book v

. sect. 6.

CERINTHIANS. Ancient heretics, the followers of Cerinthus. This man, who was a Jew by birth, attempted to form a new and singular system of doctrine and discipline, by combining the doctrines of CHRIST with the opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. He taught that the Creator of the world, whom he considered also as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of the Jews, was a Being endued with the greatest virtues, and derived his birth from the Supreme GOD; that this Being gradually degenerated from his former virtue; that, in consequence of this, the Supreme Being determined to destroy his empire, and, for that purpose, sent upon earth one of the ever happy and glorious æons whose name was CHRIST; that this CHRIST chose for his habitation the person of JESUS, into whom he entered in the form of a dove, whilst JESUS was receiving baptism of John in the waters of Jordan; that JESUS, after this union with CHRIST, opposed the God of the Jews, at whose instigation he was seized and crucified by the Hebrew chiefs; that when JESUS was taken captive, CHRIST ascended on high, and the man JESUS alone was subjected to the pain of an ignominious death.

CESSION. This is where the incumbent of any living is promoted to a bishopric; the church in that case is void by cession.

CHALDEANS. A modern sect of Christians in the East, in obedience to the see of Rome. Dr. Grant, in his _Nestorians_, quotes with approval the following passage from _Smith and Dwight’s Researches in Armenia_: which is also confirmed by Mr. Badger, in his _Nestorians and their Rituals_ (vol. i. p. 177–181). “In 1681, the Nestorian metropolitan of Diarbekir, having quarrelled with his patriarch, was first consecrated by the pope Patriarch of the Chaldeans. The sect was as new as the office, and created for it. Converts to Papacy from the Nestorians” [not from the Jacobites, as Mr. Badger corrects Dr. Grant] “were dignified with the name of the Chaldean Church. It means no more than Papal Syrians, as we have in other parts Papal Armenians and Papal Greeks.” (See _Nestorians._)

CHALDEE LANGUAGE. This was a dialect of the Hebrew, almost identical with the old Syriac, spoken formerly in Assyria, and the vernacular language of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. The following parts of the Old Testament are written in Chaldee: Jer. x., xi.; Dan. ii. 4 to the end of chap. vii.; Ezra iv. 8 to vi. 19, and vii. 12–17.—_Jebb._

CHALDEE PARAPHRASE, in the Rabbinical style, is called Targum. There are three Chaldee paraphrases in Walton’s Polyglot, viz. 1. Of Onkelos. 2. Of Jonathan, son of Uzziel. 3. Of Jerusalem. The first of these is supposed to have been composed about the time that our blessed Lord was on earth. It comprises the Pentateuch. The second, comprising the Prophets and Historical Books, is supposed to have been composed about the same time as the former. The Jerusalem Targum is considered a compilation not earlier than the eighth century. It comprises the Pentateuch.—Another Targum, falsely ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was probably written two centuries after Christ, if not later. There are other inferior Targums.—See _Horne on the Scriptures_.

CHALICE. (Lat. _calix_.) This word was formerly (as by Shakspeare) used to denote any sort of cup, but is now usually restricted to the cup in which the consecrated wine for the eucharist is administered. The primitive Christians, desirous of honouring the holy purpose for which it was used, had it made of the most costly substances their circumstances would allow—of glass, crystal, onyx, sardonyx, and gold.

By a canon of the Council of Rheims, in Charles the Great’s time, all churches were obliged to have chalices of some purer metal. The ancient chalices were of two kinds: the greater, which were in the nature of our flagons, containing a large quantity of wine, which was all consecrated in them together; and the lesser, which were otherwise called “ministeriales,” because the priest delivered the wine to be drunk out of them; for communion in one kind was not then invented by the Romish Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._ (See _Cup_.)

CHAMFER. The flat slope formed by cutting away an angle in timber, or masonry. The _chamfer_ is the first approach to a moulding, though it can hardly itself be called one. The _chamfer plane_, in speaking of mouldings, is used for the plane at an angle of 45°, or thereabouts, with the face of the wall, in which some of the mouldings often, and sometimes all of them, lie. The resolution of the chamfer into the square is called a _stop-chamfer_; it is often of considerable elegance.

CHANCEL. The upper part of the church, containing the holy table, and the stalls for the clergy. It is called the _Chori_ in cathedrals, college chapels, and large churches: and in many of the ancient English parish churches is inferior in height and width to the nave. (See _Choir_.)—_Jebb._ (_Cancellus._) So called _a Cancellis_, from the lattice-work partition betwixt the choir and the body of the church, so framed as to separate the one from the other, but not to intercept the sight. By the rubric before the Common Prayer, it is ordained that “the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” that is to say, distinguished from the body of the church in manner aforesaid; against which distinction Bucer (at the time of the Reformation) inveighed vehemently, as tending only to magnify the priesthood; but though the king and the parliament yielded so far as to allow the daily service to be read in the body of the church, if the ordinary thought fit, yet they would not suffer the chancel to be taken away or altered.

The chancel is the freehold of the rector, and part of his glebe, and therefore he ought to repair it: but if the rectory is impropriate, then the impropriator must do it: and this he is enjoined to do, not only by the common law, but by the canons of the Church; for in the gloss upon the Constitutions of Othobon it is said, that chancels must be repaired by those who are thereunto obliged; which words must refer to the common custom of England, by which rectors are obliged to repair the chancels. As to seats in the chancel, it has been made a question, whether the ordinary may place any person there? The objections against it are,—1. Because it is the freehold of the rector. 2. Because he is to repair it. But these are not sufficient reasons to divest the ordinary of that jurisdiction; for the freehold of the church is in the parson, and yet the bishop hath a power of placing persons there.

Unhappy disputes have arisen concerning the situation of the LORD’S table in the chancels. The first, in the beginning of the Reformation, was, whether those of the altar fashion, which had been used in the Popish times, and on which the masses were celebrated, should be kept up. This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, in a sermon before King Edward VI.; and, after this, altars were ordered to be taken down; and, instead of them, a table to be set up, in some convenient place of the chancel. In the first liturgy it was directed, that the priest officiating should stand before the midst of the altar. In the second, that the priest shall stand on the north side of the table. And thus the first dispute was at an end. But then there followed another controversy, whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise? i. e. in the same place and situation of the altar. In some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels; in others, at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley endeavoured to make a compromise in his church of St. Paul’s, suffering the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but, beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this diversity of usage matters continued during this king’s reign; but when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, and a new review of the liturgy was made, the present clause was added—“and the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past.” Whereby an indulgence is given to those cathedral or collegiate churches, where the table stood altar-wise, and fastened to the east part of the chancel, to retain their ancient practice; but the general rule is otherwise, especially as to parish churches; as in the rubric before the Communion, “the table having, at the communion time, a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning or evening prayer shall be appointed to be said.” So that, by these authorities, where tables were fixed, they ought to remain as they were; and, at the time of the communion, they might either stand at the east wall of the church, or in other place more convenient. But this latitude being granted, several inconveniences arose. Great irreverence was used towards the holy table, hats and gloves were thrown upon it, and the churchwardens and overseers were frequently writing their accounts thereon, the processioning boys eating their loaves and cakes, and dogs leaping up at the bread, to the great scandal of our reformation, not only among the Papists, but also among the Protestant churches abroad. Archbishop Laud, out of zeal to reform these abuses, endeavoured to have the communion table set altar-wise, at the east end of the chancel, and to be railed in, engaging many of the bishops to press this in their visitation articles: and it is one of the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, “that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place where the altar stood; and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, and so stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament is to be distributed; at which time, the same shall be so placed in good sort within the chancel,” &c. Great contentions were for many years kept up in this controversy, till the civil war came on, and all things, civil and sacred, were overwhelmed with confusion. Since the Restoration, no positive determination therein being made, the dispute has happily died, and the tables have generally been settled altar-wise, and railed in; the generality of parishioners esteeming it a decent situation.—_Nicholls._

CHANCELLOR. In ancient times, emperors and kings esteemed so highly the piety of bishops, that they gave them jurisdiction in particular causes, as in marriages, adultery, last wills, &c., which were determined by them in their consistory courts. But when many controversies arose in these and other causes, it was not consistent with the character of a bishop to interpose in every litigious matter, neither could he despatch it himself; and therefore it was necessary for the bishop to depute some subordinate officer, experienced both in the civil and canon law, to determine those ecclesiastical causes: and this was the original of diocesan chancellors. For, in the first ages of the Church, the bishops had officers who were called _ecclesiecdici_, that is, church lawyers, who were bred up in the knowledge of the civil and canon law, and their business was to assist the bishop in his jurisdiction throughout the whole diocese. But probably they were not judges of ecclesiastical courts, as chancellors are at this day, but only advised and assisted the bishops themselves in giving judgment; for we read of no chancellors here in all the Saxon reigns, nor after the Conquest, before the time of Henry II. That king, requiring the attendance of bishops in his state councils, and other public affairs, it was thought necessary to substitute chancellors in their room, to despatch those causes which were proper for the bishop’s jurisdiction.

In a few years a chancellor became such a necessary officer to the bishop, that he was not to be without him; for if he would have none, the archbishop of the province might enjoin him to depute one, and if he refuse, the archbishop might appoint one himself; because it is presumed that a bishop alone cannot decide so many spiritual causes as arise within his diocese. The person thus deputed by the bishop has his authority from the law; and his jurisdiction is not, like that of a commissary, limited to a certain place and certain causes, but extends throughout the whole diocese, and to all ecclesiastical matters; not only for reformation of manners, in punishment of criminals, but in all causes concerning marriages, last wills, administrations, &c.—_Burn._

The chancellor in cathedral churches, and anciently in some colleges, was a canon, who had the general care of the literature of the church. He was the secretary of the chapter, the librarian, the superintendent of schools connected with the church, sometimes of the greater schools in the diocese; sometimes, as in Paris, had an academical jurisdiction in the university of the place. He also had the supervision of readers in the choirs, the regulation of preachers in the cathedral, and in many places the more frequent delivery of sermons and of theological lectures than fell to the turn of the other canons. All these offices were not always combined; but one or more of them always belonged to the chancellor. Every cathedral of old foundation in England, and most in Ireland, had originally a chancellor. The title was not so common in France or Italy, where the above-named offices were frequently divided among canons with other official titles. The chancellor _of the church_ (the above-named officer) is not to be confounded with the chancellor of the diocese.—_Jebb._

CHANT. This word, derived from the Latin _cantus_, “a song,” applies, in its most extended sense, to the musical performance of all those parts of the liturgy which, by the rubric, are permitted to be sung. A distinction, however, is to be made between _singing_ and chanting. Chanting does not apply to the performance of those metrical versions of the Psalms, the use of which in parish churches, though legitimate, as sanctioned by authority, is not contemplated by the rubric. Neither does it apply to those musical arrangements of the canticles, hymns, and of the Nicene Creed, used in collegiate churches, and technically called “services,” which though originally derived from chants, have long found a distinct feature in the choral service. The chant properly signifies that plain tune to which the prayers, the litany, the versicles, and responses, and the psalms, and (where services are not in use) the canticles, are set, in choirs and places where they sing. In the chant, when properly and fully performed, both the minister and the choir bear their respective parts. The minister recites the prayers, and all the parts of the service which he is enjoined to say alone, (except the lessons,) in one sustained note, occasionally varied at the close of a cadence: and the choir makes the responses in harmony, sometimes in unison. But in the psalms and canticles both the minister and choir join together in the chant, without distinction, each verse being sung in full harmony.

The chanting of the prayers has always been observed in our principal cathedrals; and till recent times, it was universal in all those places within the reformed Church of England where choral foundations existed; and therefore the disuse of this custom, in any such establishments, is a plain contradiction to the spirit of our liturgy. It is an usage so very ancient, that some learned men have derived it, with every appearance of probability, from the practice of the Jewish Church; whence we have unquestionably derived the chanting of the psalms. It has prevailed in every portion of the Church, eastern or western, reformed or unreformed, since a liturgy has been used. And traces of this custom are to be found in all places of the world.

Of the chants for the psalms, the most ancient which are used in our Church are derived from some coeval, in all likelihood, with Christianity itself. Of this, however, there is no proof: and it is a mere baseless conjecture to refer them, as some do, to the strains of the temple worship. According to present custom, the chant consists of two kinds, single and double. The single chant, which is the most ancient kind, is an air consisting of two parts; the first part terminating with the point or colon (:), which uniformly divides each verse of the psalms or canticles in the Prayer Book, the second part terminating with the verse itself. The double chant is an air consisting of four strains, and consequently extending to two verses. This kind of chant does not appear to be older than the time of Charles II.; and is peculiar to the Church of England.

In chanting, special heed should be taken to two things: first, to observe _strictly_ the “pointing” of the psalms and hymns, “as they are to be sung or said in churches.” We have no more right to alter the rubric in this respect than in any other. Secondly, to chant reverentially, which implies distinctness of utterance, clearness of tone, and moderate slowness as to time. A rapid and confused mode of singing the awful hymns of the Church, is not only utterly destructive of musical effect, but, what is of much greater consequence, is hostile to the promotion of the honour of GOD, and of the edification of man.—_Jebb._

Persons who have heard extempore praying from the mouths of illiterate characters, must have been struck by the rude modulated chant in which it is delivered. Objectors to the cathedral mode of service sometimes aver “intoning” to be unnatural. This is a misconception. “Intoning,” musical or unmusical, is the natural key in which vent is given to a large and important class of devotional feelings: cathedral intoning is this voice correctly timed and tuned to harmony. Non-intoning, on the other hand, or reading, is artificial. No one hears an uneducated person attempt to read in the same tone as he speaks. Reading is an artificial drill, the correction of natural, undisciplined locution.—_Morgan._

CHANTER. (See _Precentor_.) In foreign churches it is synonymous with our lay clerks. The chanters in Dublin college are certain officers selected from the foundation students, whose duty is to officiate as chapel clerks. They are so called from formerly constituting the choir of the chapel.

CHANTRY. A chapel, or other separated place in a church, for the celebration of masses for the soul of some person departed this life. Their ordinary places are mentioned under the head _Church_. The chantry sometimes included the tomb of the person by whom it was founded, as in the splendid examples in Winchester cathedral. It was sometimes an entire aisle, as the golden choir at St. Mary’s, Stamford; and sometimes a separate chapel, as the Beauchamp chapel, St. Mary’s, Warwick, and Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster.

In the reign of Henry VIII., when the belief of purgatory began to decline, it was thought an unnecessary thing to continue the pensions and endowments of chantry priests; therefore, in the 37 of Henry VIII. cap. 4, those chantries were given to the king, who had power at any time to issue commissions to seize their endowments, and take them into his possession: but this being in the last year of his reign, there were several of those endowments which were not seized by virtue of any such commissions; therefore, in the first year of Edward VI. cap. 14, those chantries which were in being five years before the session of that parliament, and not in the actual possession of Henry VIII., were adjudged to be, and were, vested in that king. Cranmer endeavoured to obtain that the disposal of the chantries, &c., should be deferred until the king should be of age—hoping that if they were saved from the hands of the laity until that time, Edward might be persuaded to apply the revenues to the relief of the poor parochial clergy; but the archbishop’s exertions were unsuccessful.

CHAPEL. In former times, when the kings of France were engaged in wars, they always carried St. Martin’s cope (_cappa_) into the field, which was kept as a precious relic, in a _tent_ where mass was said, and thence the place was called _capella_, the chapel. The word was gradually applied to any consecrated place of prayer, not being the parish church.

With us in England there are several sorts of chapels:

1. Royal chapels. (See _Chapel Royal_.) 2. Domestic chapels, built by noblemen for private worship in their families. 3. College chapels, attached to the different colleges of the universities. 4. Chapels of ease, built for the ease of parishioners, who live at too great a distance from the parish church, by the clergy of which the services of the chapel are performed. 5. Parochial chapels, which differ from chapels of ease on account of their having a permanent minister, or incumbent, though they are in some degree dependent upon the mother church. A parochial chapelry, with all parochial rites independent of the mother church, as to sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c., is called a _reputed parish_. 6. Free chapels; such as were founded by kings of England, and made exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. 7. Chapels which adjoin to any part of the church; such were formerly built by persons of consideration as burial-places. To which may be added chapels of corporation societies, and eleemosynary foundation; as the mayor’s chapel at Bristol, &c., the chapels of the inns of court, chapels of hospitals and almshouses.—_Burn._

The word chapel in foreign countries frequently means the choir or chancel. This may possibly be the meaning intended in the rubric preceding Morning Prayer, directing the Morning and Evening Prayers to be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel. It may allude to the college chapels, or such collegiate chapels as St. George’s at Windsor, or to the usage of some cathedrals of having early morning prayer (as at Gloucester, &c.) in the Lady chapel, or late evening prayer (as at Durham) in the Galilee chapel. Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster was, at least in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, used for this purpose.—_Jebb._

CHAPEL ROYAL. The chapel royal is under the government of the dean of the chapel, and not within the jurisdiction of any bishop. But the archbishop is the first chaplain and _parochus_ of the sovereign. The deanery was an office of ancient standing in the court, but discontinued in 1572, till King James’s accession, then it was revived in the person of Dr. Montague.—_Heylin’s Life of Laud._ Next to the dean is the subdean, who has the special care of the chapel service; a clerk of the court, with his deputies, a prelate or clergyman, whose office it is to attend the sovereign at Divine service, and to wait on her in her private oratory.—There are forty-eight chaplains in ordinary, who wait four in each month, and preach on Sundays and holidays; to read Divine service when required on week days, and to say grace in the absence of the clerk of the closet. The other officers are, a confessor of the household, now called chaplain of the household, who has the pastoral care of the royal household; ten priests in ordinary (whose duties are like those of chaplains, or vicars in cathedrals); sixteen gentlemen of the chapel, who with ten choristers now form the choir; and other officers. The officiating members of the chapel royal were formerly much more numerous than now; thus there were thirty-two gentlemen of the chapel in King Edward VI.’s reign, and twenty-three in King James I.’s. The priests in ordinary, properly speaking, form part of the choir. In strictness this establishment is ambulatory, and ought to accompany the sovereign, of which practice we have many proofs in ancient records.

The chapel royal in Dublin consists of a dean and twenty-four chaplains, (who preach in turn,) and a choir of laymen. Before the legal establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the royal chapel of Holyrood had a full establishment of chaplains, &c., and the liturgy was then celebrated chorally, at least in the reign of King Charles I.

CHAPLAIN. A person authorized to officiate in the chapels of the queen, or in the private oratories of noblemen. The name is derived from _capella_; the priests who superintend the capella being called _Capellani_. According to a statute of Henry VIII., the persons vested with a power of retaining chaplains, together with the number each is allowed to qualify, are as follow: “an archbishop, eight; a duke or bishop, six; marquis or earl, five; viscount, four; baron, knight of the garter, or lord chancellor, three; a duchess, marchioness, countess, baroness, the treasurer or comptroller of the king’s household, clerk of the closet, the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, almoner, and master of the rolls, each of them, two; chief justice of the King’s Bench, and warden of the Cinque Ports, each, one.” In England there are forty-eight chaplains to the queen, called chaplains in ordinary. Clergymen who officiate in the army and navy, in the gaols, public hospitals, and workhouses, are called chaplains. Chaplain is also a comprehensive name, applied, more rarely in England than abroad, to the members of cathedrals and collegiate churches and chapels, who are responsible for the daily service. In a few instances it is applied to the superior members. Thus at Lichfield, there were five _capellani principales_, major canons, whose office it was to serve at the great altar, rule the choir, &c., (_Dugd._ _Mon._ ed. 1830, vi. 1257,) and at Winchester college the ten fellows are called, in the original charter, “_capellani perpetui_;” in contradistinction to the _capellani conductitii_, or _remotivi_;—and the principal duty of these chaplain-fellows was to officiate in the chapel. But in general, a chaplain signified a minister of the Church of inferior rank, a substitute for and coadjutor of the canons in chanting, and in the performance of the Divine offices. (See _Dictionnaire de droit canonique, par Durand de Maillane_, Lyons, 1787.) They were so called from serving in the _capella_ or choir, at the various offices, and in the various side chapels, in contradistinction to the capitular canons, whose peculiar privilege it was to serve at the great altar. Under the name of chaplain, were included minor canons, vicars choral, and similar officers, who had a variety of designations abroad, unknown to us, such as porticuristi, demi-canons, semi-prebends, &c., &c.

The name of chaplain, in its choral sense, is retained with us only at Christ Church Oxford, Manchester, and the colleges at the universities. At the latter, they are frequently styled in the old charters, _capellani conductitii_ or _remotivi_; by which is to be understood, that they were originally, at least, intended to be mere stipendiaries, adjuncts to the foundation; as contrasted with those who have a permanent, corporate interest, or an endowment in fee; like the _præbendati_ in the foreign cathedrals, or the incorporated vicars choral in our own cathedrals. (See _College_, _Prebendary_, and _Vicars Choral_.) The chaplains at Cambridge are commonly called _conducti_, though originally they were designated, as at Oxford, _capellani conductitii_; a designation which it were to be wished were changed for the more proper name of chaplain. Before the Reformation the _capellani_ to be found in many of the old cathedrals, were exclusive of the vicars choral, and were chanting priests. These sometimes formed corporations or colleges. Abroad, the chaplains in many places discharged both the duties of chanting priests and vicars choral, or minor canons; each having his separate chapel for daily mass; but all being obliged to unite in discharging the Divine offices, at least at matins and vespers in the great choirs.—_Jebb._

CHAPTER. (See _Bible_.) The word is derived from the Latin _caput_, head; and signifies one of the principal divisions of a book, and, in reference to the Bible, one of the larger sections into which its books are divided. This division, as well as that consisting of verses, was introduced to facilitate reference, and not to indicate any natural or accurate division of the subjects treated in the books. For its origin, see _Bible_.

CHAPTER. (See _Dean and Chapter_.) A chapter of a cathedral church consists of persons ecclesiastical, canons and prebendaries, whereof the dean is chief, all subordinate to the bishop, to whom they are as assistants in matters relating to the Church, for the better ordering and disposing the things thereof, and for confirmation of such leases of the temporalities and offices relating to the bishopric, as the bishop from time to time shall happen to make.—_God._ 58.

And they are termed by the canonists, _capitulum_, being a kind of _head_, instituted not only to assist the bishop in manner aforesaid, but also anciently to rule and govern the diocese in the time of vacation.—_God._ 56.

Of these chapters, some are ancient, some new: the new are those which are founded or translated by King Henry VIII. in the places of abbots and convents, or priors and convents, which were chapters whilst they stood, and these are new chapters to old bishoprics; or they are those which are annexed unto the new bishoprics founded by King Henry VIII., and are, therefore, new chapters to new bishoprics.—1 _Inst._ 95.

The chapter in the collegiate church is more properly called a _college_; as at Westminster and Windsor, where there is no episcopal see.—_Wood_, b. i. c. 3. But however this may originally have been, the rule has long been disregarded throughout Europe.

There may be a chapter without any dean; as the chapter of the collegiate church of Southwell: and grants by or to them are as effectual as other grants by dean and chapter.—_Wats._ c. 38.

In the cathedral churches of St. David’s and Llandaff there never hath been any dean, but the bishop in either is head of the chapter; and at the former the chantor, at the latter the archdeacon presides, in the absence of the bishop, or vacancy of the see.—_Johns._ 60. [St. David’s and Llandaff are now placed on the same footing with other cathedrals in this respect.]

One bishop may possibly have two chapters, and that by union or consolidation: and it seemeth that if a bishop hath two chapters, both must confirm his leases.—_God._ 58. In cathedrals of the old foundation chapters are of two kinds, the greater and the lesser. The greater chapter consists of all the major canons and prebendaries, whether residentiary or not; and their privileges are now considered to be limited to the election of a bishop, of proctors in convocation, and possibly a few other rare occasions; the lesser chapter consists of the dean and residentiaries, who have the management of the chapter property, and the ordinary government of the cathedral. This however has been the growth of later ages: as it is certain that all prebendal members had a voice in matters which concerned the interests of the cathedral church. In Ireland the distinction now mentioned is unknown, except at Kildare.

In the statutes of the old cathedrals, by _chapter_ is also understood, a sort of court held by one or more of the canons, sometimes even by the non-capitular officers, for the administering the ordinary discipline of the church, fining absentees, &c.

The word _chapter_ is occasionally applied abroad to boards of universities or other corporations.

The assemblies of the knights of the orders of chivalry, (as of the Garter, Bath, &c.,) are also called chapters.

CHAPTER HOUSE. The part of a cathedral in which the dean and chapter meet for business. Until the thirteenth century, the chapter house was always rectangular. Early in that century it became multagonal, generally supported by a central shaft, and so continued to the latest date at which any such building has been erected. The greatest cost was expended on the decoration of the chapter house, and there is little even in the choir of our cathedrals, of greater beauty than such chapter houses as Lincoln, Salisbury, Southwell, York, and Howden. That of old St. Paul’s in London, to judge by the plates in Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s, must have been very beautiful. It stood in an unique position, in the _centre_ of a cloister. For the plan of the chapter house, in the arrangement of the conventual buildings, see _Monastery_. Some have imagined that the idea of the circular or polygonal chapter houses was derived from the circular baptisteries abroad.

CHARGE. This is the address delivered by a bishop, or other prelate called ordinary, at a visitation of the clergy under his jurisdiction. A charge may be considered, in most instances, rather in the light of an admonitory exhortation, than of a judgment or sentence; although the ordinary has full power in the charge to issue authoritative commands, and to cause them to be obeyed, by means of the other legal forms, for the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction. It appears also that the clergy are legally bound by their oath of canonical obedience, and by their ordination vows, reverently to obey their ordinary. It is customary for archdeacons, and other ecclesiastics having peculiar jurisdiction, to deliver charges. Archdeacons have a charge of the parochial churches within the diocese to which they belong, and have power to hold visitations when the bishop is not there.—_Burn._ (See _Visitation_.)

CHARTREUX. (See _Carthusians_.)

CHASIBLE. (_Chasuble_, _Casula_.) The outermost dress formerly worn by the priest in the service of the altar, but not now used in the English Church, though prescribed under the title of _Vestment_, in the rubric of King Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the priest or bishop when celebrating the communion, indifferently with the cope. In the time of the primitive Church, the Roman toga was becoming disused, and the pænula was taking its place. The pænula formed a perfect circle, with an aperture to admit the head in the centre, while it fell down so as completely to envelope the person of the wearer. A short pænula was more common, and a longer for the higher orders; it was this last which was used by the clergy in their services. The Romish Church has altered it much by cutting it away laterally, so as to expose the arms, and leave only a straight piece before and behind. The Greek Church retains it in its primitive shape, under the title of φαινόλιον, or φινώλιον: the old brasses in England also show the same form, some even since the Reformation. And many tombs of bishops in the 13th century, and later, show it in a graceful and flowing form.

CHERUB, or (_the plural_) CHERUBIM, a particular order of angels. When GOD drove Adam and Eve out of Paradise, “he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” (Gen. iii. 24.) When Moses was commanded by GOD to make the ark of the covenant with the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, he was (Exod. xxv. 19, 20) to make one cherub on the one end, and another cherub on the other end; the cherubims were to stretch forth their wings on high, and to cover the mercy-seat with them; and their faces were to look one to the other. Moses has left us in the dark as to the form of these cherubims. The Jews suppose them to have been in the shape of young naked men, covered for the sake of decency with some of their wings; and the generality of interpreters, both ancient and modern, suppose them to have had human shapes. But it is certain that the prophet Ezekiel (i. 10, and x. 14) represents them quite otherwise, and speaks of the face of a cherub as synonymous with that of an ox or calf; and in the Revelation (iv. 6) they are called ζῶα, _beasts_. Josephus (_Antiq._ lib. iii.) says that they were a kind of winged creatures, answering to the description of those which Moses saw about the throne of GOD, but the like to which no man had ever seen before. Grotius, Bochart, and other learned moderns, deriving the word from _charab_, which in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, signifies to _plough_, make no difficulty to suppose that the cherubim here spoken of resembled an ox, either in whole or in part. The learned Spencer supposes them to have had the face of a man, the wings of an eagle, the back and mane of a lion, and the feet of a calf. This he collects from the prophetical vision of Ezekiel (i.), in which the cherubims are said to have four forms, those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. There is something in this mixed form, according to that author, which is very suitable to the regular character which GOD bore among the Jews, and the peculiar circumstances of the time. The Israelites were then in the wilderness, and encamped in four cohorts; and the Hebrews have a tradition, that the standard of the tribe of Judah and the associated tribes carried a lion, the tribe of Ephraim an ox, the tribe of Reuben a man, and the tribe of Dan an eagle. GOD therefore would sit upon cherubims bearing the forms of these animals, to signify that he was the Leader and King of the four cohorts of the Israelites. The same writer, in another place, makes the cherubims of the mercy-seat to be of Egyptian extraction; for Porphyry, speaking of the priests of Egypt, says, “Among these, one god is formed like a man as high as the neck, and they give him the face of some bird, or of a lion, or of some other animal; and again, another has the head of a man, and the other parts of other animals.” Add to this, that the Apis of the Egyptians was worshipped under the figure of an ox. Nor can any other reason, he thinks, be assigned why GOD should order the cherubims to be fashioned in the shape of different animals, particularly the ox, but that he did it out of indulgence to the Israelites, who, being accustomed to such kinds of representations, not only easily bore with them, but ardently desired them. The cherubims of the mercy-seat, Bochart supposes to have had a mystical and symbolical relation to GOD, the angels, the tabernacle, and the people. As to GOD, they represented his great power according to that of the Psalmist, (xcix. 1,) “The LORD reigneth, let the people tremble; he sitteth between the cherubims, let the earth be moved.” They represented likewise the nature and ministry of angels. By the lion’s form is signified their strength, generosity, and majesty; by that of the ox, their constancy and assiduity in executing the commands of GOD; by the human shape, their humanity and kindness; and by that of the eagle, their agility and speed. As to the tabernacle, the cherubims denoted that the holy place was the habitation of the King of heaven, whose immediate attendants the angels are supposed to be. Lastly, with respect to the people, the cherubims might teach them that GOD, who sat between them, was alone to be the object of their worship. Upon this subject see the curious and interesting, though somewhat painful dissertation of Mr. Parkhurst in his Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

By many it has been considered that the four symbols, applied from very ancient times to the four evangelists, are derived from the cherubic figures. The cherubims are also described in Rev. iv. 7.

It is surely derogatory to right ideas of religion, to suppose that these mysterious symbols were derived from the images of heathen idolatry, in order to indulge the prejudices of the Israelites. This would be to encourage idolatry, against which the Divine vengeance was so markedly directed. It is much more consistent and probable to believe that the corresponding symbols of Egyptians and Assyrians (the latter so wonderfully illustrated by the late discoveries at Nineveh) were derived from patriarchal traditions; distortions of that pure worship of God which was derived to the whole world from Noah. This solution will account for many of those extraordinary resemblances between heathen and Jewish customs, which have been stumbling-blocks to neologists, especially in our day.

CHERUBICAL HYMN. A title sometimes given to the Tersanctus or Trisagion. (See _Tersanctus_.)

CHILIASTS, or MILLENARIANS. (See _Millennium_.) A school of Christians who believe that, after the general or last judgment, the saints shall live a thousand years upon earth, and enjoy all manner of innocent satisfaction. It is thought Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the second century, and was disciple to St. John the evangelist, or, as some others think, to John the Elder, was the first who maintained this opinion. The authority of this bishop, supported by some passages in the Revelation, brought a great many of the primitive fathers to embrace his persuasion, as Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian; and afterwards Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, living in the third century, was so far engaged in this belief, and maintained it with so much elocution, that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, thought himself obliged to write against him: upon which Coracion, one of the principal abettors of this doctrine, renounced it publicly, which practice was followed by the generality of the West. The Millenarians were in like manner condemned by Pope Damasus, in a synod held at Rome against the Apollinarians. Some of the modern Millenarians have refined the notion of Cerinthus, and made the satisfactions rational and angelical, untainted with anything of sensuality or Epicurism. As for the time of this thousand years, those that hold this opinion are not perfectly agreed. Mr. Mede makes it to commence and determine before the general conflagration; but Dr. Thomas Burnet supposes that this world will be first destroyed, and that a new paradisaical earth will be formed out of the ashes of the old one, where the saints will converse together for a thousand years, and then be translated to a higher station.

CHIMERE. The upper robe worn by a bishop, to which the lawn sleeves are generally attached. Before and after the Reformation, till Queen Elizabeth’s time, the bishops wore a scarlet chimere or garment over the rochet, as they still do when assembled in convocation; and when the sovereign attends parliament. But Bishop Hooper, having superstitiously scrupled at this as too light a robe for episcopal gravity, it was in her reign changed into a chimere of black satin.

The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and called _mantelletum_; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through.—See _Du Cange’s Glossary_. The name of _chimere_ is probably derived from the Italian _zimarra_, which is described as “vesta talare de’ sacerdoti et de’ chierici.”—_Palmer._

The scarlet chimere strongly resembles the scarlet habit worn in congregation, and at St. Mary’s, by doctors at Oxford. Some have supposed that our episcopal dress is in fact merely a _doctorial_ habit. Perhaps, however, the origin of both the chimere, the Oxford habit, and the Cambridge doctorial cope, and the episcopal _mantelletum_, may all be derived from the _dalmatic_ or _tunicle_, (see _Dalmatic_,) which was formerly a characteristic part of the dress of bishops and deacons; from which the chimere differs in being open in front. The sewing of the lawn sleeves (now of preposterous fulness) to the chimere, is a modern innovation. They ought properly to be fastened to the rochet.—_Jebb._

CHOIR, or QUIRE. This word has two meanings. The first is identical with chancel, (see _Chancel_,) signifying the place which the ministers of Divine worship occupy, or ought to occupy. The word, according to Isidore, is derived from _chorus circumstantium_, because the clergy stood round the altar. Custom has usually restricted the name of chancel to parish churches, that of choir to cathedrals, and such churches or chapels as are collegiate. In the choirs of cathedrals, (see _Cathedral_,) which are very large, the congregation also assemble; but the clergy and other members of the foundation occupy the seats on each side, (which are called _stalls_,) according to the immemorial custom of all Christian countries.

The second, but more proper sense of the word, is, a body of men set apart for the performance of all the services of the Church, in the most solemn form. Properly speaking, the whole corporate body of a cathedral, including capitular and lay members, forms the choir; and in this extended sense ancient writers frequently used the word. Thus the “glorious company of the apostles” is called in Latin “apostolorum chorus.” The _choir_ is used in some very ancient documents for the cathedral chapter. But, in its more restricted sense, we are to understand that body of men and boys who form a part of the foundation of these places, and whose special duty it is to perform the service to music. The choir properly consists of clergymen, both capitular (including the precentor) and non-capitular, laymen, and chorister boys; and should have at least six men and six boys at every week-day service, these being essential to the due performance of the chants, services, and anthems. Every choir is divided into two parts, stationed on each side of the chancel, in order to sing alternately the verses of the psalms and hymns, one side answering the other. The alternate chanting by one or a few voices and a chorus, in the _psalms_, now very general abroad, is a corruption, and inconsistent with the true idea of antiphonal singing. This alternate, or antiphonal, recitation is very ancient, as old as the time of Miriam, who thus alternated her song with the choir of Israel. (Exod. xv. 20.) And we know from Isaiah that the angels in heaven thus sing. (Isaiah vi. 3.) So that while we chant, we obey the practice of the Church in earth and heaven.

In the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the rubric, at the beginning of the morning prayer, ordered the priests, “being in the _quire_, to begin the Lord’s Prayer;” so that it was the custom of the minister to perform Divine service at the upper end of the chancel near the altar. Against this, Bucer, by the direction of Calvin, made a great outcry, pretending “it was an antichristian practice for the priest to say prayers only in the choir, a place peculiar to the clergy, and not in the body of the church among the people, who had as much right to Divine worship as the clergy.” This occasioned an alteration of the rubric, when the Common Prayer Book was revised in the fifth year of King Edward, and it was ordered, that prayers should be said in such part of the church “where the people might best hear.” However, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, the ancient practice was restored, with a dispensing power left in the ordinary, of determining it otherwise if he saw just cause. Convenience at last prevailed, so that the prayers are very commonly read in the body of the church, and in those parish churches where the service is read in the chancel, the minister’s place is at the lower end of it.—_Jebb._

CHOREPISCOPUS. (Country bishops, Χωρεπίσκοποι, _Episcopi rurales_, from χώρα or χωρίον country.)

Some considerable difference of opinion has existed relative to the true ministerial order of the chorepiscopi, some contending that they were mere presbyters, others that they were a mixed body of presbyters and bishops, and a third class that they were all invested with the authority of the episcopal office. That the latter opinion, however, is the correct one, is maintained by Bishop Barlow, Dr. Hammond, Beveridge, Cave, and other eminent divines of the English Church, together with Bingham, in his “Antiquities of the Christian Church.” Their origin seems to have arisen from a desire on the part of the city or diocesan bishops to supply the churches of the neighbouring country with more episcopal services than _they_ could conveniently render. Some of the best qualified presbyters were therefore consecrated bishops, and thus empowered to act in the stead of the principal bishop, though in strict subordination to his authority. Hence, we find them ordaining presbyters and deacons under the licence of the city bishop; and confirmation was one of their ordinary duties. Letters dimissory were also given to the country clergy by the chorepiscopi, and they had the privilege of sitting and voting in synods and councils. The difference between the _chorepiscopus_ and what was, at a later period, denominated a _suffragan_, is scarcely appreciable, both being under the jurisdiction of a superior, and limited to the exercise of their powers within certain boundaries, enjoying only a _delegated_ power.

The chorepiscopi were at first confined to the Eastern Church. In the Western Church, and especially in France, they began to be known about the fifth century. They have never been numerous in Spain and Italy. In Germany they must have been frequent in the seventh and eighth centuries. In the East, the order was abolished by the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 361. But so little respect was entertained for this decree, that the order continued until the tenth century. They were first prohibited in the Western Church in the ninth century; but, according to some writers, they continued in France until the twelfth century, when the arrogance, insubordination, and injurious conduct of this class of ecclesiastics became a subject of general complaint in that country; and they are said to have existed in Ireland until the thirteenth century. The functions of the chorepiscopi are now in great part performed by archdeacons, rural deans, and vicars-general. (See _Suffragans_.)

CHOREUTÆ. A sect of heretics, who, among other errors, persisted in keeping the Sunday as a fast.

CHORISTER. A singer in a choir. It properly means a singing _boy_; and so it is used in all old documents and statistics.

CHRISM. (Χρίσμα, oil.) Oil consecrated in the Romish and Greek Churches by the bishop, and used in baptism, confirmation, orders, and extreme unction. This chrism is consecrated with great ceremony upon Holy Thursday. There are two sorts of it; the one is a composition of oil and balsam, made use of in baptism, confirmation, and orders; the other is only plain oil consecrated by the bishop, and used for catechumens and extreme unction. Chrism has been discontinued in the Church of England since the Reformation.

CHRISOME, in the office of baptism, was a white vesture, which in former times the priest used to put upon the child, saying, “Take this white vesture for a token of innocence.”

By a constitution of Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 736, the chrisomes, after having served the purposes of baptism, were to be made use of only for the making or mending of surplices, &c., or for the wrapping of chalices.

The first Common Prayer Book of King Edward orders that the woman shall offer the chrisome, when she comes to be churched; but, if the child happens to die before her churching, she was excused from offering it; and it was customary to use it as a shroud, and to wrap the child in it when it was buried. Hence, by an abuse of words, the term is now used not to denote children who die between the time of their baptism and the churching of the mother, but to denote children who die before they are baptized, and so are incapable of Christian burial.

CHRIST. From the Greek word (Χριστος) corresponding with the Hebrew word Messiah, and signifying _the Anointed One_. It is given pre-eminently to our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. As the holy unction was given to kings, priests, and prophets, by describing the promised SAVIOUR of the world under the name of CHRIST, ANOINTED, or MESSIAH, it was sufficient evidence that the qualities of king, prophet, and high priest would eminently centre in him; and that he would exercise them not only over the Jews, but over all mankind, and particularly over those whom he should elect into his Church. Our blessed SAVIOUR was not, indeed, anointed to these offices by oil; but he was anointed by the power and grace of the HOLY GHOST, who visibly descended upon him at his baptism. Thus, (Acts x. 38,) “GOD anointed JESUS of Nazareth with the HOLY GHOST and with power.”—See Matt. iii. 16, 17. John iii. 34. (See _Jesus_ and _Messiah_.)

CHRISTEN, To. To baptize; because, at baptism, the person receiving that sacrament is made, as the catechism teaches, a member of CHRIST.

CHRISTENDOM. All those regions in which the kingdom or Church of CHRIST is planted.

CHRISTIAN. The title given to those who call upon the name of the LORD JESUS. It was at Antioch, where St. Paul and St. Barnabas jointly preached the Christian religion, that the disciples were first called Christians, (Acts xi. 26,) in the year of our LORD 43. They were generally called by one another _brethren_, _faithful_, _saints_, and _believers_. The name of Nazarenes was, by way of reproach, given them by the Jews. (Acts xxiv. 5.) Another name of reproach was that of _Galilæans_, which was the emperor Julian’s style whenever he spoke of the Christians. Epiphanius says, that they were called _Jesseans_, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is more probable, from the name of JESUS, whose disciples they were. The word is used but three times in Holy Scripture: Acts xi. 26; xxvi. 28; 1 St. Pet. iv. 16.

CHRISTIAN NAME. (See _Name_.) The name given to us when we are made Christians, i. e. at our baptism.

The Scripture history, both of the Old and New Testament, contains many instances of the names of persons being changed, or of their receiving an additional name, when they were admitted into covenant with GOD, or into a new relation with our blessed LORD; and it was at circumcision, which answered, in many respects, to baptism in the Christian Church, that the Jews gave a name to their children. This custom was adopted into the Christian Church, and we find very ancient instances of it recorded. For example, Thascius Cyprian, at his baptism, changed his first name to Cæcilius, out of respect for the presbyter who was his spiritual father. The custom is still retained, a name being given by the godfather and godmother of each child at baptism, by which name he is addressed by the minister when he receives that holy sacrament. (See _Baptismal Service_.)

Our Christian names serve to remind us of the duties and privileges on which we entered at baptism. Our surname is a memorial of original sin, or of the nature which we bring into the world.

CHRISTIANS OF ST. THOMAS. (See _Thomas, St., Christians of._)

CHRISTMAS DAY. The 25th December; the day on which the universal Church celebrates the nativity or birthday of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. The observance of this day in the Western Church is most ancient, although we may not give much belief to the statement of the forged decretal epistles, that Telesiphorus, who lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius, ordered Divine service to be celebrated, and an angelical hymn to be sung, the night before the nativity. While the persecution raged under Diocletian, who kept his court at Nicomedia, that tyrant, among other acts of cruelty, finding multitudes of Christians assembled together to celebrate the nativity of CHRIST, commanded the church doors to be shut, and fire put to the building, which soon reduced them and the place to ashes. In the East it was for some time confounded with the Epiphany; and St. Chrysostom mentions that it was only about his time that it became a distinct festival at Antioch.

The Athanasian Creed is ordered to be said or sung on this day. This is one of the days for which the Church of England appoints special psalms, and a special preface in the Communion Service; and if it fall on a Friday, that Friday is not to be a fast day.—_Cave. Bingham._

It is one of the scarlet days at Oxford and Cambridge: and in cathedrals and choirs the responses and litany (if to be used) ought to be solemnly sung to the organ. In the First Book of King Edward, there were separate Collects, Epistles, and Gospels appointed for the first and second communion on this and on Easter day.

The chronological correctness of keeping the birthday of our LORD on the 25th of December, has been demonstrated in a most careful analysis, by the late lamented _Dr. Jarvis_, in his _Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church._—_Jebb._

CHRISTOLYTES. (Χριστολύται, _separators of Christ_.) A sect in the sixth century, which held, that when CHRIST descended into hell, he left his soul and body there, and only rose with his Divinity to heaven.

CHRISTOPHORI and THEOPHORI, (Χριστοφόροι και Θεοφόροι, _Christ-bearers_ and _God-bearers_,) names given to Christians in the earliest times, on account of the communion between CHRIST, who is GOD, and the Church. Ignatius commences his Epistles thus, Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος: and it is related in the acts of his martyrdom, that hearing him called Theophorus, Trajan asked the meaning of the name; to which Ignatius replied, it meant one that carries CHRIST in his heart. “Dost thou then,” said Trajan, “carry him that was crucified in thy heart?” “Yes,” said the holy martyr, “for it is written, I will dwell in them, and walk in them.”

CHRONICLES. Two canonical books of the Old Testament. They contain the history of about 3500 years, from the creation until after the return of the Jews from Babylon. They are fuller and more comprehensive than the Books of Kings. The Greek interpreters hence call them Παραλειπομένα, supplements, additions. The Jews make but one book of the Chronicles, under the title _Dibree hajamin_, i. e. journal or annals. Ezra is generally supposed to be the author of these books. The Chronicles, or Paraleipomena, are an abridgment, in fact, of the whole Scripture history. St. Jerome so calls it, “_Omnis traditio Scripturarum in hoc continetur_.” The First Book contains a genealogical account of the descent of Israel from Adam, and of the reign of David. The Second Book contains the history of Judah to the very year of the Jews’ return from the Babylonish captivity—the decree of Cyrus granting them liberty being in the last chapter of this Second Book.

CHURCH. (See _Catholic_.) The word _church_ is derived from the Greek κυριακὸς (_belonging to the Lord_)—the Teutonic nations having, at their first conversion, generally adopted the Greek ecclesiastical terms. The truth of this etymology is confirmed by the fact, that in the Sclavonic languages the names for the Church resemble the Teutonic, evidently because derived from a common Greek original. The Church, meaning by the word the Catholic or Universal Church, is that society which was instituted by our blessed LORD, and completed by his apostles, acting under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, to be the depository of Divine truth and the channel of Divine grace. Every society, or organized community, may be distinguished from a mere multitude or accidental concourse of people, by having a founder, a form of admission, a constant badge of membership, peculiar duties, peculiar privileges, and regularly appointed officers. Thus the Catholic Church has the LORD CHRIST for its founder; its prescribed form of admission is the holy sacrament of baptism; its constant badge of membership is the holy sacrament of the eucharist; its peculiar duties are repentance, faith, obedience; its peculiar privileges, union with GOD, through CHRIST its Head, and hereby forgiveness of sins, present grace, and future glory; its officers are bishops and priests, assisted by deacons, in regular succession from the apostles, the first constituted officers of this body corporate. It has the Bible for its code of laws, and tradition for precedents, to aid its officers in the interpretation of that code on disputed points. It is through the ordinances and sacraments of the Church, administered by its divinely appointed officers, that we are brought into union and communion with the invisible SAVIOUR; it is through the visible body that we are to receive communications from the invisible SPIRIT; and, says the apostle, in the fourth chapter to the Ephesians, “There is,” not merely one SPIRIT, “there is one body _and_ one SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Again, (1 Cor. x. 17,) “We being many are one bread and one body.” And in the first chapter to the Colossians, the same apostle tells us that this body is the Church. And thus we must, if we are scriptural Christians, believe that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Of this one Church there are many branches existing in various parts of the world, (not to mention the great division of militant and triumphant,) just as there is one ocean, of which portions receive a particular designation from the shores which they lave. But of this one society there cannot be two branches in one and the same place opposed to each other, either in discipline or in doctrine. Although there be two opposing societies or more in one place, both or all claiming to be CHRIST’S Church in that place, yet we are quite sure that only one of them can be the real Church. So here, in this realm of England, speaking _nationally_, there is but one Church, over which the archbishops of Canterbury and York, with their suffragans, preside: and in each diocese there is only that one Church, over which the diocesan presides, a branch of the national Church, as the national is a branch of the universal Church: and again, in each parish there is but one Church, forming a branch of the diocesan Church, over which the parochial minister presides.

“Religion being, therefore, a matter partly of _contemplation_, partly of _action_, we must define the Church, which is a religious society, by such differences as do properly explain the essence of such things; that is to say, by the object or matter whereabout the contemplation and actions of the Church are properly conversant; for so all knowledge and all virtues are defined. Whereupon, because the _only object_ which separateth ours from other religions is JESUS CHRIST, in whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, we find that accordingly the apostles do everywhere distinguish hereby the Church from infidels and from Jews, accounting them which call upon the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST to be his Church.”—_Hooker’s Eccl. Pol._ Hooker’s assertion as to the Church in this country must be so far modified, that now, by change of political circumstances, the Churches of England and Ireland are politically united, and form but one Church, over which two primates, that of Canterbury and Armagh, of co-ordinate jurisdiction, preside, with other archbishops and suffragans, &c.—_Jebb._

CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. It is not possible, in such a publication as this, to give an account of the various branches of the one Catholic Church, which are to be found in the various parts of the world; but it would be improper not to notice the Church in the United States of America, since it is indebted for its existence, under the blessing of the GREAT HEAD OF THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL, to the missionary labours of the Church of England; or rather we should say, of members of that Church acting under the sanction of their bishops, and formed into the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Before the American Revolution it can scarcely be said that the Church existed in our American colonies. There were congregations formed chiefly through the Society just mentioned, and the clergy who ministered in these congregations were under the superintendence of the bishop of London. We may say that the first step taken for the organization of the Church was after the termination of the revolutionary war, at a meeting of a few of the clergy of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at New Brunswick, N. Y., in May, 1784. Though this meeting was called on other business, yet the project of a general union of the churches throughout the States became a topic of sufficient interest to lead to the calling of another meeting, to be held in October following, in the city of New York. At this latter meeting, “although the members composing it were not vested with powers adequate to the present exigencies of the Church, they happily, and with great unanimity, laid down a few general principles to be recommended in the respective States, as the ground on which a future ecclesiastical government should be established.” It was also recommended that the several States should send clerical and lay deputies to a future meeting in Philadelphia, on September the twenty-seventh, of the following year. In the interim, the churches of Connecticut, having made choice of the Rev. Dr. Seabury for a bishop, he had proceeded to England with a view to consecration. In this application he was not successful, the English bishops having scruples, partly of a political nature, and partly relative to the reception with which a bishop might meet, under the then imperfect organization of the Church in America. Resort was therefore had to the Church in Scotland, where Dr. Seabury received consecration in November, 1784.

According to appointment, the first general convention assembled in 1785, in Philadelphia, with delegates from seven of the thirteen States. At this convention measures were taken for a revisal of the Prayer Book, to adapt it to the political changes which had recently taken place; articles of union were adopted; an ecclesiastical constitution was framed; and the first steps taken for the obtaining of an episcopate direct from the Church of England.

In June, 1786, the convention again met in Philadelphia. A correspondence having meanwhile been carried on with the archbishops and bishops of the English Church, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed on their part relative to some changes in the liturgy, and to one point of importance in the constitution. The latter of these was satisfied by the proceeding of the then session, and the former were removed by reconsideration in a special convention summoned in October in the same year. It soon appearing that Dr. Provoost had been elected to the episcopate of New York, Dr. White to that of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Griffith for Virginia, testimonials in their favour were signed by the convention. The two former sailed for England in November, 1786, and were consecrated at Lambeth on the 4th of February in the following year, by the Most Reverend John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury. Before the end of the same month they sailed for New York, where they arrived on Easter Sunday, April 7th, 1787.

In July, 1789, the general convention again assembled. The episcopacy of Bishops White and Provoost was recognised; the resignation of Dr. Griffith, as bishop elect of Virginia, was received; and in this and an adjourned meeting of the body, in the same year, the constitution of 1786 was remodelled; union was happily effected with Bishop Seabury and the northern clergy; the revision of the Prayer Book was completed; and the Church already gave promise of great future prosperity. In September, 1790, Dr. Madison was consecrated bishop of Virginia at Lambeth in England, by the same archbishop, who, a few years before, had imparted the apostolic commission to Drs. White and Provoost. There being now three bishops of the English succession, besides one of the Scotch, everything requisite for the continuation and extension of the episcopacy was complete. Accordingly the line of American consecration opened in 1792, with that of Dr. Claggett, bishop elect of Maryland. In 1795 Dr. Smith was consecrated for South Carolina; in 1797 the Rev. Edward Bass, for Massachusetts, and in the same year Dr. Jarvis, for Connecticut, that diocese having become vacant by the death of Bishop Seabury. From that time the consecration of bishops has proceeded according to the wants of the Church, without impediment, to the present day. At the beginning of the present century the Church had become permanently settled in its organization, and its stability and peace were placed on a secure footing. In 1811 there were already eight bishops and about two hundred and thirty other clergymen distributed through thirteen States. A spirit of holy enterprise began to manifest itself in measures for the building up of the Church west of the Alleghany Mountains, and in other portions of the country, where heretofore it had maintained but a feeble existence. The ministry numbers in its ranks men of the first intellectual endowments, and of admirable self-devotion to the cause of the gospel. With a steady progress, unawed by the assaults of sectarianism and the reproaches of the fanatic, the Church gradually established itself in the affections of all who came with a spirit of candour to the examination of her claims. The blessing of her GREAT HEAD was apparent, not only in the peace which adorned her councils, but in the demands which were continually made for a wider extension of her influence. Hence the establishment of the General Theological Seminary by Bishop Hobart (1817–1821), and afterwards of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (1835); both of which institutions were instrumental in providing heralds of the gospel for the distant places of the West. These were followed by the diocesan seminaries of Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, and efforts for the founding of several in other dioceses. At the general convention of 1835, the whole Church assumed the position of one grand missionary organization, and has already her bands of missionaries labouring in the cause of the Church in the remotest districts of the country; and her banner has been lifted up in Africa, China, Greece, and other foreign parts. The year 1852 was distinguished by remarkable demonstrations of communion between the Churches of England and America. The American Church, in token of her connexion with the mother Church, and of gratitude for benefits received from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel while the American States were part of the British dominions, deputed Bishop M’Coskry, of Michigan, and Bishop De Lancey, of Western New York, to attend the third Jubilee of the Society. These bishops were received in England with cordial affection, and the bishop of Michigan preached the Jubilee Sermon at St. Paul’s cathedral. A few months later the English bishop Fulford, of Montreal, shared in consecrating Dr. Wainwright, who had been a member of the deputation to England, coadjutor bishop of Eastern New York. In 1853 Bishop Spenser, Archdeacon Sinclair, and the Rev. Ernest Hawkins, were deputed by the Society for Propagating the Gospel to return the visit of the American prelates, and were received with great cordiality by the general convention of the American Church. An attempt to excite a Romanizing spirit on the part of a few half-educated persons has signally failed, by the suppression, for want of support, of the Journal they established. With her 37 bishops, 2000 clergy, and more than 2,000,000 of lay members; with her numerous societies for the spread of the Bible and the Liturgy; and with her institutions of learning, and presses constantly pouring out the light of the truth, may we not predict, under the Divine protection, a day of coming prosperity, when Zion shall be a praise in all the earth; when her temples and her altars shall be seen on the far-off shores of the Pacific; when even “the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose?”

For a more detailed history of the Church in America, the reader may consult _Bishop White’s Memoirs of the Protestant and Episcopal Church in America_; _Caswall’s America and the American Church_; the _History of the Church in America_ in the _Christian’s Miscellany_: and the more recent _History by Bishop Wilberforce_, published in the _Englishman’s Library_.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See _Anglo-Catholic Church_.) By the Church of England we mean that branch of the Catholic Church which is established under its canonical bishops in England. Properly speaking, at present it forms only a branch of the united Church of England and Ireland. When and by whom the Church was first introduced into Britain is not exactly ascertained, but it has been inferred from Eusebius that it was first established here by the apostles and their disciples; some have supposed, by St. Paul. According to Archbishop Usher, there was a school of learning to provide the British churches with proper teachers in the year 182. But when the Britons were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who were heathens, the Church was persecuted, and the professors of Christianity were either driven to the mountains of Wales, or reduced to a state of slavery. The latter circumstances prepared the way for the conversion of the conquerors, who, seeing the pious and regular deportment of their slaves, soon learned to respect their religion. We may gather this fact from a letter written by Gregory, the bishop of Rome, in the sixth century, to two of the kings of France, in which he states that the English nation was desirous of becoming Christian; and in which he, at the same time, complains to those monarchs of the remissness of their clergy in not seeking the conversion of their neighbours. And hence it was that Gregory, with that piety and zeal for which he was pre-eminently distinguished, sent over Augustine, and about forty missionaries, to England, to labour in the good work. The success of these missionaries, the way having thus been paved before them, was most satisfactory. They converted Ethelbert, who was not only king of Kent, but Brætwalda, or chief of the Saxon monarchs. His example was soon followed by the kings of Essex and East Anglia, and gradually by the other sovereigns of England.

The successful Augustine then went over to Arles in France, where he was consecrated by the prelate of that see; and, returning, became the first archbishop of Canterbury, the patriarch and metropolitan of the Church of England. His see was immediately endowed with large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. Another portion of the Anglo-Saxons were converted by the Scottish bishops. And thus gradually the Anglo-Saxon kings created bishoprics equal in size to 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.

It is a great mistake to suppose, as some do, that the old churches in England were built or endowed by laws of the state or acts of parliament. They were the fruit of the piety of individuals of all ranks, princes and nobles, and private citizens. This fact accounts for the unequal sizes of our dioceses and parishes: the dioceses were (though subsequently subdivided) of the same extent as the dominions of the respective kings; the parishes corresponded with the estate of the patrons of particular churches. Nor was the regard of those by whom the Church was established and endowed, confined to the spiritual edification of the poor; no, they knew that _righteousness exalteth a nation_, and estimating properly the advantages of infusing a Christian spirit into the legislature, they summoned the higher order of the clergy to take part in the national councils.

From those times to these, an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations has carried down the apostolical succession in our Church.

That in the Church of England purity of doctrine was not always retained may be readily admitted. In the dark ages, when all around was dark, the Church itself suffered from the universal gloom: this neither our love of truth, nor our wishes, will permit us to deny. About the seventh century the pope of Rome began to establish an interest in our Church. The interference of the prelate of that great see, before he laid claim to any dominion of right, was at first justifiable, and did not exceed just bounds, while it contributed much to the propagation of the gospel. That the bishop of Rome was justified as a Christian bishop, of high influence and position, in endeavouring to aid the cause of Christianity here in England, while England was a heathen nation, will not be disputed by those who recognise the same right in the archbishop of Canterbury with respect to foreign heathens. But, in after ages, what was at first a justifiable interference was so increased as to become an intolerable usurpation. This interference was an usurpation because it was expressly contrary to the decisions of a general council of the Church, and such as the Scripture condemns, in that the Scripture places all bishops on an equality; and so they ought to continue to be, except where, for the sake of order, they voluntarily consent to the appointment of a president or archbishop, who is nothing more than a _primus inter pares, a first among equals_. This usurpation for a time continued, and with it were introduced various corruptions, in doctrine as well as in discipline.

At length, in the reign of Henry VIII., the bishops and clergy accorded with the laity and government of England, and threw off the yoke of the usurping pope of Rome. They, at the same time, corrected and reformed all the errors of doctrine, and most of the errors of discipline, which had crept into our Church during the reign of intellectual darkness and papal domination. They condemned the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, communion in one kind, and the constrained celibacy of the clergy; having first ascertained that these and similar errors were obtruded into the Church in the middle ages. Thus restoring the Church to its ancient state of purity and perfection, they left it to us, their children, as we now find it. They did not attempt to _make new_, their object was to _reform_, the Church. They stripped their venerable mother of the meretricious gear in which superstition had arrayed her, and left her in that plain and decorous attire with which, in the simple dignity of a matron, she had been adorned by apostolic hands.

Thus, then, it seems that _ours_ is the _old_ Church of England, tracing its origin, not to Cranmer and Ridley, who only _reformed_ it; but that it is the _only_ Church of England, which traces its origin up through the apostles to our SAVIOUR HIMSELF. To adopt the words of a learned and pious writer: “The orthodox and undoubted bishops of Great Britain are the _only_ persons who, in any manner, whether by ordination or possession, can prove their descent from the ancient saints and bishops of these isles. It is a positive fact that they, and they _alone_, can trace their ordinations from Peter and Paul, through Patrick, Augustine, Theodore, Colman, Columba, David, Cuthbert, Chad, Anselm, Osmund, and all the other worthies of our Church.” “It is true that there are some schismatical Romish bishops in these realms, but they are of a recent origin, and cannot show the prescription and possession that we can. Some of these teachers do not profess to be bishops of our churches, but are titular bishops of places we know not. Others usurp the titles of various churches in these islands, but are neither in possession themselves, nor can prove that their predecessors ever occupied them. The sect (the sect of English Papists or Roman Catholics) arose in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when certain persons, unhappily and blindly devoted to the see of Rome, refused to obey and communicate with their lawful pastors, who, in accordance with the laws of GOD and the canons, asserted the ancient independence of the British and Irish Church; and the Roman patriarch then ordained a few bishops to sees in Ireland, which were already occupied by legitimate pastors. In England this ministry is of later origin; for the first bishop of that communion was a titular bishop of Chalcedon in the seventeenth century.

The ecclesiastical state of England, as it stands at this day, is divided into two provinces or archbishoprics, of Canterbury and York, which are again subdivided into several dioceses. (See _Archbishop_.)

For the safeguard of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, many provisions are made both by the civil and canon law.

Whoever shall come to the possession of the crown of England shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established. (12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3.)

By the 1 Will. III. c. 6, an oath shall be administered to every king or queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this realm, at their coronation; to be administered by one of the archbishops or bishops, to be thereunto appointed by such king or queen; that they will do the utmost in their power to maintain the laws of GOD, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant reformed religion established by law; and will preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them.

And by the 5 Anne, c. 5, the king, at his coronation, shall take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established. (s. 2.)

By Canon 3, whoever shall affirm that the Church of England, by law established, is not a true and apostolical Church, teaching and maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored but only by the archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of this his wicked error.

And by Canon 7, whoever shall affirm that the government of the Church of England under Her Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is antichristian, or repugnant to the word of GOD, let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and so continue until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.

And moreover, seditious words, in derogation of the established religion, are indictable, as tending to a breach of the peace.

CHURCH OF IRELAND. Of the first introduction of the Church into Ireland we have no authentic records; nor is it necessary to search for them, since, of the present Church, the founder, under GOD, was St. Patrick, in the fifth century. From him it is that the present clergy, the reformed clergy, and they _only_, have their succession, and through him from the apostles themselves. That, by a regular series of consecrations and ordinations, the succession from Patrick and Palladius, and the first Irish missionaries, was kept up until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, our opponents, the Irish Papists, will allow. The question, therefore, is whether that succession was at that time lost. The _onus probandi_ rests with our opponents, and we defy them to prove that such was the case. It is a well-known fact, that of all the countries of Europe, there was not one in which the process of the Reformation was carried on so regularly, so canonically, so quietly, as it was in Ireland. Carte, the biographer of Ormond, having observed that the Popish schism did not commence in England until the twelfth year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, but that for eleven years those who most favoured the pretensions of the pope conformed to the reformed Catholic Church of England, remarks, “The case was much the same in Ireland, _where the bishops complied with the_ Reformation, and the _Roman Catholics_ (meaning those who afterwards became _Roman_, instead of remaining _reformed_ Catholics) resorted in general to the parish churches in which the English service was used, until the _end_ of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.” It is here stated that the bishops of the Church of Ireland, that is, as the Papists will admit, the then successors of St. Patrick and his suffragans, those who had a right to reform the Church of Ireland, consented to the Reformation; and that, until the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, (and she reigned above forty-four years,) there was no pretended Church, under the dominion of the pope, opposed to the true Catholic Church, as is unfortunately now the case. The existing clergy of the Church of Ireland, whether we regard their order or their mission, and consequently the Church itself, are the only legitimate successors of those by whom that Church was founded. That in the Church of Ireland, as well as in the Church of England, corruptions in doctrine as well as in practice prevailed before the Reformation, and that the pope of Rome gradually usurped over it an authority directly contrary to one of the canons of a general council of the Church Universal, (that of Ephesus,) we fully admit. But that usurpation was resisted and renounced, and those corruptions removed and provided against at the Reformation. After the English Reformation the Irish Church received the English liturgy, in conformity with the principle now professed by the English government, though not always consistently or fairly carried out, of promoting a close ecclesiastical unity between the two countries. Articles of Religion, of a Calvinistic tendency, were passed by the Irish convocation of 1615, but in 1635 the English Articles were received and approved by a canon of convocation, and have ever since been subscribed by Irish clergymen. In 1662 the revised Prayer Book of England was adopted by the Irish convocation. At the time of the union of the two kingdoms, the two Churches were united under the title of the United Church of England and Ireland. Doubts have been expressed as to what this union means. It does not mean union in doctrine. The Churches were in full communion in every respect before; and still are, except in a few particulars, merely circumstantial. It does not mean distinct synodical rights, for the two English provinces have their convocations distinct one from the other, and the decrees of the one do not, of necessity, bind the other. The union is national and political. When the two kingdoms became politically and legislatively one, the two Churches, in conformity with the ancient and avowed principles of English government, were declared to be identified. This identification was solemnly declared by the sovereign and parliament of both countries, _as an indispensable and fundamental article_ of union, asserted by the spiritual lords of each; without the slightest reclamation on the part of the clergy or laity. Now this declaration of legislative union is in fact a solemn declaration on the part of the state of identification of interests. If each of the English provinces of the United Church claim synodical rights, a right of advising when the great interests of the Church are concerned, the claim of the Irish provinces of the same Church are equally strong, are strictly parallel. If the property and rights of the English clergy are to be protected, the Irish clergy have as strong a claim to protection. How far the avowed principle has been acted upon, it is not difficult to determine. The property of the Irish clergy has been dealt with upon principles altogether different from those which still protected the property of their English brethren. No provision whatever was made for perpetuating the Irish convocations, which are still in abeyance, even as to outward form, though formerly they had as defined a system as in England. (See _Convocation_.) In an age, when the multiplication of bishops has been urged, and generally admitted as necessary, the Church in Ireland has been disheartened by a retrograde movement. For, in opposition to the earnest reclamation of her clergy, ten of her bishops were, by a very tyrannical act of the state, suppressed; and two of her archiepiscopal sees (Cashel and Tuam) reduced to the rank of suffragans; and this to meet a mere fiscal exigency, to provide for the Church Rates; for which, be it observed, the clergy of Ireland, whose revenues have been in many other ways legislatively curtailed, are now taxed.

The words of the fifth article of the Union with Ireland are these: “That it be the fifth article of Union, that the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called, _The United Church of England and Ireland_; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union.”

The Church in Ireland had till lately four archbishops: 1. Armagh, with seven suffragans, viz. Meath, Down, ‡Dromore, Derry, Kilmore, ‡Raphoe, and ‡Clogher. 2. Dublin, with three suffragans, viz. ‡Kildare, ‡Ferns, and Ossory. 3. Cashel, with five suffragans, viz. Limerick, Cork, ‡Cloyne, Killaloe, and ‡Waterford. 4. Tuam, with three suffragans, viz. ‡Clonfert, ‡Elphin, and ‡Killala. [Those which are marked thus ‡ are now suppressed.] Formerly there had been 32 bishops in all; but the sees had become so impoverished that it became necessary from time to time to unite some of these to others, (but for reason and under sanction far different from those which influenced the late innovations,) so that in the 17th century they were much the same as stated above. The bishops of Meath and Kildare had precedence over the other bishops.—See _Jebb’s Charge to the Clergy of Limerick_.

CHURCH OF ROME. (See _Pope_, _Popery_, _Council of Trent_, _Romanism_.) The Church of Rome is properly that particular Church over which the bishop of Rome presides, as the Church of England is that Church over which the bishop of Canterbury presides. To enter into the history of that foreign Church, to describe its boundaries, to explain those peculiar doctrines, which are contrary to Catholic doctrines, but which are retained in it, to discuss its merits or its corruptions, would be beside the purpose of this Dictionary. But there are certain schismatical communities in these kingdoms which have set up an altar against our altar, and which are designated as the Church of Rome in England, and the Church of Rome in Ireland; and with the claims of these schismatical sects, in which the obnoxious doctrines of the Church of Rome, as asserted in the so-called general Council of Trent, are maintained, and in which the supremacy of the pope of Rome is acknowledged, we are nearly concerned. It will be proper, therefore, to give an account of the introduction of Romanism or Popery into this country and into Ireland, subsequently to the Reformation. From the preceding articles it will have been seen that the Churches of England and Ireland were canonically reformed. The old Catholic Church of England, in accordance with the law of GOD and the canons, asserted its ancient independence. That many members of the Church were in their hearts opposed to this great movement, is not only probable, but certain; yet they did not incur the sin of schism by establishing a sect in opposition to the Church of England, until the twelfth year of Elizabeth’s reign, when they were hurried into this sin by foreign emissaries from the pope of Rome, and certain sovereigns hostile to the queen. Mr. Butler, himself a Romanist, observes, that “Many of them conformed for a while, in hopes that the queen would relent, and things come round again.”—_Memoirs_, ii. p. 280. “He may be right,” says Dr. Phelan, “in complimenting their orthodoxy at the expense of their truth; yet it is a curious circumstance, that their hypocrisy, while it deceived a vigilant and justly suspicious Protestant government, should be disclosed by the tardy candour of their own historians.” The admission, however, is important; the admission of a Romanist that Romanism was for a season extinct, as a community, in these realms. The present Romish sect cannot, therefore, consistently claim to be what the clergy of the Church of England really and truly are, the representatives of the founders of the English Church. The Romish clergy in England, though they have _orders_, have no _mission_, on their own showing, and are consequently schismatics. The Romanists began to fall away from the Catholic Church of England, and to constitute themselves into a distinct community or sect, about the year 1570, that is, about forty years after the Church of England had suppressed the papal usurpation. This act was entirely voluntary on the part of the Romanists. They refused any longer to obey their bishops; and, departing from our communion, they established a rival worship, and set up altar against altar. This sect was at first governed by Jesuits and missionary priests, under the superintendence of Allen, a Roman cardinal, who lived in Flanders, and founded the colleges at Douay and Rheims. In 1598, Mr. George Blackwell was appointed archpriest of the English Romanists, (see _Archpriest_,) and this form of ecclesiastical government prevailed among them till 1623, when Dr. Bishop was ordained titular bishop of Chalcedon, and sent from Rome to govern the Romish sect in England. Dr. Smith, the next bishop of Chalcedon, was banished in 1628, and the Romanists were without bishops till the reign of James II.—_Palmer_, ii. 252. During the whole of the reign of James I., and part of the following reign, the Romish priesthood, both in England and in Ireland, were in the interest, and many of them in the pay, of the Spanish monarchy. The titulars of Dublin and Cashel are particularly mentioned as pensioners of Spain. The general memorial of the Romish hierarchy in Ireland, in 1617, was addressed to the Spanish court, and we are told by Berrington, himself a Romanist, that the English Jesuits, 300 in number, were all of the Spanish faction. In Ireland, as we have seen before, the bishops almost unanimously consented, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, to remove the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, and consequently there, as in England, for a great length of time there were scarcely any Popish bishops. But “Swarms of Jesuits,” says Carte, “and Romish priests, educated in the seminaries founded by King Philip II., in Spain and the Netherlands, and by the cardinal of Lorraine in Champagne, (where, pursuant to the vows of the founders, they sucked in, as well the principles of rebellion, as of what _they_ call catholicity,) coming over to that kingdom, as full of secular as of religious views, they soon prevailed with an ignorant and credulous people to withdraw from the public service of the Church.” Macgauran, titular archbishop of Armagh, was sent over from Spain, and slain in an act of rebellion against his sovereign. In 1621 there were two Popish bishops in Ireland, and two others resided in Spain. These persons were ordained in foreign countries, and could not trace their ordinations to the ancient Irish Church. The audacity of the Romish hierarchy in Ireland has of late years been only equalled by their mendacity. But we know them who they are; the successors, not of St. Patrick, but of certain Spanish and Italian prelates, who, in the reign of James I., originated, contrary to the canons of the Church, the Romish sect—a sect it truly is in that country, since there can be but one Church, and that is the Catholic, in the same place, (see article on the _Church_,) and all that they can pretend to is, that without having any mission, being therefore in a state of schism, they hold peculiar doctrines and practices which the Church of Ireland may have practised and held for one, two, three, or at the very most four hundred out of the fourteen hundred years during which it has been established; while even as a counterpoise to this, we may place the three hundred years which have elapsed between the Reformation and the present time. Since the above article was written, the Romish sect has assumed a new character in England. The pope of Rome has added to his iniquities by sending here, in 1850, schismatical prelates, with a view of superseding the orthodox and catholic bishops of the English Church; an act which has increased the abhorrence of Popery in every true Englishman’s heart, and which should lead to greater union among all who repudiate idolatry, and love the LORD JESUS.

CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. The early history of the ancient Church of Scotland, like that of Ireland, is involved in much obscurity; nor is it necessary to investigate it, since, at the period of our Reformation, it was annihilated; it was entirely subverted; not a vestige of the ancient Christian Church of that kingdom remained. Meantime the Scottish nation was torn by the fiercest religious factions. The history of what occurred at the so-called Reformation of Scotland—the fierceness, the fury, the madness of the people, who murdered with Scripture on their lips—would make an infidel smile, and a pious Christian weep. It is probable that a sense of the danger to his throne may have led King James I. to his first measures, taken before his accession to the English crown, for the restoration of episcopacy in his own dominion. His first step was to obtain, in December, 1597, an act of the Scottish parliament, “that such pastors and ministers as the king should please to provide to the place, title, and dignity of a bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should have voice in parliament as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had at any time by-past.” This act was followed by the appointment of certain ministers, with the temporal title of bishops, in the next year.—_Abp. Spottiswood’s Hist._ 449, 456. But the assembly of ministers at Montrose, in March, 1599, jealous of the king’s intention, passed a resolution of their own, “that they who had a voice in parliament should have no place in the general assembly, unless they were authorized by a commission from the presbyters.” The bishops, however, took their seats in parliament, and voted in the articles of union for the two kingdoms, A. D. 1601. At length, in A. D. 1610, the bishops were admitted as presidents or moderators in the diocesan assemblies; and, in 1612, “after fifty years of confusion, and a multiplicity of windings and turnings, either to improve or set aside the plan adopted in 1560,” (to use Bishop Skinner’s words,) “we see an episcopal Church once more settled in Scotland, and a regular apostolical succession of episcopacy introduced, upon the extinction of the old line which had long before failed, without any attempt, real or pretended, to keep it up.” For in this year the king caused three of them to be consecrated in London; “and that,” says Bishop Guthrie, “not without the consent and furtherance of many of the wisest amongst the ministry.” Now in common justice to Episcopalians it must be remembered, as Bishop Skinner observes, that the restoration of the primitive order was strictly legal. “A regular episcopacy by canonical consecration had been adopted by the general assemblies of the Church, and confirmed by unquestionable acts of parliament.” King Charles I. endeavoured to complete the good work which his father had begun, but, for the sins of the Scottish people, he was not permitted to succeed in his labour of love; nay, rather, the attempt to introduce the English Prayer Book so exasperated the Scots against him, that they finally proved their ignorance of Scripture, and their want of true Christian principles, by assenting to the parricide of their sovereign, when it was effected by their disciples in England. The general assembly of 1638 was held in opposition to the _sovereign, and to the law_; it declared all assemblies since 1605 void; proscribed the service book; and abjured Episcopacy, condemning it as _antichristian_, and the bishops were excommunicated and deposed. In 1613, the Scotch general assembly passed the Solemn League and Covenant, adopted by that assembly of divines at Westminster, who drew up the Confession, which afterwards was established by law as the Faith of the Kirk of Scotland. The Catholic Church, after the martyrdom of Charles, became extinct in Scotland; but it was once more restored at the restoration of his son. By the solemn act of parliament, Episcopacy was reestablished, and declared to be most agreeable to the word of GOD; and synods were constituted, very much upon the system of the English convocation. Four Scottish divines were again consecrated in London in 1661. These prelates took possession of the several sees to which they had been appointed, and the other ten sees were soon canonically filled by men duly invested with the episcopal character and function. So things remained until the Revolution of 1688. The bishops of Scotland, mindful of their oaths, refused to withdraw their allegiance from the king, and to give it to the Prince of Orange, who had been elected by a portion of the people to sovereignty, under the title of William III. The Prince of Orange offered to protect them, and to preserve the civil establishment of the Church, provided that they would come over to his interest, and support his pretensions to the throne. This they steadily refused to do; and consequently, by the prince and parliament, the bishops and the clergy were ordered either to conform to the new government, or to quit their livings. There were then fourteen bishops in Scotland, and nine hundred clergy of the other two orders. All the bishops, and by far the greater number of the other clergy, refused to take the oaths; and in the livings they were thus compelled to relinquish, Presbyterian ministers were in general placed. And thus the Presbyterian sect was established (so far as it can be established by the authority of man) instead of the Church in Scotland. It was stated that this was done, not because bishops were illegal and unscriptural, but because the establishment of the Church was contrary to the will of the people, who, as they had elected a king, ought, as it was supposed, to be indulged in the still greater privilege of selecting a religion. And yet it is said, in the Life of Bishop Sage, “it was certain, that not one of three parts of the common people were then for the presbytery, and not one in ten among the gentlemen and people of education.” The system of doctrine to which the established Kirk of Scotland subscribes is the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to the Kirk (for it was passed in 1643 by the general assembly of the Kirk) belongs the national and solemn League and Covenant, (a formulary more tremendous in its anathemas than any bull of Rome,) to “endeavour the extirpation of Popery and prelacy,” i. e. “Church government by archbishops, bishops, and all ecclesiastical officers dependent upon the hierarchy.” This League was approved by that very assembly at Westminster, whose Confession was now nationally adopted. And certainly, during their political ascendency, the members of that establishment have done their best to accomplish this, so far as Scotland is concerned, although, contrary to their principles, there are some among them who would make an exception in favour of England, if the Church of England would be base enough to forsake her sister Church in Scotland. That Church is now just in the position in which our Church would be, if it pleased parliament, in what is profanely called its omnipotence, to drive us from our sanctuaries, and to establish the Independents, or the Wesleyans, in our place.

The bishops of the Scottish Church, thus deprived of their property and their civil rights, did not attempt to keep up the same number of bishops as before the Revolution, nor did they continue the division of the country into the same dioceses, as there was no occasion for that accuracy, by reason of the diminution which their clergy and congregations had suffered, owing to the persecutions they had to endure. They have also dropped the designation of archbishops, now only making use of that of _Primus_, (a name formerly given to the presiding bishop,) who being elected by the other bishops, six in number, is invested thereby with the authority of calling and presiding in such meetings as may be necessary for regulating the affairs of the Church. The true Church of Scotland has thus continued to exist from the Revolution to the present time, notwithstanding those penal statutes, of the severity of which some opinion may be formed when it is stated, that the grandfather of the present venerable bishop of Aberdeen, although he had taken the oaths to the government, was committed to prison for six months; and why? for the heinous offence of celebrating Divine service _according to the forms of the English Book of Common Prayer_, in the presence of more than four persons! But in vain has the Scottish establishment thus persecuted the Scottish Church; as we have said, she still exists, perhaps, amidst the dissensions of the establishment, to be called back again to her own. The penal statutes were repealed in the year 1792. But even then the clergy of that Church were so far prohibited from officiating in the Church of England, that the clergyman, in whose church they should perform any ministerial act, was liable to the penalties of a premunire. Although a clergyman of any of the Greek churches, although even a clergyman of the Church of Rome, upon his renouncing those Romish peculiarities and errors, which are not held by our Scottish brethren, could serve at our altars, and preach from our pulpits, our brethren in Scotland and America were prevented from doing so. This disgrace however has now been removed by the piety of the late archbishop of Canterbury, who has obtained an act which restores to the Church one of her lost liberties. At the end of the last century, the Catholic Church in Scotland adopted those Thirty-nine Articles which were drawn up by the Church of England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. They, for the most part, make use of our liturgy, though in some congregations the old Scotch liturgy is used, and it is expressly appointed that it shall always be used at the consecration of a bishop.

The Church of Scotland, before the political recognition of Presbyterianism, had fourteen bishops: viz. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s, primate of Scotland, with nine suffragans; viz. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caithness, Dunblane, Orkney, and Ross. The archbishop of Glasgow, with three suffragans; viz. Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles. The bishops of Edinburgh and Galloway had precedence over the others. All the bishops sat in the Scottish parliament, but they had no convocation, like those of the Church of England in ancient times, their synods being episcopal. After the Reformation, their assemblies were long of an anomalous kind, and bore witness to a continual struggle between the episcopal and presbyterian, or rather democratic, principle, which finally prevailed. In 1663, however, an act of parliament was passed regulating their national synod. (See _Convocation_.)

CHURCH, GALLICAN, or THE CHURCH OF FRANCE, although in communion with the see of Rome, maintained in many respects an independent position. (See _Concordat_ and _Pragmatic Sanction_.) This term is very ancient, for we find it used in the Council of Paris, held in the year 362, and the Council of Illyria, in 367.

This Church all along preserved certain ancient rites, which she possessed time out of mind; neither were these privileges any grants of popes, but certain franchises and immunities, derived to her from her first original, and which she will take care never to relinquish. These liberties depended upon two maxims, which were always looked upon in France as indisputable. The first is, that the pope had no authority or right to command or order anything, either in general or particular, in which the temporalities or civil rights of the kingdom were concerned. The second was, that, notwithstanding the pope’s supremacy was owned in cases purely spiritual, yet, in France, his power was limited and regulated by the decrees and canons of ancient councils received in that realm. The liberties or privileges of the Gallican Church were founded upon these two maxims, and the most considerable of them are as follows:

I. The king of France has a right to convene synods, or provincial and national councils, in which, amongst other important matters relating to the preservation of the state, cases of ecclesiastical discipline are likewise debated.

II. The pope’s legates _à latere_, who are empowered to reform abuses, and to exercise the other parts of their legantine office, are never admitted into France unless at the desire, or with the consent, of the king: and whatever the legates do there, is with the approbation and allowance of the king.

III. The legate of Avignon cannot exercise his commission in any of the king’s dominions, till after he hath obtained his Majesty’s leave for that purpose.

IV. The prelates of the Gallican Church, being summoned by the pope, cannot depart the realm upon any pretence whatever, without the king’s permission.

V. The pope has no authority to levy any tax or imposition upon the temporalities of the ecclesiastical preferments, upon any pretence, either of loan, vacancy, annates, tithes, procurations, or otherwise, without the king’s order, and the consent of the clergy.

VI. The pope has no authority to depose the king, or grant away his dominions to any person whatever. His Holiness can neither excommunicate the king, nor absolve his subjects from their allegiance.

VII. The pope likewise has no authority to excommunicate the king’s officers for their executing and discharging their respective offices and functions.

VIII. The pope has no right to take cognizance, either by himself or his delegates, of any pre-eminencies or privileges belonging to the crown of France, the king being not obliged to argue his prerogatives in any court but his own.

IX. Counts palatine, made by the pope, are not acknowledged as such in France, nor allowed to make use of their privileges and powers, any more than those created by the emperor.

X. It is not lawful for the pope to grant licences to churchmen, the king’s subjects, or to any others holding benefices in the realm of France, to bequeath the titles and profits of their respective preferments, contrary to any branch of the king’s laws, or the customs of the realm, nor to hinder the relations of the beneficed clergy, or monks, to succeed to their estates, when they enter into religious orders, and are professed.

XI. The pope cannot grant to any person a dispensation to enjoy any estate or revenues, in France, without the king’s consent.

XII. The pope cannot grant a licence to ecclesiastics to alienate church lands, situate and lying in France, without the king’s consent, upon any pretence whatever.

XIII. The king may punish his ecclesiastical officers for misbehaviour in their respective charges, notwithstanding the privileges of their orders.

XIV. No person has any right to hold any benefice in France, unless he be either a native of the country, naturalized by the king, or has royal dispensation for that purpose.

XV. The pope is not superior to an œcumenical or general council.

XVI. The Gallican Church does not receive, without distinction, all the canons, and all the decretal epistles, but keeps principally to that ancient collection called _Corpus Canonicum_, the same which Pope Adrian sent to Charlemagne towards the end of the eighth century, and which, in the year 860, under the pontificate of Nicolas I., the French bishops declared to be the only canon law they were obliged to acknowledge, maintaining that in this body the liberties of the Gallican Church consisted.

XVII. The pope has no power, for any cause whatsoever, to dispense with the law of God, the law of nature, or the decrees of the ancient canons.

XVIII. The regulations of the apostolic chamber, or court, are not obligatory to the Gallican Church, unless confirmed by the king’s edicts.

XIX. If the primates or metropolitans appeal to the pope, his Holiness is obliged to try the cause, by commissioners or delegates, in the same diocese from which the appeal was made.

XX. When a Frenchman desires the pope to give him a benefice lying in France, his Holiness is obliged to order him an instrument, sealed under the faculty of his office; and, in case of refusal, it is lawful for the person pretending to the benefice to apply to the parliament of Paris, which court shall send instructions to the bishop of the diocese to give him institution, which institution shall be of the same validity as if he had received his title under the seals of the court of Rome.

XXI. No mandates from the pope, enjoining a bishop, or other collator, to present any person to a benefice upon a vacancy, are admitted in France.

XXII. It is only by sufferance that the pope has what they call a right of prevention, to collate to benefices which the ordinary has not disposed of.

XXIII. It is not lawful for the pope to exempt the ordinary of any monastery, or any other ecclesiastical corporation, from the jurisdiction of their respective diocesans, in order to make the person so exempted immediately dependent on the holy see.

These liberties were esteemed inviolable, and the French kings, at their coronation, solemnly swore to preserve and maintain them. The oath ran thus: “Promitto vobis et perdono quod unicuique de vobis et ecclesiis vobis commissis canonicum privilegium et debitam legem atque justitiam servabo.”

The bishoprics were entirely in the hands of the Crown. There were, in France, 18 archbishops, 112 bishops, 160,000 clergymen of various orders, and 3400 convents.

The archbishops were: 1. _Rheims_, (primate of France,) eight suffragans. 2. _Lyons_, (primate of Gaul,) five suffragans. 3. Rouen, (primate of Normandy,) six suffragans. 4. Paris, four suffragans. 5. Sens, three suffragans. 6. Tours, eleven suffragans. 7. Bordeaux, nine suffragans. 8. Bourges, five suffragans. 9. Toulouse, seven suffragans. 10. Narbonne, eleven suffragans. 11. Besançon, one suffragan. 12. Arles, four suffragans. 13. Auch, ten suffragans. 14. Aix, five suffragans. 15. Alby, five suffragans. 16. Embrun, six suffragans. 17. Vienne, four suffragans. 18. Cambray, two suffragans, with six other bishops under foreign archbishops. The archbishop of Cambray and his suffragans, and the archbishop of Besançon with his suffragan, and eight other bishops, were not considered properly to form part of the Gallican Church.

Such _was_ the Church of France with the “Gallican Liberties,” previously to the great French Revolution of 1789–1793.

Jansenism (see _Jansenists_) became very prevalent in the Gallican Church before the Revolution; and the antipapal principle of Jansenism, combined with the revolutionary mania, developed in 1790 the civil constitution of the clergy in France, under which false appellation the constituent assembly affected extraordinary alterations in _spiritual_ matters. M. Bouvier, the late bishop of Mans, remarks, that this constitution “abounded with many and most grievous faults.” “First,” he says, “the National Convention, by its own authority, without any recourse to the ecclesiastical power, changes or reforms all the old dioceses, erects new ones, diminishes some, increases others, &c.; (2.) forbids any Gallican church or citizen to acknowledge the authority of any foreign bishop, &c.; (3.) institutes a new mode of administering and ruling cathedral churches, even in spirituals; (4.) subverts the divine authority of bishops, restraining it within certain limits, and imposing on them a certain council, without whose judgment they could do nothing,” &c. The great body of the Gallican bishops naturally protested against this constitution, which suppressed 135 bishoprics, and erected 83 in their stead, under different titles. The Convention insisted that they should take the oath of adhesion to the civil constitution in eight days, on pain of being considered as having resigned; and, on the refusal of the great majority, the new bishops were elected in their place, and consecrated by Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda, and Miroudet of Babylon.

M. Bouvier proves, from the principles of his Church, that this constitution was schismatical; that all the bishops, rectors, curates, confessors, instituted by virtue of it, were intruders, schismatics, and even involved in heresy; that the taking of the oath to observe it was a mortal sin, and that it would have been better to have died a hundred times than to have done so. Certainly, on all the principles of Romanists at least, the adherents of the civil constitution were in schism and heresy.

Nevertheless, these schismatics and heretics were afterwards introduced into the communion of the Roman Church itself, in which they propagated their notions. On the signature of the Concordat between Bonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for the erection of the new Gallican Church, the first consul made it a point, that _twelve_ of these constitutional bishops should be appointed to sees under the new arrangements. He succeeded. “He caused to be named to sees twelve of those same constitutionals who had attached themselves with such _obstinate perseverance_, for ten years, to the _propagation of schism_ in France.... One of the partisans of the new Concordat, who had been charged to receive the recantation of the constitutionals, certified that they had renounced their civil constitution of the clergy. Some of them vaunted, nevertheless, that they had not changed their principles; and one of them publicly declared that they had been offered an absolution of their censures, but that they had thrown it into the fire!” The government forbad the bishops to exact retractations from the constitutional priest, and commanded them to choose one of their vicars-general from among that party. They were protected and supported by the minister of police, and by Portalis, the minister of worship. In 1803, we hear of the “indiscreet and irregular conduct of some new bishops, taken from among the constitutionals, and who brought into their dioceses the same spirit which had hitherto directed them.” Afterwards it is said of some of them, that they “professed the most _open resistance_ to the holy see, expelled the best men from their dioceses, and perpetuated the spirit of schism.” In 1804, Pius VII., being at Paris, procured their signature to a declaration approving generally of the judgments of the holy see on the ecclesiastical affairs of France; but this vague and general formulary, which Bouvier and other Romanists pretend to represent as a recantation, was not so understood by these bishops; and thus the Gallican Church continued, and probably still continues, to number _schismatical bishops and priests_ in her communion. Such is the boasted and most inviolable unity of the Roman Church!

We are now to speak of the Concordat of 1801, between Bonaparte, first consul of the French republic, and Pope Pius VII. The first consul, designing to restore Christianity in France, engaged the pontiff to exact resignations from all the existing bishops of the French territory, both constitutional and royalist. The bishoprics of old France were 130 in number; those of the conquered districts (Savoy, Germany, &c.) were 24; making a total of 154. The constitutional bishops resigned their sees; those, also, who still remained in the conquered districts, resigned them to Pius VII. Eighty-one of the exiled royalist bishops of France were still alive; of these forty-five resigned, but thirty-six _declined to do so_. The pontiff derogated from the consent of these latter prelates, annihilated 159 bishoprics at a blow, created in their place 60 new ones, and arranged the mode of appointment and consecration of the new bishops and clergy, by his bull _Ecclesia Christi_ and _Qui Christi Domini_. To this sweeping Concordat the French government took care to annex, by the authority of their “corps législatif,” certain “Organic Articles,” relating to the exercise of worship. According to a Romish historian, they “rendered the Church _entirely dependent_, and placed everything under the hand of government. The bishops, for example, were prohibited from _conferring orders_ without its consent; the vicars-general of a bishop were to continue, even after his death, to govern the diocese, without regard to the rights of chapters; a multitude of things which ought to have been left to the decision of the ecclesiastical authority were minutely regulated,” &c. The intention was, “to place the priests, even in the exercise of their _spiritual functions_, in an entire dependence on the government agents!” The pope remonstrated against these articles—in vain: they continued, were adopted by the Bourbons, and, with some modifications, are in force to this day; and the government of the Gallican Church is vested more in the conseil d’ etat, than in the bishops. Bonaparte assumed the language of piety, while he proceeded to exercise the most absolute jurisdiction over the Church. “Henceforward nothing embarrasses him in the _government of the Church_; he decides everything as a master; he creates bishoprics, unites them, suppresses them.” He apparently found a very accommodating episcopacy. A royal commission, including two cardinals, five archbishops and bishops, and some other high ecclesiastics, in 1810 and 1811, justified many of the “Organic Articles” which the pope had objected to; acknowledged that a national council could order that bishops should be _instituted_ by the metropolitan or senior bishop, instead of the pope, in case of urgent circumstances; and declared the papal bull of excommunication against those who had unjustly deprived the pope of his states, was _null and void_.

These proceedings were by no means pleasing to the exiled French bishops, who had not resigned their sees, and yet beheld them filled in their own lifetime by new prelates. They addressed repeated protests to the Roman pontiff in vain. His conduct in derogating from their consent, suppressing so many sees, and appointing new bishops, was certainly unprecedented. It was clearly contrary to all the _canons_ of the Church universal, as every one admits. The adherents of the ancient bishops refused to communicate with those whom they regarded as intruders. They dwelt on the odious slavery under which they were placed by the “Organic Articles;” and the Abbés Blanchard and Gauchet, and others, wrote strongly against the Concordat, as null, illegal, and unjust; affirmed that the new bishops and their adherents were heretics and schismatics, and that Pius VII. was cut off from the Catholic Church. Hence a schism in the Roman churches, which continues to this day, between the adherents of the new Gallican bishops and the old. The latter are styled by their opponents, “_La Petite Eglise_.” The truly extraordinary origin of the present Gallican Church sufficiently accounts for the reported prevalence of ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, contrary to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the incessant efforts of Napoleon and the Bourbons to force on them the four articles of the Gallican clergy of 1682. They see, plainly enough, that their Church’s origin rests chiefly on the _unlimited_ power of the pope.—_Broughton. Palmer._

CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental (sometimes called the Greek) Church, prevails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland, European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vast and numerous Churches of the East, are all ruled by bishops and archbishops, of whom the chief are the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The Russian Church was subject to a fifth patriarch, from the latter part of the sixteenth century, [1588,] but since the reign of Peter the Great, the appointment to this high office has been suspended by the emperor, who deemed its power too great, and calculated to rival that of the throne itself. It was abolished in 1721. In its place Peter the Great instituted the “Holy Legislative Synod,” which is directed by the emperor.... Many of these Churches still subsist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred years: such as the Churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others, founded by the apostles, continued to subsist uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the Saracens in the seventh century, and revived again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others; from these apostolical Churches the whole Oriental Church derives its origin and succession; for wherever new Churches were founded, it was always by authority of the ancient societies previously existing. With these all the more recent Churches held close communion; and thus, by the consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity, were themselves apostolical. They were also apostolical in their ministry; for it is undeniable, that they can produce a regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of valid ordinations in their churches, from the beginning. No one denies the validity of their ordination.—_Palmer._

The descendants of the ancient Christians of the East, who still occupy the Oriental sees, are called the Greek Church. The Greek Church was not formerly so extensive as it has been since the emperors of the East thought proper to lessen or reduce the other patriarchates, in order to aggrandize that of Constantinople; a task which they accomplished with the greater ease, as they were much more powerful than the emperors of the West, and had little or no regard to the consent of the patriarchs, in order to create new bishoprics, or to confer new titles and privileges. Whereas, in the Western Church, the popes, by slow degrees, made themselves the sole arbiters in all ecclesiastical concerns; insomuch, that princes themselves at length became obliged to have recourse to them, and were subservient to their directions on every momentous occasion.

The Greek Churches, at present, deserve not even the name of the shadow of what they were in their former flourishing state, when they were so remarkably distinguished for the learned and worthy pastors who presided over them; but now nothing but wretchedness, ignorance, and poverty are visible amongst them. “I have seen churches,” says Ricaut, “which were more like caverns or sepulchres than places set apart for Divine worship; the tops thereof being almost level with the ground. They are erected after this humble manner for fear they should be suspected, if they raised them any considerable height, of an evil intention to rival the Turkish mosques.” It is, indeed, very surprising that, in the abject state to which the Greeks at present are reduced, the Christian religion should maintain the least footing amongst them. Their notions of Christianity are principally confined to the traditions of their forefathers and their own received customs; and, among other things, they are much addicted to external acts of piety and devotion, such as the observance of fasts, festivals, and penances: they revere and dread the censures of their clergy; and are bigoted slaves to their religious customs, many of which are absurd and ridiculous; and yet it must be acknowledged, that, although these errors reflect a considerable degree of scandal and reproach upon the holy religion they profess, they nevertheless prevent it from being entirely lost and abolished amongst them. A fire which lies for a time concealed under a heap of embers, may revive and burn again as bright as ever; and the same hope may be conceived of truth, when obscured by the dark clouds of ignorance and error.

Caucus, archbishop of Corfu, in his Dissertation on what he calls the erroneous doctrines of the modern Greeks, dedicated to Gregory XIII., has digested their tenets under the following heads:

I. They rebaptize all Romanists who are admitted into their communion.

II. They do not baptize their children till they are three, four, five, six, ten, and even sometimes eighteen years of age.

III. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction from the number of the sacraments.

IV. They deny there is any such place as purgatory, although they pray for the dead.

V. They deny the papal supremacy, and assert that the Church of Rome has abandoned the doctrines of her fathers.

VI. They deny, by consequence, that the Church of Rome is the true Catholic mother Church, and on Holy Thursday excommunicate the pope and all the Latin prelates, as heretics and schismatics, praying that all those who offer up unleavened bread in the celebration of the sacrament may be covered with confusion.

VII. They deny that the HOLY GHOST proceeds from the FATHER and the SON.

VIII. They refuse to receive the host consecrated by Romish priests with unleavened bread. They likewise wash the altars on which Romanists have celebrated mass, and will not suffer a Romish priest to officiate at their altars.

IX. They assert that the usual form of words, wherein the consecration, according to the Church of Rome, wholly consists, is not sufficient to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST.

X. They insist that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper ought to be administered in both kinds to infants, even before they are capable of distinguishing this spiritual food from any other, because it is a Divine institution. For which reason they give the eucharist to infants immediately after baptism, and look upon the Romanists as heretics for not observing the same custom.

XI. They hold that the laity are under an indispensable obligation, by the law of God, to receive the communion in both kinds, and look on the Romanists as heretics who maintain the contrary.

XII. They assert that no members of the Church, when they have attained to years of discretion, ought to be compelled to receive the communion every Easter, but should have free liberty to act according to the dictates of their own conscience.

XIII. They pay no religious homage, or veneration, to the holy sacrament of the eucharist, even at the celebration of their own priests; and use no lighted tapers when they administer it to the sick.

XIV. They are of opinion that such hosts as are consecrated on Holy Thursday are much more efficacious than those consecrated at other times.

XV. They maintain that matrimony is a union which may be dissolved. For which reason they charge the Church of Rome with being guilty of an error, in asserting that the bonds of marriage can never be broken, even in case of adultery, and that no person upon any provocation whatsoever can lawfully marry again.

XVI. They condemn all fourth marriages.

XVII. They refuse to celebrate the solemnities instituted by the Romish Church in honour of the Virgin Mary and the Saints. They reject likewise the religious use of graven images and statues, although they admit of pictures in their churches.

XVIII. They insist that the canon of the mass of the Roman Church ought to be abolished, as being full of errors.

XIX. They deny that usury is a mortal sin.

XX. They deny that the subdeaconry is at present a holy order.

XXI. Of all the general councils that have been held in the Catholic Church by the popes at different times, they pay no regard to any after the sixth, and reject not only the seventh, which was the second held at Nice, for the express purpose of condemning those who rejected the use of images in their Divine worship, but all those which have succeeded it, by which they refuse to submit to any of their institutions.

XXII. They deny auricular confession to be a Divine precept, and assert that it is only a positive injunction of the Church.

XXIII. They insist that the confession of the laity ought to be free and voluntary; for which reason they are not compelled to confess themselves annually, nor are they excommunicated for the neglect of it.

XXIV. They insist that in confession there is no Divine law which enjoins the acknowledgment of every individual sin, or a discovery of all the circumstances that attend it, which alter its nature and property.

XXV. They administer the communion to their laity both in sickness and in health, though they have never applied themselves to their confessors; the reason of which is, that they are persuaded all confessions should be free and voluntary, and that a lively faith is all the preparation that is requisite for the worthy receiving of the sacrament of the LORD’S supper.

XXVI. They look down with an eye of disdain on the Romanists for their observance of the vigils before the nativity of our blessed SAVIOUR, and the festivals of the Virgin Mary and the apostles, as well as for their fasting in Ember-week. They even affect to eat meat more plentifully at those times than at any other, to testify their contempt of the Latin customs. They prohibit, likewise, all fasting on Saturdays, that preceding Easter only excepted.

XXVII. They condemn the Romanists as heretics, for eating such things as have been strangled, and such other meats as are prohibited in the Old Testament.

XXVIII. They deny that simple fornication is a mortal sin.

XXIX. They insist that it is lawful to deceive an enemy, and that it is no sin to injure and oppress him.

XXX. They are of opinion that, in order to be saved, there is no necessity to make restitution of such goods as have been stolen or fraudulently obtained.

XXXI. To conclude: they hold that such as have been admitted into holy orders may become laymen at pleasure. From whence it plainly appears that they do not allow the character of the priesthood to be indelible. To which it may be added, that they approve of the marriage of their priests, provided they enter into that state before their admission into holy orders, though they are never indulged in that respect after their ordination.

The patriarch of Constantinople assumes the honourable title of _Universal_ or _Œcumenical Patriarch_. As he purchases his commission of the Grand Seignior, it may be easily supposed that he makes a tyrannical and simoniacal use of a privilege which he holds himself by simony. The patriarchs and bishops are always single men; but the priests (as observed before) are indulged in marriage before ordination; and this custom, which is generally practised all over the Levant, is very ancient. Should a priest happen to marry after ordination, he can officiate no longer as priest, which is conformable to the injunctions of the Council of Neocesarea. The marriage, however, is not looked upon as invalid; whereas, in the Romish Church, such marriages are pronounced void and of no effect, because the priesthood is looked upon as a lawful bar or impediment.—_Broughton._

Their _Pappas_, or secular priests, not having any settled and competent livings, are obliged to subsist by simoniacal practices. “The clergy,” says Ricaut, “are almost compelled to sell those Divine mysteries which are intrusted to their care. No one, therefore, can procure absolution, be admitted to confession, have his children baptized, be married or divorced, or obtain an excommunication against his adversary, or the communion in time of sickness, without first paying down a valuable consideration. The priests too often make the best market they can, and fix a price on their spiritual commodities in proportion to the devotion or abilities of their respective customers.”

The national Church of the kingdom of Greece has lately been reconstructed similarly to that of Russia, by the establishment of a synod.—See _King’s Rites of the Greek Church_, and _Cowel’s Account of the Greek Church_, 1722.

CHURCH, ARCHITECTURE OF. There seems to be an absurdity in the modern practice of building churches for the ritual of the nineteenth century, on the model of churches designed for the ritual of the fourteenth century. And for a service such as ours, nothing more is required than a nave and a chancel; the only divisions which we find in the primitive Eastern churches. But as we have inherited churches which were erected during the middle ages, it is rather important that we should understand their designed arrangement. We find in such churches a _nave_ (_navis_) with its _aisles_ (_alæ_); a _chancel_; a _tower_, generally at the west end; and a _porch_, generally to the second bay of the south aisle. The uses of the nave and chancel are obvious; the aisles were added in almost all cases perhaps, prospectively at least in all, that they might serve for places for the erection of chantry altars, and for the same end served the transepts and chancel aisles, or side chapels, to the chancels, sometimes found even in small churches. To the chancel, generally at the north, a _vestry_ was often attached; and this was sometimes enlarged into a habitation for the officiating priest, by the addition of an upper chamber, with fire-place and other conveniences. But the more frequent place for this _domus inclusa_ was over the porch, when it is commonly called _parvise_; and sometimes the tower has evidently been made habitable, though, in this case, it may be rather suspected that means of defence have been contemplated. In the _domus inclusa_, in the vestry, and in the parvise, was often an altar, which not unfrequently remains. (See _Altar_.)

The chancel was separated from the nave by a screen, _cancelli_, from which the word chancel is derived, and over the screen a loft was extended, bearing the _rood_—a figure of our blessed LORD on the cross, and, on either side, figures of the Blessed Virgin and of St. John. But few _rood lofts_ remain, but the _screen_ is of frequent occurrence, especially in the northern and eastern counties. The loft was generally gained by a newel stair running up the angle between the chancel and the nave, but sometimes apparently by moveable steps. The side chapels were generally parted off from the adjoining parts of the church by screens, called _parcloses_. The chancel, if any conventual body was attached to the church, was furnished with stalls, which were set against the north and south walls, and returned against the rood screen, looking east. Connected with the altar, and sometimes, also, with some of the chantry altars, were _sedilia_, in the south wall of the chancel, varying in number from one to five, for the officiating clergy; and, eastward of these, the _piscina_; also an _aumbrie_, or locker, in the north chancel wall. The altar and these accessories were generally raised at least one step above the level of the rest of the chancel floor, and the chancel itself the like height from the nave. The _font_ stood against the first pillar to the left hand, entering at the south porch; it was often raised on steps, and furnished with an elaborate cover. (See _Baptistery_.) The _pulpit_ always stood in the nave, generally against a north pillar in _cathedrals_; but in other churches, generally against a south pillar, towards the east. The seats for the congregation were placed in a double series along the nave, with an alley between, and looking east. There are a few instances of seats with doors, but none of high pews till the time of the Puritans.

The doors to the church were almost always opposite to one another in the second bay of the aisles: besides these, there was often a west door, and this is generally supposed to denote some connexion with a monastic body, and was, perhaps, especially used on occasions of greater pomp, processions, and the like. What is usually called _the priest’s door_, at the south side of the chancel, opens always from within, and was, therefore, _not_ (as is usually supposed) _for the priest to enter by_: in which case, moreover, it would rather have been to the north, where the glebe house usually stands. Was it for the _exit_ of those who had assisted at mass? A little _bell-cot_ is often seen over the nave and altar, or on some other part of the church, called the _service-bell-cot_; for the bell rung at certain solemn parts of the service of the mass; as at the words “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus DEUS Sabaoth,” and at the elevation of the Host. If, as is supposed, those who were not in the church were accustomed to kneel at this time, there is an obvious reason for the external position of this bell.

CHURCHING OF WOMEN. The birth of man is so truly wonderful, that it seems to be designed as a standing demonstration of the omnipotence of GOD. And therefore that the frequency of it may not diminish our admiration, the Church orders a public and solemn acknowledgment to be made on every such occasion by the woman on whom the miracle is wrought; who still feels the bruise of our first parents’ fall, and labours under the curse which Eve then entailed upon her whole sex.

As to the original of this custom, it is not to be doubted but that, as many other Christian usages received their rise from other parts of the Jewish economy, so did this from the rite of purification, which is enjoined so particularly in the twelfth chapter of Leviticus. Not that we observe it by virtue of that precept, which we grant to have been ceremonial, and so not now of any force; but because we apprehend some moral duty to have been implied in it by way of analogy, which must be obligatory upon all, even when the ceremony is ceased. The uncleanness of the woman, the set number of days she is to abstain from the tabernacle, and the sacrifices she was to offer when she first came abroad, are rites wholly abolished, and what we no ways regard; but then the open and solemn acknowledgment of GOD’S goodness in delivering the mother, and increasing the number of mankind, is a duty that will oblige to the end of the world. And therefore, though the mother be now no longer obliged to offer the material sacrifices of the law, yet she is nevertheless bound to offer the evangelical sacrifice of praise. She is still publicly to acknowledge the blessing vouchsafed her, and to profess her sense of the fresh obligation it lays her under to obedience. Nor indeed may the Church be so reasonably supposed to have taken up this rite from the practice of the Jews, as she may be, that she began it in imitation of the Blessed Virgin, who, though she was rather sanctified than defiled by the birth of our LORD, and so had no need of purification from any uncleanness, whether legal or moral; yet wisely and humbly submitted to this rite, and offered her praise, together with her blessed Son, in the temple. And that from hence this usage was derived among Christians seems probable, not only from its being so universal and ancient, that the beginning of it can hardly anywhere be found; but also from the practice of the Eastern Church, where the mother still brings the child along with her, and presents it to GOD on her churching-day. The priest indeed is there said to “purify” them: and in our first Common Prayer, this office with us was entitled “the Order of the Purification of Women.” But that neither of these terms implied, that the woman had contracted any uncleanness in her state of child-bearing, may not only be inferred from the silence of the offices both in the Greek Church and ours, in relation to any uncleanness; but is also further evident from the ancient laws relating to this practice, which by no means ground it upon any impurity from which the woman stands in need to be purged. And therefore, when our own liturgy came to be reviewed, to prevent all misconstructions that might be put upon the word, the title was altered, and the office named, (as it is still in our present Common Prayer Book,) “The Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth, commonly called, The Churching of Women.”—_Dean Comber, Wheatly._

When Holy Scripture describes excessive sorrow in the most expressive manner, it likens it to that of a woman in travail. And if this sorrow be so excessive, how great must the joy be to be delivered from that sorrow! commensurate certainly, and of adequate proportion: and no less must be the debt of thankfulness to the benefactor, the donor of that recovery; whence a necessity of “thanksgiving of women after child-birth.” If it be asked, why the Church hath appointed a particular form for this deliverance, and not for deliverance from other cases of equal danger? the answer is, the Church did not so much take measure of the peril, as accommodate herself to that mark of separation which GOD himself hath put between this and other maladies. “To conceive and bring forth in sorrow” was signally inflicted upon Eve; and, in her, upon all mothers, as a penalty for her first disobedience (Gen. iii. 16); so that the sorrows of child-birth have, by GOD’S express determination, a more direct and peculiar reference to Eve’s disobedience than any other disease whatsoever; and, though all maladies are the product of the first sin, yet is the malediction specifically fixed and applied to this alone. Now, when that which was ordained primarily as a curse for the first sin, is converted to so great a blessing, GOD is certainly in that case more to be praised in a set and solemn office.—_L’ Estrange._

In the Greek Church the time for performing this office is limited to be on the fortieth day; but, in the West, the time was never strictly determined. And so our present rubric does not pretend to limit the day when the woman shall be churched, but only supposes that she will come “at the usual time after her delivery.” The “usual time” is now about a month, for the woman’s weakness will seldom permit her coming sooner. And if she be not able to come so soon, she is allowed to stay a longer time, the Church not expecting her to return her thanks for a blessing before it is received.—_Wheatly._

It is required, that whenever a woman is churched, she “shall come into the church.” And this is enjoined, first, for the honour of GOD, whose marvellous works in the formation of the child, and the preservation of the woman, ought publicly to be owned, that so others may learn to put their trust in him. Secondly, that the whole congregation may have a fit opportunity for praising GOD for the too much forgotten mercy of their birth. And, thirdly, that the woman may, in the proper place, own the mercy now vouchsafed her, of being restored to the happy privilege of worshipping GOD in the congregation of his saints.

How great, therefore, is the absurdity which some would introduce, of stifling their acknowledgments in private houses, and of giving thanks for their recovery and enlargement in no other place than that of their confinement and restraint; a practice which is inconsistent with the very name of this office, which is called “the _churching_ of women,” and which consequently implies a ridiculous solecism, of being _churched at home_. Nor is it anything more consistent with the end and devotions prescribed by this office, than it is with the name of it. For with what decency or propriety can the woman pretend to “pay her vows in the presence of all GOD’S people, in the courts of the LORD’S house,” when she is only assuming state in a bedchamber or parlour, and perhaps only accompanied with her midwife or nurse? To give thanks, therefore, at home (for by no means call it “churching”) is not only an act of disobedience to the Church, but a high affront to Almighty GOD; whose mercy they scorn to acknowledge in a church, and think it honour enough done him, if he is summoned by his priest to wait on them at their house, and to take what thanks they will vouchsafe him there. But methinks a minister, who has any regard for his character, and considers the honour of the LORD he serves, should disdain such a servile compliance and submission, and abhor the betraying of his Master’s dignity. Here can be no pretence of danger in the case, should the woman prove obstinate, upon the priest’s refusal (which ministers are apt to urge for their excuse, when they are prevailed upon to give public baptism in private); nor is the decision of a council wanting to instruct him, (if he has any doubts upon account of the woman’s ill health,) that he is not to perform this office at home, though she be really so weak as not to be able to come to church.—_Conc._ 3, _Mediol._ cap. 5. For if she be not able to come to church, let her stay till she is; GOD does not require any thanks for a mercy, before he has vouchsafed it: but if she comes as soon as her strength permits, she discharges her obligations both to him and the Church.—_Wheatly._

The rubric, at the end of the service, directs the woman that cometh to give her thanks, to offer the accustomed offerings. By “the accustomed offerings” is to be understood some offering to the minister who performs the office, not under the notion of a fee or reward, but of something set apart as a tribute or acknowledgment due to GOD, who is pleased to declare himself honoured or robbed according as such offerings are paid or withheld. We see under the law, that every woman, who came to be purified after child-bearing, was required to bring something that put her to an expense; even the poorest among them was not wholly excused, but obliged to do something, though it were but small. And though neither the kind nor the value of the expense be now prescribed, yet sure the expense itself should not covetously be saved: a woman that comes with any thankfulness or gratitude should scorn to offer what David disdained, namely, “of that which costs nothing.” And indeed with what sincerity or truth can she say, as she is directed to do in one of the Psalms, “I will pay my vows now in the presence of all his people,” if at the same time she designs no voluntary offering, which vows were always understood to imply?

But, besides the accustomed offering to the minister, the woman is to make a yet much better and greater offering, namely, an offering of herself, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to GOD. For the rubric declares, that “if there be a communion, it is convenient that she receive the holy communion;” that being the most solemn way of praising GOD for him by whom she received both the present and all other GOD’S mercies towards her; and a means also to bind herself more strictly to spend those days in his service, which, by this late deliverance, he hath added to her life.—_Wheatly._

In the Greek and Ethiopic Churches women upon these occasions always did receive the holy sacrament; and it seems in this very Church above a thousand years ago; and still we carry them up to the altar to remind them of their duty. And doubtless the omission of it occasions the too soon forgetting of this mercy, and the sudden falling off from piety, which we see in too many. Here they may praise GOD for our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and for this late temporal mercy also: here they may quicken their graces, seal their vows and promises of obedience, offer their charity, and begin that pious life to which they are so many ways obliged. To receive the sacrament, while the sense of GOD’S goodness and her own engagements is so fresh upon her, is the likeliest means to make her remember this blessing long, apply it right, and effectually to profit by it. Wherefore let it not be omitted on this occasion.—_Dean Comber._

The woman is directed to kneel down in “some convenient place, as hath been accustomed.” No general rule is either prescribed or observed as to time or place, and therefore these are matters which fall within the office of the ordinary to determine. Many read the office just before the General Thanksgiving: others, though not so usually, at some part of the Communion Service; some at the altar, others at the desk: the woman in some churches occupies a seat specially set apart for this office; in others she kneels at the altar table, and there makes her offering. And in others a custom prevails (which does not seem worthy of imitation) of performing this service at some time distinct from the office of Common Prayer.

CHURCH RATE. (See _Rate_.)

CHURCHWARDENS. These are very ancient officers, and by the common law are a lay corporation, to take care of the goods of the church, and may sue and be sued as the representatives of the parish. Churches are to be repaired by the churchwardens, at the charge of all the inhabitants, or such as occupy houses or lands within the parish.

In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers creditable persons out of every parish, to give information of, and to attest the disorders of clergy and people. They were called _testes synodales_; and were, in after times, a kind of empanelled jury, consisting of two, three, or more persons in every parish, who were, upon oath, to present all heretics and other irregular persons. And these, in process of time, became standing officers in several places, especially in great cities, and from hence were called synods-men, and by corruption sidesmen: they are also sometimes called questmen, from the nature of their office, in making inquiry concerning offences. And these sidesmen or questmen, by Canon 90, are to be chosen yearly in Easter week, by the minister and parishioners, (if they can agree,) otherwise to be appointed by the ordinary of the diocese. But for the most part this whole office is now devolved upon the churchwardens, together with that other office which their name more properly imports, of taking care of the church and the goods thereof, which has long been their function.

By Canon 118. The churchwardens and sidesmen shall be chosen the first week after Easter, or some week following, according to the direction of the ordinary.

And by Canon 89. All churchwardens or questmen in every parish shall be chosen by the joint consent of the minister and the parishioners, if it may be; but if they cannot agree upon such a choice, then the minister shall choose one, and the parishioners another; and without such a joint or several choice, none shall take upon them to be churchwardens. But if the parish is entitled by custom to choose both churchwardens, then the parson is restrained of his right under this canon. For further information on this subject the reader is referred to Dean Prideaux’s “Practical Guide to the Duties of Churchwardens in the execution of their Office,” a new edition of which has recently appeared, edited by C. G. Prideaux, barrister-at-law. (See _Sidesmen_ and _Visitation_.)

CHURCHYARD. The ground adjoining to the church, in which the dead are buried. As to the original of burial-places, many writers have observed, that, at the first erection of churches, no part of the adjacent ground was allotted for the interment of the dead; but some place for this purpose was appointed at a further distance. This practice continued until the time of Gregory the Great, when the monks and priests procured leave, for their greater ease and profit, that a liberty of sepulture might be in churches or places adjoining to them. But, by the ninth canon, entitled _De non sepeliendo in ecclesiis_, this custom of sepulture in churches was restrained, and no such liberty allowed for the future, unless the person was a priest or some holy man, who, by the merits of his past life, might deserve such peculiar favour.

By Canon 85. The churchwardens or questmen shall take care that the churchyards be well and sufficiently repaired, fenced, and maintained with walls, rails, or pales, as have been in each place accustomed, at their charges unto whom by law the same appertains.

The churchyard is the freehold of the parson: but it is the common burial-place of the dead, and for that reason it is to be fenced at the charge of the parishioners, unless there is a custom to the contrary, or for a particular person to do it, in respect of his lands adjoining to the churchyard; and that must be tried at common law. But though the freehold is in the parson, he cannot cut down trees growing there, except for the necessary repairs of the chancel; because they are planted and grow there for the ornament and shelter of the church. (See _Burial_ and _Cemetery_.)

CIBORIUM. A small temple or tabernacle placed upon the altar of Roman Catholic churches, and containing the consecrated wafer.

CIRCUMCELLIONS. A sect of the Donatist Christians in Africa, in the fourth century, being so called, because they rambled from one town to another, and pretended to public reformation and redressing of grievances; they manumitted slaves without their master’s leave, forgave debts which were none of their own, and committed a great many other insolencies: they were headed by Maxides and Faser. At the beginning of their disorders they marched only with staves, which they called the staves of Israel, in allusion to the custom of the Israelites eating the paschal lamb with staves in their hands, but afterwards they made use of all sorts of arms against the Catholics. Donatus called them the saints’ chiefs, and revenged himself by their means upon the Catholics. A mistaken zeal for martyrdom made these people destroy themselves; some of them threw themselves down precipices, others leaped into the fire, and some cut their own throats: so that their bishops, not being able to prevent such horrible and unnatural violences, were obliged to apply themselves to the magistracy to put an end to their phrensy.—_August. Hæres_, 69; _Optatus_, lib. iii.; _Theod. Hist. Eccles._ lib. iv. c. 6.

CIRCUMCISION of JESUS CHRIST. This feast is celebrated by the Church, to commemorate the active obedience of our LORD in fulfilling all righteousness, which is one branch of the meritorious cause of our redemption; and by that means abrogating the severe injunctions of the Mosaical establishment, and putting us under the grace of the gospel. The institution of this feast is of very considerable antiquity. In the sixth century a special and appropriate service for it was in use. It sometimes took the name of the “Octave of Christmas,” or the eighth day from that festival, being observed on January 1st. (See _Octave_.) It is one of the scarlet days at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

CISTERCIANS. Towards the conclusion of the 11th century, Robert, abbot of Molême, in Burgundy, having employed, in vain, his most zealous efforts to revive the decaying piety and discipline of his convent, and to oblige his monks to observe more exactly the rule of St. Benedict, retired with about twenty monks to a place called Citeaux, in the diocese of Chalons. In this retreat Robert founded the famous order of the Cistercians, which made a most rapid and astonishing progress, spread through the greatest part of Europe in the following century, was enriched with the most liberal and splendid donations, acquired the form and privileges of a spiritual republic, and exercised a sort of dominion over all the monastic orders. The great and fundamental law of this new fraternity was the rule of St. Benedict, which was to be rigorously observed. (See _Benedictines_.) To this were added several other injunctions intended to maintain the authority of the rule. The first Cistercian monastery in England was that of Waverley, in Surrey, 1129. In the reign of Edward I. there were sixty-one Cistercian monasteries.—_Monast. Angl.; Hist. des Ord. Relig._ tom. v. c. 33.

CITATION. This is a precept under the seal of the ecclesiastical judge, commanding the person against whom the complaint is made to appear before him, on a certain day, and at a certain place therein mentioned, to answer the complaint in such a cause, &c.

CLAIRE, ST. A religious order of women in the Romish Church, the second that St. Francis instituted. This order was founded in 1213, and was confirmed by Innocent III., and after him by Honorius III., in 1223. It took its name from its first abbess and nun, Clara of Assisi, and was afterwards divided into Damianists and Urbanists; the first follow the ancient discipline in all its rigour, but the other the rule with Urban IV.’s allowance.—_Hist. des Ord. Relig._ t. vii. c. 25.

CLARENDON, CONSTITUTIONS OF. Certain constitutions made in the reign of Henry II., A. D. 1164, in a parliament or council held at Clarendon, a village three miles distant from Salisbury. These are as follows:—

I. When any difference relating to the right of patronage arises between the laity, or between the laity and clergy, the controversy is to be tried and ended in the king’s courts.

II. Those churches which are fees of the Crown cannot be granted away in perpetuity without the king’s consent.

III. When the clergy are charged with any misdemeanour, and summoned by the justiciary, they shall be obliged to make their appearance in his court, and plead to such parts of the indictments as shall be put to them. And likewise to answer such articles in the ecclesiastical court as they shall be prosecuted for by that jurisdiction; always provided that the king’s justiciary shall send an officer to inspect the proceedings of the court Christian. And in case any clerk is convicted or pleads guilty, he is to forfeit the privilege of his character, and be protected by the Church no longer.

IV. No archbishops, bishops, or parsons are allowed to depart the kingdom without a licence from the Crown; and, provided they have leave to travel, they shall give security not to act or solicit anything during their passage, stay, or return, to the prejudice of the king or kingdom.

V. When any of the laity are prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts, the charge ought to be proved before the bishop by legal and reputable witnesses: and the course of the process is to be so managed, that the archdeacon may not lose any part of his right, or the profits accruing to his office: and if any offenders appear screened from prosecution upon the score either of favour or quality, the sheriff, at the bishop’s instance, shall order twelve sufficient men of the vicinage to make oath before the bishop, that they will discover the truth according to the best of their knowledge.

VI. Excommunicated persons shall not be obliged to make oath, or give security to continue upon the place where they live, but only to abide by the judgment of the Church, in order to their absolution.

VII. No person that holds in chief of the king, or any of his barons, shall be excommunicated, or any of their estates put under an interdict, before application made to the king, provided he is in the kingdom: and in case his Highness is out of England, then the justiciary must be acquainted with the dispute, in order to make satisfaction: and thus that which belongs to the cognizance of the king’s court must be tried there, and that which belongs to the courts Christian must be remitted to that jurisdiction.

VIII. In case of appeals in ecclesiastical causes, the first step is to be made from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop; and if the archbishop fails to do him justice, a further recourse may be had to the king; by whose order the controversy is to be finally decided in the archbishop’s court. Neither shall it be lawful for either of the parties to move for any further remedy without leave from the Crown.

IX. If a difference happen to arise between any clergyman and layman concerning any tenement; and that the clerk pretends it held by frank-almoine, and the layman pleads it a lay-fee, in this case the tenure shall be tried by the inquiry and verdict of twelve sufficient men of the neighbourhood, summoned according to the custom of the realm; and if the tenement, or thing in controversy, shall be found frank-almoine, the dispute concerning it shall be tried in the ecclesiastical court; but if it is brought in a lay-fee, the suit shall be followed in the king’s courts, unless both the plaintiff and defendant hold the tenement in question of the same bishop; in which case the cause shall be tried in the court of such bishop or baron, with this further proviso, that he who is seized of the thing in controversy shall not be disseized pending the suit, upon the score of the verdict above-mentioned.

X. He who holds of the king in any city, castle, or borough, or resides upon any of the demesne lands of the Crown, in case he is cited by the archdeacon or bishop to answer to any misbehaviour belonging to their cognizance; if he refuses to obey their summons, and stand to the sentence of the court, it shall be lawful for the ordinary to put him under an interdict, but not to excommunicate him till the king’s principal officer of the town shall be pre-acquainted with the case, in order to enjoin him to make satisfaction to the Church. And if such officer or magistrate shall fail in his duty, he shall be fined by the king’s judges. And then the bishop may exert his discipline on the refractory person as he thinks fit.

XI. All archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, who hold of the king in chief, and the tenure of a barony, are, for that reason, obliged to appear before the king’s justices and ministers, to answer the duties of their tenure, and to observe all the usages and customs of the realm; and, like other barons, are bound to be present at trials in the king’s court, till sentence is to be pronounced for the losing of life or limbs.

XII. When any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal foundation, becomes vacant, the king is to make seizure; from which time all the profits and issues are to be paid into the exchequer, as if they were the demesne lands of the Crown. And when it is determined the vacancy shall be filled up, the king is to summon the most considerable persons of the chapter to the court, and the election is to be made in the chapel royal, with the consent of our sovereign lord the king, and by the advice of such persons of the government as his Highness shall think fit to make use of. At which time the person elected, before his consecration, shall be obliged to do homage and fealty to the king, as his liege lord; which homage shall be performed in the usual form, with a clause for the saving the privilege of his order.

XIII. If any of the temporal barons, or great men, shall encroach upon the rights of property of any archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon, and refuse to make satisfaction for the wrong done by themselves or their tenants, the king shall do justice to the party aggrieved. And if any person shall disseise the king of any part of his lands, or trespass upon his prerogative, the archbishops, bishops, and archdeacons shall call him to an account, and oblige him to make the Crown restitution.

XIV. The goods and chattels of those who lie under forfeitures of felony or treason, are not to be detained in any church or churchyard, to secure them against seizure and justice; because such goods are the king’s property, whether they are lodged within the precincts of a church, or without it.

XV. All actions and pleas of debt, though never so solemn in the circumstances of the contract, shall be tried in the king’s court.

XVI. The sons of copyholders are not to be ordained without the consent of the lord of the manor where they were born.

CLERESTORY. That part of a church with aisles which rises on the nave arches over the aisle roofs. Constructively, the clerestory is often to be referred to the roof. The original roof of small, and sometimes even of large, churches usually covered nave and aisles at one span. When the original roof needed repair, the old timbers were made available by cutting off the ends which had suffered most. But this process rendered them unfit for a compass roof of high pitch. An addition, therefore, was made to the walls of the nave, by which the roof might rise as high as before in the centre, though of lower pitch.

CLERGY. (See _Bishop_, _Presbyter_, _Priest_, _Deacon_, _Apostolical Succession_, _Orders_.) The general name given to the body of ecclesiastics of the Christian Church, in contradistinction to the laity. It is derived from κλῆρος, a lot or portion.

The distinction of Christians into clergy and laity was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles themselves. Wherever any number of converts was made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into a congregation or church, a bishop or presbyter, with a deacon, were ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius relates from the ancient histories of the Church. The author of the Comment on St. Paul’s Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose, says, indeed, that at first all CHRIST’S disciples were clergy, and had all a general commission to preach the gospel and baptize: but this was in order to convert the world, and before any multitude of people were gathered, or churches founded, wherein to make a distinction. But, as soon as the Church began to spread itself over the world, and sufficient numbers were converted to form themselves into a regular society, then rulers, and other ecclesiastical officers, were appointed among them, and a distinction made that each might not interfere with the other.

The clergy, originally, consisted only of bishops, priests, and deacons; but, in the third century, many inferior orders were appointed, as subservient to the office of deacon, such as subdeacons, acolyths, readers, &c.

There is another name for the clergy, very commonly to be met with in the ancient councils, which is that of _canonici_: a name derived from the Greek word κάνων, which signifies, among other things, the roll or catalogue of every church, in which the names of the ecclesiastics, belonging to each church, were written.

The privileges and immunities which the clergy of the primitive Christian Church enjoyed, deserve our notice. In the first place, whenever they travelled upon necessary occasions, they were to be entertained by their brethren of the clergy, in all places, out of the public revenues of the Church. When any bishop or presbyter came to a foreign Church, they were to be complimented with the honorary privilege of performing divine offices, and consecrating the eucharist in the church. If any controversies happened among the clergy, they freely consented to have them determined by their bishops and councils, without having recourse to the secular magistrate for justice. The great care the clergy had of the characters and reputations of those of their order appears from hence, that, in all accusations, especially against bishops, they required the testimony of two or three witnesses, according to the apostle’s rule; they likewise examined the character of the witnesses, before their testimony was admitted; nor would they suffer a heretic to give evidence against a clergyman. These instances relate to the respect which the clergy mutually paid to each other.

With regard to the respect paid to the clergy by the civil government, it consisted chiefly in exempting them from some kind of obligations, to which others were liable, and in granting them certain privileges and immunities which others did not enjoy. Thus, by a law of Justinian, no secular judge could compel a bishop to appear in a public court, to give his testimony, but was to send one of his officers to take it from his mouth in private; nor was a bishop obliged to give his testimony upon oath, but only upon his bare word. Presbyters, we find, were privileged from being questioned by torture, as other witnesses were. But a still more extensive privilege was, the exemption of the clergy from the ordinary cognizance of the secular courts in all causes purely ecclesiastical; such being reserved for the hearing of the bishops and councils, not only by the canons of the Church, but by the laws of the state also; as appears from several rescripts of the emperors Constantius, Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius the Great, Arcadius and Honorius, Valentinian II., and Justinian.

Another privilege, which the clergy enjoyed by the favour of Christian princes, was, that, in certain cases, they were exempt from some of the taxes laid upon the rest of the Roman empire. In the first place, they were exempt from the _census capitum_, or _personal tribute_, but not from the _census agrorum_, or tribute arising from men’s lands and possessions. In the next place they were not obliged to pay the _aurum tironicum_, soldiers’ money, nor the _equorum canonicorum adæratio_, horse money; which were taxes laid on some provinces, for furnishing the emperor with new levies, and fresh horses, for the wars. A third tax from which the clergy was exempt was the χρυσάργυροι, the silver and gold tax, which was laid upon trade and commerce; and the fourth, the _metatum_, so called from the word _metatores_, which signifies the emperor’s forerunners or harbingers; being a duty incumbent on the subjects of the empire to give entertainment to the emperor’s court and retinue, when they travelled. The clergy were also exempt from contributing to the reparation of highways and bridges, and from the duties called _angariæ_ and _parangariæ_, &c., by which the subjects were obliged to furnish horses and carriages for the conveying of corn for the use of the army.

Another sort of immunity which the clergy enjoyed, was their exemption from civil offices in the Roman empire. But this privilege was confined to such of the clergy as had no estates, but what belonged to the Church by the laws of Constantine. For the Christian princes always made a wide difference between the public patrimony of the Church, and the private estates of such of the clergy as had lands of a civil or secular tenure. For the one, the clergy were obliged to no duty or burden of civil offices; but for the other, they were, and could not be excused from them otherwise than by providing proper substitutes to officiate for them.

After this account of the privileges of the ancient Christian clergy, it may not be improper to take some notice of the principal laws made for the regulation of their lives and conversations.

And, first, we may observe what sort of crimes were thought worthy of degradation. It was not every slight failing or infirmity, for which a clergyman was degraded, but only crimes of a deeper dye, such as theft, murder, fraud, perjury, sacrilege, and adultery: to which may be added, drinking and gaming, those two great consumers of time, and enemies to all noble undertakings and generous services; as, also, the taking of money upon usury, which is condemned by many of the ancient canons as a species of covetousness and cruelty. And therefore, instead of lending upon usury, the clergy were obliged to be exemplary for the contrary virtues, hospitality and charity to the poor, frugality, and a contempt of the world. And, to guard against defamation and scandal, it was enacted by the canons of several councils, that no bishops, presbyters, or deacons should visit widows and virgins alone, but in the company and presence of some other of the clergy, or some grave Christians.

With regard to the laws, more particularly relating to the exercise of the duties and offices of their function, the clergy were, in the first place, obliged to lead studious lives. But it was not all sorts of studies that were equally recommended to them: the principal was the study of the Holy Scriptures, as being the fountains of that learning, which was most proper for their calling. Next to the Scriptures, they were to study the canons of the Church, and the best ecclesiastical authors. In after ages, in the time of Charles the Great, we find some laws obliging the clergy to read, together with the canons, Gregory’s book “De Cura Pastorali.” As to other books, they were more cautious and sparing in the study and use of them. Some canons forbad a bishop to read heathen authors; nor was he allowed to read heretical books, except when there was occasion to confute them, or to caution others against the poison of them. But the prohibition of heathen learning was to be understood with a little qualification. It was only forbidden so far as it tended to the neglect of Scripture and more useful studies. We pass over the obligations incumbent on them to attend the daily service of the Church, to be pious and devout in their public addresses to God, to be zealous in defending the truth, and maintaining the unity of the Church, &c.

By the ecclesiastical laws, no clergyman was allowed to relinquish or desert his station without just grounds and leave: yet, in some cases, resignation was allowed of,—such as old age, sickness, or other infirmity. No clergyman was to remove from one diocese to another, without the consent, and letters dimissory, of his own bishop. The laws were no less severe against all _wandering_ clergymen, or such as, having deserted their own church, would fix in no other, but went roving from place to place: these some of the ancients called βακαντιβοι or _Vacantivi_. By the laws of the Church, the bishops were not to permit such to officiate in their dioceses, nor indeed so much as to communicate in their churches. Other laws there were, which obliged the clergy to residence, or a constant attendance upon their duty. The Council of Sardica has several canons relating to this matter. Others inhibited pluralities, or the officiating in two parochial churches. In pursuance of the same design, of keeping the clergy strict and constant to their duty, laws were also made to prohibit them following any secular employment, which might divert them too much from their proper business and calling. In some times and places, the laws of the Church were so strict about this matter, that they would not suffer a bishop, or presbyter, to be left trustee to any man’s will. By other laws they were prohibited from taking upon them the office of pleading at the bar in any civil contest.

Another sort of laws respected the outward behaviour of the clergy. Such were the laws against corresponding and conversing too freely with Jews, and Gentile philosophers; and the canons which restrained them from eating and drinking in a tavern, or being present at the public theatres. To this sort of laws we may reduce the ancient rules which concern the garb and habit of the clergy; which were to be such as might express the gravity of their minds, without any affectation, or superstitious singularity. As to the kind or fashion of their apparel, it does not appear, for several ages, that there was any other distinction observed therein between them and the laity, than the modesty and gravity of their garb, without being tied to any certain habit, or form of dress.

These were the principal laws and regulations by which the clergy of the primitive Christian Church were governed; and it is remarkable, that the apostate emperor Julian was so convinced of their excellency, that he had a design of reforming the heathen priesthood upon the model of the Christian clergy.

The clergy of the _Church of Rome_ are distinguished into _regular_ and _secular_. The regular clergy consist of those monks, or religious, who have taken upon them holy orders, and perform the offices of the priesthood in their respective monasteries. The secular clergy are those who are not of any religious order, and have the care and direction of parishes. The canons of such cathedrals as were not monastic foundations were so called; i.e. secular canons. In the Saxon times these might be married. The _Protestant_ clergy are all seculars.

The Romish Church forbids the clergy of her communion to _marry_, and pretends that a vow of perpetual celibacy, or abstinence from conjugal society, was required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination, even from the apostolical ages. But the contrary is evident from innumerable examples of bishops and presbyters, who lived, in those early ages, in a state of matrimony.—_Bingham._ (See _Celibacy_.)

CLERK. This word is in fact only an abbreviation of the word _clericus_, or clergyman. It is still used, in a few instances, to designate clergymen: as clerk of the king’s closet, clerks in orders in certain parish churches. In foreign churches, it is usually applied to the ministers in minor orders. But it is now used to designate certain laymen, who are appointed to conduct or lead the responses of the congregation, and otherwise to assist in the services of the church. In most cathedrals and collegiate churches, and in some colleges, there are several of these lay clerks (see _Vicar Choral_, _Secondary_, and _Stipendiary_); in parish churches, generally, there is but one, who is styled the _parish clerk_. These were, originally, real _clerks_, i. e. clergymen, generally in minor orders, who assisted the officiating priest. But the minor orders have long ceased to be conferred, except as symbolical steps towards the higher grades of the ministry; so that in countries of the Romish communion, as well as among ourselves, the office which used to be performed by one or more clergymen has devolved upon laymen. There can be little doubt that, in parishes where there are more than one clergyman resident, the duties of the parish clerk should be performed by them, especially in leading the responses, singing, giving notices, &c.; but long custom has so familiarized us to the services of a lay-clerk, that we permit him, as of right, to do even in the presence of the clergy what, strictly speaking, belongs to the clerical office. It is a great fault in a congregation when they permit the lay-clerk to do more than _lead them_ in the responses or their singing. The eighteenth canon directs all persons, man, woman, and child, to say in their due places, audibly with the minister, the Confession, the LORD’S Prayer, and the Creed, and make such other answers to the public prayer as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer; and the laity forfeit a high privilege when they leave their share of the service to the lay-clerk alone.

_Clerks_ are mentioned in the Prayer Book in the Rubric before the second occurrence of the LORD’S Prayer, in Morning and Evening Prayer: “The minister, clerks, and people shall say the Lord’s Prayer with a loud voice:” in the Marriage Service, “The minister and clerks, going to the Lord’s table, shall say or sing this Psalm following:” in the Burial Service, “The priest and clerks meeting the corpse at the entrance of the churchyard, &c., shall say or sing:” and when they are come to the grave, “The priest shall say, or the priest and clerks shall sing:” and in the Commination Service, “The priest and clerks, kneeling, (in the place where they are accustomed to say the Litany,) shall say this Psalm, _Miserere mei, Deus_.” The _clerk_ in the singular number is mentioned but once only, which is in the Marriage Service; where the man is directed to lay the ring on the book “with the accustomed duty to the priest and _clerk_.”—_Jebb._

Canon 91. _Parish clerks to be chosen by the minister._—No parish clerk upon any vacation shall be chosen, within the city of London, or elsewhere within the province of Canterbury, but by the parson or vicar: or, where there is no parson or vicar, by the minister of that place for the time being; which choice shall be signified by the said minister, vicar, or parson, to the parishioners the next Sunday following, in the time of Divine service. And the said clerk shall be of twenty years of age at the least, and known to the said parson, vicar, or minister, to be of honest conversation, and sufficient for his reading, writing, and also for his competent skill in singing, if it may be. And the said clerks so chosen shall have and receive their ancient wages without fraud or diminution, either at the hands of the churchwarden, at such times as hath been accustomed, or by their own collection, according to the most ancient custom of every parish.

Since the making of this canon, the right of putting in the parish clerk has often been contested between incumbents and parishioners, and prohibitions prayed, and always obtained, to the spiritual court, for maintaining the authority of the canon in favour of the incumbent, against the plea of custom in behalf of the parishioners.

All incumbents once had the right of nomination of the parish clerks, by the common law and custom of the realm.

Parish clerks, after having been duly chosen and appointed, are usually licensed by the ordinary. And when they are licensed, they are sworn to obey the minister.

By a recent regulation, (7 & 8 Vict. c. 59,) persons in holy orders may be appointed to the office of parish clerk, which is to be held under the same tenure as that of a stipendiary curacy. Lay-clerks may also be dismissed by the minister, without the intervention of a _mandamus_ from the Queen’s Bench.

By 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 35, a parish clerk, for assisting at a marriage, without banns or licence, shall forfeit five pounds for every such offence.

CLINIC BAPTISM. Baptism on a sick bed (κλινη) was so called in the primitive Church. In the earlier ages of Christianity certain solemn days were set apart for the administration of holy baptism, and only on extraordinary occasions were converts baptized, except on one or other of those days; but if one already a candidate for baptism fell sick, and if his life was endangered, he was allowed to receive clinic baptism. There was, however, a kind of clinics to whom great suspicion attached; some persons who were converts to the doctrines of Christianity would not be baptized while in health and vigour, because of the greater holiness of life to which they would account themselves pledged, and because they thought that baptism administered on their death-bed would wash away the sins of their life. Such persons, though they recovered after their baptism, were held to be under several disabilities, and especially they were not admitted as candidates for holy orders.

CLOISTER. (See _Monastery_.) A covered walk, not unusually occupying the four sides of a quadrangle, which is almost an invariable appendage to a monastic or ancient collegiate residence. The most beautiful cloister remaining in England is at Gloucester cathedral. Several of the cathedrals which were not monastic have or had cloisters; as York, old St. Paul’s, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Salisbury, Wells; formerly St. Patrick’s in Dublin; and some colleges, as New College, Magdalen, and Corpus at Oxford; Winchester College. A cloister was projected for King’s College by the founder, but never executed. St. George’s Chapel at Windsor has also a cloister.

CLUNIAC MONKS. Religious of the order of Clugni. It is the first branch of the order of St. Benedict.

St. Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, of the family of the earls of Burgundy, was the founder of this order. In the year 910, he built a monastery for the reception of Benedictine monks, in the town of Clugni, situated in the Maconnois, a little province of France, on the river Saone. The noble abbey of Clugni was destroyed in 1789.

The monks of Clugni (or Cluni) were remarkable for their sanctity. They every day sang two solemn masses. They so strictly observed silence, that they would rather have died than break it before the hour of prime. When they were at work, they recited psalms. They fed eighteen poor persons every day, and were so profuse of their charity in Lent, that one year, at the beginning of Lent, they distributed salt meat, and other alms, among 7000 poor.

The preparation they used for making the bread which was to serve for the eucharist is worthy to be observed. They first chose the wheat grain by grain, and washed it very carefully. Then a servant carried it in a bag to the mill, and washed the grindstones, and covered them with curtains. The meal was afterwards washed in clean water, and baked in iron moulds.

The extraordinary discipline observed in the monasteries of Clugni soon spread its fame in all parts. France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, desired to have some of these religious, for whom they built new monasteries. They also passed into the East; and there was scarcely a place in Europe where the order was not known.

The principal monasteries in which the discipline and rules of Clugni were observed, were those of Tulles in the Limousin, Aurillac in Auvergne, Bourgdieu and Massa in Berri, St. Benet on the Loire in the Orleanois, St. Peter le Vif at Sens, St. Allire of Clermont, St. Julian of Tours, Sarlat in Perigord, and Roman-Mourier in the country of Vaux.

This order was divided into ten provinces, being those of Dauphiné, Auvergne, Poitiers, Saintonge, and Gascony, in France; Spain, Italy, Lombardy, Germany, and England.

At the general chapters, which were at first held yearly, and afterwards every three years, two visitors were chosen for every province, and two others for the monasteries of nuns of this order, fifteen definitors, three auditors of causes, and two auditors of excuses. There were formerly five principal priories, called the five first daughters of Clugni; but, since the dissolution of the monasteries in England, which involved that of St. Pancrace, at Lewes in Sussex, there remained but four principal priories, being those of La Charité sur Loire, St. Martin des Champs at Paris, Souvigni, and Souxillanges.

The Cluniac monks were first brought into England by William, earl of Warren, about the year of our LORD, 1077. These religious, though they lived under the rule of St. Benedict, and wore a black habit, yet, because their discipline and observances differed in many things from those of the Benedictines, therefore they were not called Benedictines, but monks of the order of Clugni. In the reign of Henry V., the Cluniac monasteries, by reason of the war between England and France, were cut off from the obedience of the abbot of Clugni, nor were they permitted to have any intercourse with the monasteries of their order out of England. The monasteries of Cluniac monks in England amounted in number to thirty-eight.—_Broughton’s Bibliotheca Historico-Sacra._

COADJUTOR. In cases of any habitual distemper of the mind, whereby the incumbent is rendered incapable of the administration of his cure, such as frenzy, lunacy, and the like, the laws of the Church have provided coadjutors. Of these there are many instances in the ecclesiastical records, both before and since the Reformation; and we find them given generally to parochial ministers, (as most numerous,) but sometimes also to deans, archdeacons, prebendaries, and the like; and no doubt they may be given, in such circumstances, at the discretion of the ordinary, to any ecclesiastical person having ecclesiastical cure and revenue.

CŒNOBITES. Monks, who lived together in a fixed habitation, and formed one large community under a chief, whom they called father or abbot. The word is derived from κοινοβιον, _vitæ communis societas_. (See _Monks_.)

COLIDEI. (See _Culdees_.)

COLLATION. This is where a bishop gives a benefice, which either he had as patron, or which came to him by lapse.

This is also a term in use among ecclesiastical writers to denote the spare meal on days of abstinence, consisting of bread or other fruits, but without meat.

COLLECTS. These are certain brief and comprehensive prayers, which are found in all known liturgies and public devotional offices. Ritualists have thought that these prayers were so called, because they were used in the public congregation or _collection_ of the people; or from the fact of many petitions being here collected together in a brief summary; or because they comprehend objects of prayer collected out of the Epistles and Gospels. But whatever may be the origin of the term, it is one of great antiquity. It is indeed difficult to trace the antiquity of repeating collects at the end of the service. It certainly, however, prevailed in our own Church, the Church of England, even during the period preceding the Norman Conquest. The very collects that we still use, formed part of the devotional offices of our Church long before the Reformation. They are generally directed to GOD the FATHER, in the name of JESUS CHRIST our LORD; for so they usually conclude, though sometimes they are directed to CHRIST himself, who is GOD co-equal and co-eternal with the FATHER. They consist usually of two parts, an humble acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of GOD, and a petition for some benefits from him. Among the advantages resulting from the regulation of the Church in making use of these short collects are,—the relief they give to the worshipper; the variety they throw into the service; the fixing of attention by new impulses of thought; the solemnizing of the mind by frequent invocations of the hearer of prayer; the constant reference of all our hopes to the merits and mediation of CHRIST, in _whose name_ every collect is offered; and, lastly, the inspiring feeling, that in them we are offering up our prayers in the same words which have been on the lips of the martyrs and saints of all ages.

The more usual name in the Latin Church was _collectæ_, collects, because the prayers of the bishop, which in any part of the service followed the joint prayers of the deacon and congregation, were both a recollection and recommendation of the prayers of the people. In this sense Cassian takes the phrase, _colligere orationem_, when speaking of the service in the Egyptian monasteries and Eastern churches, he says, “after the psalms they had private prayers, which they said partly standing and partly kneeling; which being ended, he that collected the prayer rose up, and then they all rose up together with him, none presuming to continue longer upon the ground, lest he should seem rather to pursue his own prayers than go along with him who collected the prayers, or closed up all with his concluding collect.” Where we may observe, that a _collect_ is taken for the chief minister’s prayer at the close of some part of Divine service, _collecting_ and concluding the people’s preceding devotions. Uranius, speaking of one John, bishop of Naples, who died in the celebration of Divine service, says, “he gave the signal to the people to pray, and then, having summed up their prayers in a collect, he yielded up the ghost.”—_Bingham._

Walapidus Strabo, as quoted by Wheatly, says that they are so called because the priest _collects_ the petitions of all in a compendious brevity. To which Dr. Bisse assents, and considers the word to mean the _collecting_ into one prayer the petitions which were anciently divided between him and the people by versicles and responses. They are in fact used in contradistinction to the alternate versicles, and the larger and less compendious prayers.

_Morinus_, in his notes on Greek Ordination, remarks on the resemblance between the Greek word συναπτὴ, and the Latin _collecta_: but shows that the συναπτὴ, though meaning a connected prayer, has a very different use. The συναπτὴ was sometimes a sort of litany, sometimes a set of versicles resembling the “preces” of the Roman Church, or our versicles and responses after the Creed. The συναπτὴ μέγαλη, again, is like our Prayer for the Church Militant. The Greek εὐχὴ, said after the συναπτὴ, is more like our collect: but there is nothing exactly resembling it in the Greek formularies. Their prayers are generally much longer.

The collects are (for the most part) constructed upon one uniform rule, consisting of three parts. (1.) The commemoration of some special attribute of GOD. (2.) A prayer for the exercise of that attribute in some special blessing. (3.) A prayer for the beneficial and permanent consequences of that blessing. The punctuation of the Prayer Book most accurately brings out the meaning of the collects. The apodosis of the sentence is (for the most part) begun by a capital letter.

In many of the collects, GOD is desired to hear the petitions of the people, those that the people had then made before the collect. These come in at the end of other devotions, and were by some of old called _missæ_, that is to say, _dismissions_, the people being dismissed upon the pronouncing of them and the blessing; the collects themselves being by some of the ancients called _blessings_, and also _sacramenta_, either for that their chief use was at the communion, or because they were uttered _per sacerdotum_, by one consecrated to holy offices.—_Sparrow._

Our Reformers observed, first, that some of those collects were corrupted by superstitious alterations and additions, made by some later hand. Secondly, that the modern Roman missals had left some of the primitive collects quite out, and put in their stead collects containing some of their false opinions, or relating to their innovations in practice. Where the mass had struck out an old, and put in a new, collect, agreeable to their new and false doctrines or practices, there the Reformers restored the old collect, being pure and orthodox. At the restoration of King Charles II., even those collects made or allowed at the Reformation were strictly reviewed, and what was deficient was supplied, and all that was but incongruously expressed was rectified; so that now they are complete and unexceptionable, and may be ranked into three several classes. First, the ancient primitive collects, containing nothing but true doctrine, void of all modern corruptions, and having a strain of the primitive devotion, being short, but regular, and very expressive; so that it is not possible to touch more sense in so few words: and these are those taken out of Pope Gregory’s Sacramentary, or out of those additions made to it by the abbot Grimoaldus. Many of these were retained in their native purity in the missals of York and Salisbury, and the breviaries; but were no more depreciated by standing there than a jewel by lying on a dunghill. The second order of collects are also ancient as to the main; but where there were any passages that had been corrupted, they were struck out, and the old form restored, or that passage rectified; and where there was any defect it was supplied. The third order are such as had been corrupted in the Roman missals and breviaries, and contained something of false doctrine, or at least of superstition, in them; and new collects were made, instead of these, at the Reformation, under King Edward VI.; and some few which were wanting were added, anno 1662.—_Comber._

The objection, that our service is taken from the Popish, affects chiefly the collects. But those of ours which are the same with theirs, are mostly derived from prayer books brought over in the days of that pope by whose means our Saxon ancestors were converted to Christianity, above 1100 [now 1200] years ago; and they were old ones then, much older than the main errors of Popery.—_Secker._

It appears that the service of the Church is far more ancient than the Roman missal, properly speaking. And whoever has attended to the superlative simplicity, fervour, and energy of the prayers, will have no hesitation in concluding, that they must, the collects particularly, have been composed in a time of true evangelical light and godliness.—_Milner’s Church Hist._

It is the boast of the Church of England, and her praise, that her Common Prayer corresponds with the best and most ancient liturgies which were used in the Church in the most primitive and purest times.—_Directions to Commissioners in 1661._

Here I entreat the people to remember that these collects, and the following prayers, are to be vocally pronounced by the minister only, though the people are obliged to join mentally therein. Wherefore let none of the congregation disturb the rest, especially those that are near them, by muttering over their prayers in an audible manner, contrary to the design and rule of the Church, which always tells the people when their voices are allowed to be heard, and consequently commands them at all other times to be silent, and to speak to GOD in a mental manner only.—_Bennett._

COLLECTS FOR THE DAY. Our Church, endeavouring to preserve not only the spirit, but the very forms, as much as may be, and in a known tongue, of ancient primitive devotion, has retained the same collects.

For the object, they are directed to GOD, in the name of “JESUS CHRIST our LORD;” a few are directed to CHRIST; and in the Litany some supplications to the HOLY GHOST, besides that precatory hymn of “Veni Creator,” in the book of Ordination. Some collects, especially for great festivals, conclude with this acknowledgment,—that CHRIST, with the FATHER, and the HOLY GHOST, “liveth and reigneth, one GOD, world without end.” This seems to be done to testify what the Scripture warrants, that although, for more congruity, we in the general course of our prayers go to the FATHER by the SON, yet that we may also invocate both the SON and the HOLY GHOST; and that while we call upon one, we equally worship and glorify all three together.

For their form and proportion, as they are not one long-continued prayer, but divers short ones, they have many advantages; the practice of the Jews of old, in whose prescribed devotions we find a certain number of several prayers or collects, to be said together; the example of our LORD in prescribing a short form; and the judgment and practice of the ancient Christians in their liturgies. St. Chrysostom, among others, commends highly, short and frequent prayers with little distances between. And they are most convenient for keeping away coldness, distraction, and illusions from our devotion; for what we said in praise of short ejaculations, is true also concerning collects; and that not only in respect of the minister, but the people also, whose minds and affections become hereby more erect, close, and earnest, by the oftener breathing out their hearty concurrence, and saying all of them “Amen” together, at the end of each collect. The matter of them is most excellent. It consists usually of two parts; an humble acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of GOD, and a congruous petition for some benefit from him. The first is seen not only in the collects for special festivals or benefits, but in those also that are more general; for even in such what find we in the beginning of them, but some or other of these and the like acknowledgments?—That GOD is almighty, everlasting, full of goodness and pity; the strength, refuge, and protector of all that trust in him; without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy. That there is no continuing in safety without him; that such is our weakness and frailty, that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves, to do any good, or to stand upright, and therefore cannot but fall. That we put no trust in anything that we do, but lean only upon the help of his heavenly grace. That he is the author and giver of all good things; from whom it comes that we have an hearty desire to pray, or do him any true or laudable service. That he is always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than we desire or deserve; having prepared for them that love him such good things as pass man’s understanding.—_Sparrow._

That most of our collects are very ancient, appears by their conformity to the Epistles and Gospels, which were selected by St. Hierom, and put into the lectionary ascribed to him. Many believed he first framed them for the use of the Roman Church, in the time of Pope Damasus, above 1300 [now nearly 1500] years ago. Certain it is that Gelasius, who was bishop of Rome above 1200 years since, [A. D. 492–6,] did range those collects, which were then used, into order, and composed some new ones; and that office of his was again corrected by Pope Gregory the Great, A. D. 600, whose Sacramentary contains most of those collects which we now use.—_Comber._

One of the principal reasons why our public devotions are, and should be, divided into short collects, is this,—our blessed SAVIOUR hath told us, that whatsoever we ask the FATHER in his name he will give it us. It cannot then but be necessary that the name of CHRIST be frequently inserted in our prayers, that so we may lift up our hearts unto him, and rest our faith upon him, for the obtaining those good things we pray for. And therefore, whatsoever we ask of GOD, we presently add, “through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.”—_Wheatly._

The petitions are not in one long prayer, but several short ones; which method is certainly as lawful as the other, and, we think, more expedient. It reminds us oftener of the attributes of GOD and merits of CHRIST, which are the ground of our asking in faith; and, by the frequency of saying “Amen,” it stirs up our attention and warms our devotions, which are too apt to languish.—_Secker._

We may refer to _Shepherd_ on the Common Prayer for a classified arrangement of the collects; (1.) which were retained from ancient liturgies at the Reformation; (2.) which were altered by the Reformers and reviewers; and (3.) which were composed anew. Those composed anew in 1549 are the collects for the 1st and 2nd Sunday in Advent, Christmas, the Epiphany, Quinquagesima, Ash-Wednesday, 1st Sunday in Lent, 1st and 2nd Sundays after Easter; St. Thomas’s day, St. Matthias’s, St. Mark’s, St. Barnabas’s, St. John Baptist’s, St. Peter’s, St. James’s, St. Matthew’s, St. Luke’s, St. Simon and St. Jude’s; All-Saints’. In 1552, St. Andrew’s. In 1662, 3rd Sunday in Advent; 6th Sunday after Epiphany; Easter Even. The prayers denominated collects in our liturgy are those of the day, and the 2nd and 3rd at Morning and Evening Prayer respectively; the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, which is called also a collect; the prayer preceding the ten commandments, the prayer for the sovereign in the Communion Service, and the six occasional collects following it; the prayer following the LORD’S Prayer in the Confirmation Service; the prayer preceding the psalm in the Visitation of the Sick, that in the Communion of the Sick, and the prayer preceding the blessing in the Burial of the Dead; three in the Ordering of Priests and Deacons respectively, and one in the Consecration of Bishops.

COLLEGE. A community. Hence we speak of an episcopal college, or college of bishops. It was an old maxim of Roman law, that by fewer than three persons a college could not be formed. Hence, as a bishop is to be consecrated not by a single bishop, but by a synod or college, at least three are required to be present at each consecration. Every corporation, in the civil law, is called a college, and so it has been applied in England, in some rare instances, irrespective of social combinations: and abroad it was very extensively applied to incorporated boards. But in England it generally implies a society of persons, living in a common habitation, and bound together by statutes which have respect to their daily life. The minor corporations of the universities, and those of Eton and Winchester, are specially so termed: and residences for the members, a chapel, hall, and library, are considered as essential features of the college. As it is unquestionable that our academical colleges were all instituted for the promotion of godliness, as well as of human knowledge, that they were intended to be handmaids of the Church, as their highest function, besides nurseries of good learning, they deserve special notice in a Church Dictionary. All cathedral and collegiate churches are colleges; and the word in this sense comprehends all the members of each establishment, whether inferior or superior. The buildings of some of our cathedrals containing the residence of the members, are still often popularly called “the college.” The word is also applied to those inferior corporations attached to the cathedrals of old foundation. (See _Minor Canons_ and _Vicars Choral_.)

The colleges of our universities are each independent societies, having their own statutes, and property as strictly their own as that of any lay proprietor. Still they are connected with a greater corporation, which is called the university. It has been commonly thought, that these relations between minor and major academical corporations is an anomaly peculiar to England. The fact is otherwise. The most ancient universities, as Paris, Bologna, and Salamanca, had each several colleges, which bore an analogous relation to the university. (See _University_.)

COLLEGIATE CHURCHES. Churches with a body of canons and prebendaries, &c., and inferior members, with corporate privileges. The services and forms in these churches are, or ought to be, like those in cathedral churches. The number of collegiate churches has been much diminished since the Reformation; those at present existing in England, are Westminster, Windsor, Southwell, Wolverhampton, Middleham, and Brecon; and in Ireland, the collegiate church of Galway.

COLLYRIDIANS. Certain heretics that worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess, and offered cake in sacrifice to her; they appeared in the fourth century, about the year 373. Their name is derived from κολλυρα, _a little cake_.

COMMANDRIES. New houses of the same kind among the Knights Hospitallers as the Preceptories among the Templars. (See _Preceptories_.)

COMMEMORATIONS. The recital of the names of famous martyrs and confessors, patriarchs, bishops, kings, great orthodox writers, munificent benefactors: which recitation was made at the altar out of _diptychs_ or folded tables. There are Commemoration days at Oxford and Cambridge, on which the names of all the known benefactors to the universities are proclaimed, special psalms and lessons recited, and special collects and versicles. These have been coeval with the Reformation, and sanctioned by the highest authority. (See _Diptychs_.)

COMMENDAM. _Commendam_ is a living _commended_ by the Crown to the care of a clergyman until a proper pastor is provided for it. These commendams for some time have been seldom or never granted to any but bishops, who, when their bishoprics were of small value, were, by special dispensation, allowed to hold their previous benefices, which, on their promotion, had devolved into the patronage of the Crown.

COMMENDATORY LETTERS. (See _Literæ formatæ_.)

COMMENTARY. An exposition; a book of annotations on Holy Scripture.

In selecting a commentary much care is necessary, because a skilful commentator may wrest the Scriptures so as to make them support his private opinion. A Calvinist makes Scripture speak Calvinism, an Arminian makes it speak Arminianism. The question to be asked, therefore, is, According to what principle does the annotator _profess_ to interpret Scripture? If he takes the Church for his guide; if he professes to interpret according to the doctrines of the Church, although he may err in a matter of detail, he cannot seriously mislead us. We may instance the third chapter of St. John’s Gospel. How very different will be the meaning of that chapter interpreted by a Calvinist, who denies the scriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration, from the meaning which will be attached to it by one who holds the truth as it is taught in the Church, and who, with the Church of England, in the Office for the Baptism of Persons in Riper Years, applies what is said in that chapter to baptismal grace.

To give a complete list of commentaries is, in such a work as the present, impossible. The reader who would pursue the subject is referred to the authorities mentioned in the next article, _Commentators_. Some of the leading commentaries most used in the Church of England are here given.

Theophylact; the last edition of whose works is that published at Venice, 1754–1763, in four volumes, folio. In Theophylact we have the pith of St. Chrysostom, whose works also are useful, especially his Homilies on St. Matthew and on St. Paul’s Epistles. They have lately been translated.

“Critici Sacri, sive Annotata doctissimorum Virorum in Vetus ac Novum Testamentum; quibus accedunt Tractatus varii Theologico-Philologici,” 9 tomis in 12 voluminibus. Amsterdam, 1698, folio.

This is considered the best edition of this great work, which was first published in London, in 1660, in nine volumes, folio, under the direction of the celebrated Bishop Pearson and other learned divines. In 1701 there were published at Amsterdam, “Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus,” in two volumes folio, and two additional volumes in 1732. These complete the work.

“Mathæi Poli Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque SS. Interpretum,” London, 1669–1674; five volumes, folio. This has been reprinted, the best edition being that of Utrecht, 1686. It is a valuable abridgment and consolidation of the “Critici Sacri.” It gives the conclusions, without the arguments, of that work.

Bishop Hall’s “Contemplations on the Old and New Testament,” of which valuable work there have been several reprints.

Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Arnold’s “Commentary on the Bible.” London, 1727–1760: seven volumes, folio. Reprinted in 4to, 1821; and lately in large 8vo. This is a standard work.

“An Exposition of the Old and New Testament,” by the Rev. Matthew Henry: folio, five volumes. There have been many reprints of this truly excellent commentary.

“A Commentary on the Books of the Old and New Testaments, in which are inserted the Notes and Collections of John Locke, Esq., Daniel Waterland, D. D., and the Earl of Clarendon and other learned persons, with Practical Improvements.” London, 1770: three volumes, folio. This was reprinted in six volumes, 4to, in 1801, by Dr. Coke, a Methodist, with some retrenchments and unimportant additions, and goes by the name of “Coke’s Commentary.” It is very useful for practical purposes.

“The Holy Bible, with Original Notes and Practical Observations,” by Thomas Scott, M. A., Rector of Aston Sandford: London. This has been often reprinted.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes,” by Thomas Wilson, D. D., Bishop of Sodor and Man: London, 1785: three volumes, 4to. Whatever comes from the pen of Bishop Wilson is valuable; but the notes are rather suggestive than illustrative.

“The Holy Bible, with Notes explanatory and practical;” taken principally from the most recent writers of the United Church of England and Ireland, prepared and arranged by Dr. D’Oyley and Bishop Mant. Oxford and London, 1817: three volumes, 4to, and since reprinted. This work, published under the sanction of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, is perhaps the most sound and useful that we possess.

It is impossible to enumerate the commentators on separate books of the Bible, but we may mention Dean Graves on the Pentateuch, Bishops Horne and Horsley on the Psalms, Bishop Lowth on Isaiah, Dr. Blayney on Jeremiah, Archbishop Newcome on Ezekiel, Mr. Wintle on Daniel, Bishop Horsley on Hosea, Dr. Blayney on Zechariah, Dr. Stock on Malachi, Dr. Pococke on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi; Archbishop Newcome on the Twelve Minor Prophets.

On the New Testament, we may refer to Hammond, Whitby, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bishop Pearce, Dr. Trapp, Bishop Porteus on St. Matthew, Biscoe on the Acts, Macknight, Bishop Fell, Bishop Davenant, Pyle on the Epistles, Archbishop Leighton on St. Peter, Mede, Daubeny, Lowman, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton on the Apocalypse. We have omitted, in this list, contemporary writers, for obvious reasons, and we have referred to commentaries chiefly used by English churchmen; the more learned reader will, not without caution, have recourse to foreign critics also; of whom we may mention, as persons much consulted, Vitringa, Tittmann, Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Wolfius, Raphelius, Calmet, and Hengstenberg. The “Catena Aurea” of Thomas Aquinas has lately been translated; but it is useful rather to the antiquarian and the scholar, than to those who wish to ascertain the exact meaning of Scripture; and in the quotations from the Fathers, Aquinas is not to be depended upon.

COMMENTATORS. “A complete history of commentators,” says Mr. Hartwell Horne, “would require a volume of no ordinary dimensions.” The reader who is desirous of prosecuting this subject, will find much interesting information relative to the early commentators in Rosenmüller’s “Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesiâ Christianâ, inde ab Apostolorum Ætate usque ad Origenem, 1795–1814.” This elaborate work treats exclusively of the early commentators. Father Simon’s “Histoire Critique de Vieux Testament,” 4to, 1680, and his “Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament,” 4to, Rotterdam, 1689, contain many valuable strictures on the expositors of the Old and New Testament up to his own time. In 1674 was published at Frankfort, in two volumes folio, Joh. Georg. Dorschei “Biblia Numerata, seu Index Specialis in Vetus Testamentum ad singula omnium Librorum Capita et Commenta.” It contains a list of commentators, 191 in number, who had illustrated every book, chapter, or verse of the Scriptures, with reference to the books, chapters, and pages of their several works. The merits and demerits of commentators are likewise discussed in Walchius’s “Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta;” in Ernesti’s “Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti;” in Morus’s “Acroases Academicæ.” Professor Keil, in his “Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti,” and Professor Beck, in “Monogrammata Hermeneutices, Librorum Novi Fœderis,” Seiler’s Biblical Hermeneutices, (translated from the German by Dr. Wright, 1835,)—respectively notice the principal expositors of the Scriptures.

COMMINATION, means a threat or denunciation of vengeance. There is an ancient office in the Church of England, entitled, “A Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgment against Sinners, with certain Prayers, to be used on the first Day of Lent, and at other times, as the Ordinary shall appoint.” This office, says Mr. Palmer, is one of the last memorials we retain of that solemn penitence, which during the primitive ages occupied so conspicuous a place in the discipline of the Christian Church. In the earliest ages, those who were guilty of grievous sins were solemnly reduced to the order of penitents; they came fasting and clad in sackcloth and ashes on the occasion, and after the bishop had prayed over them, they were dismissed from the church. They then were admitted gradually to the classes of _hearers_, _substrati_, and _consistentes_, until at length, after long trial and exemplary conduct, they were again decreed worthy of communion. This penitential discipline at length, from various causes, became extinct, both in the Eastern and Western Churches: and, from the twelfth or thirteenth century, the solemn office of the first day of Lent was the only memorial of this ancient discipline in the West. The Church of England has long used this office nearly as we do at present, as we find almost exactly the same appointed in the MS. Sacramentary of Leofric, which was written for our Church about the ninth or tenth century; and year by year she directs her ministers to lament the defection of the godly discipline we have been describing.

The preface which the Church has prefixed to this office will supply the room of an introduction. It informs us that, “in the primitive Church, there was a godly discipline; that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious crimes were put to open penance, and punishment in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the LORD; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend.” The manner in which this discipline was inflicted, is thus recorded by Gratian: On the first day of Lent the penitents were to present themselves before the bishop, clothed with sackcloth, with naked feet, and eyes turned to the ground: and this was to be done in the presence of the principal clergy of the diocese, who were to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. These introduced them into the Church, where the bishop, all in tears, and the rest of the clergy, repeated the seven penitential psalms. Then, rising from prayers, they threw ashes upon them, and covered their heads with sackcloth; and then with mournful sighs declared to them, that as Adam was cast out of paradise, so they must be cast out of the Church. Then the bishop commanded the officers to turn them out of the church doors, and all the clergy followed after, repeating that curse upon Adam, “In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread.” The like penance was inflicted upon them the next time the sacrament was administered, which was the Sunday following. And all this was done, to the end that the penitents, observing how great a disorder the Church was in by reason of their crimes, should not lightly esteem of penance.

Though this discipline was severe, yet the many good consequences of it showed it worthy the imitation of the Church in succeeding ages; so that it was anciently exercised in our own, as well as in foreign churches. But in latter ages, during the corruption of the Church of Rome, this godly discipline degenerated into a formal and customary confession upon Ash Wednesdays, used by all persons indifferently, whether penitents or not, from whom no other testimony of their repentance was required, than that they should submit to the empty ceremony of sprinkling ashes upon their heads. But this our wise reformers prudently laid aside as a mere shadow and show; and not without hearty grief and concern, that the long continuance of the abominable corruptions of the Romish Church, in their formal confessions and pretended absolutions, in their sale of indulgences, and their sordid commutations of penance for money, had let the people loose from those primitive bands of discipline, which tended really to their amendment, but to which, through the rigour and severity it enjoins, they found it impracticable to reduce them again. However, since they could not do what they desired, they desired to do as much as they could; and therefore, till the said discipline may be restored again, (which is rather to be wished than expected in these licentious times,) they have endeavoured to supply it as well as they were able, by appointing an office to be used at this season, called “A Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners;” that so the people, being apprized of GOD’S wrath and indignation against their wickedness and sins, may not be encouraged, through the want of discipline in the Church, to follow and pursue them; but be moved, by the terror of the dreadful judgments of GOD, to supply that discipline to themselves, by severely judging and condemning themselves, and so to avoid being judged and condemned at the tribunal of GOD.

2. But, besides “the first day of Lent,” on which it is expressly enjoined, it is also supposed, in the title of it, to be used “at other times, as the ordinary shall direct.” This was occasioned by the observation of Bucer; for it was originally ordered upon Ash Wednesdays only, and therefore in the first Common Prayer Book, it had no other title, but “The First Day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.” But Bucer approving of the office, and not seeing reason why it should be confined to one day, and not used oftener, at least four times a year, the title of it was altered when it came to be reviewed; from which time it was called, “A Commination against Sinners, with certain Prayers to be used at divers times in the Year.” How often, or at what particular times, we do not find prescribed; except that Bishop Cosin informs us from the Visitation Articles of Archbishop Grindal for the province of Canterbury, in the year 1576, that it was appointed three times a year; namely, on one of the three Sundays next before Easter, on one of the two Sundays next before Pentecost, and on one of the two Sundays next before Christmas; that is, I suppose the office was appointed yearly to be used on these three days, as well as on Ash Wednesday. For that Ash Wednesday was then the solemn day of all, and on which this office was never to be omitted, may be gathered from the preface, which is drawn up for the peculiar use of that day. And accordingly we find, that, in the Scotch Common Prayer, a clause was added, that it was to be used “especially on the first day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.” However, in our own liturgy, the title stood as above, till the last review, when a clause was added for the sake of explaining the word commination; and the appointing of the times on which it should be used was left to the discretion of the bishop, or the ordinary. So that the whole title, as it stands now, runs thus: “A Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners, with certain Prayers to be used on the first Day in Lent, and at other Times, as the Ordinary shall appoint.” The ordinaries, indeed, seldom or never make use of the power here given them, except that sometimes they appoint part of the office, namely, from the fifty-first Psalm to the end, to be used upon solemn days of fasting and humiliation. But as to the whole office, it is never used entirely but upon the day mentioned in the title of it, namely, “the first day of Lent.”—_Wheatly._

The Commination properly means that part of the special service which precedes the Psalm; the rest coming under the title of “certain prayers;” and it would seem that the latter are alone to be used at other times that the ordinary shall appoint.—_Jebb._

COMMISSARY, is a title of jurisdiction, appertaining to him that exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in places so far distant from the chief city, that the chancellor cannot call the people to the bishop’s principal consistory court without great trouble to them.

Chancellors, or bishops’ lawyers, were first introduced into the Church by the 2nd canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and were men trained up in the civil and canon law, to direct bishops in matters of judgment relating to ecclesiastical affairs.

Whatever the extent of the chancellor’s authority as a judge may be, throughout the diocese, with relation to the bishop’s, it is quite clear that the commissary’s authority extends only to such particular causes, in such parts of the diocese, for which he holds the bishop’s commission to act.

In the Clementine constitutions this officer is termed _officialis foraneus_. By the 21st of Henry VIII. c. 13, he shall not be within the statute of non-residence; he may grant licences; he may excommunicate, and prove a last will and testament; but that shall be in the name of the ordinary; and a grant of such power does not hold good beyond the life of the ordinary, and does not bind his successor: where, by prescription or by composition, there are archdeacons, who have jurisdiction in their archdeaconries, as in most places they have, there the office of commissary is superfluous.—See _Gibson’s Codex_, vol. i. Introductory Discourse, p. 25.

COMMON PRAYER. (See _Liturgy_.) By Common Prayer we are to understand a form of prayer adapted and enjoined for common or universal use: in the vernacular language, such as may be understood of people, and in which they are required to join with one heart and voice. It is contrasted with those services which have either actually or virtually become exclusive, or confined to but a few: such as the forms of matins in the Roman breviary, which from its extreme length, and from the inconvenience of the hour when it is prescribed to be recited, are impracticable to the people, to all in fact but the inmates of monasteries or collegiate churches. Such, indeed, are all those services which are written in a language which is no longer vernacular.

Bishop Sparrow observes, that the Common Prayer contains in it many holy offices of the Church; as prayers, confessions of faith, holy hymns, divine lessons, priestly absolutions, and benedictions; all which are set and prescribed, not left to private men’s fancies to make or alter. So it was of old ordained. _Conc. Carthag._ can. 106, “It is ordained, that the prayers, prefaces, and impositions of hands, which are confirmed by the Synod, be observed and used by all men: these, and no other.” So is our 14th English Canon.... “And as these offices are set and prescribed, so are they moreover appointed to be one and the same throughout the whole national Church.”

By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm that the form of GOD’S worship in the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful worship of GOD, or containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he has subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be suspended; and if after a month he does not reform and submit himself, let him be excommunicated; and then, if he shall not submit himself within the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”

And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical has pronounced judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer, no judge _ad quem_ shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and observe all the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescribed form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the same.

COMMUNION. This is one of the names given to the sacrament of the eucharist, and was undoubtedly taken from St. Paul’s account of that sacrament, where he teaches, as the learned Dr. Waterland observes, that the effect of this service is the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST. (1 Cor. x. 16.) He does not, indeed, call the sacrament by that _name_, as others have done since. He was signifying what the thing is, or what it does, rather than how it was then _called_. (See _Eucharist_, _Lord’s Supper_, and _Consecration of the Elements_.)

The office for the Holy Communion is a distinct office, and there is no direction at what time of the day it shall be used, only custom, in accordance with the almost invariable usage of Christendom, has determined that it shall be used in the forenoon. The communion is appointed for _every_ Sunday, only the Church has ordered that there shall be no communion except four (or three at least) communicate with the priest. The absence of the weekly eucharist therefore proves one of two things; either that the sin of the people is so great that even in large parishes three such persons ready to communicate are not to be found every Sunday, and so only part of the service can be used; or else if three communicants can be found, the sin of the clergy is great in not having weekly communion. “In cathedral and collegiate churches, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the priest every Sunday at the least.” We here subjoin the directions of the canons and rubric.

The rubric decrees, there shall none be admitted to the holy communion until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.

By the canons of Archbishop Peckham, 1279, it is ruled that none shall give the communion to the parishioner of another priest, without his manifest licence; which ordinance shall not extend to travellers, or to persons in danger, nor to cases of necessity.

And by Canon 28. “The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall mark, as well as the minister, whether any strangers come often and commonly from other parishes to their church, and show their minister of them, lest perhaps they be admitted to the LORD’S table amongst others; which they shall forbid, and remit such home to their own parish churches and ministers, there to receive the communion with the rest of their own neighbours.”

Rubric. “And if any be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the congregation be thereby offended, the curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in anywise he presume not to come to the LORD’S table until he has openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, that the congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended; and that he has recompensed the parties to whom he has done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.”

Rubric. “The same order shall the curate use with those between whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to be partakers of the LORD’S table until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive, from the bottom of his heart, all that the other has trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himself has offended, and the other party will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his frowardness and malice, the minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy communion, and not him that is obstinate. Provided that every minister so repelling any, as is specified in this or the next preceding paragraph of this rubric, shall be obliged to give an account of the same to the ordinary, within fourteen days after at the farthest; and the ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the canon.”

By Canon 26. “No minister shall in anywise admit to the receiving of the holy communion any of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance; nor any who have maliciously and openly contended with their neighbours; nor any churchwardens or sidesmen who refuse or neglect to make presentment of offences according to their oaths.”

By Canon 27. “No minister, when he celebrateth the communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of suspension; nor, under the like pain, to any that refuse to be present at public prayers, according to the order of the Church of England; nor to any that are common and notorious depravers of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and of the orders, rites, and ceremonies therein prescribed; or of anything that is contained in the book of ordering priests and bishops; or to any that have spoken against and depraved his Majesty’s sovereign authority in causes ecclesiastical; except every such person shall first acknowledge to the minister before the churchwardens his repentance for the same, and promise by word (if he cannot write) that he will do so no more; and except (if he can write) he shall first do the same under his handwriting, to be delivered to the minister, and by him sent to the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place. Provided that every minister so repelling any (as is specified either in this or the next preceding constitution) shall upon complaint, or being required by the ordinary, signify the cause thereof unto him, and therein obey his order and direction.”

By Canon 109. “If any offend their brethren, either by adultery, whoredom, incest, or drunkenness, or by swearing, ribaldry, usury, or any other uncleanness, or wickedness of life, such notorious offenders shall not be admitted to the holy communion till they be reformed.”

Canon 71. “No minister shall administer the holy communion in any private house, except it be in times of necessity, when any being either so impotent as he cannot go to the church, or very dangerously sick, are desirous to be partakers of this holy sacrament, upon pain of suspension for the first offence, and excommunication for the second. Provided that houses are here reputed for private houses, wherein are no chapels dedicated and allowed by the ecclesiastical laws of this realm. And provided also, under the pains before expressed, that no chaplains do administer the communion in any other places, but in the chapels of the said houses; and that also they do the same very seldom upon Sundays and holy-days; so that both the lords and masters of the said houses and their families shall at other times resort to their own parish churches, and there receive the holy communion at least once every year.”

Canon 22. “We do require every minister to give warning to his parishioners publicly in the church at morning prayer, the Sunday before every time of his administering that holy sacrament, for their better preparation of themselves; which said warning we enjoin the said parishioners to accept and obey, under the penalty and danger of the law.”

And by the rubric. “The minister shall always give warning for the celebration of the holy communion upon the Sunday or some holy-day immediately preceding.”

Rubric. “So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion shall signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before.”

Rubric. “There shall be no celebration of the LORD’S supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the parish, of discretion to receive the communion, yet there shall be no communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the priest. And in cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall _all_ receive the communion with the priest every Sunday at the least, except they have reasonable cause to the contrary.” The rubric _implies_ daily communion. “The Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, appointed for the Sunday, shall serve _all the week after_, when it is not in this book otherwise ordered.” In the First Book of King Edward, daily communion is expressly mentioned. “Upon Wednesdays and Fridays ... though there be none to communicate with the priest, yet these days, after the Litany ended, the priest shall ... say all things at the altar, appointed to be said at the celebration of the LORD’S supper, until after the offertory.” “In cathedral churches, or other places, _where there is daily communion_,” &c. From the _Pietas Londinensis_ it appears that in some London churches at the beginning of the last century, the communion was celebrated daily in the octaves of the great festivals. And a remembrance of this daily communion was formerly kept up at Durham, where, in Bishop Cosin’s time, the ante-communion was daily performed, as it still is at St. Patrick’s, on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent.

Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches convenient and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy communion, we appoint that the same tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration as becometh that table; and so stand, saving when the holy communion is to be administered, at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the church or chancel, as thereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said minister.”

By Canon 20. “The churchwardens, against the time of every communion, shall, at the charge of the parish, with the advice and direction of the minister, provide a sufficient quantity of fine white bread, and of good and wholesome wine, for the number of communicants that shall receive there; which wine shall be brought to the communion table in a clean and sweet standing pot or stoop of pewter, if not of purer metal.”

And by the rubric. “The bread and wine for the communion shall be provided by the curate and churchwardens at the charge of the parish. And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any person has or might have concerning the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten, but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.”

In the rubric, in the communion service of the Second Edward VI., it was ordained, that, “whyles the clearkes do syng the offertory, so many as are disposed shall offer to the poore mennes boxe, every one accordinge to his habilitie and charitable mynde.”

And by the present rubric, “whilst the sentences of the offertory are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit person appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a decent basin, to be provided by the parish for that purpose, and reverently bring it to the priest, who shall humbly present and place it upon the holy table.” And “after the Divine service ended, the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the minister and churchwardens shall think fit; wherein if they disagree, it shall be disposed of as the ordinary shall appoint.”

Rubric. “Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.” And by the rubric of 2 Edward VI., which had this authority of parliament, it is ordained, that “upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration; that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope: and where there be many priests or deacons, then so many shall be ready to help the priest in the ministrations as shall be requisite, and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles. And whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochet, a surplice or albe, _and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain_.”

And by Canon 24. “In all cathedral churches, the holy communion shall be administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the bishop, if he be present, and at sometimes by a canon or prebendary, the principal minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to the advertisements published _anno 7 Eliz._”

Art. 28. “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the LORD cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

Art. 30. “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the LORD’S sacrament, by CHRIST’S ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”

And by the statute of the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Forasmuch as it is more agreeable to the first institution of the said sacrament, and more conformable to the common use and practice of the apostles and of the primitive Church, for above 500 years after CHRIST’S ascension, that the same should be administered under both the kinds, of bread and wine, than under the form of bread only; and also it is more agreeable to the first institution of CHRIST, and to the usage of the apostles and the primitive Church, that the people should receive the same with the priest, than that the priest should receive it alone; it is enacted that the said most blessed sacrament be commonly delivered and ministered unto the people, under both the kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine, except necessity otherwise require. And also that the priest which shall minister the same shall, at the least one day before, exhort all persons which shall be present likewise to resort and prepare themselves to receive the same. And when the day prefixed cometh, after godly exhortation by the minister made, (wherein shall be further expressed the benefit and comfort promised to them which worthily receive the holy sacrament, and danger and indignation of GOD threatened to them which shall presume to receive the same unworthily, to the end that every man may try and examine his own conscience before he shall receive the same,) the said minister shall not, without a lawful cause, deny the same to any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it; not condemning hereby the usage of any Church out of the king’s dominions.”

Rubric. “If any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the curate shall have it to his own use; but if any remain of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest, and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall immediately after the blessing reverently eat and drink the same.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Langton it is enjoined, that no sacrament of the Church shall be denied to any one, upon the account of any sum of money; but if anything hath been accustomed to be given by the pious devotion of the faithful, justice shall be done thereupon to the churches by the ordinary of the place afterwards.

And by the rubric. “Yearly at Easter, every parishioner shall reckon with the parson, vicar, or curate, or his or their deputy or deputies, and pay to them or him all ecclesiastical duties, accustomably due, then and at that time to be paid.”

By the ancient canon law, every layman (not prohibited by crimes of a heinous nature) was required to communicate at least thrice in the year, namely, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas; and the Council of Agdæ, A. D. 500, enacted that the secular clergy not communicating at those times were not to be reckoned amongst the Catholics. The fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, reduced the necessary number of times to one, and the Council of Trent has sanctioned this as the rule for the Romish Church. Our reformers laudably reverted to the earlier order, directing by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, that “every parishioner shall communicate at least three times in one year, of which Easter to be one.”

And by Canon 21. “In every parish church and chapel where sacraments are to be administered, the holy communion shall be administered by the parson, vicar, or minister, so often, and at such times, as every parishioner may communicate at the least three times in the year, whereof the feast of Easter to be one; according as they are appointed by the Book of Common Prayer. And the churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall mark, (as well as the minister,) whether all and every of the parishioners comes so often every year to the holy communion as the laws and constitutions do require.” Canon 28. “And shall yearly, within forty days after Easter, exhibit to the bishop or his chancellor, the names and surnames of all the parishioners, as well men as women, which being of the age of sixteen years received not the communion at Easter before.”

By Canon 24. “All deans, wardens, masters, or heads of cathedral and collegiate churches, prebendaries, canons, vicars, petty canons, singing men, and all others of the foundation, shall receive the communion four times yearly at the least.” And by Canon 23. “In all colleges and halls, within both the universities, the masters and fellows, such especially as have any pupils, shall be careful that all their said pupils, and the rest that remain among them, do diligently frequent public service and sermons, and receive the holy communion, which we ordain to be administered in all such colleges and halls the first and second Sunday of every month; requiring all the said masters, fellows, and scholars, and all the rest of the students, officers, and all other the servants there, so to be ordered, that every one of them shall communicate four times in the year at the least, kneeling reverently and decently upon their knees, according to the order of the communion book prescribed in that behalf.”

By the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Whosoever shall deprave, despise, or contemn the most blessed sacrament of the body and blood of our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and in Scripture, the supper and table of the LORD, the communion and partaking of the body and blood of CHRIST, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous words or by any words of depraving, despising, or reviling; or whosoever shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise, or revile the said most blessed sacrament, contrary to the effects and declaration above-said, shall suffer imprisonment of his body, and make fine and ransom at the king’s will.”

Rubric. “Upon the Sundays, and other holy-days, (if there be no communion,) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until the end of the general prayer for the whole state of CHRIST’S Church militant here in earth, together with one or more of the collects last before rehearsed, concluding with the blessing.”

Since the death of CHRIST hath reconciled GOD to mankind, and his intercession alone obtains all good things for us, we are enjoined to make all our prayers in his name; and, as a more powerful way of interceding, to commemorate his passion by celebrating the holy eucharist, which in the purest ages was always joined to their public and common prayers. (Acts ii. 42.) And as evidence that our Church wishes it were so still, she appoints a great part of this office to be used on all Sundays and holy-days, and orders the priest to say it at the altar, the place where all the prayers of the Church of old were wont to be made, because there was the proper place to commemorate JESUS our only Mediator, by whom all our prayers become accepted. And hence the ancients call this office “the service of the altar,” which in the time of celebration was then also, as our rubric now enjoins, covered with a fair linen cloth. As for the primitive and original form of administration, since CHRIST did not institute any one method, it was various in divers churches, only all agreed in using the LORD’S Prayer, and reciting the words of institution, which therefore some think was all the apostles used; but their successors in several churches added several devout forms thereunto, which being joined to the original order used by the founder of each church, was for greater honour called by the name of that first author; and hence we have now the liturgy used at Jerusalem, called “The Liturgy of St. James;” that of Alexandria, called “The Liturgy of St. Mark;” that of Rome, called “The Liturgy of St. Clement;” with others of lesser value: which, by the fancy of adding to them in every age, have contracted many superstitions of later times, and yet do still contain many genuine and substantial pieces of true primitive devotion, easily distinguished from the modern and corrupt additions. But since none of these apostolical liturgies were believed of Divine institution, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom made new forms for their own churches, now generally used in the East; and St. Ambrose and St. Gregory the Great composed sacramentaries for their several churches; and the Christians in Spain had a peculiar order for this office, called the Mazarabic form; the Gallican Church had another distinct from all these; so had the Irish Church, and St. Gregory was so far from imposing the Roman missal on this Church of England, that he advises Augustine the monk to review all liturgies, and take out of them what was best, and so to compose a form for this nation. And when the Roman missal (afterward imposed here) was shamefully corrupted, our judicious reformers made use of this ancient and just liberty; and, comparing all liturgies, they have out of them all extracted what is most pure and primitive, and so composed this admirable office, which, as Bishop Jewel affirms, “comes as nigh as can be to the apostolic and ancient Catholic Church,” and indeed is the most exact now extant in the Christian world, the explaining whereof will effectually serve to assist the communicant in order to a worthy preparation before the receiving, devout affections in receiving, and the confirming of his holy purposes afterwards: for it doth instruct us in all that is necessary to be known and to be done in this sacred and sublime duty, and is contrived in this curious method. (See _Liturgy_.)

The whole communion office consists of four parts. First, a more general preparation to the communion, and as either common to the whole congregation in the exercise of, 1. Repentance, by the LORD’S Prayer, the collect for Purity, and the ten commandments. 2. Holy desires, by the collects for the King and the Day. 3. Of obedience, by the hearing of the Epistle and Gospel. 4. Of faith, by repeating the Creed. 5. Of charity, by the Offertory and the prayer for the holy Catholic Church: or else this general preparation is proper to those who ought to communicate, namely, the warning before the communion, and the exhortation to it. Secondly, there is the more immediate preparation, contained in, 1. The proper instructions, in the exhortation at the communion, and the immediate invitation. 2. The form of acknowledging our offences, in the confession. 3. The means of insuring our pardon, by the absolution, and the sentences. 4. The exciting our love and gratitude, in the preface, and the hymn called _Trisagium_. Thirdly, there is the celebration of the mystery, consisting of, 1. The communicant’s humble approach, in the address. 2. The minister’s blessing the elements, in the prayer of consecration. 3. His distributing them according to the form of administration. Lastly, there is the post-communion, containing, 1. Prayers and vows, in the LORD’S Prayer, the first and second prayers after the Communion. 2. Praises and thanksgiving, in the _Gloria in excelsis_. 3. The dismission by the final blessing.—_Dean Comber._

This service is called “The Communion Service” in the liturgy; and well it were that the piety of the people were such as to make it always a _communion_. The Church, as appears by her pathetical exhortation before the communion, and the rubric after it, labours to bring men oftener to communicate than she usually obtains. Private and solitary communions, of the priest alone, she allows not; and therefore, when others cannot be had, she appoints only so much of the service as relates not of necessity to a present communion, and that to be said at the holy table: and upon good reason; the Church thereby keeping, as it were, her ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our more frequent access to that holy table: and in the mean while, that part of the service, which she uses, may perhaps more fitly be called “the second service” than “the communion.” And so it is often called, though not in the rubric of the liturgy, yet in divers fast-books, and the like, set out by authority. If any should think, that it cannot properly be called the _second_ service, because the morning service and Litany go before it, which indeed are two distinct services,—whereby this should seem to be the third, rather than the second service,—it is answered, that sometimes the communion service is used upon such days as the Litany is not; and then it may, without question, be called the second service. Nay, even then, when the Litany and all is used, the communion service may be very fitly called the second service; for though, in strictness of speech, the Litany is a service distinct, yet in our usual acceptation of the word _service_,—namely, for a complete service with all the several parts of it, psalms, readings, creeds, thanksgivings, and prayers,—so the Litany is not a service, nor so esteemed, but called “the _Litany_,” or _supplications_; and looked upon sometimes, when other offices follow, as a kind of preparative, though a distinct form, to them, as to the Communion, Commination, &c. And therefore it was a custom in some churches, that a bell was tolled while the Litany was saying, to give notice to the people that the communion service was now coming on.—_Bp. Sparrow._

Of the many compellations given to this sacrament in former ages, our Church has very wisely thought fit to retain these two (namely, the exhortation before and the rubric after the communion service) in her public service, as those which are most ancient and scriptural. As for the name of “the LORD’S supper,” which name the Papists cannot endure to have this sacrament called by, because it destroys their notion of a sacrifice, and their use of private mass, we find this given to it, as its proper name in the apostles’ time, by St. Paul himself, “when ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the LORD’S supper.” (1 Cor. xi. 20.) And this name is frequently given to it by ancient writers. So for “the communion;” this is plainly another scriptural name of the same holy sacrament. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Which name is given to it, partly, because by this we testify our communion with CHRIST our Head; partly, because it unites us together with all our fellow-Christians; partly, because all good Christians have a right to partake of it; hence, with St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, “to communicate” is the common word to express the participation of this sacrament.—_Dr. Nicholls._

The reason why it is enjoined that notice shall be given to the minister when we intend to communicate is, that the minister of the parish may have time to inform himself of the parties who design to receive: so that, if there be any among them who are not duly qualified, he may persuade them to abstain for some time; or, in case of their refusal, repel them. Now, in several cases, persons may be unqualified to partake of this sacrament, either by the prescript of GOD’S word, or by the canons of the Church.

1. A want or a contempt of the rite of confirmation unqualifies persons to receive; for the rubric of the Common Prayer, which is confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, says, “No one shall be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.” This is agreeable to the provisions of the ancient Church; and the only reasonable impediment to confirmation is the want of a bishop near the place.

2. Persons excommunicate, or who are doing penance by church censure for any notorious fault, are unqualified to receive; for such persons are shut out from the communion, and therefore called _excommunicate_.

3. Persons under phrensy are unqualified to partake of the holy communion. And all persons, under the foregoing want of qualification, may lawfully be refused admission to the communion by the minister; for the ecclesiastical law imposes great penalties upon the minister, who shall give them the communion in such cases.

4. A person may be unqualified by notorious wickedness, or flagitiousness of life. But of this more in the next note.—_Dr. Nicholls._

In the primitive times, when discipline was strictly maintained, all such persons, as soon as known, were put under censure; but if, before censure, they offered themselves at the communion, they were repelled. And indeed such severe discipline might not be amiss, whilst it was grounded only upon piety and zeal for GOD’S honour, as it was in those devout times. But, afterwards, some persons being debarred from the communion out of private pique and resentment, an imperial injunction prohibited all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one from the communion, before just cause be shown that the holy canons do give them power so to do. And the canon law did not allow a discretionary power to the priest to thrust away every ill person from the sacrament: “a vicious person, offering himself to receive the communion, is not to be expelled, but is to be carried privately aside, and to be exhorted not to receive the communion.” Indeed the later canonists did interpret this only of occult crimes, and such as were not generally known; allowing only persons “notoriously guilty” to be expelled; and of this opinion were the compilers of our rubrics in Edward the Sixth’s time, as appears from their wording this rubric, “If any be an open and notorious evil liver,” &c. But, however, they limited this discretionary power of the minister, obliging him, even in “notorious” crimes, to “admonish” such persons first to abstain, and only upon obstinacy to repel. But, nevertheless, this formerly gave occasion to several exceptions and disputes; and therefore, in the last revision of the Common Prayer, repulsion was not left to the absolute power of the minister, but he was obliged to give notice thereof to the diocesan, and to take his advice therein. And still it remains so uncertain, what is “notoriety,” both in presumption, law, and fact, that a minister is not out of danger of transgressing his rule, if, before judicial conviction of a crime, he goes further than admonishing any person to abstain.—_Dr. Nicholls._ Our law in England will not suffer the minister to judge any man as a notorious offender, but him who is convicted by some legal sentence.—_Bp. Andrewes._

Notoriety in fact is one thing, and notoriety in presumption is another. And in either case it should be a notoriety in law too, to indemnify the minister for proceeding upon the rubric, or to render him safe, in point of law, for repelling any person from the communion.

Upon the whole of the matter, however, though this rubric may “require some explanation,” as Bishop Cosin remarks, “for the avoiding of disputes and doubts between the communicants and curates;” yet, if it be taken in all its parts, namely, that no person, however “notoriously wicked,” shall be withheld from the communion, till he be admonished to withdraw himself; and that when he is repelled upon his obstinacy, it is only till such time as the advice of the ordinary can be had therein, to whom the curate is obliged to give early notice of such his act; it seems in this view the best, and I think the only ecclesiastical, rule we have to go by in such case; nor doth it appear liable to exceptions, unless it be in that particular, of how far we are safe in acting according to it.

But, as this is properly a point of law, it is not so fit for me to undertake any determination of it; it must be left to the gentlemen of that profession. Only thus much I would put in, that, if a clergyman’s conduct in this matter shall appear to be upright, dispassionate, and disinterested, (and I wish it may never appear otherwise,) so as to gain the approbation of reasonable and indifferent persons,—which I think it would gain in all notorious and flagrant cases, which are those mentioned in the rubric,—it is to be hoped and presumed, that the interpreters of the law would, in their turn too, show him all the favour and regard they could.—_Archdeacon Sharp._

COMMUNION OF THE SICK. In this office we have an example of the benevolent care exhibited by the Church towards her suffering members. As all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this life, the Church has not only provided for their baptism, and for the visitations of the pastor, but has authorized and directed the administration to them of “the most comfortable sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST.”

Although the Church maintains that the eucharist, as a general rule, is to be publicly administered in the consecrated house of GOD, and has signified her disapproval of _solitary_ communion in all cases; yet, when by sickness her members are incapable of presenting themselves at the altar, there is a wise and tender relaxation of her usages, corresponding with the peculiar necessity of the case. This too “is exactly conformable to the most early practice of the primitive Church; for there is nothing more frequently mentioned by the ancient writers, than the care of the Church to distribute the eucharist to all dying persons that were capable of receiving it.”

“There are many instances,” says Palmer, “in antiquity, of the celebration of the eucharist in private for the sick. Thus Paulinus, bishop of Nola, caused the eucharist to be celebrated in his own chamber, not many hours before his death. Gregory Nazianzen informs us, that his father communicated in his own chamber, and that his sister had an altar at home; and Ambrose is said to have administered the sacrament in a private house at Rome. The Church is therefore justified in directing the eucharist to be consecrated in private houses, for the benefit of the sick; and she has taken care, in the rubric immediately preceding the office, that the sacrament shall be decorously and reverently administered.”

In the distribution of the elements, the rubric orders that the sick person shall receive last. This is done, “because those who communicate with him, through fear of some contagion, or the noisomeness of his disease, may be afraid to drink out of the same cup after him.”

By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the sacrament of the eucharist shall be carried with due reverence to the sick, the priest having on at least a surplice or stole, with a light carried before him in a lantern, with a bell, that the people may be excited to due reverence; who by the minister’s direction shall be taught to prostrate themselves, or at least to make humble adoration, wheresoever the KING OF GLORY shall happen to be carried under the cover of bread.

But by the rubric of the 2 Edward VI. it was ordered, that there shall be no elevation of the host, or showing the sacrament to the people.

By the present rubric, before the office for the Communion of the Sick, it is ordered as follows: “Forasmuch as all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this life; therefore, to the intent they may be always in a readiness to die whensoever it shall please Almighty GOD to call them, curates shall diligently from time to time (but especially in the time of pestilence or other infectious sickness) exhort their parishioners to the often receiving of the holy communion of the body and blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, when it shall be publicly administered in the church; that, so doing, they may, in case of sudden visitation, have the less cause to be disquieted for lack of the same. But if the sick person be not able to come to the church, and yet is desirous to receive the communion in his house, then he must give timely notice to the curate, signifying also how many there are to communicate with him, (which shall be three, or two at the least,) and having a convenient place in the sick man’s house, with all things necessary so prepared, that the curate may reverently minister, he shall there celebrate the holy communion.

“But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of CHRIST’S body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that JESUS CHRIST hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption; earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST profitably to his soul’s health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.

“In the time of plague, sweat, or other such like contagious times of sickness or diseases, when none of the parish can be gotten to communicate with the sick in their houses, for fear of infection, upon special request of the deceased, the minister may only communicate with him.”

It has been the constant usage of the Church, in all probability derived from the apostolical times, for persons dangerously sick to receive the holy sacrament of the LORD’S supper for their spiritual comfort and assistance. Hence this private communion obtained the name of _viaticum_ among the Latins, and a correspondent name among the Greeks; that is, _provision_, as it were, laid in to sustain them in their journey to the other world. Our Church follows this example of the primitive ages. And rather than the sick man should want so necessary a comfort, we are allowed to dispense it in a private house, and to a small company, which in other cases we avoid. Indeed there are divers weighty reasons why the dying Christian should receive this sacrament, and why ministers should persuade them to it, and labour to fit them for the worthy receiving of it. For, 1. This is the highest mystery of religion, and fittest for those who are by sickness put into a heavenly frame and are nearest to perfection. 2. This is GOD’S seal of remission to all that receive it with penitence and faith. 3. This arms them against the fear of death, by setting JESUS before them, who died for them, and hath pulled out the sting of death. 4. This assures them of their resurrection, by keeping them members of CHRIST’S body. (John vi. 54.) 5. It declares they die in the peace and communion of the true Church, out of which there is no salvation. And if the sick man have done all the duties in the foregoing office, he is prepared to die, and therefore fit for this communion; and if he do receive it with devotion, the comfortable assurances of GOD’S love which he gets here will never leave him till he see GOD face to face. We shall only add, that, lest the fears of the Divine displeasure which sick men are very apt to entertain, should trouble their minds, and hinder their joy and comfort in this holy ordinance, the Church hath chosen a peculiar Epistle and Gospel on purpose to comfort them and deliver them from these fears, and also made a proper collect to beg patience for them under this their affliction. All which are so plain they need no explication, but only require the sick man’s devout attention, and then it is hoped they will not fail of their desired effect.—_Dr. Nicholls. Dean Comber._

COMMUNION OF SAINTS. (See _Saints_.) This is an article of the Creed in which we profess to believe, as a necessary and infallible truth, that such persons as are truly sanctified in the Church of CHRIST, while they live among the crooked generations of men, and struggle with the miseries of this world, have fellowship with GOD the FATHER, (1 John i. 3; 2 Peter i. 4,) with GOD the SON, (1 John i. 3; 2 John 9; John xvii. 20, 21, 23,) with GOD the HOLY GHOST, (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 14,) as dwelling with them, and taking up THEIR habitations in them; that they partake of the care and kindness of the blessed angels, who take delight in the ministration for their benefit, being “ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14; Luke xv. 10; Matt, xviii. 10); that besides the external fellowship which they have in the word and sacraments, with all the members of the Church, they have an intimate union and conjunction with all the saints on earth, as the living members of CHRIST. (1 John i. 7; Col. ii. 19.) Nor is this union separated by the death of any; but as CHRIST, in whom they live, is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, so have they fellowship with all the saints, who, from the death of Abel, have departed in the true faith and fear of GOD, and now enjoy the presence of the FATHER, and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. (Heb. xii. 22, 23.) “Indeed,” says Bishop Pearson, from whom this article is taken, “the communion of saints in the Church of CHRIST with those who are departed is demonstrated by their communion with the saints alive. For if I have communion with a saint of GOD as such, while he liveth here, I must still have communion with him when he is departed hence; because the foundation of that communion cannot be removed by death. The mystical union between CHRIST and his Church, the spiritual conjunction of the members with the head, is the true foundation of that communion which one member hath with another, all the members living and increasing by the same influence which they receive from him. But death, which is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the body, maketh no separation in the mystical union, no breach of the spiritual conjunction; and, consequently, there must continue the same communion, because there remaineth the same foundation. Indeed the saint before his death had some communion with the hypocrite, as hearing the word, professing the faith, receiving the sacraments together; which being in things only external, as they were common to them both, and all such external actions ceasing in the person dead, the hypocrite remaining loseth all communion with the saint departing, and the saints surviving cease to have farther fellowship with the hypocrite dying. But seeing that the true and unfeigned holiness of man, wrought by the powerful influence of the Spirit of GOD, not only remaineth, but also is improved after death; seeing that the correspondence of the internal holiness was the true communion with other persons during life, they cannot be said to be divided by death, which hath no power over that sanctity by which they were first conjoined. But although this communion of the saints in paradise and on earth, upon the mystical union of CHRIST their head, be fundamental and internal, yet what acts or external operations it produces is not so certain. That we communicate with them in hope of that happiness which they actually enjoy is evident; that we have the Spirit of GOD given us as an earnest, and so a part of their felicity, is certain. But what they do in heaven in relation to us on earth particularly considered, or what we ought to perform in reference to them in heaven, besides a reverential respect and study of imitation, is not revealed unto us in the Scriptures, nor can be concluded by necessary deduction from any principles of Christianity. They who first found this part of the article in the creed, and delivered their exposition to us, have made no greater enlargement of this communion, as to the saints of heaven, than the society of hope, esteem, and imitation on our side, of desires and supplications on their side; and what is now taught by the Church of Rome is as an unwarrantable, so a novitious, interpretation.”

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. The principal advocates of Popery at the beginning of the Reformation were not willing to own, that the universal practice of the primitive Church was against the modern sacrilege of denying the cup to the people; and, therefore, though they confessed there were some instances in antiquity, of communion under both kinds, yet they maintained the custom was not universal. So Eckius and Harding, and many others. But they who have since considered the practice of the ancient Church more narrowly, are ashamed of this pretence, and freely confess, that for twelve centuries there is no instance of the people’s being obliged to communicate only in one kind, in the public administration of the sacrament; but in private they think some few instances may be given. This is Cardinal Bona’s distinction. “It is very certain,” says he, “that anciently all in general, both clergy and laity, men and women, received the holy mysteries in both kinds, when they were present at the solemn celebration of them, and they both offered and were partakers. But out of the time of sacrifice, and act of the Church, it was customary always and in all places to communicate only in one kind. In the first part of the assertion all agree, as well Catholics as sectaries; nor can any one deny it, that has the least knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For the faithful always and in all places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine; and in the beginning of that age the use of the cup began by little and little to be laid aside, whilst many bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup, for fear of irreverence and effusion.” (