cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall

that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it, whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and then taking up the cross, he begins to sing _Te Deum_, and enters the church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St. Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the holy year is expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver medals.

The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived from _jovel_, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh. vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets. This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, _et seq._

JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to Samuel.

JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)

“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the Church.

It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in CHRIST’S stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a _society_; for that implies the existence of officers and of subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are not _born_ to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation. Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of CHRIST is invested? Is it _human_? Can any body of _men_ confer the power to rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the hands of the _eternal_ GOD? Most evidently not. _Human power_, or a commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.

The Head of the Church established a _ministry_, with the right and ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” And was this power to be recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes, imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the “watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To the apostles, therefore, was given, (_jure divino_,) and to them alone, the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the REDEEMER had bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days of the Church.

If then, as we have shown, _Divine right_ is the only foundation on which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one claiming office in the Church of GOD, but to vindicate the legality of his mission by _miracle_, or some other tangible Divine verification, which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop, priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.

JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his diocese.

In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the hundred and ecclesiastical judge.

For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred, every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s tourn, on the very calends of May.

And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot (for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of GOD, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein towards GOD and the king, according to the word of GOD: then the alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and their duty towards GOD, the king, and commonwealth, according to the rule and tenure thereof.

The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution, touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should be for ever _legatus natus_: and Anselm for the honour of his see obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general councils sit at the pope’s foot, as _alterius orbis papa_, or pope of this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many, when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.

JUSTIFICATION. (See _Faith_ and _Sanctification_.) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of GOD.—_Tomline._

A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.

As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following:

“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.

“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit.

“Works done before the grace of CHRIST and the inspiration of his SPIRIT, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”

The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of _The Homily of Justification_, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only CHRIST our SAVIOUR, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.

“Because all men be sinners and offenders against GOD, and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before GOD: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness of justification, to be received at GOD’S own hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of GOD’S mercy and CHRIST’S merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of GOD, for our perfect and full justification.

“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon GOD’S part, his great mercy and grace; upon CHRIST’S part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD’S justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of JESUS CHRIST, which yet is not ours but by GOD’S working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only GOD’S mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of GOD: and it consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of GOD doth not shut out the justice of GOD in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is the gift of GOD, and not man’s only work without GOD. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward GOD; for we are most bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of GOD, and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of CHRIST’S body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that CHRIST is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, CHRIST’S justice hath supplied.

“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of GOD, at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GOD’S hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of GOD, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our SAVIOUR CHRIST; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto CHRIST only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of CHRIST’S Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of CHRIST, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of CHRIST’S glory, but for an adversary to CHRIST and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”

The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising.

Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself.

“Since JESUS CHRIST, as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to GOD and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in GOD; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life.

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of GOD either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of GOD, because it is infused into us by GOD through the merit of CHRIST.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the LORD; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of GOD; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of GOD, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of CHRIST, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from GOD, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of CHRIST: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the _right of inheriting_: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of GOD, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of CHRIST; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of GOD, being forensically imputed to him of GOD, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified _through_ faith, though not _on account of_ faith; the sole particular, _on account of_ which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our LORD and only SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a _peculiarity_ of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as _the_ doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.

If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on justification.

“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.

“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, _Reputatum est illi ad justitiam_. A reputed righteousness. The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of _Jehovah justitia nostra_. Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, _Cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?_—look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the HOLY GHOST would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the LORD that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness: ‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before GOD.’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same _coram rege justo judicium faciente_.”—_Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name._ See also _Barrow’s Sermon on Justification_. _Waterland on Justification._ _Heurtley on Justification._ _Stanley Faber on Justification._

KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of CHRIST to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on St. Peter and the other apostles, when the SAVIOUR breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)

The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the blessing of the minister will return to him again.

The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted by our LORD himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.

Upon Peter’s confession, that JESUS was “the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby, that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And, 3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it can be little doubted that CHRIST speaketh according to the common and most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, that is, forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these words, “They _bound_ washing to them, but they _loosed_ sweating;” meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat, but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week. Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it.” “Women may not look in a looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi _loosed_ the looking into it; but the wise man _bound_ it.” “R. Jochanan went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this elder? for what I _loose_, he _bindeth_; and what I _bind_, he _looseth_.’” “The scribes have _bound_ leaven;” that is, they have prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, _loosed_ salutation on the sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.

Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or learned men’s teaching what was _lawful_ and permitted, and what was _unlawful_ and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and maketh clean, _bindeth_ and _looseth_, that is, teacheth what is clean and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but not to teach _bound_ and _loose_: or power to teach _bound_ and _loose_, but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take thou the power to _bind_ and _loose_, or to teach what is bound and loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the meaning of CHRIST using it thus to his disciples is easily understood, namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world. But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely, that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he promiseth the apostles such assistance of his SPIRIT, and giveth them such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound in heaven,” &c.—_Lightfoot._

There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit, especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the Church which our LORD left with his apostles and their successors to the end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our LORD gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded. Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of CHRIST which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our SAVIOUR’S kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive them in again. This power our SAVIOUR first promised to St. Peter, and in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he said unto them, “Receive the HOLY GHOST: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the SON of man, having power upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.” From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit and retain sins, and that CHRIST himself concurs with them in the exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his HOLY SPIRIT now breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be which our LORD committed to his apostles and their successors for the government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore, as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they neither resist nor despise it.—_Beveridge._

Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing (which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys, then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him and St. Austin to contest it.”

The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.

The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to CHRIST alone, while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction. For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says, that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that CHRIST explains his meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures, delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out, to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline, and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as spurious some years before.

Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions, taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms, that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.

Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church, scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis, neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such as they derive from him.

In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST; and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II., expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of CHRIST. And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. And, indeed, the whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our LORD’S words which the Jesuit school condemns.

The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this subject, that, while CHRIST spoke to Peter in the singular, he made conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was given to the Church, and not to an individual.

Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all. D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.

The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe that GOD in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than we ought to think.—_S. Robins._

KINDRED. (See _Consanguinity_.)

KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always accompanied by a religious service.

The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.

Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands, assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age, attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—_Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh._

In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion week.

The office for the ceremony was called “_The Ceremonies_,” or “_Prayers for the Healing_.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII., and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See _Pegge’s Curialia Miscellanea_, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in 1715 (1002).

The following is the form in _Sparrow’s Collections_, printed in 1684.

AT THE HEALING.

_The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the 14th verse._

JESUS appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]_They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover._ So when the LORD had spoken unto them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of GOD. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the LORD working with them, and confirming the word with miracles following.

_The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st verse._

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from _God_ a man whose name was JOHN. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of the Light. [7]_That Light was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world._ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of GOD, even them that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of GOD. And the same Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

THE PRAYERS.

_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.

_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._

_Vers._ Christ have mercy upon us.

_Resp._ _Christ have mercy upon us._

_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.

_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._

Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

(_These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed._)

_Vers._ O LORD, save thy servants.

_Resp._ _Which put their trust in thee._

_Vers._ Send help unto them from above.

_Resp._ _And evermore mightily defend them._

_Vers._ Help us, O GOD our Saviour.

_Resp._ _And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us sinners for thy Name’s sake._

_Vers._ O LORD, hear our prayer.

_Resp._ _And let our cry come unto thee._

O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them that seek to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.

The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with us all evermore. Amen.

The same form appears at the end of _L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine Offices_, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.

There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a cure was not unfrequently occasioned.

KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity, for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin, the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings; so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings. Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.

It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed in that nation.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See _Presbyterians_.) The Kirk of Scotland acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and Religion, according to GOD’S Word, and Acts of our Parliament, subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie others. To the glory of GOD, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh, the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our LORD 1581. And in the 14th year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See _Confessions of Faith_.)

KISS OF PEACE. (See _Pax_.) This form of salutation, as a token of Christian affection, appears to have been an apostolic custom. (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14.) It was one of the rites of the eucharistic service in the primitive Church. It was omitted on Good Friday in remembrance of the traitorous kiss of Judas Iscariot.—_Augusti._

KNEELING. The posture which the Church prescribes in prayer, acts of confession, &c.

The practice of kneeling in confession, in prayer, and in adoration, is of great antiquity; a reference to it being apparently made in Isaac’s blessing on Jacob, (Gen. xxvii. 29,)—compared with his brother’s subsequent conduct, (xlii. 6,) and with the edict of Pharaoh, “Bow the knee” (xli. 43); and again in the second commandment. (Exod. xx. 5.) David says, “Let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the “LORD our Maker.”” (Ps. xcv. 6.) “We will go into his tabernacle, and fall low on our knees before his footstool.” (cxxxii. 7.) Solomon “kneeled on his knees” before the altar of the LORD, with his hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kings viii. 54.) Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands unto GOD, and made his confession. (Ezra ix. 5–15.) Daniel “kneeled upon his knees three times a day,” and prayed “as he did aforetime.” (Dan. vi. 10.) The holy martyr Stephen “kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,” praying for his murderers. (Acts vii. 60.) So Peter “kneeled down, and prayed,” (Acts ix. 40,) and also St. Paul. (Acts xx. 36; xxi. 5.)

That the posture was a customary one may be inferred from the conduct of the man beseeching CHRIST to heal his son, (Matt. xvii. 14,) and of the rich young man, (Mark x. 17,) as also of the leper (Mark i. 40); but the example of our blessed LORD himself, who, though without sin, yet “kneeled down” when he prayed, (Luke xxii. 41,) cannot but recommend the practice to every devout worshipper. Some of the early Christians so frequently used this posture of humility, as visibly to wear away the floor on which they kneeled; and Eusebius says of St. James the Just, that he had, by the continual exercise of his devotions, contracted a hardness on his knees, like that on the knees of camels. The practice was altogether so common, that prayer itself was termed κλίσις γονάτων—“bending the knees.” It is to be noticed, however, that the primitive Christians, out of a peculiar regard for the LORD’S day, and the joyful season between Easter and Whitsuntide, did (with the exception of the penitents, who were denied this privilege) then perform their whole devotions _standing_, instead of kneeling: and this custom was confirmed by the Council of Nice, for the sake of uniformity. It was from this circumstance, probably, that the Ethiopic and Muscovitish Churches adopted the attitude of standing, generally, a custom which they continue to this day.

Bingham remarks (book xiii. 8. 4) that though these two postures of prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always esteemed an instance of great negligence, or great perverseness, to interchange them unseasonably one for the other, that is, to pray kneeling on the LORD’S day, when the Church required standing; or standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the Church required men to kneel. And therefore, as the Canons of Nice and of the Council _in Trullo_ reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon kneeling on the LORD’S day, so others with equal severity complain of the remissness and negligence of such as refused to kneel at other times, when the Church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular thing, says Cæsarius of Arles, that when the deacon cries out, “Let us bend the knee,” the people should then stand erect as pillars in the Church. These were but small observations in themselves, but of great consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder of the Church, whose great rule in all such cases is that of the apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

In the whole of the primitive religious service there is not any circumstance _casual_; every particular, every gesture, is _instructive_. In the presence of GOD man fell upon his face to the ground; and, by that act, humbly confessed his _original_: hence _bowing to the ground_ is the formal _word_ for _worshipping_, which it was high treason to practise toward any idol. And when, from that posture, man raised himself to praise and to bless GOD, he raised himself no further than the knee, still so far retaining the posture of humility; and from this posture the _word_ to signify _blessing_ is taken. As bowing to the ground is used to signify worshipping, _kneeling_ is used to signify _blessing_.—_Forbes’ Thoughts on Religion._

_Posture of body_ is a thing which, how slight soever it may now be thought to be, yet is not without its moment, if either Scripture, or reason, or the practice of holy men, may be our judges. For if we ought to _glorify God in our bodies_, as well as in our spirits; if we are forbidden to bow down before a graven image, lest we should thereby be thought by GOD to impart his honour to it; in fine, if our SAVIOUR refused to fall down, and worship the devil, upon the account of GOD’S challenging that honour unto himself; then must it be thought to be our duty to make use of such a posture of body towards GOD, as may bespeak our inward reverence, and particularly in prayer, which is one of the most immediate acts of the glorification of him.—_Towerson on the Creed._

St. Augustine says, “I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that though these motions of the body be not made without a foregoing motion of the mind, yet, again, by the outward and visible performance of them, that more inward and invisible one, which caused them, is increased; and so the affection of the heart, which was the cause of their being done, is itself improved by the doing of them.”—_Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis._

In the morning and evening service, the minister or priest is directed to kneel (with the people) at the Confession, LORD’S Prayer, and two versicles which follow; the versicles after the Creed, (a lesser Litany,) and the LORD’S Prayer following, and at the Collects. No position is enjoined for the Litany; but universal custom prescribes kneeling. In the Communion Service, the priest is to kneel only at the general confession, at the prayer immediately following the Sanctus, and when receiving the holy communion. The directions for the people are not as explicit here as elsewhere; but they are directed to kneel in the part before the sermon, with the following exceptions,—at the reading of the Gospel (for the Epistle no posture is prescribed) and at the Creed. After the sermon they are directed to kneel only at the confession, and the reception of the communion.

KNELL. A bell tolled at funerals.

KORAH, SONGS OR PSALMS OF THE SONS OF. The “sons of Korah” formed one of the three choirs of the temple, all Levites. They are sometimes called Korhites, or Kohathites, being descended from Kohath, the second son of Levi; Kohath’s grandson being Korah. Heman was the director of this choir in the time of King David: but it seems not to have survived the captivity, as the sons of Asaph are alone named by Nehemiah. Twelve psalms are inscribed Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; and are supposed to have been specially performed by that choir, or composed by some of its members. They are the forty-second to the forty-ninth, eighty-fourth, eighty-fifth, eighty-seventh, and eighty-eighth.—_Jebb._

KYRIE ELEISON. The Greek of “LORD have mercy” upon us. This earnest and pathetic appeal of the penitent heart has, from the apostolic age, been freely incorporated into the liturgies of the Church. It is perpetually repeated in the Greek liturgies; and in our own it is of frequent occurrence: so frequent, indeed, that exceptions have sometimes been taken to our forms, as tinctured with an overabundant sorrow and self-abasement, for those who are called to be the sons of GOD. The fault, however, is fortunately on the right side; and, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, on the Kyrie between the commandments, if there be any that think this might have been spared, as being fitter for poor publicans than saints, let them turn to the parable of the publican and Pharisee going up to the temple to pray, (Luke xviii.,) and here they shall receive an answer. It generally precedes the LORD’S Prayer. In the Litany, each of the three clauses is repeated severally by both minister and people. In the First Book of King Edward VI., it was used at the beginning of the Communion Service, and the figure iii. was prefixed to each clause, to signify that each was to be preceded three times. The Kyrie Eleison is generally called “_the Lesser Litany_.”

KYRIE, “O LORD,” (in Church music,) the vocative of the Greek word signifying LORD, with which word all the musical masses in the Church of Rome commence, that is, the above-mentioned _Kyrie Eleison_. Hence it has come to be used substantively for the whole piece, as one may say, _a beautiful Kyrie, a Kyrie well executed, &c._ It is sometimes applied to the responses between the commandments in our Prayer Book.—_Jebb._

LABARUM. The celebrated imperial standard used by Constantine the Great. Near the extremity of the shaft of a lance, sheathed in plates of gold, was affixed, in a horizontal position, a small rod, so as to form the exact figure of a cross. From this transverse little bar hung drooping a small purple veil of the finest texture, interwoven with golden threads, and starred with brilliant jewels. Above this rose the sacred monogram of JESUS CHRIST encircled with a golden crown. Under this banner were his victories gained. It was carried near the emperor, and defended specially by the flower of his army. The etymology of the word is utterly unknown.

LAITY, LAYMAN. The people (λαὸς) as distinguished from the clergy. This distinction was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles themselves. Every one knows that the offices of the priests and Levites among the Jews were distinct from those of the people. And so it was among Christians from the first foundation of the Church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into a Church, a bishop or a presbyter, with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius delivers from the ancient histories of the Church.

Every true Christian Church is a body of men associated for religious purposes, and composed of two distinct classes,—the clergy and the laity: the clergy especially and divinely set apart for sacred offices; the laity exercising the duties and receiving the privileges of religion, in the midst of temporal occupations and secular affairs. But the clergy are thus set apart, not for their own benefit only, but for the benefit of the Church in general, of their lay brethren among the rest; and the laity also are bound to employ their temporal opportunities not for themselves exclusively, but for the Church in general, and for their clerical brethren among the rest. They who minister at the altar, minister for those who partake of the altar; and they who partake of the altar are bound to support those who minister at the altar; and this is one out of a thousand applications of the general principles of communion, and of the reciprocal rights and privileges on which it is founded.

Compacted by these reciprocal duties and privileges, but still more truly and effectually by ordinances and sacraments, and by a divine and mystical agency which animates all with one spirit, and sanctifies all with one grace, clergy and laity together form but one body. The clergy alone no more constitute the Church, either in a spiritual, in an ecclesiastical, or in a political sense, than do the laity alone; and the Church has no existence, no duties, no rights, no authority, except as it is composed of both clergy and laity. It is because they forget this that we continually hear persons speaking of the Church as it were only an hierarchy. If regulations of any kind are proposed for the prosperity of the Church, they start at the sound as if it meant the aggrandizement of the clergy: if the Church is said to be in danger, they only think of the fall of mitres and the impoverishing of benefices. The real truth is, that the Church’s privilege and authority belong to the whole body, whoever may be their immediate recipients and executors; and whoever maintains them, whether he be lay or clerical, maintains his own rights and his own patrimony.

And the part of the laity in the Church is no more purely political, than the part of the clergy is purely spiritual. Nothing could be less just than to deny to the laity a spiritual _character_, although they are not appointed to spiritual _offices_. The sacraments which the ministers distribute, and the laity partake with them, are spiritual; the one (that is, holy baptism) originating, the other (that is, the blessed eucharist) continuing a spiritual character in the recipients. The minister offers up spiritual lauds and prayers for his flock. Even external discipline has a spiritual object, and would be both absurd and unjust, if exercised over those who are not members of the Church spiritual as well as visible. And, finally and principally, the ever blessed fountain and stream of a true spiritual character, without whom no external sacrament or rite can be to any purpose, even the HOLY GHOST, is purchased by CHRIST for his whole Church; and sent from HIM and from the FATHER, not exclusively upon any order of men, but upon all, from the highest order of the clergy to the least and lowest of the laity who maintain their spiritual character. As the precious unguent poured upon Aaron’s head, flowed not only over his own beard, but even to the skirts of his clothing; so does that spiritual stream of a holy character flow from the Head of the Church, not on those only whose _office_ is _sacred_, but on those also whose _character_ is _sanctified_; not only upon those whose part it is to govern, but on those also who must obey in spiritual things. And so it is that the mystical temple of CHRIST “groweth together in CHRIST, which is the Head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”

And this is, indeed, the right clue to the interpretation of those passages of Scripture in which all CHRIST’S people are designated as priests, and which have been perverted into an authority for the exercise of clerical functions by the laity. It is the spiritual _character_, not the spiritual _office_, of every Christian, of which St. Peter speaks, when he says, “Ye also, as living stones, are built up, _a spiritual house, an holy priesthood_, to offer up spiritual sacrifices unto GOD by JESUS CHRIST.” And again, “Ye are a chosen generation, _a royal priesthood, a holy nation_, a peculiar people.” So also when St. John says, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings _and priests_ unto GOD the FATHER, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever:” and when Moses declares of the Israelites, as they typified the Christian Church, “Ye shall be unto me _a kingdom of priests_, and a _holy nation_:” they convey an assurance to us, not of the priestly office, but of the spiritual character and privileges of every member of the Church of CHRIST.

And it is as partaking in this spiritual character with them that the laity share with the clergy in many other things. They have the same privilege of the Christian altar, and for their children the same privilege of the Christian font: the promises of GOD to them are the same; and spiritual benefits, both present and future, clergy and laity share together: their duties are almost all of them in common, varying principally in the external manner in which they are to be performed: and even where there is the most apparent exclusion of the laity from the ceremonial, they are by no means excluded from the authority which sanctions the ceremonial. It would be most wicked and presumptuous for a layman to take on himself the ordination of another, or the consecration of the eucharist; but it would be nothing short of heresy, though a new heresy, to deny that the bishop and the priest perform these acts with that authority which is vested in the Church, as a society of faithful men, lay as well as clerical. It is in the name, not of the clergy, but of the Church, that the bishop confirms and ordains; that the minister pronounces absolution and a blessing; that discipline is enforced, and penitents are restored: and in all these cases the minister is the representative and instrument, not of the clergy, nor of his individual bishop, but of the Church at large. But it is not only in the authority and privileges of the Church, but in its responsibility also, that the laity are included. If a Church fall into heresy, or error of doctrine or of practice, though the hierarchy may be the chief instigators and movers of such error, yet the laity, still maintaining their communion, are necessarily involved in their sin. And so, on the other hand, if the laity fall into spiritual error, the clergy also are responsible, and involved in the sin. It mattered not whether it were the heresy of the Nicolaitanes, or the religious indifference of the body of a Church which had left its first love: the candlestick was removed, not from the clergy only in the one case, nor from the laity only in the other, but all were swept away together. The laity among the Arians were not excused because they left the Catholic faith in company with their bishops; nor were those of the clergy, who, in latter days, cast off episcopal authority because of the clamours of the people, thus justified. GOD only can precisely judge of the degree of sin in parties thus situated; but as a point of sound theory in religion and theology, the clergy are concerned in the errors of their flocks; the laity are involved in the heresies and schisms, and other ecclesiastical crimes, of their bishops and pastors.

This mutual responsibility of clergy and laity would result even from the principles of a civil polity, of the nature of which the Church, as a society, necessarily partakes: but they follow still more manifestly among the consequences of her spiritual union; and are plainly stated in the sacred Scriptures, by the rules of which the Church is ever to be judged. Surely nothing can be clearer than the words of St. Paul, “Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body of CHRIST, and members in particular.”

Thus we see that, in matters purely spiritual, the laity are very seriously _responsible_ for the proceedings of the Church as carried on, well or ill, by its appointed ministers. How greatly they are _interested_ in the same matters, needs not to be proved at much length; since the validity of the sacraments, the soundness of doctrine, the catholicity of fellowship, certainly concern them quite as nearly as the clergy themselves. But so soon as we take into consideration those matters in which the Church partakes of the nature of a civil polity, we find the interest of the laity in its regulations so much increased, that sometimes they are even more nearly concerned than the clergy themselves. A single line of George Herbert will illustrate these principles; he says,

“The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says now.”

Here in the Scriptural part, (the propriety and benefit of fasting,) laity and clergy are concerned equally; but so soon as the Church exerts its authority in the way of polity, (to determine the time,) the laity, upon whose secular habits a religious exercise makes a greater incursion, are by far the most concerned. The same thing holds in every rule for the regulation of penance or communion, for the determining of the proper recipients of baptism, the proper candidates for holy orders, and the like. And to go a step farther; there are parts of the ecclesiastical polity which are spiritual only by accident, and indirectly; such as the means used in collecting funds for charitable or religious purposes, and for the carrying on of the government of the Church; and in these the immediate and direct interest of the laity is altogether paramount.

These, which are the true Church principles on the subject of the clergy and the laity, will be sufficient to answer the charge of priestcraft against those of the clergy who enforce sound principles on this subject; and to make those of the laity who wish to act up to the high principles which they profess, feel that as churchmen they possess a sacred character which must not be lightly compromised, and spiritual privileges which they may well think worth contending for, against the low principles of dissenters and quasidissenters.—_Poole on the Admission of Lay Members to the Synods of the Church in Scotland._

LAMBETH ARTICLES. Certain articles so called because they were drawn up at Lambeth, in the year 1595, by the then archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London.

It appears that towards the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the errors of Calvinism had spread among the clergy of the Church of England. These errors were opposed by some of the most learned divines of Cambridge. But the opponents of Calvinism were denounced as persons addicted to Popery; and the heads of houses ventured to censure one divine because he denied some points of Calvinistic doctrine, and spoke disrespectfully of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others. Archbishop Whitgift, and some other bishops, were inclined to take part with the heads of houses at Cambridge, and, adhering to the popular side, to condemn the orthodox divines. They met together at Lambeth palace, and there Archbishop Whitgift, Dr. Vaughan, elect of Bangor, Dr. Fletcher, elect of London, Dr. Tyndall, dean of Ely, and the Calvinistic divines from Cambridge, digested under the nine following heads what are called the Lambeth Articles:

“1. GOD hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and hath reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons predestinated; but the alone will of GOD’S good pleasure. 3. The predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither be lessened nor increased. 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins. 5. The true, lively, and justifying faith, and the spirit of GOD justifying, is not extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect, either finally or totally. 6. A true believer, that is, one who is endued with justifying faith, is certified by the full assurance of faith that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly saved by CHRIST. 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man is able to come to CHRIST, unless it be given him, and unless the FATHER draw him; and all men are not drawn by the FATHER, that they may come to his SON. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.”

These articles, asserting the most offensive of the Calvinistic positions, were not accepted by the Church, and consequently were of no authority, although they were employed at the time to silence those by authority against whom argument could not prevail. The prelates who drew them up acted without authority, for they were not assembled in a synod. A synod is an assembly of bishops and presbyters duly convened. In this instance there was no convention. The meeting was a mere private conference; and the decision was of no more weight than the charge of a bishop delivered without a consultation with his clergy, which is only the expression of a private opinion, it may be that even of an Arian or Sabellian; and which, though heard with respect, is only to be treated as the opinion of an individual, until the clergy have officially received it as orthodox: it was to be received with respect, and examined with reference not to the authority with which it was given, but according to its merits. There can be no greater proof of the absence of Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles than the fact, that the very persons who were condemning the orthodox for innovation, were compelled to invent new articles before they could make our Church Calvinistic. The conduct of the archbishop gave much offence to many pious persons, and especially to the queen; and this attempt to introduce Calvinism into our Church entirely failed.

LAMBETH DEGREES. The popular designation given to degrees conferred by the archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power of giving degrees in any of the faculties. This is supposed to be a relic of legislative authority.

LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. A canonical book of the Old Testament. (See _Jeremiah_.)

This book is a kind of funeral elegy on the death of the good king Josiah, as appears from what is recorded: “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and behold they are written in the Lamentations.” This is confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus.

St. Jerome imagines this prophet laments the loss of Josiah, as the beginning of those calamities which followed: accordingly he prophetically bewails the miserable state of the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem; though some are of opinion, the Lamentations were composed after the taking of Jerusalem.

The first two chapters of this book are employed in describing the calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third, the author deplores the persecutions he himself had suffered. The fourth turns upon the desolation of the city and temple, and the misfortune of Zedekiah. The fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their dispersion and captivity. At the end of all, he speaks of the cruelty of the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her misery.

The first four chapters of the Lamentations are in acrostic verse, and abecedary; every verse or couplet beginning with one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, in their alphabetical order.

There is a preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Greek, and in the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac; and which was manifestly added by way of Argument of the book.

LAMMAS DAY. A festival of the Romish Church, otherwise called _St. Peter’s chains_, or _St. Peter in the fetters_, in memory of the imprisonment of that apostle. Two derivations have been given of the name _Lammas_. 1st, The literal sense, arising from a ludicrous notion of the vulgar, that St. Peter was patron of the _lambs_, from our SAVIOUR’S words to him, “Feed my lambs.” 2. From a Saxon word, meaning “_Loaf-mass_,” it having been the custom of the Saxons to offer on this day (August 1) an oblation of loaves made of new wheat, as the first-fruits of their new corn.

LAMPADARY. An officer in the ancient Church of Constantinople; so called, because it was his business to see that the lamps of the church were lighted, and to carry a taper before the emperor, the empress, and the patriarch, when they went to church, or in procession. The taper, borne before the emperor, was encompassed with several golden circles representing crowns: those carried before the empress and patriarch had but one. These tapers were emblematical, and signified that these illustrious personages were to enlighten the rest of the world by the splendour of their virtues.

LANTERN. The central tower of a cross church, when it is open over the cross. This seems always to have been the vernacular term for such a tower. Thus, William de Chambre says of Bishop Skirlaw, “_Magnam partem campanilis, vulgo_ lantern, _ministerii Eboracensis construxit_.”

LAPSE. When a patron neglects to present a clergyman to a benefice in his gift, within six months after its vacancy, the benefice lapses to the bishop; and if he does not collate within six months, it lapses to the archbishop; and if he neglects to collate within six months, it lapses to the Crown.

LAPSED. Those persons were so called, who in time of persecution denied the faith of CHRIST; but again, on persecution ceasing, sought reconciliation and Church communion.

The discipline with which such persons were visited included a long absence from the holy eucharist, which however was not denied them in case of extreme illness. And the maternal solicitude of the Church for her sons was so great, that when dangerous sickness was prevalent, or when another persecution seemed to impend, it somewhat relaxed the rule. This is especially shown in the conduct and writings of St. Cyprian; in whose times the case of the lapsed was brought before the Church, by circumstances, more fully, and was also more clearly determined, than it had been before. One of his most celebrated tracts refers especially to their case.

Different circumstances gave to different individuals of the lapsed the names of _Sacrificati_, _Thurificati_, and _Libellatici_. (See these words.) The _Traditores_ were not held wholly free from the crime of the lapsed. (See _Traditors_.)

Those who absolutely and for ever fell away were classed by the Church as heathens, and had of course no ecclesiastical position, however low.

LATERAN COUNCILS. Under this head, to which reference has been made under the article on _Councils_, we shall include all the councils of the Romish Church.

_Lateran (I.)_ in the year 1123. It was convened by Pope Calixtus II., who presided in person. It consisted of 300 bishops. It decreed that investiture to ecclesiastical dignities was the exclusive right of the Church; and that the practice of secular princes giving such investiture was an usurpation. The celibacy of the clergy was also decreed.

_Lateran (II.)_ in 1139, composed of nearly 1000 bishops, under the presidency of Pope Innocent II. It decided on the due election of this pope, and condemned the errors of Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.

_Lateran (III.)_ in 1179. At this council, with Pope Alexander III. at their head, 302 bishops condemned what they were pleased to call the “errors and impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

_Lateran (IV.)_ in 1215, composed of 412 bishops, under Innocent III., had for its objects the recovery of the Holy Land, reformation of abuses, and the extirpation of heresy.

_Lyons (I.)_ in 1245, consisting of 140 bishops, was convened for the purpose of promoting the Crusades, restoring ecclesiastical discipline, and dethroning Frederick II., emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at this council that cardinals should wear red hats.

_Lyons (II.)_ in 1274. There were 500 bishops and about 1000 inferior clergy present. Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.

_Vienne_ in Gaul, 1311, consisting of 300 bishops, who were convoked to suppress the Knights Templars, condemn those who were accused of heresy, and assist the Christians in Palestine.

_Constance_, in 1414–1418. The German emperor, the pope, 20 princes, 140 counts, more than 20 cardinals, 7 patriarchs, 20 archbishops, 91 bishops, 600 other clerical dignitaries, and about 4000 priests, were present at this celebrated ecclesiastical assembly, which was occasioned by the divisions and contests that had arisen about the affairs of the Church. From 1305–1377, the popes had resided at Avignon; but in 1378, Gregory XI. removed the papal seat back to Rome: after his death, the French and Italian cardinals could not agree upon a successor, and so each party chose its own candidate. This led to a schism, which lasted forty years. Indeed, when the emperor Sigismund ascended the throne, in 1411, there were _three_ popes, each of whom had anathematized the two others. To put an end to these disorders, and to stop the diffusion of the doctrines of Huss, Sigismund went in person to Italy, France, Spain, and England, and (as the emperor Maximilian I. used to say, in jest, performing the part of the beadle of the Roman empire) summoned a general council. The pretended heresies of Wickliff and Huss were here condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety given him by the emperor, was burnt, July 7, 1415; and his friend and companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to the chair of St. Peter.

_Basle_, 1431, under the presidency of the cardinal legate Juliano Cæsarini of St. Angelo, after holding not fewer than forty-five sessions, terminated its labours, May 16, 1443. Its objects, which were partly attained, were to extirpate heresies, limit the power of the pope, effect a reformation of the clergy, and consolidate the interests of the Church. Its decrees are not admitted into any of the Roman collections, and are considered of no authority by the Roman lawyers. They are, however, recognised in points of canon law in France and Germany; and though some later concordats have modified the application of them, they have never been formally and entirely annulled.

_Florence_, 1439–1442. It was composed of 141 bishops, the patriarch of Constantinople, and the legates of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It effected a renunciation of schism on the part of the Greeks, and an abjuration of heresy on the part of the Armenians.

_Lateran (V.)_ in 1512, convened by Pope Julius II., to oppose another held by nine cardinals of high rank the year before at Pisa, with a view to bridle his wild animosity, turbulence, and contumacy. It declared that council schismatic, abolished the Pragmatic Sanction, and strengthened the power of the Roman see.

_Trent_, convoked and opened by Paul III. in 1545; continued under Julius III.; and, after numerous interruptions, brought to a close in 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV. Its object was professedly to reform ecclesiastical abuses, but really to counteract and crush the Reformation. (See _Trent_.)

LATITUDINARIANS. Certain divines so called from the latitude of their principles. The term is chiefly applied to some divines of the seventeenth century, who were attached to the English establishment, as such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public worship, as among the things indifferent. They would not exclude from their communion those who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the latitudinarian divines commenced as Calvinists, and ended as Socinians.

LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (See _Mormonists_.)

LATRIA. (See _Dulia_.)

LAUDS. The service which followed next after the nocturn was so designated before the Reformation. It was sometimes called matin lauds. The lauds are now, in the reformed Church of England, merged in the matins. The office of Lauds contains the Benedicite and the Benediction, as that of Matins does the Te Deum. Both have psalmody and hymns.

LAUDS, in Church music, hymns of praise.

LAURA. A name given to a collection of little cells at some distance from each other, in which the hermits of ancient times lived together in a wilderness. These hermits did not live in community, but each monk provided for himself in his distinct cell. The most celebrated Lauras mentioned in ecclesiastical history were in Palestine; as the Laura of St. Euthymius, St. Saba, the Laura of the Towers, &c. The most ancient monasteries in Ireland were Lauras.

LAVACRUM. (See _Piscina_.)

LAY BAPTISM. (See _Baptism_.) Baptism administered by persons not in holy orders, i. e. by laymen.

It is a first principle in the Church of GOD, that no one has a right to execute any function of the ministry, till he has been lawfully invested with the ministerial office. It is also confessed that the administration of baptism is one of the functions of the ministry. It follows, therefore, that none have a _right_ to administer baptism, but those holding ministerial authority. Here, then, there can be no dispute; laymen have no _right_ to baptize. But what if they _should_ baptize in spite of this virtual interdict? Is there any force or validity in an act done in open violation of a fixed principle of the Church? Here is the important question of the controversy—the very “pith of the matter;” and it resolves itself into this simple inquiry:—Suppose that a layman has no _right_ to baptize, has he also no _ability_? The distinction between these it will be well to keep in view. A man may have _ability_ to do an action without the _right_ to exercise that ability, and so _vice versâ_. And again, a citizen may be in full possession of intellectual and physical qualifications for a public office; but without either _right_ or _ability_ to perform the authoritative acts of such an office, till these are conferred upon him by the superior power. Whence then does a layman derive any _ability_ to baptize? We do not here mean the ability to perform the physical acts of reciting the form, and pouring the water, (for these are in every one’s power,) but that of standing as GOD’S agent in effecting “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;” in conferring remission of sins, and declaring that “_hereby_,” in this very act of usurpation, “children of wrath are made the children of grace.” How can any one, not a lawful minister, possess ability to this extent? With all humility we reply, that we know not, unless the sacrament work _ex opere operato_: and thus the Romish Church is so far consistent in allowing midwives and others to baptize. She does believe that the sacrament works _ex opere operato_; but is it not a little singular that the extremes of ultra-Protestantism and Romanism should here meet? If a layman should perform the external part of ordination, confirmation, absolution, consecration of the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion, that this is null and void, because he has no power over the internal and spiritual part of such offices. If baptism, therefore, be anything more than an external ceremony, the same conclusion would seem to follow, for anything we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. We have no proof that CHRIST ever promised to sanction lay baptism; or that he conferred the power of baptizing on any but the clergy; or that the apostles ever imparted it to any other but clergy; or that CHRIST ever pledged himself to bind or loose in heaven what laymen might bind or loose on earth. To say the least, then, there is very great uncertainty as to the spiritual effect of baptisms administered by those whom neither the Head of the Church, nor his apostles, ever commissioned to baptize. This appears to us a manifest result of the principle from which we started: and, unless that principle be preserved, we see not how the integrity of the Church can be maintained, or how the prerogatives and powers of the ministry can be asserted; or why, except as a mere matter of expediency, there should be any ministry at all. For, if it be granted that though laymen have no _right_ to perform priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they _can_ perform them; i. e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven, equally with those of an empowered ministry; this is to overturn the very foundations of apostolic order; to deprive the clergy of their Divine commission, or to effectually neutralize it; and, finally, to reduce their office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of a mere literary profession, or ecclesiastical employment.

So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the _practice_ of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests, were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who, like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.

How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the _external part_ of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred TRINITY. On proof of this, the concession was made that _so far_ baptism had been given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the _external_ part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that they could communicate its _spiritual graces_; and, therefore, if we mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament, but was endued with remission and the HOLY SPIRIT, by the laying on of the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so, the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.

So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given, in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only received the _form_ of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.” St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal, sanctifying grace of the SPIRIT.” These graces, “heretics and schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, might obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism from those who had no power to give the HOLY GHOST. Innocent says, that ‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give the HOLY GHOST; and therefore such as were baptized by them were imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they might thereby obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST.’” “This,” adds Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such process than that just stated.

In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid. From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by _authorized_ persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism, that they “that be present shall call upon GOD for his grace, and say the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer, and then _one of them_ shall name the child, and dip him in water, or pour water upon him, saying,” &c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of the parish (or in his absence _any other lawful minister_ that can be procured) with them that are present call upon GOD and say the LORD’S Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer. And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.

Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question, we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained ministers of CHRIST have the power and right of administering true baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”

LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.

A _lay-brother_ wears a different habit from that of the religious: he never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of the kitchen, gate, &c.

The institution of _lay-brothers_ began in the eleventh century. The persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not exert itself in spiritual exercises.

In the _nunneries_ there are also _lay-sisters_, who are retained in the convents for the service of the _nuns_, in like manner as the _lay-brothers_ are for that of the _monks_.

LAY-CLERKS. _Clerici Laici._ Singing men so called in the Statutes of the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general, their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons. _Lay-Vicars_ are sometimes incorrectly so styled.

LAY-VICARS. (See _Vicars Choral_.)

LAY-ELDERS. After Calvin had settled the presbyterian form of government at Geneva, and that model was followed elsewhere, laymen were admitted into a share or part of the administration of the Church, under the denomination of _lay-elders_. This sort of officers was utterly unknown in the Church before the sixteenth century, and is now admitted only where the presbyterian government obtains.

LAYING ON OF HANDS. (See _Imposition of Hands_.)

LEAGUE, SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. (See _Confessions of Faith_ and _Covenant_.) This was a compact established in 1643, to form a bond of union between the Scottish and English Presbyterians. Those who took it pledged themselves, without respect of persons, to endeavour the “extirpation of Popery and prelacy, (i. e. church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.” It was opposed by the parliament and assembly at Westminster, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk, in 1645. In 1650, Charles II., under compulsion and hypocritically, declared his approbation of it. The league was ratified by parliament in 1651, and subscription required of every member. At the Restoration it was voted illegal by parliament.

The following is the document which is still bound up with the Westminster Confession, as one of the formularies of the Scottish Establishment, though the ministers are no longer obliged to sign it:—

THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland; agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates, and General Assembly in Scotland; approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament and Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them, _Anno_ 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and subscribed by all Ranks in Scotland and England the same Year; and ratified by Act of the Parliament of Scotland, _Anno_ 1644: And again renewed in Scotland, with an Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to Duties, by all Ranks, _Anno_ 1648, and by Parliament 1649; and taken and subscribed by _King Charles II._ at _Spey, June 23, 1650_; and at _Scoon, January 1, 1651_.

WE Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King, and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of GOD, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and his posterity, and the true publick liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms, wherein every one’s private condition is included: And calling to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power, and presumption are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised, whereof the deplorable state of the church and kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the church and kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies; we have now at last, (after other means of supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings,) for the preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in former times, and the example of GOD’S people in other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear,

I. THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms.

III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our conscience of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.

IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.

V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments; we shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.

VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of GOD, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and, what we are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do as in the sight of God.

And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against GOD, and his Son JESUS CHRIST, as is too manifest by our present distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms: especially, that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel; that we have not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to receive CHRIST in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire, and endeavour for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge, both in publick and in private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy indignation, and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under, or in danger of, the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the kingdom of JESUS CHRIST, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.

LECTURER. Long prior to the Reformation persons were appointed to read lectures, chiefly on the schoolmen, before the universities. Hence they were called _lecturers_. From the universities they passed into monasteries, and eventually into parishes: either upon the settlement of a stipend to support them, or upon voluntary contribution of the inhabitants under the licence of the bishop. The lecture in parish churches was nothing more than a sermon, _extra ordinem_, as being no part of the duty of the incumbent, and therefore delivered at such times as not to interfere with his ministrations. Although lecturers were continued after the Reformation, and we read of Travers being evening lecturer at the Temple in the reign of Elizabeth, the first injunction respecting them is in the canons of James I. In the year 1604 directions for their conduct were issued by Archbishop Bancroft; and in 1622 the Primate Abbot enjoined that no lecturer “should preach upon Sundays and holy-days in the afternoon, but upon some part of the catechism, or some text taken out of the creed, LORD’S Prayer, or ten commandments.” At this period they do not appear to have been numerous; but, about the year 1626, their numbers were much increased by twelve persons having been legally empowered to purchase impropriations belonging to laymen, with the proceeds of which they were allowed to provide parishes, where the clergy were not qualified to preach, with preaching ministers, or _lecturers_. The power thus granted to the feoffees of the impropriations, ostensibly for the good of the Church, was soon abused, and made a handle of by Puritanism in the appointment of unorthodox preachers. Dr. Heylyn, in an act sermon, preached at Oxford, first pointed out the evil of this new society. Accordingly, in 1633, Archbishop Laud procured a bill to be exhibited by the attorney-general in the Court of Exchequer against the feoffees, wherein they were charged with diverting the charity wherewith they were intrusted to other uses, by appointing a morning lecturer, a most violent Puritan, as Clarendon also witnesses, to St. Antholin’s church, London, where no preacher was required; and generally nominating nonconformists to their lectureships. These charges having been established, the court condemned their proceedings, as dangerous to the Church and State, at the same time pronouncing the gifts and feoffments made to such uses illegal; and so dissolved the same, confiscating the money to the king’s use. But this judgment does not appear to have had the desired effect; since we find the bishop of Norwich, three years afterwards, (1636,) certifying that lecturers were very frequent in Suffolk, and many of them set up by private gentlemen, without either consulting the ordinary, or observing the canons and discipline of the Church. The lecturers in the country were also said to run riot, and live wide of discipline. In 1637, therefore, Laud proceeded with increased rigour against them, and obtained the king’s instructions for prohibiting all lecturers preaching, who refused to say the Common Prayer in hood and surplice—a vestment which, being considered by them as a rag of Popery, they refused to wear. So there seems every reason to coincide with the bishop of London in his charge of 1842, wherein he assigns the origin of the disuse of the surplice in preaching to these lecturers. They also introduced the afternoon sermon, and thus, according to Archbishop Wake, were the first to bring into disrepute the venerable custom of catechising. When in 1641 the revenues of archbishops and bishops, deans and chapters, were confiscated, the advowsons and impropriations belonging to them were employed in providing lecturers, who, under the garb of superior sanctity, “turned religion into rebellion, and faith into faction.” For these, their innovations, their avarice, and their faction, lecturers have been somewhat roughly handled by Selden in his _Table Talk_.

After the Restoration their evil influence was sufficiently guarded against by the Act of Uniformity, which enacts that no person shall be allowed or received as a lecturer, unless he declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, and to the use of all the rites, ceremonies, forms, and orders therein contained. It is further enacted, that prayers shall always be said before a lecture is delivered. Archbishop Sheldon (1665) issued the last orders concerning lectures and lecturers. The incumbent may at any time prevent a lecturer preaching by occupying the pulpit himself. Lecturers of parishes are now generally elected by the vestry or principal inhabitants, and are usually afternoon preachers. There are also lecturers in some cathedral churches, as the divinity lectureship at St. Paul’s, now a sinecure, (see _Prælector_,) and several lectureships have been founded by private individuals, such as Lady Moyer’s, Mr. Boyle’s, the Bampton at Oxford, and the Hulsean at Cambridge. The act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 59, intituled “An act for better regulating the offices of lecturers and parish clerks,” authorizes the bishop, with the consent of the incumbent, to require a lecturer or preacher to perform such clerical or ministerial duties, as assistant curate, or otherwise, within the parish, &c., as the bishop, with the assent of the incumbent, shall think proper. The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a clergyman to be licensed.

1. A certificate of his having been duly elected to the office, or an appointment under the hand and seal of the person or persons having power to appoint; on the face of which instrument it should be shown by whom and in what manner the office had been vacated.

2. A certificate signed by the incumbent of the church, of his consent to the election or appointment.

3. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.

4. Letters testimonial, by three beneficed clergymen. (See _form No. 3, for Stipendiary Curates_, adding “and moreover we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be licensed to the said lectureship.”)

Before the licence is granted, the same subscriptions, declarations, and oaths are to be made and taken, as in the case of a licence to a stipendiary curacy, and the lecturer is to read the Thirty-nine Articles.

Within three months after he is licensed, he is to read, in the church where he is appointed lecturer, the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before.

LECTURES. (See _Bampton_, _Boyle_, _Donnellan_, _Hulsean_, _Moyer_, and _Warburton_.)

LECTURN, or LECTERN. The reading desk in the choir of ancient churches and chapels. The earliest examples remaining are of wood, many of them beautifully carved. At a later period it was commonly of brass, often formed of the figure of an eagle with out-spread wings. (See _Reading Desk_ and _Eagle_.)

The lectern in English cathedrals generally stands in the midst of the choir facing westwards. They were formerly more common in collegiate churches and chapels than now, as ancient ground-plans and engravings show. In many places the fine old eagles or carved desks are thrown into a corner and neglected.

When the capitular members read the lessons, they usually do so from the stalls. The regularity of this custom may be doubted; its impropriety is evident. It appears from _Dugd. Mon._ viii. 1257, ed. 1830, that in Lichfield cathedral, all, whether canons or vicars, anciently read the collects and lessons, not from their own stalls, but from the proper place: the dean alone being permitted to read from his stall. At Canterbury the canons now use the lectern.

LEGATE. A person sent or deputed by another to act in his stead, but now confined to those who are deputed by the pope. Of these there are three kinds.

1. _Legati a latere_, cardinals sent _from the side_ or immediate presence, and invested with most of the functions of the Roman pontiff himself. They can absolve the excommunicated, call synods, grant dispensations in cases reserved to the pope, fill up vacant dignities or benefices, and hear ordinary appeals. Otho and Othobon, sent into England by Gregory IX. and Clement IV. in the reign of Henry III., were of this order. The legatine constitutions, or ecclesiastical laws enacted in national synods convened by these cardinals, may be seen in Johnson’s collections. Cardinal Wolsey was also a legate _a latere_, and the bulls of Leo X. and Adrian VI., investing him with that high function, are printed by Rymer, from which we learn that he was empowered to visit the monasteries and the whole clergy of England, as well as to dispense with the laws of the Church for a year. Cardinal Pole was also _legatus a latere_.

2. _Legati nati_ are such as hold the legatine commission _ex officio_, by virtue of office, and till the latter part of the tenth century they were the legates usually employed by the papal power. Before the Reformation, the archbishop of Canterbury was the _legatus natus_ of England. It is a relic of the legatine authority which enables the primate of all England to confer degrees independently of the universities.

3. _Legati dati_, legates _given_, or special legates, hold authority from the pope by special commission, and are, _pro tempore_, superior to the other two orders. They began to be employed after the tenth century, and displayed unbounded arrogance. They held councils, promulgated canons, deposed bishops, and issued interdicts at their discretion. Simple deacons are frequently invested with this office, which at once places them above bishops.

It may be added, that the functions of a legate do not commence till he is forty miles distant from Rome. The first legate sent into England was John, precentor of St. Paul’s, and abbot of the monastery of St. Martin. He was deputed by Agutho, bishop of Rome, to Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, in 679. The first legate in Ireland was Gille, or Gillebert, bishop of Limerick early in the twelfth century. The Roman chants were introduced by him into Britain.

It was one of the ecclesiastical privileges of England, from the Norman Conquest, that no foreign legate should be obtruded upon the English, unless the king should desire it, upon some extraordinary emergency, as when a case was too difficult for the English prelates to determine. Hence, in the reign of Henry II., when Cardinal Vivian, who was sent legate into Scotland, Ireland, and Norway, arrived in England on his journey thither, the king sent the bishops of Winchester and Ely to ask him by whose authority he ventured into the kingdom without his leave: nor was he suffered to proceed till he had given an oath not to stretch his commission beyond his Highness’s pleasure in any particular.

LEGENDS. (_Legenda._) By this word we are to understand those idle and ridiculous stories which the Romanists tell concerning their saints, and other persons, in order to support the credit of their religion.

The _Legend_ was, originally, a book used in the old Romish churches, containing the lessons that were to be read at Divine service. Hence the lives of saints and martyrs came to be called _legends_, because chapters were to be read out of them at matins, and in the refectories of the religious houses. The _Golden Legend_ is a collection of the lives of the saints, composed by James de Varase, better known by his Latin name of John de Voragine, or Varagnie, vicar-general of the Dominicans, and afterwards archbishop of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was received in the Church of Rome with great applause, which it maintained for 200 years; but, in truth, it is so full of ridiculous and romantic stories, that the Romanists themselves are ashamed of them.

The Romish _Breviaries_ are full of legendary stories, which are appointed to be read on the saints’ days; which, being almost as numerous as the days in the year, there is hardly a day free from having idle tales mixed in its service. However, there have been considerable reformations made in this matter, several legends having been from time to time retrenched, insomuch that the service of the Church of Rome is much freer from these fooleries than formerly.

But, besides these written legends, there are others which may be called traditionary; by which we mean those idle stories which are delivered by word of mouth, and with which every traveller is entertained in his passage through Popish countries. We will just give the reader a specimen of these legends from Skippon.

At Mentz, in Germany, they relate that a drunken fellow swearing he would kill the first man he met, a crucifix coming by him, he struck at it with his sword, which drew blood from the crucifix, and the fellow immediately sunk up to the knees in the ground, where he stood till the magistrates apprehended him.

At Landsberg, in Bavaria, the Franciscans show a crucifix in their church over the altar, which, they pretend, a fellow spewed upon, and immediately the devil carried him away through the south wall, a round window being made where the hole was.

At Aix-la-Chapelle, in Germany, is a church of our Lady, on the south side of which is a great pair of brass gates, one of which has a crack in the brass, occasioned, as the legend says, thus:—When Charlemagne began the building of this church, the devil came and asked him what he intended; the emperor told him he designed a gaming-house, which the devil being very well satisfied with, went away. The emperor having set up some altar-tables, the devil came again, and inquired what these meant; Charlemagne replied, they were only for gamesters to play on, which encouraged the devil to give his assistance toward the building. Accordingly, he brought a great pair of brass gates on his shoulders; but, seeing a crucifix, he took to his heels, letting the gates fall, one of which in the fall received the crack, which is still shown.

At Milan, they tell you that St. Ambrose, who was bishop of that city, after a fight between the Catholics and the Arians, prayed that it might be revealed how to distinguish the bodies of one party from the other. His request was granted, and he found all the Catholics with their faces upwards, and the Arians with their faces downward.

At St. Agatha, a city of Calabria, is a chapel, in which they show a piece of a pillar, kept in a glass case, which they say shined when St. Paul preached there. It was broken by the Turks, when they took this place, and this piece was kept at Messina till they brought it hither. The Jesuits would have carried it to their college, but several men, they pretend, could not stir it; nevertheless, when it was resolved to place it in this chapel, one man’s strength was sufficient.

We will add but one legend more. At Malta they tell this story. Three Maltese knights were taken prisoners by the Turks, and carried before the Grand Seignior, who endeavoured, by sending priests to them, to convert them from the Christian religion; but they continued stedfast. The Grand Seignior’s daughter observing them, fell in love with them, and told her father she would endeavour their conversion. After this, she discovered to them her affection; but they informed her of their obligation to live chastely, and discoursed about the Christian religion, and their order, and promised to show her the true representation of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, they undertook to carve a piece of wood; but none of them being skilful in that art, they prayed for assistance, and suddenly appeared the image of the Virgin shaped exactly like her. Upon the sight of this, the princess turned Christian, and procuring the means of their escape, went away with them, and placed herself in a nunnery.—_Broughton._

LEGION, THUNDERING. In the wars of the Romans, under the emperor Marcus Antoninus, with the Marcomanni, the Roman troops being surrounded by the enemy, and in great distress from intense thirst, in the midst of a burning desert, a legion of Christians, who served in the army, imploring the merciful interposition of CHRIST, suddenly a storm with thunder and lightning came on, which refreshed the fainting Romans with its seasonable rain, while the lightning fell among the enemy, and destroyed many of them. The Christian legion to whose prayers this miraculous interposition was granted, was (according to the common account) thenceforth called _The Thundering Legion_.

LEIRE. (Probably a corruption of the old French _lieure_, for _livre_, a book.) A Service Book. “Two great _leires_, garnished with stones, and two lesser _leires_, garnished with stones and pearls,” are mentioned among the furniture of the communion table of the Royal Chapel, 1565, in Leland’s Collectania, vol. ii. pp. 691, 692, 1770.—_Jebb._

LENT. (A Teutonic word: in German, _Lenz_, the “Spring.”) The holy seasons appointed by the Church will generally be found to date their rise from some circumstance in the life of our LORD, some event in Scripture history, or a desire to keep in remembrance the virtues and piety of the saints who adorned the early Church. But the origin of the season of Lent is not so obvious, though it is usually supposed that Lent is observed in commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S temptation and fasting of forty days in the wilderness. It is most probable that the Christian Lent originated from a regard to those words of the REDEEMER, “the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” We learn from the history of the Church that the primitive Christians considered, that in this passage CHRIST has alluded to the institution of a particular season of fasting and prayer in his future Church. Accordingly they, in the first instance, began this solemn period on the afternoon of the day on which they commemorated the _crucifixion_, and continued it until the morning of that of the _resurrection_. The whole interval would thus be only about forty hours. But by degrees this institution suffered a considerable change, different however at different times and places. From the forty hours, or the two days, originally observed, it was extended to other additional days, but with great variety in their number, according to the judgment of the various Churches. Some fasted three days in the week before Easter, some four, and others six. A little after, some extended the fast to three weeks, and others to six, and other Churches appointed certain portions of seven weeks in succession. The result of all this was the eventual fixing of the time at forty days, commencing on the Wednesday in the seventh week before Easter, and excluding the intermediate Sundays. It is not, however, to be supposed that the Church remained long in uncertainty on this point, for it appears that the Lent of forty days can be traced to a period very near that of the apostles. That its term of forty days was settled at a very early period, is evident from the writings of the bishops of those times, who refer us, in vindication of it, to the example of Moses, Elias, and our LORD, all of whom fasted forty days. From all this, then, we arrive at the conclusion, that though fasting is frequently alluded to in the Scriptures as a Christian duty, yet the _set times_ for it are to be referred solely to the authority of the Church. It may here be remarked, that the name we apply to this season is derived from the time of the year when it occurs. The term _Lent_, in the Saxon language, signifies _Spring_; and, as we use it, indicates merely the spring fast, preparatory to the rising of CHRIST from the grave.

The Lenten fast does not embrace _all_ the days included between Ash Wednesday and Easter, for the _Sundays_ are so many days above the number of forty. They are excluded, because the LORD’S day is always held as a _festival_, and never as a _fast_. These six Sundays are, therefore, called Sundays _in_ Lent, not Sundays _of_ Lent. They are in the midst of it, but do not form part of it. On them we continue, without interruption, to celebrate our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.

The principal days of Lent are, the first day, Passion Week, and particularly the Thursday and Friday in that week. The first day of Lent was formerly called the _head of the fast_, and also by the name which the Church retains—Ash Wednesday. In the Church of England there is a solemn service appointed for Ash Wednesday, under the title of a “Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners.” This was designed to occupy, as far as could be, the place of the ancient penitential discipline, as is sufficiently declared in the beginning of the office in the English Prayer Book. The last week of Lent, called Passion Week, has always been considered as its most solemn season. It is called the Great Week, from the important transactions which are then commemorated; and Holy Week, from the increase of devotional exercises among believers. The Thursday in Passion Week is that on which we celebrate the institution of the LORD’S supper. The Epistle for the day has been selected by the Church with a view to this fact. On the following day we commemorate the sufferings, and particularly the death, of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. And, from the mighty and blessed effects of these, in the redemption of man, the day is appropriately called Good Friday. As this day has been kept holy by the Church from the earliest times, so has it also been made a time of the strictest devotion and humiliation.

The general design of this institution is thus set forth by St. Chrysostom: “Why do we fast these forty days? Many heretofore were used to come to the communion indevoutly, and inconsiderately, especially at this time, when CHRIST first gave it to his disciples. Therefore our forefathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless approaches, meeting together, appointed forty days for fasting and prayer, and hearing of sermons, and for holy assemblies; that all men in these days being carefully purified by prayer and alms-deeds, and fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and other the like exercises, might come, according to their capacity, with a pure conscience, to the holy table.”

But if we inquire more particularly into the reasons of instituting the Lent fast, we shall find them to be these following: First, the apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master. For this reason, the ancients observed these two days in which our Saviour lay in the grave, with the greatest strictness. Secondly, the declension of Christian piety from its first and primitive fervour. Thirdly, that the catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism, and the penitents for absolution; Easter being one of the settled times of baptizing the catechumens, and absolving the penitents.

This solemn season of fasting was universally observed by all Christians, though with a great liberty, and a just allowance for men’s infirmities; and this was in a great measure left to their own discretion. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and custom was for them to observe it. On the other hand, bodily infirmity and weakness were always admitted as a just apology for their non-observance of it.

The manner of observing Lent, among those who were piously disposed to observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening. Whence it is natural to conclude, that the pretence of keeping Lent only by a change of diet from flesh to fish, is but a mock fast, and an innovation utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent fast was a strict and rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their refreshment was only a supper, and then it was indifferent whether it was flesh, or any other food, provided it was used with sobriety and moderation. But there was no general rule about this matter, as appears from the story which Sozomen tells of Spiridion, bishop of Trimithus in Cyprus: that a stranger once happening to call upon him in Lent, he, having nothing in his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be dressed and set before him: but the stranger refusing to eat flesh, saying he was a Christian; Spiridion replied, For that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it; for the word of GOD has pronounced all things clean to them that are clean.

Lent was thought the proper season for exercising more abundantly all sorts of charity. Thus what they spared from their own bodies, by abridging them of a meal, was usually given to the poor. They likewise employed their vacant hours in visiting the sick and imprisoned, in entertaining strangers, and reconciling differences. The imperial laws forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, which might bring them to corporal punishment and torture, during this whole season. Lent was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devotion; and therefore, in many of the great churches, they had religious assemblies for prayer and preaching every day. They had also frequent communions at this time, at least on every sabbath and LORD’S day. All public games and stage-plays were prohibited at this season; as also the celebration of all festivals, birthdays, and marriages, as unsuitable to the present occasion.

These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent fast, when it was come to the length of forty days. But there was one week, called the _Hebdomas magna_, or the _Great Week_ before Easter, which they observed with a greater strictness and solemnity than all the rest. This is usually called the _Passion Week_, because it was the week in which our SAVIOUR _suffered_. (See _Passion Week_.)

The Christians of the Greek Church observe _four Lents_. The first commences on the fifteenth of November, or forty days before Christmas. The second is our Lent, which immediately precedes Easter. The third begins the week after Whitsunday, and continues till the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul. The number of days therefore comprised in the Lent is not settled and determined, but they are more or less, according as Whitsunday falls sooner or later. Their fourth Lent commences the first of August, and lasts no longer than till the fifteenth. These Lents are observed with great strictness and austerity. On Saturdays and Sundays they indulge themselves in drinking wine and using oil, which are prohibited on other days.

Lent was first commanded to be observed, in England, by Ercombert, seventh king of Kent (A. D. 640–660). No meat was, formerly, to be eaten in Lent, but by licence, under certain penalties. And butchers were not to kill flesh in Lent, except for victualling of ships, &c.—_Compiled from various authorities._

LESSONS, among ecclesiastical writers, are portions of the Holy Scriptures read in churches at the time of Divine service. In the ancient Church, reading the Scriptures was one part of the service of the catechumens, at which all persons were allowed to be present in order to obtain instruction.

The lessons in the unreformed offices are in general very short. Nine lessons are appointed to be read at matins on Sundays, and three on every week-day, besides a chapter, or capitular, at each of the six daily services. But of the nine Sunday lessons, only three are from Scripture, the six others being extracts from homilies or martyrologies. At matins only is there anything like a continuous lesson read. The capitula or lectioner verses at the other services, are each nothing more than one verse (very rarely two short verses) from Scripture, and these are seldom varied. As to the matin lessons, they do not on an average consist of more than three verses each: for though the three lessons are generally in sequence, the sense is interrupted by the interposition between each lesson of a responsory, versicles, and the Gloria Patri, so that edification is hereby effectually hindered, as is remarked in the Preface to our Common Prayer, “Concerning the Service of the Church.”—_Jebb._

The Church of England in the appointment of lessons observes two different courses; one for ordinary days, and another for holy-days. On ordinary days she begins the course of her first lessons with the book of Genesis, in the beginning of her civil year, January; and proceeds regularly through the greatest part of the Bible. Isaiah alone is not read in the order in which it stands; our Church reserving the evangelical prophet, in conformity to primitive usage, to be read in the season of Advent. Before Isaiah, and after the other canonical Scriptures, the Church substitutes some apocryphal lessons in the room of the canonical Scripture that has been omitted.

But though the most part of the Bible is read through every year once, yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left unread for reasons that sufficiently appear.

Of Genesis, (containing 50 chapters,) 10, 11, and 36 are not read; 10 and 36, evidently, because they contain little else than genealogies. The first nine verses of chapter 11, giving an account of a most extraordinary display of the Divine power, the confusion of tongues at Babel, is received into the table of lessons for holy days, viz. Monday in Whitsun week. Of Exodus, (40 chapters,) the first 24 chapters are read, excepting some repetitions and genealogies in the latter part of