the existing" varieties" and irregularities then common in Divine service, and after tabulating the returns to lay down such rules as would force the clergy to a more careful observance of uniformity. The Royal Letter is dated January 24, 1565 (New Style), and the title of the Advertisements when published described them as "by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's letters commanding the same the 25th day of January in the seventh year of the reign.' Thus the date of the Royal authority was the only date specified, because that alone fulfilled the requirements of the provisoes at the end of Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity which had authorised the Queen to take "other order" as to ornaments, and to "ordain and publish further ceremonies" besides those prescribed in the Prayer Book. "There was no particular form required by statute or by law in which the Queen was to take order, and it was competent for her Majesty to do so by means of a Royal Letter addressed to the Metropolitan. The Advertisements were issued by the prelates as orders prepared under the Queen's authority" (Judgment of the Privy Council in Ridsdale v. Clifton). As, however, the object of the Queen was to secure uniformity, only a very small part of the orders relate to any proposed changes; the only material alteration being that in Cathedrals copes were, for the first time, directed to be worn by the celebrant and by his two assistants. It was at one time thought that the dress of the clergy was simplified by these orders; but no hint of such a change is to be gleaned from any contemporary writer, and the mistake was due to overlooking the fact that the ornaments rubric of 1552, which ordered the surplice to be worn at Holy Communion, was re-enacted by Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, whereas the printed rubrics, substituted in 1559 for those of the Second Prayer Book, were mere illegalities and were treated as such, being never once acted upon or recognised by the authorities in Church and State. The Advertisements, therefore, which contradicted the rubrics of 1549, were nevertheless enforcements of the legally re-enacted rubric of 1552-59, and at the same time were the "publishing further orders" as regards cope-wearing in Cathedrals. This last alteration was partially confirmed by the Canons of 1603-4, but only as to the five "principal Feast Days" which have "proper Prefaces" (viz. Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday), the events commemorated on those days being further honoured by requiring the most eminent dignitary in residence to be the celebrant. The disputed questions as to the date and legal warrant of the Advertisements are discussed exhaustively in Tomlinson, On the Prayer Book ;

and the section of the Advertisements relating to ritual is given in Miller's Guide to Ecclesiastical Law. See ORNAMENTS RUBRIC, VESTMENTS, COPE. [J. T. T.] The contents of the Advertisements, so far as they are material, are as follows:

"In the ministration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches, the principal minister shall wear a cope, with gospeller and epistoller agreeably; and at all other prayers to be said at the Communion Table to use no copes but surplices.

"That the dean and prebendaries wear a surplice with a silk hood in the choir; and when they preach to use their hoods.

"Item.-That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves to be provided at the charge of the parish."

The importance of the Advertisements depends upon the view taken of the celebrated 25th section of Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity (1559) (see ORNAMENTS RUBRIC). The theory of the Privy Council was that the effect of this section was to cancel for the time the Ornaments Rubric of 1552 (which required the surplice only), and to provisionally restore the use in church of the Mass vestments of 1549. On this supposition they found it necessary to hold that "other order" had been taken under section 25, and they consider that this was done by means of the Advertisements in 1566. The difficulty of this solution is, that it leaves seven years during which the Mass vestments were compulsory and the surplice illegal, and no evidence can be produced to prove what is obviously so contrary to the facts. The other construction of the 25th section (that of Mr. J. T. Tomlinson and others) is, that this section had nothing whatever to do with the wearing of vestments in church, but simply had for its object the retention of the illegal Mass vestments until "other order" was taken as to their sale or disposal. This view certainly harmonises law and fact, and under it the Advertisements become merely a directive and administrative enforcement of the Ornaments Rubric of 1552, with a "further order" under the 26th section for the wearing of copes in cathedrals and collegiate churches. It will thus be seen that, according to the Ridsdale judgment, the Advertisements lowered the ritual standard, while on Mr. Tomlinson's view they raised it. The latter view is alone consistent with contemporary evidence and facts. In any case, the royal authority of the Advertisements is undoubted. For details see Tomlinson, On the Prayer Book, ch. iv., and article by B. Whitehead in Churchman, for February 1899, and see ORNAMENTS RUBRIC. [B. W.]

ADVOWSON (Jus patronatus) is the perpetual right of presentation to an ecclesiastical benefice whenever a vacancy occurs. The person entitled to present is the successor by purchase, or otherwise, of the original founder of the benefice, and is called the advocate, advowee, or patron, i.e. the protector of the benefice. He cannot grant the glebe or tithes as a distinct property; these remain inseparably annexed to the advowson, and belong to the incumbent for the time being as a kind of life tenant. The owner of the advowson has simply the right of presenting a duly qualified clergyman on a vacancy. (See Whitehead, Church Law.)

In the earliest Saxon times, the government of the churches was exclusively in the hands of the bishop. Bishop and clergy lived together in a convenient centre, and collected what contributions they could from the faithful. The clergy were sent out on circular tours, as occasion arose, according to the directions of the bishop. Then parishes were marked out, and particular curates appointed, although there was still a common fund, "and it was therefore," as Mirehouse says, "not material to what church any parishioner presented his bounty." But later, when affairs became more settled, laymen desired to have a priest to live permanently among them, and consequently undertook his maintenance. The lord of a manor set apart a piece of land for the use of the clergy, upon which he built a church and parsonage, devoting the remainder as glebe land, and sometimes as a burial ground. In return for these gifts, the perpetual right of nominating the incumbent was vested in the donor, and the advowson became appendant to the manor. If afterwards separated from the manor it was called an advowson in gross.

By this time, payment of tithes, originally purely voluntary, had been rendered compulsory by the State, but in what way exactly is not quite clear. They were payable at first by the taxpayer to the central fund or to any church he pleased; but upon the permanent settlement of the parish priest, the tithes arising from his parish were, with the consent of the bishop, allocated to him, and the system subject to appropriation has remained in force ever since.

Advowsons of this kind were called donative, because the right of appointing the incumbent was in the donation of the patron independently of the bishop. All advowsons were originally donative, but in some cases the right of donation was vested by the lord of the manor or by the tithe-payers permanently in the hands of the bishop. In these cases the advowson was called collative. Later, a third class sprang into being, from the fact that

some patrons, anxious to stand well with their bishop, presented their nominee to him for his approval before admission. The bishop then put him into possession of the living by institution and induction. If this process was once allowed the advowson thenceforward became presentative. The number of donative advowsons consequently gradually diminished, until very few were left, and recently by the Benefices Act, 1898, they have been abolished altogether.

The entire advowson or the next presentation or any number of presentations, being the whole interest of the vendor, may still be sold, subject to the rules against simony, which have been made more stringent by the Benefices Act, 1898 (Whitehead, Church Law, pp. 6, 281).

Advowsons may be vested in trustees, and the trust-deed may require the appointment of a clergyman of a particular school of thought. Thus moneys may be given to promote the Evangelical cause by the purchase of advowsons. This is a good charitable gift, and the trustees are bound to present an Evangelical clergyman (Whitehead, p. 68). See BENEFICE, PRESENTATION, &c. [B. W.] AFFUSION.-The pouring of water on the recipients of Holy Baptism. Trine immersion was the rule of the Primitive Church, as we learn from Tertullian (De Corona, § 3). Affusion seems to be justified by the Didache, cap. vii. It is permitted by the rubric, which says, “If they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." See BAPTISM. AGAPÉ. A common meal or feast of brotherhood in the course of which the Holy Communion was originally administered. When giving the Bread and the Cup at the last Passover our Lord instructed His Apostles that they should do as He had done; and His Church has ever done so since that time in obedience to His command. But His first disciples (the Apostles who had been present when He gave the command) were not content with repeating His action merely in the delivery and eating of the bread and in the delivery and drinking of the wine; they reenacted, so far as was possible, the whole of the Last Supper on the evening of every Lord's Day with only such alteration as circumstances made necessary. They could no longer sacrifice and eat the Lamb-its antitype had been offered, and for it was substituted any other kind of meat; they would no longer use unleavened bread-that belonged only to the Paschal week, and instead of it they used leavened bread "such as was usual to be eaten (Rubric); they would no longer insist on the traditional number of the cups of wine -the one cup of blessing had been substituted for them; the bitter herbs were no longer

suitable-the Lord's victory over death had turned sorrow into joy, and milk, honey, and fruits took their places. But with these alterations the form of the Lord's Last Supper was retained. The greater part of the food eaten was supplied by the richer brethren, but all that could, made their offering or oblation of such simple viands as the bread that they ordinarily ate and the tempered wine that they ordinarily drank; and these provisions, by whomsoever supplied, were shared by all the faithful. At the proper moment-no doubt towards the end of the meal, after the precedent set by Christ-a solemn silence was called, all the guests rose to their feet, a loaf and a cup of the wine, selected from the general oblations, were placed before the presiding presbyter, who set them apart by a joyous prayer of dedication, at first extemporaneous afterwards formal, in which he gave thanks to God for the blessing of the fruits of the earth which supplied men's bodily needs and for the spiritual benefits derived from the sacrifice of Christ's body broken on the Cross and His blood there poured out, of which the bread and the wine were symbols. All the guests responded with an Amen, and then the presbyter or Bishop or Apostle who was officiating placed some of the bread, and the cup which he had blessed, in the hands of the deacon, who carried his portion to each guest for reverent consumption in thankful remembrance of the Master. After a pause, all resumed their seats, and the social meal was continued, and brought to a conclusion by the thanksgiving appropriate to the Eucharist.

When the gathering consisted of men of a coarse spirit this beautiful ceremony became perverted to evil. Selfishness forced its way in. Those who had brought the better foodstuffs were not willing to share them with their poorer brethren; there was noise and clamour; some came early and some came late; so that they did not even "discern" or distinguish by devout behaviour and grateful recollection the sacred elements blessed by the president of the feast, which represented the Lord's body and blood, from the other materials of the feast. This was the case at Corinth, and St. Paul, as we should expect, sharply reproved the Corinthians for their conduct, and ordered any that were so hungry as to misbehave themselves to dine at home before coming to the brotherly meal.

But St. Paul did not abrogate or alter the institution on account of its having been abused by one of his congregations. The Agapé was still held on the evening of every Lord's Day, and the participation of the consecrated elements continued to make a part of it. It was a prohibition of the Empire, not of the Church,

which compelled a change in its form and in the hour at which it was held.

Early in the second century the Emperor Trajan sent imperative orders to all the Roman Prefects to forbid all evening meetings of Societies, through fear of the conspiracies which he suspected might be hatched in them. The Prefects issued their Edicts in the year 110, and the Agapai (plural) were caught in the net of their prohibitions. What was to be done? The Church could not abolish the Lord's Supper. The only alternative was to transfer it to the forenoon. This was done, and then it became necessary to adapt its use to the hour at which it was held. It would have been unreasonable to begin by sitting down to a meal in the early forenoon (say, at 9 o'clock A.M.) and therefore the order of proceeding was changed by the transposition of the administration of the Holy Eucharist to the beginning and of the brotherly meal to the end. St. Chrysostom thus describes the practice as it now existed: "When the congregation broke up, after hearing the sermon and the prayers and receiving the Communion, all the faithful did not immediately go home, but the wealthy and better-to-do members brought food and eatables from their houses, and invited the poor, and made common tables, common dinners, common banquets, in the church itself. So from this fellowship of the table and from the reverence of the place, they were bound to one another in love for every reason, and much pleasure and much profit were derived from them; for the poor enjoyed great consolation and the rich reaped the fruit of the kindly feelings of those whom they fed; and God for whom they did this was pleased with them; and so they went home" (Hom. Op. t. iii. p. 244, Ed. Ben.). The meal was still made out of the oblations brought by the faithful to the church, from which the Eucharistical elements had previously been selected (St. Jerome on 1 Cor. xi.).

Again another change took place. The vigilance of the Emperors relaxed-a Commodus was not a Trajan or a Marcus Aurelius; Trajan's suspicions were forgotten, and evening meetings of clubs and societies were connived at. About the year 185 therefore the Agapé was quietly re-transferred to the evening. But the Eucharistic part, which had already been halfsevered from it, was not re-transferred with it. That continued to be celebrated in the forenoon and occasionally was even appended to the Ante-lucan, or before-daylight, service (Tertull. De Cor. § 3). Tertullian, A.D. 195, tells us that the Agapé took place in the evening, and describes it as follows:-"Our supper shows its purpose from its very name; it is called Agapé, which in Greek means Love. Whatever it cost

us, it is an advantage to spend it on a pious object, for we give relief and comfort to the poor by it. . . . It does not give occasion for anything vile or immodest. We do not sit down till we have first offered prayer to God. We eat as much as hunger bids us to eat; we drink no more than is good for modest men. We satisfy our appetites as men who remember that they have to worship God by night as well as by day. We talk as men who know that the Lord hears us. When we have washed our hands after dinner, and lights are brought in, every one is urged to chant God's praises either out of the Holy Scriptures, or according as he is able of his own composition-a proof of the measure of our drinking. Prayer concludes the feast as well as opening it. Then we go away, not to insult or quarrel with those we meet, nor to give way to lasciviousness, but still having care for modesty and chastity, as men who have not so much supped as been to a school of philosophy" (Apol. xxxix.).

But the character of the Agapé was lowered when the sacred part had been severed from it. In its new form it was no longer a reenactment of the Lord's Supper, but merely a common or public meal; similar to those customary among the Essenes, and not unknown in Greece and other countries. Its religious character gradually fell out of sight; and it became in some places a social meeting of the well-to-do, in others a charity dinner to the poor. In either form it was too degenerate to last. In the north of Italy St. Ambrose's authority abolished it at the end of the fourth century, and St. Augustine followed his master's example in North Africa. Here and there it still lingered on till the seventh or eighth century, and then it disappeared totally.

Romanists and Ritualists have great difficulty in dealing with the Agapé, because it proves that in the first century the Holy Communion was administered (1) in the evening, (2) to recipients who were not fasting, and (3) that St. Paul did not teach that an objective presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine was wrought by consecration. Had he done so the Corinthians could not have been guilty of an irreverence which carelessly failed to distinguish between the consecrated and unconsecrated elements of the feast. On the contrary, they might easily have paid such respect to the elements as to have fallen into the superstitions which did in fact spring up when that doctrine had arisen, but they could never have treated them with such irreverence as they displayed.

To confine within as narrow limits as possible the evidence derived from the joint celebration of the Eucharist and Agapé, it has

been suggested (Congregation in Church, p. 47) that St. Paul transferred the Eucharistical service to the morning and ordered fasting reception, on his next visit to Corinth, to which he referred in his Epistle. Had this been so, it could not take away the witness of the Church from A. D. 30 to A.D. 60; but the suggestion has no basis or evidence on which to rest. It is disproved by St. Paul's own words, the Teaching of the Apostles (ch. x.), and by Ignatius's Letter to the Church of Smyrna (ch. viii.), which show that the Agapé and the Eucharist were still combined. This carries us down to A.D. 110, the very year in which Trajan's command compelled their transfer to the forenoon.

The Agapé then proves (1) that the Church of the first century did not believe in an Objective Presence in the elements, and that St. Paul did not teach it; (2) that it did not regard fasting either as a necessary or as an appropriate preparation for communicating; (3) that it saw no objection, under the circumstances of the day, to Evening Communion. Therefore, that Objective Presence is not an Apostolic or Primitive doctrine. Fasting Communion is not an Apostolic or Primitive practice. The hour at which the Holy Communion should be administered is in itself indifferent, and is left to the discretion of the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church in each age. (See Bp. Kingdon, Fasting Communion.) [F. M.]

AGNUS DEI is the name given

I. To the well-known prayer which occurs both in the Litany and in the "Gloria in Excelsis" in our present Prayer Book: "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us," or "grant us Thy peace." It is one of our oldest prayers, being adapted from John i. 29. It is found in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book vii. as an evening hymn, and in the Codex Alexandrinus it is described as a morning hymn; and its original use had no connection with Holy Communion. Pope Sergius I. (in A.D. 688) is said to have been the first to insert the "Agnus Dei" in the Mass. He placed it between the "Pater" and the "Communio." The original direction was that it should be chanted by clerks and people. At the beginning of the ninth century it was chanted by the choir alone, and in some churches with the threefold repetition. After the doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be received, the place of the "Agnus Dei" in the Mass, i.e. between the consecration of the elements and their reception by the people, became fraught with danger, for the wafer itself was addressed as a living person under this title. From about the fourteenth century the "Agnus" was said in a low voice by the priest, and later the third petition was changed into "dona nobis pacem" probably on account of

the then troubled condition of the Church. The present practice in the Roman Catholic Church is for the priest to strike his breast three times, pronouncing as many times the "Agnus Dei." The practice in the Romish

Church at date of the Reformation is thus described by Preb. Becon, chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer: "Then do ye say the 'Agnus,' which Pope Sergius also commanded that it should be said at mass a little before the receiving of the host. And here again ye play the abominable idolaters. For looking upon the bread ye look yourselves and worship it, saying in Latin 'Agnus Dei,' &c. Thrice do ye call that bread which ye hold in your hands 'the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.' O intolerable blasphemy, was there ever an idolater who worshipped a piece of broken bread for God?"—"a piece of thin wafer cake for God?" (Works, iii. 278; cf. Jewel's Works, ii. 586).

By the first Prayer Book of King Edward (1549) the "Agnus Dei" was retained in the Romish position, but with a rubric directing that the clerks should sing it as a hymn "during communion time." And in 1550 Bishop Ridley issued an injunction forbidding the minister to counterfeit the Romish Mass by saying the "Agnus" before the communion.

By the second Prayer Book (1552) the "Agnus Dei" was omitted altogether from this place, no doubt on account of the difficulty there was, so long as the words remained, in preventing some ministers from counterfeiting the Romish Mass by mumbling the "Agnus" and idolatrously adoring the bread as if it were the Lamb of God. For the same purpose-i.e. the prevention of idolatry—"the prayer of access and the "Gloria" were transposed, so that the former should precede the consecration while the latter was removed from its place near the beginning of the service to its present position at the end. It is thus said after the elements have been consumed or at any rate hidden from sight.

Some have thought, however (like Archbishop Benson), that the omission was simply due to the desire to prevent repetition, the " Agnus" (as we have seen) occurring also in the "Gloria." But that would hardly have been the reason, as the repetitions in the "Gloria" were actually increased in 1552. At any rate the "Agnus" has been omitted from the Romish position since 1552. In 1661 a proposal to reinsert the 'Agnus" was carefully considered and deliberately rejected. It was actually proposed and adopted by the committee, but struck out again afterwards. Therefore the courts of law held that it was illegal to sing the "Agnus Dei" during the partaking of the Communion. In 1892, however, in their Lincoln judgment, the Privy Council changed their opinion, and sanc

tioned the interpolation of the "Agnus Dei" as a hymn (in spite of the fact that it had been expressly omitted for good reason) on the ground that "a hymn may be sung at any convenient time" in a service, provided that such service is not thereby "let or hindered." This would not cover the case of the "Agnus Dei" being merely said by the minister. It is just possible that the Privy Council may on some future occasion return to their earlier, and in our opinion, more correct judgment. (See Smith, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities; Whitehead, Church Law, article "Singing"; and Tomlinson, Historical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment, 6th ed. pp. 69-73.)

II. The name "Agnus" or "Agnus Dei" is also applied to the figure of the Holy Lamb, i.e. a lamb with a nimbus bearing a cross or flag with the sign of the Labarum. Wax medallions bearing such figures were anciently blessed and given to worshippers on the first Sunday after Easter. They were considered to have magical virtues and gave rise to much superstition. In modern times such medallions are still used in the Church of Rome but are blessed by the Pope only-first of all on the first Sunday after Easter after his consecration and every subsequent seventh year. The number of persons to whom the distribution is made is now much restricted. (See Smith, Dict. of Christian Antiq.; and Larousse, Dict. Univ.). [B. W.] ALACOQUE (Margaret Mary).-See SACRED HEART.

ALB [Lat. tunica alba].—A tight-fitting cassock of linen which used to be worn by the officiating clergy at the celebration of the Holy Communion and other offices. In later times it was of silk and sometimes coloured, but always was a close-fitting garment, because originally intended to be worn underneath other vestments. The 58th Canon prescribes a surplice, which was a loose-fitting dress with sleeves, not worn underneath vestments and never worn at " 'Mass." In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., the alb was directed to be used at the Lord's Supper, and the rubric after the Communion office ordered that at the Wednesday and Friday services the priest should wear "a plain alb or surplice," as there was no communion, and then might have "a cope." The cope and the surplice were not used at Mass in England before the Reformation. See ADVERTISEMENTS, COPE, ORNAMENTS RUBRIC. ALBIGENSES.-The origin of this name is uncertain. Roger of Wendover supposed the derivation to be "Albi," the city where the Albigenses were first condemned. Others derive it from the district of the Albigeois, and say that it was Simon de Montfort's crusaders, in 1208, who first called the sec