part ii

. b. iv.

In the Romish Church, on Easter eve, the bells are rung about four in the afternoon; the ornaments of the churches and altars are changed from black to white; and the paschal taper is placed in a great candlestick made in the shape of an angel. On the morning of Easter Sunday, matins are said before day-break, because our Saviour rose at that time. When the pope officiates, two cardinal deacons are placed on the right and left of the altar, dressed in white robes, to represent the two angels who watched our SAVIOUR’S sepulchre.—_Sacra Cerem. Eccl. Rom._ lib. ii.

In the Greek Church, it is usual, on Easter day, upon meeting their friends, to greet them with this salutation, “JESUS CHRIST is risen from the dead;” to which the person accosted replies, “He is risen indeed.” On Good Friday, two priests carry in procession, on their shoulders, the picture or representation of a tomb, in which the crucified JESUS, painted on a board, is deposited. On Easter Sunday, this sepulchre is carried out of the church, and exposed to public view, when the priest solemnly assures the people, that CHRIST is risen from the dead, and shows them the picture turned on the other side, which represents JESUS CHRIST rising out of the sepulchre. The whole congregation embrace each other, and, in transports of joy, shoot off pistols.—_Tournefort’s Voyages_, Letter III. _Broughton_.

The anniversary festival appointed in remembrance of the resurrection of our blessed SAVIOUR from the state of death, to which he had subjected himself as an atonement for the sins of men. It is stated by Venerable Bede, that this name was given to this festival at the time when Christianity was first introduced among our Saxon ancestors in this island. Those people, says Bede, worshipped an imaginary deity, called Eostre, whose feast they celebrated every year at this season; the name remained when the worship was altered. Others conceive the name to be derived from an old Saxon word importing rising; Easter day thus signifying the day of resurrection. Easter Sunday is not strictly the anniversary day of our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, but is the day appointed by the Church to be kept in remembrance of that event. After great difference of opinions, it was decided in the Council of Nice that Easter day should be kept on the Sunday following the Jewish feast of the Passover, which Passover is kept on the 14th day, or full moon, of the Jewish month _Nisan_. At the same time, to prevent all uncertainty in future, it was made a further rule of the Church, that the full moon next to the vernal (or spring) equinox should be taken for the full moon in the month _Nisan_, and the 21st of March be accounted the vernal equinox. Easter Sunday, therefore, is always the Sunday following the full moon which falls on, or next after, the 21st of March. Easter is thus observed with reference to the feast of the Passover, on account of the typical quality of that day; the annual sacrifice commanded by the Jewish law being regarded as a type of the greater sacrifice of CHRIST for our redemption, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt as a type of our deliverance from sin and death by his merits.

This was the birthday of our SAVIOUR in his state of glory and exaltation, as his nativity was his birthday to his state of humiliation. It was anciently called the “great day,” and “the feast of feasts;” being by eminence “the day which the LORD hath made,” (Ps. cxviii. 24,) for the Fathers unanimously expound that passage of this day, and therefore with them, as with us, that psalm was always part of the office of the day. For the antiquity of the observation of this day innumerable authors might be produced; but the matter is not at all controverted.—_L’Estrange._

This is the highest of all feasts, saith Epiphanius: this day CHRIST opened to us the door of life, being the first-fruits of those that rose from the dead: whose resurrection was our life; for he rose again for our justification. (Rom. iv. 25.)—_Bp. Sparrow._

In the primitive times the Christians of all Churches on this day used this morning salutation, “CHRIST is risen;” to which those who were saluted answered, “CHRIST is risen indeed;” or else thus, “and hath appeared unto Simon;” a custom still retained in the Greek Church. And our Church, supposing us as eager of the joyful news as they were, is loth to withhold from us long the pleasure of expressing it; and therefore, as soon as the absolution is pronounced, and we are thereby rendered fit for rejoicing, she begins her office of praise with anthems proper to the day, encouraging her members to call upon one another “to keep the feast; for that CHRIST our Passover is sacrificed for us, and is also risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept,” &c.—_Wheatly._

The first lesson in the morning is the twelfth chapter of Exodus, in which is mentioned the institution of the Passover, proper for this day, the feast of the Passover: for, as St. Augustine observes, “we do in this feast not only call to mind the history of our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, but also celebrate the mystery of ours.” That as CHRIST this day rose again from death to life, so by CHRIST, and the virtue of his resurrection, shall we be made alive, and rise from death to life eternal. CHRIST is therefore our true Passover, whereof the other was a type: the lesson then is proper for the day. So is the first lesson for the evening, (Exod. xiv.,) for it is concerning the Israelites’ deliverance out of Egypt, a type of our deliverance from hell this day by CHRIST’S glorious resurrection. As that day Israel saw that great work, which the LORD did upon Egypt, (ver. 31,) so this day we see the great conquest over hell and death finished by CHRIST’S triumphant resurrection from the dead. The second lessons are plain. The Gospel gives us the full evidence of CHRIST’S resurrection; the Epistle tells us what use we should make of it, “If CHRIST be risen, seek those things that are above,” &c. The collect prays for grace, to make the use of it which the Epistle directs.

Thus holy Church is careful to teach and instruct all her children in the matter of the feast, preaching CHRIST’S resurrection to us, both in the type and prophecy out of the Old Testament, and in the history of it out of the New. And she does not only teach us to know what GOD hath done for us this day, but also she is careful that we may do our duty to GOD for this his marvellous goodness, commanding and directing us to pray for grace to do our duty, prescribing us excellent forms of adoring and blessing GOD for his mercy this day, such methods as the HOLY GHOST hath set down, in which we may be sure to pray and praise God by the spirit.—_Bp. Sparrow._ On this day, as on Christmas day, there were formerly [in the First Book of King Edward VI.] two communions, whereof we have retained the former Epistle and Gospel.—_Bp. Cosin._

Easter day is a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. In choirs, the Responses and Litanies used to be universally, and in many places are still, solemnly sung to the organ; and the Responses, on the Monday and Tuesday following.—_Jebb._

EASTER ANTHEMS. On Easter day, instead of the _Venite_, certain anthems are appointed to be said or sung. At the last review the first two verses now used were prefixed, and the authorized translation adopted. In the First Book of King Edward VI., these anthems were appointed to be said or sung “afore matins, the people being assembled in the church;” and were followed by the following Versicle and Response.

_Priest._ Show forth to all the nations the glory of GOD.

_Answ._ And among all people his wonderful works.

With a special prayer. (See _Anthem._)

EBIONITES. Heretics in the first century; so called from their leader, Ebion. The _Ebionites_, as well as the _Nazarenes_, had their origin from the circumcised Christians, who had retired from Jerusalem to Pella, during the war between the Jews and Romans, and made their first appearance after the destruction of Jerusalem, about the time of Domitian, or a little before.

Ebion, the author of the heresy of the Ebionites, was a disciple of Cerinthus, and his successor. He improved upon the errors of his master, and added to them new opinions of his own. He began his preaching in Judea: he taught in Asia, and even at Rome: his tenets infected the isle of Cyprus. St. John opposed both Cerinthus and Ebion in Asia; and it is thought that this apostle wrote his Gospel, in the year 97, particularly against this heresy.

The Ebionites held the same errors as the Nazarenes. They united the ceremonies of the law with the precepts of the gospel: they observed both the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. They called their place of assembling a _synagogue_, and not a _church._ They bathed every day, which was the custom of the Jews. In celebrating the eucharist, they made use of unleavened bread, but no wine.

They added to the observance of the law divers superstitions. They adored Jerusalem as the house of GOD. Like the Samaritans, they would not suffer a person of another religion to touch them. They abstained from the flesh of animals, and even from milk: and, lest any one should object to them that passage of the Gospel, where our LORD says he desires to eat of the passover, they corrupted it. When they were sick, or bitten by a serpent, they plunged themselves into water, and invoked all sorts of things to their assistance.

They disagreed among themselves in relation to our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Some of them said he was born, like other men, of Joseph and Mary, and acquired sanctification only by his good works. Others of them allowed that he was born of a virgin, but denied that he was the _Word_ of GOD, or had a pre-existence before his human generation. They said he was indeed the only true prophet, but yet a mere man, who, by his virtue, had arrived at being called CHRIST and the Son of GOD. They supposed that CHRIST and the devil were two principles, which GOD had opposed the one to the other.

Though the Ebionites observed the law, yet they differed from the Jews in many points. They acknowledged the sanctity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; but they laughed at all those who came after them. They rejected some parts of the Pentateuch; and when they were too closely pressed by these books, they entirely abandoned them.

Of the New Testament, they acknowledged only the Gospel of St. Matthew, that is, that which was written in Hebrew, and which they called the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. But they took from it the two first chapters, and corrupted other passages of it. They absolutely rejected St. Paul as an apostate, and an enemy of the law, and published several calumnies against him. They had likewise false _Acts of the Apostles_, in which they mixed a great many fables.

As to their manner of life, they imitated the Carpocratians, the most infamous of all heretics. They rejected virginity and continence: they obliged children to marry very young: they allowed married persons to separate from each other, and marry again, as often as they pleased.

St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Origen, wrote against the Ebionites. Symmachus, author of one of the Greek versions of the Scriptures, was an Ebionite.

ECCLESIASTES. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is called “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,” that is, of Solomon, who, from the great excellency of his instructions, was emphatically styled “the preacher.” The design of it is to show the vanity of all sublunary things, in order to which the author enumerates the several objects upon which men place their happiness in this life, and then discovers the emptiness and insufficiency of all worldly enjoyments, by many various reflections on the evils of human life. The conclusion of the whole is, in the words of the preacher, “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” St. Jerome observes, that this pious inference prevented the Jews from suppressing this whole book of Ecclesiastes, which they had thoughts of doing, (as well as many other writings of Solomon, which are now lost and forgotten,) because it asserts that the creatures of GOD are vain, and all things as nothing; it was also thought to contain some dangerous opinions, and some particular expressions that might infuse doubts concerning the immortality of the soul.

The word _Ecclesiastes_, which is Greek, signifies _a preacher_. The Hebrews call it _Coheleth_, which literally signifies _a collector_, because it is supposed to be a sermon or discourse delivered to an assembly. The Talmudists will have King Hezekiah to be the author of it. Kimchi ascribes it to Isaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel; but the book itself affords no foundation for these conjectures. On the contrary, as observed by Mr. Holden, “The author is expressly styled in the initiatory verse, _the son of David, king in Jerusalem_: and in the 12th verse he is described as _king over Israel, in Jerusalem_. These passages are found in every known MS., and in all the ancient versions; and Solomon, as is well known, was the only son of David who ever reigned in Jerusalem. The book has been thus admitted into the sacred canon as the production of Solomon, to whom it has also been ascribed by a regular and concurrent tradition. A collateral proof arises from the contents of the work itself, in which the author is stated to have excelled in wisdom beyond all who were before him in Jerusalem, and to have composed many proverbs: circumstances descriptive of Solomon, and of no other personage whose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The writer is likewise represented as abounding in wealth and treasure, &c., extremely applicable to Solomon.” Mr. Holden, and Mr. Desvœux, in their very learned and exhaustive dissertations, completely refute the really shallow objections of Grotius, Dathe, Eichhorn, and others, as to Solomon’s authorship. They do not, however, quite agree as to the scope of the book. Mr. Desvœux (to whom Dr. Graves, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, assents) states that his object is to prove the immortality of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this life, from such arguments as may be afforded by reason and experience. Mr. Holden abides by the generally received opinion, that it is “an arguing into the _summum bonum_, or chief good: not however merely as regarding happiness in this life, but that which in all its bearings and relations is conducive to the best interests of man. This he finally determines to be true wisdom: ... and every part of the discourse, when considered in reference to this object, tends to develope the nature of true wisdom, to display its excellence, or to recommend its acquirement.” So Bishop Gray: “he endeavours to illustrate the insufficiency of earthly enjoyment; not with design to excite in us a disgust to life, but to influence us to prepare for that state where there is no vanity.” Ecclesiastes may justly be considered as a sequel to the Book of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue in which a man of piety disputes against a libertine who favoured the opinions of the Sadducees; his reason is, because there are some things in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not proceed from the same person. But this may be wholly owing to Solomon’s method of disputing _pro_ and _con_, and proposing the objections of the Sadducees, to which he replies.

The generality of commentators believe this book to be the product of Solomon’s repentance, after having experienced all the follies and pleasures of life; notwithstanding which, some have questioned whether Solomon be saved, and his repentance is still a problem in the Church of Rome.

ECCLESIASTIC. A person holding any office in the sacred ministry of the Church. (See _Bishop_, _Priest_, _and Deacon_.)

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS. (See _Historians_.)

ECCLESIASTICUS. An apocryphal book of Scripture, distinguished by this name because it was read (_in ecclesia_) in the church as a book of piety and instruction, but not of infallible authority; or it is so called, perhaps, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes; or to show that it contains, as well as the former, precepts and exhortations to wisdom and virtue. The anonymous preface to this work informs us, that the author of it was a Jew, called Jesus, the son of Sirach, who wrote it in Hebrew; but it was rendered into Greek by his grandson of the same name. The Hebrew copy of this book, which St. Jerome saw, was entitled _Proverbs_. By many of the ancients it was styled Παναρετος, _the book of every virtue_: but the most common name among the Greeks is, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach_. This book was written under the high priesthood of Onias III., and translated in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, or Physcon. Some of the ancients have ascribed it to Solomon. The author, no doubt, had in his view the subject and thoughts expressed in the Proverbs of that king, and has followed his method of teaching morality by sentences or maxims. This book begins with an exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom; after which follow many maxims of morality to the forty-fourth chapter, where the author begins to rehearse the praises of famous men, such as the patriarchs, prophets, and the most illustrious men of the Jewish nation. The Latin version of Ecclesiasticus has more in it than the Greek, several particulars being inserted in that, which are not in the other. These, Dr. Prideaux observes, seem to have been interpolated by the first author of that version; but now, the Hebrew being lost, the Greek, which was made from it by the grandson of the author, must stand for the original; and from that the English translation was made.

Parts of Ecclesiasticus are strikingly like the style of Solomon, and truly Hebraic in their cast, as has been remarked by Bishop Lowth in his 24th Prelection; who subjoins a translation of the 24th chapter into Hebrew. He recognises however a considerable difference between its style and that of Solomon.

ECLECTICS. A sect which arose in the Christian Church towards the close of the second century. They professed to make truth the only object of their inquiry, and to be ready to adopt from all the different systems and sects such tenets as they thought agreeable to it; and hence their name, from ἐκλεγω, to _select_. They preferred Plato to the other philosophers, and looked upon his opinions concerning GOD, the human soul, and things invisible, as conformable to the spirit and genius of the Christian doctrine. One of the principal patrons of this system was Ammonius Saccas, who at this time laid the foundation of that sect, afterwards distinguished by the name of the New Platonists, in the Alexandrian School.—_Broughton._

ECONOMICAL. The economical method of disputing was that in which the disputants accommodated themselves, as much as possible, to the taste and prejudices of those whom they were endeavouring to gain over to the truth. Some of the early Christians carried this condescension too far, and abused St. Paul’s example. (1 Cor. ix. 20.) The word is derived from οἰκονομία, _dispensatio rei familiaris_, the discretionary arrangement of things in a house according to circumstances.

ECONOMIST. (_Œconomus._) An officer in some cathedrals of Ireland, chosen periodically by the chapter out of their own body, whose office is to manage the common estate of the cathedral, to see to the necessary repairs, pay the church officers, &c.—_Jebb._

ECONOMY ESTATE, or FUND. In some Irish cathedrals the common fund, for the support of the fabric, the payment of the inferior church officers, and sometimes certain members of the choir, is so called. It is not divisible among the cathedral body themselves. About half the cathedrals in Ireland are destitute of any common or corporate fund whatever.—_Jebb._

ECUMENICAL. (From οἰκουμένη, _the world_.) A term applied to general councils of the Church, to distinguish them from provincial and diocesan synods. (See _Councils_.)

EDIFICATION. Literally, _a building up_; and in the figurative language of the New Testament, a growing in grace and holiness, whether of individuals or of the Church.

A pretence of greater edification has been a common ground of separation from the Church; but most absurdly, for “edification,” says Dean Sherlock, in his resolution of some cases of conscience which respect Church communion, is building up, and is applied to the Church, considered as GOD’S house and temple; and it is an odd way of building up the temple of GOD, by dividing and separating the parts of it from each other. The most proper signification of the word which our translators render by “edification,” is a house or building; and this is the proper sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church: “ye are GOD’S husbandry, ye are GOD’S building,” that is, the Church is GOD’S house or building. Thus the same apostle tells us that in CHRIST, “the whole building” (that is, the whole Christian Church) “fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the LORD.” (Ephes. ii. 21.) Hence the governors of the Church are called builders, and the apostles are called “labourers together with GOD,” in erecting this spiritual building; and St. Paul calls himself a “master builder.” Hence the increase, growth, and advances towards perfection in the Church, is called the building or edification of it. For this reason, St. Paul commends prophecy, or expounding the Scriptures, before speaking in unknown tongues without an interpreter, because by this the Church receives building or edification.

All those spiritual gifts, which were bestowed on the Christians, were for the building and edifying of the Church. The apostolical power in Church censures was “for edification, not for destruction” (2 Cor. x. 8); to build, and not to pull down; that is, to preserve the unity of the Church entire, and its communion pure. And we may observe, that this edification is primarily applied to the Church: “that the Church may receive edifying;” “that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church;” “for the edifying of the body of CHRIST.” (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12; Ephes. iv. 12.) And it is very observable wherein the apostle places the edification of the body of CHRIST, viz. in unity and love: “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the SON of GOD, to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of CHRIST.” (Ephes. iv. 12, 13.) Till we are united by one faith unto one body, and perfect man, and “speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even CHRIST; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted 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.” (Ephes. iv. 15, 16.) This is an admirable description of the unity of the Church, in which all the parts are closely united and compacted together, as stones and timber are to make one house; and thus they grow into one body, and increase in mutual love and charity, which is the very building and edification of the Church, which is edified and built up in love, as the apostle adds, that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. viii. 1.) This builds up the Church of CHRIST; and that not such a common charity as we have for all mankind, but such a love and sympathy as is peculiar to the members of the same body, and which none but members can have for each other. And now methinks I need not prove that schism and separation are not for the edification of the Church; to separate for edification is to pull down instead of building up. But these men do not seem to have any great regard to the edification of the Church, but only to their own particular edification: and we must grant that edification is sometimes applied to particular Christians in Scripture, according to St. Paul’s exhortation, “Comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” (1 Thess. v. 11.) And this edifying one another, without question, signifies our promoting each other’s growth and progress in all Christian graces and virtues; and so the building and edification of the Church, signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all spiritual wisdom and knowledge, and Christian graces. The edification of the Church consists in the edification of particular Christians; but then this is called edification or building, because this growth and improvement is in the unity and communion of the Church, and makes them one spiritual house and temple. Thus the Church is called the temple of GOD, and every particular Christian is GOD’S temple, wherein the HOLY SPIRIT dwells; and yet God has but one temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT dwells only in the Church of CHRIST; but particular Christians are GOD’S temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT dwells in them as living members of the Christian Church; and thus by the same reason the Church is edified and built up, as it grows into a spiritual house and holy temple, by a firm and close union and communion of all its parts: and every Christian is edified, as he grows up in all Christian graces and virtues in the unity of the Church. And, therefore, whatever extraordinary means of edification men may fancy to themselves in a separation, the apostle knew no edification but in the communion of the Church; and indeed, if our growth and increase in all grace and virtue be more owing to the internal assistance of the DIVINE SPIRIT, than to the external administrations, as St. Paul tells us, “I have planted and Apollos watered, but GOD gave the increase; so then, neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but GOD that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. iii. 6, 7); and if the DIVINE SPIRIT confines his influences and operations to the unity of the Church, as the same apostle tells us that there is but “one body and one spirit,” (Eph. iv. 4,) which plainly signifies that the operations of this one spirit are appropriated to this one body, as the soul is to the body it animates;—then it does not seem a very likely way for edification, to cut ourselves off from the unity of CHRIST’S body.

ELDERS. (πρεσβύτεροι, hence Presbyterians.) Presbyterian sects have supposed that the order of _lay-elders_, as they denominate some of their officers, is sanctioned by Holy Scripture. It appears certain, however, that the “elders” mentioned by St. Paul (1 Tim. v.) did not hold the same office as those in the Presbyterian sects, but “laboured in the word and doctrine.” In this place the apostle means only ministers, when he directs that double honour should be paid to the elders that rule well, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine; and the distinction does not appear to consist in the order of officers, but in the degree of their diligence, faithfulness, and eminence in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial duties. It is said that Calvin admitted lay-elders into Church courts, on what he conceived to be the sanction of primitive practice, and, as an effectual method of preventing the return of inordinate power in a superior order of the clergy. To this it is answered by Catholics, that neither the name nor office of lay-elder was ever known to any general or provincial council, or even to any particular Church in the world, before the time of Calvin. (See _Presbyterians_.)

ELECTION. (See _Predestination_, _Calvinism_, _Armininnism_.) There are three views taken of election, all parties agreeing that _some_ doctrine of election is taught in Holy Scripture,—the Calvinistic, the Arminian, and the Catholic.

By the Calvinists, (see _Calvinism_,) election is judged to be the election of certain individuals out of the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately, to eternal life, while all other individuals are either passively left, or actively doomed, to a certainty of eternal death; and the moving cause of that election is defined to be GOD’S unconditional and irrespective will and pleasure, inherent in, and exercised in consequence of, his absolute and uncontrollable sovereignty.

By the Arminians, or Remonstrants, (see _Arminianism_,) Scriptural election is pronounced to be the election of certain individuals, out of the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately to eternal life; and the moving cause of that election is asserted to be GOD’S eternal prevision of the future persevering holiness and consequent moral fitness of the individuals themselves, who thence have been thus elected.

Election under the gospel or Catholic view denotes, the election of various individuals into the pale of the visible Church, with GOD’S merciful purpose, that through faith and holiness they should attain everlasting glory, but with a possibility (since GOD governs his intelligent creatures on moral principles only) that through their own perverseness they may fail of attaining it.

Stanley Faber, from whose learned and most satisfactory work these definitions are taken, very clearly proves this to be the doctrine of the reformed Church of England; where, in the seventeenth Article, the Church of England, speaking of predestination to life, teaches not an election of certain individuals, either absolute or previsional, directly and immediately, to eternal happiness. But she teaches an election of certain individuals into the Church catholic, in order that there, according to the everlasting purpose and morally operating intention of GOD, they may be delivered from curse and damnation, and thus, indirectly and mediately, may be brought, through CHRIST, to everlasting glory; agreeably to GOD’S promises, as they are generically, not specifically, set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

That such is the real doctrine of the Church of England—in other words, that she teaches a predestination to life, not direct and immediate, but indirect and mediate—inevitably follows from the circumstance that, while in her sixteenth Article she hints at the possibility of the elect individually departing from grace given, in her Homilies and in her Burial Service, she distinctly states, that the elect, in her sense of the word, may, in their individual capacity, fall away utterly, and thus perish finally. Now, this statement is palpably incompatible with the tenet of a direct and immediate predestination of individuals to eternal life; for individuals, so predestinated, could not, by the very terms of their predestination, fall away utterly and irrecoverably. Therefore, the predestination to life, mentioned in the seventeenth Article, can only mean an indirect and mediate predestination of individuals; or, in other words, it can only mean a predestination of individuals to eternal life, through the medium of election into the Catholic Church; in GOD’S everlasting purpose and intention indeed; but still, (since GOD, in executing his purpose and intention, operates upon the minds of his intelligent creatures not physically, but morally,) with a possibility of their defeating that merciful purpose and intention, and thence of their finally falling away to everlasting destruction.

As the article, in connexion with the other documents of the Anglican Church, must, unless we place them in irreconcilable collision with each other, be understood to propound the doctrine of predestination after the manner and in the sense which has been specified; so it distinctly enjoins us to receive GOD’S promises, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture.

The word _generally_ in this place is not opposed to _unusually_, but to _particularly_, and signifies generically. And the other documents of the Church of England agree with this interpretation of the seventeenth Article.

We may refer, in the first instance, to the peculiar phraseology introduced into the office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation: sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin: and grant that this child, now to be baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.”

Thus, in systematically generalizing phraseology, runs the prayer. Now the same prayer is recited over every child. Consequently, by the inevitable force of the word “remain” as here used, every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is declared to be, at that time, one of the number of GOD’S elect.

But the largest charity cannot believe that every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is elect in the sense of election as jointly maintained by Calvin and Arminius.

Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of her own explicit phraseology, the idea which the English Church annexes to the term election, can only be that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is yet additionally established by the parallel phraseology, which occurs in the somewhat more modern office of Adult Baptism.

With the sole requisite alteration of “this person” for “this child,” the prayer is copied verbatim from the older office. Every adult, therefore, who is baptismally introduced into the pale of the Church, is, as such, declared to be one of the number of GOD’S elect people.

The same matter is still further established by the strictly homogeneous language of the Catechism.

Each questioned catechumen, who, as an admitted member of the Church, has already, in the baptismal office, been declared to be one of the elect, is directed to reply: that, as a chief article of the faith propounded in the Creed, he has learned “to believe in GOD the HOLY GHOST, who sanctifieth” him “and all the elect people of GOD.”

Now, such an answer plainly makes every catechumen declare himself to be one of the elect.

But, in no conceivable sense which will harmonize with the general phraseology of the Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiastical individual election only, can every catechumen be deemed one of GOD’S elect people.

Therefore the idea which to the Scriptural term election, is annexed by the Church of England, is that of ecclesiastical individual election.

The matter is also established by the parallel phraseology introduced into the Burial Service.

“We beseech thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.”

In this prayer, the generic term “we” occurs in immediate connexion with “the number of thine _elect_.”

Therefore the evidently studied arrangement of the words, enforces the conclusion that every member of the Church, as designated by the term “we,” must be deemed one of GOD’S elect people.

Finally, the same matter is established, even in the familiar course of daily recitation, by the language of the very liturgy itself.

“Endue thy ministers with righteousness: and make thy chosen people joyful.

“O LORD, save thy people: and bless thine inheritance.”

Now, who are the “chosen people,” whom the LORD is here supplicated to “make joyful?”

Can we reasonably pronounce them, in the judgment of the Anglican Church, to be certain individuals of each actually praying congregation, who, in contradistinction to other individuals of the same congregation, are predestinated, either absolutely or previsionally, to eternal life?

Assuredly, the whole context forbids so incongruous a supposition; for, assuredly, the whole context requires us to pronounce, that “thy chosen people” are identical with “thine inheritance.”

But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies “thine inheritance” with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, “thy chosen people” and the Catholic Church are terms, in point of import, identical. (See _Perseverance_.)

ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (See _Bishops_.)

ELEMENTS. The materials used in the sacraments, appointed for that purpose by our LORD himself. Thus water is the element of baptism, and bread and wine are the elements of the eucharist. With respect to the elements of the eucharist, it is ordered by the Church of England that, “when there is a communion, the priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;” _Then_, that is, after the offertory, and after presenting the basin with the alms. This rubric being added to our liturgy at the last review, at the same time with the word “oblations,” in the prayer following, it is clearly evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer solemnly to _God_ as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made GOD’S by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man’s, but as GOD’S provisions, who by thus entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled, and again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed SAVIOUR, when he instituted the new sacrament of his own body and blood, first gave thanks and blessed the elements; that is, offered them up to GOD as LORD of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the communion to GOD upon the altar by this or some short ejaculation: “LORD, we offer thee thine own out of what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son.

In the ancient Church they had generally a side table, or _prothesis_, near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of the communion service was over. Now, though we have not always a side table, and there is no express provision for one made in the Church of England, yet in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the priest himself was ordered, in this place, to set both bread and wine upon the altar; but at the review in 1551, this and several other pious usages were thrown out, in condescension to ultra-Protestant superstition. (See _Credence_.) After which the Scotch liturgy was the first wherein we find it restored; and Mr. Mede having observed our liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion, that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set solemnly on the table by the priest himself. It appears, indeed, that the traditional practice of the immediately preceding times maintained its ground in many places after the alteration of the rubric; (see _Hicke’s Treatises_, i. 127–129, 322–324;) but the history of the change gives so marked a character to our present rubric, that a neglect of it is clearly a violation of the priest’s obligation to conformity. If the priest thus offends the consciences of the more enlightened members of a congregation, they should point out to him his mistake, which can only proceed from traditional negligence. In the coronation service of Queen Victoria, after the reading of the sentences in the Offertory, this rubric occurs. “And first the Queen offers bread and wine for the communion, which being brought out of King Edward’s chapel, and delivered into her hands, the bread upon the paten by the bishop who read the Epistle, and the wine in the chalice by the bishop that read the Gospel, are by the archbishop received from the Queen, and reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair linen cloth, the archbishop first saying this prayer,” &c. (See _Oblation_ and _Offertory_.)—See _Wheatly_.

ELEVATION. In architecture, a representation of a building, or of any portion of it, as it would appear if it were possible that the eye should be exactly opposite every part of it at the same time.

ELEVATION OF THE HOST. This Romish ceremony, condemned in our twenty-fifth Article, is not, comparatively speaking, an ancient rite. The Roman ritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV., Le Brun, &c., acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence before the eleventh or twelfth century in the West. The Ordo Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, and Micrologus, make no mention of the rite, though the last of these ritualists lived at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is, that no certain documents refer to it until the beginning of the thirteenth century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in the twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop of Paris, about 1200, appoint this elevation, and it was probably then first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent III., who wrote on the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century, does not speak of it; but, in the time of Honorius III., it had come into use, for he mentions it in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, A. D. 1219, where he commands that, at the elevation, the people should reverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet.” This was inserted in the decretals (c. _sane_ de celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX., his successor, and thus became the law of the West. It is spoken of by Bonaventure, Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, in the latter part of the same century; and Cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.

We know then, that, in the thirteenth century, the host was elevated, and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But if we are to judge by the authorities referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the writers of that and the following ages did not always interpret this as designed for the adoration of the elements, or even of CHRIST in the eucharist. Bonaventure (A. D. 1270) assigns eight reasons for the elevation, some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the people on the occasion; but he does not notice the adoration of the elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to be rung at the elevation, that the people might be excited to pray: not to worship the host. “Præcipitur quod in celebratione missarum, quando corpus CHRISTI elevatur, in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem excitentur.” Cardinal Guido (A. D. 1265) ordained, that at the elevation all the people should pray for pardon. “Bonam illic consuetudinem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiæ omnis populus in ecclesia ad sonitum nolæ veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis benedictionem prostratus jaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D. 1536) explained the people’s duty at the elevation to consist, in remembering the LORD’S death, and returning him thanks with minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationem consecrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini ... tum videretur silendum, et ab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi corporibus, animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæ agendæ CHRISTO Redemptori, qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque redemit.”

On the other hand, Durand, (1286,) Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod of Augsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius, one of the papal legates at the synod of Trent, understood the prostration of the people as designed for the adoration of CHRIST as present in the eucharist. Certainly this has latterly become the common opinion, but from what has been said above it appears that, before the Reformation, and afterwards, many persons at the elevation directed their worship to GOD and CHRIST simply, without any exclusive reference to the presence of CHRIST in the eucharist.—_Palmer._

EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, after the first Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday, the 14th of September, and the 13th of December, all being fasting days; the Sundays following these days being the stated times of ordination in the Church. It is to be remarked, that the Sunday in December which begins the Ember week is always the third Sunday in Advent. The week in which these days fall are called Ember week. But as Sunday begins the week, the Ember collect is always to be read on the Sunday preceding the Ember days, not on that which follows them, as is sometimes erroneously done.

The derivation of the name is uncertain. It has been supposed by some to signify “ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” in allusion to the ancient custom connected with fasting. The fact that the Ember weeks return at stated periods, has led others to trace the name to a Saxon word signifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In the Western Church they were denominated “the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and from this comes another, and perhaps the most probable, illustration—the Latin _quatuor tempora_ (four seasons) being abbreviated into the German _quatemper_ or _quatember_, and again, into the English _ember_. On these days the design of the Church is to call her members, by prayer and fasting, to invoke the Divine aid and blessing on the choice and commission of ministers of the gospel. The deep interest every Christian heart should feel in a matter of such infinite moment, should secure for these days the pious observance of the members of the Church.

EMBLEM. A visible, and usually an ornamental, symbol of some spiritual thing; of some great truth concerning the object of a Christian’s worship, of some object of his faith and hope, or of some mystery or privilege.

The use of emblems, under which the truths of Christianity were veiled from the heathen, while they were presented vividly to the minds of the faithful, is probably as old as Christianity itself: and the fancy of pious persons has continued it to the present day; many particular emblems having been so generally and almost universally used, as to have been interwoven almost with the very external habit of the Church itself. Among the most apt and venerable may be mentioned, the trine compass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)

“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”

or a circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle; denoting the co-equality and co-eternity of the three Divine persons in the ever blessed and undivided Trinity: the hand extended from the clouds in the attitude of benediction, for the first Person in the Trinity: the Lamb triumphant, the fish, (see _Piscis_,) the pelican wounding her own breast to feed her young, and others, for the SON of GOD, JESUS CHRIST our LORD: the dove, for the HOLY GHOST. The chalice receiving the blood of the wounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist: the phœnix rising from the flames, for the resurrection: the cross, for the Christian’s life of conflict; the crown, for his hope of glory. All these are beautifully significant, and are very innocent in their use, as well as pious in their intention.

It is of the essence of a proper emblem that it be not, nor pretend to be, a simple representation. It then loses its allusive character, and becomes a mere picture of the thing itself. In theology there is another reason why this should be avoided: for when we attempt a representation of any object of Christian worship, we too nearly fall into idolatry. Hence the cross is admissible where the crucifix is not: and the not unfrequent representation of the Holy Trinity, in which the FATHER is represented as a man, supporting the LORD JESUS on the cross, is shocking to the reverent eye. For the like reasons the representations of the holy eucharist, under the old figure of a crucifix pouring blood into four cups placed to receive it, is very objectionable.

With regard to the use of emblems, they still afford very happy ornaments for churches and church furniture, especially perhaps for painted windows. In the primitive Church, the pious sometimes carried them on their persons. Clement of Alexandria has mentioned some which we ought to avoid, and others which we may employ; of which latter we may name a dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a full breeze, and an anchor. As the reason of the rule which he gives still holds, we may refer to his _Pædag._ iii. 11.

EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. A Hebrew word, which signifies “GOD with us.” Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebrated prophecy, in which he foretells to Ahaz the birth of the MESSIAH from a virgin, says, This child shall be called EMMANUEL, GOD with us. He repeats this while speaking of the enemy’s army, which, like a torrent, was to overflow Judea: “The stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O EMMANUEL.” St. Matthew (i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy was accomplished in the birth of CHRIST, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the two natures, Divine and human, were united; so that he was really EMMANUEL, or “GOD with us.”

ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kept on the days on which cities were built, or churches consecrated; and in later times, ceremonies renewed at certain periods, as at Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebration of founders and benefactors.

ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. A name given to a sect in the second century, because they condemned marriage, forbade the eating of flesh or drinking of wine, and rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and conveniences of life. Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin Martyr, was the leader of this sect. He was greatly distinguished for his genius and learning, and the excessive austerity of his life and manners. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and therefore recommended in a peculiar manner the mortification of the body. He distinguished the Creator of the world from the Supreme Being, denied the reality of CHRIST’S body, and blended the Christian religion with several corrupt tenets of the Oriental philosophy.

ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, from ἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sense denotes persons under the motion or operation of any spirit whatever, good or bad; but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiastical writers to denote persons whose bodies are possessed by an evil spirit. Mention is often made in the primitive Church, of persons possessed of an evil spirit. The regulations of the Church bestowed upon them special care. They constituted a distinct class of Christians, bearing some relation both to the catechumens and the faithful; but differing from both in this, that they were under the special oversight and direction of exorcists, while they took part in some of the religious exercises of both classes.

Catechumens who, during their probationary exercises, became demoniacs, were never baptized until thoroughly healed, except in case of extreme sickness. Believers who became demoniacs, in the worst stage of their disease, like the weeping penitents, were not permitted to enter the church; but were retained under close inspection in the outer porch. When partially recovered they were permitted, with the _audientes_, to join in public worship, but they were not permitted to partake of the eucharist until wholly restored, except in the immediate prospect of death. In general, the energumens were subject to the same rules as the penitents.—_Bingham._

ENGLAND. (See _Church of England_.)

ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. An apocryphal book, of which there remains but a few fragments.

Enoch was certainly one of the most illustrious prophets of the first world, since Moses says of him, that he “walked with GOD.” (Gen. v. 24.) This prophet is famed in the Church for two things: the first is, his being taken up into heaven without seeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second is, his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Jude has cited in his Epistle. (Ver. 14.) The ancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy of Enoch. Tertullian expresses his concern, that it was not generally received in the world. That Father, on the authority of this book, deduces the original of idolatry, astrology, and unlawful arts, from the revolted angels, who married with the daughters of men. And it is on the testimony of this book, that the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Irenæus, Cyprian, Lactantius, received for true this fable of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men. St. Augustine, who was less credulous, allows, indeed, that Enoch wrote something divine because he is cited by St. Jude; but he says, it was not without reason that this book was not inserted in the Canon, which was preserved in the temple of Jerusalem, and committed to the care of the sacrificators. St. Augustine sufficiently insinuates, that the authority of this book is doubtful, and that it cannot be proved that it was really written by Enoch. Indeed the account it gives of giants engendered by angels, and not by men, has manifestly the air of a fable; and the most judicious critics believe it ought not to be ascribed to Enoch. _De Habitu Mulier._ c. iii. _De Civit. Dei_, lib. xv. c. 23.

This apocryphal book lay a long time buried in darkness; till the learned Joseph Scaliger recovered a part of it. That author gives us some considerable fragments of it, in his notes on the chronicle of Eusebius; particularly in relation to the above-mentioned story of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men.

Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learned men, attribute this work to one of those Jews, who lived in the times between the Babylonish captivity and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Others are of opinion, it was written after the rise and establishment of Christianity, by one of those fanatics, with whom the primitive Church was filled, who made a ridiculous mixture of the Platonic philosophy and the Christian divinity: such as the authors, or forgers, of the Sibylline Oracles, the Dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus, and the like. The reasons of this opinion are these. 1. The original of the book is Greek; and therefore it was not composed by any Jew, living in Judea, or Chaldea; for they always wrote in Hebrew, or in some of its dialects. 2. It is evident the author was a Christian, because he makes perpetual allusions to the texts of the New Testament. It is therefore, probably, the invention of some Christian, who took occasion from the Epistle of St. Jude to forge this work. As for St. Jude himself, it is probable he cites what concerns the general judgment, not from any book then subsisting under the name of Enoch, but from tradition.—_Jurieu, Hist. des Dogmes et Cultes_,