Chapter LXII: Act 46: , Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do (38)

QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See _Annates_.)

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

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

QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the _fiftieth_ day before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: SHROVE SUNDAY.

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

QUIRE. (See _Choir_.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REAL PRESENCE. (See _Transubstantiation_, _Communion_, _Lord’s Supper_, _Eucharist_.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the LORD there is no vain ceremony or bare sign, _no untrue figure of a thing absent_: but the communion of the body and blood of our LORD in a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the Administration of the LORD’S SUPPER, the elements are repeatedly designated as the body and blood of CHRIST, and after the reception of them we give thanks that GOD “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body of [His] SON, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.” In the exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion of the body and blood of CHRIST.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of CHRIST, and drink his blood.”—_Ibid._ “Grant us, therefore, gracious LORD, so to eat the flesh of thy dear SON JESUS CHRIST, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,” &c.—_Prayer before Consecration._ “Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most precious body and blood.”—_Consecration._ The catechism, in agreement with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and blood of CHRIST, which are _verily and indeed_ taken and received by the faithful in the LORD’S supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of CHRIST, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of CHRIST.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECANTATION. (See _Abjuration_.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFUGE. (See _Sanctuary_.)

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

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

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

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

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

The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be ascribed to the Divine power of the author, not to the intrinsic efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never bless GOD heartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the HOLY GHOST,” which is a paraphrase upon that of our SAVIOUR, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).

And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first taught and persuaded by the word of GOD, the language of holy writ enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “_begotten_ through the gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and then _born again_ or _regenerated_ in baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?

And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our gracious FATHER doth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration, namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate, and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural birth had left us in.

Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; for GOD hereby doth become our FATHER, and JESUS our Master, and all the saints both in heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.