Chapter LVII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (33)

X. That the grace of GOD is given in proportion to our merits.

XI. That none can be called the sons of GOD, but those who are perfectly free from sin.

XII. That our victory over temptation is not gained by GOD’S assistance, but by the liberty of the will.

The heresy of Pelagius, notwithstanding its condemnation, made its way into Britain, where its author was born; being conveyed thither by one Agricola, the son of Severianus, a Pelagian bishop of Gaul. The orthodox party were very diligent in opposing its progress, and for that purpose requested the Gallican bishops to send over some persons of eminence to manage the contest. Those chosen for this purpose were Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes; who, arriving in Britain, held a famous conference with the Pelagians at St. Alban’s, in which the latter were put to silence, and the people gave sentence, by their acclamations, for Germanus and Lupus. The Pelagian error respecting original sin is noticed in our ninth Article.

PENANCE. (_Pœnitentia_, Latin.) As repentance is the principle and inward feeling of sorrow for sin, which we are determined to forsake, so penance is the outward profession of that sorrow. An account of penance in the primitive Church may be seen in Bingham, and more concisely in Coleman, from whom we shall quote in this article. Penance, in the Christian Church, is an imitation of the discipline of the Jewish synagogue; or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution. Excommunication in the Christian Church is essentially the same as expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not materially different in the Jewish and Christian Churches. The principal point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the Jewish economy; but in the Christian Church it affected only his relations to that body. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions of the Church, nor its situation, nor constitution in the first three centuries, was at all compatible with the intermingling or confounding of civil and religious privileges or penalties.

The act of excommunication was, at first, an exclusion of the offender from the LORD’S supper, and from the _agapæ_. The term itself implies separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the injunction of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 11, “With such an one no not _to eat_.” From the context, and from 1 Cor. x. 16–18; xi. 20–34, it clearly appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals, and the ordinary intercourse of life, but to these religious festivals.

Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament; neither are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals, but of a whole city or people, performing certain acts of penance,—fasting, mourning, &c. (Nehem. ix. and Jonah iii.) But these acts of humiliation were essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from Christian penance.

We have, however, in the New Testament, an instance of the excommunication of an offending member, and of his restoration to the fellowship of the Church by penance, agreeably to the authority of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v. 1–8; 2 Cor. ii. 5–11. This sentence of exclusion from the Church was pronounced _by the assembled body_, and in the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. By this sentence, the offender was separated from the people of the LORD, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power of Satan, and of evil spirits. This is, perhaps, the true import of delivering such an one up to Satan.

A similar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, “If any man love not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be anathema maranatha.” The μαράν ἀθὰ corresponds, in sense, with the Hebrew חרם, and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction; (which, however, is by some supposed to be the Syro-Chaldaic מרנא אתה, expressed in the Greek character, meaning, “The Lord cometh.”) (See _Maranatha_.) The whole sentence implies that the Church leaves the subject of it to the LORD, who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires of the Corinthians is, that they should exclude him from their communion and fellowship; so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their body. He pronounces no further judgment upon the offender, but leaves him to the judgment of GOD. “What have I to do to judge them that are without?” (ver. 12,) i. e. those who are not Christians, to which class the excommunicated person would belong. “Do not ye judge them that are within?” i. e. full members of the Church. But them that are without GOD judgeth; or rather _will judge_, κρινεῖ, as the reading should be. It appears from 2 Cor. ii. 1–11, that the Church had not restored such to the privileges of communion, but were willing to do so; and that the apostle very gladly authorized the measure.

It is important to remark that, in the primitive Church, penance related only to such as had been excluded from the communion of the Church. Its immediate object was, not the forgiveness of the offender by the LORD GOD, but his reconciliation with the Church. It could, therefore, relate only to open and scandalous offences. _De occultis non judicat ecclesia_—the Church takes no cognizance of secret sins—was an ancient maxim of the Church. The early Fathers say expressly, that the Church offers pardon only for offences committed against her. The forgiveness of all sin she refers to GOD himself. _Omnia autem_, says Cyprian, Ep. 55, _remisimus Deo omnipotenti, in cujus potestate sunt omnia reservata_. Such are the concurring sentiments of most of the early writers on this subject. It was reserved for a later age to confound these important distinctions, and to arrogate to the Church the prerogative of forgiving sins.

The readmission of penitents into the Church was the subject of frequent controversy with the early Fathers, and ancient religious sects. Some contended that those who had once been excluded from the Church for their crimes, ought never again to be received to her fellowship and communion. But the Church generally were disposed to exercise a more charitable and forgiving spirit.

PENANCE. In the law of England, penance is an ecclesiastical punishment or penalty, used in the discipline of the Church of England, by which an offender is obliged to give a public satisfaction to the Church for scandal done by his evil example. For small offences and scandals, a public satisfaction or penance is required to be made before the minister, churchwardens, and some of the parishioners, as the ecclesiastical judge shall think fit to decree. These penances may be moderated at the discretion of the judge, or commuted for money to be devoted to pious uses. In the case of incest or incontinency the offender is sometimes enjoined to do public penance in the cathedral, the parish church, or the market-place, bare-legged, bare-headed, and in a white sheet, and to make open confession of his crime in a form of words prescribed by the judge. This sort of punishment, however, being contrary to the spirit of the age, and the profligate being found to make parties to abet the offender, it has fallen into desuetude.

PENANCE, THE SACRAMENT OF. The Romanists define penance a sacrament, wherein a person, who has the requisite dispositions, receives absolution at the hands of the priest, of all sins committed since baptism. (See _Auricular Confession_, _Satisfaction_, _Purgatory_, _Absolution_.)

The Council of Trent (sess. 14, can. 1) has expressly decreed, that every one is accursed who shall affirm that penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by CHRIST in the universal Church, for reconciling those Christians to the Divine majesty who have fallen into sin after baptism; and this sacrament, it is declared, consists of two parts—the matter and the form: the matter is the act of the penitent, including contrition, confession, and satisfaction; the form of it is the act of absolution on the part of the priest. Accordingly it is enjoined, that it is the duty of every man, who hath fallen after baptism, to confess his sins once a year, at least, to a priest; that this confession is to be secret; for public confession is neither commanded nor expedient; and that it must be exact and particular, including every kind and act of sin, with all the circumstances attending it. When the penitent has so done, the priest pronounces an absolution, which is not conditional or declarative only, but absolute and judicial. This secret or auricular confession was first decreed and established in the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., in 1215 (cap. 21). And the decree of this council was afterwards confirmed and enlarged in the Council of Florence, and in that of Trent, which ordains that confession was instituted by CHRIST; that, by the law of GOD, it is necessary to salvation, and that it has always been practised in the Christian Church. As for the penances imposed on the penitent by way of satisfaction, they have been commonly the repetition of certain forms of devotion, as Paternosters or Ave-Marias, the payment of stipulated sums, pilgrimages, fasts, or various species of corporeal discipline. But the most formidable penance, in the estimation of many who have belonged to the Roman communion, has been the temporary pains of purgatory. But, under all the penalties which are inflicted or threatened in the Romish Church, it has provided relief by its indulgences, and by its prayers or masses for the dead, performed professedly for relieving and rescuing the souls that are detained in purgatory.

The reader need scarcely be reminded how entirely opposed all this is to the doctrine of the Church of England. The Church of Rome affirms “penance” to be a “sacrament,” instituted by CHRIST himself, and secret “confession” to be one of its constituent parts, instituted by the Divine law; and she anathematizes those who contradict her:—the Church of England denies “penance” to be a sacrament of the gospel; affirms it to have “grown of the corrupt following of the apostles;” and “not to have” the proper “nature of a sacrament,” as “not having any visible sign or ceremony ordained of GOD;” and of course denies the sacramental character of “confession.” The Church of Rome pronounces, that, by the Divine law, “all persons” must confess their sins to the priest:—the Church of England limits her provisions for confession to “sick persons.” The Church of Rome pronounces that all persons are “bound” to confess:—the Church of England directs, that the sick “be moved” to make confession. The Church of Rome insists upon a confession of “all sins whatsoever:”—the Church of England recommends “a special confession of sins,” if the sick person “feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.” The Church of Rome represents penance as instituted for reconciling penitents to GOD “as often as they fall into sin after baptism;” and imposes confession “once a year:”—the Church of England advises it on a peculiar occasion. And the purpose of the Church of England in so advising it evidently is the special relief of a troubled conscience: whereas the Church of Rome pronounces it to be “necessary to forgiveness of sin and to salvation;” and denounces with an anathema “any one who shall say, that confession is only useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent.” And let it be observed, in the first place, that as the Church of England, in her Commination Service, speaks of the ancient ordinance of _open penance_ as “a discipline” the restoration of which is “much to be wished,” she hereby recognises the ancient systems essentially different from that of Rome: namely, _a public_ expression of sorrow and repentance, to satisfy the congregation, scandalized by the offence; not as a private purchase of indemnity to the individual: and, in the next place, when she uses the word _penance_, in the second exhortation in the same service, “Seeking to bring forth worthy fruits of penance,” she but quotes the words of John the Baptist, (St. Luke iii. 8,) and thus identifies _penance_ with _repentance_, μετάνοια, that is, change of mind or heart. So that the outward penance is the mere outward symbol of the inward repentance.

PENITENTIAL. A collection of canons in the Romish Church, which appointed the time and manner of penance to be regularly imposed for every sin, and forms of prayer that were to be used for the receiving of those who entered into penance, and reconciling penitents by solemn absolution; a method chiefly introduced in the time of the degeneracy of the Church.

PENITENTIAL PSALMS. (See _Psalms_.)

PENITENTIARIES, in the ancient Christian Church, were certain presbyters, or priests, appointed in every church, to receive the private confessions of the people; not in prejudice to the public discipline, nor with a power of granting absolution before any penance was performed, but to facilitate the exercise of public discipline, by acquainting men what sins the laws of the Church required to be expiated by public penance, and by directing them in the performance of it; and only to appoint private penance for such private crimes as were not proper to be publicly censured, either for fear of doing harm to the penitent himself, or giving scandal to the Church.

The office of penitentiary priests was abrogated by Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, upon a certain accident that happened in the church. A gentlewoman, coming to the penitentiary, made a confession of the sins she had committed since her baptism. The penitentiary enjoined her to fast and pray. Soon after she came again, and confessed that, during the course of her penance, one of the deacons of the Church had defiled her. This occasioned the deacon to be cast out of the Church, and gave great offence to the people. Whereupon the bishop, by the advice of a presbyter named Eudæmon, took away the penitentiary’s office, leaving every one to his own conscience; this being the only way to free the Church from reproach.—_Bingham._

Nectarius’s example was followed by all the bishops of the East, who took away their penitentiaries. However, the office continued in use in the Western Churches, and chiefly at Rome. A dignitary in many of the foreign cathedrals is so called.

PENITENTS. (See _Penance_.) Penance in the primitive Church, as Coleman from Augusti remarks, was wholly a voluntary act on the part of those who were subject to it. The Church not only would not enforce it, but they refused even to urge or invite any to submit to this discipline. It was to be sought as a favour, not inflicted as a penalty. But the offending person had no authority or permission to prescribe his own duties as a penitent. When once he had resolved to seek the forgiveness and reconciliation of the Church, it was exclusively the prerogative of that body to prescribe the conditions on which this was to be effected. No one could even be received as a candidate for penance, without permission first obtained of the bishop, or presiding elder.

The duties required of penitents consisted essentially in the following particulars:

1. Penitents of the first three classes were required to kneel in worship, whilst the faithful were permitted to stand.

2. All were required to make known their penitential sorrow by an open and public confession of their sin. This confession was to be made, not before the bishop or the priesthood, but in the presence of the whole Church, with sighs, and tears, and lamentations. These expressions of grief they were to renew and continue so long as they remained in the first or lowest class of penitents, entreating at the same time, in their behalf, the prayers and intercessions of the faithful. Some idea of the nature of these demonstrations of penitence may be formed from a record of them contained in the works of Cyprian. Almost all the canons lay much stress upon the sighs and tears accompanying these effusions.

3. Throughout the whole term of penance, all expressions of joy were to be restrained, and all ornaments of dress to be laid aside. The penitents were required, literally, to wear sackcloth, and to cover their heads with ashes. Nor were these acts of humiliation restricted to Ash Wednesday merely, but then especially they were required.

4. The men were required to cut short their hair, and to shave their beards, in token of sorrow. The women were to appear with dishevelled hair, and wearing a peculiar kind of veil.

5. During the whole term of penance, bathing, feasting, and sensual gratifications, allowable at other times, were prohibited. In the spirit of these regulations, marriage was also forbidden.

6. Besides these restrictions and rules of a negative character, there were certain positive requirements with which the penitents were expected to comply.

They were obliged to be present, and to perform their part, at every religious assembly, whether public or private; a regulation which neither believers nor catechumens were required to observe.

They were expected to abound in deeds of charity and benevolence, particularly in almsgiving to the poor.

Especially were they to perform the duties of the _parabolani_, in giving attendance upon the sick, and in taking care of them. These offices of kindness they were expected particularly to bestow upon such as were affected with contagious diseases.

It was also their duty to assist at the burial of the dead. The regulations last mentioned are supposed to have been peculiar to the Church of Africa.

These duties and regulations collectively were sometimes included under the general term εξομολόγησις, _confession_. By this was understood not only words, but works; both, in connexion, being the appropriate means of manifesting sorrow for sin, and the purpose of amendment.

PENITENTS IN POPISH COUNTRIES. There are, in Popish countries, particularly in Italy, several fraternities (as they are called) of penitents, distinguished by the different shape and colour of their habits. These are secular societies, who have their rules, statutes, and churches; and make public processions under their particular cross or banner. Of these there are more than a hundred; the most considerable of which are as follows:—

I. White Penitents. These are of different sorts at Rome. The most ancient is that of Gonfalon, instituted in 1264, in the church of St. Mary Major: in imitation of which four others were established in the church of Ara-Cœli; the first under the title of the Nativity of our LORD; the second under the invocation of the Holy Virgin; the third under the protection of the Holy Innocents; and the fourth under the patronage of St. Helena. The brethren of this fraternity, every year, give portions to a certain number of young girls, in order to their being married. Their habit is a kind of white sackcloth, and on the shoulder is a circle, in the middle of which is a red and white cross.

II. Black Penitents. The most considerable of these are the Brethren of Mercy, or St. John Baptist. This fraternity was instituted in 1488, by some Florentines, in order to assist criminals at the time of their death, and during their imprisonment. On the day of execution, they walk in procession before them, singing the seven Penitential Psalms, and the Litanies; and, after they are dead, they take them down from the gibbet, and bury them. Their habit is black sackcloth. There are others whose business is to bury such persons as are found dead in the streets. They wear a death’s head on one side of their habit.

III. Blue Penitents. All these are remarkable only for the different colours of their habits. IV. Grey Penitents. „ V. Red Penitents. „ VI. Green Penitents. „ VII. Violet Penitents. „

The Church of Rome wrongly renders our word _repentance_ by _penance_, penance being an attendant on repentance: and she has erred in making penance a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the LORD’S supper. This our Church condemns, but she speaks of the ancient discipline of the Church in a manner which greatly shocks ultra-Protestants. We allude to the following address in the Commination Service:—“Brethren, in the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, and, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin _were put to open penance_, and punished in this world, _that their souls might be saved in_ the day of the LORD; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend. Instead whereof (until the said discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished) it is thought good, that at this time (in the presence of you all) should be read the general sentences of GOD’S cursing against impenitent sinners, gathered out of the seven and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, and other places of Scripture; and that ye should answer to every sentence, _Amen_: to the intent that, being admonished of the great indignation of GOD against sinners, ye may the rather be moved to earnest and true repentance, and may walk more warily in these dangerous days, fleeing from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouths the curse of GOD to be due. (See _Penance_.)

PENTATEUCH, from two Greek words, signifying _five books_. It is the general or collective designation of the five books of Moses. The Samaritan Pentateuch, discovered and brought to England in the 17th century, by the instrumentality of Archbishop Usher and others, is the Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Hebrew letters. It is supposed by many learned men to be the actual text of the Scriptures used by the Samaritans, when at their petition, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, appointed one of the Jewish priests to dwell at Bethel and teach them how they should fear the LORD. (2 Kings xvii. 28.) The copy of the Scriptures then said to be brought by this priest, contained the _canon of Scripture_, as it then existed; and the Samaritans never recognised any other. By several critics the text is supposed more correct than the Hebrew; and as an element of biblical criticism it is invaluable.

PENTECOST. (From Πεντηκοστὸς, _the fiftieth_.) A solemn festival of the Jews, so called because it was celebrated fifty days after the feast of the Passover. (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16.) It corresponds with the Christian Whitsuntide, which is sometimes called by the same name.

PENTECOSTALS. These were oblations made by the parishioners to their priest at the feast of Pentecost, which are sometimes called Whitsun-farthings; but they were not at first offered to their priests, but to the mother-church; and this may be the reason that the deans and prebendaries in some cathedrals are entitled to receive these oblations, and in some places the bishop and archdeacons, as at Gloucester.

PERAMBULATION. Perambulations, for ascertaining the boundaries of parishes, are to be made by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners, by going round the same once a year, in or about Ascension week. The parishioners may justify going over any man’s land in their perambulations, according to usage; and it is said may abate all nuisances in their way. There is a homily appointed to be used before this ceremony, and Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions appointed the 103rd and 104th Psalms to be said in the course of the perambulation. (See _Rogation Days_.) The perambulations are still kept up in several parishes; but have lost their religious character. However, they have been observed religiously within the memory of some old persons in distant parts of England.

PERNOCTATIONS, watching all night,—long a custom with the more pious Christians, especially before the greater festivals.

PERPENDICULAR. The last style of pure Gothic architecture, which succeeded the Decorated about 1360. It is most readily distinguished by its window tracery (see _Tracery_); but the use of the four-centred arch (see _Arch_) is a more important character, though by no means invariably found in this style. Other characteristics will be found under _Capital_, _Pillar_, _Vaulting_, _Moulding_.

PERPETUAL CURATE. The incumbent of a church, chapel, or district, which is within the boundaries of a rectory or vicarage; so called from a curate assistant, whose office expires with the incumbency of the person who employs him.

PERPETUALS. Twenty ministers of the choir at Lyons, so called from being bound to perpetual service there:—like our vicars-choral.

PERSECUTION. The sufferings which are inflicted by the world upon the Church in all ages, the most striking of which were those which are designated in history the _Ten Persecutions_, and which raged from the time of Nero, A. D. 64, to the accession of Constantine, under the successive Roman emperors, Domitian, (A. D. 81–86,) Trajan, Adrian, Aurelius, Antoninus, Severus, Maximus, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and Maximian, under the last of whose rule the persecution raged against the Church in East and West for the space of ten years. Each of these periods swelled the list of the noble army of martyrs. Under Nero, the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul suffered. St. Clement, bishop of Rome; Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem; and Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, were put to death in the reign of Trajan. In the persecution of Aurelius, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Tatian presented their apologies, as did Tertullian in the next persecution under Severus (200). Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian, tells us that it were easier to count the sands upon the seashore than to number the martyrdoms in the persecution under Decius (249). The great St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, suffered under Valerian (14th of September, 258).

Though the above ten are the most memorable of the persecutions of the cross of CHRIST, the Church has ever been opposed by the world. Thus in our country, during the Rebellion, the king and primate underwent martyrdom, while thousands of faithful men suffered the loss of all things for the name of CHRIST. And, even in this day, though physical persecution is forbidden by the law, moral persecution is more or less endured by every self-denying Christian, who has to bear taunts and nicknames from ungodly men.

PERSEVERANCE, FINAL. According to the Calvinistic system, the elect receive the grace of perseverance, so that when grace has once been received, they cannot finally fall from it. This follows from their view of election. But, according to the Catholic view of grace and of election, men may fall, and fall finally, from the grace they have once received. The reader is requested to refer to the article on _Election_; this may be considered a continuation. Since the reformed Church of England (with the primitive and Catholic) regards election as an admission into the pale of the visible Church Catholic, _not_ a necessary and infallible admission into eternal glory, she obviously could not teach the doctrine of the assured final perseverance of every individual among the elect; but, annexing a totally different sense to the word _elect_ itself from that which is jointly advocated by Calvin and by Arminius, she consistently pronounces that the elect, as she understands the term, _may_ finally fall away, and thence may everlastingly perish.

To this moral possibility of final apostasy the Anglican Church, as was felt by the Calvinistic party in the conference at Hampton Court, alludes, though she does not specifically there define the matter, in her sixteenth Article.

“After we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin; and, by the grace of GOD, we may rise again, and amend our lives.”

Here it seems to be not obscurely intimated, that the elect, even after they have received the HOLY GHOST, may so depart from grace given, and may so fall into sin, that they either may, or may not, be restored by the influential grace of GOD.

Such, accordingly, was doubtless perceived to be the case by the Calvinistic party; for otherwise it is impossible to account for their proposed alteration of the article, which would have made it speak the language of assured personal final perseverance.

They moved King James, that, to the original words of the article, “after we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin,” might be subjoined the following explanatory addition, “yet neither totally nor finally.”

Had this addition been made, the seventeenth Article would doubtless have taught the doctrine of the final perseverance of all the elect. The wish to make it do so imported a consciousness that the reformed Anglican Church held no such doctrine.

Nor was this consciousness ill-founded. The homily on “Falling from GOD” as we might anticipate from its very title, distinctly asserts, in both its parts, the moral possibility, in the elect, of finally departing from grace given, and of thus perishing everlastingly.

The doctrine of the possibility of the elect finally falling away, says Faber in his work on “Election,” from grace to perdition; a doctrine which, in truth, is nothing more than the inevitable and necessary result of that ideality of election, which, from primitive antiquity, has been adopted by the Anglican Church, is very distinctly and very affectingly propounded also in her admirable and sublime burial service.

“Spare us, LORD most holy, O GOD most mighty, O holy and merciful SAVIOUR, thou most worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.”

The prayer before us is couched in the pluralizing form, and the persons who are directed concurrently with the officiating minister to use it, are those identical persons who, having been chosen in the course of Divine providence, and brought by baptism into the pale of the visible Church, have thence been declared to be the elect people of GOD.

Consequently those who, in the judgment of the Church of England, are the elect people of GOD, are nevertheless directed to pray, that the LORD would not suffer them, at their last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from him.

Hence, as the English Church understands the term _elect_, it is possible, from the very necessity of such a prayer, that those who are elect may not only for a season fall away from GOD and be afterward renewed by repentance, but may even fall away from him totally and finally.

PERSON. (See _Trinity_.) On the awful subject of the persons in the TRINITY we shall merely quote the Athanasian Creed. “The Catholic faith is this. That we worship One GOD in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is One Person of the FATHER, another of the SON, and another of the HOLY GHOST.

“But the GODHEAD of the FATHER, of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST, is all One: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”

The application of the term “Persons” to the sacred Three has been objected to; but it is defensible on the ground of the impossibility of finding a phrase equally expressive, and less objectionable. Archbishop Tillotson well says, “Because we find the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST spoken of in Scripture as we should speak of three Persons, therefore we call them Persons; and since the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD in Scripture hath thought fit, in speaking of these three, to distinguish them from one another, as we use in common speech to distinguish three several persons, I cannot see any reason why, in the explication of this mystery, which purely depends upon Divine revelation, we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth.” Precision in speaking of objects of faith seems, beyond this, impossible. That the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST are three, distinguished from each other in Scripture, is clear; as it is also that there is but one GOD. Why, then, refuse the word “Persons,” used with due reverence and humility, by which we only understand a peculiar distinction in each, making, in some way, a difference from the other two? Indeed the objection was despised as a bad one by even Socinus himself.

But in fact the word “Person” is used by St. Paul as applied both to the FATHER and the SON; to the former, Heb. i. 3; to the latter, 2 Cor. ii. 10, and also iv. 6, as it should have been rendered.

The word was used, and well applied, against the opinion entertained by the Sabellians, that there was but one real Person in the GODHEAD with different manifestations; and the notion of three hypostases with an individual unity in the Divine essence, was generally received in the Church as a proper mean for avoiding the opposite heresies of Sabellius and Arius.

The Latin Church understanding “substance” by the term _hypostasis_, as used by the Greek Church, and denying three substances, would not readily use that term, but adopted the word “Person,” (_Persona_,) to characterize the three distinct subsistencies in the one Divine essence. And hence has arisen a charge, (the word _hypostasis_ being used for _Person_ in the Greek copies of the Creed,) that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are in opposition to each other; the former asserting that the SON “is of one substance with the FATHER,” while, according to the latter, there is one substance of the FATHER, another of the SON, &c. But as the word is rightly translated in our version “Person,” from the original Latin, the objection, which is still repeated, (the passage being quoted as if it were one “substance”—not one “Person—of the FATHER,” &c.,) is persevered in under a mistake, if it be not a wilful misrepresentation.—See _Bull_ and _Waterland_.

PERSONA. A term applied in ancient cathedral and collegiate churches to those who held particular offices, not necessarily of dignity, or of jurisdiction, but involving personal responsibility, and strict residence. In England, at Salisbury and other cathedrals of the old foundation, the dignitaries, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer, &c., were called _Personæ Principales_, or _Privilegiatæ_, as having each a peculiar office, connected with the service of the church. At St. Paul’s the four archdeacons were included in this title, though somewhat incorrectly.—_Dugdale’s St. Paul’s_, p. 235. In other places, as at York, and Beverley, the inferior priests were called Personæ. Abroad the _Personnate_ were chiefly offices of the inferior collegiate clergy, generally implying some individual office, as subchanter, sacristan, &c. &c.—_Jebb._

PETER-PENCE was an annual tribute of one penny, paid at Rome out of every family, at the feast of St. Peter. This, Ina, the Saxon king, when he went in pilgrimage to Rome, about the year 740, gave to the pope, partly as alms, and partly by way of recompense for a house erected in Rome for English pilgrims. It continued to be generally paid until the time of King Henry VIII., when it was enacted, that henceforth no person shall pay any pensions, Peter-pence, or other impositions, to the use of the bishop and see of Rome.

PETER’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the twenty-ninth of June.

St. Peter was born at Bethsaida, a town situated upon the banks of the sea of Galilee. He was originally called Simon, or Simeon, to which our SAVIOUR, after his conversion, added the name of Cephas, which, in the vulgar language of the Jews, signified a stone, or rock: from thence it was derived into the Greek Πέτρος, (Petrus,) which is of the same import. Our LORD probably intended to denote thereby the constancy and firmness of his faith, and his activity in building up the Church.

St. Peter was a fisherman by trade, and brother of St. Andrew, who first brought him to our SAVIOUR. He became a disciple and follower of CHRIST, upon seeing the miracle of the great draught of fishes, and was one of his most immediate companions. He is by the ancients styled the mouth of the apostles, because he was the first and forwardest, on all occasions, to profess his zeal and attachment to our SAVIOUR; for which reason our LORD pronounced him blessed. But it does not appear that our SAVIOUR gave any personal prerogative to St. Peter, as universal pastor and head of the Church. He is first placed among the apostles, because, as most think, he was first called. If he is styled “a rock,” all the apostles are equally styled “foundations;” and the power of the keys is promised to the rest of the apostles as well as to St. Peter.

This apostle became a great example of human frailty, in his behaviour upon the approach of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings. It is well known, that, for fear of being involved in the punishment with which his Master was threatened, he disclaimed all knowledge of him, and denied him thrice. But he soon recovered from his fall, and endeavoured by penitential tears to wash away his guilt.

St. Peter’s first mission, after our SAVIOUR’S ascension, was to those Christians whom Philip the deacon had converted in Samaria; where he conferred on them the gift of the HOLY GHOST, and severely rebuked Simon Magus, for imagining the gift of GOD could be purchased with money. Some time after, he had a special vision from heaven, by which the Divine goodness removed those prejudices of his education, which the Jews had entertained against the Gentiles. In the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts, he declared GOD’S acceptance of the Gentiles, and that the yoke of the Jewish rites ought not to be laid upon them. Yet afterwards he dissembled his Christian liberty, and thereby confirmed the judaizing Christians in their errors; for which he stands justly rebuked by St. Paul. Being imprisoned by Herod, he was miraculously delivered by an angel, who knocked off his chains, and conducted him to a place of safety.

St. Peter, afterwards, preached at Antioch, and was the first bishop of that place. He likewise preached the gospel to the Jews dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. Towards the latter end of his life, he went to Rome, about the second year of the emperor Claudius, where he laboured in establishing Christianity, chiefly among the Jews, being the apostle of the circumcision. Here he set himself to expose the impostures of Simon Magus, which he did successfully, by working himself those wonders that Simon falsely boasted of. Particularly, he raised to life a kinsman of the emperor, which the magician had attempted in vain. And, when Simon Magus, to recover his reputation, pretended to fly up to heaven from the hill of the Capitol, by the prayers of St. Peter his artificial wings failed him, and falling he was so bruised, that in a short time he died.

St. Peter suffered martyrdom about the year of Christ 69, under the emperor Nero, whom he had provoked by his success against Simon Magus, and by his reducing many dissolute women to a sober and virtuous life; and it was probably in that persecution when the emperor burnt Rome, and charged the Christians with the guilt and punishment of it. He was crucified with his head downwards. It is said, his body was embalmed by Marcellinus the presbyter, and buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal Way, where there was a church erected to his memory, now the famous cathedral of St. Peter’s at Rome.

PEWS. These are enclosed seats in churches. Pews, according to modern use and idea, were not known till long after the Reformation. Enclosed pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenth century: they were for a long time confined to the family of the patron.

There were, however, long before there were enclosed pews, appropriated seats: and as concerning seats many disputes arise, we will mention what the law is as to these particulars. As to seats in the body of the church, the freehold of the soil is in the incumbent, and the seats are fixed to the freehold; yet, because the church itself is dedicated to the service of GOD, and the seats are built that the people may more conveniently attend Divine service, therefore, where there is any contention about a seat in the body of the church, upon complaint made to the ordinary, he may decide the controversy by placing that person in it whom he thinks fit: and this power is conferred upon him by law, because he who has the general cure of souls within his diocese, is presumed to have a due regard to the qualities of the contending parties, and to give precedence to him who ought to have it. And though the seats are built and repaired at the charge of the parish; and the churchwardens should prescribe, that, by reason thereof, they have used to dispose them to such persons as they thought fit, yet since of common right the ordinary has the disposal thereof, and by the same right the parishioners ought to repair them, therefore such prescription shall not be allowed against his jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction extends only to placing or displacing the inhabitants of the parish; for the ordinary cannot grant a seat to a man and his heirs, because a seat in the church properly belongs to some house in the parish, and not to the person, but as owner of the house; and if such grant should be good to a man and his heirs, they would have the seat, though they lived in another parish, which is very unreasonable, and contrary to the original intention of building seats in churches, which was for the inhabitants of that parish, that they might more conveniently attend the service of the church; and certainly if the bishop cannot make such a grant, no private person can do it, for the reasons before mentioned.

But where there is no contention, and the ordinary does not interpose, because there is no complaint, there the parson and churchwardens have power to place the parishioners in seats; and in some places the churchwardens alone have that power by custom, as in London. If a seat is built in the body of the church, without the consent of the bishop, the churchwardens may pull it down, because it was set up by a private person without the licence of the ordinary; but it hath been held, that if in removing such seat they cut the timber, or break it, an action of trespass lies against them. This, like many other cases reported by Mr. Noy, is not law: for the freehold of the church being in the incumbent, when the person has fixed a seat to it, it is then become parcel of his freehold, and consequently the right is in him, so that the breaking the timber could not be prejudicial to the other, because he had no legal right to the materials after they were fixed to the freehold. And because seats in the body of the church are to be disposed by the parson and churchwardens, therefore it was formerly held that a man cannot prescribe for a seat there; and yet he might prescribe for the upper part of a seat there. But now the law is settled as to this matter, viz. that one may prescribe for a seat in the body of the church, setting forth that he is seised of an ancient house, &c., and that he and all those whose estate he hath therein, have, time out of mind, used and had a seat in the body of the church for themselves and their families, as belonging to the said house, and that they repaired the said seat; and the reason why he must allege that he repaired it is, because the freehold being in the parson, there must be some special cause shown for such a prescription; but as to this matter the court distinguished between an action on the case brought against a disturber and a suggestion for a prohibition: for in the first case you need not allege that you repair, because the action is brought against a wrong-doer; but upon a suggestion for a prohibition it must be alleged that you repair, because otherwise you shall not divest the ordinary of that right which properly belongs to him. Tenants in common cannot make a joint prescription to a seat in a church, but they may prescribe severally; and if they should bring an action jointly for a disturbance, and upon the evidence it should appear they are tenants in common, they must be nonsuited, because such evidence will not maintain the title upon which the action is founded, for though it is a possessory action, yet since that possession must be maintained by a title derived out of a prescription, they must prescribe severally. And in these prescriptions there is not much exactness required; for if an action on the case is brought for disturbing the plaintiff, &c., it is not sufficient for him to allege, that he is seised in fee of a messuage, &c., (without saying it is an ancient messuage,) and that he, and all those whose estate he hath in the said messuage, had (without saying time out of mind) a seat in the church, which they used to repair as often as there was occasion, &c., this is well enough, because the action is founded on a wrong done by one who disturbed him in his possession; in which action the plaintiff will recover damages, if the verdict is found for him. It is true he may libel in the spiritual court, and prescribe there for a seat, &c.; but if the prescription is denied, a prohibition will be granted; if it is not denied, then that court may proceed to sentence, which, if it happen to be against the prescription, in such case also a prohibition will lie, because the suit being upon a prescription, the proceedings in it were _coram non judice_ in that court; but this seems unreasonable, for it can be only to discharge the person of the costs which he ought to pay. As to seats in aisles of churches, the law is, that if a man has a house in a parish, and a seat in the aisle of the church which he has repaired at his own charge, he shall not be dispossessed by a bishop: if he should, he may have a prohibition, because it shall be intended to be built by his ancestors, with the consent of parson, patron, and ordinary, and appropriated by them to his and their use; and if he is disturbed by any other person in sitting there, he may have an action on the case against him, but then he must prove that he repaired it: and so it was adjudged between Dawtree and Dee, for seats in a little chapel in the north part of the chancel of Petworth, in Sussex; for though no man can tell the true reason of prescriptions, yet some probable reason must be alleged to gain such a peculiar right, and none is more probable than repairing it. And this will entitle a man to a seat in an aisle, though he lives in another parish; and therefore, where the plaintiff set forth that he had an ancient messuage in the parish of H., and that he and all those whose estate he had in the said house, had a seat in the aisle in the parish church of B.; this is a good prescription for a seat in the aisle, because he or they might build or repair it, though it is not a good prescription to have a seat _in nave ecclesiæ_ of another parish. As to the chancel, the ordinary hath no authority to place any one there, for that is the freehold of the rector; and so is the church; but he repairs the one, but not the other, and it is for this reason that an impropriator hath the chief seat in the chancel. But yet a man may prescribe to have a seat here, as belonging to ancient messuage.

So much for the laws of pews: the history of their gradual introduction into churches seems to be as follows:—

The first mention that we find made of a reading pew is in Bishop Parkhurst’s Articles of Visitation for his diocese of Norwich, (1596,) where it is ordered, “That in great churches, where all the people cannot conveniently hear the minister, the churchwardens and others, to whom the charge doth belong, shall provide and support a decent and convenient seat in the body of the church, where the said minister may sit or stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that all the congregation may hear and be edified therewith; and that in smaller churches there be some convenient seat outside the chancel door, for that purpose.”

Before this time, the appointed place for the priest was in the choir, or, as appointed in the Second Book of King Edward, in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best hear, without any note of the provision of a pew, or any mention of “a little tabernacle of wainscot, provided for the purpose.” The first authority for the setting up of reading desks in all our churches, is the canon of 1603.

The earliest pew for the use of the congregation remaining, whose age is determined by the appearance of a date, is in the north aisle of Geddington St. Mary, Northamptonshire, and has the following inscription:

_Churchwardens_, William Thorn,
John Wilkie,

_Minister_, Thomas Jones, 1602.

Another pew occurs in the same church, dated 1604.

From this time till the episcopate of Wren, bishop of Hereford, pews seem to have become more universal, and only then to have found their deserved rebuke. Among other questions in his several articles of visitation we find the following: “Are all the seats and pews so ordered, that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayer, and have their faces up to the holy table?” “Are there any privy closets or close pews in your church? Are any pews so loftily made, that they do any way hinder the prospect of the church or chancel, so that they which be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?”

The last question points at another objection to pews, besides their destructive effect on the interior of a church. They seem to have originated with the Puritans, and to have been intended to conceal the persons sitting in them, that they might, without conviction, disobey the rubrics and canons, providing for a decent deportment during Divine service. The injunctions especially avoided under cover of pews, were the order to bow at the name of JESUS, and the rule to stand at the _Gloria Patri_.

It would, however, be equally absurd and unjust to apply such remarks to the present times; nor shall we offer any reasons against pews instead of open benches, except that they destroy the ecclesiastical character of a church, that they encourage pride, that they make a distinction where no distinction ought to exist, and that they must be erected at a loss of 20 per cent. of church accommodation.—See the _Cambridge Camden Society’s History of Pews_.

PHARISEES. From the Hebrew word _Pharez_, division, or separation. (In other words, _sectarians_, or _separatists_.) The most sanctimonious sect of the Jews, forming their religious world. They were denounced by our LORD for their hypocrisy, that is to say, the hypocrisy of the majority. St. Paul was originally a Pharisee: “after the most strictest _sect_ (αἵρεσιν) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” Acts xxvi. 5.

PHILIP, ST., AND ST. JAMES’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the first day of May.

I. St. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and probably a fisherman, the general trade of that place. He had the honour of being first called to be a disciple of our blessed SAVIOUR. It was to Philip our SAVIOUR proposed that question, what they should do to procure so much bread as would feed the vast multitude that followed him? It was to him the Gentile proselytes addressed themselves, when desirous to see JESUS. And it was with Philip our LORD had that discourse concerning himself before the last supper.

The Upper Asia fell to this apostle’s lot, where he took great pains in planting the gospel, and by his preaching and miracles made many converts. In the latter end of his life, he came to Hierapolis in Phrygia, a city very much addicted to idolatry, and particularly to the worship of a serpent or dragon of prodigious bigness. St. Philip, by his prayers, procured the death, or, at least, the disappearing, of this monster, and convinced its worshippers of the absurdity of paying Divine honours to such odious creatures. But the magistrates, enraged at Philip’s success, imprisoned him, and ordered him to be severely scourged, and then put to death; which, some say, was by crucifixion; others, by hanging him up against a pillar.

St. Philip is generally reckoned among the married apostles; and it is said, he had three daughters, two whereof persevered in their virginity, and died at Hierapolis; the third, having led a very spiritual life, died at Ephesus. He left behind him no writings. The Gospel, under his name, was forged by the Gnostics, to countenance their bad principles, and worse practices.