That such is the real doctrine of the Church of England—in other words, that she teaches a predestination to life, not direct and immediate, but indirect and mediate—inevitably follows from the circumstance that, while in her sixteenth Article she hints at the possibility of the elect individually departing from grace given, in her Homilies and in her Burial Service, she distinctly states, that the elect, in her sense of the word, may, in their individual capacity, fall away utterly, and thus perish finally. Now, this statement is palpably incompatible with the tenet of a direct and immediate predestination of individuals to eternal life; for individuals, so predestinated, could not, by the very terms of their predestination, fall away utterly and irrecoverably. Therefore, the predestination to life, mentioned in the seventeenth Article, can only mean an indirect and mediate predestination of individuals; or, in other words, it can only mean a predestination of individuals to eternal life, through the medium of election into the Catholic Church; inGod’severlasting purpose and intention indeed; but still, (sinceGod, in executing his purpose and intention, operates upon the minds of his intelligent creatures not physically, but morally,) with a possibility of their defeating that merciful purpose and intention, and thence of their finally falling away to everlasting destruction.
As the article, in connexion with the other documents of the Anglican Church, must, unless we place them in irreconcilable collision with each other, be understood to propound the doctrine of predestination after the manner and in the sense which has been specified; so it distinctly enjoins us to receiveGod’spromises, as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture.
The wordgenerallyin this place is not opposed tounusually, but toparticularly, and signifies generically. And the other documents of the Church of England agree with this interpretation of the seventeenth Article.
We may refer, in the first instance, to the peculiar phraseology introduced intothe office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation: sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin: and grant that this child, now to be baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, throughJesus ChristourLord.”
Thus, in systematically generalizing phraseology, runs the prayer. Now the same prayer is recited over every child. Consequently, by the inevitable force of the word “remain” as here used, every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is declared to be, at that time, one of the number ofGod’select.
But the largest charity cannot believe that every child, baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is elect in the sense of election as jointly maintained by Calvin and Arminius.
Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of her own explicit phraseology, the idea which the English Church annexes to the term election, can only be that of ecclesiastical individual election.
The matter is yet additionally established by the parallel phraseology, which occurs in the somewhat more modern office of Adult Baptism.
With the sole requisite alteration of “this person” for “this child,” the prayer is copied verbatim from the older office. Every adult, therefore, who is baptismally introduced into the pale of the Church, is, as such, declared to be one of the number ofGod’select people.
The same matter is still further established by the strictly homogeneous language of the Catechism.
Each questioned catechumen, who, as an admitted member of the Church, has already, in the baptismal office, been declared to be one of the elect, is directed to reply: that, as a chief article of the faith propounded in the Creed, he has learned “to believe inGodtheHoly Ghost, who sanctifieth” him “and all the elect people ofGod.”
Now, such an answer plainly makes every catechumen declare himself to be one of the elect.
But, in no conceivable sense which will harmonize with the general phraseology of the Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiastical individual election only, can every catechumen be deemed one ofGod’select people.
Therefore the idea which to the Scriptural term election, is annexed by the Church of England, is that of ecclesiastical individual election.
The matter is also established by the parallel phraseology introduced into the Burial Service.
“We beseech thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory, throughJesus ChristourLord.”
In this prayer, the generic term “we” occurs in immediate connexion with “the number of thineelect.”
Therefore the evidently studied arrangement of the words, enforces the conclusion that every member of the Church, as designated by the term “we,” must be deemed one ofGod’select people.
Finally, the same matter is established, even in the familiar course of daily recitation, by the language of the very liturgy itself.
“Endue thy ministers with righteousness: and make thy chosen people joyful.
“OLord, save thy people: and bless thine inheritance.”
Now, who are the “chosen people,” whom theLordis here supplicated to “make joyful?”
Can we reasonably pronounce them, in the judgment of the Anglican Church, to be certain individuals of each actually praying congregation, who, in contradistinction to other individuals of the same congregation, are predestinated, either absolutely or previsionally, to eternal life?
Assuredly, the whole context forbids so incongruous a supposition; for, assuredly, the whole context requires us to pronounce, that “thy chosen people” are identical with “thine inheritance.”
But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies “thine inheritance” with the Catholic Church.
Therefore, “thy chosen people” and the Catholic Church are terms, in point of import, identical. (SeePerseverance.)
ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (SeeBishops.)
ELEMENTS. The materials used in the sacraments, appointed for that purpose by ourLordhimself. Thus water is the element of baptism, and bread and wine are the elements of the eucharist. With respect to the elements of the eucharist, it is ordered by the Church of England that, “when there is a communion, the priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;”Then, that is, after the offertory,and after presenting the basin with the alms. This rubric being added to our liturgy at the last review, at the same time with the word “oblations,” in the prayer following, it is clearly evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer solemnly toGodas an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first madeGod’sby a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man’s, but asGod’sprovisions, who by thus entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled, and again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessedSaviour, when he instituted the new sacrament of his own body and blood, first gave thanks and blessed the elements; that is, offered them up toGodasLordof the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the communion toGodupon the altar by this or some short ejaculation: “Lord, we offer thee thine own out of what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son.
In the ancient Church they had generally a side table, orprothesis, near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of the communion service was over. Now, though we have not always a side table, and there is no express provision for one made in the Church of England, yet in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the priest himself was ordered, in this place, to set both bread and wine upon the altar; but at the review in 1551, this and several other pious usages were thrown out, in condescension to ultra-Protestant superstition. (SeeCredence.) After which the Scotch liturgy was the first wherein we find it restored; and Mr. Mede having observed our liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion, that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set solemnly on the table by the priest himself. It appears, indeed, that the traditional practice of the immediately preceding times maintained its ground in many places after the alteration of the rubric; (seeHicke’s Treatises, i. 127–129, 322–324;) but the history of the change gives so marked a character to our present rubric, that a neglect of it is clearly a violation of the priest’s obligation to conformity. If the priest thus offends the consciences of the more enlightened members of a congregation, they should point out to him his mistake, which can only proceed from traditional negligence. In the coronation service of Queen Victoria, after the reading of the sentences in the Offertory, this rubric occurs. “And first the Queen offers bread and wine for the communion, which being brought out of King Edward’s chapel, and delivered into her hands, the bread upon the paten by the bishop who read the Epistle, and the wine in the chalice by the bishop that read the Gospel, are by the archbishop received from the Queen, and reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair linen cloth, the archbishop first saying this prayer,” &c. (SeeOblationandOffertory.)—SeeWheatly.
ELEVATION. In architecture, a representation of a building, or of any portion of it, as it would appear if it were possible that the eye should be exactly opposite every part of it at the same time.
ELEVATION OF THE HOST. This Romish ceremony, condemned in our twenty-fifth Article, is not, comparatively speaking, an ancient rite. The Roman ritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV., Le Brun, &c., acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence before the eleventh or twelfth century in the West. The Ordo Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, and Micrologus, make no mention of the rite, though the last of these ritualists lived at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is, that no certain documents refer to it until the beginning of the thirteenth century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in the twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop of Paris, about 1200, appoint this elevation, and it was probably then first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent III., who wrote on the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century, does not speak of it; but, in the time of Honorius III., it had come into use, for he mentions it in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch,A. D.1219, where he commands that, at the elevation, the people should reverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet.” Thiswas inserted in the decretals (c.sanede celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX., his successor, and thus became the law of the West. It is spoken of by Bonaventure, Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, in the latter part of the same century; and Cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.
We know then, that, in the thirteenth century, the host was elevated, and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But if we are to judge by the authorities referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the writers of that and the following ages did not always interpret this as designed for the adoration of the elements, or even ofChristin the eucharist. Bonaventure (A. D.1270) assigns eight reasons for the elevation, some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the people on the occasion; but he does not notice the adoration of the elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to be rung at the elevation, that the people might be excited to pray: not to worship the host. “Præcipitur quod in celebratione missarum, quando corpusChristielevatur, in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem excitentur.” Cardinal Guido (A. D.1265) ordained, that at the elevation all the people should pray for pardon. “Bonam illic consuetudinem instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiæ omnis populus in ecclesia ad sonitum nolæ veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis benedictionem prostratus jaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D.1536) explained the people’s duty at the elevation to consist, in remembering theLord’sdeath, and returning him thanks with minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationem consecrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini ... tum videretur silendum, et ab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi corporibus, animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæ agendæChristoRedemptori, qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque redemit.”
On the other hand, Durand, (1286,) Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod of Augsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius, one of the papal legates at the synod of Trent, understood the prostration of the people as designed for the adoration ofChristas present in the eucharist. Certainly this has latterly become the common opinion, but from what has been said above it appears that, before the Reformation, and afterwards, many persons at the elevation directed their worship toGodandChristsimply, without any exclusive reference to the presence ofChristin the eucharist.—Palmer.
EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, after the first Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday, the 14th of September, and the 13th of December, all being fasting days; the Sundays following these days being the stated times of ordination in the Church. It is to be remarked, that the Sunday in December which begins the Ember week is always the third Sunday in Advent. The week in which these days fall are called Ember week. But as Sunday begins the week, the Ember collect is always to be read on the Sunday preceding the Ember days, not on that which follows them, as is sometimes erroneously done.
The derivation of the name is uncertain. It has been supposed by some to signify “ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” in allusion to the ancient custom connected with fasting. The fact that the Ember weeks return at stated periods, has led others to trace the name to a Saxon word signifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In the Western Church they were denominated “the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and from this comes another, and perhaps the most probable, illustration—the Latinquatuor tempora(four seasons) being abbreviated into the Germanquatemperorquatember, and again, into the Englishember. On these days the design of the Church is to call her members, by prayer and fasting, to invoke the Divine aid and blessing on the choice and commission of ministers of the gospel. The deep interest every Christian heart should feel in a matter of such infinite moment, should secure for these days the pious observance of the members of the Church.
EMBLEM. A visible, and usually an ornamental, symbol of some spiritual thing; of some great truth concerning the object of a Christian’s worship, of some object of his faith and hope, or of some mystery or privilege.
The use of emblems, under which the truths of Christianity were veiled from the heathen, while they were presented vividly to the minds of the faithful, is probably as old as Christianity itself: and the fancy of pious persons has continued it to the present day; many particular emblems having been so generally and almost universally used, as to have been interwoven almost with the very external habit of the Church itself. Among the most apt and venerable may be mentioned, the trine compass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)
“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”
“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”
“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”
“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”
or a circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle; denoting the co-equality and co-eternity of the three Divine persons in the ever blessed and undivided Trinity: the hand extended from the clouds in the attitude of benediction, for the first Person in the Trinity: the Lamb triumphant, the fish, (seePiscis,) the pelican wounding her own breast to feed her young, and others, for theSonofGod,Jesus ChristourLord: the dove, for theHoly Ghost. The chalice receiving the blood of the wounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist: the phœnix rising from the flames, for the resurrection: the cross, for the Christian’s life of conflict; the crown, for his hope of glory. All these are beautifully significant, and are very innocent in their use, as well as pious in their intention.
It is of the essence of a proper emblem that it be not, nor pretend to be, a simple representation. It then loses its allusive character, and becomes a mere picture of the thing itself. In theology there is another reason why this should be avoided: for when we attempt a representation of any object of Christian worship, we too nearly fall into idolatry. Hence the cross is admissible where the crucifix is not: and the not unfrequent representation of the Holy Trinity, in which theFatheris represented as a man, supporting theLord Jesuson the cross, is shocking to the reverent eye. For the like reasons the representations of the holy eucharist, under the old figure of a crucifix pouring blood into four cups placed to receive it, is very objectionable.
With regard to the use of emblems, they still afford very happy ornaments for churches and church furniture, especially perhaps for painted windows. In the primitive Church, the pious sometimes carried them on their persons. Clement of Alexandria has mentioned some which we ought to avoid, and others which we may employ; of which latter we may name a dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a full breeze, and an anchor. As the reason of the rule which he gives still holds, we may refer to hisPædag.iii. 11.
EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. A Hebrew word, which signifies “Godwith us.” Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebrated prophecy, in which he foretells to Ahaz the birth of theMessiahfrom a virgin, says, This child shall be calledEmmanuel,Godwith us. He repeats this while speaking of the enemy’s army, which, like a torrent, was to overflow Judea: “The stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land,O Emmanuel.” St. Matthew (i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy was accomplished in the birth ofChrist, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the two natures, Divine and human, were united; so that he was reallyEmmanuel, or “Godwith us.”
ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kept on the days on which cities were built, or churches consecrated; and in later times, ceremonies renewed at certain periods, as at Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebration of founders and benefactors.
ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. A name given to a sect in the second century, because they condemned marriage, forbade the eating of flesh or drinking of wine, and rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and conveniences of life. Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin Martyr, was the leader of this sect. He was greatly distinguished for his genius and learning, and the excessive austerity of his life and manners. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and therefore recommended in a peculiar manner the mortification of the body. He distinguished the Creator of the world from the Supreme Being, denied the reality ofChrist’sbody, and blended the Christian religion with several corrupt tenets of the Oriental philosophy.
ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, fromἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sense denotes persons under the motion or operation of any spirit whatever, good or bad; but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiastical writers to denote persons whose bodies are possessed by an evil spirit. Mention is often made in the primitive Church, of persons possessed of an evil spirit. The regulations of the Church bestowed upon them special care. They constituted a distinct class of Christians, bearing some relation both to the catechumens and the faithful; but differing from both in this, that they were under the special oversight and direction of exorcists, while they took part in some of the religious exercises of both classes.
Catechumens who, during their probationary exercises, became demoniacs, were never baptized until thoroughly healed, except in case of extreme sickness. Believers who became demoniacs, in the worst stage of their disease, like the weeping penitents, were not permitted to enter the church; but were retained under close inspection in the outer porch. When partially recovered they were permitted, with theaudientes, to join in public worship,but they were not permitted to partake of the eucharist until wholly restored, except in the immediate prospect of death. In general, the energumens were subject to the same rules as the penitents.—Bingham.
ENGLAND. (SeeChurch of England.)
ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. An apocryphal book, of which there remains but a few fragments.
Enoch was certainly one of the most illustrious prophets of the first world, since Moses says of him, that he “walked withGod.” (Gen. v. 24.) This prophet is famed in the Church for two things: the first is, his being taken up into heaven without seeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second is, his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Jude has cited in his Epistle. (Ver. 14.) The ancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy of Enoch. Tertullian expresses his concern, that it was not generally received in the world. That Father, on the authority of this book, deduces the original of idolatry, astrology, and unlawful arts, from the revolted angels, who married with the daughters of men. And it is on the testimony of this book, that the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Irenæus, Cyprian, Lactantius, received for true this fable of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men. St. Augustine, who was less credulous, allows, indeed, that Enoch wrote something divine because he is cited by St. Jude; but he says, it was not without reason that this book was not inserted in the Canon, which was preserved in the temple of Jerusalem, and committed to the care of the sacrificators. St. Augustine sufficiently insinuates, that the authority of this book is doubtful, and that it cannot be proved that it was really written by Enoch. Indeed the account it gives of giants engendered by angels, and not by men, has manifestly the air of a fable; and the most judicious critics believe it ought not to be ascribed to Enoch.De Habitu Mulier.c. iii.De Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 23.
This apocryphal book lay a long time buried in darkness; till the learned Joseph Scaliger recovered a part of it. That author gives us some considerable fragments of it, in his notes on the chronicle of Eusebius; particularly in relation to the above-mentioned story of the marriage of the angels with the daughters of men.
Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learned men, attribute this work to one of those Jews, who lived in the times between the Babylonish captivity and our SaviourJesus Christ. Others are of opinion, it was written after the rise and establishment of Christianity, by one of those fanatics, with whom the primitive Church was filled, who made a ridiculous mixture of the Platonic philosophy and the Christian divinity: such as the authors, or forgers, of the Sibylline Oracles, the Dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus, and the like. The reasons of this opinion are these. 1. The original of the book is Greek; and therefore it was not composed by any Jew, living in Judea, or Chaldea; for they always wrote in Hebrew, or in some of its dialects. 2. It is evident the author was a Christian, because he makes perpetual allusions to the texts of the New Testament. It is therefore, probably, the invention of some Christian, who took occasion from the Epistle of St. Jude to forge this work. As for St. Jude himself, it is probable he cites what concerns the general judgment, not from any book then subsisting under the name of Enoch, but from tradition.—Jurieu, Hist. des Dogmes et Cultes, part i. c. 4.
ENTHRONISATION. (SeeBishop.) The placing of a bishop in his stall or throne in his cathedral.
A distinction is sometimes made between the enthronisation of an archbishop and a bishop, the latter being calledinstallation: but this appears to be a mere refinement of the middle ages, of which we have many such.—Jebb.
EPACT. In chronology, and in the tables for the calculation of Easter, a number indicating the excess of the solar above the lunar year. The solar year consisting, in round numbers, of 365 days, and the lunar of twelve months, of twenty-nine and a half days each, or 354 days, there will be an overplus in the solar year of eleven days, and this constitutes theEpact. In other words, the epact of any year expresses the number of days from the last new moon of the old year (which was the beginning of the present lunar year) to the first of January. In the first year, therefore, it will be 0; in the second 11 days; in the third twice 11 or 22; and in the fourth it would be 11 days more, or 33; but 30 days being a synodical month, will in that year be intercalated, making thirteen synodical months, and the remaining three is then the epact. In the following year, 11 will again be added, making fourteen for the epact, and so on to the end of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact of the last year, and always rejecting thirty, by counting it as an additional month. The epact is inserted in the table of moveable feasts in the Prayer Book.
EPHOD, a sort of ornament or upper garment, worn by the Hebrew priests.The wordאפוד,ephod, is derived fromאפד,aphad, which signifies togird, ortie, for the ephod was a kind of girdle which, brought from behind the neck, and over the two shoulders, and hanging down before, was put cross upon the stomach; then carried round the waist, and made use of as a girdle to the tunic. There were two sorts of ephods, one of plain linen for the priests, and another embroidered for the high priest. As there was nothing singular in that used by common priests, Moses does not dwell upon the description of it, but of that belonging to the high priest he gives us a large and particular account. (Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.) It was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson, and twisted cotton: upon that part of it which passed over the shoulders were two large precious stones, one on each shoulder, upon which were engraven the names of the twelve tribes, six upon each stone; and, where the ephod crossed upon the high priest’s breast, there was a square ornament called the pectoral, or breastplate.
St. Jerome observes, that the ephod was peculiar to the priesthood; and it was an opinion among the Jews, that no sort of worship, true or false, could subsist without a priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah, having made an idol and placed it in his house, did not fail to make an ephod for it. (Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea, (iii. 4,) that the Israelites should be for a long time without kings, princes, sacrifices, altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah, speaking of the false gods who were worshipped by the Israelites, ascribes ephods to them.
The ephod is often taken for the pectoral or breastplate, and for the Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to it, because all this belonged to the ephod, and made but one piece with it. Though the ephod was properly an ecclesiastical habit, yet we find it sometimes worn by laymen. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a linen ephod. (1 Sam. ii. 18.) And David, in the ceremony of removing the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam. vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were not allowed to wear the ephod; but in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little time before the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Levites obtained of that prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests. The historian observes, that this was an innovation contrary to the laws of their country, which were never struck at with impunity.
Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to wear the ephod, because David coming to Ziglag, and finding that the Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s wives, ordered Abiathar the high priest to bring him the ephod, which being done, David inquired of theLord, saying, “Shall I pursue after this troop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whence they infer that David consultedGodby Urim and Thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. The generality of commentators believe, that David did not dress himself in the high priest’s ephod, and that the text signifies no more than that the king ordered Abiathar to put on the ephod, and consultGodfor him.
The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having become the occasion of a new kind of idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii. 27.) What this consisted in, is matter of dispute among the learned. Some authors are of opinion that this ephod, as it is called, was an idol; others, that it was only a trophy in memory of that signal victory; and that the Israelites paid a kind of Divine worship to it, so that Gideon was the innocent cause of their idolatry; in like manner as Moses was, when he made the brazen serpent, which came afterwards to be worshipped.
EPIGONATON. An appendage of a lozenge shape, somewhat resembling a small maniple, worn on the right side, depending from the girdle. It is considered to represent the napkin with which our blessedLordgirded himself at the last supper, and has embroidered on it either a cross or the head of ourLord. In the Romish Church its use is confined to the pope. In the Greek Church it is used by all bishops. The epigonaton does not occur in the sacerdotal vestments of the English Church.—Palmer.
EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestation ofChristto the Gentiles, is commemorated in the Church on the 6th of January, and denotes the day on which the wise men came from the East to worship the infantJesus. (Matt. ii. 2.) Let us be thankful for the light of the gospel, which on that day began to shine on those who sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt. iv. 16.)
The word epiphany is derived from the compound verbἐπιφαίνω, which signifies tomanifestordeclare. The Epiphany is observed as a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
The feast of Epiphany was not, originally, a distinct festival, but made a part ofthat of the nativity ofChrist; which being celebrated twelve days, the first and last of which, according to the custom of the Jews in their feasts, were high or chief days of solemnity, either of these might fitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifies the appearance ofChristin the world.
This festival was, in one respect, more taken notice of, in the Greek Church, than the Nativity itself, being allowed as one of the three solemn times of baptism, which the Nativity was not; a privilege which it wanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom tells us, that, this being likewise the day of ourSaviour’sbaptism, it was usual to carry home water, at midnight, from the church, and that it would remain as fresh and uncorrupt for one, two, or three years, as if immediately drawn from the spring.—Homil. 24, de Bapt. Christi.
Theodosius the Younger gave this festival an honourable place among those days, on which the public games were not allowed; and Justinian made it a day of vacation from all pleadings at law, as well as from popular pleasures. It is to be observed, likewise, that those to whom the care of the Paschal cycle, or rule for finding Easter, was committed, were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give public notice when Easter and Lent were to be kept the ensuing year.—Cod. Theod.lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5.Cod. Just.lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 6.
EPISCOPACY. (SeeBishopsandOrders.) The ancient apostolical form of Church government, consisting in the superintendency of one over several other church officers. Bishops were always allowed to be of an order superior to presbyters; and, indeed, having all the powers that presbyters have, and some more peculiar to themselves, they must be of a different order necessarily. It is their peculiar office to ordain, which never was allowed to presbyters; and, anciently, the presbyter acted in dependence upon the bishop in the administration of theLord’ssupper and baptism, and even in preaching, in such manner that he could not do it regularly without the bishop’s approbation.
Our Church asserts, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the order of bishops was “from the apostles’ time;” referring us to those texts of Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical Epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order. And of a great many which might be alleged these are some. In the short history which we have of the apostles, we find them exercising all the peculiar offices of the episcopal order. They ordain church ministers: “And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) They confirm baptized persons: “Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive theHoly Ghost” (viii. 15). They excommunicate notorious offenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v. 5.) The like episcopal powers we find in Scripture committed to others, whom, from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, we judge to have been advanced to that order. Not only a power of ordination, but a particular charge in conferring it, is given to Timothy; namely, that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Tim. v. 22.) That he caution the presbyters under him “that they teach no other doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are given him how he should animadvert on an offending presbyter: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to what conduct he should oblige the deacons (iii. 8). The same episcopal powers are committed to Titus, to “ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to excommunicate heretics after the first or second admonition (iii. 10). Now these are very good proofs to all reasonable men that diligently read the Holy Scriptures, that the order of bishops was inclusively “from,” that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”
But to all diligent and impartial readers of ancient writers the case is yet more out of doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writer extant is Clemens Romanus, who wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians within forty years after ourSaviour’sascension. And he speaks not only of presbyters and deacons, but of bishops likewise, as an order in use in his time, clearly distinguishing also between the two orders of bishops and presbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch seventy years afterChrist, in which he continued forty years, being martyred in the year of ourLord108, just seven years after St. John’s death, all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished. Of lower authorities the instances are innumerable. Clement of Alexandria wrote in the latter end of the second century; and he mentions the three orders as the established use of the Church in his time. Origen, who lived at the same time, uses corresponding language. Tertullian likewise mentions these three orders as established ranks of the hierarchy. And so infinite other authors make these three orders perfectly distinct.—Dr. Nicholls.
Of the distinction among the governors of the Church there was never in ancient times made any question; nor did it seem disputable in the Church, except to one malcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get a name in story, but never made much noise, or obtained any vogue in the world. Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy. No great body even of heretics could find cause to dissent from the Church in this point. But all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Donatists, &c. maintained the distinction of orders among themselves, and acknowledged the duty of the inferior clergy to their bishops. And no wonder; seeing it standeth upon so very firm and clear grounds; upon the reason of the case, upon the testimony of Holy Scripture, upon general tradition, and unquestionable monuments of antiquity, upon the common judgment and practice of the greatest saints, persons most renowned for wisdom and piety in the Church.
Reason doth plainly require such subordinations. This all experience attesteth; this even the chief impugners of episcopal presidency do by their practice confess, who for prevention of disorders have been fain, of their own heads, to devise ecclesiastical subordination of classes, provinces, and nations; and to appoint moderators, or temporary bishops, in their assemblies. So that reason hath forced the dissenters from the Church to imitate it.
The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this distinction. For therein we have represented one “angel” presiding over principal churches, which contained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,) &c.: therein we find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised: we have one bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese, (Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all things therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging presbyters; rebuking “with all authority,” or imperiousness, as it were, (Tit. ii. 15,) and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics and scandalous persons.
In the Jewish Church there were an high priest, chief priest, a sanhedrim, or senate, or synod.
The government of congregations amongGod’sancient people, which it is probable was the pattern that the apostles, no affecters of needless innovation, did follow in establishing ecclesiastical discipline among Christians, doth hereto agree; for in their synagogues, answering to our Christian churches, they had, as their elders and doctors, so over them anἀρχισυνάγωγος, the head of the eldership, and president of the synagogue.
The primitive general use of Christians most effectually doth back the Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction, scarce less than demonstrating it constituted by the apostles. For how otherwise is it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the apostles in several most distant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, should presently conspire in acknowledgment and use of it? How could it, without apparent confederacy, be formed, how could it creep in without notable clatter, how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not in the foundation of those Churches laid by the apostles? How is it likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly upon the bishops, when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminence was in effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruin, an ambition of irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious encroachments? And how could all the holy Fathers, persons of so renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity, be so blind as not to discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How indeed could allGod’sChurch be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply in practice, with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, the acts, the epistles, the histories, the commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from the blessed martyrs and most holy confessors of our faith, should conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops contesting for the faith against pagan idolaters and heretical corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting our religion by their labours, their suffering, and watering it with their blood?—Dr. Isaac Barrow.
It was so well known that a bishop was of a superior order to a presbyter, that it was deemed sacrilege by the fourth general council to thrust a bishop down from the first to the second degree. So that, however persecution and dire necessity mayperhaps excuse some late Churches, for being forced to mix the two first orders, and to have only priests and deacons; yet we, who have a prescription of above 1600 (now 1700) years for us, even from the apostles’ time, have the right of our side, and must never depart therefrom.—Dean Comber.
EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles are letters which were addressed by the inspired apostles to Churches or individuals.
Of these, the apostle Paul wrote fourteen; viz.
St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.St. Peter, two.St. John, three: andSt. Jude, one.
St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.St. Peter, two.St. John, three: andSt. Jude, one.
St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.St. Peter, two.St. John, three: andSt. Jude, one.
St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.
St. Peter, two.
St. John, three: and
St. Jude, one.
But by the Epistle in the liturgy we mean the first lesson in the Communion Service, which is so styled because it is generally taken from the Epistles of the holy apostles. Sometimes, however, it is taken from the Acts, and occasionally from the prophets. Almost all the lessons now read as Epistles in the English liturgy have been appointed to their present place, and used by our Church, for many ages. They are found in all the liturgies of our Church used before the revision, in the reign of Edward VI., and they also appear in all the monuments of the English liturgy, before the invasion of William the Conqueror. It is, in fact, probable that they are generally as old as the time of Augustine, A. D. 595. In this view, the lessons entitled Epistles in our liturgy have been used, with some alterations, for 1200 years by the Church of England. We must consider this more as a subject of interest and pleasure than of any great importance, since all Scripture is given by inspiration ofGod. Yet we may remark, that the extracts read from the Epistles are generally devotional and practical, and, therefore, best adapted for ordinary comprehension and general edification.
EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, and in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, we find that a special reader, entitled an epistoler, is to read the Epistle in collegiate churches, vested in a cope. The canon and the injunctions here referred to will be found under the headCathedral.
Epistolers are still statuteable officers in several cathedrals of the new foundation; though in most it has fallen into desuetude. It is retained at Durham. The epistoler and gospeller are sometimes called deacon and subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes. The epistoler, according to our present rubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest. In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon. But by Archbishop Grindal’s Injunctions in 1571, it was required that parish clerks should be able to read the first Lesson and Epistle.—Jebb.
EPOCH. A term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time from which the succeeding years are numbered. The first epoch is the creation of the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes in the year 710 of the Julian periods, and 4004 years beforeJesus Christ. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text, happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel; the calling of Abraham; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt; the dedication of the temple; the end of the Babylonish captivity; and the birth ofJesus Christ. In profane history are reckoned four epochs: the æra of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus; the reign of Cyrus at Babylon; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians; and the beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which ourSaviourwas born.
ERASTIANS. So called from Erastus, a German heretic of the 16th century. The pastoral office, according to him, was only persuasive, like that of a professor of science over his students, without any power of the keys annexed. TheLord’ssupper, and other ordinances of the gospel, were to be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or religious nature, being referred to the civil magistrate.
ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books of Scripture, which were always excludedthe Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as canonical by the Romanists themselves. They are supposed to have been originally written in Greek, by some Hellenistical Jews, though some imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterwards translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.
The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of the temple, and the establishment of Divine worship. The truth it contains is borrowed from the canonical books of Ezra (or Esdras, as the Greeks and Latins call him, and thence term these books, the Third and Fourth Book of Esdras); the rest is exceeding fabulous and trifling: this book however is by the Greeks allowed to be canonical. The Second Book of Esdras is written in the prophetical way, and pretends to visions and revelations, but so ridiculous and absurd, that the Spirit ofGodcould have no concern in the dictating of them. The author believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that all the souls both of good and bad men would be delivered out of hell after the day of judgment. He speaks of two monstrous animals created byGodat the beginning of the world, in order to make a feast with them for all the elect, after the resurrection. He says, that the ten tribes are gone into a certain country, which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repaired the whole body of the Holy Scriptures, which were entirely lost; and he speaks ofJesus Christand his apostles in so clear a manner, that the gospel itself is not more express.
The Books of Esdras are not read in the service of the Church of England. In the list of apocryphal books in the 6th Article, these are called the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah were formerly joined in one book; and when they were separated, the book of Nehemiah, being considered as a continuation of the book of Ezra, was called by his name.—Bishop Tomline.
ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremony of betrothing, or coming under obligation for the purpose of marriage. It was a mutual agreement between the two parties, which usually preceded the marriage some considerable time. The distinction betweenespousalsandmarriageought to be carefully attended to, as espousals in the East are sometimes contracted for years before the parties cohabit, and sometimes in very early youth. This custom is alluded to figuratively, as betweenGodand his people, (Jer. ii. 2,) to whom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.) The apostle says that he acted as a kind of assistant (pronuba) on this occasion (2 Cor. xi. 2.): “I have espoused you toChrist,” that is, I have drawn up the writings, settled the agreements, given pledges, &c., of that union. (See Isa. liv. 5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)
ESSENES. A very ancient sect, which was spread abroad through Syria, Egypt, and the neighbouring countries. They maintained that religion consisted wholly in contemplation and silence. Some of them passed their lives in a state of celibacy; others embraced the state of matrimony, which they considered as lawful, when entered into with the sole design of propagating the species, and not to satisfy the demands of lust. Some of them held the possibility of appeasing the Deity by sacrifices, though different from that of the Jews; and others maintained that no offering was acceptable toGodbut that of a serene and composed mind, addicted to the contemplation of divine things. They looked upon the law of Moses as an allegorical system of spiritual and mysterious truths, and renounced, in its explication, all regard to the outward letter.
ESTABLISHMENT. By a religious establishment is generally meant, in the present day, the religion, whether Christian or not, which is recognised by the State. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishment of Scotland, Mahomedanism that of Turkey. In England and Ireland the Catholic Church is the establishment. It has not been endowed by the State, which has rather robbed than enriched it; nor has it been established, like Presbyterianism in Scotland, by an act of the legislature. But being endowed by individual piety, it was for many ages the only community in this country which even pretended to be the Church: as such it was recognised by the State, and when in process of time the Catholic Church in this country asserted its independence of Rome, and reformed the abuses which had crept into it, it continued to be, as it always was, the religious community connected with the State; although, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a sect in communion with Rome was founded in England, and arrogated to itself the name and titles which belong to our ancient Church, and to her alone. A slight reference to history will show what is meant. Soon after Augustine had been consecrated, in France, the first archbishopof Canterbury, his see was endowed with large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. The other kings of the heptarchy erected bishoprics equal to the size of their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship, and endowing them with tithes. (SeeChurch of England.)
Thus was the Church established. For many years there appears to have continued a good understanding between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, the powers of which were, in most respects, as in these days, blended. But, after the moral world had been subdued, and papal tyranny had been established by the marvellous energies of Hildebrand, his crafty successors, the popes of Rome, soon perceived that, in order to secure their dominion, it was important, as far as possible, to sever the alliance which had hitherto subsisted between the Church and the State. Representing the Church as independent, they regarded the king as the head of the State, and the pope as supreme over the Church. No sectarian of the present day can be more hostile to the alliance between Church and State than were those divines, who in the middle ages were devoted to the popedom. Although the pope, however, had here in England, as elsewhere, many creatures and advocates, yet many and manful were the repulses he met with from our clergy, our kings, and the people. His authority, indeed, was, in this realm, a mere assumption, for he was never elected by any synod of our Church as its head. Still, assuming rights to which he could lay no lawful claim, his usurpations were continued until, in the reign of Henry VIII., the clergy, the monarch, and the people, could bear the tyranny no longer, but, throwing off the yoke, declared that the pope wasnotthe head of the Church of England, but that, in these realms, the king is, as in times past he was, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, in these his dominions, supreme. This is the fact, and the history of the fact. The property of the Church remains with those who have descended in an unbroken line from the clergy to whom it was originally granted. If our title be disputed, it devolves upon the adversary to establish a prior claim. This the Protestant dissenter does not attempt to do; and, with respect to the Roman Catholic dissenters, we know, that instead of being descended from the original grantees, their line of succession began at Rome scarcely more than two centuries ago. Nor can they claim on the ground of greater similarity of doctrine, for transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, half communion, constrained celibacy, &c., the doctrines and practices which distinguish the modern Romanists, were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon Church. Admitting, then, that we may differ in some particulars of practice from our ancestors, yet certainly we do not differ from them so much as the modern Romanists.
ESTHER. The Book of Esther is a canonical book of Scripture, containing the history of Esther. There has been some dispute whether it was a canonical book among the Jews. St. Jerome and other Christian writers maintain the affirmative, but St. Athanasius and some others incline to the opposite conclusion. It has, however, been received as canonical by the Church. The last six chapters, beginning at the fourth verse of the tenth chapter, are not in the Hebrew text. These are probably a composure of several pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and are therefore deservedly thrown out of the canon of the sacred books by the Protestant Church; but the Latin and Greek Churches hold them canonical. As to the author of the Book of Esther, there is great uncertainty. Many of the Christian fathers attribute this history to Ezra. Eusebius believes it to be more modern. Others ascribe it to Joachim the high priest, the grandson of Josedec. Most conceive Mordecai to have been the author of it, and join Esther with him in the composition of it. M. Du Pin conjectures, that the great synagogue, to preserve the memory of this remarkable event, and to account for the original of the feast of Purim, ordered this book to be composed, which they approved and placed in the canon of their sacred books. It has been remarked, as a singular circumstance, that the Divine name does not once occur in this book.
ETERNITY. That mysterious attribute ofGodwhich implies his existence, as without end, so without beginning. The self-existent Being, observes Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and self-existence are so closely connected, that, because something must of necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and, because it is impossible but something must be self-existent, thereforeit is necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon anything external, must be always unalterably the same, nothing being alterable but what is capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being, therefore, which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute necessity of its own nature, must, of necessity, have existed from everlasting, without beginning, and must, of necessity, exist to everlasting, without end.
As to the manner of this eternal existence, it is manifest it herein infinitely transcends the manner of the existence of all created beings, even of such as shall exist for ever; that whereas it is not possible for their finite minds to comprehend all that is past, or to understand perfectly all things that are present, much less to know all that is future, or to have entirely in their power anything that is to come, but their thoughts, and knowledge, and power, must, of necessity, have degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things themselves: the eternal, supreme cause, on the contrary, must of necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or view, and all things present and future be as equally and entirely in his power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all, but all things were actually present at once.
This is, in reality, the most incomprehensible of the Divine attributes. God is without beginning; theFather, always a Father, without beginning; theSon, always the only begotten of theFather, without beginning; theHoly Ghost, always proceeding from theFatherand theSon, without beginning; the oneGod, always existing in the Trinity of his persons, without beginning.
“There is but one living and trueGod,everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible; and in the unity of this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, andeternity, theFather, theSon, and theHoly Ghost.”—ArticleI.
EUCHARIST. (Fromεὐχαριστία,giving of thanks.) (SeeCommunion,Lord’s Supper,Elements,Consecration of the Elements,Sacrament,Sacrifice,Real Presence.)Sacramentum eucharistiæis the name given to theLord’ssupper in our Latin articles, signifying, properly, thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It occurs in Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others; and was adopted into the Latin language, as may be seen from Tertullian and Cyprian in many places.—Waterland.We have, however, an earlier allusion to the liturgy, under the title ofeucharistia, or thanksgiving, in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; where, in forbidding and reasoning against the practice of some persons, who used the miraculous gift of tongues in an improper manner, namely, by celebrating the liturgy in an unknown language, he says, “When thou shaltblesswith theSpirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thygiving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Cor. xiv. 16.)ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τί λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε.The meaning of this passage is obvious: “If thou shalt bless the bread and wine in an unknown language, which has been given to thee by theHoly Spirit, how shall the layman say Amen, ‘so be it,’ at the end of thy thanksgiving or liturgy, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” It is undeniable that St. Paul in this place uses exactly the same expressions to describe the supposed action as he has employed a short time before in designating the sacraments ofChrist’sbody and blood, and describing ourLord’sconsecration at the last supper.Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “The cup ofblessingwhich webless, is it not the communion of the blood ofChrist?” (1 Cor. x. 16.)Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε.(1 Cor. xi. 23.) “TheLord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he hadgiven thanks, he brake it.” The language of St. Paul also in the passage under consideration, as well as the action which he describes, is perfectly conformable to the description given by Justin Martyr of the celebration of the eucharist. “Then bread and a cup of water and wine is offered to the president of the brethren; and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to theFatherof all, in the name of theSonand of theHoly Ghost, and makes a very long thanksgiving, becauseGodhas thought us worthy of these things. And when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present signify their approbation, saying, Amen. For Amen in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president” corresponding to the person who “blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performs the “thanksgiving.” The “people” corresponding to the “unlearned person” (or layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret the word) of St. Paul, and replying Amen, “so be it,” at the end of the thanksgiving in both passages. If we refer to all the ancient and primitive liturgies of the East and of Greece, the peculiar applicability of St. Paul’s argument to the Christian liturgy will appear still more. In the liturgy of Constantinople or Greece, which has probably been always used at Corinth, the bishop or priest takes bread, and “blesses” it in the course of a very long “thanksgiving,” at the end of which all the people answer, “Amen.” The same may be said of the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countries of the East and Greece through which St. Paul bare rule or founded Churches. It may be added, that there is, we believe, no instance in the writings of the most primitive fathers, in which the Amen is ever said to have been repeated at the end of an office containing both blessing and thanksgiving, except in the liturgy of the eucharist.
All this shows plainly that the argument of St. Paul applies immediately and directly to the celebration of this sacrament. Whether we regard his own previous expressions, the language and the words of the earliest fathers, or the customs of the primitive Church exhibited in the ancient liturgies, we see the accurate coincidence between the case which he refers to, and the celebration of the eucharist.—Palmer’s Origines Liturgicæ, p. 114. We virtually adopt this word, when in the prayer after communion, we pray toGodto acceptthis our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the service of the holy eucharist; or, in a larger sense, having the character of thanksgiving.
EUCHELAION. (Gr.) Theoil of prayer. To such penitents (in the Greek Church) as are conscious of the guilt of any mortal sin, as adultery, fornication, or pride, is administered the sacrament ofτὸ εὐχέλαιον,Euchelaion, which is performed by the bishop, or archbishop, assisted by seven priests, and begins with this prayer, “O Lord, who with the oil of thy mercies hast healed the wounds of our souls, do thou sanctify this oil, that those who are anointed therewith may be freed from their infirmities, and from all corporeal and spiritual evils.” Thisoil of prayeris pure and unmixed oil, without any other composition; a quantity whereof, sufficient to serve for the whole year, is consecrated, on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by the archbishop, or bishop. TheEuchelaionof the Greek answers to theExtreme Unctionof the Romanists.
In the administration of thisoil of prayer, the priest dips some cotton at the end of a stick, and therewith anoints the penitent, in the form of a cross, on the forehead, on the chin, on each cheek, and on the backs and palms of the hands: after which he repeats this prayer—“Holy Father, physician of souls and bodies, who hast sent thine only SonJesus Christ, healing infirmities and sins, to free us from death; heal this thy servant of corporeal and spiritual infirmities, and give him salvation and the grace of thyChrist, through the prayers of our more than holy lady, the mother ofGod, the eternal Virgin, through the assistance of the glorious, celestial, and incorporeal powers, through the virtue of the holy and life-giving cross, of the holy and glorious prophet, the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of the holy and glorious apostles.”—Ricaut.
EUCHOLOGION. (Fromεὐχὴ,preces, andλόγος,sermo.) The name of a liturgical book of the Greek Church, containing a collection of Divine services for the administration of the sacraments, conferring of orders, and other religious offices: it is properly their ritual, containing everything relating to religious ceremonies. Father Simon observes, that several of the most considerable divines of that Church, in Europe, met at Rome under Pope Urban VIII., to examine the Euchologion: Morinus, who was one of the congregation, mentions this ritual in his bookDe Congregationibus: the greatest part of the divines, being influenced by the sentiments of the schoolmen, were willing to reform this Greek ritual by that of the Church of Rome, as if there had been some heresies in it, or rather some passages which made the administration of the sacraments invalid; but some, who more perfectly understood the controversy, opposed the censure of the Euchologion: they proved this ritual was agreeable to the practice of the Greek Church before the schism of Photius, and that for thisreason it could not be condemned, without condemning all the old Eastern communion.
EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in the fourth century, whose founder was Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards of Constantinople. They adhered to the errors of the Aëtians and Eunomians, affirming theSonto be differently affected in his will from theFather, and made of nothing.
EULOGIÆ. (Gr.) So the Greek Church calls thePanis benedictus, or bread, over which a blessing is pronounced, and which is distributed to those who are unqualified to communicate. The nameEulogiæwas likewise anciently given to the consecrated pieces of bread which the bishops and priests sent to each other for the keeping up a friendly correspondence: those presents likewise, which were made out of respect or obligation, were calledEulogiæ.
St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the end of the fourth century, having sent fiveEulogiæat one time to Romanian, speaks to him in these terms: “That I may not be wanting in the duties of brotherly love, I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunition of the warfare ofJesus Christ, under whose standard we fight, following the laws of temperance and sobriety.”
EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called from Eunomius, who lived in the fourth century of Christianity; he was constituted bishop of Cyzicum, and stoutly defended the Arian heresy, maintaining that theFatherwas of a different nature from theSon, because no creature could be like his creator: he held that theSonofGoddid not substantially unite himself to the human nature, but only by virtue and his operations; he affirmed blasphemously that he knewGodas well asGodhimself; and those that were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, and was so averse to the mystery, that he forbade the trinal immersion at baptism. Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelled Cyzicum and forced also to leave Samosata, where he was also obtruded by the Arian faction. Valens restored him to Cyzicum, but being again expelled by the people, he applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.
EUSTATHIANS. A denomination in the fourth century, who derived their name from Eustathius, a monk. This man was the occasion of great disorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries; and, in consequence, he was condemned and excommunicated by the Council of Gangra, which was held soon after that of Nice.
EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifth century, the followers of the error of Eutyches, who being a Constantinopolitan abbot, and contending against Nestorius, fell into a new heresy. He and his followers affirmed thatChristwas one thing, the Word another; they denied the flesh ofChristto be like ours, but said he had a celestial body, which passed through the Virgin as through a channel; that there were two natures inChristbefore the hypostatical union, but that, after it, there was but one, compounded of both; and thence concluded that the Divinity ofChristboth suffered and died. Being condemned in a synod at Constantinople, he appealed to the emperor: after which, by the assistance of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus, called Latrocinium, or the assembly of thieves and robbers, wherein he got his heresy to be approved: however, in the fourth general council, under Marcian,A. D.451, his errors were a second time condemned.
EVANGEL. (Fromεὐ,bene, andἀγγελία,nuncius.) The gospel ofChrist. The revealed history of our blessedLord’slife.