PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 33)

The Psalms are pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches; by which is meant the colon in the middle of each verse, indicating the pause to be made, not only in the chant, but also in the recitation, as the words clearly imply; a direction commonly neglected by readers, to the great prejudice of distinct enunciation.

The custom of repeating the psalms alternately, or verse by verse, between the minister and the people, is probably designed to supply the place of the ancient antiphon, or the responsive chanting of the psalms by two distinct choirs. This latter practice is still retained in the cathedrals of England, and is more primitive than the alternate reading now prevailing in parish churches.

The Psalter, properly speaking, is a separate book from that of Common Prayer; though bound up in the same volume, and equally subscribed to by all the clergy. The title page of the Prayer Book announces the Book of Common Prayer, &c., &c., together with the Psalter, &c. The Prayer Book and the Psalter were not included in the title page till the last review. It is remarkable, that the same causes have had the same effects in influencing the translation of the Psalter both in the Latin and the English Church. In the former, the old Italian translation had become so familiar to the people that St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was never adopted; but the old version, corrected considerably by St. Jerome, was used; a less correct edition by the Roman, and a more carefully worded one by the Gallican Church. The latter was in the course of time adopted by all the Churches in communion with Rome with a few exceptions. In like manner, the English Psalter does not follow the last translation, (which is in the authorized version of the Bible,) but that of Coverdale’s Bible, corrected, which had become familiar to the people from constant use.

PUBLIC WORSHIP. (See Formulary, Liturgy.) The 90th Canon ordains: “The churchwardens or questmen of every parish, and two or three more discreet persons to be chosen for sidesmen or assistants, shall diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of Divine service; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in resorting to the church, (having no great or urgent cause of absence,) they shall earnestly call upon them; and after due monition, (if they amend not,) they shall present them to the ordinary of the place.”

Article 20. “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies” that are not “contrary to God’s word.”

Article 34. “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners; so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the magistrate, and wounds the consciences of weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish the ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s authority; so that all things be done to edifying.”

Canon 6. “Whoever shall affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established are wicked, antichristian, or superstitious; or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”

By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer, lately explained in some few points by his Majesty’s authority, according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and that with all convenient speed, but at the furthest within two months after the publishing of these our constitutions.”

Every dean, canon, and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors of or in any college, hall, house of learning, or hospital, and every public professor and reader in either of the 620universities, or in every college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, and every other person in holy orders, and every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family, as tutor or schoolmaster, who shall be incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, canonry, prebend, mastership, headship, fellowship, professor’s place, or reader’s place, parsonage, vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or promotion, or of any curate’s place, lecture, or school, or shall instruct or teach any youth, as tutor or schoolmaster, shall at or before his admission to be incumbent, or having possession aforesaid, subscribe the declaration following: I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 8; and 1 William, sess. 1, c. 8, s. 11). And no form or order of common prayers, administration of sacraments, rites, or ceremonies, shall be openly used in any church, chapel, or other place, other than that which is prescribed in the said books. (s. 17.)

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 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 hath 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 do 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 hath 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 rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also the prescript form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the same.”

By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “In all places where the proper incumbent of any parsonage, or vicarage, or benefice with cure, doth reside on his living, and keep a curate, the incumbent himself in person (not having some lawful impediment to be allowed by the ordinary of the place) shall once at the least in every month openly and publicly read the Common Prayer and service in and by the said book prescribed, and (if there be occasion) administer each of the sacraments and other rites of the Church, in the parish church or chapel belonging to the same, in such order, manner, and form as in and by the said book is appointed, on pain of £5 to the use of the poor of the parish for every offence, upon conviction by confession or oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace; and, in default of payment within ten days, to be levied by distress and sale by warrant of the said justices, by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the said parish.” (s. 7.)

By the 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1, and 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, it is enacted as follows: “If any parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the same book, or minister the sacraments, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other places, as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as may be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall, wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper, openly or privily, or matins, even-song, administration of the sacraments, or other open prayer, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving the said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, he shall forfeit to the king (if the prosecution is on the statute of the 2 & 3 Edward VI.) for his first offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions as it shall please the king to appoint, coming or arising in one whole year after his conviction, and also be imprisoned for six months; and for his second offence be imprisoned for a year, and be deprived, ipso facto, of all his spiritual promotions, and 621the patron shall present to the same as if he were dead; and for the third offence shall be imprisoned during life.”

Canon 18. “No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the time of Divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let him wear a nightcap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall reverently kneel upon their knees, when the general confession, Litany, or other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. And likewise when in time of Divine service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised. And none, either man, woman, or child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places audibly with the minister the Confession, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed, and making such other answers to the public prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall they disturb the service or sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way; nor depart out of the church during the time of Divine service or sermon, without some urgent or reasonable cause.”

Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book of Common Prayer, and their eves, and at convenient and usual times of those days, and in such places of every church as the bishop of the diocese or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place shall think meet for the largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most edified. All ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in administration of the sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof.”

And by the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: “All priests and deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth; and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear God’s word, and to pray with him.”

PULPIT. Sermons were originally delivered from the steps of the altar, which was sometimes called the Pulpitum, a term derived from the ancient theatres. The Ambones, or pulpits of the primitive Church, were used originally for reading the lessons only. In later times pulpits, or elevated desks, were erected sometimes in the choir, but generally in the nave, for the purpose of sermons. In our Church a raised desk, called a pulpit, is ordered in every church, from which the preacher addresses his flock. (See Canon 83.)

PURGATORY. A place in which souls are, by the Papists, supposed to be purged, whether by fire or otherwise, from carnal impurities, before they are received into heaven. The first authoritative decree concerning purgatory is to be found in the Council of Florence, (A. D. 1439,) in which council endeavours were made (and with momentary success) to persuade the representatives of the Greek Church to adopt the Roman innovations, and, amongst others, this of purgatory, which was so vague and undefined, that the former found it necessary to ask what it was that they meant by it. This inquiry produced the following synodical definition of it:

“Since you have demanded to have the faith of the Roman Church expressed concerning the truth of purgatory, we briefly reply in these writings, ‘that if any who truly repent depart from life before that by worthy fruits of repentance they have made satisfaction for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are purified after death, and to the relieving these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works, are profitable.’ ‘But whether purgatory is a fire, or a mist, or a whirlwind, or anything else, we do not dispute.’”

When first this error was broached by individuals it is not easy to determine; but in St. Augustine’s time, A. D. 398, it appears to have been new, as he speaks of it 622as a thing which “possibly may be found so, and possibly never;” and so our English Bede, “not altogether incredible.” Its novelty, as an article of faith, is well expressed by Fisher, bishop of Rochester: “For some time it was unknown; but lately known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some persons, by little and little, partly from Scripture, and partly from revelations.” This is spoken of in our twenty-second Article as “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.” What the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is, cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who tell us in the Council of Trent, “If any one say, that, after the grace of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent sinner, and the guilt of temporal punishment is so blotted out, that there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be opened into heaven, let him be accursed.” And elsewhere they say, “There is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the acceptable altar.” So that, as Bellarmine saith, “Purgatory is a certain place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life, which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.” Thus we see, in a few words, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.

Now that this doctrine is a “fond thing” is plain, in that, by the confession of some of their own writers, there is little or no footing for it in the Scriptures. Nay, if we examine it by Scripture light, we shall find it so far from being grounded upon the Scriptures, that it is directly contrary to them. For the Scriptures say, “The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love and their hatred and their envy are now perished; neither have they any more a portion, for ever, in anything that is done under the sun.” (Eccles. ix. 5, 6.) Whereas this doctrine saith quite contrary, that, when they are dead, they have a part or portion in the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifices of the altar. Again; the Scripture makes mention but of a two-fold receptacle of souls after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery. (1 Sam. xxv. 29; Matt. vii. 13, 14; viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22, 23.) Whereas this doctrine brings in a third, called purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half happiness and half misery. Again; the Scripture saith, “The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth [or purgeth] us from all sin” (1 John i. 7); but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others. To name no more, the Scripture saith, “He that believeth shall not come into condemnation, but pass from death to life” (John v. 24); and therefore St. Paul saith, “I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ.” (Phil. i. 23.) So that St. Paul reckoned verily upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead, he should be with Christ; no sooner “absent from the body” but “present with the Lord.” (2 Cor. v. 8.) Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with Christ neither; he might pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from the body a good while before he be present with the Lord; he might go from earth, yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never dreamt of. So that this doctrine directly contradicts the Scripture. The Scriptures say, “We shall pass from death to life;” this doctrine saith, we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the Scriptures, that “when we are absent from the body we are present with the Lord;” but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present with the Lord: the Scriptures, that “when we depart we shall be with Christ;” this doctrine, that when we depart we must be in purgatory: the Scriptures, that “we must go directly from earth to heaven;” but this doctrine saith, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to heaven.

And as this doctrine herein contradicts the Scriptures, so does it contradict the Fathers too. For Origen saith, “We, after the labours and strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not in purgatory. And so Chrysostom, “For those that truly follow virtue, after they are changed from this life, they be truly freed from their fightings, and loosed from their bonds. For death, to such as live honestly, is a change from worse things to better, from this transitory to an eternal and immortal life that hath no end.” And Macarius, speaking of the faithful, “When,” saith he, “they go out of 623their bodies, the choirs of angels receive their souls into their proper places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the Lord.” Whence Athanasius saith, “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change, for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest. And as a man comes out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to the good things prepared for them.” Certainly these Fathers were no purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.

To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, that “after the ascension of the Lord to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with Christ, and going out of the body go to Christ, excepting the resurrection of their body.” And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us, “According to the language of the Holy Scripture, the whole life of man upon earth is a temptation or trial. Then is the temptation to be avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers of Christ, who, being helped by God, have to the end of this present life unwearily resisted their enemies, their wearisome travel being ended, they may reign happily in their country.” So that they do not go from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven. From hence we may well conclude, that “the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a fond thing repugnant to Scripture,” yea, and Fathers too.—Bp. Beveridge.

PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This holy-day is kept in memory of the presentation of Christ in the temple, and is observed in the Church of England on the second of February. It was a precept of the Mosaic law, that every first-born son should be holy unto the Lord, to attend the service of the temple or tabernacle, or else to be redeemed with an offering of money, or sacrifice. The mother, also, was obliged to separate herself forty days from the congregation, after the birth of a male, and eighty after that of a female; and then was to present a lamb, if in good circumstances, or a couple of pigeons, if she was poor. All this was exactly performed after the birth of our Saviour, who came to fulfil all righteousness; and was willing, in all particulars of his life, that a just obedience should be paid to the public ordinances of religion. The offering made in this case is an undesigned coincidence attesting the poverty of his parents. This feast is of considerable antiquity. St. Chrysostom mentions it as celebrated at his time in the Church. It is observed as one of the scarlet days in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

PURITANS. A name assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who called themselves pure, though their doctrines were so impure as to lead them on to the murder of their archbishop and their king. A violent and popular outcry has often been raised against the Church, because, at the Restoration, those of the clergy who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices. But it will be well to see how the case really stands. Seven thousand English clergymen, having refused to take the covenant at the great Rebellion, were ejected from their livings, their places being supplied by dissenting teachers. This most honourable testimony to the clergy of the Church of England at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the Restoration it was required, that all those persons who had thus become possessed of the property of the English Church, should either conform to the regulations of the Church, or resign. Of all the Puritan clergy then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather than comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what? From their rights? No; but from their usurpations. Five thousand conformed, and still retained possession of the Church property, so that many of the previously ejected clergy of the Church of England who hoped, at the Restoration, to be restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and cruelly used. This treatment of the English clergy by the Puritans is worthy of notice, and is an instructive commentary on the spirituality of their pretensions, and the tenderness of their consciences.

“The taking of the covenant was now pressed close through all the parliament quarters, which brought a terrible persecution upon the loyal clergy. Those who refused to comply were turned out of their houses, and not suffered to compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour forced great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and retire to places under the king’s protection. These vacancies were partly supplied by those Presbyterians who had formerly been lecturers or chaplains; partly by young unqualified students from the universities; to which 624we may add, some refugees from Scotland and New England, who came in for their share of preferment. And some of those Puritans, who had formerly declaimed so much against pluralities, were now reconciled to the holding two or three livings. As to the honest clergy, who refused to join the rebellion, or revolt from the Church, they were sequestered and imprisoned, and almost every way harassed and undone. From the year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and fifteen clergymen turned out of their livings within the bills of mortality; most of these were plundered, and their wives and children turned out into the streets. By these barbarities in London, the reader may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom. They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy besides the covenant. Some of them were sequestered and ejected upon pretence of scandal and immorality. But, to show the iniquity of their proceeding upon this head, it may be observed, first, that some of the crimes charged upon them were capital; and, therefore, since the forfeiture of their lives was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was defective. Secondly, the depositions against them were seldom taken upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence. Thirdly, many of the complainants were apparently factious men, who had deserted the Church and professed an aversion to the hierarchy. Fourthly, many of these pretended criminals were ignorantly, if not maliciously, charged with delivering false doctrine: for instance, some were persecuted for preaching that baptism washed away original sin: and, lastly, many were ousted for malignancy; that is, for being true to their allegiance. In short, it is observed there were more turned out of their livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were deprived by the Papists in Queen Mary’s reign; or had been silenced, suspended, or deprived by all the bishops from the first year of Queen Elizabeth to the time we are upon.”—Collier, ii. 828.

PYX. The box in which Romanists keep the Host.

QUADRAGESIMA. The Latin name for Lent. It was formerly given to the first Sunday in Lent, from the fact of its being forty days before Easter, in round numbers.

QUAKERS owe their origin to George Fox, in 1624. The following, according to Mr. Burder, are their principal articles of belief.

Every one who leads a moral life, and from the sincerity of his heart complies with the duties of natural religion, must be deemed an essentially good Christian. An historical faith and belief of some extraordinary facts, which the Christians own for truths, are the only real difference between a virtuous Pagan and a good Christian, and this faith is not necessary to salvation.

Christ is the true inward light, which enlightens all men. This is performed by an immediate inspiration, and not by the outward doctrine of the gospel, which Christ has preached to men as a rule of their belief and practice; which outward preaching of evangelical truths is not the usual and ordinary method used by God to enlighten mankind; but he sends to each person interior inspirations. This interior light is the true gospel; it is to be adored, as being Christ himself and God himself.

Scripture is not the true rule, the real guide of Christian faith and moral doctrine; this is a prerogative belonging only to the inward light, which each has within himself, or which breaks forth in the assemblies of the brethren or friends. The dead letter of the sacred writings is not of so great authority as the preaching of the authors of them: the particular books which make up the Scripture, were directed to private churches or persons, and we are not interested them.

The chief rule of our faith is the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who interiorly teaches us; and the Scripture is only a rule subordinate to that Spirit. An immediate inspiration is as necessary to us as to the apostles: it teaches us whatever is necessary to salvation. The promise which Christ made to his apostles, to teach them all truth by his Spirit, and that the Holy Ghost should always remain with them, was not confined to the apostles only, it belongs to all the faithful; and it is said of them all, that the unction shall teach them all things.

All true ministers of Christ are as infallible in what they teach, as the prophets and apostles were; otherwise the Spirit of Christ would not be infallible. All those who are filled with the gifts of the Spirit are equally infallible, without which the infallibility of the Holy Ghost must be divided; there is no exterior way of teaching, which may help one to judge of the truth of the doctrine which he preaches. The immediate inspiration is sufficient to enable a minister to preach without Scripture, or any other exterior helps. Without 625this particular inspiration all those who pretend to argue upon or explain the words of Christ, are false prophets and deceivers. The Church ought to have no other ministers, but those who are called by an immediate inspiration, which is best proved by interior miracles, of which the outward signs were only a representation or figure. The Quakers do not preach a new gospel, and therefore need not work miracles to prove their doctrine; a visible succession of ministers, ordained or otherwise established, is likewise of no use. Whoever is inwardly called to the ministerial functions, is sufficiently qualified for that post; inward sanctity is as essentially requisite in a true minister, as in a true member of the Church.

Women may preach with as much authority as men, and be ministers of the Church; for in Christ there is no distinction of male and female, and the prophet Joel has foretold that women should have the gift of prophecy as well as men.

The Scripture nowhere says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three persons; there are three several manifestations; but three persons would in reality be three Gods. The Scripture being silent as to the manner of the unity and of the distinction in the Trinity, it is a great rashness in the Christian Churches to meddle with deciding such intricate points. The distinction of persons in the Godhead is a speculative subtlety, not calculated to mend our lives, and very prejudicial to Christian peace and charity. To draw up an exact profession of faith, it is necessary to adhere closely to the expressions used in Scripture.

The true Christ is he who existed before he was manifested in the flesh, and who has never been seen with the eyes of the flesh. Jesus Christ, as God, has a heavenly humanity, of which the earthly one is but the outward garment, the type or figure. Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, did not personally unite himself to our human nature; he only took it as a suit of clothes, which he was to put on for a while. This human nature was inspired, as other men, but in a superior and more particular degree. Christ could not be united to a corrupt nature; his interior birth within men, is a greater mystery than his outward nativity. The faith in and the knowledge of Christ, according to the flesh, and of his mysteries, were but the first elements fit for the infancy of Christianity, which being over, those rudiments become useless: we now have learned to be in Christ, to become new creatures, to let old things pass away in order to make room for the new.

The expiation of our sins has not been merited by the outward spilling of Christ’s blood, which was not more precious than that of any other saint: neither has the Church been redeemed by it; but by an inward and spiritual blood, which purifies our hearts and consciences, of which the Scripture says, it was spilt for our justification; lastly, of which Christ himself says, that he who does not drink his blood shall not have life in him.

The Scripture does not say that Christ satisfied the justice of God for our sins. As God may without any injustice forgive our sins without such a satisfaction, it was not necessary, neither can it be reconciled with the gratuitous remission of our sins: and moreover, God’s punishing his own Son, who was innocent, is contrary to Divine justice.

Christ did not go up to heaven with the body which he had on earth, which is not now in heaven at the right hand of God. It is an erroneous opinion to think or believe that the body of Christ, which is in heaven, occupies and fills any particular limited place: the body of Christ is wherever his Spirit is; and it cannot save us, if distance of place separates it from us: whoever preaches a doctrine opposite to these propositions, is a false minister, and deceitful teacher: the same gift of discernment in the examination of spirits, which was bestowed on the apostles, remains still in the Church.

Our sins being once forgiven, it is wholly unnecessary to repent of them any further, or to go on in asking forgiveness for them. We cannot become God’s servants unless we be first purified.

Outward baptism is not an ordinance of Christ, or at least not to be observed as a perpetual law. Whoever pretends that Christ’s order is to be understood of water baptism adds to the text, which does not mention water. The baptism enjoined by Christ is a baptism of spirit, not of water. The water baptism was St. John’s, and has been abolished. St. Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Water baptism was used by the apostles only as a toleration for the weakness of the Jews, but it can do no good to the soul. Baptism by inspersion is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. Water baptism, and the spiritual baptism, are two entirely different baptisms. The inward baptism alone is the true baptism of Christ.

Children ought not to be baptized, since 626they are not capable of taking any engagement upon themselves, or of making a profession of faith, or of answering to God according to the testimony of a good conscience.

Taking or receiving the eucharist is not a perpetual obligation; it was instituted heretofore only for those who were newly converted to the Christian religion, or for weak Christians in the beginning of their Christianity.

Amongst the Quakers the spirit is what they call free, and does not submit to synods, nor to worldly learning, wisdom, or customs: this is one of the chief and most essential articles of their religion. All the members of the Church may and ought to concur to the general good of the body; all may have the same helps from the Holy Ghost, and feel the same impressions of his power; all are animated and fed, like our bodily members, by the same efficacy and in the same manner; all by consequence ought to give a helping hand to the edification of the mystical body, as natural members contribute to the welfare of human bodies. This they apply to the evangelical ministry: the Spirit, say the Quakers, notifies by its impulse what is wanting to the Church, and obliges those members, upon whom he makes that impulse, to give a speedy help to the mystical body. If it should happen that out of laziness, neglect, or distraction, the person so moved should not be sensible of the impulse, or not give a due attention to the defects of which the members of the mystical body are guilty, then they ought to rouse themselves with new fervour, and by a perfect recollection make a trial of the gifts and power of the Spirit of life. The call to pastoral functions essentially consists in this, it requires no pomp, no ceremony, no improvement of the mind, no preparation, no examination, nor any of the means used in other Christian societies, to provide churches with pastors and teachers. Yet if after this inward trial any one be moved and forcibly drawn by the Spirit to engage in the ministry, the ecclesiastical council must not omit the formality of examining whether the person so inspired be in reality fit for it, and ought to be admitted to that dignity; the importance of which, in regard to himself, and to the whole Church, is strongly represented to him, in a speech or exhortation made to that end. This ceremony is sometimes accompanied by the letters of other churches and societies of Quakers, recommending such or such to that office. When installed, they are maintained by voluntary contributions only, without any settlement, contract, or previous agreement. Each Quaker contributes freely, according to his power, and the minister is not to accept of their benevolence, further than is necessary for a sober and frugal maintenance; but if he be reduced to poverty for want of such contributions, it is lawful for him to leave the congregation which he served; he may even, according to their historian, shake the dust off his feet against that Church, as Christ ordered his apostles to do against those who would not receive them.

The Quakers apply equally to all governments, or pretended governments, and do not seem to make one title better than another; for, to use their own words, they do not dispute authority with any man, nor question forms of government, nor trouble their heads what becomes of the world. And, in consequence of this principle, they seem to make a kind of merit of their faithful obedience, under all the usurpations of the Rump Parliament, Cromwell, &c.

Robert Barclay, one of the most learned of their persuasion, in his second proposition affirms, that the light within, or the Divine inward revelation, is, like common principles, self-evident; and therefore it is not to be subjected either to the examination of the outward testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man. In his third proposition he asserts, that the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth, nor the primary rule of faith and manners, they being only a secondary rule and subordinate to the Spirit; by the inward testimony of which Spirit, we do alone know them: so that, by this reasoning, the authority of the Scriptures must depend upon the inward testimony of the Spirit. He affirms further, that the depraved seed of original sin is not imputed to infants before actual transgression. (Prop. 4.) Those who have the gift of the light within, are sufficiently ordained to preach the gospel, though without any commission from churches, or any assistances from human learning; whereas those who want the authority of this Divine gift, how well qualified soever in other respects, are to be looked upon as deceivers, and not true ministers of the gospel. (Prop. 10.) All acceptable worship must be undertaken and performed by the immediate moving of the Holy Spirit, which is neither limited to places, times, nor persons; and therefore all outward significations of Divine worship, unmoved by secret inspiration, which man sets about in his own will, 627and can both begin and end at his pleasure, all acts of worship thus mis-qualified, consisting either in prayers, praises, or preaching, prescribed, premeditated, or extempore, are no better than superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry in the sight of God. (Prop. 11.) The dominion of conscience belongs only to God, therefore it is not lawful for civil magistrates to punish their subjects, either in fortune, liberty, or person, upon the score of difference in worship or opinions: provided always that no man, under pretence of conscience, does any injury to his neighbour, relating either to life or estate. The Quakers are charged with other errors of a very bad complexion, drawn especially from the writings of those who were first of their persuasion; but these tenets the modern Quakers seem to disown, and appear very willing to explain and reconcile their authors to a more orthodox meaning: the truth is, they now far differ from what they were originally, not only in principle, but even their external demureness and rigidity seem to be abated.

The following is taken from the Report published in 1854 by the Registrar-general.

“The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian system. Three gradations of meetings or synods,—monthly, quarterly, and yearly, administer the affairs of the Society, including in their supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular polity. The MONTHLY MEETINGS, composed of all the congregations within a definite circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to be Elders to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally seek to stimulate their members to religious duty. They also make provision for the poor of the society, (none of whom are, consequently, ever known to require parochial relief,) and secure the education of their children. Overseers also are appointed to assist in the promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings, also, marriages are sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for worship.—Several monthly meetings compose a QUARTERLY MEETING, to which they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals are heard from their decisions.—The YEARLY MEETING holds the same relative position to the quarterly meetings as the latter do to the monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in a particular country: that held in London comprehends the quarterly meetings of Great Britain, by all of which representatives are appointed and reports addressed to the yearly meeting. Representatives also attend from a yearly meeting for Ireland held in Dublin. It likewise issues annual epistles of advice and caution, appoints committees, and acts as a court of ultimate appeal from quarterly and monthly meetings.

“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual edification.

“Connected with the yearly meeting is a MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess, and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the body.

“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and orthodox ministry.

“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him from the Society.

“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34, and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for public offices.

“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration, meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties, as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now increasing 628its numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413 meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only 371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”

Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be compelled to serve the office.

QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful patron in his right to present.

QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the bishop.

QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the bishop will not receive him.

QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, on what day of the week soever it happened.

QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See Annates.)

QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same as Chorister, which see.

QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought to annihilate themselves, in order to be united to God, and remain afterwards in quietness of mind, without being troubled for what should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of Quietists, from the word quies, rest. By that principle he pretended that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.

QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the fiftieth day before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: Shrove Sunday.

QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and the Calvinists on the Five Points. (See Five Points.)

QUIRE. (See Choir.)

QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.

QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people, and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (See Churchwardens.)

RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the light of nature under the name of Christ in men. With regard to the Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are denominated.

RATE. (Church Rates.) The greater part of the property of this country has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property. For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriate 629to themselves what does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of dishonesty.

Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.

The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the parishioners, that will make it good.

These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be charged.

A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon the goods, and not upon the land.

And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made, whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church; otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with this opinion.

Stratford. All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere, shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful means.

If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish, which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth; because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.

Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay. For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.

It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have been freed from the charge of repairing the church.

The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.

But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the rectory.

The inhabitants of a precinct where there 630is a chapel, though it is a parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry, christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).

Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.

Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.

Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.

Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments, inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.

The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of them to the residue of the parish.

The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are now sub judice, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom. But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two points: 1. That for the necessary repairs of the church the churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have assented thereto.

RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask for reasons out of place; to ask improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle, and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the word faith, or belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or, what is popularly called reason) and sight. Rationalism is concerned with Anthropology, Faith with Theology.

READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the Romish Church.

And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.

It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the Greek Churches has been 631much questioned. In the Latin Church it was certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a reader of the word of God, which office if thou shalt faithfully and profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the word of God.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the Church.—Bingham.

Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the following injunctions:—“Imprimis,—I shall not preach or interpret, but only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”

This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—Strype’s Annals.

By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.

READING DESK. (See Pew.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is there called a reading pew; and it is remarkable that the term was first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661: it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but when God was spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another, it is fit to look that way when we pray to God in public, that the turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St. Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.

READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish, of its having been performed. It is as follows:—

“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord ——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed upon in convocation, in the year of our Lord 1562, and did declare his unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and openly, on the day and year aforesaid, in 632the time of Divine service, read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid, publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book, intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above written.”

REAL PRESENCE. (See Transubstantiation, Communion, Lord’s Supper, Eucharist.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony or bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent: but the communion of the body and blood of our Lord in a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, the elements are repeatedly designated as the body and blood of Christ, and after the reception of them we give thanks that God “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body of [His] Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion of the body and blood of Christ.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood.”—Ibid. “Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,” &c.—Prayer before Consecration. “Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most precious body and blood.”—Consecration. The catechism, in agreement with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.”

So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts, and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.

Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord, you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood of Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead, only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being fully by God’s word thereto persuaded, confess Christ’s natural body to be in the sacrament, indeed by spirit and grace, because whosoever receiveth worthily that 633bread and wine, receiveth effectually Christ’s body and drinketh his blood; that is, he is made effectually partaker of his passion; and you make a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body and blood of Christ vere et realiter, indeed and in reality, if you take those terms, indeed and really, for spiritually by grace and efficacy; for so every worthy receiver receiveth the very true body of Christ: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, is not Christ’s body in the sacrament, really and indeed.”—Wordsworth’s Biography, iii. 237. The difference is strongly pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence of Christ’s body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and said, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be the communion of the body of Christ, and that the cup of blessing should be the communion of the blood of Christ.”—Ridley.

That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and signification, it is the figure or representation of Christ’s body and blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of Christ, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, the very body and blood of Christ; as it entitles him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—Abp. Wake.

These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one sense, all communicants equally partake of what Christ calls his body and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament of Christ’s death is given to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.

This real presence of Christ in the sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them, and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our Saviour’s birth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping, on their knees, a bit of bread for the Son of God. Nor are they content to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and murder those who refuse it.

It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent all 634possibility of misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the invisible God. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit from it, depend.—Abp. Secker.

At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a protestation concerning the gesture of kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended by that ceremony, either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being, of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the words real and essential presence were thought proper to be changed for corporal presence. For a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in relation to the real presence in the sacrament, entirely different from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and antiquity.—Wheatly.

REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the Nominalists, (see Nominalists,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter, there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind, and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard. These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained, or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.

RECANTATION. (See Abjuration.)

RECTOR. (See Vicar.) A term applied to several persons whose offices are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2. The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were either seminaries or colleges.

RECUSANT. A Recusant, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worship God after the manner of the Church of England: a Popish Recusant is a Papist who so refuseth; and a Popish Recusant convict is a Papist legally convicted of such offence.

REDEEMER, THE. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix. 20.) “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)

REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, who on this account is called the “Redeemer.” (Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(See Covenant of Redemption.)

635REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is called the Reformation. (See Church of England, and Lutheranism.) The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on the Continent, and in Scotland.

As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully established in that of Queen Elizabeth.

King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.

Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome, in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St. Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed this statute should be severely punished.

Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication, in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication, till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement, though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England, excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual places.

The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome. The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices, and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England, A. D. 1534.

The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor, and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.

As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be burned.

The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches; and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry, dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its infancy.

In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector during 636the minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.

The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.

The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms was established.

REFUGE. (See Sanctuary.)

REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)

REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of its vacancy.

Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince, by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this is what they call the Regale.

This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.

REGENERATE. (See Conversion, Regeneration, Renovation.) Every baptized child is called regenerate. There have been some very unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever expressed this by the word “regeneration.” 637Regeneration, as often as it is used in the Scripture books, signifies the baptismal regeneration. There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and that is, παλιγγενεσία; and that παλιγγενεσία refers to baptism is plain, by having the word λουτρὸν joined with it: “According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration.” (Tit. iii. 5.) Our Saviour indeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by being born again he explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have a variety of words to express regeneration by: not only ἀναγέννησις, which is an exact translation of it; but ἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;” ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;” ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;” ἀνάστασις, “resurrection;” μεταβολὴ, the “change;” μεταποίησις, the “refitting;” παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;” παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:” all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient, expresses the Greek ἀναγέννησις by “regeneration:” “baptism which is a regeneration unto God:” and so likewise calls the ἀναγεννήμενοι, the baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages, within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express a returning to God after a state of sin, the Greeks use the word μετάμελεια, μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins, pœnitentia, conversio. The language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a “generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning to God after a course of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion to God.” The most eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense. Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning to God, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin, where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses, (dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word “conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or “conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern; insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense, which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this head.—Dr. Nicholls.