were defined to be nearly what our Bishops now practically exercise upon a Visitation. They confirmed, consecrated churches, appointed readers and subdeacons, but could only ordain by license from the Bishop,-i.e., they had spiritual authority, but by the terms of their work and jurisdiction only exercised it by special license. They could not administer the affairs of the Diocese, and could not intrude for any official work into a city Parish. Individual chorepiscopi assumed so much at times, and gave so much trouble latterly in the West, that they were suppressed. In the East, the Council of Laodicea (360 A.D.) dealt a blow which was followed up, till in about a century or a little more they disappeared. But there was a long, stout struggle in the West, and finally they were destroyed as an order by the tenth century, though there are instances of the office as late as the thirteenth century. Theirs was essentially a missionary extension of the Episcopate, which was suppressed with more or less difficulty when the Church became National. But an attempt to establish this order, the memory of which seems to have lingered in England, was made under Henry VIII. (1534 A.D.) by appointing several towns as seats for such Bishops, entitled Suffragan Bishops. The act, after slumbering nearly three hundred and fifty years, has been revived and has been acted upon. There are four Suffragans,-Dr. Parry, of Dover, under the Archbishop of Canterbury; Dr. How, of Bedford, under the Bishop of London; Dr. Trollope, of Nottingham, under the Bishop of Lincoln; and Dr. Bloomfield, of Colchester, under the Bishop of St. Albans. Chrism. An anointing oil used from early time in the Church in Baptism and in Confirmation. It was more prominently used in medieval times in the Oriental and Latin Churches. In Confirmation it has often been held by Latin ritualists that chrism is of the essence of the rite; but from the inspired record (Acts viii. 18, 19; xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2) it is certain that prayer and imposition of hands are only essential. In the Oriental Church the Priest confirms with the chrism blessed by the Bishop. Chrisome. In the office of Baptism it was a white vesture which the priest put upon the child, saying, "Take this white vesture for a token of innocency," etc. It was ordered in the Anglo-Saxon Church (736 A.D.) that chrisomes be used for mending surplices or for the wrapping of chalices. The Prayer-Book of 1549 A.D. orders that the woman shall offer the chrisome when she comes to be churched. But if the child died before her churching she was excused from offering it. It was the custom to bury the child in the chrisome, but by an abuse of words the chrisome child meant a child that died before it was baptized. Christian. The name given (possibly in jest) by the people of Antioch to the Disciples; but it was so perfectly appropriate that it supplanted the carlier name entirely. A Christian is a baptized member of CHR ST'S Holy Church. He can only become so by Baptism, for Baptism is the sacrament of entrance, the Door, by which we are admitted. But there has arisen a too common perversion of the term Christian in modern times, referring to the unchristian, inconsistent conduct of too many who bear the name but practically deny its power. Baptism makes a person the Child of GoD whether he is an obedient or a disobedient child, as birth makes a child a citizen of the state whether he prove to be a good citizen or not; or as the oath of allegiance makes an alien a citizen and gives him the protection of the state whether he prove faithful to his oath or not. Therefore to say, as many Christian people do, when bewailing their short-comings, "I wish I were a Christian," is a serious misleading phrase at least, if not involving much more. say, "Would I were a better Christian !" is but a confession that we all should devoutly utter. Το Christianity is usually defined as the Religion of the LORD JESUS CHRIST. This is correct, but not in the same sense as when we say the Religion of Buddha or of Mohammed. The origin of Christianity was, in fact, the founding of the organized Church from which, in its beginnings and in its continuance, it is not rationally separable. There can be no greater error than to regard Christianity as derived from the Bible, or the Church as a development of Christianity. It is strange that these relations are not generally or clearly understood, so patent are they to any thoughtful examination. Even the elementary doctrines common to all orthodox believers, those contained in the Apostles' Creed, were not all originally taught by the Divine Founder of Christianity in any recorded words. His birth of the Virgin Mary He does not allude to, and the great facts of His life, death, resurrection, and ascension were at most only predicted by Him. He never substituted Christianity for Judaism, nor declared the formal repeal of the law of Moses. What He did was to choose twelve men, organize them as a corporation in perpetuity, endow them with a charter, authorize them to teach certain doctrines which He had privately taught them, and which the HOLY GHOST was to recall, and intrust them with the mysterious sacramental rites of initiation (Baptism) and full membership (Holy Communion) in the society thus formed. He then made them a promise, to be and co-operate with them until the end of the world. "Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. FATHER has sent ME, even so send I you." There was the Charter with its enabling act. "Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," etc. These were the mission and authority to initiate. "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." There was the As my was organized the Bible did not exist. Even the Old Testament, as accepted by the Jewish Church of our LORD's time, was not the Old Testament of the "Protestant" Bible. It contained what is known as the "Apocrypha;" not all together in separate books, but dispersed among the Canonical Books, and in some cases interpolating their text. It is to be carefully noted that our LORD Himself used and quoted this interpolated Septuagint Version without one recorded word of dissent. The New Testament Scriptures were not yet written. These consist of Four Gospels, written by two Apostles and two Evangelists working under their immediate oversight; the book of "Acts," written by one of these Evangelists to record the doings of the Apostles; twenty-one Epistles, being letters addressed by five of the Apostles at various times to organized Churches, or to individuals, or to the Christian society at large; and one book of "Revelation," whether a poem, a prophecy, or a rhapsody has never been fully determined. This also by the last of the original Apostles. But these "Books" were written during a period comprising at least forty years, and after probably twenty years of oral teaching. In this period there were extant (as St. Luke tells us) "many" other Gospels, and at least one other Epistle, i.e., that to the Laodiceans. Thus there was certainly no "Bible" up to the time when the last Apostle died. But there was Christianity." Hence Christianity is not derived from the Bible. But after that last Apostle was dead some organized authority-certainly not the simple agreement of the mass of Christian people-determined what was and what was not GoD's revealed truth to man; rejected all the Apocryphal books and passages of the Old Testament,-which our LORD Himself had not done,-all extant "Gospels" save four, and all Apostolic Epistles except twenty-one. The same authority determined the "Revelation" to be inspired Scripture. Could that authority be aught else than the continued Corporation, the Church? Not possibly. Could any promise of perpetuity and continued authority. That was Christianity when He left the world. Nothing more whatever. But that was the Church. It is clear that if all this was said to the Apostles only as individuals, no other individua's could ever lay claim to any rights or privileges under it, or to any promises made only to them. It is equally clear that if it was said to them as a chartered corporation, the rights, privileges, and promises so given can belong only to "them, their heirs and assigns," on condition of the charter not being vitiated and the corporation not lapsing. It is clear also that as the individuals were not to exist until the end of the world, the promise to be with them until the end of the world must have been made to them as a perpetual corporation. It is thus evident that all authorized and authoritative Christianity is necessarily bound up in that corporation, which is the Church. But further, it was this corporation, and this. only, that formulated, elaborated, and propagated Christianity, and upon this authority alone its doctrines have been accepted. A very singular and solemn authority had been conferred upon it: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It matters not what the exact meaning of these words may have been. They certainly conveyed a most solemn and unique authority of some kind upon those to whom they were said. That authority was to withhold or inflict some penalties upon those who should become members of the organization. But the individuals did not at once proceed to exercise such functions or to perform the duties assigned. They passed fifty days in close consultation, during which, as a recognized duty, they elected a new member to complete their corporate number. Then, always acting together, they perfected the organization of the society by selecting and ordaining Deacons, Presbyters, and Apostles (as Timothy and Titus), and by instructing these and sending them out with authority to teach doctrines and initiate members. These new Apostles were authorized to pro-higher power be claimed or exercised by a ceed in the same way to perpetuate the corporation, the original twelve exercising discipline, organizing and administering the Church, and putting into writing, personally and by the aid of two authorized assistants, the whole body of Truth now accepted as Christianity. In this organization, therefore, Christianity consisted, and must continue to consist. If the corporation has lapsed, if the original organization has ceased to exist, or become essentially altered in its form and methods, there can be no authorized or authoritative Christianity now among men. All this is recorded in the Bible. But it amounts to nothing unless we remember that Christianity is not derived from the Bible, and further remember how it is that we know the Bible to be true. The simple fact is, that when the Church of CHRIST human organization, or could such organization thus act except by a conceded Divine authorization? Clearly, then, it is the Church which is acknowledged by all Christian people to have given the Bible to the world, and the terms Christianity and “the Church" are convertible. But this being so, the definition of Christianity is not complete until we determine what is meant by the Church." About this there can be no uncertainty or indefiniteness. It must be the perpetuated Corporation established and chartered by our LORD in person, which has come down in unbroken succession from the original Corporators, with its charter unvitiated and its constitution diligently observed and regarded. It must possess the essential form of the original organization; it must hold and practice the faith and sacra ments intrusted to the Apostles for preservation, dissemination, and perpetuation; it must show its authority and that of its officers derived in unbroken succession and in the prescribed form from those Apostles; and it must prove its faithful performance of all the objects for which it was organized and perpetuated. Otherwise there can be no Christianity and no divinely-administered religion or reliable Divine prom. ises left to mankind. Wherever these notes are found there is the historic Church of CHRIST, which in its universal organization is identical with Christianity, and upon the unbroken testimony of which rests the only authority for believing and accepting the Christian Bible with all that it contains. No Christian sect or communion which lacks the Apostolic form and constitution of Bishops (or Apostles), Priests (or Presbyters), and Deacons, no properly organized Church which has vitiated the Creed or abandoned the two original sacraments of Baptism and the LORD's Supper, nor any single and separate part of the Corporation, whether Roman, Greek, or Anglican, can justly claim to be that Church whose charter and mission was "to all nations." The Church Universal in her integrity, in her authoritative Episcopal order, in her orthodox and pure faith, and in her duly administered sacraments is the perpetuated corporation in which Christianity consists, and thus when we express our belief in Christianity we only express our belief in the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH. REV. ROBERT WILSON, D.D. Christmas. This Feast falls on December 25. Though this date is now universally observed, yet at first there was a diversity of practice. In Egypt April 20 and May 20 were observed. In Palestine, and the East generally, the 5th of January was kept, while the West observed the present day. But about the first part of the fifth century the East accepted the Western feast-day, and it became universal. St. Chrysostom has a homily which is very important upon this topic. The outline of the reasons for supposing the 25th of December to be the true date is this: Most probably Zacharias took the place of the High-Priest upon the great day of Atonement (such substitution, when some unforeseen accident prevented the High-Priest from executing his office himself, has been abundantly proven out of Josephus and Maimonides), which fell that year upon September 23. It was while he was within the veil the message of the angel came to him. This would place the nativity of St. John Baptist on June 24; and as he was six months older than our LORD, his cousin according to the flesh, it places the nativity of our LORD upon December 25. The celebration has always been observed with great solemnity and rejoicing, though too frequently with other than sacred and festul customs. There are in other than the English Church two cele brations of the Communion, with separate Collects, Epistles, and Gospels. Whenever there are two with us, it is because of the convenience of the communicants and to shorten the length of the services. Three festivals stand in immediate connection with it: those of St Stephen (December 26), the first martyr; of St. John (December 27), “whom JESUS loved;" of the Innocents' day (December 28), the coetanei of our LORD. Christology is the doctrine contained in the Scriptures concerning the Person and office of CHRIST. The subject may be conveniently considered under two heads; the first containing the prophecies of the MESSIAH in the Old Testament, and the Messianic hopes of the Jew based upon them; and the second the revelation of the CHRIST made by JESUS in the New Testament, and the teaching of the Church upon the relation of the divine and human natures in His Person, together with some mention of the heresies which were the occasion of the more exact definition of this teaching. 1. The Christology of the Old Testament falls naturally into the three divisions of Patriarchal, Legal, and Prophetic Christology; just as the history of the chosen people presents the same stages, and just as the history advancing along these stages passes from outlines covering long intervals to more minute details of shorter periods, so does the doctrine of the MESSIAH in the successive divisions become more frequent, more definite, and more precise. To treat this topic at any length would require a volume, and it must suffice here merely to mention some of the chief passages of Scripture which are understood to form a connected chain of promise and prophecy concerning the CHRIST, and to indicate the outlines of the conception of the MESSIAH and His office inferred from them. The first of these passages is found in the story of the fall of man, where, with the curse pronounced upon the serpent, is joined the promise of the seed of the woman to be at enmity with the serpent:"it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." This promise of a deliverer, which, no doubt, had a fuller and deeper meaning (than its form now conveys) to those who received it, was for them the basis of faith and hope in a SAVIOUR to come, until the promise was renewed in the blessing pronounced upon Shem, “blessed be the LORD GOD of Shem" (Gen. ix.), and in the blessing of Abraham, "in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. xii.), which are remarkable as having their fulfillment not at the time spoken, nor for those to whom they were addressed, but in the far future and for others, even the whole family of man. But the promise becomes much clearer in the inspired words of the dying Jacob addressed to Judah, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Gen. xlix.), centering as it does in one Person, who is to be a man of peace (Shiloh), to be a prince, and to whom the nations shall be obedient. The prophecy of Balaam (Numbers xxiv.), and the passages of the Pentateuch, which relate to the angel of the LORD (Gen. xii. 7; xviii. 1, etc.), have been thought also to refer to the MESSIAH. But the next step in the revelation of the MESSIAH, is the typical meaning of the Mosaic law of sacrifices, and of the High-Priest who offered them. Sacrifices were not a new thing with Moses, and no doubt the patriarchs who offered them did so with a sufficient conception of their hidden meaning; but the full system and elaborate ritual appointed by Moses were designed to be a shadow of the good things to come (as St. Paul declares), and to serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Again, after a long interval, probably because primitive tradition was forgotten, and typical meanings had become obscure, the promise is renewed by messages to the prophets continually more definite and precise. In the Psalms (xxii., lxxii., etc.), and in the prophets (Isaiah xi., liii., lxiii.; Jer. xxiii.; Zech. ix., xiii., etc.), we read fuller and more personal descriptions of the MESSIAH, which, joined with the former revelations, furnish a conception of Him as a Person who should rescue His people from sin by making an expiatory offering for it, Himself at once Priest and Victim, and after triumphing over the enemy of righteousness, and destroying his power, should rule forever as the Prince of Peace. But in this conception there were such contradictory points that the Jews, despairing of reconciling them in one person, came to the conclusion that the prophets foretold two MESSIAHS, one to suffer and the other to triumph; and missing the true sense of their Scriptures, it is probable that in time they came to look for an earthly king only, who should triumph over the nations which had conquered and oppressed them, and restore again a temporal kingdom to Israel. 2. But in the fullness of time GOD sent forth His SON, made of a woman, made under the Law, to fulfill all the FATHER'S promises, and to reconcile in His own Person the conflicting predictions of the birth, rank, and appearance, of the reception and treatment, of the death and burial of the MESSIAH. Him the Jews rejected, refusing to see how He made true in Himself all the words of promise; but Him have Christians -His faithful followers-ever honored with divine worship as the MESSIAH, the CHRIST of GoD, yet GOD Himself; as the SAVIOUR of men, yet a true Man. The New Testament, i.e. the words of our LORD in the Gospels, the doctrines published by St. Paul and his brother Apostles in their Epistles, supplement the revelation contained in the Old Testament, and furnish the key to the true interpretation of the prophets, as well as the basis for the Christian doctrine of the Person of CHRIST, of the Son of GOD be come the Son of Man. The reader will not need any reference to these Scriptures, nor any analysis of their contents, before admitting this statement; and he will as readily admit that they contain the premises from which follow as logical consequences the decrees of the first general Councils defining the right faith concerning the Person of CHRIST. The definition of this faith, in the first days of Christianity, was negative rather than positive; the earlier Fathers contenting themselves with combating the errors of heretics on the one hand or on the other, and denying that the doctrine of the CHRIST was not as stated by them; while they did not undertake to set forth exactly what the true doctrine was, more fully than in the words of St. John, "the Word was made Flesh." Still the process of logical inference and development went on, and men saw more and more clearly how to sum up the separate assertions of Scripture-the faith once delivered to the saints-in a carefully defined philosophical statement. This, however, was not done at once, but as it were step by step, as the vagaries of heresy made more explicit definitions necessary; so that it was six or seven hundred years before the Person of CHRIST ceased to form the chief question in the Councils of the Church. The decisions of the first six general Councils (Nice against Arius, 325 A.D.; Constantinople against Macedonius, 381 A D., Ephesus against Nestorius, 431 A.D.; Chalcedon against Eutyches, 451 A.D.; Constantinople supplementary of Ephesus, 553 A.D.; and Constantinople supplementary of Chalcedon, 680 A.D.), the substance of which is expressed by the (so-called) Nicene Creed, set forth the Person of CHRIST as embracing truly and perfectly both the nature of GoD and the nature of man, inseparably and without confusion. It will be observed that this was the work of the Eastern Church; in the West, however, thinking men were not idle, and in like manner as the faith of the Church concerning the Person of CHRIST was thus gradually expressed with accuracy and precision, so the doctrine of His office and work was from time to time more clearly defined, as philosophical speculations ending in heresy made it desirable to do so, until the Christology of the Church was completed by the doctrine of CHRIST in His office as the Atonement for sin, the Restorer of man to the original dignity of his nature lost in Adam, and by the doctrine of Divine grace repairing human sinfulness. The subject of Christology, the doctrine of the Person of CHRIST, is sometimes treated as the development of a purely natural Messianic idea, of subjective or self-originated conception, to which there was no corre spondent Divine Promise. Or it is discussed as the development of a Messianic idea which was both natural and supernatural, which was not purely subjective or self-originated, but had its origin in a Divine reality, and was fostered by a supernatural Provi dence until the revelation of that reality in the Incarnation,-GOD manifest in the flesh. Add to this second mode of considering Christology the teaching that the doctrine of the Person of CHRIST was made known to the patriarchs and prophets from the earliest ages by some knowledge of what His work should be, and the third and true method is reached; a method which has been called dogmatic, and is that commonly adopted by theological writers on Christology. For anything like a proper treatinent of this subject the reader must turn to special works on Christology (Dorner, Hengstenberg), and on such subdivisions of it as the Atonement (Magee), or the Divinity of CHRIST (Liddon's Bampton Lectures): but the articles in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" on MESSIAH, JESUS CHRIST, SON of GOD, SON of Man, etc., may be consulted with advantage. Authorities: Dictionary of the Bible, Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, Chambers' Cyclopædia, Blunt's Dictionary of Historical and Doctrinal Theology. Chronicles, First and Second Books of. These two books, like those of the Kings, were in the Hebrew originally but a single book, but in the Greek translation they were divided for convenience, and so the Vulgate received them; thence they passed into the modern translations as two books. They have been attributed, with almost positive certainty, to Ezra; and all the circumstances and the contents of the books agree very well with this. They contain genealogies, especially those of the Priests and Levites. They have much of a national tone in them; they give other and parallel accounts to those in the books of the Kings of the same events. In these we may see Ezra's purpose to infuse a national tone in the remnant brought back from Babylon, and the need of exact genealogical records of the Levitical families, that the details of the Temple worship may be restored to those who alone were competent to conduct them; and also to give independent and corroborative narratives of the facts recorded by Jeremiah in the books of the Kings. These facts have stood much in the way of those who wish to show that the books of Moses were an invention of a forger after the "Captivity;" for if this were so, then the books of the Chronicles are still later. To destroy the credibility of the Chronicles the date of their composition would have to be placed later still. But the date and probable authorship have been abundantly established by competent critics. The authenticity of the Chronicles has been, then, the pivot upon which a great deal of critical acumen has been expended with an equivalently valuable result. The contents begin with the genealogies from Adam; and, after a rapid outline, come on to the later history of the two kingdoms; and while not always identical with, still traverse much the same ground as those of the books of the Kings. They are not sup plementary or intentionally explanatory of the Kings, having another purpose in view; but they do indirectly throw much light upon them. Chronology is the art of recording historical events in their proper order and succession, by expressing the interval of time which has elapsed between their occurrence and the occurrence of some other event chosen as a standard of reference. To treat this subject fully some explanation of the calendar, or mode of measuring time, and regulating the year, would be proper, but limited space forbids any such digression, and attention will be given here only to a brief mention of those systems of chronology most commonly met with in history. By a system of chronology is understood a scheme of historical events arranged in their proper sequence, and at their proper intervals, either before or after a chosen standard of reference; and it is easy to see how different systems may have been suggested and adopted in ancient times. For as tribes of men at first loosely associated together gradually developed a common national life, a need would arise of some fixed point of reckoning to which to refer in recording or comparing events. The most important characteristic of such a fixed point of time would be some event associated with it, of such moment as to be generally known and long remembered. Hence we find events referred to earthquakes or eclipses, the accession of kings and other like occasions commonly known, or of common interest. Different nations would naturally have their own standards of reference, and their own systems of chronology based upon them; hence, as is well known in ancient history, the Greeks used one method of recording events, the Romans another, and the nations of the East, and of Egypt, used various systems at different times; while in modern history, Christians, Mohammedans, Hindoos, and Chinese all have their own peculiar systems of chronology. As some six or eight of these are frequently mentioned in history, it will be well to notice them more particularly, and to explain how they may be connected with the Vulgar or Christian era. In Greece the common life of the Hellenic race was kept alive and fostered by the four great national games, of which those at Olympia seem to have become prominent at an early day. It was the custom to name these games, which were celebrated every fourth year, early in July, from the winner of the foot-race; and at a later time to record his name in the gymnasium of Olympia. The first to be distinguished by this last honor was Corabus; and naturally the event of his triumph having a fixed name of its own, and being brought regularly to the attention of the whole people every four years, became a ready standard to which all other events might be referred. Thus originated the era of the Olympiads, which are computed to have begun 776 years |