in the Bible as the
sole rule of faith and practice by a species of
Rationalism which (to his cost) 3 was discovered
to prove too much, the sole argument employed
by the Church was persecution. This never
ceased. Between 1401-1532, a list of'forty-seven
Lollard martyrs has been compiled,4 including
seven priests, one noble, one lawyer, one lady
of rank, one woman " of low degree," sixteen
artificers ; and this, surely, notwithstanding
the numerous cases of " recantation," which
have sometimes been made a reproach to their
memory, is a noble witness to the Lollards'
strength of faith and grandeur of endurance.
A further reproach — that they were an " illite
rate " people — must be laid at the door of their
enemies, who carefully destroyed Wycliffe's
theological writings, not omitting to do their
best to destroy all copies of his Bible as
well. Parts of that invaluable work, and his
Wicket, a popular tract against transubstan-
tiation, were all that the poor Lollards, as
time went on, were able to retain. It has been
alleged that the bishops did not proscribe the
use of the Bible in English. But the evidence
to the contrary is too strong. Thus, e.g., one
of the reasons for a Lollard's condemna
tion was : " Item. Nicolas Bel ward is one of
the same sect, and hath a New Testament
which he bought at London for four marks
of forty pence, and taught the said William
Wright and Margery his wife, and wrought
with them the space of one year, and
studied diligently upon the said New Testa
ment."

Or this— that Richard Hun (died 1514, in
Lollards' Tower) had " in his keeping divers
works prohibited and damned by the law, as
the Apocalypse in English, the Epistles and
Gospels in English, and Wycliffe's damnable
works." 5

True enough, the Lollards were on the
whole a poor, simple, unlettered, as well as
greatly afflicted people, but they kept a true
faith clearly burning through the long night

3 See N.D.B. His work throws great light on
the Lollard " positions," of which he undertakes
to deal with eleven. As against the appeal of
the Lollards to Scripture, he places the " seat of
authority" in Reason— so, too, in his Book of
Faith (1456). He had to make both a private
and public recantation (1457), and to resign his
bishopric (of Chichester) Sept. 1458, and was
imprisoned till death in Thorney Abbey.

4 Boultbee's History of the Church of England
(1879), p. 328.

8 Trevelyan, 342, 349. What, too, of the
licences to particular people to have English
Bibles? For this and further evidence see
Trevelyan, App. 361, 370.

2 A

LORD'S DAY, THE

[ 370

LOED'S SUPPER, THE

which began to end at the " Reformation," and
this is their glory. x [F. G. P.]

LORD'S DAY, THE.— The first day of the
week, Sunday. The name was given to the day
on account of our Lord's Resurrection from the
dead upon it, and was in use in Apostolic days
(Rev. i. 10). One of the greatest blessings en
joyed by the people of Great Britain and other
Protestant countries, is the due observance of
the Lord's Day, with the benefit of rest which
such proper observance procures. The " Con
tinental Sunday," prevalent in Roman Catholic
countries, must ever be a cause of offence
and grief to a religious mind. Business and
amusements pursued much as on any other day
of the week, cannot but desecrate the Sabbath.
The Sunday opening of museums and picture
galleries entails much work, together with
the enforced presence of attendants, &c. The
liberty, rest, and facilities for worship secured
by the English Sunday, should be jealously
guarded. The law at present is strict in this
direction. No persons (except innkeepers and
milkmen in certain cases) may work at their
daily calling on any part of the Lord's Day,
unless in works of charity and necessity. No
child, young person, or woman may be em
ployed on this day in a factory or workshop,
except in the case of Jews employed by a
Jew, and then only if the workshop or factory
is closed on Saturday, and not open for traffic
on Sunday. Sunday entertainments, open to
the public for money, are forbidden, though
the Crown may remit the penalties. Any place
duly and honestly registered as a place of public
worship, where nothing hostile to religion is
advanced, is not within the Act. Public or

1 " In process of time the power of truth in the
Lollard teaching would have brought about a
national Reformation, but it was hastened by the
influence of the Lutheran Reformation and by
political events in England. Unquestionably
the suppressed, but by no means extinguished
Lollards, prepared the way in thousands of
homes for the great religious reforms of the six
teenth century. In the darkest night of religious
superstitions the " Lollard Bible - men " were
witnesses to the truths dear to all Protestants.
Brave, heroic men and women they were, for the
most part of the middle classes, of the traders in
the towns, of the farmers in the country, who
in their travails, their earnest seekings, their
burning zeal, their readings, their watchings, their
sweet assemblies, their love and concord, their
godly living, laid the spiritual foundations of the
great Reformation, and prepared the public mind
to eagerly welcome Tindale's Testament, and the
rapid succession of versions of the Scriptures
that followed " (W. H. Beckett's English Refor
mation, p. 96).

secular business (such as vestry meetings),
which fall due to be performed on any Lord's
Day, must be transacted on the preceding
Saturday, or the following Monday, and terms
of office expire in like manner. In computing
time, Sunday is considered as no day.

LORD'S PRAYER, THE.— The Lord's Prayer
was not given as the only prayer to be made
use of by Christians, but as a pattern or model
of what true prayer should comprise. It was
given, firstly, publicly in His great inaugural
Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vi. 9-13) ; and
afterwards privately to His disciples in re
sponse to a request of theirs that He would
teach them how to pray (Luke xi. 1-4). The
prayer itself consists of an opening address,
three petitions regarding God's glory, four
petitions concerning man's needs, concluding
with a Doxology, or ascription of praise.
The last, which is found only in St. Matthew,
is omitted by the R.V. , because that Doxology
is wanting in the best MSS. of the Gospel.
But The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (see
APOSTOLIC FATHERS), a small book ascribed to
the first century, discovered in recent years,
gives the Lord's Prayer with a similar Dox
ology. It is also given in Tatian's Diatessaron.
See T. & T. Clark's edit., p. 58.

Although given to us by Christ Himself,
some Christians have objected to the use of
the prayer for various reasons. (1) It is said
that the Lord's Prayer is a " form." But
surely a "form" of the Lord's might pass
without this objection being raised to it, more
especially as it is admitted that it was not set
forth as the only prayer for Christians to use.
(2) The frequent use of the prayer is often ob
jected to. Our Lord warned us " when ye pray,
use not vain repetitions as the heathen do ; for
they think that they shall be heard for their
much speaking " (Matt. vi. 7). But the repeti
tions spoken of are such as are " vain," or empty.
Our Lord Himself used repetition in prayer in
the most agonising moments of His life, in
Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 44). There is, indeed,
a repetition of the Lord's Prayer which is vain,
namely, the utterance of a number of " Pater
nosters," as the Lord's Prayer is called (from
its two first words) in the Latin Version, by
Roman Catholics, who fancy that by repeating
the Prayer (though never so thoughtlessly) a
certain number of times, they perform a merito
rious act. (3) It is objected that the Lord's
Prayer, having been given to the disciples
before the gift of the Holy Ghost at Pente
cost, is not fully appropriate to the use of
the Church since Pentecost. But although
the Prayer was given before Pentecost, it was
put on record after that day by the Evangelists
as of permanent value to believers.

LORD'S SUPPER, THE.— See ADORATION

CHANCEL, LANGLEY. (See p. 377.

PLATE VII. (1)

CHANCEL, LYDDINGTON. (See p. 377.)

PLATE VII. (2)

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[371 ]

LORD'S TABLE, THE

OF THE EUCHARIST; AGNUS DEI; ALTAR;
BLACK RUBRIC ; BODY OP CHRIST ; BREAD ;
CELEBRANT ; CHASUBLE ; COMMUNION,
EVENING ; COMMUNION, FASTING ; FRE
QUENCY OF COMMUNION ; COMMUNION IN ONE
KIND ; COMMUNION OF SICK ; CONCOMIT
ANCE ; CONSUBSTANTIATION ; " Do THIS";
EASTWARD POSITION ; ELEVATION ; EUCHAR
IST ; EXPOSITION OF SACRAMENT ; HOST ;
INFANT COMMUNION ; LAUDIAN THEOLOGY ;
LINCOLN JUDGMENT ; LORD'S TABLE ; MASS ;
MISSA AND Misses ; MIXED CHALICE ; NON-
COMMUNICATING ATTENDANCE ; ONE KIND ;
REMEMBRANCE ; RIDLEY'S THEOLOGY ;
SPECIES ; SPIRITUAL PRESENCE AND FEED
ING; TRANSUBSTANTIATION ; VESTMENTS;
VIATICUM.

LORD'S TABLE, THE. — It is expressly stated
in the New Testament that the Lord's Supper
was instituted at a table (Luke xxii. 21, 30).
The use of such a table was for the partaking
of a meal in common, as is shown in Acts
xvi. 34, where the Greek "prepare a table " is
idiomatically rendered " set meat before them."
Nor did it lose this meaning when the meal
happened to include a partaking of the sacri
ficial victim, the " fire-portion " of which had
been previously " offered " on an altar. Neither
heathens nor Jews ever used their altars to cook
food for the worshippers ; nor did they dare to
eat anything which had once been laid on the
altar, and had thus been presented to the Deity,
who consumed the whole of it by fire as His
own portion before any worshipper could
presume to think of sharing the remaining
portions of the victim which were left. Hence
St. Paul, in comparing the idol feast with the
Lord's Supper, in 1 Cor. x. 21, was most careful
to avoid using the name "altar," as in verses
18, 19, which he could not have helped doing
had the Lord's Table been regarded as the
analogue of the Temple altar. It has been
well said that the Lord's Supper was not insti
tuted at a time of sacrifice, nor in a place of
sacrifice, nor was the President at the Paschal
Supper anything more than the lay head of a
family distributing a domestic meal to the
"household of faith." Long after the sacri
ficial slaughter in the Temple, the body of the
paschal lamb was removed to a private dwelling,
far from the sacred precincts, and there cooked
like an ordinary meal. The Paschal Supper did
not represent either the blood-shedding or the
sprinkling with the blood, but only the com
memorative festivity in which redeemed Israel
rejoiced to hold communion with its reconciled
God, in the safety and happiness of a God-
protected home. Hence the Supper-table of
the New Testament was called the " Lord's
Table " in a sense widely different from that
in which the "altar " had in the Old Testament

been called "the Table of the Lord." The
latter was regarded as the table from which
and off which God Himself accepted what was
offered to Him as "the bread of God" (Lev.
iii. 11, 16; xxi. 6, 8, 17; Num. xxviii. 2). But
no worshipper ever ate off that table. On the
other hand, the "Lord's Table" of the New
Covenant was instituted and ordained by the
Incarnate Son of God exclusively for man's
benefit. The guests thereat were to "eat"
and " drink " every one of them (Matt. xxvi.
27), and by these sacramental acts were to
keep "in remembrance" the dying of their
Lord and their fellowship with Him, and thereby
with His "members." This sacred meal, which
was to commemorate " the sacrifice of the
death of Christ," was itself in no sense a
"sacrifice," and therefore the table at which
it was celebrated could be in no sense an
"altar." Bishop Fitzgerald warns us against
loose thinking in this matter, by saying, "The
altar might be thought of as God's table ; but
not conversely, a table as God's altar." When
the One sacrifice for sin had been "once
offered," all offering for sin was "finished"
for evermore (Heb. ix. 28 ; x. 2).

But other offerings still remained to be
offered, viz., the spiritual self-surrender of
the worshipper's own heart and will, em
bodied vocally in confession, thanksgiving,
praise, and prayer, with the " free-will offerings "
of his substance for the support of divine
worship and the charitable works of the
Church. Such " gifts " in kind were wont to
be presented in the sight of the congregation,
until by their mere bulk the inconvenience
rendered it necessary to pass canons (like the
5th of the so-called " Apostolic Canons ") to
limit the ritual "offerings" and the "gifts"
to corn, and wine, with " oil for the lamps,"
as being things directly employed in the
service of the Sanctuary. Still these were
held to represent the remaining " gifts " which
were not formally presented during the service,
and in some sort were held to symbolise the
heartfelt devotion to their Lord of the
"offerers." Hence it was that the pure
"offering" of Malachi i. 11 was held to be
fulfilled in the Thanksgiving Service (Eucharist)
of the Christian Church. "The sacrifices,
offerings, and gifts therefore are the prayers
and thanksgivings, the alms, the contributions
to the Agape, and so forth," says Bishop
Lightfoot when commenting on St. Clement's
language (in Ep. ad Cor., xliv. ) as to the
Christian clergy "offering the gifts." The
bread and wine selected from the choicest of
these " offerings " (which were then commonly
made " in kind ") were regarded as first-fruits
of God's providential gifts in " Nature " to
mankind for the nourishment and support of

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[ 372 ]

LORD'S TABLE, THE

man's natural life, and a disproportionately
long prayer was devoted in all the early
liturgies to this feature of what might be
called "natural religion." One reason for
laying such stress on what we should now
term the " Offertory," was that no endowments
then existed, and no public charities or
hospitals were then known, while the Christians
were at first mainly poor people. Hence the
duty and importance of the " Offering " were
magnified and dwelt upon, and the " Great
entrance " of the unconsecratcd elements was
(and still is by the Greeks, Copts, Syrian, and
^Ethiopian Christians) marked by the utmost
pomp ; and thus sacrificial language, such as
adult converts had all their lives been familiar
with, came to be freely used with a view to
stimulating their charitable zeal. But in the
earliest liturgies this phraseology about
"oblations," and "offerings," and "gifts"
preceded the "consecration," and was listened
to and shared by catechumens and others who
were not permitted to remain for the Holy
Communion itself. In a well-known rhetorical
passage, Hippolytus (A.D. 230) speaks of "His
preciousand undefiled body and blood which are
consecrated on each mystical and divine Table,
as being slain for a remembering of that first and
ever-memorable Table of the mystic divine
Supper " (Migne, p. 265). " Mystical" is used
in the sense of figurative or symbolic (see
Bishop Fitzgerald's Lectures on Eccl. Hist., i.
183). So late as A.D. 1222, we find Germanus
explaining the meaning of this metaphorical
language — " the awful altar : that is to say, the
sacred Table " (Scudamore, Not. Euch., p. 111).

It is easy to understand how confusion
would arise in men's minds between the
sacrificial aspect of the elements regarded as
man's self-chosen " offering " to God (in the
sense above explained), and the sacrificial
terms used to designate those same elements
after their consecration, when they had become
in symbol, what our Lord called them, the
Body and Blood as in the very act of being
"given to God," and as being "poured out"
in sacrificial slaughter. The " thing signified "
was a veritable " sin-offering " of blood " shed
unto a remission of sins." And hence, by
little and little, the rite unhappily came to be
regarded as the sacrificial presentation of
a sin-offering — thus supplanting the unique
sacrifice of Calvary, the offering of which
could neither be continued nor repeated.

In Western Christendom the very name
" table " had ceased to be used in popular
language, just as the prescribed " eating " and
"drinking" had given place to the solitary
"communions" (?) of the priest. Naturally,
therefore, the wooden and movable tables of
the Primitive Church began to be supplanted

by fixed stone altars, just as the very notion
of a sacrament had been ousted by belief in
the pretended " sacrifice " of the mass. When
this last had been fully established, it expressed
itself everywhere by the priest interposing his
body between the people and the "altar," to
express the thought that no man corneth unto
the Father but by the priest. The stone altar
became a fixture against the wall, because, of
course, no congregation could thrust itself be
yond the mediating priest. Jewish and heathen
altars needed to be of stone in order to resist
the action of fire ; so, to resemble these, the
new "altars" must be similarly indestructible
by fire, and "fire" must be lighted in the
daytime on the sham "altars." Lastly, the
worshippers must be taught to grovel and
prostrate themselves in front of the "hidden
deity." Thus the transformation of "the Supper
of the Lord and the Holy Communion" into the
Mass became complete. It was a veritable apos
tasy, and neither " primitive " nor "catholic."
A mosaic still remaining on the choir wall of
St. Apollinaris' at Ravenna, dating from A.D.
549, shows the celebrant facing the people at
a wooden table draped table-wise. It shows
also the curtain or "veil" by which the Lord's
Table was hidden out of sight of the non- com
municants, at whose departure the " mysteries,"
i.e. symbols, were for the first time displayed
to the "faithful." The side figures represent
the sacrifice of Abel, and that of Abraham,
whose son points to the Christian Supper-table
as representing in symbol what his own vicari
ous offering had foreshadowed in type.

The illustration on p. 373 is from the
Church of Nekresi, founded A.D. 393-405 (?)
by King Tirdat-Chosroides, who is depicted
in one of the frescoes as holding in his hand
a model of the church. Plate 258, in M.
de Fleury's La Messe, Etudes Archeologiques,
is taken from Pitsounda, a Basilican cathedral
on the Caucasian shore of the Black Sea,
built by Justinian, A.D. 558, and gives a
similar representation ; but our Lord is there
standing behind the table, and giving with
His right hand a fragment broken off from
the loaf in His left hand to a standing com
municant who approaches the table on (what
we should call) the south side.

In the illustration on p. 374, the left hand
group at the top is from a psalter of the ninth
century, preserved at Mount Athos : the group
on the right being copied from the apse of
the Cathedral1 of St. Sophia at Kief, A.D. 1037,

1 Neale (Hist. Eastern Church, i. 270) call these
" the only ancient frescoes in Russia." The vessels
hanging overhead in the picture on p. 374 are
probably chalices. See Smith's Diet. Christian.
Antiq., i. 341.

DRAWING-OUT, OR TELESCOPIC TABLE, CANTERBURY. (.See p. 377.)

PLATE VIII. (1)

TABLE, SOUTHWOLD. SUFFOLK. (»</ f>. H77.)

PLATE VIII. (2)

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[ 373 ]

LORD'S TABLE, THE

and there is a very similar one at St. Michael's,
Kief, A.D.I 1108, figured also by M. de Fleury,
in his Plate 260. Prince Gagarine says that
the same representation is common to all
churches of the Caucasus, Greece and Asia
Minor, older than the thirteenth century.
One such of the thirteenth century is figured
in Plate 261, taken from the wall of the apse
over the rows of benches for the clergy which
are still placed behind the altar. The practice
(shown in two of the representations) of the
communicant " taking " the cup, was probably
based on St. Luke xxii. 17, and it was both
early and general. See the Church Association
Tract 102, pp. 5-7. The larger erect figures at
the extreme ends of the lowest plate represent
Abraham and Melchisedec, to the former of
whom wine was " brought out " by Melchisedec
for the refreshment of Abraham's soldiers.

17) that, in both representations, "the altars,
like the offering tables actually in use in the
Levant, are sustained by one foot only." The
inscription in Greek, " Drink ye all of it," as
well as the evidence of communion in both kinds,
maintain their silent protest within the Vatican
itself against two corruptions of the Latin
communion which are actually more modern
than is this ancient dress.

Many other instances showing the "MAN-
WARD " ministration of the Supper are given
in the Tract, The Liturgy and the Eastward
Position, published by the Church Association,
to which we are indebted for the above.

It was physically impossible to approach
many of these " altars " in front ; and access
could be gained to them only by flights of steps
at the north and south " sides." In Rome
itself many of the ancient churches show an

NEKRESI- FRESQVE

Another witness preserved at the Vatican is
the richly embroidered Dalmatic (see p. 375).
It is of Byzantine work, and dates from about
A.D. 1200. On the shoulders of this dress are
embroidered two separate representations of
the Saviour distributing Holy Communion "in
either kind" to His disciples. Each shows
the celebrant standing " westward "; in each
the communicants approach what Archbishop
Benson calls the north and south " ends " of the
table. The " cup," a two-handled vessel, re
sembling the " grace-cup " in use at the colleges
of Oxford and Cambridge, is being handed by
one handle to an apostle, who, with veiled hand,
is about to take it.1 M. de Fleury observes (iv.

1 This is shown much more clearly in Valentini's
Basilica Vaticana, vol. ii. plate 74 ; and in
Bock's Kleinodicn dcr //cil-liomischcn Rcichcs, p.

altar lifted up high above the heads of the
people and quite inaccessible in front, as de
picted in Bunsen's plates of the churches of
St. Maria Maggiore, St. Praxede, St. Clemente,
St. John Lateran, St. Mary beyond Tiber, and
many others (Die JBasiliken der Christlichen
Roms., PI. X. XXI. XXXIII. XXXVI.
XXXVIII. &c.).

This is well shown on p. 377, copied from a
piece of carved ivory in the Public Library at

98. In the Syriac Liturgy of Ignatius, we read :
" Take and drink each from one another's hand "
(Not. Euch., p. 630). In St. Chrysostom's the
clergy " seem to have passed the paten and chalice
to each other" (Swainson's Greek Liturgies, p. 147).
The earliest known chalices were of this two-
handled pattern. See Smith's Diet. Christian
Antiq., i. 338.

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[ 374]

LOED'S TABLE, THE

Frankfori-oii-the-Maiue, and representing an
archbishop celebrating mass. " This carving
is probably of the ninth century," says Mr.
Nesbitt, in Smith's Diet. Christian Antiq., p. 1572.
The large size of the communion cup suggests
lay communicants, whereas just before the Re
formation the chalice had dwindled into a tiny
vessel intended only for the celebrant's use.

The earliest tables were of wood, and mov
able, as Cyprian's phrase altari posito (Ep.,
xxix., ed. Wallis) illustrates, and were not
placed against the wall. Even in the Cata
combs, where it might be thought " necessity
would know no law," there are traces of the
pillars supporting the table in the centre

of the church, the main entrance being at the
east, as seen in the ancient Romano-British
church at Silchester, a model of which is now
in the museum at Reading. At certain points
in the service the deacon called out " To the
east," showing that they ordinarily faced the
other way. Possibly this was to remind them
of the baptismal covenant, in making which it
was customary to "renounce the devil " facing
toward the sunset, after which they turned
round toward the sunrising to profess their
adopted faith. " Orientation " was then so far
from being identified with " the worship of the
Host " that the people turned their backs upon
the table itself. Naturally, therefore, when

of the apse (Diet. Christian Antiq., p. 62).
Cardinal Wiseman, in his tale Fabiola, de
scribes the raised chair of the bishop cut out
of the solid wall with a stone bench running
round on either side from it, and adds, "a
portable altar must therefore have been placed
before the throne, in an isolated position in
the middle of the Sanctuary." Even when
tombs came to be used as "altars," Bourasse
tells us : " Les ministres sacres etaient ranges
tout autour, tandis que la foule remplissait la
salle " (A rch. Chretiennc, p. 64).

The clergy were ranged behind the table,
the celebrant descending from his raised seat
in the centre so as to face the congrega
tion. He also faced eastward, because the
sanctuary was then placed at the west end

the clergy came to be regarded as mediators
in sacrifice, and the worship itself came to be
directed toward the consecrated elements, the
position of the Holy Table was reversed by
placing it against the east wall, and the priest
interposed himself between the people and
their " hidden deity." Many Anglican writers
of the eighteenth century were misled by the
current tradition which had lasted some
centuries before their time, and when they
read of altars or churches "looking towards
the east," imagined that the back andjnot
the front of the structure faced that {way I
Even in England we have remains,! as at
Lyminge in Kent, and Canterbury itself,
showing that the original sanctuary was at
the west (Scott's English Church Architecture,

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[375]

LORD'S TABLE, THE

p. 20). Bede is a witness how at Canterbury
the altar was placed " in medio pene suo,"
and Eadmer tells us, "ad hoc altare cum
sacerdos ageret divina misteria, faciem ad
populum, qui deorsum stabat, ad orientem
versam habebat." At Norwich Cathedral the
bishop's throne still remains visible behind
the altar, and at Stow and Little Bytham in
Lincolnshire, and elsewhere, seats behind the
altar formed part of the original structure.

At the Reformation in England, the doctrine
of the Lord's Supper was the main subject of
the " Reform." After suppressing all the side
altars so as to get rid of solitary masses, the
next step was to supplant the remaining
"high" altar by a movable table of wood,
which the churchwardens were directed to
place anywhere within the chancel at the dis
cretion of the "curates, churchwardens, and

rapidly increased. So early as 1562, the
Ordinary at Sedgefield in Durham directed
the table to "stand in the body of the church,"
and in 1567 came a further order appointing
" certain forms or desks " to be provided for
the table so placed. The churchwardens did,
notwithstanding, "take up and remove the
said table, forms, or desks," and were accord
ingly excommunicated by order of the Bishop's
Court at Durham (Surtees Society, Depositions,
&c., p. 118). The Royal Order appended to
the Injunctions of 1559 had attempted to re
strict the removal of the table to some point
within the chancel itself ; but when the place
of "Morning and Evening Prayer" moved west
ward, it brought this Order into collision with
the statutory rubric which expressly legalised
" the body of the church " in that connection.
For the first thirty years of Elizabeth's reign,

questtnen," who thus formed a sort of Paro
chial Council (Ridley's Works, p. 320). But
the only rubric then in force directed the
minister to " stand afore the midst of the
altar," which had now ceased to be a fixture ;
and the change of environment led to much
confusion — "some standing at the west side
of the altar with their faces turned towards
the people, others at the east, &c.," says Bishop
Cosin ; so they decided to abolish the east
ward position altogether, and directed the
minister thenceforth to stand "at the north
side of the table," whatever might be its
shape, and wherever or however it might
happen to be placed. The place for saying
Morning and Evening Prayer (which at the
first was near the chancel screen, within the
chancel itself) was left by the rubric to the
discretion of the Ordinary ; and under Elizabeth
the number of Ordinaries who sanctioned or
directed the prayers to be read in the nave

the table stood as now, with its ends north
and south, with but one known exception.

Elizabeth herself preferred to keep the table
standing in its ancient place without removing
it at all, and so strongly did she feel on the
subject, that when she went to Cambridge in
1564, the Chancellor (who was also Prime
Minister) required the authorities beforehand
to see that this was done (Tangye's Two
Protectors, p. 46), the table standing with its
ends north and south (Hume's Great Lord
Burghley, p. 147). This latter mode of placing
the table was also observed when the table
was moved, unless for reasons of local con
venience it became needful to place it other
wise. (The proofs of this are given in Tomlin-
son's Historic Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment,
pp. 18-35.) But when high pews had become
general, and the reading-desks almost univer
sally placed half-way down the central alley of
the church, this was no longer possible, so

LORD'S TABLE, THE

[ 376]

LORD'S TABLE, THE

that the table came to be ordinarily placed
"lengthwise," and, in despite of rubric, injunc
tion, and canon, it was customarily left just
where it had stood " at the communion time."
Much irreverent usage resulted, and Laud set
himself to change the entire face of worship,
which indeed at that time, it must be admitted,
needed some reform. Sheltering himself
behind the royal prerogative, which he treated

many of her otherwise loyal sons. But it is a
mistake to suppose that altar-rails originated
with Laud, or that the actual removal of the
table at the communion time had ever been a
universal custom. At Beckington, in Somerset
shire, the Table had been " enclosed with a
very fair wainscot border, in which there is only
one wainscot door " for the minister to enter
by, placed in the middle of the chancel about

B1BL NATl± NIS

as absolute, he compelled the parishes to place
their tables sideways, under the east window,
and to rail in the enclosure so as to prevent
the table being taken down into the church
any more. To effect this, he suspended his
Suffragans, and Williams, his rival, was even
cast into prison and heavily fined. Intense
exasperation was produced by these arbitrary
proceedings, and the Church of England
suffered proportionately in the alienation^ of

1575 (Canterbury's Doom, p. 98). In 1623, the
churchwardens of Wapping were summoned in
the Bishop of London's Consistory Court, having
been " formerly enjoined to make a rail about
the communion table " ( Hole's Precedents, p. 15).
Udal, in 1641, testifies that rails had been in
use from the very beginning of Elizabeth's
reign (Scudamore, Not. Euch., p. 174). He
himself adopted the Beckington plan of having
his rail " square about the table," i.e. on all

HOLY TABLE, OMBERSLEY. (See p. 377.

PLATE IX. (1)

STOTTESDON, SHROPSHIRE. (Sec p. 378.)

PLATE IX. (2)

LORD'S TABLE, THE

LORD'S TABLE, THE

four sides of it when set in the middle of the
chancel ; whereas the Laudian plan of having
rails on three sides only, or merely in front,
reduced the number of communicants who
could partake at the same time at the same
Table. St. Martin's Orgars, Cannon Street, for
instance, was attacked^by Laud, although the
Table "stood in the midst of the chancel,
compassed on all its sides
with a very fair rail"
(King's Pamphlets, No. 11,
p. 3). The truth is that
neither in Laud's time nor
since has there ever been
any law requiring the
communicants to receive
at the rails. The Church
has wisely left the matter
to the discretion of the
local authorities, subject
only to the control of the
Ordinary, " if the parties
doubt or diversely take ''
the directions given. Dr-
Hook testifies that when
he went to Leeds the
aucieut custom was to
administer to the people
in their pews. Newman
found the same custom at
St. Mary's, Oxford, and
followed it. At Trinity
College, Cambridge, and
Exeter Cathedral, similar
usages remained within
living memory, and other
instances could be readily
adduced. There still re
main some examples of the
arrangement once so com
mon, showing the seats
for the communicants
ranged roundabout "God's
Board."

At Buckland Monacho-
rum, Devon, the table
stood in the midst of the
chancel, and was railed
in, the communicants knelt
round the four sides. That
arrangement existed in
very recent times. See Fuller, Life of Bishop
Davcnant, p. 420.

The views given in the various plates are from
photos taken by Mr. R. H. Murray, of Wor
cester. They show the older arrangement of
the chancels, as at Hayle, Gloucestershire, as it
existed before 1855, and as it still exists with
slight alterations (Plate 2, No. 1, p. 97) ; Winch-
combe, Gloucestershire, as it appeared before
1875 (Plate 2, No. 2, p. 97); Langley Chapel,

Shropshire, as arranged in 1601 (Plate 7,
No. 1); and Lyddington, Rutlandshire, 1635
(Plate 7, No. 2), both still remaining.

Four tables are figured : one from Canter
bury (Plate 8, No. 1), for the sake of show
ing the " Drawing Table" arrangement, which
Mr. Murray was the first to describe, by
which the table could be lengthened by

drawing out the lower

slab at either end so
as to nearly double its
extent at " great feasts
of receivings," when the
table was often placed in
the crossing just outside
the chancel entrance. The
table at Southwold, Suf
folk, seen in Plate 8, No.
2, is now lying disused in
the belfry ; it illustrates
the absolute liberty as to
shape which was allowed
from the very first. Hence
standing at the " north
side of the table" meant
merely standing northioard
of the table, irrespective
of whether the table itself
were round, square, or
polygonal. The ideal aimed
at was to symbolise the
meal-table of disciples pub
licly partaking together of
the " one loaf " at one
and the same time ; or, as
the 82nd Canon expresses
it, " that the communicants
. . . more conveniently
and IN MORE NUMBEE,
may communicate with
the said Minister." These
words were taken from the
"Order" appended to the
Injunction of Elizabeth in
1559, thus showing the
continuity of the teaching
of the Reformed Church,
which has nothing in
common with those sham

"LAMESSE" "altars" of sacrifice,

which the imitators of
Rome are now seeking to substitute for the
Table of the Lord.

Plate 9 gives views of two other tables,
No. 1 being in the disused chancel of Om-
bersley, Worcestershire, probably about 1572.
Bishop Sandys (of Worcester) had a country
house near, and died in 1588. A paten be
longing to that church, dated 1571, may have
been presented by him. There is an inscrip
tion running round the table, " Whosoever shall

LORD S TABLE, THE

[ 378 ]

LOTTERIES

eate this bread • and drinke t II his cup of the
Lor || d • vnworthily : shal be gvilty of the
body and bloo || d of the Lord II ." The
spelling and wording are as here given. The
marks || added indicate the inscription as
found on the four sides of the table. The table
is over 7 ft. long and nearly 3 ft. wide, very
massive ; the legs have suffered from dry rot.
Plate 9, No. 2, shows the table in Stottesdon,
Shropshire, which is carved on all four sides,
showing that it was intended when in use to
be seen from all sides. It has the date of
1595. The top is loose, as in all the Elizabethan
tables. The Elizabethan and Jacobean tables
were often handsomely ornamented with carv
ing, and the ornamentation was carried all
round the four sides of the table, showing
that it was intended to be brought out and
"spread" in the midst of the congregation.
Sometimes the text ran round the four sides.
In height (about 2 ft. 6 in.), as well as in
general character, these tables resembled the
handsome domestic tables which at the same
period adorned the houses of the upper classes.
So much so, that it is at times questionable
whether some of the tables which still remain
in manor-houses, &c., may not at one time
have been used for tables at which the Lord's
Supper was in old times actually administered
in village churches. [J. T. T.]

List of church chancels with seats on north,
south, and east, in existence now or within a
few years back : —

Wiggenhall St. Mary, Norfolk ; Shillingford,
Berks ; Warnegay, Berks ; Sbrivenham, Berks ;
Wimborne;1 Shotswell, Warwickshire; Brill,
Buckinghamshire ; Waltham, Leicestershire ;
Dartmouth, Devon ; Langley, Salop (Plate 7,
p. 371) ;l Over Whichendon; St. Michael's,
Coventry ; Mallwydd, Montgomeryshire ; Pud-
dleton, near Dorchester1 (with the addition of
rails on four sides); St. Martin's Orgars, Cannon
St. (see King's Pamphlets, "E. 173," No. 17);
Orford (see Dean Howson, Before the Table ;
p. 43) ; Ermington, Devon (see Bloxam, p. 177).

Double rows of rails were formerly found at
Westbnry-on-Trym, near Bristol; St. Peter's,
Bristol ; All Saints, Bristol ; Milverton, Somer
setshire ; Folke, Dorsetshire (with the addition
of rails on three sides) ; Hayle, Gloucester
shire (Plate 2, p. 97) ; l Deerhurst, Gloucester
shire ; 1 Wynchcombe, Gloucestershire (Plate
2, p. 97) ; Austen Fryers, London. Dean How-
son mentions (Before the Table, p. 167), that
till the beginning of this century the Mayor
and Corporation of Dover used to have their
seats east of the Communion Table.

Chancels with rails on four sides are found
at: Lyddington, Rutlandshire1 (see Plate 7,

1 In existence now.

p. 371), 1635, 12 ft. x 12 ft. enclosure ; Bloxam,
Branscombe, Devonshire ;2 Puddleton, Dorset
shire.3 [R. H. M.]

LOBETO.— The Virgin Mary was called in
French, Notre Dame de Lorette, from the site of
a building at Loretto in Italy called Santa Casa
(The Holy House), whither the Virgin's dwelling
at Nazareth is said to have been miraculously
transported. In 1291 it was threatened with
destruction by the Turks, and was carried by
angels first into Dalmatia to a hill at Tersato,
where its sacredness was attested by miracu
lous cures and an appearance of the Virgin, as
well as by investigations caused to be made
at Nazareth by the Governor of Dalmatia. In
1294 angels carried it to a wood near Recanati,
and from this wood (lauretum), or from the
name of its owner (Laureta), it derived its
name " the house of the glorified Virgin in
Laureto." In 1295 it was removed to its
present hill. Bulls in favour of the shrine at
Loreto were issued in 1491 and 1507. The
latter alludes to the translation of the house
with some caution " as is piously believed and
as the popular report is." Innocent XII., at
the end of the seventeenth century, appointed
a "mass with a special office " for the Feast of
the Translation of the Holy House, and the
Spanish Breviary still enjoins the keeping of
the feast (December 10). [T. H. L. L.]

LOTTERIES.— A lottery is a game of hazard
in which small sums are risked for the chance
of obtaining larger ones. Readers of Dickens'
Pictures from Italy will remember his graphic
description of a lottery at Naples. The
box containing the numbers is placed upon
a table in full view of a crowded house.
Then a small boy is hoisted up beside the box.
His right arm is bared to the shoulder ready
for plunging down into the mysterious chest.
Then the Church comes on the scene.

"There is a murmur of irrepressible agita
tion. In the midst of it the priest puts his head
into the sacred vestments, and pulls the same
over his shoulders. Then he says a silent
prayer ; and dipping a brush into the pot of holy
water, sprinkles it over the box and over the
boy, and gives them a double barrelled blessing."
The lottery is the ordinary mode of raising
money in the Church of Rome. She may call
it a bazaar, or a drawing of prizes, but it is
essentially a game of chance. A new church
has to be erected. A meeting is called and
prizes invited. Then books of tickets are
printed off. A carriage and pair may be won
by the purchaser of a sixpenny ticket. A fat
sheep, " a cameo presented by our Holy Father
the Pope," a case of brandy — these are speci-

'2 In existence now.

3 Three out of the four rails only remain now.

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS

[ 379 ]

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS

mens of the prizes offered. Who will not pur
chase a ticket ? Friends at home send books
of tickets to friends in America and the
Colonies, and the business is protracted over a
couple of years. Then the day for the drawing
of prizes arrives. A whisky bar is one of the
chief attractions, where ardent spirit is retailed
at four times its ordinary price " for the glory
of God." Generally speaking, a fortune-teller,
or an expert in palmistry, is also one of the
special attractions. The drawing of the
winning numbers is carried out exactly as
Dickens described it. It generally happens,
however, that most of the valuable prizes fall
to the share of priests, or of benevolent old
ladies who decline to accept them. Lotteries,
it would seem, are illegal in England, but not
in Ireland. Dickens describes the appearance
of the disappointed at Naples, and the picture
is just as true at present.

" Where the winners may be nobody knows.
They certainly are nob present ; the general
disappointment filling one with pity for the
poor people. They look as miserable as the
prisoners in the gaol (it forms a part of the
building) who are peeping down upon them
from between their bars." [T. C.]

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS.— Loyola was the foun
der of the Jesuit Order. He was of noble birth,
and his family held a distinguished position in
Spanish society. Ignatius was born in the
castle of Loyola, near the town of Azpeytia, in
the province of Guipuscoa, in the year 1491,
and was baptized in the name of Eneco. He
was as a youth a page in the court of " Ferdi
nand the Catholic," where he seems to have
given himself up to all the worldly pleasures
and vanities by which he was surrounded.
While there he fell in love with a young lady
in a higher social position than his own. If
she had returned his affection there is no
reason to doubt that they would in time have
been married. Rome would thus have lost a
canonised " Saint," and also an Order which
has rendered to her signal service for three
and a half centuries. But the lady rejected
his advances, and Ignatius left the Royal Court
to take up the profession of a soldier. At the
siege of Pampeluna on May 20, 1521, he was
wounded and taken prisoner by the French.
While recovering from his wounds he spent
his time in thinking about his lost lady love,
and reading the Lives of the Saints. By a note
worthy coincidence Martin Luther, the great
champion of the Protestant Reformation, was,
at about the same time, shut up in the Wart-
burg, spending his time in the more profitable
work of translating the Bible into the German
language.

Loyola's illness was the turning-point in his
career. Desires of becoming himself a great

saint entered his mind, and led him to de
termine on devoting himself to the monastic
life. Genelli, one of his modern Jesuit bio
graphers, assures us that, " It pleased God to
give him a sign that He accepted his offering,"
for " Our Blessed Lady appeared to him one
night with the Child Jesus in her arms," an
alleged fact which we may be pardoned for
rejecting, on the ground that for nearly fifteen
centuries before that time the Saviour had ceased
to be a human child. Many wonderful miracles
are said to have happened to Ignatius soon after
this, but most of them were of so extravagant
a character that no reasonable person could
possibly believe in them.

At that period it was commonly supposed
that a pilgrimage to Jerusalem would confer
on the pilgrim great spiritual blessings. Fired
with spiritual ambition, young Ignatius de
termined that he also would go to Jerusalem,
and that he would walk the whole way there
and back — excepting the sea voyages— bare
footed. So, early in 1522, he set off on his
journey. On the way he spent a night in the
monastery of Montserrat, praying before a
shrine of the Virgin, not, however, in the dress
of a Spanish nobleman, but in the garb of a
poor pilgrim, with a hair shirt next his skin,
and an iron-spiked chain around his waist to
make his body miserable. Moving forward,
he spent four months at Manresa, part of the
time living in a cave, lying at night on the
damp floor, and varying his acts of peni
tential folly by the occupation of beating his
breast with a stone ! As a result, he naturally
saw devils and all kinds of horrible things,
and nearly went mad. As a reward for
his devotion it is said that a statue of the
Virgin actually spoke to him, though what
she said is not reported. In January 1523
Loyola left Manresa, and at last reached
Rome. There he obtained a pilgrim's licence
from the Pope, and having started again on
his travels, on August 31st he landed at Jaffa,
and soon after entered Jerusalem. He had
come to the Holy City hoping to spend his life
there in efforts to convert the Turks to Chris
tianity, but the Franciscan monks, who had
then the spiritual charge of Jerusalem, were
not at all pleased to see him, and, in fact,
ordered him to go back home again 1 It was
a cruel disappointment to the young pilgrim,
but he could not help himself, and therefore,
after a brief stay of six weeks, he started back
on his way to Europe, and eventually arrived
at Barcelona. Loyola was at this time thirty-
three years of age, and as ignorant as he could
well be for one in his social position. But he had
the common sense to feel his ignorance, and at
length he determined to commence his edu
cation. A lady of Barcelona paid the cost of

LOYOLA. IGNATIUS

[ 380 ]

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS

his first tutor, and gave him a decent suit of
clothes to wear. The shoes with which she
provided him he thought altogether too luxu
rious, but as he did not wish to offend his
patroness, he compromised matters by cutting
off the soles ! Two years later he moved to
Alcala, where he became a student of the
University. There the Inquisitors actually
thought he was a Lutheran, and consequently
shut him up in one of their prisons for forty-two
days. It would have been well for the world
had the charge been true. He was declared
not guilty, and was consequently released.
Soon after he moved to the University of
Salamanca, but trouble awaited him there
also. Once more he was shut up in the walls
of the Inquisition, but after twenty-one clays
was released. Ignatius, after this double ex
perience of the Inquisition, naturally began to
feel uncomfortable in his native country, and
thought it wise to move to Paris. He arrived
in that city early in 1528, but only to find him
self for a third time an object of attention on
the part of the Inquisitors. But, fortunately
for him, he persuaded the Chief Inquisitor
that he was a sound Romanist, and thus
avoided being actually placed under arrest.
At Paris University Ignatius studied for seven
years, and at length took the degrees of Master
of Arts and Doctor. During this period he
paid a brief visit to London : of that visit
little is known.

While residing in Paris Ignatius Loyola
formed the design of founding a new Religious
Order. His first disciples were Peter Favre
(or Lefevre), Francis Xavier, James Laynez,
Alphonsus Salmeron, Simon Rodriguez, and
Nicholas Bobadilla. On August 15, 1534, Igna
tius, with his six companions, met in a small
chapel on the hill of Montmartre, Paris, and
after hearing mass, which was "celebrated"
by Favre, the seven took vows of poverty and
chastity, and bound themselves to go to
Jerusalem, there to labour for the salvation of
souls. It therefore seems certain that at this
period Loyola had not formed the idea of
labouring specially to resist the Protestant
Reformation in Europe. On the last day of
1535 Ignatius met his young companions (who
now numbered nine) at Venice, where, on June
24, 1537, he was promoted to the priesthood.
The war then raging between Venice and the
Turks made it impossible for the young enthu
siasts to fulfil their vow to go to Jerusalem.
Ignatius, however, set to work to secure the
blessing of the Pope on his proposed new
Order, to whom he submitted its Constitutions.
His efforts were rewarded with success, for on
September 27, 1540, Paul III. issued his bull
approving and establishing the Society of
Jesus. The Pope limited the number of its

members to sixty, but nearly three years later
he issued another bull, dated March 14, 1543, by
which he removed the restriction as to numbers,
and allowed the new Society to enrol an un
limited number in the list of its members.

On April 13, 1541, Ignatius was elected as
the first General of the Society of Jesus, to
whose interests he devoted the remaining
fifteen years of his life. The new Order
spread rapidly, gaining great favour from
many of the great ones of the earth. Before
many years had passed by, its members had
been sent on mission work to many foreign
lands. Only a few months after his election
as general, Loyola sent two of his Jesuits,
named Codure and Salmeron, to Ireland, to
encourage the rebels there, who were at the
time in arms against their lawful sovereign,
Henry VIII. The celebrated Francis Xavier
he sent on a mission to India, and Rodriguez
was sent to work in Portugal. Peter Favre
was ordered to visit Germany for the special
purpose of opposing Protestantism. Favre
found the German Roman Catholic priests
more corrupt than he had anticipated. From
Worms he wrote : " The apostasy of so many
countries, the rebellion of so many cities and
provinces, is to be attributed, not to the
garbled Scriptures, but to the scandalous lives
of the clergy. Would to God that there were
in this city of Worms but two or three priests
not living in concubinage, or guilty of other
public and notorious crimes ! " Other agents
of Loyola were sent to work in Spain, Venice,
and Naples. At Rome, Pope Innocent III.
had, in 1215, forbidden all physicians to attend
the sick, when the illness was dangerous, until
a priest had been called in to hear the sick
man's confession. The custom had fallen into
abeyance, but Ignatius determined on reviv
ing it. His action led to great discontent, for
it was asserted that many sick persons died,
whose lives would have been saved had the
physician been called in first, and the priest
afterwards. It was also felt to be wrong
to allow a man to die without medical aid,
merely because he would not confess to a
priest. Ere long colleges connected with the
Society were founded in several of the chief
cities of Europe, amongst the earliest being
those at Paris, Louvain, and Alcala. At Paris
the disciples of Loyola met with a great deal
of opposition from prominent Roman Catholics
and the University of Paris. To found the
college at Alcala, Ignatius sent a young Jesuit
named Francisco de Villanueva, who, though
thirty-four years of age at the time, was so
ignorant that he had not yet learned his
grammar! He became rector of the College.
Here also many voices were raised against the
Order.

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS

[ 381 ] LUTHER AND LUTHER ANISM

In 1546 Loyola had the pleasure of seeing
two of his subjects, Lainez and Salmeron,
appointed as ' ' Theologians of the Holy See "
at the Council of Trent. Holding this office
these Jesuits had the privilege of speaking
first and last at all the discussions. In every
thing they acted under instructions sent them
by Ignatius himself. In the same year Loyola
sanctioned the secret admission into the Jesuit
Order of Francis Borgia, the rich and powerful
Duke of Gandia, who subsequently became
General of the Jesuits, and is now a canonised
saint of Rome. " He was now," writes the
lady who assumed the name of " Stewart
Rose," in her most sympathetic Life of St.
Ignatius Loyola, " Brother Francis in the
Society, but he continued in the eyes of the
world such as he was before ; administered his
large revenues, and provided for his children."
Four years later, says the same writer, Borgia
was "still dressed as a gentleman of the
world," the fact that all the time he was a
real Jesuit having been kept as a profound
secret. As General, Loyola proved a stern,
and frequently a tyrannical ruler. His famous
" Letter on Obedience" proves that he wished
all his subjects to be practically, though not
in name, his slaves. Several of his biographers
report incidents showing how harsh was his
rule at times. "Stewart Rose" writes that
Loyola "dismissed an Infirmarian who had
led an exemplary life, though all the Fathers
pleaded his cause, only for an unbecoming
jest. The poor man was sent away without
his habit, or any money, to travel 1200 miles
home." In 1549 he sent Le Juy to Bavaria to
oppose the Protestant movement in a country
where Jesuit influence eventually promoted not
a little strife. Under the guidance of Francis
Borgia, subject in all things to Loyola, the
Jesuit Order obtained great influence in Spain ;
but John III., King of Portugal, was the first
sovereign to ask for a Jesuit Director. At the
Conclave held after the death of Pope Paul III.
in 1550, Loyola was actually nominated as one
fit to fill the papal chair, but as only five
cardinals gave him their votes, success did
not attend his nomination. In 1555 John,
King of Portugal, wished to make Miron,
his Jesuit Confessor, head of the Inquisition
of Portugal. Miron referred the king to
Ignatius, who wrote to his disciple in reply : —
"We have at last decided, in our Lord, to remit
the affair to his Highness [i.e. the King of
Portugal], and do what he may consider useful
to the service of God our Lord. For since
this charge is not opposed to our Institute, we
ought not to refuse to labour in a matter which
concerns so nearly the service of God and the
purity of religion in that kingdom." For some
unknown cause the Jesuit Confessor was noi

appointed head of the Portuguese Inquisition,
although, as we have just seen, Ignatius was
quite willing for him to accept the office on
behalf of the Jesuit Order.

Ignatius Loyola died on July 31, 1556, aged
sixty-five. On July 27, 1559, his beatification
took place, but it was not until March 12, 1622,
that he was proclaimed a canonized saint.
The chief literary work of his life was the
writing of the Constitutions of the Jesuit
Order, and the well-known Spiritual Exercises,
both of which are described in the article on
JESUITS.

Stewart Rose, St. Ignatius Loyola and the
Early Jesuits (1891). Father Genelli, S.J., The
Life of St. Ignatius of Loyola (1871). Dominick
Bonhoms, S.J., The Life of St. Ignatius, Founder
of the Society of Jesus (1686). The History of the
Wonderful Don Ignatius Loyola (translated
from the French, 2 vols., 1754). [W. W.]
LUNETTE (from the French lunette denomina
tive of lune, the moon). — In architecture the
term denotes certain small openings iu a
vaulted ceiling for the admission of light ; such
are found in the naves of St. Peter's at Rome
and St. Paul's in London. The term is also
used for the circular crystal case which fits
into the Monstrance. See Catholic Dictionary.
LUTHER AND LUTHER ANISM. —Martin
Luther was born at Eisleben on Nov. 10, 1483.
His father, Hans Luther, a peasant from
Mohra, had come to find work in the mines
started many years before by the Counts of
Mansfeld, who owned all the region lying
round the town. These nobles had the habit
of building and letting out on lease small
smelting furnaces; and Hans Luther soon
leased one, and then three of these furnaces,
and, after an early married life of much
hardship, became a fairly prosperous man.
The boy was educated in the school at Mans
feld. He was sent for a year to the high-
school at Magdeburg (1497) ; then to the
famous school at Eisenach (1498). In 1501 he
entered his name in letters which can still be
read in the album of the University of Erfurt
— "Martinus Ludher ex Mansfelt." Erfurt
was then the most famous University in
Germany, and young Luther was one of its
most distinguished students. He had finished
his Arts course with almost unique distinction,
and was about to begin his special law studies,
when suddenly he abandoned everything and
entered the convent of the Augustinian Ere
mites in Erfurt (1505). The special causes
which led to this sudden resolve are absolutely
unknown. Disjointed explanations of friends
have been woven into legends which appear in
many of the lives of Luther. His inner re
ligious life at this time is a sealed book.

He entered the convent to save his soul ;

LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM [ 382 ] LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM

and for long years he believed that he could
have done nothing else. He threw himself
with ardour into his vocation. He practised
obedience, lie fasted, he prayed, he kept bis
body under by scourgings and loss of sleep.
"If ever a monk could win heaven by monkery,
I must have reached it," he said long after
wards. Yet he felt no nearer God ; had no
sense of pardon, in spite of confessions and
absolutions ; shared in no upspringing of a
new religious life within him. He found a
whole Bible in the convent ; read it feverishly,
but got no help from it. His soul had come
to the dead-lock to which formal mediaeval
theology conducted those who trusted it most
implicitly. That theology was a stern preacher
of the righteousness of God and of the heinous-
ness of sin. It insisted on the inexorable
demands of the law of God, while it uttered
despairingly that man could never fulfil them.
Help came to him gradually. At last he found
the peace he sought for in the old, old way
which is always new — by simply taking God
at His word and trusting to His promises.
Then he experienced that the overwhelming
righteousness of God was not a frowning
battlement barring the sinner from His pre
sence, but something within which, and as
belonging to him, he could really feel that
his sins were pardoned. He had not needed
to come into the convent to find this out, yet
his entrance there had not kept him from the
knowledge. But this vision and appropriation
of the pardoning grace of God did not make
him then and there a reformer. It was simply
the foundation on which lie, a single human
soul, could take his stand as on a rock. He
was still a faithful son of the mediaeval Church,
with its Popes and its cardinals, its masses,
its pilgrimages, and its monastic life. The
very fact that his salvation had come to him
within the convent seemed to show him that
he had done right to enter it.

Meanwhile he was ordained. He began to
preach. He said mass and listened to con
fessions. In 1508 he was called to a larger
sphere. The Elector Frederick of Saxony
had founded a new University, and Luther was
called to lecture on philosophy. His talents
for business were recognised and in 1511 he
was sent on a mission to Rome, and the
mixture of superstition and profligacy he saw
there was of use to him afterwards. When he
returned to Wittenberg he was instituted
Doctor of Theology — his graduation oath
making him swear to defend "evangelical
truth vigorously " (viriliter). Then began that
wonderiul series of lectures which in a few
years drew to the obscure University students
from all parts of Germany and from the lands
beyond.

Luther's work as a Reformer began with an
attack on what was called an Indulgence,
farmed from the Pope by Albert, Archbishop
of Mainz, whose commissioner was John Tetzel,
a Dominican monk of indifferent character.
So far as the common people went, this in
dulgence meant that on the payment of certain
specified sums of money, spiritual privileges,
including the pardon of sins, could be ob
tained by the purchasers. (See TKTZEL INDUL
GENCE.) The Elector of Saxony had refused
to allow the Indulgence to be sold within
his territories, but as the sale was per
mitted within Ducal Saxony, the Commissioner
could approach Wittenberg, and people under
Luther's spiritual care could go and buy the
Indulgence tickets (1517). After much hesi
tation, Luther determined to interfere. His
protest took the form of an academic "Dis
putation for the purpose of explaining the
efficacy of the Indulgence," and contained
ninety-five propositions which " Dr. Martin
Luther, theologian," offered to make good
against all comers. A duplicate was made in
German, and the Wittenberg printing-press
could scarcely meet the demands which came
from all parts of Germany to get possession of
these ninety-five sledge-hammer blows against
what was coming to be recognised as the most
flagrant ecclesiastical abuse of the time. The
immediate effect of these theses was to
diminish, and in some places to extinguish, the
sale of the Indulgence tickets. Counter theses
were published ; papal theologians pressed the
Pope to interfere ; and Luther was summoned
to Rome to defend himself (1518). It was
arranged, however, that instead of going to
Rome, he was to have an interview with the
papal legate. This took place at Augsburg, and
left both parties unsatisfied. Luther roundly
declared that the effect of the interview was
to make him see " that it was money, and not
doctrine, that they cared about at Rome."
The Pope was unwilling to act hastily, and
sent his chamberlain, Charles von Miltitz, to
Germany to make inquiries (1519). Miltitz
soon discovered that any violent action would
kindle Germany, and contented himself with
making Luther promise to write no more on
the subject, provided his opponents were
silent. His opponents were not silent, and
the famous Leipzig Disputation was arranged
(1519), which came to its height when Luther
was forced by John Eck, the papal champion,
to confess some sympathy with what the
latter called the " Bohemian heresy." In this
Leipzig Disputation Luther found that his
doctrine of justification by faith led to that
of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, i.e.
to the central doctrine of Reformation theo
logy. The effect of the Disputation was to

LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM [ 383 ] LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM

make Luther the central figure in Germany,
round whom gathered every element of revolt
against the papal despotism. A bull was
issued against the monk — a document which
carefully avoids Luther's evangelical principles,
but condemns the practical deductions he had
drawn from them. The bull was published in
some parts of Germany ; Luther published an
appeal to a General Council and solemnly
burnt the bull (December 10, 1520). That
same year he published his three most im
portant writings. The tract On Christian
Liberty is a brief statement, free from all
theological subtleties, of the priesthood of all
believers which follows from that experience
within the believer which is called justification
by faith. This little tractate and Luther's Small
Catechism, contain the evangelical principles
of the Reformation put in the simplest and
briefest way. The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church contains the application of these
principles to the reformation of the Church,
and especially of its doctrine of the sacra
ments ; while the| Address to the Nobility of the
German Nation applies them to a national
renovation.

Rome having shot its last bolt, determined
to crush Luther through the civil power. The
papal nuncio to the Diet of Worms (1521),
Alexander, demanded that Luther should be
destroyed as a pestilent heretic. It was re
solved to hear the Reformer before condemning
him. He was brought before the Diet, made
his memorable defence there, and was by a
decree, fraudulently obtained, placed under
the ban of the Empire. His Elector got
him safely hidden away in the Wartburg,
where Luther made his translation of the
New Testament — his greatest gift to the
German people. The translation of the Old
Testament was made afterwards at Wittenberg,
where Luther was assisted by a number of
scholars.

Disturbances at Wittenberg, the appearance
there of the Zwickau " prophets," compelled
Luther to leave his retreat (1522). He
mastered the unruly elements ; gained the
thorough confidence of the Elector ; and the
Reformation promised to progress smoothly.
Suddenly two events occurred which had a most
disastrous effect — the revolt of the noble and
the deplorable Peasants' War. This tragical
year, 1525, destroyed all hopes of a peaceful
Reformation which would include the whole
of Germany. The terrors of the time were
eagerly seized upon by the adherents of the
Roman Curia to divide Germany into two
hostile camps — the one accepting and the
other rejecting the ecclesiastical Reformation
proposed by Luther. It had also the effect of
separating the Lutheran Reformation from

many of the popular aspirations which had
given it such an appearance of strength. The
more radical religious elements appear hence
forth under the name of the Anabaptists (BAP
TISTS) — a name applied to a host of differing
parties. The Peasants' War had also a deep
effect on Luther himself. It created in him a
distrust of the "common man," led him to do
his best to prevent Germany having anything
like a democratic Church government, and was
largely responsible for his inability to treat
his fellow-reformer, Zvvingli, with common
fairness.

In spite of these hindrances the Lutheran
movement had spread, and was becoming con
solidated in Germany. East Friesland ac
cepted the Reformation in 1519 ; Pomerania,
Livonia, Silesia, East Prussia, Mecklenburg, in
1522-23 ; and with these provinces a number
of the largest Imperial cities. It became the
established religion in Sweden in 1523. In the
same year Luther published his first order of
Public Worship, and the first German Hymn
Book in the following year. Norway received
the Reformation in 1528, Dessau in 1532,
Wurtemberg and Anhalt in 1534 ; Denmark
and Iceland in 1536 ; and Ducal Saxony and
Electoral Brandenburg in 1539.

The years following the Peasants' War saw
Protestant and Romanist Leagues formed ; and
varying decisions about religion at different
Diets — decisions favouring the Reformation at
Speyer (1526), at Nurnberg (1532), at Speyer
(1544) ; against it at Speyer (1529), the decision
being met by the famous Protest, and at
Augsburg (1530), when the Auysbury Confession
was read in the Emperor's hearing. These
years also saw various religious conferences
—at Marburg (1529), between Luther and
Zwingli ; at Wittenberg (1536), between Luther
and the S. German theologians; at Hagenau
and Worms (1540), and at Ratisbon (1541,
1546), between Romanists and Protestants.

Luther died at Eisleben in 1546 (Feb. 18).
He had married Catherine v. Bora in 1525
(June 13) ; four children, three sons and a
daughter, survived him.

Shortly after his death the long-dreaded
civil war began. The Emperor was at first
victorious, but in the end he was beaten.
Neither Protestants nor Romanists were to be
completely victorious. In 1555 the Diet at
Augsburg issued the Edict which brought the
religious peace. The land was divided be
tween the two confessions on the principle
cujns regio ejus religio. The Reformed, in
distinction from the Evangelical or Lutheran
Church, was not recognised ; but it soon began
to show itself the stronger. After 1555 the
Lutheran Church lost to the Romanists Bavaria
(1558), the Austrian Duchy (1578), the Bishop-

LUTHER AND LUTHEEANISM [ 384 ] LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM

rics of Wurzburg, Baraberg, Salzburg, and
Hildesheim (1584), Steiermark and Carinthia
(1594), and Donauwerth (1607) ; and to the Re
formed Church (Heidelberg Catechism) the
Palatine (1560), Bremen (1568), and Anhalt
(1596).

The Lutheran, or to give it its technical
name, the Evangelical Church, has nine
symbolical Books, "which together make what
is called the Book of Concord (1580). They are
the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed (with
fhefilioque clause), and the Athanasian Creed ;
the Augsburg Confession (which exists in two
forms, the Variata and the Invariata), the
Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1530),
the Schmalkald Articles (drafted by Luther in
1537), Luther's two Catechisms (1529), and the
Formula of Concord (1577). The modern Creeds,
however, have a varying authority, and it may
be said that the Augsburg Confession and
Luther's Catechisms are the only symbols
which are universally acknowledged. The
Formula of Concord was drafted by six Lutheran
divines to put an end to the controversies which
distracted the Church during the twenty-five
years after Luther's death. Its adoption led
to a large secession to the Reformed Church.
Attempts were made in conferences at Leipzig
(1631), at Thorn (16-15), at Cassel (1661), to
unite the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches
in Germany, but unsuccessfully. The union of
the two confessions was effected in Nassau
and in Prussia (1817), in Hesse (1823), and in
Anhalt-Dessau (1827), to the extent that each
congregation was permitted to use at pleasure
either the Augsburg Confession or the Heidelberg
Catechism as the test of the doctrine of its
pastor. These unions were sometimes (as in
Prussia) accompanied by the secessions of the
stricter Lutherans, who formed nonconformist
Churches. The flourishing Lutheran Church
of the United States is also divided — the
General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
of the U.S.A. requires subscription to the
Augsburg Confession only ; the Synodical Con
ference of North America (1872) makes its
ministers subscribe the whole Book of Concord ;
the General Council accepts the Augsburg Con
fession (Invariata), but holds that the remaining
Lutheran symbols are useful as explaining the
sense of the Confession.

The foundations of Lutheran theology were
laid by Melancthon in his Loci Communes. The
book, first published in 1521, underwent many
revisions by its author, and the edition of
1543 represents its completed form. Its
presentation of the Lutheran theology is some
what fragmentary. The construction of a
systematic Lutheran theology was due mainly
to four men : Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), who
showed in his Loci Communes, published post

humously (1591), that there was a distinctive
Lutheran theology ; Leonhard Hutter (15G3-
1616), in his Compendium Locorum Theologicorum
(1610), gave that theology a systematic repre
sentation ; John Gerhard (1582-1637) showed
its roots in mediaeval ami patristic theology in
his Loci Theologici (9 vols., 1610-1621); and
Andrew Quenstedt (1617-1688) tried to prove
in his Theologia Polcmica Didactica that it was
the only Catholic theology. (See CONSUB-

STANTIATION.)

Sixteenth - century authorities. — Melanch-
thon, Historia de Vita et Actis Lutheri (1546, first
published as the preface to the second part of
Luther's writings ; to be found in the Corpus
Reformatwiim, vi. 155/.); Cochteus (Rom.
Cath.), Historia de Actis et Scriptis M. Lutheri
(1549) ; Caspar Cruciger, Tabulce Chrondogicw
Actorum M. Lutheri (1553); J. Mathesius, His-
torien von des Ehrwiird. D. M. Lutheri Anfang,
Lehre, Leben und Sterben (1566, a good edition
published in 1898) ; Fr. Myconins, Historia Re-
formationis von Jahr Christi, 1517 bis 1542 (ed.
from MS. by Ernest Salomo Cyprian in 1718) ;
Lutherbriefe, 6 vols., ed. by De Wette and Seide-
mann (1825-1856) ; Luthcrs Briefwechscl, ed. by
Burkhardt (1866) ; Luthcrs Tischreden, ed. by
Forstemann and Bindseil in 4 vols. (1 844-1848) ;
Luthers Tischreden, ed. by Preger (1888) ; Luthers
Colloquia, ed. by Bindseil, 3 vols. (1863-1866) ;
Luther's Table Talk, trans, by Wm. Hazlitt
(1848) ; Luther's Letters to Women, trans, by
Mrs. Malcolm (1865). The best complete edi
tion of Luther's Works is that of Erlangen in
67 vols. (1820-1857, an improved edition of por
tions 1862-1885) ; the new critical edition pub
lished at Weimar (begun in 1883), has reached
its 20th vol. Dr. Wace and Professor Bucheirn
have published Luther's Primary Works, 2nd
edition (1896), consisting of translations of the
Ninety-five Theses, the Larger and Short Cate
chism, and the three treatises of 1820. The
older Lives of Luther have been superseded,
owing to the amount of contemporary evidence
collected during the last twenty-five years.
The more recent are J. Koestlin, M. Luther,
sein Leben und seine Schriftcn, 2 vols. 4th ed.
(1889) ; J. Koestlin, Martin Luther, der deutschc
Rcformator (1883), translated into English in
the same j^ear ; Th. Kolde, Martin Luther,
2 vols. (1884-1893) ; H. E. Jacobs, Martin Luther
(1899); T. M. Lindsay, Luther and the German
Reformation (1900). For particular periods of
Luther's life compare : Th. Kolde, Die Augus-
tiner Congregation und Johann v. Staupitz (1879) ;
Tb. Elze, Luthers Reise nach Rom (1899) ; Kapp,
Sammlung einiger . . . zum Ablass . . . gehorigen
Schriften (1731); Dieckhoif, Der Ablassstreit
(1886); Brieger, Alcander und Luther (1884);
Kalkoff, Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander,
2nd ed. (1897) ; Scbaff, Histori/ of the Creeds of

LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM [ 385 ] LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM

Christendom (1877); Schaff, The Creeds of the
Evanyelical Protestant Churches (1877) ; Richter,
Die Erangdischcn Kirchenordnungen des IGten
Jahrhumlerts (1846). [T. M. L.]

Note on the Death of Luther. — During the
course of 1890, the Rev. Paul Majuuke, Roman
Catholic Pfarrer of Hochkirch, near Gross-
Glogau on the Oder, in Eastern Prussia, pub
lished a work on " Luther's Lebensende "
(Mainz, Kupferberg, 1890). Herr Majunke,
then a priest, was formerly editor of the
t.i'.rmania and other Roman Catholic papers,
and for a time member of the Prussian House
of Deputies, and of the German Reichstag. In
the pamphlet referred to he has tried to prove
by " historical investigation " that Luther did
not, as ordinarily believed, die a natural death,
but committed suicide, and that the fact was
concealed by those who knew the truth of the
matter. The pamphlet of Herr Majunke caused
much jubilation in Ultramontane circles, and
drew forth many pamphlets and articles. Pro
fessor Kostlin of Halle, Professor Kawerau of
Kiel, and Professor Kolde of Erlangen, with
others, however, successfully demolished the
" house built upon the sand," and exposed
the "cunningly devised" story. Majunke
published a reply to Prof. Kolde and his
other assailants, entitled Die Historische Kritik
iiber Luthcrs Leben Ende (Mainz, 1890). The re
joinder of the Erlangen Professor, Noch einmal
Luthers Sclbstmord, was crushing.

The death of Luther took place on the morning
of February 18, 1546. The eventwas unexpected,
and his sudden death was much commented
on, not only by the friends, but by the enemies
of the Reformation. A professed account of
the incidents connected with the examination
of the Reformer's body by Civis Mansfel-
densis, marked by brutal coarseness, is given
by Luther's first Roman Catholic biographer,
Cochlaeus, in the later editions of his work,
De Actis ct Scriptis Lutheri, published in
1565 and 1567. It is not in the first edition,
published in 1549. But even that account from
an anonymous correspondent does not hint at
Luther's having committed suicide. Professor
Kolde conclusively proves that no Roman
Catholic historian of the sixteenth century
ventured to express any doubt whatever con
cerning the truth of the " history " drawn up
by Dr. Justus Jonas and the friends present on
the occasion. The Roman Catholic historians
of that century, of course, are full of such
charitable expressions as that " he yielded up
his soul to the devil," and that he " descended
to Satan." Romish writers of the next century
depict Luther as having died in tortures, or
having, like Arius, shed out his bowels, &c.

Majunke asserts that the only account of
Luther's end which the biographers of Luther

have made use of is the "history" drawn up
by Dr. Justus Jonas. The statement, as Kolde
points out, is false. Justus Jonas drew up a
letter to the Elector at four o'clock in the
morning, not two hours after Luther had
expired. That letter stated that there were
present at his death the Court Preacher, Coelius,
J. Jonas, Luther's two younger sons, Paul and
Martin, his servant Ambrose, his landlord
Hans Albrecht, the notary, Count Albrecht of
Mansfeld and his wife, Count von Schwarz-
burg, and two doctors. Two letters are extant,
written also at the same time, to the Elector by
Count Albrecht himself, and by Prince Wolf
gang of Auhalt. Another letter, written that
same day, by Aurifaber, raises the number of
eye-witnesses to sixteen, among whom were
Aurifaber himself and Count Hans George of
Mansfeld, from the latter of whom also there
is a letter written the very same day to Duke
Maurice of Saxony. Besides, there is extant
another letter written on the same day by
J. Friedrich, Councillor of Eisleben, to his
uncle, the well-known J. Agricola. Friedrich
was not an eye-witness, but he gives the medical
opinion of the doctors, who ascribed the death
to a stroke of paralysis, brought on by the
closing up of a wound in his leg from which
the Reformer had suffered for years.

The Court Preacher, Coelius, delivered on
February 20 the first address at the grave, in
which he mentions that the corpse of the
Reformer had been viewed by a large number
of people, who crowded in to see his remains
when the sad event was announced. Some
time afterwards the "history" or Report of
the Christian Death of Luther was drawn up
at the request of the Elector by J. Jonas
and M. Coelius. The facts mentioned in that
Report are confirmed by the evidence already
referred to, all of which is totally suppressed
by Majunke.

Forty-three years after Luther's death the
Oratorian Thomas Bozius in 1593 asserted,
in his De Signis Ecclesuc, that he had heard
from the testimony of one who had as a boy
been a servant to Luther, that Luther hung
himself with a rope. The same writer asserts
that several of the Reformers died awful deaths.
CEcolampadius was strangled, Calvin died of
the lousy disease, while a horrible devil
frightened all those who were present at the
deathbed of Martin Bucer. Bozius is the first
authority on which Paul Majunke depends. A
fuller account is given by Sedulius, in his
Prcescriptioncs adv. Hcereses( Antwerp, 1606), sixty
years after Luther's death, which is reprinted
as the fullest and most reliable authority in
Majunke's pamphlet, pp. 95-97. The name
of the informant, however, is not given, and
the writer shows his fitness for the work of

2 B

MACCABEES

[ 386 ]

MAN OF SIN, THE

a historian, by setting forth as equally trust
worthy another account (suppressed without
notice by P. Majunke), by one whose name is
given, Tileman Bredebach, written in 1587,
who states that all the demoniacs, then at the
shrine of St. Dymna at Brabant in hope of
being cured by that saint, were freed from evil
spirits on the day that Luther was buried, and
were again possessed by the evil spirits the day
after ; the reason being, as discovered by due
interrogatories, that the Prince of the Devils
summoned them to attend Martin Luther's
funeral, which they did in the form of
ravens, who in incredible numbers accom
panied Luther's corpse to its last resting-
place ! ! !

Such are Herr Majunke's authorities. Other
grave misrepresentations of fact abound in
his work. It is important to put such mis-
statements on record, because such charges
are often brought up by those who desire to
deprave the character of the Reformers.

[C. H. H. W.]

M

OLD

MACCABEES.— See APOCRYPHA OF

TESTAMENT.

MACEDONIANISM.— See HERESY.
MANES AND MANICHEANS. — See

FATHERS, HERESY.

MANIPLE is a Romish and Ritualistic vest
ment, like the stole, but smaller ; worn by
the priest, deacon, and subdeacon over their
left arm. It is generally explained to repre
sent the cord by which Christ was bound
when being scourged.

MAN OF SIN, THE.— As a matter of strict exe
gesis the prophecy of the Man of Sin ought to be
considered apart from the prophecy of St. John
concerning the Antichrist. See ANTICHRIST.
The name Antichrist may, indeed, be used of
the Man of Sin, because the name (the Anti
christ) used by St. John in his second Epistle,
ver. 7 (so the R.V. correctly), is employed as a
general designation of all false teachers in the
Church of Christ. Strictly speaking, however,
the two terms are not altogether identical.
St. John is the only writer who uses the ex
pression "the Antichrist," and St. Paul is the
only writer who speaks of "the Man of Sin."
" The falling away " or " the Apostasy " in the
Church of Christ is, however, more or less
distinctly spoken of by all the writers of the
New Testament. In the critical investigation
of the subject it will further tend to clear
ness of thought to view St. Paul's prophecy
apart from the prophecies in the Book of the
Revelation which may be, rightly or wrongly,
supposed to speak of the Apostasy. In 2
Thess. ii. 1-13, St. Paul distinctly states that

the Second Advent would not take place until
"the Apostasy" would be fully developed in
the Church, and "the Man of Sin" be mani
fested. The Apostle does not, however, affirm
that the dominion of " the Man of Sin " was to
be as widespread as "the Apostasy." The
latter idea has been imported into the passage
from a too precise identification of " the Man
of Sin" with the wild beast (Orjptov) of
Rev. xiii. 1.

It has been already shown, in the former
article, that " the Antichrist " does not desig
nate an individual person. The statements
concerning "the Man of Sin," as to the time
both of his development and of his destruction,
indicate a succession of persons rather than
one individual. Samuel's prophecy concerning
"the king" of Israel in 1 Sam. viii. 10-18 was
not a prophecy of an individual king, but of
the line of Israelite monarchs which com
menced with Saul. Similar is the case of St.
Paul's prophecy of " the Man of Sin." The
name (6 &v6pu>wos rrjs aftaprias) as connected
with "the Apostasy," has a reference to
Jeroboam the son of Nebat, so often spoken
of in the Books of the Kings as " the man who
made Israel to sin," who led the ten tribes
into apostasy from Jehovah. Israel never,
indeed, ceased professedly to worship Jehovah.
But the apostasy Jeroboam brought in lasted
all through the troublous history of the
northern kingdom, i.e. the kingdom of Israel
as distinct from that of Judah. The designa
tion "Man of Sin" is also partly explained by
the other title given to him by St. Paul,
namely (6 vlbs TTJS dirwXdas), the son of perdi
tion, which was employed by Christ of Judas
Iscariot (John xvii. 12). The phrase 6 5.vo^os,
or the Lawless One (ver. 8), may be used of
any one who either sets God's law at defiance,
or raises himself above it.

The peculiarity of "the Man of Sin" con
sists in his sitting in the temple of God (the
Church of Christ), showing himself that he is
God. Outside the Church of Christ, many
heathen kings have called themselves " God."
Not one of those monarchs, however, claimed
to be actually immortal, or pretended to be
able to work miracles. The " Divinity," there
fore, which was claimed by them, expressed
little more than that they were the represen
tatives on earth of the great Maker of the
universe. That fact ought to be borne in
mind, for it is too often left out of sight. The
"Man of Sin " was to claim within the Church
of Christ the authority which heathen kings
had impiously claimed to exercise in the world.
He is represented in the prophecy of St. Paul
as, although a leader of the visible Church,
opposing and exalting himself " against " (eiri)
all that is called God, or is worshipped (ver. 4).

PAPAL COINS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

Struck at Rome at the coronation of Pope Leo X. On the reverse is the inscription (found
also on other medals) : Quern crcant ndorant (" Whom they create they adore ").

Medal to commemorate Pope Innocent XII. opening " the Holy Door" on the occasion
of the Jubilee of 1700. The light descending from heaven represents the descent
of the Holy Spirit.

Medal of Pope Alexander VIII., struck 1(590, depicts the supposed victory of the
Church over Heresy, represented as the seven-headed monster struck down by
the cross of Religion. Inscription on reverse: A'on prwvalcbit ("/< will not

MAN OF SIN, THE

[ 387 ]

MAN OF SIN, THE

Thus the R.V. correctly renders the Greek
preposition (incorrectly rendered in the A.V.
as " above all that is called God "). The word
used by St. Paul in ver. 4, " exalteth himself,"
is used in the LXX. (as Bishop Christopher
Wordsworth pointed out) of Hezekiah (2 Chron.
xxxii. 23), and by St. Paul of himself in 2
Cor. xii. 7. The phrase 6 avriKelpfvos (that
opposeth, R.V.) denotes one who sets himself
" as a rival foundation in the place of, or against,
another foundation " (Bishop C. Wordsworth).
Of Jesus Christ it is said, "Other foundation
can no one lay than that which already lieth
(Ken-cu), which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11).
Christ is the true Rock and foundation of the
Church (Matt. xvi. 18), and the Pope claims
that Christ in that passage referred to Peter
and the line of Popes.

The expression used of the Church by St.
Paul is the 6 va6s, which means the inner
sanctuary, and not lepov (kierori), which latter

Pope, at his inauguration, is placed sitting
upon the so-called altar in St. Peter's at Rome
while the cardinals "adore" him. See the
medal struck by Pope Martin at the Roman
Mint, A.D. 1417. We prefer, however, to explain
the passage of the divine power claimed by
the Pope, and by the priests delegated by him —
for priestly authority is in the Church of Rome
supposed to be derived from the Pope as
supreme head — to pardon sins as God. The
Romish priests (like their imitators the Ritual
ists) claim to be seated in the confessional
boxes, and to occupy there the place and posi
tion of God (Catechism of the Council of Trent,
part ii. chap. vii. 2, Donovan's Translation).
The Pope, moreover, claims power over the
invisible world. He claims to be able to open
the gates of heaven (see coin of Innocent
XII. struck at the Jubilee of 1700), to grant
celestial honours, and to be able to enrol
saints among the mediators of heaven. As

POPE LEO X. REPRESENTED AS "THE LION OP THE TRIBE OF JUDAH " (Rev. V. 5).
BUONANNI, Numism. Pontificum, vol. i. pp. 167-8.

is employed in the only passage in which the
Apostle speaks of the material temple at
Jerusalem (1 Cor. ix. 13). It is idle to suppose
that the Apostle points to a material temple
yet to be built in Jerusalem. St. Paul con
stantly uses va6s in a mystical sense (see 1
Cor. iii. 16, 17 ; vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii.
21). Naos is used mystically in John ii. 19-21
of the human body of Christ. It is used
further of the sanctuary in the New Jerusalem
above (Rev. iii. 12), and also of the inner sanctu
ary of God on earth, the true Church of Christ
(Rev. xi. 1, 2).

The Greek word for "that is worshipped" is
fftpa.(r/j,a. In the only other passage where that
word is found in theNew Testament, namely, Acts
xvii. 23, the word is in the plural, "the objects
of your worship" (R.V., obscurely rendered
in the A.V. "your devotions"). The special
object of worship alluded to in Acts xvii. was
the altar to the unknown God. The latter fact
may possibly justify Bishop Wordsworth and
others in illustrating the fulfilment of St.
Paul's prophecy by adducing the fact that the

one who possesses Divine right to all power, he
consequently claims even now to have the right
to kill and to persecute heretics (P. Marianus
de Luca, S.J., Inst. Juris Pull. Eccl., vol. i.
pp. 142-148, Rome, 1901), for heretics ought,
according to Ecclesiatical Law, to be "sent
to their own place by death." The work of
de Luca has been approved by Pope Leo
XIII., and the Pope's letter of commendation
is printed on the paper covers of the two
volumes of the book.

Dean Farrar, in his Life of St. Paul, has
ventured to assert that " no man of competent
education " can now accept the interpretation
just given. But the Dean's statement is
founded on a determination only to admit the
Biblical predictions of future events as vaticinia
post eventa. In spite of all such dogmatic
attempts to discredit the old interpretation,
we hold fast by it in the main. It has in
spired many a martyr in days gone by to stand
fast against the anti-Christian doctrines of the
Church of Rome.

St. Paul refers in that prediction to the

MANTELLETTA

[ 388 ]

MARONITES

statement he had often made in the church
of Thessalonica concerning that which "re
strained " or " hindered " the revelation of
the great evil (vers. 4, 5). That statement the
Apostle knew the Thes.salonian Christians would
"remember," and probably it is included among
"the traditions" mentioned in ver. 15. There
was a good reason why St. Paul did not express
his meaning in writing, for the Romans main
tained that their empire was to last for ever.
We therefore agree with tlie statement found in
Tertullian, De Resurr. Carnis,24, that the apostle
referred to the restraining power of the Roman
pagan Empire as the hindrance in the way of
the Man of Sin. Irenasus teaches the same
truth (Against Heresies, book v. chaps, xxv. and
xxvi.), where he identifies the fourth beast of
Daniel with the Roman Empire, and speaks of
the events which were to occur after its over
throw. So Jerome on Dan. vii., and others of
the Fathers. The biting frosts of paganism
kept down for a time weeds in the garden of
the Lord, but when the spring of the Church's
worldly prosperity arrived, those weeds sprang
up apace in the Church of Christ.

To quote the authorities who have supported
this exposition (the full details of which it is
here unnecessary to enter into) would unduly
occupy space. Bishop Christopher Words
worth's small but valuable tracts ably sketch
what has been well termed the "Protestant in
terpretation." See Bishop C. Wordsworth,
Union witk Rome. Is not the Church of Rome the
Babylon of the Book of Revelation? (8th edit.
1874) ; and Is the Papacy predicted by St. Paul ?
An Inquiry (1880). [C. H. H. W.]

MANTELLETTA.— A short cloak without
sleeves, worn by certain prelates of the
Romish Church. The privilege of wearing it
is granted by the Pope.

MARIOLATRY. — See MARY, THE VIRGIN.

MARIST FATHERS, THE.— Also called
Marist Brothers. This Society was founded
by a French priest, the Rev. Father Colin,
early in the nineteenth century. They are a
teaching order, but, according to the rules
of their founder, they are expected to devote
themselves especially to the care of the poor.
They are known as the "Society of Mary,"
and were approved by Gregory XVI. in 1836,
and by Pius IX. in 1873. Very early in their
career the Marists got charge of the missions
in New Caledonia. They work under the
supervision of the local bishop, teaching in
the schools or preaching to the heathen, as
they may be directed. The Marist Fathers
take orders, and it was said that at one time
most of the Roman Catholic clergy in New
Zealand were members of the Marist Order.
The Marist Brothers do not take orders, but
take the usual vows and devote their time

exclusively to teaching. There are also Marist
Nuns, and Marist Sisters. They have many
houses in Great Britain and Ireland, and
their novitiate is at Paignton, near Torquay.
The nuns have houses at Peckham and
Richmond. The Marist Brothers are not to
be confounded with the Christian Brothers,
founded by J. B. de la Salle in the seventeenth
century. [T. C.]

MARONITES.— The origin and progress of
the Maronites is obscure. They are generally
thought to have arisen as a Monothelite sect
among the monks of St. Maro, a contemporary
and friend of St. Chrysostom, who founded a
monastery on the Orontes between Emesa and
Apamea, and to have taken their name from
him or from one of their number, John Maro,
who became Patriarch of Antioch in 688.

At the beginning, as now, the name denoted
racial — Syrian — as well as religious difference ;
the 600 monks of St. Maro made common cause
with the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon, and
under the leadership of Abraham, nephew of
John Maro, successfully maintained their in
dependence against the Emperor, the Arabs,
and the Turks. Thenceforward their Patriarch
united political and spiritual powers, and they
continued independent till the time of the
Crusades, when the whole nation or Church,
40,000 in number, became Roman Catholics
(1182) ; and in 1736 a Marouite Church Council
accepted the decrees of the Council of Trent.

At the end of the sixteenth century a
Maronite College was established in Rome ; it
has produced many illustrious theologians and
grammarians. Some of these, notably J. S.
Asseman, rebut the accusation of heresy and
say that the Maronites have always been
orthodox, and that they have been confused
with the Mardaites — rebels against the Emperor
(the name is derived from the Syriac root
T)D, to rebel), a mixed people who spread
from Antioch to Jerusalem, welcomed fugitives
from any source, and resisted Saracen invasion.

The Maronites had a feudal organisation, and
their aristocracy chose an Emir till 1842, when
after a bloody strife with the Druses, the
administration of the Lebanon was shared
between both races. Since 1861 the Lebanon
has been under one governor appointed by the
Turks for a five years' tenure of office. The
Patriarch has now no firman. He is under the
Propaganda, but continues to be elected by
his own people and still names the arch
bishops, titular only, of Aleppo, Beyrout, Dan,
Tyre, Sidon, and Tripoli, and the bishops of
Cyprus, Baalbec, Jebail, Botri, and two others.
He resides in the monastery of St. Mary of
Kanobin and at Bhirky in Kesroan. A titular
bishop is Superior of a college at Ain Warda.
Besides bishops, priests, and deacons, they

MARRIAGE

[ 389 ] MARY, THE DOLOURS OF

have the minor orders of sub-deacon, reader,
and psaltes or cantor. They have still very
many monasteries and convents.

The Maronites have adopted Roman vest
ments and some Roman rites, e.g. that of
baptism and the form in absolution ; but they
retain their ancient Syriac Liturgy, which
differs only in slight variations from that of
the Jacobites, and they have communion in
both kinds ; they retain also some peculiar
observances, such as the Lenten office, public
nightly prayers and commemoration of the
dead during the three weeks preceding Lent.
The parochial clergy marry ; bishops are
chosen from the monks.

The Maronites are variously estimated to
number at the present time 150,000, or 280,000.
They reside chiefly in the Lebanon and Anti-
Lebanon, and are found from Aleppo to
Nazareth, and in Cyprus.

Authorities. — William, Bishop of Tyre in
Bongaris, Oestis Dei per Francos. Faustus
Nairouus, Diss. de Orig. Nom. et Relvj. Maron.,
Rome, 1679. Ass. Bibl. Or., i. pp. 496-523.
Renaudot, Litt. Or. Coll., ii. De la Croix, Mat
Present des Nations et Eijlites en Turquie, Paris,
1695. [J. P. M.]

MARRIAGE. — Marriage can only be dealt
with here as far as it affects the Church of
England. Marriage has been defined by Mr.
Justice Stirling in Bethell v. Hilyard, 22 C.D.
220, as " The voluntary union for life of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others." By the XXVth Article marriage is in
the Church of England not "a sacrament."
Until the Council of Trent, even in Canon
Law, it was not necessary for its validity that
marriage should be performed by a person in
Holy Orders. Its sacramental character, ac
cording to the Old Canon lawyers' view, was not
affected by its having been celebrated without
a priest. A list of the persons who cannot inter
marry, as being within the prohibited degrees,
is given in the Table of Relationship and
Affinity set forth by authority in the year
1563. This Table was drawn up by Arch
bishop Parker, and depended for its validity
on several Acts of Henry VIII. It is now
printed at the end of the Prayer Book. Until
the Act of 4 Geo. IV. c. 76, it does not seem to
have been necessary that a marriage should
have been celebrated by a clergyman or in
a church. See Lord Stowell's Judgment in
Dalryrnple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hag. Com. 137
(note). But in Reg. v. Miller, 10 Cl. & Fin. 534,
decided in 1844, some of the Lords doubted
whether such a marriage was sufficient to
entitle the children to inherit property, and
thought by the common law of England it
was necessary that the marriage should be
performed by a person in Holy Orders. The

Act of Uniformity of Charles II. forbids a
layman or a person not in priest's orders to
consecrate and administer the Lord's Supper,
but does not forbid such person performing
any other function, and it is a nice question
(which is undecided) whether the rubrics go
any further and forbid a layman to perform
the other services. The Act of George II.
made marriages of all persons, except Jews
and Quakers, void if not performed in a church,
and laid down the conditions as to publicity
required. The 62ud Canon forbids a " minister "
to celebrate a marriage, except by banns, with
out a licence (see LICENCE). The rubrics in
the Marriage Service speak of "the curate"
solemnising the marriage, then of a " priest,"
then of a "minister," using all these words,
apparently, indifferently. It has been ruled by
Chief-Justice Tindal that a deacon can cele
brate a marriage in the Church of England.
See Stephens' Ecd. Statutes, p. 1999. The Act of
George IV. speaks of a parson, minister, vicar, or
curate solemnising a marriage, and makes it
inter alia a felony for any person falsely pretend
ing to be in Holy Orders to solemnise matrimony
according to the rites of the Church of England ;
but it does not make the marriage void unless
the parties married knowingly and wilfully
consent to, or acquiesce in, the solemnisation
of the marriage by a person not being in Holy
Orders. By the Act of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85,
valid marriages can be celebrated either in
Nonconformist chapels or at a registry office.

Marriages within the prohibited degrees were
until 1835 only voidable, but not void ; they
are now void. The essentials for a valid
marriage are: (1) That the man should be not
less than fourteen or the woman twelve years
of age. (2) Capacity to contract a marriage, i.e.
that the parties should be unmarried and not
within the prohibited degrees. (3) Consent. If
there is no consent the marriage is void (Scott
v. Sebright, 12 P.D. 20). (4) That the statutory
requirements as to publicity and method of
celebration should be complied with. If
lunacy exists at the time of the marriage no
true consent can be given, and the marriage
would therefore be void (Lord Durham's
Case, 10 P.D. 80). Impotence makes a mar
riage voidable if the person not impotent
makes the complaint in a reasonable time
(G. v. M., 10 App. Cas. 171).

Royal Marriages are regulated by separate
legislation, as to which see MORGANATIC
MARRIAGE. [E. B. W.]

MARY, THE DOLOURS OF. — These are
in Romish works asserted to be seven in
number. (1) The first are the sorrows alluded
to in the prophecy of Simeon (Luke ii. 34, 35).
(2) Those supposed to have attended Mary's
flight from Herod into Egypt with Joseph and

MAEY, THE VIRGIN

[ 390 ]

MAEY, THE VIRGIN

the infant Saviour (Matt. ii. 13-15). (3) The
sorrows which attended the loss of Christ in
the Temple (Luke ii. 41-51). (4) Those which
were endured when Jesus took leave of His
mother before going to death, and on the way
to the cross. These are asserted by Alphonsus
Liguori to have been revealed by the Virgin
to St. Bridget ( Glories of Mary, part ii. disc. ix.).
(5) Those suffered at the cross (John xix. 25-
27). (6) Those suffered when Christ was taken
down from the cross, and (7) those endured at
the burial of Jesus.

MARY, THE VIRGIN.— No Christian can
ever think of Mary, the mother of our Lord
Jesus Christ, without the deepest feelings of
respect and affection. No candid reader can
doubt that Matthew and Luke both represent
her as a virgin at the time of the birth of her
divine Son (Matt. i. 18-25 ; Luke i. 26-38).
The genealogies given by these two Evangelists
are probably official registers, and their discre
pancies have been accounted for on various
hypotheses. Matt. i. 16 may have been tam
pered with by scribes in old Greek or Syriac
MSS., but the intention of both authors is
patent, and their accounts were unquestion
ably believed from the earliest times. That
Mary was afterwards the wife of Joseph is
explicitly stated in Matt. i. 24 ; that by him
she gave birth to other sons is implied in verse
25, according to most MSS., as well as in all
MSS. of Luke ii. 7. The names of " brethren "
of Jesus are mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55. to
which are added "sisters" in verse 56. Two
alternative hypotheses were brought forward
in the fourth century to account for this : one
being that of Jerome, i.e. that these brethren
and sisters were the children of His mother's
sister (John xix. 25), who was identical with
Mary the wife of Alphaeus or Cleophas ; the
other, that of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salainis,
that they were the children of Joseph by a
former wife. The first of these conjectures
is rendered doubtful by the statement that
" neither did His brethren believe in Him
(John vii. 5), at a time when He had already
appointed His twelve disciples (see previous
chapter,' verse 70), one of whom we know from
Matt. x. 3, Mark iii. 18, and Luke vi. 15 to
have been James the son of Alphseus. "His
brethren " are also mentioned as persons
present in an upper room at Jerusalem after
the Ascension, "James the son of Alphseus"
having been previously named. Both theories
are very ably dealt with by Mr. Latham in
The Risen Master, who says (p. 305), "What
weighs most with me is the repeated mention
of the brethren as being in company with their
mother. We find them clinging to her in a
way which we should not expect to find in
four stepsons, the youngest of whom must

have been well over thirty years of age ; and
their doing so is still more improbable if we
suppose them to be nephews." Latham also
considers "His mother's sister," in John xix.
25, to be Salome. The only real difficulty about,
the supposition that they were the sons of
Mary lies in the fact that on the Cross our
Lord commended His mother to the care of
John ; which may be accounted for by the
absence or estrangement of the "brethren," an
estrangement which was afterwards removed
by our Lord's appearance to James, recorded
incidentally by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 7.

That Mary had no appointed work or official
position in the Church of her divine Son is
evident at almost every mention of her name.
When Jesus, at the age of twelve, is found
tarrying in the Temple, He replies to her
affectionate remonstrance, "Thy father and I
have sought thee sorrowing " (Luke ii. 48),
with the significant claim to a divine Sonship,
" Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's
business ? " (verse 49). When Mary seeks to
direct His exercise of divine power at the
marriage feast of Cana, He replies, " Woman,
what have I to do with thee ? " When, with
His brethren, she tries to restrain Him from
addressing the multitudes, He asks, " Who
are my mother and my brethren ? " and pro
claims a wider kinship with all who do the will
of His Father who is in heaven. It is signifi
cant that our Lord appeared first not to His
mother, but to Mary Magdalene and other
women ; and also that in the memorable gather
ing after the Ascension (Acts i. 14), the pre
sence of other women is recorded before that
of "His mother." Clearly, therefore, a lead
ing place in the assemblies of the Church was
not accorded to Mary during her earthly life.

So much for Holy Scripture. At what
period, then, in the Church's history did
Mariolatry arise ? In the Epistle from the
Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
written, according to Dionysius of Corinth and
Eusebius, by Clement, probably about A.D. 95,
the Virgin is not even mentioned, nor is there
any allusion to her in the so-called Second
Epistle of Clement. (See APOSTOLIC FATHERS. )

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
does not once mention Mary. In all the
Epistles of Ignatius she is not alluded to more
than six times, being simply called "Mary,"
without any epithet. Apologies and treatises
dating from the second century are extant,
and in them, had the apostles or earliest Chris
tians considered that any special honour was
due to Mary beyond what is hers as a good
woman, we should expect to find expressions
of reverent worship. Probably the earliest is
the Apology of Aristides, read at Athens before
the Emperor Hadrian about A.D. 125, of which

MARY, THE VIRGIN

[ 391 ]

MARY, THE VIRGIN

the Syriac text was discovered by Dr. Rendel
Harris in 1889, and the Greek by Dean Armi-
tage Robinson soon afterwards. This Apology
says (ed. Harris, Texts and Studies, 1891, p. 36),
"It is said that God came down from heaven,
and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Him
self with flesh, and in a daughter of man there
dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from
that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken
among them as being preached ; wherein if ye
will also read, ye will comprehend the power
that is upon it."

The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles, was
written at the end of the first or the beginning
of the second century. Lightfoot considers
it to be of the earlier date, chiefly because in
it bishops and presbyters are still synonymous.
A manuscript of it, in Greek, was discovered
in 1875 at Constantinople by Bishop Bryen-
nius, Metropolitan of Nicomedia ; it is now in
the Library of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusa
lem. In it there is no mention whatever of
the Virgin Mary.

The Epistle of Barnabas must have been
written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. It is
quoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria,
and in it also there is no mention of the Lord's
mother. In the Shepherd of Hermas, allusion
to Mary is likewise conspicuous by its absence.
The whole " plot of the story," if we may so call
it, consists of visions which Hermas saw. In
these a glorified woman is the most prominent
figure, and here, if anywhere, it would have
been suitable to introduce the Virgin ; but such
an idea does not seem to have occurred to the
second-century author. The lady in question
is explained to represent the Church.

There is in existence a letter from the Church
of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium, re
lating the martyrdom of Polycarp, which took
place in A.D. 155 or 156. There is no mention
of Mary in it.

In an age of science like ours, no importance
can be attached to mediaeval or modern visions
or dreams, such as that of S. Gregory Thauma-
turgus in the third century, or to the little girl
Bernadotte at Lourdes in the nineteenth. These
would be worthy of attention only if they had
revealed anything new or valuable that could
not have been previously in the dreamer's
thoughts. In the case of the supposed appari
tion at Lourdes, it cannot be believed that the
powers and faculties of the mind are not further
developed in heaven than they have been on
earth ; how then could the woman who uttered
the sublime poetry of the Magnificat find no
better words in which to express herself nine
teen centuries later than " I am the Immacu
late Conception ? "

Irenasus says (Hcer., iii. ch. 22, § 4), "What
the Virgin Eve bound by unbelief, that the

Virgin Mary loosed by faith." This is nothing
more than a pious observation for the purpose
of his argument, which is, that the Lord Jesus
was verily man of the substance of His mother.
There is in Irenaeus' writings no trace of
adoration nor of appeal to any influence of
Mary.

The real source of Mariolatry is to be found
in apocryphal writings. The Protevangclium
Jacobi, the kernel of which may have been
written within the second century (but which,
according to Harnack, received its present
shape two centuries later), is manifestly a
romance, founded on the Gospel story of the
Nativity. It purports to be written by James
about the time "when Herod died a bitter
death" (see ed. Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, No. XI.
p. 12). James the son of Alphseus, or James
the Lord's brother, must be meant, for James
the son of Zebedee had been slain by Herod
some time previously (cf. Acts xii. 2 with
ver. 23). The author insists on the perpetual
virginity of Mary, but, like the Lewis Palimp
sest in Matt. i. 21, he does not scruple to make
the Angel say to Joseph, "She shall bear to
thee a sou" (ibid. p. 7). On two points the
Prot. Jac. is inconsistent with the canonical
Gospels. One is that it represents Mary's
father to have been a wealthy man. As a sign
of rejoicing when his wife Hanna is about to
become a mother, he offers ten fat lambs to
the Lord God, besides giving ten fat bull-calves
to the priests and elders, and a hundred kids
to all the people (ibid. p. 2). Contrast this
with the offering made by his daughter for
her purification, as recorded by Luke (ii. 24),
a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons,
i.e. the offering allowed in Lev. xii. 8 in
such cases when through poverty a lamb could
not be provided. The other is that the priest
is represented as saying to Mary, " Thou who
wast reared in the Holy of Holies" (ibid. p. 7).
But the High Priest alone entered the Holy of
Holies, and only once a year (Exod. xxx. 10;
Lev. xvi. 2 ; Heb. ix. 7) ; so we must conclude
that the author of the Protevangclium was pro
bably a Gentile, and that he wrote at a time
when the usages of the Jewish Temple were
not vividly remembered. No Jew would have
made such a blunder. Although the Protevan-
gelium insists strongly on the perpetual vir
ginity of Mary, it does not direct any adora
tion to be offered to her. It is far otherwise
with the Transitus Marias, a work which dates
from the fourth century. According to Ewald,
" the whole cultus of Mary in the Papal Church
rests upon this book." In it she is called the
"Mother of God." All created beings are
incited to adore her. She is said to have been
" holy and elect of God before she was born."
It relates that the heads of the monks at, Mount

MAEY, THE VIRGIN

[ 392 ]

MARY, THE VIRGIN

Sinai, who had jurisdiction over 320 monasteries
on that holy mountain, sent to ask Cyril, Bishop
of Jerusalem, for a book about the exit of the
Lady Mary from this world. The book they
wanted could not be found ; but another was
found in the writing of James the Bishop, from
which it appeared that she died in the year
345. This date is remarkable, for, assuming
it to be reckoned from the era of Alexander,
it is equivalent to A.D. 33, that is, three years
after the Crucifixion. The real book was at
last found at Ephesus, placed at the mouth of
a cave, " where the grace of Mar John flows,"
that apostle having previously appeared to the
seekers in a vision. Its narrative begins by
representing Mary, immediately after the
death of her Son, as going daily to His tomb,
weeping and praying and burning spices. The
author does not seem to think that she had
ever heard of His Resurrection, and neither,
apparently, has Abgar, King of Edessa, who
writes to ask the Emperor Tiberius to take
vengeance on the murderers of the Messiah.

Mary, like the Arcadian Artemis of old, is
served by virgins ; men and women worship
her ; apostles adore her. She is addressed as
" Mistress of the world." She delivers travellers
from robbers ; she snatches up a boy from a
well ; splits up a snake by a blow ; and leads
a merchant to find a purse that he had lost.
Sailors call on her in distress, and she helps
them. The Apostle John is summoned to
Mary's death-bed at Bethlehem from the city
of Ephesus, where he was " commanding his
disciples concerning the service of the Christ."
The author was evidently careless of chrono
logy, as according to Gal. ii. 1, 9, fourteen
years after Paul's conversion John was still one
of the pillars of the Church in Jerusalem, and
the Church of Ephesus had not yet come into
being. By a similar anachronism, Peter and
Paul are at the same time summoned from
Rome. None of the apostles had yet died,
except Andrew, the brother of Simon Cephas,
and Philip, and Luke, and Simon the Zealot.
This is in contradiction to Acts xii. 2, and
Luke, for one, lived till long after (2 Tim. iv. 11).
At the moment of Mary's death, the Apostles
implore her to leave a blessing to the world,
in order that those who " make commemora
tion " to her " may be delivered from sore
afflictions." Mary responds by praying to her
Son ; and He promises to grant the requests of
all who commemorate her, and to bless their
land.

The Virgin is escorted by the apostles in
great glory to Paradise, after which the
apostles return to the Mount of Olives, where
they write a book in Hebrew and Greek and
Latin, which they give into the keeping of
the Apostle John. It directs that a com

memoration is to be made of the Lady Mary
three times a year: (1) On the 6th of January,
that the fruits of the earth may be blessed
(thus renewing the worship of Artemis under
a Christian name), and that peace may be
preserved. (2) About the beginning of May.
on account of the seeds that are sown, and
for the abundance of wheat ; during a whole
month at this season there is to be a com
memoration of Mary, to avert locusts and
other insect plagues from the vines. Every
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday throughout
the year offerings are to be made. (3) Also
on the 13th day of Ab (August) to avert the
destruction of vines by hail. On the day of
commemoration men are to fast until the
ninth hour, the Scriptures are to be read, and
also the account of the Virgin's decease.
Peter directs the apostles to return each to
the country whence he had come, and there
to write a book telling the people of that
country about the commemorations.

Mary's body is carried to the Paradise of
Eden, which is situated above all high moun
tains, four rivers issuing from it. Here her
divine Son meets her, and at His word she
arises. Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and Peter come
to her, the last-named somewhat curiously, as
he has just been represented as still living
upon earth. Mary is taken up to the heaven
of heavens ; there, amongst other wonders,
she sees twelve gates, at each of which an
apostle is standing, the author having forgotten
that she had just left them below. Mary is
worshipped by angels, by cherubim, seraphim,
and all the heavenly host. She also sees the
place of torment, and prays for the trembling
sinners who are waiting to be consigned to it.
John, as well as Peter, joins Mary in the world
of glory. Mary prophesies to him about the
distress that shall come upon the earth. Our
Lord tells her that when men call on her by
her name they shall be delivered from their
afflictions. Mary informs John that there is
to be at the time of the end of the world a
commemoration of her bones, and " whosoever
shall call on the name of the Mother of God
shall be delivered from his afflictions."

It is evident that this is the work of a
dreamer or romancer, who, in his imagination,
attributed to the mother of Jesus the powers
which the Greeks attributed to Demeter and
to the Ephesian Artemis. Even the title
"Queen of Heaven," applied to the Virgin in
later ages, reminds the reader of Scripture of
Jer. xliv. 17-19, 25. It is significant that the
place where the greatest enthusiasm about
her deification prevailed was Ephesus, to
whose elders Paul had prophesied that of
themselves men should arise speaking perverse
things ; as if the mub whose predecessors

MARY, THE VIRGIN

[ 393 ]

MARY, THE VIRGIN

shouted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians,"
could not abandon their worship of a virgin
goddess.

Both the Protevanffdium and the Transitus
Marite were placed on the first Index of
Prohibited Books said to have been issued
either by Pope Gelasius in A.D. 494. or by
Hormisdas in 514. St. Epiphanius, Bishop of
Constantia, in Cyprus, writing in the fourth
century against the Collyridians, says, " After
this a heresy appeared, which we have already
mentioned slightly by means of the letter
written in Arabia about Mary. And this
heresy was again made public in Arabia from
Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia, and
was brought to our ears, which to men of
understanding will be found ridiculous and
laughable. We will begin to trace it out,
and to relate concerning it. It will be judged
(to partake of) silliness rather than of sense,
as is the case with others like it. For, as
formerly, out of insolence towards Mary, those
whose opinions were such sowed hurtful ideas
in the reflexions of men, so likewise these,
leaning to the other side, fall into the utmost
harm. . . . For the harm is equal in both
these heresies, the one belittling the holy
Virgin, the other again glorifying her over
much. For who should it be that teach thus
but women ? for the race of women is slippery,
fallible, and humble-minded. . . . For some
women deck out a KOVP<.KOI>, that is to say, a
square stool, spreading upon it a linen cloth,
on some solemn day of the year, for some days
they lay out bread, and offer it in the name of
Mary. All the women partake of the bread,
as we related in the letter to Arabia, writing
partly about that. . . . Yea, verily, the body
of Mary was holy, but was surely not God.
Verily, the Virgin was a virgin, and was
honoured, but was not given to us to worship ;
but she worships Him who was born from her
according to the flesh, having come from
heaven out of the Father's bosom. Therefore
the Gospel guarantees us, telling that the
Lord said, ' What is there to Me and to thee,
O woman ? Mine hour is not yet come.' In
order that from the 'O woman, what is there
to Me and to thee,' none should think the holy
Virgin to be greater. He called her woman,
as prophesying, on account of the schisms and
heresies that should be on the earth, in order
that none admiring the holy one to excess
should fall into this frivolity of heresy."
"These (women) again renew the mixture to
Fortune, and make ready the table to the
Demon and not to God, according to what is
written, and eat the food of impiety, as saith
the divine Word, 'And the women knead
dough, and the sons gather wood to make
cakes to the host of heaven ' (Jer. vii. 18).

Let such women be muzzled by Jeremiah, and
let them not disturb the habitable world.
Let them not say, ' Let us honour the Queen
of Heaven.'" This offering and eating of
cakes was probably derived from the worship
of Artemis.

No one who has travelled in Roman Catholic
lands will need any proof of the idolatrous
nature of the worship offered to the Virgin
Mary in the churches subject to the See of
Rome. But for the sake of those who have
not the opportunity of witnessing this, we
extract a few of the directions of the Roman
Breviary, reformed by order of the Council of
Trent, published by order of Pius V., and
revised by Popes Clement VII. and Urban
VIII., as translated by John, Marquis of Bute.
Frequently to be repeated : " Hail, Mary,
full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed
art thou among women, and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother
of God, pray for us sinners now and at the
hour of our death, Amen." On Sunday at
Vespers, and at other times, we have this
antiphon : " 0 Holy Mary, be thou a help to
the helpless, a strength to the fearful, a
comfort to the sorrowful, pray for the people,
plead for the clergy, make intercession for all
women vowed to God ; may all that keep thine
holy remembrance feel the might of thine
assistance. Pray for us, 0 holy Mother of
God." At Compline we have, " Hail, 0 Mary,
Qneen of Heaven, Queen of Angel worlds on
high, Hail, O Rod to Jesse given, Blessed
Portal of the sky." God is implored to grant
everlasting life by the help of Mary. She is
called Mother of Mercy, our Advocate, and
asked to show Jesus to her worshippers, as if
the Saviour were still a Babe in her arms.
We have as an antiphon for Advent : " Mary
said, What manner of salutation is this ? My
soul is troubled. Shall I bear the King ? and
will He not break the seal of my virginity ? "
It would be worth while to know by whom
these unnatural words were recorded, and
why, if spoken, the canonical Evangelists
omitted them.

On the first Sunday of October there is a
Solemn Feast of the most holy Rose-garden
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The 4th lesson
in this office relates that St. Dominic received
a command from Mary bidding him " preach
up the saying of her Rosary." " In the Rose-
garden, or Rosary, we say the Salutation of
the Angel 150 times, and the Lord's Prayer
between every 10 times ; and each of the 15
times that we thus say the Lord's Prayer, and
repeat tenfold the Salutation, we are to think
of one of 15 great events in the history of our
redemption. This form of prayer waxed
common. That this same Dominic was the

MARY, THE VIRGIN

[ 394 ]

MARY, THE VIRGIN

founder and prime mover thereof bath been
said by Popes in divers letters of the Apostolic
See." The victory at Lepanto was ascribed
by Pope Clement XI. to the practice. Pope
Benedict XIII. commanded it to be recorded
in the service-book of the Church. Yet in the
Roman Breviary we are glad to perceive a
gleam of true doctrine concerning Mary. It
occurs in a homily by St. Austin (Augustine),
Bishop of Hippo, and is read in the 7th lesson
of the 3rd nocturn on Good Friday, " Her
who was His Mother, not in that nature as
touching which He is equal to the Father, but
in that as touching which He is inferior to
the Father." But this is only a ray of sun
shine, which tends to make the shadows
darker. In the 6th lesson of the 2nd nocturn
on the third Sunday after Easter, Joseph is
asked to obtain for us some pity from Mary !
In the Office for Virgins, 5th lesson of 2nd
nocturn, we have, " It was Maidenhood that
pierced beyond the clouds, the atmosphere,
the Angels, and the stars, and came upon the
word of God," &c. In the Office for Feasts of
the Blessed Virgin, we have, " Oh, by Gabriel's
AVE, uttered long ago, EVA'S name reversing,
stablish peace below ! " As if Gabriel spoke
Latin! In the 5th lesson, "She alone is
greater than heaven and earth." In the 6th
lesson, "Through her we obtain the remission
of sins." The 6th Responsory applies to her
the language of the 45th Psalm, in defiance of
the statements of Paul and John that the
Church is the Bride of Christ. In the 3rd
nocturn we have, "Thou hast trampled down
all the heresies in the whole world," and in
the 7th Respousory, "Mary, blessed Maid of
Maidens, be our Advocate with God." In the
3rd lesson for the simple Office of the Virgin
for April, St. Jerome's exposition of Ezekiel
xliv. 1, 2 is given, in which the gate of the
Sanctuary looking towards the East is inter
preted as meaning the Virgin Mary. In the
lesson for August (Pope St. Gregory the Great
on 1 Sam. i. 1), "The name of Mount Ephraim
may be applied to the most blessed Mother
of God, as she was indeed a mountain ; " and
the prophecy of Isaiah ii. 2 is accordingly
applied to her, " The mountain of the Lord's
house shall be established in the top of the
mountains." Such exegesis is simply puerile.
In the lesson for October (St. Bernard), Mary
is said to be " the fleece between the dew and
the floor " ( Jud. vi. 37-40), the woman between
the sun and the moon (Apoc. xii. 1), Mary
standing midway between Christ and the
Church." In the lesson for November (St.
Basil), she is said to be the Prophetess to whom
Isaiah went in (Isa. viii. 3), " very closely by
the spirit of foreknowledge."

In the Office for the Immaculate Conception,

1st nocturn, 3rd lesson, Gen. iii. 15 is trans
lated, "She shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise her heel," in defiance of the fact
that the Hebrew pronouns are masculine, and
the Greek ones of the Septuagint are so also.
The verse Luke xi. 27 is quoted, "Blessed is
the womb that bare thee, and the paps which
thou hast sucked," but the Lord's response on
the occasion is omitted. The 6th lesson for
the 2nd day within the octave of the Immacu
late Conception says, " The Catholic Church,
which, through the perpetual teaching of the
Holy Ghost, is the pillar and ground of the
truth (1 Tim. iii. 15), hath always held the
original innocence of this most exalted Virgin
to be bound up with her wonderful holiness
and her mighty dignity of Mother of God. . . .
This belief is found strong in the earliest
times." Cardinal Newman, on the contrary,
says (Development of Christian Doctrine, ch. iv.
ii. 10), "I have said that there was in the first
ages no public and ecclesiastical recognition
of the place which St. Mary holds in the
Economy of grace ; this was reserved for the
fifth century."

The Council of Trent said that "it did not
mean to say that the blessed and stainless
Mary, Mother of God, did not form an excep
tion to the rule" (that all men are conceived
in sin). This paved the way for the Dogmatic
Bull of Pope Pius IX., published on Dec. 8,
1854, which says that " the Most Blessed
Virgin Mary was in the first instant of her
conception preserved, by a special privilege
granted unto her by God, from any stain of
original sin." The Catholic Dictionary (p. 605)
draws our attention to the fact that two women
are contrasted in the Apocalypse. This is
somewhat dangerous, seeing that one of these
women is expressly identified with the great
city which was afterwards to be the seat of
the Papacy (Rev. xvii. 18). The cult of Mary
in the Western Church reaches its highest
point in the works of St. Alfonso Liguori and
Henri Laserre.

In early liturgies of the Greek Church,
prayers and hymns to the Virgin hold a sub
ordinate place. They do not occur frequently,
and are absent from the oldest MSS. (see
Swainson, Greek Liturgies, p. xxxvii.). An
appeal to God to remember, amongst other
events, the Archangel's voice, which said,
"Hail, thou that art highly favoured," was the
first form of one of these invocations. Later
scribes omitted the appeal to God to remember
the Archangel's voice, leaving only the saluta
tion, which therefore comes in sometimes in
an inappropriate connection. Dr. Swainson
says, " By this simple process the Commemor
ation of the Annunciation became an Invo
cation of the Virgin." She is always called

MARY, THE VIRGIN

[ 395 ]

MAEY, THE VIRGIN

"Mother of God, and Perpetual Virgin." In
sixteenth-century MSS. of the Liturgies of St.
Chrysostom and of St. James, Christ is be
sought to save, direct, and protect us through
her prayers, and to accept the Eucharist
through her mediation. Praises are occasion
ally addressed to her. In the modern liturgy
of the Greek Church, prayers are offered to
Mary for protection as well as for mediation.
She is called the "Heavenly Door," "more
holy than the Angels," " the True Vine,"
"the hope and protection and refuge of
Christians," "the invulnerable wall, the
winterless harbour." However, she is invari
ably addressed as K€xa/)'TWM&''7. " thou who hast
received grace," in contrast to the inaccurate
expression " full of grace " of the Roman
Church. In the modern liturgy, an omission
similar to the one noticed by Dr. Swainson
in the more ancient ones has led to still more
curious results. Some of the Psalms are to
be recited with this response after each verse,
"By the intercession of the Mother of God,
Saviour, deliver us ; " but as we proceed, we
find the last three words omitted. Psalms
cxxxii. 1, 6 ; xxii. 1, 2, 3 ; xlv. 1, 2 ; xlviii. 1, 3,
8; cxiv. 1, 2, 3, 5; xciii. 1; xix. 1, 2, 3, 4 ;
Ixxii. 1, 3, are similarly treated.

The Greek Church celebrates the death of
Mary on August 15. Its tradition is that the
Saviour sent an angel three days previously
to announce to His mother her approaching
end. She first went and prayed on the Mount
of Olives, and then returned to her home to
prepare linen for her burial. The apostles
arrived on clouds from different parts of the
earth, as in the Transitus, and they buried her
in Gethsemane ; but after three days she
appeared to them, and they knew that she
had been carried up bodilj' to heaven.

Mary is addressed in a hymn as "Mercy-
seat of the world," "the ladder which raises
every one by grace," " the bridge which really
leads all who extol her from death unto life."
One of the Absolutions addresses her as
having been brought up in the Holy of
Holies, in oblivion of Lev. xvi. 2, 13, and of
Josephus, who says (Ant. Jiid., XV. xi. 5),
"The Temple further inward in that gate
was not allowed to the women ; but still
more inward was there a third (court of the)
Temple, whereinto it was not lawful for any
but the priests alone to enter. The Temple
itself was within this " ( Whiston's Transla
tion). An unrecorded salutation is attributed
to Gabriel, " Hail, thou unsown field ; hail,
thou unconsumed Bush ; hail, thou unsearch
able depth," &c.

Mr. F. C. Conybeare has kindly supplied me
with the information that in ancient Armenian
MSS. it is easy to see that hymns originally

addressed to the Church, and epithets applied
to her as the Bride of Christ, the Lady
Catholice, were afterwards transferred and
applied to His mother. In one of these
(Vienna, Mechitarist, 133, /. 190, and British
Museum, Orient. 2609, /. 205, and 2608, /.
217), the Church is called "the Throne of
fourfold shape, adorned with stones, holy and
twelve (the apostle*), all-blessed Virgin in
corruptible, Mother of God," and she is asked
to intercede for men. She is "built up out
of the rib of the Saviour." Early Armenian
writers certainly e*xtol and pray to the Church
as a Virgin. They identify her not only with
the throne of God, but also with the booth
of Abraham, the Ark, Aaron's Tabernacle,
and Solomon's Temple. Christ, the heavenly
Bridegroom, descends to espouse her. The
union takes place at His baptism, John being
the "friend of the Bridegroom." She be
comes the mother of many children, still
remaining a virgin, and is taken up to dwell
with her Spouse in heaven, an event which
afterwards became the Assumption of the
Virgin Mary ; so that as late as the seven
teenth century, a Latin woodcut representing
the latter was mistaken by Armenian priests
for the former. In Armenian hymns it is
often extremely difficult to discriminate
whether it is the Virgin Church or the
Virgin Mary who is being invoked. This
practice Mr. Conybeare has traced back to
the beginning of the eighth century. The
same confusion of thought is attributed to
the Paulicians and other early heretics by
Photius and others. Holy Scripture is quite
free from any such ambiguity. In the
Epistles of Paul, the Church alone is called
the Bride of Christ, and in the Book of
Revelation, as the New Jerusalem, she de
scends as a bride adorned for her husband.

Mr. Conybeare has found in a Bodleian
Codex of Gregory Arsharuni, as well as in the
Bodleian Armenian Menologion, a statement
that Gregory the Illuminator altered the
feasts which had been kept in honour of
heathen gods to commemorations of events
in Christian history ; amongst these being the
summer feast of Aphrodite, which he turned
into the Annunciation of the Theotokos. It falls
on Navasard 15th, which in A.D. 432 coincided
with August 25th. The Armenians have a
story about roses springing up in the foot
steps of the goddess. Compare with this an
Ethiopian story told by Budge (Miracles of
the B.V.M., pp. 38-40), of a boy named
Zacharias, who offered garlands of fifty roses
to the Virgin Mary, and many years after
wards, when he grew up and became a monk,
the prayers that fell from his mouth turned
into roses.

MARY, THE VIRGIN

[ 396 ]

MARY, THE VIRGIN

The gradual progress of Mariolatry in the
Syrian Church is instructive. We look in
vain for any mention of Mary in the oldest
documents of that community that have come
down to us, such as the Doctrine of Addai, or
the Martyrologies which form the upper writ
ing of the Lewis Palimpsest. In the works
of Aphraates (fourth century), Mary is only
mentioned a few times as the vehicle of the
Incarnation, and once (De Humilitate) as i\
pattern of humility, the epithet Kfxa-P'-T^^v'>l
being translated by a word meaning "blessed."
St. Ephraim (fourth century) in a hymn
(xxxviii.), says that the Son of Mary bruised
the devil as a serpent; being a Syrian, he
understood Hebrew better than the authors
of the Roman Breviary. Theodore of Mopsu-
estia (fifth century), in his Commentary on
St. John, expresses no veneration for Mary in
the passages where it would have been appro
priate. In a prayer of Balai, she is ^aid to
have been the Burning Bush, Jacob's Ladder,
David's Ark of the Covenant, and Ezekiel's
closed and sealed gate. Similar expressions
are used by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa. He
defends in an able sermon the term QCOTOKOS,
Mother of God, about which the feud was
raging between the Nestorians and the
Jacobites. Among the latter we may notice
Isaak of Antioch, who contrasts Mary with
Eve, and whose hymn in her praise has
nothing idolatrous in it, and little unscrip-
tural, except the statement that she was
fasting when she received the Annunciation ;
and Philoxenus, who, after anathematising
the Nestorians, and calling Mary the "God-
bearer," yet, in his Discourse on Poverty
asserts very strongly that our Lord was not
under obedience to His mother after His
baptism, as evidenced by His conduct at
Cana, and His reply to her attempted remon
strance (Matt. xii. 48). (See Budge, Discourses
of Philoxenus, pp. 240-43. ) Also Jacob of Serug,
who, as well as St. Ephraim, says that there
was never a spot in her soul. Jacob is not
consistent on this point, for he says else
where that the Holy Ghost freed her from
every sinful desire, and drove sin away from
her, which we take to be the truth.

In ancient Nestorian Liturgies (see Budge),
the Virgin is seldom mentioned, except that
on the holy altar there is to be a remembrance
of Mary the Mother of Christ. In modern ones
(see Malan), she is requested to pray for us, and
God is asked that she may do so. Her body is
said to be a storehouse of help to us, and it is
said that the Lord preserveth the faithful by
her prayers. In Jacobite liturgies she receives
more honour, being called 0eor6icos, Deipara,
Mother of Life, and her intercession being in
voked for the living and the dead. The Maro-

nites go a step further. They excommunicate
those who oppose the worship of Mary's images
(Office for the Ordination of Priests, Morinus,
Assemani, part iii. p. 21).

The ancient liturgies of the Coptic Church
have very small traces of Mariolatry. That of
St. Mark, supposed to be the source of all
the others, has hardly any, if we may judge
from a MS. of the thirteenth century, translated
and published by Malan. In the Liturgy of St.
Basil, God is asked to have pity on people and
to remember them through the prayers and
supplications which Our Lady of us all, the
Mother of God, offers for us at all times. That
of St. Gregory has a similar expression. In
the modern Coptic Liturgy, as translated by
John, Marquis of Bute, sentiments of this kind
are more frequent. At Morning Prayer the
priest censes the picture of the Blessed Virgin
thrice, and says, " Hail to thee, Mary, the fair
dove," &c. Her intercession is continually
invoked.

In the Ethiopian Church, to judge by Lady
Meux' MSS., published by Dr. Wallis Budge,
the practice of Mariolatry is more offensively
heathen than in any other. In some of the
legends the Virgin acts in a highly immoral
manner, such as a Greek goddess might well
emulate. We have also statements like these :
"Mary's Resurrection was like unto the Re
surrection of Christ" (Budge, p. 157). Mary
existed in the body of Adam in the form of
a white pearl, which shone in his right side
(p. 203). Inside the Holy of Holies was a
figure of Mary, at the place where the holy ark
rested, and Solomon made two cherubim to
overshadow her (p. 204). One MS., No. 2A,
says, " For the sake of Mary the whole world
was made," "Our Lady Mary spake by the
Prophets," " Our Lady Mary preached by the
Apostles," " Our Lady Mary giveth praise with
the mouth of all creation," " Our Lady Mary
is the redemption for sinners," "Have no doubt
whatsoever but that it is she who bringeth you
salvation." The 15th and 16th of Nahasse is
celebrated as the preparation of her body for
burial and as her Ascension. Hanna, her
mother, is also deified. Hanna gave birth to one
daughter (Budge, pp. 173, 178), forgetting that
the Virgin Mary must have had at least one
sister (John xix. 25).

We conclude with an extract from the
Apocryphal History of John the son of Zebedee,
translated from the Syriac (ed. W. Wright, p.
9). John is approaching Ephesus. "And with
terror taking hold on him, he came and reached
the southern gate, and lifted up his eyes and
saw ; and lo, the image of the idol Artemis
was standing over the gate, painted by them
with paints, with gold laid upon her lips, and
a veil of fine linen hanging over her face, and

MASS. THE

[ 397 ]

MASS, THE

a lamp burning before her ... be went round
and saw thus at all the gates." [M. D. G.]
MASS, THE.— A rite whereby it is supposed
that Christ in the integrity of His Person,
human and divine, in or under the form of a
wheaten cake and a cup of wine, is sacrificed
by a priest, as a propitiation of God and in
expiation of sin.

This doctrine was not officially imposed till
the sixteenth century, at the Council of Trent,
but it is a natural consequence from the doc
trine of transubstantiation, sanctioned in the
thirteenth century, and from the unscientific
form of the latter doctrine, known as the
Objective Presence in the elements, held by
some who are unaware of the consequences
involved in it. That the wheaten cake and cup
of wine become Christ on the pronunciation of
a formula by the priest, belongs primarily to
the doctrine of transubstantiation. That after
having been thus brought upon the altar, He
is first offered and then sacrificed by the priest)
is the specific doctrine of the Sacrifice of
the Mass.

The difference between an oblation or offer
ing and a sacrifice of a material thin? to God,
according to the received theory, is this. Both
of them signify that the offerer presents to
God something of his own, declaring that
henceforth it shall be God's, and not his own
any longer, as he gives up his whole interest
in it to God. A sacrifice goes beyond an
oblation in this, that after having divested
himself of the ownership, the offerer proceeds
further to destroy the thing offered, just as
in the Jewish burnt-offering, the victim was
slain and its body consumed by fire on the
altar, or in the peace-offering, it was slain and
eaten by the offerer. As the Mass is not only
an oblation, but a sacrifice, the same Christ
that had been made to descend upon the altar,
had also to be slain. How was this to be
done? The difficulty had not arisen till the
thirteenth century, when transubstantiation
had been sanctioned, but after that time it
had to be met. Gregory of Valentia proposed
the first solution. This was that the conse
cration of the bread substituted for the bread
the body of Christ, but not the blood ; and
the consecration of the wine substituted for
the wine the blood, but not the body of
Christ. But if the body and the blood are
thus separated, there is not the living Christ,
but, Christ slain ; and therefore the sacrifice
might be regarded as complete, because the
Christ present was the slain Christ. This
theory, though contrary to Aquinas' doctrine
of ooncomitancy, served for a while, but
Bellarmine saw that even granting the facts
assumed by the argument, it did not prove
that Christ was slain in and by the sacrifice ;

but unless this took place, there was, accord
ing to the accepted definition, no sacrifice,
though perhaps there was a sacrificed victim.
He therefore rejected the theory and replaced
it by his own, which was, in Dean Field's
words, as follows: "Bellarmine saith that
Christ hath a twofold being ; the one natural,
the other sacramental. The Jews had Him
present amongst them visibly in His natural
being ; this being they destroyed, and so killed
and sacrificed Him. The Romish priests have
Him not so present, neither can they destroy
His natural being and so kill Him ; but they
have Him present in a sacramental presence
and in a sacramental being ; this being they
destroy. For consuming the accidents of
bread and wine which are then left without
substance, and with which He is present, they
make His presence there to cease, and so cause
Him to lose that being which formerly He had
there. Thus do they suppose that they newly
sacrifice Christ and destroy Him in that being
wherein He is present with them. And the
priest's eating is not for refection but for con
sumption, that he may destroy Christ in that
being wherein He is present, as the fire on the
altar was wont to consume and destroy the
bodies of those beasts that were put into it "
(Of the Church, Appendix III.).

Bellarmine's authority is so great that his
theory has been accepted as that of the Roman
Catholic Church, and it is repeated by Liguori,
declared by Pius IX. to be the Doctor or
Teacher of the Latin Church, whose dicta none
may question. " In what," he asks, "consists
the essence of tlie Sacrifice of the Mass ? " Four
opinions, he replies, are tenable. (1) It con
sists in the eating and drinking of the priest,
"because by that takes place the destruction
of the victim." (2) It consists in the oblation
or offering of Christ by the priest. (3) It con
sists in the consecration alone, because in it
the oblation is included, and also "there is a
destruction of the victim, because by force of
the words of consecration the body of Christ
is at the moment separated from the blood,"
and this causes His death. (4) It consists
partly in the consecration, partly in the priest's
eating and drinking, the consecration placing
the victim on the altar, and the priest's eating
and drinking consuming it; "for a true and
real sacrifice requires a true and real destruc
tion of the thing offered, but this does not take
place except by the priest's eating and drinking
by which the sacramental essence of Christ is
destroyed. A sacrifice is not completed with
out a true and real destruction. For the
sacrifice to be effected on the altar, it is
necessary that first thu victim be placed upon
it in its integrity, and tlv.-n that it be des
troyed." Of these four theories Rome's Doctor

MASS, THE

[ 398 ]

MASS, THE

says that the third " is more common than the
first two " and " very probable," but the fourth
is "more probable" still (Theol. Mor., vi. 305).

We cannot wonder at Dean Field, after stating
the authorised Koman doctrine, bursting out
with indignation : "But it is impious to think
of destroying Christ in any sort. . . . And
besides, if it were lawful so to do, yet all that
they do, or can do, is no destroying of His
being, but only of His being somewhere, that is,
in the sacrament. For as, if the things which
were brought to be sacrificed in the time of
the Law, had been only removed out of some
place, or only caused to cease to be ivhere they
were, and not what they were, they could not
truly have been said to be sacrificed ; no more
can it be truly said that Christ is really
sacrificed, in that the priest's consuming the
accidents of bread and wine, under which
they supposed Him to be, make Him cease to
be there any longer " (ibid.).

Nor will Field admit of the oblation of
Christ any more than of His sacrifice : " But,
in this sort, it is not for us to offer Christ unto
God His Fathei-, whatsoever any Papist may
imagine; for it were a woful thing for us so
to give up Christ to His Father as to possess
no claim to Him any more. And, besides, if it
were fit for us so to do, yet who are we that
we should present Christ unto God His Father,
to be holy unto Him ? " (ibid.).

"The real substance, the very flesh and
blood of God Incarnate, it is the most
horrible presumption to think that any, the
most exalted creature, could present to God
with acceptance," says Bishop Jolly. " None
but He who is both God and Man in one
Person, the beloved Son of God, in whom He
is well pleased, could offer it, being Himself
both Priest and sacrifice of infinite merit and
value" (On the JSucharist, c. iii.). "This
blasphemous oblation," says Mede, " we have
taken away, and justly " (Christian Sacrifice).

Not only is there supposed to be in the Mass
an oblation of Christ and a sacrifice of Christ,
but this sacrifice is represented as propitia
tory. This takes it out of the category of
thanksgiving or peace - offerings, sometimes
called Gratulatory, and puts it into the class
of sin-offerings, which ceased with the perfect
sin-offering of the Cross. If there are still
such sin-offerings, the Epistle to the Hebrews
is false, and all St. Paul's teaching on the
subject is false ; God is not reconciled to the
world; His face is still averted; we are still
in our sins j. we are children of wrath ; we are
only saved from destruction by Christ's con
stant warding off His Father's anger from us,
which intervention alone allows Him to be
gracious. This is not the Christian idea of
the relation of sons adopted in Christ to their

Abba Father. It frets against the funda
mental doctrine of Christianity; for "Christ
was once offered," and " there is no more
offering for sin" (Heb. ix. x.), and "we are
no more strangers and foreigners, but of the
household of God " (Eph. ii. 19).

Kitualist manuals are as audacious as usual,
and more than usually ignorant, in dealing with
the Mass, both word and thing. The writer of
the Ritual Reason Why shows that he is aware
of the derivation of the word, and that it
means dismissal of the congregation at the
end of the service, and of non-communicants
before it ; but this does not serve his purpose,
because the dismissal of the non-communi
cants is the last thing to which he wishes
attention drawn, so he boldly asserts that
" the best interpretation derives it from the
Hebrew word Missah, a sacrificial offering,
thus Missah nedaba (Dent. xvi. 10), the tribute
of a free-will offering" (No. 282). But un
fortunately the writer, by mistake, has inter
changed the force and meaning of the two
Hebrew words to which he refers. It is not
Missah, but the other word, which means " free
will offering " (see Lev. xxii. 23). Missah means
no more than "tribute" at the best, and it
may be translated adverbially (see the R.V. )
"after the measure of" (the word taking this
secondary meaning from the fact that tribute,
paid in kind, was measured out). When the
writer has thus affixed a sacrificial force to
the word Mass, he finds a difficulty in the
title "Mass of the Catechumens," because in
it there was no celebration of the Holy Com
munion. He lamely meets the difficulty by
saying that it was " the only sacrificial offering
or act of homage they (the catechumens) were
as yet in a position to pay to God," which
gives up his contention and allows that prayer
may be regarded as a sacrificial offering. The
said writer's knowledge of Latin appears equal
to his acquaintance with Hebrew, for he says
that lie, missa est may be correctly translated,
" Go, the Missa is over." The Congregation in
Church adds to Mr. Walker's misstatement,
saying that the Latin word Missa " is said to
be the same as the Hebrew word Missah, a
sacrifice." Such is the learning of men who
profess to guide the younger clergy. Accord
ing to Mr. Staley's Catholic Religion, Article
XXXI. does not (of course) condemn the Mass
but only ' ' the erroneous idea that it was the
number of Masses which was the source of
benefit to the departed " (p. 252). Mr. Staley
proceeds to tell us that "when the doctrine
of the Eucharistic sacrifice is more perfectly
understood amongst us, the term Mass, from
its very convenience, will probably re-assert
itself." No doubt wherever the tenet of the
Objective Presence of Christ in the elements,

MASSES

[ 399 ]

MATINS

and the consequent offering of Christ upon the
altar prevails, the word Mass in its modern
sense will be found most "convenient." Bishop
Cosin writes : " The word ' Mass ' was used by
the ancients in the Latin Church with quite a
different meaning than that which now pre
vails among the Papists. But the old Latins
used the expression, ' Go, it is Mass,' that is,
'dismissal,' and hence all the sacred acts were
called by the one name Mass, from a single
act, and that the last of all. But the word
Mass, as it is now used by the Papists for a
true and proper sacrifice of Christ offered
every time to God the Father for the living
and the dead, is nowhere found among the
ancients. And for this reason the very word
Mass (in its new, not in its ancient significa
tion) is rejected by the English Church, which
desired to abolish that wrong opinion about
the Sacrifice of the Mass " (Notes on the
Prayer Book). (See The Service of the Mass
in the Greek and Roman Churches, by Rev.
C. H. H. Wright, D.D., Rel. Tract Society.)

[F. M.]

MASSES. — There are various kinds of Masses,
as : —

A Low Mass (Missa Bassa), when a single
priest simply reads the service attended by
one or more acolytes.

A Chanted Mass (Missa Cantata), which differs
from the former only in this, that the single
priest chants instead of reading the service.

A High Mass (Missa Solemnis) is one in
which the celebrant is attended by a deacon,
subdeacon, and master of ceremonies ; the
service is partly sung and partly chanted.

The Mass of the Prcsanetified (Missa Pre-
sanctificatorum) is that celebrated on Good
Friday. No consecration takes place, but the
celebrant consumes the Host consecrated
on the previous day. In the Greek Church
this Mass is the only one celebrated during
Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays.

Mis&a Sicca (Dry Mass), called also Missa
Nautica (Ship Mass), consists in reading the
prayers of the Mass, but without any conse
cration of the elements, or communion. This
was common in the Middle Ages, as several
Popes forbade the use of the cup at sea,
owing to the danger of spilling. It is never
said now except by candidates for the priest
hood in learning the ceremonies of the
Mass.

Requiem Mass, so called because of the
opening words of the Introit: Requiem asternam
dona eis Domine. This Mass is offered on the
day of burial or a month later, when it is
called " Month's Mind." If said for a wealthy
or a distinguished person they erect a chapelle
ardente, with a catafalque on which the coffin
is laid. This catafalque is draped in black,

and the vestments, candlesticks, antependium,
&c., are all of the same colour.

Votive Masses are those which do not corre
spond with the office of the day, but are said
at the will or choice (votum) of the priest.
On all days except Sundays, feasts of double
or more than double rank (and a few special
feasts, specially exempted), a priest may say a
Votive Mass of the Holy Ghost, the Blessed
Virgin, the Trinity, the Angels, SS. Peter and
Paul, for the Dead, &c., instead of the Mass
assigned for the day.

Pontifical Mass is one celebrated by the Pope
or a bishop with his insignia, on certain great
festivals, and with special rites.

Private Mass (Missa Privata) is one said by
the priest chiefly for his own devotion or that
of his friends, and not to satisfy the claims of
a parish, &c. In all private Masses the priest
must have at least one server.

Parochial Mass (Missa Parochialis) is one
publicly offered by priests who have pastoral
charge, for the spiritual and temporal welfare
of their flocks.

Missa Adventitia or Manualis(a chance Mass)
is said for the intention of a person who has
given an honorarium or fee. The honorarium
may mount up to any sum, but the minimum
for Low Masses in Ireland used to be 2s. 6d. a
few years since ; for solemn Requiem Masses
the minimum honorarium was £1 per head of
priests attending. Sometimes in the case of
a wealthy Roman Catholic, besides the three
officiating priests there might be fifty addi
tional in the choir. Each of these receives
£1 from the heir of the deceased. It was
sworn at the hearing of the South Meath
Election Petition (1892) that the minimum fee
for a Low Mass in the diocese of Meath was 5s.
These Masses are said for sick cattle, sick
people, for crops, for success in fishing, for
recovery from illness, &c. &c.

Mass of the Holy Ghost ; this is the Mass to be
found in the Missal for Pentecost Sunday and
within the octave. As it is one of those per
mitted to be used as Votive Masses, and as the
common people have unlimited faith in a
"Mass of the Holy Ghost," it is perhaps the
Mass in most common use. This Mass contains
the hymn, Veni Sancte Spiritus; the Epistle is
from Acts ii. and the Gospel from John xiv.
It is offered for everything, even for butter,
which the fairies prevent from forming in the
churn. [T. C.]

MATINS. — A mediaeval Latin word (matutina)
for morning service. The term is in use in
the Roman Church for one of the " hours " or
daily services of the Breviary (see BREVIARY).
But morning service is not so styled in the
Book of Common Prayer, though the word
still occurs in its Calendar.

MATRIMONY

[ 400 ]

MEDIATOR

MATRIMONY.— See MARRIAGE, THE SEVEN
SACRAMENTS.

MAUNDY THURSDAY.— The day before
Good Friday. The derivation is said to be
from the Latin mandatum, a command, in
reference to the Saviour's command to the
apostles, given at the celebration of the Last
Passover, to wash one another's feet. But it is
preferably derived by Bi.shop Kingdon in his
Fasting Communion, from maundy, "a feast,"
i.e. Feast Thursday, from the feast in honour of
the Last Supper, which was long retained in
the early Church. The maundy was, in fact, a
survival of the original use of the Lord's
Supper. The ceremony of the feet-washing
was kept up for many ages, and traces of it
still remain.

MEANS OF GRACE.— See GRACE, MEANS
OF.

MEDIATOR.— The word mediator means liter
ally one who is in the midst, but in actual use
it is applied only to one who comes between
two persons or parties standing apart from
each other, in order that he may bring them
together. The work of mediation is especially
of two kinds. It may be simply a work of
revelation and interpretation, with a view to
a better understanding ; but when grounds
of offence exist between the two parties, a
work of reconciliation becomes necessary. In
religion, the mediator is a mediator between
God and man, and his work is of both the
kinds that have just been described, i.e. he
may be a revealer and interpreter, or an
intercessor and reconciler. The one kind of
mediation has been called the descending
mediation, and the other the ascending medi
ation — the prophet being the characteristic
type of the first, and the priest of the second.
The Old Testament abounds with examples
of both kinds of mediation. The Hebrew
prophets, by their inspired teaching, com
municated the divine truth and will to the
nation ; while the priests represented an
ascending mediation of sacrifice and inter
cession, which the guilt of the people rendered
necessary in order to reconciliation with God.
The New Testament teaching on the subject
of mediation all gathers around the person
and work of Jesus Christ. As to the person
of the Mediator, He is no merely human
prophet or priest, fallible and sinful, but the
God-Man, a truly efficient intermediary, per
fectly qualified by His twofold nature to act
and speak on behalf of God to man, and on
behalf of man to God (c/. 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; John i.
18; xiv. 9; Heb. i. 2; ii. 17; ix. 14, 15). The
mediatorial work of Christ, again, falls into the
two main parts which have been already de
scribed as belonging to the general idea of
mediation ; it is at once prophetic and priestly,

a mediation both in the descending and ascend
ing order. It has long been customary in
Protestant theology to distribute the media
torial work of Christ under the categories of
the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.
But most modern theologians now incline to
employ this traditional classification only in a
modified way, and to recognise that we should
think in this matter not so much of different
offices as of different functions of the one
indivisible office of the Mediator, and, further,
that we should regard those functions, while
distinguishable in the abstract, as interpene
trating one another at every point. We must
not divide Christ into His offices, and then
rigidly distribute among them the various
aspects of His doing and His dying. It seems
better, having recognised in the person of the
God-Man the founder and ruler of the kingdom
of God, to regard His divine-human kingship
as the foundation of everything, and then to
recognise that from one point of view Christ's
kingship becomes a royal prophetship, a de
scending mediation, inasmuch as He represents
God to man, while from another point of view
it becomes a royal priesthood, an ascending
mediation, inasmuch as He appears before God
on behalf of guilty man.

As Mediator, Christ displayed the prophetic
side of His work not in His teaching only, but
in His whole human history. His words were
a revelation of divine truth ; but the same
thing has to be said of His spotless character,
His life of unselfish beneficence, His death
and resurrection and ascension. The words
He spoke were words of eternal life ; but His
whole manifestation was prophetic of God,
and it is to that whole manifestation that the
saying must be applied, " He that hath seen
Me hath seen the Father."

But it is in its priestly aspects more par
ticularly that the mediatorial work of Christ
is presented to us in the New Testament. For
that work is always based on the ground of a
moral separation between God and man, a
separation due not to ignorance merely, but to
sin and guilt, a separation which can only be
overcome by a work of intercession and recon
ciliation depending upon an actual work of
propitiation. This priestly side of Christ's
mediation is seen in His intercessory prayers
on earth and in His great work of intercession
in heaven, but primarily it is seen in the
propitiatory sacrifice of His death. On this
point the New Testament leaves little room for
uncertainty. It teaches with perfect clearness
and constant reiteration that Christ died for
us — that He died as a propitiatory sacrifice for
our sins. The attempt is often made to set
propitiation in antithesis to love, as if the
revelation of the divine love made by the pro-

MEDIATOR

[ 401 ]

MELCHITES

phetic Christ rendered quite unnecessary any
work of positive propitiation on the part of
the priestly Christ. But the New Testament
writers, at all events, are unconscious of any
contradiction between the propitiatory sacrifice
of Christ and the fatherly love of God. On
the contrary, they set before us the death of
Christ and the propitiation accomplished by
that death as forming the very heart of the
divine love itself — as that by which God com
mends His own love toward us (Rom. v. 8),
and that which enables us to say, whenever
we think of it, "Herein is love" (1 John iv.
10).

On the subject of the mediatorial work of
Christ there is little essential difference be
tween the general doctrine of Protestants and
Romanists. But the Church of Rome repre
sents our Lord's work as inadequate in itself
for the purposes of mediation, and so introduces
a secondary order of mediators — the Roman
priesthood on earth, and angels, saints, and,
above all, the Virgin Mary, in heaven.

1. The priest is represented as a mediator :
(a) in being the only authorised and the indis
pensable link between the Church and the in
dividual, outside of which there is no salvation ;
(6) through his power to offer a propitiation
for all venial sins in the sacrifice of the mass :
(c) through the right he has, as an effectual
intercessor, to pronounce authoritative ab
solution on hearing confession of sins. But
these representations evidently rest upon false
ideas of Church, priesthood, sacraments, and
sacrifice. And, in particular: (a) the Church
is not an external ark of salvation, but the
community of those who are united to one
another in virtue of a prior union with Christ
Himself ; (b) there is no propitiatory power in
the so-called sacrifice of the mass, Christ
having offered up one sacrifice for sins for
ever ; (c) none can forgive sins but God only,
and a priest has no more intercessory power
than belongs to another believer.

2. The doctrine of the intercession of angels
and saints is one that finds no foundation in
Scripture. If angels sometimes appear in the
Old Testament as mediators, it is always in
the descending line ; they come with revela
tions from above, at a time when the full and
final revelation has not yet been given, but
they do not intercede with God on man's
behalf. The idea of the intercession of saints
rests on the altogether groundless notion that
holy men and women are able not only to
acquire a degree of merit sufficient for their
own salvation, but such a superfluity of merit
that it can be utilised as a means of securing
pardon or deliverance for others. As for the
Virgin Mary, the special efficacy attributed to
her mediation and intercession depends upon

views as to her nature and dignity, of which
the Bible has nothing to tell us. Moreover,
the whole conception of the necessity of saintly
mediation springs out of defective conceptions
of the work of Christ Himself, whose merit is
sufficient for all our wants, and who, as our
Brother and sympathising High Priest, invites
us in the hour of need to come boldly in His
name unto the throne of grace. [J. C. L.]
MELCHITES.— The name Melcbite (from
"pO, a king — the Syriac uses the same word
for Emperor), Royalist or Imperialist, was given
by the Monophysites to those who accepted
the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), implying
that they did so out of subservience to the
Emperor. Their opponents were, in Persia,
the Nestorians ; in Syria, the Jacobites ; in
Egypt, the Copts (see articles). The term is
used by their own writers, and is the name
by which the orthodox Greek Church is
mentioned by mediaeval Arabic writers. The
name, though at first bringing with it the
favour of various Emperors, later entailed
political disadvantages. At the Saracen con
quest of Egypt (640), Melchites were treated
as enemies, as being more loyal to the Emperor
than the Mouophysites, who had suffered so
much persecution that they were not loth to
change masters ; moreover, the Melchites were
mostly Greek. Hitherto there had been rival
Patriarchs at Alexandria, the Orthodox Patri
archs usually obtaining consecration from
Constantinople ; now, for seventy years (654-
724), there was a break in the succession, then
the Melchites were partially re-established in
Egypt — at present they are very few. Under
Mohammedan rule elsewhere, also, Jacobites
and Nestorians could arouse the jealousy of
rulers against adherents of the Byzantine
Emperors, e.g. the Melchite Patriarchate in
Mesopotamia was extinguished by the Khalifs
who favoured Nestorians.

Graeco-Melchites, i.e. Greeks in Syria and
Egypt, have been in communion with the
Roman Church since the time of the Crusades ;
the term was first used with this meaning
temp. Innocent III. They have gradually
been brought into strict subjection. Their
Patriarch (Patriarchus Antiochenus Melchi-
tarum), though elected by archbishops and
bishops in Council, must be confirmed by the
Propaganda, must take an oath of allegiance,
and must render account to Rome every ten
years. Under him are two other Patriarchs,
of Alexandria and of Jerusalem, and twelve
dioceses — Aleppo, Horns, Tyre, Sidon, Bey-
rout, Bosra, Baalbek, Farzul, Jerusalem, the
Hauran, Ptolemais, Tripoli. His own diocese
of Damascus is administered by a vicar-
bishop ; his residence is at 'Ain Taraz on the
Lebanon. There also is a seminary erected

2c

MEMENTO

[ 402 ] MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL

by the decision of a papal Synod held in
1812 ; a few students are sent to the College
of the Propaganda. Western theology reaches
them through Arabic translations printed at
Jerusalem. The number of the Patriarch's
subjects is estimated at 114,000, the number
of priests at 330; these need not put away
wives on ordination, but practically are usually
monks. Nineteen monasteries and three con
vents follow the rule of St. Basil. Liturgy
— the Greek rite, differing in no essential
from Rome. Fasts — till evening, Lent, the
Fast of the Apostles, from Monday after
Trinity till SS. Peter and Paul, the fourteen
days preceding the Assumption of the B.V.M.
(August 1-14), fourteen days before Christmas;
these are called the Four Lents.

Authorities. — Gibbon's Decline and Fall,
Neale, Hist, of Church of Alexandria : Hergen-
rother, quoted in Weker and Welter's Kirchen
Lexikon.

MEMENTO. — A technical term in use in the
Roman Church for the remembrance of the
living or the dead made in the Mass. The
word, meaning " Remember," is the first word
of a Latin prayer in the Canon of the Mass.

MENTAL RESERVATION.— See MORAL
THEOLOGY, JESUITS.

MERIT.— See GRACE.

METHODISM. — See WESLEYAN METHODISM.

METROPOLITAN.— A Metropolitan, who is
always a bishop, but generally an archbishop,
is the bishop who presides over the churches
of the principal city of the province. In
England there are two Metropolitans, the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York. By law
they have certain jurisdiction over the bishops
of their province, and power to suspend and
deprive them for proper causes (see Ex partc
Read, 13 P.D. 221 [decision of the Privy
Council], Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, 14 P.D.
88 ; Bishop of St. David's Case, 1 Lord Raym.
447). For this reason bishops take an oath
of due obedience to the archbishop of their
province, the form of which is contained in
the Ordinal for the consecration of bishops.
This jurisdiction is recognised by the 33rd,
35th, and 36th Canons. The archbishops can
also hear appeals from refusals of licences
to curates (Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury,
1 El. & El. 545), refusals of licence for non-
residence, and a number of other matters. The
archbishop of each province calls Convocation
together on receipt of the royal writ.

Colonial archbishops have, as such, no ecclesi
astical jurisdiction over their suffragan bishops,
unless such jurisdiction is given them by law.
The Crown, by letters patent, can give no such
authority, for it is a settled constitutional
principle that though the Crown may estab
lish new courts to proceed according to the

common law, it cannot create a new Court
with a new jurisdiction without an Act of
Parliament. Pastoral or spiritual authority
may be incidental to the office of a bishop, but
all jurisdiction in the Church, where it can
be lawfully conferred, must proceed from the
Crown, and be exercised as the law directs ;
and suspension or privation of office is a matter
of coercive legal jurisdiction, and not of mere
spiritual authority. (In re the Lord Bishop of
Natal, 3 Moore P.C.N.S.). Therefore, when a
bishopric is created, either in England or in a
Crown colony, an Act must be passed in order
to fix his legal jurisdiction and status. In a
self-governing colony such an Act would have
to be passed by the Colonial legislature.

[E. B. W.]

MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL. — The
phrase "Mi chael the archanel " occurs only
in Jude 9. The word "archangel" without
the article occurs elsewhere in one other
passage (1 Thess. iv. 16), and is never used in
the Septuagint. Michael, as Hengstenberg
and many theologians maintain, is best ex
plained as a personification of Christ. That
view, however, has been strongly opposed,
and is supposed by some to be contrary to
Rev. xii. 7-9. Michael is described as "the
great prince of Israel " in Dan. x. 21 ; xii. 1,
and termed "one of the chief princes" (Dan.
x. 13). But those passages are not opposed to
the idea that " Michael your prince " is the
same as Messiah the leader of Israel, "the
prince of princes " (Dan. viii. 25). Messiah
and Michael are in Daniel never mentioned
together. Michael assumes the place and
discharges the work of Messiah, and therefore
may be an angelic personification of Him. His
people are also Messiah's people. The inter
ceding angel (Zech. i. 12) who stood up for
Israel is identified by Zechariah with Jehovah
(Zech. iii. 1, 2), as was the captain of the army
of Israel who manifested himself to Joshua
(Josh. v. 13-15), and as his superior commander,
gave Joshua directions how to take Jericho
(Josh. vi. 2 /.). In the allegory of Rev. xii.,
Messiah is represented as an infant just born.
It would, therefore, have been incongruous to
represent the babe as growing up in a moment,
and leading on the army of heaven in conflict.
Hence a new personification had to be em
ployed, and Michael is brought on the scene
as the leader of the army of angels (Rev. xii.
7), which angels are explained in the same
passages as in reality men (see Rev. xii. 11). The
war of Michael and the dragon in Rev. xii. is
identical with the struggle of Michael in Dan.
xii. See our Biblical Essays (on " The Key to
the Apocalypse "), and on the passage in Jude
9, the Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, pp. 53-60.

[C. H. H. W.]

MINISTER

[ 403 ]

MINISTRY, THE

MINISTER.— The idea underlying this word
seems to be that of personal service, especially
of an official kind in the public worship of
God, in which it corresponds most nearly to
the Greek Xeiroi>/ry6s (leitourgos). See Trench's
New Testament Synonyms. Before the Reforma
tion it had come to be the designation of the
servers at mass, as is seen in the York and Here
ford missals. At the Reformation, the title
" minister " came to designate the Reformed
clergy as distinguished from the mass-priests.
Thus the Marian Convocation denounced " the
schismatical book called ' the Communion
book,' and the book of the ordering of ecclesi
astical ministers " (i.e. the Prayer Book and
Ordinal), both of which they ordered to be
burned (Cardwell, Synodalia, ii. 434). Bishop
Christopherson, preaching before Mary on
July 24, 1554, said, " Then was the holy order
of priesthood utterly disannulled, so that the
name of priest should no longer be used, but
such as should preach and minister the sacraments
should be called ministers." Archbishop
Parker expressed this by saying, "Minister
ecclesiae non est sacerdos sacrificans, nee
umbra Christi : uti potest ritibus non mystice
significantibus, sed suo ministerio aptis "
(Strype's Parker, i. 335). In^this generic sense
the word " minister " included all the three
orders, as in the Reformatio Legum (De Sacra-
mentis, c. 6) we read, "Ministers of the Church
— such as be [quales tunf] deacons, presbyters,
and bishops." As if to emphasize the contrast
between the " sacrificer " and the Protestant
clergyman, the word " minister " was com
monly used for the priest as distinguished from
the deacon, as in the Act of 13 Eliz. c. 12, sec.
5, and in Canons 31, 32, 76, forbidding any one
to be " made deacon and minister in one day,"
&c. In the suit of Read v. Bishop King it was
held that a bishop is a minister within the
meaning of the Act of Uniformity, and, as
such, is bound by the rubrics like any other
minister. [J. T. T.]

MINISTRY, THE.— The rise and development
of the Christian ministry was, without doubt,
gradual. Although the Roman Church in
cludes " Orders " among her seven sacraments,
no mention of any express appointment by
Christ of any of the three orders of the
ministry is found in the New Testament. The
Preface to the Ordinal of the Church of
England says, "It is evident unto all men,
diligently reading the Holy Scripture and
ancient authors, that from the apostles' time
there have been these Orders of Ministers
in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and
deacons." In proof of this we find: (1) Our
Lord before His Ascension gave His apostles
a general commission to carry on His work
(John xx. 21). (2) When the apostles proved

unable to cope with all the work of the
increasing Church, "seven men of honest
report " were appointed to relieve the Twelve
of secular duties (Acts vi. 2-6), which gradually
led to the appointment of an Order of Deacons
(see DEACONS). (3) A settled ministry, pro
bably similar to that of Jerusalem, was estab
lished at Lystra, Derbe, Antioch, and Iconium.
Paul and Barnabas " ordained them elders in
every church " (Acts xiv. 23). Amongst those
elders, or presbyters, was Timothy (see 1 Tim.
iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6). (4) A considerable number
of offices existed in the Church in apostolic
times. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, St. Paul mentions no
less than eight classes of ministerial helpers,
while in Eph. iv. 11, four or five are mentioned.
(5) Elders or presbyters are called " overseers "
or " bishops " (Acts xx. 17, 28 ; Titus i. 5, 7).
This is implied also in Phil. i. 1, where " bishops
and deacons " are spoken of. The same classi
fication is observable in two documents of
the second century, viz. Clement's letter to
the Corinthians (§ 42), and the Didachd or
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (§ 15). (6) In
dications exist, even in the New Testament, of
something like the establishment of the epis
copate by the apostles. St. Paul devolved
upon Titus and Timothy certain functions
which had been discharged by the apostles.
"For this cause," St. Paul writes to Titus,
"left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain
elders in every city, as I had appointed thee "
(Titus i. 5). Such delegation of authority has
often occurred in all mission work, even that
of the Presbyterian and Congregationalist
Churches.

The date of the first mention of the Orders
of the Ministry in Church History occurs in
the Didacht, A.D. 120. In the letters of Igna
tius, Bishop of Antioch, and martyr, the three
Orders are fully recognised.

Such appears to have been the origin and
development of the ministry. There is not a
trace in the New Testament of its sacerdotal
character. The Epistle to the Hebrews, which
of all the writings of the New Testament deals
most fully with the subject of priests and the
priesthood, is to show that the sacrificial priest
hood of Judaism is for ever abolished.

The word for sacrificing priest (tepei/y) is
the one descriptive title which is never given
to the Christian ministers or presbyters, al
though some ten other names are made use of,
such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors,
teachers, ministers, overseers, presbyters,
deacons, and stewards. The word for sacri
ficing priests is used in the New Testament,
but, when not used for Jewish priests, is
applied to all Christians. St. Peter twice calls
Christians as a whole "a [sacrificial] priest-

MINORITES

MIRACLES

hood," and adds that the only "sacrifices"
offered are "spiritual sacrifices" and "the
praises of God" (1 Peter ii. 5, 9).

The earliest Fathers of the Primitive Church
rejected the idea that Christian ministers were
sacrificing priests. The sacrificial idea origi
nated mainly with Cyprian (A.D. 248-258), one
of the least learned and least authoritative of
the Fathers, and whose knowledge of Scripture
was incomplete, and his interpretations often
erroneous.

The word "priest" occurs in the Prayer
Book of the Church of England, but always
used to signify " presbyter " (elder), and not
in any other sense. Romanists, however, argue
that since St. Paul uses the word "minister
ing the Gospel of God " (Ifpovpyovvra), which is
sometimes used for " ministering in sacrifice,"
the apostle must have been a " priest." The
sacrifice, however, there spoken of was " the
offering up of the Gentiles," that is, a sym
bolical offering up of the Gentiles converted
to God, and, therefore, the passage does not
help the Roman argument.

The minister of Christ may have many
duties to perform, such as the leading of the
worship of God, the administration of the sacra
ments, the instruction of the young, the
pastoral care of the sick and the dying, &c. ,
but his most important duty is the public
preaching of the Word, for the conversion of
sinners and the building up of believers "in
their most holy faith." The Lord Jesus in His
own ministry was beyond and above all else a
preacher, and the same is true with regard to
His apostles and disciples. The last command
which they received from their Master before
His Ascension was to preach the Gospel to
every creature (Mark xvi. 15). St. Paul ex
horted Timothy to " preach the Word " (2 Tim.
iv. 2). Preaching is the first thing which the
Church of England commissions her ministers
to do. The bishop says to every priest at his
ordination, " Take thou authority to preach
the Word of God." In comparison with
preaching, sacraments are seldom referred to
in the New Testament. St. Paul's Pastoral
Epistles to Timothy and Titus do not contain
a word on that subject. [M. E. W. J.]

MINORITES.— See FEANCISCANS.
MIRACLES.— There are three words used by
the New Testament writers for miracles, viz.
(1) "powers" (dwdfj.fis), which draws attention
to the mighty influence sufficient to effect
them, the omnipotence of God ; (2) "prodigies,"
"portents," or "wonders " (rtpara), which in
dicates the strange nature of the phenomena ;
and (3) "signs" (o-ij/ieta), used by St. John,
which implies that God, by means of the
miracle, attests the mission and doctrine of
those who teach in His name. The miracles

of the Old Testament were evidential of the
Theocratic Government, those of the New
Testament were evidential both of the true
origin of Christ, and of the existence of the
New Dispensation inaugurated by Christ and
maintained by His apostles and disciples.
Miraculous gifts were generally conferred by
the laying on of the apostles' hands. Miracles
did not long continue in the Church after the
apostolic times. The Roman Church main
tains, however, that ecclesiastical miracles
have been continued. The passage generally
appealed to in support of that contention is
Mark xvi. 17, 18. But the words that follow
ought to be noticed : " And they went forth
and preached everywhere, the Lord work
ing with them, and confirming the word ivith
the accompanying signs." Romanists assert,
"Miracles are as possible now as they were
eighteen centuries ago." The question, how
ever, is not as to the possibility of miracles,
but as to whether God has seen fit to con
tinue them in the economy of the Gospel
Kingdom since apostolic times. Romanists
argue that miracles may be continued be
cause heathen nations have yet to be con
verted. Roman miracles are always wrought
amongst enthusiastic believers, and so far as
they affect others, tend to produce more un
belief than faith. Heathen have been, however,
converted by the instrumentality of Protestant
missions without the assistance of miracles.
The so-called "ecclesiastical miracles" are
adduced to support not so much Bible truth
as papal corruptions. In the time of Gregory
the Great, when the Pope first began to be
installed, stories of miracles of all kinds were
multiplied, and since then the stories have
been circulated in support of the worship of
relics and images, invocation of the saints,
prayers for the dead, purgatory, &c. "Eccle
siastical miracles " closely resemble in char
acter legendary tales, e.g. articles which
touched the stole of St. Hubert are said to
have preserved from insanity and hydrophobia
(Bertrand, Pelerinage de St. Hubert en Ardennes,
pp. 195-198). Students who had dipped their
pens in the fountain at Lourdes, all passed
a competitive examination, and several with
honours (Miracles de N. D. de Lourdes, p.
85). The cases of illness alleged to have
been cured by means of the water of Lourdes
have been chiefly ailments of a nervous or
hysterical character, or such as might have
been produced by natural causes. Apparent
miraculous performances are one of the marks
of the Apocalyptic Beast (Rev. xiii. 14 ; xvi. 14),
and our Lord Himself uttered a distinct warn
ing against looking for miracles (Matt. xvi. 4 ;
John iv. 48), and against the pretended assump
tion of miraculous power (Matt. xxiv. 24).

MISSA AND MISS.E

[ 405 ]

MISSIONS, GENERAL

MISSA AND MISSJE.— An attempt has been
made to try to make out that the XXXIst
Article of the Church of England does not
condemn the doctrine of the mass as formally
adopted in the Council of Trent, but only some
private doctrines of individual Romish theo
logians. In defence of that view, attention
has been drawn to the expression in the plural
"the Sacrifices of Masses" (not "the Sacri
fice of the Mass " ) used in Article XXXI.
It is important, therefore, to observe that in
the Canons of the Council of Trent missa
(singular) and misses (plural) are used almost
in the same sense. See session xxii. cap. ii.
canons v. and vii. Moreover, in the Vindica
tion of the Bull Apostolicce Qurce, a letter on
Anglican Orders, by the Cardinal Archbishop
and Bishops of the Province of Westminster
(Longmans, 1898), we read :

" Article XXXI. pronounces on the Mass. It
first describes it by a definition which every
Catholic would accept, ' the Sacrifices of
Masses, in the which it was commonly said,
that the priest did offer Christ for the quick
and the dead,' and then denounces it — it, so
described — as incompatible with the offering
of Christ once made on the cross. And Article
XXXV. calls the doctrine of the Homilies
'godly and wholesome,' whereas Homily XV.
of Book II. bids us to ' take heed lest of the
memory the Lord's Supper be made a sacrifice,'
and says, ' we need no sacrificing priest, no
mass.' "

Newman's argument in the XCth Tract for
the Times was afterwards withdrawn by him.
It was, however, derived by Newman from
Sancta Clara's exposition put forth in 1646, in
which, for obvious reasons, that Romish divine
(Dr. Christopher Davenant) strove to show that
the XXXIX. Articles were not absolutely con
demnatory of the Church of Rome. On this
question Dimock's book " Missarum Sacrificia.
Testimonies of English Divines in Respect of the
Claim of the Massing -Priests, to offer Christ for
the quick and the dead for remission of sins,"
London : E. Stock, 1896, may be consulted
with advantage.

MISSAIi. — The book containing the services of
the Mass used by the Romish Church. The
term appears to have been first used by Egbert
of York, A.D. 732, for the Liber Sacramentorum.
In the Middle Ages, the several parts of divine
service were arranged in distinct books. Thus
the collects and the invariable portion of the
Communion Office formed the book called the
Sacramentary. The lessons from the Old and
New Testaments constituted the Lectionary,
and the Gospels made another volume, with
the title of Evangelistarium. The Antiplionary
consisted of anthems, &c., designed for chant
ing. About the eleventh or twelfth century it

was found convenient, generally, to unite these
books, and the volume obtained the name of
the Complete or Plenary Missal, or Book of
Missae, or Masses. Of this description were
almost all the liturgical books of the Western
Churches. We do not read of the Missalia
Pleuaria before the ninth century. The Gela-
sian Sacramentary, as well as the Leonian, re
sembled the Gregorian in consisting of prayers
and prefaces only. The lessons and antiphons
were probably distinct books for a century after
the time of Alcuin. The later Missal contains
the lessons, antiphons, the canon , proper prayers ,
collects, and prefaces to be used at the adminis
tration of Holy Communion throughout the
year. The later Missal was simplified and
purified by the Reformers of the English
Church, after the model of the primitive
Church, alike in its Rubrics, ritual directions,
and in its Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for
the various seasons of the Ecclesiastical year.
The more important changes were in the ad
ministration of the Lord's Supper in the
English language, the adoration, elevation, &c.,
of "the host" being eliminated, the exclusion
of prayers to saints and angels, and prayers
for the dead ; the observance with Collects,
Epistles, and Gospels of the great Festivals
and Fasts of the Church, such as the Nativity,
Crucifixion, &c., and of the Saints of the New
Testament, to the exclusion of all others.

[T. H. L. L.].
MISSIONS, GENERAL.—

1. The Purpose of Missions. — It is important
not to confuse the purpose of missions with
the effects of missions. Missions have done
much to promote geographical knowledge,
linguistic science, commercial enterprise,
social improvement, educational progress,
civilisation generally. But these are not the
aim and purpose of missions.

Expressed in one word, it is evangelisation —
the preaching of the Gospel — the making Chritt
known to the world.

In one sense it may be said that the aim of
missions is the true conversion of every man,
woman, and child to Christ. But (1) we must
distinguish between evangelisation and con
version. Evangelisation is man's work; con
version is God's work. (2) The true conversion
of all mankind is not promised for the present
dispensation. Christ's Second Coming is to
be to an unconverted world ; although, if that
Coming is long delayed, it may be to an out
wardly Christianised world.

2. The Motive of Missions. — The true motive
of missions is loyalty to Christ. Even if there
were no express command, every true Christian
would desire the extension of Christ's king
dom. But there is an express command,
and one which occupies a place in the Gospels

MISSIONS, GENERAL

[ 406 ]

MISSIONS, GENERAL

which is unique. No doubt He gave His
apostles many instructions during the Forty
Days between the Resurrection and the Ascen
sion, but these are not recorded for the benefit
of us in later ages. One only is recorded ; re
corded in different words by the evangelists,
words probably spoken on diiferent occasions.

In St. Matthew: "Go ye ... and make
disciples of all nations," &c., xxviii. 19, 20.

In St. Mark : " Go ye into all the world,
and preach the Gospel to the whole creation,"
xvi. 15. (The textual question here obviously
does not affect the case.)

In St. Luke : " Repentance and remission
of sins should be preached in His Name unto
all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem,"
xxiv. 47.

In St. John : " As the Father hath sent Me,
even so send I you," xx. 21.

In the Acts: "Ye shall be My witnesses
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth," i. 8.

Apparently this last text contains the last
words of Christ on earth, for the very next
verse says, "And when He had said these
things, as they were looking, He was taken up."

And this command is not an arbitrary one,
the ground of which is not evident. It is
supported by common sense. If it be a fact
that a divine Person came into the world to
bless mankind, it is obvious that all men ought
to know it. This is the plainest common sense ;
and the whole question is one of fact. Did
such an astonishing thing happen ? We may
leave out all questions of dogmatic theology.
We need not ask who this Person really was,
or exactly what He did, or what is the blessing
He came to give. Let the bare fact be ad
mitted, and the claim, the right, of every
living man, woman, and child to be told of
such a fact becomes indisputable. And the
fact that a man is virtuous, even if it be thought
to lessen his need, in no way lessens his claim.

Hence we see the point of our Lord's words
in Luke xxiv. 46, 47, " That the Christ should
suffer, and rise again from the dead the third
day, and that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in His name unto all
the nations." Three essential things : (1) His
Death ; (2) His Resurrection ; (3) Missions.
Which is according to common sense ; for
what was the good of Christ dying and rising
again, if men were not told of it ?

3. The Need of Missions. — The duty of mis
sionary enterprise does not rest upon the need
of it. It is the solemn duty of the Church
prior to all inquiry as to whether heathen
dom needs Christianity or not. Nevertheless,
heathendom does need Christianity. It is
urged that the sins and sufferings and miseries

of mankind in heathen lands are sufficiently
dealt with by the non- Christian religions.
To prove that this is not the case it is not
necessary to look at their worst side ; nor
would it be fair to do so. Let every religion
be taken at its best.

(a) As regards sin, it is true that many ex
cellent precepts and exhortations to virtue may
be found in the " sacred books" of Buddhism,
Hinduism, Confucianism, Mohammedanism, &c.
Confucius told men to obey their parents ;
Mohammed told them to abstain from intoxi
cating drink. But all these systems lack two
things. First, they reveal no power by which
their good precepts may be obeyed. Secondly,
they reveal no remedy in the case of dis
obedience. But these two things are the very
blessings which are the essence of Christianity.
Christianity reveals a Saviour for the dis
obedient, and a Sanctifier who can make them
obedient. The Gospel or good tidings which
we proclaim to the world is that these two
paramount needs are supplied.

(6) As regards suffering, the utmost that can
be said for non-Christian religions is that
Buddhism and Mohammedanism direct alms
giving. It is Christendom alone that has cared
for the sick, the aged, the orphan, the imbecile,
the insane ; that has built hospitals, and in
firmaries, and asylums, and orphanages. True,
non-Christians have here and there followed
this example, but they never set it, nor thought
of it. The fruits of Christianity may be imi
tated, but Christianity alone is the tree that
produces them.

So far, every candid man must acknowledge
that the non-Christian world needs Christianity.
But the Christian goes further. He believes
that Christianity is indispensable. He seeks not
to pry into " the secret things that belong unto
the Lord our God." He condemns no man,
least of all the man or woman or child who,
owing to the guilty neglect of the Church, has
never heard of Christ. But he bows his head
before the solemn words of his divine Master,
" No man cometh unto the Father but by Me,"
and of his Master's foremost disciple, " There
is none other Name under heaven given among
men whereby we must be saved;" he knows
they are true, and on that knowledge he acts.

4. The Methods of Missions. — They may be
conveniently grouped in two great divisions,
the Evangelistic and the Pastoral; in other
words, the work of evangelising the non-
Christian peoples and the work of instructing
and guiding the converts. These two groups
find striking illustration in the concluding
chapter of St. John's Gospel, in which we find
the work of the Church of Christ pictured
(1) as fishing, "Cast the net;" (2) as shep
herding, " Feed My sheep."

MISSIONS, GENERAL

[ 407 ]

MISSIONS, GENERAL

(1) Evangelistic work includes: (a) Simple
preaching or teaching in mission chapels or
hails, in streets and bazaars, in the Chinese
house-boat, or the Japanese inn, or the Persian
caravanserai, or the Eskimo snow-hut, or the
African palm grove, (b) Discussions and con
versations with individuals, especially in Mos
lem lands, (c) Educational missions: schools
and colleges for non-Christian boys and youths,
providing education of various grades, with
daily Bible lessons, and the constant personal
influence of the missionary teacher, (d) Medi
cal missions, giving at once healing for the
body and the soul, specially useful in Moham
medan countries where open preaching is not
possible, (e) Industrial missions among bar
barous tribes. (/) Linguistic work and the
mission press: preparation of grammars and
dictionaries, translations of the Bible, produc
tion of simple tracts and the like, (g) Women's
work in all its varieties, zenana visiting, village
itineration, girls' schools, women's hospitals,
and dispensaries.

(2) Pastoral work is work among the native
Christian population, including provision for
divine worship, translation of the Prayer Book,
preparation of vernacular Christian litera
ture, native hymnody ; instruction for bap
tism, confirmation, Holy Communion ; ordinary
pastoral sermons; Bible-classes and Sunday
Schools ; schools for the children of Christian
parents ; Normal schools for the training of
native schoolmasters; classes, schools, and
colleges for the training of native catechists,
Bible-women, evangelists, and pastors ; in
dustrial missions of another kind, viz. , provision
of industries for converts turned out of their
own trading circles, or for boys and girls on
leaving school ; promotion of native Church
life and organisation, with a view to the con
verts supporting their own churches and pas
tors, administering their local Church affairs,
and engaging in missionary work among the
heathen around. " Diversities of operations'
indeed; may it ever be "the same God who
worketh all in all " 1

5. The Support of Missions.— This word " sup
port " naturally suggests money for the mainte
nance of the missions. But it includes a great
deal more than that. The Church ought, in
deed, to regard the provision of ample funds
for the prosecution of its great campaign as £
matter of course, as its most elementary duty
But it should give much more than subscrip
tions and collections. It should give keen and
eager interest, unfailing sympathy, intelligen
and fervent prayer. Home work for Foreign
missions, therefore, comprises (1) The diffusion
of a missionary spirit. For this purpose th<
influence of the clergy and ministers by mean
of sermons, &c., is the most important agency

If this duty were properly done there would
be less need for " deputations." (2) The giving
of information, by means of missionary books
and periodicals, missionary libraries and ex
hibitions, missionary unions and bands for
men, women, and children, and meetings of
all kinds. (3) The collection of funds, by
church collections, annual or monthly or weekly
subscriptions, donations, legacies, missionary
boxes, sales of work, &c. (4) Prayer, definite,
intelligent, fervent, persevering.

6. Missions before the Reformation. — Accord
ing to Bishop Lightfoot, the Christians two
centuries after Christ were probably one-
twentieth of the subjects of the Koman Empire,
and one hundred and fiftieth of the whole
human race. That they were mainly confined
to the towns is evident from the curious fact
that the word pagani (villagers) became a
synonym for non-Christians, and is preserved
to us in our familiar " pagans." Nevertheless,
Christianity triumphed externally when Con-
stantine, in A.D. 312, established the new re
ligion upon the ruins of the old. And it is
a great fact that there is not now a single
nation, perhaps not a single individual, on the
face of the earth worshipping the gods of
Greece and Rome. The work was completed
by the Northern Barbarians who overthrew the
Empire. Gradually themselves enlisting under
the banner of the Cross, they used the sword
to propagate the religion of the Prince of Peace.
The truest missionaries of the Dark Ages
belonged to the British Isles. Scotland sent
Patrick to Ireland ; Ireland sent Columba to
Scotland; and from the little island of lona
noble men spread themselves over Europe.
Aidan evangelised northern England; while
southern England, where there had been a
British Church prior to the Saxon invasion,
received the Gospel from Augustine the monk,
sent by Gregory of Rome. The Anglo-
Roman Church in its turn, by the agency of
Boniface and others, evangelised Germany,
but at the same time brought it under papal
rule. Under Charlemagne the sword was
again drawn to enforce Christianity, despite
the protests of Alcuin, who had imbibed the
purer teaching of Northumbria. Anschar was
the evangelist of Denmark and Sweden ; Cyril
and Methodius, of the Slavs; Adalbert, of
Bohemia and Prussia. The baptism of Vladimir
established Christianity in Russia, as that of
Clovis had in France. But when the thousandth
year of the Christian era arrived, and the panic-
stricken cry arose that the end of the world
was at hand, Christendom was, in respect of
spiritual tone and practical morality, at the
lowest point it has ever touched. No wonder
the Church had forgotten its Lord's command.
Not only had it failed to evangelise the world,

MISSIONS, PEOTESTANT

408 ]

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

but it had actually fallen back before the ad
vance of Mohammedanism, which was now
supreme in Western Asia, in Northern Africa,
in Spain. Then came the Crusades, waging
a carnal warfare, not for the conversion of the
Moslems, but for the rescue of the Holy City
from their sway. Two centuries of varying
fortunes brought them at last to a disastrous
close, and Islam still reigns in the lands of the
Bible. Then arose the greatest of mediaeval
missionaries, Raymund Lull, who saw what a
true crusade ought to be, one of love and
prayer ; but Papal Christendom turned a deaf
ear to his appeals, and the solitary hero died a
martyr by the hands of the Moors he longed
to save.

Ail this while the Eastern Churches, parti
cularly the Nestorian, had, notwithstanding
their struggle with victorious Mohammedanism,
done much for the evangelisation of Asia. Persia
had received the Gospel far back in the second
century, and its Church, under the persecuting
Sassanian kings, had supplied a great contin
gent to the noble army of martyrs. In the sixth
century Cosmas of Alexandria found Christian
Churches there, and also in Arabia, in India,
and even in Ceylon. Five centuries later, when
Mohammedanism hadsubjugated many peoples,
and when Christendom was at its lowest ebb,
Christian bishops were presiding over dioceses
in Turkestan, Kashgar, and other parts of
Central Asia, as far as China. The Franciscans
followed the Nestorians in the same vast terri
tories, and did a mighty work. But in the
fourteenth century the Turks and Tartars,
under Tamerlane and other ferocious tyrants,
massacred the Christians and swept Christi
anity off the face of Central Asia. The one
existing trace of it to-day is the famous Nes
torian tablet at Si-ngan-fu. Islam and Bud
dhism have long since divided the land.

[E. S.]

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT.— The Reformed
Churches were very slow in taking up mis
sionary enterprise. Apart from small efforts
by Germans and Swedes, the first Protestant
missions on any scale were those of the Dutch
in the East Indies in the seventeenth century ;
not unnaturally, as Holland was the first to
follow Spain and Portugal in colonial ex
pansion. But the methods adopted were
scarcely less faulty than those of the Jesuits,
though very different. A profession of Chris
tianity was insisted on as a condition of civil
rights. In Ceylon the natives were baptized
by thousands without any instruction; but
wherever the Dutch rule ceased, through
British conquest or otherwise, these multitudes
of nominal Christians reverted to heathenism.

English missions also grew out of Colonial
enterprise. The first missionary contribution

in England was Sir Walter Raleigh's gift of
£100 to the company which founded the
Elizabethan colony of Virginia, "for the
propagation of the Christian religion in that
settlement," and on November 13, 1622, Dr.
John Donne, Dean of St. Paul's, delivered
before this company what may fairly be re
garded as the first missionary sermon preached
in England. The first genuine missionary of
British blood, however, was a Puritan of New
England, John Eliot, minister in the village of
Roxbury, now a suburb of Boston. He laboured
devotedly among the Indians who then peopled
the forests covering what is now the State of
Massachusetts; and he translated the whole
Bible into the Iroquois language. This work
was supported by the first English missionary
association, " The Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel in New England," established
under the auspices of Cromwell. That Society,
afterwards called the "New England Com
pany," was reorganised under Charles II. by
Robert Boyle, who also founded the " Christian
Faith Society " for the Negro slaves in Virginia.
Both these Societies still exist, disbursing their
funds respectively in Canada and the West
Indies. In 1698 Parliament, revising the East
India Company's charter, enacted that the
ministers sent to India for the benefit of the
Company's agents " should apply themselves to
learn the language of the country, the better
to enable them to instruct the Gentoos (Gentiles
or heathen) who should be servants of the Com
pany in the Protestant religion." This enact
ment, however, was not obeyed until the days
of Henry Martyn, more than a century later.
England, therefore, at the end of the seven
teenth century, and 150 years after the Refor
mation, had done a very little for the Red
Indians and Negroes in her infant Colonies,
but nothing at all beyond their then narrow
limits. A nominal and worthless Christianity
had been enforced in the Colonies of Holland.
The only missions in the great heathen world
were the missions of the Church of Rome.

The eighteenth century, as regards the
Anglican Church's part in the missionary
enterprise, opened with promise. In 1698 was
formed the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, and in 1701 the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Both owed their origin to the zeal and energy
of Dr. Thomas Bray , Rector of Sheldon, Warwick
shire ; and both were voluntary and unofficial
associations of Churchmen. The S.P.C.K. was
designed mainly for the provision of Christian
literature and the promotion of Christian
education, chiefly, though not exclusively,
at home. The S.P.G. was for the supply of
clergy to "Foreign Parts." This term then
meant the Colonies and Dependencies of Great

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

[ 409 ]

MISSIONS, PEOTESTANT

Britain ; but the Society was to care, not only
for the white settlers, but also for the natives.

The chief work of the S.P.G. for the next
three-quarters of a century lay in the American
Colonies ; that is, up to the time of their seces
sion, and the formation of the Republic of the
United States. Apparently all the clergy sent
across the Atlantic were supplied by it — John
Wesley being one of them. The Protestant
Episcopal Church of America, which now has
about 90 bishops and nearly 5000 clergy,
may truly be said to owe its existence to the
ministrations of the S.P.G. , prior to the
Declaration of Independence. Canada also,
when by successive treaties and conquests its
provinces became British, was supplied with
clergy by the Society. There was also a small
work on the Gold Coast, West Africa, where an
African convert, Philip Quaque, was " the first
of any non-European race since the Reformation
to receive Anglican orders." But the Society
shared in the dulness and depression that pre
vailed in the Church during the Hanoverian
period, and its voluntary income at the end of
the eighteenth century was less than £600, its
work being chiefly maintained by its invested
funds.

Meanwhile the S.P.C.K. was engaged in
missionary work in Asia. In the midst of the
cold latitudinarianism of Lutheran Germany
had arisen the Pietist movement, which, like
all sound religious revivals, had awakened a
missionary spirit. The first Protestant mission
aries to found a mission in Asia were two
German Pietists, Ziegenbalg and Plutscho, who
were sent to the Danish trading settlement at
Tranquebar in South India by Frederick IV.,
King of Denmark, in 1705. This mission was
watched with interest in England, and a grant
to it of £20 by the S.P.G. in 1709 is memorable
as the first British contribution to the evange
lisation of India. But India was a foreign
country, and the East India Company had only
a few trading posts there ; so it was not a field
for a Society formed for British possessions.
When therefore, in time, the Danish funds
failed, it was the S.P.C.K., and not the S.P.G.,
which took up the work, and carried it on for
one hundred years. But the missionaries were
all Lutherans and Germans, Schulze, Schwartz,
and Kohlhoff being the most eminent. Their
influence extended over nearly the whole Tamil
country, from Madras to Tinnevelly, and some
50,000 Tamils were baptized ; but caste and
other heathen customs were tolerated, and
when, towards the end of the century, both
men and means began to fail, large numbers
fell away from the faith.

Another mission started by the same King of
Denmark was that in Greenland, whither he
sent Hans Egede in 1722. This work was sub

sequently taken up by the Moravian Church, or
Unitas Fratrum, which began its wonderful
career of missionary devotion in 1733, and
quickly sent members of its brotherhood also
to Labrador, Central and South America, and
South Africa. One other missionary of the
century must be named, David Brainerd, who
worked among the Red Indians of what is now
New York State in 1744-47, supported by funds
from Scotland. He died at the age of twenty-
nine, but his biography, by its definite spiritual
influence on Carey and Marsden and Henry
Martyn and Chalmers, and through them upon
hundreds of others, bore rich fruit

Upon the whole, therefore, the eighteenth
century saw but few and feeble steps taken
towards the evangelisation of the world, and
Watts's version of the 72nd Psalm, "Jesus
shall reign where'er the sun," written in 1719,
had to wait for another century before it came
into common use as the utterance of ardent
Christian anticipations.

But before the century closed, the awakening
had come. To William Carey, shoemaker and
Baptist local preacher, is due the most direct
influence in favour of missions. In 1792 he
published his famous Enquiry, and preached
his still more famous sermon at Nottingham
on Isaiah liv. 2, 3, with its inspiring motto,
"Expect great things from God ; attempt great
things for God." In the same year the Baptist
Society was founded ; and in the following year
Carey himself went to India as its first mission
ary. This led to the formation of the London
Missionary Society, on undenominational lines,
but eventually becoming in effect a Congrega-
tionalist body. It began by sending out a large
party of missionary settlers and artisans to
Tahiti. But this enterprise was attended at
first by much disappointment, and meanwhile
Carey had been unable to work in British
Bengal on account of the hostility of the East
India Company to missions, and at last settled
at the Danish settlement of Serampore. More
over, two small Methodist and Presbyterian
missions to West Africa came to grief. There
was little to encourage the hopes of the little
bands of Christians at home, the fruit of the
Evangelical Revival under Wesley, Whitefield,
the first Henry Venn, and other leaders (all of
them clergymen of the Church of England),
who were beginning to care for their heathen
fellow-creatures.

Nevertheless, those of the "serious" men
(as they were called) who clung to the Church
of their fathers, incited by Charles Simeon of
Cambridge, and led by John Venn and Thomas
Scott, determined to take their own share in
the new missionary movement. Excluded as
they were from all possible influence in the
S.P.G. and S.P.C.K. (though they subscribed

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT [ 410 ] MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

to both), and not willing to sink their Church
principles and join the L.M.S. (though some of
them helped it, too), they were constrained to
establish, on April 12, 1799, an organisation
afterwards entitled the Church Missionary
Society.

So, at the close of the eighteenth century,
what was the position ? In the Mohammedan
lands of Western Asia there was not a single
missionary. In India there was a little Baptist
band hidden away in Bengal ; also half-a-dozen
Germans under the S.P.C.K. in the south. In
Ceylon, just become British, the bulk of the
Dutch Christians were falling back to Buddhism.
The Indo-Chinese Peninsula, China, and Japan,
were all closed. Africa was only a coast-line ;
its interior was totally unknown, and the prin
cipal link between Christendom and the Dark
Continent was the slave-trade. The Red
Indians of North America were barely touched,
and those of South America not at all. The
South Seas were just being visited by the
pioneers of missionary effort.

The first decade of the nineteenth century
witnessed little progress. Its chief events
were the going forth of Henry Martyn to India
(1805), not indeed as a missionary, but as an
East India Company's chaplain, though in the
truest missionary spirit ; the sending by the
L.M.S. of the first Protestant missionary to
China, R. Morrison, who had to live in the
East India Company's settlement at Canton as
a linguist ; the foundation of the British and
Foreign Bible Society in 1804 ; and of the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions (1811), organised, like the L.M.S., on
non-denominational lines, but eventually, like
the L.M.S., remaining Congregationalist when
other denominational Societies were formed.
There were few offers of missionary service.
When the C.M.S. was ten years old, it had sent
out exactly five men, all (like the S.P.C.K.
men in India) German Lutherans ; of whom one
had died, and one had been dismissed. Such
was the period which some modern writers
characterise as marked by a burst of missionary
enthusiasm.

But meanwhile events were occurring which
much influenced the future of missions. In
1807 William Wilberforce, after a twenty
years' struggle, carried in Parliament the
Abolition of the British Slave Trade. In 1813,
when the East India Company's Charter was
renewed, he carried the clauses which opened
India to missionary effort, and which established
the Bishopric of Calcutta. This closed the dark
period of twenty years, during which the
Company, having " Brahmanised " (as Professor
Seeley terms it) Anglo-Indian society, excluded
all missionaries, and when almost the only
Christian work was carried on by the godly

chaplains who were supplied (mostly) by
Simeon of Cambridge, through the influence of
Charles Grant, Director and sometime Chair
man of the Company ; the most conspicuous
being David Brown, Claudius Buchanan, Henry
Martyn, Thomas Thomason, and Daniel Corrie.
Henry Martyn had been the first English candi
date for C.M.S. work, but India being closed
to missionaries, he went out as chaplain in
1805. What evangelistic and linguistic work
was possible, he did. Then he went to Persia,
and on his way to England died at Tokat in
1812, at the age of thirty-two, leaving a bright
example of devotion to his divine Lord.

The second decade was a period of advance.
Polynesian islands began to become Christian
under L.M.S. men like John Williams (1817);
Van der Kemp, also L.M.S., was doing a great
work in South Africa (began 1799), and Robert
Moffat started in 1817 ; Carey and his Baptist
band in India were translating the Bible into
language after language ; Judson, the American
Baptist, commenced his fruitful labours in
Burmah (1813); the Wesleyan missions in
West and South Africa, the West Indies and
Ceylon, previously sporadic, were organised
under a Society (1817). Some of the most
important C.M.S. Missions were started : Sierra
Leone (1816), Malta and the Levant (1815),
North and South India (1814), Ceylon (1817),
and New Zealand (1814), the last-named under
the auspices of Samuel Marsden, chaplain to
the convicts in New South Wales. But the
S.P.C.K. staff in South India was reduced to
two, and only two new men were sent out in five
years — all still German Lutherans. The S.P.G.
remained in its almost dormant state, still
supporting (with Government aid) colonial
clergy and schoolmasters in Canada, and (1817)
spending £90 a year in the rest of the world ;
but in 1818 its energies were revived by the
archbishops and bishops, assisted indirectly
and in a notable way, by the C.M.S. Secretary,
Josiah Pratt ; and very soon it was expanding
rapidly. In 1825 it took over the old S.P.C.K.
missions in South India ; but not till 1836 did
it succeed in finding an English clergyman
to go out to them. In Bengal its work was
chiefly connected with Bishop's College, Cal
cutta. The extension of its work was mainly
in the Colonies.

The third and fourth decades (1821-1840)
saw many vicissitudes, but there was decided
progress upon the whole. The West Indies
became an important field, particularly after
the Abolition of Slavery (to be carefully dis
tinguished from that of the Slave Trade), in
1833-34; and S.P.G., C.M.S., L.M.S., Bap
tists, and Methodists, all made the Negroes
their special care. Missions spread rapidly in
South Africa, among Hottentots, Kaffirs, and

MISSIONS, PEOTESTANT [ 411 J MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

Bechuanas. Tonga became Christian under
the Wesleyans, and Hawaii under the American
Board; and the L.M.S. mission in Madagas
car raised up a Christian community which
afterwards stood the test of persecution and
death. It was a period also of large ingather
ing in Tinnevelly and New Zealand under the
C. M.S., in the former case through the agency
of Rhenius, in the latter by the work of Henry
and William Williams (afterwards respectively
archdeacon and bishop), the two real evange
lists of the Maori race. These successes were
all among the simpler races of the world. But
the year 1830 is memorable for the commence
ment of a new method to reach the higher
castes and classes of India, that of Educational
Missions,, started at Calcutta by Alexander
Duff, the first missionary officially sent forth
by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland ; and
within four years his new college brought
several young Brahmans out of Hinduism into
the Christian Church, the vanguard of a goodly
army of important converts vouchsafed to this
department of missionary work. A few years
earlier, the first attempts to influence Hindu
women and girls were made by Mrs. Marsh-
man of the Baptist Mission and Miss Cooke of
the C.M.S. In 1826, the first native of India
admitted to the Anglican ministry, Abdul Masih,
a convert of Henry Martyn's from Mohamme
danism, was ordained by Bishop Heber.

Several German and American Societies were
organised at this time. The Basle, Berlin, and
Leipsic Missions adopted India as a principal
field. Germans, chiefly from the Basle Semi
nary, continued to be employed largely by
the C.M.S., but they were now trained at the
Society's College at Islington (begun 1825),
along with English candidates, and ordained
by the Bishop of London. The American
Episcopal Church established a missionary
organisation in 1821, but its foreign work did
not begin till later. The other American
Societies established important missions in
India and Ceylon, and also in Turkey, Syria,
Egypt, and Persia. These latter were designed
for the enlightenment of the Eastern Churches,
which task the C.M.S. also undertook for a
time.

From the period of Queen Victoria's acces
sion, and throughout her reign, missions rapidly
extended in all parts of the world. The growth
of the work in India is perhaps the least notice
able, because Missions were already established
in many parts of the country, though they were
on a small scale. The annexation of the Pun
jab in 1849 opened a great province to the
American Presbyterians and the C.M.S., with
the open and cordial support of the British
rulers there, Henry and John Lawrence, Robert
Montgomery, and many others ; and the C.M.S.

gradually established a series of stations along
the whole north-west frontier, from Sind to
Kashmir. The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, and the
subsequent assumption of direct rule by the
Crown, issued in much extension. The Ameri
can missions especially have expanded ever
since, particularly that of the Episcopal
Methodists under Bishop Thoburn ; while the
American Baptists have had great success in
the Telugu country. Good work has been done
among the aboriginal hill tribes, especially by
the C.M.S. among the Santals and Gonds,
and byGossner's Berlin Mission and the S.P.G.
among the Kols of Chota Nagpore. Most of
the larger societies have developed educational
work to reach the upper classes and castes ;
and Dr. W. Miller's Christian College at Madras,
under the Free Church of Scotland, is confess
edly in the front rank of educational institu
tions. The Cambridge Mission at Delhi, and
the Oxford Mission at Calcutta, have also
exercised distinct influence upon the more
educated natives. Work amongst women has
been largely developed, most societies having
their women's branches ; and the Zenana Bible
and Medical Mission and the Church of Eng
land Zenana Society have been and are promi
nent. General Missionary Conferences for all
Protestant missions have been held four times
decennially, to review progress and discuss
problems. The English Episcopate has in
creased, the original see of Calcutta having
become ten sees. Native bishops are still
lacking, but local Church organisation has
advanced, and there is a general desire for a
comprehensive Indian Church in the future.
The census of 1901 gave the number of native
Protestant Christians in India as 867,000, be
sides an unknown proportion of 102,000 more,
whose denomination was not returned. Ceylon
has been a fruitful field for eighty years, chiefly
worked by the C.M.S., the S.P.G. , the Wes
leyans, and the American Board.

The advance of Christian enterprise in Africa
is much more conspicuous. The South Africa
Missions of the L.M.S. and the Wesleyans,
and of the French and German Protestants,
have greatly prospered ; and the Free Church
of Scotland has set an example of vigour and
success in Industrial Missions by its remark
able institution at Lovedale. The Anglican
Church, chiefly represented by the S.P.G., has
extended its organisation from one diocese
(Capetown, 1846) to ten. Kaffraria, Pondoland,
Griqualaud, Zululand, Swaziland, Basutoland,
Bechuanaland, and other territories stretching
northwards to the Zambesi, have been the
fields of much work by several missions. The
South Africa General Mission, on undenomi
national lines, has in recent years been notable
for its zealous labours.

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

[ 412 ]

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

In West Africa the C.M.S. and the Wesleyans
have extended their operations all through
this long period. Starting from Sierra Leone,
the Yoruba country and the Niger district —
now the Lagos and Nigeria Protectorates —
have received the Gospel; and the C.M.S.
Missions have seen not only over one hundred
Negro clergymen ordained, but four Negro
bishops consecrated ; while the American
Church in Liberia has had two Negro bishops.
The Gold Coast and Ashanti have been the
field of the Basle Mission. Efforts to reach
the great Mohammedan Central Soudan have
been made, but as yet with little success.

East Africa Missions began with Krapf and
Eebmann of the C.M.S. in 1844-46. They led
to the explorations of Burton, Speke, and
other great travellers, who discovered the
equatorial lakes and the kingdom of Uganda
(1858-61). Under Livingstone's auspices the
Universities Mission to Central Africa was
established in 1858. Its first leader, the de
voted Bishop Mackenzie, fell a victim to the
climate ; but subsequent bishops have greatly
extended the work on the Zanzibar coast and
on Lake Nyassa. Livingstone's death in 1873
roused the Christian public as no other event
of the century did. The Scotch Presbyterian
Churches took the Shir<£ River and Lake Nyassa
as their sphere; the L.M.S. chose Lake Tan-
ganika ; the C.M.S. Mission on the east coast
was developed ; and presently Stanley's famous
letter inspired the C.M.S. Uganda Mission,
with which the names of Mackay and Manning-
ton are indissolubly associated. Stanley's
voyage down the Congo (1877) led to the
English aud American Baptist Missions on
that river, followed by other enterprises,
notably that of Dr. Grattan Guinness's Congo
Balolo Mission.

North Africa is Mohammedan, and an ex
ceptionally hard field. The undenominational
North Africa Mission works in Morocco,
Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, &c. In Egypt, the
American United Presbyterians have done
great educational service. An old C.M.S.
Mission, suspended for many years, was re
vived when the British Protectorate began in
1882, and now seeks a footing at Khartoum.
The Turkish Empire, Arabia, and Persia are
also difficult Mohammedan fields. In Turkey,
the American Board has long carried on ex
tensive Missions, and the American Presby
terians in Syria. Palestine was occupied by
the C.M.S. in 1851 ; Persia in 1869-75. The
American Presbyterians have laboured in
Persia half a century; and the American
Reformed (Dutch) Church has lately begun at
Muscat in Arabia ; while at Aden there is a
Scotch Free Church Mission, founded in 1885
by the Hon. Ion Keith-Falconer.

Eastern Asia has much more extensive
Missions than Western Asia. Burmah has
been the scene of the largest American Baptist
work, begun in 1813 by the heroic Judson.
The S.P.G. has had a successful Mission there
since 1859 ; and that Society is also in the
Straits Settlements and in Borneo. Siam has
been an American field. China opened parti
ally to the Gospel in 1 842 ; more completely in
1858. The L.M.S., which had sent Morrison
in 1807, was the first to enter, followed by
several other English and American Societies.
The Church of England sent a bishop in 1849 ;
and now there are six bishops, four English
and two American. Three of the English
superintend C.M.S. Missions in South and Mid-
China ; the other is the head of the S.P.G.
Mission in North China. In 1865 Hudson
Taylor organised the China Inland Mission,
which eventually spread itself over the Northern
and Central Provinces, and which received an
immense impetus from the going forth of the
" Cambridge Seven" in 1885. China Missions
have suffered now and again from terrible
massacres. In 1900 no less than 133 mission
aries and 48 children perished, and some
thousands of native Christians.

Japan, closed to all Western influence for
more than 200 years, owing to the Jesuit
tyrannies of the sixteenth century, was first
entered by Protestant missionaries in 1859, the
American Episcopal Church and Presbyterians
leading the way. The first English missionary
lauded in 1869. Religious liberty commenced
in 1873, and the Missions were at once rein
forced, and have since made continuous pro
gress. The converts of the C.M.S., the S.P.G.,
and the American Episcopal Mission, combined
in 1887 to form a " Japan Church," and the
non-episcopal communities have done likewise.

Manchuria has been an interesting and fruit
ful field of Presbyterian Missions from Scotland
and Ireland (1868). Mongolia is a London
Missionary Society field, entered by Gilmour in
1870. Scotch missionaries were the first to
venture into Korea ; but the American Presby
terians have carried on the chief work since
1884. An S.P.G. Mission there was begun
in 1889.

In Madagascar, the great Mission has been
that of the L.M.S. When the long period of
suppression and persecution came to an end
in 1861, it was soon greatly extended; and
the S.P.G., the Friends, and the Norwegians
entered the field. Under the French adminis
tration the Protestant Missions have been
fairly treated. The Paris Society (Mistions
Evangeliques) has taken over some of the work,
as it did formerly in Tahiti when the French
annexation issued in the exclusion of the
L.M.S.

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

[413]

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

In the South Seas proper, the Wesleyans, the
L.M.S., and the Scotch Free Church, have
laboured successfully, island after island be
coming Christian. John Williams, John Hunt,
and J. G. Paton are names to be ever remem
bered. New Zealand, evangelised by the C.M.S.,
has become a flourishing British Colony. Its
first bishop, Selwyn, also established the
Melanesian Mission, of which Patteson became
bishop in 1861. In 1872 he was killed by the
islanders in revenge for the evil deeds of white
traders. In 1871 the L.M.S. led the way to
New Guinea, where another great missionary,
Chalmers, was killed in 1901. In the same
great island the Anglican Board of Missions
in Australia, and the Wesleyans, began work
in 1891.

On the American continent, great Missions
among the Red Indians have been carried on
in the United States and in Canada. The
latter field has been chiefly occupied by the
C.M.S., whose operations have extended to the
Arctic and Pacific Oceans. Bishops Horden.
Bompas, Ridley, and several others have done
noble service. In the West Indies the various
denominations have worked among the Negroes,
and the Church of England has been repre
sented by the S.P.G. — as also in Central
America and British Guiana. The South
American Missionary Society was founded to
carry on the work in Patagonia, begun and
inspired by Captain Allen Gardiner, who died
of starvation on the bleak shores of Tierra del
Fuego in 1851 ; but its operations have ex
tended to many parts of the continent. The
American Presbyterians and Methodists also
have Missions in South America.

Results of Protestant Missions. — The latest
attempt at compiling the statistics of Protestant
Missions is that of the Rev. Harlan P. Beach,
of the American Student Volunteers, in his
Geography and Atlas. An examination of the
detailed figures shows the hopelessness of
getting uniform returns from the various
missionary organisations, but the general
result is probably not far out, and certainly
it is under, rather than over, the actual fact.
Mr. Beach makes the total of the " native
constituency," i.e. the population statistically
counted as Christian, to be 3,613,391. In a
few cases the numbers are too large,
but the excess is much more than counter
balanced by the blanks not filled up, together
with the deficiency due to returns of an im
perfect kind, as e.g. those of the Baptists,
who do not count any children. It is safe to
conclude that the real total is quite 4,000,000.
Of these, India, including Ceylon and Burmah,
would stand for 950,000 ; Africa (mostly in the
south), for 850,000; China, for 200,000; the
West Indies, for 240,000; Oceania (chiefly

Hawaii and Fiji), for 350,000; Madagascar for
100,000 ; all in round figures.

But all such statistics, even if perfect, are
misleading. For they never include the surest
and safest fruit of missionary labour — the dead
in Christ. If, from the first, the Societies
had kept the total register of baptisms, we
should have known the whole result, and not
merely the number of native Christians on the
earth at a particular date. On the other hand,
it must always be remembered that statistics
can only register external results. They
are bound to take count of the population
answering to the name of Christian, and can
tell us nothing of how far the Christians so
enumerated are true and earnest Christians.
It is quite certain that the larger the number,
and the larger the proportion of those who are
not themselves converts from heathenism, but
a second or third generation of hereditary
Christians, the larger will be the proportion of
a merely nominal profession of Christianity.
The Protestant Christendom of Africa and Asia
cannot reasonably be expected to prove better
than the Protestant Christendom of Europe.

Nevertheless, a survey of the world affords
great encouragement to missionary enterprise,
in the light of the inadequacy of our efforts.
In India we see a native Christian community
increasing much more rapidly than the natural
growth of the whole population ; and although
the large majority of the converts are from the
lower castes and depressed classes, the Chris
tians stand second in educational results, being
only surpassed by the select Brahman caste, and
far ahead of all other Hindu castes and of the
Mohammedans. And this is their position only
as regards men. In female education they stand
first of all. As for China, the very newspapers
which three or four years ago doubted the
existence of any genuine Chinese Christians at
all, now acknowledge that hundreds of them
endured torture and suffered death at the
hands of the Boxers rather than deny their
faith. In Japan, the leaders of public opinion
openly avow their belief that Christianity is
the future religion of the Empire, and already
Japanese Christians sit in the Legislature and
on the judicial bench, and command regiments
and ships of war. In West Africa, several
local native Churches are self-supporting ; and
the Negro race has contributed to the Anglican
Communion alone six bishops and more than
one hundred clergymen. The Church in
Uganda is still in its infancy as regards
ministry and organisation ; but its zeal and
intelligence have been an example to all Chris
tendom, and England owes its Protectorate
indirectly to the Mission. Madagascar was the
Uganda of forty years ago, and the number of
its Christians is much larger. New Zealand

MISSIONS, PROTEST ANT [ 414 ] MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

was the Uganda of sixty years ago (the three
Missions have exhibited striking resemblances),
and although contact with the white men has
well-nigh ruined the Maori race, it has given
some eighty clergymen to the Church of Eng
land; while the flourishing British Colony
was rendered possible by the early labours
of the missionaries. In the South Seas, Fiji
and many other populous islands are Christian.
In North- West Canada, the Red Indians have
supplied conspicuous evidences of the power
of divine grace ; and the most savage tribes of
British Columbia and Queen Charlotte's Islands
have been tamed and humanised.

Principal Protestant Missionary Societies. —
The following is a brief summary of the prin
cipal organisations : —

Church of England. — Society for the Propaga
tion of the Gospel, Church Missionary Society,
South American Missionary Society, Univer
sities' Mission to Central Africa, Church of
England Zenana Missionary Society, Colonial
and Continental Church Society (having a small
work among Red Indians), Oxford Mission at
Calcutta, Cambridge Mission at Delhi, Society
of St. John the Evangelist (Cowley Fathers).

Nonconformist (Enylish). — London Missionary
Society, Wesleyan Missionary Society, Baptist
Missionary Society, Foreign Missions of the
Presbyterian Church of England, Friends'
Foreign Missionary Association, Primitive
Methodist Missionary Society, Methodist New
Connection Missionary Society, United Metho
dist Free Churches Missions, Salvation Army.

Interdenominational (English). — China Inland
Mission, North Africa Mission, South Africa
General Mission, Regions Beyond Missionary
Union, Zenana Bible and Medical Mission,
Poona and Indian Village Mission, Kurku and
Central Indian Hill Mission, Zambesi Indus
trial Mission, British Syrian Schools. Also
auxiliary organisations: Industrial Missions
Aid Society, Medical Missionary Association,
Mission to Lepers.

Scotch, Irish, Welsh. — Church of Scotland
Foreign Missions, United Free Church Foreign
Missions, Foreign Missions of the Episcopal
Church of Scotland, Edinburgh Medical Mis
sionary Society, Foreign Missions of the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Welsh Cal-
vinistic Methodist Foreign Missions.

Colonial. — Australasia: Australian Board of
Missions (Anglican), New South Wales Church
Missionary Association (C.M.S.), Victoria
Church Missionary Association (C.M.S.), New
Zealand Church Missionary Association ( C. M. S. ),
Melanesian Mission, Presbyterian Churches
combined to support the New Hebrides and
other missions, Australian Wesleyan Methodist
Missionary Society, Victoria Baptist Foreign
Mission. South Africa : South Africa Church

Missionary Association (C.M.S., for foreign
work), several local organisations for missions
among natives in the Colonies. West Indies :
Rio Pongas Mission (Anglican, Barbados, for
West Africa, affiliated to S.P.G.), Jamaica
Church Missionary Association (C.M.S., for
work in Africa) ; several local organisations for
work among West Indian negroes. Canada :
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of
the Church of England in Canada, Canadian
Church Missionary Society (C.M.S.), Foreign
Missions of the Presbyterian Church in Canada,
Foreign Mission Board of the Baptist Con
vention, Missionary Society of the Methodist
Church.

American. — Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church,
American Church Missionary Society (affiliated
to the Domestic and Foreign Society), American
Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions
(Congregationalist), Board of Foreign Missions
of the Presbyterian Church, Board of Home
Missions of the Presbyterian Church (work
among Red Indians in the States), Foreign
Missions of the Presbyterian Church (South),
Board of Foreign Missions of the United Pres
byterian Church, Board of Foreign Missions
of the Reformed Church (Dutch Presbyterian),
Board of Missions of the Cumberland Presby
terian Church, Board of Foreign Missions of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Missionary
Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
Board of Missions of the Methodist Episcopal
Church (South), Home and Foreign Missionary
Society of the African Methodist Episcopal
Church (coloured), American Baptist Mission
ary Union, Foreign Mission Board of the
Southern Baptist Convention, Seventh Day
Baptist Missionary Society, Missionary Board
of Seventh Day Adventists, American Friends'
Board of Foreign Missions, Foreign Christian
Missionary Society of the Disciples of Christ,
Christian and Missionary Alliance, Scandi
navian Alliance Mission of North America.

Continental Protestant. — Moravian Missions,
Basel Evangelical Missionary Society, North
German Missionary Society, Berlin Missionary
Society, Hermannsburg Evangelical Lutheran
Missionary Society, Leipsic Lutheran Mission,
Rhenish Missionary Society, Gossner's Mission
(Berlin, Lutheran), Evangelical Missionary
Society for German East Africa, Netherlands
Missionary Union (Dutch Reformed), Nether
lands Missionary Society (Dutch undenomina
tional), Church of Sweden Mission, Swedish
Missionary Society (Free Church), Norwegian
Missionary Society, Societe des Missions Evan-
geliques (French Protestant), Mission Romande
(French Swiss Protestant).

These organisations differ widely in regard
to their methods of administration. There are

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT [ 415 ] MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC

Churches which, as Churches, officially conduct
their own Missions ; for example, the Moravians,
all the Presbyterian Churches, and the Pro
testant Episcopal Church of America. Most
of these commit the practical administration
to appointed "Boards," which are, however,
strictly subordinate to the regular Synods of
the Church. This is, of course, the ideal ; but
the ideal is in many cases impracticable. Where
a Church is in a sluggish state spiritually, the
few individuals who are in earnest find the
task a hard one to rouse it to action. Hence
the origin of the S.P.C.K. and S.P.G. ; hence
also, a century later, of the C.M.S. ; hence
also, in recent times, of some non-denomina
tional associations, such as the China Inland
Mission. It is also to be borne in mind that
official bodies are inevitably slow in their
movements, and often slow also by reason of
internal differences. Even where ecclesiastical
differences are few and unimportant, as in the
Scotch Presbyterian Churches, the conduct of
a Mission is not easy when everything may
depend on an uncertain vote in the General
Assembly. But in a great comprehensive
Church like the Church of England, with its
diverse sections or schools, all Christian enter
prise is most effectively done when undertaken
by associations of men who are agreed on
general principles. Both the C.M.S. and the
Universities' Mission to Africa are signal illus
trations of this, the one representing Evangeli
cal principles, and the other those of the
advanced High Church party. Those Church
men who prefer a broader basis have the S.P.G.,
which claims to " exclude none whom the
Church would admit, and to admit none whom
the Church would exclude." It is, however,
essentially a voluntary organisation, as much
so as the C.M.S. Both are governed by Com
mittees composed of both clergymen and lay
men, which administer their funds at their
discretion. But the C.M.S. keeps in its own
hands the choice of missionaries, while the
S.P.G. makes grants to bishops and diocesan
committees abroad for men, for the most part
chosen by them. In the S.P.G. constitution,
bishops are ex officio Vice Presidents. In the
C.M.S. they are so if they have voluntarily
joined the Society as members by a 10s. 6d.
subscription.

The Boards of Missions for the Provinces of
Canterbury and York, formed in 1887-89, are
designed, not to carry on Missions, but to
promote missionary interest and discuss mis
sionary problems. The clerical members are
appointed by the two Convocations, and the
lay members by the two Houses of Laymen.
In this way the Church of England as a body,
is able, like the Presbyterian Churches, to take
cognisance of Missions carried on in its name,

without interfering with the work of the S.P.G.,
the C.M.S., and other voluntary Societies.

The Nonconformist Societies are mostly ad
ministered by Committees appointed by the
subscribers ; but the Wesleyan Committee is
responsible to the Wesleyan Conference. The
London Missionary Society, and the American
Societies, use the word "Board" for their
governing bodies. Some modern inter-deno
minational missions are governed by a Director
in the field, who is independent of the Home
Council or Committee, such Council confining
itself to the selection of missionaries and the
raising of funds. [E. S.]

MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC.— Modern
Roman missions date from the Reformation.
It is remarkable that the fresh missionary zeal
awakened at that epoch was manifested not by
the Churches which were reformed, but by
that which was unreformed. One simple cause
of this was that the navigating and exploring
nations of the day were Spain and Portugal.
It was in their ships that the new race of
missionaries sailed to South America, to West
and East Africa, and by the new sea route
to India, China, and Japan. And it was the
new Religious Orders, especially the Jesuits,
whose zeal and courage planted missions in
the new fields first opened up by Columbus
and Vasco da Gama.

The typical missionary of the period was
Francis Xavier. He became the one missionary
of the Roman Church whom all Christendom
honours. He led the way to India and Japan,
and he died in the attempt to knock at the
closed door of China. But much undeserved
glamour attaches to Xavier's work. The
marvellous results attributed to his labours
exist only in the imagination of those whom a
Roman Catholic historian, Mr. Stewart Rose,
calls his " unwise biographers." He never
learned an Oriental language. Although he
"made Christians" (fed Christianas is his
expression) rapidly in India by baptizing
heathen infants and the most ignorant of
the Tamil fishermen, yet the Abbe Dubois, a
Jesuit writer, says of him that he was " entirely
disheartened by the invincible obstacles he
everywhere met," and ultimately " left India
in disgust ; " and this is confirmed by his own
letters to Loyola. Indeed, so hopeless did he
regard any attempt to win the heathen by
preaching, that he called on King John of
Portugal to lay upon the governors of his
possessions in India the duty of forcing the
Church upon the natives, and to punish severely
any governor whose "converts" were few.
Bishop Cotton, most tolerant of Anglican pre
lates, considered Xavier's methods " utterly
wrong, and the results in India and Ceylon
most deplorable." Nevertheless, Xavier's zeal

MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC [ 416 ] MISSIONS, EOMAN CATHOLIC

and devotion call for unstinted admiration.
He did love bis divine Master ; he did love the
souls for whom his Master died. His toils and
privations were heroically borne, and he never
descended to the fraud and falsehood by which
some of his successors sought to spread the
religion of Christ as they understood it. Some
great men are patterns ; some are beacons.
Xavier was both. But most of his comrades
and successors were beacons, and not patterns.
The history of Jesuit Missions, as told by
the Jesuits themselves, is one of the saddest
portions of the Church's annals. Their identi
fication with the aggrandisement of the nations
that sent them forth, their use of the secular
arm, their establishment of the inquisition in
Malabar, in Japan, in the Philippine Islands,
in Mexico and South America; the frightful
tortures inflicted by them on both heathen and
heretics (e.g. the burning alive at Goa of the
Metropolitan of the Syrian Church in 1654) —
these are only some of their principal features.
Let us see some others.

Let the testimony be cited of the late Rev.
Henry Rowley of the S.P.G., formerly of the
Universities Mission to Central Africa (Africa
Unveiled, S.P.C.K., 1876, pp. 228-235). After
speaking of the "few ignorant and generally
immoral priests still to be found amongst the
Portuguese in Africa," and adding, " I fear
they are a shame to humanity, to say nothing
of Christianity," he goes on to ascribe the
"utter relapse of the native Christians into
heathenism " to the following six features of
what seemed three hundred years ago to be
successful missions: (1) The "reckless and
wholesale administration of baptism ; " (2) " un
holy accommodation of Christian truth and
observances to heathenish superstitions and
customs;" (3) the neglect of education for
the young ; (4) the attempts to prop up waning
influence by a pretended exercise of miracles ;
(5) the cruel punishments inflicted for the
slightest deviation from the prescribed rules of
the Church ; (6) the connection with the slave
trade, illustrated by the marble chair to be
seen until lately on the pier at Loanda, from
which the bishop used to give his blessing to
the slave-ships. In the old kingdom of Congo,
the entire population was Christian, in the
Roman sense, in the sixteenth century. The
capital still bears the name of San Salvador,
but Christianity has disappeared. The shock
ing history of the Roman Congo Mission, a
tissue of cruelties and corruptions, is told by
a sympathiser, Pigafetta, Chamberlain to Pope
Innocent IX.

Touching another head of Mr. Rowley's in
dictment, " unholy accommodation of Christian
truth and observances to heathenish supersti
tions and customs," a volume could be tilled with

illustrations. In China and Japan the para
phernalia of Buddhism have proved most
convenient. Temples, shrines, altars, bells,
hol^- -water vessels, censers, rosaries, vestments,
all were ready for transfer from one religion to
the other. Images of Buddha, with a slight
application of the chisel, served for images of
Christ ; and the roadside shrines of Kwanyin,
the goddess of mercy, were easily adapted to
Mariolatry. Even the Popes themselves were
shocked, and papal censures were again and
again launched. Urban VIII. and Innocent X.
declared the ceremonies permitted by the
Jesuits in China to be superstitious and
idolatrous. Clement XI. sent a legate out
to inquire. This legate was excommunicated
by the Portuguese bishop at Macao, and
thrown into prison, where he died of his
sufferings. South India was the scene of the
imposture of Robert de Nobili, nephew of
Cardinal Bellarmine, who, finding that Xavier
and his comrades had won converts only
from the poor fishermen, essayed to win the
Brahmans by pretending to be a Brahman
himself, and swearing upon a forged Veda
that he had sprung from the god Brahma,
which forged Veda was so skilfully done that
it deceived Voltaire himself, and was cited by
him as a proof of the superiority of Hinduism
to Christianity. It is on the same principle
that the most distinctive signs of heathenism,
caste as a religious system, the wearing of
the Brahminical cord, and the smearing of
ashes on the forehead, are permitted to Roman
converts ; with the result that as Bishop Cald-
well, the learned and devoted S.P.G. missionary
and bishop in Tinnevelly, affirmed, ' ' the Roman
Catholic Hindus, in intellect, habits, and morals,
do not differ from the heathen in the smallest
degree." This is quoted from the wonderful
book published a few years ago, The Classified
Digest of S.P.G. Records, in the pages of which
will be found condemnation of Roman methods
and results in India as strong as anything
in this article. Miss Gordon Cumming's Two
Years in Ceylon is another storehouse of evi
dence on this subject. She has seen the very
identical devil - dancers engaged from the
temples of Siva to accompany the processions
alike of heathen gods and of Roman images of
Christ and the Virgin Mother; she has seen
the imaee of Buddha opposite the image of
the Virgin in the same chapel, and apparently
receiving equal adoration ; she has seen Hindus,
Buddhists, and Roman Catholics paying their
vows together at the shrine of St. Anna, by
whom certain miracles were believed to have
been wrought.

Another of Mr. Rowley's heads might also
be illustrated from India. In the Portuguese
territories in Africa, he remarks, the Roman

MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC [ 417 ] MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC

missionaries neglected the education of the
children. This is a branch of work in which
they are supposed to be especially effective,
and it is true, indeed, that of late years vast
sums have been spent upon colleges and
schools, especially in cities like Calcutta.
But what of the large Roman Catholic popu
lation of South India? The Madras Census
Report of 1891 stated that wherever the
native Christians were mainly Roman Catholic,
as in Tanjore and Madura, the percentage of
educated Christians was low ; whereas of
Tinnevelly, where S.P.G. and C.M.S. divide
the land, the official report was, "This is one
of the few districts where a large percentage
of the population is classed as educated."

At the close of the eighteenth century,
Roman missions were almost at a standstill,
although there were in India and China con
siderable bodies of professing Christians
owning allegiance to the Pope ; and a pious
and influential Roman Catholic doctor at
Malta actually applied to the Church Mission
ary Society in 1811 to take up work which
Rome was letting slip from her hands. The
modern revival was mainly due, not to official
action, but to the zeal of "a few humble and
obscure Catholics " (to use their own words)
at Lyons, who founded in 1822 an "Institu
tion for the Propagation of the Faith." They
did not send out missionaries. They simply
collected money, which they gave to the
various Societies and Religious Orders ; and
these, thus encouraged, gradually extended
their operations to all parts of the world.
In 1843 the income of this voluntary associa
tion was £141,000, and it claimed to be
assisting 130 bishops and 4000 priests. Its
work and resources have since more than
doubled.

Existing Organisation and Work. — Roman
Missions are carried on both by Missionary
Societies and by Religious Orders, all under
the supreme direction of the Pope, and also,
more or less, under the general supervision
of the Congregation De Propaganda Fide at
Rome, since its foundation in 1622. The Con
gregation of Lazarists was founded at Paris
by St. Vincent de Paul in 1632, and the Societe
des Missions Etrangeres, also at Paris, in
1(J63. This last-named Society is the largest
Roman Catholic missionary organisation,
labouring all over Eastern Asia and parts of
India. It had, in 1899, 34 bishops, 1100
missionaries, 680 native priests, and 1,227,000
native Christians. In that year it baptized
46,000 adult pagans, 41,000 children of
Christians, and 155,000 "children of pagans
in articulo mortis." Several other smaller
Societies have their headquarters in Belgium,
Italy, and Ireland. For the purpose of

Missions in Africa, several modern Associa
tions have been formed, particularly the Con
gregation of the Holy Ghost and Heart of
Mary, the Lyons Society of African Missions,
the Institute of Verona, and the Algerine
Congregation for the conversion of the Soudan
and Central Africa. An English organisation,
St. Joseph's Foreign Missionary Society, was
founded by Cardinal Vaughan at Mill Hill,
near London, about 1870. It had, in 1900,
2 bishops and 86 priests in the mission-
field, and works in Uganda, North and South
India, Borneo, and New Zealand. The Roman
Mission in Uganda, begun about two years
after the Anglican one, reckoned in 1899
3529 baptized Christians, and about 10,000
catechumens (Sir F. Lugard's official return) ;
but its numbers have much increased.

The Religious Orders are also largely repre
sented in the foreign field. The Anglican
Benedictines work in British Colonies ; the
Capuchins, in the Levant, Western Asia, North
Africa, and South America ; the Carmelites,
in India ; the Dominicans, in Turkey, Indo-
China, North and South America ; the Lazar
ists, in China, the Levant, Persia, Abyssinia,
Madagascar, and South America; the Fran
ciscans, who have been zealous missionaries
since the days of their great founder, in
China, in the Philippines and Pacific Islands
in North and South America, in Egypt and
North Africa, in Palestine (where they are the
appointed guardians of the Holy Places), and
in many European countries ; the priests of
the Sacred Heart, in South America and the
Pacific Ocean ; the Oblates of St. Mary, in the
Polar regions of North America ; and, lastly,
the Jesuits, in all quarters of the world,
having (1899) 116 missionaries in Europe, 233
in Africa, 988 in Asia, 550 in Oceania, 1246 in
North America, and 856 in South America ;
total Jesuit missionaries, 3989.

The Roman Church has extensive missions
in the East, directed at winning adherents
to the unity of the Holy See from the Oriental
Churches, which are regarded as schismatic
and heretical. In this enterprise there has
been great advance within the past four years
in Egypt, among the Copts, and in 1899 the
Pope signalised "the resurrection of the
Church of Alexandria " by appointing a
Patriarch for Egypt, Libya, and Nubia.
Farther east, on the borders of Turkey and
Persia, the Roman and Russo-Greek Churches
compete for the adhesion of the Nestorians,
Chaldeans, and Armenians. The Franciscans,
Dominicans, Lazarists, and Jesuits are engaged
in all these works.

The Roman Church has made considerable
progress in India, particularly in the south,
and since the famine of 1877-78 ; but a large

2D

MISSIONS, EOMAN CATHOLIC [ 418 ] MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC

proportion of its adherents are descendants of
the converts of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. The Missiones Catholiccv in 1895
gave the total as 1,391,000, including Burmah
and Ceylon. The Illustrated Catholic Missions
gives it as just over 2,000,000 in 1900. The
Roman Church organisation comprises a papal
delegate at Kandy, 7 archbishops, 21 bishops,
and 7 vicars or prefects apostolic ; under
whom are 800 European missionaries (French,
English, German, Italian), 800 Goanese priests,
and 700 Indian priests. The various Societies
and Orders do not seem to be more united
than the different Protestant denominations.
The French Jesuits of Madura and Tinnevelly
complain bitterly (in L'Annee de I'Eglise) of the
opposition of the Goanese, as worse even than
that of the pagans and Protestants. Prior to
1884, the Archbishop of Goa's jurisdiction ex
tended over the whole Roman Church in India,
but in that year the Pope confined it to the
Portuguese section, abolishing it in British
and French territory.

In Madagascar the French Missions are on
an extensive scale, reckoning 94,000 baptized
and 267,000 catechumens. I? Annie de I'Eglise
complains of the favour shown to the Protes
tant Missions by the French officials.

Roman Catholic Missions in China have a
remarkable history from the sixteenth century
downwards. The scientific and literary at
tainments of the Jesuit missionaries rendered
them famous. The work is now carried on by
ten Societies or Religious Orders. There are
39 bishops, and 790 European priests (600 of
them French). There were 370 native priests
in 1895. The Chinese Christians numbered
582,000 in that year, and are now reckoned
at 661,000. L'Annee de I'Eglise says that the
most prominent feature of the work is the large
number of baptisms of the children of pagans.
In the province of Si-Chuan alone 85,643
children of heathen parents were baptized in
1899, a large proportion of them being baby
girls thrown away by their mothers. In 1898
the Jesuits of the Shanghai Mission baptized
41,400 pagan children "at the point of death."
An important concession was obtained in 1899
by the French Minister at Pekin, with a view to
the more effective protection of the " Catholic "
missions. The bishops were declared ' ' equal
in rank to the viceroys and governors," and
the priests " to the prefects of the first and
second class ; " and their influence and author
ity were to correspond. The Anglican bishops
agreed to decline these secular powers, as also
did the heads of other Protestant missions.
It is to be feared that the exercise of the
powers thus gained by the Roman hierarchy
was one cause of the Boxer outbreaks, and
is still occasioning much trouble. Certainly,

however, the converts of Rome had their full
share of persecution and massacre.

In Japan, the Roman Church, which achieved
such extraordinary success in the sixteenth
century, is again to the front, having 54,000
Christians, about half of whom are the de
scendants of the small remnant left after the
dreadful persecutions of that period. It has
an archbishop and three bishops, and it works
largely through orphanages, hospitals, &c.
In French Indo-China the Roman missions
are very extensive, and have 700,000 converts,
notwithstanding violent persecution prior to
the French occupation, with terrible massacres
of priests and native Christians. The Pope,
in 1900, " beatified " many of the martyrs.
The Roman Catholics had missions in Korea
before the opening by Sir H. Parkes' treaty in
1883, and 9 missionaries were martyred in
1866, while now there are 36,000 adherents.

In North-West Canada the Roman mission
aries are scattered over the immense territories,
and have a large number of Indian adherents.
Besides the Oblates before mentioned, many
are Jesuits from French Canada. In South
America the Roman Church, which is dominant
throughout the continent, has been engaged
of late in serious struggles with the anti-
religious tendencies of the Republican Govern
ments ; and L'Annee de VEylise makes no
mention of missions among the Indians. In
fact, the Pope in 1897 was obliged to send a
severe rebuke to the clergy for their lack of
consistency and zeal.

In 1895 the Propaganda returned the number
of Catholics in heathendom as 3,606,000. But
this did not include North and South America,
so that the total would be nearly four millions.

Intrusion into Protestant Fields. — The Roman
missions of the past eighty years have to a
large extent been directed to those fields which
Protestant missionaries had already entered.
Church of England Societies and Nonconformist
Societies alike have suffered from this cause.
The S.P.G. History contains many illustrations.
In Tinnevelly the S.P.G. and C.M.S. missionaries
have combined to resist Roman aggression ; in
the Punjab the S.P.G. and C.M.S. combined
with the American Presbyterians for the same
object. In West, East, and Central Africa ; in
Palestine and Persia ; in North and South
India ; in Ceylon and Mauritius ; in China and
Japan ; in New Zealand and the North West of
Canada, it is one uniform story. Let us take
a few illustrations.

First, Rural Bengal. Half a century ago,
Bishop Wilson and C.M.S. missionaries bap
tized some 3000 villagers in the Krishnagar
or Nuddea districts. In the next forty years
the number of the adherents was doubled,
but they were in an unsatisfactory state as

MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC [ 419 ] MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC

regards both Christian knowledge and Christian
life. A most able and devoted missionary,
the late James Vaughau, took charge of the
district in 1877, and at once engaged in a
vigorous conflict with the giant evil of caste,
which had taken root within the Church and
was sadly hindering Christian brotherhood.
Much discontent was the immediate result,
and Rome saw her opportunity. A large band
of priests and nuns, never seen in the district
before, suddenly appeared, denouncing the
Anglican churches and village chapels as devils'
temples, promising seceders freedom for caste
restrictions and heathen customs, distributing
little brass crucifixes and other charms, and
openly offering money bribes. People excom
municated for gross sin were eagerly received
by them ; and quickly little Roman congrega
tions, formed of the least worthy of the Chris
tian community, sprang up in many villages.
No efforts were made to convert the Hindus
and Mohammedans, and when Mrs. Williams,
a sister of the present Bishop of Luckuow,
asked the nuns why they did not go to them,
the reply was, " The heathen may be saved by
the light of nature, but there is no hope for
you Protestants ; therefore we come to you
first."

Secondly, the Native State of Travancore,
in South India, where the C.M.S. mission
to the heathen works in friendly relations
with the ancient Syrian Church — or, at least,
with the Reforming section of it, which has
been greatly helped by the contiguity of the
Anglican mission. The Romanists are the
enemies of both. "They play the part of
Elymas," wrote Archdeacon Caley in 1888,
" with an energy worthy of a better cause. As
sure as ever a Hindu is known to be about to
become a Christian, he is visited and urged
not to join us." And when, with the object of
self-support in the Native Church, our Christian
converts are exhorted to subscribe to their own
Church funds, the Romans come in and offer
exemption from such demands to all who will
join them.

Thirdly, New Zealand. Just eighty years
ago, Samuel Marsden and the C.M.S. mission
aries threw themselves among the Maori canni
bals. Peril and privation were long endured,
then came the blessing ; and when, after
twenty-eight years, the great Bishop Selwyn
arrived, he found, to use his own words, '
whole nation of pagans converted to the faith."
The English settlers then poured in, and the
lamentable land-wars ensued. Then came the
Franco-Roman priests, pleading that they
brought no land-grabbers behind them, and
thus enticing away the Maori Christians.
When the Hau-hau apostasy arose, among the
Articles of its half-heathen faith were these :

the Scriptures should be burned, the Sabbath
should be as other days, the priests have super
human powers, the Blessed Virgin will protect
the seceders. Whence came these Articles ?

Fourthly, pass to the great Red Indian terri
tories of North-West Canada. " Our work,"
wrote Bishop Bompas in 1887, " is a constant
struggle with Popery." Bishop Reeve, of
Mackenzie River, Bishop Young of Athabasca,
Bishop Pinkham of Saskatchewan, all tell the
same tale. The last-named, a few years ago,
mentioned two Indian converts of the Church
of England who were offered a dollar each by
the Roman priest to be allowed to rebaptize
them. In the same diocese the Protestant
missionaries refrained from visiting one " re
serve " of pagan Indians, because it adjoined
a Roman Catholic reserve : but the Roman
priests were so busy invading the reserves
occupied by Indians of the Church of England,
that the pagans were entirely neglected, until
at last the C.M.S. missionaries visited them,
and baptized several. Some years ago a fac
simile was published in the C.M.S. Gleaner
of a rough picture distributed among the
Indians, representing earth, heaven, hell, and
purgatory, and the limbo for unbaptized infants,
with the souls of Protestants going straight
down to hell, the priests and nuns ascending
straight to heaven, and others passing upwards
through purgatory.

Fifthly, let us come to Uganda. In 1876,
the C.M.S. undertook a mission in that country.
The first two missionaries reached Mtesa's
capital in June 1877. In the following year,
a Franco-Roman Mission from Algiers was
planned. Dr. R. N. Gust, on his own account,
visited Algiers, interviewed Cardinal Lavigerie,
and earnestly pressed him to send his men to
some of the countless African tribes yet un-
reached, instead of to the one spot in the heart
of Africa already occupied by a Christian
mission. The appeal was unsuccessful. In
1879 the French priests arrived in Uganda,
and at once informed Mtesa that the English
missionaries were teaching him out of a book
full of lies, that is, the Bible. " Never," wrote
Alexander Mackay, " did I hear the word mwonge
(lie) so frequently used." In 1882 the French
priests left the country, and did not return for
two years. In 1888 they were expelled, with
the English missionaries, by the Mohamme
dans ; but in the following year the two Chris
tian parties, both now numbering some hundreds
of adherents, combined to restore the king,
Mwanga, and divided the chieftainships be
tween them. In 1890 came the British East
Africa Company, and in 1893 the British Com
missioner. Long and complicated controversies
arose between the two parties, headed by Bishop
Tucker and the French bishop, and Sir Gerald

MITRE

[ 420 ]

MIXED CHALICE

Portal had to decide many knotty points touch
ing the division of land and of chieftainships,
&c. Sir Gerald Portal, in his official despatch,
after dwelling on the extreme difficulty he
found in bringing the two bishops to a settle
ment, added these significant words: "I am
unwilling to conclude this despatch without
placing on record my sense of the straightfor
wardness and conciliatory tone adopted by
Bishop Tucker throughout the negotiations."
To single out one of the two bishops for praise
in such circumstances was a strong thing to
do. Nothing but a keen sense of justice
could have led Sir Gerald to do it. He could
not but foresee the inference that would be
drawn from it, and he knew that the inference
would be a true one.

While, therefore, we are bound to acknow
ledge the self-denial and devotion of many of
the Roman missionaries, and not to doubt that
there have been among them not a few who,
knowing Christ as their own Saviour, have
earnestly preached Him to the heathen, it is
impossible to shut our eyes to the plain facts
of history as recorded by themselves, or to
the actual circumstances of the mission-field
at the present time. With every desire to
show large- miudedness and charity, no well-
instructed Christian can suppose that, as re
gards a very large portion of Roman missionary
work both in the past and in the present, its
character could command the divine blessing.

[E. S.]

MITRE. — A head-dress worn by bishops.
There is no indication of a mitre having been
worn as an ecclesiastical vestment or orna
ment until the eleventh or twelfth century.
In the ninth an effort was made to assimilate
clerical dress to that of the Aaronic priesthood
instead of the ancient Roman lay dress, and
the vestments now used in the Roman Church,
and desired by Ritualists, were then intro
duced ; but of the use of the mitre we have no
evidence till we reach the twelfth century,
when Honorius of Autun, who died in 1152,
mentions it for the first time, describing it as
a white cap made from linen. Innocent III.
(A.D. 1215) recognises it as an Episcopal orna
ment, and says that it symbolises the glory
and honour with which Christ is crowned. It
had by this time come to have its two horns and
two fringes, and a gold band, instead of being
merely a white cap. Durandus (A.D. 1232-
96), who, superseding a few previous writers,
may be regarded as the recognised Father of
Ritualists, has much to say on the mitre. He
tells us the front horn symbolises knowledge of
the New Testament ; the back horn, of the Old ;
and both of them together, the two precepts
of charity. He says that it is right that a
bishop should have two horns, because Moses

had when he came down from the Mount
("horned " being a misunderstanding and mis
interpretation of the word " shining" in Exod.
xxxiv. 29). The red fringed bands hanging
behind, mean the spirit and the letter, and the
mystical and the historical modes of interpre
tation, and willingness for martyrdom, and
good works, and the mindfulness of divine
acts, and mindfulness of sin. Its white
ness symbolises chastity, and it is also a
type of the crown of thorns. Bishops had,
in Durandus' time, two mitres, the simple
and the orfrayed ; another has been added
since. Besides his mitre, the Pope, he tells
us, has a tiara granted him by the Donative of
Constantine (which is a forgery), but it had
not yet its three crowns, the second of which
is said to have been added by Boniface VIII.,
and the third by Urban V. Durandus held the
Pope's mitre to be superior to his tiara because
the mitre is a token of the Pontiff's priesthood
and the tiara of his imperial sway, the first of
which "has the priority, and is of more
dignity and extent," because Aaron (priest)
came before Saul (king), and Noah (offerer of
sacrifices) before Nimrod (builder of a city).
Durandus is the highest in authority of the
Mediaeval Ritualists. (See Smith and'Cheet-
ham's Diet, of Christian Antiquities, Marriot's
Vestiarium Christianum, Lewis' Reformation
Settlement, p. 336.) See TlABA. [F. M.]

MIXED CHALICE.— Wine tempered with
water, commonly used in the early Church at
the Holy Communion.

It was an almost universal custom in ancient
times in the East, and in Greece and Italy, to
temper wine with water before drinking it.
Those who used oinos akratos, as untempered
wine was called in Greece, or merum, as it was
designated in Italy, were regarded much as we
look upon drinkers of undiluted spirits (Herod.
vi. 84). The lighter wines were not valued, and
the more heady wines were too strong in their
natural state. In those parts of the world where
wine is the common drink of the people, it is
still usually tempered with water. Probably
therefore, though not certainly, the Paschal
cups, one of which was given to His disciples
by our Lord, were tempered. In the early
Church it was the practice to temper the
Eucharistic cup with water, as we know from
Justin Martyr and Irenseus. It would at that
time have been a singular deviation from the
common custom if it had been otherwise. If
wine were brought to an ordinary meal in a
tempered state, why not to the Lord's Table ?
The more so as the Eucharist being at first
celebrated while the evening meal called Agape
was proceeding, the Eucharistic cup would
naturally be of the same kind of beverage as
that which was being drunk at the meal.

MIXED MARRIAGE

MONASTICISM

Whatever men commonly ate and drank
was most suitably selected as the sacrament of
spiritual sustenance. There is nothing super
stitions in itself in the practice. But very soon
symbolical meanings came to be attached to
the mixing of the wine with the water. Cyprian
supposed that the wine represented Christ's
blood, and the water represented Christ's people,
and these were symbolically united (Epist. 63).
Another explanation of the use was to refer it
to the water and blood, both of which (lowed
from Christ's pierced side, in which, however,
the Fathers commonly saw the two sacraments
indicated. In the Middle Ages imagination
found symbolisms in anything and everything,
and the wine was then made to represent
Christ's divinity and the water His humanity.
As we do not now generally mix water with
wine before drinking it, there is no reason why
we should do so with the wine used in the
Lord's Supper. Yet, provided the mixing is
not made a ceremony to be witnessed by the
congregation in the church, but is done in the
vestry, where the elements are prepared, with
the primitive purpose of tempering wine which
might otherwise be too strong or too sweet, and
in imitation of early, not mediaeval practice,
no objection need be made to it. Thus re
garded, it is a matter of indifference. To
consider the mixture a necessity is a supersti
tion. Since the Eeformation it has been gener
ally discontinued. (See Tomlinson's Historical
Grounds, &c.,p. 4 ; Malan's Two Sacraments, Note
II., "On the wine used in the Holy Eucharist.")
See LINCOLN JUDGMENT. [F. M.]

MIXED MARRIAGE.— By this term is meant
marriage between persons subjects of different
countries, or members of different religious
denominations. The former is a matter of
very grave importance, but the latter is no
longer of any consequence in England. A
marriage, for example, between a Roman
Catholic and a Protestant is perfectly valid so
long as the forms required by the State are
duly observed. The Roman and Greek Churches
do all in their power to prevent mixed marri
ages with unbaptized persons or Protestants, ex
cept upon certain conditions specially arranged
in each case. The Roman Catholic Church
usually endeavours to secure that the issue of
the marriage shall be brought up in its faith,
and it is to be feared that the efforts of
Protestant Churches in opposition are not
sufficiently strenuous. The following are the
promises required by the Roman Catholic
Church in England to be signed by the parties
before marriage : —

I. By the "non-Catholic" party: "I, the
undersigned, do hereby solemnly promise and
engage that I will not interfere with the re
ligious belief of my future (husband or

wife), nor with (his or her) full and perfect
liberty to fulfil all duties as a Catholic ; and
that I will allow all the children of both sexes
who may be born of our marriage to be baptized
in the Catholic Church and to be carefully
brought up in the knowledge and practice of
the Catholic religion."

II. By the " Catholic " party : " I, the
undersigned, do hereby solemnly promise and
engage that all the children of both sexes who
may be born of my marriage shall be baptized
in the Catholic Church, and shall be carefully
brought up in the knowledge and practice of
the Catholic Religion ; and (according to the
instructions of the Holy See) I also promise
that my marriage in the Catholic Church shall
not be preceded nor followed by any other
religious ceremony."

In Ireland mixed marriages have been the
subject of legislation and the source of a great
deal of trouble. In Malta of late years great
confusion has been created by the action of
Roman Catholics on this question. In some
countries certain mixed marriages (e.g. of Jew
and Christian) are still void. (See Geary on
Marriage.) [B. W.]

MONASTICISM.— By monasticism is under
stood a form of ascetic life in which, from a
religious motive, those who adopt it withdraw
from the society, occupations, and relation
ships of the world, and either live in solitude,
mortifying the flesh by austerities, or form
associations, in which they come under the
authority of a superior, and bind themselves
to the observance of a common, and generally
very strict, rule. The name (with the related
terms " monk," " monachism," " monastery,"
the last designating the place where monks
live together) is derived from the Greek word
monos, alone. This already suggests as the
root-notion of the monastic life, the idea of
retirement and solitude. Monks who live apart,
or at least in separate cells (without common
rule), as in deserts, mountain caves, forests, or
other lonely spots, are called " hermits" (from
eremos, a desert), "anchorites " (from anachoreo,
to withdraw), or " solitaries." Those who live
in a common fellowship are called " coeno
bites " (from koinos, common ; bios, life). Asso
ciations of women of a similar type give rise
to " nunneries " (from nonna, a nun, a word of
uncertain meaning), or "convents" ("convent,"
in strictness, covers both monasteries and nun
neries). The head of the monastery was, till the
tenth century, always called " abbot" ; subse
quently other titles are found, as "prior"
(Carthusians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augus-
tinians). Ordinarily the prior was under the
abbot. The superior of a nunnery is called
"Abbess," "Prioress," or " Lady Superior."

The history of monasticism is long, compli-

MONASTICISM

[ 422 ]

MONASTICISM

cated, and deeply chequered with light and
shade. Springing originally from ideals not
devoid of nobility, and in the course of its
development conferring many benefits on the
world and exhibiting splendid examples of
sainthood, it was yet. from the first associated
with false ideas of holiness, sought the victory
over evil by wrong methods, did violence to
human nature as God made it, and in conse
quence, and necessarily, ran a course that in
variably ended in corruption and decay. This
is, in fact, the history of monasticism in epi
tome — an outburst of enthusiasm resulting in
the formation of new, possibly reforming orders,
followed by a period of relaxed discipline, world-
liness, growing corruption and final decay : the
process repeated by fresh reformers, with re
newal of the same consequences. It has ever
been so with monastic institutions, however
carefully hedged round, and will be so while
the world lasts. By a curious irony, it is in
the purer atmosphere of Protestantism, with
its healthy check of public opinion, that mon
astic life maintains its highest moral level ;
where that restraint is withdrawn, as in Italy
and other Roman Catholic countries, monas
teries still sink to great depths of degradation.
Monasticism is not a peculiar growth of
Christianity, though it is within the Christian
Church that it has found its fullest, largest,
and most varied development. The ascetic
spirit in Brahmanism gave rise to forest solita
ries and recluses ; Buddhism created an order
of mendicants ; Llamaism in Thibet has de
veloped a species of monkery which bears the
closest resemblance to that met with in Roman
Catholicism ; Mohammedanism has its fakirs
and dervishes. But the most interesting pre-
Christian developments are those which had
their origin in Egypt and Palestine from
Judaism. Such were the Therapeutje, de
scribed by Philo, who dwelt on the shores of
Lake Moeris, near Alexandria. " Here they
lived, like the later anchorites, shut up in
separate cells, their only employment being
prayer and the contemplation of divine things "
(Neander). Such, very specially, were the
Essenes — the "enigma" of later Judaism, as
they have been called — whose chief seat was
the desert of Engedi, on the north-west shore
of the Dead Sea, but whose members were
scattered also through the towns and villages
of Palestine in the time of our Lord. This
singular fraternity was "coenobite" in char
acter, as that of the Therapeutas approached
more to the "hermit" type. Monasticism, it
is thus apparent, has its roots in causes that
lie deeper than Christianity, or any particular
form of religion — in the longing for solitude
and peace, the wish to escape from the evils
of life in the world, the desire of opportunity

for prayer and contemplation, the feeling of
calmness that arises from submission to rule
and discipline, the false notion that abnegation
of comforts and endurance of bodily pains are
of themselves a means of grace, and well-pleas
ing to God. But it was to be expected that
Christianity, which brings to man the highest
spiritual blessings, bids him renounce the
world in spirit and separate himself from its
evils, sets the highest store on prayer and com
munion, and offers the most inexhaustible food
for meditation, would be laid hold of also by
this tendency, and develop forms of monasti
cism peculiar to itself. And so it proved to be.
Monasticism, nevertheless, is no quite early
growth of the Christian Church. Ascetic ten
dencies in relation to food, drink, marriage,
the enjoyments of ordinary life, the use of
wealth, were in full force long before this form
of manifestation was thought of. Even the
terrible days of the great persecutions did not
drive men in masses into this mode of life. We
read only of one individual, Paul, who, on
occasion of the persecution of Decius (A.D. 250),
betook himself to the desert. The true com
mencement of Christian monasticism is with
Antony (A.D. 251-356), who, after the death of
his parents, was moved by hearing the story
of the rich young man read in Church to part
with his earthly possessions, and, adopting the
ascetic life, to withdraw to constantly more
lonely and inaccessible retreats. Many followed
his example and put themselves under his
guidance, with the result that the deserts of
Egypt were soon filled with the cells of hermits.
Pachomius followed (A.D. 292-348), founding
a monastery on the island of Tabenne in the
Nile, and introducing the coenobite type of
monasticism. An account of these movements
is given in the article on ASCETICISM , and need
not be repeated here. The impulse, once given,
spread like a contagion. The conditions of
society favoured the movement, for alliance
with the Empire had brought neither purity
nor peace to the Church ; secularisation had
set in, and in the Empire itself exactions and
oppressions had increased to such a degree as
to make existence well-nigh insupportable.
The current was therefore resistless which
swept men into the desert in shoals, to take on
them the obligations of what the Fathers of
the day called " the philosophic life " — Christ's
philosophy. Nor was the movement long con
fined within its original bounds. It soon spread
into Palestine (Hilarion), Rome (Athanasius,
and later, Jerome), Syria, &c. An enormous
impulse was given to it by the Life of Antony
by Athanasius, a work which, it has been said,
" immediately acquired the popularity and
authority of a monastic Gospel." An epoch-
making step was taken by Basil the Great

MONASTICISM

(A.D 358) in founding a monastery in Pontus,
and giving to his monks a rule, which became
practically the rule of all the Churches in the
East. It is said that his rule was accepted by
80,000 monks before his death (Schaff).
decay of these monastic communities in the
fifth "century ; the corruption and disorganisa
tion that came to prevail; and the reform
effected by Benedict of Nursia, the founder of
the great Benedictine Order, with its results,
have already been narrated in the article above
mentioned. It is more important here to sum
up the character of these movements in a
general view. [For some particulars of the
several rules, see the article MONK.]

The excellent motives in which these mon
astic Orders originated, and the piety of their
founders and more distinguished ornaments,
need not be questioned. It would be easy to
dilate, as Montalembert does (Monks of the
West), on the graces, devotion, and services to
the Church and to humanity of the men who,
in a pure spirit of consecration to Christ, took
i up the life of monkish self-abnegation. But
even that enthusiastic eulogist of everything
monastic cannot conceal the dark spots in his
'~r picture, or deny the spread of the corruption
that ultimately wrought the ruin of the Orders.
That the spirit of self-denying fervour in which
the greater movements took their rise was, with
abundance of faults, for a time maintained, we
do not doubt. The incorruptible loyalty of the
monks to Athanasius, and the panegyrics on
them of this great Father, and of Chrysostom,
are sufficient attestation on this point. A
pleasing feature of the communities was their
insistence on the duty of labour. The rules of
Pachomius and of Basil laid the greatest stress
on labour for self-support, and the help of the
poor. The brotherhoods maintained an abound
ing charity. But these better features are over
shadowed by others less commendable. Each
monk had, as part of his vow, to take on
himself the obligations of poverty, chastity
(celibacy), and obedience. Combined with this
went the call to a life of self-inflicted hardship
and pain. The body was to be kept under, the
appetites and passions were to be subdued, the
freedom of the soul was to be secured, by un
natural austerities, and continual self -morti
fications. The monks of Pachomius, e.g., were
required to sleep with their clothes on, and in
a sitting posture. The hermits subsisted on
the scantiest fare, slept on the bare ground,
wore clothes swarming with vermin, afflicted
and tortured themselves in innumerable ways.
Basil limits the food of his monks to bread,
water, herbs, with but one meal a day, arid
allows of sleep only to midnight, when they
were to rise for prayer. In reference to Basil
himself, his friend Gregory of Nazianzus says :

MONASTICISM

-

He had but one inner and outer garment ; his
bed was the ground ; his food bread and salt,
his drink the running stream. He slept in a
hair shirt, or other rough garment; the sun
was his fire ; and he braved the severest frosts
in the severe climate of Cappadocia "(Newman).
Chrysostom, like Basil, utterly wrecked his
health with his austerities. And with what
result ? Peace was not gained after all. One
confession of Basil's will suffice. " Though I
have left the city's haunts, as the source of
innumerable ills, I have not yet learned to leave
myself. I am like a man who, on account of
sea-sickness, is angry with the size of his vessel
as tossing overmuch, and leaves it for the
pinnace or boat, and is sea-sick and miserable
still, as carrying his delicacy of stomach along
with him. So I have got no great good from
this retirement " (Newman).

This severe repression of human nature was
bound to result in reaction and disaster. So, in
truth, it did. The histories of the monks— of
Antony, of Jerome, of Benedict, &c.— are full
of stories of their terrible conflicts with their
passions. Benedict, who, when he first emerged
from his solitude, was taken for a wild beast,
only achieved a triumph over his voluptuous
desires by rolling himself naked upon thorns.
When discipline was relaxed, it was morality
that suffered. Licentiousness crept into the
Orders, and fearful corruption ensued. But
there were manifold other evils. The monks
were swayed by spiritual pride ; were ignorant ;
becamefanaticalandturbulent— often positively
dangerous elements in society. They were the
chief causes of violence in Councils. From
their ranks sprang wild and half-crazy com
panies of ascetics (" Grazers," " Stylites," &c_).
The disorganisation of the times aided the
disintegration of the Orders, and collapse was
speedy.

It is a new picture which opens on us with
the great reforming movement of Benedict (A.D
480-545?)- The Benedictine Order, with its
strict rule (see MONK ), its revival of labour, its en
couragement to teaching and to learned studies,
its skill in agriculture, its missionary zeal, soon
made itself the dominant Order in the West.
Other rules were merged in, or abandoned for,
that of Benedict. The one form of monasticism
that for a time held its ground against it was
the Celtic, on which a word must now be said.
It is well known how, in A.D. 596, Gregory the
Great (the first Pope from the monastic ranks)
sent the monk Augustine, with forty others, to
effect the conversion of Saxon England ; how
they landed in Kent, and were well received by
King Ethelbert ; how the see of Canterbury was
founded ; how success followed their labours,
till within a century from the first landing, all
the Anglian and Saxon kingdoms had become

MONASTICISM

[ 424 ]

MONASTICISM

nominally Christian. The mission of this some
what haughty monk, however, must not lead
us to forget that a British Church already ex
isted, which had great monasteries of its own.
That of Bangor had more than 2000 monks
(Bede). With this British Church the Scoto-
Irish Church had close relation. Ninian, a
Briton (dr. A.D. 397), had founded his Church
(Candida <7asa = Whitherne = Whithorn) and
monastery, and wrought among the Southern
Picts. Later, Kentigern evangelised the British
district from Clyde to Wales. Patrick, the
Apostle of Ireland (dr. A.D. 431), was from
Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Strathclyde.
Patrick's most notable successors were the two
Finnians, one of whom received his education at
Whithorn, the other at the monastery of Gildas,
in Wales. From Ireland, in turn, came Columba,
trained in the monasteries of the Finnians, to
lona (A. D. 5G3). He and his associates laboured
with success among the Picts and Scots, estab
lishing, wherever they went, monasteries of the
type of lona. Subsequently, at King Oswald's
request, a Columban Church was planted at Lin-
disfarne, in Northumbria (A.D. 035), which sub
sisted thirty years. Space would fail to tell of
all the services of this Scoto-Irish monastic
Church to religion and civilisation. From it
poured forth missionaries to the Continent
(Fridolin, Columbanus, Gallus, &c.). By the be
ginning of the eighth century, Celtic Churches
were found all along the line in Hesse,
Thuringia, Bavaria, and Alemmania.

The Celtic Church was monastic, but its
monasticism had peculiarities which made it
an offence to such bigoted adherents of the
Romish system as Augustine and Wilfrid of
England, and Boniface of Germany. It had a
different reckoning of Easter, and a different
tonsure (the anterior), and bishops, within
monasteries, were subject to the abbots. Such
divergencies were not to be endured, and the
Synod at Whitby (A.D. 664) saw the fall of
the old ecclesiastical system in England. In
Scotland and Ireland the overthrow of Celtic
customs was effected more gradually. Boni
face, in Germany, was even more keenly bent
on the overthrow of the Celtic Church system
than on the conversion of pagans, and, by the
aid of the secular arm, he at length effected
his object. One rule now prevailed, if we
except such a case as that of the " Secular
Canons," instituted by Chrodegang in the
eighth century — the revival of a plan of
Augustine's of having his clergy living to
gether with him under the same roof (their
rule exempted them from the vow of poverty).
But nothing could stay the descent into
corruption of the Benedictine monasteries.
Charlemagne, in A.D. 811, drew up an indict
ment against them, charging them in the

strongest terms with rapacity, idleness, im
morality, and total neglect of spiritual duties.
The efforts of the second Benedict (of Aniane)
failed to effect a reform. So this period also
closed in gloom.

The downfall of the Carlovingian dynasty
was succeeded, in the tenth century, by one
of the most shameful periods in the history
of the Papacy. It is the period known as the
Pornocracy, when abandoned women held the
patronage of the Roman see, and thrust their
paramours and children into the papal chair.
The character of the clergy was deplorable,
and the monasteries shared in the general
degradation. This provoked reform. A vast
number of new Orders were instituted, which
were either, like the Order of Clugny (A.D. 910)
and the Cistercians (1098), reformed branches
of the Benedictines ; or, like the Carthusians
(1086), entirely new Orders. [See on ASCETI
CISM.] Special mention must be made of the
great Mendicant Orders (friars), of which the
chief were the Dominicans (1216) and the Fran
ciscans (1223) ; others were the Carmelites and
Augustinians (on dress, see MONK). Chivalry
gave birth to the Military Orders of the
Templars (1118), the Knights of St. John
(1220), &c. Both the Dominican and Fran
ciscan Orders spread rapidly. By 1264, the
Franciscan Order numbered 8000 cloisters,
containing 200,000 monks. Both encouraged
liberal studies, and from both came the great
schoolmen of the thirteenth century (Bona-
ventura was Franciscan ; Albertus Magnus and
Thomas Aquinas were Dominicans). The Fran
ciscans were more idealistic and imaginative ;
the Dominicans more logical and scientific.
The Dominicans have a less honourable title
to remembrance. They were noted for their
zeal in repressing heresy. From them came
the Inquisition ; to their instigation was due
the persecution of the Albigenses, &c.

This was the period of the highest glory
of mouasticism, as it was the period of the
highest influence of the Papacy. The numbers,
wealth, power, privileges of the monks were
enormous. They were now a clerical body
(the regular clergy, i.e. under a rule, as dis
tinguished from the secular clergy), and were
bound by the strongest obligations to the
support of the Papacy. But this very excess
of power and wealth proved their ruin. Ere
long the monastic Orders, even those instituted
for purposes of reform, took the plunge down
wards, and soon sank into a condition of
disorder and profligacy which made them a
by-word to their own contemporaries, a peril
to society, whose morals they corrupted at the
fountain-head, and on whose vitals they preyed
by their rapacity, and a huge incubus on even
the material progress of the nations. At the

MONASTICISM

[425 ]

MONASTICISM

time of the Reformation in Scotland the monks
and clergy possessed fully half the wealth of
the country. But the economic evil was the
least part of the curse. A historian says:
" The corruption of monastic life was becoming
more evident day by day. Immorality, sloth,
and unnatural vice too often found a nursery
behind the cloister walls. Monks and nuns
lived in open sin with each other. ... In
the Benedictine Order, the ruin was most
complete. Science was disregarded, and they
cared only for good living. The celebrated
Scottish cloister of St. James, at Regensburg,
in the fourteenth century, had a regular tavern
within its walls, and there was a current
saying, "uxor amissa in monasteria Scotorum
quceri dcbct" (Kurtz). The evils were greatly
aggravated by the practice which had grown
up of granting benefices, when they became
vacant, with their lands and tithes, to laymen
in commendam, as it was called, i.e. in trust,
but often for life, and sometimes in perpetuity.
Favourite nobles, the natural sons of kings, &c.,
frequently mere infants, were thus put in
possession of ecclesiastical offices and titles,
and drew the revenues. In neither England
nor Scotland was the state of monastic insti
tutions better than elsewhere. For a picture
of the shameful condition of the monasteries
in England, see Froude's paper on " The Dis
solution of the Monasteries" in his Short
Studies. The state of things in Scotland may
be studied in Burton's History, or in M'Crie's
Life of Knox — best of all, in the Canons of the
Provincial Councils themselves.

The Reformation brought with it great
changes in the condition of monasteries in
Protestant countries. In many cases, as in
England and Scotland, monasteries were dis
solved and their revenues confiscated and
secularised — too often alienated and wasted.
[It is commonly supposed that the suppres
sion of the monasteries was entirely due to
Henry VIII., after he had broken with the
Papacy. This is a mistake. The dissolution
of the monasteries was commenced, and in part
carried through, by Cardinal Wolsey, acting
on powers given him by repeated papal bulls
(1519, 1524, 1529).] The check thus given to
the monastic Orders was, however, more than
compensated for by the founding of the Order
of the Jesuits by Ignatius Loyola (1540; see
JESUITS). The Society of Jesus has been the
strongest support of the Papacy in modern
times. It differs from other Orders in that its
members are exempted from wearing any
peculiar dress, and mingle freely with society.
It relies on culture, polish, and subtlety in its
methods, and is deeply imbued with the spirit
of dissimulation (on its code of morals, see
MORAL THEOLOGY). Individuals are bound not

to hold or acquire personal property ; but
property may be held by their Colleges and
religious houses. At the time of the suppres
sion of the Order in 1773, its wealth was
estimated at the enormous sum of £40,000,000.
Its time of greatest influence was in the seven
teenth and eighteenth centuries ; from 1773 to
1814 it was suppressed by papal decrees; it
was revived in 1814, and since then has played
a part which has led to its repeated suppression
in most countries in Europe. The period since
the Reformation has witnessed the rise of
numerous new Orders, of which may be
mentioned the Benedictine Congregation of
St. Maur (1618), celebrated for its learned
studies ; the Trappists of La Trappe, in Nor
mandy (1665 ; expelled, 1791 ; after Napoleon's
defeat they purchased back their monastery),
marked by the extreme rigour of their rule ;
and the Redemptorists (1732). The seven
teenth and eighteenth centuries were again a
period of utter decline and corruption. Even
Montalembert admits the fact, while laying
the chief part of the blame on the Commcnde.
" The monastic institution hastened more and
more to complete decay. . . . The evil con
tinued and increased, till at last it exhausted
the patience of God Himself" (Monks of the
West, i. pp. 146, 156). Then came the storm
of the Revolution, and the movement through
out Europe, so often repeated, for the suppres
sion of the religious Orders. In Montalem-
bert's way of putting it, " That which the
Church left undone, was done by the crime of
the world" (p. 156). But was it crime ?

In concluding this sketch, we confine our
view chiefly to the United Kingdom, and
simply touch on the debated question of con
ventual inspection. Religious houses, sup
pressed at the Reformation, were revived in
Britain in 1850, and since then every effort has
been made to popularise them and increase
their numbers. In 1829 the only monastic
institution in England or Scotland was at,
Stoneyhurst, but in 1903 there were in England,
Wales, and Scotland no fewer than 283 religious
houses for monks, and 635 for nuns. In view
of this rapid multiplication of religious houses,
and the increasing penetration of the Anglican
Ritualistic party by the monastic ideal, it be
comes important that the real character of
these institutions, and the kind of effects they
uniformly produce, should be kept in remem
brance. A pressing question is as to the view
that ought to be taken of modern convents, in
their relation to the law. A strong objection
to convents is their absolute secrecy, and ex
emption from all proper inspection. It has
often been pointed out that a convent is a part
of British territory practically withdrawn from
the operation and supervision of British law.

MONITION

[426 ]

MONK

No stranger is allowed entrance ; its interior
doings are an absolute secret ; no means exist
of testing whether the damaging statements
made by those who have escaped from its
bondage are or are not true. One immediate
effect is to baffle the requirements of British
law in relation to deaths, lunacy, &c. If a
nun is unfortunate enough to lose her reason,
or if it is alleged she has lost it, she is not
placed in an asylum in this country, but is
hurried off to some conventual asylum abroad,
where the law is powerless to reach her. The
cases of proved abuse are sufficiently numerous
to call for reform here. The conventual system
is not less objectionable when viewed in the
light of the liberty of the subject. It is easy
to reply to all complaints of tyranny in
convents that the vows are taken voluntarily,
and that the inmates remain there of their
own free-will. It is, on the contrary, demon
strable that many have been forced into con
ventual life at the wish of parents or guardians,
who have themselves no desire for it ; and, in
the event of a nun changing her mind, or
desiring to leave her prison, it is in practice
hardly possible for her to do so. The law of
the Church, in fact, expressly provides for,
and insists on, the compulsory retention of
nuns (Council of Trent on Provision for the
Enclosure and Safety of Nuns). Further,
without indulging in any general accusations
of immorality and crime, it is not to be denied
that the inmates of convents are exposed to
quite peculiar moral and spiritual perils ; and
there is no reason to doubt that some of the
minor charges of tyranny and cruelty have
frequently too good foundation. That gross
immorality exists in convents abroad could,
if this were the place to do it, be established
on unimpeachable testimon}^ ; and the very
possibility of such suspicions arising is a strong
reason for letting in the fullest light of publi
city on the life of this class of institutions.

[J. 0.]

MONITION is a direction or warning by an
ecclesiastical judge to a clergyman, either
directing him to do some duty required by
the law, or else to abstain from practices
contrary to ecclesiastical law (see Dale's Case,
6 Q.B.D. 376). It is the lightest form of
ecclesiastical censure. Under the Public
Worship Regulation Act, 37 & 38 Viet. c. 85,
sec. 13, obedience by an incumbent to a
monition or order of the bishop or judge
is enforced by inhibiting the incumbent
from performing any service of the Church,
or otherwise exercising the cure of souls
within the diocese, for a term not exceeding
three months. At the expiration of such
term the inhibition is not to be relaxed until
the incumbent shall by writing undertake to

pay due obedience to the monition. If such
inhibition remains in force for more than three
years from its issue on the final determination
of an appeal thereupon, or if a second inhibi
tion in regard to the same monition is issued
within three years, the benefice becomes void.
The bishop may give the incumbent, however,
another three months. An incumbent may in
the same suit be suspended ab officio et bcneftcio
(Martin v. Mackonochie, 3 Q.B.D. 730 and 4
Q.B.D. 697), but whether it would be possible
to suspend him ab beneficio by proceedings
under the Public Worship Act is not clear, as
that Act makes the benefice ipso facto void
with the order of the Court after a certain
time. [E. B. W.]

MONK. — A monk is one who has taken upon
himself the vows of a separated ascetic life,
either in its solitary form, as a hermit, or in
its coenobitic form, as inmate of a monastery
(see MONASTICISM). The vows are primarily
those of poverty (renunciation of earthly pos
sessions), chastity (which includes celibacy),
and, in the case of a member of an Order,
obedience. The mode of life of the monk is
determined by the "rule" of his particular
Order. In the case of hermit-monks, there
was naturally no rule as respected dress. The
solitary usually contented himself with his
sheep or goatskin, or with the poorest, coarsest,
and scantiest of coverings. There was often a
studious avoidance even of ablutions. Members
of an Order, on the other hand, were commonly
distinguished by some peculiarity of garb (see
below). But their clothing also was generally
coarse and simple (the Order of Clugny a partial
exception). Monks at first were simple laymen,
but the custom grew of taking clerical orders,
at first for the service of the monastery, till
at length most of the monks were likewise
clerics. They were then known as regular
clergy, i.e. those under monastic rule, in con
trast with the ordinary clergy, who were desig
nated the secular clergy, from their life in the
world.

Of monastic vows the greatest importance
was attached to obedience, even more than, in
most times, was attached to chastity. The
rule of Benedict laid stress on obedience as
the first and essential duty of a monk, and
was the first to make vows irrevocable. " Sub
mission had to be prompt, perfect, absolute.
The monk must obey always, without reserve
and without murmur, even in those things
which seemed impossible and above his
strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a
humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only
thing permitted to him, was not accepted by
his superiors ; to obey not only his superiors,
but also the wishes and requests of his
brethren " (Montalembert). The Order in

MONK

[427 ]

MONSTRANCE

which this duty of obedience is carried to the
most absolute pitch is that of Loyola. Its
constitution provides that the candidate must
" regard the superior as Christ the Lord, and
must strive to acquire perfect resignation and
denial of his own will and judgment, in all
things conforming his will and judgment to
that which the superior wills and judges. . . .
Let every one persuade himself that he who
lives under obedience should be moved and
directed, under divine Providence, by his
superior, just as if he were a corpse (perinde ac
si cadaver esset)." But the duty of obedience is
paramount in all Orders.

The rules of the monastic Orders have been
generally of extreme severity. In those of
early date the duty of labour is combined with
that of obedience, and a rigid discipline is
imposed. The rule of Pachomius, e.g., the
founder of communal monasticism, enjoins ab
solute silence at meal times, and forbids the
members ever to take off their goatskin clothes.
They are to sleep in a sitting posture. The rule
of Basil, adopted in the East, is hardly less
austere. In a letter to Gregory, Basil limits
the food of his recluses to bread, water, herbs
with but one meal a day, and allows of sleep
only till midnight, when they were to rise to
prayer. But in this rule he says : " If fasting
hinders you from labour, it is better to eat like
the workman of Christ that you are." Bene
dict's rule is somewhat milder than the
Eastern, but is still very strict. The monks
are not allowed to divest themselves of their
tunic or girdle in sleep. They are to rise two
hours after midnight for matins, and to attend
eight services daily. At meals a book is to
be read, but no conversation is allowed. The
rule provides, like the others, for the monks
being engaged in suitable manual occupations.
Some were to be employed in the training of
children. The Benedictines later became
noted for their skill in copying and illuminat
ing MSS., in compiling chronicles, and some
times in carving and gilding. The second
Benedict (of Aniane), who laboured for reform
in the age of Charlemagne, was of severer
spirit. "Some monks who attempted to live
with him found themselves unable to support
the excessive severity of his system " (Robert
son). The strictest of the mediaeval Orders
was the Carthusian. Each monk ate in his
own cell ; only on feast days had they a
common meal. It was only permitted to break
silence on high festivals, and for two hours on
Thursdays. Infringement of this rule was
punished with flagellation. Of post-Reforma
tion Orders, it will sultice to mention that of La
Trappe. The rule of the founder (De Ranee)
enjoined on the monks perpetual silence,
broken only in public prayer and singing,

and in greetings. They slept on a hard
board, with some straw ; their food was bread
and water, roots, herbs, some fruits and
vegetables, with butter or oil ; study was for
bidden.

The dress of the monks varied with the age
and the Order. The monks of Pachomius wore
goatskins. Benedict prescribed for his monks
a tunic and cowl, with girdle, without specify
ing colour. The ordinary dress of the Bene
dictines is a long black gown, with large wide
sleeves, land a capuche, or cowl, on their heads,
ending in a point. The monks of Clugny wore
a long frock with wide sleeves, dark in colour
(hence " black " monks), and permitted them
selves some adornment ; while the rival Order
of the Cistercians had a tunic and cowl of
light grey colour (hence " white " monks).
The Carthusians wore a rough under-garment
(at first a hair-shirt), and a white upper
garment. The four Orders into which the
Mendicants (friars) were ultimately divided
had each its distinguishing dress. The Fran
ciscans wore a brown frock, with a capuche,
or cowl, and a rope round the body, and were
popularly known as " grey " friars. The garb
of the Dominicans was a white frock with a
black scapulary and hood (believed to be re
vealed to St. Dominic by the Virgin) ; hence
the name " black " friars. The Carmelites
were the " white " friars. These distinctions
perpetuate themselves in the familiar names,
Blackfriars, Whitefriars, Greyfriars, of our
streets and edifices. On some of the above
points see D. O. Zockler's Askese und Moncktum,
where, also, the literature is given.

Another distinguishing mark of the monk
was the tonsure. This custom, adopted from
the penitents by the monks, passed over from
them to the clergy (sixth century). It 'con
sisted originally in shaving the whole head as
a mark of humility ; then was confined in the
Roman Church to shaving the crown of the
head, leaving a circle of hair, in imitation, it
was said, of the Saviour's crown of thorns.
This was called the t<>nsura Pctri, in contrast
with the tonsura Pauli, or shaving only of the
forehead, which was the usage of the Greek
Church. The Celtic Church had also a form
of anterior tonsure, which was one of the
main grounds of quarrel between it and the
Roman Church. Its monks shaved the front
part of the head as far back as the line
passing from ear to ear. Finally the Roman
tonsure prevailed everywhere in the West.

[J. O.]

MONOPHYSITES.— See HERESY.

MONOTHELITES.— See HERESY.

MONSTRANCE.— The stand in which the
consecrated wafer is placed when elevated
for adoration or carried about in procession.

MONTANISM

[ 428]

MONTANISM

It is constructed with a large stem and
base like the chalice, the upper portion being

circular and fashioned so as to resemble
rays. See the subjoined picture.

THE POPE PROCEEDING IN STATE. THE MONSTRANCE IS

HELD IN HIS HANDS
(From an engraving published by the Papal authorities at Home)

MONTANISM was the centre and the exagge
ration of a wide-spreading movement caused
by changes in the organisation and conditions
of the Christian societies in the course of the
second century. The causes which provoked
this extended conservative revolt were the
attempt, successfully carried out, to subordi
nate the prophetic ministry of the apostolic
and sub-apostolic Church to the office-bearers
of the local churches ; and the resolve to come to
some accommodation with the usages of society,
and admit into and retain within the Christian
Church men who desired to keep their places
in the world of life and action.

We meet everywhere in the New Testament
writings, and in sub-apostolic literature down
to the close of the second century, traces of a
unique prophetic ministry who exercised in
special fashion that function of teaching and
exhortation which afterwards belonged prim
arily to the office-bearers in the local Christian
Churches. These New Testament prophets
were believed to be specially "gifted" to
speak the Word of God. They were highly
honoured in the communities to which they
belonged, or which they visited. The " first
fruits " were set apart for their support, they
presided at the Lord's Supper, and they had
an influential voice in matters of discipline
and perhaps in the selection of office-bearers.
During the second century their influence de
clined from a variety of causes. The local
ministry emancipated themselves from their
authority, and claimed control over them. The
change may be made apparent by two extracts.
"Every prophet who speaketh in the Spirit,

ye shall neither try nor judge ; for every sin
shall be forgiven, but that sin shall not be
forgiven" (Didache, xi. 7). "Wretched men
who wish to be prophets . . . holding aloof from
the communion of the brethren ; " and the test
of communion with the brethren is "to obey
the elders who are in the Church " (Irenseus,
Heresies, III. xi. 9, and IV. xxvi. 2).

Along with this struggle against the power
of the prophets and in evident connection with
it, went the desire to live more after the fashion
of heathen neighbours, as far as conscience
permitted, and to relax somewhat the old,
hard discipline which had forbidden any
pardon whatever for more heinous sins com
mitted after baptism. The Eescript of Hadrian
(about A.D. 124) and the hopes founded upon
it that the Churches might be recognised as
collegia licita, the pleadings of the Apologists
for this recognition, and the proclamation of
Calixtus that the Roman Church would give
pardon for sins of the flesh (Tertullian, De
Pudicitia, x. l),were all manifestations of this
change which was coming over the majority of
Christians during the second century.

This double movement, undermining the in
fluence of the prophetic ministry and prompting
the assimilation of the Christian mode of life
to that of surrounding society, was distasteful
to very many Christians, and produced that
conservative reaction which is commonly called
Montanism. The standard of revolt was raised
in Phrygia, a region remote from the busy life
of the great centres of the Roman world, and
where the needs of an accommodation to the
usages of society were less strongly felt ; a

MONTANISM

L 429 ]

MONTANISM

land where Christians were for the most part
converts from a paganism which had cultivated
a craving for ecstatic religious enthusiasm.
The name came from Montana s, a presbyter
of the Phrygian Church, who before his con
version had been in all probability a priest of
the local pagan religion. With him were asso
ciated as disciples and followers, two pro
phetesses, Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla.
This occurred probably about the year 157 A.D.
The great majority of the Christians of Phrygia
seem to have adhered to these leaders. For
some years, in all likelihood, the followers of
Montanus remained within the Church ; but
in the end they separated themselves and con
stituted themselves a distinct body of Chris
tians having sympathisers all over Christendom,
particularly in North Africa and in Gaul.

Montanism may be said to have a double
meaning, according as we include or exclude
these sympathisers. The Montanist movement
in Phrygia had features which belonged to itself.
Montanus seems to have had the idea that God
had commissioned him to gather all Christians
together into one community who were to be
ready to meet the Lord, who was about to
return to earth and begin His millennial reign
in Papuza. In preparation for this Advent
all Christians, worthy of the name, ought to
be ready to renounce all the claims that the
surrounding social life made upon them, and
to practise themselves in all kinds of asceti
cism. Montanus seems to have believed and
taught that the Church had reached its final
term of existence in the world. He and his
fellow-prophets represented the last stage of
prophecy, and consequently possessed an in
spiration such as none of their predecessors
could lay claim to. They, and the gifts of
prophecy they possessed, were the last and
literal fulfilment of the promise given by our
Lord in the Gospel of St. John that the Para
clete would come and abide with His people.
It is noteworthy in this respect to remember
that the most strenuous opponents of the Mon-
tanists — the Alogi — denied the authenticity and
authority of both the Gospel of St. John and
the Apocalypse. Hence the Montanists held
that when their prophets spoke they were so
entirely possessed by the Holy Spirit that it
was not the}*, but the Spirit Himself, that was
responsible for the utterances. The Holy Spirit,
in using their human organs of speech, spoke
in the first person, and when a prophetess was
under the divine afflatus the masculine forms
of speech were employed (compare Montanist
prophetic utterances collected by Bomvetsch
in his Geschicfite des Montanismus, pp. 197,
oracles 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 18, 21, and 13). These
peculiarities in the Phrygian Montanism may
be said to be new, but only in the sense that

they were the exaggerations of what had been
the common belief in the Primitive Church.

When we turn to Montanism in its wider
meaning — the Montanism which included men
like Tertullian — the conservative character of
the movement is conspicuous. The Montanists
had no theory of ecclesiastical government to
separate them from the majority of Christians.
They accepted the threefold congregational
ministry of pastor or bishop, elders and deacons ;
but they contended that the prophets should
be maintained in the honourable position
assigned to them in the apostolic and sub-
apostolic Church. Tertullian makes it clear
that he and those who thought with him, in
sisted that it belonged to the prophets alone
to declare that the Church could pardon cer
tain heinous sins, and that it belonged to them
to prescribe the manner of life which was
becoming in Christians (compare De Pudicitia,
21; DeJejunio,!). But these were the acknow
ledged rights or duties of the prophets in the
earlier years of the second century (compare
Hermas, Pastor, Mandata, iv. 3 ; Visiones, iii. 7 ;
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., V. ii. 5. 6). The so-called
Montanists wished to maintain the prophetic
ministry in its old place and with its ancient
powers. In fact, this question of prophecy,
which is commonly brought forward in order
to show that Montauism was a novelty, affords
the strongest proof of its conservative char
acter. It is true that after the separation be
tween the Montanists and the " great " Church,
Christian theologians vehemently opposed the
Moutanist theory of prophecy, and in particular
declared that true prophecy could not be
ecstatic ; but this was an afterthought for the
purpose of discrediting the Montanist claims
to represent the ancient usages. That it was
an afterthought can be proved by studying
the statements made about prophecy before
Montanism arose, and during the earlier stages
of the movement. The statements made about
prophecy by Justin Martyr (Dialogue with
Trt/pho, 39, 82), by Irensous (Against Heresies,
II. xxxii. 4, 5 ; I. xiii. 4) ; by Hermas (Pastor,
Mandata, xi.), and by Tertullian, are wonder
fully alike. The famous dictum of Montanus
in which he, speaking in the Spirit, described
his prophecy : " Behold the man is as a lyre,
and I sweep over him as a plectrum" — was
used by others to describe what the Christian
prophecy was like. Athenagoras speaks of the
Spirit of God making use of the prophets as
"a flute-player breathes into his flute" (Plea
for the Christians, 7, 9) ; and the author of the
Cohortatio ad Gentes says that " the divine
plectrum descends from heaven and uses
righteous men as an instrument like a harp or
lyre," in order to reveal to man things divine
and heavenly (cf. sect. 8). The same result is

MONTANISM

[ 430]

MORAL THEOLOGY

reached when we study the details of the Mon-
tanist discipline. The movement was a con
servative reaction, a protest against the growing
conformity with the world, and the repudiation
of the special claims of the ancient prophetic
ministry. Like all such reactions it exagge
rated the characteristics it strove to defend
and retain.

Before, and perhaps after, the separation be
tween the Montanists and their fellow Chris
tians in Phrygia, they did not lack sympathisers
within the " great " Church. The martyrs of
Lyons, we are told by Eusebius (Ecd. Hist., V.
iii. 4), wrote in their interest. The Roman
Church, we are informed by Tertulliau (Adver-
sus Praxcan, 1), at first acknowledged the pro
phetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla,
and declared itself to be in communion with
their followers in Asia and Phrygia. The
followers of Montanus were in such a majority
in Phrygia itself that they were spoken of as
the Kataphrygian Church (the Church accord-
ing-to-the-Phrygians) ; and they seem to have
held this position for some centuries. During
this period there is evidence to lead us to
believe that they .were sought after by those
who had increasing difficulties about the laxity
of discipline in the "great" Church, and who
held to the old theory that God vouchsafed
special revelations in matters of discipline to
His prophets and martyrs. Intimate relations,
for example, existed between the Montanists
and the followers of Novatian.

When the Emperor Constantine recognised
Christianity and made it a rdiyio licita within
the Empire, the Montanists and other Chris
tian societies outside the " great " Church
were not included. They did not share what
was called "the peace of the Church." The
persecutions against them were rather in
tensified. Sozomen tells us that the result
was that Montauism disappeared in most
districts (Ecd. Hist., ii. 32 ; cf. vii. 12) ; but the
Phrygians stood firm. Penal laws of increas
ing severity were enacted against them (cf.
especially the edicts of A.D. 398, and of A.D.
415) by Christian Emperors. Their churches
were confiscated ; the ordination of their clergy
was made a penal offence ; search was made
for their religious writings, which were de
stroyed when discovered. The Montanists
were deprived of the power of disposing of their
property by will, and their nearest Catholic re
latives were allowed to seize their possessions.
Still they continued steadfast to their prin
ciples. In the sixth century the Emperor Jus
tinian resolved to stamp them out. Troops of
soldiers were sent against them. The historian
Procopius tells us (Hist. Arc., 11) that the
Montauists in their despair took refuge, with
their wives and children, in their churches,

and setting fire to the buildings perished in
the flames rather than submit to the leaders of
the so-called Catholic Church who had urged
their persecution. The story of the persecu
tion of the populous nonconformist Churches
of the fourth to sixth centuries is usually passed
over by Church historians. It was one of the
greatest blots on the Old Catholic Church.

Authorities.— Albert Eitschl, Die L'ntstchung
der altkatholisclien Kirche(lSoT), 2nd ed. pp. 462-
554 ; Bonwetsch, Oeschichte des Montanismus
(1881) ; Renan, Marc Aurele (1882), pp. 208 /.;
Harnack, History of Dogma (1896), Eng. trans.,
ii. 94-108 ; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry
in the Early Centuries (1902), pp. 235 /. ; also
articles on Montanism in the Dictionary of
Christian Biography by Salmon ; in the Encyclo
paedia Britannica by Harnack ; and in Hcrzoy's
Encylopcedia by Moller. The difficult question
of Montanist chronology is discussed by Harnack
in his Chronologic der altchristlichen Liternlur
bis Eusebius, pp. 369 ff., and by Voigt in Eine
verschollene Urkunde aus dem anti-montanistixchen
Kampfc (1891). The monograph of Bonwetsch
is the most complete. An appendix contains
all the recorded utterances of the Montanist
prophets, and the contemporary sources of
information are carefully set forth on pp.
16-55. [T. M. L.]

MONUMENTS.— Literally, reminders, records ;
anything that perpetuates the memory of a
person or of an event ; a memorial structure,
stone, or tablet in a church or churchyard. If
to be erected in a church of the Church of
England, a faculty is necessary, and once
erected, such monument may be repaired with
out the consent of ordinary or incumbent. The
latter must not allow inscriptions on monuments
or tombstones, inconsistent with the Protest
ant doctrine of the Church of England. " Pray

for the soul of ," was in one case held to

be allowable, but prayer for the dead having
always been discouraged by the Reformed
Church, a faculty for such an inscription would
most likely be refused. (See Whitehead, Church
Law.) [B. W.]

MORAL THEOLOGY.— The Roman Church
claims to rule the conscience no less than the
intellect of her votaries. In dealing with this
ethical aspect of the papal system, it is not
necessary to assert that the moral teaching of
Rome is all bad, or that her catechisms and
manuals of devotion do not contain much that
is in itself excellent. Considerable exceptions
would, indeed, have to be made even here.
Catechisms, not only for adults, but for children,
could be named, in which some of the answers
given are unfit for publication. The student
of Romanism, however, would greatly err if he
estimated the practical effect of the papal
system on the conscience by what is furnished

MORAL THEOLOGY

[431 ]

MORAL THEOLOGY

him in popular manuals. Behind the catechism
and books of devotion stands the vast system
of what is known as " Moral Theology " (Theo-
logia Moralis), in the principles and practice
of which every Roman priest is carefully in
structed. Behind the text-books of the system,
in turn, stands the Confessional, or the place
where the teachings of this " Moral Theology "
are brought to bear by the priest on the con
science of the penitent, and where its prin
ciples are imbibed by the latter. Few, except
those who have taken pains to acquaint them
selves with this extraordinary branch of Roman
theological science, will readily credit its real
character.

" Moral Theology," in brief, is the name
given to that large body of doctrine which has
been gradually elaborated by the doctors,
casuists, and other learned men of the Romish
Church, and has come to be accepted as the
authoritative science of duty, and guide to
practice, for the priesthood in the discharge
of its duties. It is not inaptly described in
Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary (4th
ed. p. 651), as "the science of priests sitting
in the confessional, the science which enables
them to distinguish right from wrong, mortal
sin from venial sin, counsels of perfection from
strict obligation, and so to administer the
Sacrament of Penance." It is the work of
schoolmen, canonists, and in a peculiar degree
of Jesuits, though fathers, popes, priests,
monks, and religious teachers of all kinds,
have contributed to its stores. Its bloom-time
was the seventeenth century, when, in a multi
tude of writers, it developed into the frightfully
immoral system so mercilessly exposed and
satirised by Pascal in his famous Provincial
Letters. The summary given by Mosheim of
its leading tenets is as good as can be wished
(Church History, cent. xvii. sect. 2, par. i. 1,
ch. 1): "That a bad man, who is an entire
stranger to the love of God, provided he feels
some fear of the divine wrath, and from dread
of punishment avoids grosser crimes, is a fit
candidate for eternal salvation. That men
may sin with safety, provided they have a
probable reason for their sin, i.e. some argu
ment or authority in favour of it. That actions
in themselves contrary to the divine law are
allowable, provided a person can control his
own mind, and in his thoughts connect a good
end with the criminal deed ; or, as they express
it, knows how to direct his intention right. That
philosophical sins, i.e. actions which are con
trary to the law of nature and to right reason,
in a person ignorant of the written law of God,
or dubious as to its true meaning, are light
offences, and do not deserve the punishment
of hell. That the deeds a man commits when
wholly blinded by his lusts and the paroxysms

of passion, and when destitute of all sense of
religion, though they be of the vilest and most
execrable character, can by no means be charged
to his account in the judgment of God, because
such a man is like a madman. That it is right
foi- a man, when taking an oath or forming a
contract, in order to deceive the judge and
subvert the validity of the covenant or oath,
tacitly to add something to the words of the
compact or the oath, and other sentiments of
the like nature " (cf. for illustrations, besides
Pascal's Letters, with Dr. M'Crie's Introduction
to the same (1846), a work entitled The Prin
ciples of the Jesuits, Developed in a Collection of
Extracts from their own Authors (London, Riv-
ington, 1839) ; Nicolini's History of the Jesuits,
ch. ix. ; and Cartwright's Jesuits).

How has it fared with the system since ? The
scandal created by Pascal's exposure, and by
the outcry of Dominicans, Jansenists, and
moralists of a less lax tendency, was so great
that the Popes themselves were compelled to
interpose. In the years 1665-66, Alexander
VII. condemned forty-five propositions ; in
1679 Innocent XI. condemned other sixty-five
propositions ; in 1690 Alexander VIII. con
demned particularly the " philosophical sin "
of the Jesuits. But the condemnations, as we
shall see, have had little effect on practice.
Many of the doctrines condemned have been
rehabilitated by later decisions ; the old autho
rities are still quoted ; it is the very system
of probabilism which Pascal denounced, which,
with slight modifications, is in the ascendant
in the accredited text-books of the Church to
day. To show the nature of Rome's "Moral
Theology," it is not necessary to go back to
Escobar, with his twenty-four Jesuit authors,
compared by him to the four-and -twenty elders
of the Apocalypse ; or to his four great autho
rities, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, and Valencia,
who are likened to the " four living creatures "
of the same vision (cf. Pascal). It will suffice to
take as our guides two authors whose authority
no one will dispute : St. Alphonso Liguori,
founder of the Redemptionists (died 1787 ;
canonised, 1839 ; since declared a doctor of
the Church); and P. J. P. Gury, S.J. (died
1866), whose Compendium, based on Liguori,
has gone through an immense number of
editions (we use that of 1894, 2 vols.), and,
with his Casus Conscientue, is a principal text
book in Roman Colleges. A third author might
be mentioned, Peter Dens (died 1775 ; long
used in Ireland); but Dens, with all his
blemishes, is a much stricter moralist than
Liguori, and a sworn foe to probabilism, and
is now quite superseded by the laxer teachers.
It is Liguori who, backed by papal recommen
dations, may be said, with Gury, to represent
existent opinion. The Congregation of Rites,

MORAL THEOLOGY

MOEAL THEOLOGY

who examined Liguori's works in the begin
ning of the century with a view to his beatifi
cation, declared that they found in them not
one word worthy of censure ; and Pius VII., in
1803, confirmed their decree. Liguori's doc
trines have, therefore, the highest authorisa
tion which the papal Church can give.

Mention has been made above of the doctrine
of " probabilism." This is really the founda
tion of the scheme of moral theology with
which Liguori is identified. It was the view
represented in the Jesuit schools of the days
of Pascal (Letter VI.) ; it afterwards fell very
generally into disrepute (Dens, e.g. , denounces
it in the strongest terms, as having introduced
into Christianity horrid monsters of doctrine,
making lawful parricide, adulteries, perjuries,
&c.) ; it is now again reinstated in favour, and
is the reigning system (cf. Catholic Dictionary,
article MORAL THEOLOGY ; Chamber s'sEncy clop.,
article CASUISTRY). A " probable " opinion,
briefly, is one for which some respectable
authority among the casuists can be quoted.
The common view of the older writers was
that ' ' the authority of one good and learned
doctor renders an opinion probable." Others
suppose that where an action is morally unsafe
there is needed at least a balance of opinions
to render it probable. This appears to be the
view to which Liguori inclines, but Gury dis
sents, and the prevalent doctrine at present
is that a much slighter degree of authority
is sufficient to warrant action. It is not
necessary that one be persuaded in his own
mind of the Tightness of the action. Even
though he is convinced that the action is
wrong, it is enough to justify him in doing
it that some casuist or casuists of repute have
pronounced it lawful. As authorities are
seldom lacking in support of any course of
conduct deemed desirable, the precise degree
of authorisation required is a matter of second
ary moment.

We shall now prove that, by the aid of this
elastic principle, the most immoral doctrines
find shelter under the accredited teaching of
the Roman Church. In Pascal's day the
principle was openly defended by the Jesuits
that the end justifies the means, and that
acts otherwise evil may lawfully be done if
they tend to the greater glory of God (ad
rnajorem Dei gloriam). The later casuists use
freely the expression, "a just cause," or "the
glory of God " (the latter covering the greater
good of the Church, or of a religious Order,
or the extirpation of heresy, or any end
deemed pious or religious). For such a cause,
as will be seen, it is deemed lawful to equivo
cate, dissemble, use pious frauds, swear falsely,
break oaths, violate faith with heretics ; while
the lawfulness, in ordinary life, of mental

reservation and deceit, if an important end
is to be served, is freely inculcated. Incredible
it will be said. Let those who think so study
the following examples, or better still, examine
the text-books for themselves (a large number
of extracts from Liguori, with translations,
may be seen in Blakeuey's Alphonsus Liguori,
1852).

It will be well to have at the beginning
Liguori's definition of " a just cause." " A just
cause," the saint says, " is any honest end for
the preservation of things good for the spirit,
or useful for the body" (lib. iii. t. 2, No.
151). It is to be shown what kind of actions
he deems legitimate for such an end,

Take, first, the doctrines that are propounded
unequivocation andoaths. The following isquoted
from Sanchez (one of Pascal's casuists) : " To
swear with equivocation, when there is a just
cause, and equivocation itself is lawful, is not
evil ; because where there is a right of con
cealing the truth, and it is concealed without
a lie, no irreverence is done to an oath " (ref.
as above ; cf. Pascal, Letter IX.). Liguori
distinguishes three modes of equivocation, and
goes on : " These things being laid down, it is
certain, and a common opinion among all, that
it is lawful for a just cause to use equivocation
in the modes explained, and to confirm it with
an oath." He gives an illustration : " Thus he
who is asked concerning anythiDg which it is
expedient to conceal may reply, ' I say no '
(dico non), i.e. I say the word no." This prin
ciple is carried through in the most ingenuous
fashion. Take the following from another
place (No. 160): " Likewise, if any one being
invited as a guest be asked whether the food
is good, which in truth is unsavoury, he can
answer that it is good — to wit, for mortifica
tion." Or this convenient maxim : "Also it is
lawful to conceal the truth when there is a
cause ; e.g. if any one should ask money from
you, you can answer, ' Oh that I had it ! ' or,
' I should rejoice to have it ' " (ibid.). The
question arises, " Whether a culprit, being
lawfully interrogated, can deny a crime, even
with an oath, if the confession of the crime
would be attended with great disadvantage ? "
(No. 156). Some think not, but others, Liguori
says, " with sufficient probability," teach that
" the accused person, if in imminent peril of
death, or prison, or perpetual exile, or loss of
all his goods, or the hulks, and such like, can
deny the crime, even with an oath." Suppose,
however, the oath is sworn with an equivoca
tion idthout just cause, the question is put,
Is that a mortal sin ? Some authorities hold
that it is, but the "more probable" view is
that it is only a venial sin, " for at worst it is
an error of judgment or indiscretion" (No.
151). It is evident that we have already got

MORAL THEOLOGY

[ 433 ]

MORAL THEOLOGY

into a region in which it is possible to make
what we choose of all ordinary maxims of
morality.

Take a few more examples about oaths.
Allied to equivocation is the principle of
" mental reservation " (reatrictio mentalis) —
another favourite principle of the Jesuits.
Here are instances. A Confessor, it is taught,
"can affirm, even with an oath, that he does
not know a sin heard in confession, by under
standing, as man, but not as the minister of
Christ. . . . The reason is, because he who
interrogates has not a right to be informed of
a matter, unless that matter is communicable ;
such is not the knowledge of the Confessor.
And this also is true, if otherwise he should
ask him whether he heard it as a minister of
Christ " (No. 153). This is put more strongly
in a later passage. Even if he is asked to
reply " without equivocation," the Confessor
can still answer, with an oath, that he does
not know it; nay, this is a "necessary equi
vocation which could not be omitted without
sin " (VI. t. 4, No. 646 ; Dens similarly). Here
is another example out of multitudes, this time
taken from Gury, though Liguori states a case
of exactly the same kind : " Anna, having been
guilty of adultery, and being interrogated by
her husband, who has formed a suspicion,
answers the first time that she has not violated
wedlock; the second time (having in the in
terval obtained absolution), she replies, / am
guiltless of such crime ; the third time she abso
lutely denies the adultery, and says, I have not
committed it, meaning within herself, such par
ticular adultery as I am bound to reveal, or, I
have not committed an act of adultery that
has to be revealed to you. Is Anna to be
blamed?" Gury's reply justifies each answer
of the woman, supporting his ruling with a
grave array of authorities (Cases of Conscience
p.129).

The casuistry and sophistry on this subject
of oaths are almost past belief, but come in
substance to this, that a promissory oath taken
without the intention of being bound by it,
does not impose an obligation of keeping it.
Some hold that it does, but, says Liguori, " it
is a more probable and common opinion that
such an oath is not a true oath, both because
it wants the necessary condition to the nature
of a promissory oath, such as is the intention
of binding oneself ; and because an oath follows
the nature of a promise which it confirms as
certain. But an oath made without such a
mind is not, indeed, a promise, but simply pro
posed ; therefore, the promise evanishing, the
oath does so also, and is considered as made
without the mind of swearing, which certainly,
as we have seen, is null and void. But if no
oath exists, there is no obligation of fulfilling

that oath " (III. t. 2, No. 172 ; so Gury). It does
not follow that ordinarily the taking of such an
oath is not a sin, but the doctors again decree
that the sin is only a venial one (the authorities
quoted by Liguori, Gury, &c., are the same
whoso teachings Pascal exposed). There is
another important point in connection with
oaths. However solemnly or sincerely they
may have been taken, it is an article of faith
laid down in these text-books, that the Pope
(himself, or through his prelates) has power to
absolve from them by a dispensation. "A
dispensation," says Liguori, "is the absolute
disposing of the obligation of a vow made in
the name of God. That such a dispensation
may be valid, a just cause is required, such
as, for example, the good of the Church, or
the common well-being of the State " (No. 250).
Earlier we read, " Let (oaths) be never so valid,
they can be relaxed by the Church" (No.
192).

The application of these principles to religion,
in the dealings of Roman Catholics with Pro
testants, and in oaths taken by Romanists to
the State, opens up possibilities of deception
such as the course of history has too often
exemplified. Look at some of the applica
tions in this direction. Liguori discusses the
question of denying one's religion. " In no
case," he begins by saying, " whether by voice
or by any other sign, is it lawful to do this,
since Christ says, ' Whoso shall deny Me before
men, &c.' " But, as usual, it is not long before
this brave sentence is explained away by
casuistical distinctions. " But," he goes on,
" though it is not lawful to lie, or to feign
what is not, it is nevertheless lawful to dis
semble what is, or to cover the truth with words
or other ambiguous and doubtful signs, for a
just cause, and when there is not a necessity
of confessing " (II. t. i. No. 12). One applica
tion is, "when you are not asked concerning
the faith, not only is it lawful, but often more
conducive to the glory of God, and the
utility of your neighbour, to cover the faith
than to confess it ; e.g. if concealed among
heretics, you may accomplish a greater amount
of good, or if, from the confession of the
faith, more of evil would follow, for example,
great trouble, death, the hostility of a tyrant,
the danger of defection, if you should be tor
tured — whence it is often rash to offer oneself
willingly " (No. 14). In this case also, all
limitations may be overruled by the dispen
sation of the Pope. It is a matter of history
that in the struggle of Protestantism with
Catholicism, Jesuits often obtained permis
sion to appear to deny their faith, and even,
ad majorem Dei gloriam, assume the character
of Protestant preachers (cf. Hallam). The
powers of the Pope would seem, according to

2 E

MORAL THEOLOGY

[ 434 ]

MORAL THEOLOGY

many of these doctors, to go further still, even
to setting aside the laws of God. " In those
things," we are told, " which are absolutely
and unconditionally ordered by God, Sanchez
and many others say with great probability
that the Pope has the power, in any particula
case, not indeed of dispensing with them, but
(mark the fineness of the distinction) of saying
that the divine law no longer binds " (Busen-
baum). Gury says on this point : " The point
is one of controversy, whether he is em
powered actually to dispense for some very
grave cause, or only to declare God's law sus
pended for the time. In practice," he adds,
"it matters little" (Compendium, vol. i. p. 104).
He confirms also what is said above on the law
fulness of dissembling the true faith,
lawful," he declares, " to dissemble the true
faith for a while on consideration of very severe
inconveniences that might accrue from public
profession" (Cases of Conscience, p. 61). The
case is stated of a Protestant clergyman be
coming secretly a Catholic, but asking per
mission to postpone his public profession till
such time as it could be done without injury to
his estate. To this, Gury thinks there can be
no objection.

Not unduly to multiply instances, only a few
specimens of applications to common life may
be adduced. Some of them are sufficiently re
volutionary. Gury, e.g., states this case : "An
individual sets poison or a snare in a locality
where his enemy, though very rarely, passes,
with the express intention that he might perish
if he should chance to come by." Is a man
guilty if death is the result ? Gury's answer is
that, according to the more accredited opinion,
he is exempt from guilt ! (vol. i. p. 538).
gives his reason : " Because," he says, " on the
one hand, the external act is not unjust . . .
and on the other hand, the internal act is not
rendered unjust in virtue of intention, for
intention has influence neither for the efficacy
of a cause, nor for peril of injury " (ibid.).
Here is a case bearing on breach of promise :
» A man," says Gury, " who has sworn to a girl
rich and healthy, is not bound by his oath
should she happen to have become poor or fallen
into bad health" (vol. i. p. 316). Again, an
. engagement may be broken off if a fat inheri
tance (pinguis hareditas) should accrue, alter
ing the status of either party (ii. p. 310).
Glancing at another commandment, we find
that our moralists have remarkably strange
notions of the meum and tuum. Here is one
solution of the wages question. Are servants,
who are of opinion that their wages are inferior
to the work done by them, at liberty to help
themselves clandestinely to the goods of their
masters? ( this is called in the books "clan
destine compensation"). Gury's answer is,

generally not, but exception is to be made of
servants who have contracted for inadequate
wages, under physical compulsion, or moral
fear, or the strain of necessity ; all such are
entitled to help themselves to what they
consider their rightful due (vol. i. p. 533).
Liguori, in reply to the same question, would
justify the proceeding, provided the servant
was a prudent man, gifted with sound judg
ment, and certain of the justice of the com
pensation; but he adds cautiously that these
things are extremely rare (III. t. 5, No. 524).
All the moralists are agreed that in extreme,
or very grave necessity, it is no sin to help
oneself to another's goods, without any obliga
tion of restitution.

Only one other point may be referred to IB
this wonderful "Moral Theology." It turns
on the distinction of venial and mortal sin.
This is a distinction which is a third heaven
of delight to the casuist with his refined
subtleties. What constitutes a mortal and
what a venial sin? And in questions of
degree, where is the line between them to
be drawn ? It seems too ridiculous to quote
some of the answers that are given. One
general principle laid down is that a little
theft is a venial, and a greater theft is a mortal
sin ; but where draw the line ? An array of
Jesuit doctors say that to steal two coins
from a working man is a mortal sin ; others
stretch the limit to three. Liguori judiciously
splits the difference, and draws the line at two
and a half. Below that line, the theft is a
trifling offence ; above that line it kills. He
has a carefully graduated scale for the different
orders of men— one Julius (about ftji) for
mendicants ; two for ditchers ; two and a half
for artisans; four for the moderately wealthy ;
five or even six, for the rich ; as much as an
aureus (about a guinea) for the very rich (III.
t 5 Nos 527-8). We take a much more
popular book, a little work, What Every
Christian must Know, by Father Furniss, pub-
lished in Dublin in 1856. On the above
subject of theft we read there : " It is a venial
sin to steal a little; it is a mortal sin to steal
much. ... If you steal from different persons
it needs half as much again for a mortal sin,
and the same if you steal at different times
If you steal from different persons, as well
as at different times, it needs double the
sum. . . . Also when materials are given for
some work, e.g. cloth to tailors, it is a sin to
keep pieces which remain, except people are
quite sure that it is not against the will of the
employer, or there is a common custom of
doing it, or it is necessary in order to gain a
reasonable profit. It is a sin to mix some
thing with what you sell, e.g. water with
any liquor, except there is a common custoi

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE [ 435 ] MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE

of doing it, or it is necessary to gain a reason
able profit " (p. 23).

These examples are, perhaps, enough to
exhibit the character of the" Moral Theology "
devised for the guidance of priests in the con
fessional. There are immense tracts of the
subject on which we have not touched. One
such is the treatment in these text-books
(Liguori, Gury, Dens) of the sexual relations.
The minuteness and pruriency with which this
subject is gone into is shocking in the extreme.
The sections are too disgusting even to be
alluded to, much less quoted, here. Only it
should be kept in mind that this is an apparatus
meant to be brought to bear on the minds of
young girls and married women in the privacy
of confession (we have an example in the
notorious book, The Priest in Absolution, exposed
some years ago).
. Note on Newman's Controversy with Kingsley.

,'r-Newman in his Appendix on "Lying and
"^[uivocation " in his Apoloyia pro Vita Sua,
practically admits all that is said above of
Liguorfs doctrine of equivocation, but severs
himself personally from it, and professes his
own adherence to the principle of straight
forwardness in speech. (Cf. on the views of
the Casuists, pp. 348-9 of 1898 edition, and
his own repudiation on pp. 355 and 360.) " Of
this I am sure," he says, "that if there is one
thing more than another which prejudices
Englishmen against the Roman Catholic, it is
the doctrine of great authorities on the subject
of equivocation" (p. 360). [J. 0.]

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE.

1. The Origin and Early History. — For the
origin of the Moravian Church we turn to the
south-east of Bohemia. The precise spotwasthe
village of Chelcic, the date about 1450, the occa
sion the religious confusion that followed the
Hussite Wars. The followers of Hus were
disunited. Not one of the numerous sects in
the country seemed fit to carry on his work.
The Calixtines, now the National Church, were
content with the Cup for the laity : the Tabo-
rites were routed at the battle of Lipau (1434) ;
and the Chiliasts, Adamites, Orphans, and
Picards made the trouble worse. For a while
the spiritual gospel of Hus seemed lost amid
the jars of sects. At this crisis Peter of
Chelcic came to the rescue. In a series of
pamphlets written in Bohemian, he interpreted
the Sermon on the Mount literally, denounced
war as murder, opposed the union of Church
and State, and objected to oaths and litigation.
He declared that Christ's example and law
were guide sufficient for any man. He
attacked the character of the Bohemian priests,
described the Pope as Anti-Christ, and taught
that man was saved by faith, without human
intervention. His followers were known as the

Brethren of Chelcic, and wore a distinctive
dress. With men of this class Gregory of
Prague, the Patriarch, had associated himself.
He and a small circle of his friends obtained
permission from George Podiebrad to settle in
the deserted village of Kunwald, by the castle
of Lititz ; and there, in 1457, the Moravian
Church was founded. The first members were
of various classes. Some came from Peter's
estate, some from Moravia, some from the
Thein Church and University in Prague, and
some from little Waldensian gatherings
scattered about the land. The name of the
new Church was Jednota Bratrska, i.e. the
Church or Communion of Brethren. By the
term Jednota the Brethren took the stand, not
of a sect with peculiar views, but of a Church
in the proper sense of the term ; by the term
Bratrska they expressed their desire for union
among Christians on a broad scriptural basis.
From that day to this, this twofold attitude
has been a fundamental principle of the
Brethren. The next step made their position
still clearer. In a series of Church gatherings
or Synods held at Lhota (1467), they resolved
to part entirely from the Papacy and its priest
hood, to institute a ministerial Order of their
own, and to organise a free communion on the
model of the Primitive Church. For this pur
pose they held it essential to secure episcopal
Orders. To appeal for these to Rome was
against their principles, to appeal to the Greek
Church equally vain. But in Stephen, a
Waldensian bishop, they found precisely what
they needed. He informed them that the
Episcopacy as held by him had come down
direct from the early Church, and was, there
fore, historically valid. The Brethren were
satisfied with his statements. Bishop Stephen
consecrated Michael Bradacius the first bishop
of the Brethren's Church ; and henceforward
the Brethren guarded their Episcopacy as a
valuable element of their organisation.1

1 The subject of the Moravian Episcopacy
raises questions as to its origin, its maintenance,
and its validity, (a) Origin. — On this three
opinions have been held: (1) Gindely, Palacky,
and De Schweinitz held that Stephen was conse
crated at the Council of Basle (1434), and that
thus the Moravian Episcopate was of Roman
origin. But recent researches seem to show that
this view is untenable. (2) J. Miiller and J.
Koestlin held that Stephen was consecrated by
the Taborite bishop, Nicholas of Pilgram. But
this view ignores the fact that the Brethren had
broken with the Taborites, and would be no more
likely to accept Episcopacy from them than from
Rome. (3) The original view of the Brethren
was that Stephen represented an Episcopate
which, as an office of the Church, had come down

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE [ 436 ] MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE

The constitution followed in due course.
At the head of the Church was a Council of
elders ; the laws were laid down by Synods ;
and the bishops, supreme in their own sees,
held a share in the general oversight. Thus
organised, the Church grew rapidly in Bohemia,
Moravia, and Poland. We note the following
stages: Under Gregory the Patriarch (1457-
73) the Brethren abode by the narrow ideas
of Peter of Chelcic ; under Luke of Prague
(1497-1528) they adopted the Scriptures as
the only rule of faith and practice ; under
John Augusta (1531-72), they issued "Con
fessions" somewhat similar to the Confessio
Augustana ; and finally, under Weuzel von
Budowa (1609-21), they became more combative
and ambitious. Meanwhile they contributed
much to the cause of Protestant progress.
From the outset their distinguishing feature
was that they laid more stress on life than

with, or without, uninterrupted succession from
the early Christian centuries, (b) Maintenance.
— At one point there is a possibility that the
Moravian succession was broken. For eleven
years the Brethren had only one bishop, John
Augusta; and John Augusta lay confined in
Piirglitz Castle. In this extremity appointed
priests of the Brethren consecrated bishops to
perform episcopal functions in manner accus
tomed. In 1564 Augusta was liberated ; in 1571,
the bishops, Israel and Blahoslav, consecrated
three other bishops ; from these three the succes
sion has been maintained to the present day,
and the critical question, therefore, is : Did
Augusta re-consecrate Israel and Blahoslav be
tween 1564 and 1571 ? If he did, the Moravian
succession is unbroken ; if not, there is a missing
link. As Augusta, however, did not protest the in
validity of Israel's and Blahoslav's act, the con
clusion is probable that he regarded their office
as authorised and effective, (c) Is the Moravian
Episcopacy valid ? The answer depends on the
test of validity. If validity depend on the ability
to prove an unbroken succession from the Apostles,
the Moravian claim is unquestionably open to
doubt (this defect it has in common with
the Episcopate of every other Church). But if
validity depends on the purpose to adhere to New
Testament sanctions, and to preserve the inten
tion of the Christian Ministry, as held to be
instituted by our Lord, then the Moravian Epis
copacy may be fully regarded as valid. Amid
much uncertainty it is clear: (1) That the
Brethren were satisfied with Stephen's statement.
(2) That they acted honestly according to their
light. (3) That the Waldensian Episcopate was
of ancient order. (4) That no break in the
Brethren's succession has been proved. (5) That
they have ever striven to maintain the episcopal
office intact.

on doctrine. In dogma they were broad, in
ethics strict. The members were divided into
three classes: the Perfect, the Proficient and
the Beginners. In every parish a body of
elders visited the houses every three months,
and inquired whether business were honestly
conducted, and whether the children were
trained in the fear of God. No person follow
ing a questionable calling (such as dicemakers,
astrologers, &c.) could belong to the Brethren's
Church. The system won the warm approval
of Luther, Calvin, and Bucer. Again, the
Brethren translated the Scriptures direct from
the original into Bohemian. The work was
known as the Kralitz Bible (1593). It is used
to-day by the British and Foreign Bible Society,
and may in time become the means of a
Protestant revival in Bohemia. Again, the
Brethren laid great stress on education. From
1505 to 1510, out of sixty works printe" _in
Bohemian, fifty were issued by the Bret^ ^.
Nearly every parish had its school, the artisans
read the classics ; and by 1600 Bohemia was
said to be the best educated country in
Europe. Again, to promote the spiritual life,
the Brethren laid stress on music and singing,
and were the first Reformers to publish a
Hymn Book (1505). Again, the Brethren strove
to promote the union of Protestantism. With
them a " Confession " was not intended as a
test for membership. At the Union of Sendo-
mir, in Poland (1570), the Brethren, Lutherans
and Reformed, united on the Brethren's doctri
nal basis. Finally, the Brethren contributed
a long roll of martyrs. The most noted were
Hulava, Poliwka, Petipesky, and Augusta.

For these various services to the Protestant
cause the Brethren were widely loved ; their
leader Budowa, who helped to win the Bohe
mian Charter (1609), became a popular hero ;
and the Brethren's Church bade fair to become
the National Church of Bohemia. But her
very prosperity aided her ruin. As soon as the
Bohemian Brethren competed for the position
of National Church, they lost their purity of
purpose, relaxed their discipline, and weakened
their connection with the Moravian and Polish
branches. The crisis found them weak and
disunited. The downfall was swift and sudden.
At the battle of the White Mountain (1620), the
Bohemian Protestants were routed, and the
Brethren fell among the ruins. On the "Day
of Blood" (June 21, 1621), their chief leaders
were beheaded at Prague. The Brethren were
expelled from Bohemia ; their Kralitz Bibles,
Hymn Books, and many historical records
were burnt; the Polish Branch was absorbed
in the Reformed Church of Poland, and many
fled to Hungary, Saxony, and Denmark, and
were thus lost to view.

2. The Hidden Seed (1621-1722).— For the

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE [ 437 ] MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE

next hundred years a " Hidden Seed" lay in a
few Bohemian and Moravian villages. With
Bibles buried in their gardens, they held their
meetings at midnight, saug the old Brethren's
hymns, and handed on the traditions from
father to son. Meanwhile, Bishop Amos Com-
enius, the noted reformer of education, spurred
up the hopes of the survivors, commended
them to the care of the Church of England,
published the Ratio Disciplines (a valuable
account of the Brethren's constitution, &c. ),
and handed on the Episcopacy to his grand
son, Jablonsky, at the Court of Berlin.

3. The Renewal took place in Saxony. As
Christian David, a converted Romanist, was
preaching in some Moravian villages, he met
with some descendants of the Brethren, and
persuaded them to flee with him to a refuge
he had found on Count Zinzendorf's estate at
Berthelsdorf (1722). The new movement was
of a twofold nature. The historic impulse
came from Moravia, the spiritual largely from
German Pietism. The chief human factor was
Zinzendorf. He had been brought up in a
Pietist atmosphere, and sympathised with
Spener's conception of " ecdesiola in ecclesia."
But his genius revolted against the limitations
of either Lutheranism or Pietism. On the one
hand, he declared that the Augsburg Confes
sion did riot contain the whole Christian faith ;
on the other, he rejected the Pietist doctrine
of the necessity of sudden conversion. For
him the essential, both in Lutheranism and
Pietism, was " heart-religion, with the Person
of Christ as the central feature." His ruling
ideas were love to Christ, spiritual experience,
practical brotherhood, the union of Christen
dom, and the conversion of the heathen. As
the settlers gathered on his estate, which they
called Herrnhut, he saw in them materials on
which to work. At first the situation was
alarming. Among the settlers were discon
tented Lutherans, Schwenkfelders, Swabian
Evangelicals, and Pietists. The result was an
outbreak of theological strife. The crisis gave
Ziuzendorf his opportunity and life-work. He
persuaded the settlers to live by a " Code of
Statutes." The next event was still more de
cisive. At the Holy Communion in Berthels
dorf Church (August 13, 1727), the Brethren,
according to their own testimony, received an
outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and learned
thereby to love each other, to sink their differ
ences, and to realise their calling as " Brethren."
Thus, by a purely spiritual process, the Brutrska
element was revived. The Jednota element
gradually followed. At first Ziuzendoii did
not design more than a " church within the
church." His tenants regarded themselves as
Lutherans, and worshipped in the Berthelsdorf
Parish Church. But the historic impulse was

irresistible. For the sake of discipline the
Brethren adopted institutions which they soon
discovered, to their delight, to be like those in
the Ratio Disciplince. For the sake of their
foreign missions, David Nitschmann (1735)
was consecrated a bishop by Jablonsky and
Sitkovius ; and thus the Episcopate was main
tained. For the sake of freedom from human
autocracy, the Brethren (September 16, 1741)
besought Christ to make a special Covenant
with them, and to act as their " Chief Elder" ;
and, convinced that their request was granted,
and that Christ was their only Head, they
thereby set open the door for the free develop
ment of their constitution. For the sake,
further, of legal protection, they obtained re
cognition in Germany as an independent
Church, and in Great Britain and her Colonies,
by Act of Parliament (1749), as an "Ancient
Protestant Episcopal Church." For the sake,
finally, of defining their mission, they adopted
the title of Unitas Fratrum, the Latin rendering
of Jednota Bratrska, which had established itself
about 1575, and had come through Comenius
into general use. Thus the Brethren's Church
was revived in all her essential elements.

Meanwhile the Brethren had spread. In
Germany their development was peculiar. In
order to live in security at all, they were com
pelled by the terms of the Peace of Westphalia
(cujus reyio clause) to build settlements, on
special territorial conditions, on the estates
of friendly nobles. For the State authorities
these settlements were simply a means of
improving their property ; for the Brethren,
they were a working method of realising their
spiritual ideals. For this purpose, therefore,
at several " settlements " they conducted Dia-
conies, i.e. businesses managed by and for
the Church; erected Brethren's and Sisters'
Houses, day-schools for poor children, and
boarding schools for the richer classes ; and or
ganised a complex system of choirs, bands,
classes, love-feasts, hourly intercessions, daily
watch-words, and meetings for singing and
prayer.

This Settlement system affected the whole
future of the Brethren's Church. On the one
hand, it checked their growth on the Continent ;
forbidden to aim at Church-extension, they
conducted the work called Diaspora, i.e. they
ministered to the " scattered " of other Churches,
without attempting to proselytise. On the
other hand, it fostered an intense religious life.
In the days when Rationalism threatened the
health of orthodox Lutheranism, the deep,
mystical faith of the Brethren became a sheet-
anchor for many. From the Brethren the
newer German theology draws the most precious
element of its teaching, i.e. the value of
religious experience.

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE [ 438 ] MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE

In Great Britain the Brethren helped to
mould the course of the Evangelical Revival.
(See WESLEY, JOHN.) They evangelised ex
tensively in the country districts, were re
garded at one time (1753) as more powerful
than the Methodists, and were publicly de
nounced by an array of pamphleteers. In
their hymns they made much of the Passion
of Christ, and were among the first to give
that theme the prominent position it occupies
in modern hymnology. But while in sym
pathy with the essentials of the Revival, the
Brethren resisted three popular tendencies
of the day. Against the prevalent theological
strife they set forth personal experience of
Christ as the one thing needful. Against the
wide-spread Antinomianism they set up a strict
system of discipline, built three or four " settle
ments," and regulated their lives by a " Book
of Statutes " drawn up in the words of Scrip
ture. And against the schismatic tendencies
of the Revival they declared that the English
people belonged by right to the National
Church, denounced the Separatist tendencies
of Methodism, handed over the majority of
their converts to the care of Anglican clergy
men, and endeavoured generally to keep the
Revival within the borders of the Anglican
Church.

In the United States, further, from similar
scruples, the Brethren barred their own way.
For a century they confined themselves to
four " settlements," and employed a body of
"Pilgrims" to evangelise, with strict injunc
tions not to draw their converts into church-
communion. But in 1843 this plan was
abandoned, church-extension was recognised
as a legitimate aim, and since then the
Moravian Church in America has grown more
rapidly.

But the chief work of the Renewed Brethren's
Church has undoubtedly been foreign missions.
The first missionaries went to St. Thomas in
1732. During Zinzendorf's life - time the
Brethren preached in the West Indies, Green
land, North America, Surinam, South Africa,
Guinea, Ceylon, Persia, and Abyssinia. At
the time of his death (1760) they had already
66 missionaries in the field, 3000 baptized
converts, 7000 under instruction, and 13
headquarters of work. The chief distinguish
ing feature of this work has been the close
attention paid to the discipline of the converts.
For this reason it has often been valued by
Government as a civilising agency. In the
West Indies the Brethren's labours made
emancipation possible. In Kaffir-land, Bush-
land, the Gold Coast, and Bengal, the Govern
ment urged them to undertake new work. In
Antigua, South Africa, and the United States
they have received Government aid. In

Jamaica, Barbados, St. Kitts, and Tobago,
they were ultimately aided by the planters —
the very class that had at first been their
bitterest opponents.

4. Present Condition. — (i.) At present the chief
enterprises of the Brethren are : (1) Foreign
missions in Labrador, Alaska, California
(Indians), West Indies, Moskito Coast,
Deinerara, Surinam, Cape Colony, Kaffraria,
German East Africa, Victoria and Queensland,
and West Himalaya. (2) Leper Home at Jeru
salem (founded 1867). (3) Diaspora in Germany,
Switzerland, France, Denmark, Norway, Russia,
and Poland. (4) Home missions in British and
American Provinces. (5) Boarding-schools for
secondary education in all three Provinces.
The Brethren still lay great stress on scholar
ship. The candidates for the ministry receive
a classical education ; in England they are, as
a rule, expected to obtain a University degree,
and are thoroughly grounded in the problems
raised by Science and the Higher Criticism.
On the two latter points there is, of course,
considerable liberty of opinion. (6) Church
Revival in Bohemia and Moravia.

(ii.) Constitution.— Since 1857 the Moravian
Church has been divided into three Provinces,
German, British, American (North and South
U.S.A.). Each Province has its own Synod,
consisting of ministers and lay deputies, and
elects its own governing Board. The General
Synod of the whole Church meets every ten
years at Herrnhut. Its function is to lay
down general rules on doctrine, constitution,
and life. From decade to decade these rules
are binding on all members of the Church.
But the Brethren's Church is not a Communion
with fixed, unchanging rules. At present, e.g.,
the bishops have no dioceses. They are, in
point of fact, always represented on the
governing Church Boards, but their chief
function is to examine and ordain candidates
for the ministry ; yet this state of things is
simply the result of circumstances, and is
theoretically open to change.

(iii.) Doctrine.— At the General Synod of 1879
the following doctrines were laid down in
general terms: (1) The Scriptures as the
sole rule of faith and practice. (2) The total
depravity of man. (3) The real Godhead and
the real humanity of Christ. (4) Justification
through the Sacrifice of Christ. (5) The opera
tions of the Holy Spirit. (6) Good works as
the fruit of the Spirit. (7) The fellowship of
believers. (8) The Second Coming of Christ.
(9) The Resurrection of the dead unto life or
judgment. If the Brethren have a peculiarity
at all, it is the stress they lay on the atoning
death of Christ. " The word of the cross is
the beginning, middle, and end of their
preaching." This is a Moravian principle,

MORAVIAN CHURCH, THE [ 439 ]

MORTAL SIN

though in practice it is not so marked as
formerly.

(iv.) Ceremonies.— The regular public worship
consists of a litany, Scripture lessons, preach
ing, singing, and extempore prayer. The
Communion is celebrated once a month, and
is generally preceded by a love-feast. Infant
baptism is administered on the understanding
that at least one of the parents is a Christian.
The modes of admission to the Church are
adult baptism, confirmation, and reception.
The test for membership is faith in Christ,
with conduct corresponding. No formal creed
is imposed either on members or on ministers,
(v.) Orders.— The Orders of the Ministry
are bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Their
function is the ministry of the Word and
Sacraments, but lay preachers can be author
ised to occupy the pulpit and to conduct the
public worship.

(vi.) Ecclesiastical Attitude. — As the Brethren
have no distinguishing creed, and do not even
hold a brief for any fixed form of government,
it may be asked what plea they offer for their
separate existence. To this question their
history suggests an answer. In view of their
past they regard it as their mission to act as
a union Church. Oil the basis of their Epis
copal Orders they can cordially associate with
the Church of England ; on the basis of their
broad evangelical doctrine they cultivate
friendly relations with all other Protestant
bodies, and thus, preserving the twofold
attitude expressed by their old title, Jednota
Bratrska, they offer a means of union between
Church and Nonconformity. At the same
time they regard it as their duty to recognise
the hand of God in their history, to be true
to the traditions of their fathers, to uphold
the essential doctrines of the faith, to steer
clear of theological strife on matters of definite
creed, to believe that the God who has led
them so far and enabled them to be the
pioneers of such great movements, must still
have work for them to do, and to take their
share in evangelisation both at home and
abroad. As they have no quarrel with the
Anglican Church, they object to be classed
as Dissenters ; as they have no distinguishing
belief, they do not regard themselves as a
"sect" ; and as the Ancient Brethren's Church
distinguished between " things essential, things
auxiliary, and things accidental," so the Re-
newed Church accepts as a motto the words
of Rupertus Meldenius : " In necessariis
unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque
charitas."

Statistics. — Communicants : German Pro
vince, 5643 ; British, 3458 ; American, 15,773 ;
Bohemia, 465 ; Missions, 32,287.

Literature. — In English : Schweinitz, History

of the Unitas Fratrum ; Hamilton, The Moravian
Churchin the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries ;
Button, Short History of the Moravian Church;
Hamilton, Moravian Missions; The Moravian
Church Boole (1902) ; Moravian Manual (1901) ;
Moravian Almanac (Annual) ; Wauer, Begin
nings of the Brethren's Church in England. In
German : Gindely, Geschichte der Bohmischen-
Briider ; Goll, Quellen und Untersuchungen
zur Gesch. der Bohviischen- Briider ; Burkhardt,
Zinzendorf und die Briider- Gemeine ; Miiller,
Das Bischofstum der Briider- Kir che, Die Gefan-
genschaft des Johann Augusta, and Zinzendorf
ah Erneuerer der alien Bruder-Kirche ; Becker,
Zinzendorf und sein Christcntum im Verhdltniss
zum kirchlichen und religioscn Leben seiner Zeit ;
Homer, Zinzendorf, sein Leben und Wirken ;
Schmidt, Zinzendorf 's sociale Stellung ; Schultz,
Abriss eincr Geschichte der Briider- Mission.

[J. E. H.]

MORGANATIC MARRIAGE.— This kind of
marriage does not exist in English law. In
foreign countries a person of noble or princely
birth may contract a valid marriage with a
person of inferior degree, which has as one of
its conditions that the issue of such marriage
shall not have the rank of their noble or princely
parent. Where such a marriage is recognised,
it would prevent the person so marrying being
married again during the subsistence of the
morganatic marriage. The only case in which
English law attaches special conditions owing
to the rank of the persons contracting to marry,
is in relation to members of the Royal Family.
By the Royal Marriage Act, 12 Geo. III., c. 2, it
is provided that the descendants of George II.,
except the issue of princesses married abroad,
shall obtain the consent of the sovereign to
their marriages ; and this consent is necessary
whether he or she wishes to marry a prince or
a commoner. For example, Queen Victoria
gave her consent not only to the marriages of
the royal princes and princesses in England,
but to the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland
to the Princess Thyra of Denmark. If the
sovereign refuses consent, the marriage is null
and void altogether. A member of the Royal
Family can, however, subject to certain con
ditions, dispense with such consent if he or
she is over twenty-five years of age. For it is
provided that if he or she gives twelve months'
notice to the Privy Council of the intended
marriage, it is a good and binding marriage in
spite of the refusal of the sovereign, unless both
Houses of Parliament, before the expiration of
the twelve months, expressly declare their dis
approbation of such marriage. If Parliament
does not interfere, the issue of the marriage of
a prince or princess with a commoner inherit
the full rights of their parent. [E. B. W.]
MORTAL SIN.— See DEADLY SIN.

MORTAR, HOLY

[ 440 ]

MOTHER OF GOD

MORTAR, HOLY.— In the Roman Pontifical,
in the service for the consecration of a church,
" the Pontiff returns to the altar, and there,
his mitre on, he makes mortar with the same
holy water and blesses it, saying, ' 0 most high
God, sanctify and hallow these creatures of
lime and sand. Through Christ, &c.' " (Pont.
Rom., second part).

MORTMAIN.— The possession of land by
religious or lay corporations has been con
sidered since the days of Magna Charta as
destructive of the safety and welfare of the
kingdom. In early times — principally because
corporations were not able to perform the
services incident to the tenure of the land,
and because the feudal superior, by the pos
session of the land by a corporation, lost his
other feudal rights — statutes were passed mak
ing the alienation of land to a corporation a
cause of forfeiture. The feudal superiors
affected could, however, forego their rights by
granting a licence to alienate to a corporation.
The Crown's right to grant such licences has
been recognised from the earliest times, and is
recognised up to the present time. The law
on the subject is now contained in the
Mortmain and Charitable Uses Acts of 1888
and 1891. These Acts define "land" to
" include tenements and hereditaments cor
poreal or incorporeal of any tenure ; but not
money secured on land or other personal estate
arising from or connected with land," and
then provide that land shall not be held by, or
on behalf of, or given to any corporation in
Mortmain except under authority of a licence
from the Crown, on pain of being forfeited to
the Crown. An exception is, however, made
on behalf of charities if certain conditions are
complied with.

The following objects have been denned
by the law to be charities, as also objects
analogous to them: (1) The relief of aged,
impotent, and poor people. (2) The main
tenance of sick and maimed soldiers and
mariners. (3) The maintenance of schools of
learning, free schools, and scholars in Univer
sities. (4) The repair of bridges, ports, havens,
causeways, churches, sea -banks, and high
ways. (5) The education and preferment of
orphans. (6) The relief, stock, or maintenance
of houses of correction. (7) Marriage of poor
maids. (8) The supportation, aid, and help of
young tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and persons
decayed. (9) The relief or redemption of
prisoners or captives. (10) The aid or ease of
any poor inhabitants concerning payment of
fifteens, setting-out of soldiers, and other
taxes. There are a few other exceptions to
the general law, which it is impossible to
give here, owing to want of space.

The conditions on which land may be sold

and given to charitable corporations are as
follows. The conveyance of the land must
be made without any power of revocation or
reservation, condition, or provision for the
benefit of the grantor or any one claiming
under him, except (1) a nominal rent; (2)
mines or minerals ; (3) easements ; (4) covenants
or provisions as to buildings, streets, drainage,
or nuisances ; (5) right of entry on non-pay
ment of such rent or breach of such covenant
or provisions ; (6) stipulations of the like nature
for the benefit of the grantor or any one claim
ing under him. If the land is freehold, it must
be conveyed by deed executed in presence of
two witnesses ; unless the transaction is on a
sale for full and valuable consideration, the deed
must be made twelve calendar months before
the death of the grantor, or it will be void,
and enrolled within six months after its exe
cution in the Central Office of the High Court
of Justice.

In three cases all these strict conditions are
not insisted upon, i.e. where the land is to be
devoted to the purpose of a public park, and
does not exceed twenty acres, a public museum,
and does not exceed two acres, or a school-
house, and does not exceed one acre. Land
may, however, be given by will subject to this,
that it must be sold within a year after the
death, unless the Charity Commissioners give
special permission for it to be retained as
being required for actual occupation for the
purposes of the charity. Both Universities, of
Oxford and Cambridge, are exempted from
the operation of the Act, and a few other
corporations. [E. B. W.]

MOTHER OF GOD.— A title given to St.
Mary. In the fifth century there sprang up a
fierce controversy as to the manner in which
the divinity and humanity were united in
Christ. Theodore of Mopsuesta, and, following
him, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
explained the mystery by saying that a child
was born like other children of men, and that
subsequently the divinity united itself to Him.
Christ, therefore, consisted of two persons,
one human, one divine. The error that they
made was in not distinguishing between per
sons and natures. Our Lord has two natures,
divine and human, but they co-exist in one
Person. This truth was insisted on with over-
great vehemency and violence by Cyril of
Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus. Re
solved to bring home their error to their adver
saries, and to stamp it as heresy, the orthodox
party adopted the word Thcotokos, which
Nestorius had already refused to accept, as a
test of the true doctrine, just as the Council of
Nicsca had adopted the word homoousios, or
consubstantial, as a test whereby to try and to
reject Arianism. The word Theotokos means,

MOTHER OF GOD

[ 441 ] MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

" She who brought forth Him who was at His
birth God." The title was applied to the
Lord's mother, not at all with the purpose of
doing honour to her — that was not thought of —
but of maintaining the true doctrine respecting
the unity of Person in Christ. But the days
were becoming evil. Since the gradual extinc
tion of paganism, men had lost their horror of
paying adoration to dead men and women,
and the word Theotokos, becoming the watch
word of Cyril's party against Nestorianism,
soon was misinterpreted and misapplied. Men
forgot that it had been insisted on only to
teach a truth regarding Christ's Person, and
looked upon it as a title of honour, devised by
the Council, for St. Mary. Already St. Mary
had been venerated by Gnostics and Colly-
ridians, who had composed the apocryphal
gospels of the Birth and of the Death of Mary,
and had offered her cakes in token of adoration.
But the Church for four centuries had looked
with detestation and contempt on these hereti
cal books and practices. "The whole thing,"
said Bishop Epiphanius, "is foolish and strange
and is a device and deceit of the devil. Let
Mary be in honour. Let the Lord be wor
shipped" (Hcer., Ixxxix.). But, as a result of
the Nestorian controversies, veneration of the
Theotokos began to spring up within the Church
also. The loose translation of the word as
" Mother of God," gives to the unlearned the
idea that Christ in some way derived His
divine as well as His human nature from her.
The Madonna and Child became a symbol in
art of Anti-Nestorian orthodoxy, and soon
the mother overshadowed the Child. So far
was Christian sentiment perverted through
a mistaken apprehension of the purpose of a
word which in itself bad no superstitious or
idolatrous meaning, that in the sixth century
the Gnostic and Collyridian fables respecting
St. Mary were brought bodily over into the
Church, without protest or remonstrance, by
Gregory of Tours, and from him were handed
on to Andrew of Crete (a degenerate country
man of Epiphanius) in the seventh century,
and again from him to John Damascene in the
eighth century, after which they became the
basis of what Lord Lindsay has called the
" Christian mythology " of the Middle Ages.
This seems to have been the course by which
the worship of St. Mary, recognised and con
demned by the Church for four centuries as
heretical, became the faith of the later Church
— a worship which, increasing age by age, has
grown to the portentous dimensions that we
at present witness in the practice of the
modern Roman and (in less degree) Greek
Churches, and threatens to supersede, if it has
not superseded, love and devotion to Christ
as the Saviour and Redeemer, the Way, the

Truth, and the Life, all which titles are attri
buted to St. Mary by the appointed Doctor of
the Roman Church, St. Alfonso de' Liguori, in
his Glories of Mary. Leo XIII. was not a whit
behind St. Alfonso in his devotion to her, and
" Marian Congresses " in Italy and France are
day by day pushing her worship into wilder
and wilder extremes. [F. M.]

So far from Thiotokos being identical in
meaning with " Mother of God," the Liturgy
of St. James (Neale, Greek Texts, p. 65), calls
her, TTJV OeoTOKOv . . . /cal /XTJT^O, TOV Qeov T)/J.UV.
Neale, in his supplementary volume of Trans
lations, p. 55, indeed translates both phrases
by the same words, and says in a footnote, " It
is impossible in English, without tautology, to
repeat the wr^pa TOV GeoD, after having already
given the 6eort>Kov." But that is "taking away
the key of knowledge " with a vengeance. The
"Office of the Prothesis," also given by Neale
(Translations, 7th edit., p. 185), speaks of the
"parents of God, Joachim and Anna;" were they
also 6for6Koi 1 At first the Latin Church accepted
the Greek word without translating it — like
"Amen," or "Jehovah." Pope Leo changed
the word into Genetrix. Ephraim of Theopolis
translated the phrase back again into MTTT^P
0eoO, adding that " Leo was the first person to
call Mary ' the Mother of God ' ; which none of
the Fathers before him had done." The Roman
edition of the Councils changed the word
theotokos into the newly coined " Mother of
God," and Baluzius the editor says apologeti
cally, " Who doubts that this is a good inter
pretation ? " (Tyler's Worship of the Virgin,
p. 319). [J. T. T.]

MUSIC, IN CONNECTION WITH
CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.— No account of
Christian music can be altogether dissociated
from the view of ritual, and the history of its
development in the service of the Christian
Church.

It is impossible to take even the most cursory
view of the sacred Scriptures without being
struck with the marked contrast between the
Old Testament and the New in the matter of
ritual observances. The Old Covenant is full
of them. They enter largely into the very
substance of its religion. Directions con
cerning them abound. They are rooted in the
soil of Judaism. The Temple at Jerusalem,
and its courts with their sacrifices, and their
continual sacerdotal ministrations, are ever
before our view when we turn to contemplate
the worship of God's people in the older dis
pensation.

But we scan the writings of the New Testa
ment, and we find these things, and things
such as these, nowhere. They have no place.
No directions for any ceremonial observances,
no ritual ordinances are to be found. And we

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP [ 442 ] MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

can hardly be surprised if we find this very
striking change affecting, to some extent, the
matter of Christian music, and the use of
musical instruments in the worship of the
Christian Church.

But here, before we go farther, it concerns
us very much to observe that the early
Christians were taught to know that the
absence of attractive ritual was not to be set
down merely to their present poor, despised
condition in the world — a condition which
made this lack of ceremonial a necessity for
them. They recognised simplicity as that
which was suitable for the worship of God's
people in the Christian Eevelation. (See Light
from History on Christian Ritual, N.P.C.U., pp.
40, 81, 82.) The treatise " De Baptismo," there
quoted, is generally allowed to have been
written by Tertullian before he became a Mon-
tanist. See Bishop Kaye's Eccl. Hist, of Second
and Third Centuries, pp. xv. 32 ( Works, vol. i.).
They learnt to turn away from, to shun, and
even to abhor everything that they regarded as
Jewish in their worship. And they recognised
the distinction between the two Covenants
as requiring a marked change in the ideas of
divine service. In this we cannot doubt that
they were right. The TerAecrTcu of Calvary,
the finished work of divine redemption, had
opened a way by which believers passed at
once from under the yoke of legal and cere
monial bondage into the glorious liberty of the
sons of God — a liberty in which typical shadows
had no place, and in which the true worship
pers were to worship God in spirit and in truth.
On their standing-place in grace Christians
might indeed very well admit a certain
modest observance of such outward cere
monial observances as might be made an
cillary helps (adjuncts, movable and variable)
to united devotion, and might secure that
all things should be done decently and in
order; but they could never find place for
any such rites and ceremonies as might claim
admission on the ground of their forming
any part of the true substance of Christian
religion.

And it was only natural that the clear per
ception of this strongly marked distinction, in
the matter of ritual, between the Jewish and
the Christian dispensation, should have had
its influence on the matter of the use of music
in the Christian Church. If simplicity in the
matter of ceremonial was a fitting character
istic of Christian worship, it would follow
almost as a matter of necessity that simplicity
also should mark that which was suitable for
Christian song.

There is, however, an important observation
which should be made as affecting our subject
in this connection. Israel's music was older

than Israel's law. The history of Israel's
song is to be traced up to a time before Israel
had come to Sinai, before the ordinances of the
law had been promulgated. It was the utter
ance of the thankful praise of the redeemed
people, when they stood on the other side of
the Red Sea, when the sister of Aaron, and all
the women with timbrels and dances, answered
the joyous song of a multitude just brought
out by the power of their God from the
bondage of Egypt, making their voices to
sound aloud in the chorus, "Sing ye to the
Lord, for He hath triumphed gloriously ; the
horse and his rider hath He thrown into the
sea" (Exod. xv. 21).

Moreover, in later times, the development
of musical art in the history of the Jewish
Church did not come out of the obedience to
any ceremonial injunction contained in the
law. There are no such injunctions to be
found there at all.1 It came out of the pious
devotion of believing hearts, exercising them
selves in the endeavour to give suitable ex
pression to the grateful joy and joyous praise
which should animate the souls of the elect
people of God (see Light from History, pp. 14,
16).

Nay, more than this ; we should not fail
to mark how, in the inspired Scriptures of God,
we find the Holy Spirit setting this — the heart's
music (even its instrumental music as an organ
of spiritual utterance of praise), which rested
on no commandment given on Sinai — on a
higher level than the thanksgiving offerings
which were strictly enjoined among the cere-

1 The blasts of the trumpets which were or
dained in the law, formed no part of the instru
mental music of the Service of Praise. They
were for a different purpose (see Edersheim,
Temple, &c., pp. 53, 142, 143, 252, 253). The sound
of the trumpet was rather the call as of God's
voice to the people than the voice of the people's
praise to God (see Speaker's Commentary, vol.
iv. pp. 599, 605). If an exception is to be made
in the use of trumpets recorded in 2 Chron. v.
12, 13 ; vii. 6 ; xxix. 27, 28, it must be remem
bered that this use was no original ordinance of
the law, but was a royal commandment sanc
tioned or authorised ' ' of the Lord by His
Prophets." (See 1 Chron. xv. 16 ; xxiii. 5 ; 2
Chron. xxix. 25 ; Ezra iii. 10 ; Neh. xii. 45-47. See
also Light from History, pp. 14, 15, and Smith's
Diet, of BMc, vol. ii. pp. 443, 444 ; also Elliott
in Speaker's Commentary on Ps. xcviii. 6.) The
"shofar" was used to summon the people to
attention. It is first mentioned at the giving of
the law in Exod. xix. In time of war it sum
moned the army. (See Hastings, Diet, of Bible,
vol. iii. p. 462. See also Kay on Psalm xxvii. 6 ;
xxxix. 15.)

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP [ 443 ] MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

monial observances; of the law.1 Witness the
words of the sixty-ninth Psalm : " I will praise
the name of God with a song, and will magnify
Him with thanksgiving. And it shall please
the Lord better than an ox or a bullock that
hath horns and hoofs " (vers. 30, 31). And add
from the seventy- first Psalm : "I will also
praise Thee with the psaltery, even Thy truth,

0 my God : unto Thee will I sing praises with
the harp, O Thou Holy One of Israel" (ver. 22).
It should be observed, however, that even in
the service of the Jewish Temple, instrumental
music was held to be only for the purpose of
sustaining the song. The Service of Praise
was only that which was with the voice (see
Edersheim, Temple, &c., p. 52).

And this makes it all the more observable,
that the feelings of the early Christians, de
siring to mark the contrast between the Old
Dispensation and the New, led some of them,
in their rejection of all that was Jewish, not
only to seek simplicity in ritual, but also in
seeking simplicity in the matter of musical
art, to reject all use of musical instruments,
and to content themselves (speaking generally)
with simple singing (rb atrai ctTrXtDs) as the best
expression of spiritual praise and thanks
giving.2 And it is' an interesting inquiry,

1 "The Prophet David having therefore singular
knowledge, not in poetry alone, but in music
also, judged them both to be things most neces
sary for the house of God, and left behind him
to that purpose a number of divinely indited
poems, and was further the author of adding
unto poetry melody in public prayer, melody
both vocal and instrumental for the raising up
of men's hearts, and the sweetening of their
affections towards God" (Hooker, Eccl. PoL.book
v. ch. xxxviii. § 2).

2 The organ was never adopted among the
Greeks or Orientals. Chrysostom regarded musi
cal instruments generally as only permitted in
the Old Testament worship on account of the
weakness of the Jews. Theodoret uses similar
language. And a treatise formerly attributed
to Justin Martyr, but really written after the
conversion of the Empire, says expressly, that
whereas instruments were allowed in the Temple,
only singing without instruments is permitted in
Christian Churches (see Bingham, Antiquities of
Christian Church, book viii. ch. vii. § 14). "The
Greeks and Russians at this day rigidly follow the
same rule " (see Catholic Diet., p. 682). The objec
tion to the use of any musical instruments could
only have rested on the broad general principle of
cultivating simplicity, and avoiding what might
lead to meretricious attractions in divine service.
Hooker truly observed, "They which, under
pretence of the law ceremonial abrogated, re
quire the abrogation of instrumental music,

which (though it would be outside our purpose
to investigate fully) we cannot altogether pass
over : What was the simple singing of the early
Christian Church ?

When we read of our Blessed Lord's " sing
ing an hymn " with His disciples after the in
stitution of the Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi. 30),
it is generally agreed that we are to understand
the intoned recitation of Psalms 115, 116, 117,
118, which formed the second part of the Pas
chal Hallel, and which, according to Jewish
custom, was sung or chanted at the conclusion
of the Passover Supper. And when we find St.
Paul admonishing the Ephesians that their
Christian enthusiasm is not to be stimulated
by the intoxication of wine, but by the filling
of the Spirit, "Speaking to yourselves in
psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing
and making melody (or music) in your hearts
to the Lord," we are not, of course, to have
our thoughts turned towards anything very
like what we are accustomed to speak of as
hymn-singing. If the word \J/d\\ovTes is taken
to include (as it naturally should) the use of
some instrumental accompaniment — the lan
guage employed ranst be understood as
implying variety in the use of such chantings of
Psalms, with perhaps rhythmical and poetical
paraphrases of portions of Holy Scripture
which were in use among God's people (see
Bingham, book xiv. ch. i. § xvii., and Eadie on
Ephes., 411). And all was to be done — to use
Bishop Moule's words — " not as ' music wor
ship ' (God forbid), but as worship full of music,
paid to the remembered, adored, loved, present
Lord" (Ephesian Studies, p. 277).

But, while we have evidence that some sort
of antiphonal song was in use in the early
ages of the Christian Church, we can hardly
be mistaken in coming to the conclusion that
the Psalmody of these earliest Christians was,
speaking generally, like their ritual, of a very
simple kind, mostly something of an unartificial
chant, and commonly, in some parts of the Em
pire at least, without any help from musical
instruments (see Bingham, book xiv. ch. i.
§ xv., and Light from History, pp. 38-42). More
over, it would appear that the singing which was
approved in the early Church was always, or
generally, congregational singing (see Light
from History, p. 36).

It is not to be wondered at that, with the con
version of the Emperor Constantine, a great
change came over the Christian Church — a
change which speedily made itself remarkable
in many particulars. What had been outcast

approving nevertheless the use of vocal melody
to remain, must show some reason wherefore the
one should be thought a legal ceremony and not
the other" (Eccl. Pol., book v. ch. xxrviii. § 2).

and despised now became fashionable and ad
mired. There was room now for the display of
Christian Art. Architecture could show what
was magnificent and gorgeous in the building
of churches. And the interior of Christian
churches began to show what was attractive
and beautiful in the ceremonial of Christian
worship. And as a natural consequence, while
the antipathy to everything Jewish was still
fostered in the hearts of Christians, the Chris
tian Church was more and more, by continual
onward steps of progress, becoming more and
more assimilated to something more or less
corresponding to a Jewish law of ceremonies.
The simplicity of its original worship was being
overlaid with the elaborations of ritual — all
of human device, but by degrees tending to
wards the making of a claim to be accounted
sacred with a sacreduess almost as, in some
sense, divine (see Light from History, pp. 82-
86). And this change undoubtedly had a
tendency to affect the psalmody and the
hymnology of the Church, hardly, however,
with a movement which carried it along always
pari passu with the progress of ritual.

There are three particulars in the history
which demand a little special attention.

1 . The first important change in the Christian
use of music is due, as generally acknowledged,
to Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, towards the
close of the fourth century. But, strange as it
may seem, there is considerable difficulty in
defining wherein exactly the Ambrosian music
differed from that which had been in previous
use. It is known that his method was borrowed
from the East ; and it has been supposed that
" secundummorem orientaliumpartium" means
antiphonally, the people joining in (see Smith
and Cheetham, vol. ii. p. 1744). But it does not
appear that he was the first to introduce anti-
phonal singing into the West.1 It must suffice

1 Duchesne, following Theodoret, considers that
antiphonal singing was introduced at Antioch in
the time of Bishop Leontius (Christian Worship,
p. 114, S.P.C.K.). Much earlier appears to have
been the Psalmus Responsorius, which was a
Psalm chanted as a solo, the congregation taking
up the last modulations of the chant (ibid. p. 58).
But there is some reason to believe that antiphonal
singing had been in use in the service of the
Jewish Temple (see Edersheim, Temple, &c.,
p. 57). And it need not, therefore, be supposed
that it was altogether unknown in the Christian
Church before the middle of the fourth century.
Augustine, indeed, appears to regard antiphonal
singing as due to Ambrose. But Theodoret traces
it to Antioch (ii. 24), and Socrates ascribes it to
Ignatius (vi. 8), while Nicephorus Callistus (xiii.
8) says that the practice had been received by
tradition from the Apostles. See Eadie on Ephes.,

us here to observe— what will be generally
allowed — that Ambrosian music was rhythmi
cal, and that its strains were melodious with a
melody such as was unknown before in the use
of the Western Church.2 There seems no reason
to doubt that, before this, in the time of Basil the
Great, Psalms — not songs — had been instrumen-
tally accompanied, and that the music of the
Psalms was probably as elaborate at times as
the condition of musical art permitted (Smith
and Cheetham, vol. ii. p. 1 746). But what it con
cerns us specially to note in this connection is
the effect produced upon St. Augustine when
he heard these new strains at Milan. He was
moved at the time even to tears. And after
wards he could not but acknowledge that
the result might be wholesome and profitable.
Nevertheless, he looked with evident apprehen
sion to the future of these innovations. He
dreaded the effect of bringing into the worship
of God that which ministered delight to the
natural carnal heart of man. And he some
times felt that it was a thing to be desired
that there should be banished from his ears,
and from the ears of the Church itself, the
sweet melody of those chants with which the
Psalms of David were then performed (see Light
from History, pp. 41, 42). And he judged it
safer to follow the oft-repeated recommendation
of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who would
have the Psalms chanted with such a moderate
inflexion of the reader's voice as should make
the utterance more like distinct speaking than
melodious singing (" ut pronuncianti vicinior
esset quam canenti ").

2. For the next important point in onr
history, we have to take a step forwards of
about two hundred years. We come to the
time of Pope Gregory the Great. But we
must not suppose that Gregory's work was
altogether to add to the artistic attractiveness
of the music of St. Ambrose. In the interval
of two hundred years the tendency which St.
Augustine had so dreaded bad indeed been
manifesting its dangerous results. Innova
tions had been gradually coming in from the
corruptions of paganism rather than of Juda
ism. It has been said, "The simplicity and
plainness of the Ambrosian chants had been
overlaid with frivolous embellishments, so that
there was little difference between secular
music and sacred. Gregory changed all this.

p. 409, who says, " AaXoDvrej eavrots, different
from \tyorrfs irp&s tavrovs, may, perhaps, signify
' in responsive chorus,' or dicere secum invieem,
as Pliny's letter describes it."

2 On the subject of the changes made by
Ambrose, the reader may be referred to the article
HYMNS in Smith and Cheetham's Diet, of Christ.
Antiq., as well as to that on AMBROSIAN Music.

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP [ 445 ] MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

His aim was to simplify the music of the
Church, regarding, as he did, all rhythmic
singing as too light and frivolous for the
purpose of worship" (Schaff-Herzog, vol. iii.
p. 1600). It should be added that whereas
the Council of Laodicea had thought right to
confine the music to the choirs1 and forbid
congregational singing, Gregory set himself
against such prohibitions and restored to the
congregation their right (ibid.). Canisius says
of Gregory that he " composed and arranged
and constituted the Antiphonarium and Chants
used in the morning and evening service."
He also established schools at Rome for musi
cal education, which he often visited to hear
or to lead the singing (Hid.).

The general character of Gregorian music is
pretty well known. It is supposed that in
the so-called Gregorian tones we have preserved
a close approximation to the ancient hymnody
of the Jewish Temple (see Edersheim, Temple,
&c., p. 57). Those who desire, from a profes
sional point of viev.-, to investigate particulars,
may be referred to Smith and Cheetham's Diet,
of Christ. Antiq., under the title Music, vol.
ii. pp. 1346 seq., as well as to the article
PLAIN CHANT in Catholic Dictionary.

It may be added that Augustine the monk
appears to have brought with him, in his
mission to England, some singers who taught
the Gregorian method in Kent. And Bede
informs us that exertions were made in several
instances to spread this over England. But
before this, it has been supposed that music
was unknown in the early British Church,
which seems to have made no provision for a
choir (Smith and Cheetham, vol. ii. p. 1364).
There are indications, however, that consider
able pains were bestowed upon the singing
of the ancient English Church, and Gildas
praises the sweetness of the British Chant
(ibid., p. 1744).

3. It remains that something should be
said concerning the introduction of organs
into the use of the Christian Church — and
this in connection with further advances in the
elaboration of musical art.

Organs were long under a ban as Judaical
accessories not to be admitted into the Chris
tian service (see Suicer, s.v. "Qpyavov, and
Bingham, book viii. ch. vii. § 14). Such
instruments were not unknown, indeed, in the
time of Augustine ; and history tells us some
thing of their finding their way into the
palaces of emperors. It is hardly to be
wondered at, therefore, that, as time went on,

1 This canon, however, is understood by
Bingham to have been intended only as a tem
porary provision, for the purpose of reviving the
ancient Psalmody (book iii. chap. vii. § 2).

they occasionally found their way into some of
the larger and more magnificent churches,
though not, it is believed, into any but monas
tic churches in England. The evidence, how
ever, of their occasional use comes down to us
sometimes in the midst of voices restraining
their use,2 sometimes among sounds of warning
against their misuse, sometimes amid words
of more decided disapproval, sometimes along
with the expression of strong, not to say vio
lent, objections to their admission (see Catholic
Dictionary, p. 6S3).3 And it is remarkable
that even in the darkness of the Middle Ages
a certain feeling against them continued strong
quite up to the time of Aquinas, who regarded
them as suitable and useful for Jews, but (to
say the least) of doubtful profit and dangerous
tendency for Christians (see Light from His
tory, p. 40).

But the progress of ritual in the way of
Judaical or pagan accessories was now nearly
reaching a point at which Christianity was
apparently being reduced to a ceremonial law.
Magnificent cathedrals, gorgeous pageants,
splendid spectacles, were the prominent fea-

2 It is quite possible, however, that in the
language of the Council of Cologne, the word
organa may be used in a generic sense, including
all sorts of musical instruments (see Light from
History, p. 44).

3 Platina ascribes to Pope Vitalian, in the
latter half of the seventh century, the intro
duction of organs into churches. But there are
those who would give it a higher antiquity (see
Smith and Cheetham, vol. ii. p. 1524). Others,
however, with stronger confidence, regard its use
as more recent, and reject as a fable what is said
of Vitalian (see Oath. Diet., p. 682, and Bingham,
book viii. chap. vii. § 14). " The first epoch
which distinguishes the antique organ from the
mediasval one, viz., the invention of the key
board, is very nearly synchronous with that
which distinguishes antique from mediaeval
music, the invention of the stave, being about
the end of the eleventh century" (Smith and
Cheetham, vol. ii. p. 1522).

Bingham's assertion may be too sweeping, but
the natural inference from the words of Aquinas
certainly leads to the conclusion that, in his day,
the organ had clearly not won for itself a place
of general approval, much less an established
position in the services of the Christian Church.
Lorinus, who claims the higher antiquity for the
use of organs, asserts, " Pontifex in Capella et
graves quidem religiosi eorum abstinent usu "
(see Smith and Cheetham, vol. iv. p. 1524). Du
Cange says, " Organa vero habuisse Veronensem
Ecclesiam Carolo M. imperante decent aliquot
chartse descriptaa ab Ughello" (torn. iv. p. 734,
S.v. Oryanum).

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP [ 446 ] MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

tures of an age in which Christianity itself
was wallowing in the mire, debased with a
debasement which history might well shrink
from recording. There had been a time,
indeed, when the Romish Church had seemed
to be mindful of the warning of St. Augustine.
It had retained a comparative simplicity in
worship, and had not yielded to the sensuous
innovations which were filling the Churches
of the West (see Light from History, pp. 26-
29). l But the prevailing flood before this had
overflowed its banks, and Rome had become
the hot-bed of evil, the Papacy was now the
grand centre of ceremonial, and the strong
hold of religious and moral degradation.

And we need not wonder that in the midst
of all this growing corruption the warning
voice of St. Augustine had been drowned by
the sounds of the organ, and the music of the
Church was becoming depraved. Restraints,
indeed, had from time to time been laid upon
its exercise. We are told that even in the
fourteenth century a bull of John XXII. had
insisted on the strict observance of plain-song,
confining the use of concords to the great
festivals. Yet, before the Council of Trent,
all such authority had been practically defied
and habitually disregarded.2 Dr. Dykes states
that no musical abuses of modern times are
comparable to those which existed three cen
turies ago. Every sort of excess was com
mitted with the plain-song. Secular ditties
were introduced, and ... it is a fact that
there were at least one hundred masses in
common use founded on the tune of a common
ballad, "The Armed Man" (see Scudamore,
Not. Euch., 2nd ed., p. 257). Indeed, such
had become the depraved style of Church
music, that a commission was appointed by
Pius IV. to advise whether or not music should
be allowed in the churches. And we are
assured that the decision of the question was
long doubtful. Finally, however, it was de-

1 Dr. Batiffol says that the office of Amalarius
excluding metrical hymns was in agreement with
the traditional use alike of Lyons, the Imperial
Chapel, and the Roman Church (see Hist, of
Breviary, p. 188, E.T.). The Roman influence
was opposed to the admission of the Benedictine
hymnal ; but this influence gave way in the ninth
century, and was followed in the tenth century
by the influence of Cluny (ibid. p. 189).

2 An author of Queen Mary's days, quoted by
Dr. Wordsworth (Eccl. Biog., vol. iii. p. 36),
speaks of "an unholy Mass of the Holy Ghost,
rolled up with descant, prick-song, and organ,
whereby men's hearts are ravished wholly from
God, and from the cogitations of all such things
as they ought to pray for " (See Ridley's Works,
P.S., p. 511).

cided that music should be allowed, owing,
it is said, to the influence on Carlo Borromeo
of the Mass of Pope Marcellus (see Schaff-
Herzog, vol. iii. p. 1601, and Light from
History, pp. 41, 42).

This state of things could not but be affected
by the Reformation. The difference between
the Old Covenant and the New was once more
proclaimed by the trumpet voice of the Gospel.
But we should err indeed if we were to sup
pose that the Reformers rejected or neglected
the use of Psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs. The singing, indeed, which they culti
vated was congregational singing. And the
songs of Zion sung with loud voice by multi
tudes making melody in their hearts to the
Lord — to the Lord whose message of glad
tidings they had received from those who
taught, indeed, no new doctrine, but told " the
old, old story" of Redeeming love — these
songs were a power in the cause of the Refor
mation. Luther gave much time and attention
to popular music, and published a book of
hymns. It was received with avidity, and the
air became full of the sound of sacred song.
Cardinal Cajetan said of Luther, " By his songs
he has conquered us " (see Schaff-Herzog, vol.
iii. p. 1601). The "infectious frenzy of sacred
song," as it was called, became almost co
extensive with the Reformation.

In England we find Bishop Jewel writing
thus to Peter Martyr in 1560: "Religion is
now somewhat more established than it was.
The people are everywhere exceedingly in
clined to the better part. The practice of
joining in Church music has very much con
duced to this. For as soon as they had once
commenced singing in public (cani publice) in
only one little church in London, immediately
not only the churches in the neighbourhood,
but even the towns far distant, began to vie
with each other in the same practice. You
may now sometimes see at Paul's Cross, after
the service, six thousand persons, old and
young, of both sexes, all singing together and
praising God. This sadly annoys the mass-
priests and the devil. For they perceive that
by these means the sacred discourses sink
more deeply into the minds of men, and that
their kingdom is weakened and shaken at
almost every note" (Zurich Letters, i. p. 71,
P.S.).

It need not be maintained that there was
perfect unanimity among our Reformers and
Reforming divines as to particular details in
the application of the warning and advice of
St. Augustine. But a general agreement there
was as to the principles on which all questions
should be determined in the matter of what
was desirable to be encouraged, and what
should be decidedly discouraged, in the use of

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP [ 447 ]

NATIONAL CHURCH

music and singing in the Christian Church.
(8ee Light from History, p. 37, and Ritual, its
Use and Misuse, E. Stock, p. 18. See also
especially Durel's Vindicice, pp. 315-322,
London, 1699).

The hearts of worshippers were to be at
tracted, not to the delights of music, but to the
joy of faith. Christians were to beware of the
influence which would so debase the service of
God as to make it minister to that which is
fascinating to the natural heart of man, bidding
it wait upon the love of what is luxurious in
life, attractive to every sense, a delight for the
eyes, a treat for the ear, a pleasing exercise
for the mind, a soothing draught for the
conscience. Strangers and pilgrims here, we
may not think to live on earth as if earth were
our heaven. The Church Militant on earth
may not seek to forget her lot of affliction, nor
to put away from her the garments of her
widowhood. Alas ! for the Church which in
the midst of the aesthetic delights of ritual
which is lovely, and music which she calls
heavenly, is learning to exchange the widow's
cry for the world's song — " I am rich, and
increased in goods, and have need of nothing."
Yes, alas ! indeed, for this is surely the Church
which has to learn that she is the wretched
one, and miserable, and poor and blind and
naked. And here, certainly, is one of the
Church's great dangers in a time when religion
of some sort has become fashionable, and it costs
nothing to make profession of Christianity.

But, on the other hand, for believing souls
who know " the joyful sound," who have been
called to sit down together in heavenly places
in Christ Jesus, receiving the end of their
faith, even the salvation of their souls — should
we forbid them to show forth their joy un
speakable and full of glory — to give expression
to the praises of their souls in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, joining in faith
with angels and archangels and all the com
pany of heaven to laud and magnify God's
glorious name 1 Surely, we may say, to do
this would be to extinguish one of the means
of grace, and to keep souls bound in sadness
on earth, which should be rising up on eagles'
wings, in joyous faith, to heaven. In this
matter, for so much as this, it will probably be
allowed that the Churches of the Reformation
were agreed.

While there were, no doubt, some among our
English Reformers who would have preferred
to follow the example of " Reformed Churches "
on the Continent in rejecting all use of instru
ments, there were none, it may be affirmed
with some confidence, who would not have
willingly subscribed to the dictum of Hooker :
"In Church music curiosity and ostentation
of art, wanton, or light, or unsuitable harmony,

such as only pleaseth the ear, and doth not
naturally serve to the very kind and degree
of those impressions, which the matter that
goeth with it leaveth, or is apt to leave in
men's minds, doth rather blemish and disgrace
that we do than add either beauty or further
ance unto it" (Eccl. Pol. book v. chap, xxxviii.
§ 3). [N. D.]

MYSTERIES. — The word appears to be used
in the New Testament to denote that which
was originally hidden, but afterwards revealed
by God (see Rom. xi. 26 ; xvi. 25 ; 1 Cor. xv.
51). "The mysteries of the Kingdom of
Heaven " (Matt. xiii. 11-52) were the divine
truths which our Lord taught the people in
parables, but expounded to His disciples. The
admission of the Gentiles into the Church on
an equal footing with the Jews is spoken of
as "the revelation of the mystery which was
kept secret since the world began " (Rom. xvi.
25), but manifested by the preaching of the
Gospel as predicted by the prophets (Rom. xvi.
26 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Eph. i. 9, 10 ; iii. 3-9). The
"mystery of the Gospel" (Eph. vi. 19; Col. i.
26, 27) includes the union of Christ and His
people which is typified by marriage (Eph. v.
32), in which text the word "mystery" is
mistranslated in the Douay Version by "sacra
ment." A secret revealed by God is termed
"a mystery" in Rom. xi. 26; 1 Cor. xv. 61;
and an allegorical representation is also spoken
of under similar language in Rev. i. 20 ; xvii.
5. The word "mystery" was used in post-
apostolic times to express what is symbolical
or sacramental, e.g., in the Church of England
Office for the Holy Communion, " these holy
mysteries " signify the bread and wine re
garded as symbolising Christ's body and
blood. In ecclesiastical language the sacra
ments came to be styled " mysteries," because
the real simplicity of the elements used in
those rites was kept concealed from the heathen
(see Bishop Fitzgerald, Lectures on Eccl. Hist.,
vol. i. p. 183). In the same way the "mysti
cal Body " of Christ means the Church as
distinguished from His literal and glorified
body. The sacraments themselves are never
called "mysteries" in Holy Scripture. Some,
indeed, assert that they are, quoting 1 Cor.
iv. 1, where St. Paul speaks of ministers as
"stewards of the mysteries of God," but the
"mysteries" there spoken of are those doc
trines to which our Lord refers in Matt. xiii. 11 ;
Mark iv. 11 ; Luke viii. 10. [M. E. W. J.]

N

NATIONAL CHURCH.— The Church of a
country or nation. In the fourth century
Constantine divided the Roman Empire, which

NATIONAL CHURCH

[ 448 ]

NATIONAL CHURCH

was conterminous with the civilised world, into
fourteen " Dioeceses," each of which, says
Gibbon, "equalled the just measure of a power
ful kingdom" (chap. xvii.). Each was ruled
for administrative purposes by a prefect or
vice-prefect, and was itself divided into more
or fewer " Provinces." The fourteen Diceceses
were those of (1) The East (so-called), with
Antioch for its capital ; (2) Egypt, with Alex
andria for capital; (3) Asia (so-called), with
capital Ephesus ; (4) Pontus, capital Caesarea ;
(5) Thrace, capital Heraclea (afterwards Con
stantinople) ; (6) Macedonia, capital Thessa-
lonica; (7) Dacia, capital Sardica; (8) North
Italy, capital Milan; (9) South Italy, capital
Rome; (10) Illyria, capital Sirmium ; (11) Africa,
capital Carthage; (12) Spain; (13) Gaul; (14)
Britain.

It was the practice of the Church to conform
her external regimen, so far as she was able,
to the political constitution of the countries in
which she was, and she accordingly formed
fourteen Dioecesan Churches, one for every
civil Dioecese. Each of these Churches was
ruled by its own chief bishop, who bore the
name of Patriarch, Exarch, or Primate (all of
which were equivalent in meaning), and gener
ally lived, like the prefect, in the capital; in
the metropolis of each of the Provinces into
which the Dioeceses were divided there was
stationed a Metropolitan, subject to the
Primate; and the smaller units into which
each Province was again civilly and ecclesiasti
cally divided were supervised ecclesiastically
by bishops, who were suffragans of the Metro
politan. The only exception to this order was
that Spain, Gaul, and Britain, while they had
bishops and Metropolitans like the other
Diceceses, had no primates of their own, unless
the bishops of Seville, Lyons, and Caerleon
are to be so regarded.

All the Dioecesan Churches were autonomous
and independent wholes; and yet not inde
pendent in such sense that they had nothing
in common, and stood in no relation to each
other. They were united by the bond of love
shed abroad in the hearts of all true Christians
by the indwelling Spirit, the Holy Ghost,
which made them regard each other as sister
Churches, joined to their one Head and to one
another by the one Spirit and by their common
faith, which was therefore called " Catholic,"
because held by all alike. If any question
arose as to what was the common or Catholic
faith, there lay an appeal to a Council con
sisting of the delegates of all the Churche
assembled for consultation, who coming, a
they did, from all parts of the world, and
bringing with them their several testimonies
might be expected to arrive at a true conclu
sion on the point at issue.

The equality of the fourteen Churches into
which Christendom was thus divided was
disturbed by the claims of the two great Sees
of Rome and Constantinople for higher con
sideration. At first it was rather the pride of
the Roman Emperors than the ambition of the
Roman Bishops which pushed Rome forward.
Gratian, A.D. 378, and Valentinian, A.D. 445,
felt that their dignity required that their
bishops should be regarded more highly than
others, and they gave them a right to receive
appeals from the other bishops of the Western
Empire, whence they obtained an undefined
authority over them. This privilege, derived
from the civil ruler, they were authorised to
exercise until the overthrow of the Roman
power in France and Spain by the Franks and
Goths, and the withdrawal of the Romans
from Britain, when the rights granted by the
now fallen imperial throne necessarily ceased
in those countries. The second and fourth
(Ecumenical Councils having recognised that
it was but right that the bishops of the city in
which the Emperor lived and the Senate sat
should derive honour from their presence,
Constantinople, which was also the seat of the
Emperor, would not be left behind Rome, and
to satisfy her, the Council of Chalcedon— the
fourth (Ecumenical Council — decreed that she,
too, should be honoured in like manner, and
for a like reason ; and to balance the Imperial
grant to the Bishops of Rome, it gave to the
See of Constantinople authority over the three
Dioecesan Churches of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace,
with a right of receiving appeals from any part
of the Church.

But in spite of these encroachments in
favour of the two great Sees, the Dioecesan
constitution of the Church still continued till
the Diceceses were most of them overrun and
occupied by the barbarians who pressed in on
the falling Roman Empire. As soon as the bar
barous tribes were settled and Christianised,
the Nations thus formed took the place of the
Diceceses, and National Churches of Dioecesan
Churches.

The National Churches still retained the
autonomy or independence that the Dicecesan
Churches had enjoyed, and the Canons of the
(Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Canons v. vi. of
Nicsea ; ii. iii. vi. of Constantinople ; i. viii. of
Ephesus ; ix. xvii. xxviii. xxx. of Chalcedon),
commanding and guaranteeing Dioecesan auto
nomy, applied now to the National Churches.

How carefully autonomy was guarded may
be seen in the history of the Spanish Church.
Spain, as we have seen, had no Primate, but
it was constituted and governed under its five
Metropolitans. The most prominent of these
was at first the Bishop of Seville. But when
the Gothic kings took up their residence at

NATIONAL CHURCH

NATIONAL CHURCH

Toledo, they insisted on Toledo being raised,
first to the Metropolitan dignity (A.D. 610),
and then still higher. In 681 the Metropoli
tan of Toledo was accepted as Primate of
Spain by the twelfth and thirteenth Councils
of Toledo, representing both the Church and
the State of Spain. Both before and after
that event the Church of Spain was equally
firm in maintaining its independence. In 553
the fifth (Ecumenical Council was held. The
Spanish Church was not represented at it, and
the Council's decrees were not submitted to it
for consideration ; therefore it refused to admit
them into the Church's Code, though not object
ing to them, or to their teaching. The Canons
of the sixth (Ecumenical Council, A.D. 680,
were submitted to that Church, and were sent
by the Primate to the several Metropolitans
for consideration in Synod. They were ap
proved, and therefore the decrees of the
sixth Council was admitted into the Code
of the Spanish Church. But in admitting it
the Primate thought it right to state his views
on the subject which had been discussed at
the Council, and his views were thrown into
the form of canons by the fourteenth Council
of Toledo. Two years later Pope Benedict II.
ventured to object to some of the statements
contained in them, as at least incautious. The
Spanish Primate, Julian, at once convened the
fifteenth Council of Toledo, which endorsed
all that the previous Council had said, and
told the Bishop of Rome that Spanish Church
men would "follow the steps of their ances
tors," however much "ignorant rivals might
be displeased." The Italian Primate shrank
from measuring his strength with the Spanish
Primate, behind whom stood the Church of
the Nation, with its power as yet unbroken by
the Moorish invasion, and the affair blew over ;
but it shows how greatly National Churches
valued the independence which they had in
herited from the Diocesan Churches, and from
the primitive constitution of the Church, and
how unconscious men were in the seventh
century (before the False Decretals had been
forged) of any theory of Church unity which
militated against the autonomous character of
National Churches.

The same lesson is taught by the early
history of our own Church. The spirited
answer of the British bishops to Augustine,
ignoring and repudiating the papal and all
foreign jurisdiction, is well known. The
Anglo-Saxon Church also retained its auto-
nomy unalloyed down to the time of the
Norman Conquest. Then there was brought
in from France a new idea, based on the False
Decretals, which, having been forged in the
ninth century, had now affected belief in
France and Italy — their spurious character not

being demonstrated till the fifteenth century.
This idea was that of the monarchical char
acter of the constitution of the Church, and it
was adopted the more readily at the time of
the Norman Conquest in consequence of the
prevalence of the Feudal System, introduced
into England by William I. Still, in spite of
errors on the part of archbishops, misled by
the False Decretals, and in spite of the weak
ness of such kings as John and Henry III., the
Church and nation stubbornly insisted on their
autonomy, as is shown by the Statutes of Pro-
visors, Praemunire, and the rest, in the reigns
of Edward I., Edward III., and Richard II. ;
and when the time was come, they resumed
their full ecclesiastical independence by the
abolition of the Papal Supremacy in 1534.
Her liberty of action being thus restored, the
Church used it for the purpose of rejecting the
mediaeval doctrines which her subjection to
the Papacy had led her to admit, and by the
blessing of God she recovered the purity of
faith which had been hers before it had been
corrupted by too close a contact with the
Papal Church during the Middle Ages.

A question has been asked, whether it is
lawful for one National Church to reform it
self apart from the other National Churches 1
The question shows an imperfect apprehen
sion of the independent character of National
Churches. It is adequately answered by Laud
and Hooker. " Is it," says Archbishop Laud,
" such a strange thing that a particular Church
may reform itself if the general will not?
Was it not lawful for Judah to reform herself
when Israel would not join ? To reform what
is amiss in doctrine or manners is as lawful
for a particular Church as it is to publish and
promulgate anything that is Catholic. ... I
make no doubt but that as the universal
Catholic Church would have reformed herself
had she been in all parts free of the Roman
yoke, so while she was, for the most part, in
these western parts, under that yoke, the
Church of Rome was, if not the only, yet the
chief hindrance of Reformation. And then, in
this sense, it is more than clear that if the
Roman Church will neither reform nor suffer
Reformation, it is lawful for any other particular
Church to reform itself, so long as it does it
peaceably and orderly, and keeps itself to the
foundation and free from sacrilege" (Confer
ence with Fisher, § 24). And Hooker: "The
indisposition, therefore, of the Church of Rome
to reform herself must be no stay unto us from
performing our duty to God. Even a desire of
retaining conformity with them could be no
excuse if we did not perform that duty. With
Rome we dare not communicate concerning
sundry her gross and grievous abominations"
(Eccl. Pol, Hi.).

2F

NAVE

[ 450 ]

NESTORIAN CHURCH

But while each National or particular Church
is bound to reform herself as soon as she
realises that her faith has become corrupted,
the individual members of a Church, and
indeed of any society, must regard the judg
ment of their Church or society, as being, to
them, final. This is evidently the case as to
forms and ceremonies, which, once instituted
by a society, whether a Church or a club, are
binding on each member of that society (see
Article XXXIV.). It is also the case in matters
of faith. The Church to which a man belongs
declares, by what it says and by what it does
not say, what is the true Christian faith. Her
voice is to him the voice of the Church Catholic.
Any appeal from her to the Catholic Church is
in effect an appeal from her judgment to his
own as to what is, or is not, the Catholic Faith.
In the exercise of his private judgment he may
differ from her on the point, but in that case
he has no rightful place within her. [F. M.]

NAVE. — The body of the church is generally
so termed. The word is sometimes derived from
the Greek vdos, but with more probability from
Latin navis, a ship, the comparison between
the church and a ship going back to times as
early as the sixth century, and probably even
older.

NEOPHYTE. — A newly baptized person, or
one newly received into the Church. Used by
St. Paul in 1 Tim. iii. 6, where the A.V. has "a
novice."

UESTOBIAN CHURCH, THE.— Nestorian
is really a misnomer or nickname for the de
scendants and remnant of that great Church
which, beginning in the earliest Christian
times in Mesopotamia, soon spread throughout
Persia, and all the adjacent countries. Their
official designation, e.g. in headings of the
Patriarchs' letters, is " Easterns and Chal
deans " ; eastern, however, to dwellers in Asia,
conveys a different meaning from that which
it bears to us, the West and Westerns to them
being Syria and Western Syrians, while the
more suitable name, Chaldean, is usurped by
those former East-Syrians, who now form a
Uniat Church with its centre in Mosul.

The traditional founders of this ancient
Church were two of our Lord's seventy dis
ciples, St. Addai, and St. Mari, who were sent
after our Lord's Ascension to Abgar, King of
Edessa, in response to the embassy he had
sent to our Lord entreating Him to come and
heal him, and offering Him half his kingdom.
Abgar and many of his people accepted in
struction and baptism, and the Gospel spread
far and wide. St. Addai and his companion
St. Aggai, returning to Edessa from missionary
journeys, were successively slain by Abgar's
heathen son and successor, while St. Mari went
southward and became the first Bishop of

Seleucia - Ctesiphon, capital of the Persian
Empire. He died A.D. 82. Three hundred
and sixty churches are said to have been
erected during his lifetime.

Mari had sent his disciple, Abrosius, to greet
the church at Antioch, and on his death the
Eastern Christians sent to desire that Abrosius
might be consecrated as their bishop. A
strong connection between Antioch and Meso
potamia continued through the Middle Ages,
but the custom of election by the flock and
dependence on Antioch was after a time given
up by Synodical permission, and the head of
the Church of the East added the title of
Patriarch to that of Catholicos, both of which
are in use to this day. After the sack of
Ctesiphon by the Arabs (A.D. 637), the seat of
the Catholicos was at Baghdad.

The three orders, bishops, priests, and
deacons, are each subdivided thus : —

1. Catholici or Patriarchs.

2. Metropolitans.

3. Bishops.

4. * Chor-episcopi.

5. * Visitors.

6. Priests.

7. Deacons.

8. * Sub-deacons.

9. * Readers.

Those offices marked * are now obsolete.

The Sacraments or " mysteries " are generally
counted as seven, probably from Western in
fluence ; they are variously reckoned by different
writers, but usually as : (1) The Priesthood.
(2) Baptism. (3) Unction. (4) Offering of the
Body and Blood of Christ. (5) Absolution.
(6) Holy Leaven. (7) The Sign of the Cross.

Martyrdom. — The missionary spirit and learn
ing have ever been marks of the Church of the
East. The persecution under Sapor II. (310-381)
is counted one of the three great persecutions
of the Christian Church, and the martyrologies
of Syrian writers are too numerous to be men
tioned here.

Syriac Literature, whether Nestorian or Jaco
bite, is for the most part ecclesiastical. It is
characterised rather by patient assiduity than
by original thought, and consists largely of trans
lations from the Greek. Its earliest and most
important work is the Peschitta, or "simple"
version of the Bible, which probably dates back
to the second century ; other versions and many
commentaries on Holy Scripture followed, and
with much grammatical, lexicographical, and
historical work continued till the eighth cen
tury, and feebly till the fourteenth, while
many Nestorians, encouraged by the Caliphs of
Baghdad, were, from the seventh to the tenth
century, eminent in science, and through the
knowledge of Greek medicine and philosophy

NESTORIAN CHURCH

[ 451 ]

NESTORIAN CHURCH

supplied by them to Mohammedan scholars,
influenced the revival of learning in Europe.

The teaching of the school of Antioch was
in great part a reaction against Apollinarian-
ism, which was stronger in Asia than elsewhere.
Theodore of Mopsuestia taught conjunction in
reference to the two natures of the Christ,
not union, the term decided on by the Catholic
Church ; his disciple, Nestorius, followed him
in this, and was accused also of denying the
title of Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
When Nestorius was excommunicated by the
Council of Ephesus (431), the Eastern bishops
took his side, and were cut off from communion
with the orthodox. Nestorians to this day
affirm that, as a matter of history, Nestorius
was wrongfully judged.

The continued existence of Nestorianism
was in great part due to the famous school of
Edessa, the great Christian literary centre for
all the neighbouring lands, Armenia, Syria and
Persia ; it was dissolved by the Emperor Zeno
in 489 on account of its adherence to Nestor
ianism, and its scholars had twice previously
been scattered. One of these, Barsumas,
Bishop of Nisibis (435-489), had much in
fluence with the Persian kings, and politically
advanced his religious party, representing
that the encouragement of religious variance
would emphasise the distinction between the
subjects of Persia and those of the Roman
Empire. Hence, while the orthodox were
proscribed in Persia, fugitives of Nestorian
opinions were warmly received there ; also the
school of Nisibis carried on the traditions of
Edessa under Barsumas and Narses, the latter
of whom taught there for fifty years.

Heresy did not check the great missionary
activity of the Church of the East. The
celebrated stone monument of Siganfu records
in Chinese and in Syriac that Nestorian bishops
and priests were sent to China by successive
Patriarchs from the year 636 to 781, while a
later testimony to the thoroughness of their
labours is that a Chinese Christian was con
sidered worthy of election to the office of
Catholicos, as Mar Jaballaha III. (1281-1317).
The legends of Prester John current in Europe
in mediaeval times, refer to a Christian kingdom
founded among the Tartars, and on the coast
of Malabar the Christians of St. Thomas still
exist to bear witness to their spiritual descent
from the Nestorians, with whom they still
have occasional relations. In the eleventh
century, when the prosperity of the Church of
the East reached its highest level, twenty-five
Metropolitan Bishops of such far-apart sees
as Balk, Samarcand, India, Arabia, China
Cathay, and Turkestan owned allegiance to its
Patriarch.

Even among the troubles of the invasion of

Genghiskhan and his successors in the twelfth
century, the Patriarchs frequently had some
influence with the Mongol conquerors and
mitigated their savagery. But after the de
vastations of the relentless Timurlane at the
end of the fourteenth century, the Christian
population was almost exterminated, and since
then the Church of the East has never raised
its head.

Present State. — The small remnant of this
once powerful Church and nation, estimated
at about 150,000, exists in a very feeble state
among the mountains of Kurdistan, in a few
neighbouring plains of Azerbaijan the most
northerly province of Persia, and in the plain
of Mosul. They suffer in both Persia and
Turkey from Mohammedan misrule, and are
harassed by the Kurds. They have, for the
most part, appealed in vain to Western
Christianity for help to maintain their exist
ence as a Church and a people ; a Dominican
mission at Mosul has done good educational
and literary work, but, with the usual policy
of the Roman Church, has insisted on the
abandonment of independence, and has formed
a Uniat Church with the title Chaldean (1778).
So strong, however, is their attachment to
their own rites and customs, that Rome finds
it necessary to allow their own liturgies, though
to some extent tampered with, and the marriage
of the clergy. The same policy is pursued by
a Lazarist mission, which has its headquarters
at Urmi.

An American mission, also at Urmi, begun
by Dr. Grant in 1835, laid down as its rule
that it would purify and revive, but not destroy,
this ancient Church, but a later generation of
missionaries has departed from this wise and
pious determination, and while carrying on
excellent educational and philanthropic work,
results in Dissent and a consequent weakening
of fibre.1 They have good hospitals and schools
both for boys and girls ; even lately they have
determined to give up the teaching of Old
Syriac, so as to wean their pupils from their
ancient liturgies and learning. They have
well-printed translations of the Bible, and a
parallel edition of the Old Testament in the old
and modern languages, the work of their older
missionaries.

Of late years Russia, which is slowly but
surely grasping Northern Persia, made offers of
protection which won many to join the Ortho-

1 There were, however, very good reasons
for this change of attitude on the part of the
American missionaries, and we cannot agree
with the mode in which work among the Nes
torians has been conducted by the Mission set
on foot by the Archbishop of Canterbury. —
C. H. H. W.

NICE, COUNCIL OF

[ 452 ]

NIMBUS

dox Church, but her few missionaries have
done little or nothing beyond causing a schism.
The Church of England mission, known as
the Archbishop's Mission to the Assyrian
Christians, was first sent out in 1842, and was
re-established by Archbishop Benson in 1886,
in response to repeated and touching appeals
from the Patriarch and other chief men to
" the rich and blessed Church of England."
Its aims are to strengthen the ancient Church,
especially by the education of its clergy, and
by encouraging village schools, by reviving
and re-organising, while avoiding all proselyt-
ism. Its chief schools are at Urmi, where also
Service Books, a Catechism, &c., have been
printed. The liturgies had never before been
printed in the original Syriac ; by internal evi
dence they are pre-Ephesine and contain no
trace of Leresy. Diodorus, Theodore of Mop-
suestia, and Nestorius are, however, commemo
rated in a long litany of later date, which is
introduced into the sacred rite. The chief
liturgy is called that of "the Apostles," i.e. of
Mar Addai and Mar Mari.

By desire of the Patriarch one of the English
missionaries resides near him at Qudshanis.

It is much to be regretted that the admirable
work among the girls and women, of the
Sisters of Bethany during eight years, was
abruptly stopped in 1898, partly from want of
funds.

Authorities. — Asseman's Hibliothcca Orientalis,
vol iv., Rome, 1728. Renaudot's Liturgiarum
Orientalium CoUectio, Paris, 1716. Bar Heb-
rseus' Chronicon L'cdesiasticum, ed. Lamy,
Paris, 1877. Badger's The Nestorians and their
Rituals, London, 1852. Maclean and Browne's
The Catholicos of the East and his People,
S.P. C.K. 1892. Duval, Litterature Synaque,
Paris, 1900. [J. P- M.]

NICE, COUNCIL OF.— See COUNCILS.
NICENE CREED.— The Nicene Creed obtains
its name from the first (Ecumenical Council in
the history of the Church, which was held at
Nicaja, in Bithynia, in the year 325. The
crucial point in the Nicene discussions was
the question whether Christ was to be de
scribed as "of like substance (homoiousios),"
or "of the same substance (homoousios)," with
the First Person of the Trinity. The complete
victory of the Homoousian party, represented
by Athanasius, finds expression in the declara
tion that Christ is " very God of very God, be
gotten, not made, being of one substance with
the Father."

The familiar formula commonly known as
the Nicene Creed, or, more fully, the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed, as we find it in the
Roman Missal or in the Communion Service of
the Book of Common Prayer, is not the original
creed which was drawn up by the 318 bishops

of Nicsea. Nor, again, is it, as has traditionally
been supposed, and as the name Niceno-Con-
stantinopolitan would indicate, a revised form
of that creed adopted by the Council of
Constantinople in 381. The investigations of
Caspari, Hort, Gwatkin, Harnack, and others
have shown that this view has no real grounds
of history to rest on. The Council of Con
stantinople adopted no new form of the
Nicene Creed; the old form still firmly held
its place. But alongside of it there had
meantime been growing up in the East,
through the dogmatic instincts of the Church
in her struggles with varying shapes of heresy,
an enlarged symbol, the germ of which is
probably to be found in the baptismal formula
of the Jerusalem Church. By the middle of
the fifth century this longer creed had taken
in the East the place of the original Nicene ;
but it was not till towards the middle of the
sixth century that it began to find favour in the
West. After that, however, it spread rapidly
till it came into general use, and altogether
supplanted the original creed of Nicaea. The
chief differences between the new and the old
form of the creed lay in the expansion of the
clause with regard to the Holy Ghost, and the
addition of the clauses referring to the Holy
Catholic Church, the remission of sins, the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the
world to come.

At the Council of Toledo in 589, the Western
Churches added the well-known. filioque clause,
which asserts the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Son as well as from the Father.
From that time no further changes have been
made in what is known as the Nicene Creed.

[J. C. L.]

NIMBUS (Latin, nimbus, a cloud or halo), is of
purely heathen origin. Virgil describes Juno
as nimbo suceincta. The nimbus was supposed
originally to envelope the whole body, but
gradually the head only was represented as
surrounded by a radiant circle which encircled
the heads of both gods and emperors who
claimed divine honours. In later times the
nimbus was simply a distinguishing mark of
honour, or of notoriety; therefore Satan and
the Beast of the Apocalypse both appear with
the halo in the work of the Byzantine artists.
The nimbus began to be appropriated in
Christian art about the sixth century. In
Marriott's Vestiarium Christianum, there is a
copy of a mosaic, as late as that century, where
the Archbishop Maximinius and the Emperor
Justinian appear side by side, but the imperial
head alone has the halo.

When the nimbus was introduced into
Christian art, a curious distinction was made
between saints departed and those still living.
A circular halo adorned the head of the de-

NON-COMMUNICATING

[ 453 ]

ATTENDANCE

parted saints, while the sanctity of the living
saints was evidenced by a square-cornered,
slightly elongated nimbus, resulting in an ap
pearance more grotesque than dignified. See
AUREOLE. [M- A.]

NON-COMMUNICATING ATTEND
ANCE. — Presence at the celebration of the
Lord's Supper for the purpose of gazing and
worshipping, but not receiving. This practice
may be regarded (1) theologically, (2) histori
cally.

(1) Theologically, the effect of such attend
ance, and, when people know what they are
about, its purpose also, is to separate the
two ideas of sacrifice and sacrament, and
to change the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
into a sacrifice of Christ to God by the
priest, by witnessing which attendants may
derive benefit, and by praying to the Christ
whom the priest has brought down upon the
altar. After these acts have been performed
by the priest and by the gazer, there ensues
another rite in which bread and wine are
administered to the congregation or some of
them, or partaken of by the priest alone, during
which the non-communicants may continue
their prayers until the bread has been all
consumed, though indeed the obligation of
Hearing Mass, as the practice is called in the
Roman Church, is fulfilled by presence alone
without prayer, and with little, if any, atten
tion. The two rites of watching the alleged
sacrifice of Christ and communicating at the
Lord's Table, are essentially distinct. The
communicant receives the symbols of Christ's
body and blood, and receiving them faithfully,
obtains the blessings brought by Christ's
bloodshedding on the Cross, while he lifts his
soul to heaven in prayer and thankfulness to
Him who once died for him, and now sits at
the right hand of God. The non-communicant
gazes on the priest performing his sacrifice, and,
if he pleases, prays to the host or bread which
he supposes the priest has caused to become
Christ, or to contain Him.

(2) Historically. The first time when men
began to remain in the Church during Com
munion without communicating, was the fifth
century. At that time there were men who
ventured to do this in Constantinople, but
their presumption met with the sharpest and
severest lashing from St. Chrysostom, and the
bad practice was amended. These men did
not act as they did with the purpose that non-
communicants have in the present day. They
could not, for the idea of any Objective
Presence of Christ in the elements was not
broached till the ninth, nor adopted till the
thirteenth, century. The action of the people
of Constantinople probably proceeded from a
careless negligence which led them, as they

were unwilling to brace themselves up to a due
preparation for reception, to make a compro
mise with themselves by remaining without
communicating. Such is one of the tempta
tions to which the practice is liable, and to
which those who habitually use it are sure to
succumb, while their attendance becomes more
and more a merely mechanical act. When
Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the
Mass were adopted, non-communicating atten
dance followed, on the ground of benefit to
be derived from presence at the sacrifice of
Christ. But it was not then called Non-
communicating Attendance, it was called
Hearing Mass, and it goes under that name in
the unreformed Churches now. Probably the
title Non-communicating Attendance was
invented because Hearing Mass was an ill-
sounding name in the ears of English Church
men.

When the Church of England rejected the
doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass,
non-communicating attendance went with
them. On those doctrines creeping back again
in their unscientific form of objective presence
in the elements, it has been restored wherever
the latter doctrine has been taught. In her
Prayer Book of 1552, the Church of England
warned her children against the practice.
" Whereas ye offend God so sore in refusing
this holy banquet, I admonish, exhort, and
beseech you that to this unkindness ye will not
add any more ; which thing ye shall do if ye
stand by, as gazers and lookers on them that do
communicate, and be no partakers of the same
yourselves. . . . What will this be else but a
neglecting and despising and mocking of the
Testament of Christ ? Wherefore, rather than
that ye should do so, depart you hence, and give
place to them that be godly disposed." These
words she repeated in 1559 and in 1604, using
similar words in her Homilies of 1563. " Every
one of us must be guests and not gazers, actors
and not lookers on. . . . We must be ourselves
partakers of this Table, and not beholders of
others "(Horn. xv.). Her children listened to
their mother's words and acted upon them
The practice became so obsolete that it was not
found necessary to repeat the exhortation at
the revision of 1662. Nor for two hundred
years after that date is an example of the
practice found in the Church of England.
Then it was reintroduced under the name of
Non-communicating Attendance, and it is
made use of (by those who know what they
are doing) for inculcating the Adoration of the
Sacrament.

The grossest form of the practice is that
called Children's Eucharists, when children
are brought to the Communion Service and
taught to worship Christ, who, they are given

NON-JURING LEAVEN

[ 454 ]

NON-JURING LEAVEN

to understand, has been just made to descend
upon the altar, and is now being offered by
the priest. Some years ago a Children's Ser
vice Book was published by Mr. Woodward
of Folkestone, which is used with edification
in many churches. Mr. Woodward died. A
second edition has been issued bearing the
same title as before, but containing the Com
munion Service (with some interpolations from
the Breviary), and hymns translated from
Roman sources, teaching transubstantiation
with such plainness that Bishop Andrewes
selected the original of one of them to say of
it that Zion shuddered at it and totally repudi
ated it. This book is sold by the thousand,
with what results the next generation may see.
The truthfulness of statements made in the
Congregation in Church may be judged by the
following quotation : "The Church has always
from the very earliest times commanded the
presence of the faithful at the Holy Mysteries
every Sunday as a thing wholly distinct from
actual reception, and the Church of England
has never in any of her formularies or directions
given the slightest hint of anything different.
. , . All baptized children should be taken
to Holy Communion with great regularity as
soon as they are old enough to sit still in
church." The clergy who pause after the
Prayer for the Church Militant, for non-com
municants to retire, are told that they "act in
direct contrariety to the rubrics and the spirit
of the Prayer Book ; nay, more, they counten
ance and encourage an insult to Almighty
God, which is a scandal to any Church, and
for which no words of condemnation can be
too strong" (p. 47). "We are to be present
at the celebration that we may worship God
in His own appointed way, and that we may
join in pleading for ourselves and for others
the merits of the one great sacrifice of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ " (p. 94). These
strong words show what value those for whom
the Manual is prepared place upon non-com
municating attendance and children's Euchar
ists. Pas est doceri.

See on this subject Scudamore's Communion
of the Laity, and Exposure of the Reply of the
E.C.U. Tomlinson's "Hearing Mass" in
Tracts on Ritual, or Tract LXXIII. of Church
Association. [F. M.]

NON-JURING LEAVEN IN THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND OXFORD
HIGH- ANGLICANISM. —The relation be
tween the Non-Jurors of two centuries ago and
the Oxford High-Churchmanship of to-day is a
subject of much interest, and also of no little
importance. Modern Oxford High-Anglicans
sometimes seem to imagine that they fully
account for the Tractarian Movement in all
its developments, and at the same time

entirely justify it, by asserting its direct lineal
derivation from the Non-Jurors of 1688.
Finding the Popery of James II., with all
that it involved, too evil and pernicious to be
endured, and therefore welcoming William III.
as their deliverer from intolerable tyranny
and destructive error, the Non-Jurors never
theless refused to accept William as king, or
as anything more than a sort of Regent for
the time being, clothed with the royal execu
tive power and jurisdiction. They took up
this attitude on the ground that having sub
scribed the oaths of allegiance to James, they
could not, for conscience' sake, violate those
oaths by accepting William as their sovereign
de jure. The incongruous and untenable posi
tion which Non-Jurors thus chose to occupy
is luminously shown by Lord Macaulay, where,
in his History of England, he has dealt with
this period. But if any should seek for a
more impartial judgment than that of a
Scotch Whig like Macaulay, he may refer to
Dean Plumptre's sympathetic biography of that
most charming and Christian of Non-Jurors,
Bishop Ken, which furnishes a mild but con
vincing view of the irreducible difficulties
and contradictions in which that excellent
and gifted prelate found himself entangled by
the verbal quibbles and puzzles involved in
this Non-Juring attitude. From the whole
history it can hardly be doubted that he
would have retreated from his false position
on to the ground of sane logic and of common
sense, if he had not found it beyond his power
to extricate himself from his antecedents.
He, therefore, silently accepted the disability
he had imposed upon himself and declined
controversy on this subject.

For the devout High-Churchman, to whom
the memory of Charles I., and the principles
of hereditary loyalty and of absolute submission
to the anointed sovereign as the divinely
appointed head of Church and State, were
scarcely less sacred than the Christian creed,
to accept a Dutch Presbyterian as the head
of the English Episcopal Church could not
but be a very bitter hardship — all the more
so because of the memories of fanatical ex
cesses and oppressions from which not a few
loyal Churchmen had suffered during the
Commonwealth, when Episcopacy was dis
allowed and a sort of latitudinarian Congre
gationalism, or else some form of continental
Presbyterianism, was allowed precedence and
privilege in the kingdom. Nevertheless,
such Churchmen had found the tyranny of
James II. a more intolerable yoke than even
the rule of Cromwell, and the memories and re
cords of the blind and cruel Popery of Philip
and Mary had left behind for English Church
men, a keener and stronger abhorrence of

NON-JURING LEAVEN

[ 455 ]

NON-JURING LEAVEN

Popery than their hatred of William's Dutch
Presbyterianism. They now, moreover, saw
that their only hope of deliverance form
James's tyranny and the domination of
Romish cruelty and superstition, was to be
found in the wise and able Prince who had
married James's daughter, and who ruled over
Holland. Such was the dilemma of the Non-
Jurors. Their attitude of passive disloyalty
may be understood, and in a sense sympa
thised with, but can hardly be regarded as
wise, or tenable as a practical policy. Its
unreasonableness savoured of superstition.
The party numbered some exemplary saints
and many estimable adherents, but practical
wisdom can hardly be attributed to them.
A fatal weakness infected the whole party,
scholarly as not a few among them were, and
wise within certain limits. That the Primate
and six of his suffragan bishops, and no
fewer than 400 of the clergy, were counted
among them, are facts which show how strong
was sectarian prejudice in the evil times of
the Stuart dynasty. Their religious opinions
may be summarily described as a combination
of Laudian principles in Church and State
with an intense abhorrence of Popery. They
had good reason to abhor the Popery which
had plotted against Queen Elizabeth, and ex
communicated both the Queen and Realm of
England. The Non-Jurors, moreover, besides
the Laudian grounds of antipathy against
Popery, had the recent experience of the
Popish blindness and the contemptible char
acter of James II. to deepen and make still
more intense their Protestantism.

If we compare the religious creed and sym
pathies or antipathies of the Non- Jurors with
those of the early Oxford Leaders of our present-
day Anglo-Catholicism, we may say that, in a
general sense, the Tractarian Churchmen of
Oxford have held opinions which seem to link
them with the Laudian school of High-Church
men, but that they differed greatly from them
as respects their feelings towards Rome. The
prime leaders and inspirers of Oxford Trac-
tarianism, Newman and Froude, while they
were stealthly inlaying in the minds of their
Oxford intimate associates the first principles
of their special High- Church inspiration, were
already smitten with admiration for the
Romish Church as such, and were longing for
union with it. Dr. Pusey, also, long before
his death, outwent the advances made by
Newman and his confidential associates to
wards Rome while they remained within the
Church of England, though he himself never
left, nor meant to leave, but only to leaven the
Church of England. Lord Halifax to-day is
never weary of asserting, and commending to
English Churchmen for acceptance, some of

the characteristic principles of Popery, and of
uttering aloud his longing desire for re-union
with the Church of Rome.

So much as this is matter of plain history,
but it is another question whether, within
the precincts of the Oxford University itself,
there has been preserved since the days of
William III. and of his successor Queen Anne, a
tradition and a line of doctrinal opinion and
influence, which, though at one time it became
feeble and faltering, never absolutely died out,
and which has revived, so to speak, from its
ashes during the last half century ; and
whether, accordingly, the present develop
ment of Romish ideas and Romanising activity,
taken as a whole, may be said to be a natural
English revival, derived from the Non-Jurors
of two centuries ago.

That in the University of Oxford there has
till recently, if not till now, been maintained
more or less, a sympathetic veneration for the
ideals of Charles I. and Archbishop Laud, is
scarcely to be questioned. Oxford was the
chosen seat and centre of Charles's religious
and political inspiration and influence. It was
absolutely identified with his cause and his
principles, absolutely identified not only with
Charles, but with the Church of England of
that age, which claimed him as its royal head,
and with its masterful and all-powerful High-
Church archbishop. Oxford stood for the
hereditary monarchy and the national Church
with its Episcopacy. It was an Anglo-Catholic
stronghold. Cambridge was never so identi
fied with ecclesiastical ideas. Oxford, in short,
stood for hereditary monarchy in the Stuart
line, and for Laudian High-Churchmanship.
The University was the school for inspiring
and training adherents of "high" principles
in Church and State ; its representatives had
in this sense made its memory famous and
its influence commanding. Its earnest ad
herents among bishops and clergy were
counted by hundreds ; its spell touched with
something like awe the great majority of Eng
lish people. The result upon the country as
a whole was to inspire the nation generally
with a horror of Popery, and at the same time
a dislike of all forms of Dissent. The com
bination of these two deep-seated prejudices
rendered, for a century or more after the
Restoration, all thoughts of a generous and
enlightened parliamentary policy of religious
liberty for the nation vain — all proposals look
ing in that direction futile. Hence, the leaden
materialism of the eighteenth century, during
which no political measures of national en
lightenment or modern largeness of thought
and sympathy were possible, and the one
great motive force for moral education and
Christian progress was — as is now generally

NON-JURING LEAVEN

[ 456]

NON-JURING LEAVEN

acknowledged — the Evangelical Revival with
which the names of Wesley and Whitfield are
associated. The old fashions and habits of
religious opinion and observance remained in
the soil of the national life ; they were the
legally recognised religious and educational
forms and forces of the country. Of these the
University of Oxford was the chief source and
centre. Cambridge was less famous and less
influential ; in particular, it was not a national
school of religious conviction.

Oxford stood, as has been said, for Church
and King, and in this relation had famous
memories. It contributed the ground-tone for
the religious convictions and activities of the
nation. Canon Overton, who has probably
studied more deeply and thoroughly than any
one else the history of the Non-Jurors, has
shown us how powerful was the influence of
the Non-Juring school of religious feeling both
in England, and also — still more perhaps —
in Scotland, during the greater part of the
eighteenth century ; and that by certain
sections of the non-Jurors a separate clerical
organisation, though of necessity loose and
hard to keep alive, was maintained till the
later years of the century. There was even a
distinct line of Non-Juring bishops preserved
for many years by voluntary zeal and sect
arian feeling. The influence of this old Anglo-
Catholic school of religious opinion has indeed
as I shall try to show, never quite died out,
and did undoubtedly help to gain for the
Oxford High-Anglican movement, initiated
sixty years ago, a favourable entrance into the
University, during that introductory period of
its history, especially, when it seemed to wear
the aspect, not of advance to Rome, but of
return to the ideals of such good men as
Bishop Ken and Mr. Nelson, the saints whose
memory and life fascinated the regard of
several of the early Methodists at Oxford.

The history of the Wesley family, in this
aspect of the question, is interesting and in
structive. Samuel Wesley of Epworth and his
accomplished wife, were both descended from
an unbroken succession of staunch Puritans,
Puritans who held Protestant Evangelical
views as to Ordination and the Sacraments,
and some of whom had suffered severely from
High-Church persecution. But both Samuel
Wesley and his wife, in their youthful days,
in disgust with the spirit of Low Dissent,
renounced the views of their Nonconformist
parents and conformed to the Church of Eng
land, Samuel Wesley having left a Dissenting
Academy to enter an Oxford College. The
father, indeed, was not a Non-Juror or a
Laudian High-Churchman ; but his parishioners
found him to be not only an enemy of Dissent
but a strict disciplinarian, and set his parson

age on fire. He was a plain and strict High-
Churchman. His wife, herself an accomplished
woman — an admirable writer on theology
holding the doctrinal views, in the main, of
her noble and cultivated Nonconformist an
cestors — nevertheless leaned so far to the Non-
Juring side as to seriously disapprove of her
husband taking the oaths of allegiance to
William. Their sons all went to Oxford ;
Samuel, the eldest son, was through life a
high Tory, and not without reason was sus
pected of Jacobite proclivities. He was not,
however, a Non-Juror, but a moderate High-
Churchman. John Wesley, when he entered
the University, held views similar to those of
his elder brother, and was of a bright and gay
temper, and not " righteous overmuch." But
he read Law's Serious Call, and became his
disciple. For many years, Law, the Non-
Juror, was to him as a prophet, and under his
influence John Wesley, while at Oxford, be
came an extreme High-Churchman, holding
views nearly resembling those held by Keble
a century later, except that he did not believe
in the " conversion of the elements in the Holy
Supper," to use his own phrase, or sympathise
with any degree of Mariolatry. It was not till
years afterwards that Wesley came to abandon
his High-Church views, or to understand and
admire the eminent goodness of not a few of
the persecuted Puritan Confessors in Stuart
times. Charles Wesley admired and followed
in his doctrine his brother John, but, with a
poet's temperament, retained to his death his
admiration for Charles I., and never, like his
brother, became a broad Evangelical in his
tolerance for orthodox Dissent and his sym
pathy with the best Puritanism of the Stuart
period. When, in his History of England, John
Wesley gave a discriminating estimate of
Charles I., such as no Non-Juror or Jacobite
could have accepted, Charles remonstrated
with his brother on his too little favourable
judgment of the " Martyr," and John made
answer that he could not in conscience revise
his estimate of the king, or " speak less evil of
him." Notwithstanding what he afterwards
spoke of as the " vehement prejudice " of his
education, Wesley totally abandoned, in middle
life, after reading Lord Chancellor King's book
on the Primitive Church, and Archbishop
Tillotson's writings on the same subject, all
his old Oxford High-Church principles, as his
whole subsequent course, his Journals, and in
particular his Ordinations for America and
Scotland abundantly prove. He did this, how
ever, without becoming in any sense or degree
a Dissenting Nonconformist.

It can be no wonder that such Churchmen
as Bishop Ken and the saintly Nelson — and
there were not a few other eminent saints

NON-JURING LEAVEN

[ 457 ]

NON-JURING LEAVEN

among the Non-Jurors, if not so illustrious as
these— left behind them among serious Oxford
Churchmen a godly savour and sacred memo
ries, the influence of which lingered in the
University for many years. There are historical
traces and biographical memories, as is shown
in the writings of Abbey and Overton on the
Church of England since the Rerolution,
and especially in Dr. Overton's Non- Jurors,
which prove that till within the last ten or
twenty years of the eighteenth century, the
savour of Non-Juring piety was still distinctly
traceable in Oxford, and perhaps yet more
distinctly in the Episcopal Church of Scotland,
which, of course, was for many years intensely
Jacobite as well as High-Church, and which
had counted an illustrious saint in Archbishop
Leighton.

Nor was the ancient tradition of the saintli-
ness of Laud and the orthodoxy of such High-
Anglicanism as belonged to the Stuart period
of the Church's history, ever quite effaced at
Oxford. As on all else that was unworldly or
savoured of high religious ideals, the influence
of the eighteenth century rested as a blight
on Oxford High-Church devotion. For more
than fifty years the line of strict High-Anglican
tradition had little more place than Methodism
in the University. And yet there is reason to
believe that it was still traceable here and
there. It was, indeed, a purely English and
Protestant influence. It had no sympathy with
Rome, and was not ashamed of Protestantism.
It was content to be no less avowedly Protes
tant in its antagonism of error than High-
Church in its doctrinal teaching. But while
it had no leaning towards Popery, the devout
High-Churchmanship of Oxford a century ago
construed the Prayer Book strictly, and be
lieved in Lenten observance, in daily services,
and in weekly communion.

The question here naturally arises, whether
the memory and traditions of Oxford afford
reason to believe that a leaven of eighteenth
century Oxford High-Churchmanship still re
mained at Oxford during the early years of
the nineteenth century ; such as, without any
indulgent feeling towards Popery, or any loss
of sympathy with the Protestant English Re
formation, nevertheless provided a favourable
soil for the Tractarian Movement in its earlier
stages, before its leaders had begun to hanker
consciously, though with subtle reserve, after
Romish teachings and re-union with the
Papacy. My own knowledge of the opinions
and clerical influence of Thomas Keble of
Bisley, nearly sixty years ago, joined to my
study in later years of his brother John's life
in the earlier stages of his course, had led me
to suspect that a hereditary High-Church in
doctrination, derived from the Stuart or Non-

Juring period, might perhaps have prepared
John Keble to be the poet of the " Christian
Year" at a period when later Tractarian de
velopments were never thought of. What I
could learn of that antique survival, Dr. Routh
seemed to confirm this idea, although Dr.
Routh was a friend and correspondent of a
learned and godly Dissenter, Dr. Pye Smith.
A letter which I have lately received from
my friend Dr. Overton, more than confirms
my surmises on this subject. Keble's High-
Church views, I learn from Dr. Overton, were
ancestral, and can be traced back through
a succession of clerical ancestors to John
Keble, of Fairford, in the earlier part of the
eighteenth century, who was a Fellow of
Corpus Christi College, and an admirer of
William Law, not indeed as a Non-Juror, but
as respected his type of piety. Dr. Overton
is "quite sure that the theological (not politi
cal) views of the Non-Jurors never died out of
Oxford." Dr. Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham,
he says, " was absolutely at one with the theo
logy of the Non-Jurors, as was a little later
William Adamson, Fellow of Merton and Vicar
of St. Peter's-in-the-East, and author of the
Shadow of the Cross." Dr. Overton's maternal
grandfather, who took his degree at Oxford in
1772, held the same theological views. All
these, it appears, were more or less Laudian
in their theology, without the least sympathy
with Rome or doubt as to the Protestantism
of the Church of England.

It must not be forgotten that, however
contradictory to modern evangelical ideas and
phraseology the High-Church theology of the
earlier Stuart period may appear to us to-day,
the choice for the Oxford of the eighteenth
century lay between that theology — of which
Andrewes and Ken perhaps afford the most
favourable types, and of which the Articles
of the Church of England are the statutory
standard — and the Calvinism of the West
minister Confession, with its doctrine of the
Decrees and its high Presbyterianism. It
must also be remembered that if the Anglican
views as to the "Priesthood and its preroga
tives may seem to have been unevangelically
high, and even to savour of Popery, the
Presbyterian platform of pastoral prerogative
was in the Stuart period hardly less extreme,
when practically regarded, in its views of
ministerial authority and of Church discipline,
than that of the English High-Churchman of
the seventeenth century. The Church which
numbered among its worthies such men as
Andrewes and Ken might claim a high place
among the Protestant Churches of Europe,
and can hardly be denied the title of an
Evangelical Church.

From the whole of the evidence it seems to

NON-JURING LEAVEN

[ 458 ]

NOVATIAN

result that the High-Church Anglican School
of Oxford was Protestant, and, in the spirit
of its central teaching, Evangelical, until the
direct Popish leaven was introduced by New
man and accepted by Pusey, who, before very
long, under the influence of Newman, started
on the road towards Rome, and who presently
far outwent Newman's advance Romewards,
up to the period of his passing across the
barrier and seeking a place within the Roman
precincts. The Stuart High-Churchmen — the
Non-Jurors and their descendants— were Pro
testants, whereas Pusey adopted Romish doc
trine and discipline in all essential particulars
— its doctrine as taught by Bossuet, its
penitential discipline, the Confessional as ad
ministered by priests — some, of whom might
have been ordained, as it were, but the day
before — and as enforced by spiritual intoler
ance and moral compulsion on women and
children, and carried out in a monastic
spirit by means of sisterhoods ; all this
having been brought about by a persistent
subtlety combined with spiritual terrorism,
under the inspiration and direction of Pusey
as chief guide and master-spirit. The con
troversy between Dr. Hook and Dr. Pusey, as
revealed not only in Dr. Stevens' Life of Hook
but in the volumes of Dr. Pusey's biography,
for which Canon Liddon was chiefly re
sponsible, shows very clearly the wide and
deep separation between the Oxford High-
Anglicanism of Pusey and that of Dr. Hook,
or of the Non-Jurors. As for Pusey himself,
his biography proves that under the influence
of something like panic, and largely through
his contact with Newman, he went over from
a sort of Germanised Broad Churchmanship
into the Tractarian Fellowship of which he
became afterwards the revered oracle. Pusey,
throughout his earlier years at the University,
had not been taught doctrine by any theo
logians under Non-Juring influences. The
credit for the full Popish development of our
Oxford High-Anglicanism must be divided
between Newman and Pusey as chief leaders.

Bishop Ken's will contains what may be re
garded as a strict definition of the platform of
Christian faith and doctrine common to the
best type of Non-Jurors, and handed down to
the days of Routh and Keble. "As for my
religion, I die in the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic faith, professed by the whole Church
before the disunion of East and West ; more
particularly I die in the Communion of the
Church of England as it stands distinctly free
from papal and Puritan innovations, and as it
adheres to the doctrine of the Cross." In this
definition of Anglo-Catholic doctrine there
lurks no germ of Tractarian veneration for Rome
and its distinctive errors and corruptions.

Authorities. — The Nonjurors, by J. H. Over-
ton, D.D., Canon of Lincoln. Abbey and Over-
ton's English Church in the Eighteenth Century.
Lord Macaulay's History of England, vol. v.
Tyerman's Oxford Methodists (Harper Bros.,
New York). Dean Plumptre's Life of Bishop Ken
(2 vols). The Mother of the Wesleys, by the Rev.
John Kirk (Wesleyan Conference Office). Ox
ford High Anglicanisn, by the Rev. Dr. Rigg
(C. H. Kelly ; 2nd ed. enlarged, with Appendix,
1899). [J. H. H.]

NONES.— One of the " Hours " or daily services
of the Romish Church, occurring at 3 P.M.
These " Hours " have been revived by Ritualists,
although they were abolished at the Reforma
tion and have no place in the Prayer Book of
the Church of England.

NOVATIAN (Novatianus, Cyprian; Novatos,
Eusebius). — Novatian was archdeacon, pres
byter, and eventually Anti-bishop of Rome.
He was martyred under Valerian. Supposed
to have been born in Phrygia, he was origin
ally a philosopher, but there is not sufficient
ground for the presumption that he belonged
to the Stoics. He was converted in middle
life, after severe frenzy, from which he was
exorcised, and was baptized upon his sick
bed ; the terrible mental disorder from which
he had suffered was afterwards cruelly used
by his enemy, Cornelius, as an argument
that his "faith was of the devil." Novatian
only having undergone clinical baptism (i.e.
by sprinkling), never received confirmation
or imposition of hands, which at that period
usually formed a portion of the baptismal
service ; this circumstance rendered his ordina
tion very unpopular among the clergy. " How
then could he possibly have received the
Spirit ? " was the question of the narrow
theology of his day ; but the larger-hearted
F'abian, acting on the spirit, instead of the
letter, of the 12th Canon of the Council of
New Caesarea, convinced that his faith, as
shown by his life, did "spring from convic
tion," ordained him presbyter of Rome in
opposition to the views of all his clergy.

Novatian was from the moment of his con
version eminently a man of faith united to
purity of life and morals, and notwithstanding
the austerity of his nature (which has pro
bably led certain writers to associate him in
his unenlightened days with the followers of
Zeno), few clergy of his day were more highly
esteemed for eloquence, learning, and piety.
In a work attributed by Erasmus to his power
ful adversary, Cyprian, he is described as "a
precious vessel, an house of the Lord;" "be
wailed the faults of other men as his own, bore
the burdens of his brethren as the apostle
directs, and by his exhortations strengthened
such as were weak in the faith." Such a

NOVATIAN

[459 ]

NOVATIAN

testimony from such an opponent is an ab
solute denial of the calumny of Pope Cor
nelius that Novatian fell away in time of
persecution.

By the martyrdom of Fabian (250), the
Roman see became vacant. At this period,
the subject of dealing with the lapsed during
the still existing Decian persecution occupied
the chief place in the deliberations of the
clergy. Departing sadly from her ancient
fidelity under persecution, the Church of
Christ no longer remained, as a whole, loyal
to her Lord. The Imperial Edict being chiefly
directed against the clergy, so many of these
either recanted or fled, that there did not
remain a sufficient number to carry on the
ordinary services and pastoral duties. The
magnitude of this apostasy filled the hearts of
those who remained faithful with sorrow and
righteous anger, and foremost among these
latter was Novatian, whose convictions regard
ing the subject were accentuated by the natural
moroseness of his nature. There was, it appears,
a special class of the lapsed — the " Libellatici "
— which called for his sternest displeasure. It
is interesting, but equally painful, to trace in
the circumstances of these special seceders
from the faith the first conception of purchas
ing by money a freedom from moral obliga
tions, which resulted in the indulgences of the
Middle Ages. "Libelli" were governmental
documents given to those who subscribed to
the civil ritual of offering incense and sacrifice
to the gods, and denied having attended, or
having any intention of attending, the Christian
gatherings for worship. To all those thus sub
scribing the Libelli were given, as an imperial
guarantee of exemption from penalty or punish
ment on account of their faith. Those who
received the Libelli were called " Libellatici."
The wealthier citizens, however, had the option
of purchasing these Libelli from the civil
officers, instead of. subscribing to the condi
tions ; and we read that thousands were base
enough to avail themselves of this alternative.
It was especially against these Libellatici that
Novatian wrote to various bishops during the
interim in the Roman See. According to some
writers of the present day, Novatian com
menced his attack upon the lapsed with a
degree of moderation, but no doubt impelled
forward by the extreme laxity of some of the
highest leaders of the Church upon this ques
tion, his opinions gradually became crystallised
into a rigid sternness which culminated in his
rigorous sentence that those who had denied
the faith, although still united to the salvation
of God, ought never again to be re-admitted
into the ranks of the visible Church. This in
exorable judgment, contrasted with the ex
treme laxity, not to say indifference, of many

of the clergy,1 drew numerous sympathisers to
the support of Novatian, and when, opportunity
being taken of the absence of the persecuting
Decius in Thrace (where he had gone to
oppose the Goths, and from which expedition
he never returned), Cornelius, leader of the
party of laxity, was consecrated Bishop of
Rome, the friends of Novatian, inspired by
the Carthaginian presbyter Novatus, at once
secured his election in opposition to the
appointment of Cornelius, who is suspected
of having been himself a "libellaticus."

Novatian (who in spite of the insinuations
of Cornelius that he had secretly longed after
the position, had in reality been greatly averse
to it), according to the customary usage, wrote
to the chief bishops to apprise them of his
election. The beautiful answer of Dionysius
of Alexandria still exists, in which he urges
Novation to give up life itself rather than
produce schism in the Church. Fabius of
Antioch received his missive so favourably that
he is supposed to have been on the point of
yielding. Cyprian of Carthage indignantly
repudiated his communication, and became
from that moment one of his most zealous
opponents. His cause also lost favour from
the augmentation of its adherents by the
arrival of the infamous Novatus. The well-
known violence of character, united to loose
ness of morals, of this furious agitator,
alienated many of the more thoughtful fol
lowers of Novatian from their allegiance to
their leader; and before many months had
passed away, at the close of A.D. 250, he was
solemnly excommunicated by a synod of sixty
bishops.

From this time Novatian threw all his zeal
into forming a fresh sect. He ordained bishops,
and sent his emissaries to the farthest confines
of the Roman world. All we know of his
further career is that it closed in martyrdom
(according to Socrates) under the Emperor
Valerian. He appears to have been a volu
minous writer. Of his works, however, only
two have been preserved, De Cibis Judaicis and
De Trinitate, the former of these, on Jewish
meats, was written to refute the Judaising
contention which raged in his day, and was
evidently penned in some retreat from perse
cution. His work, De Trinitate, was inferior
in literary merit to the two great kindred
works of the succeeding centuries. But not
even the towering genius of Augustine, or
the persuasive eloquence of Hilary, enshrined
purer doctrine or showed more accurate fidelity
to scriptural truth. Some writers, indeed,

1 A document of this period is still extant,
containing an absolution of "all the lapsed by
all the confessors."

NOVATIAN

[ 460 ]

NUNCIO

have accredited Novatian with the authorship
of the Refutation of all Heresies.

The founder of the Cathari schism, with all
his mistakes, stands out as perhaps the only
orthodox teacher of his century who saw
salvation outside the pale of the ecclesia.
Neander points out very clearly that the great
error of his teaching lay in confounding the
visible Church with the invisible. In his
intense zeal to conform the former to the
glowing description of the latter, as given by
the inspired apostle, he ruthlessly cast out all
that might contaminate her purity ; while on
the other hand, he urged upon the lapsed,
even on the Sacrificiti, repentance, in order to
receive the eternal salvation of God. Surely
the fact that a man of such high moral char
acter and universally acknowledged orthodoxy
of creed separated himself from the body of
his fellow-believers on the question of disci
pline only, speaks with no uncertain sound of
the corruption which had begun to leaven the
Church even in the third century of her
existence.

Novatianists (called also Cathari, pure ; hence,
Puritan). — Although Novatian gave his name to
this sect, yet their chief doctrine (i.e. regard
ing the condition of the lapsed) was as ancient
as the orthodox Hermas early in the second
century, and of the unorthodox Montanists
somewhat later. Novatianism differentiated,
however, from all the sects which had previ
ously disturbed the Church, in the one respect
that all others had separated voluntarily or
had been expelled, on the ground of unsound
views respecting the nature of the blessed
Trinity, while the cause of Novatianist sever
ance was that of discipline only. The nature
and more important particulars of that separa
tion the reader will find amply discussed above.
See NOVATIAN. When a member of the
Novatian (or, of the Cathari, as they preferred
to call themselves) schism desired to return to
the body Catholic, he was received merely by
the imposition of hands, whereas even a Mon-
tanist could only be received back into the
visible Church by re-baptism. This fact
furnishes a strong attestation to the univer
sally acknowledged orthodoxy of the Cathari
creed. Indeed, on the occasion of their spirited
defence at Mantinum against the soldiers of
their common foe, Constantius, the Catholics
were so filled with admiration at their heroism,
that had the Novatianists themselves been
willing to unite, it is strongly conjectured that
they would have received them again into
communion. As it was, so closely were the
two parties drawn together by the Arian per
secutions, that the Catholics worshipped in
Novatian churches, and at the Synod of 383,
the orthodox Patriarch Nectarius and the

Novatian Patriarch Agelius defended the
Homoousian doctrine side by side. The in
fluence the Cathari exerted in the East over
public thought is evidenced by the following
fact given by Socrates, who was himself sup
posed to have been a follower of Novatian,
and which throws a strong side-light upon the
history of auricular confession. In order to
prevent Puritan scrutiny, a presbyter was set
apart by the bishop to hear privately the con
fessions of those among the lapsed who were
desirous of partaking of Holy Communion, in
order that he might, as seemed advisable to
him, allow or forbid their doing so ; but in the
time of Nectarius (390), so grave a scandal
arose from this custom, that it was entirely
put a stop to, and the inquirers were left to
follow their own judgment in the matter — a
wise conclusion, which it is to be regretted
all our Churches to-day do not imitate.

During the following century the Novatian
ists continued to flourish. Bishop succeeded
bishop at Constantinople of their following.
The whole Christian community of Tbyatira
at one period were said to be wholly Puritan ;
but as the position of the Church of Christ
gradually changed in consequence of the cessa
tion of imperial persecution, and discipline
concerning the lapsed therefore became an
obsolete question, other sins, in the place of
apostasy, began to be regarded as an insuper
able bar to communion. This, it may be
imagined, gave rise to numerous differences
in the Puritan ranks, with the inevitable con
sequence that many fresh sects sprang into
existence, each united to the parent stem of
Novatianism ; but although some of these
became unsound and erratic in doctrine and
practice, yet a small and insignificant stream
of Christianity, wholly separate from the main
body of the visible Church, permeated the
centuries, not entirely undeserving the ancient
name still retained ; and there are those
among the most thoughtful and.esteemed theo
logians of our day who behold in the perse
cuted sects of the Middle Ages, especially in
those of the Waldenses and Albigenses, the
spiritual descendants of the Cathari of the
third century. Nay, further, standing beside
the quiet resting-place of a Eichard Baxter,
or in the sacred precincts of the Bedford jail,
they trace backward through buried ages the
line of a spiritual ancestry of martyrs which
links the Puritan of to-day to a genealogy as
remote as it is honourable. [M. A.]

NOVICE. — A probationer in a religious com
munity. See MONASTERIES and NUNNERIES.

NUNCIO (Latin, nuntius, a messenger), — The
nuntlus apoxtolicus, or nuncio, is a permanent
diplomatic agent representing the Pope of
Rome politically at the Court or seat of govern-

NUNS AND NUNNERIES

[ 461 ]

NUNS AND NUNNERIES

ment of any state willing to receive him. He
differs from a legate, whose mission is tem
porary only, and whose powers are greater.

In England regular diplomatic relations with
the Pope were broken off at the Reformation,
and have never been resumed. Indeed, from
the Reformation up to 1848, it seems to have
been considered illegal for the Sovereign to
hold friendly relations with the Pope in any
capacity. By the Bill of Rights (1689) it was
enacted " that all and every person or persons
that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall
hold communion with the See or Church of
Rome " should be excluded from the throne.
In 1848, however, it having been doubted
whether our Sovereign could not treat with the
Pope as a temporal prince, an Act was passed
(11 & 12 Viet. c. 108) enabling Queen Victoria
to establish and maintain (under certain con
ditions) diplomatic relations with the Sove
reign |of the Roman States. Under this Act,
no diplomatic agent from Rome could be
received at the Court of London who was in
Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, or a
Jesuit, or a member of any Order of the
Church of Rome bound by monastic or re
ligious vows. Since 1870, when the Pope's
temporal power was taken away, there has
been no " Sovereign of the Roman States "
other than the King of Italy ; so the Act of
1848 having become obsolete, it was repealed
by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1875. The
law on the subject of reconciliation with the
Pope therefore seems to stand in the same
position as prior to 1848 (Whitehead on Roman
Catholic Disabilities}. [B. W.]

NUNS and. NUNNERIES.— A nunnery (Fr.
nonnerie) is a house in which nuns reside. A
nun (Gr. vowos, a monk ; vowa, a nun ; from
Coptic or Egyptian nane, nanu, good, beauti
ful) is "a woman devoted to a religious life
who lives in a cloister or nunnery, secluded
from the world, under a vow of perpetual
chastity " (Webster).

Long before the monastic life was known in
the Christian Church, it had its ascetics, female
as well as male, the female known as virgines
Deo sacratce ("virgins dedicated to God"), or
"ecclesiastical virgins," regularly enrolled as
such, self-devoted to the life of holy charity
among the poor and sick ; consecrated to their
office by the bishop before whom they made
their vows, receiving at his hands the habit
of their Order — the veil (sacrum velamen), the
sombre-coloured mantle, and a kind of coronet,
gold-embroidered. But, unlike the later mon
astic virgins, they lived with their families,
though in retirement, and for a long time
their vows were not so strict as to make
marriage afterwards a cause of reproach
against those who had taken such vows.

The tonsure of virgins was not permitted in the
Church for centuries. These and other differ
ences prove that Christian monasticism is not
in its origin and development Christian at all,
but heathen, almost certainly Egyptian; hav
ing more in common with the communities
who lived entirely secluded from the world in
the Serapis temples of Egypt than with as
cetics, male and female, of the Church's first
centuries. The Romish nun does not find her
pattern or model among the holy women who
ministered to our Blessed Lord, or His apostles,
co-workers and helpers, or Dorcas and her
companions, or "the widows" in 1. Tim. v.
1-12 ; whilst Tertullian (A.D. 160-240) tells us of
Christians in his time: "We are not Indian
Brahmins or Gymnosophists, dwellers in woods,
or exiles from life ; ... we sojourn with you in
the world" (Apol., xlii.). The De Singularitate
Clericorum, ascribed to Cyprian, illustrates the
general dissatisfaction occasioned by the pro
posal for monastic insulation when first made
towards the close of the third century.

As the change from asceticism to monasti-
cism took place concurrently, and in much the
same mode among the female ascetics as
among the male, so the corruptions, attempted
abortive reformations, and dissolutions of
monasteries and nunneries all through the
centuries run in parallel lines. The indict
ment of history, loud and persistent, against
the whole conventual system, mainly consists
of two counts — immorality and cruelty. In
our day and country it is mainly on the latter
point that the demand for State inspection of
nunneries is based.

The cruelties of the conventual system are
not merely contingent or dependent on the
caprices and tempers of superiors within doors
and windows closed against the light of public
opinion. Cruelty, as Englishmen understand
the word, is of the very law of the system.
Liguori tells us, p. 26, Spouse of Christ: "I
have been accustomed to say that a religious
in her convent enjoys a foretaste of Paradise,
or suffers an anticipation of hell." For the
discontented nun "in a word, it is to be in
continual torture without a moment's peace."
But is there no " cruelty " for the " contented "
nun? In page 186 we read: "Disciplines or
flagellations are a species of mortification . . .
universally adopted in religious communities
of both sexes. . . . Surely it would not be too
much for you to take the discipline (scourging)
once in the day, or at least three or four times
a week. However, the practice of this pen
ance should be regulated by the confessor."
From this it is plain that instruments of
torture are in use ("regulated by the con
fessor ") in every convent in the United
Kingdom. The Syllabus of Pius IX., no less

NUNS AND NUNNERIES

[ 462 ]

OATH

than the Tridentine Fathers, declares absolute
seclusion without the leave of the bishop an
essential law : those who try to escape and
fail are to be punished as apostates, while
even the Civil Government is forbidden under
any circumstances to aid such.

Three great litterateurs, so far apart as De
Foe, Walter Scott, and Eider Haggard, have
recorded their conviction that inmates of
nunneries are subjected from time to time
to the same atrocious penalty (immurement)
as the Roman Vestals who broke their vows.
See Scott's own note to the lines in Marmion:

" And now that blind old Abbot rose,

To speak the Chapter's doom,
On those the wall was to enclose,
Alive, within the tomb."

De Foe, in his Memoirs of an English Officer, by
Captain George Carleton, tells of two nuns who
had been regrettably persuaded by two Eng
lish officers to quit their vows, but the two
nuns were taken, " and, as in like offences,
condemned directly to the punishment of im
muring." But "the Earl of Peterborough,
though highly exasperated with his officers . . .
after a great deal of labour, first got the penalty
suspended, and, at last, though with great
reluctance, got them received again into the
nunnery." In a note to Montezuma's Daughter,
first and second edition, Mr. Haggard, speak
ing in his own person, wrote : " Lest such
cruelty should seem impossible and unprece
dented, the writer may mention that in the
Museum of the city of Mexico he has seen the
dessicated body of a young woman in the
walls of a religious building. With it is the
body of an infant. . . . There can be no doubt
as to the manner of her death. . . . Such, in
those days, were the mercies of religion." In
the Pall Mall Gazette, 1894, a lengthy corre
spondence was raised by a Jesuit Father who
protested against this footnote. In the result
Mr. Haggard, whilst acknowledging he has
found "no proof that so barbarous a punish
ment was ever enforced at any rate in this
country," insists that "The immurement in
Montezuma's Daughter is supposed to have
occurred in Spain, where, as I presume, the
most ardent defenders of the Inquisition will
admit, cruelties as great, or greater, were in
those days commonly practised in the name of
religion." For a summary of this correspon
dence, with testimonies of eye-witnesses, see
W. L. Holland's WaUed-up Nuns, chaps, iii.-vi.
Even here in the United Kingdom, during
the latter half of the nineteenth century, facts
and records have leaped to light proving that
the system, left to itself, is irreclaimable, and
illustrating the imperative necessity that exists
that nunneries, as all other institutions in the

land, should be under inspection by the State.
It is the leading journal (again we quote no
Protestant partisan) that wrote, discussing one
of these cases : " It is only now and again we
get a glimpse at the interior of one of these
ecclesiastical shambles. A gust of wind raises
for a moment the edge of the pall, and we see
the festering rottenness hidden beneath its
dark folds. . . . The novelist, or the poet, can
not outdo reality, when he endeavours to depict
the terrors under which the tenants of these
dismal abodes of superstition are bent to the
will of their spiritual superiors" (The Times,
July 27, 1848). Again, respecting Saurin v.
Starr case, 1868 : " Feminine ingenuity seemed
almost to exhaust itself in devices for doing
that which a Nero or a Tiberius would not have
done more terribly, but yet in one day."

We are not unmindful of the good that can
be set to the account of workers belonging to
this system, but we insist that such good is in
spite of the system, and has been always in
proportion to the measure in which the light
of public, especially Protestant, opinion was
brought to bear upon its working. And when
we are assured that the monastic life as
organised by the Church of Rome is cultivated
in abodes that are simply homes of happiness
and holiness, among many others we venture
to quote two witnesses so widely apart as the
late Rev. Hobart Seymour, and the late Pope
Pius IX.

"If nuns were indeed so happy, there was
no necessity for such lofty walls to keep them
there. ... If all was a type of heaven, it seems
strange to have such bars of iron and such
gratings of iron to compel these spirits of holi
ness to remain in the enjoyment of it. ... It
is nothing else than rank hypocrisy to say that
these lofty walls and iron bars are designed for
any other purpose than the enforced constraint
and imprisonment of the inmates" (Pilgrimage
to Rome, p. 179).

The late Pope, discussing with an English
Roman Catholic bishop the dissolution of
monasteries, convents, &c., in Italy, said : "It
was the devil's work ; but the good God will
turn it into a blessing, since their destruction
was the only reform possible to them" (Rev.
R. R. Suffield in Modern Revieiv, vol. ii. p. 359,
April 1881). See ASCETICISM, MONASTICISM,
MONK. [T. C. O'C.]

OATH. — An appeal to God in testimony of the
truth of any statement. In consequence of
the prohibitions against swearing in Matt. v.
34, and James v. 12, some Christian sects (e.g.
the Quakers and Moravians) decline to take

DELATES

[ 463]

OBLATIONS

any oath, even in a Court of justice. The
Church of England, according to her XXXIX.
Articles, considers that the prohibition relates
only to " vain and rash swearing," and holds
that " a man may swear when the magistrate
requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so
it be done according to the prophet's teaching,
in justice, judgment, and truth" (see Jer.
iv. 2 ; Matt. xxvi. 63, 64 ; Rom. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i.
23; Gal. i. 20; Rev. x. 5, 6). By the Oaths
Act, 1888, a solemn affirmation is permitted,
instead of an oath, to any person stating that
taking an oath is contrary to his religious
belief, or that he has no religious belief.
DELATES. —Properly offered, applied to chil
dren dedicated to the monastic life and trained
up in monasteries— then to persons, laymen, or
in later times secular priests, dedicated to some
special work or service. A number of such
congregations of priests pledged to perform
various works exist under different titles in
the Church of Rome, such as the oblates of
the B.V. and St. Ambrose, Oblates of Mary
Immaculate.

OBLATIONS. — Oblations are the offerings
of bread and wine, or fruits, brought every
Sunday by the first Christians to their minister
for the social meal called Agape, out of
which bread and wine sufficient for the
administration of the Holy Communion were
selected, the remainder being eaten at the
meal.

Down at least to the commencement of the
Middle Ages (the ninth century) all the faithful
were bound to bring their offerings. If they
did not, they were reproved, as guilty of mean
ness (Cyprian, De Op. et Eleemos. ; Regino,
De Diacipl. Eccles.}.

The officer, whether deacon, priest, or
bishop, separated from the rest the bread and
wine required for the sacramental use, and
placed them on the Lord's Table without
any form of oblation (until after the twelfth
century), while a short anthem, called " Offer-
torium" was sung. If by mistake too much
of the bread and wine thus offered was conse
crated, the surplus was eaten and drunk by
the boys of the church school at Constanti
nople, or at Jerusalem was cast into the fire
and burnt. The remainder of the oblations,
which had not been consecrated, went to make
the midday or evening meal of Agape, or if
there were no Agape, they were divided in
stated proportions among the bishops, pres
byters, deacons, and minor clerics. Hence, it
is interesting to remark, our rubric that "if
any of the bread and wine remain unconse-
crated, the curate shall have it to his own
use ; " and hence, too, the practice (though its
pedigree is more difficult to trace) of giving
blessed bread to non-communicants after a

Mass, still witnessed in Continental Cathe
drals.

Besides being types and symbols of the
body and blood of Christ, the bread and wine
were, in the estimation of the whole Church
down to the middle of the third century, a
gift of homage to God for His goodness in
supplying to us the necessaries of life. Justin
Martyr represents the bread and wine as
offered " in memorial of our food, both dry and
liquid," and "that we may thank God for
having created the world with all the things
therein for the sake of man," as well as in
memorial of the Passion (Dial, cum Tryph.)
Irenaeus' teaching is that as we show honour
and affection to a king (according to Eastern
customs) by making him a gift of homage, so
we make oblations to God of the fruits of the
earth in token of our gratitude to Him for
supplying us with necessary sustenance. And
this is the new oblation of the new covenant
(in contrast to the oblations under the old
covenant) ; when this oblation in gratitude for
temporal mercies has been completed, we pro
ceed to participate in the bread and wine as
emblems of the body and blood of Christ
(Haer., iv. 17; see also Fraym. Secund.). In
like manner the " Teaching of the Apostles,"
earlier than Justin and Irena^us, regards the
Eucharist as an offering of thanksgiving made
in joyous acknowledgment of God's goodness
and power in giving food to support man's
life, and in supplying spiritual sustenance to
Christians (ch. x ). It was not till the time of
Cyprian (A.D. 250), that the idea of the obla
tion of bread and wine being a gift of homage
to the Creator for supplying us with food and
drink, was divorced from the Eucharist.

Oblations were at first made chiefly in kind,
but afterwards were changed into money con
tributions. The alms for the poor, collected
at the administration of the Holy Communion,
represent those oblations that were in excess
of what was wanted for sacramental use, and
the bread and wine used for consecration is
now the only relic of the old oblations in kind.
The rubric orders that they shall be provided
at the cost of the parish, just as the original
oblations were brought by every well-to-do
member of the congregation, which, owing to
changes that have occurred, is no longer
possible.

After consecration there is no oblation.
After the idea became prevalent that Christ
Himself was being offered to His Father by the
priest, it became necessary to introduce one.
Accordingly, in the Roman Mass, there are two
oblations, termed popularly the Lesser Obla
tion (the memorial offering before consecra
tion), and the Greater Oblation (the supposed
offering of Christ Himself after the consecra-

OBLATIONS

[ 464 ]

OIL

tion). The latter still testifies to its origina
intention by the words in the Missal, "W<
offer to Thy Glorious Majesty, out of Thin*
own gifts and the things that Thou hast be
stowed upon us, as a pure, holy, and immacu
late offering, the holy bread of eternal life anc
the cup of never-ending salvation."

There is in the English Communion Service
a prayer, often called the prayer of Oblation
because in it we offer the sacrifice of our praise
and thanksgiving, and of ourselves. It ha
been put in the Post-communion instead oi
coming after the consecration prayer, to mark
emphatically that the Church of England does
not recognise any oblation of the consecrated
elements. [F. M.]

The word oblation is used in the Com
munion Office of the Church of England (1)
in the Prayer of Consecration, in reference
to Christ's sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross,
in the words, " Who made there (by His one
oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect,
and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis
faction for the sins of the whole world ; " (2)
in the Prayer for the Church Militant in
respect to the "Alms for the Poor, and other
devotions of the people." Gifts of articles to
be used in divine service, or for the mainten
ance thereof, were also " oblations." The bread
and wine are "placed" upon the Table, and
not "presented," as are the "Alms for the
Poor, and other devotions of the people, in a
decent bason " (Rubrics before Prayer for
Church Militant). Moreover, communion oc
curring without alms is contemplated by the
Prayer Book (see second Rubric before Prayer
for Church Militant), and in that case the words
concerning "alms and oblations" are omitted
(see Prayer for Church Militant). The dis
tinction between " alms " and " oblations " ap
pears to be that " alms " are for the poor, and
"oblations" for the minister. See White-
head's Church Law, "Alms."

Prior to the Reformation, the term " obla
tions " was in use for gifts for the support of
the clergy or of divine service. " The words
oblation and devotion coupled with alms in
Edward VI. 's Prayer Book are altered into ob
lations and devotions in Elizabeth's, evidently
because the word aim?, which is of course the
French almesse, was thought plural. ' Their
oblations and alms,' 'their devotions and
alms.1 Perhaps it was from this source that
the plural form, unfortunately it may be
thought, got into the Prayer for the Church
Militant : in the last revision of the Prayer Book
in 1661 — 'our alms and oblations.' It may be
added that the word oblatio is never plural in

i Through the Scotch Liturgy of 1637.— EDO.

the Latin missal" (Dixon, Hist., v. 134). See
Bishop Dowden on "Alms and Oblations" in
the Journal of Theological Studies for April
1900; and Dean Howson's "Alms and Obla
tions " (Elliot Stock).

OCTAVE (literally, eighth).— A period con
nected with certain festivals of the Church,
beginning on the Feast Day itself and termin
ating on the eighth day from it. A remnant
of the observance of the octave exists in the
Book of Common Prayer, in which certain
appropriate "Prefaces" are appointed to be
used in the service for Holy Communion for
seven days after Christmas, Easter Day, and
Ascension Day. The preface for Whitsunday
is used for six days only, because the seventh
day, being Trinity Sunday, has a preface of its
own.

OFFERTORY.— The collecting of alms for the
poor, and other offerings, and the presenting
and placing of them by the minister upon the
holy Table, before he places there the bread and
wine, which latter are not to be " presented."
Under the Prayer Book of 1552-59 the Offer
tory was not even accompanied by the " plac
ing " of the elements. This is ordered in the
Prayer Book to be done after the sermon and
before the Prayer for the Church Militant.
While the collection is being made, the rubric
directs the priest shall " return to the Lord's
Table . . . saying one or more of these sen
tences following, as he thinketh most con
venient in his discretion."

OFFICIAL PRINCIPAL.— The principal
officer to whom the bishop commits the charge
of his spiritual jurisdiction when acting zsjudge.
The bishop exercises his voluntary jurisdiction
of giving licences, &c., i.e. in matters not liti
gious, through various officers ; the principal
of these is called the Vicar General. The two
offices of Official Principal and Vicar General
are generally held by the same person, who
is known as the chancellor of the diocese.
The Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874
provided for the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York appointing the same person judge of
the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York,
and provided that he should be Official Principal
of both provinces when the then holders died,
and exercise the jurisdiction then exercised
by each of them. [E. B. W.]

OFFICE, DIVINE.— A name given in the
Roman Church to a form of prayer consisting
of psalms, lessons, hymns, &c., used by all the
clergy and the so-called "religious" of both
sexes. The form contains the seven "Hours "
or services for different periods of the twenty-
four hours. See CASTONICAL HOURS.
OIL. — Olive oil is used largely in the ritual of
the Church of Rome. There are three differ
ent kinds of "holy" oil, viz., the oil of

OLD CATHOLICS

[ 465 ]

ONE KIND

Catechumens, used in the ceremonies before
baptism ; the oil of the sick, used in Extreme
Unction ; chrism, or a mixture of oil and
balsam used in baptism, confirmation, &c.
By various ceremonies, inclusive of breathing
"in the form of a cross" by the bishop or
"pontiff" and "twelve vested priests," the
devil is first supposed to be driven out of the
oil or chrism, and the latter is then saluted
with the words, ave, sanctum chrisma ("hail,
holy chrism").

Oil is not used except at the consecration of
a sovereign by the Church of England, yet
Ritualists teach exactly the same uses of oil as
the Roman Church, and unction is said to be
in use by them in several dioceses (see Church
Intelligencer, Aug. 1902, p. 117).
OLD CATHOLICS.— Old Catholics is the name
adopted by those former members of the
Roman Catholic Church who, in protest against
the proclamation of the dogma of papal in
fallibility by the Vatican Council in 1870,
seceded from the Roman communion, and
formed themselves into an independent organi
sation. Though the new dogma had been
strenuously opposed at the Council itself by a
large and influential body of bishops, especially
from the German-speaking countries, the
members of the hierarchy without exception
submitted to the decree. Among the educated
laity, however, in Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland, the feeling of indignation was
deep and strong. In particular, forty-two
Professors of the University of Munich, headed
by the well-known Dr. Dollinger, whom Glad
stone described as "the most famous and
learned theologian of the Roman communion,''
issued a solemn protest. Similar action was
taken at other universities, and in the autumn
of 1870 an important assembly was held at
Nuremberg, by which the recent dogma was
formally repudiated. In the autumn of 1871,
the first conference of the Old Catholics, as
they had come to be called, was held in
Munich, attended by about five hundred dele
gates from almost every part of the world.
Even yet there were some who shrank from a
definite secession from the Church of Rome.
But congregations of adherents had sprung up
in many districts ; provision had to be made for
their religious needs ; and some kind of ecclesias
tical organisation became necessary. The claim
of the Conference, however, which is embodied
in the name of the movement itself, was that
there was no real breach with the Church
Catholic, but only a breach with Rome in view
of her adoption of a novel and impossible
dogma. The difficulty presented to an Epis
copal communion by the fact that no bishop
had joined the movement, was overcome by
the sympathetic action of the little Church of

Utrecht, the remnant of the Jansenists of
Holland, which had preserved the apostolic
succession, and for nearly two hundred years
had maintained an Old Catholic tradition of
its own ; and Professor Reinkens, who had
been popularly elected as the first bishop of
the secessionists, was duly consecrated to that
office. Soon after this, a synodal constitution
on very liberal lines was adopted, and such
reforms in church law and practice were in
troduced as communion by the laity in both
elements at the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, the abolition of compulsory celibacy
for the clergy, and the use of the vernacular
in the services.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth
century, the Old Catholic movement did not
realise the hopes either of its friends or its
enemies. Its enemies predicted that it would
speedily disappear ; while Dr. Dollinger con
sidered that the religious history of Europe
was entering upon a new phase. Certainly
the movement showed no signs of disin
tegration ; and at the close of the century
had more than 100,000 adherents. Still, its
growth was slow, and its prospects not very
promising. Within the last two or three years,
however, there have been indications of revival.
Old Catholicism has taken root in the United
States among the Polish Romanists, who have
now an Old Catholic bishop of their own, with
seven congregations in Chicago and the
neighbourhood. In Austria, too, marked ac
cessions have been received through the
influence of the Los von Rom, movement, which
has been prompted by the hostility of the papal
Church to the aspirations of the German
Nationalist party, and which, while it thus par
takes to a considerable extent of the nature of
a political demonstration, has had no small
effect in enlightening the minds of the people
with regard to the true character of the papa
claims, and in so quickening their religious
convictions that large numbers of them have
joined either the Protestant Church or the Old
Catholic party. [j. c. £,.]

OMOPHORION.— A dress worn over the
shoulders, generally applied to a particular
dress used by patriarchs or bishops in the
Greek Church (see Gear's Euchologion). See
PALLIUM.

ONE KIND.— The practice of giving and re
ceiving bread only instead of bread and wine
in the Holy Communion. "Although this
Sacrament was received in the Primitive
Church by the faithful in both kinds, neverthe
less henceforth let it be received by the offici
ating priests in both kinds, and by the laity
only under the species of bread, inasmuch as it
is to be most firmly believed, and no way to be
doubted, that the whole body of Christ and

20

ONE KIND

[ 466 ]

OPUS OPERATUM

His blood are truly contained as well under the
species of bread as under the species of wine."
This manifesto emanated from the Council of
Constance, A.D. 1405 (Sess. xiii.), and it has
regulated the practice of the Roman Church
from that time. It was the result of the
new form of Christianity which Innocent III.
introduced iu 1215, and more especially of
the doctrine of transubstantiation then first
approved. The argument brought forward in
its favour was twofold. (1) The wine was to
be given up because it might be spilt or cling
to the moustache. (2) The wine was to be
given up because its administration led men to
doubt that Christ was equally present in the
integrity of His Person (Body, Soul, and Spirit)
in either element, in the bread as well as in the
wine, and (still more difficult to believe) in the
wine as well as in the bread.

1. There was not more danger of the wine
being spilt or adhering to the moustache in the
thirteenth century than in the previous twelve
centuries. But in the earlier Church the wine
was regarded as the symbol of Christ's blood,
and not actually as His blood. If it was acci
dentally spilt, it was wine and nothing else,
and though the incident was to be regretted,
the misadventure might easily be corrected.
But when it was recognised as the very blood
that ran in the veins of Christ, nay, as Christ
Himself, it could not be lightly treated.

2. The more imperative cause of prohibiting
the wine was the proposition that Christ was
present in the integrity of His Person in each
element. Bellarmine laid it down, that both
kinds were wanted for the sacrifice, though
only one for communion, and as the priest
was sacrificing, both kinds must be consecrated
and be consumed by him. But if the whole
of Christ be received when a layman eats the
Host, why not when a priest eats it ? If a
layman would receive Christ twice in taking
both the bread and the wine, why not the
priest ? The Roman Church is therefore guilty
of a manifest inconsistency.

The first time that this mutilation of Christ's
ordinance is heard of is the twelfth century,
after Gregory VII. had accepted in the previous
century Paschasius' doctrine, afterwards called
transubstantiation. Even in the twelfth cen
tury only two writers are to be found to advo
cate it. It was Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1226-
74) and Bonaventura (A.D. 1221-74) whose
authority ruled the point. No one can doubt
that they were right, if the Schoolmen's
doctrine that " the whole Christ is taken under
either species " (a consequence drawn by An-
selm from the doctrine of transubstantiation)
be true. If then the practice is wrong (and if
it is right, Christ's contrary precept is wrong),
then the doctrine from which the practice

sprang is wrong, and incompatible with Christ's
doctrine. It is a grave consideration that no
Roman Catholic communicant has received
Christ's ordinance as He appointed it, since
the thirteenth century, and that a doctrine
was then sanctioned which legitimately pro
duces a practice directly contrary to Christ's
command. [F. M.]

OPUS OPERATUM.— Work wrought,as though
it were said that the benefit of a rite accrued
ex opere operato, by virtue of the work wrought,
i.e. by virtue of the due administration. The
doctrine meant by the expression opus operatum
was first enunciated in form by the Schoolman
Duns Scotus1(o&. 1308), who thus wrote (as
Robertson translates): "A sacrament confers
grace through the virtue of the work which is
wrought, so that there is not required any
inward good motion such as to deserve grace,
but it is enough if the receiver place no bar "
in the way of its operation.2 The doctrine
thus stated makes the passive reception
of a sacrament sufficient, and if it does
not intentionally teach that the ordinance
works mechanically like a charm, it must in
evitably spread among ordinary people the
perilous notion that it does. The German
Schoolman Gabriel Biel (oh. 1495), taught the
doctrine in no more guarded a way, though
avoiding some dangerous expressions, saying
that ex opere operato meant "by virtue of the
very consecration, oblation, and reception, of
the venerable eucharist."3

On March 3, 1547, the Council of Trent,
in its seventh session, passed Canon 8, De
Sacramentis, anathematising those who should
say that " by the sacraments themselves of
the new law, ex opere operato, grace is not con
ferred, but that faith alone in the divine
promise is sufficient to obtain grace." In
Edward VI.'s 42 Articles4 of 1553 (since
made 39), there occurred (Article XXVI.,
now XXV.) after the word "operation" this
passage: "not as some say, ex opere operato,
which terms, as they are strange and utterly
unknown to the Holy Scripture, so do they yield
a sense which savoureth of little piety but of

1 Gieseler, Text-look of Ch. Hist., vol. ii. p. 490,
n. 22 sub. fin. ; Robertson, Ch. Hist. , vol. vi. p. 446,
ed. 1874.

2 Scotus, Qucestiones in Lib. IV. Sententiarum,
distinctio i. qusestio vi. sec. 10 sub. fin., in his
Works, ed. Lyons, 1639, vol. viii. p. 125, col. 1.
Sacramentum enim ex opere.

3 Biel, Sacri Canonis misste Expositio, lectio xxvi.
fol. 50, col. 1, sub. fin., Basel, 1515 ; quoted in
Jewel's Works, ii. 751, Parker Society.

4 To be seen in Burnet (vol. iv. p. 311, ed.
Nares ; vol. v. p. 314, ed. Pocock), with notes
giving the later changes.

OPUS OPERATUM

[ 467 ]

OEDEES, HOLY

much superstition." The Articles signed by
Convocation in 1563, omitted this passage and
never again mentioned the opus operatum ;
but even without mentioning it they clearly
enough assert a view as to sacramental
efficacy entirely opposed to the opus operatum
theory, however expounded. Moreover, the
addition of Article XXIX. in 1563 fully made
up for the withdrawal of the clause referred
to. On Dec. 4, 1563, ended the Council of
Trent, which on Jan. 26, 1564, received papal
confirmation, and its decrees then became
binding.

Bishop Jewel's Challenge Sermon at St.
Paul's Cross, March 31, 1560, included among its
twenty-seven points one (No. 20) on Opus Oper
atum,1 and this article in the controversy which
the sermon produced with Harding in 1564,
1505, was discussed at some length. Jewel,
speaking of the ancient superstitions connected
with the Eucharist before the terms opus
opfratum were invented, went on to say :
"This old error our adversaries of late years
have taken up and made it catholic, bearing
the people in hand that their Mass itself, ex
opere operato, only of itself, and because it is
said, is available for the remission of their
sins."'2 Harding had asserted 3 that the Chal
lenge Sermon misrepresented the Roman doc
trine, referring opus operatum to the bare act
of the priest ; not so, it was the work which
God Himself worked by the ministry of the
priest, namely, the body and blood of Christ
offered in sacrifice to God, which was avail
able " where there is no stop nor let on the
behalf of the receiver." Thus, with Harding,
the recipient was simply passive, just as Duns
Scotus put it. Jewel, therefore, produced his
authorities, successfully, as it seems to us, to
make good his original point. The Reforma
tion period, therefore (that of Trent, the
42 Articles, Jewel), was an active one in
the debate on this subject, and the Roman
side seems to have made then no real advance
beyond the dictum of Duns Scotus, which, to
the Reformers, looking to Scripture, was re
pellent in the extreme.

Perhaps it was the severe handling the papal
Article received from them that made its ex
ponents more cautious ; for later on we find
Bellarmine (oo. 1621) asserting the need of
faith and repentance in the recipient ; still,
however, adding : "But that which actively,
proximately, and instrumentally effects the
grace of justification is only the external act
called sacrament, and this is called opus oper
atum, by receiving it passively (operatum), so
that it is the same thing (to say) that the

1 Works, vol. i. pp. 21, 103 ; vol. ii. p. 749.

2 Ibid., vol. ii. 751. 3 Ibid., 749.

sacrament confers grace ex opere operato as (to
say) that it confers grace by virtue of the
sacramental act itself, instituted by God for
this purpose, not by the merit of the minister
or the recipient." 4 If in that language there
seems some degree of concession, it is more
apparent than real. Bellarmine may be held
the chief authority for the current Roman view,
as this is expounded in Addis and Arnold's
Catholic Dictionary, where what we have given
above from that writer, somewhat differently
rendered, and much more of his, is quoted.
See BAPTISM, GORHAM CASE. [C. H.]

ORATORY.— A name given in the Roman
Church to a building adapted for prayer.

ORDERS, HOLY.— The Greek, Roman, and
English Churches acknowledge in common the
three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons.
But there are considerable differences on
the point of the number of " Holy Orders,"
For the Roman Church includes among the
higher orders that of sub-deacons, and among
minor orders porters, readers, exorcists, and
acolytes.

Orders are usually conferred by the apostolic
practice of " laying on of hands" (Acts vi. 6 ;
xiii. 1-3 ; 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; v. 22 ; 2 Tim. i. 6).
But although hands were laid on St. Paul
(Acts xiii.), St. Paul did not view that
act as what is now termed ordination,
for he distinctly denies that he received
his authority even mediately by the hands
of men (Gal. i. 1). See IMPOSITION op
HANDS.

The Church of Rome numbers "Orders"
among the seven sacraments. The Church of
England does not hold Orders to be a sacra
ment, because Holy Scripture makes no men
tion of the institution of such a " sacrament "
by Christ. The English Church recognises as
a matter of outward discipline the Orders of
the Greek and Roman Churches ; but, on the
other hand, those Churches do not admit the
validity of English Orders. The English
Church requires all persons admitted to the
exercise of any office within her pale to ac
knowledge their belief in the doctrines held by
that Church. The episcopal succession in the
Reformed Church of England was transmitted
through Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canter
bury in 1559. The consecration of Archbishop
Parker is therefore attacked by the Romanists.
At one time a fabulous tale was in circulation
called "The Nag's Head" story, which as
serted that Parker and the other Elizabethan
bishops were ordained at a London tavern of
that name by a single bishop, and with no
other ceremony than the placing of a Bible on

4 De Sacramentis, lib. ii. c. 1, in Works, 1872,
Naples, vol. iii. p. 87. col. 1.

ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES [ 468 ] ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES

their heads. A duplicate account of the actual
consecration of Parker has entirely refuted this
story, and it is no longer seriously urged by
Romanists. It has, however, been denied that
Barlow, Parker's consecrator, was himself a
bishop at all. The reply to the latter point is
that besides Barlow, three other bishops took
part in Parker's consecration, two of whom
had been consecrated according to the un-
reformed ritual, and the third according to
that of Edward VI. Each one of those con-
secrators pronounced the consecrating words,
and laid his hands on the new archbishop's
head. Barlow's own consecration is, moreover,
morally certain.

The validity of the form of consecration in
the Reformed Ordinal has also been called in
question by Roman writers. But no particular
form of words has ever been prescribed either
by Holy Scripture or by the Church.
ORDERS OF REFORMED FOREIGN
CHURCHES, RECOGNITION OF BY
OUR REFORMERS. — Tractarian leaders are
divided among themselves as to this question
of fact. Thus Dean Hook, A Call to Union, &c.,
pp. 140, 141 : " One of the falsehoods pro
pagated in these modern days is that the Re
formers did not hold the divine right of
Episcopacy." Whilst Mr. Keble admits — see
Preface to Hooker, pp. lix.-lxii: "It is
notorious, however, that such was not the line
preferred [it was never adopted, as is confessed
presently] by Jewel, Whitgift, Bishop Cooper,
and others, to whom the management of that
controversy [with the Puritans] was entrusted
during the early part of Elizabeth's reign. . . .
It is enough with them to show that the govern
ment by archbishops and bishops is ancient
and allowable ; they never venture to urge its
exclusive claim, or to connect the succession
with the validity of the holy sacraments."

Between both these testimonies we would
place the witness of Mr. Hallam, simply as
that of an able and impartial historian ( Const.
Hist., vol. i. pp. 389, 390, 4th edit.). "Ban
croft and his imitators, Bishops Neyle and
Laud, with the approbation of the King . . .
began by preaching the divine right, as it
is called, or absolute indispensability of
Episcopacy . . . regularly derived from the
Apostles . . . ordinations by presbyters were
in all cases null. . . . They began to speak
of them [Lutherans and Calvinists] not as
brethren of the same faith, united in the same
cause, and distinguished only by differences
little more material that those of political
commonwealths (WHICH HAD BEEN THE

LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
EVER SINCE THE REFORMATION), but . . . as

wanting the very essence of a Christian
Society. . . . The disciples of Rome . . . they

all acknowledged to be part of the Catholic
Church, while they were withholding that
appellation, expressly or by inference, from
Heidelberg and Geneva."

But what say (I. ) The Reformers themselves
expressly ? (II.) The Articles and other for
mularies of the Church, so largely their handi
work? (III.) Authentic records of appoint
ments, made and sanctioned by them, to the
ministry of the Church of England, of men
who had been ordained by presbyters only ?

I. As early as 1537, in the Institution of a
Christian Man, put forth by the bishops and
clergy, we read: "The truth is that in the New
Testament there is no mention made of any
degrees or distinctions in Orders, but only of
deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops."

Again, in 1543, in a revision of this work set
forth by the King, we find the same doctrine
only more emphatically expressed. In 1540,
the chief bishops and divines of the day, re
plying to certain questions proposed by the
King, by their answers respecting bishops
and priests, afford further confirmation of the
fact that even then, during the period to which
the Tractarians are especially fond of appeal
ing, the Tractarian doctrine of Episcopacy was
not held by the great body of our Reforma
tion divines ; but rather that, as Archbishop
Cranmer replies, " The bishops and priests
were at one time, and were not two things, but
both one office in the beginning of Christ's re
ligion; "and as Archbishop Lee : "The name
of a bishop is not properly a name of order,
but a name of office. . . . That any other than
bishops or priests may make a priest, we neither
find in Scripture or out of Scripture," thus
implying that priests may make a priest.

As regards the Elizabethan divines, we note
Mr. Keble's acknowledgments as quoted above.
Their own testimony, though abundant and
convincing, is more frequently incidental than
direct, because in their days (see Hallam above)
no doubt was thrown on the validity of the
Foreign non-Episcopal Churches' Orders, ex
cept by the professed Romanist.

Bishop Pilkington ( Works, Parker Society,
pp. 493, 494) says : " The privileges and
superiorities which bishops have above other
ministers, are rather granted by men for main
taining of better order and quietness in
commonwealths, than commanded by God in His
Word." Dr. Whitaker, Reg. Prof. Cam., De
Pontif. quest, iii. cap. 3, 69: "Munus Episcopi
nihil est ad munus Apostolicum." Also Opp. V. i. ;
509, 510, fol. Geneva, 1610 : " As for bishops
being afterwards placed over presbyters, that
was a human arrangement for the removal of
schisms, as the histories of the times testify."
Bishop Jewel, whose Defence (embodying the
Apology also) was placed in the parish churches

ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES [ 469 ] ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES

to be read by all, and which, therefore, as Dr.
Randolph says, " may be relied on as contain
ing the final and decided opinion of our Reformers,
approved in the general by the Church at
large," says (Defence, part ii., Works, p. 202):
"Is it so horrible a heresy, as he (Harding)
maketh it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God
a bishop and a priest are all one ? " Having
quoted from Chrysostom, Hierome, Augustine,
and Ambrose, he proceeds thus : " All these
and other more holy Fathers, together with
St. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr.
Harding's advice, must be holden for heretics."

But we need not labour the proof about
Jewel, seeing how he has been surrendered,
and with how much contumely, by the repre
sentative Tractator, Hurrell Froude, Remains :
" Jewel was what you (the Oxford Tractmen)
in these days call an irreverent Dissenter.
His Defence of his Apology disgusted me more
than almost any work I ever read. He laughs
at the Apostolical Succession both in principle
and as a fact ; and says that the only succession
worth having is the succession of Doctrine."

Hooker, in opposing the exclusive claims for
the divine right of Presbyter ianism, never once
denies the validity of Presbyterian Orders, or
sets himself to establish the divine right of
Episcopacy. See Books III. V. and VII. for the
following quotations and much more to same
effect : " The clergy are either presbyters or
deacons." " There may be sometimes very just
and sufficent reason to allow ordination made
without a bishop." "He which affirmeth
speech to be necessary amongst all men
throughout the world, doth not thereby import
that all men must necessarily speak one kind
of language ; even so the necessity of polity
and regiment in all churches may be held,
without holding anyone certain form to be necessary
in them all." " Let them (bishops) continually
bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom,
whereby the Church, having so long found it
good to continue under the regiment of her
virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain,
and honour them in that respect, than that any
such true and heavenly law can be showed, by the
evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that
the Lord Himself hath appointed presbyters
for ever to be under the regiment of bishops ; "
adding that " their authority " is " a sword
which the Church hath power to take from them."
We call one more witness out of so many to
hand, Hadrian Saravia, simply because of his
association with Hooker's great name ; that
Mr. Keble, claiming him in support of " the
doctrine of exclusive divine right in bishops,"
insists that since they two were so closely
associated in their works and aims, Hooker may
be interpreted by Saravia wherever the former
seems ambiguous" (Preface to Hooker, p. Ixvii.

Fuller quotation with reference in Goode's The
Divine Rule, chap viii.).

"Although all who had assembled there
before the King had not the same kind of
ordination, and some were ordained by bishops
of the Church of Rome, others by the Reformed
Churches, none of them ought to have been ashamed
of his ordination . . . so that a presbyter clearly
may ordain a presbyter. . . . For 1 do not
think that either he [Beza] or Nicholas Gelasius,
or any other that may have been there present,
not ordained by Romish bishops, took upon
themselves the ministry of the Word without a
legitimate calling received in the Churches of
Christ."

The reader who would have a brief but clear
and full statement of the grounds on which
the Reformation divines founded their dis
tinction between priests and bishops — that the
superiority of bishops consists "not in the
superiority of their Order, yet in the office of
their dignity " (Bridges), will find it in a work
On the Church, by Dr. Field, a learned divine
of the Church of England in the days of
Elizabeth and James I. (fol. ed., pp. 155-57
and 704 ; Thus : " Hence it followeth that
many things which in some cases Presbyters
may lawfully do, are peculiarly reserved unto
bishops, as Hierome noteth, rather for the
honour of their ministry than the necessity of
any law. And therefore we read that Pres
byters, in some places and at some times,
did impose hands, and confirm such as were
baptized. . . . And who knoweth not that all
Presbyters, in cases of necessity, may absolve
and reconcile penitents : a thing in ordinary
course appropriated unto bishops? and ivhy
not, by the same reason, ordain Presbyters and
Deacons ? . . . There is no reason to be given,
but that in case of necessity . . . Presbyters,
as they may do all other acts, whatsoever
special challenge bishops in ordinary course
make unto them, might do this also. Who,
then, dare condemn all those worthy ministers of
God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry
churches of the world, at such times as bishops,
in those parts where they lived, opposed them
selves against the truth of God, and persecuted
such as professed it ? "

The Reformation divines of England, at all
events, did not so condemn them, but to a
man seem to have held with Bishop Cooper,
one of their leading champions against the
Puritans, that these foreign Churches, "and
the learned men whom God sent to instruct
them " had been directed by the Spirit of God to
retain this liberty as regards " external govern
ment and other outward orders" (Admonition
to the People of England, 1589).

II. Article XXIII. seems the only place in
which the Church of England touches on

OEDEES OF FOEEIGN CHUECHES [ 470 ] OEDEES OF FOEEION CHUECHES

Ordination in the abstract, and seems specially
worded so as not to exclude from "lawful
calling " the ministers of the foreign Protestant
Churches; and, as a matter of fact, requires
nothing more as necessary for such "lawful
calling" than what is required in several of
those non-Episcopal Churches themselves,
namely, that it be "by men who have public
authority given unto them in the congrega
tion." Thus, Thomas Rogers, chaplain to
Archbishop Bancroft, in his Exposition of the
Articles, published 1604, quotes " the Churches
Protestant" as " by their confessions " approv
ing each of the six propositions which he de
duces from this Article : referring thus to the
Helvetic, Belgic, Bohemic, French, and other
Reformed bodies. This book is of special
authority as having been approved by so high
a Churchman as Archbishop Bancroft ; also on
its title-page proclaimed to have been " perused
and by the lawful authority of the Church of
England allowed to be public ; " and which
every parish in his province was ordered by
the archbishop to supply itself with. Bishop
Burnet also comments thus on this Article :
"Not only those who penned the Articles, but
the body of this Church for above half an age
after, did, notwithstanding those irregularities,
acknowledge the foreign Churches, so consti
tuted, to be true Churches as to all the essentials
of a Church, though they had been at first irre
gularly formed, and continued still to be in an
imperfect state. And therefore the general
words in which this part of the Article is
framed, seem to have been designed on purpose
not to exclude them."

But what about the Preface to the Ordinal
and the Act of Uniformity ? Do they not re
quire every minister of the Church of England
to be episcopally ordained or consecrated ?
Yes ; but these say nothing against the validity
of non-Episcopal Orders — neither deny nor
affirm — in other Churches ; and neither of them
touches the question of the Reformers' relationship
with the foreign Churches, as both documents date
only from the year 1662. In any case, they
simply and solely require, and very properly
require, that an Episcopal Church shall have
an episcopally ordained ministry ; whilst the
Bidding Prayer at the commencement of the
Sermon, ordered by Canon 55, and requiring all
the clergy to pray for "the Church of Scot
land " (which was Presbyterian when this canon
was passed, even as it is to-day), plainly re
cognises a valid ministry without episcopal
ordination.

III. In his Preface to Hooker, p. Ixxvi., Mr.
Keble confesses that " nearly up to the time
when Hooker wrote, numbers had been ad
mitted to the ministry of the Church of Eng
land with no better than Presbyterian Orders ;

and it appears by Travers' Supplication to the
Council that such was the construction not
uncommonly put upon the Statute of the 13th
of Elizabeth," &c. By this Act, and also the
12th Car., cap. 17 (see for both Powell On
Apostolical Succession, sect, vii.) it was, that
"numbers" — Mr. Keble might have said
"hundreds" — of ministers who had only
Presbyterian Orders held their livings as true
ministers of the Church of England. Bishop
Cosin writes to Mr. Cordel, February 7, 1650:
" Therefore, if at any time a minister so or
dained in these French Churches came to
incorporate himself in ours, and to receive a
public charge and cure of souls among us in
the Church of England (as I have known some
of them to have done so of late, and can in
stance in many other before my time), our
bishops did not re-ordain him before they ad
mitted him to his charge, as they must have
done, if his former ordination here in France
had been void. Nor did our laivs require more
of him than to declare his public consent to the
religion received amongst us, and to subscribe
the Articles established." [Note the words
" done so of late "] ; whilst Bishop Burnet
reports of Scotland still later ( Vindication, pp.
84, 85, published 1696) : " No bishop in Scot
land, during my stay in that kingdom, ever did
so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to
be re-ordained."

Two names are specially prominent as of
persons so allowed to minister in the Church
of England — Morison, who was given a licence
by Archbishop Grindal "approving and ratify
ing the form of ordination" by a Scotch
Presbytery ; and giving him commission
" throughout the whole diocese of Canterbury
to celebrate divine offices, to minister sacra
ments," &c. ; and Whittingham, Dean of
Durham, 1563-79, who had no other Orders
than those received from Calvin in Geneva, as
Knox's successor in the ministry of the English
Church there. Yet to him was offered choice
of the Bishopric of Durham or the Arch
bishopric of York (both void at one time).
See J. G. Lorirner's John Knox and the Church
of England, chap. vi. and App. 1875.

The only one, of any weight, of our early
divines, whom Dean Goode can find to have
denied the legality of the practice of admitting
persons having only Presbyterian Orders to the
cure of souls in the Church of England, is
Archbishop Whitgift, and he only on account
of " the laws of the realm," which all through,
in his judgment, " required that such as are
allowed as ministers in this Church of England,
should be ordered by a bishop. " But he held as
strongly by the validity of the Presbyterian
Orders of the foreign Churches as any quoted
above. In speaking of the platform of Church

ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES [ 471 ] ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES

government contended for by Cartwright (p.
658), he says : " Yet would I not have any
man think, that I condemn any Churches where
this government it lawfully and without danger
received; only I have regard to whole king
doms, especially this realm, where it cannot
but be dangerous" (see also pp. 81, 84, 383-85).
So he admits that Dean Whittingham "was
ordained minister by those who had author
ity [apparently referring to Article XXIII.]
in the Church " in which he was ordained. And
Archbishop Sandys, who did question his
Orders, did so, not out of disrespect for the
foreign Churches. He writes thus to the
Lord Treasurer : " The discredit of the Church
of Geneva is hotly alleged. Verily, my Lord,
that Church is not touched. For he hath not
received his ministry in that Church, or by
any authority or order from that Church, so
far as yet can appear."

The fact is that the very Act which properly
requires for an Episcopal Church a ministry
Episcopally ordained, recognises (§ 15) those
communities as " the foreign Reformed
Churches ; " that the Article which lays down
the conditions of admission to the ministerial
office is still the same as when ministers of
those Churches were freely permitted to
minister in the Church of England ; that the
great majority of English divines in the seven
teenth, eighteenth, and a considerable part of
the nineteenth centuries, including such pro
nounced "High Churchmen" as Andrewes,
Bramhall, Cosin, Hall, &c., were at one on this
question with the illustrious leaders of the
English Reformation ; in illustration of which
we recall the fact that the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel, of which every
English bishop is ex officio a leading governor,
for so long sent as ordained missionaries
ministers who had received Lutheran Orders
only.

That the Reformation bishops, in recognising
the validity of Orders given by Presbyters
only, did not adjudge them in all respects
perfect, or would encourage schism by over-
readiness to sanction Presbyterian ordination ;
and that the post-Restoration bishops, in
requiring re-ordination from men with Presby
terian Orders only, did not disown the action
and principles of their predecessors, is plainly
illustrated by the story of the consecration to
Scottish sees in 1609 and subsequently to 1661,
as told by Spottiswood, Hist, of Church and State,
and Burnet, Hist, of his Own Times: "When
the Scots bishops were to be consecrated . . .
a question was moved by Dr. Andrewes, Bishop
of Ely," who said they " ' must first be or
dained presbyters, as having received no
Ordination from a bishop.' Bancroft, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, who was by, maintained

that thereof there was no necessity, seeing
where bishops could not be had the Ordina
tion given by the Presbyters must be esteemed
lawful, otherwise that it might be doubted if
there were any lawful vocation in most of the
Reformed Churches." (Note, in passing, this
" High Church " archbishop's jealousy in
behalf of the Reformed Churches.) Burnet
tells us that the English bishops (besides
pleading the Act of Uniformity) "also made
this difference between the present time and
King James's : for then the Scots were only in
an imperfect state, having never had bishops
among them since the Reformation ; so in such
a state of things, in which they had been under
a real necessity, it was reasonable to allow of
their Orders, how defective soever, but that of
late they had been in a state of schism," &c., &c.

That this re ordination did not necessarily
imply denial of the validity of the Orders
already given is maintained by Bramhall,
Works, vol. i. p. xxxvii. ; Leighton, Hist, of his
Own Times, vol. i. p. 140; Bingham, Antiquities,
vol. ix., ed. 1845, pp. 296, 297, as quoted by
Dean Goode in A Reply to the Bishop of Exeter's
Second Arraignment, pp. 20-23.

Our English divines in the reigns of Eliza
beth and James I. and of their immediate
successors, had opposed to them the intolerant
claims of Popery on the one hand, and of ultra-
Puritanism on the other ; and the moderation
(for which they clo not always get credit) with
which, as a whole, they waged both wars, is
well illustrated by their conduct of this par
ticular campaign. They never once meet the
claims for the divine right of Presbyterianism
with the counter-claim of the exclusive
divine right of Episcopacy, or denial of the
validity of Presbyterian Orders. " It is enough
with them to show that Episcopacy is ancient
and allowable" (Keble, as above); in defence
of which contention two "High Church"
divines shall now sum up : —

Archbishop Laud, Conference with Fisher the
Jesuit, sect. 39, vii., denies the necessity of
" continued visible succession, and can find no
promise of its uninterrupted continuance in
any Church : " For succession in the general
I shall say this ; it is a great happiness where
it may be had visible and continued, and a
great conquest over the mutability of this
present world. But I do not find any one of
the ancient Fathers that makes local, personal,
visible, and continued succession a necessary
mark or sign of the true Church in any one
place."

Bishop Cosin, while severe in criticism of the
foreign Churches' "defect of Episcopacy,"
says, " I dare not take upon me to condemn
or determine a nullity of their own Ordina
tions against them ; " and then proceeds to

ORDERS OF FOREIGN CHURCHES [ 472 ]

ORDINAL

say, writing to Mr. Cordel, who scrupled to
communicate with the French Protestants:
"There have been both learned and eminent
men (as well in former ages as in this, and
even among the Roman Catholics as well as
Protestants) who have held and maintained
it for good and passable divinity, that pres
byters have the intrinsical power of ordi
nation in actu primo . . . [this power remains
in them, though its exercise is restrained 'by
the strictness of the canon,' 'for the avoidance
of schism,' &c. yet that the same act shall not
be simply void in the nature of the thing, in
regard that intrinsical power remained when
the exercise of it was suspended."]

Then he illustrates what we may term the
Apostolic Succession and catholicity of this
doctrine, in the whole Christian Church, fur
nishing a list of names of great doctors who
supported it, from " St. Hierome and his
followers," down to his own day ; several from
" among the Roman Catholics," and Jewel,
Field, Hooker, and Mason from " among the
divines of our own Church." [Note Cosin's views
as to the sentiments of those four Reformers.]
. . . " All which authors are of so great credit
with you and me, that though we are not alto
gether of their mind, yet we would be loth to
let the world see that we would contradict
them all, and condemn their judgment openly;
as needs we must, if we hold the contrary, and say,
that the ministers of the Reformed French
Churches, for want of Episcopal Ordination,
have no Order at all."

He then recommends his correspondent, in
case of need, to "communicate reverently
with them of the French Church," reminding
him, "there is no prohibition of our Church
against it (as there is against our communicating
with the Papists, and that well grounded upon
the Scripture and will of God)." 1

This article cannot more suitably close than
with the following paragraph from Bishop
Cosin's last will : " Wherever in the whole
world Churches, reckoned as Christian
Churches, profess the true, ancient, and catholic
religion and faith, and with one mouth and
mind adore and worship God the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit ; with such, though distance,
or the disagreements of mankind, or any other

1 The same High Church bishop wrote, as
quoted in a work entitled, Dr. Cosin's Opinion
when Dean of Peterborough and in Exile for Com
municating with Geneva rather than with Rome,
pub. 1684. " It is far less safe to join with those
men who alter the credenda, the VITALS of religion
[meaning the Romanists], than with those that
meddle only with the agenda and BULKS of re
ligion [meaning the Foreign Protestants], if they
meddle no farther."

obstacle, may prevent my actually holding
communion (junyi) with them, yet in heart,
mind, and affection I shall always be united
and form one (conjunyor ac coalesco) : which I
wish specially to be understood of the Protestant
and well-Reformed Churches." [T. C. O'C.]
ORDINAL.— We take the word " Ordinal" in the
sense in which it is now usually applied to the
Service Book by which men are admitted into
the Holy Orders of the Christian Church. It
will thus correspond in part to the Pontificate
of the Roman Church. In the Mediaeval
Church the word was in occasional use, but in
another sense.1

The history of the Ordinal in its growth is
an interesting and instructive study, as illus
trating and evidencing the development of
ecclesiastical teachings and traditions by
gradual and continuous accretions from
thoughts which (it may be, many times, with
pious, though mistaken, intent) were making
human additions to divine revelation. This
history " is sufficient to show how gradually
the Apostolic laying on of hands gathered
round it, in the course of centuries, the com
plicated ceremonial of mediaeval times." (See
Prof. Swete's Services before the Reformation,
p. 206. See also especially, Morinus, De Sac.
Ordin., par. ii. cap. 1, p. 23, Antw. 1685. 2)
This portion of the subject, however, must
necessarily be left outside of the purpose of
this article, except so far as it may incidentally
find a place in our hasty and imperfect exami
nation of the way in which the Reformation
dealt with the Ordinal as it was found in use
at the close of the mediaeval period.

We are concerned especially with the history
of the Ordinal in the sixteenth century — not,
indeed, with that of the great Western or
Eastern Churches, whose Ordinals may be said
(speaking generally) to have then had their
history closed — but with that of the Protestant
Churches, and specially with that of the

1 See Lyndwood and other authorities as
quoted by Du Cange, s.v. Ordinale.

2 Referring to the writings of Pseudo-
Dionysius, Morinus says : " Gliscunt et in
hominum mentes facillime sese insinuant istae
fabellae. Nam doctrinas, pietatis, religionis
pleraeque speciem habent. Quis autem est, qui
non ista lubens ambabus manibus amplectatur,
atque etiam veneretur ? Malum autem iis
insitum conspicere quis potis est? non unus ex
mille. . . . Plerseque autem ejusmodi fabellze ita
fortunatse fuerunt, ut iis seculis exortse sint,
quibus istorum argumentorum versandorum nulla
erat peritia : Ideo eas statim omnes amplexi
sunt, et deosculati, quamvis in eis nulla esset et
rationis, et veritatis intelligentia " (cap. i. §§ 1, 11.
See also Exercit. VII. pp. 105 sqq.).

ORDINAL

[ 473 ]

ORDINAL

Reformed Church of England. This history
is not merely interesting, it is very important,
on account of the witness it bears to the
position which was taken by the English
Church in respect of certain doctrines and
practices which have now become matters of
controversy by reason of the recent revival
of certain mediaeval errors in the midst of us.

We are not, indeed, to suppose that we are
dependent on our Ordinal for testimony against
such erroneous teachings. Our Articles speak
(as we are persuaded) plainly enough in their
condemnation. But the additional witness of
our Ordinal is very valuable, and should in
fairness be acknowledged to be very forcible,
as showing how far from the mind of our
Reformers, and from the intent of our Formu
laries, are the plausible and popular misin
terpretations which would tend to detract
from the genuinely Protestant character of
our Articles. 1

It concerns us primarily and very specially
to give attention to the Service for the
Ordination of Priests. And we must confine
our view to a few salient points.

We observe, then, that in the Roman
Pontifical we have in the earlier part of the
service an admonition addressed by the
bishop to the ordinandi, which commences
by setting forth the functions of a priest
("Officium sacerdotis quale sit," margin).
And these are the words to be spoken :
"Sacerdotem etenim oportet offerre:2 bene-
dicere : prseesse : praedicare : et baptizare ''
(Pontificale Rom., fol. 17 a, Venice, 1572).3

1 See Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium (Elliot
Stock), pp. 101-110. Missarum Sacrifaia, pp.
47, seq. Romish Mass and English Church, pp
46 sqq.

2 This formula is comparatively modern.
Dr. Swainson (in Guardian, Jan. 30, 1878) ex
pressed his belief that it cannot be traced further
back than 1300. The older English Ritual had
the words : " Presbyterum oportet benedicere,
offerre, et bene praeesse, praedicare, et baptizare
atque communicare " (see Doctrine of Sacerdotium,
p. 44). In the Sacerdotale Romanum (Venice, 1585),
after the usual derivation of sacerdos, it is
added: " Dicitur etiarn a sacrificando, quia
eorum officium est offerre sacrificium et hostias
pro populis" (Proem, fol. ii. ). The Papal Bull
Apostolicce Curie speaks of the " gratia et potestas "
of the Sacerdotium thus : " Qua? praecipue est potes
tas consecrandi et offerendi verum corpus et
sanguinem Domini, eo Sacrificio, quod non est
nuda commemoratio sacrificii in Cruce peracti "
(p. 40, edit. Burns).

3 This edition was superseded by the revision
of Clement VIII. in 1596, which revision was
again corrected under Urban VIII. in 1644. But

Then, after silent imposition of hands, the
bishop reflectit stolam, saying, "Accipe jugum
Domini, jugum enim Ejus suave est, et onus Ejus
leve"4 (fol. 19 b). This is followed by the
rubrical direction: " Imponitcuilibetsuccessive
casulam usque ad scapulas," the bishop saying,
" Accipe vestem sacerdotalem, per quam
charitas intelligitur." After this the bishop,
rising without his mitre, pronounces a bene
diction, in which the words occur : " et in
obsequium plebis tuae panem et vinum in
corpus et sanguinem Filii tni immaculata
benedictione transforment " (fol. 19 b). This
benediction is followed by anointing the hands
of the ordinandi with oil, accompanied with a
prayer. After this, the bishop delivers to
each of the ordinandi a chalice with wine and
water, " et patinam superpositam cum hostia,"
and says: "Accipe potestatem offerre sacri-
ficium Deo: missasque5 celebrare: tarn pro
vivis quam pro def unctis : In nomine Domini "
(fol. 20 a). And it should be observed that
from this point the recipients are no longer
spoken of as ordinandi, but as ordinati.6

no material change was made in respect of the
particulars with which we are here concerned.
The Sarum Celebratio Ordinum may be compared,
as given in Maskell's Monumenta Ritualia Ecdcsice
AngL, vol. iii. pp. 154 sqq. from a Cambridge
MS., on the date of which see Diet, of Christian
Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1499. The first printed
edition of the Roman Pontifical is dated 1485.
See Catholic Dictionary, p 725.

4 See Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia Eccl. Angl.,
vol. iii. pp. 207, 208, 209.

5 In the Sarum form we find, "missamque
celebrare." See Maskell, vol. iii. p. 214.

6 In the margin we read : "In hoc actu im-
primitur character hujus ordinis." These marginal
notes have since been omitted from the Pontifical.
So Durandus teaches that, " In datione patenae
et calicis cum materia imposita imprimitur
character sacerdotalis " (in 4 Sent. dist. 24. Qu.
3, § 8). See Notes on Vindication of "Apos.,
Cures. " (E. Stock), p. 4. See also pp. 6, 7, for the
teaching of Aquinas. Many of the Scholastics
held this view. But of the later Scholastics
several held that the Church's determination on
this matter has been different for different
places— that the matter and form for the West
consist partly in the tradition of the instruments
with accompanying words, partly in the imposition
of hands with accompanying words. See Catholic
Dictionary, p. 677 ; see also Maskell, vol. iii. pp.
220, 221. It may be observed that in the Sarum
Pontifical, those receiving ordination are called
" Thy Priests " before the traditio instrumentorum.
(See Pullan, Book of Common Prayer, p 264.).
They are also called ordinandi afterwards (see
Maskell, vol. iii. p. 216) and Morinus, Exercit.VIII.

ORDINAL

[474 ]

ORDINAL

The celebration of Mass follows,1 after which
the bishop (cum mitra) lays both hands on the
head of each of the ordinati ("imponit ambas
manus super capita singulorum ") and says :
" Accipe Spiritum Sanctum : quorum remiseris
peccata remittuntur eis : et quorum retinueris
retenta sunt " (fol. 21 b). Then, unfolding the
casula (previously laid on the shoulder), he says :
"Stola innocentiae induat se Dominus.':
Finally, the bishop blesses the ordinati thus :
" Benedictio Dei Omnipotentis : Patris : et
Filii : et Spiritus Sancti : descendat super vos :

1 From early times ordinations were accom
panied by, and formed a part of, the administra
tion of the Eucharist. See Maskell's Monumenta
Rit. Eccles. Anyl., vol. iii. p. 159.

2 Viz. (1) Prefatory Address, with statement
of sacerdotal functions. (2) Delivery of casula
(i.e. the chasuble which is the mass vestment,
see CHASUBLE) with a benediction containing
the doctrines of Real Presence and of Transub-
stantiation. (3) Unction. (4) Traditio instru-
mentorum, with power to offer sacrifice and
celebrate masses. (5) The words (following the
second imposition of hands), "Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum, &c. (6) Unfolding the camla. (7) The
final Blessing with the words, " ut . . . offeratis
placabiles hostias pro peccatis." The Cambridge
MS. of the Sarum Cdebratio Ordinum, which can
hardly be later than the fifteenth century (see
Maskell, vol. i. p. 1), will be found to contain all
these particulars. In the statement of sacerdotal
functions it adds the word " Conficere " before
" baptizare," on which see Maskell, Monumenta
Rit., vol. ii. p. 204.

3 That is, in the case of the Ordination of
Priests. This phrase is not used in our Service
for Deacons. It had been regarded by Scholastics
as the Form in the Ordination of Deacons. But
it was certainly of late introduction. See Maskell,
Monumenta Rit., vol. iii. p. 194.

4 The justification of the use of these words
is to be found in scriptural, not ecclesiastical
warrant (see Beveridge, Cosin, and Burnet, as
quoted by Walcott, On Ordinal, pp. 240-244 ;
also Smith's Diet, of Christ. Antiq., vol. ii. p. 1513).
The reformers could not reasonably be expected
to know how recent had been their insertion in
the Service of Ordination. Even in the seven
teenth century the learned Bishop Andrewes
supposed them to be the effective form ("the
very operative words") of Ordination (Sermons,
vol. iii. p. 263. Anglo-Cath. Lib.). It was to the
learned and laborious investigations of Morinus
(published in 1655) that we owe our knowledge
of the fact that their use was a novelty of the
Middle Ages (see Diet, of Christ. Antiq., vol. ii.
p. 1513). The words are unknown in the Greek
and Syriac Rites (see Catholic Dictionary,
p. 677). It should be observed, however,

ut sitis benedicti in Ordine Sacerdotali : et
offeratis placabiles hostias pro peccatis : atque
offensionibus populi : Omnipotenti Deo : Cui
est honor et gloria : in secula seculorum " (fol.
22 a).

Now, of seven2 particulars which may be
noted in this brief description, it concerns us
to observe, that while most have been discarded
with a purpose which can hardly be called in
question, there is one which has been retained,
and is still in use in our English Ordinal. It is
the saying,3 " Receive the Holy Ghost, "4&c.,

that Hooker's defence of the words rested
not at all on any claim of antiquity. "The
Holy Ghost," he says, " may be used not of the
Person only, but the gifts of the Holy Ghost ;
and we know that spiritual gifts are not only
abilities to do things miraculous . . . but also
that the very authority and power, which is given
in the Church to the ministers of holy things,
this is contained within the number of those gifts
whereof the Holy Ghost is Author" (Eccl. Pol.,
book v. c. Ixxvii. § 5). And he asks, "Seeing,
therefore, that the same power is now given,
why should the same form of words expressing
it be thought foolish ? " (§ 7). (See Sacerdotium
of Christ, pp. 76,77. See also especially Whitgift's
Worts, vol. i pp. 489-491, P.S.) It should be
noted that the words which follow, conveying
the power of absolution, are more modern than
the form " Accipe potestam offerre Sacrificium"
(see Walcott, On English Ord., p. 261). It may
also be noted that the Eastern Church has never
formally given the power of consecration or of
absolution at Ordination (ibid. p. 260). It should
also be observed that the sense of these words
("Whose sins thou dost forgive, &c.") receives
restraining interpretation from the following
words which are added in our Ordinal : "And be
thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God,
and of His Holy Sacraments." (See Doctrine of the
Sacraments, pp. 146, 147 ; and Sacerdotium of
Christ, p. 77. Compare also Badger's Ncstorians,
vol. ii. p. 332.) The words " for the office and
work of a priest in the Church of God," were
added at the last Review to meet an objection to
the earlier form as not sufficiently indicating
the order conferred (see especially Cardwell's
Conference, pp. 386-388). Of the gift given :
" It is," says Bishop Andrewes, " no internal
quality infused, but the grace only of the
spiritual and sacred function" (Serm., IX. iii.
p. 277. A.C.L.).

The change of sense which the word x^P070"^
acquired in the course of time (see Suicer, s.v.
Xfi/>or<Ww, also s.v. xeiporovia et xelP°9€aia) ma7>
perhaps, be regarded as significant of a change
in the doctrinal atmosphere which surrounded
the use of the Ordinal (see Smith's Diet, of
Christ. Antiq., vol. ii. pp. 1501-2). What was

ORDINAL

[475 ]

ORDINAL

with the Apostolic imposition of hands. In
its retention l the Church of England probably
stands alone among the Churches of the Re
formation. We have here a witness to the
general conservative principle which ruled the
action of our leading Reformers. This principle
is distinctly expressed in the 30th Canon of
1604 : " So far was it from the purpose of the
Church of England to forsake and reject the
Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or
any such-like Churches, in all things that they
held and practised, that, as the Apology of the
Church of England confesseth, it doth with
reverence retain those ceremonies which do
neither endamage the Church of God, nor
offend the minds of sober men ; and only de
parted from them in those particular points
wherein they were fallen from themselves in
their ancient integrity, and from the Apostoli
cal Churches, which were their first founders "
(see Jewel's Apologia Eccl. Angl., pp. 34, 35 ;
Cambridge, 1838). And this conservative
principle it is which gives supreme significance,
and adds enormous weight, to the evidence
afforded by the particulars which the theology
of our Reformed Ordinal has so distinctly and

formerly viewed as chiefly, or partly, an elective
appointment by the Church, came to be only, or
chiefly, regarded as the ordination of the Chief
Minister (to whom always belonged the office of
laying on of hands). Thus, there was a tendency to
exalt an episcopal act into a supreme prominence
which obscured the view of what belonged to the
Assembly of the faithful (see Maskell, Afon. Rit.
Eccles. Angli., vol. iii. p. 159 ; and Schaff-Herzog,
Encyclopedia, vol. iii. p. 1700). But if this be so,
it must by no means be supposed to follow that
the manuum impositio was not regarded of old as
an Apostolic ordinance and an effectual sign of
official dignity and sacred authority. On this
subject, see Walcott, On Eny. Ord., pp. 35-401 84,
tqq. See also especially Whitgift's Works, vol. i.
pp. 425-440, P.S. The saying of Augustine :
" Man us impositio non sicut baptismus repetinon
potest. Quid est enim aliud nisi oratio super
hominem T " (De Baptismo contra Donatistas,
lib. iii. cap. xvi.) has no special reference to
ordination. And elsewhere he says, " Quadam
consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cum
baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur : ideoque in
Catholica utrumque non licet iterari" (Contra
Epist. Parmeniani, lib. ii. cap. xiii.). It need not
be questioned that in early times the word
X«po0e<ria was used not unfrequently "in the
sense of Benediction, no doubt with outstretched
hands " (see Bishop Wordsworth in Serapion's
Prayer Book, p. 53.) See also Morinus, par. iii.
p. 11.

1 See Swete's Service Books before Reformation,
pp. 207-8.

decidedly rejected. There must be a cause for
their omission. The Canon gives us to under
stand that their rejection must be either
because they " endamage the Church of God,"
or " offend the minds of sober men." In these
particulars, according to the view of the
Church of England, the unreformed Churches
were fallen both from themselves in their
ancient integrity, and "from the Apostolical
Churches, which were their first founders." *

These changes made in the English Ordinal —
the rejection of the six remaining particulars
noticed — all of them may be said to have their
sufficient explanation in the Address which is
now the bishop's charge to the Candidates 2
at the commencement of the service, and
which may be spoken of as superseding the
rejected exhortation of the Roman Pontifical.
In that (the Roman) exhortation, first and
foremost among the functions assigned to the
sacerdotal office stands the work of " offering."
Where is this function in the solemn address
which is found in the English Ordinal ? It is
nowhere. Nowhere — not because the word
might not be used in a sense capable of being
defended ; but because in the sense which it
acquires from the subsequent particulars, it is
that which the Church of England repudiates
with the most solemn and emphatic repudia
tion. In this sense it is no offering of spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,
which are to be offered continually by the
royal priesthood of the whole Church of the
believers; it is not the rendering of alms and
oblations from loving hearts — sacrifices with
which God is well pleased ; it is not the
presenting of the Ova-la fwcra, which is our
\oyiirt) \arpha ; neither is it the offering of the
elements to be consecrated for the purposes of
the Eucharist ; neither is it the offering to the
divine view the ordained memorial of the One

1 The earlier Ordination Forms are remarkable
for their simplicity. See Notes on the Vindication
of the Bull" Apost. Curce." (Elliot Stock), Note II I.
pp. ii. sqq; and Doctrine of Saccrdotium, pp. 81-84.
So also were the Roman " Ordines " of the seventh
and eighth centuries. The traces of a more elabo
rate ritual in the Gelasian Sacramentary are as
cribed by M. Duchesne to Gallican influence. See
Swete's Services before Reformation, pp. 200-202 ;
and Walcott, On English Ordinal, p. 259. See also
especially Bishop Serapion's Prayer Book (edit.
Bishop Wordsworth, S.P.C.K.) pp. 39, 50-53.

2 This address appears to be following the
lead of the " Ratio Ordinandi " found in Bucer's
Scripta Anglicana, p. 255 sqq., admitting, however,
valuable additions. On its doctrinal significance
see Doctrine of Sacerdotium, pp. 88-90. And on
the "Intention of the Reformed Ordinal" see
pp. 90-92.

ORDINAL

[ 476 J

ORDINAL

propitiatory sacrifice of the Cross ; neither is
it the sacrifice to God of praise and thanks
giving, i But it is the offering of Christ's body
and blood made to be present by power of
sacerdotal benediction in the place of the
bread and wine. It is the offering thus, in
sacrifice to God, of placabiles host las and
celebrating masses for the living and the dead —
sacrifices of man's device, which derogate from
the perfection of Christ's finished work of pro
pitiation, and which the Church of England
has not hesitated faithfully to denounce as
"blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits " ;
and which, therefore, she has with great care
eliminated from her formularies — expurgating
her Liturgy of whatever might seem to sanction
such errors and superstitions 2 (see Dangerous

1 See Doctrine of Sacerdotium (Elliot Stock),
pp. 84-86.

2 In the first Reformed Ordinal (said to be
mainly the work of Cranmer, especially the
authorship of the Preface) the chrism was
omitted. But the deacon was presented to the
bishop to receive the priesthood, "having upon
him a plain white albe," and the candidate for
the deaconship, who was appointed by the
bishop to read the Gospel, put on a tunicle before
reading. It was still ordered that the bishop
should " deliver to every one of them (the
candidates for priesthood) the Bible in one hand
and the chalice or cup with the bread in the
other hand." This Ordinal was issued in accor
dance with an Act made by the Parliament which
met Nov. 1549, and it was published in March,
1549-50 (see Walcott, On Eng. Ord., pp. 290-294).
Those ordained under it are described in the
Articles of 1562, as ordained from (or since) the
second year (ab anno secundo) of King Edward VI
There was nothing in this which was necessarily
(ex se, " of itself ") superstitious or ungodly.
But, as in the Prayer Book of 1549, there were
some things which might be, and were found to
be, capable of being misinterpreted, and did
"offend the minds of sober men" (see Original
Letters, P.S., pp. 87, 486, 559, 673, as well as 1
Hooper, 47 ; 2 Hooper, xii. P.S; also Vox Liturgia'
Anglicance, pp. 47 *<??.). And therefore the Review
of the Book of Common Prayer, which we call
the Second Book of Edward VI., being the
former book "perused, explained, and made
fully perfect," had appended to it a new (or
amended) Ordinal, from which were removed the
rubrics concerning the dress of the candidates,
and the porrection of the chalice and the
Eucharistic elements, besides some less im
portant alterations (see Walcott, p. 295 ; see
also Bishop Harold Browne, On the Tldrty-ninc
Articles, pp. 770-783, 8th edit. 1868). The cope,
also (as well as " pastoral staves "), for the
bishops, had been in use (in the Ordering of

Deceits, pp. 52-55). We need not wonder, there
fore, if when we look at our English Ordinal,
and ask : Where, now, is the unction of the
hands ? and where, now, is the putting on of
the Mass vestments ? 3 — we must receive for

Bishops) under the first Ordinal, and found no
place in the second. It should be noted, how
ever, that the cope, which was a pluviale, had
never (like the casida or chasuble) acquired a
sacrificial significance (see Marriott's Vestiarium
Christianum, pp. 224, 225).

Our present Communion Service, following that
of 1552, is considerably changed in arrangement
from that of 1549, which followed generally that
of Sarum. The omission of the Agnus Dei, and
the removal of the " prayer of oblation," may be
set down by some to an excess of caution, but,
from a Protestant point of view, it must be re
garded as a wise caution against possible (not
to say probable) misuse and misinterpretation ;
while the setting of the Gloria in Excelsis in the
post-communion may well be explained by "a
desire to concentrate upon the end of the service
the elements of praise and thanksgiving" (see
Swete, p. 120). The scriptural narrative of the
Institution, which had been farsed and para
phrased in the Roman Mass, as now seen in our
prayer of consecration, follows that of 1549,
which bears a close resemblance to that of the
Mozarabic Missal, and may probably have been
influenced by the edition published by Ximenes
in 1500, though Gasquet regards it as taken from
Lutheran sources (see Swete, pp. 117, 219). It
is evident that the purpose which expurgated the
Liturgy was the same as that which revised the
Ordinal.

3 The unction was never in use in the Greek
Church. In the sixth century it was used in
some parts of France ; but not in the Church
of Rome for two centuries later (see Walcott,
On Ordinal, p. 292 ; see also Maskell, Monumenta
Rit. , vol. iii. pp 200, 203, 212, and Diet, of Christ.
Antiq., vol. ii. p. 1514).

Bishop Burnet says, " In the eighth century,
the priests' garments were given with a special
blessing for the priests' offering expiatory sacri
fices : it was no ancienter that that phrase was
used in ordinations." It may be added that in
the Pontifical the Mass vestments themselves were
specially blessed for such sacrificial use. It was
not so with the cope and surplice. There is
some evidence, however, of " vesting in vest
ments," in some sort, at an earlier date (see
Smith's Diet. Christ. Antiq., vol. ii. p. 1508). It
would appear that at one time the vesting in the
chasuble was the last of the rites of ordination
(ibid. p. 1514).

" In the tenth century, when the belief in
transubstantiation was received, the Delivery of
the vessels for the Eucharist, with the power of

ORDINAL

[ 477 ]

ORDINAL

answer — "Nowhere." Some antiquity may be
pleaded for these ceremonies, but certainly not
Apostolic authority, nor the practice of the
Primitive Church. In the Dark Ages they
have wound themselves round an anti-Christian
system of doctrine, and, therefore, the Church
of England, in following out her professed
principle of conservatism, has been constrained
to reject them.

Does any one seriously doubt the doctrinal
significance of these radical rejections by a
Church professing such conservative prin
ciples ? It is hard to believe it. But if such
doubters are found, it may help to remove
their doubts to have set before them the
following extract from the larger Catechism
of Nowel, who acted as Prolocutor in the Con
vocation which revised and authorised the
"Articles of Keligion," after the Council of
Trent had defined the doctrine of the Mass : —

" M. Ex iis quze jam de Ccena Dominica
commemorasti, videor mihi colligere, earn non
in hunc finem institutam esse, ut Christi Corpus
Deo Patri pro peccatis in sacrificiura offeratur.
A. Minime vero ita offertur. Nam Ipse ut
Corpore suo vescarnur, non ut illud offeramus,
cum Ccenam suam institueret, praecepit.
Offerendi vero pro peccatis prserogativa ad
solum Christum, ut qui aeternus ille sit sacerdos,
pertinet, qui et unicum illud perpetuumque
sacrificium moriens in Cruce pro salute nostra
semel fecit, illique abunde in omne tempus
satisfecit. Nobis vero nihil restat, nisi ut
aeterni illius sacrificii usum fructum nobis ab

offering sacrifices, was brought in, besides a
great many other rites " (Bishop Burnet ; see
Walcott, On Ordinal, p. 292). In English pontifi
cals there is no mention of the porrectio instru-
mentorum before the eleventh century (see
Maskell, Mon. Hit., vol iii. p. 214). Nor is it
found in the Ord. Rom., which Muratori ascribes
to the tenth century (Lit. Rom., torn. ii. cc. 413,
414, 405), though it has place~ in the Ancient
Pontifical which follows (see c. 429). (See Notes
on the Vindication of the Bull " Apost. Curce,"
E. Stock, p. 2.) It is unknown at this day to
the Greeks (see Oath. Diet., p. 678).

The origin of this ceremony may perhaps be
traced to the " Ordo, qualiter in Rom. Ecclesia
Sacri Ordines fiunt." Here we find this direction
(" Expletis omnibus, Missaque rite completa") :
" Pontifex auteru donet eis Sacerdotalia indu
menta, et ministeria Missse, aurum vel argentum,
vinum, frumentum et oleum " (Hittorpius, Ordo
Rom., p. 64 ; Rome, 1591). It is of uncertain
date, but certainly ancient. It is Mabillon's
Ordo IX. (see Museum Italicum, torn. ii.
p. 91 ; Paris, 1724). It is " distinctively Roman,'
as Dr. Hatch has pointed out in Diet, of Christ
Antiq., vol. ii. pp. 1498, 1515.

ipso Domino legatum gratis animis capiamus :
quod quidem in Coana Dominica maxime
facimus. M. Sacra igitur Ccena, ut video, ad
mortem Christi, Ej usque in Cruce perpetratum
semel sacrificium, quo solo placatus nobis Deus
efficitur, nos remittit " (p. 174 ; edit. Jacob-
son).

This is the teaching of the Catechism re
ferred to in our 79th Canon of 1604, which
says : " All Schoolmasters shall teach in
English or Latin, as the children are able to
bear, the larger or shorter Catechism hereto
fore by public authority set forth." If this
is not sufficient, we may add the witness of our
Homilies, which teaches us that " Christ com
mended to the Church a Sacrament of His body
and blood : they have changed it into a sacri
fice for the quick and the dead ; " and warns
us to " take heed lest of the memory it be
made a sacrifice," and teaches that for true
communion, "thou needest no other man's
help, no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacri
ficing priest, no Mass, no means established by
man's invention " (see my Papers on Eucharistic
Presence, pp. 281-285).

Thus, the expurgations of our Liturgy, the
teachings of our Catechisms, the voice of our
Homilies, and (we may confidently add) the
writings of our Reformers, as well as their con
stant testimony to the truth for which our
martyrs died at the stake — all combine, as
with one voice, to support the unambiguous
witness of our Ordinal to a steadfast purpose
(in spite of a wise principle of conservatism)
to reject,1 with a decided rejection, human
additions to divine revelation, to sweep away
the dangerous deceits of mediaeval error, and
to purify the Church of England from accre
tions which were out of harmony with the
Scriptures of truth and the teaching of the
Apostles, and were repugnant to the faith
once for all delivered unto the saints ; and all
this, not in the way of cutting off mere parasi
tical growths of corruption, but in the way of
following out the principle so clearly and
forcibly expressed by Archbishop Cranmer :
" The rest is but branches and leaves, the cut-
ing away whereof is but like topping and
lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds,
leaving the body standing and the roots in
the ground ; but the very body of the tree, or
rather, the roots of the weeds, is the Popish
doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the
Real Presence of Christ's flesh and blood in

1 In the Papal Bull Apostolicce Curce this
designed omission of our Ordinal is thus ex
pressed : " De ipsis consulto detractum est
quidquid in ritu Catholico dignitatem et offiicia
sacerdotii perspicue designat " (p. 41 ; edit.
Burns).

ORDINAL

[478]

ORDINAL

the Sacrament of the Altar (as they call it)
and of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ,
made by the priest for the salvation of the
quick and the dead. Which roots, if they be
suffered to grow in the Lord's vineyard,
they will overspread all the ground again
with the old errors and superstitions "
(Pref. to Lord's Supper, 1550, Parker Soc.
p. 6).

Most assuredly the Church of England
(while carefully upholding what is scriptural
and primitive in the matter of our Ordina
tions1) never framed her Ordinal with a pur
pose or desire that her children should see in
the courts of the House of the Lord what
Hooker would (we are persuaded) have con
demned as a "mingle-mangle of religion and
superstition, ministers and massing-priests, light
and darkness, truth and error, traditions and
Scripture " (see Hooker's Works, edit. Keble,
vol. iii. p. 666). 2

We need not question, indeed, that there
are Romanists who would assent (in some
sense) to much of our teaching, and would
agree (in some sense) in rejecting and cutting
off a good many of the branches and leaves of
error which the Church of England has rejected.
Rather, we would gladly believe, and those
who can hardly believe may charitably hope,
that there are many whose faith rests on the
truth which we maintain, even when the roots
of error remain in the ground. But we are
bound in faithfulness to draw attention to the
fact, that what may fairly be called the pre
valent doctrine in the sixteenth century, the
doctrine which is taught by the natural and
obvious sense of the language of Rome, has
never received any formal or authoritative re
pudiation by the Western Church. Nay, we
must add that it has passed through the fire
of Conciliar disputation, and come forth un
harmed with scarcely a hair of its head singed 3
It still stands before us as it stood of old. It
has never been condemned ; while the doc
trine of the Minimiscrshas never been justified.4

1 See. Jewel's Apologia Ecdes. Angl., p. 20 ;
Cambridge, 1838.

2 On this quotation, see Bennett Judgment
Cleared from Misconception, p 29.

3 See Prof. Mozley, Lectures, &c. , p. 217; and
Dangerous Deceits, p. 65.

4 On the Minimised doctrine see Dangerous
Deceits (Elliot Stock), pp. 120-126, where may be
seen also some examples of present popular
teaching. See also Doctrine of Saccrdotium, pp.
56, 57. These minimising efforts tend to show
how, even in the view of some Romish divines,
the doctrine of the Mass must — except as (in
some sort) explained away — be derogatory to the
sacrifice of the Cross (ibid. p. 121), as had been

And even the most minimised doctrine of pro
pitiation is made to rest on a real sacrificial
oblation and immolation of the really present
body and blood of Christ (see Dangerous Deceits,
pp. 84, 121). Some might be surprised to see
how the doctrine we condemn is now taught in
Roman popular manuals. And though, indeed,
we may find the efficacy of the Mass-sacrifice
sometimes compared to the efficacy of prayer
(see Dangerous Deceits, pp. 73-75, 125, 126),
we must set beside such teachings the preva
lent doctrine as expressed in the language of
Lindanus, who maintains: " Longe diversum
est a precibus sacrificium," and asks, " Cum
tantopere contendatis, Missae sacrificium non
esse propitiatorium pro delendis peccatis
vivorum aut mortuorum, qua obsecro fronte
audetis negare vos idem cum Aerio sentire ? "5
(Panoplia Evang., lib. iv. pp. 308, 315 ; Colon.
1575). Indeed, the faith of the extremist
Roman minimiser can never be released from
the binding of the Creed of Pope Pius IV.:
" Profiteer ... in Missa offerri Deo, verum,
proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium, pro
vivis et defunctis ; atque in sanctissimo
eucharistiae sacramento esse vere, realiter et
substantialiter, corpus et sanguinem, una
cum anima et Divinitate Domini nostri Jesu
Christi."

Need we wonder, then, that now we have in
our Ordinal no traditio instrumentorum ? To the
inquirer who asks : Where is it in your English
ordinations ? we may thankfully answer, It
is nowhere. It is rejected. It is utterly cast
away. It is a very significant rite, which had
seemed, at least, to exalt itself even into a
position in which it stood higher than the
very apostolical laying on of hands.6 It had
made a claim to be even that which gave the
sacerdotium, and conferred the sacerdotal
powers. But it was a novelty, whose pre
posterous claims to form the very materia of
the sacrament of Orders even Roman ecclesi-

faithfally maintained even in the Council of
Trent (see Theiner, Acta Cone. Trid., torn. i.
p. 640). Our Article condemns not merely the
abuses of the Mass, but even the most
minimised form of the Romish doctrine of
the Mass (see Dangerous Deceits, pp. 26, 50, 51,
83, 87).

5 So Cardinal De Lugo says : " Non debemus
confundere virtutem,quam habet(hoc sacrificium)
ad expiandum, et purgandum a peccatis, cum
virtute ad mere impetrandum " (Disp. Schol. " De
Sacr. Euch.," Disp. XIX. lect. ix. § 140, p. 546).
And he adds: "Non ergo confert ad delenda
peccata impetrando solum, sed propitiando et
placando ( § 141).

6 See Notes on the Vindication of the BuU
"Apost. Cures" (E. Stock), Note II., pp. 3-10.

ORDINAL

[ 479 ]

ORDINAL

astics have found themselves unable to defend.1
But English divines must go much further,
and declare that the accompanying words im
press upon the rite a doctrinal significance
which can hardly fail to " endamage the
Church of God," as well as to "offend the
minds of sober men." In this matter, assuredly,
the Churches of the Roman Communion have
"fallen from themselves in their ancient in
tegrity, and from the Apostolical Churches,
which were their first founders." Who will
believe that the Apostles of Christ, or any
of the Apostolic bishops ever taught their
Presbyters to offer " Placabiles hostias2 pro

1 Maldonatus wrote: " Veterem Ecclesiam
mmquam ordinasse sine impositione manuum, ex
omnibus auctoribus antiquis perspicuum est. De
traditione autem caliciset hostias, nulla estmentio
apud illos " (see Cosin's Workt, vol. iv. p. 263
A.C.L.).

Morinus says : " Postrema opinio ea est quse
materiam sacerdotii constituit solam manuum
impositionem. Hanc solam omnis Ecclesia,
Latina, Grasca, Barbara semper agnovit. Hanc
solam commemorant omnes antiqui Kituales,
Latini, Graeci ; omnes antiqui et recentiores
Patres, Grajci, Latini " (De Sac. Ord,, Pars. III.
Exercit. VII. cap. i. p. 103 ; Antwerp, 1685).

Martene says: " Non satis videtur certa ea
scholasticorum theologorum opinio, quaa ma
teriam presbyteratus in traditione calicis et
patense constituit. . . . Nam omnes antiqui libri
Rituales ante annos 800 script! hanc calicis
traditionem constanter prcetermittunt " (De Ant.
Eccl. Rit., torn. ii. c. 65). Yet Cardinal Pole
formally promulgated as Canon Law in England,
the decree of Eugenius IV. making the porrectio
instrumentorum to be of the essence of ordination.
The manuum impositio (with words expressive of
intent and prayer) is the proper rite of ordination
of Apostolic origin and scriptural authority. Of
this it is truly said in the Rcformatio Leg. Eccl.
that " retineri placet, quoniam illius in Sacris
Scriptis mentio sit, et perpetuum habueiit usum
in Ecclesia " (De Sacram., c. vi.). See Dangerous
Deceits, p. 58. Mason, De Minis. Angl., lib.
ii. c. xvi. xvii. See also Becanus and Calvin,
as quoted in Walcott, On Eng. Ord., p. 239. In
the Greek Church the right hand only is im
posed. St. Ambrose says: " Sacerdos imponit
supplicem dexteram, et Deus benedicit potente
dextera." See also Chrysostorn and Gregorius
Nazianzenus (as well as other more recent
authors), as quoted by Walcott, pp. 248 sqq.
On the delivery of the Bible to the priest, see
Prideaux, as quoted by Walcott, p. 254.

2 The term "Missarum Sacrificia" of our
Article XXXI. — being in the plural — does not
signify any vulgar misapprehension of the Romish
doctrine. See Dangerout Deceits, App. Note A.

peccatis," or ever ordained any one of them
with any such words as these, "Accipe potes-
tatem offerre sacrificium Deo, missasque cele-
brare : tarn pro vivis quam pro def unctis ? "

Let the inquirer who has sought, and sought
in vain, to find these particulars in the English
Ordinal, turn back to study the Episcopal
Address at the commencement of the service.
There he may seek, and not seek in vain, for
the cause of these omissions, for the justifi
cation of these rejections. He will find there
a true scriptural exposition of the office of
the Christian ministry, a true primitive view of
the functions of the true Christian priesthood,3
or presbytery— in which is no mention of
"offering for sins," but a true setting forth of
the " high diginity," the "weighty office and
charge " to which Christian ministers are
called — "that is to say, to be messengers,
watchmen, and stewards of the Lord ; to
teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide
for the Lord's family ; to seek for Christ's
sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for His
children who are in the midst of this naughty
world, that they may be saved through Christ
for ever." He will see also how those to be
ordained are exhorted to "give themselves
wholly to this office," and to "continually
pray to God the Father, by the mediation of
our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the heavenly
assistance of the Holy Ghost, that, by daily
reading 4 and weighing of the Scriptures "

It is the very language used in the Latin version
of the Acts of the Council of Florence (see
Caranza, torn. iii. p. 563). And it expresses the
very doctrine which underlies the teaching of
the Roman Pontifical.

3 A fair argument may be built upon the
English use of the word priest against the disre
gard of what is due to those who are set over us
in the Lord, and the making light of the " high
dignity" and the "weighty office" of Christian
ministers as here set before us. But no fair
argument can rest on the use of this term, nor
on the occasional use of the Latin sacerdos, as
against the rejections of our Ordinal, and the
condemnations of our Article. See Christian
Doctrine of Sacerdotium (Elliot Stock), pp. 92-101.
It will be seen, we believe, that our English Re
formers, in using the word priest (as equivalent
to Presbyter), meant to exclude the idea of a
sacrificing Sacerdotium as truly as the extremest
Puritans (see p. 96).

4 This portion of the Address should be re
garded in connection with the delivery of the
Bible and the words accompanying. Prof. Swete
truly observes that " we have retained such late
additions as the Veni Creator and the Accipe
Spiritum Sanctum, and the delivery of a book as
the sign of office " (Services before Reformation, p.

ORDINAL

[ 480 ]

ORDINAL

they " may wax riper and stronger in their
ministry."

Doubtless, from Rome's point of view, these
"rejections" in our Ordinal must grievously
damage our defence of the validity of our
Orders. But if so, they must also condemn
the ordinations of the early and Apostolical
Church. It has been well said : " Our Church
in King Edward's days, true to the principle
of going to the fountain-head of revealed truth
and of taking Holy Scripture for her rule and
guide, adopted without comment or change of
any kind our Lord's own words to be the form
that should be used in the ordination of her
ministers ; and in adopting these words, and
these alone, our Church followed the usage
of primitive times. The omitted words were
no part of the forms employed by the Church
of Christ in her earliest days. They are not
in the Leonine form ' for the consecration of
a presbyter,' which is the old Roman type.
This form in the Leonine Sacramentary, which
is of great antiquity and unknown authorship,
consists of only two or three prayers. Between
the early forms of ordination, which are many
and diverse, and the elaborate ceremonies now
used by Rome, there is an enormous difference.
All the distinct assertions of sacrificial powers
are mediaeval accretions. If, therefore, the
absence of these particular words, specified in
the Bull, from the form in the Edwardine
Ordinal renders it defective, and vitiates
Anglican Orders, the absence of the words from
the form used by our Lord Himself, and from
the forms used by the primitive Church, must
render them all defective, and vitiate the
Orders of the Apostles themselves and of all
their successors" (Papal Claims, S.P.C.K., pp.
55, 56).

208). This delivery to the priests appears to be
peculiar to the English Church, and there is
some reason to suppose that it was derived from
the East (see Badger's Nestorians, vol. ii. p.
335). At Constantinople, however, the book
delivered was the Order for the Holy Communion
(see Walcott, On Ordinal, p. 253). And the
difference in this respect is not without its
significance. Martene says, speaking of the
Ordination of Deacons: "Cum ergo solemnis
fuerit in Anglia Evangelii traditio, reperiaturque
in omnibus, quos inde viderimus libris Rituali-
bus, ab ea Ecclesia hunc ritum initium traxisse
facile colligitur. Inde transisse in Gallias existi-
mamus" (De Antiq. Eccl. Hit., lib. i. cap. viii.
art. ix. § vii. torn, ii., col. 61 ; Antwerp, 1736).
Catalan! questions Martene's assertion that the
delivery of the Gospels is not found in any ponti
fical before the tenth century, except in those of
English use, but without sufficient cause. See
Maskell, Monumenta Rit., vol. iii. p. 199.

It is impossible to study fairly the history
of our Ordinal without seeing that there is a
doctrinal gulf between the Church of England
and the Church of Rome ; and that this
doctrinal gulf separates two irreconcilable
views of the sacrament of the Supper of our
Lord. We know no "Corporal Presence,"
and, therefores with other " Reformed "
Churches, we entirely reject any real sacrificial
offering "for sins" of the body and blood of
Christ, which is so prominent a feature in the
Romish Pontifical, but which is nowhere to be
found in our English Ordinal.1

Our Orders must of necessity be null and
void in Rome's view till we are at one with
her on the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Vain must
be all projects of union while this doctrine
stands between us. Dean Brevint has well
admonished us : " Look into what Rome is by
what Mass is, which is no leaf or branch, but the
main stem and bulk of that tree " (Missale
Romanum, p. 244 ; Oxford, 1673). It was a true
witness which was borne by Dean Jackson
when he wrote of the Romanists: "Their
principal exception against our Church and
ministry is that our priests in their ordination
do not receive the power of sacrificing Christ's
body and blood in the Sacrament. But their
inserting this clause into the form of Ordina
tion, doth prove their priesthood to be anti-
Christian " (Treatise of H. Cath. Faith and
Church, book xii. ch. xxiii. Works, vol. xii.
p. 184 ; Oxford, 1844).

Rome might find no difficulty in recognising
our Orders if she were satisfied with the
ministry of an Apostolic Presbyterate. (See
Palmer's Origines Litunjicce, vol. ii. p. 260 sqq.)
But how can she recognise our ministers as her
priests so long as she consistently requires her
presbyters to be ordained for the purpose and
with the intention of exercising a function
which we regard as derogatory to the priest
hood of Christ ? Rome's doctrine of Orders
involves the doctrine of her Real Presence,

1 The connection between Rome's doctrine of
Orders and Rome's doctrine of the Mass, was
seen clearly enough from her own standpoint in
the sixteenth century. Thus, in Dec. 1551, cer
tain Articles were submitted at Trent for dis
cussion in the " Congregatio Theologoram" on
" The Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacrament
of Orders." They are described by Theiner as
"Articuli Hasreticorum." They were headed
thus : " Articuli de sacrificio Missse et Sacra
mento Ordinis per D. D. Theologos examinandi,
an sint hseretici et damnandi per S. Synodum "
(see Theiner's Acta Genuina, torn. i. p. 602).
On the alleged retention in our Liturgy of
propitiatory sacrifice with its Sacerdotium, see
Doctrine of Sacerdotium, pp. 101-110.

ORDINARY

[ 481 ]

ORDINATION

and of her Real Propitiatory oblation of Christ
(really present on the altar) for the living and
the dead. And this doctrine we hold and
profess to belong to the class of " blasphema
figmenta, et perniciosse imposturse." How,
then, can our Orders be valid in her view ?
And how can we consistently desire that it
should be otherwise ?

It has been well said by the Bishop of
Edinburgh, " It comes, then, simply to this :
Can we surrender the principles for which the
Anglican Church has steadily contended for
the last 350 years ? Or can we hold the
doctrines of our Church, and, with a due
regard for the ordinary and rational rules by
which historical documents are interpreted,
can we reconcile the sense of our historical
and authoritative standards of doctrine with
the authoritative doctrine of the Church of
Rome ? The only answer to each question is,
It is impossible" (Address to Diocesan Synod,
1895, p. 9). [N. D.]

ORDINARY.— "The word ' ordinary ' signifieth
any judge authorised to take cognisance of
causes in his own proper right, as he is a
magistrate, and not by way of deputation or
delegation " (Burn). Thus the archdeacon is
the ordinary in matters relating to the admis
sion of churchwardens, or hearing complaints
against parish clerks. But in most cases,
especially in relation to the rubrics, the bishop
of the diocese is meant. In all cases it means
the immediate superior of the person affected
by the exercise of jurisdiction. From him an
appeal commonly lies to the archbishop of
the Province, and ultimately to the Crown.
The canons declare the Crown to be " supreme
in all causes," which necessarily implies that
the Crown has the same jurisdiction in
ecclesiastical as in civil suit.-. "Causes"
relate to judicature, so that supremacy in
"causes" implies supremacy in jurisdiction.
The 37 Henry VIII. c. 17, says archbishops,
bishops, &c., " have no manner of jurisdiction
ecclesiastical but by, under, and from your
royal Majesty." The 1 Edward VI. c. 2, said :
"All courts ecclesiastical within the said two
realms be kept by no other power or authority
either foreign or within the realm, but by the
authority of his most excellent Majesty." So
Archbishop Bancroft, who drafted the Canons
of 1604, said : " Both the ecclesiastical and
temporal jurisdiction be now united in his
Majesty, which were heretofore de facto, though
not de jure, derived from several heads " (Card.
Doc. Ann., ii. 83).

The title of "Supreme Ordinary" rests on
high legal authority. Rolle (Abridgment, ii.
232), under the title Prerogative, says: "The
king may exempt abbeys from the visitation
of the Ordinary, for the king is Supreme

Ordinary." Hence in a royal visitation the
jurisdiction of the bishops is suspended.
Chief Justice Dyer, with three other judges,
laid it down in Grendou's case that the
sovereign is Supreme Ordinary (Plowden, 498).
In Ireland the same title was given to the
sovereign (Sir John Davies' Reports, Com-
menda Case, p. 73, as cited by Archdeacon
Hale). Queen Elizabeth formally claimed
"the full power, authority, jurisdiction, and
supremacy which heretofore the Popes
usurped" (Strype's Whitgift, i. 495). Hence
if one or both Primates were now to turn
Papists, or Deists (like Bishop Silliman Ives,
or Bishop Colenso), the king has the power to
suspend or deprive them — a power which, in
fact, has been exercised in English history.

[J. T. T.]

ORDINATION.— By Canon Law only baptized
persons can present themselves as candidates
for ordination, therefore a certificate or other
proof of baptism is always required.

Age.— By the rubric prefixed to the Ordina
tion Service in the Book of Common Prayer,
which book is in itself the schedule to an Act
of Parliament (13 & 14 Ch. II. c. 4), it is pro
vided that none shall be ordained a deacon
under twenty-three years of age, nor priest
under twenty-four years of age. This rule-
seems to have been frequently broken in
Ireland, and consequently an Act (44 Geo. III.
c. 43) was passed in 1803, specially confirming
the provisions of the rubric, and enacting that
if it were disregarded, a person ordained
under those ages should be wholly incapable
of having, holding, or enjoying any parsonage,
vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiastical pro
motion or dignity whatsoever in virtue of such
his admission as deacon or priest respectively,,
or of any qualification derived, or supposed to
be derived therefrom. The act, however, con
tains a clause saving the rights of the Arch
bishops of Canterbury and Armagh of ordaining
to the diaconate at an earlier age if they
should think fit.

Religious Tests required of Candidates. — By the
28 & 29 Viet. c. 122, it is enacted that every
priest or deacon shall make and subscribe a
declaration of assent to the XXXIX. Articles,
the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordination
Service. The Act provides by sec. 10 that
on all the occasions (besides those specially
mentioned in the Act) where any declaration
or subscription with respect to the XXXIX.
Articles, or the Book of Common Prayer, or
the Liturgy, is required to be made by any
person in Holy Orders, or who is appointed
to any ecclesiastical office or dignity, the
declaration of assent therein contained shall
be substituted for the making of any other
declaration or subscription. The declaration

2H

ORDINATION

[ 482 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

of assent is as follows : " I, A. B., do solemnly
and sincerely make the following declaration.
I assent to the XXXIX. Articles of religion,
and to the Book of Common Prayer, and to
the Ordering of bishops, priests and deacons.
I believe the doctrine of the Church of
England as therein set forth to be agreeable
to the Word of God, and in public prayer and
administration of the sacraments I will use
the form in the said book prescribed, and
none other, except so far as shall be ordered
by lawful authority." Sec. 4 provides that
the above declaration shall be made together
with the oath of allegiance both when he is
ordained priest or deacon. The Promissory
Oaths Act, 1868, sec. 8, does away with the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and sub
stitutes an oath of allegiance simply. This
declaration of assent has to be used again
on appointment to a living, preachership,
or lectureship before institution. The same
statute provides further (sec. 7), that after
institution the person instituted or collated
shall, on the first Lord's Day on which he
officiates, or on such other Lord's Day as the
ordinary may appoint and allow, publicly and
openly in the presence of the congregation
there assembled, read the XXXIX. Articles,
and immediately after reading the same make
the above declaration of assent, adding after
the words " Articles of religion" in the said
declaration, the words, "which I have now
read before you." The penalty for not com
plying is absolute forfeiture, but no title to
present by lapse shall accrue until the ordinary
has given six months' notice thereof to the
patron. In addition thereto the person ordained
has to take an oath of canonical obedience to
the bishop (28 & 29 Viet. c. 122, sec. 12).

Pecuniary Qualifications.— The 33rd and 35th
Canons provide that a bishop shall not ordain
a person unless he be provided with one
ecclesiastical cure within the diocese. Where
a bishop ordains on letters dimissory from
another bishop, it is such other bishop's duty
to see that the person has a sufficient title.

Moral and Literary Requirements.— -The 13
Eliz. c. 12, and the 34th Canon provide that
candidates for orders shall be of good life, and
also qualified in respect of learning. The con
ferring of orders appears to be discretionary,
and there is no way of compelling a bishop
who thinks a candidate's qualifications are not
good, to ordain. R. v. Archbishop of Dublin,
1 Alcock & Napier, 244 (Ir. Rep.). To inform
the bishop in the exercise of his discretion as
to the moral suitability of a candidate for
orders, the 34th Canon provides that no bishop
n<- -shall henceforth admit any person into sacred
Engli&i— „ which is not of his own diocese, except
Maskell, Atcn^eJ. of one of the universities of this

realm, or except he shall bring letters dimissory
(so termed) from the bishop of whose diocese
he is; and desiring to be a deacon is three
and twenty years old ; and to be a priest four
and twenty years complete; and hath taken
some degree of school in either of the said
universities ; or, at the least, except he is able
to yield an account of his faith in Latin
according to the Articles of religion approved
in the Synod of the bishops and clergy of this
realm one thousand five hundred sixty and
two, and to confirm the same by sufficient
testimonies out of the Holy Scriptures ; and,
except moreover, he shall exhibit letters
testimonial of his good life and conversation
under the seal of some college in Cambridge
or Oxford where before he remained, or of
three or four grave ministers together with
the subscription and testimony of other
credible persons who have known his life and
behaviour by the space of three years." If
the candidate had left the university and is
living elsewhere, a notice must be published
in the church of the parish where he resides,
on some Sunday at least a month before the
ordination, of the candidate's intention to
come forward for ordination. This notice is
known as a si quis.

By the House of Commons Disqualification
Act, 1801, 41 Geo. III. c. 63, no person having
been ordained to the office of priest or deacon
shall be elected to serve as a member of the
House of Commons. By the Municipal Cor
poration Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Viet. c. 50, sec. 12,
he is disqualified from being a mayor, alder
man, and town councillor, though by the
Local Government Act, 1888, they are not
disqualified from acting as county aldermen
or councillors.

By the Clerical Disabilities Act, 1870, 33
& 34 Viet. c. 91, a clergyman can now divest
himself of Holy Orders by executing and enrol
ling a deed of relinquishment in the Chancery
Division of the High Court. [E. B. W.]
ORIENTATION. — The situation of a church
(especially of its sanctuary) in the direction of
the east. This was a common, but by no
means a universal custom in Christian
churches.

ORNAMENTS and ORNAMENTS RUB-
RIG.— This word does not mean in ecclesi
astical law what it means when used in its
popular sense, viz., an embellishment or adorn
ment. It is a collective term for all the
articles used in, and ancillary to, the per
formance of the prescribed Church service.
Thus, vestments, books, cloths, chalices, patens,
communion tables, and a number of other
things are "ornaments," of which none may,
in fact, be decorative. The question, What are
legal ornaments in the Church of England ? has

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

483 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

been the subject matter of a large number of
decisions. Great interest has been taken in
these decisions because one party wished to
use ornaments which symbolise that the
minister is a sacrificing priest, and the other
party objected to articles tending to teach a
doctrine especially repudiated at the Reforma
tion. A great deal of the litigation has been
caused by the wording of the rubric known as
the "Ornaments Rubric," and the fact that
the printers who print the Prayer Book do not
print with it the two Acts of Uniformity (that
of 1 Eliz. c. 2, and that of 13 & 14 Charles II.
c. 4) which enforce the use of the Prayer Book.
When these Acts are read together with the
rubric, they explain its meaning. The rubric
is as follows : —

"And here is to be noted, that such Orna
ments of the Church, and of the Ministers
thereof at all times of their ministration, shall
be retained, and be in use, as were in this
Church of England by the authority of Parlia
ment, in the second year of the Reign of King
Edward the Sixth."

As the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth,
which ought to have been printed as the first
item of the Prayer Book, is frequently not so
printed, it has led to the belief that the above
rubric laid down the rule to be observed, and
that the only question was, what was the
proper construction of it ? The Privy Council
have, however, held that the law as to what
are legal ornaments is not contained in it at
all ; but that it is no more than ' ' a memor
andum or note of reference to the law" as to
ornaments which is contained in the Act of
Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2), printed in all the legal
copies of the Book of Common Prayer (see
Ridsdale v. Clifton, L.R. 2 P.C. 276, at p. 324).

To understand how this result was arrived
at, it will be necessary to state the history of
the Ornaments Rubric as it has been found by
the Privy Council. The principle on which
certain ornaments have been held to be legal
and others illegal, will then be clear. The
several kinds of ornaments may be dealt with
in the following order : (1) Ornaments of the
Church. Decorations are not ornaments as
they are not things which are in use, or sub
sidiary to the service of the Church, but are
things which are merely embellishments or
architectural adornments. They are dealt
with in this article partly because the law of
ornaments is easier to understand if things
which might be taken for such are discussed
together. (2) Ornaments of the Minster. In
what follows, the reader will bear in mind that
what is attempted in this article is a resume*
of the law as to "ornaments" as laid down
in the cases decided up to the present. The
correctness of such decisions depends, first, on

the historical accuracy and completeness with
which the facts between Queen Elizabeth's and
Charles II.'s reigns have been brought before
the Courts and found by them ; secondly, on the
correctness of the reasoning from such facts.
Lord Cairns, in delivering the Judgment of
the Privy Council in Ridsdale v. Clifton (L.R.
2 P.D. 276, at p. 307), pointed out that ritual
suits were penal in form, and that a tribunal
ought to be slow to exclude any fresh light
which might be brought to bear on the subject ;
but said the Privy Council were "fully sensible
of the importance of establishing and main
taining, as far as possible, a clear and unvary
ing interpretation of rules, the stringency
and effect of which ought to be easily ascer
tained and understood by every clerk before
his admission into Holy Orders." The judg
ments, in their reasonings therefore, attempt
to give such rules and principles ; and their de
cisions and rulings must bind any conscientious
and loyal member of the Church of England
as by law established, until a case is brought
where the parties succeed in inducing that
Court to say that, owing to new light, it alters
the rules as laid down previously. A lawyer
can only express his opinion on the value of the
reasoning on the facts as found by the tribunal.
A historian may attack the correctness of the
finding on which the reasoning is based, but
it would be rash for either to predict to what
extent a judgment would be upset and new
rules laid down.

The first English Prayer Book was issued in
1549 by Edward VI., by authority of Parlia
ment in the second year of his reign, and is
known as Edward VI. 's First Prayer Book.
That Prayer Book contained at the end of it
"certain notes." The directions contained in
these general notes as to ornaments of the
minister were as follows : —

"In the saying or singing of Matins and
Evensong, Baptizing and Burying, the Minister,
in parish churches and chapels annexed to the
same, shall use a surplice. And in all cathedral
churches and colleges, the Archdeacons, Deans,
Provosts, Masters, Prebendaries, and Fellows,
being Graduates, may use in the Quire, beside
their surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to
their several degrees which they have taken in
any University within this realm. But in all
other places, every Minister shall be at liberty
to use any surplice or no. It is also seemly
that Graduates when they do preach, should
use such hood, as pertaineth to their several
Degrees.

" And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate
the Holy Communion in the church, or execute
any other public Ministration, he shall have
upon him, besides his Rochette, a Surplice or
Albe, and a Cope or Vestment, and also his

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 484]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

Pastoral Staff in his hand, or else borne or
holden by his chaplain."

A rubric (in the same Prayer Book) at the
beginning of the communion service, contained
the following direction :

" Upon the day, and at the time appointed
for the ministration of the Holy Communion,
the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry
shall put upon him the vesture appointed for
that ministration, that is to say : a white albe
plain, with a vestment or cope. And where
there be many Priests or Deacons, then so
many shall be ready to help the Priest in the
ministration, as shall be requisite. And shall
have upon them likewise the vestures ap
pointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes
with tunicles."

The same book, in the first rubric at the end
of the communion service, directs the English
Litany to be said on Wednesdays and Fridays,
and directs the priest on these days (after the
Litany is ended) "to put upon him a plain
albe or surplice, with a cope," and to read that
part of the communion service until after the
offertory (although there is no one to communi
cate with him), and then to add one or two of
the collects in the communion service, and to
let the people depart with the usual blessing.

In 1552, by an Act of Uniformity 5 & 6 Ed
ward VI. c. 1., Edward VI. introduced his Second
Prayer Book into the Church of England. This
Prayer Book does not contain the "certain
notes " given above, nor the above rubrics as
to albes, tunicles, and copes in the communion
service — the one in the communion service,
the other at the end of the Prayer Book— but
has instead the following rubric before the
Order for Morning Prayer : —

" And here is to be noted that the minister
at the time of the Communion, and at all other
times in his ministration, shall use neither
alb, vestment, nor cope ; but being Archbishop
or Bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet,
and being a Priest or Deacon, he shall have
and wear a surplice only."

When Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne,
and the Keformation, which had been put back
in Queen Mary's reign, was continued, she re-
introcluced, by the Act 1 Eliz. c. 2, the Second
Prayer Book of Edward VI., with certain
trifling alterations which had nothing to do
with the question of ornaments. Though the
Act did not mention the last-mentioned rubric,
forbidding alb, vestment, and cope at all, as
one of the alterations, nor suspend it directly,
section 25 seems to have been a temporary
suspension of it. Section 25 reads as follows :—
" Provided always, and be it enacted, that
such ornaments of the Church and of the
ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in
use, as was in this Church of England by

authority of Parliament in the second year of
the reign of Edward VI., until other order shall
be therein taken by authority of the Queen's
Majesty; with the advice of her Commissioners
appointed and authorised under the Great Seal
of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the
Metropolitan of this realm."

The second year of Edward VI. is the year
when his First Prayer Book was enacted by
authority of Parliament. The 25th section
has been held by the Privy Council to mean,
not that the ornaments lawful at the time of
the introduction of the Prayer Book were to be
the standard, but the ornaments " prescribed
by " the First Prayer Book. That section was
clearly intended to have only temporary effect,
since it speaks of the ornaments being " retained
and being in use until other order." The
effect of this section was that while the Act
made the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI.
compulsory, the ornaments prescribed by the
First Prayer Book were to be "retained and
be in use until other order should be taken,"
but it did not provide for or authorise the
leaving out of the Prayer Book the rubric for
bidding their use.

When the Prayer Book was published, the
Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2, was printed in full in front
of it. The authorities who issued the book,
when they published it took upon themselves,
without any legal authority, but not (as the
Privy Council have held) intending it by way
of enactment or order, but only by way of a
memorandum or reference to the statute
(printed along with the book), to substitute
an admonitory note or rubric for the statutory
rubric of Edward VI.'s Second Prayer Book.
The new note was as follows : —

" And here is to be noted that the minister
at the time of the Communion, and at all other
times in his ministration, shall use such orna
ments in the Church as were in use by autho
rity of Parliament in the second year of the
reign of King Edward the VI., according to the
Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this
Boole."

This note was misleading, as it did not
refer to the fact that the Act only directed
that such ornaments should be " retained and
be in use until other order ; " but at the same
time the note, on the face of it, showed that
it professed to have no intrinsic authority, for
it referred to the Act of Parliament "set in
the beginning " of the book. And this is the
view the Privy Council took.

In 1566 "other order was taken" by the
Advertisements of that year. See ADVER
TISEMENTS. These Advertisements contain
the following directions as to ornaments :—

"Item. In the ministration of the Holy
Communion in cathedral and collegiate

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 485 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

churches, the principal minister shall use a
cope, with Gospeller and Epistoler agreeably,
and at all other prayers to be said at that
Communion table to use no copes, but
surplices.

"Item. That the Dean and Prebendaries
wear a surplice with a silk hood in the Quire,
and when they preach ... to wear their
hood.

"Item. That every minister saying any
public prayers, or ministering the sacraments
(plural), or other rites of the Church, shall
wear a comely surplice with sleeves, to be
provided at the charges of the parish, and
that the parish provide a decent table stand
ing on a frame for the Communion table.

" Item. They shall decently cover with carpet,
silk, or other decent covering, and with a fair
linnen cloth (at the time of the ministration)
the Communion table, and to set the Ten
Commandments upon the east wall over the
said table.

"Item. That the font be not removed, nor
that the curate do baptize in Parish Churches
in any Basons, nor in any other form than is
already prescribed. . . ."

These directions having been made under
the authority derived from the 25th section of
Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, have statutory
authority (Ridsdale v. Clifton, L.R. 2 P.D.
276, at p. 321). They have been copied
almost verbatim into the 24th, 25th, 81st, and
82nd Canons, the first quoted of which refers
to them expressly. In spite of this, those
who wished to use the cope, alb, &c., argued
that no "other order" had ever been taken,
and that consequently such vestments were
the only legal ones at the time of communion.
The fact that from 1566 to 1840, over two
hundred years, the vestments in question had
never been used in parish churches and the
cope only at exceptional seasons (see COPE)
in cathedrals up to the time of the Common
wealth, and not revived after the Restoration,
but universally discarded, weighing for nothing
with them when seeking to interpret the
rubric.

The Privy Council therefore held that the
25th section of 1 Eliz. c. 2 must now be read
as if these directions of the advertisements
were part and parcel thereof (see Ridsdale v.
Clifton, at p. 321). The section so altered
then reads as follows : —

"Provided always that such ornaments of
the Church and of the ministers thereof, shall
be retained and be in use, as were in this
Church of England by authority of Parliament
in the second year of King Edward VI., except
that the surplice shall be used by the ministers
of the Church at all times of their public
ministrations, and the alb, vestment, or tunicle

shall not be used, nor shall a cope be used
except at the administration of the Holy
Communion in cathedral and collegiate
churches."

In spite of the "other order" having been
taken the rubric continued to be printed in
the same form and with the same wording
as it had before Queen Elizabeth's Adver
tisements altered the law, until the time of
the Restoration and the last Act of Unifor
mity. A correction not having been made
either per incuriam, or because the law was
well known, Queen Elizabeth's Advertise
ments were universally obeyed, in that no
attempt was made by any one to use the alb
or vestment at all, and the cope was worn only
in cathedrals and collegiate churches.

When at the Restoration, in Charles II. 's
reign, the Prayer Book came up again for
revision, the Puritans objected to the rubric
which had been inserted without authority in
Queen Elizabeth's book as above mentioned,
because it " seemeth to bring back the cope,
alb, &c., and other vestments forbidden by the
Common Prayer Book 5 & 6 Edward VI."
The bishops at the Savoy Conference stated
that they intended to leave the law as to
vestures unchanged. The rubric, however,
was altered by making it more closely con
form to the wording of the 25th section of the
statute of Elizabeth, by altering the words
" The minister at the time of the Communion, and
at all other times in his ministration," to "such
ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers
thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall
be retained and be in use." All these new
words being extracted from the Act of
Elizabeth except the words "at all times of
their ministration ; " they also omitted the
words at the end of the old rubric — "accord
ing to the Act of Parliament set in the begin
ning of this Book."

The Prayer Book with the rubric in this
altered form was passed by both Houses of
Convocation, and received legislative sanction
both from the Houses of Convocation and by
Parliament by the Act of 13 & 14 Charles
II. c. 4., with the statute of Elizabeth inserted
into it and put No. 1 in the list of contents.
Elizabeth's statute is in the unique position
of having been passed in both places. That
statute, in order that there should be no
uncertainty as to it, " annexed " the original
MS., containing the alterations, to the Act
itself as a schedule, and ordered carefully
compared copies to be made, and when
properly verified to be sealed with the Great
Seal of England. Each cathedral, and certain
other places, were ordered to provide them
selves with one of these "sealed copies." The
sealed books contain both Acts of Uniformity —

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 486 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

that of 1 Elizabeth c. 2, and 13 & 14 Charles
II. c. 4. The Act of Elizabeth was not repealed
by the Act of Charles II. in 1662. Charles II.'s
Act of Uniformity specially refers to the
Elizabethan Act in the preamble as an Act
which was in force, and which Parliament
intended to enforce and strengthen by passing
the then Act of Uniformity. Section 24 of
Charles II.'s Act provides as follows :—

" And be it further enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that the several good laws and
statutes of this realm which have been formerly
made, and are now in force, for the uniformity
of Prayer and administration of the Sacra
ments within this realm of England and
places aforesaid, shall stand in full force and
strength to all intents and purposes whatso
ever, for the establishing and confirming of
the said book."

It was for the first time in 1662— by virtue of
the Uniformity Act (but only in an altered
form), that the "rubric " of 1559 as to ornaments
which was put in without authority by those
who published the Prayer Book— obtained
legislative sanction. When it was argued
before the Privy Council that the present
rubric repealed the Act of Elizabeth and the
advertisements and canons, they held that was
not so ; first, because the Act of Elizabeth was
specially confirmed by the Act of Uniformity
of 1662. Next, because the universal practice,
from the time of the passing of the Act until
the beginning of the modern Oxford Movement,
showed that no one considered that the
rubric altered the universally enforced rule
from 1566 to 1662 (leaving out the time of the
Rebellion) of abolishing the alb and other
vestments in parish churches. The Privr
Council held therefore that the present rubric, if '
it was not in conformity with the statute of
Elizabeth as amended by the " other order" con
tained in the advertisements of 1566, was not
otherwise than what it had been before, a memo
randum of reference to that law (Ridsdale v.
Clifton, 2 P.D. at p. 324). Elizabeth's Act
of Uniformity was specially subscribed and
adopted by Convocation. The Elizabethan Act
was also incorporated into the Prayer Book,
and made part of its contents No. 1.

The result of this history and the law laid
down by the Privy Council at the same time
is that the only ornaments that are lawful are :
(1) Those prescribed by the First Prayer Book
of Edward VI. as altered by the Advertise
ments ; (2) any prescribed by the present
Prayer Book ; and (3) such ornaments as are
consistent with, and subsidiary to, the pre
scribed service, as pews, hassocks, church
bells. The test of legality is not what orna
ments were used in the second year of Edward
VI.'s reign, nor what ornaments the Canons or

Royal Injunctions prior to 1549 directed to be
used, but what ornaments were retained and
in use by authority of Parliament dating from
the second year of Edward VI., and not
abolished entirely, or else changed as to the
time and place of their lawful use by the
Advertisements of Elizabeth of 1566. Besides
these negative enactments, there is the statute
of 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10, which was revived
in 1603, 1 Jac. I. c. 25, sec. 25, and which is
still a binding statute. This requires that all
antiphons, missals, grailes, processionals, man
uals, legends, pies, portuasses, primers in Latin
or English, couchers, journals, ordinals, be
abolished and forbidden to be used. It re
quired all images of stone, timber, alabaster,
or earth, graven, carved, or painted, to be
defaced and destroyed in churches, except
images on tombstones of persons not reputed
to be saints. So that from 1603 these orna
ments used up to the time of the introduction of
the First Prayer Book are expressly forbidden
The Ornaments of the Church.— We will now
see what ornaments of the Church are men
tioned in the Prayer Book of 1549, the first one
of Edward VI. They are : An English Bible,
the new Prayer Book, a poor men's box, a
paten, bell, chalice, a corporas, an altar, pulpit,
font. There are some others implied in it by
ceremonies which have been abolished, such
as a vessel for anointing oil, but it cannot be
fairly contended that the " ornament " remains
after its use has been abolished.

Altar altered to Communion Table. — The First
Prayer Book of Edward VI. speaks in the rubrics
in the communion service, and in the service
itself, four times of a "Table," four times of
" the Altar," and once of " God's Board. " The
Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., re-intro
duced by Elizabeth, speaks throughout in the
rubrics of the communion service, and in the
service itself, of a "table," and of "God's
Board" (in the present book altered to
"table"), and of the communion itself as "a
supper," "a feast," or "a banquet." The
Injunctions of 1559, which were issued by
Queen Elizabeth contemporaneously with the
publishing of the Prayer Book, contain an
article headed "For Tables in the Churches."
This article contains the following direction :
" And that the Holy Table in every church be
decently made, and set in the place where the
altar stood." The Advertisements, following
up the Injunctions of 1559, directed the
parish to " provide a decent table standing on
a frame for the Communion Table," and then
had the following direction: "Item. They
shall decently cover with carpet, silk, or
other decent covering, and with a fair linen
cloth, at the time of ministration, the Com
munion Table." The Rubric orders that " The

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 487 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

Table at the Communion time having a fail-
white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the
body of the church, or in the chance), where
Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to
be said." The 82nd Canon is so worded as to
carry out the provisions of the rubric and the
Advertisements, for it says : " Whereas we
have no doubt but that in all churches within
the realm of England convenient and decent
tables are provided and placed for the celebra
tion of the Holy Communion, we appoint that
the same tables shall from time to time be kept
and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner,
and covered in time of divine service with a
carpet of silk or other decent stuff thought fit
by the Ordinary of the place, if any question be
made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the
time of the ministration, as becometh that table,
and so stand, saving when the said Holy Com
munion is to be administered, at which time
the same shall be placed in so good sort with
in the church or chancel as thereby the
minister may be more conveniently heard of
the communicants in his prayer and ministra
tion, and the communicants also more con
veniently and in more number may communi
cate with the said minister."

The result of these directions has been held
to be that stone altars are illegal in the Church
of England, and that wooden movable tables
are the proper ornament (Faulkner v. Litch-
field, 1 Robertson Eccl. Report, 184 ; Westerton
v. Liddell, Moore, Sp. Report, p. 185). In
Westerton v. Liddell it was also held that as
there was no direction as to the colour of the
"carpet," any colour might be used. This did
not apply to the fair white linen cloth. As to
that, it was held it must not have an em
broidered or lace border. Prima facie two
communion tables are not lawful in one
church, but if part of a church is separated
from the rest, and is used when there are
small attendances, it has been allowed (re
Holy Trinity, Stroud Green, 12 P.D. 199).

Sells. — A bell is mentioned in the last para
graph of the Preface concerning the service of
the Church (and in the Commination Service
in the First and Second Prayer Books, but not
in that finally adopted), and in Canons 15, 17,
80, and 111.

Bible. — Ordered by the Prayer Book and by
the 80th Canon, and described as " the Bible
of the largest volume."

Flagon, chalice, or cup. — Ordered by the rubric
in the communion service. By the 20th
Canon the wine is required " to be brought to
the communion table in a clean and sweet
standing pot or stoup (= flagon) of pewter, if
not of purer metal."

Stone Font. — The rubric in the baptismal
services mentions a font, but does not other

wise describe it. Elizabeth's Advertisements
have the following provision as to it. " That
the font be not removed, nor that the curate
do baptize in parish churches in any basons."
The 81st Canon is as follows : " According to
a former constitution (viz., the Canon of 1571
[Card. Synod, I. 123]), too much neglected in
many places, we appoint that there shall be a
font of stone in every church and chapel where
baptism is to be ministered, the same to be
set in the ancient usual place, in which only
font the minister shall baptize publicly."

Reading-desk, — "A convenient seat to be made
for the minister to read service in," Canon 82,
and also referred to in the rubric in the com-
mination service as the "reading pew."

Pulpit. — Referred to in the rubric at the
head of the commination service, and ordered
by the 83rd Canon : " The Churchwardens
or Questmen, at the common charge of the
parishioners in every church, shall provide a
comely and decent pulpit to be set in a con
venient place within the same, by the discre
tion of the Ordinary of the place, if any
question do arise, and to be there seemly kept
for the preaching of God's Word."

Ten Commandments.— Queen Elizabeth's ad
vertisements provide that the Ten Command
ments shall be placed at the east end over the
communion table, for, after speaking of the
communion table, they say : " And to set
the Ten Commandments upon the east wall
over the said table." The 82nd Canon pro
vides as follows as to the Ten Commandments :
"That the Ten Commandments be set up in
the east end of every church and chapel where
the people may best see and read the same."
It omits the provision of the advertisements
which directs their being placed "over the
said table." The Canon continues: "And
other chosen sentences written upon the walls
of the said churches and chapels in places
convenient."

Alms Bason. — Directed by the rubric in the
communion service to be a "decent bason."
In the First and Second Prayer Books a poor
man's box is mentioned. The Prayer Book of
1662 omits all reference to it, but it is men
tioned in the 84th Canon under the name of
Alms-chest.

Register of Christenings, Weddings and
Burials. — Ordered by Canon 70 to be of parch
ment, to be kept in one sure coffer with three
locks and keys, one to remain with the minister,
and the other two with the churchwardens
severally. This book shall not be taken out
except in presence of the minister and church
wardens. The register must now, by 19 & 20
Viet. c. 119, be kept in an iron chest. It
should be noted that the Registration Acts to
some extent supersede this Canon.

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 488 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

Table of Degrees of Affinity within which mar
riages are not lawful. Ordered by Canon 99
"to be in every church publicly set up."

Homilies, Book of. — Ordered by the 80th
Canon.

The above is a list of all the ornaments directed
by law to be used. Mr. Justice Phillimore, in the
2nd edition of the late Sir Robert Phillimore's
Ecclesiastical Law, has a long list of others, and
as an authority for their use he gives Lindwood.
Lindwood was Bishop of St. David's in pre-
Reformation times, namely in Henry VI. 's reign,
and a canon lawyer. He wrote a book discuss
ing how far the English provincial constitutions
were valid, testing their validity by examining
whether they agreed with, or contravened, the
Roman Canon Law. It is needless to say that
this writer is not recognised by the English
Courts as an authority as to what ornaments
are lawful since the Reformation. (The only
ornaments that have been held lawful are things
consistent with the rubric, and subsidiary to
the prescribed service). In discussing how far
ornaments are legal the Courts have taken
notice of former rubrics on the subject, and
where a former rubric prescribed the use of a
certain ornament, and that ornament has been
omitted from the later one, they have held such
ornament illegal. Most of the decisions deal
with vestments, but this principle of construc
tion has been applied to ambiguous rubrics
(see, for example of an instance, the way in
•which the words "it shall suffice" were con
strued in Hebbert v. Purchas, 3 P.O. 605, in
discussing whether wafers are legal. See also
Martin v. Mackonochie, L.R. 2 P.C. 365, at p.
390). The Privy Council in Westerton v. Liddell
(Moore's Sp. Report, at p. 187), after saying they
" entirely agree with the opinions expressed by
the learned judges in these cases (i.e. Westerton
v. Liddell and Beal v. Liddell) and in Faulkner
v. Litchfield (1 Rob. Ecc. Rep. 184), that in the
performance of the services, rites, and cere
monies ordered by the Prayer Book, the direc
tions contained in it must be strictly observed,
that no omission and no addition can be per
mitted," said that they were not prepared to
hold that the use of all articles not expressly
mentioned in the rubric, although quite con
sistent with, and even subsidiary to, the service,
is forbidden. They pointed out that organs,
pews, cushions, pulpit-cloths, seats by the
communion table, were permissible. On this
basis they dealt with the question whether a
credence table was permissible, and held it to
be so. And this view the Privy Council held
to be right in Martin v. Mackonochie (L.R. 2
P.C. 365, at p. 390).

Illegal Ornaments of the Church. — Bearing in
mind the definition of ornament — "a thing used
in the services and ministrations of the Church "

— it will be seen that on the principles laid
down in the cases cited, all ornaments not pre-
cribed by the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.,
the rubrics and the canons (which are to be
read together with the former), are illegal unless
it can be proved that they are quite consistent
with, and subsidiary to, the prescribed service.
Thus, a cross used as an ornament and carried
about is illegal, and, a fortiori, a crucifix
(Elphinstone v. Purchas, 3 Ad. & Eccl. 67).
Holy water stoups, on the same principle,
were held illegal in Davey v. Hinde, 1901,
p. 95, and ordered to be removed. We will
now give a list of some ornaments which have
been held to be illegal.

Baldacchino, or canopy over the communion
table. This, at first sight, would appear not to
be an ornament, as incapable of use, but it has
been held that as it was used for the purpose of
protecting the host when exposed for worship,
and for the honour of the blessed sacrament,
it was an ornament and illegal. The Prayer
Book forbids the elevation or showing of the
sacrament, and a baldacchino was inconsistent
with the service prescribed therein.
Other illegal ornaments are : —
Confessional Boxe,s. — Bradford v. Fry, 1878, 4
P.D. 93 ; Davey v. Hinde, 1901, p. 95.

Stations of the Cross. — Ridsdale v. Clifton, 2
P.D. 316 ; Davey v. Hinde, 1901, p. 95.

Tabernacle.— Davey v. Hinde, 1901, p. 95;
. Kensit v. St. Ethelburga, 1900, p. 80.

Images representing the Virgin Mary, the
Good Shepherd, the same case.

Decorations have been defined in Martin v.
Mackonochie (2 P.C. 364, at p. 387) to be
"things inert and unused," and were distin
guished from ornaments which have an "active
use ... as part of the administration of a
ceremony." Decorations are of two kinds —
things, like decorative patterns, which are
incapable of use. Next, things which though
inert, can be used. These, as long as they are
not used, are treated as decorations. There is
often considerable controversy as to whether a
" usable " thing is an " ornament " or a "deco
ration." Thus, one picture might be an
"ornament" if used for a religious purpose,
or as an aid to prayer, and another, of a his
torical scene, would only be a "decoration."
For example a cross, the rule has been to
allow them if not used, or put up in a place
where they lead to misconceptions. Thus, a
cross is not allowed in connection, or apparent
connection, with the communion table, for it
must not be given the appearance of an altar.
The judgment of the Privy Council in Liddell
v. Beal (Moore's Sp. Rep.), in dealing with a
case where a wooden cross had been put upon
a narrow ledge "raised above the rest of the
table" (see p. 151), the ledge being attached

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 489 ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

to the table (p. 186), contains the following
conclusions : " The distinction between an
altar and a table is in itself essential, and the
circumstances, therefore, which constitute the
distinction, however trifling in themselves, are
for that reason important." The cross was
therefore ordered to be removed from the table
so th;it it should not look like an altar. The
existence of a cross attached to the table was
said to be neither consistent with the letter
nor the spirit of the canons. In consequence
the cross was removed to the sill of the east
window, which was five feet ten inches away
from the communion table. This did not satisfy
some of those who objected to the cross, and
thoy took further proceedings (Liddell v. Beal,
I860, 14 Moore P.O. 1). The Privy Council
then held that the cross was not "in any sense
in communication or contact with the com
munion table," and that the monition in that
case had not been disobeyed. In Durst v.
Masters (1876, 1 P.D. 373) the incumbent put
a cross on a ledge a quarter of an inch above
the table, and asserted that it was legal in such
a position and was movable. The Privy Council
however, refused to enter into any such refine
ments as to its being movable and a quarter of
an inch away from the table, and said that to
the eye of a stranger coming into the church
there was no difference from what had been
originally condemned in Liddell v. Westerton ;
and laid down the principle that no cross
should be placed in such a position as to be in
apparent connection with the communion table.
The Privy Council in Phillpotts v. Boyd
(L.R. 6 P.C. 435) allowed a marble reredos at
Exeter Cathedral, having on it a bas-relief
carving which represented the Ascension,
Transfiguration, and the Descent of the Holy
Ghost as historical scenes. The Privy Council
allowed this reredos on the ground that it
could not become an object of superstitious
reverence. Courts judge on the evidence pre
sented before them as to the likelihood of any
decoration or figure becoming an object of
superstition. Thus, the figures in relief on the
reredos at Exeter were held subsidiary to the
representation of the events, and so were per
mitted as unlikely to lead to superstition. It
is not sufficient that a figure might be, it must
be likely to be, or probably would be, a cause
of superstitious reverence ; thus, a bas-relief
of the crucifixion scene on a reredos was held
not likely to be a cause of superstition in
Hughes v. Edwards (1877, 2 P.D. 361), and the
Bishop of London, exercising his discretion in
R. v. Bishop of London (24 Q.B.D. 213), refused
to sanction proceedings in the case of the
reredos of St. Paul's Cathedral, on the ground
that he thought it would not be a cause of
superstition.

By the words "superstitious reverence,"
"adoration," or "worship," the Courts do
not only mean to convey the limited idea of a
figure or object itself worshipped like a pagan
idol, but to embrace the far more extended
conception of worship, adoration, or reverence
paid to the Deity in presence of, or before, and
through the medium of, those objects or
figures, and referred to the Roman Catholic
doctrine as laid down by the Council of Trent,
Sess. xxv., De Invocationc veneratione et re-
liquiis sanctorum ct sacris imaginibus. It is this
kind of worship which the XXIInd Article of
Religion repudiated, and declared to be "a
fond thing vainly invented." The principle
on which the Courts go is that the best fore
cast as to whether a thing is in danger of
being an object of superstitious reverence,
especially in those cases where the weaknesses
and failings of mankind are concerned, is to
be obtained from the experience of the past.
Thus, as the worship of the crucifix on the
rood screen was enjoined in the Missal ac
cording to the Sarum Use, such a crucifix was
clearly liable to abuse. Lord Penzance laid
down the rule in the following words in Clifton
v. Ridsdale (1876, 1 P.D. 316, at p. 356), which
were quoted and approved of by the Privy
Council on appeal (1877, 2 P.D. 276) : "When
the Court is dealing with a well-known sacred
object — an object enjoined and put up by
authority in all the churches in England before
the Reformation in a particular part of the
church, and for the purpose of ' adoration ' —
when the Court finds the same object, both in
the church and out of it, is still worshipped by
those who adhere to the unreformed Romish
faith, and when it is told that now — after a
lapse of three hundred years — it is suddenly pro
posed to set up the same object in the same part
of the church as an architectural ornament only
— it is hard not to distrust the use to which it
may be put, or escape the apprehension that
what begins in 'decoration' may end in idol
atry." If this apprehension is a just and reason
able one, then there exists that likelihood and
danger of superstitious reverence which the
Privy Council, in Phillpotts v. Boyd (1875,
L.R. 6 P.C. 435), pronounced to be fatal to
the lawfulness of all images and figures set
up in a church. Sir A. Charles, the late Dean
of the Arches, held in re St. Anselm, Pinner,
1901, p. 202, that the question whether a
particular decoration was in danger of super
stitious reverence depended on the probability
considering the circumstances of the particular
church, and suggested evidence being adduced
as to the nature of the services in the church
where it was proposed to put up on a chancel
screen a crucifix with figures of the Virgin
Mary and St. John on either side. When he

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

[ 49° ]

ORNAMENTS RUBRIC

was satisfied as to the nature of the services,
he allowed those figures to be put up. It is
submitted that the principle of this decision is
not correct — a new vicar might commence all
the superstitious practices forbidden — and
that the principle laid down by Lord Penzance
is a more satisfactory one, viz., that when the
particular thing has been associated, and still
is, with a practice the Church of England
holds superstitious, it cannot be permitted.

Gates to chancel screens have not been ap
proved of by the different chancellors, as ap
pearing to make a distinction between the
chancel and the rest of the church, which is
not recognised by law ; yet they have been
allowed for protection of church property
where it was customary to keep the church
open all week days, and on condition that they
should be kept open during the services (Rector
of St. Andrew's, Romford v. All Persons having
Interest, 1894, P.D. 220).

Flowers, if used only as decorations, are
legal (Elphinstone v. Purchas, L.R. 3 P.O.
605). As to things forbidden because used
ceremonially, see CEREMONIES.

Ornaments of the Minister. — The reader who
has followed the introductory history has seen
that the Privy Council have held that the lawful
ornaments for a minister are those authorised
by the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, and
that these Advertisements have not been super
seded by the Ornaments Rubric. The conse
quence is that the surplice is the only lawful
ornament to be worn in parish churches while
ministering, unless, perhaps, the scarf or tippet,
and hood in addition.

Tippet or Scarf, and Hood. — The Advertise
ments direct Deans, Masters of Colleges,
Archdeacons, other Dignitaries in Cathedral
Churches, Doctors, Masters of Arts, Batchelors
(sic) of Divinity, Medicine, and Law, having
ecclesiastical living, inter alia to wear in their
common apparel abroad tippets of sarcenet.
The 74th Canon directs for the same persons
hoods and tippets of silk or sarcenet, and
square caps. All other ministers "admitted
or to be admitted," are to wear the same dress
as the others, except tippets. The tippet has
become part of the dress worn by ministers,
though it is clear both from the Advertisements
and Canon that it was an outdoor dress and
originally worn by dignitaries in Colleges and
Cathedrals, and Doctors and Bachelors of Theo
logy, Law, and Medicine. It has never been
the subject of any judicial decision. The scarf
is to be distinguished from a stole. A stole
is a narrow strip of coloured silk expanded at
the ends and reaching down to the knees. A
tippet, or scarf, was of folded black silk going
down to the ankles.

Copes, according to the Advertisements, are

to be worn in cathedrals and collegiate churches
in the ministration of the Holy Communion by
the principal minister with Gospeller and
Epistoler agreeably. They have fallen into
disuse for nearly two centuries now in
cathedrals, and if an action were brought
against any one for not using them, it is not
improbable that the Court would hold that the
contemporary, general, and continuous disuse
of the same had created a legal practice author
ising their disuse, and the use, instead, of a
surplice with the other usual ornaments. This
disuse seems to have been recognised in 1604,
for the 24th Canon, instead of directing the
clergy in cathedrals to wear the cope at every
ministration of the Holy Communion, limits
its direction to the "principal feast days,"
although a few lines further down it refers to
Elizabeth's Advertisements. See COPE. The
following vestments have been held to be
illegal: alb, ami-?, maniple, chasuble, tunicle
(Hebbert v. Purchas, 7 Moore, P.C. N.S. 468, or
L.R. 3 P.C. 650; Ridsdale r. Clifton, 2 P.D.
276), abiretta, if worn (Hudson v. Tooth, 2 P.D.
125 ; Enraght v. Lord Penzance, 1882, 7 App.
Gas. 240). In ruling on this point (Elphinstone
v. Purchas, 1870, 3 Ad. & Eccl. 94) the Court
thought it could be innocently carried in the
hand.

The black gown has been held to be legal for
two reasons : first, because the surplice has been
only directed to be worn during the administra
tion of the Holy Communion and the other rites
(rite being "a service expressed in words,"
Martin v. Mackonochie, 2 Ad. & Eccl. 116, at
p. 136) of the Church, and preaching is not
a rite nor ministration within the rubric ;
secondly, the Court held that the use of the
black gown had been legal all along through
three centuries, and that if it had not been so,
on the principle that commvnis error facitleyem,
i.e. since there has been a continuous use of
such gown for three hundred years, such use
would make it legal even if it had not been so
originally (Wright v. Tugwell, 1897, 1 Ch. 85).

Ornaments of a Bishop. — The bishop is ordered
by the rubric in the consecration of a bishop to
wear a rochet. With this they wear a chimere,
which was an upper robe originally worn out of
doors, and since Queen Elizabeth's time made
of black satin.

Pastoral Sta/. — If we apply the method of
interpreting the rubrics which has been laid
down by the Courts, and which is explained on
a previous page of this article, it will be clear
that the pastoral staff is an illegal ornament.
The First Prayer Book of Edward VI. enjoined
it in the " certain notes " at the end, where
vestments are dealt with ; the Second Prayer
Book and the present one have omitted all refer
ence to it. In the " certain notes " at the end of

OXFORD MOVEMENT

[ 491 ]

OXFORD MOVEMENT

the First Prayer Book the bishop was directed
to hold it in his hand, or have it borne for him
by his chaplain, both at Holy Communion and
when executing any other public ministration.
The Ordinal of 1550, in the service of consecrat
ing bishops, also directed both the consecrating
bishops to have their pastoral staves in their
hands, and, as part of the ceremony of conse
crating a new bishop, in the middle of the ex
hortation, after he is given the Bible with the
words, "Give heed unto reading," directs the
archbishop while saying the words, "Be to
the flock of Christ a shepherd," to put a
pastoral staff into the new bishop's hands.
All these references to a pastoral staff have
been cut out of the present Prayer Book and
Ordinal. This view is borne out by Gibson,
who, in his Codex published in 1761, says at p.
118, referring to the pastoral staff, episcopal
ring, mitre, and gloves (all enjoined in the
Roman Pontifical) : " All which, and many other
superstitions of like nature (as savouring more
of the ceremonies of the Jewish, than of the
simplicity of the Christian religion), our Re
formed Church hath prudently and piously
laid aside in the consecration of her archbishops
and bishops, retaining only such outward
tokens as are most ancient and most grave."
And it may be noted that at the first Elizabethan
consecration of a bishop, viz., Archbishop
Parker's (of which he took care there should
be a very exact account in his Register), no
pastoral staff was given, as is expressly men
tioned in the Archiepiscopal Register.

Mitre. — This also is probably illegal, since it
is not part of the specified dress of a bishop in
either the First or Second Prayer Book of
Edward VI., or any other, and the rule laid
down by the Courts is that no garments shall
be worn except such as are authorised. In
Read v. Bishop of Lincoln, it was held that,
when a bishop ministers in any office pre
scribed by the Prayer Book, he is a " minister,"
and bound to observe the directions given to
the minister in the rubrics of such office (L.R.
14 P.D. 148). [E. B. W.]

OSTIARIUS, or door-keeper, is the name of
the lowest of the minor Orders (see OKDEES) in
the Roman Church. To him is often committed
the care of the building, and the duty of
seeing that all things are in order.

OXFORD MO VEMENT.— The name given to
that Movement within the Church of England
which is now popularly known as Ritualism.
It was born in Oxford in the month of July
1833, and therefore received the name of the
Oxford Movement. Its chief founders were
the Rev. John Keble, the Rev. John Henry
Newman (afterwards known as Cardinal New
man), and the Rev. Richard Hurrell Froude.
The Rev. Dr. Pusey joined the party about a

year later. The Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval,
the Rev. Isaac Williams, and the Rev. William
Palmer, of Worcester College, were also promi
nent leaders. In the month of April 1833,
Mr. Newman and Mr. Froude visited Rome,
and while there had several secret interviews
with Monsignor (afterwards Cardinal) Wise
man, to whom they revealed their plans for
the new Movement they had already decided
on founding, and from whom they sought
advice. It does not appear that they con
sulted with any of the bishops of the
Church of England at this early stage.
Wiseman was greatly delighted with what
these two young Church of England clergy
men told him. His conversations with them
produced a deep and lasting impression on his
mind, and even affected the whole course^of
his subsequent life. "From that moment,"
Wiseman subsequently wrote, in the Dublin
Review, "I watched with intense interest and
love the Movement of which I then caught the
first glimpse. My studies changed their
course, the bent of my mind was altered."
And, again, he wrote of these same interviews,
held in April 1833 : " From that moment it
(the Movement) took the uppermost place
in my thoughts, and became the object of their
intensest interest."

The ostensible object of the new Movement
was the weakening of the influence of the
State over the Church of England, and this
secured the sympathy of many who had no
love for High Church doctrines ; but the real
object went much further than this. What
was first of all aimed at was the restoration of
the doctrines associated with the name of
Archbishop Laud, and then of other doctrines
which had been long before rejected by the
English Reformers. Even at that early period
Newman states, in his Apologia Pro Vita 5«a,
" I saw that Reformation principles were
powerless to rescue " the Church of England.
The ultimate object was the Corporate Re
union of the Church of England with the
Church of Rome. See ROMEWAKD MOVE
MENT. " I ever kept before me," said
Newman, " that there was something greater
than the Established Church, and that was
the Church Catholic and Apostolic, set up
from the beginning, of which she was but the
local presence and organ." In other words,
that she was but the servant of the rest of
the Catholic Church, that is, of the Eastern
Church and the Church of Rome combined.
There were many conferences between the
leaders of the new Movement, and a great deal
of correspondence with friends in various parts
of the country, the principal outcome of which
was the now well-known Tracts for the Times.
The first of these appeared on September

OXFORD MOVEMENT

[ 492 ]

OXFORD MOVEMENT

9, 1833, and the last on February 27, 1841.
Roman Catholic doctrines were taught in them
from the commencement, but in a very guarded
and careful manner, so as not to excite too
much alarm. When No. 4 was published, a
copy was lent to Mr. Ambrose Phillipps de
Lisle, a Roman Catholic gentleman, who re
turned it with this declaration: "Mark my
words, these Tracts are the beginning of a
Catholic Movement which will one day end in
the return of her Church to Catholic unity
and the See of Peter." Another Roman
Catholic said to Mr. John Adolphus, K.C. :
"Ah ! Adolphus, this is the grandest move for
our Church there has been since the Reforma
tion." Of all these Tracts, those which created
the greatest sensation were Nos. 80, 87, and
90. The two former of these bore the same
title : " Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge," and taught that there are certain
doctrines which are secrets, not to be taught
to everybody, but to be held in reserve by
Christian teachers, and imparted by them
only to those who can be trusted. It was
as disciples, or writers of the Tracts for the
Times, that the followers of the Oxford Move
ment became known by the name of Trac-
tarians.

Within less than three years from the birth
of the Movement the Edinburgh Review charged
the Tractarians with teaching Popish doctrines.
The accusation, which was supported by the
Standard, created a great deal of excitement
and indignation throughout the country. The
Tractarians decided to meet the accusa
tion by preaching against Popery, hoping thus
to close the mouths of their opponents. Dr.
Pusey thought the idea excellent. It would,
he wrote to a friend, enable them to " dispose
of ultra-Protestantism by a side wind, and
teach people Catholicism without their sus-
specting" the trick which was to be played on
them ! Newman was particularly zealous in
this anti-Popery movement. He publicly de
clared in a course of Lectures on Popular
Protestantism (afterwards published), that the
Church of Rome was not merely unscrip-
tural, but also "impious," "blasphemous,"
"monstrous," " crafty," " obstinate," "cruel,
unnatural, as madmen are. Or rather, she may
be said to resemble a demoniac." Strongly
Protestant utterances like these served to allay
the fears of Protestant Churchmen, who im
mediately went to sleep, fearing no danger.
But no sooner had these No Popery utterances
done their work than Newman wrote to the
Oxford Conservative Journal withdrawing every
word he had ever said against the Church of
Rome. He declared that in abusing Rome he
" was not speaking his own words " — though he
had put them out as his own — besides which,

he insisted that " such views were necessary
for his position." It is evident that he never
believed one word of the abuse which he had
heaped on the Church of Rome. " Intimate
friends," wrote Newman at this time to Mr.
Hope Scott, "have almost reproached me
with 'paltering with them in a double sense,
keeping the word of promise to their ear, to
break it to their hope.'" Double dealing
of this kind was, alas ! by no means un
common at this period of the Oxford Move
ment. The Rev. W. G. Ward, who for a time
became leader of the advanced Tractarians after
Newman had resigned that position, used to
teach his followers : " Make yourself clear that
you are justified in deception, and then lie like
a trooper." His Roman Catholic son says of
this same Mr. Ward, that while he was still
a clergyman in the Church of England he
"had long held that the Roman Church was
the one true Church. He had gradually come
to believe that the English Church was not
strictly a part of the Church at all. He had
felt bound to retain his external communion
with her members, because he was bringing
many of them towards Rome." Dr. Pusey
acted in a double-dealing manner, for while he
began hearing confessions in 1838, in 1842 —
four years after — he wrote a learned Pro
testant treatise, in the form of notes to the
works of Tertullian, to prove that auricular
confession was wholly unknown to the Primi
tive Church.

The want of straightforward conduct on the
part of some of the leaders of the Oxford
Movement is very clearly revealed in the Life
and Letters of Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle. That
Roman Catholic gentleman became, about
the year 1841, the secret emissary of Bishop
Wiseman and the Pope to the Oxford leaders.
Newman, still a clergyman of the Church of
England, revealed to De Lisle things he kept
secret from his own disciples. On May 5, 1841,
De Lisle wrote from Oxford: "Many here
would like to come to an understanding with
the Pope, that so they might be in active
communion with him, and yet remain in the
Church of England to labour for the re
conciliation of their whole Church." De Lisle's
Roman Catholic biographer assures us that :
" De Lisle acted as an interpreter between the
Oxford divines and Bishop Wiseman. By
such means the Pope and Propaganda were
kept au courant with the Oxford Movement."

The Rev. Richard Hurrell Froude died on
February 28, 1836. Two years later his writings
were published, when it became known to the
public for the first time how far he had gone
in the direction of Romanism, and how in
tensely he had hated Protestantism in any
shape or form. His Remains were edited by

OXFORD MOVEMENT

[ 493 ]

OXFORD MOVEMENT

Keble and Newman. The publication caused
a great sensation at the time, and led to some
of the rank and file of the Oxford party with
drawing from the Movement in alarm. By
this time the disciples of the Oxford Move
ment were generally known as " Tractarians."
On August 24, 1838, the leaders issued the
first volume of the Library of the Fathers, of
which the last did not appear until November
1885. The Fathers who lived nearest the
Apostolic Age were not translated in this
Library so freely as those of a later period,
when error had greatly increased in the Church.
Of the thirteen Fathers whose writings were
translated, only three wrote in the first three
centuries, the remaining ten flourished in the
fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries.

In February 1839, a movement was in
augurated for erecting in Oxford a Martyrs'
Memorial to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer,
who had been burnt alive in Oxford streets for
the Protestant faith. It was strongly opposed
by most of the Tractarians, Dr. Pusey being
particularly opposed to the scheme. So also
was Keble, who said that, " Anything which
separates the present Church from the Re
formers I should hail as a great good." Happily
their opposition failed to prevent the erection
of the Memorial, which was unveiled in 1841.

What was going on at Oxford gave intense
pleasure at Rome, where the Movement was
closely watched. Early in 1840 Newman saw
that its tendency was distinctly towards
Rome, and admitted that its influence helped
"to make impatient minds seek" Catholicism
"where it has ever been, in Rome." By the
end of that year he thought that Rome was
"the centre of unity." His friend, Isaac
Williams, says that at about this period
Newman " said things in favour of the Church
of Rome which quite startled " him, and even
told him that "he thought the Church of
Rome was right, and we were wrong, so much
so, that we ought to join it." But secrecy
was observed to a large extent. In 1841 the
Rev. W. G. Ward wrote to the Roman Catholic
Paris Univers : "Let us, then, remain quiet
for some years, till, by God's blessing, the
ears of Englishmen are become accustomed
to hear the name of Rome pronounced with
reverence."

In 1841 the King of Prussia proposed the
founding of a bishopric at Jerusalem by the
Church of England, one half of the cost of
which he was willing to defray, if the
remainder were collected in England. He
offered to place the German Lutheran mission
aries, at that time working in Palestine, under
the supervision of the new bishop, and was
even willing to allow them to be re-ordained
in accordance with the Liturgy of the Church

of England. The English Government faci
litated the scheme to the utmost, and so also
did most of the bishops, but it was violently
opposed by Newman and Pusey, and other
members of the Oxford Movement party, on
the narrow-minded ground that it would cause
the Church of England to recognise the non-
Episcopal Lutheran Church as a real branch
of the Church of Christ on earth ; and also
because the Lutheran missionaries would be
required to sign not only the XXXIX. Articles,
but also the Augsburg Confession ; and, further,
that the scheme would tend to prevent unity
with the Greek Church in Palestine. Dr.
Pusey said that to urge people to leave the
Eastern Church would be " encouraging sin."
Dr Hook, Vicar of Leeds, though a Tractarian,
was, to his credit be it recorded, in favour of
the establishment of the bishopric, while
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce declared: "I feel
furious at the craving of men for union with
idolatrous, material, sensual, domineering
Rome, and their squeamish, anathematising
hatred of Protestant Reformed men " of the
Lutheran Church. Notwithstanding the angry
opposition of Newman and Pusey, the bishopric
was established, and on November 7, 1841, the
Rev. Dr. Alexander was consecrated as the
first bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
assisted by the bishops of London, Rochester,
and New Zealand.

The publication, on February. 27, 1841, of
" Tract XC." of the series of Tracts for the Times,
written by Newman, created a profound sensa
tion throughout the country. It was the most
daring step Romeward yet taken by friends of
the Oxford Movement, and at once raised a
fierce opposition. The object of this Tract
cannot, perhaps, be better expressed than in
the words of the four tutors of Oxford Colleges,
in a letter of protest which they issued as early
as March 8th : " The Tract has," they declared,
" a highly dangerous tendency, from its sug
gesting that certain very important errors of
the Church of Rome are not condemned by
the Articles of the Church of England. For
instance, that those Articles do not contain
any condemnation of the doctrines : (1) Of
Purgatory. (2) Of Pardons. (3) Of the wor
shipping and adoration of Images and Relics.
(4) Of the Invocation of Saints. (5) Of the
Mass, as they are taught authoritatively by
the Church of Rome, not only of certain
absurd practices and opinions which intelligent
Romanists repudiate as much as we do." The
Tract was condemned on March 13 by the
Board of Heads of Houses of Oxford Univer
sity, as "evading rather than explaining the
sense of the XXXIX. Articles, and reconciling
subscription to them with the adoption of
errors which they were designed to counter-

OXFORD MOVEMENT

[ 494 ]

OXFORD MOVEMENT

act." Several of the bishops, in their charges,
denounced "Tract XC. "in very strong terms,
and at the request of the Bishop of Oxford, New
man promised that it should be the last of the
series of Tracts for the Times. Forty-two
years later, on June 14, 1883, Newman, re
ferring to his comments in this Tract on
Article XXXI., said : " The Tract, as a whole,
I have been able to defend, but not this
portion of it. It argues that what the Article
condemns is not the authoritative teaching of
Rome, but only the common belief and practice
of Catholics as regards Purgatory and private
Masses. But the words in which the Article
condemns the so-called abuse are ipso facto a
condemnation also of the ordinance itself
which is abused. This will be seen at once
by comparing the language of the Article
with the language of Pope Pius IV. and the
Council of Trent. What the Article abjures
as a lie is just that which the Pope and
Council declare to be a divine truth. . . .
Nothing can come of the suggested distinc
tion between Mass and Masses, as if 'the
Mass' were the aboriginal Divine Rite, which
the Article left alone, and ' the Masses ' were
those private superstitions which the Article
denounced. However, this suggestion in aid
is as unfounded as the original theses. ' Mass '
and ' Masses ' do but respectively denote
abstract and concrete, as can easily be
shown."

Early in 1840 Newman founded a kind of
Monastic Establishment at Littlemore, about
three miles from Oxford, which continued in
existence until his secession to Rome in the
autumn of 1845. Several of the ablest members
of the Tractarian party were inmates of this
monastery, where the daily life was, as far as
possible, modelled after that in Roman Catholic
monasteries ; but a great deal of secrecy was
observed as to what went on within its walls.

Of course there were men in the Oxford
Movement, as in all other movements, who
went beyond the rank and file of the party.
They were really pioneers, whose ambition
was to hasten the pace at which the Church
of England seemed to be travelling Rome-
ward. Amongst them were such men as the
Rev. R. G. Macmullen, the Rev. Frederick
Oakeley, and the Rev. W. G. Ward. The
latter was particularly daring in his avowals.
In 1844 he published a large volume entitled,
The Ideal of a Christian Church, in which he de
clared that he had signed the XXXIX. Articles
"in a non-natural sense," and that in doing
BO he had ' ' renounced no one Roman doctrine."
"We find," he exclaimed, "oh, most joyful
most wonderful, most unexpected sight !
we find the whole cycle of Roman doctrine
gradually possessing numbers of English

Churchmen. " At a Convocation of the Univer
sity of Oxford, held on February 13, 1845, the
book was condemned, and the author deprived
of his University degrees. Nearly the whole
strength of the Oxford Movement in the
University was used to vote against the censure
of the book, and to prevent the degradation
of the author. Dr. Pusey declared that Ward
was "very greatly benefiting the Church by
his practical suggestions." " Tract XC." would
no doubt have been condemned at the same
time, were it not that a motion to do so was
at once vetoed by the Proctors of the
University, one of whom (Dr. Church) after
wards became Dean of St. Paul's, and even
received the offer of the Archbishopric of
Canterbury on the death of Dr. Tait.

Ward's book, it may here be mentioned, was
in reply to a pamphlet written by the Rev.
William Palmer, of Worcester College, and
entitled, A Narrative of Events Connected ivith the
Publication of " The Tracts for the Times," in
which he exposed the tendency to Romanism
of several of the Tractarian clergy. This ex
posure was all the more forcible, coming as it
did from one who had been a leader of the
Oxford Movement from its commencement.
Mr. Palmer declared, and supported his asser
tion by ample proof, that "it is undeniable that
Romanism, in its very fullest extent, has advo
cates amongst ourselves."

In 1844 Dr. Pusey commenced the issuing of
adapted translations of Roman Catholic books
of devotion. This was a very daring step in ad
vance, which raised protests from not a few
old-fashioned High Churchmen. Newman
frankly told Pusey that he would "promote
the cause of the Church of Rome " by his
conduct ; but he went on with the Romanising
work notwithstanding his friend's warning.
Archdeacon (subsequently Bishop) Samuel
Wilberforce wrote of one of these adapted
books : "I think it fuller of sad and humiliat
ing bits of superstition than anything of his
I have yet seen ;" while Dr. Hook boldly de
clared that such works would "make men
decided infidels." In this Pusey no doubt
helped much the Church of Rome. It may be
well to reprint here what Pope Pius IX. said
to Dean Stanley about Dr. Pusey several years
afterwards : " You know Pusey. When you
meet him, give him this message from me —
that I compare him to a bell, which always
sounds to invite the faithful to Church, and
itself always remains outside."

The Oxford Movement was greatly assisted
by the formation of the Cambridge Camden
Society. It was founded in May 1839, " to
promote the study of ecclesiastical architecture
and antiquities, and the restoration of mutilated
architectural remains." Its labours gave the

OXFORD MOVEMENT

[ 495 ]

PALLIUM

first impetus to that love of Roman Catholic
ornaments, ritual, and ceremonies, which dis-
guishes the Ritualists of the present day.
Down to the period of its formation the friends
of the Oxford Movement had confined their
labours mainly to the restoration of certain
Roman Catholic doctrines, and made but very
slight alterations in the ritual of their parish
churches. One Protestant Churchman, like a
faithful watchman, early sounded a note of
alarm. In 1844 the late Dean Close preached
a sermon in which he pointed out that "as
Romanism is taught Analytically at Oxford, it
is taught Artistically at Cambridge — it is
inculcated theoretically, in Tracts, at one
University, and it is sculptured, painted, and
graven at the other. The Cambridge Cam-
denians build churches and furnish symbolic
vessels, by which the Oxford Tractarians may
carry out their principles."

Dr. Pusey raised a storm of censure on
himself by a sermon which he preached before
the University of Oxford on the fourth Sunday
after Easter, in the year 1843. It was after
wards published with the title : The Holy
Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent. In this
sermon Pusey taught the doctrines of the
Real Presence in the consecrated elements,
and what is termed the Eucharistic Sacrifice,
in a way which greatly startled Protestant
Churchmen, who considered that such doc
trines were out of place in the Reformed
Church of England. For this sermon Dr.
Pusey was suspended from preaching before
the University for two years. Two years after
this, Newman pointed out that, out of 140
quotations from the Fathers in Pusey's sermon,
in support of his doctrines, only four were
from the Fathers of the first three centuries.

During this period Newman was making
rapid strides towards Rome. He had ceased
to love the Church of England many years
before he left her communion. On Sept. 16,
1843, he resigned the living of St. Mary the
Virgin, Oxford, and retired to Littlemore,
where he officiated only for a short time, and
then gave up all clerical -work. Early in 1845
Pusey realised that Newman would soon go
over to Rome ; but he wrote to Keble : " I
have looked upon this [expected secession] of
dear Newman as a mysterious dispensation,
as though (if it indeed be so), Almighty Ood
was drawing him, as a chosen instrument, for some
office in the Roman Church." From that time
Pusey abstained from attacking the Church of
Rome ; "I cannot," he said, "any more take
the negative ground against Rome ; I can only
remain neutral. I have indeed for some time
left off alleging grounds against Rome."

On October 9, 1845, Newman was received into
the Church of Rome, at Littlemore Monastery,

by Father Dominic, a Passionist. Early in
the following year Newman left Littlemore,
and shortly afterwards went to Rome to be
ordained a priest. But when he was ordained
a priest of Rome, or ivhere, has never yet been
made public. That is one of the secrets of the
Oxford Movement which has never yet been
revealed.

Modern Ritualists are never tired of bewail
ing the secession of Newman. They think it
would have been much better for the Church
of England if he had remained officiating in
her fold. I cannot agree with this view. It
would have been better for her — though not
for himself personally — if he had gone long
before. There was wisdom in what Arch
deacon Samuel Wilberforce wrote a year
before his secession : " If Newman is to go,
the sooner he goes the better."

I close this article by quoting and adopting
the words of Dean Church : " It is not my
purpose to pursue farther the course of the
Movement. All the world knows that it was
not, in fact, killed, or even much arrested by
the shock of 1845. But after 1845, its field
was at least as much out of Oxford as in it.
As long as Mr. Newman remained, Oxford was
necessarily its centre, necessarily, even after
he had seemed to withdraw from it. When
he left his place vacant, the direction of it
was not removed from Oxford, but it was
largely shared by men in London and the
country. It ceased to be strongly and promi
nently Academical." [W. W.]

PALLA. — A small cloth of linen, sometimes
stiffened with cardboard, used in the Roman
Church as a covering for the chalice. Ritua
lists use a linen veil for the purpose.

PALLIUM, is a band of white wool worn
over the shoulders, with two strings of the
same material, and four purple crosses worked
upon it. Two lambs are brought annually to
the Church of St. Agnes, at Rome, presented
at the altar, and received by two canons of
the Lateran Church. From the wool of the
lambs the pallia are made by the nuns of the
Torre de Specchi convent. When made, the
pallia are laid on the so-called tomb of St.
Peter, where they lie all night. The pallium
is sent by the Pope to patriarchs, primates,
archbishops, and sometimes bishops, as a sign
that they possess the " fulness of the episcopal
office." The history of the pallium is the
history of papal development. The writers of
the Catholic Dictionary by Addis and Arnold
tell us that "the early history of the pallium
is involved in hopeless obscurity." Chardon

PALMS, BLESSED

[ 496 ]

PAPACY

(Hist, des Sacr., torn. v. ch. ix.) tells us that the
pallium is the Latin name for the loose upper
garment of the Greeks. It was tucked round
the neck in running or other active exercise.
Among the Romans it was specially affected
by the philosophers. De Marca and Baluze
believe that the pallium was first given to
bishops by the emperors. Pope Vigilius de
clined to grant it to Auxanius and Aurelian,
Archbishops of Aries, without the Emperor's
consent, and Gregory the Great did likewise
with Syagrius, Bishop of Autun. A decree
of Valentinian III., A.D. 432, grants the dignity
of archbishop and honor pallii to the See of
Ravenna. At a Synod of Aries, A.D. 747, and
at the Synod of Ravenna, A.D. 877, it was de
creed that metropolitans must ask the pallium
from Rome within three months of their con
secration. Successive Popes insisted on the
observance of this rule, and it seems to have
been observed pretty generally in France and
England. Innocent III. forbade the assump
tion of even the name of archbishop till the
pallium had been obtained, and that decree
was incorporated in the Canon Law. St.
Bernard, in his life of Malachy (Vit. Mai.,
cap. xvi.) tells us that the pallium was un
known in Ireland up to that date. Malachy
died A.D. 1148, and had made a journey to
Rome to solicit two palls for Ireland. He
died before his request had been granted.
After Malachy's death, Pope Eugenius III. sent
Cardinal Paparo to Ireland as his legate, and
the cardinal carried four palls, which were
given to the four archbishops appointed at the
Synod of Kells, A.D. 1152. [T. C.]

PALMS, BLESSED.— Branches of the palm
and olive are blessed on Palm Sunday in the
Roman Church and carried in the hands in
remembrance of the triumphal entry of Christ
into Jerusalem.

PAPACY. — As the development of the Roman
primacy and the assumptions which underlie
the theory of the Papal Supremacy are dealt
with in other articles, it is only necessary here
to trace the main outlines in the history of the
papal system proper. It was not till the fifth
century that the word Pope emerged as the
distinctive title of the Bishop of Rome, or that
the history of the Papacy can be said in any
definite sense to have begun. It was Inno
cent I. (402-417) who conceived the vast idea
of Rome's universal supremacy, while Leo I.
(44.0-461), by his great abilities and still larger
claims, helped to lay deep the foundations of
the Popedom. The barbaric invasions of the
century, by overthrowing the civil institutions
of the Empire, served to enhance the spiritual
influence of the Roman See ; and when, in 476,
the Emperor of the Romans transferred his
seat to Constantinople, the Pope became the

chief figure of Western Europe. The work of
building up the papal system was continued by
Gregory I. (590-604), whose character and
teaching did much to shape the subsequent
policy of the Roman Curia. He was notable
for his missionary enterprises and especially
for his mission to England. Gibbon describes
him as " the founder of the papal monarchy."
He was succeeded by Gregory II. (715-731).

By the close of the eighth century the papal
claims had grown ominously large. The Pope
asserted the right to dispense with the obser
vance of the canonical law, and to confer upon
ecclesiastical foundations privileges which
enabled them to encroach upon the secular
jurisdiction. He had definitely assumed the
prerogatives of a universal metropolitan, and
made appeal to Rome in all matters of import
ance the rule of the Western Church. It was
not long till a further step was taken. During
the struggles which preceded the breaking up
of the Frankish Empire, the Roman pontiffs
began to interfere directly in political affairs ;
and in particular, Nicholas I. (851-867), by the
aid of those elaborate forgeries which are known
as the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, successfully
asserted the subjection of the secular powers
to the Church, no less than of the Church to
the Pope.

The next great advance is marked by
Gregory VII., commonly known as Hildebrand
(1073-85), whose settled purpose it was to
raise himself absolutely above every secular
authority, and make the Pope the undisputed
master of the world. In his great conflict with
the Emperor Henry IV. of Germany, terminat
ing in the famous episode of Canossa, Hilde
brand gained a notable triumph, and the goal
which he set before the pontificate was finally
attained by Innocent III. (1198-1216), under
whom the mediaeval papal system reached its
culminating point, and the Pope was recognised
as possessed of all power on earth, in things
secular as well as sacred. The theories of
Hildebrand and Innocent found their classical
expression in the bull, Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam,
issued by Boniface VIII. in 1302, in which it
was declared that as a two-headed Church
would be a monstrosity, the sword of temporal
authority could be wielded by the monarch
only at the will and by the permission of the
pontiff.

A revolt against these extraordinary preten
sions soon followed. Philip of France was
successful in vindicating against Boniface his
independence as a sovereign ; and the pro
nounced Gallicanism of the French Church and
people led to a wide-spread reaction in favour
of an episcopal form of Church government
as distinguished from the rigid monarchy
of Innocent and his successors. With the

PARACLETE

497 ]

PARACLETE

death of Boniface the mediaeval papacy, as a
universal autocracy, may be said to have dis
appeared. However lofty its claims may be,
the Papacy has never since been able to make
good its authority over the civil governments
of Europe. For a time, too, even its spiritual
authority seemed to be ebbing away. Its
prestige was enormously weakened by its sub
servience to France during the Avignon period,
by the flagrant immoralities of its own Court,
by the great papal schism, when rival Popes
were seen hurling anathemas and excommuni
cations at each other, and by the assertion of
the authority over Popes of general Synods,
made by the Council of Constance (1414-18),
which deposed and imprisoned Pope John on
the ground of murder, licentiousness, and
other crimes.

Once more, however, at the notorious Council
of Florence in 1439, the monarchical theory
triumphed ; and the supremacy of the Pope
over any general Council was definitely pro
mulgated. It has never since been challenged
by any Council. And while Gallicanism long
maintained itself in the French Church, and
occasionally found strong expression elsewhere,
and even seemed, during the first half of the
nineteenth century, to be gaining ground, the
conservative reaction which set in all over
Europe after the revolutionary movements of
1848, stimulated the growth of Ultramontanism
by strengthening the monarchical sentiment.
Thus it became possible for Pius IX. to impose
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception upon
the faith of the Church by the mere issue of a
bull ; and, at the Vatican Council of 1870, in
spite of strong protests, to secure not only a
confirmation of the absolute authority of Popes
over Councils, but a ratification of that new
dogma of Infallibility in which the Papacy
arrives at its apotheosis, and which practically
renders it superfluous for a general Council
of the Roman Church ever to be summoned
again. See PRIVILEGE OF PETER; SUPREMACY,
PAPAL ; BOMAN PRIMACY. [J. C. L.]

PARACLETE (irapd.K\r)Tos). — A word used four
times in St. John's Gospel (xiv. 16, 26 ; xv.
26 ; xvi. 7) as the name of the Holy Spirit,
once in his first epistle (ii. 1) of Christ. The
Greek expositors, beginning with Chrysos-
tom, translate the word " Comforter." They
justify this rendering by pointing back to the
LXX. (ira/xtKaXetre, paracaleite), Isa. xl. 1, and to
the fact that irapdicXrjffis (paraclesis) very often,
if not always, means "consolation." The
word is, however, passive in form, and means
" one called in," or, " called to the side of
another" (irapd, para), for the purpose of help
ing him in any way, but especially in a law
suit. The word, therefore, " advocate " (as
in margin of R.V.), or "pleader" for us and

in us, is the translation of the word most
approved by modern expositors. In 1 John
ii. 1 : " We have an Advocate (wapdK\-r)Tov) with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous," no
other rendering is satisfactory. However,
" Paraclete," applied in the Gospel according
to St. John, is clearly used in a wide sense of
" helper " (wbich is the alternative marginal
rendering in R.V.), succourer, aider, and
assistant, and not in the technical sense of an
Advocate (possibly excepting John xiv. 16) in
all cases. The Paraclete is referred to as one
who shall "bear witness" of Christ, "convict
(e\<?7£et, elegxei) the world," " teach all things,"
" bring all things to remembrance," " guide
into all truth," " declare unto you the things
that are to come," that which He should receive
from Christ in heaven.

The rendering of Paraclete by Comforter is
not only inaccurate but misleading. The
office of the Holy Spirit, as described in the
farewell discourses of Jesus, is that of fur
nishing strength rather than comfort, en
couragement rather than consolation, nerve
rather than solace. The idea intended to be
conveyed is that the Paraclete is " the repre
sentative of the glorified Lord with His mili
tant people upon earth." He leads us into a
deeper knowledge of the truth, sustains us
in our Christian calling, and breathes into us
ever new measures of a spirit of resignation
under trials, boldness during persecutions, and
daring in the warfare we have to wage. The
addition of the word "another" to Paraclete
implies that Christ, when on earth, had beertthe
Paraclete, the Helper of His disciples in their
first efforts in the divine kingdom. In the
near future Jesus would represent them as
their Paraclete before the Father's throne ;
but meanwhile the Holy Spirit would repre
sent Him as their Paraclete on earth, fulfilling
those offices which His "going away " prevented
His continuing to exercise. In fact, the
coming of the Paraclete was His own true
return to His disciples (John xiv. 17).

In Blunt's Dictionary of Doctrine, &c., re
ference is made to the statement of both
Eusebius and St. Chrysostom that the title of
Paraclete was blasphemously assumed by the
heretic Manes, his name being associated
with this act of maniacal folly (Euseb., Hist.
vii. 31 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl., i. 22 ; Epiphan.
Hcer. 65).

The word Paraclete does not occur in the
Book of Common Prayer, but is a common
title of the Holy Ghost in the Roman Breviary.
It is used in some modern hymns (e.g. " Come,
Thou Holy Paraclete," Hymns Ancient and
Modern, revised and enlarged edition, No.
251). [See Watkin's Excursus G., in Elli-
cott's New Testament Commentary for English

2 i

PARADISE

[ 498 ]

PASTORAL STAFF

Readers ; and Westcott in the Speaker's Com
mentary.] [C. N.]

PARADISE. -See HADES.

PARISH. — Ecclesiastically, that circuit of
ground which is committed to the charge of
one parson, vicar, or other minister having
cure of souls therein ; but in the language of
the civil law, any place in England or Wales
for which a separate poor rate is, or can be
made, and for which a separate overseer is, or
can be appointed. In early days " parish "
was synonymous with "diocese." The sub
division of dioceses into parishes in this
country is believed to have taken place not
much earlier than the time of King Edgar
(A.D. 970). A parish may be divided for
ecclesiastical purposes into two or more
parishes, or into ecclesiastical districts. By
6 & 7 Viet. c. 37, sect. 9, the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners have power to divide off a
portion of a parish into a new district after
giving notice to the incumbent, who may
appeal against the decision to the Privy
Council. Division of a parish is generally
made only with the consent of the incumbent
and patron, and sometimes compensation for
such division is granted. The bishop's consent
is necessary. Where a new parish has been
formed, the incumbent of the mother church
has no right to the pew rents of the new
benefice, nor may he appoint the clerk or
sexton. The incumbent of the new parish has
the exclusive cure of souls therein, saving the
rights of the bishop, and has the exclusive
right of solemnising marriages by banns
between persons resident in the new parish.
Benefices, or ecclesiastical parishes, may be
united under certain Acts of Parliament.

PASCAL. — See MORAL THEOLOGY, JANSEN-
ISTS.

PASCHAL EPISTLES.— Towards the end of
the second century a violent controversy,
known as the Paschal Controversy, broke out
between Rome and Asia Minor regarding the
proper date for the observance of Easter, con
ceived of as the Christian Passover. The
Churches of Asia Minor, with Ephesus at their
head, paying no regard to the day of the week,
adhered to the Jewish practice of keeping
the 14th day of the month as the day of the
Passover (hence the name Quartodecimani).
Rome, again, followed by the other Churches
of Christendom, paying no regard to the day of
the month, observed Sunday, the day of the
Lord's Resurrection, as Easter Day, and the
preceding Friday in memorial of the cruci
fixion. On this subject Victor of Rome had a
correspondence with Polycrates of Ephesus
and Irenseus. Victor insisted that Asia Minor
should adopt the Roman practice ; Polycrates,
in the name of his fellow-bishops, declined ;

while Irenaeus successfully expostulated with
Victor, who had gone the length of excom
municating the Quartodecimans. Asia Minor
was thus left free to follow its own preferences
in this matter, until the Council of Nicsea
(325) finally decided that Easter should be
observed on the same day throughout the
Christian world. [J. C. L.]

PASCHAL TAPER.— See TAPERS.

PASSION MUSIC.— A title given in the
Roman Church to a chant to which are set
certain words of Scripture concerning the
Passion of Christ. Three " Deacons of the
Passion " and the choir sing the text.

PASSIONISTS.— The name of a monastic con
gregation founded in 1720, by Paul Francis
Danei, who, because of his devotion to the
Passion of our Lord, assumed the name of Paul
of the Cross, and was eventually canonised by
Pius IX. The papal approval was at first
withheld from the new foundation, but Bene
dict XIV. formally sanctioned it in 1741.

To the usual three monastic vows the Pas-
sionists add a fourth and particular vow — to
contemplate continually, and to promote de
votion to the Saviour's Passion. In accordance
with this their motto is, " Jesu Christi passio
sit semper in cordibus nostris," while their
special emblem is the cross, which is always
conspicuously worked in white on the black
habit worn by the members. The rule is still
severe, although it has more than once had
to be relaxed in order to prevent the congre
gation from dying out altogether. The work
of the Passionist Fathers consists chiefly in
conducting missions and retreats, in preach
ing on the subject of Christ's Passion, on sin,
and on repentance, and In hearing confession.
The great ambition of Paul of the Cross
was the " conversion " of England. It was
not till 1842, however, that the congregation
was able to establish itself in this country
when the first English house was founded by
Father Dominic, the Italian Passionist, who
three years later received Newman into the
Roman Catholic Church. There are now five
houses in England, two in Ireland, and one
in Scotland ; while Great Britain and Ireland
form one of the nine provinces into which the
whole congregation is divided. [J. C. L.]

PASTORAL STAFF, CROSIER or

CROZIER. — The pastoral staff is a tall staff of
metal or wood, ornamented, curved at top and
pointed at lower end, emblematic of episcopal
office, and styled pastoral because of its resem
blance to a shepherd's crook. ' ' It bears a double
significance : with one end you urge on the lag
gard and rouse the slothful ; the other, is the
pastoral crook with which you reclaim the
erring and the wanderer" (Mr. J. G. Hubbard,
M.P., to Bishop S. Wilberforce, 1866). So the

PASTORAL STAFF

PASTORAL STAFF

mediaeval line : " Curva trahit mites pars pungit
acuta rebelles." Also, as quoted by Gavantus,
" Curva trahit quos dextra regit ; pars ultima
pungit." Hence also the Roman form of
investiture: "Accipe baculum pastoralis
officii : ut sis in corrigendis vitiis pie sasviens,
judicium sine iratenens, in fovendis virtutibus
auditorum animos demulcens, in tranquilitate
severitatis censuram non deserens. Amen."
The presence of this form of investiture in the
Roman ritual and the absence of all such from
the Anglican, prove how completely this
"symbol" is recognised by the one Church
and ignored by the other.

Its reception is a sign of investiture with the
jurisdiction which it symbolises ; its with
drawal, part of the form of deprivation ; its
being broken, a most solemn form of depriva
tion.

Pattern and Use. — Ancient examples and re
presentations show that the crooks were some
times barely curled, sometimes exceedingly
plain, sometimes very richly ornamented. The
staff is borne by the bishop (in the left hand ;
the right must be free to bless with), or by his
chaplain before him. It is carried with the
crook looking forwards in procession ; but when
held by the bishop himself the crook is " out
wards," denoting jurisdiction over a diocese.
All sorts of meanings have been assigned to
such points, which need not be detailed here.
An abbot frequently held his staff in the right
hand, always " the curved part turned inwards
to show that his jurisdiction was limited to
his monastery," &c. (Ptigin, Gloss., 191).

The staff's head in the Greek Church is of
the Tau form (not crook), and the transverse
bar's extremities are turned upwards (crutch).
Pugin says (Gloss., 191), " It is impossible to state
•with certainty the precise form of the early
pastoral staves, but they were probably much
shorter than those of the latter centuries, and
are terminated by a globular knob, or a Tau
cross," &c.

Crosier, or Crazier (from erocia, Med. Lat.),
the pastoral staff of an archbishop, terminates
in a cross (not crook or crutch), always floriated,
as that of a patriarch in a cross with two trans
verse bars, and that of a Pope with three. The
crozier is generally made of silver, sometimes of
gold, and richly jewelled, and usually has a
crucifix on each of its two sides. Should there
be but one crucifix, it is to be turned towards
the prelate. The archbishop is never to carry
his own cross. See Georgius, as quoted by
Pugin, for "reasons" why the Pope does not
use a pastoral staff. Its origin is certainly
heathen. In the Catholic Dictionary the earliest
ecclesiastical mention claimed for it is that by
Isidore of Seville (died 636). From the earliest
times every where a staff, generally straight, has

been the symbol of authority, whether of priest,
ruler, or judge. But in old bas-reliefs the
Roman augur's divining rod is a hooked staff
(lituus). " Now, so manifestly was the lituus
. . . identical with the pontifical crosier, that
Roman Catholic writers themselves, writing in
the Dark Ages . . . did not hesitate to use
the term ' lituus ' as a synonym for the
'crosier' ... As the Roman augur was dis
tinguished by his crooked rod, so the Chaldsean
soothsayers and priests," &c. See Hislop's
Two Babylons, chap. vi. sect. i. for references
and for illustrations of the use of this symbol
among heathen peoples — Thibet, Japan, &c.,
even to this day.

It should be noted that in the English re
formed Ordinal the delivery of the staff to a
bishop was struck out. At Archbishop Parker's
consecration no pastoral staff was delivered to
him. As to the re-introduction of this mediaeval
symbol the following facts may be noted :
1847, Radley College, Berks (Sacerdotal), was
founded this year. Thenceforward a pastoral
staff was borne before the Bishop of Oxford,
u-ithin the College, as visitor. 1848, "The
Bishop of Oxford has used a pastoral staff in
his Chapel since . . . 1848 " (Church News, May 6,
1867). 1858, First public exhibition, by Bishop
Gray of Capetown, when he visited the village
of Hawksworth, Notts. 1863, An English bishop
first owned a pastoral staff for diocesan use;
inscribed : " Samueli Episcopo Oxoniensi et eius
successoribus, D.D. Laicus Fidelis, 1863 ; height,
six feet eleven inches ; weight, eight pounds
one ounce. At first it was used only on special
occasions, or when requested by the ritualistic
or more obliging clergy, and did not supersede
the use of the legal or official mace, as it has
since done in several dioceses. Two Irish
bishops exhibit the " ornament " as yet only
to congregations among whom no "aggrieved
parishioner " is expected to protest. Shortly
before his resignation, Archbishop Trench
(Dublin) prevented the presentation of a crosier
to himself on the ground of loyalty to Canon
39 in the Irish Prayer Book.

Of all the symbols discarded at the Reforma
tion, next to the mitre alone, the pastoral staff
seems the most indispensable emblem of epis
copal sacerdotal authority in the Roman Church
Its use, especially in an Established Church,
involves a principle antagonistic to civil
liberty and Protestant ascendancy. Its super
session of the mace or verge, which has been
the only legal symbol of official pre-eminence
and which is borne by a layman in token of
jurisdiction in temporals and spirituals, is em
blematic of a renewal of the ancient struggle
between the mitre and the King's crown,
between Ecclesiastical Usurpation and Royal
Supremacy.

PATEN

[ 500 ]

PECTORAL CROSS

Students should note that the titles Pastoral
Staff and Crozier are used indiscriminately by
various writers ; nor is this confusion limited
to writers. Thus, Archbishop de Gray's
effigy at York (1225), has a crook-head staff,
whilst Archbishop Harsnett (1631), in his brass
at Chigwell, Essex, is represented with a
pastoral staff instead of a crosier.

[T. C. O'C.]

PATEN. — Paten (Lat. patina or patena, a flat
dish) is an ecclesiastical term denoting the
plate employed for the bread or wafers in the
Eucharist. Patens are commonly of silver, but
sometimes of gold, alabaster, and other sub
stances, and are adorned with chasings or
carvings appropriate to their sacred use. In
the Roman Catholic Church the paten must be
of the same material as the accompanying
chalice, and both must be consecrated by the
bishop. [J. C. L.]

PATER NOSTER.— The opening words of the
Lord's Prayer in Latin (see LORD' PRAYEE).
The Lord's Prayer forms a constituent part
of all the ancient Liturgies (see LITURGIES,
ANCIENT), except that set forth in the so-
called Apostolical Constitutions (see APOSTOLI
CAL CONSTITUTIONS). The prayer is con
stantly repeated by Roman Catholics in their
Rosary, which form recited on beads opens with
that prayer followed by a Gloria. There are
in that form fifteen decades of Ave Marias (see
AVE MARIA).

PATRIARCH.— In the early Church "patri
arch " was the official name of the bishops of
the metropolitan sees of Rome, Constantinople,
Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, who had
jurisdiction over all the other bishops in
their provinces. Since the Great Schism, the
Greek Church has maintained in their position
of privilege the patriarchates of Constantinople,
Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. As the
head of the Western Church, Rome avoided
the appearance of equality involved in the
name patriarch, and adopted for its bishop the
designation of papa or Pope. She allows,
however, to several of her dignitaries the
purely honorary title of patriarch ; thus the
present Pope, Pius X., was Patriarch of Venice
at the time of his election to the throne.

[J. C. L.]

PATRICK, ST.— See IRISH CHURCH.

PAULICIANS. — The Paulicians were a sect
of Christians who took their rise in the middle
of the seventh century, and are too often put
down by Church historians as holding Gnostic
views. Their own statement was that they were
followers of a Christian who, after he had
become possessed, from an Armenian monk, of
.a copy of the gospels and writings of St. Paul,
styled himself Paidicos, or a Disciple of Paul.
The early historians have impeached the honesty

of this man, who (like Augustine) held at one
time Manichsean views, but who, it is admitted,
cast aside the Manichsean writings when he be
came acquainted with those of St. Paul. The
charges of Manichaeism against the Paulicians
are also at variance with the facts recorded by
the early writers such as Petrus Siculus, Photius,
and Cedrenus, and even with the Formula of
Abjuration for converts from the sect, which
was used in the professedly " Catholic " Church
of | the period and after. There has been too
much disposition on the part of many writers
on Church history to accept as true charges
made by ancient historians who were in
sympathy with the " Catholic Church " of those
days, and, as in the case of the Montanists,
certain periods of Church history require to be
reconsidered and re-written. See MONTANISM-
The prevalent party in the Church of that day
looked with hatred upon those who advocated
a return to a simpler form of worship, and to
more pure doctrine than was common in their
day ; and, as we often find in the present day,
were disposed to believe anything bad of those
opposed to them. Hence it is unfair to
assume that the description of sects of
Christians given by those who opposed these
separatists is correct, while the charges
brought against the Paulicians have been
clearly shown by Rev. E. B. Elliott in the
second volume of his Horce Apocalypticce to be
either utterly baseless, or grossly exaggerated.
Mr. Elliott's book, though full of real learning,
is too often cast aside without examination,
because many writers, opposed to his theories
of Apocalyptic interpretation, have been un
aware of the uncommon research that is ex
hibited in many portions of his work on
historical subjects. German writers on Church
history seem to be completely unacquainted
with his great book. The Paulicians opposed all
invocation and worship of the saints : their
views on the question of justification and other
kindred subjects are of a strong Protestant
type. Gibbon's account of the sect has been
shown by Elliott to be misleading. Elliott's
excursus on the statements of the earliest
writers who mention the sect is most im
portant. See EASTERN CHURCHES, Armenians.

[C. H. H. W.]

PAX DOMINI.— "The peace of the Lord."
These words form part of the Latin form of
the Roman "Mass."

PECTORAL CROSS (Lat. pectoralis, per
taining to the breast). — A small cross of
costly material, worn by bishops and abbots as
a sign of their office, and occasionally by
canons and other ecclesiastics to whom the
privilege has been granted by the Pope (Deer.
Sac. Kit. Congr., 17 Sept. 1828). It is worn
suspended from the neck and lying on the breast.

PELAGIANISM

[ 501 ]

PELAGIANISM

It used also to be worn, especially in the East,
by high State officials among the insignia of
their office. As one of the episcopal insignia
it is not known to have been clearly mentioned
by any author before Innocent III. (Gavantus,
P.I., tit. 2). The best known of such crosses
is that of Queen Dagmar (" the bright day ")
of Denmark (died 1213); on the breast of
whose remains it was found when her tomb
was opened in 1690. The Pectoral Cross has
not been known in the Church of England since
the Keformation till within the last decade or
so. It is now worn by the two archbishops
and several bishops. [T. C. O'C.]

PELAGIANISM.— About the end of the fourth
century there came to Rome from the British
Isles a monk with the Graeco - Latinised
name Pelagins (probably from the Greek
9rAa7os, Latin, pelagus, the sea). To distin
guish him from another Pelagius, he was fre
quently described as Pelagius Brito ; and it
has commonly been assumed that he was a
Briton, and in particular a Welshman. But,
as Zimmer points out, the fact that Jerome,
who of all his contemporaries knew him best,
expressly calls him a Scot may be held as proof
that he was an Irishman ("Scots" being the
name of the Irish at that time) ; and this con
clusion is confirmed by the subsequent reputa
tion of Pelagius in Ireland, and by the fact,
witnessed to by the Wurzburg Glosses, that in
the eighth or ninth century, long after it had
disappeared from the rest of the Western
Church, the Commentary of Pelagius on the
Pauline Epistles existed in Ireland in an un-
mutilated form.

Partly through his familiarity with the
writings of the Greek apologists, who had laid
great stress on the freedom of the will, partly
through intercourse with the monk Rufinus,
and partly with the view of combating the low
tone of morality which prevailed in Rome and
was excused by the plea of human weakness.
Pelagius was led to take up a position of direct
antagonism to the teaching of the Latin theo
logians, and especially of Augustine, on the
subject of human depravity and the bondage
of the will. It was to furnish Scriptural
support for his views that he wrote his Com
mentary on the Pauline Epistles. But it was
the boldness of his disciple Coelestius, rather
than his own inclinations, that drew him into
what proved to be the greatest doctrinal con
troversy of the age. About 410 Pelagius crossed
over to Africa in company with Coelestius, and
there met Augustine himself. Augustine re
cognised his genuine goodness as well as his
great abilities, and describes him as "a man
of holy and most Christian life." But there
could be no intellectual sympathy between
two men who approached the problems of

Christianity from such opposite poles ; and it
was not long till Pelagius left Africa for
Palestine, where his opinions were more favour
ably received than in the West. After a time,
however, his peace was disturbed by Orosius,
a Spanish priest who came from Augustine to
warn Jerome against him ; and, after a bitter
controversy, continued for several years, Pela
gius was finally condemned by a largely at
tended African Council in 418, and denounced
and banished by a rescript of the Emperor
Honorius issued at Ravenna in the same year.
Of the place and date of his death nothing is
known.

The fundamental idea of Pelagius may be
found in his favourite maxim, "I ought, there
fore I can." In his view, Augustine's doctrine
of total depravity, and of the consequent
bondage of the will, cut the nerve of all human
effort. He insisted, accordingly, that man is
able to do all that God commands. In keep
ing with this, he denied original sin, hold
ing that since obligation implies ability, the
power of choosing the good exists after the
Fall precisely as before it. It is apparent that
these positions rest upon a theory of freedom
quite different from Augustine's. Augustine
believed in freedom in the ordinary actions of
life, but taught that in its highest form, as the
power to keep God's law, freedom is a lost gift
which only grace can restore. By freedom
Pelagius meant an equipoise of the will, which
enables us at any time, whatever our previous
history may have been, to choose between the
evil and the good.

It follows from this that Pelagius depreciated
the influence of grace, which Augustine had
magnified. He did not deny grace, but thought
of it as something external (opportunity, means
of grace, &c.), and as only assisting us to do
what we could accomplish without it ; while
lie always ascribed to the will itself the deter
mining moment of salvation. To Augustine
this was a denial of the very genius of Chris
tianity which is essentially a religion of grace
— grace not merely as an outward aid, but
as the direct cause of repentance and con
version.

Semi-Pelagianism. — Augustine was successful
in showing the errors of Pelagius and his
school, but not so successful in recommending
his own system. From the first there were
those who disliked his rigourism quite as much
as the optimistic anthropology of his opponent ;
and a Semi-Pelagian party grew up, of which
Faustus is a distinguished representative, which
sought a middle path, and made regeneration
a work of co-operation between the human and
the divine will. For a time Semi-Pelagianism
was widely prevalent ; but the radical denial
of the absolute sovereignty of grace was fatal

PENANCE

[ 502 ]

PENANCE

to its success, and it was formally repudiated
at the Synods of Orange and Valence in 529.
The defeat of Pelagianism in all its form
was doubtless due to the fact that it failed
to grasp the deepest truths of the Christian
Gospel. But the victory of Augustinianism
was not an unqualified blessing. However
Pelagius may have erred in doctrine, his ori
ginal motive was ethical and pure ; he desired
to raise a protest against the growing dis
position to trust in churchly professions and
observances, to the neglect of Christian char
acter. There can be little question that the
complete overthrow of his opinions fostered
the steadily increasing tendencies to sacer
dotalism. It weakened the sense of individual
responsibility, and threw men more than ever
upon the Church, with her priesthood and
sacraments, as the one depositary of the grace
which is necessary for salvation.

Authorities. — Besides the usual historical and
doctrinal sources, reference should be made to
Olden's The Holy Scriptures in Ireland One
Thousand Years Ago, which deals with the evi
dence of the Wiirzburg Glosses, and especially
to Zimmer's recent work, Pelagius in Mand,
and his article, " Keltische Kirche" in vol. x.
of the Hauck-Herzog Realencyklopadie.

[J. C. L.]

PENANCE.— A more or less painful exercise,
imposed by a priest on a so-called penitent,
making satisfaction to God for the sins that
he has confessed and for which he has re
ceived absolution.

It was long before the word ' ' penance " came
to bear the above meaning. Posnitentiam agere
meant originally "to be penitent or sorry,"
but whether by mistake or wilfully, it came to
be translated "to do penance." See DOUAY
VKRSION. The difference was momentous, for
thus external acts were substituted for the
feelings of the heart. But even after that
declination from spirituality had occurred, the
idea of satisfying God's wrath or justice was
for centuries alien from the notion of penance.
In the earliest ages men guilty of great sins
were excluded from communion. As long as
they were thus excluded they were regarded
as being in a state of penitence or penance.
No rules were laid down at first as to the
length of time that this penitential state was
to last ; that was left to the penitent himself.
When his conscience assured him that he had
sufficiently deepened his sorrow by this de
privation of Christian privileges, he returned
humbly to take his place again among the
faithful, and he was gladly received by his
brethren, who by witnessing had been assured
of his contrition. By the fourth century this
system of dealing with transgressors, which
had spontaneously grown up, was organised.

The special sins which required exclusion
from communion were then enumerated, and
the penitence, changing into penance, became
rather a disciplinary rule of the Church than
the instinct of a contrite soul. The sins thus
designated were some ten or twelve, and ac
cording to the heinousness of the sin, a longer
or shorter exclusion from the Holy Communion
was imposed. Penitents were divided into
classes — weepers, hearers, kneelers, non-com
municating attendants, and according to the
judgment of the bishop, the offender was
placed in one or other of these classes, and
kept in penitence so many days or years, as
the disciplinary rules of the Church required.
Penitence now began to be something to be
done rather than something to be felt, but still
it consisted in being excluded from the Lord's
Table, and in doing the things that had to be
done by the whole of the class to which the
penitent was assigned, not in penances imposed
on individuals by the will of the bishop or
priest ; and the purpose with which the
penalties were inflicted was not to appease
God's anger or satisfy His justice by the trans
gressor's pain, but to deepen the repentance of
the sufferer, to assure the congregation which
witnessed his penance, of the reality of his
sorrow, and to obtain the prayers of the
brethren.

When private confession to the priest was
substituted for public confession to the con
gregation, a practice which began to spread
about A.D. 600, and was consummated and
made compulsory in 1215, and when first the
advisableness, then the necessity of confession
was extended from a definite list of trans
gressions to minor faults, and when the priest,
from being the representative of the congrega
tion and offering prayer for the transgressor,
became the representative of God bestowing
forgiveness upon him, the whole idea of
penance was changed. After the time of
Innocent III. the theory was, and is, that the
priest's absolution forgives the transgressor's
sin, and delivers him from eternal punishment,
but on the condition that the transgressor
shall still make satisfaction to God by the
endurance of some pain. What this pain shall
be, was, and is, left to the discretion of the
priest, who must, however, impose some pen
ance, heavy if the penitent seem likely to
perform it, light (such as beating the breast)
if he does not. Logically, the absolution, on
this theory, should be deferred till the penance
has been accomplished, and failure to perform
the penance should prevent the absolution
being given, or should vitiate it if already
granted. But instead of this the absolution
holds good, the transgressor having to work
out his unfinished penance in the imaginary

PENANCE

[ 503 ]

PENITENTIALS

realm of Purgatory, unless he has secured a
plenary indulgence for the hour of his death,
which wipes off his dues, or unless he is
bought out of Purgatory by Masses for his
soul, or by an indulgence specially applied to
him by a friend who has earned it for the
purpose.

No one understood more thoroughly the
bearing of the doctrine of penance than our
great theologian Hooker. "It is not to be
marvelled that so great a difference appeareth
between the doctrine of Rome and ours when
we teach repentance. They imply in the name
of repentance much more than we do. We
stand chiefly upon the true inward conversion
of the heart ; they more upon works of ex
ternal show. We teach above all things that
repentance which is one and the same from
the beginning to the world's end ; they, a
sacramental penance of their own devising
and shaping. We labour to instruct men in
such sort that every soul which is wounded
with sin may learn the way how to cure itself ;
they, clean contrary, would make all sores
seem incurable unless the priest has a hand
in them."

" As for the inventors of sacramental satis
faction, they have both altered the natural
order heretofore kept in the Church, by bring
ing in a strange and preposterous course, to
absolve before satisfaction be made, and more
over, by their own misordered practice are
grown into sundry errors concerning the end
whereunto it is referred. They imagine beyond
nil conceit (imagination) of antiquity, that
when God doth remit sin and the punishment
eternal thereunto belonging, He reserveth the
torments of hell-fire to be nevertheless endured
for a time" (the fire of Purgatory being re
garded as equal in intensity to that of hell),
"either shorter or longer, according to the
quality of men's crimes. Yet so that there is
between God and man a certain composition
(as it were), a contract, by virtue whereof
works assigned by the priest to be done after
absolution shall satisfy God, as touching the
punishment which He otherwise would inflict
for sins pardoned and forgiven. ... If a
person depart this life the debt of satisfaction
being either in whole or in part undischarged,
they steadfastly hold that the soul must remain
in unspeakable torments till all be paid. There
fore for help and mitigation in this case they
advise men to set certain copesmates on work,
whose prayers and sacrifices may satisfy God
for such souls as depart in debt. Hence have
arisen the infinite pensions of their priests,
the building of so many altars and tombs, the
enriching of churches so with many costly
gifts, the bequeathing of lands and ample
possessions to religious companies, even with

utter forgetfulness of friends, parents, wife,
children, all natural affections giving place
unto that desire which men doubtful of their
own estate have, to deliver their souls from
torment after death. Yet behold, even this
being also done, how far forth it shall avail,
they are not sure ; and therefore the last up
shot unto all their former inventions is, that
as every action of Christ did both merit for
Himself and satisfy partly for the eternal and
partly for the temporal punishment due unto
men for sin ; so His saints have obtained the
like privilege of grace, making every good
work they do not only meritorious in their own
behalf, but satisfactory too for the benefit of
others. Or if having at any time grievously
sinned, they do more to satisfy God than He
in justice can exact or look for at their hands,
the surplusage runneth to a common stock out
of which treasury they hold God satisfied for
such arrearages as men behind in their account
discharge not by other means .... So that by
this postern-gate cometh in the whole mart of
papal indulgences; a gain inestimable unto
him, to others a spoil ; a scorn both to God
and man. So many works of satisfaction pre
tended to be done by Christ, by saints and
martyrs ; so many virtuous acts possessed with
satisfactory force and virtue ; so many super
erogations in satisfying beyond the exigence of
their own necessity ; and this that the Pope
might make a monopoly of all, turning all to
his own gain, or at least to the gain of them
which are his own. Such facility they have
to convert a pretended sacrament into a true
revenue " (Ecd. Pol., vi. 5, 9).

Mr. Staley in his Catholic Religion misrepre
sents St. Augustine when he quotes him as
saying that sins are forgiven by baptism,
prayer, and penance, and that " by penance he
refers to Sacramental Confession with a view
to gaining Absolution" (p. 214). That is not
true. Augustine's teaching (Enchir., 71 ; De
Symb., i. 7 ; De Fide, 26), like that of Chry-
sostom, and all the earlier Fathers, is that sins
are forgiven at baptism and after that by
simple prayer for pardon, except only in case
of certain specified great transgressions, when
the offender had to confess his sin before the
congregation, not for the purpose of absolu
tion, but to exhibit his repentance to the
scandalised congregation, and to get their
prayers with a view to being restored to com
munion. That the " Sacrament " of Penance
"was instituted by Christ" (ibid. p. 264) is
also untrue. [F. M.]

PENITENTIALS.— Penitentials, or books of
penitence (Libri Posnitentiales), appear to have
originated in the Irish Church. In their earli
est form, as represented, for example, by the
Confession of Sins discovered at Angers and

PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS [ 504 ] PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS

attributed to St. Patrick (see Dr. Charles
H. H. Wright's Writings of St. Patrick in
Christian Classics Series), they were simply de
signed to help a penitent to make adequate
confession to God, the idea of auricular con
fession being entirely absent. But with the
growth of the practice of private confession
and the substitution of the idea of penance
for that of penitence, the Penitential became
a book for the guidance, not of the penitent,
but of the priest, in which rules were laid
down for the punishments to be imposed before
absolution was granted. The extant fragments
of the Liber Davidis and the so-called Canones
Patricii are examples of Penitentials in this
technical sense ; but above all the manual
bearing the name of Theodore, Archbishop of
Canterbury (though not actually written by
him), which exercised great authority through
out Europe from the eighth to the twelfth cen
tury. At first these ecclesiastical Penitentials
were mere inventories of sins with appropriate
punishments attached, but gradually a founda
tion was laid for the elaborate casuistry which
came to be associated with the Confessional.
In particular, a system of " redemptions" was
devised, whereby fasting, for example, might
be " redeemed" by repeating a certain number
of psalms, or paying a fine, or even getting
other persons to fast in place of the culprit
himself. Such arrangements evidently implied
a total misconception of Christian discipline,
and encouraged a very external view of
morality. So serious were the actual abuses
that a reaction against penitential books sprang
up in Britain at a comparatively early period,
and spread to the Continent ; and a council
held in Paris in the ninth century even ordered
all such books to be burned. But the practice
of using them persisted, and new manuals
continued to appear, some of which, such as
that by Kabanus Maurus, Archbishop of
Mayence, enjoyed a very wide influence.
More than one of these manuals assumed the
name, Pcenitentiale Romanum ; but, in point of
fact, no Penitential was ever specially author
ised by the Roman Curia, although the con
fusions caused at first by the circulation of a
multitude of books with quite different rules
gave place to a measure of uniformity in the
discipline of the Confessional. [J. C. L.J
PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS.— By this
name are designated articles for self-chastise
ment used by Roman Catholics and Ritualists,
mainly as a result of their acceptance of the
theory of "satisfaction" as a part of the
sacrament of penance. See SATISFACTIONS.

The use of various external means for the
infliction of bodily pain, more or less severe,
was a prominent feature in the histories
of those monks and hermits who gave an im

petus to the monastic conception of holiness
in the fourth and following centuries, as well
as in the " lives " of mediaeval saints as related
in the Breviary and other Romish books of
devotion. The methods of self-torture seem
to have varied in accordance with the fancies
of each individual, and it may be assumed
that the practices of enthusiasts have set the
fashion in the matter
of the penitential in
struments employed.
Such instruments may
be readily purchased at
Roman Catholic book
sellers and vendors of
devotional and peni
tential articles. The
following describes a
few now in general
use, which are shown
in the accompanying
illustrations.

The Discipline (Fig. 1)
which is made either
of knotted cords or of
steel with sharp points.
"Sister Mary Agnes,"
in her book Nunnery
Life in the Church of
England, p. 97, speaks
of a discipline com
posed of " seven lashes
of knotted whipcord."
The late Dr. Pusey in
a letter to Mr. Hope-
Scott, Q.C., Sept. 9,
1844, desired him to
"procure and send by
B." a Discipline " of a
very sacred character ;
five cords, each with
five knots, in memory
of the five wounds of
our Lord " (Fig. 2) ( Me
moirs of J. R. Hope-
Scott, vol. ii. p. 52) ;
while F. W. Faber FlG-

speaks of "St. Rose
of Lima " not being
content with a common sort of Discipline,
she made one for herself of two iron chains
(Saints and Servants of God; Hose of Liina,
ch. v.).

Hair Shirts are worn of different patterns.
Some are made of horsehair, crocheted or
knitted so as to leave hard ridges, and all over
covered with ends of horsehair. They may be
had with or without sleeves, and are worn
next the body, like an undervest. They are
largely made in convents.

Crosses, hearts, armlets, wristlets, cinctures and

PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS [ 505 ] PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS

anMete(Figs.3,4,5) with "sharp points," accord
ing to the directions of " St." Alphonsus Liguori
may be worn on the arms, thighs, shoulders,
wrists, and ankles of penitents (True Spouse of
Christ, Benziger Bros., 1883, vol. i. p. 244).

sharper sort. ... I think I should like to be
bid to use the Discipline " (Life ofPusey, vol. iii.
p. 100). "Sister Mary Agnes," in the book
already quoted, gives a detailed account of the
use of the discipline, and says : " The Mother

FIG 2.— PUSEY'S "DISCIPLINE."

These penitential instruments are strongly
recommended by teachers of the highest
authority with the full sanction of the Eoman
Church. Among Ritualists they are recom
mended by Dr. Pusey's teaching and example.
In support of the former statement we may
cite St. Alphonsus Liguori, who, in The True
Spouse of Christ (Benziger Bros., 1888, vol. i.
pp. 244, 245), urges nuns, among other dis
ciplinary practices, to wear a small band of
iron round the loins from morning till the
hour of dinner, and offers for their emulation
D. Sancia Correglio, who "wore a shirt of
coarse hair which reached from the neck to
the knees," and St. Rose of Lima, who " used
a long hair shirt interwoven with needles, and
carried a broad iron chain round her loins."
Liguori also quotes the strong recommenda
tions of St. Francis de Sales to the " religious "
to use these articles.

Ritualist writers have not as yet recom
mended the use of penitential instruments to
the same extent as Romanists, but they are
used, especially in convents, and by the more
ascetic and seminarised of the clergy. Writing
to Keble (his father confessor) in 1846, the late
Dr. Pusey said : "I am a great coward about
inflicting pain on myself, partly, I hope, from

FIG. 3.— SINGLE WRISTLET.

derangement of my nervous system ; hair cloth
I know not how to make pain ; it is only
symbolical, except when worn to an extent
which seemed to wear me out. 7 have it on
again, by God's mercy. I would try to get some

then ordered the nun to say the "Miserere,"
and while it was being recited she lashed me
several times with all her strength. I was
determined not to utter a sound, but at last I
could not restrain a smothered groan, whereat
she gave me one last and cruel lash, and then
ceased. . . . Three weeks after she had dis
ciplined me, I had a very sore back, and it
hurt me greatly to lie on it (our bed was straw
put into sacks). . . . My back was black, blue,
and green all over."

In two pamphlets,1 which have had a wide

FIG. 4. — DOUBLI; WRISTLET.

circulation, it is asserted on the authority of
salesmen at the shops where these articles are
sold that " the principal customers were " not
Romanists but "English Ritualists, who some
times bought them in large quantities ; " and,
"For every one he sold to a (R) Catholic he
sold three to Church of England people."

The extract given above from Nunnery Life in
the Church of England shows that these peniten
tial instruments are not always self-inflicted,
and there is no doubt that they are used also as
instruments of punishment. In his True Spouse
of Christ, "vol. i. p. 30, "St. "Alphonsus Liguori
gives the following directions to Superiors
of nunneries: "Rule 2. 'No religious . . .
shall eat outside the refectory without a grave

1 The Fashionable Torture Instruments of the
Ritualists, Church Association. Instruments of
Torture, Protestant Alliance.

PENTECOST

[ 506 ]

PENTECOST

necessity, and without the permission of the
Mother. If any one offends in the point she
shall be severely punished by
the Abbess according to the
gravity of the fault that she
has committed.' Rule 3.
'The religious that disturbs
silence should be punished,
and should the fault be grave,
let her be punished with the
discipline.' " And again :
"Very great was the sorrow
I felt in reading your letter
that one of the lay-sisters,
after having abused a choir
nun and resisted her, has
had the temerity to break
the enclosure, and to go out
on the public road. The
lay-sister has, therefore, in
curred excommunication, and
I have not the power to ab
solve her. . . . Such scan
dalous behaviour merits a
very severe chastisement,
for the purpose either of
checking the diabolical bold
ness of the sister, or of mak
ing her serve as an example
to the others."

Protestants reject the use
of such articles, and of all
self - inflicted chastisement,
on the grounds that it is
impossible for man to ap
pease the wrath of God by
bodily austerities ; that to
assert such a doctrine is to
deny in effect the doctrine
of justification by faith only
in the finished work of Christ,
and to degrade the concep
tion of Almighty God as
revealed in Holy Scripture.
[W. A. L.]

PENTECOST.— A solemn
festival of the Jews, so called
because it was celebrated
fifty days after the Feast of
the Passover (in Greek pente-
costos means fiftieth). It
corresponds to our Whit
suntide, one of the great
festivals of the Christian
Church, commemorative of
the descent of the Holy Ghost
on the day of Pentecost.
Professor Skeat traces the
term Whit or White Sunday
to the Old English Hivita
Sunna Daerj. This accords with the custom
in the early Church that the candidates for

FIG. 5. — ANKLET.

baptism wore white garments, and that this
Sunday and Easter were especial days for
baptism. It should be noted
that we must not count
fifty days from the very day
of the Passover, but from the
Sunday following, for God so
directed the Jews, speaking
of their Pentecost, or Feast
of Weeks (see Lev. xxiii. 15).
In the Book of Common
Prayer of the Church of
England the service for this
festival, as for other great
festivals, is remarkable for
the large portions of Holy
Scripture read. The first
lesson for the morning con
tains the law of the Jewish
Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks,
which was a type of ours,
for as the law was at this
time given to the Jews from
Mount Sinai, so also the
Christians upon this day re
ceived the new Evangelical
Law from heaven by the
descent of the Holy Ghost.
The first lesson for the even
ing is a prophecy of the con
version of the Gentiles to the
kingdom of Christ through
the inspiration of the apostles
by the Spirit of God, the
completion of which pro
phecy is recorded in both the
second lessons, but especially
in the portion of Scripture for
the Epistle, which contains a
particular description of the
first wonderful descent of the
Holy Ghost upon the apostles.
And in this respect there is
reason to believe that the
English Church conforms far
more closely to the practice
of the Early Church than do
either the Greek or Romish
Church, which find more room
for gorgeous ritual and cere
mony, and the words of men,
than for the Word of God ;
and for prayers, not only un
known to the early Christian
Church, but utterly opposed
to its practice and to the
teaching of God's Word. In
the Church of Rome, accord
ing to the Catholic Dictionary,
the celebration of Pentecost
is preceded by a Fast and Vigil, after which
"Indulgence begins," that is, "a remission,

PERFECTION, COUNSELS OF [ 507 ] PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

granted by the Church to those who are free
from the guilt of all mortal sin, of the whole,
or of a part, of the temporal punishment due
for sins already forgiven." It is regarded as a
"double first-class Festival" with an octave.
According to the Ritual Notes on the Order of
Divine Service, one of the text-books of the
advanced Ritualists, published by Messrs
Mowbray at Oxford, the vestments and the
order of " the High Celebration of the Holy
Eucharist," and the Whitsun service generally,
with its incense, is a studied imitation of the
Romish ceremonial, even to " the Red, the
colour of the Octave;" while amongst the
hymns selected for Whitsun Eve and Whitsun
Matins to the following Saturday inclusive are,
Christus astro, ascenderat, or Beata nobis Gaudia.
"Whitsun Day," it is said, "and its octave
are precisely of the same rank and have the
same privileges (indulgences) as the octave of
Easter, and should therefore be observed in
a similar manner."

It is admitted by the most recent authority
on the Roman Catholic side, Monsignor L.
Duchesne, that " only in the part which pre
cedes the benediction of the baptismal water
does the Romish office for Whitsuntide con
form to the type of the early Church," which,
there is reason to believe, was simple. Again,
according to Tertullian, the whole of the fifty
days from Easter to Whitsuntide were origin
ally observed as a festival, and therefore there
was no fast or vigil before Pentecost, as pre
scribed by the Church of Rome. There can
be little doubt but that the "Indulgences"
allowed by the unreformed Church led to the
grossest excesses, to superstition, to immorality
and irreverence at the celebration of this
festival. The Reformation in England happily
swept away most of these, such as Whitsun
Ales, morris dances, drunken revelry, games,
gambling, pageants, such as the King's Play.
For an account of the superstitions connected
with Whitsunday before the Reformation, see
Barnaby Googe's translation of Naogeorgus,
in Brand's Popular Antiquities of Great Britain,
vol. i. On the Continent many vestiges of the
superstitions and irreverent celebration of
Whitsunday still exist, as at Naples at the
Festa di Monte Vergine, which lasts for three
days and consists of a number of merry-makers
who dance with flowers around the picture of
the Madonna. See Wheatley on the Book of
Common Prayer ; Blunt's Theological Dictionary ;
Catholic Directory, and the Ritualistic Manuals.

[T. H. L. L.]

PERFECTION, COUNSELS OF.— SeeEvAN-
GELICAL COUNSELS.

PERFECTION, SINLESS.— See SINLESS
PERFECTION.

PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL).— Persecution

may be defined to be persistent oppression
inflicted by the stronger on the weaker for
refusing to conform to an established principle
or principles. The definition can be shown
to be true of every species of persecution, but
this article is concerned only with religious
persecution.

Political expediency desires uniformity in
religious belief and observance within the
State, since the propagation of new ideas re
specting faith and morals is certain in the end
to bring about political complications. Hence
religious persecution has been practised mainly
to protect or to promote political interests, and
hence its origin is to be traced to sources in
dependent of Christian institutions. There
would have been religious persecution had
the Christian Church never existed.

The early Christian Church conquered foes
without by patient endurance of suffering.
This noble attitude she belied in the moment
of victory by invoking the arm of flesh to aid
her to crush foes within who threatened to
undermine the Faith. She sought to vindicate
spiritual truths by means of temporal laws.
Heresy became equivalent to treason, and
was punished with similar penalties. The
presidency of the Emperor Constantine over
the Council of Nicsea, A.D. 325, completed the
triumph of the Christian Church over Imperial
persecution. The Nicene Canons forthwith
were converted by Constantine into civil laws ;
the Emperor next banished Arius ; the State
enacted penalties against Arian heretics, and
this policy received the cordial approval of
the leading ecclesiastics. Successive emperors
continued the policy of enforcing the obser
vance of the Canons of the Church by civil
laws, and thus was established the deplorable
practice of the persecution of Christians by
Christians for doctrinal differences. Priscillian,
a Spanish bishop who suffered death at Treves,
A.D. 384, was the first notable martyr to
sectarian persecution based on the precedent
established by Constantine. Priscillian had
been accused of reviving Manichaean and
Gnostic doctrines.

In A.D. 378, with the approval of the
Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II., the
title Pontifex Maximus, or Supreme Pontiff,
hitherto borne by the Emperor of Rome, was
transferred to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, and
to his successors. In 606 Pope Boniface III.
persuaded the Emperor Phocas to proclaim
him the Universal Patriarch of the Christian
world. In 755 Pepin, King of the Franks,
and father of the great Charlemagne, laid upon
the altar of St. Peter the keys of Ravenna and
other towns that he had captured from the
Lombards. Within the next few centuries the
Papacy steadily achieved a general recognition

PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL) [ 508 ] PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

of her claims to be supreme in both spiritual
and temporal matters, until the Bull of Pope
Boniface VIII., issued Nov. 1302, and known
as the Unam Sanctam, proclaimed that
both the spiritual and material sword are in
the power of the Church (the Papacy) ; and
that it was altogether necessary to salvation
that every human creature should be subject
to the Roman Pontiff. The zenith of Papal
power extended from the accession of Innocent
III., A.D. 1198, to the death of Boniface VIIL,
A.D. 1303.

While thus contending for universal) super-
macy, the Papacy took care to provide for the
preservation of her system. Secular interests
were now paramount with the Pope and Curia ;
consequently, the preservation of the system
became all-important to them. Heresy seemed
to be the most dangerous foe ; therefore they
must purge the Church at all costs from this
noxious leaven, lest it should compass her
ruin. The penal clauses directed originally
against the Manichsean heretics, and contained
in the legal Codes of the Eastern Roman
Emperors, Theodosius II. and Justinian I.,
which were published A.D. 438 and 529 re
spectively, provided the Papacy with valuable
material for the purpose. They formed the
basis of many subsequent Canons and Bulls
directed against heretics.

The various ecclesiastical and civil laws
passed by Popes, Councils, Emperors, and
Kings against heretics, may be grouped under
the three following heads: (1) Laws passed
to prevent members of the Roman Catholic
Church from falling into heresy. (2) Laws
passed to facilitate the discovery of heretics,
their favourers, and such as are suspected to
be heretics. (3) Laws passed to regulate the
punishment of heretics, and to compel the
prompt execution of the punishments en
acted.

The following may be considered to be the
principal Papal Councils that decreed Canons
condemning heretics, and commanding their
punishment: (1) Third Lateran, or Eleventh
(Ecumenical Council, March 1179, Alexander
III. (27th Canon condemned the Albigenses).
(2) Council of Verona, August 1184, Lucius III.
(condemned heretics ; ordered bishops to hunt
out heretics). (3) Fourth Lateran, or Twelfth
(Ecumenical Council, Nov. 1215, Innocent III.
(Canon 3 gave directions how to punish heretics.
Princes who refused to punish heretics were
threatened with excommunication. Transub-
stantiation and auricular confession were en
forced by the 1st Canon). (4) Fourth Council
of Toulouse, Sept. 1229 (passed many Canons
against heresy and heretics ; the latter to be
hunted down strenuously. Laity forbidden to
read Old Testament or New Testament Books,

save the Psalter). (5) Fifth Council of Nar-
bonne, 1235, and (6) Second Council of Beziers,
1246 (passed Canons giving directions concern
ing trial and punishment of heretics, which
formed the basis of the order of proceedings
subsequently observed by the Inquisition
tribunals). (7) Council of Aries, July 1234,
(passed several Canons condemning the Albi
genses and Waldenses). (8) Council of Con
stance, or Seventeenth (Ecumenical Council,
1414-18, John XXIII. and Martin V. (sen
tenced John Huss and Jerome of Prague to
the stake, and condemned John Wyckliffe's
teaching). (9) Council of Trent, or Twentieth
(Ecumenical Council, Dec. 1545 to Jan. 1564,
Paul III. and Julius III. (condemned teaching
of Luther, Calvin, Zwingle ; anathematised
heretics, and perpetuated separation of Pro
testant from Roman Catholic Church).

The assemblage of some 200,000 warriors
gathered from every quarter of Christendom,
A.D. 1096, for the First Crusade, and their
embarkation for the Holy Land to rescue
Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre from the
grasp of the profane Saracen — mark an impor
tant stage in the history of Papal persecution.
It is the first instance of the despatch of armed
forces under Papal auspices to fight what
were declared to be the Church's battles ;
and it created a precedent for future aggres
sive warfare in the interests of the Papacy.
The impassioned exhortations of Peter Gautier,
a native of Amiens, and better known as Peter
the Hermit, had drawn together this hetero
geneous host. Pope Urban II. granted the
mission his warmest support. He proclaimed
the Hermit to be a chosen messenger of God.
He convened a Council at Placentia in Italy —
adjourned to Clermont in France, A.D. 1095
— principally to commend the Mission to the
assembled prelates, princes, and thronging
spectators. He promised plenary indul
gence to all who should embark with the
sacred host, and the glory of martyrdom in
addition to all who should perish in the holy
war. Conspicuous among examples of aggres
sive warfare afterwards waged in the spirit
of the Crusades, to promote Papal interests,
may be mentioned the campaign conducted
in the Netherlands by the Duke of Alva,
A.D. 1567-73, and the equipment and de
spatch of the great Spanish Armada against
England by Philip II. of Spain, A.D. 1587-88.

Another notable " crusade " was the cam
paign against the Albigenses, the greater
number of whom inhabited the province of
Languedoc in southern France (see ALBIG
ENSES). The assassination of Peter of Castelnau
in Jan. 1208, had prompted Pope Innocent III.
to command this punitive campaign to be
undertaken. Simon de Montfort, a Count of

PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL) [ 509 ] PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

France, an English Earl, and father of the
Simon de Montfort so celebrated in English
history — carried on the war with singular
ferocity from 1208 till his death in 1218. He
and the Papal representatives spared neither
age nor sex. The victims are said to have
numbered 30,000 people. The establishment
of a branch of the Inquisition in Languedoc,
A.D. 1229, completed the extermination of the
Albigenses as a religious community. Louis
VIII. of France and his son, Louis IX., were
glad to send troops to help to conquer this in
dependent French province. Their services
were rewarded by the annexation of Languedoc
to the French crown in 1229, during the
reign of Louis IX.

Towards the close of the twelfth century
the Papacy discovered a new weapon with
which to combat heresy. The 16th Canon
of the Third Lateran Council, A.D. 1179, de
clared that, "Oaths made against the interest
and benefit of the Church are to be considered
perjuries rather than oaths." L The Fourth
Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, in its 3rd Canon
absolved the subjects of "heretical" princes
from their allegiance ; and the Council of
Constance, A.D. 1414-18, confirmed the prohibi
tion to keep faith with heretics in the following
emphatic terms : " By no law, natural or divine,
is it obligatory to keep faith with heretics, to
the prejudice of the Catholic Faith." 2 One of
the first to suffer under the full development of
this principle was John Huss, who was burned
at Constance in 1415, although he had come
to the Council protected with safe-conducts
signed respectively by his sovereign, King
Wenceslaus, and by the Emperor Sigismund
of Germany.

In the early Christian Church the power to
exercise discipline belonged to the presbytery.
In course of time this power was assumed by
the bishops, who continued to exercise it
without interference, for the suppression of
heresy, till about A.D. 1229, when the Pope and
Curia founded the Inquisition, or Holy Office.
By about A.D. 1273, the Vatican had developed
this institution into a central organisation
armed with large powers for suppressing
heresy. This new step was very important.
It indicated that persecution for heresy had
been transformed from a practice hitherto
adopted principally by the more ardent Roman
Catholics, into an axiom of Papal administra-

1 " Non enim dicenda sunt iuramenta, sed
potius periuria, quae contra utilitatem ec-
clesiasticum et sanctorum patrum veniunt in-
stituta. "

2 " Nee aliqua sibi fides, aut promissio de iure
naturali, divino, et humano fuerit in preiudicium
•Catholicae Fidei observanda."

tion, into a Vatican decree commanded to be
obeyed by all ecclesiastical and civil rulers.3
Henceforth the Papacy, in her official capacity,
undertook the responsibility of inflicting on
heretics, by means of the secular authorities
when necessary, deprivation of civil rights,
confiscation of property, imprisonment, torture,
death. In very many cases death was the
penalty inflicted, whether the offence had
been an apostasy or a difference concerning
a minor point. Innocent III. is credited
with having proclaimed that the opinion
that oaths were unlawful was a heresy worthy
of death.4

The view commonly adopted that Dominic
of Castile, the founder of the Dominican Order
of Preaching Friars, was commissioned by
Innocent III. to organise the Holy Office, is
questioned by Henry Charles Lea, a recognised
authority.5 There is no doubt, on the other
hand, that the earliest Inquisitors, properly so
called, were Dominicans ; and that Dominicans
maintained, during many centuries, a close
connection with the working of the Inquisition.
Moreover, Thomas de Torquemada, the first
Inquisitor-general of the Inquisition in Spain,
was a Dominican Prior. Successive Popes took
care to select those agents who were reputed
to be most likely to succeed in accomplishing
any particular mission, and they usually,
though not invariably, chose Dominicans to
do the work of the Holy Office. The chief
control of the Inquisition was never permitted
to lapse into the hands of the Religious Orders,
but was retained by the Pope and Curia.
The initiation, gradual development, and ex
pansion of the Inquisition occurred under
the pontificates of Innocent III. (1198-1216),
Gregory IX. (1227-41), Innocent IV. (1243-54),
and Alexander IV. (1254-61).

The bishops soon showed resentment at
what they felt to be an intrusion into their
prerogative of maintaining discipline. Several
times during the fifty or sixty years succeeding
A.D. 1229, the reigning Pope found it necessary
to intervene in order to adjust the strained
relations between the rival parties. About the
year 1375, however, a modus vivendi was
established in which the Inquisitors secured
the advantage.

An attempt to describe the extent to which
tribunals of the Holy Office were established
in Europe would exceed the province of this
article. But it may be mentioned that the
Holy Office never secured a foothold in the

s "Janus" (Dr. von Dollinger), The Pope and
the Council, p. 237.

* Ibid., p. 236.

6 H. C. Lea's History of the Inquisition of the
Middle Aget, vol. i. pp. 299, 300.

PEESECUTIONS (PAPAL) [ 510 ] PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

British Islands, Denmark, or Scandinavia ;
neither was it a success in France, Germany,
or Portugal. When mediaeval missions were set
on foot, for the conversion of the heathen, In
quisitors often accompanied the Papal mission
aries. The most notorious of the foreign
tribunals of the Holy Office were those estab
lished in Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru by the
Spaniards in the sixteenth century.

By far the most important branch of the
Inquisition was the branch established in
Spain by Ferdinand V. "The Catholic," and
his queen Isabella, A.D. 1480, with the approval
of Pope Sixtus IV., and commonly called the
" Spanish Inquisition." This branch was really
a revival of the branch which had been estab
lished in Aragon by Pope Gregory IX. in
1238 ; but it quite eclipsed the Inquisition of
Aragon. It was organised with great ability
by Thomas de Torquemada, a native of Old
Castile, a Dominican Prior of Santa Cruz, and
private confessor to Queen Isabella. Its re
cord for the first eleven months of its operations
(Jan. 2 to Nov. 4, 1481) revealed its drastic
character. It had been responsible for the
burning of no less than 298 victims in Seville
alone. Prescott, the historian, in his History
of Ferdinand and Isabella, maintains that the
Spanish Inquisitors ordered even the bodies of
many whom an opportune decease had rescued
from punishment for heresy, to be exhumed
and burned in the " Quemadero," or public
place of execution in Seville.1 The Jesuit
historian of Spain, Mariana, estimates that in
the archbishopric of Seville and the bishopric
of Cadiz, quite 2000 Inquisition victims were
burned during the year 1481. Llorente, the
historian of the Spanish Inquisition, who had
been its General Secretary in Madrid, has
recorded the following significant figures as
representing the work done by the Holy Office
in Spain from 1481 to its suppression by
Napoleon in 1809: Number burnt at the
stake, 31,912 persons; effigies burnt, 17,659;
number condemned to various penances,
291,450 persons — a grand total of no less
than 341,021 recorded deeds of persecution.2
The Spanish Inquisition was re-established by
Ferdinand VII., A.D. 1814, but was finally sup
pressed by the Cortes in 1820.

The late Bishop Creighton, in common with
several other writers, has assigned a political
character to the persecutions directed by the
Holy office in Spain. He states that the main
object was " To supply the Spanish monarchy
with the means of welding together a people

1 Prescott, History of Ferdinand and Isabella.
3rd edition, pp. 171, 172.

2 Llorente, Hist, of the Inquisition of Spain
(Eng. trans.), pp. 575-583.

with clivers traditions." 3 Nor was the prospect
of securing rich booty from the confiscated
property of the victims quite unforeseen. Not
a few among them found that the possession
of considerable property rather hastened their
doom than aided their acquittal ; and Sixtus IV.
is said to have complained because Ferdinand
had failed to remit to Rome the Vatican's
share of the treasure.

The martyrdom of John Huss, A.D. 1415,
provoked a rising of the Hussites. They
organised an influential league to secure, if
possible, religious liberty. At length they
appealed to arms. Nicolaus of Pistna, an able
statesman, and John Zizka, the well-known
commander, consented to direct the movement.
Between 1420 and 1434 the Hussites engaged
in three campaigns, in which a few successes
were discounted by many serious reverses.
Their attempt to invade Germany in 1427
roused the Emperor Sigismund to spare no
pains to crush them, and he received much
assistance from the Papal retaliation on the
movement. From time to time various Popes
commanded severe persecutions to be organised
against recalcitrant Bohemians and Moravians.
Not until A.D. 1781 were Bohemian Protestants
granted a measure of religious liberty by the
Toleration Edict issued by the Holy Roman
Emperor Joseph II.

Compared with other European countries,
England has been granted considerable im
munity from Papal persecution. The English
national character is a bad foster-mother of
systematic persecution. About three hundred
martyrs are said to have been burned to death
during the notorious reign of Queen Mary I.
(A.D. 1553-58), and some sixty-four more are
said to have suffered other punishments for
heresy ; but these figures are scarcely com
parable with the terrible figures presented by
the records of Papal persecution elsewhere in
Europe.

The last twenty years of the fourteenth cen
tury witnessed the rise of the Lollards, or Eng
lish followers of John Wycliffe. By A.D. 1399
they had developed into a powerful religious
body which had become also a political force
in the country. In 1382 a statute was passed
directing that commissions should be issued to
arrest the Wycliffe travelling preachers. In
1400 Henry IV. fulfilled his pledge to Arundel,
Archbishop of Canterbury, to suppress heresy,
by accomplishing the passing of the famous
statute "De Haeretico Comburendo." This
statute enacted, for the first time in England,
death as the legal punishment for heresy. In
1414, during the reign of Henry V., another

3 Creighton, Persecution and Tolerance, pp.
86, 87.

PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

[ 511 ]

statute was passed which enacted further
provisions for suppressing heresy. From the
first year of Henry IV. until the reign of
Henry VIII., Lollards were constantly perse
cuted by means of the above statutes; but
they continued to exercise a decided influence
among the people long after persecution had
put an end to their corporate existence. The
conservative ecclesiastics and haughty feudal
lords of those days cordially co-operated in
putting down this progressive and democratic
section of the nation. The best known Lollard
martyr is Sir John Oldcastle, called "the
good Lord Cobham," who in 1417 was burned
to death by a slow fire in London. Henry VIII.
retained the statutes of 1382 and 1414. He
repealed the statute De Hceretico Com-
burendo, but substituted for it in 1539 the
Statute of Six, Articles. The penal clauses
of this bill enacted severe penalties against all
who should refuse to conform to its provisions.
Whoever denied the clauses, embodying the
doctrines of transubstautiation and auricular
confession, incurred the penalty of death by
fire. Still religious persecution can hardly be
said to have been general during his reign,
although several suffered death, or other penal
ties, for heresy.

Probably the bitterest persecution for heresy
known in England was the persecution which
was waged during the last three years (1555-
58) of the reign of Mary I. — in other words,
during the three years that followed her
marriage with Philip II. of Spain, the noto
rious persecutor. The number of victims
during that period has been quoted already.
The persecuting statutes of A.D. 1382, 1400,
1414, were put into full force. English lovers
of religious liberty will never forget the fires
at Srnithfield. The memories of Archbishop
Cranmer of Canterbury, of Bishops Ridley of
London, Hooper of Gloucester, Latimer of
Worcester, Ferrar of St. David's, and of many
other Marian martyrs too numerous to mention
by name — are still cherished by grateful in
heritors of the liberties so dearly purchased.
The death of Mary in 1558 and the accession
of Elizabeth, terminated the persecution. No
general persecution for heresy has been waged
in England since the death of Mary I. One
of the first steps taken by the first Parliament
of Elizabeth was to repeal the persecuting
statutes of A.D. 1382, 1400, and 1414.

James Resby, an English Lollard who was
burnt in Glasgow about A.D. 1407, has been
called the proto-martyr of Scotland ; but the
first prominent martyr of the Scottish Reforma
tion was Patrick Hamilton, who was burned
at St. Andrews in 1528. He is considered by
many to have been the pioneer of the Scottish
Reformation. The martyrdom of George

Wishart, another talented and learned Scottish
Reformer, at St. Andrews in 1546, produced
far-reaching results, for the devotion and
courage shown by Wishart inspired John Knox,
the famous Reformer of Scotland, and a follower
of Wishart, to undertake the great work of his
life. James Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews,
and his nephew, Cardinal David Beaton, who
succeeded him in the archbishopric in 1539 —
were the chief Papal persecutors in Scotland.
David Beaton was assassinated seven years
later. In 1560 the Scottish Parliament
abolished the jurisdiction of the Pope in
Scotland, and the Reformation thus achieved
victory in a struggle which had lasted from
1523 to 1560. Subsequent persecutions in
Scotland, e.g. those waged during the reign of
Charles II., were not Papal ; therefore they are
not mentioned here. The last person in the
British Islands to be executed for heresy was
a medical student named Aikenhead, who was
hanged in Edinburgh, A.D. 1696.

The campaign conducted in the Netherlands
from A.D. 1567 to 1573 has been alluded to
already. Despite the protests made by
Margaret of Parma, the regent appointed by
Philip, that no army was needed, Philip II. of
Spain despatched the Duke of Alva with 20,000
soldiers, consisting of Spanish, German, and
Italian mercenaries, to punish the inhabitants
of the Provinces for having risen against the
king's oppressive rule. During six years the
duke ravaged the Netherlands with sword and
fire, and with violence beyond description. He
is said to have boasted that he had caused
18,600 inhabitants to be executed during his
rule as Governor-general. Thousands more
perished in massacres, sieges, and pitched
battles. To quote the words of J. L. Motley,
the historian of the Dutch Republic : " Men,
women, and children, old and young, nobles
and paupers, opulent burghers, hospital patients,
lunatics, dead bodies — all were indiscriminately
made to furnish food for the scaffold and the
stake." 1 The tribunal established by the Duke
in Sept. 1567, and called " The Council of
Troubles," condemned to death 1800 persons
within the first three months of its existence. 2
Strange to say, Pope Pius V. in 1569 presented
a jewelled hat and sword, together with an
autograph letter, to the Duke of Alva, this
being a special distinction conferred only on
those who had rendered signal services to the
Church. 3

Between A.D. 1534 and 1589, the Huguenots,
in other words, the French Protestants, were

1 J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, vol. ii.
p. 503.

2 Ibid., p. 136.

3 Ibid., pp. 281, 282.

PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL) [ 512 ] PERSECUTIONS (PAPAL)

being continually persecuted. During the
six weeks following Aug. 24, 1572, the terrible
Massacre of St. Bartholomew was being perpe
trated. In all France, from 70,000 to 100,000
Huguenots are said to have been massacred.
About 20,000 perished in Paris alone. Deter
mined persecution was resumed in 1681 ; and
the Bevocation of the Edict of Nantes in
1685, with its attendant persecutions, shattered
the Protestant movement in France. Much
of the persecution directed against the Hugue
nots was inspired by the fear lest the growth
of the movement should threaten the safety
of the monarchy. This political fear the
leading ecclesiastics in France fostered assidu
ously in the royal mind. It always proved to
be so effective an argument for the renewal of
persecution. See HUGUENOTS.

Another religious body the members of
which were harassed by continual Papal perse
cution, were the Waldenses, who arose in
southern France about A.D. 1170. Driven by
persecution from France, they settled princi
pally in the valleys of Piedmont in Italy, about
the year 1375. Pope Innocent VIII. in 1487
issued a Bull commanding their extermination.
The best known among the many persecutions
under which they suffered is the " Massacre of
the Vaudois," or Waldenses, in the valleys of
Piedmont, by Duke Charles Emmanuel II. of
Savoy, in 1655. The reader by this time will
be able to form some idea of the cruelties then
practised, so the painful details need not be
related. England, under Cromwell, called on
the Protestant Powers to issue a joint remon
strance to the Duke of Savoy, and to his ally,
Louis XIV. of France. See WALDENSES.

It will have been noticed that the period A.D.
1534 to about 1688 shows the Papacy militant
against heresy in many countries in Europe.
Between A.D. 1534 and 1589 she was waging
simultaneous persecutions against adherents
of the Reformed faith in England, Scotland,
France, Spain, and the Netherlands. She was
also persecuting the natives of the new
Spanish colonies in South America. Again,
between A.D. 1655 and 1688, she was waging
renewed persecutions against the Waldenses
inhabiting Piedmont in Italy, and against the
Huguenots. The beginning of the eighteenth
century, however, witnessed a marked decrease
in Papal persecution. Torture ceased to be the
regular practice of the Inquisition about this
time, and the record of victims declined from
hundreds to some dozen per annum. The
most recent cases of capital punishment inflicted
by the Inquisition are assigned to the year
1826, when a Jew was burnt, and a Quaker
schoolmaster was hung for heresy.

At the present time systematic Papal perse
cution has been wholly discontinued. Ever

since the year 1870, the Pope and Curia have
been debarred the exercise of temporal power,
and civil governments have recognised, on the
whole, that impartial protection of the true
interests of the people better safeguards the
State than an attempt to enforce by persecu
tion uniformity in religious belief and
observance.

Persecution for heresy has been termed, in
an earlier portion of this article, an axiom of
Papal administration. It is an established
principle with the Papacy, in other words, not
a mere relic from the dark ages. In this con
nection it may be well to recall two or three
Papal pronouncements with which students of
present-day events probably are familiar. In
August 1873, Pope Pius IX. addressed a letter
of remonstrance to the Emperor William I. of
Germany, in which he claimed authority over
all baptized Christians. In September 1875 the
Papal Nuncioissueda circular to protest against
religious toleration in Spain. In February 1884
Pope Leo XIII. addressed an Encyclical Letter
to the French bishops, in which he exhorted
them to redouble their vigilance against heresy
and infidelity. Again, the Institutes of Canon
Law, issued in 1901 from the Professor of the
Decretals at the Gregorian University in Rome,
with the approbation of the Pope and the
Jesuits, assert that the Church possesses the
power, which she ought to exercise, of exter-
pating heretics.1 Moreover, the Holy Office
still exists in Rome.2 These, together with
other sundry adumbrations of modern Papal
policy, seem to compel the thoughtful observer
to adopt the reluctant conclusion pronounced
in 1869 by the late Johann von Dollinger, the
famous scholar and professor at the University
of Munich, and himself a Roman Catholic :
"It follows that they are greatly mistaken
who suppose that the Biblical and old Chris
tian spirit have prevailed in the Church (the
Papacy) over the mediaeval notion of her being
an institution with coercive power to imprison,
hang, and burn." 3

Authorities. — Bishop Mandell Creighton,
Persecution and Tolerance, Hulsean Lectures

1 See P. Marianus De Luca, S.J., Institutiones
Juris Ecdes. Publ. (2 vols.), Romae, Libr. Pon-
tificia (Fred. Pustet), 1901. The letter of Pope
Leo XIII., approving of the book and recom
mending its study, is given on the paper covers
of the two volumes, which extend to 800 pages,
royal octavo, of closely printed Latin.

2 See Annuario D' Italia, 1903, p. 27; also
The Catholic Directory for 1903, p. 45 (published
by Messrs. Burns & Gates, London).

3 The Pope and the Council, by " Janus " (Dr.
von Dollinger), p. 12. The whole of chap. i.
(pp. 8-33) will repay careful study.

PAPAL COINS

S O LVM • IN • FE RAM

PIVS BELLATVR

PASTOR

Medal of Pope Paul II., struck 1469 on occasion of the Papal crusade against the
Hussites in Bohemia. The inscription on the reverse is : " The pious Shepherd
wages war only against wild beasts."

Buonanni, Numismata Pontificum.

Struck by Pope Julius III., A.v. ("year of victory "), to commemorate the accession
of Queen Mary of England. The Pope is represented on the reverse in full
robes. Cardinal Pole, Papal Legate to England, on his right, with the Em
peror Charles V. between them. On the left is King Philip of Spain and
Queen Catharine, wife of Henry VIII. Queen Mary kneels in the foreground.
The inscription is : " Enyland, thou shall rise again ! "

Medailles des Papes, Planche IX., No. 4.

Medal struck 1572 by Pope Gregory XIII. to commemorate the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew. "Massacre of the Huyuenotx.'1'' An Angel with cross and sword
kills some and puts others to flight.

Medailles des Papes, Planche XV., No. 8.

PLATE XI

PETEE

[ 513 ]

PETER, ST.

1893-94, post 8vo, 1895, "Janus" (Dr. von D61-
linger), The Pope and the Council (Eng. trans.)
8vo, 1873. H. C. Lea, Histoi-y of the Inquisi
tion of the Middle Ages, 3 vols. 8vo, 1887, 1888.
Jean Antonio Llorente, The History of the
Inquisition in Spain (Eng. trans.) 8vo, 1826.
Garrido and Cayley, History of Political and
Reliijiout Persecution, 8vo, 1880-84. W. H.
Prescott, Hist, of Ferdinand and Isabella,
8vo, 1841 ; Hist, of Conquest of Mexico, 8vo,
1843; Hist, of Conquest of Peru, 8vo, 1847.
J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, 3 vols.
8vo, 1864. Acts and Monuments of John Foxe,
8 vols. 1877. J. S. Stamp, Martyrologia, 3 vols.
8vo, 1848-1851. Also works on Huguenots
by Prof. H. M. Baird, quoted in article
"Huguenots." These are a few out of the
very large number of volumes and articles
in encyclopaedias, dictionaries, &c., that deal
with the subject. [H. F. G.]

PETER. — See PRIVILEOK OP PETER ; SUPRE
MACY, PAPAL.

PETER'S PENCE (denarius S. Petn).—This
was an annual tax of one penny for every house
in England, collected at midsummer and for
warded to the Pope. The earliest reference to
it is in a letter of Canute, A. D. 1031. This letter
mentions among the " dues which we owe to
God according to the ancient law, the pennies
which we owe to Rome at St. Peter's. " Matthew
Paris ascribes the origin of Peter's Pence to
Offa, King of Mercia, and Henry of Hunting
don says that "Offa" gave to the Vicar of
St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, a fixed rent for
every house in his kingdom for ever. Others
attribute the origin of Peter's Pence to Ethel-
wulf, the father of Alfred. It seems to have
been paid with considerable irregularity. We
are told in the Saxon chronicles that it was
sent to Rome, A.D. 1095, by the hands of the
papal nuncio, after an intermission of many
years (Sax. Uhr., 873). In the same records
we are told of a legate having come into
England, A.D. 1123, after the Rom-Scot (Peter's
Pence). It ceased to be paid after 1534.

Peter's Pence was extended to Ireland by
Pope Adrian IV. in the year 1156. This bull,
or brief, by which the Pope sold Ireland to
the King of England for a penny a year from
each house, is a bitter pill for Irish patriots to
swallow. Adrian was the son of a married
priest, who lived at Langley, near St. Alban's,
and the only Englishman who was ever Pope.
After claiming jurisdiction over all islands
from a grant made by Constantine the Great
(the well-known forged Donation of Constan
tine ; see DONATION OP CONSTANTINE), the
Pope continues: —

" We ... do hold it good and acceptable
that, for extending the borders of the Church,
restraining its progress of vice, for the correc

tion of morals, the planting of virtue, and the
increase of religion, you enter this island and
execute therein whatever shall pertain to the
honour of God and the welfare of the land ;
and that the people of this land receive you
honourably, and reverence you as their lord,
the rights of their churches still remaining
sacred and inviolate, and saving to St. Peter the
annual pension of one penny from every house."

Henry did not find it convenient to invade
Ireland just then, but in 1171 Irish disunion
gave him the chance he sought for. He
applied to Adrian's successor, Alexander III.
for a confirmation of the bull. Alexander
complied, expressly naming the grant of
Adrian, and taking care to stipulate for the
" reserving to St. Peter and to the Holy Roman
Church, as well in England as in Ireland the
yearly pension of one penny from every house."

Cardinal Moran has laboured to prove
Adrian's bull a forgery, and his example has
been followed by those who are ashamed to
acknowledge that the Pope sold Ireland for
money. But the Cardinal's arguments are
flimsy in the extreme. Cardinal Baronius
says he copied the original bull of Adrian IV.
from the Vatican manuscript, but Moran
says he searched for the manuscript three
hundred years later, and could not find it,
therefore it must be " a great Norman forgery."
The bull of Adrian is in the JBullarium
Romanum, a collection of papal bulls made
under the authority of the Roman See. John
of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, assures us
that he received the bull from Adrian and
carried it to Henry II. Dr. Lanigan, an Irish
priest and a professor at Louvain, says in his
Ecclesiastical History, " Never did there exist
a more real and authentic document."

Since its loss of the temporal sovereignty, the
Vatican looks very closely after Peter's Pence.
It is well known in Roman Catholic ecclesias
tical circles, that a bishop, who is remiss in
forwarding Peter's Pence to Rome, is very
coldly received on his compulsory visits ad
limina. The sum annually collected for Peter's
Pence in Ireland has been computed, by those
who have made a careful study of the matter,
at £30,000 per annum. [T. C.]

PETER, ST.— The original name of this apostle
was Symeon or Simon, but Jesus, on their first
meeting, gave him the name "Cephas"
(Aramaic Kepha = iock), which,!when translated
into Greek, became Tr^rpos or Peter. He was
a fisherman, born apparently in Bethsaida, but
settled with his wife in a house of his own at
Capernaum when the public ministry of Jesus
began. From the day of his meeting with the
Master he became a disciple, but continued his
occupation until he received the call to the
apostolate, after which he left all to follow Jesus.

2 K

PETER, ST.

[ 514 ]

PETER, ST.

It is plain from the Gospel narratives that
Peter from the first was regarded by the Lord
with special favour and affection. There were
grave defects in his character, as his history
abundantly shows. But most of his failings
leaned to virtue's side, and in the depths of
his being he clung to Jesus with a passionate
strength which made him worthy to be called
the "man of rock." Among the apostles his
bold and energetic character quickly asserted
itself ; and as Peter, James, and John were
the three chosen ones among the Twelve,
Peter was undoubtedly the leading spirit of
the three. His leadership in the apostolate
was most fully expressed in the great con
fession made at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. xvi.
16) ; and when Jesus rewarded him by saying,
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona," and by
declaring, "Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church; and the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it," He was
recognising in Peter a type of that saving
faith in His own divine person on which the
Church of the future was to be built.

In the Apostolic Church of the immediate

post-Resurrection days, Peter continued to

hold a position of leadership, as the earlier

chapters of Acts abundantly prove. But he

was by no means a primate in the early

Christian community, nor did he possess any

powers or privileges which were not shared

by the other apostles. The ordination of the

seven deacons was the act of the apostolate in

common ; the apostles as a body sent Peter to

Samaria as their delegate, and sent John

along with him on a footing of perfect

equality ; while at the Council of Jerusalem

it was James, the Lord's brother, and not

Peter, who sat as president. When Paul has

fully entered the field as the divinely-appointed

apostle of the Gentiles, Peter's figure begins to

dwindle before the mightier genius of the new

apostle ; and Paul certainly entertained no

idea of any supremacy on the part of his

fellow-apostle when he took Peter to task at

Antioch for his weak and inconsistent conduct

in the matter of fellowship with the Gentile

converts, and rebuked him to his face in the

presence of the whole church (Gal. ii. 11-14).

With this incident at Antioch our definite
historical knowledge regarding Peter practi
cally closes. In the Acts he is never mentioned
again. Clement of Rome, writing towards
the close of the first century, refers to Peter
as a martyr, thus confirming an allusion made
near the end of the Gospel of John (xxi. 19).
Of the two Epistles of Peter in the New
Testament, the first has passed unscathed
through the fires of modern criticism ; but it
has little light to shed upon the later history
of the apostle, and any light it gives is not in

harmony with the traditional structure which
the Roman Catholic Church has built around
Peter's name.

According to this tradition, Peter came to
Rome in the year A.D. 42, founded the Roman
Church, became its first bishop, and after an
episcopate of twenty-five years, suffered martyr
dom under Nero. The story is one which
rests upon no historical foundations, and does
not bear the slightest examination. In Acts,
Peter appears as a resident in Jerusalem years
after the time when he is said to have become
the Bishop of Rome. Again, the fact that
neither in the epistle which Paul sent to the
Romans, nor in any of the epistles that he
wrote while in Rome to other Churches, is
Peter referred to in the remotest way, precludes
the idea that the latter had taken up his resi
dence in Rome even by the time of Paul's final
imprisonment, much more the idea that he was
the founder and bishop of the Roman Church.
Besides, over against the tradition of Peter's
Roman episcopate we have to set another tradi
tion, which represents him as engaged dur
ing the later years of his life in missionary
labours at Antioch, in Babylonia, and along
the northern shores of the Black Sea ; and this
tradition, rather than the other, is confirmed by
1 Peter, which appears to have been written
from Babylon (v. 13), and is addressed to " the
elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithy-
nia." Babylon, no doubt, is frequently re
garded as a cryptogram for Rome ; and it is
possible that if he visited Rome towards the
close of his life, Peter wrote this epistle from
that city to those dispersed Jews of the East
among whom he had been labouring. Against
this, however, is the fact that there is no
analogy in the whole epistolary literature of
the New Testament for a cryptographic use of
any geographical name. The presupposition
therefore is that Babylon means Babylon, just
as Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Rome, means
Jerusalem or Antioch or Rome.

But though the story of St. Peter's episco
pate at Rome is only a fable— a fable derived
originally from the heretical pseudo-Clementine
writings— it is not impossible that at a late
period of his life he came to Rome, and there,
like St. Paul, suffered martyrdom. It is true
that more than a century has elapsed after the
age of Nero before we find any clear literary
record of a tradition to this effect, but that
tradition is supported from so many quarters
that the majority of scholars are inclined to
accept it as true. Obviously, however, the
question of its truth has not the least bearing
upon the Roman Catholic claim that Peter
founded the Church in Rome, and was the
first bishop of that city — a claim which might

PIE

[515 ]

PILGRIMAGES

just as reasonably be made on behalf of Paul.
The tradition of St. Peter's martyrdom in
Rome is usually coloured with the addition
that he was crucified head downwards at his
own request, and on the ground that he was
unworthy to suffer death in the same way as
his Master. But such a request does not seem
to be in keeping with the sobriety of the
apostolic spirit, or the character of Peter
himself in the post- Pentecostal days ; and it is
probably nothing more than the romantic
embellishment of a later age. See PRIVILEGE
OF PETER; PRIMACY, ROMAN; SUPREMACY,
PAPAL. [J. C. L.]

FIE was the name of the Index-table by which,
before the Reformation, each priest had to find
out the proper office for each day. "The
relative precedence to be given to a Sunday,
saint's day, commemoration, and week day
service " rendered this a complicated matter
of research. Maskell says this was "a matter
of no little consequence, as it was not possible
that in any two years the same course should
occur, and an almost infinite variety of the
daily offices would result " (Mem. Kit., i.-xlii.).
To make it more puzzling, all sorts of contrac
tions were used in the cross references, and
the rule for a single day was often of great
length. As the preface " concerning the Service
of the Church " says, " the number and hard
ness of the rules, and the manifold changings
of the service, was the cause, that to turn the
book only was so hard and intricate a matter,
that many times there was more business to
find out what should be read, than to read it
when it was found out." The initial letters
being printed in red, and the rest in black
letter type on white paper, gave the page a
spotted or piebald look ; hence its name is said
to be derived from pica, a magpie. Printers
even yet speak of type thrown into confusion
as being "thrown into a pie." Others think
that pica was itself a translation into monkish
Latin of the English word. A yet more far
fetched derivation is from iriva.%, the wooden
board on which in early times the order of the
day is supposed to have been displayed. At
York the pie forms a separate volume ; and
another name for the same sort of guide was
the Ordinale, or Directorium Sacerdotum.

[J. T. T.]

PILGRIMAGES.— The word pilgrimage, from
the Latin percyrinus, a foreigner or traveller,
denotes a journey to some place regarded as
peculiarly holy, undertaken with a religious
intent and in the hope of receiving spiritual
or physical blessings. Pilgrimages are com
mon to most religions, and in particular to
Hinduism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism, as
well as to Christianity. In the earliest days
of the Church there was no notion in the

Christian mind of a benefit attaching to
pilgrimage. Our Lord's words to the woman
of Samaria, by which He taught that we are
no nearer to the Father in one place than in
another, appear to have been fully accepted
until long after the apostolic times. But the
desire to visit the scenes of the Saviour's
birth, and life, and death grew strong, partly
owing to a natural interest in everything
associated with the person and ministry of
Jesus, and largely through the influence of
superstitions which multitudes of converts
had carried over with them into the Christian
Church. Earnest protests against supersti
tious notions of the benefits of pilgrimage are
to be found in the writings of such men as
Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Augustine. But popular sentiment prevailed
over the counsels of Christian truth ; and
from the time when the Empress Helena paid
a visit to Palestine during the second quarter
of the fourth century, a pilgrimage to the
Holy Land became a fashionable as well as a
religious duty.

The Church, recognising and taking ad
vantage of the trend of popular opinion, set
the seal of its approval on the growing passion
for pilgrimage. By-and-by it did much more ;
and gradually transformed the original concep
tions on the subject, until what had originally
been regarded as a means of stimulating the
religious life, became a work of extraordinary
merit, by which the darkest sins were atoned
for and a high degree of holiness attained.
The stream of pilgrims to Jerusalem increased
in volume year by year. The Crusades them
selves were armed pilgrimages upon a vast
scale, intended to maintain the right of free
approach to the great sanctuaries of the Chris
tian faith.

Once the pilgrim superstition had taken root
in the general mind, the claims of other
shrines besides those of Palestine came into
view. Only a few, at the best, could ever hope
to see Bethlehem and Jerusalem, Gethsemane
and Calvary ; and so the need was felt
for more accessible sanctuaries. These were
found at the tombs of martyrs, confessors, and
saints, or at spots around which legends had
gathered of the appearance of supernatural
visions, or the miracle-working power of sacred
relics. The Church sanctioned and organised
in its own interests the growing sentiment,
and every Christian land soon had its pilgrim
resorts, such as those of Loretto in Italy,
Compostella in Spain, or Canterbury in Eng
land. Rome itself presented special attrac
tions, as being the reputed resting-place of
both St. Peter and St. Paul. And by-and-by,
through the indulgences and other privileges
she was able to confer upon her pilgrims,

PISCINA

[ 516 ] POPE PIUS IV., CREED OF

Home became the chief goal of pious travellers
from every part of Western Christendom ;
which helped to raise her to a position of
supreme authority.

With the Reformation, pilgrimages and the
abuses that had gathered round them dis
appeared from the Protestant section of the
Church ; but they have continued to hold a
place, though a much diminished place, within
the Roman communion. Every now and then
some new shrine has appeared in the Roman
Catholic world. The most famous of modern
times is that of Lourdes in the south of
France, where the Virgin Mary is asserted to
have revealed herself. To the grotto of
Lourdes no fewer than half a million of
persons now repair every year ; and it is
confidently affirmed that miraculous cures
have been wrought upon many of the sufferers
who are brought by their friends to seek the
healing virtue of the spring, near which a
girl is believed by the pilgrims to have met
with the Virgin. [J. C. L.]

PISCINA. — A small stone basin in use in the
pre-Reformation Church, and still remaining
in some ecclesiastical buildings. It is gener
ally built into the east or south wall, and was
always near an "altar." It was used by the
priest in washing out the vessels employed in
the Eucharist, and also as a place in which
the other "ablutions" (i.e. the rinsing of the
priest's fingers) were performed.

PIT.— See HELL.

PLANETA (i.e. planet).— The folded chasuble,
an illegal vestment worn by Roman clergy and
by Ritualistic clergy of the Church of England
in Advent and Lent. Its name is derived
from the appearance of the garment, which
is said to resemble "a star when partially
eclipsed."

PNETJMA. — A name given by the Ritualists to
a few notes sung or played to the concluding
syllable of the Psalms and certain Canticles
An alternative name is the " slur." It is
supposed to be a sign of reluctance to quit
the praises of God even for instruction and
prayer.

POENULA.— Another name for the chasuble
or chief garment worn by a priest when cele
brating Mass. It is also known as casula and
planeta. See CHASUBLE.

PONTIFF (Latin, pontifex). — This was the
title of a heathen priest among the ancient
Romans. The title is given to bishops, and
a mass at which a bishop presides or "cele
brates " is styled a Pontifical Mass. The Pope
is styled the pontifex summus, the Supreme
Pontiff, and sometimes simply Pontifex. The
coins of the Popes are termed Numismata
Pontijicum.

PONTIFICAL.— Relating to a pontiff or bishop

A book of the ritual of Episcopal ceremonies in
the Church of Rome.

POPE. — The name (papa) properly signifies
"father," and is applied to the Bishop of
Rome. The name " Pope " is given to parish
priests of the Greek and Russian Churches,
just as "Father" is given to Roman priests.
See PATRIARCH.

POPE PIUS IV., CREED OF.— The Creed
of Pius IV., inaccurately termed the " Triden-
tine Profession of Faith," is the authoritative
creed of the Roman Catholic Church. It was
drawn up in 1564 by a college of cardinals,
acting under the direct orders of Pius himself,
as a summary of the dogmatic decisions of
the Council of Trent, which had concluded its
sessions towards the end of 1563. It takes
the form of a binding oath, and is imposed
upon all priests and instructors of youth in
the Roman Church, and also upon all converts
from Protestantism.

Of the twelve Articles of which this creed
consists, the first is simply the Nicene Creed
in its Western form. The second and third
bind those who accept it to belief in the
ecclesiastical traditions, and in particular to
that view of the meaning of the Holy Scrip
tures which is held and taught by the Church.
In the fourth it is declared that there are
seven Christian sacraments, instituted by
Jesus Christ, and necessary for the salvation
of mankind ; and that these are to be adminis
tered according to the approved ceremonies of
Roman Catholicism. The fifth Article is a
confirmation of the decisions of the Council
with respect to original sin and justification ;
while the sixth and seventh set forth the
dogma of transubstantiation, and declare that
in the mass a true and proper sacrifice of pro
pitiation is offered to God for the living and
the dead, and that the whole and entire
Christ is received under either species of the
sacrament. The eighth affirms the doctrine
of purgatory, and prescribes the invocation of
saints and the veneration of their relics ;
while the ninth asserts the value of image-
worship, and also deals with the power and
benefit of indulgences. In the tenth, Rome
is acknowledged to be the mother and mistress
of all Churches, and obedience is sworn to the
Bishop of Rome as " the successor of St.
Peter, the prince of the apostles and vicar of
Jesus Christ." In the eleventh, unhesitating
belief is professed in all the declarations of
canons and general councils — those of Trent
in particular — while everything contrary to
those declarations is " condemned, rejected,
and anathematised." In the concluding
Article the general profession is made that
this is "the true Catholic faith, without
which no one can be saved," and an oath is

POPES, THE

[517]

POPES, THE

taken to retain, confess, and teach this faith,
entire and inviolate, to the end of life.

The Creed of Pins IV. continues to be the
distinctive Roman Catholic confession of
faith, with the addition only of the two
modern dogmas of the Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin, and the ex, cathedra Infallibility
of the Pope. The distinctive feature of this
symbol, when compared with the Tridentine
decrees themselves — a feature which really
makes the name, Profestio Fidei Tridentinas, a
misnomer — is the way in which obedience to
the Pope is included as part of the very
essence of the Catholic faith. The Council of
Trent had come to no decision between the
Curialistic and Episcopal parties ; it had not
determined whether the Pope was the Lord of
the Church, or only the chief among the
bishops ; whether his authority was superior
or inferior to that of a general council. But
in the haste with which the long-drawn
sittings of the Council were brought to a close,
the Pope was left free to take his own
measures for giving effect to the decrees
arrived at ; and in his bull of confirmation
Pius IV. calmly reserved the exposition of the
decrees exclusively to himself. This in itself
was an addition to the decisions of the
Council ; and the addition was carried yet
further when a creed was formulated which
bound every priest of the Church to subject
himself utterly to the papal authority, and to
confess that this was of the very essence of
saving faith. It was this " master-stroke of
Curialistic politics," as Harnack calls it,
which made it possible for a later Pius, in the
second half of the nineteenth century, to
determine, by means of a simple bull, the new
dogma of Immaculate Conception, and after
wards, at the Vatican Council, to secure the
acceptance of his own infallibility.

[J. C. L.]

POPES, THE.— The Roman tradition that St.
Peter became bishop of the Imperial City in
A.D. 42, and occupied that position for twenty-
five years, is dissipated in the light of historical
investigation, and must be regarded, to use
the expression of a leading Church historian, as
" unquestionably a colossal chronological mis
take." The evidence in disproof of this legend
lies beyond the scope of the present article.
The Didache' (which was probably written at
end of first century) knows nothing either of
Peter's primacy or supremacy,

The lists of the earlier Roman bishops as
they have come down to us present dis
crepancies, not merely in the order of suc
cession, but in names and dates. Tertullian
and others make Clement the immediate suc
cessor of Peter, while Irena^us gives the
order: (1) Linus, (2) Anacletus, (3) Clement.

From tlie very start, therefore, the Roman
episcopal succession is involved in doubt and
obscurity. The prevalence of Greek names
in the early lists proves that the Church of
Rome in its infancy was, to all intents, a Greek
religious Colony. Greek in language, organis
ation, and literature, it practically remained
such to about the middle of the third century.
Paul wrote his epistle to that Church in Greek.
In the same language were written the
Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the
works of Justin Martyr, down to those of
Hippolytus in the third century.

We append the Roman authorised list (ac
cording to Dr. Bruno, Catholic Belief, London,
1902) up to A.D. 335. This list coincides with
that of Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History).

Peter (?)

Linus (?)

Cletus(?)

Clement 1

Anacletus

Evaristus

Alexander I. ..

Xystus (Latinised) Sixtus I.

Telesphorus . .

Hyginus

Pius 1

Anicetus

Soter

Assumed Date
A.D.

29-67
67
78
90 *
100
112

. 121
. 142
.132 (?152)
158
158
167
175

Eleutherius (seeSABELLiANiSM) . 182

Victor I. ,, „ . 193

Zephyrinus ,, ,, . 203

Callistus „ „ . 221

Urbanus 1 ...... 227

Pontianus ..... 233

Anterus ..... 238

Fabianus ..... 240

Cornelius ..... 254

Lucius 1 ...... 255

Stephanus 1 ..... 258

Xystus II ...... 259

Dionysius ..... 261

Felix 1 ....... 272

Eutychianus ..... 275

Gajus (Gains) .... 283

Marcellinus ..... 296

Marcellus I. . . . . . 304

Eusebius . . .... 309

Miltiades (Melchiades) . . . 311

Silvester I. . . . i . 314

Many circumstances contributed to the
gradual growth and pre-eminence of the Roman
See as witnessed in its later history. The fact
that to it was addressed the most important
doctrinal Epistle of the series in the New
Testament, and moreover, the eventful sojourn,
imprisonment, and martyrdom of the writer,

POPES, THE

[518 ]

POPES, THE

Paul, together with the fiery ordeal of the
Neronian and other persecutions, tended later
to raise the prestige of the Imperial See.
Moreover, the very fact that Borne was the
Metropolis of the world told heavily in favour
of its bishops, and the withdrawal of the
Emperor to Constantinople gave the Papacy
the opportunity of stepping into the vacant
place of authority. The letter of Clement to
the Corinthian Church, especially since the
discovery in 1875 of a hitherto unknown
portion, affords an early indication of an in
fluence which, had it been in later times
exercised in the same spirit, and for righteous
ness, might have been for the preservation and
not the destruction of the truth. The letter
referred to puts forth no claim to the supremacy
afterwards demanded by the Roman See. Its
tone is that of expostulation and not superiority.
It is also noteworthy that that letter was written
in the name of the Church, and not in that of
the bishop. Ignatius, likewise (A.D. 70), in his
Epistle to the Romans, makes no mention of
any bishop, but addresses the Church alone. The
Clement, who in some of the lists stands as the
third successor of Peter in the episcopal chair
at Rome, has been considered by some to be
the person mentioned in Philip, iv. 3 ; but Bishop
Lightfoot (Ep. Philippians, p. 168) gives good
reasons for holding that identification to be
extremely doubtful.

Telesphorus, the seventh bishop (or the ninth,
according to the Roman contention) in suc
cession (A.D. 132), is recorded by Irenseus as
having died the death of a martyr (A.D. 139)
at the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius.
The episcopate of Anicetus, which was earlier
than given in the Roman list, is distinguished
by the first discussion on the question of the
time of the observance of Easter. The vener
able Polycarp visited Rome between A.D. 150
and 155. The interview ended peaceably in
an agreement to admit differences on that
unimportant matter. The dates assigned to
the pontiff are by no means certain. The
philosophical Emperor, Marcus Aurelins, who
reigned from 161-180, the writer of the Medi
tations, in which there is his one solitary allusion
to his Christian subjects, whose fidelity to their
faith he termed "sheer obstinacy." Soterwas
succeeded by Eleutherius (A.D. 182), to whom,
according to Bede, the British King Lucius
applied for missionaries to convert his pagan
subjects. The Roman bishop responded by
sending two ambassadors with a present of
both the Old and New Testaments, and a letter
containing these remarkable words: "You
have received both the Old and New Testament.
Out of the same, through God's grace, by the
advice of your realm, take a law, and by the
same, through God's sufferance, rule your

Kingdom of Britain, for in that kingdom you
are God's Vicar" (Prideaux* Introd. to Hist.,
quoted by Trelawny, Perranzabuloe, p. 56). No
savour here of Roman Supremacy. The story
of Lucius is probably legendary, but that fact
does not detract from its value as to the
doctrine expressed, coming as it does from a
Roman source.

Victor's (A.D. 193) episcopate was accen
tuated by a revival of the Easter dispute. The
haughty bishop demanded the abandonment
of the Quarto-deciman practice by the Asiatic
Church.1 In vain did Polycrates, bishop of
Ephesus, remonstrate (Eusebius has preserved
his manly letter) ; Victor scorned both argu
ment and entreaty, branded his opposers as
heretics, and threatened to excommunicate
them.

At the commencement of the third century
(A. D. 203) Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome. The
details of his character and history, and that of
his successor Callistus, have come down to us
mainly through the Philosophumena of Hippo-
lytus, probably bishop of Portus at the Tiber
mouth ; though this is denied for obvious
reasons by Dollinger, who regards him as a
presbyter only, and as posing as a rival bishop
of Rome. Zephyrinus is described as an "illi
terate and covetous man." He showed great
vacillation in regard to the heresies rife during
his episcopate, and was a mere tool in the
hands of the man destined to be his successor.

Callistus I. in 221 occupied the See. He
had formerly supported the Noetian heresy, to
which he gained over Sabellius. On becoming
bishop he excommunicated that heresiarch.
His own opinions were not orthodox, for he
taught that the "Father and Son were the
name of one God, and this one person cannot
be two ; thus the Father suffered with the
Son." This was the heresy of Ditheism, as it
was called. Attention has been drawn to the
fact that Sylvester I., a hundred years later, is
represented in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
(see DECRETALS), as condemning Callistus for
Sabcllianism (see SABELLIANISM), but with
out any suspicion that Callistus was one of his
own predecessors 1 A romantic, though dis
creditable, account of this man's earlier life
is given in the Philosophumena. See FATHEES
OP THE CHURCH, p. 223, col. 2. To him is
thought to apply the epithet of Tertullian
(De Pudicitia) Pontifex Maximus and JSpis-
copus Episcoporum — perhaps in irony, but
adopted later in earnest.

1 The Quartodecimans observed the fourteenth
day of the moon as Easter, whether it fell on a
Sunday or not. The other party kept their
Easter on the first Sunday after the fourteenth
day of the month.

POPES, THE

[ 519 ]

POPES, THE

The three succeeding bishops, Urban I.
(A.D. 227), Pontianus (A.D. 230), and Anterus
(A.D. 235), require no special notice. Fabian,
in the year 240, was elected bishop, to
die a martyr's death ten years later in the
Decian persecution. After an interval of
eighteen months, Cornelius, in A.D. 254, occu
pied the vacant chair for the brief space of
one year and three months. Eusebius (book
vi. c. 43) gives a letter of the bishop addressed
to Fabius of Antioch, in which incidental
mention was made of the then strength of
the Church at Rome. It consisted, among
other classes of workers, of " 46 presbyters,
7 deacons, 7 sub-deacons, &c., 42 acolytes,
besides widows, with the afflicted and needy,
more than 1500, supported by the goodness and
love of God."

Stephen I. (A.D. 258) came into violent
collision with the African and Asiatic Churches
on the subject of Baptism by heretics. The
Roman bishop maintained the validity of such
baptism when administered in the proper form,
in the name of the Holy Trinity. " Heresy,"
he said, "brings forth children and exposes
them ; the Church takes up the exposed
children and nourishes them as her own,
though she herself has not brought them forth."
This position was maintained with an arrogance
which foreshadowed later papal pretensions.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was Stephen's most
distinguished opponent. A Council convened at
Carthage asserted the independent judgment of
the African Churches, and repudiated the title
as applied to Rome, of "Bishop of Bishops."
In the subsequent persecution of the Emperor
Valerian both these bishops suffered as martyrs.
The question concerning the primacy was to
some extent settled in favour of Rome by the
Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Sixtus II., Bishop
of Rome, after ruling eleven months, perished
also in the persecution under Valerian. Dio-
nysius, his successor (A.D. 261), is said to have
condemned the heresy associated with Paul
of Samosata. Much obscurity enwraps the
history of the six succeeding Popes. The
apostasy of Marcellinus (A.D. 296) is now dis
carded as a fable. The so-called conversion
of the Emperor Constantine took place in 324,
during the episcopate of Sylvester (A.D. 314),
or, according to some, in the time of his pre
decessor Melchiades. The founding of Con
stantinople, or New Rome, as the imperial seat
proved highly advantageous to the growth of
Roman episcopal ascendancy. The general
Council of Nicaea took place during Sylvester's
pontificate. The Pope was represented at that
Council by two presbyters. No particular re
mark is called for respecting the two suc
ceeding Roman bishops, Mark and Julius.
Liberius, the next bishop (A.D. 352), was

banished by the Emperor Constantius for re
fusing to condemn Athanasdus. "If he," Libe
rius said, "were the only friend of Athanasius,
he would adhere to the righteous cause." Two
years of exile, however, induced him to sign the
semi-Arian creed of Sirmium, and to renounce
the communion of Athanasius. See LIBERIUS.
Liberius was permitted to resume his bishopric
conjointly with one Felix, who was suspected
of being an Arian. The populace resented the
dual episcopate. Felix fled on the return of
Liberius to Rome. Finally, an attempt to get
reinstated having failed, after much bloodshed,
he retired from the contest. The Emperor
Julian (A.D. 361-363), whose insensate endea
vour to revive paganism earned for him the title
of Julian the Apostate, confined his attention to
the eastern portion of the Empire. Rome
and its bishop consequently escaped his in
fluence for good or bad during the two short
years of his reign. On the death of Liberius
in A.D. 366, Damasus I. was elected his suc
cessor, but not without a bloody contest with
his rival Ursinus. Rome and her churches
were given over to scenes of frightful atrocity
again and again repeated, until, through the
intervention of the heathen prefect, Praetext-
tatus, the disgraceful tumult was quelled. The
historian of this period, Ammianus Marcellinus,
gives us the key to interpret these events. He
says, "No wonder that for so magnificent a
prize as the Bishopric of Rome men should
contest with the utmost eagerness and ob
stinacy. To be enriched by the lavish dona
tions of the principal females of the city ; to
ride, splendidly attired, in a stately chariot ;
to sit at a profuse, luxuriant, more than im
perial table — these are the rewards of a suc
cessful ambition." The passage cited throws
an important light upon the advance of luxury
and pomp surrounding the Roman bishopric
at this period, and prepares us for much that
is to follow.

Jerome's Latin Version of the Bible (see
VULGATE) received encouragement from Dam
asus, and ultimately was regarded in the West
as of equal authority with the original Hebrew
and Greek. This contributed much to the
growth of Latin Christian literature, and to the
establishment of that tongue as the sacred
language of the Church. The rising power
and extension of monasticism is a noteworthy
feature of the period. Siricius was chosen to
succeed Damasus. The first extant Decretal
emanated from this Pope, and was addressed
to Himerius (A.D. 385), bishop of Tarragona.
This was couched in language implying that the
usages of Rome were to be considered as prece
dents for all other Churches. The subject of the
Decretal related to the celibacy of the clergy :
marriage was to them peremptorily interdicted.

POPES, THE

[ 520 ]

The fourth century closed with the unevent
ful pontificate of Anastasins I., who was suc
ceeded (A.D. 402) by Innocent I. "Upon the
mind of this Pope," writes the historian of
Latin Christianity, "appears first distinctly to
have dawned the vast conception of Rome's
universal ecclesiastical supremacy, dim as yet
and shadowy, yet full and comprehensive in
its outline." The African Churches appealed to
Innocent, as the successor of St. Peter, to ratify
their condemnation of the Pelagian heresy.
See PELAGIANISM. The Pope complied, ac
companying his consent with much swelling
words about the dignity of his See. When
Chrysostom, driven from the See of Constanti
nople, died in 407, Innocent, who had espoused
the cause of the exiled bishop, insisted on
the enrolment of his name on the diptychs of
the Church. See DIPTYCHS. The aggressive
policy of this Pope is seen in his assumption
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Churches
of Eastern Illyricum — a province extending
from the Adriatic to the Danube. The African
bishops having cause to complain of the attempt
of Zosimus (A.D. 417) to pass off a Sardican for
a Nicene Canon (see SARDICA, COUNCIL OP),
to justify his claim to the right of hearing
appeals, approached his successor Boniface
(418) on the matter, expressing a hope that
they might no longer have cause to complain
of the secular pride and arrogance of Rome.

The Nestorian controversy largely engaged
the attention of Celestine I., who was elected
to the Roman chair in 422. Celestine, on the
appeal of the bishop (Cyril) of Alexandria, pro
ceeded to the unprecedented act of threaten
ing deposition and excommunication to the
Archbishop of Constantinople unless, within
ten days of his receipt of the warning, he
conformed to the faith of Rome ! This action
registers another startling advance in Roman
pretensions. The claim was not, however, ad
mitted ; the subsequent deposition of Nestorius
was effected by the General Council of Ephesus
(A.D. 431).

After the death in A.D. 440 of Sixtus III.,
the immediate successor of Celestine, Leo the
Great was chosen to fill the chair. He was a
man of remarkable intellectual power and
acumen, as well as of boundless energy and
ambition. The ideas which we connect with
the word " Pope " receive their embodiment in
his personality and actions to a degree far ex
ceeding any or all of his predecessors. His
intellectual attainments are rendered all the
more conspicuous by reason of the absence, in
his time, of men of the culture of an Origen,
Augustine, Jerome, or Chrysostom. Leo wa;
the first Roman preacher of note. His sermons,
such of them as have come down to us, are
characterised by a remarkable blend of humility

POPES, THE

and arrogance. He is at one and the same
time the "servant of the servants of God,"
"the Vicar of Christ," and even "God upon
earth." The people are to obey in his lowly
person Peter himself, whose dignity is not
lacking even to his unworthy heir. He dog
matises on the power and position inherent in
the successors of St. Peter. The petra on which
the Church is built is Peter and his confession.
Peter is the pastor and prince of the whole
earth, through whom Christ exercises His uni
versal dominion on earth. This primacy per
petuates itself through the bishops of Rome,
who are related to Peter as Peter was related
to Christ. Resistance to his authority is but
impious pride and the sure way to hell ! The
distractions of the North African Church,
caused by the inroads of the Arian Vandals,
gave the Pope an opportunity of posing as a
supreme bishop. In Gaul his claims to uni
versal jurisdiction met with a check in the
person of Hilary of Aries ; while in the East
they met with even a still greater check at
the Council of Chalcedon, whose final canon
enacted that the Patriarch of Constantinople
ranked second to the Bishop of Rome, but loith
equal rights. Leo's influence did much to
mitigate the suffering caused by the incursion
of the Huns under Attila (452), and three years
later, these entailed by Genseric, the Vandal
invader.

Leo was succeeded in A.D. 461 by his repre
sentative at the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 449,
(the Latrocinium or "Council of Robbers"),
Hilary, then a deacon, who, during his six
years' episcopate, maintained the ambitious
policy of his great predecessor over the
Western Church. The next Pope, Simplicius
(468-483), witnessed, apparently unconcerned,
the fall of the Western Empire under Augus-
tulus in 476. The " successor of Peter " began
to be looked up to by the nations of the West
as the sole and real heir of the old Roman
imperial succession. Odoacer, the first ruler
of the divided empire in the West, though an
Arian by religious profession, made no attempt
to interfere with the Pope in matters ecclesias
tical, yet maintained his authority to regulate
the election to, and the temporal affairs of, the
Roman See. In the person of his representa
tive (Basilius, Prefect of Rome) he reminded
the clergy assembled in St. Peter's that the
election of the bishop could not take place
without the sanction of the sovereign. So pre
judicial was that edict to the growing ascend
ency of the papal power, that twenty years
later an opportunity was seized upon by Pope
Symmachus to have it completely annulled.

Felix II. succeeded to the papal chair in
483, and distinguished his pontificate by the
excommunication of Acacius of Constantinople,

POPES, THE

[ 521 ]

POPES, THE

which drew upon himself a counter-anathema
from that bishop, resulting in a schism between
the Eastern and Western Churches lasting
over thirty years. Gelasius I. (492-496) pro
mulgated the principle of the pre-eminence
of the priestly over the kingly power, and dif
ferentiated between the two in a letter ad
dressed to the Emperor Anastasiusas follows:
"There are two powers which rule the world,
the Imperial and the Pontifical. You are the
sovereign of the human race, but you bow your
neck to those who preside over things divine."
This Pope, however, gave a remarkable pro
nouncement concerning the sacrilege of with
holding the cup from the laity — the communio
sub una specie. The sudden death of Anas-
tasius II. (496-498) led to the dual election of
Symnmchus and Laurentius, which eventuated
in a sanguinary feud between the partisans of
the two rivals. A council was convened at
Rome by order of the Emperor Theodoric, a
heretical prince to sit in judgment upon a
Pope ! This council was called from the place
of meeting Synodus Palmaris — the Synod of
the Palm. Some expressions in the decision
arrived at, which cleared Symmachus from
very formidable accusations, seem to imply
that the Bishop of Rome occupied a position
removed from all human judgment, and that
he could be judged by God alone — a concession
which bore fruit in the after evolution of Papal
Supremacy.

Symmachus died after ruling the Church
for nearly sixteen years. He was succeeded
by Horrnisdas in 514, in whose pontificate
the schism already alluded to between the
East and West was ended. The next Pope,
John I. (523), had a short and unhappy epis
copate under the Emperor Justin, whose
measures against the Arians induced them to
supplicate the Eastern potentate Theodoric,
who intervened in their behalf, and restored
to them their confiscated churches. There is
here a tangle in the history. After a cordial
reception of the Pope at Constantinople, he
was, on his return to Italy, thrown by Theodoric
into prison, where he died. The pontificates
of the three succeeding Popes, Felix III. (IV.),
Boniface II., and John II., embrace the period
between A.D. 523 and 535. In the latter year
Italy became once more incorporated for a time
with the Eastern Roman Empire. The aged
Agapetus occupied the Roman See in A.D. 535,
and when on a visit to the Emperor in his
Eastern capital, successfully exerted his influ
ence with him in deposing Anthimus, a prelate
suspected of Eutychian opinions. Agapetus
died, however, in A.D. 536, before his return
to Rome. His successor Silverius was banished,
on a charge of treasonable correspondence
with the Goths, to the island of Candateria to

end his days, whether by a natural or a violent
death is unknown, though his successor Vigilius
(538-554) had some hand in his deposition, and
possibly in his death. Vigilius' administration
has been fitly described as "an unprincipled
vacillation between the dignity and duties of
his office and subservience to an alien theo
logical and political influence ; between re
peated condemnation of Justinian's edict,
known as that of the Three Articles or Chapters,
in behalf of a /.'utycltianising spirit, coupled
with repeated retractation of that condemna
tion. " The Pope pronounced the three chapters
(i.e. the writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and
Ibas) orthodox. This was in A.D. 546. He
condemned them in the year following. He
revised the sentence, in deference, as "Janus"
says, to the Western bishops, and was excom
municated by the Fifth General Council, to
which he afterwards submitted, declaring that
he had been misled by Satan. See his letters to
the Patriarch Eutychius. Of. De Marco (Dis
sert., Paris, 1669, p. 45). During his sojourn
in Constantinople the Pope suffered much
at the hands of the Emperor Justinian, to
whose coercion he finally yielded through
fear of deposition. He died in A.D. 554.
Justinian confirmed Pelagius I. in the See.
This was the first instance of an emperor
claiming authority to ratify the appointment
of a Pope. Pelagius died in 560.

The administration of the three Popes who in
turn succeeded (5GO-590) is described as among
the darkest and most sterile in the annals of the
papacy. Their names are severally John III.,
Benedict I., and Pelagius II. In 590 the papal
throne was occupied by the most remarkable
man since Leo I. Gregory I. marks the transition
of the patriarchal system into the strict papacy
of the Middle Ages. His protest against the
title "universal bishop" is noteworthy. He
declared it to be an antichristian assumption.
But this dislike probably proceeded more from
jealousy of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch,
who had adopted the title, than from sincere
humility. There is a strange inconsistency
manifest in Gregory's disclaimer of the title,
while at the same time he zealously laid claim
to the thing itself. In one of his letters he
writes : " I know not what bishop is not subject
to it (i.e. the Roman See) if fault is found in
him." To the Emperor Maurice he writes :
" It is plain that to Peter, as the prince of all
the apostles, was committed by our Lord the
care of the whole Church " (totius ecclesicc cura).
The meritoriousuess of good works, the doctrine
of a purgatorial fire, and of masses for the
benefit of the souls subjected to the same, are
embodied in the teaching of this Pope. Being
ignorant of both Hebrew and Greek he was
ill prepared for either Old or New Testament

POPES, THE

[ 522 ]

POPES, THE

exegesis. Gregory was a voluminous writer.
His four books of Dialogues display an extra
ordinary credulity, and formed a foundation
for much of the mediaeval superstition about
purgatory. They were translated by order of
King Alfred into Anglo-Saxon. In 597 Gregory
despatched Augustine on his mission to Eng
land, where he became the first occupant of
the archiepiscopal See of Canterbury. As an
austere monk saturated with the monastic
spirit he ascended the papal throne, and the
same spirit pervaded his entire episcopate.
Towards heretics he was remorselessly severe,
but in other directions he could show himself
generous and humane. His protection of the
Jews and toleration towards them was a re
markable feature in his administration, but his
warmest admirers have failed to defend his
joy at the elevation of Phocas to the imperial
purple, after the atrocious murder of the
Emperor Maurice and his five sons under
circumstances of diabolic cruelty.

Gregory's successor Sabinian (604) incurred
the odium of the people by the avarice he dis
played during a dreadful famine which raged
in Rome during his pontificate. Boniface III.
came to the papal throne in 607. He boldly
assumed the title of universal bishop which
Gregory had affected to reject. The Roman
Pantheon was converted by his successor Boni
face IV. into a church dedicated to the Virgin
Mary and all the martyrs, 608. The occupants
of the See in 615 and 619 were respectively
Deusdedit and Boniface V. Honorius (625-638)
avowed himself a Monothelite and was con
demned by his successors for this heresy. See
HCCNORIUS. Succeeding Popes were Severinus
(A.D. 640), John IV. (640), Theodore I. (642),
Martin I. (649), who suffered imprisonment and
died in exile by reason of his adherence to the
orthodox doctrine of the tivo ivills in Christ.
In 655 Eugenius I. succeeded, and was followed
by Vitalianus in 657 ; Adeodatus, 672 ; Domnus,
676 ; Agathon, 678 ; Leo. II., 682 ; Benedict II.,
683; John V., 685; Conon, 686; Sergius I.,
687 ; John VI., 701 ; John VII., 705 ; Sisinnius,
708 ; Constantino I., 708, was the last Pope
who was the humble subject of the Eastern
Empire. A new epoch dawns with his successor
Gregory II. (715), who came into direct colli
sion with the Emperor Leo about the worship of
images. Leo had by an)edict 726) distinctly
forbidden the practice. Gregory III. (731) took
a still more decided course by anathematising
the Iconoclasts, though without mentioning the
emperor. Leo retaliated by confiscating the
papal revenues in the parts within his power.
Greece and Illyricum were once again joined
to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The death of Gregory II. (731) was followed
by the succession of Gregory III. In 741,

Zacharias, a native of Greece, was elected.
His share in the revolution which dethroned
Childeric III. and set up Pepin as King of the
Franks is the subject matter of much contro
versy, but it afforded a precedent to his
successor for the establishment of the supre
macy of the ecclesiastical over the civil ruler.
Stephen III. (the successor of Stephen II.,
who died before he was consecrated), 752, re-
anointed the Frankish king. Hard pressed
by the Lombard invasion of Rome, he earnestly
implored the protection of Pepin, who finally
came to the rescue. This circumstance even
tuated in a large part of Italy becoming the
territorial possession of the Pope,. By this
gift of a foreign potentate the Pope became
a temporal sovereign, and a new era of the
papacy was begun, which was not to terminate'
until the German invasion of France in 1870
indirectly restored Rome to its ancient position
as the capital of Italy. The next Pope, Paul I.
(757), occupied the See ten years, and was
succeeded (768) by Stephen IV., whose death
in 772 was followed by the election of Adrian I.,
under whose rule the Lombards again appeared
as invaders before the gates of Rome. They
were subdued by Charlemagne, who twice
visited Rome with great pomp, and whose son
Pepin was baptized by the Pope, 781. In 787
the second Council of Nicsea sanctioned the use
of images of Christ, the Virgin, and the saints
in churches, on highways, &c., and permitted
a restricted worship (Tr/jocr/ciVijcris), bowing the
knee) to be offered to them.

Leo III. succeeded to the papal chair in
795. The close of the eighth century witnessed
the crowning by the Pope of Charlemagne,
" Emperor of the West." A mosaic in the
triclinium of Leo III. in the Lateran (from the
ninth century) represents St. Peter in glory
bestowing upon the Pope, kneeling at his right
hand, the priestly stole, and upon Charlemagne,
kneeling on his left, the standard of Rome.
The right of crowning kings, accompanied by
that of discrowning them, was claimed and
exercised by Popes of a later period. The
coronation of Charles the Great was the
foundation of what is known as the Holy
Roman Empire. Henceforth in theory the Pope
was to look after spiritual interests, while the
Emperor busied himself about temporal affairs
of the kingdom. Jointly they became the
ruling powers of the Middle Ages. (See Holy
Roman Empire.)

On the death of Leo in 816, Stephen IV. was
elected, but, dying in the following year, was
succeeded by Paschal I., who, like his prede
cessor, had to apologise for not first obtain
ing the imperial consent. Paschal crowned
Lothair, Louis' son, who was associated with
his father in the empire, and another link was

POPES, THE

[ 523 ]

POPES, THE

added towards the establishment of papal
authority. Louis, on the contest that arose
respecting the vacant papal chair in 824, inter
posed his prerogative by deciding in favour of
Eugenius II., and while establishing the right
of the Roman people to elect, bound them to
defer the consecration of their nominee to the
Papacy, until be had taken the oath of alle
giance to the Emperor in the presence of the
imperial commissioner. The following Popes
succeeded at the death of Eugenius in 827 ;
Valentinian (827), died within the year;
Gregory IV. (827-844) ; Sergius II. (844-847) ;
Leo IV. (847-855). The weight of historic
investigation is against the authenticity of the
story of Pope Joan (Johanna Papissa), which
comes in here. Various conjectures are thrown
out as to the origin of this strange myth, which
was believed in by respectable authorities, but
cannot be more than alluded to here.

Benedict III. (855) was succeeded by
Nicholas I. in 858. The celebrated Pseudo-
Isidorian Decretals, a colossal forgery intended
(see under DECRETALS) to define and consoli
date the papal pretensions, were appealed to
under the sway of this Pope. Nicholas was
a man of remarkable energy and boldness,
which he used in carrying out the principles
of the Decretals. It was about 845 that these
false Decretals were forged, and by them the
pretensions of the Popes have been sustained
for centuries. They have been ably exposed
by Comber, and in the work of "Janus."
See also article on the DONATION OF CON-
STANTINE. He espoused the cause of the
wife of Lothair, peremptorily ordering the
king to receive back his repudiated consort.
His episcopal authority was exerted with a
high hand throughout the empire. The Pope's
unsuccessful attempt to reinstate the deposed
patriarch of the Eastern capital resulted in the
permanent alienation of the two Churches, and
proved the last attempt at interference between
the East and West. Nicholas died in 867. For
nearly two hundred years the papal chair was
rilled, with few exceptions, by worthless and
immoral occupants. Hadrian II. was a man in
advanced life when he began his rule. He had
been previously married. His wife, who was liv
ing at the time of her husband's elevation, had a
daughter of mature age who, though engaged
to another man, was carried off by the son of
the late Pope's legate. He fled for protection
to the emperor, but when threatened with
punishment murdered both the wife and
daughter of Hadrian. This Pope wielded his
assumed power in the same imperious and
haughty spirit as his predecessors, exerting
the same despotic sway over sovereign and
clergy alike. He died in 872. A long period
of demoralisation in the Papacy followed.

John VIII. was elevated to the papal throne,
occupying it for ten years. Martin II. (882-884) ;
Hadrian III. (884) ; Stephen V. (or VI., 885-891) ;
Formosus (891) ; Boniface VI. (896), considered
not legitimately elected (Bruno), died after
fifteen days, and was succeeded by Stephen VI.
(or VII.), who had the body of his predecessor
dragged from its grave, and, arrayed in his
pontifical robes, brought before a mock
tribunal, and then thrown into the Tiber.
Stephen died in 897. A rapid succession of
Popes followed : Romanus (897) ; Theodore
(898) ; John IX. (898), whose death closed the
ninth century of Christianity. Benedict IV.
succeeded in 900, Leo V. in 903 (Christopher
antipope), Sergius III. (904), " the slave of every
vice and the most wicked of men " (Baronius).
The infamous Theodora rose into power during
this pontificate. By her dominant influence
John X. ascended the papal throne. This
Pope organised a great league for the preser
vation of Rome against the Saracen invaders,
and in the capacity of a military leader placed
himself at the head of the army of defence.
What he had gained through the influence of
the degraded Theodora, he lost, and with it his
life, through the revengeful spirit of her unscru
pulous daughter Marozia. This wicked woman,
in 931 (after the death of Leo. VI., 929, and
Stephen VII., 931), raised her own son (by
Pope Sergius III.) to the Roman See as John
XI. He died in prison in 936, and was suc
ceeded by Leo VII. ; Stephen VIII. (or IX., 939) ;
Martin III. (<J42) ; Agapetus II. (946) ; and
John XII. (956), the grandson of Marozia.
He united in his person two offices at one time.
A civil ruler in Rome, he retained his proper
name Octavian, while he exercised papal
authority under the assumed name (now used
for the first time) John XII. He was charged
by a Roman Synod with every crime of which
human nature is capable. In 963 Leo VIII., on
the formal deposition of John, was chosen to
succeed. The choice was approved by imperial
intervention in spite of the vigorous opposition
of the partisans of the deposed Pope. Leo is
classed in the Roman list (after Bruno) as an
antipope. Benedict V. is regarded as the
lawful successor of John XII. by the same
authority. As successors we have John XIII.
(965); Benedict VI. (972), murdered in 974;
Domnus II. (974) ; Benedict VII. (975) ; John
XIV. (983 or 984), murdered by the antipope
Boniface VII.; John XV. (984 or 985);
Gregory V. (996) was a cousin of the Emperor
Otho III., Bruno by name. He is the first
Pope of German nationality. The cruelties
perpetrated on the antipope John XVI. are
traced by some writers to Gregory's own orders.
Gregory's death in 999 was probably the result
of poison.

POPES, THE

[ 524 ]

POPES, THE

Following on the succession of the first
German Pope comes the election of the first
French occupant of "St. Peter's chair,"
Gerbert, Archbishop of Rheims, under the
title of Sylvester II. His great aspiration
was the establishment of a Grzeco- Latin empire,
with old Rome as its capital, as the centre of
rule for the Christian world. His successors
were John XVII. (1003) ; John XVIII. (same
year); Sergius IV. (1009); Benedict VIII.
(1012), who proved himself very energetic for
the defence of Italy against the Saracens,
was followed by his brother, John XIX. (a
layman), who passed through in one day all
the ecclesiastical degrees requisite for his new
position. This was in 1024. On his decease
(1033), his nephew, a lad about twelve (circiter
annorum duodecim), ascended the papal throne
as Benedict IX. The papal succession since
Benedict VIII. had become hereditary in the
Tusculan family. Benedict IX. manifested a
precocity for all kinds of wickedness. There is
conflict of testimony with regard to his pro
ceedings ; some say that he sold thePopedom,
but seized it again in 1047, so that with an
antipope, Sylvester III., and Gregory VI.,
appointed in 1045 on Benedict's retirement,
there were three rival Popes for a period.
Benedict held the Lateran, Gregory VI. Maria
Maggiore, and Sylvester III. St. Peter's and
the Vatican. Henry III. of Germany proceeded
in 1046 to assemble a council at Sutri, near the
capital, and afterwards at Rome, to consider
the claims of the rivals. Benedict and Sylvester
were condemned, and Gregory was called upon
to depose himself on account of the simony he
had perpetrated in buying the Papacy. Having
deposed his two rivals, he, to keep intact the
principle that the Pope is above every human
tribunal and responsible to God alone, pro
ceeded to adjudge himself removed from the
pontificate ! A new Pope was elected, Suidger,
a Saxon bishop, under the name of Clement II.
He was succeeded in 1048 by Damasus II., who
died by poison within a month of his consecra
tion. He was succeeded by Leo IX. in 1049,
who distinguished his five years' rule by his
activity in eradicating simoniacal practices
which had spread from Rome as from a centre.
This Pope died in 1054. In the following
year Victor II. succeeded ; Stephen IX. (or
X., 1057) ; Benedict X. (1058, antipope) ; Nich
olas II. (1058) ; Alexander II. (1061). On his
decease Gregory VII. (Hildebrand, 1073), as
cended the papal throne. He was a man of
boundless ambition and haughty temper.
The scene of Henry IV. of Germany's humilia
tion, at Canossa, at the feet of the imperious
pontiff is at once a revelation of his character
and the height to which Papal Supremacy
had attained. Henry, twice placed under the

papal ban, re-asserted his authority, instituted
a rival pontiff, Clement III., laid siege to
Rome, and compelled the inflexible Gregory
to retire into exile at Salerno, where he died
(1085). The power of the Pope to depose kings
seemed now to be consolidated, and henceforth
was exercised, though with varying success.
Building on the basis of the forged Decretals,
Hildebrand placed the Papacy upon a higher
platform than it was prior to his day. The
distortion of fact and fabrications assumed to
be historical have been vividly pointed out
by "Janus " in The Pope and the Council.

After the retirement of Victor III. in 1087,
Urban II. mounted the papal throne. He
proved himself a worthy successor of the
arrogant Gregory. He placed Philip I. of France
under the ban (1094), and forbade priest or
bishop to swear any kind of feudal homage to
the sovereign. Under the influence of Peter the
Hermit, the Pope started the Crusade which
eventuated in the capture of Jerusalem, an
event which recalled in some of its circum
stances the sanguinary siege of that city by
Titus. This was in 1099. In the same year
Paschal II. succeeded Urban, and had no less
than four rival claimants. Guibert, or Clement
III., who had rivalled the three precedingPopes,
died in 1100. Paschal maintained his ground
against the three subsequent antipopes up to
his death in 1118. Gelasius II. occupied the
chair for about a year. His successor, Calixtus
II., was a man of royal descent. In the second
year of his pontificate he besieged in person
the antipope Burdinus, who was captured,
paraded in grotesque attire through Rome,
and finally left to die in some unknown con
vent prison. Calixtus settled the question of
the right of " investiture by the ring and pas
toral staff " in his own favour, a matter of
lengthy strife between the Church and the
Empire. The first (the Romish ninth) General
Council of Lateran was held in 1123, and con
firmed this decision. In the following year
Calixtus died, and was succeeded by Honorius
II., a somewhat militant Pope. In 1130 the
chair of Rome was again vacant. Sixteen
cardinals elected Gregory, under the title of
Innocent II., and thirty-two voted for Ana-
cletus II. (antipope). On his death another
Gregory was chosen in his place, who took the
name of Victor IV. His abdication left the
See in undisturbed possession of Innocent, who
through the wide-spread influence of the Abbot
of Clairvaux (Bernard), was acknowledged by
the kings of France, England, Spain, as well
as by the Emperor. This remarkable abbot
became a zealous defender of the Pope against
all objectors. The later years of Innocent's
pontificate were occupied in martial contests.
He fell a prisoner to the Normans, who, how-

POPES, THE

[ 525 ]

POPES, THE

ever, spared bis life. On his death in 1142
Celestine was elected Pope. His rule was
short and peaceful. His successor, Lucius II.,
fell fighting for the defence of his temporal
power, Feb. 25, 1145. The vacant throne was
filled by Eugenius III., who was obliged to retire
from Rome owing to the demand of the people
that he should acknowledge their republican
government. He took an active part in direct
ing the Crusades of his time. On his return
to Rome he found himself again obliged to re
tire. He died in 1153, six months after he had
effected a reconciliation with the Roman people.
Pope Anastasius IV. died after a short pontifi
cate and was followed (1154), by the only Eng
lishman elected to the papal chair, Nicholas
Breakspeare, a native of St. Albans. He as
sumed the name of Adrian IV. He was sur
passed by few in his bold assertion of the
papal dignity. Ireland was granted to Henry

II. of England on special terms dictated by
this Pope (1155). The tribute known since as
" Peter's Pence " was to be the reward of
this concession. The principle that all lands
converted to Christianity belonged to the juris
diction of St. Peter was laid down and endorsed
by the English Pope. Adrian died in 1159.
The election to the vacancy was attended by
much strife between the imperial and Sicilian
parties ; Alexander III. being the nominee of
the former, and Victor IV. that of the latter.
Both candidates appealed to the Emperor
Barbarossa, who confirmed Victor's election.
A number of assemblies and councils were
held, some for and some against this decision.
Victor died before the struggle terminated, but
a substitute was immediately put forward in
the person of Paschal III. The Emperor took
forcible possession of Rome, but was obliged
to retire owing to the prevalence of sickness
among his soldiers. Pope Alexander deposed
the Emperor. The second antipope, Paschal,
died only to be replaced by a third, Calixtus

III. (1171), who subsequently obtained the
Pope's pardon. Alexander died 1181. His
successor's (Lucius III.) death in 1185 made
way for the election of Urban III., who is
said to have died of grief, caused by receipt of
the tidings of the capture of Jerusalem by
Saladin in 1187.

Clement III. (1187), and Celestine III. (1191)
succeeded in turn to the Popedom. On the
death of the latter (1198) Innocent III. was
unanimously elected. In his inauguration
sermon he speaks of himself as the " vicegerent
of Christ, the successor of Peter." He (as Pope)
stands in the midst between God and man ;
below God, above man ; less than God, more than
man. He judges all, is judged by none, for it is
written: "I will judge," and so on — a strange
blend of exaggerated humility and conscious

ness of power. Innocent placed England in
John's reign under an interdict (see INTERDICT),
excommunicated the king, and absolved his sub
jects from their oaths of allegiance. The fourth
Lateran Council (1215), enacted two notable
canons, one relating to enforcement of the
doctrine of transubstantiation, and the other
making the duty of confession compulsory at
least once a year. Innocent's connection with
the cruel crusade against the Albigenses has
left an indelible stain upon his character. The
climax of the papal power was attained in his
pontificate, but the foundation for an inevitable
reaction was also laid at the same time. The
two great mendicant Orders of St. Dominic
and St. Francis took their rise in this ponti
ficate. Innocent's death occurred in 121G.
Honorius, his successor, died in 1227, when
the vacant chair was filled by Gregory IX.,
who entered upon a bitter strife with the
Emperor Frederick, whom he twice placed
under the ban. The Pope compared the Em
peror to the beast with seven heads and ten
horns (Revelation), having on his head the
names of blasphemy ; while the Emperor saw
in Gregory the great red dragon and the Anti
christ. Gregory died in 1241. His successor,
Celestine IV., survived him only seventeen
days, and died before consecration. A year
and a half elapsed before the Roman See was
filled by Innocent IV. (1243), a man of a violent
disposition against all who opposed him. He
renewed the bitter strife with the Emperor,
and on the death of Frederick in 1250 excom
municated his son Conrad, the appointed heir
to his dominions. Conrad died in May 1254.
The Pope died six months later, and was suc
ceeded by Alexander IV., a zealous Franciscan,
and nephew of Gregory IX. On his death in
1261 Urban IV. was elected Pope, and dying
in 1264, was succeeded by Clement IV., who
was concerned in the cruel murder of Conradin,
the son of Conrad IV. On the death of Clement
(1265) a vacancy of nearly three years ensued,
which was ended by the election of Gregory X.
in 1271. During his pontificate Rudolph, Count
of Hapsburg, was made king of the Holy Roman
Empire, and his descendants held the imperial
dignity till the dissolution of the Empire in
1806. Gregory died in 1276. The papal chair
was filled by three Popes in the same year
—Innocent V., Adrian V., and John XXI.
Nicholas III. succeeded in 1277, and Martin
IV. in 1281-85 ; Honorius 1285-88 ; NicholasIV.,
General of the Franciscans, 1288-92. The chair
was vacant for two years, when Celestine V.
was elected in 1294. This " hermit Pope " was
persuaded to resign ten days after his conse
cration by the ambitious Cardinal Gaetani, who,
on election, assumed the title of Boniface VIII.
The new Pope was a man of undoubted ability

POPES, THE

[ 526 ]

POPES, THE

and courage — a very Hildebrand in zeal. He
played a distinguished part in the politics of
his time. His conflicts with Edward I. of
England and Philip of France properly belong
to the history of those countries. In 1303 he
put forth his famous Bull Unam Sanctam
Ecdesiam, denning the constitution of the
Church and State. The Church is one body
and has one head, not two (like a monster).
The power of the one head is symbolised by
the two swords which our Lord declared to be
" enough." "Each of the two is in the power
of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and
the material — the latter for the Church, the
former by the Church." The Bull ends with
an unequivocal assertion of Papal Supremacy :
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that
it is absolutely necessary (esse de necessitate
salutis) to salvation for every human creature
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Papal
pretension could rise no higher. When about
to depose Philip of France, Boniface VIII. was
dragged from his throne and cast into prison,
and though released by the people, never re
covered the shock, dying on Oct. 11, 1303, at
the age of eighty-six. Boniface raised the
Papacy to an ascendancy which in after ages
it never fully regained. His successor, Bocas-
sini, a General of the Dominican Order, took
the title of Benedict XI. From motives of
prudent policy he made his peace with the King
of France. He, however, launched a Bull of
excommunication against the perpetrators of
the outrage upon Boniface, but died June 27,
1304, before it could be effected.

With his successor, Clement V. (Du Got,
Archbishop of Bordeaux), dawned the period
known as the Babylonian Captivity (seventy
years), during which the Popes lived not only
out of Rome, but out of Italy. The new Pope
summoned the Italian cardinals to attend his
coronation at Lyons. He eventually settled
to reside at Avignon in Provence, on the left
bank of the Rhone. Henceforth, during this
period, the Papacy was subject to, and the
subject of, France. Clement died in 1314.
The Roman See, after a vacancy of two years,
was filled by the election in 1 316 of John XXII.
He was a man of vehement and bitter temper.
Against the Jews he proved a relentless perse
cutor. He died at the age of ninety in 1334.
When Benedict XII. was chosen to fill the
vacant chair, in irony or humility he exclaimed,
"You have chosen an ass ! " He played the
role of a reformer, and reversed the unjust
policy of his predecessor in respect to Church
patronage and kindred matters. On his death
in 1342, Peter Roger, under the name of
Clement VI., was chosen Pope. He was suc
ceeded by Innocent VI. (1352-62). Urban V.,
his successor, resided three years in Rome, but

returned to Avignon, where he died a few days
after his arrival, Dec. 19, 1370. Gregory XI.
succeeded, and a year before his death in 1378
the so-called Babylonish Captivity was ended
by a return of the Papacy to Rome from
Avignon. The election of the next Pope,
Urban VI., was followed by the alienation of
the majority of the cardinals, who, retiring from
Rome, elected a rival Pope in the person of the
bishop of Cambray, as Clement VII., who, as
a dependant on the King of France, lived at
Avignon. The ten years' pontificate of Urban
was disgraced by deeds of violence and cruelty.
On his death in 1389 Boniface IX. was elected
his successor. In 1394 Benedict XIII. suc
ceeded Clement, deceased, as antipope at
Avignon. Innocent VII., in 1404, succeeded
Boniface IX., but died suddenly two years
later, when Gregory XI. came into the papal
chair under a stipulation that the existing
papal schism was to be healed even if his
resignation should be necessary. Eventually,
the rival Pope refusing to resign, a council,
specially convened at Pisa (1409), pronounced
them both contumacious for non-attendance,
and unworthy to occupy the papal chair, which
was therefore declared vacant. On the death
of Alexander V. (a Franciscan) in 1410, Bal-
thasar Cossa was elected under the name of
John XXIII., a man with an extraordinary
career— a pirate during one period, an arch
deacon in another, then Pope's chamberlain,
and finally Pope. Milman sums up the record
of his life as that which " by its contradictions,
moral anomalies, almost impossibilities, per
plexes and baffles the justand candid historian."
By this Pope, John Hus was excommunicated,
and the doctrines of Wickliffe condemned.
John was deposed by the Council of Constance
(1415), which, like that of Pisa, claimed and
exercised that prerogative. The deposed Pope
remained a prisoner in Heidelberg until his
successor, Martin V. (1417), made him Bishop
of Frascati. He died before he could enter
upon his See, Dec. 1417. The antipope Bene
dict XIII. died in Nov. 1424. His successor,
Clement VIII., shortly after abdicated, and
so the schism which had rent the Papacy
ceased.

Between 1431 and 1492 the " chair of St.
Peter " bad the following occupants : Eugenius
IV. (1431-47) ; Nicholas V. (1447-55) ; Calixtus
III. (1455-58); Pius II. (1458-64); Paul II.
(1464-71); Sixtus IV. (1471-84)— Martin
Luther was born in the last year of the last-
named Pope. Innocent VIII. (1484-92), was a
man of profligate morals. He was succeeded
(1492) by Roderick Borgia, who assumed the
name of Alexander VI., and was a man of
still more abandoned life. Three sons and a
daughter (the beautiful Lucretia), out of a

POPES, THE

[ 527 ]

POPES, THE

family of five illegitimate children, were alive
at the time of his election to the Papacy. His
third son, the infamous Caesar Borgia, was
raised from the status of a divinity student at
Pisa to that of a bishop, and shortly after was
made archbishop, and then cardinal ! Alex
ander's pontificate presents a depth of moral
degradation unsurpassed in the history of the
Papacy. The shameless orgies of the Vatican,
the depravities of the papal court and family,
were a scandal to all Christendom. Murders
at Rome became events of nightly occurrence.
At the age of seventy-two the Pope died
suddenly, supposed by poison, Aug. 1503.
His death was the signal for great disturb
ances. Pius III. died two days after his
election, and was succeeded by Julius II.
(1503), who granted to Henry VIII. of England
(when Prince of Wales) a dispensation to
marry Catherine, the widow of his brother
Arthur. Julius died in 1513. His successor
was John, Cardinal cle Medicis, who took the
name of Leo X. He was the Pope of the
Renaissance, the patron of Art and Letters,
the former represented by Michael Angelo
and Raphael, the latter by such names as
Ariosto and Erasmus. Leo himself was an
accomplished classical scholar. The rebuilding
of St. Peter's is due to him, and his method of
raising money for this purpose, by the sale of
indulgences preached by Tetzel, is one of the
well-known episodes of the German Reforma
tion movement. See TBTZEL ; INDULGENCE.
It was Leo X.'s Bull which Luther burned
outside the walls of Wittemberg. On the title
" Defender of the Faith," conferred on Henry
VIII. of England (see DEFENDER OF THE
FAITH). He died on Dec. 1, 1521. The next
Pope, Adrian VI., died after a short pontificate,
and was succeeded by Clement VII. in 1523, then
in his fifty-fifth year. In war between the King
of France and the Emperor Charles V., the
Pope took the side of the French King. Hence
Rome was besieged and taken, and the Pope
was compelled to make terms with Charles.
The Reformation at this time made rapid
strides in Germany. Against the intolerant
decision of the Second Diet of Spires the
Princes of the Empire and thirteen imperial
cities entered a solemn protest, which gave
birth to the historic designation " Protestant"
See PROTESTANT.

Alexander Farnese succeeded Clement in
1534, under the name of Paul III. He was a
man of sagacity and experience, but his morals
were no higher than the debased age in which
he lived. In 1538 he launched his Bull of
excommunication against Henry VIII. The
dissensions prevailing between the Papacy and
the Empire helped on the Reformation move
ment. Verger, the Pope's delegate, was sent

to Germany to win back Luther and his
followers. In vain he argued and cajoled :
"Your doctrine is but eighteen years old, but
look at its frightful consequences ! Why not
keep your opinions to yourself ? Do come and
give us your vast influence." In substance
the Reformer replied, "I care nothing for
Rome's hatred or for Rome's gifts ... I can
not make your council a success [the contem
plated one to be held at Mantua] ; your Pope
can, if he lets God's Spirit freely guide it and
takes the Bible as his only standard." The
projected Council of Mantua proved a failure.
In 1542 the Pope convened the Council which
derives its name from the place of meeting, at
Trent. The Protestants refused to attend.
After repeated delay the first session of this
historic Council was opened Dec. 13, 1545.
During Paul's pontificate, Ignatius Loyola
founded the Order of the Jesuits. See
LOYOLA; JESUITS. Paul III. died in Nov.
1549 at the advanced age of eighty-five.
Julius III. in 1550 was chosen for the vacant
chair. War broke out between the Emperor
and Maurice, Elector of Saxony, and caused
the postponement of the Tridentine Council
for ten years. Meanwhile four Popes occupied
the Vatican. Julius dying in 1555 was followed
by Marcellus II., who died within the year of
his election and was succeeded by Paul IV.,
who re-established the Inquisition, granting it
power to extort confession by torture, and
instituted the festival of St. Dominic in honour
of that Inquisitor. He showed a readiness to
call in the help of the Protestants, and even
that of the "infidel Turks," to aid him in his
struggles with the civil power. Great dis
turbances took place in Rome at his death
in 1559.

John Angelo de Medicis, under the name of
Pius IV., was elected to the papal chair. His
pontificate witnessed the re-opening of the
Council of Trent and its final session (the
twenty -fifth) Dec. 3, 1563. The decrees of this
Council were confirmed in the following year
by Pius IV., who added XII. Articles of belief
to the Nicene Creed. On the death of Pius IV.
Dec. 1565, Pius V. was chosen his successor.
He bore a character for inflexibility in matters
of discipline, and was a vigorous persecutor of
heretics. In 1569 he excommunicated Queen
Elizabeth. His successor in 1572, Gregory
XIII., proved himself a patron of the Jesuits
and built for them the Roman College in
Rome as well as numerous other seminaries
for the instruction of youth under the direction
of the Society. To Gregory XIII. is due the
reform of the Calendar and the introduction of
the New Style. Among the coins struck by
this pontiff is that in commemoration of the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew, Aug. 24, 1572.

POPES, THE

[ 528 ]

POPES, THE

The succeeding Pope, Sixtus V., was a man of
obscure origin, the son of a vine-dresser. He
had been a Franciscan monk, then a bishop,
and was finally elected to the papal chair in
1585. His severity towards even trivial
offenders amounted to ferocity. To the energy
of Sixtus, Rome owes many of her present build
ings. The Lateran palace was restored, the Vati
can Library built. While zealous in constructing
new works, he destroyed some of the features
of classic Rome, which the antiquaries must
ever regret. The tomb of Csecilia Metella
barely escaped his destroying hand. Sixtus
died in August 1590. His successor, Urban
VII., followed him to the grave after twelve
days' rule. Gregory XIV. was elected in 1590,
but died in Oct. 1591. Innocent IX., an aged
man, lived only to the last day of the same
year. Clement VIII., his successor, proved
himself a man of great energy and marked in
dividuality. His reputation for virtue and
religious duties was greatly enhanced after his
elevation to the Papacy. The famous con
troversy between the Jesuits and the Domini
cans concerning "Grace," "Free Will," and
"Predestination," was carried on under his
pontificate. The Pope took a lively interest in
the controversy, but pronounced no decision,
probably not to provoke either of the powerful
disputant Orders. Clement died on March 3,
1605. His successor Leo XL's election and
death took place within the same month
(April). Paul V. then came into the papal
chair (1605). A deed of merciless cruelty
signalised his elevation. A poor author,
Piccinardi by name, had written a life of
Clement VIII., in which he instituted a com
parison between that Pope and the Emperor
Tiberius. The "Life " was still in manuscript,
its author had refrained from publishing or
printing it. A woman having betrayed the
circumstance to the Pope, that dignitary
expressed himself in such a manner as to
relieve the anxiety of Piccinardi, when, to the
astonishment of all, the hapless man was be
headed one day on the bridge of St. Angelo !
Paul V.'s conceptions of the Papacy were of
the most exalted and extravagant order. The
Pope is the sole vicegerent of Jesus Christ. To
him is committed the power of the keys. He
is to be reverenced in humility by all kings
and nations. Paul placed the republic of
Venice under an interdict. The Venetians re
sponded by declaring the Bull null and void,
at the same time banishing both the Capuchin
and Jesuit Orders from their domain. Through
the mediation of the King of France the
former were restored, but the Venetian Senate
refused to re-admit the latter. Paul died in
Jan. 1621. Gregory, his successor, was a
steadfast friend of the Jesuits. He established

the Propaganda Fidei, and advanced Loyola
and Xavier to the calendar of saints. He
died in the third year of his pontificate.
Maffeo Barbarino was elected to the supreme
dignity under the name of Urban VIII. (1623),
at the age of fifty-five. He distinguished him
self more during his twenty years' pontificate as
a military engineer than as an ecclesiastic.
Rome and the States of the Church were
strongly fortified, a manufactory of arms was
established at Tivoli, and everything betokened
the existence of a kingdom of this world, fully
prepared for offensive and defensive war. He
exhorted the Catholic princes of his time to
repress heresy by all means possible. He
renewed the infamous Bull In (Jcena Domini,
relating to the excommunication of heretics.
The celebrated Jansenist controversy (see
JANSENISTS) arose during this pontificate.
Innocent X. came into the papal chair in 1644
at the advanced age of seventy-two. He was
involved in perplexities caused by the irregu
larities in the papal family and palace. The in
fluence of a bad and reckless woman once more
became conspicuous within the walls of the
Vatican. Amid these unhappy circumstances
the old man breathed his last in the eleventh
year of his pontificate. For three days the life
less body lay neglected by all, until a canon,
formerly in the papal service, caused the last
honours to be rendered to his deceased master.
The next occupant of the papal chair,
Cardinal Chigi, who took the title of Alexander
VII. (1655), was a contemporary of Louis XIV.
of France. He issued a Bull against the
Jansenists, who had declared the Pope to be
fallible in matters of fact, while their opponents
the Jesuits maintained that when matters of
fact, were connected with those of faith, the
infallibility of the Pope extended to both.
Alexander died in 1667. The two succeeding
Popes were Clement IX. and Clement X.
(1670-76). Innocent XL, his successor,
throughout his thirteen years' reign was con
tinuously embroiled in disputes with Louis
XIV., who seized Avignon, which was the
property of the Church. This remarkable man
played a part similar to that of Henry VIII.
in its apparent inconsistency. He quarrelled
with the Pope, was the relentless persecutor
of the Huguenots, rallied his bishops, and
formulated what henceforth were known as
Gallican principles (see GALLICANISM). In 1689
the papal chair again became vacant by the
death of Innocent XL in his seventy-eighth
year. The following were his successors :
Alexander VIII., died after a sixteen months'
rule ; Innocent XII., elected 1699, died 1700 ;
Clement XL, died 1721 ; Innocent XIII., died
1724. He issued a Bull against the Jesuits,
whom he accused of authorising idolatry in

POPES, THE

[ 529 ]

POPES, THE

China. The dissolution of the Society seems
only to have been averted by his death after a
reign of two years and six months.

Benedict XIII., a Dominican, succeeded to a
short pontificate of five and a half years. His
successors were Clement XII. (1730-40) ; Bene
dict XIV. was a pontiff uf a conciliatory char
acter. He issued a brief, h.iving for its object
the reform of Jesuits in Portugal, and this at
the request of the king. He occupied the papal
chair for nearly eighteen years, dying at the
age of eighty-three. After a vacancy of two
months, during which the Conclave met fifty-
three times, Rezzonico was elected Pope as
Clenifnt XIII. in 1758. This Pontiff, recognis
ing the Jesuits as the most faithful defenders
of the papal See, made great efforts, but in
vain, to protect them. His conflicts with the
European sovereigns, who were bent upon dis
solving the Order in their respective territories,
hastened his death, which occurred in (or
about) 1765. The next Pope, Clement XIV.,
commenced by dropping the publication of the
Bull, In Ccena Domini, at Rome on Maundy
Thursday, as a compliment to some princes.
See M'Ghee'.sZ««'« of the Papacy, p. 304. That
bull remains, however, still in full force. He was
a member of the Franciscan Order, and to him
Protestants are indebted for the suppression of
the Jesuits Order, a decision of immeasurable
importance. The Pope took four years before
he made up his mind to take that line of action.
Clement was succeeded by Pius VI. in 1775. He
quarrelled with the Emperor Joseph II. (of the
House of Hapsbursf) over his drastic reforms,
consisting in the large reduction of monastic
institutions, and his exercise of the power to
nominate to episcopal sees, not only within the
Austrian States, but in Italy itself. The
Emperor paid an unwelcome visit to Rome,
and was greeted by the populace as Emperor,
with the cry, " Siete a casa vostra: siete il
padrone ! " " You are in your own house : be
master ! " About a year later the terrible
Revolution in France broke out. The General
of the French Directory entered Rome as a
conqueror in 1798. Rome was occupied by
French troops, and the Pope dethroned. Pius
ended his days a prisoner at Valence after the
longest pontificate hitherto on record, viz.
twenty-four years and six months, on Aug. 29,
1799. His successor in 1800 was Pius VII.,
who had been a Benedictine monk. He was
elected on March 14, crowned at Venice, and
entered Rome in the following July. In May
1804 Napoleon Buonaparte was proclaimed
Emperor, and on the 2nd of December re
ceived his crown from the hands of the Pope
at Paris. A few years subsequently, Napoleon,
unable to bend the Pope to his will, occupied
Rome, and confined the Pope to his palace in

the Quiiinal. On May 17, 1809, the remainder
of the Roman States were united to the French
Empire. As one of the consequences of the
victory of Austerlitz, the Holy Roman Empire,
a-; it is called, came to an end in the exclusion
of the House of Austria from Italy in 1805.
In 1812 the Pope was brought to Fontainebleau.
Two years later, on the abdication of Napoleon,
he re-entered Rome, where he died, Aug. 20,
1823. His pontificate was but a year shorter
in duration than that of his immediate prede
cessor.

Leo XII. was elected to the vacant chair in
1823, and died Feb. 10, 1829. During the
short pontificate of his successor, Pius VIII. ,
the Revolution which placed Louis Philippe on
the throne of France, took place. Gregory
XVI. was elevated to the papal throne in 1831,
and occupied it till his death in 1846. As
Professor of Theology in a Benedictine monas
tery, he had published a work in which he
contended for the infallibility of the Pope.
This idea was to be proclaimed at no distant
date as an acknowledged principle of the
Roman Catholic Church. The next Pope, Pius
IX. (John Maria Mastai Ferretti) was destined
to break the record as to length of reign.
He was created on June 10, 1846, and continued
to rule for thirty-one years and seven months.
The French Revolution of 1848 forced the Pope
to fly in disguise "with knot on shoulder, and
plush above the knee," and to remain for a
year and a half an exile in Neapolitan territory.
His return was effected by French interference
in April 1850. The same year witnessed the
division of England into Roman Catholic
dioceses. Cardinal Wiseman was nominated
Archbishop of Westminster, and territorial
titles conferred on other Roman Catholic pre
lates. In 1854 the Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin Mary was declared to be an
Article of the Christian Creed. The defeat of
Austria in 1866 by Prussia resulted in the
material weakening of the temporal power of
the Pope, who had to depend on the French
garrison at Rome. When these troops were
withdrawn from necessity, owing to the French
reverses in 1871, the Italian army under Victor
Emmanuel possessed themselves of Rome, and
it became the capital of Italy. The Papacy
was shorn of its remaining territories, and the
Vatican was henceforth to be the only ground
in Italy belonging to " the successor of St.
Peter" — his palatial residence, if he so willed
to view it, or his prison, if he thought better
so to designate it. Pius IX. chose the latter
alternative, and it was perpetuated by his
successor, Gioacchino Pecci, Leo XIII., who,
on the death of Pius IX., was elected Pope
in 1878. It fell to the lot of Pius IX. to
place the top stone of papal assumption by the

2 L

POET-ROYALISTS

[ 530 ]

PEAYER BOOK, THE

declaration of Papal Infallibility as an article
of faith. Thus fourteen new articles were
added to the Nicene Creed between 1564 and
1870.

Leo XIII. has issued a number of Encyclical
Letters. That on the Restoration of Christian
Philosophy in Catholic Universities is specially
worthy of note, for the teaching of Thomas
Aquinas is there proclaimed to be the true
Catholic teaching (see THOMISTS AND SCOT-
ISTS). Leo XIII. issued several remarkable
bulls, among which may be mentioned that
termed Apostolicce Curce, which declared the
" Orders " of the English Church completely
null and void. Although Leo XIII. has been
lauded in some quarters as a liberal Pope,
his conduct in 1849 during the massacres of
Perugia, when he was archbishop, ought
never to have been forgotten. It was strongly
condemned at the time in the English press.

It is premature to say anything about the
new Pope, Pius X., who ascended the papal
throne this year (1903).

The total number of Popes to the present
time is 263. This allows about seven years on
an average to each papal reign. The average
term of office of the Archbishops of Canterbury
is said to be fourteen years.

Select Literature. — Schaff's History of the
Christian Church, 1884. Canon J. C. Robinson's
History of the Christian Church, 3 vols.,1866.
Ranke's History of the Popes, 3 vols. Bryce's
Holy Roman Empire, 1871. Milman's History
of Latin Christianity, 9 vols., 1867. Philip
Smith, History of Christian Church, 1878, and
History of Middle Ayes, 1885. T. Rhys Evans'
Council of Trent, 1888. [W. H. W.]

PORT-ROYALISTS.— See MORAL THEOLOGY;
JANSENISTS.

POSSESSION, DIABOLICAL.— See DEMON ;
EXORCISM ; EXOECISTS.

POSTIL. — Originally postils (or postills) were
notes in the margin of the Bible, so called
because written after the words of the text
(post ilia). Subsequently, postil came to be
applied to a short homily composed on a
passage of Scripture. In this sense we read
of the postils of Luther and others.

[J. C. L.]

PR.EMUNTRE.— The statutes of Praemunire
were so called from the writ which was issued
to enforce them — prcemunire facias, i.e. cause to
be forewarned. They date from a period long
before Reformation times, the first of them
being in Edward III.'s reign. Their object
was to prevent, first, the encroachments of the
ecclesiastical courts on the king's courts, and,
next, to prevent foreigners being introduced
into English bishoprics, abbeys, and benefices,
without the king's consent. A common form
of papal encroachment on the courts was to

threaten and excommunicate a bishop who
consented to institute the nominee of a patron
who had established his right of presentation
in the king's court. These statutes were also
passed to prevent the Pope appointing and
translating bishops and other ecclesiastical
dignitaries in England without the king's
consent. The Statutes of Praemunire made it
an offence rendering the offender liable to out
lawry, and general forfeiture of goods and
chattels, to obtain at Rome, or elsewhere,
translations to bishoprics, &c., processes, sen
tences of excommunication, or any other things
which " touch the King, his crown and re
gality." The Statute of 16 Rich. II. e.g. is
generally known as the Statute of Praemunire
against papal provisions, i.e. ecclesiastical pro
motions. Henry IV. extended the remedy to
other similar " mischiefs." Henry VIII. further
extended the principle of praemunire to all
appeals to Rome, so that it became not only
an offence to appeal to Rome from the interfer
ence of civil courts in matters alleged to be
ecclesiastical, but also to appeal on purely
ecclesiastical questions. Henry VIII. also
made it a crime involving the offence of praa
munire for any dean and chapter not to elect
the person nominated to them by the king as
bishop or archbishop. The seeking or obtain
ing confirmation from Rome of an appointment
to a bishopric also involved this offence. The
gist of the offence consisted in bringing in a
foreign authority into this realm, and so creat
ing an imperium in imperio. [E. B. W.]
PRAYER BOOK, THE.— Early in Cranmer's
primacy the Roman Church itself began im
proving its forms of prayer, and a Spanish
cardinal, Francis Quignon, an intimate friend
of those few who then longed for reform,
undertook at the Pope's desire to revise the
Breviary. The new book appeared in February
1535, but with such disquieting changes that
in August 1536 it was superseded by another
from the same hand, and this lived till 1558.
The earlier edition, after long obscurity, was
reprinted from one of very few known copies
by Dr. J. W. Legg in 1888.1 In England, by
royal orders in 1538, 1539, and 1541, a long
standing abuse in public worship ended with
the abolition of the shrine., altar, relics, images,
pictures, breviary-office, and whole sainthood,
of " Bishop Becket" from Canterbury Cathedral
and elsewhere.2 In 1542 Convocation pre-

1 Dr. John Wickhatn Legg, F.S.A., Breviarium
JKomanum Quiynonianum, 1888, Pref. ; Messrs.
Gasquet and Bishop, Edward VI. and the Book of
Common Prayer, 1890, pp. 21, 22.

2 Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 835, 847, 857; Burnet,
i. 393-94 Nares ; i. 387 Pocock ; Strype's
Memorials of Cranmer, i. 131, ed. 1812.

PRAYER BOOK, THE

f 531 ]

PRAYER BOOK, THE

scribed the observance of the Sarum rite for
the whole province of Canterbury, and the
reading of two chapters of the Bible in the
daily service.1 Cranmer in 1543, in the king's
name, directed that the mass-books, anti-
phoners, portasses, should be reformed, and
all mention of the Pope dropped, together
with apocryphas, feigned legends, and super
stitious orations ; that the names of saints not
contained in Scripture or authentic doctors
should be removed both from the books and
the calendar : that the service should be
framed from Scripture and historic sources.2
In 1544 came the Litany in English into public
use, no bare vernacular of the old Latin appeals
to the catalogue of saints, but yet while pre
serving the same formation and march, still
in a single place marred by invocations to
creaturely existences, one of them (St. Mary)
being named, otherwise confining itself ab
solutely, as when soon after revised, to the
God Triune. This litany was characterised
by one petition terribly severe, for deliverance
from the Bishop of Rome "and all his de
testable enormities."3

On Jan. 24, 1545-46, Cranmer begged the
king to address him and his brother archbishop
a letter (for which he enclosed a draft) to send
round to the bishops for discontinuing sundry
superstitions in church.4 Henry let him know
that further changes at that time would
hamper his policy abroad, and he must pause,6
thus conceding the principle of further reform
and bearing out what in the following reign
Somerset wrote to that effect to the Lady
Mary.6 Henry died Jan. 28, 1547.

OnjjNov. 22, 1547, in Edward's first Convo
cation, the Lower House desired of the arch
bishop that, whereas certain prelates and
learned men had composed, as they under
stood, by command of King Henry,7 books of
divine service, they might be allowed to peruse
them and so assist in expediting the work in
hand.8 Lathbury remarks hereupon: "It is

1 Wilkins, iii. 863. 2 Ibid.

3 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, vol. i. 183.
The Litany of 1544 may be seen in the Appendix
(p. 570) to the Parker Society's volume (1851),
Private Prayers put forth by Authority during the
Reign of Elizabeth.

* Burnet, iv. 325 Nares, with O.S. date Jan.
24, 1545; T. 353 Pocock. Also Cranmer's
" Letters " in Works, Parker Society, vol. ii. p. 414.

8 See note 5, col. 2, in Cranmer, ibid. p. 415.

' Burnet, ii. 62 ; iv 263 Nares ; ii. 91 ; v. 168,
Pocock.

7 Of Convocation, say Strype and Lathbury,
vide next note.

8 Wilkins, iv. 15 ; Strype, Memorials of Cranmer,
i. 220; Lathbury, Convocation, 135.

evident that the arrangement of the liturgy
had already been commenced by the bishops."
Whether the materials asked for were produced
seems unknown, nor does any further mention
of them occur, according to Messrs. Gasquet
and Bishop, who had the fortune to dis
cover, as they believed, an original portion of
them among the manuscripts of the British
Museum,9 and used it in their valuable work,i°
its title being Festivale et Horarum Canoni-
carum Series.

Another instalment of the coming Prayer
Book appeared on Nov. 26, 1547, when there
began in the Lords a Bill for the laity to
receive the Communion in both kinds. It
passed in Parliament Dec. 20, receiving the
royal assent Dec. 24.11 The service by which it
was proposed to carry out this ruling would
appear to have been originally introduced to
the Lower House of Convocation from Cranmer
in some shape, described in a memorandum
apparently contemporary as "a form of a
certain ordinance for the receiving of the
body of our Lord under both kinds," on Nov.
30, and unanimously accepted by it on Dec. 2.12
After undergoing further consideration by a
body of divines appointed by the king early
in 1548 it was printed March 8, 1548, with a
religiously worded proclamation by the king
accompanying it, and on March 13 distributed
by the Privy Council to the bishops for
general use on Easter Day, April I.13 The design
of the service was not to alter the customary
ritual of the Mass, which went on, all in
Latin, just as before, but to enable and invite
the laity to come oftener, and with a proper
understanding receive in both kinds with the
priest, the obligation of auricular confession
as a preliminary being also abolished. As
all now accepted the principle of lay com
munion in both kinds, there was no dispute
as to the service, and thus, with the Litany
already in use, two considerable elements of
the approaching English Prayer Book were

9 Royal MSS. 7 B. iv.

10 Edward VI. and the Book of Common Prayer,
1890, pp. 16, 17 ; p. 317, account of the MS.

11 Lords' Journal, i. 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 310,
313; Commons, i. 2, 3.

12 Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i. 221 ed. 1812.
See also Wake, State of the Church, 1703, fol. p.
592; Collier, Eccl. Hist., v. 217, ed. Lathbury,
1852 ; W. K. Clay, Book of Common Prayer Illus
trated, 1841, Pref. p. viii. ; Cardwell, Doc. Annals,
1844, vol. i. p. 72, No. xiv. note ; J. H. Blunt,
Annotated Book of Common Prayer, 1866, part ii.,
p. 150, col. 2.

13 A printed copy with colophon and date may
be seen in the Parker Society's Liturgies of
Edward VI., pp. 1-8.

PRAYER BOOK, THE

[ 532 ]

PRAYER BOOK, THE

provided without difficulty, and matters pro
mised well, though two more liturgical booklets
were added to the various Latin ones already
on the priest's desk. The next step was to
have the booklets, with additions, in one book,
all English, for the hands of the people, not
for the priest's exclusively. The volume was
to begin, not with Holy Communion, the rarer
service, attended by the fewest and most
serious persons, but with the more ordinary
prayers, those for morning and evening, fre
quented by the generality. In framing these
the compilers kept in view two main principles :
(1) The incorporation of as much as possible of
Scripture text ; the retention of ancient col
lects, in the old breviary and horary sequence,
linking the current Church with that of
previous days. Here the earliest and best
edition of Quignon's revise was made use of.1
Quignon was followed in making the recitation
of Scripture conspicuously predominate amid
all Church formulary. (2) Our English liturgist
went still further, bent on extruding all things
apocryphal on the one hand, and unscriptural
on the other, in the forms that were retained.
Hail Mary disappeared. Holy-day collects were
quite remarkable for neglecting every saint's
meritorious intercession. The ideal aimed at,
anything much short of which would have been
but poor liturgic reform, was very largely realised.
On Dec. 9, 1548, a Bill for authorising a
Prayer Book was put into the House of
Commons, and into the House of Lords on the
day following.2 But it must have been deemed
advisable by Government that Parliamentary
proceedings should be preceded by an informal
discussion in the Upper Chamber, by the bishops
and some learned men before the nobility, on
that portion of the book which must form the
turning-point of the whole subject, the Lord's
Supper, regarding which, as we are assured by
a contemporary letter, contention was going
on in every corner of England.3 That such a
debate was held about this time has been long
known from surviving letters,4 which give its

1 Gasquet and Bishop, 21.

2 Burnet, ii. 148 Nares; 176 Pocock. The
editor of the Parker Society's Original Letters, i.
322, note 3, thinks Burnet's date should have
been Dec. 19, but he gives no sufficient reason.
Burnet apparently meant to say that the Bill
was at that early day put in charge of some
member of each House, who at the proper
moment would formally introduce it by a first
reading, and then carry it forward.

3 Peter Martyr, Oxford, Dec. 26, 1548, Original
Letters, ii. 469.

« Peter Martyr's in the preceding note, and
Bartholomew Traheron's, London, Dec. 31, 1548,
in same collection, i. 322.

general results ; but no actual record of it was
commonly known, so far as we are aware,
until quite recently, when the Roman Catholic
historians, Dr. Gasquet and Mr. Bishop, came
upon an original report of it among the Royal
Manuscripts in the British Museum, and in
1890 printed it in their welcome volume, Edward
VI. and the Book of Common Prayer, with a
description of the document and its probable
history.5 It is headed: " Certain Notes Touching
the Disputations of the Bishops, in this last Par
liament Assembled, of the Lord's Supper."6 On
Saturday, Dec. 15, 1548, the debate began
under Protector Somerset as moderator, who
doubtless had before him for guidance another
still surviving product of this occasion, the
publication of which is likewise due to the
above two writers. Its manuscript title is Of
the Sacrament of Thanksgiving : a Short Treatise of
Peter Martir's Making, inscribed to the Pro
tector, with the date Dec. I.7 Its ten heads,
indicating the main points on which Cranmer's
side took its stand, are given, with abbrevia
tion, by Gasquet and Bishop.8 The first,
"Christ is in the Holy Supper to them that
do come to His table, and He doth verily
feed the faithful with His body and blood,"
struck the keynote. The second denied tran
substantiation ; the third, " intermixture," evi
dently directed towards Luther. Other sections
affirmed Christ's presence to the faithful re
cipient, not in the elements, and not apart
from the use of the sacrament. The ninth
and tenth declared against the adoration and
the reservation of the elements. Thus the
discussion, which closed on Dec. 19, 1548,
included vastly more than the order for lay
communion, which when debated in 1547 com
manded so ready an assent. The heart of things
was in question ; a new consecration prayer was
needed, in English, which all could understand,
the Latin, so like a performer's charm, being
discarded, with the rejection of ceremonies

5 In their Appendix V., p. 395. In 1894 the
Great Debate was edited in a cheap pamphlet
form, with critical notes, some of them correct
ing Messrs. Gasquet and Bishop, by Mr. J. T.
T omlinson. See Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 74, 79 ;
Tomlinson, pp. 10, 11, 21, 22 ; Mr. Tomlinson has
done special service to the memory of Cranmer,
who is charged in Dr. Gasquet's book with the
dishonesty of tampering with the Prayer Book
after he had got his colleagues to sign it.

6 Press-mark 17 B. xxxix. In the printed cata
logue of the Royal MSS. the title is The Great
Parliamentary Debate on the Lord's Supper.

7 Its press-mark is 17 C. v. Title in the printed
catalogue of the Royal MSS., Peter Martyr's
Book of the Eucharist.

8 Gasquet and Bishop, 159.

PRAYEE BOOK, THE

[ 533 ]

PRAYER BOOK, THE

that affirmed minutely every mediaeval dis
tortion of the genuine Eucharist. The papal
party, with a sure instinct towards vital points
in their own system, laid all possible stress on
the omission of the oblation, the elevation,
the adoration, of the sacred elements.1 But
in the account of these proceedings the Lower
House cannot be left out. On the testimony
of a close observer, all its members daily
thronged the Upper Chamber listening to
"these sharp and fervent disputations."2 There
they learned to know their archbishop, in
charge of this critical business, in another
light, as a deep theologian, powerful in debate
not the mere man of affairs they had usually
seen hitherto. The noble task of providing the
nation with a worship worthy of the name gave
him a new reputation, and made him one of the
people. So we gather from this witness. On
Dec. 19, the day this great debate concluded,
the precious book was opened in the Commons,
who thus had official knowledge of the entire
new rite they would soon be asked to vote for.
On that day, as their journal records, baldly
as usual, " The book for the service in the
church read. Re-delivered to Mr. Secretary
Smythe."3 Their acceptance of it when the
Bill should duly follow, was assured, not in
the interest of reform alone, but in that of
civil order quite as much. " They can no
longer," says again our contemporary witness,
"retrace their steps. Such great innovations
have everywhere taken place, and all things
are so changed from their former state, that
if they were long suffered to remain so,
wonderful disorder would ensue."4 The Bill
to initiate the grand experiment of establishing
one exclusive form of prayer in the mother-
tongue in every church and cathedral, within
York province as well as in Canterbury, a
worship so revolutionary too — for that it was,
in spite of all old material embodied in its
antique form — beginning in the Lords, was
read there Jan. 7, 10, 15, 1549, and on its pass
ing eight out of the twenty prelates present,
with three lay peers, dissented.5 In the
Commons the three readings were taken on
Jan. 17, 19, 21.6 On the 22nd the Lords re
ceived back their Bill concluded,7 and there our
knowledge of it as a Bill ends. No royal assent
is recorded. The earliest day discoverable
from surviving copies for the printing of the

1 Gasquet and Bishop, 161, 165, 194, 397, 405.
3 Peter Martyr, Oxford, Dec. 26, 1548. Original
Letters, ii. 469.

3 Commons' Journals, i. 5.

4 Peter Martyr, in Original Letters, ii. 470.

5 Lords' Journals, i. 328, 329, 331.
8 Commons' Journals, i. 5.

7 Lords' Journals, i. 333.

book is March 7, 1549.8 On March 14 the
king prorogued Parliament, but the expected
royal assents do not appear in the Journal,
though the Act stands first among those passed
in the session.9 The Prayer Book of 1549 was
enacted by the first of the four Acts of Uni
formity in English history. This statute (2 & 3
Ed. VI. c. 1) mentions no annexed book, as
does the statute of 1552, and in the absence of
one, if the MS. were lost, the standard of textual
accuracy was to be sought in the copies issued
by the king's printer. Whitsunday, June 9,
1549, when at the latest its statutable use
began, and every household in the remotest
corner of the land became entitled to a share
in this Scriptural, vernacular worship, may
be regarded as the birthday of the English
Reformation. This monumental book, for
which England thanks her first reformed
archbishop, awaited improvement, but its
main lines have proved as imperishable as
they still are recognisable.

The necessity of a new form of ordination,
to give ministers who had been ordained
mainly for the function of sacrificing a more
distinct mission to celebrate a Communion
and teach the Word of God, was obvious. On
Jan. 8, 1550, a bill to provide such a service
began in the Lords, and at its third reading,
Jan 25, five bishops out of twelve present
dissented, besides five lay lords.10 It was read
in the Commons, Jan. 25, 30, 31, u finishing in
the Lords Jan. 3 1,12 five bishops again dissent
ing. On Feb. 1, the day of the prorogation by
the king in person, the royal assent was presum
ably given. The Act, 3 & 4 Edward VI., c. 12,1J
sanctioned the service in advance before one
was ready, and in this way. Whatever form
should be prepared and set forth under the
Great Seal before the ensuing April 1, by a
majority of six bishops and six divines to be
appointed by the king, that and no other was
to have legal force.14 This was a virtual in
stalment of Edward's Second Book.

By the end of 1550 the foes of the new
worship were using every ceremonial artifice
to make it in the people's eyes resemble the
old one, and practically to bring the old one
back. Many officiants so recited the Com
munion service that it could not be heard or
followed, transferring the book from one side

8 Facsimile title-pages in Liturgies of Edward
VI., pp. 9-15, 158 n. 3.

9 Lords' Juiirntds, i. 353, 354.

10 Ibid., i. 377, 383, 384.

11 Commons' Journals, i. 15, 16.

12 Lords' Journals, i. 387.

13 Statutes at Large, vol. v. p. 344.

14 See some historical details in Tomlinson's
Prayer Book, Homilies, Articles, 1897, pp. 277,279.

PRAYER BOOK, THE

[ 534 ]

PRAYER BOOK, THE

of the altar to the other, reciting the discarded
canon while the Sanctus was being sung,
bending over the altar, lifting up the hands,
genuflecting, showing the bread and the cup,
striking the breast, washing out the chalice,
crossing the air, while the superstitious adored
as before but did not communicate. l

The result was a revision, and the Second
Prayer Book, established by a second Act of
Uniformity, passed April 14, 1552, by which
time the reformed bishops had increased in
number, and on Nov. 1, 1552, its use became
obligatory. This second Uniformity Act,
5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 1, 1552, contains the state
ment that it has "annexed" to it the
authorised Book of Common Prayer; but in
the latest edition of the statute (1888) there
is a notification that the book does not ap
pear on the roll or in the Parliament Office.
The Communion Office was now, as Gasquet
and Bishop express it, " changed beyond
recognition," not, however, by actual altera
tion in its substance so much as by " the re
volutionising of the order " 2 of its constituent
parts, designed to render the service more
difficult of misrepresentation, rather than to
change what was originally put and quite
innocently intended. Some pieces were trans
posed, with safer diction, to a safer place, as
for instance, when a large portion of what in
1549 was the Canon, or prayer of consecration,
which Gardiner declared capable of the inter
pretation of a propitiatory sacrifice for the
living and the dead,3 was put back (with prayer
for the departed expunged), under a title of its
own, " Prayer for the whole state of Christ's
Church militant here in earth." The words on
delivering the elements were altered to those
which form the present second clause. Every
prayer, every single word, between the conse
cration and the reception was removed, includ
ing the hymn Agnus Dei, to take away all
possible excuse for saying that adoration was
offered to Christ's body present in the conse
crated bread and wine. The Act establishing
the Second Prayer Book, calling the First " a
very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God
and the primitive Church," 4 has been quoted as
admitting that the Second Book was superfluous
and that the first might as well revive. That is

1 Substance of Bucer's Centura, quoted in
Gasquet and Bishop, 269.

2 Gasquet and Bishop, 288.

s Ibid., 281, 282. Gardiner also made out that
the Prayer of humble access, which in 1549 stood
after the Consecration, was an act of adoration to
Christ in the elements.

4 Opening passage of the Act, p. 213 of Lituryies
of Edward VI., Parker Society; Gasquet and
Bishop, 302.

pushing the words too far. They are to be taken
in their broad general sense, and in comparison
with the ancient services, as when Latimer, in
1554, said of the two Communion services, 1549
and 1552, he could remember no great differ
ence' between them, both being " one Supper of
the Lord," as contained in the New Testament,6
rather than the Mass, the material parts or
" sinews " of which he regarded the popish
consecration, transubstantiation, oblation, and
adoration, all four being opposed to Scripture.6
On April 28, 1 559, in the first year of Eliza
beth a third Act of Uniformity reinstated, but
without any "annexed" copy, the book of
1552, which Mary had abolished, to become
obligatory on June 24, but with certain re
servations, only one of which, however, appears
fully adopted in the earliest extant copy dated
that year,7 viz., the two sentences at the
delivery of the bread and wine combined
together. What papalists thought of the Com
munion service of 1559 is plain from the
language of Bishop Scot, their spokesman in
the Lords. Besides slighting the titles, Holy
Communion, Lord's Supper, he pointed out that
on its own showing the communicant received
only "creatures of bread and wine," there
being no consecration, no oblation, no prayer
for them to be made the body and blood, which
therefore could not be, and were not, com
municated to him.8 In later editions through
Elizabeth's reign numerous augmentations
occur,9 not specifically provided for in the
Act, and resting probably (for nothing is said
officially) on what was then understood as the
queen's supreme Church authority conferred by
the Act of Supremacy, 1559, to an extent as
ample as that exercised by Henry and Edward,
which was very great. One notable augmenta
tion, and in the very earliest known copy, 1559,
revived the vestments in use under Edward's
First Book ; 10 another, a petition for the sove
reign to be kept " in the true worshipping
of " God,11 the drift of which language, so im
mediately after Mary's reign, cannot be mis
taken. The deprecation against the bishop of
Rome was omitted.

5 Latimer's Disputation at Oxford in 1554, in
his Remains, p. 262, Parker Society ; Gasquet and
Bishop, 276.

6 Conference between Latimer and Ridley,
1554, in Ridley's Works, p. 112, Parker Society;
Gasquet and Bishop, 276.

7 Liturgical Services of the Reign of Queen Eliza
beth, Parker Society, pp. 28 (lines 1-4), 195.

8 Bishop Scot's speech in Cardwell's Con
ferences, pp. Ill, 112, 113.

9 Details in Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 31, 32.

10 Litury. Serv. Elizab., 53.

11 Ibid., 70.

PRAYER BOOK, THE

535 ]

PREACHING

The fourth Prayer Book, James I.'s in 1604,
was that of Elizabeth augmented in various
particulars, as just explained, throughout her
reign, revised by the king and the ecclesiastical
commissioners, not enacted by Parliament as
its predecessors had been, but printed by order
of the Crown, for which was alleged a general
statutory permission.' This was the book the
revision of which was attempted in the Savoy
Conference, April 15 to July 24, 1661,2 and
carried out by Convocation, Nov. 21 to Dec. 20,
1661,3 without any changes of vital importance
though with many of detail.4 It was enacted
by a fourth Act of Uniformity, our latest,
Charles II.'s, which ended in the Lords without
a dissentient, May 8, and received the royal
assent on May 19, 1662. 5 To this Act was
annexed, as belonging to it, the manuscript
book itself, known as the Annexed Book, the
only one of the Prayer Books besides that of
1552 known to have been so treated. In very
sorrowful circumstances it came into legal
use on August 24, 1662. A facsimile copy of
the Annexed Book, lithographed from photo
graphs, was issued to the public early in 1891.

The age of the English Prayer Book, reckoned
from the first movements towards it by king
and archbishop in 1543, may, in 1903, be called
360 years. For its structure and liturgic
elements it may probably compare in antiquity
with any vernacular book of public prayer now
in existence. The historic churchman is
ardently attracted by imaginary stones and
carvings and features ecclesiastical embedded
in its stately fabric;6 but along with many a
warm friend and grateful worshipper who
knows nothing of these, he is unspeakably
more drawn by the vital truths saved for this
Church at the Reformation, and by the choice
language which makes them familiar to his
heart and memory in worship. Any who are
troubled or puzzled by the Ornaments Rubric
in its 1662 form, will do well to note the key
to its right understanding, namely the word
"retained," then first employed in the formula,
offered to our hand with such demonstration
by men like Roundell Palmer and Hugh Cairns
in 1866,7 recommended by Bishop Moule of

1 James I.'s Proclamation for the authorising and
uniformity of the Book of Common Prayer to be used
throughout the realm, March 5, 1603-4. Card well,
Conferences, 225.

2 Card well's Conferences, 257, 259, 266, 300, 302
• Ibid., 370-72.

4 Ibid., 371-75, 380-92.

6 Lords' Journals, xi. 450, 471.

« Bishop Handley Moule, Our Prayer Book, p. 4.

7 Counsels' Opinion by them, printed in the
First Report, August 19, 1867, of the Ritual Com
mission, p. 139.

Durham in 1898,8 and in 1903 with much
fulness of proof by Bishop Ridding of South
well.9

The Prayer Book, while in contact with
churchmen of various schools in successive
generations, has never yet in all its official
manifestoes lost sight of its origin and history
amid the struggles of the Protestant Reforma
tion ; never has it shown a shrinking from that
cause, or behaved towards it with dislike and
disdain ; never laboured or seemed to labour
its overthrow or betrayal. That is the right
attitude for those who live and thrive in its
atmosphere. Its prefaces breathe honest
loyalty to its past, and inculcate the same
spirit in every new generation. For such a
descent of loyalty every son of the English
Church may give God praise indeed.

The Preface of 1662 remarks, " It hath been
the wisdom ... in the reigns of several princes
of blessed memory since the Reformation "
of the Church to make alterations in some
particulars of divine worship, yet so that the
main body and essentials of it, in its chiefest
materials, in its frame and order, "have still
continued the same unto this day, and yet
do stand firm and unshaken, notwithstanding
all the rain attempts and impetuous assaults
made against it." This Preface, adverting to
the main particulars of the revision of 1661,
and pointing out what a claim they have upon
us from the august authority on which, in the
eyes of Church people, they must rest, con
cludes thus : " We have good hope that what is
here presented, and hath been by the Convoca
tions of both Provinces with great diligence
examined and approved, will be also well
accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable,
and truly conscientious sons of the Church of
England." See on some points the APPENDIX.

[C. H.]

PREACHING-.— Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel. . . . Therefore whether
it were I, or they, so we preached and so ye
believed" (1 Cor. i. 17; xv. 11). The main
object of the work in which St. Paul was en
gaged is here distinctly stated. The apostle
states that the central idea of his apostleship
was, not the performance of rites and cere
monies, however important and valuable, but
" preaching." The only subject of that preach
ing was "the gospel," or, what he describes
in Ephes. iii. 8 : as " The unsearchable riches of
Christ ; " and of the power of that " preaching "
when duly carried out, he says, "So ye believed,"
which, according to St. Paul, is to receive

s In Our Prayer Book, p. 27.

9 In a long letter in the Times of July 6, 1903,
copied into the Church Intelligencer, August 1903,
p. 119.

PREACHING

[ 536 J

PREACHING

Divine power unto salvation in all its fulness
and beauty (Rom. i. 16). In attempting there
fore to deal with the subject of preaching, we
approach (according to St. Paul's judgment
from the time that he became an apostle) that
subject which, of all others, may (and, indeed,
must) be considered as the very central power
of the Church's life, which we are called to enjoy
and to propagate. Preaching is the means by
which alone — so far as human agency is con
cerned — that " knowledge of the true God and
of His Son Jesus Christ," which is declared to
be " eternal life" by the Saviour Himself (St.
John xvii. 3), can be passed on to the world at
large by those who possess it. "For after that
in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom
knew not God, it pleased God by the foolish
ness of preaching to save them that believe "
(1 Cor. i. 21).

I. How, then, shall the word "preaching"
be denned ? It is merely "the transmission of
tidings from one to another," or " the official
conveying of intelligence, with which one
person is entrusted, to others to whom it is
of vital importance." A preacher of the gospel
ought to realise his commission, or that he is
sent of God to communicate " good tidings of
great joy " to all whom he can reach, because
(1) they need that gospel, (2) they have a right
to receive it, and (3) they have the power of
embracing it to their own eternal advantage.
Every one who proposes to "preach" under
the dispensation of the gospel should realise
with St. Paul, "Though I preach ... I have
nothing to glory of : for necessity is laid upon
me ; yea 1 woe is unto me if I preach not the
gospel" (1 Cor. ix. 16). When nations possess
a written language and can read, the good
tidings may be conveyed by books, but where,
as is the case with some three-fourths of the
human race, there is as yet no power of read
ing, the human voice is the medium by which
intelligence can be conveyed, and this there
fore will be the action that we speak of as
"preaching."

II. It is only under the religious system
known as " the gospel " that " preaching" seems
to have taken a position of primary importance.
Among the earlier heathen races preaching can
hardly be said to have existed ; and even under
the Law of Moses it is rarely spoken of as a
habit adopted by those who had charge of the
law and its accessories. Greek and Roman
teachers, no doubt, conveyed their instructions
by word of mouth ; but such would be de
scribed as " teaching," rather than as "preach
ing," seeing that neither in the sense of the
word Kripvcrffeiv (" to announce or proclaim, as a
herald "), nor in the sense of euayye\i^e<rda.i ("to
declare or make known, good tidings ") did they
ever stand forth to address the people. In

the Old Testament pages, though of course
the prophets were "preachers" (Neh. vi. 7,
and Jonah iii. 2) " preaching " is only distinctly
mentioned five or six times (although the writer
of Ecclesiastes is seven times entitled " the
preacher").1 In the New Testament these
terms occur not less than a hundred and
one times, besides the special mention of
"preaching the gospel" no less than thirty-
nine times.

This fact alone will show the importance
attached to " preaching " under the Gospel
dispensation. It is not unworthy of notice,
or of small significance, that the two sacra
ments of " Baptism " and " the Lord's Supper "
are only mentioned in the Scriptures on the
rarest possible occasions, although appointed
by the Great Head of the Church. Though
some instances of the administration of
sacraments are given in the Acts, and a few
incidental allusions are found in the Epistles,
" preaching " is everywhere in the New
Testament insisted upon both by the Lord
Jesus and His apostles as the one great
means appointed by God for bringing life
and light to the souls of men. Was it not
that He might "preach the gospel to the
poor " that the Saviour announced Himself as
"anointed with the Spirit of the Lord"?
Was it not that He might " preach the un
searchable riches of Christ," that St. Paul
declared himself a recipient of the special
" grace of God " ? In short, no man can honestly
study the New Testament Scriptures without
discerning that a truly awful solemnity and
importance are there attached to the office
and work of the preacher. Indeed, preaching
is so closely connected with Christianity that
we read that when the Christians were first
scattered abroad by persecution they "went
everywhere preaching the word " (Acts viii.
4). To announce the good tidings of salva
tion when once they have been received is
as much a necessity of the spiritual life as
breathing outwards is of the physical life;
because spiritual life means participation in
the nature of God, which is love, and love
gives forth all it has that is beneficial to others.
They, then, who have divine life themselves
must seek to communicate it ; and every word
spoken to this end is in one sense a "preaching
of the gospel." It cannot be forgotten that
our Lord was not only Himself a great preacher,

1 Although the rendering "preacher" is the
most probable meaning of Koheleth, which is
translated " Ecclesiastes " is the LXX. (so Vulg.),
the preaching thereby referred to is so radically
distinct from that of the New Testament that the
passages in Ecclesiastes are better left out of the
reckoning.— C. H. H. W.

PREACHING

[ 537 ]

PREACHING

but that He carefully prepared His disciples
for that special work.

"Preaching," in its more professional sense,
is public teaching by men appointed to the
office and work of the ministry. Such ministers
should like St. Paul, be "separated and
called by God's grace," and be able to say
of themselves that the Son of God has been
revealed in them, that they might preach
Him among the heathen," or nations of the
world (Gal. i. 15, 16). No man can carry out
such a preaching as this, " except he be sent "
(Rom. x. 15). But admitting that certain men
have the separation, the call, and the appoint
ment to the ministry of Christ's Church, the
chief questions which demand consideration
(and especially in the present day) are: (1)
What part or place should "preaching" have
in the work of the ministry ? and (2) To what
subjects shall the preacher direct himself and
his hearers in fulfilment of the high office to
which he is called ?

There are many points to which attention
ought to be given, such as preparation,
manner, utterance, style, &c., &c. But all these,
it is believed, will find their due proportion
and place when once the main points are
settled on which all else depends.

The points to which we would direct special
attention are: —

III. What part or place should " preach
ing" have in the work of the minister, i.e.
the man set apart for the service of others,
under the gospel dispensation? Clearly the
answer is, according to the Scriptures, "Preach
ing (as Dr. Stalker says) is the central thing
in the minister's work." It must, to one who
has studied and would emulate his Master or
the apostles, be the one chief end and object of
his existence to "preach the Word; to be in
stant in season and out of season ; to be made
all things to all men, that he may by all mean
save some, by preaching the gospel of which a
dispensation is committed unto him." It is
difficult to imagine any faithful student of
Scripture giving any prominence to other things
in comparison with this ! To the Lord Jesus
Christ there was but one purpose in life, after
He had been called into public life and anointec
with the Spirit of God, viz. that He shoulc
" preach the gospel to the poor." To His dis
ciples He gave, in fact, but one great com
mission, " Go ye into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature," and surely al
who claim to be not only members of Christ's
Church but to enjoy in any special sens
what is called " Apostolical Succession," should
seek to exercise their ministry in " conformit
with apostolic example." We never read o
the apostles, or of their earliest successors
claiming special prerogatives and powers

" priests " or as appointed to offer sacrifices
for the sins of the people, or as called to
the position of "lords over God's heritage."
But we are told that the Lord " ordained
twelve that they should be with Him, and
that He might send them forth to preach"
(St. Mark iii. 14). The Acts of the Apostles, as
already noticed, show that the Christians —
" went everywhere preaching " where an open
door could be found.

" Preaching " (says Dr. Oswald Dykes) " is
an institute peculiar to the gospel. It is
an agency previously unknown which Chris
tianity has created for itself. Jesus and
His messengers are therefore the only (true)
preachers. Just as the gospel has been truly
apprehended, has it sought expression purely
through this form. nationalise it into a
philosophy, and the pulpit becomes a tribune
to lecture from ; mistake it for a magical
mystery, and the pulpit is deserted for the
altar." Again he says, " Pentecost gave
tongues to the disciples, and was the birth
day of preaching." The statement possibly
requires qualification. But preaching was a
distinguishing mark of' the gospel dispensa
tion, as exhibited in the only charter of rights
and duties possessed by Christ's Church, how
is it possible for enlightened Christians to
accept any theory or system by which preach
ing is relegated to a secondary position, and
rites and ceremonies (however beautiful in
themselves) are deemed the highest service
and prerogative that the clergy can know?
" Sacraments," though ordained by Christ
Himself, can only offer to the minister the
position of "an instrument." "Preaching,"
on the other hand, presents to him who does
it the wondrous honour of being God's own
medium for conveying life to the world, and
out of the fulness of the earth's vessel pouring
grace, mercy, and peace to men's souls.

IV. To what subjects will the "true preacher"
direct his own and his hearers' attention ? Em
phatically must we again reply in the words of
Holy Scripture. The Master Himself said that
the preacher could have but one subject, viz.
" the gospel " ; and St. Paul has most clearly and
solemnly defined this as " Jesus Christ and Him
crucified." To preach less or more than this, or
any other gospel, is to be altogether untrue to
our anointing by the Holy One ; and notwith
standing that, in every age there have, as we
know, been many who have altogether failed
to realise this as their one duty and privilege,
and who have offered to their hearers anything
and everything rather than Jesus Christ and
Him crucified. The fact remains, however,
stamped on every page of the New Testament
and in the history of every Church which has
existed, that only in cases where the ministers

PREACHING

[ 538 ]

PRECONIZATION

have thus magnified their office, and have lived
to offer Christ in their preaching as " the
way, the truth, and the life" for a poor sin-
stricken world, have sinners been converted,
and saints been edified in the Lord. To preach
philosophy, politics, or public matters of dis
pute, to offer solutions of natural problems
from the pulpit, may please and interest
hearers for a time, but never will the word
spoken be blessed as it should be until preach
ing is framed on the exact lines of St. Paul's,
viz. Christ, Christ, and nothing but Christ.
The cross of Christ, as the one and only
means of reconciliation to God ; the life of
Christ as the one and only power by which
men can live unto God ; and the future glory
of Christ, as the one and only hope of men's
living for ever with God. This is that " foolish
ness of preaching" which "saves them that
believe " ; because it offers to the lost race
another life instead of their own, a life that
can satisfy God, quicken men's souls, and
glorify all that receive it, until they are like
the Son of God. To preach anything but
Christ is to act as a traitor to one's King, and to
offer husks to those who need, and are perish
ing for want of, the one true bread and water
of life. " Every sermon" (says Tholuck) "ought
to have Heaven for its Father, and Earth for its
Mother," i.e. it should bring God to man, to
engender heavenly life, and sanctify the earthly
by raising it to the standard of the heavenly
through the introduction of Christ to the soul
of man. Thus and thus alone will the preacher
be enabled to preserve the true balance between
the doctrinal, the ethical, and the philosophical.
To preach a spiritual theory or ideal may
stir the emotions ; to preach an ethical system
may disturb and appeal to the conscience ; to
preach a philosophical essay may attract the
attention of the learned. But each and all of
these must fail unless throughout the whole of
the discourse there is presented to the needy
soul " the Christ of God," as a Person, and as a
Person who, by the soul's humble acceptance
of HIM (and not " IT "), can secure to the man
everything that he can rightly need or desire.

This kind of preaching may be utterly
" human," even while it is permeated or in
stinct with the Divine. It will, according to
St. Paul : (1) bring the Divine from above to
meet the human in its weaknesses ; and (2)
raise the human from earth, to enjoy the
Divine in its potentialities.

Thus let " the message of the mind and will
of the loving and redeeming God " be
honestly and faithfully communicated by the
preacher from that only source of true sermons
" the Bible " ; and as surely as it was promised
by St. Paul to "his own son in the faith,"
Timothy, so surely may every preacher take

this comfort to his soul : " Thou shalt both save
thyself and them that hear thee."

Authorities. — Rev. Charles Simeon, Essay on
the Composition of a Sermon, 8vo, 1853 ; Rev.
Dr. James Stalker, The Preacher and His Models,
8vo, 1891 (Yale Lectures) ; Preaching, the Matter
and the Manner, 8vo, 1893 ; William Connor
Magee (Archbishop of York), The Art of Preach-
inyand Extempore Speaking, 8vo, 1894 ; William
Boyd Carpenter (Bishop of Ripon), Lectures on
Preaching, 8vo, 1895 ; Rev. Dr. R. W. Dale, Nine
Lectures on Preaching, 8vo ( Yale Lectures) ;
Broadus' Preparation and Delivery of Sermons,
edited by Prof. E. C. Dargan, D.D. ; Austin
Phelp's Theory of Preaching; C. H. Spurgeon,
Lectures to my Students ; Ward Beecher's Lectures
on Preaching ; Nord's A rt of Extempore Speaking.
The works of Bossuet, Fe"nelon, Massillon also
contain many references to details connected
with preaching. [H. W. W. P.]

PREBEND, PREBENDARY. — Prebend
(Lat. prcebenda, an allowance ; prcebere, to fur
nish) meant originally the provision which
each member of an ecclesiastical community
received from the common table. When the
common life was dissolved and the revenues
of an institution divided among the members,
the fixed income thus formed was called a
prebend, and the recipient a prebendary.

In the Church of England a prebendary is
a clergyman attached to a collegiate or cathe
dral church, who enjoys a prebend in con
sideration of his officiating in the church at
stated times. Since the Act of 1840, the title
has been abolished in most cathedrals ; and
where it is retained, the prebendaries rank
below the canons residentiary, and are on
much the same footing as honorary canons.

[J. C. L.]

PRECENTOR.— (Lat. prce, before, and cantor,
a singer) denotes the leader of a body of
singers. In the Mediaeval Church, the pre
centor was one of the chief dignitaries of a
cathedral chapter, second only to the dean.
In the Church of England, a distinction has
to be made between the cathedrals of the
old and new foundation. In the former the
dignity of the precentorship is maintained;
in the latter the office is held by one of the
minor canons. In the Scottish Presbyterian
and some other Churches, the leader of the
congregational praise is called the precentor.

[J. C. L.]

PRECONIZATION.— A public proclamation
by a crier, beginning "Oyez, oyez, oyez."
The best known preconization in England in
matters ecclesiastical is the ancient form gone
through at the confirmation of bishops, when
a proclamation is publicly made three times
by the Apparitor General inviting persons " to
come forward and make their objections in

PRELATE

[ 539 J

PRESBYTERY

due form of law and they shall be heard."
But when they come forward they are told
that they cannot be heard as to the fitness or
orthodoxy of the confirmee, but only as to his
identity and the regularity of his previous
election (see Rex v. Archbishop of Canterbury
in L.B. 1902, K.B. 503).

In the Roman Catholic Church preconization
means the public confirmation by the Pope of
the appointment of a bishop, of which appoint
ment such confirmation is an essential part.

[B. W.]

PRELATE.— An ecclesiastical dignitary ; in
the Church of England a bishop or archbishop.
The literal meaning of the word is one who is
"preferred" or "placed before" others in
honour or jurisdiction. The praelati of the
Lower House of Convocation were the arch
deacons.

PRESANCTIFIED.— See MASS.
PRESBYTER. — There is no precise informa
tion as to the time and manner in which the
Christian Presbyterate came into existence.
Government, however, by elders or presbyters
in civil matters was so ancient that it has been
traced up to Israel's sojourn in Egypt. When
Synagogues came into existence after the
return from captivity, those Synagogues were
managed by elders. The High Priest, Priests,
and Levites officiated in the Temple, but took
no necessary part in the Synagogue. The
Christian Church was formed after the latter
model, and not after that of the Temple ; its
places of worship were long termed " Syna
gogues." One instance of this usage occurs in
the New Testament in James ii. 2, when the
word rendered "assembly" in the A.V., is in
the original Greek "Synagogue." There are
also instances of the same usage in the ancient
writings of Hermas, of Justin Martyr, and of
Ignatius.1 Such facts are significant. They
tend to prove that the Christian Church in all
its arrangements had in view the arrangements
of the Synagogue. The Church was modelled
after the Synagogue and not after the Temple.
At the earliest time at which the Christian
Jews began to have their places of worship,
in which they were instructed by the Apostles

1 See the chapter on " The Church and the
Synagogue," in the work of Rev. Fred. H. Chase,
D.D., on The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church, in
the Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i., Cam
bridge University Press, 1891. Dr. Chase gives
some interesting arguments to prove that the
Lord's Prayer itself was a part of the early liturgy
used in those places of meeting, as well as in
teresting suggestions to show that the adoption
of the synagogue system in the early Church
had an intimate connection with the composition
of the written Gospels.

and others, their places of worship were called
"Synagogues," and those Synagogues were
duly provided with "elders" or " presbyters."
Bishop Lightfoot is correct in affirming that
the Christian Presbyterate "was adopted from
the Synagogue," for, as he remarks, "the in
stitution of Synagogues was flexible enough to
allow free scope for wide divergences of creed
and practice" (Philippians, p. 192). Although
in process of time the presbyters became a
teaching Order, they were at the commence
ment simply laymen. They were generally
inducted to office by "the laying on of hands,"
which practice became universal in the Chris-
tian Church, but there is not a particle of
evidence to prove that the Apostles' hands
were laid on the earliest Christian Presbyters.
See Hatch's Bampton Lectures.

[C. H. H. W.]

PRESBYTERY.— In the Greek New Testa
ment irpeffpvrtpiov is twice used (Luke xxii. 66 ;
Acts xxii. 5), for the elders of the Jewish
Sanhedrin, and once (1 Tim. iv. 14) for the
body of presbyters or elders in a Christian
congregation. This suggests, what history
otherwise confirms, that the presbytery of the
primitive Church had its roots in the eldership
of the Jewish ecclesia. Each congregation
seems to have had its body of elders, also called
bishops with reference to their functions of
oversight, whose special duty it was to govern,
to exercise discipline, and also, as the case
of Timothy would show, to ordain. Originally
the presbytery had no fixed president, but at
a very early period one of the congregational
presbyter-bishops rose by a natural evolution
to a position of permanent headship over the
rest.

In the Presbyterian Churches of to-day, a
presbytery does not mean, as in the primitive
Church, a court of elders in a single congrega
tion. To this purely local court the name of
session, or kirk-session, is now applied, while
presbytery is used of a district court composed
of all the ministers and at least one representa
tive elder (in some Churches the sessions of
the larger congregations are allowed to send
two elders) from all the sessions within its
bounds. The presbytery exercises jurisdiction
over its congregations and their ministers, but
is subject to the authority of synods, which are
provincial groups of presbyteries, and of the
General Assembly, in which all the presbyteries
of the entire Church are represented.

In Roman Catholic churches presbytery is
an architectural term for that part of the
church behind the altar which contains seats
for the celebrant and the other clergy. It
forms part of the choir, and is divided from
the rest of the building by rails, so that none
but priests may enter it. Presbytery is also

PRESENCE

[ 540 ]

PRESENCE

used, like the French presbytere, for the resi
dence of a priest, corresponding to parsonage
or the Scotch " manse." [J. C. L.]

PRESENCE, OBJECTIVE AND SUBJEC
TIVE. — Presence independent of any per
cipient mind, and Presence dependent on the
perception of the mind.

It is a comparatively short time that these
two words Objective and Subjective have
borne the above distinctive meanings. Two
centuries ago they were used interchangeably,
and Objective, more commonly than not,
meant what we now understand by Subjective.
German philosophical writers first introduced
the distinction of the two words in the seven
teenth century. S. T. Coleridge transferred it
into English philosophy (begging others to help
him in doing so for the sake of clearness of
conception), and thence it has passed, but not
immediately, into theological use. Aquinas,
Locke, the Homilies, Pearson (to name no
more), use Objective in the sense in which
Subjective is now used ; in Jewel's controversy
with Harding, Subjective is used for what
Coleridge meant by Objective. Both words
are quite unhistorical, unknown to Scripture,
unknown to the writers of the Primitive
Church, unknown to the Schoolmen and
mediaeval divines, unknown at the period of
the Reformation, unknown to the school of
the seventeenth century theologians and to
their adversaries, unknown in English theology
till the other day, when the phrase Objective
Presence was grasped at as conveying the
essential idea of transubstantiation without
the employment of a term which would rouse
immediate hostility.

This confusion of signification and un
historical character are enough to make us
banish the words Objective and Subjective
from theology. But this is not all, for there
is a further confusion attaching to the words
when they are applied to the doctrine of the
Holy Communion.

Christ by His Holy Spirit is present every
where in the Universe ; for, being God, He is
omnipresent. Christ by His Holy Spirit is
present wherever two or three are gathered to
gether in His name ; for He has promised it.
Therefore, Christ by His Holy Spirit is present
at the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, where men
have gathered to fulfil His last command. If
this Presence be called Objective because not
dependent for its existence onthe percept ions of
those assembled, the epithet may be allowed,
provided that it be understood that in the same
sense He is objectively present wherever two
or three meet for prayer. But Christ's presence
at the ordinance and by His Spirit is not to be
confounded with a presence in the elements of
His Body and Blood ; and these two things are

either ignorantly or wilfully confounded by
those who insist upon an Objective Presence.
What do men mean when they say that Christ's
body and blood are in the bread and wine?
What body ? What blood ? The body that
was nailed to the Cross? The blood that
flowed from His pierced side? But no such
body and blood can possibly now exist. Is it
then His present body and blood ? But they
"are in heaven and not here, it being against
the truth of His natural body to beat one time
in more places than one." Therefore Christ's
body and blood are not objectively present
either separately in the element of bread and
the element of wine, or both together in both
or either of the elements.

The Objective Presence in the elements not
only involves the irreverent thought that
Christ could and would hide all the constituent
parts of His human body from head to foot in
innumerable little pieces of wheaten bread and
in innumerable cups of wine (and that at the
same moment), but also that His presence at
His own ordinance is dependent on the will of
a man. The priest's formula summons Him.
Not till the priest has uttered the words
Hoc est corpus meum is He allowed to be
present, and when those words are uttered He
must come down bodily and enter a wheaten
cake. But if the priest makes a mistake in
the formula, for example, if he says, Hie est
corpus meum, or, Hoc corpus est meum, Christ
must not come, but must wait till the priest
has corrected his Latin ; and when He has
entered the cake, He has still (remaining there)
to enter the cup at the moment that the priest
says, Hie est calix sanguinis mei, or Hie est sanr/uis
meus, but if the priest says, Hie sanguis est meus,
or, lilt est sanguis meus, then He must wait till
the priest gets his wording right, and if the
priest goes on without correcting his Latin,
the bread continues bread and nothing more,
and the wine continues nothing but wine, and
all who worship them on their elevation are
ex concexso guilty of the idolatry of worshipping
as God what has remained merely a wheaten
cake and wine. A person who begins wor
shipping a moment too soon is liable to the
same risk.

The expressions Real Presence, as used by
Hooker and other divines, and the Real Objec
tive Presence, as now commonly used, must not
be confounded. " The Real Presence of Christ's
most blessed body and blood," says Hooker,
" is not to be sought for in the sacrament (that
is, in the outward sign or elements), but in the
worthy receiver of the sacrament " (Eccl. Pol.,
v. 67). This, it will be seen, is the very con
tradictory of the tenet that it is to be found
in the bread and wine ; and it is an unworthy
artifice to defend the modern tenet by appeal-

PRESENCE

[ 541 ]

PRESENTATION

ing to the venerated names of Hooker, or of
Jeremy Taylor, who repudiated it, the first
with grave reprobation, the second with in
dignation and horror, while allowing the
phrase Real Presence, if by it were meant
the true presence of Christ in the heart of the
faithful recipient. By the expression Real
Presence they, and the other Anglican theo
logians who use it, meant not indeed neces
sarily a Subjective Presence, but a Presence of
which the place, cause, and mode was left un
defined. Dr. Mozley has said that there is
"no very wide interval" between the doctrine
attributed to the Fathers, called Objective,
and the doctrine of Hooker, said to be Subjec
tive. It is best to banish both the terms in
the present connection as being ambiguous,
unhistorical, untheological, and misleading.

In his Catholic Religion Mr. Vernon Staley
has quoted St. Augustine as saying, "No man
eats this flesh unless he first adores " (On
Psalm xcviii.). So has Jeremy Taylor, who
explains that it means " No man eats Christ's
body worthily but he that first adores Christ,"
and this he says must be done " with a xursum
corda, hearts lift up to heaven, where Christ
sits (we are sure) at the Right Hand of the
Father" (Real Presence, xiii.). But Mr. Staley
continues the quotation thus after a semicolon :
" for the wise men and the barbarians did
worship this body in the manger, with great
fear and reverence, let us therefore, who are
citizens of heaven, at least not fall short of the
barbarians. But thou seest Him not in the
manger, but on the altar ; and thou beholdest
Him not in the Virgin's arms, but presented
by the priest and brought to thee in sacrifice
by the Holy Spirit of God" (p. 302). These
are serious words of grave import. Mr. Staley
states that they, too, are taken from St. Augus
tine on Psalm xcviii., and that they so imme
diately follow the words previously quoted
that they are only divided from them by a
semicolon. But they are not there at all. They
are not St. Augustine's at all. Probably they
have been transcribed from some modern
Manual, as untrustworthy as we have shown
Mr. Walker's to be (Mass). Year after year,
and edition after edition they have been used
to teach simple people, on the authority of
St. Augustine, that it is right to bow down at
the words "This is My body," "This is My
blood," " as an act of adoration to our Lord
then sacramentally present under the form of
bread and wine " (ibid.) ; and yet there is
nothing in any way like them in St. Augustine.

The expression " under the form of bread
and wine" is a favourite with the advocates of
the doctrine of the Objective Presence in the
elements. It is a common practice for them
to claim the authority of the Homilies for it,

but as every one ought to know, they do not
occur in the Homilies. A notice was affixed
to the First Book of Homilies to the effect that
a Homily with the title containing the words
in question might be hereafter expected, but
when the Second Book of Homilies appeared,
it was found that that title had been repudi
ated, and the name given to the Homily was
" On the worthy receiving of the Sacrament,"
and in it the " dream " of a " gross, carnal
feeding, basely objecting (here used for sub
jecting) and binding ourselves to the elements
and creatures" was condemned.

That Christ's body and blood, and therefore
Christ Himself, are introduced into the bread
and wine by the formula of words known as
the Consecration Prayer, is not a belief autho
rised by the Church of England, nor does she
recognise any such phrases as an Objective or
a Subjective Presence. [F. M.]

PRESENTATION is the act of offering a clerk
to the ordinary or bishop by the patron or
owner of the legal estate or advowson. It seems
to be the better opinion that the presentation
must be made in writing, such as a letter to
the bishop. Where the right of presentation
is attached to the ownership of an estate and
the property is vested in trustees, then the
trustees have the right to present, but the
person enjoying the rents and profits of the
property has the right of nominating to them a
clerk, and they are bound to act on his nomina
tion. Until the presentation has been acted on
by the bishop, and institution given, it may be
revoked. The owner of an advowson is bound
to present a clerk fit in doctrine, learning, and
morals. It is only if the clerk be unfit in any of
these respects that the bishop can refuse him.
By the 39th Canon the bishop can insist upon
examining him whether he is " worthy of his
ministry." By the Act of Uniformity the clerk
must be in priest's orders. The way in which
this is proved is by his showing his letters of
orders, or a certified copy of them if they are
lost. Moral character is shown usually by
letters testimonial from three beneficed clergy
of the diocese countersigned by the bishop
of the diocese, but the reasoning in Bishop of
Exeter v. Marshall (L.R. 3 House of Lords, 17)
goes to show that if it can be shown that the
clerk presented is a fit person in any other way,
the bishop cannot insist on this method of
proving moral character. In that case the
bishop of the diocese from which the clerk
came did not give letters testimonial and com
mendatory, and the House of Lords held that
the Bishop of Exeter, whose duty it was to
institute, could not insist on these. By Canon
95 the bishop has twenty-eight days in which
to inform himself of the qualifications of the
clerk, and if the bishop is not satisfied he should

PRESENTATION

[ 542 ]

PRESENTATION

within that time state his refusal. Now, by
sec. 2 (2) of the Benefices Act, 1898, the
bishop is directed not to collate, institute, or
admit any person to a benefice until the expira
tion of one month after giving notice in writing
to its churchwardens. The rules, made under
the Act, provide that such notice shall be
sent to them by registered letter, and should
state the ecclesiastical preferments previously
held by the person proposed to be instituted,
and his full name. The churchwardens are to
put up this notice on the notice-board of the
church, and after the expiration of the month
are to send the bishop a certificate that they
have done so. The rules made under the
same Act provide that if the bishop refuses to
institute, he should state his grounds of refusal
by sending a notice both to the person pre
senting and to the presentee by registered
letter. It is not sufficient for the bishop to
allege want of learning or doctrine generally,
he must state specifically in what respect he
alleges the clerk is deficient, so that if either
the presenter or the presentee chooses to appeal,
the court can see whether the bishop has fixed
too high a standard, or whether he is justified
in refusing the presentee (Willis v. Bishop of
Oxford, 2 P.D. 192). In the case of Gorham v.
Bishop of Exeter (Moore Sp. Rep.) the Privy
Council held that the views as to baptism which
the bishop thought unorthodox, were views that
could be held in the Church of England, and
ordered institution. To the three grounds of
objection given above, the Benefices Act of
1898 adds others by sec. 2, which are intended
to prevent simony and the presenting of un
suitable persons. That Act enables the bishop
(subject to an appeal to a court specially
constituted by the Act consisting of the
archbishop of the province and a high-court
judge) to refuse to institute on a presentation
made by a person within a year of the transfer
of an advowson to him, unless it is proved that
the transfer was not effected with a view of a
probable vacancy within the year. Next, the
bishop can refuse to institute (subject to the
appeal above stated) (1) If the presentee has
been ordained deacon within three years ;
(2) is unfit by reason of physical or mental
infirmity ; (3) pecuniary embarrassment of a
serious character; (4) grave misconduct, or
neglect of duty in an ecclesiastical office ; (5)
evil life, having by his conduct caused grave
scandal concerning his moral character since
his ordination ; or (6) having, with reference
to the presentation, been knowingly a party, or
privy, to any transaction or agreement as to
the transfer of an advowson which is invalid
under the Act.

It has been decided that if a clergyman has
been guilty of conduct which would have been

sufficient cause to deprive him of his living
(if he had one), that is sufficient cause for
refusing institution. That was decided in a
case in which a clergyman had been guilt} of
ritual offences, Heywood v. Bishop of Man
chester (12. Q.B.D. 404). Until the Benefices
Act was passed the patron had his remedy for
a refusal of institution by a proceeding in a
common law-court in the nature of quare
impedit. The presented clerk's remedy was in
the ecclesiastical courts by duplex querela.
The fifth subsection of sec. 3 provides that
neither proceeding shall be taken in future
where the procedure under the Act is available,
but the appeal shall be made to a court con
sisting of a judge of the high court (nominated
by the Chancellor for that purpose), and the
archbishop of the province. This does not
apply to a refusal based on a ground of doctrine
or ritual, which is to go as before to the ecclesi
astical courts and finally to the Privy Council.
In Welsh dioceses the bishop may refuse to
institute a person who cannot perform divine
service or preach in Welsh (Marquis of
Abergavenny v. Bishop of Llandaff, 20 Q.B.D.
460).

In an old case it was held that the bishop
ought to make his objection quickly, and that
where he did not object for nineteen days, his
objection was too late (Cro. Eliz. 119). The
period of twenty-eight days mentioned by the
95th Canon does not bind the laity, but now
that the Benefices Act, 1898, directs the
bishop not to institute before he has given a
month's notice to the churchwardens, it would
probably be held that he has at least that
month to satisfy himself of the suitability of
the presentee. After that time has elapsed it
would seem that both the lay patron and the
presentee (unless he has done something to
waive his rights) could call upon the bishop to
institute. The patron must present within six
months. See LAPSE.

If the bishop refuse the first presentee, the
patron may present others, provided he does so
within the six months. This used only to be
the privilege of lay patrons, but the Benefices
Act now gives the same right to clerical patrons
(sec. 6). No account, in reckoning the date for
lapse, is to be taken of the period between the
presentation by the patron and the refusal of
the bishop to institute, or of the period be
tween the refusal of the bishop to institute or
admit «nd the decision of the court upon
such refusal.

Bankruptcy does not prevent the owner of
an advowson presenting. The right of presenta
tion devolving upon lunatics is exercised by the
Lord Chancellor. Mr. Cripps, in his Law of the
Church and Clergy, says aliens cannot exercise
the right. Infancy is, however, no bar to

PRESENTATION OF VIRGIN MARY [ 543 ]

PRIEST

presenting (Arthington v. Coverley, 2 Ab. Eq.
518). Roman Catholics are disabled from pre
senting, and their rights are exercised in
livings south of the Trent by the University
of Oxford, and in those situated north of
it by the University of Cambridge.

[E. B. W.]

PRESENTATION OF THE VIRGIN
MARY.— See MARY.

PRIEST.— Presbyter, or elder ; one of the
Holy Orders recognised by nearly every
Church under the name of priest or minister.
The word presbyter is derived from the
Greek irpefffSi/Tepos (elder) ; from this came the
Spanish presbytero, and the allied forms, Dutch,
priester; Old French, prestre ; Modern French,
pretre ; Italian, prete ; Saxon, preoster ; and by
further contraction, priest (see Dr. Hook's
Church Dictionary). There lies in the term
"priest" itself etymologically no idea of the
offering of a sacrifice, nor does such a signifi
cation belong to the Hebrew jniD (cohen). The
Hebrew word is rendered as " principal officer "
in 1 Kings iv. 5, and " chief ruler" in 2 Sam.
viii. 18 and xx. 26 by the A.V. (marginal
rendering of R.V. " chief minister "). The
original signification of the word is very ob
scure (see Synonyms of the Old Testament, p.
383, by Canon R. B. Girdlestone). The associa
tion of the word with the idea of "sacrifice"
sprang from the accidental union of two
separate offices in the same person. As a
matter of fact, however, it was not the busi
ness of the priest to sacrifice. Under the
Levitical system the people sacrificed, i.e.
slew the victims, while the priests, as repre
sentatives of the mercy of God, sprinkled the
blood of the atonement on the altar and turned
the pieces into fragrant smoke. It is however
to be regretted that the translators of the
Old Testament used the word priest as the
equivalent of cohen. The Greek word for
"sacrificing priest" used in the New Testament
is iepetfj (hiereus), and it is also unfortunate
that the only English equivalent for this
should be priest, derived from presbyter.
The word hiereus should have been properly
translated everywhere " sacrificing priest,"
but our translators may have refrained from
so rendering it because the constant repetition
of " sacrificing " would have been monotonous
and awkward. The Church of England in
her Homily distinguishes between her minis
ters and Roman Catholic priests, declaring
that " we need no ' sacrificing priest.' " Homily
of the Sacraments, first part. Christian ministers
are designated evangelists, pastors, teachers,
stewards, elders, and overseers, which terms
are in harmony with the idea of the Christian
pastorate, though removed from the ideas of
sacerdotalism.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
would doubtless have termed the minister of
Christ hiereus if he had had any idea of a
sacrificial character as inherent in the ministry
of such a person. The apostles call them
selves elders, apostles, ambassadors, but never
sacrificing priests. The doctrine of the Church
in the Sub-Apostolic age was innocent of
sacerdotalism. Irenaeus (A.D. 167) wrote, "All
righteous men hold the priestly order" (Adv.
ffcer., lib. iv. c. xx. p. 245). Tertullian
(A.D 192) says, "Are not also laymen priests?
It is written, He has made us a kingdom
and priests to God" (De Exhort. Cast., c. vii.
p. 566), while even St. Augustine (A.D. 400)
declares, " As we are all Christians on account
of our mystical chrism, so also all are priests,
since they are all members of the One Priest,
concerning whom the apostle Peter says, ' a
holy people, a royal priesthood' "(De Civitate
Dei, lib. xx. c. x. tom.v. f. 271).

The Church of England does not regard
her ministers as priests empowered to offer
sacrifices. The Reformers removed from the
Ordination Service the portion which gave
authority to the minister to offer sacrifices, as
well as that part of the Communion Service in
which the priest professed to offer Christ's
body. In the Latin of Article XXXI. the word
sacerdos (a sacrificing priest) is used of those
who had been priests of Rome, and in Art.
XXXII. the word presbyteri (elders) of the
priests of the Church of England in general.
In the Prayer Book generally, the term " priest "
is synonymous with " minister." The Puritans
at the Savoy Conference, indeed, wished to have
the word "minister" substituted for " priest"
throughout. The Bishops replied that the word
" minister . . . signifies at large every one
that ministers in that holy office, of what
soever order soever he be." But they desired
to prevent " deacons " from consecrating the
bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, and
therefore retained the old word. " Minister "
is used even in the Communion Office for
the priest. (Cardwell, Conferences, p. 342).

The claims of sacerdotalism are based
upon a twofold fallacy. This is, first, that
the priesthood of Christ can be transferred.
In Heb. vii. 24, on the contrary, it is declared
to be untransferable and "intransmissible."
That this is the correct meaning of the Greek
word is admitted by the best authorities. The
second fallacy of sacerdotalism is that a
ministry is absolute and indispensable. Bishop
Lightfoot says upon this point, " It (i.e. the
function of the minister) may be a general
rule, it may be, under ordinary circumstances,
a practically universal law, that the highest
acts of congregational worship shall be per
formed through the principal officers of the

PRIESTHOOD

[ 544 ]

PRIVATE JUDGMENT

congregation. But an emergency may arise
when " the spirit " and not the letter must
decide. The Christian ideal will then inter
fere and interpret our duty. The higher ordi
nance of the universal priesthood will overrule
all special limitations. The layman will assume
functions which are otherwise restricted to
the ordained minister" (Dissertation No. 1, On
The Christian Ministry, at the end of Bishop
Lightfoot's Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistle
to the Philippians, 3rd ed. p. 266).

[M. E. W. J.]

PRIESTHOOD.— In the Old Testament the
whole body of the Jews are spoken of as
" priests " (Exod. xix. 6 ; Deut. vii. 6). But
their ministers are regarded as a distinct class,
with special duties to be performed in a care
fully specified manner and with a proper ritual.
In the New Testament the whole body of Chris
tian believers is also termed " an holy priest
hood" (1 Pet. ii. 5). Apparently to emphasize
the difference between the Jewish economy
and the Christian, the word "priest" is never
applied to the Christian minister apart from
the laity, nor is there any allusion to ministers
as a separate caste, to any duties of theirs of a
sacrificial nature, or to any elaborate system
of ritual as connected with any sacerdotal
system. In so far then as ministers are
"priests," they are so in common with the rest
of Christians, all of whom have been made
" kings and priests unto God " (Rev. i. 6). The
Greek word (hiereus) for sacrificing priest is
never once employed in the New Testament of
the Christian minister, but is applied thirty-six
times to the priests of the line of Aaron, who
were typical of the Lord Jesus, our one great
sacrificing High Priest for ever. See PRIEST ;
PRESBYTER.

PRIMER. — The King's Primer was published
by authority in 1545. Its object was to furnish
the unlearned with the Creed, the Lord's Prayer,
and the Ten Commandments in English. This
Primer contained the Litany almost in its
present form, excepting that it then included
certain petitions for "the prayers of angels,
saints, and martyrs," and a prayer to be de
livered from "the tyranny of the Bishop of
Rome." The former of these petitions was
omitted from Edward VI. 's Prayer Book, and
both from that of Elizabeth.

PRIOR.— The title of a monastic official next
below an abbot in dignity. The word, how
ever, is used with different applications, a dis
tinction being made between conventual and
claustral priors. In conventual cathedrals,
where the abbot's place was held by the
bishop, the prior (prior conventualis) was the
real head of the monastery. In convents
presided over by an abbot, the prior (prior
claustralis, or prior of the cloisters) was the

officer of second rank, who represented the
abbot in his absence. The superiors of cells,
or small monastic establishments dependent
on larger monasteries, were also called priors.

[J. C. L.]

PRIORY. — A monastery presided over by a
prior or prioress. It differed from an abbey
only in that its superior bore the name of
prior instead of abbot. The English con
ventual cathedrals were all priories, and so
also were those offshoots from the abbeys
which continued to be subordinate to their
parent foundations. In later times the dis
tinction between abbeys and priories practi
cally disappeared. [J. C. L.]

PRISCILLIANISTS.— See HERESY ; PER
SECUTIONS.

PRIVATE JUDGMENT.— Against the Pro
testant view of the right and duty of private
judgment on religious matters, the Church of
Rome urges the weakness and liability to
error of private judgment as a reason why we
should surrender ourselves to the sole and
supreme direction of a so - called infallible
guide, which that Church professes to be.
Now, in the first place, this very objection of
the Romanist implies an appeal to reason and
to the exercise of private judgment. For a
man who decides to follow an infallible guide
on the grounds stated by the Romanist,
decides on his own private judgment, and that
on one most essential point which virtually
includes all other decisions on religious matters.
Further, if a man will not trust himself to use
his own private judgment even on this most
essential point, but resolves to consult another,
and is willing to be led entirely by another's
judgment, even here he exercises his own private
judgment in his resolve to leave the matter in
another's hands. In no way, therefore, can
any man quite rid himself of the exercise and
responsibility of his private judgment. " The
responsibility is laid upon us by God, and we
dare not, if we could, abdicate it. Before a
man can rationally judge that he should submit
his judgment in other things to the Church of
Rome, he must first have judged : (1) That
there is a God. (2) That Christianity comes
from God. (3) That Christ has promised to
give an infallible authority in the Church.
(4) That such authority resides in the Church
of Rome. Now, to say that men who are
competent to form sound judgments upon
these points are quite incompetent to form
sound judgments about any other matters of
religion, is very like saying that men may
have sound judgments of their own before they
enter the Church of Rome, but that they lose
all sound judgment entirely from the moment
they enter it " (see Archbishop Whately's
Cautions for the Times). The Tridentine Decree

PRIVATE JUDGMENT

[ 545 ]

PRIVATE JUDGMENT

which forbade the exercise of private judgmen
in matters of religion and the interpretation
of Holy Scripture, is thus reproduced and
formulated by the Vatican Council. " Since
what the Holy Synod of Trent wisely decreed
concerning the interpretation of Holy Scrip
tare, for the purpose of restraining perverse
intellects, has been wrongly expounded bj
some, we, renewing that decree, declare thai
this is its meaning, that on matters of faith
and morals pertaining to the building up o
Christian doctrine, that is to be regarded a:
the true sense of sacred Scripture which Holy
Mother Church has held and holds (which has
the right to judge about the true sense anc
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures) ; anc
therefore no one may interpret that Holy
Scripture contrary to that sense, or even
contrary to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers."

Here, then, we have an implicit appeal to
the Fathers and Holy Scripture in connection
with the Komish claim to infallible guidance,
which is clearly inconsistent with the teaching
of Holy Scripture and the Fathers themselves
as a body. God's Word constantly appeals to
reason, to conscience, and to private judgment
We are told to " prove all things, and hold fast
that which is good" (1 Thess. v. 21). "Let
every man be persuaded in his own mind "
(Rom. xiv. 5). " I speak as to wise men ;
judge ye what I say" (1 Cor. x. 15). "How is
it that even of your own selves judge ye not
what is right ? " " Be ready always to give an
answer to every man that asketh you a reason
for the hope that is in you." Further, our
blessed Lord Himself appealed to Holy Scrip
ture, not to the traditions or authority of the
Jewish Church, when He reproved the Sad-
ducees in the words, " Ye do err, not knowing
the Scriptures " (Matt. xxii. 29) ; and again,
when He said, "Search the Scriptures ; for in
them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they
are they which testify of me" (John v. 39.)

Now, even in the most distinctive dogma of
the Roman Church— the supremacy of St. Peter
and his successors — there does not appear any
thing like an " unanimous consent of the
Fathers," as, for example, in the application
of Christ's words to St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 18.
19), from which the Papal Supremacy is
deduced. There is, on the other hand, a
considerable amount of testimony of the
Fathers in favour of the right and duty of
private judgment and the exercise of reason in
dealing with Holy Scripture as the sole Rule of
Faith. According to Tertullian, " Reason is of
God, who ordered and disposed nothing with
out reason, and wills that all things shall be
treated and considered with reason." (This
reminds one of Bishop Butler's view, that

"reason is the only faculty we have wherewith
to judge anything, even revelation itself.") Jus
tin Martyr (Died, with Tryph.) writes, " We are
enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in
human doctrines, but in those declared by the
blessed prophets and taught by Himself." St.
Basil the Great writes : " It is a manifest
falling away from faith and a mark of presump
tion, either to omit anything in Scripture, or
to introduce anything not in Scripture " (De
Fide). Further, St. Chrysostom (Horn, xlix.)
writes : "There is no way of knowing what is
the true Church of Christ save by Scripture."
Again, Lactantius (xi. 8) regards it as a duty
in spiritual matters to trust rather to oneself
(magis confidere sibi), and use one's own judg
ment (suojudicio) and one's own senses to in
vestigate and weigh the truth, rather than to
believe and be deceived by the errors of others
as if one were without reason (rationis ex-
pers). Again, if God provided for the
Jewish Church no infallible guide for the in
terpretation and teaching of Old Testament
Holy Scripture, on what ground are we to
assume that God must have, in the interests of
truth, appointed any infallible guide in the
Christian Church other than, and beyond, the
promised guidance into all saving and necessary
truth by the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament,
like the New, appeals to reason and Scripture
as our guide, as in such texts as, " Come, let us
reason together, saith the Lord" (Isaiah) ; and
the words of the Psalmist, " Thy word is a
lamp to my feet, and alight unto my path."
Irenaeus writes : " Read diligently the Gospels
given unto us by the Apostles, and read dili
gently the prophets, and ye shall find every
action and the whole doctrine preached in
them." Jerome wrote : " As we deny not
those things which are written, so we refuse
those things which are not written." St.
Augustine lays it down, " Whatsoever ye hear
from Holy Scriptures, let that savour well unto
you; whatsoever is without them, refuse."
Similar testimony to the same truth of the
supremacy of Holy. Scripture as a guide, and
a like appeal to reason is furnished by Clemens
Alexandrinus, by Cyprian, by Hilary, by Hip-
polytus, and other Fathers. See Usher's Answer
to a Jesuit, and Jeremy Taylor's Dissuasive. It
is clear, too, from history that Romanism made
Christianity too corrupt with her unwarranted
and unscriptural dogmas and practices to bear
the light of Holy Scripture, and too incredible
to bear the light of reason, and therefore the
same Church prohibited the use of reason
and of private judgment in matters of religion,
and put forth the dogma of an infallible guide
as a substitute for the guidance of God's word
and of human reason, God's gift, though for
the use of each we are individually respon-

2 M

PRIVILEGE OF PETER

[ 546 ]

PRIVILEGE OF PETER

sible. See Dr. Salmon on Infallibility ; Davison
on Prophecy ; Palmer's Church of Christ; and
Archbishop Whately's Cautions for the Times.

[T. H. L. L.]

PRIVILEGE OF PETER.— It is upon this
fancied foundation that the superstructure
of Papal Supremacy is built. The so-called
" privilege " or superiority of St. Peter to the
other apostles is itself based upon four texts,
viz. (1) Peter's Confession, and our Lord's
promise to build His Church upon " this rock "
(Matt. xvi. 18) ; (2) The gift of the keys (Matt.
xvi. 19) ; (3) Peter's restoration (Luke xxii.
31) ; and (4) The admonition to St. Peter (John
xxi. 15). Now, with regard to (1), the Fathers
themselves are hopelessly divided as to the
application of "this rock." But many of
them, including Augustine and Jerome, hold
that the " rock " refers to Christ Himself, and
many others that it refers to St. Peter's con
fession of faith in the Lord Jesus, and this view
would seem to be the best explanation of the
words Certainly St. Peter showed immedi
ately that he was but a frail kind of rock (Matt.
xvi. 23). Concerning (2), the gift of the keys
signified that St. Peter should open the kingdom
of heaven by the preaching of the Gospel to
both Jews and Gentiles. The power of " bind
ing and loosing" was conferred upon all the
apostles, and therefore constituted no peculiar
dignity in regard to St. Peter himself (see
Matt, xviii. 18). As to (3), this text, reminding
us of the apostle's fall, is rather an argument
against his supremacy. There would be special
need and special reason for St. Peter to confirm
his brethren after his conversion, and to do so
would be a special pleasure to him after his sad
denial. (4) With regard to John xxi. 15, the
threefold question as to the apostle's love for
Christ reminds us (as doubtless it was meant to
remind him) of his threefold denial, and the
fact that the apostle was " grieved " (v. 17) by
the question shows how far the true state oi
the case was from any special dignity being
conferred upon him. Nor was the commission
to feed Christ's sheep and lambs peculiar to St
Peter, but is incumbent upon every minister
as the word pastor (a shepherd), derived from
the Latin pascere, to feed, shows.

On the opposite side the following considera
tions show that no speeial pre-eminence was
ever assigned to St. Peter among the apostles
(1) Christ at least twice declared that nc
distinction of rank could be permitted among
them (Mark ix. 33-35 ; Luke xxii. 24-26). I
is noteworthy that the last occasion was at th
Last Supper, long after the gift of " the keys
to St. Peter. (2) This apostle was the onl}
one sternly rebuked by Christ for attempting
to oppose God's will (Matt. xvi. 23) ; and (J
he was the only apostle, except the traito

Judas, who actually fell away from Christ,
denying Him with an oath, and that under
aggravated circumstances. (4) Not a single
act of jurisdiction or authority on St. Peter's
part over any apostle or elder is to be found.
(5) St. James, not St. Peter, presided at
Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17 ; xv. 13-21 ; Gal. ii.
9-12). (6) St. Peter is sent with St. John on
a mission to Samaria (Acts viii. 14). From
the Roman standpoint, be should have been
the sender, not the sent. (7) He alone of
the apostles is recorded to have erred on a
point of Church order and practice involving
doctrine, and to have been strenuously opposed
by St. Paul. (8) St. Peter is divinely restricted
to the Church of the Jews by birth (Gal. ii.
7, 8), and is withdrawn from all authority over
the Gentiles, to whom both the Roman and
Protestant Churches belong. (9) The activity,
energy, and authority of St. Paul quite eclipse
those of St. Peter (2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii. 11 ; 1 Cor.
iv. 17 ; xvi. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 28 ; Rom. i. 5, 6, 7).
(10) The only possible scriptural connection
of St. Peter with Rome is the pure conjecture
that "Babylon," in 1, Peter v. 13, may mean
Rome. Even if this guess were correct, there
is no mention of St. Peter having had the
least authority there. (11) St. Paul stigmatises
the attaching of themselves by Christians
specifically to St. Peter, or to any other apostle,
as distinct from the whole Church of Christ
as schismatical (1 Cor. i. 12, 13). (12) So far
from St. Peter claiming for himself even such
a position as St. Paul claimed, the only special
title St. Peter assumes is that of " fellow-
elder " (1 Peter v. 1). (13) Thatportion of the
New Testament we owe to St. Peter, even con
sidering the Gospel according to St. Mark as
mainly derived from information supplied by
St. Peter, is largely inferior both in bulk and
spiritual importance to the writings of St.
Paul, and the Gospels which came from the
hands of the other evangelists. (15) The Vicar
whom our Saviour appointed immediately
before His sufferings was no mere man, but
the Holy Ghost Himself (John xiv. 16, 17, 26 ;
xv. 26; xvi. 7, 13-15).

The Privilege of Peter was simply and
solely this, that to him alone was granted the
honour (which from the circumstances of the
case could not be repeated) of being the first
to unlock the doors of the kingdom of heaven
to both Jews (Acts ii. 14-41) and Gentiles
(Acts x. 34-48). That which the Pope grasps
at, therefore, in the " Privileges of Peter" is
but an intangible shadow, something which
does not exist at all, and in claiming to be
heir to this, the Pope (as Dr. Littledale has well
pointed out) occupies a position similar to that
which would be held by the heirs of Christopher
Columbus, if any should be alive, who should

PROCESSION

[ 547 ]

PROCESSION

lay claim to the enjoyment or monopoly of
continuing to discover America. But, further,
the Pope is evidently not the successor of St.
Peter for the three following important reasons:
first, St. Peter was infallible in his teaching,
but until 1870 many Romanists believed the
Pope to be fallible. If the Pope were St.
Peter's successor, how could the Church of
the nineteenth century be different from the
Church of all the preceding ages ? Secondly,
St. Peter possessed miraculous gifts. The
Popes evidently do not, and do not generally
claim such power. Thirdly, the Pope does
not teach the doctrine of St. Peter, and " they
have not the inheritance of Peter who have
not the faith of Peter " (Ambrose, De Pcenit.
v. 1, c. Dis. Pretest.). Those, then, who support
the claim of Rome to the "Privilege of Peter,"
support the elevation of a human being into
that place which God alone should occupy.
What relation does the humble, laborious
apostle bear to those proud pontiffs who wear
the triple crown, are borne in the Cathedral
of St. Peter at Rome on the shoulders of the
people, and placed on the altar above that
"which is called God and worshipped,"
namely the Host, and who have been sur
rounded by foreign bayonets dyed with the
blood of their Hock ? [M. E. W. J.]

PROCESSION.— The movement of a company
of persons from one spot to another in an
orderly line.

There are three sorts of ecclesiastical pro
cessions : (1) Those of the persons who con
stitute the procession only. (2) Those of
images borne by the processionists. (3)
Those of the Host, or wafer, or cake,
supposed to be the Son of God, carried in
like manner by the processionists.

1. There is nothing objectionable in the
first class of processions, provided they have
not a superstitious purpose, such as the
procession in Roman Catholic Churches on
Easter Eve, or superstitious accompaniments,
such as incense or lights.

2. Processions of images are of two kinds.
Sometimes their purpose is to earn the pro
tection of the saint whose image is carried, in
any moment of peril, sometimes to give the
saint the pleasure of being received with
respect and veneration. Of the first sort of
these processions there are many instances in
history, when a besieged garrison carried the
protecting saint of a town round the walls as
a defence against the assailants. The same
principle is involved in this proceeding as was
reproved in the presumptuous act of the
Israelites when they took the ark, as a talis
man, into the field of battle and were punished
by its capture. The second sort of these pro
cessions may be witnessed in many of the

villages and towns of Spain at the present
time. On the fete day the patron saint's
image is brought out with great pomp and
carried to all the chief points of the neighbour
hood, where his clients meet in large numbers
and adore him. In the large village of
Villaescusa, near Salamanca, the patron saint
is St. Mary of the Elm, so called because her
image is made out of an elm tree under which
she is supposed to have wrought a miracle.
St. Mary of the Eltn is carried round the place
annually, and if any accident happen, or dis
respect be shown to her, it is felt and resented
as keenly as a blow struck by an infidel at a
sacred animal in some parts of India, or
formerly in Egypt. About twenty years ago
Protestantism found its way into Villaescusa
by means of a Bible which an inhabitant had
bought in a neighbouring town, and read to
his sister and some friends. The priest
announced that on the next fete day St. Mary
of the Elm would show her indignation.
Accordingly when the day for the procession
came, it was found that St. Mary had lost her
arms ! The villagers rose in fury, seized a
leading Protestant and hurried him off to a
neighbouring town, where he was thrust into
a prison scarcely long enough for him to lie
down in, lighted only by a sort of trap-door at
the top. There he might have stayed for a
length of time, but friends of the Protestant
cause called the attention of the Government
to the case, and two of the Guardias Civiles —
the most uncorrupt body of men in Spain —
were sent to Villaescusa to investigate the
matter. They very soon found that the
Roman Catholic sacristan had unscrewed the
arms in order to raise odium against the Pro
testants, and that they were then lying in his
hayloft covered with hay. The result was
this : the Protestant Confessor, whose name
is Hernandez, was released, and a Protestant
church and congregation was formed at
Villaesousa, which is ministered to by one of
Bishop Cabrera's clergy. But the procession
of St. Mary of the Elm continued, and pro
bably continues still.

Occasionally St. Mary of one title or place
pays a visit to St. Mary of another title or
place, in which case the processionists show
the utmost courtesy to each other ; but should
they meet on another day in a narrow street,
each refuses to yield to the other, being
jealously desirous of showing that their St.
Mary is the superior of the two. At Alhaurin
if any one belonging to the procession of
"Jesus above" (the hill) gets caught by the
bearers of "Jesus below," the badges of the
opposite party are torn off, and he or she is
glad to escape with that. The Holy Week is
the great time for these processions of images,

PROCESSION

[ 548 ]

PROCESSIONAL CROSS

and the most noted place for them is Seville.
" The processions are very splendidly arranged,"
writes an eye-witness in 1851, "but they are
mere shows, and the cloak of the Blessed
Virgin and the dress of the Nazarenes are
discussed just as a gentleman's or lady's dress
at a ball. The Nazarenes' dress in which they
walk in procession is a long cap about a yard
high, like the old san-benito caps, a dress with
a train about three yards in length, and a
veiled face. They carry not merely single
images, but pasos, which are generally groups,
or a figure under a superb canopy. Each
fraternity has commonly two pasos, represent
ing perhaps the Last Supper, or our Lord upon
the Cross between the two thieves, the last
and most splendid being invariably the Blessed
Virgin. They come from their several parish
churches, pass through the chief square where
the royal party is placed under a canopy, and
then proceed to the cathedral. On Thursday
we saw four processions with nine pasos.

" Good Friday presented the most festival
appearance of all. There were processions all
day long. The whole population was out in
the streets to see them, boys clambering every
where that they ought not, and being driven
down by the police, men and boys selling nuts
and gingerbread and water. There was no ill
temper and quarrelling, and no drinking except
water ; the people seemed to have met to
enjoy themselves, and they did it. There was
one unfortunate occurrence. One procession
bearing the images of our Lord falling with
the cross and of our Lady and Hope, fell in
with another bearing those of the Conversion
of the Penitent Thief and of our Lady of
Montserrat, and they fought for the preced
ence. The former gained it, but the fight
occasioned a panic in the great square, where
there were, it is supposed, 20,000 persons.
The brotherhood of the Conversion and of our
Lady of Montserrat, wearing high caps with
flaps over their faces that blinded them, and
long trains that entangled their feet, were
quite helpless in the confusion, and went
down, I was told by an American, ' like nine
pins.' When order was restored, the Infanta
and all the royal party took candles and
walked with them to console them. Our Lady
of Montserrat had a splendid new robe of blue
velvet. The images of our Lord's sufferings
were strangely out of place in such a merry,
tumultuous scene" (Practical Working of the
Church of Spain, ch. x. xi.).

3. The processions of the Host are also of
two kinds. Sometimes the Host is carried
for the purpose of being given to the sick ;
sometimes to make a royal progress, outside
the narrow bounds of a pyx, or a tabernacle,
or a church, as Eastern potentates like occa

sionally to go abroad from their palaces, and
receive the homage of their subjects.

In the early Church, when the consecrated
bread and wine had to be sent to any sick
man or sufferer who could not be present at
the common evening meal, part of which con
sisted of the Lord's Supper, there was no pro
cession for the purpose. The deacon just took
them, at the end of the meal, to the appointed
house, and so the sick man was recognised as
a participant in the brotherly meal. It was
only when the new religion formulated by
Innocent III. grew up, that processions, and
lights, and bells, and chants were introduced.
The special day on which Christ is supposed
to make His royal progress in the shape of a
wafer is Corpus Christi day. The festival was
instituted for this purpose by Urban IV. in
1264, as a consequence of the dogma of tran-
substantiation, sanctioned in 1215, and, as is
said, on account of the following miracle :
" In 1230, Juliana, a nun of Liege, while look
ing at the full moon, saw a gap in its orb, and
by a peculiar revelation from heaven, learned
that the moon represented the Christian
Church, and the gap the want of a certain
festival — that of the adoration of the body of
Christ in the consecrated Host — which she
was to begin to celebrate and announce to the
world" (Hook, Church Dictionary). Such is
the purpose and such is the origin of a festival
observed now by some hundreds of English
clergymen. It is true that they do not observe
it by the public processions which make the
day so well known on the Continent, but they
observe it by their selection of the day for the
celebration of the Holy Eucharist ; and by
selecting it they profess approval of that
festival, appointed for worship of the con
secrated element of bread as Christ Himself.

[F. M.]

PROCESSIONAL CROSS.— In the Westerton
case it was held that "the word 'ornaments'
applies, and in this rubric " (the Ornaments'
Rubric) "is confined to those articles the use
of which in the services and ministrations of
the Church is prescribed by the Prayer Book
of Edward VI." No use of the cross was
prescribed by that book. Their lordships
added that the " general question of crosses
not used in the services, but employed only as
decorations of churches, is entirely unaffected
by the rubric." Processions which seem to
form part of divine service are illegal (Elphin-
stone v. Purchas), and, consequently, the use of
a processional cross in connection with such
processions must be illegal also. But when
used as mere emblems of the Christian faith,
not as objects of superstitious reverence,
they may still lawfully be erected as archi
tectural decorations of churches. Moore's

PROHIBITED BOOKS

[ 549 ]

PROPITIATION

special report of Liddell v. Westerton, pp.
156, 161, 175. [J. T. T.]

PROHIBITED BOOKS.— See INDEX Ex-

PUKGATORIUS.

PROHIBITION.— See INHIBITION.

PROPAGANDA. — See MISSIONS, ROMAN
CATHOLIC.

PROPHESYINGS.— The "religious exer
cises," otherwise known by this name, origi
nated about 1571, and were based on the
Apostolic direction (l]Cor. xiv. 31), "Ye shall
all prophesy one by one that all may learn and
all be comforted." They were held usually on
Saturday mornings, at first once a fortnight,
and afterwards every week. The "practice,"
says Strype, " was taken up in divers places of
the nation, and particularly in Northampton
shire, and allowed by many bishops in their
dioceses : the manner whereof was, that the
ministers of such a division, at a set time,
met together in some church belonging to a
market or other large town, and there each in
their order explained according to their ability
some particular portion of Scripture allotted
them before. And after all of them had done,
a moderator, who was one of the gravest and
best learned among them, made his observa
tions upon wha,t the rest had said, and deter
mined the true sense of the place. And all
was to be despatched within such a space of
time."1 At Northampton the time allowed
was two hours, the first speaker occupying
three quarters of an hour, the second and
third each a quarter, and the moderator the
remainder. The moderator nominated the
speakers, the bishop or archdeacon the mode
rator, and, in some dioceses, the moderator was
the rural dean. "At these assemblies," pro
ceeds Strype, ' there were great confluxes of
people to hear and learn. And by this means
the ministers and curates were forced to read
authors, and consult expositors and commen
tators, and to follow their studies, that they
might speak to purpose when they were to ap
pear in public ; and hereby they considerably
profited themselves in the knowledge of the
Scripture." In the great dearth of preaching,
and of clergymen competent to preach,2 these
exercises met a pressing need ; and their
thoroughly anti- Romish character3 made
them a medium of strong Protestant influence.
But they were liable to certain abuses. Men
more ready to speak than able to speak aptly
and profitably might push themselves forward ;

1 Strype's Life of Orindal, p. 326, /. ; cf. Fuller
Church History, book ix. § iv. 2, 3.

2 Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 146,
154, 157, &c.

3 See the Confession of Faith, signed by all who
took part. Neal, i. 244.

indiscreet speakers might take occasion to
inveigh "against the laws, rites, policies, and
discipline of the Church of England established
by public authority," or to " glance " at public
affairs and persons ; ministers "deprived from
their livings and inhibited to preach " might
make their appearance and take part "in the
said exercises"; above all, "a lay person"
might be " suffered to speak publicly in those
assemblies." 4 Such abuses actually occurred,
though the mischief done was vastly out
weighed by the good. But the Queen, when
she heard of them, and was also assured5
that the "exercises" were "seminaries of
Puritanism," determined to suppress the whole
movement. Beginning with the diocese of
Norwich (March 25, 1574), 6 she extended her
orders for this purpose (May 7, 1577) 7 to the
Church generally. Archbishop Grindal's re
monstrance made to the Queen 8 (before the
final order) in a noble letter was in vain.
The "exercises" did not entirely cease all at
once;9 but, on the whole, the year 1577 saw
the last of them, until (in a manner) they were
revived by the lectureships of the later
Puritans. [F. J. P.]

PROPITIATION.— A rendering favourable of
one before alienated. There is but one pro
pitiation that can be made for mankind,
alienated from God through its sins. That
propitiation was made once for all by the
sin-offering upon the cross. Since that stu
pendous act of mercy man can neither have
nor need any further offering for sin. Its
effect is continuous, and therefore when His
children, reconciled and adopted in Christ,
fall into transgression, all that is required of
them is repentance, in order to be restored
to the favour of their Father. The great
propitiatory offering was typified beforehand

4 See Archbishop Grindal's "Regulations" (1576)
in his Remains, pp. 373, 374.

6 By Archbishop Parker as early as 1574 (Neal,
i. 286).

6 Prothero, Select Statutes, p. 204 ; cf. Neal, i.
286-89.

7 The letter conveying her final " orders " may
be seen in Grindal's Remains, pp. 467-69 ; or in
Neal, i. 310, note.

8 December 20, 1576 ; Grindal's Remains, pp.
376 90. He was " suspended " till just before
his death, July 6, 1583.

9 " Regulations " for the conduct of "exer
cises " in the diocese of Chester were issued by
the bishop in 1585. See Prothero's Select
Statutes, p. 206. For Lord Bacon's opinion of
the " prophesyings " see his Advertisement Touch
ing the Controversies of the Church of England (ed.
1657), reprinted in Arber's Introductory Sketch to
the Martin Marprelate Controversy, p. 161.

PROPITIATION

[ 550 ]

PROTESTANT

in the Jewish dispensation by the sin and
trespass offerings. When a man had com
mitted a moral or ceremonial offence, which
excluded him from the favour of God, he had
to offer his sin-offering, which ceremonially
restored him to that favour, because it repre
sented and dimly pleaded the effects of the
one great propitiatory offering to be made in
the future. The peace or thank-offering had
no such purpose. That was offered in joyous
recognition that the offerer was living in the
light of God's countenance, a pardoned child,
whose offering a loving Father vouchsafed to
share with him.

While we can have, as Christians, no sin-
offering for the purpose of propitiation, we
may still have our peace or thank-offering, and
this is the offering of praise and thanksgiving
which we present to God for the reconciliation
effected in Christ, as well as for the temporal
mercies that we enjoy. This thank-offering
we make whenever we pour out our hearts in
gratitude to God for His mercies in Christ,
and more particularly when, feeling ourselves
His forgiven children, we gather round His
board with loving and grateful hearts for the
purpose of rendering Him our praises and
thanksgivings. What we then present to
God is a peace-offering, not a sin-offering ; a sac
rifice of thanks, not a sacrifice of propitiation.

Ritualistic and Roman teaching confuse the
two ideas of the sin-offering for propitiation
and the peace-offering for thanksgiving ; and
this perplexes and darkens the whole scheme
of the Christian faith and worship. If we
have to make an offering for propitiation, we
are not the reconciled children of the Father,
adopted in Christ. Either we have not been
admitted into the house, or we have been
cast out of it. We may not ask and receive
forgiveness as children, but must seek it as
aliens, for whom the sin-offering must again
be made — as indeed it professes to be made
in the Mass. The whole theory ignores the
truth so earnestly pressed in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, that there is no more an offering for
sin since the one offering on the cross, and it
treats the adoption in Christ with contumely as
a nullity.or of only partial and temporary effect.
The Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice to pro
pitiate an averted Deity, but a grateful offering
of our thanks to our Father for the love that ac
cepts us as His children in Christ.1 [F. M.]

i In the Book of Common Prayer, in the first
prayer of thanksgiving after the administration
of the bread and the wine, the words " this our
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" refer to
the thanksgiving portion of the service then
entered upon, and not the portion which has
been concluded. — EDD.

PROTESTANT.— (1) One who makes a protes
tation or declaration of his belief, or opinion,
or resolution. (2) One who protests or makes
a declaration against some belief, or opinion,
or action.

1. The positive force of the word Protestant
is too much ignored and forgotten. It is its
primary signification. We can make a pro
testation with respect to anything that we
feel strongly about. It is only because such a
protestation is seldom made except in opposi
tion to what we believe to be error, that the
word Protestant grew to have a negative sense
attached to it, so that it was supposed that if
we protested we must be protesting against
something. Yet our ordinary forms of speech
bear testimony to the contrary, and show that
we are wrong in thus confining the meaning
of the term. The Queen in Hamlet, says, " The
lady doth protest too much, methinks," that
is, declares her resolve too vehemently. After
a long day's journey we might say, " I protest
that I am glad to rest." Here we are not
denying anything, but only stating something
with emphasis. The "Declaration" issued in
1900 by members of the English Church
Union might as well have been called a
" Protestation," and it would have been so
called in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies. In 1641 Pym persuaded Parliament to
"enter into a protestation," not against any
thing, but " for the defence of their privileges
and the performance of their duties to God and
the king, which they were obliged to as good
Christians and good subjects," and a com
mittee was ordered " speedily to withdraw
and prepare such protestation." The "Pro
testation" was drawn up, and those who
signed it bound themselves thereby " to defend
the doctrine of the Church of England, and
his Majesty's royal person, and the powers
and privileges of Parliament, and the lawful
rights and liberties of the subject," all these
things being positive acts to be performed, not
negations.

The German theologians and partisans of
Reform, from whom the name of Protestant
comes, used the word in its positive sense.
Their protestation was not a string of nega
tives, but a declaration of their faith, positive
and negative. From them the word and its
meaning passed into England ; so that the
Protestant Faith in England meant the Faith
of the Church of England, as in Germany it
meant the Faith of the Confession of Augs
burg. It was not used in contrast with
Catholic, nor even at first with Popish, but it
signified the Catholic Faith cleared from the
uncatholic additions and corruptions of the
mediaeval and modern Roman Church, which
was the faith which the Church of England

PROTESTANT

[ 551

PROTESTANT

made protestation, or protested, that it held.
Thus all the seventeenth-century divines un
hesitatingly speak of themselves as Protestants.
Laud, for example, solemnly protested "that
he was innocent of all practice, or so much
as thought of practice, for any alteration to
Popery or any way blemishing the true Protes
tant Religion established in the Church of
England " (Troubles and Trial), and in his last
Will and Testament he declared that he died
in the orthodox profession of the Catholic Faith.
In his estimation the " Catholic Faith" and the
" Protestant Religion " were one and the same.
Jeremy Taylor pronounced St. Augustine a
Protestant in his teaching on the Holy Com
munion (Real Presence, xii. 30). He did not
mean that Augustine formally denied the
mediaeval and modern Roman dogmas, which
had not come into being in his day, but
that he taught the true doctrine on the
subject, which doctrine was identical with
that which in the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries was known as the Protestant
doctrine.

2. As long as there were no forms of
Protestantism except the Lutheran and the
Anglican, there was no ambiguity in the
word. It meant the religious system, positive
and negative, of the Lutheran and the Angli
can Churches respectively, and these two
systems, so far as doctrine was concerned,
differed little from each other. But when the
various Dissenting communities sprang up —
Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others —
they all styled themselves Protestant ; and
thus there arose various forms of Protestan
tism, differing in their positive tenets, but
agreeing in their negation of Popery. This
was confusing, and by degrees the word
Protestant lost its positive connotation and
came to be confined to the meaning of non-
Papist. This is the sense which it commonly
bears at present. In the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries, if a man said that he was a
Protestant he was understood to mean that he
held the faith of the Confession of Augsburg,
or of the XXXIX. Articles. At the present
time the name Protestant implies that the
person so termed rejects all Popi.sh doctrine
(more particularly the doctrines summed up in
the Creed of Pope Pius IV. and supplemented
by Pius IX.), and unless he explains that he is
using the word in its original sense, he is sup
posed to have stated nothing as to his positive
beliefs. The speaker might be a Lutheran, an
Anglican, an Independent, a Quaker, and would
still call himself Protestant. This ambiguity,
or rather, this limitation of the word to its
negative signification, has caused some hesita
tion in the use of it, each religionist feeling
that in saying that he is a Protestant he does

not specify his own particular positive tenets
and standing-ground. But the word, if it has
shrunk somewhat in the extent of its signi
fication by not now necessarily connoting
Lutheranism, or Anglicanism, and if from
another point of view it has enlarged its
signification so as to embrace the various
non-Romanist sects, is still a useful and
wholesome word when properly employed,
not, that is, as being in any way opposed
to Catholic, when the latter term is used in its
right sense — for we Protestants are members
of the Holy Catholic Church, and hold the
Catholic Faith — but as the contradictory of
Papist. See Dr. Wace's valuable article in
Church and Faith, which is full of information
respecting the origin of Protestantism.

[F. M.]

A term which came into use at the German
Imperial Diet of Spires, 1529, in the follow
ing circumstances. There had been a pre
vious Diet at Spires in 1526, nine years
after the Reform cause had been started by
Luther, when the two parties were so evenly
divided that a compromise was agreed on, and
it was ruled that until the Emperor (then
absent) returned to Germany, " each state
should behave in its own territory in such a
manner as to be able to render an account to
God and the Emperor." This ruling, it was
claimed, amounted to a temporary freedom of
worship,1 and was, as Robertson puts it, almost
equivalent to a toleration of Luther's opinions.2
Under this practical liberty the Reformation
cause in Germany made great strides, creating
much uneasiness in the papal party, which, by
a vigorous effort, flocked to this second Diet at
Spires, 1529, bent on carrying a decree which
would re-establish their own supremacy as
formerly. In the continued absence of the
Emperor, his brother King Ferdinand, a strong
papalist, presided, and a decree was proposed
by which the tolerating clause of 1526 was
greatly modified, for its entire abrogation was
seen to be impossible. It would penalise all
further innovations and all additional con
versions, while tolerating those already made
if their forcible suppression was seen to be
dangerous to the public tranquility. Before
the decree framed in that sense came to the
vote, but while it was in debate, the reforming
members of the Diet retired temporarily to a
side apartment for a separate consultation,
and drew up a declaration of their sentiments.
It ran: "We protest and declare herewith
openly before God as well as before all men,

1 D'Aubigne, iv. 11, 12, ed. R.T.S.

2 Robertson's Charles the Fifth, ii. 252, ed.
1840.

PROTESTANT

[ 552 ] PSALTER OF THE VIRGIN, THE

that we, for us and for our people, neither
consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever
to the proposed decree in any thing that is
contrary to God, to His Holy Word, to our
right conscience, to the salvation of our souls,
and to the last decree of Spires."1 Such was
the origin of the celebrated PROTEST made
on April 19, 1529. It expressed a resolution to
maintain their liberty of worship and doctrinal
opinion, whereas the Diet was being asked to
vote for what was in effect their gradual
strangulation. On returning to the assembly
they found the decree had been passed, nor
tfould the president be induced to reopen the
question. Finding themselves thus baffled, and
determined not to yield the point, they con
tinued their deliberations and drew up a state
ment more at large, embodying their first
resolution in it, but accompanying this with a
fuller account of their case, with documentary
evidence to support it. This was their Protest
in an expanded form to go before the whole
nation in print and for all time. It bore the
name of Instrumentum Appellationis, constitut
ing their Appeal, which ended thus: "We
therefore appeal for ourselves, for our subjects,
and for all who receive or who shall here
after receive the Word of God, from all past,
present, or future vexatious measures, to his
Imperial Majesty, and to a free and universal
assembly of holy Christendom." 2 It was their
protest in a legal form for public use, and its
date was April 25, 1529, on which day (Sunday),
it was solemnly signed and sealed by all the
members of the Diet who were in agreement
with it ; and these were from that day known
as Protestantes, PROTESTANTS. To one clause
of this Appeal attention is to be particularly
directed : " for all who receive, or who shall
hereafter receive, the Word of God." Only
such, therefore, are Protestants ; and it is in
vain that they are made, by those who seek to
dishonour the name, to include infidels as well
as Christians. The signatories were the
following Princes, who, then or later, were
joined by fourteen Imperial cities represented
by their delegates at the Diet, viz., the elector
John of Saxony, George, Margrave of Branden
burg ; Ernest and Francis, Dukes of Bruns
wick Luneburg ; Philip, Landgrave of Hesse ;
Wolfgang, Prince of Anhalt ; the cities of
Strasburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Constance Lin-
dau, Memmingen, Kempten, Nordlingen, Heil-
bronn, Reutlingen, Issna, St. Gall, Weissenburg,

1 D'Aubigne, iv. 60, ed. R.T.S.

2 Ibid., iv. 65 ed. 1846, R.T.S. ; Ranke, iii. 176-77;
Seckendorf, Commentary on Luther anism, lib. ii.
sec. 14, § xliv. p. 130, col. 2 (top), Leipzic,
1694.

Windsheim.3 It should be noted that several
of the Protesters at Spires were not Lutherans.
Ranke remarks that sovereigns so consider
able, especially in the north of Germany,
cities so populous in the south and west, all
united in opinion and in will, formed a
body which commanded respect ; they were
determined to defend themselves with their
combined strength against every attempt at
compulsion on the part of the majority.4 On
May 6th, Melanchthon returned to Wittem-
berg from Spires deeply agitated, and firmly
persuaded that the two parties were about to
draw the sword.5

It would be a serious mistake to imagine
that the Protest of Spires was a mere objection
to Roman Catholic doctrines. The occasion
did not require the Reformers to express that,
however much they may have felt it ; and,
in fact, the protest in its ultimate form actually
declared: "We form no judgment on that
which concerns you, most dear Lords, and we
are content to pray God daily that He will
bring us all to unity and faith, in truth,
charity, and holiness, through Jesus Christ oar
throne of grace and our only mediator." 6 But
they were required to condemn themselves as
unfit to be tolerated the moment the secular arm
was strong enough to strike them down. They
would not so dishonour their cause. [C. H.]

Note. — It ought also to be noted that the
name "Protestant" was all along accepted in
England after the Reformation as a name of
the Established Religion as has been shown
at great length by Rev. Charles Hole in his
Historical Review of the words Evangelical and
Protestant. Indeed the word was often used
in contrast alike to " Puritan " and " Papist."

[C. H. H. W.]

PRO THESIS is the Greek name for that which
in the Greek Church is nearly akin to the
Credence Table. It means the preparation
Table on which the bread and wine are placed
prior to consecration. The name is part of the
Greek phrase used in the LXX. Version of
the Old Testament for the table of the shew-
bread. See Wright's Service of the Mass in Greek
and Roman Churches.

PSALTER OF THE VIRGIN, THE.— An
adaptation of the Psalms of David for the
worship of the Virgin Mary, made by Bona-
ventura, a saint of the Roman Church. This
Psalter is nothing less than a blasphemous

3 Gieseler, Text-book, 1868, Eng., vol. iv. 131,
note 31 ; Ranke, Hist. Ref., iii. 176 ; Robertson,
Charles V., ii. 253. Gieseler omits Duke Francis.

4 Ranke, iii. 179.

5 D'Aubigne, iv. 67. Ranke, iii. 185.

6 D'Aubigne", iv. 58, ed. R.T.S.

PSEUDO-ISIDORE

[ 553 ] PUBLIC WORSHIP ACT, 1874

alteration of the name of God, wherever it
occurs, to that of the Virgin. The following
are a few specimens, viz., Psalm i. 1, "Blessed
is the man that loveth thy name, Virgin Mary,
thy grace shall strengthen his heart." Psalm
iii. 1, "Lady, how are they increased that
trouble me ; in thy wrath shalt thou persecute
and scatter them." Psalm xxxiv. 1, "Unto
thee, 0 Lady, will I lift up my soul : in the
judgment of God, through thy prayer I shall
not be afraid." Psalm cxlviii. 1, " Praise our
Lady of heaven : praise her in the height."
Verse 2, " Praise her Cherubim and Seraphim :
Thrones and Dominions and Powers." Other
unauthorised praises, adaptations of Scripture,
the Te Deum, the Athanasian Creed, are in
cluded in thk Psalter, e.g., '• For in the beauty
of thy person, thou surpassest all women ; thou
excellest angels and archangels in the advance
ment of holiness." "Come unto her, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden : and she will
give rest unto your souls." ' ' We praise thee, O
Mother of God, we acknowledge thee, Virgin
Mary. All the earth doth worship thee : the
Spouse of the Everlasting Father." "Who
soever will be saved, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the right faith about
Mary." See MARY, THE VIRGIN.

PSEUDO-ISIDORE.— See DECRETALS.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT,
1874. — The short title of this Act is, perhaps,
unfortunately chosen, as it does not "regulate
public worship," but merely prescribes a certain
procedure to be adopted where the law has been
violated. It owed its origin to the Ritual Com
missioners, who declared unanimously in their
First Report that " it is expedient to restrain
in the public services of the United Church of
England and Ireland all variations in respect
of vesture from that which has been the long-
established usage of the said United Church,
and we think that this may be best secured by
providing aggrieved parishioners with an cosy
and effectual process for complaint and redress."
The Act was the direct outcome of this
recommendation, but it failed to prove " effec
tual " for two reasons. The opponents of the
Bill contrived to insert into it a power of veto
on the part of the bishop of the diocese, with the
result, in practice, that out of twenty-three re
presentations under the Act, no fewer than
seventeen were vetoed by the bishops. Strange
to say, the reason assigned commonly was that
litigation is in itself an evil, and ought to be
avoided. Thus the very reason assigned by the
Royal Commission (on which seven bishops sat),
as well as the design of the legislature to provide
an " easy " remedy, were both alike rendered
abortive by the refusal of the bishops to ad
minister the Act, or to permit others to avail
themselves of it. A further reason for its want

of success is found in the refusal of "the
judge" to enforce his own decisions, so that in
the Bell Cox case, after years of litigation, he
positively refused to take further cognisance of
the continued contumacy, and advised the pro
moter of the suit to commence a fresh action,
owing to the length of time which had expired
since the suit was commenced !

No law administered in that fashion is ever
likely to receive much attention from law
breakers.

The Act provides an alternative process to
that of the Church Discipline Act of 1840 ; but,
of course, the person complained of cannot be
proceeded against under both acts.

It does not apply to questions of doctrine or of
crime, but merely to the introduction of illegal
ornaments or decorations, or the illegal manner
of bringing in ornaments, or the making un
authorised additions to, or alterations in,
the fabric or furniture of the church. It
deals also with ritual irregularities, and with
variations from the prescribed services of
the Church in the church or burial ground.
Proceedings may be commenced by the arch
deacon, or by a churchwarden, or by any three
parishioners who, having for a twelvemonth
previously resided in the parish, sign the pre
scribed form declaring themselves to be bona
fide members of the Church of England. In
the case of a cathedral, any three inhabitants
of the diocese may institute proceedings, if
similarly qualified. But as a faculty is not re
quired for alterations in a cathedral, it is not
easy to see how irregular action in respect of
cathedral ornaments or decorations can be held
in check, unless, of course, the thing so brought
in is in itself essentially illegal. If the bishop
chooses to veto any complaint, no relief can be
obtained under this Act ; but the bishop must
publicly state his reasons. The following is a
sample of the Episcopal reasoning in such
cases.

In the case of Tedburn St. Mary the Bishop
of Exeter filed in his registry the following
"reason " for refusing to allow a law-breaker
to be interfered with : —

" With regard to wafer bread, lighted candles
on the holy table in the daytime, and the vest
ments complained of, I have stated to Mr. Tot-
hill that they are, in my judgment, contrary to
the laws and usages of the Church of England,
and are therefore not only inexpedient, but
wrong. I earnestly hope that the rector will
yet see it his duty to submit to my admonition
as his father in God. But in the present state
of the law, I fear that prosecutions in the
Courts on such matters of ritual, only aggra
vate the evils they are intended to suppress.
(Signed) E. H. Exon."

If, however, justice is permitted to be done

PURGATORY

[ 554 ]

PURGATORY

the bishop may himself decide the case finally,
if both parties agree to abide by his decision.
But the precedent will not be binding upon
others as regards any question of law in
volved. The parties may require the bishop
to submit a special case drawn up by counsel
for the opinion of the judge, in which case
the bishop's judgment must be in conformity
with that opinion. Such a speedy termina
tion to the suit seldom or never happens,
because the bishop, as fatherly adviser, has
always been consulted by both sides in advance,
and it is just because his " parental authority "
has failed to satisfy one or both of the parties
that they desire to have the matter adjudicated
upon by an independent and trained judge.
Unless, therefore, they both signify their con
sents within twenty-one days, the bishop is
bound to send on the representation to the
archbishop of the Province, who is to forth
with require the judge to hear the matter.
The judge thereupon requires the party making
the representation to give security for costs,
after which he gives notice to both the parties
of the date and place of the hearing. Within
twenty-one days after such notice the defendant
is to furnish, in writing, his answer to the re
presentation. At the hearing, the evidence is
taken viva voce, and the Court has all the powers
of a judge of the High Court as to enforcing
the attendance of witnesses, and the produc
tion of documents. The judge then issues
such a monition as he deems suitable, and
makes an order as to payment of costs. An
appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council, with a view to which the judge will
state the facts proved before him in the form
of a special case, unless the parties agree
beforehand to employ a shorthand writer to
report the evidence. The judge under this
Act combines the powers and functions of the
Official Principals of both the archbishops,
and is also the Master of the Faculties. He
must be a member of the Church of England,
and is appointed jointly by the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York, subject to the approval
of the sovereign signified by the royal sign-
manual. Should the two archbishops neglect
for six months to fill up a vacancy in the oflice!
the Crown appoints the judge by Letters patent
{ Whitehead's Church Law). [J. T. T.]

PURGATORY.— A supposed place of suffer
ing after death, where souls are imagined to
endure pains in fire equal in intensity to hell-
Sre, until they have satisfied the justice of God
by working out their uncompleted penances
which had been assigned them by their con
fessors.

In the middle of the third century it occurred
to Origen, among other imaginations, probably
after reading Plato's account of the future

world, that on the Last Day there might be a
vast conflagration, and that the souls of all
mankind, dead and alive, might pass through
this fire, in going to present themselves before
the tribunal of God, and might be purified in
the process, so as to appear less unworthily
before their Judge. He little thought that
this fancy of his would become the founda
tion of what amounts in practice to the most
popular tenet of a new religion of which he
knew nothing. The idea was taken up by
Hilary and others as an interesting specula
tion, just as we might speculate on the number
and order of angelic beings, or any other point
not affecting practice, which we may believe
or not as we please. In the fifth century
Augustine, quotingin hisDe Civitate Dei Virgil's
account of the sufferings of the wicked in the
next life, which probably gave him the idea,
suggested that if there were such a fire at all,
about which he knew nothing, but which the
expression "saved so as by fire " seemed to him
possibly to indicate, it was "not incredible"
and was "worth inquiry" whether it might
not take place before the Last Day. That
forms step No. 2 in the growth of what became
a doctrine. The third step is due to Gregory I.,
if he is indeed the author of the silly book
called Dialogues ; but there are a number
of works attributed to 1dm which are not
genuine, and for his credit's sake we may hope
that the Dialogues is one of them. It con
tains visions of departed souls in suffering,
though not lost for ever. From this time for
ward — the end of the sixth and the beginning
of the seventh century — the theory of a Purga
tory may be said to have had a substantive
existence. But it required two more steps
before it came to bear any real similarity to
the tenet now held under that name, and
before its graver evils manifested themselves.
These were its conjunction with (1) the practice
of Masses for the dead ; (2) Indulgences.

From the earliest times there were held
Memorial Services (such as have of late been
introduced among ourselves), and panegyrical
addresses were made, on the occasion of the
death of a martyr or any well-known champion
of the faith. Their object was not to benefit
the dead in another state of existence, but to
commemorate them on earth, and to hold up
their good examples as worthy to be followed
by others. Then after a time the question was
asked, Where are the dead whom we thus com
memorate — where are all those who have diod
in the Lord ? The answer, long before any sort
of Purgatory had been dreamed of, was that
they were resting in the Paradise of God, like
the penitent thief, awaiting the final consum
mation of their bliss on the Last Day. Could
our prayers on earth benefit them in this happy

PURGATORY

[ 555

PURGATORY

resting-place ? Who could tell ? Who could
say that they would ? Who could say for cer
tain that they would not ? And so there grew
up a practice of commending the blessed dead
to the mercy of God, and hoping that some
unknown good might accrue to them from such
commendation. All this without a thought of
their suffering pain, or of their pain being
lightened by such aspirations.

Then came the tenet of Purgatory. If souls
really had to go through this state of burning
into which Origen's Platonic fancy had de
veloped by the seventh century, might not
these prayers or commemorations avail them
in it ? Had not, in fact, the poor girl Perpetua,
while being tortured to death, dreamed (if
the acts of her martyrdom be genuine) that
her prayers had changed the state of her
dead brother from punishment to refresh
ment ? Might not her dream have been true,
and might not other people's prayers have
like effect ? And as the idea of the Lord's
Supper became changed from being primarily
a sacrament to being a sacrifice, might not the
offering of that .sacrifice with the intention of
benefiting the dead be more acceptable than
the prayers of individuals? Thus grew up a
belief in the advantages to be derived from
Masses for the dead. And that belief was
easily encouraged by the priesthood, for it put
them in the position of being arbiters and
masters of the fate of the laity. They could
grant a Mass or withhold it. The effect of
granting it would be that the soul would be
tormented in the fire for a shorter time— how
much shorter was not defined — and the relatives
of the beloved dead poured money into the
hands of the priest to shorten it more and
more by more and more Masses. Each Mass
had its price. At the present day the price in
England is five shillings, or to the poor half-a-
crown ; abroad it is generally ninepence, and
the Mass priest lives on his ninepence a day
thus earned. Philip IV. of Spain left by will
£100,000 to be expended in Masses for getting
him quickly out of Purgatory. " Such facility
they have," says Hooker, "to convert a pre
tended sacrament into a true revenue " (Eccl.
Pol., vi. 9).

And this was not all. For in the thirteenth
century Thomas Aquinas ingeniously con
structed a spiritual treasure-house for the
Pope, and in this treasure-house are stored up

(1) the supererogatory merits of saints who did
more good works than they need have done ;

(2) the supererogatory merits of St. Mary ; (3)
if required to supplement the store, the merits
of Christ ; (4) the merits accruing from any
Masses said without special intention to benefit
a given person or cause. And the key of this
treasure-house is laid in the hands of the Pope,

who may distribute its contents as he pleases.
The way in which he distributes them is this :
he gives notice that any one who will help him
in doing any piece of work that he has in hand,
whether it be building a church (as on Mont-
martre), or killing a heretical king or queen
(as Elizabeth), or holding a jubilee (as in 1900),
shall have such a share of the merits which he
has to give away, as shall excuse him all the
penances that he has to do on earth, and all
the suffering that he would have to undergo in
Purgatory. More still, the merits thus handed
over to him shall not only save himself from the
fire, but he may apply them to those who are
already in the flames, and get them clean out
on the spot, or if the Pope's gift has not been
bountiful enough for that, he may shorten
their sufferings by the equivalent in Purgatory
of as many years as have been granted by the
Indulgence.

This is the doctrine of Indulgences ; and it
will be seen at once how enormously this
thirteenth-century tenet must have affected
the doctrine of Purgatory and added to its
importance. For now there is a second pro
cess, besides Masses for the dead, by which a
deceased parent, or child, or a man himself,
can be delivered from the flames. And to one
or other of these processes, to buying Masses
or to earning Indulgences, every believer in
Purgatory, not destitute of good feeling for
others or care for his own welfare, must devote
himself.

There is yet another still more modern doc
trine which affects the doctrine of Purgatory.
This is the doctrine of Scapulars. Any one
who dies wearing the Carmelite Scapular (a
little piece of woollen cloth), or having it by
him on his bed, is thereby made safe from
hell, and is secure, on the testimony of half-a-
dozen Popes, of being taken out of Purgatory
on the Saturday after his death, when St.
Mary, who has been made Empress of Purga
tory during the past century, pays her weekly
visit to her dominion with her Prime Minister
Michael.

Now when we think (1) that there is no such
place at all as Purgatory, (2) that therefore
Masses for the dead are idle words tossed to the
winds, (3) that no man can lay up merit before
God, (4) that a fortiori no man can lay up more
merit than he needs for himself, (5) that no
man can transfer the merits of one to another,
(6) that therefore Indulgences are frauds and
delusions, (7) that wearing a bit of cloth can
not so affect the fate of a soul as to deliver it
from hell and torments ; and yet that all these
things have to be accepted, if not believed, by
educated Roman Catholics, and that they
mould the daily life of unlettered Roman
Catholics, we see how different the modern

PURGATORY

[ 556 ]

PURGATORY

Roman Catholic faith is from the Christian
religion on points of the utmost concern to
every soul of man. The Oriental Church has
held aloof from the system from the beginning,
and Protestants repudiated it in the sixteenth
century.

Scriptural authority for the tenet of Purga
tory there is none. A passage which has been
brought forward as confirming it is 1 Cor.
iii. 10-15. Any one who carefully reads that
chapter will at once see that it has nothing
whatever to do with the subject. In it St.
Paul represents himself as a wise master-
builder, who has laid the foundation of the
Christian faith. That foundation is Jesus
Christ, and there can be no other. But the
inquisitive Greek teachers at Corinth were
adding to that which St. Paul had taught,
and this he describes as " building upon " the
foundation that he had laid. It was a danger
ous thing to do. What they " built upon " the
foundation, that is, their added doctrines might
be sound and good, and then they would bear
the test of the Last Day's trial, as gold and
silver bear the test of fire. But the new
building might be flimsy and good for nothing,
and then it would not bear the test, any more
than wood, hay, or stubble would bear the
test of fire. If it were sound and good, then
the teachers would earn a reward for their
labour ; if flimsy and good for nothing it would
disappear in the trial of the Last Day like
wood, hay, and stubble in a fire. But in the
latter case the teachers would be themselves
saved because they had not deserted the
foundation, yet they would be saved "so as by
fire," or, as St. Jude says, " pulled out of the
fire " which consumed their vain additions to
the faith. Thus we may conceive that a good
Roman Catholic priest may be saved through
his having held to the foundation, while all
the human traditions which he had been
teaching are consumed and perish before his
eyes in the blaze of God's displeasure, as
wood, hay, and stubble are destroyed by natural
fire. What has this to do with Purgatory ?
It is not men that are tortured, but false
doctrines that are annihilated ; and it is only
of superstitious teachers, not of mankind in
general, that the apostle speaks. From be
ginning to end the doctrine is not scriptural
but pagan. See Dr. Wright's Intermediate State.

[F. M.]

The Council of Trent, in its 25th Session,
declared that there is a Purgatory, and that
" souls detained there are helped by the
suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the
acceptable sacrifice of the altar." The Council
did not then define the nature of the purga
torial torment, but the Catechism of the Council
of Trent did, saying, "Moreover, there is a

purgatorial fire in which the souls of the
pious, tormented for a definite period, make
expiation, that an entrance may be opened
for them into the eternal country in which
nothing defiled can enter." The doctrine has
been amplified by Roman theologians, e.g.
"What goes on in Purgatory ? Men are burnt
in a great fire kindled by divine justice. They
love God, yet are punished by God. They
desire to see Him, and cannot ; they expect
the moment for going into Paradise, and know
not when it will arrive. They suffer torments
much greater than all the torments of the
world, but by force, without merit, and with
out recompense " (Month of Mary, Father Muz-
zarelli, p. 74. Burns & Gates, London, 1849).
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted : " It is
the same fire which torments the just in
Purgatory and the damned in hell" (Two
Ancient Treatises on Purgatory, by Revs. Father
J. Mumford, S.J., and Father R. Thimelby,
S.J., p. 4. Burns & Gates, London, 1893).
The same volume informs us (p. 135), "It
clearly follows that the furious fits of the
stone fever, or raging gout, the tormenting
colic, with all the horrible convulsions of the
worst diseases, nay, though you join racks,
gridirons, boiling oil, wild beasts, and a
hundred horses drawing several ways and
tearing one limb from another, with all the
hellish devices of the most barbarous and cruel
tyrants, all this does not reach the least part
of the mildest pains in Purgatory."

The time assigned to Purgatory varies with
the Roman theologians. One author put the
extreme limit at ten years, but he was con
demned by Pope Alexander VII. (Month of
the Dead, p. 64, by Abbe Cloquet. New York,
1886). Cardinal Bellarmine says, "There are
souls condemned to burn in Purgatory till the
Day of Judgment " (Idem). Father Muzzarelli
thus pleasantly computes the period, "Let us
give to each venial sin one day in Purgatory,
and suppose that each day you commit
thirty faults. Therefore, to every day of your
life 30 days in Purgatory will answer ; to
every year 30 years ; to fifty, 1500 years ;
to sixty, 1800. Immortal God, what an
astonishing payment ! Add to the venial sins
some mortal sin, absolved indeed, as far as
the guilt goes, but not paid for entirely as
far as the punishment goes. How many other
centuries of years in Purgatory ! " (Month of
Mary, p. 75).

With regard to release from Purgatory, the
power of the Virgin Mary is held to be great.
"Whosoever in the state of grace shall say
seven prayers before the crucifix, and seven
Pater Nosters, and seven Ave Marias, shall
obtain 56,000 years' pardon ! ! " (Hours of the
Blessed Virgin). It is also asserted that

PURGATORY

[ 557 ]

PURGATORY

on the day of the Virgin Mary's assump
tion into heaven, Purgatory was entirely
emptied (Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus
di Liguori, vol. i. pp. 236, 237. New York,
1887).

The texts quoted by Romanists in support of
their tenet of Purgatory are: (1) Matt. v. 25,
26, really speaks of the duty of our forgive
ness of our fellow-men, and has nothing to
do with Purgatory. Moreover, Romanists
have no right to argue from that text, because
the Fathers are not unanimous as to its
meaning, (2) Matt. xii. 32 contains our
Lord's declaration that blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost is unpardonable. Lightfoot,
in his Horce Hebraicce, has given numerous
quotations showing that "this world" in the
phraseology of our Lord's day meant " the
times prior to Messiah's coming," and by the
" world to come" was signified "the times of
the Messiah," who was to bring in "the time
of reformation " (Heb. ix. 10). "The world
to come " is so used in Heb. ii. 5 and vi. 5.
Such is the probable explanation of our Lord's
words in Matt. xii. 32. Hence they do not
prove Purgatory. (3) 1 Cor. iii. 13. In this
text St. Paul speaks of the fire of judgment at
Christ's return, to be applied to the work of
ministers. Every man's work will be tested
by the number of souls brought to Christ, as
such are " the seals " of the Christian ministry.
Here, again, nothing whatever to do with
Purgatory. On the interpretation of that
passage also the Fathers are divided. (4) The
question of prayers for the dead is mixed
up with that of Purgatory, and in support
of the latter importance is attached by
Romanists to a passage in 2 Mace. xii. 43, 44.
See PRAYEKS FOR THE DEAD. Even ac
cording to Rome's own doctrine this could
in no case prove a Purgatory, for those who
fell, as there recorded, died in the mortal sin
of idolatry, and could, therefore, on Romish
principles, never enter Purgatory. Holy Scrip
ture is opposed to the doctrine. All those
passages that teach the complete justifica
tion of the believer, and his freedom from
guilt, may be cited. Such are the following :
Isa. liii. 5, 6; Rom. viii. 1, 33, 34; Col. ii. 13 ;
1 John i. 7 ; Luke xxiii. 42 ; 2 Cor. v. 1, 8 ;
Phil. i. 21, 23 ; Rev. xiv. 13.

Early in the third century Tertullian is con
sidered by Rome to have entertained the idea
of Purgatory in his treatise De Anima, but it
is questionable whether he meant anything of
the kind, and he says he derived his teaching
from Montanus. See MONTANISM. Between
the time of Tertullian and Augustine, all the
statements which have been supposed to favour
Purgatory arise from Origen's interpretation
of 1 Cor. iii. 13-15, and imply a belief not in

Purgatory, but in a fiery ordeal at the Day of
Judgment, through which all were supposed
to pass, which will purify the righteous but
consume the wicked. St. Augustine himself
merely alleges a possible purging by fire after
death as a not improbable conjecture (De Civil.
Dei, xxi. 26, torn. vii. p. 649). That doctrine,
then, was evidently a novelty in Augustine's
day. It was not until a century and a half
later that Pope Gregory I. distinctly laid
down that "there is a purgatorial fire before
the judgment for lighter faults " (Gregor.
Dial., lib. iv. cap. 30). In 1439, several
Italian bishops met at Florence, being joined
by the Greek emperor and some bishops from
the East. This synod (for it was, of course,
no (Ecumenical Council) acknowledged that
the Bishop of Rome was the primate and
head of the Church, that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son as well as from the
Father, and that there is a Purgatory. The
Greek bishops, however, were received with
great indignation on returning to Constanti
nople, and the Eastern Church has never to
this day acknowledged those three points.
Such is the history of this doctrine prior to
the authoritative declaration of the Council
of Trent in 1563.

The weakness and inconsistency of the
position of the Roman Church in regard to
Purgatory, is evident from the following con
siderations : (1) If God cleanses and purifies
souls in the purgatorial fire, then, to take
them out of Purgatory before God would
do so, to shorten their time there, as the
Church of Rome professes to be able to do,
must be bad for those souls, unless Rome is
wiser than God Himself. (2) The Book of
Wisdom, which the Roman Church includes
in the canon of inspired Scripture, declares
(iii. 1-3), "the souls of the righteous are in
the hands of God, and there shall no torment
touch them . . . but they are in peace." (3) The
souls in Purgatory are, according to Rome,
justified souls, "holy souls," and yet are con
sidered to be pursued by the wrath and anger
and vengeance of God (see Cardinal Wiseman's
Lectures, ii.). (4) The sins punished in Purga
tory are venial sins. But venial sins are so
trifling that they need not be confessed at all,
even before communicating. Consequently,
God visits with wrath and indignation what
the Church considers as not really sins.
(5) The right to grant Indulgences is, says
the Romish Church, part of "the power of
the keys," by which sins are remitted or re
tained. But if there be a Purgatory, then
" the power of the keys " is indeed a shadowy
power, for after absolution has been pro
nounced, a temporal penalty still remains to
be endured.

PURITANISM

[ 558 ]

PURITANISM

The evil effects of the doctrine are apparent.
It robs the Christian of comfort in the prospect
of the " rest which remaineth to the people of
God" after death. The doctrine of purga
torial torture is a chief factor in maintaining
the power of the Romish priesthood, for only
through the priests can relief be gained from
the dreaded torments. But what a satire
is it upon Rome's system that the priest at
the "altar" has this power, and yet re
fuses to exercise it until he is paid ? The
Church of England well affirms in the
XXIInd Article: "The Romish doctrine con
cerning Purgatory ... is a fond (i.e. foolish)
thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the Word of God." See REVELATIONS,
MODEEN. [M. E. W. J.]

PURITANISM (English).— I. Puritanism, con
sidered ideally, might be described as simply
the effort to rid the Church of elements
foreign to its true faith and order. In this
sense it is coeval with Christianity ; stands,
in fact, for the general movement of the
Protestant temper, whether its representative
be St. Paul, or Wycliffe, or Luther. But,
considered as something specifically English,
it was a product of Henry VIII. 's "imperfect
Reformation," and describes the movement
which sought to make the Church's severance
from Rome and her return to a primitive
pattern more complete.

Bishop Hooper (1550), who submitted for a
time to imprisonment in the Fleet rather than
let himself be consecrated (to the See of
Gloucester) in "the old Pontifical Habits,"
is usually instanced as the first Puritan.1 His
lineal successors may be found, perhaps, in
those "exiles" who fled to the Continent
during Mary's reign, and came back at the
beginning of Elizabeth's with a strong pre
ference for the Calvinistic discipline which
they had seen in full swing at Geneva or
Zurich.

An attempt to set this up instead of the
Book of Common Prayer had already led to
" The Troubles begun at Frankfort in Germany,
Anno Domini 1554." 2 Returning to what
many of them hoped would be a "fair field
- for Reformation," the exiles were confronted
with a compromise — a compromise which may
have been the dictate of political wisdom, but
which, to such idealists, had a look of timorous
folly. Nor did they stand alone. There was,
indeed, good ground for the statement that at
first the feeling among the English divines
in favour of completing the Reformation of
the Church so as to bring her ceremonies and

1 Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, chap. xvii.

2 The Phoenix Tracts, vol. ii.

ritual into closer accordance with those of the
Calvinistic Churches, was all but universal.
But the Act of Uniformity (1559) made it
clear that the Queen had no mind to tolerate
deviations from the prescribed order ; and the
Act of Supremacy- — passed a short time before
— gave unlimited power to carry her will into
effect.

Puritanism,3 strictly so called, was the
result. It traversed two stages under Eliza
beth ; one, which extended over the first
seven or eight years of her reign, had reference
mainly to externals, "matters of ritual and
apparel, the sign of the cross in baptism,
kneeling for the reception of the Holy Com
munion, the use of the ring in marriage, the
wearing of the surplice in church, and of the
square cap and tippet out of church." *
During this period, the refusal of conces
sion on such points became increasingly
strict. Archbishop Parker's "Articles" — called
later "the Advertisements" (1566), required
the bishops to enforce them absolutely.
Many ministers, in consequence, were de
prived of their licences, and suspended from
preaching.5

Next to London, Cambridge showed itself the
centre of resistance, and among the heads of
colleges there who petitioned for a milder pro
cedure was John Whit-gift.6 Coercion bore its
natural fruit. The Puritan revolt grew deeper
and stronger, issuing in a conflict no longer
about " vestments " merely, but about the
Church's " constitution." This was the second
stage, and it brings Puritanism before us under
three progressive phases r which may be
called the Conformist, the Non-Conformist, and
the Separatist — the first represented by those
who " avoided as many of the objectionable

3 For an account of the name, see Paget's
Introduction to Hooker, Book v. (pp. 10-14). Cf.
Camden, Annales, p. 132. In State Papers,
Domestic, vol. xviii. § 45, Sir Francis Englefield
writes (April %$, 1570) to the Duchess of Feria
that "the Catholics condemn us (i.e. the Louvain-
ists) as too severe and scrupulous, and call us the
Puritans of the Catholics."

4 Paget, ibid. p. 18. See Prothero's Select
Statutes, p. 191, for Puritan demands in 1563.
These were defeated in Lower House of Con
vocation by only one vote.

6 See Strype's Life of Parker —

Book ii. cap. 22, 23 I Case of Sampson
„ iii. ,, i. \ and Humphrey.

Case of London
ministers and "Ad
vertisements."

6 Strype's Life of Whitgift, Book i. cap. 2,
(1565).

7 To be carefully distinguished.

in.

ii.

IX.
XX.

PURITANISM

[ 559 ]

PURITANISM

ceremonies as they could by accepting the
office of lecturers and of chaplains in private
families, which did not involve parochial duty
or the necessity of reading every part of the
liturgy ; " 1 the second represented by those
who, avowing their adhesion to what became
known as the " Holy Discipline," endeavoured
to set it up within the established Church
despite laws to the contrary ; the third, repre
sented by men like Robert Browne, Henry
Barrow, John Greenwood, and John Penry,
who, agreeing with the latter in essentials,
realised that they could not consistently
remain inside the Church. The second, or
Presbyterian party, were the Puritans proper,
and, as such, are our present concern. Their
attitude in 1570 may be gathered from the
six propositions which their boldest leader,
Thomas Cartwright — Margaret Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge — is said to have set
down and subscribed with his own hand, viz.,2
" The names and functions of archbishops
and archdeacons ought to be abolished as
having no foundation in Scripture ; the
offices of the lawful ministers of the
Church, viz., bishops and deacons, ought
to be reduced to the apostolical constitu
tion — the bishops to preach the Word of
God and pray, the deacons to take care of the
poor ; the Government of the Church ought
not to be entrusted with bishops' chancellors
or the officials of archdeacons, but every church
should be governed by its own ministers and
presbyters ; ministers ought not to be at large,
but every one should have the charge of a
certain flock ; nobody should ask or stand as
a candidate for the ministry ; bishops should
not be created by civil authority, but ought
to be fairly chosen by the Church." A mani
festo to similar effect — " so eagerly read that
it went through four editions before the end
of 1572" — was the First Admonition to Parlia
ment, followed soon afterwards by a Second
Admonition, which differed from the first only
in this respect, that whereas the former set
forth what should be reformed, the latter told
how the work of Reformation should pro
ceed. Of the latter, Cartwright was the direct
author. Two years later a more scholarly
presentation of the Presbyterian scheme ap
peared both in Latin and English, the English
being entitled : A Full and Plaine Declaration
off Eccksiasticatt Discipline owt off the Word
off God, and off the declininrje off the Churche

1 Tayler's Retrospect of the Religious Life of
England, 2nd edit. p. 201.

2 Strype's Life of Whityift, Book ii. App. ix
p. 11 (Latin). Of. Chark's Propositions (1572),
Dering's (1573), Sampson's (1574) (Prothero's
Select Statutes, 196, 197).

off England from the same.3 Though anony
mous, there is no doubt that it came from the
pen of Walter Travers, a man second only to
Cartwright in eminence among the Puritans,
and his equal in learning. Cartwright, how
ever, wrote the preface, and is credited with
the translation. He had a hand also in another
document named Disciplina Ecclesice Sacra, Ex
Dei Verbo Descripta, or A Draught off Discipline,
essentiall and neccssarie for all Time, which, even
more than the two Admonitions and the
Explicatio, became a standard authority,
and deserves to be styled The Palladium of
English Presbyterianism.4 These expositions
of the discipline were accompanied by attempts
to embody it in practice.

1572 saw the first English Presbytery orga
nised at Wandsworth (in Surrey). About
1587 the whole of Northamptonshire was
secretly divided into three " classes." The
"device" "spread itself" to other parts of
England, especially Warwickshire, Suffolk,
Norfolk, Essex, &c. Throughout the country,
indeed, a steady endeavour was going on "to
draw the affections and hope of men and
women in all classes towards the Puritan
discipline and worship, and secretly to intro
duce into the existing structure of the Church
as much as possible of the Puritan system."5
There seemed good hope of success. In London
and elsewhere a large proportion of the laity
were Puritanical, and shunned the services of
the compliant minister who was willing to do
the bishop's bidding, with almost as much
horror as those of a Papist. The Puritans
were strong in Parliament and had sympa
thisers in the Privy Council. One sign of their
popularity may be seen in the ease with which
the religious exercises known as Prophesyings
— though having originally little or no relation
to the Puritan scheme — became a welcomed
medium of Puritan influence to the crowds
that frequented them. See PRoriiESYiNGS.

Another sign, of later date, may be discerned
in the eager reception and wide circulation of
the Marprelate Tracts (1588-89), which were
violently Puritan ; and the strength of Puri
tanism among the clergy may be inferred from
the fact (e.g.) that above 500,6 all beneficed in

3 For particulars, see Paget, p. 54 ff., who
says, " it is a grave blunder " to identify it with
the document "published by authority" in 1644
and entitled, A Directory of Government.

4 This is the work a copy of which was found
in the study of T. Cartwright after his death, and
made the basis of the Directory of Church Govern
ment. See previous note and Paget, pp. 69-75.

8 Paget, p. 63. See Bancroft's Dangerous
Positions, chaps, iii. v. vi. ; Neal, i. 303-5.
6 Neal, History of the Puritans, i. 423.

PURITANISM

[ 560 ]

PURITANISM

the Church of England, useful preachers and
of unspotted character, pledged themselves,
by all lawful means, to further and advance
the Holy Discipline. But the Queen happened
to be of a contrary mind. She would tolerate
no Puritan interference with her supremacy
on the part of the House of Commons. She
put down the " Prophesyings " (1577) as being
"an implement of the Puritan agitation;"
and suspended Grindal, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, for his brave remonstrance.1 She
chose his successor, John Whitgift (1583),
chiefly because of his known and keen hostility
to Puritanism, and charged him "to restore
the discipline of the Church and the uniformity
established by law, which through the con
nivance of some prelates, the obstinacy of the
Puritans, and the power of some noblemen is
run out of square."2 With what alacrity the
archbishop answered to the spur, there is no
need to show. We may mention only his
"Articles touching preachers and other orders
for the Church ; " 3 his relentless application of
the powers vested in an extended " High Com
mission Court " — including the ex officio
oath ; and the terrible Act of 1593, due largely
to his instigation, which brought to a head
" the measures taken by Elizabeth to repress
Puritanism." 4 This policy of sternness, backed
up by the unfailing support of the Queen, and
assisted by men like Aylmer, Bishop of London,
of course wrought great suffering. Nearly all
the prominent Puritans underwent imprison
ment, or were " followed with innumerable
vexations." 5 But, confessedly, the Church
paid dearly for the archbishop's success. " A
third part of the ministers of England were
covered with a cloud of suspensions." Hence
it came to pass that after the Church had been
established twenty-eight years, there were
only 2000 preachers to some 10,000 parish
churches, and " if persons would hear a sermon
they must go, in some places, five, seven,
twelve — yea, in some counties twenty miles ; " 6
while in not a few parishes where there was a
minister, he was of the sort who " could only
struggle through the service;" who "never
preached, but read perhaps four purchased
sermons in the course of the year, and dis
graced his office by the example of a vicious
life." It was this state of things which " gave

1 See Grindal's Remains, pp. 372 ff., and
Appendix i. ; also Prothero, 202-6.

2 Neal, i. 348. Camden's Annales ; Prothero,
p. 210.

8 Oct. 1583. Gee and Hardy, Documents illus
trative of the Church of England, Ixxxiv. ; cf.
Prothero, 211, 213.

4 Gee and Hardy, ibid., Ixxxvi.

5 Neal, i. p. 413. 6 Ibid, i. 417-18.

the Puritan appeal a strength that even the
ribald violence of some among its supporters
could not countervail." 7

II. Yet, in the last days of Elizabeth, Puri
tanism, though widespread as an influence, lost
ground so far as it was identified with the
" Holy Discipline " — a result due partly to the
increasing hold of the established Order on
a younger generation who had grown up under
its shadow ; partly to the majestic defence of
this order by Hooker ; partly to the recoil
of some of the Puritans themselves from the
logic of their position as exemplified in the
" detested " Separatists ; partly to weariness
of an unequal conflict ; partly to the hopes of
a peaceful settlement at the hands of a " Pres
byterian" sovereign. In fact, had James met
the Puritans in a conciliatory spirit, it seems
as if he might easily have won the great bulk
of them for the Church. Those who signed 8
the Millenary Petition were all " Conformists "
on the whole; and so far from "affecting a
popular parity in the Church," desired rather
a mitigation than an abolition of Episcopacy
and only asked for the redress of particular
grievances. How they fared in the Hampton
Court Conference (Jan. 1604) is a trite story.
Nothing was conceded to them of any conse
quence ; and they heard the king threaten that
unless they conformed in all points he would
"harry them out of the land." Thus the con
troversy had no chance of sleeping — with an
Archbishop Bancroft at the king's ear, it be
came inevitably a war to the knife.9 There
were some things especially which tended both
to embitter the Puritan temper and widen its
range. There was, e.g. the king's arbitrary
political action ; his practical desertion of
Calvinism 10 in favour of Arminian divines ;
the scandalous moral laxity of his court.
What touched them still more nearly was the
publication of a Book of Sports (May 1618),
which, besides enjoining every one to attend
the whole divine service at his own parish
church, authorised the usual popular games
and recreations in the latter part of the Lord's
Day. But, perhaps, what did most to sting,

7 Paget, p. 77.

8 It was not actually signed by any one ; and
the number of " Petitioners " seems to have been
750 (see Gardiner, History of England, vol. i.
chap. iv. p. 148 note).

9 Gardiner, vol. i. chap. iii. ; cf. Prothero,
pp. 413, 416, 420, 421.

10 Calvinism had never been confined to the
Puritans, it was "the common faith" of the
Church. James himself was a Calvinist. But
his inconsistent action led to Arminianism be
coming a sign of the "good" Churchman, and
Calvinism of the Puritan.

PURITANISM

[ 561 ]

PURITANISM

and spread, the Puritan spirit was the king's
" Spanish Policy," which meant the triumph
of the Catholic League in Germany, and seemed
to threaten the overthrow of Protestantism in
England. Never had the "cause," which of
all causes was most sacred to the Puritan — the
cause of Reformation against Rome — looked
more forlorn than it did in the first years of
James. A "Catholic" reaction, which began
even before the defeat of the Armada, had
grown and strengthened until it appeared
likely to sweep all before it. Holland and Eng
land — England chiefly — were fast becoming
the last refuge of the faith espoused so mightily
by Luther and Calvin. Spain on the other
hand, stood for that faith's deadliest foe. And
James, for ends of his own, sought an alliance
with Spain ! Thus the Palatinate was lost ; the
Thirty Years' War precipitated ; the Catholics
at home emboldened ; and the keenest possible
insult dealt to the national temper, which, in
this point was almost entirely Puritan.

III. Charles pursued the general policy of
his father with a tenacity of which his father
was incapable. He aimed to be absolute in
the State, and to make the bishops absolute in
the Church. The doctrine of divine right,
alike in his own case and theirs, was a part of
his inheritance. "Unbroken episcopal suc
cession and hereditary regal succession were,"
with James, "the inviolable bases of Church
and State. The two systems confirmed and
supported each other. ' No bishop, no king,' "
ran the famous formula which embodied the
king's theory. Charles accepted this theory
conscientiously, and consistently acted upon
it. His entire belief in himself and Episcopacy
is the key to much in his conduct, and redeems
it from meanness. But though it, and its
corollary Passive Obedience, found advocates
more than enough among the High Church
clergy, it had fatal effects. It made the Puri
tans realise more and more that they were
summoned of God in the defence of civil and
religious freedom. With what passionate in
tensity many gave themselves to their great
task, the course of events which led up to the
Church's downfall and the king's death remains
to show. For a time, however, the battle went
against them. It was in vain that the House
of Commons passed its "Petition of Right"
(1628), or adopted " Resolutions on Religion "
(Feb. 24, 1629), or issued a "Protestation"
(March 3, 1629), declaring any one " a capital
enemy to this kingdom " who "shall bring in
innovation of religion, or by favour or counte
nance seem to extend or introduce Popery, or
Arminianism, or other opinion disagreeing from
the true and orthodox Church."1

1 Gee and Hardy, xcii.

When the king could not rule his Parliament,
he proceeded to rule without it, and for eleven
years the nation was set to learn by heart the
meaning of despotism. He had excellent instru
ments at command — two pre-eminently —
Thomas Wentworth for State affairs, and
William Laud for affairs ecclesiastical. Both
adopted the principle of "Thorough," and
both achieved a notable degree of success.
As regards the archbishop, even his bitterest
critics must admit that he was sincere, that he
knew his own mind, and that he worked to
wards his end with the unflinching zeal of a
fanatic. But to the Puritans the end he had
in view was hateful. They conceived religion
to be a purely spiritual experience, based on
immediate fellowship with God, and expressed
in the simple forms of worship sanctioned by
the New Testament alone. So to reform the
Church as to bring it back to this — the
kernel of religion— had been "the grand con
cern" of the Protestantism which they loved.
Yet here was the chief minister of a Reformed
Church striving his utmost to undo the reforms
already obtained : repudiating the Lutheran
and Calvinistic Churches of the Continent
because their ministers were not in the epis
copal succession ; enforcing conformity on
refugee Protestants, as well as on all native
ministers, in every detail of his Anglican
ritual ; turning the table of the Supper into
an altar, and entrenching it in a so-called
"Holy of Holies" ; transforming the officiat
ing minister into a sacrificing priest ; bedecking
him with surplice and cope ; reinstating the
crucifix ; compelling the worshipper to kneel
for communion, to bow toward the altar, to
cross himself ; advocating auricular confession
and prayers for the dead — all with the un
disguised intention to prepare the Church of
England for reunion with Rome, " by raising
it to a higher standard of Catholic feeling
and Catholic practice."2 No wonder the
antagonism waxed ever more stubborn, and,
having behind it some "nine-tenths of the
English people," it could hardly fail to triumph
in the end. But Laud did not measure diffi
culties. Puritan "scruples" were something
to be crushed, and he was the man to crush
them. What he did in this direction is a story
too familiar for recital. He seemed to have
the Puritans utterly at his mercy. Fines, de
privations, suspensions, imprisonments, muti
lations, were of constant occurrence. He
silenced favourite Puritan lecturers as well
as regular ministers ; he forbade country

2 See Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1633
and onwards (passim) for Laud and his doings ;
a good synoptical account of him is given in
preface to the vol. for 1633-34, pp. 12-24.

2N

PURITANISM

[ 562 ]

PURITANISM

gentlemen to keep private chaplains lest a
Puritan should be among them ; he suppressed
the " feoffees " who were entrusted with the
means of securing " a succession of Protestant
ministers in the parishes of which they were
patrons ; " he prohibited the importation of
Geneva Bibles because their marginal notes
savoured of Calvinism ; he forced a Lord Chief
Justice to recant his words against the " Book
of Sports," and ordered every incumbent to
read to his people the king's declaration in
its favour. Thousands deemed the situation
hopeless— at least without civil war — and
escaped (some) to the Continent, or (the
great majority),1 to New England, though
Laud tried to prevent even this. But, in fact,
the stars in their courses were fighting for
the Puritan cause. Looking back, it is clear
that Laud, no less than Wentworth and the
king, was building on the sand ; and that
the forces which swept away his pretentious
edifice in the Parliament of 1640 were irre
sistible. Anyhow, the catastrophe came.

IV. In its first Acts — Acts really conserva
tive and designed to reverse Laud's policy —
Parliament was practically unanimous ; was,
indeed, unanimously Puritan. Even the Lords
agreed in declaring that the " wholesome
order" of the Church, upset by Laud, must be
restored, "and that all such as shall disturb
that wholesome order shall be severely pun
ished according to Law." 2 But ere long the
fact emerged, which ought to be carefully
noted, that there were Puritans and Puritans.
By far the greater number of Puritans in both
Houses were Episcopalian — anxious to restrain
the power of the bishops, not at all anxious for
their abolition ; nor in any degree adverse to the
Liturgy and discipline of the Church as by law
established. Even " King" Pym and his ad
herents, who passed the Grand Remonstrance
(Nov. 22, 1641), intended nomorethan (§ 184)"to
reduce within bounds that exorbitant power
which the Prelates have assumed unto them
selves . . . that so the better they might with
meekness apply themselves to the discharge of
their functions." There was, however, from
the first, a vigorous minority eager for extreme
measures. There were thorough-going Presby
terians who objected on conscientious grounds
to even a modified episcopacy ; there were also
thorough-going Independents who maintained
the divine right of congregations only. To

1 Green, Short History, p. 499. " In the space
of ten or eleven years 20,000 Englishmen .
found refuge in the West." For details of the
first Puritan settlements in New England see
Punchard's History of Congregationalism, vol. iv.
— especially chaps, ii. iii. xx.

2 Sept. 9, 1641. Gee and Hardy, ci. ; cf. xcvii.-cv.

these, " the Root and Branch Petition " (Dec.
11, 1640) was acceptable, and by these the abor
tive Bill of that name (May 1641) was ardently
supported. Held in check for a time, their
opportunity arose through the bishops' own
folly 3 and the king's self-will.4 Thereupon came
the Civil War ; the enforced alliance of Parlia
ment with the Scots ; the Solemn League
and Covenant;"6 the Westminster Assembly
(1643-47), with its "Directory of Worship"
instead of the old Prayer Book,6 and, finally,
that triumph of the army which cut short once
for all the intolerant hopes of Presbyterianism
in England, and enthroned for ten years
the genuine type of developed Puritanism in
Cromwell.7

V. Glancing, now, at Puritanism during this
period of its ascendancy, we may note the
following facts : —

It was not inconsistent with a civil estab
lishment and maintenance of the Church.
Some, like Milton, were pure Voluntaryists ;
and the Convention known as the Little, or
Barebones Parliament (July 4 to Dec. 13, 1653),
consisting mostly of Independents, passed a
Resolution8 "that the power of patrons to
present to benefices shall from henceforth be
taken away, and that a Bill be brought in for
that purpose." But the prevalent attitude, and
Cromwell's in particular, was reflected rather
in the Instrument of Government,9 which de
clared that the Christian religion, as contained
in the Scriptures, be held forth and recom
mended as the public profession of these
nations ; and that, as soon as may be, a pro
vision less subject to scruple and contention,
and more certain than the present, be made
for the encouragement and maintenance of
able and painful teachers ..."

(2) It aimed strenuously at the further
ance of true religion and godliness of life.
Proof of this appears in repeated schemes for
the propagation of the Gospel in England and
Wales.10 Witness, too, the "Commission of
Triers" (March 20, 1654) "for the supplying
vacant places with able and fit persons to

3 Bishops' " Protestation," Dec. 1641.

4 Attempted arrest of the "five members,"
Jan. 3, 1642.

5 Taken by the Commons, Sept. 25, 1643; by
the Lords, Oct. 15 ; on Feb. 5, 1644, universally
imposed upon all Englishmen over eighteen years
of age.

6 Enforced by Parliamentary ordinance, Aug.
23, 1645.

7 See Masson's Milton, vol. iii. passim.

8 Nov. 17, 1653.

9 Dec. 16, 1653.

10 See Summary in Shaw's Hist, of the English
Church, 1640-60, ii. 80-82, note.

PURITANISM

[ 563 ]

PURITANISM

preach the Gospel." And as to the general
effect of these latter, the somewhat reluctant
testimony of Baxter (inter olios) can be cited
— that "to give them their due, they did abun
dance of good in the Church. They saved
many a congregation from ignorant, ungodly,
drunken teachers . . . and in their stead admitted
of any that were able, serious preachers, and
lived a godly life, of what tolerable opinion
soever they were," . . . yea, " so great was the
benefit above the hurt which they brought to
the Church, that many thousands of souls
blessed God for the faithful ministers whom
they let in, and grieved when the Prelatists
afterwards cast them out again." l

(3) It was concerned for theological learn
ing as well as piety — nay, for such learn
ing as the handmaid of piety. Nothing could
be wider of the mark than to assert that " the
ordained clergy were superseded by carpenters
and cobblers, who were conscious only of an
outpouring of the Spirit." Clarendon's evi
dence is alone sufficient to refute this, when
he says that, at the Restoration, Oxford —
where Cromwell had been Chancellor and
John Owen Vice-chancellor — was found to be
"abounding in excellent learning."2 Though
possessed of little learning himself, Cromwell
set a high value upon it in others, and en
couraged it in all ways open to him. In fact,
the Puritans — some enthusiasts excepted —
were always an "erudite and cultivated
party."3

(4) Puritanism, on the whole, inclined to
be tolerant. Uniformity was not exacted,
provided a minister could subscribe the
"Engagement," and held the fundamentals
of Christianity. Presbyterians, Independents,
Baptists, and even some Episcopalians, were
approved by the "Triers." Fuller, an Episco
palian, was allowed to pass on simply declar
ing that " he made conscience of his thoughts."
Baxter's avowed antagonism to Cromwell and
his policy did not expose him to any let or
hindrance in his effort at a " wide comprehen
sion." There was doubtless much suffering
among the sequestered clergy — suffering in
most cases nobly borne — and had the "Pro
clamation " 4 been acted upon which forbade
any sequestered or ejected minister (after
Jan. 1, 1656) to keep school, or act as chaplain,
or in any wise officiate, their sufferings would
have been greatly intensified. But, in point

1 Reliquiae Baxteriance, p. 72.

2 History of Rebellion, Book x., § 124 (Oxford
ed. 1849, vol. iv. 284).

3 Masson's Milton, vol. vi. 322 ; Literature under
the Commonwealth. Of. Tayler, Relijious Life of
England, 188-192.

4 Nov. 24, 1655.

of fact, the ordinance "was never applied or
executed at all ; and no one was prosecuted
under it."5 Nor is there anything to in
validate the statement that under Cromwell,
"the embodiment of Puritanism," "all public
measures affecting religion . . . mark an in
creasing respect for the principle of tolera
tion." 6

With the Restoration, Puritanism did not
pass away, but it passed once more under the
cross. Its political significance disappeared ;
it became more exclusively religious ; and
though its spirit never quite died out in the
Established Church, it took refuge almost en
tirely in Nonconformity.7

If we attempt to apprehend that spirit,
there is need to bear in mind the wise words
of Gardiner 8 that, "the noblest part of every
great movement, religious or otherwise, is
invariably that which is universal — that is to
say, which is under the influence of thoughts
capable of combination with thoughts arising
in the minds of its opponents." What, then,
was the universal element in Puritanism, that
which should find a response in every genuinely
religious mind, and is of abiding significance ?
Certainly not its eccentricities of speech,
opinion, and demeanour ; for these, however
prominent they may have become, were
occasioned or emphasised by "special cir
cumstances of time or place " which have long
since disappeared. Nor can we claim for
Puritanism that it ever had a monopoly of
" high spiritual and moral aims," or that, but
for it, religion must have died out in the
Church. But it can be said that it comes
before us as the mainstay of Protestantism
in England, as its consistent and fearless
exponent, as the indomitable witness for its
great principles, and these particularly : that
God's free grace, mediated by the soul's faith
in Christ, is the essential root of human salva
tion ; that God's will, revealed in His written
Word and interpreted by His living Spirit, is
the supreme law for human conduct both in
the sphere of the Church and the world ; that,
therefore, the conscience must be free from
merely human dictation, and, above all, from
the enslaving rule of the priest.

At a time when there is a wide-spread effort
to " undo " the Reformation ; when Archbishop
Laud is openly extolled as the true church
man's ideal, and the task he failed to accom-

B Masson, Life of Milton, vol. v. 62.

6 Tayler, p. 138.

7 The later history from the date of the " great
ejectment " (24 August 1662) is identified with
that of the " Free Churches," and lies outside
the scope of this article.

8 Cromwell's Place in History, p. 4.

pyx

QUAKERISM

plish is set forth as the churchman's insistent
duty ; i when, in short, sacerdotalism of the
Romish type, with its entail of moral and
spiritual degradation, is again in the ascendant,
it may be well to recall the story of Puritanism,
and to reflect that the convictions which
created and made it mighty are not dead, nor
incapable of re-enacting its early triumphs.

[F. J. P.]

PYX. — The Pyx, or Vas, is the vessel or vase in
which the reserved wafers are placed in Roman
Catholic churches. It was kept in England
hanging over the high altar, with a lamp
suspended in front of it. The Ciborlum is
sometimes used of a larger structure like the
baldachino (see Smith and Cheetham's Diet.
of Christ. Antiq., pp. 65, 66). Tabernacles for
the preservation of the sacred elements were
introduced by Cardinal Pole. The Pyz is
generally of silver, gilt inside, and is covered
with a silk veil. The Roman Missal gives a
form for the blessing of a Pyx by the bishop,
or by a priest possessing episcopal faculties.
There is also a small silver box in use among
priests called a Pyx, in which the priest
carries the consecrated wafer to the sick. It
is generally carried in the breast-pocket of the
priest, or hung in a bag around his neck.
When not being carried to the sick the Pyx is
kept in the tabernacle, the latter being the
receptacle on "the altar," where the reserved
elements are kept.

Q

QUAKERISM.— The Society of Friends, "in
scorn called Quakers," are a body of Christians,
whose history and form of Church government
are in many respects unique, and who came
into existence about the middle of the seven
teenth century. Their founder, George Fox,
was born at the little Leicestershire village of
Fenny Dray ton in the year 1624. His father
was an honest weaver, named Christopher ; his
mother, Mary, was, he tells us, " of the family
of the Lagos and of the stock of the Martyrs."
It is probably the Martyrs in the Marian perse
cution who are here alluded to. The young
George was a man of pure, upright life, with
strong mental powers ; a born mystic, with
very scanty education, but wonderfully well
versed in the English Bible, which he knew
almost by heart.

To understand the spiritual struggles out of
which Fox finally emerged as a preacher — not
indeed of a new Gospel, but of what he believed
to be the old Christianity revived — we must

1 See Lord Halifax's article, Nineteenth Century,
March 1903.

glance at the religious condition of England
in the years between 1643 and 1647, when he
was wandering lonely in the fields with no com
panion but his Bible, or living in lodgings in
London " under great misery and trouble."
For these are the years of the great Civil War.
The religious fermentation which had been
going on in England for more than a century,
had come to a head. Cromwell and his Iron
sides were wielding the sword of the Lord and
of Gideon ; Puritanism, long oppressed and
trampled on, was now for a time victorious,
and as a natural consequence, some men who
had little of the earnest faith of the Puritans
in their hearts, were shouting its Shibboleths
aloud. There was still much genuine zeal for
God, but side by side therewith there was also,
doubtless, a jungle-growth of cant and insin
cerity, growing ready for the sarcastic scythe
of the author of Hudibras.

The pulpits of England were at this time
chiefly filled by Presbyterian ministers, the
Anglican clergy having been ejected from their
livings. To one after another of these "pious
and painful preachers " did the tempest-tossed
young shepherd resort for guidance, and found
none that could minister to the anguish of his
soul. Many of the " priests " who were pilloried
in the pages of his Journal were probably devout
and well-meaning men, but this was a case for
which their religious pharmacopoeia did not
prescribe : there were depths in that troubled
soul deeper than their conventional plummets
could sound.

At last, after four years of struggle, Fox
came out victorious. He had learned the
great lesson ; he heard a voice saying, when
none of all those counsellors could help him,
" There is one, even CHRIST JESUS, that can
speak to thy condition," and hearing this, his
heart did leap for joy. " I saw also that there
was an ocean of darkness and death, but an in
finite ocean of light and love which flowed over
the ocean of darkness. In that I saw also the
infinite love of GOD, and I had great openings."

With this fresh hope in his heart Fox went
forth in the year 1648 to preach to the English
people, and practically (except for the years
passed in foul dungeons during five protracted
imprisonments) the rest of his life was one
long missionary journey. His preaching met
with astonishing success. To a nation wearied
out with the mere logomachies of the rival
Churches, his call, " Look to CHRIST within :
follow the inward light," came almost as a
new revelation. In some districts, especially
in the north of England and in Wales, some
thing like half the population became followers
of Fox. " Children of the Light," or " Friends,"
were the names they gave themselves, but when
a sneering judge, in answer to Fox's exhorta-

QUAKERISM

[ 565 ]

QUAKERISM

tion to "tremble at the word of the Lord,"
fastened upon him the name of "Quaker,"
the nickname, given in derision, was scarcely
refused by the new sect. "The people of
God, in scorn called Quakers " was their usual
manner of speaking of themselves, and uncouth
or even absurd as the name may sound, it has
had, at any rate, the great advantage of protect
ing them from bearing the name of Foxites.

No candid opponent of Quakerism will deny
that there was an immense outburst of genuine
Christian enthusiasm at its first preaching, or
that the teachers did call attention to certain
promises connected with the work of the Holy
Spirit which had been practically somewhat
lost sight of by the Church. On the other
hand, no candid champion of Quakerism can
deny that some symptoms of morbid excite
ment accompanied the movement. James
Naylor, a Quaker preacher (though disowned
by his brethren), allowed himself to be wor
shipped as if he had been Christ ; congre
gations were sometimes disturbed by the
ejaculations of dissentient Quakers ; hysterical
women occasionally brought contempt upon
their new profession by their wild and indeli
cate actions ; nor was even George Fox him
self quite free from something like unhealthy
cerebral excitement, though it is interesting
to observe how his strong masculine good
sense, as years passed on, got the better of his
own and of his brethren's morbid tendencies.

The distinguishing doctrines and practices
of the Society of Friends are well known, and
must be very briefly summarised here. They
are, a belief that all war is forbidden to the
Christian ; that oaths, even in a court of
justice, are unlawful ; that Christian baptism
is not now water-baptism, but the baptism of
the Spirit of which Christ spoke ; that the
partaking of material bread and wine is not
necessary in order to enjoy communion with
Christ. As for practice, there is an element
— sometimes a large element — of silence in
worship ; the absence of an order of clergy,
coupled with a recognition of spiritual gifts of
preaching and teaching in members of the con
gregation, both men and women ; the absence
of any pecuniary provision for their preachers,
except those who are engaged in missionary
operations either abroad or at home.

A few words must be said as to the attitude
of the Society of Friends towards other religious
bodies. At the outset, as has been already
hinted, their chief battles were with Presby
terians, Independents, and Baptists. These
formed the bulk of the "Professors" of whom
George Fox so frequently complains; and in his
mouth "Professor" is practically equivalent
to Puritan. Then, after the Restoration, the
battle-ground changed. Power was now in

the hands of the Episcopalian clergy. The
Quakers' refusal to pay tithes was a constant
source of offence, and led to long imprison
ments both of male and female Quakers. Un-
baptized children, and marriages contracted
without the intervention of a priest were, of
course, another stone of stumbling. Yet, on
the whole, it seems to the present writer that
Fox writes rather less bitterly of the Anglican
Church than of the " Professors" who bore rule
under the Commonwealth. In a remarkable
conversation which he had with a clergyman
named Dr. Cradock when he was in prison at
Scarborough, Fox complained, "Ye left us
above twenty years ago, when we were but
young lads and lasses, to the Presbyterians,
Independents, and Baptists, many of whom
made spoil of our goods, and persecuted us
because we would not follow them. If ye had
intended to keep your principles alive, ye
should either not have fled from us as ye did,
or ye should have sent us your epistles, collects,
homilies, and evening songs, for Paul wrote
epistles to the saints though he was in
prison."

The Society of Friends seldom crossed swords
with the Roman Catholics, who, of course, had
now no compulsory power over them, and who
were, in fact, often fellow-sufferers with them
under the Common wealth and under Charles II. ;
but we have a record of one or two interesting
discussions between George Fox and the Jesuits.
Fox asks the Jesuits what authority they had
for setting up cloisters for nuns, abbeys and
monasteries for men, for all their several orders ;
and for their praying by beads and to images ;
for making crosses, for forbidding meats and
marriages, and for putting people to death for
their religion. At another time, " Many Papists
and Jesuits began to fawn upon Friends, and
said that of all sects the Quakers were the best
and most self-denying people, and said it was
a great pity they did not return to the Holy
Mother Church. Thus they made a buzz
among the people and said they would will
ingly discourse with Friends." Fox took up
the challenge, but the discussion did not bring
the two parties nearer. "One of them said,
' Ye are a company of dreamers.' ' Nay,' said
I, ' ye are the filthy dreamers, who dream ye
are the apostles' successors, and yet confess
ye have not the same power and spirit they
were in.'" He then enumerated as before
" the practices into which they were led by
that evil spirit that was in them," ending with
" putting people to death for their religion, and
this practice of theirs I showed them was below
the Law and far below the Gospel, which is
liberty." "They were soon weary of this dis
course, went away and gave a charge to the
Papists, as we heard, 'that they should not

QUAKERISM

[ 566 ]

QUIETISM

dispute with us or read any of our books,' so
we were rid of them."

When James II. issued his Declaration of
Indulgence, William Penn, who was a most
loyal subject and friend of that monarch, was
disposed to accept it as a measure of relief for
the sorely harassed Quakers ; but the main
body feared gifts coming from such a hand,
and though, of course, taking no actual part
in the strife, seem to have welcomed the
new order of things established in 1688. If
Penn himself showed some lack of statesman
ship in accepting the promises of such a king
as James II. on behalf of religious freedom, he
splendidly redeemed his error by the wise and
liberal constitution which he framed for his
new colony of Pennsylvania, and by his fair
and essentially Christian treatment of the
Indian aborigines of the country, with whom
he made his celebrated treaty, a treaty of
which it has been said that it is the only one
that was never sworn to and never broken.

The one great doctrine to which the Society
of Friends have ever held fast, and which
they deemed themselves in an especial manner
called to proclaim to the Christian world, was,
that there is an Inward Light, kindled by God
Himself in the soul of man, which, if it be
followed, will lead every man nearer to his
Maker, and will show him something of his
duty to his fellow-man. They did not on this
account undervalue the revelation which God
gave of Himself by His Son Jesus Christ, but
they believed that the two lights, the inward
and the outward, would ever be found to
harmonise with one another, and that a
mere intellectual apprehension of the truths
of Christianity is not enough to transform the
moral nature of man. In other words, that
" no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but
by the Holy Spirit," a truth which, assuredly,
was not, even in the seventeenth century, their
exclusive possession, but which is perhaps more
vividly perceived now by all Christians than it
was when Fox began his preaching.

Of the philanthropic and evangelistic record
of the work of the Society of Friends during
the two centuries and a half of their existence,
of their earty efforts for the abolition of slavery,
their labours for the reform of prisons, their
energetic support of the Bible Society, their
zeal in the cause of education, and their con
stant advocacy of peace, we have no room
to speak. The names of John Woolman,
William Allen, Stephen Grellet, Elizabeth Fry,
Joseph John Gurney, and Joseph Sturge, are
typical examples of this side of the Society's
work. Within the last generation they have
given themselves with considerable energy to
the work of foreign missions, and already two
of their number, in the prosecution of this

work, have been honoured with the crown
of martyrdom. William and Lucy Johnson,
Quaker missionaries to Madagascar, with their
infant daughter, were cruelly murdered by a
mob of fanatical idolaters during the troubles
consequent on the French conquest of the
island.

At present the Society numbers about 18,000
in the British Isles, and 70,000 in America ;
but this latter number includes some churches
with which English Friends have ceased to
correspond, on account of divergences in
doctrine, which manifested themselves in the
early part of last century. In this country the
numbers of the Society are not actually de
clining, but the rate of increase does not keep
pace with that of the general population.

[T. H.]

QUIETISM. — If taken to mean a state of
serene and absorbed contemplation as the
highest medium of divine light and life, is
not peculiar to the Christian Church. Bud
dhism, e.g. in its doctrine of the " paths " which
lead to Nirvana, gives to it an essential place ;
and philosophy in some of its phases, has made
much of it. Thus Plotinus (204 or 205 to 270)
was a Quietist in teaching that the supreme aim
of philosophy is to reach the " one and good "
which is beyond thought, and visible to the
"eyes of the soul" only when closed to other
sights, only when the soul has risen above
even the activity of thought and become pas
sive.1 Similar doctrine, largely derived from
Neo-Platonism, appears in the Mystic Theology
of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,2 and
through the influence of the latter, spread
widely in the Greek Church. Maximus Con
fessor (580-662), foremost champion of ortho
doxy against Monothelitism, was a Quietist in
the sense of the Areopagite, as well as a keen
dialectician ; while Johannes Scotus Erigena,
who was deeply influenced by Maximus, and
translated the writings of Dionysius into Latin
(ninth century), may be said to have mediated
the diffusion of Quietism in the Church of the
West. It flourished best, however, in the cells
of the (Eastern) monks, with whom it sometimes
sank into what has been named "a kind of
religious somnambulism." A notable speci
men of this sprang up among the monks of
Mount Athos in the fourteenth century.3 What
they taught about the necessity of complete
seclusion from the world, and persistent int.ro-

1 See the Neo-Platonists, by T. Whittaker, p.
103 (1901).

2 Mentioned for the first time in the records
of a conference held in Constantinople, A.D. 533
(see Westcott's Religious Thought in the West,
p. 148/.).

3 See Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics, i. 355.

QUIETISM

[ 567 ]

QUIETISM

spection as the condition of receiving the divine
light, drew upon them the name Hesychasts
(Vxao-rcu, Quietists), to which was added the
ironical name 6/j.^a\6^vxoi, because they ex
pected (it was said) the divine light to couie
as they sat dreaming in a corner and looking
at their navel. Their views were sanctioned
by the Synods of Constantinople held in 1341,
1347, 1351, with the result that "religious
somnambulism" became established in the
Greek Church as the highest method of divine
revelation, a fact of considerable significance
for its later spiritual history.

Meister Eckhart (1260-1329), who spoke of
God as the only Being, outside of whom all is
illusion, and to whom it must be the great
concern of the soul by mystic elevation to re
turn, is an illustration of Quietism in the West.
He had affinities with the Brethren of the Free
Spirit (twelfth and thirteenth centuries), but
escaped their Antinomiaa tendencies. His
theology may be regarded as a protest against
the prevailing Judaism and formalism of the
Church— a statement applicable to the spiritual
movement which centred in the " Rhenish
School" generally. Of this school a notable
product was the Theologica Germanica, written
by a " priest and warden in the house of the
Teutonic Order in Frankfort" (1350), but first
brought to notice by Luther (1516), who said
of it : " Next to the Bible and St. Augustine,
no book hath ever come into my hands whence
I have learnt, or would wish to learn, more of
what God and Christ, and man and all things
are." While deeply reverent of the practical
virtues, it taught that the spring of these and
of all blessedness is the knowledge of God.
And how is this attained ? A passage like the
following gives the answer : "Man's soul has
two eyes — the one is the power of seeing into
eternity, the other of seeing into time and the
creatures . . . but these two eyes of the soul
of man cannot both perform their work at
once ; but if the soul shall see with the right
eye into eternity, then the left eye must close
itself and refrain from working, and be as
though it were dead. For if the left eye be
fulfilling its office toward outward things, i.e.
holding converse with time and the creatures,
then must the right eye be hindered in its
working, i.e. in its contemplation."1 Thus its
method of divine knowledge is Quietistic.
Quietism, however, is usually associated with

1 Cap. vi., cf. also cap. vii. It would be diffi
cult to over-estimate (for the Reformation) the
influence— on its Protestant side— of such men as
Eckhart ; his disciples, Tauler (1290-1361); Suso
(1300-1365) ; and Ruysbroek (1293-1381) ; the
" Friends of God " ; the " Brethren of the Common
Life" ; the author of Theologica Germanica, &c.

the name of Miguel de Molinos, a Spaniard a
and priest, who settled at Rome (1669), and
through the unworldliness of his character3
won great influence as a spiritual director.
His Guida Spirituale,* well described in the
title of the English translation (1688), "The
spiritual guide which disentangles the soul and
brings it by the inward way to the getting of
perfect contemplation and the rich treasure of
eternal peace . . ." lets us into his secret. He
urges (inter alia) that our perfection consists
in an uninterrupted act of contemplation and
love ; that in this state the soul does not
consciously reflect either on God or itself;
that true prayer is this state of quietude, and
that in prayer the first act of faith, the first
intention of resignation prevails to constitute
the whole act of worship. Such doctrine im
plied that the externals of religion were of
comparative unimportance ; and, in fact, the
disciples of Molinos— soon amounting to thou
sands not only in Rome, but in various parts of
Italy, and beyond — became more or less con
spicuous by their indifference to what the
Church esteemed most highly. " They seldom
went to mass ; they set small store by corporal
austerities, relics, image-worship, and pilgrim
ages ; they spent little upon masses for the
souls of deceased relatives and friends ; and,
above all, they neglected the confessional."
Their attitude was not one of active hos
tility, but of passive resistance. They simply
passed by the Church and preferred their own
" spiritual conferences " ; or (in an adversary's
phrase) their "mystic-pietistic conventicles."15
Persecution was the inevitable result, unsuc
cessful at first, but speedily made effectual by
the Inquisition and its powerful ally, Louis
XIV. of France. On Sept. 3, 1687, Molinos
"dressed in a red scapular with a red cross
before and behind," knelt on a scaffold in
front of the church of the Dominicans and re
canted (in words) sixty-eight of his erroneous
opinions. The remaining years of his life
were spent in prison, and hundreds shared his

2 Born at Saragossa, Dec. 6, 1627, studied at
Pampeluna and the University of Coimbra.

3 He refused all ecclesiastical preferment.

4 Published in Spanish, 1675, in Italian, 1681 ;
and soon afterwards in Dutch, French, Latin, and
English translations.

5 See article, QUIETISM, in Wetzer and
Welte's Kirchen-lexikon, oder Ency. der Katholi-
schen Theologie (1899), " Their spirit was shown
in the arrogance with which they rejected all

| forms and institutions of the Church life as
I nought and vain (eitel und nichtiy), and sought
> to substitute an empty and dangerous spiri-
| tualism." In this article the date of Molinos'
I birth is given as Dec. 21, 1640.

QUIETISM

[ 568 ] READING AND SPEAKING

fate.1 Madame Guyon (1648-1717) held essen
tially the same views as Molinos ; and the
persecution set up against him involved her
also in even greater sufferings. Her best
known work, the Short and Easy Method of
Prayer (Moyen Court et tres facile defaire orai-
son), appeared in 1684, and the antagonism
which this and her other writings evoked came
to a head in 1694, when, at her own instance,
they were examined by a commission of three
(consisting of Bossuet, Bishop Noailles, and
Abb£ Trouson), with the purpose of deciding
the question of their orthodoxy. Thirty pro
positions were culled from them as erroneous,
and were retracted by the author. But she
was not at the end of her troubles. Four years
of imprisonment, mostly in the Bastille, pre
ceded her retirement to Diziers near Blois, in
1702, where she lived an exemplary Christian
life — no bitter word ever falling from her lips
— till her death in 1717.2 Fene"lon, the saintly
Archbishop of Cambray (1651-1715), was
Madame Guyon's intimate friend, and a chival
rous defender of her personal character. His
Maximes des Saints sur la Vie interieu re (Maxims
of the Saints on the Life of the Soul), which
he published in 1697, shows that, though not
in complete agreement, the divergence between
them was but slight. Fene'lon defended Ma
dame Guyon's two fundamental principles of
disinterested love toward God, and of love as
the supreme grace for Christians ; nor did he
disown the contemplative Quietism which she
commended in preference to outward exercises
of devotion and prayer as the means of realis
ing the believer's highest aim of absolute
union with God. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux
(1627-1704), who had taken the lead in de
nouncing Madame Guyon, immediately assailed

1 For particulars, see Herzog's Real-Encyclo-
pddie, "Molinos" ; and (for the Roman Catholic
view), Wetzer and Weste's Kirchen - Lexicon,
" Molinos " ; " Quietism." Of. , too, Introduction
to Golden Thoughts from the Spiritual Guide, with
Preface byj. H. Shorthouse, David Bryce &Son,
Glasgow, 1883. Vaughan (Hours ivith the Mystics,
vol. ii. p. 233), thinks a charge of Quietism
might have been brought against St. Theresa
(1515-1582) with more justice than against Mo
linos, but she was saved by her professed rever
ence for "ceremonial gewgaws," &c.

2 See Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, ii. 207-
241 ; Upham's Life of M. Guyon (London, 1862) ;
her own curious Autobiography (Cologne, 1720);
Macfadyen's edition of the Short and Easy Method
of Prayer, 1901. A clear illustration of her pro
foundly Christian Spirit, and an indication of her
influence may be found in Cowper's beautiful
Translations from the French of Madame de la Motte
Guyon.

the archbishop with extreme bitterness, and
continued to do so, till in 1699 a Papal Brief
declared in his favour. Fene'lon received the
sentence which condemned twenty-three pro
positions of his book as erroneous on March
12, just when he was about to ascend the pulpit,
and yielded at once, changing his subject, says
the story, and preaching a sermon on the duty
of submission. So the great controversy died
away.3 But Quietism did not die. It lived
on, not only through the influence of Molinos.
Guyon, and Fenelon, but through others of
inferior note, like Antoinette Bourignon (1616-
80) and her faithful disciple, Peter Poiret
(1646-1719). 4 More than a trace of it may be
met with also in the Cartesian Malebranche
(1638-1715), as well as in his English follower,
John Norrisof Bemerton (1657-1711). In fine,
its kernel of truth — that the essence of true
religion is spiritual, and consists in entire self-
surrender to the will of God— found, and lias
ever found, a responsive chord in many
humble souls,5 especially when weary and
sick of the dogmatic vanities and lifeless
formalisms of a dominant ecclesiasticism.

[F. J. P.]

aUINQTJAGESIMA.— A name given to the
Sunday before Lent. The name was probably
formed on the false analogy of Quadragesima,
the designation given in the ancient Church to
the season of Lent, the first Sunday in Lent
being said to be "in Quadragesima," i.e.
because it was about the fortieth day before
Easter.

R

READING AND SPEAKING. " To learn
to read is the business of half a life." — Lord
Macaulay. — Cicero says in his De Oratore,
"Mira est natura vocis." Truly it is the most
wonderful God-given instrument in the world
Some one has said, " The human voice lies
midway between the lips and the heart, that
all the light may fall from the lips, and all the
love may well up from the heart." The human
voice is one of God's choicest gifts to man.
More has been accomplished in this world by
the soft persuasive power of the voice breathed
through human lips, than will ever be known
here. John the Baptist described himself as
" a voice." The forerunner of our Lord and
Saviour was " a voice from God " and every
Christian in this world is a "voice from God "
— an utterance for the best of all Masters.

3 For a fair account of the Quietist controversy
see Vaughan's Hours with the Mystics, ii. 242-
82.

4 Ibid., ii. 286-290.

5 Ibid. ii. 291.

READING AND SPEAKING [ 569 ] READING AND SPEAKING

Surely then, as we are all learners from the
cradle to the grave, and as modern education
embraces all fields of study, the very first thing
we should be taught is to use the voice which
God has given us. " Speak forth," said Thomas
Carlyle, " what is in thee, what God hath
given thee." Oh ! the power there is in a
voice for good or evil, for pleasure or pain ;
this world is one great receptive phonograph,
with cylinder after cylinder of recorded speech
in the past. Not every one has a sweet voice ;
some are keyed too high, some are too rough
and loud ; but all can cultivate a soft, gentle
tone, and learn by study and thought and
practice to moderate and cultivate " what God
hath given thee."

The voice is almost everything in speaking
and reading. It is the exquisite instrument
which vibrates under the will of the speaker,
as the voice of a Jenny Lind did in the singer.
When we read now, after the lapse of many
years, the great speeches of Burke, Fox, Pitt,
or Canning, we almost wonder over the printed
page, how they moved the passions, and swayed
the judgment of their hearers. We can read
them, but we realise that we never heard them.
Their grandest speeches seem dead without
the living voice.

The voice is the most perfect instrument in
the world. It possesses the sounding-board,
chords, and notes, which are but imitated in
the vox humana stop on the organ. It comes
to us from the divine Hand ; we ought, there
fore, to use it reverently, and no pains should
be spared on our parts to improve its power
and melody. It is no less necessary for the
speaker than for the singer to improve the
voice by daily practice. The muscles of the
voice may be strengthened by training as the
muscles of the body are by walking, riding, or
rowing. The student who aims at being a
public speaker, and who subjects his voice to
regular training will soon find that the tones,
depth, flexibility, modulation, and compass
are all improved. The right use of all our
powers depends upon cultivation, and they
are lost through neglect.

The entire principles of the management of
the voice are contained in those old lines : —

" Begin low, speak slow,
Take fire, rise higher,
When most impressed, be self-possessed."

It is useful to fix not only the eye, but the
mind, on some one person, who is far distant
from the voice, and to feel that one is speaking
to that one person alone. If one finds that
one listener is attentive, all who are nearer to
the voice will hear well.

The first aim of every minister of religion
should be to study vhow to read the Bible.

For acquiring a good style in reading, writing,
speaking, conciseness and accuracy, the best
of all books is the Bible. It is unequalled for
clearness, for wisdom, for teaching. If we are
to be " men of one book " (and a man who has
thoroughly mastered one good book is a power
ful man), that Book should unquestionably be
the Bible, for it is the master-key to all other
books. Yet that Book, which is the minister's
text-book and theme, requires for its proper
interpretation, more study, more feeling, more
pathos, and a better understanding than any
book in the world. A deeper impression may
be made on the mind by the reading of a Lesson
in church than by the most brilliant sermon.
This is no wonder, for the one is the Word
of God, the other the words of man. One of
the finest instances of good reading we have
ever heard of took place 3000 years ago ; the
Israelites had lately returned from seventy
years of Babylonish Captivity. Ezra, the
scribe, stood upon a pulpit of wood, which
they had made for the purpose. " And Ezra
the priest brought the law before the congre
gation both of men and women, and all that
could hear with understanding, upon the first
day of the seventh month. And he read therein
before the street that was before the water-
gate from the morning until midday, before
the men and the women, and .those that could
understand ; and the ears of all the people
were attentive unto the book of the law. So
they read in the law of God distinctly . . . and
gave the sense . . . and caused them to under
stand the reading " (Nehem. viii. 2, 3, 8). Which
of us ministers of religion, does not wish that
he had heard Ezra ? He must have had all
the gifts of a reader, for he " read the law of
God distinctly . . . and gave the sense . . .
and caused them to understand the reading ."

The conventional style of reading (as if by
machinery) is common enough. The Church
service is too often performed by us clergy in
so mechanical a manner, that not only is the
beauty and spirit of the service lost, but the
very meaning is concealed and obscured. How
can this be a matter of surprise when there is
no good teaching of our mother-tongue in our
public schools, no good teaching in our Uni
versities, no good teaching in our Theological
Colleges and no competent Episcopal test when
young men come forward for ordination. We
often complain that the laity take so little
heart-interest in our services. We blame them.
It would be much nearer the truth to blame
ourselves. It is our own fault that there is no
composition in the English tongue which is so
little understood, so listlessly heard, and so
little appreciated by the laity, as our incom
parable Church Service. Enter a church, and,
in less than five minutes it is easy to tell

READING AND SPEAKING

[ 570

READING AND SPEAKING

whether the clergyman has cultured himself,
or neglected himself. As a proof of this take
the little word — and. This monosyllable is
pronounced in six different ways, only one of
which is right. Some pronounce it (1) an', or
(2) en, or (3) un, or (4) 'nd, or (5) '«, while a
select few call it (6) and. Thus, " good-an'-
bad," " cause-en-effect," " pen-tm-ink," " you-
'nd-I," "cakes-'n-milk." These glaring faults
are all clustered round the little monosyllable —
" AND " l — by millions of speakers and readers
who would be angry if we said to them, " You
cannot yet pronounce the monosyllable and in
your mother-tongue." Some reader may say,
"Why exaggerate such a trifle ?" there is no
such thing as a trifle. Perfection is made up
of trifles, and perfection is no trifle.

And here we assert that " intoning " is not
" reading." It is admissible in our Cathedrals,
but out of place in our churches. However
well done, it is a musical service and not con
gregational, and in the hands of some of our
clergy who sail dangerously near to the Church
of Rome, it is almost as unintelligible as the
services of the Church of Borne, in which we
know the intention that the people shall not
understand or take part in the service. It
should, moreover, be noted that one might
say the great peculiarity of the Anglican
Church all over the world is that it possesses
a Liturgy in which the people are expected to
join. It is by this very fact marked off from
the Roman, Russian, and Greek Churches.
Hence, in the majority of cases it ought to
be READ, and read intelligently and with de
votion. Read thus, it commands attention,
and leads to true worship. Read in a slovenly
way, or even monotoned, it awakens no interest
and arouses no feeling in the breasts of the
would-be worshippers.

Most Englishmen, in Parliament, in the
Church, at the Bar, seem to think that if good
delivery comes to them, it must come spon
taneously. " If a man is to be an orator," say
they, " he is born an orator." This is contrary
to all the experience of the past. All the
finished speakers of the past became so by a
toil and practice which ended only with life.
Cicero said, " The poet is born such, the
orator is made such."

In the reading of the Bible and our matchless
Liturgy, is it too much to say that, next to the

1 The importance of pronouncing " and " aright
in the reading of the Holy Scriptures will be
better realised when it is remembered the un
usual frequency of its use owing to the genius
of the Hebrew language and literature, and to
the unartificial way in which even the narrative j
portions of the New Testament are joined
together.

voice, FEELING is the soul of good rendering.
One thrill of genuine feeling is of more value
than all the rhetorical rules of ancient or
modern times. Feeling in your own heart
will send its electric current through other
hearts. There is a golden rule in these
five monosyllables : " PEEL EACH WORD YOU
SPEAK." And next to feeling comes EXPRES
SION. Expression in reading and speaking has
been described as " word-painting." There
are some few men who can throw more into a
single word than others of us can import into
a whole page.

Few orators, even including John Bright,
could excel the late William Morley Punshon,
the eminent Wesleyan preacher, in "word-
painting." Who that ever heard Morley
Punshon recite Macaulay's Lay of fforatius is
likely to forget his "word-painting"? As,
for instance, in the stanza in which the bridge
falls :—

" But, with a crash like thunder

Fell every loosened beam ;
And, like a dam, the mighty wreck

Lay right athwart the stream ;
And a long shout of triumph

Rose from the walls of Rome,
As to the highest turret-tops

Was splashed the yellow foam."

Is it too much to say that as that stanza
trembled under his voice, you (mentally) saw
the bridge fall, you (mentally) heard the crash,
and you (mentally) saw the yellow foam
splashed to the highest turret-tops. This is
only another way of saying that he was real
istic in the highest degree. He threw the very
sound into the word. How came he to possess
this coveted power of " word-painting " ? By
Genius ? No ! by study. He had studied the
whole scene till it became a picture in his own
mind. Can we ordinary readers and speakers
attain to this ? Yes, in our measure, by the
same process — by study. Nothing good or
great is given to man without indefatigable
labour.

Any effort to deal with speaking would be
incomplete without some notice of platform
speaking. The pulpit has always been, and
still is, the throne of the preacher. Wherever
a man is found who has anything good to say,
and knows how to say it, he is sure to have
attentive listeners. But young men ought to
cultivate platform speaking. I n the pulpit there
is one speaker, on the platform there are many.
A succession of different speakers, who bring
different minds and different voices to bear
upon the same subject, collects the scattered
rays of thought and eloquence, and if it be an
unsectariau platform — as broad as Christianity
itself — all the better ; for all speakers can unite

READING AND SPEAKING [ 571 ] REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH

as earnest advocates of some good cause. The
platform is a grand school for the improvement
of eloquence. Nothing must take the place of
thoughtful preparation. After this the words
will come. It should be a conscientious rule,
both in the pulpit and on the platform, never
to offer to others that which costs us nothing.
If I were asked what hints I would offer to
those who are desirous of cultivating platform
speaking, I would say : Firstly, speakers ought
rarely to make apologies. One of the most
common is the "want of ability," which may
be quite true ; but why not let the hearers
discover this themselves ? Others inform the
audience that when they entered the room they
had not the least expectation of being called
upon to speak. These apologies have been
called "the cant of the platform." Speakers
ought not to read extracts from books or
letters. If you desire to bore a meeting you
cannot devise a more certain way than this.
Heading in the pulpit is irksome, on the plat
form it is insufferable. If you have a letter of
interest, hold it in your hand, and tell the
audience its contents in your own words. This
will interest them ; the other plan will weary
them. And speakers ought not to adopt a
preachey style on the platform. A speech is
quite different from a sermon. A sermon may
be read ; a speech should never be read, but
always spoken. Many of us think that a sermon
should also be spoken, not read—

" What is a sermon, good or bad,
When a man reads it like a lad ? "

At the same time, where would much of the
theology of the Church be to-day if men like
Jeremy Taylor, South, Thomas Chalmers, and
that prince of preachers, Henry Melvill, had
not carefully written their sermons, which are
now the heritage of the Church ?

It is an error to suppose that long speeches
denote strength of intellect. We must never be
tempted to imagine that quantity can atone for
quality. Henry Melvill once told the writer the
following incident. Many years ago the old
Duke of Wellington (of whom it was said that
he fought more than forty battles, and never
lost one) appointed Henry Melvill to be chap
lain to the Tower of London, and sent Melvill
a message that he wished to see him. During
the short interview Melvill said, " I have
preached to many people in my time, but never
to soldiers ; I shall be grateful for any hints
your Grace may give me." The Duke made
one of his laconic replies — worth being trea
sured by all preachers in the pulpit, and al
speakers on the platform : " Be brief, Mr
Melvill, and to the purpose."

The names of those in the world who could
" speak well " are brilliant. A Demosthenes

the magic music of whose eloquence it is im
possible to describe ; a Cicero, whose oratory
was magnificent ; a Paul, pleading for Christ,
holding the multitude in breathless silence,
and making judges and kings to tremble. In
modern times, a Bourdaloue, a Massillon, and
a Whitfield in the pulpit— a Burke, a Fox, and
a Pitt in Parliament. The great need of Parlia
ment to-day is better speakers. The great
need of the Bar is better pleaders. The great
need of the Church is better preachers.

Is there any remedy for the acknowledged
defects of our nation in reading and speaking ?
This is a fair question. Any plan for national
improvement in reading and speaking should
be the joint product of the ablest men in the
educational world. The first step should be
the endowment of professorships at our uni
versities. By beginning there we should work
from the centre, and reach the extremities. A
council of the head -masters of our Public
Schools should follow, whose authority would
give a sanction to what they proposed. If
they were to draw up a scheme approved by
men of judgment and experience, it would at
once awaken the interest of parents and,
perforce, commend itself to the heads of all
preparatory schools throughout the country.
Of course the question would arise : Where
are the competent men to be found who could
teach the art of reading and speaking ? But if
you create a want in any market in life, you
will soon get a supply. The President of the
British Association, Sir Norman Lockyer, in
his Inaugural Address this year (1903), pleads
for the " brain power" of our nation, and asks
for twenty-four millions of money for our
universities. Let us hope that if Parliament
shall make large grants to our universities,
professorships for the Study of the English Lan
guage may be founded ; for, if we ever become
preachers, pleaders, and speakers, it must be
in our MOTHER-TONGUE. [J. F.]

REAL PRESENCE.— See CONSUBSTANTIA-
TION ; PRESENCE, OBJECTIVE AND SUBJEC
TIVE ; TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
REASON, CONSCIENCE, and FAITH.—
By REASON I mean man's inborn faculty of ob
serving and interpreting phenomena, and look
ing through them to the underlying realities.
This faculty enables us, with more or less cor
rectness, to pronounce intelligent judgments :
and in these far-reaching judgments we find
man's immense superiority to the lower animals.
This manifest superiority evokes in us the con
ception of personality. In our thoughts each
one stands alone and claims a right to pro
nounce judgment on things around. This
right belongs to the dignity of manhood, to the
image of God in man. Whatever tends to de
prive us of it tends to lower us in the scale of

REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH [ 572 ] REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH

being. Moreover, our best thoughts we wish
to speak out, in order that whatever in them is
good may enrich others, and whatever is not
good may be corrected. Sometimes persons or
influences around attempt, or tend, to impose
silence upon us ; and not unfrequently, under
compulsion, or in order to avoid some greater
evil, we submit to be silenced. But we always
feel that this imposed silence, forced upon us as
it is by an appeal not to our intelligence but to
our fear, is degrading. This degradation often
lays a fetter even upon our inward thought.
What we dare not say, we do not wish to think.
For the thoughts we dare not utter make us
the more conscious of our bondage.

To enable the young to think and judge for
themselves, and to judge wisely, is a chief aim
of education. Only so far as we can do this
are we fit for our place in life, be it what it
may.

In our thoughts about men around and their
actions, we frequently find ourselves pronounc
ing judgments altogether different from, and
superior to, those pronounced on irrational
objects. These last we judge to be useful or
useless, pleasant or unpleasant; the actions
of our fellows we pronounce to be right or
wrong, and themselves good or bad. This
difference is seen in the different emotions
evoked by a great calamity and a great crime.
The one we deplore, the other we condemn.
Moreover, amid felt human fallibility and error,
we often find ourselves pronouncing what w
know to be an infallible sentence. Not unfre
quently we are compelled to pronounce an ad
verse judgment even upon ourselves; and in
this case we sometimes cringe helplessly in th
presence of a judge enthroned in our own hearts
from whose condemnation there is neither ap
peal nor escape.

These judgments are, in all main outlines,
the same in all ages and nations. Of this we
have abundant proof in the literature of the
ancient world, in which lie open to our inspec
tion the thoughts of men who never heard the
voice of Christ or read the Law of Moses. In
spite of many minor differences, by all sorts of
writers the same actions and types of character
are praised and blamed. A universal testimony
condemns always and everywhere murder, in
cest, robbery, falsehood, dishonour to parents,
and much else which all men know to be evil.
This wonderful moral agreement reveals, in
woven into all human thought, an inborn stan
dard of right and wrong. In men's judgments
about themselves and their fellows, we hear a
voice speaking with the authority of the Author
of their being. This was recognised by Socrates ,
as quoted in Xenophon's Memoirs, Book iv. 4,
19-21. "Dost thou know, said he, Hippias
any unwritten laws ? Those in every country,

said he, held binding touching the same
things. Would thou then be able to say, said
he, that men made them? Why how, said
he, could all men come together when they do
not speak the same language ? Then who do
you suppose, said he, has made these laws?
I think, said he, that gods gave these laws to
men. For with all men it is thought right first
of all to reverence gods. Is it then everywhere
thought right to honour parents ? It is, said
he. Also that parents and children do not
marry ? To me, Socrates, this does not seem
to be a law of God. Why ? said he. Because
I see some, said he, transgressing it. Yes, and
many other things they do against law. But
then they who transgress the laws made by the
gods pay a penalty which in no way man can
escape ; just as some who transgress laws
made by men escape punishment secretly or
by violence."

Similarly Cicero, in his Laws, Book ii. 4:
"This, then, as it appears to me, has been
the decision of the wisest philosophers, that
law was neither a thing contrived by the genius
of man, nor established by any decree of the
people, but a certain eternal principle which
governs the entire universe, wisely command
ing what is right and forbidding what is wrong.
Therefore they called that primal and supreme
law the mind of God enjoining or forbidding
each separate thing in accordance with reason.
On which account it is that this law, which
the gods have bestowed on the human race, is
so justly praised. For it is the reason and
mind of a wise Being equally able to urge us
to good and to deter us from evil. . . . For
even he (Tarquin) had the light of reason de
duced from the nature of things, which incites
to good actions and dissuades from evil ones ;
and which does not begin for the first time to
be a law when it is drawn up in writing, but
from the first moment that it exists: and its
existence is coeval with the divine mind.
Therefore the true and supreme law, whose
commands and prohibitions are equally autho
ritative, is the right reason of the Sovereign
Jupiter."

The same universal law is recognised also by
Paul in Kom. ii. 14, 15 : " Whenever Gentiles,
the men who have no law, do by nature the
things of the law, these having no law, are to
themselves a law, who show the work of the Law
written in their hearts, while their conscience
bears witness therewith, and their reasonings
among themselves, while accusing or excusing."
The context implies clearly that by this inward
law the Gentiles will be judged. This is well
put by Butler in his Sermons on Human Nature,
Sermon ii. §§ 10, 11, on the above passage of
Paul : " There is a superior principle of reflec
tion or conscience in every man, which distin-

REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH [ 573 ] REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH

guishcs between the internal principles of his
heart, as well as his external actions ; which
passes judgment upon himself and them ; pro
nounces determinately some actions to be in
themselves just, right, good; others to be in
themselves evil, wrong, unjust ; which, without
being consulted, without being advised with,
magisterially exerts itself, and approves or con
demns him, the doer of them, accordingly ; and
which, if not forcibly stopped, naturally and
always of course goes on to anticipate a higher
and more effectual sentence, which shall here
after second and affirm its own. ... It is by
this faculty, natural to man, that he is a moral
agent, that he is a law to himself; by this
faculty, I say, not to be considered merely as
a principle in his heart, which is to have some
influence as well as others, but considered as
a faculty in kind and in nature supreme over
all others, which bears its own authority of
being so."

This inborn moral standard, called by Butler
CONSCIENCE, we are compelled to accept as
our supreme law, which at all hazard and cost
we must always obey under penalty of self-
condemnation. Evidently it is, as Socrates
and Cicero saw, a voice of God in man ; and
consequently, the earliest and most wide-spread
revelation of His will. This inward law may
be misread ; its letters may be in some measure
defaced. But enough remains, except possibly
in the most depraved, to be a witness for God
in man. By it must be judged all moral teach
ing. Such teaching has authority over us only
so far as it secures the homage of our moral
sense.

To this inborn and universal revelation were
superadded historical revelations given to Abra
ham and Israel, and the supreme revelation in
Christ designed for all men. These later his
torical revelations appeal to the earlier one.
The teaching even of Christ and His apostles
must be judged at the bar of the moral
sense of man. So Paul in 2 Cor. iv. 2 : "By
manifestation of the truth commending our
selves to every man's conscience, before God."
What is the result of this appeal ? Before the
teaching and image of Christ, as given in the
New Testament, everything in us that is best
bows with lowly homage. Nay, more. His
words strengthen and raise our moral sense,
and give to us a higher conception of what
God would have us do and be. In other words,
in the presence of Christ the judge within pays
homage, and at the same time receives from
Him a higher authority. Thus, that which is
highest in us attests the supreme majesty of
Christ. The authority thus confirmed becomes
henceforth the law of our being.

Unfortunately, this divine law and this
supreme example, thus attested, do but evoke

in us a deeper consciousness of our own guilt
and defilement ; and, at best, vain efforts to
rise to the standard thus set before us. But
in the good providence of God, the memoirs
of Christ which contain this law, and the
early expositions of the Gospel preserved in
the New Testament, contain also other teach
ing of an altogether different kind. As His
words are there recorded, and as the Gospel
is expounded by His immediate followers,
Christ announced for all who put faith in
Him, pardon of sins and a new life of victory
over all sin, leading up to eternal life in the
presence of God.

This proclamation of pardon and salvation
commends itself at once as supplying our deep
spiritual need. And, coming as it does from
One who claims, and at once secures, the
homage of our moral sense, thousands have
dared to believe it on His authority, and have
found by happy experience that it has broken
their inward fetters, and has raised them into
new life. This verification is decisive. A
hand which has set us free, and is day by
day raising us, can be no other than the
hand of God. The inborn moral sense which
speaks in us with the authority of God, and
which once condemned us, now reveals and
attests the salvation we have received. This
attestation, however, is only general. The
voice is divine, but it needs to be interpreted
by fallible man. We need another standard,
external to ourselves, by which our moral
judgments may be tested and corrected. This
external evidence we find in the Christian re
cords preserved in the New Testament, some
of which may be traced by decisive documen
tary evidence to the greatest of the apostles
of Christ, and nearly all to the first or
second generation of His followers. The deep
and far-reaching harmony underlying these
very different documents leaves no room to
doubt that the teaching common to them,
differing as it does so widely from all earlier
and contemporary teaching, came actually
from the lips of Christ. In them we find
decisive documentary and historical evidence
that He claimed to be in a unique sense the
Son of God ; that in proof of this claim God
raised Him from the dead ; and that He
announced, for all who believe in Him, pardon
of sins through His approaching death on the
cross, and a new life of unreserved devotion
to God in the Spirit of God. No facts in the
history of human thought are, in my view
better attested than the above statements.
For a proof of them, which is beyond the
scope of this article, I must refer my readers
to a dissertation at the end of my Commentary
on Romans, or to a fuller discussion in my
volume, Through Christ to God. This external

REASON, CONSCIENCE, FAITH [ 574 ]

RECLUSE

evidence confirms decisively the evidence
afforded by the fitness and ability of the
Gospel to supply our deep spiritual need, and
enables us to sift in detail the traditional teach
ing of the Church. On this combined evi
dence, the FAITH of the servants of Christ rests
securely. Thus are Reason, Conscience, and
Faith in complete harmony. Our intelligence
interprets the law written on our hearts and
the ancient records which narrate the story
of Christ and expound His teaching, tests
and attests the trustworthiness of these last,
and finds in them complete proof that the
great doctrines mentioned above, which under
lie the Christian life of all ages, came actually
from the lips of One who by His resurrection
from the dead was marked out from all others
as the Son of God. Christ, thus set forth,
claims the lowly homage of our moral sense,
and His Word becomes the firm ground of
intelligent faith.

In the Confession of Faith given in the bull
of Pope Pius IV., known as Injunctum Nobis,
the Roman Church requires its converts to
say, "I likewise receive Holy Scripture ac
cording to that sense which holy Mother
Church, whose it is to judge touching the
true sense and interpretation of the Holy
Scriptures, has held and holds ; nor will I
ever accept and interpret it except according
to the unanimous consent of the fathers."
The meaning of this Confession is well ex
pounded in Bagshaw's Threshold of the Catholic
Church: a Course of Plain Instructions for those
Entering her Communion. On page 2 we read :
" The Protestant notion is that it is each one's
business to find out his own religion — that is
to say, that he must judge for himself what
doctrines are most consistent with reason and
the Holy Scriptures — or that he must follow
the teaching of the clergyman whose views
best commend themselves to his judgment.
Catholics, on the contrary, believe that God
has established an authority upon earth which
all men must obey, and that faith is neces
sarily an obedience. . . . The most learned
man in the world must, in this matter, submit
his judgment precisely as a little child would
do. He may use all his learning to find out
the true Church ; but, when he has found it,
he must put all his books on one side, and
ask to be taught, and believe what he is told
on the authority of the Church, just as a
child would do. If he has not humility to do
this he can never be a Catholic."

This means, if I rightly understand it, that
the Roman Church, in all that pertains to
religion, whenever it speaks authoritatively,
is the supreme judge for every man of what is
true or false, right or wrong. In other words,
the Roman Church, to all within its fold,

supersedes the judgment of each one's own
intelligence and moral sense by its own
authoritative decision, and forbids indepen
dent study and criticism of the Bible in
favour of its own authoritative interpre
tation.

This claim is the loftiest which any external
authority can make. We ask at once, on
what grounds does it rest? This question
our author endeavours to answer in another
volume, The Credentials of the Catholic Church.
His argument, so far as I can understand it,
is that without a living and infallible authority
there can be no certainty in religion, and
without certainty no faith and no salvation ;
that no other Church except the Roman
claims this infallible authority, and that
therefore, unless we admit the Roman claim,
we can have no certainty, and therefore no
assured salvation. But I have already shown
that apart from the authority of the Roman
Church we have in the New Testament com
plete documentary evidence of all that we
need to know about Christ and the Gospel ;
and that this evidence is confirmed by the
irresistible appeal which Christ, as He is
depicted there, makes to our moral sense,
and by the ever-progressing salvation wrought
by the Gospel in those who believe it. They
who have this blessed experience, supported
as it is by the unanimous teaching of all
the earliest Christian documents, need no
other ground of certainty. To them, there
fore, an essential link of the above argu
ment is wanting, and the whole falls to the
ground.

Nay, more. By Bagshaw's own admission,
as quoted above, even the claim of the Roman
Church to be a divinely appointed and in
fallible teacher must be judged by the intelli
gence and moral sense of each one. But the
intelligence and moral sense of thousands,
while bowing with lowly homage to Christ
and His teaching, as depicted and set forth
in the New Testament, reject as inadequate
the credentials on which are based the stu
pendous claims of the Roman Church, and
are in stern revolt against much of its teach
ing, e.g. against the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation and the practice of Confession.
They who, outside the Roman Church, have
found a spiritual life which their moral
sense declares to be divine, resting on a
documentary and historical foundation which
their intelligence declares to be sound, are
independent of the Roman Church, and
are not likely to bow to that which would
be intolerable and degrading bondage.

[J. A. B.]

RECLUSE. — Monks in general are often styled
recluses. But the name recluse is also used

RECONCILIATION SERVICE [ 575 J

REDEMPTION

for such monks as lived under a more austere
rule than even hermits, or than those ascetics
who lived in communities. Recluses proper
lived in cells and never spoke except to
their superior, or to the brother who brought
them the necessaries of life. Some monks
were even styled indusi. These latter were
walled-up for life, with only an aperture left
through which food could be. supplied. See
Cath. Diet. ; Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of
Christ. Antiq.

RECONCILIATION SERVICE.— See SER
VICES, OCCASIONAL.

REDEMPTION. — There are three Greek words
respecting the benefits of Christ's death and
passion which need first to be distinguished,
and then viewed together in order to obtain a
clear view respecting salvation.

The first of these is tXcwyuds (hilasmos), which
means expiation and propitiation, and points to
the fact that the manifestation of the goodwill
of God to us has been gained by the offering
up of Christ as the sin-offering. By and
through the sacrifice on the cross the just
anger of God against our sin was appeased,
and God, without compromising His righteous
ness, was enabled to show Himself favourable
to us (Heb. ii. 17 [c/. Luke xviii. 13] ; Rom.
iii. 25 ; Heb. ix. 5).

The second of these is diroXtfr/owflrts (apolu-
trosis), redemption, ransom, and denotes the
deliverance from the consequences of sin,
secured by Christ and received when in union
with Him. By this word is also marked the
completeness (dvo, giving intensive force) of
the redemption.

The third of these is Ka.Ta\\ayyri (catallagge)
reconciliation, the blessing of the recovered
favour of God. It denotes first and foremost
a reconciliation by which God is reconciled to
us, lays aside His holy anger against our sins
and receives us into favour, a reconciliation
effected for us once for all by Christ upon the
cross (2 Cor. v. 18, 19). It denotes in the second
place the reconciliation of us to God, the re
moving of the enmity and alienation on our
part (Rom. v. 10 ; viii. 7 ; Bph. ii. 15 ; Col. i.
21 ; James iv. 4). Christ on the cross is our
Peace and the Maker of Peace between God
and man (Eph. ii. 14 ; Col. i. 20). See Trench's
Synonyms, § Ixxvii.

In regard to Protestants, there would be
more or less agreement as to the fact of Christ's
redemption, and the meaning of the family
group of Greek words by which it is set forth
to us in the Scriptures. Protestants are also
substantially agreed as to the application of
Christ's redemption in its actual beginning in
any soul. The views of Protestants are more
or less agreed upon such doctrines as Union
with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion, and

Justification. There is more difference on the
subject of the application of Christ's redemp
tion in its continuation. Upon Sanctification
and Perseverance there is much cleavage of
opinion. See SANCTIFICATION.

But when we come to the subject of the ex
tent of redemption, or, to put it quite plainly,
to inquire for whom Christ died, the division
among Protestants becomes most marked,
and the controversy has been keen and not
unfrequently bitter. A comparatively small
number hold what is termed the doctrine of
Particular Redemption. See REDEMPTION,
PARTICULAR. These theologians lay great
stress upon statements in the Scriptures re
specting the doctrine of Divine Election or
Predestination, and do not sufficiently balance
them by those equally clear declarations re
specting man's responsibility and the invita
tions of the Gospel being offered to all in
the widest terms (Isa. liii. 6 ; Matt. xi. 28 ;
John i. 9, 29; iii. 17; Rom. v. 18; 2 Cor.
v. 14, 15, 19; 1 Tim. ii. 4-6; Heb. ii. 9;
1 John ii. 2).

Without entering fully into the discussion
of this exceedingly difficult and profound
subject, we propose to state the views of the
two classes of Calvinists holding Particular
Redemption. Those who adopt the supralap-
sarianism of Beza, regard the decree of in
dividual salvation as preceding, in order of
thought, the decree to permit the Fall. In
this latter scheme the order of decrees is
as follows : (1) the decree to save certain, and
to reprobate others ; (2) the decree to create
both those who are to be saved and those who
are to be reprobated ; (3) the decree to permit
the former and the latter to fall ; (4) the
decree to provide salvation only for the former
that is, for the elect.

The sublapsarians regard the order of de
crees as follows: (1) the decree to create; (2)
the decree to permit the Fall ; (3) the decree
to provide a salvation in Christ sufficient for
the needs of all ; (4) the decree to secure the
actual acceptance of this salvation on the part
of some, or, in other words, the decree of
election. Those sublapsarians who hold to
the Anselmic view of a limited atonement,
make the decrees 3 and 4, just mentioned,
exchange places — the decree of election thus
preceding the decree to provide redemption
(see Strong's Systematic Theology, pp. 426-27).

Some who teach particular redemption, as
Calvin taught it, hold with Calvin the theory of
universal atonement, and others, who are hyper-
Calvinists, maintain that of a limited atone
ment. The Calvinists would make the offer
of salvation to all, but the hyper-Calvinists
would limit the scope of the Gospel invitations
to the elect ; some go so far as to refuse

EEDEMPTION, PARTICULAR [ 576 ] REDEMPTION, PARTICULAR

to press upon the sinner the acceptance of
salvation.1

It is obvious into what dangerous extremes
men lacking well-balanced minds may easily
be led on either side when entering upon such
speculative subjects to the neglect of the
practical aspects of salvation. Whatever view
we may hold upon divine decrees, election,
predestination, the atonement, or redemption
(particular or otherwise), we must not forget
that the Scriptures teach that men, as sinners
are the objects of God's saving grace (John
xv. 19 ; Rom. xi. 5, 7 ; Eph. i. 4-6 ; 1 Pet. i. 2).
In this matter our duty is stated in the last
clause of Article XVII. of the Church of Eng
land : " We must receive God's promises in such
wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy
Scripture and, in our doings, that Will of God
is to be followed, which we have expressly de
clared unto us in the Word of God." In the
doctrine of election it is of the utmost conse
quence that we keep close to Scripture itself,
and to keep clear of philosophy. [C. N.]

REDEMPTION, PARTICULAR.— The
tenets of Calvin, termed " the five points," con
tain the doctrine of Particular Redemption.
They are as follows: (1) Predestination, i.e.
some to eternal life, others to eternal death ;
(2) Original Sin, i.e. both the fault (vitium) and
corruption (depravatio) caused by the sin of
Adam which attaches to the whole human
race, and is the source of all transgression ; (3)
Particular Redemption, i.e. Christ atoned for
the elect only; (4) Irresistible grace, i.e. the
call of God is effectual ; (5) The perseverance
of the saints, i.e. those who are effectually
called can never fall away.

In the same way the Lambeth Articles (see
ARTICLES, THE LAMBETH) inculcate the
doctrine of Particular Redemption. They run
thus : " ( 1 ) God hath from eternity predestinated
some persons to life, others He hath reprobated
to death ; (2) This predestination to life pro
ceeds not from faith or perseverance or good
works, or any other quality being foreseen in the
predestinated, but is the will or pleasure of
God ; (3) The number of the predestinated is
predetermined and certain, and cannot be
increased or lessened ; (4) Those not pre
destinated to life will of necessity be damned
on account of their own sins ; (5) True, living,
justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit in

1 Not a few strong Calvinists of the present
day endeavour to mitigate the awfulness of
their views respecting reprobation by eschata-
logical speculations, and consider that the
wicked after receiving the due rewards of their
deeds will be annihilated. Some consider that
the punishment of the wicked will, in almost all
cases, end in their ultimate salvation.

the elect is not extinguished, it does not
perish, nor vanish away, either finally or
totally ; (6) a man truly faithful, i.e. endowed
with justifying faith, and called according to
purpose, is certain with the full assurance of
faith about the remission of his own sins, and
of eternal salvation through Christ ; (7) Saving
grace is not given or conferred on all men,
by which they can be saved by it if they
will ; (8) No man can come to Christ unless
it is given to him, and unless the Father
draws him ; and all men are not drawn by the
Father to come to the Son ; (9) It is not in
every one's will or power to be saved." The
Lambeth Articles are found in the original
Latin with the approbation of the Archbishop
of York (Dr. Matthew Hutton), in Archbishop
Whitgift's Works, iii. p. 613, Parker Soc.

The chief Protestant writer who opposed
Particular Redemption was Arminius, and the
circumstances which led him to do so are some
what remarkable. Arminius, who had studied
under Beza, and adopted the tenets of Calvin,
was engaged by the Supralapsarians to defend
their views against the Sublapsarians. The
professor applied himself honestly and dili
gently to the subject, and it ended in his
giving up his Calvinism and coming to the
conclusion that all that related to free-will,
predestination, and grace, peculiar to the Cal-
vinistic system, was erroneous, and not to be
supported by the Scriptures ; and he asserted
the doctrine of " Universal Redemption." On
his proclaiming these opinions (1591), he was
violently opposed by Plancius, and afterwards
by Gornarus, a colleague in the University of
Leyden, where Arminius was appointed Pro
fessor of Theology in 1603 through his friends
at Amsterdam. The doctrines Arminius now
put forth relative to predestination, universal
redemption, the corruption of human nature,
conversion and perseverance, in answer to
Calvin's five points, brought upon him during
the remainder of his days violent opposition.
He died in 1609.

The doctrines held by Arminius and his
followers were : (1) God from all eternity
determined to save all who He foresaw would
persevere in the faith, and to condemn all who
should continue in unbelief ; (2) Christ atoned
for the sins of all mankind, but those only who
believe partake of the benefit of that atonement ;

(3) Man is of himself incapable of true faith,
therefore regeneration by the Holy Spirit
given of God through Christ, is necessary ;

(4) All good works are to be attributed to the
grace of the Holy Spirit, which, however, does
not force a man against his own inclination ;

(5) God gives to the truly faithful the means of
continuing in this state (a possibility of falling
away was afterwards added). [C. N.]

REDEMPTORISTS

[ 577 ] REFORMATION, THE ENGLISH

REDEMPTORISTS.— This is the name given
to the members of a religious order founded by
Alphonsus Liguori, A.D. 1732. The members
of this order take the usual vows of poverty,
chastity, and obedience. Their main occupa
tion was intended to be the preaching at
missions and retreats to all classes of persons,
especially to such as live in remote country
districts, and are supposed to be most neglected.
The order was approved by Benedict XIV.,
A.D. 1749. The members spread with con
siderable rapidity. The Redemptorists have
houses in London, Liverpool, Perth, Teign-
mouth, Dublin, Dundalk, Limerick, and else
where in the British Isles. Like the Jesuits,
they have been expelled from Poland, Austria,
Bavaria, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland,
Italy, and Germany.

The Redemptorists are governed by a
Superior-General, called the Rector Major, who
is elected for life and resides at Rome. The
Superiors of the various provinces are called
Provincials, and of the houses, Rectors. The
order is a copy of the Jesuit fraternity, and
the members try to rival their more notorious
confreres. There is also an order of nuns,
called Redemptorines, or Redemptoristines.
The nuns are an enclosed order, whose duty
it is to assist the missionaries by their
prayers. They have several convents, gene
rally in close touch with the monasteries of
the Redemptorists. [T. C.]

REFORMATION, THE ENGLISH.— The
restoration of the Church, corrupted by
mediaeval teaching and practice, to its early
purity in doctrine and discipline.

The Reformation was the most important
event in the ecclesiastical history of England,
and yet it was but one act in a series of acts,
some leading up to it, some following upon it ;
and therefore, to be justly viewed, it should
be approached historically, however briefly.

We need not concern ourselves with the
British or with the Anglo-Saxon Church, which
was kept apart from the corrupting influences
that emanated from Rome. It was at the
Norman Conquest that those corruptions came
in with a rush. Lanfranc, the first Norman
archbishop, a man by birth and education
and sympathy half Italian, half French,
with a contempt and dislike of men of the
Teutonic race, being thrust by William into
the See of Canterbury (already occupied by
Stigand) for the purpose of subduing the old
National Church, as his master had subdued
the nation, was devoted to the new theology,
which he had learnt at his monastery of Bee,
then a centre of an Ultramontane revival ;
and he brought with him from thence the
doctrine of the Objective Presence of Christ in
the elements, two centuries later entitled

Transubstantiation. William had chased every
Anglo-Saxon bishop except one from his see,
and the French ecclesiastics who had been
substituted for the native prelates folio wed the
lead set them by Lanfranc, and thus without
remonstrance the mediaeval tenet, subsequently
called Transubstantiation, became a part of
the Norman-English Church's belief. Anselm,
taking his inspiration, like Lanfranc, from
Bee, formulated from Lanfranc's teaching the
further tenet of the reception of the entire
Christ in either element, which logically led
two or three centuries later to the Denial
of the Cup, sanctioned at the Council of
Constance. Becket and Anselm, in their re
sistance to the Crown, laid the liberties and
independence of the English Church at the
feet of the Bishop of Rome in a way unknown
to the Anglo-Sazon Church before the Con.
quest. By the time of John's reign Popery
had established itself in England, and John,
with a coward's abject terror of Innocent III.,
declared his dominions to be subject to the
Pope whom he had vainly attempted to resist,
and himself his vassal.

From that moment the current of popular
feeling set in, which in due time brought
about the Reformation. But it required time
to increase the volume of the stream, and it
was necessary to wait till an opportunity should
make the flood irresistible. The opportunity
seemed on the point of arriving in the reigns
of Edward III. and Richard II., when Wick-
liffe had publicly assailed the two great
papal doctrines of Transubstantiation and the
Supremacy of the Pope, and Parliament had
passed the Statutes of Pro visors andPrasmunire.
But the prelates of the Church were still papal
in spirit, and the usurping House of Lancaster
found it necessary to ally itself with them in
order to support its claim to the throne. A
further lease of life was thus given to Popery
in England, and reformers, under the name of
Lollards, were persecuted to the death by
king and priest. In the first year of the
fifteenth century there was passed the terrible
Act De hcerctico comburendo, the counterpart
of the continental Inquisition, under the pro
visions of which Sir John Oldcastle was burnt.
Then came the Civil War between the Houses
of York and Lancaster, and not till the Wars
of the Roses were over, and Henry VII. was
king, could ecclesiastical matters attract atten
tion and the question of reform be mooted.
Thus the long-ripening quarrel between Eng
land and Rome was deferred to the days of
the Tudors ; then the demand for it became
imperative.

Dean Colet, Sir Thomas More, Erasmus,
and even Archbishops Warham and Wolsey,
sounded the bell for the Reformation which

2 o

REFORMATION, THE ENGLISH [ 578 ] REFORMATION, THE ENGLISH

they would not themselves put their hand to
In 1532 Warham died, and Cranmer became
Archbishop of Canterbury, and during his
Archiepiscopate the Church of England shook
off the papal yoke which since the days of
John it had borne so uneasily. So great was
the power of the Papacy that it required a
combined act of the Church and State to
reject it. This combination happily was
formed in the sixteenth century. On grounds
chiefly personal and political, Henry VIII.
found himself in a position of antagonism to
the Pope, similar in many respects, though
not in its causes, to that which had existed
in the reigns of Henry I., Henry II., and
Edward III. But in those earlier days when
the evils resulting from the Roman Supremacy
had not been experienced, the Heads of the
Church took part with the Pope against the
king. Now the Church took part with the
king and people against the Pope. Before a
united England the Pope was powerless, and
the result was the rejection of the papal
authority both by Church and State— by the
Church in her Convocations, by the State in
her Parliaments. Henry himself continued to
the last day of his life to hold Roman Catholic
doctrine, like his predecessors, who, never
theless, had resisted the papal authority. But
the nation, with its deliverance from the
Papacy, recovered its liberty of thought and
speech and action. Printing had been in
vented, the Bible was no longer a closed book,
the tenets of the early Church could be learnt
by a study of the Fathers in spite of inter
polations, and a reformation in doctrine,
although delayed during the reign of Henry,
could not but come. Henry was not prepared
to go further than the rejection of papal
authority, and by his VI. Articles he did his
best to preserve Romish doctrine in the
Church. With his death the obstacle to
doctrinal reformation was removed.

In 1549 King Edward's First Prayer Book
was published, soon followed by the Second
Prayer Book of 1552. But King Edward VI.
died, and his sister Mary resolved to restore
the relation between the kingdom and the
Papacy which had existed in the reign of
John and in the reign of Henry III. She
failed, and by burning at the stake Cranmer,
Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Rogers, Taylor, and
some 220 other martyrs, she and Reginald Pole
inspired into the people of England a hatred
and horror of Popery which we may trust will
never be overcome. Cranmer was burnt by
Mary to make room for Pole. Fortunately for
England and for Elizabeth, Pole died almost
at the same time with Mary, and therefore
Elizabeth found the See of Canterbury vacant.
She nominated Matthew Parker, who was duly

consecrated by Barlow, Coverdale, Scory, and
Hodgkins, who represented the English bishops
of the pre- Marian era, Barlow having been
Bishop of Bath and Wells, Coverdale of Exeter,
Scory of Chichester, Hodgkins of Bedford.

The work of the Church in Elizabeth's reign
was one both of abolition and of restoration.
It abolished papal forms and doctrines re-in
troduced in Mary's reign, and it resumed the
position which had been taken up in the reign
of Edward VI., with the goodwill of the
majority of the English nation. It was the
Pope who divided Englishmen into two camps,
by excommunicating Elizabeth and ordering
his adherents to form themselves into the
Roman Catholic sect in England. By the
time that Elizabeth died, the Reformation had
been accomplished, and the Church of England
had taken its distinctive character — Catholic,
as holding the Primitive Catholic Faith ; Pro
testant, as holding that faith divested of the
corruptions introduced in the Middle Ages,
its standard of doctrine being the Three
Creeds, the XXXIX. Articles, and the Prayer
Book.

By this historical sketch, short as it is, a
number of false impressions respecting the
Reformation may be readily removed, such as
(1) The idea that the Church of England dates
only from the Reformation — an idea originated
by the Jesuits and lazily acquiesced in by some
Protestants.

(2) The idea that the State took away its
dignities, emoluments, and property from one
body of men called Roman Catholics, and gave
them to another body of men called Pro
testants ; whereas there never was but one
body, one Church, the Church of England,
which at the Reformation cast off the corrup
tions which in the lapse of time and by the
craft of Rome had grown up, continuing to be
the same Church, and, of course, retaining its
temporalities.

(3) The idea that the present Roman Catholic
Church in England is the representative of the
old National Church, whereas it is a sect which
had no existence at all from Pole's death in
1558 to 1570, when Pius V. instituted it ; and
it had no bishop at all belonging to it till
1623, when it was governed for two years by a
Bishop of Chalcedon called William Bishop,
and by another Bishop of Chalcedon, called
Richard Smith, for four more years, and then
again it ceased to have any bishop till the
reign of James II., who set over it a Bishop of
Adrurnetum, named Leyburn, and a Bishop
of Madura, named Giffard. These are the
antecedents of the Romish sect in England,
and it is only to William Bishop, A.D. 1673,
that Cardinal Vaughan and his colleagues can
trace their spiritual ancestry, whereas it is

REFORMERS

[ 579 ]

REFORMERS

only necessary to glance at a list of English
archbishops to see Augustine's name at the
top and Archbishop Temple's at the bottom
of it.

(4) The idea that by going behind the
Reformation settlement, the Ritualists are re
covering "Catholic" doctrines and usages;
whereas they are the doctrines and usages
rejected at the Reformation just because they
were not " Catholic," but innovations intro
duced in the Middle Ages, and specially by
Innocent III. and the Fourth Lateran Council
in 1215. The principle of the English Refor
mation was the rejection of what was new
and false, and the restoration of what was
old and true.

(5) The idea tnat the blame for the division
of Christendom belongs to the Protestants ; to
which Archbishop Laud answers: "I never
said or thought that the Protestants made this
rent. The cause of the schism is yours; for
you thrust us from you, because we called for
truth and redress of abuses. For a schism
must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it
is " (Conference with Fisher, § 21).

(6) The idea that it was Henry VIII. who
conducted and effected the English Reforma
tion ; whereas he was a bigoted Roman Catholic
on every point except the Papal Supremacy,
and he burnt impartially any that denied
either Romish doctrine or his own supremacy.

(7) The idea, which is Mr. H. O. Wakernan's
in his historical sketch, that " the Henrician
Reformation," that is, the limitation of the
Pope's authority in England, was all that was
desirable, without rejecting Roman Catholic
dogmas, and that the further Reformation under
Edward VI. and Elizabeth, was an unhappy
concession to " Protestantism," to which Mr
Wakeman has a strong repugnance, believing
that Gardiner, Bonner, and Tunstall were the
rightful representatives of the Anglican Church,
rather than Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley.
In matter of fact, Henry VIII. contributed
thus much to the Reformation : he took away
an obstacle, without the removal of which it
could not have been effected. The doctrinal
Reformation began with Edward VI.'s reign,
and found its full statement and expression in
the Prayer Book and Articles of the reign of
Elizabeth, which have come down to us as a
trust for our maintenance. [F. M.]

REFORMERS.— The name is specifically ap
plied to the leaders of the great religious
movement by which the Protestant nations
were detached from the Papal Church, and the
transition made from mediaeval to modern his
tory. At its very heart the Reformation was a
religious movement. There were many co
operating forces — the revival of letters, the in
vention of printing, the discovery of the New

World, the growth of national ideas and in
terests, the widespread disgust at the corrup
tions of the Papacy ; but in its inmost essence
Protestantism sprang from the depths of
human spirits engaged in an earnest search
after salvation and peace with God. Hence,
like all great religious movements, it finds its
characteristic historical expression in the lives
of its leaders and representative men.

A great historical transformation is always
preceded by a period of preparation. There
were " Reformers before the Reformation "-
Wyclif in England, Hus and Jerome of Prague
in Bohemia, John Wessel in Germany, Savona
rola in Italy. There were also considerable
bodies of Christians, such as the Waldenses,
the Lollards, the Friends of God, who had
sought to escape from the growing formalism
of the " Catholic " Church, and to return to the
simpler and more spiritual ways of primitive
Christianity. But when the name " Re
formers" is used without further qualification,
it is understood by common consent to apply
to the leaders of the Protestant Reformation
in the sixteenth century.

While the Reformation affected nearly all
the countries of Western Europe, it divides
itself naturally into three special spheres of
influence. Germany, Switzerland, and Eng
land were the chief storm-centres of the
movement; and, in accordance with this,
Protestantism grouped itself into the Lutheran,
the Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinistic),
and the Anglican Churches.

I. The Lutheran Reformers. Germany. — It
was with Martin Luther in Germany that the
Reformation properly began ; and the first act
in the great conflict was when Luther, in
1517, in protest against the sale of indulgences
by the monk Tetzel, nailed his ninety-five
theses to the door of the Schloss Kirche in
Wittenberg. The second momentous event
was his still bolder deed in 1520, when he
publicly burned the Pope's bull of excom
munication ; while the third was his famous
appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521,
when the ban of the Emperor was added to that
of the Pope. See LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM.

Luther is the greatest and most dramatic
figure in the whole Reformation history ; the
little monk who shook the world. When he
appeared the hour had struck, and Europe
was ready for the spiritual revolution that
followed. But only a great heroic soul, whose
" words were half-battles," and his deeds
more than half-victories, could have thrilled
Europe as Luther did, and kindled faith and
courage instantaneously in millions of hearts.
It was Luther who first gave clear and far-
sounding utterance to the central principles
of the Reformation — that God's Word is the

REFORMERS

[ 580 ]

Christian's only rule, that men are justified
by grace on the ground of faith alone, and
that the spiritual priesthood is the prerogative
of all believers.

While Luther was the militant and popular
hero of the German Reformation, Melancthon
was its scholar and theologian. From the merely
humanist point of view, men like Reuchlin,
Erasmus, and Ulrich von Hutten did much to
stimulate the movement, by directing their
learning and wit against the corrupt doctrine
and discipline of the Roman Church. But
Luther never set great store upon this kind of
co-operation. Melancthon, on the other hand,
was a man after his own heart, a scholar
hardly less illustrious than Erasmus, and at
the same time a humble and saintly Christian,
prepared, as Erasmus never was, to forsake
all and follow Jesus. Luther gave the Ger
man people their Bible, hymn - book, and
catechism ; but it was Melancthon who gave
them in his Loci the earliest system of Pro
testant theology, and it was his hand that
drew up the Augsburg Confession, in which
the leading doctrines of the Lutheran Church
assumed their definite and authoritative form.

Scandinavia. — Though Luther was the
greatest personality of the Reformation,
Lutheranism, as an ecclesiastical system,
never gained the far-reaching influence of the
Calvinistic doctrine and polity. Outside of
Germany, it was only in the Scandinavian
countries that it was able to establish itself.
Denmark owed much to the preaching of
Jansen, a Danish monk who had been to
Wittenberg ; while Bugenhagen, though him
self a German, drew up the Lutheran constitu
tion of the Church of Denmark and Norway.
Sweden, again, was evangelised by the
brothers Olaf and Lorenz Petersen, both of
whom had studied in Wittenberg ; and Lorenz
Andersen, afterwards the first Protestant
Bishop of Upsala, translated the New Testa
ment into Swedish, thus doing much to win
the hearts of his countrymen for the Pro
testant cause.

II. The Zwinglian and Calvinistic Reformers.
Switzerland. — Parallel with the Reformation
in Germany, independent movements sprang
up in Switzerland, which, though at first they
attracted less general notice, were destined to
have a still deeper influence upon the history
of Protestantism. The earliest Swiss Re
former was Ulrich Zwingli, whose work lay
among the German cantons, and was carried
on chiefly at Zurich; while his friend and
fellow-reformer (Ecolampadius, who may be
described as his Melancthon, found the sphere
of his life-work in Basel. Zwingli was a man
of much ability, learning, and eloquence,
more of a humanist than Luther, combining

in himself, according to Ranke, the best ele
ments of renaissance and reform, and ready
to go much further than the German Re
formers in departure from the traditions of
the Roman Church. He is chiefly remem
bered now for his controversy with Luther,
especially at the Marburg Conference in 1529,
on the subject of the mode of Christ's presence
in the Eucharist — Luther maintaining that the
presence is corporeal, and Zwingli that it is
purely spiritual. At first Zwingli's influence
over German Switzerland was very great.
The images were swept out of the churches,
and a Puritanic worship took the place of the
Roman mass. But the forest cantons clung
to the old ways ; war broke out between the
Reformed and " Catholic " parties ; and at the
battle of Cappel in 1531 Zwingli himself was
slain. See ZWINGLI.

Important as Zwingli's work had been, it was
soon to be eclipsed by the far greater work
of John Calvin, which represented especially
the French elements of Swiss thought, as
Zwingli had represented the German. Calvin
was himself a Frenchman, who had studied
theology at Paris with a view to the priest
hood, and afterwards had turned his attention
to law. While still at the University, he
underwent what he himself describes as a
"sudden conversion," which made him a pro
found student of the Bible, and led him to
cast in his lot with the Protestant party.
Compelled to flee from France, he took refuge
in Switzerland ; and in Basel, at the age of
twenty-seven, published the first edition of his
Institutes. Shortly afterwards, on the urgent
entreaty of William Farel, who along with
Viret had introduced the evangelical teaching
into the French cantons, he entered upon the
work of the ministry at Geneva, in associa
tion with Farel himself. Before long both
men were driven from the city ; but, some
years after, Calvin returned, and thereafter
Geneva was his home, and the chief centre of
his ever-widening activity. Here he developed
his extraordinary genius as the greatest of all
the theologians and ecclesiastical statesmen
of the Reformation period, and the chief con-
solidator of the Protestant movement. By
his Institutes, which he revised and enlarged,
and his Commentaries, he exercised a shaping
influence upon the doctrinal systems and con
stitutional arrangements of all the Reformed
Churches, and in particular, developed that
Presbyterian form of Church government which
is their characteristic type. He made Geneva
during his ministry the chief centre of the
Protestant world, to which religious refugees
flocked from most European countries, and
from which they returned bearing the deep
stamp of his influence. On the death of

REFORMERS

[ 581 ]

REFORMERS

Calvin, his work was carried on by his friend
and follower Theodore Beza, who, in associa
tion with Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli
in Zurich, laboured to the close of the six
teenth century for the consolidation of the
Reformed Churches of Switzerland and the
spread of their principles in every Protestant
land.

France. — It is natural to pass from Switzer
land, the sphere of Calvin's labours, to France,
the country of his birth. In a sense, Calvin
belongs to France even more than to Switzer
land ; and he and Beza may be called the
Fathers of the French Reformed Church. In
France, however, the Protestant cause met
with an opposition which it had not ex
perienced in Germany or Switzerland. To the
enmity of the hierarchy was added that of the
Court, the Parliament, and the University of
Paris. In spite of this, the Huguenots, as the
French Protestants came to be called, grew in
numbers and power ; but the movement in
evitably assumed a political form, and resulted
in civil wars. Protestantism was represented
for a time by Admiral Coligny, who perished
in the infamous massacre of St. Bartholo
mew in 1572 ; afterwards by the Princes of
Navarre, and in particular by Prince Henry
(Henry IV.), who carried the cause to victory
in the Wars of the League. On ascending
the throne of France, Henry professed him
self a Romanist, with a view to conciliating
his Roman Catholic subjects ; but he secured
the liberties of the Protestants by the Edict
of Nantes in 1598, the revocation of which by
Louis XIV. in 1685 was so disastrous alike to
Protestantism and to France.

Bohemia, Hungary, Poland. — While John
Hus and Jerome of Prague shed a lustre upon
Bohemia in the pre-Reformation period, no
great names appear in the history of that
country during the sixteenth century. Of
Hungary the same thing has to be said.
With regard to Poland, however, mention
should be made of John a Lasco, a Calvinist,
who spread the doctrines of the Reformed
Church in his native land, and under whose
supervision the Bible was translated into
Polish.

Netherlands . — To the Netherlands belongs
the honour of yielding the earliest martyrs
of the Protestant faith, Heinrich Voes and
Johann Esch, who were burned at Antwerp in
1523, and whose noble deaths were celebrated
by Luther in a beautiful hymn. At first Luther's
influence was paramount ; but connection
with France and Switzerland led by-and-by
to the predominance of Calvinistic teaching.
The Dutch confession of faith, known as the
Belgic Confession, is essentially Calvinistic.
It was drawn up by Guido de Bres, an ardent

preacher of the Gospel, who afterwards sealed
his testimony with his blood. The progress
of the Reformation among the Dutch people
is inseparably bound up with their heroic
struggle for political liberty ; and under their
great leader, William of Orange, they threw
off at one and the same time the double yoke
of Spain and the Pope.

Scotland. — Among the heroes of the Scottish
Reformation three men stand out in special
relief — Patrick Hamilton, Scotland's first
martyr, George Wishart, her great evangelist,
who also suffered at the stake, and John Knox,
the pre-eminent leader in the struggle, the
mighty preacher whose voice was feared by his
enemies " more than an army of ten thousand
men," the Christian statesman who, above all
others, brought it to pass that the papal juris
diction and the Roman worship were abolished
in Scotland, and Protestantism established
as the national faith. Through his long con
nection with Geneva, and his close personal
intercourse with Calvin, Knox had become a
Calvinist of the Calvinists ; and his views
were severely impressed upon the constitution
and doctrine of the Scottish Church. After
his death, his work was taken up and con
tinued by Andrew Melville, the chief author
of the Second Book of Discipline, who definitely
moulded the Protestantism of the country into
those Presbyterian forms which have charac
terised it ever since.

III. The Anglican Reformers. — In England
from the very beginning, the Reformation was
a political as well as a religious movement.
The growth of the national self-consciousness
made it inevitable that sooner or later the
bondage of Roman interference should be
shaken off ; and Henry's quarrel with the
Pope on the subject of his divorce from
Catharine of Aragon, so far from completely
explaining the English Reformation, as Roman
and Anglo-Catholic writers have tried to make
out, only accelerated an event which was
bound to take place. The Reformation in
England, however, was very far from being
only an act of political self-assertion on the
part of a proud nation against the papal head
ship. The seeds sown by Wyclif and the
Lollards had been fructifying, the influence
of the great spiritual awakening on the Con
tinent was contagious, and above all the
dissemination of the English Bible, through
the labours of Tyndale, Coverdale, and their
successors, exemplified once more the truth
of the Psalmist's utterance, "The entrance
of Thy word giveth light."

On its spiritual side the Anglican Reforma
tion is represented by Nicholas Ridley, Bishop
of Oxford, Hugh Latimer, for a time Bishop
of Worchester, but above all, Thomas Cranmer,

REFORMERS

[ 582 ]

REFORMERS

Archbishop of Canterbury. During the reign
of Henry VIII., Cranmer's conduct was
marked by much pliancy and subserviency ;
but at heart he was a warm friend of the
Swiss Reformers, and in secret he did what
he could to foster the idea and hope of the
Reformation.1 On the accession of Edward VI.,
he was able to act with less restraint, for the
sympathies both of the young king and of
Somerset, the Lord Protector, weredecidedlyon
the Protestant side. He invited from the Con
tinent several distinguished Reformed divines,
such as Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, who
became professors respectively in Oxford and
Cambridge ; and it is to him personally, more
than to any other, that the Church of Eng
land owes the preparation of the XLII.
Articles, subsequently reduced to XXXIX.,
and of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.,
the earliest form of the Book of Common
Prayer. On the death of Edward, Cranmer
supported the claims of Lady Jane Grey, and
when Mary gained the throne, his doom was
already sealed. Not content with arraigning
him for treason, Mary had him tried for
heresy ; and as a heretic he was condemned to
die, after he had witnessed from his prison
window the cruel martyrdom of his fellow-
reformers, Latimer and Ridley.

Cranmer was not a man of heroic mould ;
and confinement in the Tower of London and
the common gaol of Oxford had weakened
his spirit. At this stage his courage entirely
gave way, and under the temptation of false
promises basely held out to him, he was in
duced to sign no fewer than six successive
recantations. But when he was taken to St.
Mary's Church, Oxford, and asked to repeat
aloud what he had written, his faith revived,
and instead of doing as his enemies expected,
he retracted everything that "for fear of
death" his hand had written "contrary to the
truth." Immediately he was led to the stake,
where he thrust his right hand into the flames,
exclaiming with a loud voice, " This hand
hath offended — this unworthy hand."

Of recent years, from the side of those who
persistently disparage the English Reforma-

1 Cranmer was twice married ; first when he
was at the University of Cambridge and held
a Fellowship of Jesus' College. He was then
neither monk nor priest, but having married he
forfeited his Fellowship, although he still con
tinued a college Lecturer. After the death of
his wife, who died within the year, he was re-
elected Fellow. Twenty years later he met the
niece of Osiander, who became his second wife.
As so many slanders have been uttered by
Romanists and Ritualists against Cranmer these
facts ought to be known.

tion, characteristic attempts have been made
to make out that Cranmer, before he died,
had become at heart a thorough Romanist.
In particular, Canon A. J. Mason, in his
Thomas Cranmer ("Leaders of Religion"
Series), has informed us that during his last
days on earth the archbishop spent much of
his time in repeating the old Romish Litanies,
with their invocations of the saints, and that,
at his own request, a Dominican friar was
brought to him, to whom, on two different
occasions, he made confession, and from
whom he received absolution and the Blessed
Sacrament. Dr. Charles H. H. Wright, how
ever, has pointed out (The Protestant Church
man, April 1900) that Canon Mason has no
authority for these statements but a Latin
document printed from an anonymous manu
script, said to have been found among the
papers of Dr. Nicholas Harpsfield, a noted
Roman Catholic divine of the sixteenth century,
by one William Carter, a printer by trade,
who acted as Harpsfield's amanuensis. Carter
was a bitter enemy of the Reformation, and
owned a secret printing-press, which he
assiduously employed in issuing treasonable
attacks upon Queen Elizabeth. In the end he
was found guilty of publishing a book urging
upon the Roman Catholic ladies of the Court
the sacred duty of assassinating the Queen ;
and was, accordingly, executed at Tyburn.
It seems plain that an anonymous manuscript,
alleged to have been found among the papers
of a persecuting priest by a man who did not
hesitate to include assassination among the
proper weapons of religious controversy, and
which is quite unsupported by any other evi
dence, possesses no historical value alongside
of the narratives of Foxe and Strype. The use
which Canon Mason has made of it for his bio
graphical construction can only be attributed
either to an entire lack of the critical faculty,
or to the perverting influence of a strong anti-
Protestant basis.

A word may be said in closing about those
countries of Western Europe in which the
work of the Reformation took no root, and
which, therefore, could not be dealt with
under any of the three heads (Lutheran, Re
formed, and Anglican) of our general classi
fication. It is common to describe the
Reformation as a Teutonic revolt against the
domination of the Latin races. This is not
strictly correct ; but it contains an element of
truth, and Protestants have good grounds of
history for claiming that the entire reversal
that has taken place during the post-Reforma
tion period in the relative positions of the
Latin and Teutonic peoples is one of the great
issues of the momentous events of the sixteenth

REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE [ 583 ] REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE

century. In Italy there was no national moye-
ment in favour of a reform of religion. To
wards the close of the preceding century
Savonarola had carried on his striking work in
Florence ; but it was at best, as Dr. Hume
Brown has said, a kind of religious melodrama,
which never struck at the central errors of the
papacy, and awoke no deep response in the
national heart. With regard to Spain, it had
no great Reformer, because in that unhappy
country no Protestant was suffered to live.
Like a mother who murders her new-born
child, Spain, through her terrible reorganised
Inquisition, strangled everywhere the new
religious life on its earliest appearance ; and
so committed a kind of moral race-suicide
from which she has been slowly dying ever
since. As for Ireland, a fountain of light and
life to the sister-isle in the early days of
Christianity, political causes prevented her
from sharing in the unspeakable blessings
that had now come to England and Scotland.
Aversion to England naturally inspired a
special aversion to the Protestant faith. And
as nothing was done to conciliate Irish feeling,
as the Bible was not translated into the
vernacular, and the choice of the people in
the matter of worship lay between the familiar
services of the Roman Church and a service
in the unwelcome language of the conqueror,
Protestantism soon became a hateful thing in
the eyes of the Celtic population. Ireland
gave birth to no Reformer, because, unfortu
nately, England and Scotland sent no evan
gelists to Ireland to preach the gospel to the
poor. Had Ireland received another Patrick,
she might have produced another Columba.
And had she become a Protestant country in
the sixteenth century, how different her
history would have been during the last three
hundred years. [J- C. L.]

REFORMERS : THEIR INFLUENCE ON
THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE
SCRIPTURES. — Dean Stanley, when speak
ing at Cheshunt College to a gathering com
posed mainly of Nonconformists, referred to the
benefits which even Nonconformity had de
rived from the National Church in these
words : " Whether you return or not, I ask
you, would you willingly have dispensed with
the Authorised Version of the English Bible
entirely made by prelates and scholars of the
Established Church ? " The error into which
the Dean fell on this occasion is widespread.
He had forgotten the noble preface written on
behalf of the revisers of 1611 by Dr. Miles
Smith, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, anc
prefixed to all the early editions, folio, quarto
and octavo, of the Authorised Version. In
that preface we read : " Truly, good Christian
reader, we never thought from the begin

ning that we should need to make a new trans
lation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
one, . . . but to make a good one better, or
out of many good ones one principal good
one, not justly to be excepted against ; that
hath been our endeavour, that our work.'
This account of the Authorised Version, that
crowning glory of English literature, is the
fact. Dean Stanley's words express what is
even now a very widespread delusion, viz.
that the A.V. was a new translation. Arch
bishop Cranmer, writing to Thomas Cromwell
in the year 1537, urging him to obtain the
king's licence for the circulation of the edition
of the Scriptures known as Matthew's Bible,
requested him to do this so that the book
might serve, in the archbishop's words, " until
such time as we bishops shall set forth a better
translation, which I think will not be till a
day after doomsday." And, indeed, had this
great task been left in the first instance to
prelates and scholars, there is good reason to
fear that Craumer's words would have remained
strictly true for a much longer period than they
did. Since, while it is the fact that most of
those who were at the first intimately con
cerned with the making of the great English
Version of the Scriptures were connected with
the Established Church, it is also true that
to most of them that great Church gave in the
way of reward only persecution, suffering, exile,
and martyrdom.

Fortunate indeed has it been for the English
nation that this was the case. The English
version is in all its essentials the work of
one heroic spirit, of one man raised up by
God, and splendidly endowed with the intel
lectual and spiritual gifts requisite for his
great task. William Tindale towers, lofty and
lonely, high above all his peers in this great
field of service. It was because his own study
of the Scriptures had set him free from the
spiritual bondage of his time, and because the
grace of God had enabled him to penetrate
in his own experience into the very heart of the
Evangel, that he was enabled to make once and
for all the English version a book free from
ecclesiastical bias, that a book sets forth the
word of God in all its simplicity and sweetness
and power, free on the one hand from the
pedantry of the bookman, and on the other,
from the conventionality and prejudice of the
ecclesiastic. It was thus more than an acci
dent that to Reformers in the main, for more
than two generations, the translation and
revision of the English Version was left. The
nation has never yet fairly or fully recognised
the debt it owes to William Tindale supremely,
and then in a less degree, to such fellow-
workers as Coverdale and the scholars who
produced the Geneva Bible.

REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE [ 584 J REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE

It ought to be ever borne in mind that the
early English versions, which still compose
more than three-fourths of both the Authorised
and Revised Versions, came into existence not
only without the countenance and aid of
king and prelates and Church sanction, but in
defiance of these potent authorities, all of whom
exerted themselves to the utmost to stay the
work and to punish those who took part in it.
This origin, and the persecution involved in its
execution, made the English Bible an abiding
force in the struggle for both religious and
civil liberty. It was intended to be, and it
has always pre-eminently been, the book for
those who were seeking truth. To this
standard it brought alike the claims of king,
and priest and Church, and placed the humble
reader no less than the scholar in the position
of being able to form a sound and wise judg
ment upon these far-reaching claims.

Tindale, in the Preface to his version of the
Pentateuch, strikes the true keynote. He
affirms that he was moved to translate the
New Testament " because," to use his own
words, " I had perceived by experience how that
it was impossible to establish the lay people in
any truth except the Scriptures were plainly
laid before their eyes in their mother-tongue."
And the spirit in which he did his great task
appears in the words he prefixed to his book,
The Parable of the Wicked Mammon, published
at Marburg in 1528. " Some men will ask,
peradventure, why I take the labour to make
this work, inasmuch as they will burn it, seeing
they burnt the Gospel ? I answer, in burning
the New Testament they did no other thing
than that I looked for ; no more shall they do if
they burn me also, if it be God's will it shall
so be." These words give us the true genesis
of our English version. It was not the achieve
ment of a company of prelates and scholars.
It was accomplished by one simple-minded,
heroic soul, resolved that all his countrymen
who could read should be able to exercise their
own judgment and common sense upon the
claims and assumptions and tyrannies of the
Romish Church. To enable them to do this,
Tindale willingly and knowingly risked his
life. It is seldom that companies of prelates
and scholars can labour in this spirit. Had
this duty been left to the recognised Church
authorities, in all probability it would have
been done, in Cranmer's words, " a day after
doomsday." But the work was done by
William Tindale, Miles Coverdale, and John
Rogers. Cardinal, bishops, king, and nobles
first burnt the book, and then, only a few
years later, for reasons widely different from
those which had actuated Tindale, furthered
its circulation. But it was not until 1568,
forty-three years after Tindale' s Testament

had appeared, that a version prepared by
prelates and scholars was published. And
when this edition, known as the Bishops'
Bible, did at last appear, it was, like the Author
ised Version, forty-three years later still, only
a careful revision of the work of Tindale and
his fellow-labourers.

Tindale, Coverdale, and Rogers were all
within the pale of the English Church. But
they were in strenuous opposition to what
they held Scripture proved to be its false
doctrine and false practice. Two of them
sealed their witness with their lives, and
Coverdale himself was in deadly peril for a
time, and even when in later life he became a
bishop, he had little or nothing in common
with Matthew Parker and the bishops of
Queen Elizabeth. The English Version came
from a man who was convinced that the most
energetic opposition ought to be given to the
claims and errors of the Church of Rome by
placing over against them the clear teaching
of Scripture. Even to this day there are no
books better calculated to aid thoughtful readers
in testing Sacramentarian and Roman Catholic
claims by the words of Scripture than Tindale's
The Parable of the Wicked Mammon; The
Obedience of a Christian Man ; The Practice of
Prelates ; and the Answer to Sir Thomas More.
They have lost little of their freshness and
power, because they subject papal and sacra-
mentarian claims to the one infallible test,
What saith Scripture ? Yet it should be borne
in mind that Tindale's first work was translating
the Scriptures. He thought that if he placed
the pure Word of God in the hands of all his
countrymen who could read, they would gladly
receive and use it, and derive from it the bene
fit and freedom which had come into his own
soul. It was only after Wolsey and Tunstall
had denounced and burnt the Word of God, and
were hunting him for his life, and only after
it became evident that the Church authorities
cared far more about their claims and prero
gatives than they did about the Word of God,
that Tindale turned to controversy. The New
Testament was issued in 1525 ; it was not until
1528 that his first controversial book appeared.
During that interval his Testament had been
burnt at the north door of St. Paul's, and the
intellect and character of Sir Thomas More
enlisted in the defence of the corrupt Church
doctrine and practice of the age. It is often
urged now that it was the glosses added to the
text that were condemned, and not the Testa
ment itself. But facts are against this view. No
candid reader of to-day who takes the trouble
to study Tindale's glosses can fail to see that
they were bitterly condemned because they
brought in the clearest possible way Roman
claims and Roman customs as urged by the

REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE [ 585 J REFORMERS AND THE BIBLE

hierarchy of the day, into sharp contrast
with Scripture teaching.

This absolute devotion to the clear meaning
of Scripture, this desire to test all things by the
one great touchstone of truth, this willing
ness on the part of Tindale, if need be, to die
in liberating his brethren from their bondage
to Rome, was overruled and guided by the
Divine Spirit to impart to the English version
a quality both spiritual and literary which it
could never have possessed had it been the
work of a company of prelates and scholars.
But the quality having been thus ineffaceably
imparted to the version, gradually in the long
course of years, the best scholarship of three
generations united in the task — not of making
a new version, but, to use Dr. Miles Smith's
words, of making " a good one better." The
work of Tindale, Coverdale, and Rogers,
lasted through the stormy close of Henry
VIII. 's reign, the Reform period of Edward VI.,
the violent reaction under Mary Tudor, the
growing power and splendour of Elizabeth's
reign, and culminated in the Authorised Version
of 1611, and the Revised Version of 1881 and
1884. These could not have been what they
became and are but for the indelible influence
of the martyrs who laid so nobly the founda
tions, and built so great a part of the abiding
edifice.

To set forth the process by which the New
Testament of 1525 and 1534, and the Penta
teuch of 1530, and the Old Testament of 1535
and 1537 gradually ripened into the A.V. and
R.V. would be both attractive and instructive
had we the space to do it here. The materials
for the study are in the various editions, and
no competent student can compare the A.V. j
or the R.V. with Tindale's Testaments of 1525
and 1534, and his Pentateuch of 1530, without
seeing that they are in all essential respects
the same book. The true editio princeps of the
English Bible is the Matthew's folio of 1537.
This was the joint production first and fore
most of Tindale, and then, as supplementing
what the martyr had had to leave unfinished,
in a secondary degree, the work of Coverdale,
John Rogers in Antwerp acting as editor of
the composite volume. Coverdale had been
for years in close touch with Thomas Cromwell
and Cranmer, and by the patronage of the first
and the countenance of the second, the editions
known as the Great Bible, and, less correctly,
as Cranmer's Bible, came into being and ob
tained a wide circulation. It is not possible
here to trace the action and reaction in the
national life from 1525 to 1541 which so
powerfully influenced the attitude of king and
political authorities towards the circulation of
the English version of the Bible. It steadily
grew in power and influence as the dominating

formative influence in national life, in the
face of, rather than by the aid of, royal and
episcopal authority.

When Tindale had long passed away, and
the Romanist reaction burst upon England
under Mary Tudor, the centre of English Bible
revision activity shifted to Geneva, and there
the work was carried forward by men who
were in sympathy with Calvin and the trans
formation he had wrought in Geneva. In this
way a new influence was brought to bear upon
our version, and enshrined in the Geneva
Testament of 1557 and the Geneva Bible of
1560. An instructive measure of the distance
travelled in thought and life between 1530 and
1560 is found in the contrast between the
fulsome Dedication to Henry VIII. prefixed to
Coverdale's 1535 folio, and the didactic address
to Elizabeth prefixed to the Geneva Bible of
1560. This revised edition, a great improvement
upon all that had preceded it, was mainly the
work of three scholars then in exile at Geneva
— Whittingham, afterwards Dean of Durham,
Gilbey, afterwards Rector of Ashby-de-la-
Zouch, and Sampson, afterwards Dean of
Christchurch. These did not scruple to re
mind Elizabeth that as she had been marvel
lously preserved and delivered by the Lord,
even above strength she must now show her
self bold and strong in God's matters.

It was through the words and the notes of
this version — the real popular and generally
accepted English Bible for over seventy-five
years — that the grandfathers and fathers of
the men who broke the power of the Stuarts
received their ideas of truth and life and re
sponsibility. But Elizabeth, and in a less
degree even Archbishop Parker, never relished
the Geneva Bible. In consequence, the Bishops'
Bible of 1568, 1569, and 1572— often reprinted
in later years — was prepared by prelates and
scholars. It never succeeded, save to a very
limited extent, in competing with the Geneva,
but it formed one more stage in the long de
velopment of revision.

When, in 1604, James I. sanctioned the
movement from which came in due time the
A.V. of 1611, the scholars he selected knew
that the work had been in many respects and
over a large area so well done that they could
do little to improve it. They were expressly
instructed to consult carefully the earlier
versions, though naturally the Bishops' Bible
was chosen by the king as the standard text.
It is generally admitted now that the text in
the Bishops' folio of 1602 was in all probability
the basis of the A.V. But the curious thing
is, that two previous versions which exerted
considerable influence upon the 1611 revisers
are not mentioned at all in their instructions,
viz. the Geneva, and the Rhemes Testament.

REGENERATION

[ 586 ]

RELICS

The latter was issued in 1582. This fact is
only another illustration of the way in which
the making of the English Version has been
affected profoundly by other influences than
those of kingly or Church authority. Under
James I., and in a period of reaction in both
civil and religious life, without the express
sanction, even if not against the expressed
wish of the sovereign, many abiding phrases,
and turns of translation and expressions of
thought came into the glorious A.V., largely
from Geneva, and in a less degree from Rhemes.
The latter version by Romanists, from the
Latin original and under the controlling hand
of the Church, fortunately did little but enrich
the vocabulary of the version. Any one who
desires to appreciate at its full value the A.V.
should read, say the Epistle to the Romans, in
the Rhemes Testament of 1582 and compare
it with the A.V. text.

It is to the glory of God and the good of
man that among the many forms which the
English Bible assumed between 1525 and 1611,
there was not one the reading of which was
not able to make him who perused it carefully
and prayerfully " wise unto salvation." But it
is often overlooked that the nation is deeply
indebted to Tindale and those who aided him
for the fact that the Word has had free course
in our national life. From the first the Word
of God has been held up as the final court of
appeal, as the one unerring standard to which
all questions affecting the life of the soul must
be brought. And if the field is to be held
against the claims and tyranny of Sacramen-
tarianism and Romanism on the one hand, and
of Materialism and the life of the senses on the
other, what better standard can be found than
that of William Tindale, which he applies to
one of his own books, " If God's Word bear
record unto it, and thou also feelest in thine
heart that it is so, be of good comfort, and
give God thanks. If God's Word condemn it,
then hold it accursed, and so do all other
doctrines : as Paul counselleth his Galatians,
believe not every spirit suddenly, but judge
them by the Word of God, which is the trial of
all doctrine, and lasteth for ever." [R. L.]

REGENERATION. — See BAPTISMAL RE
GENERATION, and notes pp. 65, 141.

REGULARS.— A term applied in the Church
of Rome to persons of either sex who observe
a common rule (Latin, reguLa) of life, being
bound by the three vows of poverty, celibacy,
and obedience to an earthly superior.

RELICS. — Small pieces of the bones, skin, hair,
or clothes of dead men or women, which Roman
Catholics regard as objects of veneration.

It was most natural that when a martyr
had been put to death, his friends and
admirers should take his dead body, or gather

up his remains, and reverently bury them
with pious care. This was being done with
the body of Polycarp, who was burnt in the
amphitheatre at Smyrna in the persecution
of Marcus Aurelius, as soon as he was dead,
when the Jews interfered and persuaded the
magistrate not to allow the Christians to take
it away lest they should begin worshipping
Polycarp instead of Christ. The magistrate
therefore ordered that the corpse should be
left to be consumed by the flames. After all
was over, some bones remained, and these the
Christian watchers gathered up and laid in a
tomb. The Church of Smyrna wrote an
account of the martyrdom, and the writers
express their sorrowful surprise that the Jews,
or any one else, could believe that Christians
could substitute the worship of any other for
that of Christ. " For we worship Christ, who
is the Son of God, but we love the martyrs
as the disciples and imitators of Christ, as
indeed we ought for their unsurpassable
loyalty to their King and Master, and we pray
that we may be fellow-disciples with them."
In the second century, therefore, we see that
the sentiment of the Church was (1) that
Christ should be worshipped, (2) that martyrs
should be loved, (3) that martyrs' bodies
should be honourably buried ; and it had not
occurred to the Church of Smyrna that any one
could question that each of those religious acts
was right, and would always be right, or that
any Christian could even think otherwise.

Burial-places are always regarded as spots
of solemnity and sanctity, and it was natural
that when the Christians had as yet no
churches, they should hold their meetings
where the martyrs' remains had been buried,
and that, when the law allowed it, they should
build churches there. But by the beginning
of the fifth century an idea had grown up
that the sanctity of these quiet spots emanated
in a mysterious way from the bodies of the
holy dead there sleeping, whose presence
served as a safeguard against the intrusion of
evil spirits or wicked men.

In its growth the idea took two forms, both
of them fantastic and gruesome. Every local
church felt itself at a disadvantage if it had
not a holy body to protect it. Records were
ransacked to see if there was no one belong
ing to the church in the past, who could,
through his martyrdom or holiness, be re
garded as a saint, and if there were none, a
church of any prominence thought it necessary
in the Middle Ages to procure one by petition,
or purchase, or robbery. When Gelmirez was
appointed Bishop of Compostella in 1100, his
first act, in order to make his see worthy to
become an archbishopric, was to make an
expedition into Portugal on the pretence of

RELICS

[ 587 ]

RELICS

visiting some outlying congregations, but
really to carry away the bodies of Portuguese
saints and deposit them in his cathedral at
Coinpostella. His method was to get per
mission to say Mass in a church, and while he
was devoutly saying it, his attendants dug j
up the body of the saint of the church and
conveyed it to a vehicle waiting at the door.
In this way he got possession, undiscovered,
of the bodies of St. Cucufat, St. Susanna,
and St. Silvester. Then he resolved on a
great coup. St. Fructuosus was a saint of
great name and fame, and his body was lying
in a sepulchre in a church that he had him
self built at Braga, of which he was considered
the protector. Bishop Gelmirez got permission
to say Mass in the church, and at its conclusion
he went in his episcopal robes to the saint's
tomb at the head of his followers, and " with
tears and sighs " and in " great fear and
silence" drew out the body "by a pious
robbery " and hurried with it to a little town
named Corneliana. There he heard that what
he had done was becoming known, and that
the people were rising up in indignation ;
so " being a man of the greatest prudence
and extreme piety " he at once sent off by
his archdeacon the bodies of all the saints
that he had stolen, desiring him to take by
paths and get across the Minho, which was
the boundary of Portugal, with all speed.
Meantime he stayed behind himself to throw
people off the scent. Then, as soon as he
heard that they were safely across the river,
he joined the archdeacon with all his party,
and taking off their shoes, they conducted
the holy bodies to Compostella, singing and
dancing before them. " The people of Com
postella," says the Historia Compostellana, a
contemporary document, " rejoiced mightily,
for they knew that by the merits and inter
cessions of the saints and the presence of the
holy body of St. lago, they would be delivered
from all pestilence and sicknesses."

The other form did not go as far as body-
snatching, but it aimed at getting little pieces
of the sacred corpse or skeleton, and these
were supposed to have an influence for good,
not indeed equal to that of the entire body,
but yet not to be despised. Thus smaller relics
were sometimes given as precious presents,
sometimes they were gathered from the next
cemetery and passed off as genuine, some
times they were stolen like the entire bodies.
Maurice, Archbishop of Braga, a man remark
able enough to have been fixed on as a candi
date for the papal chair, while on a visit to
Jerusalem, heard that St. James' head was
kept in a neighbouring church. Having in
vain tried to bribe the custodian, he desired
two of his clergy to feign sickness, and for

its relief he got leave for them to spend the
night in the church, burning wax candles.
These men, having previously hidden spades in
the church, dug up the head at midnight and
brought it to the archbishop, who was waiting
at the door, and they all three ran with their
treasure to Jerusalem, and thence, setting
off next morning, travelled with all speed to
Spain, and presented it to Queen Urraca, who
in turn, presented it to the Church of Com
postella, to the overflowing joy of the bishop
and people, which, however, was somewhat
dashed when they found that according to
the Spanish legend they had got St. James'
head already, and therefore that the new
relic must be the head of the other St. James.

The smaller relics were generally placed
within, or under, or upon the various altars
in any new church that was being built ; some
times they were kept in the sacristy. When
Alonzo III. built the cathedral of Compostella,
the following relics were placed under the
altars. 1. Part of our Lord's tomb ; 2. Our
Lord's vestment at the time of His crucifixion ;
3. The Saviour's tunic ; 4. The earth on which
the Lord stood ; 5. The wood of the holy
cross; 6. The bread of our Lord ; 7. The milk of
St. Mary ; 8. The ashes and blood of St. James
the Apostle ; 9. Of St. Thomas the Apostle ; 10.
Of Bishop Martin ; 11. Of St. Vincent ; 12. Of
St. Christopher ; 13. Of St. Bandulus ; 14. Of
St. Julian; 15. Of St. Basilisi ; 16. Of St.
Leocadia; 17. Of St. Eulalia ; 18. Of St.
Marina; 19. Of St. Peter; 20. Of St. Paul; 21.
Of St. Andrew; 22. Of St. Fructuosus; 23.
Of St. Lucia; 24. Of St. Rufina; 25. Of St.
Lucrea; 26. Of St. John; 27. Of St. Bar
tholomew ; 28. Of St. Lawrence ; 29. Of St.
John Baptist ; 30. Some of our Lord's blood ;
31. Some of St. Mary's blood ; besides a large
box of the relics of other martyrs.

At the time of the Reformation, whenever a
church was well supplied with such treasures,
a Relic-Sunday was observed, on which such
relics as could be got at were exhibited with
great pomp, and dipped in water which was
afterwards sold or given to those present " as
very holy and effectual." Bands of music
made the day attractive like a fair-day, and
collections were made for the clergy of the
church.

The relic-system is in full force now. In
1896 Pope Leo XIII. gave to an American lady
named Throop, who had organised a pilgrimage
to Rome and converted her husband, a reli
quary containing the following relics : Veil of
the Blessed Virgin ; cloak of St. Joseph ;
bones of St. Peter and St. Paul ; bones of St.
John and St. Andrew ; bone of St. Philip Neri ;
bone of St. Augustine ; bone of St. Dominic ;
bone of St. Francis de Sales ; bone of St.

RELICS

[ 588 ]

RELICS

Alphonsus ; bone of St. Francis of Assisi.
These were placed in Mrs. Throop's hands by
Monsignor Marzolini, Pope Leo's secretary,
with a paper vouching for their genuineness.
At the same time Mrs. Throop received from
other dignitaries the following relics : A piece
of the true cross ; a piece of thorn from
the Crown of Thorns ; a piece of the Saviour's
winding-sheet ; a bone of St. Francis of Assisi ;
a bone of St. Clair of Assisi ; a piece of the
habit of St. Cecilia. " Proper papers accom
panied them all." [F. M.]

The Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth
session, in legislating for the invocation of
saints distinctly affirmed the value of relics
and their veneration, which are also taught in
the Creed of Pope Pius IV. in its Vllth
Article, as well as in the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, part iii. chap. ii. quest, xv.
(Donovan's translation).

The arguments in favour of "due rever
ence" being given to relics are deduced by
Cardinal Bellarmine (partly following the Cate
chism of Council of Trent) from the following-
texts : (1) Exod. xiii. 19, where Moses is men
tioned as having carried up from Egypt with
the Children of Israel the bones of Joseph.
That act, however, was performed in strict
accordance with Joseph's wish that he should
not be buried in the land of Egypt. There is
not the slightest reference made there or else
where to any veneration being paid to those
bones, nor is any miracle recorded as having
been done by them. (2) In 2 Kings xiii. 21,
there is mention made of an apparent miracle
wrought by Elisha's bones. But though the
facts of that history may be affirmed, the re
vival of the man who was thrown down into
the sepulchre of Elisha might possibly have
occurred through natural causes. There is no
mention, even on that occasion, of Elisha's
bones being taken up out of the sepulchre, and
used as relics, or venerated, or of any other
miracle being performed by them. (3) In
2 Kings xxiii. 16-18 mention is made of the
defilement by Josiah of the high place at
Bethel by dead men's bones being burned upon
the altar which had been erected there, on
which occasion the bones of two prophets were
permitted to lie undisturbed in the sepulchres
in which they had been formerly buried. No
veneration whatever is said to have been paid
to the bones of those prophets, except that
they were left quietly to rest in their graves.
(4) The Cardinal adduces Isa. xi. 10, where the
Vulgate has wrongly translated the Hebrew
by sepulchrumejus, " his sepulchre," in place of
"his resting-place," as our English versions
(A.V. and R.V.) rightly translate. The argu
ment of the Cardinal, of course, utterly fails

when the mistake of translation is pointed
out. (5) The burial of Moses, recorded in
Deut. xxxiv. , is strangely pressed into an argu
ment in favour of relics, although even on the
commonly received explanation that incident
would tell against the veneration of relics.
Chrysostom and others have imagined that
Moses' body was buried for fear lest it might
have been worshipped, although there is not
a trace of any such worship having occurred
among the Jews. It may be well to observe,
though we do not press the matter, that it is
open to serious question whether the Hebrew
(Deut. xxxiv. 6) has been correctly understood
of such a burial as Mrs. Alexander has de
scribed in her beautiful poem, " On Nebo's
lonely mountain." For it is quite possible to
translate the Hebrew as indefinite and render
it " one buried him " (i.e. he was buried).1

1 It has been too often taken for granted that
the Epistle of Jude (at verse 9) contains a re
ference to a contest about the dead body of
Moses. To support that view it has been
maintained on the authority of Origen that
the sacred writer referred to such a story in an
apocryphal book, the Assumption of Motes. Three-
fourths or more of that book is extant, and in
none of its chapters is there a reference to any
such story. Nor does the argument of that book
justify the assertion that the missing portions
contained such a narrative. There are, no doubt,
Jewish traditions which speak about a contest
concerning the death of Moses, whether he who
had spoken with God face to face ought to die
like other men. But of a contest about his body,
and an endeavour on the part of Satan to keep it
from being buried, in order that it might prove
a snare to the Israelites, there is not one word.
The Epistle of Jude contains several references
to the Book of Zechariah chap, iii., where the
exact words spoken by the Angel of the Lord
bo Satan are to be found in verse 2. The phrase
"pulling them out of the fire" (in verse 23) is
also a reference to the " brand plucked out of
the fire" in Zech. iii. 2; while "the garment
spotted by the flesh" in the same verse of Jude
refers to the " filthy garments " of Zech. iii. 3. No
old worn-out garments (as fabled by some critics)
are there mentioned, but garments literally
stained with human filth. Why should St. Jude,
who thus had Zech. iii. 2, 3, vividly in his mind,
go out of his way to refer to an apocryphal book
when the very words he required actually oc
curred in the chapter of Zechariah to which he
refers in the other passages of his short Epistle ?
The passage is discussed at length in our Hampton
Lectures on Zechariah, where we have pointed out
that " the body of Moses " was employed by Jude
in contrast to "the body of Christ" as a de
signation of the Jewish Church.

RELICS

[ 589 J

RELIGIOUS ORDERS

The brazen serpent, that most venerable relic
of Israel's sojourn in the wilderness, and by
which miracles were wrought on one great
occasion (Num. xxi. 8, 9), though never again
mentioned in sacred history, was broken in
pieces by Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 4) be
cause the people used to " burn incense to it."
The body of the proto-martyr St. Stephen was
buried in the earth, and not preserved as a
holy relic (Acts viii. 2). No mention is made
in the holy Scriptures of the wood of the cross,
of the nails, &c., or of the garments of our
Lord having been preserved and venerated.
But among the numerous relics exhibited in
Rome are duplicated bodies of saints and arms,
like those of St. Anthony, which have been
proved to be the bones of a stag. The portion
of the brain of St. Peter, exhibited as a holy
relic, turns out to be nothing else than a piece
of what is called brain-stone.

There are, however, several texts in the New
Testament which require here to be noticed,
such as those that speak of the woman touch
ing the hem of the Redeemer's garment (Matt.
ix. 20-22 ; Mark v. 28, 29 ; Luke viii. 43-47)
and becoming whole of her plague. The heal
ing, however, in that case was ascribed by Christ
to faith in Himself, and not to any virtue
resident in His garment. A similar miracle
appears to have been repeated on several occa
sions afterwards (Mark vi. 56). The strong
impression made upon the multitude after the
terrible catastrophe of Ananias and Sapphira
made many people imagine that even the
shadow of Peter overshadowing the sick might
benefit them. But no cases of healing are in
the sacred text ascribed to any such cause (see
Acts v. 15, 16). The cases recorded as having
taken place in Ephesus in Acts xix. 11, 12, are
more to the point. Those miracles were, how
ever, of a very special character, and were
wrought in a city noted for healing by magical
arts (Acts xix. 19). They took place only on
that one occasion, evidently being designed to
prove to the Gentiles the vast superiority of
the powers of the New Dispensation ("the
powers of the world to come," Heb. vi. 5) over
all the strange manifestations of " the powers
of darkness." The passage in Acts xix. 11,
12, is the strongest argument which Roman
Catholics can adduce. In the early days of
Christianity similar events may have occasion
ally occurred ; but the admission of that fact
by no means justifies the preservation of relics
(of which there is not one instance to be found
till centuries later), and still less does it justify
any veneration, or acts of kissing done unto
them, which were so common in heathen days.
Compare Hos. xiii. 2, where the " calves " set
up by Jeroboam at Bethel are spoken of as
"kissed" by their worshippers, and also

1 Kings xii. 32 and 1 Kings xix. 18, where the
images of Baal were similarly treated.

[C. H. H. W.]

RELIGIOUS ORDERS.— The term is fre
quently employed as a general designation of
all the various communities that make up the
"regular "clergy of the Roman Catholic Church,
including also monks, friars, clerks regular, and
the members of all those congregations that
are bound by a rule. Roman Catholic writers,
however, usually restrict the name to the four
great monastic orders, certain communities,
such as the Servites, which have been raised
by papal decree to the rank of a monastic
order, and some others, like the Benedictine
family and its offshoots, which are under
solemn vows.

In this strict sense of the title, the religious
orders are composed chiefly of monks, friars,
and clerks regular. Monks are those who
have devoted themselves to the life of con
templation, and live apart from the world in
monasteries. Friars are the members of the
four great mendicant orders— the Dominicans,
the Franciscans, including the Capuchins, the
Carmelites, and the Hermits of St. Augustine,
or Austin Friars. Clerks regular are those
members of the "regular" clergy who are
under vows, but are less separated from the
world, and less tied down to the observances
of the cloister than monks and friars. The
establishment of societies of clerks regular
was approved by the Roman Catholic Church
at the time of the counter-Reformation, when
need was felt, in the face of advancing Protes
tantism, for new forms of effort. Among
them special mention may be made of the
Jesuits (Society of Jesus), and the Redemp-
toristsor Liguorians, founded by St. Alphonsus
Liguori. The dress of clerks regular resembles
that of the secular clergy ; their houses are
generally called residences or colleges.

The more modern institutes, societies,
brotherhoods, and other communities bound
by a common rule are classed together as
religious congregations. Their members may
be under simple or temporary vows, or even
under no vows at all ; but are never under
solemn vows. The Passionists, for example,
do not constitute an order, but only a congre
gation, for, in spite of the severity of their
rule, they are only under simple vows.

The action of various Continental powers in
dissolving, for reasons of State, "unauthorised
orders" living in their midst has led to a rapid
multiplication of Roman Catholic communi
ties in Britain and America, where their
liberties are not restricted. In a recent
volume, to which the present article is much
indebted, on Monasteries and Religious Houses
of Great Britain and Ireland, with a commen-

RELIQUARY

[ 590 ]

REMEMBRANCE

datory preface by the (Roman Catholic) Bishop
of Clifton, a startling view is given of the
increase in the number of religious houses in
this country within late years. Mention
should also be made of the establishment
within the Church of England itself, through
the influence of the Tractarian Movement, of
various imitative Anglican brotherhoods and
societies, such as the Cowley Fathers, the
Community of the Resurrection, and the
Society of the Holy Cross with its celibate
"White Rule," full information regarding
which is furnished by Mr. Walsh in his Secret
History of the Oxford Movement. See ASCETI
CISM ; DOMINICANS ; FRANCISCANS ; MONAS-
TICISM ; MONKS ; NUNS AND NUNNERIES ;
Vows. [J. C. L ]

RELIQUARY.— A case in use in the Church of
Rome for relics, which, when placed therein,
must be securely sealed and authenticated by
competent authority before being exposed for
veneration. See RELICS.

REMEMBRANCE.— A recalling a person or
thing absent to mind. The specified end and
object of the Lord's Supper is to keep the
Master's memory fresh in the mind of His j
disciples during the many centuries that were j
to elapse before He came again. In the precept !
given at the institution there is nothing said
by the Lord about a divine presence, nothing
about a sacrificial offering, nothing even about
the spiritual effects of obeying it. "Do this,"
is His instruction, " in remembrance of Me." It
does not follow from this that there is no other
view to be entertained of the Lord's Supper
except that of its being a memorial, but the
preservation of the remembrance or memory
is put before us as the paramount purpose of
the rite, and no other aspect of it must obliter
ate or overshadow that purpose. In whatever j
way of observance the rite best secures the
memory of the Lord's giving His body and
blood to be sacrificed on the Cross for us, in
that way it best fulfils the declared end for
which it was instituted.

The way which the apostles, to whom the
precept was given, took to carry it out was the
establishment of a feast representing and re-
enacting the whole of the Last Supper, so far
as was possible in changed circumstances, held
every Sunday evening, in the course of which
the presiding presbyter called to the mind of
those present the love of Christ in dying for
man, and, like Him, distributed bread and wine,
to be partaken of in remembrance of Him and of
the blessings derived from the sacrifice of His
death. This memorial feast was kept up in the
same form to the beginning of the second cen
tury, when an Imperial law forbade its being
observed ai:y longer in the evening. It was
therefore transferred to the forenoon, the

memorial of the Master being now made to
precede the rest of the feast or meal which
took place in the church, not now before, or
at the same time with, but after the sacred
memory had been celebrated.

As time passed, the idea of remembrance
was supplemented and then superseded by
other ideas, some congenial to the original
idea, some not. Thanksgiving, feeding on
Christ, incorporation into His body, pledge
of our acceptance in Christ — all these belong
to the institution, and when dwelt upon did
not derogate from its primary signification
of remembrance. But in the Middle Ages the
commemoration of Christ's sacrifice came to
be lost in the supposed enactment of that sacri
fice upon the altar, and thus the paramount
purpose of the institution was frustrated.

At the Reformation, therefore, it was
necessary to emphasize once more the idea of
remembrance. This was done in the Church's
formularies and in the writings of her doctors.
In the Catechism she teaches that the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper was ordained "for the
continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the
death of Christ, and of the benefits which we
receive thereby," and that " a thankful remem
brance of Christ's death " is required of them
who come to the Lord's Supper. In the first
warning in the Communion Service she teaches
that the sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ is to be received by the religiously and
devoutly disposed "in remembrance of His
meritorious Cross and Passion." In the second
warning, that "it is our duty to receive the
Communion in remembrance of the sacrifice of
His death, as He Himself has commanded."
In the first exhortation at the time of the cele
bration of the Communion we find, " To the
end that we should always remember the ex
ceeding great love of our Master and only
Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and
the innumerable benefits which by His precious
blood-shedding He hath obtained to us ; He
hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries,
as pledges of His love, and for a continual re
membrance of His death, to our great and end
less comfort." In the Prayer of Consecration,
"Who did institute, and in His holy Gospel
command us to continue, a perpetual memory of
that His precious death until His coming again
. . . grant that we receiving these thy creatures
of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our
Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in re
membrance of His death and passion, may be
partakers of His most blessed body and blood."
In the form of reception, " Take and eat this
in remembrance that Christ died for thee,"
" Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood
was shed for thee."

In like manner the divines of the Church

REPENTANCE

[ 591 ]

RESERVATION

of England dwelt on the remembrance.
Bishop Jewel says that "We offer a com
memoration, a remembrance of the death of
Christ" (Reply to Harding). Bishop Bilson
declares the Supper to be "a public memorial
of that great and dreadful sacrifice, I mean,
of the death and blood - shedding of our
Saviour" (On Subjection). Bishop Buckeridge
says that "the Church keeps the memory of
Christ's offering in the sacrament, but she
does not reiterate the action or take upon her
to offer the body of Christ " (Discourse).
Mason teaches that the sacrament " is only
a commemoration and representation of the
sovereign Sacrifice of the Cross " ( Vindica
tion). Archbishop Laud, that " Christ did in
stitute and command a memory of the full
and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ in a
sacrament until His coming again" (Confer
ence). Bishop Hall, that " there is here a
remembrance of a sacrifice, a memorial of
Christ's Passion, celebrated in the Church"
(No Peace with Rome). Bishop Cosin, that
"we only make a commemoration or represen
tation, toties quoties, as often as we celebrate
this His sacrament and observe the precept
which He gave us about it " (Notes). Ham
mond, that "the end of Christ's instituting
this sacrament was on purpose that we might,
at set times, frequently and constantly re
turning, remember and commemorate before
God aud men this sacrifice of the death of
Christ" (Catechism).

The sense of the English Church is best
expressed in the following short sentence of
Bishop Andrewes : "That a memory is there
made of the sacrifice, we grant willingly ;
that Jesus Christ, made of bread, is sacrificed
there, we will never grant " (Resp. ad Bellarm.).

[F. M.]

REPENTANCE.— Two Greek words are used
in the New Testament for "repentance," viz.,
jueTayuAeia(metameleia), signifying after-concern,
i.e. regret for past errors, and fj.eTa.voia (raeta-
noia), meaning after-thought, after-knowledge,
and hence change of mind. These two allied
words express the double mental process in
repentance. After-concern implies change of
mind; change of mind from wrong to right
implies after-concern or regret. Amendment
of life must form part of any true repentance.
The Romish idea of penance is something-
quite different. The central thought in that
doctrine is the performance of something
difficult or distasteful, or the enduring of
something painful, as satisfaction for sin.
See SATISFACTION ; PENANCE.

BE -PRESENT.— This word has been lately in
vented to signify that in the Lord's Supper the
"priest" "re-presents," or presents over again,
Christ's " blood shed for the remission of sins."

REQUIEM (Latin, "rest").— A mass or service
for the dead. The name is taken from the
first word of the Introit in the Roman Office,
which commences "Requiem seternam dona
eis, Domine " (" Grant them eternal rest, 0
Lord").

REQUIESCAT IN PACE.— This simple wish,
or prayer (abbreviated in the form R.I. P.), for
the refreshment of souls, was for ages offered
up for such only as were supposed to be "in
peace " with Christ, and with the object of
keeping their names in remembrance. See
DIPTYCHS. It has, however, been abused, and
turned into an argument for prayers for the
dead in general, and as conveying the idea of
a general salvation after death for professing
Christians who have been unmindful of God
during their life on earth. The phrase was,
however, used both in the indicative (rcquiescit)
as well as in the subjunctive or optative mood
(requiescat) in heathen epitaphs, and used
there with no reference to what we call the
soul, but in reference to the body. Dr. Wright's
remarks on Jewish inscriptions in the Cata
combs and on pagan inscriptions over the
dead (chap. iv. § 4 in the Intermediate State
and Prayers for the Dead), although not
exhaustive, may be profitably consulted on
this subject. While the offering up of prayers
on behalf of the soul cannot be proved to be
a general instinct of man, the longing desire
has been ever expressed in all ages that the
dead body might be left "in peace," and not
disturbed in its last earthly resting-place.
See DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE.

[C. H. H. W.]

REREDOS. — An ornamental screen of stone,
wood, &c., erected behind the Communion
Table. Sculptured figures on a reredos are
allowable for the purpose of decoration only,
i.e. if they have not been, or are not likely to
be, treated with superstitious reverence.

RESERVATION.— A keeping back some of
the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord's
Supper for the purpose of (1) administering
it to the absent, or (2) forming a supposed
local presence of Christ in a church for
adoration.

The two purposes specified above are essen
tially different ; but since the introduction of
the medieval tenet of the Objective Presence
of Christ in the bread and wine, no reserva
tion for the first purpose can take place
without the risk, and almost the certainty,
of its being used for the second purpose.

1. In the first century, as the converts to
Christianity ate their Sunday evening meal,
in the course of which bread and wine were
blessed in memory of Christ's body and blood
by the presiding presbyter, and delivered to
the guests by the deacon, it seemed hard

RESERVATION

[ 592 ]

RESERVATION

that if persecution or sickness kept a brother
away, he should lose his share of the memorial
food ; so the deacon kept by him portions of
the consecrated bread and wine, and carried
them to any such sufferer immediately after
the evening meal, as soon ,as opportunity
offered. This showed the absent brother
that he was not forgotten by his assembled
brethren, and that he was acknowledged by
them as a fellow Christian, taking part, as
far as he could, in the memorial ordered by
the Lord. Portions were also occasionally
sent to the members of other congregations in
token of communion. It might be thought
that better ways of exhibiting mutual affec
tion might have been found, but as long as
the bread and wine were regarded as no more
than types or symbols of Christ's body and
blood given in His love for man, no harm
followed. But when the imagination of the
unlettered converts from among the barba
rians, that the bread and wine actually became
Christ's body and blood, succeeded in per
meating the Church, grave evils arose. If
these things were not what they seemed, bread
and wine set apart for a sacred purpose, but
the body and blood of Christ, nay, after the
eleventh century, the person of Christ, how
were they to be treated ? In the ninth
century, when Paschasius Radbert had first
given expression in writing to the new idea,
we first hear of a pyx being set upon the
altar to hold the Lord's body during such
time as had to intervene between the celebra
tion of the Lord's Supper and its delivery
to a sick person (Labbe, ConciL, viii. 34).
Not even yet had the idea of worshipping
it, while thus "stored," arisen. That would
come. Why not, if it was Christ ? And
when it was moved from the pyx to be
carried abroad, with what ceremonial should
it be carried ? Under the old system, when
the old belief prevailed, no ceremony at all
was used. A deacon took it (Justin), or a
boy (Euseb., vi., 44), in a wicker basket and
a glass (Jerome, Epist., xv.). But not so now.
Now Christ, in the form of the piece of
bread, must be conveyed, or must proceed,
sometimes with the sound of bells and sing
ing, to visit the sick, sometimes in kingly
state for His royal progresses, to receive the
adoration of His subjects, and returning, He
must be "exposed" on the altar for the
worship of the congregation (first practised
in 1627), and finally (still in the form of
the piece of bread) give His blessing to the
worshippers

The arguments by which some Ritualists
have attempted to recover the practice of Re
servation have been singularly disingenuous.
They represent themselves as pleading the

cause of the sick poor, which they know
will appeal to a sentiment of compassion. In
doing this, they first refer to a canon of the
Council of Nicaea, to prove the necessity of a
death-bed communion. They are not justified
in doing so. It is only those who have been
excommunicated for life, or for a long and
unexhausted period, whom the Council orders
to be thus received back to the peace of
the Church before death ; it says nothing
of any others. Next, they profess that the
sick will in large towns be deprived of this
privilege through lack of time on the part
of the minister, unless he has the elements
already consecrated. But the prayer of con
secration occupies one and a half minutes,
and they cannot venture to profess themselves
such advocates of the ex opere operate theory
as to say that they would administer without
a prayer of some kind before doing so, and
the substituted prayer or prayers would take
as long as the prayer of consecration. Then
they deny that they can find a proper place.
But no one can doubt that if they can find
a place for reverent administration, they can
find a place for the consecration.

In matter of fact, it is not in the interests
of the sick poor, but of themselves, that
these flimsy objections are urged by them
For they hold that if they consecrate, they
must themselves receive the body and blood
of Christ, in order to consummate the sacrifice
which is not otherwise completed ; but if
they receive they must be fasting. For they
have taught their followers that this is a
necessary qualification for receiving (though
not one of the apostles or their contempor
aries so received), and for very shame they
must be therefore fasting themselves, and
this they find very disagreeable if the com
munion takes place late in the day ; and if
they are unexpectedly asked to minister to
a sick person after they have had their
breakfast, they are in their own estimation
disqualified, and have to defer the service
to the next day. If the sick person thus
loses the benefit of the rite, it is not the
rule of the Church of England, but the super
stitious imagination of the minister that is
at fault. A further reason which weighs with
the Ritualist is that Reservation is the Roman
method of communicating the sick, and the
other is the Anglican way, and therefore to
be avoided. Probably, too, he agrees with the
Roman rule that he ought not to " celebrate "
except upon an altar ; and to carry with him
and set up a portable altar on each occasion
would be troublesome and difficult, even if
he could get his portable altar consecrated
and prepared. The priest is saved all these
disagreeables if he carries with him the re-

RESERVED CASES

[ 593 ]

RESURRECTION BODY

served elements and has not to consecrate
afresh.

2. Beyond all this, the necessity of adminis
tering to the sick, we must fear, is sometimes
but a plea put forward to get permission to
keep the consecrated elements in the church,
to form a localised presence of Christ and
serve as an object of worship. And so, by
this side-door, comes in the whole system of
Adoration of the Sacrament, the Quaranta Ore,
or Forty Hours' worship of it, the Perpetual
Adoration of it, its Exposition, and the Bene
diction given by it.

Happily the prelates of the Church, in the
Convocation of Canterbury, with greater firm
ness than they have always displayed, declared
in 1885, " that the practice of Reservation is
contrary to the wise and carefully revised
order of the Church of England as expressed
in the Book of Common Prayer," and that
" no Reservation for any purpose is consistent
with the rule of the Church of England "
(Journal of Convocation, Feb. 3, 1885). And
the two archbishops, speaking for the whole
body of bishops, refused in 1900 to admit any
tampering with that prohibition. [F. M.]
RESERVED CASES.— See MOKAL THEOLOGY.
RESURRECTION BODY OF CHRIST.—
Certain points are clear (a) That Christ's body
was really material. It could be handled (Luke
xxiv. 39, 40 ; John xx. 17, 20, 25 ; Matt, xxviii. 9).
He Himself affirmed that He had flesh and bones
(Luke xxiv. 39), and to set all doubts at rest,
took a piece of a broiled fish and did eat
before His disciples (Luke xxiv. 42, 43). (6)
Christ was recognizably the same after His resur
rection. He bore in His body, visibly present,
the marks of crucifixion (John xx. 20, 25). So
convinced were His followers of His identity
that the one who knew Him best declares,
"That which we have heard, that which we
have seen with our eyes, that which we
beheld, and our hands have handled . . .
declare we" (1 John i. 1-3). (c) Though the
body was similar, it was greatly altered. It dis
played entire independence of the laws of
matter to which men are subject. It suddenly
appears, and as suddenly vanishes away. It
recks nothing of bolts and bars, and presents
itself to the disciples in the upper room where
they were assembled with shut doors for fear
of the Jews. It could wing its way, as on
eagle's pinions, from place to place ; it could
render itself invisible or visible at will. Christ's
resurrection body, therefore, though outwardly
similar to the body that was laid in the grave,
must have differed from it in fineness of texture,
and, probably, also in essential qualities.

What is the Bible conception of the resur
rection body ? The classical passage upon this
subject is in 1 Cor. xv. 35-44, 50-54. We are

taught there the following truths : 1st. That
the buried body and the resurrection body are not
particle for particle identical. " Thou sowest
not that body that shall be, but bare grain."
2nd. Though not identical they are closely related.
" Every seed " has " its own body." Personal
identity is preserved whatever the change that
takes place in the body. We shall be recog-
nisably the same persons, and no one shall be
so altered that the eye of affection shall not
be able to detect the personality of the be
loved, however glorified the outward form.
We shall know as we are known, no longer
through the obscuring medium of these natural
bodies, which hide almost as much as they
reveal the inner man, but directly and unmis
takably through the spiritual body, the ex
press image and index of the spiritual being.
3rd. God has unlimited power and can clothe the
spirit in any form suitable to its environment.
He is not tied to one kind of flesh. Even
within the range of our limited experience we
see all sorts of flesh employed in the structure
of God's creatures. " All flesh is not the same
flesh ; there is one kind of flesh of men, an
other flesh of beasts," &c., &c. He can adapt
the lowliest of His creatures to their habitat.
Why should He not be able to give man a new
body for the new and higher life into which
death will usher him ? Nay, more : look at
the infinite variety in the heavens above us.
" There are bodies celestial as well as bodies
terrestrial," and as great diversity obtains
among all the heavenly bodies as amongst the
earthly. " There is one glory of the sun," &c.
These show the endless resources of God.
You cannot exhaust the forms in which nature
may shape itself. Matter is capable of every
variety of texture and pattern, of every degree
of elevation, from the most lowly types to the
highest organisms, and of every shade of splen
dour, from the humbler glory of the earthly to
the greater glory of the shining heavens, from
the twinkling of the stars to the sun, " centre
and sire of light." Why may matter not rise
higher still in the scale ? What hinders God to
turn the natural into the spiritual ? 4th. There
is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.
The word " natural " is a word derived from
$VXTI, which means "life," the life that man
has in common with the animals. It is some
times rendered " soul," but it means the prin
ciple of animal life, whether in man or in the
inferior animals. On the other hand, 'the word
" spiritual " is derived from Trvev/jia, which sig
nifies the higher principle, the spiritual nature,
distinguishing man from the lower orders of
being. The apostle means, when he speaks of
the present body as " natural " or " psychical,"
that it is appropriate as the organ of the animal
life that man now possesses, the fit instrument

2 p

RESURRECTION BODY

[ 594 ]

RESURRECTION BODY

for performing the various functions that his
earthly environment requires. When he speaks
of a " spiritual body," he means one fitted to
be the instrument of man's higher nature.
Man's present body is but, at the best, an
imperfect medium for expressing his noblest
desires. It is an inadequate vehicle of his
thought. It is not infrequently a check on
his aspirations, and the too ready vehicle of
ignoble feelings. It has to be carefully kept
in hand, and the flesh with its affections and
lusts has to be crucified. But there is a
"spiritual body," exactly fitted to be the ex
ponent of man's highest and best. This body
will be wholly the servant of the spiritual
nature. It will be its exact counterpart, " per
fectly correspondent to the soul's majestic
wants, and permanently allied with the soul's
majestic capacity." This body will be "im
mortal " ; it will be freed from the shackles of
the flesh and blood which hamper us here.
" Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God." It will have no appetites to gratify
except the hunger and thirst after righteous
ness, and no infirmities to overcome : it will
be conformed unto Christ's body of glory
(Philip, iii. 21).

Such appears to be the Bible doctrine of the
resurrection body, and the Kisen Christ Him
self is the supreme illustration of mortality
putting on immortality, of the " natural " be
coming the " spiritual." " He is the first-fruits
of them that sleep," the first of a long series
of similar resurrections. We learn, therefore,
(1) what the future life means for us; not a
disembodied existence, nor yet the mere re
union, after a brief separation, of the old body,
soul, and spirit ; not the casting away of the
body, but its quickening in newness of life
and power ; not the utter abandonment of our
humanity, but its transfiguration and corona
tion. As Christ, the true Brother, remained,
though Christ according to the flesh was lost,
so the world to come will mean for us, not
complete severance from the past, but the per
petuation and glorification of all that is best
in this earthly present. Death will work a
mighty change, and yet not so great as to
destroy our personal identity or obliterate the
sweet memories and fellowships of earth.

(2) Further, we see how impossible it is to
hold the sacramentarian notion that "in the
most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is
truly, really, and substantially the body and
blood ... of our Lord Jesus Christ," as the
Creed of Pope Pius IV. avers. You cannot
speak of the " conversion of the whole sub
stance of the wine into the blood " now, because
Christ's body now is a " body of glory," and
must be devoid of blood, inasmuch as "flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

(3) Lastly, we have many arguments for per
sonal immortality, but we have only one proof: —
Christ Himself — the actual Risen Lord — is the
one absolute guarantee that we possess of life
beyond. He became and ever will be "the
Resurrection and the Life." In His own person
He solved the problem of death, and " brought
life and immortality to light." He grappled
with death Himself, descended into the depths
of the 'grave, laid Himself at the feet of the
king of terrors, and, just when death seemed
to have Him at its mercy, its pitiless heel upon
His neck, in a moment death is swallowed up
in victory. Now that Christ has died and risen
again, personal immortality is no mere hope
however alluring, or inference, however pro
bable, or promise, however precious, but a
demonstrated certainty, and Christ Himself is
its proof, its pattern, and its pledge.

[G. H.]

It should, however, be borne in mind, al
though we are inclined to adopt the hypothesis
of believers receiving at the Resurrection a
bloodless body, that it is unsatisfactory to rest
the proof of that point on the phraseology used
by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 50. It certainly looks
that way, especially as followed by the words,
"neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
But the use of " flesh and blood " in Matt.
xvi. 17, and in Gal. i. 1G, prevents us putting
too great an emphasis on that expression, or
contrasting it, as Dr. Candlish does in his
Fatherhood of God, with " flesh and bones," as
used in Luke xxiv. 39. After the Resurrection
our Lord proved the reality of His Resurrection
by showing the marks on His hands and feet
and side, and by partaking of food. But the
latter fact is also recorded, in cases like Gen.
xviii. 8, of God and angels, which prevent stress
being laid on Luke xxiv. 39, as to the exact
nature of the Resurrection body. The Church
of England is somewhat incautious in speak
ing positively of the blood being raised in
Article IV. and in the Black Rubric. But we
are in the dark as to such points, and must
be content to remain so.

It is too often taken for granted that our
Lord on the evening of His Resurrection actu
ally passed through the doors of the place
where the disciples were assembled, without
those doors having been opened. But that
is not stated by St. Luke (xxiv. 36-42) nor
even by St. John (xx. 19). It should be re
membered that an angel is said to have rolled
back the stone in the morning which closed
the sepulchre (Matt, xxviii. 2). Cannot John
xx. 19 be explained in the same manner ? The
learned George Stanley Faber, in his Many
Mansions, argued from those texts that Christ's
Resurrection body was capable of changing by
a pure act of volition from a state of " material

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 595 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

solidity to material tenuity," and even main
tained that angelic bodies possessed similar
powers, citing Acts xii. 6-11, which passage
gives a very different impression. Such argu
ments are, like those mentioned before, far too
fine-drawn.

The point is of importance in face of the old
Lutheran doctrine of the communicutio idio-
matum, which taught that the Resurrection
body partook of some of the attributes of
divinity, and that doctrine had an important
bearing upon the doctrine of consubstantiation
(see CONSUBSTANTIATION). We must avoid
all subtleties unwarranted by Scripture which
assist in supporting such "strange doctrines."
The true doctrine of the Resurrection requires
us to affirm that Christ's Resurrection body
(quoad body) is contained in space, and has
not the quality of ubiquity, that it was in such
particulars a true human body, though glorified,
and we must avoid entering into details con
cerning which no information has been im
parted. [C. H. H. W.]
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.— For the
purposes of this article we shall take for
granted the authenticity of the Gospel narra
tives — excepting the closing verses of St.
Mark's Gospel (xvi. 9-20), which are wanting
in some of the best manuscripts — of 1 Cor
inthians, and of 1 Peter ; and we shall limit
ourselves to an outline of the argument for
the historic certainty of the Resurrection, to
an examinaton of the alleged contradictions
contained in the testimony of the Gospels,
and to a brief statement of the Bible doctrine
of the Resurrection body.

I. NOTICE, FIRST OF ALL, THE HISTOBIC
CERTAINTY OF THE RESURRECTION. It is not

a mere dream, or sentiment, or hope, with
some measure of justification ; it is a historic
occurrence, subject to the laws of evidence
like any other historic occurrence, and de
mands the most merciless investigation. The
witnesses to it, if they are not speaking
truth, have either invented the story of the
Resurrection, or been themselves deceived ;
they were either deliberate impostors, or mis
taken, though honest men.

(1) We have to examine the contention that the
witnesses were conscious hypocrites.

The first difficulty in the way of accepting
this theory, which is now practically aban
doned by unbelieving critics, though Renan to
some extent revives it in Les Apdtres, is the
difficulty of suggesting any adequate motive
for such action on the part of the disciples.
What could they hope to gain by their con
tinued allegiance to a crucified Nazarene ?
As a matter of fact, what did they gain but
worldly loss and relentless persecution ? How
shall we account for their boldness in standing

before a Jerusalem mob and, at the imminent
risk of their lives, telling the infuriated
people of their inexcusable guilt in slaying
the "Lord of glory"; or for their eagerness
to preach a gospel of love and forgiveness,
wherever they could secure a hearing ; or for
their readiness to die as martyrs for the cause
that they held so sacred, except on the hypo
thesis of their entire honesty ?

The second difficulty is this, that if the
disciples concocted the story of the Resur
rection, the enemies of Christ had the refuta
tion of the falsehood in their own hands.
They had taken care to hold Christ's body in
the grave, and had appointed a guard of
Roman soldiers to keep the sepulchre from
being rifled. Why did they not, when the
disciples proclaimed their Master's Resurrec
tion, produce the bruised and battered corpse
and end at once and for ever the conspiracy to
impose upon the world ? If the body was not
forthcoming, what had become of it? Whither
had it vanished ? The enemies of Christ
would not have removed it, and the friends
of Christ could not. What had become
of it?

The crude Jewish theory (Matt, xxviii.
11-15) was that the disciples had gone, while
the soldiers who were guarding the tomb
were sleeping, and had stolen the body. But
it is self -condemned, because it is unlikely
that all the soldiers would be sound asleep at
one and the same time, or that some one or
more would not be roused from slumber by
the noise that would necessarily be made in
the rolling away of the stone from the en
trance to the grave, and the removal of the
body ; moreover, how could men who were,
on their own admission, fast asleep when the
alleged stealing of the corpse took place, tell
who came or what was done ? But the story
circulated by the Jews bears witness to the fact
that the grave was found empty, and that the
authorities were at their wits' end to account
for the mysterious disappearance of the body.
Infidelity never has fairly faced the simple,
incontestable fact of the empty grave.
Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) dismisses as
utterly inadequate the usual infidel explana
tions of the empty grave, viz. (1) "the removal
of the body by persons whose action had no
connection with the question of a Resurrec
tion ; " (2) the removal of the body by the
enemies of the Christians " in order that it
might not receive the veneration of His fol
lowers ; " (3) the removal of the body by
the disciples themselves ; (4) the sudden dis
appearance of the body in a chasm opened by
the earthquake mentioned by Matthew. The
last theory he terms a "mere refuge of
despair."

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 596 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

What is his own rationalistic explanation to
get rid of the miracle of the Resurrection ?
He pronounces both the watch at the sepulchre
and the empty grave unhistorical ! This is
cutting the Gordian knot with a vengeance,
and a rather striking example of the method
in which certain critics get rid of inconvenient
facts. But why is the " watch " unhistorical
according to Schmiedel ? it is "absolutely
excluded" by the women's question, "Who
will roll us away the stone?" "they have no
apprehensions about the watch, only about the
stone." Above all, Roman soldiers could not
have been induced to admit that they had
fallen asleep by any bribe or promise of im
munity. On such convincing (!) grounds
Schmiedel asks us to reject the story of the
guard at the sepulchre. And why is the empty
sepulchre unhistorical? Because, forsooth,
the Apostle Paul does not refer explicitly to it.
That he knew of it, we are told, "can be
maintained only in conjunction with the
assumption that for particular reasons he kept
silence regarding it." Such is the flimsy
foundation on which this latest critic rests his
denial of the historicity of those particular
portions which happen not to fit in with his
theory of "subjective visions." His own ex
planation is as much a "refuge of despair" as
those which he condemns.

Thirdly, the transparent simplicity of their
narrative is against the theory that the dis
ciples were guilty of fraud. Their testimony
is direct, unadorned. They never conceal the
doubts that they themselves felt at first.
They never attempt to trick out the narra
tive with any comments of their own. There
is no pandering to human curiosity ; no en
larging on matters which offered abundant
scope for the exercise of the imagination, if
the disciples had been intent only on telling
a tale to deceive their readers or hearers.
There are great gaps in the narrative which the
witnesses leave between Christ's various appear
ances, without any attempt to explain where
Jesus went in the intervals, or how He was
employed. Yet, surely, if they were inventing
the story of His appearances they had ample
room just there for the free play of their
fancy and the satisfaction of human curiosity.
This self-restraint of the writers is inexplicable
if the disciples were mere dreamers or story
tellers. On the morning of the day of Resur
rection, Christ meets the women and makes
Himself known to them ; there is only the
briefest account of the interview, though the
imagination of a story-teller might well have
lingered over its details. On the evening of
the day He suddenly presents Himself to the
eleven and shows them His hands and His feet.
Then follows a week of unbroken silence ;

there is no attempt to fill in the interval with
any suggestions as to Christ's whereabouts or
doings. So it is right through to the end of
the story. In the fewest possible words, with
out rhetoric or parade, the most transcendent
facts are narrated. Yet, surely, if the story
were a fiction, its authors would have tried to
be more picturesque and detailed in their
treatment. They missed a great opportunity
of graphic writing. The naive simplicity of
the story is its best defence. If the story
were an invention, then, surely, the imagination
that was vivid enough to give us what we
already possess would have been able and
likely to furnish us with more.

Fourthly, the number of witnesses was very
large (the apostle Paul speaks of 500), yet not
one ever recanted or qualified his testimony.
Surely some one of them would have been
induced by bribe or threat to reveal the story
of the plot to deceive mankind, and if such
recantation or qualification could have been
procured, it would most certainly have been
widely placarded at the time, and carefully
preserved in contemporary records. But you
search in vain for any such disclosures. If
there was any conspiracy to deceive, the secret
has been well kept.

Finally, we ask what could have put it into
the heads of these disciples of Jesus to play
such a trick ? How did it ever occur to them
that they could overturn existing religions,
and establish one of their own invention ?
They were not by nature either very brave or
large-hearted. In the crisis of their Master's
fortunes they "all forsook Him," leaving Him
to His fate ; they were so narrow in their
sympathies that they refused to have any
dealings whatever with their Samaritan kins
folk, and looked on Gentiles as pariahs outside
the pale of mercy. Such was their character
during their Master's lifetime ; and we should
have thought that after He withdrew the in
spiration of His bodily presence they would
be quick to revert to their old life and obliterate
the memory of their adhesion to a discredited
and outcast Rabbi. But the very reverse is
the fact. No sooner does Jesus vanish from
earth than these narrow-minded bigots and
cowards spring up in extraordinary eagerness
to proclaim their undying confidence in Jesus
Christ whom men had crucified, but whom
they affirmed to be alive. They come to enter
tain the largest hopes for mankind, and believe
that they have authority to "make disciples
of all nations." How did this thought arise
in their minds? What gave it permanence
and vitality ? How did it happen that these
plain untutored provincials were able to com
pile a book of testimony to Christ which is it
self a great literary, as well as moral and

EESUREECTION OF CHRIST [ 597 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

spiritual phenomenon, indeed, the miracle of
literature without rival or second as regards
either the depth or the extent of its influence ?
How can we account for the sudden and remark
able change in these men's temper and capa
city ? They say that it was due to the Spirit of
the living Christ. Is it not entirely likely?
Something as great as the Resurrection of
Christ must be postulated to explain the trans
formation effected in, and the power exhibited
by, the disciples. They acted, wrote, laboured,
suffered, precisely like men who had felt the
thrill of some heavenly energy.

(2) The suggestion that the ivitncsscs were the
victims of delusion, mere visionaries carried away
by their exuberant fancy, is open to equally con
clusive objections. — Renan traces back belief in
the Resurrection to Mary Magdalene, whom
he regards as a highly emotional and suscep
tible creature, whose hysterical temperament
gave form and substance to some creation
of her fancy. Strauss and Pfleiderer lay
the chief responsibility for the belief on St.
Paul, who was, they say, subject to epileptic
attacks, and in one of these seizures thought
he saw the Jesus of the Christians coming in
the clouds. He was a morbidly conscientious
man, we are told, and had many misgivings as
to the righteousness of the persecution of the
Christians in which he was engaged. The
appearance of Christ was nothing but the
creation of his own accusing conscience, and
a brain enfeebled by disease. Schmiedel con
cedes — and for so much we may be thankful —
that the disciples were sincere believers in
their own story, and says, "it is undeniable
that the Church was founded . . . upon the
belief in the Resurrection"; "the followers
of Jesus really had the impression of having
seen Him." But he contends that the impres
sions were purely subjective ; that the visions
were the product of the disciples' own enthu
siasm. He gives what is called an analysis of
the workings of the Apostle Paul's mind, ending
in the vision on the way to Damascus. First
of all, Paul was deeply impressed by the evi
dent honesty, seriousness, and courage of the
persecuted Christians, and by the blameless-
ness of their lives, and the doubt began to
work in his soul, " what if they were right ? "
In the next place, he was far from satisfied
with his own faith. He had been a great de
votee of Judaism, but his piety had brought
him no real consolation. He had kept the
law rigidly, but his scrupulous obedience had
brought him no peace. Could obedience to
the law be the way of salvation? "What if
the Christians were right in their assertion
that the Crucified One was really the Messiah
through whom it was God's will to bring sal
vation to the world without insisting on the

fulfilment of the entire law ? " " It will not
be necessary to dwell upon the deeply agitating
effect such doubts must have produced in
Paul's inmost soul ; the vividness with which
the living figure so often described to him by
Christians must, time and again, have stood
before him, only to be banished as often by
the opposition of intellect, until, finally, only
too easily, there came a time when the image
of fancy refused any longer to yield to the
effort of thought." So Schmiedel (Encyclopedia
BiUica) resolves the experience of the apostle
into a subjective impression. The vision that
he had of Christ was the result of the work
ings of his own mind, caused partly by his
dissatisfaction with Judaism, and partly by the
impressiveness of the persecuted Christians'
demeanour and testimony. Such is the theory,
but even supposing it did account for the
apostle's conversion, it itself rests upon
what equally requires explanation, the cour
ageous bearing of the persecuted disciples, the
integrity of their moral character, and the
evident honesty of their faith. How are we
to explain them ? How did they become what
this theory requires, such earnest and devoted
men, that their sincerity and dauntlessness
profoundly impressed such a bigot as Paul?
Were they also the victims of some delusion ?

The objections to all such theories of
hallucination are many and conclusive.

The number of witnesses was very large.
One excitable disciple might take up the
notion that he had had a vision of the risen
Christ, and by the very persistency of his belief
in the reality of the apparition might
communicate his faith to others as ill-balanced
as himself. But the case is altered when we
find not only one or two, but hundreds, bearing
witness to the Resurrection. Is it likely that
whole companies of men, of different tempera
ments, capacity of mind and powers of vision,
should all be victimised at one and the same
time by a phantom or fancy ?

These witnesses had every opportunity of
verifying their conclusions. Every sense that
they possessed was brought into play in
identifying their Master. They saw the Lord,
they talked with Him, they ate with Him, they
were even asked to put their fingers into the
print of the nails and their hand into the open
wound in His side. Sight, hearing, touch
combined to testify to His reality. Now,
when the eye helps the ear, and the ear the
eye, and the hand helps both, in arriving at
conclusions as to the existence of external
objects, there is little risk of mistake. If the
disciples' testimony rested on the evidence of
only one sense, it would be more open to
suspicion ; but based as it is on the evidence
of several senses, it cannot be fairly challenged

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 598 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

except by those who think all men knaves or
fools but themselves.

So far from the witnesses being credu
lous and gullible people, they were ex
ceedingly difficult to persuade. They had
no expectation of seeing their Master again.
The two disciples who were found walking
to Emmaus were in the deepest dejection,
as though all was lost when their Master was
taken. The women brought spices, not to
anoint the living, but to embalm the dead
Christ, and were amazed to find the grave
empty ; and when they returned, declaring
that they had " seen a vision of angels," the
men laughed at them and their "idle tales."
Mary was quite surprised to find herself
addressed by the man whom she mistook for
the gardener — who else could be there at that
early hour ?— in the old familiar tones.
Thomas refused to take any evidence at second
hand, and declared that nothing would satisfy
him but a close personal inspection of the very
body of Jesus. So far from the disciples being
moved by their feelings to expect the Resur
rection, they were totally unprepared for it,
and required the fullest demonstration of it.

Many of the witnesses were exceedingly
intimate with the Lord ; some were His
relations and knew Him from childhood ; some
lived for two or three years in close intercourse
with Him. They knew His every look, tone,
gesture. It would have been exceedingly
difficult for any one to personate Him, even if
any one had any particular ambition to person
ate a despised and crucified Nazarene Rabbi.
Certainly no one could easily have simulated
the piercing of the nails and the open gash in
the side.

Only a brief interval lay between the
crucifixion and the alleged resurrection. If
years, or even months, had intervened between
the disciples' parting from their Master and
His return, there might have been risk of their
forgetting what He was like ; but only two or
three days elapsed between His death and
rising again ; their recollection of their Master
was fresh, clear, and unmistakable ; confusion
was impossible.

Now, if the disciples were neither deceivers
nor deceived, neither liars nor simpletons,
what follows ? "The Lord is risen indeed."
The Christ, who was crucified between two
thieves as though He were the chief criminal
of the three ; the Christ in whose side, in its
most vital part, a Roman pilum with a broad
four-inch head was plunged, making a wound
so deep and wide that a man's hand could
be ^thrust therein ; the Christ, whose body,
swathed in the raiment of the grave, was laid
in a tomb, Carefully guarded by a picket of
soldiers, has buTSt the bonds of death and

opened the gates of heaven to all believers.
The physical fact of death remains, but its
terror is gone. "Thanks be unto God, who
giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus
Christ!"1

II. ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO DIS
CREDIT THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS BY
EMPHASIZING THE DISCKEPANCIES THAT AP
PEAR TO EXIST IN THE TESTIMONY BORNE

BY THE WRITERS. Schmiedel, in his article
in the Encyclopedia Biblica, says : " These
(i.e. the Gospels) exhibit contradictions of
the most glaring kind," and proceeds to give
instances. Before examining his examples of
"glaring contradiction," it is well to bear in
mind the fact that sometimes in ordinary
history two accounts of the same occurrence
may appear to be in contradiction, and yet
a little fuller knowledge of the facts may
supply the link needful to bring them into
harmony. A few years ago there appeared
in the daily papers the announcement, some
what brief, of the death of the Duke of .

In one paper that we saw it was stated that
he committed suicide, in another that he had
died of fever. These two statements seemed
irreconcilable. The explanation came later.
It appeared that his Grace was suffering from
fever, and that during the temporary absence
of his attendant he had in his delirium got
hold of a pistol and shot himself. Fuller
knowledge explained the discrepancy. There
fore, before alleging contradiction between wit
nesses, especially witnesses who are admitted
to be absolutely sincere men, as Schmiedel
allows the disciples to be, we are to ask our
selves, is there no possible explanation of the
apparent differences ? If there be even a pos
sible explanation, justice to men admittedly
honourable requires us to accept a provisional
solution of the difficulty ; and even where we
can see no possibility of disentanglement, it
may be, as in the case just cited, that some
single fact unknown to us would completely
solve the puzzle. But in any case the bona fides
of the witnesses is a presumption in their
favour, and should move us to seek for agree
ment rather than disagreement in their testi
mony. Let us deal now with the alleged
contradictions.

We are told that the account in Matt,
(xxvii. 62-66; xxviii. 4, 11-13) of the watch
and seal set upon the sepulchre and of the
bribing of the soldiers of the -watch, is opposed
to the narrative in Mark and Luke ; these
stories, it is stated, are " excluded by the re
presentation of the women as intending to

1 See Dr. Wm. Milligan's article on the
Resurrection of Christ in Fairbairn's Bib,
Dictionary.

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 599 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

anoint the body, and (in Mark at least) as fore
seeing difficulty only in the weight of the
stone, not in the presence of a military guard."
Now, in answer, we have to say : (1) That,
if the women make no mention, in their anti
cipation of difficulty, of the guard of soldiers,
why should we assume that they knew any
thing at all about the setting of the watch ?
They had gone away to their own homes be
fore the watch was sent, late on Friday even
ing, and started preparing spices for the proper
embalming of the Lord's body after the Sab
bath was over. They rested, as pious Jewesses,
all the Sabbath. We have no reason to sup
pose that after leaving the tomb on Friday
night they visited it again until Sunday morn
ing early, and in consequence, they may have
been quite ignorant of the arrangements made
by the authorities for the guarding of the
grave. This is a perfectly possible, almost
probable, explanation of their silence about
the military guard. (2) Even if they had
heard of the guard placed over the sepulchre,
their very simplicity might have led them
to think that somehow or other they could
obtain the consent of the soldiers to discharge
this last office to the dead. Love does not
always reason well, and a little allowance must
be made for the excitement and intensity of
feeling under which these women were labour
ing. They were not phlegmatic critics looking
at affairs from the outside, but humble women,
stricken with grief, whose spiritual hopes were
buried in the grave of Jesus.

Luke and Mark are said to be in contra
diction because the former (xxiii. 54, 56) says
that the women got ready their spices before
sunset on Friday, and the latter (xvi. 1) that
they bought them after sunset on Saturday.
But may there not have been two purchases,
either by the same women at different times
or by two groups of women, the one set making
the purchase on Friday, the other on Satur
day ? Is it incredible that the supply first
procured was found insufficient and had to be
supplemented ? Is it impossible that two sets
of women may have gone on the same errand
at different times ? We have simply no right
to assume contradiction until we have ex
hausted every conceivable explanation ; and if
we can suggest even a fairly reasonable solu
tion the allegation of contradiction is ruled
out of court.

John speaks of the body of Jesus as
already embalmed (xix. 38-40). Why then
should the women prepare spices ? Had thej
not seen Joseph and Nicodemus making ready
the corpse for burial in the usual way, and
laying it, wrapped in a fine linen cloth, in the
grave ? So runs the objection. We reply,
there is no necessary contradiction. (1) Be

cause, lirst of all, it is quite doubtful whether
or not the women were witnesses of the actual
embalming of the body by the hands of Joseph
and Nicodemus, for it is highly improbable
that the operation was carried out in the
public gaze ; and we are told that " the women
from Galilee stood afar off, seeing these things "
(Luke xxiii. 49). They may not have been
aware that the body was embalmed, even
though they may have been able to make out
that it was wrapped in linen ; nor could they
have easily surmised that Joseph and Nico
demus, whose discipleship hitherto had been
a carefully kept secret, would be at pains to
pay much respect to a crucified Nazarene.
(2) In the second place, it is quite clear that
whatever embalming was attempted must have
been hurriedly done, as there was but a short
space of time between the taking down of
the corpse from the cross and the commence
ment of the Jewish Sabbath. John (xix. 42)
refers to the haste with which the body had
to be interred in the nearest available spot.
Is it unreasonable to suppose that the women
wished to supplement the (presumably) rough-
and-ready work of Joseph and Nicodemus,
and reverently re-embalm the form that they
loved so well ? It is a perfectly natural ex
planation.

John speaks of Nicodemus as well as
Joseph caring for the body (xix. 39, &c.) ; the
Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 59 ; Mark xv. 45, 46 ;
and Luke xxiii. 53) only refer to Joseph. But
the mere fact that only one is mentioned does
not exclude the possibility of two being pre
sent. There is certainly no contradiction
between the fourth Gospel and the Synop
tists ; the fourth Gospel may be supplementary.
(c) Stress is laid on the fact that the ac
counts vary in their statements regarding the
persons who went to visit the grave on the
morning of the resurrection. Mark mentions
Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother) of James
and Salome ; Matthew, the two Marys ; Luke,
the two Marys, Joanna, and " the other women
with them " ; John, Mary Magdalene. It is to
be observed that the list of names in each
instance does not profess to be exhaustive.
Schtniedel reads into the text what is not there
when he declares that " according to Matthew,
only the two Marys," and "according to John,
only Mary Magdalene " came. To mention
only those who were the leaders does not ex
clude the presence of others. Thus, though
in John xx. 1 , Mary Magdalene is the only per
son mentioned by name, yet, in John xx. 2,
Mary, speaking apparently as the representa
tive of others, says, " We know not where they
have laid Him." On the other hand, in the
same chapter later (xx. 13, 15), she speaks as
one who was alone : " They have taken away

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 600 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

my Lord, and I know not where they have laid
Him. . . . Tell me where thou hast laid Him,
and I will take Him away." The "we know"
of verse 2 suggests that Mary Magdalene was
not alone when shejtfrsf came to the sepulchre ;
the " / know not " of verse 13 and the " / will
take Him away " suggest that later she was
standing alone by the grave weeping when
Christ appeared to her. The change from
the we to the / is significant. How shall
we combine these accounts in a consistent
whole ? Dr. John Morrison suggests a method
of reconciliation : "We must suppose — what is
perfectly natural — that there was a variety of
runnings to and fro. We may conceive the
case in some such way as the following — with
out, however, imagining that it embodies the
absolute historic truth. When the group of
women saw the open tomb and the angels,
Mary may instantly, in a kind of ecstatic be
wilderment, have turned on her heels to run
and carry word of the fact to the apostles.
By-and-by the other women would follow.
Ere long Peter and John would come running,
and then return. Mary, for a little season,
was alone near the sepulchre, and Jesus re
vealed Himself to her. By-and-by the other
women rejoined her, and Jesus appeared to them
all as they were on their way to the apostles.
There would be in all their bosoms not only
interest strung to the highest pitch, but ecstasy
and trepidation, and an impossibility of resting
anywhere longer than a few moments at a
time."

The variations as to the time of the visit
of the women to the sepulchre are alleged to
be irreconcilable. Luke says it was at " early
dawn"; Mark says it was "very early, when
the sun was risen " ; John says it was " early,
when it was yet dark." Matthew says it was
" late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn to
wards the first day of the week." Schmiedel
insists that " late on the Sabbath " (6\f/£ <ra.p-
pdruv) must mean the time about sunset, and
that, therefore, Matthew places the visit half
a day earlier than the others. It is quite clear,
however, that " late on the Sabbath " and "as
it began to dawn," &c., refer to the same time
(see Bruce, Expositor's Bible, in loco). '0^
crappdruv may be interpreted in three ways :
(1) '0\W may be taken as = " after." (2) Sa£-
pdrui' may be translated " week " and taken
as referring to the Passover week, and with
dye rendered " late in the week." (3) We may
assume that we have, in Matthew, not the
Jewish, but the civil mode of reckoning, and
that the day was viewed as beginning and end
ing with sunrise. But however we interpret
the phrase, we have the sure note of time in
the words "as it began to dawn," &c.

There is some little diversity in the accounts

which requires a word or two ; all agree that
it was very early on the first day of the week
but John says it was " while it was yet dark " ;
and Mark states that it was " very early," but
adds " when the sun had risen." Those who
have been in the East know how quickly the
day passes into night and night into day in
the tropics. It would not be easy, unless we
were taking most careful observations, to de
termine exactly whether an event took place
the moment before or the moment after the
dawn, while " it was yet dark " or " when the sun
had risen," the transition is so rapid. Besides,
it may have been quite dark when the women
started, and the sun may have risen just as
they were reaching the sepulchre. But to
argue, as Schmiedel does, that the narratives
are in glaring contradiction of one another
because of the slight differences, is simple
querulousness ; it is to demand a precision of
observation that might be right in an astro
nomer, but would be wholly out of place in
plain untutored women, and, indeed, would be
not a note of genuineness, but of the reverse.
All that could be fairly expected of such wit
nesses, under such conditions of excitement,
would be simply agreement as to the main
fact, that the visit was paid very early in the
morning. Such agreement we have, in spite
of Schmiedel's insistence that Matthew's " as
it began to dawn towards the first day " must
mean sunset and not sunrise.

"According to three of the Gospels, those
who went to the sepulchre found the stone
already rolled away, but, according to Matthew,
it was rolled back in the presence of the
women." Such is the objection. But Matthew
does not say that it was rolled back in the pre
sence of the women, though he does introduce
the story of the angel's descent, the rolling
back of the stone, and the scare of the keepers,
after he has stated that the women went to
see the sepulchre. It may be introduced at
this point to emphasize the contrast between
the terror of the military guard and the un
utterable joy of the women, or to explain how
it was that the tomb was found empty when
the women arrived. Furthermore, the aorist
(a-fia-fj.^ eyfrero) may be quite well rendered
"had taken place." Cf. Matt. xiv. 3, where
the aorist (Kpar^aas tSya-ev) is given in the R.V.
" had laid hold on and bound."

There is alleged to be a discrepancy in the
number of the angels : Matthew (xxviii. 2-7)
and Mark (xvi. 5-7) speak of only one angel;
whereas Luke (xxiv. 4-7) and John (xx. 12)
speak of two. Again, the positions assigned to
the angels are said to be at variance. In
Matthew (xxviii. 5) the angel seems to be out
side, but in Mark (xvi. 5) inside. In Luke the
two angels appear after the women have en-

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 601 ] RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

tered the sepulchre ; in John, Mary Magdalene
finds them already there. Further, a discre
pancy is found in the instructions given to the
women by the angels. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke agree in reporting the angels as saying,
"He is not here: He is risen"; but whereas
Matthew and Mark represent the angel as
bidding the women to summon the disciples
to meet Jesus in Galilee, Luke entirely omits
to record this command and appointment, and
inserts what Matthew and Mark fail to recall,
the allusion to Christ's prediction (" Remember
how He spake unto you," &c.) of His death
and resurrection.

Still further, there is alleged to be discrep
ancy in the accounts of the women's fulfilment
of their instructions. According to Matthew
(xxviii. 8), they " ran to bring the disciples
word"; according to Luke (xxiv. 9-11), they
"told all these things unto the eleven"; but
according to Mark (xvi. 8), they " fled from the
tomb . . . and said nothing to any one, for
they were afraid." Once more, the accounts
of the effect on the disciples of the women's story
are declared to be at variance. In Matthew
(xxviii. 16) we find the disciples assembling in
Galilee in obedience to the angel's message ;
in Luke (xxiv. 11) we are told that the disciples
received the women's story with absolute in
credulity ; whereas, in John (xx. 3-10) we find
John and Peter running, as soon as they
heard of what had happened, to see the empty
sepulchre for themselves.

Now, with regard to these alleged discrep
ancies, we have to say they rest on quite
gratuitous assumptions. (1) With regard to
the various appearances of the angels, why
should it be assumed that the narratives all
deal with the same precise point of the his
tory ? May there not have been more than one
visit paid within a brief period by these excited
women? May there not have been one angelic
appearance at one stage and another angelic
appearance at another stage ? There must
have been many runnings to and fro, and it
would be impossible to say to which in this
brief narrative the writers refer. (2) Why
should it be assumed that we have a complete
narrative of all that was said and done by the
angels, or women, or men ? Allowance must
be made for the evident condensation of the
narrative. Why should it be argued that Luke
contradicts Matthew and Mark because he
omits to mention the command, "Go quickly
and tell the disciples," &c. ? Omission is not
contradiction ; and, moreover, if Luke omits
to mention the command, he records the fact
that the women did tell the disciples (Luke
xxiv. 9, 11). Again, why should Luke's addi
tion (" Remember how He spake," &c.), which
you do not find in Matthew or Mark, be re

garded as a contradiction ? Addition is not
contradiction. Again, with regard to the way
in which the women are said to have carried
out their instructions (Matt, xxviii. 8 ; Mark
xvi. 8), may not both statements be true ?
May not Mark be describing the first effect
made upon the women, and Matthew the final
result ? Matthew alludes to the " fear " as
well as to the " great joy " of the women. Or
may not Mark be speaking of the attitude of
the women to the general mass of the people ?
They did not begin publishing their discovery
the moment they left the sepulchre to all and
sundry ; they were too amazed, almost terrified,
to speak of what they had seen, and only found
vent for their feelings when they reached the
sympathetic circle of the disciples. Narratives
may be complementary without being contra
dictory.

Schmiedel declares that Luke represents all
the appearances that he records as occurring
on one and the same day. But he forgets that
this same Luke distinctly states in the Acts of
the Apostles (i. 3) that "Jesus showed Him
self alive by many infallible proofs, being seen
of them (i.e. the disciples) forty days." We are
not required to believe that the sayings ascribed
to Christ in Luke xxiv. 44-49 were all spoken
on one occasion.

Schmiedel also tells us that Matthew knows
only of appearances in Galilee, while Luke
and John know only of appearances in Jeru
salem and the neighbourhood. But silence
about an occurrence does not argue its non-
existence or the narrator's ignorance of it.
None of the narratives professes to be ex
haustive. One of them, indeed, declares the
imperfection of his account, and even the
impossibility of recording all that Jesus did
(John xx. 30 ; xxi. 25). Besides, John does refer
to an appearance in Galilee (xxi. 1-14), though
Schmiedel affirms that the last chapter of the
fourth Gospel is " by another hand," a con
venient method of getting rid of an awkward
passage when one has a theory to support
which requires its elimination. As to the
authenticity of the chapter, Westcott says :
" It is clear that xxi. 1-23 was written by the
author of the Gospel. The style and the general
character of the language alike lead to this
conclusion ; and there is no evidence to show
that the Gospel was published before the ap
pendix was added to it."

Schmiedel finds serious divergence between
Luke xxiv. 33-43 and John xx. 19-24. First,
he argues that as Luke speaks of "the eleven"
being present while John says "Thomas
was not with them," one or other must be
wrong. If John was right, there were only
ten apostles present, not eleven. But it is
to be noted in answer that John only says,

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [ 602 ]

REUNION

" Thomas was not with them when Jesus came."
What hinders the supposition that he was with
the others at the beginning of their private
gathering, and that, being in no mood to accept
the stories that were rehearsed to the company,
he may have left the room before Jesus ap
peared ? When the other disciples met him
afterwards they were able to add to the evi
dence, that he had previously had, the positive
testimony, " We have seen the Lord." Next,
Schmiedel insists that the special gift of the
Spirit and authority to absolve or condemn
(John xx. 21-23) was conferred only on " the
eleven, "and that, therefore, Luke's statement
that there were others beside " the eleven"
present (Luke xxiv. 33) cannot be reconciled
with John's account. But what right have we
to assume that this great gift was the exclu
sive privilege of " the eleven " ? and even if it
were confined to them, -why should Christ have
been unable to take " the eleven " apart from
the rest and make it clear that they, and they
alone, were the recipients of this exceptional
grace ? Lastly, we are informed that because
John does not, as Luke does (xxiv. 39), repre-
^ent Christ as formally inviting His followers
to " handle Him," but only records that " He
showed unto them His hands and His side,"
we are, therefore, to understand that, accord
ing to John, " He does not suffer Himself to
be touched," and "first suffers Himself to be
touched eight days afterwards." To say that
the phrase " He showed unto them His hands
and His side " means " He did not suffer Him
self to be touched," and to allege, on that
ground, that " He first suffered Himself to be
touched eight days afterwards," may be re
garded in some quarters as acute criticism ;
but to us it looks like the gratuitous manufac
ture of difficulties.

Difficulty has been raised as to the time
that Christ spent in the grave. Mark says
(viii. 31 ; ix. 31 ; x. 34) that He rose " after
three days." The parallel passages have "on
the third day" (Matt. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 23 ; xx. 19 ;
Luke ix. 22; xviii. 33; xxiv. 7, 46). John says
"in three days" (ii. 19-21). Matthew gives
" three days and three nights " (xii. 40). Here,
for a novelty, Schmiedel defends the consistency
of the writers. He says that, in Jewish usage,
the phrases quoted were not very definite in
meaning. " We must not imagine that the two
phrases were for the evangelists realiy incom
patible." "According to the Gospels, Jesus
remained under the power of death not for
about seventy-two hours, but only for some
where between twenty-six and thirty-six hours.
These, however, in fact, according to Jewish
reckoning, are distributed between Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday. In two of the Old
Testament passages referred to above — 2 Kings

xx. 5, and Hos. vi. 2 — we read, not ' after
three days,' but 'on the third day.' Thus
the Gospel tradition literally satisfies the
expression."

We may then fairly conclude that, whatever
differences or gaps occur in the narratives,
however difficult it may be to piece the testi
mony of the witnesses into a whole, there is no
contradiction that does not admit of a reason
able solution. On the other hand, the very
variations in the several accounts, the diversity
between narratives of the same episode, make
it plain that the witnesses were absolutely
independent of one another. No charge of
collusion can be brought against them.

[G. H.]

RE-TABLE.— A shelf or shelves erected in
Ritualistic churches above the Communion
Table. It is illegal to burn lights on these
shelves except when actually required for the
purpose of giving light. See ALTAR.

RETREAT.— An occasional retirement from
ordinary life practised in the Roman Church,
for silence and spiritual exercises. A retreat
lasts usually for from three to ten days. In
imitation of the Roman practice "retreats"
have long since been introduced by the
Ritualists into the Church of England. Dr.
Pusey and the "Society of the Holy Cross"
were responsible for the first retreat, held in
Dr. Pusey's house at Oxford in 185G. At that
retreat the Romish offices of Prime, Terce, and
Sext were used, and at conferences held by
the members, amongst other subjects, the con
fessional was discussed. All " retreats " have
been utilised for binding the yoke of con
fessors on those who submit to their sway.
An occasional "quiet day," when the services
are conducted on true Church of England
lines, may be beneficial. But when " retreats '
tend to put those who attend them under
the temporary guidance of some spiritual
" director," they are not unattended with
danger. They have the show of a " voluntary
humility," but lead on to spiritual bondage.

REUNION.— The restoration to unity of the
parts of a body which have been separated.
The Church was designed by its Founder to
live in unity with itself. It is no longer in
unity, but in schism ; that is, there are a
number of different bodies which together
make up the Church Catholic and yet are not
in communion with. each other. It is idle to
say that one part is schismatical, and another
not ; the whole Church is in schism, or division
within itself. Is it possible that the various
communities which constitute the Church
Catholic should coalesce together, and if it be
possible, is it desirable ? To this question we
must answer, If it be possible without the
sacrifice of truth, it is highly desirable ; if that

REUNION

[ 603 ]

REUNION

cannot be done, the lesser good of unity must
be forfeited for the sake of the promotion of
the greater good — truth.

The divisions of Christendom, as at present
existing, may be reckoned as follows : —

1. The Oriental Church numbers about
eighty million souls. Its tenets are those of
the six (Ecumenical Councils, and of a local
Council of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
held at Nicaea in the year 787, called the
Second Council of Nicasa, and regarded by it
as (Ecumenical. This local Council sanctioned
by its authority the worship of saints and
pictures, which has thence become a practice
of the Oriental Church, and there has also
filtered into it from the Latin Church a
doctrine almost identical with transubstantia-
tion.

2. The Latin Church, which accepts the
papal monarchy with all its consequences,
numbering, on a liberal computation, about a
hundred million souls (it claims two hundred
million by counting as its adherents all the
inhabitants of France, Italy, Spain, South
America, and many more that do not belong
to it). Its particular tenets are those that are
summed up in the Creed of Pope Pius IV.,
and the supplement to it by Pius IX., namely,
(1) Transubstantiation, (2) the Mass, (3) One
Kind, (4) Seven Sacraments, (5) Purgatory,
(6) Indulgences, (7) Saint-worship, (8) Relics,
(9) Image-worship, (10) Tradition, (11) Justifi
cation, (12) Supremacy, (13) Immaculate Con
ception, (14) Infallibility, (15) Universal Epis
copate of the Pope.

3. The Teutonic and Protestant Churches of
the Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Non
conformist types,numbering about one hundred
million souls. The tenets of the Anglican
communion profess to be those of the Primi
tive Church, summed up in the Apostles'
Creed, defended in the XXXIX. Articles, and
underlying the various offices of the Prayer
Book. The particular tenet of Lutheranism is
Consubstantiation ; of Calvinism, an extreme
Predestination ; and each Nonconformist com
munity has its special tenet.

Is it possible that these divisions of Christen
dom can unite in such fashion as to be fused
together ? It is not possible while each re
tains its faith. For the additions made to the
Catholic Faith by Rome are not in such a way
supplementary to it that they could be dropped
by the Latin Church, or ignored by others ;
they are become the essential doctrines of
that community. Nor could Greece give up
the Second Council of Nicsea and the doctrines
sanctioned by that Council and therefore
adopted by the Oriental Church. Nor could
the Teutonic and Protestant Churches accept
the peculiar doctrines of Rome or Greece

without committing an act of suicide. Nor
could the various Protestant Churches admit
each the peculiar dogmas and discipline of the
others. If, then, by reunion we mean a fusion
together on the basis of unity of faith, the
expectation of it must be, humanly speaking,
abandoned.

What then ? Are we not to strive and pray
for the unity of Christendom ? Certainly we
are. No one can doubt it who enters into the
prayer of the Lord Jesus recorded in John xvii.
But we must so strive and pray for unity as
not to forget the claims of truth. When God's
truth, such as we apprehend it, although our
conception of it may be inadequate, stands in
the path and waves us back, we must not pass.
We must be contented to leave the breaches
of unity, made by the sins and superstitions
of men, to remain till God points out a way of
remedy, remembering that we must not do
evil by a betrayal of truth, that good may
come in the form of peace. Peace so earned
would not be a godly peace, but a con
spiracy in evil, which could not but again
fall asunder.

In the interests of unity itself, they are but
short-sighted who seek it blindly and as their
primary object. Suppose that we followed the
counsel of those that aim at a corporate union
with Rome, we should be so much the more
alienated from the Oriental Church, which has
declared the Roman communion the apostacy
of the latter days, and from the Protestant
Churches, and also from that Primitive Church,
with which we are now in doctrinal agree
ment. Suppose that we united ourselves with
any one of the Protestant communities, we
should by that act be the more separating our
selves not only from the as yet unreformed
Churches, but from the other Protestant com
munities. Each section of the divided Church
must acquiesce in simply and firmly bearing
testimony to the truth as it conceives it, and
we may well believe that the Church, as a
whole, thus testifies to the whole truth, al
though that truth, in large sections of the
Church, is encumbered or overgrown by hay,
straw, stubble, whose fate is to be burnt. In
a sense, all who hold the foundation are at one.
All are Christians who cling to Christ. That
is an unity more spiritual than uniformity, and
in lack of a closer bond, it binds together in a
very real manner the children of God in Christ,
however much they may be outwardly sepa
rated. With that unity we must at present
be satisfied, while striving ever so to make the
pure truth of God prevail as to enable the
whole Christian body to reunite on the only
basis which makes an external union and com
munion possible and desirable — the basis of
truth. [F. M.]

REVELATIONS, MODERN

[ 604 ]

REVELATIONS, MODERN

REVELATIONS, MODERN.— In the Roman
Catholic controversy sufficient attention has
not been given to the place which modern
revelations have now taken as part of the
foundation of their system. No one can take
up modern popular books of Roman Catholic
devotion without seeing that their teaching
differs as much from that of the Council of
Trent, as the teaching of that Council differs
from that of the Church of England.

Although popular Romanism is certainly not
the same as the Romanism of the Schools, it is
popular Romanism which has the best right to
be accounted the faith of the Church. Let
popular belief come first, and scholastic defini
tion and apology will come in its own good
time afterwards.

What actually happens in a number of cases
is, that additions to the structure of Christian
doctrine find a shorter road to recognition.
Both within and without the Church of Rome
it has constantly happened that persons of an
excitable and enthusiastic frame of mind,
whose thoughts have been much occupied
about religion, have supposed themselves to be
favoured with miraculous communications from
God. Such persons, for instance, were Johanna
Southcote among Protestants; St. Gertrude,
Marie Alacoque, among Roman Catholics.
Among Protestants, persons of this kind do
not find it easy to get any one to listen to their
pretensions ; they are joined by no sober-
minded persons ; they collect a few foolish
people for a while, form them into a small
sect, and in a few years come to an end. But
in the Church of Rome pretenders of this kind
not only gather a larger band of followers, but
they meet with no opposition — not even from
those of their own communion who do not
believe in them. Few Roman Catholics would
grudge any honour, not even excepting the
title of saint, to a pious woman of this kind,
even though they do not believe in her asserted
revelations. "She will at least promote the
cause of piety ; and for their part they do not
choose to give scandal to pious minds and
triumph to unbelievers by exposing the weak
nesses and excesses of faith to an infidel
world." But meanwhile the utterances of
these supposed recipients of a revelation are
caught up and accepted with implicit faith by
others. This will happen when the utterances
express only the seer's private speculations.
But more usually they are the opinions already
favourably thought of in her own little circle,
which is therefore prepared to welcome an
authoritative enunciation of them ; and then,
with this backing of inspired attestation, belief
in them grews so strong and spreads so widely,
that Church authorities are no longer free to
choose whether or not they will approveof them.

There is in the Roman Church an amazing
amount of literature recording such revelations;
but whether those revelations are genuine or
not the Pope will not tell, and it is at any one's
choice to accept or reject them. Some of the
Oxford converts made it a point of honour to
show how much they were able to believe, and
with what ease they could swallow down what
old-fashioned Roman Catholics were straining
at. Among these there was none more in
fluential than the late Father Faber (far more
so, indeed, than Dr. Newman), whose devotional
and theological works had a rapid and exten
sive sale. One can hardly read half-a-dozen
pages of these without meeting as proof of his
assertions, "Our Lord said to St. Gertrude;"
" It was revealed to St. Teresa ; " " Let us listen
to the testimony of God Himself : He made
known to a holy nun," &C.1 These quotations
are made as much a matter of course as we
might cite texts of Scripture. A number of
new things about Purgatory are stated on such
authority, and being incorporated into widely
circulated devotional works, pass rapidly into
popular belief; for instance, that the Virgin
Mary is Queen of Purgatory, that the Archangel
Michael is her prime minister, that the souls
there are quite unable to help themselves, and
that our Lord has so tied up His own hands
that He is unable to help them, except as
"satisfactions" are made for them by living
Christians ; with a number of other details as
to the causes for which souls are sent there,
the length of time for which they are punished,
and the manner in which they are relieved,
According to the revelations of St. Francesca,
bishops seem on the whole to remain longest

1 " Our Lord said to St. Gertrude, that as often
as any one says to God : 'My love, my sweetest,
my best beloved,' and the like, with a devout
intention, he receives a pledge of his salvation,
in virtue of which, if he perseveres, he shall
receive in heaven a special privilege of the same
sort as the special grace which St. John, the
beloved disciple, had on earth " (Faber's All for
Jesus, p. 60).

"Our Lord said to St. Teresa, that one soul,
not a saint, but seeking perfection, was more
precious to Him than thousands living common
lives," p. 117. "St. Gertrude was divinely in
structed, that as often as the Angelic Salutation
is devoutly recited by the faithful on earth, three
efficacious streamlets proceed from the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, most sweetly pene
trating the Virgin's heart," p. 104. "Once more
let us listen to the testimony of God Himself : a
holy nun pressed God in prayer to reveal to her
what it was in which His Divine Majesty took
io much pleasure in His beloved Gertrude," &c.,
p. 323.

REVELATIONS, MODEEN [ 605 ] REVELATIONS, MODERN

in Purgatory, and to be visited with the
greatest rigour. One holy bishop, for some
negligence in his high office, had been fifty-
nine years in Purgatory at the date of her
information ; another, so generous of his
revenues that he was named the Almsgiver,
had been there five years because, before his
election, he had wished for the dignity.1

More recently a French admirer of Father
Faber has made a systematic treatise on Pur
gatory, based on modern revelations. The
book is called Purgatory, A ccordlng to the Revela
tions of the Saints, by the Abbe Louvet.2 Both
the piety of the Abb£ and his literary honesty
are unquestionable ; the latter quality is
commonly lightly regarded in Roman Catholic
works, of which edification is the main object.
Thus, for instance, any one must be mad who
would trust St. Liguori for a reference. If
the saint finds anything ascribed to St. Bernard
(or thinks he remembers that he does), which
is what, in his opinion, St. Bernard ought to
have said, he puts it without scruple into his
Glories of Mary; and would probably have
thought any one very unreasonable who should
have suggested that he ought to give himself
the trouble of looking into St. Bernard's works
to try whether the passage was there at all,
and whether among the genuine, or the spuri
ous works. And similarly with the anecdotes
which he relates in such numbers. If a story
is good and edifying he does not waste his
time in trifling investigations whether there
is a particle of historical evidence for the
truth of the story. Louvet, on the other hand,
inspires one with confidence that his quota
tions have been correctly given, and that he
has taken all the pains he says he has to put
aside every apocryphal or doubtful revelation,
and to state nothing that is not attested by
canonised saints. On Purgatory, more than
on any other subject, the evidence of revela
tions deserves to be listened to, for the whole
faith of the Church of Rome on this subject
has been built upon revelations, or, as we
should call it in plain English, on ghost stories.
For hundreds of years the Church seems to
have known little or nothing on the subject.
Even still the East has lagged sadly behind
the West in her knowledge, and the reason is,
that the chief source of Western information
is a Latin book, the Dialogues of Gregory th
Great, a work of which the genuineness has
been denied by some, merely because it seemec
to them incredible that so sensible a man should
have written so silly a book. But no one

1 Faber's All for Jesus, p. 367.

2 Le Purgatoire d'apres les Revelations des Saints
par M. 1'Abbe Louvet, Missionaire Apostolique
Paris, 1880.

acquainted with the eccentricities of the
human intellect can rely on such an argument,
in the face of positive evidence the other way.
Gregory, believing twelve or thirteen centuries
ago that the end of the world was then near
at hand, and that the men of his age, by
reason of their nearness to the next world,
could see things in it which had been invisible
to their predecessors, collected a number of
tales of apparitions, which, being received on
his authority, have been the real foundation
of Western belief in Purgatory. Thus Father
Faber quotes a namesake of his as saying,
" that although Gregory was a saint who should
be loved and honoured on many accounts, yet
on none more than this, because he had so
lucidly and transparently handed down to us
the doctrine of the purgatorial fire ; for he
thought that if Gregory had not told us so
many things of the holy souls, the devotions
of subsequent ages would have been much
colder in their behalf." 3 Why, then, should
not our knowledge of Purgatory be enlarged
from the same source from which it was first
communicated, and why should not Louvet be
regarded as doing a good work in collecting
all the information that had been received
from ghosts who have appeared since Pope
Gregory's time ; for it is not reasonable to
believe that means of communication with the
other world which existed in the seventh
century have been since completely stopped.
It appears that it is not only that many ghosts
have returned to tell of their sufferings, but
more saints than one have been permitted to
descend to visit the purgatorial regions, and
have given us, as Louvet assures us, a complete
map of the place. It appears that Purgatory
is but one division of the subterranean regions.
At the centre of the earth is the place of the
damned ; above it lies Purgatory, divided into
three regions, for the special torments of each
of which we must refer to Louvet. Above
Purgatory is the Limbus infantium, inhabited
by unbaptized infants ; above that the Limbus
patrum, now empty, but formerly dwelt in by
the souls of the patriarchs until the descent of
our Lord to release them.

The lowest division is largely tenanted by
the souls of priests and bishops, monks and
nuns ; the bishops with mitres of fire on their
heads, a burning cross in their hands, and clad
in a chasuble of flames. In that region are the
souls of many Popes who, with all the treasure
of the Church at their command, were either so
thoughtless or so unselfish as to make no pro
vision for their own needs. For example, the
venerable Pius VI., in this life, had an unusual
share of suffering. He had been dragged from

3 All for Jesus, p. 385.

REVELATIONS, MODERN [ 606 ] REVELATIONS, MODERN

his home by the impious hands of the French
Revolution ; outraged ignominously in his two
fold dignity of pontiff and king; draggec
from city to city as a criminal, and he died th<
death of a confessor of the faith in 1799. H<
had done great things as an administrator
struggling with apostolic intrepidity againsi
Gallicanism and Josephism, the two precur
sors of the Revolution, and in short his long
pontificate of twenty-four years was one of the
greatest in Church history; yet in 1816,
seventeen years after his death, Marie Taigi
saw his soul come to the door of Purgatory
and be sent back again into the abyss, his
expiation not being yet finished. How long i
it still to last? That is the secret of God.
We know from the same source that Pius VII.,
who suffered so much at the hands of the first
Napoleon, and who was so worthy and holy a
pontiff that he won the respect even of un
believers, remained in Purgatory nearly five
years. Leo XII. escaped after a few months,
on account of his eminent piety and the short
time he had held the awful responsibility of
the pontificate. We will not delay to speak
of Benedict VIII., but will go on to tell what,
as Louvet says, is really frightful, and what
one would not dare to believe if we had not as
guarantees St. Lutgarde, whose prudence and
discretion are known, and Cardinal Bellarmine,
who, having studied as a theologian all the
details of this revelation, declares that he can
not doubt of it, and that it makes him tremble
for himself. That great pontiff, Innocent III. ,
who held the Lateran Council, who passed for
a saint in the eyes of men, and did so much
for the reform of the Church, appeared to St.
Lutgarde, all surrounded by flames, and on
her expressing her astonishment, informed
her that he had narrowly escaped hell, and
that he had been condemned to suffer in
Purgatory till the end of the world. He
earnestly entreated her prayers, whereupon
St. Lutgarde, with all her nuns, set themselves
with all their might to make intercession for
his deliverance ; but no sign came that their
prayers were answered, and, for all we know,
after five centuries the poor wretch may be still
plunged in those horrible pains from which
he begged so earnestly to be delivered. " This
example," says Bellarmiue, " fills me with real
terror every time I think of it." l

Louvet makes a calculation, by the help of
his revelations, how long an ordinary Christian
may expect to have to stay in Purgatory. His
result is, that a Christian of more than usual
sanctity, who has never committed a mortal
sin, who has carefully avoided all the graver
venial sins, and has satisfied by penance for

1 Louvet, p. 124.

three-fourths of the lighter sins into which
frailty has led him, must expect to spend in
Purgatory 123 years, 3 months, and 15 days.
"A truly terrifying result," says Louvet ; "for
if it is so with righteous souls, what will
become of poor sinners like me ? " 2

But these 123 years are only years of earthly
measurement; they would be more than cen
turies if measured by the sensations of the
suffering souls. This Louvet proves by several
authentic histories. One is of two priests who
loved each other like brethren. It was revealed
to one on his death-bed that he should be
released from Purgatory the first Mass that
was offered for him. He sent for his friend,
and made him promise that he would lose no
time after his death in fulfilling the conditions
of his release. The friend promised, and the
moment the sick man expired, flew to the altar,
and celebrated the Mass with all the devotion
he was capable of. Immediately afterwards
his friend appeared to him radiant with glory,
but with an air of reproach on his countenance.
"O faithless friend," he cried, "you would
deserve to be treated with the same cruelty
you have exercised towards me ! Here I have
been years in the avenging flames, and to think
that neither you nor one of my brethren should
have had the charity to offer a single Mass for
me!" "Nay," returned his friend, "you had
no sooner closed your eyes than I fulfilled my
promise ; and you may satisfy yourself by
examining your body, which you will find is
not yet cold." "Is that so?" returned the
deceased. "How frightful are the torments
of Purgatory when one hour seems more than
a year ! " Another case was that of an abbot
who, on returning from a journey, found that
the most promising of his young monks had
just died. As the abbot was praying in the
choir after matins he saw a phantom enveloped
in flames. "O charitable Father," said the
novice, with deep groans, "give me your bless
ing. I had committed a small breach of rule,
not a sin in itself. As this is the only cause
of my detention in Purgatory, I have been
allowed by special favour to address myself to
you. You are to impose my penance, and I
shall then be released." The abbot replied:
"As far as it depends on me, my son, I absolve
you, and give you my blessing ; and for penance,
I appoint you to stay in Purgatory till the hour
of prime ; " that was the next service, usually
held at eight o'clock in the morning. At these
words the novice, filled with despair, ran
shrieking through the church, crying: "O
merciless father! 0 heart pitiless towards
your unhappy son ! What ! for a fault for
which in my lifetime you would have thought

- Ibid. p. 178.

REVELATIONS, MODERN

[ 607 ]

REVELATIONS, MODERN

the lightest penance enough, to impose on me
so fearful a penalty. Little do you know the
atrocity of the sufferings of Purgatory ; " and
shrieking out, "0 uncharitable penance!" he
disappeared. The abbot's hair stood on end
with horror ; gladly would he have recalled
his severe sentence. But the word had been
spoken. At last a happy thought struck him.
He rang the bell ; called up his monks ; told
them of the facts, and celebrated the office of
prime immediately. But all his life he retained
the impression of this horrible scene, and often
said that till then he had had no idea of the
punishments of the other world, and could not
have imagined that a few hours in Purgatory
could form so fearful an expiation.

But we shal] be less disposed to pity the
souls in Purgatory when we learn what excep
tional good fortune it is to get there. To the
question, " Are there few that be saved ? "
Louvet would return a most gloomy answer.
His arguments and calculations are very inter
esting, but would take me too long to repeat.
But (p. 26) he clinches his opinion by a revela
tion. St. Bernard, it appears, was privileged
on two successive days to stand by the judg
ment-seat of God, and hear the sentences
pronounced on all the souls that died on these
two days. He was horrified to find that of
80,000 souls only three souls of adults were
saved the first day, and only two on the
second ; and that of these five not one went
direct to heaven ; all must visit Purgatory.

Louvet builds his speculations solely on the
evidence of canonised saints. If he had been
content with authentic history, he might have
used the following, to which we, at least, ought
to take no exception, since the credit of our
own country is pledged to its truth.1 The
Roman Breviary of 1522 relates that St. Patrick
having fasted, like Elias, forty days and forty
nights, on the top of a mountain, asked two
things of God: first, that at the day of judg
ment there should not remain a single Irishman
on the earth ; the other, that God would show
him the state of souls after death. Then the
Lord led him to a desert place, and showed him
a certain dark and deep pit, and said, "Who
soever shall remain in this cave a day and a
night shall be delivered from all his sins. " This
passage of the Roman Breviary was afterwards
suppressed, then restored, then finally sup
pressed again, on account of the evil comments
of Protestants and Rationalists. "But, "says
Louvet, " the old Parisian and other local
Breviaries accept the story ; so do, the historians
of the Church of Ireland, and, above all, the
Bollandists with their grave authority. And,
besides, there remain so many histories of

1 Louvet, p. 42.

actual descents into this Purgatory, that unless
we accuse a great and illustrious Church of
knavery and imbecility, we must admit that
the story has a foundation of historic fact."

These extracts, long as they have been,
give a very faint idea of the mass of informa
tion about Purgatory made known by revela
tions which respected priests, writing with all
the air of grave historians, relate for the
edification of their flocks, in books bought up
by thousands. A companion volume to that
on Purgatory might easily be made on the
revelations about the Virgin Mary, in which
the modest doctrine of the Council of Trent,
that it is useful to invoke her intercession, is
rapidly being improved into the doctrine, that
no one who does invoke it can be lost, and no
one who does not can be saved. One would
think we had a right to know from the in
fallible authority whether these revelations and
the doctrine which they contain ought to be
received or not ; but he remains silent. Those
who, like Father Faber and Louvet, receive
these revelations as Scripture, obtain com
mendation for their piety ; but one who treats
these stories with complete disregard is
visited with no official censure, whatever
suspicions private individuals may entertain
of the coldness of his faith. But all the time,
on the strength of stories which the supreme
authority will neither affirm nor deny, beliefs
are being silently built up in the Church on
which he is likely hereafter to be asked to
put his seal.

In the Roman Church the idea seems to be
now abandoned of handing down the Faith
"once for all (<!ura£) delivered to the saints."
That Church is a vast manufactory of beliefs, to
which addition is being yearly made. When
one goes into some great manufactory he is
shown the article in all its stages — the finished
product, with the manufacturer's stamp upon
it; the article near completion, and wanting
hardly anything but the stamp ; the half-
finished work ; the raw materials out of
which the article is made. So in the Roman
Church. There you have the finished article :
dogmas pronounced by Pope and Council to
be de fide, which none may deny on pain of
damnation. But there are, besides, articles
fere de fide, not yet actually proclaimed by
infallible authority to be necessary to salva
tion to be believed in, yet wanting nothing
else but official promulgation — so generally
received, and acknowledged by such high
authorities, that to contradict them would be
pronounced temerarious, and their formal
adoption by the Church seems to be only a
question of time. Somewhat below these in
authority, but still very high, are other
doctrines supported by such grave doctors

REVELATIONS, MODERN

[ 60S ]

REVELATIONS, MODERN

that it would be a breach of modesty to con
tradict them. Below these again, other
things owned to be still matters of private
opinion, but which seem to be working their
way to general belief, and which, if they
should in time gain universal acceptance,
will deserve to be proclaimed to be the faith
of the Church. It is needless to say what
help is given towards such general recognition
of a doctrine, if a canonised saint, whom it is
impossible to suspect of deceit, and disre
spectful to suspect of delusion, declares that
he has been taught the truth of the doctrine
by revelation from heaven. It is inevitable
that a doctrinal statement so commended,
if no disapprobation of it is expressed by
higher authority, comes to the Church with
such a weight of recommendation that it
cannot help becoming the prevalent opinion ;
and then, in process of time, how can the
head of the Church refuse to declare that to
be the faith of the Church which the great
majority of its members, including perhaps
himself, believe to be true ? If the supreme
authority puts off its interference to the last
stage, that interference comes altogether
too late. It is useless to teach the Church
when the Church has already made up its
mind.

And surely if Christ has left a vicar upon
earth, what more appropriate function can he
have than that of informing the world how to
distinguish the voice of Christ from that of
false pretenders who venture to speak in His
name ? Any one who claims to have received
a revelation from God must be either as much
deluded as Johanna Southcote, or as much
inspired as St. Paul. If there be any in the
the later Church to whom God has made real
revelations, we are bound to receive the truths
so disclosed with the same reverence and
assent which we give to what was taught by
the Apostles. It is important for us to know
whether the book of God's revelation has
closed with the Apocalypse of St. John, or
whether we are to add to the inspired volume
the revelations of St. Francesca, St. Gertrude,
and St. Catherine. If these last are real
revelations, they who reject them are doing
their souls the same injury as if they rejected
the books of Scripture. We look to the in
fallible authority for guidance, but he owns
himself to be as helpless as ourselves to dis
tinguish the true prophet from the false
pretender, and gives us leave to believe or
reject as we like. Nay, he gives a kind of
ambiguous approval. He honours the recipients
of the alleged revelations, canonises them as
saints, encourages his children to ask their
intercession, now that they are dead; but if
questioned, Did these persons, when they were

alive, deceive the people by teaching them
their own fancies as if they were divine re
velations ? he declares this a question out
side his commission to answer. It is clear
that he does not really believe in his own
infallibility.

The first occasion when an attempt was
made to impose such private revelations as a
rule of faith on the Church was in the Mon-
tanist heresy. The Montanists were perfectly
orthodox. They had not the least desire to
alter the ancient faith of the Church. They
only aimed at a development of Christian
doctrine, according as prophets, to whom the
Paraclete revealed the divine will, cleared up
anything that had been obscure in the apostolic
teaching, or guarded the purity of the Church
by supplemental commands which the Church,
on its first formation, had not had strength to
bear. But the Montanists held that the re
cipient of a divine revelation was not justified
in looking on it as given only for his own
private edification. It was both his privilege
and his duty to make known to the Church
what God had taught him ; and any who refused
to hear rejected a message from God. So the
Montanist prophecies came to be written down
and circulated as demanding to be owned as
God's word. This was what more than any
thing else led the heads of the Church to
oppose people whose aims and doctrines were
all such as religious and orthodox men could
sympathise with. But it was felt, and truly
felt, that their prophecies were encroaching
on the supreme authority of Scripture, and
that they were presuming to add to what had
been written. From the time of the breaking
out of Montanism, greater care was taken than
had been used before, to prevent any un
authorised, uninspired composition from seem
ing to be placed on a level with Scripture.
And so the Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd
of Hermas, and one or two writings more,
which had been admitted into Church reading,
were then excluded, and fell rapidly into such
neglect, that copies have scarcely survived to
our day. And it is the real truth that those
who accept these modern revelations, and draw
proofs of doctrines from them, have really a
different Bible, not only from us, but from the
Council of Trent. The Church of Rome is but
dissembling a schism when she allows differ
ences to remain unsettled, affecting the very
foundations of faith ; when what is accepted
by one as the voice of God Himself is set down
as a dream of silly women by another.

There have been miracles of still higher pre
tensions which serve well to illustrate the
practical working of the Roman system —
revelations not hidden away in biographies of
saints, whence they can be drawn forth by

REVELATIONS, MODERN [ 609 ] REVELATIONS, MODERN

enthusiastic preachers, but coming forth into
the world, forcing their way into the news
papers, and challenging even the investigation
of the law courts.

The miracle of La Salette took place
Sept. 19, 1846. Two children minding cows
on a lonely mountain in the diocese of Grenoble
were surprised by the apparition of a fine lady
robed in a splendid yellow dress, wearing
varnished shoes, and with a head-dress of
ribbons and flowers. She told them that she
was the Virgin Mary ; discoursed to them on
the sins of France, and gave them messages in
the name of her Son. The children told the
story, the matter was noised abroad, pilgrim
ages were made to the scene of the occurrence,
the place soon became crowded with visitors
chapels arose, inns were opened, medals were
struck, the sale of the water of La Salette
soon came to be a gainful traffic, for it had not
only virtue in curing diseases, but a few drops
even operated the conversion of an obstinate
sinner, in whose liquor it had been mixed
without his knowledge. Among the pilgrims
was Cardinal Newman's friend and diocesan,
Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham. He pub
lished an account of his visit, professing full
belief in the reality of the miracle. He opened
at Stratford-on-Avon a chapel to our Lady of
La Salette, and introduced the Confraternity
of La Salette into his diocese. His pamphlet
claims papal sanction for the new devotion.
By a Brief, dated August 26, 1852, the Pope,
as we are told, made the altar of La Salette a
privileged altar, gave a plenary indulgence to
visitors to the shrine, besides other privileges
too tedious to enumerate. A priest of Bishop
Ullathorne's, a Mr. Wyse, published under
the bishop's sanction a Manual of the Confra
ternity of La Salette. Mr. Wyse remonstrates
indignantly with those of his co-religionists
who still withhold faith from the story. " The
truth of the apparition of La Salette," he says,
" is incontestable ; the proofs are such that it
is worthy of the fullest belief. Yet because
it is not of faith, that is to say, because a man
will not be damned for not believing it, the
faith of some who call themselves Catholics is
so ungenerous and thrifty, that they refuse
their assent." "In matters of faith," he tells
us, "God loves a cheerful giver; He is not
pleased with those who seek what is the very
minimum of belief which will secure their
salvation. In these days of infidelity, super
natural faith, cultivated for safety's sake to
the very utmost, is the only security against
the vilest errors."

This language expresses a state of feeling I
believe to be very common among Roman
Catholics ; but surely it is very absurd. It is
accounted faith not only to believe all that

God says but also to believe any one who says
that God has said a thing. Should I account
it a compliment if any one told me that he had
such faith in me that he would not only believe
anything I said, but anything that any one said
I said ? The result certainly would be, that
although no one has any particular motive to
misrepresent me, he would believe a good deal
I never said, and some things I should be sorry
to be thought to have said. It is really not
faith in the divine Word, but want of faith, if
the belief which is due to a divine revelation
is thoughtlessly given to any one who claims
it. A man could not think much of his dog's
attachment to him if he was a dog that would
follow anybody.

In the present case the result proved that
a certain suspension of judgment might be
pardonable. Some of the clergy of the neigh
bouring dioceses declared the whole apparition
to be an imposture, and denied (whether with
truth or not) that the Pope had given the alleged
approbation. The Salettites declared that this
was envy and jealousy on the part of men
whose own shrines had suffered a decrease of
pilgrims in consequence of the superior attrac
tions of the new shrine. Then their adversaries
proceeded to particulars. It was asserted that
the Virgin who appeared to the children was
a certain Constance Lamerliere, a nun, half
knave, half crazy, who could be proved to have
purchased the dress in which the Virgin ap
peared, and whose connection with the appari
tion could in other ways be proved. This was
stated so persistently that Constance Lamerliere
was forced to accept the challenge, and bring
an action for defamation of character ; but the
Court decided against her, and the decision
was confirmed on appeal. We shall not pre
tend that the decision was conclusive, for we
believe that there are still Roman Catholics
who believe in La Salette ; but the apparition
must be pronounced a failure, as having caused
more scandal to unbelievers than edification
to the faithful, unless the large pecuniary
gains it brought to the parties interested may
redeem it from the charge of being altogether
a failure.

Scarcely had the excitement provoked by
the events of La Salette begun to subside,
when the supernaturalist party dealt a heavier
blow against their opponents by what was
called the miracle of Lourdes. In this spot,
in Gascony, Bernadotte Soubirous, a poor girl
of fourteen, on Feb. 11, 1858, while picking
up dry wood, saw a beautiful lady robed in
white, with a blue sash; and the vision was
afterwards several times repeated. On being
asked who she was, the lady answered, " I am
the Immaculate Conception." She invited the
girl to drink at a fountain. The child, seeing

2Q

REVELATIONS, MODERN [ 610 ] REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL

no fountain, scraped away some earth with
her hands. A little water filtered through the
orifice ; it increased gradually in volume,
became perfectly clear, and now supplies to
the faithful many millions of bottles, which
are in large demand for the purpose of effect
ing supernatural cures. The local bishop
gave his sanction to the miracle ; pilgrimages
to the shrine were organised, and pilgrimages
are now made easy. It is not, as in former
days, when a devout pilgrim had to walk over
half Europe with or without peas in his shoes.
It is said that the miracles worked by the
intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes ought to
banish all incredulity. But when there is an
infallible guide, why will he not interfere to
clear our doubts ? Why should he leave us in
danger of mistaking the utterances of a crazy
nun or the ravings of a hysteric child for
miraculous communications from the Blessed
Virgin ; or, conversely, of rejecting a message
from heaven ?

Perhaps one reason why we must despair
of getting a solution of our doubts from this
quarter is, that infallibility is said to be
subject to an unfortunate limitation. The
Pope, though infallible on questions of doctrine,
is liable to be deceived by human testimony
about a matter of fact. The reader may
remember the use made of this distinction in
the Jansenist controversy. The adversaries
of the Jansenists had obtained a papal con
demnation of certain propositions from the
work of Jansenius. As devout Catholics, the
Jansenists were forced to confess that the
doctrines condemned by the Pope were false,
but they saved the credit of their master by
saying that these propositions had not been
asserted by him, at least not in the erroneous
sense. Their adversaries, determined not to
permit themselves to be thus baulked of their
triumph, obtained from the Pope a supple
mental decree, declaring that the propositions
in question were not only erroneous, but that
they had been taught by Jansenius. To this
the Jansenists replied, ' ' We acknowledge
the Pope to be infallible in questions of
doctrine, but the question whether Jansenius
taught such and such doctrines is one of fact,
and we say that on this the Holy Father has
been deceived."

Shortly after the pilgrimages to Lourdes
others were organised to Paray-le-Monial.
This had been the scene of the revelation of
the blessed Marguerite Marie Alacoque, the
foundress of the now popular devotion to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus. This is not, like the
two mentioned above, a revelation of our own
time, though a great impetus was given to
that devotion by the beatification of this nun
by Pius IX. She lived at the end of the seven

teenth century, the time when the strife be
tween the Jesuits and the Jansenists was the
hottest. Her revelations were patronised by the
Jesuits and condemned by the Jansenists. With
the late Pope the Jesuits were all-powerful.
This poor nun was subject to what we heretics
would call hysteric delusions, in the course of
which she saw many visions in which, as
always happens, the ideas of her waking
hours were reproduced. All that has been
said metaphorically about our Lord's human
heart was materialised by her, and referred to
that physical portion of our Lord's human frame.
In one of the most celebrated of her visions,
she saw our Lord's heart in His bosom burning
as in a furnace, and her own heart placed as a
small atom of fire in that furnace. One can
not pass by a Roman Catholic picture-shop
without observing what vogue the adoration
of the material heart of our Lord has now
gained. It was much opposed by the Jan
senists, so that it was not till after a century
and a half that Margaret Mary obtained,
under Pius IX., the dignity of beatification,
which is next below canonisation. It has
been objected that this worship of a portion of
our Lord's body is downright Nestorianism.
In the course of the Nestorian controversy it
was distinctly condemned to make a separation
between our Lord's Godhead and His manhood,
so as to offer worship to the one not addressed
to the other. And here the worship is not
even offered to our Lord's entire humanity,
but to a part of it. However, the lawfulness
of this worship is not what we are discussing
now. Our object is to show that every one
of these alleged revelations has a distinct
bearing upon doctrine. Of course, however
objectionable this superstitious worship may
appear to us, if our Lord has revealed His
approval of it, our objections must be dis
missed ; and so an infallibility which owns
itself incompetent to pronounce on the reality
of alleged revelations really owns itself in
competent to pronounce on questions of
doctrine which these revelations would seri
ously affect. [G. S.]
REVIVAL, THE EVANGELIC AL. —There
have been three great Protestant Revivals — the
Reformation, the Puritan, and the Evangelical,
this last starting about the middle of the
eighteenth century, all whose first apostles were
ministers of the Church of England, but by
means of which all the Reformed Churches
everywhere were visited from on high by a
marvellous time of refreshing. Nor was its
influence limited to those Churches then ;
whilst to-day, perhaps, throughout the world
that influence is stronger and more widely
felt than ever before.

Evangelical ( = of, or belonging to, good news)

REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL [ 611 ] REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL

is an older word in the history of the Reforma
tion than Protestant, nor are they identical in
meaning. For at least a decade before the
second Diet of Spires (1529), from which the
latter title took its rise, the German Reformers
and their adherents were known as Evangeliei,
men of the Evanyelium, or Gospel, which they
alone knew and alone upheld — without any ad
mixture of Church or other traditions — as
sole ultimate appeal in matters of faith and
doctrine ; using, as they still use, the un
translated word (Gr. and Lat. ) Evangelium, as
we use the word " Gospel," On the other
hand, in the history of the eighteenth century
Revival, "Methodist" is the older title. It
was long before the name '• Evangelical " was
given to the new movement by friend or foe,
or that the title " Methodist " came to be
limited to the followers of Wesley ; nor at any
time did the two words coincide in meaning
or application (see WESLEYAN METHODISM).
It is important to note this historic distinction
between the two words, neither of which was
invented or claimed by the leaders or adherents
of the movement itself.

Precursors. — As there were Protestants before
the Reformation, so the Evangelical witness
had never failed before the Evangelical Re
vival. Not the least important agencies in
preparing the way for its advent were certain
Societies, the first of which was started in
London about 1667 by a few young men form
ing themselves into an association for religious
conversation and prayer. It was at a meeting
of one of these societies that John Wesley
himself found deliverance so late as 1738, after
his return from America, as recorded by him
self : " In the evening I went, very unwillingly,
to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one
was reading Luther's Preface to the Epistle
to the Romans. About a quarter before nine,
while he was describing the change which
God works in the heart through faith in
Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I
felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for
salvation ; and an assurance was given me that
He had taken away my sins, even mine, and
saved me from the law of sin and death. I
began to pray, with all my might, for those
who had, in an especial manner, despitefully
used me and persecuted me. I then testified
openly to all there what I now first felt in my
heart." See WESLEY, JOHN.

As far as John Wesley is concerned this
Revival can thus trace its succession through
Martin Liither ; whilst in this simple story of
his own conversion you have the whole business
and aim of Evangelicalism proclaimed and
illustrated : To bring the sinner to Christ
alone for salvation, by faith only, and Christ
alone to the sinner. Then come good works

as " the fruits of faith and following after
justification." He at once falls to prayer for
his persecutors, and to win others by his
testimony to share the blessing he has found.

State of Society, <Lc. • —During the reigns of
the first two Georges, England had sunk lower
in ignorance, immorality, and irreligion than at
any previous period since the Reformation.
It was the time when in one year fifty-two
men were hanged at Tyburn — the time of
highwaymen and burglars, bear-baiting, bull-
baiting, cock-fighting; when literature, written
as well as read unblushingly by women, reeked
with moral abominations ; no Sunday schools,
few day schools, the Sabbath universally pro
faned, Church and Nonconformity alike dead :
it was the time when Gray painted himself
(1760) as "no great wit: he believed in a
God"; when Voltaire predicted, "It took
twelve men to set up Christianity ; it would
only take one (himself) to overthrow it."
Church and Nonconformity alike dead ! Yes ;
about 1750 Blackstone went the round of the
London churches, and heard there " no more
Gospel than he could get from Cicero " ; whilst
Ivimey, in his history of the Baptists, thus
indicts the various bodies of Nonconformity :
" The anti-evangelical and moral discourses of
the Presbyterian ministers, the stiff regard to
precision of discipline among the Indepen
dents, and the cold, dry, uninteresting doc
trinal statement of the leading Baptists," &c.
Dr. Cuyse, a leading Independent, is found
exclaiming : " How many sermons may one
hear that leave out Christ, both name and
thing, and that pay no more regard to Him
than if we had nothing to do with Him ! " No
marvel if the situation is truly summed up in
Bishop Butler's startling words (1736) : " It has
come to be taken for granted that Christianity
is now at length discovered to be fictitious."

It was in the midst of such evils that the
Evangelical Revival, wrought by the Spirit of
God, started on its marvellous course. In its
earlier stages, rightly or wrongly, for good or
ill, the movement branched off from the Estab
lishment, but continued to be favoured by men
who remained in strict and loyal connection
with the Church of England ; for within the
Church a great revival commenced almost at
the same time as the Methodist Societies began,
a revival which, though not so rapid in its
progress, has been no less productive of per
manent and widespread beneficent results. Its
clerical leaders for the most part adopted Cal-
vinistic tenets, yet always inculcating the
necessity of habitual piety, preaching always
the doctrine of justification by faith only ; yet
not by a faith that is alone. The distinctive
principles common to both movements, as at
the first to Whitfield and Wesley, to Calvinist

REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL [ 612 ] REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL

and Arrninian, and to-day to all the Evange
lical bodies, touch the fundamental doctrines
of (1) the Kule of Faith, (2) Justification,
(3) Sanctification. They are: (1) The Word of
God only ; (2) the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
only ; (3) the work of the Holy Spirit only. In
each case the word only defines the unique
evangelical position.

Who and what manner of men were the first
agents in this great movement ? We shall go
outside their school altogether for witnesses,
" two or three " of a countless number, simply
premising that in point of time the first great
name seems to be that of George Whitfield,
who, for five years before John Wesley started,
had been preaching in the open air at Kings-
wood, near Bristol, with great power and
blessing. So in after time he writes to Wesley:
" As God was pleased to send me out first and
enlighten me first, so, I think, He still con
tinues to do it ; my business seems to be chiefly
in planting. If God send you to water, I praise
His name." Then come the great names of
Charles Wesley, the Revival's sweetest singer,
a notable preacher too; Daniel Rowlands of
Wales ; later, theVenns — John Venn, and Henry
and John, his sons ; Henry, the founder or first
man of the New School, and the first clergy
man to adopt the practice of extempore preach
ing ; W. Grimshaw of Haworth, but whose
parish was in fact the whole West Riding ;
W. Romaine, whose writings, especially his
Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith, were such a
power in his day ; Fletcher, Berridge, Newton,
Walker of Truro, Conyers of Deptford, and a
host of others raised up here and there by the
power of the Holy Ghost ; but most notable of
all, the man, as Macaulay wrote to his sister,
whose influence was greater than a Primate's,
whose character, under God, was chiefly due
to the conversations and instructions of Henry
Venn, as (one among many mighty) Henry
Martyn's was due to him — we mean Charles
Simeon himself.

Sir J. Stephen, in his Evangelical Succession,
writes : " The first generation of the clergy
designated as ' Evangelical,' were the second
founders of the Church of England . . . the
doctrines of the New Testament were to them
a reality, and the English Liturgy a truth —
their public ministrations and their real mean
ing were in exact coincidence — they rose as
much above the Hoadleian formality as above
the Marian superstition, and they revived
among us the spirit of Paul and Peter, of
Augustine and Boniface, of Wickliff and Ridley,
of Baxter and Howe . . . their personal sanc
tity rose to the same elevation as their theolo-
logical opinions," &c., &c. They were " Holy
Ghost men," and working in the power of the
Holy Ghost, these first Revivalists, and so we

have the High Church Dean Goulburn writing
thus (the reader will remember the original
application of the title "Methodist" as ex
plained above) : " It was just this doctrine of
the Holy Spirit's agency among men nowa
days which produced such a marvellous revival
in our own Church in the early days of
Methodism, and such a reaction from the
supineness and dreary moral preaching which
had characterised the Church life of the
previous century." " The Evangelicals," said
Alexander Knox, an opponent of their ideas,
" have been the chief instruments of main
taining experimental religion in the Reformed
Churches " (Remains, vol. iv. p. 501).

But what are this Revival's results in the
Visible Church and world at large ? Mr. John
Morley tells us : " Both the onslaught upon
the slave trade, and the other remarkable
philanthropic efforts towards the last quarter
of the last century (eighteenth), arose in, and
owed their importance to, the great Evangelical
movement " (Nineteenth Century, Feb. 1892).
Mr. J. R. Green, Short History, &c. , chap. x.
sect, iii., and, indeed, all historians of the
period, had said as much already. Mr. Lecky,
Hist. Eng. Eighteenth Century, ii. 634, bears
like testimony, adding: "Before the close of
the century the Evangelical movement had
become dominant in England, and it continued
the almost undisputed centre of religion till
the rise of the Tractarian movement in 1830."
All which goes to show that the " Catholic
Revival " did not find the English Church the
barren and dry land of which we so often hear.
This last movement has had seventy years of
history now, and what is its record ? Abun
dant fruit, no doubt, but " fruit unto himself :
according to the multitude of his fruit he hath,
increased the altars ; according to the good
ness of his land they have made goodly
images. Their heart is divided [between
Rome and the Reformation] ; now shall they
be found faulty," &c. (Hos. x. 1, 2). Yes ; altars,
images, reredoses, candles, crucifixes, &c., in
abundance, but where are the signs of great
spiritual force refusing to be pent in, and
pulsing the billows of some mighty movement
of blessing for mankind to the outmost shores
of the world? Before the Evangelical move
ment was seventy years old, historian after
historian tells (some above quoted) of various
great philanthropic movements, including that
for the abolition of slavery (the greatest
achievement of the nineteenth century), owing
their existence to it. The Church Missionary
Society, the Religious Tract Society, London
Missionary Society, Missions to Jews — above
all, the Bible Societies, are its offspring — in
fact, almost all the great religious organisations
for home and foreign work, Episcopalian and

REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL [ 613 ]

RIDLEY'S THEOLOGY

Non-conformist, in America as here, are its
offspring and mainly supported to-day by its
adherents. From Niger's banks to Missis
sippi's springs, "from China to Peru," before
long it was felt by troubled hearts in human
breasts everywhere, that some new angel of
mercy had stepped upon the earth ; whilst
to this hour the one Missionary Society
which the " Catholic Revival " patronises (it,
too, started under Protestant auspices), not
only lags far behind in funds, &c., even one
of the many sustained by the Evangelical
movement, but even in good part the said
Society owes its support to aid from con
gregations which, in whole or good part, have
no sympathy whatsoever with " Catholic Re
vivalism " in its modern dress. Nay, even in
the department in which " Catholic Reviv
alists " specially pride themselves — the " deck
ing of churches " — Evangelicals do not lag
behind; for it is only with the "superfluous
decking " (as the Homily) they find fault. In
Ireland, the Cathedrals of St. Patrick and
Christ Church, Dublin ; of Tuam, Cork, and
others, do not owe their erection or renova
tion to Ritualists. So in England, Lord
Grimthorpe (a supporter of the late John
Kensit) rebuilt St. Alban's, and Dr. Lefroy,
Perowne, Howson, Farrar, Close, Straton,
and other Protestant deans, are among the
honoured names to whose labours and self-
denial the restoration of cathedral after cathe
dral is due.

So as regards distinctive plans of Church
work, the Evangelical School has been more
fruitful than any other, and not only sees its
plans adopted by the "Catholic Revivalists"
(to which no one can object), but even claimed
as theirs originally. It first introduced hearty
and congregational singing, Mission-week
services, short services and prayer-meetings
in unconsecrated places. It introduced laymen
to Church work amid opposition so strong that
the Additional Curates Society was formed
because the Church Pastoral Aid had begun
to employ laymen. So also with the ministry
of women (though it did not put them in
uniform), its joyful acceptance of which dates
from the origin of the movement itself. Lady
Huntingdon, Susannah Wesley, and the stone
mason evangelist's (John Nelson's) wife, re
presenting the three different grades in the
social scale, have never wanted numerous and
worthy successors to this hour — the first
rejoicing in the letter " M " in the phrase " not
many noble are called," and with her last
breath saying, "Thy will be done. I have
nothing to do but go home to my Father."
The second caring not only for her husband's
household, but his parish, for Heaven, her
parting utterance being, " Children, as soon as

I am released, sing a psalm of praise to God."
The third, no less brave and true, found at four
o'clock in the morning outside her husband's
dungeon door, bidding her husband, " Fear not,
John ; the cause is God's for which you are
here, and He will plead it Himself; therefore
be not concerned for me and the children, for
He that feeds the young ravens will be mindful
of us." See Bishop J. C. Ryle's Facts and Men
and Christian Leaders of the Last Century ; Bishop
Moule's The Evangelical School in the Church of
England ; and E. Stock's History of the C.M.S.

[T. C. O'C.]

RIDLEY'S THEOLOGY.— The doctrine of the
Church of England for whicW Ridley died a
martyr. Ridley was probably the most learned
prelate that has ever occupied the See of London.
While still resident at Pembroke Hall, Cam
bridge, he committed to memory almost all of
the Epistles in Greek, a task which bore fruit
and did him good service in his after life.
During the year of his proctorship, the ques
tion of the papal authority was submitted to
the University, and the resolution " that the
Bishop of Rome hath no more authority and
jurisdiction, derived to him by God, in this
kingdom of England, than any other bishop"
was signed by Ridley as Senior Proctor.

Down to the year 1545 Ridley had unsuspect
ingly acquiesced in the received opinion on the
holy Eucharist, but in that year he was led to ex
amine into the question by the dispute between
Luther and Zwingle, and in so doing he re
ferred to the treatise written by Bertram or
Ratram in the ninth century in opposition to
the doctrine of the Objective Presence of Christ
in the elements, which was in that century
first promulgated in writing by Paschasius
Radbert. This treatise of Ratram won him to
the belief that Paschasius' doctrine, which
was afterwards expressed by the word Tran-
substantiation, was in the ninth century a
novelty, and on re-examining the passages in
the Fathers which dealt with the subject, he
found that it was the case. " This Bertram,"
he says himself, " was the first that pulled me
by the ear, and that brought me from the
common error of the Romish Church and
caused me to search more diligently and
exactly both the Scriptures and the writings
of old ecclesiastical Fathers in these matters."
Having found his pearl of great price, he took
it at once to his dear friend and bishop, Cran-
mer, and together the two learned men pored
over all the passages of Holy Scripture and
the Fathers that dealt with the subject. After
long study their minds were made up. Tran-
substantiation and the Mass were blasphemous
fables and dangerous deceits, and they would
not shrink from declaring them to be so, though
their witness to the truth brought to them the

RIDLEY'S THEOLOGY

[ 6H]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

crown of martyrdom. Cranmer bore his testi
mony in his Defence of the True and Catholic
Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of our Saviour Christ; Ridley in his
Brief Declaration on the Lord's Supper, written
during his imprisonment in Oxford.

He begins this treatise by the inquiry
" Whether there be any Transubstantiation, or
no ; any corporal or carnal presence of Christ's
substance, or no ; whether adoration (due only
unto God) is to be done unto the sacrament,
or no ; whether Christ's body be there offered
indeed unto the heavenly Father by the priest,
or no ; and whether the evil man receiveth the
natural body of Christ, or no ? " The answer to
these inquiries, he says, depends on " whether
it is the natural substance of bread or the
natural substance of Christ's own body that is
the matter of the sacrament." If the latter
alternative be true, "then, they must needs
grant Transubstantiation, that is, a change of
the substance of bread into the substance of
Christ's body ; then, also, they must grant
the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's
body ; then must the sacrament be adored
with the honour due to Christ Himself, then,
if the priest do offer the sacrament, he doth
offer indeed Christ Himself ; and finally, the
murderer, the adulterer, or wicked man, receiv
ing the sacrament, must needs then receive
also the natural substance of Christ's own
blessed body, both body and flesh." But in
the other alternative, " then, there is no such
thing indeed and in truth as they call Tran
substantiation ; for the substance of bread
remains still in the sacrament of the body ;
then also, the natural substance of Christ's
human nature, which He took of the Virgin
Mary, is in heaven where it reigneth now in
glory, and not here inclosed under the form of
bread ; then, that godly honour which is due
only unto God the Creator, and may not be
done unto the creature without idolatry and
sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy sacra
ment ; then also, the wicked, I mean the im
penitent murderer, adulterer, or such like, do
not receive the natural substance of the blessed
body and blood of Christ; finally, then does
it follow that Christ's blessed body and blood,
which was once only offered and shed upon
the cross, being available for the sins of the
whole world, is offered up no more in the
natural substance thereof, neither by the priest
nor any other thing" (p. 109).

Having stated the two alternatives, he con
tinues, " I do plainly affirm the second answer,
that is, that the natural substance of bread
and wine is the true material substance of the
holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood
of our Saviour Christ " (p. 114).

The above he is " persuaded to be the very

true meaning and sense of Holy Scripture,"
and he proceeds to confirm his opinion by the
testimony of Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Tertullian, Augustine, and Gelasius.

With these words before him the Rev. T. A.
Lacey, Vicar of Madingley, did not shrink
from telling his friends of the Revue Anglo-
Romaine that Ridley did hot deny Transub
stantiation, and therefore that the Church of
England does not deny it. Bishop Moule has
done a service to the Church by reprinting
Ridley's Brief Declaration with notes and ap
pendices. [F. M.]
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.— This phrase,
as it contains an ambiguous genitive case ("of
God"), may mean two very different things.
If the genitive be taken as the possessive geni
tive it signifies the righteousness of God Him
self. But if regarded as the genitive of origin,
it refers to the righteousness which comes from
God, i.e. a state or standing which He requires,
provides, and bestows. In the one instance it
is a quality of the divine nature ; in the other
it is a gift from God to man. Consequently,
when the phrase occurs in the New Testament,
the context must be our guide as to which of
these two meanings should be the correct in
terpretation of the phrase.

Before dealing with the expression as a whole
a few remarks may be useful respecting the
origin of the idea of righteousness, and also
the nature of righteousness as regarded in the
Old Testament, and the preparation made for
the use of the term in the New Testament.

First, the leading idea inherent in righteous
ness is that of conformity to a standard of con
duct felt or recognised to be authoritative.
The origin and growth of the principle of
righteousness in man have been traced to the
laws of the home, society, and the State. But
beyond all human laws there is the moral per
fection of God, which is the standard for man
kind. This standard was engraved on man's
heart when made in the image of God, and
though conscience has been perverted and the
moral sense weakened, there is still the witness
within of the existence of such a standard, by
which we shall be judged. The idea of right
eousness, then, when traced to its source, rests
upon the disclosure of God's mind and will to
man, a disclosure effected both by the light of
nature and also by special revelation.

Secondly, in the Old Testament the ideas of
right and wrong are forensic ideas ; that is to say,
the inspired writers always think of the right
and the wrong as if they were to be adjudicated
upon. " Righteousness is not so much a moral
quality as a legal status. The word ' righteous '
(tsaddiq) simply means 'in the right,' and the
word ' wicked ' (rasha) means ' in the wrong,"
(W. R. Smith, Prophet of Israel, pp. 7 If.). Thus

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD [ 615 ] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

the righteousness of the judge, or the king in
his judicial capacity, is " to declare in the right
him who is in the right, and to condemn him
who is in the wrong" (cf. Deut. xvi. 18;
2 Sam. xv. 4 ; Isa. xi. 4, 5) ; while that of the
private citizen is such a course of conduct as
will stand the scrutiny of the impartial judge
(Gen. xxxviii. 26 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 17 ; Prov. xviii.
17). The word " righteousness " next came to
be used of the legal status which results from
a judicial sentence in one's favour (Isa. v. 23 ;
Ezek. xviii. 20). Even when, by a natural ex
tension of meaning, righteousness came to de
note right moral conduct in general, yet the
implied reference is to the judgment of God
(Job iv. 17 ; Ezek. xviii. 5 ; Ps. xv. 2 ; Prov. xvi.
8). See Skinner's Isaiah in the Cambridge Bible
for Schools and Colleges, Appendix ii. pp. 238-39.
Thirdly, the double combination of righteous
ness and salvation is common: "I bring near
my righteousness, it shall not be far off, and
my salvation shall not tarry ; and I will place
salvation in Zion for Israel my glory " (Isa. xlvi.
13) ; "My righteousness is near, my salvation
is gone forth. . . . My salvation shall be for
ever, and my righteousness shall not be abol
ished " (Isa. li. 5, 6 ; cf. Ps. xxiv. 5 ; Isa. xlv.
21-25). In one passage there is a triple
combination of "righteousness, salvation, and
revelation." "My salvation is near to come,
and my righteousness to be revealed" (Isa. Ivi.
1 ; cf. Isa. xlvi. 13). The Old Testament thus
represents " Salvation as the outward act of
deliverance, and the state of things ushered in
by it, while righteousness is the divine quality
which is illustrated and embodied by it." 1

Having thus cleared the way by obtaining
some general idea respecting the use of the
word "righteousness," we can now proceed with
our main subject.

We shall, in the first place, consider the
righteousness of God viewed as an absolute
quality of the divine character. When so re
garded, it is that principle which we conceive
as leading God to act according to the purity
and perfection of His nature, so that there is
a perfect correspondence between His nature
and His acts. The righteousness of God de
mands that His moral creatures conform to
His own moral perfections, and necessitates
the punishment of those who fail so to act.
God is essentially a Righteous Being. He has
a perfect regard to what is right. He knows
what is due from each to the rest, from all to

1 Indeed, by the synonymous parallelism of
Hebrew poetry, in the above passages " righteous
ness " is actually used as a synonym for " salva
tion," and that because the righteousness of God
is pledged for the salvation of His people (cf
Isa. xlvL 13).

Himself, and He also knows and acknowledges
what is due from Him to them. Thus in the
Old Testament the " righteousness of God " is
spoken of as truthfulness in personal relations
(Isa. xlv. 19), steadfastness and consistency
of purpose (Isa. xli. 10), and judicial upright
ness (Isa. lix. 16). In the New Testament the
"righteousness of God" is used in a similar
sense to that which is employed in the Old
Testament in the following passages : Acts xvii.
31 ; Rom. iii. 5 ; ix. 28 ; 2 Cor. iii. 9. In one
passage we read of " the righteousness of God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ," where this at
tribute refers to the faithfulness of God, His
acting according to His promises (2 Pet. i. 1).
St. Paul sees the righteousness of God as mani
fested in the fidelity with which God fulfils His
promises (Rom. iii. 3-5), and the punishment
which He metes out to sin (Rom. ii. 5). " The
righteousness of God " is also referred to in the
Epistle to the Romans as exhibited in His seek
ing the recovery of sinners, in such a way as not
to violate but to establish His own righteous
ness (Rom. iii. 25, 26).

We next have to deal with the more special
and difficult significance of the expression
"the righteousness" of God when it refers to
a state of righteousness which God has pro
vided for men who lack a righteousness of their
own. In regard to the righteousness of God as
a gift to man, the point of difference between
Romanists and Protestants is whether this
righteousness is imputed, that is, attributed, or
imparted, that is, infused. The main issue in
this controversy turns upon the meaning and
use of the word 5tKai6w - (dikaioo), rendered
"to justify." Romanists say that this Greek
verb means to " make righteous," and Protes
tants affirm that it is used in a judicial, or
forensic, not an efficient, or moral, sense, and
that it is to be rendered to " account righteous,"
to "prove as righteous," &c. But in stating the
Protestant view it is most important to re
member exactly how the matter stands. The
word diKaibu, when considered as meaning "to
account righteous," does not fix what sort of a
forum or court (human or divine) a person (so
to speak) stands before, by which judgment is
to be pronounced upon him. Nor does it
assert anything respecting the grounds upon

2 Of the family group of words to which
SIKOLLOU belongs, two words require to be care
fully noted. AtKdta/ua (dikaioma) is the declaration
of a thing which, or a person who, is righteous.
Hence it means (1) "ordinance" and "statute,"
as in Luke i. 6 ; Rom. i. 32 ; ii. 26 ; viii. 4 ; (2)
justification, Rom. v. 16, 18. Ai/ccuWtj (dikaiosis)
occurs only in Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 18. It denotes
"the process or act of pronouncing righteous;
in the case of sinners, the act of acquittal."

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

[ 616 ]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

which a person will be considered righteous if
the verdict is favourable. It may be, as far a
the word itself is concerned, because he 1
righteous, or because he is proved to be in the
right, or because he has acted up to the re
quired standard. Or it may be because he is
regarded as righteous by an act of clemency,
forgiven through favour freely extended to
him, or because of some satisfaction being
made for his wrong-doing. It is to the con
text that we must have recourse in order to
determine in which sense the person is ac
counted righteous. In the case of man being
accounted righteous before God, there can be,
to an impartial mind, no doubt whatever, of
the sense in which the phrase is used, if the
context be studied where di/cat6w occurs, and
account be taken of the general teaching of
Scripture elsewhere on the subject. Man is
accounted righteous because God acquits him
and gratuitously provides for him a state or
standing of righteousness. Of the above general
statements we will now offer some proofs. The
Romanists support their contention that " to
justify" (5t/ccu6w) means to make holy, on the
ground that the verb ends in ou (oo). It is
true that verbs thus ending from adjectives
of physical meaning may have this use ; e.g.
Tv<f>\ovv (tuphloun), to "make blind." But
when such words are derived from adjectives
of moral meaning, as, d^iovv (axwun), baiovv
(hosioun), diKaiow (dikaioun), they do by usage,
and must from the nature of things, signify
to deem, to account, or to treat as worthy, holy,
righteous. In support of this statement it
may be remarked that there is no known
example in the whole of classical literature
where the word means to " make righteous " ;
that in the LXX. forty-five times [Old
Testament and Apocrypha], (2 Sam. xv. 4 ;
Ps. Ixxxii. 3 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; 1 Kings viii. 32 ;
2 Chron. vi. 23 ; Prov. xvii. 15, &c.), and in the
Pseudepigraphic Books (Sol. ii. 16 ; iii. 5 ;
iv. 9 ; viii. 7, 27, 31 ; ix. 3 ; 4 Ezr. iv. 18 ; x.
1C ; xii. 7 ; 5 Ezr. ii. 20 ; Apoc. Baruch. (in
Ceriani's translation from the Syriac) xxi.
9, 11 ; xxiv. 1) it always, or almost always,
occurs with the forensic and judicial sense1
(see Sanday and Headlam's Romans, pp. 30,
31, and Libb. Apocr., ed. 0. F. Fritzsche,
p. 643.)

The following grouping of the passages in
the New Testament where the word occurs,
will show upon what a solid foundation rests
the Protestant view of justification by faith.
We have only to cite the passages where " to

1 The nearest approach to an exception is
Ps. Ixxiii. 13 (in LXX., Ps. Ixxii. 13), where the
word seems to be " pronounced righteous," in
other words, " I called my conscience clear."

justify" occurs with no particular reference to
the doctrine of "justification by faith" to
convince ourselves that the word is connected
with the ideas of acquittal, pardon, acceptance,
or approbation. In every one of these cases it is
obviously used in a forensic and judicial, and
distinctly not in an ethical and therapeutic
sense: "Wisdom (of God's arrangements) is
justified (i.e. acknowledged to be right) of all
her children" (Luke vii. 35; cf. Matt. xi. 19,
where the true reading is " wisdom is justified
by her works "). " By thy words (as the index
of thy state and character) thou shalt be justi
fied (i.e. declared to be righteous and ac
ceptable), and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned" (i.e. in the day of judgment, ver.
36) (Matt. xii. 37). "All the people when
they heard, and the publicans, justified God
(i.e. judged that God had acted rightly in the
mission of John the Baptist, and declared their
approval), being baptized with the baptism of
John" (Luke vii. 29). "But he, desiring to
justify himself (i.e. to make himself out to be
righteous, free from the implied charge or
reproach of not loving his neighbour, con
tained in verses 27, 28), said unto Jesus, And
who is my neighbour?" (Luke x. 29). "Ye
are they that justify yourselves (i.e. make out
yourselves to be righteous— proclaimed and
paraded their righteousness) in the sight of
men; but God knoweth your hearts" (Luke
xvi. 15). "I say unto you, This man went
down to his house justified (i.e. judged by God
to be a right-minded worshipper, or approved
by his conscience) rather than the other"
(Luke xviii. 14). " Not the hearers of a law
are just before God, but the doers of a law
shall be justified (i.e. made out to be righteous
in the day of judgment) (Rom. ii. 13). " That
thou mightest be justified (i.e. judged to be
righteous) in thy words, and mightest prevail
when thou comest unto judgment " (Rom.
iii. 4). " For he that hath died (i.e. who
dissolved relationship and ceased life-union
with sin) is justified (i.e. released, as by a decree
of acquittal) from (the vassalage and power
of) sin "(Rom. vi. 7). "For I know nothing
against myself; yet am I not thereby justified
(proved to be in the right) ; but he that
judgeth me is the Lord" (1 Cor. iv. 4). " He
who was manifested in the flesh, justified
(judged or proved as righteous) in the spirit"
(i,e. in the inner man, the higher principle of
spiritual life) (1 Tim. iii. 16). There is, how
ever, a passage in Rev. xxii. 11, "He that is
righteous (SiKaios, dikaios) let him be riyhteous
(diKaiwd^ru dikaiotheto) still," which has been
triumphantly cited as proving that to "justify "
(5tKcu6w, dikaioo) means to "make righteous."
It may be observed that the verb is used in the
passive, and might signify here the possession

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD [ 617 ] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

of that righteousness so infused. But there
can be little doubt that the correct reading is
that adopted by the revisers, of the last clause
of the verse, viz. pvirapfc pviravOriTU (rhuparos
rhupanthcto), and the whole verse should be
rendered, "He that is righteous, let him do
righteousness still."

If we examine and compare the passages
where "to justify "is used theologically (i.e.
when directly and specially treating of justifi
cation by faith), we shall find that the forensic
import of the term is equally obvious. "By
him every one that believeth is justified from
all things (made out to be righteous in Christ ;
cleared from all those penal liabilities), from
which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses" (Acts xiii. 39). "Because by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified
(relieved from the charge of sin, accounted
righteous, and so entitled to the honour and
glory of the heavenly kingdom) in his sight "
(Rom. iii. 20). " Being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus" (Rom. iii. 24). In Rom. iii. 26, 28, 30 ;
iv. 2, 5; v. 1, 9; vi. 7; viii. 30, 33; and in
Gal. ii. 16, 17 ; iii. 8, 11, 24 ; v. 4, as in the
three foregoing passages, the usage of "to
justify" must be forensic, and there is no
need to cite or examine them. If we com
pare the words "being now justified by his
blood" in Rom. v. 9, with those of "the
forgiveness of our trespasses," Eph. i. 7, and
verses 24, 25, 26 of Rom. iii. with each other,
we cannot fail to conclude that "justification"
is a synonym for " forgiveness of sins." In the
following few passages the reference to foren
sic justification is not so manifestly clear as
in those above named, or, at least, it may be
questioned, and some Protestant critics have
been not indisposed to surrender them to the
Roman Catholic interpretation. Rom. viii. 30
is the first of such passages which claims
a passing notice: "And whom he fore
ordained, them he also called ; and whom he
called, them he also justified ; and whom he
justified, them he also glorified." It has been
asked why, if sanctification is not part of
justification, do we find the word " sanctified "
wanting between "justified" and "glorified" ?
Some have suggested that "sanctified" is
included in " glorified." But the simple
and natural explanation of the absence of
reference here to sanctification is that the
Apostle is not detailing our experience, but
the acts of God which secure our salvation.
The successive steps are designedly omitted,
by which believers are led to their final and
complete glorification, and the certainty of
its accomplishment gives the triumphant note
which follows.
Another passage to be specially considered

is 1 Cor. vi. 11 : " And such were some of you
but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified,
but ye were justified (i.e. accounted righteous,
entitled to the privileges of the kingdom of
God) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
in the Spirit of our God." It might be expected
that "justified" would have come before, not
after, " sanctified," for we are not " made holy "
before we are " accounted righteous," but " ac
counted righteous" and then "made holy."
But the climax in the expression is not based
on the relation of succession in time, but
on the relation of superiority of degree,
namely, to the legal title to moral meetness.
It is probable that the double expression " in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit
of our God," attaches itself to the two pre
ceding clauses on the well-known Hebrew
principle of introversion or inverse parallelism,
that is, in the case of a stanza consisting of
four lines or members of a verse, the first is
related or is parallel to the fourth, the second
to the third. " In the name of the Lord Jesus "
applies to the clause "but ye were justified,"
while "and by the Spirit of our God" applies
to the clause "but ye were sanctified" (cf.
Rom. ii. 7-10). If we were to suppose that the
expression " ye were justified " had reference to
inherent righteousness, there would be meaning
less tautology, and also a strange omission in
this appeal by the great teacher of justification
by faith to the chief foundation of the Corin
thian believers' progressive, redemptive bless
ings. (See note on p. 141, col. 1.)

The next passage to be noticed is in Titus
iii. 5,6: " Not by works done in righteousness,
which we did ourselves, but according to his
mercy he saved us (i.e. brought us into the
way of salvation), through the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,
which he poured out upon us richly, through
Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that being (previ
ously) justified (i.e. accounted righteous, and
entitled to everlasting glory) by his grace, we
might be made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life." In these verses, as in 1 Cor. vi.
11, the order of time is again reversed. The
making us morally meet for everlasting glory is
mentioned before the acceptance of our persons
in Christ, and receiving our title to that glory.
Of course, if this passage stood alone, and the
usage of the word "to justify" permitted it,
it might be rendered on the Roman Catholic
hypothesis, "being made holy by his grace."
But even then this clause would weaken rather
than strengthen the foregoing context. It
would be needless repetition. It is far more
natural, as it is consistent with the ascertained
meaning of " to justify," to regard the clause
where it occurs, in a forensic, not a moral,
sense. It may look back either to the initial

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD [ 618 ] EIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

forensic justification that preceded the sancti-
fication named in the foregoing clauses ; or,
it may look forward to that final forensic justi
fication which precedes glorification (see Heb.
vi. 12).

The last of these passages requiring ex
amination is in James ii. 21, 24, 25: "Was
not Abraham our father justified by works, in
that he offered up Isaac his son upon the
altar ? . . . Ye see that by works a man is
justified, and not only by faith. And in like
manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified
by works, in that she received the messengers,
and sent them out another way ? " Whatever
may be the right interpretation of this passage,
one thing is clear, that the word " justified"
cannot refer to inherent righteousness. For
it is incorrect to say that a man or woman is
made righteous by works. It must be the
other way about, one works because he is
righteous. Righteousness develops itself from
within outward, and not from without inward.
Works are the fruit, not the root, equally
whether the root is regarded as inherent
righteousness or faith. Whether St. James
refers to a person being " counted righteous"
as to his standing, or made out to be evangeli
cally righteous in character, whether to his
having a legal title, or having a moral meetuess
for the privileges of the kingdom, there is no
need for our present purpose to decide. In both
cases, the justification is judicial or forensic.

Having thus seen that the word "to justify"
has invariably in the New Testament a forensic
sense, we may proceed to consider certain de
tails respecting the righteousness of God.

In the R.V. the rendering of 5t/coio<rw7j 0eoO
is not "the righteousness of God," but "a
righteousness of God " (Rom. i. 17). Had more
attention been given to the fact of the absence
of the definite article in the original, mistakes
respecting this phrase would have been avoided.
" A righteousness " provided for us is not " the
righteousness " which God Himself possesses,
whether it be viewed as inhabiting or encircling
us, or infused into us. "A righteousness" im
parted to us is not "the righteousness" of
Christ, for this would be to mistake the cause
for the result. "A righteousness of God" is
not the right relationship into which God puts
the believer with respect to the law and Him
self, for this is to put the consequence for the
cause. "A righteousness of God" is not the
method by which God pardons, and accounts
righteous, and entitles to eternal glory those
who believe, for this is to substitute an idea for
the reality, a theory for an act. " A righteous
ness of God" is a righteousness founded on
the entire work of Christ in the flesh, which
He bestows upon the believer. Man, possessed
of this gift of righteousness, is pronounced

righteous, and is in a state and standing in
which he has acquittal of sin arid acceptance
with God.

"Righteousness of God" is a free gift, not
secured by works of the law, whether viewed
as the Mosaic Law, or the natural law of God
written on the soul as in the case of the
heathen. For by way of merit the attainment
of righteousness is impossible. The law de
mands perfect obedience to all its precepts,
and threatens condemnation to those who do
not render such obedience (Gal. iii. 10, 12).
Obedience of this kind, perfect and perfectly
uninterrupted, no one has rendered, whether
Jew or Gentile (Rom. ii. 1 ; iii. 9-18).

" Righteousness of God " is received in union
with Christ (Rom. iii. 22). Without Christ there
is no righteousness ; He is alike the medium
through which we receive it (1 Cor. i. 30), and
He is its meritorious cause (Rom. iii. 24).

Baptism is that which places us in formal
covenant with God, and so it is, in St. Paul's
words, that whereby we " put on Christ," and
are esteemed " sons of God, through faith
in Christ" (Gal. iii. 26, 27). Viewed as a
covenant seal, and when rightly handled,
baptism is spoken of in connection with re
mission of sins and reception into divine
favour (1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5, 7;
Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21). But
in speaking of the essential subjective condi
tion of receiving righteousness, this is faith
in Christ — a faith produced by the operation
of God — placing us in the attitude of recipients
of God's bounty, and enabling us to rely upon
the merits of Christ, and so to accept the
righteousness which God has provided for man
who lacks a righteousness of his own. Thus
righteousness of God is described as "founded
upon faith" (Phil. iii. 9 ; firi rrj triarfi, cpi tei
pistei) ; "which is of faith" (Rom. ix. 30);
" which is through faith in Christ " (Phil. iii. 9).

The faith which justifies is not an unproduc
tive and dead faith, but one which purifies the
heart and works by love. Only such a faith
can unite us to Christ and appropriate the
righteousness provided for us. This truth is
strikingly brought out in the Epistle of
St. James (ii. 14-26). The passage when care
fully considered, naturally interpreted, with
full weight being given to the point of view of
the writer, in no way conflicts with, but on
the contrary confirms and supplements the
teaching of St. Paul upon the subject of justi
fication. St. James, when writing this passage,
was evidently acquainted (how could he be
otherwise ?) with the teaching of St. Paul upon
the subject, and also with the Antinomian per
version of that teaching (cf. Rom. vi. 1, 15 ; iii.
8). It was not with a view of challenging or
modifying the Pauline doctrine, but to prevent

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

619 ]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

its abuse J that St. James wrote as he did. It is
dangerous and incorrect to assert that St. James
and St. Paul moved in such different spheres of
religious thought that they could neither have
penned nor endorsed what the other wrote upon
Justification. No doubt, under similar circum
stances, both would have written in the same
strain, though in the style natural to each. If
St. Paul had read the Epistle of St. James (ii.
14-26), he would have taken no exception to it,
bearing in mind the purpose for which these
verses were penned, namely, to disclose to the
Pharisaical Antinomian the worthlessness of
his dead faith which was no true faith at all.
On the other hand, if St. James had before him
such statements of St. Paul as those which are
made in Rom. iii. 19-31 ; Gal. iii. ; Phil. iii. 8,
y, &c., he would have admired the clearness
and boldness of them, taking into account that
St. Paul was disclosing to the Pharisaical
legalist the worthlessness of his works. The
point upon which St. James insists is that a
mere formal assent of the mind to religious
truth, shown to be nothing more than this by
its failing to lead to active godliness, is not the
faith that justifies. When St. James asks,
"Was not Abraham our father justified by
works, in that he offered up Isaac his son
upon the altar?" (Jas. ii. 21), he means that
Abraham's faith came to maturity in the act
of offering up Isaac. He was "justified by
works " only in the sense that he had a faith
which worked, and, in working, proved its
existence and came to its maturity. So, in the
case of Rahab the harlot, who, he says, was
"justified by works " ; for her faith proved its
existence by bringing forth fruit, " in that she
received the messengers, and sent them out
another way " (ver. 25). It is worthy of notice
that in quoting the words " Abraham believed
God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteous
ness," St. James adds, "and he was called
the friend of God" (ver. 23). No doubt the
addition was made to show that Abraham's
faith did not remain idle, inoperative, un
developed, really non-existent, but was pro
ductive in its nature, so that he received the
title of the " friend of God " (cf. 2 Chron. xx. 7).
Placing, then, the teaching of St. Paul and
St. James side by side, although there is a
remarkable difference in their terminology and
the angle at which they are looking at the
same subject, yet we see no real discrepancy in
the opinions of these Apostles. As so often in
Scripture, they present two complementary sets

1 " It seems more natural to suppose that a
misuse or misunderstanding of St. Paul's teaching
on the part of others gave rise to St. James's
carefully guarded language" (Dr. Hort, Judaistic
Christianity, p. 140).

of truths which, when rightly understood, pre
vent narrowness and stagnation of religious
thought and the perversions of extremists on
either side. St. Paul writes for the deep thinker
and professed theologian ; St. James frames
his teaching "on a more everyday level " and
appeals to a believer of the ordinary type of
mind. Thus viewing the statements of St. Paul
and St. James, the matter may be briefly
summed up in regard to the doctrine of Justi
fication. A man is justified not on account of
his own righteousness, but on account of the
merits of Christ received by faith ; but this
faith must be active, a faith which works by
love, and leads a man to act according to his
belief. St. Paul laid stress on the former part
of this doctrine; St. James on the latter.2

Several objections have been urged, especi
ally by Roman Catholic divines, against the
doctrine of justification by faith only. It
has often, for instance, been alleged that
this doctrine is a brand-new one, unknown
by the Fathers, and invented in the sixteenth
century. To this we observe that the early
controversies did not turn upon this subject,
and no need was felt for accurate definitions
upon it. The statements are, therefore,
general, rather practical than formal, and the
distinction between justification and sanctifi-
cation did not receive that thorough con
sideration which it afterwards received in the
time of the Schoolmen, and, still more, of the

a It may be useful to add the following from
Dr. C. H. H. Wright's Primer of Roman Catholicism
(R.T.S.), p. 112, as giving another view, which
some may consider simpler :—

" One passage in St. James ii. 24 is apparently
contradictory to the teaching of St. Paul, while
St. Paul in Romans iv. affirms that Abraham was
justified by faith only. St. James, alluding to
Abraham's offering up of Isaac (referred to also
in Heb. xi. 17-19), and to the case of Rahab
(mentioned also in Heb. xi. 31), affirms : ' Ye see,
then, how that by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only.' James refers to justification
before men, and does not speak of justification
before God. We read in Luke vii. 29, that the
people and the publicans that heard Jesus 'justi
fied God' — i.e. declared God to be just — 'being
(or, having been, marg. R.V.) baptized with the
baptism of John.' Even so those persons who,
having a living faith, show mercy to others, are
justified (or counted righteous) by their works in
the sight of men, while those who 'say they
have faith, and have not works ' exhibit no proof
of saving faith, and are therefore justly judged
by those ' that are without,' as ' dead in trespasses
and sins.' This exposition will be found to agree
with the argument contained in the passage,
James ii. 14-26."

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

[ 620 ]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

Reformers. The earliest Christian writers, how
ever, dwell much on the Atonement and the
meritorious cause of pardon. Still, it cannot
be denied that the forensic nature of justifica
tion seems to have been, to a very great extent,
lost sight of in post-apostolic times, and down
through the ages of mediaeval divines and
expositors, till the dawn of the Reformation.
"The fact," as Dr. James Morrison remarks,
" is one of a multitude, which demonstrates
the early and long-continued misconception
and corruption of the Christian doctrine.
Darkness succeeded the first marvellous light.
Night came after day." Yet there were some
happy exceptions. Thus, Clement of Rome,
the earliest of all the Fathers, speaking of
faithful men of old, writes, "They were all
therefore greatly glorified, not for their own
sake, or for their own works, or for the
righteousness that they themselves wrought ;
but through His will. And we also, being
called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are
not justified by ourselves, neither by our own
wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or any works
which we did in holiness of heart, but by that
faith by which God Almighty has justified all
men from the beginning." 1 Again, the author
of the Epistle to Diognetus, published in the
works of Justin Martyr, says, " God gave up
His own Son a ransom for us, the holy for the
unholy, the innocent for the wicked, the
righteous for the unrighteous, the incor
ruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for
the mortal. For what else could cover our
sins, but His righteousness ? In whom was it
possible for us, the unholy and ungodly, to
be justified, but in the Son of God alone.
Oh, unlocked for blessings ! that the trans
gression of many should be hidden in a
righteous One, and that the righteousness of
One should justify many transgressors !2

Although abundant passages might be
quoted in which Scripture declarations are
echoed and re-echoed, which assert that men
are not "justified by works," still, there are
not many " star - like " testimonies in the
Fathers like the above two which we have
cited. It would appear that the Fathers
were deficient in definitely settled and self-
consistent views of the meaning of the word
which we render "justify." But the essential
question is not, whether or no the Fathers
clearly understood the doctrine of justification
by faith, and drew the proper distinctions be
tween it and sanctification. We content our-

1 Clem. Rom., Epist. i. cap. 32. Quoted by
Bishop Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-
nine Articles, pp. 275-76.

2 Quoted by Dr. James Morrison, Critical Ex
position of Romans Third, p. 173.

selves with the fact that the Protestant
doctrines about justification can be most
certainly proved by Holy Writ. It seems to
be the will of God that different ages should
bring into prominence, and render clearer,
certain aspects of inspired truth. In that
sense, there is the continual exemplification,
although with some breaks, of the law of a
true evolution in the sphere of divine Revela
tion.

Objection, too, has been taken to the doc
trine of justification by faith on the ground
that it is a transaction of the nature of a
fiction, and one unworthy of the character of
God. It has been asked, is there not some
thing unreal and unsatisfactory on the part
of God, in the accepting of a sinner whose
remaining sinfulness seems to necessitate the
vindicative reaction of God's holiness against
him, while he is yet free from such vindicative
reaction of holiness as is expressed in the
penalties of the law. Or, put more briefly, how
can God account a person righteous who is not
really or perfectly so ? On carefully looking at
the subject all round, the supposed difficulty
is relieved, if not removed. First, it is well
to recollect that the entrance of sin through
Adam has brought about an abnormal state
of things, and consequently, in reducing
things to a normal state, there would be much
that would appear strange and open to the
attacks of criticism, unless all the factors of
the case were duly taken into account. An
abnormal remedy, so to speak, is necessary in
dealing with an abnormal disease. If the
way of justifying the ungodly, as declared
in Scripture, be not accepted because it is
opposed to ordinary human conception, then
there can be no deliverance of man from the
effects of the Fall. Secondly, Christ, the
Second Head of redeemed humanity, has
endured the penalties of the law in the
sinner's stead : " Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse
for us " (Gal. iii. 13). This is not to declare
them innocent. That would be a judgment
contrary to truth. It declares that the de
mands of the law have been satisfied with
regard to them, and that they are free from
condemnation (Rom. iv. 5-7 ; viii. 1). Justifi
cation refers to the doing away with the guilt
of sin, rather than with the removal of its
power, pollution, and dominion. It is the ac
ceptance of our persons for the merits of
Christ. We are not declared to be wholly
or perfectly sanctified, but to be forgiven and
approved in Christ, and this on account of His
meritorious cross and passion. Thirdly, when
God declares the sinner righteous, it is with
the design of making him gradually righteous,
until at last the process is completed, when he

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

[ 621 ]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

shall be set " before the presence of His glory
•without blemish in exceeding joy " ( Jude 24).
Truth of fact and ideal truth are not opposed
to each other. As soon as the raw recruit is
enlisted he is called a soldier, because the
intention is that he shall be properly trained
until he is what his name implies. Somewhat
in the same manner, only on an infinitely higher
plane of thought, God calls the sinner righteous
in advance. He regards the sinner as that
which he will surely become, as that which
at the very moment he is in process of be
coming. With God, who views the beginning
from the end, and the end from the beginning,
there is no time limit. When God pronounces
the sinner righteous, the light of eternity rests
upon the transaction. Fourthly, faith being
the instrumental cause of justification unites
the sinner to the Saviour. In such a blessed
relationship what possibilities and potenti
alities, no less than necessities, of personal
righteousness belong to the believer, no matter
what his sinful past, his present weakness !
Fifthly, the reality of the transaction of justifi
cation becomes evident, if, for clearness of
thought and convenience of thinking, we view
this marvellous transaction in the following
order : (1) God bestows on the sinner a real
gift, namely, a righteousness which He has pro
vided for him in Christ. (2) God accounts the
sinner righteous in a forensic sense. (3) God
views the sinner in relation to his certain
future condition of perfect personal righteous
ness, which, if he continued faithful, will be
realised when he is glorified.

Again, objection has been taken to evangeli
cal works which arise from faith being excluded
from the office of justification. Stress has
been laid upon the fact that St. Paul does not
exclude personal righteousness which is the
result of union with Christ, produced by the
work of the Holy Spirit, and inspired by right
motives, from the office of justifying. We are
told that he excludes only the deeds of the law,
legal works, works prompted by the idea of
meriting heaven, works done before faith and
regeneration. But those who thus reason for
get that the same arguments used in regard to
legal righteousness apply to evangelical right
eousness. " By the works of the law shall
no flesh be justified" (Rom. iii. 20). Why?
because no one can perfectly act up to the
standard required, and even if he could so act
from a given point of time, how would such
future perfection (if it could be attained)
atone for the past ? When we have done all, we
are unprofitable servants. We have merely per
formed our duty, and can lay no claim to merit,
certainly not to a surplus of merit to make up
for past demerit. Those who imagine that the
claims of the divine holiness can be satisfied

by the personal righteousness of saints as a
ground of their acceptance, must take a wrong
view altogether both of divine holiness, and
also of the nature of sin and its remains, even
in the holiest. The Church of Rome endeavours
to get over the difficulty of the imperfect
nature of the believer's personal holiness. It
asserts that lust or concupiscence which exists
in the regenerate, and that tends to actual sin,
yet is not sin in itself. Strange doctrine,
indeed, that the lusts of the natural man should
be opposed to the Spirit of God and yet be sin
less ! It is only by such shifts and false views
respecting original sin, condemned in Article
IX. of the Church of England, that a justifica
tion on the ground of personal, evangelical
righteousness can be defended. Besides, such
a line of defence refers only to the present and
future, leaving untouched the outstanding
claims of righteousness for past offences in the
case of those not baptized in infancy.

A difficulty has been felt about the doctrine
of justification by faith on account of its sup
posed conflict with that of judgment according
to works, which is so clearly taught in such
passages as Job. xxxiv. 11 ; Ps. Ixii. 12 ; Prov.
xxiv. 12; Jer. xvii. 10; xxxii. 19; Matt.
xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31-46 ; John v. 29 ; Rom. ii.
6 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Col. iii. 24, 25 ; Rev. xx. 12 ;
xxii. 12. But there is thorough consistency
in saying that persons shall be judged by
their works, and according to their works,
and yet saying that they shall not be saved
by the merits of the works. Divine grace is
the primary source of our salvation ; the
atonement of Christ is the meritorious cause ;
faith the means by which we appropriate its
blessings ; but the criterion by which the final
awards will be determined is works. The
just shall be rewarded not on account of, but
according to, their works. Good works are in
some sense, and to some extent, the measure
of the heavenly reward. In accordance with
moral and spiritual law, the more we abound in
those things by which man is blessed and God
glorified, the more we grow in sympathy with
the divine character, the purer is the joy, and
the more, indeed, we become capable of re
ceiving divine favour, and meet for the em
ployments and pleasures of a spiritual and
eternal world. Viewing things from even a
higher range of thought, the good works of the
justified are those " which God afore prepared "
that His people " should walk in them " (Eph. ii.
8-10). All the purposes of God in redemption
are marvellously knit together, and there is
perfect harmony in the whole process.

The importance of having clear and definite
views upon the righteousness of God cannot
be too strongly insisted upon. To possess,
maintain, spread, and defend such views is

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

[ 622 ]

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD

our bounden duty and high privilege. Since
it pleased God to raise up the Reformers
to state the doctrine of justification by faith
in all its Scriptural purity, and with telling
force, it has become the test of a standing or
a falling Church. A neutral position is really
impossible. All attempts to minimise the
differences between Rome and the Reformed
Churches, or to refuse to see them, or to en
deavour to reconcile them, are to be deplored
as unworthy of those who have received a sacred
heritage of truth to be handed down unim
paired to posterity. It is hardly loyal to the
principles of the Reformation to keep on insist
ing "that the divines of Trent have not denied
that fallen man cannot of himself become
worthy of eternal salvation ; that he stands in
need both of pardoning mercy and sanctifying
grace ; that this mercy and this grace have
been procured for him by the all -prevailing
merits of the Redeemer, and that these
blessings offered to all, may be appropriated
to the individual believer by that faith which
the Holy Spirit will implant " (Bishop Harold
Browne, Thirty-nine Articles, pp. 295, 296).
We are not quite prepared to admit that such
pure streams of the water of life descend from
the Vatican, and everywhere flow throughout
the Romish Church. But, even if we were,
still, such pure streams have passed in that com
munion through murky and poisonous channels,
and have become deleterious, if not in some
cases, deadly. Protestants who indulge in a
false liberality in regard to God's truth should
recollect that Romanists, and those who sym
pathise with them, never follow the ridiculous
course of pretending that the difference of
opinion upon the question of justification be
tween the Council of Trent and the views of
the Reformers are slight, or capable of mutual
reconciliation.

It is our interest as well as our duty to up
hold the doctrine of justification by faith.
This doctrine is rightly termed in Article XI.
"a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of
comfort." If justification were by works
even by works performed after we had be
come the subjects of divine grace, upon what
an uncertain, impossible basis would justifica
tion (as we have already shown) rest ! As the
righteousness of the most faithful of God's
children is so defective, how could any feel
sure that they had done enough for their sins
to be forgiven, their persons accepted, and
their title to heaven pronounced to be com
plete ? In fact, when "to justify" is re
garded as "to make just," instead of "to
declare just," there is really no such thing as
justification at all. It is a will-o'-the-wisp.
People holding that false doctrine respecting
justification are condemned to a state of cruel

suspense, slavish fears, and robbed of the
sweet comfort of a well-founded assurance of
salvation. No wonder the Church of Rome pro
nounces anathema against the glorious doctrine
of a well-founded assurance ; no wonder that
throughout her whole system there is, can be, no
certainty — that certainty which is in Scripture
the distinguishing mark of tire Faith of Christ
(Rom. viii. 30-39; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 7, 8; cf.
Col. ii. 2; Heb. vi. 11; x. 22).

After much discussion at Trent, the Council
finally drew up sixteen heads and thirty
canons or anathemas on the subject of justifi
cation, but none of the greatest Romish
divines can be certain of the precise bearing
of these Canons and Articles. Owing to their
obscurity, it was necessary to make a decree
against all notes, glosses, and commentaries ;
the Pope reserving to himself the right of
solving difficulties and settling controversies
on the subject. Romish uncertainty respecting
both the fact of justification and the nature of
the doctrine, has paved the way for penances,
pardons, indulgences, and purgatory with all
its horrors. In fine, what loss of peace and
what spiritual mischief have been occasioned
through a justification taught to be by works,
or even by faith and works combined.

Deeply it is to be regretted that, owing to
the strong distaste of the age for definite
religious teaching, the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith or (as it is sometimes termed)
free salvation by grace,1 is being allowed to
drop out of its proper place. The conse
quence is that incalculable harm is being
done to the cause of truth. Hazy, misty
views of truth are prevalent ; and the ill-
instructed are carried away by a dreamy
mysticism and a morbid sentimentalism. They
end in becoming a ready prey to those who,
in one form or another, substitute the doctrine
of law for grace, works for faith, and seek
"to establish" their own righteousness, not
having " subjected themselves to the right
eousness of God." [C. N].

1 It is not uufrequently remarked by learned
divines that justification by faith and free sal
vation by God's grace are synonymous terms.
But, as the idea of salvation really covers a
wider field of thought than that of justifica
tion, and includes its accompaniments, such as
regeneration, union with Christ, and sanctifica-
tion, it is more correct to say that justification
by faith is the leading principle of salvation
by God's grace. One cannot be too precise in the
terms used, nor too careful in drawing proper
distinctions and avoiding ambiguous expressions,
when discussing fundamental doctrinal subjects
which have become the battle-field of keen, and
frequently of unscrupulous, controversy.

RING, EPISCOPAL

[ 623 ] RITES AND CEREMONIES

RING, EPISCOPAL.— This is a ring given in
the Romish Church " to a bishop at his con
secration, as a mark of dignity and also as a
seal and token of fidelity to the Church, which
is the spouse of God. Bishops generally wear
a ring with an amethyst, cardinals with a
sapphire, the Pope with a ruby." Some of the
bishops of the Church of England have adopted
this practice of wearing a large, heavy ring.
BITES and CEREMONIES.— A rite in
cludes, if it does not consist of, the text of
the prayers and the Scriptures read. It is a
service expressed in words. A ceremony is a
symbolical act. In worship it is an act or
action in which natural objects may or may
not be used, as making of the sign in baptism,
or putting on a ring in marriage (Bead v.
Bishop of Lincoln, 1891, P.D. 9 at p. 79). Sir
Robert Phillimore, in Martin v. Mackonochie
(L.R. 2 Ad. and Eccl. 116), defines a ceremony
to consist of "gestures or acts preceding,
accompanying, or following, the utterance of
words in a service, and including lights, in
cense, and vestments." Archbishop Benson
in the Lincoln case held the cremation of a
candle not to be an " act," and therefore not a
ceremony; but the Privy Council on appeal
did not approve of this view.

The following rule was laid down by the
Privy Council as to ceremonies: " In the per
formance of the services, rites, ceremonies,
ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions
contained in it must be strictly observed. No
omission and no addition can be permitted "
(Westerton v. Liddell, Moore's Sp. Report) ;
and this rule was adopted and acted upon in
the subsequent case of Martin v. Mackonochie
(1868, 2 P.C. 365), with this remark, " It is not
open to a minister to draw a distinction be
tween acts which are important and those which
appear trivial." As a consequence of this rule,
the act of making a cross, except in baptism,
was held illegal (Read v. Bishop of Lincoln), also
lighting candles in services as part of a cere
mony, mixing wine and water as a ceremony,
ceremonial rinsing, carrying banners, ringing-
bells, bowing to a crucifix, kissing Gospel,
ceremonially admitting acolytes, announcing
mortuary celebration for the dead, carrying-
crucifix, elevating the elements, kneeling be
fore the elements in the Communion Service,
burning incense. See Hebbert v. Purchas
(L.R. 3 P.C. 649), Sumner v. Wix (L.R. 3 Ad.
and Eccl. 58). Processions are specially for
bidden by the Injunctions of 1559, which have
been held to be law.

Power of bishops to alter (Jus Lilurgicurn). —
Except where a statute or a rubric has given
a bishop authority to alter or modify the ser
vice or " rite," a bishop has no more authority
than any other clergyman or minister to do

so. There is no authority of any kind for
altering the ceremonial, and, as it will be seen
at the end of this article, their power to modify
the service is very carefully limited, since any
new parts, except hymns, must be taken from
the Prayer Book or the Bible. In Martin v.
Mackonochie, 2 P.C. 365, the Privy Council
said the only power a bishop had in matters
relating to ritual, was to decide as to "things
neither ordered nor prohibited expressly or by
implication, but the doing or use of which must
be governed by the living discretion of some
person in authority." As to cases not in this
category, they were not matters as to which,
according to the Preface to the Prayer Book,
"the parties that doubt, or diversely take
anything, should always resort to the bishop
of the diocese." The Privy Council held that
where any question " involves what is expressly
ordered and prohibited by the rubrics," it was
"a matter in which the bishop could have no
jurisdiction to modify or dispense with the
rubrical provisions." In another part of their
judgment they held that it was " not open to
a minister " (and a bishop was held to come
under this term in the Lincoln case) " of the
Church, or even to their lordships in advising
her Majesty as the highest ecclesiastical^ tri
bunal of appeal, to draw a distinction in acts
which are a departure from, or violation of,
the rubric, between those which are important
and those which appear trivial. The object of
a statute of uniformity is, as its preamble ex
presses, to produce ' an universal agreement
in the public worship of Almighty God,' an
object which would be wholly frustrated if
each minister, on his own view of the relative
importance of the details of the service, were
to be at liberty to add to or to alter any of
these details." In Read v. Bishop of Lincoln,
14 P.D. 148, it was contended that a bishop
had a discretion in the services he used, pro
vided he did not employ ritual which connoted
heretical doctrines, and it was argued that if
it were not so, then such services as opening
of churches and admission of deaconesses were
illegal (which probably is true). The late
Archbishop of Canterbury (Benson), without
expressing any opinion on this subject, held
that " when a bishop ministers in any office
prescribed in the Prayer Book, he is a minister
bound to observe the directions given to the
minister in the rubrics of such office." The
present Bishop of Salisbury dissented ; but the
subsequent proceedings were conducted on
that basis, and eventually the court held, as
pointed out above, for example, that the
Bishop of Lincoln had committed an illegal
act in making the sign of the cross in the
absolution, as that was not a ceremony pre
scribed by the Prayer Book (1891, P.D. 9).

RITES AND CEREMONIES [ 624 ] RITUALISTIC MANUALS

This is only in accordance with the view ex
pressed above by the Privy Council. In the
Bidding Prayer, which will be found in the
55th Canon, archbishops and bishops are de
scribed as " ministers," as also in the 24th
Canon and the preface to the Ordinal for con
secrating bishops, priests, and deacons, and in
the rubric at the head of the Confirmation
service. It seems almost superfluous to point
out that if a bishop has no power to modify
the rubrical directions in his own case, he
has none authorising others to do so. It is
thus clear that the bishops have no ' ' general
powers " of modifying the services or adopting
others, since they are also bound by the Act
of Uniformity. It becomes interesting to see
what special powers have been given them as to
the services. As Ordinary a bishop may, under
the rubric, determine in what part of the church
Morning and Evening Prayer shall be "used."
By the rubric before the Litany he can com
mand, as " Ordinary," the Litany to be sung or
said " at other times " than Sundays, Wednes
days, and Fridays. He can direct a place in
the church for churchings.

Though a bishop has no general powers, he
has been given certain definite authority by
statute. The second part of the schedule to
the Prayer Book (Table of Lessons),TAct 1871
[34 & 35 Viet. c. 37] contains the following
directions : " Upon occasions, to be approved
by the Ordinary, other lessons may, with his
consent, be substituted for those which are
appointed in the Calendar. . . . Note also that
upon occasions to be appointed by the Ordi
nary, other Psalms may, with his consent,
be substituted for those appointed in the
the Psalter." And to this section 2 adds the
following proviso: "Provided that the occa
sions whereon power to alter the appointed
Psalms and Lessons is by the schedule to this
Act committed to the Ordinary, shall be all
occasions whereon the Ordinary shall judge
that such alteration will conduce to edifi
cation."

The Act of Uniformity Amendment Act,
1872 (35 & 36 Viet. c. 35), which was passed to
allow of shortened services and using the ser
vices separately, instead of giving the bishops
general power or discretion to permit short
ened services, directs in what way the service
may be shortened and on what days.

Special Services.— Ej section 3, upon SPECIAL
occasions to be approved of by the Ordinary,
there may be used in any cathedral or church
a special form of service approved of by the
Ordinary. Such service must not have intro
duced into it anything except anthems or
hymns which does not form part of the Holy
Scriptures or of the Prayer Book. It will be
noted that there is no power to authorise

the introduction of prayers from old rituals, or
drawn up by the bishop himself ; so that the
bishop, even if he wished to, has no power to
authorise services only colourably different
from masses.

Additional Services. — When both the ordi
nary morning and evening services are held
the bishop may approve of an additional ser
vice. At this additional service the bishop's
powers are further limited, for he is not
allowed to permit " any portion of the Order
for the Administration of the Lord's Supper
or Holy Communion Service to be used in such
additional service ; nor can he permit anything
else, unless it forms part of the Holy Scriptures
or Book of Common Prayer," to be introduced
into such additional service. The bishop is,
however, made responsible for approving of
the "mode in which it (the additional service)
is used," whatever these words may mean.
The Lambeth Conference of 1897, in their forty-
fifth resolution, said : " They recognise the
exclusive right of each bishop to put forth or
sanction additional services for use within his
jurisdiction, subject to such limitations as may
be imposed by provincial or other lawful autho
rity." Bishop Temple, when Bishop of London,
before he became Archbishop of Canterbury,
pretended to believe that the above Act only
forbade any service which expressed any doc
trine which you cannot find the substance of
in either the Bible or Prayer Book. It is
obvious to any one who knows the history of
the English Church since the Reformation,
and who compares the Uniformity Acts of
Elizabeth, Charles, and the last one of Victoria
just quoted, that neither the pretensions of the
Lambeth Conference nor those of the late
archbishop have any legal validity whatso-
soever when the bishops are English bishops,
bound by the 'Act of Uniformity. Colonial
bishops are, however, not so strictly bound.
It is worth noticing that the Lambeth Confer
ence only used the word " recognise," and did
not "assert" this alleged right. See also
SBKVICES, OCCASIONAL. [E. B. W.]

RITUALISTIC MANUALS.— The old High
Church party considered the Book of Common
Prayer fully sufficient as a manual both of
doctrine and worship, and in any "aids to
devotion " or instructional treatises they issued
they professed to adhere to the teaching and
formulas of that book. In marked contrast
to their teaching the present-day Ritualists
consider the Prayer Book to be deficient in
many particulars for such purposes. Hence
they have issued a large number of small
books, tracts, and booklets to supply what, in
their judgment, the Prayer Book lacks. The
main purpose of those manuals is to endeavour
to bring back what the Church of England

RITUALISTIC MANUALS [ 625 ] RITUALISTIC MANUALS

rejected at the Reformation, and to systemati
cally teach nearly all the di stinctive doctrines
and practices of the Roman Church.

The number and variety of such manuals is
large. Although principally written for chil
dren, there are several written for adults, for
clergy as well as the laity, and for special
classes, such as altar-servers and confirmation
candidates. Some of them, as, for instance,
The Catholic Religion, The Practical Religion,
The Natural Religion, The Congregation in the
Church, The Ritual Reason Why, A Boole for the
Children of God, A Longer Catechism for Members
of the English Church, A Little Catechism for
Little Catholics, are comprehensive in scope,
and cover more or less fully a complete system
of teaching. Others, again, are confined to
special subjects. Thus, Pardon for the Peni
tent Pardon through the Precious Blood, In Pre
paration for Penance, The Benejit of Absolution,
The First Confession, are all on the doctrine
and practice of " Sacramental " Confession.
Hosanna, The Peoples Eucharist, The First
Communion, inculcate the Mass both in theory
and performance. The Chaplet of Our Lady is
the Romish devotion of the Rosary adapted to
the use of members of the Church of England.
Tht Compassion deals largely with Prayers and
Masses for the Dead. An Office for the Way of
the Cross gives directions for "Devotions for
the Fourteen Stations of the Cross."

These manuals are highly dogmatic. The
following, taken from p. 33 of the 4th ed. of
A Catechism for Catholics in England, is a good
example of the style employed.

" Q. 'When do the bread and wine become
the body and blood of Christ ? ' A. ' The bread
and wine become the body and blood of
Christ by the power of God when the priest
says the words of Consecration ordained by
our Lord Jesus Christ.' Q. ' How many
Sacraments are there?' A. 'There are seven
Sacraments : Holy Baptism, Penance, Con
firmation, Holy Eucharist Holy Orders, Holy
Matrimony, and Extreme Unction.' "

They are popular in style. Technical theo
logical terms are rarely used, and, when em
ployed at all, are carefully explained. In the
smaller works no references or authorities
are given. The simplest language is generally
employed, and the reader is assumed to know
little or nothing of the subjects treated.

Their exterior appearance is not calcu
lated to arouse the suspicion or attention of
ordinary Protestants. In many of them texts
of Scripture, verses of familiar hymns, and
pious sayings are found. These are, however,
often intermixed with Romish hymns and
statements, and it is not until the book is
carefully read that the real character of the
teaching it contains is seen. The Scriptures

and Prayer Book are frequently unfairly quoted
and their sense distorted and obscured.

It also is a peculiar characteristic of these
manuals that they are cheap.

The names of the writers of these manuals
indicate their bias and intention. The Rev-
Vernon Staley, Rev. H. E. Hall, M.A., Rev.
F. W. Puller, M.A., of the Cowley Fathers, and
others, are some of the writers who attach
their names, but of a considerable proportion
of the smaller works the authorship is not
stated. Some are issued by " A Committee of
Clergy," which Mr. Walter Walsh has shown l
to consist of clergymen belonging to the Holy
Cross Society. See RITUALISTIC SECRET
SOCIETIES. Others, again, are by anonymous
authors, but contain commendatory prefaces
written by the clergy of St. Peter's, London
Docks, London, E., St. Alban's, Holborn,
London, and other churches of an extreme
character.

The circulation of these manuals is large. It
is sometimes alleged that few copies have been
sold, and that their use is exceptional, but the
following figures disprove these assertions.
Before the Altar has reached a sale of nearly
200,000 copies ; A Catechism for Catholics in
England is in its "seventeenth thousand" and
its 4th edition ; The People's Eucharist had
reached a 4th edition in 1897 ; A Book for the
Children of God, printed in 1899, is marked 3rd
edition ; A Longer Catechism, issued only on
Oct. 2, 1902, had reached its third thousand in
June 1903. Special means have been adopted
in some cases to increase the sale of such
manuals. " Church Shops" under the control
of the parochial clergy, and sometimes in
charge of "Sisters," have been opened, at
which crucifixes, holy water stoups, pictures
of a Romish character may also be obtained.
The displacement of the Sunday School by
"catechising" in the church has also largely
aided their circulation. These "catechisms,"
as they are technically termed, are one special
means of securing the careful instruction of
the young in Sacerdotalism by clergymen and
other trained persons.

The Teaching of the manuals has already
been generally indicated above, but it is desir
able that it should be more specifically stated.
The doctrines inculcated will best be shown
by a series of extracts taken from the manuals
themselves, upon some of the most important
points of difference between Romanists and
Protestants. For instance, these manuals
affirm the superiority of the Church to the Holy
Scripture as a teacher and referee in matters of
faith. " The Bible is the Book which God has

1 Secret History of the Oxford Movement, 1st ed. ,
p. 49.

2R

RITUALISTIC MANUALS [ 626 ] RITUALISTIC MANUALS

given to His Church, and it belongs to the
Church alone, and not to any dissenting sect.
No one but a Catholic can safely read the Bible,
and no Catholic can read it safely who does
not read it in the Church's way. The Church
knows what the Bible means, because the Holy
Ghost teaches her its meaning ; and directly
any one tries to put a meaning of his own upon
any part of the Bible, or to get any doctrine
out of it which is not Church doctrine, that
person begins to go wrong. Remember this,
and if ever it should happen when you are
reading the Bible that a thought comes into
your mind which seems to go against the
Catholic faith, put that thought away at once.
Don't stop to argue about it. Don't say, ' It is
in the Bible.' The Bible is the Book of the
Church. The Church is the keeper of the
Bible, and the Holy Ghost is the teacher of the
Church. The Church and the Bible never
contradict each other. If they seem to any
one to do so, it is because he does not under
stand" (A Book for the Children of God, 3rd
ed., pp. 100, 101).

These manuals teach a doctrine scarcely dis
tinguishable from Transubstantiation, sometimes
identical with it. " When the priest begins the
prayer, that which is on the altar is bread and
wine. When the priest ends the prayer, that
which is on the altar is Christ's body and
blood ; it is Jesus ; it is God " (A Book for the
Children of God, 3rd ed., p. 121). "We go to
the altar and kneel down, and the priest
comes to us with the Blessed Sacrament. We
receive That which looks like bread, and which
tastes like bread ; we receive That which
looks like wine, and which tastes like wine ;
but That which we receive is the body and
blood of Christ ; IT IS JESUS HIMSELF, IT IS
ALMIGHTY GOD" (ibid. p. 129).

They distinctly advocate an illegal ritual
which approximates closely to that of the Roman
Mass. In a volume entitled Aids to Reverently
Celebrating the Holy Eucharist, 3rd ed., Knott,
minute directions are given for the celebration
of "Low Mass," "contested points between
Roman and Sarum Ceremonial" being thus
"happily avoided." The directions given in
clude those for "vesting "with amice, alb,
girdle, maniple, stole, chasuble. Other direc
tions given are, "The position of the hands,"
"The Lavabo," "The acts at 'The Canon,"
" Communicating the Sick," " Manner of carry
ing the Reserved Sacrament," "Ablutions."

They further teach the use of devotions taken
from the Roman " Ordinary of the Mass," and
of Secret Prayers from the Roman Canon of the
Mass, including devotions for the use of chil
dren at " Mass." In the last quoted manual,
at p. 46, there is a section entitled " The Pre
paration said with the Server at the Altar," in

which the secret form of Confession used at
the commencement of Mass in the Roman
Church is given in extenso. On p. 49 the
" Secret Prayers at the Canon," are taken
almost without alteration from the Roman
Missal. Children are taught Romish devotions
in the following manner : —

"Act of Adoration. Hail I true body of
Jesus, offered for me upon the Cross. Save
me [now and] at the hour of my death. Hail !
precious blood of Jesus, shed upon the Cross ;
wash me, and make me pure.

" Act of Faith. 0 most loving Jesus, I be
lieve that Thou art really present in this most
holy Sacrament.

" Act of Worship. I worship and adore Thee,
O Lord Jesus ; I adore Thy Body, Thy Soul,
and Thy Divinity, Thy Flesh, and Thy Blood,
truly present in this Sacrament.

" 0 most gracious Father, accept this Pure,
this Holy Sacrifice at the hands of Thy priest,
in union with that all-Holy Sacrifice which
Thy Beloved Son, throughout His whole Life,
at the Last Supper, and upon the Cross, offered
unto Thee for me (for . . .), and for all for
whom He vouchsafed to die " (Children at the
Altar, 30th thousand, Mowbray, pp. 25, 26).

They teach the adoration of the Reserved Sac
rament. In Ritual Notes on the Order of Divine
Service, 4th ed., Mowbray, pp. Ixxxi. /., elabo
rate rules are given for " Communicating the
Sick with the Reserved Sacrament." At p.
ciii. directions are given for the " Benediction
of a Tabernacle or of a vessel for Reserving
the Blessed Sacrament." In Catholic Prayers
for Church of England People, by Rev. A. H.
Stanton, 5th ed., 16th thousand, on p. 99, is a
section on " Visits to the Blessed Sacrament."
The latter work contains a series of " Acts of
Adoration before the Most Holy Sacrament,"
also on pp. 107, 108, "A Litany of the Blessed
Sacrament," and on p. 112 the Service for
" Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament,"
where the following direction is given : "Then
the Benediction is given with the Blessed Sac
rament. Bow down in profound adoration
before your Saviour there present, and beseech
His blessing on yourself and on the whole
Church. You can say in your heart when the
bell rings —

' Blessed and praised every moment
Be the most holy and divine Sacrament.' "

These manuals teach the Doctrine of Purga
tory, and advocate Requiem Masses and the Ab
solution of the Dead. " With the holy souls in
Purgatory we on earth are in communion by
helping them with our prayers and by having
the Holy Sacrifice offered for them" (The
Casket and People's Mass Book, 3rd ed., p. 6).
" The Church in the middle state is the suffer-

RITUALISTIC MANUALS

[ 627 ]

RITUALISTIC MANUALS

ing Church. It is Purgatory, the place where
holy souls are made perfect" (A Boole for the
Children of God, p. 83). " On All Souls' Day
we bring before God the needs of those who
still hare some purifying to undergo before
they can be admitted into the fuller joy of
their Lord " (The Christian's Manual, p. 287, by
Rev. H. H. Jervois, M.A., 2nd ed., 1898). In
The English Catholic's Vade Mecum, new ed.,
Longmans, 1898, a whole section (pp. 59-63)
is devoted to a " method of assisting " at masses
' ' on behalf of the Faithful Departed." Similar
instructions and devotions may be found in
almost all the manuals quoted above.

The manuals teach further the Invocation of
saints, and advocate the Roman Invocation of the
Virgin, Litanies and Hymns to the Virgin, and
the use of the Rosary. They inculcate the doc
trines of the Immaculate Conception and the
Assumption of the Virgin Mary. " The Saints,"
including a large number of " the Fathers " of
the early Church, and even mediaeval person
ages, such as Anthony, Benedict, Bernard,
Dominic, and Francis, " all holy priests,
Levites, monks, and hermits," are implored
to " pray for us " in " A Litany of the Saints,"
given on p. 181 of Catholic Prayers for Church of
England People, 5th ed., 16th thousand, 1901, by
Rev. A. H. Stanton. The same manual gives
at p. 13 the "Hail Mary"; at p. 164, "The
Litany of the Blessed Virgin " in Latin, and
an English metrical version of the same, p.
167. This is followed by " The Rosary of the
Blessed Virgin," p. 170, and throughout this
book the Romish doctrines of the Invocation
of Saints and the cultus of the Virgin are
plainly taught. As indicating the extent to
which the latter teaching is carried, it may be
mentioned that not only in Catholic Prayers, but
in several other manuals, some of them devoted
exclusively to this subject, the " Assumption "
and " Coronation " of the Blessed Virgin Mary
are included among the subjects of devotion.

These manuals strongly insist upon habitual
confession to a priest, and approve the application
of the grossest spiritual torture to obtain detailed
and minute confessions. " When you were
younger you may have confessed your faults
to your parents. Now you are old enough to
know that many of these faults are also sins
against God ; and it is to the priest that, by
God's appointment, you ought now to confess
your sins. Do you know why? It is because
CHRIST, when He was on earth, gave to His
priests the power of forgiving men their sins.
You must tell the priest all the sins that you
remember to have committed ; God absolutely
requires this. If through pride or shame you
were so unhappy as to hide a sin on purpose,
yon would commit a very grave fault ; you
would make a bad confession ; not only your

sins would not be forgiven you, but you would
be far more guilty than before. You had better
not confess at all than make such a bad and
sacrilegious confession. There have been per
sons who have wilfully concealed their sins
in confession for years. They were very un
happy, were tormented with remorse, and if
they had died in that state their souls would
certainly have been in the greatest danger of
everlasting death " (from Confession, pp. 3-5.
Edited by a Committee of Clergy. Revised
ed., 14th thousand, 1897. Published by Knott).
"And now a few words of warning, and of
encouragement. Be honest in your confes
sion. Keep nothing back that you feel you
ought to confess. Don't hurry over the worst
things, in hopes that the priest won't hear or
won't notice them. If anything is very hard
to own, take particular pains to be most clear
in owning it. Unless you mean to make a per
fectly true confession, you had far better get
up and go out of church, and not make your
confession and Communion at all ; better that
you should die without ever making your
Communion, than mock God by wilfully making
a bad confession. A Communion made after^a
bad confession deserves hell " (The First Com
munion, 2nd ed., 1896, W. Knott).

The influence of such manuals is seen in the
spread of Ritualistic practices at public wor
ship, and in the adornment of the homes of
those who have been instructed from them.
At ultra-ritualistic churches, where the con
gregation is largely in sympathy with the
teaching of the manuals, the movements of the
worshippers strongly suggest that they have
been well drilled before. Thus, at the recita
tion of the " Incarnatus est " in the Nicene
Creed, all present kneel ; again, at the words
of consecration, when a " Sanctus bell" is
rung, the whole congregation fall prostrate.
At children's services in such churches very
young children may be seen making obeisance
tothe " altar," crossing themselves, and the like.
Even in churches where extreme practices and
teaching do not prevail, persons coming from
other districts may frequently be seen indulg
ing in the external signs of sacerdotal Romish
doctrine above named. In many homes — both
of the rich and poor — " prie-dieux," crucifixes,
and pictures of a distinctly Roman type are to
be seen, and these are frequently the direct re
sult of the teaching and directions to be found
in the manuals. Of the far-reaching indirect
results it is impossible to speak definitely, but
they must be very great. [W. A. L.]

Note. — The writer of the article is much
indebted to a work entitled Contemporary Ritu
alism, a volume of evidence, compiled by the
Rev. the Hon. W. E. Bowen, M.A., J. Nisbet
& Co., 21 Berners St., London, W.

RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES [ 628 ] RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES

RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES.—

Secrecy has been a special characteristic of
the Ritualistic Movement since its commence
ment in 1833. Ample evidence of this will be
found in my Secret History of the Oxford Move
ment. At the present time the number of
secret, or semi-secret Ritualistic Societies in
the Church of England is very large. Some
of these admit the clergy only into their ranks,
while others admit both clergy and laity.
Several of them have a large number of mem
bers, while others are but comparatively small
bodies. There is one thing in which they all
agree, and that is in avoiding the light of
publicity as far as circumstances will permit.
Several Ritualistic Secret Societies, very active
in their time, have ceased to exist. Amongst
the principal of these Secret Societies is : —

The Society of the Holy Cross. — This Society
was founded in the year 1855. For the first
eight years of its existence its statutes and
rules existed only in MS. Admission to the
Society is granted to bishops, priests, and
deacons, and to bond fide candidates for Holy
Orders only. No ordinary layman is admitted,
and no women. Only those thoroughly devoted
to the Romeward Movement are admitted into
its ranks. The objects of the Society of the
Holy Cross (commonly known among the
brethren as the " S.S.C."), as stated in its
Secret statutes, are " to maintain and extend
the Catholic faith and discipline, and to form
a special bond of union between Catholic
priests;" "carrying on and aiding mission
work at home and abroad;" "circulating
tracts and other publications ; " and " holding
Synods and Chapters for prayer and con
ference." The "publications" issued by the
Society to the public do not appear (with one
or two exceptions) under its own name, but
under that of " A Committee of Clergy."
" There are," according to the statutes, " four
degrees of obligation in the Society, termed
respectively, the Ordinary, the Green, the Red,
and the White Rule." The "Ordinary Rule"
is binding on all. The "White Rule" is for
celibates only, who may be termed the inner
circle of the Society. They have their own
" Master." A roll of celibates is kept, but I
have never been able to see a copy. About ten
years after the formation of the S.S.C. it was
thought desirable by the brethren to form a
separate Society to be known as " The Society
of Celibates," but eventually the celibates
were formed into a section of the S.S.C. itself.
The celibates take a solemn oath to remain
single, some for a short period, others for life.
In a secret Directory for Priests, issued to the
brethren at the close of 1865, there was a
chapter with the significant heading: "Un
written Monitions of the Society." It was as

follows : " (1) Whenever a Monition may be of
such a character that it is not wise to have it
published, it shall be delivered by the Master
or Senior Vicar in Synod. (2) Brethren are not
allowed to divulge the unwritten Monitions."
At the Synod of the Society, held in May
1876, the Master acknowledged that the Society
"started with its secrecy." "The bond of
union between the brethren was," he said, "to
be as strict as possible. None but themselves
were to know their names, or of the existence
of the Society, except those to whom it might
be named to induce them to join ; but this only
with the leave of the Society." It would be
impossible to give more convincing proof than
this of the secrecy of the S.S.C.

Those members attached to the White Rule
are required by the statutes " to say Mass
daily," and to " frequent the Sacrament of
Penance at least monthly." Those who are
under the Red Rule must " say Mass on all Sun
days and other Holy Days," "frequent the
Sacrament of Penance at least three times a
year," and " make a Retreat each year. " Those
under the Green Rule must "say Mass (if
practicable) on all Sundays and other Holy
Days," and "frequent the Sacrament of Penance
at least once a year." All the brethren, being
in priest's orders, are expected to act as
Father Confessors. It is an imperative rule
that, " The brethren shall devote themselves
diligently to the Science of the Care of Souls,
and shall labour in bringing young and old
who are under their influence, to value duly
the Sacrament of Penance." To help on the
Confessional work of the Society, it has a
" Penitentiary Committee," to which all ques
tions of moral theology dealt with in the
Confessional may be referred for advice and
guidance. The Society of the Holy Cross
issued to its members, to assist them in their
work of hearing Confessions, a work in two
parts, which bore the title of The Priest in
Absolution. Parts of this work deal with most
indecent matters. The late Archbishop of
Canterbury (Dr. Tait), on June 14, 1877, in the
House of Lords, said of this book : " No modest
person could read the book without regret, and
it is a disgrace to the community that such a
book should be circulated under the authority
of clergymen of the Established Church."

Meetings of the brethren are held in London
every month, and are known as " The Monthly
Chapter." Twice a year, on Holy Cross Day
in May, and again on Holy Cross Day in
September, Synods of the Society are held in
London, which all the brethren are expected
to attend, unless they can send a valid excuse.
The proceedings are always secret, and the
brethren are forbidden to divulge to outsiders
anything that takes place during the proceed-

EITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES [ 629 ] RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES

ings. At present, the number of clergy be
longing to the S.S.C. is about 400, but no
"Roll of the Brethren" has fallen into Pro
testant hands since 1896, and therefore I am
unable to give the exact number.

Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. — This
Confraternity was founded in 1862, and in 1867
was united with "The Society of the Blessed
Sacrament." Briefly, its objects are the pro
pagation of a doctrine of the Real Presence in
Holy Communion, which is hard to distin
guish from that of the Church of Rome, the
"Eucharist Sacrifice" and " Eucharistical
Adoration," or the Mass for the Living and
the Dead. The Confraternity makes grants
of "altar" linen, and Eucharistic vestments
for the celebration of Mass in poor parishes.
Bishops, priests, deacons, and the laity of both
sexes are admitted as Associates, but the Con-

ternity of the Blessed Sacrament for " its
singularly un-English and Popish tone."

Order of Corporate Reunion. — This very secret
body was founded in 1877, and admitted into
its ranks the clergy and laity of the Church of
England only. The Order was founded on the
assumption that the Orders of the clergy of
the Church of England were of doubtful
validity. To meet this difficulty three foreign
bishops were brought over to England from
the Continent, whose Orders were valid in the
estimation of the Church of Rome. The
Rev. Thomas W. Mossman, Rector of West
Torrington, Lincolnshire, one of the secret
bishops of the Order, was also a member of
the Society of the Holy Cross, which was
opposed to the policy and work of the Order.
He was called upon by the Society for an
explanation of his position. In a secret " Re-

MEDAL OP THE CONFRATERNITY OP THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.

fraternity is ruled exclusively by priests. In
1902 its Priests- Associate numbered 1709, and
its Lay Associates, 18,500. The Confraternity
is of a semi-secret character. It issues to its
members a monthly Intercession Paper, contain
ing the subjects for prayer and thanksgiving,
but every effort is made to keep it from falling
into Protestant hands. Every year a " Roll of
Priests- Associate " is printed, yet it is but
rarely that any Protestant can see a copy, and
then certainly not with the sanction of the
authorities of the Confraternity. At its annual
Conference in London none are admitted but
those who can produce a medal proving their
membership. Amongst the subjects which the
Associates are expected to pray for every month
are an increase of "Sacramental Confession,"
the Reunion of Christendom, the restoration of
the Reserved Sacrament, and of Unction for
the sick, and the repose of the souls of the
faithful departed. The late Bishop Samuel
Wilberforce strongly censured the Confra-

port" of a Committee of the S.S.C. it is stated
that : " They have no evidence at all as to the
position of the Consecrator or Consecrators (of
clerical members of the O.C.R.), nor as to the
nature of the jurisdiction assumed to be
bestowed. On the contrary, a silence, which
is in itself highly suspicious, has been main
tained. Every promise of revealing the facts
at a given date, of which there have been
several, has been broken." What is very
important to note is that Mr. Mossman wrote
himself to this Committee of the S.S.C. : " The
Consecration (of O.C.R. bishops) may have
taken place in the Cathedral of Belgrade, or
of Aries, or of Milan, or Seville, or Tuam. . . .
I can only speak profitably of what I am able
to testify of my own personal knowledge. The
most important part of this is that a Consecra
tion has undoubtedly taken place. I have been
frequently asked what is meant by 'three
distinct and independent lines of Episcopal
Succession ' in the First Pastoral of the Order

RITUALISTIC SECEET SOCIETIES [ 630 ] RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES

of Corporate Reunion. Let me distinguish
carefully between what I have been told and
what I know. What I have been told is, that
three Anglican clergymen have been consecrated
bishops from three distinct sources. That may
be true, or it may be the reverse. What I knoio
is, that one Anglican clergyman [no doubt Mr.
Mossman refers to himself] has been conse
crated a bishop by a Catholic bishop ; and by
Catholic bishop I mean one who is now at this
present time, and who was when he performed
the act of consecration, in full communion
with either the See of Eome, the Patriarch of
Constantinople, or the Archbishop of Canter
bury. It will thus be seen that the bishops of
so-called heretical or schismatical bodies are
excluded vi terminorum. More than this I am
pledged not to reveal at present." In a special
and secret Report on the Order of Corporate Re
union, Presented to S.S.O., by Mr. Mossman, he
asserted : " I have the best possible ground for
believing that, whatever might be the action of
the other Patriarchs, the Patriarch of the
West [the Pope] would not look coldly on our
plea" for admission, as members of the O.C.R.,
to " intercommunion."

After the death, early in 1902, of the Rev.
F. G. Lee, the principal and secretly conse
crated Bishop of the Order of Corporate
Reunion, Mr. A. J. Oliver wrote a letter in the
Tablet of Feb. 22, 1902, in which he stated :
"I was one of the original members of the
Order of Corporate Reunion, being admitted
into it very early in 1878. An oath of secrecy
respecting the proceedings was first taken, then
conditional baptism was administered, being
followed by Confirmation according to the
Catholic rite. This latter was not conditional,
it being a tenet of the Order of Corporate
Reunion that Anglican Confirmation, both as
regards form and matter, is invalid. I have
presented for re-ordination a clergyman of
the Established Church, a dignitary. This
ceremony took place in the chapel of All
Saints' Vicarage. I have heard of several
re-ordinations taking place there, but have
only been present at this one."

It is, of course, impossible to give official
statistics as to the number of Church of
England clergymen secretly ordained by the
bishops of the O.C.R., but I may mention
that the editor of the Catholic Standard and
Ransomer, a Roman priest, who was formerly
a Ritualistic curate, and as likely as anybody
to be acquainted with the facts of the case,
in the issue of his paper for Nov. 22, 1894,
said: "We have heard just recently that
there are eight hundred clergymen of the
Church of England who have been validly or
dained by Dr. Lee and his co-bishops of the
Order of Corporate Reunion." After the death

of Dr. Lee, Monsignor Capel wrote to the
Roman Catholic Universe of March 22, 1902 :
" The reception of Dr. Lee into the Fold of St.
Peter was a special joy for myself. Nearly
twenty-four years ago, I took and presented
from him and his Episcopal Colleagues of
Corporate Reunion Society an address of homage
to our Holy Father Leo XIII. Dr. Lee assured
me, and I was so to tell the Pope, that he,
as well as the others, had been conditionally
baptized, re-confirmed, re-ordained and con
secrated by those whose Orders were acknoivledged
to be valid by Rome. He further asserted that
some five hundred of the clergy ministering in the
Anglican Communion had been raised to the
priesthood under like conditions by himself
and his brother bishops." That would be at
the close of 1878, or early in 1879. The editor
of the Catholic Standard's estimate, not of 500
but 800, was made about fifteen years later.

Mr. William Clement, who, in 1877-79 was
" Master of the Ceremonies " in the Franciscan
Church, Peckham, published in 1893, under the
title of The 0. C.R. and its Founder, some letters
addressed to him by Mr. William Grant, a
layman, who at the time was the official "Regis
trar" of the O.C.R., and a professed member of
the Church of England. In the course of his
letters Mr. Grant made some startling acknow
ledgments. On Nov. 22, 1877, he wrote of a
certain individual : " I wish you could get at
him on the duty as a Catholic of acknowledg
ing the Supremacy of the Holy See. I have
formerly said as much as I could consistently
do. For my own part, I know that we all
owe obedience to Rome ; and personally I
look to Rome for guidance in matters of faith.
I know I ought to be logical and submit, and
outwardly communicate with the Church of
Rome, but I believe I am doing a work for
unity where I am, which I could not do else
where." On Feb. 28, 1878, Mr. Grant wrote :
" I am never sorry to hear of any one receiv
ing the full Catholic faith, and becoming
united to the See of Peter. I only wish this
could be done in a corporate way, and there
fore more largely. I should be glad, for ex
ample, to see England as a nation reconciled
to the Holy See." On Sept. 18, 1879, he wrote
again : " In confidence — I am working for the
end you know; at any rate the O.C.R. are
bringing men to the Holy See. If an Uniate
Church (which I believe Cardinal Manning
would do his best for, if practicable) does not
result, at least we are taking the right way to
lead men to the Roman Catholic Church. . . .
What I feel is this : there are many who
won't read Roman books, nor go straight to
Rome ; but we may help such in O.C.R. in
course of time to put away their prejudices."

So far as the public are aware, the Order of

RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIETIES [ 631 ]

ROGATION DAYS

Corporate Reunion has ceased to exist, at
least since the death of its principal founder,
Dr. Lee, in 1902. Its history, however, forms
an important chapter in the History of the
Oxford Movement, with lessons for Protestants
which ought not to be forgotten for many
years to come.

The Guild of All Souls.— This is a semi-secret
Society for the clergy, and laity of both sexes.
A list of its clerical members (excepting those
of its Council) has never been seen by Pro
testant Churchmen. It circulates an annual
report, but this is not on sale to the public.
It issues to its members a Quarterly Interces
sion Paper, but every effort has been made to
keep it out of Protestant hands. The Guild
of All Souls is, in reality, a Purgatorial Society
within the Church of England. It was
founded in 1873, for the purpose of propagat
ing a belief in the existence of Purgatory, and
of encouraging the practice of Prayers for the
Dead, and the offering of Masses to release
their souls from Purgatorial pains. In 1903
the number of members, clerical and lay, was
stated in the Church Times to be 5230 ; but the
number of clergymen was not given. In 1901,
however, the same paper gave the number of
clergy as 735, so that by this time it is, pro
bably, about 800, since in the two years 1901-3
the total membership had increased by nearly
1000. Branches of the Guild are established
(in addition to those in England) in Madras,
Prince Edward Island, Barbadoes, Montreal,
and Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The Guild
issues a book of offices, containing the signi
ficant title : Office for the Dead, According to
Roman and Sarum Use. It published a book
entitled Treatise of S. Catherine of Genoa on
Purgatory, in which it is taught that the pains
of Purgatory are " as sensible as the pains
of hell," and in which the editor speaks of
what he terms " the extreme moderation of
the Roman Church upon the doctrine of
Purgatory." In Connection with this Guild
of All Souls, I reckon that about 6000 Masses
for the Dead are offered every year in Church
of England places of worship— in England
alone !

Association for the Promotion of the Unity of
Christendom. — This Association was founded in
the year 1857, and for a few years was com
posed of members of the Church of England,
the Church of Rome, and the Greek Church
but eventually the Pope officially censured it,
and required all Roman Catholics to withdraw,
on the ground that it was wrong for them to
unite with heretics and schismatics even in
praying for the unity of Christendom. The
members are required to pray daily for the re
storation of visible unity between the Church
of England, the Church of Rome, and the East

ern Churches, while the clergy are required to
offer the " Holy Sacrifice " at least once in three
months for the " intention " of the Association.
The A.P.U.C. — as it is popularly termed — is
said to have within its ranks about 12,000 cleri
cal and lay members, and its secrecy consists
almost exclusively in this — no one knows who
they are, excepting the officials at the central
office in London. About ten years after its
formation the Association published a volume
of Essays on Reunion, with an Introductory
Essay by Dr. Pusey, advocating Corporate
Reunion with Rome and the East; and also
two volumes of Sermons on Reunion, also plead
ing for Reunion. When the Association was
condemned at Rome, 198 clergymen of the
Church of England addressed to the Prefect of
the Inquisition at Rome a protest in which
they boasted: "We have cultivated a feeling
of goodwill towards the venerable Church of
Rome that has for a long time caused some to
mistrust us."

It may be well to point out here that while
Christian unity is a Christian duty, Christian
separation is no less a Christian duty. The
unity must, if on Scriptural lines, be only with
that which is pure and good and has the
written Word of God as its basis. It is on
these grounds that we do not desire Union
with Rome, but separation. " Come out of
her, my people," and "Be ye separate," are
Divine exhortations never to be forgotten.

[W. W.]

ROCHET. — A vestment of lawn or fine linen
worn by bishops, abbots, and others in the
Church of Rome. It is also the " episcopal
surplice" in the Church of England, being
of a finer linen called lawn. Before the
Reformation bishops were obliged to wear
their rochets in public, but since that time
they have, as a rule, worn them only during
divine service, in the House of Lords, with
the black satin chimere or upper robe, and
in Convocation with a scarlet chimere.
ROGATION DAYS.— The three days immedi
ately preceding Ascension Day. These days
are still observed in the Church of Rome by
public processions with Litanies and a special
Mass. Previous to the Reformation there were
in this country two ceremonies connected with
the Rogation Days. One was giving God
thanks for, or asking a blessing on the fruits
of the earth (in Latin) ; the other, perambu
lating the parishes, or "beating the bounds,"
which was observed with whipping of boys
and some cruelty. This " beating the bounds"
still survives in some places, and usually takes
place on Ascension Day. No special service
is provided for these days, but there is a
Homily in three parts " for the days of
Rogation week," and there is an "Exhorta-

EOMAN CHURCH

[ 632 ]

EOMAN CHURCH

tion to be spoken in such parishes where thej
use their perambulations in Rogation week
for the oversight of the bounds and limits of
their town."
ROMAN CHURCH.

History.— At first the Roman Church simply
meant the Church in Rome. It was the oldest
of all the Western Churches, being addressee
as an already existing Christian community by
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, written pro
bably in A.D. 58. It appears to have sprung up
in a spontaneous fashion, perhaps owing to the
presence in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost
of certain "strangers of Rome" (Acts ii. 10).
The Roman Catholic tradition that it was
founded by Peter rests upon no historical foun
dations, and though it is probable that Peter
visited Rome at a later period, and was there put
to death, his visit must have been subsequent to
that of Paul, while the story of his twenty -five
years' episcopate is nothing better than a fic
tion. However, the martyrdom of both Paul and
Peter in Rome conferred a special distinction
upon the city in the eyes of the Christian
world, and, in combination with its metro
politan position and power, paved the way for
those ideas, first of Roman primacy and then of
Papal Supremacy, which gradually prevailed.
Thus the Roman Church became a synonym
for the Western Church and the Bishop of
Rome came to be regarded as the Primus of
universal Christendom. In the history of the
Roman Church three great stages are to be
distinguished.

1. The age of the Old Catholic Church, up
to the schism between the Greek and Latin
communions in the end of the eighth century.
This is the age in which an inheritance is
claimed by all Christians— Greek, Roman, and
Protestant ; though the value of the inheritance
is differently estimated. It is the age at once
of persecution and victory, the age of martyrs,
confessors, and Fathers, the age of the Nicene
and Chalcedonian Councils and Creeds. Dur
ing the later and larger portion of it, Jewish
and pagan influences were powerfully at work,
and were gradually transforming the faith,
worship, and organisation of the Church,
both in the East and West, in ceremonial,
sacerdotal and hierarchic directions.

2. The age of Mediaeval Romanism in its
distinction from the Greek Church, beginning
with the Great Schism and extending to the
Reformation of the sixteenth century. It is
marked by great missionary enterprise on
behalf of the barbarian races of Europe, by
the rise of the monastic Orders, by the growth
and dominance of the scholastic theology, but
above all by the steady assertion of the con
stantly expanding Papal claims, until, with
Hildebrand, Innocent, and Boniface, the Pope

has become the representative of God on
earth, not only the head of the Church, but
the prince of the world, the lord of monarchs
and arbiter of nations.

3. Finally, there comes the age of Modern
Romanism, from the Council of Trent (1563) to
the present day. The pronounced antithesis is
no longer with Greek, but with Protestant Chris
tianity. The Protestant Reformation evoked
the Roman counter-Reformation, finding ex
pression in the Tridentine decrees, which are
expressly directed against the principles and
teaching of Protestantism. But a new and
significant departure in the modern history of
the Roman Church was marked by the Vatican
Council of 1870, with its promulgation of the
dogma of Papal Infallibility. Vaticanism is
directed not merely, like Tridentine Romanism,
against Protestant Christianity, but against
liberalism, Gallicanism, and nationalism gener
ally within the Roman Church itself, against
all modern thought, and every principle of civil
and religious freedom. The "Old Catholic"
secession showed that in the view of some of
the best minds in the Roman Church, the
Papacy had entered upon an altogether new
path ; but in reality the development of 1870
was a revelation of the essential genius of
Romanism, and the arrival at a goal towards
which for centuries it had been tending.

Government. — In respect of government the
Roman Church, as now organised, is a vast
hierarchy, constructed on the principles of
the most absolute monarchy the world has
ever seen. In this system no place is given to
the Christian people ; they stand outside of
the hierarchy altogether as its mere subjects.
Their one duty as subjects is to render obedi
ence to the priest, while the priest again is
bound to obey the bishop, and the bishop, by
the most solemn oaths, is sworn to obey the
Pope.

In his monarchical functions the Pope is
assisted by a college of cardinals, known as
the Sacred College. Cardinals are "created"
by papal appointment, and rank next in dignity
to the Pope himself. The number of the
Sacred College slightly varies from time to
time, but nominally seventy is its maximum,
"after the example of the seventy elders ap
pointed by God as counsellors of Moses." In
spite of their exalted position, cardinals
possess no constitutional rights under the
Pope's absolute government, the chief affairs
of the Church being in their hands not as
cardinals, but as the principal members of the
great administrative committees which are
about twenty in number, and are known as
" congregations." Among the most important
of these are the Congregation of the Holy
Office (the Inquisition), for the repression of

ROMAN CHURCH

[ 633 ]

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY

heresy; the Congregation of the Council, for
the execution of the decrees of the Council of
Trent ; the Congregation De Propagande Fide ;
the Congregation of the Index, for the pro
hibition of such books as are disapproved of
the Congregation of Indulgences, by which in
dulgences are proclaimed. The distinctive
symbol of a cardinal's dignity is the red hat
conferred by the Pope, while the chief privi
leges of the Sacred College are that none but
its members are eligible to the Papal See, and
that the Pope is elected by them alone. When
a vacancy in the see occurs, the cardinals meet
in what is known as Conclave to elect a suc
cessor, a majority of two-thirds of the votes
being required to make the election valid.

The name Curia, or Roman Curia, was long
used, and is still commonly used by Protestants,
to denote the whole machinery of administra
tion of the Papal See, including the entire body
of persons of various ranks employed in at
tendance on the Pope and in transacting the
business of the central government. Romanist
writers, however, and Vaticanists in particular,
now employ the name Roman Court for this
purpose, and reserve the title Roman Curia
for the Roman Bar, or body of lawyers en
titled to practise in the different pontifical
courts of justice.

The local work of the Roman Church in its
wide ramifications through the world is directed
by its bishops, who received their authority
directly from the Pope. Under the bishops
and immediately responsible to them, are the
secular clergy, i.e. the ordinary priests, who are
usually divided into parish priests and their
curates or assistants. The duties of priests
are numerous and varied, but their chief
function is to administer the sacraments, and
above all to offer that sacrifice of the mass
which forms the very centre of the Roman
worship. Similar functions, with the excep
tion of those which are distinctly parochial,
are exercised by the regular clergy, those
priests, viz., who follow the rule (regula) of a
religious order.

Statistics. — Of the three great divisions of
Christendom — Greek, Roman, and Protestant
— the Roman is the largest, claiming, accord
ing to its own authorities, about 215,000,000
adherents, or nearly as many as the Protestant
and Greek Churches combined. Relatively to
Protestantism, however, the Roman Church is
not making progress. The more rapid growth
and spread of the Teutonic, which are dis
tinctively the Protestant races, as compared
with those Latin races from which the main
strength of Romanism is derived, leads to a
greater proportionate increase in the Protestant
population of the world. By the admission of
Cardinal Gibbons (see his article "Roman

Catholic Church," in vol. xxxii. of the
Encyclopcedia Britannica), the Roman Catholic
population of the United States ought to have
increased from 10,627,000 in 1890 to over
14,000,000 in 1900; but was estimated in
Hoffman's Directory for that year at only
10,129,677. Even when every allowance is
made for the difficulty of obtaining exact
official returns, on which the cardinal dwells,
these figures are significant. And when we
pass from the more intangible statistics of
religious profession, and look at the relative
growth in world-influence of the two main
forms of Christianity, it is a noteworthy fact,
as Bishop Boyd Carpenter has recently pointed
out ("Christian Church," in vol. xxvii. of
the Encyclopcedia Britannica), that while in 1700
the populations under Protestant government
numbered 32,000,000, and those under Roman
Catholic government 90,000,000, in 1900 the
relations were so utterly reversed that the
Roman Catholic powers could claim only
242,000,000 subjects, whereas the sway of
Protestant governments had extended over
520,000,000 souls. [J. C. L.]

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY.— Augustus, the
first Roman Emperor, had the centre of his
government in the city of Rome. Constantine
the Great, however, removed the capital from
Rome to Byzantium, and thereafter the politi
cal separation of East and West became in
evitable. The separation was the work of
centuries. The resignation (A.D. 476) of
Romulus Augustulus marked the extinction
of the Western line of Emperors ; and after
that year the imperial sovereigns, throughout
a long period, reigned at Constantinople. In
A.D. 800, Charles, King of the Franks, was
crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III., and in
that coronation may be seen the inauguration
of the Holy Roman Empire. During the cen
turies of the decline of the Western Empire
the Church was increasing in power. Her
territories required a political protector, espe
cially in the eighth century when the Lombards
threatened to become the masters of Italy.
The Emperor in the East was powerless, official
guardian of the Church though he claimed to
be, and more than once the Bishop of Rome
sought and obtained the aid of the Franks
against the Lombards. At last, in the year
800, when the imperial throne was occupied
by the widowed Empress Irene, a usurper who
had blinded and deposed her own son, the
Pope crowned the King of the Franks, raising
him through the choice of the Roman people
to the imperial dignity, and obtained a pro
tector. It is difficult to say whether the Pope
or the people created Charles Emperor, or
Charles himself seized the imperial dignity,
but in the Middle Ages the Church's theory

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY

[ 634 ]

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY

was that all political power, as in the case of
Charles the Great, was derived from the Pope.
Further, it is difficult to determine whether
the Empire of Charles was a restoration or
continuation of the ancient Roman Empire,
or was a new political creation. In the West,
however, it was believed to be the Roman
Empire, and it obtained from the first the
sanctions of age. At the death of Charles the
territory was divided and seeds of trouble
were sown. War, with political strife and social
disturbance, so disintegrated and weakened
the Empire which Charles had founded, that
in 888, when Charles the Fat, the last direct
male heir in Germany, died, it became extinct.
The imperial idea, however, did not die, and
there were men wearing the Italian or Lom
bard crown, who, though they possessed neither
power nor dignity, were styled Emperors.

ID Italy there was no sense of national unity,
and the rivalry of factions produced constant
political changes. At a crisis in the strife
Otto of Germany was invited to proceed to
Italy as the protector of one of the parties,
and the imperial crown was set before him as
a reward. In the year 962 he was crowned
Emperor at Rome, and with that event the
Holy Roman Empire, the sovereignty of Ger
many and Italy vested in a German, was
established. The Empire of Charles had
become extinct, but the imperial idea lived
again in the Empire associated with Otto's
name. Otto's territory was less than that of
Charles, but in him, as in Charles, there was
seen a powerful king uniting Italy to his own
territory, continuing the ancient Roman im
perial title, and protecting the Church. The
territory, and with it the power, was less.
Otto, by his title the universal sovereign, had
no authority in what is modern France, and
no power in Spain or England. Yet that title,
in his case, and when any of his successors
was himself great, gave to its possessor the
supreme dignity of Caesar of the Roman
world.

The dynasty founded by Otto I., styled the
Great, continued till the death of Otto III.,
1002, and was marked by the control as well
as the protection of the Bishops of Rome.
The tenth century witnessed a tragic degenera
tion of the Papacy, and Pope after Pope rose
and fell as this or that Italian faction of the
nobles triumphed and was vanquished. It was
a burden to many of the Italian nobles and
Roman citizens to be governed by a German
overlord, and the sense of wrong was increased
when they beheld the Bishops of Rome, with
the prestige of a great office, controlled by
foreigners. Yet the Papacy was in danger of
perishing through moral corruption, and even
though its spiritual independence was infringed,

the Church was strengthened and purified
under German supervision. The successors
of the Ottos continued to control the Popes,
and the setting aside of three rival Popes and
the subsequent election of another, were in
reality the acts of the Emperor, Henry III.
Thanks to the imperial influence, the Papacy
increased in strength, till at last, under the
inspiration of the great Hildebrand (Gregory
VII., 1073-1085), spiritual independence, free
dom from secular control, became the papal
policy. In the attempt to establish this inde
pendence the papal came into bitter conflict
with the imperial power, and, as events pro
gressed, the papal policy passed beyond inde
pendence to supremacy. In the thought of
the people, the Empire, with its long and great
tradition, was a divinely appointed institution,
even as the Church was, by its own claim and
in the popular belief. But the Church repre
senting spiritual things would not continue
under the control of the Empire representing
material interests, and hence the effort for
independence. And, in like manner, the
theory became prominent that the Church,
from its superior spiritual character, ought
to rule, not only in religion but also in the
sphere of politics. The history of the Middle
Ages might be described as the history of the
strife for supremacy between the Holy Roman
Church and the Holy Roman Empire.

Hildebrand, in his attempt to secure the
Church's freedom, determined to make the
papal power felt in Germany, where the great
prelates were feudal lords rather than bishops
obedient to the Pope. A protracted quarrel
over the investiture of prelates into their offices
by the Emperor was an outcome of the papal
scheme of independence, and in this quarrel
Hildebrand and the Emperor Henry IV. were
the first great antagonists. As Italy had felt
the shame of German control when the Papacy
was weak, so now, when the Papacy was strong,
Germany was to experience Italian government
in ecclesiastical affairs. Henry, though no
insignificant opponent, was powerless to subdue
the strong Pope. The scene at Canossa, and
the ban of the Church, and the loss of his
crown were tragic events in the career of the
man who sought to preserve ecclesiastical
Germany from the rule of the Bishop of Rome,
and to exert as Emperor a power in Italy and
Rome. In the midst of this contest Hildebrand
excommunicated Henry and freed his subjects
from their oath of allegiance to their king.
This weapon of excommunication, with its
political consequences, was to be freely used
by the Popes of the Middle Ages. Hildebrand,
in a country without political unity, could not
with his own resources oppose a German army ;
but in obtaining the aid of the Countess

ROMAN EMPIEE, HOLY

[ 635 ]

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY

Matilda of Tuscany, and entering into an
alliance with the Normans in the south of
Italy, he prevented a German occupation of
Italy. Dread of this occupation was ever
before the Popes, as the presence of the
Germans in Italy would mean for the Church
not only imperial control, but also the loss of
the papal territories.

In the reign of Henry V. the investiture
strife was continued, till in 1122 it was settled
by the Concordat of Worms. The Concordat
was a compromise. The Emperor was still to
invest the prelates into their lands, but not
into their ecclesiastical offices ; and he was to
use no spiritual symbols in the investiture.
The Church was victorious in this part of its
scheme of independence, and among the
Germans the clergy now looked to the Pope
and not to the Emperor as their overlord.
Before the investiture strife was closed the
first Crusade had been proclaimed at the
Council of Clermont, and Henry IV., under
the. ban of the Church, could not be the leader.
The Pope was the inspirer of the movement in
the West, and the Germans saw their king, and
the Empire the Emperor, excluded from a post
of honour to which, as guardian of the Church,
he had the right to aspire. Through the in
auguration of the Crusade, the Church gained
and the Empire lost prestige in the West.

By the death of Henry V. the Franconian
line of Emperors came to an end. Henry was
followed by the Saxon Lothair, who subjected
himself to the papal authority that he might
gain the Church's support against the Hohen-
staufen, who had opposed his election. Lothair
died in 1138, and Conrad of Hohenstaufen was
elected king of the Eomans, as the king was
styled, who was crowned at Aachen, the old
Frankish capital. In the representatives of the
House of Hohenstaufen the Church was to
meet its strongest and bitterest foes. Not
Conrad, but his nephew Frederick I., commonly
named Barbarossa, was to make his House
famous, and was to try to get back for the
Empire the glory which it had lost in the
struggle with the Church. Frederick (1152-
1189) determined that as Emperor he should
be in reality, as in name, sovereign in Italy and
Rome, and that he should crush the political
pretensions of the Popes, and be master of the
clergy. In Hadrian IV., the Englishman who
was Pope, and Alexander III., he found oppo
nents who successfully baffled his schemes;
and Frederick gained, not as Emperor in Italy,
but as King in Germany, the high distinction
attached to his name. In the strife between
the Church and the Empire the use of the
phrase "Holy Empire" became common, and
was doubtless intended to mark an assertion of
the divine origin of the Empire in opposition

to the Church's claim to be the divine institu
tion. Henry VI. (1190-1197) succeeded his
father Frederick. His marriage with the
Princess Constance gave him sovereign power
in Naples and Sicily, and had he lived, the
German power, now established in the south as
in the north, might have conquered Italy. He
sought, too, to have the imperial crown declared
hereditary in the Hohenstaufen family. His
death, however, prevented the fulfilment of
this plan, and Germany, where his infant son,
the future Frederick II., was too young to rule,
was the scene of contest between Otto of
Brunswick and Philip of Hohenstaufen, candi
dates for the crown. In the years of the
contest Germany was weakened, and the great
Pope, Innocent III., realised, as no other Pope
ever did, Hildebrand's ideal of supremacy in
the political as in the ecclesiastical world,
Frederick II. (1212-1250), who dethroned Otto.
was the last emperor to attempt with imperial
might to crush the papal power with its vast
political influence over territories in Italy, and
its ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the
West. Pope after Pope in the long reign of
Frederick determined to extinguish the imperial
power in Italy, and hatred of the Hohenstaufen
became a papal passion. Frederick was ex
communicated, but seemed to care nothing for
the curse of the Church. He could not, how
ever, despise the opposition of the King of
Thuringia and William of Holland, upon whom
in succession the Bishop of Rome, claiming the
power to give, bestowed the imperial crown.
By the strength and resolute purpose of the
cities of the Lombard League, German influence
was destroyed in the north of Italy ; and in the
south, by the machinations of the Popes in the
last years of the Hohenstaufen, an Angevin and
then an Aragonese idynasty ended the German
rule. Italy was lost to the Empire, though
feeble attempts were afterwards made to re
cover it, and the Holy Roman Empire survived
only as a name.

After the f all of the Hohenstaufen, Germany,
which required a strong ruler to save its
civilisation from ruin, witnessed the rivalry of
the factions of Richard of Cornwall, brother of
Henry III. of England, and Alfonso of Castile,
who each claimed the imperial title. At length,
in 1273, Rudolph of Hapsburg, the founder of
the House of Austria, was elected to the barren
honour of Emperor. He was never actually
crowned at Rome, though, according to the
papal theory, the imperial dignity was the gift
of the Pope. The electors, princes , and prelates,
varying in number from time to time, nomi
nated the Emperor ; but the Pope, by his claim,
conferred the power, and, by recognised
custom, bestowed the crown. At Rhense, in
1338, when the Church had fallen on the evil

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY [ 636 ] ROMANISM IN ITALY

days of the Babylonish Captivity, and the
Empire was but a name, the electors declared
that the imperial power was derived directly
from God, and that an approval of the Pope
was not necessary for the prince of their choice*
who might style himself Emperor before the
coronation at Rome. In 1356 Charles IV., by^
his Golden Bull, laid down rules for imperia
elections. In 1692 Leopold I. made the head
of the House of Brunswick-Liineburg an
Elector, and by this arrangement George I. of
England and his successors, while the Empire
lasted, could take part in the election of the
Emperor.

Apart from Italy, other countries, such as
Poland, broke away from their imperial alle
giance, and though there were emperors who
have left marks on the pages of history, they
gained their distinction apart from the Empire.
Sigismund, at the Council of Constance per
formed a part, as Constantine did at Nicea ;
but Maximilian I. achieved his fame as head
of the House of Hapsburg, and Charles V., the
sovereign over vast territories, derived little or
none of his power from his imperial position.
The Reformation, with its principle of indi
viduality, helped to destroy the mediaeval idea
of a universal State associated with a Catholic
Church; and before the Reformation, while
that idea was still cherished, the West was
becoming a group of nationalities.

The Peace of Westphalia, 1648, marked
another epoch in the history of the Empire
which was so slow to perish. That peace
closed the religious struggle in Germany,
which had been begun in the days of Luther,
and left the Empire, after the failure of
Ferdinand II. to restore it to the former great
ness and extend it to its old limits, German
in constitution if still Roman in name. The
last phase was the abolition of the Empire.
Napoleon, desirous of being master of the
West, thought of re-establishing the Empire of
Charles the Great, and even of having himself
crowned as Roman Emperor. He contented
himself, however, with creating a title for him
self, and while new kingdoms were rising and
old were falling, the Roman Emperor, Francis
II., Archduke of Austria, began to style himself
Hereditary Emperor of Austria. The title was
still further changed when, in a treaty with
Buonaparte, he was named Emperor of Germany
and Austria. In 1806 sixteen states formed
themselves into the Confederation of the
Rhine. The Confederation was protected by
Napoleon, who announced that he no longer
recognised the ancient Empire. On Aug. 6,
1806, Francis resigned the imperial dignity,
and the Empire of Augustus, associated with
the names of Constantine, Charles, Otto, and
Frederick, came to an end.

Authorities.— Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire ;
Fisher, The Mediceval Empire ; Gregorovius, Ges-
chichte der Stadt Horn ; Milman, History of Latin
Christianity. r J. fji

ROMANISM IN ITALY.— Before entering
upon the study of the subject of this article,
I wish to make a remark on the word ' Roman
ism' in the title. It is, of course, used as a
synonym for Roman Catholicism— for the
Papal Church. But living in Italy as I do,
and having noted during many years the
trend of public opinion, and of the national
policy, I have long felt that its use in that
sense is no longer strictly applicable. It is
true that the Pope, the nominal head of the
Church, still has his seat in Rome ; and that
thither, too, its real Head, the General of the
Jesuits, the " Black Pope " as he is called, to
whose authority the " White Pope " virtually
resigned himself by a brief dated October
1836, has transferred his seat from Florence ;
and it is also true that the Vatican is still
the headquarters of all those societies and
bodies which frame the policy of the Church,
and see to its being carried out in every
quarter of the globe ; but still Romanism is
not now characteristic of the city. If Rome
could be cleared of the foreign Roman Catholic
element, which consists mainly in priests
and students, it would be seen how few
and uninfluential the native representatives
of Romanism really are. Not only so, but
if there is an anti-Roman, anti-papal city in
Italy, it is Rome. When, in the spring of 1903,
the Pope, Leo XIII., celebrated his epis
copal jubilee, and congratulations from many
sovereigns, governments, and peoples were
sent to him, King Victor Emmanuel in the
Quirinal took no notice of him, the House
of Deputies at Montecitorio took no notice of
him, the City Council at the Municipality took
no notice of him. Indeed, when some clerical
councillors suggested that the city through
its representatives should send a few words of
congratulation to him, not, however, as the
Pope, but simply as a venerable old man,
as a sort of father amongst the people, the
Syndic, Prince Colonna, nobly answered, in
what are destined to become historic words
" II Papa, non riconosce il Re, ed io non riconosco
il Papa" ("The Pope does not recognise the
King, and I do not recognise the Pope "). When ,
at a preceding jubilee celebration of Leo XIII.,
Prince Ruspolo, then Syndic of Rome, paid
homage to him, Signer Crispi, who was Prime
Minister, within forty-eight hours turned him
out of office. Rome, once "the least Italian
of all Italian citie?," once the territory of the
Pope, and the chosen abode of his devotees
is now the home of the loyal subjects of
King Victor Emmanuel, and is patriotically,

ROMANISM IN ITALY

[ 637 ]

ROMANISM IN ITALY

as well as geographically and politically, the
capital of a free and a united Italy. The
term "Romanism," therefore, whilst used con
ventionally as equivalent to papal Catholicism,
is no longer true to its derivation, and can be
dissociated from Rome and the Romans.

The other term of my title limits our study
of Romanism to Italy, and it is well it should
do so, for if we go farther afield the probability
is that we shall get erroneous ideas of it,
especially if we go to Protestant countries,
where, as in England and America, it disguises
itself so as not to appear in too open conflict
with its Christian surroundings. But in Italy
it was born and grew up and reached the full
maturity of its powers in unbridled licence of
exercise, and in Italy we now see it in the
decrepitude of old age. Within the borders
of Italy we see it disclose itself in its true
character and in its true manner of working ;
we can see all that it is, and all that it is
capable of doing for weal and for woe for
humanity.

First, let us look at the STATUS OF THE
ROMAN CHURCH IN ITALY. Its present status
dates from 1870, when, on the 20th of September
of that year, the Italian troops entered Rome
by the breach in its walls at Porta Pia, and
the temporal power of the Pope, that " un
happy papal government," to quote the words
of Dr. Arnold, "which discharges no one
function decently ... so contrived, as it would
seem, for every evil end, and so necessarily
exclusive of all good," came to an end; and
Italy, no longer what Prince Metternich called
it, "a geographical expression," no longer
what Niebuhr called it, li a land of the dead,"
no longer what Capponi called it, " a garden
of Eden without the tree of knowledge and
without the tree of life," became "Italia Una,
from Alp to Etna," eager to enter upon a
career of activity and progress.

It would have been well if its first action
had been to overthrow Pope and Popery, which
were the main factors in creating its past un
speakably sad condition. Cavour, Mazzini,
Garibaldi, Ricasoli, and many more of her
noblest sons, desired it, but superstition dies
hard ; besides which, Continental Governments,
Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, brought
pressure to bear upon Italy, and they were
retained and given a legal status in the land.
In order to effect this, the ground was first of
all cleared. The Church was stripped naked.
All ecclesiastical property — churches, monas
teries, nunneries, and houses and lands from
which the Church drew revenue — were taken
from it, and declared to be the property of the
State, and it was made illegal for the Church
ever again to hold real estate in the country.
It cannot buy, it cannot build, it cannot inherit

property. If property is left to it, it must
within a given time be turned into money, or
it is confiscated. It is illegal to alienate a
stone of building or an inch of Italian soil for
Church purposes.

Having thus made the Church a tenant at
will, the Government proceeded to establish
and endow it. It was declared the National
Church. The number of archbishops, bishops,
and priests for whom the State held itself re
sponsible, was fixed, and stipends were assigned
to them. The churches were given them for
their use free of rent or taxation, and the
Government charged itself with their upkeep.
Monastic Orders were suppressed, and their
buildings, excepting such as were decreed to
be national monuments, were devoted to useful
purposes, as barracks, schools, hospitals, and
kindred institutions. The Pope's position was
defined and secured by what are called the
Papal Guarantees. These consist of thirteen
Articles, of which space forbids me giving more
here than the substance of the more important
of them. (1) The Pope's person is sacred and
inviolable. (2) Attempts against his person
are punishable as they would be if directed
against the person of the King. (4) An annual
endowment is assigned him of 3,225,000 francs
(£129,000), which was the sum found inscribed
in the Roman balance sheet. (5) The use of
the Vatican and the Lateran palaces, the Villa
Castel Gandolfo, and certain other smaller
places, are conceded to him free of taxation.
(7) No public official or agent of police, in the
exercise of his duties, can enter his residences.
(9) The Pope is completely free to fulfil all the
functions of his spiritual ministry. (11) Am
bassadors or Agents accredited to him by
Foreign Governments enjoy the prerogatives
and immunities accorded to such by inter
national right. (12) The Pope can have his
own post and telegraph offices to be worked
by his own clerks. (13) In the city of Rome,
and in the six suburban sees, the Seminaries,
Academies, Colleges, and other Catholic insti
tutions founded for the education of ecclesi
astics, shall not be interfered with by the
scholastic authorities of the kingdom.

The Pope and Curia spurned these most
generous concessions and privileges, but yet,
in reality, they take advantage of all of them,
with the exception of the Pope's annual allow
ance, which, unappropriated by him, returns
to the Government exchequer every five years.
What these Papal Guarantees have secured for
the Church has been well described by a writer
in the Nazione. After reviewing the history
of the Church since their operation till the
beginning of the present century, he says, " I
dare say in conclusion, with fullest confidence,
that the Papacy has never enjoyed a period

ROMANISM IN ITALY

[ 638 ]

ROMANISM IN ITALY

so tranquil, so secure in independence and in
absolute liberty, as that which it has passed
through from the 20th of September 1870 till
to-day. He who denies it audaciously con
tradicts history."

Secondly, let us inquire, How THE CHURCH

THUS ESTABLISHED AND ENDOWED BY THE

GOVERNMENT FULFILS ITS MISSION ? What
has it done — what is it doing for the spiritual
needs of the people ? The answer is a sad one
— nothing. Placing in the background all
thought of making bad people good, and good
people better, if it ever had such an idea, it
organised itself into a great political conspiracy,
aiming at the restoration of the temporal
power by the destruction of the throne, of the
unity and of the independence of the kingdom.
Each Pope maintains against the King, the
Government, and all who are the servants of the
Government, the sentence of excommunication
pronounced in 1870 by Pio Nono. King Victor
Emmanuel is never spoken of as the King of
Italy, but only as the King of Sardinia, or
the Head of the House of Savoy, and Koman
Catholic kings are forbidden to visit him in
Rome. Protestant kings cannot be so treated,
but they would not be received at the Vatican
if they went from the Quirinal. Hence King
Edward VII. and the Emperor William, in
May 1903, left their royal host and his
palace, and visited the Pope from their re
spective embassies. Article VII. of the Papal
Guarantees is taken advantage of to turn
the Vatican into the headquarters of this con
spiracy, which has its ramifications in every
quarter of the land. Cardinals, archbishops,
bishops, and priests are the conspirators, who,
in their respective spheres of influence, carry
out the Vatican war policy. The late Hon.
Ruggero Bonghi, who was one of the few
clerical members of the House of Deputies, in
an article in the Nuova Antoloyia of January
1894, wrote thus: "The war is conducted by
the Papacy, and since its commencement
twenty-three years ago, it does not seem to
decrease in vigour and in precision of aim ; on
the contrary, it even increases, being guided
to day by a Pope of an elevated mind, but in
the highest degree political. The Pope con
tinues to fight fiercely to recover the temporal
power. Throughout the country the priests
either follow the Pope, or remain inactive and
silent, even when in their hearts they dissent
from him." Signor Crispi, in an article in
The New Review, says. " To-day he (the Pope)
conspires ; to-morrow, as king, he would treat
openly with our enemies to the detriment of
our national unity." The papal campaign
consists in spreading discontent amongst the
people, fomenting rebellion (as it did in Sicily
and Carrara in 1894, and in Florence and Milan

in 1898), impeding useful legislation, bribing
and corrupting electors, diverting charity
moneys for political purposes, subsidising anti-
national newspapers at home and abroad, and
exercising a general system of spiritual terror
ism. To counteract these tactics the Govern
ment has had to pass various penal statutes,
such as the Pious Works Bill, by which all
charity moneys (which yield an annual income
of five million pounds sterling) were taken
from the Church and placed under the control
of local lay boards ; the New Penal Code, which
threatens with fine, imprisonment, and dis
missal from office any priest, who, in the
exercise of his office talks against the King
and Constitution, or incites to the setting aside
of the laws of the State, or to the neglect of
duties due to the country, or damages legiti
mate private interests, or disturbs the peace
of families. The government has been com
pelled to abolish all chaplaincies in the army
and navy, and all theological faculties and
priest professorships in the Universities, and it
has also had to banish all priests as teachers
from the public schools, replacing them by
certificated laymen. It has also made marriage
a civil contract, only legal when celebrated by
the Mayor of a town, or by his substitute in
the council-chamber. The Premier, G. Zanar-
delli, lately said in the House of Deputies:
"Si deve vedere se in Italia comanda il Quiri-
nale od il Vaticano " (" It has to be seen who
rules in Italy, the Quirinal or the Vatican ") ;
and by such legislation he shows that the
Quirinal is determined to rule, and to prevent
an Italian subject from being annoyed in any
shape or form by the Vatican, for doing what
the law commands or permits.
Thirdly, let us ask, WHAT ATTITUDE DO

THE PEOPLE OF ITALY ASSUME TOWARDS
THE CHURCH? Speaking generally, this is
one of implacable hostility, cherished on two
grounds. (a) On that of Patriotism. They
recognise the Church to be what we have just
seen it to be, the enemy of their country. It
is therefore impossible for an Italian to be a
patriot and a papist at the same time. As
Signor Crispi wrote in The Ne^v Review for May
1892, " To be a sincere Catholic and a friend
of Italy, is to the Italians a contradiction."
Italians have therefore to chose between the
Church and their country. And they have
chosen their country. They have created it a
free and united Italy in spite of everything the
Church could do to prevent it, and they pre
serve it as such in spite of everything it
can do to destroy it. Therefore, on grounds
of patriotism, Italians hate the Church, (b)
They do so, on the ground of morality and
religion. Italians of every class, rich and
poor, learned and unlearned, recognise the

ROMANISM IN ITALY

[ 639 ]

ROMANISM IN ITALY

Church to be, to quote the words of Professor
Raffaele Mariano, Professor of Philosophy in
the University of Naples, " Un istituto di
assicurazione di salute per quei che interior-
mente non sono tocchi dalla potenza spirituale
dell' Evangelo" ("A Society of Assurance of
Salvation for those who inwardly are not
touched by the spiritual power of the Gospel ").
Elsewhere he tells us he was taught by the
Church to believe that his salvation was
secured by his being inside its pale, and by
having its offices said for him by its priests,
independently altogether of his character and
life. He might be what he liked, and he
might live as he liked; that was of little
consequence. But, he tells us, he had been
reading the New Testament, and he found
nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary,
that his salvation depended " on a mystical
change of heart, wrought in him through faith
in Christ, by the influence of the Holy Spirit."
"Therefore," he argues, " Roman Catholicism
is not only not Christianity, but it is the
very antithesis of Christianity." His conclusion
seems a right one, and it is recognised as such
by his countrymen. Christ came to save from
sin, " Thou shalt call His name Jesus ; for He
shall save His people from their sins," but the
Papal Church practically professes to save in
sin. Thus it reverses the very mission of
Christ, thus it is the antithesis of Christianity.
For this reason Mr. Gladstone said, " There has
never been any more cunning blade devised
against the freedom, the VIETUB, and the
happiness of a people than Romanism," and
Mr. Ruskin speaks in his Modern Painters of
"its permission of crime," and calls it in his
Stones of Venice, " The Church of the UNHOLY."
Italians even go a step further, and say that
not only does the Church permit sin, but that
it puts a premium on it by the granting of
dispensations, indulgences, and absolutions on
easily complied with conditions. As I heard
an Italian say, "Absolution is given, for what
ultimately resolves itself into a money pay
ment, in order that the sin and the payment
may be repeated." And in harmony with this
theory, an Italian newspaper lately gave quo
tations from the Church's Libro delle Tasse dei
Peccati (Book of Taxes for Sins) and its Tari/a
dei Peccati (Tariff for Sins), with a pictorial
representation of a rich man confessing his
sins to a priest, who sits at his table making
out the bill. Because of this, Italians call the
Church La Botteya del Papat and La Santa
Eottega (The Pope's Shop and The Holy Shop).
As a matter of fact, nothing can be got in the
Church without money in some shape or form,
and anything can be got for it. The Church
is thus recognised to be a very mundane and a
very immoral institution, and therefore it is

regarded by the Italians with feelings of
bitter hostility.
Fourthly, How DO THE ITALIANS SHOW

THIS HOSTILITY TO THE CHURCH ? (a) They
do so by declaring their conviction that all its
doctrines and ceremonies are mere sciocchezza
(rubbish). Mr Ruskiu speaks of hardly having
ever met on the Continent any one who believed
in the doctrines of Romanism, and certainly
that is my own experience in Italy. No priest
nor layman in Italy really and sincerely be
lieves its doctrines, nor do the latter ever
trouble to acquaint themselves with them.
They realise that wherever truth is to be
found, Romanism is a lie, and that, to use
Mr. Ruskin's words, it would be mere "fatuity
to seek for the unity of a living body of truth
and trust in God in a dead body of lies and
trust in wood." As for its ceremonies, they
speak of them as a mere spettacolo (a theatrical
display). Even the Mass they consider to be a
thing incompatible with common honesty, a
piece of vulgar jugglery, " no more worthy of
respect than table-turning." (b) They show
their hostility to the Church by declining to attend
its services. Twenty millions, out of Italy's
thirty odd millions of inhabitants, refuse to
cross its threshold. King Victor Emmanuel
never does so, although the House of Savoy
has its own priests, who are independent of
the Vatican ; and, of course, so long as the
Roman Catholic Church is the national one,
he must, from time to time, in his own private
chapels, make use of its services. Even of
those who go to church, most have no connec
tion with its priests and services, but merely
go to say their prayers in buildings that belong
to the nation. To attend church otherwise
is to fall in public estimation, is to have the
finger of scorn pointed at one as a birbone
(scoundrel), as a man living in sin, and com
pounding with the Churoh for his manner of
life, (c) They show this hostility by refusing to
give their sons to the priesthood. No respectable
father would dream of allowing his son to
enter its ranks, knowing that he would in all
probability grow up with his mental faculties
stunted and atrophied, and with his moral
faculties vitiated ; and that he would be
ostracised and banned by society as the enemy
of his country, of civilisation, of education, of
morality, and of religion — in a word, as the
enemy of God and of man ; that he would be
spoken of by his ecclesiastical superiors as
fango (mud), and by the people in general as a
scaynozzo (cur). The Church has therefore to
be content to recruit the ranks of its priest
hood from the lowest grades of society, in fact
from the pauper and criminal class, and even
all thus got hold of it does not retain, for, as
theological students are called up as conscripts,

EOMAN PRIMACY

j- 640 ]

ROMAN PRIMACY

like other young men in the country, many,
when their turn of military service is over,
refuse to return to the Church, and thus they
escape from a false and unworthy position into
which they were entrapped in their early years,
and are free to pursue an honourable calling.

We have thus seen what Romanism in Italy
is. We have seen its character and aims, its
workings and influence ; and because Italy is
its home and habitat we may be sure, as I
have already said, that the knowledge we have
gained of it is absolutely and entirely correct.
And we have also seen that, because of its
treasonable and immoral nature and doings,
it is held in check by special penal laws, and
it is contemned and opposed by the great bulk
of the people. Thus, though it is the National
Church, it is no longer the Church of the
nation ; though it is in Italy, it is no longer
of it.

What its future may be we cannot tell, but
certainly Italy has nothing to fear from it.
Already it is "cabin'd, cribb'd, confined,"
and if ever a life-and-death struggle arose
between it and the State, its doom would be
at once sealed. Indeed, the Church recognises
the fact that Italy is lost to it, that its present
legal status is a most precarious one, and that
its ceasing to exist in the land is only a
question of time. Hence its anxiety to con
ciliate, and gain ground in, other lands,
especially the rich Protestant lands of England
and America. And it is precisely in these
countries, where it is neither understood nor
feared, where, indeed, it is flattered and
favoured, that Romanism is most likely to
grow and strengthen and work mischief, to
the detriment of the individual, of the family,
and of the State, as a political conspiracy and
as an immoral institution. [A. R.]

ROMAN PRIMACY.— For the assumptions
on which the Roman claims are founded "on
the merit of St. Peter" (Leo I.) see PETER,
ST. ; PBIVILEGE OF PETER.

For the history of the Roman Primacy after
it began to be gradually merged in the
Papacy, see PAPACY; SUPREMACY, PAPAL.
Our business here is to sketch its history in brief
from the Apostles' time to the beginning of
the Papacy ; say, roughly, during the period of
the first four General Councils.

Before the first of these we find three
Patriarchates, in this order of precedence —
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, all three sees
connected with St. Peter, but the second only
indirectly through St. Mark. Plainly, then,
the precedence was not arranged on " the
merit of St. Peter," else Antioch should
precede Alexandria. Baronius explains (Annal.
Eccl., A.D. 39) : " The ancients acknowledged
no other rule in instituting the ecclesiastical

Sees, than the division of provinces, and the
prerogative before established by the Romans."
So Cyprian (ad. Cornel.), says, "Rome, on
account of its magnitude, ought to precede
Carthage."

That these three Patriarchates were entirely
independent of each other is sufficiently proved
by the Sixth Canon of the Council of Nice: "Let
the ancient customs prevail which have been in
Egypt and Libya, and in Pentapolis, so that
the bishops of the Alexandrian Church have
the authority over all these, for as much as this
also is customary for the Roman bishop. And
in like manner at Autioch, and in the other
provinces, let the privileges of Churches be
preserved."

Later Councils recognise five Patriarchates
in this order, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, Jerusalem. Here we have the mother
Church last as being politically the most in
significant ; and hitherto, on the same principle,
an ordinary see, subject to the metropolitical
jurisdiction of the local capital, Caesarea ;
whilst a comparatively modern and hitherto
obscure See is promoted to second rank above
three Apostolic Sees, Rome still retaining her
pride of place. The Council of Chalcedon ex
plains : " The Fathers rightly gave precedence
to the elder Rome, because that was the
Imperial City ; and with the same object the
hundred and fifty bishops most beloved of God
[second Gen. Coun., 381] awarded the like
precedence to the most holy See of the New-
Rome. . . . ought also to be magnified like it
in Ecclesiastical matters being next after it."
So in Africa the Bishop of Carthage (metro
polis) was the standing Primate of his province,
acting as Primate over all the Churches in
Africa. So far was this principle carried that
whenever the Emperor divided a province in
two, giving them separate magistrates, a
parallel change was effected ecclesiastically.
Some of the very titles given to bishops are
confirmatory, as metropolitan, diocesan (see
SUPREMACY, PAPAL), exarch ; whilst the very
titles, presbyter, bishop, metropolitan, arch
bishop, primate, exarch, patriarch, being
associated with the villages, towns, cities,
that were the seats of these different orders,
naturally suggested the completing of the
analogy by a correspondency in the highest
rank of all ; and that this one Head of the
Church should also have his seat where the
one Head of the State already held his court.
It is to this confounding of the ideas of the
outward and the inward Church we trace the
entire germ of the Papacy and its develop
ment. The first real foundation ecclesi
astically given this claim was by the Council
of Sardica, for which see SARDICA.
[Other articles show that it was really only

ROMAN PRIMACY

[ 641 ]

ROMAN PRIMACY

when Constantinople's political position began
to rival Rome's and threatened to outstrip it,
that the advocates of Rome's claims to the
chief Primacy began to base those claims
on "the merit of St. Peter" and his
"privilege."] See INDEX.

Yet, up to Constantine's time, Rome was
not even an exarchate ; for the civil diocese
of Italy had been divided into two vicariates,
the Roman vicariate containing ten pro
vinces. But there is no reason to be surprised
that the claims of the Church of Rome advanced
more and more from mere precedency to
authority and power. "All roads led to
Rome." And Rome stood absolutely alone, the
one seat of authority and rule, towards which
all the known world stood subject or dependent.
And the Church which had its seat there, from
association alone, was bound to acquire a pro
portionately more illustrious character than
other Churches. This was the case when
wealthy and powerful personages were drawn
into her fold, even the Emperor himself ; and
when her wealth and power thus obtained were
used freely for the benefit of the needy and op
pressed everywhere. Moreover, her prevailing
character for orthodoxy, the consistent fashion
in which, while not by any means a learned
Church, in the course of her doctrinal develop
ment, she held to the ancient faith. All the
controversies, excepting almost alone the
Pelagian, had originated outside the Western
Church. The Western Church owed this advan
tage to its unspeculative temper as contrasted
with that of the Orientals. The Greek Church
had also continuous cause of distraction in dis
putes for precedency among her Patriarchates
and Apostolic Sees, while Rome stood abso
lutely alone, in the West without rival, the one
Patriarchate, the one Apostolic See, claiming
also two (those the two greatest) Apostles
as her founders, one of whom she claimed as
her first bishop, whilst the other had addressed
to her the greatest of the inspired Epistles,
and her soil was consecrated by the martyr
dom of both. Nor was the prestige arising
from these and other causes limited to the
Western Empire. So, contending parties in
the East and elsewhere found it to their
advantage to win her favour in their disputes.
From all the Churches her arbitration was
requested and her protection sought by those
who had against them locally the dominant
party. The papal declarations and ordinances
came in time to be regarded as "decretals"
having the force of law, proceeding not from
a friendly, high-placed arbitrator, but as
being of divine authority. The declarations
and ordinances, which at first were written in
the name of Roman Synods, came gradually to
run in the name of the Pope alone, and rose

more and more from a tone of advice to a tone
of command. In the ninth century a great
forgery supplied an uncritical age with a
series of decretals professing to have been
written by the earlier Popes from St. Clement
downward. See DECRETALS.

The claims of the Roman Primacy, as we
know them to-day, were not acknowledged
(or even known at first) in those earliest cen
turies. This is manifest from the fact that there
are so many things we do not find, which
we should reasonably expect to find, if those
claims had been recognised by the Church at
large. Thus : —

We should expect to find : —

1. That St. Peter's charter conferring the
alleged Primacy should be producible (as his
Epistles) ; at least that we should have fre
quent references to it and quotations from it
by writers of the early Church. But there are
none such.

2. That the Pope's claim, if made, to be not
only above all grades of the Christian ministry,
but in a class above all, and himself the only
one in that class, should have frequent men
tion, direct and indirect. But " none of the
ancient confessions of faith, no catechism,
none of the patristic writings composed for
the instruction of the people, contain a syllable
about the Pope" (Janus, The Pope and the
Council, chap. iii. 4).

3. That the Popes themselves (as they do
to-day) would make constant appeal to this
their inherent supreme and unique authority.
But " often and earnestly as the Popes ex
horted separated bishops and Churches to
return to communion with Rome, they never
appealed to any peculiar authority or exemp
tion from error in the Roman See " (ibid.).

4. That the records of a succession on which
so much depended (as alleged) should be kept
with perfect and undoubted accuracy. But
actually the first names on its roll of bishops
are not always given in the same order by the
early writers who allude thereto.

5. That all the upholders of sects and
heresies (of which some eighty are mentioned
in records of the first six centuries) should
be continually censured for rejecting papal
authority. Yet not one is so reproached.

6. That in letters to and from the Popes we
should find the claims taken for granted —
letters from, written in tones of authority,
letters to, in tones of submission and entreaty —
that certainly on the part of orthodox bishops,
at all events, there would never be any
questioning or denying of such claims. But
Clement (or the Roman Church) addresses
the Corinthian Church in tones of affectionate
remonstrance, not authoritative rebuke. Igna
tius addresses the Roman Christians as other

2s

ROMAN PEIMACY

[ 642 ] HOMEWARD MOVEMENT, THE

Churches — no allusion to the supreme pontiff
at all. Cyprian's assertion of his independ
ence and that of "every bishop," in a letter to
Pope Stephen (a conviction often repeated by
him), was afterwards endorsed by Augustine's
admiring approval. The Eastern bishops at
Antioch protested to Julius that " it did not
belong to him, a foreign bishop, to set himself
up as a judge in the affairs of the Eastern
Church ; that every Synod was independent
in its decision ; that he, as bishop of a larger
city, was no more than other bishops "
(Neander, Church History, iii. 243). " We are
resolved not to admit this arrogant claim,"
wrote the African bishops to Boniface I. in
419. These are but a few instances out of
many.

7. That in connection with the greatest
ecclesiastical events of these centuries— the
four General Councils — the Bishops of Rome
would be found playing a principal part.
But "the Popes took no part in convoking
General Councils. All great Councils to
which bishops came from different countries
were convoked by the Emperors, nor were the
Popes ever consulted about it beforehand,"
&c. (ibid.). The Popes "were not always
allowed to preside personally or by deputy at
the great Councils, though no one denied
them the first rank in the Church " ( ibid.). Of
the second Council Baronius tells us " it was
called contrary to his [the Pope's] will," and
the Roman See was not represented at it at
all. The third did not wait for the Roman
representatives, who were behind time. How
ever, in the history of these four Councils we
have noteworthy illustration of the progress
made during this period, in advancement of
the Roman claims. Sylvester excuses himself
for absence from the first on the score of age ;
Leo, from the fourth, on the score of dignity.

8. That all controversies on matters of faith
and discipline would be submitted to the
Bishop of Rome for determination. But " for
the first thousand years of Church history not
a question of doctrine was finally decided by
the Pope . . . nor can a single dogmatic
decree issued by one of them be found during
the first four centuries, nor a trace of the
existence of any. . . . During all the fourth
century Councils alone decided dogmatic
questions " (ibid.). Popes' letters were not ac
cepted as authoritative unless endorsed by a
Council. Notably, Celestine's condemnation
of the heresiarch Nestorius approved by the
Council of Ephesus, and Leo I.'s famous letter
to Flavian approved at Chalcedon. These
two instances bring us far into the fifth
century.

In three controversies during this early
period — about Easter, heretical baptism, and

the penitential discipline— the Roman Church
took an active part, and in all three the Popes
proved unable to carry out their own will and
view and practice; and the other Churches
maintained their different usages without its
leading to permanent division.

9. That National Churches which were never
under Rome, and having no intercourse by letter
with her— as the Armenian, Syro-Persian,
Ethiopian, British, and Irish— would be con
sidered defective, and that there should be
difficulties about having full communion with
them. But it was not so.

To sum up this account of the position of
the early Popes, " we get the following pic
ture of the position of the ancient Church :
Without prejudice to its agreement with the
Church Universal in all essential points, every
Church manages its own affairs with perfect
freedom and independence, and maintains its
own traditions, and usages and discipline, all
questions not concerning the whole Church,
or of primary importance, being settled on the
spot. The Church is organised in dioceses,
provinces, patriarchates (National Churches
were added afterwards in the West), with the
Bishop of Rome at the head, as first Patriarch,
the Centre and Representative of Unity, and,
as such, the bond between East and West,
between the Churches of the Greek and the
Latin tongue, the chief watcher and guardian
of the, as yet very few, common laws of the
Church— for a long time only the Nicene ;
but he does not encroach on the rights
of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops.
Laws and Articles of faith, of universal obliga
tion, are issued only by the whole Church,
concentrated and represented at an (Ecu
menical Council " (Janus, The Pope and Council,
chap. iii. 5). [T. C. O'C.]

HOMEWARD MOVEMENT, THE.— The
objept of this article is to prove that the Cor
porate Reunion of the Church of England with
the Church of Rome has been the chief object
of the leaders of the Oxford Movement from
its birth in 1833 down to the present moment.
At a meeting of the English Church Union,
held at Bristol, Feb. 14, 1895, the President
(Lord Halifax) frankly declared that "the
Reunion of Christendom is the only legitimate
conclusion of the Oxford Movement." Thir
teen years before this, at the annual meeting
of the Union, the same speaker asserted that
the Reunion of Christendom "is the crown
and completion of that movement which has
transformed the face of the Church of Eng
land." Individual secession to Rome, though
common amongst both leaders and disciples,
has not been the guiding principle of the
movement. Something far more dangerous
than this is aimed at. It is desired that all

ROME WARD MOVEMENT, THE [ 643 J ROME WARD MOVEMENT, THE

those members of the Church of England,
whether clergy or laity, who hold more or less-
of Roman Catholic doctrines, shall remain
within her fold for the purpose of "Catho
licising" her, and making her respectable
enough for the Pope to accept her by-and-by,
when, as the Union Review expressed it in
18G7, "Catholicism will have so leavened our
Church, that she herself in her corporate
capacity, and not a mere small section of her,
like ourselves, shall be able to come to you
[the Church of Rome] and say : ' Let the
hands which political force, not spiritual
choice, have parted these three hundred years,
be once more joined.' " A Ritualistic priest,
writing in the Church Review twenty-one years
later, described most accurately what has
really been the policy of the party since
1833: "It seems to me," he wrote, "utterly
premature to consider reunion, especially
with the great Patriarchal See of the West
[the Church of Rome], as within even distant
probability, until the Anglican Communion, as
a whole, is Catholicised. There lies our work."
Here we see not only the main object of the
movement, but also the means to be used for
attaining it. Not individual secession, but the
Corporate Reunion of the Church of England
as a whole with the Church of Rome, is the
object of the Romeward Movement.

Three months before the birth of the Oxford
Movement, its two chief founders, the Rev.
J. H. Newman and the Rev. R. H. Froude,
visited the city of Rome. While there they
had a secret interview with Monsignor (after
wards Cardinal) Wiseman, the object of which
was afterwards revealed by Froude himself:
"We got introduced to him [Wiseman],"
wrote Froude, " to find whether they would
take us in [i.e. to the Church of Rome] on any
terms to which we could twist our con
sciences." Thus early were the founders of
the movement thinking about union with
Rome ! The Rev. William Palmer, one of the
Tractarian leaders, who afterwards withdrew
from the movement, tells us, with reference to
this interview, that " Froude had with New
man been anxious to ascertain the terms upon
which they could be admitted to communion
by the Roman Church, supposing that some
dispensation might be granted which would
enable them to communicate with Rome with
out violation of conscience." When the move
ment actually commenced in Oxford, the first,
work of its promoters was that of "Catho
licising," or, as we should say, "Romanising,"
the Church of England. The various steps
taken in this direction are described in detail
in my Secret History of the Oxford Movement,
and in my History «f the Romeward Movement in
the Church of England, and also above, in the

article OXFORD MOVEMENT, to which I must
refer my readers, as it is manifestly impossible
to compress the facts into a single article like
this. But it may be well to mention here
again that, as early as January 1834, Mr.
Ambrose Phillipps De Lisle, a Roman Catholic
gentleman, exclaimed, after reading the fourth
of the Tracts for the Times, issued by the
leaders of the movement : " Mark my words,
these Tracts are the beginning of a Catholic
Movement which will one day end in the
return of her Church to Catholic unity and
the See of Peter." So impressed was Mr. De
Lisle in favour of the movement that he gave
up the rest of his long life to promoting it to the
utmost. The influence of Froude on Newman
was very great. " He made me," wrote
Newman, "look with admiration towards the
Church of Rome, and in the same degree to
dislike the Reformation." That was ten years,
at least, before Newman left the Church of
England. As the years went on, Newman's
love for Rome increased. Of the year 184.0
he wrote: "I wished for union between the
Anglican Church and Rome, if, and when, it
was possible ; and I did what I could to gain
weekly prayers for that object." In the
following year he wrote to a Roman Catholic :
"Only through the English Church can you
act upon the English nation. I wish, of
course, our Church should be consolidated,
with and through and in your Communion, for
its sake and your sake, and for the sake of
unity."

In 1841 the Mr. De Lisle mentioned above
had become the secret and recognised emis
sary of the Pope and Bishop Wiseman to the
leaders of the movement in Oxford University.
Newman opened his heart to De Lisle more
than to any of his own disciples in the Church
of England. Writing to his wife on May 5,
1841, De Lisle made this startling announce
ment : "Many here would like to come to an
understanding with the Pope at once, that so
they might be in active communion with him,
and yet remain in the Church of England to
labour for the reconciliation of their whole
Church. This is to be taken into solemn con
sideration. I proposed to them last night that
Father Rosimini should come to England and
visit Oxford with me, with a view to conveying
their sentiments to the Pope himself." One
of the most prominent of the Tractarian con
spirators at this time was the Rev. W. G. Ward,
who subsequently seceded to Rome. His Ro
man Catholic son tells us, that while his father
was still a Church of England clergyman :
" He had long held that the Roman Church
was the one true Church. He had gradually
come to believe that the English Church was
not strictly a part of the Church at all. He

ROMEWARD MOVEMENT, THE [ 644 ]

ROSARY

had felt bound to retain his external com
munion with her members, because he believed
that he was bringing many of them towards
Rome." No doubt Ward realised even then
what Newman afterwards expressed as his own
view of the Oxford Movement in 1857 : "I
think," Newman wrote, "that it is for the
interest of Catholicism that individuals should
not join us, but should remain to leaven the
mass — / mean that they will do more for us by
remaining where they are than by cominy over."

If it be asked in what way do the Ritualists
do more for the Church of Rome by remaining
in the Church of England than by leaving her
fold, let the Ritualistic Church News of October
28, 1868, reply: "England," it said, "will
never become Catholic through the Roman
part of the Church. The Roman Catholics
minister to their own people and to the Irish,
and make a good many converts from the upper
classes, but they can never leaven the lump
and touch the people as we hope and intend
to do with the blessing of God. What Cardinal
Wiseman said was this — England must return
to Catholic Unity through the Established
Church. The Established Church, then, must
get hold of the people, and not only get hold
of them, but Catholicise them. As we move
onward and restore again the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the Confessional, the Seven Sacraments,
the Veneration of Mary and the Saints, Prayers
for the Departed, the Catholic Doctrine of
Purgatory, and the like, we must remember
that we have to restore these Rites, Beliefs,
and Practices not as luxuries for a few, but as
living realities to be held and used by all."

In 1857 the Association for the Promotion
of the Unity of Christendom was formed, for
the purpose of promoting prayer for the Cor
porate Reunion of the Church of England with
the Eastern Church and the Church of Rome.
Particulars of its work in this direction will be
found in the article RITUALISTIC SECRET SO
CIETIES. The English Church Union, with
over 4000 clergy and 30 bishops in its ranks,
is also officially pledged to Corporate Reunion
with Rome (see ENGLISH CHURCH UNION).
The Society of the Holy Cross also labours for
Corporate Reunion with Rome. As far back as
1867 it organised an address to the bishops
assembled at the Lambeth Conference, which
was signed by 1212 clergymen of the Church
of England and 4453 laity, in which they asked
the Episcopate "to adopt such measures as
may, under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit,
be effectual in removing the barriers which
now divide the Western Branch of the Catholic
Church." The Confraternity of the Blessed
Sacrament, with about 7800 clergy, requires
its members to pray every month for the
" Reunion of Christendom."

The Ritualists, of course, know very well
that Rome, claiming infallibility, can never give
up one of her doctrines, and that therefore
union with her can only be secured by accept
ing every one of her false and unscriptural
tenets ; and yet, notwithstanding Rome's un
yielding attitude, they persevere in their efforts
to secure reunion practically on Rome's own
doctrinal terms. In matters of discipline Rome
can make concessions, but not in doctrine. The
Reformed Church of England, in the Homily
on the Peril of Idolatry, declares that the
Church of Rome is the Babylon of the Book
of the Revelation, and applies to her the divine
command : " Come out of her, my people, that
ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye
receive not of her plagues." [W. W.]

ROOD-SCREEN.— The rood (Anglo-Saxon rod)
properly means the cross without any figure on
it. The rood-screen, however, sometimes had a
crucifix and even other figures connected with
it (as the Virgin Mary and St. John). By
Queen Elizabeth's Orders, October 10, 1561,
as set forth in full in Miller's Ecclcs. Guide,
section 83, from the British Museum 5155 a. a.
7, all rude lofts or screens were ordered to be
abolished. There is no evidence for any use
of the rood-screen, or cross upon the beam
or screen dividing the chancel from the nave,
till at least the twelfth century. See article
on ROOD in Smith and Cheetham's Diet, of
Christian Antiquities. Opposite we give from a
comparatively modern church a fair illustra
tion which shows the nature of the rood-
screen, and in what it consists. See CROSS ;
CKUCIFIX.

ROSARY. — The term is said to be derived from
Rosarius, a chaplet of roses. In the Church of
Rome it is used to describe a form of prayer
to the Virgin, made up of fifteen decades of
Aves, each decade being preceded by the
Lord's Prayer, and followed by the Gloria.
This form is divided into three parts, each
composed of five decades, and called a corona
or chaplet. The five decade Rosary is the one
in ordinary use. Humboldt found the Rosary
in use among the natives of Mexico (vol. ii.
p. 20). It is commonly employed among the
Brahmins of Hindustan, and is constantly
referred to in the Hindu sacred books (The
Two Babylons, by Hislop). Sir John F. Davis,
in his book China (vol. i. p. 391), says: "There
is a small rosary of eighteen beads, with which
the bonzes count their prayers and ejacula
tions exactly as in the Romish ritual. The
famous statue of Diana at Ephesus showed
the goddess with a rosary round her neck."

But the Church of Rome invented an origin
for the rosary entirely different. We are told
that the Blessed Virgin instructed St. Dominic
in the use of the rosary, and, thus armed,

ROSARY

[ 645 ]

ROSMINIANS

sent him forth to do battle with the Albigenses.
This version of the origin of the rosary has
been accepted by no fewer than eight Popes.
One of them, Benedict XIV., says that such
was a tradition of the Dominican Order
(Benedict XIV., De Fcst. 160). The rosary has
been indulgenced by various Popes, but in
order to gain the indulgence, it is declared to
be essential that the beads were blessed by a
person having authority to do so.

There have been various rival rosaries started
since St. Dominic's time, such as the Living
Rosary, when fifteen persons unite to say
the entire rosary every month ; the Rosary

ROSE, GOLDEN.— This was, like the conse
crated " Cap and Sword," a gift dating from the
twelfth century, presented by the Popes to those
who had deserved well of the Church. Both
were conferred during the sixteenth cen
tury on the chief persecutors of the Hugue
nots. As early as 1159 the Rose was presented
to Louis the Young. Henry VIII. received it
three times, as did his daughter, Queen Mary,
for her severity towards the Protestants ; her '
husband, Philip II., was similarly honoured
for his cruelties in the Netherlands, as were
Charles IX. and Henry III. of France, and the
cruel Dukes of Alva and Guise. In later years

A ROOD-SCKEEN.

of St. Bridget, consisting of seven Paters and
sixty-three Aves in honour of the supposed
sixty-three years of the Virgin's life ; the
Rosary of the Seven Dolours, a devotion in
troduced by the Servites ; the Jtosary of the
Immaculate Conception, approved of by Pius IX.
in 1855 ; the Crown of our Saviour, introduced
by a Camaldolese monk in 1516, and consisting
of thirty-three Paters, five Aves, and a Credo ;
the Rosary of the Five Wounds, introduced by
the Passionists and approved of by Leo XII.
in 1823. As the Dominicans had patented (so
to speak) the rosary attributed to St. Dominic,
all the later forms were intended to take the
wind out of their sails. Pope Leo XIII. has
been styled by Roman Catholic authorities
" the Pope of the Rosary." [T. C.J

Napoleon III., Isabella, Queen of Spain and the
wife of Ferdinand, King of Naples (" Bomba "),
have been recipients of this consecrated gift.

[C. P. S.]

BOSMINTANS.— The Rosminian Society for
all kinds of works of Christian charity was
founded by Antonio Rosmini, an Italian philo
sopher, in 1828. Pope Gregory XVI. gave his
approbation both to the Institute and its Rule.
Two of the works of the founder were,
however, placed on the Index Expurgato-
rius in 1850, and forty propositions taken
from his writings were formally condemned
Dec. 14, 1887. There are, it would appear,
nine houses of the Institute at present
in England and Wales. See Catholic Dic
tionary.

ROYAL SUPREMACY

[ 646 ]

RUBRICS

ROYAL SUPREMACY.— The statement
which the Church of England makes in the
Bidding Prayer (see the 55th Canon) that the
sovereign is "supreme governor . . . over all
persons in all causes as well ecclesiastical as
temporal," or, as it is put in other forms of
the same prayer, " in all causes and over all
persons ecclesiastical and civil within her
dominions supreme," is only a statement of the
common law which will be found stated in
Coke, Inst. IV. eh. 74; Hales, Pleas of the
Crown, i. 75. Even in pre-Reformation times
the king kept in his hands the nomination of
bishops, and the Pope's claim to collate them
was denied by the Statute of Provisors, 25 Ed.
III. c. 4. On the other hand, before the Re
formation, where a matter was ecclesiastical
and did not come within the cognisance of
the King's Courts, appeals were allowed to
Rome; but a statute of 1353, 27 Ed. III. c. 1,
made it an Act involving the offence of pras-
munire to bring a suit in a foreign Court (in
the papal Court) when the matter could be
dealt with in the King's Courts.

The Convocation of 1532 acknowledged inter
alia that the king was lord and supreme
head over the Church, " ecclesia? et cleri
Anglicani cujus singularem protectorem et
supremum dominum et quantum per Christi
legem licet etiam supremum caput ipsius majes-
tatem recognoscimus " : and that Convocation
had always and ought only to assemble by the
king's writ. It promised not to attempt to
allege claim or put in use any new canons
except by the king's licence, nor to enact,
promulge, or execute any such canons without
the King's assent.

When Henry VIII. abolished the papal
jurisdiction entirely, he provided by 25 Hen.
VIII. c. 19, sec. 4, that appeals from the
Archbishops' Courts should go to the King's
Court instead of going to Rome, and sec. 5
of the same Act made it an Act involving
prsemunire to appeal to Rome in any kind of
case. This Act, after being repealed by Queen
Mary, was revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1. That
Act, by sec. 17, annexed to the crown all
ecclesiastical superiority or authority which
had been or might lawfully be theretofore
exercised by any spiritual or ecclesiastical
power or authority. The XXXVIIth Article
states that " the chief government of all Estates
of this Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical
or civil," belongs to the King's Majesty, and
explains "that they" (i.e. godly princes)
" should rule all states and degrees committed
to their charge by God, whether they be
ecclesiastical or temporal." Canons 1 and 2
of 1603 enforce this position, the first being
headed "The King's Supremacy over the
Church of England to be maintained," and

directing sermons four times a year to be
preached to enforce this view. Canon 2 says
that the person is to be ipso facto excom
municate who "doth affirm that the King's
Majesty hath not the same authority in causes
ecclesiastical that godly kings had amongst
the Jews, and Christian Emperors of the
Primitive Church, or impeach in any part his
regal supremacy in the said causes restored
to the Crown and by the laws of this realm
therein established."

Every clergyman, besides being bound by
these canons, has to take upon ordination and
institution the following oath, and so has
every bishop or archbishop before confirma
tion : " I, A. B., do swear that I will be faith
ful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty
King Edward, his heirs and successors, accord
ing to law. So help me God" — which binds
him to recognise the sovereign's position in
matters ecclesiastical established by law.

[E. B. W.]

RUBRICS are so called from having been
printed in red in the service books in use prior
to the Reformation. Their purpose is described
in the Preface added in 1662 to the Prayer
Book, as " for the better direction of them that
are to officiate in any part of Divine Service."
"Alterations" had been found needful by ex
perience, owing to diversities of interpretation,
or undesigned omissions which the last revision
undertook to amend. For the Reformed Liturgy
included in a single volume all the offices of
the Church, and its rubrics were designed to
supersede the innumerable directions which
had been previously scattered, and had to be
collected by the officiants from many separate
volumes. The Preface to the First Prayer Book
claims accordingly that ' ' by this order, the
Curates shall need none other books for their
public Service but this book and the Bible ; "
and in the following year the older books were
called in, vrith instructions to destroy them
because they " did minister great occasion to
diversity of opinions, rites, ceremonies, and
services" (3 & 4 Ed. VI. c. 10). On Christmas
Day 1549, the bishops had been directed to
" deface and abolish" the older books, "that
they may never hereafter serve either to any
such use as they were provided for, or be at any
time a lett to that godly and uniform Order "
(Dasent's Acts of the Privy Council, iii. 75;
Card. Doc. Ann. No. xx. ). This effectually
refutes the theory that the mass-priests who
retained their livings as Conformists were at
liberty to supplement the rubrics by any older
directions with which they might choose to
" enrich" them.

When the Bishop of Lincoln defended certain
illegal acts on the plea that a bishop is not a
"minister" bound by the rubrics, the Court

RUBRICS

[ 647 ]

RULE OF FAITH

of the Archbishop ruled (July 24, 1889) that
" when a bishop ministers in any office pre
scribed by the Prayer Book, he is a minister
bound to observe the directions given to the
minister in the rubrics of such office." For
the rubrics, forming part of the schedule to
the Act of Uniformity, are of statutory obliga
tion ; and hence the bishop is forbidden by
the Preface to the Prayer Book to give any
order which is "contrary to anything con
tained in the Prayer Book." On the other
hand, he is empowered to exercise his "dis
cretion " as to any matter left really open to
" doubt or diversity " " concerning the manner
how to understand, do, and execute the things
contained in this book," on being appealed to
by the parishioners who are affected by such
" doings " ; and it himself in doubt, he may
send on the question for resolution by the
archbishop. But this does not cover such
questions as the use of incense, prayers for the
dead, or the worship of the Virgin, which are
in no sense " contained in the book."

It may be added that several of the para
graphs popularly described as " rubrics" have
a separate history and a totally different char
acter. The so-called " Ornaments Rubric " was
printed in a type different from the rubrics in
the copy from which the Annexed Book was
taken, and, as was pointed out in the Ridsdale
Judgment, it was from 1559 to 1661 merely an
unauthorised note of reference to the Act. of
Elizabeth. In 1662 this same Act of Elizabeth
(the 1 Eliz. c. 2) was retained as the standard
of "Ornaments," having been incorporated
into the present Prayer Book, and subscribed
by both Convocations. Their lordships held
that in its present form (though less irregular
in its introduction) it still retains the character
of being a merely subsidiary "rubric-note"
which had been roughly conformed to the
language of the statute, which last, however,
still remains in law the primary and over-riding
authority, though too often suppressed by the
King's printers.

Three other paragraphs, viz., the so-called
" Black Rubric " on kneeling, at the end of
the communion service, and the Declaration
as to the use of the cross after baptism, and
the salvability of baptized infants at the end
of the office for Public Baptism of Infants,
occupy a similar position. The first of these
was really a Royal Proclamation added after
the Second Prayer Book had been enacted, and
again inserted into the present book after it had
left Convocation. This last remark applies also
to the statements added at the end of the bap
tismal office — all three being doctrinal defences
relating to points in dispute, or to popular ob
jections raised by the Puritan Nonconformists
against the existing service book. [J. T. T.]

RULE OF FAITH.— This, in the view of
Protestants, is the Bible. For the Bible the
Church of Rome substitutes tradition and "the
Church." It is asserted that "the Church
gave us the Bible," which is only true in the
sense that the Church has preserved and
handed down those Books of the Holy Scrip
tures which were written by men inspired of
God. The Old Testament was stamped by
Christ and His apostles as authoritative and
inspired. Every Book of the New Testament
proceeds from apostles or from those who
had heard Christ (Heb. iii. 3 ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 6).
By those writings all questions of heresy as
they arose in the early Church were judged.
But no General Council ever gave an authorita
tive list of these Books, so that it was not ecclesi
astical authority which caused the Churches
to receive the Books of the New Testament.

(1) It is, however, objected by Romanists
that the Church was formed before the Books
of the New Testament were written, and
therefore that the Church could do without
the New Testament, although man cannot do
without the Church. But the Books of the
New Testament represent "the living voice"
of the first and most authoritative teachers of
the Church. It was the same with regard to the
Old Testament after Moses and the Prophets
and the Psalmists had passed away. (2) An
other objection is that the New Testament
is unsystematic, and therefore unfit for teaching
purposes. But in those Books all necessary
doctrine is found. (3) The Romish Church
maintains that the New Testament is hard for
ordinary people to understand, and that more
harm than good is likely to ensue from the
reading of it by untrained minds. But the
fact is that the great truths of the Gospel are
discoverable in the Bible by the simplest minds,
while the " Fathers," the supposed accredited
interpreters of the Roman Church, are hope
lessly divided in opinion on many points. (4) It
is asserted also that the infallible Book requires
an infallible interpreter, i.e. the "Church,"
to explain its meaning. But the Holy Ghost
who inspired the writers, can open the under
standing of men even now to know the meaning
of the Scriptures. (5) The reading of the
Scriptures, it is sometimes said, is the cause
of all heresy and schism. Our Lord declared,
on the other hand, that the ignorance of the
sect of the Sadducees on so important a
doctrine as that of the resurrection of the
body, arose from their " not knowing the
Scriptures" (Matt. xxii. 29).

The Christian writers of the earliest ages
believed in the authority of the Scriptures as
the Rule of Faith. Polycarp, Bishop of
Smyrna, St. John's disciple (martyred A.D. 155,
after being a Christian for eighty-six years) ;

RURAL DEAN

[ 648 ]

RUSSIAN CHURCH

Clement of Home, St. John's contemporary ;
and Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (martyred
A.D. 116), all testify that the Scriptures are
writings which Christians ought to know.

The Church of England is particularly clear
and explicit on the subject of the Scriptures
as the Rule of Faith. See Articles VI. VIII.
XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXVIII.
XXXIV. See FAITH, RULE OP.

BUBAL DEAN.— See DEAN.

BUSSIAN CHUBCH.

(a) Origin.— Until tbeendof the tenth century
the Russians were a heathen people. Tradition
tells that St. Andrew in his journeys preached
at Kieff, but no mention is made of converts.
Christianity was certainly taught to the Goths,
who dwelt among Russians in the sixth cen
tury. By a mission from Photius, patriarch
of Constantinople, Christianity was preached
at Kieff in the time of Ascold and Dir at the
end of the ninth century, and there is evidence
in documents of the existence of individual
Russian Christians at the beginning of the
tenth century. In 957 the conversion of the
Grand Duchess Olga (afterwards canonised)
marks the advance of the new religion, but
this did not prevent persecution and the
martyrdom of Gleb, cousin of Sviatoslaf, in
971. Within twenty years of this time, how
ever, Christianity was established as the re
ligion of the country. The cause of this
change was the conversion of Vladimir, son
of Sviatoslaf, who had succeeded at first to
a third, and then to the whole of his father's
kingdom. The Russian chronicler of the
twelfth century (Chronique dlte de Nestor,
traduite par Louis Leger, Paris, 1884. The
Slavonic original edited by Miklosich, Vindo-
bona, 1860) tells how, after a period of great
cruelty and devotion to the ancient Russian
gods, Vladimir's conscience was stirred, and
he was approached by Moslems, whose faith
he would not receive because they forbade
drinking ; then by Germans (Roman Catholics),
whose fasting did not please him ; then by
Jews, who pleased him in many ways, but
who were dismissed as unworthy because they
had to confess that their God was angry with
them, and had driven them out of their own
land. A Greek teacher was more successful,
and four years later Vladimir married the
sister of Basil and Constantine, accepted
Christianity for himself and his people, and
many .were baptized at Kieff. From much
that may be legendary in this story it may be
gathered that Christianity was accepted as a
State religion by the Russians at the end of
the tenth century, and that the development
of the Russian Church has for its starting-point
the religious beliefs and practices of the
Greek Church at that time. (Roman Catholic

writers have combated this view, and main
tained with little success that this was ac
complished with the help of Rome ; cf.
Boissard, UEglise de Russie, vol. ii. pp. 10/.)

The spread of Christianity was rapid. A
century after Vladimir's conversion there were
seven bishoprics in the south and four in the
north-west of Russia. But little opposition
is recorded, and Russia has no long list of
martyrs. It was, however, during the period
of the Mongol supremacy (thirteenth to fif
teenth centuries) that the Church gained that
hold on the affections of the people which it
has undoubtedly to-day. It was then the one
power that kept the people together, gave
strength to its rulers, and at last made possible
its deliverance. Attempts were made from
early times by the Roman Church to bring
Russia into subjection to itself. In the fifteenth
century, when Isidore was Metropolitan of
Moscow, he was won over by the Romans, and
at the Council of Florence (1439) announced
that the union was accomplished ; but on his
return to Russia he was expelled by the clergy,
who refused to ratify his concessions. At the
present time not only has it resisted the attacks
of Rome, but has received back into the
Orthodox Communion many who had formerly
submitted to Rome.

(b) Organisation. — The Russian Church in
its origin was entirely dependent on that of
Greece, that is, on the Patriarchate of Con
stantinople. There is little to be gathered
from the Chronicles as to the early history,
but it is clear that a Metropolitan was estab
lished at Kieff, and that bishops were appointed
in different parts of the laud (see above). The
Metropolitan was the President of a Synod
comprising all the bishops. These directed
the policy of the Church, instituted new
bishops, and exercised discipline over them.
The Metropolitan was appointed by the Greek
Patriarch, to whom the whole Russian Church
owed obedience. The Princes took an active
part in the affairs of the Church, and from
time to time made statutes determining the
revenues of the ecclesiastics, and the jurisdic
tion to be exercised by them in offences against
religious law among clerics and laity (the
Ecclesiastical Statutes of St. Vladimir ; the
Statutes of Yaroslaf, &c.). In 1299, when
Kieff had been destroyed by the Mongols,
the Metropolitan transferred his seat to
Vladimir, and in 1325 to Moscow, where it
remained until the time of Peter the Great.
In 1588 the national feeling, which from the
beginning had manifested itself against the
subjection of the Church to Greece, made
itself felt, and the dignity of the Patriarchate
was claimed for the Metropolitan of Moscow.
The Metropolitan Job was solemnly chosen by

RUSSIAN CHURCH

[ 649 ]

RUSSIAN CHURCH

the Russian clergy and consecrated as Patriarch
by Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople. The
Russian Church thus became independent, and
the Patriarch of Moscow took rank as the
youngest with those of Constantinople, Antiocb,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The government
of the Church continued thus until the time
of Peter the Great, when, in 1720, a council
of clergy was held under the presidency of
Peter, and it was resolved to substitute for
the Patriarchate a Synod. In the following
year Peter requested the Patriarch of Constan
tinople to acknowledge this body as the head
of the Russian Church, and to communicate
the change to the other Patriarchs of the
Eastern Church. The Holy Synod thus formed
and recognised, consisted originally of four
archbishops, seven archimandrites, and two
priests with the " Ober-Prokuror," or repre
sentative of the Czar, he being not properly
a member, but an intermediary between the
Synod and the Czar. He is always a layman.
At the present time the clerical element con
sists of the Metropolitans of Kieff, Moscow,
and St. Petersburg, and the Exarch of Georgia,
with a certain number of archbishops, bishops,
and archimandrites appointed by the Czar,
and two priests, viz. the chief Court chaplain
and senior chaplain of the army. The cases
that come before the Synod are far too
numerous to be dealt with at their sittings,
and much of the work is done by correspond
ence and reports, while much again is rele
gated to officials. Matters pertaining to Church
discipline and teaching, ecclesiastical semi
naries, and the spiritual censorship form the
chief work of the Synod, which also nominates
three candidates for a vacant bishopric ; from
this list the Czar makes his choice. Each
bishop is assisted in his own diocese by a Synod
for purposes of discipline ; from such a synod
appeal may be made to the Holy Synod at St.
Petersburg.

The secular, or parochial clergy, known as
the "white clergy," to distinguish them from
the monks (see below), marry before ordina
tion, but are not allowed to contract a second
marriage. Their education is, as a rule, poor ;
their salaries very small, consisting of the
government grant and small payments made
by their parishioners for different offices. All
clergy wear beards and long hair.

Monasticism was taken over with Chris
tianity from Greece, and monasteries were
established by Vladimir and his successors.
The monks are devoted to celibacy, and bishops
are chosen from them only. All monasteries
in Russia obey the rules of St. Basil. The
monks are the "black clergy." " Their busi
ness is not to study, nor to do work of any
other kind, not even for the service of religion,

but to sing the divine offices and to live first
for the good of their own souls, and then also
to do penance for the world " (Palmer, Notes
of a Visit to the Russian Church, London, 1882).
Yet the monasteries have played a great part
in the history and development of Russia, and
many a town has grown up round a monastery
(Leroy-Beaulieu, L'Empire des Tsars et Ics
Russcs, vol. iii. p. 229). Much wealth has been
accumulated by these monasteries, but from
the time of Ivan III. the Czars have confiscated
what they required in cases of emergency.

(c) Public Worship. — The public worship of
the Church is celebrated on Sabbaths, Holy
Days, and Saints' Days, which are numerous.
The services are held on the eve and the
morning of the day, and are entirely liturgical,
no provision being made for preaching. The
language of the liturgies is Church-Slavonic or
Old-Bulgarian, for the Russians adopted these
translations of Greek services from the Bul
garians, among whom Cyril and Methodius
had worked in the ninth century. The even
ing rite consists mainly of the singing of
Psalms interspersed with appropriate prayers,
the whole being intended to present the story
of man's religious history (as represented by
the Old Testament) from the Creation to the
appearance of Christ, and to lead up to the
sacrificial act of the Eucharist, whereby man's
redemption is accomplished. The Liturgy (of
the Mass) in general use is that of John Chry-
sostom, but ten times in the year the longer
one of St. Basil is followed, and there is besides
the "Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified." Both
the former "reproduce all the essential fea
tures of the Syrian Liturgy," owing to the
early contact of Constantinople with Antioch
(Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, ed. 2,
p. 70). Confession is enjoined, but only in
general terms, and in the presence of the con
gregation.1 Participation in the Lord's Supper
is required at least once a year. Leavened

1 The practice of the Church at the present
time requires both a detailed and more private
confession — which is frequently made behind a
screen in a corner of the Church. Palmer in his
Dissertation on Subjects Relating to the Orthodox
Communion, p. 232, speaks of a full examination
by the priest. Romanoff's Rites and Customs of the
Grceco- Russian Church does the same, and quotes
the priest as reminding the penitent that "if
thou concealest anything from me thou wilt be
doubly sinful. " But although a catalogue of sins
is read out, to which one has to answer whether
he has sinned in this or that particular, the de
tails and circumstances connected with theseveral
sins do not seem to be inquired into, as is the prac
tice in the Church of Rome. See also on the sub
ject Archdeacon Sinclair's Church of the East,

RUSSIAN CHURCH

[ 650 ]

RUSSIAN CHURCH

bread is used, and is administered mixed with
the wine in a spoon. Worship of a more in
dividual character is continually being offered
in the churches, which are always open for
that purpose. It consists in the offering of
prayer with prostrations, the placing of candles
before the pictures of Christ, the Virgin, and
the Saints, and the kissing of the sacred ikons.
The Church also provides in its service-books
forms of worship for all the events of daily
life, such as the blessing of the fields and the
waters, the opening of a new house, &c.
Much importance is attached also to pilgrim
ages to the Eussian holy places, and especially
to the Holy Land.

(d) Doctrine. — The Russian Church acknow
ledges as authoritative in matters of doctrine
the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition, which
latter must be in agreement with the Scrip
tures. From the Tradition is derived the
authority of the sacraments and customs of
the Church. Authoritative are the seven
(Ecumenical Councils : Nicaea, Constantinople,
Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople (Second
and Third), Nicsea, Second. Beyond these
the Church does not claim the right to announce
any new doctrine, and it is the claim to this
right on the part of the Roman Church which
creates the greatest barrier between the
Churches of East and West. Immutability
and the preservation of the faith exactly as
it was received in the ninth century is the most
marked feature of the Russian Church. The
Scriptures are disseminated among the people,
and their study encouraged in the schools and
the homes. The Canon includes the Apocry
phal writings, though these are vaguely dis
tinguished from the rest in the catechisms.
The accepted symbol of faith is the Creed of
Nicasa (325) and Constantinople (381), with
out the addition of the " filioque " in the state
ment of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The addition of this clause, under the influence
of Augustinian theology, in the Roman Church
is another cause of dissension between the East
and West. The Church is "a community of
men ordered by God, united by the orthodox
faith, the divine law, the priesthood and the
sacraments" (Catechism of Philaret); and is
united with the heavenly Church by prayer to
God and the Saints. The obedience due to the
Church is to be learned from the Scriptures,
the rules of the Apostles, the (Ecumenical and
local Councils, the Church Fathers and the
Church ordinances. The Sacraments are seven
in number — Baptism, Chrism (= Confirmation,
but administered by any priest, and usually
immediately after Baptism), the Lord's Supper,
Confession, Ordination, Marriage, and Anoint
ing. In baptism children are dipped in
water three times in the name of the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Evil Spirit is
expelled by exorcism. Re-baptism, however,
is not required on admission from any other
Church. In the Lord's Supper the bread and
wine are changed into the real and actual body
and blood of Christ. After death the souls of
the righteous remain in light, those of the
wicked in darkness until the end of the world,
when souls and bodies united shall appear for
judgment to receive eternal joy or eternal pain.

The great body of the doctrinal and ethical
teaching of the Russian Church is to be found
in the Catechism of Peter Mogila, which was
accepted by the Council of Jassy, and approved
by the Eastern Patriarchs in 1643 ; or in the
Catechism of Philaret, founded on that of
Mogila (59th ed. in 1866).

(c) Sects. — Although Church and State are
so intimately connected in Russia that schism
is punished as treason, heresy and dissidence
have existed from the twelfth century to the
present day. Traces of the Bogomilian heresy
found their way into Russia from the Bulgarian
Church at an early date. At Pskof and Nov
gorod in the fourteenth century theStrigolniks
wished to abolish the hierarchy and all sacra
ments. In the fifteenth century a party rose to
great power, which made the Old Testament of
equal value with the New, and rejected the belief
in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ.
The greatest schism in the Church took place
in the seventeenth century, when the Patriarch
Nikon (1652-58), finding that the sacred litur
gies and other books had become very corrupt
in text, secured the appointment of a commis
sion for their revision. Many of the clergy and
laity had become attached to customs which
were not primitive, and which were now
abolished. These formed the party of Ras-
kolniks or " Old Believers." Differing at first
from the Church chiefly in matters of ritual?
they have since broken up into sects of all
shades of doctrine. The Popovtzi have priests
of their own, but are bitterly opposed to the
State Church. The Bezpopovtzi have no
priests, but say that every Christian is a
priest. The subdivisions of these are too
numerous to mention, and the Russian govern
ment takes little notice of them, except when
(as in the case of the Dukhobortzi) their
religious beliefs interfere with the perform
ance of their duties to the State, or when they
attempt to proselytise.

Literature. — The Ancient Chronicles (in Sla
vonic), now being published by an archaeologi
cal commission in Russia. Philaret, Geschichte
der Kirche Russlands, Frankfurt, 1872. Bois-
sard, V&cjlise de Russie, Paris, 1867. Leroy-
Beaulieu, I? Empire des Tsars et Les Russes, vol.
iii., Paris, 1889. Mouravieff, A History of the
Church of Russia, Oxford, 1842. Le Raskol,

SABBATH, THE

[ 651 ]

SABBATH, THE

Essai Historique et Critique sur les Sectes Re-
ligieuscs en Russie, Paris, 1859. A short and
convenient enumeration of the chief sects will
be found in Herzog-Schaff's Encyclopedia, vol.
iii. pp. 2082-84. Of. also Palmer, Notes of a Visit
to the Russian Church, London, 1882 ; and C. H. H.
Wright, The Service of the Mass in the Greek
and Roman Churches. A translation of the
Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apos
tolic Eastern Church from the Version of Peter
Moyila was republished in London by Thomas
Baker, 1898. A German version of Philaret's
Catechism is contained in Philaret's Geschichte,
vol. ii. Some of the Russian services have
been translated by G. V. Shann, in the Eucho-
logy, Kidderminster, 1891, and Book of Needs
of the Holy Orthodox Church, London, 1894.
A more complete edition has been edited (in
Slavonic and German) by Malt-zev in Berlin.

[G. W. T.]

s

SABBATH, THE.— It has been admitted
by thoughtful persons, not alone amongst
divines, in the commercial world, by lawyers,
politicians, and statesmen, that the observance
of Sunday has been one of the causes of
the prosperity and greatness of England.
The learned Blackstone says in his famous
Commentaries, "The keeping of one day in
seven holy, as a time of relaxation and re
freshment, as well as for public worship, is
of admirable service to a State, considered
merely as a civil institution " (vol. iv. p. 63).
Lord Macaulay, in his speech on the Ten
Hours Bill, stated that "if we and our ancestors
had, during the last three centuries, worked
just as hard on the Sundays as on the week
days, we should have been at this moment
a poorer people and a less civilised people
than we are ; that there would have been less
production than there has been, that the
wages of the labourer would have been lower
than they are, and that some other nation
would have been now making cotton stuffs
and woollen stuffs and cutlery for the whole
world" (Speeches, p. 450, also pp. 453, 454)
The rest of the seventh day is beneficial to
man — body, mind, and soul. The experiment
was tried during the French Revolution at
the end of the eighteenth century of abolish
ing the Sabbath, but the necessity of a day of
rest became so apparent that it was decided
to observe one day in ten, and before long
return was made to one day in seven. It is
probably not too much to say that the exist
ence of Christianity is bound up with respect
for the Lord's Day. The sanctity of the
Sabbath is a bulwark against infidelity and
atheism. If once the legal protection of the

Sunday were withdrawn, worldliness and dis
sipation would largely reduce congregations
of Christian worshippers, and a heavy blow be
dealt at true religion.

Yet, while the Sunday may be better ob
served in England than it was a century ago,
there are many who are endeavouring to alter
the character of the Sunday, and instead of
regarding it as a holy day, are trying to make
it a mere holiday and day of pleasure. All
pleasure resorts, besides being harmful, at least
to many of those who enter them, necessarily
involve the working of others on the day of rest.
Objections may be urged against the old-
fashioned observance of the Sunday, which is
stigmatised by the name of Sabbatarianism.
(1)' It is said, for instance, that " religion does
not consist in keeping days and seasons."
But no one who knows anything of human
nature would fail to allow that the setting
apart and observance of such days is a help
towards true religion. (2) Higher ground is
taken by other persons, who say that "everyday
ought to be holy," and so deprecate assigning
any special sanctity to the first day of the
week. But if this means that every day should
be observed as a Lord's Day, the view is
opposed to the dictates of common sense. As
six days of the week are for worldly business,
there ought to be one day of the week the
business of which is religion. (3) The Roman
Church, objecting to the Bible as the Rule of
Faith, asserts that it cannot be proved from
the Word of God that the day on which the
Sabbath was to be observed was ever changed.
This is not correct. The non-obligation of
the Jewish Sabbath is evident from Col. ii. 16,
and the apostolic observance of the first day
of the week is shown by John xx. 19 ; Acts
xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; Rev. i. 10. It is very
possible that there is a reference to the
change (Heb. iv. 9), in which " Sabbatism "
is the peculiar word used for "rest." The
reason is given in the next verse, 10, "For He
(Christ) who is entered into His rest [after His
conflict on the cross], He also hath ceased from
His works [of redemption] as God did from His "
(TUIV ISiwv), those of creation which are spoken
of as peculiar to God the Father in verse 4.

The duty of keeping holy one day in seven
was not of temporary, but of permanent
obligation. The Sabbath was given to Adam
in his unfallen condition (Gen. ii. 3). To the
Sabbath one whole commandment out of the
Ten was devoted, and that the longest, fullest,
and most minute (Exod. xx. 8-11). It is the
only one which begins with the word "Re
member," as though it was the commandment
which man was most prone to forget. By the
prophets of the Old Testament the breach of
the Sabbath is placed alongside of the most

SABELLIANISM

[ 652 ]

SABELLIANISM

grievous transgressions of the moral Jaw, and
is referred to as one of the causes of tb
Captivity (Ezek. xx. 13, 16, 24; xxii. 8, 26
Nehem. xiii. 18; Jer. xvii. 19-27). In tha
fulfilling of the Law, which was part of ou
Saviour's mission (Matt. v. 17), while correct
ing the prevalent superstitions concerning it
He said nothing about abolishing its obligation
or denying its holiness. Nay, He took its
continuance for granted (see Matt. xxiv. 20).
The Apostles in their writings acknowledge
the authority of the whole moral law without
distinction (Rom. vii. 12 ; xiii. 8 ; Eph. vi. 2 ;
1 Tim. i. 8 ; Jas. ii. 10 ; 1 John iii. 4), and in
their practice kept one day of the week as a
holy day (Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2). After the
Resurrection of our Lord the rest-day appears to
have been changed to the first day of the week,
then entitled the Lord's Day (Rev. i. 10). No
other sufficient cause than Christ's Resurrection
has ever been assigned for the extraordinary
change from the seventh to the first day of the
week after thousands of years. The fact of Sun
day observance, indeed, cannot be otherwise
accounted for, and is itself a standing witness to
the truth of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ from the dead. [M. E. W. J.]

SABELLIANISM.— Properly this term is used
to indicate the doctrine of the Godhead pro
pounded by Sabellius; but it is commonly
employed in a much wider sense, to cover all
the varied types of doctrine which affirm that
the names Father, Son, and Spirit simply ex
press aspects successively assumed by the
uudifferentiated Deity, and do not correspond
to "Personal" distinctions within the God
head. It is not hard to see how this kind of
theory arose. It could not, indeed, be har
monised with the New Testament, which
clearly revealed that the Father was not the
Son, and that the Spirit was distinct from
both. But Christian theology developed for
a time in large independence of the New
Testament, and was powerfully affected in
the way both of attraction and repulsion by
non-Christian influences. It started from a
lower level than the New Testament writers,
whose teaching, as in the case of Paul, was
often not at all understood, or was long in
filtering down to the average Christian, as was
the case with the Logos doctrine of the Fourth
Gospel. Those who entered the Church from
Paganism came with popular or philosophical
opinions, as part of their very mental constitu
tion, and inevitably read through them their
new beliefs. Yet they also displayed intense
recoil not only from the vices but from the
polytheism of Paganism. On the other hand,
their religious instinct compelled them to con
fess their Saviour and Teacher as God. The
problem, then, was to bring into a single har

monious conception the two propositions-
God is One, and Jesus Christ is God. For a
long time ordinary Christians held them to
gether, unrelated and unreconciled. When
thought began to move towards the position,
ultimately reached as the goal of a long en
deavour—the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity
—many Christians, as Tertullian tells us, were
much alarmed. If the Father is held to be
distinct from the Son, yet both are confessed
as God, is not that to assert the existence of
two Gods, and does not Christianity thus be
come simply a new polytheism ? This feeling
found expression in the theological movement
known as Modalist Monarchianism. This, in
common with Dynamic or Adoptionist Mon
archianism, insisted firmly that there is in God
only a single principle, not a dual or a triple
principle, and therefore denied with it any
hypostatic distinctions within the Godhead.
It differed from it, however, in that it firmly
held the Deity of Christ, while the Adoptionist
Monarchianism was practically Unitarian, and
regarded Jesus as a man divinely endowed in
a unique degree. The Modalist Monarchians,
as the name suggests, saw in the terms Father,
Son, and Spirit, simply modes in which the
Divine Essence was manifested.

The history of the movement is very obscure,
its chronology uncertain, and on many points
we are most uncertainly informed. It seems
to have emerged as a definite movement with
Noetus in Asia Minor, perhaps during the last
two decades of the second century. It was
introduced into Rome by Praxeas, in the
episcopate of Victor, or perhaps that of Eleu-
therus. The Bishop of Rome favoured it, and
if that bishop was Eleutherus, then four Bishops
of Rome in succession — Eleutherus, Victor,
Zephyrinus and Callistus — were Modalist
Monarchians. After Praxeas had gone to
Carthage, he was followed during the episco
pate of Zephyrinus, by Epigonus, a pupil of
Noetus. He formed a party at Rome, to which
the name Patripassians was given. This ex
pressed the doctrine that the Father suffered
on the cross (cf. Tertullian's gibe at Praxeas :
"So Praxeas did two strokes of business for
the devil in Rome : he expelled prophecy and
introduced heresy ; he put to flight the Para
clete and crucified the Father"). Whether
the Modalist Monarchians actually said in so
many words that the Father was crucified is
doubtful; they may simply have said, Jesus
who suffered is the same as the Father.
Epigonus was followed by Cleomenes, and] he
by Sabellius about A.D. 215. Personally
favourable to them as both Zephyrinus and
Callistus were, their main object was to repress
strife. The latter constructed an obscure
formula of concord, which was fairly charged

SABELLIANISM

[ 653 ]

SACRAMENT

with combining elements of both types of
Monarchianism. Hippolytus, who has given
a detailed account of the controversy in his
Philosophumena, marked by bitter hostility to
Callistus, strongly affirmed, against Sabellius
and the Roman bishops, the personal distinc
tion of Father and Son, and was charged by
them with Ditheism. When concord was seen
to be impossible, Callistus excommunicated
both Hippolytus and Sabellius. The sym
pathies of most Roman Christians were with
the latter. Essentially his doctrine was
identical with that of the earlier Patripassians.
But he completed their teaching by clearly
recognising that the threefold name repre
sented successive stages in the life of God,
and by assigning a definite place to His exist
ence as the Holy Spirit. Down to the Incarna
tion, God was Father, inasmuch as He was the
Creator and Sustainer of the world. From the
Incarnation to the Ascension, God existed as
Son, and since the Ascension as Holy Spirit.
Thus, with Sabellius, the term Person retained
its original sense of " mask," the one God
appearing successively in three different
aspects. Since Eastern theologians, from the
beginning of the fourth century, classed all
forms of Modalist Monarchianism under the
name Sabellianism, it is probable that ecclesi
astical writers have often attributed to Sabel-
lins views which he did not hold, and even
views which no Monarchians held, but which
seemed to follow as inferences from their
position. While Sabellianism gradually died
out under the pressure of various forces, similar
tendencies have frequently emerged, and there
is probably to-day much conscious or uncon
scious Sabellianism. When we have state
ments such as, the Father is God in Nature,
the Son God in Christ, the Spirit God in
History, or in the Church, we have analogous
tendencies. Their strength lies in the difficulty
of asserting the Trinity without sacrificing the
Unity of God. Loyalty to Monotheism gave
the impulse to Monarchianism. Moreover, the
apparent simplicity of it must always make it
attractive to many minds. Its weakness lies
partly in its incompatibility with the New
Testament ; partly in its application of formal
logic to the deepest of all mysteries; above
all, in its inability permanently to satisfy the
religious, or even the philosophical, instinct.
The Absolute must be the home of relations ;
in God, that there may be self-consciousness,
there must be the distinction of the Self from
the Other than Self. Such a distinction must
exist within the Godhead itself, otherwise
God's self-consciousness would arise only in
contrast to something outside Himself, on
which, for the realisation of His own Person
ality, He would thus depend. Once more, if

God is Love, there must be within Him the
Subject Loving and the Object Loved ; if He
is to be holy, ethical relations must be possible
within His own Being. The doctrine of the
Trinity secures alike the Personality of God,
the ethical qualities of His Being, and the true
Divinity of our Lord ; while the assertion of
the Unity safeguards Monotheism. That the
doctrine is a mystery is no disproof of its
truth ; rather, we may be sure that if the
element of mystery were eliminated, the
doctrine could not be true. The interior life
of God must be beyond our comprehension,
and no human terms can be adequate to ex
press it, since they are coined out of human
experience, which does not embrace in its
categories the life of the Infinite God. To
believe the irrational is a crime against the
God who gave us our reason ; to believe in a
mystery may be to obey the deepest impulse
of our reason. [A. S. P.]

SACRAMENT.— (1) A thing or act that we see,
which is a sign to us of another thing or act
that we do not see. (2) An ordinance of the
Christian Church, made up of an outward part
signifying something, and an inward grace
signified.

The two meanings of the word "sacrament "
are often confused with the most unhappy
results. An example will illustrate the neces
sity of keeping them apart. In the Lord's
Supper the bread and the wine are signs
or sacraments of the body and blood of
Christ, and the eating and drinking of the
bread and wine by the mouth are signs or
sacraments of the soul's feeding on Christ, and
deriving thence that spiritual strength and
refreshment which is given to the body by
eating and drinking bread and wine. So far
we are dealing with the first meaning of the
word "sacrament." But the appellation is also
given to the whole ordinance. When we
speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
we ordinarily mean, not only the outward
sign as above, but also the inward grace — the
visible act of eating and drinking the bread
and wine (symbols of His body and blood), and
the invisible grace which is signified, namely,
the benefits received by the faithful from
feeding on Christ in loving memory of His
atoning sacrifice offered on Calvary.

The unhappy consequences following, some
times consciously, sometimes unconsciously,
from this double meaning of the word " sacra
ment," may be thus seen. We all acknowledge
the presence of Christ at or in the sacrament
in the second sense, that is, regarded as an
ordinance, as we also believe in His presence,
according to His promise, at the matin or
evening prayer. But when this acknowledg
ment has been made, we are said or supposed,

SACRAMENT

SACRAMENTAL GRACE

by a too subtle or too dull controversialist, t
have made it with respect to the sacrament in
the other sense of the word, and we are tolc
by Romanists and Ritualists that we hav
granted that Christ is present in the sacra
ment, that is, in the outward sign, the breac
and the wine ; and they tell us that there has
thus been proved, and we must accept, the
dogma of the Objective Presence of Christ in
the elements, from which logically follow the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the practice
of Adoration of the Sacrament.

The Catechism uses the word in both senses
" What meanest thou by this word Sacrament 1
I mean an outward and visible sign of an in
ward and spiritual grace." Here the word it
used in the first sense, for the outward part
only. "How many parts are there in a
Sacrament ? Two, the outward and visibk
sign and the inward and spiritual grace."
Here it is used in the second sense, for
the ordinance. The term is rightly used in
both senses, but whoever would have a clear
understanding of the doctrine of Holy Com
munion will do well, when he finds it
employed, to pause and ask himself in which
sense it is being used. Such a person would not
be cajoled into worshipping " the sacrament,"
meaning the bread, because Christ is present
in " the sacrament," meaning the ordinance.

Cranmer distinguishes the double sense of
the word with care: " Sometimes," he says,
"by this word ' sacrament ' I mean the whole
ministration and receiving of the sacraments,
either of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper ;
and so the old writers many times do say
that Christ or the Holy Ghost be present
in the sacraments, not meaning by that
manner of speech that Christ and the Holy
Ghost be present in the water, bread, or wine —
which be only the outward visible sacra
ments, but that in the due ministration of the
sacraments according to Christ's ordinance
and institution, Christ and His Holy Spirit
be truly and indeed present by their mighty
and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace,
in all them that worthily receive the same "
(Answer to Gardiner). And Bishop Phillpotts
of Exeter, guarding against the "ambiguous
meaning of the word Sacrament," says that it is
"a word sometimes and more strictly applied
to the sign or matter, sometimes to the -whole
sacred rite. Now it is in the former sense that,
the Church of Rome holds the real presence of
the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament ;
it is in the latter that the real presence in the
sacrament maintained by the Church of Eng
land must be sought " (Answer to Butler). See
Tomlinson's Misprinted Catechism.

According to the sense that we attribute to
the word, there may be a vast and indefinite

number of sacraments, or only a definite
number. We may, if we will, regard the
eye as a sacrament of faith, and the act
of seeing with the eye a sacrament of appre
hending by faith. Thus regarded, there is
an infinite number of sacraments, for "all
things are double one against another "
(Ecclus. xlii. 24). But if we regard sacra
ments as divinely appointed ordinances, con
sisting of an outward sign and an inward
grace, we have to ask ourselves how many
have been so appointed. And we find that
there are only two — Baptism and the Lord's
Supper. Other ordinances may be found
having an outward sign and an inward grace,
but only two that are divinely appointed ;
and these two were represented in the Old Dis
pensation by the institutions of Circumcision
and the Feast of the Passover, and by the acts
of passing through the waters of the Red Sea,
and the feeding with manna (1 Cor. x. 1-4).
In the twelfth century Peter Lombard added
five other rites to these two — Confirmation,
Ordination, Matrimony, Penitence, and Ex
treme Unction. But of these none have the
qualification of a divine appointment, and
only two of them approach in themselves to
the character of sacramental rites.

In the Lord's Supper the idea of sacrament
has been overlaid and almost destroyed by that
of sacrifice. In a sacrament man receives a
grace from God's hands ; in a sacrifice man
gives something of his own to God. It is true
that the Lord's Supper may be regarded as a
sacrifice, because in it we offer our praise and
thanksgiving for Christ's redeeming work, and
we offer ourselves in grateful return for His
goodness ; and it may be improperly so called
because it commemorates the great sacrifice ;
but essentially and primarily it is a sacrament,
in which by God's grace we receive the bless
ings and benefits derived from Christ's death
in answer to our faith. The Roman and
Ritualist view, which holds it to be above all
a sacrifice — and that a sacrifice of Christ Him
self, does away with the sacrament, for the
appointed outward sign, on the Roman theory,
is annihilated ; and it makes men forget that
the ordinance was instituted as a sacrament,
which does not give to God, but receives from
Him. See SEVEN SACRAMENTS. [F. M.]
SACRAMENT, CONFRATERNITY OF
THE BLESSED.— See RITUALISTIC SECRET
SOCIETIES.

SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. — The
private confession of sin in the so-called
"sacrament" of penance. See CONFESSION ;
PENANCE.

SACRAMENTAL GRACE.— See BAPTISM;
LORD'S SUPPER; OPUS OPERATUM ; SACRA
MENTS.

SACRAMENTARIANS

[ 655 ]

S ACRAMENTARIANS

SACRAMENT ABIANS, SACK. AMEN -

TARIES. — Names of contumely for certain
opinions on the Lord's Supper in the sixteenth
century. At a time when current belief in
the Church was that the sacred elements
became by consecration the actual body and
blood of Christ, requiring to be adored by
unreserved bodily prostration, Zwingle, in
1525, printed at Zurich his True and False
Religion, l arguing that what was received at
the Lord's Supper was not the actual body
and blood, but the sacrament of them, and that
one word, prominent throughout the treatise,
made all the difference between the new views
and the old upon this subject. He referred
(pp. 287, seq.) much to St. Augustine, more
than once quoting his words afterwards made
familiar to English Churchmen: "Eat and
drink the sacrament of so great a thing" — not
the very thing itself. 2 This exposition was
most opportune on the Continent, where the
Reformation was then fast spreading, and
town after town accepted it by a well-under
stood token, the service of the Lord's Supper,
to which the laity flocked as to a great novelty,
for a personal participation, they having usually
before been satisfied with attendance at the
altar without communicating. It was need
ful they should know what they were doing in
this unwonted function. The Zurich pastor
told his flock that he was not making any
propitiation for them by an altar sacrifice, but
they were all feeding together, he and they,
on the sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ. The papalists, mortified by these
celebrations, and repudiating the special stress
laid by Zwingle on the one term "sacrament,"
which was not their "sacrament of the altar,"
or sacrifice of the mass, denounced him as a
" Sacramentarian," and his exposition, which
gave the death-blow to their notion of tran-
substantiation, as a heresy. John Foxe, living
near that time, clearly saw this origin of the
novel term when he defined Sacramentaries as
so called originally for asserting that in the
Lord's Supper the bread and wine were but
the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, not
the very body and blood themselves.3

Luther, who held that in a certain way, not
by transubstantiation, the Lord's body and
blood were present with the elements at the
time of their reception (only then) by faithful

1 De Vera et Falsa Reliyione, 12°, Zurich, March
1525, pp. 440, containing De Sacramentis, 194-307,
De Eucharistia, 221-297.

2 Sacramentum tantae rei, Augustine, Tract-
atus, xxvi. § 18, on Joh. vi. Works, vol. iii.
Patrologia Lat., xxxv. 1614. Zwingle, De Vera,
288, 289 ; Eng. Article XXIX.

3 Acts and Monuments, iii. 378, ed. 1843-49.

Christians (only such), was extremely vexed at
the Zwinglian exposition, which rivalled his
own famous interpretation of This is my body,
and greatly endangered it among the Keformed.
If he was not the first to call the Zwinglians
" Sacramentaries," he scrupled not to second
the use of the term by the common enemy, his
particular word for them being " enthusiasts "
or " fanatics'," as in 1527, in his tract against
them entitled, That these Words of Christ, This
is My Body, Stand Firm, against the Fanatics, the
concluding words being in Old German, widder
Schwermgeister ; in Latin (for controversial
pieces often ran in both languages), contra
Fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus.* The
German for Sacramentary was Sacramentirer ;
but Luther's ordinary word, and a very fre
quent one, was Schwermcr, Old German for
Schwarmer, which in Latin almost became an
appellative with a capital Suermerus.6 In
Zwingle's reply, Friendly Exposition, " sacra-
mentarii," or " mens sacramentaria," is quoted
every now and then ; 6 but the harsher term is
the most frequent. Substantially Luther was
a sacramentary too, as shown at Augsburg in
1530, where the Lutheran princes and theo
logians (for Luther himself could not go there)
refused to accompany Charles V. in the Corpus
Christi procession, expressly on the ground
that ' ' the sacrament of Christ's body ought
not to be worshipped."7 In other words, the
consecrated host was only the sacrament of
the body, not the actual body, which if it had
been, worship would have been appropriate.

The employment of such a severe word as
fanatic by Luther against Zwingle can be ac
counted for by Luther choosing to identify
Zwingle's view with that of Carlstadt, who
had begun writing on the Lord's Supper long
before Zwingle's book of 1525. Carlstadt was
really fanatical on various points, greatly pro
voking Luther, whose standing term for him
was fanatic, and this had become habitual
with him when Zwingle came to adopt, as
Luther would consider, substantially the same
views. The sacramental dispute as between
the reformers is related fully and discrimi-
nately in Miluer's Church of Christ?

This sacramentarian dispute abroad in 1525-
27 made its mark very clearly in the liturgical
language of Edward VI. 's Reformation. In

4 In British Museum Catalogue, under head
ings Dass diese Wort, Quod Verba Christi.

8 Zwingle complains, " Suermeros nos vocitas,"
Works, ii. 381 b.

6 Arnica Exegesis, Feb. 1527, Works, vol. ii. index.

7 D'Aubigne's Reformation, vol. iii. p. 163, ed.
1855, D. D. Scott.

8 Vol. v. 154, with continuations, ed. 1827,
Index under " Contest."

SACRAMENTARIANS

[ 656 ]

SACRAMENTARY

1548, when the question of lay communion in
both kinds was prominent, the proposal was
spoken of in Convocation as one for " taking
the body of our Lord " under both kinds ; l
but in the printed Order of Communion the
priest delivers " the sacrament of the bread,"
and then " the sacrament of the blood." 2 The
Sarum Missal, directing the priest at conse
cration, says : Ad corpus dicat, Ad sanguinem
dicat; Hie sumat Corpus, Hie sumat sanguinem.3
In the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549,
the language is, "When he delivereth the
sacrament of the body of Christ," " delivering
the sacrament of the blood."4 In the XLII.
and the XXXIX. Articles the Lord's Supper is
the " Sacrament of our redemption " (XXVIII.,
XXIX.); " Transubstantiation overthroweth
the nature of a sacrament" (ibid.), a state
ment which makes English Churchmen sacra-
mentaries ; " the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ," " the sign or sacrament of so
great a thing" (XXIX.).

While Zwingle was a sacramentary fanatic
to Luther, both alike were sacra men taries to
the papalists by refusing adoration to the host.
How very much was made of this point is
shown in the controversy between Jewel and
Harding in 1564, 15G5. Harding had written
in 1564 : " If the blessed sacrament of the
altar were no other than Master Jewel and the
rest of the sacrarnentaries think of it, then
were it not well done the people to bow down
to it and to worship it with godly honour.
For then were it but bare bread and wine, how
honourably soever they speak of it, calling it
symbolical, that is, tokening, and sacramental
bread and wine."5 Harding noted that "the
sacrarnentaries of Zurich " admitted the bread
and wine to be " sacramentally the body of
Christ, though refusing to adore it." 6 Adora
tion of the bread and wine was a conspicuous
external confession of belief in a transubstan-
tiation of them, the process of which (even
were it a fact) could only have been secret
and invisible, without an outward indication
of any sort. Eefusal of adoration was an
absolute disavowal of belief in transubstantia-
tion, which, both as a fact and as a dogma,
was of such primary importance in the Eoman
system. Hence, to a Eoman, the sacramentary
was one who declined adoration to the sacra
mental bread and wine, making Jewel's eighth

1 Gasquet and Bishop, pp. 74, 75.

2 Liturgical Services of Edicard VI., Parker
Society, pp. 7, 8.

3 J. H. Blunt, Annotated Book of Common Prayer,
part ii. pp. 189, 190.

4 Lit. Services of Ed. VI., p. 92.

5 Jewel's Works, i. 514, Parker Society.

6 Ibid. i. 531.

Article, OP ADORATION, one of such vital im
portance in his Challenge Sermon of 1560, and
in his Eeply to Harding of 1565, which sprang
out of it.7 All who regard the Lord's Supper
as a sacrament, without paying adoration to
the bread and wine, are, in Eoman view, sac-
ramentaries. When in 1529 the term " Pro
testant " arose, conveniently embracing both
branches of the Eeformation, it gradually
superseded, with Eomanists, the earlier word
" Sacramentary," which then, in the writings of
Lutherans, designated their rivals in reform.
In the Lutheran Schliisselburg's Catalogue of
Heretics, Sacrarnentaries are simply Zwinglians
and Calvinists, mixed up with Anabaptists
by being called profaners of Holy Baptism,
&c.8 [C. H.]

SACRAMENTARY. — Under the name of
saramentarium, books were in use in the fourth
and following centuries, books with forms of
services suitable for use in the administration
of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The sacra
rnentaries also contained forms for other
services, regarded in those ages as having a
sacramental character. The prayers in these
comparatively early days were generally com
mitted to memory, and consequently the books
used were smaller than those in later times.
The oldest of these books known is, perhaps,
the Leonian or Veronese Sacramentary, sup
posed by Morinas to have been composed
about 488. Other experts, however, from
internal evidence, consider it belongs to a
considerably older period. There are a con
siderable number of these sacrarnentaries
extant. It is interesting to note the
efforts made to obtain uniformity in such
services. Charlemagne, at the instigation of
Pope Hadrian, used his power to suppress and
destroy the interesting Ambrosiau Sacra
mentary. The Gallican books of a similar
character were likewise then suppressed, and
the Eoman Sacramentary ordered to be used
in their room. Latin Popes went further and
attempted to root out all the ancient and
national liturgies. See LITURGIES, ANCIENT ;
and Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Antiq.
The Mozarabic Liturgy falls partially under
this head. It was so termed from the Arabic
name of contempt given to the Christian con
gregations in Spain tolerated in the time of
the Caliphs. That Liturgy appears to have
been based on an old Sacramentary raised by
Isidore of Seville, who was stirred up to raise
and edit the work by the Council of Toledo in
633. The Mozarabic Liturgy was afterwards

7 Jewel's Works, i. 21, 514.

8 Hcereticorum Catalogus, 13 books in 8 vols.,
8vo, Frankfort, 1597-99. Lib. iii. p. 31, De Secta
Sacramentariorum, is in vol. i.

SACRED HEART

[ 657 ]

SACRIFICE

suppressed by the Pope, as mentioned in
article on LITURGIES. The modern Prayer
Book of the Reformed Episcopal Church of
Spain contains no few Mozarabic elements.
See The Revised Prayer Book of the Reformed
Spanish Church. With an Introduction by
the Most Rev. Lord Plunket, D.D., Archbishop
of Dublin, London, Edinburgh, and New York,
Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1889.

[C. H. H. W.]

SACKED HEART. — Devotion to the Sacred
Heart of Jesus is now, perhaps, the most
popular cult in the Church of Rome. It is
quite modern, having its origin in the hysterical
delusions of a nun, Margaret Mary Alacoque,
belonging to the French Order of the Visita
tion, and residing at Paray-le-Monial. Strange
as it may seem, the real author of this de
votion was a Puritan divine named Goodwin,
chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. Goodwin has
left books in which he dwells much, and in
mystical language, on the point that Christ's
manhood remains still united to His Divinity,
and that He still retains His human heart and
human feelings. A Jesuit priest, called Colom-
biere, was chaplain at the Court of James II.
of England, and might easily have made him
self familiar with Goodwin's writings. There
was then, as now, a great anxiety at Rome for
the conversion of England to Romanism, and
as the English made Christ the keystone of
their religious edifice, Colombiere saw that
devotion to the human heart of Christ was
likely to catch the ear of the English. Now
this same Jesuit was confessor to Sister
Alacoque. All that Goodwin had said meta
phorically concerning the human heart of the
Saviour, was materialised and referred to
that human organ in the Saviour's body.
Sister Margaret Mary began to have visions, in
one of which she saw our Lord's heart burning
as in a furnace, and her own heart placed as a
small spark of fire therein. Our Lord appeared
to her, she said, and explained how dear
devotion to His Sacred Heart was to Him.
The Jesuits helped to spread the new discovery
with all their might. Father Gallifet, S.J.,
published a book, De Cultu SS. Cordis Jesu,
&c., and dedicated it to the Pope. The
Congregation of Rites refused to sanction the
feast of the Sacred Heart both in 1697 and
1729. The Jansenists vehemently attacked
the new devotion, and called its patrons Nes-
torians, " Cardiolatrae " or " Cordicolae." In
the Nestorian controversy ib was distinctly
condemned to make any separation between
our Lord's Godhead and His humanity. The
Jesuits prevailed, however. In 1765, Clement
XIII. permitted several churches to celebrate
the feast of the Sacred Heart, and this per
mission was extended to the entire Church of

Rome in 1856. The Jansenists were con
demned in the famous bull Auctorcm Fidei,
A.D. 1794, and Sister Margaret Mary was
"beatified" in 1864. The bull Auctorcm Fidei
purports to give an explanation of the prin
ciple on which a devotion, about which there
is not so much as a whisper in the Bible, is
supposed to rest. The faithful, we are told,
worship with supreme adoration the physical
heart of Christ, considered not as mere flesh,
but as united to the Divinity. They adore it
as the heart of the Person of the Word, to
which it is inseparably united. As was to
be expected, these principles were advanced
another stage, and the world soon saw the
spread of the devotion to the Heart of Mary Im
maculate. A priest called John Eudes started
the new cultus towards the close of the seven
teenth century, and although the Congregation
of Rites had refused to sanction the devotion in
1G69, and again in 1726, the Eudists had their
way, and the feast of the Immaculate Heart
of Mary was approved by Pius VI. in 1799, and
had a proper Mass and offices assigned to it
by Pius IX. in 1855. [T. C.]

SACRIFICE. — Implies death in the case of
animals offered, or destruction in that of in
animate things. Oblation implies the surrender
of what is offered.

There was nothing which so openly distin
guished the practice of the first Christians from
that of their heathen contemporaries as (1)
their having no images to worship, (2) their
offering no sacrifices, as the heathen understood
the term. The sacrifices of the heathen, and
also of the Jews, were of some material object,
such as an animal or incense. Christians offered
neither, and the heathen therefore reviled them
as atheists. The Christians, in their turn,
heaped scorn on the idea of sacrifice that was
effected by the slaughter of animals or the
burning of incense, or the presentation of any
material thing to God, claiming at the same
time that they did offer the only sacrifices which
God would accept and were of any value under
the religion of Christ, namely, the immaterial
and spiritual sacrifices of prayer, praise, thanks
giving, and a humble and contrite heart.

Justin Martyr, A.D. 150, says that the only
sacrifices offered by Christians and acceptable
to God are prayers and thanksgivings ; "for
these are the only sacrifices that Christians
have been taught to do, in remembrance both
of their food and drink, and also in com
memoration of the passion endured for their
sake by the Son of God" (Dial., 117). And
again, "We worship the Creator of the uni
verse not with blood, libations, and incense
(which we are sufficiently taught He has no
need of), but we exalt Him to the best of our
power with the reasonable service of prayer

2 T

SACRIFICE

[ 658 ]

SACRIFICE

and thanksgiving in all the oblations that we
render Him" (ApoL, i. 13).

Athenagoras, the Apologist, A.D. 170, states
the doctrine of Christian sacrifice as follows :
" Now as to our not sacrificing, the Creator
and Father of all does not want blood or fat or
sweet savour from flowers or incense, being
Himself the perfection of sweet savour, wanting
nothing, requiring nothing. But the greatest
sacrifice that we can offer to Him is to know
who stretched out the vault of heaven and
fixed the central earth ; who gathered the
waters into the seas ; who adorned the sky
with the stars and made the earth produce
seed ; who made the animals and created
man. When we apprehend the creative God
as sustaining and watching over the universe
with that wisdom and skill with which He
ever works, and raise up holy hands to Him,
what hecatomb is then wanted ? " (Leg. , xiii.).

Irenasus, A.D. 180, affirms emphatically that
God accepts no sacrifices except those of con
trition, faith, and obedience, and righteous
ness, and he teaches that the Church's sacrifice
in the Eucharist is a thank-offering to God for
the fruits of the earth which preserve life, and
a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of
Christ. This is the New Oblation of the New
Covenant taught by Christ (in contradistinction
to the sacrifices of the Old Covenant) ; and God
accepts it at our hands, not for His benefit but
for ours, because it is good for us to show
gratitude (Adv. H&r., iv. 17, and cf. Fragm.
Secund. ).

Tertullian, A.D. 195, is equally decisive :
"We do sacrifice," he says, "but in the way
which God has commanded, that is, by prayer
alone ; for God the Creator of the universe
does not need any incense or blood" (Ad Scap.,
ii.). " I offer Him a rich and greater host, which
He has commanded, that is, prayer from a
chaste body, an innocent mind and a sanctified
spirit, not pennyworths of incense "(Apol., xxx.).
" Prayer (with Psalmody) is the spiritual host
which has done away with the ancient sacri
fices. We (Christians) are the true worshippers,
the true priests, who, praying in the spirit, in
the spirit offer God's proper and acceptable
sacrifice of prayer, which He has demanded
and appointed for Himself ; this it is that we
must bring to the altar of God" (De Orat.,
xxvii.). " God is to be served not with earthly
but with spiritual sacrifices, as it is written :
'A broken and a contrite heart is the host
which should be offered to God"' (Adv. Jud., v.).

Origeu, A.D. 200, " To praise God and to
offer our vows of prayer to Him, is to sacrifice
to God" (In Num., Horn. xi.).

Lactantius, the Apologist, A.D. 260 : " There
are two things that must be offered — sacrifice
and offering, both incorporeal. . . . Offering is

uprightness of soul ; sacrifice is praise and
hymn" (Instit., vi. 24).

St. Augustine, A.D. 354, pronounces visible
sacrifices to be merely signs, sacraments, or
adumbrations of invisible sacrifices, which are
the only sacrifices of any value under the
Christian dispensation, consisting of a humble
and contrite heart, praise, charity, and mercy
(De Civ. Dei, x. 5).

To counteract the force of the scriptural and
Catholic truth that the Christian sacrifice is
the offering of an immaterial thing, as above
witnessed, the author of the Ritual Reason
Why (No. 386) says that the sacrifice of
"praise and thanksgiving" is not "a sacri
fice of our praise and thanksgiving merely,
but a sacrifice offered for thanksgiving "
(Lev. vii. 12). This materialising gloss is con
demned by the very passage of Scripture
in which the expression "sacrifice of praise"
occurs : " Let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips
giving thanks to His name " (Heb. xiii. 15). *

Komanists and many Ritualists, being asked
if they have a sacrifice to offer, reply, Yes !
it is the most essential characteristic of a
Catholic ; we have an altar in our churches,
and upon that altar the priest sacrifices the

1 The Revised Version of Heb. xiii. 15 is more
accurate : " that is, the fruit of lips which make
confession to his name." The A.V. may be
explained in the same way, "that is, the fruit of
[our] lips giving thanks to his name," but the
word fruit does not in the Greek agree with
"giving thanks," it is the lips only that "make
confession " or " give thanks/'' Hence care must
be taken to avoid the blunder, apparently at
least, made by the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York in their lamentable Answer to the
Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII. on English Ordi
nations, p. 19, which defines in a note, " Sacrifice
of praise, that is an Eucharistic sacrifice, a
peace-offering, or thank-offering, the ritual pecu
liarity of which was that the man who offered
was a partaker of the oblation with God." The
Lord's Supper is not referred to in the most
distant way in Heb. xiii. 15, and that text
explains the language of our Liturgy, " this our
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," in which
there is no reference to the bread and wine
partaken of in the Lord's Supper, but to the
confession of praise and thanksgiving made in
that holy ordinance. The Ritualistic contention
is utterly overthrown by Heb. xiii. 15. Com
pare Hosea xiv. 2, the passage referred to in
Heb. xiii. 15 in its Septuagint version. In the
Hebrew text it is perfectly plain that the R.V.
has given the true sense, " so will we render
as bullocks [in place of such animal offerings] the
offering of our lips."— C. H. H. W.

SACRILEGE

SAINT

Son of God to the Father in the Holy Eucharist,
this is the first function of a priest ; without a
sacrifice there is no priesthood, and without
a priesthood there is no sacrifice, and without
both priesthood and sacrifice there is no Church.
The early Christian apologists and theologians,
being asked the same question, Have you a
sacrifice? replied, Yes I our sacrifice is the
offering of prayer and praise and thanksgiving,
and a humble heart, and our whole selves. We
have no other sacrifice, and none other is ac
ceptable to God. They never referred to the
Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice when
answering this specific question. What is the
cause of the difference of the answer of the
primitive Churchmen, and modern Eomanists
and Ritualists, to the question, Have Christians
a sacrifice ? The cause is a change of doctrine.
That change began in the ninth century (the
commencement of the Middle Ages) and was
consummated by Innocent III. in the thirteenth
century. Those who accept the faith formulated
by Innocent, will answer to the proposed ques
tion, Yes! the Holy Eucharist; those who hold
the faith of the early Christians will reply,
Yes ! prayer, praise, thanksgiving, contrition,
offered on the altar of the heart in the celebra
tion of the Lord's Supper, and at other times.

Nevertheless the Holy Communion may be
regarded symbolically, and was regarded by the
early Fathers, as a sacrifice, because it is in it
that we specially offer our thanks for the grace
of the redemption of the world by Christ, which
in that rite we are commemorating, and also for
His goodness in our creation, preservation, and
all the blessings of this life. Christ instituted
a sacrament in which we might receive from
God ; man has invented a sacrifice in which we
give to God, and what we are supposed to give
to God is so great a thing, namely, God's own
Son, that its offering must supersede all other
ideas connected with the rite. Bishop Cosin
defines the sacrifice of the Eucharist, " as here
we use in the Church of England," to be "the
act of our praise and thanksgiving for the sac
rifice of Christ once made for us on the Cross "
(Notes on the Prayer Book, v. 348). [F. M.]
SACRILEGE.— The profaning of sacred things.
Technically, larceny from a church. By 24 &
25 Viet. c. 96, any person who breaks into
and enters any place of divine worship, and
commits a felony therein, or breaks in with
intent to commit a felony, or being in com
mits a felony, and breaks out, is liable to
severe punishment (see sees. 50, 57). By cap.
97 of the same year any person who unlaw
fully and maliciously sets fire to any such
place of worship is guilty of felony, as
also, by cap. 96, is any person stealing, or
cutting with intent to steal, anything made
of metal or other material fixed in any

burial-ground. By cap. 97, sec. 39, a person
maliciously destroying or damaging any pic
ture, statue, monument, painted glass, or other
ornament or work of art in any place of
worship, or in any churchyard or burial-ground,
is guilty of a misdemeanour. By the post-
Reformation Canon Law (see Canon 88 of 1604)
no plays, feasts, temporal courts, or musters
are allowed in a church, chapel, or churchyard.

[B. W.]

SACRISTY.— The Romish name for a vestry,
or place where the vestments, &c., belonging
to the clergy and church are kept.

SAINT. — The expression " saints " (#7*01, hagioi)
is used by the Apostles not of a particular
class, a spiritual aristocracy of the Church,
but of all baptized and converted Christians
without distinction. They are so called be
cause they are separated from the world,
consecrated to the service of God, washed
from the guilt of sin by the blood of Christ.
Notwithstanding all their remaining imper
fections and sins, believers are spoken of as
saints since they are called to a life which, if
its ideal be reached, is one of perfect holiness.
The Apostles address their epistles to the
"saints," i.e. to the Christian believers "at
Rome, Corinth, Ephesus," &c. It is worthy
of notice that in the New Testament the word
"saint" (which occurs sixty times) is never
used as applied to members and office-bearers
of the Church, except in the plural or in
speaking of the Church as a body (Phil. iv. 21),
and the word " holy," which is the meaning of
saint, is, strictly speaking, only used as a
personal title of the Three Persons of the
Trinity (John xvii. 11 ; Acts iv. 27, 30 ; Matt. i.
18; and Rev. iv. 8). The practice of speaking
of even the Apostles and Evangelists as " Saint
Paul," "Saint Mark," is not derived from
Scripture, and was apparently unknown to the
writers of the first three centuries. It is
almost needless to add that neither the letters
"St." in the A.V. nor the letter "S" (which
stands for the Latin sanctus) in the R.V. were
in the original autographs. In the list of
"Readings and Renderings preferred by the
American Committee, recorded at their desire,"
at the end of the R.V. of the New Testament,
at the head of all occurs the emendation,
" Strike out ' S ' (i.e. Saint) from the title of the
Gospels and from the heading of pages." 1

1 Acting on the same principle, the American
Committee record their desire to " strike out the
word ' General ' [Catholic] from the title of the
Epistles of James, Peter, 1 John, and Jude."
The word " Catholic " does not occur in the New
Testament, nor is it part of the Apostolic text in
the inscription of the above-mentioned epistles,
but was added by transcribers.

SAINT

[ 660 ]

SALUTATIONS

The alleged restriction of the term " saint" a
the close of the Apostolic Age has been asserted
upon arguments founded on a wrong reading
in Eev. xv. 3, which describes our Lord as
" King of saints." No doubt, if this reading
were the correct one, it would refer to saints as
a title almost, if not exclusively, confined to
martyrs — those who " had gotten the victory
over the beast, and over the image, and over his
mark." The true reading, however, in the
passage, is either that given in the text of the
R.V., viz., "King of the ages" (a.i&vw, aidnon)
or, in the margin, "King of nations" (edvuv,
cthnon).

About the fourth century the name of " saint "
began to be used of martyrs as especially their
due, the dangerous opinion having been ad
vanced that their martyrdom won for them
immediate access to heaven, without passing
through the intermediate state. Eucharistic
commemoration of particular martyrs arose at
an early date in the Church, and as the number
of martyrs soon increased beyond the power of
enumeration, a commemoration of the saints in
general was added to that of those who were
individually named. This habit soon developed
into the festivals known as Saints' Days.

The Romish practice of formally designating
particular persons as saints either by permission
in the act of beatification, or by judicial pro
nouncement in the act of canonisation is, as
Bishop Latimer terms it, " a judging of men be
fore the Lord's judgment." From the canonisa
tion, the worship of saints naturally follows.
The Creed of Pope Pius IV. consequently
affirms, "that the saints reigning with Christ
are to be honoured and invocated, that they
offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics
are to be venerated." See RELICS. Perhaps
the saddest feature of beatification and canoni
sation is that the Church of Rome has delighted,
even down to our day, to bestow the title of
"saint" upon cruel persecutors and grossly
immoral writers.

In the Church of England we commemorate
certain saints or holy men, recorded in Scrip
ture, by whose labours the Christian Church
was mainly established. This custom is usually
based upon the inferences to be drawn from the
following passages of Holy Writ (1 Cor. xi. 1 ;
Phil. iii. 17; Heb. vi. 12; xiii. 17). In the
services appointed for Saints' Days, everything
which might lend any countenance to invoca
tion of saints and superstitious observances
has been most rigorously excluded. The pre
sent endeavour to enforce their regular and
uniform observance, we fear is not so much in
some quarters with a desire to improve them
by a suitable and scriptural application of sound
doctrine, as to aid on mediaeval tendencies to
wards saint-worship. A feeling of regret has

often been expressed that there have been
retained in the Calendar the names of other
than scriptural personages.1 The references
here to them are, however, as indicating notes
of time, not as festivals to be celebrated.

At the Reformation the Lutheran Church
retained (in some sections) the feasts of the
Virgin Mary, of the Apostles and Evangelists,
and of All Saints ; but they have gradually
gone out of use (see Schaff's History of the
Christian Church, Modern Christianity, vol. ii.
p. 493). [C. N.]

SALETTE, LA— See REVELATIONS, MODERN.

SALT. — This is used in the Church of Rome in
the composition of "holy" water, being it
self, as well as the water, "exorcised." See
EXORCISM.

SALUTATIONS.— Throughout the East the
ordinary mode of showing submission to a
superior is by kissing his hand. It may be
observed when men or women come to ask a
favour, or desire to make a lowly acknowledg
ment of their gratitude. A suppliant will
seize the tips of the fingers of your right hand
in both of his, and, bending down his head
("bowing down," or "doing obeisance"), will
bring the back of your hand to his lips, im
press a kiss, or kisses, upon it, and then raise
it so as to touch his forehead. This is more
than an ordinary respectful salutation. The
latter, called the teymeeneh, throughout the
East, consists in raising the right hand, with a
slight inclination of the head — or " bowing
down to the earth," and touching the ground
with the right hand — and placing it in suc
cession over heart, lips, and forehead. Kiss
ing the hand of another in this way is the act
of an inferior admitting, in a demonstrative
manner, the authority of a superior or of a
benefactor. Etiquette, it is true, ordinarily
requires the superior to make a show of
resistance, and endeavour to withdraw his
hand ; while, if he desires to appear gracious,
he returns the salutation by pressing his lips
on the forehead or cheek of the other. This
mode of kissing is at times compulsory. When
a Pasha, or any other person in authority,
desires to exact a sign of submission, he
presents his hand and obliges it to be kissed.

1 As regards the "black-letter" saints in the
First Prayer Book of King Edward VI., 1549,
their names werewholly omitted from the Calendar,
only there was a day kept in honour of Mary Mag
dalene (July 22). In the Second Prayer Book
of 1552, four " black-letter " days appear — St.
George, Lammas, St. Lawrence, and St. Clement.
In the Primer (1553), and again in Queen Eliza
beth's Calendar of 1561, all but four appeared as
we find them in the Calendar at this day. See
Tomliuson's Prayer Book Articles, &c., pp. 5, 6.

SALUTATIONS

[ 661 ]

SALUTATIONS

Sometimes, when an offended person of
rank is approached with a view of obtaining
his pardon, the suppliant will "kiss his feet."
This is usually done by touching the feet of
the superior with his right hand, then kissing
the hand with which he has so touched, and
placing it on his forehead. When the woman
in the house of Simon the Pharisee "kissed"
the feet of Christ at the time of anointing
them, it is possible that the action was per
formed in this way (Luke vii. 37, 38, 45). The
feet are, however, in some cases actually kissed
in this lowliest form of greeting.

Allied with the last is the act of kissing the
ground upon which a superior has trodden.
It is apparently to this way of doing homage
that the Psalmist refers, when speaking of the
submission of the unconquered Bedaween Arabs
during Messiah's millennial reign : —

"The dwellers in the desert shall bow before

Him,
And His enemies shall lick the dust l —

a strong way of saying " they shall press their
lips on the dusty ground which His steps have
trodden."

The ground is often kissed by a man's stoop
ing down and touching it with his right hand,
and then kissing the hand with which he has
so touched, and placing it upon his forehead.
Another mode of showing servile submission is
by taking hold of and kissing the end of the
Eastern loose-flowing cloak, either the goat's
or camel's hair sackcloth abayeh of the Beda
ween and Fellahhcen? or the rich-coloured
cloth jibbeh, or beneesk, worn by the Belladeen,
or townspeople. This salutation necessitates
stooping down in deep obeisance. When
Saul, in an agony of despair, entreated
Samuel to help him to seek Jehovah, as
Samuel "turned about to go away," Saul
" laid strong hold upon the wing of his outer
robe" — that is, its " loose, flowing end" — in a
humble and supplicating manner (1 Sam. xv.
27. See also Exod. xviii. 7 ; and Zech. viii.
23). A bold figure drawn from this custom
occurs in the Messianic hymn where the kings
and judges of the earth are called upon to serve
" Jehovah's Anointed," the Son of God: —

" Eagerly kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish [from, or as to, the] Way." 3

1 Ps. Ixxii. 9. See also Isa. xlix. 23. The words
in this, and all the following quotations from
Holy Scripture, which are printed in italics, are
words which in the original are emphatic.

2 The lfj.dTiov, or cloak, of the New Testament.

3 Ps. ii. 12. The Hebrew verb " kiss," here,
•IpKO, nash-siit-koo, being in the piel, or intensive,
structure of the verb, is, as I have rendered it,
" eagerly, or diligently, kiss."

This alludes to kissing the hand, or the feet
or garment, for the only other kiss given by
one man to another — namely, that upon the
cheek or the forehead — is never offered to one
of a superior rank. Our Blessed Lord claims
the believer's surrender, supplication, and
love ; and all these — submission, dependence,
and gratitude — are skilfully included in the
command to pay homage to the Son by kissing
His hand I It is interesting, and for Jews and
objectors most important, to observe that faith
in Jesus came, at its commencement, to be
commonly called "the Way." In the B.V.
the word "Way," in six passages of the Acts,
is rightly printed with a capital W; as a proper
name given to the way of salvation preached
by the Apostles.4 To the believer this name
is the more suggestive, as Jesus declared Him
self to be "the Way, the Truth, and the
Life ; " or, as this Hebrew form of Hendiadys
should be rendered, "The true and living
Way"; and added, "no one cometh unto the
Father but by me" (John xiv. 6). This name
given to the Gospel, "the Way," points to
salvation being a living union with a Personal
Saviour.

Commentators have represented the traitor
Judas as delivering up Christ by kissing His
cheek, and have dwelt upon the deep heinous-
ness of such an act of familiarity. But was
this really the case ? Judas' approach w as
apparently, a humble one. He addressed the
Saviour as "Rabbi," or rather, as in Mark's
more graphic Gospel, "Rabbi, Rabbi," a term
of respect if used only once, but here much
intensified by the Epizeuxis.5 Two Evange
lists record that "Judas kissed Him much or
eagerly " (KaTe<f>i\r]<T(t>, Matt. xxvi. 49 ; Mark
xiv. 45), an expression which has occasioned
difficulty to commentators. But to kiss the
hand in this eager, ostentatious way was a

4 Acts ix. 2 ; xix. 9 ; xix. 23 ; xxii. 4 ; xxiv. 14
xxiv. 22. See R.V. Also notice Acts xvi. 17, and
xviii. 25, 26, in which last verse " the Way of
God" may be a Hebrew form for "the great
Way," just as "a trembling of God" is "a great
trembling," i.e. "an earthquake" (1 Sam. xiv. 15),
" cedars of God "are "great cedars" (Ps. Ixxx.
10), and "mountains of God" are "great moun
tains" (Ps. xxxvi. 6), "beautiful to God" is
"very beautiful" (Acts yii. 20), "children of
God " is " mighty children or persons " (Luke
xx. 36), "prayer of God" is "mighty prayer''
(Luke vi. 12), &c.

5 Mark xiv. 45. Some authorities omit the
second " Rabbi," but it is retained by Alford and
many others. It would seem that Judas generally
addressed the Lord as " Rabbi " (see Matt. xxvi.
25). Exod. xviii. 7, 1 Sam. x. 1, are instances of
a similar reverential kissing of the hand.

SALUTATIONS

[ 662 ]

SALUTATIONS

sign of lowly submission, and was natural, anc
quite in keeping with the trembling and aw
that may well have seized his soul. Just a.
in the words, " Kiss the Son," there is an
allusion to kissing the hand and not the face
so, when Judas "eagerly kissed" Christ, i
means that he paid Him publicly the homage
of a disciple by seizing and repeatedly kissing
His hand. This explanation in no way lessen
the traitor's guilt, but it makes the scene, from
an Eastern standpoint, far more lifelike.

The Apostolic injunction to believers to salute
one another with a kiss is a command which has
been almost universally misunderstood. It
occurs first in Eomans xvi. 16, " Salute one an
other with a holy kiss." Three times afterward
the Apostle Paul repeats the same command
(1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Thess. v.
26), varying it once, in writing a second time
to the Church at Corinth, when, by inverting
the order of the noun and adjective, he gives
the well-known Greek emphasis, "a holy kiss '
(2 Cor. xiii. 12). Possibly the stress on the word
"holy" here is a gentle rebuke to the strife
and party spirit by which the Corinthian
Church was rent (1 Cor. i. 12-14; iii. 3, 4).
Once again it occurs, in 1 Pet. v. 14, Peter
agreeing with Paul in enforcing the same truth :
" Salute one another with a loving kiss."

Two opposite errors have beset this subject ;
the one making the Apostles to mean nothing,
and the other making them to mean too much.
The latter is now beginning to revive in some
quarters. It is impossible to doubt that the
command to kiss, solemnly repeated five times,
is, in its true meaning, binding upon the
followers of Christ.

First, this command must have been ad
dressed to men with respect to men only, and to
women with respect to women only. At the time
when all the Epistles were written worship
would doubtless be conducted in accordance
with the strict customs of the East, the men
being separated from the women. The men
met in one part of the building, or room, the
women in another. The men saluted each
other, and the women the same ; but through
out the East it is altogether contrary to
"chaste" usage (Phil. iv. 8) for a man and a
woman to greet one another in public, even
though members of the same family. Indeed,
it is not allowed by Oriental etiquette to ad
dress a word to a woman whom one does not
know. Hence the surprise of our Lord's dis
ciples when they found Him in conversation
with the stranger at Jacob's well ; for " they
marvelled that He was talking with a woman !"
(John iv. 27, E.V.).

The same applies equally to all social gather
ings. On such occasions, when guests assemble,
the men are met and entertained by the host

in one apartment, and the women by his wife,
mother, or daughters in another, and these
two companies are carefully kept apart. This
is universal. The idea of men and women
of different families, in the lands where the
Epistles were written, meeting freely together
in the way that we should do now, either in
their homes or at assemblies, is one of those
misconceptions which occur only to a Western
mind. When, as disciples of Christ, women
were placed in spiritual privileges on a level
with men, and allowed to attend the meetings
of the Church, it was still necessary, in that
transition period, for them to be veiled as well
as to keep to their own part of the room.

Such appears to be the natural meaning
of the passage where the Apostle Paul says,
" Every woman praying or prophesy inr/ with her
head unveiled dishonours her head," and de
cides "let her be veiled."1 Indeed, it would
seem that it was partly because any such act
would require her unveiling that the Apostle
forbids a woman to speak in the public assem
blies, saying, " Let the women [or wives'] keep
silence in the Churches " (1 Cor. xiv. 34). In
the very next verse he cries, " It is a shame for
a woman to speak in the Church," and this
word " shame " (altrxpov) is the very word he
uses when he says, " If it is a shame for a
woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled "
(1 Cor. xi. 6). The difficult words that occur
in the tenth verse, " the woman ought to have
[a sign of] authority on her head, because of
the angels," have been held to point in the
same direction. They seem to be a figurative
way of saying, " she ought to have a veil on
her head as the sign of her husband's autho
rity over her," because of " the messengers "
or " angels," the ministers, who would, at that
time, have been sadly disconcerted had they
been called upon to preach to an assembly of
unveiled women, which Dr. Thomson, in a very
interesting passage, shows would be equally
the case in Syria to-day.2 It is important to
observe that these words are addressed, not to
a Church in Asia, nor to Hebrews only, but to
the Church at Corinth, a Gentile Church in a
Greek city. Thus, in the age of the Apostles,
the Eastern customs with regard to the sexes
at public worship prevailed also in the Western
world.

It is out of the question, therefore, to sup
pose that the command to kiss has reference
to other than the respective greetings of men
with men, and of women with women. Every
idea connected with the stringent proprieties

1 1 Cor. xi. 5, 6. See R.V. The word " un-
•eiled" in this verse has an emphasis of its own
.bove the rest.

" The Land and the Book, p. 31.

SALUTATIONS

[ 663

SALUTATIONS

of a land like Palestine, owing to the seclusion
of females and the separation of the sexes,
requires this limitation, which there was no
need whatever to specify in a Revelation ad
dressed to Easterns, or to those accustomed
to Eastern usages, and published about the
midst of the first century. Had anything
been intended so strange, nay, so monstrous
to their notions, as the fact of all men in
discriminately ki-ssing all women, and that,
too, in a Church like the Corinthian, where
such terrible impurity had crept in (1 Cor. v.),
it must have been specially and distinctly
stated, and that with restrictions to guard
against its abuse. Indiscriminate salutation
between men and women, commanded to take
place at their secret meetings, would have
formed a damaging charge sure to have been
brought against the Church by the early Pagan
and Jewish objectors. Anything so eminently
contrary to " the things " that were " chaste"
(ayvd) and " of good fame " (e^/xa) (Phil.
iv. 8) in the world of that day, would have
been held up to scathing reprobation. Reck
less and shameful charges were brought by
unbelieving Jews and heathen against the
Churches of Christ because of their secluded
assemblies, especially for the administration
of the Lord's Supper. But the command to
kiss was never made the ground of any such
charge, and.that is, in itself, a proof that it was
not taken to apply to a salutation between
men and women.

The interpretation given above corresponds
with the interpretation put upon the passage
by the primitive Church. It is well known
that this kiss was long practised amongst the
followers of Christ. It was called " the kiss
of greeting," and also " the kiss of peace " ;
indeed, we find it sometimes called simply
" the peace," and this name implies that it
was a kiss of ordinary friendly greeting.
"Peace be to you" was from earliest times,
and is to this hour, the usual spoken salutation
throughout the East — the friendly "How do
you do ? " of English ; the proper reply to it
being, " Upon you be peace." l Justin Martyr
tells us, in his Apology, that they so greeted
one another during divine service before par
taking of the Holy Communion. His words
are : " Prayers being ended, we salute one
another with a kiss. There is then brought to
that one of the brethren who was presiding,
bread and a cup of wine." 2 Justin Martyr
leaves it uncertain by and to whom such saluta
tion was given. But in the Apostolical Consti
tutions, a work elating in part probably from

1 Gen. xxix. 6 ; xliii. 23 ; Exod. xviii. 7 ; Jud.
xix. 20 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 6, &c., &c.

- The First Apology of Justin Martyr, chap. Ixv.

the third century, where a fuller description
of worship is found, the author says: "On
the other side let the laics [the ' people,' or
rather ' men '] sit with all silence and good
order; and the women, let them sit also sepa
rately, keeping silence." After a lengthy
account of the service following upon this,
he adds: "Then let the men salute one an
other, and the women one another, with the
kiss in the Lord." s Here, not only are the
women to sit separately, as was universally
the case in the early Church, but they are
only " to kiss one another," while the men are
limited to kissing men. This is made particu
larly plain in the Greek original, as, unlike
English, the word " one another" is used in a
masculine form where the men are spoken of,
and in a feminine form in the case of the
women.4 This statement decides the point
beyond the possibility of doubt, and the fact
that, at a later period, " the kiss of peace " or
"the loving kiss" gave rise to scandal, and
was therefore discountenanced and fell into
final disuse, only shows that it had come to be
as much misunderstood amongst the Church
of that day as it is generally amongst us.

The above explanation removes the principal
difficulty that has hitherto been felt in the
texts which tell us to " salute one another
with a holy kiss " — namely, that such embrace
was to be given indifferently to either sex.
That it should have been lost sight of is not
surprising, on two grounds. First, because the
spread of the Gospel, by raising women, and
bringing into the world a new purity, abolished
in Western lands the state of things existing
before. Secondly, because the words "salute
one another with a holy kiss" are the figure of
ellipsis ; the words in this case omitted, but
understood, being " men and women respec
tively." Ellipsis is common to all languages,
but peculiar to the concise tongues of the East,
and pre-eminent in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.
Holy Scripture abounds with figurative lan
guage generally in a very high degree, probably
beyond any other work. It may be truly said
that almost every error that has crept into the
Church has been founded on taking a figurative
expression in a literal sense I The whole sub-

3 Apostolical Constitutions, book ii. chap. Ivii.
This work probably assumed its present form in
the fifth or sixth century, but Canon Westcott
speaks of that part of it which describes worship
in the second book as "in all likelihood as old
as the third century." There is a somewhat
similar statement in book viii., chap, xi., of the
Apostolical Constitutions, which is considered to
be a much later addition to the first seven books.

4 elra /cot &a"ira^<r8uffat> dXXijAovs 01 dfSjoey, icol
a\\r)\as at yvvaiKes TO (v KVpitfi ^>i\rifj.a.

SALUTATIONS

[ 664 ]

SALUTATIONS

ject of figurative language, notwithstanding
its immense importance to the Biblical student,
has hitherto altogether failed to receive suffi
cient attention.1

There are two distinct kinds of kissing in
connection with the customs of Eastern salu
tation. One is that already described, of
inferiors in their character of dependants or
suppliants — namely, the kissing of a superior's

1 The writer of the article " Kiss," in Smith's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, declares that
" no limitation is expressed or implied . . . nor
is there any doubt that the primitive usage was
for the ' holy kiss ' to be given promiscuously,
without any restriction as to sexes or ranks,
among those who were all one in Christ Jesus.
... In the frequent allusions to the kiss of
peace which occur in the early Christian worship,
there is no reference to any restriction." But
the fact is that the passage from the Apostolical
Constitutions, book ii. chap. Ivii., referred by
Canon Westcott to the third century, expressly
limits this kiss to the salutation of men with
men only, and women with women only. This
shows how cautious one has to be before accept
ing even the most confident statements in the
best books of reference ! The writer in question
gives the words of Athenagoras, in his Plea [or
Embassy} for the Christians, who, quoting ap
parently from some Apocryphal book, says : "For
the Logos (the Word) again says to us, ' If any
one kiss a second time because it has given him
pleasure [he sins],'" and adds, "Therefore the
kiss, or rather, the salutation, should be given
with the greatest care, since, if there be mixed
with it the least defilement of thought, it ex
cludes us from eternal life " (Legat. pro Christian.,
chap, xxxii.). But all who, like myself, have
lived in the East, or who know from the classics
the nameless vice to which the heathen were
and still are, so awfully addicted, will at once
perceive that this is not necessarily any reference
at all to a salutation between the two sexes.

Again, he quotes from the Instructor (Pceda-
gogus) of Clement of Alexandria a passage the
chief point of which he appears to overlook. It
is one on love and the need of its being genuine.
Clement says: " If we are called to the kingdom
of God, let us walk worthy of the kingdom,
loving God and our neighbour. But love is not
tested by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But
there are those that do nothing but make the
churches resound with a kiss, not having love
itself within. For this very thing, the shame
less use of the kiss, which ought to be mystic,
occasions foul suspicions and evil reports. The
apostle calls the kiss holy" (Padagogus, book iii.
chap. xi.). Here the main object of Clement
was to warn against insincere greetings. What
is said as to their noisy, ostentatious character

hand, varied sometimes by kissing his feet,
the hem of his garment, or the dust on which
he has trodden. The other is that which
takes place in an exchange of greeting between
two equals. When the latter are relatives, or
old and dear friends, they embrace one another,
especially after a long absence, in the following
manner. Each, in turn, places his head, face
downwards, upon the other's left shoulder,

giving rise to " foul suspicions " is entirely met
by the previous remarks. It can have nothing
to do with an exchange of greeting between a
man and a woman, as may be seen from the fact
that Clement says in the same chapter, on the
subject of going to church worship, "Let the
woman observe this further. Let her be entirely
covered unless she happen to be at home. . . .
For this is the wish of the Word, since it is
becoming for her to pray veiled." The writer of
the article in Smith's Dictionary entirely leaves out
this important statement that the women's faces were
not to be even seen during divine worship !

That writer further adds that "the earliest
example " of the distinction between the sexes is
in the Apostolical Constitutions, and proceeds to
quote from the eighth book the following words :
" Let the deacon say to all, ' Salute ye one
another with the holy kiss ; ' and let the clergy
salute the bishop, and the men of the laity
salute the men, and the women the women "
(Apost. Const., book viii. chap. ii.). But the
eighth book, which is of much later date than
the first seven, probably came into existence
considerably after the real " earliest example "
given from the second book — namely, " Let the
men salute one another, and the women one
another, with the kiss in the Lord" (Apost.
Const., book ii. chap. Ivii.), which the writer of
the article in question has kept entirely out
of sight. In the passage in book ii. there is
nothing about any distinction between the clergy
and laity, as in the subsequent times of greater
priestly assumption when the eighth book was
penned. No doubt the Apostolical Constitutions
shows throughout the marks of later corruptions
and interpolations, and is far from being a pure
or scriptural production. But, such as it is, it
affords the first and only explicit statement as to
those by whom "the kiss of peace" was given
and received ; and that statement completely
confirms the view here set forth. There is no
occasion to refer to later authors, as the practice
of the first three or four centuries is all that we
require. Yet it may be well to state that I have
diligently searched the whole of the Greek and
Latin so-called Fathers, in Migne's series of
216 thick quarto volumes, and, still more care-
fully, the twenty-four volumes of Messrs. T. & T.
Clark's series of the Ante-Nicene Christian
Library, without finding any other passage

SALUTATIONS

[ 665 ]

SALUTATIONS

and kisses him upon the right cheek, He then
reverses the action, by placing his head simi
larly upon the other's right shoulder and
kissing him upon the left cheek. This im
pressive and picturesque mode of embrace was
the way in which Esau greeted Jacob, for we
are told " he fell on his neck and kissed him " ;
in which Joseph and Benjamin acknowledged
their blood relationship ; and in which Joseph

throwing light on the question. Tertullian has
a short chapter on "the kiss of peace" in his
treatise " On Prayer" (De Oratione, chap, xviii.) ;
but it gives no hint of this kiss passing between
the different sexes.

The only passage that seems doubtful is one
in Tertullian's piece entitled Ad Uxorem, " To
[my] Wife," where, warning her against the
restraints and hindrances which a believing
woman would encounter if married to a heathen,
he asks, " For who would suffer his wife for the
sake of visiting the brethren (visitandorum fra-
trum) to go round from street to street to others',
and, indeed, to all the poorer, cottages ? Who
will willingly bear her being taken from his side
by nocturnal convocations [evening services] if
need be so ? Who, finally, will, without anxiety,
endure her spending a night out at the paschal
solemnities ? Who will, without some suspicion
of his own, dismiss her to attend that Lord's
feast (convivium dominicum) which they defame ?
Who will suffer her to creep into prison to kiss
a martyr's bonds? Again, even to meet any
one of the brethren to exchange the kiss?
(jam vero alicui fratrum ad osculum convenire)."
But here the word, fratrum, "brethren," may,
and probably should, be taken in the same
general sense in which the word is used in the
New Testament, to refer to believing women as
well as men, and. in this particular instance
to mean women alone, the only portion of " the
brethren " whom a pious married woman would,
in the nature of things, be meeting to kiss. For
surely a woman's going round to other houses
" for the sake of visiting the brethren," would
mean, for the sake of visiting other female mem
bers of the Church ; and if this is the sense of
"brethren " in one sentence, why not in another
immediately following? The general drift of
the whole passage is that a heathen husbanc
would be impatient of his wife's having friends
pursuits, and engagements, all outside his own
circle, and amongst the despised and hated
" Christians."

The view taken of " the kiss of peace " in Fair
bairn's excellent Imperial Bible Dictionary, is als
incorrect. The writer of the article " Kiss '
says : " In the early Church, and in consequenc
probably of the extraordinary outburst of affec
tion called forth by the circumstances of the
time, coupled with the fervid temperament o

welcomed and reassured the whole of his
troubled brethren. Such, also, was the warm
and tender greeting given by the father in
the parable to the Prodigal Son, and the
affectionate parting salutation between Paul
and the elders of the Ephesian Church.1 Be
tween the first and last mention of this custom
there stretches a period of more than 1800
years I What wonder then that, after the

the East, the kiss came into use among the
Jhristian brotherhood as a token of relation
ship and mutual endearment in a spiritual sense ;
hence the exhortations in some of the Epistles to
salute one another with a holy kiss." So far,
however, from this kiss being the mark of any
thing "extraordinary," or a special out-of-the-
way token of " relationship in a spiritual sense,"
it was simply the ordinary social greeting among
friends and equals, commanded to be exchanged
by members of the Church in token of their true
fellowship, and as a recognition of their equality
in Christ. The terms "holy" and "loving,"
applied to this salutation, lift it, indeed, above
the level of coldness and worldly formality, and
imply that, among believers, it was to be a kind,
sincere, hearty greeting. But the kiss itself was,
as shown above, one of the ordinary usages of
polite society.

The care that is needed in reading the most
important works of reference may be still further
seen from the fact that, under the article "Kiss "
in the very large and valuable Cydopcedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,
edited by Messrs. J. M. M'Clintockand J. Strong,
the following sentence occurs, " It was usual to
kiss the mouth (Gen. xxxiii. 4; Exod. iv. 27,
xviii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xx. 41 ;| Prov. xxiv. 26) ; " yet, will
the reader believe it! there is no hint in the
original of the kiss being given on the mouth in
any one of these five alleged proof texts ! The
Hebrew, in the case of the first four, is simply
"kissed," and refers, as I am showing above,
to kissing the cheek, and in one case the hand
(Exod. xviii. 7) ; and the last alludes to greeting
a document and not a person (see my Salute
One Another, Simpkin, Marshall & Co., pp. 19, 20).
1 Gen. xxxiii. 4 ; xlv. 14, 15 ; Luke xv. 20; Acts
xx. 37. It should be noted that in these last
two instances the word is Ka.Ta<pi\tw, " to kiss
much or eagerly," that is, repeatedly, and
with much warm expression of feeling. A pre
cisely similar force is also given in the Hebrew
of Gen. xlv. 15, which is "moreover he [Joseph,
when making himself known] eagerly kissed
all his brethren "—the verb " kiss " being in the
piel structure, which gives the sense of doing a
thing diligently, or forcibly, A beautiful touch
is thus imparted to the picture of his mag
nanimous treatment of those poor, trembling,
guilty brethren.

SALUTATIONS

[ 666

SALUTATIONS

lapse of another 1800 years, we find it still the
same in the changeless life of Bible lands.

When a kindly, but more formal and respect
ful, salutation passes between those of the
same rank, they take hold of each other's
beards and kiss them. Women also greet
their husbands, and children their fathers, in
like manner. It is an insult to take hold of
a man's beard on any occasion but that of
kissing it. Joab took advantage of that special
form of embrace to assassinate the brother
commander of whom he was jealous. Saluting
him with the words, '"Art thou well, my
brother ? ' . . Joab took hold of Amasa's beard
[with the] right hand, to kiss him," that is,
"to kiss his beard," and when the other was
thus thrown off his guard by this friendly
act, stabbed him by a left-handed thrust with
a short sword (2 Sam. xx. 9, 10). There is,
however, another common occasion of kissing
amongst men. The salutation which passes in
polite society between a host and those of his
guests who are in a similar station of life
consists in placing the right hand upon the
other's left shoulder and kissing his right
cheek, and then laying the left hand on his
right shoulder, and kissing his left cheek.
Thus Absalom saluted the people who came to
kiss his hand, for, " it was so that when a man
came nigh to do him obeisance he put forth
his hand, and took hold of him, and kissed
him." Absalom flattered the common people,
whom he sought to draw into his conspiracy
by treating them as friends and equals (2 Sam.
xv. 5).

Simon the Pharisee, with whom our Lord
went "to eat"— either to breakfast at midday
or to dine at sunset — in addition to the other
ordinary customs of reception at the houses of
the wealthy, namely, having his guests' feet
washed by one servant and their persons
sprinkled with perfume by another, greeted
them each, in this usual way, with a kiss on
the cheek. But he did not care to appear too
intimate with the lowly "Man of Sorrows,"
and our Blessed Lord gently upbraids him for
his discourteous conduct in the words "Thou
gavest me no kiss." J The neglectful reception
accorded by the proud Pharisee was a gross
breach of the laws of Eastern hospitality to
wards one whom he had specially invited, and
stood out in striking contrast to the conduct
of the humble outcast, who was in no way
responsible for the honours of the house, but
of whom the Master tells us, "She, since the time
I came in, has not ceased to eagerly kiss my

1 Luke vii. 45. As our Lord further points out
Simon's neglect was so marked as even to leave
His feet unwashed, and His head unsprinkled
with perfumed oil.

feet"2— the lowliest of all modes of grateful
homage ! No excuse can be alleged for Simon
on the ground of his regarding Jesus as a
prophet, or as a great Rabbi, and therefore
feeling too much respect to treat Him as an
equal. In that case, he ought to have rever
ently saluted Him as a superior, by kissing
His hand, and seen to the washing of His feet
and perfuming of His head.

There is another more formal mode of
salutation between those of a similar station of
life when meeting in the ordinary way. In
this case they join their right hands, simply
placing them one to the other, and then each
kisses his own hand and puts it to his lips and
forehead, sometimes to his forehead only, or
over his heart, and at others over his heart,
merely, without kissing it.3 It was by laying
either the hand or the head on the shoulder,
and kissing the cheek, that Laban greeted his
nephew Jacob ; Aaron his brother Moses ;
David his friend Jonathan, his son Absalom,
and his aged benefactor Barzillai.4 There is a
beautiful allegorical allusion to this kind of
salutation, that well brings out its use as a
figure of speech. The Psalmist, setting forth
God's promised salvation, tells how the work of
grace, through Christ's atonement, reconciles
the Divine Righteousness to Peace, from which
in a world of sin it had hitherto been
estranged : —

" Mercy and Truth are met together,
Righteousness and Peace have kissed,"

— Ps. Ixxxv. 10.

or, as we should say, "have shaken hands,"
that is, have met as friends and equals on good
terms with one another !

2 Luke vii. 45. The word here is K
" kissing much or eagerly."

3 Akin to this is the practice amongst the
fdlahheen, or villagers, of seizing each other's
hands, often for a minute together, not shaking
them as with us, but clasping them, so as each to
place his fingers in turn over the other's thumb,
repeating alternately selamat, " Peace," or, " How
do you do?" and teiyibeen, "Are you well?"
Sometimes this is done by clapping each other's
hands very smartly twenty or thirty times in
stead of clasping them, while they repeat these
words— a very hearty mode of salutation, con
fined to the fdlahheen class.

4 Gen. xxix. 13; Exod. iv. 27; 1 Sam. xx. 41;
2 Sam. xiv. 33 ; 2 Sam. xix. 39. In Gen xix. 13,
the word "kissed" is in the piel structure, mean
ing "eagerly-kissed." On two other occasions
referring to Laban (Gen. xxxi. 28, and xxxi. 55)
the word is also in the piel structure, for Jacob's
uncle appears to have been as demonstrative as
he was deceitful.

SALUTATIONS

[ 667 ]

SANCTIFICATION

One of these three latter greetings— namely,
falling on the neck and kissing, kissing the
beard, or laying the hand on the shoulder
and kissing the cheek — most probably the
last — must be the salutation intended in the
apostolic injunction, " Salute one another
with a holy kiss." Viewed in this light, the
command becomes not only natural but preg
nant with important meaning. It was in
tended to teach the Church of God that, as
believers, all its members were to meet on a
friendly and equal footing. All distinctions
of caste and rank among the people of the
Lord, when gathered together in the charac
ter of His people, should, therefore, be laid
aside.

In the East, kissing the cheek answers
exactly to our hearty shaking of hands be
tween those of the same social station when
meeting in familiar intercourse, and if the
Holy Spirit had been writing in our age
and clime, instead of 1800 years ago in the
East, we may say, with all reverence, that He
would have commanded believers to " salute
one another with a holy shaking of hands," to
meet, that is, as brethren of one rank before
God, members of the same body, children of
the same Father. "Let the brother who [is]
low, glory in his exaltation ; but the rich in
his humiliation " (James i. 9, 10). Let it not
be said that "you have dishonoured the poor
man," or that "you have respect to persons"
(James ii. 6, 9). This is the glorious truth
contained in the words " salute one another
with a holy kiss," which, like most of the
deepest and strongest sayings of Scripture,
convey instruction under a figurative rather
than a literal form.

The main force here is in the word " one
another." This may be well seen in the place
in the Epistle to the Romans where the injunc
tion first occurs. A number of salutations,
or ordinary messages of greeting, are sent
specially to certain men and women by name,
and, at the close of these, the apostle adds,
"salute one another," that is "all of you,
men and women respectively, salute each
other " with the sign of friendliness and social
equality— " a kiss," not as a mere act of formal
politeness, but rather with sincere respect
and affection — "a holy kiss" (Rom. xvi. 16;
and see 2 Cor. xiii. 12). This is the view
taken by Chrysostom in his Commentary on the
Romans. Commenting on Romans xvi. 16,
" Salute one another with a holy kiss," he
says : "To cast out of them, by this salutation,
all arguing that confused them [that is, all
strife and asperity], and all grounds for little
pride ; that neither the great might despise
the little, nor the little grudge at the great,
but that haughtiness and envy might be both

driven away, when this kiss soothed down
and levelled every one. And therefore he
not only bids them salute in this way, but
sends in like manner to them the greeting
even of all the Churches. For 'there salute
you,' he says, not this or that person in
dividually, but ' the Churches of Christ.' "

[J. N.]

SALVE REGrlNA.— " Hail, 0 Queen," i.e. of
Heaven. Antiphon and prayer in use in the
worship of the Roman Church. In the Catholic
Dictionary it is admitted that it is not earlier
than the eleventh century.

SANCTIFICATION. — The employment of
the term sanctification in Scripture and in the
usual treatises of systematic theology is not
precisely the same. In Scripture sanctifica
tion, when applied to men, may be broadly
stated to mean : (1) a setting apart, a being
separated from ordinary purposes to the ser
vice of God, the being brought into special
or covenant relation with God; and (2) the
being qualified rightly to discharge that ser
vice or to sustain that relation. In dogmatic
theology sanctification is practically confined
to the second of the foregoing scriptural uses.1
It signifies subjective, not objective, sanctifica
tion; an internal state, not an external rela
tion ; the process and attainment of holiness,
not the act of consecration or dedication.
Had this fact been more carefully noted, much
confusion of thought and bewilderment would
have been avoided, and sounder views advo
cated. The intention of the writer in this
article is to treat the doctrine in its scrip
tural aspect, which necessarily embraces the
theological, and to present the subject in
its true perspective, proportion, and develop
ment.

In the Holy Scriptures, as we have just in
dicated, there is a ritual or ceremonial, and
there is a moral and spiritual holiness.2 In

1 In the strictly dogmatic sense Protestant
writers use sanctification (the making us holy)
in contrast with justification (the accounting us
righteous).

2 As illustrating the twofold use of holiness
the following family group of words in our
language deserves notice. Holy is the general
term by which we mean the possessing of in
trinsic moral purity, and, in the highest sense,
absolute moral perfection. Sacred is used of
things set apart and dedicated to God. To hallow
is to consecrate by the mind of the individual,
to regard as holy, or keep as holy. To consecrate
is to hallow in a formal manner and with a pur
pose. To dedicate is to offer for specific accept
ance, or, in a specific manner, for a certain use
or to a certain person. To devote is earnestly or
exclusively to give for a certain use or purpose,

SANCTIFICATION

[ 668 ]

SANCTIFICATION

the Old Testament prominence is given to the
former, and in the New Testament to the
latter. The conception, too, of holiness be
comes deeper and broader in the progress of
God's revelation of Himself to man. As
examples of ceremonial sanctification we find
"holy," or one of its equivalents, applied to
times, as the Sabbath and the Hebrew festivals
(Exod. xx. 8, 11 ; Lev. xxv. 12) ; to things used
in the service of God, as incense and perfume
(Exod. xxx. 22-25, 36), priestly vestments (Exod.
xxviii. 2), the utensils (Exod. xxx. 27-36), the
bread (Lev. xxi. 22), the altar (Exod. xxix. 37),
and portions of the sacrifices (Lev. ii. 3; vi. 17) ;
to places, as Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 1), "my moun
tain," i.e. Zion (Isa. Ivi. 7), the Tabernacle (Ps.
xi. 4), the Temple (Ps. Ixxix. 1), the sanctuary
(Lev. xvi. 33; cf. Exod. xxvi. 33), the ground
around the burning bush where Moses stood
(Exod. iii. 5 ; cf. Josh. v. 15) ; and to the Convo
cation (or the religious gathering together)
of the people (Lev. xxiii. 4).

In the ceremonial sense men are said to be
hallowed, as Aaron and his sons (1 Chron.
xxiii. 13), the priests (Lev. xxi. 6-8), the Levites
(2 Chron. xxxv. 3), the first-born (Exod. xiii.
2), and the whole nation of the Israelites
(Exod. xix. 6 ; Lev. xx. 26 ; Deut. vii. 6 ; xiv. 2 ;
xxvi. 19 ; xxxiii. 3).

The conception of holiness in the ritual sense
(taught in the above and numerous similar
cases) is that things, persons, seasons, &c., are
brought into special relation with God, set
apart from secular to religious purposes, used
at the bidding of God, employed to work out
His purposes, and regarded with that venera
tion and inviolableness which belong to God's
peculiar possessions (Exod. xix. 23). It is,
however, to be observed that when "holy" is
applied to men we find the ritual sense often
implies the moral, and the former passes
naturally into the latter. Thus, the priests
and the people are said to sanctify themselves
and some of their possessions (Exod. xix. 22 ;
Lev. xi. 44; xxvii. 14). This was done by
a voluntary surrender of themselves and their
belongings to God, or by separation from all
that was inconsistent with God's service (Lev.
x. 9). Again, the Israelites were called
" holy" because God selected them from the

and so implies a continuous dedication. Even
when "holy" is applied to things, the ethical
idea is frequently involved. For instance, when
the Jewish offerings are termed "most holy''
(Lev. vi. 17, 25 ; vii. 1), the meaning is that they
are of a most solemn and sacred character,
symbolical of spiritual truth, specially ordered
by God, and to be strictly presented in the
appointed manner and with becoming frame of
mind and holiness of life (Lev. x. 1-3, 9).

other nations to lead a life acceptable to Him,
and to rejoice in His favour and protec
tion1 (Dan. vii. 18, 22).

Having thus dealt with the use of the word
"holy" in the Old Testament sufficiently for
present purposes,'2 we may pass to the examina
tion of the two words in the Greek

1 This appellation of "holy" (ayiot, hagioi) is
applied very often in the New Testament to be
lievers whom God has both separated from the
world (John xvii. 14, 16), and made meet for the
partakers of the heavenly kingdom (Rom. i. 7 ;
viii. 27 ; xii. 13 ; xvi. 15 ; 1 Cor. vi. 1, 2 ; Phil. iv.
21; Col. i. 12; Heb. vi. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9; Jude 3;
Eev. v. 8). See SAINT.

2 To sanctify is used frequently in. the Old
Testament in a figurative and extended sense
for the way in which, or the purpose for which, a
person or thing is set apart ; or in the case of
a person for the condition proper to him when
set apart. Thus to sanctify means to prepare
oneself ceremonially, to be in a proper con
dition to appear before God (Exod. xix. 10, 11, 22 ;
Josh. iii. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 3) ; to set a city apart
as a city of refuge (Josh. xx. 7) ; to set oneself
apart to the functions of the ministry (2 Chron.
xxxi. 18); to devote something to God (Judg.
xvii. 12); hence in one instance to forfeit some
thing " by reason of past neglect " (Deut. xxii. 9) ;
to consecrate as the punitive instruments of God
(Jer. Ii. 27, 28) ; to proclaim war, professing it as
done in the service of God (Mic. iii. 5) ; to sanctify
also is used, when applied to God, of His being
seen to be, or being held to be holy, or showing
Himself holy, causing Himself to be regarded as
His divine Majesty renders it necessary that He
should be so regarded and honoured by His
creatures. " The Lord of hosts is exalted in'judg-
ment, and God the Holy One is sanctified (e.g. seen
to be holy, vindicated as to this claim to their
allegiance) in righteousness," i.e. in His righteous
punishment of them (Isa. v. 16 ; cf. Num. xx. 13) ;
" Ye rebelled against my word . . . (bidding
you) to sanctify me " (i.e. to act in such a way
that I might be honoured) in the sight of the
people (Num. xxvii. 14).

3 'Ayidfav means to hallow, consecrate, purify,
and make holy. The logical sequence of thought
in these significations of the word seems to be as
follows: The first step is mental, something is
regarded as venerable ; the second step is ritual,
things so regarded as venerable are separated,
and set apart from profane to sacred purposes,
consecrated to God and so rendered inviolable ; the
third step is ethical, and has to do with character,
or state in reference to character, and belongs to
persons, not things. Those set apart to the ser
vice of God should be pure and without blemish,
and correspond as far as possible with the char
acter of God.

SANCTIFICATION

SANCTIFICATION

in, and a-yia.ffjj.os, hatjiasmos) used in the
New Testament, and rendered in most cases
respectively by our words " to sanctify" and
" sanctification."

The veTb'A.yid£eu> (hagiazein) may be said to
have two classes of meanings : (1) Objective, and
(2) Subjective. Used subjectively the word it
self does not always, or primarily, convey the
idea of progressiveness in the operation of
making holy. Consequently, though its use is
identical in some cases with " to sanctify," it is
frequently of wider application, and in a few
instances (especially in the Epistle to the
Hebrews) almost radically different from the
dogmatic use of the term.

In three passages ayidfav is used in a mental
(probably its original)1 sense, to regard as
holy: "Hallowed be thy name" (Matt. vi. 9;
Luke xi. 2) — whensoever God is spoken of, or
thought about, may it be with becoming rever
ence and holy awe; "Sanctify in your hearts
Christ as Lord" (1 Pet. iii. 15; see Isa.
viii. ]2, 13; xxix. 23; Deut. xxxii. 51, LXX.)
— give Christ a shrine of worship. Regard Him
as most holy, awful in sanctity ; serve Him
with reverence and godly fear. This is little
or nothing else than a declaration that Christ
is divine, and the performance of the duty here
inculcated would prove a means to support
those to whom St. Peter wrote under the trial
of persecution.

In several instances the word is used in a
ritual sense, viz. of separating from ordinary
to sacred purposes: "Whether is greater, the
gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the
gold ? " i.e. that hath dedicated or devoted
the golden vessels and ornamentations of the
Temple for the purpose of public worship
(Matt, xxiii. 17); "For whether is greater,
the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift "
(laid upon it), setting it apart as something
devoted to God (Matt, xxiii. 19).

The application of the word is not to things
only, but to persons ; " But ye were washed
(the allusion being to baptism, the sacramental
seal of regeneration), but ye were sanctified
(set apart from the world, numbered among the
saints), but ye are justified" (from condem
nation, accounted righteous) (1 Cor. vi. 11)
"He shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified
(consecrated to God), meet for the master's use
prepared unto every good work " (2 Tim. ii. 21)
"Sanctify them (i.e. consecrate them, separate
them from the rest of the world as for holy
purposes) in (the atmosphere of, and by the aid
of) the truth " (i.e. by making known to them
the truth, and by their experiencing its power

1 The force of the root ay-, in ayios, ayos, dfo/xcu
K.T.A., Sanscr. jay, is " religious reverence o
awe" (see Curtius, Or. Etym. [E.T.], i. p. 199)

(John xvii. 17). The word is applied in this
sense to the Church, "That he might sanctify
it (i.e. consecrate it to God), having cleansed
it by the washing of water with the word (i.e.
with the gospel of Jesus, through faith in whom
alone we are saved), that he might present the
church to himself a glorious church, not
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing ; but
that it should be holy and without blemish"
(Eph. v. 26, 27).

In this sense the word is used of Christ
Himself; "And for their sakes I sanctify (i.e.
consecrate) myself (by undergoing death
according to the Father's will), that they them
selves also may be sanctified in truth " (i.e. to
do the Father's will by separating themselves
from the world and by the devotedness of their
lives to His service) (John xvii. 19). " For both
he that sanctifieth (i.e. consecrated Himself for
them in His office of a suffering Saviour, see
ver. 10) and they that are sanctified (i.e. conse
crated unto God as a people for service) are all
of (i.e. the children of) one" (divine Father)
(Heb. ii. 11). God is also said to sanctify
Christ (i.e. to have selected Him for His service,
by committing unto Him the office of Messiah) :
" Say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and
sent into the world " (John x. 36).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the word is
used in an expiatory sense, and means to con
secrate (i.e. to render worshippers acceptable
by means of sacrifice, and to produce in them
a fitness for serving God). " Now if the blood
of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer
sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanc
tify unto the cleanness of the flesh" (i.e.
ceremonially consecrate, purify, and render a
Jewish worshipper fit to be admitted to the
privileges of the temple services) (Heb. ix. 13).
"By (the fulfilment of) which will (i.e. God's
will concerning man's salvation) we have been
sanctified (i.e. qualified or rendered fit as
worshippers) through the offering of the body
of Jesus Christ once for all," which offering
takes away the guilt, and, when realised, the
consciousness of sin and the sense of alienation
(Heb. x. 10, cf. 14). " Hath counted the
blood of the covenant (which removes the guilt
and purifies the conscience), wherewith he
was sanctified (rendered fit as a worshipper),
an unholy thing" (Heb. x. 29). "Wherefore
Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people
through his own blood " (Heb. xiii. 12 ; cf. ii.
11 ; ix. 13). Somewhat akin to this sense is
the word used in two instances by St. Paul.
"For every creature of God is good ; ... for
it is sanctified" (i.e. hallowed from legal or
ascetical supposed uncleanness) (1 Tim. iv. 4,
5). " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified
(made constructively and potentially holy, i.e.
withdrawn from the contamination of heathen

SANCTIFICATION

[ 670]

SANCTIFICATION

impiety and brought under saving influences
in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified in the brother" (1 Cor. vii. 14).

In a few instances the word is used in its
ethical and strictly dogmatic sense, but even
then the progressiveness of the character
Christian holiness is rather inferred than
actually stated. " And the God of peace
himself sanctify you (make you holy) wholly ;
and may your spirit and soul and body be pre
served entire, without blame at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ " (1 Thess. v. 23.) " Unto
the church of God which is at Corinth, even
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to
be saints" (1 Cor. i. 2). " To give you the in
heritance among all them that are sanctified "
(rjyiaff/JLcvois, hegiasmenois) (Acts xx. 32). " That
they may receive remission of sins and an
inheritance among them that are sanctified by
faith in me" (Acts xxvi. 18). " That the offer
ing up of the Gentiles might be made accept
able, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost " (Horn.
xv.16). The above passages, if they stood alone,
would not enable us to decide whether sancti-
fication was an act once for all accomplished,
or, as we know it to be from other statements in
the Scriptures, and from the symbolical use of
5JH£ (kddash) in the Old Testament, as well as
from experience, one of a gradual and progres
sive character.

The noun ayiacrfj.6s (hagiasmos) occurs ten times
in the New Testament, being used eight times
in the Pauline Epistles, and once both in the
Epistle to the Hebrews and in the First Epistle
of Peter. In the A. V. it is rendered five times by
" sanctification " (1 Cor. i. 30 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4 ;
2 Thess. ii. 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 2) ; and five times by
"holiness" (Rom. vi. 19, 22; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 1
Tim. ii. 15; Heb. xii. 14). In the K.V. it is
translated in every instance by the one word
" sanctification." Some scholars consider that
it might with equal or more propriety be
rendered "consecration" in some (1 Cor. i. 30;
1 Thess. iv. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 2), if not in all places
where it has been rendered " sanctification " in
the A.V. Although the primary idea of conse
cration is, perhaps, never entirely lost sight of
in the Biblical idea of holiness, it is not the
prevailing one in ayia<ru6s. This seems tolerably
certain if we consider the formation of the word
and the context in which it occurs. The trans
lation of the Greek word, then, lies between
the use (as in the A.V.) of " sanctification" in
some cases, and " holiness " in others, or the use
(as in the K.V.) of " sanctification " in all cases.
Although "holiness" is a rendering which
makes some passages easier of being understood
by, and more grateful to the ear of, the ordinary
English reader, yet the rendering "sancti
fication " brings out a deeper and truer mean
ing. Consequently, the revisers acted in the

best interests of truth by using the word
" sanctification " always to represent the Greek
noun. When we examine the passages where
ayiatrftos occurs we find that there are two
ideas J contained in the word, which need to
be carefully noted. The first idea is that of
holiness as an act or process, and the second
that of holiness as a state, and that not naturally
inherent in its subject, but produced by an
external power, and progressive in its character.
In fine, ayia.a-fj.fis may be regarded as either
" the making, or being made holy," or "the be
ing holy " only in both cases, with the under
lying idea of being (as the word-formation of
dyta<rfj.6s requires) a process, or really, as taught
elsewhere in Holy Scripture, a divine process.
But of the gradual and progressive nature of
sanctification, it will be found that in the
passages, viewed by themselves, little is de
finitely stated. As illustrative of the above
remarks, and also as useful in throwing further
light upon the subject, we will now refer to the
places in the New Testament in which ayia(rf*.6s
occurs.

The word in its primary sense is found in the
well-known passage in 1 Cor. i. 30, where St.
Paul gives the grounds which warrant true
boat-ting : " But of him (as the ultimate origin)
are ye in (vital union with) Christ Jesus, who
was made unto us wisdom from God (since
He displayed it to us in His life and work),
and righteousness (since through faith in Him
we are accounted righteous before God for
His merits and death ; cf. Rom. iii. 21-27) and
sanctification (since He sends the Spirit who
makes us holy), and "redemption" (since He
has paid the price by which we are redeemed
from the powers of death and hell).

It is used in the same signification in two

1 " ayia<rfj.6s, as its termination shows, points
primarily to the process, and thence with that
gradual approach of the termination in — /toj to
that in — o-wr/, which is so characteristic of the
New Testament, the state, frame of mind, or holy
disposition in which the action of the verb is
vinced and exemplified " (Ellicott on 1 Thess.
iii. 13 ; iv. 3).

Bishop Westcott (Epistle to the Hebrews, note on
x. 10, p. 347) remarks that " ayia<r(t6$ is pros
pective, and points forward to a future state not
yet attained."

In the New Testament there are two other
words signifying holiness, viz., ayiuvforj (hagio-
stme), used three times (Rom. i. 4; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ;
L Thess. iii. 13), which point to holiness as an
abstract quality ; and ayidrris (hagiotes), used twice
2 Cor. i. 12, R.V. ; Heb. xii. 10), which represent
loliness as a personal quality. But these two
words do not convey the deep theological ideas
which are contained in c

SANCTIFICATION

[ 671

SANCTIFICATION

passages in which the moral pre-condition of
salvation is mentioned : " God chose you from
the beginning unto salvation (experienced) in
sanctification (i.e. in your being made holy) and
belief (i.e. trustful acceptance) of the truth"
(revealed by Christ ; cf. John xvii. 17) (2 Thess.
ii. 13). "The elect . . . according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father (experienced),
in sanctification (your being made holy) of (i.e. a
work wrought by) the Spirit, unto (leading to)
obedience and (the enjoyment of the daily)
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ "
(1 Pet. i. 1, 2).

The word is used in its secondary sense in
the majority of the instances where it occurs.
In the following passages it denotes the state
of holiness in the widest sense of the word :
"If they continue in faith and love and sancti
fication (i.e. a state of purity and active de
votion to God) with sobriety" (1 Tim. ii. 15).
"Follow after peace with all men, and the
(imperatively necessary) sanctification (the con
tinued life of purity and devoted service),
without which no man shall see the Lord "
(Heb. xii. 14). "Even so now present your
members as servants to righteousness unto
(the attainment and advancement of) sanctifi
cation " (i.e. such a course of separation from un-
cleanness and devotion to righteousness) (Rom.
vi. 19). " But now being made free from sin,
and become servants to God, ye have your fruit
unto (i.e. such as results in the furtherance
of) sanctification" (i.e. a state of freedom
from sin, and loyal and useful service to God)
(Rom. vi. 22).

In the following passages the word is used
in a more restrictive sense, and chiefly refers
to one aspect of holiness : " This is the will
of God, even (the manifestation of) your
sanctification (i.e. your state of separation from
your former evil course), that ye abstain from
fornication : that each of you know how to
possess himself of his own vessel (i.e. his wife)
(living with her) in sanctification (i.e. in a state
of chastity) and honour " (in an honourable
way with regard both to his own wife and
the wives of his neighbours) (1 Thess. iv. 3, 4).
" God called us not to uncleanness, but in
sanctification " in a state of holiness of which
purity is an essential feature (1 Thess. iv. 7).

Having examined the Biblical idea of sancti
fication, we now purpose to restrict our point
of observation to its theological aspect, viz.
sanctification as contrasted with justification
(see JUSTIFICATION, and RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
GOD).1 In dogmatic treatises sanctification

1 Sanctification is both an act and a process
It is the spiritual and divine act by which we
are brought into special relation with God, set
apart for His service and enabled to consecrate

is viewed chiefly on its divine side as an
internal spiritual operation carried on by the
Holy Spirit, whereby we are qualified for God's
service here, and made meet to be " partakers
of the inheritance of the saints in light" (Col.
i. 12). It is, in brief, the making holy of the
sinner who is justified. In such a view of
sanctification man's co-operation and the at
tainment of, and advance in, holiness in heart
and life are regarded as its accompaniments
and results.

The following particulars respecting sancti
fication, when thus considered in its strict dog
matic sense, deserve attention.

Sanctification is the work of God. This is
plainly taught by the prayers of Christ (John
xvii. 17) and of St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 23; cf.
Phil. ii. 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5) ; and by the state
ment in Heb. xii. 10, which imply that our
holiness is an overflow of God's holiness. Man
can no more create himself than he can re
create himself. Man can no more sanctify
himself than he can make his own atonement.
By the Fall he lost original innocency, and the
image of God in which he was made is marred.
For our moral and spiritual recovery we need
a power not our own, an external power dwell
ing in our souls, not evolved from within, but
coming down from above us. God works in
us the holiness which He requires of us, and
which is necessary to our communion with
Him.

The agency through which God effects the
sanctification of the believer is the indwelling
of the Spirit. The work of our being made
holy, both in its commencement and in its
progress, is due to the operation of the
Divine Spirit (John xiv. 17, 18; Rom. viii.
9, 10 ; 2 Tim. i. 14 ; Rom. xv. 16 ; 1 Pet. i. 2).
In this life sin is never entirely extirpated
from the heart of man (Rom. vi. 12) ; the
struggle between the flesh and the spirit (Gal.

ourselves to Him. It is also the spiritual and
divine process by which our nature and constitu
tion are renewed, and we are enabled to die unto
sin and live unto righteousness, and become fit
to be inheritors of the saints in light.

"Sanctification" is used not only as an act
or a process of making holy, but both of the
state and condition of a person who is the sub
ject of that act or process, and of the holi
ness which has been obtained, whether it be
viewed as a holy principle, holy habits, or a holy
course of life. For clearness of thought it is
necessary that we should keep in mind which of
these aspects is meant. It is deeply to be re
gretted that few theological authors seem to be
fully conscious of all these aspects of sanctifi
cation, or if they are that they write without dis
tinctly remembering them.

SANCTIFICATION

[ 672 ]

SANCTIFICATION

v. 17), and between " the old man " and " the
new man " (Eph. iv. 22-24) continually exists,
and the law of spiritual life is ceaseless progress
(Phil. iii. 12-16). Consequently, we need an
abiding presence and work of the Holy Spirit.

Union and communion with Christ, the Head
of redeemed humanity, is the source of sancti-
fication (John xv. 3-5 ; xvii. 21-23 ; Rom. vii. 4 ;
1 Cor. xv. 22, 45, 49 ; cf. John vi. 53, 56, 63 ;
Rom. vi. 11 ; 1 Cor. i, 2, 30 ; x. 16, 17 ; Gal. ii.
20). Our personal holiness is the result of our
spiritual contact with Christ, the Spirit being
the Agent of it. ; The Holy Spirit imparts to us
Christ's presence, and reproduces His life in us.

Truth is the element in which we are made
holy, and the means of our purity (John xv. 3)
and of our sanctification (xvii. 17). The Word
of God puts before us an ideal of sanctity, in
spiring doctrines, and most powerful motives
to the pursuit of holiness. It is by faith we
both become united to Christ, and also experi
ence the sanctifying influences of the Word.

The standard of our holiness is the loftiest
which the human mind can possess ; it is the
holiness of God. " Ye shall be holy ; for I am
holy " (1 Pet. i. 16 ; cf. Lev. xi. 44 ; xix. 2 ; xx.
7, 26). The holiness of God J is a difficult idea
to grasp. The conception of it is best formed
by studying its manifestations in His works,
His providence, His grace, His Word, His law
and ordinances, and, chiefly, in the life of
our Lord, also by the experience obtained by
submitting to the work of the Holy Spirit
in the soul. In viewing God's holiness as the
pattern for our imitation it is well to observe
that in the Bible it is associated with mercy
and love. In fact, holiness and love may be
said to be the two/oci of His attributes, and
the one is but the supplement of the other.
If the holiness of God be regarded as the asser
tion of His claim upon His creatures for loyal
service and supreme devotion, then it is not
only the standard of holiness, but also furnishes
a powerful motive for its cultivation.

Sanctification is a continuous process. A state
ment to this effect is not, however (except with
one single exception), expressly and unmistak
ably made in the New Testament. The ex
planation of this is twofold. First, the aim

1 It may be regarded as the separation from
all evil, the purity and rectitude of His char
acter, the consecration of all His high attributes
to promote the highest good of the universe, and
the assertion and maintenance of His claim to the
absolute obedience, supreme devotion, and con
stant reverence of His creatures. Holiness is an
essential attribute of God, and the glory, lustre,
and harmony of all His other perfections (Exod.
xv. 11) ; He could not be God without it (Deut.
xxxii. 4).

as well as the ideal of the Christian life is one
of perfect purity and absolute devotion to
God. Thus we read without any note of
qualification such commands as, " That she
may be holy both in body and in spirit"
(1 Cor. vii. 34) ; " That it (the church) should
be holy and without blemish " (Eph. v. 27 ; cf.
1 Pet. i. 15, also 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Eph. v. 26,
and note the use of the aorist). Secondly, the
general teaching respecting the Christian life
in other passages of Scripture, and the universal
experience of believers, rendered it unnecessary
to speak of holiness as a matter of gradual
attainment. The following passages, however,
may be taken as proof texts that sanctification
is a gradual process, for they refer to the
Christian life in which sanctification is clearly
included as one of its leading ideas: "Being
confident of this very thing, that he which
began a good work in you will perfect it
until the day of Jesus Christ " (Phil. i. 6) ; " Let
us therefore, as many as be perfect (fully in
structed), be thus minded : and if in anything
ye are otherwise minded, even this shall God
reveal unto you" (Phil. iii. 15) ; " As new-born
babes, long for the spiritual milk which is
without guile, that ye may grow thereby "
(1 Pet. ii 2): " Lie not one to another; seeing
that ye have put off the old man with his
doings, and have put on the new man, which is
being renewed unto knowledge afte r the image of
him that created him " (Col. iii. 9, 10). Compare
the expressions which imply a continuous work :
"those that were being saved" (Acts ii. 47);
" unto us which are being saved " (1 Cor. i. 18) ;
" in them that are being saved " (2 Cor. ii. 15).
When we remember the formation of ayia.fffj.6s,
and read the context in which it occurs (Rom.
vi. 19, 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 30 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4, 7 ;
2 Thess. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; Heb. xii. 14 ; 1 Pet.
i. 2) with the light thrown upon it by the above-
cited passages, we cannot doubt that St. Paul,
the writer to the Hebrews, and St. Peter all
had in their own minds the conception (and
assumed that their readers would have so, too),
that the process of holiness was one gradual and
continuous. In one passage degrees and growth
in holiness seem to be definitely taught : " He
that is righteous, let him do righteousness still
(i.e. yet more, see margin of R.V.) (fri, eti ; cf.
its use in Matt, xviii. 16 ; xxvi. 65) and he that
is holy, let him be made holy still" (Rev. xxii.
II).2 It is in the life to come that we look to

2 Attention has been drawn by some writers
to the fact of the present participle being used
in Heb. ii. 11 ; x. 14, when the sanctification of
believers is spoken of. But as "sanctify" in
both these passages refers not to personal holi
ness, we do not regard them as direct proof texts
for sanctification being a continuous process.

SANCTIFIOATION

[ 673

SANCTIFICATION

sanctification both of the soul and of the body to
be completed — that of the former at death, and
that of the latter at the resurrection (Phil,
iii. 21 ; Col. iii. 4 ; Heb. xii. 14, 23 ; 1 John
iii. 2 ; Jude 24).

The sphere of sanctification is the whole man
— body, soul, and spirit — the mind, the in
tellect, and the will. In 1 Thess. v. 23 we find
that sanctification rests on two conditions, viz.
that the Holy Spirit shall possess each of the
three parts of our nature, and possess them
entirely. If sanctification, as the work of God
the Holy Spirit, is to reach its proper end, He
must enter in and occupy each several part of
man's nature, and sanctify that several part
thorough!}'. The Divine Spirit enters and
dwells in our spirit first. From thence He gets
the mastery over the desires of the mind, and
lastly, over the desires of the flesh.

The evidences of sanctification are the be
liever's discovery and mortification of sinful
desires (2 Cor. x. 5), and the bringing of the
whole being into obedience to Christ and
conformity to the law of God (Phil. iii. 12, 13).
Futhermore, sanctified persons will hate sin
and love righteousness, and diligently and per
sistently use the means appointed for Christian
growth, such as the Word of God, prayer,
association with other believers, and personal
efforts for the conversion of the world. By
nothing, perhaps, is a regular, advancing
sanctification marked more than by a growing
habit of instant and joyful obedience.

The ivay in which sanctification is carried on
in the soul is a difficult psychological question
which there is not sufficient space here to
discuss. But it may be well to remark in
passing that the old nature is never improved
or made better. It always remains the same.
The flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit.
It is to be mortified, put down, kept under,
treated as an ever-present and unconquered
antagonist (1 Cor. ix. 26, 27). The renewal of man
refers to the new nature: "Stir up (Gr., stir
into a flame) the gift of God, which is in you "
(2 Tim. i. 6) ; " Our inward man is renewed day
by day" (2 Cor. iv. 16). In Eomans vii. a dis
tinction is drawn between the true self and
the old self: " It is no more I that do it, but
sin which dwelleth in me " (ver. 17).

Before leaving this part of our subject it
may be well to emphasize the fact that
though sanctification is the work of God, yet
its divine, secret operation is accompanied by
the intellectual and voluntary activity on the
part of the believer. There is room left for
man's operation in the process. We can obey
and not resist the divine strivings within ; we
can yield ourselves to be influenced, swayed,
possessed, and inspired by the Holy Spirit
(Rom. vi. 13, 19 ; viii. 14; Gal. v. 16; 1 Thess. v. 19 ;

cf. 2 Tim. i. 6) ; and we can exercise faith in
the promise of sanctification which is implied in
the command to " be holy " (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). In
performing our part and duty it is necessary
to guard against the idea that we can attain
or advance in holiness by our own unaided
strength, or by human devices (Gal. iii. 3 ;
Rom. viii. 13). Still we must, relying upon
divine strength (John xv. 5), give up all that
is likely to prove a snare or a hindrance ;
practise self-discipline, put on the Christian
armour and manfully fight the good fight of
faith. Two cautions are especially necessary
in working out our own salvation. First,
we must avoid absurd and harmful self-tor
ture, and seek to bring into subjection not
merely one's sensual nature, but all the
evil propensities and passions of the heart.
See PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS. Secondly,
we must remember that there is no meritori-
ousness in our efforts. We can only obtain
self-mastery and labour aright in so far as
God works in us for His good pleasure (Phil.
ii. 12).

Having dealt with the chief particulars
respecting sanctification, a few remarks seem
called for concerning the place which it occupies
in the scheme of salvation. In the applica
tion of Christ's redemption to man there are
six spiritual facts which need to be clearly
understood, viewed in their right order
for theological clearness of thought, and
studied in their relation to the whole redemp
tive plan. Though all six are capable of being
viewed by the mind in logical order, yet they
must not be conceived of as occurring in
chronological order.1 First, there is Regenera
tion (the "new birth," the being "born from
above "). This may be regarded as the act of
God by which the governing disposition of the
soul is made holy, and by which the first
holy exercise of this disposition is secured.
Secondly, there is Conversion. This may be
spoken of as the human aspect of the divine
reality in regeneration. It is the voluntary
change in the mind of the sinner which leads to
repentance ("the turning from sin ") and faith
("the turning to God in Christ"). See CON
VERSION. Thirdly, there is Justification. This is
the judicial act of God in which He declares the
sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty
of the law, but to be restored to favour ; the

1 To this special feature respecting the spiri
tual events in redemption we have a parallel in
facts connected with natural phenomena. For
instance, the ray of light and the ray of heat
enter at the same moment. Again, sensation
and perception are sometimes not separated in
time, although the former is the cause of the
latter.

2 u

SANCTIFICATION

[ 674 ]

SANCTIFICATION

reversal of God's attitude towards the sinner
because of the sinner's new relation to Christ.
In this act is involved the pardon of sin, and
by it the believer has his title to eternal life.
Fourthly, there is Sanctification. This may be
viewed as the continuous operation of the Holy
Spirit, by which the holy disposition imparted
in regeneration is maintained and strengthened.
Fifthly, there is the daily cleansing of sins com
mitted, through the frailty of our mortal
nature. This is included or implied in justifi
cation, and may be said to be its continual
application and enjoyment. Sixthly, there is
Perseverance. This may be styled the human
aspect of the divine reality in sanctification.
It is the voluntary continuance, on the part of
the believer, in faith and well doing. All these
facts take place in living union with Christ,
in connection with the sacraments of the
Gospel, the preaching of the Word, and other
means of grace. It has been well remarked
that " union with Christ, in view of which
God elects and to which God calls the
sinner, is begun in regeneration, completed
in conversion, declared in justification, and
proved in sanctification and perseverance."

There are two opposite erroneous views re
specting the doctrine of sanctification which
must be noticed. On the one hand there is the
view of the Antiuomians, who hold that the law
is not a rule of life to believers under the Gospel.
They contend that since Christ's obedience
and sufferings have satisfied the demands of
the law, the believer is free from obligation
to observe it. Some Antinomians have em
braced a system which so perverts the doctrine
of election and efficacious grace that it sets
aside all moral obligation and destroys the
accountability of man. Amsdorf (1559) said
that " good works are hurtful to salvation."
The answer to all such teaching is that " Faith
alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone." 1
As to the doctrine of Christian freedom (Gal.
v. 1), though Christ put an end to legalism,
there are provisions against licence. We are
free from the law as a system of curse and
penalty (Gal. iii. 13; Col. ii. 14; Heb. ii. 15;
cf. Rom. X. 4), as a method of salvation (Rom.
iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8,9; Tit. iii. 5),
and as an outward foreign compulsion (Rom.
vii. 6 ; 1 Tim. i. 9). We are not under the
necessity of trusting our salvation to an im
possible future obedience. But believers, by
union with Christ, become committed to His
service, which is one of holiness and righteous
ness (Rom. vi. 18-20). They receive the spirit
of obedience and sonship (Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom.
vi. 4), and have the assistance of the Spirit by

1 "Sola fides justificat, sed fides non est sola"
(Melancthon).

which alone the requirements of the law in
their highest sense and to their full extent
can be fulfilled. The lesson taught at baptism
is death unto sin and a new birth unto
righteousness.

On the other hand, there is the opposite view
of the Perfectionists, who teach that in this life
a believer can be free from sin. No doubt that
idea arose from the rebound of the pious mind
from the influence of Antinomian principles.
The theory has from time to time been pre
sented in many ways. But Perfectionism in
all its forms is occasioned by taking too low a
view of sin and the law, and failing to fully
recognise the imperfection of the human will
occasioned by the Fall. The law is not a
sliding scale of requirements graduated to the
moral condition of creatures. It is the un
changing reflection of God's holiness. Sin
consists not only in voluntary acts, but em
braces those dispositions and states of the soul
which are not conformed to the divine holiness.
The depravity of man is such that we are not
able to chose perfectly aright, and every
moment to fulfil our duty. The form of Per
fectionism which is commonest is that which
regards sanctification as consisting in many
instances of two distinct stages. The one
stage is regarded as that in which the spiritual
life is weak and the spiritual pulse intermittent,
the Christian walk inconsistent, and holiness
partial and defective. The second stage is
viewed as one in which the believer perfectly
consecrates himself, and henceforth leads a
life practically free from sin, or at least from
incurring the guilt of sin. The former of these
stages is thought to be alluded to in Rom. vii.
14-24, and the latter in Rom. vii. 25 ; viii. 1.
But the teaching of the New Testament, taken
as a whole, gives no countenance, in fact is op
posed, to such a theory (Phil. iii. 12-14; James
iii. 2 ; 1 John i. 8 ; comp. 1 Kings viii. 46 ;
Eccles. vii. 20). All Christians are required in
Scripture to do acts which bespeak imperfect
sanctification. They are to confess sin, seek for
giveness, assume penitential attitudes in prayer,
mortify their members, and are to regard sal
vation, in the full meaning of the term, as a
matter of hope, not of present experience (Rom.
viii. 24). Some persons who profess to pass
from the lower to the higher stage of sancti
fication possibly have mistaken their so-called
second sanctification for their conversion. Of
course there are certain periods in the Christian
experience when we make more decided and
rapid progress than at other times. But at
none of these do we obtain complete sanctifi
cation. The progress made is different, not in
kind, but merely in degree and measure. To
the very end — and such is the experience of
eminent saints in all ages— we need to be

SANCTIFICATION

675 ]

SARDICA, COUNCIL OF

cleansed from the recurring defilements of daily
life (John xiii. 10).

Certain Scriptures have been quoted in
favour of Perfectionism, and call for a pass
ing notice. First, there are those passages
in which the word "perfect" is used of be
lievers. But this word (rAeios) is used rela
tively, not absolutely, in such phrases as :
<l Howbeit we speak wisdom among the per
fect " (the full-grown) (1 Cor. ii. G ; Phil. iii. 15 ;
cf. Gen. vi. 9). Again, there are two passages in
St. John's First Epistle in which mention is
made of the sinlessness of the estate of fellow
ship with Christ. But these passages need to
be read with others close beside them. For
instance, " Whosoever abideth in him sinneth
not : whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
neither knoweth him" (1 John iii. 6) should be
compared with the following words : " If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our
sins," &c. " If we say that we have not sinned,
we make him a liar, and his word is not in us"
<1 John i. 8-10). "My little children, these
things write I unto you, that ye may not sin.
And if any man sin, we have an Advocate
-with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,"
•&c. (1 John ii. 1, 2). Again, "We know that
whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not ; but
he that was begotten of God (i.e. Christ the
Saviour) keepeth him, and the evil one toucheth
him not" (1 John v. 18) should be read with
the words almost immediately preceding this
verse, "If any man see his brother sinning a
sin not unto death, he shall ask and God will
give him life for them that sin not unto death "
(1 John v. 16). The simple way of so reading the
above passages as to make one set harmonise
with the other is to regard 1 John iii. 6 and
1 John v. 16 as referring to the ideal life of the
Christian. So far as one abides in Christ he
is free from all sin. The life of sin and the
life of God exclude one another, as darkness
and light. As a believer is true to the prin
ciples and power of the new life, as long as he
abideth in Christ, he sinneth not. Another
interpretation of these two passages of St. John
is that " sinneth " requires to be restricted to
sinning voluntarily and deliberately. However,
the first is the more satisfactory explanation.
Neander admirably catches the drift of the
Apostle in the following words : "John recog
nises no intermediate state, no gradations. He
seizes upon the radical point of difference. He
contrasts the two states in their essential nature
and principles. It is either love or hate, light
or darkness, truth or a lie. The Christian life
in its essential nature is the opposite of all sin.
If there be sin, it must be after the working of
the old nature." See SINLESS PERFECTION.

We have not touched upon Rome's confusion
of justification with sanctification, as that is a
subject dealt with elsewhere (JUSTIFICATION).
But there is one remark, viz. that "justi
fication is a divine act which conveys sancti
fying grace," which is frequently found, in one
form or another, in modern Roman Catholic
Manuals, that calls for a word of special com
ment. Justification does convey only that which
is in its own province, viz. forgiveness of sins,
the righteousness of God, a title to eternal
life. The grace of sanctification is conveyed
direct from God, and sanctification is not the
act of God the Father as in the case of justi
fication, but the work of sanctification is that
of God the Holy Ghost. Justification no more
conveys the grace of sanctification, than sancti
fication conveys the grace of justification.
These are accompanying facts, yet each is
distinct in itself. One of the greatest blessings
received from the Reformation was the clear
stating of the distinction between justification
and sanctification. For the promotion of
holiness nothing is more important than to keep
in our thoughts these two truths always distinct
and separate, and to give them their rightful
place in the redemptive plan. [C. N.]

SANCTUARY.— A holy place. A title
given by Romanists and Ritualists to that
part of the church in which the "altar"
stands.

SANCTUS BELL, THE.— A bell which is
rung to call the people's attention in the
Mass Service of the Church of Rome. The
bell is so called because it is rung at the words
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy).
It is also rung at the elevation of the Host,
and, in Roman Catholic churches in England,
before the words of consecration. The use
of the Sanctus bell in the Church of England
was forbidden even under the First Prayer
Book of Edward VI.

SARDICA, COUNCIL OF.— This Council,
which met in 343, is of great importance in
the history of the development of the papal
pretensions. It was summoned through the
influence of Julius, the Bishop of Rome, at a
time when the strife between the Arian and
Athanasian parties was especially bitter. Ari-
anism was predominant in the East, Athana
sian orthodoxy in the West ; and the case of
Athanasius himself, who had been deposed
two years before at the Council of Antioch,
was one of the first matters that fell to be de
cided. As Sardica was within the frontier of
the Western Empire, the Western bishops were
largely in the majority, with the result that it
was resolved that Athanasius was entitled to
a seat and a vote. Upon this the Eastern
bishops withdrew to Philippopolis, and there
held a separate Council, at which they passed

SAEDICA, COUNCIL OF

[ 676 ]

SARUM, USE OF

sentence of deposition upon both Athanasius
and Julius.

Up to this point in the history of the Church,
no mention had ever been made in the Canon
Law of any legally defined action of the Bishop
of Rome in other Churches. But owing to the
fact that the Arian majority in the East had
deposed several orthodox bishops, it was felt
that it would be in the interests of orthodoxy
that in such cases there should be a right of
appeal to Julius, whose Trinitarianism was
beyond suspicion. The Council of Sardica
accordingly resolved that any bishop who feli
himself aggrieved by a provincial judgment of
his case might appeal to Julius if he thought
fit. The decrees in which these resolutions
were formulated are known in history as the
Canons of Sardica.

With regard to these canons it has to be
noted : (1) That they apply only to Julius, who
is expressly named, and were probably meant
to be no more than a temporary expedient to
meet the difficulties of the existing situation.
(2) That they give Julius only an appellate
jurisdiction, but no right of his own accord to
summon causes to Rome or set aside the judg
ment of Councils. (3) They show that even
this power of appellate jurisdiction was not
an original possession of the Roman See, but
one granted at Sardica for the first time.
(-1) Above all, the power conferred on Julius
was conferred by a body of Latin bishops,
whose authority in the matter was afterwards
steadily rejected by the African no less than
by the Eastern Church, and was not generally
acknowledged even in the West till after the
fabrication of the so-called Isidorian Decretals.
In spite of all this, however, the canons of
Sardica soon became fateful instruments in
helping forward the pretensions of the Papacy.
Innocent I. (402-417) made them the basis of
demands that all " greater causes " should be
submitted for decision to the "Apostolic See."
Zosimus, Innocent's successor, pressed the
right of interference still more eagerly, and
ascribed a much higher authority to the canons
of Sardica by constantly quoting them as
canons of the Council of Nicaea. In defence
of Zosimus it is frequently urged that he was
misled by the arrangement of his collection of
canons, and ought not to be charged with con
scious fraud ; but it is at least significant that
when an African Synod challenged the grounds
on which he rested his claims, and resolved
very wisely to send messengers of their own to
the East to get correct copies of the canons
of Nicasa, the papal legates, who were present,
used every effort to persuade the synod to
leave Zosimus to examine into this matter for
himself.

The canons of Sardica thus served as one of

the foundation stones for the edifice of the
mediaeval papal system. The Bishops of Rome
originally possessed none of the proper attri
butes of sovereignty, but these canons furnished
them with a convenient handle for the work
of usurpation, which was gradually but steadily
pushed on until the Pope became the absolute
monarch of a universal empire.

It is scarcely to be wondered at that the
atmosphere of fraud which clings about the
whole history of the development of the Papal
Supremacy — the action of Zosimus in trans
forming the canons of Sardica into canons of
Nice, the embodiment in the Canon Law by
Nicolas I. of the false Isidorian Decretals,
the incorporation into the papal dogmatic by
Thomas Aquinas of the forgeries of a thirteenth-
century Dominican monk — that all this should
have led to a suspicion that the Sardican
canons themselves may only have been a
Roman forgery. But while it is true that these
canons are never mentioned in the acts of the
general Councils of Constantinople or Chal-
cedon, and receive no notice whatever from
such Church historians as Socrates, Sozomen,
and Theodoret, even when they are recounting
the transactions of the Council of Sardica,
modern scholars almost without exception re
gard them as authentic. [J. C. L.]
SARUM, USE OF.— We are all familiar with
the sentence, retained from the First Prayer
Book, that " whereas heretofore there hath
been great diversity in saying and singing
within this realm ; some following Salisbury
use, some Hereford use, and some the use of
Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln ; now
from henceforth all the whole realm shall have
but one use." That was in 1549 ; but long
before that, the tendency had been towards a
unification of the Church services. " The use
of Sarum " does not mean any one book, nor
even collection of books merely, but the local
customs and traditions which had gathered
round their ministrations. The Sarum rules
were introduced into Wells, Exeter, St. Paul's,
and Lichfield, each of which had its own
" use," in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,
and in 1542 Canterbury Convocation adopted
the Sarum Breviary for the entire province.
Its origin is popularly associated with the
name of Osmund, but it is probable that he
merely edited some older use, and his work
was improved and completed by Bishop Poore
(A.D. 1218). Wyclif (A.D. 1370) complained
of the Sarum ceremonial rules which, he said,
"hinder much the gospel; for fools consider
it more important than the commandments of
God and to study and teach Christ's gospel."
The recitation of the Hours, he said, made men
" weary and indisposed to study God's law for
aching of heads."

SARUM, USE OF

[ 677 ]

SATISFACTION

"Ceremonial and ritual matters were hotly
debated in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen
turies ; liturgical punctiliousness was strong
in Wyclif's day, and was strongly denounced
by him ; and even the authority of the Canons
of Salisbury could not satisfy a contentious
Ritualist of the fifteenth century, such as
Clement Maydeston, the author of the popular
Dlrectorium Saccrdotnm and other ritual hand
books " (Frere).

These rabbinical disputes still infest the
Church. One faction among the " Ritualists "
profess to follow Sarum use as their guide,
and claim on that account that it is unjust to
accuse them of " Romanising " merely because
they seek to restore worship to the condition
in which it was in England before the Re
formation. But to this another faction replies
that nobody can be sure what the Sarum use
exactly was. Mr. Percy Dearmer in his Parson's
Handbook (fourth edit., pp. 91-92, 108, 217-220),
tells us " the "Prayer Book does not refer us to
the diocese of Salisbury of the thirteenth or
fourteenth century, but to England of the six
teenth ; and we know that though the Sarum
books were adopted very generally in other
dioceses, the Sarum ceremonial was not. No
one knows what the Sarum use as to colours
was for Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent,
Ascensiontide, Whitsuntide, or for Trinity
Sunday; consequently the so-called Sarum
uses are really one-half made up from the
fancy of the nineteenth-century Ritualists.
Those colours which have been commonly
thought to be peculiarly Roman, were cer
tainly included in the Sarum use." "It is
impossible to tell how these colours were used
at Salisbury, owing to the imperfect informa
tion of the books." These books "give a
cathedral use, and we know that parish
churches could not and did not adopt the
customs of their cathedral churches. Indeed,
we find that in the Customary, a book drawn
up for parochial use, all directions as to lights
are omitted."

In a doctrinal point of view it must be added
that so far as Sarum differed from Rome, it
differed for the worse.

Mr. Burbidge, in his work on the Liturgies
and Offices of the Church (which was relied upon
by Archbishop Benson in his Lincoln Judgment),
says, " The common practice of regarding the
forms which were in use in England at the
beginning of the sixteenth century, as if they
were the original sources of the Prayer Book,
is fruitful in mischief. For in this way the
origin of the English services is traced to a
collection of devotions more deeply affected by
mediaeval developments of ritual and doctrine
than those of any other country." Nay, more ;
the Sarum was worse than any other of the

English uses above referred to. " Whilst they
followed the same general plan and order of
service as are found in the Sarum use, they
gave far less prominence to the novelties of
faith and practice which have been pointed
out . . . the most peculiar features of the Sarum
use were absent. But it is evident that the
Sarum use was the popular form of service in
England. And consequently it must be under
stood that, previous to the Reformation, our
forefathers had been accustomed to a service
which was farther removed from the simplicity
of the ancient liturgies than any other ser
vice of ancient or modern times." He adds
that the adulterations came in through France,
beginning in the ninth century, when Eu-
charistic corruption spread darkness over the
Western Church. He adds that even "the
present Roman service is free from most of
these very startling novelties, though it con
tinues to follow the mediaeval Church in the
general view of sacrifice, as being propitiatory
rather than Eucharistic."

The Rubrics especially added in the Sarum
missal profess to offer sacrifice for sin, and an
adoration of the Host (Burbidge, pp. vi, 89, 95,
96, 97, 101, 105). [J. T. T.]

SATISFACTION. — According to the teaching
of the Church of Rome as set forth by the
Council of Trent (Sess. xiv., De Pcenit, cap ix.),
"So great is the largeness of the divine
bounty, that we are able to make satisfaction
to God the Father through Jesus Christ, not
only by punishments undertaken voluntarily
by us for the chastisement of sin, or imposed
by the judgment of the priest according to the
measure of the offence, but also, which is the
greatest proof of love, by temporal strokes in
flicted by God, and patiently borne by us." The
Council proceeded in three canons to declare
accursed any one denying this doctrine. The
Romish theory is at the root of the doctrines of
Indulgences and Purgatory. Such an idea of
" satisfaction " is nowhere to be found in the
Gospels or Epistles, and when Christ forgave
sinners, He did so absolutely and freely (Matt.
ix. 2 ; xviii. 32 ; Luke xv.). The texts adduced
by Rome in proof of her teaching by no means
affirm it. They are as follows : (1) Gen. iii.
16 ; but in the sentence of temporal punish
ment here recorded, no mention is made of
pardon, the hope merely of which is held out
in verse 15. When God's law is broken, the
penalty must be paid, but the penalty is not
" satisfaction," and forgiveness is of God's free
grace and mercy, which is uninfluenced by the
sinner's acts. (See Matt, xviii. 27, " moved
with compassion," and verse 32, " because thou
desirest me.") (2) The case of Miriam (Num.
xii. 14). She, however, merely had to undergo
the seven days' isolation legally required in all

SATISFACTION

[ 678

SATISFACTION

cases of recovery from leprosy. (3) Moses' ex
clusion from the Promised Land was on account
of his publicly committed sin (Num. xxi. 12/.).
The penalty, however, did not in any way earn
Moses' forgiveness, but was necessary in order
that God's honour might be publicly vindicated.

(4) The case of the death of David and Bath-
sheba's child (2 Sam. xii.). The reason for the
penalty here is similar to that of the last case.

(5) The repentance of the Ninevites (Jonah iii.
10). But their display of humiliation was
merely expressive of their true repentance, and
did not procure them God's forgiveness. (6)
Col. i. 24. Paul, however, does not mean that
his sufferings supplied something that was
deficient in the sufferings of Christ, but merely
that the Apostle's afflictions were part of
Christ's sufferings, on the principle of Isa. Ixiii.
9 and Acts ix. 4, a very different matter.

Now, according to the Church of England, as
set forth in the Book of Homilies and in the
Book of Common Prayer (both in harmony
with the teaching of the Holy Scripture), the
only "satisfaction" God requires of us is to
cease to do evil and to do good, and if we have
done any man wrong, to endeavour ourselves
to make him amends. This was commonly
the Penance the Church enjoined (see Homily
on Repentance). Further, Christ alone, "by
His one oblation of Himself once offered has
made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice,
oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the
whole world " (see Communion Office).

Further, the death of Christ, if we regard
the persons for whom it was undergone, is a
"sacrifice " ; if we regard Him who offered it,
it is a free " oblation" ; if we consider Him to
whom it was offered, it is a " satisfaction " ;
and in every one of these respects it is full,
perfect, and sufficient ; and particularly, it is
a " full satisfaction," a " perfect oblation," and
a " sufficient sacrifice " ; not like the legal
offerings for the sins of one kind, or the
offences of one nation, or of one person, but
for the sins of all the world. Let none there
fore mistake, or imagine we are about to
sacrifice Christ again, as the Roman Church
falsely teacheth ; for that is not only needless
and impossible, but a plain contradiction to
St. Paul, who affirms that Jesus Christ was
offered only " once," and by that " one obla
tion He hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified " (see Dean Comber, On the Book of
Common Prayer). Bishop Westcott (in his com
mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews) shows
very clearly that our Blessed Saviour has met
all our needs as sinners, and satisfied fully all
claims on the threefold consequences of sin —
" death, which requires forgiveness, the bon
dage which requires redemption, the alienation
which requires reconciliation" — by "His one

offering He has perfected for ever those who-
are sanctified."

Perceval, in his Romish Schism, shows that
the passages cited by the authors of the Tri-
dentine Decrees, being all taken from the Old
Dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the
analogy of God's dealings before and after the
sufferings of our Lord will not altogether hold.
Besides, they all relate to cases of open sin,
in which, for the edification of others, temporal
punishment was inflicted, from which no
argument whatever can be adduced in behalf
of vindictive penalties for secret sins, which
have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken
with faith in Christ. It would seem from
certain expressions that they consider the
practice of the virtues most opposed to the
sins committed, among the vindictive penal
ties for sin. Again, the scriptural texts quoted
are shown in detail to be utterly inapplicable
to the doctrine of "satisfaction" by the Rev.
Dr. C. H. H. Wright in his Primer of Roman
Catholicism (pp. 92-95). Further, the Triden-
tine Catechism quotes St. Augustine's words
in favour of their doctrine of "satisfaction":
"Rightly are times of penance appointed by
those who preside over the Church, that satis
faction may be made to the Church in which
sins are remitted." To this there are two
answers: (1) Primitive penance preceded ab
solution — the Romish "satisfaction" follows
it ; (2) The Primitive penance was a satisfaction
to the Church, but the Romish penance is a
satisfaction offered to God.

Hooker shows that this same doctrine of
satisfaction " overthroweth the foundation of
faith," for " he which giveth to any good work
of ours the force of satisfying the wrath of God
for sin, the power of meriting either earthly
or heavenly reward . . . pulleth up the doc
trine of faith by the roots " (see Sermon III.).
Again, he states, " the satisfaction " offered by
Christ is alone "adequate" for all the soul's
need (see Ecd. Pol., VI. v. 1, Sermon II.).

All these attempts of Rome to make human
merit satisfy for sin have necessarily two great
evil effects. First, they detract from the
Redeemer's glory by diminishing the value of
His one Atonement on the Cross, by virtually
making that Sacrifice to be insufficient for the
forgiveness of the sins of the whole world.
According to A Catholic Dictionary (p. 700)
Bossuet, and all Catholics, teach that " we
must not infer that Jesus Christ has failed to
make entire satisfaction for us," but the prac
tical effect of the doctrine of " satisfaction " as
defined by the Council of Trent cannot but be
to lower the conception of the efficacy of Christ's
sacrifice. Secondly, the Roman doctrine of
"satisfaction" substitutes to a great extent
mere external acts for that genuine sorrow of

SCAPULAE

[ 679 ]

SCAPULAR

heart which, together with amendment of life,
God desires to see in penitent sinners. The
whole difference between Protestants and
Romanists on this subject is summed up in the
very different words Repentance and Penance.
The doctrine of human " satisfaction " cannot
be too strenuously opposed. [T. H. L. L.]
SCAPULAR.— A piece of woollen cloth worn
under the clothes on the shoulders with various
supposed effects, such as (1) saving from hell;
(2) delivering from Purgatory ; (3) earning
Indulgences ; (4) protecting from the devil.

1. The Carmelite or Brown scapular saves
from hell. In 1251 St. Mary is related to have
appeared to an Englishman, named Simon
Stock, on Mount Carmel in Palestine, and to
have assured him that whoever died wearing
the Carmelite scapular, which she thereupon
placed in his hands, should be saved from
eternal damnation. The Roman Breviary tells
us that she said to him, "Those who die
piously with this habit on, shall not suffer
eternal fire."

2. The same scapular delivers from Purgatory.
S. Alfonso de' Liguori, the appointed teacher
of the Roman Church, writes : " The promise
made by our Blessed Lady to Pope John XXII.
is well known. She appeared to him and
ordered him to make known to all that on the
Saturday after their death she would deliver
from Purgatory all who wore the Carmelite
scapular. This, as Father Crasset relates, was
proclaimed by the same Pontiff in a Bull,
which was afterwards confirmed by Alexander
V., Clement VII., Pius V., Gregory XIII., and
Paul V. " (Glories of Mary, p. 196).

3. The scapular of the Immaculate Conception
earns Indulgences. St. Alfonso assures us
that " the Indulgences granted to any religious
Order, any pious spot, or any person, are an
nexed to the scapular of the Immaculate
Conception, which is blessed by the Theatines ;
and by reciting a Pater, Ave, and Gloria six
times in honour of the most holy Trinity and
Immaculate Mary, we can gain (toties quoties)
each time all the Indulgences of Rome, of
Portiuncula, of Jerusalem, and Galicia " (Glories
of Mary, p. 333, ed. Duffy). The number of
these Indulgences which may be earned by
the wearer of the scapular every six minutes
(for the required exercise occupies about that
time) is " 433 plenary Indulgences, besides
Indulgences for different lengths of time,
which are innumerable" (ibid., p. 661, ed.
Dunigan). As 4330 plenary Indulgences, be
sides an innumerable number of Indulgences
for thousands of years, can be thus gained in
the course of one hour, the scapular appears
much more effective than the Jubilee, at which,
however, we are told that a "most plenary"
Indulgence can be earned. Does any one

want more than 4330 plenary Indulgences
an hour ?

4. The scapular of the Sorrows or Dolours of
Mary protects from the devil. The following
instances are given by St. Alfonso. " A young
man in Perugia promised the devil that if he
would enable him to attain a sinful object, he
•would give him his soul ; and he gave him a
written contract to this effect, signed in his
own blood. When the crime had been com
mitted the devil demanded the performance
of the promise, and for this purpose led him
to the brink of a well, at the same time
threatening that if he did not throw himself
in, he would drag him, body and soul, to hell.
The wretched youth, thinking that it would be
impossible to escape from his hands, got on
the little parapet to cast himself in ; but,
terrified at the idea of death, he told the devil
that he had not the courage to take the leap,
but that, if he was determined on his death,
he must push him in. The young man wore
a scapular of the Sorrows of Mary ; the devil
therefore said, 'Tear off that scapular, and
then I will push thee in.' But the youth,
discovering in the scapular the protection still
vouchsafed to him by the divine Mother,
refused to do so, and at length, after much
altercation, the devil, filled with confusion,
departed" (Glories of Mary, p. 421). Another
instance is that of a young nobleman, who so
hated God that he carried about a crucifix in
order to beat it, and communicated sacri
legiously in order to get the sacred particle
and trample it beneath his feet. This young
man went into a church and made confession
to a priest, who being a friend of St. Alfonso's
told him about it. Surprised at his com
ing to him, " the father asked if he had
ever practised any devotions towards the
Blessed Virgin, for such conversions only
come through the powerful hands of Mary.
'None, father — devotions indeed! I looked
upon myself as damned.' ' But reflect again,'
said the father. 'Father, I did nothing,'
he repeated. But putting his hand to his
breast to uncover it, he remembered that he
wore the scapular of Mary's Sorrows. 'Ah,
my son,' said the confessor, ' dost thou not
see it is our Blessed Lady who has obtained
thee so extraordinary a grace 1 And know,'
he added, 'that to her this church is dedi
cated'" (ibid., p. 346).

To make all safe and encourage others,
St. Alfonso says that he wore himself different
scapulars, " the scapular of Mount Carmel, the
scapular of Mary in Sorrow, the scapular of
Mary of Mercy, and particularly the scapular
of the Conception." The last of these alone
would provide him each time that he recited
prayers occupying about six minutes, and also

SCARF

[ 680 ]

SCHISM

on his death, with 433 plenary Indulgences,
any one of which would be enough to keep
him out of Purgatory, and should they all fail
in this purpose, the scapular of Mount Carmel
would bring him out of it on the first Saturday
after he died, and would also secure him from
hell. The scapular of St. Mary in Sorrow (or
Mary's Sorrows) would also defend him from
the devil, and beyond all this he had the
scapular of Mary of Mercy to fall back upon,
if he was not sufficiently protected by the
others. [F. 'M>]

SCARF.— See STOLE.

SCHISM. — " The disposition to multiply essen
tials good Richard Baxter considered the bane
of the Church, the prolific source of intolerance
and divisions" (Fisher). .'Every division among
Christians, from whatever cause it arises, is
schism. The greatness of the sin of division
in the sight of God can be comprehended only
by realising how dear to Him is the unity of
the Spirit among the members of the body of
Jesus Christ. The example of our Lord and
His disciples continuing to attend the services,
not only of the Temple but also of the Jewish
synagogues, till the fall of Jerusalem, should.
one would think, have caused Christians to
hesitate before they separated themselves from
the Church of their fathers. There is no duty
which is more constantly and earnestly insisted
on by our Lord, the Apostles, and the Apos
tolic Fathers, than that of endeavouring to
"keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace " ; and there are few sins that are more
strongly condemned by them than that of
schism.

The sin of schism has, in many cases, lain
at the door, not of the Separatists, but of
those who, by priestly pride (as in Diotrephes),
or by errors in doctrine and ritual (as at the
Reformation), have driven others into Separa
tion.

I. The first schism we hear of in the early
Churches was caused by what has been a
fruitful source of divisions in all ages, viz. a
factious spirit (ept6(la), against which St. Paul
so frequently warned his disciples (2 Cor. xii.
20; Gal. v. 20; Rom. ii. 8; Phil. i. 15; ii. 8):
i.e. one party in a church separating from
another through preference for some particular
teacher. "Each of you saith, I am of Paul ;
and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of
Christ^' (1 Cor. i. 12). St. Paul strives to cast
out this factious spirit by indignantly asking.
"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for
you? Or were ye baptized into the name of
Paul ? " And he tells the Corinthians that as
long as they harboured such a spirit, "I.
brethren, could not speak unto you as 'unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in
Christ, For ye are yet carnal: for whereas

there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye
not carnal, and walk after the manner of men ? "
(1 Cor. iii. 1, 3). A strange fruit of this factious
spirit was manifested in them, in that each
member of a party transferred to himself the
superiority which he fancied he saw in his
own teacher; so that they were puffed up
with spiritual pride, and thought themselves
holier than the followers of other teachers
(1 Cor. iv. 6).

A schism of the same nature appeared in the
Corinthian Church towards the end of the first
century. Though about this time the term
"bishop" became distinct from "presbyter"
in the Churches of Asia, the two terms were
still synonymous in the Churches of Europe,
and the Church in Corinth was ruled by a
college of presbyters. A quarrel had rent
both the presbyters and the Church into two
factions. One of these was so much stronger
in numbers than the other, that it arrogated to
itself the right to take action as if it were the
whole Church, and to depose the presbyters of
the weaker faction from their office as ministers
of God. The weaker party sent an embassage
to the Church in Rome to complain of the
unjust manner in which their presbyters had
been treated. Whereupon the Church in Rome
having, apparently, heard only one side of the
quarrel, wrote a letter by the hand of St.
Clement to the Church in Corinth. Though
the party who had deposed the presbyters was
so much more numerous than the other party
that they are addressed by Clement as " the
Church of God sojourning in Corinth— them
that are called and sanctified by the will of
God through our Lord Jesus Christ " ; and
though their action is regarded as the action
of the Church, yet he writes of it as " that
shameful and detestable sedition, utterly ab
horrent to the elect of God, which a few rash
and self-confident persons have kindled to such
a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and
illustrious name, worthy to be universally
beloved, has suffered grievous injury." The
whole Epistle is an earnest treatise on the sin
of schism, and the duty of holding fast the
unity of the Spirit, and as a means thereto,
" being obedient to those who have the rule
over you, and walking in the commandments
of God, giving all fitting honour to the pres
byters among you." He reminds them that
" the blessed Apostle Paul, under the inspiration
of the Spirit, wrote to you concerning himself,
Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties
had been formed among you. But that inclina
tion for one above another entailed less guilt
upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were
then shown towards Apostles, already of high
reputation, and towards a man whom they had
approved. But now reflect who those are that

SCHISM

[ 681 ]

SCHISM

have perverted you, and lessened the renown
of your far-famed love. It is disgraceful,
beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, that the most
steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians
should, on account of one or two persons, engage
in sedition against its presbyters." As the
Church in Jerusalem sent by the hands of "Judas
called Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among
the brethren," a letter to the Church in Antioch
to heal the schism there (Acts xv. 22), so the
Church in Rome chose Claudius Ephebus,
Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus, and sent the
letter of Clement by their hands to the Church
in Corinth with an earnest request that they
would " send back to us in peace and joy our
messengers to you." Unfortunately, history
is silent as to the result of the embassage,
whether it was successful, or whether, per
chance, when they heard both sides of the
question, they altered their view of the re
spective guilt of the parties in the schism.

II. The schism from which the Church in
Antioch was saved by the decrees of the
Council in Jerusalem (Acts xv.) was of a
different nature. The trouble there was caused
by a party in the Church teaching doctrines
contrary to the Word of God (i.e. by heresy).
Though the Judaising teachers who sowed
these first seeds of discord there failed at this
time, they did not desist from their evil ways,
and on a subsequent occasion we read that
even Peter and Barnabas " were carried away
by their dissimulation,1' and well-nigh caused
a division in the Church by " withdrawing and
separating themselves from those who did eat
with the Gentiles." Much as St. Paul valued
unity, he would not sacrifice one iota of the
truth to attain to it, knowing that the unity of
the Spirit must be based on the truth of God's
holy Word. It was a brave act on the part of
the great Apostle of the Gentiles to run the
risk of a quarrel with Peter and Barnabas, and
withstand them to the face for their dissimula
tion ; and by doing so, he a second time saved
the Church in Antioch from a schism.

The same false teachers followed St. Paul
wherever he planted a Church, and especially
in the Churches of Galatia succeeded in be
witching the " foolish Galatians." It is in his
Epistle to these Churches, more than in any
other of his Epistles, that the Holy Spirit has
taught all ministers of the Gospel that, if they
would promote unity among Christians, they
must "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to
banish and drive away all erroneous and strange
doctrines contrary to God's Word." " Though
we," writes the Apostle, "or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him
be anathema." He warns them that they
"which trouble you" are "false brethren

privily brought in, who came in privily to spy
out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage"
(Gal. ii. 4, R.V.).

We cannot but think that it is this form of
error that St. Paul designates as "the mystery
of iniquity" (2 Thess. ii. 7). It is a many-
headed Hydra, and manifests itself in many
false doctrines and symbolic rites and cere
monies, which are all parts of one system of
error. In our Lord's days it was " the leaven
of the Pharisees," who "taught for doctrines
the commandments of men," and who "made
the Word of God of none effect by their tradi
tions." In the last decade of the first century
it troubled the seven Churches of Asia, and
drew from our Lord the promise to the Church
in Philadelphia, " Behold, I will make them of
the synagogue of Satan, which say they are
Jews, and are not, but do lie ; behold, I will
make them to come and worship at thy feet,
and to know that I have loved thee" (Rev.
iii. 9). It caused bitter sorrow to the martyr
Ignatius when, on his way to Rome, he wrote
to one of the same Churches (A.D. 110-115),
and describes the teachers of it as "treacherous
wolves devouring the flock," " mad dogs biting
by stealth," and " noxious herbs which are not
the husbandry of Jesus Christ " ; and exhorts
them to " put away the leaven which hath waxed
sour, not to live after the manner of Judaism."
We know from St. Paul that it will not cease
working till " the Lord shall consume it with
the spirit of His mouth, and destroy it with
the brightness of His coming."

III. The next cause of schism that we would
mention is Ecclesiastical pride and intolerance,
which ever goes hand in hand with " the mys
tery of iniquity." Ecclesiastical pride is the
root and origin of sacerdotalism ; it sets up
a human priesthood in the place of the High
Priesthood of the Risen Lord ; it quenches the
Spirit; it despises prophesyings ; it abolishes
the priesthood of the laity ; it insists on the
necessity of ordination to qualify a man for
any spiritual work ; it is the foe to missionary
work, and the most fruitful source of schism
in the Church. We have the first instance of
a schism caused by it in the case of Diotrephes,
of whom St. John, when recommending the
missionaries of his day to the Church to which
he writes, says : " Diotrephes, who loveth to
have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth
us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember
his deeds which he doeth, prating against us
with malicious words : and not content there
with, neither doth he himself receive the
brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and
casteth them out of the Church."

The first great schism (as distinguished from
heresy) that rent the whole Church, both Eastern

SCHISM

[ 682 ]

SCHISM

and Western, was of this nature, and was
typical of all the great schisms of later years.
It was a revolt of individuality against soli
darity, of spirituality against the abuse of
organisation, of the priesthood of the laity
against the hierarchical claims of the local
ministry. The standard of revolt against the
increasing pride of bishops and presbyters, and
against the growing conformity of the Church
with the world, was raised by a presbyter
named Montarms in the mountains of Phrygia.
(See MONTANISM. ) " There was no part of the
world in which the gift of prophecy had been
more freely given. ... On the other hand, it
was in that region that the threefold ministry
had been first established. And it was there
that the prophetic and local ministries first
confronted each other," and the revolt which
arose there spread through the Churches of
Europe and Africa as well as through those of
Asia. The Montanists were not heretics.
They believed in all the articles of the Chris
tian faith; theirs was not a revolt against
Church organisation ; they accepted the three
fold ministry. "The distinctive features of
Montanism, its appreciation of the Gospel as
the new law, its refusal to entrust the local
ministry with the restoration of those who had
lapsed into grievous sins, unless on the recom
mendation of a prophet speaking in the Spirit,
and its views about the near approach of the
millennial kingdom of the Lord, were all char
acteristic of the earlier Christianity " (Lindsay).
" The advanced party in the Church, which in
the end triumphed, would subject the prophets
to the official ministry. While the conserva
tives insisted that prophecy should be free as
in the days of old, and specially free to inter
fere with and rebuke the growing desire for
conformity with the world and for coming to
terms with the state " (ibid.). See MONTANISM.
The date of the appearance of Montanus as a
prophet and Church reformer is uncertain, but
it was probably about A.D. 156. He had no de
sire to form a separate sect, but " by the end
of the year 170 several Synods, the first Synods
regularly convened, had been held against the
Montanists, the final result of which was their
exclusion from the Catholic Church. Mon
tanus now organised his followers into an
independent community " (Kurtz).

To understand the great importance of this
movement it is necessary to take a brief review
of the relationship which had existed between
the prophetic and local ministries in the days
of the Apostles and Apostolic Fathers. The
infant Church was brought forth on the Day of
Pentecost, a living organism, every member
filled with the Holy Spirit. It was the beginning
of the fulfilment of Joel ii. 28-32 : " I will pour
out My Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons

and your daughters shall prophesy, . . . yea,

and on My servants and on My handmaidens in

those days will I pour forth of My Spirit, and

they shall prophesy." " And they were all filled

with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak

with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them

utterance." Some time afterwards the Spirit

came upon them again, " the place was shaken

wherein they were assembled together; and

they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and

spake the Word of God with boldness " (Acts

iv. 31); in other words, they prophesied. St.

Paul says that when Christ ascended on high,

He " gave gifts unto men . . . some, apostles;

and some, prophets; . . . and some, pastors

and teachers " (Eph. iv. 11) ; and " God hath

set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly

prophets, thirdly teachers" (1 Cor. xii. 28).

For one hundred years at least, after the Day

of Pentecost, these three orders of ministry,

apostles, prophets, and teachers, existed, and

were regarded by the Church as direct gifts

from God, a ministry from above, not by human

appointment (xfiporovta), nor by laying on of

men's hands (xfipodevia), but by the Spirit of

God, and they were esteemed worthy of more

honour than the local ministers, deacons,

presbyters, and bishop.

This is made clear by the author of the
Didache as well as by other writers of the sub-
apostolic age. The author of the Didache,
after prescribing a special form of thanks
giving to be used by the ordinary celebrant in
the holy Eucharist, adds, "But permit the
prophets to give thanks as much as they will "
(§ x.). And again, "And every prophet who
speaketh in the Spirit, ye shall not try nor
judge ; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this
shall not be forgiven" (§ xi.). "Now every
prophet who wishes to take up his abode among
you is worthy of his support. ... All the first-
fruits then of wine-press and threshing-floor, of
oxen and sheep, thou shall take and give to the
prophets, for they are your chief priests. But
if ye have no prophet, ye shall give them to the
poor" (§ xiii.). And of the local ministry
he writes: "Now appoint for yourselves
(Xfiporov^a-arf) bishops and deacons worthy of
the Lord ; men meek and not lovers of money,
true men and proved ; for they render you the
service of prophets and teachers. Therefore
neglect them not; for they are those who
should be honoured by you, along with the
prophets and teachers " (§ xv.).

The ideal ministry, and that which God gave
to the earliest Churches, to the Church in
Jerusalem (Acts i. to v.), and to that in Antioch
(Acts xiii. 1), was apostles first, and afterwards
"prophets," and "teachers," and no order of
local ministers, except perhaps deacons, was
needed. As the Churches became, some more

SCHISM

[ 683 ]

SCHISM

and some less, conformed to the world, the
residence of prophet or teacher became prob
lematical in each Church. No Church could
be an organised body without officers, therefore
every Church, after the example of the Apostles,
had to appoint their own presbyters (bishops)
and deacons, who rendered to them the service
of prophets and teachers. But the former
received no maintenance from the flock, where
as the latter did. The prophet was to be
obeyed, not judged, for that was an unpardon
able sin ; he was to preside at the celebration
of the Eucharist, for "the prophets," not the
bishops, " are your chief priests."

The prominence given in the Epistles of
Ignatius to the local orders of ministry pre
pare us for the great change which took place
in the Churches about the middle of the second
century, and the Montanist schism throws
additional light upon it. It proves that
the causes which led to the spread of the
"gigantic figment" of the sacerdotal claims
of the office-bearers of the Churches, of
Apostolic Succession, and the supremacy of
the Bishop of Rome, were already at work
in the Churches. The novel doctrine that
" the spirits of the prophets are subject " not
" to the prophets," nor to the Holy Spirit, but
to the priests ; that no man should exercise
the gift of prophecy, or do any spiritual work
in the congregation without authority derived
from a priest ; that the priests have a monopoly
of the charismata of the Spirit ; and that the
gift of the Holy Spirit consists in a mysterious
power to work miracles through the opus oper-
atum of sacraments, without any change of
character in the priest, and without faith in
the recipient, was a denial of the liberty, not
of the prophets only, but of the Holy Spirit by
whom they were inspired. Moutanisrn was a
revolt against this Antichristian doctrine.

All that has been handed down by tradition
of heretical doctrines and evil practices on the
part of Montanus himself has been transmitted
by his bitter enemies, and in no way affects
the real origin and nature of the movement.
The strenuous action of the Christians of Gaul
and North Africa, and the encouragement
they derived from it to resist the secularising
tendencies of many Churches, speak volumes
in its favour.

It is remarkable that Irenaeus, who, though
Bishop of Lyons, was an Asiatic, used his
great influence on two occasions to persuade
the Bishop of Rome not to cause a schism in
the Eastern Churches. In the case of Victor
excommunicating the whole of the Eastern
Churches for differing from him as to the date
on which the festival of Easter should be kept,
Irenaeus succeeded in hindering a schism.
Though on this occasion he only wrote a letter

to Victor, and though in the case of the
Montanists he was sent by the Churches of"
Gaul as their ambassador, in order to prevail
on the bishop to favour them, still, on the
latter occasion he was not successful. Unfor
tunately, the heretic Praxeas, who was a
bitter foe of Montanus, arrived in Rome from
Asia at the same time, and the Bishop of
Rome gave more heed to him than to Irenaeus
and the Christians of Gaul. Praxeas was a
Patripassian, one who confounded the Persons
of the Godhead, and said that God the Father
was crucified in the person of Jesus of Nazareth,
His influence with the Bishop of Rome elicited
from Tertullian the sarcastic saying that,
" Praxeas had effected two works of the devil
at Rome ; he drove out prophecy and brought
in heresy; he put the Paraclete to flight and
crucified the Father" (Tert., Adv. Prax., ch. i).
The separation between the so-called Catholic
Church and the Montanists was now complete.
In Phrygia, at least, the majority of the
Christians formed themselves into a separate
Church, and were ever afterwards persecuted
by the Catholics. When Constantino recog
nised the Christian religion, the persecutions
against them were intensified. At last, in the
sixth century, the Emperor Justinian resolved
to stamp them out, and so terrible were
their sufferings that the historian Procopius-
tells us that with their wives and children
they gathered themselves together into their
churches, and setting fire to them, perished in
the flames (Lindsay).

Most, if not all, of the great schisms of the
dark ages, which, like that of the Montanists,
were quenched (or nearly quenched) by the
Romish Church in rivers of blood, arose from
the same cause. See PEESECUTIONS. It was
this that brought about the separation of the
Protestant Churches from Rome at the Refor
mation ; of the Nonconformists from the
Church of England in the days of the Stuarts ;
and of the Wesleyans from the same Church in
the eighteenth century. In all these cases it
was not the Separatists, but those who drove
them to it, who were guilty of the sin of schism.
But God has never left Himself without wit
nesses ; the Spirit of prophecy has never been
wholly withdrawn from the Church ; Pentecost
was but the beginning of the fulfilment of the
prophecy of Joel, and the time is coming when
" God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh."

IV. There is another root of schism, perhaps
the worst and most common of all, which is
strongly condemned in the Word of God.
" These be they who separate themselves,
sensual, not having the Spirit" (Jude 19), of
whom the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
writes, " Not forsaking the assembling of our
selves together, as the manner of some is " (Heb.

SCHOOLMEN

[ 684 ]

SCIENCE, CHRISTIAN

x. 25). Where the spirit of unity is absent
the spirit of schism is present. The Church is
composed of churches, each under its pastors
and teachers. To be practically a "member
of Christ " every Christian should be a member
of a congregation, and all members should be
in submission one to another (Eph. v. 21) ; and
" Obey them that have the rule over you, and
submit to them : for they watch for your souls,
as they that must give account " (Heb. xiii. 17).

[R. B.]

SCHOOLMEN".— See THOMISTS AND SCOTISTS
SCIENCE, CHRISTIAN.— The theory and
practice represented by these words pro
fesses to be a new system of healing and a new
system of religion. The scheme, if it may be
so described, thus touches two of the vastest
departments of human experience and of
human thought. Suffering that needs healing,
and religion that recognises the primary moral
conceptions of humanity, are universal, age
long, and most varied. History has never
recorded a tribe, nation, or race untouched by
suffering, or atheistic. Christian Science is
thus connected, hypothetically, with the largest
range of human experience and of human
sentiment. It is associated with the name of
a remarkable woman, the Rev. Mary Baker
G. Eddy. In her early biography, entitled Re
trospection and Introspection, she records the
experiences which led her, in 1866, to the
"Discovery" of the system which has made
such way in America and in England. In 1862
she began to note and to circulate amongst
her friends the results of her study of the Bible.
She saw in this, her only text-book, that from
the operation of divine principle, in the life of
Christ, sin and disease "lose their reality in
human consciousness, and so disappear as
naturally and as necessarily as darkness gives
place to light, and sin to reformation." Four
years after this, in 1866, the authoress dis
covered the "Christ Science, the science of
mind, and named it Christian Science." She
•claims for her discovery the solemnity and
authority of a revelation, for which she further
claims "finality," and even identity with the
Holy Ghost (Science and Health, p. 579). Her
first pamphlet on her discovery or revelation
was copyrighted in 1870. It was not published
till 1876, and for a reason which has, not
uncharitably, provoked sharp animadversion:
"She had learned that the science must be
demonstrated by healing before a work on the
subject could be profitably published." The
word " profitably" is morally discoloured, and,
unhappily, the stain is deepened by the fact
that a heavy indictment was publicly laid
against the system in 1899, when the mercenary
reserve was found in the 138th edition of her
book. Dr. Richardson of Toronto emphasized

the lucrative selfishness of the caution that kept
watch for a propitious season for publication.
But the humiliating admission now accentu
ated receives sordid significance when read by
the light of an article in the C. S. Sentinel of
Feb. 16, 1899, in which it is alleged that "our
Saviour received compensation for His healing
of the sick."

The Bible of the new religion is a substan
tial and costly volume, entitled Science and
Health, with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary
Baker G. Eddy, President of Massachusetts
Metaphysical College. It was first published
in Boston in 1875, and it has run into hundreds
of editions. The book is divided into seventeen
chapters of unequal length, the last three being
on "Genesis, Apocalypse, Glossary." It may
be welcome to the curious reader to insert here
the contents of each section. Chapter 1.
Science, theology, medicine. 2. Physiology.
3. Footsteps of truth. 4. Creation. 5. Science
of being. 6. Christian Science and Spiritual
ism. 7. Marriage. 8. Animal magnetism.
9. Some objections answered. 10. Prayer.
11. Atonement and Eucharist. 12. Christian
Science practice. 13. Teaching (Christian
Science. 14. Recapitulation. There is also
a very exhaustive index. There are passages
of rare literary beauty in the work. The Holy
Scriptures are very freely handled, and the
misuse of the sacred text is both startling and
eccentric. "When a new idea is borne to
earth, the prophetic Scripture of Isaiah is
renewedly fulfilled, 'Unto us a child is born . . .
and his name shall be called Wonderful.'"
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love
casteth out fear. He that feareth is not made
perfect in love." "Here," says Mrs. Eddy,
"is a definite and inspired proclamation of
Christian Science." This magisterial opinion
evidently assumes that "fear" is synonymous
with disease, and that "love" is synonymous
with what Christian Science terms Divine
Principle. It would be at least most rash to
assert that St. John believed either hypothesis.
Christian Science is declared to be " the second
coming of the Gospel of peace on earth and
goodwill to men," and many other illustrations
of the arbitrary misapplication of Holy Scrip
ture may easily be seen in the pages of the
text-book.

Christian Science, claiming to be a final re
velation and an original discovery, should, ex
hypothesi, be in accordance with Holy Scripture
as the acknowledged publication of the will of
God. There are at least three themes which
touch, and vitally touch, the whole human race,
and on each of these the revelation which God
has given to us in these last days, as in that
bestowed in the elementary economy, has
spoken clearly. These are sin, disease, death.

SCIENCE, CHRISTIAN

[ 685

SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE

Inspiration and experience show the univer
sality of their range. They are the three
realities which affect all moral and physical
existence. Of these Christian Science avers :
" Sin, sickness, and death are to be classified
as effects of error "(p. 469). "The belief of
sin, which has grown terrible in strength and
influence, is an unconscious error in the begin
ning " (p. 81). " Man is incapable of sin, sick
ness, and death, inasmuch as he derives his
essence from God " (p. 471). " Tumours, ulcers,
tubercles, inflammation, pain, deformed spines,
are all dream shadows, dark images of mortal
thought, which will flee before the light "
(p. 417). " Sickness is a dream " (p. 415).
" The efficient cause and foundation of all
sickness is error, arising either from ignorance
or sin. It is always a false sense entertained,
not resisted, which induces disease — an image
of thought externalised" (p. 410). "Death
will be found at length to be a mortal dream,
which comes in darkness and disappears with
the light " (p. 347). " In the illusion of death
mortals wake to the knowledge of two facts :
(1) that they are not dead ; (2) that they have
but passed the portals of a new belief " (p. 147).
"Death is outdone." "Because of the won
drous glory which God bestows on manhood,
temptation, sickness, and death had no terror
for Jesus. Let men think they had killed the
body 1 Afterwards He would show it to them
unchanged " (p. 347). Sin, sickness, and death
seem, in the estimate of the author of Science
and Health, to be hallucinations. The bearing
of her theory upon the mission and the miracles
of our Lord is more easily imagined than de
scribed. The New Testament records three-
and-thirty miracles wrought by the Lord
Jesus Christ. Of these, four-and-twenty are
miracles of healing. According to Christian
Science, each of the afflicted subjects of the
Redeemer's compassion was victimised by a
delusion. They were all possessed of a hallu
cination. Of what value, then, were the
miracles ? Were they addressed to the imagi
nation of the sufferers ? And on such a hypo
thesis, what becomes of the Saviour's appeal
to the sufferer's faith, and of His own appea
to the reality of His miracles as evidence o:
His power, of His relationship to the Father
and as vindicating the claims He made for the
acceptance of His redemptive mission ?

The principle that floats this new method o
healing is the old doctrine of the influence o
mind over body. It may be that in modern
therapeutics this great truth has not receivec
its proportionate prominence. But that pro
portion may be won for it without reducing
the experience of the whole human family ti
fancy, to dreams, to illusions, and to deceits
without disregarding the authority or disparag

ing the example of Him who said, " They that
be whole need not a physician, but they that
are sick " ; without denying what men of all
creeds and races assert, that sin, sickness, and
death are ubiquitous, connected, but remedi
able; without inventing a religion, called by
the name of Christ, which denies His atone
ment, damages His character, and discredits
those mighty works to which He appealed to
support the claims He made. Such a scheme
is neither scientific nor Christian. [W. L.]
SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE.— The Scot
tish Churches may, for our purpose, be taken
to be the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.
The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the
Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Congre
gational Churches have, indeed, indigenous
elements ; but their history, and to some extent
the personnel of their ministry, connect them
with communions outside of Scotland and
make them less representative of the religious
sentiment of the Scottish people. The early
Scottish Church stood to some extent alone,
independent of the Roman See ; but long be
fore the Reformation it was in full accord with
Western Christendom. The modern history of
the Scottish Churches begins with the Refor
mation.

From the Reformation downwards the Church
of Scotland represents the main stream of Scot
tish Church history. In 15GO, when the first
General Assembly was held, the Confession of
Faith of the Reformers was ratified by Parlia
ment. In 1567 Parliament declared that there
is no jurisdiction ecclesiastical within the
realm but that of the Reformed Church. In
1592 an Act was passed which has been re
garded as the Magna Charta of the Church.
It ratified and approved all the liberties and
privileges of the Church, also her four Courts,
the Kirk Session, Presbytery, Synod, and
General Assembly, and the jurisdiction thereof.
These Courts thereby became Courts of the
realm, and their jurisdiction within their own
province is acknowledged to be exclusive and
absolute. The Kirk Session has the parish for
its charge, the Presbytery is over all the Kirk
Sessions and parishes within its bounds ; the
Synod, in like manner, is over Presbyteries,
and the General Assembly is over all. At the
annual meeting of the General Assembly the
Crown is represented by a Lord High Commis
sioner, who opens and closes the Supreme
Court concurrently with the Moderator; but
he takes no part in the business of the Assembly,
and his presence is not necessary to the vali
dity of its decisions. The General Assembly
possesses legislative as well as administrative
and executive powers, and Acts of Assembly
within the sphere of the Church have the same
validity as Acts of Parliament.

SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE [ 686 ] SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE

Attempts were made by the Stuart sovereign
to encroach upon the spiritual independence o
the Church and to transform its constitution
but these were only temporarily successful
and in 1690 the constitution of the Church, a
now established by law, was finally settled
The legislation of 1690 ratified the Confession
of Faith drawn up by the Westminster Assembly
in 1646 and approved by the General Assembly
of 1647, and generally confirmed the Act o
1592. In 1707 a statute was passed by th<
British Parliament called the Act of Security
which is inserted verbatim in the Treaty o:
Union as being a fundamental condition of th
union of the two kingdoms. It enacts that
every sovereign shall, on acceding to the
throne, " inviolably maintain and preserve the
foresaid settlement of the true Protestant reli
gion, with the government, worship, discipline
rights, and privileges of the Church." The
first act of King Edward VII. on his accession
was to take the oath thus prescribed. The
reign of Queen Anne also witnessed the re-
enactment, in 1712, of the law of Patronage,
which had been repealed in 1690. It was in
connection with the operation of this law that
the most serious collisions between the Church
Courts and the Civil Courts took place. It
was the cause of the first secession under
Ebenezer Erskine in 1733, and it was the chief
cause of the Disruption in 1843. Since 1874.
when the Act of Queen Anne was repealed,
patronage has ceased in the Church of Scot
land, and the election of ministers is vested in
congregations, according to the view set forth
by the Reformers in the First Book of Discip
line in 1560: "It appertained to the people
and to every several congregation to elect their
minister."

Popular election has, no doubt, drawbacks
and abuses, but the abolition of patronage has
enlarged the liberties of the Church and
increased her popularity with the people of
Scotland. Her national position, her parochial
system, her well-secured spiritual freedom, her
power of adapting herself to the needs of the
times, and the faithful ministration of Word
and Sacraments by her clergy, give the Church
of Scotland a commanding influence and a
splendid vantage-ground for the work of God
in the land. The following figures give an
idea of her present strength. The number of
parishes is 1393, of which 426 are parishes quoad
sacra, erected under Sir James Graham's Act
of 1846. There are 231 non-parochial charges,
and 206 preaching and mission stations. There
are thus 1830 congregations, large and small,
receiving the ministrations of the Church of
Scotland. The communicants of the Church,
as reported to the General Assembly of 1903,
number 674,293.

As becomes a National Church, the Church
of Scotland regards it as a primary duty to
reach the whole population with Gospel minis
trations. The parish, not the congregation, is
her unit of organisation and work. Of recent
years, when huge populations have become
massed in the large cities, the carrying out of
the parochial system has required the sub
division of parishes which have outgrown the
energies of the ordinary ministry, by the
erection of quoad sacra parishes. There has
also been an increase of mission churches,
a growing demand for licentiates and lay
missionaries, and scope for the labours of
deaconesses and parish sisters. The effort to
cope with spiritual destitution has taxed the
energies and resources of the Home Mission
and the Endowment Scheme. Since the
institution of the Endowment Scheme in 1846,
a million and a half sterling have been con
tributed to secure the endowments alone, and
another million may be added for the cost of
the Church fabrics in quoad sacra parishes.
The labours of the Christian Life and Work
Committee, originally appointed in 1869, have
developed new and valuable agencies, and have
infused fresh life into the parochial organisa
tion of the Church.

Whilst home claims have been honoured, the
needs of the Empire and of the world at large
have not been forgotten by the Church of Scot
land. Her Colonial Mission, her Mission to
the Jews of the Levant, and her missions to
India, Africa, and China, are efficient and
prosperous. There are 12,000 baptized converts
from heathendom in her missions. Her mis
sionary income of about £60,000 a year is,
however, neither adequate to her opportunities,
nor worthy of her position and resources. The
standard of Christian liberality needs to be
greatly raised within the Church, and efforts in
this direction are being made. Nevertheless,
the annual free-will offerings of her members
amount to about half a million sterling— in
1901, £473,299, and in 1902, £445,582. The
endowments, including stipend, manses, and
glebes, amount to about £350,000 more. The
Church of Scotland holds an honoured place
among the great Evangelical Churches of
Christendom. She stands loyally by the funda
mental doctrines of Christianity. Her relation
to the Westminster Confession was set forth
anew in 1903, when the General Assembly
declared that " the Confession of Faith is to
be regarded as an infallible rule of faith and
worship in so far as it accords with Holy
Scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit." In
the Church of Scotland there is no necessity
for those party associations which have so
greatly disturbed the peace of the Church of
England. The Scottish Church Society, on

SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE [ 687 ] SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE

High Church lines, and the National Church
Union, on Broad Church lines, have but a
small membership, and have not achieved
either influence or representative character.

The Church of Scotland, through her ministry
has taken no mean place in the literary history
of the country, and in theological literature
her divines have borne a worthy part. In the
critical questions at present occupying the
minds of thoughtful people, her representa
tives for the most part take up a conservative
position. As regards her relations with other
Churches, union with the Scottish Episcopal
Church, though desired by a few, is out of the
question so long as the Scottish Episcopal
€hurch declines to admit the validity of
Presbyterian Orders, or to permit ministerial
communion between Episcopalian and Presby
terian. A union with the other Presbyterian
Churches is regarded with an open mind by
a large body of her ministers, and would be
welcomed by the mass of the people. But
even to attain such a consummation there is
no disposition to surrender her old endow
ments, or to sacrifice her position as a National
Church.

The United Free Church is the result of
the union of 1900, when the Free Church of
Scotland and the United Presbyterian Church
became one communion. The Free Church
had, in 1876, received the Reformed Presby
terians; and the United Presbyterian Church
had been formed by the union of the Relief
Church and the Secession Church in 1847.

The United Presbyterian Church, now merged
in the United Free Church, traces its origin
back to 1733, when Ebenezer Erskine, with
three other ministers, left the Church of
Scotland mainly on account of the law of
Patronage. They were joined by others, and
the seceders gathered round them earnest and
resolute followers. Splits, however, soon took
place in the seceding body over questions re
lating to the province of the civil magistrate ;
and the Relief and the Secession Churches,
the Burghers and the Anti-burghers, the Old
Lights and the New Lights, represented the
sections into which the seceders were broken
up. In 1847 there was a union of these seced
ing Churches into the United Presbyterian
Church, and the United Church had for more
than half a century a prosperous career.
When the larger union of 1900 took place, it
had nearly 600 congregations and a member
ship of 200,000, after having, in 1875, trans
ferred the congregations across the Border to
the Presbyterian Church of England. It was
in the Lowlands, especially in Glasgow and
the West, that the United Presbyterian Churcl
had its strength. The Voluntaryism of which
it had become the exponent was distasteful to

the people of the Highlands, and it was almost
entirely unrepresented beyond the Highland
line. By nothing was the United Presbyterian
Church more distinguished than missionary
enthusiasm and liberality. Its missions in
Jamaica, Calabar, Kaffraria, India, and Man
churia have been remarkably successful. As
preachers and champions of social reform, and
as theologians and men of letters, its ministers
rendered good service to their generation.

The Free Church of Scotland came into exist
ence with the Disruption in 1843, which
brought to a disastrous end the ecclesiastical
struggle kuownas the Ten Years' Conflict. This
struggle began with the passing of the Veto
Act of 1834, an Act the aim of which was to
secure that no pastor should be intruded upon
a congregation through the operation of the
law of patronage contrary to the wishes of
the people. Instead of approaching Parlia
ment to obtain the needed relief, the General
Assembly dealt with the matter as one within
the competency of the Church. In the face
of a powerful minority the Veto Act was
passed. A presentee who was disapproved
under the Act, and refused institution to the
living by the Presbytery, arraigned the legis
lation of the Assembly before the courts of
law as an invasion of his civil rights. First
the Court of Session, and then the House of
Lords, found the Veto Act to be beyond the
competency of the Church. There were other
and cognate questions involved, and the cry
was raised that the Crown rights of the
Redeemer as Head of the Church were being
trampled underfoot. When the crisis came,
in May 1843, 474 ministers resigned their
livings, gave up their manses, and left the
Church of their fathers under convictions
the sincerity of which is not open to ques
tion. Under Dr. Thomas Chalmers the Free
Church organised itself for self-support, for
the training of the ministry, and for mis
sionary enterprise, with a self-sacrifice and
devotion which have commanded the admira
tion of Christendom. In an incredibly short
time the Disruption leaders covered the
country with churches and schools for their
adherents, and in the Highlands the Free
Church had practically all its own way. The
Free Church of the Disruption held fast by
the Establishment principle. " Though we
quit the Establishment," said Chalmers, " we
go out on the Establishment principle. We quit
a vitiated Establishment, but would rejoice in
returning to a pure one. . . . We are the
advocates of a national recognition and sup
port of religion, and we are not Voluntaries."
But the force of circumstances was too strong
for the Free Church, and before a generation
had passed a majority in the General Assembly

SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE [ 688 ] SCOTTISH CHURCHES, THE

had declared for the Disestablishment of the
Church of Scotland. It was natural that two
non-established bodies, living side by side,
should be drawn together, and in 186i
negotiations for union between the Free
Church and the United Presbyterian Church
were begun. The leaders of the constitutional
party, however, were strong enough to offer a
successful opposition to the movement, and
it came to an end in 1873. As the consti
tutional leaders passed away, or gradually
yielded to the pressure of opinion and circum
stances, negotiations were resumed, and in
1900 the two Churches with their divergent
testimonies became one. The United Presby
terian Church, unanimously, and the Free
Church, by an overwhelming majority, entered
into the Union.

The United Free Church, though in point of
numbers considerably behind the Church of
Scotland, and though weak in the Highlands
because of the refusal of the Highland people,
over wide districts, to join the Union, is a
strong and vigorous Church. It has 1713 con
gregations, mission stations included, and the
total number of communicants reported to the
General Assembly of 1903 was 498,476. In
missionary enterprise the United Church has
gained strength by union. It has 15 mission
fields ; a total agency of 333 European mission
aries, including 128 ordained and 49 medical
missionaries ; a total native agency of 2780 ;
and native Christians in full communion,
41,867. The total Foreign Mission income
of the United Free Church amounts to over
£180,000.

In evangelical enterprise of every kind, as
well as in temperance and social reform, the
United Church takes a prominent part. With
the critical movements aifecting Holy Scrip
ture, several of its leading ministers and pro
fessors, notably on the Free Church side of the
Union, have been specially identified. Within
the United Church there is a considerable body
of opinion in favour of Disestablishment ; but
it is doubtful how far its Supreme Court is
representative of lay opinion in this matter.
There is reason to believe that there is a
growing sentiment averse to the secularising
of the ancient endowments ; and there are
many attached members who are opposed to
the severance of the tie between Church and
State. The present trend of opinion in Scot
land is rather towards a union of all Pres
byterians in a great National Presbyterian
Church.

The Free Church of Scotland is the designa
tion of the minority of the former Free Church
who refused to enter the Union of 1900. In
point of numbers it is by no means to be
despised. It reckons 41,414 members and

adherents, and it has 104 congregations in 11
Presbyteries and 5 Synods. The number of
congregations having a settled pastor is
29 ; the remainder are ministered to by lay
agents and others. The Church, small as it is,
is resolved not to dwindle into a mere sect, for
it keeps up the schemes of the Church, includ
ing the Jewish and Foreign Missions, and it
maintains a Theological Hall to prepare an
educated ministry. Its Christian liberality for
1902 amounted to £5422. It walks firmly in
the old paths. It desires a reconstruction of
the Presbyterianism of Scotland on the basis
of an unswerving adherence to the Westminster
Standards, and it testifies against political
Voluntaryism, against the critical and ritual
istic movements that are on foot, and against
secularism in the education of the young. It is
chiefly in the Highlands that its adherents are
numerous. Its future will, no doubt, to a large
extent be determined by the decision of the
House of Lords in the appeal now pending
with reference to the property of the old Free
Church, which it claims.

Another section of the old Free Church is
found in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scot
land. It had its origin in a secession from
the Church on account of the Declaratory Act
of 1893, by which the Free Church, in the
estimation of the seceding ministers, had
departed from its ancient testimony. The
number of ordained ministers in the Free Pres
byterian Church is twelve, and there are over
twenty sanctioned charges, with a number of
mission stations besides. There are five students
preparing for the ministry. It has a consider
able body of adherents in different parts of the
Highlands. Like the remanent Free Church,
it holds fast by the Establishment principle,
and is opposed to the use of hymns and organs
in public worship. It cannot be believed that
these divisions are wholesome or conducive to
healthy religious life. In many parishes in
the Highlands there are four different shades
of Presbyterianism, the representatives of
which stand aloof from one another and have
no Christian fellowship. So far as the High
lands are concerned the religious outlook is
far from bright. The fear is that people may
drift away from all the Churches, and be lost
to religion altogether.

There still remain to be mentioned the Ori
ginal Secession Church, which has some thirty
charges ; and the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
with ten charges in Scotland and a close alli
ance with the Reformed Presbyterian Churches
of Ireland and America. Both communions
are remnants from larger bodies which became
united, and both have borne an unwavering
testimony against all forms of Romanist error
and prelatical assumption. [T. N.J

SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH [ 689 ] SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH

SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH.—

That the Christian brotherhood, springing into
public life at Pentecost, A.D. 33, preceded the
writing of the New Testament is allowed, and
the point has been made so much of that it
must here be steadily kept in view. Yet it
should not be overlooked that the Church did
already possess a holy writ, dealing not only
with Israel's historic past, but in a sense with
its own present. The Psalms, the Prophets,
never out of their hands, were in some places
almost a mirror of the apostolic actions. The
conclusions of our gospels, the beginning of
the Acts, forcibly suggest that the recording
of incidents began from the first moment. The
idea sketched by Dr. Westcott of the steps by
which the gospel memoirs might have taken
their rise, seems safe and reasonable.1 A
collection of representative sayings and deeds
of our Lord was, he imagines, made by an
authoritative body, such as the Twelve, at a
very early date, and this gaining exclusive
currency would form the basis of addresses to
the people. Westcott argues that this Apostolic
Gospel, as he names it, dates unquestionably
from the very beginning of Christian society,
and he considers, therefore, that the substance
of the " synoptic Gospels," as the first three are
called, is clearly carried up to the age of the
Apostles, and these three, he holds, reflect
" the primitive apostolic message." 2 Westcott
has no doubt that the history which we have
received from the synoptic Gospels is that on
which the Christian Church was founded,
giving the Apostolic Gospel, and in a form
certainly purer than what could have been
found in any other document of very early
date, 3 If we may go so far, there is almost no
room for a purely oral interregnum, while there
is much to make the idea otherwise suspicious,
as lending itself so readily to the purposes of
later controversy.

The sway which canonical Scripture came
to hold over the early Church members, due
primarily to the venerable authority of the
ancient Bible, was supported by the character
and office of the Apostles, until the Gospels,
Acts, Epistles they were writing and super
intending should be ready. Strong men of
martyr fibre, invested with awe-inspiring
powers, preachers of the Old Scriptures, in
cessantly proclaiming things they had seen,
they must have vigilantly employed the whole
weight of their collegiate position at Jerusalem,
lasting several years, to secure the undisputed
and exclusive acceptance among believers of

1 Westcott's Canon of the New 2'estament, p.
xxxvi, 7th ed. 1896.
'2 Ibid., p. xxxvii.
3 Ibid., p. xxxviii.

the documents they were preparing. Of one
thing especially may we feel certain : they
would set their face against the first signal of
that pernicious growth, oral tradition, which
would desolate the paradise of truth they were
preparing for the world. That they would
ever foster such a plant, or consent to its
parallel standing with their own authentic
teaching, is inconceivable. Their Master's
warning against "tradition," their own know
ledge of the havoc it had played with the
religion of Moses, leading to the national
rejection of Messiah Himself, would have
assured them of its being the root of all
heresy, to be eradicated at every opportunity.
Turning from headquarters to the leaders
and the led on campaign, we feel the same
assurance that " tradition " could not thrive
in the plans they were working on. The
picked independent men of the middle class
we see on the one hand, visited by messengers
of Paul's calibre on the other, show a sinew in
the Apostolic Church that was bearing it safe
through the days of transition from the spoken
Word to the written. The older Scriptures
were searched (Acts xvii. 11) by men intending
to assert a judgment of their own, encouraged
so to do by their guides ; taking the message
as divine from such only as could show divine
credentials in flesh and blood before the pen
and ink were forthcoming (1 Thess. i. 9; ii. 13),
an invigorating scene this of races of men that
were going to win in the world, not flocks of
weaklings bowing the ear to undiscoverable
dictators. Scripture and its converts, vastly
more than the Church and its adherents, have
furnished their testimony to Christ, who is
the Truth.

As Apostles began to recede in the distance,
men arose in the Church who, dissatisfied with
the written Christianity descending from them,
made out their own version of it, grounded, as
they said, on an oral tradition more trust
worthy. Irenasus, in his famous work Against
Heresies (dr. A.D. 180), relates that false teachers,
when reproved from the Scriptures, charge
them with ambiguity, asserting that the truth,
having been originally delivered not in writing
but orally, cannot be delivered by those igno
rant of tradition.4 Irenseus held that what
the Apostles delivered orally became embodied
in Scripture and must be sought for in Scrip
ture, saying that what those inspired men first
preached was delivered to us in the Scripture
to be the foundation and piHar of our faith.s

4 Irenajus, Contra Hcereses, lib. iii. c. 2, Patro-
logia Grceca, vol. vii. col. 846 A., quoted in Goode's
Sermon, 1862, note A. p. 21.

5 Irenseus, Contra Hcereses, iii. 1 ; Pat. Or., vii.
844 A., quoted in Goode's Sermon, p. 6.

2x

SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH [ 690 ] SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH

If we may be guided by this early Father, oral
tradition is to be reckoned only a new way to
a new Gospel.

Dr. Westcott, commenting on the period
A.D. 303-340, remarks that down to then the
books of the Bible were received as a heritage
secured by prescription, common consent having
allowed their authority. For with the excep
tion of a single doubtful allusion in Tertullian
(dr. 200), there is nothing to show that any de
bate was ever held on the canon of Scripture in
Church Synods. Therefore the books admitted
were without further inquiry acknowledged1
everywhere. The earliest alleged judgment in
the Koman Church was in 405.2 Westcott
observes that it is impossible to point to any
period marking the date at which our present-
canon was determined.3 It has been handed
down in and by the Church, but authoritatively
fixed by usage rather than by any positive
law.

In 1452 the German Cardinal Cusanus, a busy
controversialist, was contesting the claim of
the Bohemians to the cup at Holy Communion.
Their appeal to the Gospel history was most
dangerous for the papal system, as the age
rang with reform cries, and if the decision of
Scripture was once admitted on principle the
way lay open for doctrinal innovations to any
amount. Cusauus boldly asserted that the
Church was of higher authority than the Scrip
tures, having had a prior existence.4

The most popular external novelties signal
ising the Reformation were the Lord's Supper
in worship, Holy Scripture in teaching. As
to the latter, the Bohemian Confession in 1535
regarded the Canonical Scriptures as of abso
lute and unshaken veracity ; in 1536 the Earlier
Helvetic said Canonical Scripture was the
Word of God ; 5 both documents passed over
unwritten tradition and the Church. Against
this approaching tide of Biblical autocracy
papal advocates produced more or less literally
the rule of Cusanus. On April 8, 1546, in the
fourth session at Trent, it was laid down that
those unwritten traditions received by the
Apostles from Christ and the Holy Spirit,
handed down within the Catholic Church,
were of equal authority with Canonical Scrip
ture, the books of which the decree enumerated,
including among them most of those deemed

1 Westcott, The Bible in the Church, 1864, p. 142.

2 Ibid., p. 195, referring to an epistle of Innocent
I. to Bishop Exuperius, sec. vii. See Mansi, iii.
1040.

3 Westcott, Canon of New Testament, p. 509.

4 Cusanus, Epp., ii. vii. ; Ad Bohem., Op., Basil,
1565, torn. ii. pp. 833 (bottom), 858 (top).

* The Confessions in brief in Dr. Charteris's
Canonicity, 1880, pp. 37, 39.

by the English Church apocryphal.6 It was
also enacted that the Church was the sole
judge of the sense of Scripture, which no one
dare presume to interpret otherwise than she
lays down.7 This ruling might be thought put
ting the Church above Scripture, but Dr. Whit-
aker hesitates to say so much, as Trent has no
decree expressly to that effect ; he therefore
searches the writings of individual papalists.
These, he reports, in terms disavow the charge
of placing the Church above Scripture ; yet,
as they make the authority of Scripture to
depend on the Church, Whitaker regards the
distinction as one to no purpose, and makes
them responsible for the tenet that Scripture
is below the Church. The various writers,
Bellarmine among them, are quoted and their
statements discussed.8 How prominent this
subject had become at the period of the Council
of Trent, and how decisively the Churches of
the Reformation continued to express them
selves upon it, will now further appear.

In 1553 the Church of England in the
Vth of her XLII. Articles (the Vlth of her
XXXIX.), contrary to what Rome had de
creed, made the Canonical Scriptures alone,
as received by herself, the ultimate judge of
whatever is pressed on man as necessary to
salvation. In 1559 the French Confession re
garded the Canonical Books as a sure rule of
faith, not so much from the consent of the
Church as from the testimony of the Holy
Spirit, the Apocrypha having much inferior
authority. In 1560 the Scottish Confession
declared the Canonical Books to contain the
written Word of God,9 When, on December 4,
1564, the Council of Trent rose, Rome found
herself alone holding the triple rule of faith
composed of unwritten tradition, the Canonical
Books and the Apocryphal, all alike depending
for their authority on herself in the person of
the pontiff.

In 1563 Scripture in relation to the Church
came into the dispute which Bishop Jewel was
carrying on with Harding in the Apology. For
the Roman view — Church above Scripture —
Jewel brought forward Cusanus. Harding said
Cusanus had been misunderstood, but Jewel
maintained the point at some length.10 Scrip-

6 Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
(authorised edition), Latin, 12mo, 1837, Leipzig,
p. 19. Much of Sess. IV. is given in Charteris's
Canonicity, 1880, pp. 30, 31.

7 Ibid., pp. 20, 21.

8 Dr. W. Whitaker, Disputatio de Sacra Scrip-
ura, 4to, Cantab. 1588, Eng. edition, Parker

Society, pp. 275, 276.

9 Charteris's Canonicity, pp. 38, 39.

10 Jewel, Defence of the Apology, Works, ii1'.
223 ; iv. 1010-13. Parker Society.

SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH [ 691 ]

SEAL OF CONFESSION

ture was then become most distasteful and
repellent to the Roman side, and it is plain
was intensely feared. Their scon's (for which
references are all given) are quoted by Jewel,
such as, "The Church is the lively breast of
Christ, but Scripture is dead ink " ; "a dead
and dumb thing " ; " dumb judges and cannot
speak " ; " the black gospel, an inken divi
nity " ; l "a nose of wax," 2 to be set any way.
Jewel asks his opponent, " How is it meet to
call those which fear the judgment of the
Holy Scriptures?"3 In 1566 the Later Hel
vetic Confession held that the Canonical Scrip
tures have sufficient authority from themselves,
not from men.4

All Elizabeth's reign this doctrine was being
vigorously taught in the Church of England,
especially by two heads of houses at Cam
bridge, Dr. William Fulke of Pembroke, and
Dr. William Whitaker of St. John's, Regius
Professor of Divinity. The Scripture, said
the latter, hath all its authority and credit
from itself ; it is avriTrto-Tos,5 whereas the papal-
ists, as Fulke reports, were teaching their
Church's authority "to be above the Holy
Scriptures."6 Cranmer's Confutation7 of the
papalist " Unwritten Verities " was also in cir
culation.

In modern days the Roman doctrine remains
as it was, that the canon of Scripture descends
to us " only from the Church," and that " from
her authority is Scripture received." 8 Among
English Churchmen at Oxford a marked change
began with Keble's Sermon on Primitive Tradi
tion, 1836, which, with other writings by
Newman and Pusey, called forth William
Goode,9 who, after a searching analysis, thus
summarised their position: The office of the
Church is authoritatively to promulge the in
terpretation of Scripture given by Catholic
tradition, and she is divinely guided to tell us
truly and infallibly, in the fundamentals of
faith, what that interpretation is.lu This teach
ing Goode treated as completely consistent
with the Roman maxim, " Church above Scrip
ture." Goode noted the stress laid by the

1 Jewel's Works, iv. 758, 773. '2 Ibid., iv. 759.

8 Ibid., iii. 58.

4 Charteris's Canonicity, p. 38.

6 Disputation on Scripture, 279.

6 Fulke's Defence of Translations, p. 9. Parker
Society.

7 In Cranmer's Remains, pp. 19-67 ; esp. cap.
viii. p. 52. Par. Soc.

8 Addis and Arnold, Cath. Diet., art. CANON.

9 Author of Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,
1842, 2 vols. ; 2nd ed. 1853, 3 vols. Sermon on
Scripture the Sole Authoritative Expositor, Acts
xvii. 11, 12, Ripon Cathedral, March 30, 1862.

10 Goode, Divine Rule, 1853, i. 42.

Tractarians equally with the Romanists on the
fact of the Christian Church having begun
before the appearance of the New Testament,
both of them alike deducing from it the doc
trine of oral tradition. He answers the argu
ment as Jewel and Irenaius had done,11 that
what the Apostles had taught orally is to be
sought for in Scripture and nowhere else.

[C. H.]

SEAL OF CONFESSION.— By this phrase
is meant the absolute secrecy which the
Roman and Greek Churches enjoin on their
priests with regard to all confessions of sins
made in the confessional. The Roman Church
adopts this principle to its fullest extent, not
only by excepting such confessions from the
general rules of evidence, but by punishing
the priest who reveals them, and even allow
ing a priest who has heard a confession, as
such, when appearing as a witness in his
private character, to swear he knows nothing
of the subject ; the confession being deemed
to be made not so much to the priest as to
the Deity he represents (Taylor, On Evidence,
1895 ed., p. 596).

The rule of law in England is thus stated
by a leading text writer: "By the common
law of England no distinction is recognised
between clergymen and laymen, and all con
fessions and other matters not confided to legal
counsel must be disclosed when required for
the purposes of justice. By it neither peni
tential confessions made to the minister, or
to members of the party's own Church, nor
even secrets confided to a Roman Catholic
priest in the course of confession are privi
leged" (Taylor, p. 596). Mr. Justice Stephen,
in his Digest of the Law of Evidence, states the
law in similar terms. He says, "I think the
modern law of evidence is not so old as the
Reformation. It came into existence at a time
when exceptions in favour of auricular con
fessions to Roman Catholic priests were not
likely to be made. The general rule is that
every person must testify to what he knows.
An exception to the general rule has been
established with regard to legal advisers, but,
there is nothing to show that it extends to
clergymen, and it is usually so stated as not
to include them."

The principal argument in favour of the seal
of confession is that, in its absence, criminals
look upon the clergy as possible informers,
and that they are thereby deterred from fre
quenting the confessional and confessing their
crimes, to the detriment of their souls' health.
This, however, involves the position that the
confessional is beneficial, which Protestants
deny. In England the State seems never to

11 Sermon, note A. p. 20.

SECRETA

[ 692 ]

SEDILIA

have adopted the Roman Catholic rule of
absolute privilege for everything revealed in
the confessional. Very great crimes have
always been excepted; thus, in pre-Reforma-
tion times the crime of high treason was not
considered by the Courts to be covered by the
seal of confession. Also, by Canon 113 of
1603-4, which marks a transition period be
tween the pre-Reformation rule and that of
the common law as it exists at present, a
minister of the Church of England is allowed
to "present" and reveal such crimes confided
to him, " as by the laws of this realm his own
life may be called in question for concealing
the same." The canon evidently considers
that the clergyman might, in many cases, be
liable as (what is now known as) an " accessory
after the fact," and death penalties were
numerous in those days.

Several judges have, as Mr. Justice Stephen
says, " for obvious reasons expressed the
strongest disinclination to compel " a dis
closure from clergymen, and the most modern
arguments of those who maintain that the
seal of confession should be preserved are well
set out in Best on Evidence, 1902 ed. The
privilege, if accorded at all, should be granted
to ministers of all denominations, as is the
case in many of the American States, where
confessions made to a priest, or other minister
of religion in that capacity, are rendered
privileged by express statutory enactment.
In France a similar rule prevails. In Scotland
the confession of a prisoner in custody, while
preparing for his trial, in order to obtain spiri
tual advice and comfort, is privileged, but com
munications made confidentially to clergymen
in the ordinary course of their duty are not
(Taylor, p. 596). [B. W.]

SECRET A. — Two meanings are given by Roman
liturgical authorities for this word. It is used

(1) as neuter plural, meaning secret things, or

(2) in agreement with oratio (secreta oratio), i.e.
a prayer or prayers said by the celebrant of
the mass in a tone of voice which cannot be
heard except by himself. The Reformers, as
well as Liberal Roman Catholics, strongly
objected to the practice of saying the Secreta
and nearly all the canon of the mass secretly,
and there was a prolonged dispute about the
matter in France in the eighteenth century.
Many priests began to say the Secreta and
canon aloud, but that was not favoured by the
Roman authorities. The Council of Trent, in
its twenty-second session, approves the custom
of saying parts of the mass in a " more elevated "
and others in a low voice. In the General
Rubrics of the Missal the priest is instructed
to say the secret prayers so low as not to be
heard by those around. Cardinal Bona holds
that the Secreta and canon were said audibly

until the tenth century, and that the faith
ful used to answer "Amen " after the words
of consecration. The faithful do not at pre
sent hear the words of consecration.

[T.C.]

Inasmuch as such is the practice of the
Roman Church, it is of importance that our
clergy should remember that the English ser
vice is from beginning to end a service to
be joined in by all — " common prayer" in the
true sense of the word. The too common habit
of the officiating clergyman altering the words
of administration of the Holy Communion when
addressing himself is objectionable, for they
need no alteration. It is still worse to repeat
those words in such a low voice as not to
be heard by the congregation.

[C. H. H. W.]

SECULAR CLERGY.— By Secular Clergy is
meant those who live in the world, as dis
tinguished from those who live by rule (regula),
and are called Regulars. The word secular is
derived from sceculum, the world. In His last
prayer for His disciples our Lord said, " I pray
not that thou shouldest take them out of the
world, but that thou shouldest keep them from
evil " (John xvii. 15). But when the anchorite
or monastic spirit took hold upon the Church,
it began to be regarded as a note of sanctity to
fly from the world and live a life of asceticism.
Honorius II. (1125) seems to have been the
first to use the term " secular" in reference to
clergy living outside monasteries. When
friars began to be multiplied in the Middle
Ages, a bitter feud soon sprang up between
themselves and the parochial clergy. John
Wycliffe was in constant conflict with the
friars. Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh,
wrote as strongly against the friars as Wycliffe.
The Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites,
Augustinians, and, later, the Jesuits, spread
themselves over the country, making loud pro
fessions of poverty, but amassing great wealth.
The Geneials of the Regulars resided in Rome,
and, having the ear of the Pope, as well as
understanding how to influence the various
congregations, they generally managed to get
the better of the bishops. From the time when
the Jesuits came into England, in the reign of
Elizabeth, down to a recent period, there was
bitter contention and rivalry between the
Seculars and Regulars. By secularisation is
understood the extinction of the title by
which property was held by the Church,
and the placing of such property at the
disposal of the secular or civil power.

[T. C.]

SEDILIA. — The Latin word for seats, benches,
or chairs. Certain seats within the communion
rails, used by clergy during the preaching of
the sermon.

SEMI-PELAGIANISM

[ 693 ]

SEPTUAGINT, THE

SEMI-PELAGTANISM. —See PELAGIANISM.

SEPTUAGESIMA.— A name given to the third
Sunday before Lent. Together with "Sexa-
gesima," the second Sunday before Lent, and
" Quinquagesima," the Sunday before Lent,
the name seems to have been formed incor
rectly on the analogy of Quadragesima. See
QUINQUAGESIMA.

SEPTUAGINT, THE.— The Septuagint is the
title by which the Greek version of the Old
Testament has been known from the begin
ning. It is, so far as is known, the earliest
translation of any important work in the liter
ary history of the world. It had much to do
in the moulding of Hellenistic Judaism and the
literature belonging to it. In the history of
redemption it occupies an important place.
It was not through the original Hebrew, but
through the Septuagint translation that the
great truths of revelation first became widely
known to the Greek and Roman world. It
was owing to the diffusion of this version in
the Greek-speaking countries that the persua
sion became general throughout the East (percre-
buerat orienle toto] of the approaching advent of
a Redeemer. And when the world's Redeemer
appeared in the flesh, the Septuagint was
His Bible, and that of His Apostles and first
disciples. The works of the New Testament
writers exhibit acquaintance with nearly all
the Old Testament books, and Old Testament
quotations in the New Testament reveal the
use of the Septuagint version. In St. Paul's
Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews there
are over a hundred quotations from the
Septuagint. The Apocalypse is saturated with
its phraseology, though it does not have a
single direct quotation. Its abiding value for
Biblical criticism is very great. It is an inde
pendent, though an indirect, witness to the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament books. For
exegetical purposes it is an important authority.
It is not merely that the Septuagint and the
New Testament are the two best known monu
ments of Hellenistic Greek, they have both
come to us with a Semitic impress, the Septua
gint translators and the New Testament writers
(with the one exception of St. Luke) being all of
Jewish race, and versed in the Hebrew tongue.
While the commentator may often obtain help
in the elucidation of New Testament words and
idioms from classical literature, he will be
careful not to overlook the Septuagint with its
vastly closer affinities and its still more direct
illustrative parallels. There are also questions
affecting the Canon of Old Testament Scripture
in the settlement of which the Septuagint has
evidence to give.

When it is remembered that the earlier
history of our English Bible runs occasionally
through a dark tunnel, it need not be wondered

that the origin of the Septuagint version is
wrapt in considerable obscurity. We can,
however, be certain that it did not spring into
existence all at once, but was produced in
divers portions and by divers hands. Its origin
carries us back to an interesting epoch in the
history of the Jewish people, and, indeed, to a
new era in the history of human culture. It
was one of the first and most enduring creations
of that world which came into being with the
conquests of Alexander the Great. It is in
teresting to observe that the book which, next
to the Bible, has been oftenest translated, and,
we might say, next to the Bible, is most widely
known— viz. Euclid's Elements — has come down
to us from the city of Alexandria and from the
same century and reign. Hellenism began its
career with Alexander, and in the Septuagint,
Hellenism and Judaism are wedded in a union
which has been fraught with momentous con
sequences. No sooner had Alexander taken
possession of Egypt than he founded the city
which has borne his name for more than two
millenniums, and flourishes to this day. There
were Jewish settlements in Egypt continuously,
perhaps, from the days of Jeremiah, and the
Jews appear to have given a welcome to the
Macedonian conqueror. When he founded
his city, Alexander conferred upon the Jews
rights of citizenship, and set them in a quarter
of the city by themselves. Ptolemy I., whose
reign saw the foundation of the famous
Library, to whom Egypt fell among the
Diadochi, or successors of Alexander, made
repeated expeditions into Palestine, and
whether by compulsory deportation or by the
encouragement of Jews as settlers, increased
the Jewish colony in Alexandria, at the same
time ratifying their former privileges. The
question has been raised whether too much
has not been made of a Jewish community in
Alexandria so early, and it has been asserted
that we can scarcely speak of a Jewish Dis
persion anywhere before the Maccabean period
in the second half of the second century. The
evidence, however, points plainly to the exist
ence of a Jewish community in Egypt much
earlier than this. Papyri prove unmistakably
the presence of Jews in Egypt under the
earlier Ptolemies, and quite recently a remark
able inscription has come to light showing
that at Schedia, some twenty miles from
Alexandria, there existed a Jewish community
which Lad built a synagogue and dedicated it
to the honour of Ptolemy III., Euergetes, and
his queen Berenice, some time between 247
and 222 B.C. If such a community was
formed in the little town of Schedia at that
date, we can well believe the cosmopolitan
city of Alexandria to have had a considerable
Jewish community at a still earlier date.

SEPTUAGINT, THE

[ 694 J

SEPTUAGINT, THE

It is to the reign of Ptolemy II. (284-247
B.C.) that tradition assigns the first instalment
of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.
The story has come down to us circumstantially
in the famous letter of Aristeas. The Greek
text of this letter is given in Swete's Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek, and a useful trans
lation of it appears in the Jewish Quarterly
Review for April 1903. Though the letter is no
longer regarded as genuine, there is a general
concurrence of opinion among scholars that
there is a historical element in it. It professes
to be written by an officer in high place at
the court of Ptolemy II., Philadelphus, though
internal evidence shows that the writer is a Jew
bent on glorifying the people, the country, and
the Divine Law of Israel. The writer tells his
brother Philocrates how Demetrius of Phalerum,
who is described as the Royal Librarian, had
represented to Philadelphus the desirability
of procuring for the famous Library a copy of
the Jewish Law in an accessible translation.
The king adopted the suggestion, and des
patched Aristeas and Andreas, the captain
of the bodyguard, to Jerusalem with presents
and a letter to Eleazar the high-priest, request
ing his countenance and aid in carrying out
the project. In due course seventy-two elders,
six out of each tribe, came down to Egypt
bringing with them a copy of the Law written
in golden letters. For seven days they had
daily audience of the king, who provided
entertainment for them in accordance with
their customs, and they excited the admiration
of the entire court by the wisdom with which
they answered, on the spur of the moment,
the difficult questions proposed to them in
philosophy, politics, and ethics. Thereafter
they were conveyed to the island of Pharos,
where, in a residence by the seashore, "in a
situation of perfect stillness," they devoted
themselves to the work of translating the Law.
Every day they all translated, each one by
himself, a portion of the Law, and then, after
a comparison of the various renderings, agreed
upon a common text. In seventy-two days the
work was completed. The Alexandrian Jews
whom Demetrius assembled to hear the trans
lation, received it with acclamation, and
begged that a copy should be given to their
rulers. They added that as it had been exe
cuted with such perfect accuracy it ought to
be preserved unaltered, and a curse was pro
nounced upon any one who should attempt its
revision. Such is the story told in the letter
of Aristeas, which has become the subject of
considerable literature. The story was im
proved upon by the early Fathers of the
Church, who represented, as a proof of the
divine inspiration of the LXX. version, that
when the seventy-two translators compared

their respective renderings, they all agreed to
the letter. This version of the story implied
that the translators had each separately de
voted himself to the translation of the whole
Law, and Justin Martyr, or whoever was the
author of the work entitled Cohortatio ad
Orcecos attributed to him, declared that he
had been shown at Alexandria the remains
of the seventy-two cells in which the trans
lators worked ; while Epiphanius, two centuries
later, recorded that they had occupied the cells
in pairs.

It is not an easy task to separate the kernel
of truth in this story from the admittedly
fictitious narrative. Recent criticism tends to
confirm its descriptions of the life and customs
of Egypt at the time. " The Papyri prove,"
says a learned writer in the Jewish Quarterly
Review (April 1903, p. 338), " that the writer
employs the titles of court officials and the
technical terms connected with royal decrees
and court usage .with strict accuracy. The
information which he gives with regard to Alex
andria and the customs and institutions of the
Ptolemies may be accepted as trustworthy, and
may sometimes be used to supplement the infor
mation supplied by the papyri." On the other
hand, recent research has shown that Demetrius
of Phalerum never was Royal Librarian. There
are also points of detail which have a suspicious
look, such as the selection of six men from each
tribe, the names given to the Seventy-two, and
the recurrence of this number in connection
with the translations. The letters represented
as having passed between Philadelphus and
the Jewish high-priest are clearly imaginary.
Meanwhile, Schiirer, one of the greatest autho
rities on the period and its literature, places
the letter about 200 B.C. , little more than half
a century after the time when the translation
is said to have been made.

The probabilities of the case are these. The
tradition which assigns the Alexandrian trans
lation of the Jewish Law — for it is of the Law
contained in the Pentateuch that the letter of
Aristeas speaks — to the reign of Ptolemy Phila
delphus need not be questioned. The literary
tastes of this Ptolemy may well have awakened
in him and the circle of scholars gathered
round the Library an interest in the ancient
Law of his Jewish subjects, and a desire to
obtain it for his great collection. Whether the
royal interest would have led to such an un
precedented effort as a translation of a work
from another tongue may be doubted. Internal
evidence is against the idea that the translation
was executed for literary purposes, or that it
was accomplished by scholars expert in the
Hebrew tongue, as were the Palestinian Jews.
It bears rather the marks of popular origin,
and it is, on the whole, more likely that it arose

SEPTUAGINT, THE

[ 695 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

out of a deeply felt need on the part of the
Jews in Egypt, whose decreasing familiarity
with their own Hebrew tongue placed an ade
quate knowledge of their religious books, and
especially of their Law, beyond ordinary reach.
So while, on the one hand, Greek scholars began
to evince an interest in Jewish history and
in Judaism, the Jews, on the other hand, felt
the necessity of adopting the outward forms of
Greek literature alike for purposes of personal
edification and of the propagation of their
divinely given faith. It was most likely from
this condition of things that the Septuagint
took its origin. The religious requirements of
the Jews of the Dispersion, not only in Alex
andria, but in the cities of the Greek-speaking
world, demanded a version of the Law to begin
with, which could be " understanded of the
common people." Confirmation of this view is
afforded by Deissmann's collection of peculiar
words and forms, many of which are common
to the LXX. and the papyri, and point very
decisively to the Egyptian and popular origin
of the translation. From the tradition of its
origin the translation received the title of
Septuagint, and it is quoted by Greek com
mentators under the symbol ot 0' or ol 0/3',
the Greek for 70 or 72.

The Greek-speaking Jews, we may be sure,
were not long content to possess a translation
of the Law. In due tune there followed ver
sions of the Prophets and the Hagiographa.
The question of the Book of Daniel and some
of the Psalms involves an inquiry into the
formation of the Hebrew Canon which is beyond
the scope of this article. But that all the trans
lations were the work of Jewish hands is clear
from the characteristics of the versions them
selves. That many hands were at work is clear
from the differences of idiom and style. Some
of the books of the Old Testament are rendered
in a free translation, whilst others are given in
a version almost unintelligibly literal, which
is the case with Ezekiel, Chronicles, Song of
Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. The translation of
the Pentateuch takes the first place in point of
excellence, but Isaiah and some of the other
prophetical books are very inadequately trans
lated. But from first to last the LXX. transla
tion teems with peculiarities and idioms un
known to classical Greek. It has been the
custom to set these down as Hebraisms, but
the study of the Greek papyri recovered from
the soil of Egypt rather leads scholars now to
ascribe them to the vulgar Egyptian Greek
familiar to the translators and the readers for
whom they laboured.

As an independent witness to the text of
Old Testament Scripture as it came from the
pen of the inspired writers, the Septuagint, as
we have seen, is of the greatest value. The

Hebrew text lying before the Septuagint trans
lators is earlier than the Massoretic text which
is now the standard text of the Hebrew Bible.
In some books, notably in the Book of the
prophet Jeremiah, there is a different arrange
ment of the prophecies, and there are even
differences in the actual contents. It has
to be borne in mind, also, that the Septuagint
version includes the Old Testament Apocrypha,
which have been the occasion in the past of
great controversy, and still form a serious diffi
culty to the Bible Societies whose principle it
is to circulate the Scriptures without note or
comment. The subject is one of the greatest
interest, but the prosecution of it lies outside
of our present purpose.

Although the Jews welcomed the new ver
sion, and pronounced it a translation never to
be tampered with or changed, this attitude
did not permanently prevail. As Christianity
spread, and as the first preachers fell back upon
the LXX. version of the Old Testament in their
references to Israel's history when disputing
with the Jews, the Septuagint fell into dis
favour with the Jews and was rejected as an
authoritative version. First, the proselyte to
Judaism, Aquila of Pontus, produced another
version, and others followed which the Jews
regarded as more accurate. These are all now
of the utmost value in the settlement of textual
questions. But the LXX. held the field, and
more than any of them influenced the great
Christian writers of the early Church, and
notably the great national versions of the
Christian Scriptures— the Vulgate, the Syriac,
the Coptic, the Ethiopic, and the Gothic. " It
created a language of religion," says Professor
Swete, " which lent itself readily to the service
of Christianity and became one of the most
important allies of the Gospel. Tt provided
the Greek- speaking Church with an authorised
translation of the Old Testament, and when
Christian missions advanced beyond the limits
of Hellenism, it served as a basis for fresh
translations into the vernacular" (Introd. to
the Old Testament in Greek, p. 433).

[T. N.]

SEPULCHRE.— A name given in the Roman
Church to a place where the consecrated wafer
is deposited from the Mass on Holy Thursday
till the Office on Good Friday. See RESERVA
TION.

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS).— The
special subject, under this general heading,
which this article professes to treat, is the
Roman Catacombs. The origin of the term
" catacomb," applied so universally, though not
exclusively, to the underground cemeteries of
the Campagna, is not certain. According to
De Rossi, the derivation is partly Greek and
partly Latin, and in that case would answer

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 696 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

to " near the sepulchres." If we assign to it an
entirely Greek origin, the more to be preferred
on that account, it might mean "near the
hollows." As early as the close of the third
century A. D., a distinct region of the Appian
Way, under the slope on which the tomb of
Cecilia Metella stands, and having in it the
Circus of Maxentius, appears to have been well
known under the designation ad catacumbas.
Between the walls of the city and the Alban
Hills there is no more noticeable depression
along that celebrated Way than just at that
point. It is only necessary that the trans
position of the term from the region to the
subterranean places of burial, or vice versa, be
accounted for. The actual history of the
catacombs may furnish the key to this. In
the earliest Christian age there is no evidence
that these burying-places were called cata
combs. The name is found identified first
with the catacomb of St. Sebastian, which is
close by the hollow with the circus in it. The
prominence given to St. Sebastian over all the
other catacombs is explained by the probable
tradition that the bodies of the Apostles were
laid there for a short time. From the eighth
century onwards it remained the only cata
comb that was accessible. Thus a name which
began by being applicable to the site of
sepulchres of one of the Christian cemeteries
only, might easily have passed over to the
cemetery itself, and then, in the later period,
to all the others through it.

The usual metho'd of burial with the Eomans,
towards the Christian era, is seen in the ruins
of the massive tombs of the Appian Way, or in
the columbaria with their hundreds of niches
for urns under the same vaulted roof. It is
most natural to ask how the Christians came
at once to adopt a mode so different, and from
which cremation was rigorously excluded.
Underground galleries, lined with tiers of
tombs, with a family chapel here and there, or
a larger vault for some more noted members
of the Church, form at once the rule. It is
not a sufficient answer that such was "the
custom of the Jews," and that, as the first
Christians in Home were either of Jewish
descent or largely under Jewish influence, that
custom was naturally followed. Jewish cata
combs, in most respects very similar to the
Christian, are actually found in the same
region, but an earlier date than that of the
Christian cannot be assigned to them. It is
a case, therefore, of seeking a common origin
for both. We know that from the time of
Abraham caves were used for burial, and
nothing is more likely than that the rock-
hewn sepulchre where the body of our Lord
was laid became the typical method of burial
for His disciples. And yet there had been

other influences at work in preparing for the
Roman catacomb. There was an earlier mode
of Roman burial than that which prevailed at
the beginning of the Christian era, and it is
found to have had much in common with the
Phoenician and Etruscan. In the tomb of the
Scipios, in the line of the Appian Way, and
not far from the columbaria of Csesar's house
hold, there is an excellent illustration of this
more ancient method. A group of crypts
connected by short galleries, known as a
"hypogeum," formed the starting-point.
Some person of wealth and influence had his
tomb thus prepared under his personal property.
The names which still distinguish a number of
the catacombs, as Priscilla, Domitilla, Lucina,
and Prastextatus, remain as evidence that the
catacombs began with important "hypogea"
for the owners of the ground. The common
bond of Christian brotherhood at length in
duced the proprietor to grant a portion of the
subsoil in the vicinity to members of the
Christian community for burial purposes. In
the case of the Domitilla catacomb there have
been found the actual marble inscriptions
intimating such a grant to the Church on the
part of Domitilla. At the first there would
probably be no communication between the
family tomb and the public cemetery. Beyond
running a gallery all round the portion of
ground procured by the Church, there would
seem to have been no general plan followed.
Cross galleries were thereafter laid out as they
came to be required, until the whole area was
fully occupied. In this way adjoining lots of
ground were worked from different centres,
and the junction between one and another, as
well as with the hypogeum, took place later.
The tortuousness of the galleries in most of
the catacombs can thus be easily accounted
for. But it is the peculiar geological forma
tion of the subsoil of the Roman Campagna
that made the extraordinary development of
these subterranean cemeteries comparatively
easy. In that whole region igneous strata of
varying age and composition are found in
great abundance. Of these the three principal
are the stone-tufa, the granular tufa, and the
renowned pozzolano or sand. Only the
granular tufa was serviceable for the forma
tion of those long lines of galleries with their
tiers of graves. Northcote has well described
the special advantages presented by it in the
words : " It is easily worked, of sufficient con
sistency to admit of being hollowed out into
galleries and chambers without at once falling
in, and its porous nature causes the water
quickly to drain off from it, thus leaving the
galleries dry and wholesome, an important
consideration when we think of the vast
number of dead bodies which once lined the

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 697 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

walls of these subterranean cemeteries." To
this there has to be added the fact that special
care was taken in selecting the areas suitable
for such a purpose. The higher sites were
preferred, with more or less deep depressions
around them, so as to admit of such drainage
as was available in the all too flat Campagna.
The remarkable freedom of even the lower
galleries from water is a proof of the wisdom
shown in the selection, as well as of the ex
istence of unsuspected depressions in the wide
expanse of the Campagna.

The arenaria, or " sand-pits," are only found
in the granular tufa, and are met with in
isolated beds of limited extent. It has now
been definitely established that the strata
abounding in pozzolano were almost in
variably avoided by the catacomb excavators.
Where a sand-pit occurred, too much labour and
expense were required to make it suitable for
burial purposes. In the Catacomb of Priscilla
there is a notable example of this, which has
had the effect of preserving intact the graves
at first scooped out of the sides of the pit, which
had afterwards to be held up with brick walls.
Such cases, however, are rare, and give no
ground for the mistaken idea that the cata
combs were originally sand-pits, partly found
ready for graves, and partly cleared of the sand
that had filled them. The most cursory glance
at these galleries should have been enough to
set aside that now exploded theory. On all
sides the very marks of the fossor's pick can be
seen, and the fact is made plain that each
gallery was excavated or extended, as it was
needed, out of the tufa. One purpose can be
seen running through every gallery with its
narrow passage, its regularly cut graves, its low
ceiling — to economise every inch of space for
burial. Even the short spaces in the walls,
which did not admit of graves of full length,
were turned into children's graves. Gallery
was run behind gallery, until there was left of
the original tufa only enough to support the
weight above it. When the whole available
space on one level was used up, gallery was
laid out under gallery, until there were three,
four, five, or even seven different storeys. Thus
a very limited area could be made to provide a
great many graves.

The question naturally occurs here, how were
the diggers able to dispose of such an amount
of material as these countless galleries must
have yielded ? Part of it was used to fill up
vacant sand-pits, wherever they were within
reach, of which we have distinct evidence. By
far the greater part was brought to the surface
and easily disposed of, as during most of the
time when the catacombs were in use the
Christian places of burial were fully protected
by Roman law. In the times of sorest per

secution no expedient was left them but to fill
up with fresh excavations the galleries already
lined with dead. Though there are evidences
here and there both of pagan inscriptions and
pagan tombs, these must be held to be foreign
to their original destination. The inscriptions
of this character are easily explained by the
manifest fact that the pagan slab was simply
reversed and used for a Christian purpose.
The presence of pagan tombs is more difficult
to account for. This was owing, it has
been supposed, to the laxity of the Church
authorities of the period to which they belong.
Very possibly, also, during the time of con
fiscation of the Christian cemeteries advantage
was taken of them for pagan burials. Such
cases, however, are so limited in number that
no great importance can be attached to them,
and they do not affect the general position
that the catacombs were intended for Christian
burial.

Did they also serve for Christian worship ?
Chapels, certainly, are frequently met with,
intended only at the first for family tombs,
with their " arcosolium," or arched tomb,
opposite to the entrance, and ordinary " loculi "
lining the sides. There it was possible for a
very limited number of persons to gather for
acts of worship, but the very restricted space
in even the largest of them, shuts out the
possibility of the public services of the Church
having been held in them. The old theory
about the sand-pits lent itself far more easily
to the idea of Church gatherings in the cata
combs. Now that the theory has been set
aside, a far more just conception of the kind
of religious services held in the catacombs has
come to be formed. On the occasion of the
deposition of a body, and again on the anni
versary of the death from year to year, it was
customary for the friends of the deceased to
hold a special festival. These feasts for the
dead were occasionally accompanied with the
observance of the Lord's Supper. Distinct
evidence of this is found in the celebrated
fresco of the Cappella Greca of the Priscilla
Catacomb, said to belong to the first half of
the second century. On the wall over the arch
there are seen seven persons seated round a
table with a woman among them, on the left
of him who is in the act of breaking the bread.
On this account it has been called the fresco
of the fractio panis. In the centre of the
table there can be seen the unusual object, a
simple wine-cup with double handle, in addi
tion to the platters with the bread and fish.
On the wall, both to right and left, there are
seen the baskets filled with loaves, reminding
us so forcibly of the miracle of the loaves.
Whether we take this scene as representing
the funeral feast only, or the Eucharistic

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 698 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

service following it, the intention of the artist
is to convey the fact that in that early crypt
such a scene was witnessed. The very bench
is there on which the guests sat. The wooden
table has only to be placed in front of it to
make it ready for them. The chapel might,
as is alleged, have contained the remains of
the members of the family of Pudens. Most
certainly the figures on the arched wall have
all the appearance of being intended for
portraits. The impression conveyed is that it
was the family chapel of noted persons in the
Christian community. It is out of the question
however, to suppose that every tomb with an
arcosolium served the purpose of a Eucharistic
observance, just as it is now held to have been
quite disproved that every such tomb was that
of a martyr. The very phials that were once
supposed to contain the remains of the blood
of the martyrs, from the reddish deposit found
in them, are now judged to have been used for
holding the wine of the funeral feasts. When
the " cult " of the martyrs began to develop,
no doubt some of the arcosolia were used for
the celebration of the Eucharist. Their marked
frequency is more naturally explained by the
fact that many a family was able to pay for
an arcosolium when the chapel would have
been beyond its means, and yet something
more than the " loculus," even with its two or
three breadths, was an object of desire. Where
family triclinia, such as the Cappella Greca,
which we have described, were not available
for the funeral feasts, special facilities were
provided in the triclinia at the entrance to the
catacombs. A remarkable illustration of this
is found in front of Domitilla's tomb. The
triclinium with its bench of tufa running along
two of its sides, the space for the table, the
side chambers, and the draw-well are all well
preserved to this day. For the great majority
of the mourners this arrangement must have
been far more convenient than the celebration
of the feast within the catacomb, where there
was little room and less light, besides too close
contact with the many graves.

The sanctity attaching to the catacombs is
specially worthy of note. All places of burial,
whether pagan or Christian,were held peculiarly
sacred by the Romans, and were placed under
the protection of special laws. Burial societies
were regularly instituted, and enjoyed peculiar
privileges. There was no need, therefore, to
conceal the veiy existence of these subterranean
burial-places. On the contrary, there were
prominent structures at their entrance which
could be well seen from the public highways.
It was only from the time of Septimius Severus
that new entrances and secret stairs began to
be constructed. The history of the times
supplies us witli well-authenticated cases of

concealment, and even of martyrdom, among
their tortuous windings, but such were by no
means common. In no respect were the cata
combs suited for places of refuge for long
periods. The most striking feature about them
is the extraordinary number of graves that are
found in them. If it be even approximately
true that no fewer than 3,831,000 persons have
been buried in them, what a marvellous testi
mony is this to the power of Christianity in
those early times 1 Even at the close of the
second century Tertullian could well write :
" We are but of yesterday, yet we fill every
city, town, and island of the Empire. We
abound in the very camps and castles, in the
council chamber and the palace, in the senate
and the forum; only your temples and your
theatres are left."

An important place must yet be given in our
article to what the catacombs tell us of the be
liefs and hopes of these early Christians. In
estimating that testimony certain great prin
ciples should guide us, such as admit of general
acceptance. The first place must always belong
to the testimony of Scripture. Where there is
manifest divergence between the teaching of
the written Word and that of the fresco or
sculpture, there should be no hesitation as to
which we are to accept. Room for the evolu-
lution of truth, which has been no more than
hinted at, is admissible ; but only within the
lines of the analogy of faith. Further, the
evidence from the catacombs must be weighed
according to its age and clearness. The cata
comb testimony is one that has many blanks
in it. Only dated inscriptions can be held to
be of real value in settling when a doctrine or
a custom came into use. All, who are familiar
with the history of the Church in the first cen
turies, know what a vast difference it makes
whether a doctrine or usage belonged to the
first three centuries or to those that followed.
Of the 11,000 inscriptions reported on by De
Rossi, of which 6000 are from the catacombs,
one only with a fixed date belongs to the first
century, two to the second, and twenty-three
to the third. It will also be admitted that we
are not to expect the testimony to range over
the entire circle of truth. It will naturally
limit itself to the subjects that bear most
directly on death and the deliverance from it,
as well as the Deliverer.

For the oldest epitaph with a date bearing
on the condition of those who have ' ' fallen
asleep in Christ," we have to come down to
A.D. 217. It is found on a large sarcophagus
prepared for one who had a high position in the
imperial household. After giving his various
titles, it concludes with the words, " For
him well-deserving his freedom * * * provided
this sarcophagus at their own cost." On the

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 699 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

back of it, in smaller characters, are found the
words, " Prozenes received to God on the 5th

day before the nones of ." Brief as the

expression " received to God " is, it is enough
to show how entirely opposed it is to the dogma
of purgatorial fires after death. Another epi
taph of A.D. 235 is in memory of a maiden of
fifteen years and four months, who is spoken
of as having " retired from the world." There
we have the suggestion of a life continued in
other conditions. And if we want to know
y/hat these are, we have such expressions as,
" May you live among the holy ones," of A.D.
268, on the tomb of a boy of twelve years and
eleven months. The state after death is there
referred to as one " among the holy," remind
ing us of the words of Scripture, " the spirits
of the just made perfect." The last dated in
scription prior to the close of the third century,
A.D. 291, closes with the words, "Refresh
thyself among the holy spirits." There, cer
tainly, we have evidence of the belief that the
spirit of the departed had passed into a state
of comfort and enjoyment such as it is impos
sible to apply to the mildest form of purga
torial fire. There is no need to insist on the
many allusions to " sleep " and " peace," which
confirm the same view, though they are less
indicative of a conscious life of bliss. The
definite conclusion, to which the dated inscrip
tions of the first three centuries entitle us to
come, is that there is nothing in them to sup
port the dogma of the middle state with its
fires of purification. The evidence of later
date is yet stronger in favour of the true scrip
tural doctrine as taught by the Apostles, that
"to be absent from the body " is " to be pre
sent with the Lord."

As to prayers for the dead, a notable differ
ence has to be marked between one class of
inscriptions and another. While there are
those which affirm some belief as to the blissful
state of the departed, there are others which
imply a wish or a desire, akin to prayer for
them. Such as these occur: "May you live
in God," " May you live among the holy ones,"
"May you sleep among the just," "God give
thy soul rest in the tents of the holy." None
of these can be considered actual intercessions
for the dead ; they are rather pious ejaculations,
springing from sorrowing hearts moved with
loving desire for their departed. There are
others that must be admitted to be more directly
in the form of prayers, as " Remember, 0 Lord
Jesus, our child," "Give rest to the soul of
Thy servant in the light, in the refreshment,
in Abraham's bosom," " 0 Lord, let not this
soul be brought into darkness." And yet little
can be made of these, when it is remembered
that it needed no fewer than six centuries to
develop a natural heart-longing into a pious

exclamation, and that again into a kind of
prayer. The second and third centuries give
evidence of the less objectionable form of the
wish or the prayer for the departed, while
even with the fifth and sixth we get no farther
than the expressions just quoted. It is on such
slender materials that the whole S3rstem of
masses for the dead has been founded, doing
dishonour, as it does, to the death of our Lord,
keeping the faithful in terror while they live
and their friends miserable after they die, and
furnishing a very fruitful source of income to
the Church which approves such teaching.

In regard to prayers to the dead, the dated
evidence is feebler still. Out of the 1374
inscriptions with dates of the first six centuries,
there is but one recorded prayer to the dead,
that of an orphan girl in the hour of her bitter
sorrow: "O pray for this, thine only child."
If we add to this a few others without date we
have the sum of the evidence from this source,
on which the invocation of the saints rests.
So much does the later custom appeal to the
natural feelings of the bereaved and desolate,
that it must have become, had it been held by
the early Church, one of the most common
sentiments expressed on the epitaphs.

Of the use of the cross as a Christian symbol in
the catacombs, De Rossi could point to but one
instance before the time of Constantine, and
it remained exceedingly rare for more than a
century thereafter. If the recent researches
of Monsignor Wilpert, as summarised by him
in an article of the Bulletin of Christian
Archaeology, have somewhat modified this
decision, all that he claims is that up to the
year A.D. 410, he can easily lay his hand on
twenty illustrations. The most interesting of
these is found in the Domitilla catacomb, where
there is the figure of a large palm, and under
it the name of the deceased, " Bictoria," while
alongside of the name there is a Latin cross.
This slab is considered by him to belong to the
first half of the third century. Another is
found in the same catacomb, in a gallery
leading to the tomb of Ampliatus, the friend of
St. Paul in all probability. Under the Greek
cross there can be read " Gaudentius," with only
one letter missing. Its age is given as not earlier
than the second half of the third century. The
other instances given in the same article are
admitted to be of the third or subsequent
centuries. After all, great reserve was mani
fested in the use of so important a symbol.
Other symbols of an earlier date are to be
found, with which the cross is combined. The
earliest of these is " the anchor." In one case
" the fish " is put with it and finds a place on
each side of the anchor. But even this is
placed no farther back than the middle of the
third century. The most remarkable illustra-

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 700 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

tion of this occult use of the cross is found in
the celebrated monogram of the Constantinian
period. Its modifications are well known :
sometimes it was a cross within a square,
sometimes within a circle, sometimes with the
alpha and omega on each side of it. And as
it is reasonable to suppose that the occult
representations came before the others, we find
in this only another proof that, the nearer we
come to the age of the Apostles, the more
strong was the aversion of the early Christians
to every symbol that reminded them of the
sufferings of the Lord. There need be no
wonder felt on this account, as crucifixions
were still common in the Roman Empire, and
occasionally even a Roman citizen was exposed
to such a death of ignominy.

The evidence against the early use of the
crucifix is still more decisive. Even Monsignor
Wilpert frankly admits that the crucifix is
"entirely excluded from the art of the first
four centuries. " Dean Milman's words are thus
amply confirmed, that " the catacombs of Rome,
faithful to their general character, offer no
instance of a crucifixion, nor does any allusion
to such a subject of art occur in any early
writing." The gradual transition from the
cross to the crucifix is first seen in the fourth-
century sarcophagus of the Lateran. The cross
is there, but the sufferer is not lifted up on it ;
He is only bearing it : over His head is a crown
of roses, not of thorns. In the fifth century
the figure of a lamb takes His place, sometimes
standing at the foot of the cross, sometimes
bearing it, more rarely lying on it. The year
A.D. 692 had to come before a Church Council
decreed that the Christ in human form should
take the place of the lamb in such cases. Even
as late as the eighth century the lamb was
still found instead of the Christ, and it needed
a special injunction of Adrian to bring about
uniformity.

This reserve of the Apostles and early
witnesses has left its indelible mark on the
frescoes of the catacombs. Nowhere can we
see our Lord in the act of suffering. His
sacrifice is presented to us in the ram substi
tuted for Isaac, just as His death is seen- in
the swallowing of Jonah by the great fish, and
His resurrection in the fish giving him up
again after three days. No attempt even was
made to portray the features of the Man of
Sorrows. He was to them almost always the
youthful shepherd with the lamb on His
shoulder and the sheep looking towards Him,
or waiting for His leading. There is ground
for holding with Archdeacon Farrar that
"during the first 400 years there is probably
no representation of Christ as bearded, or as
a worn and weary sufferer." One of the
earliest representations of the Good Shepherd

is found in the Lucina crypt of the Callistus
cemetery, near the stair of Cornelius. He is
the central figure in the vault of the chapel,
and He is carrying a pail of milk in His right
hand, while the lamb is borne on His
shoulders. There can be no doubt as to the
significance of " the milk." Instead of finding
in it any allusion to penitence or the Eucharist,
we have St. Peter's authority for applying it to
"the Word" — "as new-born babes desire the
sincere milk of the Word." But the finest
artistic representation of this subject of the
shepherd is met with in the beautiful statue
of the Lateran Museum. We search in vain
among all those countless galleries for any
illustration of His sufferings. The agony in
the garden and the betrayal have no place
given to them. Even in the case of the trials
and mockings which He endured, the least
repulsive features are selected, as " the wash
ing of Pilate's hands in token of His innocence."
No ecce homo with its pain - stricken look
and its thorny crown appears anywhere on
wall or slab. " The early Christians, when on
their monuments they wish to recall the scenes
of the Passion, choose those of which the
representation would cause the least sense of
horror" (Fleury).

Not less reserved were they in representing
their own sufferings for His sake. Daniel among
the lions, or the three Hebrew youths standing
in the flames, sufficed to represent their bitter
experiences throughout the sorest persecutions,
If the beheading of a Nereus and Acilleus came
to be actually shown on marble relief, that was
the production of the fourth century. The
much coveted letters Ml. after the name of
many a noble witness for the truth were all
that remained as the proof of great suffering
triumphantly endured.

Of the Mother of our Lord the prevailing
representation is entirely scriptural : " Mary
with the Child Jesus." Those female figures
with outstretched hands, at first claimed as
so many representations of the Madonna, are
now rightly understood to be no other than
symbolic of the persons whose remains lay in
the adjoining tomb. They are a witness to
the prayerful spirit which marked their lives,
if they did not also point to their last act in
commending their spirits into the hands of
the heavenly Father. The favourite scene, in
which the Virgin appears, is that which pre
sents to us the adoration of the Magi, the
number of wise men varying from two to six.
The homage is seen to be paid, not to the
mother, but to the Child. In the Domitilla
catacomb the Child wears a small coat
adorned with bands sewn on the shoulders.
The Virgin has on her head a short veil such
as a Jewish maiden of the period might have

-"-*• -e .-"^

^j^:2SS«^4

CRYPT OF ST. CORNELIUS IN THE LUCINA CATACOMB

PLATE XIII

SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS) [ 701 ] SEPULCHRES (CATACOMBS)

worn. The four wise men are seen in Roman
tunics, presenting their gifts to the Child in
large plates. That very simple head-dress of
the Mother came to be developed, as in the
fresco of the Ostrian catacomb, into a far
richer veil with necklace of pearls, but we
must come down to the fourth century for
this departure from the primitive simplicity.
Two remarkable frescoes have been found in
which the Mother and Child are manifestly
connected with the fulfilment of prophecy.
The Domitilla fresco, with the city seen in the
distance, is intended to bring before the mind
Micah's prophecy concerning Bethlehem. The
Priscilla one, distinguished by the star over
the head of the group, has been claimed, with
out reason, as the earliest instance of the
adoration of the Virgin. The figure on the
right of the fresco is a prophet, as may be seen
by his dress, and not one of the wise men, and
he is pointing to the star, the promised " light "
of prophecy, and finds its fulfilment in the
Child born of the Virgin. Such is De Rossi's
view of the scene, and this is in keeping with
the other figures on the walls of the same
chapel. The chief fresco is in the vault, and
presents to us the Good Shepherd ; a stucco
relief of the same subject is found next to the
group with the star, which occupies a small
lunette in the corner of the chapel. Thus, in
all the earliest frescoes there was no attempt
to raise the Virgin out of the place giyen to
her in Scripture ; it is made clear that her
chief glory was in her relation to the Child,
who Himself was the object of adoration.

The place given to the Apostles is seen fre
quently in their being grouped round the Lord
with no others in the same place of honour.
That there was no thought in the earlier
centuries of elevating St. Peter to the first
place among them is evident from his being
made to divide the chief place with St. Paul,
who appears sometimes on the right hand of
the Lord, while St. Peter is on the left. No
single inscription is met with in which lepevs
(sacerdos in Latin) is found. The most usual
title for the ministry of the Church is " pres
byter." Even the celebrated chapel of Callistus,
misnamed that of the Popes, contains no
indication of a priestly order. The letters E1II
or EIIIC, are all that the chief officers of the
Church have after their names to distinguish
them from simple presbyters, answering to
episcopus.

In perfect keeping with this is the non-
existence of an altar. Origen, in his reply to
Celsus during the first quarter of the third
century, made no attempt to roll away the
pagan reproach, " no altars, no temples, no
images." The pattern of the communion table
was found in the ordinary table of the tablinum

of the Roman house. It retained that simple
and natural shape well into the fifth century.
Hence the common name applied to it was
Mensa, Domini, or Mensa Dominica. These tables
were constructed of boards, made perfectly
portable from one place of meeting to another.
It was the connecting of the table for the
Eucharist with the martyrs' remains that led
to the filling up of the space under the table,
and converting it into a tomb, from which the
crypt was an easy development. In front of
the tomb of Sistus, in the chapel of the Epis-
copoi, we have evidence of the existence of a
table with four supports, while room is left
between it and the tomb for the officiating
presbyter to stand facing those gathered in
the chapel.

As for the Eucharist itself, the fact that most
impresses us is that there is no actual repro
duction of the Supper, as the Lord observed it
with His disciples. The usual number set at
table is seven, and He is not seen among them.
The elements on the table and in front of it
remind us far more of the miracle of the loaves
than of the Passover meal in the upper room.
The five barley loaves and the two fishes, with
the baskets filled with loaves, are nearly
always there. If there is the wine-cup also,
it is the exception, as in the fresco fractiopanis.
Such are the main features of the supper-scene
in the six cubicles of Callistus, three of which
are believed to belong to the latter half of the
second century. The Lucina crypt in the same
catacomb adds the other element to the figure ;
through the wicker-work of the two baskets
something like a glass of wine in the heart of
the loaves can be detected. From a careful
examination of all the frescoes on this subject
it is made very clear that the Eucharist was
treated as an essentially symbolic ordinance,
in which the Lord is revealed to our faith as
the living Bread through sensible signs, which
are in no way altered in their character by
being so used.

Where recent excavations in the catacombs
have helped us most is in bringing out the fact
that many more families in high position in the
Roman world were brought under the power
of Christianity than any secular history of the
times has vouched for. An inscription found
in the catacomb of Callistus has confirmed the
view of Lightfoot, Ramsay, and others, that
"the foreign superstition," with which Pom-
ponia Grtecina was charged, when she was
judged and acquitted by her husband, Aulus
Plautius, was no other than the Christian faith
which she professed. The tomb of the Acilii
Glabriones, discovered in the Priscilla catacomb
in 1888, has connected one of the most famous
families in Roman history with the Christian
martyrs of the -first century. Manius Acilius

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL

[ 702 ]

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL

Glabrio was consul with Trajan in A.D. 91
and suffered with Flavius Clemens as one of
those whom Suetonius describes as molitorcs
rerum novarum (innovators). The tomb was
found in a place by itself, and is in the form
of the Greek letter F, which may have been
made to answer to the first letter of the family
name. Its walls were lined with marble, the
vault was covered with mosaics, and it was
adorned with columns ofgiallo antico. Not far
off from it there was found a fragment of a
large sarcophagus with the inscription in
letters of the best period of the Empire, " Acilio
Glabrioni filio." The relation of this tomb to
the others around it is similar to that of the
Flavian " hypogeum," and suggests that over
it the Glabrios had their family property. It
was in this catacomb that Pudens and the
members of his family found their last resting-
places. The very name Priscilla, by which it
is now known, probably came to it from the
mother of Pudens. And there is reason to
suppose that the Priscilla, whom St. Paul so
honourably mentions with her husband Aquila,
found her grave there. " A new chapter in the
history of Imperial Rome," as Prof. Lanciani
has well said, " has been laid open before us.?
It is not too much to expect that there will
be more to follow.

Those desirous of pursuing this most inter
esting study will find the most reliable materials
in the great work of Giovanni Battista de Kossi,
Roma Sotteranea, about to be followed up by
another volume by Joseph Wilpert ; and in the
various numbers of the BollMino Archeoloyico
by the same De Rossi ; / Cimiterii di Roma, by
Prof. Armellini; Christian Art and Archceoloyy,
by M. Lowrie ; Le Catacombe Romane, by Prof.
Orazio Marucchi, just published, and forming
a compendium of Roma Sotteranea ; and Neglected
Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of
Christianity, by the Rev. James Orr, D.D.

[J. G. G.]

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL AND STATE.
— It has been the custom in the Church of
England ever since the Reformation on the
occasion of any great national event to hold
special services. These services never corre
sponded exactly with any service in the Prayer
Book, but had special prayers and lessons.
These occasional services have given rise to
some difficulty since the passing of the Acts
of Uniformity. One difficulty arose from the
form of promise the clergy took prior to 1865.
By the promise they were obliged to take on
ordination under the 36th canon, they pro.
raised to " use the form in the said book " (the
Prayer Book) "prescribed, and none other."
This difficulty was got over by the Clerical
Subscription Act, 1865, by which the above
promise was modified by adding the words

"except so far as shall be ordered by lawful
authority." In adding these words it is a pity
that the Act did not define " lawful authority,"
for these words have never been defined by
either an Act of Parliament or a law court.
Neither of the two Acts of Uniformity govern
ing the Church makes any provision for such
services, and therefore they do not mention any
authority for authorising them. The only
special services in use at the time of the
passing of the Act of Charles II. were, however,
services authorised by Act of Parliament, and
the form of which had then been approved by
Convocation, viz. that of the 5th November, re
vised by Convocation in 1661 (though it was
subsequently altered in 1690) ; that of the 29th
May, prepared by four members of the Upper
House and eight members of the Lower House,
and approved by the Convocation of 1661
(altered into its final form afterwards by James
II. on his own authority) ; and the similarly
prepared service of the 30th January (also
altered by James II. into its final form).

The 17th section of the Act of Uniformity
expressly makes it an offence to use any other
form in public prayers than those prescribed
by the Prayer Book. The only powers given
by the Acts of Uniformity to the Crown to
alter the Prayer Book services are under the
26th section of the Act of Elizabeth and the 25th
section of the last Act of Uniformity. Under
Elizabeth's Act it is provided that : " If there
shall happen any contempt or irreverence to be
used in the ceremonies or rites of the Church,"
" the Queen's Majesty may by the advice
of the said Commissioners" (appointed and
authorised under the Great Seal of England for
causes ecclesiastical) " or Metropolitan, ordain
and publish such further ceremonies or rites as
may be most to the advancement of God's glory,
for the edifying of His Church, and the due
reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacra
ments." The power given by this section is
limited by its introductory words, viz. additions
to prevent "contempt or irreverence," and the
power was probably exhausted when Queen
Elizabeth revised the table of lessons. It
clearly does not provide for special services of
thanksgiving, &c. Nor does the power under
the 25th section of the Act of Uniformity of
Charles II., of making alterations, appear to
cover an authorisation of a special service, for
it is limited to names of members of the Royal
Family. Sec. 25 reads as follows: " Pro
vided always and be it further enacted by the
authority aforesaid that in all those prayers,
litanies, and collects which do in any wav
relate to the King, Queen, or Royal Progeny,
the names be altered and changed from time
to time, and fitted to the present occasion
according to the direction of lawful authority."

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL [ 703 ] SERVICES, OCCASIONAL

As a matter of history, it has been the
custom to alter these names by royal autho
rity, given in one of the following ways, viz.
by Warrant, Royal Proclamation, or Order in
Council. No other person purporting to be
" lawful authority " has made any alteration
in the Prayer Book.

A discussion arose in the House of Lords
during the Committee Stage of the Clerical
Subscription Act as to what the term " lawful
authority" meant. Neither the Archbishops
of Canterbury or York, who both spoke,
suggested that they or the bishops were such
"lawful authority," but adopted the explana
tion given by Lord Granville that these words
were introduced in order to satisfy the consci
ences of those clergy who found difficulties,
owing to their promise to use no other service,
in complying with the orders in council and
other royal commands. The Archbishops
thereby admitted that neither they nor the
bishops of their provinces were lawful autho
rity, or had any "jus litunjicum" The then
Lord Chancellor (Lord Cran worth) stated in
the debate that there was no "lawful authority"
to make a change in the Prayer Book except
Parliament, though the Sovereign in council
was a " lawful authority " to add special
prayers and thanksgivings for particular
occasions. As to the last point, this view,
however, is not in accordance with that given
by the law officers to Sir George Grey in the
previous year, as will be seen hereafter. The
opinion that there was no " lawful authority " to
change, except Parliament, was adopted when
the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act of
1872 was passed, authorising shortened ser
vices, which Act was unnecessary if there was
a lawful authority to change the services. No
responsible person ever suggested that the
bishops were the " lawful authority " until
Dr. Davidson, the present Archbishop of
Canterbury, on July 11, 1903, in receiving a
deputation headed by Mr. Russell Wakefield,
said that the archbishops and bishops were
severally such " lawful authority." This view
has no authority whatsoever, and has never been
acted on until quite recently, and would leave
the laity at the mercy of the bishops. And,
moreover, all the powers given by the Unifor
mity Amendment Act of 1872 would have been
unnecessary if this view were correct. In fact,
it would introduce the very evil that the
Preface to the Prayer Book says the Act
of Unformity and the Prayer Book were in
tended to prevent, viz. there being different
"uses," like those of Sarum, Hereford, and
Bangor. Even the late Archbishop of Canter
bury (Temple) never went thus far, but
sheltered himself under an impossible construc
tion of the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act

of 1872 (see Jus Lituryicum under RITES). The
Lambeth Assembly of Bishops in 1897, indeed,
though they had not the boldness to " assert,"
said, in their forty-fifth resolution, that they
" recognised the exclusive right of each bishop
to put forth or sanction additional services for
use within his jurisdiction subject to such
limitations as may be imposed by provincial or
other lawful authority."

Three special days had, however, been
specially ordered to be kept by Act of Parlia
ment, namely, that for the 5th November by
an Act of James I. ; those for the 30th January
as a day of humiliation for the death of
Charles I., and the 29th May, the Restoration,
were held under the authority of two Acts of
Charles II. The Acts of Parliament, however,
did not prescribe any service. There was a
fourth day, viz. 23rd October, kept in Ireland
until 1859, which was kept under an Irish Act
in commemoration of the discovery of a con
spiracy to take Dublin Castle and destroy all
the Protestants. This conspiracy was revealed
(as the Act ordering the special service de
clares) by a "meer (sit) Irishman, Tristram
Owen O'Connolly, trained up in the Protestant
religion." These services were ordered by a
warrant of George III., dated 7th October
1761, and countersigned by Lord Bute, to be
printed and annexed to the Prayer Book. By
an Act of 1859, 22 Viet. c. 2, the Acts ordering
them were repealed, and they were discontinued
by royal order countersigned by the Secretary
of State.

As to the services sanctioned by Act of
Parliament no legal difficulty could arise. The
difficulty arises as to services ordered by the
Crown. As to these, it should be noted that it
has been the invariable custom of the sovereign
ever since the Reformation, from time to time
to order special services, either by warrant
under the Royal Sign Manual, Royal Proclama
tion, or by an Order in Council, and the legality
of the services, quite apart from their desira
bility, is open to doubt. There were numerous
instances of such services in Queen Victoria's
reign, as, for instance, a solemn fast on the
occasion of the Indian Mutiny, a public thanks
giving on the conclusion of the peace after the
Crimean War, her several Jubilees, &c. It is
also the custom to hold an Accession service
on the anniversary of the ruling sovereign's
accession. In King Charles I.'s reign this
service was enforced by a special canon of 1640.
Queen Anne commanded its observance by
special order in council. Mr. Johnson, the
vicar of Cranbrook, in 1715 refused to read the
service, declaring it illegal. No notice appears
to have been taken of this until Mr. Johnson
published his views, when proceedings were
taken. Mr. Johnson did not defend them, but

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL

[ 704 ]

SERVITES

declared himself " aged and infirm," and re
quested to be excused, and declared himself
sorry, promising not to offend again. The
consequence was that the question has never
been decided as to what legal authority there
is for such occasional services.

In 1864 the Archbishop of Armagh requested
the Queen to authorise a special service for
Harvest Thanksgiving. Sir George Grey, who
was then Home Secretary, took the opinion of
the law officers as to whether she could do so,
and in reply to the archbishop wrote that " so
much doubt was found to exist whether the
Queen had authority to authorise the use of
an extraordinary service of Thanksgiving for
Harvest, that the Government declined to
advise her Majesty to comply with the applica
tion to authorise such a service " (Parl. Paper,
House of Commons, 1864, No. 56). This
appears to have been an adoption of Mr.
Johnson's views. Possibly these services could
be justified under sec. 17 of 1 Eliz. c. 1,
which annexes to the Crown " such ecclesiasti
cal superiority or authority which had been, or
might lawfully be, theretofore exercised by any
spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority.
For, undoubtedly, before the Reformation both
Popes and bishops exercised wide powers of
altering and adopting special services, v/hence
arose the confusion the Acts of Uniformity
were passed to prevent.

But it might be held that these words were
limited by the words following, which declare
the purposes of those powers, i.e. " for the
visitation of the ecclesiastical state and
persons for the order and correcting of the
same, and of all manners of errors, heresies,
schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and
enormities."

Amongst the irregular services, i.e. which
are not regularly authorised by legal authority,
which are in occasional use in the Church of
England, are three forms which were adopted
by Convocation in 1714, but which never ob
tained the sovereign's consent. As Convocation
in 1532 promised in verbo sacerdotii that they
never would " presume to attempt, allege, claim,
or put in ure (use), enact, promulge, or execute
any new canons, constitutions, ordinances,
provincial or other, or by whatsoever name
they should be called," without obtaining the
royal consent, there is no doubt that these
forms are entirely unauthorised. The three
services alluded to are the forms for consecra
tion of churches, churchyards, and reception
of converts from Rome and of dissenters. The
latter begins : We are here met together for
the reconciling of a penitent (lately of the
Church of Rome, or lately of the separation)
to the Established Church of England as a true
and sound part of Christ's holy Catholic

Church." If the penitent from the Church
of Rome is in holy orders, amongst the other
questions he is asked are : " Dost thou in
particular renounce the twelve last Articles
added in the confession commonly called
' The creed of Pope Pius IV.,' after having
read them and duly considered them ? " " Dost
thou acknowledge the supremacy of the Kings
and Queens of this realm as by law established
and declared in the XXXVIIth Article ? "

The Coronation Service. — There is one service
which has been referred to in Acts of Parlia
ment, but has never been adopted formally
either by Parliament or Convocation — the
Coronation Service. It is in substance an old
service come down from the earliest times,
probably the eighth century. It is known that
the same book, Liber Regalis, was used from
1377 to 1558. In 1603 the service was trans
lated from the Latin and underwent some
alterations. Indeed, there has hardly been a
single occasion of a coronation on which some
alterations have not been made by arrange
ment between the King and the archbishop.
At the Coronation Service of William III. and
Mary the presentation of a Bible was intro
duced, and has since been continued (Legg's
English Coronation Records). The only part
regulated by statute is the form of the oath.
This was considerably altered by the statute
1 Will, and Mary, sess. 1, c. 6, and received
a further slight alteration in Queen Anne's
reign, when the union of the Parliaments of
England and Scotland made a change neces
sary. Both the Act of William and Mary and
the Act 5 & 6 Anne, c. 8, require that every
king or queen that succeeds shall at their
respective coronations swear to maintain the
Protestant Religion as by law established. The
exact words now administered as to this are as
follows : " Will you to the utmost of your
power maintain the laws of God, the true
profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant
Reformed Religion established by law ? " High
Churchmen attach great significance to the fact
that the word "altar" occurs in the rubrics to
this service. As it has never been approved of
by the Church, or obtained revision by any
responsible representative public authority, its
retention is quite comprehensible, as the service
was translated, but how "the Church" can be
supposed to have signified its view under the
circumstances is not easy to see.

[E. B. W.]

SERVITES. — Most English - speaking people
know nothing of the Servites, except that the
famous Fra Paolo Sarpi, the historian of the
Council of Trent, and theologian and coun
sellor to the Republic of Venice, belonged to
that Order. The Servites, or "religious ser
vants of the Holy Virgin," had their origin in

SEVEN DOLOURS

[ 705 J

SHORTENED SERVICES

1233, when seveu merchants of Florence met
together in a chapel on the Feast of the
Assumption in that year, and resolved to re
nounce the world. They disposed of their
property, took a house outside the city, and
began to beg their bread about the streets.
After a time they removed to Monte Senario,
three leagues outside of Florence, where they
built a convent, which continued for many
centuries to be the head house of the Order.
The niece of one of the original founders,
Juliana Falconieri, founded a female branch
of the Servite Order in 1306. For a long time
the Pope refused to give his approval to the
Order, owing to a canon of the Council of
Lyons against the multiplication of religious
Orders. However, in 1487, Innocent III. be
stowed upon the Servites equal privileges and
rights with those possessed by the other four
mendicant Orders. The Servites spread rapidly,
but chiefly in Italy and Germany. They have
a monastery and church in the Fulham Road,
London, also at Bognor. There are two Servite
convents of nuns iu London, and one at
Arundel. The Servites wear a black habit
with leather girdle. They adopted the rule
called after St. Augustine, but have from time
to time made additions of their own. The
name is derived from the Italian servitore
(Latin, servitor), a servant. [T. C.]

SEVEN DOLOURS.— See MAKY, DOLOUKS

OF.

SEVEN SACRAMENTS.— While Protestants
recognise only two sacraments, Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, Romanists hold that there
are seven, viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy
Orders, and Matrimony. The Protestant view
is grounded on the fact that baptism and the
Supper are the only two ritual observances
which spring directly out of the historical re
velation of Jesus Christ as given in the New
Testament, which rest clearly upon His personal
appointment, and are bound up with His own
word. The Roman dogma, on the other hand,
has no better foundation than the arbitrary
opinions of mediaeval Schoolmen. Owing to the
irruption into the Christian Church of Jewish
and Pagan ceremonial, and the accidental fact
that in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions the
word acramentum was used as the equivalent
of the Greek nwrr-fipiov (see MYSTERIES) the
utmost vagueness prevailed for centuries as to
the number of the Christian sacraments. In the
twelfth century Hugo of St. Victor, in his De
Sacramentit Christiance Fidei, enumerates as
many as thirty ; and it was not till the Council
of Florence, in 1439, that the number was
definitely fixed at seven. It is quite evident
that this number is purely arbitrary ; and,
indeed, no better support for it could be found

at the time than certain fanciful analogies
designed to show the sacredness of the
number seven. No New Testament authority
can be alleged for it, nor is there any settled
principle underlying the choice of the five
other ceremonies which have been thought
worthy to stand side by side with baptism and
the Lord's Supper. To take only one example,
marriage was not instituted by Christ, is not
distinctive of Christians, and is declared by
the Roman Church itself to amount to a
surrender of the highest Christian ideal. It is
difficult, therefore, to see why it should be
placed in the same category with the two
definite institutions of Jesus Christ, and
specially difficult to understand how it can be
elevated into a supernatural channel of the
divine grace, while at the same time it is de
clared to be a condition inferior to celibacy.

[J. C. L.]

The attention of the reader is directed to
the illustration of Baptism and Confirmation
as presented in the window in St. Nicholas
Church, Leicester, given on p. 706. Baptism
is represented as administered by immersion.
In the case of Confirmation, the window ex
hibits an instance of a babe, wrapped up like
a bambino, being " confirmed " by the Romish
Bishop. The fact of babes being confirmed in
England, although the common practice in
the Greek Church, is not generally known to
have been practised in the Roman Church.
SHORTENED SERVICES.— As the Acts of
Uniformity of Elizabeth and Charles gave the
clergy no power to read any service except as
ordered by the Prayer Book, and as the bishops
had no power to give them permission to
shorten them (see RITES, Jus Liturgicum),
an Act was passed in 1872, called the Act of
Uniformity Amendment Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Viet,
c. 35, which prescribed shortened forms of ser
vices. This did not give the bishops or clergy
any discretion as to what shortening they could
make, but enacted as follows : " The shortened
Order for Morning and for Evening Prayer
specified in the schedule to this Act, may on
any day except Sunday, Christmas Day, Ash
Wednesday, Good Friday, and Ascension Day
be used, if in a cathedral in addition to, and if
in a church in lieu of, the Order for Morning
and for Evening Prayer respectively prescribed
by the Book of Common Prayer." It will be
noticed that the shortened form is not legal in
cathedrals on Sundays, or on the special days
before mentioned ; except when it is in addition
to the full services. The Act also authorised
the use of the different services separately, and
permitted preaching at a service without a
previous service if the Bidding Prayer or a
collect, with or without the Lord's Prayer,
were used. The sermon might also be pre-

2 Y

SIGN OF THE CROSS

[ 706 ]

SIMONY

ceded by any authorised services. As to addi
tional and special services, and the power of
the bishops as to them, see RITES.

[E. B. W.]

SIGN OF THE CROSS.— See CROSS.

SIMONY is a crime unknown to the CommonLaw
though it was an offence at Canon Law. It has
been, however, recognised by statute, and pro
ceedings can be taken in respect thereof.
There are three statutes which deal with this
offence : 31 Eliz. c. 6, 13 Anne, c. 11, and
the Benefices Act, 1898. In the last the
word "simony "is not used, but certain con
tracts of the nature of procuring an agreement
to exercise the right of presentation in favour

of a right of patronage of a benefice in favour,
or on the nomination, of any particular person,
and any agreement on the transfer of a right
of patronage of a benefice —

" (a) For the re-transfer of the right ; or

" (b) For the postponing payment of any part
of the consideration for the transfer until a
vacancy, or for more than three months ; or

" (c) For a payment of interest until a vacancy
or for more than three months ; or

" (d) For any payment in respect of the date
at which a vacancy occurs ; or

" (e) For the resignation of a benefice in favour
of any person, shall be invalid."

Sub-sec. 4 of the same section substitutes the

From Plate XLVII. p. 927 of Vol. 8 of Bibliothcrn Topoyraphica Britannica :
Antiquities in Leicester.

(The above is from a Window in St. Nicholas Church, Leicester.) Seep. 705.

of a particular person are made illegal, and a I
clergyman knowingly party or privy thereto is
made by sec. i. sub-sec. 5 guilty of an offence
in respect of which proceedings may be taken
under sec. 2 of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892.
Queen Elizabeth's Act defines simony as a
11 corrupt agreement to present," and makes
the presentation void, and imposes a penalty
of double the value of one year's profit of the
benefice.

Blackstone observes that the obtaining orders
or a licence to preach by money, or any corrupt
practice, is the true, though not the common,
notion of simony. Queen Anne's Act prohibits
clergymen from purchasing for themselves a
next presentation or avoidance, and makes any
such presentation void. Sub-sec. 3 of sec. 1 of
the Benefices Act, 1898, contains the following
provision: "Any agreement for any exercise

following declaration against simoniacal agree
ments for that required by sec. 2 of the
Clerical Subscription Act, 1865 : —

"I, C. D., hereby solemnly and sincerely de
clare in reference to the presentation made of
me to the rectory (or vicarage, &c.) of —

" 1. I have not received the presentation of
the said rectory (or vicarage, &c.) in considera
tion of any sum of money, reward, gift, profit,
or benefit directly or indirectly given or
promised by me, or by any person to my
knowledge and with my consent, to any person
whatsoever, and I will not at any time here
after perform or satisfy any payment, contract,
or promise made in respect of that presenta
tion by any person without my knowledge or
consent.

" 2. I have not entered, nor to the best of my
knowledge has any person entered, into any

SIN

[ 707 ]

SINLESS PERFECTION

bond, covenant, or other assurance or engage
ment otherwise than is allowed by sections 1
and 2 of the Clergy Resignation Bonds Act,
1828, that I should resign the said rectory (or
vicarage, &c.).

" 3. I have not by myself, nor to my know
ledge has any person on my behalf, for any
sum of money, reward, gift, profit, or advantage,
or for, or by means of, any promise, agreement,
grant, bond, covenant, or other assurance of
or for any sum of money, reward, gift, profit,
or benefit whatsoever, directly or indirectly
procured the now existing avoidance of the
said rectory (or vicarage, &c.).

" 4. I have not, with respect to the said pre
sentation, been party or privy to any agreement
which is invalid under section 1, sub-section
3 of the Benefices Act, 1898."

[E. B. W.]

SIN. — See DEADLY SIN ; FALL ; VENIAL SIN.

SINGING. — See Music IN CONNECTION WITH
CHURCH WORSHIP.

SINLESS PERFECTION.— The theory that
a condition of absolute freedom from sin is
attainable in this present life ; in which sin is
no longer committed, and sin requires neither
to be confessed to God, nor pardoned by Him.
Just as the Scriptural doctrine of justification
by faith has from the first been liable to the
perversion of Antinomianism (Rom. iii. 8), so
the true teaching of holiness and sanctification
has been perverted into the heresy of sinless
perfection, or perfectionism (1 John i. 8, 10).
This error has arisen in two ways, and has
been defended from two positions. First, and
most commonly, a mistaken meaning has been
attached to one or two texts, and the context,
which would correct or limit this meaning,
has been ignored. The usual quotations
given in defence of sinless perfection are
Matt. v. 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect " ;
and 1 John iii. 9 : " Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth
in him : and he cannot sin, because he is born
of God." In the former text, the word " there
fore " refers to the preceding verses, and limits
the extent of the word " perfect " to the range
of Christian love ; that it should be as wide as
God's love, and should consider none to be
beyond its pale. In the latter text, the mis
taken sense is corrected by 1 John i. 8, which
declares that any one professing to be sinless is
self-deceived ; and the true sense is explained
by the language of Joseph: "How then can
I do this great wickedness, and sin against
God ? " (Gen. xxxix. 9). The inability to sin
is moral, and not absolute.

The other source whence this error arises is
the limitation of the meaning of " sin," and
confining it solely to "the conscious trans

gression of a known law." By thus curtailing
the idea of sin, and by excluding the aspects
in which it appears as sins of ignorance, of
omission, of shortcoming, and of infirmity, a
fictitious freedom from sin can be taught. A
mistaken definition of sin leads to a faulty
testimony, a deluded experience, and an
erroneous terminology. A simple exposure of
the error was given by a clergyman to whom
two ladies stated that they had not sinned for
three years. He expressed his interest, and
inquired if, during that time, they had grown
in grace. Being assured that they had, he
asked if such growth had the effect of making
things appear sinful now, which seemed harm
less before. On learning that this did happen,
he said : " And were they not sinful two years
ago, before you perceived them to be so ? "
This question left the ladies silent, and their
theory of sinlessness exploded.

The sound doctrine of holiness has been well
defined as the work of a perfect Saviour in im
perfect sinners ; and is consistent with the
Scriptural statement about sins of ignorance,
and the provision made for them by the
sacrifice of Christ. The holiest of men are
still in ignorance of the full range of God's
perfect will ; and through that ignorance it
remains true that " All men . . . are coming
short of the glory of God" (Rom. iii. 23,
literally), and that " in many things we do all
offend" (Jas. iii. 2). To profess sinlessness
is, therefore, to contradict Scripture, and to
ignore and repudiate that aspect of the death
of Christ in which it meets the sins of ignor
ance and unconsciousness (Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27 ;
v. 2-5). The word " perfect," frequently
applied to Christians in the New Testament,
has always the meaning of "full grown," or
"equipped," according as it is the translation
of rAetos or Aprios, and their compounds.
These words express the opposites of spiritual
infancy and spiritual incapacity (1 Cor. ii. 6 ;
iii. 1, 2; and 2 Tim. iii. 17). They give no
countenance to the theory of sinless perfec
tion, and teach only the possibility of full
growth in the Christian character, and full
equipment for Christian service.

Whilst thus giving a negative to the idea of
sinless perfection, it is important not to miss
the positive side indicated by the texts on
which the error has been founded. The
frequent reference to believers as "perfect,"
or full-grown, points to a possible growth and
maturity which no Christian should fail to
aim at as his actual attainment (see 1 Cor.
ii. 6 ; xiv. 20 (marg.) ; Phil. iii. 15 ; Col. i. 28 ;
Heb. xiii. 21). Christians are " little children "
or "babes in Christ," when their sins are for
given ; then are " young men," when they learn
the lessons of strength and victory, and abiding

SI QUIS

[ 708 ] SISTERHOODS, RITUALISTIC

in Christ ; they are " fathers," as they come to
the full knowledge of Christ (1 John ii. 12-14).
The fullest lesson on such growth is given in
2 Cor. vi. 14 ; vii. 1 ; the power of God's
promises is there unfolded, which are to be
used for " cleansing from all defilement of
flesh and spirit," and for " perfecting holiness
in the fear of God." In this passage the
immediate action of cleansing is indicated by
the aorist tense, and the continuous work of
holiness by the present participle " perfect
ing " or " accomplishing." The power to
enable, the promises to be applied, and the
lifelong service to be developed, are there
unfolded for the use of every believer in the
Lord Jesus Christ. [H. B.j

It should also be carefully noticed, in
addition to what is adduced in the foregoing
article, that all those who are characterised by
St. John in his First Epistle as " born of God,"
are described as doing righteousness (1 John
ii. 29), as sinning not (1 John iii. 6, 7), as not
committing sin, and even as those who " can
not sin" (1 John iii. 8, 9), as purifying them
selves "even as He is pure" (1 John iii. 3),
" Every one that loveth is born of God, and
knoweth God" (1 John iv. 7). They are
depicted as loving the people of God (1 John
v. 1, 2), and, therefore, keeping God's com
mandments : " Whosoever is born of God over-
cometh the world ; and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John
v. 4, 5). Again, "We know that whosoever is
born of God sinneth not ; but he that is be
gotten of God keepeth himself, and that
wicked one toucheth him not " (1 John v. 18).
Hence it is not a higher class of believers that
are signified, but all those who have true faith
in Christ ; and, therefore, the phrases must
(as noted above) mean those who do not walk
in sin, as explained by St. Paul in Rom. viii.
8, 9, and other places. The " perfect" spoken
of in 1 Cor. ii. 6 are those who are perfectly
instructed, and who walk according to the
Christian rule (Gal. vi. 16) as set forth in Gal.
v. 22-25. See SANCTIFICATION.

SI QUIS.— See ORDINATION.

SISTERHOODS, RITUALISTIC.— It is pos
sible to be a true Sister of Mercy without
taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
Sisters of Mercy may be seen by thousands,
working as Protestant Bible Women, or Deacon
esses in many a crowded parish, as nurses in
our hospitals, as District Visitors, and as Mis
sionaries in foreign lands. They may be seen
also in private life, as mothers, sisters, and
friends, often manifesting to those around
them deeds of love and true Christian charity
and mercy, unequalled in the history of the
world. It is true they take no Romish vows,
and wear no Romish dress, yet are they none

the less Sisters of Mercy on that account.
And be it remembered that Protestants object
to no good deed of kindness which Ritu
alistic Sisters of Mercy perform ; they only
consider that such deeds may be done without
being stained by Romish ways, and should not
be undertaken for the propagation of unscrip-
tural doctrines.

Very early in the history of the Oxford
Movement we find its leaders anxious for the
restoration of Sisters of Mercy in the Church
of England. On June 9, 1840, the Rev.
Dr. Hook, then Vicar of Leeds, wrote to Dr.
Pusey : " I perfectly agree with you in think
ing it to be most important to have a class of
persons acting under us, and answering to the
Sisters of Charity in some Foreign Churches."
He added that he should like Dr. Pusey to send
him an elderly and trained matron of this
class, with two or three other females, to
Leeds: "Let their object," said Dr. Hook,
"be known to none but myself, and I would
speak of them merely as well-disposed persons
willing to assist my curates and myself, as
other persons do, in visiting the sick." In the
following year Dr. Pusey spent two months in
Ireland for the special purpose of studying the
rules and operations of the Roman Catholic
Sisterhoods in that country. He also col
lected the rules of Roman Catholic Convents
in England and the Continent. The first lady
formally admitted as a Sister of Mercy by Dr.
Pusey and Mr. Newman was Miss Marian
Hughes, who subsequently became Mother
Superior of a Convent at Oxford. The cere
mony took place in St. Mary's Church, Oxford,
on June 5, 1841. Directly after this cere
mony Miss Hughes went abroad to study the
operations of Roman Catholic Sisterhoods on
the Continent. The first Sisterhood, however,
was not formed until March 26, 1845, at
Park Village West, Regent's Park, London.

Since 1845 the Sisterhood Movement has
spread rapidly, both in England and in some
of the Colonies. It is, at the present moment,
impossible to obtain adequate statistics as to
the number of convents, and no statistics what
ever are obtainable as to the number of Sisters.
Some idea of the extent of the movement may,
however, be gathered from a statement pre
sented to the Cardinals at Rome in 1896 by a
prominent Ritualistic clergyman, in which he
affirmed that : " Several convents of cloistered
nuns have been erected. The multitude of
Anglican Nuns, bound by vows of poverty, chas
tity, and obedience, who devote their lives to
the various works of charity, is so great, that
there are now more vowed to religion than
there were at the time of the Reformation in
England." Besides the cloistered nunneries
proper, several of the larger Ritualistic Sister-

SISTERHOODS, RITUALISTIC [ 709 ] SISTERHOODS, RITUALISTIC

hoods have inner circles, whose members are
practically cloistered nuns, as much confined
to their convent walls as those of the Church
of Rome. In some of the convents there are
private burial grounds. These ought certainly
to be closed at once by order of the Govern
ment, as open to serious abuse. Many of these
Ritualistic Sisterhoods are very wealthy, and
are possessed of considerable property. What
their yearly income is no outsider is per
mitted to know. We cannot even tell whether
the accounts of each convent are ever ex
amined by any public auditor. It may be
come necessary, before many years have
elapsed, to apply the Mortmain Laws to these
institutions.

Several ladies who have been Ritualistic
Sisters of Mercy have published accounts of
their experiences. From these we learn that
the life in the convents is far from that of a
heaven on earth. Of these the most interesting
and important are Miss Margaret Goodman's
Sisterhoods in the Church of England; Miss
Wale's Anglican Sister of Mercy ; Sister Mary
Agnes' Nunnery Life in the Church of Eng
land ; and some of the writings of the late
Miss Cusack.

The late High Church Archbishop Benson on
one occasion went so far as to say : "I have
long considered that the attitude of certain
Sisterhoods to their Diocesans is quite un
warrantable ; they adopt a position of inde
pendence which is absolutely inconsistent with
their profession. No one can admire more than
I do the magnificent work that they do, but I
consider it to be individual work for Christ,
and not conducted on Church lines. I have
several times remonstrated about this." On
another occasion he, referring to a certain
Ritualistic Sisterhood, denounced what he
termed " the secret, dishonest profession which
they have surreptitiously, though long before
my time, introduced."

Amongst the more important of the Ritua
listic Sisterhoods are the following : —

The Clewer Sisterhood. — This Sisterhood was
founded in the year 1849. It is said that more
than 200 Sisters reside in the Mother House at
Clewer, near Windsor. The Sisters are largely
employed in educational work amongst the
upper and middle classes, and conduct, in
various parts of the country, Convalescent
Homes, Orphanages, and Penitentiaries. The
Sisterhood also works in New York and
Newark, U.S.A., Calcutta, and Darjeeling.
The doctrinal position of the Clewer Sister
hood is that of extreme Ritualism. The
Manual of Devotion for Sisters of Mercy, in two
volumes, was edited for its use by the late
Canon T. T. Carter, Warden of the Sisterhood,
and advocates Auricular Confession, the Real

Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a pro
pitiation, and Prayers for the Dead.

All Saints' Sisterhood, Margaret Street. — This
Sisterhood was founded in 1851. Its head
quarters have recently been removed to All
Saints' Convent, Colney Chapel, St. Albans.
This Sisterhood has a bakery in which the
Sisters make wafers for the communion on a
large scale. They also undertake ecclesiastical
embroidery for Ritualistic places of worship,
act as nurses in hospitals under their care ;
and in many parishes undertake the work of
District Visitors. The Sisterhood has about
seventeen branches in London and the country,
and also works in Cape Town, Baltimore,
U.S.A., Bombay, and other places in India.
In several places it undertakes educational
work. The Chaplain of the Sisterhood is the
Head of the " Cowley Fathers," and everything
connected with its operations tends, directly or
indirectly, to the advance of the Ritualistic
cause.

St. Margaret's, East Grinstead, Sisterhood. —
This Sisterhood was founded in 1854. Its
chief work is that of nursing, but it also
undertakes educational work, the production
of ecclesiastical embroider}', and the manage
ment of Homes of Rest and Orphanages. The
Sisterhood's headquarters are at East Grin-
stead, Sussex, and it has branch houses in
various parts of England, Scotland, Ceylon,
Boston, U.S.A., and Johannesburg, South
Africa, From its commencement the Sister
hood has been worked in the interests of the
advanced Ritualistic party. From the Memoirs
of a Sister of St. Saviour's Priory (a daughter
house of the Sisterhood), published in 1903, we
learn that as early as 1859, on Good Friday, a
service was held in the Convent Oratory, East
Grinstead, which it would be difficult to distin
guish from the Roman Catholic service of the
Adoration of the Cross. " The Crucifix," writes
this lady, who was present on the occasion, " was
covered with black. At 11 A.M. we had the
Gospel of the Passion, and then Mr. Neale [the
chaplain] stood on the sanctuary steps, holding
the Crucifix, and, while the Pangc linyua was
being sung, each Sister in turn stepped from
her place, and kneeling before the Crucifix,
kissed its feet." The same writer informs
us: "When I went to St. Margaret's in 1858,
I found the Reserved Sacrament in the Oratory
as a matter of course — I am not quite sure
when the custom of Reservation began, but it
was some time previous to that date." All
this was, of course, kept as a profound secret
from the public, who knew nothing of these
Romanising practices until this book was
published in 1903! The Sisterhood of St.
Margaret's, East Grinstead, has translated and
published The Night Hours of the Church, in

SISTERHOODS, RITUALISTIC [ 710 ]

SODALITY

three volumes, taken entirely from the Roman
Breviary, and without any omissions. These
books are full of unadulterated Romanism,
including services in honour of the Saints,
Invocation of Saints, Offices for the Dead, and
for Corpus Christi Day.

The Sisters of the Church. — This Sisterhood
carries on its operations under various aliases,
such as the " Church Extension Association,"
"Education Union," and "Church Teachers'
Union." The chief work of the Sisters of the
Church is educational, in addition to which it
conducts Orphanages and Convalescent Homes.
Another branch of its work is the publication
of tracts and books of a devotional character,
almost all of which are written on Ritualistic
lines, several of them teaching Auricular Con
fession, Prayers for the Dead, and the Euchar-
istic Sacrifice. The operations of the Sisterhood
are very extensive. In addition to its various
branches throughout England, it conducts High
Schools at Toronto, Ottawa, Dunedin, Mel
bourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Madras, Rangoon,
and Hobart, Tasmania. Archbishop Benson
records that when, in 1889, he visited the head
quarters of the Sisterhood at Kilburn, he " went
to the embroidery i-oom where many hundreds
of chasubles, &c., complete suits of vestments,
Roman colours, are annually made and sent
out to priests over the whole world." In 1895
the archbishop wrote : " The fact is, the Kilburn
Sisterhood is a dissenting community owning
no bishop or authority of any kind. And there
are no worse mines under the Church than
such bodies."

Society of the Holy Trinity. — This is the name
of a Sisterhood founded by Dr. Pusey and Miss
Sellon in 1845. It works at Plymouth, Ascot
Priory, Oxford, and Honolulu. The exposure
of the life in this Sisterhood by Miss Margaret
Goodman, from personal experience, in her
Sisterhoods in the Church of England, is very
painful reading. She mentions that it con
tained an inner circle known as the " Sisters
of the Sacred Heart," who were enclosed nuns.
The privately printed books of this Sisterhood,
when Dr. Pusey was connected with it, are of
a very superstitious and Romanising character.
The work of the Sisterhood is mainly educa
tional, but its Sisters also visit the poor, and
act as nurses when required.

It would be impossible in an article like this
to give full particulars of all the Ritualistic
Sisterhoods. I must therefore content myself
with stating that there are, in addition to those
already mentioned, the Sisterhood of St. Mary,
Wantage, which devotes itself largely to produc
ing ecclesiastical embroidery, has some Homes
for fallen women, and has charge of the Govern
ment High School, Poona ; the Sisterhood of
St. Thomas the Martyr, Oxford; St. Lawrence's

Sisterhood, Belper ; the Sisters of Bethany ; Sister
hood of All Hallows, Ditchingham ; Horbury
Sisterhood ; Sisterhood of the Holy Rood, North
Ormesby ; Sisterhood of St. Denys, Warminster ;
Sisterhood of the Holy Name, Malvern Link;
Sistert of Charity, Bristol ; St. Peter's Sisterhood,
Kilburn, and other smaller Sisterhoods too-
numerous to mention, work on Ritualistic
lines.

It may be useful, in closing this article, to
quote the opinion of Sisterhoods, written by
Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, who was by no
means an enemy of such institutions, in 1854:
"If Sisterhoods cannot be maintained except
upona semi-Romanist scheme, with its Directionr
with its development of self-consciousness and
morbid religious affection, with its exaltation
of the contemplative life, its perpetual Con
fession, and its un-English tone, I am perfectly
convinced that we had better have no Sister
hoods." [W. W.]
SODALITY.— Sodality (from the Latin sodalitas,
brotherhood) means a religious congrega
tion or association, consisting of lay persons,
male or female, meeting at stated times,
under ecclesiastical supervision, for the per
formance of religious exercises. The Church
of Rome has innumerable sodalities, such as
the Sacred Heart Association, the Sodality of
the Holy Family, the Third Order of St.
Dominic, the Cord of St. Francis, the Children
of Mary, and a hundred others. The members-
are arranged in Guilds, each Guild having a
head. They meet at stated times, and, as the
head of each guild is supplied with a book,
the attendance is marked and the subscriptions
of the members. The guild books are handed
to the superintendent each month. This man
is always one of the local clergy, and his
business is to visit the absentees. The sub
scriptions of the members of a sodality of a
thousand members, although the subscription
is not usually more than twopence a meeting,
will amount to £100 per annum. The Sodality
of the Holy Family in Limerick, organised by
the Redemptorist Fathers, is said to number
more than 6000 members. Sodalities are
useful to the Church of Rome in three ways.
First, for the raising of money, of which the
clergy have the sole control. Secondly, for
getting the people to receive the sacraments —
the absentees being marked down as black
sheep. Thirdly, in acting as an intelligence
department for the clergy. Not a visit can be
paid in the parish, or a copy of the Scriptures
circulated, without bringing a report to the
clerical superintendent from some of the
females of the sodality. Numerous indul
gences are promised to the members, and
brass medals and ribbons are always in cir
culation. [T. C.]

SOLEA

[ 711 ]

SPIRITUAL "PRESENCE"

SOLEA is the elevated platform in the Greek
Church (and in the Russian) in front of the
Iconostasis before the Holy Table. The middle
point of the solea (trwXe'a) often has a circular
step in front of " the Holy Gate " where the
Eucharist is given to the people.
SORBONNE.— The Sorbonne was the earliest
and most celebrated of all the colleges of the
mediaeval University of Paris, and takes its
name from Robert de Sorbon, the chaplain of
Louis IX., by whom it was founded in 1253. It
was exclusively a theological college, and was
originally a modest institution intended for the
benefit of poor students. The renown of its
teachers, however, and the fact that its hall
was used for the disputations of the theological
faculty, led to its being identified in the
general mind with that faculty itself ; and
as it was in realtty the dominant theological
influence in the University, the popular im
pression was not far astray. Its reputation
spread everywhere, until it was recognised as
the first theological school in Europe ; while
the decisions of its professors on doctrinal
subjects were regarded as authoritative through
out the Catholic world, the Roman Curia itself
on more than one occasion having submitted
its doubts to them for settlement. During the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries its powerful
influence was exerted in many beneficial ways.
It was the Sorbonne that abolished the
scandalous Festival of Fools, that saved France
from Peter's Pence and the Inquisition, and
that established the first printing-press in
Paris in 1470.

But the Revival of Learning, in the dawn
of the sixteenth century, applied a test to the
Sorbonne which it failed to meet. It held
rigidly to the old ways, and became the re
presentative of a bigoted Ultramontanism
characterised by obscurantist and persecuting
principles. It justified the massacre of St.
Bartholomew, and inspired the cruelties that
were subsequently inflicted on the Protestants
of France. Half a century after bringing the
first printing-press to Paris, it sought to
revenge itself for the activity of the French
press in putting forth tracts in favour of the
Reformed religion by petitioning the king to
abolish the diabolical art of printing. At a
later period it secured an edict, aimed at
Descartes, which made it a capital crime to
teach anything contrary to the accepted
authorities. This edict was the beginning
of the end. The wit of Boileau, and after
wards of Voltaire, hastened the downfall of a
dogmatic tyranny that had become intolerable.
In 1790 the Revolutionists suppressed the
Sorbonne altogether, and confiscated its pro
perties to the general purposes of the State.
It was revived after a fashion by Napoleon

when he reorganised the University of France
in 1808 ; and it is now the seat of the Paris dis
trict of educational jurisdiction, and of the three
faculties of theology, science, and literature.

[J. C. L.]

SPECIAL SERVICES.— See under RITKS,
Jut Lituryicum.

SPECIES. —An ambiguous word meaning (1)
kind ; (2) an outside appearance. These two
significations are often confused together
with unhappy results. When it is said that
Christ instituted the Sacrament of His body
and blood in two species [i.e. in two kinds
or elements] — bread and wine — the word is
used in its first and proper acceptation, and
the speaker states what is true. When it
is said that Christ is present in the Sacra
ment under the species [appearance] of bread
and wine, the speaker, using it in the second
sense, means by it that Christ is there under
the appearance of bread and wine, according
to the doctrine of the Transubstantiationists,
and he does not state what is true. The
expression " under the form of bread and
wine " is sometimes employed as the equivalent
of " under the species of bread and wine," and
is equally erroneous with it. If we would
avoid confusion of thought we must ask our
selves in which sense the word "species" is
used whenever we meet with it in this con
nection. Cardinal Vaughan and the Anglo-
Roman bishops do not shrink from using the
word "appearance" in place of "species."
The priest, they say, has " the power to cause
the body and blood of Christ to become
present on the altar under the appearance of
bread and wine, and thereby to offer Him up
in sacrifice." What the Church of England
thinks of this claim is expressed in Article
XXXI. Bishop Andrewes cries out indignantly,
"Let them 'worship the Deity hiding there
under the species' made from a flour-mill"
(Sermon, 1603). In this use "species" is little
different from " the accidents." See MASS and
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. [F. M.]

SPIRITUAL EXERCISES.— See JESUITS.

SPIRITUAL " PRESENCE " AND FEED
ING.— A presence and feeding that are incor
poreal and such as, belonging to a Spirit, can
only be apprehended by our spirits. There is
no passage in Holy Scripture which guarantees
any "presence" of Christ in the Holy Com
munion different from His presence at Morn
ing and Evening Service. There is no word
about His special presence there. But Christ
has promised that wherever two or three are
gathered together in His name, there will He
be in the midst of them. This covers the case
of the Holy Communion, as it covers that of
Matins and Evensong and Family Prayer.
Nor is the expression of Christ's " Presence "

SPIRITUAL '-PRESENCE" [ 712 ]

SPONSORS

found in the Service for the Holy Communion
of the English Prayer Book, except in the Black
Rubric, where His corporal "Presence" is de
nied. The paramount thoughts of the Service
are those of remembrance and memory rather
than " presence," and of spiritual eating rather
than spiritual " presence." Yet the ' ' presence "
of Christ is recognised in it, not under that
name, but in such phrases as, ' ' Then we
dwell in Christ, and Christ in us ; we are one
with Christ, and Christ with us. ' Thus it
is the teaching of the Church of England that
Christ is spiritually " present " (not in the ele
ments but) in the ordinance of the Lord's
Supper, and that in it He spiritually feeds those
who approach it in faith and love. The Re
formers recognised this truth, and accordingly
Archbishop Craumer writes: "Our Saviour
Christ bodily and corporeally is in heaven,
sitting at the right hand of His Father, al
though spiritually He hath promised to be
present with us upon earth unto the world's
end. And wheresoever two or three are
gathered together in His Name, He is there
in the midst among them . . . spiritually by
faith eating His flesh and drinking His blood,
although the same corporeally be in heaven,
far distant from our sight" (On the Lord's
Supper, Parker Society, p. 89).

" From the time of the Reformation to the
present," says Bishop Harold Browne, "all the
great luminaries of our Church have main
tained the doctrine which appears on the face
of our formularies, agreeing to deny a corporal,
and to acknowledge a spiritual feeding in the
Supper of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary
to recount the names of Mede, Andrewes,
Hooker, Taylor, Hammond, Cosin, Bramhall,
Usher, Pearson, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge,
Wake, Waterland. All these have left us
writings on the subject, and all have coincided,
with a very slight diversity, in the substance
of their belief" (Exposition of the Articles,
Article XXVIII. p. 709).

But it is quite necessary to know what we
mean by "spiritually," else we are no nearer
the truth by using it. And we know that it
has been misinterpreted. By some it is taken
merely as a synonym of " supernaturally. "
These men are able still to believe in a carnal
delivery to them of the body of Christ, brought
about in an extraordinary or miraculous manner,
which is only an undeveloped form of the
theory which finds its realisation and logical
outcome in the tenet either of Transubstantia-
tion or of Consubstantiation. "Spiritually"
does not merely mean "supernaturally."
Others apply the word " spiritual " to the
glorified body of Christ, and say that we
receive " spiritually," because what we receive
is that body which, being glorified, has thereby

become "spiritual." This is saying that the
corporal or natural body of Christ, now in
heaven, is received, but to avoid awakening
apprehension, it is called " spiritual." Bellar-
mine's view is not very different when he
allows the use of the word "spiritual," mean
ing by it that Christ's body is in the bread not
after the manner of a body, but after the
manner of an angel or spirit— which is self-
contradictory. Jeremy Taylor, rejecting Bellar-
mine's gloss, says that, "We" (English Church
men as contrasted with Romanists) "by the
'real spiritual presence' of Christ do under
stand Christ to be present (1) as the Spirit
of God is present; (2) in the hearts of the
faithful; (3) by blessing and grace; and this
is all which we mean beside the tropical and
figurative presence " (Real Presence, i. 1).

"Spiritual" reception then does not mean
the reception of Christ's glorified body brought
about in a supernatural manner, but it signifies
that the body and blood of Christ, or the grace
derived from the sacrifice of that body and
blood, are conveyed to the recipient in such
manner only as spirit communicates with spirit.
An object is spiritually fed upon, not by being
carnally eaten, but by being inwardly digested,
and so supplying strength to the affections and
intellect of him who mentally and morally
lives upon it. In the Holy Communion we eat
the symbolical body of the Lord, that is, the
bread (which in a figure represents His body)
naturally, namely, with our teeth and throat
and stomach. We eat the body of the Lord,
signified by the bread, not carnally but spiritu
ally, namely, by faith and love. And as bread
and wine strengthen and refresh that which
receives them, so the body and blood of Christ
strengthen and refresh that which receives
them, namely, the soul, when the soul is quali
fied by faith and love to take to itself the
benefits, derived from the precious death and
blood-shedding on the Cross. The elements
themselves were often by the Fathers termed,
after the name of that which they represented,
the body and blood of Christ. [F. M.]

SPONGE.— In the Greek and Russian Churches
there is always a sponge placed upon the
Preparation Table together with a knife (as
well as other articles) emblematical of the
sponge and spear spoken of in connection with
our Lord's crucifixion.

SPONSORS.— In the early days when the
Christian Church was a small community and
surrounded by perils, it was obviously of the
highest importance that no new member should
be introduced unless duly vouched for. Hence
a sponsor or surety was a necessity— some one
who could guarantee the character, fitness,
and bona fides of the candidate for baptism.
One was considered sufficient, a man for a

SPONSORS

[ 713 ] STATIONS OF THE CROSS

man, and a woman fur a woman, and usually a
deacon or deaconess filled the office ; some
person of approved position in the church was
always required ; no unbaptized person, and
later, no unconfirmed person could be sponsor.
Afterwards it seemed good to receive infants
in a similar way, and that the natural parents
should hand over the child to one of the faith
ful, a good teacher " under whom, as under a
divine father " (godfather, computer), the child
should be taught. This course minimised the
risk of a relapse into paganism in the event of
the martyrdom or early death of the parents.
Therefore it is doubtful whether it was usual,
as stated by Bingham, for parents to act as
godparents ; if they did, it was not qua parents,
but as being members of the Church and
representing the Church. " The primitive
doctrine of infant baptism was not to make
sponsorship depend on a natural tie, but on its
position in the communion of saints," and " it
was always understood that the promises made
bjr sponsors were made not in thuir own name,"
but in that of the infant. The importance of
the relation thus established between sponsor
and baptized was so much exaggerated in the
Middle Ages that marriage was forbidden be
tween godparents and godchildren, and also
between the sponsors themselves, and this was
even extended so as to prohibit the marriage
of a confirmed person with the person who pre-
sentedhim for confirmation (Justinian's Code, V.
4. 26 ; A.D. 527 ; Councils of Trullo, 691 ; Rome,
721 ; Metz, 753). The Council of Trent re
strained these extravagances somewhat, but
marriage between godparents and godchildren is
still forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church.
In most Protestant Churches which permit
infant baptism, the principle of sponsorship
has been abandoned, as being obsolete, and
the fact that private baptism (without sponsors)
by any layman or woman is generally recog
nised as valid and not to be repeated, shows
that sponsorship is no longer essential.

In the Church of England, however, at every
baptism in church there must be for every
male child (or adult) two godfathers and one
godmother, and for every female one godfather
and two godmothers ; and these godparents
promise and vow three things in the name of
the infant, viz. (1) to renounce the devil and
all his works, the pomps and vanity of this
wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of
the flesh ; (2) to believe the Articles of the
Christian Faith ; (3) to keep God's holy will
and commandments. Parents or persons who
have never communicated are not allowed
to be sponsors, but the law on this point is
often ignored on account of the great diffi
culty there is in finding suitable persons to
act. An attempt was made in 1865 to alter

Canon 29, but an Act of Parliament would
appear to be necessary. The prohibition has
not been removed, as Blunt erroneously alleges
in his Annotated Book of Common Prayer.

It is the duty of the sponsors to give the
child a name, hence called the Christian name.
One sponsor is deemed sufficient by the Church
of Rome, and by some of the Protestant
Episcopal Churches. In France the custom
appears to be for the first child to have for
godfather one of his grandfathers, and for
godmother one of his grandmothers, and for
the second child to have the other two grand
parents as sponsors (Larousse). The Roman
Catholic Church allows a sponsor to appear by
proxy. Smith, Dictionary of Christian Anti
quities. Bingham, Antiquities, book xi. cap. 8.

[B. W.]

SPOON.— See GREEK CHURCH.

STATIONS OF THE CROSS.— The Stations
of the Cross (vid crucis) are fourteen pictures
representing various incidents in the passion
and death of our Saviour. The Stations are
ranged around a Roman Catholic church —
they are illegal in the Church of England — the
first being placed on one side of the high altar,
the last on the other. The Franciscans are the
authors of this devotion. They are the guardians
of the holy places in Jerusalem, and these four
teen Stations are intended as a help in making
a spiritual pilgrimage to the scenes of Christ's
sufferings. In 1694 Innocent XII. declared
that the indulgences granted to those who
devoutly visited the holy places in Palestine
could be gained by all Franciscans, and all
affiliated to the Order, if they made the " way
of the Cross " devoutly at home. The method
of making the "way of the Cross" is to pass
devoutly from one picture to another, kneeling
for a little time before each, and reciting
certain prayers, such as five Paters, five Aves,
and a Creed. In 1726 Benedict XIII. extended
this indulgence to all the faithful, and in
course of time the connection of the Stations
with the Franciscan Order was forgotten. The
fourteen Stations are as follows: (1) Christ
before Pilate; (2) Christ receives His cross;
(3) His first fall ; (4) He meets His mother ;
(5) He is assisted in bearing the cross by
Simon of Cyrene ; (6) Veronica wipes the face
of Christ with a handkerchief ; (7) His second
fall ; (8) His words to the women of Jerusalem ;
(9) His third fall; (10) He is stripped of His
garments ; (11) His crucifixion ; (12) His death ;

(13) His body is taken down from the cross ;

(14) His burial. A fifteenth Station has been
sometimes added, viz. the finding of the cross
by Helena.

With regard to the sixth Station, Veronica
is said to have been one of the women who
accompanied Christ on His way to Calvary.

STIGMATA

[ 714]

STIGMATA

She gave Him her veil that He might wipe
away the perspiration and spittle from His
face, and when our Lord had done so, the
impress of His face was found upon the cloth.
The story is that this likeness was brought to
Rome about the year 700, and it is among the
relics of St. Peter's Church, and is shown to
persons of princely rank who have been pre
viously made titular canons of St. Peter's. But
Mabillon and Papebroch, the Bollandists, con
sider that the Veronica came by ignorance to
be regarded as the name of a person, the word
being a barbarous compound of vera and icon
(elK&v), that is, true image, and, as a matter of
fact, writers of the Middle Ages give the name
"Veronica" to the image, and not to the
woman. Thus Matthew Paris (1216) speaks
of "the representation of our Lord's face,
which is called Veronica." The Church of St.
Sylvester of Rome has another likeness of
Christ, said to have been sent by our Lord
to Abgarus, King of Edessa. A church in
Genoa has another. Those likenesses are all
spurious. They were unknown to any Christian
writer for several centuries. [T. C.]

STIGMATA.— St. Paul speaks of the marks (T&
ffrLyfjLara) of the Lord Jesus (Gal. vi. 17) which
he bore about in his body, referring doubtless
to the ' ' permanent marks which he bore of
persecution undergone in the service of Christ."1
The famous stigmata (insignia passionis Christi)
of St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) were
different, though Bonaventura's Life of him
(1263) seems to assume, perhaps in accordance
with a current " mistaken interpretation " 2 of
the Apostle's language, that they were of like
character. The story of their origin may be
read in the " Legend of St. Francis by the Three
Companions" (1246), chap, xvii.3 About two
years before his death (viz. in 1224), while
praying on Monte Alverna, and meditating on
the Lord's Passion, and uplifted toward God
in seraphic ardour of desire, Francis had the
vision of a seraph bearing between its wings
the form of a most beautiful man crucified,
whose hands and feet were stretched out after
the manner of a cross. The vision passed,
leaving in his heart "a wondrous flame of
love," and "on his flesh yet more wondrously
the mark of the stigmata " of Jesus. As far
as he might " the man of God " concealed " the
sacred mystery " unto his death ; but then it
was "most evidently " witnessed by "all the
brethren that were present and very many
seculars." " For they beheld in his hands and
feet not only the holes wrought by the nails,

1 Lightfoot's Galatians, in loco.

2 Ibid.

3 Published in Dent's Temple Classics, 1902. Of.
Sabatier's Vie de S. Francois, ch. xvii. 330-340.

but also the very nails themselves, formed of
his flesh, and of the same substance as the
flesh, presenting moreover the blackness of
iron; while his right side was as though
pierced by a lance, seamed with the ruddy
scar of a most real and evident wound, whence,
while he lived, the sacred blood did often
times flow." M. Paul Sabatier, the best of
authorities, has made a critical study of the
story,4 and, while recognising the historic
difficulties, is convinced of its substantial truth.
The flowing blood from a real wound in the
side he rejects as an embellishment (the first
of many), but not so the blackish, fleshy ex
crescences resembling the heads or points of
nails on hands and feet. As to the reality of
these all the witnesses 5 are agreed ; nor is the
fact inexplicable, considering the saint's state
of mind and his circumstances at the time.
It may be explained as the physical effect of a
cause or causes purely psychological. But it
v«as believed to be a miracle, a singular mark
of divine favour ; and while (strange to say)
Francis was the first to be thus favoured, he
was by no means the last. We are assured on
learned Roman Catholic authority^ that many
since Francis — including men and women, lay
men and priests, members of the most different
Orders,7 old and new — have experienced the
stigmata. Their manifestation, it seems, has
been very varied. Sometimes only the pain of
them has been felt — pain periodic or enduring.
Sometimes they have been visible, but only for
a time, or after death. Sometimes their ap
pearance has lasted through many years to
the end of life. Sometimes it has occurred
periodically on definite days of the week or
the year. Sometimes, after continuing for some
years, the marks have vanished, leaving little
or no trace. We are assured, again, that
though in the majority of cases the marks have
been limited to hands, feet, and side, this has
not always happened. Sometimes, in addition,
there has appeared the mark of the crown of
thorns on the head, or of the cross on the
shoulder — often the most painful of all Some
times the stripes of the scourge have been

4 Vie de S. Francois d' Assisi — Appendice : Etude
critique sur les stigmata (pp. 401-412).

* These are cited pp. 404-8, but the objections
(p. 409) are pretty strong, e.g. the fact that the
Bull of Canonisation (1228) makes no mention of
stigmata.

6 Wetzer & Welte's Kircheu Lexicon oder Encycl.
der catholiscJicn Thcologie und ihrer Hiilfswissen-
schaften (Freiburg, 1899), Artikel "Stigmatisa-
tion."

7 Even the Dominicans ? These had called the
alleged miracle a product of the egotism and
deceitfulness of the Franciscans.

STOCKS

[ 715 ] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES

reproduced on the body, and even the trace
of the chain on hand and neck. In excep
tional instances all these marks have appeared
together! On the same authority we learn
that, while impossible to be quite accurate, the
total number of the "stigmatised" has been
at least 321. But a less credulous authority1
gives 80 as the highest number, and adds— also
contrary to the Roman Catholic authority quoted
— that stigmatisation has taken place on only
one man, viz. St. Francis, all the other cases
being women, and these, moreover, sickly and
hysterical, a fact suggestive of the inference
that the right name for the phenomenon is
" stigmatic neuropathy," due to morbid, physi
cal and mental conditions, and no more a sign
of divine favour than the shattered constitution
and disordered brain which produce it."2

[F. J. P.]
STOCKS. — Vessels in which, in the Church of

Rome, " holy oil is kept." See OIL.
STOLE. — A long strip of black or coloured silk,
expanded at the ends, worn by priests of the
Church of Rome, the ends often being em
broidered. It is worn round the neck, and
hangs down on either side in front. Its original
shape and use were, however, different (Rock's
Hierurgia, p. 429). The colour of the stole is
by Romanists and Ritualists often changed
according to the festival or fast that is being
observed. The important point to be noted is
that the stole is entirely distinct from the scarf
worn in accordance with continuous usage and
custom by the Anglican clergy, and which
ought not to be termed a ' ' stole. " The scarf was
called also the " tippet." The scarf consists of
a wider strip of folded black silk, and ought to
reach down nearly to the ankles. The " tippet "
is permitted to be worn by the 58th Canon of
1604, and must not be confused with the hood.
The tippet was the distinctive badge of Re
formed ministers, opposed to the stole, although
both were objected to by the Puritans. Being
one of the mass vestments, the stole was dis
carded in 1549, and Sir R. Philimore, Dean of
the Arches, pronounced it illegal on that ground
( H ebbert v. Pur chas ) . I n the Roman Pontifical ,
in the form of degrading a priest, the stole is
taken away with the words " inhabilem (te)
reddimus ad omne sacerdotale officium."
Hoods and tippets are both prescribed for
graduates by Canon 74. The 4th Canon of the

1 Herzog's Reed- Encyclopadie fur Protestantischc
Theologieund Kirch?, (1884) — Artikel" Stigmatisa
tion."

3 Schaff's Herzog; article "Stigmatisation,"
greatly reduced from the German. Both the
German authorities quote many curious instances,
and Schaff's Herzog refers to some which have
taken place in the Protestant Church.

Church of Ireland correctly speaks of "the
customary scarf of plain black silk" and as
worn with the hood. The " stole " is generally
explained in Roman Catholic manuals as
representing the cord by which Christ was led
along to be crucified. See Wright's Service of
the Mass in the Oreek and Roman Churches,
p. 43. [C. H. H. W.]

STOUP, HOLY. — A vessel • containing "holy
water" in use in the Roman Church. See
HOLY WATER.

SUB-DEACON.— One of the Orders in the
Greek and Roman Churches. The Church of
England only recognises the three Orders of
bishops, priests, and deacons. See ORDERS.

SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES.— In every
Church some sort of promise is exacted from
the clergy on their admission to the ministry,
that they will faithfully teach the tenets of
that Church and no other. In the Church of
England subscription to the XXXIX. Articles
of Religion is enforced by statute (13 Eliz. c.
12 ; 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4 ; 28 & 29 Viet. c. 122),
and by canon 36. Subscription makes clear
the terms upon which each clergyman holds
his benefice. He obtains a legal title to
certain emoluments on the express condition
that he teaches certain doctrines, viz. the
doctrines of the Protestant Reformed Religion
established by law. As the then Bishop of
Lincoln said in the year 1846, "The very fact
that a particular Church is established, that
its ministers, as such, are endowed with
temporal possessions, involves the necessity
of the imposition of some test as a security
that they shall teach the doctrines of the
Church as established" (cit. Stephen's EccL
Laiv, p. 59).

The form of subscription was altered in the
year 1865, and is now regulated by the Clerical
Subscription Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Viet. c. 122),
whereby it is enacted that every person about
to be ordained priest or deacon must before
ordination, in the presence of the archbishop
or bishop by whom he is about to be ordained,
at such time as he may appoint, make and
subscribe the declaration known as the " De
claration of Assent," which is in the following
form : " I, A. B., do solemnly make the follow
ing declaration : I assent to the XXXIX.
Articles of Religion, and to the Book of
Common Prayer and of the Ordering of
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I believe the
doctrine of the Church of England as therein
set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God ;
and in Public Prayer and Administration of
the Sacraments I will use the Form in the said
Book prescribed, and none other, except so far
as shall be ordered by lawful authority." Also
every person about to be instituted or collated
to any benefice, or to be licensed to any per-

SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES [ 716 ] SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES

petual curacy, lectureship, or preachership,
must previously make the same Declaration of
Assent. Also every new incumbent must " read
himself in," that is, he must on the first Lord's
Day on which he officiates, or on such other
Lord's Day as the ordinary may appoint and
allow, publicly and openly in the presence of
the congregation there assembled, read the
XXXIX. Articles of Keligion, and immediately
after make the Declaration of Assent, adding
after the words "Articles of Religion" in the
said Declaration, the words "which I have
now read before you." If the clerk wilfully
fails to comply with this, he absolutely forfeits
his benefice, or, as it is put under the old Acts,
he will be ipso facto deprived, i.e. in this case,
without any sentence of deprivation. It is
advisable that the churchwardens and some
parishioners should be present, and carefully
follow the reading, and certify that the same
has been duly performed. No particular form
of certificate is necessary, but one will be
furnished by the bishop's secretary. A curate,
on being licensed, need not read the Articles,
but he must publicly make the Declaration of
Assent. This is to be done on the first Lord's
Day on which he officiates, in the church or
one of the churches to which he is licensed, in
the presence of the congregation, publicly and
openly, and at the time of Divine Service.
Failure to comply with this requirement
renders the licence void (Whitehead, Church
Law). Ecclesiastical judges are also required
to subscribe.

All persons subscribing to the Articles must
be taken to " agree in the true, usual, literal
meaning of the said Articles," and no man
.shall "put his own sense or comment to the
meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the
literal and grammatical sense." At the same
time, where there is any vagueness in an
Article, a reasonable latitude of opinion is
allowed. One of the bishops, in commenting
on this, remarked, " Have you not heard of
some ministers of our Protestant Reformed
Communion enjoying her honours and emolu
ments, but claiming to hold all Roman doctrine, '
while by their subscription to the Articles
confessedly hindered from teaching the same ?
That such persons should outwardly continue
in communion with us and officiate with us,
seems so inconsistent and disingenuous as to
be incredible if we had not their own authority
for charging the inconsistency and disin-
genuousness upon them. In conformity with
the 36th Canon, all the clergy, some many times,
have declared that willingly and ex animo they
subscribed the XXXIX. Articles in their ' true,
usual, and literal meaning ' (these are the
terms employed in the Declaration prefixed
to the Articles), that meaning, in which up to

that time when the Declaration was issued, all
clergymen had most willingly subscribed to
them ; that literal and grammatical sense
which was set forth as the proper sense, which,
indeed, can be but one ; no man being at
liberty to put his own, or any other sense, upon
them. But how is such subscription recon
cilable with any mental reservation whatever,
or with a claim to give a different bearing from
that which is the literal and grammatical bear
ing ? To speak of a ' non-natural sense ' is to
speak of what the Church, the imponent of the
promise, does not allow. It is to say one thing
and to mean another, which is scandalous and
shameless dishonesty. It goes to counteract
the purpose for which the Articles were framed,
and to overthrow the principles upon which
the Church was founded ; to annihilate all
confidence among men, and to equivocate with
God. It would favour agreement with Rome
on some doctrine of the highest importance,
which it was the very object of the Reformers
to condemn, and to remove from our teaching
and practice and faith. This will appear by
the alterations and omissions made between the
First and Second Books of King Edward VI.,
no less than from the directions issued in 1547
by Convocation and by Parliament. The sense
of the Church is the sense in which all parts
of our service are to be interpreted. To ' draw
them aside ' to a contrary, or to any other, sense
is highly immoral and unjustifiable. To allow
this would be nominally to enforce subscrip
tion, but, in fact, to leave us at liberty just as
if we had no subscription." "How can any
one believing with the Church of Rome that as
a rule of faith tradition is of co-ordinate autho
rity with Scripture, at the same time believe the
Vlth Article of our Church, or the XXth or
XXIst, which all undeniably maintain the
sole sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Writ ?
Or how can we believe the XXIInd, which
condemns expressly and by name, as ' a fond
thing vainly invented, and repugnant to the
Word of God,' the Romish doctrine concerning
' worshipping and adoration,' as well of images
as of reliques, and also Invocation of Saints ;
or the XXVth Article, which limits the sacra
ments to two, denying by name five out of the
seven sacraments of Rome ' for that they have
not any visible sign . . . ordained of God ' ?
or the XXVIIIth, which utterly rejects the
doctrine of transubstantiation ? or the XXXth,
which declares that the elements in both
kinds ' ought to be ministered to all Christian
men alike ' ? or the XXXIst, which in the
strongest language denounces the sacrifice of
the mass ? How is a belief in all, or in any
of these Articles of our Church, reconcilable or
possible with a belief in the definitions and
anathemas of the Council of Trent ? The very

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLIC [ 717 ] SULPICE, ST., THE METHOD OF

pretence is a strange and awful delusion "
(Bishop of Hereford in 1845, cit. Stephen's
Eccl. Law, p. 65).

The various decisions explanatory of the
doctrine and ritual of the Church of England
and of its Articles and Prayer Book will be
found under their appropriate headings. Those
on the XXXIX. Articles will be found collected
in Whitehead's Church Law, tit. Articles of
Rdifjion. [B. W.j

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLIC.-See APOS
TOLIC SUCCESSION.

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS (i.e. Assistant
Bishops, from suffragari, to assist), are of two
kinds: (1) the bishops of his province are,
with respect to the archbishop, called his
suffragans ; (2) bishops specially appointed to
help the bishop of a diocese. Before the
Reformation bishops seem, on the occasion of
their numerous absences, to have appointed
persons to take their place. Henry VIII. by
statute regulated this right, for an archbishop
or bishop requiring a suffragan had to nomi
nate two persons to the king with a request
that he would give one of them the style, title,
and dignity of a bishop. The king then gave
the person he selected the title of bishop of
one of certain towns named in the Act. Then
the king, under the Great Seal, presented his
nominee to the archbishop, requiring him to
consecrate him. The bishop so consecrated
had only such profit, jurisdiction, and authority
as was limited to him in the commission granted
by the bishop who had nominated him, and
could only use such jurisdiction in the way the
commission authorised, and for such time as it
limited. The reason why such bishops had
titles taken from places outside the diocese in
which they officiated was because their titles had
to be taken from the towns mentioned in the
Act. By 51 & 52 Viet. c. 56, the sovereign may
now add or substitute the names of other
towns. By the Suifragan Bishops Act, 1890,
persons already consecrated bishops may be
presented to the Crown as suitable Suffragan
Bishops. [E. B. W.]

SUICIDE.— By the interments (Fclo de se) Act,
1882, the burial of suicides is to take place in
the churchyard or other burial ground of the
parish, but without the rites of Christian burial
if the verdict of felo de se has been found.
This accords with the Prayer Book Rubric (see
BURIAL SERVICE). In most cases the jury now
return a verdict of " suicide while of unsound
mind," and the minister is then enabled to
conduct the service. The clergyman must ac
cept the finding of the coroner's jury as final.

SULPICE, ST., THE METHOD OF.— M.
Dupanloup, who was Bishop of Orleans from
1849 till his death in 1878, was reckoned
among the Liberal Roman Catholics of France,

and opposed the definition of the dogma of
Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council, al
though he ultimately submitted to its decisions.
He was noted among other points by the
skill he exhibited in teaching, and catechis
ing, and as an expounder of the Methode de
$t. Sulpice. The Seminary of St. Sulpice in
Paris was founded by M. Olier in 1642 (or
1650, the date being assigned variously). The
Society of Sulpician priests devote attention
to teaching in the seminaries or theological
schools where boys and young men are
trained for the priesthood of the Church of
Rome.

A strong movement is now going on within
the Church of England to introduce the
French system of catechising children, and
training them up in Roman doctrines. A modi
fication of this system is advocated in The
Method of St. Sulpice (London, Griffith, Farran,
Browne & Co.). This is a translation of the work
of Mons. Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans. The
same system is advocated in a work by Rev,
Spencer Jones, M.A., with a Preface by Canon
Body of Durham, entitled, The Clergy and the
Catechism, Being an Attempt to Adapt the
" Mtthode de St. Sulpice" as expounded by
Mgr. Dupanloup to the ways and wants of the
English Church (London, Skeffington). Many
points of Romish doctrine are taught in the
latter work. There is now " a Society of the
Catechism " formed to extend the system.
The Rev. Spencer Jones, in his book since
published on England and the Holy See: An
Essay toivards Reunion (Longmans, 1902), has
written in favour of reunion with Rome. The
method of the Catechism is designed to hasten
that end.

The bearing of The Method of St. Sulpice upon
training up Anglican children for the Confes
sional may be seen from the following extracts
from the first-named work: "The first duty
of the catechist with regard to confession is to
appoint confessors for children who have not yet
had one. In making out the list of the children
who have not brought in their certificate of
confession, he will find out those who have no
confessor. Immediately before the close of the
catechism he will name these children, and de
sire them to remain in theii places ; he will add
that all those who have no confessor must remain
also, and all must keep perfectly quiet. As soon
as the chapel is empty he will call them up, one
after another, and put such questions to them
as the following : Then you have no con
fessor ? Have you never had one ? Which
would you like me to send you to ? Are you
in a school? Has not this school a chaplain
who generally acts as confessor to the
children ? According to the answers which
each child makes, he will be given, or not

SULPICE, ST., THE METHOD OF [ 718 ]

SUPREMACY, PAPAL

given, a note for the confessor. The custom
of the Parish of St. Sulpice is that confessors
receive no child unless he brings a note from
the catechists. This plan prevents the children
from changing their confessor when they like,
and from running from one to another. . . .
On this note is written the day on which it is
given, so that the confessors can judge of the
promptitude with which the children have
come to find them. Without this precaution
many children, who had put it off from week
to week, would not scruple to say in excuse
that they had asked for a note for a long time,
but that it had only been given them a few
days ago" (pp. 136, 137).

In giving the note here mentioned, the cate-
chist is directed to say to the child, " At the
day and hour named you will go and find your
confessor and you will give him this paper ; then,
after he has heard your confession, you will
ask him for a certificate of confession, which
you will bring to us next Sunday " (p. 138).

It is added : " The child's word for it must
not be taken as sufficient, nor that of his
parents or his master. . . . Even when one of
these lists is signed by the confessor, it does
not do to be satisfied without first examining
it, or without warning the confessor, particu
larly if he is new, of the frauds which may be
practised " (p. 139).

After enumerating several varieties of these
11 frauds," by which the unhappy child tries
to escape the snare, the " method " is to search
the register, month by month, to see that they
41 have been constant in making their confes
sion every month ; he must even, from time to
time, make an example, threatening publicly
such and such a child, that he will be sent
away the following Sunday if he does not
bring a certificate of confession." " If a child
declares that he has confessed, but that he has
forgotten to bring his certificate, he must be
told to bring it next Sunday. If he maintains
that his confessor did not give him a certifi
cate, he must not be immediately supposed to
be guilty. . . . Generally the child, though he
may be steady and truthful, should be required
to go and ask for his certificate ; otherwise the
greater number would say their confessors do
not give them, and there would be no certainty
of anything " (p. 142).

Directions are also, in The Method of St.
Sulpice, given for cross-examining the child and
making him produce witnesses, and, finally, a
memorandum is entered in the register to ensure
his being re-examined next month on the same
topic (p. 142). The name of the confessor being
entered in the register of each child, " by this
means the catechists find out if any of the
confessors have a great number of children on
their hands and will avoid sending them more.

unless they desire it. ... By comparing the
name on the billet with that marked on the
great register it will be known if a child has of
his own accord changed his confessor ; there
are some who go the round of all the con
fessors in the parish."

Such are some of the contrivances for
" heading off " and driving children into the
confessional, where touch between the con
fessor and the catechist is carefully main
tained.

Such is the essence of The Method of St.
Sulpice, which, under the orthodox title of
" Catechising," is avowedly borrowed from the
Church of Home. Komish books and Roman
methods inoculate the children of the Church
with deadly superstitions at the earliest age
possible, and are now extensively used.

The Church Association in 1897 issued a small
four-page tract (No. 271) on this subject with
the above extracts.

SULPICIANS.— See in former article.

SUNDAY.— See SABBATH.

SUPER-ALTAR.— The "super-altar" is a
portable slab of stone which is placed upon
or above the ordinary altar and consecrated
to serve as a quasi-altar, when mass is said
in an unconsecrated building. All such are
forbidden in the First Prayer Book, as well as
the use of side altars (Card well, Docum. Anc.,
No. XX.; Ridley's Works, pp. 55, 319. See
ALTAR; TABLE.

SUPEREROGATION.— Literally, paying out
or giving above what is asked ; doing more than
is required by duty or than is necessary for
salvation. See GOOD WORKS.

SUPREMACY, PAPAL.— A claim put for
ward by the Bishop of Rome to be the divinely
constituted Monarch of the Church of
Christ.

As Rome was the centre of civilisation where
men were coming and going from and to all
parts of the world, its bishop could not fail
from very early times to be more prominent
than the bishop of an obscure town ; and its
traditions were at first kept in harmony with
those of the rest of Christendom, as Irenseus
tells us, by the constant resort to it of the
faithful from all quarters, who guarded with
care in each local Church the faith that they
had received from the Apostles, and brought
it with them to the capital. This led to the
practice of consulting the Roman Church and
its chief officer when a doubtful question
arose, not as though they had any peculiar
authority (for spiritually the Bishops of Rome
and of an obscure place such as Engubium
were, as Jerome said, on an equality), but
because they were in the best position to know
what was the common or Catholic faith of
Christendom. It has not been difficult to

SUPREMACY, PAPAL

[ 719 ]

SUPREMACY, PAPAL

represent this deference which was paid to the
Roman Church from accidental and secular
causes, as implying some inherent rights and
privileges of that Church.

When in the fourth century Constantine
divided the world into fourteen vast districts
or regions called "diceceses," and the Church,
following the secular arrangement, established
in each of them a "dioecesan," or, as we
should say, a national Church, these fourteen
Churches were none of them subject one to
another. The Primate of the North Italian
dicecesan Church, whose see was at Milan,
was as independent of the Primate of the
South Italian Dioscesan Church, whose see
was at Rome, as the Roman Primate was of
the Milanese Primate ; and so with all the
other dioecesan or national Churches. But
there was a tendency on the part of the more
powerful Churches to encroach upon and push
their authority over weaker Churches, which
the canons of (Ecumenical Councils vainly
attempted to restrain. This tendency was
specially observable in Rome and Constanti
nople, to both of which sees the Church, always
loyal to the powers that be, allowed a pre
eminence of respect and honour because they
were the seats of the Imperial Government.
That this was the reason of their pre-eminence
is the statement of the Councils of Constanti
nople and Chalcedon.

The Emperors of Rome, when they had
become Christian, found it to their convenience
and interest to raise their own bishop above
his compeers, that through him they might
rule the distant prelates, just as the Gothic
Kings of Spain, when they had become Catholic,
raised the bishop of the royal city of Toledo
to the Primacy of the Spanish Church. Ac
cordingly, in the year 378, the Emperors
Gratian (age twenty) and Valentinian (age
eight) invested the Bishops of Rome with a
certain superiority over the other bishops of
the Empire, and in 445 their power was still
further enlarged by Valentinian III. at the
entreaty of Pope Leo I.

To meet the growth of the power of Rome,
the rival see of Constantinople obtained from
the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) sanction
to extend its authority over three of the
dio2cesan Churches, and to receive appeals
from every part of the Church Catholic. This
was an advance beyond Rome, which as yet
only regarded itself as authorised to exert
control over the Bishops of the Western
Empire ; and it was by Constantinople that
the claim to the title Universal Bishop was
first made. It is probable that the Prelates of
Constantinople did not mean much by the
magnificent title which, after the Byzantine
custom, they adopted, but it moved the Roman

Prelate to indignant remonstrance. Whoever
allowed such a name to be applied to him
was a profane, arrogant, blasphemous, super
stitious, haughty transgressor of the law, of
the gospel, and of the canons of the Church,
and was worse than Antichrist, said Pope
Gregory I. A few years later the name was
granted by an usurping Emperor, who had
murdered his sovereign, to a successor of
Gregory in the see of Rome, and has been
held by the Roman Prelates ever since, not as
an otiose title, but as bearing a much more
effective sense than the easy-going Patriarchs
of Constantinople ever gave to it.

In one respect the see of Constantinople

stood better than Rome. The authority which

Constantinople possessed outside her own

dioecesan Church had been given her by an

(Ecumenical Council. Rome derived hers only

from grants by the secular power — from Gratian

and the two Valentinians and Phocas. It was

necessary to trump the claims of Constantinople

by a higher authority still. The first attempt

in this direction was made by Leo I. (A.D.

440-461). There had been published in the

third century some heretical novels, known as

the Clementines, intended as an attack on

St. Paul, who was represented under the person

of Simon Magus subdued by Peter. In them

the authority of Peter was magnified as the

antagonist of Paul, and though St. James was

represented as the highest official, St. Peter

was made to exercise the chief power. In the

fifth century this idea, so far a* Peter was

concerned, was seized upon by Leo I., and

made a serious ground for the superiority of

the Bishops of Rome, who were represented as

successors in his authority. From thenceforth

the Bishops of Rome clung to this theory ;

as they thought justly that such a source of

their power was more creditable to them than

the imperial grants and the dignity of the

imperial city, and gave them a greater prestige

than any that Constantinople derived from

the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. But

they would not have succeeded in imposing

their claim on Christendom had it not been

for the False Decretals, which were forged

about the year 830. These were a series of

documents purporting to emanate from each

of the Popes of the first 400 years, which

represented the Popes during all that time to

have been the monarchs of the Church. They

were forged apparently by Bishop Autcarius

of Maintz, and they deceived the uncritical

world, so that they were believed to be genuine

throughout the Middle Ages, that is, from the

ninth to the fifteenth century. Then their

spurious character was proved by the Centu-

riators of Magdeburg. But meantime they had

done their work. Upon them was founded by

SUEPLICE

[ 720

SWEDENBORG

Nicolas I. (A.D. 860) the Papal Monarchy
which was brought to its consummation by
Hildebrand and Innocent III.

From the thirteenth century onwards, in
spite of a too arrogant attempt of Boni
face VIII. in 1302 to maintain it, belief in
the Papal Supremacy, in its most autocratic
form, waned, in consequence of the very
extravagance of the claims made in its favour
and for educated men it received a fatal blow
at the hands of the historians known as the
Centuriators of Magdeburg. When Henry VIII.
made inquiry as to the papal authority in
England, the answer given by the University
of Cambridge was, "That the Bishop of Rome
hath no more authority and jurisdiction derived
to him from God in this kingdom of England
than any other foreign bishop." Those who
still maintain the Papal Supremacy either have
to do it on the ground of expediency, regarding
it as a necessary means of holding the Latin
Church together, or they must fall back on the
principle of development. No learned man is
now able to accept it as an original part of the
constitution of the Church. [F. M.j

SURPLICE. — A white linen garment with wide
sleeves used in the ministrations of the clergy
of the Church of England. The black gown is
the proper dress for sermon or lecture, though
now generally disused. The surplice is pro
bably the most ancient vestment of Christian
ministers, although the name appears to date
only from about the twelfth century. It is
probably derived from the Low Latin super
pelliceum, "over the pelisse" ; pellicium itself
being derived from the classical Latin word
pellis, a skin. The surplice is now frequently
worn by the men and boys in choirs. It i.s
alluded to as worn by singers in Ridley's
Works, p. 290.

SUSPENSION.— This is a punishment inflicted
on the clergy of the Church of England for
minor offences. It may be from office, or
benefice, or both. The profits during a sus
pension should go to Queen Anne's bounty or
local charities. In Bell Cox's case, the prose
cution omitted to claim suspension from the
benefice as well as from office, with the result
that the law-breaking incumbent, being still
in possession of the benefice, had the right of
appointing a curate, and the Bishop of Liver
pool was unable to send in a curate who would
observe the law.

SWEDENBORG AND SWEDENBORG
IANISM. — Swedenborg was so many-sided a
man that it is not easy at first to assign him a
class to which he belongs by exclusive right.
His father was a liberal and public-minded
bishop, Jasper Svedberg, Bishop of Skara.
Emmanuel Swedenborg, his son, afterwards
ennobled as Swedenborg, took his degree as

Ph.D. at Upsala, and was alike eminent in chem
istry, physiology, and mathematics. At the
age of twenty-eight he was by Charles XII.
made assessor to the School of Mines. In
1716 he left home for four years, and visited
the universities of England, Holland, France,
and Germany. At the siege of Friedrichshall
he performed a notable feat of engineering by
hauling two galleys, five boats, and a sloop
some fourteen miles overland for the royal
service. In 1716 he published his Daedalus
Hi/pcrboreus, and from that time for the next
thirty years was employed in the publication
of scientific works. Then came a remarkable
change, and in 1743, when he was fifty-four
years old, what is called his "illumination1'
began, and he asserted that he held intercourse
with God and the angels. His subsequent life
was devoted to the study of such questions. He
became a mystic and a seer. He began to see
all things in God, and God in all things. Here
he parts company with the common herd of men,
and we are compelled to ask the question, Was
he insane or inspired ? As all turns on this
question, we have to ask what is the dividing
line between the two states of mind ? As soon
as the self-possessed man passes up into the
stage of one controlled by another, we speak
of him as inspired. The apostle St. Paul was
at once the sanest and soberest of beings. To
him the teaching of the Incarnation was more
than a single truth to be held separate in the
mind. He realised that God was in Christ
manifesting the fulness of the Godhead under
the limitations of the human form. He is
more than this. Swedenborg believed that in
the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ there was
the Divine Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, these being the three essentials belong
ing to the one only God. The Father is the
Lord's Essential Divinity, " whom no man hath
seen, nor can see " ; the Son is the Lord's
glorified or divine humanity, revealing and
manifesting the Father — for no man can come
unto the Father but through the Son ; the
Holy Spirit is the Lord's Spirit of Truth exist
ing in, and proceeding from, Himself, wrhereby
His love and wisdom operate for the regenera
tion, sanctification, and salvation of mankind.

Such was Swedenborg's Trinity. It is open
to a hundred objections, and has been riddled
through and through by the raking fire of
Athanasian orthodoxy. It distinctly involves
the belief in only one Personality in the God
head in place of the three Persons as taught
in the Creeds, which " may be proved by most
certain warrants of Holy Scripture " (Art.
VIII.). Swedenborg held that the Abso
lute and Eternal was pleased to enter into
a union of Father and Son, and from this union
there emerges the Incarnation. Where Sweden-

SWEDENBORG

[721 ]

SWEDENBORG

borg's Trinity is held in its entirety, whatever
other misbeliefs there may be, no room is left
for Unitarianism. But the doctrine of Sweden-
borg is not according to Holy Scripture.

Swedenborg claimed by his teaching of the
Trinity to have done a service to Christianity.
He regarded God as one, and His name one ;
He is the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Chris
tianity thus set forth is not that of the New
Testament. It was a Christianity first taught
by Swedenborg, to whom a special revelation
is claimed as having been made. No doubt
Tritheism is excluded by the same confession
of faith as Monotheism ; he acknowledges with
one breath the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ to be "God over all, blessed for
evermore." He claimed to have rendered
another service second only in importance to
the first. It is this : he has described the
Spirit as the " formative principle." The
phrase is too important to be passed over.
Endless are the difficulties which the old
mechanical philosophy raised to the belief in
the resurrection, or in a life beyond death.
Mora aut finis ant exitus, and when we could
see no exitus, we were compelled to write
mournfully over the tomb, " Death is an
eternal sleep." Here the Spirit doctrine of
Swedenborg professes to help us over this
impasse. The Spirit is life, but it is also form,
and when it ceases to work in one way, it
strikes the chord of life in another. It is the
seed corn dropping into its prepared place, and
containing in it the germ of a new life. This
is " not quickened except it die," but in dying
it contains the promise and potency of a
new life. Swedenborg uses the phraseology
of St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv., but the meaning he
attaches to the words is by no means the same
as that meant by the Apostle. Resurrection is,
according to him (and he is only partially
wrong), a great truth, shot like a ray of light
across the valley of the shadow of death. Form
is at once active and passive. It is passive, as
the mould or pattern into which the new life
is poured ; it is active, as making the mould
itself ; and as the plant germ builds cells round
itself on a fixed and unchanging type, so the
old body builds round itself a new body, of
which the Lord's account of Himself is the
exact expression, " Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will build it again." He spake of
the temple of His body, while none of those
who heard Him suspected His meaning. Of
course, according to Swedenborg's theory,
resurrection follows immediately, or shortly,
after death (2 Tim. ii. 18), and there is no day of
resurrection such as that predicted in the New
Testament. There is a truth, however, underly
ing Swedenborg's theory which has often been
expressed in other words by Christian writers

who did not embrace Swedenborg's views.
Sir John Davis glanced at the same truth in a
couplet often quoted, but the double meaning
of " form " is often missed : —

" For of the soul the body form doth take,
For soul is form, and doth the body make."

Here soul is described as both active and
passive; it is at once the mould and the
moulder, and the formative principle " doth
the body make."

We must, however, pass from the Person of
God as Triune, and from the dynamic doctrine
of the Immanent Spirit, to glance at one or
two more of the characteristic teachings of
Swedenborg. There is his doctrine of the In
spiration of Holy Writ. This opens the door
to two senses of Scripture — the interior or
mystical sense, and the exterior or natural
sense, the latter of which is an allegory (or it
may be so allegorised) of the other. This is
why it is supposed St. Paul did not scruple to
allegorise (the sense is active, not passive, as
we mistranslate it) the story of Hagar and
Isaac. All this, however, has been said be
fore by Origen and other of the Fathers, and
the theory has long since run to seed. A
similar theory was held by Jewish teachers.
But such theories make Scripture but a mass
of wax which can be twisted in any direction.
The same method of interpretation has been
applied by Mohammedan theologians to the
Koran.

There are many points on which Swedenborg
is open to serious criticism, and which we
must pass hastily in review. His teaching of
heaven and hell as wide, open, measureless,
is opposed to current conceptions. That heaven
and hell is a state rather than a place few will
question who remember Milton's line —

" Which way I turn is hell, myself am hell."

But Swedenborg meant much more than this.
All his later thinking was strangely coloured
and distorted by his decided reaction against
Paul and Paulinism. This is the " black spot,"
as the Arabs call it, in the later mind of
Swedenborg. His excuse was that he lived in
an age of dead Lutheranism, and the reaction
against it took an extravagant form. So far
was he under the dominion of this delusion,
that he sent the Apostle to hell,1 and in the

1 White, in his Life of Swedenborg, on pp. 220-21 ,
quotes the following : " Paul is among the worst of
the Apostles, as has been known to me by large
experience. The love of self, by which he was
governed before he preached the Gospel, con
tinued to rule him afterwards, and from that time
he had a passion for scenes of controversy and
tumult. He did all things with the end of being

2 z

SWEDENBORG

[ 722 ]

SWEDENBORG

same crazy confidence he placed the Empress
Catherine in heaven. We have never met a
convinced follower of Swedenborg who could get
over that proof of Swedenborg's insanity. All
that the late Garth Wilkinson could plead in
defence of this delusion was to say, " Who can
tell whether the seer was wrong ? " We should
like in reply to remark that if heaven and hell
change places, let me rather go to hell with
Paul than to heaven with Catherine. If
character, not place, make our heaven and
hell, to hell let me go with the blessed Apostle,
rather than to heaven with an impure, unchaste
woman. Our reverence for Swedenborg breaks
down under this test, and here we are reluctantly
driven to part company with a sage, who is no
longer a seer, but has yielded to that dangerous
form of brain disturbance in which thoughts are
mistaken for things, and subjective whimsies
take the place of sober realities. In this is seen
the dividing line between sanity and insanity.
Swedenborg was unable to draw the line be
tween true and corrupt Paulinism, and seeing
that the Lutheran Church of Sweden was
then sunk in a corrupt form of Paulinism, he
threw back on the Apostle that distorted
Gospel, and made him responsible for the false
teaching of his followers. Swedenborg seems
to have lacked the true critical faculty. It
is difficult to deal seriously with such ex
tremes as heaven and hell. How can we deal
•with a seer who has a vision of the Apostle
in hell, and of a vicious woman in heaven ?
Anti-Paulinism seems to be the characteristic
note of all Swedenborg's later teaching. Pre
destination and Imputed Kighteousness are
both marked features of the Apostle Paul ; and
against both alike he enters the most emphatic
protest. He does not pause to explain away
their meaning, but taking them in their crude
and literal sense, he banishes their teacher
to the pit for his teaching of such immoral
truths.

So Swedenborg, even as a speculative thinker,
tries our patience and compels us to question
his sanity. Inspired or insane ? is the question
we set out with, and to this we must return in
conclusion. It is pitiful to meet with a noble
intellect disturbed and distraught by these

the greatest in heaven and judging the tribes of
Israel." "Paul," he continues, "associated him
self with the worst devils, and wished to form a
heaven in which he should be the dispenser of
pleasure. This he attempted, and became worse
in consequence, and was cast down. I told him
his purpose was hellish, and not heavenly. He
wished especially to have hypocrites about him.
There are hypocrites about me which I knew
from the aching of my teeth." Surely such words
.are clear marks of insanity.

diseased fancies. He sometimes lay in a trance
for days, and in this coma state whatever
crossed his disturbed brain took objective form
and became real because it seemed so to him.
The strangest and saddest part yet remains
to be told. His followers and the founders
of the New Church took these aberrations of
intellect as signs of his being an apostle of God.
The New Church, like the New Jerusalem, de
scended out of heaven, to speak by the clock,
in the year 1783. The first meeting for the
organisation of this body was held in London
eleven years after the death of Swedenborg,
and consisted of five persons only. The next
year the doctrines were introduced into
America, and a course of lectures delivered in
Philadelphia by William Glinn. This Church
formation has stiffened the Society, and created
that sense of corporate unity which is the
unerring mark of all organised societies. It
must be remembered that that body does not
claim to be a sect of the Christian Church,
holding some peculiar doctrines, but the doc
trines of Swedenborg are regarded as a new
revelation or dispensation of Divine truth,
higher and more complete than the Revelation
set forth in the New Testament Scriptures.
Swedenborg as a "seer" claimed to have re
vealed more than Jesus Christ did in His
Gospel.

For a century these Swedenborgian churches
have grown and spread. They cannot pre
tend to the wide-spread popularity of such
sects as those derived from Wesley and
Whitfield, which hold up the popular type
of religion with unbending strictness. But
when we consider the age in which Sweden-
borgianism took its rise, and how bold a step
he took in advance of the popular teaching,
we are forced to admire his courage, and to
acknowledge that, considered as speculations,
some of his teachings deserve attention. In
Swedenborg, intuition was a gift rising to the
height of genius. In a mechanical age he
struck out boldly in the line of spiritualism.
He laid firm hold of that pregnant thought
that all life is a formative principle. Ad
hering to this, he was able to go far, and
to lay bare the hidden mysteries of the resur
rection, " to every seed his own body." In the
germ the whole life lies hidden, as the oak is
contained in the acorn; all the mystery of
growth is only a fore-gleam of development. It
was a thought which had not then entered the
heart of man. What was taught in later days by
Darwinism was taught by Swedenborg a century
before science had found an expression for this
mystery of growth. Here, right or wrong, lies
the real greatness of Swedenborg. He had the
genius to interpret Nature, to wrestle with her,
and tear out her secrets a century before the

SWEDENBORO

[ 723 ]

SYLLABUS

rest of the world had awoke out of its dream
of cold Deism. In this respect, and to this
extent, Swedenborg was in advance of the age.
Swedenborg's followers include not only the
members of the small churches which make
open profession of his name. Many members
of other creeds are more or less unconscious
Swedenborgians ; the old transcendent type of
Deism is so dead, that writings once celebrated
have now lost their meaning. The "omni
presence of the Deity " has lost all meaning to
an age which conceives of God as immanent
in all His work, of which the universe is
nothing but His Presence Chamber. The age
has moved with Swedenborg from the soul to
the spirit theology. He is, in this, the represen
tative man of the modern mind.

Swedenborg's opinions are contradictory of the
doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Creeds,
of the doctrine of the Atonement, of the doctrine
of Justification by faith only. As a bold and
daring thinker, his opinions will always com
mand a certain amount of attention; as a
mystic he will be admired here and there by
the theologians of that tendency. His ex
posure of Rome and her system in his Com
mentary on the Book of the Apocalypse,
especially in chaps, xvii. and xviii., must
interest the Protestant. But the notion that
he was a mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit only
needs to be stated clearly in order to be re
jected decisively by all who look upon the
Bible as a revelation from God.

[J. B. H.]

Note. — In the Life and Correspondence of Rev.
John Clowes, M.A., formerly Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge, for sixty-two years Rector
•of St. John's Church, Manchester, by Theodore
Compton ; third edition, revised, London :
James Spiers, 1 Bloomsbury St., W.C., 1898, we
read that complaints were laid against Mr.
Clowes by three clergymen for holding Sweden -
borgian doctrines on the Trinity and Atone
ment. The then Bishop of Chester, Dr.
Pcrteus, afterwards Bishop of London, declined
to interfere, although the charge was true, as
is admitted by his biographer, and even by
Mr. Clowes himself, and the Bench of Bishops
at that time concluded, " That nothing could be
judiciously attempted." Mr. Clowes regarded
the complaint as an act of " persecution,"
which view is held by his biographer. But
although Mr. Clowes was in many respects a
most excellent man, and Bishop Frazer, years
afterwards, asserted that " the name of Mr.
Clowes is still green in Manchester," it is
strange that it should be thought right to
admit within a Church which holds both the
-doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement
•doctrines absolutely contrary to its teachings
on such fundamental points. Yet it is a fact

that advocates of Swedenborgian doctrines on
these points have from time to time expressed
their opinions without rebuke while holding
office in the Church of England.
SYLLABUS. — Syllabus, which denotes gene
rally a compendium or abstract, is applied
specially to the Papal Syllabus issued by Pius
IX., in December 1864, to all bishops of the
Roman Church. It is a catalogue of eighty
" heresies," constructed on the basis of previous
official utterances of Pius himself, its full title
being, "A Syllabus containing the principal
errors of our times, which are noted in the
Consistorial Allocutions, in the Encyclicals,
and in other Apostolical Letters of our Most
Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX."

The purpose of the Syllabus was to de
nounce all modern doctrines and theories in
religion, philosophy, and politics, which are
unfavourable to the teachings and claims of the
Papacy ; and so the principles of civil and re
ligious liberty, Socialism, Bible Societies, and
"other pests of this description" are con
demned in the same category with speculations
that call in question the existence of God.
Although negative in form, the document is
very positive in its intention. It not only
reasserts all the extravagant claims of the
mediaeval Papacy, but virtually affirms the
doctrine of papal infallibility (so soon to be
promulgated at the Vatican Council), the
exclusive right of Romanism to recognition by
the civil government, and its supreme control
over public education, literature, and science.
Further, as even Jesuit writers like Schrader
and Sclmeemann have admitted, it enunciates
the Pope's claim to employ the agency of per
secution whenever he finds it feasible to do
so, and thus, as of old, to imprison, hang, and
burn all whom he regards as heretics. This
shows how far astray those are who charitably
regard it as incredible that the Roman Church
in modern times should ever resume the
methods of a Torquemada ; and it casts an
illuminating ray upon the words with which
the Syllabus closes: "They are in damnable
error who regard the reconciliation of the
Pope with modern civilisation as possible or
desirable."

The Syllabus thus struck at the roots of all
freedom of thought, social progress, and
political liberty ; and far - reaching contro
versies were the immediate result. It in
tensified the " Kulturkampf " in Germany,
and conflicts between Church and State in
other countries of the Continent ; while in
England it gave rise to a keen discussion on
the question of civil allegiance, in which
Cardinals Newman and Manning arrayed them
selves against Mr. Gladstone. Some Roman
Catholics have attempted to qualify its force

SYMMACHUS

[ 724]

TERTIABIES

by representing it as a non ex cathedra, and
consequently non-infallible, utterance. New
man wrote, " We can no more accept the
Syllabus as def.de, as a dogmatic document,
than any other index or table of contents."
But the Syllabus, as its title indicates and its
contents prove, is by no means a mere index.
It is a compendium of the Encyclicals officially
addressed by Pius IX. to his bishops during
the course of his reign ; and if the doctrine of
papal infallibility is not to be "pigeon-holed
as a pious opinion " (a view advocated by some
English Catholics of the Liberal school), it
certainly applies to the case of the Syllabus.
This being so, its judgments and definitions are
not the private opinions of Pius IX., but the
binding decisions of the "Most Holy Lord"
of the Roman Church. Catholics have there
fore to reconcile its pronouncements, as best
they can, with their views on civil allegiance,
the rights of reason, and the progress of civil
isation. They have further to reconcile it
with other ex cathedra, and presumably infal
lible, utterances of the rulers of their Church.
The difficulty of this task may be illustrated
by the fact that while Pius in the Syllabus
denounces socialism as a modern pest, Leo
XIII. expressed marked sympathy with the
socialistic movement in his Encyclical Rerum
Novarum (1891), which was issued at a time
when, for political reasons, the Catholics of
the Continent were openly coquetting with the
Social Democratic party. [J. C. L.]

SYMMACHUS. — Symmachus executed a trans
lation into Greek of the Old Testament books
somewhat later than Theodotion. SeeTHEODO-
TION. Only fragments of his version remain —
the fragments which are extant make us desire
to possess more.

SYNOD. — A gathering together, or meeting.
The name may be applied to any assembly of
ecclesiastics, from a Council of the Universal
Church to a Diocesan meeting. The Church
of Ireland is governed by a General Synod and
Diocesan Synods, as are the Episcopal Church
of Scotland and the Episcopal Churches of
Canada and the United States. The National
Synod of England is composed of the two
Convocations of Canterbury and York as
sembled in Christ's name and by royal author
ity. The decrees of such a Synod, however,
would have no force unless made and ratified
"by the King's Majesty's supreme authority. "
See Bishop Stubbs' paper on "Joint Sittings of
the two Convocations," issued in 1887, and
reprinted for the most part in the Church
Intelligencer for Sept. 1902. In the Primitive
Church, Synods were attended by laymen.
SYNODALS. — Synodals are fees anciently pay
able to the bishop or archdeacon on the assem
bling of a synod or meeting of clergy. In

some places they still form a charge upon the
tithe owners, and are collected like procura
tions. See Whitehead, Church Law.

[B. W.]

SYRIAN CHURCH. — See EASTERN
CHURCHES.

TABERNACLE.— A receptacle in which a
portion of the consecrated elements are, in the
Roman Church, and sometimes in Ritualistic
churches, reserved. See RESERVATION.

TABLE, THE HOLY.— See LORD'S TABLE.

TANTUM ERGO.— The first words in a hymn
of adoration to " the Blessed Sacrament" used
in the Roman Catholic Rite of Benediction (see
article on that head), and used extensively by
Ritualists.

TAPERS. — These are supposed by Romanists
and Ritualists to possess great symbolical value.
In baptism a lighted candle is sometimes given
to the child or to the godfather as a sign of
the light of faith by which the child is to walk.
The " paschal taper or candle is placed on the
Gospel side of the ' altar ' during the Easter
season and on other occasions, and indicates
joy at the Resurrection. On Ascension Day it
is extinguished while the Gospel which records
the Ascension is being read in token that the
light of Christ's visible presence on earth has
been removed." Tapers are used in funerals
to signify that the souls of the departed are
not extinguished.

No candle or taper is mentioned in the
Prayer Book.

The Catholic Dictionary, London, 1897, p. iii.
says : " The present custom of the Church re
quires that candles should be lighted on the
altar from the beginning to the end of mass,
nor can lighted candles be dispensed with on
any consideration. A parish priest, for in
stance, must not say mass for his flock, even
on a Sunday, unless candles can be procured I "
See LIGHTS.

TE DEUM. — An ancient hymn going back to
the fourth or fifth century. There are several
forms of it which vary considerably.

TENEBRJE.— The name (meaning "dark
ness ") given in the Roman Church to " Matins
and Lauds of the three last days^of Holy Week,
sung on the previous evenings. The special
features are singing of portions of Jeremias
and the Miserere." In the service fifteen
candles are lighted and extinguished one by
one until one only remains lighted.

TERCE or TIERCE.— The service at 9 A.M.
used in the Roman Church [and among the
Ritualists, 9 A.M. being one* of the seven so-
called Canonical Hours.

TERTIARIES.— See FRANCISCANS.

THEODOTION

[ 725 ] THOMAS, CHRISTIANS OF ST.

THEODOTION. — This was the name of a
scholar who made a Greek translation of the
books of the Old Testament. The earliest known
reference distinctly made to his version is
found in Justin Martyr (A.D. 160). His version
is iu reality a revision of the LXX. (see SEP-
TUAQINT), and his rendering of Daniel wholly
supplanted that of the LXX. version among
Christians. Only fragments of his translation
of the other books are extant.

THOMAS, CHRISTIANS OF ST., OR THE
SYRIAN CHURCH IN INDIA.— This
community probably owes its origin to the
missionary and mercantile activity of the
Nestorians of Persia, who founded a settle
ment in very early times and gathered in con
verts from the heathen and Jews ; of the latter
a colony had existed in India from pre-Chris
tian times. The earliest, other than legendary,
account is found in the journal of Cosmas
Indico-pleustes (A.D. 522), a Nestorian mer
chant of Alexandria, who mentions Christians in
Malabar under a bishop connected with Persia.
Now in early times each Church was sup
posed to have been founded by one of the
Apostles, and this Church claims St. Thomas
as its founder. The tradition is that he landed
on an island near Cranganor, founded seven
churches, ordained two priests, next went to
Meliapur, converted the king and people, went
to China, returned, and by the jealousy of the
Brahmins was stoned and thrust through with a
lance. Three shrines claim to be the scene of
his martyrdom — San Thome", St. Thomas' Mount,
and the Little Mount ; all these places are near
Meliapur, in the neighbourhood of Madras.
The tradition may probably be explained in one
or other of three ways : («) By migration of
legend, i.e. from stories current, about St.
Thomas in the country formerly called India,
being transferred to South India. The name
India was applied in early times to the country
between North India and Parthia, i.e. to what we
now know as Cabul, Candahar, Seistan, and the
Punjaub, also to Arabia ; these countries were
probably evangelised by St. Thomas. (6) St.
Thomas is the great saint of Edessa, the chief
centre and source of Nestorian learning, so that
converts of that Church would naturally claim a
connection with him. (c) A missionary named
Thomas may, in later times, have been confused
with the Apostle.

In the eighth century the arrival in southern
India of a party of Nestorian missionaries is
recorded, in the company of Thomas Cana or
the Canaanite, i.e. the merchant ; some say,
however, that he was an Armenian and others
identify him with a Bishop Thomas sent by
Timothy, the Nestorian Patriarch, to India.
Some give the year 345 as his date, but as one
of the results of his influence was the obtain

ing of a charter from the Perumal princes, the
date of which is calculated to be 774, the later
date for his arrival, viz. 745, is more probable.
Another charter, also on copper, conferring
privileges on the Christian community, was
granted about 824 ; these deeds are preserved
in the College at Cottayam. In this later
charter is found the name of Mar Sapor, a
Nestorian Persian, who with Mar Peroz and a
large following arrived in 822, settled in the
neighbourhood of Quilon, and were a great
reinforcement to the half foreign, half native
community. Tradition says that they rose even
to the height of having kings of their own for
a time, then that their prosperity declined, and
they became subject to the Rajahs of Cochin
and Travancore. For nearly seven centuries,
however, there is little record of their state.

With the beginning of the sixteenth century
begins the troubled record of their intercourse
with, and oppression by, the Portuguese, who
soon after their first arrival in India (1500)
were joyfully received by these natives as
fellow-Christians and protectors. But soon the
usual arrogance and intolerance of the Roman
Church was shown. Emanuel, King of Portugal,
declared that he would only grant his protec
tion upon condition of their abjuring («)
Nestorianism ; (b) communion with the Pat
riarch of the East ; (c) and acknowledging the
supremacy of Rome. In 1540, King John III.
of Portugal sent four Jesuit missionaries,
and next year St. Francis Xavier began his
work, sullied in our eyes by the fact that it
was by his influence that the Inquisition was
established at Goa (1560) ; its rule continued
for over 250 years.

The Portuguese founded colleges to train a
native ministry under their control, but, once
trained, the Syrians asserted independence.
Their bishop also, Mar Joseph, a man of un
sullied life, stood firm against the Jesuits, and
after vain endeavours to secure his allegiance
the Jesuits kidnapped him, sent him to Lisbon
(1565), and extorted submission. Meantime
the Syrians sent to beg the Patriarch at
Baghdad to consecrate another bishop for
them, and received Mar Abraham. He and
his suffragan, Simeon, were, like Joseph, perse
cuted by the Portuguese, and alternately sub
mitted and then re-asserted freedom from
Rome. In 1594 the more drastic measure of
appointing the Jesuit Alexius de Menezes
to be Archbishop of Goa was adopted. He
was a man of extraordinary character, of
dauntless courage, and of iron will. At the
Synod of Diamper, near Cochin (1599), Menezes,
chiefly by the might of his personality, aided
perhaps by the fear which Portuguese domina
tion and the Inquisition had struck into all
hearts, succeeded in three days in carrying

THOMAS, CHRISTIANS OF ST. [ 726 ] THOMISTS AND SCOTISTS

through a wholesale acceptance of Roman
doctrines and usages. He anathematised all
heretics, especially Nestorians and their Pat
riarch ; he expurgated and amended the Syriac
Liturgy, and burnt most of their doctrinal
books. Some abuses in the Syrian Church
needed reform, such as the prevalence of
wizardry and superstition, and the adoption of
a few heathen customs. But our sympathies
go with the native Church when we read of
their being condemned for having the Eucharist
in both kinds, having a married clergy, using
no holy water and no pictures, and teaching
that the fire of hell is spiritual, not literal nor
material. Menezes appears to have allowed no
discussion, and to have insisted on all priests
subscribing his profession of faith. He had
on his side thirty-eight native cattanars or
priests ordained by himself, the result of his
strenuous labours in preaching and teaching,
and six Jesuits. On the other hand were
600 delegates from the Malabar Churches,
and most of the native Christians were bitterly
opposed to him. Shortly after the Synod of
Diamper the episcopal see was removed from
Angamale, its ancient seat, to Cranganor, and
made subject to the archbishopric of Goa, and
Spaniards or Portuguese were successively ap
pointed to it. Fifty-four years later, when the
power of the Portuguese began to decline, the
Syrians, who had always remained attached to
their ancient faith and customs, gathered at
Coonen Cross near Cochin (1653), and took a
solemn oath to throw off the foreign yoke and
disallow the usurping Bishop of Cranganor. But
some remain Roman to this day. Their first care
was to invite a bishop from afar. Aitallaha or
Ignatius, sent by the Coptic Patriarch, and con
firmed at Mosul by the Eastern Patriarch, was
seized on his journey by the Portuguese and did
not survive. A part of the native Church stood
firm under an Archdeacon Thomas, whom they
had elected, and at last he was consecrated
by the Jacobite Bishop Gregory of Jerusalem,
who came to Malabar (1665), and seems to have
exercised joint rule with Thomas. Probably it
was through the influence of Gregory that the
Christians of St. Thomas adopted Jacobite
Liturgies and ritual in place of Nestorian ;
they seem to have disregarded theological dif
ferences in their longing to be free. They have
since this time usually received Jacobite
bishops, but sometimes the Metropolitan
bishop has consecrated his own successor,
selected from the family of Palokomatta, in
which the office of archdeacon has been
hereditary from early times, and later that of
the primacy. Yet the family is on the Roman
side.

In 1806 Dr. Claudius Buchanan, a chaplain of
the East India Company, visited the Christians

of St. Thomas and subsequently supplied them
with printed copies of the Syriac Scriptures ; he
also had the Bible Liturgy translated into the
vernacular (Malayalim). By his influence and
that of Colonel Macaulay and Colonel Munror
British residents at the Court of Travancore and
Cochin, a college was opened (1813), and the
C.M.S. induced to send out missionaries. But
after about twenty years the Mattran (bishop)
and other Syrians refused further teaching from
England. Some property was, however, left
in their hands, including the college of Mar
Dionysius at Cottayam. This institution is still
flourishing and numbers 600 pupils, including
students for the ministry. The Old Syrians
have also many high schools ; we may notice
that English is taught in these. Other schools
are in the hands of the C.M.S., who have
received, together with converts from the
heathen, proselytes from this ancient Church
to the number of about 12,000. Roman
Catholics also have modern missions with
many schools and orphanages. About 100,000
have remained Roman Catholics since Portu
guese days, while the Old Church numbers
200,000.

Authorities. — Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch.
xlvii. Wright's Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Asseman's Bibl. Orient., vol. iv. Jornada,
Antoneo de Gouvea, published Coimbra, 1669.
History of the Church of Malabar, Geddes, 1694.
Dr. Claudius Buchanan's Christian Researches,
New York, 1811. Christians of St. Thomas and
their Liturgies, G.B. Howard, 1864. The Syrian
Church in India, G. M. Rae, 1892.

[J. P. M.]

THOMISTS AND SCOTISTS.— Thomists and
Scotists were the names of two great rival
schools of the mediaeval theology, founded re
spectively by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.
Thomas (Doctor Angelicus), who was born at
Aquino in Italy in the third decade of the thir
teenth century, was the greatest of the School
men, and carried Scholasticism to its highest
development by completely harmonising in his
Summa Theoloyice the Aristotelian philosophy
with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Duns Scotus (Doctor Subtilis) was born about a
generation after Aquinas, possibly at Duns in
Scotland, though this is much disputed. He
was a keen and subtle dialectician rather than
a constructive theologian, and applied himself
to a searching criticism of the system of Aquinas.
The result was that there sprang up the two
rival schools of Thomists and Scotists, whose
controversies continued down to the eighteenth
century. The heat of the contest was intensified
by the fact that Thomas was a Dominican and
Scotus a Franciscan ; for the rival monastic
orders ranged themselves behind their great
representatives, the Dominicans becoming

THOMISTS AND SCOTISTS [ 727 ] THOMISTS AND SOOTISTS

Thomists and the Franciscans Scotists, thus
importing monastic jealousies into the theo
logical strife.

The fundamental principle of Thomas was
that theology is essentially a speculative
science, and that a real harmony can be estab
lished between faith and knowledge, revelation
and reason. Just as philosophy, starting from
natural fact, proceeds towards knowledge of
truth by the light of reason, so theology, start
ing from revealed fact, proceeds towards know
ledge of God by the light of faith. With different
starting-points and different spheres, philosophy
and theology have the same method and the
same goal. Philosophically Aquinas was an
Aristotelian realist ; while as regards the con
tents of his theological scheme, he adhered
very closely to Augustinianism, and in par
ticular to the Augustinian doctrines of God, pre
destination, sin, and grace.

Apart from its general philosophical and theo
logical importance, the system of Thomas claims
the special attention of the student of Church
history because it was there first that the doc
trine of the Pope was made a formal and integral
part of dogmatic theology, and a doctrinal
foundation was supplied for the contention of
the Curia that the Pope is the infallible teacher
of the world, and the absolute ruler of the
Church. The momentous results that flowed
from this can hardly be exaggerated, and so it
is important to notice that Thomas was led into
these theological novelties by the perusal, cer
tainly in all good faith, of a series of forged
documents sent him by Pope Urban IV. They
were the work of a Dominican monk, and pur
ported to be a catena of passages derived from
the Greek Councils and Fathers. Thomas,
who himself knew no Greek, accepted without
suspicion everything in this fabrication that
bore upon the Papal Supremacy, and so gave
the immense support of the scholastic theology
to claims which had hitherto rested only on
the ground of Canon Law and the pronounce
ments of jurists. Through his vast influence, the
forgeries of a monk of his own order became as
significant for the future theology of the Roman
Church as the pseudo-Isidorian decretals had
been for its constitution and Canon Law. Tne
greatness of the papal debt to Thomas was
speedily appreciated at Rome ; and it is not
to be wondered at that John XXII. declared
that Thomas had not written without a special
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and raised him to
the dignity of a Saint on the sufficient ground
of his miraculous writings.

The differentia of Scotism sprang out of its
criticism of the philosophical grounds on which
the dogmatic system of Thomas was built.
Scotus also was a realist, though more a
Platonist than an Aristotelian. But he had

little difficulty in showing the weakness of
the foundations on which Thomas rested his
appeal to faith. And his conclusion was that
theology is essentially a practical, not a specu
lative science ; that faith rests on authority,
not on reason ; and that the will is the moving
principle of the intellect, not the intellect of
the will. With these fundamental divergences,
the two systems naturally differed over a wide
field of doct rine. To the Augustinianism of the
Thomists the Scotists opposed a Pelagianising
tendency, out of which sprang contradictory
views with regard to the divine attributes,
original sin, grace, and the sacraments. Apart
from these deeper differences, they were
especially distinguished in the popular mind by
their disputes regarding the question of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary-
Thomas having denied, while Scotus vigorously
advocated, the view which at length became
incorporated in the Roman dogma by the bull
of Pius IX. in 1854.

The significance of Scotism for Church history
lies above all in its critical principles. Scotus
himself always adhered firmly to strict ortho
doxy. The weakness he discovered in the argu
ments by which Aquinas sought to support the
dogmas of the Church did not make him scepti
cal of those dogmas, but only threw him back
more absolutely upon the idea of authority.
But his criticism really led to the disintegration
of the Scholastic philosophy, for the vocation of
Scholasticism was gone if it was incapable of
resolving the antionomy between faith and
reason— the task at which it had laboured
for centuries, and which Aquinas seemed to
have accomplished. By thus awakening the
critical spirit, Scotus did something to pre
pare the way for the coming Reformation. On
the other hand, by emphasizing for his own
part the principle of authority, and raising it
to the height of a positive ecclesiastical law,
from which no theologian of the Church must
deviate, he gave an impulse to the growth of
that demand for blind obedience to mere
authority which now characterises the Roman
claims.

Apart from its influence on the development
of the principle of authority, and its victory
over Thomism in the matter of the Immaculate
Conception, the teaching of Duns Scotus has
never gained in the Roman Catholic Church
the accredited place acquired from the first
by the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Scotus
is a great doctor of the Church, but Thomas
is also a Saint. At the Council of Trent the
Summa Theologies lay on the table of the
council-chamber side by side with the Bible.
And in 1879 Leo XIII., in his Encyclical JEterni
Patris, recognised it as the standard text-book
of the Roman theology, and instructed his

THREE HOURS

[ 728 ]

TINDALE, WILLIAM

bishops to restore the wisdom of St. Thomas
and propagate it as widely as possible. Thus, as
Professor Chase has said, Aristotelian realism
as interpreted by Aquinas, is now in danger of
becoming a dogma— Thomism being regardec
by the Vatican as a means of deliverance from
modern metaphysics. [J. c. L.]

THREE HOURS.— A service of the Roman
Church on Good Friday, commemorating the
three hours during which our Lord hung upon
the Cross. It is now becoming fashionable
here and there in the Church of England.
See GOOD FEIDAY.
THURIBLE.— A vessel in which incense is

burned. See CENSER ; INCENSE.
TIARA.— The tiara is the head-dress worn by
the Pope as a symbol of temporal sovereignty.
The word tiara is used by Herodotus and
other Greek writers to denote the head-dress
worn by Persian kings. That head-gear is
termed in the book of Esther "ins (kether^
and is in Greek Klrapis and Kldapls. In the
Latin Vulgate cidaris and mitra are used for
the mitre of the High Priest. The papal
tiara is encircled with three crowns, which
were added at different times, but the dates
usually assigned are very doubtful. In dis
charging purely spiritual functions the Pope
wears a mitre, and not the tiara.
TINDALE, WILLIAM.-William Tindale,
the translator of the first printed English'
New Testament, was the Englishman of the
sixteenth century most entitled to the abiding
gratitude of his fellow-countrymen. He was
cast in the heroic mould. Dominated by one
great passion, he lived, as such men must, a
lonely life. He gave himself up to the noblest
ambition that could sway and direct a strenuous
personality. Alone and unaided he accom
plished in unapproachable fashion the most
difficult of tasks. To do it he went into
voluntary exile ; he encountered the bitterest
opposition of king, cardinal, prelates, and the
governing powers of the day ; a life of splendid
service for humanity was fittingly crowned
by the martyr's death. Not only upon the
roll of the sixteenth century, but upon that of
noble Englishmen of every age, William
Tindale deserves one of the highest places.

Tindale came of a good west-country stock,
and was born about 1490 or 1495 at (most
probably) Slym bridge in Gloucestershire.
Unhappily, no details of his early life have
come down to us. He was educated at Mag
dalen Hall, Oxford, and also at Cambridge,
where he came under the influence of the New
Learning, especially in so far as this bore upon
the study of the Scriptures in the original
tongues. Foxe tells us that at Magdalen Hall
it was his practice to " read privily to certain
students and Fellows of Magdalen College

some parcel of divinity, instructing them in
the knowledge and truth of the Scriptures."
Assuming, as probability entitles us, that the
name " Willelmus Hychyns," discovered by
the late Rev. C. W. Boase, M.A., and set forth
in his Register of the University of Oxford,
refers to Tindale, then William Tindale gradu
ated B.A. in 1512, and M.A. in 1515.

From Oxford Tindale passed to Cambridge,
and about 1521 he went to Little Sodbury, in
Gloucestershire, to act as tutor to Sir John
Walsh's children, and also, doubtless, as
chaplain to the family. To his character and
ability at this time, no less an authority than Sir
Thomas More bears strong witness. " Tindale,"
he says in his Dyaloge, " was well known for 'a
man of right good living, studious, and well
learned in the Scriptures."

Tindale remained nearly two years at the
Manor House of Little Sodbury. He applied
there, as everywhere, his knowledge of Scrip
ture to the common events and experiences of
everyday life. His soul was stirred within
him as he saw the pride, ignorance, and
worldliness of the Church dignitaries of the
region. He mourned over the depths of
superstition in which the common people
were sunk. His pure soul and his keen, quiet
judgment saw the one and only effective
weapon for this warfare, and he resolved to
forge it. He preached the Gospel in the
villages around, and even in Bristol itself.
His reward was that he was summoned
before Parker, the Chancellor of the diocese,
and Tindale, in his graphic way, depicts the
scene: "When I came before the Chancellor,
he threatened me grievously, and reviled me,
and rated me as though I had been a dog;
and laid to my charge things whereof there
could be none accuser brought forth, and yet
all the priests of the country were the same
day there."

Sir John Walsh kept a good table, and as
a natural consequence there resorted to him,
Foxe tells us, "divers great beneficed men,'
as abbots, deans, archdeacons and others,'
divines, doctors, and learned men. Amongst
whom was commonly talk of learning, as
well of Luther and Erasmus, as of opinions
on the Scripture. Wherein as those men and
Master Tindale did vary in opinion and
judgments, then Master Tindale would shew
them on the book the places by open and
manifest Scripture; the which continued for
a season, until those great beneficed doctors
waxed weary, and bare a secret grudge in
their hearts against Master Tindale."

Gradually, under discipline like this, Tindale
came to see that only the free course of the
Word of God in the language of the common
people could bring deliverance to the in-

TINDALE, WILLIAM

[ 729 ]

TINDALE, WILLIAM

dividual and to the community. Disputing
one day with a doctor, he pushed him so hard
that the unhappy man bound himself to the
assertion, and at that date multitudes would
have sustained him in the bold avowal: "We
were better be without God's laws than the
Pope's." Tindale's reply, as given by Foxe,
has become a classic : " If God spare my life,
ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth
the plough shall know more of the Scripture
than thou doest."

This was the great resolve ; this was the life
long choice. It involved self-denial, strenuous
labour, exile, and finally the martyr's death.
But Tindale never wavered. By labour, and
patience, and perseverance he achieved the
great task. In his Preface to the Pentateuch,
printed at Marburg in 1530, he reveals the
motives under which he acted. The experi
ences at Bristol and Little Sodbury, to which
we have referred, had completed his educa
tion. His study of Scripture, his application
of it to the daily experiences and necessities
of life, his sympathy with the common people,
had set him free from the tyranny of custom
and from bondage to the conventionalities of
life. With a pure heart and a single eye he
looked out upon life. Its sorrows and sins
burdened his soul. And thus he entered into
the true secret. " I perceived by experience,"
he tells us, " how that it was impossible to
establish the lay people in any truth, except
the Scriptures were plainly laid before their
eyes in their mother-tongue, that they might
see the process, order, and meaning of the
text ; for else, whatsoever truth is taught
them, these enemies of all truth quench it
again, partly with the smoke of their bottom
less pit, whereof thou readest in Apocalypse
ix., that is, with apparent (seeming) reasons
of sophistry, and traditions of their own
making, founded without ground of Scripture,
and partly in juggling with the text, expound
ing it in such a guise as is impossible to
gather of the text, if thou see the process,
order, and meaning thereof." The attitude
of the prelates, priests, and teachers, who
ought to have been the leaders of the people
in this study, he thus describes, only too
accurately : "In this they be all agreed, to
drive you from the knowledge of Scripture,
and that ye shall not have the text thereof in
the mother-tongue ; and to keep the world
still in darkness to the intent they might sit in
the consciences of the people through vain
superstition and false knowledge, to satisfy
their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and
insatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own
honour above king and emperor, yea, and
above God Himself. A thousand books had
they liever (rather) to be put forth against

their abominable doings and doctrine, than
that the Scripture should come to light. For
as long as they may keep that down, they will
so darken the right way with the mist of their
sophistry, and so tangle them that either
rebuke or despise their abominations with
arguments of philosophy, and with worldly
similitudes and apparent reasons of natural
wisdom, and with wresting the Scripture unto
their own purpose, clean contrary unto the
process, order, and meaning of the text ; and
so delude them in descanting upon it with
allegories, and amaze them, expounding it in
many senses before the unlearned lay people,
when it hath but one simple, literal sense,
whose light the owls cannot abide, that
though thou feel in thy heart, and art sure
how that all is false that they say, yet couldst
thou not solve their subtle riddles. Which
thing only moved me to translate the New
Testament."

Thus was Tindale led to take his great
resolve. Surrounded by a nation of slaves,
pitying his fellow-countrymen held in a
bondage even worse than bodily slavery, he
determined to place in their hands the weapon
that would set them free. He well knew the
risks he was running, but the spirit of the man
in these early days was the same as that which
shines through the message which he sent to
Henry VIII. in 1531, through Stephen Vaughan,
the English Envoy in the Low Countries. " If
it would stand unto the King's most gracious
pleasure to grant only a bare text of the Scrip
ture to be put forth among his people. ... I
shall immediately make faithful promise never
to work more, nor abide two days in these parts
after the same ; but immediately to repair unto
his realm, and there most humbly submit my
self at the feet of his Eoyal Majesty, offering
my body to suffer what pain or torture, yea,
what death his Grace will, so that this be
obtained. And till that time I will abide the
asperity of all chances, whatsoever shall come,
and endure my life in as much pains as it is
able to bear and suffer."

As Tindale became a marked man in Little
Sodbury, even Sir John Walsh's powerful in
fluence was no longer strong enough to protect
him. In 1523 he went to London, full of his
great resolve, carrying with him as proofs of
his scholarship a translation of an oration of
Isocrates and of the Enchiridion of Erasmus.
He reached London when Wolsey was in the
height of his pride, pomp, and power. He
spent nearly a year in London, reluctant to
abandon all hope of being able to accomplish
his great design in his native land. He looked
out over all things with shrewd, clear, and
sometimes blazing eyes. From his exile, seven
years later, he describes this time : " I marked

TINDALE, WILLIAM

[ 730 ]

TINDALE, WILLIAM

the course of the world, and heard our praters
(I would say our preachers) how they boasted
themselves and their high authority ; and be
held the pomp of our prelates, and how busy
they were, as they yet are, to set peace and
unity in the world ! "

On arrival in London Tindale applied for aid
in his task to Tunstall, Bishop of London, who
was a scholar supposed to have some sympathy
with the new learning. In the light of after
events the meeting between the two is full of
interest. Tunstall received him politely, but
could do nothing to help him. When have
prelates and men in authority ever been able
or willing to help on the great reforms that
uplift humanity ? There is a touch of humour
as well as tragedy in the thought that Tindale
should have sought to enlist Tunstall's aid in
what to the prelate appeared either a Utopian
or a dangerous purpose. The bishop dismissed
him with polite, empty words, little dreaming
that in seven years' time all the power of the
realm would be exerted in vain to secure the
person of the quiet, humble scholar who now
came seeking his lordship's aid.

Twelve months in the London of Henry
VIII.'s day at last brought Tindale to under
stand " not only that there was no room in my
lord of London's palace to translate the New
Testament, but also that there was no place to
do it in all England." When convinced of
this, Tindale reluctantly turned his eyes to the
Continent. He was a true patriot ; he loved
his country ; he followed the politics of the
day with eager interest ; but the voice within,
calling him to his high task, was supreme.
There could be no rest for him until his fellow-
countrymen had the Word of God in their
mother-tongue. If this work could not be
done in England, then he would go to lands
where nobler views and greater freedom ob
tained. About May 1524 Tindale went first
to Hamburg, and then, by the unanimous
testimony of his contemporaries, almost im
mediately removed to Wittemberg. It is
possible that during his year in London he
had made some progress with his translation,
but the bulk of the work was done, in all
probability, at Wittemberg. In April 1525
he is back at Hamburg, and there receives
from Humphrey Monmouth, a London mer
chant who had befriended him in 1523, ten
pounds, which he had left in Momnouth's care.
Thence he returned, not to Wittemberg but to
Cologne, and at the printing-house of Peter
Quentall began the printing of his English
New Testament. Here, when the printing had
proceeded only as far as sheet K., John Coch-
laeus, then an exile in Cologne because his
rampant Komanism had led to his expulsion
from Frankfort, discovered what was going on,

and invoked the municipal authorities to check
what he considered a crime. Tindale and
Roye, a man far removed from Tindale's spirit,
whom he was compelled to use as an amanu
ensis, learning that their work was discovered,
fled to Worms, carrying with them the sheets
already printed at Cologne. There, at the
printing office of Peter Schoeffer, for reasons
yet unknown, Tindale printed two editions of
his New Testament in English, each of 3000
copies, one in quarto with marginal notes, the
other in octavo with no notes of any kind. In
both forms the book reached England, smuggled
in by the connivance of the Antwerp English
merchants, during the years 1526 and 1527.
Of the 6000 books printed thus at Worms,
three only are now known. The Library of the
Baptist College at Bristol has a copy of the
octavo edition, wanting only the title ; the
Library of St. Paul's Cathedral has one that
lacks seventy leaves ; and the Library of the
British Museum has a fragment — the only one
known to exist — of the quarto edition.

t is difficult to exaggerate the greatness of
this achievement. Solitary, poor, in exile, ex
posed to the hostility of the ruling powers,
William Tindale was enabled to confer upon his
countrymen a benefit quite incalculable in its
blessing. Who can measure the uplifting
influences, direct and indirect, exerted by the
incomparable English version of the New
Testament ? The solitary student did the work
in the course of two years, and did it so well
that the subsequent labour expended upon
English Bible translation from 1539 to 1884
sought merely to make a good thing still
better.

Tindale was a man evidently raised up and
inspired by God for a high and noble task. As
he tells us in the "Address to the Reader"
placed at the end of the 1525 octavo New
Testament, he "had no man to counterfeit,
neither was helped with English of any that had
interpreted the same, or such like thing in the
Scripture beforetime." He gave to our English
version once for all two incomparable things —
its spirit and its vocabulary. It was scholarly.
Tindale knew all that was best in the available
scholarship of his day. But his version was
something immeasurably more than a mere
scholarly rendering. He himself had found
the truth it taught precious to his own soul.
To use his own phrase, he had " applied its
medicine to his own sore." Hence its Eng
lish was clear, simple, transparent, saturated
with the spirit of the Gospel. This is why,
even in the Revised Version of 1881 and 1884,
from 60 to 75 per cent, of the words of the
English Scriptures are still the very words
printed in Tindale's Testaments of 1525-36,
and his Pentateuch of 1530 and 1534. If we

TINDALE, WILLIAM

[ 731 ]

TINDALE, WILLIAM

search for his secret, may it not be found in a
note which he appended to Matt. vi. 22, in the
1525 quarto? " The eye is single when a man
in all his deeds looketh but on the will of God,
and looketh not for laud, honour, or any other
reward in this world, neither ascribeth heaven
or a higher room in heaven unto his deeds ; but
accepteth heaven as a thing purchased by the
blood of Christ, and worketh freely for love's
sake only."

Tindale himself worked freely for love's sake
only — love to God and love to his fellow-
countrymen — and God greatly honoured him
by enabling him to strike the blow that has
effected vastly more in England's struggle for
religious freedom than any other. If "the
Pope hath no jurisdiction in this realm of
England," it is largely because Tindale placed
in the hands of the common people the all-
conquering sword of the Word of God.

In 1530, at Marburg, Tindale printed his
translation of the Pentateuch. In 1534 he
issued a revised edition of the New Testament
and Pentateuch. In 1535 he issued another
edition of his New Testament, " newly overseen
and corrected " ; and in 1536, the year of his
death, at least five separate editions of his
Testament were printed.

Nor was he idle in other departments of
Christian literature. In 1528 he printed at
Marburg The Parable of the Wicked Mammon,
a strong and clear exposition of the doctrine
of Justification by Faith. This doctrine,
neither then nor at any other epoch, has been
tolerable to Romanists and Sacramentarians,
and hence it is not surprising that the Arch
bishop of Canterbury should have condemned
this book as "containing many detestable
errors and damnable opinions," and that Sir
Thomas More, in that controversy with Tin-
dale, out of which he came so ingloriously,
should persist in calling it The Wicked Book
of Mammon."

In the same year Tindale printed the most
famous of his books, The Obedience of a Christian
Man, and how Christian Rulers ought to Govern.
This book is a bold, strong, scriptural defence
of the Reform party. Like all Tindale's
polemical work, it was unsparing in its ex
posure and denunciation of priestcraft. Here
is an example of its teaching. "Paul saith,
1 Woe is me if I preach not.' A terrible saying
verily for popes, cardinals, and bishops ! If
he had said, ' Woe be unto me if I fight not
and move princes unto war, or if I increase not
St. Peter's patrimony,' as they call it, it had
been a more easy saying for them." And yet
it is truly and deeply evangelical. Among the
closing words are these: "Remember that
Christ is the end of all things. He only is our
resting-place, and He is our peace. . . . Thou

shalt never have rest in thy soul, neither shall
the worm of conscience ever cease to gnaw
thine heart, till thou come to Christ ; till thou
hear the glad tidings how that God for His
sake hath forgiven thee freely." This was the
book of which Henry VIII. said when he read
it, " This book is for me and for all kings to
read"; and when Bilney set his face "to go
up to Jerusalem," one of his comforts and stays
was Tindale's Obedience of a Christian Man.
It was this book that gave the bent to much of
the subsequent writing of such men as Latimer
and Cranmer.

The most powerful, and, in some respects,
the bitterest of Tindale's controversial books-
is The Practice of Prelates. While in the first
instance an attack upon Wolsey and his policy,
the main object is to show what papal practices
really are, and how deadly is their influence
wherever they prevail. ' ' The nearer unto
Christ a man cometh," he writes, "the lower
he must descend, and the poorer he must wax.
But the nearer unto the Pope ye come, the
higher ye must climb, and the more riches ye
must gather, whencesoever ye can get them."

So bold a controversialist and so scriptural
an expositor could not but arouse deadly
hostility in the official circles of Tudor England.
No less a man than Sir Thomas More was
chosen as the defender of the ancient faith and
practice, and it would have been well for his
reputation had More declined the office. Few
controversialists cut a sorrier figure than the
great Chancellor in his conflict with Tindale.
In 1529 More published A Dialogue . . . touch
ing the pestilent sect of Luther and Tindale.
Bitter Tindale's language may be. As a
marginal note to Balaam's word, " How shall I
curse whom God hath not cursed ? " Tindale
printed the pithy words, "The Pope can tell
how." But in common fairness, it must be borne
in mind that Tindale was then being hunted
for his life. But More's language is still more
bitter and infinitely coarser. Early in 1531
Tindale issued An Answer to More. To this
More replied in a Confutation which ultimately
expanded to 500 folio pages. This rejoinder
became the great scholar's main occupation
until his death, and in his Apology, published
in 1533, More himself admitted that men found
his Confutation "over long, and therefore
tedious to read." Those who form their opinion
of More from the often overcharged and emo
tional descriptions of him given by those who
know nothing of his great controversy with
Tindale, may be surprised to learn that the
"gentle Chancellor" could fill pages in refer
ence to Tindale with abuse of which the
following sentence is an example: "This
drowsy drudge hath drunken so deep in the
devil's doings that he may hap to fall into the

TITHES

[ 732 ]

TOLERATION

rnashing-vat and turn himself into draff as the
hogs of hell shall feed upon."

Tindale's other works include his famous
Prologue to the Epistle to the Romans, printed in
many editions of his New Testament ; the Book
of Jonah with a Prologue ; an Exposition of
1 John ; and an Exposition of the Sermon on the
Mount. All of them contain many fine examples
of that matchless English which is the glory
of his translation work.

The last years of Tindale's life were passed
at Antwerp. In 1531, Stephen Vaughan, the
English Envoy to the Low Countries, met him
several times, formed a very high opinion of
him, and tried to induce Henry VIII. to re
store him to favour and allow him to return to
England. But this was not to be ; and after
the issue of The Practice of Prelates official
hostility to Tindale and his influence grew
much more persistent and more deadly. From
1533 to 1535 Tindale seems to have lived almost
in peace at Antwerp, protected and encouraged
by the English merchants there. But the
Low Countries under the rule of Charles V.
were becoming dangerous to Reformers, and
the infamous Inquisition having been estab
lished there, the maintenance of Protestant
opinions exposed a man to the loss of his life.
Tindale was basely betrayed in 1535, im
prisoned at Vilvorde for over a year, and
martyred, being first strangled and then burnt,
on Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord,
open the King of England's eyes."

So perished one of the simplest, noblest,
most heroic of human souls. He lives in his
work, and those who enter most deeply into
the true evangel of the Bible appreciate best
the nobility of the man. He exhibits one
marked characteristic of true greatness — the
further we get from him the higher he towers
above his contemporaries, and the more mar
vellous his work appears. Like another great
Christian soldier, he " counted not his life
dear unto himself " in the struggle to lead his
countrymen into that freedom wherewith Jesus
Christ sets men free. [R. L.]

TITHES.— The tenth part, considered from the
earliest times to be due to God. Tithes were
paid by Abram (Gen. xiv. 20); were vowed to
God by Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 22), and enjoined
in the Mosaic Law (Exod. xxii. ; Lev. xxvii. ;
Num. viii.). In the early Church ministers
were supported by voluntary contributions
(1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts ii. 44; iv. 34). At a
later date the Jewish system of tithes was
reintroduced, but the payment was voluntary for
centuries. In the eighth century in France,
and, as supposed, later in England, the pay
ment of tithes became compulsory. Tithes
were then devoted to the relief of the poor, as
Church property down even to the fourteenth

century was described as the "patrimony of
the poor. " Later the tithes were allotted to the
parish priest, The parochial clergy during
the Middle Agea were largely deprived of
the tithes, as they were diverted to the re
ligious houses. Hence arose the name appro
priated tithes, and the distinction between
rector and vicar, the latter being a curate
appointed by the monastery. Nearly all tithes
have now been commuted into Tithe Rent
Charge, and by the Act of 1891 all tithes must
be paid by the landlord, not the tenant.
TOLERATION.— 1. Toleration as a political
principle (i.e. a principle based on the acknow
ledged right of a man to act, in the matter of
religion, according to his own beliefs without
compulsion and interference from the State) is
something comparatively modern. It has been
called "the noblest innovation of modern times."
In the ancient "civitas" it had no place. Re
ligion was viewed not simply as a function of
the State, but as its foundation. Its divinities
were its authors and patrons. Its laws of every
kind expressed their will. Its customary cere
monies and sacrifices betokened the reverence
which was their due. Each " civitas " had its
own divinities, whose protection was confined
to itself and for whose honour it was jealous.
Outsiders, having no common religion, had no
common civil rights : they were " barbarians " ;
while members of the "civitas" who might
dare to neglect or reject its religious ordin
ances were rebels. For religious and civil law
were convertible terms. Mr. Flinders Petrie
notes this fact as the key to a right under
standing of the attitude toward religion (e.g.)
in ancient Egypt. Religion was "public and
not private " ; " collective and not individual."
Hence intolerance was sure to be exercised
against opponents of the religion — this being
" the strongest and most decisive test of Com
munity." J It was not a question of belief or
opinion. " Ancient Religions cared nothing
for a man's belief if only it did not set him
in open opposition to the public worship of the
State . . . failure in the act of outward
conformity was the crime ; and for this, as
for a treasonable act, the State took a swift
revenge." 2 We have here the main reason why
the most damaging charge against Socrates
(399 B.C.) as against Protagoras (circ. 440 B.C.)
before him was his alleged denial of the national
gods. It explains, too, the harsh treatment of
Christianity under the early Roman Empire,
and that by some of the best emperors.
" Christianity was proscribed, not as a religion,
but as interfering with that organisation of

1 Religionand Consciencein A ucient Egypt (1898),
pp. 14, 16.

2 Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, p. 87.

TOLERATION

[ 733 ]

TOLEEATION

society which the Empire inculcated and pro
tected." l Of that social organisation the
ancestral worship was an integral part. " It was
one of the ordinary duties of life." To neglect it
as the Christians did, and still more, to disavow
it, was a crime. A good emperor like Marcus
Aurelius "might pity the offender for his
obstinacy, but he must necessarily compel him
to obey or punish him for disobedience " ; 2
and the better the emperor (i.e. the more devoted
to his duty of maintaining the established
order), the more severe he was likely to be.

2. In the teaching of Christ and His
Apostles, religion became a matter between
God and the soul. Its origin, its laws and
authority, its seat and sphere, its modes of
expression, its methods of action, its means of
growth, its weapons of defence and attack, all
were spiritual. Individual conscience had the
first and last word. Religion, though meant
to leaven the State, was no longer a political
affair. "My kingdom is not of this world."
Embodied in a visible Church— a Church com
posed of willing disciples, such disciples were
to persuade, to edify, to rule one another ; and
win the world through manifestation of the
truth. Evil doctrine and evil living — the latter
especially — might be punished in the last
resort by excommunication. But the use of
physical force for the furtherance of any
specifically Christian purpose was not even
dreamt of. So stands the case in the New
Testament, and so it stands, on the whole,
during the first three centuries of Christian
history. " Despite occasional outbursts of
unrestrained indignation against erroneous
opinions, there is clearly to be traced the pro
found consciousness that God will accept
nothing save the homage of a willing heart." 3

But with Constantino the Great there
came in a momentous change. His Edict of
Milan (313) marked the end of persecution
for the Church, and decreed that " liberty be
given to every man that he may apply his
mind to what religion he thinketh meet him
self." But his edict against the Donatists
(316) marked the adoption by and for the
Church of the very principles which had
brought about her own recent sufferings.

1 Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p.
372. See the whole chap. xv.

2 See Hatch's llibbert Lectures, p. 21, and note;
cf. Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, p. 10, note. In the
Roman jurisprudence " Jus sacrum is a branch of
Jus publicum " — so in Israel.

3 See Justin Martyr (c/. 165), Apol., i. c. 2, 4,
12; Tertullian (150-20S), Ad. Scapulam ; Lactan-
tius (fl. circ. 300), Instit. Div., v. 20. These refer
ences are in Behalf's Hint, of the Church, German
Reformation, vol. i. pp. 35, 36.

Religion allied itself with the State, and the
State assumed responsibility for religion.
Constantine presided at the Council of Nicaea
(325) ; promulgated the Nicene Creed as if
it were an imperial law ; undertook to put
down heresy as if it were rebellion; and the
Church "loved to have it so." Henceforth
"the arm of flesh" wielding the "sword of
the Spirit" became a familiar sight; and its
result in the civic punishment of heresy (i.e. a
deviation from the Catholic faith) became the
accepted rule. " Before the close of the fourth
century the edicts against heresy formed an
important part of the jurisprudence of the
Empire. By these edicts, heretics were de
prived of all offices of profit or dignity in the
State ; they could neither receive nor bequeath
property ; no contract with them was binding ;
and they were fined, banished, and even sen
tenced to death." There were protests for a
time. " When the penalty of death was first
inflicted for erroneous opinions 5 the Christian
conscience was profoundly shocked." But the
horror soon wore off. Even St. Augustine
(353-430), though averse in his early days to
the use of force, and never perhaps heartily
in favour of it, could persuade himself that it
was sometimes necessary,6 and that there were
heresies deserving of death. His influence, so
paramount in the West, did as much as any
thing to confirm the Mediaeval Church in its
view of heresy as the greatest of crimes.

During several centuries the spirit of
persecution flagged for lack of material to
feed upon. For a long period prior to the
twelfth century avowed heretics were few,
and the Church enjoyed an untroubled sup
remacy. The theory of persecution, however,
remained the same. Whenever the Church
found heretics to punish it had the right to
call in the State, and the State stood ready
to do its duty.7 There was no doubt on either
side — either on the side of the Church, that
deviation from her doctrine was heresy and

* Schait'-Herzog : Article, " Liberty, Religious."
Cf. T. W. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry
in, the Early Centuries, p. 360.

6 Persecution of Priscillianists by Maximus
(A.D. 385) at the instigation of two orthodox
bishops. St. Ambrose protested strongly, and
St. Martin of Tours denounced it as an atrocious
crime. See Creighton's Persecution and Tolerance,
pp. 73-75. See PERSECUTIONS.

6 He was probably the first to wrest Luke xiv.
23 ("compel them to come in") into a defence
of persecution.

7 But the course of time had inverted the
relation of Church and State to each other. The
Pope, not the Emperor, was now the Head of
Christendom.

TOLERATION

[ 734 ]

TOLERATION

that heresy was criminal ; or, on the side
of the State, that it ought to aid the Church
in destroying the heretic. Thus persecution
went forward on principle. Intolerance
backed itself up by conscience — a fact
which meant the utter silencing of ruth
and pity. " Conscience which restrains every
other vice, became the prompter here." And
the inevitable result appeared in such things
as the Crusade ordered by Innocent III. (1198-
1206) for the extermination of the Albigenses
(1209) ; the organising by the same Pope of
the Inquisition — probably the most dreadful
engine of cruelty ever inflicted on the human
race ; " the Spanish Fury " in the Netherlands
under the Duke of Alva (1567-1573); the
massacre of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24, 1572) ;
the fires of Smithfield ; the Revocation of the
Edict of Nantes (Oct. 1685), and the " dragon-
nades." Nor is it easy, in view of these and a
host of similar acts, to convict Lecky of exag
geration when he says ' ' that the Church of Rome
has inflicted a greater amount of unmerited
suffering than any other religion that has
ever existed among mankind."1 See PERSE
CUTIONS.

3. Protestantism was essentially a return to
the standpoint of the New Testament ; was
a re-assertion of the ultimate rights of con
science in matters of religious faith and
practice. By these Luther took his stand at
the Diet of Worms (1521) in the heroic words:
" I shall not be convinced except by the testi
mony of the Scriptures or plain reason. . . .
I am not able to recall (recant), nor do I wish
to recall (recant) anything; for it is neither
safe nor honest to do anything against con
science. Here I stand, I cannot do other
wise. God help me. Amen." Luther's theory
necessarily involved at least the political tolera
tion of so-called heresy — his own and every
other man's. And he saw this clearly enough.
"Thoughts are toll free. . . . Heresy can
never be kept off by force : another grip is
wanted for that ; this is another quarrel and
conflict than that of the sword. . . . Heresy
is a spiritual thing, which no iron can hew
down, no fire burn, no water drown."2 Had
these truths been realised in practice it could
never have been said that the spirit of in
tolerance became as strong in the Reformed

1 Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii. p. 39. For
proof that Rome has never abandoned her theory
of persecution, see Schaff, The Swiss Reformation,
ii. p. 699. Also see reference to the new work of
Marianus de Luca in Article on PERSECUTIONS.
Marianus de Luca's book, published in 1901 at
Rome, was warmly praised by Leo XIII.

2 Beard's Reformation of the Sixteenth Century,
pp. 171-172.

Churches as in the Church of Rome.3 But the
inveteracy of an evil tradition prevailed.
Orthodoxy, under its new forms, still claimed
to be necessary for salvation ; and still
claimed that the State was responsible for
its enforcement. Heresy, therefore, was still
not only a spiritual offence, but also a civic
crime, involving social disruption as well as
the soul's perdition. Such a reaction was
natural in view of the rank upgrowth of
errors, intellectual and moral, which sheltered
itself behind the principle of private judgment ;
and of the necessity for a solid front against
the compact resistance of Rome. Its effect,
however, was once more to enchain the con
science; to check indefinitely the growth of tol
eration, and even to make intolerance a virtue.
Luther, on the whole, was the mildest
of the Reformers. His deeds were far less
violent than his words. He could denounce
the Reason he had once extolled as "an ugly
Devil's Bride," and vituperate the Anabaptists,
whose reliance upon it, under the name of the
inner light, seemed to be answerable for gross
excesses of doctrine and practice ; but he shrank
from having them put to death. ' ' These men, ' '
he says, " should be fought off and withstood
with Scripture and God's Word; fire will do
very little good." It was enough that "they
should be banished." Zwingli was less
scrupulous, though in some respects the
largest-minded of the Reformers; and that
several Anabaptists were " solemnly and
judicially drowned" was an outrage which
he "certainly did not openly oppose."4
Melanchthon knew how to justify the capital
punishment of " blasphemy " by the Law of
Moses, the example of Christian Emperors,
and the teaching of St. Augustine.5 Calvin
heartily agreed with him, and did not doubt
that in burning Servetus (1553) he was offering
acceptable service unto God. Moreover, Geneva
afforded him a unique opportunity of working
out his conception of a Church-State, and
letting the world see what would be made of
social life if clerical rule, inspired by Old
Testament ideals and rigorously supported by
the State, obtained the upper hand.6

3 Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, ii. 84. " The
nature of the tiger was the same, but he was
gradually deprived of his teeth and fangs. — "
Gibbon.

4 See Schaff's Swiss Reformation, ch. iii. § 26.

5 See Beard's Reformation in the Sixteenth
Century, p. 180.

6 For "Constitution and Discipline of the
Church in Geneva," and Calvin's treatment of
Servetus, with opinions of other Reformers
thereon, see Schaff's Swiss Reformation, chaps,
xiii., xvi.

TOLERATION

[ 735 ]

TOLERATION

In Lutheran countries (Saxony, Denmark,
Scandinavia) the rule that the subject follows
the religion of the State (eujus regio ejus religio)
held good, and excluded from toleration all
save the Orthodox. Virtually, this rule con
trolled the Reformation movement in England.
As Head of the Church, for example, Elizabeth
could and did prescribe the limits within which
Reformation and Toleration should take place.
Accordingly, if these were fixed, Nonconformity
in respect of them at once assumed the aspect
not only of schism but also of sedition. In the
light of this fact the severities dealt out to
Papists and Puritans are to be judged. They
were inflicted for constructive, or open, denial
of the Queen's supremacy. In vain the sufferers
might protest their loyalty. It was answered
that if they did not obey ecclesiastical laws
sanctioned by the Queen they were rebels as
well as schismatics, and must bear the conse
quences—consequences which in some cases
amounted to der.th. Whit-gift's defence of
persecution (and Lord Burghley's also in less
degree) rested on this ground — as did Laud's
at a later time, though the latter found addi
tional excuse for it in the belief (not fully
reached by Whit-gift) that episcopal govern
ment of the Church was Jure divino. A similar
(Erastian) view of the State and its right to
exact ecclesiastical obedience was shared by
the Puritans, so far as they retained a pro
perly English character— only that for them the
State meant the Parliament. And as to the
Presbyterians — both those of Elizabeth's reign,
and those represented by the "Westminster
Assembly" (1643-47)— their idea was Calvin's,
viz. that the Church is supreme in her own
sphere, and may look to the State for prompt
employment of its power to punish impugners
of her authority. In fact, whatever may have
been the intolerance of Whitgift and Laud, it
was exceeded, or at least equalled, by that
of the Presbyterians. Thomas Cartwright (circ.
1535-1603), when he said that "the same
severity of punishment that was used against
false prophets then (i.e. under the Mosaic Law)
ought to be used now under the Gospel against
false teachers . . . (according to Deut. xiii. 6,
8, 9, 10)," was the genuine forerunner of
Thomas Edwards,1 who declared that "a
Toleration is the grand design of the Devil, his
masterpiece, and chief engine he works by at
this time, to uphold his tottering kingdom " ;
and of the men who snatched occasion to dis
grace the statute-book of England with the
atrocious ordinance of May 1648. Through
out the seventeenth century the question wa
agitated as to the right or^wrong of a tolera
tion, limited or unlimited, of differing beliefs

In his Ganyrcena (164G), part i. p. 58.

and worships ; and, under the fierce opposition
mainly of the Presbyterians, became more and
more a burning one. The Anabaptists, true to
their earliest contention, were among the very
first to sound a decisive note. Their appeal to
King James, entitled Religious Peace (written
by Leonard Busher, citizen of London, in
1614), was a " Plea for (absolute) Liberty of
Conscience." Roger Williams, a generation
later, was a passionate and eloquent advocate,
in his Bloody Tenant (1644), of the same
doctrine; and John Goodwin, the Arminian,
Pastor of the Independent Church in Coleman
Street, followed suit in a long series of striking
pamphlets. From a political point of view,
James Harrington contended that " where
civil liberty is entire it includes liberty of
conscience," while Milton's Arcopayitica (1644)
made its splendid defence of liberty mainly
on the ground that truth is ever mightier
than opposing error. " For truth is strong
next to the Almighty. She needs no policies
or stratagems or licensings to make her
victorious. These are the shifts and the
defences that error uses against her power."
Signs of a like tendency appeared on all sides.
Thus the unknown author of a remarkable
Tract in 1643 does not tell us whether he was
Churchman or Dissenter,2 but pleads that
there are good men on both sides, and not all
extremists either at Oxford or London, and
asks, "Why should not both Papists and
Brownists serve the king as lawfully as those
thundering legions of Primitive Christians did
the heathen Emperors ? " Again, the scheme
of Toleration propounded at Uxbridge (1645),
and urging " that Freedom be left to all
persons, of what opinions soever, in matters of
ceremony ; and that all the penalties of the
laws and customs which enjoin those cere
monies be suspended," was the work of the
Oxford clergy, and entitles them to be described
as the " first persons who, acting as a public
body, made proposals tending to Toleration." 3
Jeremy Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying (1647)
took up the reverse position, and, developing
the views of Hales and Chillingworth, en
deavoured to persuade Christians that " matters
of ceremony " are matters indifferent, but that
the fundamentals of faith, as expressed by the
Apostles' Creed, are a platform on which they
might all unite. This, too, was what com-

2 He was an " Independent," named Henry
Robinson, a merchant of London and a well-
known pamphleteer on commercial and economic
subjects. William Prynne was one of his objects
of attack. See English Historical Review, vol. ix.
pp. 715-717.

3 See Gardiner's account of this scheme —
English Historical Review, April 1887, pp. 340. 341.

TOLERATION

736 ]

TONSURE

mended itself to the Platonic divines of Cam
bridge — with a firmer and clearer emphasi
however, on charity as the supremely re
conciling principle.

Meanwhile the course of events lifter
the Independents into power and gave them an
opportunity which, to some extent, they usec
amiss. In the Westminster Assembly the
Independent brethren stood for a toleration o:
their own Church system ; and (hesitatingly
for toleration in general. In Parliament anc
the Army the Independents (giving to the
term its somewhat vague significance) at least
broke the back of Presbyterian bigotry and
achieved what amount of liberty actually
came to pass. And Cromwell, whose own
temper was profoundly tolerant, by no means
entirely failed to carry out his ideal of an
Established Church based on sound doctrine
and piety, with freedom outside for all peace
able objectors.1 But he was hampered by
others, by the " divines" especially, of whom
some of the most influential were Independents.
They strove to limit the scope of toleration by
an elaborate scheme of fundamentals;2 they
turned (in some degree) Cromwell's " Com
mittee of Triers" (1654) into an instrument of
unjust oppression. They would hear nothing
of any concession to Roman Catholics ; and if
the Jews came to enjoy a certain measure
of liberty, it was against their will. But the
influences tending to toleration and liberty
silently made way. Even the reaction which
followed the Restoration and brought forth
"Acts" of such gratuitous cruelty, did but
check the current for a time. John Locke's
masterly plea for Toleration (1689) "on the
double ground of the sanctity of an honest
conviction and of the danger of enlarging the
province of the civil magistrate," did little
more than express, with concentrated energy,
the "thoughts of many hearts." And the
Toleration Act of 1689 — which may be re
garded as the practical response to Locke's
plea — though in itself an imperfect measure,8
prophesied its own completion. It was a
surrender of the citadel, and was sure to be
followed sooner or later by a surrender of the

1 Wakeman (History of English Church, p 378)
repeats the story, how on Christmas Day (1657)
"a congregation assembled for celebration of the
Holy Eucharist was carried off bodily to prison
by soldiers." This is an exaggeration. Their
names were taken and then — they were dis
missed. See Clarke Papers (Camden Series), vol.
iii. p. 130.

2 See Shaw's History of the English Church,
1640-60, vol ii. pp. 81-90.

3 It left unrepealed the " Corporation Act " and
the "Test Act."

outworks.4 Moreover, granting due considera
tion to the other forces which have brought
about the almost unlimited toleration, or
rather religious liberty, which now exists
under the British Crown, yet it can hardly be
doubted that the strongest force has been an
increasing reverence for the " ultimate prin
ciple of Protestantism," viz. the rights of
conscience ; and it may be confidently hoped
that this same force will at length induce
men of different intellectual persuasions to
recognise and cultivate that spiritual " union
of hearts" in which consists the secret of a
truly Christian tolerance. [F. J. P.]

TONSURE. — " The modern tonsure, or shaving
of the head . . . the more ancient tonsure
which was only a clipping or shortening of the
hair" (Todd's St. Patrick, p. 411, note).

Introduction into the Christian Church. The
Catholic Dictionary admits that "the cleri
cal tonsure, it is scarcely necessary to say,
was unknown in the first ages of the Church.
Christians were simply expected to avoid vanity
in dressing their hair, or, at most, to keep it
short. Ascetics and clergymen were thus
naturally led to make a point of cutting their
hair close." De Vert (quoted by Pugin, Gloss.,
p. 209) says: "All Christians in the first ages
wore their hair short, laity as well as clergy.
This mode was copied from the Romans. When,
afterwards, the Barbarians overran Southern
Europe in the fourth century, it became cus
tomary to let the hair grow long in imitation
of them. The clergy, however, and the monks,
retained the old fashion, cutting the hair short,
and even shaving the back of the neck as far as
the ears. When to this fashion of wearing the
hair was added the tonsure at the crown of the
head, the hair left was in modum, coronce, as
the Ritualists speak, and this was considered
in course of time, by way of distinction, the
Roman clerical tonsure, though, as above ex
plained, the lower tonsure was not, in its origin,
ecclesiastical." Wetzer and Welte, in their
famous (R.C.) Encyclopedia, admit the histori
cal fact that the tonsure was not practised in
the fourth century. The earliest ecclesiastical
precept on record about the practice is that
of the Council of Toledo (A.D. 633), Canon
41: " Omnes clerici detonso superius capite

4 (a) In 1779 persons objecting to subscribe the
loctrinal Articles of the Church of England were
llowed to substitute profession of a belief in
he Scriptures with a declaration of being a
Jhristian and a Protestant, (b) In 1813 Clause
7 of the Toleration Act (i.e. deniers of the
Trinity) was repealed, (c) In 1828 the Sacra
mental Test was repealed, (d) In 1829 the
oman Catholics were relieved of their disa-
, &c.

TONSUEE

[ 737 ]

TONSUEE

toto, inferius solam circuli coronain relin-
quant."

Its Symbolism.— Variously regarded as a
memorial of our blessed Lord's crown of thorns
(the rive clippings mentioned below, no doubt,
being suggestive also of " the five wounds,"
an emblem of Royal Priesthood, and token of
renunciation. So at first, about the fourth
century, it began to be used by penitents only
as such, and in its milder form of clipping,
betokening renunciation, yet (by the hair left)
moderation and temperance. In the fifth
century, it came to be used in its other form
(shaving the hair down to the skull) by monks ;
and in the sixth, by the priests in token of
complete renunciation of "the world."

Three principal styles of Tonsure. — (1) The
Roman priests tonsured the whole upper part
of the head, leaving only a small circle of hair
like a crown, following, they said, St. Peter's
example. Gradually the extent of the tonsured
part diminished, till the Council of Placentia
(13S8) ordered that it be at least four fingers
broad. (2) The Greeks shaved the whole head,
leaving no hair at all, imitating, they said,
St. James, the brother of the Lord, St. Paul,
and the other Apostles ; though in the Eastern
Church to-day the tonsure is held to be suffi
ciently shown when the hair is shorn close.
(3) The Celtic style " consisted in shaving all
the hair in front of a line drawn over the top
of the head from ear to ear " (Todd's St. Patrick,
p. 487), after the example, its advocates claimed,
of the Apostle John (see Mabillon, Annal.
Bened., torn. i. pp. 471, 472, 493). The Celtic
came also to be styled the tonsure of Simon
Magus by the Eoman missionaries and their
sj-mpathisers, though no question seems to
have been raised about it by Augustine at Oak
or Bangor. None the less it became the occa
sion of fierce and persistent controversy (e.g.
Council of Whitby) between Rome's represen
tatives, on the one hand, and the British and
Irish Churches and Columbanus' Continental
disciples on the other, all through the seventh
century and the earlier part of the eighth.
" Tighernach, in his Annals, gives A.D. 718 as
the date of the adoption of the Roman tonsure
by the community of Hi" (Todd's St. Patrick,
p. 487). Bede tells (lib. v. c. 21) how, in sub
mission to the decree of Naitan the Pictish
king, the ministers and monks of his realm
received the circular tonsure, thus submitting
to Peter, "the most blessed Prince of the
Apostles." Says D'Aubigne : "A royal pro
clamation and a few clips of the scissors,
placed the Scotch, like a flock of sheep, be
neath the crook of the shepherd of the Tiber."
Says O'Halloran, the distinguished Roman
Catholic antiquary, "I strongly suspect that
by Asiatic or African missionaries, or, through

them, by Spanish ones, were our ancestors
instructed in Christianity, because they rigidly
adhered to their customs, as to tonsure and the
time of Easter." So Adamnanus (d. 704),
" whilst he allows to the Irish tonsure the
opprobrious name of Simon Magus, defends
it, nevertheless, as having been down to that
time "the custom of his country," ex consue-
tudine patriot" (Todd's St. Patrick, p. 487).

Its Administration : by whom, and to whom. —
Only gradually the rights to confer and re
ceive the tonsure became limited. Till the
tenth century it was given by simple priests,
even by laymen, to each other. To-day, in
the Roman Church, a bishop may confer it at
any time or place, mitred abbots on their own
subjects, cardinal priests to clerks of their
titles, and other priests only as specially em
powered. It is the initial ceremony in Roman
and Greek Churches, which marks admission
to clerical orders, held to be an essential ele
ment in such ceremony, specifically distinguish
ing between clergy and laity. The Synod of
Worcester, A.D. 1240, also refers (Wilkins,
Concil., torn. i. p. 670) to distinctions between
clergy denoted by it ; the tonsure being en
larged with each step in the ministry. Origin
ally the Roman tonsure left only a circle of
hair round the head, and most of the mendicant
and cloistered orders are so tonsured still. The
tonsure of secular clerks is small: this distinc
tion arose only in the Middle Ages. According
to the Rituale Romanum, both forms, clipping
and shaving, are still used in the Roman
Church. So at " making " of the clerk, whilst
he kneels, during the repetition of certain
psalms, the bishop with a pair of scissors cuts
the extremities of the hair "in four places —
in the forehead, back of the head, and at each
ear. Then, in the middle of the head, he
divides some locks, saying to him. . . . Then
he prays," &c. The tonsure may be conferred
on a candidate in his seventh year, but such
an one may not exercise spiritual functions
till fourteen years old (Cone. Trid., xxiii. 3). He
who has once received it must always retain
it, and so is bound to renew it once a month
(unless in exceptional circumstances) on pain
of forfeiting the privileges belonging thereto. \

Its Origin. — Certainly heathen, more especi
ally the Roman (circular) form ; so the Hebrew
priests were forbidden to "make baldness
upon their head," &c. (Lev. xxi. 5). Herodotus
writes (lib. iii. cap. 8): "The Arabians . . .
say their hair was cut in the same manner as
Bacchus's is cut : now their practice is to cut
it in a ring away from the temples." So in
Egypt, pagan Rome, India, China, everywhere,
it may be traced from Babylon to papal Rome.
Buddha had for one of his titles " The Shaved-
head," and commanded the tonsure to his

3 A

TOPHET

[ 738 ]

TRADITION

followers also. In the ancient story of St.
Patrick and the daughters of King Laoghairc
there is an allusion, says Todd (p. 455), "to a
Bort of tonsure worn by the Druids or magi."
Says Maurice (Antiq., vii. p. 851), " The priests
of Mithra in their tonsures imitated the solar
disk" — all which suggests the relationship
which exists between the nimbus and the
tonsure ; the former, also often supposed to be
exclusively Christian, but first found circling
the brows of the sun-god and other deities
descended from him, as Circe, " daughter of
the sun," in a well-known painting found at
Pompeii. Later, the luminous circle seems to
have been given to any deity. Thus, Virgil
describes Pallas, " Nimboeffulgens," interpret
ing which, Servius explains nimbus as " the
luminous fluid which encircles the heads of the
gods." The nimbus for the deities and the
tonsure for the priests of paganism pure and
simple ; the nimbus also for the deities —
greater (as Christ, &c.) and lesser (as saints and
angels, &c.) of an apostate Church, as its ritual,
&c., really became more pagan than Christian ;
and the tonsure for its priests also.

The antiquity of the tonsure as a heathen
practice and its novelty in the Christian system
are further illustrated by the fact of its having
been forbidden by the Council of Carthage
(A.D. 398) ; also by the fact of Jerome's declara
tion (Comm., Ez. xliv.), that the shorn head
was not allowed to Christian clergy lest they
should be confounded with the priests of Isis
and Serapis. [T. C. O'C.]

TOPHET.— See HELL.

TORQUEMADA, THOMAS (1420-1498).— A
Dominican monk, born at Valladolid, and an
ardent brother of that Order which had for
two centuries already breathed slaughter of
heretics. In September 1480, the Pope ap
pointed two Inquisitors, who resided at Seville,
and so severe were they, in a little over twelve
months they had burnt 298 victims. This was
too much even for Pope Sixtus IV., who nomi
nated Coadjutors of these Inquisitors, Tor-
quemada being one. He soon became the
ruling spirit, and did not carry out the modera
tion suggested. Yet he was, in 1483, ap
pointed Chief Inquisitor for the Kingdom of
Castile, all others being under him. In the
same year he obtained the same post over
Aragon, created many subordinate tribunals,
and brought out a new code of rules for the
Inquisition of the most atrocious severity.
These, relentlessly carried out, caused the
murder of one of the Inquisitors, and riots in
many districts.

Innocent VIII. , however, supported Torque-
mada by two Bulls, extended his j urisdiction over
all Spain, and conferred on him the exceptional
title of Confessor of Sovereigns. So deep was the

hatred Torquemada inspired, that he was always
escorted by a bodyguard of forty " Familiars "
on horseback and two hundred on foot. Even
the Court of Rome endeavoured to mitigate
his cruelty, but the Spanish Government pre
vented this, as the enormous confiscations were
so profitable. During his sixteen years' rule it
is calculated that he burnt alive 8800 victims,
burnt in effigy 6500, and condemned to various
infamous penalties, confiscations, imprisonment
for life, branding, &c., 90,000; total, 105,300
(see LLORENTE). Notwithstanding all this, he
died full of years and of honours from Rome.

[C. P. S.]

TRADITION.— The Church of Rome believes
that besides the revelation contained in the
Holy Scriptures, there is another which consists
of doctrines revealed by Christ Himself, or by
the Apostles under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, which was not committed to writing,
but which has been handed down by oral
tradition. Christ did, during the great Forty
Days after His resurrection, speak of " things
pertaining to the kingdom of God " (Acts i. 3)
which are not recorded in the Scriptures.
But there is no record anywhere of those
speeches of Christ, not even in the so-called
" traditions " mentioned in the writings of
the Fathers. Outside the New Testament
there are only a few sentences which can
be shown with any probability to have come
from the lips of Christ. No directions con
cerning the rites or ceremonies of the Church
can be pointed to, no doctrines whatever that
are not contained in the Holy Scriptures. The
observance of the Lord's Day is logically
deducible from Scripture. So is the practice
of infant baptism, although that is questioned
by Baptists. An appeal to "traditions" in
these cases does not help the argument.

It is also true that many sayings and doings of
Christ were not recorded (John xxi. 25). The
statements in John ii. 11 and iv. 54 cut at the
root of any supposed miracles performed by
Christ prior to His baptism in the river Jordan.
Hence all the narratives concerning such
miracles contained in the Apocryphal Gospels
are utterly unworthy of credit. Isolated say
ings may have been preserved, but the evi
dence for any of them is very slight indeed.1
Dr. Salmon, in his Infallibility of the Church,
p. 135, rightly states that "for any sayingt
or action, or doctrine of our Lord not con
tained in the Bible, there is really not so much
evidence as the editor of a respectable news-

The great work on this subject is : Agrapha,
ausscrcanonische Evangelien- Fragment* gesammelt
und untersucht von Alfred Resch, 1889, in the
5th vol. of von Gebhardt and Adolf Harnack's
Texte und Untersuchungen.

TRADITION

TRADITION

paper requires before he admits an announce
ment into his columns."

Hence the teaching on this point contained
in the Creed of Pope Pins IV. concerning so-
called " apostolical and ecclesiastical tradi
tions " is erroneous. So also in the Council of
Trent, Sess. IV. and in the Catechism of that
Council (Donovan's Trans., Preface, question
xii. p. 8). By "apostolical traditions" are
meant traditions which concern doctrine, and
by "ecclesiastical traditions " those which re
late to the rites and ceremonies of the Church.
If such " traditions " 1 could be proved to have
been transmitted by uninterrupted succession
from Christ and His Apostles, we would will
ingly acknowledge their authority. But such
*' traditions" have never yet been pointed out.

Many of the narratives and teachings of
the New Testament were no doubt for a few
years taught only by word of mouth. But it
is also true, as pointed out in Heb. ii. 3, 4,
that when the " great salvation " at first
spoken by the Lord Jesus was confirmed unto
us " by them that heard them," God bore, in
many cases, special witness to the truth of
that " tradition," by " signs and wonders, and
with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy
Ghost." It was therefore quite possible then
to test the truth of the teaching, not only by
reference to the Old Testament Scriptures
(Acts xvii. 11, 12), but by the signs and
wonders wrought by the preachers. The mem
bers of the Church were, however, exhorted to
"test the spirits whether they were of God"
{1 John iv. 1-3), while there is not an instance
recorded in the New Testament in which any
recommendation or direction is given, urging
believers on such points to trust to Church
authority. On account of the age of miracles
having ceased we have not now the same power
of testing "tradition" as in Apostolic times,
and so it is impossible to regard it as of co
ordinate authority with Scripture.

The genuineness of the books of the New
Testament which are in our hands is attested
by an unbroken chain of evidence which goes
back to the Apostolic times. Some of those
books may rest upon weaker evidence than
others, but the books admitted to be genuine
even on the testimony of adversaries, as
certainly reaching back to the first century,
are quite enough to establish all the essential
Christian doctrines ; and the Church of Rome,
as well as the Eastern Christian Churches,

1 What makes the point at issue between the
Church of Rome and Protestants so grave is, that
the former profess to have traditions which add
to the teaching of Holy Scripture in essential
matters of faith and practice, and also in several
cases contrasted with its teaching.

bear witness to the genuineness and authority
of all the books of the New Testament.

The sufficiency of the Scriptures for all vital
doctrines need not here be discussed.

St. Paul does not refer to any oral tradition
which he had " received " in 1 Cor. xv. 3. St.
Paul distinctly states in Gal. i. 11, 12, that the
Gospel which was preached of him " was not
received of man, neither was I taught it but
by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Even the
very rite of the Lord's Supper was " received "
by St. Paul directly from Christ (1 Cor. xi. 23).
The word" received " in the Greek is identical
in all three passages. And yet Dr. Di Bruno
(in Catholic Belief, p. 15) seems to adduce

1 Cor. xv. 3 as a proof of the Romish doctrine
of "tradition" ! !

The word " tradition " in the New Testament
is used of written as well as oral tradition.2 So
in 2 Thess. ii. 15. The "tradition" in that
passage is best explained by reference to

2 Thess. ii. 5, where St. Paul states that he had
told the Thessalonians by word of mouth what
was the hindrance to the development of the
Man of Sin. It may also refer to St. Paul's
general teaching at Thessalonica, termed " the
tradition " in chap. iii. 6 of the same Epistle.
So in 1 Cor. xi. 2 the word rendered in our A. V.
"ordinances," is in the original Greek "tradi
tions " (TrapaSbaeis). It is the same word as in
2 Thess. ii. 15. Romish controversialists quietly
ignore these facts. Ireuaens, Cyprian, and other
Fathers, by the word "tradition" understand
what is contained in the New Testament.

Many of the traditions of the Fathers are
clearly false, as, for instance, that recorded by
Justin Mart \ r, that the Jordan was on fire when
Christ was baptized ; that Christ was crucified
when fifty years old ; that the Lord's Supper
was to be given to infants (which is held by
the Greek Church, but denied by the Roman).
Papias, a hearer of St. John, is cited by Dr. Di
Bruno (p. 20) as proving the superiority of
tradition, but that Roman Catholic controver
sialist suppresses the facts that Papias, on the
authority of tradition, ascribed to our Lord
a monstrous statement concerning the growth
of vines in the millennial era. That particular
statement can be traced to an earlier date
(see Charles, Apocalypse of JBaruch, note on
chap. xxix. 5). Again, Papias, led astray by
"tradition," gives a false account of the death
of Judas Iscariot. So far from " tradition "
being, as Di Bruno asserts, " more clear and
safe" than the Holy Bible (p. 21), it abounds
with fables.

2 In Gal. i. 14, irapaSocreis mean the extra-
biblical "traditions," so often condemned bv
our Lord. See Bishop Lightfoot's note on the
passage.

TRADITORES

[ 740]

TRANSUESTANTIATION

A good illustration of the unreliability of
tradition is the misrepresentation of the
Lord's own words which went abroad among
the Apostles themselves, namely, that St. John
should not die. This curious fact is both
mentioned and corrected in John xxi. 23. If
such misconceptions were to be found in the
immediate circle of our Lord's most devoted
followers, it is evident that vague traditions
exaggerated from century to century cannot
be relied on.

The facts of history prove the complete unre
liability of unwritten tradition. It failed to
preserve truth in the Patriarchal Age. The
traditions of the Jews both as to doctrine and
practice were mercilessly condemned by our
Lord (Mark vii. 8, 9, and Matt. xv. 3, 6).
Tradition conspicuously failed in later times.
Benedictine editors of Irenseus' works refuse
to acknowledge that Christ lived to fifty years
of age, which that Father asserts was an apos
tolical tradition (Against Heresies, book ii.
chap. xxii. 5, 6), while Clement of Alexandria
and other Fathers maintained with equal
error that Christ's public ministry lasted only
one year. It is also notorious, as shown by
Clement of Alexandria, that the ancient
Gnostics were the first who appealed to un
written traditions, which traditions they
pretended had been handed down to them
from the Apostles. [C. H. H. W.]

TRADITORES.— The name given in the Dio
cletian persecution to those Christians who
surrendered their copies of the sacred writings.
The general name of lapsi (the lapsed) had
been given during earlier persecutions to those
who denied their faith, or even evaded the
duty of boldly confessing Christ. But Diocle
tian's edict in 303 commanded the Christians
to give up their sacred books, which gave rise to
a special class of renegades. There were not a
few, even among the clergy, who surrendered
their copies of the Scriptures, defending their
action from passages in the Old Testament, or
by the plea that a human life is more sacred
and precious than any written book. Others
attempted a compromise with conscience by
handing over heretical works, under the pre
tence that they weresacredwritings; anditwas
generally held that those who adopted such an
expedient were traditores equally with the rest.

During the second century the feeling of the
Church was, that any act of lapsing made
restoration to Christian privileges impossible.
Nothing but a death by martyrdom could wipe
out the guilt of denying Christ. By the third
century, milder views had begun to prevail;
and there were many who maintained that, in
any case, the surrender of a book was a much
less serious offence than a personal and direct
renunciation of Christianity by an act of sacri

fice or otherwise. In Africa, however, where
the Diocletian edict was specially enforced,
the widely spread Montanist spirit produced a
fierce zeal which would not hear of any traditor
being allowed to remain within the Church,
much less to be ordained as a clergyman or
bishop. It was out of this state of feeling that
there sprang the Donatist controversy and
schism (see DONATISM) which found its special
occasion in a dispute in A.D. 311 regarding an
appointment to the vacant See of Carthage —
the stricter party refusing to acknowledge
Caecilian as bishop, on the ground that he had
been a traditor, and that Felix, who had con
secrated him to his office, was a traditor like
wise. But the milder views gradually won
their way in the Church, and in place of the
old severity there grew up a system of peniten
tial rules in which formal distinctions were
made between- the different kinds of lapsing,
and between the circumstances in each case ; a
foundation being thus laid for the casuistry of
the later penitential discipline. [J. C. L.]

TRADTJCIANISM.— In all ages of the Church
much difference of opinion has been expressed
on the subject whether the soul of each indi
vidual is created at birth and infused into a
human body formed in accordance with the
laws of nature. Those who have held that
opinion are termed Creationists. That theory,
however, has caused much difficulty, for it
seems to make God the direct author of sin
by infusing pure souls into impure bodies, or
by directly creating impure souls to inhabit
impure bodies. The opposite opinion to Crea-
tionism is known as Traducianism, which is,
that both soul and body are derived from the
human parents ; and that, therefore, the Fall
of Adam was naturally the direct cause of the
sinfulness which attaches to human beings
from the very beginning of their existence.
The Fathers of the first four centuries were
mainly Traducian. Augustine's advocacy of
Creationism, however, made it for centuries
the more common opinion ; and Creationism
is the theory upheld by Roman Catholic
divines. There are difficulties connected with
both theories. An able discussion of the
subject will be found in Franz Delitzsch's
Biblical Psychology, ii. sect, vii., and also in
Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man; Harris's
Nature and Constitution of Man ; as well as in
other works. [C. H. H. W.]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.— A supposed
substitution of the substance or essence of
Christ's body and blood for the substance or
essence of bread and wine, on the formula of
consecration being pronounced by a priest,
the accidents or visible properties of the
bread and wine still remaining.

The early Christians held that the bread

TRANSUBSTANTIATION [ 741 ] TRANSUBSTANTIATION

and wine used in the Lord's Supper were
types, representations, or figures of the body
and blood of Christ offered and shed upon
the Cross ; that what was given by the
presbyter, or priest, and taken by the com
municant, was bread and nothing but bread,
wine and nothing but wine ; but that these
elements had now a special use, for by their
consecration they had been set apart to be
the means of recalling to the minds of the
communicants, and setting before them, the
sacrifice of the death of Christ ; and they
taught that the eating and drinking of the
elements in faith and love had been appointed
by Christ as a means of grace, the special
grace thus bestowed being the application to
the penitent soul of the benefits of Christ's
death for man.

No misunderstanding as to the nature and
purpose of the brsad and wine could easily
arise as long as they made part of a re-enact
ment of the Last Supper of the Lord, which
took place (with necessary changes) every
Sunday evening in the Agape. This was the
practice of all the Apostles, all the contempo
raries of the Apostles, and the converts made
by the Apostles. But early in the second
century the Imperial laws compelled the
Christians to alter the form of the apostolic
appointment. They were obliged to have all
their services in the morning or afternoon,
not in the evening ; and they therefore trans
ferred the distribution and reception of the
memorial bread and wine to the forenoon, the
service generally beginning at nine o'clock ;
and as that hour was too early for the meal of
which that rite had hitherto made a part, the
Agape was delayed till midday. The belief
entertained respecting the nature and purpose
of the bread and wine remained as before —
they were memorials, which, rightly accepted,
conveyed grace to the recipient. Such had
been the belief and such it continued, the
parabolic nature of Hebrew acts and words
being well understood by those who were
either Hebrews themselves, or had been con
verted by Hebrews and handed on their
teaching.

But with the Irruption of the Barbarians in
the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, misap
prehensions arose. These wild men from the
north, swept half-untaught into the net of the
Gospel, acquainted hitherto only with the
magical rites of their medicine-men, saw and
heard the priests, whom they looked upon
with the awe with which ignorance regards
the learning of civilisation, apparently stating
with much pomp and ceremony that the bread
and wine that they held in their hands were
the body and blood of Christ. Their heredi
tary superstitions would have led them to see

nothing incredible or unlikely in the physical
miracle being wrought ; and the priesthood,
content with having induced them to become
Christians at all, left their half-heathen super
stitions to be afterwards replaced by sounder
doctrine. That time never came. The super
stition of the people, as such superstitions do,
grew stronger instead of weaker, was adopted
in monasteries which had now sprung up, and
invaded the ranks of the clergy. It was not,
however, till the ninth century that the senti
ment of the unlettered crowd found expression
in the treatise written by a monk of Corbey,
named Paschasius Radbert. In spite of their
refutation by more learned men, his views
spread, till in the eleventh century they were
adopted, not without much hesitation, by
Pope Hildebrand, who forced Berengarius to
make confession of his faith, in the following
monstrous terms : " The bread and wine
placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of
holy prayer and the words of the Redeemer,
converted into the true, actual, and life-giving
flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
are, after consecration, the true body of Christ
which was born of the Virgin, and which
hung on the Cross an offering for the salva
tion of the world, not only in the way of a
sign and in virtue of a sacrament, but also in
propriety of nature and truth of substance."

The matter could not be left there. The
tenet had made good its claim to be the
doctrine of the Latin Church, and yet an edu
cated man could not believe in it as it stood.
It was therefore turned over to theologians
and schoolmen to make it tenable in one way
or another. Members of the Realist school of
philosophers undertook the task, and it was
they who invented the ingenious distinction
between the " substance " of the bread and
wine and their "accidents," and taught that
it was the unseen substance which was changed
into another substance, while the accidents —
shape, size, colour, and so on — remained
unaltered. In reality the removal of the
substance without the removal of its qualities,
and the introduction of a new substance with
out its bringing its qualities with it, is more
miraculous and impossible than the meta
morphosis of bread into flesh and wine into
blood. But the subtlety served to perplex
the understanding, and enabled men to accept
a metaphysical when their senses forbade
them to accept a physical impossibility. The
philosophy of Realism, on which the theory
rests, has been exploded, but the theory has
been retained, and it was rested on the basis
of papal authority when speculation failed to
justify it.

The new doctrine did not find a name for
two hundred years after it had been accepted

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

[ 742 ]

TRENT, COUNCIL OF

by Hildebrand. Then it was called Tran-
substantiation by Innocent III. at the Fourth
Lateran Council, and acceptance of it being
made compulsory, it became the basis of a
faith so different from that of the first
Christians as to be almost a new religion.
That is the religion which has prevailed since
that time in the unreformed Churches of the
Latin communion. Some of the practices of
the new religion which spring from transub-
stantiation, are Adoration of the Host, Elevation
of the Host, Reservation of the Host for local
worship, Processions of the Host, Fasting
Communion, Hearing Mass or Non-communi
cating Attendance, and to them were added
about the same time, Compulsory Confession,
Indulgences made applicable to souls in
Purgatory, and other superstitions. These
practices and tenets, the products of the
thirteenth century, together with the worship
of St. Mary and other saints, formed what is
now the religion of daily life for the members
of the Roman Catholic Church. Cranmer has
justly said that Transubstantiation is the
trunk of Romish superstition, of which other
doctrines are branches and offshoots. With its
restoration among ourselves (even in a dis
guised form) the whole of the Romish system
would come back. Cranmer, Latimer, and
Ridley died at the stake rather than admit
it as tenable.

The tenet rejected by the Church of England
is that when the priest utters the words Hoc
est corpus meum, " This is My body," the
essence or substance of each piece of bread
is annihilated and disappears, leaving only
the colour, shape, and appearance of bread,
and that at the same moment the place of the
essence or substance of bread is taken by the
essence or substance of Christ's body, which,
at the instant, has been divested of its colour,
shape, and appearance and has been invested
with the colour, shape, and appearance of
bread ; more than this, that with His body
the whole living Person of Christ in His
divinity and humanity enters the apparent
pieces of bread and there abides until con
sumed by a communicant. Further, that
when the priest utters the words, Hie est
ocdix sanyuinis mei, "This is the cup of My
blood," the essence or substance of the wine
is annihilated and disappears, leaving only the
colour, taste, and appearance of wine, and
that at the same moment the place of the
essence or substance of wine is taken by the
essence or substance of Christ's blood, which,
at the instant, has been divested of its colour,
taste, and appearance, and been invested with
the colour, taste, and appearance of wine ;
more than this, that with His blood the whole
living Person of Christ in His divinity and

humanity enters into the cup and there abides
until the cup is emptied by the priest drinking
its contents. See INDEX for list of other
articles. [F. M.]

TRAPPISTS.— The Trappists are the members
of a religious Order of the Roman Catholic
Church, named after the ancient Cistercian
abbey of La Trappe, which was founded to
wards the middle of the twelfth century in a
deep valley near Mortagne in Normandy. The
place was difficult of access, being reached
only by a narrow and stony gorge ; hence its
name of "the trap." Distinguished at first
for their austerity, the monks of La Trappe
subsequently became not less notorious for
their licentious and riotous conduct. But
about the middle of the seventeenth century,
Armand Jean de Ranee, the titular abbot,
who had hitherto been a mere worldly courtier,
living a life of reckless sensuality, underwent
a striking religious experience by which his
character was radically transformed. Devoting
himself henceforth to penitence and self-
abnegation, he retired to La Trappe, where he
not only revived the old Cistercian discipline,
but virtually founded a new monastic system,
even stricter and more severe than that of
Bernard and the monks of Clairvaux. To the
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the
brethren of La Trappe now added their dis
tinctive obligation of silence — never opening
their lips to one another except to utter the
solemn greeting, Memento Mori. They were
bound to rise from their beds of straw at two
in the morning, to spend eleven hours of the
day in religious devotions and the remainder
in manual labour, while their only diet was
vegetables, bread, and water.

At the Revolution the Trappists were ex
pelled from France, but after the restoration
of the Bourbons in 1817 they regained posses
sion of their old home. Owing to its severity,
which has only slightly been relaxed, the
Trappist discipline has never attracted a large
number of followers ; but the Order has spread
from France to several European countries,
including England and Ireland, and has also
been transplanted to America. There is a
female branch of the Order, bound by regula
tions similar to those of the monks. A vivid
glimpse into the life of a modern Trappist
monastery is given by R. L. Stevenson in his
account of " Our Lady of the Snows " in Travel*
with a Donkey in the Cevennes. [J. C. L.]

TRENT, COUNCIL OF.— The Council in
which the Papal Church defined its position
as against Protestantism.

It was not the wish or proposal of the Roman
Catholic party to summon this Council. The
German Protestants had made an appeal to a
free Council of the Church, and Charles V.,

TRENT, COUNCIL OF

[ 743

TRENT, COUNCIL OF

who desired to play the part of the Charlemagne
of the sixteenth century, insisted on a Council
being held. The Papacy fought against it with
tooth and nail, for it remembered the Councils
of Constance and Basle. But when the Pope
and his counsellors found that they could not
prevent the Council, except by leaving its
place to be filled by a German Diet or Council
which would be more formidable still, they
professed to give way. Let there be a Council,
they said, but on the Pope's conditions, namely,
that the Pope should summon it, and by his
Legate preside at it and conduct its proceed
ings, and that none but bishops of the Roman
obedience should have a place in it. Charles V.
was a Roman Catholic. His object was, as
Emperor, to prevent an ecclesiastical schism in
his dominions, and he had no objection to the
Papal Supremacy, provided that the papal
party would introduce the practical reforms
which he was keen-sighted enough to see
were necessary. He assented to the Pope's
conditions, believing that he should have
sufficient influence with his German subjects
to induce them to attend, and with the Pope
to insist on their being received as equals, and
heard. The result of their meeting, on what
ever previously concerted terms, would, he
thought, be the reformation of the most glar
ing corruptions of life and manners, and for
doctrines he cared little, provided they did
not cause divisions in the Christian world of
which he posed as the chief ruler. The State
craft of the Emperor and the priest-craft of
the Papacy were pitted against each other,
and, as usual in such a case, the papal cunning
and obstinacy won all along the line. The
Germans had demanded that the Council should
be free and equal. When it came to the point,
they were told that they might be present as
suppliants, and without votes. They had de
manded that the Council should not be sum
moned by the Pope : it was summoned by the
Pope ; that it should not be under the Pope's
control : it was under his control ; that the
purposes of the Council should be primarily
the reformation of manners : it was turned
into an instrument for condemning their
doctrines. Why should they attend ? And
how could they safely attend with the example
of Huss before their eyes, who, though he
held the Emperor's safe-conduct, was seized
and burnt by the Council of Constance ? The
Emperor, who thought to mediate between
and govern both parties, was outwitted, as
secular politicians generally are when they
venture on a contest of intrigue with the
representatives of the Papacy, and the Council,
which he had intended should reconcile the
world, became a papal conciliabulum for
gathering up and enforcing mediaeval doctrine

and making the division of Christendom in
curable.

There were really three Councils of Trent.
The first was called by Paul III. in 1545, and
was presided over by Cardinal del Monte. It
sat two years at Trent, and in 1547 fled to
Bologna, so as to be within the Pope's domi
nions — which, again, was a thing that the
Germans had said they would not consent to.
The second Council (nominally a resumption
of the first) was summoned by del Monte, now
become Pope Julius III., in 1551, and it sat
likewise for two years. The third Council
(still called a continuation of the original
Council) was summoned by Pius IV., ten years
later, in 1562, and it also sat for two years ;
the Creed of Pope Pius IV., which summed up
the decisionsof the Council, being issued in 1564.

It is impossible to state the number of atten
dants at the Council, because they varied at
the various sessions, of which there were
twenty-five. Paul's Council began with 35
bishops and 8 abbots and generals of religious
societies. At Julius' Council there were 64 ;
at Pius' there were at times 210, of whom 150
were Italians. In a list of those who at
different times had the right of voting, "the
Italians," says Archbishop Laud in his Con
ference with Fisher, "are set down as 187, and
all the rest make but 83, so that there were
more Italian bishops by 104 than of all the
rest of Christendom." On which the arch
bishop drily remarks, " Sure the Pope did not
mean to be overreached in this Council " (§ 29).

In the first of the three Councils, in 1546
and 1547, the Roman Doctrines on Holy
Scripture, Original Sin, Justification, the Sacra
ments, Baptism, and Confirmation were defined.
On the first point, oral tradition was put on
the same level with Holy Scripture, the
Apocrypha was declared a part of inspired
Scripture, and the right of interpreting Scrip
ture was confined to the Church, that is, to
the past and present Roman Church. On the
third point, justification by faith only (that is,
justification by the merits of Christ only,
grasped by our faith) was condemned, and the
grace of justification was declared to be not
imputed but inherent. On the fourth point,
any one who said that there were not seven
sacraments, all instituted by Christ, was
anathematised.

In the second Council the subjects of the
Eucharist, Penance, and Extreme Unction were
discussed. On the Eucharist, the doctrine
of Transubstantiation was adopted, and Pro
cessions of the Sacrament were ordered, and
anathema was pronounced on all who did not
believe that the body, blood, soul, and divinity
of Christ — that is, the whole Christ in His
integrity of Person was really and substantially

TRENT, COUNCIL OF

[ 744 J

TRENT, COUNCIL OF

contained in the Sacrament, or who held tha
He was only in it in sign or figure or virtue
or that any bread and wine remained after
consecration, or that the whole Christ in His
integrity was not in each of the elements, or
that Christ was not to be worshipped in the
sacrament, or that He was only "spiritually
not sacramentally and really" eaten in the
Eucharist. On Penance it was taught that on
pain of anathema every sin and its circum
stances must be confessed, and that the priest's
absolution was a judicial, not ministerial, act,
and that the penances enjoined by the priest,
such as fasting, prayer, and alms, were for the
satisfaction of God's justice. On Extreme
Unction it had to be believed on the same
penalty, that the anointing was not meant at
first for healing only, but that it conferred
grace, remitted sins, and relieved the sick.

In the third Council, when all idea of the
Protestants presenting themselves had been
now abandoned, the Roman doctrines of re
ception in one kind, of the Mass, of Holy
Orders, of Marriage, of Purgatory, of Invoca
tion, of Relics, of Images, and of Monasticism
were defined and enjoined. Reception in one
kind was recognised as the legitimate con
sequence of the doctrine of Christ in the in
tegrity of His Person being in each element.
On the subject of the Mass, anathema was
pronounced on any who did not believe that
the Apostles were constituted priests by the
words, " Do this in remembrance of Me," or
who thought that the sacrifice of the Mass
was not propitiatory, or that private masses
should be done away with. On Holy Orders,
every one was anathematised who did not believe
that priests had the power of consecrating and
offering the true body and blood of Christ, and
of remitting and retaining sins." The same
penalty was imposed on all who held that
Christ did not institute marriage as a sacra
ment, or that it might not be broken off by
entering a monastery before consummation, or
that it could be dissolved by divorce, or that
clergy or monks might marry. As to Purga
tory, it was declared that it had a real exist
ence, and that souls in it were benefited by
the suffrages of the faithful and specially by
Masses for the dead. As to Saint-worship,
that saints were to be invoked, and that men
were to fly to them for help. In like manner,
relics were to be venerated, and images to be
worshipped. Monastic life was approved and
regulated.

The last decree of the Council was that its
confirmation should be sought from the Pope,
and this confirmation was given by a bull of
Pius IV. He signed himself "the Bishop of
the Catholic Church." The following year,
1564, Pope Pius IV. issued his Creed, which is

the Creed of modern Romanism, summing up
the teaching of the Council and declaring belief
in theTridentine doctrine on (1) Tradition ; (2)
Scripture; (3) Seven Sacraments; (4) Justifica
tion; (5) The Mass; (6) Transubstantiation ; (7)
One Kind; (8) Purgatory ; (9) Relics; (10) Im
ages; (11) Indulgences; (12) Papal Supremacy.
No one has passed a sharper or truer criti
cism on the constitution of the Council of
Trent than Archbishop Laud in his confer
ence with Fisher. " Is that Council legal," he
wrote, " the abettors whereof maintain pub
licly that it is lawful for them to conclude any
controversy and make it dcfide, and so in your
judgment fundamental, though it have not
. . . the written Word of God for warrant . . .
not so much as probable testimony from it ?
Is that Council legal when the Pope, the chief
person to be reformed, shall sit president in it
and be chief judge in his own cause, against
all law, divine, natural, and human ? In a
place not free, but in, or too near, his own
dominions? To which all were not called
that had deliberative or consultative voice ?
In which none had suffrages but such as were
sworn to the Pope and the Church of Rome, and
professed enemies to all that called for refor
mation and a free Council ; and the Pope him
self, to show his charity, had declared and
pronounced the appellants heretics before
they were condemned by the Council ? ... Is
that Council general that hath none of the
Eastern Churches' consent nor presence there ?
Or is it to be accounted a General Council
that in many sessions had scarce ten arch
bishops and forty or fifty bishops present ?
And for the West of Christendom it reckons
one English. There were but few of other
nations, and, it may be, some of them reckoned
with no more truth than the Greeks. In all
the sessions under Paul III. but two Frenchmen
and sometimes none. . . . There were more
Italian bishops there than of all Christendom
besides. More ? Yea, more than double. And
this I proved out of the Council itself. ... If
it were not (in order) to be sure of a side
(majority), give any satisfying reason why
such a potent party of Italians, more than
double to the whole Christian world, should
be there. ... I press not the disparity of
numbers only, but with it the Pope's carriage,
to be sure of a major part, for it lay upon the
Pope to make sure work at Trent both for
himself and his Church. I press not so much
against the Council of Trent, that there were
so exceeding many bishops of the West com
pared with the East, but that there were so
many more Italians, and bishops obnoxious
to the Pope's power than of all Germany,
France, Spain, and all other parts of the West
besides." The whole of sections xxvii.-xxix.

TRIDUUM

[ 745 ]

UNIAT CHURCHES

of Laud's able treatise may be consulted with
advantage. [F. M.]

TBJDUUM.— A name given in the Church of
Rome to a three days' prayer or festal celebra
tion.

TRIKERION.— See DIKERION.

TRINITARIANS.— A religious Order in the
Church of Rome said to have been founded in
A.D. 1198 for the redemption of captives out
of the hands of infidels.

TRIPTYCH.— A painting on a folding screen
or tablet in three divisions, the two outer
folding over the centre when closed. See
DlPTYCHS.

TRULLAN COUNCIL.— See COUNCILS.

u

UMBRELLA. — The name given in the Roman
Church to a small canopy held over the conse
crated bread in procession. Such carrying
about of the consecrated elements was
abolished at the Reformation. The Church
of England declares in her XXVth and
XXVIIIth Articles, that "The Sacraments
were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon,
or to be carried about"; and that, "The
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by
Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about,
lifted up, or worshipped." See RESERVATION ;
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

UNIAT CHURCHES are the result of Roman
activity and proselytising energy in West Asia,
North Africa, and East Europe. They have
been formed chiefly from the Syrian and
Greek Churches, and while acknowledging
Roman supremacy and receiving many speci
ally Roman dogmas, have still retained certain
peculiarities of creed, liturgy, and discipline.
The exact terms of union may be learned
from the authorities for each ;Church. There
is no common bond of union among them,
save in their common subjection to Rome.

The chief of these Churches are as follows :
1. In Asia and Africa, (a) The Maronite Church
is at once the largest and most completely united
with Rome. Its adherents live mostly in the
Lebanon, and are said to number about 300,000.
They are mentioned in writings of A.D. 800
as heretics, and were Monothelites until the
twelfth century. In 1182 a part of the Church
submitted to Rome, and the union was con
summated about 1600. They retain the
Syriac liturgy, and are governed by a " Patri
arch of all Syria," residing in the Lebanon.
He is chosen by themselves, but confirmed by
the Pope. There are also seven archbishops.
The better priests are trained in Rome or Paris,
and are thus brought completely into line with
Roman dogma and discipline. There is, how

ever, a seminary in Beirut for the training of
native priests. See MARONITES.

(6) A Church of Catholic Armenians has
existed since the time of the Crusades. See
EASTERN CHURCHES— A rmenia. It is said
to number 90,000 adherents, of whom 16,000
live in Constantinople, where they have four
teen Churches. Their patriarch, known as
" Patriarch of Cilicia," lives in Constantinople.
They are governed by three archbishops and
twelve bishops.

(c) A Church often called Mdchite (although
there is much confusion on this point, owing
to the fact that this name is also used for the
Orthodox Greek Christians of these places)
exists in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. It pre
serves the Greek rite, and is officially known
as the " Catholic Church with Greek or
Melchite rite." It is governed by a " Patriarch
of Alexandria, Antioch, and all the East,"
with whom are associated five archbishops and
three bishops. See MELCHITES.

(d) Among other Uniat Churches of Asia
are (1) that of the United Nestor ians, called by
the Romans the Chaldean Church, with about
30,000 adherents, having a patriarch at Mosul,
three archbishops and seven bishops; (2) a
Catholic Church with Syrian rite under a
" Patriarch of Antioch," three archbishops
and four bishops ; (3) a Catholic Church in
Georgia under an " Archbishop of the United
Church of Georgia."

(e) In Africa there has been of late years
a renewed activity of the Roman Church in
Egypt and Abyssinia. In 1895 the Pope
established for the United Copts a "Catholic
Patriarchate for Egypt," with three dioceses.
The number of Catholic Copts has been given
as 15,000, but the numbers are not reliable.
In Abyssinia the new activity dates from 1837,
and there are said to be 10,000 members of the
Geez Church united with Rome under an Apos
tolic Vicar for Abyssinia.

2. In Europe, (a) In the sixteenth century
the kingdom of Poland, which was Roman
Catholic, included among its subjects great
numbers of Ruthenians or Little Russians, who
belonged to the Greek Church. These latter
were subject to many disabilities, and even per
secutions, for their faith. In consequence of
this, in 1594, four of their bishops (those of
Luck, Pinsk, Chelm, and Lemberg) journeyed
to Rome and tendered their submission, accept
ing the filioque clause in the Creed, the doc
trine of Purgatory and the Papal Supremacy,
but retaining the Slavonic liturgy and certain
peculiarities of discipline. This union was
strongly opposed by many of the people,
but was supported by the Roman Catholic
King. At the partition of Poland the first
three of the Uniat dioceses came into the

UNIGENITUS

746 ]

UNITY

Russian part of Poland. Unceasing efforts
were made by the Russian Church to win
these Uniats back to Orthodoxy, and in 1839
the return was formally made. The diocese of
Lemberg, being in Galicia, fell to Austria, and
still exists ; the clergy being married, and the
monks belonging to the Order of St. Basil.

(b) In South Italy there have been many
Greeks since 1468. These form a Uniat Church,
with its own rites, and with permission for
priests in minor orders to marry, and remain
married when full priests. In matters of
government they are entirely subject to Rome.
They are said to number about 30,000.

(c) In the thirteenth century a number of
Roumanians belonging to the Greek Church
fled to East Hungary, especially to Sieben-
burgen, and settled there. At the end of the
seventeenth century these submitted to Rome.
They are said to number about 900,000, have
married secular priests, and are governed by a
Metropolitan and three bishops.

Literature. — Karl Beth, Die or ientalische Chris-
tenheit der Mittelmeerldnder. Berlin, 1902. W. R.
Morfill, Poland, in the "Story of the Nations"
series. L. Boissard, L'Eylise de Kussie, vol. ii.

[G. W. T.]

UNIGrENITUS.— A bull of Clement XL, dated
Sept. 8, 1713,1 and so called because beginning
with the words Unigenitus Dei Filius. It con
demned as heretical 101 sentences, all set
forth, culled from the Reflexions Morales sur le
Nouveau Testament, a work of the French
divine Quesnel, written at various times be
tween 1671 and 1695, designed not for contro
versy but for practical edification,2 and widely
read in France. The struggle which led up
to this condemnation began with the Spanish
Jesuit, Louis Molina, in 1588, teaching that
"free-will without the aid of divine grace can
produce good works." This startling pro
position, which was bald Pelagianism, caused
new and earnest attention to be paid to
Augustine, the early champion of divine grace
in opposition to Pelagius, and in 1640 appeared
Bishop Jansen's posthumous vo\ume,Augustinus,
composed simply of extracts from Augustine's
writings. Jesuitism and Jansenism now began
to divide the theological world. In 1653 the
famous Five Propositions declared by the
Jesuits to be contained in Jansen's book were
by Innocent X. pronounced heretical, giving a
controversial victory to the Jesuits, whose next
aim it was to get the popular Quesnel similarly
treated. With the aid of Louis XIV.3 this was
done by the bull Uniyenitus. Tregelles, who
calls Quesnel's condemnation " the triumph

1 Published Sept. 10, A. M. Cherubini, Bid-
larium, 1727, vol. viii. p. 118.

2 Encyclopcedia Britannica, xiii. 567 c. J Ibid.

of doctrinal Jesuitism,"4 takes it as a token
that " every feeling of piety towards God and
every apprehension of His grace were to be
extinguished throughout the papal Church."
Memorable indeed were the results of this
bull. It bound that all-powerful Order of the
Jesuits to Rome by a new link, making them,
as they had never been before, defenders of
the papal claims and ultramontane principles.
It gave them also a strong footing in the court
of France, through which the bull had been
obtained, opening to them all its preferment.
But there yet remained a struggle before
everything was accomplished. The French
bishops were not entirely at one, and several
of them tried, though in vain, to get the bull
recalled. Nor was it in legal force until
registered by those judicial bodies in France
called Parliaments, and French Parliaments,
ever jealous of Rome's encroachments on the
rights of the Gallican Church, refused to
register5 the bull Unigenitus until the Chan
cellor D'Aguesseau, wearied by the strife
around, persuaded them to take that step in
1730. The strife, which was indeed terrible,
survived through a large part of the eighteenth
century. Pitted against the Jesuits were the
men of learning, who adhered to Augustine,
and those monastics, chiefly Dominicans, who
followed Aquinas. Serious French Jansenism
nocked away to Protestant Holland, where it
was allowed to establish an archbishopric
at Utrecht, independent of Rome. Popular
French Jansenism, deserted and unguided,
sank into wild excesses and lost respect. All
this went on just after Louis XIV. had driven
to foreign shores the best of his people, dis
ciples of the Reformation. To the places of
Jansenist scholars and Huguenot traders there
succeeded a race of philosophers, the Encyclo
paedists, caring for neither the Church nor the
State, which they beheld divided and demoral
ised. By leaders of that stamp was opened a
pathway for the Revolutionists of 1789. 6

[C. H.]

UNION WITH HOME.— See REUNION;
UNITY.

UNITY. — The unity or solidarity of the human
race, created by one Father in heaven, and
descended from one father on earth, is an
essential doctrine of the Bible. " Have we
not all one Father ? hath not one God created
us? "(Mai. ii. 10, R.V.).

Again, when man had forsaken his Creator,
and quite cast from him the law of his social

4 Tregelles, Jansenists, 1851, p. 43. Examples
of the condemned propositions are here given.

6 Encyd. Brit., v. 822 d.

8 Ranke, Popes, ii. 290 seq., Sarah Austin's
translation, 3rd ed., 1847.

UNITY

[ 747 ]

UNITY

life, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy
self," God called Abraham " when he was but
one, and blessed him and made him many "
(Isa. li. 2, E.V.). Various were the means
used by God to bind together into one the
children of Abraham after the flesh, and to
make them one uniform body, the ecclesia of
the Old Dispensation. But Israel also forsook
the Covenant, preserved indeed her uniformity,
bat never attained to the unity of the Spirit.
" The remnant according to the election of
grace" attained to it, "but the rest were
blinded." The centre of uniformity in the Old
Testament ecclesia was the temple in Jerusa
lem, with its priests, altar, and sacrifices ; it
was the one uniform candlestick with its seven
branches and its one ritual. The centre of
unity of the New Covenant is in heaven, with
its High Priest within the true Holy of Holies.
The very life, and therefore the unity, of all
the members depends on every member being
united by a living faith, through the One in
dwelling Holy Spirit, with the Head. Christ
is her life ; He is the life of each member, and
the Holy Spirit alone is the Lord and the Giver
of Life. It is as true of the new ecclesia as it
was of the old, that " They are not all Israel
which are of Israel ; neither because they are
Abraham'* seed are they all children." There
are tares among the wheat, fruitless branches
in the true vine. The unity of the living body
can only exist between those who have the
life-giving Spirit.

It is not, indeed, correct to say that the Old
Testament ecclesia had one ritual, one form of
public worship, as we have one liturgy. The
ritual of the Temple only related to the order
ing of priests and sacrifices. There was no
liturgical form of worship ordained by God
to be uniformly used in it. The mass of the
people took part only three times in the year
in the services of the Temple, which was the
one centre of unity. The daily and weekly
worship of the people was that of the syna
gogues, and in them there was no uniform
order of worship. " The sects in the Jewish
commonwealth," says Bishop Lightfoot, " were
not, properly speaking, Nonconformists. They
only superadded their own special organisa
tion to the established religion of their
country, which, for the most part, they were
careful to observe. The institution of the
synagogue was flexible enough to allow scope
for wide divergence of creed and practice.
Different races, as the Cyrenians and Alexan
drians, different classes of society, as the
freedmen, perhaps also different sects, as the
Sadducees and Essenes, each had, or could
have, their own special synagogue, where they
might indulge their peculiarities without
hindrance" (The Christian Ministry, p. 149).

Nothing could be more destructive to the
unity of the Spirit than the efforts of the
rulers in Church and State, in the days of the
Stuarts, to force all the inhabitants of the
kingdom into uniformity. For many years
thousands of men were fined, imprisoned, and
often ruined for the breach of some petty
ecclesiastical bye-law. Good men had their
ears cut off and their noses slit for similar
offences. This was the fate of the father of
Bishop Leighton ! A law was passed that
any one present at a meeting where any form
of prayer other than the Liturgy was used,
should be imprisoned for three mouths for the
first offence, for six months for the second,
and be transported for seven years for the
third. Baxter, who had refused a bishopric, a
poor, old, diseased man of three-score years
and ten, was fined 500 marks, and lay for two
years in Southwark gaol. And in the year
1662 nearly 2000 of the best clergymen in
England were driven out of the Church into
Nonconformity by the unhappy Act of Uni
formity (Ryle, Light from the Olden Times,
pp. xix, 314, 333).

Similar, and far more cruel, attempts to force
all Christians into uniformity have been made
by the Komish and Greek Churches. The
unspeakable sufferings of the Albigenses and
Waldenses, the tortures of the Inquisition,
and the blood of all the saints of God shed by
the orders of the Popes of Rome, as well as
the terrible sufferings and cruel deaths of the
Siberian exiles, are proofs of the futility and
sin of trying to compel all men to submit to
one uniform system of ecclesiastical organi
sation. See PERSECUTIONS.

No duty is more incumbent on Christians
than that of putting away from ourselves all
prejudice, and everything that can hinder us
from Godly union and concord with all the
members of the mystical body of Jesus Christ,
"which is the company of all faithful people."
The desire of the soul of our Lord Jesus
Christ is not to be trifled with. It is a subject
to which every child of God should apply the
whole powers of his being, and strive earnestly
to be brought into unison with the mind of
the Lord at any coat. Believing prayer honours
God ; unbelieving prayer dishonours Him.
The conditions of believing prayer are that
we should pray " with the Spirit and with the
understanding also " (1 Cor. xiv. 15), and that
when we pray we should "believe that we
have our petitions." How any man can pray
for the uniformity of all Christians under one
ecclesiastical organisation, and believe that
he has, or ever will have, what he prays for,
is beyond comprehension.

The Holy Scripture does not teach us to
expect uniformity, but the opposite. The

UNITY

[ 748 ] UNIVERSAL BISHOPRIC OF POPE

Church of the New Covenant is not one golden
candlestick with seven branches, but seven
golden candlesticks ; and the bond of union
is " the Son of man walking in the midst of
them." As with each Christian, so with each
Church, the path of unity is plain; " with all
lowliness and meekness — let each esteem
other better than himself — submitting your
selves one to another in the fear of God."
The Church which prides herself on the length
of her pedigree, and not on Apostolic doctrine
and practice, is the real schismatic. Other
Reformed Churches, while each preferring her
own organisation, find no difficulty in practis
ing intercommunion with one another, and
thus manifesting to the world the unity of
the Spirit. Why should not we of the Church
of England act similarly ? The difficulty is of
our own creation, the offspring either of ignor
ance, or of pride and the fear of man. By the
grace of the Holy Spirit we can have the unity
of the Spirit with all who love the Lord in
all branches of the Universal Church ; and we
can manifest that unity, as other Reformed
Churches do, by practising intercommunion
with all who are willing to do so with us. If
they are willing, and we are unwilling, the
sin of schism lies at our door, and vice versa.
The Word of God is true of Churches now as
of old : " A people which say, Stand by thyself,
come not near to me, for I am holier than
thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire
that burneth all the day" (Isa. Ixv. 5). See
REUNION. [R. B.]

Unity and Uniformity. — Christ did not
organise an external Church with authority
over all believers throughout the world. He
did for a season empower the Apostles, under
the teaching of the Holy Spirit, to declare
what ordinances of the Mosaic Law were still
binding and what were not. This is the true
sense of Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18. The Apostles,
like the Prophets, exercised occasionally other
powers. Each local church or knot of be
lievers had the powers belonging to all human
corporations to arrange its own details and its
own bye-laws, as we may term it, provided all
things were done to edification. But there
was no central power to which authority was
committed to rule over all the Churches, and
to whom appeals were to be made from time to
time. The unity of the Church consisted in
its own members being taught of the Holy
Spirit (1 John ii. 20, 27), holding the truth
concerning Christ and His work as taught by
those who were filled with the Spirit, and to
whom witness was borne by signs and wonders
(Heb ii. 3). All true believers have one Father,
are saved in the one way by Christ, are united
by the Spirit as part of the "one body" (1
Cor. xii.) which is invisible, and are also united

to one another by joints and bands, even though
they may be unconscious of that fact. The weak
ness of individual believers, though unknown
to the other members, retards the vigour of the
Church of Christ in its character of leaven
leavening the world. This is the unity prayed
for by Christ, and where its power is exhibited
like the salt of the earth purifying the mass,
it has an effect upon the world (John xvii. 21),
in which Christians are lights (Phil. ii. 15, 16).
Romanists continually harp upon the idea of
"unity." In their view the unity is external,
and consists of persons holding the same faith,
practising externally the same ritual, and in
subjection to one earthly head, the Pope or
Bishop of Rome. But if that were the true
sense of " unity, " there has been no Catholic
Church for centuries, as it has been for ages
split up into bodies who mutually excommuni
cate each other. The Eastern Churches and the
great Russian Church protest against Rome's
assumptions. Over large tracts of this earth's
surface there has been, and is, no " unity." If
it be argued that Christ intended such unity,
then it may well be asserted that He began to
build that which He was not able to finish
(Luke xiv. 29, 30). It will not do to say that
it will be finished in a future age, because
" unity " is, by the hypothesis we are disputing,
assumed to be a mark of the Church in all ages.
The idea of the Reunion of Christendom may
be magnificent, but it is really mischievous. To
realise it the Churches of the East and the West
must be amalgamated with all their doctrinal
and practical errors. The attempts made in
the English Church to prepare for that union
all consist of surrenders to Romish error,
while Rome stands apart, and naturally insists
that the final step of absolute surrender must
be made by all who seek to have communion
with her. Nulla vestigia retrorsum. Moreover,
all such advances towards Rome alienate more
and more the large mass of the Free Protestant
Churches, which are the truest allies of the
evangelical party in the Church of England,
though too often treated by that party with
coldness, if not worse.

"Uniformity" is not "unity." True unity
must come from within. There was unity in the
Christian Church even in the early days when
the believers in Christ still frequented Jewish
synagogues. For Christians were, in general,
not separated from the Jewish synagogue
until the blasphemy and opposition of the
Jews compelled St. Paul to take that step
(Acts xviii. 5-8 ; xix. 8, 9). There may be
"uniformity" where there is no unity, and
unity where there is an absence of uniformity."

[C. H. H. W.]

UNIVERSAL BISHOPRIC OF THE
POPE.— A claim put forward by the Bishop of

UNIVERSAL BISHOPRIC OF POPE [ 749 ]

URSULINES

Rome to be the one Bishop of the Catholic
Church, from whom all other bishops derive
their authority and jurisdiction. This is a part
of the claim to the Supremacy as the claim
was made and allowed in the Middle Ages.
But it stands on its own basis. The Bishops of
Rome might have been monarchs of the Church
and yet not have been its one bishop.

The idea grew out of a false conception
entertained as to the position of St. Peter in
relation to the other Apostles. When Leo I.
and his successors first bethought them of
claiming authority as successors of St. Peter,
the latter was only regarded by them as the
first among the Apostles, not as a ruler over
them. But this did not satisfy the later
claimants ; they must be more than first among
the bishops, and therefore St. Peter must have
been more in relation to the Apostles, as they
derived their claim from him. So St. Peter
was declared to be not only the leading Apostle,
not only the representative (occasionally) of
the Apostles, but the representative of Christ.
What Christ had been to the Apostles, that
Peter was made to become after his departure
R. I. Wilberforce, in his Principles of Church
Authority, which he wrote to excuse his going
to the Church of Rome, pronounces Peter to
be " the especial representative of his Master "
(p. Ill), " associated by peculiar co-partnership
in one of the functions of his Master, and
become by grace that which Christ was by
nature" (p. 112), a thing which "especially
identified him with his Master" (p. 115), and
constituted him " that centre of unity who
bore the keys of office in the midst of his
brethren" (p. 119), and "made him have in
dividually the trust which his brethren received
collectively " (p. 116). At the end of the sixth
and the beginning of the seventh century, the
Popes knew of no such office as this either
in St. Peter or in the Bishops of Rome.
Gregory I. (A.D. 600) did not object to the title
of Universal Bishop, claimed by John of Con
stantinople, as encroaching on the rights of his
see, but on the ground of such an office as a
Universal Bishop being unknown to Scripture,
history, councils, and canons, and destructive
of the faith and discipline of the Church
Catholic. After Boniface III. had received
the title (A.D. 607) from the tyrant Phocas,
who with special reference to Constantinople
forbade its adoption by any one else, it became
more necessary than ever to press the idea
that the episcopate of the Church belonged
solely to the Bishop of Rome by inherent right
as successor of St. Peter, in order to cover the
shameful origin of the name and office. Upon
that idea was based the famous forgery of the
Decretals of Isidore, which attributed to the
first forty Bishops of Rome about a hundred

Decretal Letters, forged in the year 830 and
believed genuine for seven hundred years. By
these forgeries the uncritical Mediaeval Church
was induced to believe in a divinely appointed
Universal Bishopric of the Church being
vested in the Bishops of Rome. The sugges
tion was welcomed by the Popes and acted
upon by them during the late Middle Ages and
afterwards, and it was formally adopted as
a tenet of the Roman Church in 1870, at the
Vatican Council, in conjunction with the dogma
of Papal Infallibility.

It is to be observed that in this matter, as
in many others, the Pope claimed to himself as
an exclusive privilege a function which belongs
to every bishop as much as to himself. When
a man is consecrated, he is made a bishop,
not of a special diocese, nor even of a national
Church, but of the Church of God. His juris
diction extends potentially over the whole of
the Church Catholic — no less. But as a matter
of human arrangement, each bishop's sphere
of work is restrained to one spot, and his
activities are, under normal circumstances,
confined to the diocese in which he is ap
pointed. But suppose that circumstances have
become not normal, suppose that a part of the
Church has become infected with false doctrines,
then his right and duty to maintain the faith
outside his own diocese awakes. In this sense
every bishop is a Universal Bishop, according
to a well-known doctrine of Cyprian. But this
extra-diocesan right of bishops over the whole
Church, to which the early Church trusted
for the restoration of true doctrine whenever
it had been lost, was usurped by the Bishops
of Rome as their exclusive possession, not as
an exceptional function, but as the normal rule
of the Church, and on this usurpation was
grafted the further theory that every local
bishop derived his authority from the Roman
bishop, who delegated to each of them the
powers and jurisdiction that he enjoyed. The
result is that from the year 1870 all independ
ence of thought and act, all liberty of bishops,
priests, laymen, dioceses, provinces, national
Churches, are lost within the Latin Church,
which is, in fact, from that time forward, if
not before, summed up in the person of its
head. Gregory's worst anticipations are real
ised ; as often as the Universal Bishop falls into
error, the whole Latin communion falls, and
must fall, into error with him. [F. M.]

URBI ET OBBI ("To the City and the
World"). — The opening words of public pro
mulgations of decrees by the Pope of Rome.

URSULINES.— The Ursulines are a teaching
order of nuns founded by Angela Merici, of
Brescia, A.D. 1537. At first they took no vows,
and did not live in nunneries, but a French lady,
Madame de Saintebeuve, built and endowed a

"USE," MONASTIC, THE

750 ]

VATICAN COUNCIL

nunnery for Ursulines in the Rue St. Jacques
at Paris, in 1610, and obtained from Paul V. a
Bull by which her foundation was subjected to
the rule of St. Austin, under the invocation
of St. Ursula. This Ursula was a princess of
Great Britain, martyred near Cologne, as the
story says, with eleven thousand virgins who
accompanied her. That occurred, according to
tradition, in 383, but it is well to remember
that the number is not given by any writer until
the twelfth century. The probable opinion is
that there were eleven killed, because the
number is marked thus in ancient documents,
XI. M. V., that is, eleven martyred virgins. In
Cologne there is a church dedicated to the
11,000 virgins, where their skulls are shown.

From the Rue St. Jacques the Ursulines soon
began to spread into other lands. They took
the three solemn vows, and added a fourth,
that of instructing the young. They have
many houses in Great Britain. [T. C.]

"USE," MONASTIC, THE.-A form of the
" Hour" services instituted by Benedict in the
sixth century, by whom the form was derived
from the hermits of Egypt. In the " Hours "
the Psalter was sung through weekly. The
"Hours" were called Matins, Lauds, Prime,
Terce, Sext, Nones, Vespers, and Compline.

UTRAaUISTS.— See HUSSITES.

VACANCY.— In pre-Reformation times when
a benefice was vacant it was not unusual for
the immediate ecclesiastical superior, or the
patron (whether the king or a private person),
to take for his own benefit the profits of the
same. The result of this was that those persons
kept the benefice vacant as long as they could
in order to derive the personal profits. To
prevent this the 28 Hen. VIII. c. 11 was
passed, whereby it was provided that the
profits should accrue to the person ultimately
appointed. The Act enables the archbishop,
bishop, archdeacon, and ordinary to take out
of the profits sufficient to pay a curate during
the vacancy. Churchwardens generally manage
the revenues during a vacancy. [E. B. W.]

VATICAN COUNCIL.— The latest General
Council of the Roman Catholic Church, and
the only one since the close of the Council of
Trent in 1563. At Trent, the extent of the
papal authority was left undetermined, and
opinion remained divided between the Ultra
montane and Gallican theories. Outside of
Italy, however, the principles of papal abso
lutism and infallibility had few advocates
until the new Jesuit Order began to assert its
power. In accordance with the autocratic
ideas of their own constitution the Jesuits

aimed steadily at the centralisation of ecclesi
astical authority, and the abolition of consti
tutional restrictions upon the will of the Pope ;
and so they became the protagonists of that
Ultramontane party which made Christianity
synonymous with Papalism, and sought to
suppress every shred of individuality and
independence in the national Churches.

For long the struggle between Ultramon-
tanism and Gallicanism went on with varying
fortunes, but during the first half of the nine
teenth century the way was gradually prepared
for the triumph of the Ultramontane school.
The old Gallican Church of France, the leading
representative of episcopal and national rights,
was shattered by the great Revolution ; and
the subsequent Concordat between Napoleon I.
and Pius VII. led to the introduction into that
country of an episcopate which was largely
subject to the immediate control of the
Vatican. Again, the reaction which set in all
over Europe after the revolutionary movements
of 1848 gave a renewed impulse to the principle
of absolutism. Meanwhile the Jesuits had
been steadily increasing their power, largely
through the influence of their College in Rome
(Collegia Romano] ; and Jesuits were now the
chief advisers of the Popes, and the ruling
spirits of the Curia.

With the reign of Pius IX., the opportunity
for which the Ultramontanes had long been
waiting seemed to have arrived. The char
acter of that pontiff, at once weak and vain,
made him eagerly agree to any 'proposals for
the augmentation of his dignity. The unusual
length of his tenure of the papal office enabled
him to fill the majority of the Sees with bishops
of the desired stamp. The promulgation, on
his own authority, of the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception in 1854, and of the
Syllabus of Errors ten years later— measures
which may be regarded in part as ballons
d'essai— excited little or no opposition in the
Roman Catholic world. Pius and his counsellors
decided that the time had come to take the
long-contemplated step, and in June 1869 a
bull was issued summoning a General Council
to meet in Rome on the 8th December of the
same year.

By a large part of the Roman Church the
summons was received with deep misgiving,
for the intentions of the Vatican were now
generally known. Various powerful protests
were made, and in particular Dr. Dollinger of
Munich, the most learned historical scholar
in the Church, published in collaboration, it
is understood, with his colleagues Professors
Huber and Friedrich, and under the pseudonym
of " Janus," the celebrated work on The Pope
and the Council which proved so conclusivelv,
even from a Roman Catholic point of view,

VATICAN COUNCIL

[ 751 ]

VATICAN COUNCIL

that the Church could accept the new dogma
only by allowing it to triumph over the estab
lished facts of history. In England, John
Henry Newman, who had now been a Roman
Catholic for nearly a quarter of a century,
was not less emphatic than Dr. Dollinger, and
wrote in terms of passionate alarm to his
diocesan, Bishop Ullathorne, describing the
proposed dogma as the work of " an aggres
sive, insolent faction, "and a "great calamity "
•which he was praying the saints to avert.

On the appointed day the Council met.
The attendance was very large, 764 dignitaries
being present who were entitled to a seat and
a vote. But in spite of its size, the assembly
was far indeed from being properly repre
sentative of the mind of the Church. The
recognised functions of bishops in a Council
when considering Articles of Faith, had been
to attest the historical belief of their flocks.
But nearly one-half of the Infallibilist party
at the Vatican Council was composed either
of merely titular bishops, possessed of no Sees,
or of bishops drawn from modern or missionary
See?, possessed of no ancient traditions. Terri
torially, too, representation was exceedingly
disproportionate. The German bishops were
the elite of the Council in point of learning,
and among them the anti-Infallibilist feeling
was especially strong ; but there were only
fourteen bishops to represent the twelve
millions of Roman Catholics in Germany,
while the Papal States, with but 700,000
inhabitants, were represented by sixty-two.
It ought further to be noted that during the
sittings of the Council, about 300 of the mem
bers were entertained by the Pope as his own
personal guests ; and it is hardly possible to re
gard these prelates as altogether unprejudiced
judges of their host's claim to infallibility.

Even yet, however, the worst has not been
said. It soon appeared that if the minority
were entitled to seats and votes, they were
not to be allowed much else. A few days
before the Council met, Pius issued a brief
(Multiplicea inter) prescribing a mode of pro
cedure truly extraordinary at what professed
to be a council of the Church. The Council
was to appoint none of its own officers ; all
were to be selected by Pius himself. This in
itself was a summary interference with old
conciliar rights ; and what it came to in actual
operation is shown by the fact that not a single
bishop found any place on the various com
missions or committees of the Council but
those who had declared themselves on the
Infallibilist side. Still further, even that
right of free speech which pertains to the
essential idea of a Church Council was taken
away. If any member desired to bring
forward a motion, he had to submit it in

writing to a committee specially appointed
by Pius for this purpose, and if the com
mittee declined to pass it, it could not be
proposed at all. The suppression of free
speech was subsequently made yet more com
plete when it was enacted, by the Pope's
express orders, that the closure should be
applied to an unwelcome speaker at the
demand of any ten bishops ; a rule which
proved a very effectual means, in the hands of
the majority, of stifling honest discussion.
When all these things are borne in mind, it
is not to be wondered at that the defeated
opponents of the infallibility dogma, in
allusion to Leo the Great's Latrocinium
Ephesinum, as descriptive of the " Robber
Synod" of Ephesus in 449, should have
called the Council of 1870 the Ludibrium
Vaticanum — the Vatican mockery.

The real work of the Council was carried on
in secret congregations, but four public sessions
were held for the solemn proclamation of
results. The first two were of minor im
portance, the doctrinal interest centring in
the third and fourth. The third was marked
by the promulgation of the " decrees on the
dogmatic constitution of the Catholic faith,"
directed against modern rationalism in its
various forms, of which Protestantism was
affirmed to be the real parent. As a whole, it
was a somewhat trite and stale dogmatic
utterance, and its most significant feature, as
it appears in the Council's Acta et Dccreta,
lies in its being issued by the Pope himself in
his own name, the Council merely approving
(Sacro approbante Concilio) — a step which
was intended to settle conclusively the old
controversy as to the relative superiority of
Popes and Councils, and to prepare the way
for the " decrees on the dogmatic constitution
of the Church " which were soon to follow.

It was over these decrees on the Church's
constitution (Pastor jEternus) that the real
battle of the Council was waged. After re
hearsing the old claim with regard to the
primacy of Peter, and the succession to this
primacy of the Roman pontiffs, the document
proceeds to assert that the Pope has ordinary
episcopal authority and immediate jurisdiction
over all Catholic churches and dioceses ; that
other bishops are merely his curates and vicars,
as he himself is the Vicar of Christ ; and that
it is unlawful to appeal from his judgment to
an (Ecumenical Council, as though to a superior
authority. Then follows the last chapter of
the constitution, entitled De Romani Pontificis
infallibili magisterio, which concludes with
those portentous claims by which the long
history of the system of papal absolutism was
at length completed : —

" Therefore We [i.e. again, as in the case

VATICAN COUNCIL

[ 752 ]

VATICAN COUNCIL

of the constitution on the Catholic faith, Pius
Episcopus, Sacro approbante Concilia], faith
fully adhering to the tradition received from
the beginning of the Christian faith, for the
glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the
Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian
peoples, teach and define that it is a dogma
divinely revealed : that the Roman pontiff when
he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in dis
charge of the function of Shepherd (Pastor) and
Teacher (Doctor) of all Christians, by virtue of
his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines the
doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held
by the universal Church, by the divine assist
ance promised to himself in blessed Peter, is
possessed of that infallibility with which the
divine Redeemer willed that His Church should
be provided in defining doctrine concerning
faith or morals ; and that therefore such de
finitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church. But if any one presume to contradict
this Our definition, which may God forbid, let
him be anathema."

When the vote on this constitution was first
taken in a secret congregation, 451 members
voted in the affirmative (placet), 88 in the
negative (non placet), and 62 with a qualifica
tion (placet juxta modum), which meant that
they would be willing to accept it if certain
important modifications were made ; while
70 members, though present in Rome, absented
themselves from the meeting. The ensuing
public session was fixed for the 18th July
1870 ; but on the evening preceding, more
than a hundred members of the minority
hurriedly left Rome, after lodging a solemn
protest against the proceedings. In the public
session, 535 were present ; and all but two
voted placet. It is a striking historical coin
cidence, which has often been commented on,
that on the very next day Napoleon III., the
Pope's chief political supporter, declared war
against Prussia, and so precipitated that great
struggle which resulted not only in the estab
lishment of the German Empire, with Protes
tant Prussia as its head, but in the overthrow
of the temporal power of the Papacy itself,
and the occupation of Rome by the troops of
King Victor Emmanuel, only two months after
the promulgation of the new dogma. On
the outbreak of the Franco-German War, the
attendance at the Council rapidly sank to
about 200; and no further interest attaches
to its proceedings. On the 20th October Pius
adjourned it, so that it was never properly dis
solved, and is still technically in existence. It
may be taken as certain, however, that it will
not reassemble. Indeed, there are many who
think that the Roman Catholic Church will
never meet again in a General Council— so

long, at least, as it believes itself to be ruled
by an Infallible Head.

Quite as remarkable as the promulgation of
the decree is the circumstance that the bishops
of the minority, without a single exception,
submitted to it one by one, in spite of their
previous convictions that it was contrary to
the facts of history. An illustration of the
mental processes through which they passed
is afforded by Newman, who, though he had
expressed himself in 1869 to Bishop Ullathorne
in the terms already described, wrote to the
Duke of Norfolk five years later, with refer
ence to the same question of the Pope's
infallibility, that he "accepted as a dogma
what he had ever held as a truth." The
bishops, however, could not always answer
for their flocks ; and it was in protest against
the new dogma that Dollinger and others
threw themselves into the Old Catholic
movement.

It should be noticed, in closing, as a signifi
cant fact, that the history of Koman Catholic
thought since 1870 has abundantly proved that
what Newman called "the acceptance of the
dogma " is no real guarantee of the precise
character of what he describes as " a truth."
Writing in anticipation of the Vatican Council,
"Janus" said, with regard to ex cathedra de
cisions, "The meaning of the term is still
among the dark and inexplicable problems of
dogmatic theology. It remains open to every
Infallibilist to make his own definition of an
ex cathedra decision for his own private uses."
These words are still as true as when they were
written. In the Roman Catholic Church at
the present time, there is no agreement as to
the precise bearing upon faith or morals of
the most important of all the decrees of the
Vatican Council ; and any attempt to obtain
a definition only carries us into " the region
of the private crotchets of theologians." See
INFALLIBILITY ; OLD CATHOLICS.

[The attention of the reader is directed to
the plate of three papal coins given opposite.
One of the three was struck in memory of the
expulsion of the Jesuits now supreme in the
Church of Rome ; another in memory of the
supposed downfall of heresy or Protestantism ;
the third in honour of the Declaration of
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
Mary. ]

The official account of the Vatican Council
is to be found in the Acta et Dccreta Sacrorum
Condi. Recentiorum Collectio Lacensis auct.
presbyteris S.J. e domo B. V.M. sine lobe con-
ceptce ad lacum, torn vii. Acta et Dccreta Sac-
rosancti cecum. Concil. Vatic. Accedunt permulta
alia Documenta ad concil. ejusque hist, spec-
tantia Friburgi Brisgovice sumptibus. Herder
typogr. Editoris Pontif. 1890. 4to, pp. xx,

PAPAL COINS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM

Coin of Innocent XIII., Pont. Max., 1721. The reverse exhibits the Pope enthroned, thank
ing Michael the Archangel (the Pope's surname was Angelo) who is represented as having
slain the hydra of Heresy. The Holy Spirit is seen descending upon both. The legend
is : " Thou wilt renew the face of the earth." Ps. ciii. (Vulg., in the Hebrew, civ.) 80.

Coin struck by Clement XIV., Pont. Max.. in honour of the Dissolution of the Society of
Jesus, 1773. The reverse shows Christ, followed by St. Peter and the Pope, driving
out three Jesuit priests, with the words: '' / nr.ver knew you: depart from me ye all."
They are taken from Matt. vii. 28 in the Vulgate, with the addition of "all"
from Luke xiii. 27. Beneath is the Latin: " Exaug. Soc. lesu. memor. MDCCLXXili.
Ps. cxvii. 23," which reads : " This is the Lord's doiny : and it is marvellous in our eyes."

Medal of Pius IX., Pont. Max., in memory of the Promulgation of the Immaculate
Conception of the B. V. Mary, Dec. 5, 1854. The Virgin is pictured receiving the
adoration of the heavenly host, while the Pope proclaims her Immaculate Concep
tion in the conclave at Rome. The legend underneath is: "Vl-iD.DEC. MDCCCLIV.

VATICAN, THE

[ 753 ]

VESTMENTS

1943. The decrees and canons passed will be
also found in the Appendix to Dr. Salmon's
Infallibility of the Church, 2nd edit., London,
John Murray, 1890. [J. 0. L.]

VATICAN, THE.— The church and palace of
the Pope at Rome. It is held sacred by
Romanists as the reputed burying-place of
SS. Peter and Paul

VEIL (chalice). A thin, transparent covering
for the chalice in the Roman Church, used also
by Ritualists. It is made of silk, embroidered
and fringed, and varies in colour according to
the season.

VENIAL SIN.— By venial sin in the theology
of the Church of Rome is meant such sins as
do not cause the soul spiritual death. Ac
cording to Scripture all sins tend towards death
(John viii. 34 ; Rom. vi. 23). Roman contro
versialists maintain that St. John distinctly
lays down the distinction between mortal and
venial sin in 1 Epist. v. 16, 17. But, if that
were laid down by St. John, his words would
discountenance, if not actually forbid, all in
tercessory prayer on behalf of persons over
come by mortal sins. St. John distinctly
means by "sin unto death" (a phrase only
found in that single passage) such sin as com
pletely separates from Christ, namely, the sin
of open apostasy. In that case St. John affirms
that intercessory prayer cannot be offered up
with the full assurance of its being in all cases
answered. The object of the apostle's exhor
tation in that place, as shown by the context,
was to stir up believers to pray for one another,
that they might be kept from falling, and to
urge the duty of thus seeking to save souls.
His idea is in some respects similar to that of
St. James in his General Epistle, v. 20. See SIN.

[C. H. H. W.]

VERONICA. — See STATIONS OF THE CROSS.

VESPERS. — One of the " Hours," or seven
daily services, of the pre-Reformation and
Roman Catholic Churches. " Vespers " occurs
at 6 P.M.

VESSELS.— See SACRAMENTS ; ORNAMENTS ;
ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.

VESTMENTS.— The ministerial dress of the
clergy. At the beginning no peculiar dress
was worn by the clergy of the Christian Church
at the time that they officiated. But a special
dress grew up spontaneously and almost
necessarily. It was the practice of officials
and of persons of condition in the time of
the Empire to wear a more gala dress than
usual at public ceremonies, and this example
was followed by the Christian clergy. The
special feature of the ordinary dress was the
tunic; of the ceremonial dress, the toga or
some other garment worn as a supervestment
over the tunic. It was etiquette, for example,
to wear the toga when dining with the Emperor,

when it was beginning to be commonly given
up. Fashions changed, but the old forms,
having been once employed for religious cere
monies, continued to be retained in use for
them. Thus, as time proceeded, what was in
fact only an older fashion of lay dress, became
peculiar to those engaged in religious rites or
solemnities.

The old forms of dress were clung to with
the greater determination by the clergy when
the Barbarians had burst into the Empire and
spread through the provinces, because they
served as a claim and proof that the wearers
belonged to the civilised, not to the barbarian
division of the world. The old Roman secular
dress continued in this way to be the distinc
tive apparel of the Christian clergy for some
800 years. Pope Celestine, in the fifth cen
tury, condemns " superstitious observances
in dress " by priests with more than Puritanic
rigour.

At the commencement of the Middle Age?,
in the ninth century, a change had come over
the face of the world. The clergy no longer
desired to distinguish themselves by outward
marks from those who had formerly been
despised as barbarians, but were now rulers
of the Western world and represented by a
Charlemagne. Consequently the old Roman
dress, now slightingly called Byzantine, was
no longer a subject of pride to them. At the
same time a wave of asstheticism and cere
monialism, emanating from the court of Charle
magne, passed over the Church, which led it
to desire something more gorgeous and more
symbolical than had hitherto been in use in
the ministerial dress. Unaware that the
existing dress of the clergy was no more than
a slight modification of the old Roman toga,
the Statesmen and Churchmen of Charle
magne's court (the two names represent the
same persons) looked back to the Aaronic
vestments as the origin of Christian clerical
robes, and they resolved to establish a likeness
between them, wbich they could hardly dis
cover in the existing forms. Speaking gener
ally, the present Roman Catholic vestments
were introduced at this time. Those who seek
to restore them in the English Church are
often unaware that they merely date from the
ninth century, the beginning of the Middle
Ages, and that the surplice, which they wish
to supersede, is more like the robes worn by
the Apostles and the first Christians than any
other vestment. This may easily be seen by
looking at early representations in the Cata
combs and elsewhere.

The Ritualist vestments belong to the
Church of Charlemagne, not of Constantine.
The first modification of the mediaeval garments
in the English Church was made in 1549.

SB

VESTMENTS

[ 754]

VIATICUM

The priest ministering the Holy Communion
was then confined to the use of the alb, sur
mounted by a chasuble or cope ; the deacon
or assistant priest to the alb with tunicle ;
the bishop to the rochet or surplice or alb
with a chasuble or cope. In 1552 the alb,
chasuble, and cope were forbidden, the priest
and deacon being confined to the surplice and
the bishop to the rochet.

Almost immediately after this rule had
been issued, the mediaeval vestments were all
restored on the accession of Mary. In 1559
Elizabeth, and her cautious Statesmen and
Churchmen, resolved to restore the surplice,
but, unwilling to shock prejudice by too violent
and sudden a change, induced the Parliament
to let the rule of 1549 stand for the moment,
while at the same time it gave the Queen
authority to "take other order" on the sub
ject with the assent of the Metropolitan. De
termined to wait till she could carry public
opinion with her, the Queen allowed seven
years to elapse before she exercised this right.
Then she issued Archbishop Parker's "Adver
tisements," which ordered that at the Holy
Communion the officiating clergy should in
Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches use the
cope (which had never been regarded as a
" sacrificial " garment), and that at all other
times and in all other Churches a surplice only
should be used. That became the law of
the land from 1566 onwards. In 1604 it was
formally adopted as the law of the Church by
the canons of that year, with the only modi
fication that the cope was confined to the
principal festivals.

The Prayer Books of 1604 and 1662 retained
what we know as the Ornaments rubric (which
is part of a clause of an Act of Parliament)
without alteration of any significance, the
object of their doing so being to justify
the rule introduced by the Advertisements,
which were authorised to be issued by the
clause of which the Ornaments rubric is a part,
and to retain the practice which at the time
existed, and in which it was not desired to
make any change. The surplice was univer
sally wished for, and the words at ALL times
of their administration virtually abolished all
distinctive dresses. We thus see that by
the law of the land since 1566, and by the
law of the Church of England since 1604,
the surplice, with the academical hood, has
been the appointed dress of the clergy in all
their ministrations, except in the celebration of
Holy Communion in Cathedral and Collegiate
Churches, when the cope (never having been
made, like the chasuble, a symbol of super
stitious belief) was ordered. This law of the
Church and State was never broken, so far as
the surplice is concerned, till the year I860,

when the Rev. T. Chamberlain introduced the
alb and the chasuble into St. Thomas' Church,
Oxford. Since that time the law has more
and more frequently been broken, often from
a misunderstanding of the Ornaments rubric,
so called. On the subject of vestments in
general, see Marriott's Vestiarium Christianum,
and on the force of the Ornaments rubric,
see Lord Selborne's Memorials, pt. ii. vol. i.
p. 377. For a different view of the " other
order " see Tomlinson on the Ornaments
rubric. [F. M.]

VESTRY is the name of the meeting of the
ratepayers of a parish in vestry assembled. It
was not a meeting of persons elected to repre
sent the ratepayers, but each ratepayer,
whether Churchman or Dissenter, had a right
to attend and vote, whether male or female.
Vestries used to have considerable powers,
since all matters affecting the parish — both
secular and ecclesiastical — were dealt with in
vestry. By custom certain parishes elected
select vestrymen to represent the general body
of the ratepayers, and such elected vestrymen
are called a " select vestry," and this also
occurred in some places by adopting Hob-
house's Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 60. In urban
parishes, except where their powers have been
taken away by a local Act, vestries still retain
their civil powers. In London vestries have
had their powers transferred to the District
Council. In rural parishes the civil powers of
the vestry have been, by the Local Government
Act of 1894, transferred to the Parish Council.
Vestries still, however, retain their ecclesias
tical powers. These vary slightly in different
parishes. The churchwardens are elected by
them. The examination of the churchwardens'
accounts as to parish charities is also a function
of the vestry. They are also useful in ascer
taining the opinion of the parish as to dis
puted ecclesiastical offences for the information
of the ecclesiastical courts. The incumbent of
the parish has generally the right to preside
at the meeting. [E. B. W.]

VIATICUM. — A name given to a death-bed
communion as supplying spiritual provision to
the end of the journey of life.

It has been asserted that " The thirteenth
canon of the Council of Nicasa ordered all
men to receive the Viaticum " (488), and this
statement is often made by Ritualists, but it
is not true. The injunction only applies in
the case of those who have been excommuni
cated for life, or for a long period. In this
case the Council decreed that though the
period of their excommunication were not
completed, they should yet be admitted to
communion on their death-bed, lest they
should die without the peace of the Church.
The canon has nothing to do with any that

VICAR APOSTOLIC

[ 755

VIGILANTIUS

are already enjoying the peace of the Church,
not having been excommunicated by her. The
necessity, or even the desirableness of a death
bed communion of the faithful cannot be
based on this canon. Whether it is desirable
or not— and it frequently is very desirable —
must be for the decision of the sick man and
the parish clergyman. The Nicene canon is
not a Church rule of universal application, as
Ritualists would fain represent it to be, but
only a regulation intended for the relief of
the excommunicate. In the case of severe
sickness it was sometimes customary to take
the consecrated elements from the Lord's
Table in the church to the sick man's house ;
at other times they were consecrated in the
sick chamber, as is appointed by the Church
of England in " The Communion of the Sick."
Cyprian speaks of the consecration taking
place in prisons (Ep. V.). Ambrose was in
vited to administer the Holy Communion in
a house in the Transtevere ( Vita Ambrosii).
Paulinas of Nola and Gregory of Nazianzum's
father and sister were in the custom of
having it celebrated in their own rooms, to
meet special needs. [F. M.]

VICAR APOSTOLIC.— A Vicar Apostolic is
an ecclesiastic (generally of episcopal rank,
though sometimes one of lesser position) em
powered by the Pope to exercise functions,
often those belonging to bishops in a country
or diocese where, for various reasons, the
Roman Catholic Church is not fully consti
tuted. The Roman Catholic Church in Eng
land used to be under the government of such
Vicars Apostolic previous to the country being
re-parcelled out into dioceses in 1851. Vicars
Apostolic exist in China and other heathen
countries, and some even in lands of Europe.

VICAR GENERAL.— See OFFICIAL PRIN
CIPAL.

VIGIL ANTIUS.— The importance of this article
is derived not so much from the personal great
ness of Vigilantius, as from the fact that he,
along with Jovinian and several others, repre
sented a protest against those superstitions
which gradually became the staple staff of
Romanism. In the latter half of the fourth
century and the beginning of the fifth in our
era, those superstitions, though pernicious
and unscriptural in their very nature, were
not yet dominant in the Church. Against
their growing domination a group of faithful
reformers raised their protest, which, though
at the time ineffectual, was not fruitless, and
for which they deserve to be gratefully
remembered.

The name of Vigilantius has remained upon
the list of heretics invented by Rome from
his day to ours. This article is intended to do
justice to the man by disproving the impu

tation. Our principal source of information
about Vigilantius is a treatise written against
him by Jerome somewhere about the year
A.D. 406. There are notices of him scattered
over contemporary writings.

He was born about the year A.D. 370, at
Calaguris, near Convenze, a station on the
great Roman road which conducted travellers
from Aquitaine through the Pyrenees to Spain.
At Calaguris his father had kept a hostelry,
and he himself was associated with his father
in the business of the house. This fact we
learn from Jerome, who taunts Vigilantius with
being a seller of wine.

Vigilantius in his youth en joyed an intimacy
with Sulpicius Severus, who held property in
that neighbourhood. Severus was a historian
of some merit, and a pious Christian. He was,
however, gradually infected with the prevail
ing superstitions which were powerfully
fostered in south-west Gaul by the example
and teaching of Martin of Tours. By means
of his connection with Sulpicius Severus,
Vigilantius gained a good degree of know
ledge, and was introduced to the society of
several eminent and polished Christians. To
the same friendship he was indebted for a
personal acquaintance with Martin, whose
ascetic methods he was able to observe when
taken to visit the saint by Severus. An event
of importance to Vigilantius and to the forma
tion of his opinions was a visit to Paulinus at
Nola, which he paid while still a young layman.
At Nola he saw the full effects of the worship
of departed saints, and at one time perhaps
felt its fascination.

Of the fact that Vigilantius was made
presbyter, there is no doubt. But it is un
certain in what year he was ordained, and
what bishop ordained him. His ordination
probably took place in Gaul. From Nola, Vigi
lantius travelled to Palestine towards the close
of the fourth century, bearing letters of intro
duction to Jerome, then a recluse at Bethlehem.
After staying for some time there, he visited
Jerusalem, and passed from Jerusalem to
Egypt, where he studied for a time at Alex
andria. From Egypt he returned to Italy,
and having visited the Cottian Alps, con
cluded his wanderings by once more settling
in Aquitaine. It was after these journeys
that in the year A.D. 406, Vigilantius wrote the
work, expressing his doctrinal views, which
has given celebrity to his name. The details
of his later life are uncertain. He appears to
have been obliged to withdraw from Gaul to
the southern side of the Pyrenees in order
to avoid the violence of the storm aroused
against him by Jerome's pamphlet In Spain
Vigilantius ministered at Barcelona. His
opinions were espoused by the Churches on

VIGILANTIUS

I 756 ]

VIGILANTIUS

the northern coast of the Mediterranean, and,
according to the judgment of Dr. Gilly, were
the seeds from which sprang the movements
of the Albigenses and the Vaudois. Ex-
uperius, Bishop of Toulouse, the Diocesan
of Vigilantius, strongly supported him. Mos-
heim says: "The sentiments of Vigilantius
were not offensive to several of the Gallic and
Spanish bishops."

I cannot better close the biography of
Vigilantius than by the following brief ex
tract from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History,
century 5, chapter 3, section 14 : " Vigilantius,
a presbyter of Gallic extract, but resident in
Spain, was a learned and eloquent man. He
issued several tracts. His effort to check the
reigning superstition was crushed in its com
mencement. The good man's name still re
mains in the list of heretics."

Opinions of Vigilantius. — Vigilantius argued
against the following errors : (1) Reverence
paid to the relics of holy men, especially
against the custom of carrying these relics
round the churches in costly vases, or in
silken coverings, that they might be kissed
by worshippers. (2) Against prayers offered
to the departed. (3) Against vigils at the
basilicas of martyrs, on the ground that
these vigils occasioned licentious behaviour.
(4) Against the burning of multitudinous tapers
at shrines and in processions. (5) Against
the allegations that miracles were habitually
wrought at the graves or altars of martyred
saints. (6) Against the sending to Jerusalem
of alms, which, Vigilantius urged, ought to
be spent on the poor in the dioceses where
those alms were collected. (7) Against the
monastic vow of poverty, which was, in
fact, renouncing property under compulsion.
(8) Against the exorbitant estimation in which
virginity was held (see Gilly's Viyilantius
and His Times, chap, xviii. p. 387). It is
probable that an early evangelical bent of
mind, derived from pure and primitive times,
and fostered by diligent study of the Holy
Scriptures, constrained Vigilantius to state
his objections to errors essentially pagan,
which he had seen both at home and abroad
to be increasingly taking possession of the
Church of Christ. This motive in writing is
quite sufficient, and we need not seek for any
other ; and least of all ought we to credit
Jerome when he ascribes the books of Vigi
lantius to motives of the basest and most
irrational order.

There is a striking resemblance between
the doctrines of Vigilantius and those of
Jovinian, and so close as to merit attention.
For though I do not know of any proof that
Vigilantius borrowed from Jovinian, yet in
spirit and attitude of mind both belonged

to the same movement of protest in favour
of a purer Christianity, and they were almost
contemporaries. A brief account, therefore,
of Jovinian, will be in place in this article.

As in the case of Vigilantius, so in that of
Jovinian, we depend mainly on the testimony
of Jerome, contained in a treatise written to
expose his doctrines. In Mosheim's Ecclesi
astical History, century iv. vol. i. p. 3(55, we
read: "Jovinian was an Italian monk who
taught first at Home, then at Milan, near the
close of the (fourth) century : and persuaded
many that all persons whatever, if they keep
the vows made to Christ in baptism, and live
godly lives, have an equal title to the rewards
of heaven." Honorius banished Jovinian to
the Isle of Boa.

Jovinian wrote in Latin, and published the
book containing his doctrines at Rome. Though
he was a defender of the sanctity of marriage,
he remained himself a monk to the end of his
life. His writings were brought under the
notice of Siricius, Bishop of Rome, and were
synodically condemned both at Rome and at
Milan, A.D. 390. But a more formidable and
effective condemnation of Jovinian was pro
nounced by Jerome in the treatise before
mentioned, in which the great scholar stooped
to the unworthy violence of stigmatising his
opponent " as a preacher of a gospel of lust
and gluttony."

According to Jerome, whose testimony must
be received with caution, the principal and
distinctive opinions defended by Jovinian were
these : (1) That in the sight of God a virgin,
as such, is no better than a wife. (2) That
abstinence from food is no better than par
taking of food with thanksgiving. (3) That
a person baptized with the Spirit as well as
with water cannot sin. (4) That all sins are
equal. (5) That in the world to come there
will be only one grade of punishment, and
only one reward. He is also said to have
taught that the birth of our Lord was a true
parturition. See the excellent remarks in
Schaff, Nicene and Post - Nicene Christianity,
vol. ii. p. 985-986.

Upon comparing the doctrines insisted on
by Vigilantius with those ascribed to Jovinian,
it is clear that the same spirit animated the
two men. Both struck in favour of Christian
freedom, and of the essentially spiritual and
inward character of Christianity. Of the two
men Jovinian seems to have gone more deeply
into things, whether because he was older
when he wrote, or because his spiritual insight
was clearer, cannot now be determined. While
Vigilantius objected chiefly to external dis
figurements in Christian worship and alms
giving, Jovinian penetrated to matters vitally
affecting central doctrines. He is styled by

VIGILS

[ 757 ] VISITATION OF THE SICK

Neander (Church History, vol. iii. p. 381)
"the Protestant of his time. He went on the
principle that there is but one divine element
of life, which all believers share in common ;
but one fellowship with Christ, which proceeds
from faith in Him ; but one new birth. All,
therefore, who are Christians in the true
sense, not barely in outward profession, have
the same calling, the same dignity, the same
heavenly blessings."

Surely, this is Protestantism indeed, in one
of its precious elements at least, and surely,
to do justice, however tardy, to these witnesses
to the true " Protestant Succession," is a
delightful duty. Nor is the task unnecessary ;
for Jerome in his pamphlets against Jovinian
and Vigilantius has misrepresented them with
a grossness and ferocity which hurt nothing
so much as their author and his cause. It is
pitiful to read by what evasions and contortions
Jerome endeavours to meet or avoid Jovinian's
appeal to 1 Corinthians vii. on the subject
of marriage. It is humiliating to read the
language of irascible and indecent vitupera
tion in which the foremost scholar of Christen
dom assailed the young presbyter Vigilantius,
whose modest arguments he could not confute.
Note. — For a clear and sympathetic explana
tion of Jovinian's doctrine about the impecca
bility of the baptized, see Neander, Church
History, vol. iii. p. 385. In John Foxe,
Book I., see a summary of Roman doctrines
about marriages, and of their consequences.
In Dr. Gilly's Vigilantius and His Times, p.
395, a few sentences of Vigilantius may be
seen which express his temper as a writer.
Both Dr. Gilly and Dr. Freemantle pronounce
Jerome's pamphlet against Vigilantius to be
the most violent of all his polemical writings.
Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. i. p. 99,
supports the view of the community in spirit
between Jovinian and Vigilantius adopted in
this article. [H. J. R. M.]

VIGILS. — The evens preceding certain feasts,
prescribed in the Prayer Book to be observed
as fasts.

VIRGIN MARY.— See under MARY.

VISION, BEATIFIC.— The glorious sight
of God in the future life. This sight was
regarded as one of the chief enjoyments of
heaven. It is probably alluded to in 1 Cor.
xiii. 12 ; 1 John iii. 3 ; Rev. xxii. 3, 4, although
it may be the glory of Christ as the Revealer
of the Father which is referred to, for St. Paul
in 1 Tim. vi. 16, 17 speaks of the Eternal God
as incapable of being seen by any man (in that
passage "no one" is in the Greek <wd«y
dv6p<Jnrui>, " no man "). The Greek Church and
many Protestant theologians suppose that this
*' vision " is to be vouchsafed after the
Judgment Day. But the Council of Florence

combated that view, ailirming : "We deter
mine that the souls of those who have remained
pure and spotless after baptism, and of those
whose sins after baptism have been pardoned,
either in this life or in the next, are immedi
ately received into heaven, and behold plainly
the Triune God as He is." Popes have differed
on this matter, and Protestant theologians
also have written as if far more can be known
than is distinctly set forth in Holy Scripture. It
behoves us not to pronounce dogmatically con
cerning things not plainly revealed.

[C. H. H. W.]

VISITATION OF THE SICK.— Immediately
after the Service for Holy Matrimony follows
that for "The Visitation of the Sick." They
who so lately vowed to love one another alike
in sickness and health, are called upon to
fulfil their vows in the former as in the latter.
Herein the Church of England provides abeauti-
ful Service, either for use, or as a model, how
the clergyman should minister to a suffering
member of his flock. It begins with the saluta
tion of "Peace" to the house. When come
into the sick man's presence, the minister inter
cedes for the Lord's sparing mercy in his behalf,
and that God's Fatherly correction may be
so sanctified that the patient's " sense of weak
ness may add strength to his faith, and
seriousness to his repentance," and that, if
restored, he may " lead the residue of his life
to God's glory, or else, after this painful life,
he may dwell with God in life everlasting."
Next follow a short and a longer exhortation,
stating the gracious design of God in sending
sickness, and the blessed fruit of sanctified
affliction. In order to help the patient's self-
examination, the minister rehearses the Creed,
and the sick person answers, " All this I stead
fastly believe."

Further, the minister tests him as to the
reality of his repentance and of his charity.
Here the sick person is moved to " make a
special confession, (1) if he feel his conscience
troubled, (2) with any weighty matter," (3)
and "the priest shall absolve him, if he
humbly and heartily desire it, (4) after this
sort." Notice "sort." The Prayer Book of
1549 said " after this form." So it is not now
necessary to use this form at all. The 67th
Canon leaves every licensed preacher liberty
in this matter. What makes this remarkable
is, it is the only service which the Canon Law
leaves optional. Therefore the Church does
not regard this absolution as divinely necessary
for pardon, else she would insist upon its use.

The Prayer Book of 1549 directed that the
Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick should be
used in private confession, but this rubric was
struck out in the Prayer Book of 1552. As
the Absolution of Morning Prayer is declaratory

VISITATION OF THE SICK [ 758 ] VISITATION OP THE SICK

(i.e. declaring that God absolves all the penitent
in the congregation who truly believe His Holy
Gospel); and the Absolution in the Communion
Service is precatory for the congregation ; so
that in the Visitation of the Sick is applicatory
to the troubled individual. It is in the first
person, " I absolve thee," to give the seal of
assurance to the penitent by the absolution
which the minister pronounces, proclaiming
Christ's pardon is granted beforehand according
to God's word, if indeed, the sick man be truly
a penitent believer. Still our Church does not
regard this absolution as infallible before God,
for He alone knows the heart ; so the very
next Collect prays, " Open Thine eye of mercy
upon this Thy servant, who most earnestly
desireth pardon. . . . Impute not unto him
his former sins, . . . take him unto Thy favour,
through the merits of Thy most dearly beloved
Son Jesus Christ."

The confession and the absolution are not,
as in the Roman Church, secret. The responses
suppose the presence of others. When the Lord
gave the commission, "Whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted," there were evidently
other " disciples " present besides the apostles,
as is proved by Luke xxiv. 33, 47, 49: " them
that were with them ; " and John xx. 19-23 ;
i. 66, 67, which proves that John does not
identify the " disciples " with " the Twelve."

The indicative Form of Absolution was not
introduced till as late as the close of the
thirteenth century. After the Decian perse
cution, the penitentiary was to hear confessions
and determine whose offences should bepublicly
acknowledged. Nectarius abolished this, owing
to a consequent scandal. Morinus, a learned
Roman Catholic (De Sacris Ordinibus and
De Sacramento Penitentue), proves that before
the thirteenth century the Absolution was
precatory, " May God absolve thee." The
indicative form, " I absolve thee," then intro
duced (to comply with the decree of the
Lateran Council, A.D. 1215), was designed for
remitting C'hurch censures. Rome invests priests
with judicial power, requiring all to confess
at their tribunal, and there to be judged. Our
Church allows members to consult the pastor.
This confession is not secret, nor necessary
nor entire. See ABSOLUTION, FOBMS OF ;
CONFESSION, AURICULAR.

The Levitical priest was said (Lev. xiii. 6,
Septuagint) to cleanse the leper when he only
pronounced him clean, God having heeded him
previously ; so our presbyters only declare that
forgiveness which God has beforehand granted
to the penitent believer the moment he turns
to Him: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
left power to (not in) His Church to absolve
all sinners who truly repent and believe in
Him, of His great mercy forgive thee." It is

to His Church (i.e. the whole body lay and
clerical, not the clergy alone), the power is
given (2 Cor. ii. 10). The minister is only the
Church's representative, and absolves only in
the same way that Peter did (Acts x. 43) : " To
Him give all the prophets witness, that through
His name whosoever believeth in Him shall
receive remission of sins ; " and as Paul did
(Acts xiii. 38) : " Be it known unto you . . . that
through this man is preached unto you the
forgiveness of sins; and by him all that
believe are justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law."

The Irish Church has substituted for our Ab
solution in the Visitation of the Sick the follow
ing Collect: "Almighty God, our Heavenly
Father, who of His great mercy hath promised
forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty
repentance and true faith turn unto Himj
have mercy upon thee ; pardon and deliver
thee from all thy sins ; confirm and strengthen
thee in all goodness ; and bring thee to ever
lasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord."
The American Episcopal Church has substi
tuted the form in the Morning Service.

The second book of Homilies, on James v.
16, "Confess your faults one to another,"
remarks: "By this the priests are as much
bound to confess to the lay people as the lay
people to the priests. Who is the true priest
but He which is the priest for ever, after the
order of Melchisedek ? We ought to acknow
ledge none other priest for deliverance from
sins but our Saviour, who, being our sovereign
bishop, doth, with the sacrifice of His body
and blood, offered once for ever upon the altar
of the Cross, most effectually cleanse the
spiritual leprosy, and wash away the sins
of all those that with true confession of the
same do flee unto Him. If any find themselves
troubled in conscience, they may repair to
their pastor, or some other godly, learned man,
and show their trouble to them, that they
may receive at their hand the comfortable
salve of God's Word ; but it is against true
Christian liberty that any be bound to the
numbering of his sins, as in the time of blind
ness and ignorance " (second part of Homily
on Repentance). The Romish rubric requires
a full and detailed confession, and that to the
priest, and admits of no reservation or excep
tion: "Then shall the penitent make a gen
era! confession in Latin or the vulgar tongue,
namely, the Coufiteor, &c. If he shall not
have expressed the number, kind, and circum
stances of his sin, which are all necessary to
be unfolded, the priest shall prudently inter
rogate him. And if he fears that probably
the penitent's confession is not complete, he
shall examine into those which he suspects
he conceals."

VISITATION OF THE SICK [ 759 ] VISITATION OF THE SICK

In the Prayer Book of 1549 the expression
was, "The sick person shall make a special
confession." In that of 1552 an important
advance was made ; the expression is, " Shall
be moved to make." Even in the former the
confession was mainly concerned with the
weighty matter troubling the conscience, not
all the details. But still, the requirement
was absolute as to that exceptional case. Our
present one is not absolute, but is only a con
fession such as he is moved to make. Accord
ing to the Council of Trent, pardon was
conveyed by the absolution. In our Church's
view, pardon is from God, on the condition of
repentance and faith, declared by His minister
from God's Word authoritatively.

The Romish Service directs the priest to
sprinkle the patient and his bed with holy
water, saying the antiphon " Asperges," &c.

The prayer " Remember not, Lord," &c., is
derived from the Sarum office. The answer
"Spare us, good Lord," was added in 1661,
with the rubric : " Then the minister shall say,
Let us pray." The Lord's Prayer, following
the petitions, called the lesser Litany, had
been given in the Rornish style. In 1661, the
present form was introduced as an unbroken
prayer. The versicles are from Scripture. The
prayer "O Lord, look down," &c., is drawn
from the Sarum office. Also the prayer, " Al
mighty and merciful God," &c., is from the
Sarum office, except that it omits the allu
sion to the Lord "vouchsafing to visit Peter's
wife's mother, and the centurion's servant,"
and the apocryphal "Tobias and Sarah
through Thy holy angel Raphael." In 1661
it assumed its present form.

The first book permitted anointing, if the
sick person desired it ; the priest was to anoint
him on the forehead or breast only, making
the sign of the cross, and saying, " As with this
visible oil thy body is outwardly anointed, so
our heavenly Father, Almighty God, grant of
His infinite goodness, that thy soul inwardly
may be anointed with the Holy Ghost, who is
the Spirit of all strength, comfort, relief, and
gladness ; and vouchsafe for His great mercy
(if it be His blessed will) to restore unto thee
thy bodily health and strength, to serve Him ;
and send thee release of all thy pains, troubles,
and diseases both in body and mind." The
Scripture, James v. 14, 15, Rome quotes for
extreme unction : " Is any sick among you ? let
him call for the elders of the Church ; and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
the name of the Lord : and the prayer of faith
shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise
him up ; and if he have committed sins, they
shall be forgiven him." But the command is,
" call for the elders," not some one of the elders.
The prayers of the elders over the sick would

be the same as though the whole Church,
which they represent, should pray for him.
Anointing with oil was a usage which Christ
committed to His apostles (Mark vi. 13) and
afterwards continued with "laying on of
hands " (Mark xvi. 18), as a token of the highest
healing faculty in the Church, just as 1 Cor.
vi. 2 expresses its highest judicial faculty.
The miraculous gift of healing is withdrawn ;
to use the sign when the reality is wanting
is mere superstition, so other apostolic usages
are rightly discontinued (1 Cor. xvi. 20).
Rome's extreme unction is administered to
those whose life is despaired of, in order to
heal the soul, but St. James's unction was in
order to heal the body. Cardinal Cajetan says
(Commentary), "It cannot be gathered, either
from the words or the effect, that these words
were spoken of the sacrament of extreme
unction, but rather of that anointing which the
Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be used
by the disciples on the sick ; for here it is not
one sick unto death, but absolutely one sick;
the effect is the relieving of the sick, and it
speaks of the remission of sins only conditionally,
whereas extreme unction is only at the point
of death, and tends directly to the remission of
sins. Besides James commands many elders
to be sent for, both to pray and anoint thr
sick, which is foreign to the rite of extreme
unction."

The prayer, " 0 Saviour of the world," which
the first book called an anthem, is taken
from the Sarum office. The Benediction,
" The Almighty Lord, who is a most strong
tower to all them that put their trust in Him,"
belongs to the year 1549 ; and the final blessing
is framed from that in Num. vi. 23-26. What
a contrast is the Romish form: "Jesus, Son
of Mary, Salvation and Lord of the world, by
the merits and intercessions of Thy holy
Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints,
be clement and propitious to thee."

The prayers " For a sick child," and "For a
sick person when there is small hope of re
covery," and the " Commendatory Prayer for
one at the point of departure," and "For
persons troubled in conscience," illustrate the
care our Church takes of her children of every
age and in every state.

Communion of the sick. — The first Book of
King Edward allowed the elements to be
reserved for the use of the sick. But the
rubrics as to reservation were omitted in 1552,
and this rubric was adopted : "Having a con
venient place in the sick man's house, where
the curate may reverently minister, and a
good number to receive with the sick person,
he shall then minister the Holy Communion."
The Revision of 1661 fixed the number at
"three, or two at the least." In 1661 the

vows

[ 760 ]

VOWS

following was inserted after the Gospel : " The
priest shall proceed according to the form
prescribed for the Holy Communion, beginning
at, Ye that do truly and earnestly repent."
This direction, requiring the consecration to
be performed in the house of the sick, positively
bars the reservation of the elements for the
sick. The Communion of the Sick is not, as
the Romish Viaticum (see VIATICUM), designed
to be a kind of passport to heaven ; but for the
comfort of the sick believer who longs to realise
by this appointed seal, communion with Christ,
and with all His living members. To prevent
it becoming a private eating, three, or at least
two, must communicate with him. Only "in
the time of plague . . . upon special request
of the diseased, the minister may only com
municate with him."

For the comfort of believers, among the
closing rubrics is the one which most clearly
affirms that faith is the only means by which
we receive the body of Christ, and that the
bread and wine do not act as a magical charm.
" If a man, either by reason of extremity of
sickness, or for want of warning in due time
to the curate, or for lack of company to
receive with him. or by any other just im
pediment, do not receive the Sacrament of
Christ's body and blood, the curate shall
instruct him, that if he do truly repent him
of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus
Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for
him, and shed His blood for his redemption,
earnestly remembering the benefits he hath
thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks there
fore, he doth eat and drink the body and
blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to
his soul's health, although he do not receive
the Sacrament with his mouth." The twenty-
eighth Homily agrees with this : " For this is
to stick fast to Christ's promise made in His
institution, to make Christ thine own, and to
applicate His merits unto thyself. Herein thou
needest no other man's help, no other sacrifice
or oblation, no sacrificing priest, no mass, no
means established by man's invention." What
cause we have to thank God for the un
equivocal protest against Sacerdotalism which
we have in our scriptural Church formularies.

[A. R. F.]

VOWS. — A vow (Lat. rotum, Gr. eir*7?) is a
voluntary promise made to God of something
supposed to be acceptable to Him. In the Old
Testament, vows meet us in two chief forms.
Sometimes they are of the nature of a bargain,
being conditional on deliverance from some
great danger or the obtaining of some great
benefit — examples being seen in Jacob's vow
at Bethel, Jephthah's vow before attacking the
Ammonites, Hannah's vow in the tabernacle
at Shiloh. At other times they spring simply

from the desire to give expression to religious
zeal and devotion, and take the form especially
of a promise to abstain from lawful enjoy
ments. Such, for example, was the vow of
David referred to in the opening verses of
Psalm cxxxii. There is little in the Old
Testament in the way of legislative enactment
on the subject of vows. In Deuteronomy it is
expressly implied that there is no merit in
vowing, as there is no sin in forbearing to
vow (xxiii. 22). On the other hand, it is
frequently insisted that after vows have been
made, they cannot be left undischarged with
out guilt (Deut. xxiii. 21 ; Prov. xx. 25 ; Eccles.
v. 4-6 ; Mai. i. 14). On the whole, it seems
evident that the Old Testament does not
represent vows in themselves as of any value
for religion or morality. It is plain, moreover,
that the vows which it records sometimes
sprang from very mixed motives, and cannot
be regarded as determinative for Christian
piety.

When we come to the New Testament we
find no positive utterance with regard to vows.
Once Jesus referred to the subject, but did so
only to condemn the Jewish rule of Corban
which enabled a man by means of a vow to
elude his duty to his parents (Mark vii. 9-13).
In the Epistles not a single allusion to vows is
to be found. Some Jesuit writers have dis
covered a justification of them, and even of
the life of the Religious Orders, in the account
in Acts of the community of goods that
existed for a time in the Mother-Church of
Jerusalem ; but this is a fantastic idea to which
a scientific exegesis lends no support. The
only New Testament precedents that can be
alleged for Christian vows are found in Acts
xviii. 18, and xxi. 23-24. In the first of these
passages it is doubtful whether it was Paul or
Aquila who had made the vow to have his
head shorn ; and in any case, it must be re
membered that both Paul and Aquila were
Jewish Christians, and that Jewish Christians
continued for a considerable time to observe
certain practices of Judaism which Christianity
by-and-by rendered obsolete. A similar re
mark has to be made regarding the second
passage, in which we find Paul associating
himself in a sympathetic way with four men
who were bound by a Nazarite vow. The
question of the value of vows, accordingly,
obtains no direct elucidation from the New
Testament, and for an answer we must appeal
to the broader principles of the Christian
religion.

At an early period in the post-apostolic
history we find that the practice of making
vows had established itself in the Church,
partly, no doubt, through pagan as well as
Jewish influences (for in all the heathen

vows

761

VULGATE

religions of antiquity vows were associated
with sacrifice), but largely through the growth
of ascetic ideas as to the most effective way
of maintaining the life of personal holiness.
Two main classes of vows came to be recog
nised by the Church. Vota realia were vows
to present a material gift ; and in Roman
Catholic countries examples of such gifts may
still be seen in the offerings of wax candles, or
in the models of ships which are suspended in
certain churches by sailors who have been
delivered from the danger of shipwreck. Vota
personalia, again, were vows"' bearing directly
upon personal conduct. The vow to go on
pilgrimage is an example, but the most frequent
and important of personal vows were those of
abstinence or self-limitation, which, again,
reached their crowning height in the great
monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedi
ence, whereby devotion to God was supposed
to reach its consummation through a definite
entrance upon what came to be known as the
stains religiosus.

The presupposition of personal vows was that,
besides the common morality to which all
Christians are bound, there is a higher life of
godliness which is not commanded, while yet
there is merit in consecrating one's self to it.
Such vows, accordingly, were closely connected
with the mediaeval teaching regarding "evan
gelical counsels " (i.e. counsels whose neglect
brings no sin nor guilt, while their fulfilment
secures a higher perfection). In the language
of the scholastic theologians, a vow is a
promise to God de bono meliori — the bonum
melius being a work of supererogation, such as
poverty or chastity, which is not necessary to
salvation. In the Roman Catholic Church, per
sonal vows are further distinguished as solemn
and simple. Solemn vows are those which
are laid solemnly before the Church and by
her accepted, and which are consequently
irrevocable. Simple vows, originally called
private vows, are such as are left to the
discretion of the individual, and dispensation
from which can be obtained from a bishop
or religious superior on just cause being
shown.

Through its rejection of all ascetic growths,
but particularly through its repudiation of the
doctrine of supererogation, Protestantism was
led to take up an attitude of hostility to the
whole Roman Catholic system of special vows.
The idea of a solemn and binding promise of
devotion to God was by no means called in
question ; on the contrary, it was recognised
that that belongs to the very essence of
Christian consecration, which is a devotion
of one's self to the Lord in body and spirit.
Both Luther and Calvin recognised that the
baptismal promise was of the nature of a vow,

a vow constantly renewed throughout the life
of the believer. Where they and all subsequent
Protestant teachers definitely separate them
selves from the Roman Catholic teaching on
the subject of vows is, (1) in rejecting the
notion that we are in a position to promise
to God something which we were under no
obligation to give ; and (2), as the conse
quence of this, in denying that there is a
region of superior piety lying beyond the
general boundaries of Christianity, and that
a peculiar merit attaches to certain virtues
or performances with which the majority of
Christian people are quite at liberty to dis
pense. See MONASTICISM ; ASCETICISM ;
NUNS AND NUNNERIES. [J. C. L.]

VULGATE.— The Vulgate is the name by
which the Latin version of the Bible, pre
pared by Jerome towards the close of the
fourth century, has been known for over
fifteen hundred years. It was in part no
more than a revision of an earlier version,
and, in part, in the Old Testament (excepting
the Psalter), a new translation from the ori
ginal Hebrew. It is necessary, therefore, to
go back for a century or two and ascertain the
earlier history of the Latin Bible. The claim
of Christianity to be the true religion, to pos
sess the one full and complete revelation of
God to man, and to set forth the one and
only Saviour of mankind, carries with it the
obligation to make its Holy Scriptures, con
taining the message of life eternal, known to
all mankind. Hence it was that whither
soever the first apostles and their successors
carried the Gospel beyond the bounds of the
Greek-speaking world, one of the first neces
sities they had to meet was to provide in the
vernacular speech of the newly evangelised
peoples the record of God's revelation of
Himself as contained in the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments. It was no
small part of the Providential preparation of
the world for Christianity that when Christ
appeared Greek was so widely diffused through
out the Roman Empire as the language of
learning and religion. It was due to the
Septuagint translation of the Old Testament
(see SEPTUAGINT) that Greek rather than
Latin was the language of the early Church,
and that the New Testament record was given
to the world by its Jewish writers in Greek
rather than in Hebrew. The Septuagint was
the first translation known to the classical
world, and the motive behind it was the same
which is at work in versions and translations
still, the desire to communicate God's revealed
mind and will to those who knew it not.
Thanks to the impulse given by the Septua
gint and the New Testament Scriptures, Greek
continued for two centuries of our era to be

VULGATE

[ 762 ]

VULGATE

the language of the Church. When we think
of it we see that the ecclesiast ical vocabulary
of the Church was Greek — the titles bishop,
priest, deacon, and the names baptism, the
eucharist, and the like being derived from
that tongue. The Church grew up on Greek
soil, and made her first appearance in the
world in a Greek dress. It was not till the
end of the second century or the beginning of
the third that we have Christian literature in
Latin, even in Rome itself.

" No earthly record," it has been said, " has
preserved the name of the African Wycliffe or
Tyndale to whom we owe the earliest trans
lation of the Bible into Latin." But that it
was made in North Africa, and executed not
much more than a century after the death
of our Lord, is now generally agreed among
scholars. Of this translation we find evidence
in the voluminous writings of Tertullian, the
fiery and eloquent presbyter of Carthage, at
the close of the second century, and in the
pages of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, half
a century later. It was this translation that
nourished the divine life in the souls of the
North African martyrs, among whom Perpetua
and Felicitas stand forth pre-eminent, and sus
tained the sufferers who later had to endure
the horrors of the terrible Diocletian perse
cution. In course of time this version spread
to Italy, and the Latin-speaking Christians of
the different provinces altered its expression*
to suit the customs or the dialect of each par
ticular district. In this way numerous varia
tions in readings were introduced, and the one
translation appeared to have become many.
To obviate the confusion which had thus
arisen, and to stay the process of corruption,
a standard Latin translation of the Bible was
required. And we can see the hand of God
ordering all the circumstances. Just when
the Latin tongue was coming into more gen
eral use, and when the northern nations were
capturing Rome, and were in turn being
captured by the Gospel, the man capable
of providing a standard Latin version of the
Bible appeared.

This man was Jerome, Sophronius Eusebins
Hieronymus, and it was to the order of
Damasus, Bishop of Rome from A.D. 366 to 384,
that he executed his task. For many cen
turies the Papacy has pursued the unhappy
policy of withholding the Word of God from
the people, and has used the Vulgate to veil the
truth from the unlearned. Such was not the
policy of Rome in the days of which we speak,
and when Damasus commissioned Jerome to
prepare a new and authoritative Latin edition
of Holy Scripture, he had in view the propa
gation of the Gospel in its purity and sim
plicity, unencumbered by the traditions of

the Church, for the edification of the faithful
and the winning of the pagan nations for
Christ. No man of that age was better
equipped for the work set before him than
Jerome. He was by far the most learned
man of his time. " What Jerome does not
know, nobody ever knew," says his younger
contemporary, Augustine. He had received
his education at Rome, though a native of
Dalmatia, the modern Herzegovina ; he had
resided for some time at Constantinople, then,
and for centuries to come, the metropolis of
the Eastern Church ; he had been ordained
priest at Antioch ; he had travelled and studied
in Gaul in the West and Syria in the East ; and
now he waa adviser and secretary to the Roman
bishop, the head of the Church of that day.
It was the age of monasticism, and Jerome
was one of the founders and promoters of
monastic life. With two noble ladies whom
he had gained over to the religious life, Paula
and her daughter Eustochium, Jerome betook
himself to Bethlehem, the scene of the Nativity,
and there, away from the world, and secluded
from the dissipations and luxury of the period,
he devoted himself to his task. He had at
command the three languages requisite for
the version — Hebrew, Greek, and Latin — and,
living in Palestine, he was able to enter
thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture
scenes and Eastern pictures. He learned
Hebrew from a converted Jew, and he re
peatedly refers to Jewish teachers of whose
services he availed himself. He was well
aware of the difficulties of his task, and anti
cipated for the result of his labours charges
of falsification and sacrilege. But he con
soled himself, as he says in his letter to
Damasus, with the pontifical commission.

In the course of his labours he revised the
old Latin version of the New Testament, re
moving corruptions and providing by a colla
tion of manuscripts a careful recension of it,
and the Acts and Epistles, as they now stand
in the Vulgate, represent this portion of his
work. Next, he revised the Psalms and the
Gospels, availing himself now of the Septua-
gint and the Greek text of the Gospels for his
purpose, and of this more thorough revision
and retranslation the Psalter and the Gospels,
as they stand in the Vulgate, are an example.
He made a double recension of the Psalter,
the former simply following the common LXX.
text, and the latter utilising Origen's Hexapla
with its critical apparatus. Both are pre
served, the one known as the Roman Psalter,
and the other as the Gallican. The whole of
the Old Testament, with the exception of the
Psalter, was subjected to the process not of
revision but of translation — the Septuagint
having been found faulty in many places —

VULQATE

[ 763 ]

VULGATE

and this is the most original portion of
Jerome's work in the Vulgate, having occu
pied him from A.D. 392 to 404. His patron
had died before very much of the revision
had been accomplished, and the work when
completed had to contend against conservative
prejudices, as revisions have often had to do
since then. But gradually it won friends and
came into something like general use. For a
thousand years it was the Bible of the West,
bearing the name of Editio Vulgata, intended
for the common people, to instruct them, and
not to hide from them the truth of God.
Jerome's views as to the distinction between
" canonical " and " ecclesiastical" books were
those of the early Church. He did not himself
include the Old Testament Apocrypha in the
Vulgate ; they have been added to the Vulgate,
as it is now issued, from the Old Latin version.
That Jerome meant it to be a missionary
agency we can gather from his letters. In
one of these he speaks of the pagan nations
everywhere accepting the Word of God and
becoming Christians : " Lo, the Armenian lays
down his quiver ; the Huns are learning the
Psalter ; the frosts of Scythia glow with the
warmth of faith ; the ruddy armies of the
Goths bear about with them the tabernacles
of the Church, and therefore, perhaps, do they
fight with equal fortune against us because
they trust in the religion of Christ equally
with us." Of the success of the version from
a literary point of view there has never been
a doubt. Dean Milman, in his History of Latin
Christianity, has said: "There is something
singularly rich and (if we may so speak)
picturesque in the Latin of the Vulgate ; the
orientalism of Scripture is blended up wit
such curious felicity with the idiom of the
Latin that it both delights the ear and fills
the mind." As the ecclesiastical vocabulary
of Christianity comes chiefly from the Sep
tuagint and the Greek New Testament, the
theological vocabulary, again, comes from
the Latin Vulgate — for example, justification,
adoption, sanctih'cation, predestination, re
demption.

The Vulgate had a splendid mission to fulfil.
It was the Bible of the West during the
Middle Ages, and the bread of spiritual life
to multitudes ; it formed the bond of Catholic
unity as being the standard translation of the
Bible ^auctioned by the Church ; and, though
Greek rapidly passed into decay after the time
of Jerome, thanks to the Vulgate, Latin held
its ground as the language of learning and
the Church. The Vulgate was carried by
monks and preachers into the remotest part
of the West. It early penetrated to Britain
In the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth,
as in all the monasteries of the Middle Ages,

the monks made copies of the Vulgate Scrip
tures, and Wordsworth and White, whose new
edition of the Vulgate is one of the ornaments
of British scholarship, tell us there are in
existence in the libraries of Europe some 8000
manuscript portions of the Vulgate. It is
one of the copies made in the north of
England and gifted by Ceolfrid, who was
Abbot of Jarrow and Wearmouth successively,
which is treasured above all surviving copies
for the purity of its text — Codex Amiatinus,
preserved in the famous Laurentian library at
Florence. The Irish monks, who kept alive
Greek learning in their monasteries when it
was dead elsewhere, were great transcribers,
and the Bible which they received and copied
they sent back again, sometimes in Graeco-
Latin interlinear copies, by their devoted
missionaries to Gaul, to Switzerland, and to
Germany.

Useful as the Vulgate was in keeping the
light of Gospel truth alive during the long
night of the Middle Ages, it was felt by
earnest souls that something more was needed,
that the common people ought to have access
to the truth in their own tongue. And so
attempts at vernacular translations were made.
There were our Anglo-Saxon paraphrasts,
Caedmon and others ; then the Venerable
Bede ; then King Alfred ; and last and greatest
of all translators from the Vulgate, John
Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reforma
tion. Erasmus and Luther, Tyndale and
Coverdale, whatever their other aids, drew
largely from the Vulgate, Coverdale in par
ticular being much indebted to it. King
James's translators, too, though they had the
original texts to translate from, did not dis
dain the help which the Vulgate offered them.
But it was through the Rhemish and Douai
Bible that the Vulgate has most affected our
Authorised Version, a large proportion of the
Latin words which King James's translators
adopted — "propitiation," "emulation," "con
cupiscence," "impenitent," "remission," and
many more — being taken from this Bible,
which is an English translation based upon
the Vulgate. It was the Vulgate, we can
never forget, that brought home the sense
of sin and revealed the way of pardon to
Lxither, as he studied it in the Augustinian
convent at Erfurt. And it was Luther's grand
service to the cause of the Gospel that he set
up in place of Church and Pope the supreme
authority of the Word of God. The Church
of Rome answered the question "Where is
divine truth to be found ? " by saying, " In
the Old and New Testaments interpreted by
the Church, and in the dogmas promulgated
by her as fresh revelations from God." Luther
and the Reformers answered by saying, "In

VULGATE

[ 764 ]

WAFER

the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
taken in their plain and evident meaning, or
explained and interpreted by themselves, and
in them alone." This was the lever with
which the Reformers overthrew the fabric of
papal tyranny and superstition. It was one
of the foremost obligations resting upon the
Reformers, accordingly, to see that a Bible was
placed in every man's hand in his mother-
tongue, so that the poorest, as Tyndale put
it, "the boy that drives the plough," might
know more of God's will than Pope or priest.
Inherent in the right of direct access to God
through the one Mediator, which was vindi
cated for men by the Reformation, was that
right of private judgment which Protestantism
has taught us to prize — the right of every
man to read and interpret Scripture for him
self as the ground of his faith in God and in
Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. When once
these truths had burnt themselves into the souls
of men, the Vulgate was seen to be wholly inade
quate, and the great National Version, which
were among the earliest and most precious
fruits of the Reformation, sprang into being.

It only remains to note in this sketch of the
Vulgate the decree of the Council of Trent
held in 1546. It gives a list of the books of
the Old and New Testaments, including Tobit
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Mac
cabees, and proceeds, " If, however, any one
does not receive the entire books with all
their parts as they are accustomed to be read
in the Catholic Church and in the old Latin
Vulgate edition as sacred and canonical, and
wittingly despises the aforesaid traditions,
let him be anathema." Moreover, considering
that it would be serviceable if, out of all the
Latin editions of the sacred books which were
in circulation, one were declared authentic,
the Council " resolve and declare that this old
and Vulgate edition itself, which has been ap
proved in the Church by the usage of so many
centuries, is to be regarded as authentic in
discussions and preachings and expositions,
and in order that no one on any pretext
whatever may dare or presume to reject it,
the Council decree and resolve that hence
forth Holy Scripture, but especially this old
and Vulgate edition itself, be printed with
the utmost care." Nothing could be more
fatal to Biblical scholarship than that the
Vulgate should be made to supersede the
Hebrew and Greek originals, and the scope
of the decree has been questioned by Roman
Catholic scholars. It is notable, however,
that the Council decided after much dis
cussion that no anathema should be added
here. It was not till 1585, when Pope Sixtus
V. was elevated to the papal chair, that steps
were taken to give effect to this decree and to

prepare an authorised text. By the exertions
of Pope Sixtus the task of revision was carried
through, and the Sixtine Vulgate issued from
the Vatican press in 1590, accompanied by a
papal bull declaring it to be the "true, legiti
mate, authentic, and indubitable text of Holy
Scripture," which alone was to be regarded as
authoritative. Sixtus died shortly after the
issue of the edition, and Clement VIII., who
followed him soon after in the papal chair,
promptly decreed the recall and suppression
of the result of his predecessor's labours. It
is a curious illustration of the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility, and the case is not mended
by the pretext put forward by Clement, but
not warranted by the facts, that the printing
of the Sixtine edition was very inaccurate.
The alternative edition, bearing the name of
Clement, was issued in 1592. The conflict of
papal authorities on such a subject would be
ludicrous, were it not that the result has been
disastrous to the textual study of the Latin
Bible. " Under one name or the other,
the edition of 1592," says Dr. F. G. Kenyon,
" became the standard text of the Roman
Church, and has so continued from that day
to this. Not only so, but, in order the more
to ensure its authority, the bull with which
Clement accompanied its issue forbade the
slightest alteration in it, or any insertion of
various readings in the margins. By this
measure the textual study of the Latin Bible
was effectually killed in the Church of its home,
although increasing knowledge has shown be
yond the possibility of doubt that the text
issued by Clement is by no means an accurate
representation of the version as it left the
hands of Jerome. It has been left to scholars
of other countries and of other branches of
the Christian Church to do the work which
would have been most fittingly encouraged
and patronised by the Vatican." See DOUAY
VERSION. [T. N.]

w

WAFER.— The name of one of the separate
cakes which are given to communicants in the
Latin Church. For about a thousand years,
loaves — generally round, as loaves were then
commonly baked — were consecrated for use
in the Holy Communion, and broken by the
officiating priest into pieces which were
given to the communicants. But when it
came to be believed that each piece of the
bread was not bread, but Christ in His body,
blood, soul, and divinity, the question neces
sarily arose, What then are the crumbs which
are made by breaking it ? No answer could
be given which was not offensive to the
simplest Christian instincts. Consequently,

WAFER

[ 765 ]

WALDENSES

owing to the exigencies of a new faith, the
possibility of crumbs had to be obviated.
This was done by ruling that loaves or large
pieces of bread were not to be consecrated
and then broken, but that a number of little
cakes were to be substituted, not too large for
consumption by one person, of which each com
municant might receive one, and swallow it in
its integrity, none of them being broken ex
cept the priest's special cake, which he was to
hold over the chalice while he divided it into
two parts ; and, in order that the risk of
crumbs might be still more guarded against,
the little cakes were made of flour and water
pressed together without leaven. This is all
that the members of the Latin communion
receive to the present day.

The Congregation in Church assures its readers
that " wafer-bread has been used in the
Church from ancient times " (p. 58). And the
Ritual Reason Why says, " Anciently unleavened
bread was universally used in the -West, and
was prepared in the form of wafers" (318). l
What is to be understood as the right meaning
of the words " anciently " and " from ancient
times," and that which the authors of the two
manuals intend to be understood by them is
not clear.

St. Paul teaches the lesson of the unity of
the Church and the union of Christians with
God and one another from the one loaf which
we in common partake: "For we being
many are one bread, and one body : for we
are all partakers of that one bread" (A.V.),
" seeing that we, who are many, are one bread
(loaf), one body ; for we all partake of the one
bread" (loaf), or "seeing that there is one
bread (loaf) we, who are many, are one body "
(K.V.) (1 Cor. x. 17). The " Teaching of the
Apostles " hands on the lesson : the following
is the Eucharistic prayer over the broken bread
ordered to be used about A.D. 100 in that early
treatise. " We give thanks to Thee, our Father,
for the life and knowledge which Thou madest
known unto us through Jesus, Thy Child. To
Thee be the glory for ever ! As this bread which
we break was once scattered over the hills, and
gathered together, it became one, so may Thy
Church be gathered from the ends of the earth
into Thy kingdom ! For Thine is the glory
and the power, through Jesus Christ for ever "

1 It should be remembered, however, that
leavened and not unleavened bread was always
used in the East. Wafer-bread was not in use
in the West until the eleventh century (Scuda-
more's Not. Euch., 2nd edit. pp. 855, 868). In
O'Kane's Notes on the Roman Rubrics, sect. 691,
that Maynooth Professor advises the broken
fragments of the wafer to be given only to
educated communicants.

(ch. ix.). Similarly Cyril of Alexandria : " If
we all partake of the one bread, we are all
made one body" (In St. Johan. Evany., xvii.).
And the Liturgy of St. Basil : " Do Thou unite
us all, who are partakers of the one bread and
cup, to each other in the fellowship of the one
Holy Ghost." Bishop Gore deprecates the use
of "separate wafers," as being "wholly un-
symbolical" and opposed to "the social mean
ing of the sacrament," which was " ritually
expressed by the breaking of the one loaf and
the drinking of the one cup " (Body of Christ,
p. 44). By the mediaeval and modern Roman
practice the lesson of unity is lost, and the
example of Christ and of the Early Church is
ignored, if not despised. [F. M.]

WALDENSES.— This is the name borne by a
body of people consisting for the most part of
the peasantry who during many centuries have
inhabited the valleys situated among the
Cottian Alps, and who have suffered severe
persecutions for persistent refusal to conform
to Papal dogma. During the course of their
history, they have been designated by many
names, among which may be mentioned the
names, "Vallenses," "Poor Men of Lyons,"
"Leonists," " Sabotiers " (from their wooden
sabots, or shoes), "Humiliati," "VaudeV
" Vaudois."

The earliest known document proceeding
from the Waldenses is an account of a confer
ence between the Waldenses north of the Alps
and those of Lombardy, that was held at
Bergamo, A.D. 1218. The date of the " Noble
Lesson," an important document and long
thought to be the earliest, was proved in 1862
to be about A.D. 1400, and not A.D. 1100.

The Waldenses were an essentially pastoral
people. They did not realise the necessity of
compiling careful records of their origin. The
historian, in fact, is limited, when investi
gating the early history of the community,
to ex. parte evidence, to the testimonies given
by firm friends, or by implacable foes.
Consequently, there is much difference of
opinion concerning their origin and early
history. Some writers, for example Henri
Arnaud, Jean Leger, Sir Samuel Morland,
G. S. Faber, W. S. Gilly, claim for the Wal
denses an origin dating at least from the time of
Claudius of Turin, about A.D. 840, possibly even
from Apostolic times, and maintain that they
represent a portion of the faithful remnant
who have never ceased to preserve unsullied
the doctrines of Christianity, despite the
claims urged by the Papacy, and the advance
of superstition. Mosheim, too, admits that
those writers are not destitute of arguments
who assert that the Waldenses, so early as the
seventh century, had fixed their residence in
the valleys of Piedmont, and were protesting

WALDENSES

[ 766 ]

WALDENSES

against Papal domination. The supporters of
this theory derive the word Waldenses from
the Latin rallis, French ralU, Italian vaH-et
meaning "valley," and translate it " Vales-
men" or "Dalesmen." The tendency of modern
historical criticism, however, is to reject the
theory of so early an origin. But the popular
theory of to-day assigns their origin to the
latter half of the twelfth century ; names as
their founder Peter of Waldo, a rich merchant
resident in Lyons, and derives the word
Waldenses from his surname. Among the
many supporters of this theory may be
mentioned the names of Neander, Kurtz,
J. C. Robertson, and S. E. Maitland. It
should be added that the writers who accuse
the Waldenses of heresy concur in naming
Peter of Waldo as the founder of the com
munity. Milman has termed him " The St.
Francis of heresy." x Other writers, for ex
ample Gieseler, Milman, Creighton, accuse the
Waldenses of having incorporated heretical
tenets into their teaching.

An examination into the respective merits
of these theories is not practicable within the
limits of this article. Merely the main points
have been stated, in order to guide the reader
who may wish to investigate for himself the
question more fully. The suggestion is offered
that the origin of the Waldeiisian community is
more ancient than the twelfth century ; that
their name is to be derived from vallis, a vallej',
and means "Valesmen" or "Dalesmen";
and that Peter of Waldo should be termed
rather their first prominent organiser than
their founder. " Whencesoever this humble
Biblical Christianity derived its origin," writes
Milman, " it received a powerful impulse from
Peter of Waldo."1

The Waldenses during many centuries have
inhabited the valleys situated among the
Cottian Alps, and along the frontier between
France and Italy. The Waldeusian capital is
Torre Pellice, and the principal settlements are
situated in the valleys watered by the streams
Pellice, San Martino, Angrogna. ByA.D. 1184
the Waldenses had spread over southern France
and northern Italy. About the time of the
crusade against the Albigenses (1209-1230),
many of them fled to Aragon and to Savoy.
They remained in Languedoc till 1330, in Pro-
veii9e till 1545, and were not finally expelled
from southern France till the War of the
Cevennes (1702-1705). The Italian WTaldenses
gradually took the lead as continual perse
cution decimated the French Waldenses.
Scattered communities of Waldenses settled
at different times in Calabria and Apulia, in

1 Milman, Latin Christianity, 4th edit. vol. v.
p. 393.

Germany, and with the Hussites in Bohemia.
Waldensian settlements are to be found at the
present day in various parts of Italy, in Sicily,
and so far distant as Uruguay and Argentina
in South America.

The first prominent organiser of the Wal
denses was Peter of Waldo, called also Pierre
de Vaud, Pierre de Vaux, Petrus Waldus, from
his native place Valdum or Validium, a town
on the outskirts of Lyons. One of his first acts,
about the year 1170, was to direct Stephen of
Evisa (or Ansa), a considerable scholar, and
Bernard Udros, a skilled writer, to prepare a
translation of the Gospels and other portions
of the Bible, together with selections from the
Church Fathers, into the Provengal dialect, the
vernacular spoken in the city and neighbour
hood of Lyons. The translation of the whole
Bible was completed in due course. He then
proceeded to train his followers specially for
preaching, and sent them forth two by two on
evangelistic missions. He and his followers
soon were excommunicated by the Archbishop
of Lyons for having persisted in preaching.
In A.D. 1179, Peter of Waldo sent two repre
sentatives to appeal to Pope Alexander III.,
and to submit for approval the new Prover^al
version of the Bible. The Pope ridiculed the
whole movement, and forbade the Waldenses
to preach ; still the Third Lateran Council,
then in session, did not include them in the
list of condemned schismatics. The movement
made such progress, however, that in 1184
Pope Lucius III., at the Council of Verona,
decreed perpetual anathema against " those
who falsely styled themselves, ' Humiliati, or
Poor Men of Lyons.'" Peter of Waldo was
forced to leave Lyons. He is said to have fled
to the mountains in Dauphine, and to have
ended his days in Bohemia about the year
1197. Pope Innocent III. tried a more subtle
policy. In 1210 he purposed to secure the
services of the Waldenses by commissioning
Durandus de Osca — a former follower of Peter
of Waldo — to organise them into a religious
Order of Pauperes Catholici ; but the scheme
did not succeed, and the bishops protested
against the policy of clemency.

It is important to notice that Peter of Waldo
and his followers had no intention at first of
separating from the Roman Catholic Church ;
but endeavoured to bring about a revival of
apostolic simplicity in daily life. They had
not yet realised the prevailing corruption in
doctrine ; they cared more for practice than for
dogma. During the early days of the move
ment, they did not hesitate to receive the
sacraments from the hands of the priests.
They are stated to have assented, during this
time, to the doctrines of the Seven Sacraments
aud of Transubstantiation ; they recommended

WALDENSES

[ 767 ]

WALDENSES

fasting ; submitted to auricular confession,
and recognised episcopacy. One or two bishops
were numbered among them : the last Wal-
densian bishop, Stephen by name, was burned
at the stake in Austria about the year 1480.

The complete separation of the Waldenses
from the Roman Catholic Church was accom
plished by the joint and continuous operation of
two powerful forces, the one internal, and the
other external. No sooner had the new Proven-
$al version been completed than Peter of Waldo
spared no pains to secure that his followers
should be deeply read in the oracles of God.
This course of systematic study of the Holy
Scriptures enlightened the understanding of
the Waldenses to perceive how many doctrinal
errors were being taught by the Roman Catholic
Church, and so became the internal force
making for separation. The external force was
the bitter hostility, the continual persecution
directed against them by the Pope and Curia.

The religious history of the Waldenses shows
three stages of development in doctrine. The
first stage, which extended from their nascent
days till about the close of the fourteenth
century, shows them as a spiritual society
striving to bring about a purer spiritual life
within the Roman Catholic Church, whose
ceremonial they still observed, but becoming
more and more convinced that a complete
separation was inevitable. The second stage,
comprising approximately the fifteenth century,
is marked by their final separation from the
Roman Catholic Church. The Waldensian
doctrine during this stage was strongly polemi
cal. It was more iconoclastic than constructive,
and its negative character denotes the transition
stage of development. The third stage, dating
from the sixteenth century onwards, may
be called the Calvinistic period. They then
embraced the doctrines taught by the Geneva
school of theology, and invited leading re
presentatives of the school to organise their
Church government. Episcopacy was relin
quished, ceremonial repudiated, and a rigid
doctrine adopted. The Waldenses dwelling in
Lombardy became more strict than their
brethren dwelling north of the Alps. The
progress of modern thought has exercised a
modifying influence; but the Waldenses still
observe the simplest possible ceremonial, and
follow the Calvinistic school of theology.
Frequent expulsion from their fatherland,
combined with pitiless persecution, has de
veloped in them a theology and Church dis
cipline that may be described as a strong
reaction against Papal oppression.

The six years, 1530-1536, mark an epoch in
the religious history of the Waldenses, for it
was during this time that they created an
impassable gulf of separation from the Roman

Catholic Church by reforming their discipline
and observances on the lines recommended by
the Swiss and German Reformers. In 1530
Georges Morel, pastor of Freissiniere in Dau-
phine, and Pierre Masson, pastor of Bourgoyne
in Provenge, were sent to confer with (Ecolam-
padius in Basle, with Berthold Haller in Bern,
and with Capito and Martin Bucer in Stras
bourg — concerning the proposed reformation
in the Waldensian system. Jean Girard and
Martin Govin were sent to Geneva about the
same time to confer with Guillaume Farel, so
well known in Huguenot history. At a synod
held at Chanforans in the valley of the
Angrogna, A.D. 1532, the Waldenses renounced
communion with the Roman Catholic Church ;
compacted an alliance with the Swiss and
German Reformers, and formally accepted the
doctrine of Predestination.

Papal excommunication compelled the Wal
denses to adopt an elective pastorate; their
democratic church organisation was suggested
by their new allies. The pastors, or " barbas "
— a Provencal word meaning " guide " — were
supported partly by the people, and partly by
their personal labours, and were admitted to
office at the conclusion of a course of careful
training. The affairs of each church were
administered by a council composed of the
elders and deacons — elective officers — under
the presidency of the pastor. Representatives
from each church assembled year by year for
the General Synod, at which the secular details
were decided chiefly by the lay representatives,
and the religious questions by the pastors in
private conference. At the present day the
Annual Synod is attended by delegates sent
by English and Scotch and American sup
porters. Good schools were provided for
religious and secular education, and a special
catechism was taught the children.

In A.D. 1630 nearly all the Waldensian pastors
died during a severe visitation of plague.
Appeal was made, therefore, to the theological
colleges in Geneva and Lausanne to send
ministers to fill the vacancies. The new
pastors soon established a church organisation
uniformly Genevese, and French took the place
of the Proven9al dialect in public worship,
until General Beckwith in 1849 introduced the
Italian language into the Waldensian churches
situated in Italian districts.

A valuable compendium of Christian doctrine
as taught by the Waldenses, is preserved in
"The Noble Lesson," a poem written in the
Proven9al dialect, and bequeathed in 1658 by
Sir Samuel Morland to the Cambridge Uni
versity Library. Internal evidence shows that
it was written about A.D. 1400. The language
of the poem is very simple, and echoes in
many places the language of the Bible.

WALDENSES

768 ]

WALDENSES

The Waldenses repeatedly were condemned
to severe punishment in the canons passed by
various Papal Councils. In 1487 Pope Inno
cent VIII. issued a Bull commanding their
extermination, and despatched Alberto de
Capitanei, Archdeacon of Cremona, in the
capacity of a special Legate, to conduct a
" crusade " against them. A considerable army
composed of troops requisitioned from several
European States, invaded the Waldensian
valleys, but encountered unexpected and de
termined resistance from the inhabitants, and
a fruitless guerilla warfare was carried on
during some months. Charles II., Duke of
Savoy, then intervened, and his expostulations
procured the withdrawal of the invaders.

It would be unfitting to conclude this article
without a brief reference to four systematic
persecutions waged against the Waldenses.

In the year 1545 a severe persecution arose
against the Waldenses inhabiting Provence,
where they had founded the towns of Merindol
and Cabrieres, and had converted a neglected
tract of country into a prosperous agricultural
centre. The chief promoters of the persecu
tion were the Archbishop of Aries and the
Bishop of Aix, and they found an efficient co
adjutor in theLieutenant-Governor of Provence,
Jean Menyer, Baron D'Opede — better known
as Minerius — who commanded the expedition.

The death of Berthelemi Chassanee, prede
cessor of Menyer as President of the Parliament
of Aix, and the prolonged absence of Baron de
Grignan, Governor of Prove^e, removed the
two obstacles that had prevented, during five
years, the execution of a punitive Edict called
"The Arrest." Report was sent to Francis I.
of France that 15,000 Waldenses had taken up
arms with the intention of seizing Marseilles.
Francis forthwith commanded the Edict to be
executed.

From April to August 1545, Merindol,
Cabrieres, and the surrounding country, were
invaded by some 12,000 troops. Every habita
tion was destroyed, the open country devas
tated, and the inhabitants treated with great
cruelty. It is stated that 4000 Waldenses
were massacred, 700 sent to the galleys, and
that 22 villages were destroyed. The protests
raised by the Emperor Charles V. at length
brought about the discontinuance of the per
secution. Minerius was tried at Paris in 1547,
and sentenced to imprisonment ; but was
pardoned shortly afterwards, and reinstated
in office.

A succession of unprovoked spoliations
carried out by invading bands employed by
the Papal authorities, drove the Waldenses
inhabiting the valley of the Angrogna to take
up arms in self-defence. In November 1560
Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Savoy, resolved

to punish them for having presumed, during
several months, to maintain an armed resist
ance. He marched into the valleys at the
head of about 5000 troops.

Once again knowledge of the locality and a
determination to fight to the last in defence of
hearth and family, preserved the Waldenses
from being overwhelmed ; and once again was
illustrated the formidable task that awaits even
the powerful invader who is obliged to conduct
a guerilla campaign. After several months of
continuous fighting, the Waldenses appealed to
the Duchess of Savoy to exercise her influence
in favour of peace, and in June 1561 a pro
clamation of pardon, the terms of which were
really a compromise, was signed, and the troops
were withdrawn. This compromise angered
Pope Pius IV., who contrasted the alleged
weakness shown by the Duke of Savoy with
the inflexible hostility against heretics main
tained by Philip II. of Spain.

The notorious Massacre of the Vaudois
during April and May 1655, must be attributed
partly to one or two indiscretions on the part
of the Waldenses. In March 1653 they de
stroyed a Capuchin monastery situated in
Villaro, because the monks had long caused
provocation. Antonio Leger, too, a gifted
pastor, is said to have wounded Papal suscepti
bilities by intruding into matters outside his
spiritual province. Granted that certain in
discretions were committed, the Papal retalia
tion was most severe. About 15,000 French.
Spanish, Savoyan, and Irish irregular troops
were placed under the leadership of the Marquis
di Pianezza, and were permitted to perpetrate
horrible barbarities in the Vaudois valleys.
During some two months the inhabitants were
hunted down and slaughtered and outraged
with every form of violence that the depraved
instincts of an irresponsible soldiery could
devise. The habitations were again destroyed
and the open country devastated.

After a time the fugitives contrived to pro
cure crude weapons and to form into bands
which were organised by two successful
leaders, Janavel and Jahier. These bands in
several encounters defeated the invaders,
whom they gradually drove from the valleys.
The signing of the Treaty of Pignerol, called
also "The Patents of Grace," on 18th August
1655, procured temporary peace for the
Waldenses.

Tidings of this massacre roused widespread
indignation among the Protestant States in
Europe. Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and
Switzerland addressed strong remonstrances
to Duke Charles Emmanuel II., Duke of Savoy,
and to his ally, Louis XIV. of France. Cromwell
despatched Sir Samuel Morland to convey to
Charles and Louis the expression of England's

WALDENSES

[ 769 ]

WESLEYAN METHODISM

indignation. Milton's famous sonnet on th
massacre, No. 18, may be called an echo of th
State Papers which he wrote at Cromwell's
bidding, and which were conveyed by Sir
Samuel Morlaud. The Protector also con
tributed a personal gift of £2000 for the
sufferers. Collections were made throughout
England by public authority, and realised the
handsome sum of £38,097.

Louis XIV. signed the notorious Edict known
as the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, on
the 18th October 1685. He then proceeded to
importune Victor Aiuadeus II., Duke of Savoy,
to suppress the Vaudois. Victor Amadeu
was practically a vassal of Louis, and at last
felt bound to pass the Edict, dated 31st January
1686, that occasioned a severe persecution
during the following April and May. A
body of French troops under Catinat joined
forces with the Piedmontese troops under
Gabriel of Savoy, uncle of the Duke, and in
vaded the Vaudois valleys. The harrowing
details need not be described, since they were
but a repetition of the cruelties that had been
practised during the massacre of 1655. It is
estimated that 1000 Waldenses were massacred
and 6000 taken prisoners. Thousands more
were driven into exile; in fact the valleys
may be said to have been depopulated.

The year 1689 marks the beginning of the
return of the Waldenses to their valleys. On
the night of 16th August some 2000 armed
Vaudois started from Geneva, resolved to try
to recover possession of their valleys. The
military commander was Turrel, a refugee of
Die; but the real leader was Pastor Henri
Arnaud. The aged Ranavel did much to
organise the enterprise.

A political change accomplished what was
proving to be too formidable a task for the little
force matched against large bodies of trained
French and Italian troops. In May 1690 the
Duke of Savoy declared war against France, and
needed the Waldenses to fight under his banner.
He set at liberty all the Vaudois still detained
in prison and on the galleys ; furnished generous
supplies of food, clothes, and other necessaries,
and intimated to the Reformed States of
Europe his willingness to receive again the
exiled Vaudois.

In June 1692 he issued a preliminary Edict
granting them a full pardon, revoking the
persecuting Edicts of 1686, and restoring their
religious and civil rights. This was followed
on 23rd May 1694 by a second Edict, which
confirmed these favourable provisions. Be
tween the years 1690-1696 numbers of Wal
denses returned to the valleys, and rendered
good service to Victor Amadens II. in his
campaigns against France. But their posi
tion was by no means secure. The Pope

and Curia lost no opportunity of fomenting
disquiet. Every political change threatened a
recrudescence of persecution. Not until the
signing of the famous Edict of Emancipation
at Turin by King Charles Albert, on 17th
February 1848, were religious and civil
liberties finally secured to the Waldenses.
Pastor Henri Arnaud, the hero of the Return,
lived until 1721.

The great friend of the Waldenses in modern
times was General Beckwith, who had been
wounded at Waterloo. From 1827 till his
death in July 1862, he devoted his life to
promoting their welfare. Within thirty-five
years he established no less than 120 schools ;
provided several churches for the Waldenses,
and re-established an efficient and home train
ing for the pastorate. There are two good
theological colleges situated in Torre Pellice
and in Florence. To him the Waldenses are
largely indebted for the progress that they
have made since they have been delivered from
the ravages caused by constant persecution.

Statistics for 1903 show that the Waldenses
possess 114 churches and mission stations
served by 61 pastors and evangelists ; the com
municants number about 6380, the regular
church attendants about 9000, the Sunday
scholars 3954, the day scholars 2864. The
colonists of the Waldensian settlements in
Uruguay and Argentina number 6000. Eng
land, whose sovereigns during the past two
hundred years have often succoured the Wal
denses, contributes annually about £4429 to
help their progress, and Scotland about £2668.
Several other countries send considerable con
tributions. The London headquarters of the
Waldensian Church Missions are situated at
118, Pall Mall, S.W. Lieut.-Colonel Frobisher,
J. P., is the Secretary.

Authorities. — Alexis Muston, D.D., History
of the Waldenses, 2 vols. 8vo, 1857; S. R.
Maitland, D.D., Facts and Documents: Alii-
genses and Waldenses, 8vo, 1832 ; W. S. Gilly,
D.D., Narrative of an Excursion to the Moun
tains of Piedmont, 8vo, 1827; G. S. Faber,
B.D., The Ancient Vallenscs and Albiyenses, 8vo,
1838 ; M. Edouard Montet, Histoire LitUraire
des Vaudois du Pitmont, 8vo, 1886 ; J. A.
Chabrand, Vaudois et Protestants des Alpes, 8ro,
1886. Also notices of the Waldenses contained
in the historical works of Gieseler, Neander,
Kurtz, Mosheim, Milman, J. C. Robertson, and
Creighton. [H. F. G.]

WESLEYAN METHODISM. —The Metho
dist Church consists of the Christian people
throughout the world who are found in
Churches which have arisen as the result of
the work of John Wesley and those who were
closely asociated with him in the Evan
gelical Revival of the eighteenth century.

3c

WESLEYAN METHODISM

[ 770 ]

WESLEYAN METHODISM

The members of this Church are found, under
varied denominations, in many countries, but,
in point of numbers, the American Methodist
Episcopal Church occupies the most prominent
place. The latest statistics show that, taking
all the sections of the Methodist Church to
gether, the membership consists of nearly
eight millions of persons. It must be borne
in mind that there is a distinction between a
"member" and an "adherent." The "adhe
rents " are supposed to be three times as
numerous as the "members," that is, those
whose names are found on the "rolls," and
•who are subject to Church Discipline. It has
been conjectured that nearly thirty millions
of people in the world may be rightly de
scribed as Methodists. In this article we
shall deal with the evolution of Wesleyan
Methodism, and shall trace its progress up to
the time of the death of John Wesley.

In the article on John Wesley we have
stated that the name "Methodist" was con
ferred on the little band of Oxford men who
gathered around John and Charles Wesley
about the year 1729. John Wesley never
accepted it as a correct description of him
self and his followers. In The Character of a
Methodist he says, " Let it be well observed
that this is not a name they (i.e. the Metho
dists) take to themselves, but one fixed upon
them by way of reproach, without their appro
bation or consent. ... I should rejoice if
the very name might never be mentioned
more, but be buried in eternal oblivion."
When he had reason to use the name he
generally did so in the form "the People
called Methodists," or, " the People vulgarly
called Methodists. " Happy epithets, however,
have great vitality. Notwithstanding Wesley's
dislike of the phrase, it has taken up a per
manent place in current speech. It has been
found a convenient term by which to distin
guish the members of Wesley's " United
Societies" from the Christian people who are
gathered into the other Churches of England.
Remembering Wesley's repudiation of the
name "Methodist," we sometimes wonder
what he would have thought of the strange
compound "Wesleyan Methodist." But once
more " use and wont " may be pleaded. The
prefix "Wesleyan" is a sign which indicates
that the history of Methodism has been
chequered. The expansion of Methodism
and the internal controversies which have
arisen from time to time, have led to the
creation of other autonomous Churches which
bear their own distinguishing Methodist name.
It has, therefore, been necessary to adopt a
style of description of the Mother Church
to which some object but which all find
serviceable.

Paley, in his Evidences of Christianity, speak
ing of the character of the Christian Church
at its origin, says, "After men became Chris
tians, much of their time was spent in prayer
and devotion, in religious meetings, in cele
brating the Eucharist, in conferences, in ex
hortations, in preaching, in an affectionate
intercourse with one another, and correspon
dence with other societies. Perhaps their mode
of life, in its form and habit, was not very
unlike the Unitas Fratrum, or the modern
Methodists " (p. 15). Paley had reason to
express his surmise in the most cautious
manner. We, who are free from his embar
rassments, have no hesitation in saying that
Methodism was a reversion to primitive type.
It is this fact which makes its history so in
teresting to the ecclesiastical student. In the
first century we see a society of men and
women gathered together for spiritual pur
poses. St. Luke, speaking of the Pentecostal
converts, says, " They continued steadfastly in
the apostles' teaching and fellowship (or, in
fellowship, marg. R.V.), in the breaking of
bread and the prayers." We watch this small
Society as it is gradually organised and
equipped for its world-wide work. Then we
follow its experiences through the Christian
centuries, and at last it stands before us in
its modern form. In the eighteenth century it
is possible for us to watch a similar experi
ment. A reverent eye can detect the move
ment of the Divine hand as it forms in the
nation a group of persons bound together by
a common sorrow for sin, a common joy in
pardon, a common experience of a new life,
a common aim after perfection of Christian
character, a common passion for the salva
tion of the world. Knit into closest unity
by similar spiritual experiences, these per
sons form a fellowship which is so remark
able that it reminds a man like Paley of the
"golden age" of Christianity. Starting from
this point, we follow the history of the new
Society, and find that it repeats many of the
experiences of the Primitive Church — in fact,
it re- writes the Acts of the Apostles in modern
English. Then we watch its further career
until the Methodist Church, in its present
stage of development, stands before us. What
ever may be our convictions or prejudices, it ic
undeniable that the experiment of the creation
of a new Church in these latter days is suffi
ciently interesting to excite and reward our
attention.

It is somewhat difficult to detect the original
organism from which the form of the Methodist
Church has been evolved. Wesley was accus
tomed to cite both Oxford and Savannah as
the places which had a direct and initial con
nection with his work. But it is not easy to

WESLEY AN METHODISM [ 771 ] WESLEY AN METHODISM

discover in the " Holy Club " the lineaments
of modern Methodism. In Savannah our scru
tiny is more successful. Under date April 17,
1736, Wesley writes in his Journal : " Not find
ing, as yet, any door open for the pursuing
of our main design, we considered in what
manner we might be most useful to the little
flock at Savannah. And we agreed: (1) To
advise the more serious among them to form
themselves into a sort of little Society, and to
meet once or twice a week, in order to reprove,
instruct, and exhort one another. (2) To select
out of these a smaller number for a more inti
mate union with each other, which might be
forwarded partly by our conversing singly with
each, aud partly by inviting them all together
to our house ; and this accordingly we deter
mined to do every Sunday in the afternoon."
The ancestral features come out more distinctly
in this description of the " sort of little Society"
which Wesley formed in America, but still our
sense of identity is not satisfied. We think
that it is better to turn both from Oxford and
Savannah, and to look elsewhere for the begin
ning of that Society which has grown into the
Methodist Church.

Wesley's conversion, to use Miss Wedgwood's
phrase, marked his birthday as a Christian ; it
also was the beginning of a series of processes
which resulted in the creation of the Methodist
Society. The experience through which Wesley
passed in Nettleton Court, on May 24, 1738,
not only made him a preacher, it revealed and
explained to him the doctrines which he must
preach. These doctrines, which included, as
their point of special brilliance, the teachings
which concern conscious pardon and salvation
from sin, were undoubtedly distasteful to the
mass of English Churchmen in the eighteenth
century. It is no wonder that when Wesley
preached them in the parish churches he was
informed that his services would not be again
required. Driven to take up a defensive posi
tion, he referred his critics and hearers to the
Bible as the authority from which he derived
his doctrine. Some accepted his challenge,
read the Bible with illumined minds, and dis
covered that his contention was indisputable —
they saw that the salvation he taught was
pre-eminently Scriptural salvation. One after
another sought him out, and desired further
instruction. At first, he found it convenient
to hold these interviews with inquirers at their
own homes. Then, as their numbers increased,
it became a matter of practical necessity to
arrange for some special evening when they
might assemble, ask questions, and receive
further instruction. Wesley tells us that at
the beginning he had no idea of what would
follow from these meetings ; he had no previ
ous design or plan at all ; " everything arose

just as the occasion offered." The inquirers'
meeting was soon called a " Society." It met
week by week in order that the members might
pray together, receive the word of exhortation,
and watch over one another in love, ' ' that
they might help each other to work out their
salvation." There was only one condition of
entrance into the Society. It was essential
that all who sought admission should have " a
desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be
saved from their sins." The Society, at the
first, was connected with the " Religious So
ciety " which had been formed in Fetter Lane,
London. In that Society, however, the Mora
vian influence gradually became predominant,
and owing to many disputes, Wesley left
it. On July 23, 1740, he formed a separate
Society, consisting of twenty-five men and
fifty women, which began to meet in his
newly acquired preaching-house called the
Foundery — a building which stood in Wind
mill Hill, now known by the name of Windmill
Street, a street that runs parallel with City
Road, and abuts on the north-west corner of
Finsbury Square. The Fouudery became the
local habitation of London Methodism, and it
was not long before the processes of develop
ment began to work in the Society which
assembled in the place.

Much of the work of John Wesley as a
preacher was done in the open air; but it is
well known that such work, at the commence
ment of his evangelistic career, was not in
accordance with his tastes and prejudices.
When he had an opportunity of preaching in a
less public way, he used it. The possession of
the Foundery led to the institution of preach
ing services therein. They were of a simple
character. A short prayer was offered, a hymn
was sung, a short sermon followed, and after a
few more verses of another hymn had been sung
the service concluded with prayer. Special
care was taken to prevent such services from
being considered as substitutes for the full
service in the parish churches. They were
brief and bright, and were especially distin
guished by the hymns that were sung, and the
telling and " soul-saving " sermons that were
preached. As a consequence of these services
the Society in the Foundery increased. Wesley
watched the growth of the Society with thank
fulness tempered by concern. He was a man
who was not blinded by the glamour of num
erical success. He saw that a danger threat
ened him. Several of the members, as he says,
grew cold, and gave way to the sins which had
long easily beset them. He perceived the evil
consequences which would arise if such persons
were allowed to remain in the Society ; but he
was hampered by the difficulty of detecting
them. He was often absent from London

WESLEY AN METHODISM [ 772 ] WESLEY AN METHODISM

carrying on his evangelistic work in other
parts of the country, and it was impossible for
him to watch, with scrupulous care, the people
who crowded into the Society in the Foundery.
It must be remembered that London was
not the only centre of Wesley's work. He had
visited Bristol, at the invitation of George
Whitefield, in order to take charge of the
"Religious Societies" in the western city.
His visit was fruitful of the highest results.
On Monday, April 2, 1739, he preached his
first open-air sermon in England " in a brick
yard adjoining the city." His work in Bristol
was so successful that it became necessary to
find a place where the " Religious Societies "
that met in Nicholas Street and Baldwin Street
might assemble. A piece of land was pur
chased in the Horsefair, of which possession
was taken on Wednesday, May 9, 1739. On
the following Saturday the first stone of the
new house was laid "with the voice of praise
and thanksgiving." Wesley soon found that
the building of the Bristol "preaching-house"
had involved him in debt, and for a time he
was obliged to bear a heavy burden. Financial
care sometimes acts as a goad forcing us into
the right path, and it was so in the case of
Wesley. On Feb. 15, 1742, a meeting was
held in Bristol. It had been called by John
Wesley, and its business was the consideration
of the question of the debt which had been
incurred by the erection of the " New Room."
Describing the proceedings, Wesley tells us
that during the consultation upon the pay
ment of debts one stood up and said : " Let
every member of the Society give a penny a
week till all are paid." Another answered:
"But many of them are poor, and cannot afford
to do it." "Then," said he, "put eleven of
the poorest with me, and if they can give any
thing, well, I will call on them weekly ; and,
if they can give nothing, I will give for them
as well as for myself. And each of you call
on eleven of your neighbours weekly, receive
what they give, and make up what is want
ing." The sagacious counsellor was Captain
Foy, and his advice was taken. In a while
some of the pence collectors informed Wesley
that they found that "such and such an one
did not live as he ought." Immediately he
saw that a light had fallen upon the spiritual
problem that was troubling him. He called
together all the " leaders of the classes," for so
the collectors and their companies were styled,
and desired that each would make particular
inquiry into the behaviour of those whom he
saw weekly. They did so. Wesley thus sums
up the result: "Many disorderly walkers
were detected. Some turned from the evil of
their ways. Some were put away from us.
Many saw it with fear, and rejoiced unto God

with reverence." As soon as possible the
Bristol method of dividing the Society into
"classes" was introduced into London and
wherever Methodist Societies had been formed.
By this means Wesley obtained a helpful in
spection and knowledge of his people. The
leaders were eyes for him. They had to see
each person in their classes once a week at
least, in order that they might make inquiries
into their spiritual condition, and also to re
ceive what they were willing to give for the
relief of the poor. For some time the leaders
continued the self-denying and laborious work
of visiting the members at their own houses,
but this became too great a burden. Ulti
mately it was agreed that those of each class
should meet together in some specified place,
and that there inquiries should be made by the
leaders into all matters touching the Christian
experience and behaviour of the members.
In this way arose the Class Meeting. It has
proved of inexpressible value in the work of
the Methodist Church. It continues to this
hour, and although in some places its proceed
ings have been modified to meet modern re
quirements, its essential character and purpose
remain unchanged.

Wesley's pastoral care of his people led him
to adopt a series of rules by which the moral
and spiritual condition of the members of his
Societies was further tested. When he was on
a visit to Newcastle-on-Tyne, which became
one of his principal centres of evangelistic
work, he prepared a brief document which he
entitled The Nature, Design, and General Rules
of the United Societies in London, Bristol, Kinys-
viood, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It is dated
Feb. 22, 1743. A second edition, dated
May 1, 1743, was subsequently issued, signed
by John aud Charles Wesley. With slight
alteration these "rules" continue in force to
the present time. The only condition of ad
mission to the Society, as we have seen, was
that persons seeking entrance should desire
" to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved
from their sins." When admitted, however,
obedience to the rules was enforced, and in
case of non-observance and habitual breach
of any of them, the wrong-doer was first
admonished, then, if unrepentant, was ex
cluded from the Society. The rules set a
high standard of ethical and religious conduct,
and are remarkable evidences of Wesley's con
ception of righteousness.

The division of the Societies into classes,
under the care of leaders, was a great assist
ance to Wesley, but he did not allow it to
weaken his hold upon the members. At least
once in three months he talked with every
member, and satisfied himself as to his or her
spiritual condition. Being satisfied, he de-

WESLEYAN METHODISM

773

WESLEYAN METHODISM

livered to the member a ticket with his or her
name written thereon. He then inscribed the
names of the members in the Society Book
with his own hand. He was singularly true
to the direction, " If there is drudgery to be
done, be the man to do it." He manifested
the spirit glorified by George Herbert in The
Elixir. In the service of his Master nothing
was mean, drudgery was divine. The ap
parently dull work of writing out names
became interesting to him as he " read be
tween the lines." It led him to individualise
the members, and made each one of them a
personal acquaintance. From that distant
time to the present day the quarterly meeting
of the classes by the Methodist ministers has
continued, and it is considered " next to the
public 'ministry of the Word' the most im
portant official work " they have to discharge.
Wesley's careful inspection of his Societies
showed him that many of the members were
anxious for a closer Christian fellowship than
even the classes afforded. He, therefore,
arranged such persons in smaller groups, to
which he gave the name of "bands." In the
" bands" the members submitted to the most
searching examination of their moral and
spiritual character. They had special "rules "
for their guidance. In modern eyes those
<l rules" appear exceptionally and impracti
cably stringent, but there can be no doubt
that, in earlier days, they did much to pro
duce a fine type of Christian saintliness.
The practice of "meeting in band" has been
almost discontinued, but one result of the
"band" system survives. In Wesley's day it
was the custom for the men and women to
meet in separate "bands." Once a quarter,
however, they met together that they might
" eat bread " as the ancient Christians did,
with gladness and singleness of heart.
Describing these meetings Wesley says, " At
these love-feasts (so we termed them, retaining
the name as well as the thing, which was in
use from the beginning) our food is only a
little plain cake and water. But we seldom
return from them without being fed, not only
with ' the meat which perisheth,' but with
that which endureth to everlasting life." At
these love-feasts the members recited their
spiritual experiences, and often the place
where they were assembled became like "the
upper room " filled with the light of Pentecost.
In Wesley's anxiety to secure for his people
the experience of " Scriptural holiness," he
created another organisation, the " Select
Bands," the inner circle of his Societies. He
tells us that he formed them not only that he
might direct them to press after perfection,
but also to have a select company, to whom
he might unbosom himself on all occasions

without reserve, and whom he might propose
to all their brethren as a pattern of love, of
holiness, and of good works.

We have dwelt at some length upon the
organisation of the early Methodist Society
which had direct relation to the cultivation of
the spiritual life. In Wesley's esteem the
creation and the development of the spiritual
life were the objects for which Methodism
existed. Everything else was put into a
subordinate position. In pursuing his main
object he was led to adopt many plans of
work. Some of these were of the highest
significance, and have proved determining
forces in the evolution of Methodism. It
is only necessary that we should take one
illustration. John Wesley may be considered
as the discoverer of the possibilities of the
layman in the modern Church. He was
led along the path of discovery step by step.
Class leaders, stewards, trustees — these were
appointed to their offices as occasion required.
Moneys had to be collected and distributed ;
preaching-houses had to be built and main
tained ; above all, the Societies had to be
defended from the intrusion of the unworthy,
and led into the deepest experiences of the
Christian life. It was necessary that Wesley
should have helpers, and he found them among
the laity. But he was, especially, a preacher,
and the nation waited to be evangelised. It
was impossible for him to meet the need of
the nation as a preacher himself, and so he
had to summon into existence the little host
of lay-preachers who assisted him to carry
on the crusade. Everything arose naturally.
He had frequently to be absent from London,
Bristol, and Kingswood, and he had to obtain
some one who would be responsible for carry
ing out discipline, and watching over the
members of his Societies as if he were pre
sent. He says : "No clergyman would assist
us at all. The expedient that remained was
to find some one among themselves (the Metho
dists) who was upright of heart, and of sound
judgment in the things of God, and to desire
him to meet the rest as often as he could, in
order to confirm them, as he was able, in the
ways of God, either by reading to them, or
by prayer or exhortation." With this view
Wesley appointed John Cennick to reside
at Kingswood in 1739. He also engaged
others to do this work. But the want of
an assistant was particularly felt in London.
In 1740 he appointed Thomas Maxfield to
take care of the London Society. During his
absence Maxfield's "exhortations" attracted
large crowds ; then he began to preach, and
striking results followed. Some persons being
offended at the irregularity of a " preaching-
layman," sent word to Wesley, who hastened

WESLEYAN METHODISM [ 774 ] WESLEYAN METHODISM

back to London to stop it. But his mother,
Susannah Wesley, spoke a quiet word to him,
that prevented precipitate action. He heard
Maxfield preach and examined the persons
who had been converted under his preaching.
His prejudice melted, and he could only say,
"It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth
Him good." In other places the same assist
ance was afforded, and Wesley saw that he
had been providentially led to adopt a mighty
instrumentality for the evangelisation of the
country.

When Wesley found the " lay-preachers " by
his side, he discovered that his responsibilities
had largely increased. Pursuing the policy
which led to the formation of the " Select
Bands," he determined to hold a conference
of sympathetic clergymen and trusted lay-
preachers in order that he might converse with
them on a number of matters which were
causing him anxiety. On Monday, June 25,
1744, that Conference began at the " Foun-
dery," and continued during the five following
days. There were present at it, besides John
and Charles Wesley, four clergymen and four
lay-preachers. The three points debated were :
"What to teach, how to teach, and how to
regulate doctrine, discipline, and practice."
These subjects fairly indicate the scope of the
conversations which took place at the early
Conferences. Gradually, when lay-preaching
had been further developed, the mode of ad
mitting additional preachers into connection
with the Conference was regulated, the stations
of the preachers were arranged, and the
financial and other business of the constantly
growing Society was transacted. In respect
of doctrine, it must be noted that Wesley
constructed a special standard by which his
preachers were tested. In the first form of
trust deed for his preaching-houses, published
in 1763, he stipulated that the preachers
should preach no other doctrine than is con
tained in his Notes on the New Testament
and four volumes of Sermons. This form
continued in use for many years. The pre
sent " Model Deed " provides that no person
shall be permitted to preach in a Wesleyan
Chapel "who shall maintain, promulgate, or
teach any doctrine or practice contrary to what
is contained " in the cited volumes. In addition
to the doctrinal there was a disciplinary test.
The character of each preacher was closely
examined, his obedience to rule was investi
gated, and it was only so long as he observed
the regulations drawn up for his guidance
that he could continue in connection with
the Conference.

For about forty years the Methodist Societies
continued to spread. They were to be found
in many parts of the country, and although

they were never an integral part of the Church
of England, they were often found in close
association with it. There was one sign, how
ever, which pointed to the parting of the way*.
That sign was the administration of the sacra
ments in the preaching-houses by Wesley and
the clergymen who acted with him. Charles
Wesley was the first to set the example of
administering the Lord's Supper in these
" unconsecrated " places. On Sunday, April 12,
1741, he began the practice at Kingswood. The
clergy of Bristol had agreed to deny the sacra
ments to the converts of Whitefield and Wesley,
and on the day named Charles Wesley and the
Kingswood colliers who were with him in
Temple Church were repelled from the Lord's
Table. He consequently administered the
sacrament to his people in Kingswood School,
and says, with a robustness of common sense
remarkable in such a stiff High Churchman,
that if he had wanted a house he would have
administered " in the midst of the wood."
Throughout the country the policy of the
Bristol clergy was adopted. The Methodists
were driven from the Communion Table. In
some places the Methodists refrained from
approaching that Table because of the noto
rious unfitness of the clergy for their sacred
office. The difficulty in respect of the sacra
ments at last became so aggravated that many
of the Methodists told John Wesley plainly
that they would not receive the Lord's Supper
from the parish ministers. The administration
of the sacraments in the preaching-houses
became more common, until at last, in such
places as London, Bristol, Kingswood, and
Newcastle-on-Tyne, the custom was regularised
and confirmed.

On Sunday, Nov. 1, 1778, Wesley opened
his new chapel in City Road, London. The
student of ecclesiastical organisations may
detect the progress of the Methodist Societies
towards the position of a Church if he will com
pare the little company which gathered in the
Foundery on July 23, 1740, with the City Road
Society of 1778. The City Road Methodists
were an organisation quite independent of all
other Churches. They held their services re
gardless of "church hours." They used the
liturgy of the Established Church, it is true,
and were ministered to frequently by Episcopal
clergymen ; but such ministrations in an un
consecrated chapel had no sanction from any
bishop, and were altogether free from his con
trol. The sacraments were duly administered
there by Wesley and his clerical helpers, and
in all essentials the City Road Society was a
New Testament Church. It became the model
of the Methodism of the future. It was modi
fied in different parts of the country by local
circumstances ; but the Methodism of the

WESLEYAN METHODISM

[ 775 ]

WESLEYAN METHODISM

present day is essentially the direct outcome
of that of the City Road Chapel.

Two points remain to be considered in this
sketch of the Methodism of the days of John
Wesley : first, the ordination of the lay-
preachers ; and, secondly, the constitution of
the Conference. Throughout the country, as
we have said, there had been for many years
an uneasiness on the part of the Societies re
specting the administration of the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper. The policy pursued by
the clergy of the National Church increased
the restlessness of the Methodist people, and
at last they told Wesley plainly that they
could no longer receive the Lord's Supper
from the parish ministers. Wesley hushed the
rising storm for a time, but he knew that it
would acquire irresistible force. Meanwhile a
solution of the difficulty was being prepared.
On the other side of the Atlantic there had
been planted about the year 1769 the germ of
that Methodist Church whose success is one
of the most striking religious phenomena of
modern times. At the close of the War of
Independence the American Methodists found
themselves in a strange position. The English
Episcopal Church had disappeared as the
Church of the State. Francis Asbury, in a
letter to Wesley, asserted that thousands of the
children of the Methodists were unbaptized,
and that the members of the Societies in
general had not partaken of the Lord's Supper
for many years. In 1779, the preachers in the
Southern States determined to face the diffi
culty and to create an ordained ministry.
They proceeded to ordain themselves by the
hands of three of the senior preachers.
Asbury became alarmed, and succeeded in
persuading the Virginians to suspend the
administration of the sacraments until advice
could be received from Wesley. Asbury was
anxious that Wesley should himself come to
America, that he might ordain the preachers,
and wrote to that effect. Such a visit was
impossible, and other means had to be devised.
Wesley had not the slightest doubt that he,
a presbyter of the Church of England, had
a right to ordain other men to the office of
presbyter. He, however, had a strong objec
tion to exercise this power in a country where
the Established Church was Episcopal in its
order of Church government. In the case of
America this objection had no weight, and so
he met the urgent need of his Societies there
by ordaining Dr. Coke, who already possessed
priest's orders, to the office of a " Superinten
dent," and Richard Whatcoat and Thomas
Vasey as elders. These ordinations took
place in Bristol in 1784. It is no wonder that
the home Societies saw in them a way out of
their own difficulties. They were not slow to

point out the path, but Wesley proceeded with
great caution. He first met the case of Scot
land, because, in that country, no Established
Episcopal Church barred the way. Then he
ordained preachers for his foreign mission
stations in Newfoundland and the West Indies.
Then he took the final step, and in 1788 he
provided that his presbyter's orders should be
transmitted to the preachers in England. He
ordained Alexander Mather deacon, elder, and
"superintendent"; and on Ash Wednesday,
1789, he ordained Henry Moore and Thomas
Rankin presbyters, and empowered them to
administer the sacraments to the Methodists
of England. Henry Moore, who knew Wesley
intimately, and who became one of his execu
tors, tells us plainly that these last ordinations
took place in order that the power to ad
minister the sacraments might be transmitted
to others so " that it should become a common
thing whenever it should be judged best by
the Conference to adopt it." Myles, in his
Chronological History of the People called Metho
dists, states that Wesley strongly advised those
whom he thus ordained that, according to his
example, they should continue united to the
Established Church, "so far as the blessed
work in which they were engaged would
permit." He sums up the question thus :
" I have noted every step which Mr. Wesley
took with respect to his union with the Church
of England ; and from the whole it appears
that his settled judgment at length was, that
by the great and continued increase of the
Societies, and the difference of opinion on
that subject among both preachers and people,
as well as from the behaviour of many of the
clergy, it would be absolutely necessary that
the ordinances should be administered to
those who desired them. And that he there
fore took these steps that there might, in this
extension of privilege, be as near a conformity
to the Church of England as possible."

We have seen that the first Conference
was held in London in 1744. Year by
year Wesley was accustomed to summon his
preachers for consultation and for adminis
tration. The assembly became known as the
"Yearly Conference of the People called
Methodists." As preaching-houses were mul
tiplied, they were settled on a form of deed
which was first adopted in 1763. In that deed
it was provided that after the decease of John
and Charles Wesley and William Grimshaw,
the right of appointing preachers to the
" houses" should belong to the "Yearly Con
ference." As Wesley's life drew towards a
close, it was represented to him that the
phrase the "Yearly Conference" was vague,
and had no force as a legal definition. He
was urged to declare, in form of law, what was

WESLEY, JOHN

[ 776]

WESLEY, JOHN

meant by the term. If he died without such
declaration he himself saw that the right of
appointing preachers to his chapels would be
imperilled, and that such appointments would
cause endless disputes. In order to prevent
the complications that threatened his sur
vivors, he executed the famous " Deed of
Declaration" on Feb. 28, 1784. That deed
constitutes one hundred preachers, whose
names are mentioned in it, the Conference,
and provides for the filling up of vacancies in
their number as they occur. It is not neces
sary to cite the provisions of Wesley's deed.
It is enough to say that by it he secured the
permanence of Methodism. He made it an
ecclesiastical organisation standing apart from
all other Churches ; and he provided for it,
in the words of Vice-Chancellor Shadwell,
"a supreme legislative and executive body."
Wesley's ordinations did much to mark off the
Methodist Societies from existing Churches.
We doubt, however, if the separating influence
of his ordinations was as powerful as that of
his Deed of Declaration. By it the Methodist
Conference was established by law. Its indi
vidual existence was recognised by the law
courts. In process of time the nation has per
ceived that Wesley's United Societies have
become one of the Churches of England.

It is not necessary that we should further
trace the development of Wesleyan Methodism.
It has been well said that all the changes that
have occurred in its constitution are merely
the production of lines which were first traced
by John Wesley's hand. Essentially the Metho
dism of to-day is the Methodism of the close
of the eighteenth century. Its principal
object is the creation and cultivation of the
spiritual life in this nation and the world.
All variations in constitutional form are of
small account when compared with the ruling
idea. So long as that idea is dominant the
Methodist Church will be true to its traditions
and will keep alive in the world the spirit of
the Evangelical Revival. [J. S. S.]

WESLEY, JOHN.— John Wesley was born at
Epworth, in Lincolnshire, on June 17, 1703
(O.S.). His father, Samuel Wesley, was the
rector of the parish ; his mother, Susannah
Wesley, was the daughter of Dr. Samuel
Annesley, sometime rector of St. Giles'
Church, Cripplegate, London. On his father's
and his mother's side John Wesley was closely
connected with the Nonconformists who were
excluded from the Established Church in 1662.
His paternal great-grandfather was Bartholo
mew Westley, the vicar of Charmouth and
Catherstone in Dorset, who lost his livings
at the Restoration. His paternal grandfather,
John Westley, was the vicar of Winterbourne
Whitchurch, in Dorset. He found it impossible

to " subscribe to all and everything contained
in and prescribed by the Book of Common
Prayer," and so quitted his church on Aug. 17,
1662, and entered on a life of wandering, im
prisonment, persecution, and suffering which
terminated in death. The date of his death is
uncertain, but it is supposed to have occurred
at Preston, a little village that lies in a fold of
the hills near Weymouth. It is essential that
the hereditary Nonconformity of John Wesley
should be borne in mind. It had a determin
ing effect upon his conduct in the most serious
crises of his life. The Presbyterian was strong
in him, and finally prevailed. After being edu
cated at the Charterhouse, he went to Oxford
in 1720, having been elected to Christ Church.
He continued there until after his ordination
in 1725. On March 17, 1726, chiefly through
the influence of Dr. Morley, he was elected
Fellow of Lincoln College. After taking his
Master's degree, Wesley left the University in
1727, and received full orders on Sept. 22,
1729, and resumed residence at Oxford, Nov.
22, 1729. Speaking of his undergraduate
life, he says, "I still said my prayers, both
in public and private, and read, with the
Scriptures, several other books of religion,
especially comments on the New Testament.
Yet I had not all this while so much as a
notion of inward holiness ; nay, went on habi
tually, and for the most part very contentedly,
in some or other known sin ; though with some
intermission and short struggles, especially
before and after the Holy Communion, which
I was obliged to receive thrice a year." There
was nothing in his University life that calls
for special comment until after the lapse of
four years, when he was compelled to face the
question of his future profession. Tyerman,
who speaks with the authority of a man who
possesses special knowledge, says, " There is
no evidence to show that when Wesley went
to Oxford he intended or wished to become a
minister of the Established Church." How
ever, at the beginning of 1725 he seems to
have decided to be a clergyman. When he
made known his intention to his mother, she
wrote him a letter. Reading between the
lines, we surmise that she knew the unsatis
factory spiritual condition of her son, and
feared that his choice of a profession was not
determined by the loftiest motives. Having
made up his mind, Wesley began to study
divinity. At this point Thomas h, Kempis'
Christian Pattern fell into his hands, and
he " began to see that true religion was seated
in the heart, and that God's law extended to
all our thoughts, as well as words and actions."
Describing the change that came over him, he
says : "Meeting likewise with a religious friend,
which I never had till now, I began to alter the

WESLEY, JOHN

[ 777]

\VESLEY, JOHN

whole form of my conversation, and to set in
earnest upon a new life. I set, apart an hour or
two a day for religious retirement. I com
municated every week. I watched against all
sin, whether in word or deed; I began to aim
at, and to pray for, inward holiness. So that
now, doing so much and living so good a life,
I doubted not that I was a good Christian."
On Sunday, Sept. 19, 1725, he was ordained
deacon. On March 17, 1726, he was elected
Fellow of Lincoln College. Leaving the
University for a time, he returned to Oxford
on September 21, 1726, and on November 7
he was elected Greek lecturer and moderator
of the classes. Having established his posi
tion at Oxford, he began to think more
closely and deeply on the subject of reli
gion. Reading Law's Christian Perfection and
Serwus Call, he was convinced " more than
ever of the exceeding height and breadth and
depth of the law of God." He says: " I cried
to God for help, resolved, as I had never done
before, not to prolong the time of obeying
Him. And by my continued endeavours to
keep His whole law, inward and outward, to
the utmost of my power, I was persuaded that
I should be accepted of Him, and that I was
even then in a state of salvation." Speaking
subsequently of the " many years after he was
ordained," he says : " During all that time I
was utterly ignorant of the nature and condi
tion of justification. Sometimes I confounded
it with sanctification ; at other times I had
some confused notion about the forgiveness of
sins ; but then I took it for granted the time
of this must be either the hour of death or the
day of judgment. I was equally ignorant of
the nature of saving faith ; apprehending it to
mean no more than ' a firm assent to all the
propositions contained in the Old and New
Testaments.' "

After taking his Master's degree, Wesley
went down from the University in August
1727. He returned there on Nov. 22, 1729.
During his absence an event occurred which
had a determining effect upon his career. His
brother, Charles Wesley, who entered Christ
Church in 1726, began to attend the weekly
sacrament, and induced other students to
imitate his example. When John Wesley re
turned to Oxford he joined the little company
of weekly communicants. It was not long be
fore the regularity and seriousness of these men
attracted attention. One day a Christ Church
man, watching them walk through the streets,
cried out, " Here is a new sect of Methodists ! "
and the name stuck. The company of Oxford
"Methodists" gradually increased. John
Wesley, who soon obtained his natural posi
tion as leader, was nicknamed " the curator of
the Holy Club." The objects aimed at by the

members of the " Club " were, the cultivation
of holiness, the study of the Bible, and philan
thropic and Christian work. They were tena
cious of all the doctrines and discipline of the
Church of England, and were scrupulously
strict in observing the rubrics and canons. In
the sense in which the term was then used,
the Oxford Methodists were High Churchmen-
There was a difference in opinion among them
on some points, but John Wesley seems to have
been in favour of the strict observance of saints'
days and holy days, confession, constant com
munion, the mixture of water with the sacra
mental wine, and other practices which now
distinguish the Ritualistic section of the
Established Church. It is in this period of
Wesley's life that the Anglo-Catholic diligently
searches for evidence to prove that John Wesley
was a High Churchman. Such evidence can
certainly be produced. It shows that in his
" Holy Club" days John Wesley held extreme
views. There was one doctrine, however, on
which he was sound — the crucial doctrine of
the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.
He corresponded with his mother on the sub
ject, who, in reply to his letter, wrote: " I own
I never understood by the real presence more
than that ' the Divine nature of Christ is then
eminently present, to impart, by the operation
of His Spirit, the benefits of His death to
worthy receivers.' And, surely, the divine
presence of our Lord, thus applying the virtues
and merits of the great atonement to each true
believer, makes the consecrated bread more
than a sign of Christ's body, since by His so
doing we receive not only the sign, but with it
the thing signified — all the benefits of His in
carnation and passion. But still, however this
divine institution may seem to others, to me
it is full of mystery." To his mother's letter
Wesley replied as follows : "One consideration
is enough to make me assent to your judgment
concerning the Holy Sacrament ; which is, that
we cannot allow Christ's human nature to be
present in it, without allowing either con- or
trans- substantiation. But that His Divinity
is so united to us then, as He never is but to
worthy receivers, I firmly believe, though the
manner of that union is utterly a mystery to
me " (Tyerman's Life and Times of John Wesley,
vol. i. p. 82). It will be seen that, even in his
days of High Churchmanship, Wesley's view
of the doctrine of the real presence did not
differ essentially from that which is held by
many devout evangelical Christians. In after
years, when he wrote his Roman Catechism
and Reply, and his Popery calmly Consid
ered, he pronounced against transubstantia-
tion with perfect clearness. "Scripture and
antiquity," he declares, "are flatly against
transubstantiation. And so are our very

WESLEY, JOHN

[ 778 ]

WESLEY, JOHN

senses. . . . Take away the testimony of our
senses, and there is no discerning a body from
a spirit. But if we believe transubstantia-
tion, we take away the testimony of all our
senses. And we give up our reason too. For
if every particle of the Host is as much the
whole body of Christ as the whole Host before
it is divided, then a whole may be divided, not
into parts, but into wholes. For divide and
sub-divide it over and over, and it is whole
still ! It is whole before the division, whole
in the division, whole after the division !
Such nonsense, absurdity, and self-contradic
tion all over is the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion " (Works, vol. x. pp. 151, 152, 8vo ed.).

On Oct. 14, 1 735, John Wesley embarked for
Georgia. He went there not only as a minister
to the colonists, but as a missionary to the
Indians. It is not necessary to dwell upon
the incidents of his residence in America.
He left the colony, and landed in England on
Feb. 1, 1738. The point of light in Wesley's
Georgian experience is his association with
the Moravians. A number of them were on
board the vessel in which he made the out
ward voyage, and their fearlessness in the midst
of a storm made a deep impression on his
mind. He saw that they possessed a secret
of peace of which he was ignorant. In the
colony he met Spangenberg, a Moravian
pastor, and in a conversation with him ques
tions were asked which quickened Wesley's
conscience. Spangenberg inquired, "Have
you the witness within yourself? Does the
Spirit of God bear witness with your spirit
that you are a child of God ? " Wesley was
surprised, and knew not what to answer.
Observing his embarrassment Spangenberg
pushed the question home. He said, "Do
you know Jesus Christ ? " Wesley paused, and
then replied, " I know that He is the Saviour
of the world." "True," said Spangenberg,
"but do you know He has saved you? " "I
hope He has died to save me," was the answer.
" Do you know yourself ? " urged Spangenberg.
"I do," Wesley replied; "but," he writes in
his Journal, " I fear they were vain words."

When Wesley returned to England, one
thought had taken definite shape in his mind.
Pondering over his spiritual condition he was
convinced that "the gaining a true, a living
faith" was needful. He was confused in his
ideas, for the faith that was the object of his
search was "faith in God, not faith in or
through Christ." When he came to London,
however, he met Peter Bohler, a Moravian
pastor, and by Bible-searching and conversa
tion, he gained the intellectual light he re
quired, and resolved to seek the gift of faith,
first, by absolutely renouncing all dependence,
in whole, or in part, upon his own works or

righteousness, "on which," he says, "I had
really founded my hope of salvation, though
I knew it not, from my youth up ; " and,
secondly, by adding to the constant use of all
the other means of grace, continual prayer for
this very thing, justifying, saving faith, a full
reliance on the blood of Christ shed for him,
a trust in Him as his Christ, as his sole justi
fication, sanctification, and redemption.

The conversations with Peter Bohler fur
nished the intellectual preparation for the
great change which Wesley soon experienced.
But something more than an intellectual
apprehension of the meaning of Christ's death
was needed, and it came. Wesley's friend,
James Hutton, had formed a "Religious
Society " in Nettleton Court, Aldersgate Street,
London. Wesley, with a storm-tost mind,
went there in the evening of May 24, 1738.
Some one was reading, for the edification of his
fellows, Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the
Romans. "About a quarter before nine," writes
Wesley, "while he was describing the change
which God works in the heart through faith
in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed.
I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for
salvation : and an assurance was given me
that He had taken away my sins, even mine,
and saved me from the law of sin and death."

Wesley's experience of personal salvation
changed the whole course of his life. Nettle-
ton Court stands at "the parting of the ways."
His homeward voyage from Georgia was the
beginning of the end of the High Church
period of his life ; the end was reached at the
time of his conversion. "When," as Miss
Wedgwood says, "the birthday of a Christian
is shifted from his baptism to his conversion,
in that change the partition line of two great
systems is crossed." It would be possible
to detect some lingering traces of his High
Churchmanship at subsequent stages of his
career, but they become fainter in the process
of the years, and finally disappear.

Wesley's conversion influenced and deter
mined his character, his evangelistic work,
his theology, and his ecclesiastical position.
His conversion was the starting-point of a new
Christian life. He recommenced his pursuit
of holiness, but his spirit and his methods
were changed. In other days he had sought
to become holy by observing the requirements
of a high morality, and the rules of ecclesi
astical law. But the light which had led him
to Jesus Christ for pardon shone round him
and showed him that every grace of the
Christian character springs from, and is
nourished and matured by living faith in a
living Saviour. Brooding over the doctrine
of " Christian Perfection," he found it to be a
perfection of character possible to the Christian

WESLEY, JOHN

[ 779 ]

WESLEY, JOHN

under the limitations imposed by his earthly
life. He summed it up as obedience to the
commands, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength, and thy neighbour as thyself." He
never made any profession of having attained
to this perfection ; like St. Paul he pressed on,
if so be that he might apprehend that for
which also he was apprehended by Christ
Jesus. But all who watched him saw his
saintliness. That saintliness was not a garment
of self-righteousness worn with demure satis
faction ; it was raiment of light that adorned
him as every day he lived the life of faith in
the Son of God.

It is not within the scope of this article to
give any description of the unparalleled evan
gelistic work of John Wesley. That work was
done at a time when the nation was threatened
by the gravest social, moral, and spiritual
danger. It is now generally admitted that
the Evangelical revival, in which Wesley
played such a conspicuous part, saved the
nation from disaster. It is only necessary to
emphasize the fact that Wesley's experience
in Nettleton Court made him an evangelist.
Having felt the gladness that springs up in the
heart when the consciousness of sins forgiven
is experienced, he yearned to tell out the good
news to the whole world. Excluded from the
churches, he made the discovery that the
world was his parish. In that parish he be
came a most diligent and successful minister.
Everywhere he preached the doctrine of salva
tion by faith. His "yearning pity for man
kind," his view of the wonderful love of God,
soon led him to break with some of the
doctrines which were tenaciously held by
Christian men in the Established and the
Dissenting Churches. He preached to the
outcasts of society, and found that, through
faith in Jesus Christ, they entered into the
new life. His enthusiasm for the masses, his
growing evangelistic successes, caused him to
disregard the barriers set up by the advocates
of the doctrine of election and reprobation ;
he ignored time-honoured prejudices, and
boldly declared that God " willeth that all
men should be saved, and come to the know
ledge of the truth." His inherited Arminianism
was accentuated by his conversion and his
evangelistic work, and although his preaching
of the doctrine of universal redemption led to
the severance of some of his cherished friend
ships, he continued to proclaim it with com
plete conviction and burning zeal.

Wesley's conversion had a determining effect
upon his theology. It changed his estimate
of the comparative values of the doctrines
contained in his theological system. He found

that "orthodoxy, or right opinions, is, at
least, but a very slender part of religion,
if it can be allowed to be any part of it at
all." Warned by his Oxford experiences, he
turned his attention from the smaller points
of divinity, and fixed it upon the doctrines
of grace. An examination of his Standard
Sermont, which, together with his Notes on
the New Testament, he selected as the doctrinal
test of the men who were associated with him
in the work of preaching the Gospel, reveals
his estimate of truth. Abstaining from "all
nice and philosophical speculations ; from
all perplexed and intricate reasonings," and
from indulgence in speculation, he confines
himself in his Standard Sermons to the
essentials of true religion. In his Preface
he says, " I have set down in the following
sermons what I find in the Bible concerning
the way to heaven, with a view to distinguish
this way of God from all those which are the
inventions of men. I have endeavoured to
describe the true, the scriptural, experimental
religion, so as to omit nothing which is a real
part thereof, and to add nothing thereto which
is not." Wesley's supreme guide in the con
struction of his theological system was the
Bible. He emphasized and illustrated the
saying of Chillingworth, " The Bible, the Bible
only, is the religion of Protestants." In study
ing Wesley's attitude towards theology, we
are reminded of the words of John Smith, the
Cambridge Platonist, a man who, in some re
spects, may be considered as one of Wesley's
spiritual ancestors. He says: " The knowledge
of Divinity that appears in systems and models
is but a poor, wan light. ... To seek our
Divinity merely in books and writings, is to
seek the living among the dead ; we do but in
vain seek God many times in these, where His
truth too often is not so much enshrined as
entombed. . . . That is not the best and truest
knowledge of God which is wrought out by
the labour of the brain, but that which is
kindled within us by a heavenly warmth in
our hearts " (Select Discourses, pp. 2, 3).

Wesley's conversion influenced profoundly
his ecclesiastical position. One of his famous
sayings, " Church or no Church, we must save
souls ! " reveals the conviction that deter
mined his relation to the Church in which he
had been born and trained. Through the
whole of his life he cherished an affection
for the Church of England He admired its
history, its liturgy, its literature, its saints
and martyrs. But above everything else he
placed the necessities of the work which he
was sure God had commissioned him to ac
complish. If ecclesiastical restrictions hin
dered that work they were cast aside. He
preached in the open air and in unconsecrated

WESLEY, JOHN

[ 780 ]

WOBSHIP, PUBLIC

chapels ; he administered the sacraments in
his "preaching-houses"; he invaded other
men's parishes ; he formed societies outside
the Church of England, over which the bishops
had no control ; he ordained men to admin
ister the sacraments in England, Scotland, and
America ; he arranged for the existence of the
Methodist Societies as a fully equipped and
separate Church after his death. It is difficult
to enumerate his breaches of ecclesiastical
law, but his guiding principle is clear. At all
costs of personal prejudice and preference men
must be saved ; hindrances, however venerable,
must be thrust aside ; helps, however new,
must be adopted. Extreme High Church
men, who have recently become enamoured of
Wesley, find him a most embarrassing com
panion. Painful research occasionally brings to
light a sentence which seems to be tinged with
the so-called " Catholic " colour, but no sooner
is it found than some astounding breach of
ecclesiastical law confronts them, and defies
their most skilful explanations. In The Church's
Broken Unity, the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, when
dealing with Wesley's ordinations for America,
sorrowfully admits that his act " was nothing
more or less than one of schism, according
both to common sense and the canons of the
Church;" and speaking of his subsequent
ordinations for England, he says, "They must
go down to posterity as they are recorded,
the fruit of circumstances, of perplexity, of
entanglement, beyond the power of his guid
ance or extrication." Mr. Bennett's position is
sounder than that of the men who insist on
consideringWesley as an extreme High Church
man, but he has missed the reason of these
departures from ecclesiastical order. They
were compelled by the exigencies of his evan
gelising work. We are far from considering
that success is the only test of the correctness
of Church procedure, but it is an element
which cannot be overlooked in any attempt
to justify Wesley's action. In the presence
of the urgent need of a perishing world, he
deemed it necessary to adopt expedients that j
astonish the ecclesiastical purist. The Metho
dist Church is the best answer to the purist's
criticisms.

There is one effect of Wesley's conversion
upon which we must touch in closing. When
he was in Georgia, we know that he was a j
rigid precisian in all matters of Church order. I
That any one could differ in opinion from him, i
and yet be right, was an idea that does not ;
seem to have entered into his mind. He was j
then an inflexible High Churchman. But after
his conversion he became conspicuous for
charitable judgment. His words in his Advice
to the People called Methodists are worthy of re
peated record : "Lay so much stress on opinions,

that all your own, if it be possible, may agree
with truth and reason, but have a care of anger,
dislike, or contempt towards those whose
opinions differ from yours. . . . Condemn no
man for not thinking as you think. Let every
one enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking
for himself. . . . Abhor every approach, in
any kind or degree, to the spirit of persecu
tion. If you cannot reason or persuade a man
into the truth, never attempt to force him into
it. If love will not compel him to come in,
leave him to God, the Judge of all" (Works,
vol. viii. p. 357). These sentences display the
true Protestant spirit. They lift us out of the
dungeon of superstition and bigotry, and set
us on the mountain heights, where we breathe
the "ampler, purer air," and see the vision of
divine charity. In these days, when dogmatic
statements on speculative questions, and fierce
denunciations of people who differ from their
denouncers in their views of ecclesiastical
government are rife, it is well to listen to
Wesley's words in the midst of the tumult,
" As to all opinions which do not strike at the
root of Christianity, we think and let think."

John Wesley died in his house in the City
Road, London, on Wednesday, March 2, 1791.
The light that shone around him in Nettleton
Court filled the room where he passed away.
" When at Bristol," said he, alluding to his
illness there in 1753, " my words were,

' I the chief of sinners am,
But Jesus died for me.'"

A friend inquired, " Is that your language
now." "Yes," he replied, "Christ is all!
He is all ! " Resting entirely on Christ for
salvation, the great evangelist closed his eyes
on the scenes of earth, leaving to those who
surrounded him the watchword which is still
uttered by Methodist Churchmen everywhere,
" The best of all is, God is with us ! "

[J. S. S.]

WHITSUNTIDE. — "Whitsun week" is men
tioned in the Prayer Book, and special Lessons,
Epistle, and Gospel are appointed for Monday
and Tuesday in Whitsun week. Whit Sunday
commemorates the descent of the Holy Ghost
upon the apostles under the appearance of
fiery tongues distributed amongst them. Whit
Sunday, therefore, falls, as Pentecost fell, on
the fiftieth day after Easter Day. " Whitsun "
may be a corruption of the German Pjlngsten,
which is derived from Pentecost. But it is
perhaps more probable that the day was ori
ginally called " White Sunday," the large
number of catechumens who were then bap
tized appearing in white garments.

WORSHIP, PUBLIC.— To worship means
" to honour," and is used, especially in Old
English, in regard to honour given to our

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

[781 ]

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

fellow-men as well as to God.1 Worship of
God may be defined as approaching God with
the honour due to Him as our Creator, Pre
server, and Redeemer ; and, if such is to be
acceptable, it must be in the way which
accords with the Divine revealed will.

Worship may be viewed as either an inward
or an outward action. The former consists of
the feelings of love, admiration, confidence, and
submission to the Deity as the Supreme Being.
The latter is the manifestation of such feelings
by outward signs, as prayer, prostrations, and
genuflections. Where there is inward worship
there will be more or less outward reverence.
Our Lord Himself " lifted up His eyes " (John
xvii. 1), "kneeled down " (Luke xxii. 41), " and
" fell on His face " (Matt. xxvi. 39). True wor
ship, whatever its form, is connected with
spiritual feelings, and is expressive of rever
ence, the sense of sin, the desire for pardon of
sin, or thanksgiving for mercy received.

There is a close connection between worship
and service. Worship leads to service, and
service becomes a form of worship of the
most practical character. No idea of divine
worship is correct unless we realise that the
claim which God has upon us is absolute, one
undivided and unshared, and always operating
without intermission.

Public worship of God might include family
and social worship, but the term is generally
used for the meeting together of Christians in
places set apart for the purposes of prayer and
praise. In this sense we purpose to treat
the subject. Several of the topics bearing
upon it have already been dealt with; hence
our remarks shall be briefer than otherwise
such an important subject might have required.

The obligation of public worship, as well as
that of private, is clearly taught in the New
Testament. Our Lord Himself attended public
worship (Luke iv. 16); He prayed with His
disciples (Luke ix. 28, 29 ; xi. 1) ; and He
promised His presence to worshippers when
met together as a company, however small
(Matt, xviii. 20). The duty of worship may be
concluded also from the conduct of the apostles
(Acts i. 24 ; ii. 1 ; iv. 24, 31 ; vi. 4 ; xxi. 5 ; 1 Cor.
xi. 20), and from general precepts (1 Tim. ii.
2, 8 ; Heb. x. 25 ; cf. Dent. xxxi. 12 ; Ps. c. 4).
The duty of a regular attendance upon public
worship is no doubt often set forth in Scripture
only incidentally, yet it is, perhaps, on that ac
count all the more forcible. The command to
publish the Gospel includes the obligation of

1 This is common even in the Old Testament.
See Gen xxiii. 7, where the word "bowed down
to " in the Hebrew is identical with that
often translated "worship," as also in Gen.
xxxiii. 3, &c., and 1 Chron. xxix. 20.

men assembling to hear it ; the designation of a
"Church" (see CHURCH)2 means an assembly
for the transaction of business, and in the case
of a Christian assembly that business must
necessarily be spiritual. Some of the Epistles
of St. Paul are commanded to be read in the
churches (Col. iv. 16). The singing of psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs is spoken of as
an act of solemn worship to the Lord (Eph. v.
19; Col. iii. 16; cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26). The
practice of the primitive Church on this point
is plain from the Pauline Epistles. The Lord's
Supper was celebrated by the body of believers
collectively, and the apostle, writing to the
Corinthians, lays down regulations for the
exercises of prayer and prophesyings when
they come together in the Church (1 Cor. x.
16-21 ; xi. 29-34; xiv.).

The purpose and design of Church worship is
threefold. It is the public adoration of God
through the name of Christ. It is the cele
bration of the communion of believers as a
congregation with their heavenly Head, for the
glory of the Lord and for the promotion and en
joyment of the spiritual life. Beyond these two
direct purposes of worship, there is its indirect
or missionary character ; such worship attracts
the outside world and is a standing witness for
God. When the design of divine worship is
rightly understood, it will be found to be for the
setting forth of the truths concerning Christ and
His Gospel, which deepen gratitude, strengthen
faith, promote growth in grace, afford comfort,
and give a foretaste of heavenly joy.

If the Holy Scriptures are to be our guide,
nothing is clearer than that the one Object
of religious worship is the Triune God.3
Throughout the entire Old Testament God

2 Church (tKK\T]ffia, ecclesia) properly signi
fies a gathering of citizens called out from their
homes into some public place.

3 Prayer in the New Testament is almost in
variably addressed to God the Father. Two
exceptions occur in the short, ejaculatory ex
clamations of St. Stephen and St. Paul respec
tively, when they had visions of the Lord (Acts
vii. 59, 60; xxii. 10). Our Lord specially in
structs His people to pray to the Father in His
name (John xvi. 23, 24). In the Litany appeal
is made in prayer to each Person of the Holy
Trinity separately, and then to the Trinity. In
the Collect for the First Sunday in Advent, and
in several versicles, the Second Person in the
Trinity is addressed ; and in the Collect for
Whitsunday the Holy Ghost is invoked. The
arguments advanced for addressing each Person
of the Godhead are the fact that in Holy Scrip
ture each person is spoken of as possessing
divine attributes, and the inferences drawn
from Matt, xxviii. 19 and 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

[ 782 ]

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

Almighty continually declared Himself to be
a jealous God, One who will not share a tittle
of His rights and glory with another (Exod.
xx. 5; Isa. xlii. 8). Throughout the entire
New Testament Christ declares Himself (and
is declared by His apostles) to be the only
way to the Father ; He is perfect and entire in
His love for man, and His intercession and His
prayer all availing (John xiv. 6, 14 ; Matt. xi.
28; John x. 14, 15 ; Acts iv. 12 ; Eph. iii. 19 ;
1 Tim. ii. 5, 6 ; Heb. ii. 7, 17, 18). The Church
of Home, on the other hand, offers religious
worship of a secondary kind to many objects,
animate and inanimate. It directs the worship
of angels, the invocation of saints, the venera
tion of relics, and the devotional use of images
(Couu. of Trent, Sess. xxv. ; Catechism of
Coun. of Trent, part iii. chap. ii. ). [See Articles
on these subjects.]

In favour of the worship of angels the
Roman Catholics use three chief arguments.
First, it is urged that the Old Testament
affords some distinct instances of angel-
worship. Jacob " entreats, nay, compels, the
Angel with whom he wrestled to bless him "
(Cat. Coun. Trent, see Gen. xxxii. 24) ; and else
where asks the blessing of the same angel
when invisible (Gen xlviii. 16, cf. Josh. v. 14).
The plain answer is that the angel who
"blessed" and "redeemed" Jacob, and was
worshipped by Joshua, was the Uncreated
Word (see Josh. vi. 2, which is a resumption
of Josh. v. 14, 15 ; Hos. xii. 3-5, &c.). Secondly,
it is said that both Testaments represent
angels as being our intercessors with God, as
well as God's ministers to us (Tob. xii. 12, 15 ;
Rev. v. 8; viii. 3, 4). But the citation from
Tobit is of no authority in matters of faith,
and the passage in Rev. v. does not speak of
angels. Rev. viii 3 does, but it is only an
allegorical description which will not justify
any doctrinal conclusion. Nothing is said of
angels interceding for us, and still less of any
prayers offered to them. We are told to pray
only to God (Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 8, 9). Thirdly,
it is asserted that the early Church held the
doctrine of angelic advocacy (St. Hilary on
Matt, xviii.). Though the early Church may
have believed in angels as well as departed
saints offering up prayer together with saints
on earth, it did not believe in angel- worship.
Moreover, the reproof which St. John received
from an angel to whom he offered the worship
of prostration plainly would outweigh any so-
called testimony (even if it existed) from the
early Church respecting angel-worship. The
prohibition of angel- worship is absolute. " See
thou do it not— worship God " (Rev. xxii. 9).
On the other hand, our Lord never refused or
blamed an act of worship offered to Himself
(Matt. ii. 11 ; viii. 2 ; ix. 18 ; xiv. 33 ; xvii. 14 ;

xx. 20 ; xxviii. 9, 17 ; Mark v. 6 ; John ix. 38 ;
cf. Heb. i. 6 ; Rev. v. 8). See Swete's England
v. Rome, pp. 104-107.

In order to defend the Church of Rome
from the charge of idolatry, Bellarmine, and
Romanist apologists after him, endeavour to
distinguish the worship paid to saints from
that which belongs to God. There are, they
say, three kinds of religious honour, techni
cally called douleia, hyper douleia, and latreia
(dov\da, vwepSovXeia, Xarpela). Unhappily for
this theory, the noun douleia is not used
in the New Testament of any religious
worship, though the verb dovXeveiv, douleuein,
is employed alike of service whether done
to God, or gods, or man, or sin (Matt. vi.
24 ; Rom. vi. 6 ; Gal. iv. 8, 9 ; Tit. iil 3). To
draw distinctions between different kinds of
worship viewed as a religious act, is false,
misleading, and irreverent. The really healthy,
well-instructed, devout mind of the believer
naturally shrinks from applying, in however
modified a manner, the term "worship "in a
religious sense to any creature, but sacredly
reserves it to describe his approaches to God.
We draw a distinction between civic and re
ligious worship, but in religious worship there
is no division, as God alone is to be wor
shipped. Thus when, as in the Church of
Rome, such distinctions have been attempted
to be drawn, they are only verbal. They are
no distinctions in point of fact. With Roman
Catholics the worship of God and the worship
of the saints are practically all but identical.
Prayers are offered with the same manifesta
tions of outward homage. The titles ascribed
to Mary and the petitions preferred to her are
precisely the same as those which are offered
to our Lord. See MARIOLATKY. The prac
tice of approaching God through human
mediators, and virtually substituting the wor
ship of Mary for the worship of Christ, tends
to obscure the mediation and intercession of
our Lord Jesus Christ It is the privilege of
the believer — a privilege for which Protestants
earnestly contend — that we approach and
directly pray to Him as the only and all-
sufficient High Priest and Intercessor with the
Father.

The essentials of complete public worship are
few. In connection with public worship there
are mentioned in the New Testament the
observance of the Lord's Day (Acts xx. 7 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 2) ; a properly ordained ministry
(Mark iii. 13, 14 ; Luke x. 1 ; Acts xiv. 23 ;
Tit. i. 5) ; preaching of the word (2 Tim. iv. 2,
cf. 1 Thess. v. 20) ; united public prayer (1
Tim. ii. 1) ; reading the Holy Scriptures (Luke
iv. 16 ; Acts xiii. 15 ; 1 Tim. iv. 13) ; united
praise, psalms and hymns (Acts iv. 24 ; 1 Cor.
xiv. 15 ; Eph. v. 19) ; and the administration of

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

[ 783 ]

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

the two sacraments which Christ appointed in
His Church (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 ; 1 Cor. xi.
23-26). Great care needs to be exercised not
to give disproportionate honour to any one
ordinance of God to the neglect of another.
Nothing tends, perhaps, more to lower the
regard for the sacraments themselves than
the attempt made by Romanising teachers to
assign them a place which they were never
intended to occupy. See OPUS OPERATUM.
See also Bishop Kyle's Knots Untied, Article
XIII. on " Worship.

The Model of Christian worship is a point
which has given rise to much discussion.
But it is now admitted by most competent
ecclesiastical historians that Christian worship
took its original form not from the worship of
the Temple, but from the Passover Feast in
the Upper Chamber, and from the Jewish
synagogue worship, to which, in its early
forms, it bore considerable resemblance. "It
is," as Abbc$ Duchesne writes,1 " important
for this purpose not to confuse the cultus of
the Temple at Jerusalem with that of the
synagogues. The former exercised no influence
upon the Christian liturgy ; the comparisons
which mediaeval interpreters loved to establish
between the ritual of the Pentateuch and that
of the Church are not to be taken seriously.
All that has been said on that subject is due
to mere ingenuity, with no foundation on
tradition. Except, then, in the principles,
which underlie all worship, the services of
the Mosaic Dispensation are not a model for
ourselves." It is also unsafe to found any
argument respecting the ritual of Christian
worship 2 upon the imagery of the Apocalypse.

1 Origine du Culte Chrttien, 12iemc edition, 1898,
p. 45.

2 Ritual refers to rites and ceremonies, words
and sounds, which are used in the public worship
of Almighty God. The main object of the ritual
appointed by the Churches is neither "to give
public, corporate expression to the faith and
devotions of Christians," nor as a " medium of
gaining information." Its end and purpose is
to enable the services to be conducted for the
glory of God and the good of the general body
of worshippers. It is right that ritual should
be suitable and impressive ; but the rites and
ceremonies appointed by a Church on its own
authority should not be elaborate symbolical
arrangements like those specially and specifically
appointed by God Himself in the case of the
Temple services. In the New Testament the
characteristic method of instruction is by the
ear rather than by the eye, by preaching, not by
symbolical accessories of worship. Whenever
elaborate systems of Ritualism, with a view to
histrionic and educational purposes, have grown

To turn that sublime imagery into ritual law
is an act of unwarrantable literalism. It is
still more absurd to maintain that individual
members may go beyond the authoritative
services of the particular national Church to
which they belong, and claim the right to
introduce, prohibit, or omit any rite or custom
which has once succeeded in gaining universal
adoption. The truth is that there is no system
of ritual which can claim the title of Catholic.
The claim to individual initiative under the
falsely asserted power of a falsely called
" Catholic" ritual is intolerable. According to
the XXth and XXXIVth Articles of the Church
of England, and the statements in the Preface,
the Book of Common Prayer lays down the
right of particular Churches to decree their
own ritual "so that nothing be ordained
against God's Word " (see Report of the Church
Congress, "The Church and her Services,"
1899).

The mode of conducting divine worship
must be Scriptural, i.e. in accordance with the
teaching, example, and spirit of God's Word.
All the rites and ceremonies of a Church must
be in keeping with the principle enunciated in
our Lord's words, " God is a Spirit: and they
that worship Him must worship in spirit and
in truth " (John iv. 24). Such rites and cere
monies must be subordinated to, and employed
to increase, the spiritual benefit of the wor
shippers. " All things " must " be done decently
and in order," and " unto edification " (1 Cor.
xiv. 40, 26). The Bible does not give any speci
ally authorised kind of worship. It leaves
the question to be decided by considerations
of holy expediency, of national taste, and the
like. No text says anything at all as to any
specially authorised kind of worship, simple
or ornate. God's Word tells us that God's
worship is to be spiritual and real ; it leaves it
to men, in the exercise of the faculties God
has given to them, and through the experience
of the working of their own minds and the
minds of others, to find out what kind of
worship is likeliest to be so. We should
forget outward things ; we should be raised
above them, and feel as though we were
alone with God. All distracting circum
stances are outward hindrances to spiritual
worship. A fictitious excitement, arising from
the gratification of taste and sentiment, may

up, along with them have also grown up (as seen
especially in mediaeval times) errors, super
stition, priestcraft, and idolatry. In the Church
of England, Ritualists are introducing rites and
ceremonies inconsistent with the simplicity of
the doctrines of the Lord's Supper expressed in
the New Testament and in the Prayer Book and
Articles. See RITES.

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

[ 784]

WORSHIP, PUBLIC

be mistaken for the spiritual worship of God.
Sensuous accessories of worship, leading to
pleasurable excitement of the senses, are apt
to impose a fallacious belief on the worshipper.
They may " send him away persuaded that he
has been spiritually devout in prayer and
praise, while he has only been mentally en
joying the beauty of the service." 1

The following are a few safe rules : 1st, that
the service should be conducted in a manner
intelligible to the people ; 2nd, that it should
be simple and in keeping with the character of
the Gospel Dispensation ; 3rd, that everything
should be done to promote reverence (Eccl. v.
1, cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 7, 8 ; 1 Cor. xiv. ; Heb. xii. 28,
29) ; 4th, that the worship should be congrega
tional (in the Church of England one-third of
the devotional part of the service belongs to
the people) ; 5th, that no man-made ordinances
are as binding on our consciences and as neces
sary to salvation as an ordinance appointed by
our Lord.

The subjects of Church architecture, vest
ments of the clergy, and Church music, though
having an important bearing on the mode of
conducting divine worship, can only be here
slightly noticed.

As to Church Architecture, the Basilica form
was adopted by the Primitive Church, as best
adapted to its wants and to a simple formulary.
But in mediaeval times varied forms were added
to churches for the purposes of gorgeous displa3r,
and adapted to an idolatrous system which
enslaved the worshippers to dangerous errors.
These gross superstitions were veiled by
art, and draped seductively by the sacerdotal
powers. Art should not be used as an expe
dient for seducing the people ; nor allowed to
dominate over religious principles, but should
contentedly remain their faithful servant. The
material and finite must never supplant the
spiritual and infinite. " In our churches,
while the eye is satisfied with beautiful out
line, just proportions, and with appropriate
decorations made subordinate to the general
plan, we must be left unfettered to experience
those holy emotions and impulses for the
absence of which no excess of ornament can
atone." 2

With respect to Vestments, the clergy should
be robed ina mannerwhich should leave it mani-

1 See Bp. Jackson's Charge to the London Clergy,
1884 ; Sunday Afternoons in a University City,
by the author of The Recreations of a Country
Parson, Sermon V. ; and James Neil's Musical
Service : Is it Right ? Simpkin & Marshall.

2 The thoughts in this paragraph are well
worked out in Church A rchitccture ; its Proper
Relation to Simple Christian Worship, by A. R.
Tite, Church Association Tracts, No. LXXI.

fest to the worshippers that they are not sacrific
ing priests, as the term lepeus (hiereus) is never
once applied to them in the New Testament.
Consequently, such sacrificial vestments as the
alb, girdle, &c. (see articles on these subjects),
which have for long ages been connected with
the mass and sacerdotal ideas, were rightly
discarded by the framers of the Church of
England liturgy.3 Without the revival in the
Church of England of these mass vestments it
would be next to impossible to successfully
introduce the Confessional and the substitution
for the Lord's Supper of something very like
the Romish Mass. See VESTMENTS.

With regard to Church Music,4 the subject

3 The cope (which was not at the Reformation
period regarded as a " sacrificial " garment) may
be used in cathedrals and collegiate churches
at the Holy Communion. See COPE.

4 The following remarks on the choice of
" Hymns " deserve the best attention of those
responsible for the conduct of Musical Services.
The Hon. A. T. Lyttelton, D.D., Bishop of
Southampton, Winchester Diocesan Chronicle, 1903,
says : "Hymns may be said to represent the
emotional element in worship, and there was
always a danger lest emotion, especially religious
emotion, should degenerate into sentimentality.
He could think of no better definition of senti
mentality than indulgence in emotion without
any impression made on the mind or impulse
given to the will, therefore if a hymn appealed to
the emotions alone it tended to foster that senti
mentality which was one of the chief modern
foes to true worship. Other purposes or tests of
hymnody might be thus enumerated: A hymn
ought to express either (1) adoration — the feel
ings and thoughts of the human soul in the
presence of God ; (2) praise and thankfulness for
His mercies; (3) prayers and aspirations; (4)
self-abasement and acknowledgment of sin ; (5)
a means of doctrinal instruction, the emotional
expression of some religious truth, a declara
tion of religious faith, an act of meditation
on some aspect of revelation ; or (6) a stirring
appeal to the will, a passionate incentive to
right action. Several of these purposes might,
of course, be combined in one hymn ; but
without one or the other it might be safely
affirmed that no hymn, however popular, was
anything but sentimental, unmeaning, and
liturgically worthless. Faber's ' Hark ! hark,
my soul ! Angelic songs are swelling,' for ex
ample, was merely a series of vague emotional
ideas, or rather words, skilfully disposed in
pretty verses, and with no more real meaning or
permanent influence than an aimless succession
of sweet and sonorous sounds on the organ. In
short, it was sentimental, and perhaps the most
glaring instance of sentimentality to be found

WYCLIF, JOHN

[ 785 ]

WYCLIF, JOHN

has already been fully dealt with. See Music.
It may be well, however, to utter a warning
note against the modern habit of having the
prayers all intoned or sung, and the congre
gations, in many instances, being deprived of
joining in the part which belongs to them.
To have everything sung by the choir is apt to
encourage the professional element in worship,
and to form a very real temptation to the con
gregation merely to listen indolently, and to
cease to worship themselves. The too frequent
singing of anthems, and, indeed, the use of
difficult music in general, is open to the same
objections.

No mode of conducting divine worship will
fulfil its mission unless it leads to spiritual
worship, the alfecting the heart and con
science, the drawing into closer union with
the Lord, the extending the range of spiritual
knowledge, the continued advance in holiness
of life, and the longing for the higher and
more glorious worship of Heaven. All this is
best secured by simplicity and directness in
the method of approaching God in the services
of the sanctuary. [C. N.]

WYCLIF, JOHN, "the Morning Star of the
Reformation," was born prior to 1324 at a
hamlet described by Leland as Spresswell, a
good mile from Richmond. This place has not
as yet been certainly identified, some contend
ing that it is a hamlet now known as Hipswell,
near Richmond, the capital of what we may
call Richmondshire, in Yorkshire ; others that
there was a place called Old Richmond near
the village of Wycliffe, within a reasonable
distance of which was a chapel in which
marriages were solemnised as late as the
eighteenth century, and which might well
have been the Manor Chapel of the Wyclif
family, who remained Romanists until their
extinction. The site of this chapel might
have been called Spresswell, but there is no
evidence that it ever was. The manor of
Wyclif itself lies on the Yorkshire side of the
River Tees, and was owned by a family of that
name traditionally from the Conquest until

in Church hymn-books. Again, they ought to
aroid putting into the mouths of general con
gregations words which were the expressions of
marked personal idiosyncrasy or individual ex
perience, and could not be made the sincere
utterance of general feelings. The hymn ' Lead,
kindly Light,' almost perfect as an expression
of the very peculiar character and temporary
condition of the writer, was quite unsuitable
for congregational use, and had probably no
meaning, or only a sentimental meaning, for the
great majority of those who delighted to sing it.
They should also beware of unreal aspersion and
unreal depreciation."

1606, when it passed by an heiress to the
knightly house of Tunstall. The family, how
ever, did not become extinct till a much later
date, but it sank into poverty and consequent
obscurity, its last known member having been
a working gardener.

It is uncertain what the position of John
Wyclif was in the pedigree of his race. There
was a John who was head of the family in
1363 and earlier, and who nominated two
Balliol College men to the living of Wycliffe
in that year and 1369 respectively, but whose
name is mysteriously omitted from the family
tree. Was this John our John? and was he
omitted because he was by the zealots of the
old faith regarded as a heretic although he
died in full communion with it? With the
present knowledge none can say, but the
suggestion is at least plausible.

Dr. Lechler surmises that John Wyclif went
to Balliol College about 1335. It is suggested
that he entered at Queen's College, but his
name does not appear in connection therewith
until 1363, when he is spoken of, not as pro
perly speaking a member of that College, but
only as the renter of some rooms there. Every
thing points to his having been a member of
Balliol — the Yorkshire College. The method
of his education it is not difficult to follow.
Having probably learned Latin before he went
to Oxford — he never apparently learned Greek
— he would in ordinary course pass through a
training in grammar, dialectics, and rhetoric,
followed by arithmetic, geography, astro
nomy, and music. His dialectic studies would
include all these extraordinary propositions
which men of acute minds, but deficient in
moral courage, and therefore chary of con
sidering, or at all events, discussing the real
religious and social problems of the age, took
refuge in advancing and sustaining, such as,
for instance, how many angels could stand on
the point of a needle. In these, at a later date,
he proved his proficiency, although he con
temptuously dismissed them and hazarded his
life in dealing "with the weightier matters
of the law " ; at the same time endeavouring
to give these latter practical effect in the
thought and life of the common people as
well as in the more congenial atmosphere of
the University. To the dialectics he added
natural science, and to natural science, as
might be expected from an earnest young
man and diligent student designed for the
priesthood, theology, in the study of which
he found spiritual and intellectual stimulus
and academical distinction.

In Wyclifs day Bachelors in Theology of
the lowest rank were allowed to lecture on the
Bible "only," men of higher distinction con
fining their attention to the more " profound "

3 D

WYOLIF, JOHN

[ 786 ]

WYCLIF, JOHN

teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas et hoc genus
omne. This practice was Wyclif's occasion
and opportunity. ' ' He taught " (the under
graduates) ' ' as one having authority, and not
as the scribes." The preaching of the pure
Gospel by a real man, as it always must be,
although he had to grope his way through the
mystifying glosses of papal teaching with the
aid of but an imperfect translation of the Bible
into Latin, was accompanied by marvellous
results, and it is not to be wondered at that a
man of his social consideration, great learning,
preaching power, and high character, became
at an early date Master of Balliol. He, how
ever, exchanged this position in May 1361 for
the Rectory of Fillingham, co. Lincoln, but
performed apparently the duties of his parish
by deputy, obtaining, perhaps moreithan once,
two years' leave of absence in order that he
might continue his studies at Oxford, during
a portion, at least, of which absence he occupied
rooms, as previously stated, in Queen's College.
In 1368 he exchanged his living of Fillingham
for the poorer one of Ludgarshall, Bucks, no
doubt because it was nearer his beloved Uni
versity and London, where he was already
beginning to be known. He might twice, it
would seem, have presented himself to the
family living, but that was even less eligible in
these respects than Fillingham, and still less
so than Ludgarshall ; he therefore preferred l
the poorest benefice of the three because of its
accessibility — for stirring times were about.
The influence of the clergy had worked dis
astrously for England on two several planes : —
First, religiously. The Church had forsaken
its duties as a teacher of the Scriptures, and
had taken away the key of knowledge not only
from the people, but even so far as possible
from the educated classes. The Bible had
sunk into a position secondary to the propo
sitions of the schoolmen, and its study was in
every possible way hindered and discouraged,
the result being that the clergy of all ranks
were blind guides of a blind people. The con
solations, incitements to Christian living, and
promises of the Gospel were little known, and
the services of the Church Abracadabra. The
clergy, speaking almost universally, were look
ing for gain every one to his quarter ; foreign
ecclesiastics, who in many instances never
landed in England, appropriated all the best
livings, making only a poor, if any, provision
for the performance of clerical duty, and where
exaction ended mendicancy began. So that
between the millstones of priestly avarice and
the persuasions, alternated by threats, of the

1 In 1291 Fillingham and Lutterworth were
worth £20 each, Wjcliffe £13, 6s. 8d., and Lug-
garshall only £6, 13s. 4d.

begging friars, the peasantry of England were
ground to powder. Nor was this likely to be
a temporary state of things. Knights and
nobles who had cared nothing for the faith of
a Christian, or for righteousness of life when
in full vigour, or even during a green old age,
were willing to give at their death large sums
of money that they might be buried in the
habit of a friar, or estates that masses might
be said in perpetuity on their behalf. This
willingness to give away property for which
after death they could have no further use,
was fostered by a judicious mingling of threat
ening and cajolery on the part of the priests.
The usual theory is that men, as individuals,
have only a life-interest in the things of this
world — they can carry nothing away with
them — but under these circumstances it would
scarcely be an exaggeration to say that one-
third of the revenue of England was in pawn
for disembodied souls ! No wonder that men
who, like John Wyclif, combined the earnest
ness of the Christian with the prescience of
the statesman, were harrowed at the contem
plation of this state of things.

Second, socially. The priests had been for
centuries the principal, if not sole, deposi
tories of learning. What had the country
been the better for it ? To what extent had
they discouraged the warlike tendencies of
the monarchs, or the despotism of the feudal
lords whose chancellors and stewards they had
been ? To what extent had they endeavoured
to improve the food and habits of the people,
and stay the fearful operations of the Black
Death ? To what extent had they encouraged
social decency, so as to have rendered such
outrages as that on Wat Tyler's daughter im
possible ? Practically nothing had been done
in these and many other respects, and a dan-
gerous feeling was growing. There were few
Christian or intellectually enlightened minds
to mark out a course of reform, and the alter
native was revolution.

Before, however, Wyclif began to deal pro
minently with either the religious or social
condition of the community, the political issues
arising from that condition came to the front.
In 1365 Pope Urban V. laid claim to a tribute
of a thousand marks annually from the realm
of England, and demanded not only the cur
rent payment but thirty-three years' arrears,
ordering the king in default to appear at
the Papal Court and give account of himself.
This demand was unanimously and promptly
resisted by Lords and Commons, and as a
result has never been renewed. In the discus
sions connected with this matter it is known
that Wyclif bore an important share, and
probably the full amount of his participation
is not, and never will be, ascertained. That

WYCLIF, JOHN

[ 787 ]

WYCLIF, JOHN

he bad become conspicuous in the national, as
opposed to the papal, interest is shown by his
first publication on the subject known to us
having been provoked by an attack upon him
made by an anonymous Doctor of Theology
apparently belonging to one of the endowed
Monastic Orders. Wyclif's rejoinder contains
little of his own beyond the expression of his
desire to be scrupulously fair to the Church,
and to say nothing that could offend a pious
ear ; but it gives a very interesting record of a
debate in the House of Lords, which reflects
high credit on that distinguished assembly,
indicating at once its spirit, its acuteness, and
its patriotism. It is not clear how Wyclif
obtained such accurate particulars of this de
bate ; but, as from the end of the thirteenth
century, the inferior clergy sat by their repre
sentatives in Parliament, and six Masters of
Arts sat specially therein during the Session
of 1366, it is highly probable that as a Member
he heard the speeches. Possibly he filled them
out a little ; but, be that as it may, no doubt
those speeches were substantially delivered by
certain Peers, or our hero would have been taxed
with forgery by the enemies he already pos
sessed. In this and subsequent controversies
Wyclif showed himself a constitutional states
man, moderate in tone and broad in his out
look ; and his selection as one of the embassy
to Bruges, headed by John of Gaunt, the Duke
of Lancaster, to discuss matters with the re
presentatives of the Pope was appropriate.
This was the first public recognition of ac
quaintance between the Duke and the Doctor
of Theology — an acquaintance which was to
prove momentous.

In April 1374, John Wyclif was presented by
the Crown — the patron, Henry, Lord Ferrars of
Groby, being a minor— to the living of Lutter-
worth in Leicestershire, which he held until
his death. From this time he would appear
to have been the victim of increasing persecu
tion, and in February 1377 he was cited before
Convocation, and attended at St. Paul's Cathe
dral, supported by the Duke of Lancaster and
Lord Percy, Earl Marshal of England. The
result was a scuffle, due to the impatience of
the Duke on one side and the Bishop of
London on the other, but in this Wyclif him
self bore no part. His enemies were, however,
not satisfied with this lame conclusion, but
pressed forward proceedings already initiated
at the Papal Court by, as Foxe states, the
bishops, the result being the issue on one day
of five Bulls by Gregory XL These Bulls
attributed to Wyclif nineteen heretical propo
sitions concerning the rights of property and
inheritance, the secularisation of Church pro
perty, and the limitations of Church discipline,
and instructed the Archbishop of Canterbury

and Bishop of London to ascertain by private
inquiry whether he had promulgated these
propositions, and, if so, to imprison him pend
ing the Pope's pleasure. These Bulls were not
published for seven months, owing to the death
of the king with its consequent distractions,
and the strong anti-papal tone taken by the
House of Commons. When, however, Richard
II. had been crowned and the Parliament pro
rogued, Wyclif was summoned to attend at St.
Paul's within thirty days, and by adjournment
thence he appeared before the archbishop and
bishop at Lambeth Palace. He submitted a
written reply to the accusations made against
him ; but, while the proceedings were still
going on, a message was received by the Com
missioners from the Princess of Wales, widow
of the Black Prince and mother of the king,
commanding them to abstain from pronounc
ing any final judgment respecting the accused.
Thus, a second time, the machinations of his
enemies failed.

It is probable that Wyclif's activities took at
this point their most pronounced form. He
saw among the perils which beset the nation a
corrupt priesthood and a closed Bible, and set
himself to the task of sending a missionary to
every creature in the kingdom, and giving
every such creature the written Word in his
own tongue. What the latter meant a hundred
years before printing was invented in Europe,
none but those who have endeavoured to write
out an entire volume can estimate. There
were to be no mistakes, no spoiled sheets, and
what was wanted was not one copy but thou
sands ; and they were produced and circulated
with such effect that every other man one met
on the king's highway was a Wyclifite. So
the common people who could not read had a
messenger to give them the glad tidings, and
those who could read had the Word of God
itself, which they no doubt read to their
friends and neighbours, thus becoming, so to
speak, themselves unofficial ministers of Christ.
In this way John Wyclif became the Bible
Society and the City Mission of the fourteenth
century.

Of course it was not to be expected that such
proceedings as these would pass unchallenged,
and that a race of men who lived by extortion
in the name of God would tolerate the pro
mulgation of a Gospel "without money and
without price." In 1382, therefore, a further
attack was made. Courtenay, hitherto Bishop
of London, who had succeeded the mur
dered Sudbury as Archbishop of Canterbury
summoned an assembly of ecclesiastical not
ables to the Dominican monastery in Black-
friars, and although the proceedings were
disturbed by an earthquake (or what was called
one), the following propositions attributed to

WYCLIP, JOHN

[ 788 ]

WYCLIF, JOHN

Wyclif were condemned — the first ten as here
tical, the rest as erroneous : —

1. That the substance of material bread !
and wine doth remain in the Sacrament of the
altar after consecration.

2. That the accidents do not remain without
the subject in the same Sacrament after con
secration.

3. That Christ is not in the Sacrament of
the altar identically, truly, and really, in His
proper corporeal person.

4. That if a bishop or a priest be in mortal
siii he doth not ordain, consecrate, or baptize.

5. That if a man be duly contrite all exterior
confession is to him superfluous and invalid.

6. That it hath no foundation in the Gospel
that Christ did ordain the Mass.

7. That God ought to obey the devil.

8. That if the Pope, according to the Divine
Foreknowledge, be a reprobate and an evil
man, and consequently a member of the devil,
he hath no power over the faithful of Christ
given to him by any, unless peradventure it be
given him by the emperor.

9. That after Urban VI. none other is to be
received for Pope, but that Christendom ought
to live after the manner of the Greeks under
its own laws.

10. That it is contrary to Holy Scripture
that ecclesiastical persons should have any
temporal possessions.

11. That no prelate ought to excommuni
cate any man except he first know him to be
excommunicated of God.

12. That he who doth so excommunicate is
thereby himself a heretic or excommunicated.

13. That a prelate or bishop excommunicating
a cleric who hath appealed to the King or the
Council of the realm, in so doing is a traitor
to the King and the realm.

14. That they who cease to preach or to hear
the Word of God or the Gospel for fear of such
excommunication, are already excommunicate,
and in the day of judgment shall be accounted j
traitors to God.

15. That it shall be lawful for any deacon or
presbyter to preach the Word of God without
the authority or licence of the Apostolic See,
or of a Catholic bishop, or of any other recog
nised authority.

16. That a man is no civil lord, nor bishop,
nor prelate, so long as he is in mortal sin.

17. That temporal lords may at will withdraw
their temporal goods from ecclesiastics habitu
ally delinquent ; also that the commonalty may
at will correct lords when they transgress.

18. That tithes are pure alms, and that
parishioners may, for the offences of their
curates, detain them and bestow them on others
at pleasure.

19. That special prayers applied to any one

person by prelates or religions men do no more
profit the same person than general prayers
would cceteris paribus profit him.

20. Moreover, in that any man doth enter
into any private religion whatsoever, he is
therefore made more unapt and unable to ob
serve the commandments of God.

21. That holy men who have instituted any
private religions whatsoever (as well of seculars
having possessions as of begging friars who
have none), in so instituting did err.

22. That religious men living in private re
ligions are not of the Christian religion.

23. That friars are bound to get their living
by the labour of their hands, and not by
begging.

24. That whosoever doth give any alms unto
friars, or to any friar that preacheth, is excom
municate, as also is he that taketh.

Of these propositions it may be pointed out
that they were formulated not by Wyclif, but
his opponents, and that we have not before us
the details of his defence. Some of them are
very curious, notably Prop. 7, which may be
taken to mean that God having permitted the
existence of evil, no doubt for some wise pur
pose, He should not in ordinary circumstances
interfere with its operations, as, if He hindered
its working out its own consequences the de
monstration of the exceeding sinfulness of sin
would fail. Besides, if the prince of this world
be its ruler de facto, the rightful Prince should
not assert His pretensions until there is the
prospect of His doing so successfully. To do
otherwise would be to introduce anarchy,
which is but another form of evil. Prop. 8,
and some of the others, convey that God will
not allow His grace to pass through polluted
channels, but that He would rather communi
cate it direct to the individual, or through the
humblest member of His kingdom, than through
the agency of a corrupt hierarchy. Prop. 9
would appear to advocate pure Congrega
tionalism, but Prof. Burrows is probably right
in his statement that Wyclif 's doctrine, taken
as a whole, seems to have been precisely that
of the Articles of the Church of England.
Props. 11 and 12 deal especially with those
who use the name of the Church, its institu
tions and ordinances, in a sectarian or schis
matic spirit, unchurching those of whom they
do not approve, although such by life, work,
doctrine, and profession, show themselves to
be true soldiers of Jesus Christ. It is possible
now, as in the days of John Wyclif, to preach
" the Church " of contention and strife. Prop.
15 advocates order without rigidity.

When, however, these propositions had been
condemned, it was necessary to invoke the law
to give effect to that condemnation, but, to
make a long story short, Wyclif escaped actual

WYCLIF, JOHN

[ 789 ]

WYCLIF, JOHN

punishment to the day of his death, which took
place on 31st December 1384. It is hardly
necessary to add that to his ashes was meted
out the treatment which the Providence of
God averted during his life. Great efforts have
been made to identify Wyclif with the excesses
said to have been committed by John Ball and
others, but nothing has been proved beyond
the fact that Ball heard some of his lectures
when an undergraduate at Oxford, as did
many others of every variety of thought. As
already pointed out, the religious revolt of the
scholars, and the secular one of the peasantry,
were alike traceable to the unfaithfulness of
the clergy ; but, pursuing parallel lines, the
two movements never came together. Wyclif
was no demagogue, but a Christian statesman.
As regards his teaching, its general tenour
has already been given. He was what a Pro
testant would call " sound " as regards the
sacraments, sacerdotalism, and the applica
bility of a free Gospel to all sorts and condi
tions of men. His philosophical teachings,
although most interesting, the general reader
in these days can afford to disregard ; but his
theological teachings, although largely formu
lated in compliance with the necessities of the
hour, show that to-day's problems and perils
are what they were five hundred years ago ;
and that unless we are prepared to testify in
our age, as Wyclif and his fellows did in theirs,
there is nothing to be looked for but a darkness
even greater than that which accompanied the
internecine strife delicately veiled under the
pretty name of the Wars of the Roses.

And now as regards the results of Wyclif's
work. In England, although Canon Penning-
ton, Mr. Beckett, and others have endeavoured
to establish a connection between the Reforma
tion of the fourteenth and the sixteenth cen
turies, they have met with but partial success.
This is an age of investigation ; and it may be
that further evidence of such a connection will
be forthcoming, but it cannot be said with
anything like certainty that it has been dis
covered yet. There are but few Wycliff MSS.
to be found in England ; and the Wyclif
Society, which, amid great difficulties, has
printed, and is continuing to print, for the
first time in history, the volumes which con
tain Wyclif's most mature thought — his Latin
works, with side notes elucidatory of the text,
and learned introductions — has to go princi
pally to Vienna and Prague for that text
which they carefully collate with such MSS.
as may be found elsewhere. The circum
stances under which these copies found their
way to the Continent are interesting. The
Bohemians were a religiously inclined people.
When Richard II. married the Princess Anne,
she was attended by a train of courtiers who

bought Wyclif MSS. as a foreigner coming to
England to-day might possess himself of the
works of a learned and popular divine. They
took them home and preserved them. But this
is not all. Professor Loserth has conclusively
proved that Huss's works were largely adapta
tions or abridgments of those of Wyclif ; and
the early Moravian hymn-books give the text
of a metrical letter said to have been sent by
the latter to the former. This should, how
ever, be taken for no more than it is worth ;
but it may be regarded as evidence that the
early Moravians looked to Wyclif through
Huss as their spiritual ancestor, which was,
undoubtedly, the case. Further, one of the
apostles of Bohemia, Peter Payne, a native
of Lincolnshire, in which county Fillingham
is situated, and at one time Principal of St.
Edmund Hall, Oxford, was a staunch Wyclifite
to his life's end. Again, Luther owed his con
version to a man who had been brought into
contact with Austrian reformers; in this way
the two great stars of the respective Reforma
tions can be directly connected. Luther was
the immediate cause of the later movement in
England as well as Germany, thus giving back
to Wyclif's people what he and they had given
to Germany. The late Mr. W. E. Gladstone
said on this head : " The transplantation of
the Wyclif movement, and its relative force
in the two countries of origin and import is,
I think, one of the most curious things in
ecclesiastical history." We may add, that it
is more than curious ; it is an illustration that
the divine fire is never allowed quite to go
out, but that, suppressed in one quarter, it
bursts out at once in another.

The following are the principal works of
Wyclif, which have been reprinted of late
years, and are, therefore, accessible : —

Clarendon Press, Oxford —
The Holy Bible in the Earliest English Ver
sions, edited by Forshall & Madden, 1850. Select
English Works of John Wyclif, edited by T.
Arnold, 1869-71.

Early English Text Society —
English Works of Wyclif (hitherto unprinted),
edited by F. D. Matthew, 1880.

Wyclif Society —

Latin Polemical Works, vol. i., edited by Dr.
R. Buddensieg, 1882. Latin Polemical Works,
vol. ii., edited by Dr. R. Buddensieg, 1883.
De Civili Dominio, lib. i., edited by Reginald
Lane Poole, M.A., Ph.D., 1884. De Compoii-
cione Hominis, edited by Dr. Rudolf Beer,
1884. De Ecclesia, edited by Prof. J. Loserth,
Ph.D., 1885. Dialogus, sive Speculum Ecclesia
Militantis, edited by A. W. Pollard, M.A., 1885.
De Benedicta Incarnacione, edited by the Rev.

XAVIER, FRANCIS

[790 ]

ZWINGLI

E. Harris, D.D., 1886. Sermoncs, Part I., edited
by Prof. Loserth, Ph.D., 1886. Sermones,
Part II., edited by Prof. Loserth, Ph.D., 1887.
De Officio Regis, edited by A. W. Pollard, M.A.,
and C. Sayle, B.A., 1887. Sermones, Part III.,
edited by Prof. Loserth, Ph.D., 1888. De
Apostasia, edited by M. H. Dziewicki, 1888.
Sermones, Part IV. and last, edited by Prof.
Loserth, Ph.D., 1889. De Dominio Divino,
edited by Reginald Lane Poole, M.A., Ph.D.,
1890. Qucestiones and De Ente predicamentali,
edited by Dr. R. Beer, 1891. De Eucharistia,
edited by Prof. J. Loserth, Ph.D., 1892. De
Blasphemia, edited by M. H. Dziewicki, 1893.
De Logica, vol. i., edited by M. H. Dziewicki,
1894. Opus Evangelicum, vols. i., ii., edited by
Prof. J. Loserth, Ph. D., 1895. Opus Evangelicum,
vols. iii., iv., edited by Prof. J. Loserth, Ph.D.,
1896. De Logica, vol. ii., edited by M. H.
Dziewicki, 1897. De Simonia, edited by Prof.
Herzberg-Fraukel, Ph.D., and M. H. Dziewicki,
1898. De Logica, vol. iii., edited by M. H.
Dziewicki, 1899. De Civili Dominio, lib. ii.,
edited by Prof. J. Loserth, Ph.D., 1900. Mis
cellanies I., edited by M. H. Dziewicki (Nos.
54-61 in Shirley's Catalogue), 1901. DC Civili
Dominio, lib. iii., edited by Prof. J. Loserth,
Ph.D., 1902. [J. W. S.]

XAVIER, FRANCIS.— See MISSIONS, ROMAN
CATHOLIC.

XAVIERIAN BROTHERS.— A Roman Cath
olic order of men devoted to the Christian
education of youth. The order is widely
spread in the United States, and is in work in
England.

XEROPHAGY, from Greek frpofayla, dry food,
is a term used for Greek and Latin writers for
fasting.

ZABULUS is a corrupted form of Diabolus or
the Devil often found in Patristic writings.

ZWINGLI. — Ulrich, or Huldreich, Zwingli,1
the Swiss Protestant Reformer, was born the

1 Schaff (Swiss Reformation, vol. i. p. 21 note)
says the name is often misspelled Zwingel, as
Luther wrote it, or Zwingle by English and
American writers. But Hebert (The Lord's
Supper, vol. ii. p. 316) follows Luther's custom,
and says that Zwingli wrote his own name
Hulderic Zwingel. This appears in a portrait
given in a collection, Lives of Six German and
Swiss Reformers, with etched portraits with auto
graphs, published by Neander, Berlin, 1841.

same year as his great German contemporary,
Martin Luther, in 1484. New Year's Day was
his birthday, and his birthplace Wildhaus,
an Alpine village about 2000 feet above Lake
Zurich, in the valley of Toggenburg. He was
one of a large family, but though of peasant
stock he displayed considerable mental power
even in his early years. At the age of eight he
was sent to school at Wesen, of which his uncle.
Dean Bartholomew Zwingli, was pastor. In
1494 he entered the St. Theodore School at
Basle, from which he passed to the High
School at Berne. Thereafter he studied at the
University of Vienna, where he graduated M. A.
in the year 1505. In the meantime he had
been engaged as teacher in the Latin School at
Basle. It was there that he came under the
influence of Thomas Wyttenbach, from whom
he began to learn the truth of the Gospel and
to regard the authority of the Word of God as
supreme. Ordained priest in 1506 by the
Bishop of Constance, he was appointed to the
pastoral charge of Glarus. Here he laboured
ten years, during which time he acted as
chaplain to the Swiss troops when away in
Italy, though he condemned the system by
which the Swiss soldiery were sent on foreign
service as mercenaries. In 1516 he removed
to Einsiedeln monastery, where he gave proof
of his spiritual enlightenment by preaching
forgiveness of sins through Christ alone, and
by declaring that not Mary, but Christ, is our
only salvation. This, however, did not hinder
his promotion, for in 1518 Zwingli became
chief pastor of Zurich, where, as the result of
his preaching in the Cathedral, the principles
and doctrines of the Reformation spread far
and wide. He began a series of discourses on
the Books of the New Testament, and intro
duced the preaching of the Word at every
service. He was well called "the trumpet of
the Gospel," and, as one of his biographers
says, "He was perfectly successful in intro
ducing and grounding the reformation of the
Church and of the Fatherland by an unin
terrupted vindication of the divine authority
of the Holy Scriptures." In a public disputa
tion at Zurich in 1523, Zwingli set forth sixty-
seven theological theses outlining the reformed
doctrine. Thus, of the Mass he declared that
" Christ who offered Himself once, is for ever a
perfect and satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of
all believers, from which we conclude that the
Mass is no sacrifice." The Council of Zurich
now separated the canton from the bishopric
of Constance, and the progress of the Reforma
tion was marked by the disuse of Latin in the
public services, the abolition of celibacy, and the
condemnation of the Mass and of the worship
of images as idolatrous. In 1524 Zwingli him
self renounced celibacy, and married Widow

ZWINOLI

[ 791 ]

ZWINGLI

Anna Meier. On Maundy Thursday 1525, the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was observed
according to its institution, and administered
to the people in both kinds. At the public
disputation held at Berne in January 1528,
Zwingli with his supporters brought forward
the following ten propositions : (1) "That the
Holy Christian Church, of which Christ is the
only Head, is born of the Word of God, abides
therein, and does not listen to the voice of a
stranger; (2) that this Church imposes no laws
on the conscience of people without the sanction
of the Word of God, and that the laws of the
Church are binding only so far as they agree
with the Word ; (3) that Christ alone is our
righteousness and our salvation, that to trust
to any other atonement as satisfaction is to
deny Him ; (4) that it cannot be proved from
the Holy Scripture that the body and blood of
Christ are corporeally present in the bread and
in the wine of the Lord's Supper ; (5) that the
mass in which Christ is offered to God the
Father for the sins of the living and the dead,
is contrary to Scripture and a gross affront to the
sacrifice and death of the Saviour ; (6) that we
should not pray to dead mediators and inter
cessors, but to Jesus Christ alone ; (7) that there
is no trace of Purgatory in Scripture ;](8) that to
set up pictures and to adore them is also con
trary to Scripture, and that images and pictures
ought to be destroyed where there is danger in
giving them adoration ; (9) that marriage is
lawful to all, to the clergy as well as the laity ;
(10) that shameful living is more disgraceful
among the clergy than among the laity." By
this conference the Bernese were won over to
the cause of the Reformation, and Zwingli
returned home in triumph.

In October 1529 a conference was held at
Marburg, to establish concord in doctrine be
tween the Swiss and German Reformers.
Luther and Melancthon were the leaders of the
German divines ; Zwingli and (Ecolampadius of
the Swiss. Fourteen Articles were drawn up,
and signed by both parties. The last of these
Articles was the only one expressing disagree
ment, but that disagreement proved insuperable.
Luther insisted on the corporeal presence of
Christ's body and blood in the Holy Com
munion. Zwingli, on the contrary, described
this as Popish doctrine, and contended that
the true doctrine of the Lord's Supper is that
set forth in John vi. 63 : " It is the spirit that
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life." Zwingli was so much
affected by Luther's refusal to recognise the
Swiss Reformers as brethren, because of their
doctrine of the Holy Communion, that he
burst into tears. This led to a better under
standing, and it was resolved that thence

forth no angry or bitter controversy should
be pursued.

In 1530 Zwingli published the Bible in
German, and in the following year his Com
mentaries on the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

The ^natural result of the reformation of
doctrine in Switzerland was to divide the Con
federation into hostile camps, the Forest
Cantons being opposed to all religious reform.
It is unfair to describe Zwingli as teaching
that " the Gospel must be aided by the sword."
But he did advocate the abolition of the
supremacy of the Forest Cantons in favour
of the larger cantons, whose population and
wealth entitled them to a more influential
share of government. His counsels, however,
were overruled, and a truce negotiated between
the contending parties. But its provisions
were not carried out, and after secret prepara
tions for war, the troops of the Forest Cantons
advanced on Zurich. The men of Zurich went
out to meet them, but at Cappel they were
outnumbered and defeated, Zwingli, who had
accompanied them as chaplain, being himself
wounded and slain. A huge boulder still
marks the spot where the brave Reformer fell,
and it bears this inscription : —

" ' They may kill the body, but not the soul.'

So spoke on this spot Ulrich Zwingli, who, for
truth and the freedom of the Christian Church,
died a hero's death, Oct. 11, 1531."

In common with the other theologians of the
Reformation, Zwingli taught the Scriptural
doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation
of the Son of God, His meritorious Death, His
Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Advent ;
Justification by Christ alone, through faith,
the gift of the Holy Spirit. His sacramental
doctrine, particularly that of the Lord's Supper,
has been much misrepresented, and those who
would know exactly what he taught should con
sult his Confession of Faith presented to the
Emperor Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg in
July 1530. An English translation from the
Latin, printed at Geneva in 1555, may be seen
in the British Museum Library. In that docu
ment Zwingli thus defines a sacrament: "I
believe, therefore, that a sacrament is a sign
of a holy thing, that is, of grace given already.
I believe that it is a visible figure or form of
an invisible grace, which by the free gift of
God is ministered and given. And that it is a
visible example, which, nevertheless, declareth
almost a certain conveniency, proportion, or
agreement of a thing done by the Spirit.
Moreover, I believe that a sacrament is an open
witness of grace given, as when we are
baptized the body is washed with a most pure
element, but thereby is signified that we,
through the grace of God's goodness, are chosen

ZWINGLI

[792]

ZWINGLI

into the company of the Church, and people of
God, wherein we ought to live holily, righteously,
and godly, for so Paul expoundeth the mystery
(Rom. vi. 3-6). Therefore, he which receiveth
baptism, witnesseth thereby himself to be of
God's Church which worshippeth her God in
soundness of faith and pureness of life. And
for that cause the sacraments which are holy
ceremonies . . . are devoutly to be revered,
that is, to be had in price and estimation, and
reverently to be ministered and used." He
definitely denies the ex opere operate theory of
baptism as a recrudescence of ceremonial
Judaism.

As to the Lord's Supper, Zwingli clearly
teaches its sacramental efficacy as used in
spiritual faith, while denying any localised
presence of Christ in the bread and wine. " I
believe," he writes, " that in the holy Supper of
thanksgiving the very body of Christ is present
to the eye, contemplation, and beholding of
faith ; l that is, that they which give thanks to
the Lord for the benefit given to us in His Son,
acknowledge Him to have taken to Him very
flesh, in it verily to have suffered, and verily to
have washed away our sins in His blood, and so
all the things done by Christ to be made to them,
in the beholding of faith, as it were present.
But that Christ's natural body by substance, and

1 The original is simply :
templationi."

' adesse fidei con-

really, that is, that His natural body either is
present in the Supper, or chewed in our mouths
and with our teeth, as the Papists and certain
that look back unto the pots of Egypt shew
and write, that truly, we do not only deny, but
constantly affirm to be an error which is
contrary to God's Word." Again, "Whatso
ever the old writers spake honourably of the
Supper, they did utterly understand it, not of
the natural eating of the body of Christ, but
of the spiritual."

Ulrich Zwingli died at a comparatively early
age, but by God's grace he accomplished much
in the cause of Scriptural truth and vital
religion. Both by his natural gifts and sound
learning, his spiritual enlightenment and his
vindication of the Gospel, his patriotic zeal
and his loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ, he
stands among the foremost of those who in a
dark and corrupt age contended earnestly and
successfully for " the faith once for all delivered
to the saints." His prayer to the Holy Ghost,
which occurs incidentally in his Confession of
Faith, reveals the prophet of Christ and the
man of God : " 0 thou Holy Spirit, the Creator,
be present, and lighten the minds of thine ;
fill with grace and light the breasts which thou
hast made." The same document contains the
Reformer's characteristic description of him
self and his office as " by the grace, calling,
and sending of God, flock-feeder of tbe congre
gation of Zurich." [J. S.]

APPENDIX

AMICE.— The Amice is the first of the mass
vestments which the celebrant has to don. It
is an oblong piece of fine linen put on over the
cassock. The background of the annexed
plate shows its outline, with tapes attached, and
with an embroidered patch (the " apparel ")
on the upper edge (fig. 4). In vesting, it is first
placed for a moment on the head (fig. 2) ; the
tapes at either end are then crossed, carried

round the neck and brought round to the
front again, crossed a second time, and
brought round to the back, and finally tied
round the waist (fig. 1). The other vestments
having been put on, the " apparelled " portion
of the amice is then brought down behind so
as to form a collar with the " apparel " stand
ing up outside the alb and other vestments
(fig. 3), where it is shown merely lying on the
alb. Its real purpose is to hide the collar, and
to protect the costly vestments from being
soiled. Mystical meanings have been added,
of course, ad lib.

THE PRAYER BOOK.— Some of the details
mentioned in the article given in the body of
this work are at least doubtful from a historical
point of view.

1. Alleged Synodical authorship of the " Order
of the Communion."

The Order of Holy Communion of 1548 was
drawn up by a Royal Commission, as expressly
stated in the letter of the Privy Council to the
bishops, signed by Cranmer, and probably
drafted by him, which on the 13th of March
1548 stated that, " Whereas in the Parliament
late holden ... it was most godly established
that the sacrament should be distributed to the

people in the kinds of bread and wine : according
to the effect whereof, the King's majesty minding
to have the said statute well executed . . . hath
caused sundry of his Majesty's . . . prelates and
other learned men to assemble for this matter ;
who, after long conference together, have with de
liberate advice finally agreed upon such an Order
... as may appear to you by the book thereof,
which we send herewith unto you" (Foxe's Acts
and Monuments, v. 719). TheRoyal Proclamation
prefixed to the book itself, represents it as the re
sult of the previous statutory order, viz. that the
sacrament should "thenceforth be commonly
delivered and ministered unto all persons under
both kinds " " lest every man phantasying and
devising a sundry way by himself" for complying
with the statutory requirement, "there might
thereby arise any unseemly diversity " ( Liturgies
of Ed. VI. , Parker Soc. , p. 1). The Bill did not
originate with Convocation. It was introduced
(probably by Cranmer) "into the House of Lords
on Nov. 26 (not Nov. 24, as erroneously stated
by Burnet), and was then read a first time and
delivered to the Lord Chancellor " Rich (Lords'
Journal, i. 301), but nothing more was heard
of it for a week. Archbishop Wake says that
to expedite this Bill, " which would otherwise
have gone on but heavily in the Upper House,
it was thought advisable ... to obtain the
approbation of the clergy to it. This the arch
bishop therefore procured. . . . By this man
agement the Bill passed both the Houses "
(Wake's State of the Church, p. 593).

Apparently the Primate had placed the sub
ject on the agenda paper of the Convocation
of Canterbury, but in order to accomplish his
object, he had to "anticipate," i.e. to take the
subject out of its turn. Accordingly we read
that on Nov. 30 :" Mr. Prolocutor exhibited, and
caused to be read publicly, a form of a certain
ordinance, delivered by the most Reverend the
Archbishop of Canterbury, for the receiving of
the body of our Lord under both kinds, viz. of
bread and wine, to which he himself subscribed
and some others." And on Dec. 2, "all this
whole session, in number sixty-four, by their
mouths did approve the proposition made
the last session, of taking the Lord's body
in both kinds, nutto reclamante " (Strype's

793

APPENDIX

[ 794 ]

APPENDIX

Cranmer, E.H.S. edit., ii. 37). The result being
that on the very next day (Dec. 3, 1547) the
Bill was read a second time in the House of
Lords, and a week later was " concluded " in
spite of the adverse votes of five of the bishops
present. There is no hint either in Convoca
tion or in Parliament of the existence of a
service book at that time. The " form of an
Ordinance " meant, of course, the draft of a
Resolution or proposition, which like a "Bill"
in Parliament would be subject to amend
ment or rejection, unless it were accepted en
bloc.

As Dr. Gasquet says, "It must not be con
sidered a ritual form, but merely a declaration
for signature offered to such members of Con
vocation as were present at this anticipated
meeting " (Ed. VI. and the Book of Common
Prayer, p. 74). Burnet calls it a " Declaration
concerning the sacraments " (ed. Pocock, ii.
108). Mr. Joyce calls it a " synodical decree "
(Acts of the Church, p. 105). The Stillingfleet
MS. merely says that in the two sessions
named " Communio sub utraque specie sta-
bilita fuit" ("The Communion was established
under both kinds." Cardwell, Synodalia, ii. 421).
The Corpus Christi MS. calls it a " proposition,"
and goes on to speak of another similar "pro
position," to which "proposition many sub
scribed," and which is in the ordinary form of
a Resolution abolishing certain portions of the
Canon Law(Strype's Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 37). The
word " ordinance " by synodical usage never
means a service book, but always signifies a
formal synodical regulation or dictum. The
Advertisements of the Elizabethan Commis
sioners were similarly entitled " Ordinances."
From overlooking the subsequent origin and
history of the Order of Holy Communion,
Cardwell and Blunt attributed to Convocation
a service book which in reality first saw the light
after Convocation had been prorogued. Canon
Dixon says, "At the beginning of the year
[1548] in the month of January, a commission
of bishops and doctors had been nominated by
the Council, on the implied authority of the late
Act for the administration of the Eucharist in
both kinds, to compose an Order of Communion
in the English tongue" (Hist., ii. 492). Dixon
adds, ' ' The Privy Council declared that the
Windsor Commission was appointed in conse
quence of the Act." Foxe, the only contemporary
historian, gives the Act, and adds, " After ichich
most godly consent of the parliament, the king
. . . appointed certain ... to assemble together
at his Castle of Windsor, there to argue and
treat upon this matter and to ... set forth
one perfect and uniform Order" (Acts and
Monuments, v. 716). No doubt, as Bishop
Stubbs says, " Convocation sitting coincidently
with this Parliament accepted the Principle

of Communion in both kinds," but that is quite
a different matter from revising a service book
(Eccl. Courts Commission Report, I. App. i. p. 41).
Neither Parliament nor Convocation was sit
ting during the first two months of 1548, during
which the Windsor Commission held " long
conference," and only " with deliberate ad
vice finally agreed," on the liturgical service
known as the "Order of the Communion" of
1548.

2. Bithop Burnet' s mistake as to the Act of
Uniformity, 1548.

The statement by Bishop Burnet (Hist.
Ref., ii. 176) that, " the next Act that passed in
this Parliament was about the public service,
which was put into the House of Commons
on the 9th of December, and the next day
was also put into the House of Lords," was
no doubt founded on the entries in the Journals,
of the two Houses, on Dec. 19 and 20, 1548.
The MS. Prayer Book had been "delivered to
his Highness " by the Royal Commissioners, as
the Act itself recites, and laid before the Lords
on Dec. 14 (Gasquet, p. 160), and under the
presidency of the Protector Somerset, had been
publicly debated by the bishops and others in
the House of Lords on Dec. 15, 17, and 18,
1547. On the following day we find this record
in the Journal of the Commons, p 5 : " Dec. 19.
The book for the service of the Church read.
Re-delivered to Mr. Secretary Smythe." Of the
Bill itself nothing is said. But " next day," the
Lords' Journal (p. 326) mentions a " Bill for the
confirmation of the service to be used through
the realm, commissa est Magistro Hales, ser-
vientem ad legem " (i.e. serjeant-at-law). Com
paring these entries with Burnet's statement
it is clear that Bishop Burnet had incorrectly
copied the date, writing 9 for 19. It was the
service book, and not the Bill which Mr. Secre
tary Smith submitted to the Commons for con
sideration before the Bill was introduced in
either House. Lastly, the Bill was not "put
into the Commons" at all, until after it had
been adopted by the Lords on Jan. 15, and it
was read a first time in the Commons, Jan. 17,
1549. The suggestion that Bishop Burnet must
be followed through thick and thin is in this
case the more unreasonable because Dec. 9
was a Sunday, when, of course, neither House
was sitting.

3. The alleged endorsement of the First Prayer
Book by the very Act which abolished it.

It is unfortunate that in the article quoting
the Act 5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 1 (the object of which
was to abolish the first Prayer Book and to make
its continued use penal), the language of Dr.
Gasquet (p. 302) is adopted instead of the words

APPENDIX

[ 795 ]

APPENDIX

of the Act itself. The words " agreeable to the
word of God and the Primitive Church," which
are quoted, relate to the " use in the mother
tongue within the Church of England." The
latter words are not quoted, although they stand
next in the sentence. A comparison with the
language of the XXIVth Article of religion, and
with the Proposition debated in Westminster
Abbey on MarchSl, 1559, viz. " It is against the
word of God and the custom of the Primitive j
Church to use a tongue unknown to the people
in common prayers," shows that this was the
customary contention in favour of this great
change from the previous practice of the un-
reformed Church. The further change to the
second Prayer Book is alleged to be for the
" more perfection of the said order ... in some
places where it is necessary to make the
same . . . more earnest and fit," " as well as
for the more plain and manifest explanation
thereof." But there is no suggestion that the
two books might be of equal value, or might
be concurrently or alternatively used.

4. The illegal and ineffective character of the
PRINTED "•Rubric" (?) substituted by Queen
Elizabeth in place of the Statutory Rubric of 1552,
which latter was re-enacted by 1 Eliz. c. 2, section 3.

Lastly, it should be carefully noted that the
statement that the printed " rubric " which was
substituted " in the very earliest known copy"
of what is popularly known as " Elizabeth's
Prayer Book" did not, in fact, "revive the
vestments in use under Edward's First Book."
On the contrary, not a single bishop, priest, or
deacon wore those vestments ; and even in the
Queen's private chapel they were never worn
as prescribed by the First Prayer Book. And
not only did this so-called "rubric" fail to
obtain any sort of obedience from any one, but
it was itself altogether lacking in that ' ' autho
rity of Parliament " which alone could suffice
to repeal the rubric of 1552, which was re-enacted
by the third section of the Statute itself, namely
1 Eliz. c. 2 (see Judgment of the Privy Council
in Ridsdale v. Clifton ; Perry's Report, p. 706).

[J. T. T.]

GENERAL INDEX

*
* *

The Index gives full list of the Articles in the work in alphabetical wder,
and cross-references to other Articles in which the subject is discussed
in whole or in part. Hence no pages are mentioned.

ABJUKATION, see also Services,
Occasional

ABLUTION

ABSOLUTION, see also Confes
sion, Auricular; Penance;
Repentance ; Satisfaction ; Seal
of Confession

ABSOLUTION, FORMS OP

ABSTINENCE, see Fasting

ABYSSINIAN CHURCH, see
Eastern Churches

ACCESSION SERVICE, see Ser
vices, Occasional

ACCIDENTS, see Mass, Tran-
substantiation

ACOLYTE, see also Celebrant

ACT OP FAITH, see Auto da Fd

ACTS, APOCRYPHAL, see Apo-
crypha

ACTS OF PETER AND PAUL,
see Apocrypha

ADDITIONAL SERVICES, see
Rites and Ceremonies

ADMONITION

ADORATION OP THE CROSS,
see also Cross; Easter; Fire,
Kindling of ; Holy Week

ADORATION OP THE EUCHA
RIST, see also Elevation,
Lord's Supper

ADVERTISEMENTS, see also
Ornaments Rubric

ADVOWSON

AFFUSION, see also Baptism

AGAPE, see also Oblation

AGNUS DEI

ALACOQUE, Margaret Mary,
see Sacred Heart ; Revela
tions, Modern

ALB, see also Cope, Ornaments
Rubric

ALBIGENSES, see also Papal
Persecutions

ALL SAINTS' DAY

ALL SOULS' DAY

ALL SOULS, GUILD OF, see
Ritualistic Secret Societies

ALTAR, see also Agape", Lord's
Table, Ornaments Rubric,
Sanctuary, Super-Altar

ALTAR CLOTHS

AM BO

AMBROSE, see Fathers of the
Church

AMERICAN CHURCH, see Altar,

Music in Christian Worship
AMICE, see also in the
Appendix

AMULETS

ANABAPTISTS, see Independents
ANACLETUS, see also Popes
ANATHEMA, see also Excom
munication, Elizabeth's Excom
munication
ANCHORITES, see Asceticism,

Monasticism, Recluse
ANDREWES, BISHOP, see Non-

Juring Leaven, Remembrance,

Species

ANGELS, see also Worship
ANGELUS, see Ave Maria
ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH, see

English Church, National

Church

ANGLICAN COMMUNION
ANNATBS
ANNA, OR ANNE
ANNUNCIATION
ANOINTING, see Baptism, Roman

Ritual of; Chrism; Extreme

Unction; Visitation of the Sick
ANSELM, see English Church
ANTEPENDIUM
ANTHEM
ANTHONY, see Asceticism,

Monasticism
ANTICHRIST, see also Man of

Sin

ANTIMENSIUM
ANTIPHON
APHRAATES, CREED OF, see

Eastern Churches (3).
APOCALYPSES, see Apocrypha
APOCRYPHA OP THE OLD

TESTAMENT
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OP THE

NEW TESTAMENT
APOLLINARIANISM
APOLOGY FOR AUGSBURG

CONFESSION, see Consub-

slantiation

APOLOGY OF BISHOP JEWEL

APOSTASY

APOSTLES

APOSTLES' CREED, see Com
munion of the Saints, Con
fessions and Creeds

APOSTLES, TEACHING OF (The
Didache), see Apostolic
Fathers

APOSTOLIC FATHERS, see also
Fathers of the Church

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, see
Laudian Theology ; Orders of
Foreign Churches ; Orders,
Holy

796

APOSTOLICAL CANONS

APOSTOLICALCONSTITUTIONS

APPARELS

APPARITOR

APPEALS

APSE

AQUILA

AQUINAS, see Thomists

ARCHBISHOP

ARCHANGELS, see Angels;
Michael the Archangel; note
on Relics

ARCHDEACONS, COURT OF, see
Ecclesiastical Courts

ARCHES, COURT OF, see also
Ecclesiastical Courts

AREOPAGITE, see Dionysiut the
Areopagite

ARIANS, see Heresies

ARISTEAS, Epistle of, see
Apocrypha

ARISTIDES, APOLOGY OP, see
Apostolic Fathers, Fathers of
the Church

ARMENIAN CHURCH, see East
ern Church

ARMINIUS, see Redemption,
Particular

ART, EARLY CHRISTIAN, IN
CATACOMBS, see Sepulchrei

ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE,
see also Baptism, Confessions
and Creeds, Missa and Mitsce,
Orders of Reformed Foreign
Churches, Ordination, Purga
tory, Royal Supremacy, Sacra-
mentarians, Subscription to
the Articles

ARTICLES, THE LAMBETH, see
Redemption, Particular

ARTICLES, THE Six, OF 1539

ARTICLES OF SMALKALD, see
Consubstantiat ion

ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE,
HISTORY OF

ASCENSION DAY

ASCETICISM, see also Monas
ticism, Religious Orders, Ton
sure

ASHES

ASH-WEDNESDAY

ASPERGES

ASPERSION

ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED
VIRGIN, see also Mary, the
Dolours of; Mary the Vir
gin ; Conception, Immaculate ;
Mother of God

GENERAL INDEX

797

ASSUMPTION OP MOSES, see
Apocrypha, and note on
Relics

ATHANASIAN CREED, see
American Church, omission
of by ; Irish Church, volun
tary use in ; Confessions and
Creeds

ATHANASIUS, see Father* of the
Church

ATHENAGORAS, see Fathers of
the Church

ATONEMENT, see Justification,
Righteousness of God, Sancti-
fication

ATTRITION, see also Absolution,
Contrition

AUDIENCE, COURT OF, see
Ecclesiastical Courts

AUGSBURG, CONFESSION OF,
see Consubstanliation, Luther,
Confessions and Creeds

AUGUSTINE, ST., see also
Fathers of the Church, Pela-
gianism, Penance, Pilgrim
ages

AUGUSTINE, THE MONK, see
English Church

AUREOLE, see also Nimbus

AURICULAR CONFESSION, see
Confession

AURORA

AUTO DA FE", see also Papal
Persecution

AVE MARIA

AVE MARIA AND ANGELUS

BALDACCHINO, see also Orna
ments Rubric

BANNERS

BANNS OF MARRIAGE, see also
Licence, Marriage; Marriage;
Morganatic Marriage

BAPTISM, see also Infant
Baptism, Sponsors

ROMAN RITUAL OF

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION,
see also Oorham Case, Opus
Operatum

BAPTISTERY

BAPTISTS, see Independents

BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF, see
Apostolic Fathers, Fathers of
the Church

BARUCH, see Apocrypha

BASIL, LITURGY OF, see Apos
tolic Fathers

BASIL THE GREAT, see Fathers
of the Church

BEADS

BEATIFICATION AND CANONI
SATION

BEATITUDE

BEDE, see Fathers of the Church

BEL AND THE DRAGON, see
Apocrypha

BELFRY

BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE,
Excommunication by, see
Anathema; Bells, Church

BELLARMINE on the Sacrifice
of Mass, see Mass

BELLS, CHURCH, see also
Ornaments Rubric

BEMA

BENEDICT AND BENEDIC
TINES, see also Asceticism,
Monasticism, Monk, Religious
Orders

BENEDICTION, RITE OF, see
also Exposition of the Blessed
Sacrament

BENEDICTIONS

BENEDICTUS

BENEFICE

BENEFIT OF CLERGY

BENSON, ARCHBISHOP, on
"English Church Union,"
see English Church Union ;
on " Sisterhoods," see Sister
hoods, Ritualistic

BERENGARIUS

BETHLEHEM, SYNOD OF, see
Councils

BEVERIDGE, see Apostolic
Canons

BIBLE, see Aquila; Faith, Rule
of; Inspiration; Ornaments
Rubric ; Roman Policy as to
the Bible, see Index Expur-
gatorius ; Reformers, their
Influence on English Transla
tions of Bible; Scripture
above Church ; Septuagint ;
Syllabus; Symmachus ; Theo-
dotion ; Vulgate

BIBLE SOCIETIES

BIDDING PRAYER

BIRETTA

BISHOP, see Confirmation of
Bishop ; Conge' d'elire ; Dress
of, see Ornaments Rubric ;
Described in Prayer-book as
a Minister, see Minister;
Jus Liturgicum, see Rites and
Ceremonies, Suffragan Bishop

BLACK FRIARS, see Dominicans

BLACK GOWN, THE, see also
Ornaments Rubric

BLACK LETTER DAYS, see
Calendar

BLACK RUBRIC

BLESSED SACRAMENT, CON
FRATERNITY OF, see Ritual
istic Secret Societies

BODY OF CHRIST

BOWING, see Genuflexion

BOY BISHOP

BRAWLING

BREAD

BREAKING OF BREAD, see Com
munion, Frequency o/,f ootnote

BREVIARY

BRITISH CHURCH, see English

Church

BROTHERHOODS, see Guilds
BULL
BURIAL
BURNET, BISHOP, see Prayer

Book in Appendix
BURSA

CALENDAR

CALVIN, see Reformers

CANCELLI, see Chancel

CANDLEMAS

CANDLES, see also Ornaments
Rubric, Tapers

CANON, of Old and New Testa
ments, see Bible

CANON LAW, see also Decretals

CANONICAL HOURS

CANONICAL OBEDIENCE

CANONISATION

CANONS, see Apostolical Canons,
English Canons

CANOPY, see Baldachino

CAPA, see Cope

CARDINAL

CARMELITES, see Discalced
Carmelites

CARNIVAL

CARTHAGE, Council of, see
Councils

CARTHUSIANS, see Asceticism,
Monasticism, Monk, Religious
Orders

CASSOCK

CASUISTRY, see Jesuits, Moral
Theology

CATACOMBS, see Sepulchres

CATECHISM, see also Confes
sions and Creeds; for defini
tion of Sacrament see Sacra
ment

CATECHUMENS in the Early
Church, see Disciplina Ar-
cani

CATHARINUS, see Articles, the

Thirty-nine

CATHEDRA AND CATHEDRAL

CATHOLIC, see also Church

CELEBRANT

CELIBACY, CLERICAL, see also
Asceticism

CELTIC CHURCH, see Irish
Church

CEMETERY, see also Church
yard; consecration of, see
Services, Occasional

CENSER, or THURIBLE

CEREMONIES, as to legal de
finition of, see Rites

CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF, see
Councils, Eastern Churches

CHALICE, see Cup

CHANCEL

CHANCELLOR

CHANCERY

CHANTRY, see also Arches

CHAPEL

CHAPLAIN

CHAPTER

CHARACTER

CHASUBLE, see also Ornaments
Rubric

CHERUBIM

CHILDREN'S EUCHARISTS, see
Non- Communicating Attend
ance

CHOREPISCOPUS, see also
Suffragan Bishops

CHRISM, see also Baptism,
Roman Ritual of; Extreme
Unction ; Visitation of the
Sick

798

GENERAL INDEX

CHRIST, see also Mediator,
Michael the Archangel

CHRISTIANS

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, see
Science, Chrittian

CHRISTMAS

CHRYSOSTOM, see Agape,
Fathers of the Church, Lord's
Supper

CHURCH, see English Church,
National Churches

CHURCH ASSOCIATION

CHURCH DISCIPLINE, see Dis-
ciplina Arcani, Excommunica
tion, Penance

CHURCH DISCIPLINE ACT, see
also Public Worship Act, 1874

CHURCH MILITANT, Prayer for

CHURCHES, see Eastern, Eng
lish, Greek, Irish, Methodist,
Moravian, Ncstorian, Roman,
Russian, Scotch, Uniat

CHURCHING OF WOMEN

CHURCHWARDENS

CHURCHYARD, see also Ceme
tery ; Services, Occasional

ClBORIUM

CINCTURE

ClRCUMCELLIONES, S66 Dona-
tists

CIRCUMCISION

CLEMENT, Epistle of, to
Corinthians ; Homily of, see
Apostolic Fathers

CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA,
see Fathers of the Church

CLEMENTINES

CLERGY, see Benefit of Clergy

CLERGY, BRETHREN OP, see
Asceticism, Monasticism, Monk,
Religious Orders

CLETUS, see Anacletus

CLEWER SISTERHOOD, see
Sisterhoods, Ritualistic

CLINIC BAPTISM, see Visitation
of Sick

CLOISTER, see Monasticism,
Monk, Nun, Religious Orders,
Recluse

COLLECTS

COLLYRIDIANS

COLOURS, CHURCH

COMFORTER, see Paraclete

COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN

COMMENDATION OF THE SOUL

COMMINATION

COMMON PRAYER, see also
Dead Language, Divine Ser
vice in a ; Secreta

COMMON PRAYER, BOOK OP,
see Calendar, Catechism, Daily
Services, Prayer-book, and the
Articles in Appendix, as well
as those under Prayer-book

COMMUNION, Adoration of the
Eucharist; Agape; Body of
Christ; Consecration; Con-
substantiation; Communion,
Evening ; Communion, One
Kind ; Communion, Fasting ;
Infant Communion; Frequency
of; Communion of Sick ; Com

munion, Spiritual; Concomi
tance; Cup ; "Do this" ; Lord's
Supper ; Lord's Table; Non-
Communicating attendance ;
Old Catholics ; Ornaments Ru
bric; Prayer-book; Spiritual
Presence ; Table, see Transub-
stantiation

COMMUNION OF SAINTS

COMMUTATION

COMPLINE

CONCEPTION, IMMACULATE,
see Assumption ; Mary, the
Dolours of; Mary the Virgin ;
Mother of God; Heart of
Mary ; Revelations, Modern

CONCLAVE

CONCOMITANCE, see Com
munion in One Kind

CONCORDAT

CONFESSION, AURICULAR, see
also Absolution, Exomolo-
gesis, Penance, Seal of
Confession, Visitation of the
Sick; on Confessional Box,
see Ornaments Rubric

CONFESSIONS AND CREEDS, see
also Athanasian Creed ; Ar
ticles, the Thirty-nine ; Nicene
Creed; Pope Pius IV., Creed
of; Syllabus; Trent, Council
of; Unigenitus, bull

CONFIRMATION, see also Seven
Sacraments

CONFIRMATION OF BISHOPS

CONFRATERNITY, see also
Guilds, Religious Orders,
Ritualistic Secret Societies,
Sisterhoods, Sodality

CONG£ D'ELIRE

CONGREGATION

CONGREGATION OF THE IN
DEX, see also Index Expur-
gatorius

CONGREGATIONALISTS, see In
dependents

CONSCIENCE, see Reason, Con
science, and Faith

CONSECRATION of Church
(service for), see Services,
Occasional and State ; see also
Exorcism ; Mortar, Holy

CONSISTORY

CONSTANTINOPLE, Council of,
see Councils

CONSUBSTANTIATION

CONTRITION, see also Absolu
tion, Attrition

CONVENTS, see Monasticism

CONVERSION

CONVOCATION, see also English
Church, Synod

COPE, see also Ornaments Rubric

COPTIC CHURCH, see Eastern
Churches, Uniat Churches

CORONATION SERVICE, see
Services, Occasional and State

CORPORAL

CORPORATE REUNION, ORDER
OF, see Ritualistic Secret
Societies

CORPUS CHRISTI

COSIN, BISHOP, see also
Black Letter Days, Calendar ;
end of Article I., on Presby
terian Orders, Orders of
Foreign Churches, Church;
on frequency of Communion,
Communion, Frequency of

COTTA

COUNCILS, see also Sardica,
Council of ; Trent, Council of ;
Vatican, Council of

COURTS, see Ecclesiastical
Courts, Judicial Committee

COWL

CRANMER, see Reformers

CREDENCE TABLE

CREEDS, see Athanasian Creed,
Communion of the Saints,
Confessions and Creeds,
Nicene Creed

CROSIER, see Pastoral Staff,
Ornaments Rubric (Bishop)

CROSS, see also Pectoral Cross,
Ornaments Rubric

CROSS, ADORATION OF

CROSS, STATIONS OF, see
Stations of the Cross, Orna
ments Rubric

CRUCIFIX, see also Ornaments
Rubric

CRUETS

CRYPT

CUCULLA, see Hood

CULDEES

CUP, see A doration of the Eucha
rist ; Agape ; Body of Christ ;
Chalice ; Communion, Even
ing ; Communion, Fasting ;
Communion, Frequency of;
Communion, One Kind ; Com
munion, Spiritual ; Commu
nion of Sick ; Concomitance ;
Consecration ; Consubstantia-
tion ; ' ' Do this " ; Elevation ;
Eucharist ; Lord's Supper ;
Lord's Table ; Non-communi
cating Attendance ; Old Catho
lics; Prayer-book, see Appen
dix, as to Service ; Spiritual
Presence; Table, Holy, see
Ornaments Rubric; Transub-
stantiation

CURATE

CYPRIAN, see Fathers of the
Church

CYRIL, see Fathers of the
Church

DAILY SERVICES
DALMATIC, THE
DANEI, Paul Francis, see Pas-

sionists
DEACON
DEACONESS
DEAD, COMMEMORATION OF

THE, see Prayers for the Dead
DEAD LANGUAGE, DIVINE

SERVICE IN A, see also

Common Prayer

DEAD, MASS FOR THE, see Mass
DEAD, PRAYERS FOR THE, see

Intercession of the Saints

GENERAL INDEX

799

DEADLY SIN OR MORTAL SIN,
see also FM, the ; Venial Sin

DEAN

DEAN OF THE ARCHES
COURT, see Dean, Ecclesias
tical Courts

DECALOGUE, see Command
ments

DECRETALS, see also Canon
Lavs (II.)

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

DEFINITION OF THEOLOGICAL
TERMS (Roman)

DEGRADATION

DELEGATES, COURT OF, see
also Ecclesiastical Courts, Ju
dicial Committee

DEMONS, sec also Devil, The

DENUNCIATION

DEPRIVATION

DESCENT OF CHRIST INTO
HELL

DEVELOPMENT, see also
Tradition

DEVIL, see also Demons

DEVOTED, see Monasticism,
Monks, Nuns

DEVOTION, MANUALS OF, see
Ritualistic Manuals

DEVOTIONS

DIATESSARON, see Fathers of
the Church

DlCERIUM

DlDACH^, see Apostolic Fathers,
Mary the Virgin, Ministry ;
on the date of, see Fathers of
the Church

DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA,
see Fathers of the Church

DIES IR^B

DIGAMY

DlOCESE, see National Church

DIOGNETUS, Epistle to, see
Apostolic Fathers, Fathers of
the Church

DlONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

DlPTYCHS

DIRGE

DISCALCED CARMELITES, see
also Asceticism, Monasticism,
Monk, Rdigious Orders

DISCIPLINA ARCANI

DISCIPLINE, THE, see Penance,
Penitential Discipline, Peni
tential Instruments

DISPENSATION

DISSENTERS

DIVORCE

DOCETISM, see also Heresy

DOGMA AND DOGMATIC THEO
LOGY

DOLLINGER, DR., on Indul
gences, see Indulgences, Old
Catholics, Vatican Council

DOMINICANS, see Asceticism,
Monasticism, Monk, Religious
Orders

DOMINUS VOBISCUM

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE

DONATISM

DONATIVE, see also Advowson

DOSSAL

"Do THIS"

DOUAY VERSION, see under

Bible ; Vulgate
DOVE
DULIA, see Idolatry, Latria,

Worship

EAST, TURNING TO, AT THE
CREED

EASTER, see also Fire, Kind
ling of; Holy Week; Paschal
Letters

EASTER OFFERINGS

EASTERN CHURCHES, see also
Greek Church, Jacobites,
Maronites, Melchites, Nes-
torian Church, Russian Church,
Uniat Churches

EASTWARD POSITION, see also
Lord's Table

EBIONISM

ECCLESIA, see Church

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMIS
SIONERS

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS, see
also Archdeacon; Arches,
Court of; Delegates, Court of;
Judicial Committee ; Ordi
nary

ECCLESIASTICUS.BOOK OF, 866
Apocrypha, Old Testament

ElLETON

ELDERS, see Apostolic Succes
sion, Ministry, Orders of
Foreign Churches, Ordinal,
Presbyters

ELEVATION, see also Adora
tion of Eucharist

ELIZABETH'S EXCOMMUNICA
TION BY Pius V., see also
Excom nmnica tion

EMBER DAYS

EMBOLISM

EMINENCE

EMPIRE, HOLY ROMAN, see
Roman Empire

ENCLOSURE

ENCRATITES

ENCYCLICAL

ENERGUMENI

ENGLISH CANONS

ENGLISH CHURCH, see Articles,
the Lambeth; Articles, the
Thirty -nine; Articles, the
Thirty - nine, History of;
Canons; Convocation; Ecclesi
astical Courts ; Homilies ;
Judicial Committee ; Lol
lards ; Lincoln Judgment ;
Lord's Supper, see also
articles under headings —
Oxford Movement ; Orna
ments Rubric; Prayer-look;
Reformation, the English ;
Reformers, their Influence on
the English Version ; Revival,
the Evangelical; Ridley's Theo
logy ; Wesleyan Methodism

ENGLISH CHURCH UNION

ENOCH, BOOK OF, see Apoc
rypha, Old Testament

ENTHRONISATION

EPACT

EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF, see
Councils

EPHRAEM, THE SYRIAN, see
Fathers of the Church

EPIPHANY

EPIPHANIUS, ST., Bishop of
Constantia, on Mariolatry,
see Mary the Virgin

EPISCOPACY, see Apostolic Suc
cession ; Church ; Ministry ;
Moravian Church ; Orders,
Holy; Orders of Foreign
Churches

ESDRAS, BOOKS OF, see Apoc
rypha, Old Testament

ESTHER, BOOK OF, see Apoc
rypha, Old Testament

ETHIOPIAN CHURCH, see
Abyssinian and Coptic
Churches, under Eastern
Churches ; Mariolatry in, see
Mary the Virgin

EUCHARIST, see also the
articles cited under Lord's
Supper

EUCHOLOGION

EULOGIA

EUNOMIANS

EUSEBIUS, see Fathers of the
Church

EUTYCHIANISM, see also
Heresy

EVANGELICAL COUNSELS OF
PERFECTION, see also Sinless
Perfection, Vows

EVE, see Vigil

EVENING COMMUNION, see
Communion, Evening

EXARCH

EXCOMMUNICATION, see also
Anathema, Elizabeth's Ex-
communica tion

EXOMOLOGESIS

EXORCISM, see Baptism ; In
cense ; Roman Ritual of

EXORCISTS

EXPOSITION OF THE BLESSED
SACRAMENT, see also Lord's
Supper

EXTRAVAGANTS, £66 Canon
Law

EXTREME UNCTION, see also
Oil, Seven Sacraments

FACULTY

FAITH, see Atonement; Justi-
cation by, see Justification;
Reason, Conscience, and Faith ;
Sanctification

FAITH, RULE OF, see also
Bible, Scripture above Church,
Tradition

FALDSTOOL

FALL, THE, see Deadly Sin,
Justification, Sinless Perfec
tion

FANON

FASTING, see also Agape ; As
ceticism; Communion, Fasting

800

GENERAL INDEX

FATHERS OF THE CHURCH,
see also Apostolic Fathers,
Novation

FEASTS

FEBRONIANISM

FEES

FERMENTUM

FESTIVALS, see Feasts

FIFTH OF NOVEMBER, see
Gunpowder Plot ; Services,
Occasional and State

FIRE, Kindling of, see also
Easter, Paschal Letters

FISH AND FISHERMAN

FISTULA, see also Eucharist

FLABELLUM

FLAGELLANTS

FLOWERS, see also Ornaments
Rubric

FONT, see also Ornaments
Rubric

FOOT-WASHING

FORMULA OF CONCORD, see
Consubstnntiation

FORUM

Fox, GEORGE, see Quakerism

FRACTION

FRANCIS, ST., OF ASSIST, see
Franciscans, Stigmata

FRANCISCANS, see also Asceti
cism, Monasticism, Monks,
Religious Orders

FRANKFORT, COUNCIL OF, see
Councils

FRENCH CHURCH, for French
Protestants see Gallicanism,
Huguenots, National Church

FRONTAL

FUNERAL CELEBRATIONS, see
also Prayers for Dead, Pur
gatory, Sepulchres

GALILEO

GALLICANISM

GEHENNA, see Hell

GENERAL COUNCILS, see
Councils

GENESIS, LITTLE, see Apocry
pha, Old Testament

GENUFLEXION, see also Sowing

GEORGIAN CHURCH, see
Eastern Churches

GIRDLE

GLEBE

GLORIA PATRI

GNOSTICISM, see also Heresy

GODFATHERS, see Baptism,
Sponsors, Baptismal Regen
eration

GOOD FRIDAY, see also Adora
tion of the Cross, Cross, Three
Hours

GOOD WORKS, see also Holi
ness, Indulgences, Pilgrimages,
Purgatory, Supererogation

GORHAM CASE, see also Baptism,

GOSPEL, see also Bible

GOSPELS, APOCRYPHAL, see
Apocrypha, New Testament

GOSSIP, see Sponsors

GRACE

GRACE AT MEALS

GRACE, MEANS OF

GRADUAL

GREEK CHURCH, rule as to
Divorce, see Divorce; as to
JNJ ariolatry, see Mary the
Virgin; Russian Church;
Solea

GREGORIAN, see Music

GREGORY, surnamed Thauma-
turyus, see Fathers of the
Church

GREMIAL

GRINDAL, ARCHBISHOP, Visi
tation Articles, see Altar

GUILDS, see also Ritualistic
Secret Societies ; Sisterhoods,
Ritualistic ; Sodality

GUNPOWDER PLOT, see also
Services, Occasional and State

HADES

HAIL MARY, see Ave Maria

HAIR, see Tonsure

HALF-COMMUNION, see Com-
munion in one kind ; One kind

HANDS, IMPOSITION OF, Im
position of Hands ; Ministry ;
Orders, Holy; Ordinal

HEART OF JESUS, see also
Revelations, Modern ; Sacred
Heart

HEART OF MARY

HEAVENLY HIERARCHY, see
Dionysius the Areopagite

HEGESIPPUS, see Fathers of the
Church

HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, see
Communion of the Saints

HELL, Descent of Christ into,
see Descent

HERESY, see Nestorian Church,
Sabellianism, Syllabus

HERACLES, see Fathers of the
Church

HERMAS, see Apostolic Fathers ;
Dead, Prayers for the; Descent
into Hell

HERMIT, see Asceticism, Recluse,
<kc.

HILARY, see Fathers of the
Church

HIPPO, COUNCIL OF, see also
Councils

HIPPOLYTUS, see Fathers of the
Church

HOLINESS, see also Good Works

HOLY COMMUNION, see Adora
tion of the Eucharist ; Agape ;
AynusDei; Altar; Benediction;
Black Rubric; Body of Christ;
Bread ; Chalice ; Chasuble ;
Communion, Evening; Com
munion, Fasting; Communion,
Frequency of; Communion, one
kind ; Communion of the Sick ;
Communion, Spiritual; Conco
mitance; Consecration; Consub-
stantiation; Denialofthe Cup to
the laity ; ' ' Do this ' ' ; East
ward Position ; Elevation ;
Eucharist ; Exposition of the
Sacraments; Fcrmentum; Fis

tula ; Fraction ; Houselling
Cloth; Host; Infant Com
munion; Liturgies, Ancient;
Lord's Table ; Lord's Supper ;
Mass ; Mixed Chalice ; Mon
strance ; Non-communicating
Attendance; Old Catholics;
One kind; Prayer-book (see
Appendix as to Service),
Remembrance ; Reservation ;
Species ; Spiritual Presence ;
Table, Holy, see Ornaments
Rubric; Trans ubstantiation ;
Vestments ; Viaticum ; see
also refs. under heading of
Lord's Supper

HOLY CROSS, SOCIETY OF, see
Guilds, Ritualistic Manuals ;
Ritualistic Secret Societies

HOLY DAYS, see Calendar,
Feasts

HOLY GHOST, see Paraclete

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, see
Papacy ; Popes ; Roman Em
pire, Holy

HOLY WATER, see also Exorcism

HOLY WEEK, Adoration of the
Cross ; Easter ; Fire, Kindling
of; Paschal Letter

HOMILIES, THE, see also Con
fessions and Creeds

HOMOIOUSIOS, see Homoou-
sios

HOMOOUSIOS

HONORIUS I., see Popes

HOOD, see also Ornaments
Rubric

HOST, see under Holy Com
munion

HOURS, see Canonical Hours

HOUSELLING CLOTH, see
under Holy Communion

HUGUENOTS, see also Persecu
tions, Papal; Waldenses

HUS, JOHN, AND THEHUSSITES,
see also Persecutions, Papal

HYMNS ANCIENT AND MOD
ERN, see also Music and
Christian Worship ; Public
Worship, note

HYPERDULIA, see Heart of
Mary, Idolatry, Latria, Wor
ship

HYPOSTATIC UNION

ICONOCLAST

ICONOSTASIS

IDOLATRY, see also Heart of
Mary, Latria

IGNATIUS, EPISTLES OF, see
Apostolic Fathers

IMAGE WORSHIP

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION,
see Conception, Immaculate ;
Mary the Virgin; Thomists
and Scotists ; see also Plate
XIV.

IMPOSITION OF HANDS, see
also Ministry, the ; Orders,
Holy ; Ordinal; Priest; Priest
hood

INCENSE, see also Exorcism

GENERAL INDEX

801

INDEPENDENTS

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, see

also Congregation of the Index

INDIAN CHURCH, see Thomas,
Christians of St.

INDUCTION AND INSTITUTION

INDULGENCE, see also Good
Works, Jubilee, Pilgrimages,
Purgatory, Scapular, Super
erogation

INFALLIBILITY, see Old Catho
lics, Vatican Council

INFANT BAPTISM, see Baptism,
Baptismal. Regeneration, Gor-
ham Case, Sponsors

INFANT COMMUNION

INHIBITION

INJUNCTIONS

INQUISITION, see also Auto da
fe; Dominicans; Persecutions,
Papal; Torquemada

INSPECTION OF CONVENTS, see
Monasticism

INSPIRATION, see Bible, Scrip
ture above the Church, Tra
dition

INTENTION, DOCTRINE OF

INTERCESSION OF SAINTS, see
also Invocation of Saints

INTERDICT

INTERSTICES

INTONING, see Music in Rela
tion to Worship, Reading and
Speaking

TNTROIT

INVENTION OF THE CROSS, see

Cross
INVOCATION OF SAINTS, see

also Intercession of Saints
iRENyEUS, see Fathers of the

Church

IRISH CHURCH
IRREGULARITY
ITALY, ROMANISM IN, see

Romanism in Italy
ITE MISSA EST," see also

Mass

JACOBITE, OR OLD SYRIAN

CHURCH, see also Eastern
Churches
JAMES, LITURGY OF, see Greek

Church
JAMES, PROTO - EVANGELIUM

OF, see Apocrypha, New

Testament
JANSENISTS
JEROME, see Fathers of the

Church; account of Lord's

Supper bj, see Agape; Lights;

Vulgate
JEROME OF PRAGUE, see Hus,

Papal Persecutions
JESUITS, see also Eastern

Churches, Part IV. ; Loyola,

Ignatius ; Moral Theology ;

Religious Orders ; Sodality
JESUS, THE SON OF SIRACH,

see Apocrypha, Old Testament
JEWEL, BISHOP, see Anolofjvof

Tt • 7 r » f 3 O J

Bishop Jewel

JOSEPH, ST., see also Asceti
cism, Monasticism, Monk

JUBILEE, see Indulgences,
Scapular

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, see also
Delegates, Court of; Ecclesias
tical Courts

JUDITH, BOOK OF, see Apoc
rypha, Old Testament

JURISDICTION, see Canon Law

Jus LITURGICUM, see Rites and
Ceremonies

JUSTIFICATION, see Atonement,
Deadly Sin, Propitiation,
Righteousness of God, Sanctifi-
cation, Sinless Perfection

JUSTINUS. see Fathers of the
Church

KEN*, BISHOP, see Non-Juring
Leaven in the Church of Eng
land

KEYS, POWER OF THE, see also
Absolution ; Confession; Peter,
St. ; Privilege of Peter ; Roman
Primacy; Supremacy, Papal;
Trent, Council of; Vatican
Council

KING, CORONATION SERVICE
OF THE, see Services, Occa
sional and State

KING, SUPREME ORDINARY,
see Ordinary, Royal Supre
macy

KINGDOM OF GOD

KING'S BOOK, see Confessions
and Creeds ; Articles, the Six

Kiss, see also Salutations

KNOX, JOHN

KYRIE ELEISON

LABARUM

LADY DAY

LAMB, see Greek Church

LAMBETH ARTICLES, see
Articles, Lambeth; Redemp
tion, Particular

LAMBETH JUDGMENT, see
Lincoln Judgment

LAMMAS

LAMPS, see Lights

LANCE, see Greek Church

LANFRANC, see English Church

LAODICEA, COUNCIL OF, see
Bible, Councils

LAPSE

LATERAN COUNCILS, see Coun
cils

LATIN, PRAYERS IN, see Dead
Language, Prai/ers in

LATRIA, see also Idolatry; Wor
ship, Public

LAUD, ARCHBISHOP, on Ap
ostolic Succession, see Orders
of Foreign Churches; on Pro
testants, see Reformation, the
English; on Reformation by
National Churches, see
National Churches ; on Trent,
Council of, see Trent, Council
of

LAUDIAN THEOLOGY

LAUDS

LAV ABO

LAW COURTS, see Archdeacon,
Court of; Arches, Court of ;
Delegates, Court of; Ecclesi
astical Courts ; Judicial Com
mittee

LAY COMMUNION

LAYMEN

LAZARISTS

LEAVEN, see Fermentum, Wafer

LECTIONAHY

LECTOR

LEFfcVRE, JACQUES, see Hu
guenots

LEGATE, see Nuncio

LENT

LESSONS, THE

LIBERIUS, see also Popes

LICENCE, MARRIAGE, see also
Banns of Marriage, Dispensa
tion Marriage, Mixed Mar
riage, Morganatic Marriage

LIGHTS, see also Candles, Orna
ments Rubric, Tapers

LIMBO, see also Baptismal Re
generation, Gorham Case

LINCOLN JUDGMENT, see also
Ornaments Rubric

LITANY, THE, see also Prayer-
book

LITURGIES, ANCIENT, see also
Apostolic Fathers ; Missal ;
Office, Divine; Ordinal

LIVING, see Vacancy

LOGIA, see Apocrypha, New
Testament

LOLLARDS, THE, see also Eng
lish Church; Persecutions,
Papal; Wyclif, John
LORD'S DAY, THE, see also

Sabbath, the
LORD'S PRAYER, THE
LORD'S SUPPER, see — Adora
tion of the Eucharist ; Agape.;
Agnus Dei; Altar; Benedic
tion ; Black Rubric ; Body of
Christ; Bread ; Chalice ; Chas
uble ; Communion, Evening ;
Communion, Fasting ; Com
munion, Frequency of; Com
munion of the Sick ; Commu
nion, one kind; Communion,
Spiritual ; Concomitance; Con
secration ; Consnbstantiation ;
Denial of the Cup to the laity ;
" Do this " ; Eastward Posi
tion ; Elevation ; Eucharist ;
Exposition of the Sacrament ;
Fermentum ; Fistula ; Frac
tion ; Host ; Housdling Cloth ;
Infant Communion. ; Litur
gies, Ancient ; Lord's Supper ;
Lord's Table ; Mass ; Mixed
Chalice ; Monstrance ; Non-
communicating A ttcndance ;
One Kind ; Oput Operatum ;
Ornaments Rubric ; Paten ;

Prayer-book, Appendix, as to

Service ; Presence, Objective

and Subjective ; Remembrance ;
3 E

802

GENERAL INDEX

Re-present ; Reservation ; Sac
rament ; Sacramentaries ;
Species ; Spiritual Presence ;
Table, Holy, see Ornaments
Rubric ; Transubstanliation ;
Veil ; Vestments ; Viaticum ;
Wafer

LORD'S TABLE, see also Atar,
Ornaments Rubric

LOBETO

LOTTERIES

LouRDES, see Revelations, Mod
ern

LOYOLA, IGNATIUS, see also
Jesuits

LUNETTE

LUTHER AND LUTHERANISM

MACCABEES, see Apocrypha,
Old Testament; Prayers for
the Dead

MACEDONIANISM, see Heresy

MANES AND MANICH^ANS, see
Fathers of the Church, Heresy

MANIPLE

MAN OP SIN, see also Anti
christ

MANICH^EISM, see Heresy

MANTELLETTA

MARIOLATRY, see Idolatry,
Mary the Virgin

MARIST FATHERS, see also As
ceticism, Monasticism, Monk,
Religious Orders

MARONITES, see also Eastern
Churches, Melchites, Uniat
Churches

MARRIAGE, see also Banns of
Marriage ; Licence, Marriage;
Mixed Marriages ; Morgana
tic Marriage; Seven Sacra
ments ; Sponsors

MARY, THE DOLOURS OF, As
sumption, Ave Maria, Candle
mas

MARY THE VIRGIN, see
also Candlemas ; Conception,
Immaculate ; Mary, the
Dolours of ; Heart of Mary ;
Mother of God; Nativity of
Mary, Gospel of, see
Apocrypha, New Testament;
Psalter of the Virgin ; Salve
Rcgina ; Scapular ; Servites

MASS, see also Missa and
Missce ; Sanctus Bell

MASSES

MATINS

MAUNDY THURSDAY

MEANS OF GRACE, see Grace

MEDIATOR

MELCHITES, see also Uniat
Churches

MEMENTO

MENDICANT ORDERS, see As
ceticism, Monasticism, Wyclif

MENTAL KESERVATION, see
Jesuits, Moral Theology

MERIT, see Grace

METAPHYSIOSIS, see Articles,
the Thirty-nine

METHODISM, see Wesleyan

Methodism
METROPOLITAN
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL
MINISTER, see also under

Ornaments Rubric
MINISTRY, see also Holy

Orders, Imposition of Hands,

Ordinal

MINORITES, see Franciscans
MIRACLES, see also Modern

Revelations
MlSSA AND MlSS^B

MISSAL

MISSIONS, GENERAL

MISSIONS, PROTESTANT

MISSIONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC

MITRE, see also Ornaments
Rubric

MIXED CHALICE, see also
articles under Holy Com
munion

MIXED MARRIAGE, see also
Banns of Marriage, Marriage,
Morganatic Marriage, Seven
Sacraments

MOLINOS, MIGUEL DE, see
Quietism

MONASTICISM, see also Asceti
cism, Monk, Religious Orders,
Tonsure

MONITION

MONK, see also Asceticism ;
Benedictines; Discalced Car
melites ; Dominicans ; Fran
ciscans ; Joseph, St.; Marist
Fathers; Monasticism; Pas-
sionists ; Redemptorists ; Re
ligious Orders ; Servites

MONOPHYSITES, see Heresy

MONOTHELITES, see Heresy

MONSTRANCE, see also Mass,
and under Holy Communion

MONTANISM, see also Heresy

MONUMENTS

MORAL THEOLOGY, see also
Jesuits, Thomists and Scotists

MORAVIAN CHURCH

MORGANATIC MARRIAGE, see
also Marriage

MORTAL SIN, see Deadly Sin,
Fall, Venial Sin

MORTAR, HOLY

MORTMAIN

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF, see
Apocrypha, Old Testament,
also note on Relics

MOTHER OF GOD, see also
Mary

MOZARABIC, see Liturgies,
Sacramentary

Music IN CONNECTION WITH
CHRISTIAN WORSHIP, see
also Agnus Dei; Hymns,
Ancient and Modern ; Passion
Music ; Te Deum ; Worship,
Public, p. 784, note

MYSTERIES

NANTES, EDICT OF, see
Huguenots

NATIONAL CHURCHES, see
also American Church, Eastern-
Churches, English Church,
Greek Church, Irish Church r
Luther and Lutheranism,,
Russian Church, Scottish
Churches, Waldenses

NAVE

NEOPHYTE

NESTORIAN CHURCH, see also
Eastern Churches, Part III. ;
Heresy ; Uniat Churches

NETHERLANDS, REVOLT OF,
see Papal Persecutions

NEWMAN, CARDINAL, on
Casuistry, see Moral Theo
logy ; Oxford Movement ;
on Theory of development,
see Development

NIC^EA (NICE), COUNCILS OF,
see Councils

NICENE CREED, see also Con
fessions and Creeds

NIMBUS, see also Aureole,
Tonsure

NON - COMMUNICATING AT
TENDANCE, see also articles
under Lord's Supper

NON-JURING LEAVEN in
Church of England, see also
Wesley, Wesleyan Methodism

NONES

NOVATIAN, see also Fathers
of the Church

NOVICE, see also Monasticism;
Nuns and Nunneries ; Sister
hoods, Ritualistic

NUNCIO

NUNS AND NUNNERIES, see
also Joseph, St. ; Sisterhoods,
Ritualistic ; Ursulines

OATH

OBLATES

OBLATIONS, see also Agape,.

Offertory
OCTAVE
OFFERTORY
OFFICE, DIVINE, see also^

Liturgies, Ancient; Missal
OFFICIAL, PRINCIPAL
OIL, see also Baptism, Roman

Ritual of; Chrism; Extreme

Unction ; Ordinal (notes to) ;•

Stocks
OLD CATHOLICS, see also

Vatican Council
OMOPHORION
ONE KIND, see also Communion,.

one kind ; and for other

Articles on Lord's Supper see

that title
OPUS OPERATUM, see for

other articles under Lord's

Supper
ORATORY
ORDERS, HOLY, Imposition of

Hands, Ministry, Orders of
Reformed Foreign Churches,
Ordinal, Priest, Priesthood,.
Subdeacor

GENERAL INDEX

803

ORDERS, see Religious Orders

ORDINAL, see also Liturgies,
Ancient ; Missal ; Office,
Divine

ORDINARY, see also Royal
Supremacy

ORDINATION, see also Articles,
the Thirty-nine ; Imposition of
Hands; Ministry; Orders,
Holy; Ordinal; Orders of
Foreign Churches ; Subscrip
tion to Articles

ORIENTATION, see also East
ward Position, Lord's Table

ORIGEN, see Altar; Fathers
of the Church; on prayer in
the vernacular, Common
Prayer

ORNAMENTS, AND THE ORNA
MENTS RUBRIC, see also Alb,
Amice, Black Gon;n, Cassock,
Chasuble, Cope, Cross, Hood,
Incense, Lights, Maniple,
Mitre, Pyx, Rochet, Scarf,
Stole, Surplice, Tapers, Vest
ments

OXFORD MOVEMENT, see also
Ritualistic Manuals, Ritual
istic Secret Societies, Rome-
ward Movement

PACHOMIUS, RULE OF, see
Monk

PALLA

PALLADIUS, see Irish Church

PALLIUM

PALMS, BLESSED

PAPACY, see also Donation of
Constantine ; Infallibility ;
Keys, Power of; Peter's Pence ;
Pope Pius I V., creed of; Popes;
Privilege of Peter ; Roman
Church ; Roman Empire,
Holy ; Romanism in Italy ;
Roman Primacy ; Supremacy,
Papal; Syllabus; Universal
Bishopric; Vatican Council

PAPIAS, Fragments of, see
Apostolic Fathers

PARACLETE

PARADISE, see Hades

PARKER, ARCHBISHOP, Articles
of, see Altar

PARISH

PASCAL, see Moral Theoloqy,

ft 99 '

Jansemsts

PASCHAL EPISTLES

PASCHAL TAPER, see Lights,
Tapers

PASSION Music, see also Music
in Christian Worship

PASSIONISTS, see also Asceti
cism, Monasticism, Monk, Re
ligious Orders

PASTOR OF HERMAS, see
Apostolic Fathers

PASTORAL STAFF, see also Or
naments Rubric, under Bishop

PATEN, see also articles under
Lord's Supper

PATER NOSTEE

PATRIARCH

PATRICK, ST., see Irish Church

PAULICIANS

PAX DOMINI

PEARSON ON THE CREED, see

Communion of the Saints
PECKHAM, ARCHBISHOP, see

English Church

PECTORAL CROSS, see Cross
PELAGIANISM, see also Heresy
PENANCE, see also Absolution;

Asceticism; Discipline, the;

Satisfaction
PENITENTIALS
PENITENTIAL INSTRUMENTS
PENTECOST
PERFECTION, COUNSELS OF,

see Evangelical Counsels
PERFECTION, SINLESS, see

Sinless Perfection
PERSECUTIONS, see also Tolera
tion
PERSECUTIONS, PAPAL, see

also Albigenses, Auto da Fe ;

Dominicans; Huguenots; Hus,

Inquisition ; Jesuits ; Torquc-

mada, JValdenses
PERVERTS, form of admission

to Roman Church, see Ab
juration
PETER'S PENCE
PETER, ST., see also Keys,

Power of; Papacy ; Popes ;

Primacy, Roman ; Privilege of

Peter ; Supremacy, Papal ;

Universal Bishopric ; Vatican

Council

PHOTINIANISM, see Heresy
PIE

PILGRIMAGE
PISCINA
PIT, see Hell
PLANETA, see also Ornaments

Rubric, Vestments
PLUNKET, ARCHBISHOP LORD,

see Sacramentary
PLURALITIES AMENDMENT

ACT, 1885, see Ecclesiastical

Courts
PNEUMA
POENULA, see also Chasuble

Vestments
POLYCARP, Epistles of, see

Apostolic Fathers, Mary the

Virgin

PONTIFF, see also Popes
PONTIFICAL, see also Ancient

Liturgies ; Missal ; Ordinal ;

Office, Divine
POPES, see also Infallibility;

Keys, Power of; Papacy;

Peter 's Pence ; Pope Pius IV.,

Creed of; Popes; Privilege

of Peter ; Roman Empire,

Holy ; Roman Primacy ;

Supremacy, Papal; Syllabus;

Universal Bishopric ; Vatican

Council
POPE Pius IV., CREED OF,

Repudiation of, in service

for reception of converts in

English Church, see Services,

Occasional; see also Trent,
Council of

P()RT-ROYALISTS, see Jansen-
ists, Moral Theology

POSSESSION, DIABOLICAL, see
Demons, Exorcism, Exorcists

POSTIL

PR^MUNIRE, see also Royal
Supremacy

PRAYER-BOOK, see American
Church ; Baptism ; Black
Rubric ; Calendar ; Catechism ;
Common Prayer ; Daily
Services ; Dead Language,
Divine Service in ; Feasts ;
Irish Church ; Jus Liturgicum
see under Rites and Cere
monies; Litany; Lord's Sup
per, see" articles under head
ings of, Ordinal ; Ornaments
Rubric; Prayer-book in Ap
pendix ; Public Worship
Regulation Act ; Rites and
Ceremonies; Sarum Use; Ser
vices, State and Occasional;
Shortened Services; Sponsors;
Vestments; Visitation of the
Sick ; Worship, Public

PRAYER, see Worship

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, see
Dead, Prayers for the

PREACHING

PREBEND, PREBENDARY, see
also Canon

PRECENTOR

PRECONIZATION

PRELATE

PRESANCTIFIED, see Mass

PRESBYTER, see Imposition of
Hands; Ministry ; Orders of
Foreign Reformed Churches;
Orders, Holy ; Ordinal ;
Priest ; Priesthood ; Scottish
Churches

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES, see
Scottish Churches

PRESBYTERY

PRESENCE, OBJECTIVE AND
SUBJECTIVE, see also articles
under Lord's Supper

PRESENTATION

PRIEST, see Definition of
(Roman Catholic), see Defini
tions ; Imposition of Hands ;
Mediator ; Ministry; Orders,
Holy ; Orders of Foreign Re
formed Churches ; Ordinal ;
Priesthood

PRIESTHOOD

PRIMER

PRIMITIVE CHURCH, No altar
in, see Agape, Altar, Apostolic
Fathers, Fathers of the Church,
Sepulchre and Catacombs, Tra-
ditores

PRIOR

PBIOEY

PRISCILLIANISTS, see Heresy,
Persecutions

PRIVATE CHAPELS ACT, see
Chapel and Chaplain

PRIVATE JUDGMENT, Infalli-

804

GENERAL INDEX

bility ; Reason, Conscience,
and Faith; Scripture above
Church ; Tradition ; Trent,
Council of

PRIVILEGE op PETER, see also
Infallibility; Keys, Power of ;
Peter's Pence ; Popes ; Roman
Primacy ; Supremacy, Papal

PRIVY COUNCIL, see Delegates,
Court of; Judicial Committee

PROBABILISM, THEORY OF, see
Moral Theology,

PROCESSION, see also Rites and
Ceremonies

PROCESSIONAL CROSS, see Rites
and Ceremonies

PROHIBITED BOOKS, see Index
Expurgatorius

PROHIBITION, see Inhibition

PROPAGANDA, see Missions,
Roman Catholic

PROPHESYINGS, see also /VeacA-
ing

PROPITIATION, see also Atone
ment, Deadly Sin, Justification,
Righteousness of God, Sancti
fication, Sinless Perfection

PROSECUTIONS, ECCLESIASTI
CAL, see Church Association

PROTESTANT, see also Re
formers, Sacramtntarians

PROTHESIS

PSALMS OP THE PHARISEES,
Apocrypha of Old Testament

PSALTER OF SOLOMON, see
Apocrypha of Old Testament

PSALTER OF THE VIRGIN, see
also Assumption; Conception,
Immaculate ; Heart of Mary ;
Mary, the Dolours of ; Mary
the Virgin ; Mother of d'od

PSEUDO-ISIDORE, see Canon
Law, Decretals

PUBLIC WORSHIP, see Worship,
Public

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULA
TION ACT, 1874

PURGATORY, see also Dead,
Prayers for the ; Indulgences ;
Revelations, Modern ; Trent,
Council of

PURIFICATION OP VIRGIN

MARY, see Candlemas
PURIFICATION OF WOMEN, see

Churching
PURITANISM, see also Revival,

the Evangelical ; Quakers ;

Wesleyan Methodism

PYX

QUADRATUS, see Fathers of
the Church

QUAKERISM, see also Puritan
ism

QUESNEL, see Unigenitus,
Quietism

QUIETISM

QUINQUAGESIMA

READING AND SPEAKING
READING DESK, see Ornaments
Rubric

REAL PRESENCE, see articles
under Lord's Supper; Con-
substantiation ; Presence, Ob
jective and Subjective; Tran-
substantiation

REASON, CONSCIENCE, AND
FAITH, see also Private
Judgment

RECONCILIATION SERVICE, see
Services, Occasional and State

REDEMPTION, see also Atone
ment, Deadly Sin, Justification,
Mediator, Righteousness of
God, Sanctification, Sinless
Perfection

REDEMPTION, PARTICULAR

REDKMPTORISTS, see Asceti
cism, Monasticism, Monk,
Religious Orders

REFORMATION, THE ENGLISH

REFORMERS, see also Hus,
Knox, Luther, Wyclif, Zwingli

REFORMERS, THEIR INFLU
ENCE ON THE ENGLISH
VERSION OF THE SCRIP
TURES, see also articles
under Bible

REGENERATION, see Baptismal
Regeneration

REGISTERS, ANCIENT ECCLESI
ASTICAL, see Diptychs

REGULARS, see also Mon
asticism, Monk, Religious
Orders

REIGATE, Conversion of copes
into Communion Table-
covers, see Cope

RELICS, see Intercession of
Saints, Invocation of Saints,
Pilgrimages

RELIGIOUS ORDERS, see also
A sccticism ; Guilds ; Mon
asticism ; Monk ; Sodality ;
Benedictines ; Discalced Car
melites ; Dominicans ; Fran
ciscans ; Jesuits ; Joseph, St. ;
Marist Fathers; Passion ists ;
Redemptorists ; Rosminians ;
Sulpicians, see Sulpice, St.,
Method of

RELIQUARY

REPENTANCE, see also Absolu
tion, Penance, Satisfaction

RE-PRESENT, see also articles
under Lord's Supper

REQUIEM, see also Dead,
Prayers for ; Purgatory

REQUIESCAT IN PACE

REREDOS, see also Ornaments
Rubric

RESERVATION, see also
articles under Lord's Supper

RESERVED CASES, see Moral
Theology

RESURRECTION

RETABLE, see also Ornaments
Rubric

RETREAT

REUNION

REVELATIONS, MODERN, see
also Sacred Heart

REVIVAL, THE EVANGELICAL,

see also Puritanism, Wesleyan
Methodism

RIDLEY'S THEOLOGY, see also
Adoration of Eucharist

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, see
Atonement, Justification, Pro
pitiation, Sanctification, Sin
less Perfection

RING, EPISCOPAL, see also
Bishop, Ornaments Rubric

RITES AND CEREMONIES, see
also Processional Cross

RITUALISTIC MANUALS

RITUALISTIC SECRET SOCIE
TIES, see also Guilds ; Sacra
ment, Confraternity of the
Blessed; Sisterhoods, Ritual
istic

ROCHET, see Ornaments Rubric,
Vestments

ROGATION DAYS

ROMAN CATHOLIC DEFINI
TIONS, see Definitions

ROMAN CHURCH, Admission
of Perverts, see Abjuration;
Baptism, Roman Ritual of;
Breviary; Definitions of, see
Definition; Infallibility; In
quisition ; Jesuits ; Keys,
Power of; Mass ; Missal ;
Missions, Roman Catholic ;
Moral Theology ; Ordina
tion, form of, see Ordinal;
Papacy; Persecutions, Papal ;
Peter's Pence ; Pope Pius
IV., Creed of ; Popes; Privi
lege of Peter ; Religious
Orders, and articles under
Roman Primacy ; Roman
Empire, Holy ; Romanism in
Italy ; Supremacy, Papal ;
Syllabus; Thomists and
Scotists ; Tradition ; Trent,
Council of; Uniat Churches;
Unigenitus ; Universal Bish
opric; Vatican Council

ROMAN EMPIRE, HOLY

ROMANISM IN ITALY

ROMAN PRIMACY, see also
Supremacy, Papal

ROMEWARD MOVEMENT, see
also Oxford Movement ; Ritu
alistic Manuals ; Ritualistic
Secret Societies

ROOD SCREEN

ROSARY

ROSARY OF THE VIRGIN, see
Ave Maria

ROSE, GOLDEN

ROSMINIANS

ROYAL SUPREMACY, see also
Ordinary

RUBRICS, see also Black Rubric,
Calendar, Daily Service, Or
dinal, Ornaments Rubric,
Public Worship Regulation
Act, Rites and Ceremonies,
Vestments, Visitation of Sick

RULE OF FAITH, see also
Bible; Inspiration; Scripture
above Church ; Tradition ;
Trent, Council of

GENERAL INDEX

805

EURAL DEAN, see Dean
RUSSIAN CHURCH, see also

Eastern Churches, Greek

Church, Solea

SABBATH, see also The Lord's
Day

SABELLIANISM, see also Heresy

SACRAMENT, see also Confes
sions and Creeds ; Mysteries ;
see also articles under Lord's
Supper ; Orders, Holy ; Seven
Sacraments

SACRAMENT, CONFRATERNITY
OP THE BLESSED, see also
Guilds, Ritualistic Manuals,
Ritualistic Secret Societies,
Seven Sacraments

SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION,
see also Absolution; Confes
sion, Auricular; Penance;
Seal of Confession

SACRAMENTAL GRACE, see
Baptism, Baptismal Regenera
tion, Opus Operatum, Sacra
ments, and generally articles
under Lord's Supper

SACRAMENTARIANS AND SAC-
RAMENTARIES, see also Pro
testant, Zwinr/li

SACRAMENTARY

SACRED HEART

SACRED HEART OF MARY, see
Mary, Heart of

SACRIFICE, Roman Catholic
Definitions of, see Definition;
Mass

SACRILEGE

SACRISTY

ST. AUGUSTINE, see Augus
tine, St.

ST. DENIS, see Breviary

ST. FRANCIS D'Assisi, see
Franciscans, Stigmata

ST. FRANCIS XAVIER, Legends
of, see Breviary

ST. JANUARIUS, see Breviary

ST. JOSEPH, see Joseph, St.

ST. PHILIP NERI, as to
Legends of, see Breviary

ST. SULPICE, METHOD OF, see
Sulpice, St., Method of

ST. TERESA, see Discalced
Carmelites

SAINTS, see beatification,
Canonisation, Intercession of
Saints, Invocation of Saints

SAINTS' DAYS, see Calendar

SALETTE, LA, see Revelations,
Modern

SALT, see Exorcism

SALUTATIONS, see also Kiss

SALVE REGINA, see also As
sumption ; Candlemas ; Concep
tion, Immaculate ; Heart of
Mary ; Mary, the Dolours of;
Mary the Virgin; Mother of
God

SANCTIFICATION, see also
Atonement, Justification, Pro
pitiation, Righteousness of
God, Sinless Perfection

SANCTUARY

SAXCTUS BELL, THE, see also

Mass
SARDICA, COUNCIL OF, see also

Councils
SARUM USE, see also Ordinal;

Prayer-book
SATISFACTION, see also A bsolu-

tion ; Confession, Auricular;

Penance ; Repentance
SAYINGS OF OUR LORD, see

Apocrypha, New Testament
SCAPULAR, see Indulgences,

Jubilee
SCARF, see also Ornaments

Rubric, Stole, Vestments
SCHISM, see also Heresy ; Perse
cution, Papal; Unity
SCHOLASTICUS, JOHN, see

Apostolic Canons
SCHOOLMEN, see Thomists and

Scotists

SCIENCE, CHRISTIAN
SCOTISTS, see Thomists and

Scotists
SCOTTISH CHURCHES, see also

Ministry
SCRIPTURE ABOVE THE

CHURCH, see also Bible ;

Faith, Rule of; Inspiration;

Pope Pius I V. , creed of ;

Tradition; Trent, Council of
SEAL OF CONFESSION, see also

Absolution, Penance, Repent
ance, Satisfaction
SECRETA

SECRET SOCIETIES, see Ritu
alistic Secret Societies
SECULAR CLERGY, see also

Asceticism, Monasticism, Monk
SEDILIA
SELBORNE, EARL OF, Opinion

on English Church Union,

see English Church Union
SEMI-PELAGIANISM, see Pcla-

gianism

SEPTUAGESIMA

SEPTUAGINT, see Bible

SEPULCHRE

SEPULCHRES AND CATACOMBS

SERVICES, OCCASIONAL AND
STATE, see also Rites and
Ceremonies, Shortened Services

SERVICES, SHORTENED, see
Shortened Services

SERVITES, see Asceticism, Mon
asticism, Monk, Mary the
Virgin

SEVEN DOLOURS, see Mary,
Dolours of

SEVEN SACRAMENTS, see also
Baptism ; Confirmation ; Eu
charist ; Extreme Unction ;
Lord's Supper; Marriage;
Orders, Holy; Penance; Sac
rament

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, see
Apostolic Fathers, Mary the
Virgin

SHORTENED SERVICES, see also
articles under Prayer-book

Si QUIS, see Ordination

SICK, COMMUNION OF THE,

see under Communion
SICK, VISITATION OF, see Ab-

solution, Communion of Sick
SIGN OF THE CROSS, see Cross,

Rites and Ceremonies
SIMONY
SIN, see Deadly Sin, Exomolo-

gesis, Fall, Venial Sin
SINGING, see Hymns Ancient

and Modern ; Music in Chris
tian Worship
SINLESS PERFECTION, see also

Justification, Propitiation,

Righteousness of God, Sancti-

fication

SISTERHOODS, see Ritualistic
SlSTUS, see Fathers
SODALITY, see Jesuits ; Joseph,

St. ; Monasticism ; Monk ;

Religious Orders
SOLEA, see also Greek Church,

Russian Church
SORBONNE

SOUTHWARK, ST. SAVIOUR'S,
Conversion of albes into
surplices, see Cope

SPANISH CHURCH, see Auto
da Fe, National Churches

SPEAKING, see Reading and
Speaking

SPECIAL SERVICES, see Jus
Liturgicum, under Rites and
Ceremonies ; Services, Occa
sional and State; Shortened
Services

SPECIES, see also Mass, Tran-
substantiation, and articles
under Lord's Supper

SPIRITUAL COMMUNION, see
Communion, Spiritual

SPIRITUAL EXERCISES, see
Jesuits

SPIRITUAL PRESENCE AND
FEEDING, see also articles
under Lord's Supper

SPONGE

SPONSORS, see also Baptism

SPOON, see Greek Church

STATIONS OF THE CROSS, see
also Ornaments Rubric

STIGMATA, see also Franciscans

STOCKS, see also Chrism;
Extreme Unction; Oil; Or
dinal, notes to

STOLE, see also Ornaments
Rubric, Vestments

STOUP, HOLY, see also Exor
cism, Holy Water, Ornaments
Rubric

STYLITES, see Asceticism

SUBDEACON, see also Imposi
tion of Hands; Ministry;
Orders, Holy ; Ordinal ;
Priest ; Priesthood

SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-
NINE ARTICLES, see also
Articles, the Thirty -nine,
History of; Confessions and
Creeds ; Ordination

SUCCESSION, APOSTOLIC, see
Apostolic Succession

806

GENERAL INDEX

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS

SUICIDES

SULPICE, ST., THE METHOD
OF

SUNDAY, see Lord's Day, the ;
Sabbath, the

SUPER ALTAR, see also Altar,
Lord's Table, Ornaments
Rubric, Sanctuary

SUPEREROGATION, see Asceti
cism, Evangelical Counsels,
Good Works, Holiness, Indul
gences, Pilgrimage, Purgatory,
Vows

SUPREMACY, PAPAL, see In
fallibility; Keys, Power of;
Papacy; Popes; Privilege of
Peter; Roman Church; Roman
Primacy ; Syllabus ; Vatican
Council

SURPLICE, see also Ornaments
Rubric, Vestments

SUSANNA, see Apocrypha, Old
Testament

SUSPENSION

SWEDENBORG AND SWEDEN-
BORGIANISM

SYLLABUS, see also Heresies ;
Papacy, and articles under
Roman Church

SYMMACHUS

SYNODALS

SYNODS, see also Convocation

SYRIAC CHURCH, see Eastern
Churches, Jacobite Church ;
Mariolatry in, see Mary the
Virgin, Ncstorian Church

SYRIAC LITERATURE, see
Nestorian Church

TABERNACLE, see also Orna
ments Rubric, Reservation

TABLE, THE HOLY, see Lord's
Table, Ornaments Rubric

TABORITES, see Hus

TANTUM ERGO

TAPERS, see also Lights, Rites
and Ceremonies

TATIAN, see Fathers of the
Church

TEACHING OF THE TWELVE
APOSTLES, the Didache", see
Apostolic Fathers

TE DEUM

TEN COMMANDMENTS, see
Ornaments Rubric

TENEBR^:

TERCE

TERTIARIES, see Franciscans

TERTULLIAN, on Confession
of sin, Exomologcsis ; Fathers
of the Church ; Lord's Supper,
account of, see Agape,
Montanism

TESTAMENT OF JOB, see
Apocrypha, Old Testament

TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE
PATRIARCHS, see Apocrypha,
Old Testament

THANKSGIVING SERVICES, see
Services, Occasional and State

THECLA, ACTS OF PAUL AND,

see Apocrypha, New Testament
THEODOSIUS, LECTOR, see

Fathers of the Church
THEODOTION
THEOPHILUS, see Fathers of

the Church
THEOTOKOS, see Conception,

Immaculate ; Mary the Virgin
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, see

A rticles, the Thirty - nine ;

Ordination
THOMAS, CHRISTIANS OF ST.,

see also Eastern Churches ;

Nestorian Church ; Missions,

Roman Catholic
THOMISTS AND SCOTISTS, see

also Moral Theology
THREE HOURS' SERVICE, see

also Adoration of the Cross,

Cross, Good Friday
THURIBLE, see also Censer,

Incense

TIARA

TINDALE, WILLIAM, see also
Lollards; Reformation, the
English ; Reformers, their in
fluence on the English Ver
sion

TITHES

TIPPET, see Scarf

TOBlT, BOOK OF, see Apoc
rypha, Old Testament

TOLERATION, see also Persecu
tions, Papal

TONSURE, see also Asceticism,
Monasticisni, Monk

TOPHET, see Hell

TORQUEMADA, THOMAS, See
Auto da Fe ; Dominicans ; In
quisition ; National Churches ;
Persecutions, Papal

TRACT NINETY, see Articles,
the Thirty-nine, History of

TRADITION, see also Bible;
Development; Faith, Rule of;
Pope Pius IV., creed of;
Scripture above the Church;
Trent, Council of

TRADITORES

TRADUCIANISM

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, see
Adoration of the Eucharist;
Agape; and articles under
Lord's Supper; Communion,
Spiritual; Concomitance; Con-
substantiation; Presence, Ob
jective and Subjective; Ridley's
Theology ; Spiritual Presence ;
Trent, Council of

TRAPPISTS

TRENT, COUNCIL OF, see also
Councils; Pope Pius IV.,
Creed of

TRIDUUM

TRIKERION, see Dikerion

TRINITARIANS

TRIPTYCH

TRULLAN COUNCIL, see
Councils

TUNICLE, see Ornaments
Rubric

TWELVE PATRIARCHS, TESTA
MENT OF, see Apocrypha

UMBRELLA, see also Baldac-
chino ; Exposition of Sacra
ment

UNCTION, EXTREME, see
Chrism ; Extreme Unction ;
Visitation of the Sick ; Viati
cum ; and articles under
Roman Church

UNIAT CHURCHES

UNIFORMITY, see Unity

UNIGENITUS, see also Articles
under Papacy ; Popes ; Roman
Church ; Quietism

UNION WITH ROME, see Re
union of Christendom

UNITY

UNITED COPTS, see Uniat
Churches

UNITED NESTORIANS, see
Uniat Churches

UNIVERSAL BISHOPRIC, see
also Infallibility ; Keys,
Power of; Privilege of
Peter ; Roman Primacy ;
Supremacy, Papal; Vatican
Council

URBI ET ORBI

URSULINES

USE, MONASTIC

UTRAQUISTS, see Hus

VACANCY

VATICAN, THE

VATICAN COUNCIL, see also
Infallibility ; Keys, Power of ;
Old Catholics; Privilege of
Peter ; Roman Primacy ;
Supremacy, Papal ; Universal
Bishopric

VAUDOIS, see Waldenses

VEIL

VENIAL SIN, see Deadly Sin,
Fall

VERONICA, see Stations of the
Cross

VESPERS

VESSELS, see Ornaments Rubric

VESTMENTS, see also Alb,
Amice, Black Gown, Dalmatic,
Cassock, Chasuble, Mantelletta,
Mitre, Omophorium, Orna
ments Rubric, Palla, Pallium,
Planeta, Poenula, Worship,
Public. Rochet, Stole, Surplice,
Tippet or Scarf, and under
Ornaments

VESTRY

VIATICUM, see also Extreme
Unction, Visitation of the
Sick

VICAR, APOSTOLIC

VICAR GENERAL, see Official
Principal

VlGILANTIUS

VIGILS

VIRGIN MARY, see under

GENERAL INDEX

807

Mary the Virgin, Mother of
God

VIRGINITY, Merits of state of,
see Asceticism, Evangelical
Counsels, Oood Works, Holi
ness, Monasticism, Nuns and
Nunneries, Vows

VISION BEATIFIC

VISITATION OP THE SICK, see
also Absolution; Absolution, \
Forms of; Confession, Auri- |
cular

Vows, see Asceticism, Evan
gelical Counsels, Good Works,
Monasticism, Monk, Nuns
and Nunneries, Sinless Per
fection, Supererogation

VULGATE, see also Douay
Version

WAFER, see also Bread,
Fcrmentum, Lord's Supper

WALDENSES, see also National
Churches ; Persecutions, Papal

WASHING, see Foot- Washiny

WKSLEY, JOHN, see also Re
vival, Evangelical

WESLEYAN METHODISM, see
also Non-Juring Leaven

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION,
see Communion of Saints,
Confessions and Creeds,
Scottish Churches

WHITSUNTIDE, see also Calen
dar, Pentecost

WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF
SlRACH, see Apocrypha, Old
Testament

WORSHIP, see Idolatry, Latria

WORSHIP, PUBLIC, see also
Common Prayer ; Dead Lan
guage, Divine Service in ;
Prayer-book

WYCLIF, JOHN, see English
Church ; Lollards ; Persecu
tions, Papal

XAVIER, FRANCIS, see Missions,
Roman Catholic

XAVIERIAN BROTHERS
XEROPHAGY

ZABULUS

ZINZENDORF, COUNT, see Mo
ravian Church
ZwiNGLl, see also Reformers

TEXTS NOT MERELY QUOTED, BUT
EXPLAINED

Genesis — PAGE
iii. 1-5 . . . 220
iii. 16 ... 677
xxxii. 26 . . 782
xlvii. 31 ... 283
xlviii. 16 . . . 782
Exodus —
xiii. 19 ... 588
xx. 4, 5 . . 280, 283
xxv. 17-22 . . 101
Leviticus —
v. 5, 6 . . . 131
xvi. 8 ... 170
Numbers —
v. 6, 7 . . . 131
xii. 14 ... 677
xx. 12 ... 678
De uteronomy —
v. 8, 9 . . .280
xvi. 10 ... 398
xxxiv. 6 . . .588
Joshua —
v. 14 ... 782
2 Samuel —
xii. 15 /. . . . 678
2 Kinys —
xiii. 21 ... 588
xviii. 4 ... 280
xxiii. 16-18 . . 588
Psalms —
Ii. 7 . . . .55
xcix. 5 ... 283
Isaiah —
xi. 10 ... 588
xiv. 12 ... 170
Zechariah —
i. 12 . . . .23

PAGE

Matthew (continued) —
xviii. 3 ... 142
xviii. 10 . . .22
xviii. 17, 18 88, 199, 748
xix. 28 . .65
xxvi. 26 . 79
Mark —

2 Corinthians —
ii. 6-10
Galatians —
i. 14 .
Ephesians —
v. 32 .
vi. 19 .

PAGE

. 89, 199
. 739

. 447
. 447

v. 28, 29 .
vi. 13
ix. 29
xiv. 22
xvi. 16
Luke —
vii. 29
viii. 43 8. .
xvi. 22
xvi. 23
xvii. 10
xxii. 19
xxii. 32
xxiii. 43
xxiv. 30
John —
ii. 4 .

. 589
. 454
. 48
. 79
. 300

. 619

. 589
. 259
. 259
. 241
. 79
. 141, 546
. 259
. 121

189

Philippians —
ii. 10 .
iii. 15
Colossians —
i. 24 .

. 82
. 675

678

i. 26, 27
ii. 18 .

. 447
280

2 Thessalonians —
ii. 3/.

. 386

ii. 7 .

681

ii. 15 .
iii. 6 .

. 217, 739
739

1 Timothy—
i. 20 .

214

2 Timothy—
i. 18 .
Titus—
iii. 5, 6
Hebrews —
i. 14 .

. 156
65, 141, 617
21

iii. 5, 6
vi. 51-58 .
xx. 23
xxi. 15-17 .
Acts —
ii. 42 .
ii. 46 .
iii. 19
v. 15, 16 .
xii. 15
xviii. 18
xix. 11, 12 .
xx. 7, 11 .
xxi. 23, 24
xxvi. 10
xxvii. 35 .
Romans —
iv. 11
viii. 30
xv. 16
xvi. 25 . .
1 Corinthians —
ii. 6 .
iii. 12-15 .
iv. 1 .
iv. 6 .

65, 66, 141
. 122
. 2, 88
. 546

. 103, 121
. 120
. 142
. 589
. 22
. 760
. 589
. 121
. 760
. 95
. 120, 250

. 67
. 617
. 404
. 447

. 675, 708
156, 556, 557
. 447
. 680

xi. 21
xiii. 10
James —
ii. 21, 24, 25
v. 14, 15 .
v. 16 .

. 283
. 16

. 618, 619
. 216, 759
131

1 Peter—
iii. 19

. 166

vii. 5 ff.
Malachi —
i. 11 .

221

284

782
557

66
557

707
221
589 |
260
557
447
546
748
48

2 Peter—
i. 20, 21 .
1 John —
ii. 16 .
ii. 18, 22 .
iii. 4 .

. 166

. 74

. 213
. 26

218

APOCRYPHA

Tobit—
xii. 12, 19
Maccabees —
xii. 43, 44 . . 156,

NEW TESTAMENT
Mattheiv —
iii. 11 ...
v. 25, 26 ...
v. 48 .
ix. 15 . . 48,
ix. 20-22 .
xi. 23 ...
xii. 32 . . 156,
xiii. 11 ...
xvi. 18 260, 298, 514,
xvi. 19 88, 347, 546,
xvii. 21 ...

iii. 6 .
iii. 9 .

. 675
707

iv. 1-3
v. 18 .
v. 16, 17 .
2 John—
1
Jude —
9
Revelation —
i. 18 .
i. 20 .
v. 8 .
vi. 9-11 .
viii. 3, 4 .
xii. 7 .
xxii. 11

. 26
. 675
. 753

. 26
. 402, 588

. 260
. 76

. 782
. 155, 259
. 782
. 402
. 616

v. 5 .
vi. 1-3
vi. 11
vii. 14
x. 16 .
x. 18 .
xi. 10
xi. 24
xi. 27
xi. 26-28 .

. 214
. 88
. 617
. 301
. 121, 122
. 16
. 22, 662
. 79
. 122
. 123

808

THE following list of Bishops and Pontiffs of Rome is based on the list compiled by the
well-known Jesuit writers, Philip Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, and printed in the work
entitled Sacrosancta Concilia. This list has been compared with the lists of Bishops and
Pontiffs compiled respectively by L'Abbe Migne, le Comte de Mas-Latrie, and the Very
Rev. Dr. Bruno, so as to secure, whenever possible, the combined testimony of these
authorities.

The reader will notice that the Papal Chair has been vacant forty times during periods
ranging from four months to three years and seven months. These forty occasions include
eleven vacancies ranging from nine months to a year, and nine vacancies ranging from
one year and five months to three years and seven months. The vacancies are well dis
tributed over the centuries, for the first occurred A.D. 250-251 (one year, five months),
and the latest, A.D. 1798-1800 (two years, one month). No vacancy of less than four
months' duration has been notified on this list. Again, it is xmcertain who occupied the
Papal Chair during the eleven years, A.D. 985-996. Seventy-five Pontiffs are reputed to
have been canonised by the Church of Rome, but the canonisation is questioned by some
one or more of the authorities mentioned in seventeen instances. This fact is indicated by
a query after the letter " S."

Thirty-three Antipopes have achieved either a temporary or a partial success in
establishing a rival claim to be " Vicar of Jesus Christ." The first acknowledged Antipope
is Novatian, c. A.D. 251, and the latest, Amadeus, Duke of Savoy (Felix V.), A.D. 1439-1449.
During the two years' Pontificate of Gregory VI. (1044-1046), three rivals, a deposed
Pontiff and two Antipopes, were pressing simultaneous claims to be Pontifex Maximus.

The dates and order of succession of the Emperors of Rome have been carefully revised.
Great care has been taken to secure accuracy in giving the historical events noted under
the various Pontificates. The leading authorities have been consulted in every case.

AUTHORITIES. — Labbe and Cossart, "Sacrosancta Concilia," Index Chronologicus, Paris,
1672, torn. xvi. pp. 130-135.

Migne, Dictionnaire des Papes, Paris, 1857, pp. 1401-1408. (See Series III., torn, xxxii.)

Mas-Latrie, Tre'sor de Chronologie d'Histoire et de Geographic, Paris, 1889, pp. 1149-1150.

Bruno, Catholic Belief, 20th Edition (Revised), London, 1902.

Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, 5th Edition, 1875.

Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, edited with notes by Prof. J. B. Bury,
7 vols., 1896-1900.

H. F. G.

809

TABLE OF ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS,
AND EMPERORS

CENTURY I.

4 BISHOPS.

1.— S. Peter, 42-67 (?)

First Imperial Persecution of Christians, under Nero, A.D. 64-68.
St. Peter was probably crucified at Rome, but his twenty-five years'
pontificate is not supported by modern investigation.

2.— S. Linus, 67-78.

Mentioned 2 Tim. iv. 21 — most probably "bishop" before the martyr
dom of SS. Paul and Peter, A.D. 67.
St. Paul beheaded, and St. Peter crucified, A.D. 67.
Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus, A.D. 70.

3. — S. Anacletus, 78-90.

Some authorities place him No. 5 in the list, and place here the name
Cletus.

4. — S. Clement I. (Clemens Romanus), 90-100.

This Bishop, one of the Apostolic P'athers ; wrote c. A.D. 96.

Second Imperial Persecution, under Domitian, A.D. 95.

N.B. — Historical research is opposed to the theory of a monarchical
episcopacy so early as the first century. Clement's letter to the
Corinthians was not written in his own name but in that of the
Church of Rome.

ROMAN EMPERORS.

Octavius as Augustus Caesar, B.C. 27-

A.D. 14.

Tiberius, A.D. 14-37.
Caligula, A.D. 37-41.
Claudius I., 41-54.
Claudius Nero, 54-68.
Servius Sulpicius Galba, 68-69.
Marcus Salvius Otho, 69.
Aulus Vitellius, 69.
Titus Flavins Vespasian us, 69-79.
Titus, 79-81.

Titus Flavius Domitianus, 81-96.

Cocceius Nerva, 96-98.

M. Ulpius Trajanus, 98-117.

CENTURY II.

10 BISHOPS.

5.— S. Evaristus, 100-109.

Third Imperial Persecution, under Trajan, A.D. 106.
Letters written by Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 108-110.

6.— S. Alexander I., 109-119.

7.— S. Sixtus I., called also Xystus, 119-127.

8.— S. Telesphorus, 127-139.

9.— S. Hyginus, 139-142.

Justin Martyr, first Christian Apologist ; wrote c. A.D. 140.

10.— S. Pius I., 142-157.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, Apostolic Father, martyred c. A.D. 154.
Hermas, Apostolic Father; wrote "The Shepherd," c. A.D. 140-150.
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis; wrote " Exposition of the Oracles of the

Lord," c. A.D. 140-150.
Marcion, the Gnostic heretic, who was at Rome, A.D. 140-1155, and

died about A.D. 170, was the first to put forth a canon of the New

Testament.

810

Adrianus or Hadrianus, 117-138.

Antoninus Titus (called Pius), 138-161.

(Antoninus Titus.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

811

CENTURY II. (continued}.

11. — S. Anicetus, 157-168.

Fourth Imperial Persecution, under Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 166-167.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, the Christian Apologist; wrote c. A.D.
160-170.

12.— S. Soter, 168-177.

Muratorian Fragment of the Canon, A.D. 160-170.

Tatian, the Assyrian, the first Harmonist of the Gospels ; wrote c. A.D.

170.
Athenagoras, Greek Philosopher and Christian Apologist; wrote c.

A.D. 177.

13. — S. Eleutherius, 177-193.

Hegesippus, " Father of Ecclesiastical History "; wrote c. A.D. 177.
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons ; wrote "Against Heresies," c. A.D. 180.

14,— S. Victor I., 193-202.

Fifth Imperial Persecution, under L. Septimius Severus, A.D. 199-204.
Tertullian, Presbyter at Carthage, N. Africa; wrote c. A.D. 197-204.

Died c. A.D. 230.
Clement of Alexandria ; wrote c. A.D. 190-202. Died c. A.D. 218.

ROMAN EMPERORS.

( Marcus Aurelius, 161-180.
( Lucius Verus (died 169).

Marcus Aurelius, alone.

L. Aurelius Antoninus Commodus, 180-
192.

| Helvius Pertinax, 193.

Didianus Julianus, 193.

Niger, 193 (in Syria).

L. Septimius Severus, 193-211 (in Pan-

nonia).
i Clodius Albinus (in Britain).

CENTURY III.

15 BISHOPS.
15. — S. Zephirinus or Zephyrinus, 202-Dec. 218.

16.— S. Callistus or Callixtus, Jan. 219-222.
17.— S. Urban L, 222-230.

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus ; wrote "Against all Heresies,"
A.D. 230. Dollinger maintains that Hippolytus. was a rival bishop
to Callistus.

18.— S. Pontianus, 230-235.

Minucius Felix, Roman lawyer and Christian Apologist, c. A.D. 230.

19. — S. Anterus, 235-236.
Sixth Imperial Persecution, under Verus Maximinus or Maxinus, c.

A.D. 235-238.

Origen, the great Christian Commentator; wrote c. A.D. 230-249.
Died c. A.D. 254.

20. — S. Fabianus, 236-Jan. 250.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage; wrote c. A.D. 248. Martyred c. A.D.

258.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Csesarea ; wrote c. A.D.

240-270.

See vacant from Jan. zip-June 251 = I year and 5 months.

21. — S. Cornelius, June 251-252.

First Antipope, Novatian, the supposed heretic.

Seventh Imperial Persecution, under Trajanus Decius, c. A.D. 250-252.

22. — S. Lucius I., 252-253.
23.— S. Stephen I., 253-257.

M. Aurelius Caracalla, 211.
Septimius Geta, 211.
M. Opilius Macrinus, 217-218.
Heliogabalus (M. Aurelius Antoninus),
218-222.

M. A. Alexander Severus, 222-235.

(Severus.)

C. J. Verus Maximinus, 235-237.

( M. Antonius Gordianus L, 237-238.
1 M. Antonius Gordianus II.
Balbinus, 238.
Maximus Pupienus, 238.
M. Antonius Gordianus, 238-244.
M. Julius Philippus I., 244-249.
C. Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius,
249-251.

Gallus Hostilius, 251.
Volusianus, 252.

^Emilianus, 253.

P. Licinius Valerianus, 253-260.
P. Licinius Valerianus Gallienus.

812

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

24.— S. Sixtus II., 257-Aug. 258.

See vacant from Aug. ztfi-July 259 = 11 months.

25. — S. Dionysius, July 259-269.

Eighth Imperial Persecution, under Valerianus, c. A.D. 258-260.

26.— S. Felix I., 269-Dec. 274.

Ninth Imperial Persecution, under Aurelianus, c. A.D. 274-275.

27. — S. Eutychian, Jan. 275-283.

28. — S Caius, 283-296.

Alban, the first British martyr, beheaded at Verulam, now St. Albans,
c. A.D. 286.

29.— S. Marcellinus, 296-Oct. 304.

Tenth Imperial Persecution, under Diocletianus, c. A.D. 303-305.
Intermittent persecution continued till A.D. 313.

Athanasius, born at Alexandria, A.D. 296. Died at Alexandria,
A.D. 373.

See vacant from Oct. 304-^/0^ 308 — j,years, 7 months.

CENTURY III. (continued}.

ROMAN EMPERORS.

(P. L. Valerianus.)

P. L. Valerianus Egnatius Gallienus,

260-268.
M. Aurelius Claudius II., 268-270.

M. A. Quintillus, 270.
Aurelianus, 270-275.

(Interregnum of 9 months).

M. Claudius Tacitus, Oct. 275-April

276.

M. A. Florianus, 276 (2 months).
M. Aurelius Probus, 276-282.
M. A. Carus, 282-283.

( M. A. Carinus, 283-284.
\ M. A. Numerianus.
( Valerius Diocletianus, 284
( M. A. V. Maximianus, 286

-3°5-

)' Constantius (Chlorus) L, 305-306.
( Galerius (V. Maximianus), 305-311.

CENTURY IV.

10 BISHOPS.

30.— S. Marcellus I., May 308- Jan. 310.

See vacant from fan. sio-May 310=4 months.

31.— S. Eusebius, May 310-Sept. 310.

See vacant from Sept. 3io-/«/y ,{3:11 = 10 months.

32.— S. Melchiades or Miltiades, July 311-314.

Favourable Edict granted to Christians by Constantinus I., and ter

mination of Imperial Persecution, A.D. 313.
Arius ordained Presbyter at Alexandria, A.D. 311.

33.— S. Silvester I. or Sylvester, 314-Dec. 335.

Received Roman Emperor Constantine as a Catechumen.

Eusebius, Bishop of Ceesarea in Palestine, the great Ecclesiastical

Historian ; wrote c. A.D. 315-339. Died in 339.
Athanasius, a deacon at Alexandria, 316. Consecrated Bishop of

Alexandria, 326. Deposed and exiled, 335.
Arius expelled from Alexandria for heresy, A.D. 321. Banished after

Nicaea by Constantine to Illyria, A.D. 325.
First General Council, at Nicaea, A.D. 325.

34.— S. Marcus, Jan. 336-Oct. 336.

Death of Arius in Alexandria, A.D. 336.

See vacant from Oct. ^6-Feb. 337 = 4 months.

/Constantinus (the Great) I., 306-337.
I M. A. V. Maxentius, 306-312.
< (Galerius), 305 311.
j Licinianus Licinius, 307-324.
\ G. V. Maximinus, 305-314.

(The same.

Constantinus I. alone, 324-337.

(Constantinus I.)

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

813

CENTURY IV. (continued}.

35.— S. Julius I., Feb. 337-352.
Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, quotes early form of Apostles' Creed,

Ulphiias translates Scriptures into Gothic, "Gothic Version," c. A.D.

343. Died 388.

Cyril, Bisliop of Jerusalem ; wrote c. A.D. 348-386.
Ephraem " the Syrian," deacon at Edessa ; wrote c. A.D. 350-373.
Athanasius reinstated, A.D. 338. Second exile, 342. Reinstated, 346.
Birth of Chrysostom at Antioch, A.D. 346.
First Council of Constantinople, A.D. 337.
Council of Sardica, A.D. 343.
Council of Sardis, A.D. 347.

36.— Liberius, 352-366.

While Liberius in exile, Felix II. was placed in the See by the
Emperor Constantine. Emperor wanted Liberius and Felix to
hold the See jointly; but the populace refused, crying out, " One
God, one Christ, one Bishop." Fdix = second Antipope.

Third exile of Athanasius, A.D. 351. Reinstated, 361. Fourth exile,
362.

Birth of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 353.

Council of Laodicea, A.D. 363'(?), passed a decree about New Testament
books, but the genuine portion of that decree does not contain a
catalogue of them.

The Synod was merely a local council, and was probably Arian.

37.— S. Damasus I., 366-Dec. 384.

The first Bishop of Rome to receive title Pontifex Maximus, conferred

on him by Valentinian I.

Ursicinus or Ursinus, the third Antipope, banished by the Emperor.
Fifth exile of Athanasius and final return to Alexandria, A.D. 367.
Basil, Bishop of Neo-Caesarea ; wrote c. A.D. 370-379.
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa ; wrote c. A.D. 372-395.
Rurinus, monk of Aquileia and translator of Origen ; wrote A.D. 375-

410.

Second General Council, or Second of Constantinople, A.D. 381.
Jerome or Hieronymus, great Commentator and Translator of Holy

Scriptures; wrote A.D. 379-420. Completed his Latin Version in

404.

38.— S. Siricius, Jan. 385-398.
Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, 374 ; Patriarch of Constantinople, 380 ;

wrote A.D. 374-390.
Roman Empire formally divided into Western and Eastern Empires

by Honorius and Arcadius on death of Theodosius I., A.D. 395.
Augustine consecrated Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 395.
John Chrysostom consecrated Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 397.
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 374-397 (reproved Theodosius I.).
Siricius was the first to use term "Papa" (7ra7r7ra = Pope) in a

public document as an official title.
The local Council of Hippo, A.D. 393, discussed the Canon of the

Holy Scriptures. The third local Council of Carthage, A.D. 397,

admitted the Apocryphal Books of Old Testament, and gave a

list of the New Testament.

39. — S. Anastasius, 398-402.

Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus ; wrote " On Heresies,"
A.D. 367-403.

ROMAN EMPERORS.

TConstantinus II., 337-340.
< Constantius II., 337-361.
(Constans, 337-350.

Flavius Claudius Julianus(the Apostate),

361-363.
Flavius Claudius Jovianus, 363-364.

West.
Valentinianus I. ,

364-375-

367-

f Gratianus,

383.
| Valentinianus

\ n -.375-392-

M. C. Maximus
(Gaul, Spain,
&c.), 383-388.

East.
Valens, 364-378.

Theodosius I. , 378-
395-

Theodosius I. alone, 392-Jan. 395.

Flavius Honorius,
395-423.

Arcadius (elder
son), 395-408.

CENTURY V.

12 PONTIFFS.

40. — S. Innocent I., 402-417.

Alaric, King of the Visigoths, twice invades Italy, viz., A.D. 402-403
and 408-410 ; captured and plundered the city of Rome, August
410. Died in 410.

Death of John Chrysostom at Comana, A.D. 407.

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria and opponent of Nestorius ; wrote A.D.
4I3-444-

(Honorius).

Theodosius II. 408-
45°-

814

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY V. (continued}.

41.— S. Zozimus or Zosimus. 417-418.

42.— S. Boniface I., 418-422.

Eulalius the Archdeacon, the fourth Antipope.

43.— S. Celestine, 422-432.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, Commentator and Historian

wrote c. A.D. 423-458.

Death of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 430.
Third General Council, at Ephesus, A.D. 431.
Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, taught what was held to be

heresy, A.D. 429-431.

44.— S. Sixtus III., 432-440.

Code of Theodosius II. = " Codex Theodosianus," published A.D. 438.
Sozomen of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical Historian; wrote c. A.D.

440.
Succat=Patricius or Patrick, begins to evangelise in Ireland, c. A.D.

432. Died about A.D. 493.

45.— S. Leo I. (the Great), 440-461.

Attila, King of the Huns, invades Eastern Empire, A.D. 445-450.
Theodosius II. compelled to make terms with him, A.D. 448.
Socrates (Scholastic™) of Constantinople, the Ecclesiastical Historian ;

wrote c. A.D. 445.
Attila invades Western Empire, A.D. 450-452. Defeated by Theo-

doric I., King of the Visigoths, at battle of Chalons, A.D. 451.

Died in 453.

Fourth General Council, at Chalcedon, A.D. 451.
Genseric, King of the Vandals, captured and plundered city of Rome,

A.D. 455. Died in 477.
Title " Pope " (-irdinra) now adopted for general designation of Bishop

of Rome.

46.— S. Hilary, 461-468.

47.— S. Simplicius, 468-483.

Odoacer, King of the Heruli, captured city of j Rome, overthrew
Western Empire, A.D. 476. Reigned as King of Italy, 476-40-3
Assassinated by Theodoric III. in 493.

Fall of West, A.D. 476.

Western Emperors end with Romulus Augustulus. Henceforth, till
A.D. 800, the Emperors (Eastern Emperors) reigned at Con
stantinople.

48.— S. Felix II. or Felix III.,j483-492.

49.— S. Gelasius, 492-496.

Theodoric III. (the Great), King of the Ostrogoths, defeats Odoacer
and supersedes him as King of Italy, A.D. 493.

CO.— S. Anastasius II., 496-498.

51.— S. (?) Symmachus, 498-514.

Laurentius the Archdeacon, the fifth Antipope.

ROMAN EMPERORS.
West. East.

( Honorius, 421.
•\ Constantius III.
( (6 months).

Valentinianus III.,
425-455-

(Valentinianus
III.).

Petronius Maximus

(2 or 3 months),

455-
M. Maccilius Avi-

tus, 455-457-
J. Valerius Majori-

anus, 457-461.

Libius Severus,

461-465.
Interregnum, 465- j

467. (Ricimer

holds the power. )
Anthemius, 467-

472.

Anicius Olybrius,

472 (3 months).
Glycerius, 473-474.
Julius Nepos, 474-

475-

Romulus (Augus
tulus), 475-476.

(Theodosius II.

(Theodosius II.)

Marcianus, 450-

457-

Leo I., 457-474-

(Leo I.)

Leo II., 474.

Zeno (the Isau-
rian), 474-491-

FALL OF THE WESTERN
EMPIRE.

KINGS OF ITALY.

Odoacer (first bar
barian King of
Italy), 476-493.

Theodoric III.
(King of Italy),
493-526.

Theodoric III.)

East.

Anastasius I., 491-
518.

(Anastasius I.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

815

CENTURY VI.

13 PONTIFFS.

B2. — S. Hormisdas, 514-523.

Columba of Donegal founds a mission in lona, c. A.D. 521. Died 597.

53.— S. John I., 523-526.

54.— S. (?) Felix III. or Felix IV., 626-530.

Justinian publishes "Justinianeus Codex, " = Code of Justinian, A.D. 529.
Publishes the " Digesta or Pandectje," Dec. 533; the " Institu-
tiones" and Revised Code = " Codex Repetitae Praslectionis,"
in 534; and a series of "Novelise Constitutiones," A.D. 535-565.
These all are now included under general title "Corpus Juris
Civilis" = Roman Law as now received in Europe.

Benedict of Nursia reorganises Monastic system in the West, and
compiles his Monastic Rule, A.D. 529-542.

55.— S. (?) Boniface II., 530-Nov. 532.

Dioscorus, sixth Antipope, in opposition to Boniface.

56. — John II., called also Mercurius, Jan. 533-535.

57.— S. (?) Agapetus I., 535-536.

58.— S. (?) Silverius, 536-Nov. 537.

Charged with treasonable correspondence with Goths ; banished to
island of Condateria, and died Jan. 538.

59.— Vigilius, Nov. 537-555.

Fifth General Council, or Third of Constantinople, A.D. 553.

60.— S. (?) Pelagius I., 555-March 560.

Dionysius (Exiguus), a Scythian and monk in Rome fixed Birth of
Christ (A.D.) as starting-point for Christian chronology, c. A.D.

555-

Chair vacant from March to July 560=4 months.

61.— S. (?) John III., called also Cattalinus, July 560- July 573.

Conquest of Italy by Alboin, King of the Lombards ; Alboin becomes
King of Italy, A.D. 568. Birth of Mohammed, A.D. 570.
Chair vacant from July yj^-June 574=11 months.

62.— S. (?) Benedict I., called also Bonosius, June 574-July 578.

Chair vacant from July to Nov. 578=4 months.

63.— Pelagius II., Nov. 578-590.
64.— S. Gregory I. (the Great), 590-604.
Revised Liturgy ; sent Augustine to Anglo-Saxons in England.
Augustine and forty Monks begin a mission to the Anglo-Saxons,

c. A.D. 596.

Title "Pope" (iraTnra) now reserved exclusively for the Bishop of
Rome.

ROMAN EMPERORS.

KINGS OF ITALY.

East.
Justin I., 518-527.

Athalaric (King of i Justimanusl., 527-
Italy), 526-534. i 565- (Married
His mother, Am- : Theodora. )
alasontha, was j
the Queen Re- \
gent.

Theodatus, 534-
536.

Vitiges, 536-540.

Theodibald (Hil-

dibald),540-54i.

Totila or Badiula,

54I-SS2.
Theias, 552.
Italy subject to

Eastern Empire,

552-568.

LOMBARD
DYNASTY.

Alboin, 568-573.
Cleoph (Clepho).
573-575-

(Justinianus I.)

Autharis, 575-591.

Agilulph, 591-615.

Justin II., 565-578.

Tiberius II., 578-

582.
Maurice (Cappado-

cian), 582-602.

Phocas (Usurper),
602-610.

CENTURY VII.

20 PONTIFFS.

65. — Sabinianus, 604-Feb. 606.

Columbanus, follower of Columba, preaches in Germany, A.D.
600-615.

Chair vacant Feb. 6o6-Feb. 607 = 12 months.

KINGS OF
ITALY.

(Agilulph.)

EMPERORS.

East.
(Phocas.)

816

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY VII. (continued}.

66.— Boniface III., Feb. 607-Nov. 607.

Persuaded Emperor Phocas to proclaim him Universal Patriarch,
A.D. 607.

Chair vacant from Nov. 607- Aug. 608 = 9 months.

67.— Boniface IV., Aug. 608-May 615.

Instituted All Saints' Day.

Obtained the Pantheon from Emperor Phocas for Christian worship.
Mohammed declared himself a Prophet of God at Mecca, A.D. 609.
Chair vacant from May to Nov. 615 = 6 months.

68.— S. (?) Deusdedit, Nov. 615-Dec. 618.

Chair vacant from Dec. 6iB-Dec. 619=12 months.

69.— Boniface V., Dec. 619-625.

The Persians under King Chosroes invaded the Eastern Empire, A.D.

620-627.

70.— Honorius I., 625-Oct. 638.

Said to have confessed to being a Monothelite ; censured for heresy by

his successors.
The Saracens, under the Caliph Omar I., captured Jerusalem and

erected the Mosque of Omar, A.D. 637.

Chair vacant from Oct. 6^-May 640=1 year, 7 months.

71. — Severinus, May 640-Aug. 640.

Chair vacant Aug. 6$o-Dec. 640=4 mont/is.

72.— John IV., Dec. 640-642.
73.— Theodore, 642-649.

74.— S. Martin I., 649-Sept. 654.

Suspected of heresy, imprisoned, and died in exile, Sept. 655.

75.— Eugenius I., Sept. 654-657.

Elected while Martin, his predecessor, was still living.

76.— Vitalianus, 657-672.

Said to have favoured education in England.

77. — Adeodatus, 672- June 676.

Chair vacant from June-Nov. 676 = 5 months.

78.— Donus I. or Domnus, Nov. 676-678.

79. — S. Agatho or Agathon, 678-Jan. 682.

Sixth General Council, or Fourth of Constantinople, Nov. 68o-Sept.

681.
Beda (The Venerable Bede), of Jarrow-on-Tyne, wrote A.D. 673-735.

Chair vacant Jan.- Aug. 682 = 7 months.

80.— S. Leo II., Aug. 682-July 683.

Chair vacant July 68$-June 684 = 11 months.

81.— S. (?) Benedict II., June 684-685.
82.— John V., 685-686.

83. — Cono, 686-687.

A schism. Peter and Theodore were elected for a time as the
seventh and eighth Antipopes.

84.— S. (?) Sergius I., 687-701.

A schism. Theodore and Paschal, the eighth and ninth Antipopes,
were elected for a time.

KINGS OF
ITALY.

Adaloald,
625.

6,5-

Arioald, 625-636.

Rotharis,
652.

636-

Rodoald, 652-653.
Aribert I., 653-661.

Bertharit, 661-

662.
Godebert.

Grimoald, 662-671.

Bertharit (rein
stated), 671-686.

(Bertharit.)

Cunibert, 686-700.

Luitpert, 700-701.

EMPERORS.

East.

Heraclius,
641.

610-

Constantinelfl. (?)
(Heracleonas),
641.

Constans II., 641-
668.

Constantine III. or
IV. (?) (Pogon-
atus), 668-685.

(Constantine IV.)

Justinianus II. (de
posed), 685-695.

Leontius, 695-698.

Tiberius III. (As-

pimar), 698 705.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

817

CENTURY VIII.

13 PONTIFFS.

85.— John VI., 701-705.

86.— John VII. , 705-Oct. 707.

87. — Sisinnius, Jan. 708-Feb. 708.

Occupied the Chair during only twenty days.

88.— Constantine, Feb. 708-715.

89.— S. Gregory II., 715-731.

Commencement of the great Iconoclastic Controversy, A.D. 726.
Boniface (Winfried) despatched as missionary to the Germans, A D.
718.

90.— Gregory III., 731-741.

First Pontiff to send Nuncios to foreign Powers.

91. — S. (?) Zacharias, 741-752.

A Greek. Said by some authorities to have set up Pepin to be King
of the Franks.

92.— Stephen II., 752-757.

Some authorities maintain that this Pontiff died before his consecra
tion, and that he was succeeded at once by Stephen III.

Said to have confirmed Pepin as King of the Franks.

Rise of Temporal Power of Papacy.

Pepin, King of Franks, and father of Charlemagne, compels Astolphus,
the Lombard, and King of Italy, to cede Ravenna and other
towns, and Pepin transfers them to Papal See, A.D. 754-755.

93.— Stephen III. (?), 757- June 767.

L'Abbe" Migne places here St. Paul I. ; but Labbe" and Cossart, and
also Mas-Latrie, support the order adopted in this Table.
Chair vacant during at least six months.

94.— S. (?) Paul I. or Stephen III. (?), 768-772.

94 or 95 (?).— Stephen III. (?) or Stephen IV. (?), 768-772.

Constantine, tenth Antipope, elected to the Chair for a time.

95.— Adrian I. or Hadrian I., 772-795.

Said to have baptized Pepin, son of Charlemagne, in 781.

Seventh General Council, or Second of Niceea, 787, sanctioned use of

images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and of saints in churches, and

sanctioned also a restricted worship of them.
Charlemagne confirms and adds to Pepin's bequest to Papacy, A.D.

774, when he invaded Italy and overcame the Lombard dynasty

and deposed Desiderius.
The submission of the Lombards was completed by homage rendered

by Arigise, Duke of Benevento, A.D. 786.

Alcuin Albinus (Flaccus), famous scholar and preceptor of Charle
magne, appointed to the court of the Emperor, A.D. 782. Founded

Theological School at Tours, A.D. 790.

96.— S. (?) Leo III., 795-816.

Consecrated Charles the Great (Charlemagne) to be Emperor of the
West, A.D. 800, and thus restored Roman Empire after a lapse of
300 years. He received the title " Emperor of the Romans."

KINGS OF
ITALY.

Ragimbert, 701.
Aribert II., 701-
712.

Ansprand, 712.
Luitprand, 712-
744-

Hildebrand, 744.
Rachis (Duke of
Fruili), 744-749.
Astolphus , 749-756.

Desiderius (Didier)

756-774.

Last of the Lom
bards, conquered
by Charlemagne ,
774, who then
reigned as King
of Franks and
Lombards.

EMPERORS.

East.

Justinianus II. (re
instated), 705-
711.

Philippicus - Bar-

danes, 711-713.
AnastasiusII. ,713-

716.
Theodosius III.,

716-718.
Leo I II. (thelsaur-

ian),

Constantine IV. or
V. (?) (Coprony-
mus), 741-775-

CARLOVINGIAN DYNASTY.

Pepin or Carlo-
man (son of
Charlemagne),
781-812, King
of Italy.

Leo IV. , 775-780.
Constantine V. or

VI. (?), 780-790

(and mother,

Irene).
Constantine VI.

(alone), 790-792.
Irene (deposes her

son), 792-802.

In 800, Charle
magne was
crowned by Pope
Leo III. Em
peror of Rome
and King of
Germany. Thus
the title left the
Eastern line, and
the Western line
was re-estab
lished.

Charles I. (the
Great), 800-814.

3 F

818

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY IX.

19 PONTIFFS.

97. —Stephen IV. (?), June 816-Jan. 817.

Occupied Chair during only seven months.

This Pontiff is placed here by L'Abbe" Migne, Labb6 and Cossart,
and by Mas-Latrie.

98.— S. (?) Paschal I., Jan. 817-824.

99.— Eugenius II., 824-827.

Zinzimus or Zozimus, by some authorities called an Antipope, stirred
up a schism.

100. — Valentine, 827.

Occupied Chair during only a few months.

101.— Gregory IV., 827-844.

Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, and Claudius, Archbishop of Turin,
each protest against the growing custom of image worship and
adoration of Saints. Claudius denies that any Bishop has a right
to be called " Dominus Apostolicus," c. A.D. 840.

"Donation of Constantino," a Pseudo-Isidorian Decretal, issued by
this Pontiff, c. A.D. 837.

102.— Sergius II., 844-847.

John, the Deacon, roused disturbances against Zozimus.

103.— Leo IV., 847-855.

The story about Johanna Papissa, notorious as "Pope Joan," has
been refuted by Dr. von Dollinger and many others. No reliable
authority credits it.

Johannes Scotus Erigena, great thinker and theological writer, and pre
cursor of the Schoolmen, wrote and taught in Ireland c. A.D. -849.

Use of " holy water " ordered by the Pope, A.D. 847.

104. —Benedict III., 855-858.

Anastasius elected for a time as eleventh Antipope.

105.— S. (?) Nicholas I., 858-867.

Called by some " the Great." A strong Pontiff.

The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were introduced as ancient testimony.
These Decretals have been proved to be forgeries.

106.— Hadrian II, 867-872.

Eighth General Council, or Fifth of Constantinople, Oct. 8<
Feb. 870.

107.— John VIII., 872-882.

KINGS OF

TALY, AND OF

FRANCE.

Bernard, 812-820.

,othaire I., or
Lother (son of
Louis I.), 820-
855. (King of
Italy, and also
Emperor of
Rome or the
West).

Louis II., King of
Italy, 844-875,
see column of
Emperors.

Charles II. (the
Bald], of France,
often termed
Charles I., 843-
877, afterwards
Emperor.

Carloman III.
877-879, — some
times styled Car
loman II. — (a
Carlovingian) ;
King of France
882.

Charles III. (tfu
Fat), Emperor
881-887 ; King
of France, 884-
887 (a Carlovin
gian).

EMPERORS.

East.

I. (le Dtton-
naire), 814-840,
son of Charle
magne.

Lothaire I., 840-
855, crowned as
Emperor, 840.

Louis II. (son of
Lothaire), 855-
875 (King of
Italy and Em
peror of West).

Charles II. (the
Bald, died 877),
875-877 (King of
France).

Carloman III. ,
877-879 (?).

Charles III. (the
Fat), 881-887.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

819

CENTURY IX. (continued}.

108. — Marinus I. or Martin II., 882-884.

109.— Hadrian III., 884-885.

Occupied Chair during only a few months.

110.— Stephen V., 885-891.

On death of Charles (the Fat) in 887, the title " Emperor of the
Romans " fell into abeyance till 962, when Pope John XII. crowned
Otho I. Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

111.— Formosus, 891-April 896.

Sergius, by some authorities called an Antipope, and Boniface VI. ,
the only Boniface VI. mentioned in the list of Pontiffs, create
disturbances.

Dr. Bruno includes both Sergius and Boniface VI. in his list ; but
neither of them were properly elected to the Chair.

Chair vacant April to Aug. 896=4 months.

112.— Stephen VI., Aug. 896-897.
Occupied Chair during only a few months.

113. — Romanus, 897.

L' Abbs' Migne places Romanus in the list of Pontiffs as No. 113. Mas-
Latrie places him in the list, but dates him 897-898. So also
Bryce and Dr. Bruno. Labbe" and Cossart class him as an
Antipope. Reigned only a few months.

114.— Theodore, 898.

Occupied Chair during only twenty-two days.

115.— John IX., 898-900.

CENTURY X.

24 or 25 PONTIFFS.

116.— Benedict IV., 900-903.

Considered a great Pontiff.

117.— Leo V., 903.

Occupied the Chair during only forty days ; expelled, and died in
prison.

Dr. Bruno here inserts Christopher as an Antipope, and places Sergius
II. or III. next in succession. But the order observed here is
sanctioned by Migne, Labb6 and Cossart, Mas-Latrie, &c.

118. — Christopher, 903-904.

119.— Sergius II. or III., 904-911.

120.— Anastasius III., 911-913.

121. — Lando or Landonius, 913-914.

ccupied Chair during only a few months.

KINGS OF

ITALY, AND OF

FRANCE.

Berengarl. (alone),
887-889 (King of
Italy) ; Emperor
in 915.

Berengar and

Guido, 889-894
(in Italy).

Berengarand Lam
bert, 894-898 (in
Italy).

Guido, 891-894
(King of Italy.

Lambert, 894-896
(King of Italy
and Emperor).

EMPERORS.

East.

The reigning Em
peror from 887-
894 is uncertain.

Lambert, 894-896.

Arnulf or Arnoul
(Emperor, 896-
899).

Louis III. (the
Blind], King of
Italy, 899-905.
Died 928. The
Carlovingian
dynasty ended
when Hugh (or
Hugues) Capet,
son of Hugh the
Great, founder
of the Capetian
dynasty, was pro
claimed King
of France, 987.
Died, 996.

Louis III. (the
Blind], 900-905.

Louis IV. (the
Child], son of
Arnulf (claim to
title very doubt
ful), died 911.

Last of the Carlo
vingian dynasty
in Germany.

SAXON
DYNASTY.

Otho (Duke of
Saxony) refused
the title of Em
peror on account
of age ; but re
commended the
election of Con
rad I. (Duke
of Franconia),
Emperor of Ger
many, 911-918
(Roman title dis
puted).

820

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY X. (continued).

122.— John X., 914-928.

Said to have been elected chiefly through influence of the Empress
Theodora. This Pontiff placed himself at head of an army to
resist Saracen invaders.

123.— Leo VI., 928-929.
124.— Stephen VII., 929-931.

125.— John XL, 931-936.

Said to have been son of Marozin and grandson of Theodora. This
Pontiff was imprisoned within Castle of St. Angelo, where he died.

126.— Leo VII., 936-939.
127.— Stephen VIII., 939-942.
128.— Marinus II. or Martin III., 942-946.

This is the order adopted by L'Abbe Migne, Mas-Latrie, Labbe and
Cossart, &c.

129.— Agapetus II., 946-955.

130.— John XII., Jan. 956-964.

Deposed for his crimes, manner of death uncertain.

In 963, Leo VIII. was elected as twelfth Antipope through the in
fluence of the Emperor Otho. This Antipope has been called
" An honour to the Chair." This is the only Leo VIII. mentioned
in list of Pontiffs.

In 961, Otho the Great of Germany, and Emperor of West, deposed
Berengar II. of Italy, and added Italy to the German Empire.

John XII. crowned Otho I. in 962 as Emperor of Holy Roman
Empire.

Foundation of Holy Roman Empire. This title really a revival of the
older title, " Emperor of the Romans," conferred on Charlemagne
by Pope Leo III., A.D. 800.

131.— Benedict V., 964-965.

132.— John XIII., 965-972.

Elected by the authority of the Emperor, and contrary to the will of the
people.

133.— Benedict VI., 972-974.

Said to have been murdered.

134. — Donus or Domnus II., 974.

Occupied Chair during only three months.

This is the order adopted by Migne, Mas-Latrie, Dr. Bruno, &c. Labb6

and Cossart place Donus II. before Benedict VI.
About 974, Boniface VII. occupied Chair as Antipope during thirteen

months. He was the thirteenth Antipope, and the only Boniface

VII. mentioned in the list of Pontiffs.

135.— Benedict VII., 975- July 983.

Chair vacant from July- Nov. 983=4 months.

136.— John XIV., Nov. 983-Aug. 984.

Occupied Chair during only nine months. Said to have been murdered

KINGS OF

TALY, AND OF

FRANCE.

Succession of
Kings of Italy
and of France
up to 987 is
difficult to trace.

EMPERORS.

Berengar of Italy,

915-924.
Henry I. (the

Fowler] ,

Ison of Otho,
Duke of
Saxony ; King
of Germany,
918-936
(Imperial title
disputed).

Otho I. (the Great
son of Henry I.)
Emperor of
Germany,

936-973 I

crowned

Emperor of

West by Pope

John XII.,

A.D. 962.

Berengar II. and
Adalbert, 950-
961 (in Italy) ;
deposed 961 by
Emperor Otho
the Great.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

(Otho I.) crowned by John XII., A.D.
962.

Otho II. (the Bloody), 973-983.

Otho III. (the Red), 983-1002.
Crescentius was Regent during Otho's
minority,

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

821

CENTURY X. (continued).

137.— John XV., Aug. 984-985.

Died unconsecrated, and within four months from his doubtful election.

Authorities are much divided as to what Pontiff occupied the Chair
during the eleven years 985-996. L'Abbe' Migne inserts here the
Antipope, John XVI. Dr. Bruno inserts a Pontiff whom he calls
John XV. or XVI. Labbe" and Cossart evade the difficulty by
making it seem as though John XV. had held office during
984-996, viz. during twelve years, instead of four months. It is
almost impossible to solve the problem here presented.

Accession of Hugh Capet to the throne of France, A.D. 987, by which
the Carlovingian dynasty came to an end.

138.— Gregory V., 996-999.

For a short time John XVI. was set up as the fourteenth Antipope
by the party led by Crescentius. Gregory is said to have been
poisoned.

L'Abbe" Migne places John XVI. in his list as 138111 Pontiff, and
Gregory V. as isgth Pontiff. At present there is no reliable record
who was isgth Pontiff. No other Tohn XVI. is mentioned as a
Pontiff.

139. — Uncertain. Authorities much divided.
See Nos. 137, 138.

140.— Silvester II., 999-1003.

Gave to Stephen, ruler of Hungary, the title of King.
First Frenchman to occupy the Chair.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

Henry II. (the Holy and the Lame),
1002 -1024.

CENTURY XI.

18 PONTIFFS.

141.— John XVII., June-Oct. 1003.

Occupied Chair during only four months.

Dr. Bruno calls the Antipope John XVI., mentioned above, by the

title John XVII., and calls this Pontiff John XVIII.
Migne and Labb£ and Cossart call this Pontiff John XVII.

142.— John XVIII., 1003-1009.

He was the nominee of Crescentius, and is said to have resigned and
to have retired to a monastery.

143.— Sergius IV., 1009-1012.

First Pontiff to change his name on his election to the Chair of St.

Peter.

144.— Benedict VIII., 1012-1024.

Supported by the Emperor against Gregory the Antipope.
Gregory, fifteenth Antipope, was deposed by the Emperor.

145.— John XIX., 1024-1033.

Said to have passed through, in one day, all the ecclesiastical degrees
necessary to qualify him for the Pontificate.

146. — Benedict IX., 1033-1044.

Elected Pontiff at twelve years of age. At length expelled for his vices,
and deposed in 1044.

In 1043 Silvester III. was elected as sixteenth Antipope, and soon
afterwards John XX. as seventeenth Antipope. Thus about this
period there were four men living who claimed to be the Supreme
Pontiff. This is the only John XX. mentioned in the list of
Pontiffs.

147.— Gregory VI., May 1044-1046.

Benedict IX., Gregory VI., Silvester III., John XX., all were claim
ing to be Pontiffs. Gregory is said to have been deposed by a
Council summoned by the Emperor Henry III., A.D. 1046.

HOUSE OF FRANCONIA.

Conrad II. (the Salique), 1024-1039.

Henry III. (the Black), 1039-1056.

822

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY XI. (continued).

148.— Clement II., Dec. 1046-1047.

Occupied Chair during only nine months.

Some authorities assert that Benedict IX. was again elected and again
deposed.

149.— Damasus II., 1048.

Occupied Chair during only twenty-three days.

Chair vacant during several months.

150.— S. Leo IX., 1049-April 1054.

A reformer.

Chair vacant during at least 8 months : some authorities
assert for a year.

151.— Victor II., 1054-1057.
152.— Stephen IX., 1057-1058.

153.— Nicholas II., 1058-1061.

Ordered that for the future the Pontiffs should be elected by the Cardi
nals in Conclave.

John Mincius, called Benedict X. , the eighteenth Antipope, was expelled
after a brief term of power.

154.— Alexander II., 1061-1073.

Cadalous held office for a time as Honorius II. He was the nine
teenth Antipope.

155.— S. Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), 1073-May 1085.

Vigorous reformer. Opposed Henry IV. of Germany, about Investiture,
excommunicated him, but reinstated him A.D. 1077. This Pontiff
died in exile A.D. 1085 at Salerno.

About the year 1080, Guilbert of Ravenna, the twentieth Antipope, held
office for a time as Clement III. He died in noo.
Chair vacant for about a year.

156.— Victor III., 1086-Sept. 1087.

Chair vacant Sept. lofty-March 1088 = 6 months.

157.— Urban II., March 1088-1099.

Preaching of Peter the Hermit, and commencement of the First
Crusade, A.D. 1094-1096. Jerusalem captured by Saracens, 1099.

This Pontiff placed Philip I. of France under the ban, A.D. 1094.

Council of Placentia (adjourned to Clermont in France) proclaimed
First Crusade, A.D. 1095.

158.— Paschal II., 1099-1118.

Albert, the twenty-first Antipope, and Sylvester, the twenty-second

Antipope, held office for a short time.
Bernard , Abbot of Clairvaux, great preacher and hymn writer, flourished

c. A.D. 1115.
Order of Knights of St. John of Jerusalem made a Religious Order

by Gerard (first Master) about 1099, and sanctioned by this Pontiff,

A.D. 1118.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

Henry IV. , 1056-1077.

Rudolf of Suabia (rival nominated by
the Pope), 1077-1082.

Hermann of Luxemburg (rival nomi
nated by the Pope), 1082-1087.

Conrad of Franconia, 1087-1106.

Henry V., 1106-1125.

CENTURY XII.

16 PONTIFFS.

159.— Gelasius II., 1118-1119.

Retired to the monastery of Clugny, in France. Mauricius Burdinus ,
Archbishop of Bracara, held office as the twenty-third Antipope.
He assumed the title Gregory VIII.

Order of the Knights Templars founded by Hugh de Paganis, A.D.
1113.

160.— Callistus or Callixtus II., 1119-1124.

Besieged and deposed Burdinus the Antipope, who died in prison.
Callistus settled in his own favour the dispute about Investiture.
Ninth General, or First Lateran Council, A.D. 1123.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

823

CENTURY XII. (continued).

161.— Honorius II., 1124-1130.

Theobald, the twenty-fourth Antipope, who held office as Callistus III. ,
was crushed by Honorius.J

162.— Innocent II., 1130-1143.

About A.D. 1130, Peter Leo, twenty-fifth Antipope, held office for a time
as Anacletus II. ; then Gregory, twenty-sixth Antipope, was in
power for a time as Victor III. or IV.

Tenth General, or Second Lateran Council, A.D. 1139.

163.— Celestine II., Sept. 1143-March 1144.

Occupied Chair about six months.

164.— Lucius II., March 1144-Feb. 1145.

Occupied Chair during eleven months.

165.— Eugenius III., 1145-1153.

Second Crusade preached by Bernard of Clairvaux, 1147.
Decretals or Canons edited by Gratian, a Benedictine, issued A.D.
1150.

166.— Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

167.— Hadrian IV., 1154-1159.

This Pontiff, Nicholas Breakspeare, was the only Englishman as yet
elected to the Pontificate. He was a native of Abbot's Langley,
near St. Albans.

This Pontiff arranged to give Ireland to Henry II. of England in return
for " Peter's Pence," A.D. 1155.

168.— Alexander III., 1159-1181.

Canonised Thomas a Becket.

Three Antipopes nominated in quick succession.

Octavian , called Victor IV. =; twenty-seventh Antipope, A.D. 1159.

Guido Cremensis, called Paschal I II. = twenty-eighth Antipope, A.D.

1164.
Peter, the Lombard, Bishop of Paris, one of the Schoolmen, taught c.

A.D. 1164.

John the Abbot, called CallistusIII. =twenty-ninth Antipope, A.D. 1168.
Eleventh General, or Third Lateran Council, A.D. 1179.

169.— Lucius III., 1181-1185.

170. —Urban III.— 1185-1187.

Jerusalem captured by Saladin, A.D. 1187.

171.— Gregory VIII. -Oct. 1187-Dec. 1187.

Occupied Chair during only two months.

172.— Clement III., 1187-1191.

Third Crusade, led by Emperor Frederick I. (Barbarossa), and joined
by Richard I. of England and Philip II. of France, A.D 1189-1190.

173.— Celestine III., 1191-1198.

Fourth Crusade , led by Emperor Henry VI. and proclaimed by this
Pontiff, A.D. 1196-1197. (This Crusade is not counted by some
authorities. )

174.— Innocent III., 1198-1216.

Excommunicated John of England, and placed the country under an

Interdict.
Twelfth General , or Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215 (Transubstan-

tiation proclaimed).

Promoted Crusade against the Albigenses, A.D. 1208-1218.
Mendicant Orders of St. Dominic and St. Francis founded.
Zenith of Papal power lasted during period A.D. 1198-1303 (about).
Fifth Crusade, proclaimed by this Pontiff, and led by Simon de

Monfort, Baldwin of Flanders, &c. , A.D. 1202. Crusaders capture

Constantinople in 1263.
Sixth Crusade proclaimed by this Pontiff, A.D. 1216, but did not start

till 1217.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.

Lothaire II. (the Saxon), 1125-1138.

HOUSE OF HOHENSTAUFEN,

OR OF SUABIA.
Conrad III. (Duke of Franconia), 1138-

1152 (not crowned in Rome).

Frederick I. (Barbarossa), 1152-1190.

(The same.)

Henry VI. (Asper or Sharp), 1190-
1197.

Interregnum, and contest between
Philip of Suabia and Otho IV. of
Brunswick for the throne, 1197-1198.

Philip (brother to Henry VI.), 1198-
1208 (not crowned in Rome).

Otho IV. (the Superb), 1208-1215 (de
posed) ; died 1218.

Frederick II. (son of Henry VI. and
King of Sicily), 1215-1246 (deposed) ;
died 1250.

824

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY XIII.

17 PONTIFFS.

175.— Honorius III., 1216-1227.

Sixth Crusade led by King Andrew of Hungary, A. D. 1217.

176.— Gregory IX., 1227-1241.

Twice placed the Emperor Frederick II. under the ban. Thrice ex-
Decretals " collected A.D.

communicated him.
Collected the Decretals. More forged

1227.
Seventh Crusade, quarrel between this Pontiff and Emperor Frederick

II., A.D. 1227-1229. Emperor made a treaty with the Sultan in

1229.
Holy Office or Inquisition founded c. A.D. 1229.

177.— Celestine IV., 1241.

Died before his consecration, and eighteen days after his election to
the Chair.

Chair vacant Nov. iz^i-June 1243 = 1 year, 7 months.

178.— Innocent IV., June 1243-1254.

Excommunicated Conrad, son of Frederick II., and heir to throne of

Germany.
Thirteenth General, or First Council of Lyons, A.D. 1245 (decreed

eighth Crusade).

Alexander Hales, one of the Schoolmen, taught in Paris c. A.D. 1245.
Conradin, son of Conrad IV., invaded Italy, but was defeated at

Togliacozza, August 1268, and beheaded at Naples, Oct. 1268.
A Crusade led by Louis IX. (St. Louis) of France, 1248-1250. Ten

years' truce in 1250.

179.— Alexander IV., 1254-1261.

Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, one of the Schoolmen, scholar, critic,

and theologian, taught in Paris, Rome, Bologna, Pisa, Naples,

A.D. 1257-1274.
John di Fidenza (Bonaventura), General of the Franciscan Order, and

one of the Schoolmen, famous scholar and theologian, taught in

Paris c. A.D. 1256-1274.
School of the Sorbonne in Paris (founded by Robert de Sorbonne,

or Sorbon) authorised, A.D. 1255; sanctioned by Pope Alexander

IV., A.D. 1259.

180.— Urban IV., 1261-Oct. 1264.

Instituted Feast of Corpus Christi.

Chair vacant from Oct. 1264- Feb. 1265=4 months.

181.— Clement IV., Feb. 1265-Nov. 1268.

Duns Scotus of Oxford, a Franciscan and a Schoolman, taught in

Paris, 1265-1308.
Ninth and Final Crusade, led by St. Louis of France, joined by

Prince Edward (Edward I.) of England, A.D. 1270-1271. Death of

Louis IX., A.D. 1270. Acre captured from the Crusaders in a

renewed struggle, A.D. 1291.
Roger Bacon, a Franciscan and a Schoolman, a great metaphysician,

wrote in Paris and Oxford, 1266-1308.

Chair vacant from Nov. I268-6V//. 1271 — 2 years, 9 months.

182.— Gregory X., Sept. 1271-1276.

Rudolph, Count of Hapsburg, was created Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire, A.D. 1273, and his descendants held the dignity
till its dissolution, A.D. 1806.

Fourteenth General, or Second Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274 (Mendi
cant Friars recognised).

Holy Office formed into a powerful and widespread organisation c.
A.D. 1273.

183.— Innocent V., Feb. -June 1276.

Occupied Chair during only four months.

184. — Hadrian or Adrian V., July- August 1276.

Occupied Chair during only thirty-nine days.

Some authorities assert that after Hadrian V., Vicedominus was elected
Pontiff, but died the day after his election.

HOUSE OF HOHENSTAUFEN,

OR OF SUABIA.
(Frederick II.)

Henry, Landgrave of Thuringia, elected

by the people, A.D. 1246. Reigned

till 1247.
William, Earl of Holland, a rival, given

Imperial title by the Pope, A.D. 1247.

Reigned till 1250.
Conrad IV. (son of Frederick II.), 1250-

1256 (not crowned at Rome).
House of Suabia ends with beheading

of Conradin, A.D. 1268.

Interregnum, A.D. 1256.

Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and Alfonso,
King of Castile (two rival claimants),
merely nominated to the throne. Not
crowned in Rome.

End of the Suabian dynasty, A.D. 1268.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Rudolph (Count of Hapsburg), 1273-
1291.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

825

CENTURY XIII. (continued}.

185.— John XXL, Sept. 1276-May 1277.

So also Labbe" and Cossart, and also Mas-Latrie, who denies that
there was a Pontiff John XX. ; but Migne calls this Pontiff
John XX.

Occupied Chair during only eight months.

Chair vacant from May-Nov. 1277=6 months.

186.— Nicholas III., Nov. 1277- Aug. 1280.

Occupied Chair during only nine months.

Albertus Magnus, General of the Dominican Order in Germany, and
Bishop of Regensburg, resigned his See, and retired to Cologne
to pursue scholastic and literary studies c. A.D. 1280.

Chair vacant from Aug. iv&Q-Feb. 1281 = 6 months.

187.— Martin IV., Feb. 1281-1285.

188.— Honorius IV., 1285-April 1287.

Chair vacant from April izfy-Feb. 1288 = 10 months.

189.— Nicholas IV., Feb. 1288-April 1292.

Chair vacant from April I2gz-/ufy 1294=2 years, 3 months.

190.— S. Celestine V. , July 1294-Dec. 1294.

The "hermit Pope." A Benedictine monk, occupied Chair during
only five months. Resigned the Pontificate. Imprisoned by
his successor, Boniface VIII., A.D. 1294.

L'Abbe' Migne questions the canonisation of this Pontiff.

191.— Boniface VIII., 1294-1303.

Reputed a great Pontiff.

He remonstrated with Edward I. of England, and with Philip of

France.

In 1303 promulgated the famous Bull, " Unam Sanctam."
He canonised St. Louis, King of France ; at another time laid France

and Denmark under an Interdict.
He ordered a Jubilee every 100 years.
Papacy now reached the climax of power and influence, in both

spiritual and temporal matters.
More forged " Decretals" collected c. A.D. 1297.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Interregnum, 1291.

Adolphus, Count of Nassau (rival to

Albert I., son of Rudolph), 1292-1298

(not crowned in Rome).

Albert I., son of Rudolph (of Haps-
burg), 1298-1308.

CENTURY XIV.

10 PONTIFFS.

192.— Benedict XI., Oct. 1303-July 1304.

Occupied Chair only nine months.

At one time a General of the Dominican Order.

Chair vacant from July lyi^-June 1305 = 11 months.

193. — Clement V. (at Avignon), June 1305- April 1314.

Crowned at Lyons. Papal seat removed from Rome to Avignon in

Provence during period of sixty-eight years (1309-1377), often

called " The Babylonian Captivity." The Papacy during this

period was subject to France.
Convened Fifteenth General Council, at Vienne in Dauphine", A.D.

I3ii-May 1312.

Suppression of the Order of Knights Templars, A.D. 1312.
Ordered that Pontiffs for the future should be elected in a solemn

Conclave.

" Clementine Decretals" (forgeries) collected in 1313.
Raymond Lully, a Franciscan of Majorca, and a Schoolman, taught

the Saracens c. A.D. 1300-1315.

Chair vacant from April lyi^-Aug. 1316=2 years, 3 months.

194.— John XXI. or XXII. (at Avignon), August 1316-1334.

A determined persecutor of the Jews.

Ordered the bells to be tolled every evening for the " Angelus."

John Wycliffe born in Yorkshire c. A.D. 1320.

Henry VII. (of Luxemburg), 1308-1313.

Interregnum, 1313.

Louis IV. (of Bavaria) and Frederick
III. (of Austria), rival Emperors,
1314-1330. Frederick died in 1330.

Louis IV. (alone), 1330-1347.

826

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY XIV. (continued}.

195.— Benedict XII. (at Avignon), 1334-1341.

Some authorities assert that Nicholas V., an Antipope, was exercising
authority in Rome.

196._Clement VI. (at Avignon), 1342-1352.

William of Occam, or Ockam (Surrey), a Franciscan and a Schoolman,
taught in Munich c. A.D. 1330-1347. He questioned the Papal
claim to temporal supremacy.

197.— Innocent VI. (at Avignon), 1352-1362.

198.— Urban V. (at Avignon and Rome), 1362-Sept. 1370.

Resided three years in Rome, but returned to Avignon, where he died.

199.— Gregory XI. (at Avignon and Rome), Dec. 1370-1378.

In year 1377 so-called "Babylonian Captivity" ended by return of

Gregory XL and the Curia to Rome.
This Pontiff proscribed Wycliffe's doctrines.
In year 1378 began the Great Schism which may be said to have lasted

till 1447, although Dr. Bruno assigns its termination to the year

1429.

200.— Urban VI., 1378-1389.

His severity drove the Cardinals to set up Robert of Geneva, called
Clement VII., as the thirtieth Antipope. Robert lived at Avignon
as the dependant of the King of France.

Publication of John Wycliffe's MS. English Version of Bible c. A.D.
1380-1382. The Revised Edition of this Version, published c. A.D.
1388, was the first complete English Bible. Death of Wycliffe,
1384.

201.— Boniface IX., 1389-1404.

In 1394, Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII., the thirty-first Anti-
pope, succeeded Robert of Geneva at Avignon.

John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris and a Schoolman,
exercised much influence at General Councils of Pisa and Con
stance. He flourished A. D. 1396-1439.

Statute " De Hseretico Comburendo" passed in England A.u. 1400.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Charles IV. (of Luxemburg), 1347-1378.
(Giinther of Schwarzburg, a rival,
attempted to seize the throne.)

Wenceslaus (King of Bohemia and son
of Charles IV.), 1378-1400 (deposed).
Reigned in Bohemia till 1419 fas
Wenceslaus VI.

Frederick III. (Duke of Brunswick)
assassinated directly after his elec
tion, A.D. 1400.

Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine,
1400-1410.

CENTURY XV.

13 PONTIFFS.
202.— Innocent VII., 1404-1406.

203.— Gregory XII., 1406-1409.

Mas- Latrie gives this Pontificate as 1406-1415.

This Pontiff was pledged to heal the schism ; but the Antipope at

Avignon refused to resign. Hence both Pope Gregory XII.

and the Antipope were deposed at a Council specially convened

at Pisa in 1409, and called the Sixteenth General Council. The

Antipope, Benedict XIII., lived till Nov. 1424.

204.— Alexander V. , 1409-1410.

205.— John XXIII. , 1410-May 1415.

Passed through many vicissitudes before his election to the Chair.
Excommunicated John Huss, and condemned teaching of Wycliffe.
Deposed at Council of Constance, A.D. 1415, and died in prison,

Dec. 1417.
Seventeenth General, or Council of Constance, A.D. 1414-1418.

Council decreed that no faith should be kept with heretics to the

prejudice of the Catholic Faith.
Chair vacant from May i^i^-Nov. 1417= z years, 5 months.

206.— Martin V., Nov. 1417-1431.

In 1424, Aegidius, the thirty-second Antipope, called Clement VIII.,
succeeded the Antipope Benedict XIII. at Avignon. He resigned
in the year 1429.

Forged Decretals (" Extravagantes") collected and issued, 1422-1483.

Jossus (Marquess of Moravia), chosen
for a time (rival to Sigismund I.),
1410-1411.

Sigismund I. (of Luxemburg), King of
Hungary in 1387, King of Bohemia
in 1419. Holy Roman Emperor, A.D.
1410-1438.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

827

CENTURY XV. (continued}.

207.— Eugenius IV., 1431-1447.

Eighteenth General Council, or Council of Basil (Basle), A.D. 1431-1439.

Deposed at the Council of Basil, 1439, and Amadeus, Duke of Savoy,
the thirty-third Antipope, was elected as Felix V. in 1439. Amadeus
held office 1439-1443, but Eugenius regained power in 1443.

At Council of Florence, Eugenius subscribed the -Decree for the Re
union of the Latin with the Greek Church, but the Greeks finally
separated in 1444. The " filioque" clause was definitely added to
Nicene Creed by the Council of Florence.

Gutenberg of Mayence discovers how to print from movable types c.
A.D. 1440. The Latin Bible was the first completely printed book,
issued A.D. 1455.

208.— Nicholas V., 1447-1455.

Amadeus was claiming the Chair till 1449. Henceforth a Papal Jubilee
was celebrated every* twenty-five years.

Nicholas introduced custom of carrying the Holy Sacrament in pro
cession on the Festival of Corpus Christi.

Capture of Constantinople by the Turks under Mohammed II., A.D.
1453 = the termination of the Eastern Roman Empire.

209.— Callistus or Calistus III., 1455-1458.
210.— Pius II., 1458-1464.

211.— Paul II., 1464-1471.

Preached a Crusade.

Birth of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, the famous scholar, A.D.
1467.

212.— SixtusIV., 1471-1484.

A Franciscan.

Martin Luther born at Eisleben, A.D. 1483.

Johann Reuchlin, famous scholar and a pioneer of Reformation, taught

at Basle and at Stuttgart, A.D. 1474-1521.
Inquisition re-established and' re-organised in Spain by Tho^nas de

Torquemada, A.D. 1480.

213.— Innocent VIII., 1484-1492.

Spain was freed from Mohammedan influence. The Moors were
expelled after the conquest of Granada by Ferdinand II., A.D.
1492.

Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

Birth of William Tyndale in Gloucestershire c. A. D. 1484.

Birth of Ulrich Zwingli at Wildhaus, A.D. 1484.

214.— Alexander VI. (Roderic Borgia), 1492-1503.

A dark time in the history of the Papacy.

Birth of Philip Melanchthon (Schwarzed), A.D. 1497.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Albert II. (of Hapsburg) the Great,

Duke of Austria, 1438-1439.
/ Married Elizabeth, daughter of Sig-
J ismund I. , and so united crowns
| of Hungary, Bohemia, and Ger-
V many. Not crowned at Rome.
Interregnum, 1439 (3 or 4 months).
Frederick IV. or III. (?) (the Pacific],
1440-1493 (the last Emperor crowned
in Rome).

TERMINATION OF EASTERN
ROMAN EMPIRE, A.D. 1453.

Maximilian I. (son of Frederick IV.
1493-1519.

CENTURY XVI.

17 PONTIFFS.

215.— Pius, 1503.

Occupied Chair during only twenty-one days.

Labb6 and Cossart and Mas-Latrie insert this Pontiff, but L'Abb6
Migne omits him from his list.

216.— Julius II., 1503-1513.

Laid the foundation-stone of the Basilica of St. Peter, A.D. 1506.

Marched at head of an army into Perugia.

Granted Henry VIII. of England, when Prince of Wales, a dispensa
tion to marry Catherine of Aragon.

Nineteenth General, or Fifth Lateran Council, began in 1512 (resumed
in 1517 by Leo X.).

Birth of John Calvin at Noyon in France, A.D. 1509.

828

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPEROES

CENTURY XVI. (continued}.

217.— Leo X. (John de Medicis), 1513-Dec. 1521.

First of the series of Pontiffs belonging to the great Medicis family

and a great personality.

Nineteenth General, or Fifth Lateran Council, resumed in 1517.
Tetzel, a Dominican, by sale of Indulgences obtained the money to

carry on the building of St. Peter's.
Luther nailed his ninty-five Theses against Indulgences to the door

of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Oct. 31, 1517. The Pope

issued a Bull of excommunication against him, June 15, 1520, and

on Dec. 10, Luther burned this Pontiffs Bull outside Wittenberg
This Pontiff conferred on Henry VIII. of England the title

'I Defender of the Faith," for his book against Luther. The

title was subsequently conferred on Henry by the Act of the

English Parliament (35 Henry VIII. c. 3).
Period of German Reformation begins.
Erasmus' Edition of Greek Text of New Testament published A.D.

1516. Revised, 1522.
Complutensian Polyglot (Hebrew, Greek, Latin) Bible, printed by

Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-1517. Published, 1522.
Melanchthon appointed Professor of Greek at Wittenberg, A.D. 1518.

218.— Hadrian VI., Jan. 1522-1523.

219.— Clement VII. (de Medicis), 1523-1534.

Took side of French King against Emperor Charles V. of Germany

who besieged and captured city of Rome.
Solemn protest made by Princes of the Empire against decision passed

by Second Diet of Spires, A.D. 1529. Hence the term "Pro

testant."
Protestant Confession submitted to the Third Diet of Augsburg

A.D. 1530.

Death of Zwingli, A.D. 1531.
Archbishop Cranmer judicially declared the marriage of Henry VIII.

with Catherine of Aragon null and void, A.D. 1533.
First Edition of Tyndale's Printed English Version of N. T. published

IS25-I526. Parts of O. T. printed and published 1530-1531. First

Revised Edition of Tyndale's N. T. Version, published in 1534.

220.— Paul III., 1534-Nov. 1549.

Ignatius Loyola founded at Paris the Order of the Jesuits, 1534

Approved of by Papal Bull, A.D. 1540.
Second Revised Edition of Tyndale's printed N. T., English Version

published A.D. 1535.
Miles Coverdale's English Version, the first complete English printed

Bible, published A.D. 1535-1536.
Matthew's Bible published A.D. 1537.
Paul III. refused to grant divorce of Catherine of Aragon from

Henry VIII., whom he excommunicated in 1538.

"Great Bible" (Matthew's Bible revised by Coverdale) published
^ I539-i54i-

Death of Erasmus at Basle, 1536.

William Tyndale burnt at Vilvorde in Belgium, A.D. 1536.
Statute of Six Articles passed in England, 1539.
Pope Paul III. confirmed the Society by a Bull, A.D. 1540.
Convened the twentieth General Council, or the Council of Trent, A.D.

1542, the first session of which began i3th Dec. 1545.
Death of Martin Luther at Eisleben, A.D. 1546.
Edward VI. succeeded Henry VIII. of England, 1547 ; died 1553.
Reformation in England, led chiefly by Archbishop Cranmer.
First Prayer-Book of Edward VI., 1549 ; Second Prayer- Book, 1552.

221.— Julius III., Feb. 1550-1555.

Council of Trent, owing to war, was prorogued for ten years.

Greek Text of N. T. corrected by Robert Stephanus of Paris, and basis

of Text. Rec. , published 1550.
Mary ascended the Throne of England, 1553; died 1558. Her reign

was remarkable for a severe persecution of the Protestants.

222.— Marcellus II., 1555.

Occupied Chair during only twenty-one days.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Francis I. of France and Charles I. of
Spain become competitors for Holy
Roman Empire.

Charles I. of Spain (son of Joan of
Castile and Philip of Austria) becomes
Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.,
1519-1556 (abdicated). Died in
1558. He was crowned at Bologna.

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

829

CENTURY XVI. (continued}.

223.— Paul IV., May 1555-August 1559.

Elizabeth succeeded Mary in 1558, and reigned till 1603. Paul IV.
refused to acknowledge her as Queen. In 1555 this Pontiff in
stituted the " Index Expurgatorius."

The "Geneva Bible "or "Breeches' Bible" ("Great Bible" revised
by scholars at Geneva = Bible used in households), the first Bible
containing divisions into chapters and verses, published A.u.
1557-1560.

Chair vacant from Aug.-Dec. 1559=4 months.

224.— Pius IV. (John Angelo de Medicis). Dec. 1559-Dec. 1565.

In 1559 published the " Index Expurgatorius."

Death of Melanchthon, A. D. 1560.

Final session of Council of Trent, reopened during this Pontificate,
was held 3rd Dec. 1564. Pius IV. confirmed the Decrees
passed by the Council. This Council perpetuated separation of
Protestant from Roman Catholic Church.

Death of John Calvin at Geneva, 1564.

225.— S. (?) Pius V., Jan. 1566-1572.

Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth of England in 1569.

A Revision of "The Bishops' Bible" carried out by a committee of
scholars, mostly English Bishops, under Archbishop Parker,
superseded "Great Bible" for use in Churches. Published A.D.
1568. Revised Edition, 1572.

The campaign of Duke of Alva in Netherlands, 1567-1573.

226.— Gregory XIII. (Buoncampagno), 1572-1585.

Patron of the Jesuits ; revised the Calendar, introduced " New Style."
Conducted Te Deum for Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 1572.
Said to have been a strong Pontiff.

227.— Sixtus V. (a Franciscan), 1585-1590.

Spanish Armada against England defeated 1588.

Sixtus V. excommunicated Henry III. and Henry IV. of France.

228.— Urban VII., 15th-27th Sept. 1590.
Occupied Chair during only twelve days.

229.— Gregory XIV., Dec. 1590-Oct. 1591.

Occupied Chair during only ten months.

230.— Innocent IX., Oct.-Dec. 1591.

Occupied Chair during only two months.

231.— Clement VIII., Jan. 1592-1605.

During this Pontificate the famous controversy raged between the

Jesuits and the Dominicans respecting "Grace," "Freewill,"

" Predestination."
This Pontiff issued the Revised Edition of the Vulgate which is now

in use, A.D. 1592.
Edict of Nantes, favourable to Protestants, granted by Henry IV. of

France in 1598.
Hampton Court Conference, A.D. 1604 (led to publication of the

Authorised Version of Bible).
James VI. of Scotland ascended the English throne as James I. , 1603.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Ferdinand I. (brother of Charles V.),
1556-1564 (not crowned in Rome).

Maximilian II. (son)
and Bohemia in
1564-1576.

King of Hungary
1563 ; Emperor,

Rudolph II., 1576-1612 (not crowned
in Rome).

CENTURY XVII.

ii PONTIFFS.

232.— Leo XI. (de Medicis), April 1605.

Occupied Chair during only twenty-seven days.
Dr. Bruno dates him A.D. 1600, and Paul V. 1605.

233.— Paul V., May 1605-1621.

Placed the Republic of Venice under an Interdict.

James I. of England directs the Revision of "Bishops' Bible" and

publication of the English Version known as Authorised Version,

A.D. 1611.
" Thirty Years' War" between Protestant and Roman Catholic States

broke out, A.D. 1618, in Bohemia.

Protestant Synod held at Dort in Holland, Nov. i6i8-May 1619.
"Pilgrim Fathers" in the Mayflower land at Plymouth Rock,

Massachusetts, A.D. 1620.

Matthias (brother), King of Hungary,
1608 ; Emperor, 1612-1619 (n°l
crowned in Rome).

Ferdinand II. (cousin of Matthias),
King of Hungary, 1618 ; Emperor,
1619-1637 (not crowned in Rome).

830

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY XVII. (continued}.

234.— Gregory XV., 1621-1623.

Founded the Propaganda.
Canonised Loyola and Xavier.

235.— Urban VIII., 1623-1644.
Skilled in military engineering, designed fortifications for the city of

Rome.

Renewed the Bull "In Ccena Domini."
Condemned the Jansenists.
Elzevir Edition of Greek Text of N. T. (Text. Rec. on Continent)

published A.D. 1624.
Charles I. of England, king, 1625.
Civil war in England, A.u. 1642-1649.
Gustaf Adolf, of Sweden, lands with an army in Germany, July 4,

1630, to aid Protestants ; gains many battles, and finally falls at

Liitzen, 1632.

236.— Innocent X., 1644-1655.

" Thirty Years' War," from 1618 to 1648, terminated by the Peace of

Westphalia, A.D. 1648.
The Protectorate in England under Oliver Cromwell, 1653-1658.

237.— Alexander VII., 1655-1667.

Issued a Bull against the Jansenists.

The list compiled by the Jesuits Labbe' and Cossart ends with this

Pontiff.

Massacre of the Vaudois, 1655.
Final Edition of Book of Common Prayer issued by Act of Uniformity,

A.D. 1662.

238.— Clement IX., 1667-Dec. 1669.

Chair vacant from Dec, i66g-Aprii 1670=4 months.

239.— Clement X., April 1670-1676.

240.— Innocent XI. , 1676-1689.

Remonstrated with Louis XIV. for having seized Avignon.
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, lyth Oct. 1685.
Severe persecution of the Huguenots and of the Waldenses.
Revolution in England; James II. expelled, and William III. and
Mary II. declared King and Queen, 1688.

241.— Alexander VIII., 1689-Feb. 1691.

Battle of Boyne, A.D. 1690. William III. settled on the English
throne.

Chair vacant from Feb. -July 1691 = 5 months.

242.— Innocent XII., July 1691-1700.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Ferdinand III., King of Hungary, 1625;
Emperor, 1637-1658 (not crowned in
Rome).

Leopold I., King of Hungary, 1655;
Emperor, 1658-1705.

CENTURY XVIII.

8 POPES.

243.— Clement XL, 1700-1721.

Issued famous Bull entitled " Unigenitus," A.D. 1713.

244.— Innocent XIII., 1721-1724.

Issued a Bull against the Jesuits.

245.— Benedict XIII. (a Dominican), 1724-Feb. 1730.

Chair vacant from Feb. -July 1730=5 months.

Joseph I., King of Hungary, 1687;
Emperor, 1705-1711 (not crowned in
Rome).

Charles VI. (of Germany), King of
Hungary, 1712, also nominal King of
Spain; Emperor, 1711-1740 (not
crowned in Rome).

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

831

CENTURY XVIII. (continued}.

246.— Clement XII., July 1730-Feb. 1740.

Chair vacant from Feb. -Aug. 1740 = 6 months.

247.— Benedict XIV., August 1740-1758.

Seven Years' War (1756-1763) waged by Frederick II. (the Great) of
Prussia against Austria, Russia, France, the allies of Maria-
Theresa.

248.— Clement XIII., 1758-1769.

249.— Clement XIV. (a Franciscan), 1769-Sept. 1774.

Dissolution of the Order of the Jesuits in 1773.

Chair vacant from Sept. i-ji^-Feb. 1775 = 5 months.

250.— Pius VI., Feb. 1775- Feb. 1798.

Quarrelled with the Emperor Joseph II. (of the House of Hapsburg).
"Declaration of Independence" proclaimed in North America, 4th

July 1776.
War of American Independence, April 1775 to Sept. 1783, when a

treaty was signed at Paris ; ratified by Congress, Jan. 1784.
United States recognised by England in 1783.
French Revolution began in 1789.
Avignon lost to the Papacy, 1791.
Reign of Terror in France, 1793-1794.
Pius VI. was dethroned by Napoleon I. of France ; expelled from

Rome, and deposed by him, Feb. 1798. Died at Valence, 2gth

Aug. 1799.

Chair vacant from Feb. lycfi-March 1800=2 years, i month.

HOUSES OF HAPSBURG, LUXEM
BURG, BAVARIA, &c.

Maria-Theresa (daughter of Charles
VI.), Queen of Hungary and Bohemia.
Her right sustained by England, 1740-
1742. Continued to reign as Queen
of Hungary and Bohemia from 1742 to
1780. Her consort died in 1765.

Charles VII. (Elector of Bavaria), rival
as Emperor, supported by France,
1742-1745 (not crowned in Rome).

Francis I. (of Lorraine), Grand-Duke
of Tuscany and consort of Maria-
Theresa, 1745-1765.

Joseph II. (son of Francis I. and Maria-
Theresa), succeeded his mother on
throne of Hungary, 1780; Emperor,
1765-1790 (not crowned in Rome).

(Joseph II.)

Leopold II. (brother), King of Hun
gary and Emperor, 1790-1792.

Francis II., Holy Roman Emperor,
1792-1806. Formally resigned Im
perial Crown in 1806. Emperor of
Austria, 1806-1835. First Emperor
of Austria.

TERMINATION OF THE HOLY
ROMAN EMPIRE, A.D. 1806.

CENTURY XIX.

6 PONTIFFS.

251.— Pius VII. (a Benedictine), March 1800-August 1823.

Crowned at Venice ; entered Rome in July 1800.

The Pope crowned Napoleon I. at Paris, 2nd Dec. 1804. Napoleon

assumed title of Emperor of the French and King of Italy.
Pius VII. reinstated the Jesuits in 1804.
This Pontiff was imprisoned by Napoleon, July 1809 ; restored to

Rome, 1814.
Holy Roman Empire formally terminated in 1806, when Confederation

of the Rhine formed under the direction of Napoleon I.
Evangelical Revival in Europe, 1817-1830.
Inquisition in Spain suppressed by the Cortes, A.D. 1820.
Napoleon abdicated, A.D. 1814, escaped from Elba, 26 Feb 1815,

finally crushed at Battle of Waterloo, 18 June 1815.

252.— Leo XII., Sept. 1823-Feb. 1829.
253.— Pius VIII., March 1829-Nov. 1830. '

Revolution in France placed Louis Philippe on throne, July and
August, 1830.

254.— Gregory XVI. (a Benedictine), Feb. 1831- June 1846.

Published a work in which he contended for Infallibility of the Pope
" Tractarian Movement " inspired by a body of brilliant Oxford writers,

A.D. 1833-1841. Writings formally condemned at Oxford, March

1841.

EMPERORS OF AUSTRIA, AND
KINGS OF PRUSSIA.

Prussia and
Germany.

Austria

Ferdinand V. of
Hungary, Ferdi
nand I. as Em
peror of Austria,
1835-1848 (abdi
cated).

Frederick I. (ist
King), 1701-
1713-

Frederick-William

I. (King), 1713-
1740.

Frederick II. (the
Great), 1740-
1786.

Frederick- William

II. (nephew),
1786-1797.

Frederick- William
III., 1797-1840.

Frederick -William
IV. (King), 1840-
1861.

832

ROMAN BISHOPS, PONTIFFS, AND EMPERORS

CENTURY XIX. (continued}.

255. — Pius IX., June 1846-7th Feb. 1878 (31 years, 7 months :
longest on record).

In 1848 this Pontiff was compelled by political troubles to leave

Rome ; he was restored to Rome in 1850 by Marshal Oudinot

and a French army.
In 1850 Cardinal Wiseman was nominated R.C. Archbishop of

Westminster, and territorial titles were conferred on other

Roman Catholic prelates.
Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III.) was declared French Emperor in

1852, and became protector of the Papal States.
In 1854 Dogma of Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was

proclaimed.

Abolition of slavery in United States, Dec. 1863.
Pius IX. issued his remarkable Syllabus, Dec. 1864.
In Twenty-first General Council held in Rome, known as the Vatican

Council, Dec. i869~Feb. 1870, the Dogma of the Infallibility of

the Pope was proclaimed.
Napoleon III. was defeated at the battle of Sedan in A.D. 1870. Victor

Emmanuel I., King of Italy, annexed Rome to his dominions,

and the temporal power of the Papacy became extinct.
In 1871 the English Lectionary was revised, and the revision was

sanctioned by Act of Parliament.

256.— Leo XIII. , Feb. 1878- July 1903.

Issued, A.D. 1896, the Bull entitled " Apostolicae Curse," which de
clared the " Orders" of the English Church to be null and void.

" Revised Version " of New Testament published May 1881.

Westcott and Hort's Greek Text of New Testament published in 1881.

" Revised Version " of Old Testament published July 1884. The " Re
vised Bible " published May 1885.

EMPERORS OF AUSTRIA, AND
KINGS OF PRUSSIA.

Austria.

Francis-Joseph I.
(nephew of Fer
dinand), Decem
ber 1848-
Crowned King
of Hungary ,
June 1867.

Prussia and
Germany.

William I. (brother)
1861-1888, pro
claimed German
Emperor at Ver
sailles, Jan. 1871.

Frederick William
III. (the Noble},
King of Prussia
and German
Emperor, 1888.
Died June 1888.

William II. , King
of Prussia and
German Em
peror, 1888-

CENTURY XX.

257. — Pius X. (Giuseppe Sarto), Aug. 1903.

H. F. G.

THE END

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON, & Co.
Edinburgh & London

WORKS BY REV. CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D.

The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, with a critically revised Text, Various
Readings and Grammatical and Critical Notes. London and Edinburgh : Williams and
Norgate. 1859. Price 53.

The Book of Ruth in Hebrew, with a critically revised Text, Various
Readings, including a new collation of twenty-eight Hebrew MSS. (most of them not
previously collated), and a Grammatical and Critical Commentary, to which is appended
the Chaldee Targum, with various Readings, and a Chaldee Glossary. London :
Williams & Norgate. Leipzig : L. Denicke. 1864. Price 73. 6d.

Zechariah and his Prophecies considered in relation to Modern Criticism.
With a Grammatical and Critical Commentary, and New Translation. (The Bampton
Lectures for 1878.) London : Hodder & Stoughton. 1879. Second Edition. Price 145.

The Book of Koheleth, commonly called Ecclesiastes, considered in relation
to Modern Criticism and to the Doctrines of Modern Pessimism, with a Critical and
Grammatical Commentary and a Revised Translation. (The Donnellan Lectures for
1 880-8 1.) London : Hodder & Stoughton. 1883. Price 125.

Biblical Essays : or Exegetical Studies on the Books of Job and Jonah,
Ezekiel's Prophecy of Gog and Magog. St. Peter's " Spirits in Prison," and the Key
to the Apocalypse. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street. 1886. Price 55.

A Grammar of the Modern Irish Language, designed for the use of the
Classes in the University of Dublin. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Dublin :
Hodges, Figgis & Co. 1860. Price is. 6d.

The Writings of St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland. A Revised Transla
tion, with Introduction and Notes, Critical and Historical. London : The Religious
Tract Society. Third Edition, 1897, considerably enlarged, and with Irish Texts.
Pp. 1 60. Price 2s.

An Introduction to the Old Testament. Fourth Edition. With a Bibliographical
Appendix brought down to present date. Seventh Thousand. London : Hodder and
Stoughton, 27 Paternoster Row. 1898. Price 2s. 6d.

The Bible Readers' Manual: or Aids to Biblical Study, for Students of
the Holy Scriptures. Edited by the Rev. C. H. H. WRIGHT, D.D. London and Glas
gow : William Collins, Sons, & Co. New and Revised Edition, 1895. (Various sizes
and prices.) Profusely illustrated.

Roman Catholicism : or the Doctrines of the Church of Rome briefly
examined in the Light of Scripture. Present day Primers. No. IX. Price is. With
Illustrations and Facsimile of a Tetzel Indulgence. Third Edition, revised, 1903.
The Religious Tract Society. This work has been translated in Welsh, and published.

The Service of the Mass in the Greek and Roman Churches. With
Illustrations. Price, cloth, is. ; sewed, 8d. Religious Tract Society. 1898.

The Intermediate State and Prayers for the Dead. Examined in the
Light of Scripture and of Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. London : James
Nisbet & Co. Limited. 1900. Price 6s.

The Statutory Prayer Book, as enacted by the Act of Uniformity, and
amended by subsequent Statutes or by Orders in Council. With a Preface showing
the unauthorised changes corrected in this edition. By J. T. TOMLINSON and
CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D. London : The Sunday School Supply Co., 26 and 27
Paternoster Square. 1902. Price 2s. 6d.

UNIFORM WITH THE WORKS ON "ZECHARIAH" AND "KOHELETH."
Nearly Ready for Press.

Daniel and his Prophecies, viewed especially in relation to Modern Criticism.
With a Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Original Text, and Appendices.

PAMPHLETS.

The Genuine Writings of St. Patrick. A Revised Translation, with Life.

Second Edition. Religious Tract Society. 1903. W7ith Irish Texts. Price 3d.
The Bible and the Church : or the Authority of Holy Scripture not

derived from the Church. London : Protestant Reformation Society. 1901. Price 3d.
The Irish University Question and the Proposed Endowment of a

Roman Catholic University Considered. Second Edition. London : Williams and

Norgate. 1901.