Vickipedia

PERFE’CTIONISTS, or BIBLE COMMUNISTS, popularly known us FREE-LOVERS, or preachers of Free Love, a small American sect who are equally remarkable for the doctrines which they hold, and for the unfaltering way in which they curry them out in practice. The founder of the sect. John Humphrey Noyes, was born at Brattleborough in Vermont, 11th September 1811, and practised as a lawyer. He then studied theology at Andover and Yale, and became a Congregationalist preacher. He soon adopted new views, and lost his license to preach. The opinions of St. Paul, he held, had been completely misconceived by all the Christian churches; all our ecclesiastical organizations were accordingly blunders. He believed that Christ, on his second advent ‘ in the spirit,’ in 70 A.D., abolished the old Law, and closed the reign of sin which began with Adam; and that he lias thenceforth set up His kingdom in the hearts of all willing to accept His reign. For such persons, there was no longer an}’ law or rule of duty; neither the Mosaic code, nor the Sermon on the Mount, nor the ordinances or institutions of civil society, were binding upon them; they were a law unto themselves; they were free to do as they pleased, but—with exceptions which, however, could not invalidate an eternal truth—under the influence of the Divine Spirit which dwelt in them, they could only do that which was right.

His early efforts at establishing a church, made at New Haven, were very discouraging, but he was more successful at Putney He and his converts, men and women, with their children, put their property into a common stock; they gave up the use of prayer, all religious service, and the observance of the Sabbath; those who were married renounced their marriage ties, and a ‘ complex marriage ‘ was established between all the males and all the females of the ‘ Family.’ To get rid of the inconveniences which had been found attendant upon the exercise of Christian liberty, Noyes had set up a new principle, viz., sympathy, by which the individual will was to be corrected, which practically imposed, upon individuals the duty of deferring to the feelings and opinions of the brethren. He now taught that the Family was wiser than the individual, who might stray from the path of grace; that the individual was erring when he differed from the Family; and that the inclinations of individuals must be submitted to the opinion of the Family.

Having dispensed with law, he set up public opinion as a controlling power in its stead; and free criticism of one another by the members of the society became an important feature of his system. Quarrelling, however, broke out among the members: their differences were brought before the law courts; and when the details of the Family system became known, the people of Putney made the place too hot for the Perfectionists. Then establishment was broken up; but a portion of the Putney Family —about fifty men, as many women, and about the same number of children—soon established themselves in a new home, in the sequestered district of Oneida, in the state of New York. Among the things which first drew attention to the Putney Family was a controversy which Noyes maintained with the leaders of another society of P. established at Oberlin. The P. were divided upon the question, whether of the two leading features of their system, the profession of holiness and the right of Christian liberty, the one or the other was the more important—some were ‘ Liberty-men,’ others ‘ Holiness-men.’ Noyes took up the controversy on behalf of the latter.

At Oneida Creek, the new ‘Family ‘ purchased about 600 acres of forest-land, and proceeded to bring it under cultivation. They have made it one of the most productive estates in the Union; they have also established manufactures of various kinds; and in the course of 30 years, they have become a prosperous, and even a wealthy community of about 250 persons, who live together in a state of great harmony and contentedness. Being already sufficiently numerous, the ‘ Family ‘ has to reject frequent applications which are made for admission to membership. A similar society has been established at Wallingford. Their neighbors have become accustomed to the P. and their ways, and let them live in peace. On settling at Oneida, the controlling function of criticism was strengthened by being made more systematic; and a regard for the common good, grown strong through habit, has made persons who disavow all laws perfectly submissive to the unwritten laws of public opinion.

In the smallest, as well as in important affairs, the Perfectionist practises submission to the opinion of his brethren : in small matters, he usually gathers it by consultation with some of the older members of the body; important ones are submitted to the ‘Family’ at their evening meetings. All are busy; and they work as hard for the general interest as men do in the hope of enriching themselves. The men wear no particular garb, but usually dress like the country people around them; the women have their hair cut short, and parted down the center; abjure stays and crinoline; wear a tunic, falling to the knee, and trousers of the same material; a vest, buttoning high towards the throat; and a straw hat. The ‘ Family ‘ lias breakfast at six o’clock, dinner at twelve, and the evening-meal at six in the afternoon; the more advanced of its members abstain from animal food; they drink no beer, and only a weak home-made wine; and like most of the new American sects, they will have nothing to do with doctors. The women are allowed a good deal of influence.

While all the males and females of the ‘ Family ‘ are united by a ‘complex marriage,’ their intercourse—which, in theory, is unfettered by any law—is, in practice, subject to a good deal of regulation. Like everything else, it is subject to the opinion of the society, and certain principles have been so steadily applied to it, that they have gained the force of laws. First, there is the principle of the ascending fellowship. There should be contrast, the P. say, between those who become united in love. That there should be difference of temperament and of complexion has, they say, been well ascertained by physiologists. They hold that there should be a difference in age also, so that the young and passionate may be united to those who have, by experience, gained self-control. In virtue of this principle, the younger women fall to the older men, and the younger men to the older women. A second principle is, that there should be no exclusive attachment between individuals; a third, that persons should not be obliged to receive the attentions of those whom they do not like; and lastly, it is held indispensable that connections should be formed through the agency of a third party—because, without this, the question of their propriety might be withdrawn from criticism, and also, because this affords a lady an easy opportunity of declining.

The human heart, the P. say, is capable of loving any number of times, and any number of persons at the same time, and the more it loves the more it can love. The system of the ‘ complex marriage ‘ is therefore suitable to, while monogamy imposes a restriction upon, human nature; and they believe that marriage will be spurned by the churches as soon as they get rid of the false notion of the essential sinfulness of love. They are confident that, when they have worked out a few details, still incomplete, their system will be perfect, and that it will, before long, be imitated throughout the length and breadth of America. There are four things, according to Noyes, necessary to the organization of a true family : (1) the reconciliation of its members with God; (2) their salvation from sin; (3) recognition of the brotherhood and equality of man and woman; (4) community of labor and its fruits; and communism can only prosper when the previous conditions exist. The P. hold that for reconciliation to God and salvation from sin nothing is necessary but faith; let a man believe that he is reconciled to God, and his sins are immediately washed away.

POSTULA’TION (Lat. ‘an asking’), in Canon Law, means a presentation or recommendation addressed to the superior, to whom the right of appointment to any dignity belongs, in favor of one who has not a strict title to the appointment. It is one of the forms of proposing to the pope persons nominated, but not, strictly speaking, elected, to a bishopric. It is also used in the case of elections in which the candidate, although regularly chosen by the electors, yet labors under some legal disability which involves the necessity of a dispensation. The presentation of candidates for the episcopacy, as it exists in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, is called postulation.

INDI’CTION, a period or cycle of fifteen years, the origin of which is involved in obscurity. Connecting the original meaning of the word, viz., ‘the imposition of a tax,’ with its signification in chronology, several writers have propounded theories explanatory of its origin, none of which, however, are supported by a tittle of evidence. It began to be used in reckoning time, chiefly by ecclesiastical historians, during the life of Athanasius; it was afterwards adopted by the popes, who still continue to use it, and through whose influence it came to be so generally employed during the middle ages, that the dates of charters and public deeds of this era are expressed in indictions as well as in years of the Christian era. The time from which reckoning by indictions commenced is, according to some, the 15th September 312; according to the Greeks of the Lower Empire, 1st September 312; but when this method was adopted by the popes, it was ordered to be reckoned as commencing 1st January 313. The latter, which is now alone used, is called the Papal Indiction. If we reckon backwards to the commencement of the Christian era, it will be seen that 1 a.d. does not correspond to the 1st, but to the fourth year of an indiction—hence if to any given year of the Christian era 3 be added, and the sum divided by 15, the remainder will give the position of that year in an indiction—e. g., 1880 A.D. was the 8th year of an indiction.

CHRISTIANITY. It is proposed in the present article to give a very brief outline of the system of the Christian religion, and of the evidences by which its truth is established. The principal parts, both of the system and evidences of C., will be found noticed under separate heads.

C. comes to us with a claim to be received as of divine origin. It is no product of the human mind, but has for its author the Being whom it sets before us as the object of worship. It is consequently altogether exclusive; it claims to be deemed the only true religion�’ the truth ‘�and admits of no compromise or alliance with any other system.

C. cannot be viewed as distinct from the religion of the Jews and of the patriarchs; it is the same religion accommodated to new circumstances; there has been a change of dispensation only. In studying either the system or the evidences of C., we are compelled continually to revert from the New Testament to the Old, and must in some measure trace the history of the true or revealed religion through the previous and preparatory dispensations.

The whole system of C. may be regarded as having its foundation in the doctrine of the Existence of one God. See god. Next to this maybe placed the doctrine of the Fall (q. v.) of Man. Man is represented as involved in misery by sin (q. v.)�original and actual�and every individual of the human race as incapacitated for the service and fellowship of God, obnoxious to the displeasure of God, and liable to punishment in the future and eternal state of being. See punishment, future. And here we may regard the doctrine of the atonement (q. v.) as next claiming our attention�a doctrine taught in all the sacrifices (see sacrifice) of the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, as well as by the words of inspired teachers. Man being utterly incapable of effecting his own deliverance from sin and misery, God sent his Son to save sinners, to deliver them from hell, to make them holy, and partakers of the eternal joy and glory of heaven.

By those who regard Christ as a mere creature, atonement or reconciliation with God is made to depend on the repentance of man as its immediate cause; whilst the life and death of Christ are represented as merely an example to us of obedience, virtue, and piety in the most trying circumstances; the doctrines of a propitiatory sacrifice, a substitutionary obedience, and an imputed righteousness, with all that form part of the same system, falling completely and even necessarily to the ground. These doctrines, however, are all consistently maintained in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity and the generally received doctrine as to the person of Christ. See christ and trinity. The very incarnation (q. v.) of the Son of God is regarded as a glorious display of the divine condescension, and a wonderful exaltation of human nature : whilst a personal enjoyment of the highest dignity and bliss of which humanity is capable in favor and fellowship of God for ever, is to be attained by faith in Jesus Christ. See faith and justification.

The indissoluble connection between faith and salvation arises from the divine appointment, but secures a moral harmony, as it provides for bringing into operation�in accordance with the intellectual and moral nature of man�of most powerful and excellent motives for all that is morally good, the partakers of salvation being thus fitted for the fellowship of Him into whose favor they are received; and as it prevents the possibility of any of them taking to themselves, or giving to others, the glory of that salvation which they really owe to Christ, and which they must therefore ascribe to Christ, as God is a God of truth, and truth must reign in the kingdom of heaven.

Salvation is ascribed by all Christians to the grace of God. The mission of Christ was an act of supreme grace; and all must be ascribed to grace for which we are indebted to Christ. The doctrine of grace, however, is a part of the system of C. on which important differences subsist, especially as to the relation of the grace of God to individual men.

Such are tte differences concerning election (q. v.), and concerning the origin of faith, and man’s ability or inability to believe of himself. But by Christians generally, the personal relation of the believer to Christ, and his faith in Christ, are ascribed to the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God, the third person of the God-head, and so to the grace of God. See arminius, calvinism.

Ir. the view of all who hold the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrines concerning the Spirit of God form a very important part of the Christian system. To the agency of this person of the Godhead, besides all that is ascribed to Him concerning the human nature of Christ, we are indebted for all that is spiritually good in man; He, in the economy of grace, being sent by God, on the intercession of Christ, to communicate the blessings purchased by Christ, in his obedience and death. See holy ghost.

Salvation begins on earth; and whenever a man believes in Christ, he is a partaker of it�is in a state of salvation. It forms an essential part of the Calvinistic system, that he who is in a state of salvation always remains so, and that the salvation begun on earth is in every case made perfect in heaven. See persever of saints. Thus salvation is viewed as beginning in regeneration (q. v.), and as carried on in SANCTIFICATION (q. v.), and all its joys as connected with the progress of sanctification. Faith in Jesus Christ cannot be unaccompanied with repentance, and repentance is always renewed when the exercise of faith is renewed. For although all believers are saints or holy, as set apart to God, and in contrast to what they previously were, yet there is none in this life free from temptation and sin; the successful tempter of our first parents, who assailed our Saviour with temptation and was defeated, being still the active enemy of men, against whom believers in Jesus Christ are called to contend, to watch, and to pray. See devil. The sense of responsibility belongs to human nature; and the doctrine of a Judgment (q. v.) to come may be considered as to a certain extent a doctrine of natural religion, as may also that of the Immortality (q. v.) of the Soul; but the clear and.distinct enunciation of these doctrines belongs to the Christian revelation, to which belongs entirely the doctrine of the Resurrection (q. v.) of the Dead.

Of the moral part of C., which has already been referred to, it may be sufficient here to state, that it is as harmonious with the doctrinal as it is inseparable from it; that it is founded upon the attributes of God, and is perfectly illustrated in the character of Jesus Christ; and that it is divisible into two great parts�one, of the love of God, and the other, of the love of man, or of ourselves and our neighbors. See law, moral

The means of grace, or of the attainment of the blessings of salvation, form an important part of the Christian system. Of these the word of god�or divine revelation contained in the Bible (q. v.)�first claims attention, as the means of conversion to Christ, and of edification in Christ, the instrument by which salvation is both begun and carried on in men. The ordinances of God’s worship are among the means of grace. Thus Prayer (q. v.) is one of the chief means of grace. The Sacraments (q. v.) are means of grace, concerning the precise use of which, and their relative importance as compared with the other means, considerable difference of opinion prevails among Christians. The same remark applies also to the combination of Christians into an organized body or community, the Church (q, v.), with its own laws or system of church-government (q. v.) and church-discipline (q. v.).

We have endeavored to sketch the outline of the system of C., as much as possible according to the general belief of Christians, merely indicating the points on which the chief differences of opinion exist. Some of the principal controversies will be found noticed under separate heads.

The truth of C. is established by many different Evidences , distinct and independent, but mutually corroborative. It appeals to reason, and demands to have its claims examined and admitted. Nor is there any faith where there is not a mental conviction arrived at by a process of sound reasoning.

The evidences of C. are very generally divided into two great classes, internal &\^(\ external�the former consisting of those which are found in the nature of the Christian system itself, and in its adaptation to the nature and wants of man; the latter, of those which are derived from other sources. The boundary between the two classes, however, is by no means so distinct in reality as it appears in the definition of the terms. Of the multitude of books which have been written on the subject of the evidences of C., some are devoted mainly to one of these classes, and some to the other; whilst some are occupied with the development of particular evidences or arguments, and some with the refutation of objections, and in particular of what may be called a preliminary objection�that a divine revelation can never be established by sufficient evidence at all. See Revelation.

The evidence of Miracles (q. v.) and the evidence of Prophecy (q. v.), two of the principal branches, of the external evidences of C., will be found noticed in separate articles. Another argument, which has been much elaborated�for example, in Paley’s Evidences�is derived from the character and sufferings of the apostles and other first preachers of C.; their high moral worth, considered along with their great earnestness and devotedness; the absence of all possibility/’ of selfish or base motives; and at the same time, their perfect/opportunity of knowing the truth of the facts which they proclaimed. A subsidiary argument is found in the admission of�tbregreat facts regarding Jesus of Nazareth, by the early opponents of Christianity.

A most important and valuable argument is found in the perfect coherence of all the parts of the Christian system, and in the agreement, as to the religion which they teach, of all the books of Scripture, notwithstanding the widely different dates of their composition, and their very different nature in other respects. See bible. The relation of the Jewish ceremonies to the doctrines of C. supplies another argument of this kind, capable of being developed in a multitude of particulars. The minor coincidences between the different books of Scripture have been pointed out with happy effect in the Horce Paulina of Paley, and in other works. The character of our Saviour supplies an argument of great power : the impossibility of the invention of such a character, and of the history in which it is exhibited, by any effort of human genius, is. also urged as corroborative; and the inconsistency of the morality displayed, with the supposition of imposture, has been dwelt upon with the same view. The excellency, both of the doctrinal and moral part of the system of C., its elevating and purifying tendency, the agreement of its doctrine with the tact of man’s sinfulness and misery, and the suitable provision which it makes for his most deeply felt wants, are principal branches of the internal evidence of its truth. The effects of C., where it has prevailed, supply a confirmatory argument in its favor, which has formed the subject of works of great learning and interest.

CHRISTMAS, the day on which the nativity of the Saviour is observed. The institution of this festival is attributed by the spurious Decretals to Telesphorus, who flourished in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138�161 a.d.), but the first certain traces of it are found about the time of the Emperor Commodus (180�192 A.D.). In the reign of Diocletian (284�305 A.D.), while that Buler was keeping court at Nicomedia, he learned that a multitude of Christians were assembled in the city to celebrate the birthday of Jesus, and having ordered the church-doors to be closed, he set fire to the building, and all the worshipers perished in the names. It does not appear, however, that there was any uniformity in the period of observing the nativity among the early churches; some held the festival in the mouth of May or April, others in January. It is, nevertheless, almost certain that the 25th of December cannot be the nativity of the Saviour, for it is then the height of the rainy season in Judea, and shepherds could hardly be watching their flocks by night in the plains.

C. not only became the parent of many later festivals, such as those of the Virgin, but especially from the 5th to the 8th c., gathered round it, as it were, several other festivals, partly old and partly new, so that what may be termed a Christmas Cycle sprang up, which surpassed all other groups of Christian holidays in the manifold richness of its festal usages, and furthered, more than any other, the completion of the orderly and systematic distribution of church festivals over the whole year. Not casually or arbitrarily was the festival of the Nativity celebrated on the 25th of December.

Among the causes that co-operated in fixing this period as the proper one, perhaps the most powerful was, that almost all the heathen nations regarded the winter-solstice as a most important point of the year, as the beginning of the renewed life and activity of the powers of nature, and of the gods, who were originally merely the symbolical personifications of these. In more northerly countries, this fact must have made itself peculiarly palpable �hence the Celts and Germans, from the oldest times, celebrated the season with the greatest festivities. At the winter-solstice, the Germans held their great Yule-feast (see yule), in commemoration of the return of the fiery sun-wheel; and believed that, during the twelve nights reaching from the 25th December to the 6th of January, they could trace the personal movements and interferences on earth- of other great deities, Odin, Berchta, &c. Many of the beliefs and usages of the old Germans, and also of the Romans, relating to this matter, passed over from heathenism to Christianity, and have partly survived to the present day. But the church also sought to combat and banish�and it was to a large extent successful�the deep-rooted heathen feeling, by adding� for the purification of the heathen customs and feasts which it retained�its grandly devised liturgy, besides dramatic representations of the birth of Christ and the first events of his life. Hence sprang the so-called ‘ Manger-songs,’ and a multitude of C. carols, as well as C. dramas, which, at certain times and places, degenerated into farces or Fools’ Feasts (q. v.). Hence also originated, at a later period, the Christ-trees, or C.-trees, adorned with lights and gifts, the custom of reciprocal presents, and of special C. meats and dishes, such as C. cakes, dumplings, &c. Of late it has become usual for friends to forward to one another, by post, gaily illuminated Christmas cards, bearing Christmas greetings.

In the Roman Catholic Church, three masses are performed C.�one at midnight, one at daybreak, and one in the morning. The day is also celebrated by the Anglo-Catholic Church� psalms are sung, a special preface is made in the Communion Service, and the Athanasian Creed is said or sung. The Lutheran Church, on the continent, likewise observes C.; but the Presbyterian churches in Scotland, and the whole of the English dissenters, reject it, in its religious aspect, as a ‘ human invention,’ is ’savoring of papistical will-worship,’ although, in England dissenters as well as churchmen keep it as a social holiday, on which there is a complete cessation from all business. But within the last hundred years, the festivities once appropriate to C. have Hindi fallen off. These at one time lasted with more or less brilliancy till Candlemas, and with great spirit till Twelfth-day ; but now a meeting in the evening, composed, when possible, of the various branches and members of a family, is all that distinguishes the day above others.

JANSEN, Cornelius, a celebrated divine, born of humble parentage in 1585, at Akkoi, near Leerdam, in Holland, from whom the sect of jansenists derives its name. He was nephew of the well-known biblical commentator, and Bishop of Ghent, of the same name. The studies of J. were divided between Utrecht, Louvain, and Paris. Having obtained a professorship at Bayonne, he devoted himself with all his energy to scriptural and patristic studies, especially of the works of St. Augustine. From Bayonne, he returned to Louvain, where, in 1617, he obtained the degree of Doctor, was appointed Lecturer on Scripture, and took a prominent part in the affairs of the university, especially in a contest with the Jesuits, on occasion of which he was sent upon a mission to the court of Madrid. In 1630, he was appointed to the professorship of Scripture; and having distinguished himself by a pamphlet on the war with France, Mars Gallicus, he was promoted, in 1686, to the see of Ypres. In this city he died of the plague, May 6, 1638, just as he had completed his great work, the Augustinus, which proved the occasion of a theological controversy, the most important, in its doctrinal, social, and even political results, which has arisen since the Reformation. Its main object, in which it coincided with the scheme of doctrine already condemned in Bajus (q. v.), was to prove, by an elaborate analysis of St. Augustine’s works, that the teaching of this Father against the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians (q. v.), on Grace, Free-will, and Predestination, was directly opposed to the teaching of the modern, and especially of the Jesuit schools (see molina), which latter teaching he held to be identical with that of the semi-Pelagians. In the preface, he submitted the work to the judgment of the Holy See; and on its publication, in 1640, being received with loud clamor, especially by the Jesuits, and at once referred to Home for judgment, the Augustinus�together with the antagonist publications of the Jesuits�was prohibited by a decree of the inquisition in 1641; in the following year, it was condemned as heretical by Urban VIII. in the bull In Eminenti. This bull encountered much opposition in Belgium; and in France, the Augustinus found many partisans, who were animated by a double feeling, as well of doctrinal predilection as of antipathy to the alleged laxity of moral teaching in the schools of the Jesuits, with whom the opposition to the Augustinus was identified. See jesuits. The most eminent of the patrons of the Augustinus were the celebrated association of scholars and divines who formed the community of PORT ROYAL (q. v.), Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, &c. Nevertheless, the syndic of the Sorbonne extracted from the Augustinus seven propositions (subsequently reduced to five) which were condemned as heretical by Innocent X. in 1653. Hence arose the celebrated distinction of ‘right’ and of ‘fact.’ The friends of the Augustinus, while they admitted that in point of right the live propositions were justly condemned as heretical, yet denied that in point of fact these propositions were to be found in the Augustinus, at least in the sense imputed to them by the bull.

A further condemnation was therefore issued by Alexander VII. in 1656, which was rigidly enforced in France, and generally accepted; and in 1668, peace was partially restored by Clement IX., at least all overt opposition was repressed by the iron rule of Louis XIV. The more rigid Jansenists, however, and at their head Antoine Arnauld, emigrated from France, and formed a kind of community in the Low Countries. On the death of Arnauld in 1694, the controversy remained in abeyance for so me years; but it was revived with new acrimony by the well-known dispute on the so-called ‘ case of conscience,’ and still more angrily in the person of the celebrated Quesnel (q. v.), whose Moral Reflections on the New Testament, although published with high ecclesiastical authority, at various intervals from 1671 till his death, 1710, was denounced to the pope, Clement XI, as a text-book of undisguised Jansenism. This pope issued in 1713, in the constitution ‘ Unigenitus,’ a condemnation in mass of 101 propositions extracted from the Moral Reflections, which, however, met with great resistance in France. The death of Louis XIV. caused a relaxation of the repressive measures. The regent, Duke of Orleans, was urged to refer the whole controversy to a national council, and the leaders of the Jansenist party appealed to a general council. The party thus formed, which numbered four bishops and many inferior ecclesiastics, were called, from this circumstance, the Appellants. The firmness of the pope, and a change in the policy of the regent, brought them into disfavor. An edict was published, June 4, 1720, receiving the bull; and even the parliament of Paris submitted to register it, although with a reservation in favor of the liberties of the Gallican Church. The Appellants for the most part submitted, the recusants being visited with severe penalties; and on the accession of the new king, Louis XV., the unconditional acceptance of the bull was at length formally accomplished, the parliament being compelled to register it in a lit de justice. From this time forward, the Appellants were rigorously repressed, and a large number emigrated to the Netherlands, where they formed a community, with Utrecht as a center. The party still remaining in France persisted in their inveterate opposition to the bull, and many of them fell into great excesses of fanaticism. See CONVULSIONARIES. In one locality alone, Utrecht, and its dependent churches, can the sect be said to have had a regular and permanent organization, which dates partly from the forced emigration of the French Jansenists under Louis XIV., partly from the controversy about Quesnel. The vicar-apostolic, Peter Codde, having been suspended by Clement XI. in 1702, the chapter of Utrecht refused to acknowledge the new vicar named in his place, and angrily joined themselves to the Appellant party in France, many of whom found a refuge in Utrecht. At length, in 1723, they elected an archbishop, Cornelius Steenhoven, for whom the form of episcopal consecration was obtained from the French bishop Vorlet (titular of Babylon), who had been suspended for Jansenist opinions. A later Jansenist Archbishop of Utrecht, Meindarts, established Haarlem and Deventer as his suffragan sees; and in 1763, a synod was held, which sent its acts to Rome, in recognition of the primacy of that see, which the church of Utrecht professes to acknowledge. Since that time, the formal succession has been maintained, each bishop, on being appointed, notifying his election to the pope, and craving confirmation. The popes, however, have uniformly rejected all advances, except on the condition of the acceptance of the bull Unigenitus, and the recent act of the Holy See, in defining as of Catholic faith the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has been the occasion of a new protest. The Jansenists of the Utrecht Church still number about 6000 souls, and are divided over 25 parishes in the dioceses of Utrecht and Haarlem. Their clergy are about 30 in number, with a seminary at Amersfoort. The Jansenist Archbishop of Utrecht has recently consecrated a bishop for the Old Catholic (see dolhngeR) community in Germany.

FIFTH MONARCHY MEN. Among the strange and whimsical forms of opinion which the religious and political fermentation of the 17th c. brought to the surface of society, and embodied in the shape of religious sects, were those of the Fifth Monarchy Men. The date which has been assigned to their first appearance is 1654.

Notwithstanding the ridicule with which they have often been overwhelmed, there seems nothing in their tenets more objectionable than we find in those of many of the other sects of the period, and there is no reason to believe that the practices of their leaders exceeded in absurdity, or equalled in impiety, those of Robbins, Reeve, Muggleton, and other apostles of the Ranters. In common with most persons who hold the literal interpretation of prophecy, they believed in the four great monarchies of Antichrist marked out by the prophet Daniel; and quite consistently with Christian orthodoxy, they added to them & fifth�viz., the kingdom of Christ on earth. So far, there was nothing peculiar in their views. But their error was twofold. 1st. They believed in the immediate, or at least in the proximate, advent of Christ (a tenet which was common to them with the early church); and 2d. They held that the fulfilment of God’s promise to this effect must be realized by the forcible destruction of the kingdom of Antichrist. Every obstacle which opposed itself to the setting up the Messiah’s throne was to be thrown down, and what these obstacles were was a question for the solution of which the only criterion which presented itself was their own fanatical prejudices and hatreds. It is obvious that such doctrines in such times must have given rise to practical as well as speculative disorder. The Fifth Monarchy Men became extinct as a sect shortly after the Restoration; a fact which, by depriving them of exponents of their own body, may have exposed them to misrepresentation (Marsden’s History of the Later Puritans, p. 387). In politics, the Fifth Monarchy Men were republicans of the extremest section; and when their conspiracy to murder the Protector, and revolutionize the government, was discovered in 1657, their leaders, Vennar, Grey, Hopkins, &c., were imprisoned in the Gate House till after the Protector’s death. Amongst their arms and ammunition which was seized, was found a standard exhibiting a lion couchant, supposed to represent the lion of the tribe of Judah, with the motto, ‘Who will rouse him up?’�Neal’s Puritans, vol. iv. p. 186. See also Carlyle’s Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches, vol. iii. p. 31.

BLA’SPHEMY is an offence against God and religion, by denying to the Almighty his being and providence; or by contumelious reproaches of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; also all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, or exposing them to ridicule and contempt. Seditious words, moreover, in derogation of the established religion may be proved under a charge of blasphemy. These all are offences punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment; for Christianity is held to be part of the laws of England; and a blasphemous libel may be prosecuted as an offence at common law, and punished with fine and imprisonment. In Gathercole’s case, tried at York in 1838, where the defendant, a clergyman of the Church of England, was prosecuted for a libel on ‘a Roman Catholic nunnery, and in which he also made a violent attack on the tenets and the morality of the Roman Catholic Church, it was laid down by the judge who tried the case (the late Baron Alderson), that a person may, without being liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism, or Mohammedanism, or even any sect of the Christian religion, save the established religion of the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from the others is, because it is the form established by law, and is therefore a part of the constitution of the country. But any general attack on Christianity is also the subject of criminal prosecution, because Christianity is the public religion of the country. Thus, as an offence against religion, B. may assume one of two forms : first, either as against the articles and creeds of the Established Church; or secondly, as against a dissenting community, in the libel against whom, a general attack on the Christian religion is involved. The B. must in some manner have been overtly and publicly declared, either by a speech on some public occasion, or by the act of publication in print.

The Scotch law regarding this offence is now very much the same. The old severe Scotch acts, one passed 1661, and in another in 1695, which provided capital punishment for offences of this description, were repealed by the 53 Geo. III. c. 160. The punishment is now arbitrary at common law; and by the 6 Geo. IV. c. 47, the punishment of B. is further restricted, and made the same as in England. It is also enacted by the second section of that act, that a person convicted of a second offence may be adjudged, at the discretion of the court, either to suffer the punishment of fine or imprisonment, or both, or to be banished the country; but the provision as to the punishment of banishment is repealed by the 7 Will. IV. c. 5. The latest and most remarkable illustration of the Scotch law regarding this offence, is a case that was tried before the High Court of Justiciary in 1843. The prisoner, who defended himself was accused, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months, for publishing profane, impious, and blasphemous books, containing a denial of the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures and of the Christian religion; and devised, contrived, and intended to ridicule and bring into contempt the same.

In the course of the trial, the prisoner endeavored to justify his conduct by quotations from the Bible, which, he maintained, warranted the language of the blasphemous works in question. But the court would not allow such a line of defence, and the Lord Justice-clerk (the late Right Honorable John Pope) in charging the jury, pointed out that the indictment charged, that the wicked mid felonious publication of such works is a crime, and that therefore the jury were not to consider themselves engaged in any theological discussion, but simply in trying whether a known and recognized offence against the law had been committed. His lordship proceeded further to expound the law as follows: ‘ Now, the law of Scotland, apart from all questions of church establishment or church government, has declared that the Holy Scriptures are of supreme authority. It gives every man the right of regulating his faith or not by the standard of the Holy Scriptures, and gives full scope to private judgment, regarding the doctrines contained therein; but it expressly provides, that all ‘blasphemies shall be suppressed,” and that they who publish opinions “contrary to the known principles of Christianity,” may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the civil magistrate. This law does not impose upon individuals any obligations as to their belief. It leaves free and independent the right of private belief, but it carefully protects that which was established as part of the law, from being brought into contempt.’ The learned judge also observed : ‘ I think it also my duty to add�as a part of the [prisoner’s] address was directed against the policy and expediency of this prosecution�that I think it was a most proper and fit prosecution. I have no doubt of the effect that will result from this prosecution; because, though, in his advertisement and address, this individual declares that he addresses himself chiefly to the working-classes of Scotland, yet I am sure that he deceives himself if he imagines that that is a class which would easily part with their belief in those truths, which are perhaps more valuable to them in this life than to any other class in the community. There may, indeed, be a class of persons, like the prisoner at the bar, in situations above that of the working-classes, young men whose education is imperfect, and their reading misdirected; and it is to save them from the mischief of these opinions that it is necessary the law should take its course.’ See RELIGION, OFFENCES AGAINST.

A’ME’N, a Hebrew word of asservation, is equivalent to ‘Yea,’ ‘ Truly,’ and has been commonly adopted in the forms of Christian worship. In Jewish synagogues, the A. is pronounced by tilt congregation at the conclusion of the benediction given at parting. Among the early Christians, the prayer offered by the presbyter was concluded by the word A., uttered by the congregation, Mention is made of the practice in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (xiv. 16). Justin Martyr is the earliest of the fathers who alludes to the use of the response. ‘In speaking of the sacrament he says that, at the close of the benediction and prayer, all the assembly respond “A.” According to Tertullian, none but to faithful were permitted to join in the response.’ A somewhat noisy and irreverent practice prevailed in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper until the 6th c., after which it was discontinued. ‘Upon the reception both of the bread and of the wine, each person uttered a loud ” A.; ” and at the close of the consecration by the priest, all joined in shouting a loud ” A.” ‘ The same custom was observed at baptism, where the sponsors and witnesses responded vehemently. In the Greek Church, the A. was pronounced after the name of each person of the Trinity; and at the close of the baptismal formula, the people responded. At the conclusion Of prayer, it signifies (according to the English Church Catechism) So be it; after the repetition of the Creed, So is it.