part i

. c. 4.

ENTHRONISATION. (See _Bishop_.) The placing of a bishop in his stall or throne in his cathedral.

A distinction is sometimes made between the enthronisation of an archbishop and a bishop, the latter being called _installation_: but this appears to be a mere refinement of the middle ages, of which we have many such.—_Jebb._

EPACT. In chronology, and in the tables for the calculation of Easter, a number indicating the excess of the solar above the lunar year. The solar year consisting, in round numbers, of 365 days, and the lunar of twelve months, of twenty-nine and a half days each, or 354 days, there will be an overplus in the solar year of eleven days, and this constitutes the _Epact_. In other words, the epact of any year expresses the number of days from the last new moon of the old year (which was the beginning of the present lunar year) to the first of January. In the first year, therefore, it will be 0; in the second 11 days; in the third twice 11 or 22; and in the fourth it would be 11 days more, or 33; but 30 days being a synodical month, will in that year be intercalated, making thirteen synodical months, and the remaining three is then the epact. In the following year, 11 will again be added, making fourteen for the epact, and so on to the end of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact of the last year, and always rejecting thirty, by counting it as an additional month. The epact is inserted in the table of moveable feasts in the Prayer Book.

EPHOD, a sort of ornament or upper garment, worn by the Hebrew priests. The word ‏אפוד‎, _ephod_, is derived from ‏אפד‎, _aphad_, which signifies to _gird_, or _tie_, for the ephod was a kind of girdle which, brought from behind the neck, and over the two shoulders, and hanging down before, was put cross upon the stomach; then carried round the waist, and made use of as a girdle to the tunic. There were two sorts of ephods, one of plain linen for the priests, and another embroidered for the high priest. As there was nothing singular in that used by common priests, Moses does not dwell upon the description of it, but of that belonging to the high priest he gives us a large and particular account. (Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.) It was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson, and twisted cotton: upon that part of it which passed over the shoulders were two large precious stones, one on each shoulder, upon which were engraven the names of the twelve tribes, six upon each stone; and, where the ephod crossed upon the high priest’s breast, there was a square ornament called the pectoral, or breastplate.

St. Jerome observes, that the ephod was peculiar to the priesthood; and it was an opinion among the Jews, that no sort of worship, true or false, could subsist without a priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah, having made an idol and placed it in his house, did not fail to make an ephod for it. (Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea, (iii. 4,) that the Israelites should be for a long time without kings, princes, sacrifices, altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah, speaking of the false gods who were worshipped by the Israelites, ascribes ephods to them.

The ephod is often taken for the pectoral or breastplate, and for the Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to it, because all this belonged to the ephod, and made but one piece with it. Though the ephod was properly an ecclesiastical habit, yet we find it sometimes worn by laymen. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a linen ephod. (1 Sam. ii. 18.) And David, in the ceremony of removing the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam. vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were not allowed to wear the ephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little time before the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Levites obtained of that prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests. The historian observes, that this was an innovation contrary to the laws of their country, which were never struck at with impunity.

Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to wear the ephod, because David coming to Ziglag, and finding that the Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s wives, ordered Abiathar the high priest to bring him the ephod, which being done, David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I pursue after this troop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whence they infer that David consulted GOD by Urim and Thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. The generality of commentators believe, that David did not dress himself in the high priest’s ephod, and that the text signifies no more than that the king ordered Abiathar to put on the ephod, and consult GOD for him.

The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having become the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii. 27.) What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the learned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called, was an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of that signal victory; and that the Israelites paid a kind of Divine worship to it, so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their idolatry; in like manner as Moses was, when he made the brazen serpent, which came afterwards to be worshipped.

EPIGONATON. An appendage of a lozenge shape, somewhat resembling a small maniple, worn on the right side, depending from the girdle. It is considered to represent the napkin with which our blessed LORD girded himself at the last supper, and has embroidered on it either a cross or the head of our LORD. In the Romish Church its use is confined to the pope. In the Greek Church it is used by all bishops. The epigonaton does not occur in the sacerdotal vestments of the English Church.—_Palmer._

EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestation of CHRIST to the Gentiles, is commemorated in the Church on the 6th of January, and denotes the day on which the wise men came from the East to worship the infant JESUS. (Matt. ii. 2.) Let us be thankful for the light of the gospel, which on that day began to shine on those who sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt. iv. 16.)

The word epiphany is derived from the compound verb ἐπιφαίνω, which signifies to _manifest_ or _declare_. The Epiphany is observed as a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

The feast of Epiphany was not, originally, a distinct festival, but made a part of that of the nativity of CHRIST; which being celebrated twelve days, the first and last of which, according to the custom of the Jews in their feasts, were high or chief days of solemnity, either of these might fitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifies the appearance of CHRIST in the world.

This festival was, in one respect, more taken notice of, in the Greek Church, than the Nativity itself, being allowed as one of the three solemn times of baptism, which the Nativity was not; a privilege which it wanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom tells us, that, this being likewise the day of our SAVIOUR’S baptism, it was usual to carry home water, at midnight, from the church, and that it would remain as fresh and uncorrupt for one, two, or three years, as if immediately drawn from the spring.—_Homil. 24, de Bapt. Christi._

Theodosius the Younger gave this festival an honourable place among those days, on which the public games were not allowed; and Justinian made it a day of vacation from all pleadings at law, as well as from popular pleasures. It is to be observed, likewise, that those to whom the care of the Paschal cycle, or rule for finding Easter, was committed, were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give public notice when Easter and Lent were to be kept the ensuing year.—_Cod. Theod._ lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5. _Cod. Just._ lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 6.

EPISCOPACY. (See _Bishops_ and _Orders_.) The ancient apostolical form of Church government, consisting in the superintendency of one over several other church officers. Bishops were always allowed to be of an order superior to presbyters; and, indeed, having all the powers that presbyters have, and some more peculiar to themselves, they must be of a different order necessarily. It is their peculiar office to ordain, which never was allowed to presbyters; and, anciently, the presbyter acted in dependence upon the bishop in the administration of the LORD’S supper and baptism, and even in preaching, in such manner that he could not do it regularly without the bishop’s approbation.

Our Church asserts, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the order of bishops was “from the apostles’ time;” referring us to those texts of Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical Epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order. And of a great many which might be alleged these are some. In the short history which we have of the apostles, we find them exercising all the peculiar offices of the episcopal order. They ordain church ministers: “And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) They confirm baptized persons: “Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the HOLY GHOST” (viii. 15). They excommunicate notorious offenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v. 5.) The like episcopal powers we find in Scripture committed to others, whom, from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, we judge to have been advanced to that order. Not only a power of ordination, but a particular charge in conferring it, is given to Timothy; namely, that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Tim. v. 22.) That he caution the presbyters under him “that they teach no other doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are given him how he should animadvert on an offending presbyter: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to what conduct he should oblige the deacons (iii. 8). The same episcopal powers are committed to Titus, to “ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to excommunicate heretics after the first or second admonition (iii. 10). Now these are very good proofs to all reasonable men that diligently read the Holy Scriptures, that the order of bishops was inclusively “from,” that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”

But to all diligent and impartial readers of ancient writers the case is yet more out of doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writer extant is Clemens Romanus, who wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians within forty years after our SAVIOUR’S ascension. And he speaks not only of presbyters and deacons, but of bishops likewise, as an order in use in his time, clearly distinguishing also between the two orders of bishops and presbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch seventy years after CHRIST, in which he continued forty years, being martyred in the year of our LORD 108, just seven years after St. John’s death, all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished. Of lower authorities the instances are innumerable. Clement of Alexandria wrote in the latter end of the second century; and he mentions the three orders as the established use of the Church in his time. Origen, who lived at the same time, uses corresponding language. Tertullian likewise mentions these three orders as established ranks of the hierarchy. And so infinite other authors make these three orders perfectly distinct.—_Dr. Nicholls._

Of the distinction among the governors of the Church there was never in ancient times made any question; nor did it seem disputable in the Church, except to one malcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get a name in story, but never made much noise, or obtained any vogue in the world. Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy. No great body even of heretics could find cause to dissent from the Church in this point. But all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Donatists, &c. maintained the distinction of orders among themselves, and acknowledged the duty of the inferior clergy to their bishops. And no wonder; seeing it standeth upon so very firm and clear grounds; upon the reason of the case, upon the testimony of Holy Scripture, upon general tradition, and unquestionable monuments of antiquity, upon the common judgment and practice of the greatest saints, persons most renowned for wisdom and piety in the Church.

Reason doth plainly require such subordinations. This all experience attesteth; this even the chief impugners of episcopal presidency do by their practice confess, who for prevention of disorders have been fain, of their own heads, to devise ecclesiastical subordination of classes, provinces, and nations; and to appoint moderators, or temporary bishops, in their assemblies. So that reason hath forced the dissenters from the Church to imitate it.

The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this distinction. For therein we have represented one “angel” presiding over principal churches, which contained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,) &c.: therein we find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised: we have one bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese, (Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all things therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging presbyters; rebuking “with all authority,” or imperiousness, as it were, (Tit. ii. 15,) and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics and scandalous persons.

In the Jewish Church there were an high priest, chief priest, a sanhedrim, or senate, or synod.

The government of congregations among GOD’S ancient people, which it is probable was the pattern that the apostles, no affecters of needless innovation, did follow in establishing ecclesiastical discipline among Christians, doth hereto agree; for in their synagogues, answering to our Christian churches, they had, as their elders and doctors, so over them an ἀρχισυνάγωγος, the head of the eldership, and president of the synagogue.

The primitive general use of Christians most effectually doth back the Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction, scarce less than demonstrating it constituted by the apostles. For how otherwise is it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the apostles in several most distant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, should presently conspire in acknowledgment and use of it? How could it, without apparent confederacy, be formed, how could it creep in without notable clatter, how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not in the foundation of those Churches laid by the apostles? How is it likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly upon the bishops, when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminence was in effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruin, an ambition of irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious encroachments? And how could all the holy Fathers, persons of so renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity, be so blind as not to discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How indeed could all GOD’S Church be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply in practice, with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, the acts, the epistles, the histories, the commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from the blessed martyrs and most holy confessors of our faith, should conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops contesting for the faith against pagan idolaters and heretical corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting our religion by their labours, their suffering, and watering it with their blood?—_Dr. Isaac Barrow._

It was so well known that a bishop was of a superior order to a presbyter, that it was deemed sacrilege by the fourth general council to thrust a bishop down from the first to the second degree. So that, however persecution and dire necessity may perhaps excuse some late Churches, for being forced to mix the two first orders, and to have only priests and deacons; yet we, who have a prescription of above 1600 (now 1700) years for us, even from the apostles’ time, have the right of our side, and must never depart therefrom.—_Dean Comber._

EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles are letters which were addressed by the inspired apostles to Churches or individuals.

Of these, the apostle Paul wrote fourteen; viz.

1. The Epistle to the Romans.

2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

3. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

4. The Epistle to the Galatians.

5. The Epistle to the Ephesians.

6. The Epistle to the Philippians.

7. The Epistle to the Colossians.

8. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

9. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

10. The First Epistle to Timothy.

11. The Second Epistle to Timothy.

12. The Epistle to Titus.

13. The Epistle to Philemon.

14. The Epistle to the Hebrews.

St. James wrote one, general, Epistle. St. Peter, two. St. John, three: and St. Jude, one.

But by the Epistle in the liturgy we mean the first lesson in the Communion Service, which is so styled because it is generally taken from the Epistles of the holy apostles. Sometimes, however, it is taken from the Acts, and occasionally from the prophets. Almost all the lessons now read as Epistles in the English liturgy have been appointed to their present place, and used by our Church, for many ages. They are found in all the liturgies of our Church used before the revision, in the reign of Edward VI., and they also appear in all the monuments of the English liturgy, before the invasion of William the Conqueror. It is, in fact, probable that they are generally as old as the time of Augustine, A. D. 595. In this view, the lessons entitled Epistles in our liturgy have been used, with some alterations, for 1200 years by the Church of England. We must consider this more as a subject of interest and pleasure than of any great importance, since all Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD. Yet we may remark, that the extracts read from the Epistles are generally devotional and practical, and, therefore, best adapted for ordinary comprehension and general edification.

EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, and in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, we find that a special reader, entitled an epistoler, is to read the Epistle in collegiate churches, vested in a cope. The canon and the injunctions here referred to will be found under the head _Cathedral_.

Epistolers are still statuteable officers in several cathedrals of the new foundation; though in most it has fallen into desuetude. It is retained at Durham. The epistoler and gospeller are sometimes called deacon and subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes. The epistoler, according to our present rubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest. In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon. But by Archbishop Grindal’s Injunctions in 1571, it was required that parish clerks should be able to read the first Lesson and Epistle.—_Jebb._

EPOCH. A term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time from which the succeeding years are numbered. The first epoch is the creation of the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the year 710 of the Julian periods, and 4004 years before JESUS CHRIST. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel; the calling of Abraham; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt; the dedication of the temple; the end of the Babylonish captivity; and the birth of JESUS CHRIST. In profane history are reckoned four epochs: the æra of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus; the reign of Cyrus at Babylon; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our SAVIOUR was born.

ERASTIANS. So called from Erastus, a German heretic of the 16th century. The pastoral office, according to him, was only persuasive, like that of a professor of science over his students, without any power of the keys annexed. The LORD’S supper, and other ordinances of the gospel, were to be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or religious nature, being referred to the civil magistrate.

ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books of Scripture, which were always excluded the Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the Romanists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in Greek, by some Hellenistical Jews, though some imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterwards translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.

The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the establishment of Divine worship. The truth it contains is borrowed from the canonical books of Ezra (or Esdras, as the Greeks and Latins call him, and thence term these books, the Third and Fourth Book of Esdras); the rest is exceeding fabulous and trifling: this book however is by the Greeks allowed to be canonical. The Second Book of Esdras is written in the prophetical way, and pretends to visions and revelations, but so ridiculous and absurd, that the Spirit of GOD could have no concern in the dictating of them. The author believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that all the souls both of good and bad men would be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. He speaks of two monstrous animals created by GOD at the beginning of the world, in order to make a feast with them for all the elect, after the resurrection. He says, that the ten tribes are gone into a certain country, which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repaired the whole body of the Holy Scriptures, which were entirely lost; and he speaks of JESUS CHRIST and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the gospel itself is not more express.

The Books of Esdras are not read in the service of the Church of England. In the list of apocryphal books in the 6th Article, these are called the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah were formerly joined in one book; and when they were separated, the book of Nehemiah, being considered as a continuation of the book of Ezra, was called by his name.—_Bishop Tomline._

ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremony of betrothing, or coming under obligation for the purpose of marriage. It was a mutual agreement between the two parties, which usually preceded the marriage some considerable time. The distinction between _espousals_ and _marriage_ ought to be carefully attended to, as espousals in the East are sometimes contracted for years before the parties cohabit, and sometimes in very early youth. This custom is alluded to figuratively, as between GOD and his people, (Jer. ii. 2,) to whom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.) The apostle says that he acted as a kind of assistant (_pronuba_) on this occasion (2 Cor. xi. 2.): “I have espoused you to CHRIST,” that is, I have drawn up the writings, settled the agreements, given pledges, &c., of that union. (See Isa. liv. 5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)

ESSENES. A very ancient sect, which was spread abroad through Syria, Egypt, and the neighbouring countries. They maintained that religion consisted wholly in contemplation and silence. Some of them passed their lives in a state of celibacy; others embraced the state of matrimony, which they considered as lawful, when entered into with the sole design of propagating the species, and not to satisfy the demands of lust. Some of them held the possibility of appeasing the Deity by sacrifices, though different from that of the Jews; and others maintained that no offering was acceptable to GOD but that of a serene and composed mind, addicted to the contemplation of divine things. They looked upon the law of Moses as an allegorical system of spiritual and mysterious truths, and renounced, in its explication, all regard to the outward letter.

ESTABLISHMENT. By a religious establishment is generally meant, in the present day, the religion, whether Christian or not, which is recognised by the State. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishment of Scotland, Mahomedanism that of Turkey. In England and Ireland the Catholic Church is the establishment. It has not been endowed by the State, which has rather robbed than enriched it; nor has it been established, like Presbyterianism in Scotland, by an act of the legislature. But being endowed by individual piety, it was for many ages the only community in this country which even pretended to be the Church: as such it was recognised by the State, and when in process of time the Catholic Church in this country asserted its independence of Rome, and reformed the abuses which had crept into it, it continued to be, as it always was, the religious community connected with the State; although, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a sect in communion with Rome was founded in England, and arrogated to itself the name and titles which belong to our ancient Church, and to her alone. A slight reference to history will show what is meant. Soon after Augustine had been consecrated, in France, the first archbishop of Canterbury, his see was endowed with large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. The other kings of the heptarchy erected bishoprics equal to the size of their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship, and endowing them with tithes. (See _Church of England_.)

Thus was the Church established. For many years there appears to have continued a good understanding between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, the powers of which were, in most respects, as in these days, blended. But, after the moral world had been subdued, and papal tyranny had been established by the marvellous energies of Hildebrand, his crafty successors, the popes of Rome, soon perceived that, in order to secure their dominion, it was important, as far as possible, to sever the alliance which had hitherto subsisted between the Church and the State. Representing the Church as independent, they regarded the king as the head of the State, and the pope as supreme over the Church. No sectarian of the present day can be more hostile to the alliance between Church and State than were those divines, who in the middle ages were devoted to the popedom. Although the pope, however, had here in England, as elsewhere, many creatures and advocates, yet many and manful were the repulses he met with from our clergy, our kings, and the people. His authority, indeed, was, in this realm, a mere assumption, for he was never elected by any synod of our Church as its head. Still, assuming rights to which he could lay no lawful claim, his usurpations were continued until, in the reign of Henry VIII., the clergy, the monarch, and the people, could bear the tyranny no longer, but, throwing off the yoke, declared that the pope was _not_ the head of the Church of England, but that, in these realms, the king is, as in times past he was, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, in these his dominions, supreme. This is the fact, and the history of the fact. The property of the Church remains with those who have descended in an unbroken line from the clergy to whom it was originally granted. If our title be disputed, it devolves upon the adversary to establish a prior claim. This the Protestant dissenter does not attempt to do; and, with respect to the Roman Catholic dissenters, we know, that instead of being descended from the original grantees, their line of succession began at Rome scarcely more than two centuries ago. Nor can they claim on the ground of greater similarity of doctrine, for transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, half communion, constrained celibacy, &c., the doctrines and practices which distinguish the modern Romanists, were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon Church. Admitting, then, that we may differ in some particulars of practice from our ancestors, yet certainly we do not differ from them so much as the modern Romanists.

ESTHER. The Book of Esther is a canonical book of Scripture, containing the history of Esther. There has been some dispute whether it was a canonical book among the Jews. St. Jerome and other Christian writers maintain the affirmative, but St. Athanasius and some others incline to the opposite conclusion. It has, however, been received as canonical by the Church. The last six chapters, beginning at the fourth verse of the tenth chapter, are not in the Hebrew text. These are probably a composure of several pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and are therefore deservedly thrown out of the canon of the sacred books by the Protestant Church; but the Latin and Greek Churches hold them canonical. As to the author of the Book of Esther, there is great uncertainty. Many of the Christian fathers attribute this history to Ezra. Eusebius believes it to be more modern. Others ascribe it to Joachim the high priest, the grandson of Josedec. Most conceive Mordecai to have been the author of it, and join Esther with him in the composition of it. M. Du Pin conjectures, that the great synagogue, to preserve the memory of this remarkable event, and to account for the original of the feast of Purim, ordered this book to be composed, which they approved and placed in the canon of their sacred books. It has been remarked, as a singular circumstance, that the Divine name does not once occur in this book.

ETERNITY. That mysterious attribute of GOD which implies his existence, as without end, so without beginning. The self-existent Being, observes Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that, because something must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and, because it is impossible but something must be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon anything external, must be always unalterably the same, nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being, therefore, which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must, of necessity, have existed from everlasting, without beginning, and must, of necessity, exist to everlasting, without end.

As to the manner of this eternal existence, it is manifest it herein infinitely transcends the manner of the existence of all created beings, even of such as shall exist for ever; that whereas it is not possible for their finite minds to comprehend all that is past, or to understand perfectly all things that are present, much less to know all that is future, or to have entirely in their power anything that is to come, but their thoughts, and knowledge, and power, must, of necessity, have degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things themselves: the eternal, supreme cause, on the contrary, must of necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or view, and all things present and future be as equally and entirely in his power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all, but all things were actually present at once.

This is, in reality, the most incomprehensible of the Divine attributes. God is without beginning; the FATHER, always a Father, without beginning; the SON, always the only begotten of the FATHER, without beginning; the HOLY GHOST, always proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, without beginning; the one GOD, always existing in the Trinity of his persons, without beginning.

“There is but one living and true GOD, _everlasting_, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible; and in the unity of this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and _eternity_, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—_Article_ I.

EUCHARIST. (From εὐχαριστία, _giving of thanks_.) (See _Communion_, _Lord’s Supper_, _Elements_, _Consecration of the Elements_, _Sacrament_, _Sacrifice_, _Real Presence_.) _Sacramentum eucharistiæ_ is the name given to the LORD’S supper in our Latin articles, signifying, properly, thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It occurs in Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others; and was adopted into the Latin language, as may be seen from Tertullian and Cyprian in many places.—_Waterland._ We have, however, an earlier allusion to the liturgy, under the title of _eucharistia_, or thanksgiving, in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; where, in forbidding and reasoning against the practice of some persons, who used the miraculous gift of tongues in an improper manner, namely, by celebrating the liturgy in an unknown language, he says, “When thou shalt _bless_ with the SPIRIT, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy _giving of thanks_, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Cor. xiv. 16.) ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τί λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε. The meaning of this passage is obvious: “If thou shalt bless the bread and wine in an unknown language, which has been given to thee by the HOLY SPIRIT, how shall the layman say Amen, ‘so be it,’ at the end of thy thanksgiving or liturgy, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” It is undeniable that St. Paul in this place uses exactly the same expressions to describe the supposed action as he has employed a short time before in designating the sacraments of CHRIST’S body and blood, and describing our LORD’S consecration at the last supper. Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “The cup of _blessing_ which we _bless_, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε. (1 Cor. xi. 23.) “The LORD JESUS, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had _given thanks_, he brake it.” The language of St. Paul also in the passage under consideration, as well as the action which he describes, is perfectly conformable to the description given by Justin Martyr of the celebration of the eucharist. “Then bread and a cup of water and wine is offered to the president of the brethren; and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the FATHER of all, in the name of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST, and makes a very long thanksgiving, because GOD has thought us worthy of these things. And when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present signify their approbation, saying, Amen. For Amen in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president” corresponding to the person who “blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performs the “thanksgiving.” The “people” corresponding to the “unlearned person” (or layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret the word) of St. Paul, and replying Amen, “so be it,” at the end of the thanksgiving in both passages. If we refer to all the ancient and primitive liturgies of the East and of Greece, the peculiar applicability of St. Paul’s argument to the Christian liturgy will appear still more. In the liturgy of Constantinople or Greece, which has probably been always used at Corinth, the bishop or priest takes bread, and “blesses” it in the course of a very long “thanksgiving,” at the end of which all the people answer, “Amen.” The same may be said of the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countries of the East and Greece through which St. Paul bare rule or founded Churches. It may be added, that there is, we believe, no instance in the writings of the most primitive fathers, in which the Amen is ever said to have been repeated at the end of an office containing both blessing and thanksgiving, except in the liturgy of the eucharist.

All this shows plainly that the argument of St. Paul applies immediately and directly to the celebration of this sacrament. Whether we regard his own previous expressions, the language and the words of the earliest fathers, or the customs of the primitive Church exhibited in the ancient liturgies, we see the accurate coincidence between the case which he refers to, and the celebration of the eucharist.—_Palmer’s Origines Liturgicæ_, p. 114. We virtually adopt this word, when in the prayer after communion, we pray to GOD to accept _this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving_.

EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the service of the holy eucharist; or, in a larger sense, having the character of thanksgiving.

EUCHELAION. (_Gr._) The _oil of prayer_. To such penitents (in the Greek Church) as are conscious of the guilt of any mortal sin, as adultery, fornication, or pride, is administered the sacrament of τὸ εὐχέλαιον, _Euchelaion_, which is performed by the bishop, or archbishop, assisted by seven priests, and begins with this prayer, “O Lord, who with the oil of thy mercies hast healed the wounds of our souls, do thou sanctify this oil, that those who are anointed therewith may be freed from their infirmities, and from all corporeal and spiritual evils.” This _oil of prayer_ is pure and unmixed oil, without any other composition; a quantity whereof, sufficient to serve for the whole year, is consecrated, on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by the archbishop, or bishop. The _Euchelaion_ of the Greek answers to the _Extreme Unction_ of the Romanists.

In the administration of this _oil of prayer_, the priest dips some cotton at the end of a stick, and therewith anoints the penitent, in the form of a cross, on the forehead, on the chin, on each cheek, and on the backs and palms of the hands: after which he repeats this prayer—“Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who hast sent thine only Son JESUS CHRIST, healing infirmities and sins, to free us from death; heal this thy servant of corporeal and spiritual infirmities, and give him salvation and the grace of thy CHRIST, through the prayers of our more than holy lady, the mother of GOD, the eternal Virgin, through the assistance of the glorious, celestial, and incorporeal powers, through the virtue of the holy and life-giving cross, of the holy and glorious prophet, the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of the holy and glorious apostles.”—_Ricaut._

EUCHOLOGION. (From εὐχὴ, _preces_, and λόγος, _sermo_.) The name of a liturgical book of the Greek Church, containing a collection of Divine services for the administration of the sacraments, conferring of orders, and other religious offices: it is properly their ritual, containing everything relating to religious ceremonies. Father Simon observes, that several of the most considerable divines of that Church, in Europe, met at Rome under Pope Urban VIII., to examine the Euchologion: Morinus, who was one of the congregation, mentions this ritual in his book _De Congregationibus_: the greatest part of the divines, being influenced by the sentiments of the schoolmen, were willing to reform this Greek ritual by that of the Church of Rome, as if there had been some heresies in it, or rather some passages which made the administration of the sacraments invalid; but some, who more perfectly understood the controversy, opposed the censure of the Euchologion: they proved this ritual was agreeable to the practice of the Greek Church before the schism of Photius, and that for this reason it could not be condemned, without condemning all the old Eastern communion.

EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in the fourth century, whose founder was Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards of Constantinople. They adhered to the errors of the Aëtians and Eunomians, affirming the SON to be differently affected in his will from the FATHER, and made of nothing.

EULOGIÆ. (_Gr._) So the Greek Church calls the _Panis benedictus_, or bread, over which a blessing is pronounced, and which is distributed to those who are unqualified to communicate. The name _Eulogiæ_ was likewise anciently given to the consecrated pieces of bread which the bishops and priests sent to each other for the keeping up a friendly correspondence: those presents likewise, which were made out of respect or obligation, were called _Eulogiæ_.

St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the end of the fourth century, having sent five _Eulogiæ_ at one time to Romanian, speaks to him in these terms: “That I may not be wanting in the duties of brotherly love, I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunition of the warfare of JESUS CHRIST, under whose standard we fight, following the laws of temperance and sobriety.”

EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called from Eunomius, who lived in the fourth century of Christianity; he was constituted bishop of Cyzicum, and stoutly defended the Arian heresy, maintaining that the FATHER was of a different nature from the SON, because no creature could be like his creator: he held that the SON of GOD did not substantially unite himself to the human nature, but only by virtue and his operations; he affirmed blasphemously that he knew GOD as well as GOD himself; and those that were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, and was so averse to the mystery, that he forbade the trinal immersion at baptism. Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelled Cyzicum and forced also to leave Samosata, where he was also obtruded by the Arian faction. Valens restored him to Cyzicum, but being again expelled by the people, he applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.

EUSTATHIANS. A denomination in the fourth century, who derived their name from Eustathius, a monk. This man was the occasion of great disorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries; and, in consequence, he was condemned and excommunicated by the Council of Gangra, which was held soon after that of Nice.

EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifth century, the followers of the error of Eutyches, who being a Constantinopolitan abbot, and contending against Nestorius, fell into a new heresy. He and his followers affirmed that CHRIST was one thing, the Word another; they denied the flesh of CHRIST to be like ours, but said he had a celestial body, which passed through the Virgin as through a channel; that there were two natures in CHRIST before the hypostatical union, but that, after it, there was but one, compounded of both; and thence concluded that the Divinity of CHRIST both suffered and died. Being condemned in a synod at Constantinople, he appealed to the emperor: after which, by the assistance of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus, called Latrocinium, or the assembly of thieves and robbers, wherein he got his heresy to be approved: however, in the fourth general council, under Marcian, A. D. 451, his errors were a second time condemned.

EVANGEL. (From εὐ, _bene_, and ἀγγελία, _nuncius_.) The gospel of CHRIST. The revealed history of our blessed LORD’S life.

EVANGELICAL. Agreeable to the gospel, or “evangel.” The term is used by that class of dissenters whose private judgment leads them to regard as Scriptural the facts of our LORD’S Divinity and atonement, to distinguish them from another class of dissenters, whose private judgment leads them to hold these sacred truths as unscriptural. (See the _Evangelical Magazine_.) The name is sometimes given to those persons who conform to the Church, but whose notions are supposed more nearly to coincide with the opinions of dissenters than with the doctrines of the Church; thereby most unjustly insinuating that the principles of all consistent members of the Church are not according to the gospel. The use of terms of distinction among members of the Church is much to be reprobated: among sects it cannot be avoided. In the strict and proper sense of the words, he who is truly evangelical must be a true member of the Church, and every true member of the Church must be truly evangelical.

EVANGELISTS. Persons chosen by the apostles to preach the gospel. It being impracticable for the twelve only to preach the gospel to all the world, Philip, among others, was engaged in this function. As for their rank in the Church, St. Paul places them after the apostles and prophets, but before the pastors and teachers, (Eph. iv. 11,) which makes Theodoret call them apostles of the second rank: they had no particular flock assigned, as bishops or ordinary pastors, but travelled from one place to another, according to their instructions received from the apostles, to whom they returned after they had executed their commission, so that, in short, this office, being extraordinary, expired with the apostles.

The title of Evangelists is now more particularly given to those four holy persons who wrote the history of our _Saviour_.

EVENS, or VIGILS. The nights or evenings before certain holy-days of the Church. Vigils are derived from the earliest periods of Christianity. In those times of persecution Christians held their assemblies in the night, in order to avoid detection. On these occasions they celebrated the memory of CHRIST’S death in the holy mysteries. When persecution had intermitted and finally ceased, although Christians were able to celebrate all their rites, and to minister the sacraments in the day-time, yet a custom which had commenced from necessity was retained from devotion and choice. The reason why some of the festivals have evens or vigils assigned, and some have not, appears to be this, that the festivals which have no vigils fall generally between Christmas and the Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide; which were always esteemed such seasons of joy that the Church did not think fit to intermingle them with any days of fasting and humiliation. To this rule there are exceptions, which may be severally accounted for, but such seems to be the rule: e.g. There is no vigil on St. Michael’s day, because, as Dr. Bisse remarks, the saints entered into joy through sufferings, and therefore their festivals are preceded by fasts; which circumstance is not applicable to the angels of GOD. St. Paul’s day commemorates not his martyrdom, but his conversion; St. Luke was not an apostle, nor does the calendar represent him as a martyr. The holy-days which have vigils may be seen in the Prayer Book, in the table of the Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year.

The eves are in some respects observed in colleges and choirs as Sundays. For example, in those places where the choral service was not daily, it was nevertheless performed on Saturday evenings and eves, as is still usual; though in some choirs the custom has fallen into abeyance. But in all colleges the regulation of the 17th canon is still observed, which directs that “all masters and fellows of colleges and halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, _and their eves_, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices, according to the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain to their degrees.” At Oxford, however, except at Christ Church, the rule is not generally understood as applying to any but foundation members.

It is difficult to determine what analogy these evening services, preceding Sundays and holy-days, bear to those of the unreformed Church of England. The service for the vigil, in the Breviary, is not at vespers. There is a distinct service for the vigil from matins to nones inclusive, which has collects, &c. different from that of the Sunday or holy-day which it precedes. Ordinary Sundays have not vigils, either in our Church or in the Roman, except at Easter and Pentecost. By our calendar, therefore, the eve of the Sunday is plainly a different matter from the vigil. Though the collect for the Sunday is uniformly read on the preceding Saturday evening, it is not read when the holy-day has no vigil or eve. The Saturday evening service is to be considered as an introduction to that of Sunday.

Some clergymen doubt whether, in case of a holy-day with a vigil or eve falling on a Monday, the collect for that holy-day is to be read on the Sunday evening or on the Saturday. That the _vigil_ or _fast_ day must be kept on the Saturday, and not on the Sunday, is plain from the calendar. But whether this keeping of the vigil includes the _commemoration_ of the holy-day by reading the collect, is not so evident. The question must first be solved, whether the service of the preceding evening is a _vigil service_, or the _first vespers_.—_Jebb._

EVEN-SONG. (See _Liturgy, Common Prayer_.) Evening prayer, which is appointed to be sung or said. The office of even-song, or evening prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the offices of vespers (i. e. even-song) and compline, as used in our Church before the Reformation; and it appears that the revisers of our offices formed the introduction to evening prayer from those parts of both vespers and compline which seemed best suited to this place, and which presented uniformity with the introduction to morning prayer.

_Even-song_ occurs in the table of Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days, and Proper Psalms. It is in fact the same as the old word vespers; and only differs from the other authorized expression, evening prayer, in having more special reference to the psalms and hymns, and the anthem, those holy _songs_ which make up so large a portion of the service.

EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. A festival of the Greek and Romish Churches observed on the 14th of December. It is founded on the following legend:

In the reign of Heraclius, Chosroes, king of Persia, sacked Jerusalem, and, together with other plunder, carried off that part of the cross left there in memory of our SAVIOUR, by the empress Helena, which Chosroes sent into Persia. After many battles, in which the Persian was always defeated, Heraclius had the good fortune to recover the cross. This prince carried it to Jerusalem himself; and, laying aside his imperial ornaments, marched with it on his shoulders to the top of Mount Calvary, from whence it had been taken. The memory of this action was perpetuated by the festival of the re-establishment, or (as it is now called) the exaltation of the cross.

The latter name was given to this festival, because on this day they exalted or set up the cross in the great church at Constantinople, in order to show it to the people.

EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. By Canon 35, “The bishop, before he admit any person to holy orders, shall diligently examine him, in the presence of those ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; and if the bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered.... And if any bishop or suffragan shall admit any to sacred orders who is not so examined, and qualified as before we have ordained, [viz. in Canon 34,] the archbishop of his province, having notice thereof, and being assisted therein by one bishop, shall suspend the said bishop or suffragan so offending, from making either deacons or priests for the space of two years.”

Of common right, this examination pertaineth to the archdeacon, saith Lyndewood; and so saith the canon law, in which this is laid down as one branch of the archidiaconal office. Which is also supposed in our present form of ordination, both of priests and deacons, where the archdeacon’s office is to present the persons that are apt and meet. And for the regular method of examination, we are referred by Lyndewood to the canon upon that head, inserted in the body of the canon law, viz. When the bishop intends to hold an ordination, all who are desirous to be admitted into the ministry are to appear on the fourth day before the ordination; and then the bishop shall appoint some of the priests attending him, and others skilled in the Divine law, and exercised in the ecclesiastical sanctions, who shall diligently examine the life, age, and title of the persons to be ordained; at what place they had their education; whether they be well learned; whether they be instructed in the law of GOD; and they shall be diligently examined for three days successively; and so on the Saturday, they who are approved shall be presented to the bishop.

EXAMINATION BEFORE INSTITUTION. In the first settlement of the Church of England, the bishops of the several dioceses had them under their own immediate care, and that of the clergy living in a community with them, whom they sent abroad to several parts of their dioceses, as they saw occasion to employ them; but by degrees, they found it necessary to place presbyters within such a compass, that they might attend upon the service of GOD amongst the inhabitants. These precincts, which are since called parishes, were at first much larger; and when lords of manors were inclined to build churches for their own convenience, they found it necessary to make some endowments, to oblige those who officiated in their churches to a diligent attendance: upon this, the several bishops were very well content to let those patrons have the nomination of persons to those churches, provided they were satisfied of the fitness of those persons, and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited time. So that the right of patronage is really but a limited trust; and the bishops are still in law the judges of the fitness of the persons to be employed in the several parts of their dioceses. The patrons never had the absolute disposal of their benefices upon their own terms; but if they did not present fit persons within the limited time, the care of the places did return to the bishop, who was then bound to provide for them.

By the statute _Articuli cleri_, 9 Edward II. s. 1, c. 13, it is enacted as follows:—“It is desired that spiritual persons, whom our lord the king doth present unto benefices of the Church, (if the bishop will not admit them, either for lack of learning, or for other cause reasonable,) may not be under the examination of lay persons in the cases aforesaid, as it is now attempted, contrary to the decrees canonical; but that they may sue unto a spiritual judge for remedy, as right shall require.” The answer:—“Of the ability of a person presented unto a benefice of the Church, the examination belongeth to a spiritual judge; so it hath been used heretofore, and shall be hereafter.”

“Of the ability of a person presented”—_De idoneitate personæ_: so that it is required by law, that the person presented be _idonea persona_; for so be the words of the king’s writ, _præsentare idoneam personam_. And this _idoneitas_ consisteth in divers expressions against persons presented:—1. Concerning the person, as if he be under age or a layman. 2. Concerning his conversation, as if he be criminous. 3. Concerning his inability to discharge his pastoral duty, as if he be unlearned, and not able to feed his flock with spiritual food. And the examination of the ability and sufficiency of the person presented belongs to the bishop, who is the ecclesiastical judge; and in this examination he is a judge, and not a minister, and may and ought to refuse the person presented, if he be not _idonea persona_.

“The examination belongeth to a spiritual judge;” and yet in some cases, notwithstanding this statute, _idoneitas personæ_ shall be tried by the country, or else there should be a failure of justice, which the law will not suffer; as if the inability or insufficiency be alleged in a man that is dead, this case is out of the statute; for in such case the bishop cannot examine him; and, consequently, though the matter be spiritual, yet shall it be tried by a jury; and the court, being assisted by learned men in that profession, may instruct the jury as well of the ecclesiastical law in that case, as they usually do of the common law.

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton:—“We do enjoin, that if any one be canonically presented to a church, and there be no opposition, the bishop shall not delay to admit him longer than two months, provided he be sufficient.”

But by Canon 95—“Albeit by former constitutions of the Church of England, every bishop hath had two months’ space to inquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every minister after he hath been presented unto him to be instituted into any benefice, yet for the avoiding of some inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said two months unto eight and twenty days only. In respect of which abridgment we do ordain and appoint that no double quarrel shall hereafter be granted out of any of the archbishops’ courts, at the suit of any minister whatsoever, except he shall first take his personal oath, that the said eight and twenty days at the least are expired after he first tendered his presentation to the bishop, and that he refused to grant him institution thereupon; or shall enter into bond with sufficient sureties to prove the same to be true; under pain of suspension of the granter thereof from the execution of his office for half-a-year _toties quoties_, to be denounced by the said archbishop, and nullity of the double quarrel aforesaid so unduly procured, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. Always provided, that within the said eight and twenty days, the bishop shall not institute any other to the prejudice of the said party before presented, _sub pœna nullitatis_.

“Every bishop hath had.”—The canon mentions bishops, only because institution belongeth to them of common right; but it must also be understood to extend to others, who have this right by privilege or custom, as deans, deans and chapters, and others who have peculiar jurisdiction. Concerning whom it hath been unanimously adjudged, that if the archbishop shall give institution to any peculiar belonging to any ecclesiastical person or body, it is only voidable; because they being not free from this jurisdiction and visitation, the archbishop shall be supposed to have a concurrent jurisdiction, and in this case only to supply the defects of the inferiors, till the contrary appears. But if the archbishop grant institution to a peculiar in a lay hand, it is null and void; because he can have no jurisdiction there.

“To inquire and inform himself.”—In answer to an objection made, that the bishop ought to receive the clerk of him that comes first, otherwise he is a disturber, Hobart saith, the law is contrary; for as he may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a clerk, so he may give convenient time to persons interested, to take knowledge of the avoidance, (even in case of death, and where notice is to be taken and not given,) to present their clerks to it.

Canon 39. “No bishop shall institute any to a benefice, who hath been ordained by any other bishop, except he first show unto him his letters of orders; and bring him a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour, if the bishop shall require it; and, lastly, shall appear upon due examination to be worthy of his ministry.”

“Except he first show unto him his letters of orders.”—And by the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, no person shall be capable to be admitted to any parsonage, vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiastical promotion or dignity whatsoever, before such time as he shall be ordained priest, and bring a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour. By the ancient laws of the Church, and particularly of the Church of England, the four things in which the bishop was to have full satisfaction in order to institution, were age, learning, behaviour, and orders. And there is scarce any one thing which the ancient canons of the Church more peremptorily forbid, than the admitting clergymen of one diocese to exercise their function in another, without first exhibiting the letters testimonial and commendatory of the bishop by whom they were ordained; and the constitutions of the Archbishops Reynolds and Arundel show that the same was the known law of the English Church, to wit, that none should be admitted to officiate (not so much as a chaplain or curate) in any diocese in which he was not born or ordained, unless he bring with him his letters of orders, and letters commendatory of his diocesan.

And, lastly, “shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy of his ministry.”—As to the matter of learning, it hath been particularly allowed, not only by the courts of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, but also by the High Court of Parliament, that the ordinary is not accountable to any temporal court, for the measures he takes or the rules by which he proceeds, in examining and judging (only he must examine in convenient time, and refuse in convenient time); and that the clerk’s having been ordained (and so presumed to be of good abilities) doth not take away or diminish the right which the statute above recited doth give to the bishop to whom the presentation is made to examine and judge.

EXARCH. An officer in the Greek Church, whose business it is to visit the provinces allotted to him, in order to inform himself of the lives and manners of the clergy; take cognizance of ecclesiastical causes; the manner of celebrating Divine service; the administration of the sacraments, particularly confession; the observance of the canons; monastic discipline; affairs of marriages; divorces, &c.

The title of exarchs, borrowed from the civil administration of the empire, was given about the fourth century to the chief bishops of certain large provinces; as the bishops of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and of Ephesus.

EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby the person against whom it is pronounced is for the time cast out of the communion of the Church.

Excommunication is of two kinds, the lesser and the greater: the lesser excommunication is the depriving the offender of the use of the sacraments and Divine worship; and this sentence is passed by judges ecclesiastical, on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or disobedience, in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to penance, or other injunctions of the court.

The greater excommunication is that whereby men are deprived, not only of the sacraments and the benefit of Divine offices, but of the society and conversation of the faithful.

If a person be excommunicated generally, as if the judge say, _I excommunicate such a person_, this shall be understood of the greater excommunication.

The law in many cases inflicts the censure of excommunication _ipso facto_ upon offenders; which nevertheless is not intended so as to condemn any person without a lawful trial for his offence: but he must first be found guilty in the proper court; and then the law gives that judgment. And there are divers provincial constitutions, by which it is provided, that this sentence shall not be pronounced (in ordinary cases) without previous monition or notice to the parties, which also is agreeable to the ancient canon law.

By Canon 65. “All ordinaries shall in their several jurisdictions carefully see and give order, that as well those who for obstinate refusing to frequent Divine service established by public authority within this realm of England, as those also (especially those of the better sort and condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate, (unless within three months immediately after the said sentence of excommunication pronounced against them, they reform themselves, and obtain the benefit of absolution,) be every six months ensuing, as well in the parish church as in the cathedral church of the diocese in which they remain, by the minister, openly in the time of Divine service upon some Sunday, denounced and declared excommunicate, that others may be thereby both admonished to refrain their company and society, and excited the rather to procure a writ _de excommunicato capiendo_, thereby to bring and reduce them into due order and obedience. Likewise the registrar of every ecclesiastical court shall yearly, between Michaelmas and Christmas, duly certify the archbishop of the province of all and singular the premises aforesaid.”

By Canon 68. “If the minister refuse to bury any corpse, except the party deceased were denounced excommunicated by the greater excommunication, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testify of his repentance, he shall be suspended by the bishop from his ministry for the space of three months.”

But by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, the Burial Office shall not be used for any that die excommunicate.

EXEAT. The permission given by the authorities in a college, to persons _in statu pupillari_, to leave their college residence for a time.

EXEDRÆ, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the general name of such buildings as were distinct from the main body of the _churches_, and yet within the bounds of the Church, taken in its largest sense. Thus Eusebius, speaking of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, says, “When that curious artist had finished his famous structure within, he then set himself about the _exedræ_, or buildings that joined one to another by the sides of the church.” Among the _exedræ_, the chief was the _baptistery_, or place of baptism. Also the two vestries, or sacristies, as we should call them, still found in all Oriental churches; viz. the _Diaconicum_, wherein the sacred utensils, &c. were kept; and the _Prothesis_, where the side-table stood, on which the elements before consecration were placed.—_Jebb._

EXEMPTION, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a privilege given by the pope to the clergy, and sometimes to the laity, to exempt or free them from the jurisdiction of their respective ordinaries.

When monasteries began to be erected, and governed by abbots of great quality, merit, and figure, these men, to cover their ambition, and to discharge themselves from the subjection which they owed to the bishops, procured grants from the court of Rome, to be received under the protection of St. Peter, and to be put immediately under subjection to the pope. This request being for the interest of the court of Rome, inasmuch as it contributed greatly to the advancement of the papal authority, all the monasteries were presently exempted. The chapters also of cathedral churches obtained exemptions upon the same score.

St. Bernard, who lived at the time when this invention was first put in practice, took the freedom to tell Pope Eugenius III. that it was no better than an abuse, and that it was by no means defensible, that an abbot should withdraw himself from the obedience due to his bishop; that the Church militant ought to be governed by the precedent of the Church triumphant, in which no angel ever said, “I will not be under the jurisdiction of an archangel.”

In after ages this abuse was carried so far, that, for a small charge, private priests procured exemption from the jurisdiction of their bishop. The Council of Trent made a small reformation in this matter, by abolishing the exemption of particular priests and friars, not living in cloisters, and that of chapters in criminal causes.—_Sarpi’s Council of Trent._

EXHORTATION. By this general name the addresses of the minister to the people in the liturgy are called. While they are said, the people stand, in sign of respectful attention, but do not repeat them after the minister, since they are not addresses to the Almighty made in their name, but addresses to them only.

The ancient Church, indeed, had no such exhortations as those in our Communion Service; for their daily, or at least weekly, communions made it known that there was then no solemn assembly of Christians without it, and every one (not under censure) was expected to communicate. But now, when the time is somewhat uncertain, and our long omissions have made some of us ignorant, and others forgetful of this duty; most of us unwilling, and all of us more or less indisposed for it; it was thought both prudent and necessary to provide these exhortations to be read “when the minister gives warning of the communion, which he is always to do upon the Sunday, or some holy-day immediately preceding.”

As to the composures themselves, they are so extraordinary suitable, that if every communicant would duly weigh and consider them, they would be no small help towards a due preparation. The first contains proper exhortations and instructions how to prepare ourselves; the latter is more urgent, and applicable to those who generally turn their backs upon those holy mysteries, and shows the danger of those vain and frivolous excuses which men frequently make for their staying away. For which reason it is appointed by the rubric to be used instead of the former, whenever the minister shall observe that the people are “negligent to come.”—_Wheatly._

The service of the Church of England is distinguished by the number and fitness of its exhortations. These are: one at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer; two in the Communion Service, when notice is given of the holy communion; another at the time of celebration. Five in the Baptismal Service; two in the office for receiving those into the Church who have been privately baptized; and five in the Baptism of those of Riper Years; one in the Confirmation Office; two in the Solemnization of Matrimony; two in the Visitation of the Sick; one in the Churching Service; two in the Commination Service; besides those in the Ordination Service. These may be considered as so many sermons of the Church, which assert her doctrines, and fully show what she expects from the faith and practice of her children.

EXODUS. (From the Greek ἔξοδος, _going out_; the term generally applied to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.) The second book of the Bible is so called, because it is chiefly occupied with the account of that part of the sacred history. It comprehends the transactions of 145 years, from the death of Joseph in 2369 B. C. to the building of the Tabernacle in 2114.

EXORCISMS (from ἐξορκίζω, to _conjure_) were certain prayers used of old in the Christian churches for the dispossessing of devils. This custom of exorcism is as ancient as Christianity itself, being practised by our SAVIOUR, the apostles, and the primitive Church; and the Christians were so well assured of the prevalency of their prayers upon these occasions, that they publicly offered the heathens to venture their lives upon the success of them.

In the form of baptism, in the liturgy of the 2 Edward VI., it was ordered thus:—“Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say, ‘I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the FATHER, of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST, that thou come out and depart from these infants, whom our LORD JESUS CHRIST hath vouchsafed to call to his holy baptism, to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation; therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy judgment, remember the day to be at hand wherein thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels; and presume not hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants whom CHRIST hath bought with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism called to be of his flock.’”

There was a custom which obtained in the early ages of the Church, which was to exorcise the baptized person, or to cast Satan out of him, who was supposed to have taken possession of his body in his unregenerate state. But because, in process of time, many superstitious and unwarrantable practices mixed with this ancient rite, especially in the Roman Church, our Reformers wisely thought fit to lay it quite aside, and to substitute in lieu of it these short excellent prayers: wherein the minister and the congregation put up their petitions to Almighty GOD, that the child may be delivered from the power of the devil, and receive all the benefits of the Divine grace and protection, without the ancient ceremony attending it.—_Dr. Nicholls._

Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence of the bishop of the diocese, under his hand and seal, attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, to cast out any devil or devils, under pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the ministry.”

EXORCISTS were persons ordained in the latter end of the third century, on purpose to take care of such as were demoniacs, or possessed with evil spirits. In the first ages of Christianity there were many persons who are represented as possessed with evil spirits, and exorcism was performed not by any particular set of men, but afterwards it was judged requisite by the bishops to appropriate this office by ordination. They are still a separate order in the Church of Rome.

EXPECTATION WEEK. The whole of the interval between Ascension Day and Whit Sunday is so called, because at this time the apostles continued in earnest prayer and expectation of the Comforter.

EXPIATION. A religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made for some crime, the guilt removed, and the obligation to punish cancelled. (Lev. xv. 15.)

EXPIATION, THE GREAT DAY OF. An annual solemnity of the Jews, observed upon the 10th day of the month Tisri, which answers to our September. The Hebrews call it _Chippur_, that is, “pardon,” because the sins of the whole people were then expiated or pardoned. (Lev. xvi. 29, 30.) On this occasion, the high priest laid aside his pectoral and embroidered ephod, because it was a day of humiliation. He offered first a bullock and a ram for his own sins and those of the priests; then he received from the heads of the people two goats for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, to be offered in the name of the whole multitude. It was determined by lot, which of the goats should be sacrificed, and which set at liberty. After this, he perfumed the sanctuary with incense, and sprinkled it with blood. Then, coming out, he sacrificed the goat upon which the lot had fallen. This done, the goat which was to be set at liberty being brought to him, he laid his hands upon its head, confessed his sins and the sins of the people, and then sent it away into some desert place.

The great day of Expiation was a day of rest and strict fasting: they confessed themselves ten times, and repeated the name of GOD as often: on this day likewise they put an end to all differences, and were reconciled to each other. Many Jews spent the night preceding the day of Expiation in prayer and penitential exercises. It was customary for the high priest to separate from his wife seven days before this solemnity. Upon the vigil, some of the elders attended the high priest, and their business was to prevent his eating too much, lest he should fall asleep. He was likewise to swear, that he would not change the ancient rites in any particular. On the day itself, the high priest washed himself five times, and changed his habit as often. When the ceremony was over, the high priest read the law, and gave the blessing to the people.—_Buxtorf, Synag. Jud._ c. xx. _Basnage, Hist. des Juifs_, t. v. lib. vii. c. 15.

The modern Jews prepare themselves for the great day of Expiation by prayer, and ablution. They carry wax candles to the synagogue: the most devout have two, one for the body, and the other for the soul. The women at the same time light up candles in their houses, from the brightness of which, and the consistency of the tallow or wax, they form presages. The whole day is spent in strict fasting, without exception of age or sex. At the conclusion of the solemnity, the high priest gives the blessing to the people; who return home, change their clothes, and sit down to a good meal.

The Jews believe, that Adam repented, and began his penance, on the solemn day of Expiation; that, on the same day, Abraham was circumcised, and Isaac bound in order to be sacrificed; lastly, that on this day, Moses descended from Mount Sinai, with the new tables of the law.

As sacrificing is now impracticable to the modern Jews, in regard that their temple is destroyed, they sacrifice a cock on this occasion, instead of the legal victims, in the manner following. The men take each of them a cock in their hands, and the women a hen. Then the master of the family walks into the middle of the room, and repeating several verses out of the Psalms, dashes the cock thrice on the head, pronouncing these words; “Let this cock pass as an exchange for me; let him stand in my place; let him be an expiation for me; let death befall this cock, but life and happiness belong to me, and all the people of Israel. Amen.” This prayer is thrice repeated by the master of the family; for himself, his children, and the strangers of his family. Then they proceed to kill the cock, and throw his entrails upon the top of the house, that the crows may come and carry them away, together with the sins of the family, into the wilderness: this is done by way of resemblance with the scape goat.

It is of this fast we are to understand that passage of the Acts, where St. Luke says, that St. Paul comforted those who were with him in the ship, “when sailing was become dangerous, because the fast was already past.” (Acts xxvii. 9.) For tempests are very frequent in the month of September, in which this solemnity falls, and this was much about the time that St. Paul took his voyage to Rome.

EXTRAVAGANTS. (See _Decretals_.) A name given to those decretal epistles of the popes after the Clementines. The first Extravagants are those of John XXIII., successor to Clement V.; they were so named because, at first, they were not digested, nor ranged with the other papal constitutions, but seemed to be, as it were, detached from the canon law; and they retained the same name when they were afterwards inserted into the body of the canon law. The collection of decretals, in 1483, were called the _Common Extravagants_, notwithstanding they were likewise embodied with the rest of the canon law.

EXTREME UNCTION. Of extreme unction the Romish Council of Trent asserts, “The holy unction of the sick was instituted by our LORD CHRIST, as truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, as is implied, indeed, in St. Mark; but commended and declared to the faithful by James, the apostle and brother of the LORD. “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.”” From which words, as the Church hath learned from apostolic tradition handed down, she teaches the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this wholesome sacrament; for the Church has understood that the matter is oil blessed by the bishop, for unction most aptly represents the grace of the HOLY SPIRIT wherewith the soul of the sick man is invisibly anointed: then that the form consists of these words, “By this anointing,” &c.

The following are the canons upon the subject passed by that council.

Canon I. If any shall say, that extreme unction is not truly or properly a sacrament instituted by our LORD CHRIST, and declared by the blessed apostle James; but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human invention; let him be accursed.

Canon II. If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick, but that it has ceased, as if it were formerly only the grace of healing; let him be accursed.

Canon III. If any shall say, that the rite and usage of extreme unction, which, the holy Roman Church observes, is contrary to the sentence of the blessed apostle James, and, therefore, should be changed, and may be despised by Christians without sin; let him be accursed.

Canon IV. If any shall say, that the presbyters of the Church, whom St. James directs to be called for the anointing of the sick, are not priests ordained by the bishops, but elders in age, in any community; and that, therefore, the priest is not the only proper minister of extreme unction; let him be accursed.

Here the institution of extreme unction by our LORD is implied by Mark vi. 13, where it is said of the apostles, that “they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” But, by-and-by, (session 22, ch. 1,) we are told that the Christian priesthood was not instituted until our LORD’S last supper. Either, then, extreme unction is no sacrament, or they who are no priests can administer a sacrament; for the apostles were not priests, according to the Church of Rome, at the time spoken of by St. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace; but the passage in St. Mark speaks only of healing the body; and, therefore, Cajetan, as cited by Catharinus, rejects this text as inapplicable to this sacrament; and Suarez (in