title of "William III. The Prince of Orange
offered to protect them, and to preserve
the civil establishment of the Church,
provided that they would come over to
his interest, and support his pretensions
to the throne. This they steadily re-
fused to do ; and consequently, by the
prince and parliament, the bishojjs and the
clergy were ordered cither to conform to
the new government, or to quit their
livings. There were then fourteen bishops
in Scotland, and nine hundred clergy of
the other two orders. All the bishops,



and by far the greater number of the other
clergy, refused to take the oaths ; and in
tlie livings they were thus compelled to
relinquish, Presbyterian ministers were in
general placed. And thus the Presbyterian
sect was established (so far as it can be
established by the authority of man) in-
stead of the Church in Scotland. It was
stated that this was done, not because
bishops were illegal and unscriptural, but
because the establishment of the Church
was contrary to the will of the people,
who, as they had elected a king, ought, as
it was supi)oscd, to be indulged in the still
greater privilege of selecting a religion.
And yet it is said, in the liife of Bishop
Sage, " it was certain, that not one of three
parts of the common people were then for
the presbytery, and not one in ten among
the gentlemen and people of education."
The system of doctrine to which the estab-
lished Kirk of Scotland subscribes is the
Westminster Confession of Faith, and to
the Kirk (for it was passed in 1643 by the
general assembly of the Kirk) belongs the
national and solemn League and Covenant,
(a formulary more tremendous in its ana-
themas than any bull of liome,) to " en-
deavour the extirpation of Popery and
prelacy," i. e. " Church government by arch-
bishops, bishops, and all ecclesiastical of-
ficers dependent upon the hierarchy." This
League was approved by that very assem-
bly at Westminster, whose Confession was
now nationally adopted. And certainly,
during their political ascendency, the mem-
bers of that establishment have done their
best to accomplish this, so far as Scotland
is concerned, although, contrary to their
principles, there are some among them
who would make an exception in favour
of England, if the Church of England
would be base enough to forsake her sister
Church in Scotland. That Church is now
just in the position in which our Church
would be, if it pleased parliament, in Avhat
is profanely called its omnipotence, to
drive us from our sanctuaries, and to estab-
lish the Independents, or the Wesleyans,
in our place.

The bishops of the Scottish Church, thus
deprived of their property and their civil
rights, did not attempt to keep up the
same number of bishops as before the Re-
volution, nor did they continue tlie division
of the country into the same dioceses, as
there was no occasion for that accuracy,
by reason of tlie diminution which their
clergy and congregations had suffered,
owing to the persecutions they had to
endure. They have also dropped the de-
signation of archbishops, now only making



186



CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.



CHURCH, GALLICAN.



use of that of Primus, (a name formerly
given to the presiding bishop,) who being
elected by the other bishops, six in num-
ber, is invested thereby with the authority
of calling and presiding in such meetings
as may be necessary for regulating the af-
fairs of the Church. The true Church of
Scotland has thus continued to exist from
the llevolution to the present time, not-
withstanding those penal statutes, of the
severity of which some opinion may be
formed when it is stated, that the grand-
father of the present venerable bishop of
Aberdeen, although he had taken the oaths
to the government, was committed to prison
for six months ; and why ? for the heinous
offence of celebrating Divine service «c-
cording to the forms of the English Book of
Common Prayer, in the presence of more
than four persons! But in vain has the
Scottish establishment thus persecuted the
Scottish Church ; as we have said, she still
exists, perhaps, amidst the dissensions of
the estabhshment, to be called back again
to her own. The penal statutes were re-
pealed in the year 1792. But even then
the clergy of that Church were so far pro-
hibited from officiating in the Church of
England, that the clergpnan, in whose
church they should perform any ministerial
act, was liable to the penalties of a pre-
munire. Although a clergyman of any
of the Greek churches, although even a
clergyman of the Church of Rome, upon
his renouncing those Romish peculiarities
and errors, which are not held by our
Scottish brethren, could serve at our altars,
and preach from our pulpits, our brethren
in Scotland and America were prevented
from doing so. This disgrace however has
now been removed by the piety of the late
archbishop of Canterbury, who has obtained
an act which restores to the Church one of
her lost liberties. At the end of the last
century, the Catholic Church in Scotland
adopted those Thirty-nine Articles Avhich
w^ere drawn up by the Church of England
in the reign of Queen EKzabeth. They,
for the most part, make use of our liturgy,
though in some congregations the old
Scotch liturgy is used, and it is expressly
appointed that it shall always be used at
the consecration of a bishop.

The Church of Scotland, before the po-
litical recognition of Presbyterianism, had
fourteen bishops : viz. The archbishop of
St. Andrew's, primate of Scotland, with
nine suffragans; viz. Edinburgh, Aber-
deen, Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caithness,
Dunblane, Orkney, and Ross. The arch-
bishop of Glasgow, with three suffragans ;
viz. Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles. The



bishops of Edinburgh and Galloway had
precedence over the others. All the bi-
shops sat in the Scottish parliament, but
they had no convocation, like those of the
Church of England in ancient times, their
synods being episcopal. After the Re-
formation, their assemblies were long of
an anomalous kind, and bore witness to a
continual struggle between the episcopal
and presbyterian, or rather democratic,
principle, which finally prevailed. In
1663, however, an act of parliament was
passed regulating their national synod.
(See Convocation.)

CHURCH, GALLICAN, or THE
CHURCH OF FRANCE, although in com-
munion with the see of Rome, maintained
in many respects an independent position.
(See Concordat and Pragmatic Sanction.)
This term is very ancient, for we find it
used in the Council of Paris, held in the year
362, and the Council of Illyria, in 367.

This Church all along preserved certain
ancient rites, which she possessed time out
of mind ; neither were these privileges any
grants of popes, but certain franchises and
immunities, derived to her from her first
original, and which she will take care never
to relinquish. These liberties depended
upon two maxims, which were always
looked upon in France as indisputable.
The first is, that the pope had no authority
or right to command or" order anything,
either in general or particular, in which
the temporalities or civil rights of the
kingdom were concerned. The second
was, that, notwithstanding the pope's su-
premacy was owned in cases purely spi-
ritual, yet, in France, his power was limited
and regulated by the decrees and canons
of ancient councils received in that realm.
The liberties or privileges of the Galilean
Church were founded upon these two
maxims, and the most considerable of them
are as follows :

I. The king of France has a right to
convene synods, or provincial and national
councils, in which, amongst other important
matters relating to the preservation of the
state, cases of ecclesiastical discipline are
likewise debated.

II. The pope's legates a, latere, who are
empowered to reform abuses, and to exer-
cise the other parts of their legantine office,
are never admitted into France unless at
the desire, or with the consent, of the king :
and whatever the legates do there, is with
the approbation and allowance of the king.

III. The legate of Avignon cannot ex-
ercise his commission in any of the king's
dominions, till after he hath obtained his
Majesty's leave for that purpose.



CHURCH, GALLICAN.



187



IV. The prelates of the Gallican Church,
being summoned by the pope, cannot de-
part the realm upon any pretence what-
ever, -without the king's permission.

V. The pope has no authority to levy
any tax or imposition upon the tempo-
ralities of the ecclesiastical preferments,
upon any pretence, either of loan, vacancy,
annates, tithes, procurations, or otherwise,
without the king's order, and the consent
of the clergy.

VI. The pope has no authority to de-
pose the king, or grant away his dominions
to any person whatever. His Holiness can
neither excommunicate the king, nor ab-
solve his subjects from their allegiance.

VII. The pope likewise has no authority
to excommunicate the king's officers for
their executing and discharging their re-
spective offices and functions.

VIII. The pope has no right to take
cognizance, either by himself or his dele-
gates, of any pre-eminencies or privileges
belonging to the crown of France, the king
being not obliged to argue his prerogatives
in any court but his own.

IX. Counts palatine, made by the pope,
are not acknowledged as such in France,
nor allowed to make use of their privileges
and powers, any more than those created
by the emperor.

X. It is not lawful for the pope to grant
licences to churchmen, the king's subjects,
or to any others holding benefices in the
realm of France, to bequeath the titles and
profits of their respective preferments, con-
trary to any branch of the king's laws, or
the customs of the realm, nor to hinder the
relations of the beneficed clergy, or monks,
to succeed to their estates, when they enter
into religious orders, and are professed.

XI. The pope cannot grant to any per-
son a dispensation to enjoy any estate or
revenues, in France, without the king's
consent.

XII. The pope cannot grant a licence
to ecclesiastics to alienate church lands,
situate and lying in France, without the
king's consent, upon any pretence what-
ever.

XIII. The king may punish his eccle-
siastical officers for misbehaviour in their
respective charges, notwithstanding the
privileges of their orders.

XIV. No person has any right to hold
any benefice in France, unless he be either
a native of the country, naturalized by the
king, or has royal dispensation for that
purpose.

XV. The pope is not superior to an
oecumenical or general council.

XVI. The Galhcan Church does not re-



ceive, without distinction, all the canons,
and all the decretal epistles, but keeps
principally to that ancient collection called
Corpus Cano7iicum, the same which Pope
Adrian sent to Charlemagne towards the
end of the eighth century, and which, in
the year 860, under the pontificate of
Nicolas I., the French bishops declared to
be the only canon law they were obliged
to acknowledge, maintaining that in this
body the liberties of the Gallican Church
consisted.

XVII. The pope has no power, for any
cause whatsoever, to dispense with the law
of God, the law of nature, or the decrees
of the ancient canons.

XVIII. The regulations of the apostolic
chamber, or court, are not obligatory to
the Gallican Church, unless confirmed by
the king's edicts.

XIX. If the primates or metropolitans
appeal to the pope, his Holiness is obliged
to try the cause, by commissioners or dele-
gates, in the same diocese from which the
appeal was made.

XX. When a Frenchman desires the
pope to give him a benefice lying in France,
his Holiness is obliged to order him an in-
strument, sealed under the faculty of his
office ; and, in case of refusal, it is lawful
for the person pretending to the benefice
to apply to the parliament of Paris, which
court shall send instructions to the bishop
of the diocese to give him institution,
which institution shall be of the same va-
lidity as if he had received his title under
the seals of the court of Rome.

XXI. No mandates from the pope, en-
joining a bishop, or other collator, to pre-
sent any person to a benefice upon a va-
cancy, are admitted in France.

XXII. It is only by suflferance that the
pope has Avhat they call a right of preven-
tion, to collate to benefices which the or-
dinary has not disposed of.

XXIII. It is not lawful for the pope to
exempt the ordinary of any monastery, or
any other ecclesiastical corporation, from
the jurisdiction of their respective dio-
cesans, in order to make the person so
exempted immediately dependent on the
holy see.

These liberties were esteemed inviolable,
and the French kings, at their coronation,
solemnly swore to preserve and maintain
them. The oath ran thus : " Promitto
vobis et perdono quod unicuique de vobis
et ecclesiis vobis commissis canonicum jn-i-
vilegium et debitam legem atque justitiam
servabo."

The bishoprics were entirely in the hands
of the Crown. There were, in France, 18



188



CHURCH, GALLICAN.



archbishops, 112 bishops, 160,000 clergy-
men of various orders, and 3400 convents.

The archbishops were : 1 . Rheims, (pri-
mate of France,) eight suffragans. 2. Ly-
ons, (primate of Gaul,) five suffragans. 3.
Rouen, (primate of Normandy,) six suffra-
gans. 4. Paris, four suffragans. 5. Sens,
three suffragans. 6. Tours, eleven suffi-a-
gans. 7. Bordeaux, nine suffragans. 8.
Bourges, five sufli'agans. 9. Toulouse,
seven suffragans. 10. Narbonne, eleven
suffi'agans. 11. Besan^on, one suffragan.
12. Aries, four suffragans. 13. Auch, ten
suffragans. 14. Aix, five suffragans. 15.
Alby, five suffragans. 16. Embrun, six
suffragans. 17. Vienne, four suffragans.
18. Cambray, two suffragans, with six other
bishops under foreign archbishops. The
archbishop of Cambray and his suffragans,
and the archbishop of Besancon with his
suffragan, and eight other bishops, were
not considered properly to form part of the
Gallican Chiu-ch.

Such ivas the Church of France with
the " Gallican Liberties," previously to the
great French Revolution of 1789 — 1793.

Jansenism (see Jansenists) became very
prevalent in the Gallican Church before the
Revolution ; and the antipapal principle of
Jansenism, combined with the revolutionary
mania, developed in 1790 the civil consti-
tution of the clergy in France, under which
false appellation the constituent assembly
affected extraordinary alterations in spi-
ritual moXiers. M. Bouvier, the late bishop
of Mans, remarks, that this constitution
" abounded with many and most grievous
faults." "Fu'st," he says, "the National
Convention, by its own authority, without
any recourse to the ecclesiastical povrer,
changes or reforms all the old dioceses,
erects ncAV ones, diminishes some, increases
others, &c. ; (2.) forbids any Gallican church
or citizen to acknoAvledge the authority of
any foreign bishop, 8zc. ; (3.) institutes a
new mode of administering and ruling
cathedral churches, even in spirituals; (4.)
subverts the divine authority of bishops,
restraining it within certain limits, and im-
posing on them a certain council, without
whose judgment they could do nothing,"
&c. The great body of the Gallican bishops
naturally protested against this constitu-
tion, which suppressed 135 bishoprics, and
erected 83 in their stead, under different
titles. The Convention insisted that they
should take the oath of adhesion to the
civil constitution in eight days, on pain of
being considered as having resigned ; and,
on the refusal of the great majority, the
new bishops were elected in their place,
and consecrated by TallejTand, bishop of



Autun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda,
and Miroudet of Babylon.

M. Bouvier proves, from tlie principles
of his Church, that this constitution was
schismatical ; that all the bishops, rectors,
curates, confessors, instituted by virtue of
it, were intruders, schismatics, and even
involved in heresy ; that the taking of the
oath to observe it was a mortal sin, and
that it would have been better to have
died a hundred times than to have done so.
Certainly, on all the principles of Roman-
ists at least, the adherents of the civil con-
stitution were in schism and heresy.

Nevertheless, these schismatics and here-
tics Avere afterwards introduced into the
communion of the Roman Church itself, in
which they propagated their notions. On
the signature of the Concordat between
Bonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for the
erection of the new Gallican Church, the
first consul made it a point, that ticclve of
these constitutional bishops should be ap-
pointed to sees under the new arrange-
ments. He succeeded. " He caused to
be named to sees twelve of those same
constitutionals who had attached them-
selves with such uhstinate perseverance, for
ten years, to the propaf/ation of schism in

France One of the partisans of the

new Concordat, who had been charged to
receive the recantation of the constitu-
tionals, certified that they had renounced
their civil constitution of the clergy. Some
of them vaunted, nevertheless, that they
had not changed their principles ; and one
of them publicly declared that they had
been offered an absolution of their cen-
sures, but that they had thrown it into
the fire ! " The government forbad the
bishops to exact retractations from the
constitutional priest, and commanded them
to choose one of their vicars-general from
among that party. They were protected
and supported by the minister of police,
and by Portalis, the minister of worship.
In 1803, we hear of the "indiscreet and
irregular conduct of some new bishops,
taken from among the constitutionals, and
who brought into their dioceses the same
spirit which had hitherto directed them."
Afterwards it is said of some of them, that
they " professed the most open resistance to
the holy see, expelled the best men from
their dioceses, and perpetuated the spirit
of schism." In 1804, Pius VIL, being at
Paris, procured their signature to a de-
claration approving generally of the judg-
ments of the holy see on the ecclesiastical
affairs of France; but this vague and ge-
neral formulary, which Bouvier and other
Romanists pretend to represent as a re-



CHURCH, GALLICAN.



CHURCH, GREEK.



189



cantation, was not so understood by these
bishops ; and thus the GalHcan Church
continued, and probably still continues, to
number schisiiiatical his/iojjs and priests in
her communion. Such is the boasted
and most inviolable unity of the Roman
Church !

We are now to speak of the Concordat
of 1801, between Bonaparte, first consul
of the French republic, and Pope Pius VII.
The first consul, designing to restore Chris-
tianity in France, engaged the pontiff to
exact resignations from all the existing
bishops of "the French territory, both con-
stitutional and royalist. The bishoprics
of old France were 130 in number; those
of the conquered districts (Savoy, Ger-
many, &c.) were 24; making a total of
154. The constitutional bishops resigned
their sees ; those, also, who still remained
in the conquered districts, resigned them
to Pius VII. Eighty-one of the exiled
royalist bishops of France were still alive ;
of these forty-five resigned, but thirty-six
declined to do so. The pontiff derogated
from the consent of these latter prelates,
annihilated 159 bishoprics at a blow, cre-
ated in their place 60 new ones, and ar-
ranged the mode of appointment and con-
secration of the new bishops and clergy,
by his bull Ecclesia Christi and Qui
Christi Domini. To this sweeping Con-
cordat the French government took care
to annex, by the authority of their " corps
legislatif," certain " Organic Articles," re-
lating to the exercise of worship. Ac-
cording to a Romish historian, they " ren-
dered the Church entirely dependent, and
placed everything under the hand of
government. The bishops, for example,
were prohibited from conferring orders
without its consent; the vicars-general
of a bishop were to continue, even after
his death, to govern the diocese, without
regard to the rights of chapters ; a multi-
tude of things which ought to have been
left to the decision of the ecclesiastical
authority were minutely regulated," &:c.
The intention was, " to place the priests,
even in the exercise of their spiritual func-
tions, in an entire dependence on the
government agents ! " The pope remon-
strated against these articles — in vain:
they continued, were adopted by the Bour-
bons, and, with some modifications, are in
force to this day ; and the government of
the Gallican Church is vested more in the
conseil d' etat, than in the bisho})s. Bona-
parte assumed the language of piety, while
he proceeded to exercise the most absolute
jurisdiction over the Church. "Hencefor-
ward nothing cmban*asscs him in the yn-



vernment of the CJiurch ; he decides every-
thing as a master ; he creates bishoprics,
unites them, suppresses them." He ap-
parently found a very accommodating epis-
copacy. A royal commission, including
two cardinals, five archbishops and bishops,
and some other high ecclesiastics, in 1810
and 1811, justified many of the "Organic
Articles" which the pope had objected to ;
acknowledged that a national council could
order that bishops should be instituted
by the metropolitan or senior bishop, in-
stead of the pope, in case of urgent cir-
cumstances ; and declared the papal bull
of excommunication against those who had
unjustly deprived the pope of his states,
was null and void.

These proceedings were by no means
pleasing to the exiled French bishops, who
had not resigned their sees, and yet beheld
them filled in their own lifetime by new
prelates. They addressed repeated pro-
tests to the Roman pontiff in vain. His
conduct in derogating from their consent,
suppressing so many sees, and appointing
new bishops, was certainly unprecedented.
It was clearly contrary to all the canons of
the Church universal, as every one admits.
The adherents of the ancient bishops re-
fused to communicate with those whom
they regarded as intruders. They d^velt
on the odious slavery under w^hich they
were placed by the "Organic Articles;"
and the Abbes Blanchard and Gauchet,
and others, wrote strongly against the
Concordat, as null, illegal, and unjust ;
affirmed that the new bishops and their
adherents were heretics and scliismatics,
and that Pius VII. was cut off from the
Catholic Church. Hence a schism in the
Roman churches, which continues to this
day, between the adherents of the new
Gallican bishops and the old. The latter
are styled by their opponents, " La Petite
Eglise.^^ The truly extraordinary origin of
the present Gallican Church sufficiently
accounts for the reported prevalence of ul-
tramontane or high papal doctrines among
them, contrary to the old Gallican doc-
trines, and notwithstanding the incessant
efforts of Napoleon and the Bourbons to
force on them the four articles of the
Gallican clergy of 1()82. They see, plainly
enough, that their Church's origin rests
chiefiy on the nnliniited power of the pope.
— Brou'/Ziton. Palmer.

CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental
(sometimes called the Greek) Church, pre-
vails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North
America, Poland, European Turkey, Ser-
via, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the
Archipelago, Crete, C}'prus, the Ionian



190



CHURCH, GREEK.



Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, Asia
Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vast
and numerous Churches of the East, are
all ruled by bishops and archbishops, of
whom the chief are the four patriarchs of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem. The llussian Church was sub-
ject to a fifth patriarch, from the latter
part of the sixteenth century, [1588,] but
since the reign of Peter the Great, the ap-
pointment to this high office has been sus-
pended by the emperor, Avho deemed its
power too great, and calculated to rival
that of the throne itself. It was abolished
in 1721. In its place Peter the Great
instituted the *' Holy Legislative Synod,"
which is directed by the emperor ....
Many of these Churches still subsist after
an uninterrupted succession of eighteen
hundred years : such as the Churches of
Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens,
Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others,
founded by the apostles, continued to sub-
sist uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the
Saracens in the seventh century, and re-
vived again after their oppression had re-
laxed. Such are the Churches of Jerusa-