the settlement of Henry VIII. still continues in force.

In 1603 A.D. a body of Canons was prepared by Convocation and approved by the king; but they were not adopted by Parliament, and therefore are not binding on the laity. In 1641 A.D. other Canons were put forth, but not with as high authority as those of 1603 A.D. One Canon, that concerning sponsors, has been altered since the revival of Convocation in our own day. Considerable portions of these English Canons are practically obsolete.

III. The Canons of the American Church (including the Constitution) are found in the "Digest," which is divided into four titles: Title I. is "Of the Orders in the Ministry, and of the Doctrine and Worship of the Church," including general directions for the work of Priests, Deacons, and parishes; Title II. is devoted to "Discipline," an abundance being provided for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and very little for anybody else; Title III. concerns the "Organized Bodies and Officers of the Church ;" and Title IV. is occupied by "Miscellaneous Provisions."

There is no restriction on the power of legislation possessed by the General Convention; but many things are left to the Diocesan Conventions, especially the mode of trying Priests and Deacons. Each Diocese, therefore, has a Constitution and Canons of its own, which are of subordinate authority to those of the General Convention.

As to the present authority of these three branches of Canon Law, it may be said:

I. Of the Ecumenical Canons, a pregnant recognition is embodied in our Ordinal, where the Presiding Bishop thus addresses the Bishop-elect: "Brother, forasmuch as the Holy Scripture and the ancient Canons command," etc. This recognizes a still abiding authority in those Canons, as well as in Holy Scripture. A very large proportion of those Canons, moreover, is embodied in our own "Digest." But no specific mention of them is made in that Canon which enumerates the causes for which a cleric may be presented and tried.

II. The Anglican Canons have, by many of our leading canonists, been declared to be still binding in this country, except where American Canons have covered the same ground differently; others deny it. The House of Bishops, in 1814 A.D., distinctly affirmed it.

This, at least, may be said, that both Ecumenical and Anglican Canons are a safe guide to the individual conscience or judgment, where American Canons are silent.

III. Among the charges for which a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon may be presented and tried, our American Canon specifies "Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention," and also "Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the Diocese to which he belongs."

It would not be safe to take for granted that an Ecclesiastical Court would carry its penal discipline beyond the two specifications here made.

It has been said that the first Canons were passed by the "Apostles, Elders, and Brethren." In the case of the Ecumenical Councils (as in all Provincial Synods), though only Bishops (or the representatives of absent Bishops) voted, yet the discussions were public, and the voice of the other orders of the ministry was freely heard, so that the result may fairly be said to be the voice of all. Nor had those Canons the force of laws until they received the official sanction of the emperor, the embodiment of the lay power. During the medieval period no Council was held without some representation of the same secular element, either in the Council itself, or applied afterwards. The common rule was, that no bull of any Pope, and no Canon of any Council, could be published as binding in any country without the consent of the king. Under the Anglican system, where the Convocation includes only Bishops and clergy, their acts do not bind as law without the approval of Parliament. And, with us, no Canon can be enacted without the free vote of the order of the laity, as well as that of the Bishops and the clergy. The shape in which the principle is embodied in our American system is the fairest of all, and the least liable to any abuse.

REV. J. H. HOPKINS, D.D. Canon of Scripture. A point of the highest importance from many points of view is the determination of the Canonical Scriptures. It has been urged latterly that the Scriptures are not of the essence of the Faith, but only inspired records of it. While it is very true that the Faith and the facts on which it rests are so woven into the very texture of the Christian polity that they would exist in all essentials without the record, yet the very constitution of our nature, our finite condition, and the relations of GOD dealing towards us, necessitating a Revelation, it follows that the preservation of this Revelation could not be left to chance, but being to men, for men, and deposited with men, for their instruction, it must be preserved by them under GOD's general guidance. A slight examination of the distortions of the original Divine communication which belonged to all men at the first, shows us that peculiar guards are needed for the accurate conservation of such a Revelation. When the family of Abraham was chosen there was at first a transmission of the Faith by tradition. It was a simple plain fact. The unity of GOD, and the blessed mission for which He had chosen them and the inheritance of the land

of Canaan. Doubtless the doctrine of the unity of GOD was obscured by contaminating heathen communications, but the tradition was direct. But when Moses received a Revelation and a Law, and an

order to write them down, then preparation was also made for their due preservation. They were put beside the Ark of the Covenant, and were kept with the care that watched over that. Then the records, not the full records of what we may call the state papers and public documents of their history, but the records that exhibit the direct line of GOD's dealings with and care for His chosen people, as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings,-written by men whose names may be traditionally connected with them, or which may have been forgotten, but who nevertheless were recognized as the proper persons to do this, were also published in some authentic way. So, too, of the prophetic writings, of Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs,-the Psalms as belonging to the Temple ritual stands somewhat apart,-these were in some sense recognized as holy books, though not gathered into an authoritative collection as in the present Canon. The Law apparently was the only collection which received from the first full recognition. After the Captivity Ezra took up the work. He caused the Law to be read publicly. Jewish tradition assigns to him the collection and arrangement of all the books up to his time, and Nehemiah added what was wanting, save the books evidently later, as Malachi. This tradition of the Talmud shows the gradual forming of the collection of the sacred books. Later, as we know, the whole list underwent severe scrutiny, and some, as Esther and the Song of Solomon, were only received after sharp discussion. External testimony is not wanting. translation of the Hebrew into Greek, though a work extending over a long period, may be assigned to about 270 AD. While there are books in it which are not from Hebrew originals, and so are rejected, the list otherwise corresponds to the Palestinean Canon. In the ejected books in this Septuagint is a confused reference to the tradition of the Talmud. We have next the indirect testimony of the Alexandrian Philo, who quoted largely from some portions of the Old Testament, and referred to the laws and oracles uttered by prophets, and hymns and the other (books) by which knowledge and piety are perfected. This triple division into the books of "Moses, the Prophet, and the Psalms" (cf. Luke xxiv. 44) was common then, but the contents of the three parts varied, from thirteen prophets of Josephus to the eight that the prophets now contain, for the twelve minor prophets must be counted as one book. The usual number was arbitrarily made to consist of twentytwo books, to correspond with the twentytwo letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus Josephus classes them: The Law five books; the Prophets, Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra with Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles, the twelve minor prophets, and Job; and the Hagiographa

The

Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. There was a gradual transference of separate books from the section of the Prophets to that of the Hagiographa, but the triple division was still the current one, and so accepted. It in truth represented not only the gathering of the books into one formal list, but the gradual growth of it among the Jews, and the appreciation of the relation of the Canon to their national history. But this is the state of the Old Testament at the time of our LORD. His references to it with approval, and His quotations from it, place its authority for us beyond any question; and, further, His quotations were not from every book, for from a few there is no quotation. Yet since He referred to this triple division, the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, after His Resurrection as containing all things to be fulfilled, and as He opened their understanding to receive these Scriptures, we have a special seal placed upon their authenticity and authority. We have only to notice here that the lists given by Origen (220 A.D.), and Jerome (400 A.D.), and by the Talmud (550 A.D.), completely correspond. Other lists include some or all of the apocryphal books, but Origen, Jerome, and the Talmud adhered to the Hebrew text. These larger lists merely traced their lists through translations to the Septuagint, itself a translation, with additions, as we have seen. It follows that the Apocrypha is to be rejected as uninspired.

The history of the Canon of the New Testament is parallel. The Revelation of JESUS CHRIST, recorded by chosen men, was first published and authenticated and gathered into a Canon, after thorough testing. It holds precisely the same relation to the Christian Church that the Old Testament held to the Jewish Church. Through sixty years its writings were produced as the Hebrew writings were produced during the fourteen centuries of their production,-i.e., as the circumstances of the Church demanded. Persecution and difficulty of intercommunication for such purposes kept the formation of the Canon in abeyance. The Gospels and other writings were circulated, examined, used, tested and criticised, doubted of, and finally accepted as we now have them. The list as we now have it was the generally-accepted one made by the Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.). But there were complete collections made much earlier, though there were so many of the books which were still under doubt in one part or another of the Church that there was no general readiness to accept any one catalogue, till the cessation of persecution gave the Church leisure to examine this most necessary question; and when it was done satisfactorily, though by a Provincial Council only, it was at once received and restated by other Councils. It is out of place here to do more than to indicate the various lines of evidence which go to corroborate the genuineness of the several books so received as inspired and

canonical. The first and most valued is the long series of quotations-made, as from books as inspired and of ultimate authority and of the highest value, to settle other points-to be found in the Christian writers, beginning with Clement, the fellow-worker of St. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, and continually increasing and widening till the date of the Council above referred to, later than which it would not be necessary to trace the quotations. Indeed, every verse in the New Testament, it is said, save one, can be found in the ante-Nicene Fathers,i.e., in the first two hundred and thirty years of Christian history. It is not that any one writer quoted from all the books, but all these writers together did do so. And this is the more remarkable not merely from the comparatively slight means of circulating those writings, but from the manifold difficulties which persecution created for the diffusion of the books, and the studied concealment and protection of them. The second line of evidence is the translations which were made at an early date, as the Peschito and the Itala. The third line is the use of them in the public services, showing how they were received as of inspired authority in the worship of the Church.

The 6th Article, after concisely stating the authority of Holy Scripture and the relation of the Apocryphal books to the inspired Scriptures, gives the lists of the books of the Old Testament. This was done because of the reverence which the Latin Church showed to the Apocryphal books, and to decide the question authoritatively.

Authorities: Browne on XXXIX. Artieles, Smith's Dictionary, Words worth on the Canon, Wescott on the Canon of the New Testament, Schaff-Herzog Cyclopædia.

Canonization. The papal act of pronouncing_upon the full sanctity of a holy person. In beatification the Pope only pronounces upon his (or her) blessedness, but does not decide whether he (or she) is a saint or not, and allows a certain cultus to be paid him. But in canonization the Pope ex cathedra announces the enrollment of the name upon the Calendar of Saints and the privilege to receive the cultus of the faithful in the Church.

In early times local fame for sanctity placed the name upon the roll. It was a continuation of the still more ancient rite of reciting the names of the faithful departed in the celebration of the Eucharist. (Vide❘ DIPTYCHS.) But often, after the name was put upon the roll, papal sanction was sought. But the Roman See did not claim the exclusive right till the pontificate of Alexander III. (1181 A.D.). This right was not completely established till 1625 A. D., when Urban VIII issued a bull (and a second 1634 A.D.) detailing the manner of procedure. The saint was entitled to the invocation and adoration of the whole Church. "The cultus of the beatified is permitted, the cultus of the canonized is enjoined."

Canticles. Vide THE SONG OF SOLOMON. Cantor. The office of the singer was very anciently recognized in the Church, and he was set apart for his office with the charge, "See that thou believe in thy heart what thou sayest with thy mouth, and approve in thy works what thou believest in thy heart." The choir being divided into two parts, the Cantoris, or north side was the Precentors, or leaders, and was the leading side in the antiphonal singing, while the Decani side, in the opposite stalls, responded.

Capital. Vide ARCHITECTURE.

Capitulary. A name for a section of the laws enacted by the states-general which Charlemagne used to gather to advise upon the empire. The whole series was called The Capitularies, from capitula-chaptersof such a Diet. These capitularies of Charlemagne and his successors are well known, and are very important documents in the history of these times. They treated of every topic, from private matters to constitutional principles and ecclesiastical affairs, being often civil re-enactments of Provincial, and even Ecumenical, Canons.

Cardinal. The title of the highest dignitary under the Pope of the Roman Church. Its origin lies far back in the history of the Church in Rome, but in the form and rank it now holds it dates only from the sixteenth century. Each parish in the city had its own mother or baptismal church, and the incumbent was called intitulatys incardinatus, thence cardinalis. There were seven Deacons appointed for the charitable work in the several wards or parishes, a Deacon to each Church. These formed a council to the Bishop. Afterwards Stephen IV. (771 A.D.) added the suffragan Bishops of the neighbor cities. These, with the people, had the right to nominate the Bishop of Rome; but the right to confirm was exercised by the Franco-German emperors; finally, the right to elect was secured to the Cardinals only (1058 A.D.). The number of Cardinals varied. In the time of Innocent III. there were over thirty. Death, and political intrigues and difficulties in nominating, of course, all had their force. The Council of Basle fixed the number at twenty-four. In 1559 A.D., under Pius V., there were as many as seventy-six. Sixtus V. (1590 A.D.) fixed the number at seventy-six Bishops, fifty Priests, and fourteen Deacons. A Cardinal priest of a city church in Rome may also be a Bishop of a See elsewhere.

The Pope nominates the new Cardinal in one secret Consistory, who is confirmed in a second by vote of the Cardinals present; when the creation is publicly announced, installation with the red hat, the ring of office, etc., takes place. There must be some regard paid to the rights of other nationalities to a share in holding the office, but the majority of the Cardinals are Italians.

A Cardinal is alone eligible to election to the papal throne; his title is Eminentissimus. Offense against him ranks as trea

son.

The oldest resident Cardinal Bishop is Dean of the College of Cardinals.

Carthage. The Councils of Carthage and the Councils of Africa are frequently interchanged by historians, and as they were often composed of the same Bishops and gathered in the same place, and even in the same year, it is possible that independent partial accounts of the same Council may have come to be reckoned as accounts of separate Synods. It will not be necessary to notice more than two or three in any detail. A Council was held at Carthage, or rather several Councils were held, in the year 255 A.D., on the question of baptizing those who had already been baptized by heretics. The uniform decision was that there was no valid baptism out of the Catholic Church, and that all who had once been baptized by heretics must be baptized again for admission to the Church. St. Cyprian maintained this opinion without wavering, and there was a long dispute between him and Pope Stephen on the matter of rebaptism, which was decided finally at the Council of Arles in 314 A.D. In the year 411 A.D. a Council, or perhaps a Conference, was held at Carthage on the schism of the Donatists. After considerable discussion, decision was made that the Donatists were entirely refuted by the arguments of the Catholics, and though their leaders appealed from this decision, it was in vain, and the sect from this time declined in number and influence. Several Councils were held in Carthage in the years 412, 416, 418, and 419 A.D. Some of these are called Africa, some Carthage, some by both names; and as they were composed largely of the same Bishops, they are more like several sessions of one Council than separate Councils. In the Councils of Carthage, held in 412, 416, and 418 A.D., the heresy of Pelagius was discussed and answered, and Pelagius and his disciple, Celestius, were condemned and excommunicated. From the last of these assemblies the Bishops addressed a very strong letter on the heresy of Pelagius to Zosimus, the Pope, who seems to have been imposed upon somewhat by Pelagius and Celestius. The Council of Africa, held in 419 A.D., is also called Carthage, and is numbered by some the fourth, by others the sixth, of Carthage. Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, called the Council and presided over it. There were present two hundred and seventeen Bishops, among whom were the Primate of Numidia, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and St. Alypius, of Thagaste. A legate of the Pope was also pres

ent.

The business of the Council was on the question of appeals to the Pope. Faustinus, the legate, produced a Canon, purporting to be one made at the Council of Nice, to show that all Bishops have a right of appeal to the Pope; it was denied that there was such a Cañon, and in order to determine the dispute, authentic copies of the acts of Nice were sent for from Alexandria and Constantinople. In the mean while

the affair of Apiarius, a priest of Sicca, was discussed. He had been deposed and excommunicated by his Bishop, but had appealed to Pope Zosimus, who had received the appeal, contrary to the decisions of several Councils, and readmitted him to communion. The African Bishops refused to admit this pretension of the Pope with regard to the right of appeal to Rome, and great contentions arose upon the subject. Five years later another assembly, or perhaps the same Bishops, came together on the business of Apiarius. It appears that he had been a second time excommunicated, and had afterwards fled to Rome, where he was received by Pope Celestine (for Zosimus was dead, and his successor Boniface), who gave credit to his statements, received him into communion, and gave him a letter to the Bishops of Africa. Accordingly, Apiarius appeared at this Council with Faustinus, who wished to have him received into communion. But the Council proceeding to inquire into his conduct, Apiarius confessed his crimes and was cut off from the body of the Church. By this time an answer had been received from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, certifying that the Canons cited by Zosimus were not made at Nice; so the Council addressed a letter to Pope Celestine, in which they complained of his conduct in the matter of Apiarius; begged him not to listen so easily to those who came to him from Africa; not to receive into communion those whom they had excommunicated, as this was contrary to Nice, which decided that all cases should be settled in the province where they arise, and could not be carried elsewhere without the especial direction of the Church; they added that the aid of the HOLY SPIRIT might be hoped for to assist several Bishops together as much as one alone; and finally they begged the Pope to send no more legates to Africa to execute his judgments, as likely to introduce too much of the pride of the world into the Church of CHRIST. A hundred years later, a Council was held at Carthage under Bonifacius, when certain Canons were passed forbidding without distinction all appeals beyond the sea. The Church of Africa maintained her right of judging her priests without appeal until the time of Gregory the Great.

Cassock. A long straight gown of some kind of stuff, or cloth. In the Church of Rome it varies in color with the dignity of the wearer. Priests wear black; Bishops, purple; Cardinals, scarlet, and Popes, white. In the Church of England black is worn by all the three orders of the clergy, but Bishops, upon state occasions, often wear purple coats. The lxxiv. English Canon enjoins that beneficed clergymen, etc., shall not go in public in their doublet and hose without coats or cassocks. Jebb. (Hook's Church Diction ary.)

Casuistry, or Cases of Conscience. Casuistry is the name that is given to that science

which aims to show how to resolve แ cases of conscience," as they are called. They are cases in which we are in doubt as to what is our duty, the doubt or hesitation arising from the fact that there are two or more duties, each of which has claims upon us, which are so situated that we can perform only one of them. The aim was legitimate and good; but the science, this branch of Moral Philosophy and Christian Ethics, for it was included in both alike,-has fallen into neglect and some measure of disrepute, so that it is now seldom or never included in any treatises on these subjects. The disrepute into which it has fallen has resulted from two causes. In the first place, the views of Christian life and duty taken by Protestant denominations generally give but little occasion for the application of any of the principles of casuistry as it was taught by writers before the Reformation, and as it is still taught in the books of Roman Catholics on the subject. The other reason, which was perhaps much the most influential on the whole, was the fact that casuistry was too often used and regarded as a means of finding out how to escape the performance of some duty that was distasteful or inconvenient, rather than as a means for finding out in a conflict of several duties, which one of them was really the duty that ought to be performed.

Still, however, casuistry, properly regarded and properly treated, has its place and its use, and it ought not to be omitted from any work that undertakes to show a man what his duties are, or to help him to find out how he ought to deport himself, and what he ought to do under all conditions and in all the circumstances of life, whether it claims to be a treatise of Moral Philosophy based on reason and the light of nature alone, or a treatise on Christian Ethics based chiefly on the truths and doctrines of Revelation.

In the one case, that of Moral Philosophy, the rule is one of law, the fulfillment of which is exact and complete righteousness, with always a possibility of going beyond the requirements of duty and doing what will thus become works of " supererogation." In the other case,-Christian Ethics,-where the attention is directed both to the purity of heart and the uprightness of the motives, it is hardly recognized as a possibility that one can go beyond the requirement of the lawthe law of liberty and of grace-and do more than is needed to fulfill one's obligations. Nay, only one Being in "the form of man" is supposed to have ever done so much as to fulfill the requirements of the law. In this code there are but two great duties,-love to GOD and love to man; these, when properly understood, can never be in conflict by any possibility or in any case. No human being can, in fact, come fully up to the require

ments.

Still, however, there is a place and a sphere for casuistry even here. For although there can be no conflict between our duty to

GOD and our duty to our fellow-men, when both are rightly understood, there will be many cases in the life of an earnest and conscientious man when he will be in doubt about his duty, even from a Christian point of view.

As specimens of the questions that have been discussed under the head of casuistry take the following.. Under the head of the duty of truthfulness, "how far is one justifiable in withholding the truth and misleading others by telling what is known to be false, when the telling of the truth would put the man who tells it to inconvenience or loss, or damage to his friends, his country, or his Church?" Or, again, as coming under the head of honesty," how far may a servant whose wages are either insufficient to support him and his family or below what they ought to be, take the property of his employer without his knowledge or consent to make up the deficiency?" It will readily be seen how and why the subject of casuistry should fall into disrepute when it is occupied with such questions.

Still, however, as we have already said, there will be occasions for the exercise of genuine casuistry in its proper and higher sense, whether we regard the matter as one purely of Moral Philosophy or as one of Christian Ethics.

As a matter of Moral Philosophy I think we may get a very important help from a recognition of the fact that our duties may be referred to those classes, with reference to their grade of importance or claim to preference in making our selection. In the first place, we may speak of those duties which each one of us may be said to owe to himself; second, those that he owes to his fellow-men; and, thirdly, those that he owes in the several orders to his country, to humanity, and to God.

Among the duties that one owes to himself are temperance, sobriety, care of health, moral and intellectual culture, and such like. Now it is hardly possible that there should occur any conflict between those duties one owes to himself and the duties of either of the higher grades. On the contrary, the performance and perfection of these duties are a help towards the performance of the higher duties. Health, temperance, purity, and a high state of culture make us more valuable to others and enable us to render duties of a higher grade, or to perform them more fully and more acceptably, than we could if we were deformed and degraded by the vices which are the opposites of those virtues and accomplishments. Then as between our duties to our families, our friends, and our country, humanity, and to GOD, there is less often a conflict than we are apt to imagine. But when there is really a conflict, there can be no doubt that the objects rise in superiority the one to the other, in the order in which they are named above. One who is fit to be a martyr for truth, for his country, and his GOD should have no hesitation about being