Chapter XLIII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (19)

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.