The Project Gutenberg eBook of A church dictionary
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A church dictionary
Author: Walter Farquhar Hook
Release date: October 6, 2024 [eBook #74523]
Language: English
Original publication: London: John Murray
Credits: Richard Tonsing, Peter Podgoršek and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CHURCH DICTIONARY ***
A
CHURCH DICTIONARY.
BY
WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D. D.
VICAR OF LEEDS.
SEVENTH EDITION, REVISED AND AUGMENTED.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1854.
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.
TO
HENRY HALL,
OF BANK LODGE, LEEDS,
ESQUIRE,
SENIOR TRUSTEE OF THE ADVOWSON OF THE VICARAGE OF LEEDS,
A LOYAL MAGISTRATE,
A CONSISTENT CHRISTIAN, A FAITHFUL FRIEND,
THIS VOLUME
IS,
WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT,
INSCRIBED.
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
The Church Dictionary, of which the Sixth Edition is now published,
appeared originally in the shape of monthly tracts, intended by the
writer to explain to his parishioners the more important doctrines of
the Church, and the fundamental verities of our religion. The title of
Church Dictionary was adopted from a work published with a similar
object in America, by the Rev. Mr. Staunton; and the work itself assumed
the character of short dissertations on those theological terms and
ecclesiastical practices, which were misrepresented or misunderstood by
persons who had received an education external to the Church.
For these tracts there was a considerable demand; and the monthly issue
amounting to four thousand, the author was persuaded to extend his plan,
and to make the Church Dictionary a work of more general utility than
was at first designed. It was, in consequence, gradually enlarged in
each successive Edition until now, when it has assumed its last and
permanent character.
In this Edition, which has been enlarged by an addition of more than one
hundred articles, the authorities are quoted upon which the statements
are made in the more important articles; and where it has been possible,
the _ipsissima verba_ of the authors referred to have been given.
But as this publication has no pretensions beyond those of an elementary
work, it has been thought, for the most part, sufficient only to refer
to secondary authorities, such as Bingham, Comber, Wheatly, Palmer, &c.,
in whose learned works the reader, who wishes to investigate any subject
more thoroughly, will find the further references which he may require.
In deference to a wish very generally expressed, an account has been
taken from sources acknowledged to be authentic, and which are duly
noticed, of various Christian communities, not in connexion with the
Church.
It was found impossible, within the limits prescribed, to act upon
another suggestion, and to introduce the biographies of our great
divines. This, therefore, has been done in a separate publication,
entitled “An Ecclesiastical Biography.”[1]
The articles on Church architecture have been carefully revised by the
Rev. G. A. Poole, M. A., vicar of Welford.
The Law articles have been revised, partly by the Rev. James Brogden, A.
M., of Trinity College, Cambridge, and partly by William Johnston, of
Gray’s Inn, Esq., barrister-at-law.
To Mr. Johnston, known to the literary world as the author of “England
as it is,” the thanks of the present writer are also due for the
kindness with which he has assisted him in correcting the press, and for
many valuable suggestions.
The original dissertations remain unaltered; but the circumstances of
the Church of England have changed considerably from what they were when
the Church Dictionary was first published. At that time the
Protestantism of the Church of England was universally recognised, and
the fear was lest her pretensions to Catholicity should be ignored. But
now an affectation of repudiating our Protestantism is prevalent, while
by ignorant or designing men Protestantism is misrepresented as the
antithesis, not, as is the case, to Romanism, but to Catholicism; at the
same time, Catholicism is confounded with Romanism, primitive truth with
mediæval error, and the theology of the Schools with that of the
Fathers: while, therefore, the articles bearing on the catholicity,
orthodoxy, and primitive character of the Church of England are
retained, the articles relating to the heresies and peculiarities of the
Church of Rome have been expanded; and strong as they were in former
editions in condemnation of the papal system, they have been rendered
more useful, under the present exigencies of the Church, by a reference
to the decisions of the so-called Council of Trent, so as to enable the
reader to see what the peculiar tenets of that corrupt portion of the
Christian world really are.
_Vicarage, Leeds, 21 Sept. 1852._
PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.
In this Edition the articles on the Early Heresies have been revised by
the Rev. James Craigie Robertson, M. A.;[2] the Ritual articles, by the
Rev. John Jebb, M. A,; the articles on the Councils, by the Rev.
Sanderson Robins, M. A.; and the Law articles, by William Johnston, Esq.
To Mr. Jebb’s notes in Stephens’s edition of the Book of Common Prayer,
and to his other learned works, and to Mr. Robins’s excellent treatise
entitled “Evidences of Scripture against the Claims of the Romish
Church,” reference is frequently made. Authorities have been fully
given, except when articles have been taken with only slight alterations
from Broughton or Bingham, or translated from Suicer.
_July, 1854._
A CHURCH DICTIONARY.
ABACUS. The upper member of a capital. (See _Capital_.)
In semi-Norman and early English architecture, the abacus of engaged
shafts is frequently returned along the walls, in a continued horizontal
string: perhaps the last lingering recognition of the effect of the
capital in representing that horizontal line, which was so decided in
the classic architrave, and to which the spirit of Gothic architecture
is in the main so greatly opposed.
ABBA. A Syriac word signifying Father, and expressive of attachment and
confidence. St. Paul says, _Ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry_ Abba, Father. (Rom. viii. 15; comp. Gal. iv. 6.) The
word is derived from the Hebrew _Ab_: and, if we may ascend still
higher, that word itself (as many others which occur in that language)
proceeds from the voice of nature; being one of the most obvious sounds,
to express one of the first and most obvious ideas.
ABBÉ. The designation assumed in France, before the Revolution, by
certain persons, who, whether in the higher orders of the ministry or
not, ostensibly devoted themselves to theological studies, in the hope
that the king would confer upon them a real abbey, _i.e._ a certain
portion of the revenues of a real abbey. Hence it became the common
title of unemployed secular priests. In Italy the word _Abate_ was
similarly used, to designate one who merely adopted the clerical habit.
[_Vocabolario della Crusca._]
ABBEY. The habitation of a society devoted to religion. It signifies a
monastery, of which the head was an Abbot or Abbess. (See _Abbot_.) Of
cathedral abbeys the bishop was considered to be virtually the abbot:
and therefore the Presbyteral Superior of these establishments was
styled Prior. The abbey of Ely was constituted a cathedral in 1109: when
the Abbot Harvey was made bishop. The abbacy was henceforward united to
the bishopric: and therefore it is that the bishops of Ely still occupy
the first stall on the right side of the choir, usually assigned to the
dean: the dean’s stall being the first on the left side, formerly
occupied by the prior. (See _Monasteries_.)
Cranmer begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of the
abbeys, to be reformed and applied to holy and religious uses, but his
petition, and the exertions of Latimer for the same purpose, were in
vain. For the arrangement of the several buildings of an abbey, see
_Cathedral_ and _Monastery_.
ABBOT. The Father or Superior of an abbey of monks, or male persons,
living under peculiar religious vows. The word _abbot_ comes, through
the late Latin _abbas_, from the Syriac _abba_—father. (See _Abba_.) The
word Father, in its various forms of Papa, Abbas, Padre, Père, &c., has
in all countries and all ages of Christianity been applied as a title of
respect to the superior clergy and priesthood. In some parts of the East
and in Ireland, this term, abbas or abbat, was frequently confounded
with that of bishop, from the fact of the abbots being in the early
times bishops also.
Among the abbeys in England before the dissolution, were some which gave
the title of _Mitred Abbot_ [_or Abbots general_, or _sovereign_] to the
superiors of them. These mitred abbots sat and voted in the House of
Lords. They held of the king _in capite per baroniam_, their endowments
being at least an entire barony, which consisted of thirteen knights’
fees. The following are the abbeys which conferred this distinction on
their abbots: St. Alban’s, Glastonbury, St. Peter’s, Westminster; St.
Edmondsbury, St. Bennet’s of Holm, Bardney, Shrewsbury, Croyland (or
Crowland), Abingdon, Evesham, Gloucester, Ramsey, St. Mary’s, York;
Tewkesbury, Reading, Battle, Winchcomb, Hide by Winchester, Cirencester,
Waltham, Malmesbury, Thorney, St. Augustine’s, Canterbury; Selby,
Peterborough, St. John’s, Colchester; to which was added, not long
before the Reformation, Tavistock. All mitred abbots were of the
Benedictine order, except those of Waltham and Cirencester, who were
Augustinians. This fact Fuller has overlooked. (See _Dugdale’s
Monasticon_.)
But it is to be observed, that there were two other lords of parliament,
heads of religious houses, who were not abbots: (1.) The prior of St.
John’s of Jerusalem, of the Knights Hospitallers in England. He ranked
before the mitred abbots, and was considered the first baron in England.
(2.) The prior of Coventry; a solitary instance in England of the
presbyteral head of a cathedral being a spiritual peer. Of the abbots,
the abbot of Glastonbury had the precedence, till A. D. 1154, when Pope
Adrian VII., an Englishman, from the affection he entertained for the
place of his education, assigned this precedence to the abbot of St.
Alban’s. In consequence, Glastonbury ranked next after him, and Reading
had the third place.
According to the ancient laws of Christendom, confirmed by general
councils, all heads of monasteries, whether abbots or priors, owed
canonical obedience to their diocesan. And the same law subsisted till
the Reformation, wherever special exemptions had not been granted,
which, however, were numerous. Cowell, as quoted by Johnson in his
Dictionary, (voce _Abbot_,) erroneously says that the _mitred_ abbots
were exempted from episcopal jurisdiction, but that the other sorts (i.
e. the non-mitred) were subject to their diocesans. The truth is, that
the former endeavoured after their own aggrandizement in every possible
way, but had no inherent right of exemption from the fact of their being
lords of parliament, or being invested with the mitre. Thus it appears
from _Dugd. Monast._ that Gloucester, Winchcomb, and Tewkesbury were
subject to the visitation and jurisdiction of the bishop of Worcester,
till the Reformation; Croyland, Peterborough, Bardney, and Ramsey to the
bishop of Lincoln; St. Mary in York, and Selby, to the archbishop of
York, and Coventry to the bishop of Lichfield. The abbots, unless
specially exempted, took the oath of canonical obedience to their
diocesan, and after election, were confirmed by him, and received his
benediction. [_Fuller, Collier, Willis’s Mitred Abbeys._] In Ireland the
abbots who were mitred, or lords of parliament, were those of St. Mary,
Dublin; St. Thomas, Dublin; Monastereven, Baltinglass, Dunbrody, Duisk,
Jerpoint, Bective, Mellifont, Tracton, Monasternenagh, Owney, and
Holycross. All these were of the Cistercian order, except the abbot of
St. Thomas, who was of St. Victor. The other parliamentary lords, heads
of religious houses, were the cathedral priors of Christ Church, Dublin,
and of Downpatrick; the priors of Allhallows, Dublin; Conall, Kells, (in
Kilkenny,) Louth, Athassel, Killagh, Newton, and Rathboy. All these were
of the Augustinian order, except the prior of Down, who was a
Benedictine, the preceptor of the Knights Hospitallers at Wexford, and
the prior of the Knights Hospitallers at Kilmainham. (See _Monks_.)
ABBESS. The Mother or Superior of an abbey of nuns, or female persons
living under peculiar religious vows and discipline.
ABECEDARIAN HYMNS. Hymns composed in imitation of the acrostic poetry of
the Hebrews, in which each verse, or each part, commenced with the first
and succeeding letters of the alphabet, in their order. This arrangement
was intended as a help to the memory. St. Augustine composed a hymn in
this manner, for the common people to learn, against the error of the
Donatists. (See _Acrostics_.)
ABEYANCE, from the French _bayer_, to expect, is that which is in
expectation, remembrance, and intendment of law. By a principle of law,
in every land there is a fee simple in some body, or else it is in
_abeyance_; that is, though for the present it be in no man, yet it is
in expectancy belonging to him that is next to enjoy the land.—_Inst._
Thus if a man be patron of a church, and presenteth a clerk to the same;
the fee of the lands and tenements pertaining to the rectory is in the
parson; but if the parson die, and the church becometh void, then is the
fee in _abeyance_, until there be a new parson presented, admitted, and
inducted. For the frank tenement of the glebe of a parsonage, during the
time the parsonage is void, is in no man; but in _abeyance_ or
expectation, belonging to him who is next to enjoy it.—_Terms of the
Law._
ABJURATION. A solemn renunciation in public, or before a proper officer,
of some doctrinal error. A formal abjuration is often considered
necessary by the Church, when any person seeks to be received into her
communion from heresy or schism. A form for admitting Romish recusants
into the Church of England was drawn up by one of the Houses of
Convocation of 1714, but did not receive the royal sanction. It is as
follows:
_A Form for admitting Converts from the Church of Rome, and such as
shall renounce their errors._
The bishop, or some priests appointed by him for that purpose, being at
the communion table, and the person to be reconciled standing without
the rails, the bishop, or such priest as is appointed, shall speak to
the congregation as followeth:
Dearly beloved,
We are here met together for the reconciling of a penitent (lately of
the Church of Rome, or lately of the separation) to the Established
Church of England, as to a true and sound part of CHRIST’S holy Catholic
Church. Now, that this weighty affair may have its due effect, let us in
the first place humbly and devoutly pray to Almighty GOD for his
blessing upon us in that pious and charitable office we are going about.
Prevent us, O LORD, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and
further us with thy continual help, that in this and all other our
works, begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy
name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life, through JESUS
CHRIST our LORD.
Amen.
Almighty GOD, who showest to them that be in error the light of thy
truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness;
grant unto all them that are or shall be admitted into the fellowship of
CHRIST’S religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary
to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the
same, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Amen.
Psalm cxix. 161.
Let my complaint come before thee, O LORD; give me understanding
according to thy word.
Let my supplication come before thee; deliver me according to thy word.
My lips shall speak of thy praise, when thou hast taught me thy
statutes.
Yea, my tongue shall sing of thy word, for all thy commandments are
righteous.
Let thine hand help me, for I have chosen thy commandments.
I have longed for thy saving health, O LORD, and in thy law is my
delight.
O let my soul live, and it shall praise thee and thy judgments shall
help me.
I have gone astray, like a sheep that is lost; O seek thy servant, for I
do not forget thy commandments.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.
The Lesson. Luke XV. to ver. 8.
Then drew near unto him the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And
the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners,
and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What
man of you having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not
leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is
lost, until he find it? and when he hath found it, he layeth it on his
shoulders rejoicing; and when he cometh home, he calleth together his
friends and his neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I
have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy
shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety
and nine just persons which need no repentance.
The hymn to be used when the penitent comes from the Church of Rome.
Psalm cxv. to ver. 10.
Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give the praise, for
thy loving mercy and for thy truth’s sake.
Wherefore shall the heathen say: Where is now their GOD?
As for our GOD, he is in heaven; he hath done whatsoever pleased him.
Their idols are silver and gold, even the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, and speak not; eyes have they, and see not; they have
ears, and hear not; noses have they, and smell not; they have hands, and
handle not; feet have they, and walk not; neither speak they through
their throat.
They that make them are like unto them, and so are all such as put their
trust in them.
But thou, house of Israel, trust thou in the Lord; he is their succour
and defence.
Glory be to the FATHER, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.
If the penitent comes from the separation, then this is to be used.
Psalm cxxii.
I was glad when they said unto me, We will go into the house of the
LORD.
Our feet shall stand in thy gates, O Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is built as a city that is at unity in itself.
For thither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the LORD, to testify
unto Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the LORD.
For there is the seat of judgment, even the seat of the house of
David.
O pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee.
Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces.
For my brethren and companions’ sake I wish thee prosperity.
Yea, because of the house of the LORD our GOD, I will seek to do thee
good.
Glory be to the Father, &c.
As it was in the beginning, &c.
Then the bishop sitting in a chair, or the priest standing, shall speak
to the penitent, who is to be kneeling, as follows:
Dear brother, or sister,
I have good hope that you have well weighed and considered with
yourself the great work you are come about, before this time; but
inasmuch as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation, that you may give the
more honour to GOD, and that this present congregation of CHRIST here
assembled may also understand your mind and will in these things, and
that this your declaration may the more confirm you in your good
resolutions, you shall answer plainly to these questions, which we in
the name of GOD and of his Church shall propose to you touching the
same:
Art thou thoroughly persuaded that those books of the Old and the New
Testament, which are received as canonical scriptures by this Church,
contain sufficiently all doctrine requisite and necessary to eternal
salvation through faith in JESUS CHRIST?
Answer. I am so persuaded.
Dost thou believe in GOD the FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, and in JESUS CHRIST, his only begotten SON our LORD, and that
he was conceived of the HOLY GHOST, born of the Virgin Mary, that he
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, that
he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day, that he
ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of GOD the FATHER
Almighty, and from thence shall come again, at the end of the world,
to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the HOLY GHOST, the holy Catholic Church, the
communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the
flesh, and everlasting life after death?
Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.
Art thou truly sorrowful that thou hast not followed the way
prescribed in these Scriptures for the directing of the faith and
practice of a true disciple of CHRIST JESUS?
Answer. I am heartily sorry, and I hope for mercy through JESUS
CHRIST.
Dost thou embrace the truth of the gospel in the love of it, and
stedfastly resolve to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this
present world all the days of thy life?
Answer. I do embrace it, and do so resolve, GOD being my helper.
Dost thou earnestly desire to be received into the communion of this
Church, as into a true and sound part of CHRIST’S holy Catholic
Church?
Answer. This I earnestly desire.
If the penitent come from the Church of Rome, this question is to
follow:
Dost thou renounce all the errors and superstitions of the present
Romish Church, so far as they are come to thy knowledge?
Answer. I do from my heart renounce them all.
If the penitent from the Church of Rome be in holy orders, let these
further questions be asked:
Dost thou in particular renounce the twelve last articles added in the
confession, commonly called “the Creed of Pope Pius IV.,” after having
read them, and duly considered them?
Answer. I do upon mature deliberation reject them all, as grounded
upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.
Dost thou acknowledge the supremacy of the kings and queens of this
realm, as by law established, and declared in the thirty-seventh
article of religion?
Answer. I do sincerely acknowledge it.
Wilt thou then give thy faithful diligence always so to minister the
doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of CHRIST, as the LORD
hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same,
according to the commandments of GOD, so that thou mayest teach the
people with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will do so by the help of the LORD.
Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as
by law established?
Answer. I will.
If the penitent come from the separation, these questions are to be
asked:
Dost thou allow and approve of the orders of bishops, priests, and
deacons [as what have been in the Church of CHRIST from the time of
the apostles]; and wilt thou, as much as in thee lieth, promote all
due regard to the same good order and government of the Church of
CHRIST?
[NOTE. That within the crotchets is to be used only when the
penitent hath been a teacher in some separate congregation.]
Answer. I do approve it, and will endeavour that it may be so
regarded, as much as in me lieth.
Wilt thou conform thyself to the liturgy of the Church of England, as
by law established, and be diligent in attending the prayers and other
offices of the Church?
Answer. I will do so by the help of GOD.
If the penitent be one who has relapsed, the following question is to be
asked:
Art thou heartily sorry, that when thou wast in the way of truth, thou
didst so little watch over thy own heart, as to suffer thyself to be
led away with the shows of vain doctrine? and dost thou stedfastly
purpose to be more careful for the future, and to persevere in that
holy profession, which thou hast now made?
Answer. I am truly grieved for my former unstedfastness, and am fully
determined by GOD’S grace to walk more circumspectly for the time to
come, and to continue in this my profession to my life’s end.
Then the bishop, or priest, standing up, shall say:
Almighty GOD, who hath given you a sense of your errors, and a will to
do all these things, grant also unto you strength and power to perform
the same, that he may accomplish his work, which he hath begun in you,
through JESUS CHRIST. Amen.
_The Absolution._
Almighty GOD, our heavenly FATHER, who of his great mercy hath
promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance
and true faith turn unto him, have mercy upon you, pardon and deliver
you from all your sins, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,
and bring you to everlasting life, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD.
Amen.
Then the bishop, or priest, taking the penitent by the right hand, shall
say unto him:
I N., bishop of ——, or I A. B., do upon this thy solemn profession and
earnest request receive thee into the holy communion of the Church of
England, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY
GHOST.
People: Amen.
Then the bishop, or priest, shall say the LORD’S Prayer, with that
which follows, all kneeling.
Let us pray.
Our FATHER, which art in heaven, &c.
O GOD of truth and love, we bless and magnify thy holy name for thy
great mercy and goodness in bringing this thy servant into the
communion of this Church: give him (or her) we beseech thee, stability
and perseverance in that faith of which he (or she) hath in the
presence of GOD and of this congregation witnessed a good confession.
Suffer him (or her) not to be moved from it by any temptations of
Satan, enticements of the world, the scoffs of irreligious men, or the
revilings of those who are still in error; but guard him (or her) by
thy grace against all these snares, and make him (or her) instrumental
in turning others from the errors of their ways, to the saving of
their souls from death, and the covering a multitude of sins. And in
thy good time, O LORD, bring, we pray thee, into the way of truth all
such as have erred and are deceived; and so fetch them home, blessed
LORD, to thy flock, that there may be one fold under one Shepherd, the
LORD JESUS CHRIST; to whom with the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT be all
honour and glory, world without end. Amen.
Then the bishop, or priest, standing up (if there be no communion at
that time), shall turn himself to the person newly admitted, and say:
Dear brother, or sister,
Seeing that you have by the goodness of GOD proceeded thus far, I must
put you in mind, that you take care to go on in that good way into
which you are entered; and for your establishment and furtherance
therein, that, if you have not been confirmed, you endeavour to be so
the next opportunity, and receive the holy sacrament of the LORD’S
supper. And may GOD’S Holy Spirit ever be with you. Amen.
The peace of GOD, which passeth all understanding, keep your heart and
mind by CHRIST JESUS. Amen.—_Cardwell’s Synodalia. Wilkins’s
Concilia._
ABSOLUTION. (See _Confession_, _Penance_.) The power of absolution
consists in removing the guilt and punishment of sin, and receiving the
guilty person into favour, as if he were perfectly innocent. This is
variously expressed in holy Scripture. It is sometimes made the same
with justification, which is the acquitting a person from guilt, and
looking upon him as perfectly righteous. It is opposed to condemnation,
which is a laying of sin to his charge. This power is expressed by
remitting or retaining of sin, which is the pardoning or punishing of
it. It is called sometimes the power of opening and shutting the kingdom
of heaven, which is by admitting into, or excluding out of, the Church;
for none can be received into the kingdom of glory hereafter but such as
are admitted into the church or kingdom of grace here: called therefore
the power of the keys. It is called in St. Matthew the power of binding
and loosing, (xvi. 19,) “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,” &c. Sinners
are said to be “tied and bound with the chain of their sins,” to be
“holden with cords,” and to be “in the bond of iniquity.” Now to loosen
this bond, to untie those cords, and so be freed from these chains, is
done by what we call the power of absolution, or remission of sins: and
so the words of St. Matthew are the same in effect with those of St.
John, “Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c. This power of pardoning is
annexed to some acts of religion, instituted by God for this purpose,
and executed only by CHRIST’S ministers. As, 1. Baptism was ordained for
the remission of sins; so St. Peter told his converts, (Acts ii. 38,)
“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you,” &c. 2. The holy sacrament
of the eucharist was instituted for this purpose: as we read, Matt.
xxvi. 28, where CHRIST’S body is said to be broken, and “his blood shed
for many for the remission of sins.” 3. The preaching the word is for
the proclaiming of pardon, called therefore the ministry, or word, of
reconciliation. (2 Cor. v. 18.) 4. The prayer of the elders over the
sick hath joined to it the forgiveness of sins. (Jas. v. 14.) Now these
ministerial acts for the “remission of sins,” are peculiar only to the
“priest’s office:” neither is the virtue or effect of them to be
imparted to any other; for to them it is said, and to no other, “whose
sins ye remit,” &c.; and therefore a pardon pronounced by them must be
of greater efficacy than by any ordinary person.—_Hole._
The authority and power of conferring absolution on penitents, wherewith
our gracious SAVIOUR hath so clearly vested his ministerial successors,
“whose soever sins ye remit,” &c., having been abused by the Church of
Rome into a lucrative market of pardons and indulgences, it is no wonder
that Luther, and all our first reformers, should have taken infinite
offence at a practice so flagitious, and so directly contrary to the
command of CHRIST, “freely ye have received, freely give.” This,
however, should not have been a reason, as it was with too many, for
rejecting all absolutions. The true doctrine is, and must be, this: For
the consolation of his Church, and particularly of such as class with
the penitent publican in the gospel, CHRIST hath left with his bishops
and presbyters a power to pronounce absolution. This absolution is on
condition of faith and repentance in the person or persons receiving it.
On sufficient appearance of these, and on confession made with these
appearances in particular persons, the bishop or presbyter, as the
messenger of CHRIST, is to pronounce it. But he cannot search the heart;
GOD only, who can, confirms it. The power of absolution is remarkably
exercised by St. Paul, though absent, and depending on both report and
the information of the HOLY SPIRIT, in regard to the Corinthian
excommunicated for incest. The apostle, speaking in the character of one
to whom the authority of absolution had been committed, saith to the
Church of Corinth, “to whom ye forgave anything, I forgive also.” (2
Cor. ii. 10.) Thus the penitent was pardoned and restored to communion
by delegated authority, in the person of CHRIST, lest such an one should
be swallowed up with over-much sorrow, and lest Satan should get an
advantage over us. As these reasons for compassion still remain, it
seems evident that the Church should still retain the same power of
showing that compassion, as far as human understanding may direct its
application.—_Skelton._
Sacerdotal absolution does not necessarily require any particular or
auricular confession of private sins; forasmuch as that the grand
absolution of baptism was commonly given without any particular
confession. And therefore the Romanists vainly found the necessity of
auricular confession upon those words of our SAVIOUR, _Whose soever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them_: as if there could be no
absolution without particular confession; when it is so plain, that
the great absolution of baptism (the power of which is founded by the
ancients upon this very place) required no such particular confession.
We may hence infer, that the power of any sacerdotal absolution is
only ministerial; because the administration of baptism, (which is the
most universal absolution,) so far as man is concerned in it, is no
more than ministerial. All the office and power of man in it is only
to minister the external form, but the internal power and grace of
remission of sins is properly GOD’S; and so it is in all other sorts
of absolution.—_Bingham._
The bishops and priests of the whole Christian Church have ever used to
absolve all that truly repented, and at this day it is retained in our
Church as a part of the daily office; which being so useful, so
necessary, and founded on holy Scripture, needs not any arguments to
defend it, but that the ignorance and prejudice of some make them take
offence at it, and principally because it hath been so much abused by
the Papal Church. We may declare our abhorrency of these evil uses of
absolution; though in that sober, moderate, and useful manner we do
perform it, we do not vary from the prime intention of CHRIST’S
commission, and the practice of antiquity: absolution was instituted by
JESUS, and if it have been corrupted by men, we will cast away the
corruptions, not the ordinance itself.—_Comber._
Sin is compared to a bond, (Acts viii. 23; Prov. v. 22,) because it
binds down the soul by its guilt and power, and hinders it from free
converse with GOD, yea, makes it liable to eternal condemnation: but
JESUS came to unloose these bonds, and actually did so to divers, when
he was upon earth, and left this power to his apostles and their
successors, when he went to heaven; and this unloosing men from the bond
of their sins is that which we properly call _absolution_, and it is a
necessary and most comfortable part of the priest’s office. But the
sectaries do wholly disown this power, and are so bold as to deride us
for the use thereof: yet it is certain that CHRIST did give his
disciples the power of binding and loosing, (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18,)
or, as it is elsewhere called, of remitting sins, (John xx. 22, 23,)
frequently repeating this commission, and solemnly promising to ratify
in heaven what they did on earth. It is plain also, that the apostles
exercised this power, (Acts ii. 38; 2 Cor. ii. 10,) and gave their
successors a charge to use it also (Gal. vi. 1; James v. 14, 15); and
the primitive histories do abundantly testify they did so very often; so
that they must cancel all those lines of Scripture, and records of
antiquity also, before they can take away this power. Nor can they
fairly pretend it was a personal privilege dying with the apostles,
since the Church hath used it ever since, and penitents need a
comfortable application of their pardon now, as well as they did then:
and whereas they object with the Jews, that “none can forgive sins but
GOD only,” (Luke v. 21,) we reply, that GOD alone can exercise this
power in his own right, but he may and hath communicated it to others,
who did it in his name, and by his authority; or, as St. Paul speaks,
_in the person of Christ_ (2 Cor. ii. 10); so that St. Ambrose saith,
“GOD himself forgives sins by them to whom he hath granted the power of
absolution.”—_Comber._
Calvin’s liturgy has no form of absolution in it: but he himself says
that it was an omission in him at first, and a defect in his liturgy;
which he afterwards would have rectified and amended, but could not. He
makes this ingenuous confession in one of his epistles: “There is none
of us,” says he, “but must acknowledge it to be very useful, that, after
the general confession, some remarkable promise of Scripture should
follow, whereby sinners might be raised to the hopes of pardon and
reconciliation. And I would have introduced this custom from the
beginning, but some fearing that the novelty of it would give offence, I
was over-easy in yielding to them; so the thing was omitted.” I must do
that justice to Calvin here, by the way, to say, that he was no enemy to
private absolution neither, as used in the Church of England. For in one
of his answers to Westphalus he thus expresses his mind about it: “I
have no intent to deny the usefulness of private absolution: but as I
commend it in several places of my writings, provided the use be left to
men’s liberty, and free from superstition, so to bind men’s consciences
by a law to it, is neither lawful nor expedient.” Here we have Calvin’s
judgment, fully and entirely, for the usefulness both of public and
private absolution. He owns it to be a defect in his liturgy, that it
wants a public absolution.—_Bingham._
Calvin’s own account of his facility merits attention. In his character,
flexibility of disposition appears to be a lineament either so faint, or
so obscured by more prominent features of a different cast, that it has
generally escaped vulgar observation. His panegyrist, the learned
translator of Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist., [Maclaine,] describes him as
surpassing most of the reformers “in obstinacy, asperity, and
turbulence.”—_Shepherd._
This penitence our Church makes not a new sacrament, (as doth the Church
of Rome,) but a means of returning to the grace of GOD bestowed in
baptism. “They which in act or deed sin after baptism, (saith our
homily,) when they turn to GOD unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by
this sacrifice from their sins.”—_Puller._
If our confession be serious and hearty, this absolution is as
effectual as if GOD did pronounce it from heaven. So says the
Confession of Saxony and Bohemia, and so says the Augustan Confession;
and, which is more, so says St. Chrysostom in his fifth homily upon
Isaiah, “Heaven waits and expects the priest’s sentence here on earth;
the LORD follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or
looses here on earth, that the LORD confirms in heaven.” The same says
St. Gregory (Hom. 20) upon the Gospels: “The apostles (and in them all
priests) were made GOD’S vicegerents here on earth, in his name and
stead to retain or remit sins.” St. Augustine and Cyprian, and
generally all antiquity, say the same; so does our Church in many
places, particularly in the form of absolution for the sick; but,
above all, holy Scripture is clear, (St. John xx. 23,) “Whose soever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.” Which power of remitting
sins was not to end with the apostles, but is a part of the ministry
of reconciliation, as necessary now as it was then, and therefore to
continue as long as the ministry of reconciliation; that is, to the
end of the world. (Eph. iv. 12, 13.) When therefore the priest
absolves, GOD absolves, if we be truly penitent. Now, this remission
of sins granted here to the priest, to which GOD hath promised a
confirmation in heaven, is not the act of preaching, or baptizing, or
admitting men to the holy communion. But this power of remitting sins,
mentioned John xx., was not granted (though promised, Matt. xvi. 19)
till _now_, that is, after the resurrection, as appears by the
ceremony of _breathing_, signifying that then it was given: and
secondly, by the word _receive_, used in that place, (ver. 22,) which
he could not properly have used, if they had been endued with this
power before. Therefore the power of remitting, which here GOD
authorizes, and promises certain assistance to, is neither preaching
nor baptizing, but some other way of remitting, viz. that which the
Church calls absolution. And if it be so, then, to doubt of the effect
of it, (supposing we be truly penitent, and such as GOD will pardon,)
is to question the truth of GOD: and he that, under pretence of
reverence to GOD, denies or despises this power, does injury to GOD,
slighting his commission, and is no better than a Novatian, says St.
Ambrose.—_Sparrow._
Our Church has not appointed the indicative form of absolution to be
used in all these senses, but only once in the office of the sick, and
that may reasonably be interpreted, (according to the account given out
of St. Jerome,) a declaration of the sinner’s pardon, upon the apparent
evidences of a sincere repentance, and the best judgment the minister
can make of his condition; beyond which none can go, but the searcher of
hearts, to whom alone belongs the infallible and irreversible sentence
of absolution. The indicative form, “I absolve thee,” may be interpreted
to mean no more than a declaration of GOD’S will to a penitent sinner,
that, upon the best judgment the priest can make of his repentance, he
esteems him absolved before GOD, and accordingly pronounces and declares
him absolved. As St. Jerome observes, the priests under the old law were
said to cleanse a leper, or pollute him; not that they were the authors
of his pollution, but that they declared him to be polluted, who before
seemed to many to have been clean. As, therefore, the priest makes the
leper clean or unclean, so the bishop or presbyter here binds or looses,
not properly making the guilty or the guiltless; but according to the
tenor of his office, when he hears the distinction of sins, he knows who
is to be bound, and who is to be loosed. Upon this also, the master of
the sentences (following St. Jerome) observes, that the priests of the
gospel have that right and office which the legal priests had of old
under the law in curing the lepers. These, therefore, forgive sins, or
retain them, whilst they show and declare that they are forgiven or
retained by GOD. For the priests “put the name of the LORD” upon the
children of Israel, but it was he himself that blessed them, as it is
read in Num. vi. 27.—_Bingham._
Our Church maintains, appealing to Scripture for the proof of it, that
some power of absolving or remitting sins, derived from the apostles,
remains with their successors in the ministry; and accordingly, at the
ordination of priests, the words of our Saviour, on which the power is
founded, are solemnly repeated to them by the bishop, and the power at
the same time conferred. We do not pretend it is in any sort a
_discretionary_ power of forgiving sins, for the priest has no
_discernment of the spirit_ and hearts of men, as the apostles had, but
a power of pronouncing authoritatively, in the name of GOD, who has
committed to the priest the ministry of reconciliation, _his_ pardon and
forgiveness to all true penitents and sincere believers. That GOD alone
can forgive sins, that he is the sole author of all blessings, spiritual
as well as temporal, is undeniable: but that he can declare his gracious
assurance of pardon, and convey his blessings to us, by what means and
instruments he thinks fit, is no less certain. In whatever way he
vouchsafes to do it, it is our duty humbly and thankfully to receive
them; not to dispute his wisdom in the choice of those means and
instruments; for, in that case, he that despiseth, despiseth not man,
but GOD.—_Waldo._
The following remarks on our forms of absolution occur in “Palmer’s
Origines Liturgicæ.”
“An absolution followed the confession formerly in the offices of the
English churches, for prime, or the first hour of the day. We may,
perhaps, assign to the absolution thus placed, an antiquity equal to
that of the confession, though _Gemma Animæ_ and Durandus do not appear
expressly to mention it. The sacerdotal benediction of penitents was in
the earliest times conveyed in the form of a prayer to GOD for their
absolution; but, in after ages, different forms of benediction were
used, both in the East and West. With regard to these varieties of
_form_, it does not appear that they were formerly considered of any
importance. A benediction seems to have been regarded as equally valid,
whether it was conveyed in the form of a petition or a declaration,
whether in the optative or the indicative mood, whether in the active or
the passive voice, whether in the first, second, or third person. It is
true that a direct prayer to GOD is a most ancient form of blessing; but
the use of a precatory, or an optative form, by no means warrants the
inference, that the person who uses it is devoid of any divinely
instituted authority to bless and absolve in the congregation of GOD.
Neither does the use of a direct indicative form of blessing or
absolution imply anything but the exercise of an authority which GOD has
given, to such an extent, and under such limitations, as Divine
revelation has declared.”
In the primitive Church absolution was regarded to consist of five
kinds: sacramental, by baptism and the eucharist; declaratory, by word
of mouth and doctrine; precatory, by imposition of hands and prayer;
judicial, by relaxation of Church censures.—_Bingham._
The Absolution in the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer was first
inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI. It can be pronounced by
the priest _only or alone_. At the last review the word _Minister_ in
the rubric preceding the absolution, was changed into _Priest_: this
change being obviously adopted from the Scotch Prayer Book in Charles
I.’s time, where the word in the same place is _Presbyter_. The other
two absolutions are coeval with our reformed Prayer Book. The
ministerial absolution of persons unquiet in conscience, before
receiving the holy communion, is mentioned in the first exhortation on
giving notice of the communion; and the absolution of excommunicated
persons in the 65th Canon.
ABSTINENCE. (See _Fasting_.) In the Romish Church, fasting and
abstinence admit of a distinction, and different days are appointed for
each of them. On their days of fasting, they are allowed but one meal in
four and twenty hours; but, on days of abstinence, provided they abstain
from flesh, and make but a moderate meal, they are indulged in a
collation at night. The times by them set apart for the first are, all
Lent, except Sundays, the Ember days, the vigils of the more solemn
feasts, and all Fridays except those that fall within the twelve days of
Christmas, and between Easter and the Ascension. Their days of
abstinence are all the Sundays in Lent, St. Mark’s day, if it does not
fall in Easter week, the three Rogation days, all Saturdays throughout
the year, with the Fridays before excepted, unless either happen to be
Christmas day. The reason why they observe St. Mark as a day of
abstinence is, as we learn from their own books, in imitation of St.
Mark’s disciples, the first Christians of Alexandria, who, under this
saint’s conduct, were eminent for their great prayer, abstinence, and
sobriety. They further tell us, that St. Gregory the Great, the apostle
of England, first set apart this day for abstinence and public prayer,
as an acknowledgment of the Divine mercy, in putting a stop to a
mortality in his time at Rome.
We do not find that the Church of England makes any difference between
days of fasting and days of abstinence. It is true, in the title of the
table of Vigils, &c., she mentions fasts and days of abstinence
separately; but when she comes to enumerate the particulars, she calls
them all days of fasting or abstinence, without distinguishing between
the one and the other. Nor does she anywhere point out to us what food
is proper for such times or seasons, or seem to place any part of
religion in abstaining from any particular kinds of meat. It is true, by
a statute, (5 Eliz. 5,) none were allowed to eat flesh on fish-days,
(which are there declared to be all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays
in the year,) without a licence first obtained, for which they are to
pay a yearly fine, (except such as are sick, who may be licensed either
by the bishop or minister,) under penalty of three pounds’ forfeiture,
or three months’ imprisonment without bail, and of forty shillings’
forfeiture for any master of a family that suffers or conceals it. But
then this is declared to be a mere political law, for the increase of
fishermen and mariners, and repairing of port towns and navigation, and
not for any superstition to be maintained in the choice of meats. For,
by the same act, whosoever, by preaching, teaching, writing, &c.,
affirms it to be necessary to abstain from flesh for the saving of the
soul of man, or for the service of GOD, otherwise than other politic
laws are or be, is to be punished as a spreader of false news. That is,
he must suffer imprisonment till he produce the author; and, if he
cannot produce him, must be punished at the discretion of the king’s
council. The sections of this act which relate to eating fish on
Wednesdays, were repealed by 27 Eliz. c. 11.
With us, therefore, neither Church nor State makes any difference in the
kinds of meat; but as far as the former determines in the matter, she
seems to recommend an entire abstinence from all manner of food till the
time of fasting be over; declaring in her homilies, that fasting (by the
decree of the six hundred and thirty fathers, assembled at the Council
of Chalcedon, which was one of the four first general councils, who
grounded their determination upon the sacred Scriptures, and
long-continued usage or practice both of the prophets and other godly
persons, before the coming of CHRIST, and also of the apostles and other
devout men in the New Testament) is a withholding of meat, drink, and
all natural food from the body, for the determined time of
fasting.—_Wheatly._
ABYSSINIA. The Abyssinian Church was founded early in the fourth
century. Its first bishop, Frumentius, received consecration from St.
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and to this day the _Abund_ of
Abyssinia is consecrated by the Alexandrian patriarch. In the sixth
century the Christians of Abyssinia fell into the heresy of the
Monophysites, in which they still remain; and they also agree with the
Greek Church in denying the procession of the HOLY GHOST from the SON.
In the fifth, and again in the seventeenth, century, attempts were made
to reduce the Abyssinian Christians to obedience to the Roman see, but
the attempt in both instances utterly failed. The number of Christians
in Abyssinia is said to amount to three millions.
ACŒMETÆ. (Ἁκοιμηταί, Watchers.) An order of monks instituted at the
beginning of the fifth century at Constantinople, who were divided into
three classes, who performed the Divine service by rotation, and so
continued night and day without intermission.
ACEPHALI. (ἀ and κεφαλὴ, literally, _without a head_.) The name given to
those of the Egyptian Eutychians, who, after Peter Magus, bishop of
Alexandria, had signed the _Henoticon_ of Zeno, A. D. 482, formed a
separate sect. (See _Henoticon_.) The word is also applied to those
bishops who were exempt from the jurisdiction of a metropolitan or
patriarch.
ACOLYTH, or ACOLYTE, (ἀκολουθος,) in our old English called Collet, was
an inferior church servant, who, next under the subdeacon, waited on the
priests and deacons, and performed the meaner offices of lighting the
candles, carrying the bread and wine, &c. He was allowed to wear the
cassock and surplice. In the Church of Rome it was accounted one of the
minor orders. In the Greek Church it is supposed to be another name for
the order of subdeacons, according to Bingham.—_Jebb._
ACROSTIC. A form of poetical composition among the Hebrews, composed of
twenty-two lines, or stanzas, according to the number of letters in the
Hebrew alphabet, each line or stanza beginning with each letter in its
order. Of the several poems of this character, there are twelve in all,
in the Old Testament, viz. Psalms xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii.,
cxix., cxlv. Part of Proverbs xxxi. Lament. i., ii., iii., iv. Psalm
cxix. is the most remarkable specimen. It still retains in the Bible
translation the name of the several letters of the Hebrew alphabet, to
mark its several divisions. This Psalm consists of twenty-two stanzas,
(the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet,) each division
consisting of eight couplets; the first line of each couplet beginning
with that letter of the alphabet which marks the division. Psalm xxxvii.
consists of twenty-two quatrains; the first line only of each quatrain
being acrostical. Lam. i. and ii., of twenty-two triplets, the first
line of each only being acrostical. Lam. iii., of twenty-two triplets
also, but with every line acrostical. Lam. iv. and Psalms xxv., xxxiv.,
and cxv., and part of Prov. xxxi., of twenty-two couplets, the first
line only of each being acrostical. Psalms cxi. and cxii., of twenty-two
lines each, in alphabetical order. The divisions of the Hebrew poetry
into lines, not metrical, but rhythmical and parallel in sentiment, is
very much elucidated by the alphabetical or acrostical poems.—_Jebb._
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. One of the canonical books of the New Testament.
It contains a great part of the lives of St. Peter and St. Paul,
beginning at our Lord’s ascension, and continued down to St. Paul’s
arrival at Rome, after his appeal to Cæsar; comprehending in all about
thirty years. St. Luke has been generally considered the author of this
book; and his principal design in writing it was to obviate the false
Acts, and false histories, which began to be dispersed up and down the
world. The exact time of his writing it is not known; but it must have
been written at least two years after St. Paul’s arrival at Rome,
because it informs us that St. Paul “dwelt two whole years in his own
hired house.” Perhaps he wrote it while he remained with St. Paul,
during the time of his imprisonment, Acts xxviii. 30.
St. Luke wrote this work in Greek; and his language is generally purer,
and more elegant, than that of the other writers of the New Testament.
Epíphanius (_Hæres._ xxx. chap. 3 and 6) tells us that this book was
translated by the Ebionites out of Greek into Hebrew, that is, into
Syriac, which was the common language of the Jews in Palestine; but that
those heretics corrupted it with a mixture of many falsities and
impieties, injurious to the memory of the apostles. St. Jerome assures
us, that a certain priest of Asia added to the true, genuine Acts, the
voyages of St. Paul and St. Thecla, and the story of baptizing a lion.
Tertullian (_de Baptismo_, chap. xvii.) tells us that St. John the
evangelist, having convicted this priest of varying from the truth in
this relation, the good man excused himself, saying, he did it purely
out of love to St. Paul.
The Marcionites and Manichæans, because they were sensible that this
book too plainly condemned their errors, rejected it out of the Canon of
Scripture. (Tertull. _contra Marcion_, lib. 5.)
There were several spurious ACTS OF THE APOSTLES; particularly, I. The
Acts of the Apostles, supposed to be written by Abdias, the pretended
bishop of Babylon, who gave out, that he was ordained bishop by the
apostles themselves, when they were upon their journey into Persia. II.
The Acts of St. Peter: this book came originally from the school of the
Ebionites. III. The Acts of St. Paul, which is entirely lost. Eusebius,
who had seen it, pronounces it of no authority. IV. The Acts of St. John
the Evangelist; a book made use of by the Encratites, Manichæans, and
Priscillianists. V. The Acts of St. Andrew; received by the Manichæans,
Encratites, and Apotactics. VI. The Acts of St. Thomas the Apostle;
received particularly by the Manichæans. VII. The Acts of St. Philip:
this book the Gnostics made use of. VIII. The Acts of St. Matthias. Some
have imagined that the Jews for a long time had concealed the original
Acts of the Life and Death of St. Matthias, written in Hebrew; and that
a monk of the abbey of St. Matthias at Treves, having got them out of
their hands, procured them to be translated into Latin, and published
them. But the critics will not allow them to be genuine and
authentic.—_Cotelerius. Fabricius Apocr. N. T. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles._
ADAMITES. A sect of Christian heretics who imitated Adam’s nakedness
before his fall, believing themselves as innocent since their redemption
by the death of CHRIST, and therefore met together naked upon all
occasions, asserting that if Adam had not sinned, there would have been
no marriages. They sprang from the Carpocratians and Gnostics, and
followed the errors of an infamous person called Prodicus. They gave the
name of deity to the four elements, rejected prayer, and said it was not
necessary to confess JESUS CHRIST. This sect was renewed in Flanders by
one Tanchelm, (1115–1124,) who being followed by 3000 soldiers,
committed all kinds of vice, calling their villanies by a spiritual
name. In the 15th century one Picard, so called from the country of his
birth, renewed it in Bohemia, from whence the sect spread into Poland:
it was said they met in the night, and used these words, (originally
ascribed to the Priscillianists in the 4th century,) _Swear, forswear,
and discover not the secret_.
ADMINISTRATOR. An ancient officer of the Church, whose duty was to
defend the cause of the widows, orphans, and all others who might be
destitute of help.
ADMINISTRATION, in an ecclesiastical sense, is used to express the
giving or dispensing the sacrament of our Lord.—In its more general use
it signifies the distribution of the personal effects of intestates,
which is made by the ordinary according to the enactment of sundry
statutes; the principal of which is 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. x.
ADMONITION. The first step of ecclesiastical censure, according to the
words of the apostle, “a man that is an heretic, after the first and
second admonition, reject.” (Tit. iii. 10.) This part of episcopal
discipline always precedes excommunication; which, however, must
necessarily follow, if the offender continue contumacious, and hardened
in his error or crime. Vide Canon 64, &c. The word also occurs in the
Ordination Service: “following with a glad mind and will their godly
admonition.”—_Jebb._
ADMONITIONISTS. Certain Puritans in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who
were so called from being the authors of the “Admonition to the
Parliament,” 1571, in which everything in the Church of England was
condemned, which was not after the fashion of Geneva. They required
every ceremony to be “commanded in the Word,” and set at nought all
general rules and canons of the Church.
ADOPTIANS. Heretics in several parts of Spain, who held that our SAVIOUR
was GOD only by adoption. Their notions were condemned at Frankfort in
the year 794.
ADOPTION. To adopt is to make him a son who was not so by birth. The
Catechism teaches us that it is in holy baptism that “we are made
members of CHRIST, _children of_ GOD, and inheritors of the kingdom of
heaven.” GOD _sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons_. (Gal. iv. 4, 5.)
ADORATION. This word signifies a particular sort of worship, which the
Pagans gave to their deities: but, amongst Christians, it is used for
the general respect and worship paid to GOD. The heathens paid their
regard to their gods, by putting their hands to their mouths, and
kissing them. This was done in some places standing, and sometimes
kneeling; their faces were usually covered in their worship, and
sometimes they threw themselves prostrate on the ground. The first
Christians in their public prayers were wont to stand; and this they did
always on Sundays, and on the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost,
in memory of our LORD’S resurrection, as is still common in the Eastern
Churches. They were wont to turn their faces towards the east, either
because the East is a title given to CHRIST in the Old Testament, (as by
Zachariah, vi. 12, according to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate,)
or else to show that they expected the coming of CHRIST at the last day
from the east.
ADULT BAPTISM. (See _Baptism_.)
ADVENT. For the greater solemnity of the three principal holidays,
Christmas day, Easter day, and Whit-Sunday, the Church hath appointed
certain days to attend them: some to go before, and others to come after
them. Before Christmas are appointed four “Advent Sundays,” so called
because the design of them is to prepare us for a religious
commemoration of the _advent_ or coming of CHRIST in the flesh. The
Roman ritualists would have the celebration of this holy season to be
apostolical, and that it was instituted by St. Peter. But the precise
time of its institution is not so easily to be determined; though it
certainly had its beginning before the year 450, because Maximus
Taurinensis, who lived about that time, writ a homily upon it. And it is
to be observed, that, for the more strict and religious observation of
this season, courses of sermons were formerly preached in several
cathedrals on Wednesdays and Fridays, as is now the usual practice in
Lent. And we find by the Salisbury Missal, that, before the Reformation,
there was a special Epistle and Gospel relating to CHRIST’S advent,
appointed for those days during all that time.—_Wheatly._
It should be observed here, that it is the peculiar computation of the
Church, to begin her year, and to renew the annual course of her
service, at this time of Advent, therein differing from all other
accounts of time whatsoever. The reason of which is, because she does
not number her days, or measure her seasons, so much by the motion of
the sun, as by the course of our SAVIOUR; beginning and counting on her
year with him, who, being the true “Sun of righteousness,” began now to
rise upon the world, and, as “the Day-star on high,” to enlighten them
that sat in spiritual darkness.—_Bp. Cosin, Wheatly._
The lessons and services, therefore, for the four first Sundays in her
liturgical year, propose to our meditations the two-fold advent of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST; teaching us that it is he who was to come, and did
come, to redeem the world; and that it is he also who shall come again,
to be our judge. The end proposed by the Church in setting these two
appearances of CHRIST together before us, at this time, is to beget in
our minds proper dispositions to celebrate the one and expect the other;
that so with joy and thankfulness we may now “go to Bethlehem, and see
this great thing which is come to pass, which the LORD hath made known
to us,” even the Son of GOD come to visit us in great humility; and
thence, with faith unfeigned and hope immoveable, ascend in heart and
mind to meet the same Son of GOD in the air, coming in glorious majesty
to judge the quick and dead.—_Bp. Horne._
ADVOCATE, the word used in our Bibles as a translation of the Greek
παράκλητος, (see _Paraclete_,) which signifies one who exhorts, defends,
comforts; also one who prays or intercedes for another. It is an
appellation given to the HOLY SPIRIT by our SAVIOUR. (John xiv. 16; xv.
26.)
ADVOCATES are mentioned in the 96th, 131st, and 133rd English Canons, as
regular members of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The pleaders, or superior
practitioners, in all the English and Irish Church Courts are so called.
In London they form a corporation, or college, called Doctors’ Commons;
because all Advocates must be Doctors of Law, and they formerly lived
together in a collegiate manner, with a common table, &c. The candidate
Advocates obtain a fiat from the archbishop of Canterbury, and are
admitted by the judge to practise. In Ireland they do not form a
college: they must be Doctors of Law, but generally practise in the
common law or equity courts, besides. They are admitted to practise by
the judge of the Prerogative Court. The pleaders in the supreme courts
in Scotland, and generally throughout Europe, are called Advocates. The
institution of the order is very ancient. About the time of the emperor
Alexander Severus (see _Butler’s_ Life of L’Hopital) three ranks of
legal practitioners were established: the _orators_, who were the
pleaders; the _advocates_, who instructed the orators in points of law;
and the _cognitores_, or _procuratores_, who discharged much the same
office as proctors or attorneys now. The first order gradually merged
into the second.—_Jebb._
ADVOWSON, is the right of patronage to a church, or an ecclesiastical
benefice; and he who has the right of advowson is called the patron of
the church, from his obligation to defend the rights of the church from
oppression and violence. For when lords of manors first built churches
upon their own demesnes, and appointed the tithes of those manors to be
paid to the officiating ministers, which before were given to the clergy
in common, the lord, who thus built a church and endowed it with glebe
or land, had of common right a power annexed of nominating such minister
as he pleased (provided he were canonically qualified) to officiate in
that church, of which he was the founder, endower, maintainer, or, in
one word, the patron.
Advowsons are of two sorts, advowsons appendant, and advowsons in gross.
When annexed to a manor or land, so as to pass with them, they are
appendant; for so long as the church continues annexed to the possession
of the manor, as some have done from the foundation of the church to
this day, the patronage or presentation belongs to the person in
possession of the manor or land. But when the property of the advowson
has been once separated from that of the manor by legal conveyance, it
is called an advowson in gross, or at large, and exists as a personal
right in the person of its owner, independent of his manor or land.
Advowsons are also either presentative, collative, donative, or
elective. An advowson presentative is where the patron has a right to
present the parson to the bishop or ordinary to be instituted and
inducted, if he finds him canonically qualified. An advowson collative
is where the bishop is both patron and ordinary. An advowson donative is
where the king, or any subject by his licence, founds a church or
chapel, and ordains that it shall be merely in the gift or disposal of
the patron; subject to his visitation only, and not to that of the
ordinary; and vested absolutely in the clerk by the patron’s deed of
donation, without presentation, institution, or induction.
As to presentations to advowsons: where there are divers patrons,
joint-tenants, or tenants in common, and they vary in their presentment,
the ordinary is not bound to admit any of their clerks; and if the six
months elapse within which time they are to present, he may present by
the lapse; but he may not present within the six months; for if he do,
they may agree and bring a _quare impedit_ against him, and remove his
clerk. Where the patrons are co-parceners, the eldest sister, or her
assignee, is entitled to present; and then, at the next avoidance, the
next sister shall present, and so by turns one sister after another,
till all the sisters, or their heirs, have presented, and then the
eldest sister shall begin again, except they agree to present together,
or by composition to present in some other manner. But if the eldest
presents together with another of her sisters, and the other sisters
every one of them in their own name, or together, the ordinary is not
bound to receive any of their clerks, but may suffer the church to
lapse. But in this case, before the bishop can take advantage of the
lapse, he must direct a writ to inquire the right of patronage. Where an
advowson is mortgaged, the mortgager alone shall present, when the
church becomes vacant: and the mortgagee can derive no advantage from
the presentation in reduction of his debt. If a woman has an advowson,
or part of an advowson, to her and her heirs, and marries, the husband
may not only present jointly with his wife, during the coverture, but
also after her death the right of presenting during his life is lodged
in him, as tenant by courtesy, if he has children by her. And even
though the wife dies without having had issue by her husband, so that he
is not tenant by courtesy, and the church remains vacant at her death,
yet the husband shall present to the void turn; and if in such case he
does not present, his executor may. If a man, seized of an advowson,
takes a wife, and dies, the heir shall have two presentations, and the
wife the third, even though her husband may have granted away the third
turn. Or, if a manor, to which an advowson is appendant, descends to the
heir, and he assigns dower to his mother of the third part of the manor,
with the appurtenances, she is entitled to the presentation of the third
part of the advowson; the right of presentation being a chose in action
which is not assignable. If an advowson is sold, when the church is
vacant, it is decided that the grantee is not entitled to the benefit of
the next presentation. If, during the vacancy of a church, the patron
die, his executor, or personal representative, is entitled to that
presentation, unless it be a donative benefice, in which case the right
of donation descends to the heir. But if the incumbent of a church be
also seized in fee of the advowson of the same church, and die, his
heir, and not his executors, shall present.
As to the manner in which advowsons descend, it has been determined,
that advowsons in gross cannot descend from the brother to the sister of
the entire blood, but they shall descend to the brother of the half
blood, unless the first had presented to it in his lifetime, and then it
shall descend to the sister, she being the next heir of the entire
blood.
ÆONS. (Αίῶνες, ages.) The name given by some of the Gnostic heretics to
the spiritual beings, whom they supposed to have _emanated_ from the
Divinity. (See _Valentinus_.)
AERIANS. A small sect founded by Aërius, a presbyter of Sebaste, in the
lesser Armenia, about A. D. 355. St. Augustine tells us that Aërius, the
author of this heresy, was mortified at not attaining the episcopate;
and having fallen into the heresy of Arius, and having been led into
many strange notions by impatience of the control of the Church, he
taught, among other things, that no difference ought to be recognised
between a bishop and a presbyter; whereas, until then, even all
sectaries had acknowledged the episcopate as a superior order, and had
been careful at their outset to obtain episcopal ordination for their
ministers. Thus Aërius revenged himself upon the dignity to which he had
unsuccessfully aspired; and he has left his history and his character to
future ages, as an argument almost as forcible as direct reasoning and
evidence, of the apostolical ordinance of the episcopate.
AFFINITY. (From _affinis_.) Relation by marriage. Relation contracted by
the husband to the kindred of the wife, and by the wife to those of the
husband. It is opposed to consanguinity, or relation by
birth.—_Johnson._ (See _Consanguinity_.)
AFFUSION. Although dipping or plunging into the water were the more
ancient practice, and more universal in the primitive times, yet
sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the baptized person was of
great antiquity in the Church likewise. It had its beginning in the
cases of sick persons chiefly, who could not come to the public
baptistery, nor could the weakness of their constitution admit of their
being dipped all over in the water; and, therefore, the sprinkling or
pouring of a small quantity of water upon the face or head was judged
sufficient. In the fourth and fifth centuries aspersion was more common.
After the heathen nations were converted to Christianity, and by that
means the baptisms of adults were less frequent, the tenderness of
children’s bodies, especially in the colder countries, not enduring to
be dipped in water, the use of sprinkling generally succeeded in the
Church, instead of that of dipping. And, indeed, during the more early
ages of the Church, and when adults were frequently baptized, there were
some particular cases when aspersion was used instead of immersion; as
in that of some young women noticed by St. Chrysostom. Our Church, with
great moderation, does not totally lay aside immersion, if the strength
of the child will bear it, as indeed it seldom will without danger in
our cold country; in which case she admits aspersion only, rather than
occasion any injury or danger to the body of a tender babe; wisely
considering, that, in the sight of GOD, “mercy is better than
sacrifice.”—_Dr. Nicholls._
Either of these modes of administering baptism is sufficient. For it is
not in this spiritual washing, as it is in the bodily, where, if the
bath be not large enough to receive the whole body, some parts may be
foul, when the rest are cleansed. The soul is cleansed after another
manner; a little water can cleanse the believer, as well as a whole
river. The old fashion was to dip or sprinkle the person “thrice,” to
signify the mystery of the Trinity. The Church so appointed then because
of some heretics that denied the Trinity: upon the same ground,
afterwards, it was appointed to do it but once, (signifying the unity of
substance in the Trinity,) lest we should seem to agree with the
heretics that did it thrice. This baptizing is to be at the “font.”—_Bp.
Sparrow._
It should here be noticed, that our Church doth not direct sprinkling or
aspersion, but affusion or “pouring of water” upon the children to be
baptized. It is true the quantity of water to be used is nowhere
prescribed, nor is it necessary that it should be; but, however the
quantity be left to the minister’s discretion, yet it must be understood
to determine itself thus far: first, that the action be such as is
properly a “washing,” to make the administration correspond with the
institution; and this we should observe as ministers of CHRIST at large:
secondly, that the action be such, as is properly a “pouring of water,”
which is the rubrical direction to express that washing at all times
when “dipping” is not practised; and this we are bound to observe as
ministers of the Church of England in particular; taking it always for
granted, that there is a reason for whatever is prescribed in a rubric,
and such an one as is not to be contradicted by our private practice, or
rejected for the sake of any modes or customs brought in we know not
how.
And we should the rather keep to this rule of affusion, because we have
in a manner lost that more primitive way of baptizing by immersion.
Custom having “certified” in general, that it is the opinion and
judgment of all, who bring their children to the font, that they are
“too weak to endure dipping.” Or, if we would have their sentiments
certified more explicitly, there being a rubric to that purpose, we are
sure, as Dr. Wall observes, to find a certificate of the children’s
weakness in their dress; and to ask for further satisfaction would be a
mighty needless inquiry. I mention this observation of his, as the best
apology I know of for our present practice of baptizing by affusion,
without any formal declaration being made, according to rubric, of the
danger of “dipping.” It is not said we shall ask any questions. And,
when we are sure beforehand what would be the answer if the question
were asked, we seem under no obligation, as we are under no direction,
to put it at all.—_Archdeacon Sharp._ (See _Aspersion_.)
AGAPÆ. Love feasts, or feasts of charity, among the early Christians,
were usually celebrated in connexion with the LORD’S supper, but not as
a necessary part of it. The name is derived from the Greek word ἀγαπὴ,
which signifies love or charity. In the earliest accounts which have
come down to us, we find that the bishop or presbyter presided at these
feasts. It does not appear whether the food was dressed in the place
appointed for the celebration of the feast, or was previously prepared
by individual members of the Church at their own homes; but perhaps
either of these plans was adopted indifferently, according to
circumstances. Before eating, the guests washed their hands, and a
public prayer was offered up. A portion of Scripture was then read, and
the president proposed some questions upon it, which were answered by
the persons present. After this, any accounts which had been received
respecting the affairs of other Churches were recited; for, at that
time, such accounts were regularly transmitted from one community to
another, by means of which all Christians became acquainted with the
history and condition of the whole body, and were thus enabled to
sympathize with, and in many cases to assist, each other. Letters from
bishops and other eminent members of the Church, together with the Acts
of the Martyrs, were also recited on this occasion; and hymns or psalms
were sung. At the close of the feast, money was also collected for the
benefit of widows and orphans, the poor, prisoners, and persons who had
suffered shipwreck. Before the meeting broke up, all the members of the
Church embraced each other, in token of mutual brotherly love, and the
whole ceremony was concluded with a philanthropic prayer.
As the number of Christians increased, various deviations from the
original practice of celebration occurred; which called for the censures
of the governors of the Church. In consequence of these irregularities,
it was appointed that the president should deliver to each guest his
portion separately, and that the larger portions should be distributed
among the presbyters, deacons, and other officers of the Church.
While the Church was exposed to persecution, these feasts were not only
conducted with regularity and good order, but were made subservient to
Christian edification, and to the promotion of brotherly love, and of
that kind of concord and union which was specially demanded by the
circumstances of the times.
At first these feasts were held in private houses, or in other retired
places, where Christians met for religious worship. After the erection
of churches, these feasts were held within their walls; until, abuses
having occurred which rendered the observance inconsistent with the
sanctity of such places, this practice was forbidden. In the middle of
the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea enacted “that agapæ should
not be celebrated in churches;” a prohibition which was repeated by the
Council of Carthage, in the year 391; and was afterwards strictly
enjoined during the sixth and seventh centuries. By the efforts of
Gregory of Neocæsarea, Chrysostom, and others, a custom was generally
established of holding the agapæ only under trees, or some other
shelter, in the neighbourhood of the churches; and from that time the
clergy and other principal members of the Church were recommended to
withdraw from them altogether.
In the early Church it was usual to celebrate agapæ on the festivals of
martyrs, _agapæ natalitiæ_, at their tombs; a practice to which
reference is made in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, concerning the
martyrdom of Polycarp.
These feasts were sometimes celebrated on a smaller scale at marriages,
_agapæ connubiales_, and funerals, _agapæ funerales_.
The celebration of the agapæ was frequently made a subject of calumny
and misrepresentation by the enemies of the Christian faith, even during
the earliest and best ages of the Church. In reply to these groundless
attacks, the conduct of the Christians of those times was successfully
vindicated by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Origen, and others. But real
disorders having afterwards arisen, and having proceeded to considerable
lengths, it became necessary to abolish the practice altogether; and
this task was eventually effected, but not without the application of
various means, and only after a considerable lapse of time.—_Riddle,
from Augusti and Siegel._
AGAPETÆ. In St. Cyprian’s time certain ascetics (who wished, perhaps, to
add to their religious celibacy the additional merit of a conquest over
a special and greater temptation) chose persons of the other sex,
devoted like themselves to a life of celibacy, with whom they lived
under the sanction of a kind of spiritual nuptials, still maintaining
their chastity, as they professed, though living, in all things else, as
freely together as married persons. These were called _Agapetæ_,
_Subintroductæ_, Συνείσακτοι. This practice, however pure in intention,
gave rise to the utmost scandal in the Church; and those who had adopted
it were condemned severely, both by the individual authority of St.
Cyprian, and afterwards by the decrees of councils. See Dodwell’s
_Dissertationes Cyprianicæ_.
AGISTMENT. The feeding of cattle in a common pasture for a stipulated
price; and hence tithe of agistment is the tithe due for the profit made
by agisting. The Irish parliament, in the last century, most
iniquitously declared that man an enemy of his country who should demand
tithe of agistment.—_Jebb._
AGNOETES or AGNOETÆ. (ἀ and γνῶμι.) A sort of Christian heretics about
the year 370, followers of Theophronius the Cappadocian, who joined
himself with Eunomius; they called in question the omniscience of GOD,
alleging that he knew not things past in any other way than by memory,
nor things to come but by an uncertain prescience.
AGNOETES. Another sort of heretics about the year 535, who followed the
errors of Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, who believed that CHRIST
knew not when the day of judgment should happen.
AGNUS DEI. A cake of wax, used in the Romish Church, stamped with the
figure of a lamb supporting the banner of the cross. The name literally
signifies _The Lamb of_ GOD. These cakes, being consecrated by the pope
with great solemnity, and distributed among the people, are supposed to
possess great virtues. They cover them with a piece of stuff, cut in the
form of a heart, and carry them very devoutly in their processions. From
selling these _Agnus_ DEIS to some, and presenting them to others, the
Romish clergy and religious officers derive considerable pecuniary
advantage. The practice of blessing the Agnus DEI took its rise about
the seventh or eighth century. It was common in those times to mark
converts with the sign of the cross after baptism; and in order to
distinguish the converted from heathens, they were commanded to wear
about their necks pieces of white wax stamped with the figure of a lamb.
This was done in imitation of the heathenish practice of hanging amulets
around the neck, as preservatives against accidents, diseases, or any
sort of infection. Though the efficacy of an Agnus DEI has not been
declared by Romish councils, the belief in its virtue has been strongly
and universally established in the Church of Rome. Pope Urban V. sent to
John Palæologus, emperor of the Greeks, an Agnus folded in fine paper,
on which were written verses explaining all its properties. These verses
declare that the Agnus is formed of balm and wax mixed with chrism, and
that being consecrated by mystical words, it possesses the power of
removing thunder and dispersing storms, of giving to women with child an
easy delivery, of preventing shipwreck, taking away sin, repelling the
devil, increasing riches, and of securing against fire.
AISLE. (_Ala._) The lateral divisions of a church, or of any part of it,
as nave, choir, or transept, are called its aisles. (See _Church_.)
Where there is but one aisle to a transept, it is always at the east. In
foreign churches the number of aisles is frequently two on either side
of the nave and choir; at Cologne there are three. This arrangement is
very ancient, since it is found in the Basilicas of St. John, Lateran,
and St. Paul, at Rome. In England this was never perhaps the original
plan. All, except one on each side, are clearly additions at Chichester,
Manchester, St. Michael’s, Coventry, Spalding, and several other
churches.
The last bay to the west, or that westward of the porch in the south
aisle, is generally a little earlier in character than the rest. It
frequently happens, too, that the north aisle is of an earlier type than
the south, where there is no reason to suppose them of different dates.
There is no sufficient reason assigned for this. The word has been very
commonly, but incorrectly, applied to the open space in the nave of
churches between the seats of the congregation.
AISE. A linen napkin to cover the chalice used in Bishop Andrew’s
chapel, and in Canterbury cathedral, before the rebellion. See
_Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646, _Neale’s Hist. of Puritans_.
ALB. An ample linen tunic with sleeves, named from its colour, (_albus_,
white,) worn next over the cassock and amice. It was at first loose and
flowing, afterwards bound with a zone, mystically signifying continence,
according to some ritualists; but more probably for the greater
convenience of ministering at the communion office. It has been in other
points considerably altered from its primitive form in the continental
churches subject to Rome; in the Greek churches it more nearly resembles
the form of the surplice used in the English Church. Cardinal Bona
admits that the alb, as well as the surplice, was anciently _talaris_,
that is, reaching to the feet, and it was therefore called _podéris_ in
the Greek Church. It was made originally of white linen; and was
probably the same as the surplice, from which it now differs only in the
form of the sleeves, which are not flowing, but closed at the wrists.
The rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Book prescribed the alb to be
worn at the communion by the principal minister and his assistants, and
by the bishop at all times of his public ministrations. These rubrics
are referred to in our present Prayer Book, in the notice preceding the
Morning Prayer: “And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the
Church, and of the ministers thereof at all times of their
ministrations, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of
England by the authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign
of King Edward VI.” Most of our most eminent ritualists, and
constitutional lawyers, have considered the rubric of King Edward VI. as
still binding in strictness of law. The 58th Canon apparently, but not
really, contradicts these rubrics, as it prescribes a _surplice with
sleeves_, to be used at the communion as well as at other services. But
it is to be observed that an alb is, in fact, a surplice with sleeves;
and by these very rubrics the terms seem to be almost convertible, as
the bishop is enjoined to wear a _surplice_ or _alb_: and in the rubric
after the communion, regulating the Wednesday and Friday services, the
priest is to wear a plain _alb or surplice_. But even if the canon did
contradict the rubric, it ought to be remembered that the rubric of 1662
is the final enactment of the Church, and plainly ought to supersede the
enactment of 1604. The English alb is enjoined to be _plain_, that is,
not ornamental with lace, or gold, as was the mediæval custom.—_Jebb._
ALBATI. A sort of Christian hermits (so called from the white linen
which they wore). Anno 1399, in the time of Pope Boniface IX., they came
down from the Alps into several provinces of Italy, having for their
guide a priest clothed all in white, and a crucifix in his hand: he
pretended so much zeal and religion, that he was taken for a saint, and
his followers multiplied so fast, that the pope, growing jealous of
their leader’s aiming at his chair, sent soldiers, who apprehended and
put him to death, upon which his followers dispersed. They professed
sorrow and weeping for the sins and calamities of the times, they ate
together in the highways, and slept promiscuously like beasts.
ALBIGENSES. Certain religionists who sprung up in the twelfth century.
They received their name from a town in Aquitaine, called Albigia or
Alby, where their tenets were first condemned in a council held in the
year 1176. The Albigenses grew so formidable, that the court of Rome
determined upon a league or crusade against them. Pope Innocent III.,
desirous to put a stop to their progress, stirred up the great men of
France to make war upon them. After suffering cruelly from their
persecutors, they dwindled by little and little, till the time of the
Reformation; when such of them as were left fell in with the Vaudois,
and conformed to the doctrine of Zuinglius and the disciples of Geneva.
The Albigenses have been frequently confounded with the Waldenses; from
whom however it is said that they differed in many respects, both as
being prior to them in point of time, as having their origin in a
different country, and as being charged with divers heresies,
particularly Manicheism, from which the Waldenses were exempt.
ALBIS (_Dominica in_). See _Low Sunday_.
ALIENATION, ecclesiastically speaking, is the improper disposal of such
lands and goods as have become the property of the Church. These being
looked upon as devoted to GOD and his service, to part with them, or
divert them to any other use, may be considered as no less than the sin
of sacrilege. Upon some extraordinary occasions, however, as the
redemption of captives from slavery, or the relief of the poor in the
time of famine, this was permitted; in which cases it was not unusual to
sell even the sacred vessels and utensils of the church. Some canons, if
the annual income of the church was not sufficient to maintain the
clergy, allowed the bishop to sell certain goods of the church for that
purpose. By subsequent canons, however, this was prevented, unless the
consent of the clergy was obtained, and the sanction of the
metropolitan, lest, under the pretence of necessity or charity, any
spoil or devastation should be made on the revenues of the church. See
_Bing. Orig. Eccl._ lib. v. ch. vi. s. 6.
ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN, is the conveying or making over lands or
tenements to any religious house or other corporate body.
ALLELUIA, or HALLELUJAH. This is a Hebrew word signifying _Praise the_
LORD, or _Praise to the_ LORD. It occurs at the beginning and at the end
of many of the Psalms, and was always sung by the Jews on solemn days of
rejoicing. An expression very similar in sound seems to have been used
in many nations, who can hardly be supposed to have borrowed it from the
Jews. Hence it has been supposed to be one of the most ancient words of
devotion. St. John retains the word without translation (Rev. xix. 1, 3,
4, 6); and among the early Christians it was so usual to sing
_Hallelujah_, that St. Jerome says little children were acquainted with
it.
In evident imitation of the Jewish custom, the Church has from very
early times, at least during the season of Easter, preceded the daily
Psalms with _Alleluia_, or _Praise ye the LORD_. In the Roman and
unreformed offices it was disused during certain penitential seasons;
while Alleluia was used in other parts of the service also during the
Easter season, &c. In the First Book of King Edward VI., Allelujah was
sung after “Praise ye the Lord,” from Easter to Trinity Sunday. The
response, “The Lord’s name be praised,” was added at the last review. It
had been inserted in the Scotch Liturgy in King Charles I.’s time. (See
_Gloria Patri_.)—_Jebb._
ALL SAINTS’ DAY. The festival of All Saints is not of very high
antiquity. About the year 610, the bishop of Rome ordered that the
heathen Pantheon, a temple dedicated to all the gods, should be
converted into a Christian church. This was done, and it was
appropriately dedicated to the honour of All Martyrs; hence came the
origin of All Saints, which was then celebrated on the first of May. In
the year 834 it was changed to November 1st, on which day it is still
observed. Our Church having, in the course of her year, celebrated the
memories of the holy apostles, and the other most eminent saints and
martyrs of the first days of the gospel, deems it unnecessary to extend
her calendar by any other particular festivals, but closes her course
with this general one. It should be the Christian’s delight, on this
day, to reflect, as he is moved by the appointed scriptures, on the
Christian graces and virtues which have been exhibited by that goodly
fellowship of saints who, in all ages, have honoured GOD in their lives,
and glorified him in their deaths; he should pray for grace to follow
them “in all virtuous and godly living;” he should meditate on the
glorious rest that remains for the people of GOD, on which they have
entered; he should gratefully contemplate that communion of saints which
unites him to their holy fellowship, even while he is here militant, if
he be a faithful disciple of the SAVIOUR in whom they trusted; he should
earnestly seek that grace whereby, after a short further time of trial,
he may be united with them in the everlasting services of the Church
triumphant. The Church of England seems to have been induced to sum up
the commemoration of martyrs, confessors, doctors, and saints in this
one day’s service, from the circumstance of the great number of such
days in the Church of Rome having led to gross abuses, some of which are
enumerated in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer.
This day was popularly called “Allhallows day.” “Hallow E’en” in
Scotland, and “Holy Eve” in Ireland, means the eve of all Saints’ Day.
This day is celebrated as a high festival, or _scarlet_ day, at the
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
ALL SOULS. A festival or holiday of the Romish Church, on which special
prayers are made for the benefit of the souls of the departed. Its
observance has been traced back to the year 998; about which time, we
are told, a certain monk, whose curiosity had led him to visit Mount
Ætna, which he, in common with others of that age, verily believed to be
the mouth of hell, returned to his abbot with the grave story that he
had overheard “the devils within complain, that many departed souls were
taken out of their hands by the prayers of the Cluniac monks.” (See
_Clugni_.) The compassionate abbot took the hint, and set apart the
second day of November, to be annually kept by his monks as a day of
prayer for _All Souls_ departed. This local appointment was afterwards
changed by the pope into a general one, obligatory on all the Western
Churches. The ceremonies observed on this day were in good keeping with
the purpose of its institution. In behalf of the dead, persons arrayed
in black perambulated the cities and towns, each provided with a loud
and dismal-toned bell, which they rang in public places by way of
exhortation to the people to remember the souls in purgatory, and give
them the aid of their prayers. In France and Italy, at the present day,
the annual _Jour des Morts_ is observed, by the population resuming
their mourning habits, and visiting the graves of their friends for many
years after their decease. At the period of the Reformation, the Church
of England abrogated altogether the observance of this day, as based on
false doctrine, and as originating in a falsehood.
ALMONER. An officer in monasteries, who had the care of the Almonry. In
the cathedral of St. Paul, London, the Almoner had the distribution of
the alms, and the care of the burial of the poor. He also educated eight
boys in music and in literature, for the service of the Church. The
office afterwards was practically that of a Chori-master, or Master of
the Boys, and was usually held by a Vicar Choral. See _Dugdale’s History
of St. Paul’s_.
The Lord High Almoner is a Prelate, who has the disposing of the King’s
Alms, and of other sums accruing to the Crown. Till King James I.’s
accession, when the office of Dean of the Chapel Royal was revived, he
had the care of the King’s Chapel; his office being then analogous to
that of the Grand Almoner of France. See _Heylin’s Life of Laud_.
ALMONRY. A room where alms were distributed, generally near to the
church, or a part of it. The Almonries in the principal monasteries were
often great establishments, with endowments specially appropriated to
their sustentation, having a chapel, hall, and chambers for the
accommodation of the poor and infirm. The remains of the Almonry at
Canterbury, for example, are extensive and interesting.—_Jebb._
ALMS. In the primitive Church, the people who were of sufficient
substance used to give alms to the poor every Sunday, as they entered
the church. And the poor, who were approved and selected by the deacons
or other ministers, were exhorted to stand before the church doors to
ask for alms, as the lame man, who was healed by Peter and John, at the
Beautiful Gate of the temple. The order in our Church is, that these
alms should be collected at that part of the communion service which is
called the Offertory, while the sentences are in reading which follow
the place appointed for the sermon. The intention of the compilers of
our service was, that these alms should be collected every Sunday, as is
plain from the directions in the rubric; and this, whether there was a
communion or not. It is much to be regretted that the decay of charity
has caused this good custom to fall into too general disuse; and it is
one which all sincere churchmen should endeavour to restore. The alms
are, and have immemorially been, collected every Sunday in Ireland.
ALMS-CHEST. Besides the alms collected at the offertory, it may be
supposed that devout persons would make contributions to the poor on
entering the church, or departing from it, at evening service; and to
receive these alms, it is appointed by the 84th Canon, that a chest be
provided and placed in the church.
ALOGIANS. Heretics in the second century, who denied the Divine Logos,
or Word, and attributed the writings of St. John, in which the Second
Person of the Godhead is so styled, to Cerinthus.
ALTAR. Altar was the name by which the holy board was constantly
distinguished for the first three hundred years after CHRIST; during all
which time it does not appear that it was above once called “table,” and
that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And
when, in the fourth century, Athanasius called it a “table,” he thought
himself obliged to explain the word, and to let the reader know that by
_table_ he meant _altar_, that being then the constant and familiar
name. Afterwards, indeed, both names came to be promiscuously used; the
one having respect to the _oblation_ of the eucharist, the other to the
_participation_: but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred
part of the church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from
irreverence and disrespect.—_Wheatly._
In King Edward’s first service-book the word _altar_ was permitted to
stand, as being the name that Christians for many hundred years had been
acquainted withal. Therefore, when there was such pulling down of altars
and setting up of tables in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, she was fain to
make an injunction to restrain such ungodly fury, and appointed decent
and comely tables covered to be set up again in the same place where the
altars stood, thereby giving an interpretation of this clause in our
communion-book. For the word “table” here stands not exclusively, as if
it might not be called an altar, but to show the indifferency and
liberty of the name; as of old it was called “mensa DOMINI,” the table
of the LORD; the one having reference to the participation, the other to
the oblation, of the eucharist.—_Bp. Cosin._
It is called an _altar_, 1. Because, the holy eucharist being considered
as a sacrifice, we offer up the commemoration of that sacrifice which
was offered upon the cross. 2. We offer, with the action, prayers to GOD
for all good things, and we need not fear to call the whole action by
the name of a sacrifice, seeing part of it is an oblation to GOD of
hearty prayers, and it is not unusual for that to be said of the whole,
which is exactly true but of one part; and as the word _sacrifice_ may
be used without danger, so also the ancient Church did understand it.
And it is called a _table_, the eucharist being considered as a
sacrament; which is nothing else but a distribution and application of
the sacrifice to the receivers; and the proper use of a table is to set
food upon, and to entertain guests, both which are applicable to
this.—_Clutterbuck._
But at the beginning of the Reformation an unhappy dispute arose, viz.
whether those tables of the altar fashion, which had been used in the
Popish times, and on which masses had been celebrated, should still be
continued? This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, who in a
sermon before the king, in the third year of his reign, declared, “that
it were well, if it might please the magistrate to have altars turned
into tables; to take away the false persuasion of the people, which they
have of sacrifice, to be done upon altars; because as long,” says he,
“as altars remain, both the ignorant people and priests will dream of
sacrifice.” This occasioned not only a couple of letters from the king
and council, one of which was sent to all the bishops, and the other to
Ridley, bishop of London, in both which they were required to pull down
the altars; but also that, when the liturgy was reviewed in 1551, the
above-said rubric was altered, and in the room of it the priest was
directed to stand on the north side of the table. But this did not put
an end to the controversy. Another dispute arising, viz. whether the
table, placed in the room of the altar, ought to stand altar-wise; i. e.
in the same place and situation as the altar formerly stood? This was
the occasion that in some churches the tables were placed in the middle
of the chancels, in others at the east part thereof, next to the wall.
Bishop Ridley endeavoured to compromise this matter, and therefore, in
St. Paul’s cathedral, suffered the table to stand in the place of the
old altar; but beating down the wainscot partition behind, laid all the
choir open to the east, leaving the table then to stand in the middle of
the chancel. Under this diversity of usage, things went on till the
death of King Edward; when, Queen Mary coming to the throne, altars were
again restored wherever they had been demolished; but her reign proving
short, and Queen Elizabeth succeeding her, the people, (just got free
again from the tyranny of Popery,) through a mistaken zeal fell in a
tumultuous manner to the pulling down of altars; though, indeed, this
happened for the generality only in private churches, they not being
meddled with in any of the queen’s palaces, and in but very few of the
cathedrals. And as soon as the queen was sensible of what had happened
in other places, she put out an injunction to restrain the fury of the
people, declaring it to be no matter of great moment, whether there were
altars or tables, so that the sacrament was duly and reverently
administered; but ordering, that where altars were taken down, holy
tables should be decently made, and set in the place where the altars
stood, and so to stand, saving when the communion of the sacrament was
to be distributed; at which time the same was to be so placed in good
sort within the chancel, as thereby the minister might be more
conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration,
and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number
communicate with the said minister. And after the communion, done from
time to time, the same holy table was to be placed where it stood
before. Pursuant hereunto, this part of the present rubric was added to
the liturgy, in the first year of her reign, viz. that “the table, at
the communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand
in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning and evening
prayer are appointed to be said:” which was in those times generally in
the choir. But then it is plain from the aforesaid injunction, as well
as from the eighty-second Canon of the Church, (which is almost verbatim
the same,) that there is no obligation arising from this rubric to move
the table at the time of the communion, unless the people cannot
otherwise conveniently hear and communicate. The injunction declares,
that the holy tables are to be set in the same place where the altars
stood, which every one knows was at the east end of the chancel. And
when both the injunction and canon speak of its being moved at the time
of the communion, it supposes that the minister could not otherwise be
heard: the interposition of a belfry between the chancel and body of the
church hindering the minister in some churches from being heard by the
people, if he continued in the church. And with the same view seems this
rubric to have been added, and which therefore lays us under no
obligation to move the table, unless necessity requires. But whenever
the churches are built so as the minister can be heard, and conveniently
administer the sacrament at the place where the table usually stands, he
is rather obliged to administer in the chancel, (that being the _sanctum
sanctorum_, or most holy place, of the church,) as appears from the
rubric before the Commandments, as also from that before the Absolution,
by both which rubrics the priest is directed to turn himself to the
people. From whence I argue, that if the table be in the middle of the
church, and the people consequently round about the minister, the
minister cannot turn himself to the people any more at one time than
another. Whereas, if the table be close to the east wall, the minister
stands on the north side, and looks southward, and consequently, by
looking westward, turns himself to the people.—_Wheatly._
Great dispute has been raised in the last age about the name of the
communion table, whether it was to be called the Holy Table or an Altar.
And indeed anything will afford matter of controversy to men in a
disputing age. For the ancient writers used both names indifferently;
some calling it Altar, others the Lord’s Table, the Holy Table, the
Mystical Table, the Tremendous Table, &c., and sometimes both Table and
Altar in the same sentence ... Ignatius uses only the name θυσιαστήριον,
_altar_, in his genuine Epistles ... Irenæus and Origen use the same
name ... Tertullian frequently applies to it the name of Ara Dei and
Altare ... Cyprian uses both names; but most commonly Altar ... It is
certain they did not mean by the altar what the Jews and heathens meant;
either an altar dressed up with images, or an altar for bloody
sacrifices. In the first sense they rejected altars, both name and
thing. But for their own mystical, unbloody sacrifice, as they called
the eucharist, they always owned they had an altar.... In Chrysostom it
is most usually termed, “the mystical and tremendous table,” &c. St.
Austin usually gives it the name of Mensa Domini, the Lord’s Table. It
were easy to add a thousand other testimonies, where the altar is called
the Holy Table, to signify to us their notion of the Christian sacrifice
and altar at once, that it was mystical and spiritual, and had no
relation either to the bloody sacrifices of the Jews, or the idolatries
of the Gentiles, but served only for the service of the eucharist, and
the oblations of the people.—_Bingham._
In the First Book of King Edward, the terms used for this holy table are
the _Altar_, and _God’s Board_. In our present Prayer Book, it is styled
the _Table_, the _Holy Table_, and the _Lord’s Table_. The phrase
communion table occurs in the Canons only, as in the 20th, and the 82nd.
The word altar is used in the Coronation Service. It is employed without
scruple by Bishop Overall, one of the commissioners for the revision of
the Liturgy in King James I.’s reign, and by those who were employed in
the last Review in 1662, who of course understood the real spirit of the
Church of England. For example, the following are the words of Bishop
Sparrow, one of the Reviewers.
“That no man take offence at the word _Altar_, let him know, that
anciently both these names, _Altar_, or _Holy Table_, were used for the
same thing; though most frequently the fathers and councils use the word
_Altar_. And both are fit names for that holy thing. For the holy
eucharist being considered as a _sacrifice_, in the representation of
the breaking of the bread, and pouring forth of the cup, doing that to
the holy symbols which was done to Christ’s body and blood, and so
showing forth and commemorating the Lord’s death, and offering upon it
the same sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, or rather the
commemoration of that sacrifice, (St. Chrysost. in Heb. x. 9,) it may
fitly be called an _Altar_; which again is as fitly called an _Holy
Table_, the Eucharist being considered as a _Sacrament_, which is
nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the
several receivers.”
And Bishop Cosins, who (_Nicholl’s_ add. notes, p. 42) speaks of the
king and queen presenting their offering “on their knees at God’s
altar:” though he adds afterwards, (p. 50,) on the passage “This our
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,”—“In which regard and divers
others besides, the eucharist may by allusion, analogy, and extrinsical
denomination, be fitly called a sacrifice, and the Lord’s table an
altar, the one relating to the other; though neither of them can be
strictly and properly so called.... The sacrament of the eucharist
carries the name of a sacrifice; and the table, whereon it is
celebrated, an altar of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of
their former sacrifices did, which were but the types and figures of
those services, which are performed in recognition and memory of
Christ’s own sacrifice, once offered upon the altar of his cross.”
Again, Bishop _Beveridge, on the necessity, &c., of frequent communion_,
uses the word; “Upon Sundays and holy days, although there be not such a
number, and therefore no communion, yet, however, the priest shall go up
to the _altar_,” &c.
And Bishop Bull (_Charge to the Clergy of St. David’s_): “Before the
priest goes to the _altar_ to read the second service,” &c.
Hence, though not presuming to dispute the wisdom of the Reviewers, or,
to speak more reverently, the dispositions of God’s providence, whereby
the use of the word altar was withheld from our Prayer Book, there can
be no doubt that the employment of the word can be justified, if we
understand it as the ancient Church understood it.—_Jebb._
According to Bingham, the ancient altars were of wood; and he considers
that the fashion of stone altars began in the time of Constantine. Stone
altars were enjoined by the Council of Epone, (or Albon,) in France, A.
D. 509 or 517; and throughout the whole of the time to which we look for
architectural examples, altars were of stone.
The place of the high altar was uniformly, in England at least, at the
east of the church; but in large churches room is left for processions
to pass behind it, and in cathedral churches of Norman foundation for
the bishop’s throne. Where the end of the church was apsidal, the high
altar was placed in the chord of the apse. Chantry altars, not being
connected with a service in which processions were used, were placed
against the wall, and scarcely an aisle or a transept was without one or
more. In form the high altar was generally large and plain, relying for
decoration wholly on the rich furniture with which it was loaded; very
rarely its front was panelled or otherwise ornamented. Chantry altars
were, perhaps, in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, mere slabs built into
the wall. At Jervaulx, however, at the end of each aisle, is a large
plain altar built up of separate stones, much in the form of a high
tomb. _In situ_ but few high altars remain, but chantry altars _in situ_
are frequent enough. They are not, however, often found in the aisles
and transepts of our churches, but in places where they would more
readily escape observation, as, for instance, under the east window (or
forming its sill) of a vestry, or of a parvise, or in a gateway to a
monastery, or in private chapels and chapels of castles. Altar stones
not _in situ_, but used in pavements and all places, are almost
innumerable, sometimes two or three or more occurring in a single small
church. They may be recognised by five little crosses, one in the
centre, and one at each corner. The multiplication of altars in the same
church is still strictly forbidden in the Eastern Church, as it was in
ancient times. (Vide _Bingham_, book viii. c. 6, § 16.)—_Poole._
ALTARAGE, a legal term used to denote the profits arising to the priest
or parson of the parish on account of the altar, called _obventio
altaris_. Since the Reformation there has been much dispute as to the
extent of the vicar’s claim upon tithes as altarage. In the 21st Eliz.
it was decided that the words _Alteragium cum manso competenti_ would
entitle him to the small tithes; but it has since been holden and now
generally understood, that the extent of the altarage depends entirely
upon usage and the manner of endowment.
ALTAR CLOTH. By the 82nd Canon it is appointed that the table provided
for the celebration of the holy communion shall be covered, in time of
divine service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff thought
meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it; and
with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh
that table. The sovereigns of England, at their coronation, present, as
their first oblation, a pall or altar cloth of gold, &c.
ALTAR PIECE. A picture placed over the altar. It is not uncommon in
English churches to place paintings over the altar, although it is a
practice of modern introduction, and although there would be a prejudice
against placing paintings in other parts of the church. The English
Reformers were very strongly opposed to the introduction of paintings
into the sanctuary. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign, a proclamation was
issued against pictures as well as images in churches; and Dean Nowell
fell under her Majesty’s displeasure for procuring for her use a Prayer
Book with pictures. The Puritans, who formed the religious world of King
Charles’s time, both in the Church and out of it, destroyed pictures
wherever they could find them, as relics of Popery. We may add that the
feeling against pictures prevailed not only in modern times, but in the
first ages of the primitive Church. In the various catalogues of church
furniture that we possess, we never read of pictures. There is a
particular breviat of the things found by the persecutors in the church
of Paul, bishop of Cirta, in Numidia, (A. D. 303,) where we find mention
made of cups, flagons, two candlesticks, and vestments; but of images
and pictures there is not a syllable. In Spain, at the Council of
Eliberis, A. D. 305, there was a positive decree against them. And, at
the end of this century, Epiphanius, passing through Anablatha, a
village of Palestine, found a veil there, hanging before the doors of
the sanctuary in the church, whereon was painted the image of CHRIST, or
some saint, which he immediately tore in pieces, and gave it as a
winding-sheet for the poor, himself replacing the hanging by one from
Cyprus. The first mention of pictures we find at the close of the fourth
century; when Paulinus, bishop of Nola, to keep the country people
employed, when they came together to observe the festival of the
dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered the church to be painted
with the images of saints, and stories from Scripture history, such as
those of Esther and Job, and Tobit and Judith. (_Paulinus_, _Natal. 9.
Felicis_, p. 615.) The reader will find a learned historical
investigation of this subject in note B to the translation of
Tertullian’s Apology in the _Library of the Fathers_, which is thus
summed up: 1. In the first three centuries it is positively stated that
Christians had no images. 2. Private individuals had pictures, but it
was discouraged. (_Aug._) 3. The cross, not the crucifix, was used; the
first mention of the cross in a church is in the time of Constantine. 4.
The first mention of pictures in churches, except to forbid them, is at
the end of the fourth century, and these historical pictures from the
Old Testament, or of martyrdoms, not of individuals. 5. No account of
any picture of our LORD being publicly used occurs in the six first
centuries; the first is A. D. 600. 6. Outward reverence to pictures is
condemned. We find frequent allusion to pictures in the writings of St.
Augustine. We thus see that the use of pictures in churches is to be
traced to the fourth century; and we may presume that the practice of
the age, when the Church was beginning to breathe after its severe
persecutions, when the great creed of the Church Universal was drawn up,
and when the canon of Scripture was fixed, is sufficient to sanction the
use of pictures in our sanctuaries. That in the middle ages, pictures as
well as images were sometimes worshipped, as they are by many Papists in
the present day, is not to be denied. It was therefore natural that the
Reformers, seeing the abuse of the thing, should be strongly prejudiced
against the retention of pictures in our churches. But much of Romish
error consists in the abuse of what was originally good or true. We may,
in the present age, return to the use of what was originally good; but
being warned that what has led to Popish corruptions may lead to them
again, we must be very careful to watch against the recurrence of those
evil practices to which these customs have been abused or perverted.
ALTAR RAILS, as such, and as distinguished from the chancel screen, were
not known in the Western Church before the Reformation. We probably owe
them to Archbishop Laud, who, in order to guard against a continuance of
the profanations to which the holy table had been subjected, while
standing in the nave of the church, or in the middle of the chancel,
ordered that it should be placed at the east end of the chancel, and
protected from rude approach by rails. As the use of altar rails arose
out of, and visibly signified respect for, the great mysteries
celebrated at the altar, they were, of course, a mark for the hostility
of the Puritans; and accordingly, in the journal of William Dowsing,
parliamentary visitor of churches in the great rebellion, we find that
they were everywhere destroyed. They have generally, however, been
restored; and there are now few churches in England where they are not
found. In the East, the altar has been enclosed by a screen or an
enclosure resembling our rails, from ancient times. These were at first
only the cancelli, or κίγκλιδες, or, as Eusebius styles them,
_reticulated_ wood-work. They were afterwards enlarged into the holy
doors, which now wholly conceal the altar, and which Goar admits to be
an innovation of later times. (pp. 17, 18.) These are not to be
confounded with the enclosure of the choir; which, like the chancel
screen, was originally very low, a mere barrier, but was enlarged
afterwards into the high screens which now shut out the choir from the
church.—_Jebb._
ALTAR SCREEN. A screen behind the altar, bounding the presbytery
eastward, and in our larger churches separating it from the parts left
free for processions between the presbytery and the Lady Chapel, when
the latter is at the east end. (See _Cathedral_.) These screens were of
comparatively late invention. They completely interfered with the
ancient arrangement of the _Apsis_. (See _Apsis_.) The most magnificent
specimens of altar screens are at Winchester cathedral, and at St.
Alban’s abbey. In college chapels, and churches where an apse would be
altogether out of place, and where an east window cannot be inserted, as
at New College, and Magdalene, Oxford, they are as appropriate as they
are beautiful.—_Jebb._
AMBO. A kind of raised platform or reading desk, from which, in the
primitive Church, the Gospel and Epistle were read to the people, and
sometimes used in preaching. Its position appears to have varied at
different times; it was most frequently on the north side of the
entrance into the chancel. Sometimes there was one on each side, one for
the Epistle, the other for the Gospel, as may still be seen in the
ancient churches of St. Clement and St. Lawrence, at Rome, &c. The word
Ambo has been popularly employed for a reading desk within memory, as in
Limerick cathedral, where the desk for the lessons in the centre of the
choir was so called. The singers also had their separate ambo, and in
many of the foreign European churches it is employed by the precentor
and principal singers; being placed in the middle of the choir, like an
eagle, but turned towards the altar.—_Jebb._
AMBROSIAN OFFICE. A particular office used in the church of Milan. It
derives its name from St. Ambrose, who was bishop of Milan in the fourth
century, although it is not certain that he took any part in its
composition. Originally each church had its particular office; and even
when Pope Pius V. took upon him to impose the Roman office on all the
Western churches, that of Milan sheltered itself under the name and
authority of St. Ambrose, and the Ambrosian Ritual has continued in
use.—_Brouqhton, Gueranger._
AMEDIEU, or Friends of GOD. A kind of religious congregation in the
Church of Rome, who wore grey clothes and wooden shoes, had no breeches,
girding themselves with a cord; they began in 1400, and grew numerous;
but Pius V. united their society partly with that of the Cistercians,
and partly with the Soccolanti.—_Jebb._
AMEN. This, in the phraseology of the Church, is denominated _orationis
signaculum_, or _devotæ conscionis responsio_, the token for prayer—the
response of the worshippers. It intimates that the prayer of the speaker
is heard, and approved by him who gives this response. It is also used
at the conclusion of a doxology. (Rom. ix. 5.) Justin Martyr is the
first of the fathers who speaks of the use of the response. In speaking
of the sacrament he says, that, at the close of the benediction and
prayer, all the assembly respond, “Amen,” which, in the Hebrew tongue,
is the same as, “So let it be.” According to Tertullian, none but the
faithful were permitted to join in the response.
In the celebration of the LORD’S supper especially, each communicant was
required to give this response in a tone of earnest devotion. Upon the
reception, both of the bread and of the wine, each uttered a loud
“Amen;” and at the close of the consecration by the priest, all joined
in shouting a loud “Amen.” But the practice was discontinued after the
sixth century.
At the administration of baptism also, the witnesses and sponsors
uttered this response in the same manner. In the Greek Church it was
customary to repeat this response as follows: “This servant of the LORD
is baptized in the name of the FATHER, Amen; and of the SON, Amen; and
of the HOLY GHOST, Amen; both now and for ever, world without end;” to
which the people responded, “Amen.” This usage is still observed by the
Greek Church in Russia. The repetitions were given thrice, with
reference to the three persons of the Trinity.—_Coleman’s Christian
Antiquities._
It signifies truly or verily. Its import varies slightly with the
connexion or position in which it is placed. In the New Testament it is
frequently synonymous with “verily,” and is retained in some versions
without being translated. At the conclusion of prayer, as the Catechism
teaches, it signifies _So be it_; after the repetition of the Creed it
means _So it is_.
It will be observed, that the word “Amen” is at the end of some prayers,
the Creed, &c., printed in the same Roman letter, but of others, and
indeed generally, in Italics—“_Amen_.” This seems not to be done without
meaning, though unfortunately the distinction is not correctly observed
in all the modern Prayer Books. The intention, according to Wheatly, is
this: At the end of all the collects and prayers, which the priest is to
repeat or say alone, it is printed in Italic, a different character from
the prayers themselves, probably to denote that the minister is to stop
at the end of the prayer, and to leave the “Amen” for the people to
respond. But at the end of the LORD’S Prayer, Confessions, Creeds, &c.,
and wheresoever the people are to join aloud with the minister, as if
taught and instructed by him what to say, there it is printed in Roman,
i. e. in the same character with the Confessions and Creeds themselves,
as a hint to the minister that he is still to go on, and by pronouncing
the “Amen” himself, to direct the people to do the same, and so to set
their seal at last to what they had been before pronouncing.
AMERICA. (See _Church in America_.)
AMICE. An oblong square of fine linen used as a vestment in the ancient
Church by the priest. At first introduced to cover the shoulders and
neck, it afterwards received the addition of a hood to cover the head
until the priest came before the altar, when the hood was thrown back.
We have the remains of this in the hood.
The “grey amice,” a tippet or cape of fur, was retained for a time by
the English clergy after the Reformation; but, as there was no express
authority for this, it was prohibited by the bishops in the reign of
Elizabeth.
The word _Amice_ is sometimes used with greater latitude. Thus Milton,
(_Par. Reg._ iv.,)
——morning fair
Came forth, with pilgrim steps, in _amice_ grey.
By most ritualists, the _Amictus_, or _Amicia_, and the _Almutium_, of
the Western Churches were considered the same. But W. Gilbert French, in
an interesting and curiously illustrated Essay on “The Tippets of the
Canons Ecclesiastical,” considers that there is a distinction between
the _amice_ and the _almuce_. The former he identifies with the
definition given above. The latter he considers to be the choir tippet,
worn by all members of cathedral churches, of materials varying with the
ecclesiastical rank of the wearer. The hood part of the almuce was in
the course of time disused, and a square cap substituted; and the
remaining parts gave rise to the modern cape, worn in foreign churches,
and to the ornament resembling the stole, like the ordinary scarf worn
in our churches. The almuce, or “aumusse,” is now an ornament of fur or
other materials carried over the arm by the canons of many French and
other continental cathedrals. In the _Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique_
(Lymr. 1787) it is defined as an ornament which was first borne on the
head, afterwards carried on the arm. Cardinal Bona only mentions the
_amictus_, describing it as in the first paragraph of this article. He
identifies it, but certainly without any reason, with the Jewish ephod.
There seems nothing improbable in the various terms above mentioned
having been originally identical. (See _Band_, _Hood_, _Scarf_, and
_Tippet_.)—_Jebb._
AMPHIBALUM. (See _Chasible_.)
ANABAPTISTS. (See _Baptists_.) Certain sectaries whose title is
compounded of two Greek words, (ἀνα and βαπτιζω,) one of which signifies
“anew,” and the other “to baptize;” and whose distinctive tenet it is,
that those who have been baptized in their infancy ought to be baptized
_anew_.
John of Leyden, Münzer, Knipperdoling, and other German enthusiasts
about the time of the Reformation, were called by this name, and held
that CHRIST was not the son of Mary, nor true GOD; that we were
righteous by our own merits and sufferings, that there was no original
sin, and that infants were not to be baptized. They rejected, also,
communion with other churches, magistracy, and oaths; maintained a
communion of goods, polygamy, and that a man might put away his wife if
not of the same religion with himself; that the godly should enjoy
monarchy here on earth; that man had a free will in spiritual things;
and that any man might preach and administer the sacraments. The
Anabaptists of Moravia called themselves apostolical, going barefoot,
washing one another’s feet, and having community of goods; they had a
common steward, who distributed equally things necessary; they admitted
none but such as would get their livelihood by working at some trade;
they had a common father for their spirituals, who instructed them in
their religion, and prayed with them every morning before they went
abroad; they had a general governor of the church, whom none knew but
themselves, they being obliged to keep it secret. They would be silent a
quarter of an hour before meat, covering their faces with their hands,
and meditating, doing the like after meat, their governor observing them
in the mean time, to reprove what was amiss; they were generally clad in
black, discoursing much of the last judgment, pains of hell, and cruelty
of devils, teaching that the way to escape these was to be rebaptized,
and to embrace their religion. They caused considerable disturbance in
Germany, but were at length subdued. To this sect allusion is made in
our 38th Article. By the present Anabaptists in England, the tenets
subversive of civil government are no longer professed.
The practice of rebaptizing proselytes was used by some ancient
heretics, and other sectaries, as by the Montanists, the Novatians, and
the Donatists. In the third century, the Church was much agitated by the
question whether baptism received out of the Catholic communion ought to
be acknowledged, or whether converts to the Church ought to be
rebaptized. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and the Africans generally, held
that baptism without the Church was null, as did also Firmilian, bishop
of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and the Asiatics of his time. On this account,
Stephen, bishop of Rome, declined communion with the Churches of Africa
and of the East. To meet the difficulty, a method was devised by the
Council of Arles, Can. 8, viz. to rebaptize those newly converted, if so
be it was found that they had not been baptized in the name of the
FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; and so the first Council of Nice, Can. 19,
ordered that the Paulianists, or followers of Paul of Samosata, and the
Cataphrygians should be rebaptized. The Council of Laodicea, Can. 7, and
the second of Arles, Can. 16, decreed the same as to some heretics.
But the notion of the invalidity of _infant_ baptism, which is the
foundation of the modern Anabaptism, was not taught until the twelfth
century, when Peterall Bruis, a Frenchman, preached it.
ANABATA. A cope, or sacerdotal vestment, to cover the back and shoulders
of a priest. This is no longer used in the English Church.
ANALOGY OF FAITH, [translated in our version, _proportion of faith_,] is
the proportion that the doctrines of the gospel bear to each other, or
the close connexion between the truths of revealed religion. (Rom. xii.
6.)
ANAPHORA. That part of the liturgy of the Greek Church, which follows
the introductory part, beginning at the _Sursum corda_, or, _Lift up
your hearts_, to the end, including the solemn prayers of consecration,
&c. It resembles, but does not exactly correspond to, the Roman Canon.
(See _Renandot_.)—_Jebb._
ANATHEMA, imports whatever is set apart, separated, or divided; but is
most usually meant to express the cutting off of a person from the
communion of the faithful. It was practised in the primitive Church
against notorious offenders. Several councils, also, have pronounced
anathemas against such as they thought corrupted the purity of the
faith. The Church of England in her 18th Article anathematizes those who
teach that eternal salvation is to be obtained otherwise than through
the name of Christ, and in her Canons excommunicates all who say that
the Church of England is not a true and apostolic Church.—_Can._ 3. All
impugners of the public worship of GOD, established in the Church of
England.—_Can._ 4. All impugners of the rites and ceremonies of the
Church.—_Can._ 6. All impugners of episcopacy.—_Can._ 7. All authors of
schism.—_Can._ 9. All maintainers of schismatics.—_Can._ 10. All these
persons lie under the anathema of the Church of England.
ANCHORET. A name given to a hermit, from his dwelling alone, apart from
society (Ἀναχωρητής). The anchoret is distinguished from the cœnobite,
or the monk who dwells in a fraternity, or Κοινόβια. (See _Monks_.)
ANDREW’S (_Saint_) DAY. This festival is celebrated by the Church of
England, Nov. 30, in commemoration of St. Andrew, who was, first of all,
a disciple of St. John the Baptist, but being assured by his master that
he was not the MESSIAS, and hearing him say, upon the sight of our
SAVIOUR, “_Behold the LAMB of GOD!_” he left the Baptist, and being
convinced himself of our SAVIOUR’S divine mission, by conversing with
him some time at the place of his abode, he went to his brother Simon,
afterwards surnamed Peter by our SAVIOUR, and acquainted him with his
having found out the MESSIAS; but he did not become our LORD’S constant
attendant until a special call or invitation. After the ascension of
CHRIST, when the apostles distributed themselves in various parts of the
world, St. Andrew is said to have preached the gospel in Scythia, in
Epirus, in Cappadocia, Galatia, Bithynia, and the vicinity of Byzantium,
and finally, to have suffered death by crucifixion, at Ægea, by order of
the proconsul of the place. The instrument of his death is said to have
been in the form of the letter X, being a cross decussate, or saltier,
two pieces of timber crossing each other in the middle; and hence
usually known by the name of St. Andrew’s cross.
ANGEL. (See _Idolatry_, _Mariolatry_, _Invocation of Saints_.) By an
angel is meant a messenger who performs the will of a superior. The
scriptural words, both in Hebrew and Greek, mean a messenger. Thus, in
the letters addressed by St. John to the seven churches in Asia Minor,
the bishops of those churches are addressed as angels; ministers not
appointed by the people, but sent by GOD. But the word is generally
applied to those spiritual beings who surround the throne of glory, and
who are sent forth to minister to them that be heirs of salvation. It is
supposed by some that there is a subordination of angels in heaven, in
the several ranks of seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions,
principalities, &c. We recognise in the service of the Church, the three
orders of archangels, cherubim, and seraphim. The only archangel, as
Bishop Horsley remarks, mentioned in Scripture, is St. Michael. (See
_Cherub_.) The word seraph signifies in the Hebrew to burn. It is
possible that these two orders of angels are alluded to in Psal. civ. 4,
“He maketh his angels spirits; and his ministers a flaming fire.” The
worship of angels is one of the sins of the Romish Church. It was first
invented by a sect in the fourth century, who, for the purpose of
exercising this unlawful worship, held private meetings separate from
those of the Catholic Church, in which it was not permitted. The Council
of Laodicea, the decrees of which were received and approved by the
whole Church, condemned the sect in the following terms: “Christians
ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart and call on angels,
and make meetings, which are forbidden. If any one, therefore, be found,
giving himself to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he
hath left the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD, and hath betaken
himself to _idolatry_.” The same principle applies to prayers made to
any created being. The worship of the creature was regarded by the
Church in the fourth century as idolatry. See _Bishop Beveridge’s_
Expos. of Acts xxii.: see also _Bishop Bull_, on the Corruption of the
Church of Rome, sect. iii., who, whilst showing that the ancient fathers
and councils were express in their denunciation of it, (e. g. the
Council of Laodicea, Theodoret, Origen, Justin Martyr, &c.,) says, “It
is very evident that the Catholic Christians of Origen’s time made no
prayers to angels or saints, but directed all their prayers to God,
through the alone mediation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Indeed, against
the invocation of angels and saints we have the concurrent testimonies
of all the Catholic Fathers of the first three centuries at least.”
Bishop Bull then refers to his own _Def. Fid. Nic._ ii. to 8, for a
refutation of Bellarmine’s unfair citation of Justin Martyr, (_Apol._ i.
6, p. 47,) where he says, “I have evidently proved that that plan of
Justin, so far from giving countenance to the religious worship of
angels, makes directly against it.” Also the most ancient Liturgies, &c.
ANGELIC HYMN. A title given to the hymn or doxology beginning with
“Glory be to God on high,” &c. It is so called from the former part of
it having been sung by the angels on their appearance to the shepherds
of Bethlehem, to announce to them the birth of the REDEEMER. (See
_Gloria in Excelsis_.)
ANGELICI. A sort of Christian heretics, who were supposed to have their
rise in the apostles’ time, but who were most numerous about A.D. 180.
They worshipped angels, and from thence had their name.
ANGELITES. A sort of Sabellian heretics, so called from Agelius or
Angelius, a place in Alexandria, where they used to meet.
ANGLO-CATHOLIC CHURCH. (See _Church of England_.) Any branch of the
Church reformed on the principles of the English Reformation.
In certain considerations of the first spiritual importance, the Church
of England occupies a singularly felicitous position. The great majority
of Christians—the Roman, Greek, and Eastern Churches—regard Episcopacy
as indispensable to the integrity of Christianity; the Presbyterians and
others, who have no bishops, nor, as far as we can judge, any means of
obtaining the order, regard episcopacy as unnecessary. Supposing for a
moment the question to be dubious, the position of the Presbyterian is,
at the best, unsafe; the position of the member of the Church of England
is, at the worst, perfectly safe: at the worst, he can only be in the
same position at last as the Presbyterian is in at present. On the
Anti-episcopalian’s own ground, the Episcopalian is on this point doubly
fortified; whilst, on the opposite admission, the Presbyterian is doubly
condemned, first, in the subversion of a Divine institution; and,
secondly, in the invalidity of the ordinances of grace. Proceeding,
therefore, on mere reason, it would be most unwise for a member of the
Church of England to become a Presbyterian; he can gain nothing by the
change, and may lose everything. The case is exactly the reverse with
the Presbyterian.
Again: by all apostolic Churches the apostolic succession is maintained
to be a _sine quâ non_ for the valid administration of the eucharist and
the authoritative remission of sins. The sects beyond the pale of the
apostolic succession very naturally reject its indispensability; but no
one is so fanatical as to imagine its possession invalidates the
ordinances of the Church possessing it. Now, of all branches of the
Catholic Church, the Church of England is most impregnable on this
point; she unites in her priesthood the triple successions of the
ancient British, the ancient Irish, and the ancient Roman Church.
Supposing, therefore, the apostolic Churches to hold the right dogma on
the succession, the member of the Church of England has not the
slightest occasion to disturb his soul; he is trebly safe. Supposing, on
the other hand, the apostolic succession to be a fortunate historical
fact, not a divinely perpetuated authority, he is still, at the least,
as safe as the dissenter; whereas, if it is, as the Church holds, the
only authority on earth which the SAVIOUR has commissioned with his
power, what is the spiritual state of the schismatic who usurps, or of
the assembly that pretends to bestow, what GOD alone can grant and has
granted to his Church only. No plausible inducement to separate from the
Church of England can counterbalance this necessity for remaining in her
communion: and her children have great cause to be grateful for being
placed by her in a state of such complete security on two such essential
articles of administrative Christianity.—_Morgan._
ANNATES, or FIRST-FRUITS. These are the profits of one year of every
vacant bishopric in England, claimed at first by the pope, upon a
pretence of defending the Christians from the infidels; and paid by
every bishop at his accession, before he could receive his investiture
from Rome. Afterwards the pope prevailed on all those who were spiritual
patrons to oblige their clerks to pay these annates; and so by degrees
they became payable by the clergy in general. Some of our historians
tell us that Pope Clement was the first who claimed annates in England,
in the reign of Edward I.; but Selden, in a short account which he has
given us of the reign of William Rufus, affirms that they were claimed
by the pope before that reign. Chronologers differ also about the time
when they became a settled duty. Platina asserts that Boniface IX., who
was pope in the first year of Henry IV., _Annalarum usum beneficiis
ecclesiasticis primum imposuit (viz.) dimidium annui proventus fisco
apostolico persolvere_. Walsingham affirms it to be above eighty years
before that time,(viz.) in the time of Pope John XXII., who was pope
about the middle of the reign of Edward II., and that he _reservavit
cameræ suæ primos fructus beneficiorum_. But a learned bishop of
Worcester has made this matter more clear. He states that the old and
accustomed fees paid here to the feudal lords were called _beneficia_;
and that the popes, assuming to be lords or spiritual heads of the
Church, were not contented with an empty though very great title,
without some temporal advantage, and therefore Boniface VIII., about the
latter end of the reign of Edward I., having assumed an absolute
dominion in beneficiary matters, made himself a kind of feudal lord over
the benefices of the Church, and as a consequence thereof, claimed a
year’s profits of the Church, as a beneficiary fee due to himself, the
chief lord. But though the usurped power of the pope was then very
great, the king and the people did not comply with this demand; insomuch
that, by the statute of Carlisle, which was made in the last year of his
reign, and about the beginning of the popedom of Clement V., this was
called a new imposition _gravis et intolerabilis, et contra leges et
consuetudines regni_; and by reason of this powerful opposition the
matter rested for some time: but the successors of that pope found more
favourable opportunities to insist on this demand, which was a year’s
profits of each vacant bishopric, at a reasonable valuation, viz. a
moiety of the full value; and having obtained what they demanded, they
afterwards endeavoured to raise the value, but were opposed in this
likewise by the parliament, in the 6th of Henry IV., and a penalty was
inflicted on those bishops who paid more for their first-fruits than was
accustomed. But, notwithstanding these statutes, such was the plenitude
of the pope’s power, and so great was the profit which accrued to him by
this invention, that in little more than half a century, the sum of
£16,000 was paid to him, under the name of annates, for expediting bulls
of bishoprics only. The payment of these was continued till about the
25th year of Henry VIII., and then an act was made, reciting, that since
the beginning of that parliament another statute had been made (which
act is not printed) for the suppressing the exaction of annates of
archbishops and bishops. But the parliament being unwilling to proceed
to extremities, remitted the putting that act in execution to the king
himself: that if the pope would either put down annates, or so moderate
the payment that they might no longer be a burthen to the people, the
king, by letters patent, might declare the act should be of no force.
The pope, having notice of this, and taking no care to reform those
exactions, that statute was confirmed; and because it only extended to
annates paid for archbishoprics and bishoprics, in the next year another
statute was made, (26 Henry VIII. cap. 3,) that not only those
first-fruits formerly paid by bishops, but those of every other
spiritual living, should be paid to the king. Notwithstanding these
laws, there were still some apprehensions, that, upon the death of
several prelates who were then very old, great sums of money would be
conveyed to Rome by their successors; therefore, Anno 33 Henry VIII., it
was enacted, that all contributions of annates for bishoprics, or for
any bulls to be obtained from the see of Rome, should cease; and if the
pope should deny any bulls of consecration by reason of this
prohibition, then the bishop presented should be consecrated in England
by the archbishop of the province; and if it was in the case of an
archbishop, then he should be consecrated by any two bishops to be
appointed by the king; and that, instead of annates, a bishop should pay
to the pope £5 per cent. of the clear yearly value of his bishopric. But
before this time (viz. 31 Henry VIII. cap. 22) there was a court erected
by the parliament, for the levying and government of these first-fruits,
which court was dissolved by Queen Mary; and in the next year the
payment was ordered to cease as to her. But in the first of Elizabeth
they were again restored to the crown, and the statute 32 Hen. VIII.,
which directed the grant and order of them, was recontinued; and that
they should be from thenceforth within the government of the exchequer.
But vicarages not exceeding £10 per annum, and parsonages not exceeding
ten marks, according to the valuation in the first-fruits’ office, were
exempted from payment of first-fruits; and the reason is because
vicarages, when this valuation was made, had a large revenue, arising
from voluntary oblations which ceased upon the dissolution, &c., and
therefore they had this favour of exemption allowed them afterwards. By
the before-mentioned statute, a new officer was created, called a
remembrancer of the first-fruits, whose business it was to take
compositions for the same; and to send process to the sheriff against
those who did not pay it; and by the act 26 Henry VIII. he who entered
into a living without compounding, or paying the first-fruits, was to
forfeit double the value.
To prevent which forfeiture, it was usual for the clerk newly presented,
to give four bonds to pay the same, within two years next after
induction, by four equal payments. But though these bonds were executed,
yet if the clergyman died, or was legally deprived before the payments
became due, it was a good discharge by virtue of the act 1 Elizabeth
before-mentioned. And thus it stood, until Queen Anne, taking into
consideration the insufficient maintenance of the poor clergy, sent a
message to the House of Commons by one of her principal secretaries,
signifying her intention to grant the first-fruits for the better
support of the clergy; and that they would find out some means to make
her intentions more effectual. Thereupon an act was passed, by which the
queen was to incorporate persons, and to settle upon them and their
successors the revenue of the first-fruits; but that the statutes
before-mentioned should continue in force, for such intents and purposes
as should be directed in her grant; and that this new act should not
extend to impeach or make void any former grant made of this revenue.
And likewise any person, except infants and _femme-coverts_, without
their husbands, might, by bargain and sale enrolled, dispose lands or
goods to such corporation, for the maintenance of the clergy officiating
in the Established Church, without any settled competent provision; and
the corporation might also purchase lands for that purpose,
notwithstanding the statute of _mortmain_. Pursuant to this law, the
queen (in the third year of her reign) incorporated several of the
nobility, bishops, judges, and gentry, &c., by the name of the Governors
of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the augmentation of the maintenance of
the poor clergy, to whom she gave the first-fruits, &c., and appointed
the governors to meet at the Prince’s Chamber, in Westminster, or in any
other place in London or Westminster, to be appointed by any seven of
them; of which number a privy-counsellor, a bishop, a judge, or
counsellor at law, must be one; there to consult about the distribution
of this bounty. That four courts shall be held by these governors in
every year, viz. in the months of December, March, June, and September;
and that seven of the said governors (_quorum tres, &c._) shall be a
court, and that the business shall be despatched by majority of votes:
that such courts may appoint committees out of the number of the
governors, for the better managing their business; and at their first or
any other meeting, deliver to the queen what methods they shall think
fit for the government of the corporation; which being approved under
the great seal, shall be the rules of the government thereof. That the
lord keeper shall issue out writs of inquiry, at their request, directed
to three or more persons, to inquire, upon oath, into the value of the
maintenance of poor parsons who have not £80 per annum, and the distance
of their churches from London; and which of them are in market or
corporate towns, or not; and how the churches are supplied; and if the
incumbents have more than one living; that care may be taken to increase
their maintenance. That after such inquiry made, they do prepare and
exhibit to the queen a true state of the yearly value of the maintenance
of all such ministers, and of the present yearly value of the
first-fruits and arrears thereof, and of such pensions as are now
payable out of the same, by virtue of any former grants. That there
shall be a secretary, and a treasurer, who shall continue in their
office during the pleasure of the corporation; that they shall take an
oath before the court for the faithful execution of their office. That
the treasurer must give security to account for the money which he
receives; and that his receipt shall be a discharge for what he
receives; and that he shall be subject to the examination of four or
more of the governors. That the governors shall collect and receive the
bounties of other persons; and shall admit into their corporation any
contributors, (whom they think fit for so pious a work,) and appoint
persons under their common seal, to take subscriptions, and collect the
money contributed; and that the names of the benefactors shall be
registered in a book to be kept for that purpose.
Owing mainly to the exertion of Dean Swift, a similar remission of the
first-fruits was made in Ireland during the reign of Queen Anne, and a
corporation for the distribution of this fruit was appointed under the
designation of the _Board of First-fruits_, consisting of all the
archbishops and bishops of Ireland, the dean of St. Patrick’s, and the
chief officers of the Crown. The Board was dissolved by the act of
parliament which established the first Ecclesiastical Commission, which
now discharges its functions.
ANNIVELAIS, or _Annualais_. The chantry priests, whose duty it was to
say private masses at particular altars, were so called; as at Exeter
cathedral, &c. They were also called chaplains.
ANNUNCIADA. A society founded at Rome, in the year 1460, by Cardinal
John Turrecremata, for the marrying of poor maids. It now bestows, every
Lady-day, sixty Roman crowns, a suit of white serge, and a florin for
slippers, to above 400 maids for their portion. The popes have so great
a regard for this charitable foundation, that they make a cavalcade,
attended with the cardinals, &c., to distribute tickets for these sixty
crowns, &c., for those who are to receive them. If any of the maids are
desirous to be nuns, they have each of them 120 crowns, and are
distinguished by a chaplet of flowers on their head.
ANNUNCIADE, otherwise called the Order of the Ten Virtues, or Delights,
of the Virgin Mary; a Popish order of women, founded by Queen Jane, of
France, wife to Lewis XII., whose rule and chief business was to honour,
with a great many beads and rosaries, the ten principal virtues or
delights of the Virgin Mary; the first of which they make to be when the
angel Gabriel annunciated to her the mystery of the incarnation, from
whence they have their name; the second, when she saw her son JESUS
brought into the world; the third, when the wise men came to worship
him; the fourth, when she found him disputing with the doctors in the
temple, &c. This order was confirmed by the pope in 1501, and by Leo X.
again in 1517.
ANNUNCIATION of the BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. This festival is appointed by
the Church, in commemoration of that day on which it was announced to
Mary, by an angel, that she should be the mother of the Messiah. The
Church of England observes this festival on the 25th of March, and in
the calendar the day is called the “Annunciation of our Lady,” and hence
the 25th of March is called Lady-day. It is observed as a “scarlet day”
at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
ANOMŒANS. (From ἄνομοιος, unlike.) The name of the extreme Arians in the
fourth century, because they held the essence of the SON of GOD to be
unlike unto that of the FATHER. These heretics were condemned by the
semi-Arians, at the Council of Seleucia, A. D. 359, but they revenged
themselves of this censure a year after, at a pretended synod in
Constantinople.
ANTELUCAN. In times of persecution, the Christians being unable to meet
for divine worship in the open day, held their assemblies in the night.
The like assemblies were afterwards continued from feelings of piety and
devotion, and called _Antelucan_, or _assemblies before daylight_.
ANTHEM. A hymn, sung in parts alternately. Such, at least, would appear
to be its original sense. The word is derived from the Greek Ἀντιφωνὴ,
which signifies, as Isidorus interprets it, “_Vox reciproca_,” &c., _one
voice succeeding another; that is, two choruses singing by turns_. (See
_Antiphon_.) In the Greek Church it was more particularly applied to one
of the Alleluia Psalms sung after those of the day. In the Roman and
unreformed Western offices it is ordinarily applied to a short sentence
sung before and after one of the Psalms of the day: so called, according
to Cardinal Bona, because it gives the tone to the Psalms which are sung
antiphonely, or by each side of the choir alternately; and then at the
end both choirs join in the anthem. The same term is given to short
sentences said or sung at different parts of the service; also
occasionally to metrical hymns. The real reason of the application of
the term in these instances seems to be this, that these sentences are a
sort of response to, or alternation with, the other parts of the office.
The preacher’s text was at the beginning of the Reformation sometimes
called the _Anthem_. (_Strype, Ann. of the Ref._ chap. ix. A. D. 1559.)
In this sense it is applied in King Edward’s First Book to the sentences
in the Visitation of the Sick, “Remember not,” &c., &c., “O Saviour of
the world,” &c., which were obviously never intended to be sung. In the
same book it is applied to the hymns peculiar to Easter day, and to the
prayer in the Communion Service, “Turn thou us,” &c., both of which are
prescribed to be said or sung. In our present Prayer Book it occurs only
in reference to the Easter Hymn, and in the rubrics after the third
Collects of Morning and Evening Prayer. These rubrics were first
inserted at the last Review, though there is no doubt that the anthem
had always been customarily performed in the same place. To the anthem
so performed Milton alluded in the well-known words, “In service high
and anthems clear;” these expressions, as well as the whole phraseology
of that unrivalled passage, being technically correct: the service
meaning the Church Hymns, set to varied harmonies; the anthem, (of which
two were commonly performed in the full Sunday morning service,) the
compositions now in question.
The English Anthem, as the term has long been practically understood,
sanctioned by the universal use of the Church of England, has no exact
equivalent in the service of other Churches. It resembles, but not
exactly, the _Motets_ of foreign choirs, and occasionally their
Responsories or Antiphons. There are a few metrical anthems,
corresponding to the hymns of those choirs. But, generally speaking, the
English anthem is set to words from Holy Scripture, or the Liturgy;
sung, not to a chant, or an air, like that of a hymn, but to varied
consecutive strains, admitting of every diversity of solo, verse, and
chorus. The Easter-day Anthem, at the time of the last Review, was not
usually sung, as now, to a chant, but to varied harmonies, (as is still
the case at Salisbury cathedral,)—and in the sealed book it is to be
observed, that it is not printed like the Psalms, in verses, but in
paragraphs. Properly speaking, our _services_, technically so called,
(see _Service_,) are anthems; as are also the hymns in the Communion and
Burial Service. The responses to the Commandments, and the sentence “O
Lord, arise,” &c., in the Liturgy, give a tolerably correct notion of
the Roman Antiphon.
The Church of England anthems consist of three kinds: _Full_; or those
sung throughout by the whole choir. _Full_ with verse; that is,
consisting of a chorus for the most part, but with an occasional passage
sung by but a few voices. _Verse_; consisting mainly of solos, duets,
trios, &c., the chorus being the appendage, not the substance.
Objections have been made of late to verse anthems; but there is no
question that they are nearly, if not quite, coeval with the
Reformation.
In many choirs, besides the anthem in its proper place after the third
Morning Collect, another was sung on Sundays after the sermon. In the
Coronation Service several anthems are prescribed to be used.—_Jebb._
An anthem in choirs and places where they sing is appointed by the
rubric in the daily service in the Prayer Book, after the third Collect,
both at Morning and Evening Prayer.
ANTHOLOGIUM. (In Latin, _Florilegium_.) The title of a book in the Greek
Church, divided into twelve months, containing the offices sung
throughout the whole year, on the festivals of our SAVIOUR, the Virgin
Mary, and other remarkable saints. It is in two volumes; the first
contains six months, from the first day of September to the last day of
February; the second comprehends the other six months. It is observable
from this book that the Greek Church celebrates Easter at the same time
with the Church of England, notwithstanding that they differ from us in
the lunar cycle.—_Broughton._
ANTHROPOLATRÆ. (_Man-worshippers._) A name of abuse given to churchmen
by the Apollinarians, because they maintained that CHRIST, whom both
admitted to be the object of the Christian’s worship, was a perfect man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. This the Apollinarians
denied. It was always the way with heretics to apply to churchmen terms
of reproach, while they assumed to themselves distinctive appellations
of honour: thus the Manichees, for instance, while they called
themselves _the elect_, _the blessed_, and _the pure_, gave to the
churchmen the name of _simple ones_. It is not less a sign of a
sectarian spirit to assume a distinctive name of honour, than to impose
on the Church a name of reproach, for both tend to divided communion in
spirit or in fact. There is this good, however, to be gathered from
these slanderous and vain-glorious arts of heretics; that their terms of
reproach serve to indicate some true doctrine of the Church: as, for
instance, that of _Anthropolatræ_ determines the opinion of Catholics
touching CHRIST’S human nature; while the names of distinction which
heretics themselves assume, usually serve to throw light on the history
of their own error.
ANTHROPOMORPHITES. Heretics who were so called because they maintained
that GOD had a human shape. They are mentioned by Eusebius as the
opponents of Origen, and their accusation of Origen implies their own
heresy. “Whereas,” they said, “the sacred Scriptures testify that GOD
has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have, the partisans of
Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma
that GOD has not a body.” The Anthropomorphite error was common among
the monks of Egypt about the end of the fourth century. Dioscorus was a
leader of the opposite party.
ANTICHRIST. The man of sin, who is to precede the second advent of our
blessed Saviour JESUS CHRIST. “Little children,” saith St. John, “ye
have heard that Antichrist shall come.” And St. Paul, in the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, describes him: “That day (the day of our
LORD’S second advent) shall not come except there come a falling away
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called GOD, or that is
worshipped; so that he, as GOD, sitteth in the temple of GOD, showing
himself that he is GOD. Then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the
LORD shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with
the brightness of his coming; even him whose coming is after the working
of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”
Under the image of a horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very
great things; that made war with the saints, and prevailed against them
till the ANCIENT of days came; and under the image of a little horn,
which attacked the very heavens, and trod down and trampled on the
state, Daniel is supposed to predict Antichrist.
St. John in the Apocalypse describes Antichrist as a beast that
ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, and maketh war upon the saints; as
a beast rising out of the sea, with two horns and two crowns upon his
horns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. In another place, he
speaks of the number of the beast, and says, it is six hundred
threescore and six.
It is not the purpose of this dictionary to state the various ways in
which this prophecy has been understood. We therefore pass on to say,
that Antichrist is to lay the foundation of his empire in Babylon, i. e.
(as many have supposed,) in Rome, and he is to be destroyed by the
second coming of our LORD.
ANTINOMIANS. The Antinomians derive their name from ἀντὶ, against,
νόμος, law, their distinguishing tenet being, that the law is not a rule
of life to believers under the gospel. The founder of the Antinomian
heresy was John Agricola, a Saxon divine, a contemporary, a countryman,
and at first a disciple, of Luther. He was of a restless temper, and
wrote against Melancthon; and having obtained a professorship at
Wittemberg, he first taught Antinomianism there, about the year 1535.
The Papists, in their disputes with the Protestants of that day, carried
the merit of good works to an extravagant length; and this induced some
of their opponents, as is too often the case, to run into the opposite
extreme. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and perhaps
represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote with acrimony
against him, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians—perhaps
thereby “intending,” as Dr. Hey conjectures, “to disgrace the notions of
Agricola, and make even him ashamed of them.” Agricola stood in his own
defence, and complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did
not hold.
About the same time, Nicholas Amsdorf, bishop of Naumburg in Saxony,
fell under the same odious name and imputation, and seems to have been
treated more unfairly than even Agricola himself. The bishop died at
Magdeburg in 1541, and some say that his followers were called for a
time Amsdorfians, after his name.
This sect sprung up among the Presbyterians in England, during the
Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who was himself an Antinomian of the
worst sort. The supporters of the Popish doctrines deducing a
considerable portion of the arguments on which they rested their defence
from the doctrines of the old law, Agricola, in the height of his zeal
for reformation, was encouraged by the success of his master, Luther, to
attack the very foundation of their arguments, and to deny that any part
of the Old Testament was intended as a rule of faith or practice to the
disciples of CHRIST.
He is said to have taught that the law ought not to be proposed to the
people as a rule of manners, nor used in the Church as a means of
instruction; and, of course, that repentance is not to be preached from
the Decalogue, but only from the gospel; that the gospel alone is to be
inculcated and explained, both in the churches and the schools of
learning; and that good works do not promote our salvation, nor evil
works hinder it.
Some of his followers in England, in the seventeenth century, are said
to have expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace,
nor forfeit the Divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not
really sinful, nor are they to be considered as instances of their
violation of the Divine law; and that, consequently, they have no
occasion either to confess their sins, or to seek renewed forgiveness.
According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters
of the elect, that they cannot do anything displeasing to GOD, or
prohibited by the law. “Let me speak freely to you, and tell you,” says
Dr. Tobias Crisp, (who may be styled the _primipilus_ of the more modern
scheme of Antinomianism, and was the great Antinomian opponent of
Baxter, Bates, Howe, &c.,) “that the Lord hath no more to lay to the
charge of an elect person, yet in the height of his iniquity, and in the
excess of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be
committed; I say, even then, when an elect person runs such a course,
the Lord hath no more to lay to that person’s charge, than God hath to
lay to the charge of a believer: nay, God hath no more to lay to the
charge of such a person than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint
triumphant in glory. The elect of God, they are the heirs of God; and as
they are heirs, so the first being of them puts them into the right of
inheritance, and there is no time but such a person is the child of
God.”
That the justification of sinners is an immanent and eternal act of God,
not only preceding all acts of sin, but the existence of the sinner
himself, is the opinion of most of those who are styled Antinomians,
though some suppose, with Dr. Crisp, that the elect were justified at
the time of CHRIST’S death. In answer to the question, “When did the
Lord justify us?” Dr. Crisp says, “He did, from eternity, in respect of
obligation; but in respect of execution, he did it when Christ was on
the cross; and in respect of application, he doth it while children are
yet unborn.”
The other principal doctrines which at present bear the appellation of
Antinomian, are said to be as follows:
1. That justification by faith is no more than a manifestation to us of
what was done before we had a being.
2. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question whether they
believe in Christ.
3. That by God’s laying our iniquities upon Christ, and our being
imputed righteous through him, he became as completely sinful as we, and
we as completely righteous as Christ.
4. That believers need not fear either their own sins or the sins of
others, since neither can do them any injury.
5. That the new covenant is not made properly with us, but with Christ
for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no
conditions for us to perform; for faith, repentance, and obedience, are
not conditions on our part, but on Christ’s; and that he repented,
believed, and obeyed for us.
6. That sanctification is not a proper evidence of justification—that
our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ—that a believer has no holiness in himself, but in Christ only;
and that the very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified, and
he is neither more nor less holy from that hour to the day of his death.
Justification by a faith not necessarily productive of good works, and
righteousness imputed to such a faith, are the doctrines by which the
members of this denomination are chiefly distinguished.
While the Socinian Unitarians place the whole of their religion in
morality, in disregard of Christian faith, the Antinomians rely so on
faith as to undervalue morality. Their doctrines at least have too much
that appearance.
In short, according to Dr. Williams, Dr. Crisp’s scheme is briefly this:
“That by God’s mere electing decree all saving blessings are by Divine
obligation made ours, and nothing more is needful to our title to these
blessings: that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred
to Christ, and ceased ever after to be their sins: that at the first
moment of conception a title to all those decreed blessings is
personally applied to the elect, and they are invested actually therein.
Hence the elect have nothing to do, in order to have an interest in any
of those blessings, nor ought they to intend the least good to
themselves in what they do: sin can do them no harm because it is none
of theirs; nor can God afflict them for any sin.” And all the rest of
his opinions “follow in a chain,” adds Dr. W., “to the dethroning of
Christ, enervating his laws and pleadings, obstructing the great design
of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry
of Christ and his prophets and apostles.”—_Adams._
High Calvinism, or Antinomianism, absolutely withers and destroys the
consciousness of human responsibility. It confounds moral with natural
impotency, forgetting that the former is a crime, the latter only a
misfortune; and thus treats the man dead in trespasses and sins, as if
he were already in his grave. It prophesies smooth things to the sinner
going on in his transgressions, and soothes to slumber and the repose of
death the souls of such as are at ease in Zion. It assumes that, because
men can neither believe, repent, nor pray acceptably, unless aided by
the grace of God, it is useless to call upon them to do so. It maintains
that the gospel is only intended for elect sinners, and therefore it
ought to be preached to none but such. In defiance, therefore, of the
command of God, it refuses to preach the glad tidings of mercy to every
sinner. In opposition to Scripture, and to every rational consideration,
it contends that it is not man’s duty to believe the truth of
God—justifying the obvious inference, that it is not a sin to reject it.
In short, its whole tendency is to produce an impression on the sinner’s
mind, that if he is not saved it is not his fault, but God’s; that if he
is condemned, it is more for the glory of the Divine Sovereignty, than
as the punishment of his guilt.
So far from regarding the moral cure of human nature as the great object
and design of the gospel, Antinomianism does not take it in at all, but
as it exists in Christ, and becomes ours by a figure of speech. It
regards the grace and the pardon as everything—the spiritual design or
effect as nothing. Hence its opposition to progressive and its zeal for
imputed sanctification: the former is intelligible and tangible, but the
latter a mere figment of the imagination. Hence its delight in
expatiating on the eternity of the Divine decrees, which it does not
understand, but which serve to amuse and to deceive; and its dislike to
all the sober realities of God’s present dealings and commands. It
exults in the contemplation of a Christ who is a kind of concretion of
all the moral attributes of his people; to the overlooking of that
Christ who is the Head of all that in heaven and on earth bear his
likeness. It boasts in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,
while it believes in no saint but one, that is, Jesus, and neglects to
persevere.—_Orme’s Life of Baxter_, vol. ii. p. 311.
ANTI-PÆDOBAPTISTS. (From ἀντὶ, against, παῖς, child, βάπτισμα, baptism.)
Persons who are opposed to the baptism of infants. In this country, this
sect arrogate to themselves the title of Baptists _par excellence_, as
though no other body of Christians baptized: just as the Socinians
extenuate their heresy by calling themselves _Unitarians_: thereby
insinuating that those who hold the mystery of the Holy Trinity do not
believe in one GOD. (See _Anabaptists_, _Baptism_.)
ANTIPHON, or ANTIPHONY. (ἀντὶ and φωνὴ.) The chant or alternate singing
of a Christian choir. This is the most ancient form of church music.
Diodorus and Flavian, the leaders of the orthodox party at Antioch
during the ascendency of Arianism, in the fourth century, and St.
Ambrose at Milan, instead of leaving the chanting to the choristers, as
had been usual, divided the whole congregation into two choirs, which
sang the psalms alternately. That the chanting of the psalms alternately
is even older than Christianity, cannot be doubted, for the custom
prevailed in the Jewish temple. Many of the psalms are actually composed
in alternate verses, evidently with a view to their being used in a
responsive manner. “I make no doubt,” says Nicholls, “but that it is to
this way of singing used in the temple, that that vision in Isaiah vi.
alluded, when he saw the two cherubims, and heard them singing, ‘Holy,
holy,’ &c. For these words cannot be otherwise explained, than of their
singing anthem-wise; ‘they called out this to that cherubim,’ properly
relates to the singing in a choir, one voice on one side, and one on the
other.” In the earlier days of the Christian Church, this practice was
adopted, and became universal. The custom is said, by Socrates the
historian, to have been first introduced among the Greeks by Ignatius.
St. Basil tells us that, in his time, about A. D. 470, the Christians,
“rising from their prayers, proceeded to singing of psalms, dividing
themselves into two parts, and singing by turns.” Tertullian remarks,
that “when one side of the choir sing to the other, they both provoke it
by a holy contention, and relieve it by a mutual supply and change.” For
these or similar reasons, the reading of the Psalter is, in places where
there is no choir, divided between the minister and people. In the
cathedral worship of the Church Universal, the psalms of the day are
chanted throughout. And in order to preserve their responsive character,
two full choirs are stationed one on each side of the church. One of
these having chanted one or two verses (the usual compass of the
chant-tune) remains silent, while the opposite choir replies in the
verses succeeding; and at the end of each psalm, (and of each division
of the 119th Psalm,) the _Gloria Patri_ is sung by the united choirs in
chorus, accompanied by the peal of the great organ. The usage, now
prevalent in foreign churches subject to Rome, of chanting one verse by
a single voice, and the other by the full choir, is not ancient, and is
admitted to be incorrect by some continental ritualists themselves. This
method is quite destructive of the genuine effect of antiphonal
chanting, which ought to be equally balanced on each side of the choir.
It may indeed be accepted as a sort of modification of the ordinary
parochial mode; but in regular choirs it would be a clear innovation, a
retrograde movement, instead of an improvement. In some choirs the
_Gloria Patri_ is sung antiphonally, but always to the great
organ.—_Jebb._
ANTIPHONAR. The book which contains the invitatories, responsories,
verses, collects, and whatever else is sung in the choir; but not
including the hymns peculiar to the Communion Service, which are
contained in the _Gradual_, or _Grail_.—_Jebb._
ANTI-POPE. He that usurps the popedom in opposition to the right pope.
Geddes gives the history of no less than twenty-four schisms in the
Roman Church caused by anti-popes. Some took their rise from a diversity
of doctrines or belief, which led different parties to elect each their
several pope; but they generally took their rise from dubious
controverted rights of election. During the great schism, which,
commencing towards the close of the 14th century, lasted for fifty
years, there was always a pope and anti-pope; and as to the fact which
of the two rivals was pope, and which anti-pope, it is impossible even
now to decide. The greatest powers of Europe were at this time divided
in their opinions on the subject. As is observed by some Roman Catholic
writers, many pious and gifted persons, who are now numbered among the
saints of the Church, were to be found indifferently in either
obedience; which sufficiently proved, as they assert, that the eternal
salvation of the faithful was not, in this case, endangered by their
error. The schism began soon after the election of Urban VI., and was
terminated by the Council of Constance. By that Council three rival
popes were deposed, and the peace of the Church was restored by the
election of Martin V.
ANTI-TYPE. A Greek word, properly signifying a type or figure
corresponding to some other type: the word is commonly used in
theological writings to denote the person in whom any prophetic type is
fulfilled: thus, our blessed SAVIOUR is called the _Anti-type_ of the
Paschal lamb under the Jewish law.
APOCALYPSE. A revelation. The name sometimes given to the last book of
the New Testament, the Revelation of St. John the Divine, from its Greek
title, ἀποκαλύψις, which has the same meaning.
This is a canonical book of the New Testament. It was written, according
to Irenæus, about the year of Christ 96, in the island of Patmos,
whither St. John had been banished by the emperor Domitian; but Sir
Isaac Newton fixes the time of writing this book earlier, viz. in the
time of Nero. In support of this opinion he alleges the sense of the
earliest commentators, and the tradition of the Churches of Syria
preserved to this day in the title of the Syriac version of that book,
which is this: “The Revelation which was made to John the Evangelist by
God in the island of Patmos, into which he was banished by Nero the
Cæsar.” This opinion, he tells us, is further confirmed by the allusions
in the Apocalypse to the temple, and altar, and holy city, as then
standing; as also by the style of it, which is fuller of Hebraisms than
his Gospel; whence it may be inferred, that it was written when John was
newly come out of Judea. It is confirmed also by the many Apocalypses
ascribed to the apostles, which appeared in the apostolic age: for
Caīus, who was contemporary with Tertullian, tells us, that Cerinthus
wrote his Revelation in imitation of St. John’s, and yet he lived so
early that he opposed the apostles at Jerusalem twenty-six years before
the death of Nero, and died before St. John. To these reasons he adds
another, namely, that the Apocalypse seems to be alluded to in the
Epistles of St. Peter, and that to the Hebrews; and if so, must have
been written before them. The allusions he means, are the discourses
concerning the high priest in the heavenly tabernacle; the σαββατισμὸς,
or the millennial rest; the earth, “whose end is to be burned,” &c.;
whence this learned author is of opinion, that Peter and John stayed in
Judea and Syria till the Romans made war upon their nation, that is,
till the twelfth year of Nero; that they then retired into Asia, and
that Peter went from thence by Corinth to Rome; that the Romans, to
prevent insurrections from the Jews among them, secured their leaders,
and banished St. John into Patmos, where he wrote his Apocalypsis; and
that very soon after, the Epistle to the Hebrews and those of Peter were
written to the churches, with reference to this prophecy, as what they
were particularly concerned in. Some attribute this book to the
arch-heretic Cerinthus: but the ancients unanimously ascribe it to John
the son of Zebedee, and brother of James. The Revelation has not at all
times been esteemed canonical. There were many Churches of Greece, as
St. Jerome informs us, which did not receive it; neither is it in the
catalogue of the canonical books prepared by the Council of Laodicea;
nor in that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem; but Justin, Irenæus, Origen,
Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and all the fathers of the
fourth, fifth, and following centuries, quote the Revelations as a book
then acknowledged to be canonical.
It is a part of this prophecy, that it should not be understood before
the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the
prophecy that it is not yet understood.—The folly of interpreters has
been to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if GOD designed
to make them prophets. By this rashness, they have not only exposed
themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of
GOD was much otherwise. He gave this, and the prophecies of the Old
Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow
things, but that, after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted
by the event; and his own providence, not the interpreters, be then
manifested thereby to the world.—There is already so much of the
prophecy fulfilled, that as many as will take pains in this study, may
see sufficient instances of GOD’S providence.
The Apocalypse of John is written in the same style and language with
the prophecies of Daniel, and hath the same relation to them which they
have to one another: so that all of them together make but one
consistent prophecy, pointing out the various revolutions that should
happen both to the Church and the State, and at length the final
destruction and downfal of the Roman empire.
APOCRYPHA. (See _Bible_, _Scriptures_.) From ἀπὸ and κρύπτω, to hide,
“because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it
were in secret and apart.” (_Bible of 1539, Preface to Apocrypha._)
Certain books appended to the sacred writings. There is no authority,
internal or external, for admitting these books into the sacred canon.
They were not received as portions of the Old Testament by the Jews, to
whom “were committed the oracles of GOD;” they are not cited and alluded
to in any part of the New Testament; and they are expressly rejected by
St. Athanasius and St. Jerome in the fourth century, though these two
fathers speak of them with respect. There is, therefore, no ground for
applying the books of the Apocrypha “to establish any doctrine,” but
they are highly valuable as ancient writings, which throw considerable
light upon the phraseology of Scripture, and upon the history and
manners of the East; and as they contain many noble sentiments and
useful precepts, the Church of England doth read them for “example of
life and instruction of manners.” (_Art._ VI.) They are frequently
quoted with great respect in the Homilies, although parties who bestow
much praise upon the Homilies are wont to follow a very contrary course.
The corrupt Church of Rome, at the fourth session of the Council of
Trent, admitted them to be of equal authority with Scripture. Thereby
the modern Church of Rome differs from the Catholic Church; and by
altering the canon of Scripture, and at the same time making her dictum
the rule of communion, renders it impossible for those Churches which
defer to antiquity to hold communion with her. Divines differ in opinion
as to the degree of respect due to those ancient writings. The reading
of the Apocryphal books in churches formed one of the grievances of the
Puritans: our Reformers, however, have made a selection for certain holy
days; and for the first lesson from the evening of the 27th of
September, till the morning of the 23rd of November, inclusive. Some
clergymen take upon themselves to alter these lessons; but for so doing
they are amenable to the ordinary, and should be presented by the
churchwardens, at the yearly episcopal or archidiaconal visitation; to
say nothing of their moral obligation. There were also Apocryphal books
of the New Testament; but these were manifest forgeries, and of course
were not used or accepted by the Church. (See _the Acts of the
Apostles_.)
APOLLINARIANS. An ancient sect who were followers of Apollinaris or
Apollinarius, bishop of Laodicea, about the middle of the fourth
century. He denied that our SAVIOUR had a reasonable human soul, and
asserted that the Logos or Divine nature supplied the place of it. This
is one of the sects we anathematize when we read the Athanasian Creed.
The doctrine of Apollinaris was condemned by several provincial
councils, and at length by the General Council of Constantinople, in
381. In short, it was attacked at the same time by the laws of the
emperors, the decrees of councils, and the writings of the learned, and
sunk, by degrees, under their united force.
APOLOGY. A word derived from two Greek words, signifying _from_ and
_speech_, and thus in its primary sense, and always in theology, it
means a defence from attack; an answer to objections. Thus the Greek
word, ἀπολογία, from which it comes, is, in Acts xxii. 1, translated by
_defence_; in xxv. 16, by _answer_; and in 2 Cor. vii. 11, by “clearing
of yourselves.” There were several _Apologies_ for Christianity composed
in the second century, and among these, those of Justin Martyr and
Tertullian are best known.
APOSTASY. (ἀποστάσις, falling away.) A forsaking or renouncing of our
religion, either formally, by an open declaration in words, or
virtually, by our actions. The word has several degrees of
signification. The primitive Christian Church distinguished several
kinds of apostasy: the first, of those who went entirely from
Christianity to Judaism. The second, of those who mingled Judaism and
Christianity together. The third, of those who complied so far with the
Jews, as to communicate with them in many of their unlawful practices,
without formally professing their religion; and the fourth, of those
who, after having been some time Christians, voluntarily relapsed into
Paganism. It is expressly revealed in Holy Scripture that there will be
a very general falling away from Christianity, or an apostasy, before
the second coming of our LORD. (2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Tim. iv.
3, 4.)
In the Romish Church the term _apostasy_ is also applied to a
renunciation of the monastic vow.
APOSTLE. A missionary, messenger, or envoy. The highest order in the
ministry were at first called Apostles; but the term is now generally
confined to those first bishops of the Church who received their
commission from our blessed LORD himself, and who were distinguished
from the bishops who succeeded them, by their having acted under the
immediate inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT, and by their having frequently
exercised the power of working miracles. Matthias was chosen into the
place of Judas Iscariot, when it was necessary that “another should take
his bishopric,” (Acts i. 20,) and is called an apostle. St. Paul also
and St. Barnabas are likewise styled apostles. So that, when we speak of
the _twelve_ apostles, we allude to them only as they were when our LORD
was on earth. Afterwards, even in the restricted sense, there were more
than twelve. But both while there were but eleven, and afterwards when
there were more, they were called _the twelve_, as the name of their
college, so to speak; as the LXXII. translators of the Old Testament
into Greek are called the LXX. All the apostles had equal power; a fact
which is emphatically asserted by St. Paul.
Our LORD’S first commission to his apostles was in the third year of his
public ministry, about eight months after their solemn election; at
which time he sent them out by two and two. (Matt. x. 5, &c.) They were
to make no provision of money for their subsistence in their journey,
but to expect it from those to whom they preached. They were to declare,
that the kingdom of heaven, or the Messiah, was at hand, and to confirm
their doctrine by miracles. They were to avoid going either to the
Gentiles or the Samaritans, and to confine their preaching to the people
of Israel. In obedience to their Master, the apostles went into all the
parts of Palestine inhabited by the Jews, preaching the gospel, and
working miracles. (Mark vi. 12.) The evangelical history is silent as to
the particular circumstances attending this first preaching of the
apostles, and only informs us, that they returned, and told their Master
all that they had done. (Luke ix. 10.)
Their second commission, just before our LORD’S ascension into heaven,
was of a more extensive and particular nature. They were now not to
confine their preaching to the Jews, but to “go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.” (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Accordingly they began publicly,
after our LORD’S ascension, to exercise the office of their ministry,
working miracles daily in proof of their mission, and making great
numbers of converts to the Christian faith. (Acts ii. 42–47.) This
alarmed the Jewish Sanhedrim; whereupon the apostles were apprehended,
and, being examined before the high priest and elders, were commanded
not to preach any more in the name of CHRIST. But this injunction did
not terrify them from persisting in the duty of their calling; for they
continued daily, in the temple, and in private houses, teaching and
preaching the gospel. (Acts ii. 46.)
After the apostles had exercised their ministry for twelve years in
Palestine, they resolved to disperse themselves in different parts of
the world, and agreed to determine by lot what parts each should take.
(_Clem. Alex. Apollonius._) According to this division, St. Peter went
into Pontus, Galatia, and those other provinces of the Lesser Asia. St.
Andrew had the vast northern countries of Scythia and Sogdiana allotted
to his portion. St. John’s was partly the same with St. Peter’s, namely
the Lesser Asia. St. Philip had the Upper Asia assigned to him, with
some parts of Scythia and Colchis. Arabia Felix fell to St.
Bartholomew’s share. St. Matthew preached in Chaldæa, Persia, and
Parthia. St. Thomas preached likewise in Parthia, as also to the
Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Indians. St. James the Less continued in
Jerusalem, of which Church he was bishop. St. Simon had for his portion
Egypt, Cyrene, Libya, and Mauritania; St. Jude, Syria and Mesopotamia;
and St. Matthias, who was chosen in the room of the traitor Judas,
Cappadocia and Colchis. Thus, by the dispersion of the apostles,
Christianity was very early planted in a great many parts of the world.
We have but very short and imperfect accounts of their travels and
actions.
In order to qualify the apostles for the arduous task of converting the
world to the Christian religion, (Acts ii.,) they were, in the first
place, miraculously enabled to speak the languages of the several
nations to whom they were to preach; and, in the second place, were
endowed with the power of working miracles, in confirmation of the
doctrines they taught; gifts which were unnecessary, and therefore
ceased, in the future ages of the Church, when Christianity came to be
established by the civil power.
The several apostles are usually represented with their respective
badges or attributes; St. Peter with the keys; St. Paul with a sword;
St. Andrew with a cross; St. James the Less with a fuller’s pole; St.
John with a cup, and a winged serpent flying out of it; St. Bartholomew
with a knife; St. Philip with a long staff, whose upper end is formed
into a cross; St. Thomas with a lance; St. Matthew with a hatchet; St.
Matthias with a battle-axe; St. James the Greater with a pilgrim’s
staff, and a gourd-bottle; St. Simon with a saw; and St. Jude with a
club.
APOSTLES’ CREED is used by the Church between the third part of the
daily service, namely, the lessons, and the fourth part, namely, the
petitions, that we may express that faith in what we have heard, which
is the ground of what we are about to ask. For as “faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD,” (Rom. x. 17,) so we must “ask
in faith,” if we “think to receive anything of the LORD.” (James i. 6,
7.) For “how shall we call upon him, in whom we have not believed?”
(Rom. x. 14.) But as all the doctrines of Scripture, though equally
true, are not of equal importance, the more necessary articles have
been, from the beginning of Christianity, collected into one body,
called in Scripture, “the form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13); “the
words of faith” (1 Tim. iv. 6); “the principles of the doctrine of
CHRIST” (Heb. vi. 1); but in our common way of speaking at present, “the
Creed,” from the Latin word, _credo_, which signifies “I believe.” Now
the ancient Churches had many such creeds; some longer, some shorter;
differing on several heads in phrase, but agreeing in method and sense,
of which that called “the Apostles’ Creed” is one. And it deserves this
name, not so much from any certainty, or great likelihood, that the
apostles drew it up in these very expressions; though some, pretty
early, and many since, have imagined they did; as because it contains
the chief apostolic doctrines, and was used by a Church which, before it
grew corrupt, was justly respected as the chief apostolic settlement, I
mean, the Roman.—_Abp. Secker._
The opinion which ascribes the framing of this Creed to the apostles in
person, though as ancient as the first account we have of the Creed
itself from Ruffinus, in the year 390, is yet rendered highly
improbable, as by many collateral reasons, so especially by this
argument, that it is not appealed to in elder times as the sacred and
unalterable standard. And therefore our excellent Church with due
caution styles it, in her 8th Article, “that which is commonly called
the Apostles’ Creed.” But though it seems not to have been compiled or
formally drawn up by the apostles themselves, yet is its authority of
sufficient strength; since it may still be demonstrated to be the
apostles’, or rather the apostolic, creed, in three several respects.
First, as it is drawn from the fountains of apostolical Scripture.
Secondly, as it agrees in substance with the confessions of all orthodox
Churches, which make up the Apostolic Church in the extended meaning of
the word. Thirdly, as it was the creed of an Apostolic Church in the
restrained sense of that term, denoting a Church founded by the
apostles, as was that of Rome.—_Kennet._
Though this Creed be not of the apostles’ immediate framing, yet it may
be truly styled apostolical, not only because it contains the sum of the
apostles’ doctrine, but also because the age thereof is so great, that
its birth must be fetched from the very apostolic times. It is true, the
exact form of the present Creed cannot pretend to be so ancient by four
hundred years; but a form, not much different from it, was used long
before. Irenæus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John,
where he repeats a creed not much unlike to ours, assures us, that “the
Church, dispersed throughout the whole world, had received this faith
from the apostles and their disciples;” which is also affirmed by
Tertullian of one of his creeds, that “that rule of faith had been
current in the Church from the beginning of the gospel:” and, which is
observable, although there was so great a diversity of creeds, as that
scarce two Churches did exactly agree therein, yet the form and
substance of every creed was in a great measure the same; so that,
except there had been, from the very plantation of Christianity, a form
of sound words, or a system of faith, delivered by the first planters
thereof, it is not easy to conceive how all Churches should harmonize,
not only in the articles themselves into which they were baptized, but,
in a great measure also, in the method and order of them.—_Lord
Chancellor King._
The Creed itself was neither the work of one man, nor of one day; but
the composure of it was gradual. First, several of the articles therein
were derived from the very days of the apostles: these were the articles
of the existence of GOD, the Trinity; that JESUS was CHRIST, or the
SAVIOUR of the world; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the
dead. Secondly, the others were afterwards added by the primitive
doctors and bishops, in opposition to gross heresies and errors that
sprung up in the Church.—It hath been received in all ages with the
greatest veneration and esteem. The ancients declare their respect and
reverence for it with the most noble and majestic expressions; and in
these latter times, throughout several centuries of years, so great a
deference hath been rendered thereunto, that it hath not only been used
in baptism, but in every public assembly it hath been usually, if not
always, read as the standard and basis of the Christian faith.—_Lord
King._
But neither this, nor any other creed, hath authority of its own equal
to Scripture, but derives its principal authority from being founded on
Scripture. Nor is it in the power of any man, or number of men, either
to lessen or increase the fundamental articles of the Christian faith:
which yet the Church of Rome, not content with this its primitive creed,
hath profanely attempted, adding twelve articles more, founded on its
own, that is, on no authority, to the ancient twelve, which stand on the
authority of GOD’S word. (See _Creed of Pope Pius IV_.) But our Church
hath wisely refused to go a step beyond the original form; since all
necessary truths are briefly comprehended in it, which it is the duty of
every one of us firmly to believe, and openly to profess. “For with the
heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation.” (Rom. x. 10.)—_Abp. Secker._
The place of the Creed in our liturgy is, first, immediately after the
lessons of Holy Scripture, out of which it is taken; and since faith
comes by hearing GOD’S word, and the gospel doth not profit without
faith, therefore it is very fit, upon hearing thereof, we should
exercise and profess our faith. Secondly, the Creed is placed just
before the prayers, as being the foundation of our petitions; we cannot
“call on him, on whom we have not believed” (Rom. x. 14); and since we
are to pray to GOD the FATHER in the name of the SON, by the assistance
of the SPIRIT, for remission of sins and a joyful resurrection, we ought
first to declare that we believe in GOD the FATHER, the SON, and the
HOLY GHOST, and that there is remission here and resurrection hereafter
to be had for all true members of the Catholic Church, and then we may
be said to pray in faith. And hence St. Ambrose and St. Augustine advise
Christians to say it daily in their private devotions; and so our old
Saxon councils command all to learn and use it, not as a prayer, (as
some ignorantly or maliciously object,) but as a ground for our prayers,
and a reason for our faith and hope of their acceptance: upon which
account also, as soon as persecution ceased, and there was no danger of
the heathens overhearing it, the Creed was used in the public service.
And there are many benefits which we may receive by this daily use of
it. For, first, this fixes it firmly in our memories, that we may never
forget this blessed rule of our prayers, nor be at any time without this
necessary touchstone to try all doctrines by. Secondly, thus we daily
renew our profession of fidelity to Almighty GOD, and repeat that
watchword which was given us when we were first listed under CHRIST’S
banner, declaring thereby that we retain our allegiance to him and
remain his faithful servants and soldiers; and no doubt that will move
him the sooner to hear the prayers which we are now making to him for
his aid. Thirdly, by this we declare our unity amongst ourselves, and
show ourselves to be members of that holy Catholic Church, by and for
which these common prayers are made. Those who hold this one faith, and
those only, have a right to pray thus; nor can any other expect to be
admitted to join in them; and therefore this Creed is the symbol and
badge to manifest who are fit to make these prayers, and receive the
benefit of them.
Wherefore, in our daily use of this sacred form, let us observe these
rules:—First, to be heartily thankful to GOD for revealing these divine,
mysterious, and saving truths to us; and though the _Gloria_ be only set
at the end of St. Athanasius’s Creed, yet the duty of thanksgiving must
be performed upon every repetition of this Creed also. Secondly, we must
give our positive and particular assent to every article as we go along,
and receive it as an infallible oracle from the mouth of GOD; and for
this reason we must repeat it with an audible voice after the minister,
and in our mind annex that word, “I believe,” to every particular
article; for, though it be but once expressed in the beginning, yet it
must be supplied and is understood in every article; and to show consent
the more evidently, we must stand up when we repeat it, and resolve to
stand up stoutly in defence thereof, so as, if need were, to defend it,
or seal the truth of it, with our blood. Thirdly, we must devoutly apply
every article, as we go along, to be both a ground for our prayers and a
guide to our lives; for if we rightly believe the power of the FATHER,
the love of the SON, and the grace of the HOLY GHOST, it will encourage
us (who are members of the Catholic Church) to pray heartily for all
spiritual and temporal blessings, and give us very lively hopes of
obtaining all our requests. Again, since these holy principles were not
revealed and selected out from all other truths, for any other end but
to make us live more holily, therefore we must consider, how it is fit
that man should live, who believes that GOD the FATHER is his Creator,
GOD the SON his Redeemer, and GOD the HOLY GHOST his Sanctifier; who
believes that he is a member of that Catholic Church, wherein there is a
communion of saints, and remission for sins, and shall be a resurrection
of the body, and a life everlasting afterwards. No man is so ignorant
but he can tell what manner of persons they ought to be who believe
this; and it is evident, that whoever firmly and fully believes all
this, his faith will certainly and necessarily produce a holy
life.—_Dean Comber._
In the First Book of King Edward VI., the Apostles’ Creed followed the
lesser litany, “Lord, have mercy upon us,”—and immediately after it was
repeated the Lord’s Prayer. The alteration, as it at present stands, was
made in the Second Book.—_Jebb._
APOSTOLIC, APOSTOLICAL, something that relates to the apostles, or
descends from them. Thus we say, the apostolical age, apostolical
character, apostolical doctrine, constitutions, traditions, &c. In the
primitive Church it was an appellation given to all such Churches as
were founded by the apostles, and even to the bishops of those Churches,
as the reputed successors of the apostles. These were confined to four:
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In succeeding ages, the other
Churches assumed the same title, on account, principally, of the
conformity of their doctrine with that of the Churches which were
apostolical by foundation, and because all bishops held themselves
successors of the apostles, or acted in their respective dioceses with
the authority of apostles. The first time the term _apostolical_ is
attributed to bishops, is in a letter of Clovis to the Council of
Orleans, held in 511; though that king does not in it expressly
denominate them apostolical, but _apostolicâ sede dignissimi_, highly
worthy of the apostolical see. In 581, Guntram calls the bishops,
assembled at Macon, apostolical pontiffs. In progress of time, the
bishop of Rome increasing in power above the rest, and the three
patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem having fallen into
the hands of the Saracens, the title apostolical came to be restricted
to the pope and his Church alone. At length some of the popes, and among
them Gregory the Great, not content to hold the title by this tenure,
began to insist that it belonged to them by another and peculiar right,
as the successors of St. Peter. In 1046, the Romish Council of Rheims
declared, that the pope was the sole apostolical primate of the
Universal Church.
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS. These two collections of
ecclesiastical rules and formularies were attributed, in the early ages
of the Church of Rome, to Clement of Rome, who was supposed to have
committed them to writing from the mouths of the apostles, whose words
they pretended to record. The authority thus claimed for these writings
has, however, been entirely disproved; and it is generally supposed by
critics, that they were chiefly compiled during the second and third
centuries; or that, at least, the greater part must be assigned to a
period before the first Nicene Council. We find references to them in
the writings of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, writers of the
third and fourth centuries. A modern critic supposes them not to have
attained their present form until the fifth century. The _Constitutions_
are comprised in eight books. In these the apostles are frequently
introduced as speakers. They contain rules and regulations concerning
the duties of Christians in general, the constitution of the Church, the
offices and duties of ministers, and the celebration of Divine worship.
The tone of morality which runs through them is severe and ascetic. They
forbid the use of all personal decorations and attention to appearance,
and prohibit the reading of the works of heathen authors. They enjoin
Christians to assemble twice every day in the church for prayers and
psalmody, to observe various fasts and festivals, and to keep the
sabbath (i. e. the seventh day of the week) as well as the LORD’S day.
They require extraordinary marks of respect and reverence towards the
ministers of religion; commanding Christians to honour a bishop as a
king or a prince, and even as a kind of God upon earth, to render to him
absolute obedience, to pay him tribute, and to approach him through the
deacons or servants of the Church, as we come to GOD only through
CHRIST! This latter kind of (profane) comparison is carried to a still
greater extent, for the deaconesses are declared to resemble the HOLY
SPIRIT, inasmuch as they are not able to do anything without the
deacons. Presbyters are said to represent the apostles; and the rank of
Christian teachers is declared to be higher than that of magistrates and
princes. We find here, also, a complete liturgy or form of worship for
Christian churches; containing not only a description of ecclesiastical
ceremonies, but the prayers to be used at their celebration.
This general description of the contents of the books of Constitutions
is alone enough to prove that they are no productions of the apostolic
age. Mention also occurs of several subordinate ecclesiastical officers,
such as readers and exorcists, who were not introduced into the Church
until the third century. And there are manifest contradictions between
several parts of the work. The general style in which the Constitutions
are written is such as had become prevalent during the third century.
It is useless to inquire who was the real author of this work; but the
date and probable design of the forgery are of more importance, and may
be more easily ascertained. Epiphanius, towards the end of the fourth
century, appears to be the first author who speaks of these books under
their present title, Apostolical Constitutions. But he refers to the
work only as one containing much edifying matter, without including it
among the writings of the apostles; and indeed he expressly says that
many persons had doubted of its genuineness. One passage, however, to
which Epiphanius refers, speaks a language directly the reverse of what
we find in the corresponding passage of the work now extant; so that it
appears probable that the Apostolical Constitutions, which that author
used, have been corrupted and interpolated since his time. On the whole,
it appears probable, from internal evidence, that the Apostolical
Constitutions were compiled during the reigns of the heathen emperors,
towards the end of the third century, or at the beginning of the fourth;
and that the compilation was the work of some one writer (probably a
bishop) of the Eastern Church. The advancement of episcopal dignity and
power appears to have been the chief design of the forgery.
If we regard the Constitutions as a production of the third century,
(containing remnants of earlier compositions,) the work possesses a
certain kind of value. It contributes to give us an insight into the
state of Christian faith, the condition of the clergy and inferior
ecclesiastical officers, the worship and discipline of the Church, and
other particulars, at the period to which the composition is referred.
The growth of episcopal power and influence, and the derivation of the
episcopal authority from the apostles, is here clearly shown. Many of
the regulations prescribed, and many of the moral and religious remarks,
are good and edifying; and the prayers especially breathe, for the most
part, a spirit of simple and primitive Christianity. But the work is by
no means free from traces of superstition; and it is occasionally
disfigured by mystical interpretations and applications of Holy
Scripture, and by needless refinements in matters of ceremony. We find
several allusions to the events of apostolical times; but occurrences
related exclusively in such a work, are altogether devoid of
credibility, especially as they are connected with the design of the
compiler to pass off his book as a work of the apostles.
The _Canons_ relate chiefly to various particulars of ecclesiastical
polity and Christian worship; the regulations which they contain being,
for the most part, sanctioned with the threatening of deposition and
excommunication against offenders. The first allusion to this work by
name, is found in the Acts of the Council which assembled at
Constantinople in the year 394, under the presidency of Nectarius,
bishop of that see. But there are expressions in earlier councils, and
writers of the same century, which appear to refer to the Canons,
although not named. In the beginning of the sixth century, fifty of
these Canons were translated from the Greek into Latin by the Roman
abbot, Dionysius the Younger; and, about the same time, thirty-five
others were appended to them in a collection made by John, patriarch of
Constantinople. Since that time, the whole number have been regarded as
genuine in the East; while only the first fifty have been treated with
equal respect in the West. It appears highly probable, that the original
collection was made about the middle of the third century, or somewhat
later, in one of the Asiatic Churches. The author may have had the same
design as that which appears to have influenced the compiler of the
Apostolical Constitutions. The eighty-fifth Canon speaks of the
Constitutions as sacred books; and from a comparison of the two books,
it is plain that they are either the production of one and the same
writer, or that, at least, the two authors were contemporary, and had a
good understanding with each other. The rules and regulations contained
in the Canons are such as were gradually introduced and established
during the second and third centuries. In the canon or list of sacred
books of the New Testament, given in this work, the Revelation of St.
John is omitted; but the two Epistles of St. Clement and Apostolical
Constitutions are inserted.—_Augusti._
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. An appellation usually given to the writers of the
first century, who employed their pens in the cause of Christianity. Of
these writers, Cotelerius, and after him Le Clerc, have published a
collection in two volumes, accompanied both with their own annotations
and the remarks of other learned men. Among later editions may be
particularly mentioned that by the Rev. Dr. Jacobson, Regius Professor
of Divinity at Oxford, which, however, does not include Barnabas or
Hermas. See also The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, by
Archbishop Wake, and a translation of them in one volume 8vo, by the
Rev. Temple Chevallier, B. D., formerly Hulsean lecturer in the
University of Cambridge. The names of the apostolical fathers are,
Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, bishop
of Smyrna, and Hermas. To these Barnabas the apostle is usually added.
The epistles and other writings of these eminent men are still extant. A
more admirable appendix to the pure word of GOD, and a more trustworthy
comment on the principles taught by inspired men, cannot be conceived.
As eye-witnesses of the order and discipline of the Church, while all
was fresh and new from the hands of the apostles, their testimony forms
the very summit of uninspired authority. None could better know these
things than those who lived and wrote at the very time. None deserve a
greater reverence than they who proclaimed the gospel, while the echo of
inspired tongues yet lingered in the ears of the people.
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. (See _Succession_.) The line in which the
ministry of the Church is handed on from age to age: the _corporate_
lineage of the Christian clergy, just as in the Jewish Church there was
a _family_ lineage. The Church of England maintains the apostolical
succession in the preface to her Ordination Service. Those are said to
be in apostolical succession who have been sent to labour in the LORD’S
vineyard, by bishops who were consecrated by those who, in their turn,
were consecrated by others, and these by others, until the derived
authority is traced to the apostles, and through them to the great Head
of the Church. The apostolical succession of the ministry is essential
to the right administration of the holy sacraments. The clergy of the
Church of England can trace their connexion with the apostles by links,
not one of which is wanting, from the times of St. Paul and St. Peter to
our own.—See _Appendix to Rose’s Commission and consequent Duties of the
Clergy: Perceval’s Doctrine of the Apostolical Succession_, 2nd edition;
_Sinclair (Rev. John) on the Episcopal Succession_; and _Courayer’s
Defence of the English Ordinations_.
APOSTOLICI, or APOTACTICI. Heretics in Christianity, who sprung from the
Encratites and Cathari, and took these names because they pretended to
be the only followers of the apostles, and because they made a
profession of never marrying, and renounced riches. Epiphanius observes,
that these vagabonds, who appeared about the year 260, for the most part
made use of the apocryphal Acts of St. Andrew and St. Thomas. There was
another sect of this name, about the twelfth century, who were against
marriage, and never went without lewd women: they also despised infant
baptism, would not allow of purgatory, invocation of saints, and prayers
for the dead, and called themselves the true body of the Church,
condemning all use of flesh with the Manichæans.—_Bingham, Antiq. Chr.
Ch._
APOTACTITÆ, or APOTACTICI. (See _Apostolici_.)
APPARITOR. Apparitors (so called from the principal branch of their
office, which consists in summoning persons to appear) are officers
appointed to execute the orders and decrees of the ecclesiastical
courts. The proper business and employment of an apparitor is to attend
in court; to receive such commands as the judge shall please to issue
forth; to convene and cite the defendants into court; to admonish or
cite the parties to produce witnesses, and the like. Apparitors are
recognised by the 138th English Canon, which wholly relates to
them.—_Jebb._
APPEAL. The provocation of a cause from an inferior to a superior judge.
(1 Kings xviii.; Acts xxv.) Appeals are divided into judicial and
extra-judicial. Judicial appeals are those made from the actual sentence
of a court of judicature. In this case the force of such sentence is
suspended until the cause is determined by the superior judge.
Extra-judicial appeals are those made from extra-judicial acts, by which
a person either is, or is likely to be, wronged. He therefore resorts to
the legal protection of a superior judge. By the civil law, appeals
ought to be made _gradatim_; but by the canon law, as it existed before
the Reformation, they might be made _omisso medio_, and _immediately to
the_ pope; who was reputed to be the ordinary judge of all Christians in
all causes, having a concurrent power with all ordinaries. Appeals to
the pope were first sent from England to Rome in the reign of King
Stephen, by the pope’s legate, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester (A.
D. 1135–1154). Prior to that period, the pope was not permitted to enjoy
any appellate jurisdiction in England. William the Conqueror refused to
do him homage. Anglo-Saxon Dooms do not so much as mention the pope’s
name: and the laws of Edward the Confessor assert the royal supremacy in
the following words:—“Rex autem, qui vicarius Summi Regis est, ad hoc
constitutus est, ut regnum et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam
ecclesiam, regat et defendat ab injuriosis; maleficos autem destruat et
evellat.” The Penitential of Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668–690)
contains no mention of appeals to Rome; and in the reign of Henry II.,
at the Council of Clarendon, (A. D. 1164,) it was enacted, “De
appellationibus si emerserint ab archidiacono debebit procedi ad
episcopum, ab episcopo ad archiepiscopum, et si archiepiscopus defuerit
in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum regem perveniendum est postremo, ut
præcepto ipsius in curia archiepiscopi controversia terminetur; ita quod
non debeat ultra procedi absque assensu domini regis.” Notwithstanding
this law, and the statutes made against “provisors” in the reigns of
Edward I., Edward III., Richard II., and Henry V., appeals used to be
forwarded to Rome until the reign of Henry VIII., when, by the statutes
of the 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, and the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, all appeals
to the pope from England were legally abolished. By these statutes,
appeals were to be finally determined by the High Court of Delegates, to
be appointed by the king in chancery under the great seal. This
jurisdiction was, in 1832, by 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, transferred from
the High Court of Delegates to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council; whose “report or recommendation,” when sanctioned by the Crown,
is a final judgment.
The Crown, however, used to have the power to grant a commission of
review after the decision of an appeal by the High Court of Delegates.
(26 Henry VIII. c. 1; 1 Eliz. c. 1, _Goodman’s case_ in Dyer’s Reports.)
This prerogative Queen Mary exercised by granting a review after a
review in Goodman’s case, regarding the deanery of Wells. (See Lord
Campbell’s Judgment in the Court of Queen’s Bench in _Gorham_ v. _the
Bishop of Exeter_.) It is a remarkable fact that, although the statutes
for restraint of appeals had been repealed on Queen Mary’s accession, no
appeal in Goodman’s case was permitted to proceed out of England to the
pope.
The commissions of review were not granted by Queen Mary under the
authority of Protestant enactments, but by virtue of the common law,
regarding the regalities of the Crown of England. It does not appear
that by the 2 & 3 William IV. c. 92, 3 & 4 William IV. c. 41, 7 & 8
Vict., the prerogative is interfered with; and that the Crown is
compelled to adopt the “report or recommendation” of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council: on the contrary, the sovereign is quite
free to sanction or reject such report, which only becomes valid as a
decision on the royal assent being given. The ancient Appellant Court of
Delegates still subsists in Ireland.
APPELLANT. Generally, one who appeals from the decision of an inferior
court to a superior. Particularly those among the French clergy were
called _appellants_, who appealed from the bull _Unigenitus_, issued by
Pope Clement in 1713, either to the pope better informed, or to a
general council. This is one of the many instances in which the boasted
unity of the Roman obedience has been signally broken; the whole body of
the French clergy, and the several monasteries, being divided into
appellants and non-appellants.
APPROPRIATION is the annexing of a benefice to the use of a spiritual
corporation. This was frequently done in England after the Norman
Conquest. The secular clergy were then Saxons or Englishmen; and most of
the nobility, bishops, and abbots being Normans, they had no kind of
regard to the secular clergy, but reduced them as low as they could to
enrich the monasteries; and this was the reason of so many
appropriations. But some persons are of opinion, that it is a question
undecided, whether princes or popes first made appropriations: though
the oldest of which we have any account were made by princes; as, for
instance, by the Saxon kings, to the abbey of Crowland; by William the
Conqueror, to Battle Abbey; and by Henry I., to the church of Salisbury.
It is true the popes, who were always jealous of their usurped supremacy
in ecclesiastical affairs, did in their decretals assume this power to
themselves, and granted privileges to several religious orders, to take
appropriations from laymen: but in the same grant they were usually
required to be answerable to the bishop _in spiritualibus_, and to the
abbot or prior _in temporalibus_, which was the common form of
appropriations till the latter end of the reign of Henry II. For at
first those grants were not _in proprios usus_: it was always necessary
to present a clerk to the bishop upon the avoidance of a benefice, who,
upon his institution, became vicar, and for that reason an appropriation
and a rectory were then inconsistent. But because the formation of an
appropriation was a thing merely spiritual, the patron usually
petitioned the bishop to appropriate the church; but the king was first
to give licence to the monks that, _quantum in nobis est_, the bishop
might do it. The king being supreme ordinary, might of his own authority
make an appropriation without the consent of the bishop, though this was
seldom done. Appropriations at first were made only to spiritual
persons, such as were qualified to perform Divine service; then by
degrees they were extended to spiritual corporations, as deans and
chapters; and lastly to priories, upon the pretence that they had to
support hospitality; and lest preaching should by this means be
neglected, an invention was found out to supply that defect by a vicar,
as aforesaid; and it was left to the bishop to be a moderator between
the monks and the vicar, for his maintenance out of the appropriated
tithes; for the bishop could compel the monastery to which the church
was appropriated to set out a convenient portion of tithes, and such as
he should approve, for the maintenance of the vicar, before he confirmed
the appropriation.
It is true the bishops in those days favoured the monks so much, that
they connived at their setting out a portion of small tithes for the
vicar, and permitted them to reserve the great tithes to themselves.
This was a fault intended to be remedied by the statute 15 Rich. II.
cap. 6; by which it was enacted, that in every licence made of an
appropriation this clause should be contained, viz. that the diocesan
should ordain that the vicar shall be well and sufficiently endowed. But
this statute was eluded; for the abbots appointed one of their own monks
to officiate; and therefore the parliament, in the 4th year of Henry IV.
cap. 12, provided that the vicar should be a secular clergyman,
canonically instituted and inducted into the church, and _sufficiently_
endowed; and that no regular should be made vicar of a church
appropriate. But long before the making of these statutes the kings of
England made appropriation of the churches of Feversham and Milton in
Kent, and other churches, to the abbey of St. Augustine in Canterbury,
by these words: “Concessimus, &c., pro nobis, &c., abbati et conventui,
&c., quod ipsi ecclesias predictas appropriare ac eas sic appropriatas
in proprios usus tenere possint sibi et successoribus in perpetuum.” The
like was done by several of the Norman nobility, who came over with the
king, upon whom he bestowed large manors and lands; and out of which
they found tithes were then paid, and so had continued to be paid even
from the time they were possessed by the Saxons: but they did not regard
their law of tithing, and therefore they held it reasonable to
appropriate all, or at least some part of, those tithes to those
monasteries which they had founded, or to others as they thought fit;
and in such cases they reserved a power to provide for him who served
the cure; and this was usually paid to stipendiary curates. But
sometimes the vicarages were endowed, and the very endowment was
expressed in the grant of the appropriation, viz. that the church should
be appropriated upon condition that a vicarage should be endowed; and
this was left to the care of the bishop. But whenever the vicar had a
competent subsistence by endowment, the monks took all opportunities to
lessen it; and this occasioned several decretals prohibiting such usage
without the bishop’s consent, and that no custom should be pleaded for
it, where he that served the cure had not a competent subsistence. And
it has been a question whether an appropriation is good when there is no
endowment of a vicarage, because the statute of Henry IV. positively
provides that vicarages shall be endowed. But it is now settled, that if
it is a vicarage in reputation, and vicars have been instituted and
inducted to the church, it shall be presumed that the vicarage was
originally endowed. Thus much for the tithes: but the abbot and convent
had not only the tithes of the appropriate churches, but the right of
patronage too; for that was extinct, as to the former patron, by the
appropriation, unless he had reserved the presentation to himself; and
that made the advowson disappropriate, and the church presentable as
before, but not by the old patron, but by the abbot and convent, who
were then bound, upon a vacancy, to present a person to the bishop.
Sometimes the bishop would refuse the person presented unless they
consented to such an allowance for his maintenance as he thought fit,
and therefore they would present none. This occasioned the making
another decretal, which gave the bishop power to present; but this did
not often happen, because the monks were favoured by the bishops; that
is, the poorer sort, for the rich would not accept his kindness. They
always got their appropriations confirmed by the pope, and their
churches exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop. But now all those
exemptions are taken away by the statute 31 Henry VIII. cap. 13, and the
ordinary is restored to his ancient right. Before giving an account of
that statute, it will not be improper to mention the forms of
appropriations both before and since that time. A licence being obtained
of the king as supreme ordinary, and the consent from the diocesan,
patron, and incumbent, thereupon the bishop made the grant.
By the aforesaid statute, those appropriations which were made formerly
by bishops, and enjoyed only by religious houses, are now become the
inheritance of laymen; and though the bishop’s power in such cases is
not mentioned in the statute, yet the law leaves all matters of right
just as they were before; for when those religious houses were
surrendered, the king was to have the tithes in the same manner as the
abbots had them in right of their monasteries; and there is a saving of
the rights and interests of all persons; so that, if before the
dissolution the vicar had an antecedent right to a competent
maintenance, and the bishop had power to allow it, it is not taken away
now.
This is the law of England, and it is founded on good reason: for tithes
were originally given for the service of the Church, and not for the
private use of monasteries; and it may be a question, whether a
monastery was capable of taking an appropriation, because it is not an
ecclesiastical body; for by the canons they could not preach, baptize,
or visit the sick, and they had no cure of souls. This matter was
disputed between St. Bernard, a Cistercian monk, and Peter the
Venerable: the first was dissatisfied that monks should take tithe from
the secular clergy, which was given to support them in attending the
cure of souls; the other answered him, that monks prayed for souls, but
tithes were not only given for prayers, but for preaching, and to
support hospitality. Upon the whole matter, appropriations may be made
by the joint consent of the queen, the ordinary, and the patron who hath
the inheritance of the advowson; and he must have the queen’s licence,
because she hath an interest in it as supreme ordinary: for it might
happen that the presentation may be devolved on her by lapse, and such
licence was usually granted when the church was void; but if it is
granted when the church is full, it does not make the appropriation
void, though such grant should be in general words, because, where it
may be taken in two intents, the one good, the other not, it shall be
expounded in that sense which may make the grant good. It is true, the
best way is to give a licence in particular words, importing that the
appropriation shall take effect after the death of the incumbent:
however, if it is a license _per verba de præsenti_, yet it is good for
the reason already mentioned. The bishop must likewise concur, for he
has an interest in the presentation, which may come to him by lapse
before it can be vested in the queen. Besides, an appropriation deprives
him of institution, for it not only carries the glebe and tithes, but
gives to the corporation a spiritual function, and supplies the
institution of the ordinary: for in the very instrument of appropriation
it is united and given to the body corporate _in proprios usus_, that
is, that they shall be perpetual parsons there: this must be intended
where there are no vicarages endowed, and yet they cannot have the cure
of souls because they are a body politic; but the vicar who is endowed
and comes in by their appointment, has the cure.
APSE, or APSIS. A semicircular or polygonal termination of the choir, or
other portion of a church. The word signifies in Greek a spherical arch.
It was called in Latin _testudo_, or _concha_, from the same reason that
a hemispherical recess in the school-room at Westminster was called _the
shell_. The ancient Basilicas, as may still be seen at Rome, had
universally a semicircular apse, round which the superior clergy had
their seats; at the upper end was the bishop’s throne; the altar was
placed on the chord of the arc; the transept, or gallery, intervened
between the apse or the choir. There the inferior clergy, singers, &c.,
were stationed, and there the lessons were read from the ambos. (See
_Choir_ and _Chaunt_.) This form was generally observed, at least in
large churches, for many ages, of which Germany affords frequent
specimens. And as Mr. Neale has shown in his very valuable remarks on
the Eastern churches, (_Hist. of the Holy Greek Church_,) the apse is
the almost invariable form even in parish churches in the East. Of this
arrangement there are traces in England. Then large Saxon churches, as
we collect from history, generally had an eastern apse at least, and
often several others. In Norman churches of large size, the apse was
very frequent, and it was repeated in several parts of the church. These
inferior apses represented the oriental _exedræ_, which usually
terminate their sacristies. Norwich and Peterborough cathedrals convey a
good impression of the general character of Norman churches in this
respect. Traces of the apse are found also at Winchester, Rochester,
Ely, Lincoln, Ripon, Gloucester, and Worcester cathedrals, besides St.
Alban’s, Tewkesbury, and other conventual churches. So also at
Canterbury, where the apse seems to have been disturbed by subsequent
arrangements. But it is remarkable that the ancient archiepiscopal chair
stood behind the altar in a sort of apse till late in the last century.
Traces of the ancient apse at Chester have been discovered of late
years. In small churches, as Steetley, Derbyshire, and Birkin,
Yorkshire, the eastern apse alone is found, nor is this at all a
universal feature. See Mr. Hussey’s _Notice of recent discoveries in
Chester Cathedral_. There are three very interesting English specimens
in Herefordshire, viz. as at Kilpech, Moccas, and Peter Church; all
small parish churches, and of Norman date; and with regular chancel
below the apse. In the early British and Irish churches there is no
trace of an apse, even in those which the learned Dr. Petrie, in his
essay on round towers, attributes to the 5th and 6th centuries. With the
Norman style the apse was almost wholly discontinued, though an early
English apse occurs at Tidmarsh, Berkshire, and a decorated apse at
Little Maplestead; the latter is, however, altogether an exceptional
case. There seems to have been some tendency to reproduce the apse in
the fifteenth century, as at Trinity church, Coventry, and Henry VII.’s
chapel, Westminster; but the latter examples entirely miss the breadth
and grandeur of the Norman apse. Yet the later styles might have had one
great advantage in the treatment of this feature in their flying
buttresses spanning the outer aisle of the apse, which is often so
striking a feature in foreign churches, and to which the perpendicular
clerestory to the Norman apse of Norwich makes some approach. Some
writers have confounded the apse with the choir or chancel; and think
that, according to primitive usage, the holy table ought to stand
between the latter and the nave: whereas in fact it always stood above
the choir; so that in churches where there is no apse (and none was
required when there were no collegiate or capitular clergy) its proper
place is close to the eastern wall of the church. See _Cathedral_.
AQUARII. A sect of heretics who consecrated their pretended eucharist
with water only, instead of wine, or wine mingled with water. This they
did under the delusion that it was universally unlawful to drink wine;
although, as St. Chrysostom says, our blessed LORD instituted the holy
eucharist in wine, and himself drank wine at his communion table, and
after his resurrection, as if by anticipation to condemn this pernicious
heresy. It is lamentable to see so bold an impiety revived in the
present day, when certain men, under the cloak of temperance, pretend a
eucharist without wine, or any fermented liquor. These heretics are not
to be confounded with those against whom St. Cyprian discourses at large
in his letter to Cæcilian, who, from fear of being discovered, from the
smell of wine, by the heathen in times of persecution, omitted the wine
in the eucharist cup. It was indeed very wrong and unworthy of the
Christian name, but far less culpable than the pretence of a temperance
above that of CHRIST and the Church, in the _Aquarii_. Origen engaged in
a disputation with them.—_Epiph. Hæres._ xlvi.; _August. de Hæres._ c.
46.; _Theodoret, de Fab. Hæret._ lib. i. cap. 20.; _Cyprian_, Ep. lxiii.
_ad Cæcilium._; _Conc. Carth._ iii. can. xxiv.; _Bingham_.
ARABICS, or ARABIANS. Heretics who appeared in Arabia in the third
century. According to Eusebius and St. Augustine, they taught that the
soul died, and was corrupted with the body, and that they were to be
raised together at the last day.
ARCADE. In church architecture, a series of arches supported by pillars
or shafts, whether belonging to the construction, or used in relieving
large surfaces of masonry: the present observations will be confined to
the latter, that is, to ornamental arcades.
These were introduced early in the Norman style, and were used very
largely to its close, the whole base story of exterior and interior
alike, and the upper portions of towers and of high walls being often
quite covered with them. They were either of simple or of intersecting
arches: it is needless to say that the latter are the most elaborate in
work, and the most ornamental; they are accordingly reserved in general
for the richer portions of the fabric. There is, moreover, another, and
perhaps even more effective, way of complicating the arcade, by placing
an arcade within and behind another, so that the wall is doubly
recessed, and the play of light and shadow greatly increased. The
decorations of the transitional, until very late in the style, are so
nearly those of the Norman, that we need not particularize the
semi-Norman arcade. In the next style the simple arcade is, of course,
most frequent. This, like the Norman, often covers very large surfaces.
Foil arches are often introduced at this period, and greatly vary the
effect. The reduplication of arcades is now managed differently from the
former style. Two arcades, perfect in all their parts, are set the one
behind the other, but the shaft of the outer is opposite to the arch of
the inner series, the outer series is also more lofty in its
proportions, and the two are often of differently constructed arches, as
at Lincoln, where the outer series is of trefoil, the inner of simple
arches, or _vice versâ_, the two always being different. The effect of
this is extremely beautiful.
[Illustration:
Norman Arcade from Canterbury.
]
But the most exquisite arcades are those of the Geometrical period,
where each arch is often surmounted by a crocketted pediment, and the
higher efforts of sculpture are tasked for their enrichment, as in the
glorious chapter-house of Salisbury, Southwell, and York; these are,
however, usually confined to the interior. In the Decorated period
partially, and in the Perpendicular entirely, the arcade gave place to
panelling, greatly to the loss of effect, for no delicacy or intricacy
of pattern can compensate for the bright light and deep shadows of the
Norman and Early English arcades.
ARCANI DISCIPLINA. The name given to a part of the discipline of the
early Church in withdrawing from public view the sacraments and higher
mysteries of our religion: a practice founded on a reverence for the
sacred mysteries themselves, and to prevent their being exposed to the
ridicule of the heathen. Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria
are the first who mention any such custom in the Church. And the
Disciplina Arcani gradually fell into disuse after the time of
Constantine, when Christianity had nothing to fear from its
enemies.—_Bingham. Augusti._
ARCH. All architecture may be divided into the architecture of the
_entablature_ and of the _arch_, and as the very terms denote, _the
arch_ is the differential of the latter. Romanesque and Gothic fall
under this head. Our view of the arch is limited to a description of its
several forms; an estimate of its effects on style, and its mechanical
construction, being beyond our province.
[Illustration:
Semicircular. Horse-shoe. Stilted.
]
The Saxon and the Norman arch were alike _semicircular_ in their normal
form, though in Norman buildings we often find a greater arc of a
circle, or “_horse-shoe_” arch, or the semicircle is “_stilted_:” to one
or other of which constructions it was necessary to resort when an arch
of higher proportion than a semicircle was required. In the middle of
the twelfth century the _pointed arch_ was introduced. It was used for a
long time together with the semicircle, and often with an entire absence
of all but Norman details; and it is worthy of note that the pointed
arch is first used in construction, as in the great pier arches, and
evidently, therefore, from an appreciation of its mechanical value, and
not till afterwards in lighter portions, as windows and decorative
arcades. The pointed arch has three simple forms, the _equilateral_, the
_lancet_, and the _drop_ arch; the first described from the angles at
the base of an equilateral, the second of a triangle whose base is
greater, the third of a triangle whose base is less, than the sides.
These forms are common to every style, from Early English downwards. In
the Perpendicular period a more complex arch was introduced, struck
_from four centres_, all within or below the base of the arch. This
modification of the arch is of great importance, as involving
differences of construction in the fabric, especially in the vaulting,
so that it has a place in the history of Gothic architecture only
inferior to the introduction of the pointed arch.
[Illustration:
Equilateral. Lancet. Drop.
]
[Illustration:
Four-centred. Foil. Ogee.
]
There are, besides, other modifications of the arch, struck from more
than two centres, but these are either of less frequent occurrence, or
merely decorative. We may mention the _foil_ and the _ogee arch_; the
former struck from four centres, two without and two within the
resulting figure, _and flowing into one another_; the latter from
several centres, according to the number of foils, all generally within
the resulting figure, and _cutting one another_. The foil arch precedes
in history the foliation or cusping of arches and tracery, which it no
doubt suggested; the ogee arch came in with ogee forms of tracery and of
cusping, and outlived them.
ARCHBISHOP. An archbishop is the chief of the clergy in a whole
province; and has the inspection of the bishops of that province, as
well as of the inferior clergy, and may deprive them on notorious
causes. The archbishop has also his own diocese wherein he exercises
episcopal jurisdiction, as in his province he exercises archiepiscopal.
As archbishop, he, upon the receipt of the king’s writ, calls the
bishops and clergy within his province to meet in convocation. To him
all appeals are made from inferior jurisdictions within his province;
and, as an appeal lies from the bishops in person to him in person, so
it also lies from the consistory courts of his diocese to his
archiepiscopal court. During the vacancy of any see in his province he
is guardian of the spiritualities thereof, as the king is of the
temporalities; and, during such vacancy, all episcopal rights belong to
him. The archbishops in England have from time to time exercised a
visitatorial power over their suffragans, in use till the time of
Archbishop Laud. The archbishops of Ireland have immemorially visited
their suffragans triennially: the Episcopal Visitation being there
annual. (See _Stephens’ Edition of the Book of Common Prayer, with
notes_, vol. i. pp. 26–30.)
Some learned men are of opinion, that an archbishop is a dignity as
ancient as the apostles’ time, for there were _primi episcopi_ then,
though the name of archbishop was not known until some ages afterwards;
and that the apostle himself gave the first model of this government in
the Church, by vesting Titus with a superintendency over all Crete.
Certain it is that there were persons soon after that time, who, under
the name of metropolitans, exercised the same spiritual and
ecclesiastical functions as an archbishop; as for instance the bishop of
Carthage, who certainly assembled and presided in provincial councils,
and had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the bishops of Africa; and the
bishops of Rome, who had the like primacy in the _suburbiconian_
provinces, viz. middle and southern Italy, with Sicily, and other
adjacent islands. Moreover, the Apostolical Canons, which were the rule
of the Greek Church in the third century, mention a chief bishop in
every province, and most of them about the eighth century assumed the
title of archbishops; some of which were so in a more eminent degree,
viz. those of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, which were
the four principal cities of the empire. To these the archbishop of
Jerusalem was added by the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, because that
was the capital city of the Holy Land, and these five were called
patriarchs.
The archbishop of Canterbury is styled primate of all England and
metropolitan, and the archbishop of York primate of England. They have
the title of Grace, and Most reverend Father in GOD by Divine
Providence. There are two provinces or archbishoprics in England,
Canterbury and York. The archbishop of Canterbury has the precedency of
all the other clergy; next to him the archbishop of York. Each
archbishop has, within his province, bishops of several dioceses. The
archbishop of Canterbury has under him, within his province, Rochester,
London, Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Ely, Chichester, Salisbury,
Exeter, Bath and Wells, Worcester, Lichfield, Hereford, Landaff, St.
David’s, Bangor, and St. Asaph; and four founded by King Henry VIII.,
erected out of the ruins of dissolved monasteries, viz. Gloucester and
Bristol, now united into one, Peterborough, and Oxford. The archbishop
of York has under him six, viz. the bishop of Chester, erected by Henry
VIII., and annexed by him to the archbishopric of York, the bishops of
Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, and Manchester, and the Isle of Man, annexed to
the province of York by King Henry VIII. The dioceses of Ripon and
Manchester have been formed in the province of York within the last few
years, by act of parliament. The archbishop of Armagh is styled primate
of all Ireland. The archbishop of Dublin, primate of Ireland. Before the
late diminution of the Irish episcopate, there were two other
archbishops, viz. of Cashel, styled primate of Munster, and Tuam,
primate of Connaught. Under Armagh were the bishoprics of *Meath, *Down,
*Derry, Dromore, Raphoe, *Kilmore, and Clogher. Under Dublin, Kildare,
Ferns, and *Ossory. Under Cashel, *Limerick, *Cork, Cloyne, *Killaloe,
and Waterford. Under Tuam, Clonfert, Elphin, and Killala. At present
Cashel is a suffragan of Dublin, Tuam of Armagh; and only those
suffragan bishoprics marked with an asterisk are retained. The bishops
of Calcutta and Sydney, being metropolitans, are archbishops in reality,
though not in title.
ARCHDEACON. In the English branch of the united Church, and most
European Churches, each diocese is divided into archdeaconries and
parishes. Sometimes a diocese has but one archdeaconry; sometimes four
or five. But in Ireland there is but one archdeacon to each diocese
(several dioceses being often united under one bishop); and
archdeaconries, as ecclesiastical divisions, are there unknown. The
dioceses of Dublin and Ardfert may be regarded as exceptions, but not
with justice: as the archdeaconry of Glendaloch in the former, and of
Aghadoe in the latter, belonged originally to separate dioceses, which
have been drawn into the adjacent ones: so that the dividing boundaries
are now unknown. (_Jebb._) Over the diocese the bishop presides; over
the archdeaconry one of the clergy is appointed by the bishop to
preside, who must be a priest, and he is called an archdeacon; over the
parish the rector or vicar presides. An archdeacon was so called
anciently, from being the chief of the deacons, a most important office
at a very early period in the Christian Church.
The antiquity of this office is held to be so high by many Roman
Catholic writers, that they derive its origin from the appointment of
the seven deacons, and suppose that St. Stephen was the first
archdeacon: but there is no clear authority to warrant this conclusion.
Mention is also made of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, who suffered A.
D. 260; but although he was called archdeacon, (according to
Prudentius,) he was no more than the principal man of the seven deacons
who stood at the altar. “_Hic primus è septem viris qui stant ad aram
proximi._” (Prudent. Hymn. de St. Steph.) At Carthage the office appears
to have been introduced within the last forty years of the third
century, as St. Cyprian does not mention it, whereas in the persecution
of Diocletian Cecilian is described as archdeacon, under the bishop
Mensurius. St. Jerome says, “that the archdeacon was chosen out of the
deacons, and was the principal deacon in every church, just as the
archpresbyter was the principal presbyter.”
But even in St. Jerome’s time, the office of archdeacon had certainly
grown to great importance. His proper business was, to attend the bishop
at the altar; to direct the deacons and other inferior officers in their
several duties, for their orderly performance of Divine service; to
attend the bishop at ordinations, and to assist him in managing and
dispensing the revenues of the Church: but without anything that could
be called “_jurisdiction_,” in the present sense of the word, either in
the cathedral or out of it.
After the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 360, when it was ordained that no
bishop should be placed in country villages, the archdeacon, being
always near the bishop, and the person mainly intrusted by him, grew
into great credit and power, and came by degrees, as occasion required,
to be employed by him in visiting the clergy of the diocese, and in the
despatch of other matters relating to the episcopal care.
He was the bishop’s constant attendant and assistant, and, next to the
bishop, the eyes of the whole Church were fixed upon him; it was
therefore by no means unusual for him to be chosen the bishop’s
successor before the presbyters, and St. Jerome records, “that an
archdeacon thought himself injured if he was ordained a presbyter.”
(“_Certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum, quia per singula concionatur in
populos, et a pontificis latere non recedit, injuriam putat si presbyter
ordinetur._”—Hieron. Com. in Ezek. c. 48.)
The author of the “Apostolical Constitutions” calls him the Ὁ παρεστὼς
τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ; and St. Ambrose informs us, in the account which he gives
of Laurentius, archdeacon of Rome, that it belonged to him “to minister
the cup to the people when the bishop celebrated the eucharist, and had
administered the bread before him.”—_Ambros. de Offic._ lib. i. c. 41.
At the beginning of the seventh century, he seems to have been fully
possessed of the chief care and inspection of the diocese in
subordination to the bishop.
But the authority of the archdeacon, in ancient times, was chiefly a
power of inquiry and inspection; and the gradual growth of his
“_jurisdiction_,” properly so called, during the middle ages, is a
subject of difficult inquiry. Pope Clement V. gives an archdeacon the
title of “_oculus Episcopi_,” saying that “he is in the bishop’s place,
to correct and amend all such matters as ought to be corrected and
amended by the bishop himself, unless they be of such an arduous nature,
as that they cannot be determined without the presence of his superior
the bishop.”
Regularly, the archdeacon cannot inflict any punishment, but can only
proceed by “_precepts_” and “_admonitions_.”
Beyond this, all the rights that any archdeacon enjoys, subsist by
_grants_ from the bishop, made either _voluntarily_, or of _necessity_,
or by _composition_. (See the case of composition made between the
bishop of Lincoln and his archdeacons, in Gibson’s _Codex_, vol. ii. p.
1548.)
As to the divisions in England of dioceses into archdeaconries, and the
assignment of particular divisions to particular archdeaconries, this is
supposed to have begun a little after the Norman conquest. We meet with
no archdeacons _vested with any kind of jurisdiction_ in the Saxon
times. Archbishop Lanfranc was the first who made an archdeacon with
power of “jurisdiction,” in his see of Canterbury, and Thomas, the first
archbishop of York after the Conquest, was the first in England that
divided his diocese into archdeaconries; as did also Remigius, bishop of
Lincoln. When the Norman bishops, by reason of their baronies, were tied
by the Constitutions of Clarendon to strict attendance upon the kings in
their parliaments, they were obliged, for the administration of their
dioceses, to grant larger delegations of power to archdeacons, who
visited when they did not (_de triennio in triennium_). Archdeacons,
therefore, with us, could not have this power of jurisdiction by common
right, or by immemorial custom; the power which the archdeacon has is
derived from the bishop, although he himself is an ordinary, and is
recognised as such by the books of common law, which adjudge an
administration made by him to be good, though it is not expressed by
what authority, because, as done by the archdeacon, it is presumed to be
done “_jure ordinario_.”
In the 22nd of Henry I. we have the first account of their being
summoned to convocation; and in the 15th of Henry III., and in the 32nd
year of the same king, they were summoned by _express name_.
This being the original of archdeacons, it is impossible for them to
prescribe to an independency on the bishop, as it was declared in a
court of law they might, and endeavoured to be proved by the gloss on a
legatine constitution, where we read that an archdeacon may have a
customary jurisdiction distinct from the bishop, and to which he may
prescribe. But the meaning of it is, not that there can be an
archdeaconry by prescription, and independent of the bishop, but that
the archdeacon may prescribe to a particular jurisdiction, exempt from
the ordinary; which jurisdiction has customarily been enjoyed by him and
his predecessors time out of mind.
The archdeaconries of St. Alban’s, of Richmond, and Cornwall, are cases
of this kind; these jurisdictions are founded upon ancient customs, but
the archdeacon is still subordinate to the bishop in various ways; he
being, in our law, as he is according to the canon law, _vicarious
episcopi_.
According to Lyndwood and other canonists, he can inquire into crimes,
but not punish the criminals; he has, in one sense, according to the
casuists, a cure of souls, by virtue of his office, though it is _in
foro exteriori tantum et sine pastorali cura_; and has authority to
perform ministerial acts, as to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, &c.,
therefore by the ecclesiastical law he is obliged to residence. And that
may be one reason why he may not be chosen to execute any temporal
office that may require his attendance at another place; another reason
is because he is an ecclesiastical person. But he has no parochial cure,
and therefore an archdeaconry is not comprehended under the name of a
benefice with cure; for if one who has such benefice accepts an
archdeaconry, it is not void by our law, though it is so by the canon
law. And yet, though he has not any parochial cure, he is obliged to
subscribe the declaration pursuant to the statute, 14 Charles II. It is
true, he is not expressly named therein, but all persons in holy orders
are enjoined to subscribe by that statute; and because an archdeacon
must be in those orders, therefore he must likewise subscribe, &c. And
as he has a jurisdiction in certain cases, so, for the better exercising
the same, he has power to keep a court, which is called the Court of the
Archdeacon, or his commissary, and this he may hold in any place within
his archdeaconry. With regard to the Archdeacon’s Court, it was said by
the justices of the Common Pleas, 2 & 3 William and Mary, in the case of
Woodward and Fox, that though it might be supposed originally that the
jurisdiction within the diocese was lodged in the bishop, yet the
Archdeacon’s Court had, “time out of mind,” been settled as a _distinct
court_, and that the statute 24th of Henry VIII. chap. xii. takes notice
of the Consistory Court, which is the bishop’s, and of the Archdeacon’s
Court, from which there lies an appeal to the bishop’s. (See _Appeal_.)
There is an officer belonging to this court, called a registrar, whose
office concerns the administration of justice, and therefore the
archdeacon cannot by law take any money for granting it; if he does, the
office will be forfeited to the queen. Regarding parochial visitations
by archdeacons, see “Articles and Directions to the Incumbents and
Churchwardens within the Archdeaconry of Surrey,” in Gibson’s _Codex_,
vol. ii. p. 1551–1555; and see _post_, “Visitation.”
By 1 & 2 Vict. c. cvi. s. 2, an archdeacon may hold, with his
archdeaconry, two benefices under certain restrictions; or a benefice
and a cathedral preferment.
He is also, whilst engaged in his archidiaconal functions, considered to
be resident on his benefice. In cathedrals of the old foundation, the
archdeacons of the diocese, how numerous soever, were members of the
greater chapter, and had stalls in the choir. This was the universal
custom on the continent, and is uniformly the case in Ireland, as it was
also in Scotland. In the diocese of Dublin, the archdeacon of Dublin has
a stall in both of the cathedrals there, the archdeacon of Glendaloch
however only in that of St. Patrick’s.
The archdeacons of Ireland have not for a long time exercised any
jurisdiction. It is however evident from old documents that they did
exercise it in ancient times. The bishops hold annual visitation.
ARCHES, COURT OF. The Court of Arches is an ancient court of appeal,
belonging to the archbishop of Canterbury, whereof the judge is called
the Dean of _Arches_, because he anciently held his court in the church
of St. Mary-le-Bow (_Sancta Maria de Arcubus_); though all the spiritual
courts are now holden at Doctors’ Commons.
ARCHIMANDRITE. A name formerly given to the superior of a monastery: it
is derived from the word μάνδρα, by which monasteries were sometimes
called. The term Archimandrite is still retained in the Greek Church.
ARCHPRIEST, or ARCHIPRESBYTER. An ancient title of distinction,
corresponding to our title, _rural dean_, revived under most unhappy
pretensions among the Romanists of England, in the year 1598. These men,
finding themselves without bishops, importuned the pope, Clement VII.,
to supply their need; but instead of sending them, as they desired, a
number of bishops, he gave them but one ecclesiastical superior, Robert
Blackwell, who after all was merely a priest; an archpriest indeed he
was called, but as such having no episcopal power. In the early times
this title was given to the chief presbyter in each church, presiding
over the church next under the bishop, and taking care of all things
relating to the church in the bishop’s absence. In this case however,
instead of being placed in a cathedral church, or discharging the office
of rural dean, under a bishop or archdeacon, he was appointed to govern
all the Romish clergy of England and Scotland, without one or the other.
Here then we find Rome, while preserving an old title, inventing an
office hitherto unknown to the Christian world. And, when appointed,
what could the archpriest do? He could merely be a rural dean on a large
scale. He could merely overlook his brother clergy. He could not
discharge any functions properly episcopal. He could not ordain priests,
confirm children, nor consecrate chapels, should circumstances permit or
require. It is plain, then, that the archpriest was a very imperfect and
insufficient substitute for a bishop. The archpriest in many foreign
churches, in Italy especially, answers to our cathedral dean. In some
Italian dioceses, somewhat to our rural dean.—_Darwell._
ARCHONTICS. Heretics who appeared in the second century, about A. D.
175, and who were an offshoot of the Valentinians. They held a quantity
of idle stories concerning the Divinity and the creation of the world,
which they attributed to sundry authors; and hence they were called
Archontics, from the Greek word ἀρχων, which means prince or ruler.
ARIANS. (See _Councils_.) Heretics, so named from Arius, their first
founder: they denied the three persons in the Holy Trinity to be of the
same essence, and affirmed the Word to be a creature, and that once
(although before the beginning of _time_) he was not. They were
condemned by the Council of Nice, in 325.
The doctrine of Arius may be thus stated:—The SON sprang not from the
nature of the FATHER, but was created from nothing: he had, indeed, an
existence before the world, even before time, but not from eternity. He
is, therefore, in essence different from the FATHER, and is in the order
of creatures, whom he, however, precedes in excellence, as GOD created
all things, even time, by his instrumentality; whence he was called the
SON of GOD, the Logos, or Word of GOD. As a creature the SON is perfect,
and as like to the FATHER as a creature can be to the Creator. But as he
has received all things as a gift, from the favour of the FATHER,—as
there was a period in which he was not,—so there is an infinite distance
between him and the nature of the FATHER; of which nature he cannot even
form a perfect idea, but can enjoy only a defective knowledge of the
same. His will was originally variable, capable of good and of evil, as
is that of all other rational creatures: he is, comparatively at least,
free from sin; not by nature, but by his good use of his power of
election; the FATHER, therefore, foreseeing his perseverance in good,
imparted to him that dignity and sublimity above all other creatures,
which shall continue to be the reward of his virtues. Although he is
called GOD, he is not so in truth, but was deified in that sense in
which men, who have attained to a high degree of sanctity, may arrive at
a participation of the Divine prerogatives. The idea then of a
generation of the SON from the essence of the FATHER is to be absolutely
rejected.
This doctrine, which must have corresponded to the superficial
understandings, and to the yet half-pagan ideas, of many who then called
themselves Christians, attacked the very soul of the Christian doctrine
of the redemption; for, according to this doctrine, it was not GOD made
man, but a changeable creature, who effected the great work of the
redemption of fallen man. The devout Christian, to whom faith in the
God-man, CHRIST, the only Divine Mediator, opened the way to an intimate
union with GOD, saw by this doctrine that his Redeemer and Mediator was
as infinitely removed from the essence of GOD as himself; he saw himself
driven back to the ancient pagan estrangement from GOD, and removed to
an unattainable distance from him.—See _Maimbourg, Hist. of Arians. For
an account of the revival of Arianism in the last century_, see _Van
Mildert’s Life of Waterland_.
ARK OF THE COVENANT. So the Jews called a small chest or coffer, three
feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two
feet three inches in height, (_Prideaux, Connect._ Part i. Book iii.,)
in which were contained “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod,
and the tables of the covenant,” as well the broken ones (according to
the Rabbins) as the whole. Heb. ix. 4. Over the ark was the mercy-seat,
and it was the covering of it. It was made of solid gold (Exod. xxv.
17–22); and at the two ends of it were two cherubims looking inward
toward each other, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole
circumference of the mercy-seat, met on each side in the middle. The
whole (according to the Rabbins) was made out of the same mass, without
joining any of the parts by solder. Here it was that the _Shechinah_, or
Divine presence, rested, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and
was visibly seen in the appearance of a cloud over it. And from hence
the Divine oracles were given out, by an audible voice, as often as GOD
was consulted in the behalf of his people. And hence it is, that GOD is
said, in Scripture, to dwell between the cherubims, on the mercy-seat,
because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his
glory among them. And for this reason the high priest appeared before
this mercy-seat once every year, on the great day of expiation; at which
time he was to make his nearest approach to the Divine presence, to
mediate, and make atonement for the whole people of Israel.—_R. Levi,
Ben. Gersom, Solomon, &c._ Lev. xvi. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 6; 2
Kings xix. 15; 1 Chron. xiii. 6; Psal. lxxx. 1; Lev. xvi. 14, 15; Heb.
ix. 7.
The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all
those of that nation, who served GOD according to the Levitical law; and
not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but
everywhere else, in their dispersion throughout the whole world,
whenever they prayed, they turned their faces towards the place where
the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way. Whence the
author of the book of Cosri justly says, that the ark, with the
mercy-seat, and cherubims, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow,
of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship therein performed.
And therefore had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple,
but the ark only, this alone would have been reason enough for the old
men to have wept, when they remembered the first temple, in which it
stood; and for the saying of Haggai, that the second temple was as
nothing in comparison of the first; so great a share had the ark of the
covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was
supplied as to the outward form: for, in the second temple, there was
also an ark, of the same shape and dimensions with the first, and put in
the same place: but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and
the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the Divine glory over
it, nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it
was, to be a representative of the former on the great day of expiation,
and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures; that is, of the original
copy of that collection of them made by Ezra, after the captivity. In
imitation of which, the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark,
or coffer, in which they keep their Scriptures. 1 Kings viii.
48.—_Lightfoot, of the Temple_, ch. xv. § 4.
The place of the temple where the ark stood, was the innermost and most
sacred part, called the _Holy of Holies_, and sometimes _the most holy
place_; which was made on purpose for its reception. This place, or
room, was of an exact cubic form, being thirty feet square, and thirty
feet high. In the centre of it, the ark was placed upon a stone (say the
Rabbins) rising three fingers’ breadth above the floor. On the two sides
of it stood two cherubims, fifteen feet high, at equal distance between
the centre of the ark and each side of the wall; where, having their
wings expanded, with two of them they touched the side walls, whilst the
other two met and touched each other exactly over the middle of the
ark.—_Yoma_, cap. v. § 2.
The ark, while it was ambulatory, with the tabernacle, was carried on
the shoulders of the Levites, by the means of staves, overlaid with
gold, and put through golden rings. Exod. xxv. 13, 14; xxvii. 6; Num.
iv. 4–6; 1 Chron. xv. 15.
What became of the old ark, on the destruction of the temple by
Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the Rabbins. Had it been carried to
Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would have been brought
back again with them, at the end of the captivity. But that it was not
so, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable it was destroyed with
the temple. The Jews contend, that it was hid and preserved by Jeremiah.
Some of them will have it, that King Josiah, being foretold by Huldah
the prophetess that the temple, soon after his death, would be
destroyed, caused the ark to be deposited in a vault, which Solomon,
foreseeing this destruction, had built on purpose for the preservation
of it.—_Buxtorf, de Arca_, cap. xxi., xxii.
ARMENIANS. The Christians of Armenia, the first country in which
Christianity was recognised as the national religion, in consequence of
the preaching of Gregory, called _The Illuminator_, in the beginning of
the fourth century. At a later time the Armenians adopted the Eutychian
or Monophysite heresy, asserting that the human nature of CHRIST is
swallowed up of the Divine; or is no more properly human than a drop of
vinegar put into the sea can afterwards be reckoned vinegar. They do not
deny the real presence in the eucharist, they do not mix water with
their wine, nor do they consecrate unleavened bread. They abstain from
eating blood and things strangled. They scrupulously observe fasting;
and fasts so frequently occur, that their whole religion seems to
consist in fasting. They admit infants to the sacrament of the
eucharist: they reject purgatory and prayers for the dead: they fast on
Christmas day, and they allow marriage in their priests. The Armenians
were anciently subject to the patriarchs of Constantinople, but they now
have their own patriarchs.
ARMINIANS. A powerful party of Christians, so called from Arminius,
professor of divinity at Leyden, who was the first that opposed the then
received doctrines in Holland, of an absolute predestination. They took
the name of Remonstrants, from a writing called a Remonstrance, which
was presented by them to the states of Holland, 1609, wherein they
reduced their peculiar doctrines to these five articles:—
1. That GOD, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those
who, as he foresaw, would persevere unto the end in their faith in JESUS
CHRIST; and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should
continue in their unbelief, and resist, to the end of life, his Divine
assistance; so that election was conditional; and reprobation, in like
manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness.
2. On the second point, they taught, That JESUS CHRIST, by his suffering
and death, made an atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of
every individual in particular; that, however, none but those who
believe in him can be partakers of that Divine benefit.
3. On the third article they held, That true faith cannot proceed from
the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and
operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural
corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing; and
that, therefore, it is necessary to his conversion and salvation, that
he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, which
is the gift of GOD, through JESUS CHRIST.
4. On the fourth they believed, That this Divine grace, or energy of the
HOLY GHOST, begins, advances, and perfects everything that can be called
_good_ in man; and that, consequently, all good works are to be
attributed to GOD alone; that nevertheless, this grace, which is offered
to all, does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be
resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent
sinner.
5. And on the fifth, That GOD gives to the truly faithful, who are
regenerated by his grace, the means of preserving themselves in this
state; and, though the first Arminians entertained some doubt with
respect to the closing part of this article, their followers uniformly
maintain, That the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from
a state of grace, and die in their sins.
The synod of Dort, consisting of Dutch, French, German, and Swiss
divines, and held in 1618, condemned their opinions.
ARMS. Armorial bearings, whether borne by individuals or by corporate
bodies and corporations sole: among which are reckoned bishops,
colleges, and other ecclesiastical persons and bodies. A bishop empales
his family coat with the arms of his see, to denote his spiritual
marriage with his Church; but the arms of the see occupy the _dexter
side_ of the escutcheon, or _the side of greater honour_. When a bishop
is married, he empales the arms of his wife with his own family coat, on
a separate escutcheon; and this escutcheon is placed by the sinister
side of the shield, empaling his own coat with the arms of the see. Many
of the arms of bishoprics contain allusions to the spiritual character
of the person who bears them. Thus the archbishops of Canterbury,
Armagh, and Dublin, each bear a pall, in right of their sees; as did the
archbishop of York till his arms were changed about the beginning of the
sixteenth century to two keys crossed saltierwise, and a crown royal in
chief. Colleges often assume the family coat of their founder as their
arms.
ARTICLES, THE THIRTY-NINE. The Thirty-nine Articles, based on the
Forty-two Articles framed by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in the
reign of Edward VI., were presented by his Grace the archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr. Parker, to the convocation of the province of Canterbury
which was convened with the parliament in January, 1562, and by the
convocation they were unanimously approved. In 1566 a bill was brought
into parliament to confirm them. The bill passed the Commons, but by the
queen’s command was dropped in the Lords. In 1571 the convocation
revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the
same year an act was passed, “to provide that the ministers of the
Church should be of sound religion.” It enacted that all ecclesiastical
persons should subscribe to “all the articles of religion which only
contained the confession of the true faith and of the sacraments,
comprised in a book imprinted, entitled ‘Articles,’ whereupon it was
agreed by the archbishops and bishops, and the whole clergy in
convocation holden at London, in the year of our LORD GOD 1562,
according to the computation of the Church of England, for the avoiding
of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching
true religion, put forth by the queen’s authority.” In 1628 an English
edition was published by royal authority, to which is prefixed the
declaration of Charles I. The English Articles were adopted by the Irish
convocation in 1615.
Some have thought that they are only articles of union and peace; that
they are a standard of doctrine, not to be contradicted or disputed;
that the sons of the Church are only bound to acquiesce silently in
them; and that the subscription binds only to a general compromise upon
those articles, that so there may be no disputing or wrangling about
them. By this means they reckon, that though a man should differ in his
opinion from that which appears to be the clear sense of any of the
articles; yet he may with a good conscience subscribe them, if the
article appears to him to be of such a nature, that though he thinks it
wrong, yet it seems not to be of that consequence, but that it may be
borne with and not contradicted.
Now as to the laity, and the whole body of the people, certainly to them
these are only the articles of Church communion: so that every person,
who does not think that there is some proposition in them that is
erroneous to so high a degree that he cannot hold communion with such as
hold it, may, and is obliged to, continue in our communion; for
certainly there may be many opinions held in matters of religion, which
a man may believe to be false, and yet may esteem them to be of so
little importance to the chief design of religion, that he may well hold
communion with those whom he thinks to be so mistaken.
But what the clergy are bound to by their subscriptions is much more
than this. The meaning of every subscription is to be taken from the
design of the imposer, and from the words of the subscription itself.
The title of the Articles bears, that they were agreed upon in
convocation, “for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the
establishing of consent touching true religion.” Where it is evident
that “a consent in opinion” is designed. If we in the next place
consider the declarations that the Church has made in the canons, we
shall find, that though by the fifth canon, which relates to the whole
body of people, such only are declared to be excommunicated _ipso
facto_, who shall affirm any of the articles to be erroneous, or such as
he may not with a good conscience subscribe to; yet the thirty-sixth
canon is express for the clergy, requiring them to subscribe “willingly
and _ex animo_,” and “acknowledge all and every article to be agreeable
to the word of GOD:” upon which canon it is, that the form of the
subscription runs in these words, which seem expressly to declare a
man’s own opinion, and not a bare assent to an article of peace, or an
engagement to silence and submission. The statute of the 13th of Queen
Elizabeth, chap. 12, which gives the legal authority to our requiring
subscriptions, in order to a man’s being capable of a benefice, requires
that every clergyman should read the Articles in the Church, with a
declaration of his unfeigned assent to them. These things make it appear
very plain, that the subscriptions of the clergy must be considered as a
declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to
silence.—_Bishop Burnet._
We learn from the New Testament, that those who first embraced the
gospel declared their faith in JESUS, as the promised Messiah, in simple
and general terms (Acts viii. 37); and there is no ground for supposing
that the apostles required this declaration to be made in any one
particular form of words. No such formulary is transmitted to us; and,
had any ever existed, it would probably have been cited or alluded to in
the New Testament, or in the early apologies for Christianity. Every
bishop was authorized to prescribe a formulary for the use of his own
church; and there are still extant in writers who lived near to the
apostolic age, several abstracts of Christian faith, which, though they
agree in substance, vary in expression. But, when heresies gained
ground, and destroyed uniformity of belief among Christians, it became
necessary to have a public standard of faith; and to this cause we are
to attribute the origin of creeds. The design of these creeds was to
establish the genuine doctrines of the gospel, in opposition to the
errors which then prevailed; and to exclude from communion with the
orthodox Church of CHRIST all who held heretical opinions. New
dissensions and controversies continually arose; and we have to lament
that, in process of time, “the faith, which was once delivered unto the
saints,” became corrupted in the highest degree; and that those very
councils, which were convened according to the practice of the apostolic
age, for the purpose of declaring “the truth as it is in JESUS,” gave
their sanction and authority to the grossest absurdities and most
palpable errors. These corruptions, supported by secular power, and
favoured by the darkness and ignorance of the times, were almost
universally received through a succession of many ages, till at last the
glorious light of the Reformation dispelled the clouds which had so long
obscured the Christian world.
At that interesting period the several Churches, which had separated
themselves from the Roman communion, found it expedient to publish
confessions of their faith; and, in conformity to this practice, Edward
the Sixth, the first Protestant king of England, caused to be published
by his royal authority forty-two “Articles, agreed upon by the bishops
and other learned and good men, in the convocation held at London in the
year 1552, to root out the discord of opinions, and establish the
agreement of true religion.” These Articles were repealed by Queen Mary,
soon after her accession to the throne. But Queen Elizabeth, in the
beginning of her reign, gave her royal assent to thirty-nine [or rather
thirty-eight] “Articles, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of
both provinces, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at
London in the year 1562, for avoiding diversities of opinion, and for
the establishing of consent touching true religion.” These Articles were
revised, and some small alterations made in them, in the year 1571;
since which time they have continued to be the criterion of the faith of
the members of the Church of England on the subjects to which they
relate. The Articles of 1562 were drawn up in Latin only [in reality the
Articles both of 1552 and of 1562 were set forth in our authorized
English version, as well as in Latin]; but, in 1571, they were
subscribed by the members of the two houses of convocation, both in
Latin and English; and, therefore, the Latin and English copies are to
be considered as equally authentic. The original manuscripts, subscribed
by the Houses of Convocation, were burnt in the Fire of London; but Dr.
Bennet has collated the oldest copies now extant, and it appears that
there are no variations of any importance.
It is generally believed that Cranmer and Ridley were chiefly concerned
in framing the forty-two Articles, upon which our thirty-nine are
founded. But Bishop Burnet says, that “questions relating to them were
given about to many bishops and divines, who gave in their several
answers, which were collated and examined very maturely; all sides had a
free and fair hearing before conclusions were made.” Indeed, caution and
moderation are no less conspicuous in them than a thorough knowledge of
the Scriptures, and of the early opinions and practice of Christians.
These Thirty-nine Articles are arranged with great judgment and
perspicuity, and may be considered under four general divisions: the
first five contain the Christian doctrines concerning the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost; in the sixth, seventh, and eighth, the rule of
faith is established; the ten next relate to Christians, as individuals;
and the remaining twenty-one relate to them, as they are members of a
religious society. But, as all confessions of faith have had a reference
to existing heresies, we shall here find, not only the positive
doctrines of the gospel asserted; but also the principal errors and
corruptions of the Church of Rome, and most of the extravagances into
which certain Protestant sects fell at the time of the Reformation,
rejected and condemned.—_Bp. Tomline._
The various forms through which the Articles have passed, may be seen in
_Cardwell’s Synodalia_, and in _Hardwick’s History of the Articles_. In
1615, a set of Articles of a Calvinistic nature were compiled by the
Irish convocation; but it does not appear that they ever received the
sanction of parliament. These, however, were superseded in 1635 by the
English Articles, which were then adopted by the Irish Convocation. (See
Introduction to _Stephens’ Book of Common Prayer_, from the Dublin MS.,
vol. i., xxxvii.–xxxix.) The old Articles are given at length. In
general, these perfectly agree with the English Articles; but the
doctrines of the Lambeth Articles are introduced.
ARTS. One of the faculties in which degrees are conferred in the
universities. In the English and Irish universities there are two
degrees in arts, that of Bachelor and that of Master. The whole circle
of the arts was formerly reduced to seven sciences, grammar, rhetoric,
logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy; and these again were
divided into the _trivium_, including the first three, and the
_quadrivium_, including the remaining four. Music is now considered as a
separate faculty at Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; as the degrees of
Doctor and Bachelor of Music are given. Grammar was a separate but
subordinate faculty at Oxford and Cambridge, in which there were three
degrees, Doctor, Master, and Bachelor. There is an instance in Wood’s
Athenæ Oxon., of a _Doctor_ in Grammar and Rhetoric (Robt. Whityndon,
1513). The last record of grammatical degrees at Oxford is in 1568; at
Cambridge in 1539. The faculty of arts is called that of philosophy in
some foreign and more modern universities, there the degrees are Doctor
and Candidate.
ASAPH, _Psalms of_. One of the three Temple Choirs bore the designation
of the _Sons of Asaph_: from Asaph, their leader, in the time of David.
They were descendants of Gershom, the eldest son of Levi. Twelve Psalms
are entitled Psalms of Asaph: viz. the 50th, 73rd, 74th, 75th, 76th,
77th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 81st, 82nd, and 83rd. Critics are divided in
opinion, as to whether these were composed or adopted by the above-named
Asaph, or by one of the same name, but of later date, or were
appropriated to the peculiar use of the _Sons of Asaph_, in the courses
of attendance at the temple.
ASCENSION DAY. This holy day has been kept in the Christian Church from
the earliest times. It is reckoned by the compiler of the Apostolic
Constitutions among the other great festivals, Christmas day, the
Epiphany, Easter, and Whitsunday; and St. Augustine speaks of it as
either instituted by the apostles, or by some early and numerously
attended councils of the primitive bishops, whose authority he
considered most beneficial in the Church. “On this day,” says St.
Chrysostom, “the reconciliation between GOD and mankind was completed,
the long enmity was dissolved, the blasting war brought to an end.” “On
this day, we, who had been shown to be unworthy of earth, were raised to
the hope of heaven; we, who were not fit to receive dominion even on
earth below, were exalted to the kingdom which is above; and our nature,
kept out by cherubim from an earthly paradise, may now sit above the
cherubim on high.” CHRIST, the first-fruits of our nature, having
obtained this perfection, we that are his members may hope to partake
the same glory. This hope the returning day of his ascension should ever
bring into our minds, and we should keep it for the sustaining of our
hope, and in thankfulness for the grace it brought. It is one of the
days which the Church especially recommends for the receiving of the
holy communion. (See _the_ _Special Preface in the Communion Office_.)
It is difficult to account for the too prevalent neglect of this high
festival of our Church, on any other ground than the encroachment of
worldly principles upon the minds of men, to the displacing of the
principles of the Church. Ascension day is one of the six holy days for
which special psalms are appointed. The three Rogation days are
appointed to prepare us for its right celebration, and yet, because it
is not marked by worldly festivities, many neglect and pass it by. It is
observed as a scarlet day at Oxford and Cambridge. It is popularly
called Holy Thursday. By 27 Henry VI. cap. 5, the holding of fairs or
markets was prohibited on _Ascension day_, as well as on other high
holidays, and on Sundays, &c.; making an exception however of the four
Sundays in harvest: and it was enacted that the fair should be held on
some other day preceding or following. That part of the act which
related to Sundays in harvest was repealed by 13 and 14 Vict. cap. 23.
The rest of the act remains unrepealed.
ASCETICS. Men in the second century, who made profession of uncommon
degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying
all the counsels of CHRIST, in order to their enjoying communion with
GOD here; and also, in expectation that, after the dissolution of their
mortal bodies, they might ascend to him with the greater facility, and
find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme centre of happiness
and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited the use of
things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy, such as
_wine_, _flesh_, _matrimony_, and _commerce_. They thought it their
indispensable duty to attenuate the body by watchings, abstinence,
labour, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in
desert places, where, by severe and assiduous efforts of sublime
meditation, they thought to raise their souls above all external objects
and all sensual pleasures. Both men and women imposed upon themselves
the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline; all which, however
it might be the fruit of pious intention, was in the issue extremely
detrimental to Christianity, and tended to introduce the doctrine of
justification by inherent righteousness. These persons were called
_ascetics_ (from ἀσκησις, exercise or discipline) and _philosophers_;
nor were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians,
but also by their garb. In the second century, indeed, such as embraced
this austere kind of life submitted themselves to all these
mortifications in private, without breaking asunder their social bonds,
or withdrawing themselves from the concourse of men. But in process of
time, they retired into deserts; and, after the example of the Essenes
and Therapeutæ, they formed themselves into certain companies.—See
_Origen, contr. Cels._ lib. v.; _Can. Apostol._ cap. 51; _Cyril,
Catech._ 10, n. 9; _Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch._
ASCETICISM. The practice of the Ascetics. We do not consider neglect of
the body—meaning by the term our present material organization—a rule of
Christianity. The abnegation of sin is, of course, the root of all
religion, and the body of sin is a scriptural phrase for our nature in
its unredeemed and antagonistic state; but it ceases to be a body of
sin, in this sense, when it becomes a member of CHRIST: it becomes in
baptism a temple of the HOLY GHOST. But how are we to judge that the
spirit within is indeed regenerated? Principally by the works of the
body. The existence of good works manifests the operation of the spirit
of good, and the Christian character therefore takes for its physical
development—labour, activity, perseverance, energy, fortitude, courage;
to all of which qualities self-denial is the preliminary. Christianity,
therefore, does not eradicate the powers of the body any more than it
does the feelings of the heart, or the faculties of the mind; it
eradicates their misdevotion. What it aims at effecting is, to assign to
each in its sanctified character its proper place and province. It
defines legitimate objects for the passions, legitimate ambitions for
the mind, legitimate aspirations for the soul. Simply, Christianity is
human nature in rectitude, not lethargy, of action. Nature in every
instance tells us that we possess such and such powers; the gospel
directs their application, and reveals the important results dependent
on their use or abuse. The right discipline, therefore, not the
destruction, of human capabilities, is inculcated by the Scriptures. GOD
has for the wisest reasons placed the extirpation of these internal
organs of action beyond our power, but within our power the regulating
them for good or evil, happiness or misery. The choice is ours; the
consequences attendant on the choice are not ours: these have been fixed
from, and will extend into, eternity.—_Morgan._
ASCODRUTES, or ASCODROUTES. An heretical sect of the Marcosians. They
rejected the sacraments, alleging that things spiritual cannot be
conveyed in corporeal symbols.—_Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch._
ASHES. Several religious ceremonies depend upon the use of _ashes_. St.
Jerome relates, that the Jews, in his time, rolled themselves in ashes,
as a sign of mourning. To _repent in sackcloth and ashes_ is a frequent
expression in Scripture, for mourning and being afflicted for our sins.
Numb. xix. 17. There was a sort of lustral water, made with the ashes of
an heifer, sacrificed on the great day of atonement, the ashes whereof
were distributed among the people. In the Romish Church, ashes are given
among the people on Ash-Wednesday: they must be made from branches of
olive, or some other trees, that have been blessed the foregoing year.
(_Pescara Cerem. Eccles. Rom._) The sacristan, or vestry-keeper,
prepares these ashes, and lays them in a small vessel on the altar:
after which the officiating priest blesses the ashes, which are strewed
by the deacons, and assistants, on the heads of all that are present,
accompanied with these words, _Memento, homo, quod pulvis es_, &c.;
_Remember, man, that thou art dust_, &c.—_Religious Ceremonies of all
Nations_, vol. iii. (See _Ash-Wednesday_.)
ASH-WEDNESDAY. (See _Lent_ and _Commination_.) This day seems to have
been observed as the first day of Lent in the time of Gregory the Great.
It is supposed by some, that Gregory added three days at the beginning
of Lent, to make the number forty, in more exact imitation of the number
of days in our blessed SAVIOUR’S fast; and that before his time there
were only thirty-six days, the Sundays being always kept as festivals.
It was called, in his time, _Dies cinerum_, the day of sprinkling ashes,
or _Caput jejunii_, the beginning of the fast. The custom of open
penance, which the name of the day reminds us of, is one of those things
which the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, wished to
see restored; but on account of the prejudices of the time, she could
not carry out her wishes. (See _the_ _Commination Service in the Prayer
Book_.)
ASPERGILLUM. An instrument resembling a brush, used in the Roman
Catholic Church for the purpose of sprinkling holy water over objects to
be blessed.
ASPERSION. (See _Affusion_.) The sprinkling with water in the sacrament
of baptism. This our rubric permits.
_Then the priest shall take the child into his hands, and say to the
godfathers and godmothers_,
Name this child.
_And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the
child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the water discreetly
and warily, saying_,
_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of
the HOLY GHOST. Amen.
_But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour
water upon it, saying the aforesaid words._
_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of
the HOLY GHOST. Amen.
It is said by the Anabaptists that there is no authority in Scripture
for thus administering the sacrament of baptism. But we find in the
primitive Church, that although baptism was regularly administered by
immersion, yet in cases of sickness, where clinic baptism was
administered, aspersion was used. We conclude, then, that immersion is
not essential to the sacrament; and if sickness were an excuse for not
immersing under certain circumstances, it is still a sufficient excuse,
if in our cold climate to immerse our children would be attended with
danger.—See _Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticæ_.
ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. The title given to a notable assembly held at
Westminster, 1st July, 1643, convoked by an ordinance of the Lords and
Commons, but forbidden to be held by the king, to take the liturgy,
government, and doctrines of the Church under consideration. The members
were elected by the knights and burgesses, two being returned for each
county. According to Clarendon, they were most of them men of mean
learning, and some of them of scandalous morals. Among the exceptions to
this condemnatory sentence were Lightfoot and Selden. Usher was
nominated, but with the few Episcopalians elected did not serve. The
Scottish covenant was taken by this assembly: the confession of faith
still received in the Scottish Presbyterian establishment, and the
larger and shorter catechisms, were drawn up. But the opinions of the
members differed so widely on many points, that the assembly broke up
without accomplishing the principal end for which it was convened. (See
_Confessions of Faith_.)
ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. A festival of the Romish Church,
instituted in the seventh century, and fixed to the 15th of August, in
honour of the imaginary ascension of the Virgin Mary into heaven, which,
without any authority from Scripture or tradition, some sects in that
corrupt Church teach to have occurred in a miraculous manner, some years
after her death. Such is the corrupt practice of the Romanists, that in
many places higher honour is paid to this legendary festival than even
to the anniversary of the crucifixion of our Lord. (See _Virgin Mary_.)
ASYLUM. A place of refuge. This began to be a privilege of churches in
the time of Constantine. No persons could be arrested in churches. In
the middle ages this was a great advantage, to prevent the excesses of
private revenge. In times of great civilization it became an abuse, and
the privilege was taken away. (See _Sanctuary_.)
ATHANASIAN CREED. The learned, at this day, however they may differ in
their opinions about the age, or author, make no question but that the
composition was originally in Latin. The style and phraseology—its early
acceptance with the Latins, while unknown to the Greeks—the antiquity
and number of the Latin MSS., and their general agreement with each
other, compared with the lateness, the scarceness, and the disagreement
of the Greek copies—all seem to demonstrate this.
As to the antiquity of the Athanasian Creed, it was certainly become so
famous in the sixth century as to be commented upon, together with the
LORD’S Prayer and Apostles’ Creed, about the year 570, by Venantius
Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, in France. This is certain evidence for
the time specified, and presumptive for much greater antiquity. For who
can imagine that it should grow into such repute of a sudden?
From the doctrines contained in the Creed, and from its manner of
expressing them, it is probable that it is earlier than the times of
Nestorius, or the Ephesine council, in 431; the Creed not condemning the
heresy of the Nestorians in such full, direct, critical terms as the
Catholics found to be necessary against the wiles and subtleties of
those men.
From the doctrine of the incarnation, as expressed therein, we may be
confident that it is not earlier than the rise of the Apollinarian
heresy, which appeared at first about the year 360, and grew to a head
about 370, or a little later. And this consideration is against the
opinion that Athanasius made it, either during his banishment at Treves,
which ended in the year 338, or during his stay at Rome, in the year
343; or that he presented it to either Pope Julius, or Liberius, who
were both dead before the year 367. And Dr. Waterland, whose researches
were so extensive, infers that the Athanasian Creed is not earlier than
the year 420.
It is observable that, about the year 426, St. Augustine, then bishop of
Hippo, in Africa, held a close and intimate correspondence with the
Gallican Churches. For one Leporius, a presbyter, having spread false
doctrine in Gaul, chiefly relating to the incarnation, and being
censured for it, fled to Africa, and was there brought to a sense of his
errors by St. Augustine and some other African bishops. The lives and
characters suiting extremely well with place, time, occasion, and other
circumstances, all these concur to persuade that the Creed was composed
in Gaul, between the years 426 and 430. And as Honoratus of Marseilles
tells us that Hilary, archbishop of Arles, from 429, composed an
admirable “Exposition of the Creed,” and as among the ancient titles
given to this Creed are, “An Exposition of the Catholic Faith,” or, yet
nearer, “An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed,” Hilary was probably the
author of this work: or else his Creed is lost.
As to the name of Athanasius, now generally prefixed to it, it may be
remarked, that upon the revival of the Arian controversy in Gaul, under
the influence of the Burgundian kings, it was natural to call one side
Athanasians, and the other side Arians; and so also to name the orthodox
faith the Athanasian faith, as the other, the Arian. This Creed,
therefore, being an excellent summary of the Catholic faith, as
maintained by Athanasius, might in process of time acquire the name of
the Athanasian faith, and so in a little while occasion the mistake of
ascribing it to him as his composition.
His name, together with the intrinsic worth and value of the form
itself, gave it credit enough to be received in France as an orthodox
formulary, or system of belief, about the middle of the sixth century,
and into the public offices of the Gallican Church about the year 670.
In Spain it was known and approved as a rule of faith about the year
633, and was soon after taken into the offices of the Church in that
kingdom. In Germany it was received at lowest about 787. As to our own
country, we have proof of the Creed’s being sung alternately in our
churches in the tenth century, when Abbo of Fleury, an ear-witness of
it, was here; and when the Saxon versions, still extant, were of
standing use, for the instruction and benefit both of clergy and people.
These evidences alone will prove the reception of this Creed in England
to have been as early as 950, or 930, or the time of Athelstan, whose
Latin Psalter has the Creed in it. But other circumstances make it
probable it was used as early as 880. About fourscore years after this,
it was received in Italy. And in Rome itself (which was always more
desirous of imposing her own offices upon other churches, than of
receiving any from them) it was received in the tenth century, and
probably about the year 930. From which time forwards this Creed has
been publicly recited in the Church offices all over the West; and it
seems in some parts of the Greek Church also.—_Waterland’s Critical
History of the Athanasian Creed_, &c.
Its reception has been both general and ancient. It has been received by
Greeks and Latins all over Europe; and if it has been little known among
the African and Asian Churches, the like may be said of the Apostles’
Creed, which has not been admitted, scarce known, in Africa, and but
little in Asia, except among the Armenians, who are said to receive it.
So that, for generality of reception, the Athanasian Creed may vie with
any, except the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, the only general Creed
common to all the Churches.
As to the antiquity of its reception into the sacred offices, it was
received in several countries, France, Germany, England, Italy, and Rome
itself, as soon as the Nicene, or sooner; which is a high commendation
of it, as gaining ground by its own intrinsic worth, and without the
authority of any general council to enforce it. And there is this
further to be observed, that while the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds were
growing up to their present perfection, in a course of years, or
centuries of years, and not completed till about the year 600, this
Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more ancient, if considered
as an entire form, than either of the others, having received its full
perfection while the others wanted theirs.—_Waterland._
In the Greek and Roman Churches it survived in the midst of all the
corruptions that arose: upon the Reformation there was not a Protestant
Church but what received it in its fullest extent: Luther, Calvin, Beza,
and all the wisest and best reformers, acknowledged the Athanasian
Creed, and made it their profession of faith: the Puritans, in our own
country, the parent stock of all our modern dissenters, embraced it as
readily as the Church of England herself.—_Dean Vincent._
This admirable summary of the Christian faith, as to the great doctrines
of the Trinity and the incarnation, has met with the esteem it deserves
among all that have at heart the welfare of Christianity. The faith into
which Christians are baptized is this,—there is but one GOD, yet there
are three persons,—the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT, who are
equally Divine, and must be together the one GOD, since GOD is but one.
This is the faith which has been received in the Christian Churches from
the beginning; and this faith, I doubt not, will continue universally to
prevail, till all the chosen people are gathered in, and united in one
general assembly and church, in the pure realms of blessedness above. In
that happy country, the noise of controversies will cease. All who are
brought to stand in the presence of GOD, dressed in the unblemished
robes of innocence and immortality, will know, that all the three Divine
persons were concerned in bringing them thither; and as they owe their
happiness to the sacred three, they will join in directing the same
songs of praise to GOD, the Father of mercies, who chose them to himself
before the foundation of the world; to GOD the Son, who redeemed them
from wrath, by shedding his own precious blood; and to GOD the Holy
Spirit, who renewed and sanctified them, and conducted them safe through
the wilderness of this world, into the land of uprightness, the country
of rest and pure delight.—_Taylor on the Trinity._
On the clauses called damnatory, we may offer the following observations
from several of our standard writers. “He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark xvi.
16.) These are the words of him who is ordained of GOD to be the judge
of quick and dead; of him who himself shall pronounce the final doom of
all men; spoken by him at the time when he was taking his solemn leave
of his apostles, giving them his last and final charge, and in which the
fate of all the world is determined. The meek and humble JESUS makes use
of very sharp expressions, when he warns his disciples against those who
should oppose or dispute those truths: “Beware (saith he) of false
prophets;” beware of false teachers, such as corrupt sound doctrine in
the essential and fundamental articles of faith.—_Wheatly._
Many unbelievers, and some Christians, suppose opinions to be
involuntary, and therefore harmless. But let them consider how far this
will carry them. Nothing is more expressly revealed in Holy Scripture,
than that he who does not believe the Christian religion shall be
condemned. If it be said, that unbelief may arise from a disorder or
from a defect in the understanding, every such case is, by implication,
excepted. This sentence is deemed by us declaratory of the general will
of GOD, and does not imply an absolute exclusion of every culpable
individual from his mercy.—_Croft._
The denial of our LORD’S Divinity, as it stands condemned by the laws
both of our Church and State, so it has, from the very beginning, been
esteemed a “damnable heresy;” and all impugners of it have been always
excluded from the communion of the Church. Primitive writers call it an
“abominable heresy,” “a God-denying apostasy,” and, in those ages, those
who broached such doctrines were constantly deposed and
excommunicated.—_Randolph on the Trinity._
One sometimes finds in persons a wonderful inattention and a strange
indifference with regard to the first and most fundamental doctrines of
their religion. It might possibly be with some view to this kind of
conduct, that the compiler of the Creed inserted what are called the
damnatory clauses. He was desirous to excite their attention, and to
rouse them from this unmeaning slumber; to convince them that something
is to be believed, as well as practised; and that in matters of this
importance men should not trifle with GOD and their own consciences, and
halt between two opinions.—HORBERY.
These clauses have occasioned much needless uneasiness. When such men, I
say not as Chillingworth, for we have judged him weak in religious
reasoning, but as Clarke, Tillotson, Secker, could be uneasy under them,
I can ascribe it to nothing but the influence of religious terror; a
sentiment which operates in all possible degrees; which makes us scruple
to admit in religion what would occasion no difficulty in common
affairs, lest our acquiescence should be owing to some corrupt or
indirect motive. Scruples of this kind are owing to not freely admitting
those limitations which common sense suggests in the application of
every general proposition. Heresies are very numerous; defiling the
purity of the faith, making men act on wrong principles, affording
handles to infidelity, and dividing Christians amongst themselves, so as
to defeat the ends of religious society, and probably lose some degree
of future happiness; it seems needful, therefore, to draw the erroneous
notions, which are so pernicious, into a small compass, and solemnly
reject them; that the unwary may be cautioned, and the bold and busy
innovator discouraged. And lest the unstable, who are tossed about with
every wind of doctrine, should continue to indulge their childish
fondness for novelty, and live on without any regular and permanent
principles, it seems also needful to remind them of the last solemn
declaration of our blessed LORD, not surely with a view to bias the
judgment, but only to enforce the duty of a sober and serious attention
to sacred truth, uninfluenced by passion or caprice.—_Hey’s Lectures._
These clauses were inserted in this Creed, and in most of the ancient
Creeds, the Arian as well as others, by no means to intimate the
condemnation, for want of faith, of such as had no opportunity of
receiving the Christian religion; but of such only as, having it duly
preached to them, should receive it in an evil heart of unbelief, and,
holding it in unrighteousness, should mutilate or corrupt its
essentials. There is, surely, a wide difference between condemning with
severity, and believing with sorrow and compassion that another is
condemned. A man who pronounces this sentence, because he sees it
pronounced in the word of GOD, might die for the conversion and
retrieval of those on whom he is forced, by the conviction of his faith,
to pronounce it.—_Skelton._
Damnatory clauses, or anathemas, as they are angrily called, deriving
their authority from Scripture, should be considered as awful
admonitions, which it hath seemed good to Divine wisdom to announce
generally, in order to condemn an indifference of mind in matters of
religious principle; to correct a fond admiration of change or novelty;
and to intimidate, under the severest penalties of GOD’S displeasure,
the vain or interested from broaching their wild and pernicious
heresies.—_Bishop Cleaver._
Many have argued against the use of this Creed; and some, with strange
vehemence, partly from the doctrines which it teaches, but chiefly from
the condemnation which it pronounces on all who disbelieve them. Now the
doctrines are undeniably the same with those that are contained in the
Articles of our Church, in the beginning of our litany, in the
conclusions of many of our collects, in the Nicene Creed, and, as we
conceive, in that of the Apostles; in the doxology, in the form of
baptism, and in numerous passages of both Testaments; only here they are
somewhat more distinctly set forth, to prevent equivocation.—_Archbishop
Secker._
Whenever we go contrary to a stream, which has run in one channel for
seventeen centuries, we ought to doubt our own opinions, and at least
treat the general and concurring testimony of mankind with respect. If
any one has his doubts on the intricacies of this question, let him
first search the Scripture, and settle his principles from thence; if he
afterwards wishes to pursue his researches, let him not recur to the
crude and hasty publications of the present day, in which assertions are
rashly made, without foundation in Scripture, antiquity, or the
principles of any Church, but to those learned writers who managed this
controversy fifty years ago in our own country; or, if he has learning
and leisure sufficient, to the primitive fathers themselves.—_Dean
Vincent._
Whoever wrote this Creed, he meant nothing more than to collect things
said in various Catholic writers, against the various heresies
subsisting, and to simplify and arrange the expressions, so as to form a
confession of faith the most concise, orderly, and comprehensive,
possible. Not with any view of explaining any mysterious truths, but
with the sole design of rejecting hurtful or heretical errors. And it
may have been adopted on account of its excellence, in bringing the
errors which were to be shunned into a small compass, in exposing them
in a kind of poetic numbers, which strike and possess the ear; and may
have been called “Athanasian,” only on account of its containing
doctrines which have been defended with peculiar force and brilliancy by
the great prelate of Alexandria.—_Hey’s Lectures._
The Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe, if we believe a
Trinity in unity, three persons and one GOD: and I challenge any man,
who sincerely professes this faith, to tell me, what he can leave out of
this exposition, without destroying the Divinity of some of the three
persons, or the unity of the Godhead. If each person must be God and
Lord, must not each person be uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal,
almighty? If there be but one God, and one Lord, can there be three
separated, uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty Gods; which
must of necessity be three Gods, and three Lords! This Creed does not
pretend to explain _how_ there are three persons, each of which is God,
and yet but one God, but only asserts the thing, that thus it is, and
thus it must be, if we believe a Trinity in unity; which should make all
men, who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians, more cautious
how they express the least dislike of it.—_Sherlock on the Trinity._
Every Divine perfection and substantial attribute of Deity is common to
the three: what is peculiar applies only to their relations, order, or
office; paternity, filiation, procession—first, second, third
persons—creation, redemption, sanctification. The Athanasian Creed is
altogether illustrative of this economy; and if it be carefully
considered under this point of view, I am persuaded it will appear to be
exceedingly reasonable and judicious. There is something in the mere
sound of the clauses which I doubt not beguiles it of its just praise.
Some have forgotten, perhaps, and some have never known, its proper
history. The numerous sects whose different apprehensions of the precise
nature of the holy Trinity led men in those distant days into one, at
least, of the two great errors, either that of “confounding the persons”
or “dividing the substance,” are now perhaps no more. They may indeed
subsist under other names; but men have long since ceased to talk of the
Sabellians, Noëtians, Patripassians, Praxeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians,
Photinians, Cerinthians, and even Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians;
for these latter are the sects chiefly opposed in the Athanasian Creed.
But there is not one clause of this ancient formulary that is not
directed, in the simplest manner possible, against the different errors
of all these several sects; their wild and discordant notions are all
met by the constant reiteration of that one great truth, that though the
Christian verity compels us to acknowledge every person of the holy
Trinity to be God and Lord, yet the Catholic religion equally forbids us
to say there be three Gods, or three Lords; though, therefore, each is
uncreate, each eternal, each almighty, each God, and each Lord, yet
these attributes, as the exclusive attributes of Deity, are common to
the three; the omnipotence, the eternity, the Divinity, the power and
dominion, the glory and majesty, is one; “such as the FATHER is, such is
the SON, and such is the HOLY GHOST.”—_Nares on the Creeds._
Whilst the Apostles’ Creed compendiously sums up and declares the main
articles of our Christian faith, and the Nicene Creed explains more
fully the articles relating to the SON and the HOLY GHOST, the
Athanasian Creed stands as an excellent guard and defence against the
subtleties of most kinds of heretics, who, were it once removed, would
soon find means to enervate and evade the shorter Creeds, where the
Christian faith is more simply declared.—_Wheatly._
The intention of the Creed, as well as of our LORD in the Gospel, is
only to say, that whoever rejects the doctrine of it, from presumptuous
self-opinion, or wilful negligence, the case of such an one is
desperate. But though we pass judgment on his errors without reserve,
and, in general, on all who maintain them, yet personally and singly we
presume not to judge of his condition in the next world.—_Archbishop
Secker._
The use of it is, to be a standing fence and preservative against the
wiles and equivocations of most kinds of heretics. This was well
understood by Luther when he called it “a bulwark to the Apostles’
Creed;” much to the same purpose with what is cited of Ludolphus Saxo
(“tria sunt symbola; primum Apostolicum, secundum Nicenum, tertium
Athanasii; primum factum est ad fidei instructionem, secundum ad fidei
explanationem, tertium ad fidei defensionem”). And it was this and the
like considerations that have all along made it to be of such high
esteem among all the Reformed Churches, from the days of their great
leader.—_Waterland._
The Church of England proposes no Creeds to be believed upon their own
authority, but because they are agreeable to the word of GOD. The
articles of the Creed indeed are proposed as articles of faith. But they
are only collections of some important truths to which that testimony is
given. They are, at the highest, but extracts which are to be believed
because there contained; and so to be believed as there delivered.
Whatever doctrines are consonant to the Scriptures, she recommends to
our faith; but what are contrary to the word of GOD, she pronounces not
lawful for the Church to ordain. She expects her members to believe
nothing as of Divine revelation, but what the records of that revelation
plainly contain. Nor of the truths there discovered, does she impose the
belief of any as a necessary term of communion, but what she apprehends
the sacred oracles themselves to represent as a necessary term of
salvation. These were the creeds of the Western Church before the
Reformation; and because, at the Reformation, she withdrew from nothing
but what was corrupt, therefore, these being catholic and sound, she
still retains them.—_Wheatly._
Why, it is often said, are we so zealous in enforcing doctrines merely
speculative? The answer is, we believe them to be inculcated in
Scripture, essential to the Christian religion, and _not_ merely
speculative. The SON and the HOLY GHOST are each of them said to be sent
by the FATHER, each of them contributes to the great work of our
salvation. To refuse them Divine honour, is unquestionably to deny their
Divine power. We do not presume to fix limits to Divine mercy; but
surely we endanger our title to it, when we reject the conditions upon
which it is granted. The humble Christian hopes for no benefit from the
gospel covenant, but from a firm reliance on the merits of his SAVIOUR,
and the aid of the HOLY SPIRIT.—_Croft._
In the sacred Scripture there is no mention but of two sorts of men,
whereof some believe, so that they are saved; some believe not, and they
are damned. (Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 18.) But neither the Church, nor
the individual rehearsing the creed, is responsible for these
denunciations. It is a formulary which happens to express suitably and
well the exact opinions of the Church of England, in regard to the two
great mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, as far as they can be
understood. True it is, indeed, that in her eighth Article she asserts,
that the three creeds, Nicene, Athanasian, and that which is commonly
called the Apostles’ Creed, “ought thoroughly to be received and
believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture.” And has the Church of England no right to make this
declaration? Is she to be the only society of Christians that shall not
have permission to assert that her faith is the right faith? What
dissenter from the Church of England would hesitate to assume this
liberty? Who is there that scruples to speak thus exclusively of his own
mode of thinking? Can anything be more candidly or unexceptionably
stated, than her confidence that these creeds ought to be believed,
because they may be proved by warrants of holy writ? In saying this,
does she preclude any man from examination? Does she lock up the volume
of holy writ? She appeals solely to Scripture for the truth of her
doctrine, leaving all who oppose her to the mercies of GOD. She does not
presume to say with those, whose cause has lately been strangely
popular, and whose language in a sister kingdom is such to this day,
that whoever presumes to separate from her, “eo ipso illis nulla est
speranda salus!” She does not even venture to assert, with the
celebrated reformer Calvin, whose famous Institutes were written on the
model of the Apostles’ Creed, and who must, no doubt, have had a view,
in saying it, to his own peculiar Church, “extra ecclesiæ gremium,” &c.;
“out of the bosom of the Church there is no hope whatever of salvation,
or remission of sins.” We may surely be permitted to admire that strange
course of things, and confusion of circumstances, that have lately
conspired to render those popular whose principles are truly exclusive
and intolerant; and the Church in some respects unpopular, which is as
truly tolerant. Her language is constantly the same, and perfectly
apostolic: “Search the Scriptures.” “Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good.”—_Nares on the Creeds._
Let the gates of our communion be opened as wide as is consistent with
the gospel of _Christ_; yet surely those will stand excluded, who hold
errors expressly condemned in that gospel, and which that gospel was
particularly and purposely wrote to guard against.—_Randolph on the
Trinity._
The commissioners in 1688, thirty eminent divines, appointed to review
and correct the liturgy, close the rubric they had prepared in the
following words,—“And the condemning clauses (viz. in the Athanasian
Creed) are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately
deny the substance of the Christian faith.”
It is no hard matter for witty men to put very perverse senses on
Scripture to favour their heretical doctrines, and to defend them with
such sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking men;
and the best way in this case is, to have recourse to the ancient faith
of the Christian Church, to learn from thence how these articles were
understood and professed by them; for we cannot but think, that those
who conversed with the apostles, and did not only receive the
Scriptures, but the sense and interpretation of them, from the apostles,
or apostolical men, understood the true Christian faith much better than
those at a farther remove; and therefore, as long as we can reasonably
suppose this tradition to be preserved in the Church, their authority is
very venerable.—_Sherlock on the Trinity._
These contentions were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath
reaped by them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith
to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave. And in this
respect the Creed of Athanasius, concerning that truth which Arianism so
mightily did impugn, was both in the East and West Churches accepted as
a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up even the
very ghost of belief. That which heresy did by sinister interpretations
go about to pervert in the first and most ancient apostolical creed, the
same being by singular dexterity and plainness cleared from those
heretical corruptions, partly by this creed of Athanasius. These
catholic declarations of our belief, delivered by them who were so much
nearer than we are unto the first publication thereof, and continuing
needful for all men at all times to know, these confessions, as
testimonies of our continuance in the same faith to this present day, we
rather use than any other gloss or paraphrase devised by ourselves,
which, though it were to the same effect, notwithstanding could not be
of the like authority and credit.—_Hooker._
The doctrinal part of the creed has been called a “bulwark;” and if it
be maintained, it should be maintained as a fortification. In time of
peace, the inconvenience of keeping up fortifications occasions their
being sometimes neglected, but when war breaks out afresh, every one is
clamorous in blaming the imprudence of such neglect. If we are at peace
now with the powers which would attack us where our creed would be our
defence, we are always liable to be at war with them again. We have seen
how naturally all the heresies condemned in the creed arise, when men
once become eager in solving the difficulties of the Trinity and the
incarnation; and such eagerness might at any time arise, or any
revolution, or great disturbance, or confusion; and in case of renewed
attacks, our present creed would be a much better defence than any new
one that would be made at the time it was wanted.—_Hey’s Lectures._
What the consequence may be, should we part with our creed, may easily
be inferred from what followed upon the dropping a single word
(_consubstantial_, or, as expressed in our English creed, “being of one
substance with the FATHER”) out of the [Nicene] creed at the Council of
Ariminum. The Catholics, being deceived by the great and earnest
importunity of the Arians for unity and peace, were at last prevailed
upon. The word _consubstantial_ was left out; and the Arians boasted
over all the world, that the Nicene faith was condemned and Arianism
established in a general council. It is candour, when good Catholics are
divided about words, to bring them to a right understanding of one
another, which will set them at peace and unity again. But it is
tameness to give up the main bulwarks of the faith to fallacious
adversaries and designing men, whose arts and aims, however disguised,
are always known to strike at the foundation of religion.—_Bingham and
Wheatly._
To the sceptic, the Arian, and the Socinian, we do not expect to find
such a creed acceptable, because it was designed to restrain the
fantastic and pernicious opinions started on their part upon the
subjects contained in it. But every firm and steady believer may still,
and indeed ought to, hold high the value of the only creed delivered to
us from antiquity, which states that first and great principle of
Christian revelation, the importance and necessity of a just faith. Upon
us, the ministers of the Church, especially, it is incumbent, as
occasions offer, to explain and illustrate its design and uses to the
more unlearned, as well as to obviate the crude exceptions made against
its doctrines or language, to derive its due weight of authority from
the venerable antiquity of its origin, and to draw an argument of its
merits from the universal approbation with which it has been received.
Who would not tremble at the proposal of laying waste a fence, which in
any degree hath afforded protection to what was obtained for us at so
inestimable a price; and of inviting, by a voluntary surrender of our
present security, renewed instances of insult, in repeated and incessant
attacks to be made upon the terms and obligations of our Christian
covenant?—_Bp. Cleaver._
There are no kinds of heretics but hope to make the vulgar understand
their tenets respectively, and to draw them aside from the received
faith of the Church: and, therefore, it behoves the pastors of the
Church to have a standing form to guard the people against any such
attempts. The Christian Churches throughout the world, ever since the
multiplication of heresies, have thought it necessary to guard their
people by some such forms as these in standing use amongst them. And
they are not so much afraid of puzzling and perplexing the vulgar by
doing it, as they are of betraying and exposing them to the attempts of
seducers, should they not do it. The common people will be in no danger
of running either into Sabellianism, or tritheism, if they attend to the
Creed itself, (which fully obviates and confutes both those heresies,)
instead of listening to those who first industriously labour to deceive
them into a false construction of the Creed, and then complain of the
common people’s being too apt to misunderstand it.—_Waterland._
Those in authority should be very cautious how they give in to such
schemes as, under the plausible pretence of pruning our vine, and
reforming things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, would by
degrees overturn our whole establishment.—_Randolph on the Trinity._
We may, perhaps, be reminded, that some of our own most sanguine friends
have wished to expunge it. But one of them lived to retract his opinion,
and a friend of truth is not to be overawed by authority, however
respectable, nor silenced by popular clamour.—_Croft._
So long as there shall be any men left to oppose the doctrines which
this Creed contains, so long will it be expedient, and even necessary,
to continue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and, I
suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault with the doctrines,
there will be none to object against the use of the Creed, or so much as
to wish to have it laid aside.—_Waterland, Ath. Creed._
Whatever may be pretended, this is not a controversy about some
metaphysical abstract notions of personality, subsistence, or moral
distinctions in the Divine nature; in these there will be always room
left for different speculations and sentiments. It is not a controversy
about forms, but it is a controversy about the very object of religious
worship. Should there be a falling away from this profession, should
there be a denying of the LORD that bought us, or of the HOLY SPIRIT,
the Sanctifier and Comforter, disowning them to be truly and properly by
nature GOD, of the same essence and eternity as the FATHER, and with him
the one GOD, not three Gods, with too much reason it might be said, the
glory is departed from us, whether dissenters or of the Established
Church, that hath been counted the head and great support of the
Protestant Churches. Should we, or they, thus fall, those Protestants,
whose confessions we have mentioned, yea, and all Christians abroad,
must, upon their professed principles, renounce us as not holding the
head.—_London Ministers’ Cases, Trinity._
The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which
nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now
reckoned as superfluities which we must in any case pare away, lest we
cloy GOD with too much service. Yet cause sufficient there is why both
should remain in use; the one as a most divine explication of the
chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heavenly
acclamation of joyful applause to his praises in whom we believe.
Neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sounding, as they
are, in the Church of CHRIST, whether Arianism live or die.—_Hooker._
For a detailed justification of the Athanasian Creed, see _Redcliffe on
the Athanasian Creed_.
It is appointed to be said in the Church of England on the great
festivals, and on certain holidays, in place of the Apostles’ Creed, at
Morning Prayer. So that it may be said once a month at least.—_Sparrow.
Wheatly._
This Creed is called in the Roman offices the Psalm, Quicunque vult, and
was printed for antiphonal chanting, as it is now recited in our choirs;
being alternated, like the Psalms between minister and people in parish
churches. The right notion that a creed is also a song of thanksgiving
is thus significantly cherished. It has been objected to the Church of
England, that she has disingenuously attributed this Creed to St.
Athanasius: whereas in fact she has not decided the question. It is
called indeed the _Creed of St. Athanasius_ in the rubric before the
Apostles’ Creed; but that is plainly an abbreviated term for the full
designation prefixed to the Creed itself, “this confession of our
Christian faith, _commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius_.” And
even the running heading does not so designate it. The words “the Creed
of _Saint Athanasius_,” was deliberately altered by the correctors of
the sealed books for “at Morning Prayer,” the present heading, in which,
as in all other corrections, the authentic copy was followed. See the
fac-simile of the corrected sealed books in Stephens’s Book of Common
Prayer with notes. The same remark may apply to the designation in the
8th Article, _Athanasius’s Creed_.
ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, without GOD.) One who denies the being and
moral government of GOD. There have been but few atheists in the strict
sense of the word, under any system, and at any time. Some few perhaps
still remain, and adopt the system of Spinosa, which supposes the
universe to be one vast substance, impelled to all its movements by some
internal force, which operates by a blind and irresistible necessity.
The heathen, who vied with heretics in giving names of opprobrium to
true Christians, called the primitive Christians _Atheists_, because
they did not worship _their_ gods.
ATONEMENT. (See _Propitiation_, _Co__venant of Redemption_, _Sacrifice_,
and _Jesus Christ_.) The word atonement signifies the satisfying of
Divine justice, as mentioned in the Article on the Covenant of
Redemption. The etymology of the word conveys the idea of two parties,
previously at variance, being set _at one_ again, and hence
_at-one-ment_, from originally signifying _reconciliation_, comes, by a
natural metonymy, to denote that by which the reconciliation is
effected. The doctrine of the atonement is thus stated by the Church:
“The SON, which is the Word of the FATHER, begotten from everlasting of
the FATHER, the very and eternal GOD, and of one substance with the
FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her
substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the
Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be
divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and very Man; who truly
suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his FATHER to us,
and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual
sins of men.”—_Article 2._
That our blessed LORD suffered is sufficiently clear from Scripture, and
that it was not for himself, but for us, that this GOD-man lived so
sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the Scripture is full and clear: and
not only in general, that it was for our sakes he did it; but, in
particular, it was for the reconciling his FATHER to us, and to purchase
the pardon of our sins for us,—expressly telling us, that “he hath
reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) unto GOD, in one body, by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.) “Yea, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to GOD by the death of his SON.” (Rom. v.
10.) “So that us, who were sometimes alienated, and enemies in our minds
by wicked works, now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through
death, to present us holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his
sight.” (Col. i. 21, 22.) And the reason is, because “it pleased the
FATHER that in him should all fulness dwell;” and, “having made peace
through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to
himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven or things in
earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And this reconciliation of GOD to us, he made by
offering up himself a sacrifice for us. For “GOD sent his SON to be the
propitiation for our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he is the propitiation
for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And therefore when we see him sweating great
drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his
own sins that lay so heavy upon him: no, they were our sins, which he
had taken off from us and laid upon himself; for he bore our griefs, and
carried our sorrows; “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4, 5.) So undoubted a
truth is this comfortable assertion, that JESUS CHRIST by his death and
sufferings reconciled his FATHER to us, and therefore was a sacrifice,
not only for “original guilt,” but also for “actual sins of
men.”—_Beveridge._
ATTRITION. (See _Contrition_.) The casuists of the Church of Rome have
made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect contrition. The
latter they call attrition, which is the lowest degree of repentance, or
a sorrow for sin arising from a sense of shame, or any temporal
inconvenience attending the commission of it, or merely from fear of the
punishment due to it, without any resolution to sin no more: in
consequence of which doctrine, they teach that, after a wicked and
flagitious course of life, a man may be reconciled to GOD, and his sins
forgiven, on his death-bed, by confessing them to the priest with this
imperfect degree of sorrow and repentance. This distinction was settled
by the Council of Trent. It might, however, be easily shown that the
mere sorrow for sin because of its consequences, and not on account of
its evil nature, is no more acceptable to GOD than hypocrisy itself can
be.—_Conc. Trident._ sess. xiv. cap. 4.
AUDIENCE, COURT OF. The Court of Audience, which belongs to the
archbishop of Canterbury, was for the disposal of such matters, whether
of voluntary or contentious litigation, as the archbishop thought fit to
reserve for his own hearing. This court was afterwards removed from the
archbishop’s palace, and the jurisdiction of it exercised by the
master-official of the audience, who held his court in the consistory
palace at St. Paul’s. But now the three offices of official-principal of
the archbishop, dean or judge of the peculiars, and official of the
audience, being united in the person of the dean of arches, its
jurisdiction belongs to him. The archbishop of York has likewise his
Court of Audience.
AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN, CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German
princes was convened by the emperor Charles V., to meet in that city,
for the express purpose of pacifying the religious troubles, by which
most parts of Germany were then distracted. “In his journey towards
Augsburgh,” says Dr. Robertson, “the emperor had many opportunities of
observing the dispositions of the Germans, in regard to the points in
controversy, and found their minds everywhere so much irritated and
inflamed, that nothing tending to severity or rigour ought to be
attempted, till the other methods proved ineffectual. His presence seems
to have communicated to all parties an universal spirit of moderation
and desire of peace. With such sentiments, the Protestant princes
employed Melancthon, the man of the greatest learning, as well as the
most pacific and gentlest spirit among the Reformers, to draw up a
confession of faith, expressed in terms as little offensive to the Roman
Catholics as a regard to truth would admit. Melancthon, who seldom
suffered the rancour of controversy to envenom his style, even in
writings purely polemical, executed a task, so agreeable to his natural
disposition, with moderation and success.”
The singular importance of this document of Protestant faith seems to
require, in this place, a particular mention of its contents. It
consists of twenty-one articles. In the first, the subscribers of it
acknowledge the unity of GOD and the trinity of persons; in the second,
original sin; in the third, the two natures and unity of person in JESUS
CHRIST, and all the other articles contained in the symbol of the
apostles, respecting the SON of GOD. They declare in the fourth, that
men are not justified before GOD by their works and merits, but by the
faith which they place in JESUS CHRIST, when they believe that GOD
forgives their sins out of love for his SON. In the fifth, that the
preaching of the gospel and the sacraments are the ordinary means used
by GOD to infuse the HOLY GHOST, who produces faith, whenever he wills,
in those that hear his word. In the sixth, that faith produces the good
works to which men are obliged by the commandments of GOD. In the
seventh, that there exists a perpetual Church, which is the assembly of
saints; and that the word of GOD is taught in it with purity, and the
sacraments administered in a legitimate manner; that the unity of this
Church consists in the uniformity of doctrine and sacraments; but that
an uniformity of ceremonies is not requisite. In the eighth, they
profess that the word of GOD and the sacraments have still their
efficacy, although administered by wicked clergymen. In the ninth, that
baptism is requisite for salvation, and that little children ought to be
baptized. In the tenth, that, in the sacrament of the last supper, both
the body and blood of the LORD are truly present, and distributed to
those who partake of it. In the eleventh, that confession must be
preserved in the Church, but without insisting on an exact enumeration
of sins. In the twelfth, that penance consists of contrition and faith,
or the persuasion, that, for the sake of JESUS CHRIST, our sins are
forgiven us on our repentance; and that there is no true repentance
without good works, which are its inseparable fruits. In the thirteenth,
that the sacraments are not only signs of the profession of the gospel,
but proofs of the love of GOD to men, which serve to excite and confirm
their faith. In the fourteenth, that a vocation is requisite for pastors
to teach in the Church. In the fifteenth, that those ceremonies ought to
be observed which keep order and peace in the Church; but that the
opinion of their being necessary to salvation, or that grace is
acquired, or satisfaction done for our sins, by them, must be entirely
exploded. In the sixteenth, that the authority of magistrates, their
commands and laws, with the legitimate wars in which they may be forced
to engage, are not contrary to the gospel. In the seventeenth, that
there will be a judgment, where all men will appear before the tribunal
of JESUS CHRIST; and that the wicked will suffer eternal torments. In
the eighteenth, that the powers of free-will may produce an exterior
good conduct, and regulate the morals of men towards society; but that,
without the grace of the HOLY GHOST, neither faith, regeneration, nor
true justice can be acquired. In the nineteenth, that GOD is not the
cause of sin, but that it arises only from the corrupt will of man. In
the twentieth, that good works are necessary and indispensable; but that
they cannot purchase the remission of sins, which is only obtained in
consideration of faith, which, when it is sincere, must produce good
works. In the twenty-first, that the virtues of the saints are to be
placed before the people, in order to excite imitation; but that the
Scripture nowhere commands their invocation, nor mentions anywhere any
other mediator than JESUS CHRIST. “This,” say the subscribers of the
Confession, “is the summary of the doctrine taught amongst us; and it
appears from the exposition which we have just made, that it contains
nothing contrary to Scripture; and that it agrees with that of the
Catholic Church, and even with the Roman Church, as far as is known to
us by their writers. This being so, those who wish that we should be
condemned as heretics are very unjust. If there be any dispute between
us, it is not upon articles of faith, but only upon abuses that have
been introduced into the Church, and which we reject. This, therefore,
is not a sufficient reason to authorize the bishops not to tolerate us,
since we are agreed in the tenets of faith which we have set forth:
there never has been an exact uniformity of exterior practice since the
beginning of the Church, and we preserve the greater part of the
established usages. It is therefore a calumny to say, that we have
abolished them all. But, as all the world complained of the abuses that
had crept into the Church, we have corrected those only which we could
not tolerate with a good conscience; and we entreat your Majesty to hear
what the abuses are which we have retrenched, and the reasons we had for
doing it. We also entreat, that our inveterate enemies, whose hatred and
calumnies are the principal cause of the evil, may not be believed.”
They then proceed to state the abuses in the Church of Rome, of which
they complain. The first is the denial of the cup in the sacrament of
the Lord’s supper; the second, the celibacy of the clergy; the third,
the form of the mass. On this head their language is very remarkable:
“Our Churches,” they say, “are unjustly accused of having abolished the
mass, since they celebrate it with great veneration: they even preserve
almost all the accustomed ceremonies, having only added a few German
hymns to the latter, in order that the people may profit by them.” But
they object to the multiplicity of masses, and to the payment of any
money to a priest for saying them. The fourth abuse of which they
complain, is the practice of auricular confession: but, they observe,
that they have only taken from it the penitent’s obligation to make to
the priest a particular enumeration of his sins, and that they had
retained the confession itself, and the obligation of receiving
absolution from the priest. The fifth abuse is the injunction of
abstinence from particular meats. Monastic vows they represent as the
sixth abuse. The seventh and last abuse of which they complain, is that
of ecclesiastical power. They say that “a view of the attempts of the
popes to excommunicate princes, and dispose of their states, led them to
examine and fix the distinction between the secular and ecclesiastical
power, to enable themselves to give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, and
to the popes and bishops what belongs to them.” That “ecclesiastical
power, or the power of the keys, which JESUS CHRIST gave to his Church,
consisted only of the power of preaching the gospel, of administering
the sacraments, the forgiveness of sins, and refusing absolution to a
false penitent: therefore,” say they, “neither popes nor bishops have
any power to dispose of kingdoms, to abrogate the laws of magistrates,
or to prescribe to them rules for their government;” and that, “if there
did exist bishops who had the power of the sword, they derived this
power from their quality of temporal sovereigns, and not from their
episcopal character, or from Divine right, but as a power conceded to
them by kings or emperors.”
It is not a little remarkable, that considerable differences, or various
readings, are to be found in the printed texts of this important
document, and that it is far from certain which copy should be
considered the authentic edition. The German copies printed in 1530, in
quarto and octavo, and the Latin edition printed in quarto in 1531, are
in request among bibliographical amateurs; but there is a verbal, and,
in some instances, a material, discrepancy among them. The Wittenberg
edition, of 1540, is particularly esteemed, and has been adopted by the
publishers of the “Sylloge Confessionum Diversarum,” printed in 1804, at
the Clarendon press. [Later editions of the _Sylloge_ include also the
form of 1531.] One of the most important of these various readings
occurs in the tenth article. In some of the editions which preceded that
of 1540, it is expressed, “that the body and blood of CHRIST are truly
present, and distributed to those who partake of our LORD’S supper; and
the contrary doctrine is reprobated.” The edition of 1540 expresses
that, “with the bread and wine, the body and blood of CHRIST are truly
given to those who partake of our LORD’S supper.”
“In the Confession of Augsburgh,” says Dr. Maclaine, the learned
translator of Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, “there are three sorts
of articles; one sort, adopted equally by the Roman Catholics and
Protestants; another, that consists of certain propositions, which the
papal party considered as ambiguous and obscure; and a third, in which
the doctrine of Luther was entirely opposite to that of Rome. This gave
some reason to hope, that, by the means of certain qualifications and
modifications, conducted mutually in a spirit of candour and charity,
matters might be accommodated at last. For this purpose, select persons
were appointed to carry on the salutary work; at first, seven from each
party, consisting of princes, lawyers, and divines; which number was
afterwards reduced to three. Luther’s obstinate, stubborn, and violent
temper rendering him unfit for healing divisions, he was not employed in
these conferences; but he was constantly consulted by the Protestant
party.”
The Confession was read, at a full meeting of the diet, by the
chancellor of the elector of Saxony. It was subscribed by that elector,
and three other princes of the German empire, and then delivered to the
emperor.—_Butler’s Confessions of Faith_. _Robertson’s Sylloge
Confessionum_.
AUGUSTINES. A religious order in the Church of Rome, who followed St.
Augustine’s pretended rule, ordered them by Pope Alexander IV., in 1256.
It is divided into several branches, as hermits of St. Paul, the
Jeronymitans, monks of St. Bridget, the Augustines called Chaussez, who
go without stockings, begun in 1574, by a Portuguese, and confirmed in
1600 and 1602, by Pope Clement VIII. As for the pretended rules of St.
Augustine, they are reduced to three classes, the first comprehending
that the monks ought to possess nothing in particular, nor call anything
their own; that the wealthy who became monks ought to sell what they
had, and give the money to the poor; that those who sued for the
religious habit ought to pass under trial before they were admitted;
that the monks ought to subtract nothing from the monastery, nor receive
anything whatsoever, without the leave of their superior, to whom they
ought to communicate those points of doctrine which they had heard
discoursed of without the monastery; that if any one was stubborn
towards his superior, after the first and second correction in secret he
should be publicly denounced as a rebel; if it happened in the time of
persecution that the monks were forced to retire, they ought immediately
to betake themselves to that place where their superior was withdrawn;
and if for the same reason a monk had saved anything belonging to the
monastery, he should give it up as soon as possible to his superior. The
second class imported that they were to love GOD and their neighbour;
how they were to recite the psalms, and the rest of their office; the
first part of the morning they ought to employ in manual works, and the
rest in reading, and to return in the afternoon to their work again
until the evening; that they ought to possess nothing of their own, be
obedient to their superior, keep silence in eating, have Saturday
allowed to provide themselves with necessaries; and it was lawful for
them to drink wine on Sundays; that when they went abroad they must
always go two together; that they were never to eat out of the
monastery; that they should be conscientious in what they sold, and
faithful in what they bought; that they ought not to utter idle words,
but work with silence; and, lastly, that whoever neglected the practice
of these precepts ought to be corrected and beaten, and that the true
observers of them must rejoice and be confident of their salvation. As
for the third, after having enjoined them to love GOD and their
neighbour, they ought to possess nothing but in common; the superior
ought to distribute everything in the monastery, according to each man’s
necessity, and they should not incline their hearts to temporal things;
that they ought to honour GOD in one another as being become his holy
temples; they must attend prayers at canonical hours, and were not to be
hindered at any other time; that they should pray with attention, and
sing only what was really appointed to be sung; that they ought to apply
themselves to fasting and abstinence with discretion; and that if any of
them was not able to fast, he ought not to eat between meals unless he
was sick; that they must mind what was read to them while they were at
their meals; that none ought to be envious to see the sick better
treated than the rest were, or that something more delicate was given to
those of a weaker constitution; that those who were recovering ought to
make use of comfortable things, and, when recovered, to return to the
common usage; to be grave and modest in their habits; never to be far
from their companion; to express modesty and stayedness in their outward
behaviour; not to cast a lustful eye upon women, nor wish to be seen by
them; nor when at church to harbour any thoughts of women; that when it
was known a friar courted any woman, after having been forewarned
several times, he ought to be corrected; and that if he would not submit
to the correction, he should be turned out of the monastery; that all
correction should be inflicted with charity; that they ought not to
receive letters nor presents in secret; they ought to be contented with
those habits that were given them; that all their works should be
rendered in common; that if some of their relations sent them clothes,
it should be in the superior’s power to give them to whom he pleased;
that he who concealed anything of his own should be proceeded against as
guilty of robbery; they were to wash their own clothes, or have them
washed by others, with the superior’s leave; those who were in any
office should serve their brethren without grudging; that they ought to
shun all lawsuits; that they ought to ask their brethren forgiveness for
any injury done them; to forbear ill language one to another; the
superior was to be obeyed, but not to be proud of his dignity; that the
monks ought to observe these rules out of love, and not slavish fear;
and that this rule ought to be read once a week in the presence of the
monks.
The Augustine monks, (commonly called Black Canons,) according to
Fuller, were established in England later than the Benedictines, that
is, in 1105, though of older existence in Europe. They were next to the
Benedictines in power and wealth. The members of these two orders and
their branches were called _Monks_, those of the Mendicant orders, as
Dominicans and Franciscans, were called _Friars_. (See _Monastery_.) But
_Canon_ was the title more usually assigned to the Augustinians. This
order was more numerous and powerful in Ireland than the Benedictines,
though inferior to them in England. The branches of this order were the
Premonstrants, (or White Canons,) the Victorines, and the Gilbertines.
The Arroasians were merely reformed Augustinians, not a separate branch
of the order. The Augustinians possessed two mitred abbeys, Waltham and
Cirencester; one cathedral priory, Carlisle; one abbey, afterwards
converted into a cathedral by Henry VIII., Bristol.
AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, FRIARS. These are not to be confounded with the
above, being one of the minor Mendicant orders, observing the rule of
St. Augustine. Fuller says they first entered England in 1252: “and had
(if not their first) their finest habitation at St. Peter’s the Poor,
London, thence probably taking the denomination of poverty. They were
good disputants; on which account they are remembered still at Oxford by
an act performed by candidates for Mastership, called _Keeping of
Augustines_.” This exercise, with other ancient forms, was abolished by
the University Statute towards the beginning of the present
century.—_Jebb._
AURICULAR CONFESSION. (See _Confession_, _Absolution_.) The confession
of sins at the ear of the priest. The following is the chapter on
confession in the Council of Trent which is obligatory on the Romish
Church.
“From the institution of the sacrament of repentance already set forth,
the Church has always understood, that an entire confession of sins was
also appointed by the LORD; and that it is of Divine right necessary to
all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our LORD JESUS CHRIST, when
about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to
be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins, into
which CHRIST’S faithful people should fall, should be brought; in order
that by the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of remission
or retention. For it is plain that the priests cannot exercise this
judgment, without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in
enjoining penalties, if men declare their sins only generally, and not
rather particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is
right that the penitents should recount in confession all the deadly
sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even
though they be most secret and only against the two last commandments,
which not unfrequently grievously wound the soul, and are more dangerous
than those which are openly practised; for as to venial sins, by which
we are not excluded from the grace of GOD, and into which we more
frequently fall, although they may be declared in confession, rightly,
usefully, and without any presumption, as the usage of pious men
declares, yet they may be passed over in silence without offence, and
can be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even
thoughts, make men the children of wrath and the enemies of GOD, it is
necessary to seek from GOD the pardon of all, with open and modest
confession. When, therefore, CHRIST’S faithful people desire to confess
all the sins which occur to their memory, they expose them all beyond
all doubt to the mercy of GOD to be pardoned. But they who do otherwise,
and knowingly keep back any, propose nothing to the Divine mercy to be
pardoned by the priest; for if a sick man is ashamed to uncover his
wound to the physician, he cannot with medicine cure that of which he
has no knowledge. It is, moreover, inferred that those circumstances
should be explained in confession, which change the kind of the sin;
because, without these, neither can the sins themselves be entirely
disclosed by the penitents, nor known to the judges; nor can they
rightly judge of the grievousness of the sin, nor impose upon the
penitents the fitting punishments. Whence it is unreasonable to teach
that these circumstances were sought out by idle men, or that only one
circumstance should be confessed, namely, to have sinned against a
brother. But it is impious to call this confession impossible, which is
appointed to be performed in this manner, or to style it the torture of
consciences: for it appears that nothing else is required of penitents
in the Church, than that, after a man has diligently examined himself,
and explored the recesses and hiding-places of his conscience, he should
confess those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended
his LORD and GOD. But the other sins which do not occur to him when
taking diligent thought, are understood to be included altogether in the
same confession; and for these we faithfully say with the prophet,
‘Cleanse thou me, O LORD, from my secret faults.’ But the difficulty of
this sort of confession, and the shame of uncovering sins, would,
indeed, appear grievous, if it were not lightened by the so many and
great conveniences and consolations which are most assuredly conferred
by absolution upon all who rightly approach this sacrament. But as
regards the manner of secretly confessing to the priest alone, although
_Christ_ has not forbidden any man from publicly confessing his faults,
in revenge for his sins, and humiliation of himself, both by way of
example to others, and for the edification of the Church which he has
offended; this is not, however, a Divine command, nor may it be
advisedly enjoined by any human law, that sins, especially secret ones,
should be disclosed by open confession. Wherefore, since that secret
sacramental confession which the holy Church has used from the
beginning, and still uses, has always been approved of by the holiest
and most ancient fathers, with great consent and unanimity, the empty
calumny is plainly refuted of those who are not ashamed to teach that it
is contrary to the Divine command, and a human invention, which had its
origin with the fathers who were assembled in the Lateran Council. For
the Church did not order by the Lateran Council that CHRIST’S faithful
people should confess, which she always had understood to be necessary,
and appointed by Divine right, but that the command of confession should
be complied with at least once in the year, by all and each who have
come to years of discretion; whence now, in the universal Church, that
wholesome custom of confessing in the sacred, and especially acceptable,
time of Lent, is observed with great benefit to the souls of the
faithful; which custom this holy synod highly approves, and receives as
pious and worthy to be retained.”
Here an attempt is made to invest the Christian priesthood with the
prerogative of the Most High, who is a searcher of the hearts, and a
discerner of the thoughts; in forgetfulness of the very distinction
which GOD drew between himself and all men—“man looketh to the outward
part, the LORD trieth the heart.” As CHRIST has invested his ministers
with no power to do this of themselves, the Tridentine Fathers have
sought to supply what they must needs consider a grievous omission on
his part, by enjoining all men to unlock the secrets of their hearts at
the command of their priest, and persons of all ages and sexes to submit
not only to general questions as to a state of sin or repentance, but to
the most minute and searching questions as to their most inmost
thoughts.
The extent to which the confessors have thought it right to carry these
examinations on subjects concerning which the apostle recommends that
they be not once named among Christians, and which may be seen either in
“Dens’ Theology,” or “Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549, affords a
melancholy, painful, and sickening subject for contemplation; especially
when it is considered that they were Christian clergy who did this, and
that it was done in aid, as they supposed, of the Christian religion.
The fearful effects of these examinations upon the priests themselves,
we will do no more than allude to; he who may think it necessary to
satisfy himself upon the point, may consult the cases contemplated and
provided for (among others) by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula, Lugd.
1562, p. 114. In the Bull of Pius IV., _Contra solicitantes in
confessione_, dated Ap. 16, 1561, (_Bullarium Magn._ Luxemb. 1727, ii.
p. 48,) and in a similar one of Gregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622,
(_Gregory XV. Constit. Rom._ 1622, p. 114,) there is laid open another
fearful scene of danger to female confitents from wicked priests,
“mulieres pœnitentes ad actus inhonestos dum earum audiunt confessiones
alliciendo et provocando.” Against which flagrant dangers, and the
preparatory steps of sapping and undermining the mental modesty of a
young person by examinations of particular kinds, it is vain to think
that the feeble bulls of the bishops of Rome can afford any security.
These observations apply to the system of the Roman Church, peculiar to
itself, of _compelling_ the disclosure of the most minute details of the
most secret thoughts and actions. As to _encouraging_ persons whose
minds are _burthened_ with the remembrance of fearful sins, to ease
themselves of the burthen by revealing it to one at whose hands they may
seek guidance, and consolation, and prayer, it is a totally distinct
question, and nothing but wilful art will attempt to confound them. On
this point we see no reason to withdraw a regret which we have before
expressed as to its disuse in the Church of England; for we cannot but
believe that, were it more frequently had recourse to, many a mind would
depart the world at peace with itself and with GOD, which now sinks to
the grave under a bond of doubt and fear, through want of confidence to
make use of ghostly remedies.—_Perceval._
In the sixth canon of the Council of Trent it runs thus:—“If any shall
deny that sacramental confession was instituted and is necessary for
salvation by Divine right, or shall say that the custom of confessing
secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always
observed from the beginning, and continues to observe, is foreign to the
institution and command of CHRIST, and is of human invention, let him be
accursed.”
Here sacramental confession is affirmed to be of Divine institution, and
auricular confession likewise, and he is accursed who shall deny it.
This is bravely said; yet the Tridentine Fathers might have recollected
that, in the Latin Church as late as 813, it was matter of dispute
whether there was need to confess to a priest at all, as appears from
the thirty-third canon of the Council of Cabaillon, which is as follows:
“Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam vero
sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrumque non sine magno
fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Ita dumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remissor
est peccatorum, confiteamur peccata nostra, et cum David dicamus,
_Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci_, &c., et secundum institutionem
apostoli, confiteamur alterutrum peccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem
ut salvemur. _Confessio_ itaque quæ _Deo_ fit, _purgat peccata_, ea vero
quæ sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata,” &c. (_Conc._
vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Third asleep, that he could suffer such heresy
to be broached and not denounced? But all the world knows, that, till
1215, no decree of pope or council can be adduced enjoining the
_necessary_ observance of such a custom. Then, at the Council of
Lateran, Innocent III. commanded it. As the Latin Church affords no
sanction to the assertion of the Tridentine Fathers, so is it in vain to
look for it among the Greeks, for there, as Socrates (_Hist. Eccles._ v.
19) and Sozomen (_Hist. Eccles._ vii. 16) inform us, the whole
confessional was abolished by Nectarius, the archbishop of
Constantinople, in the 4th century, by reason of an indecency which was
committed on a female penitent, when pursuing her penance; which, sure,
he would not have ventured to have done had he deemed it a Divine
institution. Sozomen, in his account of the confessional, says, that the
public confession in the presence of all the people, which formerly
obtained, having been found grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς, a wellbred,
_silent_, and prudent presbyter was set in charge of it; thus plainly
denoting the change from public to auricular confessions. It was this
penitential presbyter whose office was abolished by Nectarius, who acted
by the advice of Eudæmon, συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν
μυστηρίων μετέχειν. And the reason he assigned is one which the Church
of Rome would have done well to bear in mind; οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασφήμετον. (See _Perceval on Roman Schism, Hooker, Eccl.
Pol._ book vi. _Bp. Taylor, Ductor Dubit._ part ii. sect. 11.)
AUMBRIE. A little closet or locker. (See _Church_.)
AURORA. The title of a Latin metrical version of several parts of the
Bible, by Petrus de Riga, canon of Rheims, in the 12th century.
AUTOCEPHALI. Αὐτοκεφαλοι, _selfheaded_, or _independent_. A name
originally given to all metropolitans, as having no ecclesiastical
superior, and being amenable only to the judgment of a synod. After the
division of the Church into patriarchates, it was given to such
metropolitans as preserved their independence, and were not subject to
any patriarch—as the bishop of Constantia, or Salamis, in Cyprus.
Bingham, book ii. chap. 18, specifies three kinds of autocephali. 1. All
metropolitans, before patriarchates were established. 2. Certain
metropolitans after the establishment of patriarchates, as those of
Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia: and the Churches of Britain before the
coming of St. Augustin. To which may be added the Church of Ireland,
before its submission to Rome in the 12th century. 3. Bishops
immediately subject to the patriarch of the diocese, who was to them as
a metropolitan. There were twenty-five such subject to the bishop of
Jerusalem. The immediate suffragans of Rome are of the same class.
Bingham considers a fourth class mentioned by Valesius on Euseb. lib. v.
c. 23, as very doubtful; viz. bishops wholly independent of all others.
AUTO DA FE (Spanish); _an Act of Faith_. In the Spanish Church a solemn
day is held by the Inquisition for the punishment of heretics, and the
absolution of the innocent accused. They usually contrive the _Auto_ to
fall on some great festival, that the execution may pass with the more
awe; and it is always on a Sunday. The _Auto da Fe_ may be called the
last act of the inquisitorial tragedy; it is a kind of gaol delivery,
appointed as often as a competent number of prisoners in the Inquisition
are convicted of heresy, either by their own voluntary or extorted
confession, or on the evidence of certain witnesses. The process is
this; in the morning they are brought into a great hall, where they have
certain habits put on, which they are to wear in the procession, and by
which they know their doom. The procession is led up by Dominican
friars, after which come the penitents, being all in black coats without
sleeves, and barefooted, with a wax candle in their hands. These are
followed by the penitents who have narrowly escaped being burnt, who
over their black coats have flames painted, with their points turned
downwards. Next come the negative and relapsed, who are to be burnt,
having flames on their habits pointing upwards. After these come such as
profess doctrines contrary to the faith of Rome, who, besides flames
pointing upwards, have their picture painted on their breasts, with
dogs, serpents, and devils, all open-mouthed, about it. Each prisoner is
attended by a familiar of the Inquisition; and those to be burnt have
also a Jesuit on each hand, who are continually preaching to them to
abjure. After the prisoners comes a troop of familiars on horseback; and
after them the inquisitors, and other officers of the court, on mules;
last of all the inquisitor-general on a white horse led by two men with
black hats and green hatbands. A scaffold is erected large enough for
two or three thousand people; at one end of which are the prisoners, at
the other the inquisitors. After a sermon made up of encomiums of the
Inquisition, and invectives against heretics, a priest ascends a desk
near the scaffold, and, having taken the abjuration of the penitents,
recites the final sentence of those who are to be put to death, and
delivers them to the secular arm, earnestly beseeching at the same time
the secular power _not to touch their blood, or put their lives in
danger_. The prisoners, being thus in the hands of the civil magistrate,
are presently loaded with chains, and carried first to the secular gaol,
and from thence, in an hour or two, brought before the civil judge, who,
after asking in what religion they intend to die, pronounces sentence on
such as declare they die in the communion of the Church of Rome, that
they shall be first strangled, and then burnt to ashes; on such as die
in any other faith, that they be burnt alive. Both are immediately
carried to the Ribera, the place of execution, where there are as many
stakes set up as there are prisoners to be burnt, with a quantity of dry
furze about them. The stakes of the professed, that is, such as persist
in the heresy, are about four yards high, having a small board towards
the top for the prisoner to be seated on. The negative and relapsed
being first strangled and burnt, the professed mount their stakes by a
ladder, and the Jesuits, after several repeated exhortations to be
reconciled to the Church, part with them, telling them that they leave
them to the devil, who is standing at their elbow to receive their
souls, and carry them with him to the flames of hell. On this a great
shout is raised, and the cry is, “_Let the dogs’ beards be made_,” which
is done by thrusting flaming furzes, fastened to long poles, against
their faces, till their faces are burnt to a coal, which is accompanied
with the loudest acclamations of joy. At last fire is set to the furze
at the bottom of the stake, over which the professed are chained so
high, that the top of the flame seldom reaches higher than the seat they
sit on, so that they rather seem roasted than burnt. The same diabolical
ceremony was observed in Portugal.
AVE MARIA. A form of devotion used in the Church of Rome, comprising the
salutation addressed by the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
(Luke i. 28.) The words “Ave Maria” are the first two, in Latin, of the
form as it appears in the manuals of the Romish Church, thus: “Hail
Mary, (_Ave Maria_,) full of grace, the LORD is with thee,” &c. To which
is appended the following petition: “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for
us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death. Amen.” Here we find,
first, a misapplication of the words of Scripture, and then an addition
to them. It was not used before the Hours, until the 16th century, in
the Romish offices. It was then introduced into the Breviary by Cardinal
Quignon. Cardinal Bona admits that it is modern.
“I cannot but observe,” says Bingham, “that among all the short prayers
used by the ancients before their sermons, there is never any mention
made of an Ave Mary, now so common in the practice of the Romish Church.
Their addresses were all to GOD; and the invocation of the Holy Virgin
for grace and assistance before sermons was a thing not thought of. They
who are most concerned prove its use can derive its original no higher
than the beginning of the fifteenth century.” But Mosheim (Eccl. Hist.
Cant. xiv. Part ii. ch. iv.) says that Pope John XXII. [1316–33] ordered
Christians to add to their prayers those words with which the angel
Gabriel saluted the Virgin Mary.
AVOIDANCE. Avoidance is where there is a want of a lawful incumbent on a
benefice, during which vacancy the Church is _quasi riduata_, and the
possessions belonging to it are in abeyance. There are many ways by
which avoidance may happen; by death; by cession, or acceptance of a
benefice incompatible; by resignation; by consecration; for when a clerk
is promoted to a bishopric, all his other preferments are void the
instant he is consecrated, and the right of presentation belongs to the
Crown, unless he has a dispensation from the Crown to hold them in
_commendam_: by deprivation, either first by sentence declaratory in the
ecclesiastical court for fit and sufficient causes allowed by the common
law, such as attainder of treason or felony, or conviction of other
infamous crimes in the king’s courts; for heresy, infidelity, gross
immorality, and the like; or secondly, in pursuance of divers penal
statutes, which declare the benefice void, for some nonfeasance or
neglect, or else some malfeasance or crime; as for simony; for
maintaining any doctrine in derogation of the king’s supremacy, or of
the Thirty-nine Articles, or _of the Book of Common Prayer_: for
neglecting after institution to read the liturgy and articles in the
church, or make the declarations against Popery, or take the abjuration
oath; _for using any other form of prayer than the liturgy of the Church
of England_: or for absenting himself sixty days in one year from a
benefice belonging to a Popish patron, to which the clerk was presented
by either of the universities; in all which, and similar cases, the
benefice is _ipso facto_ void, without any formal sentence of
deprivation. No person can take any dignity or benefice in Ireland until
he has resigned all his preferments in England; and by such resignation
the king is deprived of the presentation.—_Stephens on the Laws relating
to the Clergy_, p. 91.
AZYMITES. A name given to the Latins, by those of the Greek Church,
because they consecrate the holy eucharist in unleavened bread (έν
άζυμοις). The more ancient custom was to consecrate a portion of the
oblations of the faithful, and therefore of course in leavened bread.
The wafer, or unleavened bread, is still retained in the Church of Rome,
although the catechism of the Council of Trent admits that the eucharist
may also be consecrated in common bread. In the Church of England
unleavened bread was prescribed by Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions, and
was generally used throughout her reign. At Westminster, it was retained
until 1642, nor has it since been forbidden; but the use of leavened
bread is now universal, as in the primitive Church.
BACHELOR. In the universities of the Church, bachelors are persons who
have attained to the baccalaureate, or taken the first degree in arts,
divinity, law, or physic. This degree in some universities has no
existence, in some the _Candidatus_ answers to it. It was first
introduced in the thirteenth century, by Pope Gregory IX., though it is
still unknown in Italy. Bachelors of Arts are not admitted to that
degree at Oxford and Dublin till after having studied four years at
those universities. At Cambridge, the regular period of matriculation is
in the October term; and an undergraduate who proceeds regularly will be
admitted to his B. A. in three years from the following January.
Bachelors of Divinity, before they can acquire that degree either at
Oxford or Cambridge, must be of fourteen years’ standing in the
university. Bachelors of Laws, to acquire the degree in Oxford or
Cambridge, must have previously studied the law six years. Bachelors of
Canon Law are admitted after two years’ study, and sustaining an act
according to the forms. Bachelors of Medicine must have studied two
years in medicine, after having been four years M. A. in the university,
and must have passed an examination; after which they are invested with
the fur in order to be licensed. Bachelors of Music in the English and
Irish universities must have studied music for a certain number of
years, and are admitted to the degree after the composition and
performance of a musical exercise. Anciently the grade of Bachelor, at
least in arts, was hardly considered as a degree, but merely a step
towards the Doctorate or Mastership. In fact, Bachelors in any faculty,
as such, have no voice in the university convocations or senates.
Bachelors in Divinity have, because they must necessarily have been
Masters of Art previously. But Bachelors of Law and Medicine have no
votes, unless they happen to be Masters of Arts also. In the French, as
in the Scotch universities, the degree of Bachelor of Arts was taken
while the student was still in _statu pupillari_, and in fact
corresponded very much to the Sophisters in our universities, the A. M.
in these places practically correspond to our degree of A. B.
BAMPTON LECTURES. A course of eight sermons preached annually at the
university of Oxford, set on foot by the Reverend John Bampton, canon of
Salisbury. According to the directions in his will, they are to be
preached upon any of the following subjects:—To confirm and establish
the Christian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics; upon
the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures; upon the authority of the
writings of the primitive fathers, as to the faith and practice of the
primitive Church; upon the Divinity of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST; upon the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST; upon the articles of the
Christian faith, as comprehended in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. For
the support of this lecture he bequeathed his lands and estates to the
chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Oxford for ever,
upon trust that the vice-chancellor, for the time being, take and
receive all the rents and profits thereof; and, after all taxes,
reparations, and necessary deductions made, to pay all the remainder to
the endowment of these divinity lecture sermons. He also directs in his
will, that no person shall be qualified to preach these lectures, unless
he have taken the degree of Master of Arts, at least, in one of the two
universities of Oxford or Cambridge, and that the same person shall
never preach the same sermon twice. A number of excellent sermons
preached at this lecture are now before the public.
BAND. This part of the clerical dress, which is too well known to need
description, is the only remaining relic of the ancient _amice_. (See
_Amice_.) When the beard was worn, and when ruffs came in, this ancient
part of clerical dress fell into disuse, but it was generally resumed
after the Restoration. The band is not, however, an exclusively clerical
vestment, being part of the full dress of the bar and of the
universities, and of other bodies in which a more ancient habit is
retained, as in some schools of old foundation. Formerly it was worn by
graduates, and even under-graduates, at the universities; nor was the
custom altogether extinct within memory. It is still worn by the
scholars at Winchester, &c., and was anciently worn with the surplice by
lay vicars, singing men, and sometimes by parish clerks.
BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY. This was a celebrated controversy within the
Church of England in the reign of George I., and received its name from
Hoadly, who, although bishop of Bangor, was little else than a Socinian
heretic. Hoadly published “A Preservative against the Principles and
Practice of the Nonjurors,” and soon after, a sermon, which the king had
ordered to be printed, entitled, “The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ.”
This discourse is a very confused production; nor, except in the
bitterness of its spirit, is it easy, amidst the author’s “periods of a
mile,” to discover his precise aim. To the perplexed arguments of Bishop
Hoadly, Dr. Snape and Dr. Sherlock wrote replies; and a committee of
convocation passed a censure upon the discourse. An order from
government arrested the proceedings of the convocation. Snape and
Sherlock were removed from their office of chaplains to the king; and
the convocation has never yet been again permitted to assemble for the
transaction of business. But the exertion of power on the part of the
government was unable to silence those who were determined, at any
sacrifice, to maintain GOD’S truth. This controversy continued to employ
the press for many years, until those who held Low Church views were
entirely silenced by the force of argument. Of the works produced by the
Bangorian Controversy, perhaps the most important is _Law’s Letters to
Hoadly_, which were reprinted in “_The Scholar Armed_,” and have since
been republished. _Law’s Letters_ have never been answered, and may
indeed be regarded as unanswerable.
BANNER. In the chapels of orders of knighthood, as in St. George’s
chapel, Windsor, the chapel of the order of the Garter; in Henry VII.’s
chapel, at Westminster, the chapel of the order of the Bath; and in St.
Patrick’s cathedral, the chapel of the order of St. Patrick; the banner
of each knight, i. e. a little square flag bearing his arms, is
suspended, at his installation, over his appropriate stall. The
installation of a knight is a _religious ceremony_; hence the propriety
of this act. The same decorations formerly existed in the chapel of
Holyrood House, the chapel of the order of the Thistle.
Also it is not uncommon to see banners taken in battle suspended over
the tombs of victorious generals. This is a beautiful way of expressing
thankfulness to GOD for that victory which he alone can give; and it
were much to be wished that a spirit of pride and vain-glory should
never mingle with the religious feeling.
Banners were formerly a part of the accustomed ornaments of the altar,
and were suspended over it, “that in the church the triumph of CHRIST
may evermore be held in mind, by which we also hope to triumph over our
enemy.”—_Durandus._
BANNS OF MARRIAGE. “Bann” comes from a barbarous Latin word which
signifies to put out an edict or proclamation. “_Matrimonial banns_” are
such proclamations as are solemnly made in the church, or in some other
lawful congregation of men, in order to the solemnization of matrimony.
Before any can be canonically married, except by a licence from the
bishop’s court, banns are directed to be published in the church; and
this proclamation should be made on _three_ several solemn days, in all
the churches of that place where the parties, willing to contract
marriage, dwell. This rule is principally to be observed when the said
parties are of different parishes; for the care of the Church to prevent
clandestine marriages is as old as Christianity itself: and the design
of the Church is, to be satisfied whether there be any “just cause or
impediment,” why the persons so asked “should not be joined together in
holy matrimony.”
The following are the regulations under which the Church of England now
acts on this subject:—
No minister shall be obliged to publish the banns of matrimony between
any persons whatsoever, unless they shall, seven days at least before
the time required for the first publication, deliver or cause to be
delivered to him a notice in writing of their true Christian and
surnames, and of the houses of their respective abodes within such
parish, chapelry, or extra-parochial place, where the banns are to be
published, and of the time during which they have inhabited or lodged in
such houses respectively. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 2.) And all banns of
matrimony shall be published in the parish church, or in some public
chapel wherein banns of matrimony have been usually published, (i. e.
before the 25th of March, 1754,) of the parish or chapelry wherein the
persons to be married shall dwell. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.) And
where the persons to be married shall dwell in divers parishes or
chapelries, the banns shall be published in the church or chapel
belonging to such parish or chapelry wherein each of the said persons
shall dwell. And where both or either of the persons to be married shall
dwell in any extra-parochial place, (having no church or chapel wherein
banns have been usually published,) then the banns shall be published in
the parish church or chapel belonging to some parish or chapelry
adjoining to such extra-parochial place. And the said banns shall be
published upon three Sundays preceding the solemnization of marriage
during the time of morning service, or of the evening service, if there
be no morning service in such church or chapel on any of those Sundays,
_immediately after the second lesson_. (26 George II. c. 33, s. 1.)
While the marriage is contracting, the minister shall inquire of the
people by three public banns, concerning the freedom of the parties from
all lawful impediments. And if any minister shall do otherwise, he shall
be suspended for three years.
Rubric. And the curate shall say after the accustomed manner:—“I publish
the banns of marriage between M. of ——, and N. of ——. If any of you know
cause or just impediment why these two persons should not be joined
together in holy matrimony, ye are to declare it. This is the first
(second, or third) time of asking.”
And in case the parents or guardians, or one of them, of either of the
parties, who shall be under the age of twenty-one years, shall openly
and publicly declare, or cause to be declared, in the church or chapel
where the banns shall be so published, at the time of such publication,
his dissent to such marriage, such publication of banns shall be void.
(26 George II. c. 3, s. 3.)
Rubric. And where the parties dwell in divers parishes, the curate of
one parish shall not solemnize marriage between them, without a
certificate of the banns being thrice asked, from the curate of the
other parish.
Formerly the rubric enjoined that the banns should be published after
the Nicene Creed; but the lamentable deficiency of publicity of which
this arrangement was the cause, and the delay hence arising in
consequence of some parishes being without any morning service on some
Sundays, induced the legislature to make the provisions above cited. (26
George II. c. 33, s. 1.)
It is to be feared that much laxity prevails among parties to whom the
inquiries as to parochial limits are intrusted; and that recent
enactments have rather augmented than reformed such laxity. The
constitutions and canons of 1603 guard cautiously against clandestine
marriages. Canon 62 is as follows:—
_Ministers not to marry any persons without banns or licence._—No
minister, upon pain of suspension _per triennium ipso facto_, shall
celebrate matrimony between any persons, without a faculty or licence
granted by some of the persons in these our constitutions expressed,
except the banns of matrimony have been first published three several
Sundays, or holidays, in the time of Divine service, in the parish
churches and chapels where the said parties dwell, according to the Book
of Common Prayer. Neither shall any minister, upon the like pain, under
any pretence whatsoever, join any persons so licensed in marriage at any
unseasonable times, but only between the hours of eight and twelve in
the forenoon; nor in any private place, but either in the said churches
or chapels where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine
service; nor when banns are thrice asked, and no licence in that respect
necessary, before the parents or governors of the parties to be married,
being under the age of twenty and one years, shall either personally, or
by sufficient testimony, signify to them their consents given to the
said marriage.
Canon 63. _Ministers of exempt churches not to marry without banns or
license._—Every minister, who shall hereafter celebrate marriage between
any persons contrary to our said constitutions, or any part of them,
under colour of any peculiar liberty or privilege claimed to appertain
to certain churches and chapels, shall be suspended _per triennium_ by
the ordinary of the place where the offence shall be committed. And if
any such minister shall afterwards remove from the place where he hath
committed that fault, before he be suspended, as is aforesaid, then
shall the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place where he
remaineth, upon certificate under the hand and seal of the other
ordinary, from whose jurisdiction he removed, execute that censure upon
him.
See also canon 70. By the statute 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, sec. 1, it is
enacted, that where, by any law or canon in force before the passing of
this act, it is provided that any “marriage may be solemnized after
publication of banns, such marriage may be solemnized, in like manner,
_on production of the registrar’s certificate as hereinafter provided_:”
so that marriages may now be solemnized in the Church of England,
without banns or licence, on production of the superintendent
registrar’s certificate.
BAPTISM. (Βάπτειν, to wash.) Baptism is one of the two sacraments,
which, according to the Catechism, “are generally necessary to
salvation.” Our blessed SAVIOUR says that “except a man be born again he
cannot see the kingdom of God” (John iii. 3); and in explanation of his
meaning he adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born
of water and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD”
(ver. 5). Upon this the Church remarks: “Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel
the express words of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, that, except a man be born of
water and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of GOD:
whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this sacrament where it
may be had. Likewise immediately before his ascension into heaven, as we
read in the last chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, he gave command to his
disciples, saying, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.’ Which also showeth unto us the
great benefit we reap thereby. For which cause, St. Peter the apostle,
when, upon his first preaching of this gospel, many were pricked at the
heart, and said unto him and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and
brethren, what shall we do?’ replied and said unto them, ‘Repent, and be
_baptized_ every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the HOLY GHOST.’ The same apostle testifieth in
another place, ‘even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards
GOD, by the resurrection of JESUS CHRIST.’”—_Office of Adult Baptism._
The Church also states in the Catechism, that a sacrament, as baptism
is, hath two parts, the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual
grace: that the outward visible sign or form in baptism is water,
wherein the person is baptized in the name of the FATHER, and of the
SON, and of the HOLY GHOST; and that the inward and spiritual grace,
which through the means of baptism we receive, is a death unto sin, and
a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the
children of wrath, we are hereby, i. e. by baptism, made children of
grace. Therefore the Church, as soon as ever a child is baptized,
directs the minister to say, “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that
this child is _regenerate_ and grafted into the body of CHRIST’S Church,
let us give thanks unto Almighty GOD for these benefits, and with one
accord make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of
his life according to this beginning.” The Church here first declares
that grace has been given, even the grace of regeneration, and then
implies that the grace, if not used, may be lost. On this subject more
will be said in the article on _Regeneration_. See also _Infant
Baptism_.
Grotius (_Annot. ad_ Matt. iii. 6) is of opinion, that the rite of
baptism had its original from the time of the deluge; immediately after
which he thinks it was instituted, in memory of the world having been
purged by water. Some learned men think (_W. Schickard, de Jur. Reg._
cap. 5) it was added to circumcision, soon after the Samaritan schism,
as a mark of distinction to the orthodox Jews. Spencer, who is fond of
deriving the rites of the Jewish religion from the ceremonies of the
Pagan, lays it down as a probable supposition, that the Jews received
the baptism of proselytes from the neighbouring nations, who were wont
to prepare candidates for the more sacred functions of their religion by
a solemn ablution; that, by this affinity of sacred rites, they might
draw the Gentiles to embrace their religion, and the proselytes (in
gaining of whom they were extremely diligent, Matt. xxiii. 15) might the
more easily comply with the transition from Gentilism to Judaism. In
confirmation of this opinion, he observes, first, that there is no
Divine precept for the baptism of proselytes, God having enjoined only
the rite of circumcision, (Exod. xii. 48,) for the admission of
strangers into the Jewish religion; secondly, that, among foreign
nations, the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and others, it was
customary that those who were to be initiated into their mysteries or
sacred rites, should be first purified by dipping their whole body in
water. Grotius, on Matt. xxvi. 27, adds, as a further confirmation of
his opinion, that the “cup of blessing” likewise, added to the Paschal
supper, seems plainly to have been derived from a Pagan original: for
the Greeks, at their feasts, had one cup, called ποτήριον ἀγαθοῦ
δαίμονος, the cup of the good demon or god, which they drank at the
conclusion of their entertainment, when the table was removed. Since,
then, a rite of Gentile original was added to one of the Jewish
sacraments, viz. the Passover, there can be no absurdity in supposing,
that baptism, which was added to the other sacrament, namely,
circumcision, might be derived from the same source. In the last place,
he observes, that Christ, in the institution of his sacraments, paid a
peculiar regard to those rites which were borrowed from the Gentiles;
for, rejecting circumcision and the Paschal supper, he adopted into his
religion baptism and the sacred cup; thus preparing the way for the
conversion and reception of the Gentiles into his Church.
It is to be observed, under this head of Jewish baptism, that the
proselyte was not to be baptized till the wound of circumcision was
perfectly healed; that then the ceremony was performed by plunging him
into some large, natural receptacle of water; and that baptism was never
after repeated in the same person, or in any of his posterity, who
derived their legal purity from the baptism of their ancestor.—_Selden,
de Jur. Nat. et Gent._ lib. ii. cap. 1.
In the primitive Christian Church, (_Tertull. de Baptismo_,) the office
of baptizing was vested principally in the bishops and priests, or
pastors of the respective parishes; but, with the consent of the bishop,
it was allowed to the deacons, and in cases of necessity even to laymen,
to baptize; but never, under any necessity whatever, was it permitted to
women to perform this office. Nor was it enough that baptism was
conferred by a person called to the ministry, unless he was also
orthodox in the faith. This became matter of great excitement in the
Church; and hence arose the famous controversy between Cyprian and
Stephen, bishop of Rome, concerning the rebaptizing those who had been
baptized by heretics, Cyprian asserting that they ought to be
rebaptized, and Stephen maintaining the contrary opinion.
The persons baptized were either infants or adults. To prove that
infants were admitted to the sacrament of baptism, we need only use this
argument. None were admitted to the eucharist till they had received
baptism: but in the primitive Church children received the sacrament of
the LORD’S supper, as appears from what Cyprian relates concerning a
sucking child, who so violently refused to taste the sacramental wine,
that the deacon was obliged forcibly to open her lips and pour it down
her throat. Origen writes, that children are baptized, “for the purging
away of the natural filth and original impurity inherent in them.” We
might add the testimonies of Irenæus and Cyprian; but it will be
sufficient to mention the determination of an African synod, held A. D.
254, at which were present sixty-six bishops. The occasion of it was
this. A certain bishop, called Fidus, had some scruples concerning the
time of baptizing infants, whether it ought to be done on the second or
third day after their birth, or not before the eighth day, as was
observed with respect to circumcision under the Jewish dispensation. His
scruples were proposed to this synod, who unanimously decreed, that the
baptism of children was not to be deferred so long, but that the grace
of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and most especially unto
infants.—_Justin Martyr, Second Apology_; _De Lapsis_, § 20; _In Lucam_,
Hom. xiv. _Apud Cyprian_. Epist. lix. § 2–4. _Tertull. de Baptismo_, c.
19.
As for the _time_, or season, at which baptism was usually administered,
we find it to have been restrained to the two solemn festivals of the
year, Easter and Whitsuntide: at Easter, in memory of Christ’s death and
resurrection, correspondent to which are the two parts of the Christian
life, represented and shadowed out in baptism, _dying_ unto sin, and
_rising_ again unto newness of life; and at Whitsuntide, in memory of
the Holy Ghost’s being shed upon the apostles, the same, in some
measure, being represented and conveyed in baptism. It is to be
observed, that these stated returns of the time of baptism related only
to persons in health: in other cases, such as sickness, or any pressing
necessity, the time of baptism was regulated by occasion and
opportunity.
The _place_ of baptism was at first unlimited; being some pond or lake,
some spring or river, but always as near as possible to the place of
public worship. Afterwards they had their _baptisteries_, or (as we call
them) _fonts_, built at first near the church, then in the church-porch,
and at last in the church itself. There were many in those days who were
desirous to be baptized in the river Jordan, out of reverence to the
place where our Saviour himself had been baptized.
The person to be baptized, if an adult, was first examined by the
bishop, or officiating priest, who put some questions to him; as, first,
whether he abjured the devil and all his works; secondly, whether he
gave a firm assent to all the articles of the Christian faith: to both
which he answered in the affirmative. Concerning these baptismal
questions, Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his letter to Xistus, bishop of
Rome, speaks of a certain scrupulous person in his church, who, being
present at baptism, was exceedingly troubled, when he heard the
questions and answers of those who were baptized. If the person to be
baptized was an infant, these interrogatories were answered by his
sponsores, or godfathers. Whether the use of _sponsores_ was as old as
the apostles’ days, is uncertain: perhaps it was not, since Justin
Martyr, speaking of the method and form of baptism, says not a word of
them.—_Tertull. de Coron. Milit. Cyprian, Epist._ vii. § 5. _Justin
Martyr, Apolog._ 2. _Apud Euseb._ lib. vii. c. 9; _Apolog._ 2.
After the questions and answers, followed _exorcism_, the manner and end
of which was this. The minister laid his hands on the person’s head, and
breathed in his face, implying thereby the driving away, or expelling,
of the devil from him, and preparing him for baptism, by which the good
and holy Spirit was to be conferred upon him.
After exorcism, followed _baptism_ itself: and first the minister, by
prayer, consecrated the water for that use. Tertullian says, “any waters
may be applied to that use; but then God must be first invocated, and
then the Holy Ghost presently comes down from heaven, and moves upon
them, and sanctifies them.” The water being consecrated, the person was
baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost;” by which “dedication of him to the blessed Trinity, the person”
(says Clemens Alexandrinus) “is delivered from the corrupt trinity, the
devil, the world, and the flesh.”—_Tertull. de Baptismo. Justin Martyr,
Apolog._ 2.
In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual custom was to immerse
and dip the whole body. Thus St. Barnabas, describing a baptized person,
says, “We go down into the water full of sin and filth, but we ascend
bearing fruit in our hearts.” And that all occasions of scandal and
immodesty might be prevented in so sacred an action, the men and women
were baptized in distinct apartments; the women having deaconesses to
undress and dress them. Then followed the unction, by which (says St.
Cyril) was signified, that they were now cut off from the wild olive,
and were ingrafted into Christ, the true olive-tree; or else to show,
that they were now to be champions for the gospel, and were anointed
thereto, as the old Athletæ were against their solemn games. With this
anointing was joined the sign of the cross, made upon the forehead of
the person baptized; which being done, he had a white garment given him,
to denote his being washed from the defilements of sin, or in allusion
to the words of the apostle, “as many as are baptized into Christ have
put on Christ.” From this custom the feast of Pentecost, which was one
of the annual seasons of baptism, came to be called Whitsunday, i. e.
Whitesunday. This garment was afterwards laid up in the church, that it
might be an evidence against such persons as violated or denied that
faith which they had owned in baptism. Of this we have a remarkable
instance under the Arian persecution in Africa. Elpidophorus, a citizen
of Carthage, had lived a long time in the communion of the Church, but,
apostatizing afterwards to the Arians, became a most bitter and
implacable persecutor of the orthodox. Among several whom he sentenced
to the rack, was one Miritas, a venerable old deacon, who, being ready
to be put upon the rack, pulled out the white garment with which
Elpidophorus had been clothed at his baptism, and, with tears in his
eyes, thus addressed him before all the people. “These, Elpidophorus,
thou minister of error, these are the garments that shall accuse thee,
when thou shalt appear before the majesty of the Great Judge; these are
they which girt thee, when thou camest pure out of the holy font; and
these are they which shall bitterly pursue thee, when thou shalt be cast
into the place of flames; because thou hast clothed thyself with cursing
as with a garment, and hast cast off the sacred obligation of thy
baptism.”—_Epist. Cathol._ § 9. _Cave’s Primitive Christianity_, p. i.
c. 10. _Epiph. Hæres._ 79. _Ambrose de Sacr._ lib. i. c. 21. Gal. iii.
27. _Victor. Utic. de Persecut. Vandal._ lib. iii.
But though immersion was the usual practice, yet sprinkling was in some
cases allowed, as in clinic baptism, or the baptism of such persons as
lay sick in bed. It is true, this kind of baptism was not esteemed so
perfect and effectual as that by immersion or dipping; for which reason,
in some Churches, none were advanced to the order of the priesthood, who
had been so baptized; an instance of which we have in Novatian, whose
ordination was opposed by all the clergy upon that account; though
afterward, at the entreaties of the bishop, they consented to it.
Notwithstanding which general opinion, Cyprian, in a set discourse on
this subject, declares that he thought this baptism to be as perfect and
valid as that performed more solemnly by immersion.—_Epist. Cornel. ad
Fabium Antioch. apud Euseb._ lib. vi. cap. 43. Epist. lxxvi. § 9.
_Apolog._ 2.
When baptism was performed, the person baptized, according to Justin
Martyr, “was received into the number of the faithful, who then sent up
their public prayers to God, for all men, for themselves, and for those
who had been baptized.”
As the Church granted baptism to all persons duly qualified to receive
it, so there were some whom she debarred from the benefits of this holy
rite. The author of the _Apostolical Constitutions_ mentions several.
_Bingham, Orig. Eccles._ b. xi. cap. 5, § 6, &c. _Const. Apost._ lib.
viii. cap. 32. Such were panders, or procurers; whores; makers of images
or idols; actors and stage-players; gladiators, charioteers, and
gamesters; magicians, enchanters, astrologers, diviners, and wandering
beggars. Concerning stage-players, the Church seems to have considered
them in the very same light as the ancient heathens themselves did: for
Tertullian (_Tertull. de Spectac._ cap. 22) observes that they who
professed those arts were branded with infamy, degraded, and denied many
privileges, driven from the court, from pleading, from the order of
knighthood, and all other honours in the Roman city and commonwealth. It
has been a question, whether the _military life_ disqualified a man for
baptism: but the contrary appears from the _Constitutions_, lib. viii.
cap. 32, which admit _soldiers_ to the baptism of the Church, on the
same terms that St. John Baptist admitted them to his; namely, that they
should do violence to no man, accuse no one falsely, and be content with
their wages, Luke iii. 14. The state of _concubinage_ is another case
which has been matter of doubt. The rule in the _Constitutions_, lib.
viii. c. 32, concerning the matter is this: a concubine, that is, a
slave to an infidel, if she keep herself only to him, may be received to
baptism; but, if she commit fornication with others, she shall be
rejected. The Council of Toledo (_Conc. Tolet._ 1, can. 17)
distinguishes between a man’s having a wife and a concubine at the same
time, and keeping a concubine only: the latter case it considers as no
disqualification for the sacraments, and only insists that a man be
content to be joined to one woman only, whether wife or concubine, as he
pleases.
Though baptism was esteemed by the Church as a Divine and heavenly
institution, yet there wanted not sects, in the earliest ages, who
either rejected it in whole or in part, or greatly corrupted it. The
Ascodrutæ wholly rejected it, because they would admit of no external or
corporeal symbols whatever. The Archontics, who imagined that the world
was not created by the supreme God, but by certain ἄρχοντες, or powers,
the chief of whom they called Sabaoth, rejected this whole rite, as a
foreign institution, given by Sabaoth, the God of the Jews, whom they
distinguished from the supreme God. The Seleucians and Hermians rejected
baptism by water, on pretence that it was not the baptism instituted by
Christ; because St. John Baptist, comparing his own baptism with that of
Christ, says, “I baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. iii. 11.
They thought that the souls of men consisted of fire and spirit, and
therefore that a baptism by fire was more suitable to their nature.
Another sect which rejected water-baptism, were the Manichees, who
looked upon it as of no efficacy towards salvation: but whether they
admitted any other kind of baptism, we are not told. The Paulicians, a
branch of this heresy, maintained that the word of the gospel is
baptism, because our Lord said, “I am the living water.”—_Bingham Orig.
Eccles._ b. x. cap. 2, § 1. _Epiph. Hæres._ 40. _Theod. Hær. Fab._ l. i.
cap. 11. _August. de Hæres._ cap. 59. _Philastr. de Hæres. Prædestinat.
Hæres._ 40. _Euthym. Panoplia_, Par. ii. tit. 21.
Though the ancient Church considered baptism as indispensably necessary
to salvation, it was always with this restriction, provided it could be
had: in extraordinary cases, wherein baptism could not be had, though
men were desirous of it, they made several exceptions in behalf of other
things, which in such circumstances were thought sufficient to supply
the want of it. (_Bingham_, § 19, 20.) The chief of these excepted cases
was martyrdom, which usually goes by the name of second baptism, or
baptism in men’s own blood, in the writings of the ancients. (_Cyprian_.
Ep. lxiii. _ad Julian_.) This baptism, they suppose, our Lord spoke of,
when he said, “I have another baptism to be baptized with,” alluding to
his own future martyrdom on the cross. In the _Acts of the Martyrdom of
Perpetua_, there is mention of one Saturus, a catechumen, who, being
thrown to a leopard, was, by the first bite of the wild beast, so bathed
in blood, that the people, in derision of the Christian doctrine of
martyrdom, cried out _salvum lotum, salvum lotum_, baptized and saved,
baptized and saved. (_Bingham_, § 24.) But these exceptions and
allowances were with respect to adult persons only, who could make some
compensation, by acts of faith and repentance, for the want of the
external ceremony of baptism. But, as to infants who died without
baptism, the case was thought more difficult, because they were
destitute both of “the outward visible sign and the inward spiritual
grace of baptism.” Upon which account they who spoke the most favourably
of their case, would only venture to assign them a middle state, neither
in heaven nor hell.—_Greg. Naz._ Orat. 40. _Sever. Catena in Johan._
iii.
For the rest, the rite of baptism was esteemed as the most universal
absolution and grand indulgence of the ministry of the Church; as
conveying a general pardon of sin to every true member of Christ; and as
the key of the sacraments, that opens the gate of the kingdom of heaven.
_Bingham_, b. xix, c. i. § 9.
Baptism is defined by the Church of Rome (_Alet’s Ritual_) to be “a
sacrament, instituted by our SAVIOUR, to wash away original sin, and all
those we may have committed; to communicate to mankind the spiritual
regeneration, and the grace of CHRIST JESUS; and to unite them to him,
as the living members to the head.”
When a child is to be baptized in that Church, the persons who bring it
wait for the priest at the door of the Church, who comes thither in his
surplice and purple stole, attended by his clerks. He begins with
questioning the godfathers, whether they promise, in the child’s name,
to live and die in the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, and what name
they would give the child. Then follows an exhortation to the sponsors;
after which the priest, calling the child by its name, asks it as
follows: “What dost thou demand of the Church?” The godfather answers,
“Eternal life.” The priest goes on; “If you are desirous of obtaining
eternal life, keep God’s commandments, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God,” &c. After which he breathes three times in the child’s face,
saying, “Come out of this child, thou evil spirit, and make room for the
Holy Ghost.” This said, he makes the sign of the cross on the child’s
forehead and breast, saying, “Receive the sign of the cross on thy
forehead, and in thy heart.” Then, taking off his cap, he repeats a
short prayer, and, laying his hand gently on the child’s head, repeats a
second prayer: which ended, he blesses some salt, and, putting a little
of it into the child’s mouth, pronounces these words: “Receive the salt
of wisdom.” All this is performed at the church door.
The priest, with the godfathers and godmothers, coming into the church,
and advancing towards the font, repeat the Apostles’ Creed and the
_Lord’s_ Prayer. Being come to the font, the priest exorcises the evil
spirit again, and, taking a little of his own spittle, with the thumb of
his right hand, rubs it on the child’s ears and nostrils, repeating, as
he touches the right ear, the same word (Ephatha, “be thou opened”)
which our Saviour made use of to the man born deaf and dumb. Lastly,
they pull off its swaddling-clothes, or strip it below the shoulders,
during which the priest prepares the oils, &c.
The sponsors then hold the child directly over the font, observing to
turn it due east and west; whereupon the priest asks the child, “whether
he renounces the devil and all his works,” and, the godfather having
answered in the affirmative, the priest anoints the child between the
shoulders in the form of a cross. Then, taking some of the consecrated
water, he pours part of it thrice on the child’s head, at each perfusion
calling on one of the persons of the holy Trinity. The priest concludes
the ceremony of baptism with an exhortation.
It is to be observed, that, in the naming the child, all profane names,
such as those of the heathens and their gods, are never admitted; and
that a priest is authorized to change the name of a child (though it be
a Scripture name) who has been baptized by a Protestant minister.
Benserade, we are told, had like to have had his Christian name, which
was Isaac, changed, when the bishop confirmed him, had he not prevented
it by a jest: for, when they would have changed his name, and given him
another, he asked them, “What they gave him into the bargain;” which so
pleased the bishop, that he permitted him to retain his former name.
The Romish Church allows midwives, in cases of danger, to baptize a
child before it is come entirely out of its mother’s womb: where it is
to be observed, that some part of the body of the child must appear
before it can be baptized, and that it is baptized on the part which
first appears: if it be the head it is not necessary to rebaptize the
child; but if only a foot or hand appears, it is necessary to repeat
baptism. A still-born child, thus baptized, may be buried in consecrated
ground. A monster, or creature that has not the human form, must not be
baptized: if it be doubtful whether it be a human creature or not, it is
baptized conditionally thus, “If thou art a man, I baptize thee,” &c.
The Greek Church differs from the Romish, as to the rite of baptism,
chiefly, in performing it by immersion, or plunging the infant all
over in the water, which the relations of the child take care to have
warmed, and throw into it a collection of the most odoriferous
flowers.—_Rycaut’s State of the Greek Church._
The Church of England (Article xxvii.) defines baptism to be, “not only
a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are
discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of
regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that
receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of the
forgiveness of sin, of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy
Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace
increased, by virtue of prayer to God.” It is added, “that the baptism
of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most
agreeable with the institution of Christ.”
In the rubrics of her liturgy, (see Office for Ministration of Public
Baptism,) the Church prescribes, that baptism be administered only on
Sundays and holy days, except in cases of necessity. She requires
sponsors for infants; for every male child two godfathers and one
godmother; and for every female two godmothers and one godfather. We
find this provision made by a constitution of Edmond, archbishop of
Canterbury, A. D. 1236; and in a synod held at Worcester, A. D. 1240. By
the 29th canon of our Church, no parent is to be admitted to answer as
godfather to his own child.—_Bp. Gibson’s Codex_, vol. i. p. 439.
The form of administering baptism is too well known to require a
particular account to be given of it. We shall only observe some of the
more material differences between the form, as it stood in the first
liturgy of King Edward, and that in our Common Prayer Book at present.
First, in that of King Edward, we meet with a form of exorcism, founded
upon the like practice of the primitive Church, which our reformers left
out, when they took a review of the liturgy in the 5th and 6th of that
king. It is as follows.
“_Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say;_
“I command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou come out, and depart from these
infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call to his holy
baptism, to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation.
Therefore, thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy
judgment, remember the day to be at hand, wherein thou shalt burn in
fire everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels. And presume not
hereafter to exercise any tyranny towards these infants, whom Christ
hath bought with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism
calleth to be of his flock.”
The form of consecrating the water did not make a part of the office in
King Edward’s liturgy, as it does in the present, because the water in
the font was changed and consecrated but once a month. The form likewise
itself was something different from that we now use, and was introduced
with a short prayer, that “Jesus Christ, upon whom (when he was
baptized) the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, would send
down the same Holy Spirit, to sanctify the fountain of baptism; which
prayer was afterwards left out, at the second review.
By King Edward’s First Book, the minister is to “dip the child in the
water thrice; first dipping the right side; secondly the left; the third
time dipping the face toward the font.” This trine immersion was a very
ancient practice in the Christian Church, and used in honour of the Holy
Trinity: though some later writers say, it was done to represent the
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with his three days’
continuance in the grave. Afterwards, the Arians making an ill use of
it, by persuading the people that it was used to denote that the three
persons in the Trinity were three distinct substances, the orthodox left
it off, and used only one single immersion.—_Tertull. adv. Prax._ c. 26.
_Greg. Nyss. de Bapt. Christi. Cyril, Catech. Mystag._
By the first Common Prayer of King Edward, after the child was baptized,
the godfathers and godmothers were to lay their hands upon it, and the
minister was to put on him the white vestment commonly called the
Chrysome, and to say: “Take this white vesture, as a token of the
innocency which, by God’s grace, in this holy sacrament of baptism, is
given unto thee; and for a sign, whereby thou art admonished, so long as
thou livest, to give thyself to innocence of living, that, after this
transitory life, thou mayest be partaker of the life everlasting. Amen.”
As soon as he had pronounced these words, he was to anoint the infant on
the head, saying, “Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who hath regenerated thee by water and the Holy Ghost, and hath given
unto thee remission of all thy sins; vouchsafe to anoint thee with the
unction of his Holy Spirit, and bring thee to the inheritance of
everlasting life. Amen.” This was manifestly done in imitation of the
practice of the primitive Church.
The custom of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them in the font,
which at first was allowed in case of the weakness or sickness of the
infant, has so far prevailed, that immersion is at length almost
excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or
sprinkling, was, that several of our English divines, flying into
Germany and Switzerland, during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and
returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with
them a great zeal for the Protestant Churches beyond sea where they had
been sheltered and received; and, having observed that at Geneva
(_Calvin, Instit._ lib. iv. c. 15) and some other places baptism was
administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of
England a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice
dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. This, together with the
coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish
entirely the practice of dipping infants in the font.
Lay-baptism we find to have been permitted by both the Common Prayer
Books of King Edward, and that of Queen Elizabeth, when an infant is in
immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister cannot be had. This was
founded upon the mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation
without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have
clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved in a
convocation, held in the year 1575, that even private baptism, in a case
of necessity, was only to be administered by a lawful minister.—_Bp.
Gibson’s Codex_, tit. xviii. vol. i. ch. 9, p. 446.
It remains to be observed, that, by a provincial constitution, made in
the year 1236, (26th of Hen. III.,) neither the water, nor the vessel
containing it, which have been made use of in private baptism, are
afterwards to be applied to common uses: but, out of reverence to the
sacrament, the water is to be poured into the fire, or else carried into
the church and put into the font; and the vessel to be burnt, or else
appropriated to some use in the church. But no provision is made for the
disposition of the water used in the font at church. In the Greek
Church, particular care is taken that it be not thrown into the street
like common water, but poured into a hollow place under the altar,
(called θαλασσίδιον or χωνεῖον,) where it is soaked into the earth, or
finds a passage.—_Broughton. Bp. Gibson’s Codex_, tit. xviii. c. 2, vol.
i. p. 435. _Dr. Smith’s Account of the Gr. Church._
BAPTISM, ADULT. “It was thought convenient, that some prayers and
thanksgivings, fitted to special occasions, should be added;
particularly an office for the baptism of such as are of riper years;
which, although not so necessary when the former book was compiled, yet
by the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late
times crept in amongst us, is now become necessary, and may be always
useful for the baptizing of natives in our plantations, and others
converted to the faith.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._
_Rubric._ “When any such persons of riper years are to be baptized,
timely notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he shall appoint for
that purpose, a week before at the least, by the parents or some other
discreet persons; that so due care may be taken for their examination,
whether they be sufficiently instructed in the principles of the
Christian religion; and that they may be exhorted to prepare themselves
with prayers and fasting for the receiving of this holy sacrament. And
if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the
people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy day appointed) shall be
ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson,
either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion
shall think fit. And it is expedient that every person thus baptized
should be confirmed by the bishop, so soon after his baptism as
conveniently may be; that so he may be admitted to the holy communion.”
BAPTISM, INFANT. _Article 27._ “The baptism of young children is in
anywise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the
institution of CHRIST.”
_Rubric._ “The curates of every parish shall often admonish the people,
that they defer not the baptism of their children longer than the first
or second Sunday next after their birth, or other holy day falling
between; unless upon a great and reasonable cause, to be approved by the
curate.”
The practice of infant baptism seems to be a necessary consequence of
the doctrine of original sin and of the grace of baptism. If it be only
by union with CHRIST that the children of Adam can be saved; and if, as
the apostle teaches, in baptism “we put on CHRIST,” then it was natural
for parents to ask for permission to bring their little ones to CHRIST,
that they might be partakers of the free grace that is offered to all;
but though offered to all, to be applied individually. It may be because
it is so necessary a consequence of the doctrine of original sin, that
the rite of infant baptism is not enjoined in Scripture. But though
there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants, and although for
the practice we must plead the tradition of the Church Universal, still
we may find a warrant in Scripture in favour of the traditional
practice. We find it generally stated that the apostles baptized whole
households, and CHRIST our SAVIOUR commanded them to baptize all
nations, of which infants form a considerable part. And in giving this
injunction, we may presume that he intended to _in_clude infants, from
the very fact of his not _ex_cluding them. For he was addressing Jews;
and when the Jews converted a heathen to faith in the GOD of Israel,
they were accustomed to baptize the convert, _together with all the
infants of his family_. And, consequently, when our LORD commanded
_Jews_, i.e. _men accustomed to this practice_, to baptize nations, the
fact that he did not positively _repel_ infants, _implied_ an injunction
to _baptize_ them; and when the HOLY SPIRIT records that the apostles,
in obedience to that injunction, baptized whole households, the argument
gains increased force. This is probably what St. Paul means, when, in
the seventh chapter of the First Corinthians, verse 14, he speaks of the
children of believers as being holy: they are so far holy, that they may
be brought to the sacrament of baptism. From the apostles has come down
the practice of baptizing _infants_, the Church requiring security,
through certain _sponsors_, that the children shall be brought up to
lead a godly and a Christian life. And by the early Christians the
practice was considered sufficiently sanctioned by the passage from St.
Mark, which is read in our baptismal office, in which we are told, that
the LORD JESUS CHRIST, having rebuked those that would have kept the
children from him, took them up in his arms and blessed them. He blessed
them, and his blessing must have conveyed grace to their souls;
therefore, of grace, children may be partakers. They may receive
spiritual life, though it may be long before that life develope itself;
and that life they may lose by sinning.
BAPTISM, LAY. We shall briefly state the history of lay baptism in our
Church both before and after the Reformation. In the “Laws
Ecclesiastical” of Edmund, king of England, A. D. 945, it is
stated:—“Women, when their time of child-bearing is near at hand, shall
have water ready, for baptizing the child in case of necessity.”
In the national synod under Otho, 1237, it is directed: “For cases of
necessity, the priests on Sundays shall frequently instruct their
parishioners in the form of baptism.” To which it is added, in the
Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, in 1279, “Which form shall be thus:
I crysten thee in the name of the FADER, and of the SONE, and of the
HOLY GOSTE.”
In the Constitutions of the same archbishop, in 1281, it is ruled that
infants baptized by laymen or women (in imminent danger of death) shall
not be baptized again; and the priest shall afterwards supply the rest.
By the rubrics of the second and of the fifth of Edward VI. it was
ordered thus: “The pastors and curates shall often admonish the people,
that without great cause and necessity they baptize not children at home
in their houses; and when great need shall compel them so to do, that
then they minister it in this fashion:—First, let them that be present
call upon GOD for his grace, and say the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will
suffer; and then one of them shall name the child and dip him in the
water, or pour water upon him, saying these words, I baptize thee in the
name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”
In the manuscript copy of the Articles made in convocation in the year
1575, the twelfth is, “Item, where some ambiguity and doubt hath arisen
among divers, by what persons private baptism is to be administered;
forasmuch as by the Book of Common Prayer allowed by the statute, the
bishop of the diocese is authorized to expound and resolve all such
doubts as shall arise, concerning the manner how to understand and to
execute the things contained in the said book; it is now, by the said
archbishop and bishops, expounded and resolved, and every of them doth
expound and resolve, that the said private baptism, in case of
necessity, is only to be ministered by a lawful minister or deacon
called to be present for that purpose, and by none other; and that every
bishop in his diocese shall take order that this exposition of the said
doubt shall be published in writing, before the first day of May next
coming, in every parish church of his diocese in this province; and
thereby all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with the
ministering of baptism privately, being no part of their vocation.” This
article was not published in the printed copy; but whether on the same
account that the fifteenth article was left out, (namely, because
disapproved by the Crown,) does not certainly appear. However, the
ambiguity remained till the conference at Hampton Court, in which the
king said, that if baptism was termed private, because any but a lawful
minister might baptize, he utterly disliked it, and the point was then
debated; which debate ended in an order to the bishops to explain it, so
as to restrain it to a lawful minister. Accordingly, in the Book of
Common Prayer, which was set forth the same year, the alterations were
printed in the rubric thus:—“And also they shall warn them, that without
great cause they procure not their children to be baptized at home in
their houses. And when great need shall compel them so to do, then
baptism shall be administered on this fashion: First, let the lawful
minister and them that be present call upon GOD for his grace, and say
the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer; and then the child being
named by some one that is present, the said minister shall dip it in the
water, or pour water upon it.” And other expressions, in other parts of
the service, which seemed before to admit of lay baptism, were so
turned, as expressly to exclude it.
BAPTISM, PRIVATE. _Rubric._ “The curates of every parish shall often
warn the people, that without great cause and necessity, they procure
not their children to be baptized at home in their houses.”
Canon 69. “If any minister being duly, without any manner of collusion,
informed of the weakness and danger of death of any infant unbaptized in
his parish, and thereupon desired to go or come to the place where the
said infant remaineth, to baptize the same, shall either wilfully refuse
so to do, or of purpose or of gross negligence shall so defer the time,
as when he might conveniently have resorted to the place, and have
baptized the said infant, it dieth through such his default unbaptized,
the said minister shall be suspended for three months, and before his
restitution shall acknowledge his fault, and promise before his ordinary
that he will not wittingly incur the like again. Provided, that where
there is a curate, or a substitute, this constitution shall not extend
to the parson or vicar himself, but to the curate or substitute
present.”
_Rubric._ “The child being named by some one that is present, the
minister shall pour water upon it.
“And let them not doubt, but that the child so baptized is lawfully and
sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again. Yet,
nevertheless, if the child which is after this sort baptized do
afterward live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to
the intent that the congregation may be certified of the true form of
baptism privately before administered to such child.”
BAPTISM, PUBLIC. At first baptism was administered publicly, as occasion
served, by rivers; afterwards the baptistery was built, at the entrance
of the church or very near it, which had a large basin in it, that held
the persons to be baptized, and they went down by steps into it.
Afterwards, when immersion came to be disused, fonts were set up at the
entrance of churches.
By the “Laws Ecclesiastical” of King Edmund, it is directed that there
shall be a font of stone, or other competent material, in every church;
which shall be decently covered and kept, and not converted to other
uses.
And by canon 81, There shall be a font of stone in every church and
chapel where baptism is to be administered; the same to be set in the
ancient usual places: in which only font the minister shall baptize
publicly.
The rubric directs that the people are to be admonished, that it is most
convenient that baptism shall not be administered but upon Sundays and
other holy days, when the most number of people come together; as well
for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of
them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ’s Church, as also
because in the baptism of infants, every man present may be put in
remembrance of his own profession made to GOD in his baptism.
Nevertheless, if necessity so require, children may be baptized upon any
other day.
And by canon 68, No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child
according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer, that is brought to
the church to him upon Sundays and holy days to be christened
(convenient warning being given him thereof before). And if he shall
refuse so to do, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from
his ministry by the space of three months.
The rubric also directs, that when there are children to be baptized,
the parents shall give knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning
before the beginning of morning prayer, to the curate.
The rubric further directs, that there shall be for every male child to
be baptized two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one
godfather and two godmothers.
By the 29th canon it is related, that no parent shall be urged to be
present, nor admitted to answer as godfather for his own child: nor any
godfather or godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or
speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf.
Neither shall any persons be admitted godfather or godmother to any
child at christening or confirmation, before the said person so
undertaking hath received the holy communion.
According to the rubric, the godfathers and godmothers, and the people
with the children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after
the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last
lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint.
The rubric appoints that the priest coming to the font, which is then to
be filled with pure water, shall perform the office of public baptism.
It may be here observed, that the questions in the office of the 2
Edward VI., “Dost thou renounce?” and so on, were put to the child, and
not to the godfathers and godmothers, which (with all due submission)
seems more applicable to the end of the institution; besides that it is
not consistent (as it seems) with the propriety of language, to say to
three persons collectively, “Dost _thou_ in the name of this child do
this or that?”
By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the ministers are to take care
not to permit wanton names, which being pronounced do sound to
lasciviousness, to be given to children baptized, especially of the
female sex; and if otherwise it be done, the same shall be changed by
the bishop at confirmation; which being so changed at confirmation (Lord
Coke says) shall be deemed the lawful name, though this appears to be no
longer the case. In the ancient offices of Confirmation, the bishop
pronounced the name of the child; and if the bishop did not approve of
the name, or the person to be confirmed, or his friends, desired it to
be altered, it might be done by the bishop’s then pronouncing a new
name; but by the form of the present liturgy, the bishop doth not
pronounce the name of the person to be confirmed, and therefore cannot
alter it.
The rubric goes on to direct, The priest, taking the child into his
hands, shall say to the godfathers and godmothers, “Name this child:”
and then naming it after them, (if they shall certify him that the child
may well endure it,) he shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily,
saying, “_N._ I baptize thee in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON,
and of the HOLY GHOST.” But if they certify that the child is weak, it
shall suffice to pour water upon it.
Here we may observe that the dipping by the office of the 2 Edward VI.
was not all over; but they first dipped the right side, then the left,
then the face towards the font.
The rubric directs that the minister shall sign the child with the sign
of the cross. And to take away all scruple concerning the same, the true
explication thereof, and the just reasons for retaining of this
ceremony, are set forth in the thirtieth canon. The substance of which
canon is this, that the first Christians gloried in the cross of CHRIST;
that the Scripture sets forth our whole redemption under the name of the
cross; that the sign of the cross was used by the first Christians in
all their actions, and especially in the baptizing of their children;
that the abuse of it by the Church of Rome does not take away the lawful
use of it; that the same has been approved by the reformed divines, with
sufficient cautions nevertheless against superstition in the use of it;
that it is no part of the substance of this sacrament, and that the
infant baptized is by virtue of baptism, before it be signed with the
sign of the cross, received into the congregation of CHRIST’S flock as a
perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the
cross; and therefore, that the same, being purged from all Popish
superstition and error, and reduced to its primary institution, upon
those rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent which are
consonant to the word of GOD and to the judgments of all the ancient
fathers, ought to be retained in the Church, considering that things of
themselves indifferent do, in some sort, alter their natures when they
become enjoined or prohibited by lawful authority.
The following is Dr. Comber’s analysis of our baptismal office:—The
first part of the office, or the preparation before baptism, concerns
either the child or the sureties. As to the child, we first inquire if
it want baptism; secondly, show the necessity of it in an exhortation;
thirdly, we pray it may be fitted for it in the two collects. First, the
priest asks if this child have been already baptized, because St. Paul
saith, “there is but one baptism” (Ephes. iv. 5); and as we are born, so
we are born again, but once. Secondly, the minister begins the
exhortation, showing, 1. what reason there is to baptize this child,
namely, because of its being born in original sin, (Psalm li. 5,) and by
consequence liable to condemnation (Rom. v. 12); the only way to free it
from which is baptizing it with water and the HOLY GHOST. (John iii. 5.)
And, 2. beseeching all present, upon this account, to pray to GOD, that,
while he baptizes this child with water, GOD will give it his Holy
Spirit, so as to make it a lively member of CHRIST’S Church, whereby it
may have a title to “remission of sins.” Thirdly, the two collects
follow, made by the priest and all the people for the child: the first
collect commemorates how GOD did typify this salvation, which he now
gives by baptism, in saving Noah and all his by water (1 Pet. iii. 21);
and by carrying the Israelites safe through the Red Sea. (1 Cor. x. 2.)
And it declares also how CHRIST himself, by being baptized, sanctified
water for remission of sin: and upon these grounds we pray that GOD will
by his Spirit cleanse and sanctify this child, that he may be delivered
from his wrath, saved in the ark of his Church, and so filled with grace
as to live holily here, and happily hereafter. The second collect, after
owning GOD’S power to help this child, and to raise him from the death
of sin to the life of righteousness, doth petition him to grant it may
receive remission and regeneration, pleading with GOD to grant this
request, by his promise to give to them that ask, that so this infant
may be spiritually cleansed by GOD’S grace in its baptism, and come at
last to his eternal kingdom, through CHRIST our LORD. Amen.
The next part of the preparation concerns the godfathers or sureties,
who are, 1. encouraged in the gospel and its application, with the
thanksgiving; 2. instructed in the preface before the covenant; 3.
engaged in the questions and answers. The Jews had sureties at
circumcision, who promised for the child till it came to age (Isaiah
viii. 2); and the primitive Christians had sponsors to engage for such
as were baptized, and since children cannot make a covenant themselves,
it is charity to appoint (as the laws of men do) others to do it for
them till they be of age; and this gives security to the Church, the
child shall not be an apostate; provides a monitor both for the child
and its parents, to mind them of this vow, and keep the memory of this
new birth, by giving the child new and spiritual relations of godfathers
and godmothers. Now to these the priest next addresseth, 1. in _the
Gospel_ (Mark x. 13–16); which shows how the Jews, believing that
CHRIST’S blessing would be very beneficial to young children, brought
them to him in their arms, and when the disciples checked them, CHRIST
first declares that infants, and such as were like them, had the only
right to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore they had good right to his
love and his blessing, and to all means which might bring them to it,
and accordingly he took them in his arms and blessed them. After this
follows the _explication_, and applying this gospel to the sureties; for
if they doubt, here they may see CHRIST’S love to infants, and their
right to heaven and to this means, so that they may firmly believe he
will pardon and sanctify this child, and grant it a title to his
kingdom; and that he is well pleased with them, for bringing this child
to his holy baptism; for he desires this infant, as well as we all, may
come to know and believe in him. Wherefore, thirdly, here is _a
thanksgiving_ to be offered up by all, beginning with praising GOD for
calling us into his Church, where we may know him and obtain the grace
to believe, it being very proper for us to bless GOD for our being
Christians, when a new Christian is to be made; and then follows a
prayer, that we who are Christians may grow in grace, and that this
infant may receive the Spirit in order to its regeneration and
salvation. After which form of devotion, fourthly, there is a _preface
to the covenant_, wherein the godfathers and godmothers are put in mind,
first, what hath been done already, namely, they have brought the child
to CHRIST, and begged of him in the collects to accept it, and CHRIST
hath showed them in the Gospel that the child is capable to receive, and
he willing to give it, salvation and the means thereof, upon the
conditions required of all Christians, that is, repentance, faith, and
new obedience. Secondly, therefore, they are required to engage in the
name of this child, till it come of age, that it shall perform these
conditions required on its part, that it may have a title to that which
CHRIST doth promise, and will certainly perform on his part. Fifthly,
the engagement itself follows, which is very necessary, since baptism is
a mutual covenant between GOD and man, and therefore, in the beginning
of Christianity, (when the Church consisted chiefly of such as were
converted from the Jews and Heathens, after they came to age,) the
parties baptized answered these very same questions, and entered into
these very engagements, for themselves; which infants (who need the
benefits of baptism as much as any) not being able to do, the Church
lends them the feet of others to bring them, and the tongues of others
to promise for them; and the priest stands in GOD’S stead to take this
security in his name; he “demands,” therefore, of the sureties, first,
if they in the name and stead of this child will renounce all sinful
compliances with the devil, the world, and the flesh, which tempt us to
all kinds of sin, and so are GOD’S enemies, and ours also, in so high a
measure, that unless we vow never to follow and be led by them, we
cannot be received into league and friendship with GOD: to this they
reply in the singular number, as if the child spake by them, “I renounce
them all.” Secondly, as Philip asked the eunuch if he did believe before
he baptized him, (Acts viii. 37,) so the priest asks if they believe all
the articles of the Christian faith, into which religion they are now to
be entered; and therefore they must engage to hold all the fundamental
principles thereof, revealed in Scripture and comprised in the Apostles’
Creed; and they are to answer, “All this I stedfastly believe.” Thirdly,
that it may appear to be their own free act to admit themselves into
this holy religion, they are asked if they will be baptized into this
faith, and they answer, “That is my desire;” for who would not desire to
be a child of GOD, a member of CHRIST, and an heir of heaven? But since
these benefits of baptism are promised only to them who live holily,
fourthly, it is demanded if they will keep GOD’S holy will and
commandments as long as they live, since they now take CHRIST for their
Lord and Master, and list themselves under his banner, and receive his
grace in this sacrament, to renew and strengthen them to keep this vow?
Upon these accounts they promise “they will” keep GOD’S commandments.
And now the covenant is made between GOD and this infant, he hath
promised it pardon, grace, and glory, and is willing to adopt it for his
own child: and this child, by its sureties, hath engaged to forsake all
evil ways, to believe all truth, and to practise all kind of
virtue.—_Dean Comber._
BAPTISM, REGISTRATION OF. When the minister has baptized the child he
has a further duty to perform, in making an entry thereof in the parish
register, which is a book in which formerly all christenings, marriages,
and burials were recorded, and the use of which is enforced both by the
canon law and by the statute.
The keeping of parochial registries of baptism, and also of burial, are,
so far as regards the duties of clergymen in that respect, regulated by
the statute 52 Geo. III. c. 146, whereby it is enacted that registers of
public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized
according to the rites of our Church, shall be made and kept by the
rector or other the officiating minister of every parish or chapelry, on
books of parchment, or durable paper, to be provided by the king’s
printer, at the expense of the parishes; and the particular form of the
book, and of the manner of making the entries, are directed according to
a form in the schedule to the act.
The register book is to be deemed the property of the parish; the
custody of it is to be in the rector or other officiating minister, by
whom it is to be kept in an iron chest provided by the parish, either in
his own house, if he resides in the parish, or in the church, and the
book is to be taken from the chest only for the purpose of making
entries, being produced when necessary in evidence, or for some of the
purposes mentioned in the act.
The act 6 & 7 W. IV., called the General Registration Act, provides that
nothing therein contained shall affect the registration of baptisms or
burials, as now by law established; so that whatever any parishioner,
incumbent, or curate had respectively a right to insist upon, with
regard to the regulation of baptisms, may be equally insisted upon by
either party now. There are, however, enactments of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86,
which are to be observed in addition to those of 52 Geo. III. c. 146.
If any child born in England, whose birth shall have been registered
according to the provisions of 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 86, shall, within six
calendar months after it has been so registered, have any name given to
it in baptism, the parents or persons so procuring such name to be given
may, within seven days afterwards, procure and deliver to the registrar
a certificate according to a prescribed form, signed by the minister who
shall have performed the rite of baptism, which certificate the minister
is required to deliver immediately after the baptism, whenever it shall
then be demanded, on payment of the fee of 1_s._, which he shall be
entitled to receive for the same; and the registrar, or superintendant
registrar, upon the receipt of that certificate, and upon payment of a
fee of 1_s._, shall, without any erasure of the original entry,
forthwith register that the child was baptized by such a name; and such
registrar, or superintendant registrar, shall thereupon certify upon the
certificate the additional entry so made, and forthwith send the
certificate through the post to the registrar-general. Every rector,
&c., and every registrar, &c., who shall have the keeping for the time
being of any register book, shall, at all reasonable times, allow
searches to be made, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of
any entry or entries in the same, upon payment of a fee of 1_s._, for
every search extending over a period of not more than one year, and
6_d._ additional for every half year, and 2_s._ 6_d._ for every single
certificate.
BAPTISTERY. Properly a separate, or special, building for the
administration of holy baptism. In this sense, a baptistery, originally
intended and used for the purpose, does not occur in England; for that
which is called the baptistery at Canterbury, and contains the font, was
never so called, or so furnished, till the last century. The remains of
an ancient baptistery chapel have lately been discovered in Ely
cathedral; and the chapel is now in the course of restoration.
One of the most ancient baptisteries now existing is that of St. John
Lateran at Rome, erected by Constantine. It is a detached building, and
octagonal. In the centre is a large font of green basalt, into which the
persons to be baptized descended by the four steps which still remain.
It has two side chapels or exedræ. (See _Eustace, Classical Tour in
Italy_.)
Detached baptisteries still exist in many cities in Italy: the most
famous are those at Florence and Pisa. These served for the whole city;
anciently no town churches but the cathedral church having fonts. (See
_Bingham_, book viii. ch. 7, § 6.)
Sometimes the canopy to the font grows to so great amplitude as to be
supported by its own pillars, and to receive persons within it at the
baptismal service, and then it may be called a baptistery. This is the
case at Trunch and at Aylsham, both in Norfolk. (See _Font_.)
BAPTISTS. A name improperly assumed by those who deny the validity of
infant baptism, defer the baptism of their own children, and admit
proselytes into their community by a second washing. They are more
properly called Anabaptists, (see _Anabaptists_,) from their baptizing
again; or Antipædobaptists, from their denying the validity of infant
baptism. Their assumed name of Baptists would intimate that they alone
truly baptize, and it ought not therefore to be allowed them. We ought
no more to call them _Baptists_, than to call Socinians _Unitarians_, or
Papists _Catholics_, as if we did not hold the Unity of the GODHEAD, and
Socinians were distinguished from us by that article; or as if the
Papists, and not we, were _catholic_ or _true_ Christians.
The following is the account of the denomination given by Burder. The
members of this denomination are distinguished from all other professing
Christians by their opinions respecting the ordinance of Christian
baptism. Conceiving that positive institutions cannot be established by
analogical reasoning, but depend on the will of the SAVIOUR revealed in
express precepts, and that apostolical example illustrative of this is
the rule of duty, they differ from their Christian brethren with regard
both to the subjects and the mode of baptism.
With respect to the subjects, from the command which CHRIST gave after
his resurrection, and in which baptism is mentioned as consequent to
faith in the gospel, they conceive them to be those, and those only, who
believe what the apostles were then enjoined to preach.
With respect to the mode, they affirm that, instead of sprinkling or
pouring, the person ought to be immersed in the water, referring to the
primitive practice, and observing that the baptizer as well as the
baptized having gone down into the water, the latter is baptized in it,
and both come up out of it. They say, that John baptized in the Jordan,
and that JESUS, after being baptized, came up out of it. Believers are
said also to be “buried with CHRIST by baptism into death, wherein also
they are risen with him;” and the Baptists insist that this is a
doctrinal allusion incompatible with any other mode.
But they say that their views of this institution are much more
confirmed, and may be better understood, by studying its nature and
import. They consider it as an impressive emblem of that by which their
sins are remitted or washed away, and of that on account of which the
HOLY SPIRIT is given to those who obey the Messiah. In other words, they
view Christian baptism as a figurative representation of that which the
gospel of JESUS is in testimony. To this the mind of the baptized is
therefore naturally led, while spectators are to consider him as
professing his faith in the gospel, and his subjection to the REDEEMER.
The Baptists, therefore, would say, that none ought to be baptized
except those who seem to believe this gospel; and that immersion is not
properly a mode of baptism, but baptism itself.
Thus the English and most foreign Baptists consider a personal
profession of faith, and an immersion in water, as essential to baptism.
The profession of faith is generally made before the congregation, at a
church-meeting. On these occasions some have a creed, to which they
expect the candidate to assent, and to give a circumstantial account of
his conversion; but others require only a profession of his faith as a
Christian. The former generally consider baptism as an ordinance, which
initiates persons into a particular church; and they say that, without
breach of Christian liberty, they have a right to expect an agreement in
articles of faith in their own societies. The latter think that baptism
initiates merely into a profession of the Christian religion, and
therefore say that they have no right to require an assent to their
creed from such as do not intend to join their communion; and, in
support of their opinion, they quote the baptism of the eunuch, in the
eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
The Baptists are divided into the _General_, who are Arminians, and the
_Particular_, who are Calvinists. Some of both classes allow mixed
communion, by which is understood, that those who have not been baptized
by immersion on the profession of their faith, (but in their infancy,
which they themselves deem valid,) may sit down at the LORD’S table
along with those who have been thus baptized. This has given rise to
much controversy on the subject.
Some of both classes of Baptists are, at the same time, _Sabbatarians_,
and, with the Jews, observe the seventh day of the week as the sabbath.
This has been adopted by them from a persuasion that, all the ten
commandments are in their nature strictly moral, and that the observance
of the seventh day was never abrogated or repealed by our SAVIOUR or his
apostles.
In discipline, the Baptists differ little from the Independents. In
Scotland they have some peculiarities, not necessary to notice.
BARDESANISTS. Christian heretics in the East, and the followers of
Bardesanes, who lived in Mesopotamia in the second century, and was
first the disciple of Valentinus, but quitted that heresy, and wrote not
only against it, but against the Marcionite and other heresies of his
time; he afterwards unhappily fell into the errors he had before
refuted. The Bardesanists differed from the Catholic Church on three
points:—1. They held the devil to be a self-existent, independent being.
2. They taught that our LORD was not born of a woman, but brought his
body with him from heaven. 3. They denied the resurrection of the
body.—_Euseb. Præp. Evang._ lib. vi. c. 9. _Epiph. Hæres._ 5, 6.
_Origen, contr. Marcion_, § 3.
BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF. The Epistle of St. Barnabas is published by
Archbishop Wake, among his translations of the works of the Apostolical
Fathers; and in the preliminary dissertation the reader will find the
arguments which are adduced to prove this to be the work of St.
Barnabas. By others it is referred to the second century, and is
supposed to be the work of a converted Alexandrian Jew. Du Pin speaks of
it as a work full of edification for the Church, though not canonical.
By Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, by Eusebius and St. Jerome, the work
is attributed to St. Barnabas, though they declare that it ought not to
be esteemed of the same authority as the canonical books, “because,
although it really belongs to St. Barnabas, yet it is not generally
received by the whole Catholic Church.”—_Wake. Du Pin._
BARNABAS’ DAY (ST.). 11th of June. This apostle was born in the island
of Cyprus, and was descended from parents of the house of Levi. He
became a student of the Jewish law, under Gamaliel, who was also the
instructor of St. Paul. St. Barnabas was one of those who freely gave up
his worldly goods into the common stock, which was voluntarily formed by
the earliest converts to Christianity. After the conversion of St. Paul,
St. Barnabas had the distinguished honour of introducing him into the
society of the apostles; and was afterwards his fellow-labourer in many
places, especially at Antioch, where the name of Christian was first
assumed by the followers of JESUS. It has been said that St. Barnabas
founded the Church of Milan, and that he was stoned to death at Salamis,
in Cyprus; but these accounts are very uncertain. For the Epistle
ascribed to him, see the preceding article.
BARNABITES. Called canons regular of St. Paul: an order of Romish monks
approved by Pope Clement VII. and Pope Paul III. There have been several
learned men of the order, and they have several monasteries in France,
Italy, and Savoy: they call them by the name of canons of St. Paul,
because their first founders had their denomination from their reading
St. Paul’s Epistles; and they are named Barnabites for their particular
devotion for St. Barnabas.—_Du Pin._
BARSANIANS, or SEMIDULITES. Heretics that began to appear in the sixth
age; they maintained the errors of the Gradanaites, and made their
sacrifices consist in taking wheat flour on the top of their finger, and
carrying it to their mouths.
BARTHOLOMEW’S DAY (ST.). 24th of August. The day appointed for the
commemoration of this apostle. In the catalogue of the apostles, which
is given by the first three of the evangelists, Bartholomew makes one of
the number. St. John, however, not mentioning him, and recording several
things of another disciple, whom he calls Nathanael, and who is not
named by the other evangelists, this has occasioned many to be of the
opinion that Bartholomew and Nathanael were the same person. St.
Bartholomew is said to have preached the gospel in the Greater Armenia,
and to have converted the Lycaonians to Christianity. It is also
believed that he carried the gospel into India: and as there is no
record of his return, it is not improbable that he suffered martyrdom in
that country.
St. Bartholomew’s day is distinguished in history on account of that
horrid and atrocious carnage, called the _Parisian Massacre_. This
shocking scene of religious phrensy was marked with such barbarity as
would exceed all belief, if it were not attested by authentic evidence.
In 1572, in the reign of Charles IX., numbers of the principal
Protestants were invited to Paris, under a solemn oath of safety, to
celebrate the marriage of the king of Navarre with the sister of the
French king. The queen dowager of Navarre, a zealous Protestant, was
poisoned by a pair of gloves before the marriage was solemnized. On the
24th of August, being St. Bartholomew’s day, about morning twilight, the
massacre commenced on the tolling of a bell of the church of St. Germain
l’Auxerrois. The Admiral Coligni was basely murdered in his own house,
and then thrown out of a window, to gratify the malice of the Duke of
Guise. His head was afterwards cut off, and sent to the king and the
queen mother; and his body, after a thousand indignities offered to it,
was hung up by the feet upon a gibbet. The murderers then ravaged the
whole city of Paris, and put to death more than ten thousand persons of
all ranks. “This,” says Thuanus, “was a horrible scene. The very streets
and passages resounded with the groans of the dying, and of those who
were about to be murdered. The bodies of the slain were thrown out of
the windows, and with them the courts and chambers of the houses were
filled. The dead bodies of others were dragged through the streets, and
the blood flowed down the channels in such torrents, that it seemed to
empty itself into the neighbouring river. In short, an innumerable
multitude of men, women with child, maidens, and children, were involved
in one common destruction; and all the gates and entrances to the king’s
palace were besmeared with blood. From Paris, the massacre spread
throughout the kingdom. In the city of Meaux, the Papists threw into
gaol more than two hundred persons; and after they had ravished and
killed a great number of women, and plundered the houses of the
Protestants, they executed their fury on those whom they had imprisoned,
whom they killed in cold blood, and whose bodies were thrown into
ditches, and into the river Maine. At Orleans they murdered more than
five hundred men, women, and children, and enriched themselves with the
plunder of their property. Similar cruelties were exercised at Angers,
Troyes, Bourges, La Charité, and especially at Lyons, where they
inhumanly destroyed more than eight hundred Protestants, whose bodies
were dragged through the streets and thrown half dead into the river. It
would be endless to mention the butcheries committed at Valence, Roanne,
Rouen, &c. It is asserted that, on this dreadful occasion, more than
thirty thousand persons were put to death. This atrocious massacre met
with the deliberate approbation of the pope and the authorities of the
Romish Church, and must convince every thinking man that resistance to
Popish aggression is a work of Christian charity.
BARUCH (THE PROPHECY OF). One of the apocryphal books, subjoined to the
canon of the Old Testament. Baruch was the son of Neriah, who was the
disciple and amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah. It has been reckoned
part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and is often cited by the ancient fathers
as such. Josephus tells us, Baruch was descended of a noble family; and
it is said, in the book itself, that he wrote this prophecy at Babylon;
but at what time is uncertain.—_Clem. Alexand. Pædag._ ch. 10. _Cyprian.
de Testimon. ad Quirinum_, lib. ii.
The subject of it is an epistle sent, or feigned to be sent, by king
Jehoiakim, and the Jews in captivity with him at Babylon, to their
brethren the Jews, who were left behind in the land of Judea, and in
Jerusalem: there is prefixed an historical Preface, (_Pref. to the Book
of Baruch_,) which relates, that Baruch, being then at Babylon, did, by
the appointment of the king and the Jews, and in their name, draw up
this epistle, and afterwards read it to them for their approbation;
after which it was sent to Jerusalem, with a collection of money, to
Joachim the high priest, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, and to
the priests, and to all the people, to buy therewith burnt-offerings,
and sin-offerings, and incense, &c.
It is difficult to determine in what language this prophecy was
originally written. There are extant three copies of it; one in Greek,
the other two in Syriac; but which of these, or whether any one of them,
be the original, is uncertain.—_Hieron. in Præfat. ad Jerem._
The Jews rejected this book, because it did not appear to have been
written in Hebrew; nor is it in the catalogue of sacred books, given us
by Origen, Hilary, Ruffinus, and others. But in the Council of Laodicea,
in St. Cyril, Epiphanius, and Athanasius, it is joined with the prophecy
of Jeremiah.
BASILIAN MONKS. Monks of the order of St. Basil, who lived in the fourth
century. St. Basil, having retired into a desert in the province of
Pontus, founded a monastery for the convenience of himself and his
numerous followers; and for the better regulation of this new society,
it is said that he drew up in writing certain rules which he wished them
to observe, though some think that he did not compose these rules. This
new order soon spread over all the East, and after some time passed into
the West. Some authors pretend that St. Basil saw himself the spiritual
father of more than 90,000 monks in the East only; but this order, which
flourished during more than three centuries, was considerably diminished
by heresy, schism, and a change of empire. They also say, that it has
produced 14 popes, 1805 bishops, 3010 abbots, and 11,085 martyrs. This
order also boasts of several emperors, kings, and princes, who have
embraced its rule.—_Tillemont, Hist. Eccles._, tom. ix. The order of St.
Basil prevails almost exclusively in the orthodox Greek Churches.
BASILICA. The halls of justice and of other public business among the
Romans were thus called; and many of them, when converted into Christian
churches, retained the same name. The general ground-plan of the
basilica was also frequently retained in the erection of a church. The
basilicas terminated with a conchoidal recess, or apsis, (see _Apse_,)
where the prætor and magistrates sat: beneath this was a transverse hall
or gallery, the origin of the transept, and below was the great hall
with its side passages, afterwards called the nave and aisles.
The bishop of Rome had seven cathedrals called Basilicæ. Six of these
were erected or converted into churches by Constantine, viz. St. John
Lateran, (the regular cathedral of Rome,) the ancient church of St.
Peter, on the Vatican Hill, St. Sebastian, St. Laurence, the Holy Cross,
St. Mary the Greater; and one by Theodosius, viz. St. Paul. There are
other very ancient churches in Rome, basilicas in form and name, but not
cathedrals; for example, St. Clement’s church, supposed to have been
originally the house of the apostolical bishop of that name, and the
most ancient existing church in the world. Several Italian churches are
called Basilicas; at Milan especially; often more than one in a city.
(See _Cathedrals_.)—_Jebb._
It is sometimes said, but without any certain foundation, that some of
the churches in England with circular apsidal terminations of the
chancel, (such as Kilpeck and Steetly,) were originally Roman basilicas.
They rather derive their form from the Oriental country churches, which
are uniformly apsidal. The most that can be said of them is, that they
do, in some respects, resemble the basilicas in arrangement. But as to
the cathedrals of England, the case is different: and since old Saxon or
Norman churches were unquestionably debasements of the Roman style in
their architectural features, it is possible that they derived from Rome
the characteristics uniformly observed in the old basilicas. The
conversion of the apses into sepulchral chapels for shrines, as at
Westminster and Canterbury, as superstition increased, destroyed the
ancient arrangements.—_Jebb._
BASILIDIANS. A sect of the Gnostic heretics, the followers of Basilides,
who taught that from the Unborn FATHER was born his Mind, and from him
the WORD, from him Understanding (φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power,
and from them Excellencies, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven.
He then introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set
derived from the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the
author of their own peculiar heaven. To all these angels and heavens he
gave names, and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first
of them is called Abraxas, a mystical name, containing in it the number
365: the last and lowest is the one which we see; the creators of which
made this world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this
division the Jewish nation came to the share of the prince of the
angels; and as he wished to bring all other nations into subjection to
his favourite nation, the other angelic princes and their nations
resisted him and his nation. The Supreme FATHER, seeing this state of
things, sent his first-begotten MIND, who is also called CHRIST, to
deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the creators.
He accordingly appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds.
He did not, however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of
Cyrene, and stood by laughing, while Simon suffered; and afterwards,
being himself incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this
transformation, Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all
times deny him that was crucified, and that they alone who did so
understood the providential dealings of the MOST HIGH, and by that
knowledge were freed from the power of the angels, whilst those who
confessed him remained under their power. Like Saturninus, however, but
in other words, he asserted that the soul alone was capable of
salvation, but the body necessarily perishable. He taught, moreover,
that they who knew his whole system, and could recount the names of the
angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and could pass through and see
them, without being seen in return; that they ought likewise to keep
themselves individually and personally unknown to common men, and even
to deny that they are what they are; that they should assert themselves
to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means reveal their
mysteries.—_Epiph. Hæres._ xxiv. c. 1. _Cave, Hist. Liter. Sæc.
Gnosticum_.
BASON (or BASIN) [so spelt in the sealed books] FOR THE OFFERTORY.
“Whilst the sentences for the Offertory are in reading, the deacons,
churchwardens, and other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall
receive the alms for the poor, and _other devotions_ of the people, in a
decent bason, to be provided by the parish for that purpose.”—_Rubric._
It is clear from this expression, “other devotions,” that our reformers
did not intend to interfere with the ancient destination of alms in the
holy communion; but that they intended that all our gifts, whether for
the relief of the poor—to which indeed the Church assigns the first
place—or for any other good purpose, should be made as an offering to
GOD; the word _devotions_ signifying an act of giving up and dedicating
to Almighty GOD, and accompanied with prayer. In Exeter cathedral, and
others as we believe, the alms are still apportioned to these three
purposes,—relief of the poor, support of the fabric of the church, and
of the clergy. To this latter use in the early Church they were almost
exclusively devoted, the clergy being the chief almoners for the poor,
as the Church by her rightful office now is. It is often objected to
giving largely in the Offertory that there are now poor laws; but surely
the laws of the state should not cramp the free-will offerings of
CHRIST’S people. Is it too much to make the Church the steward of our
offerings for the cause of CHRIST? It were much to be wished that all
gifts were again made through this quiet and authorized channel. It is
quite within the province of the donor to specify the object on which he
wishes the gift to be expended, and the clergy will gladly aid the
people in obedience to their holy mother the Church.
BATH-KOL, or BATH-COL, signifies _Daughter of the Voice_. It is a name
by which the Jewish writers distinguish what they call a revelation from
GOD, after verbal prophecy had ceased in Israel, that is, after the
prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The generality of their
traditions and customs are founded on this Bath-Kol. They pretend, that
GOD revealed them to their elders, not by prophecy, but by secret
inspiration, or tradition: and this they call the Daughter of the Voice.
The Bath-Kol, as Dr. Prideaux shows, was a fantastical way of
divination, invented by the Jews, like the _Sortes Virgilianæ_ among the
heathens. With the heathen, the words dipt at, in opening the works of
Virgil, were the oracle by which they prognosticated those future events
of which they desired to be informed. In like manner by the Jews, when
they appealed to Bath-Kol, the next words which they heard were
considered as the desired oracle. Some Christians, when Christianity
began to be corrupted, used the Scriptures in the same manner as the
heathens employed the works of Virgil.
BATTLE, or more properly BATTEL, _Wager of_. One of the forms of ordeal,
or appeal to the judgment of GOD in the old Norman courts of this
kingdom. (See _Ordeal_.) In cases of murder, and some others, when the
evidence against the accused did not amount to positive proof, he was
allowed to assert his innocence by this appeal. If a prosecutor
appeared, before he could put in his charge, it was necessary, in cases
of murder, that he should prove himself to be of the blood of the
deceased. In cases of homicide, that he was allied to the slain as a
relation, or vassal, or lord, and could speak of the death on the
testimony of his own senses. The accused might then plead not guilty,
and, at his option, throw down his glove, and declare his readiness to
defend his innocence with his body. If the appellant took up the glove,
and professed himself willing to prove the charge in the same manner,
the judges, unless the guilt or innocence of the accused were evident,
proceeded to award a trial by battle. The appellee, with the book of the
Gospels in his right hand, and the right hand of his adversary in his
left, took the following oath: “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the right
hand, I am not guilty of the felony with which thou hast charged me. So
help me GOD and HIS saints. And this will I defend with my body against
thee, as this court shall award.” Then exchanging hands, and taking the
book, the appellant swore, “Hear me, thou whom I hold by the hand. Thou
art perjured, because thou art guilty. So help me GOD and HIS saints.
And this will I prove against thee with my body, as this court shall
award.” On the day appointed by the court, the two combatants were led
to battle. Each had his head, arms, and legs bare, was protected by a
square target of leather, and employed as a weapon a wooden stave one
ell in length, and turned at the end. If the appellee was unwilling to
fight, or in the course of the day was unable to continue the combat, he
was immediately hanged, or condemned to forfeit his property, and lose
his members. If he slew the appellant, or forced him to call out
“Craven,” or protracted the fight till the stars appeared in the
evening, he was acquitted. Nor did his recreant adversary escape
punishment. If he survived the combat, he was fined sixty shillings, was
declared infamous, and stript of all the privileges of a freeman.
In the court of chivalry the proceedings were different. When the cause
could not be decided on the evidence of witnesses, or the authority of
documents, the constable and mareschal required pledges from the two
parties, and appointed the time of battle, the place, and the weapons,—a
long sword, a short sword, and a dagger; but allowed the combatants to
provide themselves with defensive armour according to their own choice.
A spot of dry and even ground, sixty paces in length and forty in
breadth, was enclosed with stakes seven feet high, around which were
placed the serjeants-at-arms, with other officers, to keep silence and
order among the spectators. The combatants entered at opposite gates;
the appellant at the east, the defendant at the west end of the lists:
and each severally swore that his former allegations and answers were
true; that he had no weapons but those allotted by the court; that he
wore no charms about him; and that he placed his whole confidence on
GOD, on the goodness of his cause, and on his own prowess. Then taking
each other by the hand, the appellant swore that he would do his best to
slay his adversary, or compel him to acknowledge his guilt: the
defendant, that he would exert all his powers to prove his own
innocence. When they had been separately conducted to the gates at which
they entered, the constable, sitting at the foot of the throne,
exclaimed thrice, “Let them go,” adding to the third exclamation, “and
do their duty.” The battle immediately began: if the king interposed,
and took the quarrel into his own hands, the combatants were separated
by the officers with their wands, and then led by the constable and
mareschal to one of the gates, through which they were careful to pass
at the same moment, as it was deemed a disgrace to be the first to leave
the place of combat. If either party was killed, or cried “Craven,” he
was stripped of his armour on the spot where he lay, was dragged by
horses out of the lists, through a passage opened in one of the angles,
and was immediately hanged or beheaded in presence of the mareschal.
Trial by battle was used not only in military and criminal cases, but
also in one kind of civil action, namely, in writs of right, which were
not to determine the _jus possessionis_, but the less obvious and more
profound question of the _jus proprietatis_. In the simplicity of
ancient times, it was thought not unreasonable that a matter of such
difficulty should be left to the decision of Providence by the wager of
battle. In this case the battle was waged by champions, because, in
civil actions, if any party to the suit dies, the suit must abate, or
end, and therefore no judgment could be given.
The last trial by battle that was waged in the court of Common Pleas at
Westminster was in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, A. D. 1571,
as reported by Sir James Dyer; and was held in Tothill Fields “non sine
magnâ juris consultorum perturbatione.” There was afterwards one in the
court of Chivalry in 1631, and another in the county palatine of Durham
in 1628.
The Wager of Battle was accounted obsolete, until it was unexpectedly
demanded and admitted in 1817, in a case of supposed murder; and it has
since been abolished by act of parliament, 59 George III. c. 46.
BAY. (More anciently _Severy_.) One whole compartment of a building. As
the whole structure consists of a repetition of bays, the description of
one bay comprises most of the terms used in architectural nomenclature.
The accompanying block figures are purposely composed of discordant
parts, to comprise the greater number of terms.
[Illustration]
EXTERIOR.
A. Aisle.
I. Basement.
II. Parapet.
_a._ Corbel table.
_b._ Cornice.
_c._ Gurgoyle.
III. Buttress.
_d._ Pedimental set-off.
_e._ Plain set-off.
_f._ Finial.
_g._ Flying buttress, or arch-buttress.
IV. Aisle roof.
C. Clerestory.
INTERIOR.
A. Aisle.
V. Pier.
_h._ Capital.
_i._ Shaft.
_k._ Base.
_l._ Band.
VI. Pier arch.
_m._ Spandril.
VII. Vaulting shaft.
_n._ Corbel.
_o._ Capital.
B. Triforium.
VIII. Triforium arcade.
_p._ Blank arches.
_q._ Pierced arches.
C. Clerestory.
D. Vault.
_r._ Groining ribs.
_s._ Bosses.
COMMON TO EXTERIOR & INTERIOR.
E. Aisle windows.
_t._ Jamb shafts.
_u._ Tracery (Perpendicular).
_v._ Mullions.
_w._ Transom.
_x._ Batement lights.
F. Clerestory windows.
_y._ Tracery (Geometrical).
_z._ Cusping or foliation.
_aa._ Tracery (Flowing).
_bb._ Hood, in the exterior more correctly dripstone.
_cc._ Corbel, or label.
DECORATIONS COMMON TO BOTH.
1. Arcading (Norman to Decorated.)
2. Panelling (Perpendicular).
3. Niche.
4. Panel.
5. String.
BEADS, or BEDES. A word of Saxon origin, which properly signifies
_prayers_; hence _Bidding the Bedes_ meant _desiring the prayers_ of the
congregation, and from the forms used for this purpose before the
Reformation is derived the _Bidding of prayer_, prescribed by the
English canons of 1603. (See _Bidding Prayer_.) From denoting the
prayers themselves, the word came to mean the little balls used by the
Romanists in rehearsing and numbering their Ave-marias and Paternosters.
(See _Rosary_.) A similar practice prevails among the dervises and other
religious persons throughout the East, as well Mahometans as Buddhists
and other heathens. The ancient form of the Bedes, or Bidding Prayer, is
given in the Appendix to Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. No. 54, which
shows that our present Bidding Prayer was founded on that model.
BEATIFICATION. (See _Canonization_.) In the Romish Church, the act by
which the pope declares a person happy after death. Beatification
differs from canonization. In the former the pope does not act as a
judge in determining the state of the beatified, but only grants a
privilege to certain persons to honour him by a particular religious
worship, without incurring the penalty of superstitious worshippers. In
canonization, the pope blasphemously speaks as a judge, and determines,
_ex cathedrâ_, on the state of the canonized. It is remarkable, that
particular orders of monks assume to themselves the power of
beatification.
BEDDERN, BEDERNA. The name still retained of the vicar’s college at
York, and of the old collegiate building at Beverley. Query, whether it
may be somewhat the same as _Bedehouse_, i. e. an hospital?—_Jebb._
BEGUINES. A congregation of nuns, founded either by St. Begghe, duchess
of Brabant, in the seventh century, or by Lambert le Begue, a priest and
native of Liege, who lived in the twelfth century. They were established
first at Liege, and afterwards at Nivelle, in 1207, or, as some say, in
1226. From this last settlement sprang the great number of Beguinages,
which are spread over all Flanders, and which have passed from Flanders
into Germany. In the latter country, some of them fell into extravagant
errors, and persuaded themselves that it was possible in the present
life to attain to the highest perfection, even to impeccability, and a
clear view of GOD, and in short, to so eminent a degree of
contemplation, that, after this, there was no necessity of submitting to
the laws of mortal men, civil or ecclesiastical. The Council of Vienne,
in 1311, condemned these errors, but permitted those who continued in
the true faith to live in chastity and penitence, either with or without
vows. There still subsist many communities of Beguines in
Flanders.—_Hist. des Ord. Relig._ viii. c. i.
BEL AND THE DRAGON (THE HISTORY OF). An apocryphal and uncanonical book
of Scripture. It was always rejected by the Jewish Church, and is extant
neither in the Hebrew nor the Chaldee language, nor is there any proof
that it ever was so. St. Jerome gives it no better title than “the fable
of Bel and the Dragon.” It is, however, permitted to be read, as well as
the other apocryphal writings, for the instruction and improvement of
manners.
Selden (_De Diis Syris, Syntagma_ ii. cap. 17) thinks, this little
history ought rather to be considered as a sacred poem or fiction, than
a true account. As to the Dragon, he observes, that serpents
(_dracones_) made a part of the hidden mysteries of the Pagan religion;
as appears from Clemens Alexandrinus, Julius Firmicus, Justin Martyr,
and others. And Aristotle relates, that, in Mesopotamia, there were
serpents which would not hurt the natives of the country, and infested
only strangers. Whence it is not improbable that both the Mesopotamians
themselves and the neighbouring people might worship a serpent, the
former to avert the evil arising from those reptiles, the latter out of
a principle of gratitude. But of this there is no clear proof, nor is it
certain that the Babylonians worshipped a dragon or serpent.—_Aristot._
περὶ θαυμασιων ἀκουσματων.
BELFRY. The place where the bells are hung; sometimes being a small arch
placed on the gable of the church, sometimes a tower or turret. The
belfries were originally detached from the church, as may be still seen
in many places in Italy. Instances of this have been known in England,
as at Chichester, and at Salisbury (the belfry in the latter place was
destroyed some years ago). The great central towers of our cathedrals
and abbeys were not originally constructed for bells, but for
_lanterns_, to give light to the central portion of the church. The
bells were contained in the towers, or turrets, at the west end, or at
the angles of the church. Many churches had more than one bell tower. In
Canterbury cathedral the ring of bells is contained in the south-western
tower; the small bell, or Bell-Hurry, which is rung just before the
service, is placed in the great central tower.
BELIEVERS (πιστοὶ, or _Faithful_). A name given to the baptized in the
early Church, as distinguished from the _Catechumens_. The believer was
admitted to all the rites of Divine worship, and instructed in all the
mysteries of the Christian religion.—_Bingham._
BELLS. Bells of a small size are very ancient, but larger ones are of a
much later date. The lower part of the blue robe worn by the Jewish high
priest was adorned with pomegranates and gold bells. The kings of Persia
are said to have had the hem of their robes adorned in like manner. The
high priest probably gave notice to the people, and also desired
permission to enter the sanctuary, by the sound of these bells, and by
so doing escaped the punishment of death annexed to an indecent
intrusion.
On the origin of church bells, Mr. Whitaker, in his “History of
Manchester,” observes, that bells being used, among other purposes, by
the Romans, to signify the times of bathing, were naturally applied by
the Christians of Italy to denote the hours of devotion, and summon the
people to church.
“Bells,” says Nicholls, “were not in use in the first ages of
Christianity. For, before the Christians received countenance from the
civil power, they were called together by a messenger, who went about
from house to house, some time before the hour the congregation met.
After this they made use of a sounding plank hanging by a chain, and
struck with a hammer. The precise time when bells first came in use is
not known. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, in Campania, in order to give
notice to the most remote inhabitants when prayers began, hung up a
large brass vessel, which, when struck upon by a hammer, gave such a
sound as he desired for his purpose. This was about the year 420. Hence
the two Latin names for a great bell—_Nola_, from the town; and
_Campana_, from the country where they were first used.”
But, whatever may be the connexion of bells with the city of Nola, there
is no ground for referring the first use of them to Paulinus; Bingham
pronounces the opinion to be “certainly a vulgar error.” Others say they
took the latter of these names, not from their being invented in
Campania, but because it was there the manner of hanging and balancing
them, now in use, was first practised; at least that they were hung on
the model of a sort of balance invented or used in Campania.
The Greek Christians are usually said to have been unacquainted with
bells till the ninth century, when their construction was first taught
them by a Venetian. But it is not true that the use of bells was
entirely unknown in the ancient Eastern churches, and that they called
the people to church, as at present, with wooden mallets, like the
_clappers_ or _cresselles_, used instead of bells in many churches of
the Romish communion, during the holy week. (See _Cresselle_.) Leo
Allatius, in his Dissertation on the Greek Temples, proves the contrary
from several ancient writers. He says bells first began to be disused
among them after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks; who, it
seems, prohibited them, lest their sound should disturb the repose of
the souls which, according to them, wander in the air.
In Britain, bells were used in churches before the conclusion of the
seventh century, in the monastic societies of Northumbria, and as early
as the sixth, even in those of Caledonia. And they were therefore used
from the first erection of parish churches among us. Those of France and
England appear to have been furnished with several bells. In the time of
Clothaire II., king of France, A. D. 610, the army of that king was
frightened from the siege of Sens, by ringing the bells of St. Stephen’s
Church. The second excerption of Egbert, about A. D. 750, which is
adopted in a French capitulary of 801, commands every priest, at the
proper hours, to sound the bells of his church, and then to go through
the sacred offices to GOD. And the Council of Eanham, in 1009, requires
all the mulcts for sins to be expended in the reparation of the church,
clothing and feeding the ministers of GOD, and the purchase of church
vestments, church books, and church _bells_. These were sometimes
composed of iron in France; and in England, as formerly at Rome, were
frequently made of brass; and, as early as the ninth century, there were
many cast of a large size and deep note. Ingulphus mentions, that
Turketulus, abbot of Croyland, who died about A. D. 870, gave a great
bell to the church of that abbey, which he named _Guthlac_; and
afterwards six others, viz. two which he called _Bartholomew_ and
_Betelin_, two called _Turkettul_ and _Tatwin_, and two named _Pega_ and
_Bega_, all which rang together; the same author says, “Non erat tunc
tanta consonantia campanarum in totâ Angliâ.” Not long after, Kinsius,
archbishop of York, (1051–1061,) gave two great bells to the church of
St. John, at Beverley, and at the same time provided that other churches
in his diocese should be furnished with bells. Mention is made by St.
Aldhelm, and William of Malmesbury, of bells given by St. Dunstan to
churches in the West. The number of bells in every church gave occasion
to a curious and singular piece of architecture in the campanile or bell
tower: an addition which is more susceptible of the grander beauties of
architecture than any other part of the edifice. It was the constant
appendage to every parish church of the Saxons, and is actually
mentioned as such in the laws of Athelstan.
The uses of church bells are summed up in the following monkish
distichs:—
“Laudo Deum verum, plebem voco, congrego clerum,
Defunctos ploro, pestem fugo, festa decoro.”
“Funero plango, fulgura frango, sabbata pango,
Excito lentos, dissipo ventos, paco cruentos.”
Before bells were hung, they were formerly, and in the Romish communion
they still are, washed, crossed, blessed, anointed with chrism, and
named by the bishop. This ceremony was commonly styled _baptizing_ them.
(See _Martène de Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus_, ii. 296.) Some say that it was
introduced by Pope John XIII., who occupied the pontifical chair from
965 to 972, and who first consecrated a bell in the Lateran church, and
gave it the name of John the Baptist. But it is evidently of an older
standing, there being an express prohibition of the practice in a
capitular of Charlemagne in 789—_ut clocæ non baptizentur_.
The following are the regulations of the Church of England on the
subject of bells.
By a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea, the parishioners shall find,
at their own expense, bells with ropes.
Canon 81. The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants, shall not
suffer the bells to be rung superstitiously, upon holy days or eves
abrogated by the Book of Common Prayer, nor at any other times, without
good cause to be allowed by the minister of the place, and by
themselves.
Canon 111. The churchwardens shall present all persons, who by untimely
ringing of bells do hinder the minister or preacher.
Canon 15. Upon Wednesdays and Fridays weekly, the minister at the
accustomed hour of service shall resort to the church or chapel, and
warning being given to the people by tolling of a bell, shall say the
litany.
Canon 67. When any is passing out of this life, a bell shall be tolled,
and the minister shall not then slack to do his last duty. And after the
party’s death, (if it so fall out,) there shall be rung no more but one
short peal, and one other before the burial, and one other after the
burial.
Rubric concerning the service of the church. “And the curate that
ministereth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not
being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish
church or chapel when he ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be
tolled thereunto a convenient time before he begin, that the people may
come to hear GOD’S word, and to pray with him.”
Although the churchwardens may concur in directing the ringing or
tolling of the bells on certain public and private occasions, the
incumbent may prevent the churchwardens from ringing or tolling them at
undue hours, or without just cause. Proceedings may be instituted in the
ecclesiastical court against churchwardens who have violently and
illegally persisted in ringing the bells without consent of the
incumbents.
Bells were used in Ireland at a very early period. Harris, in his
edition of Ware, (vol. ii. p. 129,) quotes Bede as an authority for the
use of bells in the sixth century, and observes on Molyneux’s opinion
that the popular name of the round tower in Ireland was derived from a
Germanico-Saxon word, signifying a bell. Mr. Petrie, in his recent
laborious essay on the Irish Round Towers, has shown that these towers,
as their name denotes, their form and locality suggest, and tradition
teaches, were intended for ecclesiastical belfries. And in the same
work, as well as in the documents collected by Irish antiquarians, it is
shown that bells were known in Ireland as far back as the age of St.
Patrick. Some of these ancient bells are still in existence.
Nankin, in China, was anciently famous for the largeness of its bells;
but their enormous weight having brought down the tower in which they
were hung, the whole building fell to ruin, and the bells have ever
since been disregarded. One of these bells is near 12 English feet high,
the diameter 7½ feet, its circumference 23 feet, and the thickness of
the metal about the edges 7 inches; its figure almost cylindrical,
except for a swelling in the middle. From these dimensions its weight is
computed at 50,000 lbs.
In the churches of Russia the bells are numerous, and distinguished by
their immense size; they are hung, particularly at Moscow, in belfries
or steeples detached from the churches, with gilt or silvered cupolas,
or crosses; and they do not swing, but are fixed immoveably to the
beams, and rung by a rope tied to the clapper, and pulled sideways. One
of these bells, in the belfry of St. Ivan’s church at Moscow, weighed
127,836 English lbs. It has always been esteemed a meritorious act of
religion to present a church with bells, and the piety of the donor has
been estimated by their magnitude. The emperor Bodis Godunof gave a bell
of 288,000 lbs. to the cathedral of Moscow, but he was surpassed by the
empress Anne, (or, as Dr. Clarke and others say, Alexis, in 1653,) at
whose expense a bell was cast, weighing no less than 443,772 lbs., which
exceeds in size every bell in the known world. Its height is 21 feet,
the circumference at the bottom 67 feet 4 inches, and its greatest
thickness 23 inches. The beam to which this vast machine was fastened
being accidentally burnt by a fire in 1737, the bell fell down, and a
fragment was broken off towards the bottom, which left an aperture large
enough to admit two persons abreast without stooping.
In the Russian Divine service the number of strokes on the bell
announces what part of it is beginning. Several blows are struck before
the mass; three before the commencement of the liturgy; and, in the
middle of it, a few strokes apprize the people without, that the hymn to
the holy Virgin is about to be sung, when all work is immediately
suspended, they bow and cross themselves, repeating silently the verse
then singing in the church.—_Overall._ For some curious directions as to
the chiming of the bells in ancient times in Lichfield cathedral, see
_Dugd. Monast._ ed. 1830, vi. 1256.—_Jebb._
BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE. Between the seventh and the tenth century, the
sentence of excommunication was attended with great solemnities. The
most important was the extinction of lamps or candles by throwing them
on the ground, with an imprecation, that those against whom the curse
was pronounced might be extinguished or destroyed by the vengeance of
GOD. The people were summoned to attend this ceremony by the sound of a
bell, and the curses accompanying the ceremony were pronounced out of a
book by the minister, standing in a balcony. Hence originated the phrase
of cursing by bell, book, and candle.
BEMA. The name of the bishop’s throne in the primitive church, or, as
some understand it, the whole of the upper end of the church, containing
the altar and the apsis. This seat or throne, together with those of the
presbyters, was always fixed at the upper end of the chancel, in a
semicircle beyond the altar. For anciently, the seats of the bishops and
presbyters were joined together, and both were called thrones. The
manner of their sitting is related by Gregory Nazianzen in his
description of the church of Anastasia, where he speaks of himself as
bishop, sitting upon the high throne, and the presbyters on lower
benches on each side of him.—_Bingham._ (See _Apsis_ and _Cathedral_.)
BENEDICITE. A canticle used at Morning Prayer, after the first lesson.
This canticle is so called because, in the Latin version, it so begins.
It is called “The Song of the Three Children,” because Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah (whom the prince of the eunuchs named Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, Dan. i. 7) are reported to have sung it in the
burning fiery furnace, into which they were cast by order of
Nebuchadnezzar for adhering stedfastly to their GOD, (Dan. iii. 19,)
&c., and in which GOD preserved them in a miraculous manner (ver.
27).—_Dr. Bennet._
This and the Te Deum are the only hymns used in our service that are of
man’s composing. Our Church being careful, even beyond all the ancient
Churches, in singing to GOD, to sing in the words of GOD.—_Dr. Bisse._
This statement of Dr. Bisse is not altogether correct. The hymns “Holy,
holy, holy Lord God of hosts,” and the “Gloria in Excelsis,” though
suggested by Holy Scripture, are human compilations. And the metrical
_Veni Creator_ is also of man’s composing. The Benedicite was prescribed
to be used in Lent, by King Edward VI.’s First Book.—_Jebb._
BENEDICTINES. An order of monks who profess to follow the rules of St.
Benedict. The Benedictines, being those only that are properly called
monks, wear a loose black gown, with large white sleeves, and a capuche,
or cowl, on their heads, ending in a point behind. In the canon law they
are styled black friars, from the colour of their habit. The rules of
St. Benedict, as observed by the English monks before the dissolution of
the monasteries, were as follows: they were obliged to perform their
devotions seven times in twenty-four hours, the whole circle of which
devotions had respect to the passion and death of CHRIST: they were
obliged always to go two and two together: every day in Lent they were
obliged to fast till six in the evening; and abated of their usual time
of sleeping and eating; but they were not allowed to practise any
voluntary austerity without leave of their superior: they never
conversed in their refectory at meals, but were obliged to attend to the
reading of the Scriptures: they all slept in the same dormitory, but not
two in a bed: they lay in their clothes: for small faults they were shut
out from meals: for greater they were debarred religious commerce, and
excluded from the chapel: incorrigible offenders were excluded from the
monasteries. Every monk had two coats, two cowls, a table book, a knife,
a needle, and a handkerchief; and the furniture of his bed was a mat, a
blanket, a rug, and a pillow.
The time when this order came into England is well known, for in 596
Gregory the Great sent hither Augustine, prior of the monastery of St.
Andrew at Rome, with several other Benedictine monks. Augustine became
archbishop of Canterbury; and the Benedictines founded several
monasteries in England, as also the metropolitan church of Canterbury.
Pope John XXII., who died in 1354, after an exact inquiry, found, that,
since the first rise of the order, there had been of it twenty-four
popes, near 200 cardinals, 7000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, 15,000
abbots of renown, above 4000 saints, and upwards of 37,000 monasteries.
There have been likewise of this order twenty emperors and ten
empresses, forty-seven kings, and above fifty queens, twenty sons of
emperors, and forty-eight sons of kings, about one hundred princesses,
daughters of kings and emperors, besides dukes, marquises, earls,
countesses, &c., innumerable. This order has produced a vast number of
eminent authors and other learned men. Rabanus set up the school of
Germany. Alcuinus founded the university of Paris. Dionysius Exiguus
perfected the ecclesiastical computation. Guido invented the scale of
music, and Sylvester the organ. They boast to have produced Anselm,
Ildephonsus, Venerable Bede, &c. There are nuns likewise who follow the
order of St. Benedict: among whom those who call themselves mitigated,
eat flesh three times a week, on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays; the
others observe the rule of St. Benedict in its rigour, and eat no flesh
unless they are sick. The Benedictines were the most extensive and
powerful order in England. All the cathedral convents, with the
exception of the Augustinian monastery of Carlisle, were of this order,
as were four out of the five that were converted into cathedrals by
Henry VIII., viz. Gloucester, Oxford, Peterborough, and Chester: and all
the mitred abbeys, with the exception of Waltham and Cirencester, which
were Augustinian. In Ireland they yielded in importance and numbers to
the Augustinians. They were the great patrons of church architecture and
of learning in England. The chief branches of the Benedictine order in
England were the Cluniacs, founded by Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, in 913;
and the Cistercian, founded by Robert, abbot of Molême, at Citeaux in
Burgundy, in 1098. (See _Cluniacs_ and _Cistercians_.)
BENEDICTION. A solemn act of blessing performed by the bishops and
priests of the Church. In the Jewish Church, the priests, by the command
of God, were to bless the people, by saying, “The LORD bless thee, and
keep thee. The LORD make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious
unto thee. The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee
peace.” In the Church of England, several forms of blessing are used
agreeing with the particular office of which they form a part. The
ordinary benediction at the close of Divine service, from the end of the
Communion office, is in these words: “The peace of GOD, which passeth
all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love
of GOD, and of his SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD: and the blessing of GOD
Almighty, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, be amongst you, and
remain with you always.” The former part of this is taken from
Philippians iv. 7, and the latter may be considered as a Christian
paraphrase of Numbers vi. 24, &c. Other forms of blessing, or
modifications of the above, may be found in the offices for
Confirmation, Matrimony, and Visitation of the Sick. The benediction at
the end of the Communion Service must be said by the bishop, if he be
present.
In the Romish Church, on Holy Thursday, the officiating priest blesses,
consecrates, and exorcises, three sorts of oils. The first is that used
in extreme unction; the second that of the Chrysma; the third that of
the Catechumens; ending with this salutation, Ave sanctum oleum, “Hail
holy oil!” after which the new-made holy oils are carried in procession
into the sacristy.—_Piscara, Praxis Cerem._
In Spain, and some parts of France bordering upon Spain, the custom of
blessing meats at Easter is still preserved. This is supposed to be done
in opposition to the heresy of the Priscillianists, which infected Spain
and Guienne: for Priscillian held, that the devil, and not GOD, was the
creator of flesh, and that the faithful ought to reject it as impure and
wicked. This blessing is scarce ever used, except in those churches, and
near those places, where that heresy formerly prevailed.—_Alcet’s
Ritual._
On Easter eve they perform the ceremony of blessing the new fire. At the
ninth hour, the old fire is put out, and at the same time an Acolyth
lights the new fire without the church. The officiating priest, with his
attendants, walks in procession to the place where the ceremony is to be
performed. After repeating a form of prayer, he makes the sign of the
cross over the fire. In the mean time the Thuriferary puts some coals
into the thurible, into which the priest throws some frankincense,
having first blessed it: then he sprinkles the fire with holy water,
saying, _Asperges me, Domine_, “Thou wilt sprinkle me, O Lord.” This
ceremony of the holy fire seems to be borrowed from pagan superstition;
for the ancient Romans used to renew the fire of Vesta in the month of
March, as Ovid informs us;
Adde quod arcanâ fieri novus ignis in æde
Dicitur, et vires flamma refecta capit.
Add that the hallowed fire new vigour takes,
And round the sacred walls with added lustre breaks.
The principal use of this holy fire, among the Roman Catholics, is to
light therewith the Paschal taper; which likewise receives its
benediction, or blessing, by the priest’s putting five grains of
incense, in the form of a cross, into the taper. This blessed taper must
remain on the gospel-side of the altar from Easter eve to Ascension
day.—_Baudry, Manual. Cerem._ _Fast._ lib. iii. 144. _Piscara, Praxis
Cerem._
The blessing of baptismal fonts (another piece of Popish superstition)
is performed, among other ceremonies, by the priest’s blowing thrice on
the water, and in three different places; and afterwards plunging a
taper thrice into it, observing to sink it deeper the second time than
the first, and the third than the second, saying at each immersion,
_Descendat in hanc plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus Sancti_, i. e.
“May the influence of the Holy Spirit descend on this water.”—_Piscara_,
ibid.
On the eve before Christmas, the holy father blesses a sword, enriched
with precious stones, wrought in the form of a dove; with a ducal hat
fixed on the point of it, richly adorned with jewels. (_Sacra Cerem.
Eccl. Rom._) This he sends as a present to some prince, for whom he has
a particular affection, or some great general, who has deserved it by
fighting against the enemies of the Church. Pope Pius II. sent the hat
and sword to Lewis XI., with four Latin verses engraved on the blade, by
which his Holiness exhorted him to destroy the Ottoman empire. The
popes, according to Aymon, ground this custom on what is said in the
Second Book of the Maccabees, c. v., that “Judas the Maccabee, going to
fight Nicanor, general of the army of Antiochus, saw in a dream the high
priest Onias praying to God for the Jewish people, and the prophet
Jeremiah presenting him with a sword, and saying these words; ‘Receive,
Judas, this holy sword, which is given thee by the Lord, to destroy the
enemies of Israel.’”
But one of the most extraordinary benedictions of this kind is that of
_bells_; in the performance of which there is a great deal of pomp and
superstition. (See _Bells_.)
BENEDICTUS. The Latin for “blessed,” which is the first word in one of
the hymns to be said or sung after the second lesson in the Morning
Service of the Church. The Benedictus is taken from Luke i., from the
68th to the 72nd verse, being part of the song of Zacharias the priest,
concerning his son John the Baptist, who was to be the forerunner of
CHRIST, but was then only in his infancy.
When the gospel was first published to the world, the angels sang
praise; and all holy men, to whom it was revealed, entertained these
“good tidings” with great joy. And since it is our duty also, whenever
we hear the gospel read, to give glory to GOD, therefore the Church
appoints this hymn, which was composed by holy Zacharias upon the first
notice that GOD had sent a SAVIOUR to mankind, and is one of the first
evangelical hymns indited by GOD’S SPIRIT upon this occasion. Its
original therefore is Divine, its matter unexceptionable, and its
fitness for this place unquestionable.—_Dean Comber._
This prophecy of Zacharias, called “Benedictus,” for the reason already
mentioned, was uttered on the birth of John the Baptist; and is a
thanksgiving for the redemption of mankind, of which he was to publish
the speedy approach. It copies very nearly the style of the Jewish
prophets, who described spiritual blessings by temporal imagery. Thus
meaning to praise the “Father of mercies” (2 Cor. i. 3) for delivering
all nations from the dominion of the wicked one, it “blesses the LORD
GOD of Israel for saving his people from their enemies, and from the
hand of those that hate them.” Now this kind of language was laid aside
after our SAVIOUR’S ascension; and therefore the prophecy before us is
not of later date, but genuine. Yet it sufficiently explains to what
sort of “salvation” it refers, by mentioning “the remission of sins, the
giving of light to them that sat in darkness, and the guiding of their
feet into the way of peace.” And so it may teach us both the fitness and
the method of assigning to the Old Testament predictions an evangelical
interpretation. The people, in repeating it, should remember, that the
words, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,”
belong, not to our SAVIOUR, but to the Baptist. And it is easily to be
apprehended, that if, in the dawning which preceded “the Sun of
righteousness,” (Mal. iv. 2,) good Zacharias offered up his thanks with
such transport, we, to whom he shines out in full splendour, ought to
recite it with double gratitude.—_Abp. Secker._
Though the hundredth psalm is almost constantly used after the second
lesson, there seems no good reason why this hymn should be laid aside.
They are both equally indited by the HOLY SPIRIT, and both admirably
calculated to assist the devotion and elevate the affections of a
Christian congregation: and the hymn, being placed first, seems to have
been intended for more general use than the psalm.—_Waldo._
The Church hath appointed two songs of praise and thanksgiving to be
used, either of them after each lesson, but not so indifferently but
that the former practice of exemplary Churches and reason may guide us
in the choice. For the “Te Deum,” “Benedictus,” “Magnificat,” and “Nunc
Dimittis,” being the most expressive jubilations and rejoicings for the
redemption of the world, may be said more often than the rest,
especially on Sundays and other festivals of our LORD.—_Bishop Sparrow._
The Benedictus was used exclusively after the second lesson in the First
Book of King Edward VI.
BENEFICE. In the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a church
endowed with a revenue for the performance of Divine service, or the
revenue itself assigned to an ecclesiastical person, by way of stipend
for the service he is to do that church.
As to the origin of the word, we find it as follows, in _Alcet’s
Ritual_: “This word was anciently appropriated to the lands, which kings
used to bestow on those who had fought valiantly in the wars; and was
not used in this particular signification, but during the time that the
Goths and Lombards reigned in Italy, under whom those fiefs were
introduced, which were peculiarly termed Benefices, and those who
enjoyed them, Beneficiarii, or vassals. For notwithstanding that the
Romans also bestowed lands on their captains and soldiers, yet those
lands had not the name of Benefices appropriated to them, but the word
benefice was a general term, which included all kinds of gifts or
grants, according to the ancient signification of the Latin word. In
imitation of the new sense, in which that word was taken with regard to
fiefs, it began to be employed in the Church, when the temporalities
thereof began to be divided, and to be given up to particular persons,
by taking them out of those of the bishops. This the bishops themselves
first introduced, purposely to reward merit, and assist such
ecclesiastics as might be in necessity. However, this was soon carried
to greater lengths, and at last became unlimited, as has since been
manifest in the clericate and the monasteries. A benefice therefore is
not merely a right of receiving part of the temporalities of the Church,
for the service a person does it; a right, which is founded upon the
gospel, and has always subsisted since the apostolic age; but it is that
of enjoying a part of the temporalities of the Church, assigned and
determined in a special form, so as that no other clergyman can lay any
claim or pretension to it.—And in this age it is not barely the right of
enjoying part of the temporalities of the Church; but is likewise a
fixed and permanent right, in such a manner that it devolves on another,
after the death of the incumbent; which anciently was otherwise; for, at
the rise of benefices, they were indulged to clergymen only for a stated
time, or for life; after which they reverted to the Church.”
It is not easy to determine when the effects of the Church were first
divided. It is certain that, till the 4th century, all the revenues were
in the hands of the bishops, who distributed them by their _Œconomi_ or
stewards; and they consisted chiefly in alms and voluntary
contributions. When the Church came to have inheritances, part of them
were assigned for the maintenance of the clergy, of which we find some
footsteps in the 5th and 6th centuries; but the allotment seems not to
have been a fixed thing, but to have been absolutely discretional, till
the 12th century.
Benefices are divided by the canonists into _simple_ and _sacerdotal_.
The first sort lays no obligation, but to read prayers, sing, &c. Such
kind of Beneficiaries are canons, chaplains, chantors, &c. The second is
charged with the cure of souls, the guidance and direction of
consciences, &c. Such are rectories, vicarages, &c. The canonists
likewise specify three ways of vacating a benefice; viz. _de jure_, _de
facto_, and _by the sentence of a judge_. A benefice is void _de jure_,
when a person is guilty of crimes, for which he is disqualified by law
to hold a benefice; such are heresy, simony, &c. A benefice is void both
_de facto_ and _de jure_, by the natural death, or resignation, of the
incumbent. Lastly, a benefice is vacated _by sentence of the judge_,
when the incumbent is dispossessed of it by way of punishment for
immorality, or any crime against the state.
The Romanists, again, distinguish benefices into _regular_ and
_secular_. Regular benefices are those held by a religious or monk of
any order, abbey, priory, or convent. Secular benefices are those
conferred on the secular priests; of which sort are most of their cures.
The Church distinguishes between _dignities_ and _benefices_. The former
title is only applicable to bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries, and
prebends: the latter comprehends all ecclesiastical preferments under
those degrees; as rectories and vicarages. It is essential to these
latter, that they be bestowed freely, reserving nothing to the patron;
that they be given as a provision for the clerk, who is only an
_usu-fructuary_, and hath no inheritance in them; and that all contracts
concerning them between patron and incumbent be, in their own nature,
void.
BENEFICIARIES, or BENEFICIATI. The inferior, non-capitular members of
cathedrals, &c., were so called in many Churches abroad; as possessing a
benefice or endowment in the Church. They very much corresponded to our
minor canons and vicars choral, &c.—_Jebb._
BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The _privilegium clericale_, or, in common speech,
the benefit of the clergy, had its origin from the pious regard paid by
Christian princes to the Church of CHRIST. The exemptions which they
granted to the Church were principally of two kinds: 1. Exemption of
_places_ consecrated to religious offices from criminal arrests, which
was the foundation of sanctuaries. (See _Sanctuary_, _Asylum_.) 2.
Exemptions of the persons of the clergy from criminal process before the
secular magistrate in a few particular cases, which was the true origin
and meaning of the _privilegium clericale_. Originally the law was held
that no man should be admitted to the privilege of the clergy but such
as had the _habitum et tonsuram clericalem_. But, in process of time, a
much wider and more comprehensive criterion was established, every one
that could read being accounted a clerk or clericus, and allowed the
benefit of clerkship, whether in holy orders or not.
BEREANS. An obscure sect of seceders from the Scottish establishment,
which originated in the exclusion of one Barclay from the parish of
Fettercairn, in Kincardineshire, in 1773. They adopted the name of
Bereans in allusion to the text—“These (the Bereans) were more noble
than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those
things were so.” (Acts xvii. 11.) The Bereans reject all natural
religion,—they take faith to be a simple credence of GOD’S word,—they
consider personal assurance of the essence of faith, and unbelief as the
unpardonable sin. They deny any spiritual interpretation to the
historical books of the Old Testament, and reckon the Psalms so
exclusively typical or prophetical of CHRIST, as to be without
application to the experience of individual Christians.
BEREFELLARII. In the collegiate church of Beverley the seven inferior
clergymen, ranking next after the prebendaries, were so called. The
origin of the name is unknown; though it appears from ancient records,
that it was a popular and vulgar one; their proper designation being
_Rectores Chori_; that is, a sort of minor canons. They were also called
_Personæ_. (See _Rector Chori_, and _Persona_.)—See _Dugdale’s
Monasticon_, ed. 1830, vi. 1307.—_Jebb._
BERENGARIANS. A denomination, in the eleventh century, which adhered to
the opinions of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, the learned and able
opponent of Lanfranc, whose work has been in part recovered, and was
printed a few years since at Berlin. “It was never my assertion,” says
he, “that the bread and wine on the altar are only sacramental signs.
Let no one suppose that I affirm that the bread was not become the body
of CHRIST from being simple bread by consecration on the altar. It
plainly becomes the body of CHRIST, but not the bread which in its
matter and essence is corruptible, but in as far as it is capable of
becoming what it was not, it becomes the body of CHRIST, but not
according to the manner of the production of his very body, for that
body, once generated on earth so many years ago, can never be produced
again. The bread, however, becomes what it never was before
consecration, and from being the common substance of bread, is to us the
blessed body of CHRIST.” His followers, however, did not hold to his
doctrines, which, in themselves, were a Catholic protest against Romish
errors.—_Cave, Hist. Literar. Sæc. Hildebrand_.
BIBLE. (See _Scripture_ and _Canon of Scripture_.) The name applied by
Christians by way of eminence to the sacred volume, in which are
contained the revelations of God. The names and numbers of the canonical
books will be found under the word _Scripture_.
The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as they are at present,
took place in the middle ages. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton,
archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But the
real author of this invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called
Hugo Cardinalis, from his being the first Dominican raised to the degree
of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a
Comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first Concordance, which is
that of the Latin Vulgate Bible. As the intention of this work was to
render the finding of any word or passage in the Scriptures more easy,
it became necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections
into subdivisions. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible
has been divided since that time. But the subdivision of the chapters
was not then in verses as at present. Hugo subdivided them by the
letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which were placed in the margin at an equal
distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. About
the year 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a famous Jewish Rabbi, improved Hugo’s
invention, and subdivided the chapters into verses, in the manner they
are at present.
The first English Bible we read of was that translated by Wickliff,
about the year 1360. A translation of the New Testament by Wickliff was
printed by Lewis, about 1731, and the whole of Wickliff’s translation
has lately been published at Oxford. J. de Trevisa, who died about 1398,
is also said to have translated the whole Bible; but whether any copies
of his translation are remaining, does not appear. The first printed
Bible in our language was that translated by W. Tindal, assisted by
Miles Coverdale, printed abroad in 1526; but most of the copies were
bought up and burnt by Bishop Tunstal and Sir Thomas More. Of this
edition but two copies are known to exist, one of which was discovered
by Archdeacon Cotton, in St. Paul’s Library. It only contained the New
Testament, and was revised and republished by the same person in 1530.
The prologues and prefaces added to it reflect on the bishops and
clergy; but this edition was also suppressed, and the copies burnt. In
1532, Tindal and his associates finished the whole Bible, except the
Apocrypha, and printed it abroad; but while he was afterwards preparing
a second edition, he was taken up and burnt for heresy in Flanders. On
Tindal’s death, his work was carried on by Coverdale, and John Rogers,
superintendent of an English Church in Germany, and the first martyr in
the reign of Queen Mary, who translated the Apocrypha, and revised
Tindal’s translation, comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and
German, and adding prefaces and notes from Luther’s Bible. The earliest
edition was printed in 1535, it is supposed at Zurich; though the book
has no place nor name. He dedicated the whole to Henry VIII. in 1537,
under the borrowed name of Thomas Matthews; whence this has been usually
called Matthews’ Bible. It is supposed to have been printed at Hamburgh,
and licence obtained for publishing it in England, by the favour of
Archbishop Cranmer, and the Bishops Latimer and Shaxton. The first Bible
printed by authority in England, and publicly set up in churches, was
this same Tindal’s version, revised and compared with the Hebrew, and in
many places amended, by Miles Coverdale, afterwards bishop of Exeter;
and examined after him by Archbishop Cranmer, who added a preface to it;
whence this was called Cranmer’s, or the great Bible. It was printed in
1539 by Grafton and Whitchurch, and in 1540 by Whitchurch, (some copies
have “Richard Grafton,”) and published in 1540; and, by a royal
proclamation, every parish was obliged to set one of the copies in their
church, under the penalty of forty shillings a month: yet, two years
after, the Popish bishops obtained its suppression by the king. It was
restored under Edward VI., suppressed again under Queen Mary’s reign,
and restored again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and a new
edition of it given, 1562, printed by Harrison. Some English exiles at
Geneva, in Queen Mary’s reign, viz. Goodman, Gilbie, Sampson, Cole,
Whittingham, and Knox, made a new translation, printed there in 1560,
the New Testament having been printed in 1557; hence called the Geneva
Bible, containing the variations of readings, marginal annotations, &c.,
on account of which it was much valued by the Puritan party in that and
the following reigns. Coverdale has also been supposed to have had a
part in this version; but from what is known of his movements, it
appears impossible that he should have been concerned in it. Archdeacon
Cotton says, “The first edition of this version was for many years the
most popular one in England, as its numerous editions may testify. After
the appearance of King James’s translation, the use of it seems to have
declined; yet a fondness for its notes still lingered; and we have
several instances of their being attached to editions of the royal
translation, one of which kind was printed so lately as 1715.”
Archbishop Parker resolved on a new translation for the public use of
the Church; and engaged the bishops and other learned men to take each a
share or portion; these, being afterwards joined together and printed,
with short annotations, in 1568, in large folio, by Richard Jugge, made,
what was afterwards called, the Great English Bible, and commonly the
Bishops’ Bible. In 1569 it was also published in octavo, in a small but
fine black letter; and here the chapters were divided into verses, but
without any breaks for them, in which the method of the Geneva Bible was
followed, which was the first English Bible where any distinction of
verses was made. It was afterwards printed in large folio, with
corrections, and several prolegomena, in 1572; this is called Matthew
Parker’s Bible. The initial letters of each translator’s name were put
at the end of his part; _ex. gr._ at the end of the Pentateuch, W. E.
for William Exon; that is, William [Alley], bishop of Exeter, whose
allotment ended there; at the end of Samuel, R. M. for Richard
Menevensis, or Richard [Davies], bishop of St. David’s, to whom the
second allotment fell, and so with the rest. The archbishop overlooked,
directed, examined, and finished the whole. This translation was used in
the churches for forty years, though the Geneva Bible was more read in
private houses, being printed above twenty times in as many years. King
James bore to the Geneva version an inveterate hatred, on account of the
notes, which, at the Hampton Court conference, he charged as partial,
untrue, seditious, &c. The Bishops’ Bible, too, had its faults. The king
frankly owned that he had seen no good translation of the Bible in
English; but he thought that of Geneva the worst of all. After the
translation of the Bible by the bishops, two other private versions had
been made of the New Testament; the first by Laurence Thompson, from
Beza’s Latin edition, with the notes of Beza, published in 1582, in
quarto, and afterwards in 1589, varying very little from the Geneva
Bible; the second by the Romanists at Rheims, in 1584, called the
Rhemish Bible, or Rhemish translation. These translators finding it
impossible to keep the people from having the Scriptures in their vulgar
tongue, resolved to give a version of their own, as favourable to their
cause as might be. It was printed on large paper, with a fair letter and
margin. One complaint against it was, its retaining a multitude of
Hebrew and Greek words untranslated, for want, as the editors express
it, of proper and adequate terms in the English to render them by; as
the words _azymes_, _tunike_, _holocaust_, _prepuce_, _pasche_, &c.:
however, many of the copies were seized by Queen Elizabeth’s searchers,
and confiscated; and Thomas Cartwright was solicited by Secretary
Walsingham to refute it; but after some progress had been made in it,
Archbishop Whitgift prohibited his proceeding further, judging it
improper that the doctrine of the Church of England should be committed
to the defence of a Puritan. He appointed Dr. Fulke in his place, who
refuted the Rhemists with great spirit and learning. Cartwright’s
Refutation was also afterwards published in 1618, under Archbishop
Abbot. About thirty years after their New Testament, the Roman Catholics
published a translation of the Old, at Douay, 1609 and 1610, from the
Vulgate, with annotations, so that the English Roman Catholics have now
the whole Bible in their mother tongue; though it is to be observed,
they are forbidden to read it without a licence from their superiors:
and it is a curious fact, that there is not an edition of the Bible
which does not lie under the ban of one or of all the popes, most of
them being in the Index Expurgatorius. The last English Bible was that
which proceeded from the Hampton Court conference in 1603: where, many
exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave order for a
new one: not, (as the preface expresses it,) for a translation
altogether new, nor yet to make a good one better, or, of many good
ones, one best. Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by
the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated 1604; which
being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is
probable seven of them were either dead, or had declined the task; since
Fuller’s list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who, being
ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was
published in 1611 in fol. by Barker, with a dedication to James, and a
learned preface; and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this,
all the other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the
Epistles and Gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still
continued according to the Bishops’ translation till the alteration of
the liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms and Hymns, which are to this day
continued as in the old version. See for a full list of the editions of
the English Bible, _Archd. Cotton’s List of the Editions of the English
Bible_, &c.
The New Testament was translated into Irish in the 16th century.
Nicholas Walsh, chancellor of St. Patrick’s, and John Kearney, treasurer
of the same cathedral, began this work in 1573. In 1577 Walsh was
appointed bishop of Ossory, but still proceeded in his undertaking, till
he was murdered in 1585. Some years before this, Nehemiah Donnellan (who
was archbishop of Tuam in 1595) had joined Walsh and Kearney in their
undertaking. This translation was completed by William O’Donnell, or
Daniel, successor of Donnellan in the archiepiscopal see, and published
in 1603. Bishop Bedell procured the Old Testament to be translated by
Mr. King, who being ignorant of the original languages, executed it from
the English version. Bedell revised it, comparing it with the Hebrew,
the LXX., and the Italian version of Diodati. He supported Mr. King,
during the undertaking, with his utmost ability, and, when the
translation was finished, would have printed it at his own house, if he
had not been prevented by the troubles in Ireland. This translation
(together with Archbishop Daniel’s version of the New Testament) was
printed in London in 1685, at the expense of the celebrated Robert
Boyle.—_King’s Primer of the Church History of Ireland._ _Horne’s
Introduction to the Holy Scriptures._
The Welsh version (the New Testament only) was published in the 16th
century. The act of 5 Eliz. c. 28, directed that the Bible and Prayer
Book should be translated into Welsh; committing the direction of this
version to the four Welsh bishops. The translators were, Thomas Huet,
precentor of St. David’s, Richard Davies, bishop of St. David’s, and
William Salesbury. It was printed in London in 1567. The former edition
was revised, and the Old Testament translated, chiefly by William
Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, afterwards of St. Asaph. This was printed in
1588, and was revised by Richard Parry, bishop of St. Asaph, and
reprinted in 1620: the basis of all subsequent editions.—_Horne’s
Introd._
The Manx version of the Bible was begun by the exertions of Bishop
Wilson, by whom the Gospel of St. Matthew only was printed. His
successor, Bishop Hilderley, had the New Testament completed and printed
between the years 1756 and 1760. The Old Testament was completed two
days before his death in 1772.—_Horne’s Introd._ _Butler’s Life of
Bishop Hilderley._
By the 80th canon, “a Bible of the largest volume” is one of those
things which the churchwardens are bound to provide for every parish
church.
BIDDING PRAYER. The formulary which the Church of England, in the 55th
of the canons of 1603, directs to be used before all sermons, lectures,
and homilies, is called the Bidding Prayer, because in it the preacher
is directed to _bid_ or exhort the people to pray for certain specified
objects. The custom of bidding prayers is very ancient, as may be seen
in St. Chrysostom’s and other liturgies, where the biddings occur
frequently, and are called Allocutions.
The 55th canon of the Convocation of 1603, is as follows: “Before all
sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move
the people to join with them in prayer, in _this form, or to this
effect_, as briefly as conveniently they may: ‘Ye shall pray for
CHRIST’S Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of
Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially
for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland. And herein I require
you most especially to pray for the king’s most excellent Majesty, our
sovereign Lord James, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland,
defender of the faith, and supreme governor in these his realms, and all
other his dominions and countries, over all persons, in all causes, as
well ecclesiastical as temporal. Ye shall also pray for our gracious
Queen Anne, the noble Prince Henry, and the rest of the king and queen’s
royal issue. Ye shall also pray for the ministers of GOD’S holy word and
sacraments, as well archbishops and bishops, as other pastors and
curates. Ye shall also pray for the king’s most honourable council, and
for all the nobility and magistrates of this realm, that all and every
of these in their several callings may serve truly and faithfully, to
the glory of GOD, and the edifying and well-governing of His people,
remembering the account that they must make. Also ye shall pray for the
whole commons of this realm, that they may live in the true faith and
fear of God, in humble obedience to the king, and brotherly charity one
to another. Finally, let us praise GOD for all those which are departed
out of this life in the faith of CHRIST, and pray unto GOD that we may
have grace to direct our lives after their good example, that, this life
ended, we may be made partakers with them of the glorious resurrection
in the life everlasting,’ always concluding with the LORD’S Prayer.”
The special pleading of some Presbyterians and their advocates, renders
it necessary to observe, that the Church of Scotland alluded to, is not
the present Presbyterian establishment.
The assertion made by the adversaries of the Church of England is this,
that the 55th canon bids us pray for the Church of Scotland, and must
have recognised “that Church under a Presbyterian form as it now is,
because none other, at that time, existed.”
Now we may commence our observations by remarking upon the extreme
improbability of the alleged fact, that those who passed the 55th canon
should contemplate in the Bidding Prayer, the Presbyterian community of
Scotland, and regard it as a sister to the Churches of England and
Ireland.
The leading members of the Convocation were, Andrewes, Overall, and
King, eminent men, and of most decided views on Church government. Can
the student of ecclesiastical history refrain from smiling when he is
told that a Convocation of the English clergy, headed by these divines,
who had already given a character to the age in which they lived,
intended to place the “Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians styled their
denomination, on the same footing as the Churches of England and
Ireland?
The president of the Convocation was Bancroft. Dr. Sumner has taught us
how immense are the powers which the president of a Convocation
possesses, and how unscrupulously those powers can be used to silence
the Convocation, if it be suspected that the majority of the members
differ in opinion from the president. Bishop Bancroft was certainly not
more likely to be tolerant of opposition than our present primate, and
what Bancroft’s opinion of Presbyterianism was, is stated in a sermon
which he published. Of “the Holy Kirk,” as the Presbyterians called
themselves, Bancroft said that “they perverted the meaning of the
Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism,”
and he likens that “Holy Kirk” to “the devil’s chapel in the churchyard
in which Christ hath erected his Church.” We consider Bancroft’s
language as unjustifiably violent; but such _being_ his language, it is
monstrous to suppose that he intended to place that Kirk, in his
estimation so unholy, on the same footing as the Churches of England and
Ireland, or that he would not have discontinued the Convocation, if he
had suspected that it would recognise that Kirk as a sister Church.
The king who gave his consent to the canons, and who, in giving his
consent, acted, not as a sovereign in these days, on the advice of his
ministers, but on his own authority, was James I. And King James’s
opinion on Presbyterianism was sufficiently decided, and by this time
well known:
“That bishops ought to be in the Church, I have ever maintained as an
apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God; contrary to the
Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that bishops have their
jurisdiction immediately from GOD. (But it is no wonder he takes the
Puritans’ side, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritanpapists.) And as I
ever maintained the state of bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy
for order’ sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or
parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my _Basilicon Doron_.
Heaven is governed by order, and all the good angels there; nay, hell
itself could not subsist without some order; and the very devils are
divided into legions, and have their chieftains: how can any society
then upon earth exist without order and degrees? And therefore I cannot
enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say, _that I was
a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Protestants_: I that was
persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but ever since
four months before my birth? I that, in the year of God 1584, erected
bishops, and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not
eighteen years of age? I that in my said book to my son do speak ten
times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists; having in my second
edition thereof affixed a long apologetic preface, only _in odium
Puritanorum_? I that, for the space of six years before my coming into
England, laboured nothing so much as to depress their parity and reerect
bishops again? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in
Scotland were written, (as Julius Cæsar’s were,) there would scarcely a
month pass in all my life, since my entering into the 13th year of my
age, wherein some accident or other would not convince the cardinal of a
lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans
in that place of my book, where I affirm that I have found greater
honesty with the Highland and Border thieves than with that sort of
people.”—_Premonition to the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance_, p. 44.
Now is it credible that a monarch, despotic in his disposition, and
peculiarly despotic in what related to the Church; in an age when the
supremacy was asserted and exercised with as much of inconsiderate
tyranny as the most determined liberal of the present age could wish or
recommend,—is it credible that a despotic sovereign, holding these
opinions, would give his sanction to a canon which would raise the
system he dreaded and abhorred to a parity with the Church of England
and Ireland?
Certainly the advocates of Presbyterianism must be prepared to believe
things very incredible to men of reasoning minds, if they can believe
this to be probable.
But if we refer to history, what we find to be thus improbable, is
proved to be impossible. “The Church, under a Presbyterian form, as it
now is,” did _not_ at that time exist as a recognised body, or an
establishment. We will refer for proof, in the first place, to the
Compendium of the Laws of Scotland, published by authority, where we
read that “From the time that the Assembly of Perth was held, (1597,)
the _Presbyterian Constitution_ of the Church, as established in 1592,
and the legitimate authority of its General Assemblies and other
judicatories, _may be regarded as subverted by the interferences of King
James the Sixth_. On the 19th December, 1597, soon after the Assemblies
of Perth and Dundee, he brought his projects under the consideration of
parliament; when an act was passed ordaining that such pastors and
ministers as his Majesty should at any time please to invest with the
office, place, and dignity of bishop, abbot, or other prelate, should,
in all time hereafter, have vote in parliament, in the same way as any
prelate was accustomed to have; declaring that all bishoprics presently
vacant, or which might afterwards become vacant, should be given by his
Majesty to actual preachers and ministers. Henceforward, therefore, and
indeed from the Assembly at Perth, (1597,) the Church of Scotland must
be regarded as Episcopalian;”—in principle, we may add, though not fully
developed.”—_Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland_, part ii.
p. 36.
In the year 1600, “the Presbyterian form of government was, after eight
years of intolerable agitation, abolished by the king, with the full
consent of an overwhelming majority of the ministers and the applause of
the people, whose opinions seem to have been changed by experience of
its tyranny.”—_Stephens’s History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p.
417.
The Scottish parliament had also passed an act, in 1597, “That such
pastors and ministers as his Majesty should promote to the place,
dignity, and title of a bishop, or other prelate, at any time, should
have a voice in parliament, as freely as any ecclesiastical prelate had
in times past.” In the year 1600, the king informed the Assembly, that
“there was a necessity of restoring the ancient government of the
Church;” and, consequently, under the sanction of parliament, “persons
were nominated to the bishoprics that were void,” before the end of the
year.—_Skinner’s Church History_, vol. ii. pp. 234–236.
And so we find that what, reasoning _a priori_, we should consider so
improbable as to be almost incredible, was in point of fact impossible,
“The Church of Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” could
not be intended by the canon, for such a Church did not exist as a
recognised body in the state. On the contrary, as early as 1598, an act
of the Scottish parliament had secured to the bishops and other
ecclesiastical prelates to be appointed by the king their seats in
parliament. And before the year 1600, bishops were nominated to the sees
of Aberdeen, Argyle, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane. David Lindsay and
George Gladstone were in that year designated to the sees of Ross and
Caithness.
But it is said, these were not persons whom we regard as bishops; they
were not consecrated, they were only titular bishops. Every child who
has looked into ecclesiastical history knows this. But what do the
advocates of Presbyterianism take by the fact? The fact is this,
Presbyterianism was legally abolished: Episcopacy was legally
established: the bishops were nominated: but the bishops designate were
not yet consecrated. Can it be doubted to what the canon referred? It is
absolutely certain that it could _not_ refer to Presbyterianism; to
what, then, _did_ it refer? Ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland were in a
transitional state. It was known that the king intended to introduce the
_substance_ of Episcopacy as well as the form. His principles were
known. His power undoubted. The act of parliament enabled him to
designate bishops. He _had_ designated them; but he himself said, “I
cannot make you bishops,” that was to be done by consecration. The
Church of Scotland was in the very act of being formed and organized.
The Convocation, acting prospectively, spoke of it as it was about to
be, and as it soon after became. The bishops designate were consecrated
in 1610.
But we must not stop here. So far from true is it, that “the Church of
Scotland under a Presbyterian form, as it now is,” was the Church
contemplated by the 55th canon, that by other canons passed in this very
Convocation of 1603, the Presbyterians were actually excommunicated.
The Presbyterians had anathematized the Church of England. We have only
to refer to the “Book of the universal Kirk,” to see that at the fourth
session of the General Assemblie, held at Dundee, in 1580, the following
was enacted: “Forasmeickle as the office of a bischop, as it is now
usit, and commonly taken within this realme, hes no sure warrand,
auctoritie, nor good ground out of the Book and Scriptures of God, but
is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of [men’s] invention, to the
great overthrow of the Kirk of God; the haill assembly of the Kirk, in
ane voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, none
opposing themselves in defending the said pretendit office, finds and
declares the samein pretendit office, useit and termeit, as above said,
unlawfull in the selfe, as have had neither foundation ground, nor
warrant within the Word of God.”—Pt. ii. 453.
This was subsequently ratified in the second session of the General
Assembly, holden at Edinburgh, in 1592. Again, in the Conference
connected with the General Assembly, holden at Montrose, in 1600, it was
maintained by the Kirk, that “The Anglican Episcopal dignities, offices,
places, titles, and all Ecclesiastical Prelacies, are _flat repugnant to
the Word of God;_” and that “all corruptions of these bishopricks are
damned and rejected.”
So spake the sect which the advocates of Presbyterianism maintain that
we place in our Bidding Prayer on the same footing as the Churches of
England and Ireland. How the members of this “Holy Kirk” spoke of the
Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself.
Their language was, “That it (the Prayer Book) is full of corruption,
confusion, and profanation; that it _contains at least five hundred
errors;_ that the orders therein described are _carnal, beggarly, dung,
dross, lousy, and anti-Christian_. They say we eat not the Lord’s
supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the poor silly souls
believe they have an English _Mass_; and so put no difference betwixt
truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and anti-Christ, betwixt God and the
devil!”—See _Bancroft’s Sermon_, p. 284.
Such were the feelings and principles and charity and forbearance of the
Presbyterians of that age; and how does the Church of England deal with
such persons? Let the Church of England speak for herself through the
canons of 1603:—
Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, That the form of God’s worship in the
Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of
Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt,
superstitious, or unlawful worship of God, or containeth anything in it
that is repugnant to the Scriptures; let him be excommunicated _ipso
facto_, and not restored, but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop,
after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”
Canon 6. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the rites and
ceremonies of the Church of England by law established are wicked,
anti-Christian, or superstitious, or such as, being commanded by lawful
authority, men, who are zealously and godly affected, may not with any
good conscience approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth,
subscribe unto them; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not
restored until he repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”
Canon 7. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That the government of the
Church of England, under his Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans,
archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is
anti-Christian, or _repugnant to the word of_ GOD; let him be
excommunicated _ipso facto_, and so continue until he repent, and
publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”
Canon 8. “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, or teach, That the form and
manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, or deacons,
containeth anything that is repugnant to the word of GOD; or that they
who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form, are not lawfully
made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or by others, to
be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have some other
calling to those divine offices; let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_,
not to be restored until he publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”
Canon 9. “Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the
communion of saints, as it is approved by the apostles’ rules in the
Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new brotherhood,
accounting the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine,
government, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be
profane, and unmeet for them to join with in Christian profession; let
them be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored, but by the
archbishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of such their
wicked errors.”
We can conceive nothing in the records of absurdity, more absurd than
the idea that the very parties by whom Presbyterians were
excommunicated, should be the parties to speak of their denomination as
a sister Church. At the time when the 55th canon was enacted, the two
kingdoms had been united, and the king of the two kingdoms had expressed
his determination to unite the two Churches; he had already taken
measures to effect his purpose, and in a few years he succeeded in his
object. The Convocation, acting under his commands, excommunicated the
Presbyterians, whom he hated, and held out the hand of fellowship to the
Church, which he was rearing amidst the ecclesiastical anarchy of
Scotland. “True,” says a learned writer: “the bishops were not
consecrated till a few years later, but when the law of the land had
recognised their estate, and the men were known and appointed, it
appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more, (unintentional, of
course,) to say, ‘the Church of Scotland was then, as now,
Presbyterian.’”
The reader who desires to see the subject more fully treated, is
referred to Chancellor Harington’s most able Letter on the 55th Canon.
To Chancellor Harington the writer of this article is indebted for the
extract from the Premonition. It is quoted, but imperfectly, in Macrie’s
Life of Andrew Melville.
BIER. A carriage on which the dead are carried to the grave. It is to be
provided by the parish.
BIRTH-DAYS. In the ancient Church, this term, in its application to
martyrs, and the festivals in honour of them, expressed the day on which
they suffered death, or were born into the glory and happiness of the
kingdom above. In this sense it stood distinct from the time of their
natural birth into the world, which was considered as an event so
inferior, that its ordinary designation was merged in that of a
translation to the joys of a better world. “When ye hear of a birthday
of saints, brethren,” says Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna in the
5th century, “do not think that that is spoken of in which they are born
on earth, of the flesh, but that in which they are born from earth into
heaven, from labour to rest, from temptations to repose, from torments
to delights, not fluctuating, but strong, and stable, and eternal: from
the derision of the world to a crown and glory. Such are the birthdays
of the martyrs that we celebrate.”
BISHOP. (See _Orders_, _Apostolical Succession_, _Succession_,
_Archbishop_.) This is the title now given to those who are of the
highest order in the Christian ministry. The English word comes from the
Saxon _bischop_, which is a derivative from the Greek Ἐπισκοπος, an
overseer or inspector.
The doctrine of Scripture, as it relates to the office of bishop, may be
briefly stated thus:—As the LORD JESUS CHRIST was sent by the FATHER, so
were the apostles sent by him. “As my FATHER hath sent me,” he says soon
after his resurrection, “even so send I you.” Now, _how_ had the FATHER
sent him? He had sent him to act as his supreme minister on earth; as
such to appoint under him subordinate ministers, and, to do what he then
did when his work on earth was done, to hand on his commission to
others. The apostles, in like manner, were sent by CHRIST to act as his
chief ministers in the Church, to appoint subordinate ministers under
them, and then, as he had done, to hand on their commission to others.
And on this commission, after our LORD had ascended up on high, the
apostles proceeded to act. They formed their converts into Churches:
these Churches consisted of baptized believers, to officiate among whom
subordinate ministers, priests, and deacons were ordained; while the
apostle who formed any particular Church exercised over it episcopal
superintendence, either holding an occasional visitation, by sending for
the clergy to meet him, (as St. Paul summoned to Miletus the clergy of
Ephesus,) or else transmitting to them those pastoral addresses, which,
under the name of Epistles, form so important a portion of Holy
Scripture. At length, however, it became necessary for the apostles to
proceed yet further, and to do as their Lord had empowered them to do,
to hand on their commission to others, that at their own death the
governors of the Church might not be extinct. Of this we have an
instance in Titus, who was placed in Crete by St. Paul, to act as chief
pastor or bishop; and another in Timothy, who was in like manner set
over the Church of Ephesus. And when Timothy was thus appointed to the
office of chief pastor, he was associated with St. Paul, who, in writing
to the Philippians, commences his salutation thus: “Paul and Timotheus
to the servants of JESUS CHRIST who are at Philippi, with the bishops
and deacons.” Now we have here the three orders of the ministry clearly
alluded to. The title of bishop is, doubtless, given to the second
order: but it is not for words, but for things, that we are to contend.
Titles may be changed, while offices remain; so senators exist, though
they are not now of necessity old men; and most absurd would it be to
contend that, when we speak of the emperor Constantine, we can mean that
Constantine held no other office than that held under the Roman
republic, because we find Cicero also saluted as emperor. So stood the
matter in the first age of the gospel, when the chief pastors of the
Church were generally designated apostles or angels, i. e. messengers
sent by GOD himself. In the next century, the office remaining, the
designation of those who held it was changed, the title of Apostle was
confined to the Twelve, including St. Paul; and the chief pastors who
succeeded them were thenceforth called bishops, the subordinate
ministers being styled priests and deacons. For when the name of bishop
was given to those who had that oversight of presbyters, which
presbyters had of their flocks, it would have been manifestly
inconvenient, and calculated to engender confusion, to continue the
episcopal name to the second order. And thus we see, as CHRIST was sent
by the FATHER, so he sent the apostles; as the apostles were sent by
CHRIST, so did they send the first race of bishops; as the first race of
bishops was sent by the apostles, so they sent the second race of
bishops, the second the third, and so down to our present bishops, who
thus trace their spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul, and
prove their Divine authority to govern the Churches over which they are
canonically appointed to preside.
The three orders of the ministry in the New Testament stand thus: 1st
order, Apostle. 2nd order, Bishop, Presbyter, or Elder. 3rd order,
Deacon. Afterwards, the office remaining the same, there was a change in
the title, and the ministers of CHRIST were designated thus: 1st order,
Bishop, formerly Apostle. 2nd order, Presbyter or Elder. 3rd order,
Deacon.
The offices of an apostle and a bishop are thus distinguished by the
learned Barrow: “The apostleship is an extraordinary office, charged
with instruction and government of the whole world; but episcopacy is an
ordinary standing charge affixed to one place, and requiring a special
attendance there.”—See _Consecration of Bishops_.
The judgment of the Church of England with respect to the primitive
existence of the episcopal order is this: “It is evident unto all men
diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that _from the
apostles’ time_ there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s
Church,—Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”—_Preface to the Ordination
Service._
BISHOPS’ BIBLE. (See _Bible_.)
BISHOPS, ELECTION OF. When cities were at first converted to
Christianity, the bishops were elected by the clergy and people: for it
was then thought convenient that the laity, as well as the clergy,
should concur in the election, that he who was to have the inspection of
them all might come in by general consent.
But as the number of Christians increased, this was found to be
inconvenient; for tumults were raised, and sometimes murders committed,
at such popular elections. To prevent such disorders, the emperors,
being then Christians, reserved the election of bishops to themselves;
but the bishop of Rome, when he had obtained supremacy in the Western
Church, was unwilling that the bishops should have any dependence upon
princes; and therefore brought it about that the canons in cathedral
churches should have the election of their bishops, which elections were
usually confirmed at Rome.
But princes had still some power in those elections; and in England we
read, that, in the Saxon times, all ecclesiastical dignities were
conferred by the king in parliament.
From these circumstances arose the long controversy about the right of
investiture, a point conceded, so far as our Church is concerned, by
Henry I., who only reserved the ceremony of homage to himself from the
bishops in respect of temporalities. King John afterwards granted his
charter, by common consent of the barons, that the bishops should be
eligible by the chapter, though the right of the Crown in former times
was acknowledged. This was afterwards confirmed by several acts of
parliament. This election by the chapter was to be a free election, but
founded upon the king’s _congé d’ élire_: it was afterwards to have the
royal assent; and the newly-elected bishop was not to have his
temporalities assigned until he had sworn allegiance to the king; but it
was agreed, that confirmation and consecration should be in the power of
the pope, so that foreign potentate gained in effect the disposal of all
the bishoprics in England.
But the pope was not content with this power of confirmation and
consecration; he would oftentimes collate to the bishoprics himself:
hence, by the statute of the 26 Edward III. sec. 6, it was enacted as
follows, viz. The free elections of archbishops, bishops, and all other
dignities and benefices elective in England, shall hold from henceforth
in the manner as they were granted by the king’s progenitors, and the
ancestors of other lords, founders of the said dignities and other
benefices. And in case that reservation, collation, or provision be made
by the court of Rome, of any archbishopric, bishopric, dignity, or other
benefice, in disturbance of the free elections aforesaid, the king shall
have for that time the collations to the archbishoprics and other
dignities elective which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had
before that free election was granted; since that the election was first
granted by the king’s progenitors upon a certain form and condition, as
to demand licence of the king to choose, and after the election to have
his royal assent, and not in other manner; which conditions not kept,
the thing ought by reason to resort to its first nature.
Afterwards, by the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, all Papal jurisdiction
whatsoever in this matter was entirely taken away: by which it is
enacted—That no person shall be presented and nominated to the bishop of
Rome, otherwise called the pope, or to the see of Rome, for the office
of an archbishop or bishop; but the same shall utterly cease, and be no
longer used within this realm.
And the manner and order as well of the election of archbishops and
bishops, as of the confirmation of the election and consecration, is
clearly enacted and expressed by that statute. By the statute of the 1
Edward VI. c. 2, all bishoprics were made donative, and it has been
supposed by some, that the principal intent of this act was to make
deans and chapters less necessary, and thereby to prepare the way for a
dissolution of them.
But this statute was afterwards repealed, and the matter was brought
back again, and still rests upon the statute of the 25th Henry VIII. c.
20.
When a bishop dies, or is translated, the dean and chapter certify the
queen thereof in Chancery, and pray leave of the queen to make election.
Thereupon the sovereign grants a licence to them under the great seal,
to elect the person, whom by her letters missive she has appointed; and
they are to choose no other. Within twenty-six days after the receipt of
this licence they are to proceed to election, which is done after this
manner: the dean and chapter having made their election, must certify it
under their common seal to the queen, and to the archbishop of the
province, and to the bishop elected; then the queen gives her royal
assent under the great seal, directed to the archbishop, commanding him
to confirm and consecrate the bishop thus elected. The archbishop
subscribes it thus, viz. _Fiat confirmatio_, and grants a commission to
his vicar-general to perform all acts requisite to that purpose. Upon
this the vicar-general issues a citation to summon all persons who
oppose this election, to appear, &c., which citation (in the province of
Canterbury) is affixed by an officer of the Arches, on the door of Bow
church, and he makes three proclamations there for the opposers, &c. to
appear. After this, the same officer certifies what he has done to the
vicar-general; and no person appearing, &c., at the time and place
appointed, &c., the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibits the royal
assent, and the commission of the archbishop directed to his
vicar-general, which are both read, and then accepted by him. Afterwards
the proctor exhibits his proxy from the dean and chapter, and presents
the newly-elected bishop to the vicar-general, returns the citation, and
desires that three proclamations may be made for the opposers to appear;
which being done, and none appearing, he desires that they may proceed
to confirmation, _in pœnam contumaciæ_; and this is subscribed by the
vicar-general in a schedule, and decreed by him accordingly. Then the
proctor exhibits a summary petition, setting forth the whole process of
election; in which it is desired that a certain time may be assigned to
him to prove it, and this is likewise desired by the vicar-general. Then
he exhibits the assent of the queen and archbishop once more, and that
certificate which he returned to the vicar-general, and of the affixing
the citation on the door of Bow church, and desires a time may be
appointed for the final sentence, which is also decreed. Then three
proclamations are again made for the opposers to appear, but none coming
they are pronounced _contumaces_; and it is then decreed to proceed to
sentence, and this is in another schedule read and subscribed by the
vicar-general. On one memorable occasion, see Reg. _v._ Abp. of
Canterbury, Q. B., Jan. 25, 1848, the court of Q. B. pronounced this to
be a mere useless form and ceremony. It was a time when political and
party feeling ran higher, perhaps, than at any time since the reign of
James II., and it is hoped that, should a similar case occur, justice
would be done to the Church. Then the bishop elect takes the oath of
supremacy, canonical obedience, and that against simony, and then the
dean of the Arches reads and subscribes the sentence. The dean and
chapter are to certify this election in twenty days after the delivery
of the letters missive, or they incur a premunire. And if they refuse to
elect, then the queen may nominate a person by her letters patent. So
that, to the making a bishop, these things are requisite, viz. election,
confirmation, consecration, and investiture. Upon election, the person
is only a bishop _Nomine_, and not _In re_, for he has no power of
jurisdiction before consecration.
In the time of the Saxons, as indeed was generally the case throughout
Europe, all bishops and abbots sat in state councils, by reason of their
office, as they were spiritual persons, and not upon account of any
tenures; but after the Conquest the abbots sat there by virtue of their
tenures, and the bishops in a double capacity, as bishops and likewise
as barons by tenure. When, in the 11th year of Henry II., Archbishop
Becket was condemned in parliament, there was a dispute who should
pronounce the sentence, whether a bishop, or a temporal lord: those who
desired that a bishop should do it, alleged that they were
ecclesiastical persons, and that it was one of their own order who was
condemned; but the bishops replied, that this was not a spiritual but a
secular judgment; and that they did not sit there merely as bishops, but
as barons; and told the House of Peers, _Nos barones, vos barones pares
hic sumus_. In the very year before, in the tenth of Henry II., it was
declared by the Constitutions of Clarendon, that bishops, and all other
persons who hold of the king _in capite_, have their possessions of him
_sicut baroniam, et sicut cæteri barones, debent interesse judiciis
curiæ regis, &c._; and that they ought to sit there likewise as bishops;
that is, not as mere spiritual persons, vested with a power only to
ordain and confirm, &c., but as they are the governors of the Church. It
is for this reason that, on the vacancy of a bishopric, the guardian of
the spiritualities is summoned to the parliament in the room of the
bishop; and the new bishops of Bristol, Chester, Gloucester, Oxford, and
Peterborough, which were made by Henry VIII., and the bishops of Ripon
and Manchester, have no baronies, and yet they sit in parliament as
bishops of those sees by the king’s writ. This view of the case is
confirmed by the analogy of Scotland, where the bishops sat in
parliament as representing the spirituality, one of the estates of the
realm. The bishops of Ireland were, from the time of the submission of
that country to Henry II., elected exactly as in England, under the
king’s licence, and by virtue of a congé d’élire directed to the
chapters. The statute of provisors was in force in Ireland as well as
England; and although, from the unsettled state of the country,
irregular elections occasionally took place in distant provinces, it can
be clearly shown that this was in consequence of the weakness of the
Crown, and in contradiction to the law. (See _Ware’s Irish Bishops,
passim_, and _Cotton’s Facti Ecclesiæ Hibern_.) The right of election
was taken away from the chapters, as in England, in the reign of Henry
VIII., and never restored. The Irish bishops are, in consequence, still
nominated, as their English brethren were till Queen Elizabeth’s reign,
by letters patent.
BLASPHEMY. (From the Greek word, βλασφημέω, _quasi_ βλάπτω τὴν φήμην.)
An injury to the reputation of any, but now used almost exclusively to
designate that which derogates from the honour of GOD, whether by
detracting from his person or attributes, or by attributing to the
creature what is due to GOD alone.
Blasphemy is a crime both in the civil and canon law, and is punishable
both by the statute and common law of England.
The sin of blasphemy incurred the public censure of the primitive
Christian Church. They distinguished blasphemy into three sorts. 1. The
blasphemy of apostates, whom the heathen persecutors obliged, not only
to deny, but to curse CHRIST. 2. The blasphemy of heretics, and other
profane Christians. 3. The blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST. The first
sort we find mentioned in Pliny, who, giving Trajan an account of some
Christians, whom the persecutions of his times had made to apostatize,
tells him, they all worshipped his images, and the images of the gods,
and cursed JESUS CHRIST. And that this was the common way of renouncing
their religion, appears from the demand of the proconsul to Polycarp,
and Polycarp’s answer. He bid him revile CHRIST: to which Polycarp
replied; “These eighty-six years I have served him, and he never did me
any harm; how then can I blaspheme my King and my SAVIOUR?”—These
blasphemers, as having added blasphemy to apostasy, were reckoned among
the apostates, and punished as such, to the highest degree of
ecclesiastical censure.—_Bingham, Origin. Eccles._ b. xvi. ch. 7, § 1.
_Plin._ Ep. 97, lib. x. _Euseb. Hist. Eccles._ lib. iv. cap. 15.
The second sort of blasphemers were such as made profession of the
Christian religion, but yet, either by impious doctrines or profane
discourses, derogated from the majesty and honour of GOD and his holy
religion. This sense of blasphemy included every kind of heresy; whence
the same punishment the Church had appointed for heretics, was the lot
of this kind of blasphemers. And that in this notion of blasphemy they
included all impious and profane language, appears from Synesius’s
treatment of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais. He was contented to
admonish him for his other crimes; but, when he added blasphemy to them,
saying, no one should escape his hands, though he laid hold of the very
foot of CHRIST, Synesius thought it high time to proceed to anathemas
and excommunication.—_Bingham_, ibid. § 2.
The third sort of blasphemy was that against the HOLY GHOST: concerning
which the opinions of the ancients varied. Some applied it to the sin of
lapsing into idolatry and apostasy, and denying CHRIST in time of
persecution. Others made it to consist in denying CHRIST to be GOD; in
which sense Hilary charges the Arians with sinning against the HOLY
GHOST. Origen thought that whoever, after having received the gifts of
the HOLY GHOSt by baptism, afterwards ran into sin, was guilty of the
unpardonable sin against the HOLY GHOST. Athanasius refutes this notion,
and delivers his own opinion in the following manner. “The Pharisees, in
our SAVIOUR’S time, and the Arians, in our own, running into the same
madness, denied the real WORD to be incarnate, and ascribed the works of
the Godhead to the devil and his angels.—They put the devil in the place
of GOD—which was the same thing as if they had said, that the world was
made by Beelzebub, that the sun rose at his command, and the stars moved
by his direction.—For this reason CHRIST declared their sin
unpardonable, and their punishment inevitable and eternal.” St. Ambrose
likewise defines this sin to be a denying the Divinity of CHRIST. There
are others, who make it to consist in denying the Divinity of the HOLY
GHOST. Epiphanius calls these blasphemers πνευματόμαχοι, “fighters
against the HOLY GHOST.” Others, again, place this sin in a perverse and
malicious ascribing the operations of the HOLY SPIRIT to the power of
the devil; and that against express knowledge and conviction of
conscience.
That the ancients did not look upon the sin against the HOLY GHOST, in
the several kinds of it here mentioned, as absolutely irremissible, or
incapable of pardon, appears from hence, that they did not shut the door
of repentance against such offenders, but invited them to repent, and
prayed for their conversion, and restored them to communion, upon their
confession, and evidences of a true repentance. Wherever they speak of
it as unpardonable both in this world and the next, they always suppose
the sinner to die in obduracy, and in resistance to all the gracious
motions and operations of the HOLY SPIRIT. Whence it must be concluded,
that they did not think the sin against the HOLY GHOST, whatever it was,
in its own nature unpardonable, but only that it becomes so through
final impenitence. Thus the author of the book, “Of True and False
Repentance,” under the name of St. Austin, says, they only sin against
the HOLY GHOST, who continue impenitent to their death. And Bacchiarius,
an African writer about the time of St. Austin, says this sin consists
in such a despair of GOD’S mercy, as makes men give over all hopes of
recovering that state, from which they are fallen.—_Synes._ Ep. 58.
_Bingham_, ibid. § 3. _Cypr._ Ep. 10. _Hilar. in Mat._ Can. 12, p. 164.
_Athan. in illud, Quicunque dixerit verbum, &c._, p. 975. _Ambros.
Comment. in Luc._ lib. vii. c. 12. _Epiphan. Hæres._ lxxiv. _Aug. Quæst.
in Vet. et Nov. Test._ 102. _Bingham_, ibid. _Aug. de vera et falsa
Pœnit._ cap. iv. _Bacchiar. Epist. de recipiend. lapsis._
St. Austin speaks often of this crime, and places it in a continued
resistance of the motions and graces of the Holy Spirit, and persisting
in impenitency to our death. “Impenitency is the blasphemy, which has
neither remission in this world, nor in the world to come; but of this
no one can judge so long as a man continues in this life. A man is a
Pagan to-day; but how knowest thou but he may become a Christian
to-morrow? To-day he is an unbelieving Jew; to-morrow he may believe in
Christ. To-day he is an heretic; to-morrow he may embrace the Catholic
truth.” Out of this notion of St. Austin, the schoolmen, according to
their usual chymistry, have extracted five several species of blasphemy
against the HOLY GHOST; viz. despair, presumption, final impenitency,
obstinacy in sin, and opposition to the known truth.
If we consider the Scripture account of this sin, nothing can be plainer
than that it is to be understood of the Pharisees imputing the miracles,
wrought by the power of the HOLY GHOST, to the power of the devil. Our
LORD had just healed one possessed of a devil, upon which the Pharisees
gave this malicious turn to the miracle; “This fellow doth not cast out
devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” (Matt. xii. 24.)
This led our SAVIOUR to discourse of the sin of blasphemy, and to tell
his disciples; “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the sin against the HOLY GHOST
shall not be forgiven unto men,” (Ver. 31.) The Pharisees therefore were
the persons charged with this sin, and the sin itself consisted in
ascribing what was done by the finger of GOD to the agency of the devil.
And the reason why our LORD pronounced it unpardonable is plain, because
the Jews, by withstanding the evidence of miracles, resisted the
strongest means of their conviction. From all which it will follow, that
no person now can be guilty of the sin against the HOLY GHOST, in the
sense in which our SAVIOUR originally intended it; though there may be
sins which bear a very near resemblance to it.—_August., Serm._ xi. _de
Verbis Domini. Brouqhton._
BLOOD. From the earliest times the clergy have been forbidden to sit in
judgment on capital offences, or in cases of blood; a rule still
maintained among us; for the bishops, who, as peers of parliament, are a
component part of the highest court of judicature in the kingdom, always
retire when such cases are before the House.
BODY. The Church is called a body. (Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 13;
Eph. iv. 4; Col. iii. 15.) Like every other body, society, or
corporation, it has a prescribed form of admission, baptism; a constant
badge of membership, the eucharist; peculiar duties, repentance, faith,
obedience; peculiar privileges, forgiveness of sins, present grace, and
future glory; regularly constituted officers, bishops, priests, and
deacons. The Church is the body, of which CHRIST is the Head.
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN. A sect which sprung up in Bohemia in the year 1467.
In 1503 they were accused by the Roman Catholics to King Ladislaus II.,
who published an edict against them, forbidding them to hold any
meetings, either privately or publicly. When Luther declared himself
against the Church of Rome, the Bohemian Brethren endeavoured to join
his party. At first, that reformer showed a great aversion to them; but
the Bohemians sending their deputies to him in 1535, with a full account
of their doctrines, he acknowledged that they were a society of
Christians whose doctrine came near to the purity of the gospel. This
sect published another confession of faith in 1535, in which they
renounced anabaptism, which they at first professed; upon this an union
was concluded with the Lutherans, and afterwards with the Zuinglians,
whose opinions from thenceforth they continued to follow.
BOUNTY, QUEEN ANNE’S. (See _Annates_.)
BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS. (See _East_.) It is enjoined by the
eighteenth canon of the Constitutions of the Church of England, that
“When in time of Divine service the LORD JESUS shall be mentioned, due
and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath
been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures,
their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that
the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the true eternal SON of GOD, is the only Saviour
of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of GOD
to mankind, for this life and the life to come, are fully and wholly
comprised.” We do not bow when our LORD is spoken of as CHRIST; for when
we speak of him as the CHRIST, we speak of his office, the anointed, the
prophet, priest, and king of our race, which implies his Divine nature.
But JESUS is the name of his humanity, the name he was known by as man;
whenever, therefore, we pronounce that name, we bow, to signify that he
who for our sakes became man, is also GOD.
With reference to turning to the east when we say the Creed, and bowing
at the name of JESUS, Dr. Bisse remarks: As to the first, it was the
custom of the ancient Church to turn to the altar or east, not only at
the confessions of faith, but in all the public prayers. And therefore
Epiphanius, speaking of the madness of the impostor Elxæus, counts this
as one instance of it among other things, that he forbade praying
towards the east. (Lib. i. Hæres. 18.) Now this is the most honourable
place in the house of GOD, and is therefore separated from the lower and
inferior parts of the Church, answering to the Holy of Holies in the
Jewish tabernacle, which was severed by a veil from the sanctuary; and
the holy table or altar in the one answers to the mercy-seat in the
other. As then the Jews worshipped, “lifting up their hands towards the
mercy-seat,” (Psal. xxviii. 2,) and even the cherubim were formed with
their faces looking towards it, (Exod. xxv. 19,) so the primitive
Christians did in their worship look towards the altar, of which the
mercy-seat was a type. And therefore the altar was usually called “the
tabernacle of GOD’S glory,” his “chair of state,” “the throne of GOD,”
“the type of heaven,” “heaven itself:” for these reasons did they always
in praying look towards it. But in rehearsing our Creeds this custom is
still more proper and significant, for we are appointed to perform it
“standing;” by this posture declaring our resolution to stand by, or
defend, that faith, which we have professed: so that all these times we
resemble, not so much an assembly, as an army: as then in every
well-marshalled army all look and move one way, so should we always do
in a regular assembly; but especially at the confessions of faith all
“CHRIST’S faithful soldiers” should show, by this uniformity of gesture,
that they hold the unity of faith.
The other usage, of bowing at the name of JESUS, seems founded on that
Scripture, where it is declared, that “GOD hath given him a name which
is above every name; that at the name of JESUS every knee should bow,
and every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD, to the glory
of GOD the FATHER,” (Isa. xlv. 23; Phil. ii. 9,) &c. Now though the
rubric be silent herein, yet the canon of our Church thus enjoins. Now
if such reverence be due to that great and ever-blessed name, when it is
mentioned in the lesson or sermon, how much more in the Creeds, when we
mention it with our own lips, making confession of our faith in it,
adding the very reason given in the canon, that we believe in him as
“the only SON,” or “only-begotten SON of GOD,” the SAVIOUR of the world;
and when too we do this “standing,” which is the proper posture for
doing reverence!—_Dr. Bisse._
BOWING TO THE ALTAR. A reverent custom still practised at Windsor
chapel, in college chapels and cathedrals, of which the synod of 1640
said, “We heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, that
they be ready to tender to the LORD their reverence and obeisance, both
at their coming in and going out of church, according to the most
ancient custom of the primitive Church in the purest times.” “In the
practice or omission of this rite, we desire that the rule of charity
prescribed by the apostle may be observed, which is, that they which use
this rite despise not those who use it not, and they who use it not,
condemn not them who use it.”
BOYLE’S LECTURE. A lecture founded under the will of the Hon. Robert
Boyle, in 1691, which consists of a course of eight sermons, to prove
the truth of Christianity against infidels, and to answer new
difficulties, &c., without entering into controversies existing among
Christians.
BRANDENBURG, CONFESSION OF. A formulary, or confession of faith, drawn
up in the city of Brandenburg by order of the elector, with a view to
reconcile the tenets of Luther with those of Calvin, and to put an end
to the disputes occasioned by the Confession of Augsburgh.
BRASSES. Monumental slabs of brass, much used in the middle ages, with
effigies carved in outline upon them. An historical and descriptive
account of brasses used as sepulchral memorials would occupy too much
space for this work. Perhaps as much of the history as we shall be
expected to give is included in the following paragraph from the “Manual
of Monumental Brasses,” (Oxford, 1848,) to which we may refer for a full
discussion on this subject.
“The earliest brass of which we have any record was that of Simon de
Beauchamp, who died before 1208, thus mentioned by Leland, “He lyith
afore the highe altare of S. Paule’s chirch in Bedeford, with this
epitaphie graven in bras, and set on a flat marble stone:—
De Bello Campo jacet hic sub marmore Simon
Fundator de Neweham.”
Several others of the thirteenth century, now lost, are enumerated by
Gough.”
At the present time, the earliest brass known is that of Sir John
d’Abernon, 1277; one other of the same century still remains at
Trumpington. From this period their numbers gradually increased until
about the middle of the sixteenth century, when they became less common.
The latest observed example is at St. Mary Cray, Kent, 1776. It is
remarkable that the earliest brasses are quite equal, in beauty of form
and execution, to any of a later date. From the early part of the
fifteenth century a gradual decline of the art is visible, and towards
the end of the sixteenth century it became utterly degenerate.
It seems needless to add, that the interest of brasses is derived, in a
great degree, from the light which they throw on mediæval costume, and
the habits of our ancestors. The destruction of brasses at the
Reformation was great; at the Rebellion still greater. The mention of
this spoliation by Drake, the historian of York, is worth volumes of
mere particulars. “Let no man hereafter say, ‘_Exegi monumentum ære
perennius_;’ for now an _æris sacra fames_ has robbed us of most of the
ancient monumental inscriptions that were in the church. At the
Reformation this hairbrained zeal began to show itself against painted
glass, stone statues, and grave-stones, many of which were defaced and
utterly destroyed, along with other more valuable monuments of the
church, till Queen Elizabeth put a stop to these most scandalous doings
by an express act of parliament. In our late civil wars, and during the
usurpation, our zealots began again these depredations on grave-stones,
and stripped and pillaged to the minutest piece of metal. I know it is
urged that their hatred to Popery was so great, that they could not
endure to see an “_orate pro animâ_,” or even a cross, over a monument
without defacing it; but it is plain that it was more the poor lucre of
the brass, than zeal, which tempted these miscreants to this act, for
there was no gravestone which had an inscription cut on itself that was
defaced by anything but age throughout this whole church.”
BRAWLING. The act of quarrelling, and, in its more limited and technical
sense, the act of quarrelling within consecrated precincts. If any
person shall, by words only, quarrel, chide, or brawl in any church or
churchyard, it shall be lawful unto the ordinary of the place, where the
same offence shall be done, and proved by two lawful witnesses, to
suspend every person so offending; if he be a layman, from the entrance
of the church; and if he be a clerk, from the ministration of his
office, for so long time as the said ordinary shall think meet according
to the fault. (5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 4, s. 1.)
BREVIARY. A daily office or book of Divine service in the Romish Church.
So called from being a compilation in an abbreviated form, convenient
for use, of the various books anciently used in the service, as
antiphoners, psalters, &c. After the prayers of the liturgy, or missal,
those held in the greatest veneration by Roman Catholics are the prayers
contained in the church office, or canonical hours. This office is a
form of prayer and instruction combined, consisting of psalms, lessons,
hymns, prayers, anthems, versicles, &c., combined in an established
order, separated into different hours of the day. It is divided into
seven, or rather eight parts; and, like the English liturgy, it has a
reference to the mystery or festival celebrated. The festival, and
therefore the office, begins with _vespers_, i. e. with the evening
prayer, about six o’clock, or sunset. This office is called, on the eves
of Sundays and holidays, the first Vespers. Next follows _compline_, to
beg GOD’S protection during sleep. At midnight come the three
_nocturns_, as they are called, or _matins_, the longest part of the
office. _Lauds_, or matin lauds, or the morning praises of GOD, are
appointed for the cock-crowing, or before the break of day. At six
o’clock, or sunrise, _prime_ shall be recited; and _tierce_, _sext_, and
_none_, every third hour afterwards. (See _Canonical Hours_.) These
canonical hours of prayer are still regularly observed by many religious
orders, but less regularly by the secular clergy, even in the choir.
When the office is recited in private, though the observance of regular
hours may be commendable, it is thought sufficient if the whole be gone
through any time in the twenty-four hours. The church office, exclusive
of the mass and occasional services, is contained in what is called the
breviary. In consequence of a decree of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius
V. ordered a number of learned and able men to compile the breviary; and
by his bull, _Quod a nobis_, July, 1566, sanctioned it, and commanded
the use thereof to the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church all over the
world. Clement VIII., in 1602, finding that the breviary of Pius V. had
been altered and depraved, restored it to its pristine state; and
ordered, under pain of excommunication, that all future editions should
strictly follow that which he then printed at the Vatican. Lastly, Urban
VIII., in 1631, had the language of the whole work, and the metres of
the hymns, revised. The value which the Church of Rome sets upon the
breviary, may be known from the strictness with which she demands the
perusal of it. Whoever enjoys any ecclesiastical revenue; all persons of
both sexes, who have professed in any of the regular orders; all
subdeacons, deacons, and priests, are bound to repeat, either in public
or in private, the whole service of the day, out of the breviary. The
omission of any one of the eight portions of which that service consists
is declared to be a mortal sin, i. e. a sin that, unrepented, would be
sufficient to exclude from salvation. The person guilty of such an
omission loses all legal right to whatever portion of his clerical
emoluments is due for the day or days wherein he neglected that duty,
and cannot be absolved till he has given the forfeited sums to the poor.
Such are the sanctions and penalties by which the reading of the
breviary is enforced. The scrupulous exactness with which this duty is
performed by all who have not secretly cast off their spiritual
allegiance is quite surprising. The office of the Roman Catholic Church
was originally so contrived, as to divide the psalter between the seven
days of the week. Portions of the old Scriptures were also read
alternately, with extracts from the legends of the saints, and the works
of the fathers. But as the calendar became crowded with saints, whose
festivals take precedence of the regular church service, little room is
left for anything but a few psalms, which are constantly repeated, a
very small part of the Old Testament, and mere fragments of the Gospels
and Epistles.
The lessons are taken partly out of the Old and New Testaments, and
partly out of the Acts of the Saints, and writings of the holy fathers.
The LORD’S Prayer, the Hail Mary, or Angelical Salutation, the Apostles’
Creed, and the Confiteor, are frequently said. This last is a prayer, by
which they who use it acknowledge themselves sinners, beg pardon of GOD,
and the intercession on their behalf of the angels, of the saints, and
of their brethren upon earth. No prayers are more frequently in the
mouths of Roman Catholics than these four; to which we may add the
doxology, repeated during the psalmody in every office, but though not
uniformly at the end of every psalm, and in other places. In every
canonical hour a hymn is also said, often composed by Prudentius, or
some other ancient father. The Roman breviary contains also a small
office, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and likewise what is called the
office of the dead. We there find, also, the penitential and the gradual
psalms, as they are called, together with the litanies of the saints,
and of the Virgin Mary of Loretto, which are the only two that have the
sanction of the Church. The breviary is generally printed in four
volumes, one for each season of the year.
BRIEFS (see _Bulls_) are pontifical letters issued from the court of
Rome, sealed in red wax, with the seal of the fisherman’s ring: they are
written in Roman characters, and subscribed by the secretary of briefs,
who is a secretary of state, (usually either a bishop or a cardinal,)
required to be well versed in the legal style of papal documents, and in
the sacred canons. The word _Brief_, in our Prayer Book, signifies the
sovereign letters patent, authorizing a collection for a charitable
purpose; as they are now styled, Queen’s letters. These are directed to
be read among the notices after the Nicene Creed.
BROACH. In strictness any spire, but generally used to signify a spire,
the junction of which with the tower is not marked by a parapet. Lancet
and Geometrical spires are generally thus treated; Decorated,
frequently; Perpendicular, rarely.
BULL _in Cœna Domini_. This is the name given to a bull in the Church of
Rome, which is publicly read on the day of the LORD’S supper, viz. Holy
Thursday, by a cardinal deacon in the pope’s presence, accompanied with
the other cardinals and the bishops. The same contains an
excommunication of all that are called, by that apostate Church,
heretics, stubborn and disobedient to the holy see. And after the
reading of this bull, the pope throws a burning torch into the public
place, to denote the thunder of this anathema. It is declared expressly,
in the beginning of the bull of Pope Paul III., of the year 1536, that
it is the ancient custom of the sovereign pontiffs to publish this
excommunication on Holy Thursday, to preserve the purity of the
Christian religion, and to keep the union of the faithful; but the
original of this ceremony is not inserted in it. The principal heads of
this bull concern heretics and their upholders, pirates, imposers of new
customs, those who falsify the bulls and other apostolic letters; those
who abuse the prelates of the Church; those that trouble or would
restrain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even under pretence of preventing
some violence, though they might be counsellors or advocates, generals
to secular princes, whether emperors, kings, or dukes; those who usurp
the goods of the Church, &c. All these cases are reserved to the pope,
and no priest can give absolution in such a case, if it be not at the
point of death. The Council of Tours, in 1510, declared the bull in
_Cœna Domini_ void in respect of France, which has often protested
against it, in what relates to the king’s prerogative, and the liberties
of the Gallican Church; and there are now but few other Popish princes
or states that have much regard to it. So much has the authority of the
papal chair declined since the Reformation, even over those who still
remain in the communion of what they call the Roman Catholic Church.
BULLS (see _Briefs_) are pontifical letters, in the Romish Church,
written in old Gothic characters upon stout and coarse skins, and issued
from the apostolic chancery, under a seal (_bulla_) of lead; which seal
gives validity to the document, and is attached, if it be a “_Bull of
Grace_,” by a cord of silk; and if it be a “_Bull of Justice_,” by a
cord of hemp.
The seal of the fisherman’s ring corresponds, in some degree, with the
privy seal; and the _bulla_, or seal of lead, with the great seal of
England.
The _bulla_ is, properly, a seal of empire. The imperial _bulla_ is of
gold; and it was under a seal of this description that King John
resigned the crown of England to the Pope.
BRIEFS and BULLS differ from each other.
1. BRIEFS are issued from the Roman court by the apostolic secretary,
sealed with red wax by the fisherman’s ring. BULLS are issued by the
apostolic chancellor, under a seal of lead, having on one side impressed
the likeness of St. Peter and St. Paul; and, on the other, the name of
the reigning pope.
2. BRIEFS are written upon fine and white skins. BULLS, upon those which
are thick, coarse, and rude.
3. BRIEFS are written in Roman characters, in a legible, fair, and
elegant manner. BULLS, though in Latin, are written in old Gothic
characters, without line or stop, or that regard to spelling which is
observed in briefs.
4. Briefs are dated “a die nativitatis;” BULLS dated “a die
incarnationis.”
5. BRIEFS have the date abbreviated; BULLS have it given in length.
6. BRIEFS begin in a different form, with the name of the pope: thus
“Clem. Papa XII. &c.” BULLS begin with the words “[Clemens] Episcopus
servus servorum Dei;” by way of distinct heading.
7. BRIEFS are issued before the pope’s coronation, but BULLS are not
issued till afterwards. (See on this subject, _Corrad. in Praxi
Dispens._ lib. ii. c. 7, n. 29; _Rosam de Executione Liter. Apostol._ c.
2, n. 67; _Cardinal de Luca. in relat. Romanæ Curiæ_, discurs, 7, and
other canonists.)
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned differences between BRIEFS and
BULLS, and that greater weight is usually attached to a bull than to a
brief, on account of its more formal character, still BRIEFS have the
same authority as BULLS on all the matters to which they relate; _both_
being equally acts of the pope, though issued from different departments
of his Holiness’s government.
BURIAL. (See _Cemetery_, _Dead_.) Christians in the first centuries used
to bury their dead in the places used also by the heathen, in caves or
vaults by the wayside, or in fields out of their cities. The heathen
used to burn the bodies of the dead, and collect the ashes in urns, but
Christians thought it to be a barbarity and insult to destroy a body
appointed to a glorious resurrection. They therefore restored the older
and better practice of laying the remains decently in the earth. Their
persecutors, knowing their feelings on this subject, often endeavoured
to prevent them from burying their dead, by burning the bodies of their
martyrs, as they did that of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; or by throwing
their ashes into rivers, as they did those of the martyrs of Lyons and
Vienne in France, A. D. 177. And although the heathen seemed to think it
unlucky and of evil omen to perform their funerals by day, carrying out
their dead after night-fall, and by torch-light; the Christians used to
follow their deceased friends to the grave, in the light of the sun,
with a large attendance of people walking in procession, sometimes
carrying candles in token of joy and thanksgiving, and chanting psalms.
It was also the custom, before they went to the grave, to assemble in
the church, where the body was laid, and a funeral sermon was sometimes
preached. The holy communion was administered on these occasions to the
friends of the deceased, for which a service, with an appropriate
Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, was set forth in our own Church in the
First Book of King Edward VI., and in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, A.
D. 1560. The office for the Burial of the Dead used by the English
Church corresponds in all respects with the offices of the primitive
Church, particularly as regards the psalms, the anthem, “Man that is
born of a woman,” &c., and the portions of Scripture appointed to be
read.
No person can be buried in the church, or in any part of it, without the
consent of the incumbent, to whom alone the common law has given this
privilege, because the soil and freehold of the church is in the parson
only. But upon the like ground of freehold, the common law has one
exception to the necessity of the leave of the parson, namely, where a
burying-place within the church is prescribed for as belonging to a
manor house. By the common law of England, any person may be buried in
the churchyard of the parish where he dies, without paying anything for
breaking the soil, unless a fee is payable by prescription, or
immemorial usage. But ordinarily a person may not be buried in the
churchyard of another parish than that wherein he died, at least without
the consent of the parishioners or churchwardens, whose parochial right
of burial is invaded thereby, and perhaps also of the incumbent whose
soil is broken; but where a person dies on his journey or otherwise, out
of the parish, or where there is a family vault or burial-place in the
church, or chancel, or aisle of such other parish, it may be otherwise.
Burial cannot be legally refused to dead bodies on account of debt, even
although the debtor was confined in prison at the time of his death.
By canon 68. “No minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that
is brought to the church or churchyard, (convenient warning being given
him thereof before,) in such manner and form as is prescribed in the
Book of Common Prayer. And if he shall refuse so to do, except the party
deceased were denounced excommunicated _majori excommunicatione_, for
some grievous and notorious crime, (and no man able to testify of his
repentance,) he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese from his
ministry by the space of three months.” But by the rubric before the
office for Burial of the Dead, the said office likewise shall not be
used for any that die unbaptized, or that have laid violent hands upon
themselves. The proper judges, whether persons who died by their own
hands were out of their senses, are doubtless the coroner’s jury. The
minister of the parish has no authority to be present at viewing the
body, or to summon or examine witnesses. And therefore he is neither
entitled nor able to judge in the affair; but may well acquiesce in the
public determination, without making any private inquiry. Indeed, were
he to make one, the opinion which he might form from thence could
usually be grounded only on common discourse and bare assertion. It
cannot be justifiable to act upon these in contradiction to the decision
of a jury after hearing witnesses upon oath. Even though there may be
reason to suppose that the coroner’s jury are frequently too favourable
in their judgment, in consideration of the circumstances of the family
of the deceased with respect to the forfeiture, and their verdict is in
its own nature traversable, yet the burial may not be delayed until that
matter upon trial shall finally be determined. On acquittal of the crime
of self-murder by the coroner’s jury, the body in that case not being
demanded by the law, it seems that the clergyman may and ought to admit
that body to Christian burial.
The rubric directs that the priests and clerks meeting the corpse at the
entrance of the churchyard, and going before it either into the church
or towards the grave, shall say or sing as is there appointed. By which
it seems to be discretionary in the minister, whether the corpse shall
be carried into the church or not. And there may be good reason for not
bringing it into the church, especially in cases of infection.
Canon 67. After the party’s death there shall be rung no more than one
short peal, and one before the burial, and one other after the burial.
The corpse that is buried belongs to no one, but is subject to
ecclesiastical cognizance, if abused or removed; and a corpse, once
buried, cannot be taken up or removed without licence from the ordinary,
if it is to be buried in another place, or the like; but in the case of
a violent death the coroner may take up the body for his inspection, if
it is interred before he comes to view it.—_Dr. Burn._
With reference to the Order for the Burial of the Dead in the Book of
Common Prayer, we must note that the ignorance and corruption of the
latter centuries had not vitiated any of the sacred administrations more
than this of burial; on which the fancies of purgatory and prayers for
the dead had so great an influence, that most of the forms now extant
consist of little else but impertinent and useless petitions for the
dead. Our Protestant reformers therefore, remembering St. Augustine’s
rule, that all this office is designed rather for the comfort of the
living, than the benefit of the dead, have justly rejected these
superstitions; and contrived this present form wholly for the
instruction, admonition, and comfort of the attendants on this
solemnity, and therein have reduced this matter to its prime intention
and use. It is not easy to tell exactly what the primitive form of
burial was; but the psalms were a principal part of it, as all the
fathers testify. They are now also a chief part of this office, and the
rest is generally taken out of Holy Scripture, being such places as are
most proper to the occasion, so as to form altogether a most pious and
practical office.—_Dean Comber._
Although all persons are for decency to be put under ground, yet that
some are not capable of Christian burial appears not only from the
canons of the ancient Church, but also from the following rubric
prefixed to our office at the last review: “Here it is to be noted, that
the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or
excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.”
The persons capable of Christian burial are only those within the pale
of the Church, for the rubric excludes all others from this privilege;
which is agreeable to the sense of all nations, who have generally
thought fit to punish some kinds of malefactors with the want of these
rites after their death, as well to afflict the criminal, while he
lives, with apprehensions of the disgrace to be done to his body, which
is naturally dear to all men; as to perpetuate the odium of the crime,
while the corpse is exposed to public scorn after the offender hath
parted with his life. Thus murderers were punished among the Romans: and
among the Greeks, robbers of temples and sacrilegious persons, as also
those that betrayed their country, with divers other notorious
transgressors. But none have been so justly and so universally deprived
of that natural right, which all men seem to have in a grave, as those
who break that great law of nature, the law of self-preservation, by
laying violent hands upon themselves. Among the Jews, these were
forbidden to be buried, and among the ancient Romans also. And when many
of the Milesian virgins made themselves away, the rest were restrained
from so vile a crime by a decree, that whosoever so died, she should not
be buried, but her naked body should be exposed to the common view. And,
to confirm the equity of these customs, we find the Christian councils,
as well abroad as at home, have forbidden the clergy to bury those that
killed themselves; as doth also our present rubric in imitation of those
ancient constitutions. And for very great reason, namely, to terrify all
from committing so detestable and desperate a sin, as is the wilful
destroying of GOD’S image, the casting away of their own souls, as well
as their opportunities of repentance: the Church hereby declaring, that
she hath little hopes of their salvation, who die in an act of the
greatest wickedness, which they can never repent of after it be
committed.
To these are to be added all that die under the sentence of
excommunication, who in the primitive times were denied Christian burial
also, with the intent of bringing the excommunicated to seek their
absolution and the Church’s peace for their soul’s health, ere they
leave this world; and, if not, of declaring them cut off from the body
of CHRIST, and by this mark of infamy distinguishing them from obedient
and regular Christians.
This office is also denied to infants not yet admitted into the Church
by baptism; not so much to punish the infants, who have done no crime,
as the parents, by whose neglect this too often happens. And perhaps
this external and sensible kind of punishment may move them to be more
careful to accomplish the office in due time, than higher and more
spiritual considerations will do.
Not that the Church determines anything concerning the future state of
those that depart before they are admitted to baptism; but since they
have not been received within the pale of the Church, we cannot properly
use an office at their funeral, which all along supposes the person that
is buried to have died in her communion.
Whether this office is to be used over such as have been baptized by the
dissenters or sectaries, who have no regular commission for the
administering of the sacraments, has been a subject of dispute; people
generally determining on one side, or the other, according to their
different sentiments of the validity or invalidity of such disputed
baptisms.—_Wheatly._
All other persons that die in the communion of the visible Church are
capable of these rites of Christian burial, according to the rules and
practice both of the primitive and the present ages.—_Dean Comber._
Though this rubric was not drawn up till 1661, and none of the
regulations which it enjoins, excepting only what relates to persons
excommunicate, was before that time specified in any of our articles, or
ecclesiastical constitutions, yet it must not be considered as a new
law, but merely as explanatory of the ancient canon law, and of the
previous usage in England.—_Shepherd._
The Order for the Burial of the Dead is much modified from the service
in the First Book of King Edward VI. The psalms were the 116th, 139th,
and 146th: the prayers were in many respects different; and there are
certain passages omitted in the Second Book. The psalms in the First
Book were omitted in the subsequent revisals, and the lesson was recited
after the anthem, “I heard a voice from heaven:” and the present psalms
were not inserted till the last Review.
At solemn funerals it has not been unusual to combine the Burial Service
with the office of Evening Prayer, substituting the psalms and lessons
for those of the day; but the regularity of this usage is
questionable.—_Jebb._
BUTTRESS. An external support to a wall, so arranged as to counteract
the lateral thrust of roofs and vaulting.
The buttress is not used in Classic architecture, where the thrust is
always vertical; and in Romanesque it is hardly developed. It is, in
fact, a correlative of the pointed arch, especially when used in
vaulting, and so first attains considerable depth in the Lancet period.
In the Tudor period, when it had to support fan vaulting of vast expanse
and weight, its depth or projection was proportionably increased.
The _flying buttress_, _arch-buttress_, or _cross-springer_, is an arch
delivering the weight to be supported at a distance, as of a spire at
the angle of the tower, of a clerestory at the aisle buttress, or of the
chapter-house roof at Lincoln, to the heavy masses of masonry prepared
at a distance to receive it.
The pinnacles which frequently terminate buttresses are intended to add
to the weight of the supporting mass. (See _Bay_.)
CABBALA. (_Hebrew._) _Tradition._ Among the Jews, it principally means
the mystical interpretations of their Scriptures, handed down by
tradition. The manner in which Maimonides explains the Cabbala, or
Traditions of the Jews, is as follows: “God not only delivered the law
to Moses on Mount Sina, but the explanation of it likewise. When Moses
came down from the mount, and entered into his tent, Aaron went to visit
him, and Moses acquainted Aaron with the laws he had received from GOD,
together with the explanation of them. After this, Aaron placed himself
at the right hand of Moses, and Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron,
were admitted; to whom Moses repeated what he had just before told to
Aaron. These being seated, the one on the right, the other on the left
hand of Moses, the seventy elders of Israel, who composed the Sanhedrim,
came in. Moses again declared the same laws to them, with the
interpretations of them, as he had done before to Aaron and his sons.
Lastly, all who pleased of the common people were invited to enter, and
Moses instructed them likewise in the same manner as the rest. So that
Aaron heard four times what Moses had been taught by GOD upon Mount
Sina; Eleazar and Ithamar three times; the seventy elders twice; and the
people once. Moses afterwards reduced the laws, which he had received,
into writing, but not the explanations of them; these he thought it
sufficient to trust to the memories of the above-mentioned persons, who,
being perfectly instructed in them, delivered them to their children,
and these again to theirs, from age to age.”
The Cabbala, therefore, is properly the _Oral Law_ of the Jews,
delivered down, by word of mouth, from father to son; and it is to these
interpretations of the _written law_ our _Saviour’s_ censure is to be
applied, when he reproves the Jews for “making the commands of GOD of
none effect through their traditions.”
Some of the Rabbins pretend that the origin of the Cabbala is to be
referred to the angels; that the angel Raziel instructed Adam in it; the
angel Japhiel, Shem; the angel Zedekiel, Abraham, &c. But the truth is,
these explications of the Law are only the several interpretations and
decisions of the Rabbins on the Law of Moses; in the framing of which
they studied principally the combinations of particular words, letters,
and numbers, and by that means pretended to discover clearly the true
sense of the difficult passages of Scripture.
This is properly called the _Artificial Cabbala_, to distinguish it from
_simple tradition_: and it is of three sorts. The first, called
_Gematria_, consists in taking _letters_ as _figures_, and explaining
words by the arithmetical value of the letters of which they are
composed. For instance, the Hebrew letters of _Jabo-Schiloh_ (Shiloh
shall come) make up the same arithmetical number as _Messiach (the
Messiah)_: from whence they conclude that _Shiloh_ signifies the
_Messiah_.
The second kind of _Artificial Cabbala_, which is called _Notaricon_,
consists in taking each particular letter of a word for an entire
diction. For example, of _Rereschith_, which is the first word of
Genesis, composed of the letters B. R. A. S. C. H. J. T., they make
_Bura-Rakia-Arex-Schamaim-Jain-Tehomoth_, i. e. he created the
firmament, the earth, the heavens, the sea, and the deep. Or in forming
one entire diction out of the initial letters of many: thus, in
_Atah-Gibbor-Leholam-Adonai_, (Thou art strong for ever, O LORD,) they
put the initial letters of this sentence together, and form the word
_Agla_, which signifies either, I will reveal, or, a drop of dew, and is
the Cabbalistic name of GOD.
The third kind, called _Themura_, consists in changing and transposing
the letters of a word: thus of the word _Bereschith_ (the first of the
book of Genesis) they make _A-betisri_, the first of the month _Tisri_,
and infer from thence that the world was created on the first day of the
month Tisri, which answers very nearly to our September.
The Cabbala, according to the Jews, is a noble and sublime science,
conducting men by an easy method to the profoundest truths. Without it,
the Holy Scriptures could not be distinguished from profane books,
wherein we find some miraculous events, and as pure morality as that of
the law, if we did not penetrate into the truths locked up under the
external cover of the literal sense. As men were grossly deceived, when,
dwelling upon the sensible object, they mistook angels for men; so also
they fall into error or ignorance when they insist upon the surface of
letters or words, which change with custom, and ascend not up to the
ideas of GOD himself, which are infinitely more noble and spiritual.
Certain visionaries among the Jews believe that our blessed LORD wrought
his miracles by virtue of the mysteries of the Cabbala. Some learned men
are of opinion, that Pythagoras and Plato learned the Cabbalistic art of
the Jews in Egypt; others, on the contrary, say the philosophy of
Pythagoras and Plato furnished the Jews with the Cabbala. Most of the
heretics, in the primitive Christian Church, fell into the vain conceits
of the Cabbala; particularly the Gnostics, Valentinians, and
Basilidians.—_Broughton._
CABBALISTS. Those Jewish doctors who profess the study of the _Cabbala_.
In the opinion of these men, there is not a word, letter, or accent in
the law, without some mystery in it. The first Cabbalistical author that
we know of is Simon, the son of Joachai, who is said to have lived a
little before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. His book, entitled
Zohar, is extant; but it is agreed that many additions have been made to
it. The first part of this work is entitled _Zeniutha_, or _Mystery_;
the second _Idra Rabba_, or the _Great Synod_; the third, _Idra Latta_,
or the _Little Synod_, which is the author’s last adieu to his
disciples.—_Broughton._
CAINITES, or CANIANS. Christian heretics, a sect of the Gnostics of the
second century: they were called according to Cain’s name, who, they
say, was formed by a celestial and almighty power, and that Abel was
made by a weak one: they held that the way to be saved was to make trial
of all manner of things, and to satisfy their lusts with all wicked
actions: they fancied a great number of angels, to which they gave
barbarous names, attributing to each of them a particular sin; so that
when they were about any wicked action, they invoked the angel whom they
fancied to preside over it. They composed a book called St. Paul’s
Ascension to Heaven, which they filled with blasphemies and execrable
impieties, as if they were the secret words which that apostle heard in
his ecstasy: they had a particular veneration for Cain, Corah, Dathan,
and Abiram, the Sodomites, and especially for Judas, on whose Gospel
they relied, because his treachery occasioned the death of CHRIST; and
they made use of a Gospel that bore that false disciple’s name.
CALENDAR. The word calendar is derived from _calendæ_, the first day of
the Roman month. Our calendar in the Prayer Book consists of several
columns. The first shows the days of the month in their numerical order;
the second contains the letters of the alphabet affixed to the days of
the week; the third, as printed in the larger Common Prayer Books, (and
as it ought to be in all,) has the calends, nones, and ides, which was
the method of computation used by the old Romans and primitive
Christians, and is still useful to those who read ecclesiastical
history.
The last four columns contain the course of lessons for morning and
evening prayer for ordinary days throughout the year. The intermediate
column, namely, the fourth, contains, together with the holy days
observed by the Church of England, such Popish holy days as it was
thought best to retain. The reasons why the names of these saints’ days
and holy days were resumed into the calendar are various. Some of them
being retained upon account of our courts of justice, which usually made
their returns on these days, or else upon the days before or after them,
which were called in the writs, _Vigil._, _Fest._, or _Crast._, as in
_Vigil. Martin_, _Fest. Martin_, _Crast. Martin_, and the like. Others
are probably kept in the calendar for the sake of such tradesmen,
handicraftsmen, and others, as are wont to celebrate the memory of their
tutelar saints: as the “Welshmen do of St. David, the shoemakers of St.
Crispin, &c. And again, churches being in several places dedicated to
some or other of these saints, it has been the usual custom in such
places to have wakes or fairs kept upon those days; so that the people
would probably be displeased, if, either in this, or the former case,
their favourite saint’s name should be left out of the calendar.
Besides, the histories which were writ before the Reformation do
frequently speak of transactions happening upon such a holy day, or
about such a time, without mentioning the month, relating one thing to
be done at Lammas-tide, and another about Martinmas, &c.; so that were
these names quite left out of the calendar, we might be at a loss to
know when several of these transactions happened. For this and the
foregoing reasons our second reformers under Queen Elizabeth (though all
those days had been omitted in both books of King Edward VI., excepting
St. George’s day, Lammas day, St. Laurence, and St. Clement, which two
last were in his Second Book) thought convenient to restore the names of
them to the calendar, though not with any regard of being kept holy by
the Church. For this they thought prudent to forbid, as well upon the
account of the great inconveniency brought into the Church in the times
of Popery, by the observation of such a number of holy days, to the
great prejudice of labouring and trading men, as by reason that many of
those saints they then commemorated were oftentimes men of none of the
best characters. Besides, the history of these saints, and the accounts
they gave of the other holy days, were frequently found to be feigned
and fabulous. An effort to reform the calendar was made in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, but was never carried into effect. By the acts 24 Geo.
ii. c. 23, and 25 Geo. ii. c. 30, the calendar was reformed, and the new
style introduced: in consequence of which the calendar (only so far as
its astronomical errors were concerned) has attained to that form in
which it is now prefixed to the Prayer Book. See _Stephens’s Book of
Common Prayer, with notes_, where both the ancient and modern calendar
are given at length.—_Wheatly._
CALL TO THE MINISTRY. There are two sorts of motions or calls to the
ministry. First, the outward; whereby those who have a right of
recommending a person to the execution of any ecclesiastical office, do
fix upon him as one in their judgment qualified for it; and the bishop,
approving their judgment, does admit him into such office in due manner,
as the laws of GOD and the rites of the Church do require. But the
inward call is something preceding this, and is required by our Church
as a qualification for the latter. Now it has been some matter of doubt
what is meant here by being “inwardly moved by the HOLY GHOST.” But I
think no one can judge, that the compilers of this office did ever
entertain such enthusiastical notions, as to imagine that no persons
were to be admitted into any degree of the ecclesiastical orders,
without having a special revelation from the HOLY SPIRIT, that GOD had
particularly commissioned them to take upon them that office, as St.
Paul says of himself, that he was “an apostle called of GOD.” (Rom. i.
1; 1 Cor. i. 1.) For such calls as these were miraculous and
extraordinary, and remained not much longer than the apostolical times.
It remains, therefore, that this motion or call must be something in a
more ordinary and common way.
Now we know that the Scripture teaches, that the common and ordinary
graces, and all good dispositions and resolutions, are attributed to the
HOLY SPIRIT of GOD. “Every good and perfect gift cometh from above.”
(Jam. i. 17.) “It is GOD that worketh in you, both to will and to do, of
his good pleasure.” (Phil. ii. 13.) The apostle calls the ordinary
graces of love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,
meekness, temperance, “the fruits of the SPIRIT.” (Gal. v. 22, 23.) Thus
the belief of the gospel is called “the spirit of faith.” (2 Cor. iv.
13.) And it is said expressly, that “no one saith that JESUS is the
LORD, but by the HOLY GHOST.” (1 Cor. xii. 3.) Now, I conceive, all that
is here meant by “inward motion of the HOLY GHOST,” is his ordinary
motion, by which Christians are stirred up to every good resolution
which they make, or good action which they do. And whereas a resolution
to take upon one the office of the ministry, without any bad design
mixing with it, is a good resolution, so he that takes it up may be
properly said to be moved by the HOLY GHOST to do it. For it must be
undoubtedly owned, that such a resolution is a good and pious one, since
the apostle says plainly, laying it down as an undoubted truth, “This is
a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a
good work.” (1 Tim. iii. 1.) And, to be sure, in those times it seldom
happened, that this or any other ecclesiastical office was desired, but
only from a pure view of doing good. For these were exposed the foremost
to the rage of the persecutors, and men must be actuated by a noble zeal
for the gospel, to lay themselves under the necessity of being exposed
to the most grievous sufferings, or laying down their lives for the sake
of it. And in these times, likewise, men may, and frequently, I doubt
not, do, take upon them the ecclesiastical employs upon very good aims.
Therefore the meaning of this question is, whether, after an impartial
examination of their hearts, they find that they do not take this sacred
employ upon them, barely for a maintenance in the world, or that thereby
they may acquire those superior dignities and profits, which in these
peaceable ages of Christianity some of the clergy do partake of; but
only that they think they may be serviceable in GOD’S vineyard, and are
willing to contribute the best of their labours therein, “for the
promoting of GOD’S glory and the edifying of his people.” I do not think
the question intends, that all who are to be ordained should profess
that they would be desirous of this office, though there were no
temporal advantages attending it, and though it exposed men not only to
starving, but to apparent persecution and death; for then most, even the
best persons, as times go now, might justly scruple the answering to
such a question: but I take it to mean no more than that, since they are
to take upon them some employ or other for their own subsistence and the
benefit of the community, they choose to take upon them the office of
the ministry, wherein they think they can act more for GOD’S glory and
the benefit of their Christian brethren, than by exercising any temporal
calling; and that they verily believe, that it was not without the
assistance of GOD’S good Spirit that they formed this judgment and
resolution.—_Dr. Nicholls._
The candidate for deacon’s orders has the question of the inward call
put to him thus: Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the HOLY
GHOST, to take upon you this office and ministration to serve GOD, in
promoting his glory, and the edifying of his people?
This is a great question indeed, and that which no man can give a true
and positive answer to, without having searched narrowly into his own
heart, and seriously considered the bent and inclinations of his soul.
But it is a question very necessary to be propounded, for the HOLY GHOST
now supplies the place and room of our blessed SAVIOUR in his Church
militant here on earth. And therefore, as it was by him that the several
offices themselves were at first constituted, so it is by him that men
are called to the execution of them; and it is by him alone that all
ecclesiastical ministrations, performed by such officers, are made
effectual to the purposes for which they are appointed; and therefore
the Church is bound to take care that none be admitted into her ministry
but such as she believes and hopes to be called to it by the HOLY GHOST.
But she can have no ground to believe this, but only from the persons
themselves, none but themselves being acquainted with the motions of
GOD’S Spirit upon their own hearts. And therefore the bishop requires
them to deal plainly and faithfully with him and the Church, and to tell
him whether they really trust that they are moved by the HOLY GHOST to
take this office upon them? To which every one is bound to answer, “I
trust so:” not that he knows it, or is certain of it, for it is possible
that his heart may deceive him in it, but that he trusts or hopes it is
so.
But what ground can any one have to trust that he is moved by the HOLY
GHOST to take the ministry upon him? To that I answer in short, that if
a man finds that, upon due examination, the bishop of the diocese, where
he is to serve, is satisfied of his abilities and qualifications for the
ministry; and that his great end and design in undertaking it is to
serve GOD, for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his
people; he hath good grounds to trust, that he is moved to it by the
HOLY GHOST, it being only by him that any man can be duly qualified for
it, and moved to take it upon him, out of so good and pious a design as
that is. But if either of these things be wanting; as, if a man be not
fitted for the office, he may conclude he is not called to it by the
HOLY GHOST, for he neither calls nor useth any but fit instruments in
what he doth; or, if a man be moved to it out of a design, not to do
good, but to get applause or preferment in the world, he may thence
infer that he is not moved to it by the Spirit of GOD, but by the spirit
of pride and covetousness, and then can have no ground to expect that
the HOLY GHOST should ever bless and assist him in the execution of his
office. According to these rules, therefore, they who are to be ordained
may discern whether they can truly give the answer required to this
great question that will be propounded to them. As for their
qualifications for it, the bishop hath already approved of them; but as
to their main end and design in undertaking the ministry, that must be
left to GOD and their own consciences, who alone know it, and so can
best judge whether they can truly say that they “trust they are moved to
it by the HOLY GHOST.”—_Bp. Beveridge._
The following is Calvin’s definition of the inward call in his book of
Institutes, which being published about ten years before the Ordinal of
Edward the Sixth, might probably be a guide to our Reformers in framing
this question: “That it is the good testimony of our own heart, that we
have taken this office, neither for ambition, covetousness, nor any evil
design, but out of a true fear of GOD, and a desire to edify the
Church.” Now this we may know by duly considering, whether it were the
external honours and revenues that are annexed to this profession, or
any other worldly end, that first or chiefly did incline us to the
ministry. If so, we were moved by carnal objects, and led on by our own
corrupt will and affections. But if our principal motives were
spiritual, that is, a zeal for GOD’S glory, and a desire to promote the
salvation of souls, then we were “moved by the SPIRIT, and inwardly
called by GOD.” I grant we cannot but know there are honours and rewards
piously and justly annexed to this holy function; and, as men, we cannot
but hope for a competency of them; yea, this may be a subordinate
motive. But I may say of the priesthood, as CHRIST of the kingdom of
heaven, it must be sought in the first place for itself, and the other
only as additional consequences thereof. (Matt. vi. 33.) We must love
the duties of this calling; reading, study, praying, preaching, &c.,
more than the rewards. Yea, if persecution should ever strip the Church
of these provisions, as it hath often done, we must not cast off our
holy ministrations. (1 Cor. ix. 16.)
This inward call thus explained is the first and one of the principal
qualifications for him that is to be employed about heavenly things. And
therefore it is inserted, not only into ours, but other reformed offices
for ordination; where it is inquired, “if they believe that GOD by the
Church calls them to this ministry, and if they did not seek for worldly
riches or glory,” as in the liturgy of the Belgic Church. Our candidates
know this question will be asked: wherefore let them examine their
hearts strictly, and answer it in the sincerity of their souls; not
doubting but that good SPIRIT, who excited them to this work, will
assist and bless all their performances.—_Dean Comber._
We may here observe, that the first question put to those who are to be
ordained priests, concerning their being moved by the HOLY GHOST to take
that office upon them, is now omitted. For, these having been ordained
deacons before, it is supposed that they were then moved by the SPIRIT
OF CHRIST to take the ministry of his gospel upon them, and there is no
need of any further call from him. For being once called by him, though
it was but to the lowest office of his own institution, the Church takes
it for granted that it is his pleasure they should be promoted to any
higher office, if there be sufficient reason and occasion for it.—_Bp.
Beveridge._
CALOYERS. A general name given to the monks of the Greek Church. It is
taken from the Greek καλεγόροι, which signifies “good old men.”—_Hist.
des Ord. Relig._ P. i. cap. 19. These religious consider St. Basil as
their father and founder, and look upon it as a crime to follow any
other rule than his. There are three degrees among them; the novices,
who are called Archari; the ordinary professed, called Microchemi; and
the more perfect, called Megalochemi. They are likewise divided into
Cœnobites, Anchorets, and Recluse.
The Cœnobites are employed in reciting their office from midnight to
sunset; and as it is impossible, in so long an exercise, they should not
be overtaken with sleep, there is one monk appointed to wake them; and
they are obliged to make three genuflexions at the door of the choir,
and, returning, to bow to the right and left to their brethren. The
Anchorets retire from the conversation of the world, and live in
hermitages in the neighbourhood of the monasteries. They cultivate a
little spot of ground, and never go out but on Sundays and holidays, to
perform their devotions at the next monastery; the rest of the week they
employ in prayer and working with their hands. As for the Recluse, they
shut themselves up in grottos and caverns on the tops of mountains,
which they never go out of, abandoning themselves entirely to
Providence. They live on the alms sent them by the neighbouring
monasteries.
In the monasteries, the religious rise at midnight, and repeat a
particular office, called from thence Mesonycticon; which takes up the
space of two hours: after which, they retire to their cells till five
o’clock in the morning, when they return to the church to say matins. At
nine o’clock they repeat the Terce, Sexte, and Mass; after which they
repair to the refectory, where is a lecture read till dinner. Before
they leave the refectory, the cook comes to the door, and, kneeling
down, demands their blessing. At four o’clock in the afternoon, they say
vespers; and at six go to supper. After supper, they say an office, from
thence called Apodipho; and at eight, each monk retires to his chamber
and bed till midnight. Every day, after matins, they confess their
faults on their knees to their superior.
They have four Lents. The first and greatest is that of the Resurrection
of our Lord. They call it the _Grand Quarantain_, and it lasts eight
weeks. During this Lent, the religious drink no wine, and their
abstinence is so great, that if they are obliged, in speaking, to name
milk, butter, or cheese, they always add this parenthesis, _Timitis
agias saracostis_, i. e. “Saving the respect due to holy Lent.” The
second Lent is that of the holy Apostles, which begins eight days after
Whit-Sunday: its duration is not fixed, it continuing sometimes three
weeks, and at other times longer. During this Lent, they are allowed to
drink wine. The third Lent is that of the Assumption of our Lady: it
lasts fourteen days; during which they abstain from fish, excepting on
Sundays, and the day of the Transfiguration of our Lord. The fourth Lent
is that of Advent, which they observe after the same manner as that of
the Apostles.
The Caloyers, besides the usual habit of the monastic life, wear over
their shoulders a square piece of stuff, on which are represented the
cross, and the other marks of the passion of our Saviour, with these
letters, JC. XC. VC., i. e. _Jesus Christus Vincit_.
All the monks are obliged to labour for the benefit of their monastery,
as long as they continue in it. Some have the care of the fruits, others
of the grain, and others of the cattle. The necessity the Caloyers are
under of cultivating their own lands, obliges them to admit a great
number of lay-brothers, who are employed the whole day in working.
Over all these Caloyers there are visitors or exarchs, who visit the
convents under their inspection, only to draw from them the sums which
the patriarch demands of them. Yet, notwithstanding the taxes these
religious are obliged to pay, both to their patriarch and to the Turks,
their convents are very rich.
The most considerable monastery of the Greek Caloyers in Asia, is that
of Mount Sinai, which was founded by the emperor Justinian, and endowed
with sixty thousand crowns revenue. The abbot of this monastery, who is
also an archbishop, has under him two hundred religious. This convent is
a large square building, surrounded with walls fifty feet high, and with
but one gate, which is blocked up to prevent the entrance of the Arabs.
On the eastern side there is a window, through which those within draw
up the pilgrims in a basket, which they let down by a pulley. Not many
miles beyond this, they have another, dedicated to St. Catharine. It is
situated in the place where Moses made the bitter waters sweet. It has a
garden, with a plantation of more than ten thousand palm-trees, from
whence the monks draw a considerable revenue. There is another in
Palestine, four or five leagues from Jerusalem, situated in the most
barren place imaginable. The gate of the convent is covered with the
skins of crocodiles, to prevent the Arabs setting fire to it, or
breaking it to pieces with stones. It has a large tower, in which there
is always a monk, who gives notice by a bell of the approach of the
Arabs, or any wild beasts.
The Caloyers, or Greek monks, have a great number of monasteries in
Europe; among which that of Penteli, a mountain of Attica, near Athens,
is remarkable for its beautiful situation, and a very good library. That
of Calimachus, a principal town of the island of Chios, is remarkable
for the occasion of its foundation. It is called _Niamogni_, i. e. “The
sole Virgin,” its church having been built in memory of an image of the
holy Virgin, miraculously found on a tree, being the only one left of
several which had been consumed by fire. Constantin Monomachus, emperor
of Constantinople, being informed of this miracle, made a vow to build a
church in that place, if he recovered his throne, from which he had been
driven; this vow he executed in the year 1050. The convent is large, and
built in the manner of a castle. It consists of about two hundred
religious, and its revenues amount to sixty thousand piasters, of which
they pay five hundred yearly to the Grand Seignor.
There is in Amourgo, one of the islands of the Archipelago called
Sporades, a monastery of Greek Caloyers, dedicated to our Lady: it is a
large and deep cavern, on the top of a very high hill, and is entered by
a ladder of fifteen or twenty steps. The church, refectory, and cells of
the religious, who inhabit this grotto, are dug out of the sides of the
rock with admirable artifice.
But the most celebrated monasteries of Greek Caloyers are those of Mount
Athos in Macedonia. They are twenty-three in number; and the religious
live in them so regularly, that the Turks themselves have a great esteem
for them, and often recommend themselves to their prayers. Everything in
them is magnificent; and, notwithstanding they have been under the Turk
for so long a time, they have lost nothing of their grandeur. The
principal of these monasteries are _De la Panagia_ and _Anna Laura_. The
religious, who aspire to the highest dignities, come from all parts of
the East to perform here their noviciate, and, after a stay of some
years, are received, upon their return into their own country, as
apostles.
The Caloyers of Mount Athos have a great aversion to the pope, and
relate that a Roman pontiff, having visited their monasteries, had
plundered and burned some of them, because they would not adore him.
There are female Caloyers, or Greek nuns, who likewise follow the rule
of St. Basil. Their nunneries are always dependent on some monastery.
The Turks buy sashes of their working, and they open their gates freely
to the Turks on this occasion. Those of Constantinople are widows, some
of whom have had several husbands. They make no vow, nor confine
themselves within their convents. The priests are forbidden, under
severe penalties, to visit these religious.—_Broughton._
CALVINISTS. Those who interpret Scripture in accordance with the views
of John Calvin, who was born at Noyon, A. D. 1509, and afterwards
settled at Geneva, and who established a system both of doctrine and of
discipline peculiarly his own.
The essential doctrines of Calvinism have been reduced to these five:
particular election, particular redemption, moral inability in a fallen
state, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of the saints.
These are termed, by theologians, the five points; and ever since the
synod of Dort, (see _Dort_,) when they were the subjects of discussion
between the Calvinists and Arminians, and whose decrees are the standard
of modern Calvinism, frequent have been the controversies agitated
respecting them. Even the Calvinists themselves differ in the
explication of them: it cannot therefore be expected that a very
specific account of them should be given here. Generally speaking,
however, they comprehend the following propositions:—
1st, That GOD has chosen a certain number in CHRIST to everlasting
glory, before the foundation of the world, according to his immutable
purpose, and of his free grace and love, without the least foresight of
faith, good works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that
the rest of mankind he was pleased to pass by, and ordain them to
dishonour and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his vindictive
justice.
2ndly, That JESUS CHRIST, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement
only for the sins of the elect.
3dly, That mankind are totally depraved in consequence of the fall; and,
by virtue of Adam’s being their public head, the guilt of his sin was
imputed, and a corrupt nature conveyed to all his posterity, from which
proceeds all actual transgression; and that by sin we are made subject
to death, and all miseries, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.
4thly, That all whom GOD has predestinated to life, he is pleased, in
his appointed time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of
that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and
salvation by JESUS CHRIST.
And 5thly, That those whom GOD has effectually called and sanctified by
his Spirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.
CAMALDOLI. A religious order of Christians founded by St. Romuald, about
the end of the tenth century: this man gave his monks the rule of St.
Bennet’s order, with some particular constitutions, and a white habit,
after a vision he had of several persons clothed so, who were going up
on a ladder to heaven. He was of a noble family of Ravenna, and having
found on the Apennine hills near Arezzo a frightful solitary place,
called Campo Maldoli, he began to build a monastery there, about the
year 1009, and this monastery gave its name to all the order. The
congregation of hermits of St. Romuald, or of Mount Couronne, is a
branch of the Camaldoli, to which it was joined in 1532. Paul Justinian,
of Venice, began its establishment in 1520, and founded the chief
monastery in the Apennine, in a place called the Mount of the Crown, ten
miles from Perugia, and dedicated to our SAVIOUR in 1555.—_Hist. des
Ord. Relig._
CAMERONIANS. A party of Presbyterians in Scotland, so called from
Archibald Cameron, a field preacher, who was the first who separated
from communion with the other Presbyterians, who were not of his opinion
concerning the ministers that had accepted of his indulgence from King
Charles II. He considered the acceptance of the indulgence to be a
countenancing of the supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. The other
Presbyterians wished the controversy to drop, till it could be
determined by a general assembly; but the Cameronians, through a
transport of zeal, separated from them, and some who associated with
them ran into excess of frenzy; declaring that King Charles II. had
forfeited his right to the crown and society of the Church, by his
breaking the solemn league and covenant, which was the terms on which he
received the former; and by his vicious life, which, _de jure_, they
said, excluded him from the latter; they pretended both to dethrone and
excommunicate him, and for that purpose made an insurrection, but were
soon suppressed. Since the accession of King William III. to the crown,
they complied with and zealously served the government; and as regards
their former differences in Church matters, they were also laid aside,
the preachers of their party having submitted to the General Assembly of
the Scottish establishment in 1690, of which they still continue
members.
CAMISARDS. The popular name of the Protestants who rose in the Cevennes
against the oppression of Louis XIV. of France. There are various
etymologies of the word; the most probable is that which derives it from
_camisa_ or _chemise_, in allusion to the _blouse_ or _smock-frock_
which was generally worn.
CANCELLI. (See _Chancel_.)
CANDLES. (See _Lights on the Altar_.)
CANDLEMAS DAY. A name formerly given to the festival of the Purification
of the Virgin Mary, observed in our Church, February 2. In the mediæval
Church, this day was remarkable for the number of lighted candles which
were borne about in processions, and placed in churches, in memory of
him who, in the words of Simeon’s song at the Purification, came to be
“a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.”
From this custom the name is supposed to be derived.
CANON. The laws of the Church are called _canons_, the word _canon_
being derived from a Greek word, which signifies a rule or measure.
Since the Church is a society of Christians, and since every society
must have authority to prescribe rules and laws for the government of
its own members, it must necessarily follow that the Church has this
power; for otherwise there would be great disorder amongst Christians.
This power was exercised in the Church before the Roman empire became
Christian, as appears by those ancient canons which were made before
that time, and which are mentioned in the writings of the primitive
fathers; by the apostolical canons, which, though not made by the
apostles themselves, are nevertheless of great antiquity; and by various
canons which were made in councils held in the second century, which
were not directory alone, but binding, and to be observed by the clergy,
under the penalty of deprivation; and by the laity, under pain of
excommunication. Under this title we will mention: 1. Foreign canons. 2.
Such as have been received here. 3. The power of making new canons.
(I.) As to the first, Constantine the Great, the first emperor who gave
Christians some respite from persecution, caused general councils and
national and provincial synods to be assembled in his dominions; where,
amongst other things, rules were made for the government of the Church,
which were called canons; the substance of which was at first collected
out of the Scriptures, or the ancient writings of the fathers. We will
not trouble the reader with a long history of _provincial
constitutions_, _synodals_, _glossaries_, _sentences of popes_,
_summaries_, and _rescripts_, from which the canon law has, by degrees,
been compiled, since the days of that emperor; it is sufficient to
state, that they were collected by Ivo, bishop of Chartres, about the
14th year of our King Henry I., in three volumes, which are commonly
called the _Decrees_. These decrees, corrected by Gratian, a Benedictine
monk, were published in England in the reign of King Stephen; and the
reason of the publication at that time might be to decide the quarrel
between Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry, bishop of
Winchester, the king’s brother, who being made a legate, the archbishop
looked upon it as a diminution of his power, and an encroachment upon
that privilege which he had as _legatus natus_. (See _Legate_.) These
decrees were received by the clergy of the Western Church, but never by
those of the East, which is one reason why their priests continued to
marry, which the clergy of the West were, by these decrees, forbidden to
do.
The next, in order of time, were the _Decretals_ (see _Decretals_,)
which are canonical epistles written by popes alone, or assisted by some
cardinals, to determine any controversy; and of these there are likewise
three volumes. The first volume of these Decretals was compiled by
Raimundus Barcinus, who was chaplain to Gregory IX., and were published
by him about the 14th year of King Henry III., A. D. 1226. This was
appointed to be read in all schools, and was to be taken for law in all
ecclesiastical courts. About sixty years afterwards, Simon, a monk of
Walden, began to read these laws in the university of Cambridge, and the
next year in Oxford. The second volume was collected and arranged by
Boniface VIII., and published about the 27th year of our King Edward I.,
A. D. 1298. The third volume was collected by Clement V., and published
in the Council of Vienna, and likewise here, in the 2nd year of Edward
II., A. D. 1308, and from him were called _Clementines_.
These decretals were never received in England, or anywhere else, but
only in the pope’s dominions, which are therefore called by canonists
_Patriæ obedientiæ_, as particularly the canon concerning the
investiture of bishops by a lay hand. John Andreas, a celebrated
canonist in the fourteenth century, wrote a commentary on these
decretals, which he entitled _Novellæ_, from a very beautiful daughter
he had of that name, whom he bred a scholar: the father being a
professor of law at Bologna, had instructed his daughter so well in it,
that she assisted him in reading lectures to his scholars, and,
therefore, to perpetuate her memory, he gave that book the title of
_Novellæ_.
About the tenth year of King Edward II., John XXII. published his
_Extravagants_. But as to the Church of England, even at that time, when
the papal authority was at the highest, none of these foreign canons, or
any new canons, made at any national or provincial synod here, had any
manner of force if they were against the prerogative of the king, or the
laws of the land. It is true that every Christian nation in communion
with the pope sent some bishops, abbots, or priors, to those foreign
councils, and generally four were sent out of England; and it was by
those means, together with the allowance of the civil power, that some
canons made there were received here, but such as were against the laws
were totally rejected.
Nevertheless, some of these foreign canons were received in England, and
obtained the force of laws by the general approbation of the king and
people (though it may be difficult to know what these canons are); and
it was upon this pretence that the pope claimed an ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, independent of the king, and sent his legates to England
with commissions to determine causes according to those canons, which
were now compiled into several volumes, and called _Jus Canonicum_:
these were not only enjoined to be obeyed as laws, but publicly to be
read and expounded in all schools and universities as the civil law was
read and expounded there, under pain of excommunication to those who
neglected. Hence arose quarrels between kings and several archbishops
and other prelates, who adhered to those papal usurpations.
(II.) Besides these foreign canons, there were several laws and
constitutions made here for the government of the Church, all of which
are now in force, but which had not been so without the assent and
confirmation of the kings of England. Even from William I. to the time
of the Reformation, no canons or constitutions made in any synods were
suffered to be executed if they had not the royal assent. This was the
common usage and practice in England, even when the papal usurpation was
most exalted; for if at any time the ecclesiastical courts did, by their
sentences, endeavour to force obedience to such canons, the courts at
common law, upon complaint made, would grant prohibitions. So that the
statute of submission, which was afterwards made in the 25th year of
Henry VIII., seems to be declarative of the common law, that the clergy
could not _de jure_, and by their own authority, without the king’s
assent, enact or execute any canons. These canons were all collected and
explained by Lyndwood, dean of the Arches, in the reign of Henry VI.,
and by him reduced under this method.
1. The canons of Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, made at a
council held at Oxford, in the 6th year of Henry III.
2. The canons of Otho, the pope’s legate, who held a council in St.
Paul’s church, in the 25th year of Henry III., which from him were
called the Constitutions of Otho; upon which John de Athon, one of the
canons of Lincoln, wrote a comment.
3. The canons of Boniface, of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury, in the
45th of Henry III., which were all usurpations upon the common law, as
concerning the boundaries of parishes, the right of patronage, and
against trials of the right of tithes in the king’s courts against writs
of prohibition, &c. Although he threatened the judges with
excommunication (some of the judges being at that time clergymen) if
they disobeyed the canons, yet they proceeded in these matters according
to the laws of the realm, and kept the ecclesiastical courts within
their proper jurisdiction. This occasioned a variance between the
spiritual and temporal lords; and upon this the clergy, in the 31st of
Henry III., exhibited several articles of their grievances to the
parliament, which they called _Articuli Cleri_: the articles themselves
are lost, but some of the answers to them are extant, by which it
appears that none of these canons made by Boniface was confirmed.
4. The canons of Cardinal Ottobon, the pope’s legate, who held a synod
at St. Paul’s, in the 53rd of Henry III., in which he confirmed those
canons made by his predecessor Otho, and published some new ones; and by
his legantine authority commanded that they should be obeyed: upon these
canons, likewise, John de Athon wrote another comment.
5. The canons of Archbishop Peckham, made at a synod held at Reading, in
the year 1279, the 7th of Edward I.
6. The canons of the same archbishop, made at a synod held at Lambeth,
two years afterwards.
7. The canons of Archbishop Winchelsea, made in the 34th of Edward I.
8. The canons of Archbishop Reynolds, at a synod held at Oxford, in the
year 1322, the 16th of Edward II.
9. The canons of Symon Mepham, archbishop of Canterbury, made in the
year 1328, the 3rd of Edward III.
10. Of Archbishop Stratford.
11. Of Archbishop Simon Islip, made 1362, the 37th of Edward III.
12. Of Symon Sudbury, archbishop of Canterbury, made in the year 1378,
the 2nd of Richard II.
13. Of Archbishop Arundel, made at a synod at Oxford, in the year 1403,
the 10th of Henry IV.
14. Of Archbishop Chichely, in the year 1415, the 3rd of Henry V.
15. Of Edmond and Richard, archbishops of Canterbury, who immediately
succeeded Stephen Langton.
It was intended to reform these canons soon after the Reformation; and
Archbishop Cranmer and some other commissioners were appointed for that
purpose by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. The work was finished, but the
king dying before it was confirmed, it remains unconfirmed to this day.
The book is called “_Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum ex Authoritate
Regis_ Henry VIII. _inchoata et per_ Edward VI. _prorecta_:” it was put
into elegant Latin by Dr. Haddon, who was then university orator of
Cambridge, assisted by Sir John Cheke, who was tutor to Edward VI. The
above canons made by our Church before the Reformation, are, of course,
binding on our Church now, and are acted upon in the ecclesiastical
courts, except where they are superseded by subsequent canons, or by the
provisions of an act of parliament.
(III.) The next thing to be considered is, the authority of making
canons at this day; and this is grounded upon the statute 25 Henry
VIII., commonly called the act of submission of the clergy, by which
they acknowledge that the convocation had been always assembled by the
king’s writ; and they promised _in verbo sacerdotis_, not to attempt,
claim, or put in use, or enact, promulge, or execute, any new canons in
convocation, without the king’s assent or licence. Then follows this
enacting clause, viz. That they shall not attempt, allege, or claim, or
put in use, any constitutions or canons without the king’s assent; and
so far this act is declarative of what the law was before. The clause
before mentioned extends to such canons as were then made both beyond
sea and in England, viz. to foreign canons, that they should not be
executed here until received by the king and people as the laws of the
land, and to canons made here which were contrary to the prerogative, or
to the laws and customs of the realm. This appears by the proviso, that
no canons shall be made or put in execution within this realm, which
shall be contrary to the prerogative or laws. But the next are negative
words, which relate wholly to making new canons, viz. “nor make,
promulge, or execute any such canons without the king’s assent.” These
words limit the clergy in point of jurisdiction, viz. that they shall
not make any new canons but in convocation: and they cannot meet there
without the king’s writ; and when they are met and make new canons, they
cannot put them in execution without a confirmation under the great
seal. Some years after this statute, the clergy proceeded to act in
convocation, without any commission from Henry VIII. But the canons
which they made were confirmed by that king and some of his successors,
as particularly the injunctions published in the 28th year of Henry
VIII., for the abolishing superstitious holy days; those for preaching
against the use of images, relics, and pilgrimages; those for repeating
the Creed, the LORD’S Prayer, and Ten Commandments in the English
tongue. Henry VIII. sometimes acted by the advice of his bishops, out of
convocation, as about the injunctions published in the 30th year of
Henry VIII., for admitting none to preach but such as were licensed;
those for keeping a register of births, weddings, and burials; and for
the abolishing the anniversary of Thomas à Becket. The like may be said
of those injunctions published in the 2nd year of Edward VI.,
prohibiting the carrying of candles on Candlemas day, and ashes in Lent,
and palms on Palm Sunday. Queen Elizabeth, in the second year of her
reign, published several injunctions by the advice of her bishops. And
two years afterwards she published a book of orders without the
confirmation of her parliament. When she was settled in her government,
all Church affairs were debated in convocation. Several canons were made
in her reign, and confirmed by her letters patent: but as she did not
bind her heirs and successors to the observance of them, those canons
expired with her reign. In all these reigns the old canons were still in
force, but in the first year of King James, 1603, the clergy being
lawfully assembled in convocation, the king gave them leave, by his
letters patent, to treat, consult, and agree on canons: these they
presented to him, and he gave them his royal assent; and by other
letters patent, for himself, his heirs and successors, ratified and
confirmed the same. These canons thus established were not then
invented, but were collected out of ordinances which lay dispersed in
several injunctions published in former reigns, and out of canons and
other religious customs which were made and used in those days; and
being thus confirmed, are the laws of the land, and by the same
authority as any other part of the law; for being authorized by the
king’s commission, according to the form of the statute 25 Henry VIII.,
they are warranted by act of parliament; and such canons made and
confirmed, shall bind in ecclesiastical matters as much as any statute.
An act of parliament may forbid the execution of any canon; but it has
been usual to respect all those which enjoin some moral duty; yet a
canon not confirmed by an act of parliament cannot alter any other law.
It is agreed that canons made in convocation, and confirmed by letters
patent, bind in all ecclesiastical affairs; that no canons in England
are absolutely confirmed by parliament, yet they are part of the laws of
the land, for the government of the Church, and in such case bind the
laity as well as the clergy; that though such canons cannot alter the
common law, statutes, or royal prerogative, yet they may alter other
canons, otherwise the convocation could not make new canons. All that is
required in making such canons is, that the clergy confine themselves to
Church affairs, and do not meddle with things which are settled by the
common law. But though no canons are absolutely confirmed by act of
parliament, yet those which are neither contrary to the laws of the
land, nor to the queen’s prerogative, and which are confirmed by her,
are made good, and allowed to be so, by the statute 25 Henry VIII. And
as to those canons which tend to promote the honour of GOD and service
of religion, they must necessarily bind our consciences. Such are those
which enjoin the sober conversation of ministers, prohibiting their
frequenting taverns, playing at dice, cards, or tables; this was
anciently prohibited by the Apostolical Canons, and in the old articles
of Visitation here, and in several diocesan synods. Such are those
canons, also, which relate to the duties of ministers in praying,
preaching, administering sacraments, and visiting the sick.
It may be as well, for the convenience of students, to insert here, from
Bishop Halifax’s Analysis of the Civil Law, a few explanations of the
method of quoting the Jus Canonicum. The _Decretum_ of Gratian (which
must not be confounded with the Decretals) is divided into, 1.
_Distinctions._ 2. _Causes._ 3. _Treatise concerning consecration._ The
_Decretals_ are divided into, 1. Gregory IX. _Decretals in 5 books._ 2.
The _sixth Decretal._ (Boniface, 1298.) 3. The _Clementine
Constitutions_ (of Pope Clement V.). Now in the _Decretum_, 1st part, e.
g. “1 dist. c. 3,” Lex, [or i. d. Lex,] is the _first distinction_, 3rd
Canon, beginning with the word _Lex_. In the _Decretum_, 2nd part, e. g.
“3 qu. 9, c. 2,” means the third cause, ninth question, 2nd Canon. The
3rd part of the Decretum is quoted as the first, with the addition of
the words _de consecratione_.
In the Decretals (the first division) is given the name of _title_,
number of _chapter_, with the addition of _extra_, or a capital X. E. g.
“c. 3, extra de usuris,” means the 3rd chapter of Gregory’s Decretals,
inscribed “de usuris,” i.e. the 19th of the 5th book. “c. cum contingat
36 X. de off. et Pot. Jud. del.,” means the 36th chapter beginning with
“cum contingat,” of the Title in Gregory’s decrees, inscribed “de
officio.” The sixth Decretal, and the Clementine Constitutions, are
quoted the same way, except that instead of _extra_, or X., is subjoined
_in sexto_, or _in 6_; and in Clementini, or in Clem. The Extravagants
of John XXII. are contained in one book, xiv. titles. The following are
the
CANONS OF 1603.
CONSTITUTIONS and CANONS Ecclesiastical, treated upon by the Bishop of
London, President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, and
the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province; and agreed upon
with the King’s Majesty’s Licence, in their Synod begun at London, Anno
Domini 1603, and in the year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord JAMES,
by the Grace of God, King of England, France, and Ireland, the First,
and of Scotland the Thirty-seventh: and now published for the due
observation of them, by his Majesty’s Authority under the Great Seal of
England.
JAMES, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., to all to whom these presents shall
come, greeting: Whereas our Bishops, Deans of our Cathedral Churches,
Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and the other Clergy of every
Diocese within the Province of Canterbury, being summoned and called by
virtue of our Writ directed to the Most Reverend Father in God, John,
late Archbishop of Canterbury, and bearing date the one and thirtieth
day of January, in the first year of our reign of England, France, and
Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-seventh, to have appeared before him
in our Cathedral Church of St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of
March then next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he should have thought it most
convenient, to treat, consent, and conclude upon certain difficult and
urgent affairs mentioned in the said Writ; did thereupon, at the time
appointed, and within the Cathedral Church of St. Paul aforesaid,
assemble themselves, and appear in Convocation for that purpose,
according to our said Writ, before the Right Reverend Father in God,
Richard Bishop of London, duly (upon a second Writ of ours, dated the
ninth day of March aforesaid) authorized, appointed, and constituted, by
reason of the said Archbishop of Canterbury his death, President of the
said Convocation, to execute those things, which, by virtue of our first
Writ, did appertain to him the said Archbishop to have executed if he
had lived.
We, for divers urgent and weighty causes and considerations as thereunto
especially moving, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, did, by virtue of our Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority
in causes Ecclesiastical, give and grant by our several Letters Patent
under our Great Seal of England, the one dated the twelfth day of April
last past, and the other the twenty-fifth day of June then next
following, full, free, and lawful liberty, licence, power, and authority
unto the said Bishop of London, President of the said Convocation, and
to the other Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters, and Colleges, and
the rest of the Clergy before mentioned, of the said Province, that they
from time to time, during our first Parliament now prorogued, might
confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and agree of and upon such
Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think
necessary, fit, and convenient, for the honour and service of Almighty
God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better government
thereof, to be from time to time observed, performed, fulfilled, and
kept as well by the Archbishops of Canterbury, the Bishops, and their
Successors, and the rest of the whole Clergy of the said Province of
Canterbury in their several callings, offices, functions, ministries,
degrees, and administrations; as also by all and every Dean of the
Arches, and other Judge of the said Archbishop’s Courts, Guardians of
Spiritualities, Chancellors, Deans, and Chapters, Archdeacons,
Commissaries, Officials, Registrars, and all and every other
Ecclesiastical Officers, and their inferior Ministers, whatsoever, of
the same Province of Canterbury, in their and every other of their
distinct Courts, and in the order and manner of their and every of their
proceedings: and by all other persons within this realm, as far as
lawfully, being members of the Church, it may concern them, as in our
said Letters Patent amongst other clauses more at large doth appear.
Forasmuch as the Bishop of London, President of the said Convocation,
and others, the said Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Chapters, and
Colleges, with the rest of the Clergy, having met together at the time
and place before mentioned, and then and there, by virtue of our said
authority granted unto them, treated of, concluded, and agreed upon
certain Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, to the end and
purpose by us limited and prescribed unto them; and have thereupon
offered and presented the same unto us, most humbly desiring us to give
our royal assent unto their said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and
Constitutions, according to the form of a certain Statute or Act of
Parliament, made in that behalf in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of
King Henry the Eighth, and by our said Prerogative Royal and Supreme
Authority, in Causes Ecclesiastical, to ratify by our Letters Patent
under our Great Seal of England, and to confirm the same, the title and
tenor of them being word for word as ensueth:
_The Table of the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical._
_Of the Church of England._
1. The King’s Supremacy over the Church of England, in Causes
Ecclesiastical, to be maintained.
2. Impugners of the King’s Supremacy censured.
3. The Church of England a true and apostolical Church.
4. Impugners of the public Worship of God, established in the Church
of England, censured.
5. Impugners of the Articles of Religion, established in the Church
of England, censured.
6. Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies, established in the Church
of England, censured.
7. Impugners of the Government of the Church of England, by
Archbishops, Bishops, &c., censured.
8. Impugners of the Form of consecrating and ordering Archbishops,
Bishops, &c. in the Church of England, censured.
9. Authors of Schism in the Church of England censured.
10. Maintainers of Schismatics in the Church of England censured.
11. Maintainers of Conventicles censured.
12. Maintainers of Constitutions made in Conventicles censured.
_Of Divine Service, and Administration of the Sacraments._
13. Due Celebration of Sundays and Holy-days.
14. The prescript Form of Divine Service to be used on Sundays and
Holy-days.
15. The Litany to be read on Wednesdays and Fridays.
16. Colleges to use the prescript Form of Divine Service.
17. Students in Colleges to wear Surplices in time of Divine Service.
18. A reverence and attention to be used within the Church in time of
Divine Service.
19. Loiterers not to be suffered near the Church in time of Divine
Service.
20. Bread and Wine to be provided against every Communion.
21. The Communion to be thrice a Year received.
22. Warning to be given beforehand for the Communion.
23. Students in Colleges to receive the Communion four times a Year.
24. Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that administer
the Communion.
25. Surplices and Hoods to be worn in Cathedral Churches, when there
is no Communion.
26. Notorious Offenders not to be admitted to the Communion.
27. Schismatics not to be admitted to the Communion.
28. Strangers not to be admitted to the Communion.
29. Fathers not to be Godfathers in Baptism, and Children not
Communicants.
30. The lawful use of the Cross in Baptism explained.
_Ministers, their Ordination, Function, and Charge._
31. Four solemn times appointed for the making of Ministers.
32. None to be made Deacon and Minister both in one day.
33. The Titles of such as are to be made Ministers.
34. The Quality of such as are to be made Ministers.
35. The Examination of such as are to be made Ministers.
36. Subscription required of such as are to be made Ministers. The
Articles of Subscription. The Form of Subscription.
37. Subscription before the Diocesan.
38. Revolters after Subscription censured.
39. Cautions for Institution of Ministers into Benefices.
40. An Oath against Simony at Institution into Benefices.
41. Licences for Plurality of Benefices limited, and Residence
enjoined.
42. Residence of Deans in their Churches.
43. Deans and Prebendaries to preach during their Residence.
44. Prebendaries to be resident upon their Benefices.
45. Beneficed Preachers, being resident upon their Livings, to preach
every Sunday.
46. Beneficed Men, not Preachers, to procure monthly Sermons.
47. Absence of Beneficed Men to be supplied by Curates that are
allowed Preachers.
48. None to be Curates but allowed by the Bishop.
49. Ministers, not allowed Preachers, may not expound.
50. Strangers not admitted to preach without showing their Licence.
51. Strangers not admitted to preach in Cathedral Churches without
sufficient Authority.
52. The Names of strange Preachers to be noted in a Book.
53. No public Opposition between Preachers.
54. The Licences of Preachers refusing Conformity to be void.
55. The Form of a Prayer to be used by all Preachers before their
Sermons.
56. Preachers and Lecturers to read Divine Service, and administer
the Sacraments twice a Year at the least.
57. The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of unpreaching
Ministers.
58. Ministers reading Divine Service, and administering the
Sacraments, to wear Surplices, and Graduates therewithal Hoods.
59. Ministers to catechize every Sunday.
60. Confirmation to be performed once in three Years.
61. Ministers to prepare Children for Confirmation.
62. Ministers not to marry any Persons without Banns or Licence.
63. Ministers of exempt Churches not to marry without Banns or
Licence.
64. Ministers solemnly to bid Holy-days.
65. Ministers solemnly to denounce Recusants and Excommunicates.
66. Ministers to confer with Recusants.
67. Ministers to visit the Sick.
68. Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury.
69. Ministers not to defer Christening, if the Child be in danger.
70. Ministers to keep a Register of Christenings, Weddings, and
Burials.
71. Ministers not to preach, or administer the Communion, in private
Houses.
72. Ministers not to appoint public or private Fasts or Prophecies,
or to exorcise, but by Authority.
73. Ministers not to hold private Conventicles.
74. Decency in Apparel enjoined to Ministers.
75. Sober Conversation required in Ministers.
76. Ministers at no time to forsake their Calling.
_Schoolmasters._
77. None to teach School without Licence.
78. Curates desirous to teach, to be licensed before others.
79. The duty of Schoolmasters.
_Things appertaining to Churches._
80. The Great Bible, and Book of Common Prayer, to be had in every
Church.
81. A Font of Stone for Baptism in every Church.
82. A decent Communion-Table in every Church.
83. A Pulpit to be provided in every Church.
84. A Chest for Alms in every Church.
85. Churches to be kept in sufficient Reparations.
86. Churches to be surveyed, and the decays certified to the high
Commissioners.
87. A Terrier of Glebe-lands and other Possessions belonging to
Churches.
88. Churches not to be profaned.
_Churchwardens or Questmen, and Side-men or Assistants._
89. The choice of Churchwardens, and their Account.
90. The choice of Side-men, and their joint office with
Churchwardens.
_Parish-Clerks._
91. Parish-Clerks to be chosen by the Minister.
_Ecclesiastical Courts belonging to the Archbishop’s Jurisdiction._
92. None to be cited into divers Courts for Probate of the same Will.
93. The Rate of _Bona notabilia_ liable to the Prerogative Court.
94. None to be cited into the Appeals or Audience, but dwellers
within the Archbishop’s Diocese, or Peculiars.
95. The Restraint of double Quarrels.
96. Inhibitions not to be granted without the Subscription of an
Advocate.
97. Inhibitions not to be granted, until the Appeal be exhibited to
the Judge.
98. Inhibitions not to be granted to factious Appellants, unless they
first subscribe.
99. None to marry within the Degrees prohibited.
100. None to marry under Twenty-one Years, without their Parents’
consent.
101. By whom licences to marry without Banns shall be granted, and to
what sort of persons.
102. Security to be taken at the granting of such Licences, and under
what Conditions.
103. Oaths to be taken for the Conditions.
104. An Exception for those that are in Widowhood.
105. No sentence for Divorce to be given upon the sole confession of
the parties.
106. No Sentence for Divorce to be given but in open Court.
107. In all sentences for Divorce, Bond to be taken for not marrying
during each other’s life.
108. The Penalty for Judges offending in the Premises.
_Ecclesiastical Courts belonging to the Jurisdiction of Bishops and
Archdeacons, and the Proceedings in them._
109. Notorious Crimes and Scandals to be certified into Ecclesiastical
Courts by Presentment.
110. Schismatics to be presented.
111. Disturbers of Divine Service to be presented.
112. Non-Communicants at Easter to be presented.
113. Ministers may present.
114. Ministers shall present Recusants.
115. Ministers and Churchwardens not to be sued for presenting.
116. Churchwardens not bound to present oftener than twice a year.
117. Churchwardens not to be troubled for not presenting oftener than
twice a year.
118. The old Churchwardens to make their Presentments before the new
be sworn.
119. Convenient time to be assigned for framing Presentments.
120. None to be cited into Ecclesiastical Courts by process of _Quorum
Nomina_.
121. None to be cited into several Courts for one Crime.
122. No Sentence of Deprivation or Deposition to be pronounced against
a Minister, but by the Bishop.
123. No Act to be sped but in open Court.
124. No Court to have more than one Seal.
125. Convenient Places to be chosen for the keeping of open Courts.
126. Peculiar and inferior Courts to exhibit the original Copies of
Wills into the Bishop’s Registry.
_Judges Ecclesiastical, and their Surrogates._
127. The Quality and Oath of Judges.
128. The Quality of Surrogates.
_Proctors._
129. Proctors not to retain Causes without the lawful Assignment of
the Parties.
130. Proctors not to retain Causes without the Counsel of an Advocate.
131. Proctors not to conclude in any Cause without the Knowledge of an
Advocate.
132. Proctors prohibited the Oath, _In animam domini sui_.
133. Proctors not to be clamorous in Court.
_Registrars._
134. Abuses to be reformed in Registrars.
135. A certain Rate of Fees due to all Ecclesiastical Officers.
136. A Table of the Rates and Fees to be set up in Courts and
Registries.
137. The whole Fees for showing Letters of Orders, and other Licences,
due but once in every Bishop’s time.
_Apparitors._
138. The Number of Apparitors restrained.
_Authority of Synods._
139. A National Synod the Church Representative.
140. Synods conclude as well the absent as the present.
141. Depravers of the Synod censured.
CANONS OF 1640. On the 27th May, 1640, the archbishop of Canterbury
stated before the convocation that the Canons agreed upon in the sacred
synod had been read before the king and the privy-council, and
unanimously approved. The first Canon is concerning the regal power;
and,
I. Enacts that every parson, vicar, curate, or preacher, shall, under
pain of suspension, on four Sundays in each year, at morning prayer,
read certain explanations of the regal power, to the effect:—
(1.) That the sacred order of kings is of Divine right, that a supreme
power is given by God in Scripture to kings to rule all persons civil
and ecclesiastical.
(2.) That the care of God’s Church is committed to kings in the
Scripture.
(3.) That the power to call and dissolve national and provincial
councils within their own territories is the true right of princes.
(4.) That it is treason against God and the prince for any other to set
up any independent co-active power, either papal or popular, within the
prince’s territory.
(5.) That subjects who resist their natural prince by force resist God’s
ordinance, and shall receive damnation.
(6.) That as tribute is due from subjects to their prince, so those
subjects have not only possession of, but a true and just title to, all
their goods and estates; that as it is the duty of subjects to supply
their king, so is it his duty to defend them in their property.
Forbids, under pain of excommunication, all persons to preach or teach
anything contrary to the tenor of these explanations.
II. For the better keeping of the day of his Majesty’s most happy
inauguration.
Orders all persons to keep the morning of the said day in coming
diligently to church, and that due inquiry be made by bishops and others
as to how the day is observed, in order that offenders may be punished.
III. For suppressing the growth of Popery.
Orders all ecclesiastical persons, bishops, &c., having exempt or
peculiar jurisdiction, and all officials, and others having the cure of
souls, to confer privately with the parties, and by Church censures,
&c., to reduce those who are misled into Popish superstition to the
Church of England.
Such private conferences to be performed by the bishop himself, or by
some one or more persons of his appointment.
The said ecclesiastical persons to inform themselves of all persons,
above the age of twelve years, in every parish, who do not come to
church, or receive the holy eucharist, and who say or hear mass.
Ministers, churchwardens, &c., to present all such persons.
If neither private conferences nor Church censures will avail with such
offenders, their names shall be certified by the bishop of the diocese
unto the justices of assize.
Marriages, burials, and christenings of recusants, celebrated otherwise
than according to the form of the Church of England, to be declared by
churchwardens and others at visitations.
Diligent inquiry to be made as to who are employed as schoolmasters of
the children of recusants. Churchwardens to give upon oath the names of
those who send their children to be brought up abroad.
IV. Against Socinianism.
Forbids any one to print, sell, or buy any book containing Socinian
doctrines upon pain of excommunication, and orders all ordinaries to
signify the names of offenders to the metropolitan, in order to be by
him delivered to the king’s attorney-general, that proceedings may be
taken against them.
No preacher to vent such doctrine in a sermon, under pain of
excommunication, and for a second offence deprivation. No university
student or person in holy orders, except graduates in divinity, to have
any Socinian book in his possession: all books so found to be burned:
diligent inquiry to be made after offenders.
V. Against sectaries.
Declares that all the enactments of the canon against Popish recusants
shall, as far as they are applicable, stand in full force against all
Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists, Familists, and other sects.
That the clauses in the canons against Socinianism, referring to
Socinian books, shall stand in full force against all books devised
against the discipline and government of the Church of England.
Orders all church and chapel wardens and questmen to present at
visitations the names of those disaffected persons who neglected the
prayers of the church, and came in for sermon only, thinking thereby to
avoid the penalties enacted against such as wholly absented themselves.
VI. An oath enjoined for the preventing of all innovations in doctrine
and government.
Declares that all archbishops, bishops, and all other priests and
deacons shall, to secure them against suspicion of Popery or other
superstition, take the oath which it prescribes.
Offenders, after three months’ delay granted them, if they continue
obstinate, to be deprived.
Orders that the following shall also be compelled to take the prescribed
oath, viz. all masters of arts, bachelors and doctors in divinity, law,
or physic, all licensed practitioners of physic, all registrars,
proctors, and schoolmasters, all graduates of foreign universities who
come to be incorporated into an English university, and all persons
about to be ordained or licensed to preach or serve any cure.
VII. A declaration concerning some rites and ceremonies.
Declares the standing of the communion table sideways under the east
window of every chancel or chapel, to be in its own nature indifferent,
and that therefore no religion is to be placed therein, or scruple to be
made thereof.
That although at the Reformation all Popish altars were demolished, yet
it was ordered by Queen Elizabeth’s injunction, that the holy tables
should stand where the altars stood, and that, accordingly, they have
been so continued in the royal chapels, most cathedrals, and some parish
churches, that all churches and chapels should conform to the example of
the cathedral mother churches in this particular, saving always the
general liberty left to the bishop by law during the time of
administration of the holy communion. Declares that this situation of
the holy table does not imply that it is or ought to be esteemed a true
and proper altar, whereon CHRIST is again really sacrificed; but it is,
and may be, by us called an altar in that sense in which the primitive
Church called it an altar.
Orders that in order to prevent profane abuses of the communion table,
it shall be railed in.
Orders that at the words “draw near,” &c., all communicants shall with
all humble reverence approach the holy table.
Recommends to all good and well-affected members of the Church, that
they do reverence and obeisance both at their coming in and going out of
the church, chancel, or chapel, according to the custom of the primitive
Church and the Church of England in the reign of Elizabeth.
VIII. Of preaching for conformity.
Orders all preachers, under pain of suspension, to instruct the people
in their sermons twice a year at least, that the rites and ceremonies of
the Church of England are lawful and commendable, and to be submitted
to.
IX. One Book of Articles of inquiry to be used at all parochial
visitations.
Declares that the synod had caused a summary or collection of visitatory
articles (out of the rubrics of the service book and the canons and
warrantable rules of the Church) to be made and deposited in the records
of the archbishop of Canterbury, and that no bishop or other ordinary
shall, under pain of suspension, cause to be printed, or otherwise to be
given in charge to the churchwardens or others which shall be sworn to
make presentments, any other articles or forms of inquiry upon oath,
than such as shall be approved by his metropolitan.
X. Concerning the conversation of the clergy.
Charges all clergymen carefully to abstain from all excess and disorder,
and that by their Christian and religious conversation they shine forth
as lights to others in all godliness and honesty.
Requires all to whom the government of the clergy is committed, to set
themselves to countenance godliness, and diligently to labour to reform
their clergy where they require it.
XI. Chancellor’s patents.
Forbids bishops to grant any patent to any chancellor, commissary, or
official, for longer than the life of the grantee, nor otherwise than
with the reservation to himself and his successors of the power to
execute the said place, either alone or with the chancellor, if the
bishop shall please to do so; forbids, under the heaviest censures, to
take any reward for such places.
XII. Chancellors alone not to censure any of the clergy in sundry cases.
All cases involving suspension or any higher censure to be heard by the
bishop or by his chancellor, together with two grave, dignified, or
beneficed ministers of the diocese.
XIII. Excommunication and absolution not to be pronounced but by a
priest.
No excommunications or absolutions to be valid, unless pronounced by the
bishop, or by some priest appointed by the bishop; such sentence of
absolution to be pronounced either in open consistory, or, at least, in
a church or chapel, the penitent humbly craving it on his knees.
XIV. Concerning commutations and the disposing of them.
No chancellor or other to commute penance without the bishop’s privity;
or if by himself, he shall render strict account of the moneys received,
which shall be applied to charitable and public uses.
XV. Touching concurrent jurisdiction.
That in places wherein there is concurrent jurisdiction, no executor be
_cited_ into any court or office for the space of ten days after the
death of the testator.
XVI. Concerning licences to marry.
No licence shall be granted by any ordinary to any parties, except one
of the parties have been living in the jurisdiction of the said ordinary
for one month immediately before the licence be desired.
XVII. Against vexatious citations.
No citations grounded only upon pretence of a breach of law, and not
upon presentment or other just ground, shall issue out of any
ecclesiastical court, except under certain specified circumstances, and
except in cases of grievous crime, such as schism, incontinence,
misbehaviour in church, &c.
These canons were ratified by the king under the great seal, June 30th,
1640. An attempt was made at the time to set aside their authority, upon
the plea that convocation could not lawfully continue its session after
the dissolution of parliament, which took place on the 5th of May; but
the opinion of all the judges taken at the time was unanimously in
favour of the legality of their proceeding, as appears by the following
document:—
“The convocation being called by the king’s writ under the great seal,
doth continue until it be dissolved by writ or commission under the
great seal, notwithstanding the parliament be dissolved.
“14th May, 1640.
“Jo. Finch.
“C. S. H. Manchester.
“John Bramston.
“Edward Littleton.
“Ralphe Whitfield.
“Jo. Bankes.
“Ro. Heath.”
An act of parliament, passed in the thirteenth year of Charles II.,
leaves to these canons their full canonical authority, whilst it
provides that nothing contained in that statute shall give them the
force of an act of parliament.
The acts of this convocation were unanimously confirmed by the synod of
York.—_Cardwell_, vol. ii. p. 593, vol. i. p. 380. _Wilkins, Conc._ vol.
iv. p. 538.
These canons, though passed in convocation, are not in force for the
following reason: In 1639 a parliamentary writ was directed to the
bishops to summon these clergy to parliament _ad consentiendum_, &c.,
and the convocation writ to the archbishops _ad tractand. et
consentiend_. The parliament met on the 13th of April, 1640, and was
dissolved on the 15th of May following. Now though the convocation,
sitting by virtue of the first writ directed to the bishops, must fall
by the dissolution of that parliament, yet the lawyers held that they
might sit till dissolved by like authority. But this being a nice point,
a commission was granted about a week after the dissolution of the
parliament for the convocation to sit, which commission the king sent to
them by Sir Harry Vane, his principal Secretary of State, and by virtue
thereof they were turned into a provincial synod. The chief of the
clergy then assembled desired the king to consult all the judges of
England on this matter, which was done: and upon debating it in the
presence of his council, they asserted under their hands the power of
convocation in making canons. Upon this the convocation sat a whole
month, and composed a Book of Canons, which was approved by the king by
the advice of his privy-council, and confirmed under the broad seal. The
objection against the Canons was that they were not made pursuant to the
statute 25 Hen. VIII., because they were made in a convocation, sitting
by the king’s writ to the archbishops, after the parliament was
dissolved, though there is nothing in the statute which relates to their
sitting in time of parliament only.
After the Restoration, when an act was passed to restore the bishops to
their ordinary jurisdiction, a proviso was made that the act should not
confirm the Canons of 1640. This clause makes void the royal
confirmation. Hence we may conclude that canons should be made in a
convocation, the parliament sitting; that being so made, they are to be
confirmed by the sovereign; and that without such confirmation they do
not bind the laity, much less any order or rule made by a bishop alone,
where there is neither custom nor canon for it.—_Burn._
CANON is used in the service of the Roman Church to signify that part of
the communion service, or the mass, which follows immediately after the
Sanctus and Hosanna; corresponding to that part of our service which
begins at the prayer, “_We do not presume_,” &c. It is so called as
being the fixed rule of the Liturgy, which is never altered. Properly
speaking, the canon ends just before the LORD’S Prayer, which is recited
aloud; the canon being said in a low voice. In the First Book of King
Edward VI., the word is used in this sense, viz. in the Visitation of
the Sick, after the Gospel, the service proceeds as follows:
“_The Preface._ The Lord be with you.
_Answer._ And with thy spirit.
¶ Lift up your hearts, &c.
Unto the end of the canon.”
The _Anaphora_ of the Greek Church somewhat resembles the canon of the
Roman. (See _Anaphora_.)—_Jebb._
CANON. (See _Deans and Chapters_.) The name of canon, as applied to an
officer in the Church, is derived from the same Greek word already
alluded to, which also signifies the roll or catalogue of the Church, in
which the names of the ecclesiastics were registered; hence the clergy
so registered were denominated Canonici or Canons. Before the
Reformation, they were divided into two classes, Regular and Secular.
The Secular were so called, because they canonized in _seculo_, abroad
in the world.
Regular canons were such as lived under a rule, that is, a code of laws
published by the founder of that order. They were a less strict sort of
religious than the monks, but lived together under one roof, had a
common dormitory and refectory, and were obliged to observe the statutes
of their order.
The chief rule for these canons is that of St. Augustine, who was made
bishop of Hippo in the year 395. But they were but little known till the
tenth or eleventh century, were not brought into England till after the
Conquest, and seem not to have obtained the name of Augustine canons
till some years after. The general opinion is, that they came in after
the beginning of the reign of King Henry I., about the year 1105.
Their habit was a long black cassock, with a white rochet over it, and
over that a black cloak and hood; from whence they were called Black
Canons Regular of St. Augustine.
The monks were always shaved, but these canons wore beards, and caps on
their heads.
There were about 175 houses of these canons and canonesses in England
and Wales.
But besides the common and regular sort of these canons, there were also
the following particular sorts.
As first, such as observed St. Augustine’s rule, according to the
regulations of St. Nicholas of Arroasia; as those of Harewolde in
Bedfordshire, Nutley or Crendon in Buckinghamshire, Hertland in
Devonshire, Brunne in Lincolnshire, and Lilleshul in Shropshire.
Others there were of the rule of St. Augustine, and order of St. Victor;
as at Keynsham and Worsping in Somersetshire, and Wormsley in
Herefordshire.
Others of the order of St. Augustine, and the institution of St. Mary of
Meretune, or Merton; as at Buckenham in Norfolk.
The _Præmonstratenses_ were canons who lived according to the rule of
St. Augustine, reformed by St. Norbert, who set up this regulation about
the year 1120, at _Præmonstratum_ in Picardy, a place so called because
it was said to have been foreshown, or _Præmonstrated_, by the Blessed
Virgin, to be the head seat and mother of the church of the order. These
canons were, from their habit, called White Canons. They were brought
into England soon after the year 1140, and settled first at Newhouse in
Lincolnshire. They had in England a conservator of their privileges, but
were nevertheless often visited by their superior at Premonstre, and
continued under his jurisdiction till the year 1512, when they were
exempted from it by the bull of Pope Julius II., confirmed by King Henry
VIII.; and the superiority of all the houses of this order in England
and Wales, was given to the abbot of Welbeck in Nottinghamshire. There
were about thirty-five houses of this order.
The Sempringham or Gilbertine canons were instituted by St. Gilbert at
Sempringham in Lincolnshire, in the year 1148. He composed his rule out
of those of St. Augustine and St. Benedict, (the women following the
Cistercian regulation of St. Benedict’s rule, and the men the rule of
St. Augustine,) with some special statutes of their own. The men and
women lived in the same houses, but in such different apartments that
they had no communication with each other; and increased so fast, that
St. Gilbert himself founded thirteen monasteries of this order; viz.
four for men alone, and nine for men and women together, which had in
them 700 brethren and 1500 sisters. At the dissolution of the
monasteries there were about twenty-five houses of this order in England
and Wales.
Canons regular of the Holy Sepulchre were instituted in the beginning of
the 12th century, in imitation of the regulars instituted in the church
of the Holy Sepulchre of our SAVIOUR at Jerusalem. The first house they
had in England was at Warwick, which was begun for them by Henry de
Newburgh, earl of Warwick, who died in the year 1123, and perfected by
his son Roger. They are sometimes called canons of the Holy Cross, and
wore the same habit with the other Austin canons, distinguished only by
a double red cross upon the breast of their cloak or upper garment. The
endeavours of these religious for regaining the Holy Land coming to
nothing after the loss of Jerusalem, in the year 1188, this order fell
into decay, their revenues and privileges were mostly given to the
Maturine friars, and only two houses of them continued to the
dissolution.—_Burn._
CANON OF SCRIPTURE. (See _Scripture_, and _Bible_.) The books of Holy
Scripture as received by the Church, who, being the “witness and keeper
of Holy Writ,” had authority to decide what is and what is not inspired.
That the Holy Scriptures are a complete rule of faith is proved, first,
by the authority of the Holy Scriptures. And this is so plainly laid
down therein, that nothing but a strange prejudice and resolution to
support a cause could contradict it. Those words of St. Paul are very
full to this purpose. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness, that the man of GOD may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) Moses expressly
forbids that any one should “add unto the word that I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” (Deut. iv. 2.) “Whatsoever I
command unto you to observe and do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.” (Deut. xii. 32.) The same prohibition is given out in
the New Testament. For St. John, closing his Book of Revelation, and
with that our Christian canon, so that it may not improbably seem to
bear relation to the whole New Testament, forbids any addition or
diminution, with a curse annexed to it: “If any man shall add unto these
things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
(Rev. xxii. 18, 19.) But the substance of this had been before declared
by St. Paul: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed.” (Gal. i. 8.) And as for the endeavour of some to piece out
GOD’S written word by tradition, our SAVIOUR warns us against this, when
he blames the Pharisees for it; namely, in “teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men,” (Matt. xv. 9,) and “making the commandment of GOD
of none effect by their traditions.” (Ver. 3, 6.)
Secondly, by reason, drawn from the nature of the thing, and the whole
order of the gracious dispensation of the gospel, with which GOD hath
been pleased to bless mankind, this is no more than we might expect. For
our SAVIOUR having first made known the gospel to the world by his own
preaching and suffering, and propagated it throughout the several parts
thereof by the preaching of his apostles, in order to be conveyed down
to successive generations, this could not well be effected without a
written word. For to have delivered down the gospel truths by word of
mouth, or oral tradition, would have made it subject to as many errors
as the prejudices, fancies, and mistakes of the several relators could
have given it. Now since GOD has been pleased to make use of this method
to convey these truths which he has revealed unto us, it is but
reasonable to think that all the truths which he has judged necessary
for our salvation, and which he has required of us to believe, are
contained in this written word. For why GOD should leave some of the
gospel truths to be conveyed in a purer, and others in a more corrupt,
channel, some by Scripture and others by tradition, is unaccountable:
why, since he designed the Scripture to be in some measure the rule of
faith, he should not at the same time render it a complete one; why this
Divine law of GOD must be eked out by human traditions, which have been
uncertain in the best times, and pernicious in some, and which strangely
vary according to different countries and ages;—these notions highly
reflect upon the Divine wisdom and goodness, and are taken up only to
defend the corrupt practices of the Romish Church, which that Church is
resolved to maintain at any rate, rather than to part with them.
The like reasons are alleged by the ancient divines of the Church.—_Dr.
Nicholls._
The ancient fathers always speak of the Scriptures as containing a
complete rule of faith and practice; and appeal to them, and to them
only, in support of the doctrines which they advance.—_Bp. Tomline._
CANON LAW. The canon law which regulates the discipline of the Romish
Church consists, 1. Of the Decree of Gratian, (_Decretum Gratiani_,) a
compilation made by a Benedictine monk, whose name it bears, at Bologna
in Italy, in 1150, and made up of the decrees of different popes and
councils, and of several passages of the holy fathers and other
reputable writers.
2. Of the _Decretals_, collected by order of Pope Gregory IX., in the
year 1230, in five books.
3. Of the compilation made by order of Boniface VIII., in 1297, known by
the name of the _Sixth Book of Decretals_, because added to the other
five, although it is itself divided into five books.
4. Of the _Clementines_, as they are called, or Decretals of Pope
Clement V., published in the year 1317 by John XXII.
5. Of other decretals, known under the name of _Extravagantes_, so
called because not contained in the former decretals. These
Extravagantes are two-fold;—the first, called common, containing
constitutions of various popes down to the year 1483; and, secondly, the
particular ones of John XXII.
These, containing besides the decrees of popes and the canons of several
councils, constitute the body of the canon law. The constitutions of
subsequent popes and councils have also the force of canons, although
not hitherto reduced into one body, nor digested, as the others, under
proper heads, by any competent authority. These, together with some
general customs, or peculiar ones of different places, having the force
of laws, and certain conventions entered into between the popes and
different Roman Catholic states, determine the discipline of the Church
of Rome.
CANONICAL. That which is done in accordance with the canons of the
Church.
CANONICAL HOURS. The first, third, the sixth, and the ninth hours of the
day, that is, six, nine, twelve, and three o’clock, are so denominated.
Bishop Patrick remarks that “the Universal Church anciently observed
certain set hours of prayer, that all Christians throughout the world
might at the same time join together to glorify GOD; and some of them
were of opinion that the angelic host, being acquainted with those
hours, took that time to join their prayers and praises with those of
the Church.” The directions in the Apostolical Constitutions are as
follows: “Offer up your prayers in the morning, at the third hour, at
the sixth, and at the ninth, and in the evening; in the morning
returning thanks that the LORD hath sent you light, and brought you
through the perils of the night; at the third hour, because at that hour
the LORD received sentence of condemnation from Pilate; at the sixth,
because at that hour he was crucified; at the ninth, because at that
hour all things were in commotion at the crucifixion of our LORD, as
trembling at the bold attempt of the wicked Jews, and at the injury
offered to their Master; in the evening, giving thanks that he has given
thee the night to rest from thy daily labours.”
In the Church of Rome, the canonical hours begin with _vespers_, i. e.
evening prayer, about six o’clock, or sunset; next follows _compline_,
to beg GOD’S protection during sleep; at midnight, the three _nocturns_
or _matins_, the longest part of the office. _Lauds_ or morning praises
of GOD are appointed for cock-crowing, or before break of day; at six
o’clock, or sunrise, _prime_ should be recited; and _terce_, _sext_, and
_none_, every third hour afterwards.
CANONICAL OBEDIENCE. (See _Orders_.) The obedience which is due,
according to the canons, to an ecclesiastical superior. Every clergyman
takes an oath of canonical obedience to his bishop when he is instituted
to a benefice, or licensed to a cure.
CANONISATION. (See _Beatification_, and _Saints_.) A ceremony in the
Romish Church, by which persons deceased are ranked in the catalogue of
saints. It succeeds beatification. When a person is to be canonised, the
pope holds four consistories. In the first, he causes the petition of
those who request the canonisation to be examined by three auditors of
the rota, and directs the cardinals to revise all the necessary
instruments. In the second, the cardinals report the matter to the pope.
In the third, which is held in public, the cardinals pay their adoration
to the pope, and an advocate makes a pompous oration in praise of the
person who is to be created a saint. This advocate expatiates at large
on the supposed miracles which the person has wrought, and even pretends
to know from what motives he acted. In the fourth consistory, the pope,
having summoned together all the cardinals and prelates, orders the
report concerning the deceased to be read, and then takes their votes,
whether he is to be canonised or not. On the day of canonisation, the
church of St. Peter is hung with rich tapestry, on which are embroidered
the arms of the pope, and those of the prince who desires the
canonisation. The church is most brilliantly illuminated, and filled
with thousands of Romanists, who superstitiously think that the more
respect they show to the saint, the more ready will he be to hear their
prayers, and offer them to GOD. During this ceremony the pope and all
the cardinals are dressed in white. It costs the prince who requests the
canonisation a great sum of money, as all the officers belonging to the
Church of Rome must have their fees; but this is considered a trifle,
when it is expected that the saint will intercede in heaven for his
subjects, who, indeed, poor as they are, generally pay all the expenses
attending the ceremony.
Canonisation of saints was not known to the Christian Church till
towards the middle of the tenth century. So far as we are able to form
an opinion, the Christians in that age borrowed this custom from the
heathens; for it was usual with both the Greeks and Romans to deify all
those heroes and great men who had rendered themselves remarkable. It is
not allowed to enter into inquiries prior to canonisation, till at least
fifty years after the death of the person to be canonised. This
regulation, however, though now observed, has not been followed above a
century. Thomas Becket was canonised within three years of his death. It
has been properly objected against canonisation, that it is performed by
human beings, who assume a power of rendering some one an object of
divine worship, who in this life was no more than mortal; that it is a
direct violation of the SAVIOUR’S command, “Judge not;” and that it lies
at the foundation of that idolatry of which the Church of Rome is justly
charged.—_Broughton._
CANONRY. A _canonry_ is a name of office, and a _canon_ is the officer;
in like manner as a _prebendary_; and a _prebend_ is the maintenance or
stipend both of the one and the other.—_Gibson._ It is not easy to
assign a reason why this name should have been given to members of
cathedral churches. Some have thought it was because a great number of
them were regular priests, and obliged to observe the canons or rules of
their respective orders, or founders, or visitors. According to
Nicholls, the name is of a higher origin, and not so directly from the
Greek word κάνων, _regula_, a statute or ordinance, as from the Latin
word _canon_, an allowance or stated quantity of provision. Thus it is
used by Cicero. So the collection of the respective quotas of the
provinces sent in corn to Rome for the subsistence of the poorer
citizens was called the _canon_. Afterwards, when Christianity
prevailed, the word was adapted to an ecclesiastical use, and those
clergymen that had the _canon_, or _sportula_, taken from the common
bank of the church offerings delivered out to them for their
maintenance, come to be called _canonici_. As the church revenues were
divided into four parts—one for the maintenance of the bishop, a second
for the fabric of the church, and a third for the poor, so a fourth part
was divided among the subordinate clergy, who lived in a collegiate
manner about the bishop.
It seems most likely, however, that the word canon meant to designate
one who resided at the cathedral church constantly, and followed the
_rule_ of Divine service there. So the application of the word at home
and abroad would seem to indicate. Thus, till a very late enactment, 3 &
4 Vic. c. 113, the word canon was restricted in cathedrals of the old
foundation to the residentiaries. _Prebendary_ was statutably applied to
all, because all had a præbenda, either fixed stipend, or an estate in
fee: while in the cathedrals of new foundation all were called
indifferently canons or prebendaries, because all were equally bound to
residence. The act referred to has now directed that all shall be styled
canons (except perhaps the prebendaries retained, but without their
ancient stipends or estates) in the cathedrals of old foundation.
Nevertheless, all canons are still really _prebendaries_, as long as
they have any property. In Ireland, the only prebendaries denominated
canons, are those of Kildare. These form the lesser chapter.
Canons in most cathedrals were divided into two classes, major, or
minor. (See _Minor Canons_.)
The fellowships of the collegiate church in Manchester, since its
elevation into a cathedral, have been recently erected into canonries,
and the warden of former times is now called dean.
Canonry, or chanonrie, in Scotland, was the same as the cathedral
precinct in England. Thus at Aberdeen the canonry included the
cathedral, bishop’s palace, prebendal houses, gardens, and an hospital,
all surrounded by a stone wall. (_Kennedy’s Annals of Aberdeen._) The
cathedral town of Rosemarkie, or Fortrose, in the diocese of Ross, was
sometimes called the _canonry_ town, or _channery_ town.
CANTICLES. This literally signifies songs, but it is peculiarly applied
to a canonical book of the Old Testament, called in Hebrew the Song of
Songs, that is, the most excellent of all songs. The word _canticle_ in
our Prayer Book is applied to the Benedicite, and was so first used in
King Edward’s Second Book.
CAPITAL. The highest member of a pillar.
The capital consists of the _abacus_, the _bell_, the _neck_, or
_astragal_, and each of these varies in the several styles, as well in
form as in relative importance. A few of the more prominent variations
may be enumerated.
In the Saxon period, the abacus is usually a low, flat, unmoulded slab;
the rest of the capital, if it has any character, approaches that of the
succeeding style.
In the Norman capital the abacus is square, of considerable thickness,
generally slightly bevelled at the lower side, and sometimes moulded.
The bell, resting on a cylindrical shaft, and fitted with a square
abacus, is circular at the bottom, and becomes square at the top, and
the way of resolving the round into the square gives it its peculiar
character. In examples, however, of any richness, the abundance of
decoration often obscures its constructive character.
In the period of transition to Early English, the abacus sometimes
becomes octagonal, seldom, however, a regular octagon, but a square with
the corners slightly cut off. It is also sometimes circular. The upper
surface continues flat, but the under part is more frequently moulded.
The bell often approaches the Classic capital in design, and sometimes
even in treatment, as at Canterbury; but this is a rare amount of
excellence. More frequently a lotus-like flower rises from the neck, and
curls beneath the abacus. The neck is still a mere round bead.
In the next, or Lancet period, the abacus more frequently becomes
circular, the top is seldom flat, the mouldings usually consist of two
rounds, with a deep undercut, hollow between, the upper one a little
overhanging the under, and in the hollow a trail of nail-head or
dog-tooth is often found. The bell, also, is deeply undercut, and in
some instances, where effect is sought in moulding rather than in
carving, it is repeated; but, in moderately rich examples, the bell is
usually covered with foliage of which the stems spring from the neck,
generally crossing one another as they rise, and breaking into leaves
near the top, where they throw off a profusion of crisped foliage, which
curls under the abacus; a stray leaf, in very rich and rather late
examples, sometimes shooting up, over the hollow, to the upper member of
the abacus. The whole treatment of this foliage in capitals and corbels,
where it follows the same law, has sometimes a boldness and a grace,
though it never deserts its conventional type, of which no description,
and no engraving even, except on a large scale, can convey an idea. The
neck of the Early English capital is generally either a rounded bowtel
of rather more than half a cylinder, or a semi-hexagon, the latter with
the sides sometimes slightly hollowed.
In the Geometrical period, the abacus continues round. It is no longer,
except in rare instances, flat at the top: the scroll moulding begins to
appear, and sometimes a hollow intervenes between it and the first
member of the bell. The bell, when moulded, rather follows the routine
of the last style; but, when foliated, the leaves or flowers, without
losing anything of the force and boldness of the latter, have a
naturalness never approached in any other style: we begin to recognise
the oak, the hawthorn, or the maple, as familiar friends, and no longer
need to employ conventional terms to designate their foliage, or the
method of its treatment.
In the Decorated period, the scrollmoulding is almost constantly
employed for the abacus and for the neck; the ball-flower sometimes
occurs in the hollow of the abacus, but not so frequently as the
dog-tooth in the Lancet period. The mouldings of the bell are generally
the roll and fillet, or the scroll, in some of their forms; and the
foliage entirely loses the nature of the Geometrical, without recovering
the force of the Early English. It surrounds the bell as a chaplet,
instead of creeping up it, and, instead of indicating the shape which it
clothes, converts the whole between the neck and the abacus into a
flowered top.
In the next and last period, the abacus is sometimes so nearly lost in
the bell, or the bell in the abacus, that it is hard to separate them.
The form of both becomes generally octagonal, and a great poverty of
design is apparent: this is the case in ordinary instances of pillars
with entire capitals. In later examples, and where there are greater
pretensions, the capital does not extend to the whole pillar, but the
outer order of the arches is continued to the base, without the
intervention of a capital, only the inner order being supported and
stopped by an attached shaft, or bowtel, with its capital, and so the
capital loses all its analogy with the classic architrave, and no longer
carries the eye along in a horizontal line.
CAPITULAR. A term often used in foreign countries to designate a major
canon or prebendary; a capitular member of a cathedral or collegiate
church.
CAPITULARIES. Ordinances of the kings of France, in which are many heads
or articles which regard the government of the Church, and were done by
the advice of an assembly of bishops. The original of the word comes
from _capitula_, which were articles that the prelates made and
published to serve as instructions to the clergy of their dioceses, so
that at last this name of capitularies was given to all the articles
which related to ecclesiastical affairs. Those of Charlemagne and Louis
the Meek were collected in four books by the abbot Angesius; those of
King Lothaire, Charles and Louis, sons of Louis the Meek, were collected
by Bennet the Levite, or deacon, into three books, to which there have
been since four or five additions; and Father Simon published those of
Charles the Bald.
CAPUCHINS. Monks of the order of St. Francis. They owe their original to
Matthew de Bassi, a Franciscan of the duchy of Urbino, who, having seen
St. Francis represented with a sharp-pointed _capuche_, or cowl, began
to wear the like in 1525, with the permission of Pope Clement VII. His
example was soon followed by two other monks, named Louis and Raphael de
Fossembrun; and the pope, by a brief, granted these three monks leave to
retire to some hermitage, and retain their new habit. The retirement
they chose was the hermitage of the Camaldolites near Massacio, where
they were very charitably received.
This innovation in the habit of the order gave great offence to the
Franciscans, whose provincial persecuted these poor monks, and obliged
them to fly from place to place. At last they took refuge in the palace
of the Duke de Camerino, by whose credit they were received under the
obedience of the conventuals, in the quality of Hermits Minors, in the
year 1527. The next year, the pope approved this union, and confirmed to
them the privilege of wearing the square capuche, and admitting among
them all who would take the habit. Thus the order of the _Capuchins_, so
called from wearing the _capuche_, began in the year 1528.
Their first establishment was at Colmenzono, about a league from
Camerino, in a convent of the order of St. Jerome, which had been
abandoned; but, their numbers increasing, Louis de Fossembrun built
another small convent at Montmelon, in the territory of Camerino. The
great number of conversions which the Capuchins made by their preaching,
and the assistance they gave the people in a contagious distemper with
which Italy was afflicted the same year, 1528, gained them an universal
esteem.
In 1529, Louis de Fossembrun built for them two other convents, the one
of Alvacina in the territory of Fabriano, the other at Fossembrun in the
duchy of Urbino. Matthew de Bassi, being chosen their vicar-general,
drew up constitutions for the government of this order. They enjoined,
among other things, that the Capuchins should perform Divine service
without singing; that they should say but one mass a day in their
convents; they directed the hours of mental prayer, morning and evening,
the days of disciplining themselves, and those of silence; they forbade
the monks to hear the confessions of seculars, and enjoined them always
to travel on foot; they recommended poverty in the ornaments of their
church, and prohibited in them the use of gold, silver, and silk; the
pavilions of the altars were to be of stuff, and the chalices of tin.
This order soon spread itself all over Italy and into Sicily. In 1573,
Charles IX. demanded of Pope Gregory XIII. to have the order of
Capuchins established in France, which that pope consented to; and their
first settlement in that kingdom was in the little town of Picpus near
Paris, which they soon quitted to settle at Meudon, from whence they
were introduced into the capital of the kingdom. In 1606, Pope Paul V.
gave them leave to accept of an establishment which was offered them in
Spain. They even passed the seas to labour on the conversion of the
infidels; and their order is become so considerable, that it is at
present divided into more than sixty provinces, consisting of near 1600
convents, and 25,000 monks, besides the missions of Brazil, Congo,
Barbary, Greece, Syria, and Egypt.
Among those who have preferred the poverty and humility of the Capuchins
to the advantages of birth and fortune, was the famous Alphonso d’Este,
duke of Modena and Reggio, who, after the death of his wife Isabella,
took the habit of this order at Munich, in the year 1626, under the name
of Brother John-Baptist, and died in the convent of Castlenuovo, in
1644. In France, likewise, the great duke de Joyeuse, after having
distinguished himself as a general, became a Capuchin in September,
1587.
Father Paul (_of Ecclesiastical Benefices_, cap. 53) observes, that “The
Capuchins preserve their reputation by reason of their poverty, and that
if they should suffer the least change in their institution, they would
acquire no immoveable estates by it, but would lose the alms they now
receive.” He adds: “It seems, therefore, as if here an absolute period
were put to all future acquisitions and improvements in this gainful
trade; for whoever should go about to institute a new order, with a
power of acquiring estates, such an order would certainly find no credit
in the world; and if a profession of poverty were a part of the
institution, there could be no acquisitions made whilst that lasted, nor
would there be any credit left when that was broke.”—_Hist. des Ord.
Relig._ T. vii. c. 27.
There is likewise an order of _Capuchin Nuns_, who follow the rule of
St. Clare. Their first establishment was at Naples in 1538, and their
foundress the venerable mother Maria Laurentia Longa, of a noble family
of Catalonia—a lady of the most uncommon piety and devotion. Some
Capuchins coming to settle at Naples, she obtained for them, by her
credit with the archbishop, the church of St. Euphebia, without the
city; soon after which she built a monastery of virgins, under the name
of _Our Lady of Jerusalem_, into which she retired in 1534, together
with nineteen young women, who engaged themselves by solemn vows to
follow the third rule of St. Francis. The pope gave the government of
this monastery to the Capuchins; and, soon after, the nuns quitted the
third rule of St. Francis, to embrace the more rigorous rule of St.
Clara, from the austerity of which they had the name of _Nuns of the
Passion_, and that of _Capuchines_ from the habit they took, which was
that of the Capuchins.
After the death of their foundress, another monastery of _Capuchines_
was established at Rome, near the Quirinal palace, and was called the
_monastery of the Holy Sacrament_; and a third, in the same city, built
by Cardinal Baronius. These foundations were approved, in the year 1600,
by Pope Clement VIII., and confirmed by Gregory XV. There were
afterwards several other establishments of Capuchines, in particular one
at Paris, in 1604, founded by the Duchesse de Mercœur, who put crowns of
thorns on the heads of the young women whom she placed in her
monastery.—_Broughton._
CAPUTIUM. (See _Hood_.)
CARDINAL. This is the title given to one of the chief governors of the
Romish Church. The term has long been in use, and originally signified
the same as _præcipuus, principalis, id quod rei cardo est_, synonymous
with _prælatus_; or else it was derived from _cardinare_ or
_incardinare_, to hinge or join together, and was applied to the regular
clergy of the metropolitan church. In Italy, Gaul, &c., such churches
early received the title of cardinal churches; the ministers of these
churches were also called cardinals.
The following statements comprise the important historical facts
relative to the office of cardinal:
1. The institution of the office has been ascribed by respectable Roman
Catholic writers to Christ himself, to the apostle of their faith, to
the Roman bishop Evaristus, to Hyginus, Marcellus, Boniface III., and
others. But we only know that cardinals, presbyters, and deacons occur
in history about the sixth and seventh centuries, who were, however, not
itinerant, but stationary church officers for conducting religious
worship. The deacons and presbyters of Rome especially bore this name,
who composed the presbytery of the bishop of the place. The title was
also conferred upon the suffragan bishops of Ostia, Albano, and others
in the immediate vicinity, but without any other rights than those which
were connected appropriately with the ministerial office.
2. The import of the term was varied still more in the ninth century,
and especially in the eleventh, by Nicolaus II., who in his constitution
for the election of the Roman pontiff, not only appointed his seven
suffragan bishops as members of the pope’s ecclesiastical council, but
also constituted them the only legitimate body for the election of the
pope. To these he gave the name of cardinal bishops of the Church of
Rome, or cardinals of the Lateran Church.
This is the important period in history when the first foundation was
laid for rendering the hierarchy of the Church independent both of the
clergy and of the secular power. This period has not been noticed so
particularly by historians as its importance requires. They seem
especially to have overlooked the fact, that the famous Hildebrand,
(Gregory VII.,) in the year 1073, concerted these measures for the
independence of the Church, as the following extract will show: “It was
the deep design of Hildebrand, which he for a long time prosecuted with
unwearied zeal, to bring the pope wholly within the pale of the Church,
and to prevent the interference, in his election, of all secular
influence and arbitrary power. And that measure of the council which
wrested from the emperor a right of so long standing and which had never
been called in question, may deservedly be regarded as the master-piece
of popish intrigue, or rather of Hildebrand’s cunning. The concession
which disguised this crafty design of his was expressed as follows:
_that the emperor should ever hold from the pope the right of appointing
the pope_.”
3. As might have been expected, this privilege was afterwards contested
by the princes of the German States, especially by those of Saxony and
the House of Hohenstaufen. But these conflicts uniformly resulted in
favour of the ambitious designs of the pope. A momentary concession,
granted under the pressure of circumstances, became reason sufficient
for demanding the same ever afterwards as an established right. In the
year A. D. 1179, Alexander III., through the canons of the Lateran,
confirmed yet more the independent election of the pope, so that, after
this, the ratification of the emperor was no longer of any importance.
Something similar was also repeated by Innocent III., A. D. 1215, and
Innocent IV., A. D. 1254. The former had already, in the year A. D.
1198, renounced the civil authority of Rome, and ascended the papal
throne. In the year 1274, the conclave of cardinals for the election of
the pope was fully established by Gregory X., and remains the same to
this day.
4. The college of cardinals, which, until the twelfth century, had been
restricted to Rome and its vicinity, has since been greatly enlarged, so
as to become the supreme court of the Romish Church throughout the
world. Priests of illustrious name in other provinces and countries have
been elevated to the dignity of cardinals. Of this, Alexander III. gave
the first example in the year 1165, by conferring the honour upon
Galdinus Sala, archbishop of Milan, and upon Conrad, archbishop of
Mentz. But, to the injury of the Church, the greater part have ever been
restricted to the limits of Rome and Italy.
5. The formal classification of the cardinals into three distinct
orders, 1. cardinal bishops; 2. cardinal presbyters; 3. cardinal
deacons, was made by Paul II. in the fifteenth century. He also gave
them, instead of the scarlet robe which they had worn since the year
1244, _a purple robe_, from whence they derived the name of the
_purple_; a title indicative, not merely of their superiority to bishops
and archbishops, but of their regal honours and rights. Boniface VIII.
gave them the title of _eminentissimi, most eminent_; and Pius V., in
the year 1567, decrees that no other should have the name of cardinal.
6. The number of cardinals was at first not less than _seven_; and,
after having ranged from _seven_ to _fifty-three_, it was reduced again
in the year 1277 to the minimum above-mentioned. The General Assembly of
the Church of Basil limited the number to _twenty-four_; but the popes
from this time increased them at their pleasure. Under Leo X. there were
sixty-five cardinals: Paul IV. and Pius V. decreed that the maximum
should be seventy—equal in number to the disciples of our Lord. These
were arranged under the following grades: 1. Six cardinal bishops, with
the following titles:—the bishops of Ostia, Porta, Albano, Frascati,
Sabina, and Palæstrina; 2. Fifty cardinal priests, who were named after
the parochial and cathedral churches of Rome; 3. Fourteen cardinal
deacons, who were named after the chapels. This number was seldom full;
but, since 1814, they have again become quite numerous.—_Augusti._
The canons in some foreign cathedrals are called cardinals; as at Milan
and Salerno. In the cathedral of St. Paul’s, London, two of the minor
canons are still so designated. Their statutable duties are to
superintend the behaviour of the members of the choir, in order to the
correction of offenders by the dean and chapter, and to see to the
burial of the dead, &c.—_Jebb._
CARMELITES, or WHITE FRIARS. Monks of the order of _Our Lady of Mount
Carmel_. They pretend to derive their original from the prophets Elijah
and Elisha; and this occasioned a very warm controversy between this
order and the Jesuits, about the end of the seventeenth century; both
parties publishing several works, and petitioning the popes Innocent XI.
and Innocent XII.; the latter of whom silenced them both, by a brief of
the 20th November, 1698.
What we know of their original is, that, in the twelfth century,
Aimerie, legate of the holy see in the east, and patriarch of Antioch,
collected together several hermits in Syria, who were exposed to the
violence and incursions of the barbarians, and placed them on Mount
Carmel, formerly the residence of the prophets Elijah and Elisha; from
which mountain they took the name of Carmelites. Albert, patriarch of
Jerusalem, gave them rules in 1205, which Pope Honorius III. confirmed
in 1224.
The peace concluded by the emperor Frederic II. with the Saracens, in
the year 1229, so disadvantageous to Christendom, and so beneficial to
the infidels, occasioned the Carmelites to quit the Holy Land under
Alan, the fifth general of the order. He first sent some of the monks to
Cyprus, who landed there in the year 1238, and founded a monastery in
the forest of Fortania. Some Sicilians, at the same time, leaving Mount
Carmel, returned to their own country, where they founded a monastery in
the suburbs of Messina. Some English departed out of Syria, in the year
1440, to found others in England. Others of Provence, in the year 1244,
founded a monastery in the desert of Aigualates, a league from
Marseilles; and thus, the number of their monasteries increasing, they
held their first European general chapter in the year 1245, at their
monastery of Aylesford, in England.
After the establishment of the Carmelites in Europe, their rule was in
some respects altered: the first time, by Pope Innocent IV., who added
to the first article a precept of chastity, and relaxed the eleventh,
which enjoins abstinence at all times from flesh, permitting them, when
they travelled, to eat boiled flesh. This pope likewise gave them leave
to eat in a common refectory, and to keep asses or mules for their use.
Their rule was again mitigated by the popes Eugenius IV. and Pius II.
Hence the order is divided into two branches, viz. the _Carmelites of
the ancient observance_, called the _moderate_ or _mitigated_, and those
of the _strict observance_, who are the _barefooted Carmelites_; a
reform set on foot, in 1540, by S. Theresa, a nun of the convent of
Avila, in Castile: these last are divided into two congregations, that
of Spain and that of Italy.
The habit of the Carmelites was at first white, and the cloak laced at
the bottom with several lists; but Pope Honorius IV. commanded them to
change it for that of the Minims. Their scapulary is a small woollen
habit, of a brown colour, thrown over their shoulders. They wear no
linen shirts, but instead of them linsey-woolsey.—_Broughton._
CAROLS. Hymns sung by the people at Christmas in memory of the song of
the angels, which the shepherds heard at our LORD’S birth.
CARPOCRATIANS. Heretics who sprang up in the second century; followers
of Carpocrates, of the island of Cephalenia, according to Epiphanius,
or, according to Theodoret and Clemens Alexandrinus, of the city of
Alexandria. This Carpocrates was a man of the worst morals, and addicted
to magic. Eusebius says expressly, he was the father of the heresy of
the Gnostics; and it is true that all the infamous things imputed to the
Gnostics are ascribed likewise to the Carpocratians. It is sufficient to
mention two of their principles: the one is, a community of wives; the
other, that a man cannot arrive at perfection, nor deliver himself from
the power of the princes of this world, as they expressed it, without
having passed through all sorts of criminal actions; laying it down for
a maxim, that there is no action bad in itself, but only from the
opinion of men. This induced them to establish a new kind of
metempsychosis, that those who have not passed through all sorts of
actions in the first life, may do it in a second, and, if that be not
sufficient, in a third, and so on, till they have discharged this
strange obligation. Accordingly, they are charged with committing the
most infamous things in their Agapæ, or love-feasts.
As to their theology, they attributed the creation of the world to
angels; they said that Jesus Christ was born of Joseph and Mary in a
manner like other men; that his soul alone was received into heaven, his
body remaining on the earth; and, accordingly, they rejected the
resurrection of the body.
They marked their disciples at the bottom of the right ear with a hot
iron, or with a razor.
They had images of Jesus Christ as well in painting as in sculpture,
which they said were made by Pilate; they kept them in a little box or
chest. They had likewise the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and
other philosophers. They put crowns on all these images, and paid them
the same superstitious honours which the Pagans did to their idols,
adoring them, and offering sacrifice to them. A woman of this sect,
named Marcellina, came to Rome, in the pontificate of Anicetus, where
she made a great many proselytes. She worshipped the images of Jesus
Christ, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras, and offered incense to them.
Carpocrates had a son, named Epiphanes, who, by means of the Platonic
philosophy, gave a greater extent to the fabulous opinions of the
Carpocratians. He died at seventeen years of age, but in that short time
had acquired so great a reputation among the disciples of his father,
that, after his death, he was revered by them as a god, insomuch that
they built a temple to him in the island of Cephalenia, and the
Cephalenians, every first day of the month, solemnized the feast of his
apotheosis, offering sacrifices to him, and singing hymns to his honour.
Epiphanius relates of himself, that in his youth he accidentally fell
into company with some women of this sect, who revealed to him the most
horrible secrets of the Carpocratians. They were armed with beauty
sufficient to make an impression on a person of his age; but, by the
grace of God, he says, he escaped the snare which the devil had laid for
him. (See _Gnostics_.)—_Brouqhton._
CARTHUSIANS. A religious order, founded in the year 1080 by one Bruno, a
very learned man, a native of Cologne, and canon of Cologne, and
afterwards Canon Scholaster or Theologal, (i. e. a lecturer in
theology,) at Rheims. The occasion of its institution is related as
follows: a friend of Bruno’s, Raimond Diocre, an eminent canon of Paris,
who had been looked upon as a good liver, being dead, Bruno attended his
funeral. Whilst the service was performing in the church, the dead man,
who lay upon a bier, raised himself up and said, “By the just judgment
of God, I am accused.” The company being astonished at this unusual
accident, the burial was deferred to the next day, when the concourse of
people being much greater, the dead man again raised himself up and
said, “By the just judgment of God, I am judged:” and on a third similar
occasion, “By the just judgment of God, I am condemned.” This miracle,
it is pretended, wrought such an effect on Bruno and six more, that they
immediately retired to the desert of Chartreux, in the diocese of
Grenoble, in Dauphiné, where Hugh, bishop of that diocese, assigned them
a spot of ground, and where Bruno, A. D. 1084, (or 1086, according to
Baronius,) built his first monastery, under the following rigid
institutes:—
His monks were to wear a hair-cloth next their body, a white cassock,
and over it a black cloak: they were never to eat flesh; to fast every
Friday on bread and water; to eat alone in their chambers, except upon
certain festivals; and to observe an almost perpetual silence; none were
allowed to go out of the monastery, except the prior and procurator, and
they only about the business of the house.
The Carthusians, so called from the place of their first institution,
are a very rigid order. They are not to go out of their cells, except to
church, without leave of their superior. They are not to speak to any
person, even their own brother, without leave. They may not keep any
part of their portion of meat or drink till the next day, except herbs
or fruit. Their bed is of straw, covered with a felt or coarse cloth;
their clothing, two haircloths, two cowls, two pair of hose, a cloak,
&c., all coarse. Every monk has two needles, some thread, scissors, a
comb, a razor, a hone, an ink-horn, pens, chalk, two pumice-stones;
likewise two pots, two porringers, a basin, two spoons, a knife, a
drinking cup, a water-pot, a salt, a dish, a towel; and for fire,
tinder, flint, wood, and an axe.
In the refectory they are to keep their eyes on the meat, their hands on
the table, their attention on the reader, and their heart fixed on GOD.
When allowed to discourse, they are to do it modestly, not to whisper,
nor talk aloud, nor to be contentious. They confess to the prior every
Saturday. Women are not allowed to come into their churches, that the
monks may not see anything which may provoke them to lewdness.
It is computed there are a hundred and seventy-two houses of
Carthusians, whereof five are of nuns, who practise the same austerities
as the monks. They are divided into sixteen provinces, each of which has
two visitors. There have been several canonised saints of this order;
four cardinals, seventy archbishops and bishops, and a great many very
learned writers.
The story of the motive of St. Bruno’s retirement into the desert was
inserted in the Roman Breviary, but was afterwards left out, when that
Breviary was reformed, by order of Pope Urban VIII.; and this gave
occasion to several learned men of the seventeenth century to publish
writings on that subject, some to vindicate the truth of the story, and
others to invalidate it. It is rejected by Pagius, the learned annotator
on Baronius, who says it was invented two centuries after Bruno’s
time.—_Jebb._
In the year 1170, Pope Alexander III. took this order under the
protection of the holy see. In 1391, Boniface IX. exempted them from the
jurisdiction of the bishops. In 1420, Martin V. exempted them from
paying the tenths of the lands belonging to them; and Julius II., in
1508, ordered that all the houses of the order, in whatever part of the
world they were situated, should obey the prior of the Grand Chartreuse,
and the general chapter of the order.
The convents of this order are generally very beautiful and magnificent;
that of Naples, though but small, surpasses all the rest in ornaments
and riches. Nothing is to be seen in the church and house but marble and
jasper. The apartments of the prior are rather those of a prince than of
a poor monk. There are innumerable statues, bas-reliefs, paintings, &c.,
together with very fine gardens; all which, joined with the holy and
exemplary life of the good monks, draws the curiosity of all strangers
who visit Naples.
The Carthusians settled in England about the year 1140. They had several
monasteries here, particularly at Witham, in Somersetshire; Hinton, in
the same county; Beauval, in Nottinghamshire; Kingston-upon-Hull; Mount
Grace, in Yorkshire; Eppewort, in Lincolnshire; Shene, in Surrey, and
one near Coventry. In London they had a famous monastery, since called,
from the Carthusians who settled there, the Charter House.—See _Du Pin,
and Baronius_.
CARTULARIES, according to _Jerom de Costa_, were papers wherein the
contracts, sales, exchanges, privileges, immunities, and other acts that
belong to churches and monasteries were collected, the better to
preserve the ancient deeds, by rendering frequent reference to them less
necessary.
CASSOCK. The under dress of all orders of the clergy; it resembles a
long coat, with a single upright collar. In the Church of Rome it varies
in colour 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 74th English canon enjoins
that beneficed clergymen, &c. shall not go in public in their doublet
and hose, without coats or _cassocks_.—_Jebb._
CASUIST. One who studies cases of conscience.
CASUISTRY. The doctrine and science of conscience and its cases, with
the rules and principles of resolving the same; drawn partly from
natural reason or equity, and partly from the authority of Scripture,
the canon law, councils, fathers, &c. To casuistry belongs the decision
of all difficulties arising about what a man may lawfully do or not do;
what is sin or not sin; what things a man is obliged to do in order to
discharge his duty, and what he may let alone without breach of it. The
most celebrated writers on this subject, of the Church of England, are
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his “_Ductor Dubitantium_;” and Bishop
Sanderson, in his “Cases of Conscience.” There was a professor of
casuistry in the university of Cambridge, but the title of the
professorship has lately been altered to _Moral Philosophy_.
CASULA. (See _Chasible_.)
CATACOMBS. Burying-places near Rome; not for Christians only, but for
all sorts of people. There is a large vault about three miles from Rome,
used for this purpose; there is another near Naples. That at Naples
consists of long galleries cut out of the rock, of three stories, one
above another. These galleries are generally about twenty feet broad,
and fifteen high. Those at Rome are not above three or four feet broad,
and five or six feet high. They are very long, full of niches, shaped
according to the sizes of bodies, wherein the bodies were put, not in
coffins, but only in burial clothes. Many inscriptions are still extant
in them; and the same stone sometimes bears on one side an inscription
to heathen deities and marks of Christianity on the other. But see a
large account of these in Bishop Burnet’s Travels, in his fourth letter;
also “The Church in the Catacombs,” by Dr. C. Maitland; and Macfarlane’s
“Catacombs of Rome.”
The name “Catacombs” is now generally applied to the stone vaults for
the dead constructed in the public cemeteries of England.
CATAPHRYGES. Christian heretics, who made their appearance in the second
century; they had this name given to them because the chief promoters of
this heresy came out of Phrygia. They followed Montanus’s errors. (See
_Montanists_.)
CATECHISM, is derived from a Greek term, (κατηχέω,) and signifies
instruction in the first rudiments of any art or science, communicated
by asking questions and hearing and correcting the answers. From the
earliest ages of the Church the word has been employed by ecclesiastical
writers in a more restrained sense, to denote instruction in the
principals of the Christian religion by means of questions and
answers.—_Dean Comber. Shepherd._
By canon 59, “Every parson, vicar, or curate, upon every Sunday and holy
day, before evening prayer, shall, for half an hour or more, examine and
instruct the youth and ignorant persons of his parish, in the ten
commandments, the articles of the belief, and in the LORD’S Prayer; and
shall diligently hear, instruct, and teach them the catechism set forth
in the Book of Common Prayer. And all fathers, mothers, masters, and
mistresses shall cause their children, servants, and apprentices, which
have not learned the catechism, to come to the church at the time
appointed, obediently to hear, and to be ordered by the minister, until
they have learned the same. And if any minister neglect his duty herein,
let him be sharply reproved upon the first complaint, and true notice
thereof given to the bishop or ordinary of the place. If after
submitting himself he shall willingly offend therein again, let him be
suspended. If so the third time, there being little hope that he will be
therein reformed, then excommunicated, and so remain until he be
reformed. And likewise, if any of the said fathers, mothers, masters, or
mistresses, children, servants, or apprentices, shall neglect their
duties, as the one sort in not causing them to come, and the other in
refusing to learn, as aforesaid, let them be suspended by their
ordinaries, (if they be not children,) and if they so persist by the
space of a month, then let them be excommunicated.”
And by the rubric, “The curate of every parish shall diligently upon
Sundays and holy days, after the second lesson at evening prayer, openly
in the church instruct and examine so many children of his parish sent
unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some part of the catechism.
And all fathers and mothers, masters and dames, shall cause their
children, servants, and apprentices (who have not learned their
catechism) to come to the church at the time appointed, and obediently
to hear, and be ordered by the curate, until such time as they have
learned all that therein is appointed for them to learn.”
In the office of public baptism the minister directs the godfathers and
godmothers to “take care that the child be brought to the bishop, to be
confirmed by him, so soon as he or she can say the Creed, the LORD’S
Prayer, and the ten commandments in the vulgar tongue, and be further
instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.”
The catechism of children is enjoined by GOD, (Deut. vi. 7; Prov. xxii.
6; Ephes. vi. 4,) and was always practised by pious men, (Gen. xviii.
19; 1 Chron. xxviii. 9; 2 Tim. i. 5,) and it is CHRIST’S especial charge
to ministers, to feed his lambs. (John xxi. 15.) The Jewish doctors took
care of this. (Luke ii. 42.) And in the Christian churches there was a
peculiar officer who was the catechist; and all the new converts, who
were to be baptized at Easter, were catechized all the forty days of
Lent. But since we have few such now, and generally baptize infants, who
cannot at that time understand the covenant which is entered into,
therefore we are bound to take more care to make them understand it
afterward, by instructing them in the “Catechism of the Church;” which
is drawn up according to the primitive forms by way of question and
answer, (Acts viii. 37; 1 Pet. iii. 21,) being not a large system of
divinity to puzzle the heads of young beginners, but, like those of the
ancients, a short and full explication of the baptismal vow; teaching
them, first, what their baptismal vow is, namely, what were the benefits
promised on GOD’S part, Quest. I., II., and what were the duties
promised on their part, to renounce all evil, to believe all divine
truth, and to keep GOD’S commandments, Quest. III.; together with their
grateful owning of this covenant, Quest. IV. Secondly, the parts of the
vow are explained: first, as to the matter of them, in repeating and
expounding the creed, Quest. V., VI., and repeating and explaining the
ten commandments, Quest. VII., VIII., IX., X., XI. Secondly, as to the
means to enable them to keep them, which are prayer and the holy
sacraments: and the duty of prayer is taught them in the LORD’S Prayer,
and the explication thereof, Quest. XII., XIII. The due use of the
sacraments is taught them, first in general, as to their number, nature,
and necessity, Quest. XIV., XV. Secondly in particular, baptism, Quest.
XVI.–XX.; and the LORD’S supper, Quest. XXI.–XXV. This is all that is
absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation, and all that the
primitive Church did teach their catechumens. And if children be but
made to repeat this perfectly, and understand it fully, they will
increase in knowledge as they grow in years.—_Dean Comber._
It is the peculiar glory of Christianity to have extended religious
instruction, of which but few partook at all before, and scarce any in
purity, through all ranks and ages of men, and even women. The first
converts to it were immediately formed into regular societies and
assemblies; not only for the joint worship of GOD, but the further
“edifying of the body of CHRIST” (Eph. iv. 12); in which good work some
of course were stated teachers, or, to use the apostle’s own expression,
“catechizers in the word:” others taught or catechized. (Gal. vi. 6.)
For _catechizing_ signifies, in Scripture at large, instructing persons
in any matter, but especially in religion. And thus it is used, Acts
xviii. 25, where we read, “This man was _instructed_ in the way of the
LORD;” and Luke i. 4, where, again, we read, “That thou mayest know the
certainty of those things wherein thou hast been _instructed_.” The
original word, in both places, is _catechized_.
But as the different advances of persons in knowledge made different
sorts of instructions requisite, so, in the primitive Church, different
sorts of teachers were appointed to dispense it. And they who taught so
much only of the Christian doctrine, as might qualify the hearers for
Christian communion, had the name of _catechists_ appropriated to them:
whose teaching being usually, as was most convenient, in a great measure
by way of question and answer, the name of _Catechism_ hath now been
long confined to such instruction as is given in that form. But the
method of employing a particular set of men in that work only, is in
most places laid aside.
Under the darkness of Popery almost all religious instruction was
neglected. “Very few,” to use the words of one of our homilies, “even of
the most simple people, were taught the LORD’S Prayer, the articles of
the faith, or the ten commandments, otherwise than in Latin, which they
understood not;” so that one of the first necessary steps taken towards
the Reformation in this country, was a general injunction, that parents
and masters should first learn them in their own tongue, then acquaint
their children and servants with them: which three main branches of
Christian duty, comprehending the sum of what we are to believe, to do,
and to petition for, were soon after formed, with proper explanations of
each, into a catechism. To this was added, in process of time, a brief
account of the two sacraments; all together making up that very good,
though still improveable, “form of sound words” (2 Tim. i. 13) which we
may now use.—_Abp. Secker._
As to the form of our catechism, it is drawn up after the primitive
manner, by way of question and answer: so Philip catechized the eunuch,
(Acts viii. 37,) and so the persons to be baptized were catechized in
the first ages. And, indeed, the very word catechism implies as much;
the original κατηχέω, from whence it is derived, being a compound of
ἠχὼ, which signifies an echo, or repeated sound. So that a catechism is
no more than an instruction first taught and instilled into a person,
and then repeated upon the catechist’s examination.
As to the contents of our catechism, it is not a large system or body of
divinity, to puzzle the heads of young beginners, but only a short and
full explication of the baptismal vow. The primitive catechisms, indeed,
(that is, all that the catechumens were to learn by heart before their
baptism and confirmation,) consisted of no more than the renunciation,
or the repetition of the baptismal vow, the creed, and the LORD’S
prayer: and these, together with the ten commandments, at the
Reformation, were the whole of ours. But it being afterwards thought
defective as to the doctrine of the sacraments, (which in the primitive
times were more largely explained to baptized persons,) King James I.
appointed the bishops to add a short and plain explanation of them,
which was done accordingly in that excellent form we see; being penned
by Bishop Overall, then dean of St. Paul’s, and allowed by the bishops.
So that now (in the opinion of the best judges) it excels all catechisms
that ever were in the world; being so short, that the youngest children
may learn it by heart; and yet so full, that it contains all things
necessary to be known in order to salvation.
In this also its excellency is very discernible, namely, that as all
persons are baptized, not into any particular Church, but into the
Catholic Church of CHRIST; so here they are not taught the opinion of
this or any other particular Church or people, but what the whole body
of Christians all the world over agree in. If it may anywhere seem to be
otherwise, it is in the doctrine of the sacraments; but even this is
here worded with so much caution and temper, as not to contradict any
other particular Church, but so as that all sorts of Christians, when
they have duly considered it, may subscribe to everything that is here
taught or delivered.—_Wheatly._
The country parson, says Herbert, values catechizing highly.... He
exacts of all the doctrine of the catechism; of the younger sort, the
very words; of the elder, the substance. Those he catechizeth publicly;
these privately, giving age honour, according to the apostle’s rule. He
requires all to be present at catechizing; first, for the authority of
the work; secondly, that parents and masters, as they hear the answers
proved, may, when they come home, either commend or reprove, either
reward or punish; thirdly, that those of the elder sort, who are not
well grounded, may then by an honourable way take occasion to be better
instructed; fourthly, that those who are well grown in the knowledge of
religion, may examine their grounds, renew their vows, and by occasion
of both enlarge their meditation. Having read Divine service twice
fully, and preached in the morning, and _catechized in the afternoon_,
he thinks he hath, in some measure, according to poor and frail man,
discharged the public duties of the congregation.—_Herbert’s Country
Parson._
With respect to the catechetical instruction of youth, I would remind
you, that it was the primitive method, employed by the apostles and
their immediate followers, and in after ages by the whole succession of
the catholic and apostolic Church, for training up and organizing the
visible community of Christians in sound principles of faith, in the
love of God and man, and in purity of life and conversation. It is
observable, accordingly, that in exact proportion as catechizing has
been practised or neglected, in the same proportion have the public
faith and morals been seen to flourish or decline.... In the earlier
ages of the Church, catechetical schools were established in the great
cities of the empire; over which men of the profoundest learning, and
most brilliant talents, felt themselves honoured when they were called
to preside; while each particular church had its catechists; and the
catechumens formed a regular and ascertained class or division of every
congregation. And it is not too much to say, that, next to an
established liturgy, and beyond all prescribed confessions of faith, the
single ordinance of catechetical instruction has, under Providence, been
the great stay and support, throughout Christendom, of orthodox,
unwavering Christianity.... Let not the common prejudice be entertained,
that catechizing is a slight and trifling exercise, to be performed
without pain and preparation on your part. This would be so, if it were
the mere rote-work asking and answering of the questions in our Church
Catechism: but to open, to explain, and familiarly to illustrate those
questions, in such a manner, as at once to reach the understanding and
touch the affections of little children, is a work which demands no
ordinary acquaintance at once with the whole scheme of Christian
theology, with the philosophy of the human mind, and with the yet
profounder mysteries of the human heart. It has, therefore, been well
and truly said, by I recollect not what writer, that _a boy may preach,
but to catechize requires a man_.—_Bp. Jebb._
CATECHIST. The person who catechizes. There were officers of this name
in the ancient Church; but they did not form a distinct order. Sometimes
the bishop catechized, sometimes the catechists were selected from the
inferior orders, as readers, &c.—(See _Bingham_.)
CATECHUMENS. A name given, in the first ages of Christianity, to the
Jews or Gentiles who were being prepared and instructed to receive
baptism. It comes from the Greek word κατηχεῖν, which signifies to teach
by word of mouth, or _viva voce_: and of that word this other,
κατηχούμενος, is formed, which denotes him that is so taught: these had
people on purpose to instruct them. Eusebius makes mention of Pantænus,
Clemens, and Origen, who were catechists in the Church of Alexandria,
and had a peculiar place in the church where they used to teach, and the
same was called the place of the catechumens, as appears by the canons
of the Council of _Neocæsarea_: they tell us the catechumens were not
permitted to be present at the celebration of the holy eucharist; but,
immediately after the Gospel was read, the deacons cried with a loud
voice: “Withdraw in peace, you catechumens,” for so the book of the
Apostolical Constitutions will have it. The service from the beginning
to the Offertory was called _Missa catechumenorum_. The catechumens, not
being baptized, were not to receive, nor so much as permitted to see,
the consecrated elements of the eucharist. Some writers suppose that
they received some of the consecrated bread, called _eulogicæ_; but
Bingham shows that this idea is founded on a misconstruction of a
passage in St. Augustine, and that the use of _eulogicæ_ was not known
in the Church, until long after the discipline of the catechumens had
ceased. According to a canon of the Council of Orange, they were not
permitted to pray with the faithful or those in full communion. There
were several degrees of favour in the state of the catechumens: at first
they were instructed privately, or by themselves, and afterwards
admitted to hear sermons in the church; and these last were called
_audientes_. There was a third sort of catechumens, called _orantes_ or
_genuflectentes_, because they were present and concerned in some part
of the prayers: to which we may add a fourth degree of catechumens,
which were the _competentes_; for so they were called when they desired
to be baptized.
CATENA. From a Greek word signifying a chain. By a _Catena Patrum_ is
meant a string or series of passages from the writings of various
fathers, and arranged for the elucidation of some portions of Scripture,
as the Psalms or Gospels. They seem to have originated in the short
scholia or glosses which it was customary in MSS. of the Scriptures to
introduce in the margin. These by degrees were expanded, and passages
from the homilies or sermons of the fathers were added to them. The most
celebrated catena is the _Catena Aurea_ of Thomas Aquinas. It was
translated at Oxford, under the superintendence of Mr. Newman, of Oriel
College. The subsequent conduct of that gentleman has led those who were
willing to attach some authority to the work to examine it carefully,
and the result has been, the detection that Thomas Aquinas has sometimes
falsified the quotations he has made from the fathers; and the whole, as
a commentary, is inferior to the commentaries of modern theologians.
CATHARISTS. The last surviving sect of Manichæans, or Gnostics, who gave
themselves that name, (from καθαρὸς, pure,) to indicate their superior
purity. There were many different degrees of error among them, but the
following tenets were common to all:—That matter was the source of all
evil; that the Creator of the visible world was not the same as the
Supreme Being; that CHRIST had not a real body, nor was properly
speaking born, nor really died; that the bodies of men were the
production of the evil principle, and were incapable of sanctification
and a new life; and that the sacraments were but vain institutions, and
without power. They rejected and despised the Old Testament, but
received the New with reverence. The consequence of such doctrines was,
of course, that they made it the chief object of their religion to
emancipate themselves from whatever was material, and to macerate their
bodies to the utmost; and their perfect disciples, in obedience to this
principle, renounced animal food, wine, and marriage. The state of their
souls, while united with the body, was in their estimation a wretched
incarceration, and they only escaped from some portion of the horrors of
such a dungeon, by denying themselves all natural enjoyments, and
escaping from the solicitations of all the senses.
The Catharists in the twelfth century spread themselves from Bulgaria
over most of the European provinces, but they met everywhere with
extensive persecution, and are not heard of after that time.
CATHEDRAL. The chief church in every diocese is called the Cathedral,
from the word _cathedra_, a chair, because in it the bishop has his seat
or throne. The cathedral church is the parish church of the whole
diocese (which diocese was therefore commonly called _parochia_ in
ancient times, till the application of this name to the lesser branches
into which it was divided, caused it for distinction’ sake to be called
only by the name of diocese): and it has been affirmed, with great
probability, that if one resort to the cathedral church to hear Divine
service, it is a resorting to the parish church within the natural sense
and meaning of the statute.
By the 5th canon of the 5th Council of Carthage it is ordained, that
every bishop shall have his residence at his principal or cathedral
church, which he shall not leave, to betake himself to any other church
in his diocese; nor continue upon his private concerns, to the neglect
of his cure, and hinderance of his frequenting the cathedral
church.—_Bingham._
By the constitutions of Archbishop Langton, 1222, it is enjoined,
bishops shall be at their cathedrals on some of the greater feasts, and
at least in some part of Lent.
By the constitutions of Otho, 1237, bishops shall reside at their
cathedral churches, and officiate there on the chief festivals, on the
LORD’S days, and in Lent, and in Advent.
By the constitutions of Othobon, in 1268, bishops shall be personally
resident to take care of their flock, and for the comfort of the
churches espoused to them, especially on solemn days, in Lent and
Advent, unless their absence is required by their superiors, or for
other just cause.
Canon 24. “In all cathedral and collegiate churches, the holy communion
shall be administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the
bishop, (if he be present,) and sometimes by the dean, and sometimes by
a canon or prebendary; the principal minister using a decent cope, and
being assisted with the gospeller and epistler agreeably, according to
the advertisements published in the seventh year of Queen Elizabeth
(hereafter following). The said communion to be administered at such
times, and with such limitation, as is specified in the Book of Common
Prayer. Provided that no such limitation by any construction shall be
allowed of, but that all deans, wardens, masters, or heads of cathedral
and collegiate churches, prebendaries, canons, vicars, petty canons,
singing men, and all others of the foundation, shall receive the
communion four times yearly at the least.”
Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any
cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident there fourscore and
ten days, _conjunctim_ or _divisim_, in every year at the least, and
then shall continue there in preaching the word of GOD, and keeping good
hospitality; except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent
causes, to be approved by the bishop, or in any other lawful sort
dispensed with.”
Canon 43. “The dean, master, warden, or chief governor, prebendaries and
canons, in every cathedral and collegiate church, shall preach there, in
their own persons, so often as they are bound by law, statute,
ordinance, or custom.”
Canon 44. “Prebendaries at large shall not be absent from their cures
above a month in the year; and residentiaries shall divide the year
among them; and, when their residence is over, shall repair to their
benefices.”
And by Canon 51, “the deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any
cathedral or collegiate church, shall suffer no stranger to preach unto
the people in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop
of the province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of
the universities. And if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine
either strange, or disagreeing from the word of GOD, or from any of the
Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or the
residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands
that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop
of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order
therein as he shall think convenient.”
The passage of the _advertisements_ published in the seventh year of
Queen Elizabeth, referred to in Canon 24, is as follows: “Item, in the
ministration of the holy communion in cathedral and collegiate churches,
the principal minister shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoler
agreeably; and at all other prayers to be said at the communion table,
to use no copes but surplices. Item, that the dean and prebendaries wear
a surplice, with a silk hood, in the choir; and when they preach in the
cathedral or collegiate church, to wear a hood.” And at the end of the
service book in the second year of Edward VI., it is ordered that “in
all cathedral churches, the archdeacons, deans, and prebendaries, being
graduates, may use in the choir, beside their surplices, such hoods as
pertaineth to their several degrees, which they have taken in any
university within this realm.”
Churches collegiate and conventual were always visitable by the bishop
of the diocese, if no special exemption was made by the founder thereof.
And the visitation of cathedral churches belongs unto the metropolitan
of the province, and to the king when the archbishopric is
vacant.—_Burn._
All cathedrals throughout the world had a body of clergy and ministers
belonging to them; which were divided into various orders and degrees;
they were gradually incorporated in Western Christendom, but not in the
East. (See _Chapter_.) In England no diocese has more than one
cathedral. There are many instances of a plurality of cathedrals even in
the same city, as at Rome, Milan, &c., and formerly in France. These
churches were called _concathedrals_. One instance exists in Ireland,
viz. in Dublin, where Christ Church and St. Patrick’s enjoy all the
rights of cathedrals; and while the congé d’ élire existed, conjointly
elected the archbishop; and their united consent must still be given to
all acts which require the sanction of a chapter. This plurality of
cathedrals in one see is not to be confounded with a plurality of
cathedrals under the same bishop, when, as generally in Ireland, he has
under his charge two or more dioceses. One Irish diocese (Meath) has no
cathedral; and two others (Kilmore and Ardagh) have no cathedral
chapters. These anomalies are not, as some have supposed, remnants of a
primitive order of things; for it can be proved that they did not
originally exist in the respective dioceses now mentioned; but were the
consequences of poverty, barbarism, and other unhappy causes which
mutilated the external framework of the Irish church.—_Jebb._
With reference to the architecture of a cathedral: the normal plan of an
English cathedral is in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, that is,
whose transverse arms are less than the lower longitudinal limb; and, in
a general architectural description, its parts are sufficiently
distinguished as nave, choir, and transept, with their aisles, western
towers, and central tower; but in more minute description, especially
where ritual arrangements are concerned, these terms are not always
sufficiently precise, and we shall hardly arrive at the more exact
nomenclature, without tracing the changes in a cathedral church from the
Norman period to our own.
In a Norman cathedral, the east end, or architectural choir, usually
terminated in an apse, (see _Apse_,) surrounded by the continuation of
the choir aisles. The aisles formed a path for processions at the back
of the altar, and were called the _processionary_. The bishop’s throne
was placed behind the altar, and the altar itself in the chord of the
apse; and westward of this was a considerable space, unoccupied in
ordinary cases, which was called the _presbytery_. The _choir_, or place
in which the daily service was performed, was under the central tower,
with perhaps one or two bays of the nave in addition; so that the ritual
and the architectural choir did not coincide, but the ritual choir
occupied the tower and a considerable portion of the architectural nave.
This arrangement seems unnatural, and even inconvenient; but it was
perhaps required by the connexion of the cathedral with the monastic or
other offices of the establishment; for these were arranged around a
quadrangle, of which the architectural nave, or western limb of the
church, formed one side, and length was gained to the quadrangle,
without disproportionate enlargement of the church, by making the
western limb sufficiently large to receive part, at least, of the ritual
choir. (See _Monastery_.)
The transept was not originally symbolical in its form; but was derived
from the transverse hall or gallery in the ancient basilicas at the
upper end of the nave, its length equal to the breadth of the nave and
aisles. The accidental approximating to the form of the cross was
doubtless perceived by later Christian architects, who accordingly in
many instances lengthened the transept so as to make the ground-plan of
the church completely cuneiform.—_Jebb._
In the _transepts_ and _aisles_, and also in the _crypt_, which
generally extended beneath the whole eastern limb of the church, were
numerous altars, and little chapels were often thrown out, of an apsidal
form, for their altars. One chapel, especially, was dedicated to the
Blessed Virgin, and called the _Lady chapel_, but its place does not
seem to have been constant.
Subsequent churches were of course subject to many variations, but they
generally followed much this course. First, the apse was taken down, and
the eastern arm of the cross was extended considerably, so as to enlarge
the presbytery, or part in which the altar stood, and to add a
retrochoir in place of the old processionary behind it; and this change
was probably connected always in prospect, and often at once, with the
carrying up of the choir eastward of the great tower, or in other words,
reconciling the ritual with the architectural arrangement. After this
yet another addition was made to the east end, which was often nearly
equal to the nave in length; and the _Lady chapel_ was built beyond the
presbytery and retrochoir.
In the course of these arrangements the several screens, the rood screen
and the altar screen, had to be removed. The rood screen was placed
within the eastern arch of the tower, which may now be called its proper
place, wherever the church has received its usual additions. This screen
is now almost universally used as an organ loft; and it is obvious to
remark, that though the organ intercepts the view from the west end of
the church, it certainly does not do so more than the rood and its
accompaniments formerly did. The _altar screen_ first became necessary
at the enlarging of the space behind the altar: it formed the separation
of the presbytery from the retrochoir. In some instances this
arrangement has been disturbed of late years, but always with bad
effect.
The modifications of these plans and arrangements are various, but
oftener on the side of excess than of defect. The Lady chapel is not
always at the extreme east. At Ely, for instance, and once at
Peterborough, it was at the north. The great transept is never omitted
(Manchester can hardly be called an exception, since it has only lately
been made a cathedral); but a second transept to the east of the tower
was often added, as at Canterbury, Lincoln, and Salisbury. Sometimes, as
at Durham, the second transept is carried to the extreme east end of the
church, which it crosses in the form of a T. Sometimes there was a
western transept, treated in the same way as at Ely and Peterborough;
and at Durham, Ely, and Lincoln was another considerable addition,
called the _Galilee porch_. At Canterbury, the whole arrangement of the
east end is very remarkable, the crown of Archbishop Becket taking the
usual place of the Lady chapel. The shrines of reputed saints, and
chantry monuments inserted in different portions of the fabric, with too
little respect for its general effect, are constant additions to the
plan; but it would be useless to attempt to reduce these to a general
rule, and endless to enumerate particular cases.
The cathedrals in Ireland and Scotland were originally very small. That
of Armagh, the largest, it is supposed, of ancient date, and originally
built by St. Patrick, was without transepts, which were added many ages
after. The most interesting relics of very ancient cathedrals in Ireland
are at Tuam and Clonfert. Many of them in Scotland, as Elgin, were
modelled on the plan of Lincoln cathedral.—_Poole._
CATHOLIC. (καθ’ ὅλον.) _Universal_ or _general_. “The Church,” says St.
Cyril, “is called _catholic_, because it is throughout the world, from
one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally
and completely all the truths which ought to come to men’s knowledge,
concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and
because it subjugates, in order to godliness, every class of men,
governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it
universally treats and heals every sort of sins which are committed by
soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is
named, both in deeds and words, and every kind of spiritual
gifts.”—_Catechetical Lectures_, xviii. 23.
The term was first applied to the Christian Church to distinguish it
from the Jewish, the latter being confined to a single nation, the
former being open to all who should seek admission into it by holy
baptism. Hence, the Christian Church is general or universal. The first
regularly organized Christian Church was formed at Jerusalem. When St.
Peter converted three thousand souls, (Acts ii. 41,) the new converts
were not formed into a new Church, but were added to the original
society. When Churches were formed afterwards at Samaria, Antioch, and
other places, these were not looked upon as entirely separate bodies,
but as branches of the one holy Catholic or Apostolic Church. St. Paul
says, (1 Cor. xii. 13,) “_By one_ SPIRIT _we are all baptized into one
body_;” and, (Eph. iv. 4,) “_There is one body and one_ SPIRIT.” A
Catholic Church means a branch of this one great society, as the Church
of England is said to be a Catholic Church; _the_ Catholic Church
includes all the Churches in the world under their legitimate bishops.
When in after-times teachers began to form separate societies, and to
call them by their own name, as the Arians were named from Arius, the
Macedonians from Macedonius; and, in later times, Calvinists from
Calvin, Wesleyans from Wesley; the true churchmen, refusing to be
designated by the name of any human leader, called themselves Catholics,
i. e. members, not of any peculiar society, but of the Universal Church.
And the term thus used not only distinguished the Church from the world,
but the true Church from heretical and schismatical parties. Hence, in
ecclesiastical history, the word catholic means the same as orthodox,
and a _catholic_ Christian denotes an _orthodox_ Christian.
From this may be seen the absurdity of calling those who receive the
decrees of the Council of Trent _Catholics_. The Romanists, or Papists,
or Tridentines, belong to a _peculiar_ society, in which Romanism or
Romish errors are added to orthodox truth. When we call them
_Catholics_, we as much as call ourselves _Heretics_, we as much as
admit them to be orthodox; and they gladly avail themselves of this
admission, on the part of some ignorant Protestants, to hold up an
argument against the Church of England. Let the member of the Church of
England assert his right to the name of Catholic, since he is the only
person in England who has a right to that name. The English Romanist is
a Romish schismatic, and not a Catholic.
CATHOLIC EPISTLES. The Epistles of St. James, St. Peter, St. Jude, and
St. John are called Catholic Epistles, either because they were not
written to any particular person, or Church, but to Christians in
general, or to Christians of several countries: or because, whatever
doubts may at first have been entertained respecting some of them, they
were all acknowledged by the _Catholic_ or Universal Church, at the time
this appellation was attached to them, which we find to have been common
in the fourth century.
CAVEAT. A caveat is a caution entered in the spiritual court, to stop
probates, administrations, licences, &c., from being granted without the
knowledge of the party that enters the caveat.
CELESTINES. A religious order of Christians, which derives its name from
its founder, Pietro de Morone, afterwards Celestin V., a hermit, who
followed the rules of St. Bennet, who founded the order in 1254, and got
the institution confirmed by Pope Urban VIII. in 1264, and by Gregory X.
in 1273, at the second general Council of Lyons: this order soon
multiplied in Italy, and was brought into France in 1300, by Philip the
Fair, who sent to Peter of Sorrel, a singer of the Church of Orleans, or
according to others, of that of Amiens, his ambassador then at Naples,
to beg of the abbot-general of it twelve of this order, to be sent into
France. When they were arrived, the king gave them two monasteries, one
in the forest of Orleans, at a place called Ambert, and the other in the
forest of Compiegne, in Mount Chartres. Charles, dauphin and regent of
France, in 1352, while King John, his father, was prisoner in England,
sent for six of these monks of Mount Chartres, to establish them at
Paris, at a place called Barrez, where there was, till the Revolution, a
monastery of that order: and that prince, in 1356, gave them every month
a purse under the seal of the chancelery, which gift was confirmed by a
patent in 1361, at King John’s return. When Charles came to the crown
himself, he made them a gift of a thousand livres of gold, with twelve
acres of the best timber in the forest of Moret, to build their church
with, whereof he himself laid the first stone, and had it consecrated in
his presence. After which he settled a considerable parcel of land upon
the same monastery. The Celestines were called hermits of St. Damian
before their institutor became pope. Their first monastery was at Monte
Majella, in the kingdom of Naples.
CELIBACY. The state of unmarried persons: a word used chiefly in
speaking of the single life of the Romish clergy, or the obligation they
are under to abstain from marriage.
At the time of the Reformation, scarcely any point was more canvassed
than the right of the clergy to marry. The celibacy of the clergy was
justly considered as a principal cause of irregular and dissolute
living; and the wisest of the Reformers were exceedingly anxious to
abolish a practice, which had been injurious to the interests of
religion, by its tendency to corrupt the morals of those who ought to be
examples of virtue to the rest of mankind. The marriage of priests was
so far from being forbidden by the Mosaic institution, that the
priesthood was confined to the descendants of one family, and
consequently there was not only a permission, but an obligation upon the
Jewish priests to marry. Hence we conclude that there is no natural
inconsistency, or even unsuitableness, between the married state and the
duties of the ministers of religion. Not a single text in the New
Testament can be interpreted into a prohibition against the marriage of
the clergy under the gospel dispensation; but, on the contrary, there
are many passages from which we may infer that they are allowed the same
liberty upon this subject as other men enjoy. One of the twelve
apostles, namely, St. Peter, was certainly a married man (Matt. viii.
14); and it is supposed that several of the others were also married.
Philip, one of the seven deacons, was also a married man (Acts xxi. 9);
and if our LORD did not require celibacy in the first preachers of the
gospel, it cannot be thought indispensable in their successors. St. Paul
says, “Let every man have his own wife” (1 Cor. vii. 2); and that
marriage is honourable in all, (Heb. xiii. 4,) without excepting those
who are employed in the public offices of religion. He expressly says,
that “a bishop must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2); and he
gives the same direction concerning elders, priests, and deacons. When
Aquila travelled about to preach the gospel, he was not only married,
but his wife Priscilla accompanied him (Acts xviii. 2); and St. Paul
insists that he might have claimed the privilege “of carrying about a
sister or wife, (1 Cor. ix. 5,) as other apostles did.” The “forbidding
to marry” (1 Tim. iv. 3) is mentioned as a character of the apostasy of
the latter times. That the ministers of the gospel were allowed to marry
for several centuries after the days of the apostles appears certain.
Polycarp mentions Valens, presbyter of Philippi, who was a married man,
and there are now extant two letters of Tertullian, a presbyter of the
second century, addressed to his wife. Novatus was a married presbyter
of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian, who was, in the opinion of some
historians, himself a married man; and so was Cæcilius, the presbyter
who converted him, and Numidius, another presbyter of Carthage. That
they were allowed to cohabit with their wives after ordination appears
from the charge which Cyprian brought against Novatus, that he had
struck and abused his wife, and by that means caused her to miscarry. In
the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, a motion was made, that a law might pass
to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society: but it was
strenuously opposed by Paphnutius, a famous Egyptian bishop, who,
although himself unmarried, pleaded that marriage was honourable, and
that so heavy a burden as abstaining from it ought not to be laid upon
the clergy. Upon which the motion was laid aside, and every man left to
his liberty, as before. All that Valesius, after Bellarmine, has to say
against this is, that he suspects the truth of the thing, and begs leave
to dissent from the historian; which is but a poor evasion in the
judgment of Du Pin himself, who, though a Romanist, makes no question
but that the Council of Nice decreed in favour of the married clergy.
The same thing is evident from other councils of the same age; as the
councils of Gangra, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Eliberis, and Trullo. We have
also a letter from Hilary of Poictiers, written to his daughter when he
was in exile; and from what can be collected concerning her age, it
seems probable that she was born when he was a bishop. At the same time
it must be owned, that many things are said in praise of a single life
in the writings of the ancient fathers; and the law of celibacy had been
proposed, before or about the beginning of the fourth century, by some
individuals. The arguments are forcible which are used, but there is one
general answer to them all: the experiment has been made, and it has
failed. In a country where there are no nunneries, the wives of the
clergy are most useful to the Church. Siricius, who, according to
Dufresnoy, died in the year 399, [397, Barenius,] was the first pope who
forbade the marriage of the clergy; but it is probable that this
prohibition was little regarded, as the celibacy of the clergy seems not
to have been completely established till the papacy of Gregory VII., at
the end of the eleventh century, and even at that time it was loudly
complained of by many writers. The history of the following centuries
abundantly proves the bad effects of this abuse of Church power. The old
English and Welsh records show that the clergy were married as late as
the eleventh century. See the _Liber Landavensis_, _passim_.
CELLITES. A certain religious order of Popish Christians, which has
houses in Antwerp, Louvain, Mechlin, Cologne, and in other towns in
Germany and the Netherlands, whose founder was one Mexius, a Roman,
mentioned in the history of Italy, where they are also called Mexians.
CEMETERY means originally a place to sleep in, and hence by Christians,
who regard death as a kind of sleep, it is applied to designate a place
of burial. Cemetery is derived from κοιμάω, to sleep, because the
primitive Christians spoke of death as a sleep, from which men are to
awake at the general resurrection. The first Christian sepulchres were
crypts or catacombs. The custom of burying in churches was not practised
for the first 300 years of the Christian era; and severe laws were
passed against burying even in cities. The first step towards the
practice of burying in churches, was the transferring of the relics of
martyrs thither: next, sovereigns and princes were allowed burial in the
porch: in the sixth century churchyards came into use. By degrees the
practice prevailed from the ninth to the thirteenth century, encouraged
first by special grants from popes, and by connivance, though contrary
to the express laws of the Church.—See _Bingham_. (See 9 & 10 Vict. c.
68, entitled “An Act for better enabling the Burial Service to be
performed in one chapel, where contiguous burial-ground shall have been
provided for two or more parishes or places.”)
The following is a list of the several acts of parliament recently
passed relating to church building, and to cemeteries and
churchyards:—43 Geo. III. c. 108; 51 Geo. III. c. 115; 56 Geo. III. c.
141; 58 Geo. III. c. 45; 59 Geo. III. c. 134; 3 Geo. IV. c. 72; 5 Geo.
IV. c. 103; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 72; 9 Geo. IV. c. 42; 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 38;
2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 61; 1 Vict. c. 75; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107; 2 & 3 Vict. c.
49; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 56; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70; 9 & 10
Vict. c. 88; 10 & 11 Vict. c. 65; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 37; 11 & 12 Vict. c.
71.
In the neighbourhood of London are several cemeteries endowed with
privileges under acts of parliament specially applicable to them. The
principal is that of Kensall Green, established 2 & 3 Wm. IV., and
consecrated by the bishop of London in 1832; the South London, at
Norwood, was established 6 & 7 Wm. IV., 1836. There are four others in
the neighbourhood of London. There are large cemeteries also at
Manchester, Liverpool, Reading, and several other towns.
In 1850 was passed the act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 52, which gave to the
General Board of Health very extensive powers for abolishing existing
places of sepulture, whether in the neighbourhood of churches or not,
and for establishing public cemeteries. This very elaborate act,
containing seventy-seven sections and four schedules, has hitherto been
found impracticable, except in so far as it relates to the appointment
of a new commissioner of the Board of Health to work the act. In the
year 1852 was passed the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, making provision for
interments in the metropolis. In 1853, by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, most of
the provisions of the act of 1852 were extended to all England.
CENOBITES. A name formerly given to such as entered into a monastic
life, and lived in communities, to distinguish them from such as passed
their lives in wildernesses and alone, as hermits and anchorites. The
word is derived from κοινόβιον, _vitæ communis societas_.
CENOTAPH. (κενοτάφιον, from κενὸς and τάφος, _an empty tomb_.) A
memorial of a deceased person, not erected over his body. So far as
churches may be considered memorials of the saints whose name they bear,
they are analogous either to monuments, when the bodies of the saints
there repose, (as, for instance, St. Alban’s, and the ancient church at
Peransabulo,) or to cenotaphs, when, as is far more generally the case,
the saint is buried far off. A great part of the monuments which
disfigure Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s are cenotaphs.
CENSURES ECCLESIASTICAL. The penalties by which, for some remarkable
misbehaviour, Christians are deprived of the communion of the Church, or
clergymen are prohibited to execute the sacerdotal office. These
censures are, excommunication, suspension, and interdict; or else,
irregularity, which hinders a man from being admitted into holy orders.
The canonists define an ecclesiastical censure to be a spiritual
punishment, inflicted by some ecclesiastical judge, whereby he deprives
a person baptized of the use of some spiritual things, which conduce,
not only to his present welfare in the Church, but likewise to his
future and eternal salvation. It differs from civil punishments, which
consist only in things temporal; as confiscation of goods, pecuniary
mulcts or fines, and the like; but the Church, by its censures, does not
deprive a man of all spirituals, but only of some in particular. This
definition speaks of such things as conduce to eternal salvation, in
order to manifest the end of this censure; for the Church, by censures,
does not intend the destroying of men’s souls, but only the _saving_
them; by enjoining repentance for past errors, a return from contumacy,
and an abstaining from future sins.
CENTURIES, MAGDEBURG. A celebrated and extraordinary ecclesiastical
history, projected by Flacius Illyricus, and prosecuted by him, in
conjunction with several others, many of them divines of Magdeburg.
Their names were, Nicolaus Gallus, Johannes Wigandus, and Matthias
Judex, all ministers of Magdeburg, assisted by Caspar Nidpruckius, an
Imperial Counsellor, Johannes Baptista Heincelius, an Augustinian, Basil
Faber, and others. The centuriators thus describe the process employed
in the composition of their work. Five directors were appointed to
manage the whole design; and ten paid agents supplied the necessary
labour. Seven of these were well-informed students, who were employed in
making collections from the various pieces set before them. Two others,
more advanced in years, and of greater learning and judgment, arranged
the matter thus collected, submitted it to the directors, and, if it
were approved, employed it in the composition of the work. As fast as
the various chapters were composed, they were laid before certain
inspectors, selected from the directors, who carefully examined what had
been done, and made the necessary alterations; and, finally, a regular
amanuensis made a fair copy of the whole.
At length, in the year 1560, (though probably printed in 1559,) appeared
the first volume of their laborious undertaking. It was printed at
Basle. But the city in which the first part of it was composed has given
it a distinctive title; and the first great Protestant work on Church
history has been always commonly known as the _Magdeburg Centuries_.
It was in every point of view an extraordinary production. Though the
first modern attempt to illustrate the history of the Church, it was
written upon a scale which has scarcely been exceeded. It brought to
light a large quantity of unpublished materials; and cast the whole
subject into a fixed and regular form. One of its most remarkable
features is the elaborate classification. This was strictly original,
and, with all its inconveniences, undoubtedly tended to introduce
scientific arrangement and minute accuracy into the study of Church
history. Each century is treated separately, in sixteen heads or
chapters. The first of these gives a general view of the history of the
century; then follow, 2. The extent and propagation of the Church. 3.
Persecution and tranquillity of the Church. 4. Doctrine. 5. Heresies. 6.
Rites and Ceremonies. 7. Government. 8. Schisms. 9. Councils. 10. Lives
of Bishops and Doctors. 11. Heretics. 12. Martyrs. 13. Miracles. 14.
Condition of the Jews. 15. Other religions not Christian. 16. Political
condition of the world.
Mr. Dowling (from whose excellent work on the study of Ecclesiastical
History this article is taken) adds, that this peculiarity of form
rendered the work of the centuriators rather a collection of separate
treatises, than a compact and connected history; while, their object
being to support a certain form of polemical theology, their relations
are often twisted to suit their particular views.
CERDONIANS. Heretics of the second century, followers of Cerdon. The
heresy consisted chiefly in laying down the existence of two contrary
principles; in rejecting the law, and the prophets as ministers of a bad
GOD; in ascribing, not a true body, but only the phantasm of a body, to
our blessed LORD, and in denying the resurrection.—_Tertullian.
Epiphanius._
CEREMONY. This word is of Latin origin, though some of the best
critics in antiquity are divided in their opinions, in assigning from
what original it is derived. Joseph Scaliger proves by analogy, that
as _sanctimonia_ comes from _sanctus_, so does _ceremonia_ from the
old Latin word _cerus_, which signifies sacred or holy. The Christian
writers have adapted the word to signify external rites and customs in
the worship of GOD; which, though they are not of the essence of
religion, yet contribute much to good order and uniformity in the
church. If there were no ornaments in the church, and no prescribed
order of administration, the common people would hardly be persuaded
to show more reverence in the sacred assemblies than in other ordinary
places, where they meet only for business or diversion. Upon this
account St. Augustine says, “No religion, either true or false, can
subsist without some ceremonies.” Notwithstanding this, some persons
have laid it down, as a fundamental principle of religion, that no
ceremony, or human constitution, is justifiable, but what is expressly
warranted in the word of GOD. This dogma Mr. Cartwright has reduced
into a syllogistical demonstration. “Wheresoever faith is wanting,
there is sin. In every action not commanded, faith is wanting; ergo,
in every action not commanded, there is sin.” But the falsity of this
syllogism is shown at large by Hooker, in his second book of
Ecclesiastical Polity, by arguments drawn from the indifference of
many human actions—from the natural liberty GOD has afforded us—from
the examples of holy men in Scripture, who have differently used this
liberty—and from the power which the Church by Divine authority is
vested with. That apostolical injunction, “Let all things be done with
decency, and in order,” (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) is a much better
demonstration, that the Church has a power to enjoin proper
ceremonies, for the good order and comeliness of ecclesiastical
conventions, than Mr. Cartwright’s syllogism is for the people’s
contempt of them when enjoined.—_Nicholls._
We still keep, and esteem, not only those ceremonies which we are sure
were delivered us from the apostles, but some others too besides, which
we thought might be suffered without hurt to the Church of God; for that
we had a desire that all things in the holy congregation might, as St.
Paul commandeth, be done with comeliness, and in good order. But as for
all those things which we saw were either very superstitious, or utterly
unprofitable, or noisome, or mockeries, or contrary to the Holy
Scriptures, or else unseemly for sober and discreet people, whereof
there be infinite numbers now-a-days, where the Roman religion is used;
these, I say, we have utterly refused without all manner of exception,
because we would not have the right worshipping of God to be defiled any
longer with such follies.—_Bp. Jewell._
Wise Christians sit down in the mean now under the gospel, avoiding a
careless and parsimonious neglect on the one side, and a superstitious
slovenliness on the other: the painted looks and lascivious gaudiness of
the Church upon the hills, and the careless, neglected dress of some
Churches in the valley.—_Bp. Hall._
Far be it from me to be a patron of idolatry or superstition in the
least degree, yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformed the worship of
GOD from that pollution, (and blessed be his name therefor!) by bending
the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the
other extreme.—_Mede._
It may be objected, that my superior may enjoin me such a law, as my
conscience tells me is scandalous to my brother, not convenient, not
edifying, &c.; what shall I do in this condition? If I conform, I sin
against my conscience (Rom. xiv. 23); if I do not, I sin against his
authority. Answer, that text of Rom. xiv. 23, hath only reference to
things not only indifferent in their own nature, but left free from any
superior command interposing, and therefore the text is not _ad idem_;
for though such laws may be of things indifferent, yet being commanded
by just authority, the indifference by that command determineth, and
they become necessary.—_L’Estrange._
The Reformation gave such a turn to weak heads, that had not weight
enough to poise themselves between the extremes of Popery and
fanaticism, that everything older than yesterday was looked upon to be
Popish and anti-Christian. The meanest of the people aspired to the
priesthood, and were readier to frame new laws for the Church, than obey
the old.—_Sherlock._
It is a rule in prudence, not to remove an ill custom when it is well
settled, unless it bring great prejudices, and then it is better to give
one account why we have taken it away, than to be always making excuses
why we do it not. Needless alteration doth diminish the venerable esteem
of religion, and lessen the credit of ancient truths. Break ice in one
place, and it will crack in more.—_Archbishop Bramhall._
Our SAVIOUR and his apostles did use indifferent things, which were not
prescribed in Divine worship. Thus he joined in the synagogue worship,
(John xviii. 20, &c.,) though (if the place itself were at all
prescribed) the manner of that service was not so much as hinted at.
Thus he used the cup of charity in the Passover, though it was not
instituted. (Luke xxii. 17.) The feast of dedication was a human
institution, yet he vouchsafed to be present at it. Nay, he complied
with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they changed to
sitting, though GOD had prescribed standing. The apostles also observed
the hours of prayer, which were of human institution. (Acts iii. 1.) Now
if CHRIST and his apostles did thus under the Jewish law, which was so
exact in prescribing outward ceremonies, certainly we may do the same
under the gospel. I may add, that the primitive Christians not only
complied with the Jews in such rites as were not forbidden, but also had
some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they washed the
disciples’ feet in imitation of CHRIST, and used love-feasts, till they
thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears, that
prescription is not necessary to make a rite lawful; it is enough if it
be not forbidden.—_Bennet._
Calvin, in his book of the True Way of Reformation, saith, he would not
contend about ceremonies, not only those which are for decency, but
those that are symbolical. Œcolampadius looked on the gesture at the
sacrament as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the sign of the cross
after baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Crocius says, that the
nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the doctrine which goes along
with them; if the doctrine be good, the rites are so, or, at least, are
tolerable; if it be false, then they are troublesome, and not to be
borne; if it be impure, and lead to idolatry, then the ceremonies are
tainted with the poison of it.—_Stillingfleet._
No abuse of any gesture, though it be in the most manifest idolatry,
doth render that gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be
used in the worship of GOD upon that account. For the abuse of a thing
supposes the lawful use of it; and if anything otherwise lawful becomes
sinful by an abuse of it, then it is plain that it is not in its own
nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This
is clear from Scripture; for if rites and ceremonies, after they have
been abused by idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be
used at all, then the Jews sinned in offering sacrifices—erecting
altars—burning incense to the GOD of heaven—bowing down themselves
before him—wearing a linen garment in the time of Divine worship—and
observing other things and rites which the heathens observe in the
worship of false gods. Kneeling at prayers, and standing, and sitting,
and lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven, and bowing of the body,
together with prayer, and praise, and singing, have been all notoriously
abused to idolatry, and are so to this day.—_Bennet._ Nay, this
principle would render Christianity impracticable; because there is no
circumstance, no instrument, no ministry in worship, but may have been
in some way or other abused by Pagan or Romish idolatries.—_Bennet._
Bucer, in a letter to Johannes a Lasco, says, “If you will not admit
such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church, because
they have no commandment of the LORD, nor no example for it, I do not
see how you can grant to any Church, that it may celebrate the LORD’S
supper in the morning, &c.; for we have received for these things no
commandment of the LORD, nor any example; yea, rather, the LORD gave a
contrary example.”
The word ceremony occurs in the title page of the Prayer Book, in the
prefatory section, (_of Ceremonies_,) in the 34th Article, and the vi.,
xiv., xviii., and xxx. Canons, &c. It is plainly a different thing from
Common Prayer, (i. e. the ordinary public service as contrasted with the
occasional services,) the administration of sacraments, or rites.
Dr. Nicholls says that the cross in baptism, and, it may be, the
marriage ring, are perhaps the only ceremonies enjoined in the Book of
1662, which can in a strict and proper sense be called so. But, as is
observed in a note to _Stephens’s Common Prayer Book with notes_, (vol.
i. p. 139,) “Dr. Nicholls uses ceremony in a limited sense, which is by
no means sanctioned by our best writers and divines. _Ceremonia_ in its
classical sense was a general term for worship. Johnson’s definition,
_outward rite, external form in religion_, is fully supported by his
references, and especially Hooker, who, throughout his book, applies it
to all that is external in worship. It seems that _rite_ and _ceremony_
are thus to be distinguished. A _rite_ is an act of religious worship,
whether including ceremonies or not. A _ceremony_ is any particular of
religious worship, (included in a rite,) which prescribes action,
position, or even the _assumption_ of any particular vesture. The latter
sense is plainly recognised by Hooker. (_Eccl. Pol._ book iv. sect. i.;
book v. sect. 29.) The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer speaks first
of _common prayer_, viz. the offices intended for the common and
periodical use of _all_ at stated times; next, the administration of the
sacraments; next, of _other_ rites and ceremonies; i. e. the occasional
services, whether public or private, and all the methods of
administration which these involve. Now among ceremonies, the prescribed
procession in the Marriage and Burial Services, the standing at certain
parts of the service, the bowing at the name of Jesus, as prescribed by
the 18th canon, ought to be included.” It may be observed, that the 18th
canon expressly calls the bowing just mentioned, a ceremony, as also in
the 30th canon, the sign of the cross.—See _Hooker_, book iii. sect. 11,
and book v. sect. 6.
CERINTHIANS. Ancient heretics, the followers of Cerinthus. This man, who
was a Jew by birth, attempted to form a new and singular system of
doctrine and discipline, by combining the doctrines of CHRIST with the
opinions and errors of the Jews and Gnostics. He taught that the Creator
of the world, whom he considered also as the Sovereign and Lawgiver of
the Jews, was a Being endued with the greatest virtues, and derived his
birth from the Supreme GOD; that this Being gradually degenerated from
his former virtue; that, in consequence of this, the Supreme Being
determined to destroy his empire, and, for that purpose, sent upon earth
one of the ever happy and glorious æons whose name was CHRIST; that this
CHRIST chose for his habitation the person of JESUS, into whom he
entered in the form of a dove, whilst JESUS was receiving baptism of
John in the waters of Jordan; that JESUS, after this union with CHRIST,
opposed the God of the Jews, at whose instigation he was seized and
crucified by the Hebrew chiefs; that when JESUS was taken captive,
CHRIST ascended on high, and the man JESUS alone was subjected to the
pain of an ignominious death.
CESSION. This is where the incumbent of any living is promoted to a
bishopric; the church in that case is void by cession.
CHALDEANS. A modern sect of Christians in the East, in obedience to the
see of Rome. Dr. Grant, in his _Nestorians_, quotes with approval the
following passage from _Smith and Dwight’s Researches in Armenia_: which
is also confirmed by Mr. Badger, in his _Nestorians and their Rituals_
(vol. i. p. 177–181). “In 1681, the Nestorian metropolitan of Diarbekir,
having quarrelled with his patriarch, was first consecrated by the pope
Patriarch of the Chaldeans. The sect was as new as the office, and
created for it. Converts to Papacy from the Nestorians” [not from the
Jacobites, as Mr. Badger corrects Dr. Grant] “were dignified with the
name of the Chaldean Church. It means no more than Papal Syrians, as we
have in other parts Papal Armenians and Papal Greeks.” (See
_Nestorians._)
CHALDEE LANGUAGE. This was a dialect of the Hebrew, almost identical
with the old Syriac, spoken formerly in Assyria, and the vernacular
language of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. The following parts
of the Old Testament are written in Chaldee: Jer. x., xi.; Dan. ii. 4 to
the end of chap. vii.; Ezra iv. 8 to vi. 19, and vii. 12–17.—_Jebb._
CHALDEE PARAPHRASE, in the Rabbinical style, is called Targum. There are
three Chaldee paraphrases in Walton’s Polyglot, viz. 1. Of Onkelos. 2.
Of Jonathan, son of Uzziel. 3. Of Jerusalem. The first of these is
supposed to have been composed about the time that our blessed Lord was
on earth. It comprises the Pentateuch. The second, comprising the
Prophets and Historical Books, is supposed to have been composed about
the same time as the former. The Jerusalem Targum is considered a
compilation not earlier than the eighth century. It comprises the
Pentateuch.—Another Targum, falsely ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, was
probably written two centuries after Christ, if not later. There are
other inferior Targums.—See _Horne on the Scriptures_.
CHALICE. (Lat. _calix_.) This word was formerly (as by Shakspeare) used
to denote any sort of cup, but is now usually restricted to the cup in
which the consecrated wine for the eucharist is administered. The
primitive Christians, desirous of honouring the holy purpose for which
it was used, had it made of the most costly substances their
circumstances would allow—of glass, crystal, onyx, sardonyx, and gold.
By a canon of the Council of Rheims, in Charles the Great’s time, all
churches were obliged to have chalices of some purer metal. The ancient
chalices were of two kinds: the greater, which were in the nature of our
flagons, containing a large quantity of wine, which was all consecrated
in them together; and the lesser, which were otherwise called
“ministeriales,” because the priest delivered the wine to be drunk out
of them; for communion in one kind was not then invented by the Romish
Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._ (See _Cup_.)
CHAMFER. The flat slope formed by cutting away an angle in timber, or
masonry. The _chamfer_ is the first approach to a moulding, though it
can hardly itself be called one. The _chamfer plane_, in speaking of
mouldings, is used for the plane at an angle of 45°, or thereabouts,
with the face of the wall, in which some of the mouldings often, and
sometimes all of them, lie. The resolution of the chamfer into the
square is called a _stop-chamfer_; it is often of considerable elegance.
CHANCEL. The upper part of the church, containing the holy table, and
the stalls for the clergy. It is called the _Chori_ in cathedrals,
college chapels, and large churches: and in many of the ancient English
parish churches is inferior in height and width to the nave. (See
_Choir_.)—_Jebb._ (_Cancellus._) So called _a Cancellis_, from the
lattice-work partition betwixt the choir and the body of the church, so
framed as to separate the one from the other, but not to intercept the
sight. By the rubric before the Common Prayer, it is ordained that “the
chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” that is to say,
distinguished from the body of the church in manner aforesaid; against
which distinction Bucer (at the time of the Reformation) inveighed
vehemently, as tending only to magnify the priesthood; but though the
king and the parliament yielded so far as to allow the daily service to
be read in the body of the church, if the ordinary thought fit, yet they
would not suffer the chancel to be taken away or altered.
The chancel is the freehold of the rector, and part of his glebe, and
therefore he ought to repair it: but if the rectory is impropriate, then
the impropriator must do it: and this he is enjoined to do, not only by
the common law, but by the canons of the Church; for in the gloss upon
the Constitutions of Othobon it is said, that chancels must be repaired
by those who are thereunto obliged; which words must refer to the common
custom of England, by which rectors are obliged to repair the chancels.
As to seats in the chancel, it has been made a question, whether the
ordinary may place any person there? The objections against it are,—1.
Because it is the freehold of the rector. 2. Because he is to repair it.
But these are not sufficient reasons to divest the ordinary of that
jurisdiction; for the freehold of the church is in the parson, and yet
the bishop hath a power of placing persons there.
Unhappy disputes have arisen concerning the situation of the LORD’S
table in the chancels. The first, in the beginning of the Reformation,
was, whether those of the altar fashion, which had been used in the
Popish times, and on which the masses were celebrated, should be kept
up. This point was first started by Bishop Hooper, in a sermon before
King Edward VI.; and, after this, altars were ordered to be taken down;
and, instead of them, a table to be set up, in some convenient place of
the chancel. In the first liturgy it was directed, that the priest
officiating should stand before the midst of the altar. In the second,
that the priest shall stand on the north side of the table. And thus the
first dispute was at an end. But then there followed another
controversy, whether the table, placed in the room of the altar, ought
to stand altar-wise? i. e. in the same place and situation of the altar.
In some churches the tables were placed in the middle of the chancels;
in others, at the east part thereof, next to the wall. Bishop Ridley
endeavoured to make a compromise in his church of St. Paul’s, suffering
the table to stand in the place of the old altar; but, beating down the
wainscot partition behind, laid all the choir open to the east, leaving
the table then to stand in the middle of the chancel. Under this
diversity of usage matters continued during this king’s reign; but when
Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, and a new review of the liturgy was
made, the present clause was added—“and the chancels shall remain as
they have done in times past.” Whereby an indulgence is given to those
cathedral or collegiate churches, where the table stood altar-wise, and
fastened to the east part of the chancel, to retain their ancient
practice; but the general rule is otherwise, especially as to parish
churches; as in the rubric before the Communion, “the table having, at
the communion time, a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the
body of the church, or in the chancel, where morning or evening prayer
shall be appointed to be said.” So that, by these authorities, where
tables were fixed, they ought to remain as they were; and, at the time
of the communion, they might either stand at the east wall of the
church, or in other place more convenient. But this latitude being
granted, several inconveniences arose. Great irreverence was used
towards the holy table, hats and gloves were thrown upon it, and the
churchwardens and overseers were frequently writing their accounts
thereon, the processioning boys eating their loaves and cakes, and dogs
leaping up at the bread, to the great scandal of our reformation, not
only among the Papists, but also among the Protestant churches abroad.
Archbishop Laud, out of zeal to reform these abuses, endeavoured to have
the communion table set altar-wise, at the east end of the chancel, and
to be railed in, engaging many of the bishops to press this in their
visitation articles: and it is one of the injunctions of Queen
Elizabeth, “that the holy table in every church be decently made, and
set in the place where the altar stood; and there commonly covered, as
thereto belongeth, and so stand, saving when the communion of the
sacrament is to be distributed; at which time, the same shall be so
placed in good sort within the chancel,” &c. Great contentions were for
many years kept up in this controversy, till the civil war came on, and
all things, civil and sacred, were overwhelmed with confusion. Since the
Restoration, no positive determination therein being made, the dispute
has happily died, and the tables have generally been settled altar-wise,
and railed in; the generality of parishioners esteeming it a decent
situation.—_Nicholls._
CHANCELLOR. In ancient times, emperors and kings esteemed so highly the
piety of bishops, that they gave them jurisdiction in particular causes,
as in marriages, adultery, last wills, &c., which were determined by
them in their consistory courts. But when many controversies arose in
these and other causes, it was not consistent with the character of a
bishop to interpose in every litigious matter, neither could he despatch
it himself; and therefore it was necessary for the bishop to depute some
subordinate officer, experienced both in the civil and canon law, to
determine those ecclesiastical causes: and this was the original of
diocesan chancellors. For, in the first ages of the Church, the bishops
had officers who were called _ecclesiecdici_, that is, church lawyers,
who were bred up in the knowledge of the civil and canon law, and their
business was to assist the bishop in his jurisdiction throughout the
whole diocese. But probably they were not judges of ecclesiastical
courts, as chancellors are at this day, but only advised and assisted
the bishops themselves in giving judgment; for we read of no chancellors
here in all the Saxon reigns, nor after the Conquest, before the time of
Henry II. That king, requiring the attendance of bishops in his state
councils, and other public affairs, it was thought necessary to
substitute chancellors in their room, to despatch those causes which
were proper for the bishop’s jurisdiction.
In a few years a chancellor became such a necessary officer to the
bishop, that he was not to be without him; for if he would have none,
the archbishop of the province might enjoin him to depute one, and if he
refuse, the archbishop might appoint one himself; because it is presumed
that a bishop alone cannot decide so many spiritual causes as arise
within his diocese. The person thus deputed by the bishop has his
authority from the law; and his jurisdiction is not, like that of a
commissary, limited to a certain place and certain causes, but extends
throughout the whole diocese, and to all ecclesiastical matters; not
only for reformation of manners, in punishment of criminals, but in all
causes concerning marriages, last wills, administrations, &c.—_Burn._
The chancellor in cathedral churches, and anciently in some colleges,
was a canon, who had the general care of the literature of the church.
He was the secretary of the chapter, the librarian, the superintendent
of schools connected with the church, sometimes of the greater schools
in the diocese; sometimes, as in Paris, had an academical jurisdiction
in the university of the place. He also had the supervision of readers
in the choirs, the regulation of preachers in the cathedral, and in many
places the more frequent delivery of sermons and of theological lectures
than fell to the turn of the other canons. All these offices were not
always combined; but one or more of them always belonged to the
chancellor. Every cathedral of old foundation in England, and most in
Ireland, had originally a chancellor. The title was not so common in
France or Italy, where the above-named offices were frequently divided
among canons with other official titles. The chancellor _of the church_
(the above-named officer) is not to be confounded with the chancellor of
the diocese.—_Jebb._
CHANT. This word, derived from the Latin _cantus_, “a song,” applies, in
its most extended sense, to the musical performance of all those parts
of the liturgy which, by the rubric, are permitted to be sung. A
distinction, however, is to be made between _singing_ and chanting.
Chanting does not apply to the performance of those metrical versions of
the Psalms, the use of which in parish churches, though legitimate, as
sanctioned by authority, is not contemplated by the rubric. Neither does
it apply to those musical arrangements of the canticles, hymns, and of
the Nicene Creed, used in collegiate churches, and technically called
“services,” which though originally derived from chants, have long found
a distinct feature in the choral service. The chant properly signifies
that plain tune to which the prayers, the litany, the versicles, and
responses, and the psalms, and (where services are not in use) the
canticles, are set, in choirs and places where they sing. In the chant,
when properly and fully performed, both the minister and the choir bear
their respective parts. The minister recites the prayers, and all the
parts of the service which he is enjoined to say alone, (except the
lessons,) in one sustained note, occasionally varied at the close of a
cadence: and the choir makes the responses in harmony, sometimes in
unison. But in the psalms and canticles both the minister and choir join
together in the chant, without distinction, each verse being sung in
full harmony.
The chanting of the prayers has always been observed in our principal
cathedrals; and till recent times, it was universal in all those places
within the reformed Church of England where choral foundations existed;
and therefore the disuse of this custom, in any such establishments, is
a plain contradiction to the spirit of our liturgy. It is an usage so
very ancient, that some learned men have derived it, with every
appearance of probability, from the practice of the Jewish Church;
whence we have unquestionably derived the chanting of the psalms. It has
prevailed in every portion of the Church, eastern or western, reformed
or unreformed, since a liturgy has been used. And traces of this custom
are to be found in all places of the world.
Of the chants for the psalms, the most ancient which are used in our
Church are derived from some coeval, in all likelihood, with
Christianity itself. Of this, however, there is no proof: and it is a
mere baseless conjecture to refer them, as some do, to the strains of
the temple worship. According to present custom, the chant consists of
two kinds, single and double. The single chant, which is the most
ancient kind, is an air consisting of two parts; the first part
terminating with the point or colon (:), which uniformly divides each
verse of the psalms or canticles in the Prayer Book, the second part
terminating with the verse itself. The double chant is an air consisting
of four strains, and consequently extending to two verses. This kind of
chant does not appear to be older than the time of Charles II.; and is
peculiar to the Church of England.
In chanting, special heed should be taken to two things: first, to
observe _strictly_ the “pointing” of the psalms and hymns, “as they are
to be sung or said in churches.” We have no more right to alter the
rubric in this respect than in any other. Secondly, to chant
reverentially, which implies distinctness of utterance, clearness of
tone, and moderate slowness as to time. A rapid and confused mode of
singing the awful hymns of the Church, is not only utterly destructive
of musical effect, but, what is of much greater consequence, is hostile
to the promotion of the honour of GOD, and of the edification of
man.—_Jebb._
Persons who have heard extempore praying from the mouths of illiterate
characters, must have been struck by the rude modulated chant in which
it is delivered. Objectors to the cathedral mode of service sometimes
aver “intoning” to be unnatural. This is a misconception. “Intoning,”
musical or unmusical, is the natural key in which vent is given to a
large and important class of devotional feelings: cathedral intoning is
this voice correctly timed and tuned to harmony. Non-intoning, on the
other hand, or reading, is artificial. No one hears an uneducated person
attempt to read in the same tone as he speaks. Reading is an artificial
drill, the correction of natural, undisciplined locution.—_Morgan._
CHANTER. (See _Precentor_.) In foreign churches it is synonymous with
our lay clerks. The chanters in Dublin college are certain officers
selected from the foundation students, whose duty is to officiate as
chapel clerks. They are so called from formerly constituting the choir
of the chapel.
CHANTRY. A chapel, or other separated place in a church, for the
celebration of masses for the soul of some person departed this life.
Their ordinary places are mentioned under the head _Church_. The chantry
sometimes included the tomb of the person by whom it was founded, as in
the splendid examples in Winchester cathedral. It was sometimes an
entire aisle, as the golden choir at St. Mary’s, Stamford; and sometimes
a separate chapel, as the Beauchamp chapel, St. Mary’s, Warwick, and
Henry VII.’s chapel at Westminster.
In the reign of Henry VIII., when the belief of purgatory began to
decline, it was thought an unnecessary thing to continue the pensions
and endowments of chantry priests; therefore, in the 37 of Henry VIII.
cap. 4, those chantries were given to the king, who had power at any
time to issue commissions to seize their endowments, and take them into
his possession: but this being in the last year of his reign, there were
several of those endowments which were not seized by virtue of any such
commissions; therefore, in the first year of Edward VI. cap. 14, those
chantries which were in being five years before the session of that
parliament, and not in the actual possession of Henry VIII., were
adjudged to be, and were, vested in that king. Cranmer endeavoured to
obtain that the disposal of the chantries, &c., should be deferred until
the king should be of age—hoping that if they were saved from the hands
of the laity until that time, Edward might be persuaded to apply the
revenues to the relief of the poor parochial clergy; but the
archbishop’s exertions were unsuccessful.
CHAPEL. In former times, when the kings of France were engaged in wars,
they always carried St. Martin’s cope (_cappa_) into the field, which
was kept as a precious relic, in a _tent_ where mass was said, and
thence the place was called _capella_, the chapel. The word was
gradually applied to any consecrated place of prayer, not being the
parish church.
With us in England there are several sorts of chapels:
1. Royal chapels. (See _Chapel Royal_.) 2. Domestic chapels, built by
noblemen for private worship in their families. 3. College chapels,
attached to the different colleges of the universities. 4. Chapels of
ease, built for the ease of parishioners, who live at too great a
distance from the parish church, by the clergy of which the services of
the chapel are performed. 5. Parochial chapels, which differ from
chapels of ease on account of their having a permanent minister, or
incumbent, though they are in some degree dependent upon the mother
church. A parochial chapelry, with all parochial rites independent of
the mother church, as to sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c.,
is called a _reputed parish_. 6. Free chapels; such as were founded by
kings of England, and made exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. 7.
Chapels which adjoin to any part of the church; such were formerly built
by persons of consideration as burial-places. To which may be added
chapels of corporation societies, and eleemosynary foundation; as the
mayor’s chapel at Bristol, &c., the chapels of the inns of court,
chapels of hospitals and almshouses.—_Burn._
The word chapel in foreign countries frequently means the choir or
chancel. This may possibly be the meaning intended in the rubric
preceding Morning Prayer, directing the Morning and Evening Prayers to
be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel. It
may allude to the college chapels, or such collegiate chapels as St.
George’s at Windsor, or to the usage of some cathedrals of having early
morning prayer (as at Gloucester, &c.) in the Lady chapel, or late
evening prayer (as at Durham) in the Galilee chapel. Henry VII.’s chapel
at Westminster was, at least in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, used for
this purpose.—_Jebb._
CHAPEL ROYAL. The chapel royal is under the government of the dean of
the chapel, and not within the jurisdiction of any bishop. But the
archbishop is the first chaplain and _parochus_ of the sovereign. The
deanery was an office of ancient standing in the court, but discontinued
in 1572, till King James’s accession, then it was revived in the person
of Dr. Montague.—_Heylin’s Life of Laud._ Next to the dean is the
subdean, who has the special care of the chapel service; a clerk of the
court, with his deputies, a prelate or clergyman, whose office it is to
attend the sovereign at Divine service, and to wait on her in her
private oratory.—There are forty-eight chaplains in ordinary, who wait
four in each month, and preach on Sundays and holidays; to read Divine
service when required on week days, and to say grace in the absence of
the clerk of the closet. The other officers are, a confessor of the
household, now called chaplain of the household, who has the pastoral
care of the royal household; ten priests in ordinary (whose duties are
like those of chaplains, or vicars in cathedrals); sixteen gentlemen of
the chapel, who with ten choristers now form the choir; and other
officers. The officiating members of the chapel royal were formerly much
more numerous than now; thus there were thirty-two gentlemen of the
chapel in King Edward VI.’s reign, and twenty-three in King James I.’s.
The priests in ordinary, properly speaking, form part of the choir. In
strictness this establishment is ambulatory, and ought to accompany the
sovereign, of which practice we have many proofs in ancient records.
The chapel royal in Dublin consists of a dean and twenty-four chaplains,
(who preach in turn,) and a choir of laymen. Before the legal
establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the royal chapel of
Holyrood had a full establishment of chaplains, &c., and the liturgy was
then celebrated chorally, at least in the reign of King Charles I.
CHAPLAIN. A person authorized to officiate in the chapels of the queen,
or in the private oratories of noblemen. The name is derived from
_capella_; the priests who superintend the capella being called
_Capellani_. According to a statute of Henry VIII., the persons vested
with a power of retaining chaplains, together with the number each is
allowed to qualify, are as follow: “an archbishop, eight; a duke or
bishop, six; marquis or earl, five; viscount, four; baron, knight of the
garter, or lord chancellor, three; a duchess, marchioness, countess,
baroness, the treasurer or comptroller of the king’s household, clerk of
the closet, the king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, almoner, and
master of the rolls, each of them, two; chief justice of the King’s
Bench, and warden of the Cinque Ports, each, one.” In England there are
forty-eight chaplains to the queen, called chaplains in ordinary.
Clergymen who officiate in the army and navy, in the gaols, public
hospitals, and workhouses, are called chaplains. Chaplain is also a
comprehensive name, applied, more rarely in England than abroad, to the
members of cathedrals and collegiate churches and chapels, who are
responsible for the daily service. In a few instances it is applied to
the superior members. Thus at Lichfield, there were five _capellani
principales_, major canons, whose office it was to serve at the great
altar, rule the choir, &c., (_Dugd._ _Mon._ ed. 1830, vi. 1257,) and at
Winchester college the ten fellows are called, in the original charter,
“_capellani perpetui_;” in contradistinction to the _capellani
conductitii_, or _remotivi_;—and the principal duty of these
chaplain-fellows was to officiate in the chapel. But in general, a
chaplain signified a minister of the Church of inferior rank, a
substitute for and coadjutor of the canons in chanting, and in the
performance of the Divine offices. (See _Dictionnaire de droit
canonique, par Durand de Maillane_, Lyons, 1787.) They were so called
from serving in the _capella_ or choir, at the various offices, and in
the various side chapels, in contradistinction to the capitular canons,
whose peculiar privilege it was to serve at the great altar. Under the
name of chaplain, were included minor canons, vicars choral, and similar
officers, who had a variety of designations abroad, unknown to us, such
as porticuristi, demi-canons, semi-prebends, &c., &c.
The name of chaplain, in its choral sense, is retained with us only at
Christ Church Oxford, Manchester, and the colleges at the universities.
At the latter, they are frequently styled in the old charters,
_capellani conductitii_ or _remotivi_; by which is to be understood,
that they were originally, at least, intended to be mere stipendiaries,
adjuncts to the foundation; as contrasted with those who have a
permanent, corporate interest, or an endowment in fee; like the
_præbendati_ in the foreign cathedrals, or the incorporated vicars
choral in our own cathedrals. (See _College_, _Prebendary_, and _Vicars
Choral_.) The chaplains at Cambridge are commonly called _conducti_,
though originally they were designated, as at Oxford, _capellani
conductitii_; a designation which it were to be wished were changed for
the more proper name of chaplain. Before the Reformation the _capellani_
to be found in many of the old cathedrals, were exclusive of the vicars
choral, and were chanting priests. These sometimes formed corporations
or colleges. Abroad, the chaplains in many places discharged both the
duties of chanting priests and vicars choral, or minor canons; each
having his separate chapel for daily mass; but all being obliged to
unite in discharging the Divine offices, at least at matins and vespers
in the great choirs.—_Jebb._
CHAPTER. (See _Bible_.) The word is derived from the Latin _caput_,
head; and signifies one of the principal divisions of a book, and, in
reference to the Bible, one of the larger sections into which its books
are divided. This division, as well as that consisting of verses, was
introduced to facilitate reference, and not to indicate any natural or
accurate division of the subjects treated in the books. For its origin,
see _Bible_.
CHAPTER. (See _Dean and Chapter_.) A chapter of a cathedral church
consists of persons ecclesiastical, canons and prebendaries, whereof the
dean is chief, all subordinate to the bishop, to whom they are as
assistants in matters relating to the Church, for the better ordering
and disposing the things thereof, and for confirmation of such leases of
the temporalities and offices relating to the bishopric, as the bishop
from time to time shall happen to make.—_God._ 58.
And they are termed by the canonists, _capitulum_, being a kind of
_head_, instituted not only to assist the bishop in manner aforesaid,
but also anciently to rule and govern the diocese in the time of
vacation.—_God._ 56.
Of these chapters, some are ancient, some new: the new are those which
are founded or translated by King Henry VIII. in the places of abbots
and convents, or priors and convents, which were chapters whilst they
stood, and these are new chapters to old bishoprics; or they are those
which are annexed unto the new bishoprics founded by King Henry VIII.,
and are, therefore, new chapters to new bishoprics.—1 _Inst._ 95.
The chapter in the collegiate church is more properly called a
_college_; as at Westminster and Windsor, where there is no episcopal
see.—_Wood_, b. i. c. 3. But however this may originally have been, the
rule has long been disregarded throughout Europe.
There may be a chapter without any dean; as the chapter of the
collegiate church of Southwell: and grants by or to them are as
effectual as other grants by dean and chapter.—_Wats._ c. 38.
In the cathedral churches of St. David’s and Llandaff there never hath
been any dean, but the bishop in either is head of the chapter; and at
the former the chantor, at the latter the archdeacon presides, in the
absence of the bishop, or vacancy of the see.—_Johns._ 60. [St. David’s
and Llandaff are now placed on the same footing with other cathedrals in
this respect.]
One bishop may possibly have two chapters, and that by union or
consolidation: and it seemeth that if a bishop hath two chapters, both
must confirm his leases.—_God._ 58. In cathedrals of the old foundation
chapters are of two kinds, the greater and the lesser. The greater
chapter consists of all the major canons and prebendaries, whether
residentiary or not; and their privileges are now considered to be
limited to the election of a bishop, of proctors in convocation, and
possibly a few other rare occasions; the lesser chapter consists of the
dean and residentiaries, who have the management of the chapter
property, and the ordinary government of the cathedral. This however has
been the growth of later ages: as it is certain that all prebendal
members had a voice in matters which concerned the interests of the
cathedral church. In Ireland the distinction now mentioned is unknown,
except at Kildare.
In the statutes of the old cathedrals, by _chapter_ is also understood,
a sort of court held by one or more of the canons, sometimes even by the
non-capitular officers, for the administering the ordinary discipline of
the church, fining absentees, &c.
The word _chapter_ is occasionally applied abroad to boards of
universities or other corporations.
The assemblies of the knights of the orders of chivalry, (as of the
Garter, Bath, &c.,) are also called chapters.
CHAPTER HOUSE. The part of a cathedral in which the dean and chapter
meet for business. Until the thirteenth century, the chapter house was
always rectangular. Early in that century it became multagonal,
generally supported by a central shaft, and so continued to the latest
date at which any such building has been erected. The greatest cost was
expended on the decoration of the chapter house, and there is little
even in the choir of our cathedrals, of greater beauty than such chapter
houses as Lincoln, Salisbury, Southwell, York, and Howden. That of old
St. Paul’s in London, to judge by the plates in Dugdale’s History of St.
Paul’s, must have been very beautiful. It stood in an unique position,
in the _centre_ of a cloister. For the plan of the chapter house, in the
arrangement of the conventual buildings, see _Monastery_. Some have
imagined that the idea of the circular or polygonal chapter houses was
derived from the circular baptisteries abroad.
CHARGE. This is the address delivered by a bishop, or other prelate
called ordinary, at a visitation of the clergy under his jurisdiction. A
charge may be considered, in most instances, rather in the light of an
admonitory exhortation, than of a judgment or sentence; although the
ordinary has full power in the charge to issue authoritative commands,
and to cause them to be obeyed, by means of the other legal forms, for
the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction. It appears also that the
clergy are legally bound by their oath of canonical obedience, and by
their ordination vows, reverently to obey their ordinary. It is
customary for archdeacons, and other ecclesiastics having peculiar
jurisdiction, to deliver charges. Archdeacons have a charge of the
parochial churches within the diocese to which they belong, and have
power to hold visitations when the bishop is not there.—_Burn._ (See
_Visitation_.)
CHARTREUX. (See _Carthusians_.)
CHASIBLE. (_Chasuble_, _Casula_.) The outermost dress formerly worn by
the priest in the service of the altar, but not now used in the English
Church, though prescribed under the title of _Vestment_, in the rubric
of King Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the priest or bishop when
celebrating the communion, indifferently with the cope. In the time of
the primitive Church, the Roman toga was becoming disused, and the
pænula was taking its place. The pænula formed a perfect circle, with an
aperture to admit the head in the centre, while it fell down so as
completely to envelope the person of the wearer. A short pænula was more
common, and a longer for the higher orders; it was this last which was
used by the clergy in their services. The Romish Church has altered it
much by cutting it away laterally, so as to expose the arms, and leave
only a straight piece before and behind. The Greek Church retains it in
its primitive shape, under the title of φαινόλιον, or φινώλιον: the old
brasses in England also show the same form, some even since the
Reformation. And many tombs of bishops in the 13th century, and later,
show it in a graceful and flowing form.
CHERUB, or (_the plural_) CHERUBIM, a particular order of angels. When
GOD drove Adam and Eve out of Paradise, “he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to
keep the way of the tree of life.” (Gen. iii. 24.) When Moses was
commanded by GOD to make the ark of the covenant with the propitiatory,
or mercy-seat, he was (Exod. xxv. 19, 20) to make one cherub on the one
end, and another cherub on the other end; the cherubims were to stretch
forth their wings on high, and to cover the mercy-seat with them; and
their faces were to look one to the other. Moses has left us in the dark
as to the form of these cherubims. The Jews suppose them to have been in
the shape of young naked men, covered for the sake of decency with some
of their wings; and the generality of interpreters, both ancient and
modern, suppose them to have had human shapes. But it is certain that
the prophet Ezekiel (i. 10, and x. 14) represents them quite otherwise,
and speaks of the face of a cherub as synonymous with that of an ox or
calf; and in the Revelation (iv. 6) they are called ζῶα, _beasts_.
Josephus (_Antiq._ lib. iii.) says that they were a kind of winged
creatures, answering to the description of those which Moses saw about
the throne of GOD, but the like to which no man had ever seen before.
Grotius, Bochart, and other learned moderns, deriving the word from
_charab_, which in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, signifies to
_plough_, make no difficulty to suppose that the cherubim here spoken of
resembled an ox, either in whole or in part. The learned Spencer
supposes them to have had the face of a man, the wings of an eagle, the
back and mane of a lion, and the feet of a calf. This he collects from
the prophetical vision of Ezekiel (i.), in which the cherubims are said
to have four forms, those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. There
is something in this mixed form, according to that author, which is very
suitable to the regular character which GOD bore among the Jews, and the
peculiar circumstances of the time. The Israelites were then in the
wilderness, and encamped in four cohorts; and the Hebrews have a
tradition, that the standard of the tribe of Judah and the associated
tribes carried a lion, the tribe of Ephraim an ox, the tribe of Reuben a
man, and the tribe of Dan an eagle. GOD therefore would sit upon
cherubims bearing the forms of these animals, to signify that he was the
Leader and King of the four cohorts of the Israelites. The same writer,
in another place, makes the cherubims of the mercy-seat to be of
Egyptian extraction; for Porphyry, speaking of the priests of Egypt,
says, “Among these, one god is formed like a man as high as the neck,
and they give him the face of some bird, or of a lion, or of some other
animal; and again, another has the head of a man, and the other parts of
other animals.” Add to this, that the Apis of the Egyptians was
worshipped under the figure of an ox. Nor can any other reason, he
thinks, be assigned why GOD should order the cherubims to be fashioned
in the shape of different animals, particularly the ox, but that he did
it out of indulgence to the Israelites, who, being accustomed to such
kinds of representations, not only easily bore with them, but ardently
desired them. The cherubims of the mercy-seat, Bochart supposes to have
had a mystical and symbolical relation to GOD, the angels, the
tabernacle, and the people. As to GOD, they represented his great power
according to that of the Psalmist, (xcix. 1,) “The LORD reigneth, let
the people tremble; he sitteth between the cherubims, let the earth be
moved.” They represented likewise the nature and ministry of angels. By
the lion’s form is signified their strength, generosity, and majesty; by
that of the ox, their constancy and assiduity in executing the commands
of GOD; by the human shape, their humanity and kindness; and by that of
the eagle, their agility and speed. As to the tabernacle, the cherubims
denoted that the holy place was the habitation of the King of heaven,
whose immediate attendants the angels are supposed to be. Lastly, with
respect to the people, the cherubims might teach them that GOD, who sat
between them, was alone to be the object of their worship. Upon this
subject see the curious and interesting, though somewhat painful
dissertation of Mr. Parkhurst in his Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.
By many it has been considered that the four symbols, applied from very
ancient times to the four evangelists, are derived from the cherubic
figures. The cherubims are also described in Rev. iv. 7.
It is surely derogatory to right ideas of religion, to suppose that
these mysterious symbols were derived from the images of heathen
idolatry, in order to indulge the prejudices of the Israelites. This
would be to encourage idolatry, against which the Divine vengeance was
so markedly directed. It is much more consistent and probable to believe
that the corresponding symbols of Egyptians and Assyrians (the latter so
wonderfully illustrated by the late discoveries at Nineveh) were derived
from patriarchal traditions; distortions of that pure worship of God
which was derived to the whole world from Noah. This solution will
account for many of those extraordinary resemblances between heathen and
Jewish customs, which have been stumbling-blocks to neologists,
especially in our day.
CHERUBICAL HYMN. A title sometimes given to the Tersanctus or Trisagion.
(See _Tersanctus_.)
CHILIASTS, or MILLENARIANS. (See _Millennium_.) A school of Christians
who believe that, after the general or last judgment, the saints shall
live a thousand years upon earth, and enjoy all manner of innocent
satisfaction. It is thought Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in
the second century, and was disciple to St. John the evangelist, or, as
some others think, to John the Elder, was the first who maintained this
opinion. The authority of this bishop, supported by some passages in the
Revelation, brought a great many of the primitive fathers to embrace his
persuasion, as Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian; and afterwards
Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, living in the third century, was so far
engaged in this belief, and maintained it with so much elocution, that
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, thought himself obliged to write
against him: upon which Coracion, one of the principal abettors of this
doctrine, renounced it publicly, which practice was followed by the
generality of the West. The Millenarians were in like manner condemned
by Pope Damasus, in a synod held at Rome against the Apollinarians. Some
of the modern Millenarians have refined the notion of Cerinthus, and
made the satisfactions rational and angelical, untainted with anything
of sensuality or Epicurism. As for the time of this thousand years,
those that hold this opinion are not perfectly agreed. Mr. Mede makes it
to commence and determine before the general conflagration; but Dr.
Thomas Burnet supposes that this world will be first destroyed, and that
a new paradisaical earth will be formed out of the ashes of the old one,
where the saints will converse together for a thousand years, and then
be translated to a higher station.
CHIMERE. The upper robe worn by a bishop, to which the lawn sleeves are
generally attached. Before and after the Reformation, till Queen
Elizabeth’s time, the bishops wore a scarlet chimere or garment over the
rochet, as they still do when assembled in convocation; and when the
sovereign attends parliament. But Bishop Hooper, having superstitiously
scrupled at this as too light a robe for episcopal gravity, it was in
her reign changed into a chimere of black satin.
The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the
middle ages, and called _mantelletum_; which was a sort of cope, with
apertures for the arms to pass through.—See _Du Cange’s Glossary_. The
name of _chimere_ is probably derived from the Italian _zimarra_, which
is described as “vesta talare de’ sacerdoti et de’ chierici.”—_Palmer._
The scarlet chimere strongly resembles the scarlet habit worn in
congregation, and at St. Mary’s, by doctors at Oxford. Some have
supposed that our episcopal dress is in fact merely a _doctorial_ habit.
Perhaps, however, the origin of both the chimere, the Oxford habit, and
the Cambridge doctorial cope, and the episcopal _mantelletum_, may all
be derived from the _dalmatic_ or _tunicle_, (see _Dalmatic_,) which was
formerly a characteristic part of the dress of bishops and deacons; from
which the chimere differs in being open in front. The sewing of the lawn
sleeves (now of preposterous fulness) to the chimere, is a modern
innovation. They ought properly to be fastened to the rochet.—_Jebb._
CHOIR, or QUIRE. This word has two meanings. The first is identical with
chancel, (see _Chancel_,) signifying the place which the ministers of
Divine worship occupy, or ought to occupy. The word, according to
Isidore, is derived from _chorus circumstantium_, because the clergy
stood round the altar. Custom has usually restricted the name of chancel
to parish churches, that of choir to cathedrals, and such churches or
chapels as are collegiate. In the choirs of cathedrals, (see
_Cathedral_,) which are very large, the congregation also assemble; but
the clergy and other members of the foundation occupy the seats on each
side, (which are called _stalls_,) according to the immemorial custom of
all Christian countries.
The second, but more proper sense of the word, is, a body of men set
apart for the performance of all the services of the Church, in the most
solemn form. Properly speaking, the whole corporate body of a cathedral,
including capitular and lay members, forms the choir; and in this
extended sense ancient writers frequently used the word. Thus the
“glorious company of the apostles” is called in Latin “apostolorum
chorus.” The _choir_ is used in some very ancient documents for the
cathedral chapter. But, in its more restricted sense, we are to
understand that body of men and boys who form a part of the foundation
of these places, and whose special duty it is to perform the service to
music. The choir properly consists of clergymen, both capitular
(including the precentor) and non-capitular, laymen, and chorister boys;
and should have at least six men and six boys at every week-day service,
these being essential to the due performance of the chants, services,
and anthems. Every choir is divided into two parts, stationed on each
side of the chancel, in order to sing alternately the verses of the
psalms and hymns, one side answering the other. The alternate chanting
by one or a few voices and a chorus, in the _psalms_, now very general
abroad, is a corruption, and inconsistent with the true idea of
antiphonal singing. This alternate, or antiphonal, recitation is very
ancient, as old as the time of Miriam, who thus alternated her song with
the choir of Israel. (Exod. xv. 20.) And we know from Isaiah that the
angels in heaven thus sing. (Isaiah vi. 3.) So that while we chant, we
obey the practice of the Church in earth and heaven.
In the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the rubric, at the
beginning of the morning prayer, ordered the priests, “being in the
_quire_, to begin the Lord’s Prayer;” so that it was the custom of the
minister to perform Divine service at the upper end of the chancel near
the altar. Against this, Bucer, by the direction of Calvin, made a great
outcry, pretending “it was an antichristian practice for the priest to
say prayers only in the choir, a place peculiar to the clergy, and not
in the body of the church among the people, who had as much right to
Divine worship as the clergy.” This occasioned an alteration of the
rubric, when the Common Prayer Book was revised in the fifth year of
King Edward, and it was ordered, that prayers should be said in such
part of the church “where the people might best hear.” However, at the
accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, the ancient practice was
restored, with a dispensing power left in the ordinary, of determining
it otherwise if he saw just cause. Convenience at last prevailed, so
that the prayers are very commonly read in the body of the church, and
in those parish churches where the service is read in the chancel, the
minister’s place is at the lower end of it.—_Jebb._
CHOREPISCOPUS. (Country bishops, Χωρεπίσκοποι, _Episcopi rurales_, from
χώρα or χωρίον country.)
Some considerable difference of opinion has existed relative to the true
ministerial order of the chorepiscopi, some contending that they were
mere presbyters, others that they were a mixed body of presbyters and
bishops, and a third class that they were all invested with the
authority of the episcopal office. That the latter opinion, however, is
the correct one, is maintained by Bishop Barlow, Dr. Hammond, Beveridge,
Cave, and other eminent divines of the English Church, together with
Bingham, in his “Antiquities of the Christian Church.” Their origin
seems to have arisen from a desire on the part of the city or diocesan
bishops to supply the churches of the neighbouring country with more
episcopal services than _they_ could conveniently render. Some of the
best qualified presbyters were therefore consecrated bishops, and thus
empowered to act in the stead of the principal bishop, though in strict
subordination to his authority. Hence, we find them ordaining presbyters
and deacons under the licence of the city bishop; and confirmation was
one of their ordinary duties. Letters dimissory were also given to the
country clergy by the chorepiscopi, and they had the privilege of
sitting and voting in synods and councils. The difference between the
_chorepiscopus_ and what was, at a later period, denominated a
_suffragan_, is scarcely appreciable, both being under the jurisdiction
of a superior, and limited to the exercise of their powers within
certain boundaries, enjoying only a _delegated_ power.
The chorepiscopi were at first confined to the Eastern Church. In the
Western Church, and especially in France, they began to be known about
the fifth century. They have never been numerous in Spain and Italy. In
Germany they must have been frequent in the seventh and eighth
centuries. In the East, the order was abolished by the Council of
Laodicea, A. D. 361. But so little respect was entertained for this
decree, that the order continued until the tenth century. They were
first prohibited in the Western Church in the ninth century; but,
according to some writers, they continued in France until the twelfth
century, when the arrogance, insubordination, and injurious conduct of
this class of ecclesiastics became a subject of general complaint in
that country; and they are said to have existed in Ireland until the
thirteenth century. The functions of the chorepiscopi are now in great
part performed by archdeacons, rural deans, and vicars-general. (See
_Suffragans_.)
CHOREUTÆ. A sect of heretics, who, among other errors, persisted in
keeping the Sunday as a fast.
CHORISTER. A singer in a choir. It properly means a singing _boy_; and
so it is used in all old documents and statistics.
CHRISM. (Χρίσμα, oil.) Oil consecrated in the Romish and Greek Churches
by the bishop, and used in baptism, confirmation, orders, and extreme
unction. This chrism is consecrated with great ceremony upon Holy
Thursday. There are two sorts of it; the one is a composition of oil and
balsam, made use of in baptism, confirmation, and orders; the other is
only plain oil consecrated by the bishop, and used for catechumens and
extreme unction. Chrism has been discontinued in the Church of England
since the Reformation.
CHRISOME, in the office of baptism, was a white vesture, which in former
times the priest used to put upon the child, saying, “Take this white
vesture for a token of innocence.”
By a constitution of Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 736, the
chrisomes, after having served the purposes of baptism, were to be made
use of only for the making or mending of surplices, &c., or for the
wrapping of chalices.
The first Common Prayer Book of King Edward orders that the woman shall
offer the chrisome, when she comes to be churched; but, if the child
happens to die before her churching, she was excused from offering it;
and it was customary to use it as a shroud, and to wrap the child in it
when it was buried. Hence, by an abuse of words, the term is now used
not to denote children who die between the time of their baptism and the
churching of the mother, but to denote children who die before they are
baptized, and so are incapable of Christian burial.
CHRIST. From the Greek word (Χριστος) corresponding with the Hebrew word
Messiah, and signifying _the Anointed One_. It is given pre-eminently to
our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. As the holy unction was given
to kings, priests, and prophets, by describing the promised SAVIOUR of
the world under the name of CHRIST, ANOINTED, or MESSIAH, it was
sufficient evidence that the qualities of king, prophet, and high priest
would eminently centre in him; and that he would exercise them not only
over the Jews, but over all mankind, and particularly over those whom he
should elect into his Church. Our blessed SAVIOUR was not, indeed,
anointed to these offices by oil; but he was anointed by the power and
grace of the HOLY GHOST, who visibly descended upon him at his baptism.
Thus, (Acts x. 38,) “GOD anointed JESUS of Nazareth with the HOLY GHOST
and with power.”—See Matt. iii. 16, 17. John iii. 34. (See _Jesus_ and
_Messiah_.)
CHRISTEN, To. To baptize; because, at baptism, the person receiving that
sacrament is made, as the catechism teaches, a member of CHRIST.
CHRISTENDOM. All those regions in which the kingdom or Church of CHRIST
is planted.
CHRISTIAN. The title given to those who call upon the name of the LORD
JESUS. It was at Antioch, where St. Paul and St. Barnabas jointly
preached the Christian religion, that the disciples were first called
Christians, (Acts xi. 26,) in the year of our LORD 43. They were
generally called by one another _brethren_, _faithful_, _saints_, and
_believers_. The name of Nazarenes was, by way of reproach, given them
by the Jews. (Acts xxiv. 5.) Another name of reproach was that of
_Galilæans_, which was the emperor Julian’s style whenever he spoke of
the Christians. Epiphanius says, that they were called _Jesseans_,
either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is more probable, from
the name of JESUS, whose disciples they were. The word is used but three
times in Holy Scripture: Acts xi. 26; xxvi. 28; 1 St. Pet. iv. 16.
CHRISTIAN NAME. (See _Name_.) The name given to us when we are made
Christians, i. e. at our baptism.
The Scripture history, both of the Old and New Testament, contains many
instances of the names of persons being changed, or of their receiving
an additional name, when they were admitted into covenant with GOD, or
into a new relation with our blessed LORD; and it was at circumcision,
which answered, in many respects, to baptism in the Christian Church,
that the Jews gave a name to their children. This custom was adopted
into the Christian Church, and we find very ancient instances of it
recorded. For example, Thascius Cyprian, at his baptism, changed his
first name to Cæcilius, out of respect for the presbyter who was his
spiritual father. The custom is still retained, a name being given by
the godfather and godmother of each child at baptism, by which name he
is addressed by the minister when he receives that holy sacrament. (See
_Baptismal Service_.)
Our Christian names serve to remind us of the duties and privileges on
which we entered at baptism. Our surname is a memorial of original sin,
or of the nature which we bring into the world.
CHRISTIANS OF ST. THOMAS. (See _Thomas, St., Christians of._)
CHRISTMAS DAY. The 25th December; the day on which the universal Church
celebrates the nativity or birthday of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST. The observance of this day in the Western Church is most
ancient, although we may not give much belief to the statement of the
forged decretal epistles, that Telesiphorus, who lived in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, ordered Divine service to be celebrated, and an
angelical hymn to be sung, the night before the nativity. While the
persecution raged under Diocletian, who kept his court at Nicomedia,
that tyrant, among other acts of cruelty, finding multitudes of
Christians assembled together to celebrate the nativity of CHRIST,
commanded the church doors to be shut, and fire put to the building,
which soon reduced them and the place to ashes. In the East it was for
some time confounded with the Epiphany; and St. Chrysostom mentions that
it was only about his time that it became a distinct festival at
Antioch.
The Athanasian Creed is ordered to be said or sung on this day. This is
one of the days for which the Church of England appoints special psalms,
and a special preface in the Communion Service; and if it fall on a
Friday, that Friday is not to be a fast day.—_Cave. Bingham._
It is one of the scarlet days at Oxford and Cambridge: and in cathedrals
and choirs the responses and litany (if to be used) ought to be solemnly
sung to the organ. In the First Book of King Edward, there were separate
Collects, Epistles, and Gospels appointed for the first and second
communion on this and on Easter day.
The chronological correctness of keeping the birthday of our LORD on the
25th of December, has been demonstrated in a most careful analysis, by
the late lamented _Dr. Jarvis_, in his _Chronological Introduction to
the History of the Church._—_Jebb._
CHRISTOLYTES. (Χριστολύται, _separators of Christ_.) A sect in the sixth
century, which held, that when CHRIST descended into hell, he left his
soul and body there, and only rose with his Divinity to heaven.
CHRISTOPHORI and THEOPHORI, (Χριστοφόροι και Θεοφόροι, _Christ-bearers_
and _God-bearers_,) names given to Christians in the earliest times, on
account of the communion between CHRIST, who is GOD, and the Church.
Ignatius commences his Epistles thus, Ἰγνάτιος ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος: and it is
related in the acts of his martyrdom, that hearing him called
Theophorus, Trajan asked the meaning of the name; to which Ignatius
replied, it meant one that carries CHRIST in his heart. “Dost thou
then,” said Trajan, “carry him that was crucified in thy heart?” “Yes,”
said the holy martyr, “for it is written, I will dwell in them, and walk
in them.”
CHRONICLES. Two canonical books of the Old Testament. They contain the
history of about 3500 years, from the creation until after the return of
the Jews from Babylon. They are fuller and more comprehensive than the
Books of Kings. The Greek interpreters hence call them Παραλειπομένα,
supplements, additions. The Jews make but one book of the Chronicles,
under the title _Dibree hajamin_, i. e. journal or annals. Ezra is
generally supposed to be the author of these books. The Chronicles, or
Paraleipomena, are an abridgment, in fact, of the whole Scripture
history. St. Jerome so calls it, “_Omnis traditio Scripturarum in hoc
continetur_.” The First Book contains a genealogical account of the
descent of Israel from Adam, and of the reign of David. The Second Book
contains the history of Judah to the very year of the Jews’ return from
the Babylonish captivity—the decree of Cyrus granting them liberty being
in the last chapter of this Second Book.
CHURCH. (See _Catholic_.) The word _church_ is derived from the Greek
κυριακὸς (_belonging to the Lord_)—the Teutonic nations having, at their
first conversion, generally adopted the Greek ecclesiastical terms. The
truth of this etymology is confirmed by the fact, that in the Sclavonic
languages the names for the Church resemble the Teutonic, evidently
because derived from a common Greek original. The Church, meaning by the
word the Catholic or Universal Church, is that society which was
instituted by our blessed LORD, and completed by his apostles, acting
under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, to be the depository of Divine
truth and the channel of Divine grace. Every society, or organized
community, may be distinguished from a mere multitude or accidental
concourse of people, by having a founder, a form of admission, a
constant badge of membership, peculiar duties, peculiar privileges, and
regularly appointed officers. Thus the Catholic Church has the LORD
CHRIST for its founder; its prescribed form of admission is the holy
sacrament of baptism; its constant badge of membership is the holy
sacrament of the eucharist; its peculiar duties are repentance, faith,
obedience; its peculiar privileges, union with GOD, through CHRIST its
Head, and hereby forgiveness of sins, present grace, and future glory;
its officers are bishops and priests, assisted by deacons, in regular
succession from the apostles, the first constituted officers of this
body corporate. It has the Bible for its code of laws, and tradition for
precedents, to aid its officers in the interpretation of that code on
disputed points. It is through the ordinances and sacraments of the
Church, administered by its divinely appointed officers, that we are
brought into union and communion with the invisible SAVIOUR; it is
through the visible body that we are to receive communications from the
invisible SPIRIT; and, says the apostle, in the fourth chapter to the
Ephesians, “There is,” not merely one SPIRIT, “there is one body _and_
one SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Again,
(1 Cor. x. 17,) “We being many are one bread and one body.” And in the
first chapter to the Colossians, the same apostle tells us that this
body is the Church. And thus we must, if we are scriptural Christians,
believe that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Of this one Church there are many branches existing in various parts of
the world, (not to mention the great division of militant and
triumphant,) just as there is one ocean, of which portions receive a
particular designation from the shores which they lave. But of this one
society there cannot be two branches in one and the same place opposed
to each other, either in discipline or in doctrine. Although there be
two opposing societies or more in one place, both or all claiming to be
CHRIST’S Church in that place, yet we are quite sure that only one of
them can be the real Church. So here, in this realm of England, speaking
_nationally_, there is but one Church, over which the archbishops of
Canterbury and York, with their suffragans, preside: and in each diocese
there is only that one Church, over which the diocesan presides, a
branch of the national Church, as the national is a branch of the
universal Church: and again, in each parish there is but one Church,
forming a branch of the diocesan Church, over which the parochial
minister presides.
“Religion being, therefore, a matter partly of _contemplation_, partly
of _action_, we must define the Church, which is a religious society, by
such differences as do properly explain the essence of such things; that
is to say, by the object or matter whereabout the contemplation and
actions of the Church are properly conversant; for so all knowledge and
all virtues are defined. Whereupon, because the _only object_ which
separateth ours from other religions is JESUS CHRIST, in whom none but
the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, we
find that accordingly the apostles do everywhere distinguish hereby the
Church from infidels and from Jews, accounting them which call upon the
name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST to be his Church.”—_Hooker’s Eccl. Pol._
Hooker’s assertion as to the Church in this country must be so far
modified, that now, by change of political circumstances, the Churches
of England and Ireland are politically united, and form but one Church,
over which two primates, that of Canterbury and Armagh, of co-ordinate
jurisdiction, preside, with other archbishops and suffragans,
&c.—_Jebb._
CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. It is not possible, in such a publication as
this, to give an account of the various branches of the one Catholic
Church, which are to be found in the various parts of the world; but it
would be improper not to notice the Church in the United States of
America, since it is indebted for its existence, under the blessing of
the GREAT HEAD OF THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL, to the missionary labours of the
Church of England; or rather we should say, of members of that Church
acting under the sanction of their bishops, and formed into the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Before the American
Revolution it can scarcely be said that the Church existed in our
American colonies. There were congregations formed chiefly through the
Society just mentioned, and the clergy who ministered in these
congregations were under the superintendence of the bishop of London. We
may say that the first step taken for the organization of the Church was
after the termination of the revolutionary war, at a meeting of a few of
the clergy of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, at New Brunswick,
N. Y., in May, 1784. Though this meeting was called on other business,
yet the project of a general union of the churches throughout the States
became a topic of sufficient interest to lead to the calling of another
meeting, to be held in October following, in the city of New York. At
this latter meeting, “although the members composing it were not vested
with powers adequate to the present exigencies of the Church, they
happily, and with great unanimity, laid down a few general principles to
be recommended in the respective States, as the ground on which a future
ecclesiastical government should be established.” It was also
recommended that the several States should send clerical and lay
deputies to a future meeting in Philadelphia, on September the
twenty-seventh, of the following year. In the interim, the churches of
Connecticut, having made choice of the Rev. Dr. Seabury for a bishop, he
had proceeded to England with a view to consecration. In this
application he was not successful, the English bishops having scruples,
partly of a political nature, and partly relative to the reception with
which a bishop might meet, under the then imperfect organization of the
Church in America. Resort was therefore had to the Church in Scotland,
where Dr. Seabury received consecration in November, 1784.
According to appointment, the first general convention assembled in
1785, in Philadelphia, with delegates from seven of the thirteen States.
At this convention measures were taken for a revisal of the Prayer Book,
to adapt it to the political changes which had recently taken place;
articles of union were adopted; an ecclesiastical constitution was
framed; and the first steps taken for the obtaining of an episcopate
direct from the Church of England.
In June, 1786, the convention again met in Philadelphia. A
correspondence having meanwhile been carried on with the archbishops and
bishops of the English Church, considerable dissatisfaction was
expressed on their part relative to some changes in the liturgy, and to
one point of importance in the constitution. The latter of these was
satisfied by the proceeding of the then session, and the former were
removed by reconsideration in a special convention summoned in October
in the same year. It soon appearing that Dr. Provoost had been elected
to the episcopate of New York, Dr. White to that of Pennsylvania, and
Dr. Griffith for Virginia, testimonials in their favour were signed by
the convention. The two former sailed for England in November, 1786, and
were consecrated at Lambeth on the 4th of February in the following
year, by the Most Reverend John Moore, archbishop of Canterbury. Before
the end of the same month they sailed for New York, where they arrived
on Easter Sunday, April 7th, 1787.
In July, 1789, the general convention again assembled. The episcopacy of
Bishops White and Provoost was recognised; the resignation of Dr.
Griffith, as bishop elect of Virginia, was received; and in this and an
adjourned meeting of the body, in the same year, the constitution of
1786 was remodelled; union was happily effected with Bishop Seabury and
the northern clergy; the revision of the Prayer Book was completed; and
the Church already gave promise of great future prosperity. In
September, 1790, Dr. Madison was consecrated bishop of Virginia at
Lambeth in England, by the same archbishop, who, a few years before, had
imparted the apostolic commission to Drs. White and Provoost. There
being now three bishops of the English succession, besides one of the
Scotch, everything requisite for the continuation and extension of the
episcopacy was complete. Accordingly the line of American consecration
opened in 1792, with that of Dr. Claggett, bishop elect of Maryland. In
1795 Dr. Smith was consecrated for South Carolina; in 1797 the Rev.
Edward Bass, for Massachusetts, and in the same year Dr. Jarvis, for
Connecticut, that diocese having become vacant by the death of Bishop
Seabury. From that time the consecration of bishops has proceeded
according to the wants of the Church, without impediment, to the present
day. At the beginning of the present century the Church had become
permanently settled in its organization, and its stability and peace
were placed on a secure footing. In 1811 there were already eight
bishops and about two hundred and thirty other clergymen distributed
through thirteen States. A spirit of holy enterprise began to manifest
itself in measures for the building up of the Church west of the
Alleghany Mountains, and in other portions of the country, where
heretofore it had maintained but a feeble existence. The ministry
numbers in its ranks men of the first intellectual endowments, and of
admirable self-devotion to the cause of the gospel. With a steady
progress, unawed by the assaults of sectarianism and the reproaches of
the fanatic, the Church gradually established itself in the affections
of all who came with a spirit of candour to the examination of her
claims. The blessing of her GREAT HEAD was apparent, not only in the
peace which adorned her councils, but in the demands which were
continually made for a wider extension of her influence. Hence the
establishment of the General Theological Seminary by Bishop Hobart
(1817–1821), and afterwards of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary
Society (1835); both of which institutions were instrumental in
providing heralds of the gospel for the distant places of the West.
These were followed by the diocesan seminaries of Virginia, Ohio, and
Kentucky, and efforts for the founding of several in other dioceses. At
the general convention of 1835, the whole Church assumed the position of
one grand missionary organization, and has already her bands of
missionaries labouring in the cause of the Church in the remotest
districts of the country; and her banner has been lifted up in Africa,
China, Greece, and other foreign parts. The year 1852 was distinguished
by remarkable demonstrations of communion between the Churches of
England and America. The American Church, in token of her connexion with
the mother Church, and of gratitude for benefits received from the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel while the American States were
part of the British dominions, deputed Bishop M’Coskry, of Michigan, and
Bishop De Lancey, of Western New York, to attend the third Jubilee of
the Society. These bishops were received in England with cordial
affection, and the bishop of Michigan preached the Jubilee Sermon at St.
Paul’s cathedral. A few months later the English bishop Fulford, of
Montreal, shared in consecrating Dr. Wainwright, who had been a member
of the deputation to England, coadjutor bishop of Eastern New York. In
1853 Bishop Spenser, Archdeacon Sinclair, and the Rev. Ernest Hawkins,
were deputed by the Society for Propagating the Gospel to return the
visit of the American prelates, and were received with great cordiality
by the general convention of the American Church. An attempt to excite a
Romanizing spirit on the part of a few half-educated persons has
signally failed, by the suppression, for want of support, of the Journal
they established. With her 37 bishops, 2000 clergy, and more than
2,000,000 of lay members; with her numerous societies for the spread of
the Bible and the Liturgy; and with her institutions of learning, and
presses constantly pouring out the light of the truth, may we not
predict, under the Divine protection, a day of coming prosperity, when
Zion shall be a praise in all the earth; when her temples and her altars
shall be seen on the far-off shores of the Pacific; when even “the
wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert
shall rejoice and blossom as the rose?”
For a more detailed history of the Church in America, the reader may
consult _Bishop White’s Memoirs of the Protestant and Episcopal Church
in America_; _Caswall’s America and the American Church_; the _History
of the Church in America_ in the _Christian’s Miscellany_: and the more
recent _History by Bishop Wilberforce_, published in the _Englishman’s
Library_.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See _Anglo-Catholic Church_.) By the Church of
England we mean that branch of the Catholic Church which is established
under its canonical bishops in England. Properly speaking, at present it
forms only a branch of the united Church of England and Ireland. When
and by whom the Church was first introduced into Britain is not exactly
ascertained, but it has been inferred from Eusebius that it was first
established here by the apostles and their disciples; some have
supposed, by St. Paul. According to Archbishop Usher, there was a school
of learning to provide the British churches with proper teachers in the
year 182. But when the Britons were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, who
were heathens, the Church was persecuted, and the professors of
Christianity were either driven to the mountains of Wales, or reduced to
a state of slavery. The latter circumstances prepared the way for the
conversion of the conquerors, who, seeing the pious and regular
deportment of their slaves, soon learned to respect their religion. We
may gather this fact from a letter written by Gregory, the bishop of
Rome, in the sixth century, to two of the kings of France, in which he
states that the English nation was desirous of becoming Christian; and
in which he, at the same time, complains to those monarchs of the
remissness of their clergy in not seeking the conversion of their
neighbours. And hence it was that Gregory, with that piety and zeal for
which he was pre-eminently distinguished, sent over Augustine, and about
forty missionaries, to England, to labour in the good work. The success
of these missionaries, the way having thus been paved before them, was
most satisfactory. They converted Ethelbert, who was not only king of
Kent, but Brætwalda, or chief of the Saxon monarchs. His example was
soon followed by the kings of Essex and East Anglia, and gradually by
the other sovereigns of England.
The successful Augustine then went over to Arles in France, where he was
consecrated by the prelate of that see; and, returning, became the first
archbishop of Canterbury, the patriarch and metropolitan of the Church
of England. His see was immediately endowed with large revenues by King
Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the instance of the archbishop,
the dioceses of Rochester and London. Another portion of the
Anglo-Saxons were converted by the Scottish bishops. And thus gradually
the Anglo-Saxon kings created bishoprics equal in size to their
kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who converted
their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship, and
endowing them with tithes.
It is a great mistake to suppose, as some do, that the old churches in
England were built or endowed by laws of the state or acts of
parliament. They were the fruit of the piety of individuals of all
ranks, princes and nobles, and private citizens. This fact accounts for
the unequal sizes of our dioceses and parishes: the dioceses were
(though subsequently subdivided) of the same extent as the dominions of
the respective kings; the parishes corresponded with the estate of the
patrons of particular churches. Nor was the regard of those by whom the
Church was established and endowed, confined to the spiritual
edification of the poor; no, they knew that _righteousness exalteth a
nation_, and estimating properly the advantages of infusing a Christian
spirit into the legislature, they summoned the higher order of the
clergy to take part in the national councils.
From those times to these, an uninterrupted series of valid ordinations
has carried down the apostolical succession in our Church.
That in the Church of England purity of doctrine was not always retained
may be readily admitted. In the dark ages, when all around was dark, the
Church itself suffered from the universal gloom: this neither our love
of truth, nor our wishes, will permit us to deny. About the seventh
century the pope of Rome began to establish an interest in our Church.
The interference of the prelate of that great see, before he laid claim
to any dominion of right, was at first justifiable, and did not exceed
just bounds, while it contributed much to the propagation of the gospel.
That the bishop of Rome was justified as a Christian bishop, of high
influence and position, in endeavouring to aid the cause of Christianity
here in England, while England was a heathen nation, will not be
disputed by those who recognise the same right in the archbishop of
Canterbury with respect to foreign heathens. But, in after ages, what
was at first a justifiable interference was so increased as to become an
intolerable usurpation. This interference was an usurpation because it
was expressly contrary to the decisions of a general council of the
Church, and such as the Scripture condemns, in that the Scripture places
all bishops on an equality; and so they ought to continue to be, except
where, for the sake of order, they voluntarily consent to the
appointment of a president or archbishop, who is nothing more than a
_primus inter pares, a first among equals_. This usurpation for a time
continued, and with it were introduced various corruptions, in doctrine
as well as in discipline.
At length, in the reign of Henry VIII., the bishops and clergy accorded
with the laity and government of England, and threw off the yoke of the
usurping pope of Rome. They, at the same time, corrected and reformed
all the errors of doctrine, and most of the errors of discipline, which
had crept into our Church during the reign of intellectual darkness and
papal domination. They condemned the monstrous doctrine of
transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, communion in one
kind, and the constrained celibacy of the clergy; having first
ascertained that these and similar errors were obtruded into the Church
in the middle ages. Thus restoring the Church to its ancient state of
purity and perfection, they left it to us, their children, as we now
find it. They did not attempt to _make new_, their object was to
_reform_, the Church. They stripped their venerable mother of the
meretricious gear in which superstition had arrayed her, and left her in
that plain and decorous attire with which, in the simple dignity of a
matron, she had been adorned by apostolic hands.
Thus, then, it seems that _ours_ is the _old_ Church of England, tracing
its origin, not to Cranmer and Ridley, who only _reformed_ it; but that
it is the _only_ Church of England, which traces its origin up through
the apostles to our SAVIOUR HIMSELF. To adopt the words of a learned and
pious writer: “The orthodox and undoubted bishops of Great Britain are
the _only_ persons who, in any manner, whether by ordination or
possession, can prove their descent from the ancient saints and bishops
of these isles. It is a positive fact that they, and they _alone_, can
trace their ordinations from Peter and Paul, through Patrick, Augustine,
Theodore, Colman, Columba, David, Cuthbert, Chad, Anselm, Osmund, and
all the other worthies of our Church.” “It is true that there are some
schismatical Romish bishops in these realms, but they are of a recent
origin, and cannot show the prescription and possession that we can.
Some of these teachers do not profess to be bishops of our churches, but
are titular bishops of places we know not. Others usurp the titles of
various churches in these islands, but are neither in possession
themselves, nor can prove that their predecessors ever occupied them.
The sect (the sect of English Papists or Roman Catholics) arose in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, when certain persons, unhappily and blindly
devoted to the see of Rome, refused to obey and communicate with their
lawful pastors, who, in accordance with the laws of GOD and the canons,
asserted the ancient independence of the British and Irish Church; and
the Roman patriarch then ordained a few bishops to sees in Ireland,
which were already occupied by legitimate pastors. In England this
ministry is of later origin; for the first bishop of that communion was
a titular bishop of Chalcedon in the seventeenth century.
The ecclesiastical state of England, as it stands at this day, is
divided into two provinces or archbishoprics, of Canterbury and York,
which are again subdivided into several dioceses. (See _Archbishop_.)
For the safeguard of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of
England, many provisions are made both by the civil and canon law.
Whoever shall come to the possession of the crown of England shall join
in communion with the Church of England, as by law established. (12 & 13
Will. III. c. 2, s. 3.)
By the 1 Will. III. c. 6, an oath shall be administered to every king or
queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this realm, at their
coronation; to be administered by one of the archbishops or bishops, to
be thereunto appointed by such king or queen; that they will do the
utmost in their power to maintain the laws of GOD, the true profession
of the gospel, and Protestant reformed religion established by law; and
will preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the
churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by
law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them.
And by the 5 Anne, c. 5, the king, at his coronation, shall take and
subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of
the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government thereof, as by law established. (s. 2.)
By Canon 3, whoever shall affirm that the Church of England, by law
established, is not a true and apostolical Church, teaching and
maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, let him be excommunicated
_ipso facto_, and not restored but only by the archbishop, after his
repentance and public revocation of this his wicked error.
And by Canon 7, whoever shall affirm that the government of the Church
of England under Her Majesty, by archbishops, bishops, deans,
archdeacons, and the rest that bear office in the same, is
antichristian, or repugnant to the word of GOD, let him be
excommunicated _ipso facto_, and so continue until he repent, and
publicly revoke such his wicked errors.
And moreover, seditious words, in derogation of the established
religion, are indictable, as tending to a breach of the peace.
CHURCH OF IRELAND. Of the first introduction of the Church into Ireland
we have no authentic records; nor is it necessary to search for them,
since, of the present Church, the founder, under GOD, was St. Patrick,
in the fifth century. From him it is that the present clergy, the
reformed clergy, and they _only_, have their succession, and through him
from the apostles themselves. That, by a regular series of consecrations
and ordinations, the succession from Patrick and Palladius, and the
first Irish missionaries, was kept up until the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, our opponents, the Irish Papists, will allow. The question,
therefore, is whether that succession was at that time lost. The _onus
probandi_ rests with our opponents, and we defy them to prove that such
was the case. It is a well-known fact, that of all the countries of
Europe, there was not one in which the process of the Reformation was
carried on so regularly, so canonically, so quietly, as it was in
Ireland. Carte, the biographer of Ormond, having observed that the
Popish schism did not commence in England until the twelfth year of
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, but that for eleven years those who most
favoured the pretensions of the pope conformed to the reformed Catholic
Church of England, remarks, “The case was much the same in Ireland,
_where the bishops complied with the_ Reformation, and the _Roman
Catholics_ (meaning those who afterwards became _Roman_, instead of
remaining _reformed_ Catholics) resorted in general to the parish
churches in which the English service was used, until the _end_ of Queen
Elizabeth’s reign.” It is here stated that the bishops of the Church of
Ireland, that is, as the Papists will admit, the then successors of St.
Patrick and his suffragans, those who had a right to reform the Church
of Ireland, consented to the Reformation; and that, until the end of
Queen Elizabeth’s reign, (and she reigned above forty-four years,) there
was no pretended Church, under the dominion of the pope, opposed to the
true Catholic Church, as is unfortunately now the case. The existing
clergy of the Church of Ireland, whether we regard their order or their
mission, and consequently the Church itself, are the only legitimate
successors of those by whom that Church was founded. That in the Church
of Ireland, as well as in the Church of England, corruptions in doctrine
as well as in practice prevailed before the Reformation, and that the
pope of Rome gradually usurped over it an authority directly contrary to
one of the canons of a general council of the Church Universal, (that of
Ephesus,) we fully admit. But that usurpation was resisted and
renounced, and those corruptions removed and provided against at the
Reformation. After the English Reformation the Irish Church received the
English liturgy, in conformity with the principle now professed by the
English government, though not always consistently or fairly carried
out, of promoting a close ecclesiastical unity between the two
countries. Articles of Religion, of a Calvinistic tendency, were passed
by the Irish convocation of 1615, but in 1635 the English Articles were
received and approved by a canon of convocation, and have ever since
been subscribed by Irish clergymen. In 1662 the revised Prayer Book of
England was adopted by the Irish convocation. At the time of the union
of the two kingdoms, the two Churches were united under the title of the
United Church of England and Ireland. Doubts have been expressed as to
what this union means. It does not mean union in doctrine. The Churches
were in full communion in every respect before; and still are, except in
a few particulars, merely circumstantial. It does not mean distinct
synodical rights, for the two English provinces have their convocations
distinct one from the other, and the decrees of the one do not, of
necessity, bind the other. The union is national and political. When the
two kingdoms became politically and legislatively one, the two Churches,
in conformity with the ancient and avowed principles of English
government, were declared to be identified. This identification was
solemnly declared by the sovereign and parliament of both countries, _as
an indispensable and fundamental article_ of union, asserted by the
spiritual lords of each; without the slightest reclamation on the part
of the clergy or laity. Now this declaration of legislative union is in
fact a solemn declaration on the part of the state of identification of
interests. If each of the English provinces of the United Church claim
synodical rights, a right of advising when the great interests of the
Church are concerned, the claim of the Irish provinces of the same
Church are equally strong, are strictly parallel. If the property and
rights of the English clergy are to be protected, the Irish clergy have
as strong a claim to protection. How far the avowed principle has been
acted upon, it is not difficult to determine. The property of the Irish
clergy has been dealt with upon principles altogether different from
those which still protected the property of their English brethren. No
provision whatever was made for perpetuating the Irish convocations,
which are still in abeyance, even as to outward form, though formerly
they had as defined a system as in England. (See _Convocation_.) In an
age, when the multiplication of bishops has been urged, and generally
admitted as necessary, the Church in Ireland has been disheartened by a
retrograde movement. For, in opposition to the earnest reclamation of
her clergy, ten of her bishops were, by a very tyrannical act of the
state, suppressed; and two of her archiepiscopal sees (Cashel and Tuam)
reduced to the rank of suffragans; and this to meet a mere fiscal
exigency, to provide for the Church Rates; for which, be it observed,
the clergy of Ireland, whose revenues have been in many other ways
legislatively curtailed, are now taxed.
The words of the fifth article of the Union with Ireland are these:
“That it be the fifth article of Union, that the Churches of England and
Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant
Episcopal Church, to be called, _The United Church of England and
Ireland_; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of
the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for
ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England;
and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as
the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken
to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union.”
The Church in Ireland had till lately four archbishops: 1. Armagh, with
seven suffragans, viz. Meath, Down, ‡Dromore, Derry, Kilmore, ‡Raphoe,
and ‡Clogher. 2. Dublin, with three suffragans, viz. ‡Kildare, ‡Ferns,
and Ossory. 3. Cashel, with five suffragans, viz. Limerick, Cork,
‡Cloyne, Killaloe, and ‡Waterford. 4. Tuam, with three suffragans, viz.
‡Clonfert, ‡Elphin, and ‡Killala. [Those which are marked thus ‡ are now
suppressed.] Formerly there had been 32 bishops in all; but the sees had
become so impoverished that it became necessary from time to time to
unite some of these to others, (but for reason and under sanction far
different from those which influenced the late innovations,) so that in
the 17th century they were much the same as stated above. The bishops of
Meath and Kildare had precedence over the other bishops.—See _Jebb’s
Charge to the Clergy of Limerick_.
CHURCH OF ROME. (See _Pope_, _Popery_, _Council of Trent_, _Romanism_.)
The Church of Rome is properly that particular Church over which the
bishop of Rome presides, as the Church of England is that Church over
which the bishop of Canterbury presides. To enter into the history of
that foreign Church, to describe its boundaries, to explain those
peculiar doctrines, which are contrary to Catholic doctrines, but which
are retained in it, to discuss its merits or its corruptions, would be
beside the purpose of this Dictionary. But there are certain
schismatical communities in these kingdoms which have set up an altar
against our altar, and which are designated as the Church of Rome in
England, and the Church of Rome in Ireland; and with the claims of these
schismatical sects, in which the obnoxious doctrines of the Church of
Rome, as asserted in the so-called general Council of Trent, are
maintained, and in which the supremacy of the pope of Rome is
acknowledged, we are nearly concerned. It will be proper, therefore, to
give an account of the introduction of Romanism or Popery into this
country and into Ireland, subsequently to the Reformation. From the
preceding articles it will have been seen that the Churches of England
and Ireland were canonically reformed. The old Catholic Church of
England, in accordance with the law of GOD and the canons, asserted its
ancient independence. That many members of the Church were in their
hearts opposed to this great movement, is not only probable, but
certain; yet they did not incur the sin of schism by establishing a sect
in opposition to the Church of England, until the twelfth year of
Elizabeth’s reign, when they were hurried into this sin by foreign
emissaries from the pope of Rome, and certain sovereigns hostile to the
queen. Mr. Butler, himself a Romanist, observes, that “Many of them
conformed for a while, in hopes that the queen would relent, and things
come round again.”—_Memoirs_, ii. p. 280. “He may be right,” says Dr.
Phelan, “in complimenting their orthodoxy at the expense of their truth;
yet it is a curious circumstance, that their hypocrisy, while it
deceived a vigilant and justly suspicious Protestant government, should
be disclosed by the tardy candour of their own historians.” The
admission, however, is important; the admission of a Romanist that
Romanism was for a season extinct, as a community, in these realms. The
present Romish sect cannot, therefore, consistently claim to be what the
clergy of the Church of England really and truly are, the
representatives of the founders of the English Church. The Romish clergy
in England, though they have _orders_, have no _mission_, on their own
showing, and are consequently schismatics. The Romanists began to fall
away from the Catholic Church of England, and to constitute themselves
into a distinct community or sect, about the year 1570, that is, about
forty years after the Church of England had suppressed the papal
usurpation. This act was entirely voluntary on the part of the
Romanists. They refused any longer to obey their bishops; and, departing
from our communion, they established a rival worship, and set up altar
against altar. This sect was at first governed by Jesuits and missionary
priests, under the superintendence of Allen, a Roman cardinal, who lived
in Flanders, and founded the colleges at Douay and Rheims. In 1598, Mr.
George Blackwell was appointed archpriest of the English Romanists, (see
_Archpriest_,) and this form of ecclesiastical government prevailed
among them till 1623, when Dr. Bishop was ordained titular bishop of
Chalcedon, and sent from Rome to govern the Romish sect in England. Dr.
Smith, the next bishop of Chalcedon, was banished in 1628, and the
Romanists were without bishops till the reign of James II.—_Palmer_, ii.
252. During the whole of the reign of James I., and part of the
following reign, the Romish priesthood, both in England and in Ireland,
were in the interest, and many of them in the pay, of the Spanish
monarchy. The titulars of Dublin and Cashel are particularly mentioned
as pensioners of Spain. The general memorial of the Romish hierarchy in
Ireland, in 1617, was addressed to the Spanish court, and we are told by
Berrington, himself a Romanist, that the English Jesuits, 300 in number,
were all of the Spanish faction. In Ireland, as we have seen before, the
bishops almost unanimously consented, in the beginning of Queen
Elizabeth’s reign, to remove the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman
pontiff, and consequently there, as in England, for a great length of
time there were scarcely any Popish bishops. But “Swarms of Jesuits,”
says Carte, “and Romish priests, educated in the seminaries founded by
King Philip II., in Spain and the Netherlands, and by the cardinal of
Lorraine in Champagne, (where, pursuant to the vows of the founders,
they sucked in, as well the principles of rebellion, as of what _they_
call catholicity,) coming over to that kingdom, as full of secular as of
religious views, they soon prevailed with an ignorant and credulous
people to withdraw from the public service of the Church.” Macgauran,
titular archbishop of Armagh, was sent over from Spain, and slain in an
act of rebellion against his sovereign. In 1621 there were two Popish
bishops in Ireland, and two others resided in Spain. These persons were
ordained in foreign countries, and could not trace their ordinations to
the ancient Irish Church. The audacity of the Romish hierarchy in
Ireland has of late years been only equalled by their mendacity. But we
know them who they are; the successors, not of St. Patrick, but of
certain Spanish and Italian prelates, who, in the reign of James I.,
originated, contrary to the canons of the Church, the Romish sect—a sect
it truly is in that country, since there can be but one Church, and that
is the Catholic, in the same place, (see article on the _Church_,) and
all that they can pretend to is, that without having any mission, being
therefore in a state of schism, they hold peculiar doctrines and
practices which the Church of Ireland may have practised and held for
one, two, three, or at the very most four hundred out of the fourteen
hundred years during which it has been established; while even as a
counterpoise to this, we may place the three hundred years which have
elapsed between the Reformation and the present time. Since the above
article was written, the Romish sect has assumed a new character in
England. The pope of Rome has added to his iniquities by sending here,
in 1850, schismatical prelates, with a view of superseding the orthodox
and catholic bishops of the English Church; an act which has increased
the abhorrence of Popery in every true Englishman’s heart, and which
should lead to greater union among all who repudiate idolatry, and love
the LORD JESUS.
CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. The early history of the ancient Church of Scotland,
like that of Ireland, is involved in much obscurity; nor is it necessary
to investigate it, since, at the period of our Reformation, it was
annihilated; it was entirely subverted; not a vestige of the ancient
Christian Church of that kingdom remained. Meantime the Scottish nation
was torn by the fiercest religious factions. The history of what
occurred at the so-called Reformation of Scotland—the fierceness, the
fury, the madness of the people, who murdered with Scripture on their
lips—would make an infidel smile, and a pious Christian weep. It is
probable that a sense of the danger to his throne may have led King
James I. to his first measures, taken before his accession to the
English crown, for the restoration of episcopacy in his own dominion.
His first step was to obtain, in December, 1597, an act of the Scottish
parliament, “that such pastors and ministers as the king should please
to provide to the place, title, and dignity of a bishop, abbot, or other
prelate, should have voice in parliament as freely as any ecclesiastical
prelate had at any time by-past.” This act was followed by the
appointment of certain ministers, with the temporal title of bishops, in
the next year.—_Abp. Spottiswood’s Hist._ 449, 456. But the assembly of
ministers at Montrose, in March, 1599, jealous of the king’s intention,
passed a resolution of their own, “that they who had a voice in
parliament should have no place in the general assembly, unless they
were authorized by a commission from the presbyters.” The bishops,
however, took their seats in parliament, and voted in the articles of
union for the two kingdoms, A. D. 1601. At length, in A. D. 1610, the
bishops were admitted as presidents or moderators in the diocesan
assemblies; and, in 1612, “after fifty years of confusion, and a
multiplicity of windings and turnings, either to improve or set aside
the plan adopted in 1560,” (to use Bishop Skinner’s words,) “we see an
episcopal Church once more settled in Scotland, and a regular
apostolical succession of episcopacy introduced, upon the extinction of
the old line which had long before failed, without any attempt, real or
pretended, to keep it up.” For in this year the king caused three of
them to be consecrated in London; “and that,” says Bishop Guthrie, “not
without the consent and furtherance of many of the wisest amongst the
ministry.” Now in common justice to Episcopalians it must be remembered,
as Bishop Skinner observes, that the restoration of the primitive order
was strictly legal. “A regular episcopacy by canonical consecration had
been adopted by the general assemblies of the Church, and confirmed by
unquestionable acts of parliament.” King Charles I. endeavoured to
complete the good work which his father had begun, but, for the sins of
the Scottish people, he was not permitted to succeed in his labour of
love; nay, rather, the attempt to introduce the English Prayer Book so
exasperated the Scots against him, that they finally proved their
ignorance of Scripture, and their want of true Christian principles, by
assenting to the parricide of their sovereign, when it was effected by
their disciples in England. The general assembly of 1638 was held in
opposition to the _sovereign, and to the law_; it declared all
assemblies since 1605 void; proscribed the service book; and abjured
Episcopacy, condemning it as _antichristian_, and the bishops were
excommunicated and deposed. In 1613, the Scotch general assembly passed
the Solemn League and Covenant, adopted by that assembly of divines at
Westminster, who drew up the Confession, which afterwards was
established by law as the Faith of the Kirk of Scotland. The Catholic
Church, after the martyrdom of Charles, became extinct in Scotland; but
it was once more restored at the restoration of his son. By the solemn
act of parliament, Episcopacy was reestablished, and declared to be most
agreeable to the word of GOD; and synods were constituted, very much
upon the system of the English convocation. Four Scottish divines were
again consecrated in London in 1661. These prelates took possession of
the several sees to which they had been appointed, and the other ten
sees were soon canonically filled by men duly invested with the
episcopal character and function. So things remained until the
Revolution of 1688. The bishops of Scotland, mindful of their oaths,
refused to withdraw their allegiance from the king, and to give it to
the Prince of Orange, who had been elected by a portion of the people to
sovereignty, under the 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 refused to do; and
consequently, by the prince and parliament, the bishops and the clergy
were ordered either 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 the
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) instead 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 supposed, to be indulged in the still
greater privilege of selecting a religion. And yet it is said, in the
Life 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
established 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 anathemas than any bull of
Rome,) to “endeavour the extirpation of Popery and prelacy,” i. e.
“Church government by archbishops, bishops, and all ecclesiastical
officers dependent upon the hierarchy.” This League was approved by that
very assembly at Westminster, whose Confession was now nationally
adopted. And certainly, during their political ascendency, the members
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 what is profanely called its
omnipotence, to drive us from our sanctuaries, and to establish 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 Revolution, nor did they continue the division of
the country into the same dioceses, as there was no occasion for that
accuracy, by reason of the diminution which their clergy and
congregations had suffered, owing to the persecutions they had to
endure. They have also dropped the designation of archbishops, now only
making use of that of _Primus_, (a name formerly given to the presiding
bishop,) who being elected by the other bishops, six in number, is
invested thereby with the authority of calling and presiding in such
meetings as may be necessary for regulating the affairs of the Church.
The true Church of Scotland has thus continued to exist from the
Revolution to the present time, notwithstanding those penal statutes, of
the severity of which some opinion may be formed when it is stated, that
the grandfather 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
_according 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 establishment, to
be called back again to her own. The penal statutes were repealed in the
year 1792. But even then the clergy of that Church were so far
prohibited from officiating in the Church of England, that the
clergyman, in whose church they should perform any ministerial act, was
liable to the penalties of a premunire. 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 which were drawn up by the Church of England in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth. 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 political recognition of
Presbyterianism, had fourteen bishops: viz. The archbishop of St.
Andrew’s, primate of Scotland, with nine suffragans; viz. Edinburgh,
Aberdeen, Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caithness, Dunblane, Orkney, and
Ross. The archbishop of Glasgow, with three suffragans; viz. Galloway,
Argyle, and the Isles. The bishops of Edinburgh and Galloway had
precedence over the others. All the bishops 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
Reformation, 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 communion 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 supremacy was owned in
cases purely spiritual, 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 Gallican 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 _à latere_, who are empowered to reform abuses,
and to exercise 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 exercise his commission in any of the
king’s dominions, till after he hath obtained his Majesty’s leave for
that purpose.
IV. The prelates of the Gallican Church, being summoned by the pope,
cannot depart the realm upon any pretence whatever, without the king’s
permission.
V. The pope has no authority to levy any tax or imposition upon the
temporalities 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 depose the king, or grant away his
dominions to any person whatever. His Holiness can neither excommunicate
the king, nor absolve his subjects from their allegiance.
VII. The pope likewise has no authority to excommunicate the king’s
officers for their executing and discharging their respective offices
and functions.
VIII. The pope has no right to take cognizance, either by himself or his
delegates, 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, contrary 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 person 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 whatever.
XIII. The king may punish his ecclesiastical 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 œcumenical or general council.
XVI. The Gallican Church does not receive, without distinction, all the
canons, and all the decretal epistles, but keeps principally to that
ancient collection called _Corpus Canonicum_, 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 delegates, 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 instrument, 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 validity as if
he had received his title under the seals of the court of Rome.
XXI. No mandates from the pope, enjoining a bishop, or other collator,
to present any person to a benefice upon a vacancy, are admitted in
France.
XXII. It is only by sufferance that the pope has what they call a right
of prevention, to collate to benefices which the ordinary 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 diocesans, 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 privilegium et debitam legem atque justitiam
servabo.”
The bishoprics were entirely in the hands of the Crown. There were, in
France, 18 archbishops, 112 bishops, 160,000 clergymen of various
orders, and 3400 convents.
The archbishops were: 1. _Rheims_, (primate of France,) eight
suffragans. 2. _Lyons_, (primate of Gaul,) five suffragans. 3. Rouen,
(primate of Normandy,) six suffragans. 4. Paris, four suffragans. 5.
Sens, three suffragans. 6. Tours, eleven suffragans. 7. Bordeaux, nine
suffragans. 8. Bourges, five suffragans. 9. Toulouse, seven suffragans.
10. Narbonne, eleven suffragans. 11. Besançon, one suffragan. 12. Arles,
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 Besançon with his suffragan, and eight other bishops,
were not considered properly to form part of the Gallican Church.
Such _was_ 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
constitution of the clergy in France, under which false appellation the
constituent assembly affected extraordinary alterations in _spiritual_
matters. M. Bouvier, the late bishop of Mans, remarks, that this
constitution “abounded with many and most grievous faults.” “First,” he
says, “the National Convention, by its own authority, without any
recourse to the ecclesiastical power, changes or reforms all the old
dioceses, erects new ones, diminishes some, increases others, &c.; (2.)
forbids any Gallican church or citizen to acknowledge the authority of
any foreign bishop, &c.; (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 imposing
on them a certain council, without whose judgment they could do
nothing,” &c. The great body of the Gallican bishops naturally protested
against this constitution, 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 Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, assisted by
Gobel, bishop of Lydda, and Miroudet of Babylon.
M. Bouvier proves, from the 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
Romanists at least, the adherents of the civil constitution were in
schism and heresy.
Nevertheless, these schismatics and heretics were 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 _twelve_ of these constitutional
bishops should be appointed to sees under the new arrangements. He
succeeded. “He caused to be named to sees twelve of those same
constitutionals who had attached themselves with such _obstinate
perseverance_, for ten years, to the _propagation of schism_ in
France.... One of the partisans of the new Concordat, who had been
charged to receive the recantation of the constitutionals, 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 censures, 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 VII.,
being at Paris, procured their signature to a declaration approving
generally of the judgments of the holy see on the ecclesiastical affairs
of France; but this vague and general formulary, which Bouvier and other
Romanists pretend to represent as a recantation, was not so understood
by these bishops; and thus the Gallican Church continued, and probably
still continues, to number _schismatical bishops 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 Christianity in France, engaged the pontiff to
exact resignations from all the existing bishops of the French
territory, both constitutional and royalist. The bishoprics of old
France were 130 in number; those of the conquered districts (Savoy,
Germany, &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, created
in their place 60 new ones, and arranged the mode of appointment and
consecration of the new bishops and clergy, by his bull _Ecclesia
Christi_ and _Qui Christi Domini_. To this sweeping Concordat the French
government took care to annex, by the authority of their “corps
législatif,” certain “Organic Articles,” relating to the exercise of
worship. According to a Romish historian, they “rendered 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 multitude 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 functions_, in an entire dependence on the
government agents!” The pope remonstrated against these articles—in
vain: they continued, were adopted by the Bourbons, 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
bishops. Bonaparte assumed the language of piety, while he proceeded to
exercise the most absolute jurisdiction over the Church. “Henceforward
nothing embarrasses him in the _government of the Church_; he decides
everything as a master; he creates bishoprics, unites them, suppresses
them.” He apparently found a very accommodating episcopacy. 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, instead of the pope, in case of urgent
circumstances; 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 protests 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
refused to communicate with those whom they regarded as intruders. They
dwelt on the odious slavery under which they were placed by the “Organic
Articles;” and the Abbés 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 schismatics,
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 ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, contrary
to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the incessant efforts
of Napoleon and the Bourbons to force on them the four articles of the
Gallican clergy of 1682. They see, plainly enough, that their Church’s
origin rests chiefly on the _unlimited_ power of the pope.—_Broughton.
Palmer._
CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental (sometimes called the Greek) Church,
prevails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland,
European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the Archipelago,
Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian 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 Russian Church was subject to a fifth patriarch, from the
latter part of the sixteenth century, [1588,] but since the reign of
Peter the Great, the appointment to this high office has been suspended
by the emperor, who 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 subsist
uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the Saracens in the seventh
century, and revived again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are
the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others; from these
apostolical Churches the whole Oriental Church derives its origin and
succession; for wherever new Churches were founded, it was always by
authority of the ancient societies previously existing. With these all
the more recent Churches held close communion; and thus, by the
consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity, were themselves
apostolical. They were also apostolical in their ministry; for it is
undeniable, that they can produce a regular uninterrupted series of
bishops, and of valid ordinations in their churches, from the beginning.
No one denies the validity of their ordination.—_Palmer._
The descendants of the ancient Christians of the East, who still occupy
the Oriental sees, are called the Greek Church. The Greek Church was not
formerly so extensive as it has been since the emperors of the East
thought proper to lessen or reduce the other patriarchates, in order to
aggrandize that of Constantinople; a task which they accomplished with
the greater ease, as they were much more powerful than the emperors of
the West, and had little or no regard to the consent of the patriarchs,
in order to create new bishoprics, or to confer new titles and
privileges. Whereas, in the Western Church, the popes, by slow degrees,
made themselves the sole arbiters in all ecclesiastical concerns;
insomuch, that princes themselves at length became obliged to have
recourse to them, and were subservient to their directions on every
momentous occasion.
The Greek Churches, at present, deserve not even the name of the shadow
of what they were in their former flourishing state, when they were so
remarkably distinguished for the learned and worthy pastors who presided
over them; but now nothing but wretchedness, ignorance, and poverty are
visible amongst them. “I have seen churches,” says Ricaut, “which were
more like caverns or sepulchres than places set apart for Divine
worship; the tops thereof being almost level with the ground. They are
erected after this humble manner for fear they should be suspected, if
they raised them any considerable height, of an evil intention to rival
the Turkish mosques.” It is, indeed, very surprising that, in the abject
state to which the Greeks at present are reduced, the Christian religion
should maintain the least footing amongst them. Their notions of
Christianity are principally confined to the traditions of their
forefathers and their own received customs; and, among other things,
they are much addicted to external acts of piety and devotion, such as
the observance of fasts, festivals, and penances: they revere and dread
the censures of their clergy; and are bigoted slaves to their religious
customs, many of which are absurd and ridiculous; and yet it must be
acknowledged, that, although these errors reflect a considerable degree
of scandal and reproach upon the holy religion they profess, they
nevertheless prevent it from being entirely lost and abolished amongst
them. A fire which lies for a time concealed under a heap of embers, may
revive and burn again as bright as ever; and the same hope may be
conceived of truth, when obscured by the dark clouds of ignorance and
error.
Caucus, archbishop of Corfu, in his Dissertation on what he calls the
erroneous doctrines of the modern Greeks, dedicated to Gregory XIII.,
has digested their tenets under the following heads:
I. They rebaptize all Romanists who are admitted into their communion.
II. They do not baptize their children till they are three, four, five,
six, ten, and even sometimes eighteen years of age.
III. They exclude confirmation and extreme unction from the number of
the sacraments.
IV. They deny there is any such place as purgatory, although they pray
for the dead.
V. They deny the papal supremacy, and assert that the Church of Rome has
abandoned the doctrines of her fathers.
VI. They deny, by consequence, that the Church of Rome is the true
Catholic mother Church, and on Holy Thursday excommunicate the pope and
all the Latin prelates, as heretics and schismatics, praying that all
those who offer up unleavened bread in the celebration of the sacrament
may be covered with confusion.
VII. They deny that the HOLY GHOST proceeds from the FATHER and the SON.
VIII. They refuse to receive the host consecrated by Romish priests with
unleavened bread. They likewise wash the altars on which Romanists have
celebrated mass, and will not suffer a Romish priest to officiate at
their altars.
IX. They assert that the usual form of words, wherein the consecration,
according to the Church of Rome, wholly consists, is not sufficient to
change the bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST.
X. They insist that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper ought to be
administered in both kinds to infants, even before they are capable of
distinguishing this spiritual food from any other, because it is a
Divine institution. For which reason they give the eucharist to infants
immediately after baptism, and look upon the Romanists as heretics for
not observing the same custom.
XI. They hold that the laity are under an indispensable obligation, by
the law of God, to receive the communion in both kinds, and look on the
Romanists as heretics who maintain the contrary.
XII. They assert that no members of the Church, when they have attained
to years of discretion, ought to be compelled to receive the communion
every Easter, but should have free liberty to act according to the
dictates of their own conscience.
XIII. They pay no religious homage, or veneration, to the holy sacrament
of the eucharist, even at the celebration of their own priests; and use
no lighted tapers when they administer it to the sick.
XIV. They are of opinion that such hosts as are consecrated on Holy
Thursday are much more efficacious than those consecrated at other
times.
XV. They maintain that matrimony is a union which may be dissolved. For
which reason they charge the Church of Rome with being guilty of an
error, in asserting that the bonds of marriage can never be broken, even
in case of adultery, and that no person upon any provocation whatsoever
can lawfully marry again.
XVI. They condemn all fourth marriages.
XVII. They refuse to celebrate the solemnities instituted by the Romish
Church in honour of the Virgin Mary and the Saints. They reject likewise
the religious use of graven images and statues, although they admit of
pictures in their churches.
XVIII. They insist that the canon of the mass of the Roman Church ought
to be abolished, as being full of errors.
XIX. They deny that usury is a mortal sin.
XX. They deny that the subdeaconry is at present a holy order.
XXI. Of all the general councils that have been held in the Catholic
Church by the popes at different times, they pay no regard to any after
the sixth, and reject not only the seventh, which was the second held at
Nice, for the express purpose of condemning those who rejected the use
of images in their Divine worship, but all those which have succeeded
it, by which they refuse to submit to any of their institutions.
XXII. They deny auricular confession to be a Divine precept, and assert
that it is only a positive injunction of the Church.
XXIII. They insist that the confession of the laity ought to be free and
voluntary; for which reason they are not compelled to confess themselves
annually, nor are they excommunicated for the neglect of it.
XXIV. They insist that in confession there is no Divine law which
enjoins the acknowledgment of every individual sin, or a discovery of
all the circumstances that attend it, which alter its nature and
property.
XXV. They administer the communion to their laity both in sickness and
in health, though they have never applied themselves to their
confessors; the reason of which is, that they are persuaded all
confessions should be free and voluntary, and that a lively faith is all
the preparation that is requisite for the worthy receiving of the
sacrament of the LORD’S supper.
XXVI. They look down with an eye of disdain on the Romanists for their
observance of the vigils before the nativity of our blessed SAVIOUR, and
the festivals of the Virgin Mary and the apostles, as well as for their
fasting in Ember-week. They even affect to eat meat more plentifully at
those times than at any other, to testify their contempt of the Latin
customs. They prohibit, likewise, all fasting on Saturdays, that
preceding Easter only excepted.
XXVII. They condemn the Romanists as heretics, for eating such things as
have been strangled, and such other meats as are prohibited in the Old
Testament.
XXVIII. They deny that simple fornication is a mortal sin.
XXIX. They insist that it is lawful to deceive an enemy, and that it is
no sin to injure and oppress him.
XXX. They are of opinion that, in order to be saved, there is no
necessity to make restitution of such goods as have been stolen or
fraudulently obtained.
XXXI. To conclude: they hold that such as have been admitted into holy
orders may become laymen at pleasure. From whence it plainly appears
that they do not allow the character of the priesthood to be indelible.
To which it may be added, that they approve of the marriage of their
priests, provided they enter into that state before their admission into
holy orders, though they are never indulged in that respect after their
ordination.
The patriarch of Constantinople assumes the honourable title of
_Universal_ or _Œcumenical Patriarch_. As he purchases his commission of
the Grand Seignior, it may be easily supposed that he makes a tyrannical
and simoniacal use of a privilege which he holds himself by simony. The
patriarchs and bishops are always single men; but the priests (as
observed before) are indulged in marriage before ordination; and this
custom, which is generally practised all over the Levant, is very
ancient. Should a priest happen to marry after ordination, he can
officiate no longer as priest, which is conformable to the injunctions
of the Council of Neocesarea. The marriage, however, is not looked upon
as invalid; whereas, in the Romish Church, such marriages are pronounced
void and of no effect, because the priesthood is looked upon as a lawful
bar or impediment.—_Broughton._
Their _Pappas_, or secular priests, not having any settled and competent
livings, are obliged to subsist by simoniacal practices. “The clergy,”
says Ricaut, “are almost compelled to sell those Divine mysteries which
are intrusted to their care. No one, therefore, can procure absolution,
be admitted to confession, have his children baptized, be married or
divorced, or obtain an excommunication against his adversary, or the
communion in time of sickness, without first paying down a valuable
consideration. The priests too often make the best market they can, and
fix a price on their spiritual commodities in proportion to the devotion
or abilities of their respective customers.”
The national Church of the kingdom of Greece has lately been
reconstructed similarly to that of Russia, by the establishment of a
synod.—See _King’s Rites of the Greek Church_, and _Cowel’s Account of
the Greek Church_, 1722.
CHURCH, ARCHITECTURE OF. There seems to be an absurdity in the modern
practice of building churches for the ritual of the nineteenth century,
on the model of churches designed for the ritual of the fourteenth
century. And for a service such as ours, nothing more is required than a
nave and a chancel; the only divisions which we find in the primitive
Eastern churches. But as we have inherited churches which were erected
during the middle ages, it is rather important that we should understand
their designed arrangement. We find in such churches a _nave_ (_navis_)
with its _aisles_ (_alæ_); a _chancel_; a _tower_, generally at the west
end; and a _porch_, generally to the second bay of the south aisle. The
uses of the nave and chancel are obvious; the aisles were added in
almost all cases perhaps, prospectively at least in all, that they might
serve for places for the erection of chantry altars, and for the same
end served the transepts and chancel aisles, or side chapels, to the
chancels, sometimes found even in small churches. To the chancel,
generally at the north, a _vestry_ was often attached; and this was
sometimes enlarged into a habitation for the officiating priest, by the
addition of an upper chamber, with fire-place and other conveniences.
But the more frequent place for this _domus inclusa_ was over the porch,
when it is commonly called _parvise_; and sometimes the tower has
evidently been made habitable, though, in this case, it may be rather
suspected that means of defence have been contemplated. In the _domus
inclusa_, in the vestry, and in the parvise, was often an altar, which
not unfrequently remains. (See _Altar_.)
The chancel was separated from the nave by a screen, _cancelli_, from
which the word chancel is derived, and over the screen a loft was
extended, bearing the _rood_—a figure of our blessed LORD on the cross,
and, on either side, figures of the Blessed Virgin and of St. John. But
few _rood lofts_ remain, but the _screen_ is of frequent occurrence,
especially in the northern and eastern counties. The loft was generally
gained by a newel stair running up the angle between the chancel and the
nave, but sometimes apparently by moveable steps. The side chapels were
generally parted off from the adjoining parts of the church by screens,
called _parcloses_. The chancel, if any conventual body was attached to
the church, was furnished with stalls, which were set against the north
and south walls, and returned against the rood screen, looking east.
Connected with the altar, and sometimes, also, with some of the chantry
altars, were _sedilia_, in the south wall of the chancel, varying in
number from one to five, for the officiating clergy; and, eastward of
these, the _piscina_; also an _aumbrie_, or locker, in the north chancel
wall. The altar and these accessories were generally raised at least one
step above the level of the rest of the chancel floor, and the chancel
itself the like height from the nave. The _font_ stood against the first
pillar to the left hand, entering at the south porch; it was often
raised on steps, and furnished with an elaborate cover. (See
_Baptistery_.) The _pulpit_ always stood in the nave, generally against
a north pillar in _cathedrals_; but in other churches, generally against
a south pillar, towards the east. The seats for the congregation were
placed in a double series along the nave, with an alley between, and
looking east. There are a few instances of seats with doors, but none of
high pews till the time of the Puritans.
The doors to the church were almost always opposite to one another in
the second bay of the aisles: besides these, there was often a west
door, and this is generally supposed to denote some connexion with a
monastic body, and was, perhaps, especially used on occasions of greater
pomp, processions, and the like. What is usually called _the priest’s
door_, at the south side of the chancel, opens always from within, and
was, therefore, _not_ (as is usually supposed) _for the priest to enter
by_: in which case, moreover, it would rather have been to the north,
where the glebe house usually stands. Was it for the _exit_ of those who
had assisted at mass? A little _bell-cot_ is often seen over the nave
and altar, or on some other part of the church, called the
_service-bell-cot_; for the bell rung at certain solemn parts of the
service of the mass; as at the words “Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus DEUS
Sabaoth,” and at the elevation of the Host. If, as is supposed, those
who were not in the church were accustomed to kneel at this time, there
is an obvious reason for the external position of this bell.
CHURCHING OF WOMEN. The birth of man is so truly wonderful, that it
seems to be designed as a standing demonstration of the omnipotence of
GOD. And therefore that the frequency of it may not diminish our
admiration, the Church orders a public and solemn acknowledgment to be
made on every such occasion by the woman on whom the miracle is wrought;
who still feels the bruise of our first parents’ fall, and labours under
the curse which Eve then entailed upon her whole sex.
As to the original of this custom, it is not to be doubted but that, as
many other Christian usages received their rise from other parts of the
Jewish economy, so did this from the rite of purification, which is
enjoined so particularly in the twelfth chapter of Leviticus. Not that
we observe it by virtue of that precept, which we grant to have been
ceremonial, and so not now of any force; but because we apprehend some
moral duty to have been implied in it by way of analogy, which must be
obligatory upon all, even when the ceremony is ceased. The uncleanness
of the woman, the set number of days she is to abstain from the
tabernacle, and the sacrifices she was to offer when she first came
abroad, are rites wholly abolished, and what we no ways regard; but then
the open and solemn acknowledgment of GOD’S goodness in delivering the
mother, and increasing the number of mankind, is a duty that will oblige
to the end of the world. And therefore, though the mother be now no
longer obliged to offer the material sacrifices of the law, yet she is
nevertheless bound to offer the evangelical sacrifice of praise. She is
still publicly to acknowledge the blessing vouchsafed her, and to
profess her sense of the fresh obligation it lays her under to
obedience. Nor indeed may the Church be so reasonably supposed to have
taken up this rite from the practice of the Jews, as she may be, that
she began it in imitation of the Blessed Virgin, who, though she was
rather sanctified than defiled by the birth of our LORD, and so had no
need of purification from any uncleanness, whether legal or moral; yet
wisely and humbly submitted to this rite, and offered her praise,
together with her blessed Son, in the temple. And that from hence this
usage was derived among Christians seems probable, not only from its
being so universal and ancient, that the beginning of it can hardly
anywhere be found; but also from the practice of the Eastern Church,
where the mother still brings the child along with her, and presents it
to GOD on her churching-day. The priest indeed is there said to “purify”
them: and in our first Common Prayer, this office with us was entitled
“the Order of the Purification of Women.” But that neither of these
terms implied, that the woman had contracted any uncleanness in her
state of child-bearing, may not only be inferred from the silence of the
offices both in the Greek Church and ours, in relation to any
uncleanness; but is also further evident from the ancient laws relating
to this practice, which by no means ground it upon any impurity from
which the woman stands in need to be purged. And therefore, when our own
liturgy came to be reviewed, to prevent all misconstructions that might
be put upon the word, the title was altered, and the office named, (as
it is still in our present Common Prayer Book,) “The Thanksgiving of
Women after Child-birth, commonly called, The Churching of Women.”—_Dean
Comber, Wheatly._
When Holy Scripture describes excessive sorrow in the most expressive
manner, it likens it to that of a woman in travail. And if this sorrow
be so excessive, how great must the joy be to be delivered from that
sorrow! commensurate certainly, and of adequate proportion: and no less
must be the debt of thankfulness to the benefactor, the donor of that
recovery; whence a necessity of “thanksgiving of women after
child-birth.” If it be asked, why the Church hath appointed a particular
form for this deliverance, and not for deliverance from other cases of
equal danger? the answer is, the Church did not so much take measure of
the peril, as accommodate herself to that mark of separation which GOD
himself hath put between this and other maladies. “To conceive and bring
forth in sorrow” was signally inflicted upon Eve; and, in her, upon all
mothers, as a penalty for her first disobedience (Gen. iii. 16); so that
the sorrows of child-birth have, by GOD’S express determination, a more
direct and peculiar reference to Eve’s disobedience than any other
disease whatsoever; and, though all maladies are the product of the
first sin, yet is the malediction specifically fixed and applied to this
alone. Now, when that which was ordained primarily as a curse for the
first sin, is converted to so great a blessing, GOD is certainly in that
case more to be praised in a set and solemn office.—_L’ Estrange._
In the Greek Church the time for performing this office is limited to be
on the fortieth day; but, in the West, the time was never strictly
determined. And so our present rubric does not pretend to limit the day
when the woman shall be churched, but only supposes that she will come
“at the usual time after her delivery.” The “usual time” is now about a
month, for the woman’s weakness will seldom permit her coming sooner.
And if she be not able to come so soon, she is allowed to stay a longer
time, the Church not expecting her to return her thanks for a blessing
before it is received.—_Wheatly._
It is required, that whenever a woman is churched, she “shall come into
the church.” And this is enjoined, first, for the honour of GOD, whose
marvellous works in the formation of the child, and the preservation of
the woman, ought publicly to be owned, that so others may learn to put
their trust in him. Secondly, that the whole congregation may have a fit
opportunity for praising GOD for the too much forgotten mercy of their
birth. And, thirdly, that the woman may, in the proper place, own the
mercy now vouchsafed her, of being restored to the happy privilege of
worshipping GOD in the congregation of his saints.
How great, therefore, is the absurdity which some would introduce, of
stifling their acknowledgments in private houses, and of giving thanks
for their recovery and enlargement in no other place than that of their
confinement and restraint; a practice which is inconsistent with the
very name of this office, which is called “the _churching_ of women,”
and which consequently implies a ridiculous solecism, of being _churched
at home_. Nor is it anything more consistent with the end and devotions
prescribed by this office, than it is with the name of it. For with what
decency or propriety can the woman pretend to “pay her vows in the
presence of all GOD’S people, in the courts of the LORD’S house,” when
she is only assuming state in a bedchamber or parlour, and perhaps only
accompanied with her midwife or nurse? To give thanks, therefore, at
home (for by no means call it “churching”) is not only an act of
disobedience to the Church, but a high affront to Almighty GOD; whose
mercy they scorn to acknowledge in a church, and think it honour enough
done him, if he is summoned by his priest to wait on them at their
house, and to take what thanks they will vouchsafe him there. But
methinks a minister, who has any regard for his character, and considers
the honour of the LORD he serves, should disdain such a servile
compliance and submission, and abhor the betraying of his Master’s
dignity. Here can be no pretence of danger in the case, should the woman
prove obstinate, upon the priest’s refusal (which ministers are apt to
urge for their excuse, when they are prevailed upon to give public
baptism in private); nor is the decision of a council wanting to
instruct him, (if he has any doubts upon account of the woman’s ill
health,) that he is not to perform this office at home, though she be
really so weak as not to be able to come to church.—_Conc._ 3, _Mediol._
cap. 5. For if she be not able to come to church, let her stay till she
is; GOD does not require any thanks for a mercy, before he has
vouchsafed it: but if she comes as soon as her strength permits, she
discharges her obligations both to him and the Church.—_Wheatly._
The rubric, at the end of the service, directs the woman that cometh to
give her thanks, to offer the accustomed offerings. By “the accustomed
offerings” is to be understood some offering to the minister who
performs the office, not under the notion of a fee or reward, but of
something set apart as a tribute or acknowledgment due to GOD, who is
pleased to declare himself honoured or robbed according as such
offerings are paid or withheld. We see under the law, that every woman,
who came to be purified after child-bearing, was required to bring
something that put her to an expense; even the poorest among them was
not wholly excused, but obliged to do something, though it were but
small. And though neither the kind nor the value of the expense be now
prescribed, yet sure the expense itself should not covetously be saved:
a woman that comes with any thankfulness or gratitude should scorn to
offer what David disdained, namely, “of that which costs nothing.” And
indeed with what sincerity or truth can she say, as she is directed to
do in one of the Psalms, “I will pay my vows now in the presence of all
his people,” if at the same time she designs no voluntary offering,
which vows were always understood to imply?
But, besides the accustomed offering to the minister, the woman is to
make a yet much better and greater offering, namely, an offering of
herself, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to GOD. For the
rubric declares, that “if there be a communion, it is convenient that
she receive the holy communion;” that being the most solemn way of
praising GOD for him by whom she received both the present and all other
GOD’S mercies towards her; and a means also to bind herself more
strictly to spend those days in his service, which, by this late
deliverance, he hath added to her life.—_Wheatly._
In the Greek and Ethiopic Churches women upon these occasions always did
receive the holy sacrament; and it seems in this very Church above a
thousand years ago; and still we carry them up to the altar to remind
them of their duty. And doubtless the omission of it occasions the too
soon forgetting of this mercy, and the sudden falling off from piety,
which we see in too many. Here they may praise GOD for our LORD JESUS
CHRIST, and for this late temporal mercy also: here they may quicken
their graces, seal their vows and promises of obedience, offer their
charity, and begin that pious life to which they are so many ways
obliged. To receive the sacrament, while the sense of GOD’S goodness and
her own engagements is so fresh upon her, is the likeliest means to make
her remember this blessing long, apply it right, and effectually to
profit by it. Wherefore let it not be omitted on this occasion.—_Dean
Comber._
The woman is directed to kneel down in “some convenient place, as hath
been accustomed.” No general rule is either prescribed or observed as to
time or place, and therefore these are matters which fall within the
office of the ordinary to determine. Many read the office just before
the General Thanksgiving: others, though not so usually, at some part of
the Communion Service; some at the altar, others at the desk: the woman
in some churches occupies a seat specially set apart for this office; in
others she kneels at the altar table, and there makes her offering. And
in others a custom prevails (which does not seem worthy of imitation) of
performing this service at some time distinct from the office of Common
Prayer.
CHURCH RATE. (See _Rate_.)
CHURCHWARDENS. These are very ancient officers, and by the common law
are a lay corporation, to take care of the goods of the church, and may
sue and be sued as the representatives of the parish. Churches are to be
repaired by the churchwardens, at the charge of all the inhabitants, or
such as occupy houses or lands within the parish.
In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers
creditable persons out of every parish, to give information of, and to
attest the disorders of clergy and people. They were called _testes
synodales_; and were, in after times, a kind of empanelled jury,
consisting of two, three, or more persons in every parish, who were,
upon oath, to present all heretics and other irregular persons. And
these, in process of time, became standing officers in several places,
especially in great cities, and from hence were called synods-men, and
by corruption sidesmen: they are also sometimes called questmen, from
the nature of their office, in making inquiry concerning offences. And
these sidesmen or questmen, by Canon 90, are to be chosen yearly in
Easter week, by the minister and parishioners, (if they can agree,)
otherwise to be appointed by the ordinary of the diocese. But for the
most part this whole office is now devolved upon the churchwardens,
together with that other office which their name more properly imports,
of taking care of the church and the goods thereof, which has long been
their function.
By Canon 118. The churchwardens and sidesmen shall be chosen the first
week after Easter, or some week following, according to the direction of
the ordinary.
And by Canon 89. All churchwardens or questmen in every parish shall be
chosen by the joint consent of the minister and the parishioners, if it
may be; but if they cannot agree upon such a choice, then the minister
shall choose one, and the parishioners another; and without such a joint
or several choice, none shall take upon them to be churchwardens. But if
the parish is entitled by custom to choose both churchwardens, then the
parson is restrained of his right under this canon. For further
information on this subject the reader is referred to Dean Prideaux’s
“Practical Guide to the Duties of Churchwardens in the execution of
their Office,” a new edition of which has recently appeared, edited by
C. G. Prideaux, barrister-at-law. (See _Sidesmen_ and _Visitation_.)
CHURCHYARD. The ground adjoining to the church, in which the dead are
buried. As to the original of burial-places, many writers have observed,
that, at the first erection of churches, no part of the adjacent ground
was allotted for the interment of the dead; but some place for this
purpose was appointed at a further distance. This practice continued
until the time of Gregory the Great, when the monks and priests procured
leave, for their greater ease and profit, that a liberty of sepulture
might be in churches or places adjoining to them. But, by the ninth
canon, entitled _De non sepeliendo in ecclesiis_, this custom of
sepulture in churches was restrained, and no such liberty allowed for
the future, unless the person was a priest or some holy man, who, by the
merits of his past life, might deserve such peculiar favour.
By Canon 85. The churchwardens or questmen shall take care that the
churchyards be well and sufficiently repaired, fenced, and maintained
with walls, rails, or pales, as have been in each place accustomed, at
their charges unto whom by law the same appertains.
The churchyard is the freehold of the parson: but it is the common
burial-place of the dead, and for that reason it is to be fenced at the
charge of the parishioners, unless there is a custom to the contrary, or
for a particular person to do it, in respect of his lands adjoining to
the churchyard; and that must be tried at common law. But though the
freehold is in the parson, he cannot cut down trees growing there,
except for the necessary repairs of the chancel; because they are
planted and grow there for the ornament and shelter of the church. (See
_Burial_ and _Cemetery_.)
CIBORIUM. A small temple or tabernacle placed upon the altar of Roman
Catholic churches, and containing the consecrated wafer.
CIRCUMCELLIONS. A sect of the Donatist Christians in Africa, in the
fourth century, being so called, because they rambled from one town to
another, and pretended to public reformation and redressing of
grievances; they manumitted slaves without their master’s leave, forgave
debts which were none of their own, and committed a great many other
insolencies: they were headed by Maxides and Faser. At the beginning of
their disorders they marched only with staves, which they called the
staves of Israel, in allusion to the custom of the Israelites eating the
paschal lamb with staves in their hands, but afterwards they made use of
all sorts of arms against the Catholics. Donatus called them the saints’
chiefs, and revenged himself by their means upon the Catholics. A
mistaken zeal for martyrdom made these people destroy themselves; some
of them threw themselves down precipices, others leaped into the fire,
and some cut their own throats: so that their bishops, not being able to
prevent such horrible and unnatural violences, were obliged to apply
themselves to the magistracy to put an end to their phrensy.—_August.
Hæres_, 69; _Optatus_, lib. iii.; _Theod. Hist. Eccles._ lib. iv. c. 6.
CIRCUMCISION of JESUS CHRIST. This feast is celebrated by the Church, to
commemorate the active obedience of our LORD in fulfilling all
righteousness, which is one branch of the meritorious cause of our
redemption; and by that means abrogating the severe injunctions of the
Mosaical establishment, and putting us under the grace of the gospel.
The institution of this feast is of very considerable antiquity. In the
sixth century a special and appropriate service for it was in use. It
sometimes took the name of the “Octave of Christmas,” or the eighth day
from that festival, being observed on January 1st. (See _Octave_.) It is
one of the scarlet days at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
CISTERCIANS. Towards the conclusion of the 11th century, Robert, abbot
of Molême, in Burgundy, having employed, in vain, his most zealous
efforts to revive the decaying piety and discipline of his convent, and
to oblige his monks to observe more exactly the rule of St. Benedict,
retired with about twenty monks to a place called Citeaux, in the
diocese of Chalons. In this retreat Robert founded the famous order of
the Cistercians, which made a most rapid and astonishing progress,
spread through the greatest part of Europe in the following century, was
enriched with the most liberal and splendid donations, acquired the form
and privileges of a spiritual republic, and exercised a sort of dominion
over all the monastic orders. The great and fundamental law of this new
fraternity was the rule of St. Benedict, which was to be rigorously
observed. (See _Benedictines_.) To this were added several other
injunctions intended to maintain the authority of the rule. The first
Cistercian monastery in England was that of Waverley, in Surrey, 1129.
In the reign of Edward I. there were sixty-one Cistercian
monasteries.—_Monast. Angl.; Hist. des Ord. Relig._ tom. v. c. 33.
CITATION. This is a precept under the seal of the ecclesiastical judge,
commanding the person against whom the complaint is made to appear
before him, on a certain day, and at a certain place therein mentioned,
to answer the complaint in such a cause, &c.
CLAIRE, ST. A religious order of women in the Romish Church, the second
that St. Francis instituted. This order was founded in 1213, and was
confirmed by Innocent III., and after him by Honorius III., in 1223. It
took its name from its first abbess and nun, Clara of Assisi, and was
afterwards divided into Damianists and Urbanists; the first follow the
ancient discipline in all its rigour, but the other the rule with Urban
IV.’s allowance.—_Hist. des Ord. Relig._ t. vii. c. 25.
CLARENDON, CONSTITUTIONS OF. Certain constitutions made in the reign of
Henry II., A. D. 1164, in a parliament or council held at Clarendon, a
village three miles distant from Salisbury. These are as follows:—
I. When any difference relating to the right of patronage arises between
the laity, or between the laity and clergy, the controversy is to be
tried and ended in the king’s courts.
II. Those churches which are fees of the Crown cannot be granted away in
perpetuity without the king’s consent.
III. When the clergy are charged with any misdemeanour, and summoned by
the justiciary, they shall be obliged to make their appearance in his
court, and plead to such parts of the indictments as shall be put to
them. And likewise to answer such articles in the ecclesiastical court
as they shall be prosecuted for by that jurisdiction; always provided
that the king’s justiciary shall send an officer to inspect the
proceedings of the court Christian. And in case any clerk is convicted
or pleads guilty, he is to forfeit the privilege of his character, and
be protected by the Church no longer.
IV. No archbishops, bishops, or parsons are allowed to depart the
kingdom without a licence from the Crown; and, provided they have leave
to travel, they shall give security not to act or solicit anything
during their passage, stay, or return, to the prejudice of the king or
kingdom.
V. When any of the laity are prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts,
the charge ought to be proved before the bishop by legal and reputable
witnesses: and the course of the process is to be so managed, that the
archdeacon may not lose any part of his right, or the profits accruing
to his office: and if any offenders appear screened from prosecution
upon the score either of favour or quality, the sheriff, at the bishop’s
instance, shall order twelve sufficient men of the vicinage to make oath
before the bishop, that they will discover the truth according to the
best of their knowledge.
VI. Excommunicated persons shall not be obliged to make oath, or give
security to continue upon the place where they live, but only to abide
by the judgment of the Church, in order to their absolution.
VII. No person that holds in chief of the king, or any of his barons,
shall be excommunicated, or any of their estates put under an interdict,
before application made to the king, provided he is in the kingdom: and
in case his Highness is out of England, then the justiciary must be
acquainted with the dispute, in order to make satisfaction: and thus
that which belongs to the cognizance of the king’s court must be tried
there, and that which belongs to the courts Christian must be remitted
to that jurisdiction.
VIII. In case of appeals in ecclesiastical causes, the first step is to
be made from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the
archbishop; and if the archbishop fails to do him justice, a further
recourse may be had to the king; by whose order the controversy is to be
finally decided in the archbishop’s court. Neither shall it be lawful
for either of the parties to move for any further remedy without leave
from the Crown.
IX. If a difference happen to arise between any clergyman and layman
concerning any tenement; and that the clerk pretends it held by
frank-almoine, and the layman pleads it a lay-fee, in this case the
tenure shall be tried by the inquiry and verdict of twelve sufficient
men of the neighbourhood, summoned according to the custom of the realm;
and if the tenement, or thing in controversy, shall be found
frank-almoine, the dispute concerning it shall be tried in the
ecclesiastical court; but if it is brought in a lay-fee, the suit shall
be followed in the king’s courts, unless both the plaintiff and
defendant hold the tenement in question of the same bishop; in which
case the cause shall be tried in the court of such bishop or baron, with
this further proviso, that he who is seized of the thing in controversy
shall not be disseized pending the suit, upon the score of the verdict
above-mentioned.
X. He who holds of the king in any city, castle, or borough, or resides
upon any of the demesne lands of the Crown, in case he is cited by the
archdeacon or bishop to answer to any misbehaviour belonging to their
cognizance; if he refuses to obey their summons, and stand to the
sentence of the court, it shall be lawful for the ordinary to put him
under an interdict, but not to excommunicate him till the king’s
principal officer of the town shall be pre-acquainted with the case, in
order to enjoin him to make satisfaction to the Church. And if such
officer or magistrate shall fail in his duty, he shall be fined by the
king’s judges. And then the bishop may exert his discipline on the
refractory person as he thinks fit.
XI. All archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, who hold
of the king in chief, and the tenure of a barony, are, for that reason,
obliged to appear before the king’s justices and ministers, to answer
the duties of their tenure, and to observe all the usages and customs of
the realm; and, like other barons, are bound to be present at trials in
the king’s court, till sentence is to be pronounced for the losing of
life or limbs.
XII. When any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal
foundation, becomes vacant, the king is to make seizure; from which time
all the profits and issues are to be paid into the exchequer, as if they
were the demesne lands of the Crown. And when it is determined the
vacancy shall be filled up, the king is to summon the most considerable
persons of the chapter to the court, and the election is to be made in
the chapel royal, with the consent of our sovereign lord the king, and
by the advice of such persons of the government as his Highness shall
think fit to make use of. At which time the person elected, before his
consecration, shall be obliged to do homage and fealty to the king, as
his liege lord; which homage shall be performed in the usual form, with
a clause for the saving the privilege of his order.
XIII. If any of the temporal barons, or great men, shall encroach upon
the rights of property of any archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon, and
refuse to make satisfaction for the wrong done by themselves or their
tenants, the king shall do justice to the party aggrieved. And if any
person shall disseise the king of any part of his lands, or trespass
upon his prerogative, the archbishops, bishops, and archdeacons shall
call him to an account, and oblige him to make the Crown restitution.
XIV. The goods and chattels of those who lie under forfeitures of felony
or treason, are not to be detained in any church or churchyard, to
secure them against seizure and justice; because such goods are the
king’s property, whether they are lodged within the precincts of a
church, or without it.
XV. All actions and pleas of debt, though never so solemn in the
circumstances of the contract, shall be tried in the king’s court.
XVI. The sons of copyholders are not to be ordained without the consent
of the lord of the manor where they were born.
CLERESTORY. That part of a church with aisles which rises on the nave
arches over the aisle roofs. Constructively, the clerestory is often to
be referred to the roof. The original roof of small, and sometimes even
of large, churches usually covered nave and aisles at one span. When the
original roof needed repair, the old timbers were made available by
cutting off the ends which had suffered most. But this process rendered
them unfit for a compass roof of high pitch. An addition, therefore, was
made to the walls of the nave, by which the roof might rise as high as
before in the centre, though of lower pitch.
CLERGY. (See _Bishop_, _Presbyter_, _Priest_, _Deacon_, _Apostolical
Succession_, _Orders_.) The general name given to the body of
ecclesiastics of the Christian Church, in contradistinction to the
laity. It is derived from κλῆρος, a lot or portion.
The distinction of Christians into clergy and laity was derived from the
Jewish Church, and adopted into the Christian by the apostles
themselves. Wherever any number of converts was made, as soon as they
were capable of being formed into a congregation or church, a bishop or
presbyter, with a deacon, were ordained to minister to them, as
Epiphanius relates from the ancient histories of the Church. The author
of the Comment on St. Paul’s Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose,
says, indeed, that at first all CHRIST’S disciples were clergy, and had
all a general commission to preach the gospel and baptize: but this was
in order to convert the world, and before any multitude of people were
gathered, or churches founded, wherein to make a distinction. But, as
soon as the Church began to spread itself over the world, and sufficient
numbers were converted to form themselves into a regular society, then
rulers, and other ecclesiastical officers, were appointed among them,
and a distinction made that each might not interfere with the other.
The clergy, originally, consisted only of bishops, priests, and deacons;
but, in the third century, many inferior orders were appointed, as
subservient to the office of deacon, such as subdeacons, acolyths,
readers, &c.
There is another name for the clergy, very commonly to be met with in
the ancient councils, which is that of _canonici_: a name derived from
the Greek word κάνων, which signifies, among other things, the roll or
catalogue of every church, in which the names of the ecclesiastics,
belonging to each church, were written.
The privileges and immunities which the clergy of the primitive
Christian Church enjoyed, deserve our notice. In the first place,
whenever they travelled upon necessary occasions, they were to be
entertained by their brethren of the clergy, in all places, out of the
public revenues of the Church. When any bishop or presbyter came to a
foreign Church, they were to be complimented with the honorary privilege
of performing divine offices, and consecrating the eucharist in the
church. If any controversies happened among the clergy, they freely
consented to have them determined by their bishops and councils, without
having recourse to the secular magistrate for justice. The great care
the clergy had of the characters and reputations of those of their order
appears from hence, that, in all accusations, especially against
bishops, they required the testimony of two or three witnesses,
according to the apostle’s rule; they likewise examined the character of
the witnesses, before their testimony was admitted; nor would they
suffer a heretic to give evidence against a clergyman. These instances
relate to the respect which the clergy mutually paid to each other.
With regard to the respect paid to the clergy by the civil government,
it consisted chiefly in exempting them from some kind of obligations, to
which others were liable, and in granting them certain privileges and
immunities which others did not enjoy. Thus, by a law of Justinian, no
secular judge could compel a bishop to appear in a public court, to give
his testimony, but was to send one of his officers to take it from his
mouth in private; nor was a bishop obliged to give his testimony upon
oath, but only upon his bare word. Presbyters, we find, were privileged
from being questioned by torture, as other witnesses were. But a still
more extensive privilege was, the exemption of the clergy from the
ordinary cognizance of the secular courts in all causes purely
ecclesiastical; such being reserved for the hearing of the bishops and
councils, not only by the canons of the Church, but by the laws of the
state also; as appears from several rescripts of the emperors
Constantius, Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius the Great, Arcadius and
Honorius, Valentinian II., and Justinian.
Another privilege, which the clergy enjoyed by the favour of Christian
princes, was, that, in certain cases, they were exempt from some of the
taxes laid upon the rest of the Roman empire. In the first place, they
were exempt from the _census capitum_, or _personal tribute_, but not
from the _census agrorum_, or tribute arising from men’s lands and
possessions. In the next place they were not obliged to pay the _aurum
tironicum_, soldiers’ money, nor the _equorum canonicorum adæratio_,
horse money; which were taxes laid on some provinces, for furnishing the
emperor with new levies, and fresh horses, for the wars. A third tax
from which the clergy was exempt was the χρυσάργυροι, the silver and
gold tax, which was laid upon trade and commerce; and the fourth, the
_metatum_, so called from the word _metatores_, which signifies the
emperor’s forerunners or harbingers; being a duty incumbent on the
subjects of the empire to give entertainment to the emperor’s court and
retinue, when they travelled. The clergy were also exempt from
contributing to the reparation of highways and bridges, and from the
duties called _angariæ_ and _parangariæ_, &c., by which the subjects
were obliged to furnish horses and carriages for the conveying of corn
for the use of the army.
Another sort of immunity which the clergy enjoyed, was their exemption
from civil offices in the Roman empire. But this privilege was confined
to such of the clergy as had no estates, but what belonged to the Church
by the laws of Constantine. For the Christian princes always made a wide
difference between the public patrimony of the Church, and the private
estates of such of the clergy as had lands of a civil or secular tenure.
For the one, the clergy were obliged to no duty or burden of civil
offices; but for the other, they were, and could not be excused from
them otherwise than by providing proper substitutes to officiate for
them.
After this account of the privileges of the ancient Christian clergy, it
may not be improper to take some notice of the principal laws made for
the regulation of their lives and conversations.
And, first, we may observe what sort of crimes were thought worthy of
degradation. It was not every slight failing or infirmity, for which a
clergyman was degraded, but only crimes of a deeper dye, such as theft,
murder, fraud, perjury, sacrilege, and adultery: to which may be added,
drinking and gaming, those two great consumers of time, and enemies to
all noble undertakings and generous services; as, also, the taking of
money upon usury, which is condemned by many of the ancient canons as a
species of covetousness and cruelty. And therefore, instead of lending
upon usury, the clergy were obliged to be exemplary for the contrary
virtues, hospitality and charity to the poor, frugality, and a contempt
of the world. And, to guard against defamation and scandal, it was
enacted by the canons of several councils, that no bishops, presbyters,
or deacons should visit widows and virgins alone, but in the company and
presence of some other of the clergy, or some grave Christians.
With regard to the laws, more particularly relating to the exercise of
the duties and offices of their function, the clergy were, in the first
place, obliged to lead studious lives. But it was not all sorts of
studies that were equally recommended to them: the principal was the
study of the Holy Scriptures, as being the fountains of that learning,
which was most proper for their calling. Next to the Scriptures, they
were to study the canons of the Church, and the best ecclesiastical
authors. In after ages, in the time of Charles the Great, we find some
laws obliging the clergy to read, together with the canons, Gregory’s
book “De Cura Pastorali.” As to other books, they were more cautious and
sparing in the study and use of them. Some canons forbad a bishop to
read heathen authors; nor was he allowed to read heretical books, except
when there was occasion to confute them, or to caution others against
the poison of them. But the prohibition of heathen learning was to be
understood with a little qualification. It was only forbidden so far as
it tended to the neglect of Scripture and more useful studies. We pass
over the obligations incumbent on them to attend the daily service of
the Church, to be pious and devout in their public addresses to God, to
be zealous in defending the truth, and maintaining the unity of the
Church, &c.
By the ecclesiastical laws, no clergyman was allowed to relinquish or
desert his station without just grounds and leave: yet, in some cases,
resignation was allowed of,—such as old age, sickness, or other
infirmity. No clergyman was to remove from one diocese to another,
without the consent, and letters dimissory, of his own bishop. The laws
were no less severe against all _wandering_ clergymen, or such as,
having deserted their own church, would fix in no other, but went roving
from place to place: these some of the ancients called βακαντιβοι or
_Vacantivi_. By the laws of the Church, the bishops were not to permit
such to officiate in their dioceses, nor indeed so much as to
communicate in their churches. Other laws there were, which obliged the
clergy to residence, or a constant attendance upon their duty. The
Council of Sardica has several canons relating to this matter. Others
inhibited pluralities, or the officiating in two parochial churches. In
pursuance of the same design, of keeping the clergy strict and constant
to their duty, laws were also made to prohibit them following any
secular employment, which might divert them too much from their proper
business and calling. In some times and places, the laws of the Church
were so strict about this matter, that they would not suffer a bishop,
or presbyter, to be left trustee to any man’s will. By other laws they
were prohibited from taking upon them the office of pleading at the bar
in any civil contest.
Another sort of laws respected the outward behaviour of the clergy. Such
were the laws against corresponding and conversing too freely with Jews,
and Gentile philosophers; and the canons which restrained them from
eating and drinking in a tavern, or being present at the public
theatres. To this sort of laws we may reduce the ancient rules which
concern the garb and habit of the clergy; which were to be such as might
express the gravity of their minds, without any affectation, or
superstitious singularity. As to the kind or fashion of their apparel,
it does not appear, for several ages, that there was any other
distinction observed therein between them and the laity, than the
modesty and gravity of their garb, without being tied to any certain
habit, or form of dress.
These were the principal laws and regulations by which the clergy of the
primitive Christian Church were governed; and it is remarkable, that the
apostate emperor Julian was so convinced of their excellency, that he
had a design of reforming the heathen priesthood upon the model of the
Christian clergy.
The clergy of the _Church of Rome_ are distinguished into _regular_ and
_secular_. The regular clergy consist of those monks, or religious, who
have taken upon them holy orders, and perform the offices of the
priesthood in their respective monasteries. The secular clergy are those
who are not of any religious order, and have the care and direction of
parishes. The canons of such cathedrals as were not monastic foundations
were so called; i.e. secular canons. In the Saxon times these might be
married. The _Protestant_ clergy are all seculars.
The Romish Church forbids the clergy of her communion to _marry_, and
pretends that a vow of perpetual celibacy, or abstinence from conjugal
society, was required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination,
even from the apostolical ages. But the contrary is evident from
innumerable examples of bishops and presbyters, who lived, in those
early ages, in a state of matrimony.—_Bingham._ (See _Celibacy_.)
CLERK. This word is in fact only an abbreviation of the word _clericus_,
or clergyman. It is still used, in a few instances, to designate
clergymen: as clerk of the king’s closet, clerks in orders in certain
parish churches. In foreign churches, it is usually applied to the
ministers in minor orders. But it is now used to designate certain
laymen, who are appointed to conduct or lead the responses of the
congregation, and otherwise to assist in the services of the church. In
most cathedrals and collegiate churches, and in some colleges, there are
several of these lay clerks (see _Vicar Choral_, _Secondary_, and
_Stipendiary_); in parish churches, generally, there is but one, who is
styled the _parish clerk_. These were, originally, real _clerks_, i. e.
clergymen, generally in minor orders, who assisted the officiating
priest. But the minor orders have long ceased to be conferred, except as
symbolical steps towards the higher grades of the ministry; so that in
countries of the Romish communion, as well as among ourselves, the
office which used to be performed by one or more clergymen has devolved
upon laymen. There can be little doubt that, in parishes where there are
more than one clergyman resident, the duties of the parish clerk should
be performed by them, especially in leading the responses, singing,
giving notices, &c.; but long custom has so familiarized us to the
services of a lay-clerk, that we permit him, as of right, to do even in
the presence of the clergy what, strictly speaking, belongs to the
clerical office. It is a great fault in a congregation when they permit
the lay-clerk to do more than _lead them_ in the responses or their
singing. The eighteenth canon directs all persons, man, woman, and
child, to say in their due places, audibly with the minister, the
Confession, the LORD’S Prayer, and the Creed, and make such other
answers to the public prayer as are appointed in the Book of Common
Prayer; and the laity forfeit a high privilege when they leave their
share of the service to the lay-clerk alone.
_Clerks_ are mentioned in the Prayer Book in the Rubric before the
second occurrence of the LORD’S Prayer, in Morning and Evening Prayer:
“The minister, clerks, and people shall say the Lord’s Prayer with a
loud voice:” in the Marriage Service, “The minister and clerks, going to
the Lord’s table, shall say or sing this Psalm following:” in the Burial
Service, “The priest and clerks meeting the corpse at the entrance of
the churchyard, &c., shall say or sing:” and when they are come to the
grave, “The priest shall say, or the priest and clerks shall sing:” and
in the Commination Service, “The priest and clerks, kneeling, (in the
place where they are accustomed to say the Litany,) shall say this
Psalm, _Miserere mei, Deus_.” The _clerk_ in the singular number is
mentioned but once only, which is in the Marriage Service; where the man
is directed to lay the ring on the book “with the accustomed duty to the
priest and _clerk_.”—_Jebb._
Canon 91. _Parish clerks to be chosen by the minister._—No parish clerk
upon any vacation shall be chosen, within the city of London, or
elsewhere within the province of Canterbury, but by the parson or vicar:
or, where there is no parson or vicar, by the minister of that place for
the time being; which choice shall be signified by the said minister,
vicar, or parson, to the parishioners the next Sunday following, in the
time of Divine service. And the said clerk shall be of twenty years of
age at the least, and known to the said parson, vicar, or minister, to
be of honest conversation, and sufficient for his reading, writing, and
also for his competent skill in singing, if it may be. And the said
clerks so chosen shall have and receive their ancient wages without
fraud or diminution, either at the hands of the churchwarden, at such
times as hath been accustomed, or by their own collection, according to
the most ancient custom of every parish.
Since the making of this canon, the right of putting in the parish clerk
has often been contested between incumbents and parishioners, and
prohibitions prayed, and always obtained, to the spiritual court, for
maintaining the authority of the canon in favour of the incumbent,
against the plea of custom in behalf of the parishioners.
All incumbents once had the right of nomination of the parish clerks, by
the common law and custom of the realm.
Parish clerks, after having been duly chosen and appointed, are usually
licensed by the ordinary. And when they are licensed, they are sworn to
obey the minister.
By a recent regulation, (7 & 8 Vict. c. 59,) persons in holy orders may
be appointed to the office of parish clerk, which is to be held under
the same tenure as that of a stipendiary curacy. Lay-clerks may also be
dismissed by the minister, without the intervention of a _mandamus_ from
the Queen’s Bench.
By 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 35, a parish clerk, for assisting at a marriage,
without banns or licence, shall forfeit five pounds for every such
offence.
CLINIC BAPTISM. Baptism on a sick bed (κλινη) was so called in the
primitive Church. In the earlier ages of Christianity certain solemn
days were set apart for the administration of holy baptism, and only on
extraordinary occasions were converts baptized, except on one or other
of those days; but if one already a candidate for baptism fell sick, and
if his life was endangered, he was allowed to receive clinic baptism.
There was, however, a kind of clinics to whom great suspicion attached;
some persons who were converts to the doctrines of Christianity would
not be baptized while in health and vigour, because of the greater
holiness of life to which they would account themselves pledged, and
because they thought that baptism administered on their death-bed would
wash away the sins of their life. Such persons, though they recovered
after their baptism, were held to be under several disabilities, and
especially they were not admitted as candidates for holy orders.
CLOISTER. (See _Monastery_.) A covered walk, not unusually occupying the
four sides of a quadrangle, which is almost an invariable appendage to a
monastic or ancient collegiate residence. The most beautiful cloister
remaining in England is at Gloucester cathedral. Several of the
cathedrals which were not monastic have or had cloisters; as York, old
St. Paul’s, Chichester, Exeter, Hereford, Lincoln, Salisbury, Wells;
formerly St. Patrick’s in Dublin; and some colleges, as New College,
Magdalen, and Corpus at Oxford; Winchester College. A cloister was
projected for King’s College by the founder, but never executed. St.
George’s Chapel at Windsor has also a cloister.
CLUNIAC MONKS. Religious of the order of Clugni. It is the first branch
of the order of St. Benedict.
St. Bernon, abbot of Gigniac, of the family of the earls of Burgundy,
was the founder of this order. In the year 910, he built a monastery for
the reception of Benedictine monks, in the town of Clugni, situated in
the Maconnois, a little province of France, on the river Saone. The
noble abbey of Clugni was destroyed in 1789.
The monks of Clugni (or Cluni) were remarkable for their sanctity. They
every day sang two solemn masses. They so strictly observed silence,
that they would rather have died than break it before the hour of prime.
When they were at work, they recited psalms. They fed eighteen poor
persons every day, and were so profuse of their charity in Lent, that
one year, at the beginning of Lent, they distributed salt meat, and
other alms, among 7000 poor.
The preparation they used for making the bread which was to serve for
the eucharist is worthy to be observed. They first chose the wheat grain
by grain, and washed it very carefully. Then a servant carried it in a
bag to the mill, and washed the grindstones, and covered them with
curtains. The meal was afterwards washed in clean water, and baked in
iron moulds.
The extraordinary discipline observed in the monasteries of Clugni soon
spread its fame in all parts. France, Germany, England, Spain, and
Italy, desired to have some of these religious, for whom they built new
monasteries. They also passed into the East; and there was scarcely a
place in Europe where the order was not known.
The principal monasteries in which the discipline and rules of Clugni
were observed, were those of Tulles in the Limousin, Aurillac in
Auvergne, Bourgdieu and Massa in Berri, St. Benet on the Loire in the
Orleanois, St. Peter le Vif at Sens, St. Allire of Clermont, St. Julian
of Tours, Sarlat in Perigord, and Roman-Mourier in the country of Vaux.
This order was divided into ten provinces, being those of Dauphiné,
Auvergne, Poitiers, Saintonge, and Gascony, in France; Spain, Italy,
Lombardy, Germany, and England.
At the general chapters, which were at first held yearly, and afterwards
every three years, two visitors were chosen for every province, and two
others for the monasteries of nuns of this order, fifteen definitors,
three auditors of causes, and two auditors of excuses. There were
formerly five principal priories, called the five first daughters of
Clugni; but, since the dissolution of the monasteries in England, which
involved that of St. Pancrace, at Lewes in Sussex, there remained but
four principal priories, being those of La Charité sur Loire, St. Martin
des Champs at Paris, Souvigni, and Souxillanges.
The Cluniac monks were first brought into England by William, earl of
Warren, about the year of our LORD, 1077. These religious, though they
lived under the rule of St. Benedict, and wore a black habit, yet,
because their discipline and observances differed in many things from
those of the Benedictines, therefore they were not called Benedictines,
but monks of the order of Clugni. In the reign of Henry V., the Cluniac
monasteries, by reason of the war between England and France, were cut
off from the obedience of the abbot of Clugni, nor were they permitted
to have any intercourse with the monasteries of their order out of
England. The monasteries of Cluniac monks in England amounted in number
to thirty-eight.—_Broughton’s Bibliotheca Historico-Sacra._
COADJUTOR. In cases of any habitual distemper of the mind, whereby the
incumbent is rendered incapable of the administration of his cure, such
as frenzy, lunacy, and the like, the laws of the Church have provided
coadjutors. Of these there are many instances in the ecclesiastical
records, both before and since the Reformation; and we find them given
generally to parochial ministers, (as most numerous,) but sometimes also
to deans, archdeacons, prebendaries, and the like; and no doubt they may
be given, in such circumstances, at the discretion of the ordinary, to
any ecclesiastical person having ecclesiastical cure and revenue.
CŒNOBITES. Monks, who lived together in a fixed habitation, and formed
one large community under a chief, whom they called father or abbot. The
word is derived from κοινοβιον, _vitæ communis societas_. (See _Monks_.)
COLIDEI. (See _Culdees_.)
COLLATION. This is where a bishop gives a benefice, which either he had
as patron, or which came to him by lapse.
This is also a term in use among ecclesiastical writers to denote the
spare meal on days of abstinence, consisting of bread or other fruits,
but without meat.
COLLECTS. These are certain brief and comprehensive prayers, which are
found in all known liturgies and public devotional offices. Ritualists
have thought that these prayers were so called, because they were used
in the public congregation or _collection_ of the people; or from the
fact of many petitions being here collected together in a brief summary;
or because they comprehend objects of prayer collected out of the
Epistles and Gospels. But whatever may be the origin of the term, it is
one of great antiquity. It is indeed difficult to trace the antiquity of
repeating collects at the end of the service. It certainly, however,
prevailed in our own Church, the Church of England, even during the
period preceding the Norman Conquest. The very collects that we still
use, formed part of the devotional offices of our Church long before the
Reformation. They are generally directed to GOD the FATHER, in the name
of JESUS CHRIST our LORD; for so they usually conclude, though sometimes
they are directed to CHRIST himself, who is GOD co-equal and co-eternal
with the FATHER. They consist usually of two parts, an humble
acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of GOD, and a
petition for some benefits from him. Among the advantages resulting from
the regulation of the Church in making use of these short collects
are,—the relief they give to the worshipper; the variety they throw into
the service; the fixing of attention by new impulses of thought; the
solemnizing of the mind by frequent invocations of the hearer of prayer;
the constant reference of all our hopes to the merits and mediation of
CHRIST, in _whose name_ every collect is offered; and, lastly, the
inspiring feeling, that in them we are offering up our prayers in the
same words which have been on the lips of the martyrs and saints of all
ages.
The more usual name in the Latin Church was _collectæ_, collects,
because the prayers of the bishop, which in any part of the service
followed the joint prayers of the deacon and congregation, were both a
recollection and recommendation of the prayers of the people. In this
sense Cassian takes the phrase, _colligere orationem_, when speaking of
the service in the Egyptian monasteries and Eastern churches, he says,
“after the psalms they had private prayers, which they said partly
standing and partly kneeling; which being ended, he that collected the
prayer rose up, and then they all rose up together with him, none
presuming to continue longer upon the ground, lest he should seem rather
to pursue his own prayers than go along with him who collected the
prayers, or closed up all with his concluding collect.” Where we may
observe, that a _collect_ is taken for the chief minister’s prayer at
the close of some part of Divine service, _collecting_ and concluding
the people’s preceding devotions. Uranius, speaking of one John, bishop
of Naples, who died in the celebration of Divine service, says, “he gave
the signal to the people to pray, and then, having summed up their
prayers in a collect, he yielded up the ghost.”—_Bingham._
Walapidus Strabo, as quoted by Wheatly, says that they are so called
because the priest _collects_ the petitions of all in a compendious
brevity. To which Dr. Bisse assents, and considers the word to mean the
_collecting_ into one prayer the petitions which were anciently divided
between him and the people by versicles and responses. They are in fact
used in contradistinction to the alternate versicles, and the larger and
less compendious prayers.
_Morinus_, in his notes on Greek Ordination, remarks on the resemblance
between the Greek word συναπτὴ, and the Latin _collecta_: but shows that
the συναπτὴ, though meaning a connected prayer, has a very different
use. The συναπτὴ was sometimes a sort of litany, sometimes a set of
versicles resembling the “preces” of the Roman Church, or our versicles
and responses after the Creed. The συναπτὴ μέγαλη, again, is like our
Prayer for the Church Militant. The Greek εὐχὴ, said after the συναπτὴ,
is more like our collect: but there is nothing exactly resembling it in
the Greek formularies. Their prayers are generally much longer.
The collects are (for the most part) constructed upon one uniform rule,
consisting of three parts. (1.) The commemoration of some special
attribute of GOD. (2.) A prayer for the exercise of that attribute in
some special blessing. (3.) A prayer for the beneficial and permanent
consequences of that blessing. The punctuation of the Prayer Book most
accurately brings out the meaning of the collects. The apodosis of the
sentence is (for the most part) begun by a capital letter.
In many of the collects, GOD is desired to hear the petitions of the
people, those that the people had then made before the collect. These
come in at the end of other devotions, and were by some of old called
_missæ_, that is to say, _dismissions_, the people being dismissed upon
the pronouncing of them and the blessing; the collects themselves being
by some of the ancients called _blessings_, and also _sacramenta_,
either for that their chief use was at the communion, or because they
were uttered _per sacerdotum_, by one consecrated to holy
offices.—_Sparrow._
Our Reformers observed, first, that some of those collects were
corrupted by superstitious alterations and additions, made by some later
hand. Secondly, that the modern Roman missals had left some of the
primitive collects quite out, and put in their stead collects containing
some of their false opinions, or relating to their innovations in
practice. Where the mass had struck out an old, and put in a new,
collect, agreeable to their new and false doctrines or practices, there
the Reformers restored the old collect, being pure and orthodox. At the
restoration of King Charles II., even those collects made or allowed at
the Reformation were strictly reviewed, and what was deficient was
supplied, and all that was but incongruously expressed was rectified; so
that now they are complete and unexceptionable, and may be ranked into
three several classes. First, the ancient primitive collects, containing
nothing but true doctrine, void of all modern corruptions, and having a
strain of the primitive devotion, being short, but regular, and very
expressive; so that it is not possible to touch more sense in so few
words: and these are those taken out of Pope Gregory’s Sacramentary, or
out of those additions made to it by the abbot Grimoaldus. Many of these
were retained in their native purity in the missals of York and
Salisbury, and the breviaries; but were no more depreciated by standing
there than a jewel by lying on a dunghill. The second order of collects
are also ancient as to the main; but where there were any passages that
had been corrupted, they were struck out, and the old form restored, or
that passage rectified; and where there was any defect it was supplied.
The third order are such as had been corrupted in the Roman missals and
breviaries, and contained something of false doctrine, or at least of
superstition, in them; and new collects were made, instead of these, at
the Reformation, under King Edward VI.; and some few which were wanting
were added, anno 1662.—_Comber._
The objection, that our service is taken from the Popish, affects
chiefly the collects. But those of ours which are the same with theirs,
are mostly derived from prayer books brought over in the days of that
pope by whose means our Saxon ancestors were converted to Christianity,
above 1100 [now 1200] years ago; and they were old ones then, much older
than the main errors of Popery.—_Secker._
It appears that the service of the Church is far more ancient than the
Roman missal, properly speaking. And whoever has attended to the
superlative simplicity, fervour, and energy of the prayers, will have no
hesitation in concluding, that they must, the collects particularly,
have been composed in a time of true evangelical light and
godliness.—_Milner’s Church Hist._
It is the boast of the Church of England, and her praise, that her
Common Prayer corresponds with the best and most ancient liturgies which
were used in the Church in the most primitive and purest
times.—_Directions to Commissioners in 1661._
Here I entreat the people to remember that these collects, and the
following prayers, are to be vocally pronounced by the minister only,
though the people are obliged to join mentally therein. Wherefore let
none of the congregation disturb the rest, especially those that are
near them, by muttering over their prayers in an audible manner,
contrary to the design and rule of the Church, which always tells the
people when their voices are allowed to be heard, and consequently
commands them at all other times to be silent, and to speak to GOD in a
mental manner only.—_Bennett._
COLLECTS FOR THE DAY. Our Church, endeavouring to preserve not only the
spirit, but the very forms, as much as may be, and in a known tongue, of
ancient primitive devotion, has retained the same collects.
For the object, they are directed to GOD, in the name of “JESUS CHRIST
our LORD;” a few are directed to CHRIST; and in the Litany some
supplications to the HOLY GHOST, besides that precatory hymn of “Veni
Creator,” in the book of Ordination. Some collects, especially for great
festivals, conclude with this acknowledgment,—that CHRIST, with the
FATHER, and the HOLY GHOST, “liveth and reigneth, one GOD, world without
end.” This seems to be done to testify what the Scripture warrants, that
although, for more congruity, we in the general course of our prayers go
to the FATHER by the SON, yet that we may also invocate both the SON and
the HOLY GHOST; and that while we call upon one, we equally worship and
glorify all three together.
For their form and proportion, as they are not one long-continued
prayer, but divers short ones, they have many advantages; the practice
of the Jews of old, in whose prescribed devotions we find a certain
number of several prayers or collects, to be said together; the example
of our LORD in prescribing a short form; and the judgment and practice
of the ancient Christians in their liturgies. St. Chrysostom, among
others, commends highly, short and frequent prayers with little
distances between. And they are most convenient for keeping away
coldness, distraction, and illusions from our devotion; for what we said
in praise of short ejaculations, is true also concerning collects; and
that not only in respect of the minister, but the people also, whose
minds and affections become hereby more erect, close, and earnest, by
the oftener breathing out their hearty concurrence, and saying all of
them “Amen” together, at the end of each collect. The matter of them is
most excellent. It consists usually of two parts; an humble
acknowledgment of the adorable perfection and goodness of GOD, and a
congruous petition for some benefit from him. The first is seen not only
in the collects for special festivals or benefits, but in those also
that are more general; for even in such what find we in the beginning of
them, but some or other of these and the like acknowledgments?—That GOD
is almighty, everlasting, full of goodness and pity; the strength,
refuge, and protector of all that trust in him; without whom nothing is
strong, nothing is holy. That there is no continuing in safety without
him; that such is our weakness and frailty, that we have no power of
ourselves to help ourselves, to do any good, or to stand upright, and
therefore cannot but fall. That we put no trust in anything that we do,
but lean only upon the help of his heavenly grace. That he is the author
and giver of all good things; from whom it comes that we have an hearty
desire to pray, or do him any true or laudable service. That he is
always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than we
desire or deserve; having prepared for them that love him such good
things as pass man’s understanding.—_Sparrow._
That most of our collects are very ancient, appears by their conformity
to the Epistles and Gospels, which were selected by St. Hierom, and put
into the lectionary ascribed to him. Many believed he first framed them
for the use of the Roman Church, in the time of Pope Damasus, above 1300
[now nearly 1500] years ago. Certain it is that Gelasius, who was bishop
of Rome above 1200 years since, [A. D. 492–6,] did range those collects,
which were then used, into order, and composed some new ones; and that
office of his was again corrected by Pope Gregory the Great, A. D. 600,
whose Sacramentary contains most of those collects which we now
use.—_Comber._
One of the principal reasons why our public devotions are, and should
be, divided into short collects, is this,—our blessed SAVIOUR hath told
us, that whatsoever we ask the FATHER in his name he will give it us. It
cannot then but be necessary that the name of CHRIST be frequently
inserted in our prayers, that so we may lift up our hearts unto him, and
rest our faith upon him, for the obtaining those good things we pray
for. And therefore, whatsoever we ask of GOD, we presently add, “through
JESUS CHRIST our LORD.”—_Wheatly._
The petitions are not in one long prayer, but several short ones; which
method is certainly as lawful as the other, and, we think, more
expedient. It reminds us oftener of the attributes of GOD and merits of
CHRIST, which are the ground of our asking in faith; and, by the
frequency of saying “Amen,” it stirs up our attention and warms our
devotions, which are too apt to languish.—_Secker._
We may refer to _Shepherd_ on the Common Prayer for a classified
arrangement of the collects; (1.) which were retained from ancient
liturgies at the Reformation; (2.) which were altered by the Reformers
and reviewers; and (3.) which were composed anew. Those composed anew in
1549 are the collects for the 1st and 2nd Sunday in Advent, Christmas,
the Epiphany, Quinquagesima, Ash-Wednesday, 1st Sunday in Lent, 1st and
2nd Sundays after Easter; St. Thomas’s day, St. Matthias’s, St. Mark’s,
St. Barnabas’s, St. John Baptist’s, St. Peter’s, St. James’s, St.
Matthew’s, St. Luke’s, St. Simon and St. Jude’s; All-Saints’. In 1552,
St. Andrew’s. In 1662, 3rd Sunday in Advent; 6th Sunday after Epiphany;
Easter Even. The prayers denominated collects in our liturgy are those
of the day, and the 2nd and 3rd at Morning and Evening Prayer
respectively; the Prayer for all Conditions of Men, which is called also
a collect; the prayer preceding the ten commandments, the prayer for the
sovereign in the Communion Service, and the six occasional collects
following it; the prayer following the LORD’S Prayer in the Confirmation
Service; the prayer preceding the psalm in the Visitation of the Sick,
that in the Communion of the Sick, and the prayer preceding the blessing
in the Burial of the Dead; three in the Ordering of Priests and Deacons
respectively, and one in the Consecration of Bishops.
COLLEGE. A community. Hence we speak of an episcopal college, or college
of bishops. It was an old maxim of Roman law, that by fewer than three
persons a college could not be formed. Hence, as a bishop is to be
consecrated not by a single bishop, but by a synod or college, at least
three are required to be present at each consecration. Every
corporation, in the civil law, is called a college, and so it has been
applied in England, in some rare instances, irrespective of social
combinations: and abroad it was very extensively applied to incorporated
boards. But in England it generally implies a society of persons, living
in a common habitation, and bound together by statutes which have
respect to their daily life. The minor corporations of the universities,
and those of Eton and Winchester, are specially so termed: and
residences for the members, a chapel, hall, and library, are considered
as essential features of the college. As it is unquestionable that our
academical colleges were all instituted for the promotion of godliness,
as well as of human knowledge, that they were intended to be handmaids
of the Church, as their highest function, besides nurseries of good
learning, they deserve special notice in a Church Dictionary. All
cathedral and collegiate churches are colleges; and the word in this
sense comprehends all the members of each establishment, whether
inferior or superior. The buildings of some of our cathedrals containing
the residence of the members, are still often popularly called “the
college.” The word is also applied to those inferior corporations
attached to the cathedrals of old foundation. (See _Minor Canons_ and
_Vicars Choral_.)
The colleges of our universities are each independent societies, having
their own statutes, and property as strictly their own as that of any
lay proprietor. Still they are connected with a greater corporation,
which is called the university. It has been commonly thought, that these
relations between minor and major academical corporations is an anomaly
peculiar to England. The fact is otherwise. The most ancient
universities, as Paris, Bologna, and Salamanca, had each several
colleges, which bore an analogous relation to the university. (See
_University_.)
COLLEGIATE CHURCHES. Churches with a body of canons and prebendaries,
&c., and inferior members, with corporate privileges. The services and
forms in these churches are, or ought to be, like those in cathedral
churches. The number of collegiate churches has been much diminished
since the Reformation; those at present existing in England, are
Westminster, Windsor, Southwell, Wolverhampton, Middleham, and Brecon;
and in Ireland, the collegiate church of Galway.
COLLYRIDIANS. Certain heretics that worshipped the Virgin Mary as a
goddess, and offered cake in sacrifice to her; they appeared in the
fourth century, about the year 373. Their name is derived from κολλυρα,
_a little cake_.
COMMANDRIES. New houses of the same kind among the Knights Hospitallers
as the Preceptories among the Templars. (See _Preceptories_.)
COMMEMORATIONS. The recital of the names of famous martyrs and
confessors, patriarchs, bishops, kings, great orthodox writers,
munificent benefactors: which recitation was made at the altar out of
_diptychs_ or folded tables. There are Commemoration days at Oxford and
Cambridge, on which the names of all the known benefactors to the
universities are proclaimed, special psalms and lessons recited, and
special collects and versicles. These have been coeval with the
Reformation, and sanctioned by the highest authority. (See _Diptychs_.)
COMMENDAM. _Commendam_ is a living _commended_ by the Crown to the care
of a clergyman until a proper pastor is provided for it. These
commendams for some time have been seldom or never granted to any but
bishops, who, when their bishoprics were of small value, were, by
special dispensation, allowed to hold their previous benefices, which,
on their promotion, had devolved into the patronage of the Crown.
COMMENDATORY LETTERS. (See _Literæ formatæ_.)
COMMENTARY. An exposition; a book of annotations on Holy Scripture.
In selecting a commentary much care is necessary, because a skilful
commentator may wrest the Scriptures so as to make them support his
private opinion. A Calvinist makes Scripture speak Calvinism, an
Arminian makes it speak Arminianism. The question to be asked,
therefore, is, According to what principle does the annotator _profess_
to interpret Scripture? If he takes the Church for his guide; if he
professes to interpret according to the doctrines of the Church,
although he may err in a matter of detail, he cannot seriously mislead
us. We may instance the third chapter of St. John’s Gospel. How very
different will be the meaning of that chapter interpreted by a
Calvinist, who denies the scriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration,
from the meaning which will be attached to it by one who holds the truth
as it is taught in the Church, and who, with the Church of England, in
the Office for the Baptism of Persons in Riper Years, applies what is
said in that chapter to baptismal grace.
To give a complete list of commentaries is, in such a work as the
present, impossible. The reader who would pursue the subject is referred
to the authorities mentioned in the next article, _Commentators_. Some
of the leading commentaries most used in the Church of England are here
given.
Theophylact; the last edition of whose works is that published at
Venice, 1754–1763, in four volumes, folio. In Theophylact we have the
pith of St. Chrysostom, whose works also are useful, especially his
Homilies on St. Matthew and on St. Paul’s Epistles. They have lately
been translated.
“Critici Sacri, sive Annotata doctissimorum Virorum in Vetus ac Novum
Testamentum; quibus accedunt Tractatus varii Theologico-Philologici,” 9
tomis in 12 voluminibus. Amsterdam, 1698, folio.
This is considered the best edition of this great work, which was
first published in London, in 1660, in nine volumes, folio, under
the direction of the celebrated Bishop Pearson and other learned
divines. In 1701 there were published at Amsterdam, “Thesaurus
Theologico-Philologicus,” in two volumes folio, and two additional
volumes in 1732. These complete the work.
“Mathæi Poli Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque SS. Interpretum,” London,
1669–1674; five volumes, folio. This has been reprinted, the best
edition being that of Utrecht, 1686. It is a valuable abridgment and
consolidation of the “Critici Sacri.” It gives the conclusions, without
the arguments, of that work.
Bishop Hall’s “Contemplations on the Old and New Testament,” of which
valuable work there have been several reprints.
Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Arnold’s “Commentary on the Bible.” London,
1727–1760: seven volumes, folio. Reprinted in 4to, 1821; and lately in
large 8vo. This is a standard work.
“An Exposition of the Old and New Testament,” by the Rev. Matthew Henry:
folio, five volumes. There have been many reprints of this truly
excellent commentary.
“A Commentary on the Books of the Old and New Testaments, in which are
inserted the Notes and Collections of John Locke, Esq., Daniel
Waterland, D. D., and the Earl of Clarendon and other learned persons,
with Practical Improvements.” London, 1770: three volumes, folio. This
was reprinted in six volumes, 4to, in 1801, by Dr. Coke, a Methodist,
with some retrenchments and unimportant additions, and goes by the name
of “Coke’s Commentary.” It is very useful for practical purposes.
“The Holy Bible, with Original Notes and Practical Observations,” by
Thomas Scott, M. A., Rector of Aston Sandford: London. This has been
often reprinted.
“The Holy Bible, with Notes,” by Thomas Wilson, D. D., Bishop of Sodor
and Man: London, 1785: three volumes, 4to. Whatever comes from the pen
of Bishop Wilson is valuable; but the notes are rather suggestive than
illustrative.
“The Holy Bible, with Notes explanatory and practical;” taken
principally from the most recent writers of the United Church of England
and Ireland, prepared and arranged by Dr. D’Oyley and Bishop Mant.
Oxford and London, 1817: three volumes, 4to, and since reprinted. This
work, published under the sanction of the Society for promoting
Christian Knowledge, is perhaps the most sound and useful that we
possess.
It is impossible to enumerate the commentators on separate books of the
Bible, but we may mention Dean Graves on the Pentateuch, Bishops Horne
and Horsley on the Psalms, Bishop Lowth on Isaiah, Dr. Blayney on
Jeremiah, Archbishop Newcome on Ezekiel, Mr. Wintle on Daniel, Bishop
Horsley on Hosea, Dr. Blayney on Zechariah, Dr. Stock on Malachi, Dr.
Pococke on Hosea, Joel, Micah, and Malachi; Archbishop Newcome on the
Twelve Minor Prophets.
On the New Testament, we may refer to Hammond, Whitby, Burkitt,
Doddridge, Bishop Pearce, Dr. Trapp, Bishop Porteus on St. Matthew,
Biscoe on the Acts, Macknight, Bishop Fell, Bishop Davenant, Pyle on the
Epistles, Archbishop Leighton on St. Peter, Mede, Daubeny, Lowman, Sir
Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton on the Apocalypse. We have omitted, in
this list, contemporary writers, for obvious reasons, and we have
referred to commentaries chiefly used by English churchmen; the more
learned reader will, not without caution, have recourse to foreign
critics also; of whom we may mention, as persons much consulted,
Vitringa, Tittmann, Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Wolfius, Raphelius,
Calmet, and Hengstenberg. The “Catena Aurea” of Thomas Aquinas has
lately been translated; but it is useful rather to the antiquarian and
the scholar, than to those who wish to ascertain the exact meaning of
Scripture; and in the quotations from the Fathers, Aquinas is not to be
depended upon.
COMMENTATORS. “A complete history of commentators,” says Mr. Hartwell
Horne, “would require a volume of no ordinary dimensions.” The reader
who is desirous of prosecuting this subject, will find much interesting
information relative to the early commentators in Rosenmüller’s
“Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesiâ Christianâ,
inde ab Apostolorum Ætate usque ad Origenem, 1795–1814.” This elaborate
work treats exclusively of the early commentators. Father Simon’s
“Histoire Critique de Vieux Testament,” 4to, 1680, and his “Histoire
Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament,” 4to,
Rotterdam, 1689, contain many valuable strictures on the expositors of
the Old and New Testament up to his own time. In 1674 was published at
Frankfort, in two volumes folio, Joh. Georg. Dorschei “Biblia Numerata,
seu Index Specialis in Vetus Testamentum ad singula omnium Librorum
Capita et Commenta.” It contains a list of commentators, 191 in number,
who had illustrated every book, chapter, or verse of the Scriptures,
with reference to the books, chapters, and pages of their several works.
The merits and demerits of commentators are likewise discussed in
Walchius’s “Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta;” in Ernesti’s “Institutio
Interpretis Novi Testamenti;” in Morus’s “Acroases Academicæ.” Professor
Keil, in his “Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti,” and Professor
Beck, in “Monogrammata Hermeneutices, Librorum Novi Fœderis,” Seiler’s
Biblical Hermeneutices, (translated from the German by Dr. Wright,
1835,)—respectively notice the principal expositors of the Scriptures.
COMMINATION, means a threat or denunciation of vengeance. There is an
ancient office in the Church of England, entitled, “A Commination, or
denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgment against Sinners, with certain
Prayers, to be used on the first Day of Lent, and at other times, as the
Ordinary shall appoint.” This office, says Mr. Palmer, is one of the
last memorials we retain of that solemn penitence, which during the
primitive ages occupied so conspicuous a place in the discipline of the
Christian Church. In the earliest ages, those who were guilty of
grievous sins were solemnly reduced to the order of penitents; they came
fasting and clad in sackcloth and ashes on the occasion, and after the
bishop had prayed over them, they were dismissed from the church. They
then were admitted gradually to the classes of _hearers_, _substrati_,
and _consistentes_, until at length, after long trial and exemplary
conduct, they were again decreed worthy of communion. This penitential
discipline at length, from various causes, became extinct, both in the
Eastern and Western Churches: and, from the twelfth or thirteenth
century, the solemn office of the first day of Lent was the only
memorial of this ancient discipline in the West. The Church of England
has long used this office nearly as we do at present, as we find almost
exactly the same appointed in the MS. Sacramentary of Leofric, which was
written for our Church about the ninth or tenth century; and year by
year she directs her ministers to lament the defection of the godly
discipline we have been describing.
The preface which the Church has prefixed to this office will supply the
room of an introduction. It informs us that, “in the primitive Church,
there was a godly discipline; that, at the beginning of Lent, such
persons as stood convicted of notorious crimes were put to open penance,
and punishment in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day
of the LORD; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the
more afraid to offend.” The manner in which this discipline was
inflicted, is thus recorded by Gratian: On the first day of Lent the
penitents were to present themselves before the bishop, clothed with
sackcloth, with naked feet, and eyes turned to the ground: and this was
to be done in the presence of the principal clergy of the diocese, who
were to judge of the sincerity of their repentance. These introduced
them into the Church, where the bishop, all in tears, and the rest of
the clergy, repeated the seven penitential psalms. Then, rising from
prayers, they threw ashes upon them, and covered their heads with
sackcloth; and then with mournful sighs declared to them, that as Adam
was cast out of paradise, so they must be cast out of the Church. Then
the bishop commanded the officers to turn them out of the church doors,
and all the clergy followed after, repeating that curse upon Adam, “In
the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread.” The like penance was
inflicted upon them the next time the sacrament was administered, which
was the Sunday following. And all this was done, to the end that the
penitents, observing how great a disorder the Church was in by reason of
their crimes, should not lightly esteem of penance.
Though this discipline was severe, yet the many good consequences of it
showed it worthy the imitation of the Church in succeeding ages; so that
it was anciently exercised in our own, as well as in foreign churches.
But in latter ages, during the corruption of the Church of Rome, this
godly discipline degenerated into a formal and customary confession upon
Ash Wednesdays, used by all persons indifferently, whether penitents or
not, from whom no other testimony of their repentance was required, than
that they should submit to the empty ceremony of sprinkling ashes upon
their heads. But this our wise reformers prudently laid aside as a mere
shadow and show; and not without hearty grief and concern, that the long
continuance of the abominable corruptions of the Romish Church, in their
formal confessions and pretended absolutions, in their sale of
indulgences, and their sordid commutations of penance for money, had let
the people loose from those primitive bands of discipline, which tended
really to their amendment, but to which, through the rigour and severity
it enjoins, they found it impracticable to reduce them again. However,
since they could not do what they desired, they desired to do as much as
they could; and therefore, till the said discipline may be restored
again, (which is rather to be wished than expected in these licentious
times,) they have endeavoured to supply it as well as they were able, by
appointing an office to be used at this season, called “A Commination,
or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners;” that so the
people, being apprized of GOD’S wrath and indignation against their
wickedness and sins, may not be encouraged, through the want of
discipline in the Church, to follow and pursue them; but be moved, by
the terror of the dreadful judgments of GOD, to supply that discipline
to themselves, by severely judging and condemning themselves, and so to
avoid being judged and condemned at the tribunal of GOD.
2. But, besides “the first day of Lent,” on which it is expressly
enjoined, it is also supposed, in the title of it, to be used “at other
times, as the ordinary shall direct.” This was occasioned by the
observation of Bucer; for it was originally ordered upon Ash Wednesdays
only, and therefore in the first Common Prayer Book, it had no other
title, but “The First Day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.” But
Bucer approving of the office, and not seeing reason why it should be
confined to one day, and not used oftener, at least four times a year,
the title of it was altered when it came to be reviewed; from which time
it was called, “A Commination against Sinners, with certain Prayers to
be used at divers times in the Year.” How often, or at what particular
times, we do not find prescribed; except that Bishop Cosin informs us
from the Visitation Articles of Archbishop Grindal for the province of
Canterbury, in the year 1576, that it was appointed three times a year;
namely, on one of the three Sundays next before Easter, on one of the
two Sundays next before Pentecost, and on one of the two Sundays next
before Christmas; that is, I suppose the office was appointed yearly to
be used on these three days, as well as on Ash Wednesday. For that Ash
Wednesday was then the solemn day of all, and on which this office was
never to be omitted, may be gathered from the preface, which is drawn up
for the peculiar use of that day. And accordingly we find, that, in the
Scotch Common Prayer, a clause was added, that it was to be used
“especially on the first day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday.”
However, in our own liturgy, the title stood as above, till the last
review, when a clause was added for the sake of explaining the word
commination; and the appointing of the times on which it should be used
was left to the discretion of the bishop, or the ordinary. So that the
whole title, as it stands now, runs thus: “A Commination, or denouncing
of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against Sinners, with certain Prayers to be
used on the first Day in Lent, and at other Times, as the Ordinary shall
appoint.” The ordinaries, indeed, seldom or never make use of the power
here given them, except that sometimes they appoint part of the office,
namely, from the fifty-first Psalm to the end, to be used upon solemn
days of fasting and humiliation. But as to the whole office, it is never
used entirely but upon the day mentioned in the title of it, namely,
“the first day of Lent.”—_Wheatly._
The Commination properly means that part of the special service which
precedes the Psalm; the rest coming under the title of “certain
prayers;” and it would seem that the latter are alone to be used at
other times that the ordinary shall appoint.—_Jebb._
COMMISSARY, is a title of jurisdiction, appertaining to him that
exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in places so far distant from the
chief city, that the chancellor cannot call the people to the bishop’s
principal consistory court without great trouble to them.
Chancellors, or bishops’ lawyers, were first introduced into the Church
by the 2nd canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and were men trained up in
the civil and canon law, to direct bishops in matters of judgment
relating to ecclesiastical affairs.
Whatever the extent of the chancellor’s authority as a judge may be,
throughout the diocese, with relation to the bishop’s, it is quite clear
that the commissary’s authority extends only to such particular causes,
in such parts of the diocese, for which he holds the bishop’s commission
to act.
In the Clementine constitutions this officer is termed _officialis
foraneus_. By the 21st of Henry VIII. c. 13, he shall not be within the
statute of non-residence; he may grant licences; he may excommunicate,
and prove a last will and testament; but that shall be in the name of
the ordinary; and a grant of such power does not hold good beyond the
life of the ordinary, and does not bind his successor: where, by
prescription or by composition, there are archdeacons, who have
jurisdiction in their archdeaconries, as in most places they have, there
the office of commissary is superfluous.—See _Gibson’s Codex_, vol. i.
Introductory Discourse, p. 25.
COMMON PRAYER. (See _Liturgy_.) By Common Prayer we are to understand a
form of prayer adapted and enjoined for common or universal use: in the
vernacular language, such as may be understood of people, and in which
they are required to join with one heart and voice. It is contrasted
with those services which have either actually or virtually become
exclusive, or confined to but a few: such as the forms of matins in the
Roman breviary, which from its extreme length, and from the
inconvenience of the hour when it is prescribed to be recited, are
impracticable to the people, to all in fact but the inmates of
monasteries or collegiate churches. Such, indeed, are all those services
which are written in a language which is no longer vernacular.
Bishop Sparrow observes, that the Common Prayer contains in it many holy
offices of the Church; as prayers, confessions of faith, holy hymns,
divine lessons, priestly absolutions, and benedictions; all which are
set and prescribed, not left to private men’s fancies to make or alter.
So it was of old ordained. _Conc. Carthag._ can. 106, “It is ordained,
that the prayers, prefaces, and impositions of hands, which are
confirmed by the Synod, be observed and used by all men: these, and no
other.” So is our 14th English Canon.... “And as these offices are set
and prescribed, so are they moreover appointed to be one and the same
throughout the whole national Church.”
By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm that the form of GOD’S worship in
the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of
Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, is a corrupt,
superstitious, or unlawful worship of GOD, or containeth anything in it
that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated _ipso
facto_, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop,
after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”
By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he has subscribed to the Book of
Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the
orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be
suspended; and if after a month he does not reform and submit himself,
let him be excommunicated; and then, if he shall not submit himself
within the space of another month, let him be deposed from the
ministry.”
And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical has pronounced
judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites
and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer,
no judge _ad quem_ shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant
do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and
observe all the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also
the prescribed form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the
same.
COMMUNION. This is one of the names given to the sacrament of the
eucharist, and was undoubtedly taken from St. Paul’s account of that
sacrament, where he teaches, as the learned Dr. Waterland observes, that
the effect of this service is the communion of the body and blood of
CHRIST. (1 Cor. x. 16.) He does not, indeed, call the sacrament by that
_name_, as others have done since. He was signifying what the thing is,
or what it does, rather than how it was then _called_. (See _Eucharist_,
_Lord’s Supper_, and _Consecration of the Elements_.)
The office for the Holy Communion is a distinct office, and there is no
direction at what time of the day it shall be used, only custom, in
accordance with the almost invariable usage of Christendom, has
determined that it shall be used in the forenoon. The communion is
appointed for _every_ Sunday, only the Church has ordered that there
shall be no communion except four (or three at least) communicate with
the priest. The absence of the weekly eucharist therefore proves one of
two things; either that the sin of the people is so great that even in
large parishes three such persons ready to communicate are not to be
found every Sunday, and so only part of the service can be used; or else
if three communicants can be found, the sin of the clergy is great in
not having weekly communion. “In cathedral and collegiate churches,
where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the
communion with the priest every Sunday at the least.” We here subjoin
the directions of the canons and rubric.
The rubric decrees, there shall none be admitted to the holy communion
until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be
confirmed.
By the canons of Archbishop Peckham, 1279, it is ruled that none shall
give the communion to the parishioner of another priest, without his
manifest licence; which ordinance shall not extend to travellers, or to
persons in danger, nor to cases of necessity.
And by Canon 28. “The churchwardens or questmen, and their assistants,
shall mark, as well as the minister, whether any strangers come often
and commonly from other parishes to their church, and show their
minister of them, lest perhaps they be admitted to the LORD’S table
amongst others; which they shall forbid, and remit such home to their
own parish churches and ministers, there to receive the communion with
the rest of their own neighbours.”
Rubric. “And if any be an open and notorious evil liver, or have done
any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the congregation be
thereby offended, the curate, having knowledge thereof, shall call him
and advertise him, that in anywise he presume not to come to the LORD’S
table until he has openly declared himself to have truly repented and
amended his former naughty life, that the congregation may thereby be
satisfied, which before were offended; and that he has recompensed the
parties to whom he has done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in
full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.”
Rubric. “The same order shall the curate use with those between whom he
perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, not suffering them to be
partakers of the LORD’S table until he know them to be reconciled. And
if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive, from the
bottom of his heart, all that the other has trespassed against him, and
to make amends for that he himself has offended, and the other party
will not be persuaded to a godly unity, but remain still in his
frowardness and malice, the minister in that case ought to admit the
penitent person to the holy communion, and not him that is obstinate.
Provided that every minister so repelling any, as is specified in this
or the next preceding paragraph of this rubric, shall be obliged to give
an account of the same to the ordinary, within fourteen days after at
the farthest; and the ordinary shall proceed against the offending
person according to the canon.”
By Canon 26. “No minister shall in anywise admit to the receiving of the
holy communion any of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live
in sin notorious without repentance; nor any who have maliciously and
openly contended with their neighbours; nor any churchwardens or
sidesmen who refuse or neglect to make presentment of offences according
to their oaths.”
By Canon 27. “No minister, when he celebrateth the communion, shall
wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of
suspension; nor, under the like pain, to any that refuse to be present
at public prayers, according to the order of the Church of England; nor
to any that are common and notorious depravers of the Book of Common
Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and of the orders, rites,
and ceremonies therein prescribed; or of anything that is contained in
the book of ordering priests and bishops; or to any that have spoken
against and depraved his Majesty’s sovereign authority in causes
ecclesiastical; except every such person shall first acknowledge to the
minister before the churchwardens his repentance for the same, and
promise by word (if he cannot write) that he will do so no more; and
except (if he can write) he shall first do the same under his
handwriting, to be delivered to the minister, and by him sent to the
bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place. Provided that every
minister so repelling any (as is specified either in this or the next
preceding constitution) shall upon complaint, or being required by the
ordinary, signify the cause thereof unto him, and therein obey his order
and direction.”
By Canon 109. “If any offend their brethren, either by adultery,
whoredom, incest, or drunkenness, or by swearing, ribaldry, usury, or
any other uncleanness, or wickedness of life, such notorious offenders
shall not be admitted to the holy communion till they be reformed.”
Canon 71. “No minister shall administer the holy communion in any
private house, except it be in times of necessity, when any being either
so impotent as he cannot go to the church, or very dangerously sick, are
desirous to be partakers of this holy sacrament, upon pain of suspension
for the first offence, and excommunication for the second. Provided that
houses are here reputed for private houses, wherein are no chapels
dedicated and allowed by the ecclesiastical laws of this realm. And
provided also, under the pains before expressed, that no chaplains do
administer the communion in any other places, but in the chapels of the
said houses; and that also they do the same very seldom upon Sundays and
holy-days; so that both the lords and masters of the said houses and
their families shall at other times resort to their own parish churches,
and there receive the holy communion at least once every year.”
Canon 22. “We do require every minister to give warning to his
parishioners publicly in the church at morning prayer, the Sunday before
every time of his administering that holy sacrament, for their better
preparation of themselves; which said warning we enjoin the said
parishioners to accept and obey, under the penalty and danger of the
law.”
And by the rubric. “The minister shall always give warning for the
celebration of the holy communion upon the Sunday or some holy-day
immediately preceding.”
Rubric. “So many as intend to be partakers of the holy communion shall
signify their names to the curate, at least some time the day before.”
Rubric. “There shall be no celebration of the LORD’S supper, except
there be a convenient number to communicate with the priest, according
to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the
parish, of discretion to receive the communion, yet there shall be no
communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the
priest. And in cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where
there are many priests and deacons, they shall _all_ receive the
communion with the priest every Sunday at the least, except they have
reasonable cause to the contrary.” The rubric _implies_ daily communion.
“The Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, appointed for the Sunday, shall serve
_all the week after_, when it is not in this book otherwise ordered.” In
the First Book of King Edward, daily communion is expressly mentioned.
“Upon Wednesdays and Fridays ... though there be none to communicate
with the priest, yet these days, after the Litany ended, the priest
shall ... say all things at the altar, appointed to be said at the
celebration of the LORD’S supper, until after the offertory.” “In
cathedral churches, or other places, _where there is daily communion_,”
&c. From the _Pietas Londinensis_ it appears that in some London
churches at the beginning of the last century, the communion was
celebrated daily in the octaves of the great festivals. And a
remembrance of this daily communion was formerly kept up at Durham,
where, in Bishop Cosin’s time, the ante-communion was daily performed,
as it still is at St. Patrick’s, on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent.
Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches convenient
and decent tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the
holy communion, we appoint that the same tables shall from time to time
be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in
time of Divine service with a carpet of silk or other decent stuff,
thought meet by the ordinary of the place, if any question be made of
it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration as
becometh that table; and so stand, saving when the holy communion is to
be administered, at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort
within the church or chancel, as thereby the minister may be more
conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration,
and the communicants also more conveniently and in more number may
communicate with the said minister.”
By Canon 20. “The churchwardens, against the time of every communion,
shall, at the charge of the parish, with the advice and direction of the
minister, provide a sufficient quantity of fine white bread, and of good
and wholesome wine, for the number of communicants that shall receive
there; which wine shall be brought to the communion table in a clean and
sweet standing pot or stoop of pewter, if not of purer metal.”
And by the rubric. “The bread and wine for the communion shall be
provided by the curate and churchwardens at the charge of the parish.
And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which any
person has or might have concerning the bread and wine, it shall suffice
that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten, but the best and purest
wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.”
In the rubric, in the communion service of the Second Edward VI., it was
ordained, that, “whyles the clearkes do syng the offertory, so many as
are disposed shall offer to the poore mennes boxe, every one accordinge
to his habilitie and charitable mynde.”
And by the present rubric, “whilst the sentences of the offertory are in
reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or other fit person appointed for
that purpose, shall receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions
of the people, in a decent basin, to be provided by the parish for that
purpose, and reverently bring it to the priest, who shall humbly present
and place it upon the holy table.” And “after the Divine service ended,
the money given at the offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and
charitable uses as the minister and churchwardens shall think fit;
wherein if they disagree, it shall be disposed of as the ordinary shall
appoint.”
Rubric. “Such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at
all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were
in this Church of England by the authority of parliament, in the second
year of the reign of King Edward VI.” And by the rubric of 2 Edward VI.,
which had this authority of parliament, it is ordained, that “upon the
day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy
communion, the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put
upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration; that is to say, a
white albe plain, with a vestment or cope: and where there be many
priests or deacons, then so many shall be ready to help the priest in
the ministrations as shall be requisite, and shall have upon them
likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say,
albes with tunicles. And whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy
communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he
shall have upon him, besides his rochet, a surplice or albe, _and a cope
or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or
holden by his chaplain_.”
And by Canon 24. “In all cathedral churches, the holy communion shall be
administered upon principal feast days, sometimes by the bishop, if he
be present, and at sometimes by a canon or prebendary, the principal
minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and
Epistler agreeably, according to the advertisements published _anno 7
Eliz._”
Art. 28. “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread
and wine) in the supper of the LORD cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but
is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of
a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”
Art. 30. “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the lay people; for
both the parts of the LORD’S sacrament, by CHRIST’S ordinance and
commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”
And by the statute of the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Forasmuch as it is more
agreeable to the first institution of the said sacrament, and more
conformable to the common use and practice of the apostles and of the
primitive Church, for above 500 years after CHRIST’S ascension, that the
same should be administered under both the kinds, of bread and wine,
than under the form of bread only; and also it is more agreeable to the
first institution of CHRIST, and to the usage of the apostles and the
primitive Church, that the people should receive the same with the
priest, than that the priest should receive it alone; it is enacted that
the said most blessed sacrament be commonly delivered and ministered
unto the people, under both the kinds, that is to say, of bread and
wine, except necessity otherwise require. And also that the priest which
shall minister the same shall, at the least one day before, exhort all
persons which shall be present likewise to resort and prepare themselves
to receive the same. And when the day prefixed cometh, after godly
exhortation by the minister made, (wherein shall be further expressed
the benefit and comfort promised to them which worthily receive the holy
sacrament, and danger and indignation of GOD threatened to them which
shall presume to receive the same unworthily, to the end that every man
may try and examine his own conscience before he shall receive the
same,) the said minister shall not, without a lawful cause, deny the
same to any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it; not
condemning hereby the usage of any Church out of the king’s dominions.”
Rubric. “If any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the curate
shall have it to his own use; but if any remain of that which was
consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the priest,
and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall
immediately after the blessing reverently eat and drink the same.”
By a constitution of Archbishop Langton it is enjoined, that no
sacrament of the Church shall be denied to any one, upon the account of
any sum of money; but if anything hath been accustomed to be given by
the pious devotion of the faithful, justice shall be done thereupon to
the churches by the ordinary of the place afterwards.
And by the rubric. “Yearly at Easter, every parishioner shall reckon
with the parson, vicar, or curate, or his or their deputy or deputies,
and pay to them or him all ecclesiastical duties, accustomably due, then
and at that time to be paid.”
By the ancient canon law, every layman (not prohibited by crimes of a
heinous nature) was required to communicate at least thrice in the year,
namely, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas; and the Council of Agdæ,
A. D. 500, enacted that the secular clergy not communicating at those
times were not to be reckoned amongst the Catholics. The fourth Council
of Lateran, A. D. 1215, reduced the necessary number of times to one,
and the Council of Trent has sanctioned this as the rule for the Romish
Church. Our reformers laudably reverted to the earlier order, directing
by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, that “every parishioner
shall communicate at least three times in one year, of which Easter to
be one.”
And by Canon 21. “In every parish church and chapel where sacraments are
to be administered, the holy communion shall be administered by the
parson, vicar, or minister, so often, and at such times, as every
parishioner may communicate at the least three times in the year,
whereof the feast of Easter to be one; according as they are appointed
by the Book of Common Prayer. And the churchwardens or questmen, and
their assistants, shall mark, (as well as the minister,) whether all and
every of the parishioners comes so often every year to the holy
communion as the laws and constitutions do require.” Canon 28. “And
shall yearly, within forty days after Easter, exhibit to the bishop or
his chancellor, the names and surnames of all the parishioners, as well
men as women, which being of the age of sixteen years received not the
communion at Easter before.”
By Canon 24. “All deans, wardens, masters, or heads of cathedral and
collegiate churches, prebendaries, canons, vicars, petty canons, singing
men, and all others of the foundation, shall receive the communion four
times yearly at the least.” And by Canon 23. “In all colleges and halls,
within both the universities, the masters and fellows, such especially
as have any pupils, shall be careful that all their said pupils, and the
rest that remain among them, do diligently frequent public service and
sermons, and receive the holy communion, which we ordain to be
administered in all such colleges and halls the first and second Sunday
of every month; requiring all the said masters, fellows, and scholars,
and all the rest of the students, officers, and all other the servants
there, so to be ordered, that every one of them shall communicate four
times in the year at the least, kneeling reverently and decently upon
their knees, according to the order of the communion book prescribed in
that behalf.”
By the 1 Edward VI. c. 1. “Whosoever shall deprave, despise, or contemn
the most blessed sacrament of the body and blood of our SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and in Scripture,
the supper and table of the LORD, the communion and partaking of the
body and blood of CHRIST, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous words
or by any words of depraving, despising, or reviling; or whosoever shall
advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise, or revile the said most
blessed sacrament, contrary to the effects and declaration above-said,
shall suffer imprisonment of his body, and make fine and ransom at the
king’s will.”
Rubric. “Upon the Sundays, and other holy-days, (if there be no
communion,) shall be said all that is appointed at the communion, until
the end of the general prayer for the whole state of CHRIST’S Church
militant here in earth, together with one or more of the collects last
before rehearsed, concluding with the blessing.”
Since the death of CHRIST hath reconciled GOD to mankind, and his
intercession alone obtains all good things for us, we are enjoined to
make all our prayers in his name; and, as a more powerful way of
interceding, to commemorate his passion by celebrating the holy
eucharist, which in the purest ages was always joined to their public
and common prayers. (Acts ii. 42.) And as evidence that our Church
wishes it were so still, she appoints a great part of this office to be
used on all Sundays and holy-days, and orders the priest to say it at
the altar, the place where all the prayers of the Church of old were
wont to be made, because there was the proper place to commemorate JESUS
our only Mediator, by whom all our prayers become accepted. And hence
the ancients call this office “the service of the altar,” which in the
time of celebration was then also, as our rubric now enjoins, covered
with a fair linen cloth. As for the primitive and original form of
administration, since CHRIST did not institute any one method, it was
various in divers churches, only all agreed in using the LORD’S Prayer,
and reciting the words of institution, which therefore some think was
all the apostles used; but their successors in several churches added
several devout forms thereunto, which being joined to the original order
used by the founder of each church, was for greater honour called by the
name of that first author; and hence we have now the liturgy used at
Jerusalem, called “The Liturgy of St. James;” that of Alexandria, called
“The Liturgy of St. Mark;” that of Rome, called “The Liturgy of St.
Clement;” with others of lesser value: which, by the fancy of adding to
them in every age, have contracted many superstitions of later times,
and yet do still contain many genuine and substantial pieces of true
primitive devotion, easily distinguished from the modern and corrupt
additions. But since none of these apostolical liturgies were believed
of Divine institution, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom made new forms for
their own churches, now generally used in the East; and St. Ambrose and
St. Gregory the Great composed sacramentaries for their several
churches; and the Christians in Spain had a peculiar order for this
office, called the Mazarabic form; the Gallican Church had another
distinct from all these; so had the Irish Church, and St. Gregory was so
far from imposing the Roman missal on this Church of England, that he
advises Augustine the monk to review all liturgies, and take out of them
what was best, and so to compose a form for this nation. And when the
Roman missal (afterward imposed here) was shamefully corrupted, our
judicious reformers made use of this ancient and just liberty; and,
comparing all liturgies, they have out of them all extracted what is
most pure and primitive, and so composed this admirable office, which,
as Bishop Jewel affirms, “comes as nigh as can be to the apostolic and
ancient Catholic Church,” and indeed is the most exact now extant in the
Christian world, the explaining whereof will effectually serve to assist
the communicant in order to a worthy preparation before the receiving,
devout affections in receiving, and the confirming of his holy purposes
afterwards: for it doth instruct us in all that is necessary to be known
and to be done in this sacred and sublime duty, and is contrived in this
curious method. (See _Liturgy_.)
The whole communion office consists of four parts. First, a more general
preparation to the communion, and as either common to the whole
congregation in the exercise of, 1. Repentance, by the LORD’S Prayer,
the collect for Purity, and the ten commandments. 2. Holy desires, by
the collects for the King and the Day. 3. Of obedience, by the hearing
of the Epistle and Gospel. 4. Of faith, by repeating the Creed. 5. Of
charity, by the Offertory and the prayer for the holy Catholic Church:
or else this general preparation is proper to those who ought to
communicate, namely, the warning before the communion, and the
exhortation to it. Secondly, there is the more immediate preparation,
contained in, 1. The proper instructions, in the exhortation at the
communion, and the immediate invitation. 2. The form of acknowledging
our offences, in the confession. 3. The means of insuring our pardon, by
the absolution, and the sentences. 4. The exciting our love and
gratitude, in the preface, and the hymn called _Trisagium_. Thirdly,
there is the celebration of the mystery, consisting of, 1. The
communicant’s humble approach, in the address. 2. The minister’s
blessing the elements, in the prayer of consecration. 3. His
distributing them according to the form of administration. Lastly, there
is the post-communion, containing, 1. Prayers and vows, in the LORD’S
Prayer, the first and second prayers after the Communion. 2. Praises and
thanksgiving, in the _Gloria in excelsis_. 3. The dismission by the
final blessing.—_Dean Comber._
This service is called “The Communion Service” in the liturgy; and well
it were that the piety of the people were such as to make it always a
_communion_. The Church, as appears by her pathetical exhortation before
the communion, and the rubric after it, labours to bring men oftener to
communicate than she usually obtains. Private and solitary communions,
of the priest alone, she allows not; and therefore, when others cannot
be had, she appoints only so much of the service as relates not of
necessity to a present communion, and that to be said at the holy table:
and upon good reason; the Church thereby keeping, as it were, her
ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our
more frequent access to that holy table: and in the mean while, that
part of the service, which she uses, may perhaps more fitly be called
“the second service” than “the communion.” And so it is often called,
though not in the rubric of the liturgy, yet in divers fast-books, and
the like, set out by authority. If any should think, that it cannot
properly be called the _second_ service, because the morning service and
Litany go before it, which indeed are two distinct services,—whereby
this should seem to be the third, rather than the second service,—it is
answered, that sometimes the communion service is used upon such days as
the Litany is not; and then it may, without question, be called the
second service. Nay, even then, when the Litany and all is used, the
communion service may be very fitly called the second service; for
though, in strictness of speech, the Litany is a service distinct, yet
in our usual acceptation of the word _service_,—namely, for a complete
service with all the several parts of it, psalms, readings, creeds,
thanksgivings, and prayers,—so the Litany is not a service, nor so
esteemed, but called “the _Litany_,” or _supplications_; and looked upon
sometimes, when other offices follow, as a kind of preparative, though a
distinct form, to them, as to the Communion, Commination, &c. And
therefore it was a custom in some churches, that a bell was tolled while
the Litany was saying, to give notice to the people that the communion
service was now coming on.—_Bp. Sparrow._
Of the many compellations given to this sacrament in former ages, our
Church has very wisely thought fit to retain these two (namely, the
exhortation before and the rubric after the communion service) in her
public service, as those which are most ancient and scriptural. As for
the name of “the LORD’S supper,” which name the Papists cannot endure to
have this sacrament called by, because it destroys their notion of a
sacrifice, and their use of private mass, we find this given to it, as
its proper name in the apostles’ time, by St. Paul himself, “when ye
come together into one place, this is not to eat the LORD’S supper.” (1
Cor. xi. 20.) And this name is frequently given to it by ancient
writers. So for “the communion;” this is plainly another scriptural name
of the same holy sacrament. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it
not the communion of the blood of CHRIST?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Which name is
given to it, partly, because by this we testify our communion with
CHRIST our Head; partly, because it unites us together with all our
fellow-Christians; partly, because all good Christians have a right to
partake of it; hence, with St. Chrysostom and St. Basil, “to
communicate” is the common word to express the participation of this
sacrament.—_Dr. Nicholls._
The reason why it is enjoined that notice shall be given to the minister
when we intend to communicate is, that the minister of the parish may
have time to inform himself of the parties who design to receive: so
that, if there be any among them who are not duly qualified, he may
persuade them to abstain for some time; or, in case of their refusal,
repel them. Now, in several cases, persons may be unqualified to partake
of this sacrament, either by the prescript of GOD’S word, or by the
canons of the Church.
1. A want or a contempt of the rite of confirmation unqualifies persons
to receive; for the rubric of the Common Prayer, which is confirmed by
the Act of Uniformity, says, “No one shall be admitted to the holy
communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous
to be confirmed.” This is agreeable to the provisions of the ancient
Church; and the only reasonable impediment to confirmation is the want
of a bishop near the place.
2. Persons excommunicate, or who are doing penance by church censure for
any notorious fault, are unqualified to receive; for such persons are
shut out from the communion, and therefore called _excommunicate_.
3. Persons under phrensy are unqualified to partake of the holy
communion. And all persons, under the foregoing want of qualification,
may lawfully be refused admission to the communion by the minister; for
the ecclesiastical law imposes great penalties upon the minister, who
shall give them the communion in such cases.
4. A person may be unqualified by notorious wickedness, or
flagitiousness of life. But of this more in the next note.—_Dr.
Nicholls._
In the primitive times, when discipline was strictly maintained, all
such persons, as soon as known, were put under censure; but if, before
censure, they offered themselves at the communion, they were repelled.
And indeed such severe discipline might not be amiss, whilst it was
grounded only upon piety and zeal for GOD’S honour, as it was in those
devout times. But, afterwards, some persons being debarred from the
communion out of private pique and resentment, an imperial injunction
prohibited all, both bishops and presbyters, from shutting out any one
from the communion, before just cause be shown that the holy canons do
give them power so to do. And the canon law did not allow a
discretionary power to the priest to thrust away every ill person from
the sacrament: “a vicious person, offering himself to receive the
communion, is not to be expelled, but is to be carried privately aside,
and to be exhorted not to receive the communion.” Indeed the later
canonists did interpret this only of occult crimes, and such as were not
generally known; allowing only persons “notoriously guilty” to be
expelled; and of this opinion were the compilers of our rubrics in
Edward the Sixth’s time, as appears from their wording this rubric, “If
any be an open and notorious evil liver,” &c. But, however, they limited
this discretionary power of the minister, obliging him, even in
“notorious” crimes, to “admonish” such persons first to abstain, and
only upon obstinacy to repel. But, nevertheless, this formerly gave
occasion to several exceptions and disputes; and therefore, in the last
revision of the Common Prayer, repulsion was not left to the absolute
power of the minister, but he was obliged to give notice thereof to the
diocesan, and to take his advice therein. And still it remains so
uncertain, what is “notoriety,” both in presumption, law, and fact, that
a minister is not out of danger of transgressing his rule, if, before
judicial conviction of a crime, he goes further than admonishing any
person to abstain.—_Dr. Nicholls._ Our law in England will not suffer
the minister to judge any man as a notorious offender, but him who is
convicted by some legal sentence.—_Bp. Andrewes._
Notoriety in fact is one thing, and notoriety in presumption is another.
And in either case it should be a notoriety in law too, to indemnify the
minister for proceeding upon the rubric, or to render him safe, in point
of law, for repelling any person from the communion.
Upon the whole of the matter, however, though this rubric may “require
some explanation,” as Bishop Cosin remarks, “for the avoiding of
disputes and doubts between the communicants and curates;” yet, if it be
taken in all its parts, namely, that no person, however “notoriously
wicked,” shall be withheld from the communion, till he be admonished to
withdraw himself; and that when he is repelled upon his obstinacy, it is
only till such time as the advice of the ordinary can be had therein, to
whom the curate is obliged to give early notice of such his act; it
seems in this view the best, and I think the only ecclesiastical, rule
we have to go by in such case; nor doth it appear liable to exceptions,
unless it be in that particular, of how far we are safe in acting
according to it.
But, as this is properly a point of law, it is not so fit for me to
undertake any determination of it; it must be left to the gentlemen of
that profession. Only thus much I would put in, that, if a clergyman’s
conduct in this matter shall appear to be upright, dispassionate, and
disinterested, (and I wish it may never appear otherwise,) so as to gain
the approbation of reasonable and indifferent persons,—which I think it
would gain in all notorious and flagrant cases, which are those
mentioned in the rubric,—it is to be hoped and presumed, that the
interpreters of the law would, in their turn too, show him all the
favour and regard they could.—_Archdeacon Sharp._
COMMUNION OF THE SICK. In this office we have an example of the
benevolent care exhibited by the Church towards her suffering members.
As all mortal men be subject to many sudden perils, diseases, and
sicknesses, and ever uncertain what time they shall depart out of this
life, the Church has not only provided for their baptism, and for the
visitations of the pastor, but has authorized and directed the
administration to them of “the most comfortable sacrament of the body
and blood of CHRIST.”
Although the Church maintains that the eucharist, as a general rule, is
to be publicly administered in the consecrated house of GOD, and has
signified her disapproval of _solitary_ communion in all cases; yet,
when by sickness her members are incapable of presenting themselves at
the altar, there is a wise and tender relaxation of her usages,
corresponding with the peculiar necessity of the case. This too “is
exactly conformable to the most early practice of the primitive Church;
for there is nothing more frequently mentioned by the ancient writers,
than the care of the Church to distribute the eucharist to all dying
persons that were capable of receiving it.”
“There are many instances,” says Palmer, “in antiquity, of the
celebration of the eucharist in private for the sick. Thus Paulinus,
bishop of Nola, caused the eucharist to be celebrated in his own
chamber, not many hours before his death. Gregory Nazianzen informs us,
that his father communicated in his own chamber, and that his sister had
an altar at home; and Ambrose is said to have administered the sacrament
in a private house at Rome. The Church is therefore justified in
directing the eucharist to be consecrated in private houses, for the
benefit of the sick; and she has taken care, in the rubric immediately
preceding the office, that the sacrament shall be decorously and
reverently administered.”
In the distribution of the elements, the rubric orders that the sick
person shall receive last. This is done, “because those who communicate
with him, through fear of some contagion, or the noisomeness of his
disease, may be afraid to drink out of the same cup after him.”
By a constitution of Archbishop Peckham, the sacrament of the eucharist
shall be carried with due reverence to the sick, the priest having on at
least a surplice or stole, with a light carried before him in a lantern,
with a bell, that the people may be excited to due reverence; who by the
minister’s direction shall be taught to prostrate themselves, or at
least to make humble adoration, wheresoever the KING OF GLORY shall
happen to be carried under the cover of bread.
But by the rubric of the 2 Edward VI. it was ordered, that there shall
be no elevation of the host, or showing the sacrament to the people.
By the present rubric, before the office for the Communion of the Sick,
it is ordered as follows: “Forasmuch as all mortal men be subject to
many sudden perils, diseases, and sicknesses, and ever uncertain what
time they shall depart out of this life; therefore, to the intent they
may be always in a readiness to die whensoever it shall please Almighty
GOD to call them, curates shall diligently from time to time (but
especially in the time of pestilence or other infectious sickness)
exhort their parishioners to the often receiving of the holy communion
of the body and blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, when it shall be publicly
administered in the church; that, so doing, they may, in case of sudden
visitation, have the less cause to be disquieted for lack of the same.
But if the sick person be not able to come to the church, and yet is
desirous to receive the communion in his house, then he must give timely
notice to the curate, signifying also how many there are to communicate
with him, (which shall be three, or two at the least,) and having a
convenient place in the sick man’s house, with all things necessary so
prepared, that the curate may reverently minister, he shall there
celebrate the holy communion.
“But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of
warning in due time to the curate, or for lack of company to receive
with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament
of CHRIST’S body and blood, the curate shall instruct him, that if he do
truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that JESUS CHRIST
hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his
redemption; earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and
giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the body and
blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST profitably to his soul’s health, although he
do not receive the sacrament with his mouth.
“In the time of plague, sweat, or other such like contagious times of
sickness or diseases, when none of the parish can be gotten to
communicate with the sick in their houses, for fear of infection, upon
special request of the deceased, the minister may only communicate with
him.”
It has been the constant usage of the Church, in all probability derived
from the apostolical times, for persons dangerously sick to receive the
holy sacrament of the LORD’S supper for their spiritual comfort and
assistance. Hence this private communion obtained the name of _viaticum_
among the Latins, and a correspondent name among the Greeks; that is,
_provision_, as it were, laid in to sustain them in their journey to the
other world. Our Church follows this example of the primitive ages. And
rather than the sick man should want so necessary a comfort, we are
allowed to dispense it in a private house, and to a small company, which
in other cases we avoid. Indeed there are divers weighty reasons why the
dying Christian should receive this sacrament, and why ministers should
persuade them to it, and labour to fit them for the worthy receiving of
it. For, 1. This is the highest mystery of religion, and fittest for
those who are by sickness put into a heavenly frame and are nearest to
perfection. 2. This is GOD’S seal of remission to all that receive it
with penitence and faith. 3. This arms them against the fear of death,
by setting JESUS before them, who died for them, and hath pulled out the
sting of death. 4. This assures them of their resurrection, by keeping
them members of CHRIST’S body. (John vi. 54.) 5. It declares they die in
the peace and communion of the true Church, out of which there is no
salvation. And if the sick man have done all the duties in the foregoing
office, he is prepared to die, and therefore fit for this communion; and
if he do receive it with devotion, the comfortable assurances of GOD’S
love which he gets here will never leave him till he see GOD face to
face. We shall only add, that, lest the fears of the Divine displeasure
which sick men are very apt to entertain, should trouble their minds,
and hinder their joy and comfort in this holy ordinance, the Church hath
chosen a peculiar Epistle and Gospel on purpose to comfort them and
deliver them from these fears, and also made a proper collect to beg
patience for them under this their affliction. All which are so plain
they need no explication, but only require the sick man’s devout
attention, and then it is hoped they will not fail of their desired
effect.—_Dr. Nicholls. Dean Comber._
COMMUNION OF SAINTS. (See _Saints_.) This is an article of the Creed in
which we profess to believe, as a necessary and infallible truth, that
such persons as are truly sanctified in the Church of CHRIST, while they
live among the crooked generations of men, and struggle with the
miseries of this world, have fellowship with GOD the FATHER, (1 John i.
3; 2 Peter i. 4,) with GOD the SON, (1 John i. 3; 2 John 9; John xvii.
20, 21, 23,) with GOD the HOLY GHOST, (Phil. ii. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 14,) as
dwelling with them, and taking up THEIR habitations in them; that they
partake of the care and kindness of the blessed angels, who take delight
in the ministration for their benefit, being “ministering spirits sent
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14;
Luke xv. 10; Matt, xviii. 10); that besides the external fellowship
which they have in the word and sacraments, with all the members of the
Church, they have an intimate union and conjunction with all the saints
on earth, as the living members of CHRIST. (1 John i. 7; Col. ii. 19.)
Nor is this union separated by the death of any; but as CHRIST, in whom
they live, is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, so have
they fellowship with all the saints, who, from the death of Abel, have
departed in the true faith and fear of GOD, and now enjoy the presence
of the FATHER, and follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. (Heb. xii.
22, 23.) “Indeed,” says Bishop Pearson, from whom this article is taken,
“the communion of saints in the Church of CHRIST with those who are
departed is demonstrated by their communion with the saints alive. For
if I have communion with a saint of GOD as such, while he liveth here, I
must still have communion with him when he is departed hence; because
the foundation of that communion cannot be removed by death. The
mystical union between CHRIST and his Church, the spiritual conjunction
of the members with the head, is the true foundation of that communion
which one member hath with another, all the members living and
increasing by the same influence which they receive from him. But death,
which is nothing else but the separation of the soul from the body,
maketh no separation in the mystical union, no breach of the spiritual
conjunction; and, consequently, there must continue the same communion,
because there remaineth the same foundation. Indeed the saint before his
death had some communion with the hypocrite, as hearing the word,
professing the faith, receiving the sacraments together; which being in
things only external, as they were common to them both, and all such
external actions ceasing in the person dead, the hypocrite remaining
loseth all communion with the saint departing, and the saints surviving
cease to have farther fellowship with the hypocrite dying. But seeing
that the true and unfeigned holiness of man, wrought by the powerful
influence of the Spirit of GOD, not only remaineth, but also is improved
after death; seeing that the correspondence of the internal holiness was
the true communion with other persons during life, they cannot be said
to be divided by death, which hath no power over that sanctity by which
they were first conjoined. But although this communion of the saints in
paradise and on earth, upon the mystical union of CHRIST their head, be
fundamental and internal, yet what acts or external operations it
produces is not so certain. That we communicate with them in hope of
that happiness which they actually enjoy is evident; that we have the
Spirit of GOD given us as an earnest, and so a part of their felicity,
is certain. But what they do in heaven in relation to us on earth
particularly considered, or what we ought to perform in reference to
them in heaven, besides a reverential respect and study of imitation, is
not revealed unto us in the Scriptures, nor can be concluded by
necessary deduction from any principles of Christianity. They who first
found this part of the article in the creed, and delivered their
exposition to us, have made no greater enlargement of this communion, as
to the saints of heaven, than the society of hope, esteem, and imitation
on our side, of desires and supplications on their side; and what is now
taught by the Church of Rome is as an unwarrantable, so a novitious,
interpretation.”
COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. The principal advocates of Popery at the
beginning of the Reformation were not willing to own, that the universal
practice of the primitive Church was against the modern sacrilege of
denying the cup to the people; and, therefore, though they confessed
there were some instances in antiquity, of communion under both kinds,
yet they maintained the custom was not universal. So Eckius and Harding,
and many others. But they who have since considered the practice of the
ancient Church more narrowly, are ashamed of this pretence, and freely
confess, that for twelve centuries there is no instance of the people’s
being obliged to communicate only in one kind, in the public
administration of the sacrament; but in private they think some few
instances may be given. This is Cardinal Bona’s distinction. “It is very
certain,” says he, “that anciently all in general, both clergy and
laity, men and women, received the holy mysteries in both kinds, when
they were present at the solemn celebration of them, and they both
offered and were partakers. But out of the time of sacrifice, and act of
the Church, it was customary always and in all places to communicate
only in one kind. In the first part of the assertion all agree, as well
Catholics as sectaries; nor can any one deny it, that has the least
knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs. For the faithful always and in all
places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the twelfth
century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine;
and in the beginning of that age the use of the cup began by little and
little to be laid aside, whilst many bishops interdicted the people the
use of the cup, for fear of irreverence and effusion.” (Book ii. c. 18,
n. 1.) And what they did first for their own Churches, was afterward
confirmed by a canonical sanction of the Council of Constance [A. D.
1414].... At this day the Greeks, and Maronites, and Abyssins, and all
the Orientals, never communicate but in both kinds, as Bona himself
confesses (Book ii. c. 18, n. 2).—_Bingham._ The following is the decree
of the popish Council of Constance [A. D. 1418] on this subject.
“Whereas, in some parts of the world, certain persons rashly presume to
assert, that the Christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of
the eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine; and do everywhere
communicate the laity, not only in the bread, but also in the wine; and
pertinaciously assert also, that they ought to communicate after supper,
or else not fasting, doing this contrary to the laudable custom of the
Church, which is agreeable to reason, which they damnably endeavour to
reprobate as sacrilegious, this present holy general Council of
Constance, lawfully assembled in the HOLY GHOST, earnestly desiring to
protect the safety of the faithful against this error, after much and
mature deliberation had of many who are learned both in Divine and human
law, declares, decrees, and determines, that, although CHRIST instituted
this venerable sacrament after supper, and administered it to his
disciples under both kinds of bread and wine, yet, notwithstanding this,
the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of
the Church has observed, that this sacrament ought not to be performed
after supper, nor be received by the faithful unless fasting, except in
the case of sickness, or any other necessity, either duly conceded or
admitted by the Church; and, in like manner, that although in the
primitive Church this sacrament was received of the faithful under both
kinds, yet for the avoiding any dangers and scandals, the custom has
reasonably been introduced, that it be received by the officiating
persons under both kinds, but by the laity only under the kind of bread;
since it is to be believed most firmly, and in nowise to be doubted,
that the whole body and blood of CHRIST is truly contained as well under
the species of bread as under that of wine.”
On which we may fairly remark, “full well ye reject the commandment of
GOD, that ye may keep your own tradition.” For CHRIST, when he
celebrated the Eucharist, gave the cup to all who were present; and when
he appointed his apostles his ministers to celebrate it, he bade them do
the same, “Do this in remembrance of me.” But ye say, whosoever shall
dare to do as CHRIST has bidden him, shall be effectually punished. Can
human impiety exceed this?—_Perceval._
COMMUNION TABLE. A name for the altar in the Christian Church. It is
both altar and table. An altar with respect to the oblation; a table
with respect to the feast. (See _Altar_.)
COMMUTATION OF PENANCE. Penance is an ecclesiastical punishment, used in
the discipline of the Church, which affects the body of the penitent; by
which he is obliged to give public satisfaction to the Church for the
scandal he has occasioned by his evil example. Commutation of Penance is
the permission granted by the ecclesiastical judge to pay a certain sum
of money for pious uses, in lieu of public penance. (See _Penitents_.)
COMPETENTES. An order of catechumens in the primitive Church, being the
immediate candidates for baptism.
COMPLINE, or COMPLETORIUM, was, before the Reformation, the last service
of the day. This hour of prayer was first appointed by the celebrated
abbot Benedict, in the sixth century.
The Church of England, at the revision of our offices in the reign of
Edward the Sixth, only prescribed public worship in the morning and the
evening; and in making this regulation she was perfectly justified: for
though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually, yet the precise
times and seasons of prayer, termed canonical hours, do not rest on any
Divine command; nor have they ever been pronounced binding on all
Churches by any general council: neither has there been any uniformity
in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect. Besides this,
the Churches of the Alexandrian patriarchate, which were founded by the
holy evangelist Mark, only appointed two public assemblies in the day;
and no more were customary, even in the monasteries of Egypt, the rest
of the day being left for private and voluntary prayer and meditation.
Thus also the Church of England left her clergy and people to follow in
private the injunction of the apostle, to “pray without ceasing;” for,
as John Cassian observes, a voluntary gift of praise and prayer is even
more acceptable to GOD than those duties which are compelled by the
canons; and, certainly, the Church of England did not intend that her
children should offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only in
the morning and evening when she appointed those seasons for public
worship. Indeed, we find that a book of private devotion, containing
offices for several hours of prayer, and entitled the “Horarium,” was
published by royal authority, A. D. 1560, from which Dr. Cosin, bishop
of Durham, chiefly derived his “Collection of Private Devotion,” &c. The
office of Evensay, or Evening Prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the
office of Evensay and _Compline_, as formerly used by the English
Church.—_Palmer._
CONCEPTION (IMMACULATE) OF THE HOLY VIRGIN. The immaculate conception is
a festival of the Roman Church, observed on December 8, in honour of the
alleged conception of the Virgin Mary without sin. The doctrine itself
was invented about the middle of the twelfth century. The devotion
offered to the Blessed Virgin having grown to an extravagant height, it
was asserted by some obscure theologians, not only that she was
sanctified from her birth, but also that she was conceived without sin.
The opinion was at first generally condemned, and it would have had its
place among other forgotten heresies, if Duns Scotus, the great opponent
of the Dominicans, had not undertaken its defence.
The testimony of Scripture to the universal corruption of human nature
is as plain as possible, and no trace of any exception is to be found.
The witness of the primitive Church is equally clear, and not a single
writer, for more than a thousand years, can be cited as having given the
least countenance to the modern view.
But although the Roman Church has afforded the highest sanction and
encouragement to a doctrine which is condemned alike by Scripture and
the Fathers, the inconsistencies and contradictions of its authorized
teaching on the subject are endless. The Council of Basle, for instance,
in its thirty-sixth session, declared the belief in the immaculate
conception to be conformable to the Catholic faith; but on the other
side it is urged, that the council was in schism when it passed the
decree, on account of the deposition which it had pronounced against
Eugenius. The Council of Trent, in its decree on the subject of original
sin, expressly stated that it had no intention of including the Blessed
Virgin in the terms which it employed; but in conclusion it only
enjoined the observance of the decree of Sixtus IV., which left the
question open. The parties of Dominicans and Franciscans were so equally
balanced that the Council did not venture to pronounce in favour of the
one at the expense of the other. Their disputes were only kept from
proceeding to extremity by the intervention of the legate. Pius V. in
the same way, forbade the censure of those who denied, as well as of
those who affirmed, the doctrine. Gregory XV. prohibited the imputation
of original sin to the Blessed Virgin, even in private disputations; but
he made an exception in favour of the Dominicans, that is to say, while
giving his highest sanction to the dogma, he granted an immunity to
those who had from the first resisted it. Alexander VII. decreed that
the immaculate conception is a pious doctrine and worthy of honour, but
he forbade the censure of those who should reject it. The university of
Paris, at one period, compelled all candidates for the highest degree in
theology to bind themselves to defend it; while at the same time the
chief authority in the Church permitted its denial. Austria received
from Benedict XIII. the grant of an office for the immaculate
conception, but the phrase itself is carefully excluded from the
prayers. The evidence, such as it is, on both sides is equally
conflicting. The Franciscans, for instance, produced a revelation of St.
Bridget in favour of the doctrine, while the Dominicans appealed to a
similar revelation made to St. Catherine of Sienna, in which the
contrary is affirmed. A question was raised in consequence, whether one
of the so called saints is not to be believed rather than the other,
though both have their place as objects of worship in the Roman
calendar.
To sober-minded Christians it seems as idle a question as ever occupied
the time, or roused the bad passions, of theological disputants, since,
according to Thomas Aquinas and others, it regards only an inconceivably
minute instant of time; yet it sufficed at one period to throw the whole
kingdom of Spain into confusion, and it has furnished for centuries the
watchword of parties in the Roman Church, who have maintained the
fiercest opposition to each other; and the controversy is still
undecided. Although it is said that the doctrine is full of blessing,
that the whole of Christendom is devoutly waiting for its authoritative
declaration, and that this would be the great glory and joy of an age
which is to witness the restoration of catholicity, the See of Rome is
restrained by great and insurmountable difficulties. If the immaculate
conception were decreed to be a necessary article of faith, no one could
deny that an addition had been made to the ancient creeds, and in a case
to which even the loose principle of development could hardly be made
applicable: while at the same time there would be an implied
condemnation not only of the primitive fathers, but of the greatest
theologians whom the Church of Rome has ever produced.
CONCEPTION OF OUR LADY. A religious order in the Romish Church, founded
by Beatrix de Sylva, sister of James, first count of Portolegro, in the
kingdom of Portugal. This lady, being carried to the court of Castile by
Elizabeth, daughter of Edward, king of Portugal, whom the king of
Castile had married, and the king falling in love with her on account of
her beauty, the jealous queen locked her up in a chamber, where she left
her without meat or drink for three days. In this condition she implored
the assistance of the Virgin Mary, who, according to the legendary
statement, appeared to her and comforted her, promising her a speedy
release, which soon happened. But Beatrix, fearing the further
resentment of the queen, privately withdrew from court, and fled to
Toledo; where arriving, she retired to a monastery of Dominican nuns, in
which she continued forty years in the practice of all sorts of
austerities. Here she again imagined, or pretended, that the Virgin Mary
reappeared to her, and inspired her with the desire of founding an order
in honour of her own immaculate conception. To this end she obtained of
the queen a grant of the palace of Galliana, where was a chapel
dedicated to the honour of St. Faith. Beatrix, accompanied by twelve
young maids of the Dominican monastery, took possession of it in the
year 1484. These religious were habited in a white gown and scapulary,
and a blue mantle, and wore on their scapulary the image of the Blessed
Virgin. Pope Innocent VIII. confirmed the order in 1489, and granted
them permission to follow the rule of the Cistercians. The pious
foundress died in the year 1490, at sixty-six years of age.
After the death of Beatrix, Cardinal Ximenes put the nuns of the
Conception under the direction of the Franciscans, as being the most
zealous defenders of the immaculate conception; at the same time, he
gave them the rule of St. Clara to follow. The second convent of the
order was founded in the year 1507, at Torrigo, in the diocese of
Toledo, which produced seven others, the first of which was at Madrid.
This order passed into Italy, and got footing in Rome and Milan. In the
reign of Louis XIV., king of France, the Clarisses of the suburb of St.
Germain, at Paris, embraced the order of the _Conception_. These
religious, besides the grand office of the Franciscans, recite on
Sundays and holy-days a lesser office, called the office of the
Conception of the Holy Virgin.—_Broughton._
CONCEPTION, MIRACULOUS. The production of the human nature of the SON of
GOD out of the ordinary course of generation, by the power of the HOLY
GHOST. (Matt. i. 18, 25.)
It were not difficult to show that the miraculous conception, once
admitted, naturally brings after it the great doctrines of the
incarnation and the atonement. The miraculous conception of our LORD
evidently implies some higher purpose of his coming than the mere
business of a teacher. The business of a teacher might have been
performed by a mere man, enlightened by the prophetic spirit. For
whatever instruction men have the capacity to receive, a man might have
been made the instrument to convey. Had teaching, therefore, been the
sole purpose of our SAVIOUR’S coming, a mere man might have done the
whole business, and the supernatural conception had been an unnecessary
miracle. He, therefore, who came in this miraculous way, came upon some
higher business, to which a mere man was unequal. He came to be made a
sin-offering for us, that we might be made the righteousness of GOD in
him.—_Bp. Horsley._
CONCLAVE. The place where the cardinals meet for the choosing of a new
pope: the assembly itself is also called by this name, and it depends
upon the members themselves to choose the place, although for some time
the Vatican has been constantly used. Here they erect, in a large
apartment, as many cells of deal wood as there are cardinals, with
lodges and places for the conclavists, who shut themselves in to wait
and serve the cardinals. These little chambers have their numbers, and
are drawn by lot, so that it often happens that cardinals of different
factions lodge near one another. These are made up during the nine days’
ceremony for the pope’s funeral; during which time anybody may go in and
see the cells, which are hung on the outside with green serge or camlet,
only those that belong to the favourites of the deceased, or are such as
had been promoted by him, are covered with deep violet-coloured cloth,
and over each are the arms of the cardinal who lives in it. Between the
cells and the windows of the palace there is a long gallery for the
convenience of the conclave, and it is from this that the cells receive
their light. The day after the pope’s burial, that is, the tenth after
his decease, the cardinals, having heard mass, invoke the HOLY GHOST (as
they term it) and go in procession two by two into the conclave, where
they all meet in the chapel every morning and evening for a scrutiny,
which is done by writing their suffrages in little billets, and putting
them into a chalice that stands upon the altar: when all are put in, two
cardinals are chosen by the rest to read those openly who are named, and
to keep an account of the number of each, and this is done till
two-thirds join for the same person; but a pope is seldom chosen after
this manner. When it appears that after the scrutiny they do not agree,
they come to what they call an accez or access, that is, a trial whether
he who has most voices in the scrutiny could reach to two-thirds; but it
is observable that they cannot give their suffrages in the accez to
those whom they have appeared for in the scrutiny. If this does not
succeed, they have recourse to the way of inspiration, (as they term
it,) which is an open declaration, or rather combination of many
cardinals to cry together _such a cardinal is pope_. For example,
_Altieri Papa_ is begun by one or two chiefs of a party, when they find
suffrages enough to assure them that this method will not fail, and then
the rest of the cardinals are forced to join, that they may not incur
the pope’s displeasure, who would be chosen in spite of them. The
scrutiny is managed in the following manner: each cardinal prepares his
billet, wherein he writes his own name and that of the person for whom
he votes, and another word of device; the cardinal’s name is written
under the fold of the paper, and sealed with a seal for that purpose.
The name of the chosen is written by the conclavist under another fold
without the seal, and the word by which the cardinal knows that it is
his name which is read, is written on the outside, as _Deo volente_, or
the like; the fold which covers the cardinal’s name is never opened
until the pope be chosen, who, to know those who voted for him, unfolds
all. The motto serves in the accez, that it may appear that each
cardinal has given another besides that in the scrutiny, seeing two
billets with different persons under the same name; and at the end of
the scrutiny and accez, if the suffrage be not sufficient to complete
the election, they burn all the billetings that the electors’ names may
be kept secret. Each cardinal during the conclave is allowed but two
servants, or three at most, and this only to princes, or for some
particular privilege. Several seek for this employment because the
new-elected pope gives each conclavist three or four hundred livres, and
they have the pleasure of seeing all that passes: yet the place is
troublesome enough, because they must take in their meat and drink from
a certain place common to all that live in the same part, must wait at
table, and be as strictly confined as their masters.—_Augusti._
CONCORDANCE, a dictionary or index to the Bible, wherein all the leading
words are ranged alphabetically, and the books, chapters, and verses
wherein they occur, referred to, to assist in finding out passages, and
comparing the several significations of the same word. The earliest
attempt at a Concordance is the collection of parallel passages in the
margin of the 5th volume of the Complatensian Polyglot. The first
English Polyglot was published by John Merbeck, or Marbeck, a celebrated
English musician, in 1550.
Of English Concordances, Cruden’s is well known and valued by every
biblical student.
Crutwell’s “Concordance of Parallels” is useful, but the number of
parallel passages referred to, and sometimes the slightness of their
connexion, renders the work less useful on ordinary occasions than the
marginal references in our Bibles.
Gastrell’s “Christian Institutes,” Locke and Dodd’s “Common-place Book
of Scripture,” Strutt’s work with the same title, and Matthew Talbot’s
“Analysis of the Holy Bible,” all assume the character of a concordance.
The best Hebrew concordance is Calasios. For the Septuagint, Trommius,
for the Greek Testament, Schmidt, (a very beautiful 12mo edition of
which was edited by Mr. Greenfield in 1830,) and for the Vulgate,
Cardinal Hugo’s Concordance may be consulted.
CONCORDAT. An instrument executed in 1801, between Bonaparte and Pope
Pius VII., to which the present Gallican Church owes its origin, in a
much stronger sense than any in which the Romanist can refer the origin
of the Church of England to the Reformation. For an account of this
concordat the reader is referred to the article on the _Church of
France_. (See _Church_.)
CONCORDAT. There is also a much earlier agreement between the crown of
France and the pope, generally known by the same name, viz. the
agreement of Francis I. with Pope Leo X. in 1516, to abolish the
Pragmatic Sanction; and here we must observe, that Clothaire II. issued
an edict in 615, approved by all the bishops of his kingdom, assembled
at the fifth Council of Paris, by which he ordered that no bishop,
though chosen by the clergy and people, should be consecrated if the
king did not approve of him: and he that should be nominated by the king
should be accepted, if the metropolitan found no just cause to reject
him. Now King Charles VII., in the Council of Bourges, in 1439,
established the Pragmatic Sanction, whereby part of the clergy, without
consulting with the people or the archbishops, or other bishops of
provinces, chose their bishops, leaving the king the privilege of
consenting to and confirming the election if he liked it. This the court
of Rome resented; the court first desired, and afterwards in the Lateran
Council cited, this king and the clergy of France to appear and give
their reasons, why they did not abolish that ordinance; whereupon King
Francis I. made this agreement, called a Concordat, with Pope Leo X.,
whereby the king had the power to nominate such as he thought fit for
bishops, &c.; and the pope, if he found no fault, either in respect of
the capacity or life of the person in nomination, was to issue the papal
bull for the consecration. The parliament, clergy, and the university of
Paris were much against registering this agreement; and, though they
consented to it at last, yet they solemnly protested, that they did it
only in obedience to the king’s repeated commands. This concordat
differed from that of Clothaire, that the pope, by this, had no power to
examine the ability of the person elected; so that, in his time, they
consecrated their bishops, without troubling themselves to send to Rome
for bulls. (See _Pragmatic Sanction_.)
CONCORDAT, GERMANIC, or the Concordat of Germany. A treaty relating to
ecclesiastical affairs, made in 1488, between Pope Nicholas V. and the
emperor Frederick III., confirmed by Clement VIII. and Gregory XIII. It
comprehended four parts; in the first of which the pope reserved to
himself the conferring of all vacant benefices at Rome, and 100 days’
journey from it, of whatever degree, either secular or regular, which
before went by election, without exception of cardinals or other
officers of the holy see. The second concerns the elections that are to
be confirmed by the pope, as metropolises, cathedrals, and monasteries,
depending immediately on the pope, and having the privilege of canonical
election. The third concerns livings that are successively given by the
popes and their proper patrons; that the pope has the privilege to
confer both secular and regular livings, for the months of January,
March, May, July, September, November; and the bishop or archbishop
within the district of their dioceses during the other months. The
fourth and last part speaks of the annates or first-fruits, after the
death or removal of the incumbent.
CONDIGNITY and CONGRUITY. Terms used by the schoolmen to express their
peculiar opinions relative to human merit and deserving. The Scotists
maintain that it is possible for man in his natural state so to live as
to _deserve_ the grace of GOD, by which he may be enabled to obtain
salvation; this natural _fitness_ (_congruitas_) for grace, being such
as to oblige the Deity to grant it. Such is the _merit of congruity_.
The Thomists, on the other hand, contend that man, by the Divine
assistance, is capable of so living as to merit eternal life, to be
_worthy_ (_condignus_) of it in the sight of GOD. In this hypothesis,
the question of previous preparation for the grace which enables him to
be _worthy_, is not introduced. This is the _merit of condignity_.
Article XIII. “Works done before the grace of CHRIST, and the
inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they
spring not of faith in JESUS CHRIST, neither do they make men meet to
receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of
congruity: yea, rather, for that they are not done as GOD hath willed
and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of
sin.”
CONDUCT. A name given to chaplains of colleges in the university of
Cambridge and at Eton; meaning a “Capellanus conductitius.” (See
_Chaplain_.)
CONFALON, or GONFALON, Society of the. So called from the Gonfalon, or
banner, bearing the figure of the Virgin Mary, which was their
ensign.—_Raynaldus._ A confraternity of seculars in the Church of Rome,
called penitents, established first of all by some Roman citizens in
1267: and confirmed by Pope Gregory XIII. in 1576. Henry III. began one
at Paris in 1583, and himself assisted in the habit of a penitent, at a
procession wherein the cardinal of Guise carried the cross, and his
brother the duke of Mayenne was master of the ceremonies.
CONFESSION. (See _Auricular Confession_.) The verbal acknowledgment of
sin. The following are the rules laid down by the Church of England on
this subject. _The Warning for the Celebration of the Holy Communion_:
“Because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy communion
but with a full faith in GOD’S mercy, and with a quiet conscience;
therefore, if there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his
conscience therein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him
come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of GOD’S
word, and open his grief, that by the ministration of GOD’S holy word he
may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and
advice to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple
and doubtfulness.” _Rubric, in the Office for the Visitation of the
Sick_: “Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession
of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.
After which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and
heartily desire it) after this sort.” By the 113th canon, empowering
ministers to prevent offences at the court of visitation, it is provided
that “if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for
the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation
and ease of mind from him, he shall not in anywise be bound by this
constitution, but is strictly charged and admonished that he do not at
any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever, any crime or
offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such
crimes as, by the laws of this realm, his own life may be called in
question for concealing the same,) under pain of irregularity.”
In the primitive Church, no other confession of sins was required in
order to receive baptism than the general renunciation of the devil and
all his works.
Nor did the Church lay any obligation on the consciences of men, to make
either public or private confession of their sins to any but GOD, in
order to qualify them for the _communion_. The confessions of the
primitive Christians were all voluntary, and not imposed upon them by
any laws of the Church. Notwithstanding which it must be owned, that
private confession, though not absolutely required, yet was allowed and
encouraged by the ancients, in some cases, and upon special occasions.
For, first, they advised men, in case of lesser sins, to make confession
mutually to each other, that they might have each other’s prayers and
assistance, according to the advice of St. James, “Confess your faults
one to another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed.” Which,
though it be produced by the Romanists in favour of _auricular
confession to a priest_, yet the ancients understood it only as a
direction to Christians to confess mutually to each other. 2. In case of
injuries done to any private person, it was expected that the offender
should make a private confession of his fault to the person injured. 3.
When men were under any perplexities of mind, or troubles of conscience,
this was another case in which they were directed to have recourse to
some pastor, and to take his counsel and advice. 4. Origen gives another
reason for confessing private sins to the priest, which is, that he was
the fittest judge when it was proper to do public penance for private
offences. (See _Penitentiary_.)—_Bingham_, b. xv. ch. 8, § 6.
The Romish Church not only requires confession as a duty, but has
advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament; and this greatly adds to the
power of the clergy of that Church over the laity. “Confession submits a
fearful penitent, whose conscience is oppressed with scruples, loaded
with remorse, and weakened by the remembrance of its sins, to the
absolute will of a cunning priest, who beholds sceptres at his feet,
humbles crowns, and makes those tremble who strike terror into whole
nations.” Confession, in the Church of Rome, must be made in the
day-time, and, if possible, when there are people in the church. As soon
as the penitent comes up to the confessional, or the seat of the priest
who confesses, he makes the sign of the cross, and asks the confessor’s
blessing. Then the penitent kneels, with his hands clasped and uplifted.
The confessional is open before, and has two lattice windows in it, one
on each side. The confessor sits with his cap on his head, and his ear
stooped towards the penitent, in which posture he receives his
confession in a whisper; whence it is called _auricular confession_.
This ended, the priest uncovers himself, and stretching out his right
hand towards the penitent, pronounces the absolution. (See
_Penance_.)—_Casal de Veter. Christ. Ritib. Alet’s Ritual._
That confession is a custom observed in the Greek Church is past all
dispute. Ricaut calls this practice “One of the fundamental pillars of
the Eastern Churches; the axis upon which their whole ecclesiastical
polity turns, and that without which the clergy would no longer have any
authority or influence over the consciences of the people, and would
very seldom be able to reprove them in a country where they could fly to
the arms of infidels for shelter and protection against the censures and
reprehensions of their own pastors.” There are four stated times in the
year for confession. The penitent withdraws with the priest to some
remote corner of the church, where he sits down, with his head
uncovered, and the confessor assures him, _the angel of the Lord is
there present to take his confession_, exhorting him at the same time to
conceal none of his sins. After confession, the penitent receives
absolution, and gives the priest a small gratuity of money for his
trouble. If we may credit a judicious and learned traveller, the
practice of confession is enormously abused by the Greeks. If a penitent
acknowledges he has robbed another, the priest asks him whether the
person injured be a native of his own country, or a _Frank_: if the
penitent answers, the latter, “Then there is no harm done,” says the
priest, “provided we share the booty between us.” These are natural
consequences of the ignorance and poverty of the Greeks in
general.—_Tournefort’s Voyages._
“It standeth with us in the Church of England,” saith Hooker, “as
touching public confession, thus: First, seeing day by day we in our
Church begin our public prayers to Almighty GOD with public
acknowledgment of our sins, in which confession every man, prostrate
before his glorious majesty, crieth against himself, and the minister
with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear whose acknowledgment
hath proceeded from a true penitent mind, what reason is there every man
should not, under the general terms of confession, represent to himself
his own particulars whatsoever, and adjoining thereto that affection
which a contrite spirit worketh, embrace to as full effect the words of
Divine grace, as if the same were severally and particularly uttered,
with addition of prayers, imposition of hands, and all ceremonies and
solemnities, that might be used for the strengthening of men’s affiance
in GOD’S peculiar mercy towards them? The difference of general and
particular forms in confession, is not so material that any man’s safety
or ghostly good should depend upon it.” “As for private confession,”
says Bishop Jewel, “abuses and errors set apart, we condemn it not, but
leave it at liberty.”—_Broughton. Bingham._
All that can plainly be deduced from the scriptural doctrine concerning
confession is this, that, in common or ordinary sins, we are to
acknowledge them before Almighty GOD, either particularly in our
private, or generally in our public devotion; but as for some sins of a
more extraordinary kind, the heinousness whereof ordinary Christians may
not be sufficiently apprized of, or which may be attended with such nice
circumstances as perplex their consciences, here resort is proper to be
made to the ministers of the Church, who, as physicians of the soul, are
best able to advise the fittest remedies upon such uncommon emergencies.
Matters of this kind stood within these limits for a considerable time
after the first propagating of the gospel; but, during the piety of very
early times, another sort of confession came in use, for it having been
the practice for excommunicates, before their reception into the Church,
to make a solemn confession of their faults before the whole
congregation, some persons who had fallen into a great sin, though they
had never been censured for it, thought it a part of their duty to take
upon themselves a public shame for it, by discovering it to the whole
congregation they were members of, and to desire their prayers to GOD
for their pardon. Some difficulties and inconvenience arising from this
practice, about the year 360, the office of a public penitentiary in the
Greek Church began, who was to be a presbyter of good conversation,
prudent, and one who could keep a secret; to whom those who were lapsed
into any greater sin might confess it; and he, according to his
discretion, was to enjoin a penance for it. But still there was no
command for all people to confess their sins to this presbyter. In the
Latin Church, the practice of public confession to the whole
congregation continued 100 years longer, viz. till the time of Pope Leo,
which was about the year 450, who, by an injunction of his, did abrogate
it; and, after some time, the Greek Church began to grow weary of this
private confession to a penitentiary, and so laid it aside. But whilst
private confession to ministers was practised, in some of the earlier
ages of the Church, recourse was had to them only as spiritual
physicians and counsellors, as appears by many passages of antiquity. In
the Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, every person, of each sex, was
obliged once in a year to confess to the minister of his parish, the
sins which he had been guilty of. Auricular confession to the priest
being thus established, some of the school divines of the Romish Church
carried it to further lengths, making it to be an article of faith; to
be received by the priest, not ministerially, but judicially and
authoritatively; that every single sin must be discovered to them, with
all its aggravating circumstances, &c. All which horrible tyranny over
men’s consciences, and diving into the secrets of families and
governments, was confirmed by the Council of Trent. The excellent
compilers of our liturgy, willing to settle this upon the ancient
bottom, ordered only a general confession of sins to be pronounced by
all persons indifferently, not requiring any particular confessions to
be made, thereby coming much nearer to the apostolical practice than the
Roman liturgy can pretend to, in all which service there is no
confession which the people share in; for their “_Confiteor tibi,
Domine_,” &c. in the mass, relates to the priest, and the “_Confiteor
Deo omnipotenti_,” “_Beatæ Mariæ_,” &c. in the breviary, is the
confession only of the clergy.—_Nicholls._
Forms of confession are generally to be met with in the liturgies of
antiquity, but a form superior, or equal, to our own is nowhere to be
found. Our confession, like the prayer which JESUS taught us, though
concise, is comprehensive and full. It is conceived in general terms,
yet at the same time it is so particular, that it includes every kind of
sin. Where the minister is not too precipitate, when he allows the
congregation time to repeat it, with such deliberation, that their
hearts may go along with their words, each individual may, and ought,
under the general form, to make a particular mental confession of his
own personal sins, known only to GOD and his own conscience.—SHEPHERD.
At the time of the review of the liturgy, A. D. 1661, it was objected by
the Presbyterian clergy against this Confession, that there was no
preparatory prayer for GOD’S assistance and acceptance; and that it was
defective in not clearly expressing “original sin,” nor enumerating
actual sins with their aggravations. To which it was answered by the
Episcopalian commissioners, that the preparatory sentences, and the
preceding exhortation, amply supplied this; and that the form being so
general is rather a perfection than a defect, as in such case all may
join, since in many things we offend all. And as to the notice of
original sin, they conceived that to be sufficiently acknowledged in the
sentence, (with others, as the “devices and desires of our own hearts,”
&c.,) “and there is no health in us.” With respect to the general terms
used throughout the Common Prayer Book, dissenters have complained of
such expressions as, “that we may do GOD’S will”—“that we may be kept
from all evil,” &c.; to which the Episcopalians properly remark, “these
are almost the very terms in the LORD’S Prayer; so that they must reform
that, before they can pretend to amend our liturgy in these petitions.”
The reader may judge how far the objections are worthy of notice, by the
form composed by Calvin himself, and used by the French reformed
Churches, which is as follows:—“O LORD GOD, eternal and almighty FATHER,
we acknowledge and confess before thy sacred Majesty, that we are
miserable sinners, conceived and born in sin and iniquity; prone to
evil, and indisposed to every good work; and that being vicious, we make
no end of transgressing thy holy commandments. Hereby we call
destruction upon ourselves from thy just judgment. But yet, O LORD, we
are heartily sorry for having offended thee, and we condemn ourselves
and sins by true repentance, desiring thy grace may relieve our misery.
Therefore, O GOD, merciful FATHER, vouchsafe us thy mercy, in the name
of thy SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Blot out our sins, and purge away all
our filth, and daily increase in us the gifts of thy HOLY SPIRIT. That
we, acknowledging our iniquity from the bottom of our hearts, may more
and more displease ourselves, and be excited to true repentance; which,
mortifying us and all our sins, may produce in us the fruits of
righteousness and innocence, acceptable unto thee through the same JESUS
CHRIST our LORD.” It appears, indeed, that our Confession was in great
measure suggested by this form, or rather by the translation of it made
by Valerandus Pollanus, for the reformed congregation of Strasburg.—See
_Laurence’s Bampton Lectures_.
There is hardly anything in public worship which requires more caution
and prudence in the ordering of it, than that confession of sin which is
to be made by the whole congregation; it may be too loose and general on
the one side, or it may be too particular and distinct on the other.
There may be this inconvenience in a confession very short and general,
that takes in all, that it does not so well serve to excite or to
express that due sense of sin, nor to exercise that humility and
self-abasement, wherewith we should always confess our sins to GOD. On
the other hand, the inconvenience of a very particular and distinct
confession of sins will be this, that some sins, with their
aggravations, may be confessed in the name of the whole congregation, of
which it is by no means to be supposed that all are guilty; and then
they, who through the grace of GOD have been kept from them, cannot in
good earnest make such confession.—_Clagett’s Answer to Dissenters._
The General Confession with the Absolution, was first inserted in the
Morning and Evening Prayer, by the Second Book of King Edward VI.
A Confession was formerly recited in the office for the first hour of
the morning, according to the rites of the English Churches. It occurred
in the course of prayers which came at the end of the service: and had
this arrangement been regarded by the reformers, the Confession and
Absolution would now be placed immediately before the collect for the
day. There were, however, good reasons for placing the Confession at the
beginning of the office. Christian humility would naturally induce us to
approach the infinitely holy GOD with a confession of our sinfulness and
unworthiness; and this position of the Confession is justified by the
practice of the Eastern Church in the time of Basil, who observes that
the people all confessed their sins with great contrition, at the
beginning of the nocturnal service, and before the psalmody and lessons
commenced.—_Palmer._
Even in the most penitential parts of our service, even in the midst of
accommodation to the wants of persons entering on a course of amendment,
there is a prospect opened, of mature, established, and victorious
Christianity.... Our “Almighty and most merciful Father” is entreated
not only to remit the punishment, but to abolish the power of sin. And
the absolution and remission of our sins itself, is made to consist, not
merely in the reversal of a sentence, and removal of a curse, but in the
influence of the Holy Spirit, consequent on true repentance, and
productive, not of mere temporary and outward amendment, but of that
inward abiding “purity and holiness, for the rest of our life,” which,
“at the last,” will bring us to “God’s eternal joy.”—_Bishop Jebb._
CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. The systems of theology drawn up by foreign
reformers were frequently called Confessions of Faith. The following are
the Confessions of the different Churches.
1. That of the Greek Church, entitled “The Confessions of the True and
Genuine Faith,” which was presented to Mohammed II., in 1453, but which
gave place to the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic
Greek Church,” composed by Mogila, metropolitan of Kiev, in Russia, and
approved in 1643, with great solemnity, by the patriarchs of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. It contains the
standard of the principles of the Russian Greek Church.—See _Mr.
Palmer’s_ (of Magd. Coll. Oxf.) Collection of Russian Symbolical Books;
and _Mr. Neale’s_ Hist. of the Greek Church.
2. The Church of Rome, though she has always received the Apostles’,
Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, had no fixed public and authoritative
symbol till the Council of Trent. A summary of the doctrines contained
in the canons of that council is given in the creed published by Pius
IV., (1564,) in the form of a bull. It is introduced by the Nicene
Creed, to which it adds twelve articles, comprising those doctrines
which the Church of Rome finally adopted after her controversies with
the Reformers. (See _Creed of Pope Pius IV_.)
3. The Lutherans call their standard books of faith and discipline,
“Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Evangelicæ.” They contain the three creeds
above mentioned, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology for that
Confession by Melancthon, the Articles of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther;
the Catechisms of Luther; and, in many churches, the Form of Concord, or
Book of Torgau. The best edition is that by Tittmann, Leipsic, 1817. The
Saxon, (composed by Melancthon,) Wurtemberg, Suabian, Pomeranian,
Mansfeldtian, and Copenhagen Confessions agree in general with the
symbolical books of the Lutherans, but are of authority only in the
countries from which they are respectively called.
4. The Confessions of the Calvinistic Churches are numerous. The
following are the principal:—(1.) The Helvetic Confessions are
three—that of Basle, 1530; the Summary and Confession of the Helvetic
Churches, 1536; and the “Expositio Simplex,” &c., 1566, ascribed to
Bullinger. (2.) The Tetrapolitan Confession, 1531,—which derives its
name from the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and
Lindau, by the deputies of which it was signed,—is attributed to Bucer.
(3.) The Palatine or Heidelberg Confession, framed by order of the
Elector Palatine John Casimir, 1575. (4.) The Confession of the Gallic
Churches, accepted at the first synod of the reformed, held at Paris,
1559. (5.) The Confession of the Reformed Churches in Belgium, drawn up
in 1559, and approved in 1561. (6.) The Confession of Faith of the Kirk
of Scotland, which was that composed by the assembly at Westminster, was
received as the standard of the Scotch national faith, in 1690.—See the
following article. See also Harmony of Confessions, or the Faith of
Christian and Reformed Churches, 1643; and Sylloge Confessionum, sub
tempus Reformandæ Ecclesiæ, Oxon. 1804.
CONFESSION OF FAITH, WESTMINSTER. The Confession of Faith which was
drawn up by the Puritans in England, and which is adopted by the
Scottish establishment. The ordinance under which the assembly which
drew up this Confession sat at Westminster commences thus:
An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for the
calling of an Assembly of learned and godly Divines, and others, to
be consulted with by the Parliament, for the settling of the
government and liturgy of the Church of England; and for vindicating
and clearing of the doctrine of the said Church from false
aspersions and interpretations. June 12, 1643.
Whereas, amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this
nation, none is nor can be more dear unto us than the purity of our
religion; and for that, as yet, many things remain in the liturgy,
discipline, and government of the Church, which do necessarily require a
further and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained; and
whereas it hath been declared and resolved by the Lords and Commons
assembled in Parliament, that the present Church-government by
archbishops, their chancellors, commissars, deans, deans and chapters,
archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending upon the
hierarchy, is evil, and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom,
a great impediment to reformation and growth of religion, and very
prejudicial to the state and government of this kingdom; and therefore
they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a
government shall be settled in the Church as may be most agreeable to
God’s holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the
Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
other Reformed Churches abroad; and, for the better effecting hereof,
and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the Church of
England from all false calumnies and aspersions, it is thought fit and
necessary to call an Assembly of learned, godly, and judicious Divines,
who, together with some members of both the Houses of Parliament, are to
consult and advise of such matters and things, touching the premises, as
shall be proposed unto them by both or either of the Houses of
Parliament, and to give their advice and counsel therein to both or
either of the said Houses, when, and as often as, they shall be
thereunto required.
The Confession consists of thirty-three chapters, of which the following
are the heads:—
CHAP.
I. Of the Holy Scripture.
II. Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
III. Of God’s Eternal Decree.
IV. Of Creation.
V. Of Providence.
VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
VII. Of God’s Covenant with Man.
VIII. Of Christ the Mediator.
IX. Of Free Will.
X. Of Effectual Calling.
XI. Of Justification.
XII. Of Adoption.
XIII. Of Sanctification.
XIV. Of Saving Faith.
XV. Of Repentance unto Life.
XVI. Of Good Works.
XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints.
XVIII. Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation.
XIX. Of the Law of God.
XX. Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.
XXI. Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath-day.
XXII. Of lawful Oaths and Vows.
XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate.
XXIV. Of Marriage and Divorce.
XXV. Of the Church.
XXVI. Of Communion of Saints.
XXVII. Of the Sacraments.
XXVIII. Of Baptism.
XXIX. Of the Lord’s Supper.
XXX. Of Church Censures.
XXXI. Of Synods and Councils.
XXXII. Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the
Dead.
XXXIII. Of the last Judgment.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was approved by the general assembly
of the Kirk of Scotland, on the 27th of August, 1647, Sess. 23, and was
ratified by Act of the Scottish Parliament, 7th February, 1649.—See next
article.
CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE KIRK OF SCOTLAND, or THE NATIONAL COVENANT.
Subscribed at first by the King’s Majesty, and his Household, in the
Year 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581, by
ordinance of the Lords of secret council, and acts of the General
Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the year 1590,
by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General
Assembly: with a general bond for the maintaining of the true
Christian religion, and the King’s person; and, together with a
resolution and promise, for the causes after expressed, to maintain
the true religion, and the King’s Majesty, according to the foresaid
Confession and acts of Parliament, subscribed by Barons, Nobles,
Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons, in the year 1638:
approven by the General Assembly 1638 and 1639; and subscribed again
by persons of all ranks and qualities in the year 1639, by an
ordinance of council, upon the supplication of the General Assembly,
and act of the General Assembly, ratified by an act of Parliament
1640; and subscribed by King _Charles II._ at _Spey, June 23, 1650_,
and _Scoon, January 1, 1651_.
We all and every one of us under-written, protest, That, after long and
due examination of our own conscience in matters of true and false
religion, we are now throughly resolved in the truth by the word and
Spirit of God: and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with
our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm, before God
and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and
religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is, by
the mercy of God, revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed
evangel; and is received, believed, and defended by many and sundry
notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the
King’s Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God’s eternal truth,
and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in
the Confession of our Faith, established and publickly confirmed by
sundry acts of Parliaments, and now of a long time hath been openly
professed by the King’s Majesty, and whole body of this realm both in
burgh and land. To the which Confession and Form of Religion we
willingly agree in our conscience in all points, as unto God’s undoubted
truth and verity, grounded only upon his written word. And therefore we
abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all
kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
damned and confuted by the word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in
special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman
Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil
magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon
indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine
against the sufficiency of the written word, the perfection of the law,
the office of Christ, and his blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine
concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s
law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and
obedience to the law; the nature, number, and use of the holy
sacraments; his five bustard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies,
and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments
without the word of God; his cruel judgment against infants departing
without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his
blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ’s
body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies
of men; his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of
marriage forbidden in the word, his cruelty against the innocent
divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane
sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men;
calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relicks,
and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days; vows to creatures; his
purgatory, prayers for the dead; praying or speaking in a strange
language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of
advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his
desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his
satisfactions of men for their sins; his justification by works, _opus
operatum_, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and
stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good
creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly
monarchy, and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his
shavellings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at
Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody
band, conjured against the kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his
vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the kirk,
without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed
kirk; to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith,
religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members
of the same in Christ our Head: promising and swearing, by the great
name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the
doctrine and discipline of this kirk,[3] and shall defend the same,
according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives; under
the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the
day of God’s fearful judgment.
And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan, and that Roman Antichrist,
to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
the kirk deceitfully, against their own conscience; minding hereby,
first, under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and subvert
secretly God’s true religion within the kirk; and afterward, when time
may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under
vain hope of the pope’s dispensation, devised against the word of God,
to his greater confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
the Lord Jesus: we therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of
hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God, and his kirk, protest,
and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and
hearts do fully agree with this our Confession, promise, oath, and
subscription: so that we are not moved with any worldly respect, but are
persuaded only in our conscience, through the knowledge and love of
God’s true religion imprinted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we
shall answer to him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be
disclosed.
And because we perceive, that the quietness and stability of our
religion and kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the
King’s Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God’s mercy granted
to this country, for the maintaining of his kirk, and ministration of
justice amongst us; we protest and promise with our hearts, under the
same oath, hand-writ, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ,
his evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and
punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or
without, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us
in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to whom,
with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally.
_Amen._
Likeas many Acts of Parliament, not only in general do abrogate, annul,
and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons civil or
municipal, with all other ordinances, and practique penalties
whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors
thereof; or of the true kirk, discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom
thereof; or in favours of idolatry and superstition, or of the
Papistical kirk: as Act 3, Act 31, Parl. 1, Act 23, Parl. 11, Act 114,
Parl. 12, of King James VI. That Papistry and superstition may be
utterly suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of
Parliament, repeated in the fifth Act, Parl. 20, King James VI. And to
that end they ordain all Papists and priests to be punished with
manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversaries to God’s true
religion, preached, and by law established, within this realm, Act 24,
Parl. 11, King James VI.; as common enemies to all Christian government,
Act 18, Parl. 16, King James VI.; as rebellers and gainstanders of our
Sovereign Lord’s authority, Act 47, Parl. 3, King James VI.; and as
idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI. But also in particular, by
and attour the Confession of Faith, do abolish and condemn the Pope’s
authority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers
thereof to be punished, Act 2, Parl. 1, Act 51, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl.
7, Act 114, Parl. 12, King James VI., do condemn the Pope’s erroneous
doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the
articles of the true and Christian religion, publicly preached and by
law established in this realm; and ordains the spreaders and makers of
books, or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished,
Act 46, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, King James VI., do
condemn all baptism conform to the Pope’s kirk, and the idolatry of the
mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the
mass, the maintainers and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking
Papists, to be punished without any exception or restriction, Act 5,
Parl. 1, Act 120, Parl. 12, Act 164, Parl. 13, Act 193, Parl. 14, Act 1,
Parl. 19, Act 5, Parl. 20, King James VI., do condemn all erroneous
books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion
presently professed, or containing superstitious rites and ceremonies
Papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused, and ordains the
home-bringers of them to be punished, Act 25, Parl. 11, King James VI.,
do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to
crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other
superstitious and Papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of
true religion, and fostering of great error among the people; and
ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as
idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI.
Likeas many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God’s
true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof, in doctrine and
sacraments of the true church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof,
in her national, synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
discipline, and jurisdiction thereof; as that purity of religion, and
liberty of the church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and
confessed, according to the reformation of religion in this realm. As
for instance, the 99th Act, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl.
12, Act 160, Parl. 13, of King James VI., ratified by the 4th Act of
King Charles. So that the 6th Act, Parl. 1, and 68th Act, Parl. 6, of
King James VI., in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the
blessed evangel, whom God of his mercy had raised up, or hereafter
should raise, agreeing with them that then lived, in doctrine and
administration of the sacraments; and the people that professed CHRIST,
as he was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the
holy sacraments (as in the reformed kirks of this realm they were
presently administrate) according to the Confession of Faith, to be the
true and holy kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm. And decerns and
declares all and sundry, who either gainsay the word of the evangel
received and approved as the heads of the Confession of Faith, professed
in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first
Parliament of King James VI., and ratified in this present Parliament,
more particularly do express; or that refuse the administration of the
holy sacraments, as they were then ministrated; to be no members of the
said kirk within this realm, and true religion presently professed, so
long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ’s
body. And the subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6, of King James VI. declares,
that there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than
was presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within
this realm: “Which therefore is ever styled God’s true religion,
Christ’s true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
religion;” which, by manifold Acts of Parliament, all within this realm
are bound to profess, to subscribe the articles thereof, the Confession
of Faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said
articles, Act 4 and 9, Parl. 1, Acts 45, 46, 47, Parl. 3, Act 71, Parl.
6, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, Act 123, Parl. 12, Act 194 and
197, Parl. 14, of King James VI. And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c. on
the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all
contraveners: For instance, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 104, Parl. 7, Act 25,
Parl. 11, King James VI.; and that, notwithstanding of the King’s
Majesty’s licences on the contrary, which are discharged, and declared
to be of no force, in so far as they tend in anywise to the prejudice
and hinder of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists
and adversaries of true religion, Act 106, Parl. 7, King James VI. On
the other part, in the 47th Act, Parl. 3, King James VI. it is declared
and ordained. Seeing the cause of God’s true religion and his Highness’s
authority are so joined, as the hurt of the one is common to both; that
none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our sovereign
Lord, or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders
of the same, who shall not give their confession, and make their
profession of the said true religion: and that they who, after
defection, shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall
promise to continue therein in time coming, to maintain our sovereign
Lord’s authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify,
assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ’s
religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and,
namely, against all such, of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they
be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted, or
assist, to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of the Council of
Trent, contrary to the true preachers and professors of the word of God;
which is repeated, word by word, in the articles of pacification at
Perth, the 23rd of February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
April, 1573, ratified in Parliament 1587, and related Act 123, Parl. 12,
of King James VI.; with this addition, “That they are bound to resist
all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true
religion, the King’s Majesty, and the true professors.”
Likeas, all lieges are bound to maintain the King’s Majesty’s royal
person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without the which
neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established, Acts 130 and
131, Parl. 8, King James VI., and the subjects’ liberties, who ought
only to live and be governed by the King’s laws, the common laws of this
realm allenarly, Act 48, Parl. 3, King James I., Act 79, Parl. 6, King
James IV.; repeated in the Act 131, Parl. 8, King James VI.; which if
they be innovated and prejudged, “the commission anent the union of the
two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole act of the 17th
Parl. of King James VI., declares,” such confusion would ensue as this
realm could be no more a free monarchy: because, by the fundamental
laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not
only the princely authority of his Majesty’s royal descent hath been
these many ages maintained, but also the people’s security of their
lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties, and dignities preserved.
And, therefore, for the preservation of the said true religion, laws,
and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by the 8th Act, Parl. 1,
repeated in the 99th Act, Parl. 7, ratified in the 23rd Act, Parl. 11,
and 114th Act, Parl. 12, of King James VI., and 4th Act, Parl. 1, of
King Charles I., “That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and
reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise
by their solemn oath, in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring
the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to
the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most
holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and according to the
same word, shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the
preaching of his holy word, the due and right ministration of the
sacraments now received and preached within this realm, (according to
the Confession of Faith immediately preceding,) and shall abolish and
gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the
people committed to their charge, according to the will and command of
God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws
and constitutions received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the said
will of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the uttermost of their
power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of
their empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who
shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes.”
Which was also observed by his Majesty, at his coronation in Edinburgh,
1633, as may be seen in the order of the coronation.
In obedience to the commandment of God, conform to the practice of the
godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our
worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to
be made and subscribed by his Majesty’s subjects of all ranks; for two
causes: one was, For defending the true religion, as it was then
reformed, and is expressed in the Confession of Faith above written, and
a former large Confession established by sundry acts of lawful General
Assemblies and of Parliaments, unto which it hath relation, set down in
public Catechisms; and which hath been for many years, with a blessing
from Heaven, preached and professed in this kirk and kingdom, as God’s
undoubted truth, grounded only upon his written word. The other cause
was, For maintaining the King’s Majesty, his person and estate; the true
worship of God and the King’s authority being so straitly joined, as
that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and
fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds, and confessing
with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this
land are bound to keep the foresaid national oath and subscription
inviolable.
We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons
undersubscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at
this time, the danger of the true reformed religion, of the King’s
honour, and of the public peace of the kingdom, by the manifold
innovations and evils, generally contained, and particularly mentioned
in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations; do hereby
profess, and before God, his angels, and the world, solemnly declare,
That with our whole heart we agree, and resolve all the days of our life
constantly to adhere unto and to defend the foresaid true religion, and
(forbearing the practice of all innovations already introduced in the
matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the
public government of the kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen,
till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in parliament) to
labour, by all means lawful, to recover the purity and liberty of the
Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid
novations. And because, after due examination, we plainly perceive, and
undoubtedly believe, that the innovations and evils contained in our
supplications, complaints, and protestations, have no warrant of the
word of God, are contrary to the articles of the foresaid Confession, to
the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this
land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament; and do sensibly tend to
the re-establishing of the Popish religion and tyranny, and to the
subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties,
laws, and estates; we also declare, That the foresaid Confessions are to
be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the foresaid novations and
evils, no less than if every one of them had been expressed in the
foresaid Confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them,
amongst other particular heads of Papistry abjured therein. And
therefore, from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our
King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement, so far as
human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of
God for this effect; we promise and swear, by the GREAT NAME OF THE LORD
OUR GOD, to continue in the profession and obedience of the foresaid
religion; and that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
contrary errors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the
uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands, all the days of
our life.
And in like manner, with the same heart, we declare before God and men,
That we have no intention nor desire to attempt anything that may turn
to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King’s greatness
and authority; but, on the contrary, we promise and swear, That we
shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to
the defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Majesty, his person and
authority, in the defence and preservation of the foresaid true
religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual
defence and assistance every one of us of another, in the same cause of
maintaining the true religion, and his Majesty’s authority, with our
best counsel, our bodies, means, and whole power, against all sorts of
persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us
for that cause, shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to
every one of us in particular. And that we shall neither directly nor
indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn, by whatsoever
suggestion, combination, allurement, or terror, from this blessed and
loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay
or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to
conduce for so good ends; but, on the contrary, shall by all lawful
means labour to further and promote the same: and if any such dangerous
and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we, and every one of
us, shall either suppress it, or, if need be, shall incontinent make the
same known, that it may be timeously obviated. Neither do we fear the
foul aspersions of rebellion, combination, or what else our adversaries,
from their craft and malice, would put upon us; seeing what we do is so
well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the
true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the
kingdom, for the common happiness of ourselves and our posterity.
And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings,
except with our profession and subscription we join such a life and
conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant
with God; we therefore faithfully promise for ourselves, our followers,
and all others under us, both in public, and in our particular families,
and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds
of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
godliness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God
and man.
And, that this our union and conjunction may be observed without
violation, we call the LIVING GOD, THE SEARCHER OF OUR HEARTS, to
witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned
resolution, as we shall answer to JESUS CHRIST in the great day, and
under the pain of God’s everlasting wrath, and of infamy and loss of all
honour and respect in this world: most humbly beseeching the LORD to
strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires
and proceedings with a happy success; that religion and righteousness
may flourish in the land, to the glory of GOD, the honour of our King,
and peace and comfort of us all. In witness whereof, we have subscribed
with our hands all the premises.
The article of this covenant, which was at the first subscription
referred to the determination of the General Assembly, being now
determined; and thereby the five articles of Perth, the government of
the kirk by bishops, and the civil places and power of kirkmen, upon the
reasons and grounds contained in the Acts of the General Assembly,
declared to be unlawful within this kirk, we subscribe according to the
determination aforesaid.
This, together with the Solemn League and Covenant, (which see,) is
bound up with and added to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and
published by authority of the Scottish Establishment. But an eminent
member of that establishment officiating at present as a dissenting
minister in London, asserts that no licentiate or minister of the
Scottish Establishment has signed or been asked to sign this, or the
Solemn League and Covenant, for the last 150 years. This does not,
however, exonerate the religious community which still publishes these
documents authoritatively from the charge of intolerance; and all
classes of Episcopalians, including of course the Church of England, are
involved in these fearful anathemas.
CONFESSION OF AUGSBOURG, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. A confession of faith,
drawn up by Melancthon, and presented by him and Luther to the emperor
Charles V. at Augsbourg, in the year 1530. It was divided into two
parts, and was designed to support all the points of the Lutheran
reformation, and to show the heterodoxy of the Church of
Rome.—_Maimbourg, Hist. du Lutheranisme_.
The first part contained twenty-one articles. The first acknowledged and
agreed to all the decisions of the first four general councils,
concerning the Trinity. The second admitted of original sin, but defined
it differently from the Church of Rome, making it to consist only in
concupiscence. The third contained the substance of the Apostles’ Creed.
The fourth maintained, against the Pelagians, that a man cannot be
justified by the mere strength and capacity of nature; and, against the
Roman Catholics, that justification is the effect of faith, exclusive of
good works. The fifth agreed with the Church of Rome, that the word of
GOD, and the sacraments, are the means of conveying the HOLY SPIRIT, but
differed from that communion, by asserting that this Divine operation is
never present without faith. The sixth affirmed, that our faith ought to
produce good works, purely in obedience to GOD, and not in order to our
own justification. The seventh made the true Church to consist of none
but the righteous. The eighth acknowledged the validity of the
sacraments, though administered by hypocrites or wicked persons. The
ninth asserted, against the Anabaptists, the necessity of infant
baptism. The tenth acknowledged the presence of the body and blood of
CHRIST under the consecrated elements; adding, that this mysterious
presence in the holy sacrament continued with the elements only during
the time of receiving, and that the eucharist ought to be given in both
kinds. The eleventh granted the necessity of absolution to penitents,
but denied their being obliged to make a particular confession of their
sins. The twelfth condemned the Anabaptists, who affirm, that whoever is
once justified cannot fall from grace; as also the Novatians, who
refused absolution to sins committed after baptism; asserting withal,
against the Church of Rome, that a repenting sinner is not made capable
of forgiveness by any acts of penance whatever. The thirteenth required
actual faith from those who participate of the sacraments. The
fourteenth forbad those, who were not lawfully called, to teach in the
Church, or administer the sacraments. The fifteenth appointed the
observation of the festivals, and prescribed the ceremonies of the
Church. The sixteenth acknowledged the obligation of civil laws. The
seventeenth acknowledged the resurrection, heaven, and hell, and
condemned the two following errors of the Anabaptists and Fifth-monarchy
men; viz. That the punishment of the devils and the damned will have an
end, and that the saints will reign with Christ a thousand years upon
earth. The eighteenth declared, that our wills are not sufficiently
free, in actions relating to the promoting of our salvation. The
nineteenth maintained, that, notwithstanding God created man, and still
continues to preserve him, God neither is, nor can be, the author of
sin. The twentieth affirmed, that good works are not altogether
unprofitable: and the twenty-first forbad the invocation of saints.
The second part of the Augustan Confession is altogether in opposition
to the Church of Rome, referring to the seven principal abuses, on which
the Lutherans found the necessity of separating from the communion of
that Church. The first head enjoined communion in both kinds, and forbad
the procession of the holy sacrament. The second condemned the celibacy
of priests. By the third, private masses were abolished, and some part
at least of the congregation were obliged to communicate with the
priest. The fourth declared against the necessity of making a particular
confession of sins to the priest. The fifth rejected tradition. The
sixth disallowed of monastic vows: and the seventh asserted, that the
power of the Church consisted only in preaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments.
This confession of faith was signed by the Elector of Saxony, and his
eldest son, by the Marquis of Brandenbourg, by the Landgrave of Hesse,
the Prince of Hainault, and the republics of Nuremberg and Rutlingua. It
was argued before the emperor Charles V., but rejected; the Roman
Catholics having a majority of votes in the council. This was followed
by a conference between seven deputies of each party; in which, Luther
being absent, Melancthon, by his mollifying explanations, brought both
sides to an agreement in relation to fifteen of the first twenty-one
articles. But the conference broke up without adjusting all the
differences between them.
CONFESSIONAL. (See _Confession_ and _Auricular Confession_.) An enclosed
seat or recess in Roman churches where penitents make confession to the
priests.
CONFESSOR. A name given to those who confessed the doctrine of CHRIST
before heathen or persecuting judges; or to those who firmly endured
punishment for defending the faith: if they died under their torments
they were called _martyrs_. Our LORD says that he will confess before
his heavenly FATHER them that shall _confess_ him before men. (Matt. x.
32.) The Church of England can bless GOD for having honoured her with
many confessors, especially during the persecution which was, under the
usurpation of Oliver Cromwell, raised against her by Presbyterians,
Independents, and Infidels. In the time of Queen Mary, also, there were
confessors, as well as martyrs.
CONFESSOR, in the Romish Church, is a priest who receives confession.
(See _Auricular Confession_.)
CONFIRMATION. This is a Latin word which signifies _strengthening_. It
is used to express the rite in which the indwelling grace of the HOLY
GHOST is sought for those who have been made children of GOD in baptism;
to which sacrament it is, strictly speaking, a supplemental rite. This
ordinance is called _confirmation_, because they who duly receive it are
_confirmed_ or strengthened for the fulfilment of their Christian duties
by the grace therein bestowed upon them. The words which accompany
confirmation in the Eastern Churches are, “The seal of the gift of the
HOLY GHOST:” and the effect of it is well expressed in that ancient
prayer which, from the earliest times, has been used in all the Western
Churches: “Almighty and everlasting GOD, who hast vouchsafed to
regenerate these thy servants, by water and the HOLY GHOST, and hast
given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,—pour into them thy
sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Comforter from heaven;” or, “Strengthen them,
we beseech thee, with the HOLY GHOST, the Comforter.” In the Greek and
African Churches confirmation is administered with chrism, an unguent
consecrated by a bishop; in the Latin Churches with the same, at a
bishop’s hands; in the English Churches, by laying on of the bishop’s
hands, the only rite mentioned in connexion with it in the Scriptures:
“Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the HOLY
GHOST.” (Acts viii. 17.)
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirmation (there spoken of under the
term “laying on of hands”) is ranked among the chief fundamentals of
Christian doctrine, (Heb. vi. 2,) and must therefore be of perpetual
obligation. In the first ages of the Church, confirmation appears to
have been administered in all cases as soon after baptism as possible,
as it continues to be in the Greek and African Churches. But in the
Western Churches, for the last three or four hundred years, the bishops
have interposed a delay of seven years after infant baptism: which delay
in the English Churches has latterly been extended to fifteen or sixteen
years—the determination of the age being left to the bishop. At the last
revision of our Prayer Book, in 1661, confirmation was made an occasion
of requiring from those who have been baptized in infancy, a renewal, in
their own persons, of the engagements of the baptismal covenant. The
dispositions of mind required of those who would benefit by confirmation
are the same which are necessary to fit men for receiving grace in the
sacraments; namely, repentance and faith: without which, where persons
are capable of them, neither this nor any of the means of grace can
benefit those to whom they are administered.
No persons are admissible to the holy communion unless they have been
confirmed, or are ready and desirous to be confirmed.—_Rubric._
When children are well instructed in the vow made for them at baptism,
by the Church Catechism, it is then required they should take it upon
themselves, and be confirmed by the bishop: which holy rite of
confirmation, though it were not instituted by CHRIST, and so be not
properly a sacrament, yet the apostles did lay their hands on such as
had been before baptized by an inferior minister. (Acts viii. 14–17; and
xix. 6.) This custom the primitive Church imitated in the bishops laying
on their hands with holy prayers, upon persons that had been baptized;
which was believed to convey the HOLY SPIRIT to them for enabling them
to keep their vow. And this holy rite is still retained in the Eastern
and Western Churches, and in all Protestant Churches where they have
bishops. And we have an excellent office for it, containing, first, the
preparation for it by a serious admonition to all that come to it, a
solemn engagement from the parties to keep their vow, with some acts of
praise and prayer suited to the occasion. Secondly, the rite itself
consists of the ceremony, which is the laying on of the bishop’s hands,
and his benediction. Thirdly, the office is concluded with prayers;
general, as the LORD’S Prayer; and peculiar to the occasion, as the two
collects; and with a final blessing.
The person who doth confirm is a bishop, to which order the ancient
Church did always reserve the dispensing of this rite, because the
apostles only did this (Acts viii. 14); and therefore the bishops are
highly obliged to take care that all in their dioceses, who need and
desire it, may not want the opportunity of coming to it. The persons who
are to be confirmed are all that have been baptized, from the time they
come to years of discretion, or however to be able to understand the
nature of their baptismal vow, which they are here to take upon
themselves; and since we baptize infants, it is more necessary to bring
them to confirmation; and their godfathers can no way better acquit
themselves of the charge they have undertaken, than by taking care, as
the Church in this exhortation requires, that they may learn their
catechism, and understand their vow; and here solemnly, before GOD and
many witnesses, renew it in their own name. For, secondly, the bishop
doth particularly inquire, if they do here in GOD’S presence, and before
all the congregation, renew that solemn vow in their own names made at
their baptism; and if they do engage to perform and do what was promised
for them by their sureties: to which they must every one answer, with
great reverence and serious consideration, that “they do.” Thirdly, the
bishop and the priests that are present begin their devotions,
encouraging the parties who have promised this, by minding them that
they shall have “help” from him that made heaven and earth, (Psal.
cxxiv. 7,) and praising GOD for bringing these persons into so blessed a
condition. (Psal. cxiii. 2.) Finally, desiring him to hear the prayers
now to be made for them. Fourthly, there is a larger form of prayer made
by the bishop, wherein he first acknowledges GOD’S mercy in granting
them regeneration and pardon of their sins in their baptism; and now
that they are to exercise that warfare they then engaged themselves to,
he prays for a larger supply of GOD’S holy Spirit with its sevenfold
gifts (Isa. xi. 2); so that they may be made so wise as to understand
their duty, and so strong as to perform it, desiring they may by his
ministry have these gifts conveyed to them now, and, by their diligent
improving of them, keep them for ever.
Being thus prepared, the rite itself is now to be administered by the
ancient ceremony of laying the bishop’s hand on the head of each person,
used by the apostles as the means of conveying the HOLY SPIRIT (Acts
viii. 17); whence the whole office is called _laying on of hands_ (Heb.
vi. 2); (yet the Papists omit this apostolical ceremony, and use the
anointing with chrism, which came later into the Church). The bishop
also gives a solemn blessing to every one, desiring GOD to defend that
person with his heavenly grace, from forsaking his faith, or breaking
GOD’S commandments; that is, to take him for his own, and seal him with
his Spirit, so that he may ever after look on him as one of his own
children, and praying that he may daily increase in grace and grow wiser
and better, until he be fit for that heavenly kingdom which GOD hath
promised to him in baptism; and this prayer thus offered up by a holy
man, and one of the chief officers of CHRIST’S Church, shall be
effectual to the obtaining of the SPIRIT for all that have duly prepared
themselves, and do sincerely make and renew this vow. And now the bishop
concludes the office, first with the usual form, desiring GOD may be
with them, to assist them in these prayers, as they also desire he may
be with his spirit who is to offer them; calling also upon GOD, as the
common Father of all that are confirmed, and so in covenant with him: to
which is joined the proper collect, beginning with a preface, which
confesseth, that this good desire and resolution of these persons to
keep their vow came from GOD, and by him they must have grace acceptably
to perform it. And then here are petitions for them, first, that as the
bishop’s hand was over them, so the good hand of his providence
signified thereby may be ever over them to preserve them: secondly, that
the HOLY SPIRIT, now imparted to them by this holy rite, may be ever
with them, the blessed effect of which is here declared to be, that this
will make them understand GOD’S word, and enable them to obey it, so
that at the end of their lives they may be certainly saved through JESUS
CHRIST; to whom, with the whole Trinity, for these means of salvation,
we offer up our praises and acknowledgments: and to this is added a
devout collect out of the Communion Service, that GOD, who hath sealed
these his vowed servants with his Spirit, will direct, sanctify, and
govern their souls and bodies in the ways of his laws, so that they may
ever be holy, safe, and happy. Finally, the office is concluded with the
bishop’s blessing, who now in the name of GOD wishes the blessing of the
FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST may be now bestowed on you, and remain upon
you for ever. Thus our Church appoints this necessary and pious office
shall be done; and the due administration thereof would highly conduce
to make the benefits of baptism more visible, to increase knowledge and
piety in the younger sort, and to secure them from being seduced by
Papists or sectaries; it would make the Church to flourish and be at
unity, and convey mighty blessings to all that reverently and devoutly
receive it: wherefore, as the bishops are ready to do their part, let
all that want it be willing and very desirous to come, and let parents
and masters, and especially godfathers and godmothers, encourage them to
come to it, and labour to fit them for it, that it may be done to GOD’S
glory and their comfort.—_Dean Comber._
CONFIRMATION OF A BISHOP. To understand what is meant by the
confirmation of a bishop, it may be proper to state the process adopted
in England before a presbyter can be consecrated to the episcopal
office, the king having issued his _congé d’ élire_ to the dean and
chapter, and nominating, in his “letters missive,” the person whom he
thinks fit to be chosen. The dean and chapter are obliged, within twenty
days next after the receipt of this licence, to make the election, which
being accepted by the party elected, is certified both to the sovereign
and to the archbishop of the province. If the dean and chapter fail to
certify the election within twenty days after the delivery of the
“letters missive,” they incur the penalty of præmunire; and if they
refuse to elect, the king may nominate by letters patent. The election
being certified, the king grants his royal assent under the great seal,
directed to the archbishop, commanding him to confirm and consecrate the
bishop thus elected; and the archbishop subscribes it “_fiat
confirmatio_,” and grants a commission to his vicar-general for that
purpose. The vicar-general issues a citation to summon opposers, which
is affixed on the door of Bow Church, and three proclamations are made
thereof; this being certified to the vicar-general, at the time and
place appointed, the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibit the royal
assent, and the archbishop’s commission directed to the vicar-general.
After this, a long and formal process is gone through, and after six
proclamations for opposers, if none appear, they are pronounced
_contumacious_. It is then decreed to proceed to sentence. The bishop
elect takes the oaths of office, the sentence is subscribed by the
vicar-general, and the election is ratified and decreed to be good. (See
_Bishops, Election of_.)
Not only bishops, but deans of many cathedrals, were confirmed by their
diocesans; as at St. Paul’s in London, and St. Patrick’s in Dublin. See
_Oughton Ordo Judicium_ de ecclesici Cathedr. cxxvii., and _Mason’s_
Hibernia, p. 219.
CONFORMITY, DECLARATION OF. A declaration is required of all persons who
are to be licensed or instituted to an ecclesiastical charge in the
Church of England, in the following words:—“I, A. B., do declare that I
will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by
law established.” This declaration is to be made and subscribed before
the bishop or his commissary, and the making and subscription thereof is
to be testified under the episcopal seal of the bishop, and under the
hand of the bishop or his commissary. (See also _Reading in_.)
CONGÉ D’ ÉLIRE. This is a French term, and signifies _leave to choose_:
and is the king’s writ or licence to the dean and chapter of the diocese
to choose a bishop, in the time of vacancy of the see. Prior to the
reign of Henry I., the kings of England used to invest bishops with the
ring and staff, in virtue of their donative right. Henry I. so far ceded
this right as to give a _congé d’ élire_ to deans and chapters for the
election of bishops. Henry VIII. added “letters missive,” nominating the
person whom he required them to elect, under pain of præmunire; and
Edward VI. (1 Edw. VI. c. 1, 2) abolished elections by writ of _congé d’
élire_, as being “indeed no elections,” and “seeming also derogatory and
prejudicial to the king’s prerogative royal, to whom only appertaineth
the collation and gift of all archbishoprics, and bishoprics, and
suffragan bishops, within his Highness’s said realm.” The statute goes
on to enact, “That no election of any archbishop or bishop shall be made
by the dean and chapter;” but that the king by his “letters patent, at
all times when the archbishopric or bishopric be void, shall confer the
same to any person whom the king shall think meet.” This statute was
repealed by Queen Mary, and never afterwards revived. The law now rests
upon the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, which statute was revived by Queen
Elizabeth.—_Burn._ (See _Jurisdiction_.) But in Ireland, the act of 2
Eliz. c. 4, established the same manner of appointment by the sovereign,
without election, as the English act of Edward, and so it has continued
to this day.
CONGREGATION. In its largest sense, this word includes the whole body of
Christian people, considered as assembled, not locally, but in some act
of fellowship, as when it is said, “Let the congregation of saints
praise HIM:” but the word is more commonly used for the worshippers,
being members of the true Church assembled in a particular place; a
sense in which the word is plainly used in the prayer for the Church
militant, where an especial distinction is made between _all_ GOD’S
people, or the congregation of the saints, and the particular
congregation present when the prayer is used: “To all THY people give
THY heavenly grace, and especially to this congregation here present.”
The word _congregation_ follows therefore the use of the word _Church_;
we use “_The_ Church” for the whole body of CHRIST’S people, and “_a_
Church,” or “_this_ Church,” for a particular portion of them. And as
_a_ Church is the immediate bond of union to each individual with _the_
Church, so is _a_ congregation the immediate company with which the
individual joins, and the immediate sign of his adherence to _the_
congregation of saints. Thus, in the Order of Confirmation, the preface
declares that _before the Church_ children should ratify their baptismal
vow, and they are consequently asked by the bishop whether they do this
“in the presence of GOD and _of this congregation_.” Congregation and
Church are considered by our translators convertible terms: e.g. Psal.
xxii. 22, “In the midst of the _congregation_” is rendered in Heb. ii.
12, “In the midst of the _Church_.”
CONGREGATION IN THE PAPAL COURT, means a committee of cardinals met for
the despatch of some particular business, and each congregation is
denominated from the peculiar business it has to despatch.
I. _The Pope’s Congregation_, instituted by Sixtus V.—They are to
prepare the most difficult beneficiary matters, which are afterwards to
be debated in the consistory, in the presence of the pope. This
congregation is composed of several cardinals, whose number is not
fixed. The cardinal-deacon, or, in his absence, some other cardinal
chosen by the pope _pro tempore_, presides in this assembly. The affairs
treated in it are, the erecting of new sees and cathedral churches;
re-unions, suppressions, and resignations of bishoprics, coadjutorships,
alienations of church revenues; and, lastly, the taxes and annates of
all the benefices to which the pope collates.
II. _The Congregation of the Holy Office_, or _Inquisition._ This
congregation was instituted by Pope Paul III., at the desire of Cardinal
Caraffa, who, being afterwards raised to the pontificate under the name
of Paul IV., enlarged the privileges thereof, to which Sixtus V. added
statutes, by which means this tribunal became so powerful and
formidable, that the Italians at that time used to say, “_Il sommo
pontifice Sisto non la perdonarebb’ a Christo_,” i. e. “Pope Sixtus
would not pardon Christ himself.”
This congregation generally consists of twelve cardinals, and sometimes
many more, as also of a considerable number of prelates and divines of
different orders, both secular and regular, who are called _Consulters_
and _Qualificators of the Holy Office_. This congregation takes
cognizance of heresies, and all novel opinions; as also of apostasy,
magic, witchcraft, the abuse of the sacraments, and the spreading of
pernicious books. For this purpose, an assembly is held every Wednesday
at the general of the Jacobins, and every Thursday before the pope, who
is president thereof.
The palace of the Holy Office serves likewise by way of prison for such
as are accused or suspected of the above-mentioned crimes; who, in case
they are found guilty, are delivered over to the secular arm. But at
present they seldom go further than punishing them with perpetual
imprisonment. Nor is this tribunal as rigorous and severe as in Spain,
Portugal, and other countries where the Inquisition is established. (See
_Inquisition_.)
III. _The Congregation de Propagandâ Fide._—It was instituted by Gregory
XV., and consists of eighteen cardinals, one of the secretaries of
state, an apostolical prothonotary, a referendary, an assistant or
lateral judge, and a secretary of the Holy Office. All these prelates
and officers meet in the pope’s presence, as often as occasion requires,
in order to examine whatever may be of advantage to religion, and to
consult about missions, &c.
IV. _The Congregation for explaining the Council of Trent._—At the
breaking up of that council, Pius IV. deputed certain cardinals who had
assisted in it, to put an end to all doubts which might arise concerning
its decrees. Sixtus V. fixed this congregation, and empowered it to
interpret all points both of discipline and faith. This congregation
meets once a week at the palace of the senior cardinal, the whole
assembly being composed of persons of that dignity. The president is
chosen out of the body by the pope, and is paid twelve hundred crowns of
gold yearly out of the apostolic chamber. The other cardinals have no
salaries, but think it the highest honour to assist in explaining the
most important matters relating to religion.
V. _The Congregation of the Index._—The fathers of the so-called Council
of Trent, considering the great number of pernicious and heretical books
published since the invention of printing, deputed certain cardinals,
and other divines, to examine into such books. These deputies drew up a
list of them, divided into several classes; and the council gave orders
for correcting, in a second impression, whatever these examiners had
altered or expunged. Pope Pius V. confirmed the establishment of this
congregation, and empowered it to examine all books written since the
Council of Trent, and all such as shall be published hereafter. This
congregation is composed of several cardinals, and a secretary of the
order of St. Dominic; but it seldom assembles, except on affairs of the
highest importance. (See _Indexes_.)
VI. _The Congregation of Immunities_, established by Pope Urban VIII.,
in order to obviate the difficulties and disputes which arose in the
judgments of such suits as were carried on against churchmen for various
matters, whether civil or criminal. This congregation is composed of
several cardinals, nominated by his Holiness, and takes cognizance of
all ecclesiastical immunities and exemptions. It is held in the palace
of the senior cardinal every Tuesday.
VII. _The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars._—Pope Sixtus V., in the
beginning of his pontificate, united two congregations, under the name
above-mentioned. It is composed of a certain number of cardinals at his
Holiness’s pleasure, and of a prelate, who is the secretary thereof, and
has six writers under him. This congregation has power to regulate all
such disputes as arise between bishops and the monastic orders, and
assembles every Friday for that purpose.
VIII. _The Congregation for the Examination of Bishops_, instituted by
Gregory XIV., to examine into the qualifications of all such churchmen
as are nominated to bishoprics. It is composed of eight cardinals, six
prelates, ten divines of different orders, both secular and regular,
some of whom must be doctors of the canon law. These examiners are
chosen by the pope, and assemble in his palace every Tuesday and Friday,
when any affair is to be examined. All the Italian bishops are obliged
to submit to this examination before they are consecrated; and for this
purpose they present themselves upon their knees before his Holiness,
who is seated in an easy chair, whilst the examiners, standing on each
hand of him, interrogate them on such heads of divinity and the canon
law as they think proper. Such as are raised to the cardinalate, before
they are made bishops, are dispensed from this examination; as are all
cardinal-nephews.
IX. _The Congregation of the Morals of Bishops_, instituted by Pope
Innocent XI., to inquire into the morals of churchmen recommended to
ecclesiastical dignities. It is composed of three cardinals, two
bishops, four prelates, and a secretary, who is the pope’s auditor. It
is held alternately in the palaces of the three cardinals, where they
examine very strictly the certificates of the life and manners of the
candidates. However, those who have led irregular lives, find several
ways of eluding the examination of this tribunal.
X. _The Congregation for the Residence of Bishops._—It has the power of
enjoining, or dispensing with, the residence of the Italian bishops, and
obliging all abbots to reside in their several communities. It consists
of three cardinals, three prelates, and a secretary. But, having very
little business, they assemble but seldom, and that only at the request
of such bishops or abbots as desire to be absent from their churches,
for reasons specified in their petitions.
XI. _The Congregation for such Monasteries as are to be
suppressed._—This congregation was instituted by Pope Innocent X., to
inquire into the state of the Italian monasteries, and to suppress those
whose temporalities were so far diminished, that the remainder was not
sufficient for the maintenance of six religious. It is composed of eight
cardinals and a certain number of monks, deputed by the provincials of
orders to take care of their interests. This assembly regulates the
pretensions of founders and benefactors, and their heirs, and disposes
of the remains of the temporalities of abandoned and ruined houses: it
likewise examines the petitions of such communities, or cities, as
desire to rebuild, and found anew, any monastery, for which it
despatches the proper instruments.
XII. _The Congregation of the Apostolical Visitation._—It is composed of
a certain number of cardinals and prelates, whose business it is to
visit, in the name of the pope, as archbishop of Rome, the six
bishoprics, suffragans to the metropolis of Rome.
XIII. _The Congregation of Relics._—It is composed of six cardinals and
four prelates and their business is to superintend the relics of ancient
martyrs, that are said to be frequently found in catacombs and other
subterraneous places in Rome, and to distinguish their bones, shrines,
and tombs, from those of the heathens, who were buried undistinguished
in those subterraneous caverns. After the congregation has pronounced
sentence on the validity of any relics, they are consigned to the vicar
and the pope’s sacristan, who distribute them to such as desire them.
XIV. _The Congregation of Indulgences._—This congregation, the number of
whose cardinals and prelates is not fixed, assembles in the palace of
the senior cardinal, to examine into the causes and motives of those who
sue for indulgences. The registrar of this congregation sends the
minutes and conclusions of petitions to the secretary of the briefs, who
despatches them under the fisherman’s seal.
XV. _The Congregation of Rites._—Pope Sixtus V. founded this
congregation to regulate the ceremonies and rites of the new offices of
saints, which are added to the Romish calendar, when any person is
canonized. It has authority to explain the rubrics of the mass-book and
breviary, when any difficulties are started in relation thereto; and its
power extends to pronounce sentence, from which there is no appeal, on
all disputes relating to the precedency of churches. It is composed of
eight cardinals and a secretary, who assemble once a month in the palace
of the senior cardinal.
XVI. _The Congregation for the Building of Churches._—Pope Clement VIII.
founded this congregation, to superintend the building of St. Peter’s
church, adjoining to the Vatican, and it is employed, to this day, in
repairing and beautifying it. It consists of eight cardinals and four
prelates, who assemble at the palace of the senior cardinal on the
Monday or Saturday nearest to the beginning and middle of each month.
This congregation has the peculiar privilege of altering the last wills
and testaments of those who bequeath sums to be employed in pious uses,
and to apply the money towards supporting the fabric of St.
Peter’s.—_Broughton._
CONGREGATION is also applied in England to one of the assemblies of the
university of Oxford, consisting of Regents, who transact the ordinary
business of the university.
CONGREGATIONALISTS are nearly the same as Independents. (See
_Independents_.) The chief point of difference is that the
Congregationalists hold the principle of a _communion_ of Churches.
CONGRUITY. (See _Condignity_.)
CONSANGUINITY. Alliance by blood, as _affinity_ is alliance by marriage.
Certain degrees of consanguinity are among the impediments to marriage,
both by the law of nature and by the revealed word of GOD. These
degrees, as well as those of affinity, are defined by the Church, and
are expressed in a table drawn up by Archbishop Parker, in 1563, and set
forth by authority. This table is as follows:
A Table of Kindred and Affinity, wherein whosoever are related are
forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry together.
_A man may not marry his_
1 GRANDMOTHER,
2 Grandfather’s Wife,
3 Wife’s Grandmother.
4 Father’s Sister,
5 Mother’s Sister,
6 Father’s Brother’s Wife.
7 Mother’s Brother’s Wife,
8 Wife’s Father’s Sister,
9 Wife’s Mother’s Sister.
10 Mother,
11 Step-Mother,
12 Wife’s Mother.
13 Daughter,
14 Wife’s Daughter,
15 Son’s Wife.
16 Sister,
17 Wife’s Sister,
18 Brother’s Wife.
19 Son’s Daughter,
20 Daughter’s Daughter,
21 Son’s Son’s Wife.
22 Daughter’s Son’s Wife,
23 Wife’s Son’s Daughter,
24 Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter.
25 Brother’s Daughter,
26 Sister’s Daughter,
27 Brother’s Son’s Wife.
28 Sister’s Son’s Wife,
29 Wife’s Brother’s Daughter,
30 Wife’s Sister’s Daughter.
_A woman may not marry with her_
1 GRANDFATHER,
2 Grandmother’s Husband,
3 Husband’s Grandfather.
4 Father’s Brother,
5 Mother’s Brother,
6 Father’s Sister’s Husband.
7 Mother’s sister’s Husband,
8 Husband’s Father’s Brother,
9 Husband’s Mother’s Brother.
10 Father,
11 Step-Father,
12 Husband’s Father.
13 Son,
14 Husband’s Son,
15 Daughter’s Husband.
16 Brother,
17 Husband’s Brother,
18 Sister’s Husband.
19 Son’s Son,
20 Daughter’s Son,
21 Son’s Daughter’s Husband.
22 Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband,
23 Husband’s Son’s Son,
24 Husband’s Daughter’s Son.
25 Brother’s Son,
26 Sister’s Son,
27 Brother’s Daughter’s Husband.
28 Sister’s Daughter’s Husband,
29 Husband’s Brother’s Son,
30 Husband’s Sister’s Son.
CONSECRATION. The solemn act of dedicating anything or person to a
Divine service and use.
CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP. By this we mean the separating of a person for
the holy office of a bishop, by imposition of hands and prayer.
According to a canon of the first Nicene Council, there must be four, or
at least three, bishops present at the consecration of a bishop. The
form used in the Church of England may be found in the Book of Common
Prayer. And it is stated in the preface thereto, that “no one shall be
accounted or taken to be a bishop, or suffered to execute the same
function, unless he be called, tried, and admitted thereunto according
to that form, or _hath had formerly episcopal consecration_.” The
concluding portion of this sentence recognises the validity of
consecrations given in foreign churches by any other form adopted by
those Churches. Thus a French, or an Italian, or a Greek bishop,
conforming to the rules of the Church of England, requires no fresh
consecration, but is at liberty to officiate among us.
By the eighth canon, “Whoever shall affirm or teach, that the form and
manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons,
containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the word of GOD; or that
they who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form are not
lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or
others, to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have
some other calling to those Divine offices; let him be excommunicated
_ipso facto_, not to be restored until he repent, and publicly revoke
such his wicked errors.”
And by the thirty-sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles, “the book of
consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and
deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., and confirmed at
the same time by authority of parliament, doth contain all things
necessary to such consecrating and ordering; neither hath it anything
that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are
consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the
second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter
shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree
all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”
And by the Act of Uniformity in the 13th and 14th Charles II., all
subscriptions to be made unto the Thirty-nine Articles shall be
construed to extend (touching the said thirty-sixth article) to the book
containing the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of
bishops, priests, and deacons, in this said act mentioned, as the same
did heretofore extend unto the book set forth in the time of King Edward
VI. (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 30, 31.)
Here we may allude to the Nag’s Head story, one of the most flimsy, as
well as wicked, inventions of the Romanists, to invalidate the orders of
the Church of England. It refers to the consecration of Archbishop
Parker, on which depends the validity of orders in the English Church:
for if Archbishop Parker’s consecration was not good, all those who were
consecrated by him were not bishops, because he could not confer that
character upon others which he had not himself.
The Papists assert that his consecration was irregular, both as to the
place where it was performed, which they say was at the Nag’s Head
Tavern, Cheapside, and as to the manner of doing it, which they say was
by one of the bishops then present, who laid the Bible on Dr. Parker’s
head, and then pronounced the words, “Take thou authority,” &c. It is
further objected, that three of the four bishops then present were only
bishops elect, and had no sees; and that the other was a suffragan.
The story, which has long since been abundantly refuted, and which is
now given up by the best authorities among the Romanists, was as
follows: The queen issued forth her warrant, directed to the bishop of
Llandaff; to Dr. Scory, elect of Hereford; Dr. Barlow, elect of
Chichester; Dr. Coverdale, elect of Exeter; and Dr. Hodgkins, suffragan
of Bedford. All these persons met at the Nag’s Head Tavern, where it had
been usual for the dean of the Arches and the civilians to refresh
themselves, after any confirmation of a bishop; and there one Neale, who
was Bonner’s chaplain, peeped through a hole in the door, and saw all
the other bishops very importunate with Llandaff, who had been dissuaded
by Bonner to assist in this consecration, which he obstinately refusing,
Dr. Scory bid the rest kneel, and he laid the Bible on each of their
shoulders or heads and pronounced these words, “Take thou authority,”
&c., and so they stood up all bishops. This story was certainly invented
after the queen’s reign; for if it had been true, it is so remarkable,
that some of the writers of that time would undoubtedly have taken
notice of it. But Bishop Burnet has discovered the falsity of it, from
an original manuscript of the consecration of this very archbishop,
which was done in the chapel at Lambeth, on Sunday, the 17th of
December, in the first year of the queen’s reign, where Dr. Parker came
a little after five in the morning in a scarlet gown and hood, attended
by the said four bishops, and lighted by four torches; and there, after
prayers, Dr. Scory preached; and then the other bishops presented the
archbishop to him, and the mandate for his consecration being read by a
doctor of the civil law, and he having taken the oaths of supremacy, and
some prayers being said, according to the form of consecration then
lately published, all the four bishops laid their hands on the
archbishop’s head, and said, “Receive the HOLY GHOST,” &c. And this was
done in the presence of several other clergy. See Archbishop Bramhall’s
“Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified,” with the
additions in vol. iii. of his works, Oxford, 1844.
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES. The law recognises no place as a church until
it has been consecrated by the bishop.
In the Church of England the bishop is left to his own discretion as to
the form he will use in the consecration of a church; but in the 21
Henry VIII. c. 13, which limits the number of chaplains that each person
may have, one reason assigned why a bishop may retain six chaplains is
because he must occupy that number in the consecration of churches.
The custom of solemnly setting apart, from ordinary and secular use,
whatever is appropriated to the service of Almighty GOD, has the highest
possible sanction; for many are the instances of it recorded in the Holy
Scriptures. True it is that there is no record of any such ceremonial
having been used among Christians in reference to churches, before the
fourth century, though some ritualists are of opinion that a form of
dedication was common much earlier. No sooner, however, was the sword of
persecution sheathed, and GOD permitted his Church to serve him in all
godly quietness, than such solemnities became general. Then, as Eusebius
tells us, “there was an incessant joy, and there sprung up for all a
certain celestial gladness, seeing every place, which but a short time
before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants, reviving
again, and recovering from a long and deadly distemper; temples again
rising from the soil to a lofty height, and receiving a splendour far
exceeding those which had been formerly destroyed.” And again: “after
this the sight was afforded us, so eagerly desired and prayed for by
all,—the festivals of dedications, and consecrations of the
newly-erected houses of prayer throughout the cities. After this, the
convention of bishops, the concourse of foreigners from abroad, the
benevolence of people to people, the unity of the members of CHRIST
concurring in one harmonious body. Then was it according to the
prophetic declaration, mystically indicating what would take place,
‘bone was brought to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatsoever other
matters the Divine word faithfully intimated before. There was, also,
one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul
among all, one and the same ardour of faith, one song of praise to the
Deity; yea now, indeed, complete and perfect solemnities of the prelates
and heads of the Church, sacred performances of sacred rites, and solemn
rituals of the Church. Here you might hear the singing of psalms; there,
the performance of divine and sacred mysteries. The mystic symbols of
our SAVIOUR’S passion were celebrated; and, at the same time, each sex
of every age, male and female, with the power of the mind, and with a
mind and whole heart rejoicing in prayer and thanksgiving, gave glory to
GOD, the author of all good. Every one of the prelates present also
delivered panegyrical discourses, desirous of adding lustre to the
assembly, according to the ability of each.” One such discourse,
pronounced by Eusebius himself, still remains.
In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives an instance of the ceremonial
thus described in the consecration, amid a full synod of bishops of the
church of Jerusalem, which Constantine had built over our SAVIOUR’S
sepulchre, A. D. 335. Socrates records a similar consecration of the
famous church of Antioch, called _Dominicum Aureum_, which was begun by
Constantine and finished by Constantius, A. D. 341. Testimony to the
prevalency of this custom is also borne by St. Athanasius, who defends
himself in his apology to Constantius, (c. 14–18,) when charged with
having used a building for public worship, before it was dedicated by
the emperor, and consecrated by himself, on the ground of necessity; for
since during Lent the congregations in the ordinary churches had been so
crowded as to prove injurious to the persons present, and anticipating
still more crowded assemblies at Easter, he thought himself justified,
under such circumstances, to use an edifice which was unconsecrated. St.
Gregory Nazianzen likewise speaks of this ceremonial as an ancient
custom παλαιὸς νόμος.
Such then were the offices connected with the consecration of churches
in primitive times. Bishops, from distant provinces, with a vast
concourse of clergy and laity, were present; an appropriate sermon or
sermons were preached; the holy eucharist was _always_ administered; in
the course of which prayers suitable to the occasion were offered. Of
these prayers one is still preserved in the writings of St. Ambrose.
On this model it was that the consecration services of the Church
Catholic were formed, each church, at first, varying in non-essentials,
as circumstances may have required.
In the English Church, various records of very early date exist relating
to the consecration of churches. Geoffrey of Monmouth, who professes to
follow Gildas, says that in the time of King Lucius (A. D. 162) pagan
temples were consecrated in Britain to the honour of the true GOD. And
we find from Bede, that the passage just quoted from Eusebius was
applicable to our own island. It is known that Bertha, wife of
Ethelbert, king of Kent, repaired or rebuilt a church, first built by
the Romans, and had it dedicated to the honour of St. Martin of Tours,
an eminent saint among the Christians of her native country. This was
the church granted by Ethelbert to Augustine, on his landing in the isle
of Thanet, A. D. 596. Some time after his arrival, Gregory the Great
sent Augustine particular instructions about the dedication of the
temples of the Anglo-Saxons; and when the bishop had his episcopal see
assigned him in the royal city, he recovered therein a church, which he
was informed had been built by the ancient Roman Christians, and
consecrated it in the name of our holy SAVIOUR, GOD and LORD, JESUS
CHRIST. From the same historian we learn, that Laurentius, Augustine’s
successor in the primacy, consecrated a church to St. Peter and St.
Paul, afterwards called St. Augustine’s, in honour of Augustine, who had
commenced building it. Mellitus, who succeeded Laurentius, consecrated
the church of the Holy Mother of GOD, built by King Eadbald, A. D. 622.
There is a detailed account of the consecration of the church of Ripon,
by Wilfrid, archbishop of York, A. D. 665, given in the Life of that
prelate, written by Eddius and Fridegode. Numerous subsequent canons are
found, bearing on the same subject. For instance, one of Archbishop
Ecgbriht’s “Excerptions,” A. D. 740, relates to the consecration of
churches. In Archbishop Wilfrid’s canons, A. D. 816, it is ordered:
“When a church is built, let it be consecrated by the bishop of its own
diocese, according to the ministerial book.”
Again, in the canons of Archbishop Corboyl, A. D. 1126, in the canons at
Westminster, A. D. 1138, and in Archbishop Richard’s canons, A. D. 1175,
similar injunctions are given.
From the constitutions of Otho, A. D. 1237, it would appear—so unfounded
is the boast of the Romanists, that the time when Popery was dominant in
England was a period of reverence and devotion never since known to her
Church—that this solemnity was then much neglected. This is evident from
the first of these canons, which, after observing that the dedication of
royal temples is known to have taken its beginning from the Old
Testament, and was observed by the holy fathers in the New Testament,
under which it ought to be done with the greater care and dignity, &c.,
goes on to enact,
“That _because we have ourselves seen, and heard by many, that so
wholesome a mystery is despised, at least neglected, by some_, (for we
have found many churches, and some cathedrals, not consecrated with holy
oil though built of old,) we, therefore, being desirous to obviate so
great a neglect, do ordain and give in charge, that all cathedrals,
conventual and parochial churches, which are ready built, and their
walls perfected, be consecrated by the diocesan bishops, to whom they
belong, or others authorized by them, within two years: and let it so be
done in a like time in all churches hereafter to be built; and lest so
wholesome a statute grow into contempt, if such like places be not
dedicated within two years from the time of their being finished, we
decree them to remain interdicted from the solemnization of masses until
they be consecrated, unless they be excused for some reasonable cause.”
In the constitutions of Othobon, A. D. 1268, there is a similar canon.
From these canons it is plain, that the office of consecration had
contracted many of those Romish superstitions which were retained until
the Reformation. Not that our reformers, when reforming the other
services of the Church, extended their labours to that of consecration.
Indeed, as that was a period, to use the words of Bishop Short, when
more churches were destroyed than built, there was no immediate use for
the service in question. This task was reserved for Bishop Andrews,
whose service was compiled, as were all the offices of the English
Church, from the formularies in use before the Reformation.
Unanswerable as was Hooker’s defence of the consecration of churches, it
was insufficient to protect Laud from the clamour of his implacable
enemies, when he consecrated St. Catherine Cree church, as bishop of
London, in 1630. And in the well-known London petition, presented to the
Long Parliament, by the notorious Alderman Pennington, about ten years
later, the consecration of churches was not forgotten to be included
“among the manifold evils, pressures, and grievances, caused, practised,
and occasioned by the prelates and their dependants.”
At the Restoration the custom revived, and the subject was again
discussed; but as there was no authorized office, (Laud, having been
prevented from drawing up a form, as he intended, in the convocation of
1640,) the preparation of one was committed to Bishop Cosin in the
convocation of 1661. When prepared it was presented to the house, and
referred to a committee of four bishops for revision, but nothing seems
ultimately to have been done about it. Since that period each bishop has
adopted any form he thought best, though perhaps the form of
consecrating churches, chapels, and churchyards, or places of burial,
which was sent down by the bishops to the lower houses of convocation,
(1712,) and altered by a committee of the whole house, is the one, not
that it is enjoined by any competent authority, now most generally
used.—_Teale._
Different rites were prepared by Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, Patrick,
bishop of Ely, and King, bishop of London.—_Palmer; Supplement_. (See
_Harrington, on the Consecration of Churches_.)
CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS. The following is the rubric with reference
to the consecration of the elements in the LORD’S supper: “When the
priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine,
that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before
the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of
consecration.” If it be asked, whether the priest is to say this prayer
standing before the table, or at the north end of it, I answer, at the
north end of it; for, according to the rules of grammar, the participle
“standing” must refer to the verb “ordered,” and not to the verb “say.”
So that, whilst the priest is “ordering the bread and wine,” he is to
stand before the table; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so
as “that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread
before the people,” which must be on the north side. For if he stood
“before” the table, his body would hinder the people from seeing; so
that he must not stand there, and consequently he must stand on the
north side; there being, in our present rubric, no other place mentioned
for performing any part of this office. In the Romish Church indeed they
always stand “before” the altar during the time of consecration, in
order to prevent the people from being eye-witnesses of their operation
in working their pretended miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut
the chancel door, or at least draw a veil or curtain before it, I
suppose, upon the same account. But our Church, that pretends no such
miracle, enjoins, we see, the direct contrary to this, by ordering the
priest so “to order the bread and wine, that he may with the more
readiness and decency break the bread and take the cup into his hands
before the people.” And with this view it is probable the Scotch liturgy
ordered, that, “during the time of consecration, the presbyter should
stand at such a part of the holy table, where he may with the more ease
and decency use both his hands.”—_Wheatly._
The consecration of the elements being always esteemed an act of
authority, and standing being therefore a more proper posture, as well
as a more commodious one, for this purpose, the priest is here directed
to stand.—_Collis._
We do not eat our common food without first praying for a blessing on
it; which pious custom is so universal, that it is certainly a piece of
natural religion; how much more then are we obliged, before we eat and
drink this bread and wine, which CHRIST designed to set forth the
mystery of his death, to consecrate it and set it apart by a solemn
prayer; especially since CHRIST himself in the institution of this
sacred ordinance, while he was teaching his apostles how to celebrate
it, did use a form of blessing over it (Matt. xxvi. 26); which St. Paul
calls “giving thanks.” (1 Cor. xi. 24.) Wherefore all churches in the
world, from the apostles’ days, have used such a form, the ancient and
essential part of which is the words of our SAVIOUR’S institution; for,
since he makes this sacramental charge, it hath been thought fit by all
churches to keep his own words, which being pronounced by a lawful
priest, do properly make the consecration; wherefore our Church has cut
off all the later superstitious additions, by which the Roman Church
hath corrupted this form, and given us a prayer of consecration,
consisting only of the words of our SAVIOUR’S institution, and a proper
prayer to introduce it. The first part is a prayer directed to “Almighty
GOD our heavenly FATHER,” commemorating his mercy in giving his SON to
die for us, and the all-sufficient merit of his death, together with his
command for our remembering it in this sacrament; and on these grounds
desiring that, since we obey him in thus celebrating it, we may therein
receive CHRIST’S body and blood. The second part is the repetition of
the words and actions of our LORD at the institution, concerning both
the time and the manner of its institution.—_Dean Comber._
If it be here demanded, to what words the consecration of the elements
ought to be ascribed, I answer, to the prayer of the faithful offered by
the priest, and to the words of institution repeated by him. This was
the sense of the ancient Church of CHRIST, which used them both in their
eucharistical offices; and never held, that the elements were changed
from their common to a more sublime use and efficacy by the bare
repeating of the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” as
the Papists absurdly hold. To bring about this change must be the work
of the HOLY GHOST; and thereupon it is requisite, that we should pray to
GOD, to endue the elements with this life-giving virtue. Now the words
of institution can by no means be called a prayer: they were addressed
by our SAVIOUR to his disciples, and not to GOD: to them he said, “Take
and eat.” When we use them, they are historical, recounting what our
LORD said and did, when he ordained this sacrament. And though when he
said, “This is my body, this is my blood,” these words effectually made
them so, showing that it was his will and pleasure that they should be
taken as his sacramental body and blood; though the virtue of those
words, once spoken by CHRIST, doth still operate towards making the
bread and wine his body and blood; yet, as now used and spoken by the
priest, they do not contain in them any such power, unless they be
joined with prayer to GOD.
Our LORD himself did, besides pronouncing them, give thanks and bless
the elements. Thus our Church uses prayer, as well as the words of
institution; and doth not attribute the consecration to the one without
the other. “If the consecrated bread or wine be all spent, before all
have communicated, the priest,” it is true, is ordered by the rubric to
“consecrate more,” by repeating only the words of institution. But the
virtue of the prayer, which the Church hath last made, is to be
understood as concurring therewith; and this is only a particular
application to these particular elements. Hence comes the propriety of
saying “Amen” at the end of those words; which would not be so properly
added, unless it referred back to the preceding petitions. And that this
is the sense of the Church of England is further plain, in that she in
her rubric calls this “the prayer of consecration,” in which the words
of institution are contained; and it is addressed to Almighty GOD, &c.,
whereas the words of CHRIST were not supplicatory to GOD, but
declaratory to his disciples.
After the same manner, in the “Office of Public Baptism,” in imitation
of the custom of the ancient Christians, who dedicated the baptismal
water to the holy and spiritual use for which it was designed, our
Church not only repeats the words of institution of that other
sacrament, but likewise adds a solemn prayer, that GOD would “sanctify
the water to the mystical washing away of sin.” And, as in that
sacrament she joins the prayer of the faithful to the words of CHRIST,
so in the sacrament of the altar she thinks them both necessary to
complete the consecration.—_Archdeacon Yardley._
A prayer of consecration, or setting apart the bread and wine to the
sacred purpose in which they are about to be employed, hath been used
for that end at least 1600 years. And the mention which ours makes of
the institution of the LORD’S supper, from the words, “who in the same
night that he was betrayed,” to the conclusion, is in every old liturgy
in the world. The Romanists have put into their prayer of consecration
names of saints, and commemorations of the dead which we have thrown
out. And indeed we have left nothing that so much as needs explaining,
unless it may be useful to observe, that our SAVIOUR’S “one oblation of
himself” is opposed to the various kinds of oblations under the law;
and, “once offered,” to the continual repetition of them: though
probably a further view was to intimate, that he is not, as the Papists
pretend, really sacrificed anew in this holy ordinance.—_Abp. Secker._
The death of CHRIST, if we regard the persons for whom it was undergone,
is a “sacrifice;” if we regard him who offered it, it is a free
“oblation;” if we consider him to whom it was offered, it is a
“satisfaction;” and, in every one of these respects, it is “full,
perfect, and sufficient:” or, particularly, it is a “full satisfaction,”
a “perfect oblation,” and a “sufficient sacrifice;” not, like the legal
offerings, for the sins of one kind, or the offences of one nation or of
one person, but for the sins of all the world. Let none therefore
mistake, or imagine we are about to sacrifice CHRIST again, as the Roman
Church falsely teacheth; for that is not only needless and impossible,
but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that JESUS was
offered only “once” (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10, 12); and by that “one oblation
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (ver. 14); so that
there needs “no more offering for sin” (ver. 18).—_Dean Comber._
From these passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is plain, to use
Bishop Overall’s words, that “CHRIST can be no more offered, as the
doctors and priests of the Roman party fancy it to be, and vainly think
that, every time they say mass, they offer up and sacrifice CHRIST anew,
as properly and truly as he offered up himself in his sacrifice upon the
cross. And this is one of the points of doctrine, and the chief one,
whereof the Popish mass consisteth; abrogated and reformed here by the
Church of England, according to the express word of GOD.”
CONSERVATORIES. Public schools of music in Italy, so called because they
are intended to preserve the purity of the science and practice of
music. The _Conservatorios_ are pious foundations, kept up at the
expense of rich citizens, in which orphans, foundlings, and the children
of poor parents are boarded, lodged, and taught gratuitously. There are
separate foundations for pupils of each sex. These institutions, which
ought to provide the churches of Italy with well-instructed choristers,
and to limit their attention to this object, do in fact supply the
theatre, as well as the Church, with the most admired performers. See
_Dr. Burney’s_ Present State of Music in France and Italy, for an
account of these conservatorios.
CONSISTENTES. (English, _Co-standers_.) The last order of penitents in
the primitive Church, so called from their having the liberty, after
other penitents, energumens, and catechumens were dismissed, to stand
with the faithful at the altar, and join in the common prayers, and see
the oblation offered; but yet they might neither make their own
oblations, nor partake of the eucharist with them.—_Bingham._
CONSISTORY. A word used to denote the Court Christian, or Spiritual
Court. Every bishop has his consistory court held before his chancellor
or commissary, in his cathedral church, or other convenient place of his
diocese, for ecclesiastical causes. In the Church of England, before the
Norman Conquest, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not separated from
the civil; for the earl and bishop sat in one court, that is, in the
ancient county court.
CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF. This council assembled in 1414, by the combined
authority of the emperor and the pope. It was attended by thirty
cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty archbishops, one hundred and fifty
bishops, besides an immense number of the inferior clergy. It included
sovereign princes, electors of Germany, as well as representatives from
every country in communion with Rome. Its objects were, to put an end to
the schism, to reform the Church, and to put down the so-called heresy
of Bohemia.
During a period of nearly forty years rival popes had claimed the see of
Rome; and the whole of Christendom had been scandalized by their
intrigues, their falsehoods, and their mutual anathemas. Each side had
the support of universities and of learned divines. Each pleaded a
Divine revelation, which was said to have been communicated on behalf of
the one to St. Bridget, and of the other to St. Catherine of Sienna.
The council not only removed the two popes whose title had been
previously disallowed, but also deposed the third, who had been
legitimately appointed, and had forfeited his right by many and great
crimes. The wickedness of John XXIII. seems to have been almost without
parallel. Some charges against him were indeed suppressed, because it
was thought that the papacy itself would be endangered by their
publication; but enough was proved on unquestionable testimony to insure
unanimous consent to his deposition.
In the mean while the necessity of reformation was urged on all sides.
In the council itself, cardinals and bishops, as well as other divines,
declaimed against the ignorance and vicious lives of the clergy, which
bore testimony to the ill effects resulting from the lengthened schism;
while the German people presented a memorial demanding reformation of
the evils by which they affirmed the Church to be overrun, and that it
should take place of all other business. A vehement contest on this
subject ensued between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities,
somewhat similar to that which afterwards occurred at Trent; but in the
end the urgent duty was postponed until the election of the pope had
taken place, and then it was successfully evaded.
John Huss, who was a learned and eloquent man, of blameless life, and of
great influence, arrived at Constance soon after the meeting of the
council. He had embraced the opinions of Wickliff, and had been
especially earnest in denouncing the avarice and immoralities of the
priests, as well as the frauds practised upon the people by pretended
miracles. He was accused and thrown into prison. The emperor at first
expressed great indignation at his arrest, but having been influenced by
members of the council, he not only withdrew his protection, but deputed
the elector palatine, as vicar of the empire, to place him in the hands
of the secular magistrate. The pleas on which this breach of faith have
been defended by Roman writers are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Some endeavour to maintain that Huss did not possess the safe-conduct
until after his arrest; some, that he broke the conditions on which it
was granted; and some, that no engagement of the emperor could limit the
authority of the council. All impartial judges have long been agreed in
condemning the act as a deep and indelible disgrace to the Roman Church.
The letters of the martyr himself, as well as the language of his
defence, describe in touching and Christianly terms, the harshness and
injustice with which he was treated. Having resisted all efforts to
procure his recantation, whether by threats or persuasion, he was
condemned, and met his death with wonderful calmness and heroism, on the
7th July, 1415. The immediate effect of his condemnation, and that of
Jerome of Prague, which speedily followed, was to kindle the flames of
civil war in Bohemia, during which the names of Wickliff and Huss formed
the watchword on the one side, and that of the pope on the other. It is
said that the descendant of Sigismund, in the fourth generation,
believed himself to be suffering under the wrath of God on account of
his ancestor’s sin.
In the fourth and fifth sessions, the absolute superiority of a general
council over the pope was expressed in the form of an exact decree. It
was declared that the council holds its authority directly from Christ;
and that all persons, including those of papal dignity, are amenable to
its jurisdiction, and are liable to punishment for disobedience. No
language could be more precise than that which was employed. The same
doctrine had been previously asserted in the Council of Pisa; and was
afterwards confirmed in the Council of Basle. It was the judgment of the
constitutional party which had gradually become strong in the Roman
Church; and it was now embodied in the solemn act by which three popes
were set aside, and Martin V. substituted in their place; in the
validity of whose appointment the papal succession is inseparably bound
up. The decision of the council was gravely and deliberately adopted;
and it had the fullest support of the learned divines who were present,
such as Cardinal P. d’ Ailli, who had been chancellor of the university
of Paris, and his still more illustrious pupil and successor John
Gerson, who, beyond all other theologians, influenced and represented
the mind of that age. It has always furnished an insurmountable
difficulty to controversialists of the ultramontane school. They cannot
reject its authority without giving up the legitimacy of every pope
since Martin V.; while, on the other hand, it is plainly at variance
with the decrees of the Council of Florence.
The decrees of their fourth and fifth sessions have been strenuously
maintained by the Gallican Church, especially by Bossuet, and the very
learned men who shared his opinions in the seventeenth century; as well
as by the universities of Paris, Louvain, and Cologne.
Materials for the history of the Council of Constance are provided
abundantly by the invaluable collection of documents made by H. Von der
Hardt.
CONSUBSTANTIAL. Co-essential; of the same substance with another. Thus
we say of our blessed LORD, that he is _consubstantial_ with the FATHER,
being “of one substance with the FATHER.” The term (ὁμοούσιος) was first
adopted by the fathers in the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to express
more precisely the orthodox doctrine, and to serve as a precaution
against the subtleties of the Arians, who admitted every thing _except_
the consubstantiality, using a word similar in sound, but very different
in meaning, ὁμοιούσιος. This word is still the distinguishing criterion
between the catholic or orthodox Christian and the Arian heretic.
CONSUBSTANTIATION. The Romish divines fell into the error of
endeavouring to explain the _manner_ in which our blessed LORD is
present in the eucharist. (See _Transubstantiation_.) Luther and his
followers, while opposing the Romanists, fell into a similar error, only
insisting on a different manner of explaining the inexplicable mystery.
Luther and his followers maintained, that, after the consecration of the
elements, the body and blood of our SAVIOUR are substantially present
together with the bread and wine. This doctrine is called
_consubstantiation_. They believe that the real body and blood of our
LORD are united in a mysterious manner, through the consecration, with
the bread and wine, and are received with and under them in the
sacrament of the LORD’S supper.
CONTRITION. (See _Attrition_.) Romanists define contrition to be a
sorrow for sin, with a sincere resolution of reforming. The word is
derived from the Latin _conterere_, to break or bruise. The Psalmist
says, “A broken and a _contrite_ heart, O GOD, thou wilt not despise.”
(Psalm li. 17.)—_Conc. Trident._ § 14, c. 4.
CONVENT. A religious house; a monastery; more usually used to signify a
nunnery. For its architectural arrangements, see _Monastery_.
CONVENTICLE. A diminutive of convent, denoting properly a cabal, or
secret assembly of a part of the monks of a convent, to make a party in
the election of an abbot. It is now the legal term to denote any place
of worship used by those who depart from the Church of England.
By the 73rd canon it is thus ordained: “Forasmuch as all _conventicles_
and secret meetings of priests and ministers have ever been justly
accounted very hateful to the state of the Church wherein they live, we
do ordain that no priests or ministers of the Word of GOD, nor any other
persons, shall meet together in any private house, or elsewhere, to
consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their
motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the
impeaching or depraving of the doctrine of the Church of England, or the
Book of Common Prayer, or any part of the government or discipline now
established in the Church of England, under pain of excommunication
_ipso facto_.”
CONVERSION. A change of heart and life from sin to holiness. This
change, when it takes place in a heathen or an infidel, comprises a
reception and confession of the truths of Christianity: when it takes
place in a person already baptized and a Christian in profession, it
implies a saving and influential impression on his heart, of those
truths which are already received by the mind and acknowledged with the
lips. To the heathen and infidel conversion is absolutely and always
necessary to salvation. The baptized Christian may by GOD’S grace so
continue in that state of salvation in which he was placed in baptism,
(see _Church Catechism_,) that conversion, in this sense, is not
necessary to him: still even he, day by day, will fall into sins of
infirmity, and he will need renewal or renovation: and all these—the
daily renewal of the pious Christian, the conversion of the nominal
Christian, and the conversion of the infidel or heathen—are the work of
the Holy Spirit of GOD on the hearts of men.
Some persons have confused _conversion_ with _regeneration_, and have
taught that all men—the baptized, and therefore in fact regenerate—must
be regenerated afterwards, or they cannot be saved. Now this is in many
ways false; for regeneration, which the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself has
connected with holy baptism, cannot be repeated: moreover, not all men
(though indeed most men do) fall into such sin after baptism, that
conversion, or, as they term it, regeneration, is necessary to their
salvation; and if a regeneration were necessary to them, it could only
be obtained through a repetition of baptism, which were an act of
sacrilege. Those who speak of this supposed regeneration, uncharitably
represent the orthodox as denying the necessity both of regeneration and
of conversion; because they themselves call these by wrong names, and
the orthodox only proclaim their necessity in their true sense.
They who object to the expression _Baptismal Regeneration_, by
regeneration mean, for the most part, the first influx of irresistible
and indefectible grace; grace that cannot be repelled by its subject,
and which must issue in his final salvation. Now, of such grace our
Church knows nothing, and of course, therefore, means not by
regeneration at baptism the first influx of such grace. That the sins,
original and actual, of the faithful recipient of baptism, are washed
away, she doth indeed believe; and also that grace is given to him by
the immediate agency of the HOLY SPIRIT; yet so that the conscience thus
cleansed may be again defiled, and that the baptized person may, and
often does, by his own fault, fall again into sin, in which if he die he
shall without doubt perish everlastingly; his condemnation not being
avoided, but rather increased, by his baptismal privilege. So that, in
fact, we say not that any one is regenerated at baptism, according to
the meaning of these words in the lips of our opponents. And if they
will not admit that baptism is the Divinely appointed medium of
regeneration in our sense of that term, what grace can they imagine so
trifling as to comport with their views of that sacrament, and at the
same time so lofty and essential, as to be contemplated by CHRIST in the
solemn institution of a sacrament; and in his declarations concerning
the efficacy and necessity of that sacrament; and by the apostles, and
the whole Church, in their sense of the same matter, and their
consequent practice? What approaches most nearly to that grace of their
own imagining, which they call regeneration, is the repentance not to be
repented of, and followed by fruits of righteousness to the glory of
GOD’S grace, and to the salvation of the Christian, which we call
_conversion_ or renewal, and attribute to the same SPIRIT from whom we
receive our new life at baptism; and which we hold to be as necessary to
the salvation of one who has fallen from his baptismal purity, (and who
has not so fallen?) as we hold _baptismal_ regeneration to be, and as
they hold their _supposed_ regeneration. Except in words, then, we and
our opponents are more nearly agreed than is at first sight apparent;
and if the choice of terms be the chief point at issue, we have this to
say for the expressions which we use, that they are consentient, and
even identical, with those which are used in the Scriptures; and that
they are the same which the whole Church employed, until the days of
certain founders of sects, called after their own names at the
continental Reformation; so that they rest on the highest possible
grounds of Scripture and authority.—_Poole._ (See _Regeneration_.)
CONVOCATION (see _Synod_.) is an assembly of the bishops and other
clergy of each of the provinces of the Church of England to consult on
matters ecclesiastical. As much is in these days said of convocation,
and as many seem to think that a convocation must be holden to settle
the disputes now unhappily prevailing among the clergy, it may be
interesting if we extend this article, that we may supply our readers
with a history of convocations. It will be abridged from the account
given by Dr. Burn.
That the bishop of every diocese in England, as in all other Christian
countries, had power to convene the clergy of his diocese, and, in a
common synod or council, with them to transact such affairs as specially
related to the order and government of the churches under his
jurisdiction, is not to be questioned. These assemblies of the clergy
were as old almost as the first settlement of Christianity amongst us,
and, amidst all other revolutions, continued to be held till the time of
King Henry VIII.
What the bishop of every diocese did within his own district, the
archbishop of each province, after the kingdom was divided into
provinces, did within his proper province. They called together first
the bishops, afterwards the other prelates, of their provinces; and by
degrees added to these such of their inferior clergy as they thought
needful. In these two assemblies of the clergy (the diocesan synods and
provincial councils) only the spiritual affairs of the Church were wont
for a long time to be transacted: so that, in this respect, there was no
difference between the bishops and clergy of our own and of other
Christian churches. Our metropolitans and their suffragans acted by the
same rules here as they did in all other countries. They held these
assemblies by the same power, convened the same persons, and did the
same things in them. When the papal authority had prevailed here, as in
most other kingdoms and countries in Europe, by the leave of our kings,
and at the command of the legates sent from Rome, another and yet larger
sort of councils was introduced amongst us, of the bishops and prelates
of the whole realm. These were properly national Church councils, and
were wont to be held for some special designs, which either the pope,
the king, or both, had to promote by them.
But besides these synods common to us with all other Christian Churches,
and which were in their nature and end, as well as constitution,
properly and purely ecclesiastical, two other assemblies there were of
the clergy of this realm, _peculiar to our own state and country_; in
which the clergy were convened, not for the spiritual affairs of the
Church, but for the good and benefit of the realm, and to act as members
of the one as well as of the other. Now the occasion of these was this:
when the faith of CHRIST was thoroughly planted here, and the piety of
our ancestors had liberally endowed the bishops and clergy of the Church
with temporal lands and possessions, not only the opinion which the
political government had of their prudence and piety prompted it to take
the most eminent of them into the public councils, but the interest
which they had by that means in the state made it expedient so to do,
and to commit the direction and management of offices and affairs to
them. Hence our bishops first, and then some of our other prelates, (as
abbots and priors,) were very early brought into the great councils of
the realm, or parliament, and there consulted and acted together with
the laity. And in process of time, our princes began to have a further
occasion for them. For being increased both in number and in wealth, not
only our kings, but the people began to think it reasonable, that the
clergy should bear a part in the public burdens, as well as enjoy their
share of the public treasure. Hence our Saxon ancestors, under whom the
Church was the most free, yet subjected the lands of the clergy to the
threefold necessity of castles, bridges, and expeditions. And the
granting of aids in these cases brought on assemblies of the clergy,
which were afterwards distinguished by the name of convocations.
In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual (as well as the other clergy)
held by frankalmoigne, but yet made great part (as was said) of the
grand council of the nation; being the most learned persons that, in
those times of ignorance, met to make laws and regulations. But William
the Conqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenures of the bishops and some
of the great abbots into baronies; and from thenceforwards they were
obliged to send persons to the wars, or were assessed to the escuage,
(which was a fine or payment in money instead thereof,) and were obliged
to attend in parliament. But the body of the clergy had no baronies, and
holding by frankalmoigne, were in a great measure exempt from the
charges which were assessed upon the laity, and were therefore by some
other way to be brought under the same obligation. In order hereunto
several measures were taken, till at last they settled into that method
which finally obtained, and set aside the necessity of any other way.
First, the pope laid a tax upon the Church for the use of the king; and
both their powers uniting, the clergy were forced to submit to it. Next,
the bishops were prevailed with, upon some extraordinary occasions, to
oblige their clergy to grant a subsidy to the king, in the way of a
benevolence; and for this, letters of security were granted back by the
king to them, to insure them that what they had done should not be drawn
into example or consequence. And these concessions were sometimes made
by the bishops in the name of their clergy; but the common way was, that
every bishop held a meeting of the clergy of his diocese. Then they
agreed what they would do; and empowered first the bishops, afterwards
their archdeacons, and finally proctors of their own, chosen for that
end, to make the concession for them.
Thus stood this matter till the time of Edward the First, who, not
willing to continue at such a precarious rate with his clergy, took
another method; and, after several other experiments, fixed at last upon
an establishment, which has, to a certain extent, continued ever since,
viz. that the earls and barons should be called to parliament as
formerly, and embodied in one house; and that the tenants in burgage
should also send their representatives; and that the tenants by knight’s
service, and other soccage tenants in the counties, should send their
representatives; and these were embodied in the other house. He designed
to have the clergy as a third estate; and as the bishops were to sit
_per baroniam_ in the temporal parliament, so they were to sit with the
inferior clergy in convocation. And the project and design of the king
was, that, as the two temporal estates charged the temporalities, and
made laws to bind all temporal things within this realm; so this other
body should have given taxes to charge the spiritual possessions, and
have made canons to the ecclesiastical body: to this end was the
_præmunientes_ clause (so called from the first word thereof) in the
summons to the archbishops and bishops, by which he required them to
summon such of their inferior clergy to come with them to parliament, as
he then specified and thought sufficient to act for the whole body of
the clergy. This altered the convocation of the Church of England from
the foreign synods; for these were totally composed of the bishops, who
were pastors of the Church; and therefore the bishops only were
collected to compose such foreign synods, to declare what was the
doctrine, or should be the discipline, of the Church.
Edward I. projected making the clergy a third estate, dependent on
himself; and, therefore, not only called the bishops, whom as barons he
had a right to summon, but the rest of the clergy, that he might have
their consent to the taxes and assessments made on that body. But the
clergy, foreseeing they were likely to be taxed, alleged that they could
not meet under a temporal authority, to make any laws or canons to
govern the Church. And this dispute was maintained by the archbishops
and bishops, who were very loath the clergy should be taxed, or that
they should have any interest in making ecclesiastical canons, which
formerly were made by the sole authority of the bishops; for even if
those canons had been made at Rome, yet, if they were not made in a
general council, they did not think them binding here, unless they were
received by some provincial constitution of the bishops. The whole body
of the Church being thus dissatisfied, the archbishops and bishops
threatened to excommunicate the king: but he and the temporal estate
took it so ill that the clergy would not bear any part of the public
charge, that they were beforehand with them, and the clergy were all
outlawed, and their possessions seised into the king’s hands. This so
humbled the clergy that they at last consented to meet. And to take away
all pretence, there was a summons, besides the _præmunientes_ clause, to
the archbishop, that he should summon the bishops, deans, archdeacons,
colleges, and whole clergy of his province. From hence, therefore, the
bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and clergy, met by virtue of the
archbishop’s summons; to which, being an ecclesiastical authority, they
could not object. And so the bishops and clergy came to convocation by
virtue of the archbishop’s summons; they esteeming it to be in his
power, whether he would obey the king’s writ or not: but when he had
issued his summons, they could not pretend it was not their duty to
come. But the _præmunientes_ writ was not disused; because it directed
the manner in which the clergy were to attend, to wit, the deans and
archdeacons in person, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two
proctors. So that the clergy were doubly summoned; first, by the bishop,
to attend the parliament; and, secondly, by the archbishop, to appear in
convocation. And that the archbishop might not appear to summon them
solely in pursuance of the king’s writ, he for the most part varied in
his summons from the king’s writ, both as to the time and place of their
meeting. And lest it might be thought still (of which they were very
jealous) that their power was derived from temporal authority, they
sometimes met on the archbishop’s summons without the king’s writ; and
in such convocation the king demanded supplies, and by such request
owned the episcopal authority of convening. So that the king’s writ was
reckoned by the clergy no more than one motive for their convening. From
henceforward, instead of making one state of the kingdom, as the king
designed, the clergy composed two ecclesiastical synods, i. e. of
Canterbury and York, under the summons of each of the archbishops; and
being forced into those two synods before mentioned, they sat and made
canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and
taxes to the king. But the archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy, and that
of York, assembled each in their own province; and the king gratified
the archbishops, by suffering this new body of convocation to be formed
in the nature of a parliament. The archbishop sat as king; his
suffragans sat in the upper house as his peers; the deans, archdeacons,
and the proctor for the chapter represented the burghers; and the two
proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire. And so this body,
instead of being one of the estates as the king designed, became an
ecclesiastical parliament, to make laws, and to tax the possessions of
the Church.
But although they thus sat as a parliament, and made laws for the
Church, yet they did not make a part of the parliament properly so
called. Sometimes indeed the lords, and sometimes the commons, were wont
to send to the convocation for some of their body to give them advice in
spiritual matters: but still this was only by way of advice; for the
parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own natural
force, bind the clergy; as the laws of all Christian princes did in the
first ages of the Church. And even the convocation tax always passed
both houses of parliament, since it could not bind as a law till it had
the consent of the legislature.
Thus the case stood when the act of submission (25 Henry VIII. c. 19)
was made; by which it is enacted as followeth:—“Whereas the king’s
humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm of England, have
not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the convocation of
the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by
the king’s writ; but also submitting themselves to the king’s Majesty
have promised, _in verbo sacerdotii_, that they will never from
henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact,
promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances,
provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, in the
convocation, unless the king’s most royal assent and licence may to them
be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his Majesty do
give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf: it is therefore
enacted, according to the said submission, that they, nor any of them,
shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions
or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be
called, in their convocations in time coming (which shall always be
assembled by authority of the king’s writ); unless the same clergy may
have the king’s most royal assent and licence to make, promulge, and
execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances, provincial or
synodal; upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to
this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make
fine at the king’s will.”
It was resolved upon this statute, by the two chief justices and divers
other justices, at a committee before the lords in parliament, in the
eighth year of James I., 1. That a convocation cannot assemble at their
convocation without the assent of the king. 2. That after their assembly
they cannot confer, to constitute any canons, without licence of the
king. 3. When they upon conference conclude any canons, yet they cannot
execute any of their canons without the royal assent. 4. That they
cannot execute any after the royal assent, but with these four
limitations: (1.) that they be not against the prerogative of the king;
nor (2.) against the common law; nor (3.) against the statute law; nor
(4.) against any custom of the realm.
The clergy having continued to tax themselves in convocation as
aforesaid, these assemblies were regularly kept up till the act of the
13 Charles II. c. 4, was passed, when the clergy gave their last
subsidy: it being then judged more advantageous to continue the taxing
them by way of landtax and poll-tax, as it had been in the time of the
Long Parliament during the civil wars.
And in the year 1664, by a private agreement between Archbishop Sheldon
and the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and other the king’s ministers, it
was concluded that the clergy should silently waive the privilege of
taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money
bills prepared by the commons. And this hath made convocations
unnecessary to the Crown, and inconsiderable in themselves.
And since that time the clergy have been allowed to vote in choosing
knights of the shire, as other freeholders, which in former times they
did not.
And from that time the convocation has never passed any synodical act;
and from thenceforth, until the year 1700, for the most part they were
only called, and very rarely did so much as meet together in a full
body, and with the usual solemnity. It is true that, during the
remainder of King Charles the Second’s reign, when the office of
prolocutor was void by death or promotion, so many of the lower house
came together as were thought sufficient to choose a new one; and those
members that were about the town commonly met, during parliament, once a
week, had prayers read, and were formally continued till the parliament
was dissolved, and the convocation together with it. And in King James
the Second’s time, the writs issued out of course, but the members did
not meet. In the year 1689, after the accession of William and Mary to
the throne, a convocation was not only called, but began to sit in due
form; but their resolutions came to nothing. And from thence till the
year 1700 they were only called, but did not meet; but in that year, and
ever since, at the meeting of the parliament, the convocation of the
clergy has likewise been solemnly opened, and the lower clergy have been
permitted to form themselves into a house, and to choose their
prolocutor; nor have they been finally dismissed as soon as that
solemnity was over, but they continued from time to time till the
parliament hath broke up, or been dissolved. And now it seems to be
agreed that they are of right to be assembled concurrently with
parliaments, and may act and proceed as provincial councils, when her
Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judge it expedient.
In Ireland, the convocations of the four provinces assembled all
together in Dublin; and were formed exactly upon the model of those of
England; consisting of the upper house, consisting of the bishops; and
of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons, proctors of the
chapters, and proctors of the clergy of each diocese.—See _Wilkins’s
Concilia_, iv. 496, and for the rules and privileges of the convocation,
iv. 632.
Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to the Irish Common Prayer Book,
(xxxvii. &c.,) remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation of the Irish
clergy, formed after the model of the English convocation, assembled in
Dublin. _This seems to have been the first convocation ever held in
Ireland._ The clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or
ever to have claimed the right of taxing themselves.... In the reign of
Henry VIII. there does not seem to be any reference of ecclesiastical
matters to the convocation, nor any claim of exemption on the part of
the clergy.” [He then quotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c. 12.] “In
the second year of Elizabeth a parliament was assembled, and no mention
is made of a convocation, though acts with respect to the Church were
passed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any parliament,
yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Sussex, the lord lieutenant, for
a general meeting of the clergy, and the establishment of the Protestant
religion. This of course was an order to summon not a convocation, but
the ancient synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all
matters concerning religion.... In Ireland the provincial synod had not
been suspended, and by their consent given at three different times in
the reign of Edward, ... the clergy revived the use of the English
liturgy, and expressed their conformity to the doctrine of the English
Church.” There is, indeed, a passage in the Manuscript Collections of
Dudley Loftus, which has been adduced as proof of a convocation having
been held in 1560: “This year was held a convocation of bishops at the
queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.” But he must
have used the word _convocation_ merely “to express a meeting of the
bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology to describe
the meeting of the convocation.” See also _Ebrington’s_ Life of Ussher,
38–40. As before observed, (see _Church of Ireland_,) no provision
whatever has been made since the Irish Union, for the assembling even
formally of the convocation of the Irish province of the Church. Still
it appears (vide 11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was by no means
intended that the Irish provinces should be deprived of their
convocations. It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800, that the
archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, should be summoned to sit
in the convocation of the United Church. Mr. Pitt expressly said, in
proposing the amendment to this resolution, “that the prosperity of the
Church of Ireland never could be permanent, unless it be a part of the
Union to have, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some
provision in this respect;” i.e. convocation. “And afterwards,” he said,
“it was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article
respecting the convocation, till the Union actually took place.” This
pledge has never been redeemed.—See an article on the _United Church and
its Synods_, in the _Law Review_ for Feb. 1851.
In Scotland, by an act of parliament, 1663, an order was made for
regulating the meetings of the national synod, or, as it is called in
England, the convocation of the Church of Scotland; and an act was
passed, That this synod shall consist of the two archbishops and their
suffragans, all the deans and archdeacons, the fixed moderators, along
with one minister of every presbytery, and one commissioner from each of
the four universities: That the synod, then constituted, is to meet at
such places and times as his Majesty by proclamation shall appoint, and
is to debate, treat, consider, consult, conclude, and determine upon
such pious matters, causes, and things, concerning the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government of this Church, as his Majesty
shall, from time to time, under his loyal hand, deliver, or cause to be
delivered, to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, president of the said
national assembly, to be by him offered to their consideration: That
unless his Majesty or his commissioner be present, no national assembly
can be held: And that no act, canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned
as an act of the national synod of the Church of Scotland, but such as
shall have been considered, consulted, and agreed upon by the president
and major part of the number above specified.—_Skinner’s Eccles. Hist.
of Scotland._
COPE. (_Cappa_, called also pallium, or pluviale.) A kind of cloak worn
during Divine service by the clergy. It reaches from the neck nearly to
the feet, and is open in front, except at the top, where it is united by
a band or clasp. It is in use in the Western Church only; and is
probably only a modification of the vestment, or chasuble. The latter,
in the Roman Church, is used by the officiating priest at mass only; the
other, by all orders of the clergy in procession, &c., on solemn
occasions. The rubrics of King Edward VI., still legally in force,
prescribe a cope or vestment for the priest administering the holy
communion, and for the bishops, when executing any public ministration
in the church; for which a vestment may be substituted either by priest
or bishop. By the 24th canon the cope only is prescribed to the priest
administering the communion, and that only in cathedral churches. But
the rubric being subsequently enacted, which refers to the regulation of
Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, the latter is more strictly to be
considered as the law of the Church. It was used in several churches and
college chapels in the 17th century, (see _Jebb’s Church Service_, p.
217,) and was in use at Durham cathedral and Westminster till the middle
of the last century. De Foe, in his anonymous Tour through England,
1762, says that “the old vestments, which the clergy before the
Reformation wore, are still used on Sundays and holidays, by the
residents.” And Dr. Collis, in his _Rubric of the Church of England
examined_, 1737, says that “no copes are worn at present in any
cathedral or collegiate church in the ministration of the holy
communion, except in the churches of Westminster and Durham.” The cope
has always been worn by officiating bishops, and by the dean and
prebendaries of Westminster at coronations, and occasionally at state
funerals.
COPIATÆ. The office of the Copiatæ, (κοπιάω, to travail,) who are called
in Latin _Fossarii_, was to superintend funerals, and to see that all
persons had a decent burial. They performed their office gratuitously
towards the poor.—_Cave._
COPTS. The Monophysite, or Jacobite, Christians of Egypt, who have been
for eleven centuries in possession of the patriarchal chair of
Alexandria, and the dominant sect among the Christians of that region,
are called Copts. They were placed in possession of the Egyptian
churches on the irruption of the Saracens in the seventh century. Their
numbers are now perhaps about 100,000. They have three liturgies, one
ascribed to St. Basil, which they use on fast days; that of St. Cyril,
which they use in Lent; and that of St. Gregory, which they use on
festivals. Their service is very much crowded with ceremonies. The
Coptic tongue, in which their worship is conducted, is to them a dead
language, and not even understood by many of their priests. Their habits
of life are ascetic, and they have many monasteries. They have a
patriarch, who resides at Cairo, but takes his title from Alexandria.
CORBEL. A bracket. A projection supporting a weight; and so
_corbel-table_, a table or horizontal projection supported by corbels.
Corbel-tables are almost confined to the Norman, Transition, and Early
English periods. Corbels in other places are of course continued; they
are often of extreme beauty.
CORDELIERS. (_Monks of the Order of St. Francis._) They wear coarse grey
cloth with a little cowl, and a rope girdle with three knots; from this
girdle they are called Cordeliers. They are the same with the Minorites;
but had the name of Cordeliers given them upon this occasion, they
having repulsed the infidels in a war which St. Louis made against them,
the king asked their name, and was answered, they were _des Gens des
Cordelies_—people with cords about them. (See _Franciscans_.)
CORONATION. The solemn religious rite by which a sovereign prince is
consecrated to his high office, in which also the queen consort in
Christian countries is usually associated with her husband, not for
office’ sake, but _honoris gratia_.
By ancient custom the coronation of the sovereign of England belongs to
the archbishop of Canterbury, and that of the queen consort to the
archbishop of York. The place is Westminster Abbey. The kings of
Scotland were crowned at Scone.
According to Mr. Palmer, (Supplement,) the coronation of sovereigns may
be traced to A. D. 457, when Leo was crowned emperor by Anatolius,
patriarch of Constantinople. Pepin was the first French monarch who was
crowned. The first coronation in England was that of Egferth king of
Mercia; and we have still the forms used in the time of the Heptarchy,
from which our coronation service (slightly modified from time to time)
is substantially derived.—See _Dr. Silver’s Coronation Service, or
Consecration of the Anglo-Saxon Kings_.
It is a form of immemorial prescription, substantially the same as that
used at the inauguration of our Christian monarchs in Saxon times, and
sanctioned by the solemn approval of all the estates of the realm, the
nobility, the clergy, and the people, assembled at its celebration. The
prayers are framed in the best spirit of antiquity, with the rhythm so
characteristic of primitive forms, and with an elevation and majesty of
sentiment unsurpassed in any part of our liturgy. The service is,
however, peculiarly valuable, as recording certain high religious and
political principles, which of course must be considered as receiving
the full sanction of the Church and nation. Thus, there is an
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of CHRIST over the whole world, and
the derivation of all kingly power from Him. “When you see this orb set
under the cross, remember that the whole world is subject to the power
and empire of Christ our Redeemer. For He is the Prince of the kings of
the earth, King of kings, and Lord of lords; so that no man can reign
happily, who derives not his authority from Him, and directs not all his
actions according to His laws.” It is declared that Christian
sovereigns, like the Jewish kings of old, are consecrated to the fulness
of their office by the religious rite of unction, and that their
function is not merely secular. “Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant
Victoria, who by our office and ministry is now to be anointed with this
oil, and consecrated Queen of this realm.” There is a strict recognition
of the prerogative of the clergy, empowered as the ministers of CHRIST,
to assert the dominion of our LORD, who exalts her to her holy dignity:
“Stand firm and hold fast from henceforth the seat and the state of
royal and imperial dignity, which is this day delivered to you in the
name and by the authority of Almighty God, and by the hands of us the
bishops and servants of God, though unworthy: and as you see us to
approach nearer to God’s altar, so vouchsafe the more graciously to
continue to us your royal favour and protection. And the Lord God
Almighty, whose ministers we are, and the stewards of his mysteries,
establish you therein in righteousness, that it may stand fast for
evermore.”—_Palmer._
CORNET. A species of horn or trumpet formerly much used in the Church
service; in the king’s chapel especially. Dr. Rimbault, in his Notes on
Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, states, that in the Statutes of
Canterbury cathedral, provision is made for players on sackbuts and
_cornets_, on high festivals. After the Restoration, as appears from
North’s Life of Guildford, the cornet was used at Durham and York
cathedrals; and Matthew Lock says, that for about a year after the
opening of the Royal Chapel, the cornet was used to supply the want of
treble voices.
Evelyn, in his Memoirs, (21 Dec. 1663,) complains of violins being
substituted in the Royal Chapel, “instead of the ancient, grave, and
solemn wind-music, accompanying the organ:” and that “we no more heard
the _cornet_, which gave life to the organ, that instrument quite left
off, in which the English were so skilful.”—_Jebb._
CORPORAL. This is the name given to the linen cloth which is spread over
the body, (_corpus_,) or consecrated bread, after the communion. It was
of common use in the Church in the fifth century, as is evident from the
testimony of Isidore of Pelusium, who observes that the design of using
it was to represent the body of our SAVIOUR being wrapped in fine linen
by Joseph of Arimathea.
The direction concerning this “fair linen cloth” in our Order of the
Holy Communion is as follows: “When all have communicated, the minister
shall return to the LORD’S table, and reverently place upon it what
remaineth of the consecrated elements, covering the same with a fair
linen cloth.” Our reformers may have been influenced in their retention
of this decent ceremony after consecration, as a protest against the
elevation of the host, and “gazing” at the sacrament.
CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF. A Roman festival, instituted by Pope Urban
IV., A. D. 1264, and observed on the Thursday of the week after
Pentecost. The institution was the natural result of the acceptance of
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Hildebert of Tours was the first who
made use of the high-sounding term _transubstantiatio_. Most of the
earlier scholastics, and the disciples of Lanfranc in particular, had,
however, previously defended both the doctrine of the change of the
bread into the body of CHRIST, and that of the _accidentia sine
subjecto_; but it was not made an article of faith till the time of
Innocent III. By the institution of the Corpus Christ day, by Urban,
this doctrine was expressed in a liturgical form, and its popularity was
secured. The festival was established in honour of the consecrated host,
and with a view to its adoration. Its origin is connected with some of
those “lying wonders,” in which we read one of the marks of the
scriptural condemnation of the Church of Rome. The Romish legend states
that, in 1230, Juliana, a nun of Liege, while looking at the full moon,
saw a gap in its orb; and, by a peculiar revelation from heaven, learned
that the moon represented the Christian Church, and the gap the want of
a certain festival—that of the adoration of the body of CHRIST in the
consecrated host—which she was to begin to celebrate, and announce to
the world. In 1264, while a priest at Bolsena, who did not believe in
the change of the bread into the body of CHRIST, was going through the
ceremony of benediction, drops of blood fell on his surplice, and when
he endeavoured to conceal them in the folds of his garment, formed
bloody images of the host. The bloody surplice is still shown as a relic
at Civita Vecchia. It was in this year that Pope Urban published his
bull, and it is with such authority that the Church of Rome is
contented!
CORSNED. (See _Ordeal_.)
COUNCILS. (See _Synod_.) _General_ or _œcumenical_ councils, or synods,
are assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Church, to determine
some weighty controversies of faith or discipline. Of such councils the
Catholic or Universal Church has never received or approved more than
six, although the Romish Church acknowledges several others. This is one
of the many instances in which the Romish Church is at variance with the
Catholic Church. The first Catholic Council is that of Nice, which was
convened by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325, to terminate the
controversy raised by Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, who denied the
Divinity of the SON of GOD, maintaining that he was a creature brought
forth from nothing, and susceptible of vice and virtue. The council
condemned his doctrine as heretical, and declared the faith of the
Church in that celebrated creed called the Nicene Creed, which is
repeated by us in the Communion Service, and which has, ever since its
promulgation, been received and venerated by the Universal Church, and
even by many sects and heretics. This council also made several
regulations in matters of discipline. The second general council was
that of Constantinople, assembled by the emperor Theodosius the Elder,
in 381, to appease the troubles of the East. The heresy of Macedonius,
who blasphemously taught that the HOLY GHOST was a creature, was herein
anathematized, and the Nicene Creed was brought into its present form by
the addition of some passages concerning the orthodox doctrine of the
incarnation, and of the real Divinity of the HOLY GHOST. The third
general council was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, by the emperor
Theodosius the Younger, to determine the controversy raised by
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who declaimed against the title of
_Theotokos_, (Mother of GOD,) which the Church had long applied to the
mother of him who was both GOD and man; and taught that the Son of man
and GOD the Word were different persons, connected only by a moral or
apparent union, contrary to the Scripture, which declared that “the Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and that GOD purchased the Church
“with his own blood.” (Acts xx. 28.) By this council the Nestorian
heretics were condemned. The fourth general council was assembled by the
emperor Marcian, in 451, at Chalcedon. This council published a
confession, or definition of faith, in which the doctrine and creed of
the three preceding Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, were
confirmed, and the orthodox doctrine of the existence of two perfect and
distinct natures, the Divine and human, in the unity of the person of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, was clearly defined. Eutyches, and Dioscorus
bishop of Alexandria, who maintained that there was only one nature in
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, after the incarnation or union of the Divinity
and humanity, were condemned as heretics by this council. The fifth
general council, commonly called the Second Council of Constantinople,
was convened by the emperor Justinian, in 553; but it is only to be
viewed as a supplement to the third general council, being engaged like
it in condemning the Nestorian heresy. The sixth council, called the
Third Council of Constantinople, was assembled in 680, by the emperor
Constantine Pogonatus. It stands in the same relation to the fourth
council that the fifth does to the third. “These are the only councils,”
says Mr. Palmer, “which the Universal Church has ever received and
approved as general.” The doctrine of these general councils, having
been approved and acted on by the whole body of the Catholic Church, and
thus ratified by an universal consent, which has continued ever since,
is irrefragably true, unalterable, and irreformable; nor could any
Church forsake or change the doctrine without ceasing to be Christian.
In the act of the first of Elizabeth ... the commissioners, in their
judgment of heresies, were enjoined to adhere, in the first place, to
the authority of the canonical Scriptures; secondly, to the decisions of
the first four general councils; and thirdly, to the decision of any
other general council, founded on the _express_ and _plain_ words of
Holy Scripture. In this act, one particular deserves, and demands, very
special attention; namely, the unqualified deference paid to the first
four general councils. The latest of these councils sat and deliberated
in the year 451. A point of time, therefore, is fixed, previously to
which the Church of England unreservedly recognises the guidance of the
Catholic Church, in the interpretation of Christian verities.—_Bishop
Jebb, Appendix to Practical Sermons._
_Provincial_ councils consist of the metropolitan and the bishops
subject to him. _Diocesan_ councils are assemblies of the bishop and his
presbyters to enforce canons made by general or provincial councils, and
to consult and agree upon rules of discipline for themselves. (For an
account of the Romish councils, see _Lateran_. For the authority of
councils in the Church of England, see _Heresy_.)
COUNSEL. Besides the common signification of the word, it is frequently
used in Scripture to signify the designs or purposes of GOD, or the
orders of his providence. (Acts iv. 28, and Psalm lxxiii. 24.) It also
signifies his will concerning the way of salvation. (Luke vii. 30; Acts
xx. 27.)
This word is also used by the doctors of the Romish Church, to denote
those precepts which they hold to be binding upon the faithful, in
virtue of an implied direction or recommendation of our LORD and his
apostles. Thus the celibacy of the clergy is numbered by them among
“evangelical counsels,” which, receiving the acceptance of the Church,
they hold, heretically, to be equally binding with the commands of
canonical Scripture.
COURT CHRISTIAN. The ecclesiastical courts are so designated. In the
Church of England there are six spiritual courts.
1. _The Archdeacon’s Court_, which is the lowest, and is held in such
places where the archdeacon, either by prescription or composition, has
jurisdiction in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes within his
archdeaconry. The judge of this court is called the official of the
archdeaconry.
2. The _Consistory Courts_ of the archbishops and bishops of every
diocese, held in their cathedral churches, for trial of all
ecclesiastical causes within the diocese. The bishop’s chancellor or
commissary is the judge.
3. The _Prerogative Court_, held at Doctors’ Commons, in London, in
which all testaments and last wills are proved, and administrations upon
the estates of intestates granted, where the party dies beyond seas or
within his province, leaving _bona notabilia_.
4. The _Arches Court_, (so called because anciently held in the _arched_
church of St. Mary, in Cheapside, London,) is that which has
jurisdiction upon appeal in all ecclesiastical causes, except what
belong to the Prerogative Court. The judge is the official principal of
the archbishop.
5. The _Court of Peculiars_, of the archbishop of Canterbury,
subservient to, and in connexion with, that of the Arches.
6. The _Court of Delegates_, so called because the judges are delegated
and sit in virtue of the king’s commission, under the great seal, _pro
hac vice_, upon appeals to the king on ecclesiastical matters. The
powers of this court are now in England transferred to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. It remains in Ireland. (See _Delegates_,
and _Appeal_.)
COVENANT. A mutual agreement between two or more parties. (Gen. xxi.
32.) In the Hebrew the word signifies, 1. A disposition, dispensation,
institution, or appointment of GOD to man. (Hebrews ix. 16, 17, 20.) 2.
The religious dispensation or institution which GOD appointed to Abraham
and the patriarchs. (Acts iii. 25; Luke i. 72; Acts vii. 8.) 3. The
dispensation from Sinai. (Heb. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 24.) 4. The
dispensation of faith and free justification, of which CHRIST is the
MEDIATOR, (Heb. vii. 22–viii. 6,) and which is called _new_ in respect
of the _old_ or Sinai covenant, (2 Cor. iii. 6; Heb. viii. 8, 13; ix.
15,) and whence the New Covenant or Testament became the title of the
books in which this new dispensation is contained. Into this covenant we
are admitted by union with CHRIST; and into union with CHRIST all
infants, and such adults as are properly qualified by faith and
repentance, may be admitted in holy baptism. (Gal. iii. 27.) 5. The old
dispensation is used for the books of Moses containing that dispensation
by St. Paul. (2 Cor. iii. 14.)
We renew our baptismal covenant in our confirmation, and in each
faithful participation of the eucharist.
COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. This is said to be the mutual stipulation
between the everlasting FATHER and the co-eternal SON, relating to the
salvation of our fallen race, previously to any act upon the part of
CHRIST under the character of Mediator. That there was such a covenant,
either tacit or express, we may assuredly conclude, from the importance
of the work undertaken by GOD the Son, and the awful sacrifice made for
its accomplishment. All the prophecies which relate to what was to be
done by the MESSIAH on the one hand, and the benefits and rewards which
were to be conferred upon him and his people on the other, may properly
be considered as intimations of such a covenant. (1 Pet. i. 11. Compare
John xvii. 1–5, 14; vi. 37; Tit. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8; Ps.
lxxxix. 19.)
By this covenant, the everlasting SON, who, with the FATHER and the HOLY
SPIRIT, is without beginning, GOD of God, Light of light, very GOD of
very God, undertook to become incarnate, to dwell a certain time upon
earth, subject to the law of human nature; directing his whole conduct
while he should continue here, in such a manner as most effectually to
promote the honour of his Father and the salvation of his people; that
at length he would voluntarily deliver himself to sufferings and death,
and remain for a time in the grave; thereby, in human nature, offering a
satisfaction to the law of perfect obedience to the will of the Creator,
which human nature had violated, and removing the obstacle to the
operation of Divine mercy, which Divine justice interposed; also, that,
after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, he would employ his
renewed life as the GOD-Man, and his extensive authority in the
mediatorial kingdom, to the same great purposes which engaged him to
become incarnate. (Ps. xl. 6–9; Heb. x. 5–10; Isa. lxi. 1–3; Luke iv.
18; Isa. i. 5, 6.) GOD the Father, on the other hand, stipulated to
produce a human body for his co-eternal SON, in the womb of the Virgin;
that he would strengthen his human nature by the gifts and graces of the
HOLY SPIRIT, for the extraordinary work before him; that he would raise
him from the dead, and elevate his human nature to the right hand of
power; and that he would accept the atonement when offered. It is added,
that GOD the Holy Ghost stipulated to regenerate, renew, and sanctify
those of mankind, whom GOD the Father gave to his Son. (Besides the
texts given above, see Isa. vii. 14; xi. 2, &c.; lii. 13–15; liii.
10–12; lv. 4, 5; xlix. 1–12, compared with Luke ii. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 2;
Rev. vii. 16, 17; Ps. ii. 7–9; Luke xxii. 29; John v. 22–29; Heb. xii.
2.)
COVENANT, in ecclesiastical history, denotes a contract or convention
agreed to by the Scots in 1638, for maintaining the Presbyterian
religion free from innovation. In 1581, the general assembly of Scotland
drew up a confession of faith, or national covenant, condemning the
episcopal government of the Christian Church, under the name of
hierarchy. It was signed by James VI., who was compelled to enjoin it
upon all his subjects. It was again subscribed in 1590 and 1596; and, in
1638, it was taken with an oath on the part of the subscribers, to
maintain religion in the state it was in in 1580. The oath annexed to
the confession of faith received the name of _Covenant_, and those who
subscribed it were called _Covenanters_. (See _Confession of Faith_,
_Westminster_.)
CREDENCE, or CREDENTIAL. A table or shelf near the altar, on which the
bread and wine to be used in the eucharist are placed, previously to
consecration, called in the Greek Church τράπεζα προθεσέος, _mensa
propositionis_. The table of Prothesis in the Greek Church is placed in
a side vestry; and here many prefatory prayers and ceremonies are
performed, before the priest goes into the chancel. The word _credence_
appears to be derived from the Italian “_credenzare_,” to taste meats
and drink before they were offered to be enjoyed by another; an ancient
court practice, which was performed by the cup-bearers and carvers, who
for this reason were also called in German _credenzer_. Hence also the
_credenz-teller_—credence-plate, on which cup-bearers _credenced_ the
wine; and, in general, a plate on which a person offers anything to
another: _credenztisch_, credence-table, a sideboard, an artificial
cupboard with a table for the purpose of arranging in order and keeping
the drinking apparatus therein. (See _Adelung’s German Dictionary_, word
“_Credenzen_.”) This table or shelf is used for the more convenient
observance of the rubric following the Offertory sentences, in which it
is directed: “And when there is a communion, the priest shall THEN place
upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient.”
Where the staff of the clergy is large, the rubric can be conveniently
observed without this aid. Archbishop Laud, (_Troubles and Tryal_, ch.
33,) in his chapel at Lambeth, had a credential, (or side-table,) from
which the elements were fetched, and set reverently upon the communion
table. He defends this, by saying that both Bishop Andrewes and some
other bishops used it so all their time, and no exception taken. From
the plan of the chapel of Bishop Andrewes, in Archbishop Laud’s
possession, and adduced as evidence against him by Prynne, it appears
that the credential was placed on the south side of the communion table,
the vessels for the communion being placed upon it. There are many
credences in various churches; among others, in the collegiate and in
St. John’s churches, Manchester, and in the parish church at Ludlow,
where they have been in use from time immemorial.—_Jebb._
CREED. (See _Apostles’ Creed_, _Athanasian Creed_, _Nicene Creed_.) By
the word _creed_ (from _credo_, I believe) is meant the substance of the
Christian’s faith. There are three creeds recognised by the Catholic
Church,—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
The Latin name for creed is _symbolum_, which signifies a watchword, or
signal in war. Ludolph of Saxony, in his Life of CHRIST, describes the
creeds of the Catholic Church thus: “There are three symbols,
(watchwords or tokens, such as are used among soldiers of a garrison, to
recognise their comrades, and to detect insidious intruders,)—the first
of the Apostles, the second of the Nicene Council, the third of St.
Athanasius; the first for instruction in the faith, the second for the
explanation of the faith, the third for defence of the faith.” Three in
name, but one in fact, and which, except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.
The cause of a gradual adoption of a series of creeds is simply this:
the truth being but one and unvarying, the plain assertion of it is, in
the first instance, all that is necessary, all that can be done for it:
and this was done by the Apostles’ Creed. Error, on the other hand, is
multiform; and consequently, as error upon error continued to rise,
correctives unthought of before were to be found to meet the exigency:
hence the Nicene Creed. Again, subsequent to that, new errors were
broached, the old were revived, clever evasions of the terms of the
existing creeds were invented, the vehemence of opponents was increased;
but all desiring still, with all their mischievous errors, to be within
the pale of the Church, it became still more imperatively necessary to
fence in the Church from such dangers; and the creed called that of St.
Athanasius, was compiled from the logical forms of expression which
prevail in his writings, and those of similar champions of the catholic
faith, and was very soon adopted by the Church as an additional bulwark
to preserve that faith in its original integrity and purity. Luther
calls this creed, “the bulwark of the Apostles’ Creed.”
It is a mistake to imagine that creeds were, at first, intended to
teach, in full and explicit terms, all that should be necessary to be
believed by Christians. They were designed rather for hints and minutes
of the main _credenda_, to be recited by catechumens before baptism; and
they were purposely contrived short, that they might be the more easily
retained in memory, and take up the less time in reciting. Creeds, very
probably, at first, were so far from being paraphrases or explications
of the form of baptism, (or of Scripture texts,) that they went no
farther, or very little farther, than the form itself, and wanted as
much explaining and paraphrasing, in order to be rightly and distinctly
understood, as any other words or forms could do. Hence it was that the
catechumens were to be instructed in the creed, previously to baptism,
for many days together. As heresies gave occasion, new articles were
inserted; not that they were originally of greater importance than any
other articles omitted, but the opposition made to some doctrines
rendered it the more necessary to insist upon an explicit belief and
profession of them.—_Waterland’s Sermons on the Divinity of Christ._
As the apostles had foretold, “false teachers” crept into the Church,
and “privily brought in damnable heresies, denying the LORD that bought
them,” even “the only LORD GOD, and our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” (2 Pet. ii.
1, and Jude 4.) As these spread their poison, it became necessary to
provide an antidote; for which purpose it was wisely ordered, that
creeds, or summaries of the Christian faith, should be drawn up, and
published for general use.—_Waldo._
As to the primitive Churches, their constant way was to enlarge their
creeds in proportion to the growth of heresies, that so every corruption
arising to the faith of CHRIST might have an immediate remedy. The
design was to keep up, as strictly as possible, the whole fabric of the
Christian faith as it stands in Scripture; and if any part came to be
attacked, they were then to bend all their cares to succour and relieve
that part, in order still to secure the whole. The sum of Christian
practice is contained in two brief rules,—to love GOD, and to love one’s
neighbour. But mistakes and perverse sentiments may arise; to correct
and remove which it may be necessary to enlarge the rule of practice,
and to branch it out into many other particulars.—_Waterland on the
Athanasian Creed._
If our creeds be found fault with for not being expressed in scriptural
terms only, let them bear the blame who, by an artful misapplication of
Scripture terms at first, made it necessary for the guardians of the
faith to express the Scripture doctrine in other terms, more explicit,
and not so liable to be perverted and abused.—_Wheatly on the Creeds._
We must ever lament that the misapplied curiosity of men should have
made it at all necessary to enlarge upon mysterious doctrines. It might
have been fortunate for the peace and tranquillity of the Christian
Church, if the Apostles’ Creed had been sufficient. But since men will
be “wise above what is written,” some remedy must be found out, which
may either satisfy or restrain their curiosity. And whoever peruses the
several parts of the Athanasian Creed will find, that, so far from
creating minute inquiries concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, it is
more especially calculated to discountenance and prevent them. Sublime
truths require modesty and caution in our expressions; and whatever
checks presumption, prepares the mind for the reception of sound and
useful doctrine. The abuse of Scriptural language first occasioned a
deviation from it in creeds, and common candour will compel all parties
to acknowledge the difficulty of finding proper words to express so much
as it was intended for us to know, and no more.—_Croft’s Bamp.
Lectures._
CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. A succinct and explicit summary of the doctrine
contained in the canons of the Council of Trent, is expressed in the
creed which was published by Pius IV. in 1564, in the form of a bull,
and which usually bears his name. It is received throughout the whole
Roman Catholic Church; every person who is admitted into the Roman
Catholic Church publicly reads and professes his assent to it. It is by
these additional articles to the Nicene Creed, that the Romish Church
cuts itself off from the Church Catholic, and becomes heretical.
The tenor of it is as follows: “I, N., believe and profess, with a firm
faith, all and every one of the things which are contained in the Symbol
of Faith, which is used in the holy Roman Church, viz.
“I believe in one GOD the FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible; and in one LORD JESUS CHRIST,
the only begotten SON of GOD, Light of light, true GOD of true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial to the FATHER, by whom all things
were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the HOLY GHOST of the Virgin Mary, and was made
man, was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was
buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and
ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the FATHER, and will
come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom
there will be no end; and in the HOLY GHOST, the LORD and Life-giver,
who proceeds from the FATHER and the SON; who, together with the FATHER
and the SON, is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the
remission of sins, and I expect the resurrection of the body, and the
life of the world to come. Amen.
“I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical
traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same
Church.
“I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the
holy mother Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge
of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I
ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.
“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of
the new law, instituted by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, and for the salvation
of mankind, though all are not necessary for every one; viz. baptism,
confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony,
and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and
order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.
“I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic Church,
received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above-said
sacraments.
“I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been
defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent, concerning original
sin and justification.
“I profess likewise, that in the mass is offered to GOD a true, proper,
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the
most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and
substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity,
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and that there is made a conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance
of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
transubstantiation.
“I confess also, that, under either kind alone, whole and entire, CHRIST
and a true sacrament is received.
“I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls
detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
“Likewise that the saints reigning together with CHRIST, are to be
honoured and invocated, that they offer prayers to GOD for us, and that
their relics are to be venerated.
“I most firmly assert, that the images of CHRIST, and of the Mother of
_God_ ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and
retained; and that due honour and veneration are to be given to them.
“I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by CHRIST in the
Church; and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
“I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother
and mistress of all Churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to
the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles,
and vicar of JESUS CHRIST.
“I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered,
defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and
particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and likewise I also condemn,
reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies
whatsoever condemned and anathematized by the Church.
“This true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and swear most
constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with GOD’S
assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”
CRESSELLE. An instrument of wood, made use of in the Romish Church
during Passion week, instead of bells, to give notice of Divine service.
This is done in imitation of the primitive Christians, who, they
suppose, made use of such an instrument, before the invention of bells,
to call their brethren secretly to prayers. There are mysteries in the
_Cresselle_. It represents CHRIST praying on the cross, and calling
nations to his preaching; as also his humility, &c.—_Jebb._
CREST. (In ecclesiastical architecture.) An ornamental finish at the top
of a screen, or other subordinate feature.
CROSIER. A crosier is the pastoral staff of an archbishop, and is to be
distinguished from the pastoral staff of a bishop; the latter
terminating in an ornamented crook, while the crosier always terminates
in a cross. At the end of the Common Prayer Book established in the
second year of Edward VI., which is referred to as still obligatory, so
far as the ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof are
concerned, in the rubric immediately before the Morning Prayer it is
ordered,—“Whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion, or
execute any other public office, he shall have upon him, besides his
rochet, an alb, and cope or vestment, _and also his pastoral staff in
his hand, or else borne by his chaplain_.”
CROSS. The cross was the instrument of death to our most blessed LORD
and SAVIOUR, and it has been considered in all ages by the Church as the
most appropriate emblem, or symbol, of the Christian religion. The sign
of the cross was made in the primitive Church in some part of almost
every Christian office. The Church of England, in the constitutions of
1603, has a long canon (the 30th) on this subject, wherein it is said:
“The HOLY GHOST, by the mouths of the apostles, did honour the name of
the cross, being hateful among the Jews, so far that, under it, he
comprehended not only CHRIST crucified, but the force, effects, and
merits of his death and passion, with all the comforts, fruits, and
promises which we receive or expect thereby. Secondly, the honour and
dignity of the name of the cross begat a reverent estimation even in the
apostles’ times, for aught that is known to the contrary, of the sign of
the cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions;
thereby making an outward show and profession, even to the astonishment
of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their
LORD and SAVIOUR, who died for them upon the cross. And this sign they
not only used themselves, with a kind of glory, when they met with any
Jews, but signed therewith their children, when they were christened, to
dedicate them by that badge to his service, whose benefits bestowed upon
them in baptism, the name of the cross did represent. And this use of
the sign of the cross was held in the primitive Church, as well by the
Greeks as by the Latins, with one consent, and great applause. At which
time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly
have been censured as enemies of the name of the cross, and consequently
of CHRIST’S merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure. This
continual and general use of the sign of the cross, is evident by many
testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Thirdly, it must be confessed that,
in process of time, the sign of the cross was greatly abused in the
Church of Rome, especially after that corruption of Popery had once
possessed it. But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use
of it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to
forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any
such like Churches, in all things that they held and practised, that, as
Bishop Jewel’s “Apology of the Church of England” confesseth, it doth
with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the
Church of GOD, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from
them in those particular points wherein they were fallen, both from
themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical Churches
which were their first founders. In which respect, amongst some other
very ancient ceremonies, the sign of the cross in baptism hath been
retained in this Church, both by the judgment and practice of those
reverend fathers and grave divines in the days of King Edward VI., of
whom some constantly suffered for the profession of the truth; and
others, being exiled in the time of Queen Mary, did, after their return,
in the beginning of the reign of our late dread sovereign, continually
defend and use the same.”
The sign of the cross is appointed to be used at baptism. After the
priest hath baptized the child, he receives it into the congregation, by
this solemnity declaring that he is by baptism made a member of the
Church. (1 Cor. xii. 13.) “We are all baptized into one body.” And when
he thus receives it, he signs it with the sign of the cross, as of old
it was wont, according to St. Augustine; and on the forehead, the seat
of blushing and shame, that he may not hereafter blush and be ashamed of
the disgraced cross of CHRIST, as St. Cyprian saith. By this badge is
the child dedicated to his service, whose benefits, bestowed upon him in
baptism, the name of the cross in Holy Scripture does represent.
Whosoever desires to be fully satisfied concerning the use of the cross
in baptism, let him read the thirtieth canon of our Church, in the year
1603.—_Bp. Sparrow._
The Church, studious to retain this ancient and universal ceremony of
the purest primitive times, was also careful to decline all fear of
superstitious intendment; as if she thought the sacrament imperfect
without it. Therefore, whereas the primitive mode made it to usher in
baptism, our Church inverted the order, and made it come after, and so
to follow it, as she expressly first declareth, “the child to be
received into the congregation of _Christ’s_ flock, as a perfect member
thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the cross.” (Canon
30.) And further to assure all distrustful minds, that she maketh it not
of the substance of the sacrament, she hath totally omitted it in the
office of private baptism.—_L’ Estrange._
The child, being now baptized, is become a member of the Christian
Church, into which the minister (as a steward of GOD’S family) doth
solemnly receive it; and, for the clearer manifestation that it now
belongs to CHRIST, solemnly signs it in the forehead with the sign of
the “cross.” For the better understanding of which primitive ceremony,
we may observe, that it was an ancient rite for masters and generals to
mark the foreheads or hands of their servants and soldiers with their
names or marks, that it might be known to whom they did belong; and to
this custom the angel in the Revelation is thought to allude: “Hurt not
the earth, &c., till we have sealed the servants of our GOD in their
foreheads” (Rev. vii. 3): thus again the retinue of the LAMB are said to
“have his FATHER’S name written in their foreheads” (chap. xiv. 1). And
thus, lastly, in the same chapter, as CHRIST’S flock carried his mark on
their foreheads, so did his great adversary the beast sign his servants
there also: “If any man shall receive the mark of the beast in his
forehead, or in his hand,” &c. (ver. 9). Now that the Christian Church
might hold some analogy with those sacred applications, she conceived it
a most significant ceremony in baptism, (which is our first admission
into the Christian profession,) that all her children should be signed
with the cross on their foreheads, signifying thereby their consignment
up to CHRIST; whence it is often called by the ancient Fathers, the
“LORD’S signet” and “CHRIST’S seal.”—_Wheatly._
The true sense and intention of the Church of England in appointing this
sign appears from Dr. Burgess’s sense of the matter, which was accepted
by King James the First, and affirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury
[Bancroft] to be the sense of the Church. His words are these which
follow:—“I know it is not made any part of the sacrament of baptism,
which is acknowledged by the canon to be complete without it, and not
perfected or bettered by it.
“I understand it not as any sacramental, or operative, or efficacious
sign bringing any virtue to baptism, or the baptized.
“Where the book says, ‘and do sign him with the sign of the cross in
token,’ &c., I understand the book not to mean, that the sign of the
cross has any virtue in it to effect or further this duty; but only to
intimate and express by that ceremony, by which the ancients did avow
their profession of CHRIST crucified, what the congregation hopeth and
expecteth hereafter from the infant; namely, that he shall not be
ashamed to profess the faith of CHRIST crucified, into which he was even
now baptized.
“And therefore also when the 30th canon saith, that the infant is ‘by
that sign dedicated unto the service of CHRIST,’ I understand that
dedication to import, not a real consecration of the child, which was
done in baptism itself; but only a ceremonial declaration of that
dedication, like as the priest is said to make clean the leper, whose
being clean he only declared.”
The Church’s use of the sign of the cross and her expressions concerning
it, are fairly capable of this construction; and so authentic a
declaration is sufficient to satisfy any sober inquirer, that this sense
not only may be, but ought to be, received.—_Dr. Bennet._
The heathens were wont to deride the Christians, and to speak
disdainfully of them, as worshippers of a malefactor crucified. To
encounter which reproach, and to show that they “gloried in the cross of
CHRIST,” (Gal. vi. 14,) taking it to be an honour, not an ignominy; they
assumed this ceremony of signing themselves with the cross, both in
baptism, and at several other times. And this sign being significant of
a duty to be elicited by future practice, good reason had our Church to
continue it.—_L’ Estrange._
It is, in brief, a mark, by which we, as the primitive Christians did,
declare our religion, and no more than that, wherewith we conclude all
our prayers and thanksgivings, when we say through JESUS CHRIST our LORD
and SAVIOUR.—_Clutterbuck._
Upon the whole, the ceremony is exceeding proper, and very innocent;
used by most Christians; approved by all the ancients, and by some of
the most eminent reformed divines expressly; and condemned by no Church:
so that, if this ceremony be rejected by any, they ought to consider
that the fault is in themselves, not in the thing, at which offence is
taken, but none justly given, if the Church be but rightly
understood.—_Dean Comber._
CRUCIFIX. A cross upon which a sculptured or carved image of the body of
our LORD is fastened. It is much used by the Romanists and the Lutheran
Protestants, to excite in their minds a strong idea of our SAVIOUR’S
passion. It has never been used in the Church of England since the
Reformation, on the ground of its having been abused to superstition and
idolatry.
CRUSADE. A name given to the Christian expeditions against the infidels,
for the recovery of the Holy Land out of their hands, because they who
engaged themselves in the undertaking wore a cross on their clothes, and
had one in their standards. There were eight crusades. The first, in
1096, at the solicitation of the Greek emperor and patriarch of
Jerusalem. Peter the Hermit, who was the preacher of this crusade, was
made general of a great army, a thing that did not very well agree with
his profession, being a priest; and all the princes,—Hugo the Great,
count of Vermandois, brother to Philip I. king of France; Robert, duke
of Normandy; Robert, count of Flanders; Raymond, count of Toulouse and
St. Giles; Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, with his brothers,
Baldwin and Eustace; Stephen, count of Chartres and Blois; Hugo, count
of St. Paul, with a great number of other lords, took different ways to
meet at Constantinople. The first who marched his troops was the famous
Godfrey de Bouillon, who had a greater share than any of the rest in
this undertaking, though not the command of the whole army. He commenced
his march Aug. 15, 1096, with 10,000 horse and 70,000 foot; and before
the other princes were come to Constantinople, passing the Hellespont,
besieged Nice, which, notwithstanding the double-dealing of the Greek
emperor Alexis, after six weeks’ siege, was surrendered to him; after
which he victoriously entered Syria and took Antioch. Jerusalem was
taken in 1099, and Godfrey of Bouillon chosen king; a little after which
the Christians gained the famous battle of Ascalon against the sultan of
Egypt; which victory put an end to the first crusade; for the princes
and lords, with those who followed them, believing they had fully
accomplished the vow they had made, took their leave of Godfrey, and
returned to their respective countries.
The second crusade was in 1144, and this was headed by the emperor
Conrad III. and Louis VII. of France: the emperor’s army was either
destroyed by the enemy, or perished through the treachery of the Greek
emperor and his brother-in-law; and the second army, through the
unfaithfulness and treachery of the Christians of Syria, was forced to
quit the siege of Damascus.
The third crusade was in 1188, after the taking of Jerusalem by Saladin,
sultan of Egypt. The most distinguished persons engaged in this
expedition were the emperor Frederick Barbarossa; Frederick, duke of
Swabia, his second son; Leopold, duke of Austria; Berthold, duke of
Moravia; Herman, marquis of Baden; the counts of Nassau, Thuringen,
Meissen, and Holland, and above sixty more of the chief princes of the
empire, with divers bishops. Barbarossa, in spite of the emperor of
Constantinople, having got into Asia Minor, defeated the sultan at
Iconium, but, drawing near to Syria, sickened and died in 1190: however
his son Frederick led the army to Antioch, and joined with Guy, king of
Jerusalem, in the siege of Ptolemais, but, failing of success, he died
soon after, which proved the ruin of his army. Nevertheless, Richard,
king of England, and Philip Augustus, king of France, arriving some
months after in the Holy Land, with a great force, compelled Ptolemais
to surrender, July 12, 1191. After which, Philip returned home in
discontent, while the brave King Richard concluded a peace with Saladin,
upon these conditions,—that all the coast from Joppa to Tyre should be
left to the Christians, and that Saladin should have all the rest of
Palestine, except Ascalon, which was to belong to the party who, at the
end of the truce, obtained possession of it; and that, during the truce,
which was to last three years, three months, three weeks, and three
days, it should be lawful for the Christians to go to Jerusalem in small
companies, to pay their devotions there.
The fourth was undertaken in 1195, by the emperor Henry VI., after
Saladin’s death: his army started for the Holy Land three several ways,
and, he himself at length arriving at Ptolemais, the Christians gained
several battles against the infidels, and took many towns; but the death
of the emperor compelled them to quit the Holy Land, and return into
Germany.
The fifth crusade was published by the artifice of Pope Innocent III. in
1198. Most of the adventurers in this expedition employed themselves in
taking Zara for the Venetians, and afterwards in making war against the
Greek emperor; and those who proceeded to Palestine suffered a defeat in
1204.
The sixth crusade began in 1228, in which the Christians took the town
of Damietta, but were forced to surrender it again. The emperor
Frederick, in 1229, went to the Holy Land, and next year made a peace
with the sultan for ten years, upon these conditions—that the sultan
should deliver to the Christians the towns of Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
Nazareth, Tyre, and Sidon, but the temple of Jerusalem should be left to
the Saracens, to perform the free exercise of their law; after which the
emperor returned home. About 1240, Richard, earl of Cornwall, and
brother to Henry III., king of England, arrived in Palestine, but,
finding all efforts useless, while the Templars and Hospitallers
continued their disputes and private animosities, he, with the advice of
the duke of Burgundy, the great master of the Hospitallers, and chief
persons of the crusade, accepted the advantageous conditions the sultan
offered, whereby the Christians were to enjoy some lands in Palestine,
then in the soldan’s possession. In 1244, the Corasmins, the descendants
of the ancient Parthians, fell upon the Christians in Palestine, and
almost extirpated them.
The seventh crusade was led by St. Louis, king of France, who appeared
before Damietta, after the feast of Whitsuntide, in 1249. He took it,
but after some battles his army was at last defeated, and himself taken
prisoner; after which a truce was concluded for ten years, and the
Christians were to keep what they were in possession of, except
Damietta, which was to be delivered to the sultan for the king’s ransom,
with a great sum of money; this done, the king sailed for Syria, and
having put Acre and other sea-ports in a good condition, returned home
in 1254.
The same prince put himself at the head of the eighth crusade in 1270,
and laying siege to Tunis without success, died there: but his son,
Philip the Bold, and Charles, king of Sicily, afterwards brought the
king of Tunis to agree to a truce for ten years, upon condition that he
should set all the slaves of his kingdom at liberty; that he should give
the Dominican and Franciscan friars leave to preach the gospel in his
territories, and build monasteries, and baptize all those that should
desire it, besides a sum of money to be paid Charles yearly. About this
time, Prince Edward of England arrived at Ptolemais with a small force
of 300 men. He hindered Benzdoctar from laying siege to Ptolemais, but
was obliged soon after to quit the Holy Land on account of his father’s
death, and his consequent succession to the crown of England. In 1291
the town of Ptolemais, or Acre, was taken, and the Christians were
driven out of Syria. Since which time there has been no crusade, though
the popes have more than once attempted to stir up Christians to the
undertaking.
CRYPT. The subterranean vault under any portion of a church. The
original use of the crypt seems to have been to increase the number of
places for altars; they were also sometimes used as places of burial,
not as being set apart for that purpose, but that persons would desire
to be buried before this or that altar, or in some particular place in
the crypt, as they chose any part of the church for the same purpose.
The crypt is generally found under the east end of the church, and it is
often the oldest part of it, and, as such, full of interest to the
student of ecclesiastical architecture and antiquities. It often
contains evidence of the form and extent of the church in its original
condition, which would elsewhere be sought in vain. The most remarkable
crypts in England are those of Canterbury, Gloucester, and Rochester. At
Wrexham and Ripon portions of the Saxon remains are retained in the
crypt, and at York the size and form of the Norman choir is displayed in
the older portion of the crypt.
CULDEES. [_Kelidei_, or _Colidei_.] The name Culdee is derived from the
Gaelic Gille De, (or Irish Ceile De,) which signifies God’s servant.
There is an evident affinity between this and the _cultores Dei_ of the
Latin: and the same affinity has been remarked between many of the Latin
and Gallic words. There seems every reason for believing that the name
of Culdees was bestowed on the indigenous clergy of the country from the
time it was Christianized.—_Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews._
As to the Culdees, it is very certain that there was a sort of monks,
and of secular priests also, who went under that appellation, not only
among the Scots, but among the Britons and Irish, and even also among
the northern English, who were first converted by the Scots,
particularly in the cathedral of York.—_Goodall_, Preliminary Dissert.
prefixed to _Bp. Russell’s_ edition of _Keith’s Scottish Bishops_.
The Culdees were, as far as antiquarians can discover, the first order
of monks that settled in the British Isles; and wherever the Celtic
language was used, whether in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, the name of
Culdee was given to every one, who, relinquishing the temporal pursuits
of life, joined an association of a religious character, for the purpose
of fasting, meditation, and prayer.—_Bishop Russell’s_ Supplement to the
above Dissertation.
The name was not exclusively applied to the followers of St. Columba at
Iona, but establishments of the Culdees were founded by Columba, a
native of Ireland, in 563, and for a long period remained independent of
the see of Rome, and free from the corruptions of that Church. The abbot
of Iona was their head; not that he assumed episcopal authority (for the
superiority of bishops, _quoad spiritualia_, was acknowledged even by
Columba himself, who refused to consecrate the eucharist, as we are told
by Adamnan in his Life of that abbot, in the presence of a bishop); but
because he exercised full authority over his monks _quoad civilia_.—See
_Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews_.
The Colidei, or Culdees in general, (as appears from the old
authorities, and from Ware,) were in fact the ancient collegiate clergy
of Ireland and Scotland; including those who led a monastic life, that
is, under vows of celibacy; yet including communities of cathedral
canons, who were frequently married, though living together near their
cathedral, with an abbot or prior at their head. In Scotland the Culdees
constituted the chapter of several cathedrals, and elected the bishop,
as Mr. Goodall shows from charters and documents still extant. At St.
Andrew’s they were the sole chapter and electors of the bishop till
1140, when canons regular were introduced, who shared the privileges of
the Culdees till 1273. Great jealousy subsisted between these ancient
communities, and the interior secular canons and monks; who in the
course of time expelled or superseded the Culdees. There was no
difference of doctrine however between them; for the Culdees, though
originally independent of Rome, adopted Roman systems, like the other
clergy. The causes of dispute were those differences in discipline, and
those jealousies which have ever prevailed among rival communities. The
Culdees had in many instances a kind of hereditary succession to their
benefices.
Ware (Antiq. of Ireland, chap. xxxvi. sect. 4, ed. Harris) states, that
there were some secular priests, called Colidei, who served in the
cathedral church of Armagh, and their president was called Prior of the
College of the Colidei; and was in the nature of a chanter to that
church: elected by Colidei, and confirmed by the archbishop. (Harris
adds, that it was a body corporate, and had considerable estates, till
these fell to the _Crown_ on the abdication of the community after the
Reformation.) Ware gives other instances in Ireland. The ministers of
York cathedral were called _Colidei_ in the time of Athelstan.
In a fine MS. Antiphonary anciently belonging to Armagh cathedral, and
now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, there are several entries
of the obits of the _Colidei_ of Armagh.
Some derive the name from _Cylle_, which signifies in Gaelic a cell, and
_tee_, or _dee_, a house. But the derivation given above seems the most
consistent with history and tradition.
CUP. (See _Communion in one Kind_.) The sacred vessel in which the
consecrated wine in the LORD’S supper is conveyed to the communicant,
distinguished from the _flagon_, in which the wine is brought to the
altar, and in which, if more than the cup will conveniently hold is
required, it is consecrated. The rubric directs that it shall be
_delivered_ to each communicant.
Rubric. “When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the
bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break
the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall
say the prayer of consecration, as followeth.” And in the prayer of
consecration, “Here he is to take the cup into his hand,” and, “Here to
lay his hand upon every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there
is any wine to be consecrated.”
“The minister that delivereth the cup to any shall say, THE BLOOD OF OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c.
Article 30. “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the lay people;
for both the parts of the LORD’S sacrament, by CHRIST’S ordinance and
commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”
This article is directed against the Romish custom of denying the cup to
the laity, concerning which it may be enough to say, that it is clearly
and confessedly contrary to the custom of the Church; that for twelve
centuries there was no instance to be adduced of any receiving in one
kind at the public celebration of the eucharist; and that it was even
accounted sacrilege to deprive any of either part of our blessed LORD’S
ordinance.—See _Bingham_, xv. 5, and xvi. 6–27.
It appears from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, and from all the
ancient rituals and liturgies, that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper
was, in the early ages of the Church, administered in both kinds, as
well to the laity as to the clergy. The practice of denying the cup to
the laity arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief
that the sacramental bread and wine were actually converted into the
body and blood of CHRIST, naturally produced, in a weak and
superstitious age, an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost
or wasted. To prevent anything of this kind in the bread, small wafers
were used, which were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by
the officiating ministers; but no expedient could be devised to guard
against the occasional spilling of the wine in administering it to large
congregations. The bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was
conveyed by tubes into the mouth, but all in vain; accidents still
happened, and therefore it was determined that the priests should
entirely withhold the cup from the laity. It is to be supposed that a
change of this sort, in so important an ordinance as that of the LORD’S
supper, could not be effected at once. The first attempt seems to have
been made in the twelfth century; it was gradually submitted to, and was
at last established by the authority of the Council of Constance, in the
year 1414; but in their decree they acknowledged that “CHRIST did
institute this sacrament of both kinds, and that the faithful in the
primitive Church did receive both kinds; yet a practice being reasonably
introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom
to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity
only in one kind,” thus presuming to depart from the positive commands
of our LORD respecting the manner of administering the sign of the
covenant between himself and mankind. From that time it has been the
invariable practice of the Church of Rome to confine the cup to the
priests. And it was again admitted at the Council of Trent, that the
LORD’S supper was formerly administered in both kinds to all
communicants, but it was openly contended that the Church had power to
make the alteration, and that they had done it for weighty and just
causes. These causes are not stated in the canon of the council. The
reformed churches, even the Lutheran, which maintains the doctrine of
consubstantiation, restored the cup to the laity. In a convocation held
in the first year of Edward the Sixth’s reign, it was unanimously voted
that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper should be received in both kinds
by the laity as well as the clergy; and therefore it is remarkable that
there was nothing on this subject in the articles of 1552: both this and
the preceding article [the 29th] were added in 1562.—_Bp. Tomline._
Wherever the institution of the Lord’s supper is mentioned, there is not
the least hint that the clergy are to receive it in one manner, and the
laity in another. And if one part of this sacrament be more necessary
than the other, it seems to be the cup; since it represents the blood of
CHRIST, to which remission of sins and our redemption are more often
ascribed in Scripture than to his body. It is trifling in the Romanists
to say that the blood is with the body: since in the eucharist we
commemorate, not the life of our LORD, but his death, in which the blood
was separated from his body; (see 1 Cor. xi. 26; Luke xxii. 19, 20;) and
to represent his blood, thus separated from his body, the cup was
consecrated apart by him. CHRIST himself also seems to have guarded
designedly against this piece of sacrilege of denying the cup to the
laity, by commanding that “all” should drink of the cup. (Matt. xxvi.
27.) And in Mark xiv. 23, it is said, that “_all_ drank of it;” which is
nowhere expressly said of eating the bread. See also 1 Cor. xi. 26–28,
in all which verses the Corinthians in general are expressly required to
“drink of that cup.”—_Archdeacon Welchman. Veneer._
There is not any one of all the controversies that we have with the
Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than
this. And, as there is not any one in which she has acted more visibly
contrary to the gospel than in this, so there is not any one that has
raised higher prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her,
and has possessed mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her
dearer than any other.—_Bp. Burnet._
For the material of the cup, see _Chalice._
CURATE. The person who has the cure of souls in a parish. In this sense
the word is used in the Prayer Book, “all bishops and curates,” as the
word is still employed in France, Spain, &c.
The word is, in common parlance, used to denote the minister, whether
presbyter or deacon, who is employed under the spiritual rector or
vicar, as assistant to him in the same church, or else in a chapel of
ease within the same parish, belonging to the mother church. Where there
is in a parish neither spiritual rector nor vicar, but a clerk employed
to officiate there by the impropriator, this is called a _perpetual
curacy_, and the priest thus employed the _perpetual curate_. The
impropriator, by the terms of his sacrilegious gift, is bound to
“_maintain_” the priest: how far this is complied with by those lay
impropriators who allow the same stipend now that was given 200 or 300
years ago, we need not wait to inquire. The appointment of a curate to
officiate under an incumbent, in his own church, must be by such
incumbent’s nomination of him to the bishop. To every one of these
several kinds of curates, the ordinary’s licence is necessary before he
shall be admitted to officiate.
For by Canon 41, “No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in
any place without examination and admission of the bishop of the
diocese, or ordinary of the place having episcopal jurisdiction, under
his hand and seal, having respect to the greatness of the cure, and
meetness of the party.”
And by the same canon, “If the curates remove from one diocese to
another, they shall not be by any means admitted to serve without
testimony in writing of the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the
place having episcopal jurisdiction, from whence they came, of their
honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the
Church of England.”
By Canon 36, “No person shall be suffered to preach, to catechize, or to
be a lecturer, in any parish church, chapel, or other place, except he
be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese,
and except he shall first subscribe to the three articles specified in
the said canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, the Book of Common
Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles of religion.”
And by Canon 37, “None who hath been licensed to preach, read, lecture,
or catechize, and shall afterwards come to reside in another diocese,
shall be permitted there to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or
administer the sacraments, or to execute any other ecclesiastical
function, by what authority soever he be thereunto admitted, unless he
first consent and subscribe to the three articles before mentioned, in
the presence of the bishop of the diocese wherein he is to preach, read,
lecture, catechize, or administer the sacraments as aforesaid.”
He must also, within two months, or at the time when he reads the
morning and evening prayers as aforesaid, (on the like pain of
deprivation _ipso facto_,) read and assent to the Thirty-nine Articles,
if it be a place with cure. (13 Eliz. c. 12. 23 Geo. II. c. 28.)
A curate not licensed may be removed at pleasure; but, if licensed, he
can be removed only by the consent of the bishop, or where the rector or
vicar does the duty himself.
By the 76th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted as follows:
“And be it enacted, that in every case where a curate is appointed to
serve in any benefice upon which the incumbent either does not reside,
or has not satisfied the bishop of his full purpose to reside during
four months of the year, such curate shall be required by the bishop to
reside within the parish or place in which such benefice is situate, or
if no convenient residence can be procured within such parish or place,
then within three statute miles of the church or chapel of the benefice
in which he shall be licensed to serve, except in cases of necessity, to
be approved of by the bishop, and specified in the licence, and such
place of residence shall also be specified in the licence.”
By the 81st section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it
enacted, that every bishop to whom any application shall be made for any
licence for a curate to serve for any person not duly residing upon his
benefice, shall, before he shall grant such licence, require a statement
of all the particulars by this act required to be stated by any person
applying for a licence for non-residence; and in every case in which
application shall be made to any bishop for a licence for any
stipendiary curate to serve in any benefice, whether the incumbent be
resident or non-resident, such bishop shall also require a declaration
in writing, to be made and subscribed by the incumbent and the curate,
to the purport and effect that the one _bonâ fide_ intends to pay, and
the other _bonâ fide_ intends to receive, the whole actual stipend
mentioned in such statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or
consideration for the use of the glebe house, and without any other
deduction or reservation whatever.”
By the 83rd section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it
enacted, that it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese, and he
is hereby required, subject to the several provisions and restrictions
in this act contained, to appoint to every curate of a non-resident
incumbent such stipend as is specified in this act; and every licence to
be granted to a stipendiary curate, whether the incumbent of the
benefice be resident or non-resident thereon, shall specify the amount
of the stipend to be paid to the curate; and in case any difference
shall arise between the incumbent of any benefice and his curate
touching such stipend, or the payment thereof, or of the arrears
thereof, the bishop, on complaint to him made, may and shall summarily
hear and determine the same, without appeal; and in case of wilful
neglect or refusal to pay such stipend, or the arrears thereof, he is
hereby empowered to enforce payment of such stipend, or the arrears
thereof, by monition, and by sequestration of the profits of such
benefice.”
The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a curate applying
to be licensed:—
1. A nomination by the incumbent.
The following form of nomination is intended to serve where the
incumbent is non-resident.
“To the Right Reverend —— Lord Bishop of ——.
“I, G. H. of ——, in the county of ——, and your lordship’s diocese of ——,
do hereby nominate E. F., bachelor of arts, (_or other degree_,) to
perform the office of a curate in my church of —— aforesaid; and do
promise to allow him the yearly stipend of ——, to be paid by equal
quarterly payments, [_as to amount of stipend, see_ 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106,
and the latter part of this article,] with the surplice fees, amounting
to —— pounds per annum, (_if they are intended to be allowed_,) and the
use of the glebe house, garden, and offices which he is to occupy (_if
that be the fact; if not, state the reason, and name where and at what
distance from the church the curate purposes to reside_): and I do
hereby state to your lordship, that the said E. F. does not serve any
other parish, as incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral
preferment or benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or
chapel (_if however, the curate does serve another church as incumbent,
or as curate, or has any cathedral preferment, or a benefice, or
officiates in any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be
correctly and particularly stated_): that the net annual value of my
said benefice, estimated according to the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, ss. 8
& 10, is ——, and the population thereof, according to the latest returns
of population made under the authority of parliament is ——; that there
is only one church belonging to my said benefice (_if there be another
church or chapel, state the fact_); and that I was admitted to the said
benefice on the —— day of ——, 18—.
“Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and ——
[_Signature and address of_] G. H.”
_Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination._
“We the before-named G. H. and E. F. do declare to the said Lord Bishop
of ——, as follows: namely, I the said G. H. do declare, that I _bonâ
fide_ intend to pay, and I the said E. F. do declare that I _bonâ fide_
intend to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in the foregoing
nomination and statement, without any abatement in respect of rent, or
consideration for the use of the glebe house, garden, and offices,
thereby agreed to be assigned, and without any other deduction or
reservation whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[_Signatures of_] G. H. and E. F.”
The following form of nomination is proposed where the incumbent is
resident.
The same form as the preceding, so far as “quarterly payments;” then
proceed as follows: “And I do hereby state to your lordship, that the
said E. F. intends to reside in the said parish, in a house (_describe
its situation so as clearly to identify it_) distant from my church ——
mile (_if E. F. does not intend to reside in the parish, then state at
what place he intends to reside, and its distance from the said
church_); and that the said E. F. does not serve any other parish as
incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral preferment or
benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or chapel (_if,
however, the curate does serve another parish, as incumbent or as
curate, or has any cathedral preferment or a benefice, or officiates in
any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be correctly and
particularly stated_).
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and ——.
[_Signature and address of_] G. H.”
_Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination._
The declaration to be signed by the incumbent and curate is to be in the
same form as that given above, so far as the word “statement;” after
which, proceed as follows: “Without any deduction or reservation
whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[_Signatures of_] G. H. and E. F.”
2. Letters of orders, deacon and priest.
3. Letters testimonial to be signed by three beneficed clergymen, in the
following form:
“To the Rt. Rev. ——, Lord Bishop of ——.
“We, whose names are here under written, testify and make known that A.
B., clerk, bachelor of arts, (_or other degree_,) of —— college, in the
university of ——, nominated to serve the cure of ——, in the county of
——, hath been personally known to us for the space of[A] three years
last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that
during the whole of that time we verily believe that he lived piously,
soberly, and honestly, nor have we at any time heard anything to the
contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe,
held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline
of the United Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe
him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy
to be licensed to the said curacy.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this —— day of ——, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[4]C. D. rector of ——.
E. F. vicar of ——.
G. H. rector of ——.”
To be countersigned, if all or either of the subscribers to the
testimonial are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom it is
addressed, by the bishop of the diocese wherein their benefices are
respectively situate.
On receipt of these papers, the bishop, if he be satisfied with them,
will either appoint the clergyman nominated to attend him, to be
licensed, or issue a commission to some neighbouring incumbent.
Before the licence is granted, the curate is to subscribe the
Thirty-Nine Articles, and the three articles in the 36th canon; to
declare his conformity to the liturgy of the United Church of England
and Ireland, and to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of
canonical obedience:—
“I, E. F., do swear that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the
Lord Bishop of —— in all things lawful and honest. So help me God.”
The licence will be sent by the bishop to the registry-office, and from
thence it will be forwarded to the churchwardens.
Within three months after he is licensed, the curate is to read in the
church the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the
certificate of his having subscribed it before the bishop.
By the 106th section of the Residence Act, (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,) it is
enacted that no spiritual person shall serve more than two benefices in
one day, unless in case of unforeseen and pressing emergency, in which
case he shall forthwith report the circumstance to the bishop.
The directions as to notices to be given for the curate to give up the
cure, are contained in the 95th section of the said act, and for his
quitting the house of residence in the 96th section; and as to notice of
the curate’s intention to relinquish the cure, in the 97th section; and
power is given to the bishop, by the 98th section, to revoke any licence
to a curate, (after having given him sufficient opportunity to show
reason to the contrary,) subject to an appeal to the archbishop of the
province within one month after service of revocation.
(1.) FORM of notice by a _new incumbent_ to a curate to quit curacy,
or to give up possession of house of residence.
“I, A. B., clerk, having been duly admitted to the rectory of ——, in the
county of ——, and diocese of ——, do hereby, in pursuance of the power
and authority for this purpose vested in me by virtue of the act of
parliament passed in the first and second years of her present Majesty’s
reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of benefices in
plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the
clergy,’ give notice to and require you, C. D., clerk, to quit and give
up the curacy of —— aforesaid [_the following to be added where
applicable_, and to deliver up possession of the rectory house of ——
aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances thereto
belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been assigned
to you] at the expiration of six weeks from the giving of this notice to
you.
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”
(2.) FORM of notice by an incumbent, with consent of the bishop, to a
curate to quit curacy, or to give up house of residence.
“I, A. B., clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——,
in pursuance of the power and authority for this purpose vested in me by
virtue of the act of parliament passed in the first and second years of
her present Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of
benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the residence
of the clergy,’ do hereby, with the permission of the Right Reverend ——
Lord Bishop of the diocese of —— aforesaid, signified by writing under
his lordship’s hand, give notice to, and require you, C. D., clerk, my
licensed curate of —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy of
—— [_the following to be added where applicable_, and the rectory house
of —— aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances
thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been
assigned to you] at the expiration of six calendar months from the
giving of this notice to you.[5]
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”
FORM of bishop’s permission to an incumbent to give his curate notice
to quit curacy, or give up possession of house of residence.
(_Applicable to notice No. 2. only._)
“I, ——, Lord Bishop of ——, do hereby, on the application of A. B.,
clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and my diocese of ——, signify
my permission for him to require and direct C. D., clerk, his licensed
curate at —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy [_the
following to be added where applicable_, and to deliver up possession of
the rectory house of —— aforesaid, and the offices, outhouses, gardens,
and appurtenances thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe
land as has been assigned to the said C. D., as such curate] upon six
calendar months’ notice thereof being given to such curate.
Given under my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and
——.”
_Note._—The notice No. 1. applies only to an incumbent newly admitted to
a benefice, and must be given within six months after such admission.
The notice No. 2. applies to every other case of an incumbent requiring
his curate to quit the curacy. The consent of the bishop is required
only in the latter case.
The 112th section of the act referred to in the notices contains
directions as to the mode in which the notice is to be served; and it
directs that “it shall be served personally upon the spiritual person
therein named, or to whom it shall be directed, by showing the original
to him and leaving with him a true copy thereof, or, in case such
spiritual person cannot be found, by leaving a true copy thereof at his
usual or last known place of residence, and by affixing another copy
thereof upon the church door of the parish in which such place of
residence shall be situate.” The notice must, immediately after the
service thereof, be returned into the Consistorial Court, (or the Court
of Peculiars, in the case of an archbishop’s or bishop’s peculiar; see
sect. 108,) and be there filed, together with an affidavit of the time
and manner in which the same shall have been served.
The stipends to be paid to curates by non-resident incumbents must be in
strict conformity with the directions of the act of parliament 1 & 2
Vict. c. 106. Clergymen who were incumbents of benefices before July
20th, 1813, cannot be compelled (see sect. 84) to pay more than £75 per
annum as a stipend to the curates of such benefices, but the bishop may
add to that sum £15 in lieu of a house.
Non-resident incumbents admitted to benefices after the above date, are
to allow stipends according to the following scale, prescribed by the
85th section:
The lowest stipend is £ 80
If the population amount to 300, the stipend is to be 100
If the population amount to 500, the stipend is to be 120
If the population amount to 750, the stipend is to be 135
If the population amount to 1000, the stipend is to be 150
or the whole value of the benefice, if it does not exceed these sums
respectively. Where the net yearly income of a benefice exceeds £400,
the bishop may (by sect. 86) assign a stipend of £100, notwithstanding
the population may not amount to 300; and if with that income the
population amounts to 500, he may add any sum not exceeding £50 to any
of the stipends payable by the last-mentioned incumbent, where the
curate resides within the benefice, and serves no other cure. Where the
population exceeds 2000, the bishop may require the incumbent to
nominate two curates, with stipends not exceeding together the highest
rate of stipend allowed to one curate.
Incumbents who have become incapable of performing their duties from
age, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, (and to whom, from these or
from any other special and peculiar circumstances, great hardship would
arise if they were required to pay the full stipend,) may (by sect. 87)
be relieved by the bishop, with the consent of the archbishop of the
province.
The bishop may (by sect. 89) direct that the stipend to a curate
licensed to serve two parishes or places shall be less for each by a sum
not exceeding £30 per annum than the full stipend.
All agreements for payment of a less stipend than that assigned by the
licence are (by sect. 90) declared to be void; and if less be paid, the
remainder may be afterwards recovered by the curate or his
representatives. When a stipend, equal to the whole value of a benefice,
is assigned to the curate, he is (by sect. 91) to be liable to all
charges and outgoings legally affecting the benefice; and (by sect. 94)
when such a stipend as last mentioned is assigned, and the curate is
directed to reside in the glebe house, he is to be liable to the taxes,
parochial rates, and assessments of the glebe house and premises; but in
every other case in which the curate shall so reside by such direction,
the bishop may, if he shall think fit, order that the incumbent shall
pay the curate all or any part of such sums as he may have been required
to pay, and shall have paid, within one year, ending at Michaelmas day
next preceding the date of such order for any such taxes, parochial
rates, or assessments, as should become due at any time after the
passing of the act.
For other particulars as to curates’ stipends and allowances, &c., see
the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, from sect. 75 to 102, both inclusive.
CURE. The spiritual charge of a parish, or, in a larger sense, the
parish itself. When Christianity was first planted in this nation, the
bishops were constantly resident at their cathedrals, and had several
clergymen attending them at that place, whom they sent to preach and
convert the people, where there was the greatest probability of success;
and the persons thus sent either returned or continued in those places,
as occasion required, having no fixed cures or titles to particular
places; for being all entered in the bishop’s registry, (as the usual
course then was,) they could not be discharged without his consent.
Afterwards, when Christianity prevailed, and many churches were built,
the cure of souls was limited both as to places and persons. The places
are those which we now call parishes, the extent whereof is certainly
known, and the boundaries are now fixed by long usage and custom. The
parsons are the ministers, who, by presentation, institution, and
induction, are entitled to the tithes and other ecclesiastical profits
arising within that parish, and have the cure of souls of those who live
and reside there: and this the canonists call a cure _In foro interiori
tantum_; and they distinguish it from a cure of souls, _In foro
exterior_i, such as archdeacons have, to suspend, excommunicate, and
absolve, and which is _Sine pastorali cura_: and from another cure,
which they say is _In utroque simul_, that is, both _In exteriori et
interiori foro_: and such the bishop has, who has a superintendent care
over the whole diocese, intermixed with jurisdiction.
[Illustration: [Cusps]]
CUSPS. (In church architecture.) The projecting points from the
foliation of arches or tracery. Cusping first appeared in the Geometric
period, and was continued so long as Gothic architecture was employed.
Besides the more obvious differences arising from the number of cusps,
which, however, it is needless to particularize, there is one very great
peculiarity of the earlier cusping which ought to be clearly understood.
Let the tracery bar consist of three planes, _a_ the wall, _b_ the
chamfer, and _c_ soffit plane (the latter of course not being visible in
the two larger diagrams, which, being elevations, show no line at right
angles to the wall). In the more common cusping, the cusp is formed by
carrying out the whole of the soffit and part of the chamfer plane, and
leaving an unpierced hollow, or _eye_, in the tracery bar, as at A A,
_fig. I_; A A in the section answering to A A in the elevation, and E E
to E E. In the Earlier or Geometrical cusping, the tracery bar is
completed all round, and the cusp carries with it no part either of the
soffit or of the chamfer, but is let into the soffit, always in
appearance, sometimes in fact, as a separate piece of stone, as at B D,
_fig._ II. Here, too, the cusp leaves a free space between itself and
the tracery bar, as at B B B in elevation, and section II. D D D,
representing the place of departure of the cusp from the tracery bar.
This is generally called _soffit_ cusping, from its springing
exclusively from the soffit plane.
DAILY PRAYERS. “All priests and deacons are to say daily the morning and
evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or
some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish
church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably
hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he
ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient
time before he begin, that the people may come to hear GOD’S word, and
pray with him.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._ As this is not
only a direction of the Church, but also part of an act of parliament,
any parishioners desirous of attending daily prayers might compel the
clergyman to officiate, by bringing an action against him, as well as by
complaining to the bishop. For this, of course, there can seldom be any
necessity, as most of the clergy would be too happy to officiate, if
they could secure the attendance of two or three of their parishioners.
By the general practice of the clergy it seems to be decided, that they
are to say the morning and evening prayer in private, if they cannot
obtain a congregation; though, even under those circumstances, the
letter of the rubric seems to direct them to say the offices at church,
if possible. It is a cheering sign of the times, that the number of
instances in which the daily prayers are duly said in church is rapidly
on the increase.
DALMATIC, was formerly the characteristic dress of the deacon in the
administration of the holy eucharist. It was also worn by the bishop at
stated times; and in the Latin Church still forms part of the episcopal
dress, under the chasuble. It is a robe reaching below the knees, and
open at each side for a distance varying at different periods. It is not
marked at the back with a cross like the chasuble, but in the Latin
Church with two narrow stripes, the remains of the _angusti clavi_ worn
on the old Roman dress. In the Greek Church it is called _colobion_, is
covered with a multitude of small crosses, and has no sleeves. The
dalmatic is seen on the effigies of bishops on monuments, and in some
old brasses, over the alb and the stole, the fringed extremities of
which reach just below it. It has received its name from being the regal
vest of Dalmatia. It is the same as the tunicle, which is directed to be
worn according to the rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, by
the priests and deacons who may assist the priest at the holy communion.
Like all the other ecclesiastical vestures, it was curtailed by the
corrupt practice of later ages in the West, so as not to reach further
than the knees.—_Jebb._
DAMNATORY CLAUSES. (See _Athanasian Creed_.)
DANIEL (THE BOOK OF). A canonical book of the Old Testament. Daniel
descended from the royal house of the kings of Judah, and was
contemporary with Ezekiel. (An. 606, before Christ.) He was of the
children of the captivity, being carried to Babylon when he was about
eighteen years of age. His name is not prefixed to his book; yet the
many passages in which he speaks in the first person, are a sufficient
proof that he was the author of it. The style of Daniel is not so lofty
and figurative as that of the other prophets: it is clear and concise,
and his narrations and descriptions simple and natural; in short, he
writes more like an historian than a prophet.
He was a very extraordinary person, and was favoured of God, and
honoured of men, beyond any that had lived in his time. His prophecies
concerning the coming of the Messiah, and the other great events of
after-times, are so clear and explicit, that Porphyry objected to them,
that they must have been written after the facts were done.—_Prideaux,
Connect._ P. I. b. iii. Ann. 534. _Hieron. in Proœm. ad Com. in Dan._
The Jews do not reckon Daniel among the prophets; and the reason they
assign is, because he rather lived the life of a courtier, in the palace
of the king of Babylon, than that of a prophet. They add, that, though
he had Divine revelations given to him, yet it was not in the prophetic
way, but by dreams and visions of the night, which they look upon as the
most imperfect way of revelation, and below the prophetic. But Josephus,
one of the ancientest writers of that nation, reckons him among the
greatest of the prophets, and says further of him, that he conversed
familiarly with God, and not only foretold future events, as other
prophets did, but determined likewise the time when they should come to
pass. But our Saviour, by acknowledging Daniel as a prophet, puts his
prophetic character out of all dispute.—_Maimonid, in More Nevochim_, p.
2, ch. 45. _Huet. Demonstr. Evangel._ Prop. 4, ch. 14. _Joseph. Antiq._
lib. x. ch. 12. Matt. xxiv. 15.
Part of the book of Daniel was originally written in the Chaldee
language; that is, from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the
end of the seventh chapter; and the reason was, because, in that part,
he treats of the Chaldean or Babylonish affairs. All the rest of the
book is in Hebrew.—_Hieron. in Præf. ad Dan._ The Greek translation,
used by the Greek Churches throughout the East, was that of Theodotion.
In the Vulgar Latin Bible, there is added, in the third chapter, after
the twenty-fourth verse, the Song of the Three Children, and, at the end
of the book, the History of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon: the
former is made the thirteenth, and the latter the fourteenth chapter of
the book, in that edition. But these additions were never received into
the canon by the Jews; neither are they extant in the Hebrew or the
Chaldee language, nor is there any proof that they ever were so.
The first six chapters of the book of Daniel are a history of the kings
of Babylon, and what befell the captive Jews under their government. In
the last six, he is altogether prophetical, foretelling, not only what
should happen to his own Church and nation, but events in which foreign
princes and kingdoms were concerned; particularly the rise and downfal
of the four secular monarchies of the world, and the establishment of
the fifth, or spiritual kingdom of the Messiah.
It is believed that Daniel died in Chaldea, and that he did not take
advantage of the permission granted by Cyrus to the Jews of returning to
their own country. St. Epiphanius says he died at Babylon, and herein he
is followed by the generality of historians.
“Amongst the old prophets,” says the great Sir Isaac Newton, “Daniel is
most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and
therefore, in those things which relate to the last times, he must be
made the key to the rest. His prophecies are all of them related to one
another, as if they were but several parts of one general prophecy. The
first is the easiest to be understood, and every following prophecy adds
something new to the former.”—_Observations on Daniel_, pp. 15, 24.
DATARY. An officer in the pope’s court. He is always a prelate, and
sometimes a cardinal, deputed by his Holiness to receive such petitions
as are presented to him, touching the provision of benefices. By his
post, the datary is empowered to grant, without acquainting the pope
therewith, all benefices that do not produce upwards of twenty-four
ducats annually; but for such as amount to more, he is obliged to get
the provisions signed by the pope, who admits him to audience every day.
If there be several candidates for the same benefice, he has the liberty
of bestowing it on which of them he thinks proper, provided he has the
requisite qualifications. The datary has a yearly salary of two thousand
crowns, exclusive of the perquisites, which he receives from those who
apply to him for any benefice. This office has a substitute, named the
_sub-datary_, who is likewise a prelate, and has a yearly pension of a
thousand crowns: but he is not allowed to confer any benefice, without
acquainting the datary therewith. When a person has obtained the pope’s
consent for a benefice, the datary subscribes his petition with an
_annuit sanctissimus_, i. e. _the most holy father consents to it_. The
pope’s consent is subscribed in these words, _Fiat ut petitur_, i. e.
_Be it according to the petition_. After the petition has passed the
proper offices, and is registered, it is carried to the _datary_, who
_dates_ it, and writes these words—_Datum Romæ apud, &c.: Given at Rome
in the pontifical palace, &c._ Afterwards the pope’s bull, granting the
benefice, is despatched by the datary, and passes through the hands of
more than a thousand persons, belonging to fifteen different offices,
who have all their stated fees. The reader may from hence judge how
expensive it is to procure the pope’s bull for a benefice, and what
large sums go into the office of the datary, especially when the
provisions, issued from thence, are for bishoprics, and other rich
benefices.—_Broughton._
DEACON. (See _Bishop_, _Presbyter_, _Priest_, _Orders_, _Clergy_.) The
name Διάκονοι, which is the original word for deacons, is sometimes used
in the New Testament for any one that ministers in the service of GOD:
in which large sense we sometimes find bishops and presbyters styled
deacons, not only in the New Testament, but in ecclesiastical writers
also. But here we take it for the name of the third order of the clergy
in the Church. Deacons are styled by Ignatius, “ministers of the
mysteries of Christ,” adding that they are “not ministers of meats and
drinks, but of the Church of GOD.” In another place he speaks of them as
“ministers of JESUS CHRIST,” and gives them a sort of presidency over
the people, together with the bishops and presbyters. Cyprian speaks of
them in the same style, calling them “ministers of episcopacy and the
Church,” and referring their origin to the Acts of the Apostles; and he
asserts that they were called _ad altaris ministerium_, to the ministry
and service of the altar. Optatus had such an opinion of them as to
reckon their office a lower degree of the priesthood. At the same time
it is to be observed, that in this he was singular. By those who
regarded them as a sacred order, they were generally distinguished from
priests by the name of _ministers_ and _Levites_. The ordination of a
deacon differed in the primitive Church from that of a presbyter, both
in the form and manner of it, and also in the gifts and powers that were
conferred by the ordinance. In the ordination of a presbyter, the
presbyters who were present were required to join in imposition of hands
with the bishop. But the ordination of a deacon might be performed by
the bishop alone, because, as the [fourth] Council of Carthage words it,
he was ordained not to the priesthood, but to the inferior services of
the Church: “quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.” It
belonged to the deacons to take care of the holy table and all the
ornaments and utensils appertaining thereto; to receive the oblations of
the people, and present them to the priest; in some churches, to read
the Gospel both in the communion service and before it also; to minister
the consecrated bread and wine to the people in the eucharist; in some
churches, to baptize; to act as directors to the people in public
worship, for which purpose they were wont to use certain known forms of
words, to give notice when each part of the service began, and to excite
people to join attentively therein; to preach, with the bishop’s
licence; in extreme cases to reconcile the excommunicated to the Church;
to attend upon the bishop, and sometimes to represent him in general
councils. Deacons seem also to have discharged most of the offices which
now devolve upon churchwardens.—_Bingham._
The Church of England enjoins that “none shall be admitted a deacon
except he be twenty-three years of age, unless he have a faculty;” and
she describes the duties of a deacon in her office as follows: “It
appertaineth to the office of a deacon, in the church where he shall be
appointed to serve, to assist the priest in Divine service, and
specially when he ministereth the holy communion, and to help him in the
distribution thereof, and to read Holy Scripture and homilies in the
church; and to instruct the youth in the catechism; in the absence of
the priest to baptize infants, and to preach, if he be admitted thereto
by the bishop. And, furthermore, it is his office, where provision is so
made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish,
to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the
curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved with the alms of
the parishioners, or others.”
In the rubric after the sentences of the Offertory, it is ordered, that
“while these sentences are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or
other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for
the poor,” &c.
The deacon cannot pronounce the absolution, or minister at the holy
communion, except as an assistant. And if the rubrics be strictly
construed according to the letter, neither can he read the versicles
before the Psalms, or after the LORD’S Prayer, (at its second
occurrence,) nor the latter part of the Litany, beginning at the LORD’S
Prayer; nor any part of the Communion Service, except the Gospel, (not
according to the rubric, however, but in virtue of the licence in the
Ordination Service,) the Creed, and the confession. He is permitted to
baptize _only in the absence of the priest_; and perhaps the same remark
may apply to the other occasional offices.
DEACONESS. A woman who served the Church in those offices in which the
deacons could not with propriety exercise themselves. This order was
also appointed in the apostolic age. They were generally widows who had
been only once married, though this employment was sometimes exercised
by virgins. Their office consisted in assisting at the baptism of women,
in previously catechizing and instructing them, in visiting sick persons
of their own sex, and in performing all those inferior offices towards
the female part of the congregation, which the deacons were designed to
execute for the men. St. Paul (Rom. xvi.) speaks of Phœbe as _servant_,
or _deaconess_, of the church at Cenchrea, which was a haven of Corinth.
Deaconesses appear to be the same persons as those whom Pliny, in his
famous letter to Trajan, styles “_ancillæ quæ ministræ dicebantur_;”
that is, “female attendants, called assistants, ministers, or servants.”
It appears, then, that these were customary officers throughout the
churches; and when the fury of persecution fell on Christians, these
were among the first to suffer. They underwent the most cruel tortures,
and even extreme old age was not spared. It is probable that they were
blessed by the laying on of hands, but it is certain they were not
permitted to execute any part of the sacerdotal office. This order
continued in the Greek Church longer than in the Latin. It was generally
disused in the Western Church in the fifth century, but continued in the
Eastern Church until the twelfth. The deacon’s wife appears sometimes to
have been called a deaconess, as the presbyter’s wife was styled
_presbytera_, and the bishop’s wife _episcopa_.
DEAD. (See _Burial of the Dead_.) If all our prayers and endeavours for
our friend prove unavailable for the continuance of his life, we must
with patience submit to the will of GOD, “to whom the issues of life and
death belong:” and therefore, after recommending his soul to GOD, which
immediately upon its dissolution returns to Him, it is fit we should
decently dispose of his body, which is left to our management and care.
Not that the dead are anything the better for the honours which we
perform to their corpses (for we know that several of the ancient
philosophers cared not whether they were buried or not; and the ancient
martyrs of the Christian Church despised their persecutors for
threatening them with the want of a grave). But those who survive could
never endure that the shame of nature should lie exposed, nor see the
bodies of those they loved become a prey to birds and beasts. For these
reasons, the very heathens called it a Divine institution, and a law of
the immortal gods. And the Romans especially had a peculiar deity to
preside over this affair. The Athenians were so strict, that they would
not admit any to be magistrates, who had not taken care of their
parents’ sepulture, and beheaded one of their generals after he had
gotten a victory, for throwing the dead bodies of the slain, in a
tempest, into the sea. And Plutarch relates, that, before they engaged
with the Persians, they took a solemn oath, that, if they were
conquerors, they would bury their foes; this being a privilege which
even an enemy hath a right to, as being a debt which is owing to
humanity.
2. It is true, indeed, the manner of funerals has varied according to
the different customs of several countries; but all civilized nations
have ever agreed in performing some funeral rites or other. The most
ancient manner was by “burying them in the earth;” which is, indeed, so
natural, that some brutes have been observed, by mere instinct, to bury
their dead with wonderful care. The body, we know, was formed of the
dust at first, and therefore it is fit it should “return to the earth as
it was” (Gen. iii. 19; Eccles. xii. 7); insomuch that some heathens
have, by the light of reason, called burying in the earth the being “hid
in our mother’s lap,” and the being “covered with her skirt.” And that
“interment,” or enclosing the dead body in the grave, was used anciently
by the Egyptians and other nations of the East, is plain from the
account we have of the embalming, and from their mummies, which are
frequently found to this day whole and entire, though some of them have
lain above three thousand years in their graves. That the same practice
of burying was used by the patriarchs, and their successors the Jews, we
have abundant testimony from the most ancient records in the world, the
books of Moses; by which we find, that their funerals were performed,
and their sepulchres provided with an officious piety (Gen. xxiii. 4;
xxv. 9; xxxv. 29; xlix. 31); and that it was usual for parents to take
an oath of their children, (which they religiously performed,) that they
should bury them with their fathers, and carry their bones with them,
whenever they quitted their land where they were. (Gen. xlvii. 29–31;
xlix. 29–33; l. 25, 26; Exod. xiii. 19. See also Josh. xxiv. 32; Acts
vii. 16; Heb. xi. 22.) In succeeding ages, indeed, it became a custom in
some places to burn the bodies of the dead; which was owing partly to a
fear that some injury might be offered them if they were only buried, by
digging their corpses again out of their graves; and partly to a
conceit, that the souls of those that were burnt were carried up by the
flames to heaven.
3. But though other nations sometimes used interment and sometimes
burning, yet the Jews confined themselves to the former alone. There is
a place or two indeed in our translation of the Old Testament, (1 Sam.
xxxi. 12; Amos vi. 10,) which might lead us to imagine that the rite of
burning was also used by them sometimes. But upon consulting the
original texts, and the customs of the Jews, it does not appear that the
burnings there mentioned were anything more than the burning of odours
and spices about their bodies, which was an honour they usually
performed to their kings. (2 Chron. xvi. 14; xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5.) So
that, notwithstanding these texts, we may safely enough conclude, that
interment, or burying, was the only rite with them; as it was also in
after-times with the Christian Church. For wherever Paganism was
extirpated, the custom of burning was disused; and the first natural way
of laying up the bodies of the deceased entire in the grave obtained in
the room of it.
4. And this has always been done with such solemnity, as is proper to
the occasion. Sometimes, indeed, it has been attended with an expensive
pomp, that is unseemly and extravagant. But this is no reason why we
should not give all the expressions of a decent respect to the memory of
those whom GOD takes from us. The description of the persons who
interred our SAVIOUR, the enumeration of their virtues, and the
everlasting commendation of her who spent three hundred pennyworth of
spikenard to anoint his body to the burial, have always been thought
sufficient grounds and encouragements for the careful and decent
sepulture of Christians. And, indeed, if the regard due to a human soul,
rendered some respect to the dead a principle that manifested itself to
the common sense of heathens, shall we think that less care is due to
the bodies of Christians, who once entertained a more glorious
inhabitant, and were living temples of the HOLY GHOST? (1 Cor. vi. 19;)
to bodies which were consecrated to the service of GOD; which bore their
part in the duties of religion; fought the good fight of faith and
patience, self-denial and mortification; and underwent the fatigue of
many hardships and afflictions for the sake of piety and virtue;—to
bodies which, we believe, shall one day be awakened again from their
sleep of death; have all their scattered particles of dust summoned
together into their due order, and be “fashioned like to the glorious
body of CHRIST” (Phil. iii. 21; see also 1 Cor. xv. 42–44); as being
made partakers of the same glory with their immortal souls, as once they
were of the same sufferings and good works. Surely bodies so honoured
here, and to be so glorified hereafter, and which too we own, even in
the state of death, to be under the care of a Divine providence and
protection, are not to be exposed and despised by us as unworthy of our
regard. Moved by these considerations, the primitive Christians, though
they made no use of ointments whilst they lived, yet they did not think
the most precious too costly to be used about the dead. And yet this was
so far from being reproached with superstition, that it is ever reported
as a laudable custom, and such as had something in it so engaging, so
agreeable to the notions of civilized nature, as to have a very
considerable influence upon the heathens, who observed and admired it;
it becoming instrumental in disposing them to a favourable opinion at
first, and afterwards to the embracing of the Christian religion, where
these decencies and tender regards to deceased friends and good people,
were so constantly, so carefully, and so religiously practised.—_Dean
Comber._ _Wheatly._
CHRIST’S Church, that is, the whole number of the faithful, is usually
divided into two parts; namely, the Church militant, and the Church
triumphant. By the Church _militant_, or in a state of warfare, we mean
those Christians who are at present alive, and perpetually harassed with
the temptations and assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and
whose life is consequently a continual warfare under the banner of our
blessed SAVIOUR. By the Church _triumphant_, we mean those Christians
who have departed this life in GOD’S true faith and fear; and who now
enjoy in some measure, and after the day of judgment shall be fully
possessed of, that glory and triumph, which is the fruit of their
labours, and the reward of those victories which they obtained over
their spiritual adversaries, during the time of their trial and combat
here upon earth.—_Dr. Bennet._
After the Offertory in the eucharist is said, and the oblations of bread
and wine, with the alms for the poor, are placed upon the table, the
minister addresses this exhortation to the people: “Let us pray for the
whole state of CHRIST’S Church militant here in earth.” The latter part
of this sentence is wanting in Edward’s First Book. The words “militant
here in earth,” which were designed expressly to exclude prayer for the
dead, were inserted in the Second Book, in which that part of this
prayer, which contained intercession for the dead, was expunged. It was
the intention of the divines who made this alteration, to denote that
prayers are not to be offered up for the dead, whose spiritual warfare
is already accomplished; but for those only who are yet “fighting the
good fight of faith,” and are consequently in a capacity of needing our
prayers.—_Shepherd._
Although the doctrine of purgatory be a comparatively modern doctrine,
yet prayers for the _justified_ dead, for the increase of their
happiness, and for our reunion with them, were introduced early into the
Church. But it can be proved:
First. That, the prayers of the primitive Church _for_ the dead, being
especially for those who were accounted saints _par excellence_, and
including even the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles, prayer _to_ the
departed saints, whoever they may be, as it is practised by the churches
under the Roman obedience, must be contrary in theory, as it is in fact,
to the primitive practice; since it were impossible to pray _to_ and
_for_ the same persons.
Secondly. That it was not for the release of the spirit of the departed
from purgatory that the Church supplicated Almighty GOD. For this also
were incompatible with prayer for the Blessed Virgin, and other eminent
saints, of which there was never any doubt but that they were already in
Abraham’s bosom, or even, as in the case of martyrs, in heaven itself.
Thirdly. That works of supererogation formed no part of the system of
primitive theology; since all were prayed for as requiring the mercy of
GOD, though it was not declared to what particular end.
Fourthly. That the use of hired masses for the dead, who may have been
persons of exceeding criminality, and have died in mortal sin, is
utterly at variance with the practice of the Church of old.—See
_Archbishop Usher_ and _Bingham_.
DEADLY SIN. We pray in the Litany to be delivered from “all deadly sin.”
In the strict sense of the word every sin is deadly, and would cause
eternal death if it were not for the intervention of our blessed
SAVIOUR. Even what are called infirmities and frailties, are in this
sense deadly. But persons under grace have for these offences “an
Advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous, and he is the
propitiation for our sins.” (1 John ii. 2.) Their infirmities and
frailties, therefore, if they are trying to overcome them, are not
deadly to persons under grace, or baptized persons justified by faith,
although, if persevered in, and uncorrected, they may terminate in
deadly sin; and they consequently require continual repentance, lest
they should grow into such a fearful burden. But even to persons under
grace we learn, from 1 John v. 16, 17, that there are “sins unto
death,”—which must mean sins that put us out of a state of grace, and
this is done by any wilful sin persevered in. By deadly sin in a
_Christian_ is meant wilful sin, persevered in, which deprives us of all
Christian privileges. (See _Sin_.)
DEAN. Of deans there are two sorts; 1st, the _dean of a cathedral_, who
is an ecclesiastical magistrate, next in degree to the bishop. He is
chief of the chapter, and it is supposed is called a dean, (_Decanus_,)
from a similar title in ancient monasteries, of an officer who presided
over ten monks.
The dean represents the _Archpresbyter_, or _Protopapas_, who all the
world over, from the most ancient times, was found under one
denomination or another in the principal church of the diocese, to which
a body of clergy was uniformly attached. Notre Dame at Paris had a dean
as early as 991 at least. There was a dean of Bangor in 603; of Llandaff
in 612; at Canterbury from 825 to 1080, then the name of Prior was
substituted. Salisbury had its dean in 1072; Lincoln, 1092. In
conventual cathedrals, the head was generally prior, the bishop being
virtually abbot. The dean was the first dignitary of the cathedral; the
head of the corporation; and, in subordination to the bishop, has,
according to the statutes of more ancient cathedrals, the _cure of
souls_ over the members of the cathedral, and the administration of the
corrective discipline of the Church. He has also duties in the choir and
the chapter in common with all the chapter. He is by our law a sole
corporation, that is, he represents a whole succession, and is capable
of taking an estate as dean, and conveying it to his successors. 2nd,
_Rural deans_, whose office is of ancient date in the Church of England,
long prior to the Reformation, as it has been throughout Europe, and
which many of the bishops are now reviving. Their chief duty is to visit
a certain number of parishes, and to report their condition to the
bishop. (See _Rural Dean_.) The dean was not always head of the chapter
abroad; the provost being sometimes the superior. But he had always the
administration of the discipline in _spirituals_, [_curam animarum_, as
it is expressly called in statutes both of home and foreign Churches,]
the provosts often concerning themselves merely in temporals, and he had
the superintendence of the choir, or cathedral body. (See _Dictionnaire
de Droit Canonique, Lyons_, 1787, voce _Doyen_.) They were, in fact,
very much like the deans in our colleges, though more strictly limited
_ad sacra_. The Dean of Faculty, in most ancient and some modern
universities, presided over the meetings of their respective faculties,
and maintained the academical discipline.
DEAN AND CHAPTER. This is the style and title of the governing body of a
cathedral. A chapter consists of the dean, with a certain number of
canons, or prebendaries, heads of the church—_capita ecclesiæ_. The
origin of this institution is to be traced to a remote antiquity. A
missionary bishop, when converting our ancestors, would take his
position in some central town, with his attendant priests: these, as
opportunity offered, would go to the neighbouring villages to preach the
gospel, and administer the other offices of the Church. But they resided
with the bishop, and were supported out of his revenues. By degrees
parochial settlements were made; but still the bishop required the
attendance of certain of the clergy at his cathedral, to be his council;
(for the bishops never thought of acting without consulting their
clergy;) and also to officiate in his principal church or cathedral.
These persons, to qualify themselves for their office, gave themselves
up to study, and to the maintenance and decoration of their sanctuary;
the services of which were to be a model to all the lesser churches of
the diocese. Forming, in the course of time, a corporation, they
obtained property, and ceased to be dependent upon the bishop for a
maintenance. And being considered the representatives of the clergy,
upon them devolved the government of the diocese when vacant; and they
obtained the privilege, doubtless on the same principle, of choosing the
bishop, which originally belonged to the whole clergy of the diocese, in
conjunction with the bishops of the province. In this privilege they
were supported by the kings of the country, who perceived that they were
more likely to intimidate a chapter into the election of the royal
nominee, than the whole of the clergy of a diocese. But still the deans
and chapters sometimes acting independently, an act was passed under
Henry VIII., by which a dean and chapter refusing to elect the king’s
nominee to the bishopric become individually outlawed, lose all their
property, and are to be imprisoned during pleasure. Since that time
these corporations have always succumbed to the royal will and pleasure.
The great object of the institution, it will be perceived, is, 1st, To
provide the bishop with a council; 2nd, To make provision for a learned
body of divines, who, disengaged from parochial cares, may benefit the
cause of religion by their writings; 3rd, To make provision, also, that
in the cathedral church of each diocese the services shall be performed
with rubrical strictness, and with all the solemnity and grandeur of
which our services are capable.
It is not to be denied, that, during the last century, this institution
was greatly abused. Patrons made use of it to enrich their own families
or political partisans; and the cathedral clergy, instead of giving
themselves up to learned labours, dwelt chiefly on their livings, coming
merely for a short time to their cathedrals: as their estates advanced
in value, they expended the income on themselves, instead of increasing
the cathedral libraries, and rendering the choirs more efficient, by
raising the salaries of the choristers, and doubling or trebling their
number: finally, being forgetful of the command of the Church, that, “in
cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where there are many
priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the
priest, _every Sunday at the least_,” many deans and chapters have, most
unjustifiably, discontinued the weekly communion. Whether individual
members of chapters consider these observances superstitious or not, it
is on these conditions they enjoy their property; and if they cannot
conscientiously keep the conditions, they ought conscientiously to
resign their places. These things required reform; and forecasting men,
seeing no symptoms of improvement, expected that the arm of the LORD
would be made bare for vengeance; and the LORD made use of the secular
government of England as his instrument of chastisement. The British
legislature, acting on the precedent of Cardinal Wolsey and Henry VIII.,
has seized a large portion of the property belonging to the deans and
chapters, and has reduced the number of canons. May this be a warning to
the deans and chapters as they now exist! May patrons make the cathedral
close the abode of men of learning, and may the members of chapters
sacrifice even their private property to render their cathedral choirs
what they ought to be! May they have strength of mind to sacrifice all
they have in the world, rather than elect as a bishop an unworthy
nominee of the Crown, if, peradventure, the Crown nominate a Sabellian,
or an Arian, or a Socinian heretic. (See _Chapters_, _Canons_, and
_Prebendaries_.)
DECALOGUE. The _ten_ precepts, or _commandments_, delivered by GOD to
Moses, and by him written on two tables of stone, and delivered to the
Hebrews, as the basis and foundation of their religion. The history of
this great event, together with the ten commandments themselves, are
recited at large in the 19th and 20th chapters of the book of Exodus.
The Jews called these commandments, by way of excellence, the _ten
words_, from whence they had afterwards the name of Decalogue. But it is
to be observed, that they joined the first and second into one, and
divided the last into two. They understand that against stealing to
relate to the stealing of men, or kidnapping, alleging, that the
stealing of another’s goods or property is forbidden in the last
commandment.—_De Legib. Hebr._ lib. i. c. 2.
“Most divines,” says the learned Spencer, “seem to have been of opinion,
that GOD gave the Decalogue, to be a general rule of life and manners,
and as it were a summary, to which all other precepts, either of the law
or the gospel, may be reduced. Hence they rack their brains, to fix so
large and extensive a meaning on all these commands, that all duties,
respecting GOD or our neighbour, may be understood to be contained in
them. But no one, who duly considers the matter, can think it probable,
that the Decalogue was therefore given, that it might be a kind of
compendium of all the other laws of the Pentateuch; since those eminent
precepts of the law, ‘Thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy
heart,’ and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ cannot be found
in the Decalogue, without affixing a meaning to some commands quite
foreign to the natural sense of the words, and subjecting them to an
arbitrary interpretation. To give my opinion in a few words; the chief
scope and intent of the Decalogue was to root out idolatry and its more
immediate effects, and to add force and authority to the other laws
contained in the Pentateuch. For who can persuade himself, that _God_
would have collected together, into the one little system of the
Decalogue, those ten precepts, which have scarce any connexion with each
other, had they not all naturally tended to destroy idolatry and its
primary effects?” The author then proceeds to confirm the truth of this
assertion by a distinct consideration of each precept of the two tables.
It has been a question, and even matter of admiration, why _God_, in
delivering laws to the Hebrews, kept precisely to the number ten. This
question is answered by the above-cited author, (Id. ib. § 2,) who
assigns the following reasons for this proceeding. “First, the number
ten exceeds all others in perfection and capacity: for in it are
comprehended all the diversities of numbers and their analogies, and all
the geometrical figures which have any relation to numbers. Secondly, A
_Decad_ seems to have been in most esteem and use, among all nations,
from the earliest times. Thirdly, As the number ten comprehends in it
all others, so the Decalogue was to be a kind of representative of all
the other laws of Moses, which were too numerous to be distinctly and
separately rehearsed from Mount Sinai. Lastly, The number ten was a
sacred number, and most frequently applied to the things mentioned in
the Law: as will be evident to those, who carefully read over the
institutes of Moses.”
The Samaritans, to raise and maintain the credit of their temple on
Mount Gerizim, forged an _eleventh_ command or precept, which in their
Pentateuch they added at the end of the Decalogue, both in Exodus and
Deuteronomy. It was this: “When the LORD thy GOD shall have brought thee
into the land of Canaan, whither thou goest to possess it, thou shalt
erect to thyself large stones, and shalt write on them all the words of
this Law. And, after thou shalt have passed over Jordan, thou shalt
place those stones, which I command thee this day, on Mount Gerizim, and
shalt build there an altar to the _Lord_ thy GOD, an altar of stone,”
&c.
DECLARATION. (See _Conformity_.)
DECORATED. The style of architecture which succeeded the Geometrical
about 1315, and gave place to the Perpendicular about 1360.
The most obvious characteristic of this style is the window tracery (see
_Tracery_); but all the parts and details have also their appropriate
features. The doorway is no longer divided by a central shaft. The
windows are larger than in the former style, and their mullions have in
general fewer subordinations of mouldings. The corner buttresses are
usually set diagonally instead of in pairs, and the buttresses generally
are of considerable projection, and much enriched with pediments and
niches. The piers consist generally of four shafts with intervening
hollows, set lozengewise; and the detached shaft is wholly discontinued.
The triforium, which had begun to lose its relative importance in the
Geometrical, is in this style generally treated as a mere course of
panelling at the base of the clerestory windows, which are
proportionally enlarged. Arcading begins to be superseded by panelling.
Foliage, and other carving, is treated with less force and nature than
in the preceding style; and heraldry begins to appear. The vaulting (see
_Vaulting_) is more intricate. One or two mouldings and decorations are
almost peculiar to this style, especially the ogee in all its forms and
in every position. The ball-flower and the scroll moulding, it has in
common with the Geometrical, but far more frequently. (See _Moulding_.)
The broach spire is still used, but begins to give way to the parapet
and spire.
DECRETALS. The name given to the letters of popes, being in answer to
questions proposed to them by some bishop or ecclesiastical judge, or
even particular person, in which they determined business, as they
thought fit. In the ninth century there appeared a collection of
decretal letters ascribed to more than thirty popes, succeeding each
other in the first three centuries. The author is unknown, but they are
generally ascribed to a certain Isidore Mercator, and pass usually under
his name. Their uniform tendency is to exalt papal power, and exactly on
those points for which no sanction can be alleged from Scripture, or
from the early periods of any genuine Church history; such as supreme
authority over bishops, the receiving appeals from all parts of the
world, and the reservation of causes for the hearing of the Roman see.
In the words of Fleury, “They inflicted an irreparable wound on the
discipline of the Church, by the new maxims which they introduced in
regard to the judgment of bishops and the authority of the pope.” Dr.
Barrow mentions them among the chief causes by which the power of the
bishop of Rome has been advanced: “The forgery of the decretal epistles
(wherein the ancient popes are made expressly to speak and act according
to some of his highest pretences, devised long after their times, and
which they never thought of, good men) did hugely conduce to his
purpose; authorizing his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient
doctrine and practice.” “Upon these spurious decretals,” (writes the
historian of the middle ages,) “was built the great fabric of papal
supremacy over the different national Churches: a fabric which has stood
after its foundation crumbled beneath it; for no one has pretended to
deny, during the last two centuries, that the imposture is too palpable
for any but the most ignorant ages to credit.” Their effect was, to
diminish the authority of metropolitans and provincial synods, by
allowing to an accused bishop, not only the right of appeal, but the
power also of removing any process into the supreme court at Rome. And
on this account it has been supposed that the decrees were forged by
some bishop who desired to reduce the power of his immediate superior.
But whoever may have been the author, and whatever the origin, there is
no doubt that the popes became, from the first, their most strenuous
defenders.
The best account of these forgeries is to be found in the posthumous
work of Van Espen, Commentarius in Jus Novum Canonicum, part ii. diss.
1, p. 451–475. See also De Marca, De Concord. iii. c. 4, 5, p. 242;
Natalis Alexandri Hist. Eccles. sæc. i. diss. 13, p. 213; Coci Censura
quorundam Scriptorum, &c., passim.—_Sanderson._ _Robins, Evidence of
Scripture against the Roman Church._
DEDICATION, FEAST OF. The _wake_ or customary festival for the
dedication of churches signifies the same as _vigil_ or _eve_. The
reason of the name is thus assigned in an old manuscript: “Ye shall
understand and know how the evens were first founded in old times. In
the beginning of Holy Church it was so, that the people came to the
church with candles burning, and would wake and come with lights towards
night to the church in their devotions: and after, they fell to lechery,
and songs, and dances, harping and piping, and also to gluttony and sin;
and so turned the holiness to cursedness. Wherefore the holy Fathers
ordained the people to leave that waking, and to fast the even. But it
is still called _vigil_, that is, _waking_ in English: and it is also
called the _even_, for at even they were wont to come to church.” It was
in imitation of the primitive ἀγάπαι, or love feasts, (see _Agapæ_,)
that such public assemblies, accompanied with friendly entertainments,
were first held upon each return of the day of consecration, though not
in the body of churches, yet in the churchyards, and most nearly
adjoining places. This practice was established in England by Gregory
the Great; who, in an epistle to Mellitus the abbot, gives injunctions
to be delivered to Augustine the monk, a missionary to England; amongst
which he allows the solemn anniversary of dedication to be celebrated in
those churches which were made out of heathen temples, with religious
feasts kept in sheds or arbours, made up with branches and boughs of
trees round the said church. But as the love feasts held in the place of
worship were soon liable to such great disorders, that they were not
only condemned at Corinth by St. Paul, but prohibited to be kept in the
house of GOD by the 20th canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the 30th
of the third Council of Carthage: so, from a sense of the same
inconveniences, this custom did not long continue of feasting in the
churches or churchyards; but strangers and inhabitants paid the devotion
of prayers and offerings in the church, and then adjourned their eating
and drinking to the more proper place of public and private houses. The
institution of these church encœnia, or wakes, was, without question,
for good and laudable designs: at first, thankfully to commemorate the
bounty and munificence of those who had founded and endowed the church;
next, to incite others to the like generous acts of piety; and, chiefly,
to maintain a Christian spirit of unity and charity, by such sociable
and friendly meetings. And therefore care was taken to keep up the
laudable custom. The laws of Edward the Confessor gave peace and
protection in all parishes during the solemnity of the day of
dedication, and the same privilege to all that were going to or
returning from such solemnity. In a council held at Oxford, in the year
1222, it was ordained, that among other festivals should be observed the
day of dedication of every church within the proper parish. And in a
synod under Archbishop Islip, (who was promoted to the see of Canterbury
in the year 1349,) the dedication feast is mentioned with particular
respect. This solemnity was at first celebrated on the very day of
dedication, as it annually returned. But the bishops sometimes gave
authority for transposing the observance to some other day, and
especially to Sunday, whereon the people could best attend the devotions
and rites intended in this ceremony. Henry VIII. enjoined that all wakes
should be kept the first Sunday in October.
This laudable custom of wakes prevailed for many ages, till the Puritans
began to exclaim against it as a remnant of Popery. By degrees the
humour grew so popular, that at the summer assizes held at Exeter, in
the year 1627, the Lord Chief Baron Walter and Baron Denham made an
order for suppression of all wakes. And a like order was made by Judge
Richardson for the county of Somerset, in the year 1631. But on Bishop
Laud’s complaint of these innovations, the king commanded the last order
to be reversed; which Judge Richardson refusing to do, an account was
required from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, how the said feast days,
church ales, wakes, and revels, were for the most part celebrated and
observed in his diocese. On the receipt of these instructions, the
bishop sent for and advised with seventy-two of the most orthodox and
able of his clergy; who certified under their hands, that, on these
feast days, (which generally fell on Sundays,) the service of GOD was
more solemnly performed, and the church much better frequented, both in
the forenoon and afternoon, than on any other Sunday in the year; that
the people very much desired the continuance of them; that the ministers
did in most places the like, for these reasons, viz. for preserving the
memorial of the dedication of their several churches, for civilizing the
people, for composing differences by the mediation and meeting of
friends, for increase of love and unity by these feasts of charity, and
for relief and comfort of the poor. On the return of this certificate,
Judge Richardson was again cited to the council table, and peremptorily
commanded to reverse his former order. After which it was thought fit to
reinforce the declaration of King James, when perhaps this was the only
good reason assigned for that unnecessary and unhappy licence of sports:
“We do ratify and publish this our blessed father’s decree, the rather
because of late, in some counties of our kingdom, we find, that, under
pretence of taking away abuses, there hath been a general forbidding not
only of ordinary meetings, but of the feasts of the dedication of
churches, commonly called wakes.” However, by such a popular prejudice
against wakes, and by the intermission of them in the confusions that
followed, they are now discontinued in many counties, especially in the
east and some western parts of England, but are commonly observed in the
north and in the midland counties.
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. (_Fidei Defensor._) A peculiar title belonging to
the sovereign of England; as _Catholic_ to the king of Spain, and _Most
Christian_ to the king of France. These titles were given by the popes
of Rome. That of _Fidei Defensor_ was first conferred by Pope Leo X. on
King Henry VIII., for writing against Martin Luther; and the bull for it
bears date _quinto idus Octobris, 1521_. It was afterwards confirmed by
Clement VII. On Henry’s suppression of the monasteries, the pope of Rome
deprived him of this title, and had the presumption and absurdity to
depose him from his crown. Therefore the title was conferred by a higher
authority than the pope, the parliament of England, in the thirty-fifth
year of Henry’s reign. By some antiquarians it is maintained that the
bull of Leo only revived a title long sustained by the English kings.
DEGRADATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby a clergyman is
deprived of the holy orders which formerly he had, as of a priest or
deacon; and by the canon law this may be done two ways, either summarily
or by word only, or solemnly, as by divesting the party degraded of
those ornaments and rights which were the ensigns and order of his
degree.
Collier thus describes the form of degradation of a priest, in the case
of Fawke, burnt for heresy in the reign of Henry IV. After being
pronounced a heretic relapsed, he was solemnly degraded in the following
manner:
From the order of │ To be taken from him,
──────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────
1 Priest. │1 The paten, chalice, and pulling
│ off his chasuble.
2 Deacon. │2 The New Testament and the stole.
3 Sub-deacon. │3 The albe and the maniple.
4 Acolyth. │4 The candlestick, taper,
│ urceolum.
5 Exorcist. │5 The office for exorcisms.
6 Reader. │6 The lectionarium, or legend
│ book.
7 Ostiarius, or Sexton. │7 The keys of the church-doors,
│ and surplice.
After this, his ecclesiastical tonsure was obliterated, and the form of
his degradation pronounced by the archbishop; and being thus deprived of
his sacerdotal character, and dressed in a lay habit, he was put into
the hands of the secular court, with the significant request, that he
might be favourably received.
The ancient law for degradation is set forth in the sixth book of the
Decretals; and the causes for degradation and deprivation are enumerated
by Bishop Gibson.—See _Gibson’s Codex_, p. 1066–1068.
By Canon 122, Sentence against a minister, of deposition from the
ministry, “shall be pronounced by the bishop only, with the assistance
of his chancellor and the dean, (if they may conveniently be had,) and
some of the prebendaries, if the court be kept near the cathedral
church; or of the archdeacon, if he may be had conveniently, and two
other at the least grave ministers and preachers to be called by the
bishop, when the court is kept in other places.”
DEGREE. _Psalms or Songs of Degrees_ is a title given to fifteen psalms,
which are the 120th and all that follow to the 134th inclusive. The
Hebrew text calls them a _song of ascents_. Junius and Tremellius
translate the Hebrew, by _a song of excellencies_, or _an excellent
song_, because of the excellent matter of them, as eminent persons are
called _men of high degree_. (1 Chr. xvii. 17.) Some call them _psalms
of elevation_, because, say they, they were sung with an exalted voice;
or because at every psalm the voice was raised: but the translation of
_psalms of degrees_ has more generally obtained. Some interpreters
think, that they were so called because they were sung upon the fifteen
steps of the temple; but they are not agreed about the place where these
fifteen steps were. Others think they were so called, because they were
sung in a gallery, which they say was in the court of Israel, where
sometimes the Levites read the law. But others think, that the most
probable reason why they are called songs of degrees, or of ascent, is,
because they were composed and sung by the Jews on the occasion of their
_going up_ to Jerusalem, after the deliverance from the captivity of
Babylon, whether it were to implore this deliverance from GOD, or to
return thanks for it after it had happened: others, that they were
severally composed not only upon this, but upon other remarkable
occasions when they made their ascent to the temple.
DEGREES in the universities denote a quality conferred on the students
or members thereof, as a testimony of their proficiency in the arts and
sciences, and entitling them to certain privileges. They were first
instituted by Pope Eugenius III. at the suggestion of Gratian, the
celebrated compiler of the canon law, in 1151; but were limited to the
faculty of canon law, for the encouragement of which they were
instituted; and consisted of the ranks of bachelor, licentiate, and
doctor. Shortly after Peter Lombard instituted similar degrees in
theology in the university of Paris. In the course of time degrees were
given in other faculties, those of arts and medicine being added. In
many of the foreign universities, theology and canon law have each their
three classes of degrees as above stated; medicine has generally but
two, bachelor and doctor; and arts two, bachelor and master. The
designation of doctor in philosophy is very modern. The English
universities have only two degrees, bachelor and doctor in the superior
faculties; master and bachelor in arts. The student of civil law is not,
properly speaking, a graduate. Formerly separate degrees were given in
England (as abroad) in canon and civil law; but the distinction ceased
in the 17th century. Oxford has for some time ceased to confer degrees
in _utroque jure_, (i. e. civil and canon law,) but only in civil law.
Hence her graduates are D. C. L. and B. C. L., and not L. L. D. and L.
L. B., as at Cambridge and Dublin. The three ancient universities of
England and Ireland confer degrees in music. Anciently degrees in
grammar, doctorate, mastership, and baccalaurenti were given at Oxford
or Cambridge. But they fell into disuse in the 17th century.
DEISTS. Those who deny the _existence and necessity_ of any revelation,
and profess to acknowledge that the being of a GOD is the chief article
of their belief. The term Deist is derived from the Latin word _Deus_,
GOD. The same persons are frequently called infidels, on account of
their incredulity, or want of belief in the Christian dispensation of
religion.—Consult _Boyle’s Lectures_, _Leland’s View of Deistical
Writers_, _Leslie’s Short and Easy Method with the Deists_, _Watson’s
Apology for the Bible_.
Dr. Clarke, (_Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Rel._ Introd.,) taking the
denomination in its most extensive signification, distinguishes deists
into four sorts. The first are, such as pretend to believe the existence
of an eternal, infinite, independent, intelligent Being; and who, to
avoid the name of Epicurean Atheists, teach also, that this Supreme
Being made the world; though, at the same time, they agree with the
Epicureans in this, that they fancy, GOD does not at all concern himself
in the government of the world, nor has any regard to, or care of, what
is done therein.
The second sort of deists are those, who believe, not only the being,
but also the providence of GOD, with respect to the natural world; but
who, not allowing any difference between moral good and evil, deny that
GOD takes any notice of the morally good or evil actions of men; these
things depending, as they imagine, on the arbitrary constitution of
human laws.
A third sort of deists there are, who, having right apprehensions
concerning the natural attributes of GOD, and his all-governing
providence, and some notion of his moral perfections also; yet, being
prejudiced against the notion of the immortality of the human soul,
believe, that men perish entirely at death, and that one generation
shall perpetually succeed another, without any future restoration or
renovation of things.
A fourth, and the last sort of deists, are such, as believe the
existence of a Supreme Being, together with his providence in the
government of the world, as also all the obligations of natural
religion; but so far only as these things are discoverable by the light
of nature alone, without believing any Divine revelation.
These, Dr. Clarke observes, are the only true deists: but, as the
principles of these men would naturally lead them to embrace the
Christian revelation, he concludes, there is now no consistent scheme of
deism in the world. “The heathen philosophers, those few of them, who
taught and lived up to the obligations of natural religion, had indeed a
consistent scheme of deism so far as it went. But the case is not so
now. The same scheme is not any longer consistent with its own
principles, if it does not now lead men to believe and embrace
revelation, as it then taught them to hope for it. Deists, in our days,
who reject revelation when offered to them, are not such men as Socrates
and Cicero were; but, under pretence of deism, it is plain, they are
generally ridiculers of all that is truly excellent in natural religion
itself. Their trivial and vain cavils; their mocking and ridiculing,
without and before examination; their directing the whole stress of
their objections against particular customs, or particular and perhaps
uncertain opinions, or explications of opinions, without at all
considering the main body of religion; their loose, vain, and frothy
discourses; and, above all, their vicious and immoral lives; show
plainly and undeniably, that they are not really deists, but mere
atheists; and consequently not capable to judge of the truth of
Christianity.”
“We are fallen into an age, (says another learned author, _Jenkyns,
Reasonableness of Christ. Relig._ in the Preface,) in which there are a
sort of men, who have shown so great a forwardness to be no longer
Christians, that have catched at all the little cavils and pretences
against religion—but they both think and live so ill, that it is an
argument for the goodness of any cause that they are against it. It was
urged as a confirmation of the Christian religion by Tertullian, that it
was hated and persecuted by Nero, the worst of men: and I am confident,
it would be but small reputation to it in any age, if such men should be
fond of it. They speak evil of the things they understand not, and are
wont to talk with as much confidence against any point of religion, as
if they had all the learning in the world in their keeping, when
commonly they know little or nothing of what has been said for that
against which they dispute.”
Prateolus (_Elench. Hæres._) mentions a sect of deists (as they were
called) which sprung up in Poland, in the year 1564. They were a branch
of the Lutherans, and, coming into France in 1566, settled at Lyons.
Their leader (he tells us) was one Gregorius Pauli, a minister of
Cracow. They boasted, that GOD had bestowed on them much greater gifts
than on Luther and others, and that the destruction of Antichrist was
reserved for them. They asserted, that there is one nature, or Deity,
common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but not one and the same
essence; and that the Father alone is the one only true GOD.
These deists (as Prateolus calls them) ought rather to be denominated
Arians.
DELEGATES. The court of delegates was so called, because these delegates
sat by force of the king’s commission under the great seal, upon an
appeal to the king in the court of Chancery, in three causes: 1. When a
sentence was given in any ecclesiastical cause by the archbishop or his
official: 2. When any sentence was given in any ecclesiastical cause in
places exempt: 3. When a sentence was given in the admiral’s court, in
suit civil and marine, by the order of the civil laws. And these
commissioners were called delegates, because they were delegated by the
king’s commission for these purposes.
For the origin of the high court of delegates, see 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12,
and 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, §4. By the 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 92, the powers of
the high court of delegates, both in ecclesiastical and maritime causes,
are transferred to her Majesty in council; which transfer is further
regulated by the 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 41, and by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 69. This act
does not extend to Ireland.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, consists of
The Lord President. │
The Lord Chancellor. │
─────────────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────
The Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. │Provided they be
│ councillors.
The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench. │ „
The Master of the Rolls. │ „
The Vice-chancellor. │ „
The Chief Justice of the Court ofCommon Pleas. │ „
The Chief Baron of the Exchequer. │ „
The Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.│ „
The Judge of the Admiralty Court. │ „
The Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court. │ „
All who have held the aforenamed offices. │ „
─────────────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────
Two privy-councillors appointed by
the sign-manual. │
No matter is to be heard unless in the presence of at least four members
of the committee; and no report or recommendation made to the Crown,
unless a majority of the members present at the hearing shall concur in
such report or recommendation.
DEMIURGE. (From δημιουργὸς, an artificer.) The name given by some
Gnostic sects to the Creator of the world, who, according to them, was
different from the supreme GOD. (See _Gnostics_.)
DEMONIACS. Persons possessed of the devil. That the persons spoken of in
the New Testament as possessed of the devil, were not simply lunatics,
is clear from a mere perusal of the facts recorded. The devils owned
CHRIST to be the Messiah; they besought him not to torment them; they
passed into the swine and drove them into the sea. The manner in which
our LORD addressed the demoniacs clearly shows that they were really
such: he not only rebuked the devils, but called them unclean spirits,
asking them questions, commanding them to come out, &c. We find also
that, for some time, in the early ages of the Church, demoniacs existed,
as there was a peculiar service appointed in the Church for their cure.
(See _Energumens_.)
DENARII DE CARITATE. (_Lat._) Customary oblations, anciently made to
cathedral churches, about the time of Pentecost, when the parish
priests, and many of their parishioners, went in procession to visit
their mother-church. This custom was afterwards changed into a settled
due, and usually charged upon the parish priest, though at first it was
but a gift of _charity_, or present, towards the support and ornament of
the bishop’s see.
DENOMINATIONS, THE THREE. The general body of dissenting ministers of
London and Westminster form an association so styled, which was
organized in 1727. The object of the association appears to be
political. The Three Denominations are, the Presbyterian, (now
Socinian,) Independent, and Baptist.
DEO GRATIAS. (_Lat._) _God be thanked_. A form of salutation, anciently
used by Christians, when they accosted each other. The Donatists
ridiculed the use of it; which St. Augustine defended, affirming, that a
Christian had reason to return God thanks when he met a brother
Christian. It is at present used only in the sacred offices of the
Romish Church. We have something like it in the _Communion Service_ of
our own Church, in which the minister says, _Let us give thanks unto our
Lord God_.
DEPOSITION. (See _Degradation_.)
DEPRECATIONS. (See _Litany_.)
DEPRIVATION is an ecclesiastical sentence, whereby a clergyman is
deprived of his parsonage, vicarage, or other spiritual promotion or
dignity.
By Canon 122. Sentence against a minister, of deprivation from his
living, “shall be pronounced by the bishop only with the assistance of
his chancellor and the dean, (if they may conveniently be had,) and some
of the prebendaries, if the court be kept near the cathedral church; or
of the archdeacon, if he may be had conveniently, and two other at the
least grave ministers and preachers to be called by the bishop, when the
court is kept in other places.”
The causes of deprivation may be reduced to three heads, viz. to want of
capacity, contempt, and crimes. Nonconformity is thus specially punished
by 1 Eliz. c. 2, 13 Eliz. c. 12, 14 Car. II. c. 4. Dilapidation used to
be held a good cause of deprivation, yet that it has ever been inflicted
as a punishment of dilapidation does not appear, either by the books of
common or canon law. In all causes of deprivation, where a person is in
actual possession of an ecclesiastical benefice, these things must
concur: 1st, A monition or citation of the party to appear: 2nd, A
charge given against him by way of libel or articles, to which he is to
give an answer: 3rd, A competent time must be assigned, for proofs and
interrogatories: 4th, The person accused shall have the liberty of
counsel to defend his cause, to except against witnesses, and to bring
legal proofs against them: and 5th, There must be a solemn sentence,
read by the bishop, after hearing the merits of the cause, or pleadings
on both sides. These are the fundamentals of all judicial proceedings in
the ecclesiastical courts, in order to a deprivation. And if these
things be not observed, the party has a just cause of appeal, and may
have a remedy in a superior court.
By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 31, spiritual persons trading contrary to the
provisions of that act, may be, for the third offence, deprived.
DESK. This is the name usually given to the pulpit or pew in which
morning and evening prayers are sung or said in the English churches.
The using of this pulpit for prayer is peculiar to the English Church,
and has a very unpleasant effect. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI.
ordered “the priest, _being in the choir_, to begin the LORD’S Prayer,
called Pater Noster, (with which the morning and evening services then
began,) with a loud voice:” so that it was at that time the custom for
the minister to sing or say the morning and evening prayer, not in a
desk or pulpit, but at the upper end of the choir or chancel, near the
altar, towards which, whether standing or kneeling, he always turned his
face in the prayers. This gave great offence, however, though it had
been the custom of the Church of England for many hundred years, to some
superstitious weaker brethren, who so far forgot their charity as to
call it anti-Christian. The outcry, however frivolous and vexatious,
prevailed so far, that when, in the fifth year of King Edward, the
Prayer Book was altered, the following rubric appeared instead of the
old one, viz. “The morning and evening prayers shall be used in such
places of the church, chapel, or chancel, and the minister shall so turn
him, as the people best may hear. And if there be any controversy
therein, the matter shall be referred to the ordinary, and he or his
deputy shall appoint the place.” This caused great contentions—the more
orthodox kneeling in the old way, and singing or saying the prayers in
the chancel, and the innovators, or _ultra_-Protestants, adopting _new_
forms, and performing all the services in the body of the church. In the
reign of Elizabeth, the rubric was brought to its present form: “that
the morning and evening prayers shall be used in the accustomed place in
the church, chapel, or chancel,” by which was clearly meant the choir or
chancel, which had been for centuries the accustomed place; and it
cannot be supposed that the Second Book of Edward, which lasted only one
year and a half, could establish a custom. A dispensing power, however,
was left with the ordinary, who might determine it otherwise, if he saw
just cause. Pursuant to this rubric, the morning and evening services
were again, as formerly, sung or said in the chancel or choir. But in
some churches, owing to the too great distance of the chancel from the
body of the church, in others owing to the ultra-Protestant superstition
of the parishioners, the ordinaries permitted the clergy to leave the
chancel, and read prayers from a pew in the body of the church. This
innovation and novelty, begun first by some few ordinaries, and
recommended by them to others, grew by degrees to be more general, till
at last it came to be the universal practice; insomuch that the
convocation, in the beginning of King James the First’s reign, ordered
that in every church there should be a convenient seat made for the
minister to read service in. In new churches, where there can be no
complaint of the size of the chancels, there seems to be no reason why
the ordinaries should not now remove the desk, and send the clergy back
to their proper place, to sing or say the prayers in the chancel. At all
events, they might get rid of that unsightly nuisance, a second pulpit
instead of a reading pew. If the prayers are to be preached to the
people, as well as the sermon, one pulpit might suffice. It is
gratifying to know, that since the article was written in the first
edition of this work, this disfigurement of our churches has been very
generally removed. It is to be observed, that the word does not once
occur in the Prayer Book.
DEUS MISEREATUR. The Latin name for Psalm lxvii., which may be used
after the second lesson at evening prayers, instead of the _Nunc
Dimittis_, except on the twelfth day of the month, when it occurs among
the psalms of the day. It was first inserted in our service in the
Second Book of King Edward VI.
DEUTERONOMY. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The word implies a
_second law_, the principal design of it being, _a repetition_ of the
laws already delivered; which was a necessary thing, inasmuch as the
Israelites, who had heard it before, were dead in the wilderness, and
there was sprung up another generation of men, who had not heard the
Decalogue, or any other of the laws openly proclaimed. It contains
likewise some new laws; such as the taking down malefactors from the
tree in the evening; the making of battlements on the roofs of houses;
the expiation of an unknown murder; the punishment to be inflicted upon
a rebellious son; the distinction of the sexes by apparel; the marrying
a brother’s wife after his decease: as also, orders and injunctions
concerning divorce; laws concerning men-stealers; concerning unjust
weights and measures; concerning the marrying of a captive woman;
concerning servants that desert their master’s service; and several
other laws, not only ecclesiastical and civil, but also military. There
are inserted likewise some transactions, which happened in the last year
of the travels of the Israelites through the wilderness.
Deuteronomy is the last book of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses;
though some have questioned whether it was written by that legislator,
because, in the last chapter, mention is made of his death and burial,
and of the succession of Joshua after him. But this only proves that the
last chapter was not written by Moses, but added by some other person;
most probably by Ezra, when he published an edition of the Holy
Scriptures. (See _Pentateuch_.)
DEVIL. From Διάβολος, which signifies an accuser, or calumniator. The
two words, Devil and Satan, are used in Scripture to signify the same
wicked spirit, who with many others, his angels or under-agents, is
fighting against GOD; and who has dominion over all the sons of Adam,
except the regenerate; and who is, in his kingdom of this world, the
nearest imaginable approximation, at infinite distance indeed, to the
omnipotence of the GODHEAD.
DIACONATE. The office or order of a deacon. (See _Deacon_.)
DIACONICUM. (_Gr._ and _Lat._) This word has different significations in
ecclesiastical authors. Sometimes it is taken for that part of the
ancient _church_ in which the deacons used to sit during the performance
of Divine service, namely, at the rails of the altar; sometimes for a
building adjoining to the church, in which the sacred vessels and habits
were laid up; sometimes for that part of the public prayers which the
deacons pronounced. Lastly, it denotes an ecclesiastical book, in which
are contained all things relating to the duty and office of a deacon,
according to the rites of the Greek Church.
DIAPER. In church architecture, a decoration of large surfaces with a
constantly recurring pattern, either carved or painted. Norman diapers
are usually either fretted or zigzag lines, or imbrications of the
masonry; and not only plain surfaces, but pillars, and small shafts, and
even mouldings, are diapered, as the cable moulding surrounding the nave
at Rochester. In the succeeding styles, flowers and leaves are the most
frequent patterns, which, in the Geometrical style, are often of extreme
beauty and delicacy. After the fourteenth century, diapers are painted
only, and now even the hollows of mouldings are thus treated.
DIET. The assembly of the states of Germany. We shall only notice the
more remarkable of those which have been held on the affairs of
religion.
The Diet of Worms, in 1521, where Alexander, the pope’s nuncio, having
charged Luther with heresy, the Duke of Saxony said, that Luther ought
to be heard; which the emperor granted, and sent him a pass, provided he
did not preach on this journey. Being come to Worms, he protested that
he would not recant unless they would show him his errors by the word of
GOD alone, and not by that of men; wherefore the emperor soon after
outlawed him by an edict.
The first Diet of Nuremberg was held in 1523, when Francis Cheregat,
Adrian VI.’s nuncio, demanded the execution of Leo X.’s bull, and of
Charles V.’s edict, published at Worms, against Luther: but it was
answered, that it was necessary to call a council in Germany, to satisfy
the nation about its grievances, which were reduced to a hundred
articles, some whereof struck at the pope’s authority, and the
discipline of the Roman Church: they added that, in the interim, the
Lutherans should be commanded not to write against the Roman Catholics,
&c. All these things were brought into the form of an edict, and
published in the emperor’s name.
The second Diet of Nuremberg was in 1524. Cardinal Cangegio, Pope
Clement VII.’s legate, entered the town incognito, for fear of
exasperating the people there: the Lutherans having the advantage, it
was decreed that, with the emperor’s consent, the pope should call a
council in Germany; but, in the interim, an assembly should be held at
Spire, to determine what was to be believed and practised; and that to
obey the emperor, the princes ought to order the observance of the edict
of Worms as strictly as they could. Charles, angry at this, commanded
that edict to be very strictly observed, and prohibited the assembly at
Spire.
The first Diet of Spire was held in 1526. The emperor Charles V. being
then held in Spain, named his brother, Archduke Ferdinand, to preside
over that assembly, where the Duke of Saxony and Landgrave of Hesse
demanded a full and free exercise of the Lutheran religion, so that the
Lutherans preached there publicly against Popery; and the Lutheran
princes’ servants had these five capital letters, V.D. M.I.Æ.,
embroidered on their sleeves, signifying, _Verbum Dei manet in Æternum_,
to show publicly they would follow nothing else but the pure word of
GOD. The archduke, not daring to oppose this, proposed two things, the
first concerning the Popish religion, which was to be maintained in
observing the edict of Worms; and the second concerning the aid demanded
by Lewis, king of Hungary, against the Turks: the Lutherans prevailing
about the first, it was decreed, that the emperor should be desired to
call a general or national council in Germany within a year, and that in
the mean time every one was to have liberty of conscience, and whilst
they were deliberating in vain about the second, King Lewis was defeated
and slain at the battle of Mohatz.
The second Diet of Spire was held in 1529. It was decreed against the
Lutherans, that wherever the edict of Worms was received, it shall be
lawful for nobody to change his opinion; but in the countries where the
new religion (as they termed it) was received, it should be lawful to
continue in it till the next council, if the old religion could not be
reestablished there without sedition. Nevertheless the mass was not to
be abolished there, and no Roman Catholic was allowed to turn Lutheran;
that the Sacramentarians should be banished out of the empire, and the
Anabaptists put to death; and that preachers should nowhere preach
against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This decree destroying that
of the first Diet, six Lutheran princes, viz. the Elector of Saxony, the
Marquis of Brandenburg, the two Dukes of Lunenburg, the Landgrave of
Hesse, and the Prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of fourteen imperial
towns, protested in writing, two days after, in the assembly, against
that decree, which they would not obey, it being contrary to the gospel;
and appealed to the general or national council, to the emperor, and to
any other unprejudiced judge. From this solemn protestation came that
famous name of _Protestants_, which the Lutherans took presently, and
the Calvinists and other reformed Christians afterwards. They also
protested against contributing anything towards the war against the
Turks, till after the exercise of their religion was free in all
Germany. Next year the emperor held the famous Diet of Augsburg.
The first Diet of Augsburg was called in the year 1530, by the emperor
Charles V., to reunite the princes about some matters of religion, and
to join them all together against the Turks. Here the Elector of Saxony,
followed by many princes, presented the confession of faith called the
Confession of Augsburg. The conference about matters of faith and
discipline being concluded, the emperor ended the Diet by a decree, that
nothing should be altered in the doctrine and ceremonies of the Church
of Rome till a council should order it otherwise.
The second Diet of Augsburg was held in 1547. The electors being divided
concerning the decisions of the Council of Trent, the emperor demanded
that the management of this affair should be left to him, and it was
resolved, that every one should conform to the council’s decisions.
The third Diet of Augsburg was held in 1548, when, the commissioners
named to examine some memoirs about a confession of faith, not agreeing
together, the emperor named three divines, who drew the design of that
famous _Interim_ so well known in Germany and elsewhere.
The fourth Diet of Augsburg was held in 1550, when the emperor
complained that the Interim was not observed, and demanded that all
should submit to the council, which they were going to renew at Trent;
but Duke Maurice, one of Saxony’s deputies, protested that their master
did submit to the council on this condition, that the divines of the
Confession of Augsburg not only should be heard there, but should vote
also like the Roman Catholic bishops, and that the pope should not
preside: but, by plurality of votes, submission to the council was
resolved on.
The first Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1541, for uniting the Protestants
to the Church of Rome. The pope’s legate having altered the twenty-two
articles drawn up by the Protestant divines, the emperor proposed to
choose some learned divines that might agree peaceably upon the
articles, and being desired by the Diet to choose them himself, he named
three Papists, viz. Julius Phlugus, John Gropperus, and John Eckius; and
three Protestants, viz. Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and John
Pistorius. After an examination and dispute of a whole month, those
divines could never agree upon more than five or six articles, wherein
the Diet still found some difficulties; wherefore the emperor, to end
these controversies, ordered by an edict, that the decision of those
doctors should be reserved to a general council, or to the national
council of all Germany, or to the next Diet eighteen months after; and
that, in the mean while, the Protestants should keep the articles agreed
on, forbidding them to solicit anybody to change the old religion, (as
they called it,) &c. But to gratify the Protestants in some measure, he
gave them leave, by patent, to retain their religion, notwithstanding
the edict.
The second Diet at Ratisbon was held in 1546: none of the Protestant
confederate princes appeared; so that it was easily decreed here, by
plurality of votes, that the Council of Trent was to be followed, which
yet the Protestant deputies opposed, and this caused a war against them.
The third Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1557: the assembly demanded a
conference between some famous doctors of both parties; which
conference, held at Worms, between twelve Lutheran and as many Popish
divines, was soon dissolved by the Lutherans’ division among
themselves.—_Broughton._
DIGNITARY. One who holds cathedral or other preferment to which
jurisdiction is annexed.
The dignitaries in British cathedrals are, for the most part, the dean,
precentor, chancellor, treasurer, and archdeacon. Sometimes the
_subdean_ and _succentor canonicorum_ are so called; and in a few
churches in Ireland, the _provost_, and _sacrist_ (or treasurer). The
only dignitary in cathedrals of the new foundation is the _dean_; as the
archdeacon is not necessarily a member of such chapters. It is a vulgar
error to style prebendaries, or canons residentiary, dignitaries. The
prebendaries without dignity were styled _canonici_ (or _prebendarii_)
_simplices_.—_Jebb._
DILAPIDATION is the incumbent suffering the chancel, or any other
edifices, of his ecclesiastical living, to go to ruin or decay, by
neglecting to repair the same; and it likewise extends to his
committing, or suffering to be committed, any wilful waste in or upon
the glebe, woods, or any other inheritance of the church. By the
injunctions of King Edward VI. it is required, “that the proprietors,
parsons, vicars, and clerks, having churches, chapels, or mansions,
shall yearly bestow on the said mansions or chancels of their churches,
being in decay, the fifth part of their benefices, till they be fully
repaired; and the same being thus repaired, they shall always keep and
maintain them in good estate.”—See _Art. XIII. of Queen Elizabeth’s
Injunctions_.
By the constitutions of Othobon it is ordained, that “all clerks shall
take care decently to repair the houses of their benefices and other
buildings, as need shall require, whereunto they shall be earnestly
admonished by their bishops or archdeacons; and if any of them, after
the monition of the bishops or archdeacons, shall neglect to do the same
for the space of two months, the bishop shall cause the same effectually
to be done, at the cost and charges of such clerk, out of the profits of
his church and benefice, by the authority of this present statute,
causing so much thereof to be received as shall be sufficient for such
reparation: the chancels also of the church they shall cause to be
repaired by those who are bound thereunto according as is above
expressed; also we do enjoin, by attestation of the Divine judgment, the
archbishops and bishops, and other inferior prelates, that they do keep
in repair their houses and other edifices, by causing such reparation to
be made as they know to be needful.”—See 13 Eliz. c. 10; 17 Geo. III. c.
53; 21 Geo. III. c. 66; _Gibson’s Codex_, pp. 751–754, and _Hodgson’s
Instructions to the Clergy_.
DIMISSORY LETTERS. In the ancient Christian Church, they were letters
granted to the clergy, when they were to remove from their own diocese
and settle in another, to testify, that they had the bishop’s leave to
_depart_; whence they were called _Dimissoriæ_, and sometimes
_Pacificæ_.
In the Church of England, _dimissory letters_ are such as are used when
a candidate for holy orders has a title in one diocese, and is to be
ordained in another; in which case the proper diocesan sends his
letters, directed to the ordaining bishop, giving leave that the bearer
may be ordained by him.
Persons inferior to bishops cannot grant these letters, unless the
bishop shall, by special commission, grant this power to his
vicar-general; or unless the bishop be at a great distance from his
diocese, in which case his vicar-general in spirituals may grant such
licence as the chapter of a cathedral may do _sede vacante_; or, lastly,
when a bishop is taken prisoner by the enemy, for then the chapter
exercises the same rights and powers as if the bishop were naturally
dead.
DIOCESE. The circuit of a bishop’s jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical
division in England is, primarily, into two provinces, those of
Canterbury and York. In Ireland into two, Armagh and Dublin; till
lately, however, into four, Cashel and Tuam, besides the two now
mentioned. A province is a circuit of an archbishop’s jurisdiction. Each
province contains divers dioceses, or sees of suffragan bishops; whereof
Canterbury includes twenty, and York five. Armagh and Dublin, five each;
though till lately Armagh had seven, Dublin three, Cashel five, and Tuam
three. Though, properly speaking, the Irish dioceses are far more
numerous, as most of the bishops have more than one see under their
jurisdiction; which nevertheless, though thus united as to episcopal
government, have their separate chapters, ecclesiastical officers, &c.
Every diocese in England is divided into archdeaconries, and each
archdeaconry into rural deaneries, and every deanery into parishes. In
Ireland, there is but one archdeaconry to each diocese, though in two
instances, those of Glendaloch and Aghadoe, these dioceses have been so
long united to the adjacent sees, that their boundaries are now unknown,
and consequently the diocese of Dublin and Ardfert have apparently,
though not really, two archdeacons each. The division into rural
deaneries and parishes is as in England.
The division of the Church into dioceses may be viewed as a natural
consequence of the institution of the office of bishops. The authority
to exercise jurisdiction, when committed to several hands, requires that
some boundaries be defined within which each party may employ his
powers; otherwise disorder and confusion would ensue, and the Church,
instead of being benefited by the appointment of governors, might be
exposed to the double calamity of an overplus of them in one district,
and a total deficiency of them in another. Hence we find, so early as
the New Testament history, some plain indications of the rise of the
diocesan system, in the cases respectively of James, bishop of
Jerusalem; Timothy, bishop of Ephesus; Titus, of Crete, to whom may be
added the “angels” or bishops of the seven churches in Asia. These were
placed in cities, and had jurisdiction over the churches and inferior
clergy in those cities, and probably in the country adjacent. The first
dioceses were formed by planting a bishop in a city or considerable
village, where he officiated regularly, and took the spiritual charge,
not only of the city itself, but of the suburbs, or region lying round
about it, within the verge of its [civil] jurisdiction; which seems to
be the plain reason of that great and visible difference which we find
in the extent of dioceses, some being very large, others very small,
according as the civil government of each city happened to have a larger
or lesser jurisdiction.
Thus, in our own Church, there were at first only seven bishoprics, and
these were commensurate with the Saxon kingdoms. Since that time our
Church has thought fit to lessen the size of her dioceses, and to
multiply them into above twenty; and if she thought fit to add forty or
a hundred more, she would not be without precedent in the primitive
Church. It is a great misfortune to the Church of England that her
dioceses, compared with the population, are so extensive and so few. It
is impossible for our bishops to perform all their canonical duties,
such as visiting _annually every parish_ in the diocese, inspecting
schools, Divine service, instruction, &c., besides baptizing,
confirming, consecrating. Episcopal extension, as well as Church
extension, is most important. We must seek to add to the number of our
bishops. There will be prejudices and difficulties for some time to be
overcome on the part of the State, which is not sufficiently religious
to tolerate an increase in the number of spiritual peers. An addition to
the number of our spiritual peers is however not what we seek, but that
our spiritual pastors may be more numerous.
The ancient bishoprics being baronies, the possessors of them might sit
in parliament; while the new bishoprics, not having baronies attached,
might only qualify for a seat in the upper house of convocation. The
beginning of a new system was made on the erection of the see of
Manchester, in 1847, since which time the junior bishop has no seat in
the House of Lords.
DIOCESAN. A bishop, as he stands related to his diocese. (See _Bishop_.)
DIPPERS. (See _Dunkers_.)
DIPTYCH. A kind of sacred book, or register, made use of in the ancient
Christian Church, and in which were written the names of such eminent
bishops, saints, and martyrs, as were particularly to be commemorated,
just before oblation was made for the dead. It was called _diptych_
(δίπτυχος) from its being _folded together_; and it was the deacon’s
office to recite the names written in it, as occasion required. Some
distinguish three sorts of diptychs: one, wherein the names of bishops
only were written, such especially as had been governors of that
particular church; a second, in which the names of the living were
written, such in particular as were eminent for any office or dignity,
or some benefaction and good work, in which rank were bishops, emperors,
and magistrates; lastly, a third, containing the names of such as were
deceased in catholic communion.
Theodoret mentions these kind of registers in relation to the case of
St. Chrysostom, whose name, for some time, was left out of the diptychs,
because he died under the sentence of excommunication, pronounced
against him by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and other Eastern
bishops, with whom the Western Church would not communicate until they
had replaced his name in the diptychs; for, to erase a person’s name out
of these books was the same thing as declaring him to have been an
heretic, or some way deviating from the faith.—_Bingham._
DIRECTORY. A kind of regulation for the performance of religious
worship, drawn up by the Assembly of Divines in England, at the instance
of the parliament, in the year 1644. It was designed to supply the place
of the Liturgy, or Book of _Common Prayer_, the use of which the
parliament had abolished. It consisted only of some general heads, which
were to be managed and filled up at discretion; for it prescribed no
form of prayer or circumstances of external worship, nor obliged the
people to any responses, excepting _Amen_. The use of the _Directory_
was enforced by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons at Westminster,
which was repeated August 3rd, 1645. By this injunction, the Directory
was ordered to be dispersed and published in all parishes, chapelries,
donatives, &c. In opposition to this injunction, King Charles issued a
proclamation at Oxford, November 13th, 1645, enjoining the use of the
Common Prayer according to law, notwithstanding the pretended ordinances
for the new Directory.
To give a short abstract of the Directory: It forbids all salutations
and civil ceremony in the churches. The reading the Scripture in the
congregation is declared to be part of the pastoral office. All the
canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of the
_Apocrypha_) are to be publicly read in the vulgar tongue. How large a
portion is to be read at once is left to the minister, who has likewise
the liberty of _expounding_, when he judges it necessary. It prescribes
heads for the prayer before sermon; among which part of the prayer for
the king is, _to save him from evil counsel_. It delivers rules for
managing the _sermon_; the introduction to the text must be short and
clear, drawn from the words or context, or some parallel place of
Scripture; in dividing the text, the minister is to regard the order of
the matter more than that of the words; he is not to burden the memory
of his audience with too many divisions, nor perplex their
understandings with logical phrases and terms of art; he is not to start
unnecessary objections; and he is to be very sparing in citations from
ecclesiastical, or other human writers, ancient or modern.
The Directory recommends the use of the LORD’S Prayer, as the most
perfect model of devotion. It forbids private or lay persons to
administer baptism, and enjoins it to be performed in the face of the
congregation. It orders the communion table at the LORD’S supper to be
so placed that the communicants may sit about it. The dead, according to
the rules of the Directory, are to be buried without any prayers or
religious ceremony.
The Roman Catholics publish an annual Directory for their laity, which
serves the purpose of a book of reference in matters of ceremonial as
settled by their communion.—_Broughton._
DISCIPLE, in the first sense of the word, means one who _learns_ any
thing from another. Hence the followers of any teacher, philosopher, or
head of a sect, are usually called his _disciples_. In the Christian
sense of the term, _disciples_ are the followers of JESUS CHRIST in
general; but, in a more restrained sense, it denotes those who were the
immediate followers and attendants on his person. The names _disciple_
and _apostle_ are often used synonymously in the gospel history; but
sometimes the apostles are distinguished from disciples, as persons
selected out of the number of disciples, to be the principal ministers
of his religion. Of these there were twelve; whereas those who are
simply styled _disciples_ were seventy, or seventy-two, in number. There
was not as yet any catalogue of the disciples in Eusebius’s time, i. e.
in the fourth century. The Latins kept the festival of the seventy or
seventy-two disciples on the 15th of July, and the Greeks on 4th of
January.
DISCIPLINE, ECCLESIASTICAL. The Christian Church being a spiritual
community or society of persons professing the religion of JESUS, and,
as such, governed by spiritual or ecclesiastical laws, her discipline
consists in putting those laws in execution, and inflicting the
penalties enjoined by them against several sorts of offenders. To
understand the true nature of church discipline, we must consider how it
stood in the ancient Christian Church. And, first,
The primitive Church never pretended to exercise discipline upon any but
such as were within her pale, in the largest sense, by some act of their
own profession; and even upon these she never pretended to exercise her
discipline so far as to cancel or disannul their baptism. But the
discipline of the Church consisted in a power to deprive men of the
benefits of external communion, such as public prayer, receiving the
eucharist, and other acts of Divine worship. This power, before the
establishment of the Church by human laws, was a mere spiritual
authority, or, as St. Cyprian terms it, a spiritual sword, affecting the
soul, and not the body. Sometimes, indeed, the Church craved assistance
from the secular power, even when it was heathen, but more frequently
after it was become Christian. But it is to be observed, that the Church
never encouraged the magistrate to proceed against any one for mere
error, or ecclesiastical misdemeanour, further than to punish the
delinquent by a pecuniary mulct, or bodily punishment, such as
confiscation or banishment; and St. Austin affirms, that no good men in
the Catholic Church were pleased that heretics should be prosecuted unto
death. Lesser punishments, they thought, might have their use, as means
sometimes to bring them to consideration and repentance.
Nor was it a part of the ancient discipline to deprive men of their
natural or civil rites. A master did not lose his authority over his
family, a parent over his children, nor a magistrate his office and
charge in the state, by being cast out of the Church. But the discipline
of the Church being a mere spiritual power, was confined to, 1. The
admonition of the offender; 2. The lesser and greater excommunication.
As to the objects of ecclesiastical discipline, they were all such
delinquents as fell into great and scandalous crimes after baptism,
whether men or women, priests or people, rich or poor, princes or
subjects. That princes and magistrates fell under the Church’s censures,
may be proved by several instances; particularly St. Chrysostom relates,
that Babylas denied communion to one of the Roman emperors on account of
a barbarous murder committed by him: St. Ambrose likewise denied
communion to Maximus for shedding the blood of Gratian; and the same
holy bishop absolutely refused to admit the emperor Theodosius the Great
into his church, notwithstanding his humblest entreaties, because he had
inhumanly put to death 7000 men at Thessalonica, without distinguishing
the innocent from the guilty.
DISPENSATION. The providential dealing of GOD with his creatures. We
thus speak of the Jewish dispensation and the Christian dispensation.
(See _Covenant of Redemption_.)
In ecclesiastical law, by dispensation is meant the power vested in
archbishops of dispensing, on particular emergencies, with certain minor
regulations of the Church, more especially in her character as an
establishment.
DISSENTERS. Separatists from the Church of England, and the service and
worship thereof, whether Protestants or Papists. At the Revolution a law
was enacted, that the statutes of Elizabeth and James I., concerning the
discipline of the Church, should not extend to Protestant Dissenters.
But persons dissenting were to subscribe the declaration of 30 Car. II.
c. 1, and take the oath or declaration of fidelity, &c. They are not to
hold their meetings until their place of worship is certified to the
bishop, or to the justices of the quarter sessions, and registered; also
they are not to keep the doors of their meeting-houses locked during the
time of worship. Whoever disturbs or molests them in the performance of
their worship, on conviction at the sessions, is to forfeit £20 by the
statute of 1 W. & M.—_Broughton_.
At the present time there are in England 34 dissenting communities or
sects; 26 native or indigenous, 9 foreign.
PROTESTANT SECTS.
Scottish Presbyterians:
_Church of Scotland._
_United Presbyterian Synod._
_Presbyterian Church in England._
Independents, or Congregationalists.
Baptists:
_General._
_Particular._
_Seventh Day._
_Scotch._
_New Connexion General._
Society of Friends.
Unitarians.
Moravians, or United Brethren.
Wesleyan Methodists:
_Original Connexion._
_New Connexion._
_Primitive Methodists._
_Bible Christians._
_Wesleyan Association._
_Independent Methodists._
_Wesleyan Reformers._
Calvinistic Methodists:
_Welsh Calvinistic Methodists._
_Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion._
Sandemanians, or Glassites.
New Church.
Brethren.
_FOREIGN:_
Lutherans.
German Protestant Reformers.
Reformed Church of the Netherlands.
French Protestants.
OTHER CHRISTIAN SECTS.
Roman Catholics.
Greek Church.
German Catholics.
Italian Reformers.
Irvingites, or Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Latter-day Saints, or Mormons.
_JEWS._
_Registrar-general’s Report._
DIVINE. Something relating to GOD; a minister of the gospel; a priest; a
theologian. (See _Clergy_.)
DIVINITY. The science of Divine things; theology; a title of the
GODHEAD. (See _Theology_.) In strictness, meaning that department of
sacred knowledge which has more peculiar reference to the attributes and
essence of GOD.
DIVORCE. A separation of a married man and woman by the sentence of an
ecclesiastical judge qualified to pronounce the same.
Among us, divorces are of two kinds, _à mensâ et thoro_, from bed and
board; and _à vinculo matrimonii_, from the marriage tie. The former
neither dissolves the marriage, nor debars the woman of her dower, nor
bastardizes the issue; but the latter absolutely dissolves the marriage
contract, making it void from the very beginning. The causes of a
divorce _à mensâ et thoro_ are adultery, cruelty of the husband, &c.;
those of a divorce _à vinculo matrimonii_, precontract, consanguinity,
impotency, &c. On this divorce the dower is gone, and the children, if
any begotten, bastardized. On a divorce for adultery, some acts of
parliament have allowed the innocent person to marry again.
DOCETÆ. Heretics, so called ἀπὸ τοῦ δοκέειν (_apparere_), because they
taught that our LORD had only a _seeming_ body, and that his actions and
sufferings were not in reality, but in appearance. There was in the
second century a sect which especially bore this name; but the Docetic
error was common to many kinds of Gnostics. (See _Gnostics_.)
DOCTOR. One who has the highest degree in the faculties of divinity,
law, physic, or music. (See _Degree_.)
DOCTRINE. A system of teaching. By Christian doctrine should be intended
the principles or positions of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
DOGMA. A word used originally to express any doctrine of religion
formally stated. _Dogmatic_ theology is the statement of positive truths
in religion. The indifference of later generations to positive truth is
indicated, among other things, by the different notion which has come to
be attached, in common discourse, to these words. By a _dogma_ is now
generally meant too positive or harsh a statement of uncertain or
unimportant articles; and the epithet _dogmatic_ is given to one who is
rude or obtrusive, or overbearing in the statement of what he judges to
be true.
DOMINICAL or SUNDAY LETTER. In the calendar, the first seven letters of
the alphabet are applied to the days of the week, the letter A being
always given to the 1st of January, whatsoever that day may be, and the
others in succession to the following days. If the year consisted of 364
days, making an exact number of weeks, it is evident that no change
would ever take place in these letters: thus, supposing the 1st of
January in any given year to be Sunday, all the Sundays would be
represented by A, not only in that year, but in all succeeding. There
being, however, 365 days in the year, the first letter is again repeated
on the 31st of December, and consequently the Sunday letter for the
following year will be G. This retrocession of the letters will, from
the same cause, continue every year, so as to make F the dominical
letter of the third, &c. If every year were common, the process would
continue regularly, and a cycle of seven years would suffice to restore
the same letters to the same days as before. But the intercalation of a
day, every bissextile or fourth year, has occasioned a variation in this
respect. The bissextile year, containing 366 instead of 365 days, will
throw the dominical letter of the following year back two letters, so
that if the dominical letter at the beginning of the year be C, the
dominical letter of the next year will be, not B, but A. This alteration
is not effected by dropping a letter altogether, but by changing the
dominical letter at the end of February, where the intercalation of a
day takes place. In consequence of this change every fourth year,
twenty-eight years must elapse before a complete revolution can take
place in the dominical letter, and it is on this circumstance that the
period of the solar cycle is founded.
DOMINICAN MONKS. The religious order of Dominic, or _friars preachers_;
called in England _Black friars_, and in France _Jacobins_.
Dominic de Guzman was born in the year 1170, at Calaruega, a small town
of the diocese of Osma, in Old Castile. According to the Romish legend,
his mother, being with child of him, dreamed she was delivered of a
little dog, which gave light to all the world, with a flambeau in his
mouth. At six years of age he began to study humanity under the
direction of his uncle, who was archpriest of the church of Gumyel de
Ystan. The time he had to spare from his studies was spent in assisting
at divine offices, singing in the churches, and adorning the altars. At
thirteen years of age, he was sent to the university of Palencia, in the
kingdom of Leon, where he spent six years in the study of philosophy and
divinity. From that time he devoted himself to all manner of religious
austerities, and he employed his time, successfully, in the conversion
of sinners and heretics. This raised his reputation so high, that the
bishop of Osma, resolving to reform the canons of his church, cast his
eyes upon Dominic for that purpose, whom he invited to take upon him the
habit of a canon in the church of Osma. Accordingly, Dominic astonished
and edified the canons of Osma by his extraordinary humility,
mortification, and other virtues. Some time after, Dominic was ordained
priest by the bishop of Osma, and was made sub-prior of the chapter.
That prelate, making a scruple of confining so great a treasure to his
own church, sent Dominic out to exercise the ministry of an evangelical
preacher; accordingly, he went through several provinces, as Galicia,
Castile, and Aragon, converting many, till, in the year 1204, the bishop
of Osma, being sent ambassador into France, took Dominic with him. In
their passage through Languedoc, they were witnesses of the desolation
occasioned by the _Albigenses_, and obtained leave of Pope Innocent III.
to stay some time in that country, and labour on the conversion of those
heretics. Here it was that Dominic resolved to put in execution the
design he had long formed, of instituting a religious order, whose
principal employment should be, preaching the gospel, converting
heretics, defending the faith, and propagating Christianity. By degrees
he collected together several persons, inspired with the same zeal,
whose number soon increased to sixteen. Pope Innocent III. confirmed
this institution, at the request of Dominic, who went to Rome for that
purpose. They then agreed to embrace the rule of St. Augustine, to which
they added statutes and constitutions which had formerly been observed
either by the _Carthusians_, or the _Premonstratenses_. The principal
articles enjoined perpetual silence, abstinence from flesh at all times,
wearing of woollen, rigorous poverty, and several other austerities.
The first monastery of this order was established at Toulouse, by the
bounty of the bishop of Toulouse, and Simon earl of Montfort. From
thence Dominic sent out some of the community to several parts, to
labour in preaching, which was the main design of his institute. In the
year 1218 he founded the convent of Dominicans at Paris, in the _Rue St.
Jaques_, from whence they had the name of _Jacobins_. At Metz, in
Germany, he founded another monastery of his order; and another, soon
after, at Venice. At Rome, he obtained of Pope Honorius III. the church
of St. Sabina, where he and his companions took the habit which they
pretended the Blessed Virgin showed to the holy Renaud of Orleans, being
a white garment and scapular, to which they added a black mantle and
hood ending in a point. In 1221, the order had sixty monasteries, being
divided into eight provinces, those of Spain, Toulouse, France,
Lombardy, Rome, Provence, Germany, and England. St. Dominic, having thus
settled and enlarged his order, died at Bologna, August 4th, 1221, and
was canonized by Pope Gregory IX., July 13th, 1234.
The order of the Dominicans, after the death of their founder, made a
very considerable progress in Europe and elsewhere. They therefore
erected four new provinces, namely, those of Greece, Poland, Denmark,
and the Holy Land. Afterwards the number of monasteries increased to
such a degree, that the order was divided into forty-five provinces,
having spread itself into all parts of the world. It has produced a
great number of martyrs, confessors, bishops, and holy virgins: there
are reckoned of this order 3 popes, 60 cardinals, 150 archbishops, 800
bishops, besides the masters of the sacred palace, who have always been
Dominicans.
There are _nuns_ of this order, who owe their foundation to St. Dominic
himself, who, whilst he was labouring on the conversion of the
_Albigenses_, was so much concerned to see that some gentlemen of
Guienne, not having wherewith to maintain their daughters, either sold
or gave them to be brought up by heretics, that, with the assistance of
the archbishop of Narbonne, and other charitable persons, he laid the
foundation of a monastery at Prouille, where those poor maids might be
brought up, and supplied with all necessaries for their subsistence. The
habit of these religious was a white robe, a tawny mantle, and a black
veil. Their founder obliged them to work at certain hours of the day,
and particularly to spin yarn and flax. The nuns of this order had above
130 houses in Italy, 45 in France, 50 in Spain, 15 in Portugal, 40 in
Germany, and many in Poland, Russia, and other countries. They never eat
flesh, excepting in sickness; they wear no linen, and lie on straw beds;
but many monasteries have mitigated this austerity.
In the year 1221, Dominic sent Gilbert du Fresney, with twelve brothers,
into England, where they founded their first house at Oxford the same
year, and soon after another at London. In the year 1276, the mayor and
aldermen of the city of London gave them two streets by the river
Thames, where they had a very commodious monastery; whence that place is
still called _Black Friars_. They had monasteries likewise at Warwick,
Canterbury, Stamford, Chelmsford, Dunwich, Ipswich, Norwich, Thetford,
Exeter, Brecknock, Langley, and Guildford.
The Dominicans, being fortified with an authority from the court of Rome
to preach and take confessions, made great encroachments upon the
English bishops and the parochial clergy, insisting upon a liberty of
preaching wherever they thought fit. And many persons of quality,
especially women, deserted from the parochial clergy, and confessed to
the Dominicans, insomuch that the character of the secular clergy was
greatly sunk thereby. This innovation made way for a dissoluteness of
manners; for the people, being under no necessity of confessing to their
parish priest, broke through their duty with less reluctancy, in hopes
of meeting with a Dominican confessor, those friars being generally in a
travelling motion, making no stay where they came, and strangers to
their penitents.—_Brouqhton._
DONATISTS. Schismatics, originally partisans of Donatus, an African by
birth, and bishop of _Casæ Nigræ_, in Numidia. A secret hatred against
Cecilian, elected bishop of Carthage, notwithstanding the opposition of
Donatus, excited the latter to form one of the most pernicious schisms
that ever disturbed the peace of the Church. He accused Cecilian of
having delivered up the sacred books to the Pagans, and pretended that
his election was thereby void, and all those who adhered to him
heretics. Under this false pretext of zeal for the Church, he set up for
the head of a party, and about the year 312, taught that baptism,
administered by heretics, was null; that the Church was not infallible;
that it had erred in his time; and that he was to be the restorer of it.
But a council, held at Arles in 314, acquitted Cecilian, and declared
his election valid.
The schismatics, irritated at this sentence, refused to acquiesce in the
decisions of the council; and the more firmly to support their cause,
they thought it better to subscribe to the opinions of Donatus, and
openly to declaim against the Catholics: they gave out, that the Church
was become prostituted; they rebaptized the Catholics; they trod under
foot the eucharist consecrated by priests of the Catholic communion;
they overthrew their altars, burned their churches, and ran up and down
decrying the Church. (See _Circumcellians_.) They had chosen into the
place of Cecilian one Majorinus; but he dying soon after, they brought
in one Donatus, different from him of _Casæ Nigræ_.
This new head of the cabal used so much violence against the Catholics,
that the schismatics took their name from him. But as they could not
prove that they composed a true Church, they sent one of their bishops
to Rome, who secretly took upon him the title of bishop of Rome. This
bishop being dead, the Donatists appointed him a successor. They
attempted likewise to send some bishops into Spain, that they might say,
their Church began to spread itself everywhere; but it was only in
Africa that it could gain any considerable footing, and this want of
diffusion was much insisted on by their opponents as an argument against
their pretensions.
After many vain efforts to crush this schism, the emperor Honorius
assembled a council of bishops at Carthage, in the year 410; where a
disputation was held between seven of each party. Marcellinus, the
emperor’s deputy, who presided in that assembly, decided in favour of
the Catholics, and ordered them to take possession of all the churches,
which the Donatist bishops had seized on by violence, or otherwise. This
decree exasperated the Donatists; but the Catholic bishops used so much
wisdom and prudence, that they insensibly brought over most of those who
had strayed from the bosom of the Church. It appears, however, that the
schism was not quite extinct till the 7th century.—_Broughton._
DONATIVE. A donative is when the king, or any subject by his licence,
founds a church or chapel, and ordains that it shall be merely in the
gift or disposal of the patron, and vested absolutely in the clerk by
the patron’s deed of donation, without presentation, institution, or
induction. This is said to have been anciently the only way of
conferring ecclesiastical benefices in England; the method of
institution by the bishop not being established more early than the time
of Archbishop Becket in the reign of Henry II. And therefore Pope
Alexander III., (_Decretal_, 1. 3, t. 7, c. 3,) in a letter to Becket,
severely inveighs against the _prava consuetudo_, as he calls it, of
investiture conferred by the patron only: this however shows what was
then the common usage. Others contend, that the claim of the bishops to
institution is as old as the first planting of Christianity in this
island; and, in proof of it, they allege a letter from the English
nobility to the pope in the reign of Henry III., recorded by Matthew
Paris, (A. D. 1239,) which speaks of presentation to the bishop as a
thing immemorial. The truth seems to be that, where a benefice was to be
conferred on a mere layman, he was first presented to the bishop, in
order to receive ordination, who was at liberty to examine and refuse
him: but where the clerk was already in orders, the living was usually
vested in him by the sole donation of the patron; until about the middle
of the twelfth century, when the pope endeavoured to introduce a kind of
feudal dominion over ecclesiastical benefices, and, in consequence of
that, began to claim and exercise the right of institution universally
as a species of spiritual investiture.
By the act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, sec. 9, the right of perpetual
nomination of an incumbent may be acquired by the person or body, their
heirs, &c., who shall procure a church to be erected and endowed.
DONNELLAN LECTURES. Mrs. Anne Donnellan, in the last century, bequeathed
a sum of £1243 to the college of Dublin, for the encouragement of
religion, learning, and good manners; the application of the sum being
intrusted to the provost and senior fellows; who, consequently, in 1794,
resolved, that a lecturer should be annually appointed to preach six
lectures in the college chapel: the subject of the lectures for each
year being determined by them. The other regulations are analogous to
those of the Bampton Lectures at Oxford. Many distinguished works have
been the fruits of this Lecture: among them may be mentioned Dr.
Graves’s Lectures on the Pentateuch, Archbishop Magee on Prophecy, &c.
DORMITORY, DORTOR, or DORTURE. The sleeping apartment in a monastic
institution.
A place of sepulture is also so called, with reference, like the word
_cemetery_, which has the same meaning, to the resurrection, at which
time the bodies of the saints, which for the present repose in their
graves, shall arise, or awake. But it must be borne in mind, that the
word has reference to the sleep of the body, and not of the soul, which
latter was never an article of the Christian faith.
DORT. The Synod of Dort was convened to compose the troubles occasioned
by the celebrated Arminian controversy.
Arminius, professor of divinity at Leyden, had received his theological
education at Geneva. After much profound meditation on the abstruse
subject of predestination, he became dissatisfied with Calvin’s doctrine
of the absolute decrees of GOD, in respect to the salvation and
perdition of man; and, while he admitted the eternal prescience of the
Deity, he held, with the Roman Catholic Church, that no mortal is
rendered finally unhappy, by an eternal and invincible decree; and that
the misery of those who perish comes from themselves. Many who were
eminent for their talents and learning, and some who filled high
situations in Holland, embraced his opinions; but, apparently at least,
a great majority sided against them. The most active of these was Gomar,
the colleague of Arminius in the professorship. Unfortunately, politics
entered into the controversy. Most of the friends of Arminius were of
the party which opposed the politics of the Prince of Orange; while,
generally, the adversaries of Arminius were favourable to the views of
that prince. Barneveldt and Grotius, two of the most respectable
partisans of Arminius, were thrown into prison for their supposed
practices against the state. The former perished on the scaffold; the
latter, by his wife’s address, escaped from prison. While these
disturbances were at the highest, Arminius died.
On his decease, the superintendence of the party devolved to Episcopius,
who was, at that time, professor of theology at Leyden, and universally
esteemed for his learning, his judgment, and his eloquence. The Arminian
cause prospering under him, the opposite party took the alarm, and, in
1618, a synod was called at Dort, by the direction, and under the
influence, of Prince Maurice. It was attended by deputies from the
United Provinces, and from the Churches of England, Hesse, Bremen,
Switzerland, and the Palatinate.
The synod adopted the Belgic Confession, decided in favour of absolute
decrees, and excommunicated the Arminians. Its canons were published
under the title of “Judicium Synodi nationalis reformatarum ecclesiarum
habiti Dordrechti anno 1618 et 1619, de quinque doctrinæ capitibus, in
ecclesiis Belgicis, controversis: Promulgatum VI. Maii MDCXIX. 4to.” It
concludes the Sylloge Confessionum, printed at the Clarendon
press.—_Butler’s Confession of Faith._
DOXOLOGY. (See _Gloria Patri_.) A hymn used in the Divine service of
Christians. The ancient doxology was only a single sentence, without a
response, running in these words: “Glory be to the FATHER, and to the
SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world without end. Amen.” Part of the latter
clause, “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,” was
inserted some time after the first composition. The fourth Council of
Toledo, in the year 633, added the word “honour” to it, and read it,
“Glory and honour be to the FATHER,” &c., because the prophet David
says, “Bring glory and honour to the LORD.” It is not easy to say at
what time the latter clause was inserted. Some ascribe it to the Council
of Nice, and suppose it was added in opposition to the Arians. But the
first express mention made of it is in the second Council of Vaison, an.
529, above two centuries later.
There was another small difference in the use of this ancient hymn; some
reading it, “Glory be to the FATHER, and to the SON, with the HOLY
GHOST;” others, “Glory be to the FATHER, in (or by) the SON, and by the
HOLY GHOST.” This difference of expression occasioned no disputes in the
Church, till the rise of the Arian heresy: but, when the followers of
Arius began to make use of the latter, and made it a distinguishing
character of their party, it was entirely laid aside by the Catholics,
and the use of it was enough to bring any one under suspicion of
heterodoxy.
This hymn was of most general use, and was a doxology, or giving of
praise to GOD, at the close of every solemn office. The Western Church
repeated it at the end of every psalm, with some few exceptions; and
omitted it on the three days before Easter, and in offices of the dead;
and the Eastern Church used it only at the end of the last psalm. Many
of their prayers were also concluded with it, particularly the solemn
thanksgiving, or consecration-prayer at the eucharist. It was also the
ordinary conclusion of their sermons.
There was likewise another hymn, of great note in the ancient Church,
called the great doxology, or angelical hymn, beginning with those
words, which the angels sung at our SAVIOUR’S birth, “Glory be to GOD on
high,” &c. This was chiefly used in the Communion Service. It was also
used daily in men’s private devotions. In the Mozarabic liturgy it is
appointed to be sung before the lessons on Christmas day. St. Chrysostom
often mentions it, and observes that the Ascetics, or Christians who had
retired from the world, met together daily to sing this hymn. Who first
composed it, adding the remaining part to the words sung by the angels,
is uncertain. Some suppose it to be as ancient as the time of Lucian,
about the beginning of the second century. Others take it for the
_Gloria Patri_; which is a dispute as difficult to be determined, as it
is to find out the first author and original of this hymn.
Both these doxologies have a place in the liturgy of the Church of
England, the former being repeated after every psalm, the latter used in
the Communion Service.
As the ancient doxology of “Glory to the _Father_, SON, and HOLY GHOST”
was, among the Christians, a solemn profession of their belief in the
Holy Trinity, so the Mohammedans, by their doxology, “There is but one
GOD,” (to which they sometimes add, “and Mohammed is his prophet,”)
which they use both in their public and private prayers, and in their
acclamations, sufficiently show their disbelief of a Trinity of persons
in the Godhead.—_Bingham._
DRIPSTONE. In church architecture, the projecting moulding which crowns
doors, windows, and other arches, in the exterior of a building.
DULCINISTS. Heretics, so denominated from one Dulcinus, a layman, of
Novara in Lombardy, who lived in the beginning of the 14th century. He
pretended to preach the reign of the HOLY GHOST; and while he justly
enough rejected the pope’s authority, he foolishly made himself to be
the head of that third reign, saying, that the FATHER had reigned from
the beginning of the world to the coming of CHRIST; and the SON’S reign
began then, and continued until the year 1300. He was followed by a
great many people to the Alps, where he and his wife were taken and
burnt by the order of Clement IV.
DULIA. (Δουλεία.) The worship paid by Romanists to saints and angels,
and to images. Not denying that all these are made by them objects of
worship, the Papists invent a distinction of many kinds and degrees of
worship, and very accurately assign to each object of worship its proper
amount of reverence. The lowest degree is the _dulia_, which is given to
saints and angels. _Hyperdulia_ (ὑπερδουλεία) is reserved for the
Blessed Virgin alone: and _Latria_ (λατρεια) is given to the LORD
himself, and to each person in the ever blessed and glorious Trinity.
Images of either of these receive a relative worship of the same order.
An image of a saint or angel, _relative Dulia_: an image of the Blessed
Virgin, _relative hyperdulia_: an image of either person of the Blessed
Trinity, _relative Latria_. (See _Idolatry_, _Images_, _Invocation of
Saints_.)
DUNKERS, or DIPPERS. A sect of Baptists, originating (1724) in the
teaching of one Conrad Peysel or Beissel, a German, in Philadelphia, one
of the American states. They are distinguished not only by their
adherence to the rite of baptism with trine immersion, which, like other
Baptists, they of course confine to adults, but also by their rigid
abstinence from flesh, except on particular occasions; by their living
in monastic societies, by their peculiar garb, like that of the
Dominican friars, and by their scruples with regard to resistance, war,
slavery, and litigation. Their great settlement is at a place which they
call Euphrata, in allusion to the lament of the Hebrews in their
captivity, which they used to pour forth to their harps as they sat on
the banks of the Euphrates.
EAGLE. A frequent, and the most beautiful, form of the lectern for
reading the lessons from in churches. It has probably some reference to
the eagle, which is the symbolical companion of St. John, in
ecclesiastical design. The eagle is frequently employed in foreign
churches, but generally for the chanting of the service, not for the
lessons. Sometimes it is employed for the reading of the Epistles and
Gospels, and there are instances of one being on each side of the choir
or chancel. Several of the cathedrals and colleges in our universities
have this kind of lecterns. Before the civil wars in 1651, there was in
the cathedral of Waterford, a “great standing pelican to support the
Bible, a brazen eagle,” and other ornaments.—_Ryland’s Waterford._
Winchester and St. John’s College, Cambridge, have of late years been
provided with eagle lecterns. The “_Lecterna_” or Bible eagle at
Peterborough was given by Abbot Ramsay and John Maldon in 1471.—_Dugd.
Monast._ ed. 1830, i. 344.—_Jebb._
EARLY ENGLISH, or LANCET, the first style of pure Gothic architecture,
fully established about 1190, and merging in the Geometrical about 1245.
The Lancet window is the principal characteristic of this style; but it
has, besides, various peculiarities, (see _Arcade_, _Capital_,
_Moulding_, _Vaulting_,) among which are the following:—The doorways are
frequently divided by a central shaft. As compared with the preceding
style, the buttresses have a considerable projection, and they usually
terminate in a plain pediment. The flying buttress becomes frequent.
Gables are of very high pitch; the parapet usually retains the
corbel-table. Piers consist of a circular or octagonal shaft, surrounded
by four or eight smaller ones, which stand free, except that, when of
great length, they are generally banded in the centre. Purbeck or
Petworth marble is often used both for the central, which is really the
bearing shaft, and the smaller ones; but in this case the marble of the
bearing shaft is laid as in the quarry, while the smaller shafts are set
upwards, for the sake of greater length. The triforium still maintains
its importance, though hardly so lofty as in the Norman style: it is
usually of two smaller behind a principal arch, or of four smaller
behind two principal arches. The clerestory is generally of the three
Lancets, the central one much more lofty than the two others. The
carving is extremely sharp and good, and very easily recognised, when it
contains foliage, by the stiff stalks ending in crisped or curled
leaves. Panels are often used to relieve large spaces of masonry, either
blank or pierced; and sometimes in window-heads, and in triforium
arcades, approach very nearly to the character of tracery. They are also
often filled with figures. The dog-tooth, which had made its appearance
in the Transition, is now extremely abundant, often filling the hollows
of the mouldings in two or three continuous trails. The spires are
almost invariably broach-spires.
EAST. (See also _Bowing_ and _Apostles’ Creed_.) In the aspect of their
churches, the ancient Christians reversed the order of the Jews, placing
the altar on the east, so that in facing towards the altar in their
devotions they were turned to the east. As the Jews began their day with
the _setting sun_, so the followers of CHRIST began theirs with the
_rising sun_. The eye of the Christian turned with peculiar interest to
the east, whence the day-spring from on high had visited him. There the
morning star of his hope fixed his admiring gaze. Thence arose the Sun
of righteousness with all his heavenly influences. Thither, in prayer,
his soul turned with kindling emotions to the altar of his GOD. And even
in his grave, thither still he directed his slumbering eye, in quiet
expectation of awakening to behold in the same direction the second
appearing of his LORD, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to
gather his saints.
In the ancient Church it was a ceremony almost of general use and
practice, the turning the face to the east in their solemn adorations,
which custom seems derived from the ceremonies of baptism, when it was
usual to renounce the devil with the face to the west, and then turn to
the east and make the covenant with CHRIST. Several reasons were given
by the Fathers for this. First, As the east, the place of the day-spring
from darkness, was the symbol of CHRIST, “the Sun of righteousness.”
2ndly, As it was the place of paradise, lost by the fall of the first
Adam, and to be regained by the second Adam. 3rdly, That CHRIST made his
appearance on earth in the east; there ascended into heaven; and thence
will again come at the last day. And, 4thly, That the east, as the seat
of light and brightness, was the most honourable part of the creation,
and therefore peculiarly ascribed to GOD, the fountain of light, and
illuminator of all things; as the west was ascribed to the devil,
because he hides the light, and brings darkness on men to their
destruction.
When we repeat the creed, it is customary to turn towards the east, that
so, whilst we are making profession of our faith in the blessed Trinity,
we may look towards that quarter of the heavens where God is supposed to
have his peculiar residence of glory.—_Wheatly._
Turning towards the east is an ancient custom,—as indeed in most
religions, men have directed their worship some particular way. And this
practice being intended only to honour CHRIST, the Sun of righteousness,
who hath risen upon us, to enlighten us with that doctrine of salvation
to which we then declare our adherence, it ought not to be condemned as
superstition.—_Secker._
Most churches are so contrived, that the greater part of the
congregation faces the east. The Jews, in their dispersion throughout
the world, when they prayed, turned their faces towards the mercy-seat
and cherubim, where the ark stood. (2 Chron. vi. 36–38.) Daniel was
found praying towards Jerusalem, (Dan. vi. 10,) because of the situation
of the temple. And this has always been esteemed a very becoming way of
expressing our belief in God.—_Collis._
EASTER. A festival of the Christians observed in the memory of our
Saviour’s resurrection. The Latins, and others, call it Pascha, an
Hebrew word, which signifies “passage,” and is applied to the Jewish
feast of the Passover, to which the Christian festival of Easter
corresponds. This festival is called, in English, Easter, from the Saxon
_Eostre_, an ancient goddess of that people, worshipped with peculiar
ceremonies in the month of April.
Concerning the celebration of this festival, there were anciently very
great disputes in the Church. Though all agreed in the observation of it
in general, yet they differed very much as to the particular time when
it was to be observed; some keeping it precisely on the same stated day
every year; others, on the fourteenth day of the first moon in the new
year, whatever day of the week it happened on; and others, on the first
Sunday after the first full moon. This diversity occasioned a great
dispute, in the second century, between the Asiatic Churches and the
rest of the world; in the course of which Pope Victor excommunicated all
those Churches. But the Council of Nice, in the year 324, decreed, that
all Churches should keep the Pasch, or festival of Easter, on one and
the same day, which should be always a Sunday. This decree was
afterwards confirmed by the Council of Antioch, in the year 341. Yet
this did not put an end to all disputes concerning the observation of
this festival; for it was not easy to determine on what Sunday it was to
be held, because, being a movable feast, it sometimes happened, that the
Churches of one country kept it a week, or a month, sooner than other
Churches, by reason of their different calculations. Therefore the
Council of Nice is said to have decreed further, that the bishops of
Alexandria should adjust a proper cycle, and inform the rest of the
world, on what Sunday every year Easter was to be observed.
Notwithstanding which, the Roman and Alexandrian accounts continued to
differ, and sometimes varied a week, or a month, from each other; and no
effectual cure was found for this, till, in the year 525, Dionysius
Exiguus brought the Alexandrian canon, or cycle, entirely into use in
the Roman Church. Meantime, the Churches of France and Britain kept to
the old Roman canon, and it was two or three ages after, before the new
Roman, that is, the Alexandrian canon was, not without some struggle and
difficulty, settled among them.—_Bingham, Orig. Eccles._ b. xx. c. 5.
_Theod._ lib. i. c. 10. _Socrat._ lib. ii. c. 9. _Euseb. de Vit. Const._
lib. iii. c. 14. _Leo_, Ep. 63, _ad Marcian. Imper._
But though the Christian Churches differed as to the time of celebrating
Easter, yet they all agreed in showing a peculiar respect and honour to
this festival. Gregory Nazianzen calls it the Queen of Festivals, and
says, it excels all others as far as the sun exceeds the other stars.
Hence, in some ancient writers, it is distinguished by the name of
_Dominica Gaudii_, i. e. the “Sunday of joy.” One great instance of the
public joy was given by the emperors, who were used to grant a general
release to the prisons on this day, with an exception only to such
criminals as were guilty of the highest crimes. The ancient Fathers
frequently mention these Paschal indulgences, or acts of grace, and
speak of them with great commendations. It was likewise usual at this
holy season for private persons to grant slaves their freedom or
manumission.—_Orat._ 19, _in fun. Patris_, t. v. _Cod. Theod._ lib. ix.
tit. 38, leg. 3. _Cod. Justin._ lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 8.
To these expressions of public joy may be added, that the Christians
were ambitious, at this time especially, to show their liberality to the
poor. They likewise kept the whole week after Easter day, as part of the
festival; holding religious assemblies every day, for prayer, preaching,
and receiving the communion. Upon which account the author of the
Constitutions requires servants to rest from their labour the whole
week. All public games were prohibited during this whole season; as also
all proceedings at law, except in some special and extraordinary
cases.—Lib. viii. c. 53. _Cod. Theod._ lib. xv. tit. v. leg. 5. _Ib._
lib. ii. tit. viii.
The festival of Easter was, likewise, the most noted and solemn time of
baptism, which, except in cases of necessity, was administered only at
certain stated times of the year.
The eve, or vigil, of this festival was celebrated with more than
ordinary pomp, with solemn watchings, and with multitudes of lighted
torches, both in the churches and in private houses, so as to turn the
night itself into day. This they did as a _prodromus_, or forerunner of
that great light, the Sun of righteousness, which the next day arose
upon the world.—_Greg. Naz._ Orat. ii. _in Pasch._
The paschal canon, or rule, of Dionysius having become the standing
rule, for the celebration of Easter, to all the Western Churches, it
will be proper briefly to explain it. The particulars of it are as
follows: viz. That Easter be always on the Sunday next after the Jewish
Passover; that, the Jewish Passover being always on the fourteenth day
of the first vernal moon, the Christian Easter is always to be the next
Sunday after the said fourteenth day of that moon; that, to avoid all
conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the
said moon be on a Sunday, this festival is to be deferred to the Sunday
following; that the first vernal moon is that, whose fourteenth day is
either upon the day of the vernal equinox, or the next fourteenth day
after it; that the vernal equinox, according to the Council of Nice, is
fixed to the twenty-first day of March; that therefore the first vernal
moon, according to this rule, is that, whose fourteenth day falls upon
the 21st of March, or the first fourteenth day after; that the next
Sunday after the fourteenth day of the vernal moon (which is called the
paschal term) is always Easter day; that, therefore, the earliest
paschal term being the 21st of March, the 22nd of March is the earliest
Easter possible; and the 18th of April being the latest paschal term,
the seventh day after, that is, the 25th of April, is the latest Easter
possible; that the cycle of the moon, or golden number, always shows us
the first day of the paschal moon, and the cycle of the sun, or
dominical letter, always shows us which is the next Sunday
after.—_Prideaux, Connect._ part ii. b. iv.
In the Romish Church, on Easter eve, the bells are rung about four in
the afternoon; the ornaments of the churches and altars are changed from
black to white; and the paschal taper is placed in a great candlestick
made in the shape of an angel. On the morning of Easter Sunday, matins
are said before day-break, because our Saviour rose at that time. When
the pope officiates, two cardinal deacons are placed on the right and
left of the altar, dressed in white robes, to represent the two angels
who watched our SAVIOUR’S sepulchre.—_Sacra Cerem. Eccl. Rom._ lib. ii.
In the Greek Church, it is usual, on Easter day, upon meeting their
friends, to greet them with this salutation, “JESUS CHRIST is risen from
the dead;” to which the person accosted replies, “He is risen indeed.”
On Good Friday, two priests carry in procession, on their shoulders, the
picture or representation of a tomb, in which the crucified JESUS,
painted on a board, is deposited. On Easter Sunday, this sepulchre is
carried out of the church, and exposed to public view, when the priest
solemnly assures the people, that CHRIST is risen from the dead, and
shows them the picture turned on the other side, which represents JESUS
CHRIST rising out of the sepulchre. The whole congregation embrace each
other, and, in transports of joy, shoot off pistols.—_Tournefort’s
Voyages_, Letter III. _Broughton_.
The anniversary festival appointed in remembrance of the resurrection of
our blessed SAVIOUR from the state of death, to which he had subjected
himself as an atonement for the sins of men. It is stated by Venerable
Bede, that this name was given to this festival at the time when
Christianity was first introduced among our Saxon ancestors in this
island. Those people, says Bede, worshipped an imaginary deity, called
Eostre, whose feast they celebrated every year at this season; the name
remained when the worship was altered. Others conceive the name to be
derived from an old Saxon word importing rising; Easter day thus
signifying the day of resurrection. Easter Sunday is not strictly the
anniversary day of our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, but is the day appointed
by the Church to be kept in remembrance of that event. After great
difference of opinions, it was decided in the Council of Nice that
Easter day should be kept on the Sunday following the Jewish feast of
the Passover, which Passover is kept on the 14th day, or full moon, of
the Jewish month _Nisan_. At the same time, to prevent all uncertainty
in future, it was made a further rule of the Church, that the full moon
next to the vernal (or spring) equinox should be taken for the full moon
in the month _Nisan_, and the 21st of March be accounted the vernal
equinox. Easter Sunday, therefore, is always the Sunday following the
full moon which falls on, or next after, the 21st of March. Easter is
thus observed with reference to the feast of the Passover, on account of
the typical quality of that day; the annual sacrifice commanded by the
Jewish law being regarded as a type of the greater sacrifice of CHRIST
for our redemption, and the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt
as a type of our deliverance from sin and death by his merits.
This was the birthday of our SAVIOUR in his state of glory and
exaltation, as his nativity was his birthday to his state of
humiliation. It was anciently called the “great day,” and “the feast of
feasts;” being by eminence “the day which the LORD hath made,” (Ps.
cxviii. 24,) for the Fathers unanimously expound that passage of this
day, and therefore with them, as with us, that psalm was always part of
the office of the day. For the antiquity of the observation of this day
innumerable authors might be produced; but the matter is not at all
controverted.—_L’Estrange._
This is the highest of all feasts, saith Epiphanius: this day CHRIST
opened to us the door of life, being the first-fruits of those that rose
from the dead: whose resurrection was our life; for he rose again for
our justification. (Rom. iv. 25.)—_Bp. Sparrow._
In the primitive times the Christians of all Churches on this day used
this morning salutation, “CHRIST is risen;” to which those who were
saluted answered, “CHRIST is risen indeed;” or else thus, “and hath
appeared unto Simon;” a custom still retained in the Greek Church. And
our Church, supposing us as eager of the joyful news as they were, is
loth to withhold from us long the pleasure of expressing it; and
therefore, as soon as the absolution is pronounced, and we are thereby
rendered fit for rejoicing, she begins her office of praise with anthems
proper to the day, encouraging her members to call upon one another “to
keep the feast; for that CHRIST our Passover is sacrificed for us, and
is also risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that
slept,” &c.—_Wheatly._
The first lesson in the morning is the twelfth chapter of Exodus, in
which is mentioned the institution of the Passover, proper for this day,
the feast of the Passover: for, as St. Augustine observes, “we do in
this feast not only call to mind the history of our SAVIOUR’S
resurrection, but also celebrate the mystery of ours.” That as CHRIST
this day rose again from death to life, so by CHRIST, and the virtue of
his resurrection, shall we be made alive, and rise from death to life
eternal. CHRIST is therefore our true Passover, whereof the other was a
type: the lesson then is proper for the day. So is the first lesson for
the evening, (Exod. xiv.,) for it is concerning the Israelites’
deliverance out of Egypt, a type of our deliverance from hell this day
by CHRIST’S glorious resurrection. As that day Israel saw that great
work, which the LORD did upon Egypt, (ver. 31,) so this day we see the
great conquest over hell and death finished by CHRIST’S triumphant
resurrection from the dead. The second lessons are plain. The Gospel
gives us the full evidence of CHRIST’S resurrection; the Epistle tells
us what use we should make of it, “If CHRIST be risen, seek those things
that are above,” &c. The collect prays for grace, to make the use of it
which the Epistle directs.
Thus holy Church is careful to teach and instruct all her children in
the matter of the feast, preaching CHRIST’S resurrection to us, both in
the type and prophecy out of the Old Testament, and in the history of it
out of the New. And she does not only teach us to know what GOD hath
done for us this day, but also she is careful that we may do our duty to
GOD for this his marvellous goodness, commanding and directing us to
pray for grace to do our duty, prescribing us excellent forms of adoring
and blessing GOD for his mercy this day, such methods as the HOLY GHOST
hath set down, in which we may be sure to pray and praise God by the
spirit.—_Bp. Sparrow._ On this day, as on Christmas day, there were
formerly [in the First Book of King Edward VI.] two communions, whereof
we have retained the former Epistle and Gospel.—_Bp. Cosin._
Easter day is a scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
In choirs, the Responses and Litanies used to be universally, and in
many places are still, solemnly sung to the organ; and the Responses, on
the Monday and Tuesday following.—_Jebb._
EASTER ANTHEMS. On Easter day, instead of the _Venite_, certain anthems
are appointed to be said or sung. At the last review the first two
verses now used were prefixed, and the authorized translation adopted.
In the First Book of King Edward VI., these anthems were appointed to be
said or sung “afore matins, the people being assembled in the church;”
and were followed by the following Versicle and Response.
_Priest._ Show forth to all the nations the glory of GOD.
_Answ._ And among all people his wonderful works.
With a special prayer. (See _Anthem._)
EBIONITES. Heretics in the first century; so called from their leader,
Ebion. The _Ebionites_, as well as the _Nazarenes_, had their origin
from the circumcised Christians, who had retired from Jerusalem to
Pella, during the war between the Jews and Romans, and made their first
appearance after the destruction of Jerusalem, about the time of
Domitian, or a little before.
Ebion, the author of the heresy of the Ebionites, was a disciple of
Cerinthus, and his successor. He improved upon the errors of his master,
and added to them new opinions of his own. He began his preaching in
Judea: he taught in Asia, and even at Rome: his tenets infected the isle
of Cyprus. St. John opposed both Cerinthus and Ebion in Asia; and it is
thought that this apostle wrote his Gospel, in the year 97, particularly
against this heresy.
The Ebionites held the same errors as the Nazarenes. They united the
ceremonies of the law with the precepts of the gospel: they observed
both the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. They called their
place of assembling a _synagogue_, and not a _church._ They bathed every
day, which was the custom of the Jews. In celebrating the eucharist,
they made use of unleavened bread, but no wine.
They added to the observance of the law divers superstitions. They
adored Jerusalem as the house of GOD. Like the Samaritans, they would
not suffer a person of another religion to touch them. They abstained
from the flesh of animals, and even from milk: and, lest any one should
object to them that passage of the Gospel, where our LORD says he
desires to eat of the passover, they corrupted it. When they were sick,
or bitten by a serpent, they plunged themselves into water, and invoked
all sorts of things to their assistance.
They disagreed among themselves in relation to our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Some of them said he was born, like other men, of Joseph and Mary, and
acquired sanctification only by his good works. Others of them allowed
that he was born of a virgin, but denied that he was the _Word_ of GOD,
or had a pre-existence before his human generation. They said he was
indeed the only true prophet, but yet a mere man, who, by his virtue,
had arrived at being called CHRIST and the Son of GOD. They supposed
that CHRIST and the devil were two principles, which GOD had opposed the
one to the other.
Though the Ebionites observed the law, yet they differed from the Jews
in many points. They acknowledged the sanctity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, Aaron, and Joshua; but they laughed at all those who came after
them. They rejected some parts of the Pentateuch; and when they were too
closely pressed by these books, they entirely abandoned them.
Of the New Testament, they acknowledged only the Gospel of St. Matthew,
that is, that which was written in Hebrew, and which they called the
_Gospel according to the Hebrews_. But they took from it the two first
chapters, and corrupted other passages of it. They absolutely rejected
St. Paul as an apostate, and an enemy of the law, and published several
calumnies against him. They had likewise false _Acts of the Apostles_,
in which they mixed a great many fables.
As to their manner of life, they imitated the Carpocratians, the most
infamous of all heretics. They rejected virginity and continence: they
obliged children to marry very young: they allowed married persons to
separate from each other, and marry again, as often as they pleased.
St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Origen, wrote against the Ebionites.
Symmachus, author of one of the Greek versions of the Scriptures, was an
Ebionite.
ECCLESIASTES. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is called “The
words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,” that is, of
Solomon, who, from the great excellency of his instructions, was
emphatically styled “the preacher.” The design of it is to show the
vanity of all sublunary things, in order to which the author enumerates
the several objects upon which men place their happiness in this life,
and then discovers the emptiness and insufficiency of all worldly
enjoyments, by many various reflections on the evils of human life. The
conclusion of the whole is, in the words of the preacher, “Fear God, and
keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” St. Jerome
observes, that this pious inference prevented the Jews from suppressing
this whole book of Ecclesiastes, which they had thoughts of doing, (as
well as many other writings of Solomon, which are now lost and
forgotten,) because it asserts that the creatures of GOD are vain, and
all things as nothing; it was also thought to contain some dangerous
opinions, and some particular expressions that might infuse doubts
concerning the immortality of the soul.
The word _Ecclesiastes_, which is Greek, signifies _a preacher_. The
Hebrews call it _Coheleth_, which literally signifies _a collector_,
because it is supposed to be a sermon or discourse delivered to an
assembly. The Talmudists will have King Hezekiah to be the author of it.
Kimchi ascribes it to Isaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel; but the book
itself affords no foundation for these conjectures. On the contrary, as
observed by Mr. Holden, “The author is expressly styled in the
initiatory verse, _the son of David, king in Jerusalem_: and in the 12th
verse he is described as _king over Israel, in Jerusalem_. These
passages are found in every known MS., and in all the ancient versions;
and Solomon, as is well known, was the only son of David who ever
reigned in Jerusalem. The book has been thus admitted into the sacred
canon as the production of Solomon, to whom it has also been ascribed by
a regular and concurrent tradition. A collateral proof arises from the
contents of the work itself, in which the author is stated to have
excelled in wisdom beyond all who were before him in Jerusalem, and to
have composed many proverbs: circumstances descriptive of Solomon, and
of no other personage whose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The
writer is likewise represented as abounding in wealth and treasure, &c.,
extremely applicable to Solomon.” Mr. Holden, and Mr. Desvœux, in their
very learned and exhaustive dissertations, completely refute the really
shallow objections of Grotius, Dathe, Eichhorn, and others, as to
Solomon’s authorship. They do not, however, quite agree as to the scope
of the book. Mr. Desvœux (to whom Dr. Graves, in his Lectures on the
Pentateuch, assents) states that his object is to prove the immortality
of the soul, or rather the necessity of another state after this life,
from such arguments as may be afforded by reason and experience. Mr.
Holden abides by the generally received opinion, that it is “an arguing
into the _summum bonum_, or chief good: not however merely as regarding
happiness in this life, but that which in all its bearings and relations
is conducive to the best interests of man. This he finally determines to
be true wisdom: ... and every part of the discourse, when considered in
reference to this object, tends to develope the nature of true wisdom,
to display its excellence, or to recommend its acquirement.” So Bishop
Gray: “he endeavours to illustrate the insufficiency of earthly
enjoyment; not with design to excite in us a disgust to life, but to
influence us to prepare for that state where there is no vanity.”
Ecclesiastes may justly be considered as a sequel to the Book of
Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue in
which a man of piety disputes against a libertine who favoured the
opinions of the Sadducees; his reason is, because there are some things
in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not proceed from
the same person. But this may be wholly owing to Solomon’s method of
disputing _pro_ and _con_, and proposing the objections of the
Sadducees, to which he replies.
The generality of commentators believe this book to be the product of
Solomon’s repentance, after having experienced all the follies and
pleasures of life; notwithstanding which, some have questioned whether
Solomon be saved, and his repentance is still a problem in the Church of
Rome.
ECCLESIASTIC. A person holding any office in the sacred ministry of the
Church. (See _Bishop_, _Priest_, _and Deacon_.)
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS. (See _Historians_.)
ECCLESIASTICUS. An apocryphal book of Scripture, distinguished by this
name because it was read (_in ecclesia_) in the church as a book of
piety and instruction, but not of infallible authority; or it is so
called, perhaps, to distinguish it from the book of Ecclesiastes; or to
show that it contains, as well as the former, precepts and exhortations
to wisdom and virtue. The anonymous preface to this work informs us,
that the author of it was a Jew, called Jesus, the son of Sirach, who
wrote it in Hebrew; but it was rendered into Greek by his grandson of
the same name. The Hebrew copy of this book, which St. Jerome saw, was
entitled _Proverbs_. By many of the ancients it was styled Παναρετος,
_the book of every virtue_: but the most common name among the Greeks
is, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach_. This book was written under
the high priesthood of Onias III., and translated in the reign of
Ptolemy Euergetes, or Physcon. Some of the ancients have ascribed it to
Solomon. The author, no doubt, had in his view the subject and thoughts
expressed in the Proverbs of that king, and has followed his method of
teaching morality by sentences or maxims. This book begins with an
exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom; after which follow many maxims of
morality to the forty-fourth chapter, where the author begins to
rehearse the praises of famous men, such as the patriarchs, prophets,
and the most illustrious men of the Jewish nation. The Latin version of
Ecclesiasticus has more in it than the Greek, several particulars being
inserted in that, which are not in the other. These, Dr. Prideaux
observes, seem to have been interpolated by the first author of that
version; but now, the Hebrew being lost, the Greek, which was made from
it by the grandson of the author, must stand for the original; and from
that the English translation was made.
Parts of Ecclesiasticus are strikingly like the style of Solomon, and
truly Hebraic in their cast, as has been remarked by Bishop Lowth in his
24th Prelection; who subjoins a translation of the 24th chapter into
Hebrew. He recognises however a considerable difference between its
style and that of Solomon.
ECLECTICS. A sect which arose in the Christian Church towards the close
of the second century. They professed to make truth the only object of
their inquiry, and to be ready to adopt from all the different systems
and sects such tenets as they thought agreeable to it; and hence their
name, from ἐκλεγω, to _select_. They preferred Plato to the other
philosophers, and looked upon his opinions concerning GOD, the human
soul, and things invisible, as conformable to the spirit and genius of
the Christian doctrine. One of the principal patrons of this system was
Ammonius Saccas, who at this time laid the foundation of that sect,
afterwards distinguished by the name of the New Platonists, in the
Alexandrian School.—_Broughton._
ECONOMICAL. The economical method of disputing was that in which the
disputants accommodated themselves, as much as possible, to the taste
and prejudices of those whom they were endeavouring to gain over to the
truth. Some of the early Christians carried this condescension too far,
and abused St. Paul’s example. (1 Cor. ix. 20.) The word is derived from
οἰκονομία, _dispensatio rei familiaris_, the discretionary arrangement
of things in a house according to circumstances.
ECONOMIST. (_Œconomus._) An officer in some cathedrals of Ireland,
chosen periodically by the chapter out of their own body, whose office
is to manage the common estate of the cathedral, to see to the necessary
repairs, pay the church officers, &c.—_Jebb._
ECONOMY ESTATE, or FUND. In some Irish cathedrals the common fund, for
the support of the fabric, the payment of the inferior church officers,
and sometimes certain members of the choir, is so called. It is not
divisible among the cathedral body themselves. About half the cathedrals
in Ireland are destitute of any common or corporate fund
whatever.—_Jebb._
ECUMENICAL. (From οἰκουμένη, _the world_.) A term applied to general
councils of the Church, to distinguish them from provincial and diocesan
synods. (See _Councils_.)
EDIFICATION. Literally, _a building up_; and in the figurative language
of the New Testament, a growing in grace and holiness, whether of
individuals or of the Church.
A pretence of greater edification has been a common ground of separation
from the Church; but most absurdly, for “edification,” says Dean
Sherlock, in his resolution of some cases of conscience which respect
Church communion, is building up, and is applied to the Church,
considered as GOD’S house and temple; and it is an odd way of building
up the temple of GOD, by dividing and separating the parts of it from
each other. The most proper signification of the word which our
translators render by “edification,” is a house or building; and this is
the proper sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church: “ye are
GOD’S husbandry, ye are GOD’S building,” that is, the Church is GOD’S
house or building. Thus the same apostle tells us that in CHRIST, “the
whole building” (that is, the whole Christian Church) “fitly framed
together, groweth unto an holy temple in the LORD.” (Ephes. ii. 21.)
Hence the governors of the Church are called builders, and the apostles
are called “labourers together with GOD,” in erecting this spiritual
building; and St. Paul calls himself a “master builder.” Hence the
increase, growth, and advances towards perfection in the Church, is
called the building or edification of it. For this reason, St. Paul
commends prophecy, or expounding the Scriptures, before speaking in
unknown tongues without an interpreter, because by this the Church
receives building or edification.
All those spiritual gifts, which were bestowed on the Christians, were
for the building and edifying of the Church. The apostolical power in
Church censures was “for edification, not for destruction” (2 Cor. x.
8); to build, and not to pull down; that is, to preserve the unity of
the Church entire, and its communion pure. And we may observe, that this
edification is primarily applied to the Church: “that the Church may
receive edifying;” “that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church;”
“for the edifying of the body of CHRIST.” (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12; Ephes. iv.
12.) And it is very observable wherein the apostle places the
edification of the body of CHRIST, viz. in unity and love: “till we all
come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the SON of GOD,
to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
CHRIST.” (Ephes. iv. 12, 13.) Till we are united by one faith unto one
body, and perfect man, and “speaking the truth in love, may grow up into
him in all things, which is the head, even CHRIST; from whom the whole
body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every
part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”
(Ephes. iv. 15, 16.) This is an admirable description of the unity of
the Church, in which all the parts are closely united and compacted
together, as stones and timber are to make one house; and thus they grow
into one body, and increase in mutual love and charity, which is the
very building and edification of the Church, which is edified and built
up in love, as the apostle adds, that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity
edifieth.” (1 Cor. viii. 1.) This builds up the Church of CHRIST; and
that not such a common charity as we have for all mankind, but such a
love and sympathy as is peculiar to the members of the same body, and
which none but members can have for each other. And now methinks I need
not prove that schism and separation are not for the edification of the
Church; to separate for edification is to pull down instead of building
up. But these men do not seem to have any great regard to the
edification of the Church, but only to their own particular edification:
and we must grant that edification is sometimes applied to particular
Christians in Scripture, according to St. Paul’s exhortation, “Comfort
yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” (1
Thess. v. 11.) And this edifying one another, without question,
signifies our promoting each other’s growth and progress in all
Christian graces and virtues; and so the building and edification of the
Church, signifies the growth and improvement of the Church in all
spiritual wisdom and knowledge, and Christian graces. The edification of
the Church consists in the edification of particular Christians; but
then this is called edification or building, because this growth and
improvement is in the unity and communion of the Church, and makes them
one spiritual house and temple. Thus the Church is called the temple of
GOD, and every particular Christian is GOD’S temple, wherein the HOLY
SPIRIT dwells; and yet God has but one temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT
dwells only in the Church of CHRIST; but particular Christians are GOD’S
temple, and the HOLY SPIRIT dwells in them as living members of the
Christian Church; and thus by the same reason the Church is edified and
built up, as it grows into a spiritual house and holy temple, by a firm
and close union and communion of all its parts: and every Christian is
edified, as he grows up in all Christian graces and virtues in the unity
of the Church. And, therefore, whatever extraordinary means of
edification men may fancy to themselves in a separation, the apostle
knew no edification but in the communion of the Church; and indeed, if
our growth and increase in all grace and virtue be more owing to the
internal assistance of the DIVINE SPIRIT, than to the external
administrations, as St. Paul tells us, “I have planted and Apollos
watered, but GOD gave the increase; so then, neither is he that planteth
anything, nor he that watereth, but GOD that giveth the increase” (1
Cor. iii. 6, 7); and if the DIVINE SPIRIT confines his influences and
operations to the unity of the Church, as the same apostle tells us that
there is but “one body and one spirit,” (Eph. iv. 4,) which plainly
signifies that the operations of this one spirit are appropriated to
this one body, as the soul is to the body it animates;—then it does not
seem a very likely way for edification, to cut ourselves off from the
unity of CHRIST’S body.
ELDERS. (πρεσβύτεροι, hence Presbyterians.) Presbyterian sects have
supposed that the order of _lay-elders_, as they denominate some of
their officers, is sanctioned by Holy Scripture. It appears certain,
however, that the “elders” mentioned by St. Paul (1 Tim. v.) did not
hold the same office as those in the Presbyterian sects, but “laboured
in the word and doctrine.” In this place the apostle means only
ministers, when he directs that double honour should be paid to the
elders that rule well, especially those who labour in the word and
doctrine; and the distinction does not appear to consist in the order of
officers, but in the degree of their diligence, faithfulness, and
eminence in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial duties. It is said
that Calvin admitted lay-elders into Church courts, on what he conceived
to be the sanction of primitive practice, and, as an effectual method of
preventing the return of inordinate power in a superior order of the
clergy. To this it is answered by Catholics, that neither the name nor
office of lay-elder was ever known to any general or provincial council,
or even to any particular Church in the world, before the time of
Calvin. (See _Presbyterians_.)
ELECTION. (See _Predestination_, _Calvinism_, _Armininnism_.) There are
three views taken of election, all parties agreeing that _some_ doctrine
of election is taught in Holy Scripture,—the Calvinistic, the Arminian,
and the Catholic.
By the Calvinists, (see _Calvinism_,) election is judged to be the
election of certain individuals out of the great mass of mankind,
directly and immediately, to eternal life, while all other individuals
are either passively left, or actively doomed, to a certainty of eternal
death; and the moving cause of that election is defined to be GOD’S
unconditional and irrespective will and pleasure, inherent in, and
exercised in consequence of, his absolute and uncontrollable
sovereignty.
By the Arminians, or Remonstrants, (see _Arminianism_,) Scriptural
election is pronounced to be the election of certain individuals, out of
the great mass of mankind, directly and immediately to eternal life; and
the moving cause of that election is asserted to be GOD’S eternal
prevision of the future persevering holiness and consequent moral
fitness of the individuals themselves, who thence have been thus
elected.
Election under the gospel or Catholic view denotes, the election of
various individuals into the pale of the visible Church, with GOD’S
merciful purpose, that through faith and holiness they should attain
everlasting glory, but with a possibility (since GOD governs his
intelligent creatures on moral principles only) that through their own
perverseness they may fail of attaining it.
Stanley Faber, from whose learned and most satisfactory work these
definitions are taken, very clearly proves this to be the doctrine of
the reformed Church of England; where, in the seventeenth Article, the
Church of England, speaking of predestination to life, teaches not an
election of certain individuals, either absolute or previsional,
directly and immediately, to eternal happiness. But she teaches an
election of certain individuals into the Church catholic, in order that
there, according to the everlasting purpose and morally operating
intention of GOD, they may be delivered from curse and damnation, and
thus, indirectly and mediately, may be brought, through CHRIST, to
everlasting glory; agreeably to GOD’S promises, as they are generically,
not specifically, set forth to us in Holy Scripture.
That such is the real doctrine of the Church of England—in other words,
that she teaches a predestination to life, not direct and immediate, but
indirect and mediate—inevitably follows from the circumstance that,
while in her sixteenth Article she hints at the possibility of the elect
individually departing from grace given, in her Homilies and in her
Burial Service, she distinctly states, that the elect, in her sense of
the word, may, in their individual capacity, fall away utterly, and thus
perish finally. Now, this statement is palpably incompatible with the
tenet of a direct and immediate predestination of individuals to eternal
life; for individuals, so predestinated, could not, by the very terms of
their predestination, fall away utterly and irrecoverably. Therefore,
the predestination to life, mentioned in the seventeenth Article, can
only mean an indirect and mediate predestination of individuals; or, in
other words, it can only mean a predestination of individuals to eternal
life, through the medium of election into the Catholic Church; in GOD’S
everlasting purpose and intention indeed; but still, (since GOD, in
executing his purpose and intention, operates upon the minds of his
intelligent creatures not physically, but morally,) with a possibility
of their defeating that merciful purpose and intention, and thence of
their finally falling away to everlasting destruction.
As the article, in connexion with the other documents of the Anglican
Church, must, unless we place them in irreconcilable collision with each
other, be understood to propound the doctrine of predestination after
the manner and in the sense which has been specified; so it distinctly
enjoins us to receive GOD’S promises, as they are generally set forth to
us in Holy Scripture.
The word _generally_ in this place is not opposed to _unusually_, but to
_particularly_, and signifies generically. And the other documents of
the Church of England agree with this interpretation of the seventeenth
Article.
We may refer, in the first instance, to the peculiar phraseology
introduced into the office of Infant Baptism. “Regard, we beseech thee,
the supplications of thy congregation: sanctify this water to the
mystical washing away of sin: and grant that this child, now to be
baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain
in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through JESUS CHRIST
our LORD.”
Thus, in systematically generalizing phraseology, runs the prayer. Now
the same prayer is recited over every child. Consequently, by the
inevitable force of the word “remain” as here used, every child,
baptismally brought into the pale of the Church, is declared to be, at
that time, one of the number of GOD’S elect.
But the largest charity cannot believe that every child, baptismally
brought into the pale of the Church, is elect in the sense of election
as jointly maintained by Calvin and Arminius.
Therefore, agreeably to the tenor of her own explicit phraseology, the
idea which the English Church annexes to the term election, can only be
that of ecclesiastical individual election.
The matter is yet additionally established by the parallel phraseology,
which occurs in the somewhat more modern office of Adult Baptism.
With the sole requisite alteration of “this person” for “this child,”
the prayer is copied verbatim from the older office. Every adult,
therefore, who is baptismally introduced into the pale of the Church,
is, as such, declared to be one of the number of GOD’S elect people.
The same matter is still further established by the strictly homogeneous
language of the Catechism.
Each questioned catechumen, who, as an admitted member of the Church,
has already, in the baptismal office, been declared to be one of the
elect, is directed to reply: that, as a chief article of the faith
propounded in the Creed, he has learned “to believe in GOD the HOLY
GHOST, who sanctifieth” him “and all the elect people of GOD.”
Now, such an answer plainly makes every catechumen declare himself to be
one of the elect.
But, in no conceivable sense which will harmonize with the general
phraseology of the Anglican Church, save in that of ecclesiastical
individual election only, can every catechumen be deemed one of GOD’S
elect people.
Therefore the idea which to the Scriptural term election, is annexed by
the Church of England, is that of ecclesiastical individual election.
The matter is also established by the parallel phraseology introduced
into the Burial Service.
“We beseech thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness,
shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy
kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of
thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body
and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory, through JESUS CHRIST our
LORD.”
In this prayer, the generic term “we” occurs in immediate connexion with
“the number of thine _elect_.”
Therefore the evidently studied arrangement of the words, enforces the
conclusion that every member of the Church, as designated by the term
“we,” must be deemed one of GOD’S elect people.
Finally, the same matter is established, even in the familiar course of
daily recitation, by the language of the very liturgy itself.
“Endue thy ministers with righteousness: and make thy chosen people
joyful.
“O LORD, save thy people: and bless thine inheritance.”
Now, who are the “chosen people,” whom the LORD is here supplicated to
“make joyful?”
Can we reasonably pronounce them, in the judgment of the Anglican
Church, to be certain individuals of each actually praying congregation,
who, in contradistinction to other individuals of the same congregation,
are predestinated, either absolutely or previsionally, to eternal life?
Assuredly, the whole context forbids so incongruous a supposition; for,
assuredly, the whole context requires us to pronounce, that “thy chosen
people” are identical with “thine inheritance.”
But the entire tenor of the liturgy identifies “thine inheritance” with
the Catholic Church.
Therefore, “thy chosen people” and the Catholic Church are terms, in
point of import, identical. (See _Perseverance_.)
ELECTION OF BISHOPS. (See _Bishops_.)
ELEMENTS. The materials used in the sacraments, appointed for that
purpose by our LORD himself. Thus water is the element of baptism, and
bread and wine are the elements of the eucharist. With respect to the
elements of the eucharist, it is ordered by the Church of England that,
“when there is a communion, the priest shall then place upon the table
so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;” _Then_, that is,
after the offertory, and after presenting the basin with the alms. This
rubric being added to our liturgy at the last review, at the same time
with the word “oblations,” in the prayer following, it is clearly
evident, as Bishop Patrick has observed, that by that word are to be
understood the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer
solemnly to _God_ as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his
creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and
peculiarly his. For in all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people
were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made
GOD’S by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the
communicants, not as man’s, but as GOD’S provisions, who by thus
entertaining them at his own table, declared himself reconciled, and
again in covenant with them. And therefore our blessed SAVIOUR, when he
instituted the new sacrament of his own body and blood, first gave
thanks and blessed the elements; that is, offered them up to GOD as LORD
of the creatures, as the most ancient Fathers expound that passage; who
for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy eucharist, always
offered the bread and wine for the communion to GOD upon the altar by
this or some short ejaculation: “LORD, we offer thee thine own out of
what thou hast bountifully given us.” After which they received them
into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear Son.
In the ancient Church they had generally a side table, or _prothesis_,
near the altar, upon which the elements were laid till the first part of
the communion service was over. Now, though we have not always a side
table, and there is no express provision for one made in the Church of
England, yet in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the
priest himself was ordered, in this place, to set both bread and wine
upon the altar; but at the review in 1551, this and several other pious
usages were thrown out, in condescension to ultra-Protestant
superstition. (See _Credence_.) After which the Scotch liturgy was the
first wherein we find it restored; and Mr. Mede having observed our
liturgy to be defective in this particular, was probably the occasion,
that, in the review of it after the Restoration, this primitive practice
was restored, and the bread and wine ordered by the rubric to be set
solemnly on the table by the priest himself. It appears, indeed, that
the traditional practice of the immediately preceding times maintained
its ground in many places after the alteration of the rubric; (see
_Hicke’s Treatises_, i. 127–129, 322–324;) but the history of the change
gives so marked a character to our present rubric, that a neglect of it
is clearly a violation of the priest’s obligation to conformity. If the
priest thus offends the consciences of the more enlightened members of a
congregation, they should point out to him his mistake, which can only
proceed from traditional negligence. In the coronation service of Queen
Victoria, after the reading of the sentences in the Offertory, this
rubric occurs. “And first the Queen offers bread and wine for the
communion, which being brought out of King Edward’s chapel, and
delivered into her hands, the bread upon the paten by the bishop who
read the Epistle, and the wine in the chalice by the bishop that read
the Gospel, are by the archbishop received from the Queen, and
reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair linen
cloth, the archbishop first saying this prayer,” &c. (See _Oblation_ and
_Offertory_.)—See _Wheatly_.
ELEVATION. In architecture, a representation of a building, or of any
portion of it, as it would appear if it were possible that the eye
should be exactly opposite every part of it at the same time.
ELEVATION OF THE HOST. This Romish ceremony, condemned in our
twenty-fifth Article, is not, comparatively speaking, an ancient rite.
The Roman ritualists, Bona, Merati, Benedict XIV., Le Brun, &c.,
acknowledge that there is no trace of its existence before the eleventh
or twelfth century in the West. The Ordo Romanus, Amalarius, Walafrid
Strabo, and Micrologus, make no mention of the rite, though the last of
these ritualists lived at the end of the eleventh century. The truth is,
that no certain documents refer to it until the beginning of the
thirteenth century, but it may possibly have existed in some places in
the twelfth. The synodical constitutions of Odo de Sulli, bishop of
Paris, about 1200, appoint this elevation, and it was probably then
first introduced into the diocese of Paris. Innocent III., who wrote on
the ceremonies of the mass at the beginning of the thirteenth century,
does not speak of it; but, in the time of Honorius III., it had come
into use, for he mentions it in an epistle to the Latin bishops of the
patriarchate of Antioch, A. D. 1219, where he commands that, at the
elevation, the people should reverently bow. “Sacerdos quilibet
frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur
hostia salutaris, quilibet reverenter inclinet.” This was inserted in
the decretals (c. _sane_ de celebratione missarum) by Gregory IX., his
successor, and thus became the law of the West. It is spoken of by
Bonaventure, Durand, and the Council of Lambeth, in the latter part of
the same century; and Cardinal Guido is said to have introduced this
rite, or some part of it, at Cologne, about 1265.
We know then, that, in the thirteenth century, the host was elevated,
and the people bowed or knelt at the same time. But if we are to judge
by the authorities referred to by the Roman ritualists themselves, the
writers of that and the following ages did not always interpret this as
designed for the adoration of the elements, or even of CHRIST in the
eucharist. Bonaventure (A. D. 1270) assigns eight reasons for the
elevation, some of which relate to the duty or dispositions of the
people on the occasion; but he does not notice the adoration of the
elements. William, bishop of Paris, about 1220, ordered a bell to be
rung at the elevation, that the people might be excited to pray: not to
worship the host. “Præcipitur quod in celebratione missarum, quando
corpus CHRISTI elevatur, in ipsa elevatione, vel paulo ante, campana
pulsetur, sicut alias fuit statutum, ut sic mentes fidelium ad orationem
excitentur.” Cardinal Guido (A. D. 1265) ordained, that at the elevation
all the people should pray for pardon. “Bonam illic consuetudinem
instituit, ut ad elevationem hostiæ omnis populus in ecclesia ad sonitum
nolæ veniam peteret, sicque usque ad calicis benedictionem prostratus
jaceret.” The synod of Cologne (A. D. 1536) explained the people’s duty
at the elevation to consist, in remembering the LORD’S death, and
returning him thanks with minds raised to heaven. “Post elevationem
consecrati corporis ac sanguinis Domini ... tum videretur silendum, et
ab omni populo mortis Dominicæ commemoratio habenda, prostratisque humi
corporibus, animis in cœlum erectis, gratiæ agendæ CHRISTO Redemptori,
qui nos sanguine suo lavit morteque redemit.”
On the other hand, Durand, (1286,) Lyndwood, (1430,) the diocesan synod
of Augsburg, (1548,) and Cardinal Hosius, one of the papal legates at
the synod of Trent, understood the prostration of the people as designed
for the adoration of CHRIST as present in the eucharist. Certainly this
has latterly become the common opinion, but from what has been said
above it appears that, before the Reformation, and afterwards, many
persons at the elevation directed their worship to GOD and CHRIST
simply, without any exclusive reference to the presence of CHRIST in the
eucharist.—_Palmer._
EMBER DAYS. These are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, after the
first Sunday in Lent, the feast of Whitsunday, the 14th of September,
and the 13th of December, all being fasting days; the Sundays following
these days being the stated times of ordination in the Church. It is to
be remarked, that the Sunday in December which begins the Ember week is
always the third Sunday in Advent. The week in which these days fall are
called Ember week. But as Sunday begins the week, the Ember collect is
always to be read on the Sunday preceding the Ember days, not on that
which follows them, as is sometimes erroneously done.
The derivation of the name is uncertain. It has been supposed by some to
signify “ashes,” and by others “abstinence,” in allusion to the ancient
custom connected with fasting. The fact that the Ember weeks return at
stated periods, has led others to trace the name to a Saxon word
signifying a “course,” or “cycle.” In the Western Church they were
denominated “the Fasts of the Four Seasons:” and from this comes
another, and perhaps the most probable, illustration—the Latin _quatuor
tempora_ (four seasons) being abbreviated into the German _quatemper_ or
_quatember_, and again, into the English _ember_. On these days the
design of the Church is to call her members, by prayer and fasting, to
invoke the Divine aid and blessing on the choice and commission of
ministers of the gospel. The deep interest every Christian heart should
feel in a matter of such infinite moment, should secure for these days
the pious observance of the members of the Church.
EMBLEM. A visible, and usually an ornamental, symbol of some spiritual
thing; of some great truth concerning the object of a Christian’s
worship, of some object of his faith and hope, or of some mystery or
privilege.
The use of emblems, under which the truths of Christianity were veiled
from the heathen, while they were presented vividly to the minds of the
faithful, is probably as old as Christianity itself: and the fancy of
pious persons has continued it to the present day; many particular
emblems having been so generally and almost universally used, as to have
been interwoven almost with the very external habit of the Church
itself. Among the most apt and venerable may be mentioned, the trine
compass, (as it is called by Chaucer,)
“That of the trine compas Lord and gide is,”
or a circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle; denoting the
co-equality and co-eternity of the three Divine persons in the ever
blessed and undivided Trinity: the hand extended from the clouds in the
attitude of benediction, for the first Person in the Trinity: the Lamb
triumphant, the fish, (see _Piscis_,) the pelican wounding her own
breast to feed her young, and others, for the SON of GOD, JESUS CHRIST
our LORD: the dove, for the HOLY GHOST. The chalice receiving the blood
of the wounded Lamb, for the holy eucharist: the phœnix rising from the
flames, for the resurrection: the cross, for the Christian’s life of
conflict; the crown, for his hope of glory. All these are beautifully
significant, and are very innocent in their use, as well as pious in
their intention.
It is of the essence of a proper emblem that it be not, nor pretend to
be, a simple representation. It then loses its allusive character, and
becomes a mere picture of the thing itself. In theology there is another
reason why this should be avoided: for when we attempt a representation
of any object of Christian worship, we too nearly fall into idolatry.
Hence the cross is admissible where the crucifix is not: and the not
unfrequent representation of the Holy Trinity, in which the FATHER is
represented as a man, supporting the LORD JESUS on the cross, is
shocking to the reverent eye. For the like reasons the representations
of the holy eucharist, under the old figure of a crucifix pouring blood
into four cups placed to receive it, is very objectionable.
With regard to the use of emblems, they still afford very happy
ornaments for churches and church furniture, especially perhaps for
painted windows. In the primitive Church, the pious sometimes carried
them on their persons. Clement of Alexandria has mentioned some which we
ought to avoid, and others which we may employ; of which latter we may
name a dove, a fish, a ship borne along by a full breeze, and an anchor.
As the reason of the rule which he gives still holds, we may refer to
his _Pædag._ iii. 11.
EMMANUEL, or IMMANUEL. A Hebrew word, which signifies “GOD with us.”
Isaiah, (vii. 14,) in that celebrated prophecy, in which he foretells to
Ahaz the birth of the MESSIAH from a virgin, says, This child shall be
called EMMANUEL, GOD with us. He repeats this while speaking of the
enemy’s army, which, like a torrent, was to overflow Judea: “The
stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O EMMANUEL.”
St. Matthew (i. 23) informs us, that this prophecy was accomplished in
the birth of CHRIST, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom the two natures,
Divine and human, were united; so that he was really EMMANUEL, or “GOD
with us.”
ENCŒNIA. Festivals anciently kept on the days on which cities were
built, or churches consecrated; and in later times, ceremonies renewed
at certain periods, as at Oxford and Cambridge, at the celebration of
founders and benefactors.
ENCRATITES, or CONTINENTS. A name given to a sect in the second century,
because they condemned marriage, forbade the eating of flesh or drinking
of wine, and rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and
conveniences of life. Tatian, an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin
Martyr, was the leader of this sect. He was greatly distinguished for
his genius and learning, and the excessive austerity of his life and
manners. He regarded matter as the fountain of all evil, and therefore
recommended in a peculiar manner the mortification of the body. He
distinguished the Creator of the world from the Supreme Being, denied
the reality of CHRIST’S body, and blended the Christian religion with
several corrupt tenets of the Oriental philosophy.
ENERGUMENS, DEMONIACS, from ἐνεργουμένοι, which in the largest sense
denotes persons under the motion or operation of any spirit whatever,
good or bad; but, in a restrained sense, is used by ecclesiastical
writers to denote persons whose bodies are possessed by an evil spirit.
Mention is often made in the primitive Church, of persons possessed of
an evil spirit. The regulations of the Church bestowed upon them special
care. They constituted a distinct class of Christians, bearing some
relation both to the catechumens and the faithful; but differing from
both in this, that they were under the special oversight and direction
of exorcists, while they took part in some of the religious exercises of
both classes.
Catechumens who, during their probationary exercises, became demoniacs,
were never baptized until thoroughly healed, except in case of extreme
sickness. Believers who became demoniacs, in the worst stage of their
disease, like the weeping penitents, were not permitted to enter the
church; but were retained under close inspection in the outer porch.
When partially recovered they were permitted, with the _audientes_, to
join in public worship, but they were not permitted to partake of the
eucharist until wholly restored, except in the immediate prospect of
death. In general, the energumens were subject to the same rules as the
penitents.—_Bingham._
ENGLAND. (See _Church of England_.)
ENOCH, THE PROPHECY OF. An apocryphal book, of which there remains but a
few fragments.
Enoch was certainly one of the most illustrious prophets of the first
world, since Moses says of him, that he “walked with GOD.” (Gen. v. 24.)
This prophet is famed in the Church for two things: the first is, his
being taken up into heaven without seeing death (Heb. xi. 5); the second
is, his Prophecy, a passage of which St. Jude has cited in his Epistle.
(Ver. 14.) The ancients greatly esteemed the Prophecy of Enoch.
Tertullian expresses his concern, that it was not generally received in
the world. That Father, on the authority of this book, deduces the
original of idolatry, astrology, and unlawful arts, from the revolted
angels, who married with the daughters of men. And it is on the
testimony of this book, that the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,
as Irenæus, Cyprian, Lactantius, received for true this fable of the
marriage of the angels with the daughters of men. St. Augustine, who was
less credulous, allows, indeed, that Enoch wrote something divine
because he is cited by St. Jude; but he says, it was not without reason
that this book was not inserted in the Canon, which was preserved in the
temple of Jerusalem, and committed to the care of the sacrificators. St.
Augustine sufficiently insinuates, that the authority of this book is
doubtful, and that it cannot be proved that it was really written by
Enoch. Indeed the account it gives of giants engendered by angels, and
not by men, has manifestly the air of a fable; and the most judicious
critics believe it ought not to be ascribed to Enoch. _De Habitu
Mulier._ c. iii. _De Civit. Dei_, lib. xv. c. 23.
This apocryphal book lay a long time buried in darkness; till the
learned Joseph Scaliger recovered a part of it. That author gives us
some considerable fragments of it, in his notes on the chronicle of
Eusebius; particularly in relation to the above-mentioned story of the
marriage of the angels with the daughters of men.
Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, and other learned men, attribute this work to
one of those Jews, who lived in the times between the Babylonish
captivity and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Others are of opinion, it was
written after the rise and establishment of Christianity, by one of
those fanatics, with whom the primitive Church was filled, who made a
ridiculous mixture of the Platonic philosophy and the Christian
divinity: such as the authors, or forgers, of the Sibylline Oracles, the
Dialogues of Hermes Trismegistus, and the like. The reasons of this
opinion are these. 1. The original of the book is Greek; and therefore
it was not composed by any Jew, living in Judea, or Chaldea; for they
always wrote in Hebrew, or in some of its dialects. 2. It is evident the
author was a Christian, because he makes perpetual allusions to the
texts of the New Testament. It is therefore, probably, the invention of
some Christian, who took occasion from the Epistle of St. Jude to forge
this work. As for St. Jude himself, it is probable he cites what
concerns the general judgment, not from any book then subsisting under
the name of Enoch, but from tradition.—_Jurieu, Hist. des Dogmes et
Cultes_, part i. c. 4.
ENTHRONISATION. (See _Bishop_.) The placing of a bishop in his stall or
throne in his cathedral.
A distinction is sometimes made between the enthronisation of an
archbishop and a bishop, the latter being called _installation_: but
this appears to be a mere refinement of the middle ages, of which we
have many such.—_Jebb._
EPACT. In chronology, and in the tables for the calculation of Easter, a
number indicating the excess of the solar above the lunar year. The
solar year consisting, in round numbers, of 365 days, and the lunar of
twelve months, of twenty-nine and a half days each, or 354 days, there
will be an overplus in the solar year of eleven days, and this
constitutes the _Epact_. In other words, the epact of any year expresses
the number of days from the last new moon of the old year (which was the
beginning of the present lunar year) to the first of January. In the
first year, therefore, it will be 0; in the second 11 days; in the third
twice 11 or 22; and in the fourth it would be 11 days more, or 33; but
30 days being a synodical month, will in that year be intercalated,
making thirteen synodical months, and the remaining three is then the
epact. In the following year, 11 will again be added, making fourteen
for the epact, and so on to the end of the cycle, adding 11 to the epact
of the last year, and always rejecting thirty, by counting it as an
additional month. The epact is inserted in the table of moveable feasts
in the Prayer Book.
EPHOD, a sort of ornament or upper garment, worn by the Hebrew priests.
The word אפוד, _ephod_, is derived from אפד, _aphad_, which
signifies to _gird_, or _tie_, for the ephod was a kind of girdle which,
brought from behind the neck, and over the two shoulders, and hanging
down before, was put cross upon the stomach; then carried round the
waist, and made use of as a girdle to the tunic. There were two sorts of
ephods, one of plain linen for the priests, and another embroidered for
the high priest. As there was nothing singular in that used by common
priests, Moses does not dwell upon the description of it, but of that
belonging to the high priest he gives us a large and particular account.
(Exod. xxviii. 6, &c.) It was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson,
and twisted cotton: upon that part of it which passed over the shoulders
were two large precious stones, one on each shoulder, upon which were
engraven the names of the twelve tribes, six upon each stone; and, where
the ephod crossed upon the high priest’s breast, there was a square
ornament called the pectoral, or breastplate.
St. Jerome observes, that the ephod was peculiar to the priesthood; and
it was an opinion among the Jews, that no sort of worship, true or
false, could subsist without a priesthood and ephod. Thus Micah, having
made an idol and placed it in his house, did not fail to make an ephod
for it. (Judges xvii. 5.) God foretold by Hosea, (iii. 4,) that the
Israelites should be for a long time without kings, princes, sacrifices,
altar, ephod, and teraphim; and Isaiah, speaking of the false gods who
were worshipped by the Israelites, ascribes ephods to them.
The ephod is often taken for the pectoral or breastplate, and for the
Urim and Thummim, which were fastened to it, because all this belonged
to the ephod, and made but one piece with it. Though the ephod was
properly an ecclesiastical habit, yet we find it sometimes worn by
laymen. Samuel, though a Levite only, and a child, wore a linen ephod.
(1 Sam. ii. 18.) And David, in the ceremony of removing the ark from the
house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, was girt with a linen ephod. (2 Sam.
vi. 14.) The Levites regularly were not allowed to wear the ephod; but
in the time of Agrippa, as we are told by Josephus, a little time before
the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Levites obtained of that
prince permission to wear the linen stole as well as the priests. The
historian observes, that this was an innovation contrary to the laws of
their country, which were never struck at with impunity.
Spencer and Cunæus are of opinion, that the Jewish kings had a right to
wear the ephod, because David coming to Ziglag, and finding that the
Amalekites had plundered the city, and carried away his and the people’s
wives, ordered Abiathar the high priest to bring him the ephod, which
being done, David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I pursue after
this troop?” &c. (1 Sam. xxx. 8); whence they infer that David consulted
GOD by Urim and Thummim, and consequently put on the ephod. The
generality of commentators believe, that David did not dress himself in
the high priest’s ephod, and that the text signifies no more than that
the king ordered Abiathar to put on the ephod, and consult GOD for him.
The ephod of Gideon is remarkable for having become the occasion of a
new kind of idolatry to the Israelites. (Judges viii. 27.) What this
consisted in, is matter of dispute among the learned. Some authors are
of opinion that this ephod, as it is called, was an idol; others, that
it was only a trophy in memory of that signal victory; and that the
Israelites paid a kind of Divine worship to it, so that Gideon was the
innocent cause of their idolatry; in like manner as Moses was, when he
made the brazen serpent, which came afterwards to be worshipped.
EPIGONATON. An appendage of a lozenge shape, somewhat resembling a small
maniple, worn on the right side, depending from the girdle. It is
considered to represent the napkin with which our blessed LORD girded
himself at the last supper, and has embroidered on it either a cross or
the head of our LORD. In the Romish Church its use is confined to the
pope. In the Greek Church it is used by all bishops. The epigonaton does
not occur in the sacerdotal vestments of the English Church.—_Palmer._
EPIPHANY. The epiphany, or manifestation of CHRIST to the Gentiles, is
commemorated in the Church on the 6th of January, and denotes the day on
which the wise men came from the East to worship the infant JESUS.
(Matt. ii. 2.) Let us be thankful for the light of the gospel, which on
that day began to shine on those who sat in darkness. (Isa. ix. 2; Matt.
iv. 16.)
The word epiphany is derived from the compound verb ἐπιφαίνω, which
signifies to _manifest_ or _declare_. The Epiphany is observed as a
scarlet day at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
The feast of Epiphany was not, originally, a distinct festival, but made
a part of that of the nativity of CHRIST; which being celebrated twelve
days, the first and last of which, according to the custom of the Jews
in their feasts, were high or chief days of solemnity, either of these
might fitly be called Epiphany, as that word signifies the appearance of
CHRIST in the world.
This festival was, in one respect, more taken notice of, in the Greek
Church, than the Nativity itself, being allowed as one of the three
solemn times of baptism, which the Nativity was not; a privilege which
it wanted in the Latin Church. St. Chrysostom tells us, that, this being
likewise the day of our SAVIOUR’S baptism, it was usual to carry home
water, at midnight, from the church, and that it would remain as fresh
and uncorrupt for one, two, or three years, as if immediately drawn from
the spring.—_Homil. 24, de Bapt. Christi._
Theodosius the Younger gave this festival an honourable place among
those days, on which the public games were not allowed; and Justinian
made it a day of vacation from all pleadings at law, as well as from
popular pleasures. It is to be observed, likewise, that those to whom
the care of the Paschal cycle, or rule for finding Easter, was
committed, were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give
public notice when Easter and Lent were to be kept the ensuing
year.—_Cod. Theod._ lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5. _Cod. Just._ lib. iii. tit.
12, leg. 6.
EPISCOPACY. (See _Bishops_ and _Orders_.) The ancient apostolical form
of Church government, consisting in the superintendency of one over
several other church officers. Bishops were always allowed to be of an
order superior to presbyters; and, indeed, having all the powers that
presbyters have, and some more peculiar to themselves, they must be of a
different order necessarily. It is their peculiar office to ordain,
which never was allowed to presbyters; and, anciently, the presbyter
acted in dependence upon the bishop in the administration of the LORD’S
supper and baptism, and even in preaching, in such manner that he could
not do it regularly without the bishop’s approbation.
Our Church asserts, in the preface to the Ordinal, that the order of
bishops was “from the apostles’ time;” referring us to those texts of
Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical
Epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order.
And of a great many which might be alleged these are some. In the short
history which we have of the apostles, we find them exercising all the
peculiar offices of the episcopal order. They ordain church ministers:
“And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.)
They confirm baptized persons: “Who, when they were come down, prayed
for them, that they might receive the HOLY GHOST” (viii. 15). They
excommunicate notorious offenders, as the incestuous person. (1 Cor. v.
5.) The like episcopal powers we find in Scripture committed to others,
whom, from the tenor of Scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, we
judge to have been advanced to that order. Not only a power of
ordination, but a particular charge in conferring it, is given to
Timothy; namely, that he “lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Tim. v. 22.)
That he caution the presbyters under him “that they teach no other
doctrine” (i. 3). Rules are given him how he should animadvert on an
offending presbyter: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but
before two or three witnesses,” (v. 19,) and to what conduct he should
oblige the deacons (iii. 8). The same episcopal powers are committed to
Titus, to “ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. i. 5,) and to
excommunicate heretics after the first or second admonition (iii. 10).
Now these are very good proofs to all reasonable men that diligently
read the Holy Scriptures, that the order of bishops was inclusively
“from,” that is, in, “the apostles’ time.”
But to all diligent and impartial readers of ancient writers the case is
yet more out of doubt. The earliest ecclesiastical writer extant is
Clemens Romanus, who wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians within
forty years after our SAVIOUR’S ascension. And he speaks not only of
presbyters and deacons, but of bishops likewise, as an order in use in
his time, clearly distinguishing also between the two orders of bishops
and presbyters. In the epistles of Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch
seventy years after CHRIST, in which he continued forty years, being
martyred in the year of our LORD 108, just seven years after St. John’s
death, all the three orders are clearly and exactly distinguished. Of
lower authorities the instances are innumerable. Clement of Alexandria
wrote in the latter end of the second century; and he mentions the three
orders as the established use of the Church in his time. Origen, who
lived at the same time, uses corresponding language. Tertullian likewise
mentions these three orders as established ranks of the hierarchy. And
so infinite other authors make these three orders perfectly
distinct.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Of the distinction among the governors of the Church there was never in
ancient times made any question; nor did it seem disputable in the
Church, except to one malcontent, Aërius, who did indeed get a name in
story, but never made much noise, or obtained any vogue in the world.
Very few followers he found in his heterodoxy. No great body even of
heretics could find cause to dissent from the Church in this point. But
all Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Donatists, &c. maintained the
distinction of orders among themselves, and acknowledged the duty of the
inferior clergy to their bishops. And no wonder; seeing it standeth upon
so very firm and clear grounds; upon the reason of the case, upon the
testimony of Holy Scripture, upon general tradition, and unquestionable
monuments of antiquity, upon the common judgment and practice of the
greatest saints, persons most renowned for wisdom and piety in the
Church.
Reason doth plainly require such subordinations. This all experience
attesteth; this even the chief impugners of episcopal presidency do by
their practice confess, who for prevention of disorders have been fain,
of their own heads, to devise ecclesiastical subordination of classes,
provinces, and nations; and to appoint moderators, or temporary bishops,
in their assemblies. So that reason hath forced the dissenters from the
Church to imitate it.
The Holy Scripture also doth plainly enough countenance this
distinction. For therein we have represented one “angel” presiding over
principal churches, which contained several presbyters, (Rev. ii. 1,)
&c.: therein we find episcopal ordination and jurisdiction exercised: we
have one bishop constituting presbyters in divers cities of his diocese,
(Tit. i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 19, 20, 22,) &c.; ordering all things
therein concerning ecclesiastical discipline; judging presbyters;
rebuking “with all authority,” or imperiousness, as it were, (Tit. ii.
15,) and reconciling offenders, secluding heretics and scandalous
persons.
In the Jewish Church there were an high priest, chief priest, a
sanhedrim, or senate, or synod.
The government of congregations among GOD’S ancient people, which it is
probable was the pattern that the apostles, no affecters of needless
innovation, did follow in establishing ecclesiastical discipline among
Christians, doth hereto agree; for in their synagogues, answering to our
Christian churches, they had, as their elders and doctors, so over them
an ἀρχισυνάγωγος, the head of the eldership, and president of the
synagogue.
The primitive general use of Christians most effectually doth back the
Scripture, and interpret it in favour of this distinction, scarce less
than demonstrating it constituted by the apostles. For how otherwise is
it imaginable, that all the Churches founded by the apostles in several
most distant and disjointed places, at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at
Alexandria, at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Rome, should presently conspire
in acknowledgment and use of it? How could it, without apparent
confederacy, be formed, how could it creep in without notable clatter,
how could it be admitted without considerable opposition, if it were not
in the foundation of those Churches laid by the apostles? How is it
likely, that in those times of grievous persecution, falling chiefly
upon the bishops, when to be eminent among Christians yielded slender
reward, and exposed to extreme hazard; when to seek pre-eminence was in
effect to court danger and trouble, torture and ruin, an ambition of
irregularly advancing themselves above their brethren should so
generally prevail among the ablest and best Christians? How could those
famous martyrs for the Christian truth be some of them so unconscionable
as to affect, others so irresolute as to yield to, such injurious
encroachments? And how could all the holy Fathers, persons of so
renowned, so approved wisdom and integrity, be so blind as not to
discern such a corruption, or so bad as to abet it? How indeed could all
GOD’S Church be so weak as to consent in judgment, so base as to comply
in practice, with it? In fine, how can we conceive, that all the best
monuments of antiquity down from the beginning, the acts, the epistles,
the histories, the commentaries, the writings of all sorts, coming from
the blessed martyrs and most holy confessors of our faith, should
conspire to abuse us; the which do speak nothing but bishops; long
catalogues and rows of bishops succeeding in this and that city; bishops
contesting for the faith against pagan idolaters and heretical
corrupters of Christian doctrine; bishops here teaching, and planting
our religion by their labours, their suffering, and watering it with
their blood?—_Dr. Isaac Barrow._
It was so well known that a bishop was of a superior order to a
presbyter, that it was deemed sacrilege by the fourth general council to
thrust a bishop down from the first to the second degree. So that,
however persecution and dire necessity may perhaps excuse some late
Churches, for being forced to mix the two first orders, and to have only
priests and deacons; yet we, who have a prescription of above 1600 (now
1700) years for us, even from the apostles’ time, have the right of our
side, and must never depart therefrom.—_Dean Comber._
EPISTLE. The Scriptural Epistles are letters which were addressed by the
inspired apostles to Churches or individuals.
Of these, the apostle Paul wrote fourteen; viz.
1. The Epistle to the Romans.
2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
3. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
4. The Epistle to the Galatians.
5. The Epistle to the Ephesians.
6. The Epistle to the Philippians.
7. The Epistle to the Colossians.
8. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
9. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.
10. The First Epistle to Timothy.
11. The Second Epistle to Timothy.
12. The Epistle to Titus.
13. The Epistle to Philemon.
14. The Epistle to the Hebrews.
St. James wrote one, general, Epistle.
St. Peter, two.
St. John, three: and
St. Jude, one.
But by the Epistle in the liturgy we mean the first lesson in the
Communion Service, which is so styled because it is generally taken from
the Epistles of the holy apostles. Sometimes, however, it is taken from
the Acts, and occasionally from the prophets. Almost all the lessons now
read as Epistles in the English liturgy have been appointed to their
present place, and used by our Church, for many ages. They are found in
all the liturgies of our Church used before the revision, in the reign
of Edward VI., and they also appear in all the monuments of the English
liturgy, before the invasion of William the Conqueror. It is, in fact,
probable that they are generally as old as the time of Augustine, A. D.
595. In this view, the lessons entitled Epistles in our liturgy have
been used, with some alterations, for 1200 years by the Church of
England. We must consider this more as a subject of interest and
pleasure than of any great importance, since all Scripture is given by
inspiration of GOD. Yet we may remark, that the extracts read from the
Epistles are generally devotional and practical, and, therefore, best
adapted for ordinary comprehension and general edification.
EPISTOLER. In the 24th canon, and in the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth,
we find that a special reader, entitled an epistoler, is to read the
Epistle in collegiate churches, vested in a cope. The canon and the
injunctions here referred to will be found under the head _Cathedral_.
Epistolers are still statuteable officers in several cathedrals of the
new foundation; though in most it has fallen into desuetude. It is
retained at Durham. The epistoler and gospeller are sometimes called
deacon and subdeacon, in the cathedral statutes. The epistoler,
according to our present rubric, strictly interpreted, must be a priest.
In the Roman Church he is a subdeacon. But by Archbishop Grindal’s
Injunctions in 1571, it was required that parish clerks should be able
to read the first Lesson and Epistle.—_Jebb._
EPOCH. A term in chronology signifying a fixed point of time from which
the succeeding years are numbered. The first epoch is the creation of
the world, which, according to the Vulgate Bible, Archbishop Usher fixes
in the year 710 of the Julian periods, and 4004 years before JESUS
CHRIST. The second is the deluge, which, according to the Hebrew text,
happened in the year of the world 1656. Six other epochs are commonly
reckoned in sacred history: the building of the tower of Babel; the
calling of Abraham; the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt; the
dedication of the temple; the end of the Babylonish captivity; and the
birth of JESUS CHRIST. In profane history are reckoned four epochs: the
æra of Nabonassar, or death of Sardanapalus; the reign of Cyrus at
Babylon; the reign of Alexander the Great over the Persians; and the
beginning of the reign of Augustus, in which our SAVIOUR was born.
ERASTIANS. So called from Erastus, a German heretic of the 16th century.
The pastoral office, according to him, was only persuasive, like that of
a professor of science over his students, without any power of the keys
annexed. The LORD’S supper, and other ordinances of the gospel, were to
be free and open to all. The minister might dissuade the vicious and
unqualified from the communion, but might not refuse it, or inflict any
kind of censure; the punishment of all offences, either of a civil or
religious nature, being referred to the civil magistrate.
ESDRAS, the name of two apocryphal books of Scripture, which were always
excluded the Jewish canon, and are too absurd to be admitted as
canonical by the Romanists themselves. They are supposed to have been
originally written in Greek, by some Hellenistical Jews, though some
imagine that they were first written in Chaldee, and afterwards
translated into Greek. It is uncertain when they were composed, though
it is generally agreed that the author wrote before Josephus.
The First Book of Esdras is chiefly historical, and gives an account of
the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, the building of
the temple, and the establishment of Divine worship. The truth it
contains is borrowed from the canonical books of Ezra (or Esdras, as the
Greeks and Latins call him, and thence term these books, the Third and
Fourth Book of Esdras); the rest is exceeding fabulous and trifling:
this book however is by the Greeks allowed to be canonical. The Second
Book of Esdras is written in the prophetical way, and pretends to
visions and revelations, but so ridiculous and absurd, that the Spirit
of GOD could have no concern in the dictating of them. The author
believed that the day of judgment was at hand, and that all the souls
both of good and bad men would be delivered out of hell after the day of
judgment. He speaks of two monstrous animals created by GOD at the
beginning of the world, in order to make a feast with them for all the
elect, after the resurrection. He says, that the ten tribes are gone
into a certain country, which he calls Arseret; that Ezra repaired the
whole body of the Holy Scriptures, which were entirely lost; and he
speaks of JESUS CHRIST and his apostles in so clear a manner, that the
gospel itself is not more express.
The Books of Esdras are not read in the service of the Church of
England. In the list of apocryphal books in the 6th Article, these are
called the Third and Fourth Books of Esdras, because Ezra and Nehemiah
were formerly joined in one book; and when they were separated, the book
of Nehemiah, being considered as a continuation of the book of Ezra, was
called by his name.—_Bishop Tomline._
ESPOUSE, ESPOUSALS. A ceremony of betrothing, or coming under obligation
for the purpose of marriage. It was a mutual agreement between the two
parties, which usually preceded the marriage some considerable time. The
distinction between _espousals_ and _marriage_ ought to be carefully
attended to, as espousals in the East are sometimes contracted for years
before the parties cohabit, and sometimes in very early youth. This
custom is alluded to figuratively, as between GOD and his people, (Jer.
ii. 2,) to whom he was a husband. (Jer. xxxi. 32.) The apostle says that
he acted as a kind of assistant (_pronuba_) on this occasion (2 Cor. xi.
2.): “I have espoused you to CHRIST,” that is, I have drawn up the
writings, settled the agreements, given pledges, &c., of that union.
(See Isa. liv. 5; Matt. xxv. 6; Rev. xix.)
ESSENES. A very ancient sect, which was spread abroad through Syria,
Egypt, and the neighbouring countries. They maintained that religion
consisted wholly in contemplation and silence. Some of them passed their
lives in a state of celibacy; others embraced the state of matrimony,
which they considered as lawful, when entered into with the sole design
of propagating the species, and not to satisfy the demands of lust. Some
of them held the possibility of appeasing the Deity by sacrifices,
though different from that of the Jews; and others maintained that no
offering was acceptable to GOD but that of a serene and composed mind,
addicted to the contemplation of divine things. They looked upon the law
of Moses as an allegorical system of spiritual and mysterious truths,
and renounced, in its explication, all regard to the outward letter.
ESTABLISHMENT. By a religious establishment is generally meant, in the
present day, the religion, whether Christian or not, which is recognised
by the State. Thus Presbyterianism is the establishment of Scotland,
Mahomedanism that of Turkey. In England and Ireland the Catholic Church
is the establishment. It has not been endowed by the State, which has
rather robbed than enriched it; nor has it been established, like
Presbyterianism in Scotland, by an act of the legislature. But being
endowed by individual piety, it was for many ages the only community in
this country which even pretended to be the Church: as such it was
recognised by the State, and when in process of time the Catholic Church
in this country asserted its independence of Rome, and reformed the
abuses which had crept into it, it continued to be, as it always was,
the religious community connected with the State; although, in the reign
of Queen Elizabeth, a sect in communion with Rome was founded in
England, and arrogated to itself the name and titles which belong to our
ancient Church, and to her alone. A slight reference to history will
show what is meant. Soon after Augustine had been consecrated, in
France, the first archbishop of Canterbury, his see was endowed with
large revenues by King Ethelbert, who likewise established, at the
instance of the archbishop, the dioceses of Rochester and London. The
other kings of the heptarchy erected bishoprics equal to the size of
their kingdoms. And the example was followed by their nobles, who
converted their estates into parishes, erecting fit places of worship,
and endowing them with tithes. (See _Church of England_.)
Thus was the Church established. For many years there appears to have
continued a good understanding between the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities, the powers of which were, in most respects, as in these
days, blended. But, after the moral world had been subdued, and papal
tyranny had been established by the marvellous energies of Hildebrand,
his crafty successors, the popes of Rome, soon perceived that, in order
to secure their dominion, it was important, as far as possible, to sever
the alliance which had hitherto subsisted between the Church and the
State. Representing the Church as independent, they regarded the king as
the head of the State, and the pope as supreme over the Church. No
sectarian of the present day can be more hostile to the alliance between
Church and State than were those divines, who in the middle ages were
devoted to the popedom. Although the pope, however, had here in England,
as elsewhere, many creatures and advocates, yet many and manful were the
repulses he met with from our clergy, our kings, and the people. His
authority, indeed, was, in this realm, a mere assumption, for he was
never elected by any synod of our Church as its head. Still, assuming
rights to which he could lay no lawful claim, his usurpations were
continued until, in the reign of Henry VIII., the clergy, the monarch,
and the people, could bear the tyranny no longer, but, throwing off the
yoke, declared that the pope was _not_ the head of the Church of
England, but that, in these realms, the king is, as in times past he
was, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as
civil, in these his dominions, supreme. This is the fact, and the
history of the fact. The property of the Church remains with those who
have descended in an unbroken line from the clergy to whom it was
originally granted. If our title be disputed, it devolves upon the
adversary to establish a prior claim. This the Protestant dissenter does
not attempt to do; and, with respect to the Roman Catholic dissenters,
we know, that instead of being descended from the original grantees,
their line of succession began at Rome scarcely more than two centuries
ago. Nor can they claim on the ground of greater similarity of doctrine,
for transubstantiation, the worship of saints and images, half
communion, constrained celibacy, &c., the doctrines and practices which
distinguish the modern Romanists, were unknown to the Anglo-Saxon
Church. Admitting, then, that we may differ in some particulars of
practice from our ancestors, yet certainly we do not differ from them so
much as the modern Romanists.
ESTHER. The Book of Esther is a canonical book of Scripture, containing
the history of Esther. There has been some dispute whether it was a
canonical book among the Jews. St. Jerome and other Christian writers
maintain the affirmative, but St. Athanasius and some others incline to
the opposite conclusion. It has, however, been received as canonical by
the Church. The last six chapters, beginning at the fourth verse of the
tenth chapter, are not in the Hebrew text. These are probably a
composure of several pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and are
therefore deservedly thrown out of the canon of the sacred books by the
Protestant Church; but the Latin and Greek Churches hold them canonical.
As to the author of the Book of Esther, there is great uncertainty. Many
of the Christian fathers attribute this history to Ezra. Eusebius
believes it to be more modern. Others ascribe it to Joachim the high
priest, the grandson of Josedec. Most conceive Mordecai to have been the
author of it, and join Esther with him in the composition of it. M. Du
Pin conjectures, that the great synagogue, to preserve the memory of
this remarkable event, and to account for the original of the feast of
Purim, ordered this book to be composed, which they approved and placed
in the canon of their sacred books. It has been remarked, as a singular
circumstance, that the Divine name does not once occur in this book.
ETERNITY. That mysterious attribute of GOD which implies his existence,
as without end, so without beginning. The self-existent Being, observes
Dr. Clarke, must of necessity be eternal. The ideas of eternity and
self-existence are so closely connected, that, because something must of
necessity be eternal, independently and without any outward cause of its
being, therefore it must necessarily be self-existent; and, because it
is impossible but something must be self-existent, therefore it is
necessary that it must likewise be eternal. To be self-existent, is to
exist by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself. Now
this necessity being absolute, and not depending upon anything external,
must be always unalterably the same, nothing being alterable but what is
capable of being affected by somewhat without itself. That being,
therefore, which has no other cause of its existence but the absolute
necessity of its own nature, must, of necessity, have existed from
everlasting, without beginning, and must, of necessity, exist to
everlasting, without end.
As to the manner of this eternal existence, it is manifest it herein
infinitely transcends the manner of the existence of all created beings,
even of such as shall exist for ever; that whereas it is not possible
for their finite minds to comprehend all that is past, or to understand
perfectly all things that are present, much less to know all that is
future, or to have entirely in their power anything that is to come, but
their thoughts, and knowledge, and power, must, of necessity, have
degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things
themselves: the eternal, supreme cause, on the contrary, must of
necessity have such a perfect, independent, unchangeable comprehension
of all things, that there can be no one point or instant of his eternal
duration, wherein all things that are past, present, and to come, will
not be as entirely known and represented to him in one single thought or
view, and all things present and future be as equally and entirely in
his power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all,
but all things were actually present at once.
This is, in reality, the most incomprehensible of the Divine attributes.
God is without beginning; the FATHER, always a Father, without
beginning; the SON, always the only begotten of the FATHER, without
beginning; the HOLY GHOST, always proceeding from the FATHER and the
SON, without beginning; the one GOD, always existing in the Trinity of
his persons, without beginning.
“There is but one living and true GOD, _everlasting_, without body,
parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker
and preserver of all things visible and invisible; and in the unity of
this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and
_eternity_, the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—_Article_ I.
EUCHARIST. (From εὐχαριστία, _giving of thanks_.) (See _Communion_,
_Lord’s Supper_, _Elements_, _Consecration of the Elements_,
_Sacrament_, _Sacrifice_, _Real Presence_.) _Sacramentum eucharistiæ_ is
the name given to the LORD’S supper in our Latin articles, signifying,
properly, thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service
as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It occurs in Ignatius,
Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others; and was adopted into
the Latin language, as may be seen from Tertullian and Cyprian in many
places.—_Waterland._ We have, however, an earlier allusion to the
liturgy, under the title of _eucharistia_, or thanksgiving, in the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; where, in forbidding and
reasoning against the practice of some persons, who used the miraculous
gift of tongues in an improper manner, namely, by celebrating the
liturgy in an unknown language, he says, “When thou shalt _bless_ with
the SPIRIT, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say
Amen at thy _giving of thanks_, seeing he understandeth not what thou
sayest?” (1 Cor. xiv. 16.) ἐπεὶ, εἂν εὐλογήσῃς τῷ πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν
τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστιᾳ; ἐπειδὴ, τί
λέγεις, οὐκ οἶδε. The meaning of this passage is obvious: “If thou shalt
bless the bread and wine in an unknown language, which has been given to
thee by the HOLY SPIRIT, how shall the layman say Amen, ‘so be it,’ at
the end of thy thanksgiving or liturgy, seeing he understandeth not what
thou sayest?” It is undeniable that St. Paul in this place uses exactly
the same expressions to describe the supposed action as he has employed
a short time before in designating the sacraments of CHRIST’S body and
blood, and describing our LORD’S consecration at the last supper. Τὸ
ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ
Χοιστοῦ ἐστι; “The cup of _blessing_ which we _bless_, is it not the
communion of the blood of CHRIST?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) Ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ
νυκτὶ ᾖ παρεδίδοτο, ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε. (1 Cor. xi.
23.) “The LORD JESUS, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took
bread, and when he had _given thanks_, he brake it.” The language of St.
Paul also in the passage under consideration, as well as the action
which he describes, is perfectly conformable to the description given by
Justin Martyr of the celebration of the eucharist. “Then bread and a cup
of water and wine is offered to the president of the brethren; and he,
taking them, sends up praise and glory to the FATHER of all, in the name
of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST, and makes a very long thanksgiving,
because GOD has thought us worthy of these things. And when he has ended
the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people that are present signify
their approbation, saying, Amen. For Amen in the Hebrew language
signifies ‘so be it.’” Here we observe the “president” corresponding to
the person who “blesses,” according to St. Paul, and performs the
“thanksgiving.” The “people” corresponding to the “unlearned person” (or
layman, as Chrysostom and Theodoret interpret the word) of St. Paul, and
replying Amen, “so be it,” at the end of the thanksgiving in both
passages. If we refer to all the ancient and primitive liturgies of the
East and of Greece, the peculiar applicability of St. Paul’s argument to
the Christian liturgy will appear still more. In the liturgy of
Constantinople or Greece, which has probably been always used at
Corinth, the bishop or priest takes bread, and “blesses” it in the
course of a very long “thanksgiving,” at the end of which all the people
answer, “Amen.” The same may be said of the liturgies of Antioch and
Cæsarea, and, in fine, of all the countries of the East and Greece
through which St. Paul bare rule or founded Churches. It may be added,
that there is, we believe, no instance in the writings of the most
primitive fathers, in which the Amen is ever said to have been repeated
at the end of an office containing both blessing and thanksgiving,
except in the liturgy of the eucharist.
All this shows plainly that the argument of St. Paul applies immediately
and directly to the celebration of this sacrament. Whether we regard his
own previous expressions, the language and the words of the earliest
fathers, or the customs of the primitive Church exhibited in the ancient
liturgies, we see the accurate coincidence between the case which he
refers to, and the celebration of the eucharist.—_Palmer’s Origines
Liturgicæ_, p. 114. We virtually adopt this word, when in the prayer
after communion, we pray to GOD to accept _this our sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving_.
EUCHARISTIC. Belonging to the service of the holy eucharist; or, in a
larger sense, having the character of thanksgiving.
EUCHELAION. (_Gr._) The _oil of prayer_. To such penitents (in the Greek
Church) as are conscious of the guilt of any mortal sin, as adultery,
fornication, or pride, is administered the sacrament of τὸ εὐχέλαιον,
_Euchelaion_, which is performed by the bishop, or archbishop, assisted
by seven priests, and begins with this prayer, “O Lord, who with the oil
of thy mercies hast healed the wounds of our souls, do thou sanctify
this oil, that those who are anointed therewith may be freed from their
infirmities, and from all corporeal and spiritual evils.” This _oil of
prayer_ is pure and unmixed oil, without any other composition; a
quantity whereof, sufficient to serve for the whole year, is
consecrated, on Wednesday in the Holy Week, by the archbishop, or
bishop. The _Euchelaion_ of the Greek answers to the _Extreme Unction_
of the Romanists.
In the administration of this _oil of prayer_, the priest dips some
cotton at the end of a stick, and therewith anoints the penitent, in the
form of a cross, on the forehead, on the chin, on each cheek, and on the
backs and palms of the hands: after which he repeats this prayer—“Holy
Father, physician of souls and bodies, who hast sent thine only Son
JESUS CHRIST, healing infirmities and sins, to free us from death; heal
this thy servant of corporeal and spiritual infirmities, and give him
salvation and the grace of thy CHRIST, through the prayers of our more
than holy lady, the mother of GOD, the eternal Virgin, through the
assistance of the glorious, celestial, and incorporeal powers, through
the virtue of the holy and life-giving cross, of the holy and glorious
prophet, the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of the holy and glorious
apostles.”—_Ricaut._
EUCHOLOGION. (From εὐχὴ, _preces_, and λόγος, _sermo_.) The name of a
liturgical book of the Greek Church, containing a collection of Divine
services for the administration of the sacraments, conferring of orders,
and other religious offices: it is properly their ritual, containing
everything relating to religious ceremonies. Father Simon observes, that
several of the most considerable divines of that Church, in Europe, met
at Rome under Pope Urban VIII., to examine the Euchologion: Morinus, who
was one of the congregation, mentions this ritual in his book _De
Congregationibus_: the greatest part of the divines, being influenced by
the sentiments of the schoolmen, were willing to reform this Greek
ritual by that of the Church of Rome, as if there had been some heresies
in it, or rather some passages which made the administration of the
sacraments invalid; but some, who more perfectly understood the
controversy, opposed the censure of the Euchologion: they proved this
ritual was agreeable to the practice of the Greek Church before the
schism of Photius, and that for this reason it could not be condemned,
without condemning all the old Eastern communion.
EUDOXIANS. Certain heretics in the fourth century, whose founder was
Eudoxius, bishop of Antioch, and afterwards of Constantinople. They
adhered to the errors of the Aëtians and Eunomians, affirming the SON to
be differently affected in his will from the FATHER, and made of
nothing.
EULOGIÆ. (_Gr._) So the Greek Church calls the _Panis benedictus_, or
bread, over which a blessing is pronounced, and which is distributed to
those who are unqualified to communicate. The name _Eulogiæ_ was
likewise anciently given to the consecrated pieces of bread which the
bishops and priests sent to each other for the keeping up a friendly
correspondence: those presents likewise, which were made out of respect
or obligation, were called _Eulogiæ_.
St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, about the end of the fourth century,
having sent five _Eulogiæ_ at one time to Romanian, speaks to him in
these terms: “That I may not be wanting in the duties of brotherly love,
I send you five pieces of bread, of the ammunition of the warfare of
JESUS CHRIST, under whose standard we fight, following the laws of
temperance and sobriety.”
EUNOMIANS. A sect, so called from Eunomius, who lived in the fourth
century of Christianity; he was constituted bishop of Cyzicum, and
stoutly defended the Arian heresy, maintaining that the FATHER was of a
different nature from the SON, because no creature could be like his
creator: he held that the SON of GOD did not substantially unite himself
to the human nature, but only by virtue and his operations; he affirmed
blasphemously that he knew GOD as well as GOD himself; and those that
were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity he rebaptized, and was so
averse to the mystery, that he forbade the trinal immersion at baptism.
Upon divulging his tenets, he was expelled Cyzicum and forced also to
leave Samosata, where he was also obtruded by the Arian faction. Valens
restored him to Cyzicum, but being again expelled by the people, he
applied himself to Eudoxius at Constantinople.
EUSTATHIANS. A denomination in the fourth century, who derived their
name from Eustathius, a monk. This man was the occasion of great
disorders and divisions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring
countries; and, in consequence, he was condemned and excommunicated by
the Council of Gangra, which was held soon after that of Nice.
EUTYCHIANS. Heretics in the fifth century, the followers of the error of
Eutyches, who being a Constantinopolitan abbot, and contending against
Nestorius, fell into a new heresy. He and his followers affirmed that
CHRIST was one thing, the Word another; they denied the flesh of CHRIST
to be like ours, but said he had a celestial body, which passed through
the Virgin as through a channel; that there were two natures in CHRIST
before the hypostatical union, but that, after it, there was but one,
compounded of both; and thence concluded that the Divinity of CHRIST
both suffered and died. Being condemned in a synod at Constantinople, he
appealed to the emperor: after which, by the assistance of Dioscorus,
bishop of Alexandria, he obtained a synod at Ephesus, called
Latrocinium, or the assembly of thieves and robbers, wherein he got his
heresy to be approved: however, in the fourth general council, under
Marcian, A. D. 451, his errors were a second time condemned.
EVANGEL. (From εὐ, _bene_, and ἀγγελία, _nuncius_.) The gospel of
CHRIST. The revealed history of our blessed LORD’S life.
EVANGELICAL. Agreeable to the gospel, or “evangel.” The term is used by
that class of dissenters whose private judgment leads them to regard as
Scriptural the facts of our LORD’S Divinity and atonement, to
distinguish them from another class of dissenters, whose private
judgment leads them to hold these sacred truths as unscriptural. (See
the _Evangelical Magazine_.) The name is sometimes given to those
persons who conform to the Church, but whose notions are supposed more
nearly to coincide with the opinions of dissenters than with the
doctrines of the Church; thereby most unjustly insinuating that the
principles of all consistent members of the Church are not according to
the gospel. The use of terms of distinction among members of the Church
is much to be reprobated: among sects it cannot be avoided. In the
strict and proper sense of the words, he who is truly evangelical must
be a true member of the Church, and every true member of the Church must
be truly evangelical.
EVANGELISTS. Persons chosen by the apostles to preach the gospel. It
being impracticable for the twelve only to preach the gospel to all the
world, Philip, among others, was engaged in this function. As for their
rank in the Church, St. Paul places them after the apostles and
prophets, but before the pastors and teachers, (Eph. iv. 11,) which
makes Theodoret call them apostles of the second rank: they had no
particular flock assigned, as bishops or ordinary pastors, but travelled
from one place to another, according to their instructions received from
the apostles, to whom they returned after they had executed their
commission, so that, in short, this office, being extraordinary, expired
with the apostles.
The title of Evangelists is now more particularly given to those four
holy persons who wrote the history of our _Saviour_.
EVENS, or VIGILS. The nights or evenings before certain holy-days of the
Church. Vigils are derived from the earliest periods of Christianity. In
those times of persecution Christians held their assemblies in the
night, in order to avoid detection. On these occasions they celebrated
the memory of CHRIST’S death in the holy mysteries. When persecution had
intermitted and finally ceased, although Christians were able to
celebrate all their rites, and to minister the sacraments in the
day-time, yet a custom which had commenced from necessity was retained
from devotion and choice. The reason why some of the festivals have
evens or vigils assigned, and some have not, appears to be this, that
the festivals which have no vigils fall generally between Christmas and
the Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide; which were always
esteemed such seasons of joy that the Church did not think fit to
intermingle them with any days of fasting and humiliation. To this rule
there are exceptions, which may be severally accounted for, but such
seems to be the rule: e.g. There is no vigil on St. Michael’s day,
because, as Dr. Bisse remarks, the saints entered into joy through
sufferings, and therefore their festivals are preceded by fasts; which
circumstance is not applicable to the angels of GOD. St. Paul’s day
commemorates not his martyrdom, but his conversion; St. Luke was not an
apostle, nor does the calendar represent him as a martyr. The holy-days
which have vigils may be seen in the Prayer Book, in the table of the
Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year.
The eves are in some respects observed in colleges and choirs as
Sundays. For example, in those places where the choral service was not
daily, it was nevertheless performed on Saturday evenings and eves, as
is still usual; though in some choirs the custom has fallen into
abeyance. But in all colleges the regulation of the 17th canon is still
observed, which directs that “all masters and fellows of colleges and
halls, and all the scholars and students in either of the universities,
shall in their churches and chapels, upon all Sundays, holy-days, _and
their eves_, at the time of Divine service, wear surplices, according to
the order of the Church of England; and such as are graduates, shall
agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods as do severally appertain
to their degrees.” At Oxford, however, except at Christ Church, the rule
is not generally understood as applying to any but foundation members.
It is difficult to determine what analogy these evening services,
preceding Sundays and holy-days, bear to those of the unreformed Church
of England. The service for the vigil, in the Breviary, is not at
vespers. There is a distinct service for the vigil from matins to nones
inclusive, which has collects, &c. different from that of the Sunday or
holy-day which it precedes. Ordinary Sundays have not vigils, either in
our Church or in the Roman, except at Easter and Pentecost. By our
calendar, therefore, the eve of the Sunday is plainly a different matter
from the vigil. Though the collect for the Sunday is uniformly read on
the preceding Saturday evening, it is not read when the holy-day has no
vigil or eve. The Saturday evening service is to be considered as an
introduction to that of Sunday.
Some clergymen doubt whether, in case of a holy-day with a vigil or eve
falling on a Monday, the collect for that holy-day is to be read on the
Sunday evening or on the Saturday. That the _vigil_ or _fast_ day must
be kept on the Saturday, and not on the Sunday, is plain from the
calendar. But whether this keeping of the vigil includes the
_commemoration_ of the holy-day by reading the collect, is not so
evident. The question must first be solved, whether the service of the
preceding evening is a _vigil service_, or the _first vespers_.—_Jebb._
EVEN-SONG. (See _Liturgy, Common Prayer_.) Evening prayer, which is
appointed to be sung or said. The office of even-song, or evening
prayer, is a judicious abridgment of the offices of vespers (i. e.
even-song) and compline, as used in our Church before the Reformation;
and it appears that the revisers of our offices formed the introduction
to evening prayer from those parts of both vespers and compline which
seemed best suited to this place, and which presented uniformity with
the introduction to morning prayer.
_Even-song_ occurs in the table of Proper Lessons for Sundays and
Holy-days, and Proper Psalms. It is in fact the same as the old word
vespers; and only differs from the other authorized expression, evening
prayer, in having more special reference to the psalms and hymns, and
the anthem, those holy _songs_ which make up so large a portion of the
service.
EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. A festival of the Greek and Romish Churches
observed on the 14th of December. It is founded on the following legend:
In the reign of Heraclius, Chosroes, king of Persia, sacked Jerusalem,
and, together with other plunder, carried off that part of the cross
left there in memory of our SAVIOUR, by the empress Helena, which
Chosroes sent into Persia. After many battles, in which the Persian was
always defeated, Heraclius had the good fortune to recover the cross.
This prince carried it to Jerusalem himself; and, laying aside his
imperial ornaments, marched with it on his shoulders to the top of Mount
Calvary, from whence it had been taken. The memory of this action was
perpetuated by the festival of the re-establishment, or (as it is now
called) the exaltation of the cross.
The latter name was given to this festival, because on this day they
exalted or set up the cross in the great church at Constantinople, in
order to show it to the people.
EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. By Canon 35, “The bishop, before he admit any
person to holy orders, shall diligently examine him, in the presence of
those ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; and if
the bishop have any lawful impediment, he shall cause the said ministers
carefully to examine every such person so to be ordered.... And if any
bishop or suffragan shall admit any to sacred orders who is not so
examined, and qualified as before we have ordained, [viz. in Canon 34,]
the archbishop of his province, having notice thereof, and being
assisted therein by one bishop, shall suspend the said bishop or
suffragan so offending, from making either deacons or priests for the
space of two years.”
Of common right, this examination pertaineth to the archdeacon, saith
Lyndewood; and so saith the canon law, in which this is laid down as one
branch of the archidiaconal office. Which is also supposed in our
present form of ordination, both of priests and deacons, where the
archdeacon’s office is to present the persons that are apt and meet. And
for the regular method of examination, we are referred by Lyndewood to
the canon upon that head, inserted in the body of the canon law, viz.
When the bishop intends to hold an ordination, all who are desirous to
be admitted into the ministry are to appear on the fourth day before the
ordination; and then the bishop shall appoint some of the priests
attending him, and others skilled in the Divine law, and exercised in
the ecclesiastical sanctions, who shall diligently examine the life,
age, and title of the persons to be ordained; at what place they had
their education; whether they be well learned; whether they be
instructed in the law of GOD; and they shall be diligently examined for
three days successively; and so on the Saturday, they who are approved
shall be presented to the bishop.
EXAMINATION BEFORE INSTITUTION. In the first settlement of the Church of
England, the bishops of the several dioceses had them under their own
immediate care, and that of the clergy living in a community with them,
whom they sent abroad to several parts of their dioceses, as they saw
occasion to employ them; but by degrees, they found it necessary to
place presbyters within such a compass, that they might attend upon the
service of GOD amongst the inhabitants. These precincts, which are since
called parishes, were at first much larger; and when lords of manors
were inclined to build churches for their own convenience, they found it
necessary to make some endowments, to oblige those who officiated in
their churches to a diligent attendance: upon this, the several bishops
were very well content to let those patrons have the nomination of
persons to those churches, provided they were satisfied of the fitness
of those persons, and that it were not deferred beyond such a limited
time. So that the right of patronage is really but a limited trust; and
the bishops are still in law the judges of the fitness of the persons to
be employed in the several parts of their dioceses. The patrons never
had the absolute disposal of their benefices upon their own terms; but
if they did not present fit persons within the limited time, the care of
the places did return to the bishop, who was then bound to provide for
them.
By the statute _Articuli cleri_, 9 Edward II. s. 1, c. 13, it is enacted
as follows:—“It is desired that spiritual persons, whom our lord the
king doth present unto benefices of the Church, (if the bishop will not
admit them, either for lack of learning, or for other cause reasonable,)
may not be under the examination of lay persons in the cases aforesaid,
as it is now attempted, contrary to the decrees canonical; but that they
may sue unto a spiritual judge for remedy, as right shall require.” The
answer:—“Of the ability of a person presented unto a benefice of the
Church, the examination belongeth to a spiritual judge; so it hath been
used heretofore, and shall be hereafter.”
“Of the ability of a person presented”—_De idoneitate personæ_: so that
it is required by law, that the person presented be _idonea persona_;
for so be the words of the king’s writ, _præsentare idoneam personam_.
And this _idoneitas_ consisteth in divers expressions against persons
presented:—1. Concerning the person, as if he be under age or a layman.
2. Concerning his conversation, as if he be criminous. 3. Concerning his
inability to discharge his pastoral duty, as if he be unlearned, and not
able to feed his flock with spiritual food. And the examination of the
ability and sufficiency of the person presented belongs to the bishop,
who is the ecclesiastical judge; and in this examination he is a judge,
and not a minister, and may and ought to refuse the person presented, if
he be not _idonea persona_.
“The examination belongeth to a spiritual judge;” and yet in some cases,
notwithstanding this statute, _idoneitas personæ_ shall be tried by the
country, or else there should be a failure of justice, which the law
will not suffer; as if the inability or insufficiency be alleged in a
man that is dead, this case is out of the statute; for in such case the
bishop cannot examine him; and, consequently, though the matter be
spiritual, yet shall it be tried by a jury; and the court, being
assisted by learned men in that profession, may instruct the jury as
well of the ecclesiastical law in that case, as they usually do of the
common law.
By a constitution of Archbishop Langton:—“We do enjoin, that if any one
be canonically presented to a church, and there be no opposition, the
bishop shall not delay to admit him longer than two months, provided he
be sufficient.”
But by Canon 95—“Albeit by former constitutions of the Church of
England, every bishop hath had two months’ space to inquire and inform
himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every minister after he hath
been presented unto him to be instituted into any benefice, yet for the
avoiding of some inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said
two months unto eight and twenty days only. In respect of which
abridgment we do ordain and appoint that no double quarrel shall
hereafter be granted out of any of the archbishops’ courts, at the suit
of any minister whatsoever, except he shall first take his personal
oath, that the said eight and twenty days at the least are expired after
he first tendered his presentation to the bishop, and that he refused to
grant him institution thereupon; or shall enter into bond with
sufficient sureties to prove the same to be true; under pain of
suspension of the granter thereof from the execution of his office for
half-a-year _toties quoties_, to be denounced by the said archbishop,
and nullity of the double quarrel aforesaid so unduly procured, to all
intents and purposes whatsoever. Always provided, that within the said
eight and twenty days, the bishop shall not institute any other to the
prejudice of the said party before presented, _sub pœna nullitatis_.
“Every bishop hath had.”—The canon mentions bishops, only because
institution belongeth to them of common right; but it must also be
understood to extend to others, who have this right by privilege or
custom, as deans, deans and chapters, and others who have peculiar
jurisdiction. Concerning whom it hath been unanimously adjudged, that if
the archbishop shall give institution to any peculiar belonging to any
ecclesiastical person or body, it is only voidable; because they being
not free from this jurisdiction and visitation, the archbishop shall be
supposed to have a concurrent jurisdiction, and in this case only to
supply the defects of the inferiors, till the contrary appears. But if
the archbishop grant institution to a peculiar in a lay hand, it is null
and void; because he can have no jurisdiction there.
“To inquire and inform himself.”—In answer to an objection made, that
the bishop ought to receive the clerk of him that comes first, otherwise
he is a disturber, Hobart saith, the law is contrary; for as he may take
competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a clerk, so he
may give convenient time to persons interested, to take knowledge of the
avoidance, (even in case of death, and where notice is to be taken and
not given,) to present their clerks to it.
Canon 39. “No bishop shall institute any to a benefice, who hath been
ordained by any other bishop, except he first show unto him his letters
of orders; and bring him a sufficient testimony of his former good life
and behaviour, if the bishop shall require it; and, lastly, shall appear
upon due examination to be worthy of his ministry.”
“Except he first show unto him his letters of orders.”—And by the 13 &
14 Charles II. c. 4, no person shall be capable to be admitted to any
parsonage, vicarage, benefice, or other ecclesiastical promotion or
dignity whatsoever, before such time as he shall be ordained priest, and
bring a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour. By
the ancient laws of the Church, and particularly of the Church of
England, the four things in which the bishop was to have full
satisfaction in order to institution, were age, learning, behaviour, and
orders. And there is scarce any one thing which the ancient canons of
the Church more peremptorily forbid, than the admitting clergymen of one
diocese to exercise their function in another, without first exhibiting
the letters testimonial and commendatory of the bishop by whom they were
ordained; and the constitutions of the Archbishops Reynolds and Arundel
show that the same was the known law of the English Church, to wit, that
none should be admitted to officiate (not so much as a chaplain or
curate) in any diocese in which he was not born or ordained, unless he
bring with him his letters of orders, and letters commendatory of his
diocesan.
And, lastly, “shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy of his
ministry.”—As to the matter of learning, it hath been particularly
allowed, not only by the courts of the King’s Bench and Common Pleas,
but also by the High Court of Parliament, that the ordinary is not
accountable to any temporal court, for the measures he takes or the
rules by which he proceeds, in examining and judging (only he must
examine in convenient time, and refuse in convenient time); and that the
clerk’s having been ordained (and so presumed to be of good abilities)
doth not take away or diminish the right which the statute above recited
doth give to the bishop to whom the presentation is made to examine and
judge.
EXARCH. An officer in the Greek Church, whose business it is to visit
the provinces allotted to him, in order to inform himself of the lives
and manners of the clergy; take cognizance of ecclesiastical causes; the
manner of celebrating Divine service; the administration of the
sacraments, particularly confession; the observance of the canons;
monastic discipline; affairs of marriages; divorces, &c.
The title of exarchs, borrowed from the civil administration of the
empire, was given about the fourth century to the chief bishops of
certain large provinces; as the bishops of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and of
Ephesus.
EXCOMMUNICATION is an ecclesiastical censure, whereby the person against
whom it is pronounced is for the time cast out of the communion of the
Church.
Excommunication is of two kinds, the lesser and the greater: the lesser
excommunication is the depriving the offender of the use of the
sacraments and Divine worship; and this sentence is passed by judges
ecclesiastical, on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or
disobedience, in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to
penance, or other injunctions of the court.
The greater excommunication is that whereby men are deprived, not only
of the sacraments and the benefit of Divine offices, but of the society
and conversation of the faithful.
If a person be excommunicated generally, as if the judge say, _I
excommunicate such a person_, this shall be understood of the greater
excommunication.
The law in many cases inflicts the censure of excommunication _ipso
facto_ upon offenders; which nevertheless is not intended so as to
condemn any person without a lawful trial for his offence: but he must
first be found guilty in the proper court; and then the law gives that
judgment. And there are divers provincial constitutions, by which it is
provided, that this sentence shall not be pronounced (in ordinary cases)
without previous monition or notice to the parties, which also is
agreeable to the ancient canon law.
By Canon 65. “All ordinaries shall in their several jurisdictions
carefully see and give order, that as well those who for obstinate
refusing to frequent Divine service established by public authority
within this realm of England, as those also (especially those of the
better sort and condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable
crimes, stand lawfully excommunicate, (unless within three months
immediately after the said sentence of excommunication pronounced
against them, they reform themselves, and obtain the benefit of
absolution,) be every six months ensuing, as well in the parish church
as in the cathedral church of the diocese in which they remain, by the
minister, openly in the time of Divine service upon some Sunday,
denounced and declared excommunicate, that others may be thereby both
admonished to refrain their company and society, and excited the rather
to procure a writ _de excommunicato capiendo_, thereby to bring and
reduce them into due order and obedience. Likewise the registrar of
every ecclesiastical court shall yearly, between Michaelmas and
Christmas, duly certify the archbishop of the province of all and
singular the premises aforesaid.”
By Canon 68. “If the minister refuse to bury any corpse, except the
party deceased were denounced excommunicated by the greater
excommunication, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able
to testify of his repentance, he shall be suspended by the bishop from
his ministry for the space of three months.”
But by the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, the Burial Office shall
not be used for any that die excommunicate.
EXEAT. The permission given by the authorities in a college, to persons
_in statu pupillari_, to leave their college residence for a time.
EXEDRÆ, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the general name of such
buildings as were distinct from the main body of the _churches_, and yet
within the bounds of the Church, taken in its largest sense. Thus
Eusebius, speaking of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, says, “When that
curious artist had finished his famous structure within, he then set
himself about the _exedræ_, or buildings that joined one to another by
the sides of the church.” Among the _exedræ_, the chief was the
_baptistery_, or place of baptism. Also the two vestries, or sacristies,
as we should call them, still found in all Oriental churches; viz. the
_Diaconicum_, wherein the sacred utensils, &c. were kept; and the
_Prothesis_, where the side-table stood, on which the elements before
consecration were placed.—_Jebb._
EXEMPTION, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, means a privilege
given by the pope to the clergy, and sometimes to the laity, to exempt
or free them from the jurisdiction of their respective ordinaries.
When monasteries began to be erected, and governed by abbots of great
quality, merit, and figure, these men, to cover their ambition, and to
discharge themselves from the subjection which they owed to the bishops,
procured grants from the court of Rome, to be received under the
protection of St. Peter, and to be put immediately under subjection to
the pope. This request being for the interest of the court of Rome,
inasmuch as it contributed greatly to the advancement of the papal
authority, all the monasteries were presently exempted. The chapters
also of cathedral churches obtained exemptions upon the same score.
St. Bernard, who lived at the time when this invention was first put in
practice, took the freedom to tell Pope Eugenius III. that it was no
better than an abuse, and that it was by no means defensible, that an
abbot should withdraw himself from the obedience due to his bishop; that
the Church militant ought to be governed by the precedent of the Church
triumphant, in which no angel ever said, “I will not be under the
jurisdiction of an archangel.”
In after ages this abuse was carried so far, that, for a small charge,
private priests procured exemption from the jurisdiction of their
bishop. The Council of Trent made a small reformation in this matter, by
abolishing the exemption of particular priests and friars, not living in
cloisters, and that of chapters in criminal causes.—_Sarpi’s Council of
Trent._
EXHORTATION. By this general name the addresses of the minister to the
people in the liturgy are called. While they are said, the people stand,
in sign of respectful attention, but do not repeat them after the
minister, since they are not addresses to the Almighty made in their
name, but addresses to them only.
The ancient Church, indeed, had no such exhortations as those in our
Communion Service; for their daily, or at least weekly, communions made
it known that there was then no solemn assembly of Christians without
it, and every one (not under censure) was expected to communicate. But
now, when the time is somewhat uncertain, and our long omissions have
made some of us ignorant, and others forgetful of this duty; most of us
unwilling, and all of us more or less indisposed for it; it was thought
both prudent and necessary to provide these exhortations to be read
“when the minister gives warning of the communion, which he is always to
do upon the Sunday, or some holy-day immediately preceding.”
As to the composures themselves, they are so extraordinary suitable,
that if every communicant would duly weigh and consider them, they would
be no small help towards a due preparation. The first contains proper
exhortations and instructions how to prepare ourselves; the latter is
more urgent, and applicable to those who generally turn their backs upon
those holy mysteries, and shows the danger of those vain and frivolous
excuses which men frequently make for their staying away. For which
reason it is appointed by the rubric to be used instead of the former,
whenever the minister shall observe that the people are “negligent to
come.”—_Wheatly._
The service of the Church of England is distinguished by the number and
fitness of its exhortations. These are: one at the beginning of Morning
and Evening Prayer; two in the Communion Service, when notice is given
of the holy communion; another at the time of celebration. Five in the
Baptismal Service; two in the office for receiving those into the Church
who have been privately baptized; and five in the Baptism of those of
Riper Years; one in the Confirmation Office; two in the Solemnization of
Matrimony; two in the Visitation of the Sick; one in the Churching
Service; two in the Commination Service; besides those in the Ordination
Service. These may be considered as so many sermons of the Church, which
assert her doctrines, and fully show what she expects from the faith and
practice of her children.
EXODUS. (From the Greek ἔξοδος, _going out_; the term generally applied
to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.) The second book of the
Bible is so called, because it is chiefly occupied with the account of
that part of the sacred history. It comprehends the transactions of 145
years, from the death of Joseph in 2369 B. C. to the building of the
Tabernacle in 2114.
EXORCISMS (from ἐξορκίζω, to _conjure_) were certain prayers used of old
in the Christian churches for the dispossessing of devils. This custom
of exorcism is as ancient as Christianity itself, being practised by our
SAVIOUR, the apostles, and the primitive Church; and the Christians were
so well assured of the prevalency of their prayers upon these occasions,
that they publicly offered the heathens to venture their lives upon the
success of them.
In the form of baptism, in the liturgy of the 2 Edward VI., it was
ordered thus:—“Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say, ‘I
command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the FATHER, of the SON, and
of the HOLY GHOST, that thou come out and depart from these infants,
whom our LORD JESUS CHRIST hath vouchsafed to call to his holy baptism,
to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation; therefore,
thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy judgment,
remember the day to be at hand wherein thou shalt burn in fire
everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels; and presume not hereafter
to exercise any tyranny towards these infants whom CHRIST hath bought
with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism called to be of
his flock.’”
There was a custom which obtained in the early ages of the Church, which
was to exorcise the baptized person, or to cast Satan out of him, who
was supposed to have taken possession of his body in his unregenerate
state. But because, in process of time, many superstitious and
unwarrantable practices mixed with this ancient rite, especially in the
Roman Church, our Reformers wisely thought fit to lay it quite aside,
and to substitute in lieu of it these short excellent prayers: wherein
the minister and the congregation put up their petitions to Almighty
GOD, that the child may be delivered from the power of the devil, and
receive all the benefits of the Divine grace and protection, without the
ancient ceremony attending it.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence of the bishop of the
diocese, under his hand and seal, attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever,
to cast out any devil or devils, under pain of the imputation of
imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the ministry.”
EXORCISTS were persons ordained in the latter end of the third century,
on purpose to take care of such as were demoniacs, or possessed with
evil spirits. In the first ages of Christianity there were many persons
who are represented as possessed with evil spirits, and exorcism was
performed not by any particular set of men, but afterwards it was judged
requisite by the bishops to appropriate this office by ordination. They
are still a separate order in the Church of Rome.
EXPECTATION WEEK. The whole of the interval between Ascension Day and
Whit Sunday is so called, because at this time the apostles continued in
earnest prayer and expectation of the Comforter.
EXPIATION. A religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made
for some crime, the guilt removed, and the obligation to punish
cancelled. (Lev. xv. 15.)
EXPIATION, THE GREAT DAY OF. An annual solemnity of the Jews, observed
upon the 10th day of the month Tisri, which answers to our September.
The Hebrews call it _Chippur_, that is, “pardon,” because the sins of
the whole people were then expiated or pardoned. (Lev. xvi. 29, 30.) On
this occasion, the high priest laid aside his pectoral and embroidered
ephod, because it was a day of humiliation. He offered first a bullock
and a ram for his own sins and those of the priests; then he received
from the heads of the people two goats for a sin offering, and a ram for
a burnt offering, to be offered in the name of the whole multitude. It
was determined by lot, which of the goats should be sacrificed, and
which set at liberty. After this, he perfumed the sanctuary with
incense, and sprinkled it with blood. Then, coming out, he sacrificed
the goat upon which the lot had fallen. This done, the goat which was to
be set at liberty being brought to him, he laid his hands upon its head,
confessed his sins and the sins of the people, and then sent it away
into some desert place.
The great day of Expiation was a day of rest and strict fasting: they
confessed themselves ten times, and repeated the name of GOD as often:
on this day likewise they put an end to all differences, and were
reconciled to each other. Many Jews spent the night preceding the day of
Expiation in prayer and penitential exercises. It was customary for the
high priest to separate from his wife seven days before this solemnity.
Upon the vigil, some of the elders attended the high priest, and their
business was to prevent his eating too much, lest he should fall asleep.
He was likewise to swear, that he would not change the ancient rites in
any particular. On the day itself, the high priest washed himself five
times, and changed his habit as often. When the ceremony was over, the
high priest read the law, and gave the blessing to the people.—_Buxtorf,
Synag. Jud._ c. xx. _Basnage, Hist. des Juifs_, t. v. lib. vii. c. 15.
The modern Jews prepare themselves for the great day of Expiation by
prayer, and ablution. They carry wax candles to the synagogue: the most
devout have two, one for the body, and the other for the soul. The women
at the same time light up candles in their houses, from the brightness
of which, and the consistency of the tallow or wax, they form presages.
The whole day is spent in strict fasting, without exception of age or
sex. At the conclusion of the solemnity, the high priest gives the
blessing to the people; who return home, change their clothes, and sit
down to a good meal.
The Jews believe, that Adam repented, and began his penance, on the
solemn day of Expiation; that, on the same day, Abraham was circumcised,
and Isaac bound in order to be sacrificed; lastly, that on this day,
Moses descended from Mount Sinai, with the new tables of the law.
As sacrificing is now impracticable to the modern Jews, in regard that
their temple is destroyed, they sacrifice a cock on this occasion,
instead of the legal victims, in the manner following. The men take each
of them a cock in their hands, and the women a hen. Then the master of
the family walks into the middle of the room, and repeating several
verses out of the Psalms, dashes the cock thrice on the head,
pronouncing these words; “Let this cock pass as an exchange for me; let
him stand in my place; let him be an expiation for me; let death befall
this cock, but life and happiness belong to me, and all the people of
Israel. Amen.” This prayer is thrice repeated by the master of the
family; for himself, his children, and the strangers of his family. Then
they proceed to kill the cock, and throw his entrails upon the top of
the house, that the crows may come and carry them away, together with
the sins of the family, into the wilderness: this is done by way of
resemblance with the scape goat.
It is of this fast we are to understand that passage of the Acts, where
St. Luke says, that St. Paul comforted those who were with him in the
ship, “when sailing was become dangerous, because the fast was already
past.” (Acts xxvii. 9.) For tempests are very frequent in the month of
September, in which this solemnity falls, and this was much about the
time that St. Paul took his voyage to Rome.
EXTRAVAGANTS. (See _Decretals_.) A name given to those decretal epistles
of the popes after the Clementines. The first Extravagants are those of
John XXIII., successor to Clement V.; they were so named because, at
first, they were not digested, nor ranged with the other papal
constitutions, but seemed to be, as it were, detached from the canon
law; and they retained the same name when they were afterwards inserted
into the body of the canon law. The collection of decretals, in 1483,
were called the _Common Extravagants_, notwithstanding they were
likewise embodied with the rest of the canon law.
EXTREME UNCTION. Of extreme unction the Romish Council of Trent asserts,
“The holy unction of the sick was instituted by our LORD CHRIST, as
truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, as is implied,
indeed, in St. Mark; but commended and declared to the faithful by
James, the apostle and brother of the LORD. “Is any sick among you? Let
him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the LORD; and the prayer of faith
shall save the sick, and the LORD shall raise him up, and if he have
committed sins they shall be forgiven him.”” From which words, as the
Church hath learned from apostolic tradition handed down, she teaches
the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this wholesome
sacrament; for the Church has understood that the matter is oil blessed
by the bishop, for unction most aptly represents the grace of the HOLY
SPIRIT wherewith the soul of the sick man is invisibly anointed: then
that the form consists of these words, “By this anointing,” &c.
The following are the canons upon the subject passed by that council.
Canon I. If any shall say, that extreme unction is not truly or properly
a sacrament instituted by our LORD CHRIST, and declared by the blessed
apostle James; but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human
invention; let him be accursed.
Canon II. If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick does not
confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick, but that it has
ceased, as if it were formerly only the grace of healing; let him be
accursed.
Canon III. If any shall say, that the rite and usage of extreme unction,
which, the holy Roman Church observes, is contrary to the sentence of
the blessed apostle James, and, therefore, should be changed, and may be
despised by Christians without sin; let him be accursed.
Canon IV. If any shall say, that the presbyters of the Church, whom St.
James directs to be called for the anointing of the sick, are not
priests ordained by the bishops, but elders in age, in any community;
and that, therefore, the priest is not the only proper minister of
extreme unction; let him be accursed.
Here the institution of extreme unction by our LORD is implied by Mark
vi. 13, where it is said of the apostles, that “they anointed with oil
many that were sick, and healed them.” But, by-and-by, (session 22, ch.
1,) we are told that the Christian priesthood was not instituted until
our LORD’S last supper. Either, then, extreme unction is no sacrament,
or they who are no priests can administer a sacrament; for the apostles
were not priests, according to the Church of Rome, at the time spoken of
by St. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is a visible form of invisible
grace; but the passage in St. Mark speaks only of healing the body; and,
therefore, Cajetan, as cited by Catharinus, rejects this text as
inapplicable to this sacrament; and Suarez (in part iii. disp. 39, sect.
1, n. 5) says, that “when the apostles are said to anoint the sick and
heal them, (Mark vi. 13,) this was not said in reference to the
sacrament of unction, because their cures had not of themselves an
immediate respect to the soul.” Nor will this pretended sacrament derive
more assistance from the passage in St. James, in which they say that
the institution by our LORD is proclaimed and declared by that apostle,
at least if Cardinal Cajetan is any authority, who is thus cited by
Catharinus in his Annotationes, Paris, 1535, p. 191, de Sacramento
Unctionis Extremæ. “Sed et quod scribit B. Jacobus, ‘Infirmatur quis in
vobis?’ &c., pariter negat reverendissimus ad hoc sacramentum pertinere,
ita scribens, nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba hæc loquuntur de
sacramentali unctione extremæ unctionis, sed magis de unctione quam
instituit Dominus Jesus exercendum in ægrotis. Textus enim non dicit,
Infirmatur quis ad mortem? sed absolutè, Infirmatur quis?” &c. But that
this rite, which they now call a sacrament, was originally applied
chiefly to the healing of the body, is manifest from the prayers which
accompanied it. “Cura quæsumus, Redemptor noster, gratia Spiritüs Sancti
_languores istius infirmi_,” and so the directions, “_in loco ubi plus
dolor imminet, amplius perungatur_.” Let the patient have most oil
applied in the part where the pain is greatest.—_Sacr. Gregor._ by
Menard, Paris, 1542, p. 252. From all which we come to the conclusion,
that the allegations of the Council of Trent on this matter must be
pronounced “not proven.” Which, if it were a mere opinion, would be of
no great consequence. But when their assertion is supported by anathema,
and every communicant in their Church bound to believe it as necessary
to salvation, it serves to show the cruelty of this Roman mother both to
her own children, and to them whom she reckons strangers. It is in vain
that the Roman writers attempt to strengthen their cause by appeals to
the Greek mysteries. The Greek mysteries and the Latin sacraments are
not synonymous. And as concerns this of unction, which (as its epithet
“extreme,” which the Romans have added, implies) is designed for persons
_in articulo mortis_, or _in exitu vitæ_, as we have it in the third
chapter, this derives as little countenance from the Greek Church as it
does from St. James. For, in the Greek Church, the service of anointing
is used to persons in any illness; and is used by them solely for
recovery from sickness, as the following prayer at the application of
the oil clearly shows. “O holy FATHER, the physician of our souls and
bodies, who didst send thine only-begotten Son, our LORD JESUS CHRIST,
to heal all diseases, and to deliver us from death, heal this thy
servant M. from the bodily infirmity under which he now labours, and
raise him up by the grace of CHRIST.”—_Perceval, Roman Schism. King’s
Greek Church._
Now that this miraculous gift (of healing all manner of diseases) is
ceased, there is no reason why the mere ceremony of anointing with oil
should continue; which yet is still used in the Church of Rome, and made
a sacrament; though it signify nothing; for they do not pretend to heal
men by it, nay, they pretend the contrary, because they never use it but
in extremity, and where they look upon the person as past recovery; and
if they do not think so, they would not use it.—_Abp. Tillotson._
EZEKIEL, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Ezekiel
was the son of Buzi, of the house of Aaron. He was carried captive to
Babylon with Jechoniah. He began to prophesy in the fifth year of this
captivity, which is the æra by which he reckons in all his prophecies.
He continued to prophesy during twenty years. He was contemporary with
Jeremiah, who prophesied at the same time in Judea. He foretold many
events, particularly the destruction of the temple; the fatal
catastrophe of those who revolted from Babylon to Egypt; and, at last,
the happy return of the Jews into their own land. He distinctly predicts
the plagues which were to fall upon the enemies of the Jews, as the
Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. He
foretells the coming of the Messiah, and the flourishing state of his
kingdom.—_Du Pin, Canon of Scripture_, b. i. c. iii. § 20.
The greatest part of this prophecy is easy, plain, and intelligible,
referring chiefly to the manners and corruption of that degenerate age.
Of all the prophets, Ezekiel abounds the most in enigmatical visions.
His style (in the opinion of St. Jerome) is neither eloquent nor mean,
but between both. He abounds in fine sentences, rich comparisons, and
shows a great deal of learning in profane matters. The beginning and end
of this book (by reason of the abstruse mysteries contained in them)
were forbidden to be read by the Jews, before thirty years of age.
Ezekiel was called to be a prophet by being carried in a vision to
Jerusalem, and there shown all the several sorts of idolatry, which were
practised by the Jews in that place. This makes the subject of the 8th,
9th, 10th, and 11th chapters of his prophecies. At the same time GOD
promised to those of the captivity, who kept themselves from these
abominations, that he would be their protector, and restore them to the
land of Israel. This is his theme in the 15th and following chapters.
The 26th, 27th, and 28th chapters contain the threatenings of GOD’S
judgments against Tyre, for insulting on the calamitous estate of Judah
and Jerusalem. To these we may add his prophecy concerning the captivity
of Zedekiah, contained in the 12th chapter; and that against Pharaoh
Hophra, king of Egypt, in the 33rd. These are the principal prophecies
of this book.—_Prideaux, Connect_. p. i. b. i.
It is said, that Ezekiel was put to death by the prince of his people,
because he exhorted him to leave idolatry. It is pretended likewise,
that his body was deposited in the same cave wherein Shem and Arphaxad
were laid, on the bank of the Euphrates. His tomb, they say, is still to
be seen: the Jews keep a lamp always burning in it, and boast, that they
have there the prophet’s book, written with his own hand, which they
read every year upon the great day of Expiation.
The Jewish Sanhedrim, we are told, once took it under their
consideration, whether they should not suppress the prophecy of Ezekiel,
on account of the obscurity of some parts of it; but that Rabbi
Chananias prevented this design, by offering to remove all the
difficulties. His proposal, they say, was accepted, and a present was
made him of three hundred tun of oil for the use of his lamp, while he
was employed in this undertaking. We may easily discover, that this is a
mere fable and an hyperbole of the Talmudists.
EZRA. One of the canonical books of Scripture is called the Book of
Ezra.
The book of Ezra was written in the latter end of the author’s life, and
comprehends the transactions of about eighty, or, as some say, a hundred
years. It includes the history of the Jews from the time of Cyrus’s
edict for their return, to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
In this book are recorded the number of those Jews who returned from the
captivity, Cyrus’s proclamation for the rebuilding of the temple, the
laying of the foundations thereof, &c. Part of this book was written in
the Chaldee language, namely, from the eighth verse of the fourth
chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of the seventh chapter; all the rest
was written in Hebrew.
FACULTY COURT belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and his officer
is called the Master of the Faculties. His power is to grant
dispensation to marry, to eat flesh on days prohibited, to hold two or
more benefices ordinarily incompatible, and such like.
FAITH. (See _Grace, Justification_.) “We are accounted righteous
before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,
by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very
full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of
Justification.”—_Article_ XI.
Faith, in its generic sense, either means the holding rightly the creeds
of the Catholic Church, or means that very Catholic faith, which except
a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Thus, when the priest is
directed, in the office for the Baptism of those of Riper Years, to
inquire into the faith of the candidate, he asks his assent to one of
the creeds; and, in the office for the Visitation of the Sick, he is
required to use the same test, and this of course agrees with St. Paul’s
statement: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
It should be noted, that we are justified _by_ faith, not _because of_
faith; for there is no more “merit” in our faith, than in our works.
Faith therefore is not the cause, but the condition, of our
justification, which is solely to be attributed to the bounty of GOD,
and the merits of CHRIST.—_Archdeacon Welchman._
I am sensible, says Dr. Waterland, that some very eminent men have
expressed a dislike of the phrase, of the instrumentality of faith; and
have also justly rejected the thing, according to the false notion which
some had conceived of it. It cannot, with any tolerable sense or
propriety, be looked upon as an instrument of conveyance in the hand of
the efficient or principal cause; but it may justly and properly be
looked upon as the instrument of reception in the hand of the recipient.
It is not the mean by which the grace is wrought, effected, or
conferred; but it may be, and is, the mean by which it is accepted or
received: or, to express it a little differently, it is not the
instrument of justification in the active sense of the word, but it is
in the passive sense of it. It cannot be for nothing that St. Paul so
often and so emphatically speaks of man’s being justified by faith, or
through faith in CHRIST’S blood; and that he particularly notes it of
Abraham, that he believed, and that his faith was counted to him for
justification; when he might as easily have said, had he so meant, that
man is justified by faith and works, or that Abraham, to whom the gospel
was preached, was justified by gospel faith and obedience. Besides, it
is certain, and is on all hands allowed, that, though St. Paul did not
directly and expressly oppose faith to evangelical works, yet he
comprehended the works of the moral law under those works which he
excluded from the office of justifying, in his sense of justifying, in
those passages; and further, he used such arguments as appear to extend
to all kinds of works: for Abraham’s works were really evangelical
works, and yet they were excluded. Add to this, that if justification
could come even by evangelical works, without taking in faith in the
meritorious sufferings and satisfaction of a mediator, then might we
have “whereof to glory,” as needing no pardon; and then might it be
justly said, that “CHRIST died in vain.” I must further own, that it is
of great weight with me, that so early and so considerable a writer as
Clemens of Rome, an apostolical man, should so interpret the doctrine of
justifying faith, so as to oppose it plainly even to evangelical works,
however exalted. It runs thus: “They (the ancient patriarchs) were all,
therefore, greatly glorified and magnified; not for their own sake, or
for their own works, or for the righteousness which they themselves
wrought, but through his good pleasure. And we also, being called
through his good pleasure in CHRIST JESUS, are not justified by
ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the
works which we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith by
which Almighty GOD justified all from the beginning.” Here it is
observable, that the word _faith_ does not stand for the whole system of
Christianity, or for Christian belief at large, but for some particular
self-denying principle by which good men, even under the patriarchal and
legal dispensations, laid hold on the mercy and promises of GOD,
referring all, not to themselves or their own deservings, but to Divine
goodness, in and through a mediator. It is true, Clemens elsewhere, and
St. Paul almost everywhere, insists upon true holiness of heart, and
obedience of life, as indispensable conditions of salvation or
justification; and of that one would think there could be no question
among men of any judgment or probity: but the question about conditions
is very distinct from the other question about instruments; and,
therefore, both parts may be true, viz. that faith and obedience are
equally _conditions_, and equally indispensable where opportunities
permit; and yet faith over and above is emphatically the _instrument_
both of receiving and holding justification, or a title to salvation.
To explain this matter more distinctly, let it be remembered, that GOD
may be considered (as I before noted) either as a party contracting with
man, on very gracious terms, or as a judge to pronounce judgment upon
him.
Man’s first coming into covenant (supposing him adult) is by assenting
to it, and accepting of it, to have and to hold it on such kind of
tenure as GOD proposes: that is to say, upon a self-denying tenure,
considering himself as a guilty man, standing in need of pardon, and of
borrowed merits, and at length resting upon mercy. So here the previous
question is, whether a person shall consent to hold a privilege upon
this submissive kind of tenure or not? Such assent or consent, if he
comes into it, is the very thing which St. Paul and St. Clemens call
faith; and this previous and general question is the question which both
of them determine against any proud claimants who would hold by a more
self-admiring tenure.
Or, if we next consider GOD as sitting in judgment, and man before the
tribunal, going to plead his cause; here the question is, What kind of
plea shall a man resolve to trust his salvation upon? Shall he stand
upon his innocence, and rest upon strict law; or shall he plead guilty,
and rest in an act of grace? If he chooses the former, he is proud, and
sure to be cast; if he chooses the latter, he is safe so far, in
throwing himself upon an act of grace. Now this question also, which St.
Paul has decided, is previous to the question, what conditions even the
act of grace itself finally insists upon? A question which St. James in
particular, and the general tenor of the whole Scripture, has abundantly
satisfied; and which could never have been made a question by any
considerate or impartial Christian. What I am at present concerned with
is to observe, that faith is emphatically the instrument by which an
adult accepts the covenant of grace, consenting to hold by that kind of
tenure, to be justified in that way, and to rest in that kind of plea,
putting his salvation on that only issue. It appears to be a just
observation which Dr. Whitby makes, (_Pref. to the Epist. to Galat._ p.
300,) that Abraham had faith (Heb. xi. 8) before what was said of his
justification in Gen. xv. 6, and afterwards more abundantly, when he
offered up his son Isaac; but yet neither of those instances was pitched
upon by the apostle as fit for his purpose, because in both, obedience
was joined with faith: whereas, here was a pure act of faith, without
works, and of this act of faith it is said, “it was imputed to him for
righteousness.” The sum is, none of our works are good enough to stand
by themselves before Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.
CHRIST only is pure enough for it at first hand, and they that are
CHRIST’S at second hand, in and through him. Now, because it is by faith
that we thus interpose, as it were, CHRIST between GOD and us, in order
to gain acceptance by him; therefore faith is emphatically the
instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification. Obedience is
equally a condition or qualification, but not an instrument, not being
that act of the mind whereby we look up to GOD and CHRIST, and whereby
we embrace the promises.—_Waterland on Justification._
There is not any one word which hath more significations than this hath
in the word of GOD, especially in the New Testament. It sometimes
signifies the acknowledgment of the true GOD, in opposition to
heathenism; sometimes the Christian religion, in opposition to Judaism;
sometimes the believing the power of CHRIST to heal diseases; sometimes
the believing that he is the promised Messias; sometimes fidelity or
faithfulness; sometimes a resolution of conscience concerning the
lawfulness of anything: sometimes a reliance, affiance, or dependence on
CHRIST either for temporal or spiritual matters; sometimes believing the
truth of all Divine relations; sometimes obedience to GOD’S commands in
the evangelical, not legal sense; sometimes the doctrine of the gospel,
in opposition to the law of Moses; sometimes it is an aggregate of all
other graces; sometimes the condition of the second covenant in
opposition to the first: and other senses of it also there are,
distinguishable by the contexture, and the matter treated of where the
word is used.—_Hammond, Practical Catechism_.
FAITH, IMPLICIT. (See _Implicit Faith_.)
FAITHFUL. This was the favourite and universal name uniformly used in
the primitive Church, to denote those who had been instructed in the
Christian religion, and received by baptism into the communion of the
Church. The apostolical Epistles are all addressed to “faithful men,”
that is, to those who formed the visible Church in their respective
localities; those who had made profession of the faith of CHRIST in holy
baptism.
FALD STOOL. A small desk, at which the Litany is enjoined to be sung or
said. It is generally placed, in those churches in which it is used, in
the middle of the choir, sometimes near the steps of the altar. This
word is probably derived from the barbarous Latin, _falda_, a place shut
up, a fold. (See _Litany_.)
FALDISTORY. The episcopal seat, or throne, within the chancel; but more
particularly, the bishop’s chair, near the altar, mentioned in the
Ordination Service, in which he sits, while addressing the candidates
for orders, &c.
FALL OF MAN. (See _Original Sin_.) The loss of those perfections and
that happiness which his Maker bestowed on man at his creation, for the
transgression of a positive command, given for the trial of his
obedience. This doctrine may be stated in the language of our ninth
Article:—“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the
Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and corruption of the
nature of every man, that _naturally is engendered_ of the offspring of
Adam, whereby man is _very far_ gone (the Latin is _quam longissime_ i.
e. _as far as possible_) from original righteousness, and is of his own
nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to
the Spirit; and therefore, in every person born into this world, it
deserveth GOD’S wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth
remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the
flesh, called in Greek φρόημα σάρχος, which some do expound the wisdom,
some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is
not subject to the law of GOD. And although there is no condemnation for
them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess that
concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”
FAMILIARS OF THE INQUISITION. (See _Inquisition_.) In order to support
the cruel proceedings of the Inquisition in Spain, great privileges were
bestowed upon such of the nobility as were willing to degrade themselves
so far as to become familiars of the holy office. The king himself
assumed the title, and was protector of the order.
The business of these familiars was to assist in the apprehending of
such persons as were accused, and to carry them to prison; upon which
occasion the unhappy person was surrounded by such a number of these
officious gentlemen, that, though he was neither fettered nor bound,
there was no possibility of escaping out of their hands. As a reward of
this base employment, the familiars were allowed to commit the most
enormous actions, to debauch, assassinate, and kill with impunity. If
they happened to be prosecuted for any crime, the Inquisition took upon
itself the prosecution, and immediately the familiar entered himself as
their prisoner; after which he was at liberty to go where he pleased,
and act in all things as if he were free.
A gentleman, a familiar of the holy office at Corduba, having killed a
person, the inquisitors were so strongly solicited against him, that
they could not help condemning him pursuant to the laws. But the rest of
the gentleman familiars getting a horse ready for him, and a sum of
money, let him privately out of prison. Another, being put in prison for
having disputed on free-will and grace, (for which any other person
would have been punished with the utmost severity,) was only admonished
not to argue any more upon religion, and presently set at
liberty.—_Broughton._
FANATICISM. When men add to enthusiasm and zeal for the cause which they
believe to be the cause of truth, a hatred of those who are opposed to
them, whether in politics or religion, they fall into fanaticism, and
thus violating the law of Christian charity, are guilty of a great sin.
FARSE. An addition, used before the Reformation, in the vernacular
tongue, to the Epistle in Latin, anciently used in some churches,
forming an explication or paraphrase of the Latin text, verse by verse,
for the benefit of the people. The subdeacon first repeated each verse
of the epistle or _lectio_ in Latin, and two choristers sang the farse
or explanation. The following is an example from the Epistle with a
_farse_ for new-year’s day. “Good people, for whose salvation God
deigned to clothe himself in flesh, and humbly live in a cradle, who has
the whole world in his hands, render him sweet thanks, who in his life
worked such wonders, and for our redemption humbled himself even to
death.”—_Lectio Epistolæ, &c._ Then follows the lesson from the Epistle
of St. Paul to Titus, and then the _farse_ proceeds. “St. Paul sent this
ditty,” &c.—See _Burney’s History of Music_, ii. 256.
FASTING. (See _Abstinence_ and _Fasts_.) Abstinence from food.
By the regulations of the Church, fasting, though not defined as to its
degree, is inculcated at seasons of peculiar penitence and humiliation,
as a valuable auxiliary to the cultivation of habits of devotion and
self-denial. Respecting its usefulness, there does not appear to have
been much diversity of opinion until late years. Fasting was customary
in the Church of GOD long before the introduction of Christianity, as
may be seen in the Old Testament Scriptures. That it was sanctioned by
our SAVIOUR and his apostles, is equally plain. And that it was intended
to continue in the future Church can scarcely be questioned; for CHRIST
gave his disciples particular instructions respecting it, and in
reprobating the abuses of it among the Pharisees, never objects to its
legitimate use. He even declares, that after his ascension his disciples
should fast: “The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away
from them, and then they shall fast in those days.” (Luke v. 35.)
Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles occur several notices of
fastings connected with religious devotions. St. Paul evidently
practised it with some degree of frequency. (2 Cor. xi. 27.) He also
recognises the custom, as known in the Corinthian Church, and makes some
observations implying its continuance. From the days of the apostles to
the present time, fasting has been regarded under various modifications
as a valuable auxiliary to penitence. In former times, Christians were
exceedingly strict in abstaining from every kind of food for nearly the
whole of the appointed fast days, receiving only at stated times what
was actually necessary for the support of life. At the season of Lent,
much time was spent in mortification and open confession of sin,
accompanied by those outward acts which tend to the control of the body
and its appetites; a species of godly discipline still associated with
the services of that solemn period of the ecclesiastical year.
In the practice of fasting, the intelligent Christian will not rest in
the outward act, but regard it only as a means to a good end. All must
acknowledge that this restraint, even upon the innocent appetites of the
body, is eminently beneficial in assisting the operations of the mind.
It brings the animal part of our nature into greater subservience to the
spiritual. It tends to prevent that heaviness and indolence of the
faculties, as well as that perturbation of the passions, which often
proceed from indulgence and repletion of the body. It is thus highly
useful in promoting that calmness of mind and clearness of thought,
which are so very favourable to meditation and devotion. The great end
of the observance is to “afflict the soul,” and to increase a genuine
contrition of heart, and godly sorrow for sin. This being understood,
abstinence will be approved of _God_, and made conducive to a growth in
spiritual life.
The distinction between the Protestant and the Romish view of fasting is
this, that the Roman regards the use of fasting as a means of grace; the
Protestant, only as a useful exercise. It is _not_ a means of grace, for
it is nowhere ordained as such in the Scriptures of the New Testament;
but it is a useful preparation for the means of grace, and as such the
Scriptures have assumed that it will be resorted to by Christians.
FASTS. Those days which are appointed by the Church as seasons of
abstinence and peculiar sorrow for sin. These are the forty days of
Lent, including Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; the Ember days, the three
Rogation days, and all the Fridays in the year, (except Christmas Day,)
and the eves or vigils of certain festivals.
By Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence and direction of
the bishop under hand and seal, appoint or keep any solemn fasts, either
publicly, or in any private houses, other than such as by law are, or by
public authority shall be, appointed, nor shall be wittingly present at
any of them; under pain of suspension for the first fault, of
excommunication for the second, and of deposition from the ministry for
the third.”
By the rubric, the table of Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be
observed in the Year, is as followeth, (which, although not in words,
yet in substance, is the same with what is above expressed in the
aforesaid statute,) viz. “The evens or vigils before the Nativity of our
LORD, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation of
the Blessed Virgin, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost, St. Matthias,
St. John Baptist, St. Peter, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew,
St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, All Saints. And if any
of these feasts fall upon a Monday, then the vigil or fast day shall be
kept upon the Saturday, and not upon the Sunday, next before it.” (See
_Fasting_.)
That fasting or abstinence from our usual sustenance is a proper means
to express sorrow and grief, and a fit method to dispose our minds
towards the consideration of anything that is serious, nature seems to
suggest; and therefore all nations, from ancient times, have used
fasting as a part of repentance, and as a means to avert the anger of
GOD. This is plain in the case of the Ninevites, (Jonah iii. 5,) whose
notion of fasting, to appease the wrath of GOD, seems to have been
common to them with the rest of mankind. In the Old Testament, besides
the examples of private fasting by David, (Ps. lxix. 10,) and Daniel,
(Dan. ix. 3,) and others, we have instances of public fasts observed by
the whole nation of the Jews at once upon solemn occasions. (See Lev.
xxiii. 26, &c.; 2 Chron. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jer. xxxvi. 9; Zech.
viii. 19; Joel i. 14.) It is true indeed, in the New Testament, we find
no positive precept, that expressly requires and commands us to fast;
but our _Saviour_ mentions fasting with almsgiving and prayer, which are
unquestionable duties (Matt. vi. 1–18); and the directions he gave
concerning the performance of it sufficiently suppose its necessity. And
he himself was pleased, before he entered upon his ministry, to give us
an extraordinary example in his own person, by fasting forty days and
forty nights. (Matt. iv. 2.) He excused, indeed, his disciples from
fasting, so long as he, “the bridegroom, was with them;” because that
being a time of joy and gladness, it would be an improper season for
tokens of sorrow; but then he intimates at the same time, that though it
was not fit for them then, it would yet be their duty hereafter: for
“the days,” says he, “will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from
them, and then they shall fast.” (Matt. ix. 15.) And accordingly we
find, that, after his ascension, the duty of fasting was not only
recommended, (1 Cor. vii. 5,) but practised by the apostles, as any one
may see by the texts of Scripture here referred to. (Acts xiii. 2, and
xiv. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Cor. vi. 5, and xi. 27.) After the apostles,
we find the primitive Christians very constant and regular in the
observation of both their annual and weekly fasts. Their weekly fasts
were kept on Wednesdays and Fridays, because on the one our LORD was
betrayed, on the other crucified. The chief of their annual fasts was
that of Lent, which they observed by way of preparation for their feast
of Easter.
In the Church of Rome, fasting and abstinence admit of a distinction,
and different days are appointed for each of them. But I do not find
that the Church of England makes any difference between them. It is
true, in the title of the table of Vigils, &c. she mentions “fasts and
days of abstinence” separately; but when she comes to enumerate the
particulars, she calls them all “days of fasting or abstinence,” without
distinguishing the one from the other. The times she sets apart are such
as she finds to have been observed by the earliest ages of the
Church.—_Wheatly._
FATHERS, THE. A term of honour applied generally to all the ancient
Christian writers, whose works were in good repute in the Church, and
who were not separated from its communion or from its faith. St.
Bernard, who flourished in the twelfth century, is reputed to be the
last of the Fathers. The Christian theologians after his time, adopted a
new style of treating religious matters, and were called scholastics.
Those writers who conversed with the apostles are generally called
apostolical Fathers, as Ignatius, &c.
Of the authority of the Fathers, the Rev. Geo. Stanley Faber very justly
observes: “Among unread or half-read persons of our present somewhat
confident age, it is not an uncommon saying, that THEY _disregard the
early Fathers_; and that THEY _will abide by nothing but the Scriptures
alone_. If by _a disregard of the early Fathers_, they mean that they
allow them not individually that personal authority which the Romanists
claim for them, they certainly will not have _me_ for their opponent.
And accordingly I have shown, that in the interpretation of the
Scripture terms, _Election_ and _Predestination_, I regard the insulated
individual authority of St. Augustine just as little as I regard the
insulated individual authority of Calvin.
“But if by _a disregard of the early Fathers_, they mean that they
regard them not as evidence of the FACT of _what_ doctrines were or were
not received by the primitive Church, and from her were or were not
delivered to posterity, they might just as rationally talk of the
surpassing wisdom of extinguishing the light of history, by way of more
effectually improving and increasing our knowledge of past events; for,
in truth, under the aspect in which they are specially important to
_us_, the early Fathers are neither more nor less than so many
historical witnesses.
“And if, by _an abiding solely by the decision of Scripture_, they mean
that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal system of that
primitive Church which conversed with, and was taught by, the apostles,
they will abide by nothing save their own crude and arbitrary private
expositions of Scripture; we certainly may well admire their
intrepidity, whatever we may think of their modesty; for in truth, by
such a plan, while they call upon us to despise the sentiments of
Christian antiquity, so far as we can learn them, upon distinct
historical testimony, they expect us to receive, without hesitation, and
as undoubted verities, _their own_ more modern upstart speculations upon
the sense of GOD’S holy word; that is to say, the evidence of the early
Fathers, and the hermeneutic decisions of the primitive Church, we may
laudably and profitably contemn, but _themselves_ we must receive (for
they themselves are content to receive themselves) as well nigh certain
and infallible expositors of Scripture.”
The Apostolic Fathers are those writers of the apostolic age, whose
names are given to certain treatises still extant; though some of them
are spurious. These were Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and
Polycarp.
FEASTS, FESTIVALS, or HOLY-DAYS. Among the earliest means adopted by the
holy Church for the purpose of impressing on the minds of her children
the mysterious facts of the gospel history, was the appointment of a
train of anniversaries and holy-days, with appropriate services
commemorative of all the prominent transactions of the Redeemer’s life
and death, and of the labours and virtues of the blessed apostles and
evangelists. These institutions, so replete with hallowed associations,
have descended to our own day; and the observance of them is commended
by the assent of every discerning and unprejudiced mind, and is
sustained by the very constitution of our nature, which loves to
preserve the annual memory of important events, and is in the highest
degree reasonable, delightful, profitable, and devout.
There is something truly admirable in the order and succession of these
holy-days. The Church begins her ecclesiastical year with the Sundays in
Advent, to remind us of the coming of CHRIST in the flesh. After these,
we are brought to contemplate the mystery of the incarnation; and so,
step by step, we follow the Church through all the events of our
SAVIOUR’S pilgrimage, to his ascension into heaven. In all this the
grand object is to keep CHRIST perpetually before us, to make him and
his doctrine the chief object in all our varied services. Every Sunday
has its peculiar character, and has reference to some act or scene in
the life of our LORD, or the redemption achieved by him, or the mystery
of mercy carried on by the blessed Trinity. Thus every year brings the
whole gospel history to view; and it will be found as a general rule,
that the appointed portions of Scripture, in each day’s service, are
mutually illustrative; the New Testament casting light on the Old,
prophecy being admirably brought in contact with its accomplishment, so
that no plan could be devised for a more profitable course of Scripture
reading than that presented by the Church on her holy-days.
The objections against the keeping of holy-days are such as these. St.
Paul says, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.” This
occurs in the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, in the Epistle to the
Colossians, “Let no man judge you in respect of a holy-day,” &c. From
these it is argued, that as we are brought into the liberty of the
gospel, we are no longer bound to the observance of holy-days, which are
but “beggarly elements.” Respecting the first, it is surprising that no
one has “conscientiously” drawn from it an inference for the neglect of
the civil division of time; and in relation to both, it requires only an
attentive reading of the Epistles from which they are taken, to see that
they have no more connexion with the holy-days of the Church than with
episcopacy. The apostle is warning the Gentile Christians to beware of
the attempts of Judaizing teachers to subvert their faith. It was the
aim of these to bring the converts under the obligations of the Jewish
ritual, and some progress appears to have been made in their attempts.
St. Paul, therefore, reminds them that these were but the _shadow_ of
good things to come, while CHRIST was the _Body_. The passages therefore
have no relevancy to the question; or if they have, they show that while
Christians abandoned the _Jewish_ festivals, they were to observe _their
own_. If they were to forsake the _shadow_, they were to cleave to the
_substance_. It should moreover be remembered, that they apply to the
LORD’S day no less than other holy-days appointed by the Church. To
observe “Sabbaths,” is as much forbidden as aught else. And it is but
one of the many inconsistencies of the Genevan doctrine with Scripture,
that it enjoins a judaical observance of Sunday, and contemns a
Christian observance of days hallowed in the Church’s history, and by
gratitude to the glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of
martyrs, and the illustrious line of confessors and saints, who have
been baptized in tears and blood for JESU’S sake.
Again; if we keep holy-days, we are said to favour Romanism. But these
days were hallowed long before corruption was known in the Roman Church.
And waiving this, let it be remembered, that we are accustomed to judge
of things by their intrinsic worth, and the main point to be determined
is, whether they are _right_ or _wrong_. If they are right, we receive
them; and if they are not right, we reject them, whether they are
received by the Church of Rome or not.
Rubric before the Common Prayer. “A Table of all the Feasts that are to
be observed in the Church of England throughout the Year: All Sundays in
the year, the Circumcision of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Epiphany, the
Conversion of St. Paul, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, St.
Matthias the Apostle, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, St. Mark
the Evangelist, St. Philip and St. James the Apostles, the Ascension of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, St. Barnabas, the Nativity of St. John Baptist,
St. Peter the Apostle, St. James the Apostle, St. Bartholomew the
Apostle, St. Matthew the Apostle, St. Michael and all Angels, St. Luke
the Evangelist, St. Simon and St. Jude the Apostles, All Saints, St.
Andrew the Apostle, St. Thomas the Apostle, the Nativity of our LORD,
St. Stephen the Martyr, St. John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents,
Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun week.”
Rubric after the Nicene Creed. “The curate shall then declare to the
people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be
observed.”
Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge,
declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the
communion book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week
following. And if any do hereafter wittingly offend herein, and being
once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let
him be censured according to law, until he submit himself to the due
performance of it.”
Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from
henceforth celebrate and keep the LORD’S day, commonly called Sunday,
and other holy-days, according to GOD’S will and pleasure, and the
orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf; that is, in
hearing the word of GOD read and taught, in private and public prayers,
in acknowledging their offences to GOD and amendment of the same, in
reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure
hath been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood
of CHRIST, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober
conversation.”
Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly and
reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book
of Common Prayer, and their eves.”
Time is a circumstance no less inseparable from religious actions and
place; for man, consisting of a soul and body, cannot always be actually
engaged in the service of GOD: that’s the privilege of angels, and souls
freed from the fetters of mortality. So long as we are here, we must
worship GOD with respect to our present state, and consequently of
necessity have some definite and particular time to do it in. Now, that
man might not be left to a floating uncertainty, in a matter of so great
importance, in all ages and nations, men have been guided by the very
dictates of nature, to pitch upon some certain seasons, wherein to
assemble, and meet together, to perform the public offices of
religion.—_Cave’s Prim. Christianity_; and see this same sentiment, and
the subject excellently treated, in _Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts_,—the
Preliminary Instructions concerning Festivals.
This sanctification, or setting apart, of festival days, is a token of
that thankfulness, and a part of that public honour, which we owe to
GOD, for his admirable benefits; and these days or feasts set apart are
of excellent use, being, as learned Hooker observes, the 1. Splendour
and outward dignity of our religion; 2. Forcible witnesses of ancient
truth; 3. Provocations to the exercise of all piety; 4. Shadows of our
endless felicity in heaven; 5. On earth, everlasting records, teaching
by the eye in a manner whatsoever we believe.
And concerning particulars: as, that the Jews had the sabbath, which did
continually bring to mind the former world finished by creation; so the
Christian Church hath her LORD’S days, or Sundays, to keep us in
perpetual remembrance of a far better world, begun by him who came to
restore all things, to make heaven and earth new. The rest of the holy
festivals which we celebrate, have relation all to one head, CHRIST. We
begin therefore our ecclesiastical year (as to some accounts, though not
as to the order of our services) with the glorious annunciation of his
birth by angelical message. Hereunto are added his blessed nativity
itself, the mystery of his legal circumcision, the testification of his
true incarnation by the purification of his blessed mother the Virgin
Mary; his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven; the admirable
sending down of his Spirit upon his chosen.
Again, forasmuch as we know that CHRIST hath not only been manifested
great in himself, but great in other, his saints also; the days of whose
departure out of this world are to the Church of CHRIST as the birth and
coronation days of kings or emperors; therefore, special choice being
made of the very flower of all occasions in this kind, there are annual
selected times to meditate of CHRIST glorified in them, which had the
honour to suffer for his sake, before they had age and ability to know
him, namely, the blessed Innocents;—glorified in them which, knowing
him, as St. Stephen, had the sight of that before death, whereinto such
acceptable death doth lead;—glorified in those sages of the East, that
came from far to adore him, and were conducted by strange
light;—glorified in the second Elias of the world, sent before him to
prepare his way;—glorified in every of those apostles, whom it pleased
him to use as founders of his kingdom here;—glorified in the angels, as
in St. Michael;—glorified in all those happy souls already possessed of
bliss.—_Sparrow’s Rationale._
In the injunctions of King Henry VIII., and the convocation of the
clergy, A. D. 1536, it was ordered, that all the people might freely go
to their work upon all holidays usually before kept, which fell either
in the time of harvest, (counted from the 1st day of July to the 29th of
September,) or in any time of the four terms, when the king’s judges sat
at Westminster. But these holidays (in our book mentioned) are specially
excepted, and commanded to be kept holy by every man.—_Cosin’s Notes._
By statute 5 & 6 Edward VI. ch. 3, it was provided, that it should be
“lawful for every husbandman, labourer, fisherman, and every other
person of what estate, degree, or condition they be, upon the holidays
aforesaid, in harvest, or at any other time in the year when necessity
shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work, at their
free wills and pleasure.” This was repealed by Queen Mary, but revived
by James I. Queen Elizabeth, in the mean while, however, declared in her
“injunctions,” that the people might “with a safe and quiet conscience,
after their common prayer,” (which was then at an early hour,) “in the
time of harvest, labour upon the holy and festival days, and save that
thing which GOD hath sent.”
The moveable feasts are those which depend upon Easter, and consequently
do not occur on the same day every year. There are, besides Easter, the
Sundays after the Epiphany, Septuagesima Sunday, the first day of Lent,
Rogation Sunday, (i. e. the Sunday before the Ascension,) Ascension Day,
Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, the Sundays after Trinity, and Advent
Sunday.
FELLOWSHIP. An establishment in one of the colleges of an university, or
in one of the few colleges not belonging to universities, with a share
of its revenues.
FEUILLANS. A congregation of monks, settled towards the end of the 15th
century, by John de la Barriere; he was a Cistercian, and the plan of
his new congregation was a kind of a reformation of that order. His
method of refining upon the old constitution was approved of by Pope
Sixtus V.; the Feuillantines are nuns, who followed the same
reformation.
FIFTH MONARCHY MEN were a set of enthusiasts in the time of Cromwell,
who expected the sudden appearance of CHRIST to establish on earth a new
monarchy or kingdom.
FILIATION OF THE SON OF GOD. (See _Generation_, _Eternal_.)
FINIAL, (in church architecture,) more anciently _Crop_. The termination
of a pinnacle, spire, pediment, or ogeed hood-mould. Originally the term
was applied to the whole _pinnacle_.
FIRST FRUITS were an act of simony, invented by the pope, who, during
the period of his usurpation over our Church, bestowed benefices of the
Church of England upon foreigners, upon condition that the first year’s
produce was given to him, for the regaining of the Holy Land, or for
some similar pretence: next, he prevailed on spiritual patrons to oblige
their clergy to pay them; and at last he claimed and extorted them from
those who were presented by the king or his temporal subjects. The first
_Protestant_ king, Henry VIII., took the first fruits from the pope, but
instead of restoring them to the Church, vested them in the Crown. Queen
Anne restored them to the Church, not by remitting them entirely, but by
applying these superfluities of the larger benefices to make up the
deficiencies of the smaller. To this end she granted her royal charter,
whereby all the revenue of first fruits and tenths is vested in trustees
for ever, to form a perpetual fund for the augmentation of small
livings. This is usually called Queen Anne’s Bounty. (See _Annates_.)
FIVE POINTS (see _Arminians and Calvinism_) are the five doctrines
controverted between the Arminians and Calvinists; relating to, 1.
Particular Election; 2. Particular Redemption; 3. Moral Inability in a
Fallen State; 4. Irresistible Grace; and 5. Final Perseverance of the
Saints.
FLAGELLANTS. A name given, in the 13th century, to a sect of people
among the Christians, who made a profession of disciplining themselves:
it was begun in 1260, at Perugia, by Rainerus, a hermit, who exhorted
people to do penance for their sins, and had a great number of
followers. In 1349, they spread themselves over all Poland, Germany,
France, Italy, and England, carrying a cross in their hands, a cowl upon
their heads, and going naked to the waist; they lashed themselves twice
a day, and once in the night, with knotted cords stuck with points of
pins, and then lay grovelling upon the ground, crying out mercy: from
this extravagance they fell into a gross heresy, affirming that their
blood united in such a manner with CHRIST’S that it had the same virtue;
that after thirty days’ whipping they were acquitted from the guilt and
punishment of sin, so that they cared not for the sacraments. They
persuaded the common people that the gospel had ceased, and allowed all
sorts of perjuries. The frenzy lasted a long time, notwithstanding the
censures of the Church, and the edicts of princes, for their
suppression.
FLAGON. A vessel used to contain the wine, before and at the
consecration, in the holy eucharist. In the marginal rubric in the
prayer of consecration, the priest is ordered “to lay his hand upon
every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be
consecrated,” but in the same prayer he is told to take the cup only in
his hand; and the rubric before the form of administering the cup stands
thus, “the minister that delivereth the cup.” The distinction then
between the flagon and the cup or chalice will be, that the latter is
the vessel in which the consecrated wine is administered; the flagon,
that in which some of the wine is placed for consecration, if there be
more than one vessel used.
FLORID STYLE OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. The later division of the
Perpendicular style, which prevailed chiefly during the Tudor era, and
is often called the Tudor style.
FLOWERS. Strewing with flowers is a very simple and most innocent method
of ornamenting the Christian altar, which is enjoined indeed by no law,
but which is sanctioned by the custom of some churches in this kingdom,
in which also the Protestant churches in Germany agree. This way of
bringing in the very smallest of GOD’S works to praise him is extremely
ancient, and is several times alluded to by the Fathers; especially by
St. Jerome, who does not think it unworthy a place in the panegyric of
his friend Nepotian, that his pious care for the Divine worship was such
that he made flowers of many kinds, and the leaves of trees, and the
branches of the vine, contribute to the beauty and ornament of the
church. These things, says St. Jerome, were, indeed, but trifling in
themselves; but a pious mind, devoted to CHRIST, is intent upon small
things as well as great, and neglects nothing that pertains even to the
meanest office of the Church. This custom has been immemorially observed
in some English churches. It has also been the custom in some places, on
Easter morning to adorn with flowers the graves of those at least who
died within the year.
FONT. (_Fons_, a fountain.) The vase or basin at which persons seeking
regeneration are baptized. The rites of baptism in the first times were
performed in fountains and rivers, both because their converts were
many, and because those ages were unprovided with other baptisteries. We
have no other remainder of this rite but the name: for hence it is that
we call our baptisteries “Fonts,” which, when religion found peace, were
built and consecrated for the more reverence and respect of the
sacrament. These were placed at first at some distance from the church;
(see _Baptistery_;) afterwards in the church porch, and that
significantly, because baptism is the entrance into the Church mystical,
as the porch of the temple. At last they were introduced into the church
itself, being placed at the west end, near the south entrance. They were
not admitted in the first instance into every church, but into the
cathedral of the diocese, thence called “the mother church,” because it
gave spiritual birth by baptism. Afterwards they were introduced into
rural churches. Wheresoever they stood, they were always held in high
estimation by true Christians. A font preserved in the royal
jewel-house, and formerly used for the baptism of the infants of the
royal family, was of silver. In England, the fonts are generally placed
near the west door, or south-western porch.
Edm. “There shall be a font of stone or other competent material in
every church, which shall be decently covered and kept, and not
converted to other uses. And the water wherein the child shall be
baptized shall not be kept above seven days in the font.”
By Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, too much neglected in
many places, there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel
where baptism is to be ministered, the same to be set in the ancient
usual places; in which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”
“When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give
knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning before the beginning of
morning prayer, to the curate. And then the godfathers and godmothers,
and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either
immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately
after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion
shall appoint. And the priest coming to the font, (which is then to be
filled with pure water,) and standing there, shall say.”—_Rubric to the
Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants, to be used in Church._
In which rubric it may be observed, that there is no note of a pewter,
crockery, wedgewood, or other such like basin within the font, to hold
the water, which the carelessness or irreverence of some has permitted
of late; but that _the font_ is to be filled with pure water: and also
that it is _then_ to be filled, and not just at the convenience of the
clerk at any time previous; the like reverence being shown herein as in
the parallel order about the elements in the other holy sacrament, “The
priest shall _then_ place upon the table,” &c.
“And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the
people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy-day appointed) shall be
ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson,
either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion
shall think fit.”
“Then shall the priest take each person to be baptized by the right
hand, and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his
discretion, shall ask the godfathers and godmothers the name? and then
shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying.”—_Rubrics in
the Ministration of Baptism to such as are of Riper Years._
FORMATÆ. (See _Literæ Formatæ_.)
FORMS OF PRAYER, _for Special Occasions_. Besides the great festivals
and fasts of the Church universal, there will be, in each Church,
continually recurring occasions of thanksgiving or humiliation, and some
events of importance, which ought to be thus celebrated, and for which
forms of prayer will be accordingly appointed by competent authority.
The days thus set apart in the Church of England for the celebration of
great events in our history are four: the 5th of November, the 30th of
January, the 29th of May, and the 20th of June, the reasons for which
are thus set forth in the several titles to the services enjoined on
those days:—
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving, to be used yearly upon the 5th
day of November, for the happy deliverance of King James I., and the
three estates of England, from the most traitorous and
bloody-intended massacre by gunpowder. And also for the happy
arrival of his Majesty King William on this day, for the deliverance
of our Church and nation.”
“A Form of Prayer with Fasting, to be used yearly on the 30th of
January, being the day of the martyrdom of the blessed King Charles
the First; to implore the mercy of GOD, that neither the guilt of
that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which GOD
was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of
cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited
upon us or our posterity.”
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, for having put an
end to the great Rebellion, by the restitution of the king and royal
family, and the restoration of the government, after many years’
interruption; which unspeakable mercies were wonderfully completed
upon the 29th of May, in the year 1660. And in memory thereof that
day in every year is by act of parliament appointed to be for ever
kept holy.”
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, to be used in all
churches and chapels within this realm, every year, upon the 20th
day of June, being the day on which her Majesty began her happy
reign.”
When passing events, such as a pestilence, or its removal, call for
humiliation or thanksgiving, it is usual for the Crown to require the
archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of prayer for the occasion,
which is then sent through the several suffragan bishops to the clergy
in their respective dioceses, with the command of the archbishop and
bishop that it shall be used on certain fixed days, so long as the
occasion shall demand.
This charge would fall on each separate bishop, were the Church of
England separated from the State, and not distributed into provinces.
FORMULARY. (See _Common Prayer_, _Liturgy_.) A book containing the
rites, ceremonies, and prescribed forms of the Church. The formulary of
the Church of England is the Book of Common Prayer.
This may be a convenient place to treat of forms of prayer generally.
To the illustrious divines who conducted the reformation of our Church,
in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, any abstract objections
to a prescribed form of prayer seem never to have occurred, for these
were all the inventions of a later period. Ridiculous it would be, if we
were going to address a human sovereign, to permit one of our number to
utter in the royal presence any unpremeditated words, which might chance
at the time to come into his head; and not less ridiculous,—if it be
allowable to use such an expression under such circumstances,—would they
have thought it to permit the priest to offer at the footstool of the
KING of kings, a petition in the name of the Church, of which the Church
had no previous cognizance; to require the people to say “Amen” to
prayers they had never considered, or to offer as joint prayers what
they had never agreed to offer.
But, as has been observed, it was not upon the abstract question that
they were called to decide. In their Church, the Church of England, when
they were appointed to preside over it, they found prescribed forms of
prayer in use. They were not rash innovators, who thought that whatever
is must be wrong; but, on the contrary, they regarded the fact that a
thing was already established as an argument _a priori_ in its favour;
and therefore they would only have inquired, whether prescribed forms of
prayer were _contrary_ to Scripture, if such an inquiry had been
necessary. We say, if such an inquiry had been necessary, because the
slightest acquaintance with Scripture must at once have convinced them
that contrary to Scripture could not be that practice, for which we can
plead the precedent of Moses and Miriam, and the daughters of Israel, of
Aaron and his sons when they blessed the people, of Deborah and Barak;
when the practice was even more _directly_ sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST
at the time he inspired David and the psalmists; for what are the psalms
but an inspired form of prayer for the use of the Church under the
gospel, as well as under the law? The services of the synagogue, too, it
is well known, were conducted according to a prescript form. To those
services our blessed LORD did himself conform: and severely as he
reproved the Jews for their departure, in various particulars, from the
principles of their fathers, against their practice in this particular
never did he utter one word of censure; nay, he _confirmed_ the
practice, when he himself gave to his disciples a form of prayer, and
framed that prayer too on the model, and in some degree in the very
words, of prayers then in use. Our LORD, moreover, when giving his
directions to the rulers of his Church, at the same time that he
conferred on them authority to bind and to loose, directed them to agree
touching what they should ask for, which seems almost to convey an
injunction to the rulers of every particular Church to provide their
people with a form of prayer.
The fact that we _find_ this injunction in Scripture, renders probable
the universal tradition of the universal Church, which traces to the
apostles, or apostolic men, the four great liturgies, (which have, in
all parts of the Church, afforded the model according to which all
others have been framed,) and which affirms that the apostles instituted
a form of worship wherever they established a Church. It would be easy,
if the occasion required it, to show, from a variety of passages in holy
writ, that while much can be adduced in corroboration of this tradition,
_nothing_ but _conjecture_ can be cited against it. With respect to
those passages which, referring prayer to the influence of the HOLY
SPIRIT upon the soul of man, are sometimes brought forward as militating
against the adoption of a form, they cannot have fallen under the notice
of our reformers, since the application of them to this purpose was
never dreamt of till about 200 years ago, when men, having determined in
their wilfulness to reject the liturgy, searched for every possible
authority which might, by constructions the most forced, support their
determination; and the new interpretation they thus put upon Scripture,
may be considered as rather the plea of their wishes than the verdict of
their conviction. The adduction, indeed, of such passages for such a
purpose is a gratuitous assumption of the question in dispute, and will
not for a moment hold weight in the balance of the sanctuary. According
to the interpretation of those ancients, whose judgment is the more
valuable because (living before any controversy was raised on the
subject) they were little likely to be warped, or their opinions
determined, by the prejudices of sect, or the subtleties of system, what
these passages of Scripture mean is _this_, and simply this: that the
HOLY GHOST, who is the author and giver of every good and perfect gift,
must stir up in our hearts that spirit of devotion and holiness of
temper, without which the service we render is but the service of the
lips, and is useless, if not profane.
It is, then, to the _mind_ with which we _pray_, not to the words which
we adopt, that those passages of Scripture refer, in which we are
exhorted to pray in the Spirit. But admitting, for the sake of argument,
that where we are told that the SPIRIT will teach us to pray, the
promise is applicable to the very expressions, even this cannot be
produced as an argument against a form of prayer. For, whatever may be a
man’s imaginary gift of prayer, this is quite certain, that his thoughts
must precede his tongue; that before he speaks he must think. And not
less clear is it, that after he has conceived a thought, he may, for a
moment, restrain his tongue, and set down that thought upon paper. To
suppose that the intervention of the materials for committing his
thoughts to writing must, of necessity, drive away the HOLY SPIRIT,
would not only in itself be absurd, but it would be tantamount to a
denial of the inspiration of the written Scriptures. If the first
conceptions were of GOD and GOD’S Spirit, then, of course, they are so
still, even after they have been written;—the mere writing of them, the
mere committing of them to paper, can have nothing whatever to do with
the question of inspiration, either one way or the other. If a man,
therefore, asserts that his extemporary prayers are to be attributed to
the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, we can at once reply that our
prayers, in our Prayer Book, are, on his own principles, quite as much
so, with this further advantage, that they have been carefully compared
with Scripture, and tested thereby. No Scriptural Christian, no one not
mad with folly, will contend that, on that account, they are less
spiritual; though, on the other hand, we may fairly doubt whether an
extemporiser is not acting in direct opposition to Scripture, for
Scripture says, (Eccles. v. 2,) “Be not rash with thy mouth to utter
anything before GOD, for GOD is in heaven, and thou upon earth:” and who
in the world is hasty to utter anything before GOD, if it be not the man
who prays to him extemporally?
Again, the bishops and divines, by whom our Church was reformed,
recognised it as the duty of the Church to excite emotions of solemnity
rather than of enthusiasm, when she leads her children to the footstool
of that throne which, if a throne of grace, is also a throne of glory.
And, therefore, when discarding those ceremonies which, not of primitive
usage, had been abused, and might be abused again, to the purposes of
superstition, they still made ample provision that the services of the
sanctuary should be conducted with decent ceremony, and orderly form,
and impressive solemnity, and in our cathedrals and the royal chapels
with magnificence and grandeur. They sought not to annihilate; they
received with the profoundest respect those ancient ceremonials and
forms of prayer which had been used in their Church from the first
planting of Christianity in this island. These ancient forms, however,
had been used in many respects, though gradually corrupted. In every
age, men had made the attempt to render them more and more conformable
to the spirit of the age, and (in ages of darkness) superstitions in
_practice_, and novelties, and therefore errors, in _doctrine_, had
crept in. Our wise-hearted reformers, intent, not on pleasing the
people, nor regaining popularity, nor on consulting the spirit of the
age, but simply and solely on ascertaining and maintaining the truth as
it is in JESUS, having obtained a commission from the Crown, first of
all compared the existing forms of worship with the inspired word of
GOD, being determined at once to reject what was plainly and palpably at
variance therewith. For example, the prayers before the Reformation had
been offered in the Latin language, a language no longer intelligible to
the mass of the people; but to pray in a tongue not understood by the
people, is plainly and palpably at variance with Scripture; and,
consequently, the first thing they did was to have the liturgy
translated into English. Having taken care that nothing should remain in
the forms of worship contrary to Scripture, they proceeded (by comparing
them with the most ancient rituals) to renounce all usages not clearly
primitive; and, diligently consulting the works of the Fathers, they
embodied the doctrines universally received by the early Church in that
book which was the result and glory of their labours, the Book of Common
Prayer. The work of these commissioned divines was submitted to the
convocation of the other bishops and clergy, and being approved by them,
and authorized by the Crown, was laid before the two houses of
parliament, and was accepted by the laity, who respectfully thanked the
bishops for their labour. And thus it is seen, that the English Prayer
Book was not composed in a few years, or by a few men; it has descended
to us from the first ages of Christianity. It has been shown by Palmer,
that there is scarcely a portion of our Prayer Book which cannot, in
some way, be traced to ancient offices. And this it is important to
note; first, because it shows that as the Papist in England is not
justified in calling his the old Church, since _ours_ is the old Church
reformed, _his_ a sect, in this country, comparatively new; so neither
may he produce his in opposition to ours as the old liturgy. All that is
really ancient we retained, when the bishops and divines who reformed
our old Church corrected, from Scripture and antiquity, our old liturgy.
What they rejected, and the Papists adhered to, were innovations and
novelties introduced during the middle ages. And it is important to
observe this, in the next place, since it is this fact which constitutes
the value of the Prayer Book, regarded, as we do regard it, not only as
a manual of devotion, but also as an interpreter of Scripture. It
embodies the doctrines and observances which the early Christians
(having received them from the apostles themselves) preserved with
reverential care, and handed down as a sacred deposit to their
posterity.
FRANCISCANS, or MINORITES. (_Fratres Minores_, as they were called by
their founder.) An order of friars in the Romish Church, and so
denominated from him they call St. Francis, their first founder in 1206,
who prescribed the following rules to them: That the rule and life of
the brother minors (for so he would have those of his order called) was
to observe the gospel under obedience, possessing nothing as their own,
and live in charity; then he showed how they should receive novices
after a year’s noviciate, after which it was not allowed them to leave
the order; he would have his friars make use of the Roman breviary, and
the converts or lay-brethren to write every day, for their office,
seventy-six Paternosters; besides Lent, he ordered them to fast from
All-saints to Christmas, and to begin Lent on twelfthtide; he forbade
them to ride on horseback, without some urgent necessity; and would have
them in their journeys to eat of whatsoever was laid before them: they
were to receive no money, neither directly nor indirectly; that they
ought to get their livelihood by the labour of their hands, receiving
for it anything but money; that they ought to possess nothing of their
own, and when their labour was not sufficient to maintain them, they
ought to go a begging, and, with the alms so collected, to help one
another; that they ought to confess to their provincial ministers those
sins, the absolution of which was reserved to them, that they might
receive from them charitable corrections; that the election of their
general ministers, superiors, &c. ought to be in a general assembly;
that they ought not to preach without leave of the ordinaries of each
diocese, and of their superiors. Then he prescribed the manner of
admonition and correction; how that they ought not to enter into any
nunnery, to be godfathers to any child, nor to undertake to go into any
foreign countries to convert infidels, without leave of their provincial
ministers; and then he bids them ask of the pope a cardinal for
governor, protector, and corrector of the whole order.
Francis, their founder, was born in 1182, at Assisi, in the province of
Umbria, in Italy, of noble parentage, but much more renowned for his
holy life. His baptismal name was John, but he assumed that of Francis,
from having learned the French language. He renounced a considerable
estate, with all the pleasures of the world, to embrace a voluntary
poverty, and live in the practice of the greatest austerities. Going
barefoot, and embracing an apostolical life, he performed the office of
preacher on Sundays and other festivals, in the parish churches. In the
year 1206, or 1209, designing to establish a religious order, he
presented to Pope Innocent III. a copy of the rules he had conceived,
praying that his institute might be confirmed by the holy see. The pope,
considering his despicable appearance, and the extreme rigour of his
rules, bid him go find out swine, and deliver them the rule he had
composed, as being fitter for such animals than for men. Francis, being
withdrawn, went and rolled himself in the mire with some swine, and, in
that filthy condition, again presented himself before the pope,
beseeching him to grant his request. The pope, moved hereby, granted his
petition, and confirmed his order.
From this time Francis became famous throughout all Italy, and many
persons of birth, following his example, forsook the world, and put
themselves under his direction. Thus this order of friars, called
Minors, spread all over Europe; who, living in cities and towns, by tens
and sevens, preached in the villages and parish churches, and instructed
the rude country people. Some of them likewise went among the Saracens,
and into Pagan countries, many of whom obtained the crown of martyrdom.
Francis died at Assisi in 1226. He never received higher orders than the
diaconate.
It is pretended that, a little before the death of St. Francis, there
appeared wounds in his hands and feet, like those of our Saviour,
continually bleeding, of which, after his death, there appeared not the
least token. He was buried in his own oratory at Rome, and his name was
inserted in the catalogue of saints.
The first monastery of this order was at Assisi, in Italy, where the
Benedictines of that place gave St. Francis the church of St. Mary,
called Portiuncula. Soon after, convents were erected in other places;
and afterwards St. Francis founded others in Spain and Portugal. In the
year 1215, this order was approved in the general Lateran council. Then
St. Francis, returning to Assisi, held a general chapter, and sent
missions into France, Germany, England, and other parts. This order made
so great a progress in a short time, that, at the general chapter held
at Assisi, in 1219, there met 5000 friars, who were only deputies from a
much greater number. There were in the middle of the last century above
7000 houses of this order, and in them above 115,000 monks: there are
also above 900 monasteries of Franciscan nuns. This order has produced
four popes, forty-five cardinals, and an infinite number of patriarchs,
archbishops, and two electors of the empire; besides a great number of
learned men and missionaries.
The Franciscans came into England during the life of their founder, in
the reign of King Henry III. Their first establishment was at
Canterbury. They zealously opposed King Henry VIII., in the affair of
his divorce; for which reason, at the suppression of the monasteries,
they were expelled before all others, and above 200 of them thrown into
gaols; thirty-two of them coupled in chains like dogs, and sent to
distant prisons; others banished, and others condemned to death. Whilst
this order flourished in England, this province was divided into seven
parts or districts, called _custodies_, because each of them was
governed by a provincial, or superior, called the _custos_, or guardian
of the district. The seven custodies were, that of London, consisting of
nine monasteries; that of York, consisting of seven monasteries; that of
Cambridge, containing nine monasteries; that of Bristol, containing nine
monasteries; that of Oxford, in which were eight monasteries; that of
Newcastle, in which were nine monasteries; and that of Worcester, in
which were nine monasteries; in all, sixty monasteries.
The first establishment of Franciscans in London was begun by four
friars, who hired for themselves a certain house in Cornhill, of John
Travers, then sheriff of London, and made it into little cells; where
they lived till the summer following, when they were removed, by John
Iwyn, citizen and mercer of London, to the parish of St. Nicholas in the
shambles. There he assigned them land for the building of a monastery,
and entered himself into the order.
FRATERNITIES, in Roman Catholic countries, are societies for the,
so-called, improvement of devotion. They are of several sorts and
several denominations. Some take their name from certain famous
instruments of piety. The more remarkable are,
1. The fraternity of the Rosary. This society owes its rise to Dominic,
the founder of the Rosary. He appointed it, they say, by order of the
Blessed Virgin, at the time when he was labouring on the conversion of
the Albigenses. After the saint’s death, the devotion of the Rosary
became neglected, but was revived by Alanus de Rupe, about the year
1460. This fraternity is divided into two branches, that of the Common
Rosary, and that of the Perpetual Rosary. The former is obliged, every
week, to say the fifteen divisions of ten beads each, and to confess,
and communicate, every first Sunday in the month. The brethren of it are
likewise obliged to appear at all processions of the fraternity. The
latter are under very strong engagements, the principal of which is, to
repeat the rosary perpetually; i. e. there is always some one of them,
who is actually saluting the Blessed Virgin in the name of the whole
fraternity. 2. The fraternity of the Scapulary, whom it is pretended,
according to the Sabbatine bull of Pope John XXII., the Blessed Virgin
has promised to deliver out of hell the first Sunday after their death.
3. The fraternity of St. Francis’s girdle are clothed with a sack of a
grey colour, which they tie with a cord; and in processions walk
barefooted, carrying in their hands a wooden cross. 4. That of St.
Austin’s leathern girdle comprehends a great many devotees. Italy,
Spain, and Portugal are the countries where are seen the greatest number
of these fraternities, some of which assume the name of arch-fraternity.
Pope Clement VII. instituted the arch-fraternity of charity, which
distributes bread every Sunday among the poor, and gives portions to
forty poor girls on the feast of St. Jerome, their patron. The
fraternity of death buries such dead as are abandoned by their
relations, and causes masses to be celebrated for them.—_Broughton._
FRATRICELLI. Certain heretics of Italy, who had their rise in the
marquisate of Ancona, about 1294. They were most of them apostate monks,
under a superior, called Pongiloup. They drew women after them on
pretence of devotion, and were accused of uncleanness with them in their
nocturnal meetings. They were charged with maintaining a community of
wives and goods, and denying magistracy. Abundance of libertines flocked
after them, because they countenanced their licentious way of living.
FREEMASONS. An ancient guild of architects, to whom church architecture
owes much, and to whom is to be attributed a great part of the beauty
and uniformity of the ecclesiastical edifices of the several well-marked
architectural æras of the middle ages.
The Freemasons at present arrogate to themselves a monstrous antiquity;
it is certain, however, that they were in existence early in the tenth
century, and that before the close of that century they had been
formally incorporated by the pope, with many exclusive privileges,
answering to those which are now involved in a patent. The society
consisted of persons of all nations and of every rank; and being
strictly an ecclesiastical society, the tone of the architecture to
which they gave their study became distinctively theological and
significant. The principal ecclesiastics of the day were ranked among
its members, and probably many of its clerical brethren were actually
and actively engaged in its practical operations. In the present day, if
the clergy would pay a little more attention to ecclesiastical
architecture, we might perhaps rather emulate than regret the higher
character of the sacred edifices of the middle ages.
FREE WILL. Since the introduction of Calvinism many persons have been
led into perplexity on this subject, by not sufficiently distinguishing
between the free will of spontaneous mental preference, and the good
will of freely preferring virtue to vice.
By the ancients, on the contrary, who were frequently called upon to
oppose the mischievous impiety of fatalism, while yet they stood pledged
to maintain the vital doctrine of Divine grace, this distinction was
well known and carefully observed.
The Manicheans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of
sinning, whether the choice of the individual did or did not go along
with the action.
The Pelagians so held free will, as to deny the need of Divine grace to
make that free will a good will.
By the Catholics, each of these systems was alike rejected. They held,
that man possesses free will; for, otherwise, he could not be an
accountable subject of GOD’S moral government. But they also held, that,
in consequence of the fall, his free will was a bad will: whence, with a
perfect conscious freedom of choice or preference, and without any
violence put upon his inclination, he, perpetually, though quite
spontaneously, prefers unholiness to holiness; and thus requires the aid
of Divine grace to make his bad will a good will.
The reader may see this point established by quotations from the Fathers
in Faber’s work on “Election,” from which this article is taken. He
shows also that the doctrine taught by Augustine and the ancients, is
precisely that which is maintained by the reformers of our Anglican
Church.
Those venerable and well-informed moderns resolve not our evil actions
into the compulsory fatal necessity of Manicheism, on the one hand; nor,
on the other hand, according to the presumptuous scheme of Pelagianism,
do they claim for us a spontaneous choice or preference of good
independently of the Divine assistance.
The simple freedom of man’s will, so that, whatever he chooses, he
chooses not against his inclination, but through a direct and conscious
internal preference of the thing chosen to the thing rejected: this
simple freedom of man’s will they deny not.
But, while they acknowledge the simple freedom of man’s will, they
assert the quality of its choice or preference to be so perverted by the
fall, and to be so distorted by the influence of original sin, that, in
order to his choosing the good and rejecting the evil, the grace of GOD,
by CHRIST, must both make his bad will a good will, and must also still
continue to co-operate with him even when that goodness of the will
shall have been happily obtained.
In the tenth Article of the English Church, it is often not sufficiently
observed, that our minutely accurate reformers do not say, that the
grace of GOD, in the work of conversion, gives us free will, as if we
were previously subject to a fatal necessity; but only that the grace of
GOD, by CHRIST, prevents us that we may have a good will, and
co-operates with us when we have that good will.
The doctrine, in short, of the English Church, when she declares that
fallen man cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength
and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD, is not that we really
prefer the spiritual life to the animal life, and are at the same time
by a fatal necessity prevented from embracing it; but it is that we
prefer the animal life to the spiritual life, and through the badness of
our perverse will, shall continue to prefer it, until (as the Article
speaks) the grace of GOD shall prevent us that we may have a good will,
or until (as Holy Scripture speaks) the people of the LORD shall be
willing in the day of his power.
FRIAR. (From _frater_, brother.) A term common to monks of all orders:
founded on this, that there is a kind of brotherhood presumed between
the religious persons of the same monastery. It is however commonly
confined to monks of the mendicant orders. Friars are generally
distinguished into these four principal branches,—1. Franciscans,
Minors, or Grey Friars; 2. Augustines; 3. Dominicans, or Black Friars;
4. Carmelites, or White Friars. From these four the rest of the orders
in the Roman Church descend. In a more particular sense the term Friar
is applied to such monks as are not priests: for those in orders are
usually dignified with the appellation of Father.
FRIDAY. Friday was, both in the Greek Church and Latin, a Litany or
humiliation day, in memory of CHRIST crucified: and so is kept in ours.
It is our weekly fast for our share in the death of CHRIST, and its
gloom is only dispersed if Christmas day happens to fall thereon.
FUNERAL SERVICES. (See _Burial of the Dead_ and _Dead_.) The office
which the English Church appoints to be used at the burial of the dead
is, like all her other offices, of most ancient date, having been used
by the Church in the East and the West from the remotest antiquity, and
having been only translated into English by the bishops and divines who
reformed our Church. But against this office, as against others, cavils
have been raised. The expression chiefly cavilled at in this service is
that with which we commit our brother’s “body to the ground, earth to
earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the
resurrection to eternal life, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Now here
it will be observed, that no _certainty_ is expressed that the
individual interred will rise to the resurrection of glory. The
_certainty_ is,—that there _will_ be a resurrection to eternal
life,—while a _hope_ is first implied, and afterwards expressed, that in
this resurrection the individual buried will have a part. And who are
they who will chide the Church for hoping thus,—even though it be
sometimes a hope against hope? The Church refuses to perform the funeral
service over persons not baptized, or who have been excommunicated,
because she only performs her good offices for those who are within her
communion. More than this cannot be expected of any society. But the
only class of persons who may have died within her communion, over whom
she refuses to perform the burial service, is that of those who have
died guilty of self-murder. It is so very evident that such persons died
in impenitence and mortal sin, (unless they were insane when they did
the act,) that she is therefore obliged to exclude them. With respect to
all others, she remembers our LORD’S injunction—Judge not. He does not
say, judge not harshly—he says, judge not—judge not at all. The province
of judging belongs to GOD, and to GOD only. The Church leaves it to that
supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction to make the necessary particular
distinctions in the _individual_ application of the doctrine she teaches
_generally_. Surely those very persons who now cavil at the Church for
her charity in this respect, would be the first to cast the stone at
her, if, when they brought the body of a dead brother to the church, our
clergy should have to say, “We will not express a hope in this case,
because it does not admit of a hope;” as they must do if they were to
take upon themselves the authority to judge in each particular case. No.
Throughout the Burial Service we look to the bright side of the
question, we remember that there is a resurrection to life, and we hope
that to that resurrection each brother we inter will be admitted. And is
the Church wrong? Then let the caviller stay away. If _he_ chooses to
judge of his departed relative, and to consign him without hope to the
grave, let him bury him with the burial of an ass. We do not compel him
to attend the services of the Church,—let him, then, stay away; if he
comes, however, to the church, the Church _will_ express her hope:
Better in silence hide their dead and go,
Than sing a hopeless dirge, or coldly chide
The faith that owns relief from earthly woe.
The last line of this quotation suggests another point to which
attention must be directed, viz. the fact of our returning thanks to
Almighty GOD for having “delivered our brother out of the miseries of
this sinful world.” How, it is asked, can this be done with sincerity,
at the very time when the tears and moans of weeping friends seem to
belie the assertion? And we answer, it is because the Church assumes
that those who attend her services are under the influence of Christian
faith; and of Christian faith a most important part consists in the
belief of GOD’S especial providence. Except by GOD’S permission, the
true Christian believes that not a sparrow can fall to the ground, not a
hair on our head can perish; and the true Christian also believeth that
GOD doth not willingly afflict the children of men, but that when he
chasteneth, he doth it even as a father chasteneth his child, for our
profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. Suppose that a parent
be taken in the vigour of his strength, from a loving wife and helpless
little ones,—and this is, perhaps, the severest dispensation we can
conceive:—that the desolate and the destitute should grieve is natural.
And are they to be blamed for this? No; for at the grave of Lazarus our
blessed LORD groaned in his spirit and wept. Why, indeed, is affliction
sent? Is it not sent for this very purpose—to make us grieve? And while
affliction is impending, we may pray that it may be averted. Did not the
LORD JESUS do the same? Thrice, in his agony, he prayed that the cup of
sorrow might be removed from him; thereby affording us an example, that
we may pray for the turning away of a calamity,—though at the same time
affording us an example to say, when the prayer has not been granted,
“FATHER, not my will, but thine be done.” And if the petition, the
petition for the life of a parent or a friend, has not been granted, why
has it been unheeded by the FATHER of mercies? The faith of the true
Christian answers, even because GOD foresaw that it would be more
conducive to the everlasting welfare of the lost one, the everlasting
welfare of his desolate wife, to the everlasting welfare of his
destitute children, that he should be taken at the very time he was.
This, says the heart of faith, is mysterious in our eyes, but it is the
LORD’S doing; it is the LORD, let him do what seemeth him good. It is
thus that, in the midst of sighs and groans, the Christian spirit can
give GOD thanks while nature weeps, grace consoles, and faith assures us
that what has been done is right.
GALILEE. An appendage of some of our large churches is traditionally
known by this name, and is supposed to be connected with some purposes
of discipline, and to have borrowed its name from the words of the angel
at the sepulchre to the women, “Go your way, tell his disciples and
Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as
he said unto you.” (Mark xvi. 7.) The churches where a Galilee occurs
are Durham, Lincoln, and Ely; but they have little in common except the
name. That at Ely agrees with that at Durham in being at the west end of
the church, but it differs in being to all appearance a mere porch of
entrance, while that at Durham is a spacious building with five aisles
and three altars; and, so far from its use being as a porch of entrance,
the great west entrance was actually closed in the fifteenth century,
while the Galilee in all probability retained its original use. That at
Lincoln is at the south-west corner of the south transept; it is
cruciform in plan, and has over it another chamber of the like size,
once apparently arranged as a court of judicature, which favours the
idea that the Galilee had some connexion with discipline. This was
certainly the case at Durham, for there the consistory court has been
held from time immemorial: and there Cardinal Langton erected a font for
the children of persons who were excommunicate. But this was nearly 300
years after the building of the Galilee, which was certainly erected by
Hugh Pudsey in the twelfth century, that women, who were allowed to
proceed but a short distance into that particular church, might have a
place where they might frequent the Divine ordinances; and this in
itself had something of the nature of discipline. It may be worth
noticing in addition, that all the three Galilees still remaining were
erected between the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the
thirteenth century.
GALLICAN CHURCH. (See _Church of France_.)
GARGOYLE, or GURGOYLE. A water spout, usually in Gothic buildings formed
of some grotesque figure.
GEHENNA. The true origin and occasion of this word is this: there was an
idol of Moloch, near Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, to which they
offered human sacrifices. The Rabbis say, that they were wont to beat a
drum, lest the people should hear the cries of the children that were
thrown into the fire when they sacrificed them to idols. This valley was
called Geenon, from _Ge_, which signifies a valley, and Ennom, which
comes from _Nahom_, that signifies to groan; therefore hell, the place
of eternal fire, is called Gehenna. The ancient writers did not make use
of this word, and it was first used in the gospel.
GENERATION, THE ETERNAL. (See _Eternity_.) It is thus that the filiation
without beginning of the Only Begotten of the FATHER is expressed.
The distinction of a threefold generation of the SON is well known among
the learned, and is thus explained:—1. The first and most proper
filiation and generation is his eternally existing in and of the FATHER,
the eternal Λόγος of the eternal Mind. In respect of this, chiefly, he
is the _only begotten_, and a distinct person from the FATHER. His other
generations were rather condescensions, first to creatures in general,
next to men in particular. 2. His second generation was his
_condescension_, _manifestation_, _coming forth_, as it were, from the
FATHER, (though never separated or divided from him,) to create the
world: this was in time, and a voluntary thing; and in this respect,
properly, he may be thought to be first-born of every creature, or
before all creatures. 3. His third generation, or filiation, was when he
condescended to be born of a pure virgin, and to become man also without
ceasing to be GOD.—_Waterland._
The second person of the Trinity is called the SON, yea, and the “only
begotten SON of GOD,” because he was begotten of the FATHER, not as
others are, by spiritual regeneration, but by eternal generation, as
none but himself is, for the opening whereof we must know that GOD that
made all things fruitful is not himself sterile or barren; but he that
hath given power to animals to generate and produce others in their own
nature, is himself much more able to produce one, not only like himself,
but of the self-same nature with himself, as he did in begetting his
Son, by communicating his own unbegotten essence and nature to him. For
the person of the SON was most certainly begotten of the FATHER, or
otherwise he would not be his SON; but his essence was unbegotten,
otherwise he would not be GOD; and therefore the highest apprehensions
that we can frame of this great mystery, the eternal generation of the
SON of GOD, is only by conceiving the person of the FATHER to have
communicated his Divine essence to the person of the SON; and so of
himself begetting his other self the SON, by communicating his own
eternal and unbegotten essence to him; I say, by communicating of his
_essence_, not of his _person_ to him (for then they would be both the
same person, as now they are of the same essence); the essence of the
FATHER did not beget the SON by communicating his person to him, but the
person of the FATHER begat the SON by communicating his essence to him;
so that the person of the SON is begotten, not communicated, but the
essence of the SON is communicated, not begotten.
This notion of the FATHER’S begetting the SON, by communicating his
essence to him, I ground upon the SON’S own words, who certainly best
knew how himself was begotten: “For as the FATHER,” saith he, “hath life
in himself, so hath he given to the SON to have life in himself.” (John
v. 26.) To have life in himself is an essential property of the Divine
nature; and, therefore, wheresoever that is given or communicated, the
nature itself must needs be given and communicated too.
Now here we see how GOD the FATHER communicated this his essential
property, and so his essence, to the SON; and, by consequence, though he
be a distinct person from him, yet he hath the same unbegotten essence
with him; and therefore as the FATHER hath life in himself, so hath the
SON life in himself, and so all other essential properties of the Divine
nature, only with this personal distinction, that the FATHER hath this
life in himself, not from the SON, but from himself; whereas, the SON
hath it, not from himself, but from the FATHER; or, the FATHER is GOD of
himself, not of the SON; the SON is the same GOD, but from the FATHER,
not from himself, and therefore not the FATHER, but the SON, is rightly
called by the Council of Nice, GOD of God, Light of light, yea, very GOD
of very God.—_Beveridge._
What we assert is, that GOD the FATHER from all eternity communicated to
his SON his own individual nature and substance; so that the same
GODHEAD which is in the FATHER originally and primarily, is also in the
SON by derivation and communication. By this communication there was
given to the SON all those attributes and perfections which do simply
and absolutely belong to the Divine nature; there was a communication of
all the properties which naturally belong to the essence communicated;
and hence it is that the SON is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and
the like, in the same infinite perfection as his FATHER is. The natural
properties were thus communicated; but we cannot say the same of the
personal properties, it being impossible they should be communicated, as
being inseparable from the person: such are, the act of communicating
the essence, the generation itself, and the personal pre-eminence of the
FATHER, founded on that generation. These were not communicated, but are
proper to the FATHER; as, on the other hand, the personal properties of
the SON (filiation and subordination) are proper to the SON, and do not
belong to the FATHER. And although in this incomprehensible mystery we
use the term _generation_, (the Scripture having given us sufficient
authority to do so, by styling him GOD’S SON, his proper SON, and his
only begotten SON,) yet, by this term, we are not to understand a
proceeding from non-existence to existence, which is the physical notion
of generation; nor do we understand it in that low sense in which it is
agreeable to creatures; but as it is consistent with the essential
attributes of GOD, of which necessary existence is one. Nor, further,
are we in this generation to suppose any division of the essence, or any
external separation. The communication of the nature was not a separate
one, like that of finite beings, but merely internal: and, though the
SON be generated from the substance of the FATHER, (and thence be a
distinct person from him,) yet he still continues to be _in_ the FATHER,
and the FATHER _in_ him; herein differing from the production of all
created beings, that in them the producer and the produced become two
distinct individuals, which in this generation cannot be affirmed. The
term used by the Greek Fathers to express this internal or undivided
existence in the same nature, ἐμπεριχώρησις that of the Latin FATHERs,
_circumincessio_; and that distinction of the schoolmen, _generatio ab
intra_; are terms which are as expressive as any words can be of a
mystery so far above our comprehension. The FATHER and the SON by this
communication do not become two GODS, (as Adam and Seth are two men,)
but are only one GOD in the same undivided essence. The communication of
this nature neither did, nor could, infringe the unity of it, because
the Divine essence is simply one, and therefore cannot be divided; is
absolutely infinite, and therefore incapable of being multiplied into
more infinities. And this, by the way, sufficiently shows the weakness
and falseness of that charge which has been so often thrown on the
orthodox scheme of the Trinity, namely, that it is downright tritheism,
and that to maintain that the three persons are each of them GOD, is in
effect to maintain three GODS; a charge which is so far from being a
just consequence of our principles, that it is manifestly inconsistent
with them, and impossible to be true upon them. We hold the Divine
essence to be one simple, indivisible essence; we assert that the FATHER
communicated to the SON, without division, this his individual
substance; and therefore, upon these our principles, the unity of the
Divine essence must still unavoidably be preserved; and upon this scheme
the three distinct persons neither are, nor can be, (what is falsely
suggested against us,) three distinct GODS. This communication of the
Divine substance to GOD the SON was not a temporary one, but strictly
and absolutely eternal; eternal in the proper sense of that word; in the
same sense in which eternity is ascribed to the Divine nature itself;
and eternal, in the same sense as GOD the FATHER himself is
so.—_Stephens._
GENESIS. The first book of the Bible. The Hebrews call it ברשית,
_Bereschith_, which signifies, _in the beginning_; these being the first
words of the book. The Greeks gave it the name of _Genesis_, or
Generation, because it contains the genealogy of the first patriarchs
from Adam to the sons and grandsons of Jacob; or because it begins with
the history of the creation of the world. It includes the history of
2369 years, from the beginning of the world to the death of the
patriarch Joseph. Besides the history of the creation, it contains an
account of the original innocence and fall of man, the propagation of
mankind, the rise of religion, the invention of arts, the general
defection and corruption of the world, the deluge, the restoration of
the world, the division and peopling of the earth, the original of
nations and kingdoms, the history of the first patriarchs down to
Joseph, at whose death it ends.
GENTILE. (From _Gentes_.) All the people in the world, except the Jews,
were called Gentiles.
GENTLEMEN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL. The lay singers of the Royal Chapel are
so called; and their duty is to perform with the priests, in order, the
choral service there, which was formerly daily. According to the present
rule, they attend in monthly courses of eight at a time. In ancient
times this body was more numerous: Edward VI.’s chapel had thirty-two
gentlemen; Queen Elizabeth’s thirty; James I.’s twenty-three.
GEOMETRICAL. The style of Gothic architecture which succeeded the Early
English about 1245, and gave place to the Decorated about 1315.
In this style window tracery was first introduced, and it is
distinguished from the tracery of the succeeding style by the use of
simple geometrical forms, each in general perfect in itself, and not
running into one another. (See _Tracery_, and the engravings there
given.) From the use of tracery large windows naturally followed,
sometimes even extending to six or eight lights; and from these larger
openings in the walls some constructive changes followed, especially in
the greater weight and projection of the buttresses. The doors are very
often, as in the Early English, divided by a central shaft. The piers
very soon lose the detached shafts, and are rather formed of solid
clusters. In early examples the triforium is still retained as a
distinct feature; in later, it is treated as a decorative band of
panelling. Arcading is either discontinued, or increases very greatly in
richness. Vaulting hardly advances upon the simple forms of the
preceding style. All decorative features are of the very highest order
of excellence, and are far more natural than either before or after,
without losing in grace, or force, or character. There is no single
decoration peculiar to this style, but crockets first appear in it, as
also the ball-flower; on the other hand, the dog-tooth is quite given
up.
GHOST. (See _Holy Ghost_.) A spirit. The third person in the blessed
Trinity is spoken of as the HOLY GHOST. _Giving up the ghost_ means
expiring, or dying.
GIRDLE. A cincture binding the alb round the waist. Formerly it was flat
and broad, and sometimes adorned with jewels; in the Roman Catholic
Church it has been changed into a long cord with dependent extremities
and tassels. The zone is regarded as a type of purity.—_Jebb._
GLEBE. Every church is of common right entitled to house and glebe.
These are both comprehended under the name of _manse_, and the rule of
the canon law is, “Sancitum est, ut unicuique ecclesiæ unus mansus
integer, absque ullo servitio, tribuatur.” This is repeated in the
canons of Egbert; and the assigning of these was of such absolute
necessity, that without them no church could be regularly consecrated.
The fee simple of the glebe is in _abeyance_, from the French _bayer_,
to expect, i. e. it is only in the remembrance, expectation, and
intendment, of law. Lord Coke says, this was provided by the providence
and wisdom of the law, for that the parson and vicar have cure of souls,
and were bound to celebrate Divine service, and administer the
sacraments, and therefore no act of the predecessor should make a
discontinuance, to take away the entry of the successor, and to drive
him to a real action whereby he might be destitute of maintenance in the
mean time.
After induction, the freehold of the glebe is in the _parson_, but with
these limitations: (1.) That he may not alienate, nor exchange, except
upon the conditions set forth in the statutes cited below; (2.) that he
may not commit waste by selling wood, &c.
But it has been adjudged that the digging of mines in glebe lands is
_not_ waste; for the court said, in denying a prohibition, “if this were
accounted waste, no mines that are in glebe lands could ever be opened.”
Glebe lands, in the hands of the parson, shall not pay tithe to the
vicar, though endowed generally of the tithes of all lands within the
parish; nor being in the hands of the vicar, shall they pay tithe to the
parson. This is according to the known maxim of the canon law, that “The
Church shall not pay tithes to the Church;” but otherwise if the glebe
be leased out, for then it shall be liable to pay tithes respectively as
other lands are. By a statute of Henry VIII., if the parson dies in
possession of glebe, and another is inducted before severance of the
crop from the ground, his executor shall have the corn, but the
successor shall have the tithes: the reason is, because, although the
executor represents the testator, yet he cannot represent him _as
parson_; inasmuch as another parson is inducted. By 13 Eliz. c. 10, the
term for leasing glebe is limited to twenty-one years, or three lives.
The 55 Geo. III. c. 147, 56 Geo. III. c. 52, 1 Geo. IV. c. 6, are acts
for “enabling spiritual persons to exchange their parsonage houses or
glebe lands.” (See also 6 Geo. IV. c. 8; 7 Geo. IV. c. 66; 1 & 2 Vict.
c. 23; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 27; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 93.)
Canon 87. _A Terrier of Glebe lands, and other Possessions belonging to
Churches._—“We ordain that the archbishops and all bishops within their
several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lieth) that a true
note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards,
houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes, lying out
of their parishes, (which belong to any parsonage, or vicarage, or rural
prebend,) be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the
appointment of the bishop, (whereof the minister to be one,) and be laid
up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory
thereof.”
By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, the bishop may assign four acres of glebe to the
curate, occupying the house of a non-resident incumbent, at a fixed
rent, to be approved of by the bishop.
GLORIA IN EXCELSIS. “Glory be [to GOD] on high.” One of the doxologies
of the Church, sometimes called the angelic hymn, because the first part
of it was sung by the angels at Bethlehem. The latter portion of this
celebrated hymn is ascribed to Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, about the
year of CHRIST 139; and the whole hymn, with very little difference, is
to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, and was established to be
used in the Church service by the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633.
It is used by both the Greek and Latin Church. “In the Eastern Church,”
says Palmer, “this hymn is more than 1500 years old, and the Church of
England has used it, either at the beginning or end of the liturgy, for
above 1200 years.” It is now used at the conclusion of the Communion
Service; but in the First Book of King Edward VI. was placed near the
beginning. It is directed to be _sung_ or _said_; and ought to be sung
in all cathedrals at least, as it is still at Exeter, Durham, and
occasionally at Worcester and Windsor.
GLORIA PATRI. “Glory be to the FATHER.” The Latin title of one of the
primitive doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the lesser
doxology, to distinguish it from the _Gloria in excelsis_, or angelic
hymn. From the times of the apostles it has been customary to mingle
ascriptions of glory with prayer, and to conclude the praises of the
Church, and also sermons, with glory to the FATHER, to the SON, and to
the HOLY GHOST. The first part of the _Gloria Patri_ is traced by St.
Basil to the apostolic age. In the writings of the Fathers, doxologies
are of very frequent occurrence, and in the early Church they appear to
have been used as tests, by which orthodox Christians and Churches were
distinguished from those which were infected with heresy. The doxologies
then in use, though the same in substance, were various in form and mode
of expression. The Arians soon took advantage of this diversity, and
wrested some of them so as to appear to favour their own views. One of
the doxologies which ran in these words, “Glory be to the FATHER, _by_
the SON, _in_ the HOLY GHOST,” was employed by them in support of their
heretical opinions. In consequence of this, and to set the true doctrine
of the Church in the clearest light, the form, as now used, was adopted
as the standing doxology of the Church. (See _Doxology_.)
Of the hymns that made a part of the service of the ancient Church, one
of the most common was what is called the lesser doxology. The most
ancient form of it was only a single sentence without a response—“Glory
be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world without
end. Amen.” Part of the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning, is
now, and ever shall be,” was inserted some time after the first
composition. In the fourth Council of Toledo, an. 633, the words, “As it
was in the beginning,” &c., are omitted, but the word “honour” is added
to “glory,” according to a decree of that council; that it should be
said, “Glory and honour be to the FATHER:” forasmuch as the prophet
David says, “Bring glory and honour to the LORD,” and John the
Evangelist, in the Revelation, heard the voice of the heavenly host,
saying, “Honour and glory be to our GOD, who sitteth on the throne.”
(Rev. v. 13.) From whence they conclude, that it ought to be said on
earth as it is sung in heaven. The Mozarabic liturgy, which was used in
Spain a little after this time, has it in the very same form: “Glory and
honour be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world
without end. Amen.” The Catholics themselves of old were wont to say,
some, “Glory be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST;”
others, “with the HOLY GHOST;” and others, “in or by the SON, and by the
HOLY GHOST.” These different ways of expressing were all allowed, so
long as no heterodox opinion was suspected to be couched under them. But
when Arius had broached his heresy in the world, his followers would use
no other form of glorification but the last, and made it a
distinguishing character of their party to say, “Glory be to the FATHER,
in, or by, the SON, and HOLY GHOST:” intending hereby to denote, that
the SON and HOLY GHOST were inferior to the FATHER in substance, and, as
creatures, of a different nature from him, as Sozomen and other ancient
writers inform us. From this time it became scandalous, and brought any
one under the suspicion of heterodoxy to use it, because the Arians had
now, as it were, made it the shibboleth of their party. We may observe,
that it was a hymn of most general use, and a doxology offered to GOD in
the close of every solemn office. The Western Church repeated it at the
end of every psalm, and the Eastern Church at the end of the last
psalm.—The whole commonly running thus: “To FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST,
be all glory, worship, thanksgiving, honour, and adoration, now and for
ever, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”—_Bingham._
In this diversity there was certainly nothing either intended ill
towards the truth, or which could be directly drawn into ill
construction; but when, about the time of the Nicene Council, the Arians
began to sow their seeds of heresy touching the inequality of the three
persons, and, the better to colour their pretences, sheltered themselves
under the protection of the doxology, “the FATHER, by the SON, in the
HOLY GHOST,” formerly used, to which they constantly adhere, the Council
of Nice, to avoid all occasion of future question, held herself to that
form which came nighest to the form of baptism composed by our SAVIOUR,
and the doctrine of Christian faith; prescribing it to be punctually
observed by all such as were of the orthodox party.—_L’Estrange._
It were well if this ancient heresy were so buried as never to rise or
revive any more. But, alas! that weed was never so thoroughly rooted
out, but the seeds of it soon sprang up again, to the depraving of the
doctrine and disturbing the peace of the Church. In these later years
there hath arisen up one Socinus, a man of a subtle and crafty wit, who
hath rubbed up and revived the same heresy, by denying the Divinity and
satisfaction of our blessed SAVIOUR, and hath carried away many by his
cunning and corrupt reasoning.—_Hole._
If the reasoning of Basil be conclusive, or his opinion may be relied
upon, this hymn, _Gloria Patri_, derives its origin from the apostles.
Glorifying the FATHER, and the SON, together with the HOLY GHOST, was in
Basil’s judgment practised and prescribed by the apostles themselves.
This, he believes, was one of the “ordinances,” or “traditions,” which
St. Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping, as they had been delivered
to them by him (1 Cor. xi. 2); and exhorts the Thessalonians to hold, as
they had been taught, whether by word, or by epistle. (2 Thess. ii. 15.)
On this principle, Basil accounts for the practice of ascribing glory to
the Trinity, which in his day was universal.—In different passages of
his works we find him thus arguing: “As we have received, so must we be
baptized; as we are baptized, so must we believe; and as we have
believed, so must we glorify the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY
GHOST.”—_Shepherd._
The earliest instance that we meet with of the use of this hymn, is
found in the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the
martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp, from whence we learn that a
doxology, nearly resembling Gloria Patri, was the last words he uttered.
Polycarp was conversant with the apostles, and was consecrated bishop of
Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist. To him, among others, St. John is
said to have addressed the Revelation, in which Polycarp is entitled
“the angel of the Church of Smyrna.” With some little difference in the
phrase of their doxologies, the Christians of the three first ages
agreed in uniformly expressing the same thing. Believing and confessing,
that in the eternal GODHEAD there existed three, the FATHER, the SON,
and the HOLY GHOST, they ascribed to them all honour and
glory.—_Shepherd._
To this very day this serves for these two uses; first, as a shorter
creed, and confession of our believing in “three persons and one GOD,”
whereby we both declare ourselves to be in the communion of the Catholic
Church, and also renounce all heretics who deny this great and
distinguishing article of our faith; secondly, for a hymn of praise, by
which we magnify the FATHER for our creation, the SON for our
redemption, and the HOLY GHOST for our sanctification; and to quicken us
herein, we declare it was so “in the beginning,” for the angels sung the
praises of the Trinity in the morning of the creation; and the
patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, saints and martyrs, did thus worship
GOD from the beginning. The whole Church militant and triumphant doth it
“now,” and shall do it for “ever,” not only in this “world,” but in that
which is “without end.” Let us, therefore, with great devotion, join
with this blessed company in so good a work, and give glory to the
FATHER who granted our pardon, to the SON who purchased it, and to the
HOLY GHOST who sealed it.—_Comber._
GLOSS. A comment.
GNOSTICS. (From γνώσις, _knowledge_.) The word _Gnostic_ properly
signifies a _learned_ or _enlightened person_; and thus Clement of
Alexandria uses it to denote the _perfect Christian_, who is the true
Gnostic. But in its more common use, the term signifies a class of
heretics, who pretended to superior knowledge, and mixed up some
Christian ideas and terms with systems based on Platonism, Oriental
philosophy, or corrupt Judaism. To this class most of the earliest sects
belonged. Simon Magus may be considered as the forerunner of Gnosticism;
and in the second century there were many varieties of Gnostics—as the
followers of Basilides Saturninus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, &c. Of these
the Carpocratians alone are said to have _assumed_ the name.
The Gnostic systems held in common a belief in one supreme God, dwelling
from eternity in the _Pleroma_, or fulness of light. From him proceed
successive generations of spiritual beings—called by Valentinus _Æons_.
In proportion as these emanations are more remote from the primal
source, the likeness of his perfections in them is continually fainter.
_Matter_ is regarded as eternal, and as inherently evil. Out of it the
world was formed, not by the Supreme GOD, but by the _Demiurge_—a being
who is represented by some heresiarchs as merely a subordinate and
unconscious instrument of the Divine will, and by others as positively
malignant, and hostile to the Supreme. The Demiurge was the national God
of the Jews—the God of the Old Testament; according, therefore, as _he_
is viewed, the Mosaic economy is either recognised as preparatory, or is
rejected as evil. The mission of CHRIST was for the purpose of
delivering man from the tyranny of the Demiurge. But the Christ of
Gnosticism was neither very God nor very man. His spiritual nature,
being an emanation from the Supreme GOD, was necessarily inferior to its
original; and, on the other hand, an emanation from GOD could not dwell
in a material, and consequently evil, body. Either, therefore, _Jesus_
was a mere man, on whom the Æon _Christ_ descended at his baptism, to
forsake him again before his crucifixion; or the body with which CHRIST
seemed to be clothed was only a phantom, and all his actions were only
in appearance. (See _Docetæ_.)
The same view as to the evil nature of matter led the Gnostics to deny
the resurrection of the body. They could admit no other than a spiritual
resurrection; the object of their philosophy was to emancipate the soul
from its gross and material prison at death; the soul of the perfect
Gnostic, having already risen in baptism, was to be gathered into the
bosom of GOD, while such souls as yet lacked their full perfection, were
to work it out in a series of transmigrations.
Since matter was evil, the Gnostic was required to overcome it. But here
arose an important practical difference; for, while some sought the
victory by a high ascetic abstraction from the things of sense, the
baser kind professed to show their superiority and indifference by
wallowing in impurity and excess.—(See _Bardesanists_, _Basilidians_,
_Carpocratians_, _Marcionites_, _Ophitæ_, _Valentinians_.)
GOD. This is the name we give to that eternal, infinite, and
incomprehensible Being, the Maker and Preserver of all things, who
exists One Being in a Trinity of Persons. The name is derived from the
Icelandic _Godi_, which signifies the supreme magistrate.
Article I. “There is but one living and true GOD, everlasting, without
body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the
Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in
unity of this GODHEAD there be three persons, of one substance, power,
and eternity; the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”
The FATHER is GOD.
GOD the FATHER (John vi. 27; Gal. i. 1, 3; 1 Thess. i. 1). GOD, even the
FATHER (1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. i. 3; James iii. 9). One GOD and FATHER
(Eph. iv. 6). One GOD the FATHER (1 Cor. viii. 6); and the passages
where GOD is spoken of as the FATHER of our LORD CHRIST, the SON of the
living GOD (Matt. xvi. 16; John iii. 16; vi. 27; Rom. v. 10; viii. 3;
xv. 6).
The SON is GOD.
I. So expressly declared.
The mighty GOD (Isa. ix. 6). Make straight—a highway for our God! (xl.
3). Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever! (Ps. xlv. 6, with Heb. i.
8). I will save them by the LORD their GOD (Hosea i. 7). Immanuel, GOD
with us (Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23). The Word was GOD (John i. 1). My
LORD and my GOD! (xx. 28; see Ps. xxxv. 23). Feed the Church of GOD,
which he has purchased with his own blood (Acts xx. 28). They stoned
Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, &c. (vii. 59). CHRIST
is over all, GOD, blessed for ever! (Rom. ix. 5.) GOD was manifest in
the flesh, &c., believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim.
iii. 16). GOD our SAVIOUR. (Titus ii. 10). The great GOD (13). Our GOD
and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST (Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1, with Titus ii. 13). Hereby
perceive we the love of GOD, because he laid down his life for us (1
John iii. 16). The true GOD, and eternal life (v. 20).
II. By necessary implication.
The angel Jehovah is GOD (Gen. xxxi. 11, with 13; and xxxv. 9–13, and
15; xvi. 9, with 13; Ex. iii. 2, with 4, and 6). I am Alpha and Omega—he
that overcometh—I will be his GOD (Rev. xxi. 6, 7). We must all stand
before the judgment seat of CHRIST, for,—every tongue shall confess to
GOD (Rom. xiv. 10, 11). I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
GOD, &c. (Rev. xx. 12). Many shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the
LORD their GOD, for he shall go before him (Luke i. 16, 17; with Matt.
iii. 11, and xi. 10). The LORD GOD of the holy prophets sent his angel
(Rev. xxii. 6, with 16). I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify, &c.
They tempted the most high GOD (Ps. lxxviii. 56), applied to CHRIST (1
Cor. x. 9). Behold the LORD GOD will come—behold his reward is with him
(Isa. xl. 10, with Rev. xxii. 12, 20). Behold I come quickly, and my
reward is with me—I am Alpha and Omega. Surely I come quickly, Amen!
even so, come, LORD JESUS!—To the only wise GOD, our SAVIOUR, be glory,
&c. Amen! (Jude 25).
III. From his attributes.
As he is _wisdom_ itself (Prov. viii. throughout; Luke xi. 49, with Col.
ii. 3).—As he is the _holy_ one (Ps. xvi. 10); the most holy (Dan. ix.
24, with Rev. iii. 7).—As he is the _truth_ (John xiv. 6, and Rev. iii.
7, with 1 John v. 20).—As he is _eternal_.—Eternal life (1 John i. 1, 2,
and v. 20).—From his _unchangeableness_ (Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8,
with Mal. iii. 6).—His _omnipresence_ (John iii. 13; Matt. xviii. 20;
xxviii. 20; Eph. i. 23; iv. 10).—His _omniscience_ (Rev. ii. 23; John
ii. 24, 25; v. 42). Knowing the thoughts (Matt. ix. 4; xii. 15, 25; Mark
ii. 8; Luke v. 22; vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17; John vi. 61, 64; xvi. 19; xxi.
17, with 1 Cor. iv. 5; this with 1 Kings viii. 39). Thou, even thou
only, (O LORD GOD,) knowest the hearts of all the children of
men.—_Omnipotence_: The works of creation. All things were made by him;
and without him was not anything made that was made (John i. 3, with Ps.
cii. 25; Col. i. 16, and Jer. x. 10, 11).—And _providence_. By him all
things consist (Col. i. 17). Upholding all things by the word of his
power (Heb. i. 3).—_Judging_ the world. The LORD JESUS CHRIST, who shall
judge the quick and the dead (2 Tim. iv. 1, &c., with Gen. xviii. 25,
and Ps. l. 6). GOD is judge himself.—Raising the dead (John vi. 40, 54;
v. 28, 29; with Deut. xxxii. 39). I, even I, am he, and there is no GOD
with me; I kill, and I make alive!—The _forgiveness_ of sins (Mark ii.
10, 11, &c., with Isa. xliii. 25). I, even I, am he that blotteth out
thy transgressions, and Mark ii. 7.
IV. As Divine worship is due, and paid to him.
Being directed by prophecy. All kings shall fall down before him (Ps.
lxxii. 11). All dominions shall serve and obey him (Dan. vii. 27). Kiss
the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way (Ps. ii. 12). He
is thy LORD, and worship thou him (xlv. 11). Let all the angels of GOD
worship him! (Heb. i. 6.) All men should honour the SON, even as they
honour the FATHER. External worship was paid by the wise men (Matt. ii.
11)—by the leper (viii. 2)—by the ruler (ix. 18)—by the seamen in the
storm (xiv. 33)—by the woman of Canaan (xv. 25)—by the blind man (John
ix. 38)—by the Marys, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 9), and by his disciples (Rev.
i. 17). At the name of JESUS every knee should bow in heaven and in
earth (Phil. ii. 10; compare this with Matt. iv. 10, Thou shalt worship
the LORD thy GOD, and him only shalt thou serve; and Neh. ix. 6, Thou,
even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, &c., and the host of
heaven worshippeth thee!).
V. As there must be faith, and hope, and trust in him.
See John iii. 15, 16; xiv. 1; xii. 44; Rom. x. 11; xv. 12; Acts xvi. 31;
Eph. i. 12, 13, with Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in
man; whose heart departeth from the LORD! but blessed are all they that
put their trust in him!
VI. As praise and thanksgiving are offered to him.
Daily shall he be praised (Ps. lxxii. 15). Unto him that loved us, and
washed us from our sins, be glory and dominion for ever and ever! (Rev.
i. 5, 6; compare Ps. cxlviii. 13). Let them praise the name of the LORD,
for his name alone is excellent. Whosoever shall call upon the name of
the LORD shall be saved. Saints, with all that in every place call upon
the name of JESUS CHRIST (1 Cor. i. 2, and Rev. v. 11–13). Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain, to receive honour, and glory, and blessing—blessing
and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne,
and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever!—Salvation to our GOD, who sitteth
upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Blessing, &c. be unto our GOD for
ever and ever. Amen! (Rev. vii. 10–12).
The HOLY GHOST is GOD.
This perhaps is only to be proved by implication and analogy.
I. In regard to title.
The Spirit of the LORD spake by me—the GOD of Israel said, the Rock of
Israel spake (2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3). That holy thing which shall be born
of thee shall be called the SON of GOD (Luke i. 35). She was found with
child of the HOLY GHOST (Matt. i. 18). Why—lie to the HOLY GHOST—thou
hast lied unto GOD (Acts v. 3, 4). Born of the Spirit (John iii. 6). Be
born of GOD (1 John v. 4). Consider, too, no man taketh this honour to
himself, but he that is called of GOD (Heb. v. 4). Pray the LORD of the
harvest that he will send forth labourers (Matt. ix. 38).—The HOLY GHOST
said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them.—So they, being sent forth by the HOLY GHOST, departed (Acts xiii.
2, and 4). They shall be all taught of God (John vi. 45). Not in the
words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth (1
Cor. ii. 13). Ye are the temple of GOD (1 Cor. iii. 16). Your body is
the temple of the HOLY GHOST (vi. 19). The hand of the LORD GOD fell
there upon me, and he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a
lock of mine head, and the Spirit lifted me up (Ezek. viii. 1–3).
See also the following passages, as respectively explaining each other:
Luke ii. 26, with John xiv. 16, 17, and 1 Cor. xiv. 25.—Matt. iv. 1,
with Luke xi. 4.—2 Cor. i. 3, with Acts ix. 31; John xiv. 26, &c.—1 Cor.
ii. 11, with 14.—Matt. iv. 7, with Acts v. 9.—Gen. vi. 3, with 1 Pet.
iii. 20.—Luke xi. 20, with Matt. xii. 28.—Acts iv. 24, 25, with i.
16,—and Luke i. 68, 70, with Acts xxviii. 25; and various others that
might be noticed.
That the FATHER, under whatever names he is described and addressed, is
GOD, is not disputable. That the SON is also GOD, it would seem much of
rashness to doubt; since he was foretold by prophecy before his
manifestation in the flesh, to be GOD, and appeared as GOD to the
patriarchs.—GOD the SON, the angel and guardian of his people; for
“GOD”—the Trinity in unity—“no man hath seen at any time.” That he must
be a GOD who has such titles applied to him, such Divine attributes and
offices, and to whom Divine worship is paid, the Arian allows, and the
Socinian did not always deny; but that he is another—an inferior GOD,
thus making more GODS than one, the voice of revelation expressly
contradicts.
The Divinity of the SON is in fact proved both directly and
incidentally; but the personality and Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT are
less decisively expressed and treated of—apparently because the HOLY
GHOST was never incarnate, nor appeared in a bodily form upon earth, and
therefore we have not his frequent declarations, as we have those of the
SON, nor direct addresses to him, as we have to the FATHER, to
illustrate this point, but are left to gather the truth from the mouths
of the prophets—the holy men of GOD, who spake as they were moved by the
HOLY GHOST. From their preaching we sufficiently learn that he joined in
the work of creation—that he dwells in the temple of the body, (1 Cor.
iii. 16; vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. vi. 16,) and the faithful are therefore
dedicated to him—that he is eternal, omnipresent, infinite in power and
knowledge—that obedience is due to him, and the sin against him
considered unpardonable—and that he is to be worshipped is implied by
the apostolic form of benediction. That the HOLY SPIRIT is a person is
proved, independently of analogous reasoning, by a clear personal
distinction between him and the FATHER and the SON.
The term GOD, when used in Holy Scripture in relation to the FATHER of
our LORD CHRIST, is evidently used in a personal sense; and in such
sense the Church also speaks of GOD the SON and GOD the HOLY GHOST. But
when it is announced that there is but one GOD, though he is the FATHER
of all, the term is used essentially, and comprehends the sacred three.
The unity of the GODHEAD is so unequivocally declared in Holy Scripture,
that we dare not deny it: but neither, it is presumed, can we safely
deny that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST are each of them GOD,
without either impeaching the authenticity of most of the passages cited
in this article, or making the word of GOD (itself) of none effect, by
strifes of words, not to say profane and vain babblings.
GODFATHER. (See _Sponsors_.) He that holds the child at the baptismal
font, and answers for him. The custom of godfathers or sponsors is very
ancient in the Church. We find them mentioned by Tertullian, the
Apostolical Constitutions, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. There were
three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children. 2. For adult persons, who
through sickness were not able to answer for themselves. 3. For such as
could answer. The sureties for the first were obliged to be guardians of
children’s Christian education; and indeed at first they were the
parents of the children, and it was in extraordinary cases, either when
the parent could not or would not, that others were admitted to be
sureties. Sureties of the second sort were such as engaged to the Church
that the adult person, who was grown incapable to answer for himself,
did, when he was capable, desire to be baptized. But those of the third
sort, who appeared with the person to be baptized, obliged themselves to
admonish the person of his duty, as they had, before baptism, instructed
him in it. Anciently deaconnesses were the sponsors for women, and the
deacons were for the men. Parents were not forbidden to be sponsors for
their children, before the Council of Mentz, A. D. 813. In the Church of
Rome it is not lawful to marry any person to whom one stands related in
this spiritual way; and this occasions numberless disputes, and
numberless dispensations, which ring great sums of money to the
exchequer of Rome.
Rubric. “There shall be for every male child to be baptized, two
godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and
two godmothers.”
Canon 29. “No person shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to
answer as godfather for his own child; nor any godfather or godmother
shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech, than by the Book
of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any person
be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or
confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the
holy communion.”
Rubric. “And the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the
children, must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last
lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at
evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion shall appoint.”
GOLDEN NUMBER. By referring to the astronomical tables at the beginning
of the Prayer Book, it will be seen that a large proportion of them are
simply calculations of the day on which _Easter_ will fall in any given
year, and, by consequence, the moveable feasts depending on it. In the
early Church, it is well known that there were many and long disputes on
this point, the Eastern and Western Churches not agreeing on the
particular day for the celebration of this festival. To remove these
difficulties, the Council of Nice came to a decision, from which the
following rule was framed, viz. “Easter day is always the first Sunday
after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of
March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the
Sunday after.”
To determine the time of Easter in any year, it was therefore only
necessary to find out the precise time of the above full moon, and to
calculate accordingly. Now if the solar year exactly corresponded with
the lunar, the time of the paschal moon would be liable to no variation,
and Easter would fall on the same day of every year; but as the lunar
year is really shorter than the solar, by eleven days, it follows that
the paschal moon must, for a course of years, always happen at a
different period in each successive year. If then the above rule be
observed, the time of Easter may vary from the 22nd of March to the 25th
of April, but somewhere within these limits it will always fall. Hence
the adoption by the Council of Nice of the _Metonic Cycle_, by which
these changes might be determined with tolerable accuracy. From the
great usefulness of this cycle, its numbers were usually written on the
calendar in letters of gold, from which it derived the name of _Golden
Number_.
GOOD FRIDAY. The Friday in Passion week received this name from the
blessed effects of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings, which are the ground of all
our joy, and from those unspeakable good things he hath purchased for us
by his death, whereby the blessed JESUS made expiation for the sins of
the whole world, and by the shedding of his own blood, obtained eternal
redemption for us. Among the Saxons it was called Long Friday; but for
what reason, except for the long fastings and offices they then used,
does not appear.
The commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings hath been kept from the
very first age of Christianity, and was always observed as a day of the
strictest fasting and humiliation; not that the grief and affliction
they then expressed did arise from the loss they sustained, but from a
sense of the guilt of the sins of the whole world, which drew upon our
blessed Redeemer that painful and shameful death of the cross.
The Gospel for this day (besides its coming in course) is properly taken
out of St. John rather than any other evangelist, because he was the
only one that was present at the passion, and stood by the cross while
others fled: and, therefore, the passion being as it were represented
before our eyes, his testimony is read who saw it himself, and from
whose example we may learn not to be ashamed or afraid of the cross of
CHRIST. The Epistle proves, from the insufficiency of the Jewish
sacrifices, that they only typified a more sufficient one, which the Son
of GOD did, as on this day, offer up, and by one oblation of himself
then made upon the cross, complete all the other sacrifices, (which were
only shadows of this,) and made full satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world. In imitation of which Divine and infinite love, the Church
endeavours to show her charity to be boundless and unlimited, by praying
in one of the proper collects, that the effects of CHRIST’S death may be
as universal as the design of it, namely, that it may tend to the
salvation of all, Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics.
How suitable the proper psalms are to the day, is obvious to any one
that reads them with a due attention: they were all composed by David in
times of the greatest calamity and distress, and do most of them belong
mystically to the crucifixion of our SAVIOUR; especially the
twenty-second, which is the first for the morning, which was in several
passages literally fulfilled by his sufferings, and, either part of it,
or all, recited by him upon the cross. And for that reason (as St.
Austin tells us) was always used upon that day by the African Church.
The first lesson for the morning is Genesis xxii., containing an account
of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son; thereby typifying that
perfect oblation which was this day made by the SON of GOD; which was
thought so proper a lesson for this occasion, that the Church used it
upon this day in St. Austin’s time. The second lesson is St. John
xviii., which needs no explanation. The first lesson for the evening
contains a clear prophecy of the passion of CHRIST, and of the benefits
which the Church thereby receives. The second lesson exhorts us to
patience under afflictions, from the example of CHRIST, who suffered so
much for us.—_Wheatly._
The proper psalms and both the second lessons for Good Friday were added
at the last review: and Genesis xxii., the first morning lesson, which
was formerly read all through, limited to ver. 20.
GOOD WORKS. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and
follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the
severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD
in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith;
insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree
discerned by the fruit.”—_Article_ XII.
Good works are inseparable from our union with CHRIST; but then as
effects of that union, not as causes or instruments. “We are created in
CHRIST JESUS unto good works.” “Ye are become dead to the law by the
body of CHRIST, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto GOD.” “As
the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no
more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches.
He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit;
for without me—separate from me—ye can do nothing.” While, however, we
regard good works as effects of our union with CHRIST, we must remember
that they are an end also, nay, the end for which we have been united to
him; and if so, a condition of the continuance of our union. “The branch
cannot,” it is true, “bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine;”
but yet its fruitfulness is the object of the care and pains which the
vinedresser bestows upon it, and therefore a condition on which it is
suffered to remain. “I am the true vine, and my FATHER is the
husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If
a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered;
and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”
And as fruitfulness in good works is a condition on which we are
suffered to continue in CHRIST, so also is it the measure according to
which fresh supplies of grace are given; “every branch that beareth
fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” “Whosoever
hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.” And yet
further, which indeed follows upon the foregoing—our works are the rule
by which GOD will judge us at the last day. These will declare, beyond
all controversy, how far we have answered the end of our new creation;
how far we have improved the talents intrusted to us; how far we are
qualified and prepared for that kingdom, into which “there shall in
nowise enter anything that defileth,” where “the people shall be all
righteous,” where “the merciful” “shall receive mercy,” where “the pure
in heart” “shall see GOD;” where the servant, who has so improved the
pound intrusted to him as to have gained five pounds, shall be appointed
to reign over five cities, and he who has gained ten pounds, shall have
authority over ten cities.
It is one great secret of holy living to remember, that holiness is to
be sought in and from CHRIST; to be wrought in us by his Spirit. We are
too prone to overlook this great truth; to forget the strength which we
have in CHRIST. We act as though, notwithstanding all that CHRIST hath
done for us and in us, Christian virtue were nothing more than moral
habits strengthened by exercise. Whereas, in truth, it takes a far
higher range. It consists in habits doubtless; but they are habits of
him who has been created anew in CHRIST JESUS; they are the habits of
him who is one with CHRIST, and partaker of the Spirit of CHRIST; who
has been planted together with CHRIST, in the likeness of his death,
that he should be also in the likeness of his resurrection; and who has
that blessed promise to cheer and encourage him in striving against sin.
“Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but
under grace.”—_Heurtley._
GOSPEL. (A word compounded of two Saxon words, _god_, “good,” and
_spell_, a “message” or “tidings,” and so answering to the Greek
εὐαγγέλιον.) GOD’S or Good Tidings—the glad tidings of the salvation
wrought for man by the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
In a stricter sense, the word means each of the four histories of our
SAVIOUR, written by the Evangelists: in a more confined sense still, it
means that portion of Scripture which is read immediately after the
Epistle in the ante-communion service, and which is taken from one of
the four Gospels. A Gospel is also read in the Baptismal Service.
In the mediæval Church there were always peculiar ceremonies used in
honour of the Gospel, as for instance, the bringing special lights even
during day-time, placing the book of the Gospels reverently on the
altar, incensing them, &c. In the Anglican Church we retain some
vestiges of this in standing whilst the Gospel is read, and preceding it
by the “Glory be to thee, O LORD,” a sentence retained traditionally
from the ancient Church.
GOSPELLER. The priest who in the Communion Service reads the Gospel,
standing at the north side of the altar. In some cathedrals one of the
clergy is so designated, and has this special duty among others to
perform. By the 24th Canon, in cathedral and collegiate churches, a
Gospeller (as well as an Epistoler) is to assist the priest, vested in a
cope. Gospellers are statutable members of the several cathedrals of the
new foundation, and an officer so called still officiates at Durham,
though the office has generally fallen into desuetude; and, contrary to
the ancient universal usage of the Church, even when many priests and
deacons are present, it is usual for but two ministers to attend at the
first part of the Communion Service: the principal minister reading the
Gospel. Strictly speaking, the deacon is the minister for the Gospel;
since, in the ordering of deacons, authority is given them to “_read the
Gospel in the Church of God_.”—_Jebb._ (See also _Epistoler_.)
GOSSIP. A sponsor for an infant in baptism, from GOD and _sib_, a Saxon
word, which signifies kindred, affinity: kin in GOD.
GOTHIC. A general term for that style of mediæval architecture of which
the pointed arch is the most prominent character. Together with
_Romanesque_ (an equally general term for that style of which the round
arch is the most prominent character) it comprehends all mediæval
ecclesiastical architecture in England. The substyles with their dates
may be roughly stated as follows:
Romanesque—
Saxon to 1060
Norman 1066–1145
Transition 1145–1190
Gothic—
Early English 1190–1245
Geometrical 1245–1315
Decorated 1315–1360
Perpendicular 1360–1550
The more minute characteristics must be sought under these several
names, and it must be obvious that the accounts given within the small
limits we can devote to the subject must be very superficial. The
subject may be pursued in a number of works now before the public, as,
first in date and not last in importance, Rickman’s “Attempt to
distinguish the Styles of Architecture in England,” and last in time,
Sharpe’s “Seven Periods of English Architecture.” The same mode of
architecture prevailed in Ireland and Scotland, with some characteristic
distinctions.
GRACE. This word is used in a variety of senses in Holy Scripture: but
the general idea, as it relates to GOD, is his free favour and love; as
it relates to men, the happy state of reconciliation and favour with
GOD, wherein they stand, and the holy endowments, qualities, or habits
of faith, hope, and love, which they possess.
“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD
and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST by faith, and not for our own works or
deservings: wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most
wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the homily of justification.”—_Article_ XI.
The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation, often
acknowledge the necessity of assistance from GOD. David prays to GOD to
“open his eyes, to guide and direct him” (Ps. cxix. 18, 32–35); to
“create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him.” (Ps.
li. 10.) And Solomon says, that GOD “directeth men’s paths, and giveth
grace to the lowly.” Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure
precepts of the gospel, and influenced by the motives which it suggests,
must still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and of the
necessity of Divine grace to regulate and strengthen our wills, and to
co-operate with our endeavours after righteousness, as is clearly
asserted in the New Testament. See the texts above cited, which
sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a preventing and of a
co-operating grace; or, in the words of the Article, that “we have no
power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to GOD, without the grace
of GOD by CHRIST preventing us, that we may have a good will, and
working with us, when we have that good will.”
Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show, that the doctrine
of Divine grace always prevailed in the Catholic Church, adds, “I have
spent perhaps more time in these testimonies than was absolutely
necessary; but whatever I have done is to show, that the doctrine of
Divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only
the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers assert it, but likewise
that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without
it; it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties,
but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to
have been the opinion of the compilers of our most excellent liturgy, in
many parts of which both a preventing and co-operating grace is
unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for
Evening Service, in the fourth collect at the end of the Communion
Service, and in the collects for Easter Day, for the fifth Sunday after
Easter, and for the 3rd, 9th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Sundays after
Trinity.
This assistance of Divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency
of men (see _Free Will_): it does not place them under an irresistible
restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Though human
nature is greatly depraved, yet every good disposition is not totally
extinguished, nor is all power of right action entirely annihilated. Men
may therefore make some spontaneous, though feeble, attempt to act
conformably to their duty, which will be promoted and rendered effectual
by the co-operation of GOD’S grace: or the grace of GOD may so far
“prevent” our actual endeavours, as to awaken and dispose us to our
duty; but yet not in such a degree, that we cannot withstand its
influence. In either case our own exertions are necessary to enable us
to “work out our own salvation,” but our “sufficiency” for that purpose
is from GOD. The joint agency of GOD and man in the work of human
salvation is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling; for it is GOD that worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 12, 13); and
therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not
incompatible, though the mode and degree of their co-operation be
utterly inexplicable.
GRACE AT MEALS. A short prayer, invoking a blessing upon our food, and
expressive of gratitude to GOD for supplying our wants. The propriety of
this act is evident from the traditional custom of the Church, and from
the Divine command, as interpreted by this custom, (1 Thess. v. 18; 1
Cor. x. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 5,) and from the conduct of our Lord. (Mark viii.
6, 7.)
GRADUAL, or GRAIL. The antiphonary which, before the Reformation,
supplied the anthems or verses for the beginning of the Communion, the
Offertory, &c., was often called the Gradual, because some of the
anthems were chanted on the steps (_gradus_) of the ambon or pulpit.
The Gradual is also an anthem sung in the Roman Church immediately after
the Epistle.—_Jebb._
GRAVE. The resting-place of a dead body. The spoliation and desecration
of ancient sepulchres is as much an ecclesiastical offence as the
robbing of a more recent grave; but where none feel themselves
especially aggrieved, there are none to seek redress, and to bring
offenders to justice. The law upon the subject seems to stand thus: A
corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another
place, without a licence from the ordinary. But in case of a violent
death the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been
buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the
purposes of his inquest.
If the body, after it has been committed to the grave, be disturbed or
removed, it is a subject of ecclesiastical cognizance: yet the common
law also protects the corpse; for the taking up of dead bodies, for the
purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence, as highly indecent,
and _contra bonos mores_.
The property of things deposited with the dead, as the grave-clothes,
&c., is in him that had property therein when the dead body was wrapped
therewith, and the taking them is felony. The property in hatchments, or
other ensigns of honour, is in the heir, or the person concerned in the
hereditary distinction. (See _Burial_, and the list of acts of
parliament appended to the word _Cemetery_.)
GREEK CHURCH. (See _Church, Greek_.)
GREGORIAN CHANT. (See _Chant_.) This general designation is given to the
collection of chants compiled by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome,
about A. D. 600. These chants have continued to be in use from that time
to the present day, in the Western Church, and form the basis of our
cathedral music. It is known that Gregory merely collected, arranged,
and improved the chants which had already been used for centuries before
his time. The most learned writers on the subject suppose that they are
derived from those introduced by St. Ambrose into his church, at Milan,
about A. D. 384. Great improvements, however, having been made in the
science of music, subsequently to the time of St. Ambrose, Gregory took
advantage of those improvements, and increased the number of
ecclesiastical tones, (which somewhat resemble our modern keys,) from
four to eight, of which number the Gregorian chants, properly so called,
still consist. The four original tones are called authentic, the others
plagal. All the eight are now used in some parts of the Greek Church, as
in Russia, doubtless adopted from the West. They have been harmonized
according to the more recently discovered laws of music, and thus
harmonized possess a singular gravity, which character would alone
justify their perpetual retention in the Church as the _basis_ of church
music.
The Gregorian chant is not limited to psalm chants; it includes the
antiphons, versicles, graduals, &c., in short, all the hymns at the
various services of the Romish Church. The eight tones, (which are by
some multiplied to twelve,) are in fact so many scales, and all the
Gregorian hymns or anthems must be written in one or other of these
tones. The ancient Gregorian scale admitted no half notes, with the
exception of B flat. The Psalm chants had considerable variation in each
tone; these variations occurring in the second part of the chant: thus
one tone may have three or four cadences; which in fact form so many
separate chants. Much of the old English church music, since the
Reformation, is based upon the Gregorian chant: though none of our
standard musicians were ever servile followers of a system, which,
though very venerable, is imperfect.
It may be as well to subjoin a simple rule for ascertaining the _tones_
in which the Gregorian music is written in the old books. In the ancient
breviaries and antiphonies, &c., the word EVOVAE frequently occurs,
written under certain notes preceding the psalms appropriated to certain
offices. This word contains the vowels of the concluding words of the
Gloria Patri; viz. sEcVlOrVm AmEn: and by this is meant, that the notes
placed above it form the second part of the chant to which the following
psalm or psalms are sung: the first part being rarely written. Now to
find the _tone_ of the chant, we must take the _first_ note of the
_Evovae_, which is the _dominant_, or the _prevailing_, or _reciting_
note of the chant (not the dominant as now technically understood by
musicians): and we must take the last note of the Antiphon which follows
the Psalm at length: and these two, according to the table here
subjoined, give the _tone_ of the chant: the first part of each
variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second
part being given in the _Evovae_. The Psalm Tones must be found out in
one of the many movements of the Gregorian chant. Care must be taken not
to take the last note of the abbreviated antiphon which precedes, but of
that which follows, the psalm.
│ Final note, in the │ Dominant or reciting
│ Antiphon. │ note, in the Evovae.
1st Tone │ D │ A
2nd Tone │ D │ F
3rd Tone │ E │ C
4th Tone │ E │ A
5th Tone │ F │ C
6th Tone │ F │ A
7th Tone │ G │ D
8th Tone │ G │ C
Of these tones the odd numbers are authentic, the even plagal. The
authentic has always a relation to its plagal which follows, and has the
same final note, though a different dominant.—_Jebb._
GREY FRIARS. The Franciscans were so called from their grey clothing.
GUARDIAN OF THE SPIRITUALITIES. This is the person or persons in whom
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any diocese resides, after the death
or translation of a bishop. If the vacant see should be an
archbishopric, then the dean and chapter are guardians. If a bishop,
then the archdeacon of the province.
GURGOILE. (See _Gargoyle_.)
HABAKKUK, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. There
is no mention in Scripture, either of the time when this prophet lived,
or of the parents from whom he was descended. But as he prophesied the
coming of the Chaldeans in the same manner as Jeremiah, it is
conjectured that he lived at the same time.
The works of Habakkuk, which are indisputably his, are contained in
three chapters. In these the prophet complains very pathetically of the
disorders, which he observed in the kingdom of Judea. God reveals to
him, that he would shortly punish them in a very terrible manner by the
arms of the Chaldeans. He foretells the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, his
metamorphosis, and death. He foretells that the vast designs of
Jehoiakim would be frustrated. He speaks against a prince (probably the
king of Tyre) who built with blood and iniquity; and he accuses another
king (perhaps the king of Egypt) of having intoxicated his friend, in
order to discover his nakedness. The third chapter is a song, or prayer
to God, whose majesty the prophet describes with the utmost grandeur and
sublimity of expression.
HADES. (From ἁ, privative, and ἰδειν, _to see_; the invisible state of
the departed.) See _Hell_.
HAGGAI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Haggai
was born, in all probability, at Babylon, from whence he returned with
Zerubbabel. It was this prophet, who, by command from GOD, exhorted the
Jews, after their return from the captivity, to finish the rebuilding of
the temple, which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His
remonstrances had their effect; and to encourage them to proceed in the
work, he assured them from GOD, that the glory of this latter house
should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was
accordingly fulfilled, when CHRIST honoured it with his presence; for,
with respect to the building, this latter temple was nothing in
comparison of the former.
We know nothing certain of Haggai’s death. The Jews pretend, that he
died in the last year of the reign of Darius, at the same time with the
prophets Zechariah and Malachi, and that thereupon the spirit of
prophecy ceased among the children of Israel. Epiphanius asserts that he
was buried at Jerusalem among the priests. The Greeks keep his festival
on the 16th of December, and the Latins on the 4th of July—_De Vita et
Morte Prophetarum._
HAGIOGRAPHA, i.e. Holy Writings. (From ἅγιος, _holy_, and γραφὴ,
_writing_.) A word of great antiquity in the Christian Church, and often
used by St. Jerome, taken from the custom of the synagogues, by which
the Old Testament was divided into three parts, viz. Moses’s law, the
Prophets, and the Hagiographa; by which last he meant the Psalms, the
Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Chronicles, Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther. The Jews reckon the Book of Daniel and the Lamentations among
the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, for which Theodoret blames
them: but it matters not much, since they acknowledge those books, which
they call Hagiographa, to be inspired by GOD, and part of the sacred
canon, as well as those of the first and second order.
HAGIOSCOPE. In church architecture, a contrivance, whether by
perforating a wall, or by cutting away an angle of it, by which an altar
may be seen from some place in a church, or about it, from which it
would be otherwise hid. There is a most curious example at Ryhall in
Rutland, where there is (or rather was, for it is now blocked up) an
opening in the west wall of the north aisle, by which the three altars
in the chancel and two aisles were commanded by a person outside the
church, though within what seems to have been a little oratory, (now
entirely removed,) dedicated to S. Tibald.
Openings sometimes seem to command other points, and may then be well
enough called “_Squints_.” At Hannington, in Northamptonshire, for
instance, is one which seems intended to enable a person in the porch to
see the approach of the minister from Walgrave, a parish very generally
united under the same incumbency with Hannington.
HALF COMMUNION, or COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. (See _Communion_ and _Cup_.)
The withholding of the cup in the eucharist from the laity. This is the
practice of the Church of Rome, and is one of those grievous errors in
which that corrupt Church deviates from Catholicism. Not the slightest
colour can be brought in its favour, as the Romanists themselves at the
Council of Constance were forced to confess: the authority of the
primitive Church is against them, as that council acknowledges; nor can
they plead the authority of any one of the ancient liturgies. The Church
of Rome then is, in this matter, singular and schismatical.
HALLELUJAH. (See _Alleluia_.)
HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. A conference appointed by James I. at Hampton
Court, in 1603, in order to settle the disputes between the Church and
the Puritans. Nine bishops, and as many dignitaries of the Church,
appeared on one side, and four Puritan ministers on the other. It lasted
for three days. Of this conference the result was a few slight
alterations in the liturgy; the baptizing of infants by women, which had
been practised in our Church for many hundred years, was forbidden;
“remission of sins” inserted in the rubric of absolution; confirmation
termed “laying on of hands;” all the thanksgivings, except the general
one, were inserted in the Prayer Book; to the catechism was annexed the
whole of the latter portion, relative to the two sacraments; and some
words were altered in the dominical lessons, with a view to a new
translation of the sacred volume.
HATCHMENT; more properly ACHIEVEMENT. In heraldry, the whole armorial
bearings of any person fully emblazoned, with shield, crest, supporters,
&c. This word is used in particular for the emblazonment of arms hung up
in churches, in memory of a gentleman of coat armour, or one of any
higher degree. There was formerly much of religion in heraldry; and as
the coat was assumed with a religious feeling, so was it at last
restored to the sanctuary, in token of thankful acknowledgment to
Almighty GOD, with whose blessing it had been borne.
HEARSE. A frame set over the coffin of any great person deceased, and
covered with a pall: also the carriage in which corpses are carried to
the grave.
HEATHEN. (From ἔθνη, _nations_, or _Gentiles_.) Pagans who worship false
gods.
HEAVEN. That place where GOD affords a nearer and more immediate view of
himself, and a more sensible manifestation of his glory, than in other
parts of the universe. That it is a _place_ as well as a _state_, is
clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of our LORD’S body
there, and the bodies of Enoch and Elijah.
HEBDOMADARIUS. The priest whose weekly turn it was to perform the divine
offices in cathedrals and colleges. In some foreign cathedrals it is the
designation of a clergyman corresponding to our minor canons, &c. In the
Scottish universities the name was given to one of the superior members,
whose weekly turn it was to superintend the discipline of the students.
The office was effectively exercised at St. Andrew’s, at least, till of
late years.—_Jebb._
HELL. (Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic _Hele_, _Hela_, a “cavern;” “concealed
place;” “mansion of the dead.”) Two entirely different words in the
original language of the New Testament are rendered in our version by
the single word “hell.” The first of these is _Hades_, which occurs
eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is
translated “hell.” Now _Hades_ is never used to denote the place of
final torment, the regions of the damned; but signifies “the place of
departed spirits,” whether good or bad,—the place where they are kept
until the day of judgment, when they shall be re-united to their bodies,
and go each to his appointed destiny. The other word, _Gehenna_,
signifies the place of torment,—the eternal abode of the wicked. At the
time when our translation was made, and the Prayer Book compiled, the
English word “hell” had a more extensive meaning than it has at present.
It originally signified to _cover over_ or _conceal_; and it is still
used in this sense in several parts of England, where, for example, to
cover a church or a house with a roof is to _hell_ the building, and the
person by whom it is done is called a _hellier_. But the word also
denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that
sense in the New Testament, as the translation of _Gehenna_; and in
consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the
last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (See
_Gehenna_.)
Bearing in mind, then, that _Hades_ was translated by the word “hell,”
for want of another more exactly corresponding with the original, the
reader will perceive that the article in the Creed, “He descended into
hell,” does not refer to the place of final misery; but to that general
receptacle of all departed human souls, both penitent and impenitent,
where they are reserved in a state of comparative enjoyment or misery,
to wait the morning of the resurrection, when their bodies being united
to their souls, they will be advanced to complete felicity or woe, in
heaven or hell.
One great use of the system of catechising, as enjoined by the Church,
is the opportunity it affords of inculcating upon the people such
distinctions as these.
It was necessary that our LORD’S death should be attended with all those
circumstances which mark the death of men. CHRIST was possessed of a
human nature, both body and soul, besides his Divinity. The body of man
at death sinks to the grave; and the soul goes to _Hades_, or the place
of departed spirits. In like manner the body of our LORD was laid in the
tomb, but his soul went to the general repository of human disembodied
spirits, “the lower parts of the earth,” (Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 9, with
Ps. lxiii. 9, and Isa. v. 14,) Hades, the place of separated souls, not
Gehenna, the place of condemnation; because if it relate to the place of
either bliss or misery, it must be the former, in consistence with the
LORD’S promise to the penitent thief. (Luke xxiii. 43.)
Five different opinions have been entertained on this subject. First,
that the word “descended” is to be taken metaphorically; implying only
the efficacy of CHRIST’S death as to the souls departed. But this seems
refuted by the passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Ps. xvi.
10,) whereas the efficacy of our LORD’S death still continues.
Secondly, that the descent into hell signifies the suffering the
torments of the damned; and this in the stead of those who otherwise
must have endured them. But it is not to be believed that our LORD could
suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a
sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure of GOD, and
consequent despair; or that he who overcame the powers of hell could
suffer under their vengeance. Nor, again, can he, in this article, be
said by a metaphor to have felt the torments of hell, by this meaning
only the greatest torments, because all that he felt which we know of,
was antecedent to his death, and not afterwards. The torments of hell
then cannot be here meant literally, because not supported by truth, nor
figuratively, because not applicable.
Thirdly, that the word “soul” does in this passage mean the body, and
“hell” merely the grave; and the same words, both in Hebrew and Greek,
as used respectively by the psalmist and the apostle, and translated the
“soul,” do elsewhere in the Scriptures mean the “body.” As in Numb. vi.
6; Lev. xxi. 11; and xxii. 4; and more particularly, Numb. xix. 11, and
13. And Ainsworth, whose translation is the most literal of any, so uses
the word. And again, with respect to the word “hell;” in some passages
it can mean nothing but the grave, and is so used by our translation,
when Ainsworth uses the word “hell,” as in Gen. xxxvii. 35, and xlii.
38. This mode of explication too, connected with the following article,
will fulfil the prophecy, “Thou shalt not leave my soul (body) in hell”
(the grave).
Fourthly, that by the “soul” may be understood the nobler part
distinguished from the body; or the whole person, both soul and body; or
the living soul distinguished from the immortal spirit. And by “hell,”
no place whatever, but merely the condition of men in death. But this
explanation involves an entirely novel idea as to Hades, which was
always understood as some place where the souls of men entered, whether
this is in the earth, or out of it, or in whatever unknown part; and
from which the Greeks considered those to be excluded who came to a
premature death, or whose bodies lay unburied. And in addition, the
descent into hell thus explained would be tautologous, meaning nothing
more than the being dead, which the preceding article had declared.
Fifthly, and this is apparently the best explanation, as it was always
the opinion entertained by the Church—that the “soul” was the spirit, or
rational part, of CHRIST, that which the Jews could “not kill,” and
“hell,” a place distinguished equally from earth and from heaven. The
passage may then mean, “Thou shalt not suffer my soul,” when separated
from the body, and carried to the place assigned, as other souls are, to
continue there as theirs do, but shalt, after a short interval only,
reunite it to my body. That this was an opinion general in the Church,
is proved, not only by the direct testimony of the Fathers, but by their
arguments on the subject in answer to heretics.
They all fully agreed in a real descent of the soul of CHRIST into the
place of souls departed; though they differed as to the persons whom he
descended to visit, and the end for which he went. Some of them
considered Hades, or “hell,” as the common receptacle of souls, both of
the just and the unjust, and then thought that the soul of CHRIST went
unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear of GOD. But
to this many could not agree, not thinking that Hades could ever, in
Scripture, be taken for the place of happiness. And as to the end, those
who held the former opinion of the common receptacle, imagined that
CHRIST went unto the faithful to dissolve the power by which they were
detained, and translate them into heaven. But to this change of place or
condition many objected, conceiving that the souls of men shall not
enter into heaven till after the general resurrection.
Some there were who, conceiving that this place did not include the
blessed, imagined that the object of our LORD’S going into the place of
torment, was to deliver some of the suffering souls, and translate them
to a place of happiness. That this was done by preaching the gospel to
them, that they after death might have an opportunity of receiving him,
and then pass with him from death to life.
So that they all imagined that the soul of CHRIST descended into hell to
preach the gospel to the spirits there, but differed as to whether it
was to those who before believed, that they might now receive him; or to
those who had before rejected him, that they might yet believe on him.
But there seem insurmountable objections both to the opinion that he
preached to the faithful, for they were not “disobedient,” (as “in the
days of Noah,”) nor could they need a publication of the gospel after
the death of CHRIST, by virtue of which they were accepted while they
lived; and to that, that he preached to the wicked, for they were not
proper objects, or likely to be persuaded. The effect too of the
preaching may be denied. There is no repentance in the grave, nor any
passing the “great gulf” of separation. Again, with respect to the
faithful, it is not certain that their souls were in a place where
CHRIST would descend; or that they are now in another and better place
than they were at first; or that CHRIST did descend into such place for
such purpose; or that such effect was produced at such a time.
There is another opinion that has obtained, and perhaps more in our own
Church, that CHRIST descended into hell to triumph over Satan and his
powers in their own dominions, principally grounded on Col. ii. 11–15;
Eph. iv. 8, 9. But these passages are not conclusive; and the argument
seems inconsistent in those who object to the opinion, that the souls of
the wicked have been released, or those of the saints removed.
The sound conclusion as to the whole, and what our belief might be, is,
perhaps, first, as to fact, that the soul of CHRIST, separated from his
body by death, did go into the common place of departed spirits, in
order that he might appear, both alive and dead, as perfect man. All
that was necessary for our redemption, by way of satisfaction, was
effected on the cross. The exhibition of what was there merited, was
effected by his resurrection; and between these, he satisfied the law of
death. Secondly, as to the effect. By the descent of CHRIST into the
regions of darkness, the souls of believers are kept from the torments
which are there. As the grave and hell had no power over him, the
“head,” so neither shall it have over “the members.” By his descent he
freed us from all fear, by his resurrection and ascension he has secured
our hope; and thus through “death, destroyed him that hath the power of
death, that is, the devil.”
As he “was delivered for our offences,” so was he “raised again for our
justification.” (Rom. iv. 25.) If this had not taken place, our “faith”
would have been “vain;” we should have been “yet in our sins,” (1 Cor.
xv. 14, 17,) for as we are “buried with him in baptism, we are quickened
together with him,” (Col. ii. 12, 13,) and “begotten again to a lively
hope,” by his “resurrection from the dead;” if “by him we believe in GOD
that raised him up from the dead,” (1 Pet. i. 3, 21,) and “walk in
newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14;
Eph. i. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 20.) Therefore, “on the third day, he rose
again from the dead, a living body,” (Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 20, 27,)
“quickened by the spirit,” (1 Pet. iii. 18,) and raised by himself,
(John x. 18; ii. 19,) as this was typified in Isaac, “received” again by
his father, as “in (or for) a figure,” (Heb. xi. 19,) and by the waved
sheaf, the dedicated “first-fruits of the harvest.” (Lev. xxiii. 10,
11.) This, too, on the third day—the “first day of the week,” the
Christian “sabbath,” (Matt, xxviii. 1; xx. 19, (thenceforward called
“the LORD’S day,” Rev. i. 10,) John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2,)
according to the deliverance of his type Jonah. (Matt. xii. 39, 40.) As
this was frequently predicted by himself, (Matt. xii. 39, 40, and xvi.
21; xvii. 9; John ii. 19, 21,) confirmed by his enemies, (Matt. xxvi.
61; xxvii. 63; Mark xv. 29,) and by the angel, (Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, 17,)
and the truth of it proved also by the precautions of his enemies,
(Matt, xxviii. 13–15,) by his showing himself to his disciples several
times, and “many days,” (John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 14; Acts xiii. 31,) as to
“witnesses chosen before of GOD,” (Acts x. 41,) appointed expressly to
bear testimony to this great truth, “unto the uttermost parts of the
earth,” (Acts i. 8, 22; ii. 24, 31, 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; v. 32; x. 40; 1
Cor. xv. 15,) as was “also the HOLY GHOST.” (Acts v. 32, and to others,
1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “GOD hath raised him from the dead,”
is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “GOD will judge
the world in righteousness by him.” (Acts xvii. 30–32.)
HERESIARCH. A leader in heresy.
HERESY. This word is derived from the Greek, αἵρεσις, _a choice_, and it
means an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opinions at
variance with the doctrines delivered by CHRIST and the apostles, and
received by the Catholic Church. At the same time we may remark, that it
is generally agreed that the opinion must be pertinaciously and
obstinately held, in order to constitute formal heresy. And if there be
a legitimate doubt in a controversy which of the two contrary doctrines
is stated in Scripture and received by the Church, either may be held
without heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a temporary
error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy.
In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was passed to
enable persons to try heretics, and the following directions were given
for their guidance:—“And such persons to whom the queen shall by letters
patent under the great seal give authority to execute any jurisdiction
spiritual, shall not in anywise have power to adjudge any matter or
cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be
heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or _by some of the
first four general councils_, or by any other general council wherein
the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said
canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged or determined
to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the
clergy in their convocation.”
Heresies began very early in the Christian Church. Eusebius fixes the
beginning of most of them to the reign of the emperor Adrian. And yet it
is certain, that Simon Magus had published his errors before that time,
and set up a sect, which gave rise to most of the ancient heresies.
The laws, both of the Church and State, were very severe against those
who were adjudged to be heretics. Those of the State, made by the
Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, are comprised under one
title, _De Hæreticis_, in the Theodosian Code. The principal of them
are, 1. The general note of infamy affixed to all heretics in common. 2.
All commerce forbidden to be held with them. 3. The depriving them of
all offices of profit and dignity. 4. The disqualifying them to dispose
of their estates by will, or receive estates from others. 5. The
imposing on them pecuniary mulcts. 6. The proscribing and banishing
them. 7. The inflicting corporal punishment on them, such as scourging,
&c., before banishment. Besides these laws, which chiefly affected the
persons of heretics, there were several others, which tended to the
extirpation of heresy: such as, 1. Those which forbade heretical
teachers to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately. 2. Those
which forbade heretics to hold public disputations. 3. Such laws as
prohibited all heretical meetings and assemblies. 4. Those which deny to
the children of heretical parents their patrimony and inheritance,
unless they return to the Church. And, 5. Such laws as ordered the books
of heretics to be burned. There were many other penal laws made against
heretics, from the time of Constantine to Theodosius _junior_ and
Valentinian III. But the few already mentioned may be sufficient to give
an idea of the rigour with which the empire treated such persons as
held, or taught, opinions contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church,
whose discipline towards heretics was no less severe than the civil
laws.
For, 1. The Church was accustomed to pronounce a formal _anathema_ or
excommunication against them. Thus the Council of Nice ends her creed
with an anathema against all those who opposed the doctrine there
delivered. And there are innumerable instances of this kind to be found
in the volumes of the _Councils_. 2. Some canons debarred them from the
very lowest privileges of Church communion, forbidding them to enter
into the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read
in the service of the catechumens. But this was no general rule; for
liberty was often granted to heretics to be present at the sermons, in
hopes of their conversion; and the historians tell us, that Chrysostom
by this means brought over many to acknowledge the Divinity of CHRIST,
whilst they had liberty to come and hear his sermons. 3. The Church
prohibited all persons, under pain of excommunication, to join with
heretics in any religious offices. 4. By the laws of the Church, no one
was to eat, or converse familiarly with heretics; or to read their
writings, or to contract any affinity with them: their names were to be
struck out of the Diptychs, or sacred registers of the Church; and, if
they died in heresy, no psalmody, or other solemnity, was to be used at
their funeral. 5. The testimony of heretics was not to be taken in any
ecclesiastical cause whatever. These are the chief ecclesiastical laws
against heretics.
As to the terms of penance imposed upon relenting heretics, or such as
were willing to renounce their errors, and be reconciled to the Church,
they were various, and differed according to the canons of different
councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis
(soon after A. D. 300) appoints ten years’ penance, before repenting
heretics are admitted to communion. The Council of Agde (A. D. 506)
contracted this term into that of three years. The Council of Epone (A.
D. 517) reduced it to two years only.
The ancient Christian Church made a distinction between such heretics as
contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church, and such as never
had any admonition given them, for none were reputed formal heretics, or
treated as such, till the Church had given them a first and second
admonition, according to the apostle’s rule.
The principal sects of heretics, which disturbed the peace of the
Church, sprung up in the first _six_ centuries: most of the heresies, in
after ages, being nothing but the old ones new vamped, or revived. The
following table may serve to give the reader a compendious view of the
most remarkable of the ancient heresies.
CENTURY I.
1. The _Simonians_, or followers of Simon Magus; who maintained that the
world was created by angels; that there is no resurrection of the body;
that women ought to be in common, &c.
2. _Cerinthians_ and _Ebionites_, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who
denied the Divinity of our SAVIOUR, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies
with Christianity, &c.
3. The _Nicolaites_, followers of Nicolas, deacon of Antioch; who
allowed the promiscuous use of women, &c., alluded to by St. John in
Rev. ii. 6, 15.
CENTURY II.
4. The _Basilidians_, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused
the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of our SAVIOUR’S
crucifixion, &c.
5. The _Carpocratians_, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering
to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held
that our SAVIOUR was but a mere man, &c.
6. The _Valentinians_, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the
Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.
7. The _Gnostics_; so called from their pretences to superior
_knowledge_. The term _Gnostics_ seems to have been a general name for
many of the earliest heretics. (See _Gnostics_.)
8. The _Nazarenes_; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.
9. The _Millenarians_ or _Chiliasts_; so called, because they expected
to reign with CHRIST, a thousand years, upon the earth.
10. The _Cainites_; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly
remarkable for paying a great regard to _Cain_ and all the wicked men
mentioned in the Scripture, &c.
11. The _Sethians_; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the
Messiah.
12. The _Quartodecimans_; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of
the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the
Passover.
13. The _Cerdonians_, followers of Cerdon; who held two contrary
principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and threw the Four
Gospels out of the canon of Scripture.
14. The _Marcionites_, followers of Marcion; who held three principles,
denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.
15. The _Cataphrygians_, or _Montanists_; who baptized the dead, and
held Montanus to be the HOLY GHOST, &c.
16. The _Encratites_, or _Tatianists_, followers of Tatian; who boasted
of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.
17. The _Alogians_; so called, because they denied the Divinity of the
_Word_, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.
18. The _Artotyrites_; so called, because they offered bread and cheese
in the eucharist.
19. The _Angelics_; so called, because they worshipped angels.
CENTURY III.
20. The _Monarchici_, or _Patripassians_, followers of Praxeas; who
denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that our
SAVIOUR was GOD the Father.
21. The _Arabici_; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the
day of judgment, and then rises with the body.
22. The _Aquarians_; who used only water in the eucharist.
23. The _Novatians_; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time
of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.
24. The _Origenists_, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held
that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.
25. The _Melchisedechians_: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.
26. The _Sabellians_, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity,
and affirmed that the distinction of persons in the GODHEAD was merely
nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.
27. The _Manicheans_, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite
principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.
CENTURY IV.
28. The _Arians_, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who
believed the FATHER and the SON not to be of the same nature, substance,
or essence, and that there was a time when the SON was not, &c.
29. The _Colluthians_, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil
of punishment with the evil of sin.
30. The _Macedonians_; who denied the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST.
31. The _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they denied the certainty of the
Divine prescience.
32. The _Apollinarians_, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that our
SAVIOUR, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and
that the _Word_ supplied the place of a soul, &c.
33. The _Timotheans_; who held, that our SAVIOUR was incarnate only for
the benefit and advantage of our bodies.
34. The _Collyridians_; so called, because they made a kind of goddess
of the Blessed Virgin, and offered _cakes_ to her.
35. The _Seleucians_, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was
corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal with GOD.
36. The _Priscillianists_, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop;
who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.
37. The _Anthropomorphites_; so called, because they ascribed a body to
GOD, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak of
GOD as having hands, eyes, feet, &c.
38. The _Jovinianists_, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity
of Mary.
39. The _Messalians_; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.
40. The _Bonosians_, followers of Bonosus; who held that JESUS CHRIST
was the Son of GOD only by adoption.
CENTURY V.
41. The _Pelagians_, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of
Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.
42. _Nestorians_, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessed
SAVIOUR into two persons, the one Divine, the other human.
43. The _Eutychians_, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite
error, and held, that there was but one nature in JESUS CHRIST.
44. The _Theopaschites_, followers of Petrus Fullo, bishop of Antioch;
so called, because they affirmed that all the three persons in the
Trinity were incarnate, and suffered upon the cross.
CENTURY VI.
45. The _Predestinarians_; so called, because they held that the
salvation or damnation of men is pre-ordained, and that no man is saved
or damned by his works.
46. The _Apthartodocetes_, or _Incorruptibilists_; so called, because
they held that our SAVIOUR’S body was incorruptible, and exempt from
passion.
47. A second sect of _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they held that our
blessed SAVIOUR, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.
48. The _Monotheletes_; who held that there was but one will in JESUS
CHRIST.
These were the principal sects of heretics, which, in those early ages,
infested the Christian Church. The succeeding ages produced a great
variety of heretics likewise; as the _Gnosimachi_ and _Lampetians_, in
the seventh century; the _Agonyclites_ in the eighth; the
_Berengarians_, _Simoniacs_, and _Vecilians_, in the eleventh; the
_Bogomiles_, in the twelfth; the _Fratricelli_ and _Beguards_, in the
thirteenth; to enumerate all which would be both tedious and
uninteresting.—_Broughton._
HERETIC. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, defines a heretic to be, “one
who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic
Church;” and the Catholic or universal Church, in the second general
council, has pronounced those to be heretics “who, while they pretend to
confess the sound faith, have separated and held meetings contrary to
our canonical bishops.”—_Conc. Const._ Can. 6.
A man may be erroneous in doctrine and yet not a heretic; for heresy is
a pertinacious adherence to an opinion when it is known that the Church
has condemned it. (See the preceding article.)
Although the Scripture only is our guide, there are certain points of
disputable doctrine on which the Church Universal has decided, e. g. the
doctrine of the Trinity; and he who refuses “to hear the Church” on
these points, is held a heretic by the Church Universal. There are
certain points on which our own Church has decided, e. g. the doctrine
of transubstantiation, and he who holds this doctrine is regarded as a
heretic by the Church of England. For those who do not defer to the
Church, to pronounce any one a heretic who professes to take the Bible
for his guide, is an inconsistency which can only be accounted for by
the existence, on the part of the offender, of a very intolerant and
tyrannical disposition.
HERMENEUTÆ. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) Persons in the ancient
Church, whose business it was to render one language into another, as
there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies
that were made to the people; an office which was very important in
those churches where the people spoke different languages, as in
Palestine, where some spoke Syriac, others Greek; and in Africa, where
some spoke the Latin, and others the Punic tongue.
HERMENEUTICS. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) The principles and
practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—See
_Hartwell Horne’s Introduction_ and _Ernesti’s Institutes_.
HERMITAGES were cells constructed in private and solitary places, for
single persons, or for small communities, and were sometimes annexed to
larger religious houses.
HETERODOX. Contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true
Church.
HEXAPLA. A book containing the Hebrew text of the Bible, written in
Hebrew and Greek characters, with the translations of the Septuagint, of
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in _six_ several columns. There was
added to it a fifth translation, found at Jericho, without the author’s
name; and a sixth, named Nicopolitanum, because found at Nicopolis:
Origen joined to it a translation of the Psalms, but still the book
retained the name of _Hexapla_, because the fifth and sixth translations
did not extend to the whole Bible; and so the same book of Origen had
but six columns in divers places, eight in some, and nine in the Psalms.
Others are of opinion that the two columns of the Hebrew text were not
reckoned; and that the translation of the Psalms was not to be
considered so as to give a new name to the book. When the edition
contained only the translations of the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion,
and Symmachus, it was called _Tetrapla_, and the name of _Octapla_ was
sometimes given to the eight versions, that is, to the collections
containing the translations of Jericho and Nicopolis. Ruffinus, speaking
of this elaborate work, affirms that Origen undertook it because of the
continual controversies between the Jews and Christians: the Jews citing
the Hebrew, and the Christians the Septuagint, in their disputes, this
father was willing to let the Christians understand how the Jews read
the Bible; and to this end, he laid the versions of Aquila, and some
other Greek translations, before them, which had been made from the
Hebrew; but few people being able to buy so great a work, Origen
undertook to abridge it, and for that purpose published a version of the
Septuagint, to which he added some supplements, taken out of
Theodotion’s translation, in the places where the Septuagint had not
rendered the Hebrew text; and which supplements were marked with an
asterisk. He added also a small line like a spit, where the Septuagint
had something that was not in the Hebrew text. The loss of the Hexapla
is one of the greatest which the Church has sustained. But a few
fragments remain, published by Montfauçon, in 1713; and by Bahrdt, (an
abridgment, and not a very skilful one, of the former,) in 1769.
HIERARCHY. (See _Bishops_.) A designation equally applied to the ranks
of celestial beings in the Jerusalem above, and to the apostolic order
of the ministry in the Church below. In reference to the latter, it is
an error to suppose that it necessarily implies temporal distinction,
wealth, splendour, or any other adjuncts with which the ministry may, in
certain times and countries, have been distinguished. These are mere
accidents, which prejudice has identified with the being of a hierarchy,
but from which no just inference can be drawn against the inherent
spiritual dignity of the Christian priesthood.
HIGH PRIEST. The highest person in the divinely appointed ecclesiastical
polity of the Jews. To him in the Christian Church answers the bishop,
the presbyter answering to the priest, and the deacon to the Levite.
HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. Those writers who record the acts and
monuments of the Christian Church. After the evangelical historians, the
most distinguished is Hegesippus, who lived principally in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161–180). He wrote five books of ecclesiastical
history, called _Commentaries of the Acts of the Church_, wherein he
described the character of the holy apostles, their missions, &c., the
remarkable events in the Church, and the several heresies, schisms, and
persecutions which had afflicted it from our LORD’S death to the
writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next
follows Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a pupil of Pamphilus, on which
account he is often called Eusebius Pamphili. He wrote an ecclesiastical
history in ten books, comprising a history of the Church from our LORD’S
birth to the conversion of Constantine the Great, which he compiled
chiefly from the commentary of Hegesippus. St. Jerome and Nicephorus
derive the materials of their history from Eusebius. The histories
written by Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, relate to their own times
only. These are the sources from which all modern historians of the
early Church derive their materials.
HOLY-DAY. The day of some ecclesiastical festival. The rubric after the
Nicene Creed directs that “the curate shall _then_ declare to the people
what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be
observed.”
Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge,
declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the
Communion Book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week
following. And if any do hereafter willingly offend herein, and, being
once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let
him be censured according to law until he submit himself to the due
performance of it.”
Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from
henceforth celebrate and keep the LORD’S day, commonly called Sunday,
and other holy-days, according to GOD’S will and pleasure, and the
orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf: that is, in
hearing the word of GOD read and taught, in private and public prayers,
in acknowledging their offences to GOD, and amendment of the same, in
reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure
has often been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and
blood of CHRIST, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and
sober conversation.”
Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and
reverently upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book
of Common Prayer, and their eves.”
HOLY GHOST. (See _Procession_.) The third Person of the adorable
Trinity.
“The HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, is of one
substance, majesty, and glory with the FATHER and the SON, very and
eternal GOD.”—_Article_ V.
The name _Ghost_, or _Gast_, in the ancient Saxon, signifies _a spirit_,
to which the word _holy_ is applied, as signifying a communication of
the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of the FATHER,
and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” we cannot say with the ignorant
disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be any HOLY
GHOST” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in the
HOLY GHOST as we do in the FATHER and the SON; and for our authority in
considering him to be a person as well as the others, we have not only
the analogy of faith, but sufficient evidence in holy writ.
First, he is plainly distinguishable from the others; from the FATHER,
as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from the FATHER and the SON,
in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says our
LORD, “will send unto you from the FATHER;” “If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto
you.” (John xv. 26; xvi. 7.) This was the SPIRIT promised before of the
FATHER. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4;
ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “the SPIRIT of the SON,” as well as of
the FATHER, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by the FATHER, (Eph. i. 17,) and
sent in his SON’S name, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by the SON.
(John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 21, 22.)
Secondly, such properties, attributes, and acts are ascribed to him as
are only applicable to a person. He is spoken of in formal opposition to
evil spirits, who are clearly represented as persons (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 2
Chron. xviii. 20, 21); and if expressions are used not exactly suitable
to our conceptions of a person, this may well be allowed without its
making him a mere quality or attribute. When GOD is said to “give” the
HOLY GHOST “to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared
with similar passages respecting the SON: “GOD so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten SON,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to
the prophecy, “Unto us a SON is given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)
Thirdly, he is also truly GOD, as is proved from the titles given to him
by fair implication, (Acts v. 3, 4; Luke i. 35; and see 2 Sam. xxiii. 2,
3,) and the attributes of GOD, (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 7; Isa.
xlviii. 16; with Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28; Mark xiii. 11; Rom. viii. 14; xv.
13, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11,) and he is in two grand instances united to the
FATHER and the SON, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which
we are admitted into the Church of GOD, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the
apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii.
14.)
As he is the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, “the SPIRIT of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,)
so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as the SON, by his
sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must the
HOLY SPIRIT co-operate in sealing “us unto the day of redemption,”
through his “sanctification,” and “belief of the truth,” (Rom. viii. 16;
2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; Gal. vi. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; Phil. i. 19; 2
Thess. ii. 13; Tit. iii. 5,) according as he has been promised. (Deut.
xxix. 4; Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; John vi. 44.) And this he does
by regenerating us at baptism, (Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 5; Gal. iv. 29;
Tit. iii. 5,) and making us the “sons of GOD,” (Rom. viii. 14–16; Gal.
iv. 6,) and thus uniting us to our “head,” (1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 12, 13;
Eph. iv. 4; 1 John iii. 24,) and by instructing us in our duty, (Prov.
i. 23; Ps. clxiii. 10; Isa. lix. 21: 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 3; 2 Cor.
iii. 3; Gal. v. 16, 25,) illuminating the understanding, (Neh. ix. 20;
Isa. xxxii. 15, 16; Ezek, xxxvi. 27; Micah iii. 8; Rom. viii. 2, 5; Eph.
i. 17, 18; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13,) disposing the will, (Heb. iii. 7, 8;
1 Pet. i. 2, 22,) settling us in the faith and love of GOD, (Rom. v. 5;
2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7,) giving us power to obey, (Zech. iv. 6; 2
Cor. iii. 17; Eph. iii. 16,) helping us in prayer, (Zech. xii. 10; Rom.
viii. 26; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Jude 20,) and sanctifying us. (Rom. xv. 16; 1
Cor. vi. 11; Gal. v. 16.) And as his very name, “the Comforter,”
implies, he gives consolation and joy. (Acts ix. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; xv.
13; Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6.)
It is necessary, then, that we believe in the HOLY GHOST, as having been
baptized to GOD in his name; and as we would receive the apostolic
benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom of
GOD on earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him.
(Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)
HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (See _Altar_.) The altar on which the
appointed memorials of the death of CHRIST, namely, the bread and wine,
are presented before GOD, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called the
LORD’S table, or the holy table; because his worshippers do there, as
his guests, eat and drink these consecrated elements, in faith, to be
thereby fed and nourished unto eternal life, by the spiritual food of
his most precious body and blood.
HOLY THURSDAY. The day of our LORD’S ascension. (See _Ascension Day_.)
HOLY WATER. In the Romish Church, water blessed with an appropriate
service by the priest, and placed in a shallow basin, called the holy
water stoup, at the entrance of the Church. Its primary use was, that
the hands of the worshippers might be washed, and “pure hands lifted up
in prayer;” afterwards it _symbolized_ their purification from
defilement _before_ engaging in prayer. The modern Romanists forget
this, and, as if they thought that some intrinsic benefit resulted from
the physical application of the holy water, independent of its mystic
meaning, use it both on entering and _leaving_ a church.
So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water,
that it was discontinued at the Reformation.
HOLY WEEK. (See _Passion Week_.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent,
in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed
and only SAVIOUR.
HOMILIES. (From ὁμιλία, a _sermon_ or _discourse_, delivered in a plain
manner, so as to be understood by the common people.) The Homilies of
the Church of England are two books of plain discourses, composed at the
time of the Reformation, and appointed to be read in churches, on “any
Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon.” The first volume of them
was set out in the beginning of King Edward the Sixth’s reign in 1547,
having been composed (as it is thought) by Archbishop Cranmer and
Bishops Ridley and Latimer, when a competent number of ministers of
sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be
found. It was reprinted in 1560. The second book appeared in 1563,
having been printed the year before, (see _Strype’s Life of Parker_,) in
the reign of Elizabeth. Bishop Jewell is supposed to have had a great
share in its composition. In the first book, the homily on “Salvation”
was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on “Faith” and “Good
Works.” The homilies on the “Fear of Death,” and on the “Reading of
Scripture,” have likewise been ascribed to the archbishop. That on the
“Misery of Mankind,” which has sometimes been attributed to him, appears
in Bishop Bonner’s volume of Homilies, A. D. 1555, with the name of “Jo.
Harpesfield” attached to it. The homilies on “the Passion,” and on “the
Resurrection,” are from Taverner’s “Postills,” published in 1540.
Internal evidence arising out of certain homely expressions, and
peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like to which appear in Latimer’s
sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the Bishop of Worcester to
have been engaged in the homily against “Brawling and Contention;” the
one against “Adultery” may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of
Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to
be found; of the rest nothing is known, but by the merest conjecture. In
the second book, no single homily of them all has been appropriated.
All members of the Church of England agree that the Homilies “contain a
godly and wholesome doctrine;” but they are not agreed as to the precise
_degree_ of authority to be attached to them. In them the authority of
the Fathers, of the first six general Councils, and of the judgments of
the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the
secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of
marriage and other ordinances, regeneration in holy baptism, and the
real presence in the eucharist, are asserted. To some of these
assertions ultra-Protestants of course demur.
By this approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that
every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is
always convincing; or that every expression is so severely worded, that
it may not need a little correction or explanation: all that we profess
about them is only that they “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.”
This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to
every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that,
considering the age wherein they were written, the imperfection of our
language, and some inferior defects, they are two very extraordinary
books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to
anything that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon
the whole matter, every one, who subscribes the Articles, ought to read
them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly,
and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing
anything concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far,
as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole
volume: but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is
taught in them.—_Bp. Burnet._
The Church requires our assent and approbation to the Articles, and so
in like manner to the Rubric, to be expressed in a different degree and
manner from that in which we express our assent to the Homilies and the
Canons; the same degree of preference being given to the Articles of
religion before the Homilies, in point of doctrine, and to the Rubric
before the body of Canons, in point of practice.
The Thirty-nine Articles, for instance, being the capital rule of our
doctrine, as we are teachers in this Church; (they being this Church’s
interpretation of the word of GOD in Scripture, so far as they go;) and
designed as a bulwark against Popery and fanaticism; we are bound to a
very full and explicit acknowledgment under our hands, that we do
deliberately, and advisedly, and _ex animo_, assent to every part and
proposition contained in them. For this everybody knows to be the
meaning of clerical subscriptions, both before ordination, and as often
as the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon are subscribed by us.
In the like manner the Rubric being the standard of uniformity of
worship in our communion; the adding to which tends towards opening a
gap to Popish superstitions, and the increase of human inventions in the
service of GOD; and the subtracting from which tends towards paving a
way to a fanatical disuse and contempt of rites and ceremonies;
therefore we are obliged, not only to declare our _ex animo_
approbation, assent, and consent, to the matter of the Rubric, but are
laid under religious promises, that we will in every particular,
prescribed in and by it, conform ourselves to it as the rule of our
ministration.
And, indeed, considering that both the Articles and the Rubric are
statute as well as canon law, and have equally the sanction and
authority both of the temporal and spiritual legislatures; and
considering the condition upon which we are admitted to minister in this
established Church, which is our solemn reception of them both as our
rule; I do not see how any man can, with a good conscience, continue
acting as a minister of our Church, who can allow himself either to
depart from her doctrine as expressed in her Articles, or from her rites
and ceremonies as prescribed in the Service Book. Wherefore it is not
without reason that the thirty-eighth canon, which is entitled
“Revolters after subscription censured,” expressly denounces, that “if
any minister, after having subscribed the three articles of the 36th
canon, shall omit to use any of the orders and ceremonies prescribed in
the Communion Book, he shall be suspended; and if after one month he
reform not, he shall be excommunicated; and if after the space of
another month he submit not himself, he shall be deposed from the
ministry.”
But the case of Homilies and Canons is different from that of the
Articles and Rubric. They are indeed equally set forth by authority. The
one is as truly the doctrine, and the other is as truly the law, of the
Church. But still the regard that we are supposed to pay to them is not
equally the same. For, though we subscribe to the Homilies, yet this
subscription amounts to no more than our acknowledgment, that “they
contain a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for the times they were
written in, and fitting to be publicly taught unto the people;” and not
that we will maintain every particular doctrine, or argument, or
assertion, contained in them.
In like manner we say as to the Canons. “We receive them in general as a
good body of ecclesiastical laws. We acknowledge the wholesomeness and
fitness of them all for discipline, and order, and edification, and
proper in every respect for the times in which they were drawn up. But
we do not look upon every particular thereby enjoined as absolutely and
indispensably requisite to be practised now by us in the manner it is
enjoined, any more than we hold our approbation of every sentence or
expression in the Book of Homilies to be necessary.—_Archdeacon Sharp._
Were I asked the question, whether the clergymen of the Church of
England subscribe to the doctrines of the Homilies, as well as to the
Articles of Religion, I should, in sincerity and truth, be obliged to
reply, most undoubtedly _not_. Neither at ordination, nor upon collation
or institution to benefices, nor at any other period, is any such
subscription required of the clergy. We cannot help remarking a broad
distinction in the degree of authority attributed by our Church, to the
Liturgy, the Articles, and the Books of Homilies, respectively. To the
Liturgy, all beneficed clergymen are bound, within a limited period
after institution or collation, open and publicly, before the
congregation to which they have been appointed ministers, to declare
their unfeigned assent and consent. To the Articles, the clergy are
obliged, at various times, and on different occasions, solemnly to
subscribe. But, however venerable and valuable the Homilies
unquestionably are, we do not find them treated with any such
distinction; and, by the simple fact, that no provision is made for
their being signed, subscribed, or solemnly assented to, they are placed
in an immeasurably lower grade than the other formularies. It is,
indeed, asserted in the thirty-fifth Article, that “the Second Book of
Homilies doth contain a goodly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for
these times,” [the times in which it was prepared and published,] “as
doth the former Book of Homilies:”—and, in subscribing to the Articles,
every clergyman admits the truth of this assertion. But the assertion
itself is both limited and guarded, and is very different from that full
assurance and conviction expressed by the Church, and demanded of her
ministers, respecting both our Articles and Liturgy.... I conceive the
framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies,
generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and
salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar
circumstance of their own times.—_Bishop Jebb: the Homilies considered._
It seems the author of the Homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church
did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting and setting forth
others. (See _Rubric before Offertory_.) For they have many scapes in
them in special, although they contain in general many wholesome lessons
for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and
no other.—_Bp. Overall._
The authors of several of the Homilies are mentioned in Corry’s recent
edition of them, who also shows how they were intended to bear upon the
Antinomian as well as the Popish errors of the day.
HOMOIOUSIANS. Semi-Arians, who held that the nature of GOD the SON,
though not the same, was similar to that of GOD the _Father_.
HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding
the doctrine of the Homoousion.
HOMOOUSION. (See _Trinity_.) This is the critical word of the Nicene
Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity of CHRIST, and that, as
derived from, and one with, the FATHER. The word was adopted from the
necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary
philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i.
e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things
which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an
abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being
ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals
being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the
incommunicable essence of GOD, there was obviously no abstraction
possible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his
works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that,
whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was necessarily
included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the
vagueness of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the
incommunicable essence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And
hence the fitness of the term to denote without metaphor the relation
which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal FATHER. Its
use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot
understand what is meant by the οὐσία of GOD, yet we know as much as
this, that God exists (εῖναι), which is the way in which Scripture
speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him
distinctly, we say GOD, FATHER, LORD. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I
am ὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, GOD,’ or uses the plain word ‘GOD,’ we
understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία,
and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then
think it strange, that the SON of GOD should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας
τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance of GOD; rather, let him agree to the
explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ,
substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases
substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word GOD denotes
nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be
not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the true SON of the FATHER
according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all
creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, nor SON κατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as
we may be who receive the title from grace.
Bishop Bull says that ὁμοούσιος is used by standard Greek writers to
signify that which is of the same substance, essence, or nature. And he
shows at large that the term was not invented by the Nicene Fathers, but
was known in its present theological acceptation long before; by
Irenæus, by Origen, (as Dionysius of Alexandria and Athanasius testify,)
by Gregory Thaumaturgus, &c. See the 2nd section of that exhaustive and
irrefragable treatise, the Defensio Fidei Nicænæ. See also _Suicer_ in
voc., from which it appears that the ante-Nicene fathers defined the
word as signifying “that which is of the same nature, essence, eternity,
and energy,” without any difference.
HOOD. The hood as used by us, is partly derived from the monastic
_caputium_, partly from the canonical _amice_, or _almutium_. It was
formerly used by the laity as well as the clergy, and by the monastic
orders. In cathedral and collegiate churches, the hoods of the canons
and prebendaries were frequently lined with fur or wool, and always worn
in the choir. The term _almutium_, or _amice_, was peculiarly applied to
these last. And such is the present usage in foreign churches, where the
capitular canons are generally distinguished from the inferior members,
by the colour or materials of the almuce. (See _Amice_.)—_Palmer._
As used in England and Ireland, it is an ornamental fold that hangs down
the back of a graduate to mark his degree. This part of the dress was
formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, but for use. It was
generally fastened to the back of the cope or other vesture, and in case
of rain or cold was drawn over the head. In the universities the hoods
of the graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying the
colours and materials. The hoods at our three principal universities,
Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, vary considerably from one another: with
this agreement, that all Doctors are distinguished by a scarlet hood,
the linings (at Oxford and Dublin) varying according to the different
faculties. Originally however it would appear that they were the same,
probably till after the Restoration. Masters of Arts had originally fur
hoods, like the proctors at Oxford, whose dress is in fact that of full
costume of a Master of Arts; Bachelors in other faculties wore silk
hoods of some intermediate colour; and Bachelors of Arts stuff hoods
lined with lambs’ wool. The hoods in the Scottish universities followed
the pattern of those of the university of Paris.—_Jebb._
By the 58th canon, every minister saying the public prayers, or
ministering the sacraments, or other rites of the Church, if they are
graduates, shall wear upon their surplice, at such times, such hoods as
by the orders of the universities are agreeable to their degrees.
HOSANNA, signifies as much as _Save now_. The Jews call their feast of
Tabernacles, _Hosanna Rabba_, i. e. the great Hosanna; the origin of
that word is, because on that day they prayed for the salvation and
forgiveness of all the sins of the people. Therefore they used the word
Hosanna in all their prayers; which implies, _Save, I pray_, according
to Buxtorf; but Anthony Nebrissensis observes after Rabbi Elias, that
the Jews call the willow branches, which they carry at the feast,
Hosanna, because they sing Hosanna, shaking them everywhere. And Grotius
observes, that the feasts of the Jews did not only signify their going
out of Egypt, the memory of which they celebrated, but also the
expectation of the MESSIAS: and that still on the day when they carry
those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of the
MESSIAS; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those
branches before our SAVIOUR, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be
the MESSIAS.
HOSPITALS, were houses for the relief of poor and impotent persons, and
were generally incorporated by royal patents, and made capable of gifts
and grants in succession. Some of these in England are very noble
foundations, as St. Cross at Winchester, founded in the reign of King
Stephen, &c. In most cathedral towns there are hospitals, often
connected with the cathedrals. Christ’s Hospital in London was one of
those many excellent endowments, to which the funds of alienated
monasteries would have been more largely directed, had secular avarice
permitted.
HOSPITALLERS, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Knights who took
their name from an hospital built in Jerusalem for the use of pilgrims
coming to the Holy Land. They were to provide for such pilgrims, and to
protect them on the road. They came to England in the year 1100, and
here they arrived to such power that their superior had a seat in the
House of Lords, and ranked as the first lay baron.
HOSPITIUM, or _Domus Hospitium_. In ancient monasteries, the place where
pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.
HOST. (See _Transubstantiation_.) From _hostia_, a victim. The bread
used by the Roman Catholic Church in the celebration of the eucharist.
It is unleavened, thin, flat, and of circular form, and has certain
mystic signs impressed on it. Romanists worship the host, under a false
presumption that the elements are no longer bread and wine, but
transubstantiated into the real body and blood of CHRIST.
HOSTIARIUS. (See _Ostiarius_.) The second master in some of the old
endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Hence _usher_.
HOUR GLASS. The usual length of sermons in the English Church, from the
Reformation till the latter part of the seventeenth century, was an
hour. Puritans preached much longer—two, three, and even four hours. For
the measurement of the time of sermon, hour glasses were frequently
attached to pulpits, and in some churches the stand for the glass, if
not the instrument itself, still remains.
HOURS OF PRAYER. The Church of England, at the revision of our offices
in the reign of Edward VI., only prescribed public worship in the
morning and evening: and in making this regulation she was perfectly
justified: for though it is the duty of Christians to pray continually,
yet the precise times and seasons of prayer, termed Canonical Hours, do
not rest on any Divine command; neither have they ever been pronounced
binding on all Churches by any general council; neither has there been
any uniformity in the practice of the Christian Church in this respect.
The hours of prayer before the Reformation were seven in number,—matins,
the first, third, sixth, and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The
office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the Church of England,
is a judicious abridgment of her ancient services for matins, lauds, and
prime; and the office of even-song, or evening prayer, in like manner,
is an abridgment of the ancient service for vespers and compline. Both
these offices have received several improvements in imitation of the
ancient discipline of the Churches of Egypt, Gaul, and Spain.—_Palmer._
The offices for the third, sixth, and ninth hours, were shorter than the
others, and were nearly the same every day. Bishop Cosin drew up, by
royal command, a form of devotion for private use for the different
canonical hours. It is supposed that the seven hours of prayer took
their rise from the example of the psalm, “Seven times a day do I give
thanks unto thee;” but the ancient usage of the Church does not sanction
more than two or three times for stated _public_ prayer. (See _Primer_.)
HOUSEL. (_Saxon._) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the
Gothic _hunsel_, a sacrifice, or _hostia_, dim. _hostiola_, Latin. Todd,
in his emendations, remarks on the verb to housel, that an old
lexicography defines it specially, “to administer the communion to one
who lieth on his death-bed.” It was, perhaps, in later times more
generally used in this sense: still it was often employed, as we find
from Chaucer, and writers as late as the time of Henry VIII., as in
Saxon times, to signify absolutely the receiving of the
eucharist.—_Jebb._
HUGUENOTS. A name by which the French Protestants were distinguished,
very early in their history. The name is of uncertain derivation; some
deduce it from one of the gates of the city of Tours, called _Hugon’s_,
at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the
words _Huc nos_, with which their original protest commenced; others
from the German, _Eidgenossen_, (associated by oath,) which first became
_Egnots_ and afterwards _Huguenots_.
The origin of the sect in France dates from the reign of Francis I.,
when the principles and doctrines of the German Reformers found many
disciples among their Gallic neighbours. As everywhere else, so in
France, the new doctrines spread with great rapidity, and called forth
the energies both of Church and State to repress them. Both Francis and
his successor, Henry II., placed the Huguenots under various penal
disabilities, and they were subjected to the violence of the factious
French among their opponents, without protection from the State: but the
most terrible deed of horror which was perpetrated against them was the
massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. (See _Bartholomew_.) A scene which
stands recorded in history, as if to teach us to how great a depth of
cruelty and oppression mankind may be driven by fanaticism.
In the reign of Henry IV. the Huguenots were protected by the edict of
Nantes, which was revoked, however, in 1685, by Cardinal Mazarin, the
minister of Louis XIV.: on this occasion 500,000 of this persecuted race
took refuge in the neighbouring Protestant states. At the Revolution,
the Huguenots were restored to their civil rights, so far as civil
rights were left to any citizens of a libertine and infidel state: and
at present their ministers, like those of all Christian sects, are paid
a scanty pittance by the State.
In doctrine and discipline the Huguenots symbolized with Calvin, and the
sect which he originated at Geneva.
HULSEAN LECTURES. Lectures delivered at Cambridge, under the will of the
Rev. John Hulse, late of Elworth, bearing date the 12th day of July,
1777. The number, originally twenty, is now reduced to eight.
HUMANITY OF OUR LORD, is his possessing a true human body and a true
human soul. (See _Jesus_.)
HUSSITES. The followers of John Huss, of Bohemia, who maintained
Wickliff’s opinions in 1407, with wonderful zeal. The emperor Sigismond
sent to him, to persuade him to defend his doctrine before the Council
of Constance, which he did A. D. 1414, having obtained a passport and an
assurance of safe conduct from the emperor. There were seven months
spent in examining him, and two bishops were sent into Bohemia, to
inform themselves of the doctrine he preached; and for his firm
adherence to the same, he was condemned to be burnt alive with his
books, which sentence was executed in 1415, contrary to the
safe-conduct, which the Council of Constance basely said that the
emperor was not bound to keep to a heretic. His followers believed that
the Church consisted only of those predestinated to glory, and that the
reprobates were no part of it; that the condemnation of the five and
forty articles of Wickliff was wicked and unreasonable. Moreri adds,
that they partly afterwards subdivided, and opposed both their bishops
and secular princes in Bohemia; where, if we must take his word, they
were the occasion of great disorders and civil commotions in the
fifteenth century.
HUTCHINSONIANS. “The name of Hutchinsonians,” says Jones of Nayland,
who, with Bishops Horne and Horsley, was the most distinguished of those
who bore the name, “was given to those gentlemen who studied Hebrew, and
examined the writings of John Hutchinson, Esq., [born at Spennythorpe,
in Yorkshire, 1674,] and became inclined to favour his opinions in
theology and philosophy. The theological opinions of these divines, so
far as they were distinguished from those of their own age, related
chiefly to the explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, [see Note L.
to Dr. Mill’s five Sermons on the Temptation of Christ,] and to the
manner in which they confirmed Divine revelation generally, by reference
to the natural creation. The notion of a Trinity, it was maintained, was
the token from the three agents in the system of nature, fire, light,
and air, on which all natural light and motion depend, and which were
said to signify the three supreme powers of the GODHEAD in the
administration of the spiritual world. This led to their opposing
Newton’s theory of a vacuum and gravity, and to their denying that most
matter is, like the mind, capable of active qualities, and to their
ascribing attraction, repulsion, &c., to subtle causes not immaterial.
In natural philosophy they maintained that the present condition of the
earth bears evident marks of an universal flood, and that extraneous
fossils are to be accounted for by the same catastrophe. They urged
great precaution in the study of classical heathen literature, under the
conviction that it had tended to produce pantheistic notions, then so
popular. They also looked with some suspicion upon what is called
natural religion, and to many passages of Scripture they gave a
figurative, rather than a literal, interpretation.—See _Jones’s Life of
Bishop Horne_.
The learned and pious Parkhurst was a Hutchinsonian; and his peculiar
opinions not a little influenced his etymological conjectures, though in
no way interfering with his orthodoxy and sound scholarship.
HYMN. A song of adoration. It is certain from Holy Scripture, that the
Christians were wont to sing hymns in the apostles’ time; and it is
probable that St. Ignatius appointed them to be sung by each side of the
choir. It is probable also that the place of these hymns was, as now,
after the lessons: for St. Ambrose notes, that as, after one angel had
published the gospel, a multitude joined with him in praising GOD, so,
when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorify GOD. The
same appears to have been the custom from St. Augustine, and from a
constitution of the Council of Laodicea, in the year 365. As for the
particular hymns of our Church, they are, as of old in the primitive
Church, generally taken out of Scripture; yet as they also made use of
some hymns not found in Scripture, so do we.
Hymns may be said to consist of three kinds: (1.) Metrical, such as were
in use in the daily service of the unreformed Church. Of this kind there
is but one formally authorized by the Church of England, viz. the _Veni
Creator_. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily
service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. The _Te
Deum_, and the _Benedictus_, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book;
and such by implication are the _Benedicite_, (called a canticle,) the
_Magnificat_, and _Nunc Dimittis_. (3.) Those portions of the Communion
Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like
the Canticles: as the _Tersanctus_, and the _Gloria in Excelsis_. St.
Paul (Eph. v. 19, and Col. iii. 16) speaks of psalms, and hymns, and
spiritual songs. The first of these words would seem to refer to the
_mizmor_, or psalm, properly so called; the second to the _tehikah_, or
jubilant song of praise; the last to the _shir_, or song; all of which
words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms.
(See _Song_.)
HYPERDULIA. (See _Dulia_ and _Idolatry_.)
HYPOSTASIS. A theological Christian term, for the true knowledge of the
meaning of which take this short account. The Greeks took it in the
first three centuries for _particular substance_, and therefore said
there were three _hypostases_, that is, three “Persons,” according to
the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the word
_hypostases_ in another sense, would not call the Persons three
_hypostases_. Athanasius showed them in a council held at Alexandria in
362, that they all said the same thing, and that all the difference was,
that they gave to the same word two different significations: and thus
he reconciled them together. It is evident that the word _hypostasis_
signifies two things: first, an individual particular substance;
secondly, a common nature or essence. Now when the Fathers say there are
“three hypostases,” their meaning is to be judged from the time they
lived in; if it be one of the three first centuries, they meant all
along three distinct agents, of which the FATHER was supreme. If one of
much later date uses the expression, he means, most probably, little
more than a mode of existence in a common nature.
HYPOSTATICAL UNION. The union of the human nature of our LORD with the
Divine; constituting two natures in one person, and not two persons in
one nature, as the Nestorians assert. (See _Union_.)
HYPOTHETICAL, This term is sometimes used in relation to a baptism
administered to a child, of whom it is uncertain whether he has been
already baptized or not. The rubric states, that “if they who bring the
infant to the church do make such uncertain answers to the priest’s
questions, as that it cannot appear that the child was baptized with
water, in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY
GHOST,” then the priest, on performing the baptism, is to use this form
of words, viz. “If thou art not already baptized, N——, I baptize thee in
the name,” &c.
This, therefore, is called an _hypothetical_ or _conditional_ form,
being used only on the supposition that the child may not have already
received baptism.
HYPSISTARIANS. Heretics in the fourth century of Christianity. According
to Gregory Nazianzen, (whose own father had once been a member of the
sect, but afterwards became a Christian bishop,) they made a mixture of
the Jewish religion and paganism, for they worshipped fire with the
pagans, and observed the sabbath, and legal abstinence from meats, with
the Jews.
ICONOCLASTS, or IMAGE BREAKERS. (See _Images_, _Image Worship_, and
_Idolatry_.) From εἰκὼν, _an image_, and κλάω, _to break_. A name given
to the image-breakers in the eighth century. _Sarantapechs_, or
_Serantampicus_, a Jew, persuaded _Ezidus_, or _Gizidus_, king of the
Arabs, to take the images of saints out of churches that belonged to the
Christians: and some time after, _Bazere_, [but Baronius writes
_Beser_,] becoming a Mahometan in Syria, where he was a slave,
insinuated himself so much into the favour of Leo Isauricus, that this
prince, at his and the persuasion of other Jews, who had foretold him
his coming to the empire, declared against images, about 726, ordered
the statue of CHRIST, placed over one of the gates of the city, to be
thrown down, and being enraged at a tumult occasioned thereby, issued a
proclamation wherein he abolished the use of statues, and menaced the
worshippers with severe punishments; and all the solicitations of
Germanus the patriarch, and of the bishop of Rome, could prevail nothing
in their favour. His son and successor Constantine forbade praying to
saints or the Virgin; he set at nought the pope, and assembled a
council, in which his proceedings were approved; but this council, being
condemned at Rome, the emperor strove more than ever to gain his point.
Leo IV. succeeded in 775, and reigned but four years, leaving his son
Constantine under the tutelage of the empress Irene. In her time, A. D.
787, was held the second Council of Nice, in which, according to
Baronius, a request was made that the image of CHRIST and of the saints
might be restored. But Spanheim says that Philip the emperor, and John,
patriarch of Constantinople, having rejected the sixth general council
against the Monotheletes in 712, took away the pictures of the Fathers
of that and the former councils, hung up by the emperor Justinian, in
the portico of St. Sophia; and that the pope thereupon, in a synod at
Rome, ordered the like images to be placed in St. Peter’s church, and
thenceforth worshipped; their use until that time being purely
historical. The Saracens, offended at that superstition, persecuted the
Christians; and Leo calling a synod issued a proclamation, condemning
the worship of images, but granting that they might be hung up in
churches, the better to prevent idolatry; and upon a further dispute
with Pope Gregory II., who excommunicated him, and absolved his subjects
from their obedience in 730, he commanded that they should be quite
taken down and destroyed. Constantine Copronymus followed his father’s
example, and in the thirteenth year of his reign, anno 744, assembled
the seventh general council of the Greeks, wherein images and their
worshippers were condemned. His son Leo IV. followed his steps, who, at
his death, leaving the empress Irene to administer the state during the
minority of Constantine VII., she, to gain the monks over to her
interest, made use of them to restore images, advanced Tarasius from a
laic to be patriarch of Constantinople, and so managed the council which
she called at Nice, that they decreed several sorts of worship to
images; as salutation, incense, kissing, wax lights, &c., but neither
approved images of the Trinity, statues, nor any carved work.
Constantine being of age, and opposing this procedure, was barbarously
deprived of his sight and life by his unnatural mother Irene; an act
which is commended by Cardinal Baronius, who declared the emperor Leo
incapable of the crown, which he calls a rare example to posterity not
to suffer heretical princes to reign. On the other side, the popes
imitated their predecessors in their hatred to the Greek emperors, whom
they despoiled of their exarchate of Ravenna, and their other
possessions in Italy, which, by the help of the French, was turned into
St. Peter’s patrimony; but that the French, Germans, and other northern
countries, abhorred image worship, is plain by the capitulary of
Charlemagne against images, and the acts of the synod of Frankfort under
that prince, who also wrote four books to Pope Adrian against image
worship, and the illegal Council of Nice above mentioned. Image worship
was also opposed by other emperors who succeeded; as also by the
Churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain, particularly by the
learned Alcuin.
IDES. A word occurring in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct
editions of the Prayer Book. The ides were eight days in each month: in
March, May, July, and October, the ides ended on the 15th, and in all
other months, on the 13th day. The word Ides, taken from the Greek,
(ειἶδος,) means an aspect or appearance, and was primarily used to
denote the full moon. The system of the original Roman calendar was
founded on the change of the moon, the nones being the completion of the
first quarter, as the ides were of the second.—_Stephens, Book of Common
Prayer; Notes on the Calendar._
IDOLATRY. (See _Images_ and _Iconoclasts_.) From εἶδωλον, _an idol_, and
λατρεία, _worship_. The worship of idols. This is one of the crying sins
of the Church of Rome. Palmer, in his Essay on the Church, mentions some
of the idolatries and heresies which are held without censure in the
Roman communion.
I. It is maintained without censure that Latria, or the worship paid to
the Divine nature, is also due to—
Images of CHRIST;
Images of the Trinity;
Images of GOD the FATHER;
Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails of CHRIST;
Relics of the true cross;
Relics of the nails, spear, sponge, scourge, reed, pillar, linen, cloth,
napkin of Veronica, seamless coat, purple robe, inscription on the
cross, and other instruments of the passion;
Images of the cross;
The Bible;
The Blessed Virgin.
All these creatures ought, according to the doctrines taught commonly
and without censure in the Roman communion, to receive the very worship
paid to GOD.
II. Divine honours are practically offered to the Virgin and to all the
saints and angels. It has been repeatedly and clearly shown, that they
are addressed in exactly the same terms in which we ought to address
GOD; that the same sort of confidence is expressed in their power; that
they are acknowledged to be the authors of grace and salvation. These
idolatries are generally practised without opposition or censure.
III. The Virgin is blasphemously asserted to be superior to GOD the SON,
and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while
believers are taught to look on JESUS with dread. The work of redemption
is said to be divided between her and our LORD.
IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the
wrath and vengeance of GOD.
V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the
wrath of an angry GOD.
VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.
VII. That the sacrifice of CHRIST on the cross is repeated or continued
in the eucharist.
These and other errors contrary to faith are inculcated within
the communion of the Roman Church, without censure or open
opposition.—_Palmer._
ILE. (See _Aisle_.) The passages in a church, parallel to the nave, from
which they are separated by rows of columns and piers, being narrower
and lower. The same term is applied to the side passages which sometimes
mark the transept and the choir. The aisles of the apin are more
properly called the ambulatory. The aisles were adopted from the ancient
Basilicas, in which they are for the most part found. They are of
comparatively rare occurrence in the Oriental churches. The word is
derived from the Latin _ala_, which was used in an architectural sense
to mean a side building, as we use _wing_. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by
Facciolati; “In ædificiis _alæ_ dicuntur structura ad latria ædium,
dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas
Græci quoque πτερὰ et πτέρυγας appellant.” And thus in French, the same
word _aile_ signifies a wing and a church aisle.
ILLUMINATI, or ALLUMBRADOS. Certain Spanish heretics who began to appear
in the world about 1575; but the authors being severely punished, this
sect was stifled, as it were, until 1623, and then awakened with more
vigour in the diocese of Seville. The edict against them specifies
seventy-six different errors, whereof the principal are, that with the
assistance of mental prayer and union with GOD, (which they boasted of,)
they were in such a state of perfection as not to need either good
works, or the sacraments of the Church. Soon after these were
suppressed, a new sect, under the same name, appeared in France. These,
too, were entirely extinguished in the year 1635. Among other
extravagances, they held that friar Antony Bocquet had a system of
belief and practice revealed to him which exceeded all that was in
Christianity; that by virtue of that method, people might improve to the
same degree of perfection and glory that saints and the Virgin Mary had;
that none of the doctors of the Church knew anything of devotion; that
St. Peter was a good, well-meaning man only; St. Paul never heard scarce
anything of devotion; that the whole Church lay in darkness and
misbelief; that GOD regarded nothing but himself; that within ten years
their notions would prevail all the world over; and then there would be
no occasion for priests, monks, or any religious distinctions.
IMAGES. In the religious sense of the word, there appears to have been
little or no use of images in the Christian Church for the first three
or four hundred years, as is evident from the silence of all ancient
authors, and of the heathens themselves, who never recriminated, or
charged the use of images on the primitive Christians. There are
positive proofs in the fourth century, that the use of images was not
allowed; particularly, the Council of Eliberis decrees that pictures
ought not to be put in churches, _lest that which is worshipped be
painted upon the walls_. Petavius gives this general reason for the
prohibition of all images whatever at that time—because the remembrance
of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds. About the latter end of the
fourth century, pictures of saints and martyrs began to creep into the
churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ordered his church to be painted
with Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, Job, Tobit, and
Judith. And St. Augustine often speaks of the pictures of Abraham
offering his son Isaac, and those of St. Peter and St. Paul, but without
approving the use of them; on the contrary he tells us, the Church
condemned such as paid a religious veneration to pictures, and daily
endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children.
It was not till after the second Council of Nice that images of GOD, or
the Trinity, were allowed in churches. Pope Gregory II., who was
otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle which he
wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be
lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. Nor did the ancient
Christians approve of massy images, or statues of wood, metal, or stone,
but only pictures or paintings to be used in churches, and those
symbolical rather than any other. Thus, a lamb was the symbol of JESUS
CHRIST, and a dove of the HOLY GHOST. But the sixth general council
forbade the picturing CHRIST any more under the figure of a lamb, and
ordered that he should be represented by the effigies of a man. By this
time, it is presumed, the worship of images was begun, anno 692.
The worship of images occasioned great contests both in the Eastern and
Western Churches. (See _Iconoclasts_.) Nicephorus, who had wrested the
empire from Irene, in the year 802, maintained the worship of images.
The emperor Michael, in 813, declared against the worship of images, and
expelled Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Studita,
Nicetas, and others, who had asserted it. Michael II., desiring to
re-establish peace in the East, proposed to assemble a council, to which
both the Iconoclasts (those who broke down images) and the asserters of
image worship should be admitted; but the latter refusing to sit with
heretics, as they called the Iconoclasts, the emperor found out a
medium. He left all men free to worship or not worship images, and
published a regulation, forbidding the taking of crosses out of the
churches, to put images in their place; the paying of adoration to the
images themselves; the clothing of statues; the making them godfathers
and godmothers to children; the lighting candles before them, and
offering incense to them, &c. Michael sent ambassadors into the West to
get this regulation approved. These ministers applied themselves to
Louis le Debonnaire, who sent an embassy to Rome upon this subject. But
the Romans, and Pope Pascal I., did not admit of the regulation; and a
synod, held at Paris in 824, was of opinion, that though the use of
images ought not to be prohibited, yet it was not allowable to pay them
any religious worship. At length the emperor Michael settled his
regulation in the East; and his son Theophilus, who succeeded him in the
year 829, held a council at Constantinople, in which the Iconoclasts
were condemned, and the worship of images restored. It does not appear
that there was any controversy afterwards about images. The French and
Germans used themselves, by degrees, to pay an outward honour to images,
and conformed to the Church of Rome.
Image worship is one great article of modern Popery. “No sooner is a man
advanced a little forward into their churches, (says a modern author,
speaking of the Roman Catholics,) and begins to look about him, but he
will find his eyes and attention attracted by the number of lamps and
wax candles, which are constantly burning before the shrines and images
of their saints; a sight which will not only surprise a stranger by the
novelty of it, but will furnish him with one proof and example of the
conformity of the Romish with the Pagan worship, by recalling to his
memory many passages of the heathen authors, where their perpetual lamps
and candles are described as continually burning before the altars and
statues of their deities.” The Romanists believe that the saint to whom
the image is dedicated presides in a particular manner about its shrine,
and works miracles by the intervention of its image; insomuch that, if
the image were destroyed or taken away, the saint would no longer
perform any miracle in that place. This is exactly the notion of
Paganism, that the gods resided in their statues or images. “Minucius
Felix, rallying the gods of the heathens, (they are M. Jurieu’s words,)
says: _Ecce funditur, fabricatur; nondum Deus est. Ecce plumbatur,
construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc Deus. Ecce ornatur, consecratur,
oratur; tum postremo Deus est_. I am mistaken if the same thing may not
be said of the Romish saints. _They cast an image, they work it with a
hammer; it is not yet a saint. They set it upright, and fasten it with
lead; neither is it yet a saint. They adorn, consecrate, and dedicate
it; behold, at last, a complete saint!_”
By a decree of the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to set up any
extraordinary and unusual image in the churches, without the bishop’s
approbation first obtained. As to the consecration of images, they
proceed in the same manner as at the benediction of a new cross. At
saying the prayer, the saint, whom the image represents, is named: after
which the priest sprinkles the image with holy water. But when an image
of the Virgin Mary is to be blessed, it is thrice incensed, besides
sprinkling: to which are added the _Ave Mary_, psalms, and anthems, and
a double sign of the cross.
The Roman Catholics talk much of the miraculous effects of the images of
their saints, forgetting that lying wonders are a sign of Antichrist.
The image of JESUS CHRIST, which, feeling itself wounded with a dagger
by an impious wretch, laid its hand upon the wound, is famous at Naples.
The image of St. Catharine of Siena has often driven out devils, and
wrought other miracles. Our Lady of Lucca, insolently attacked by a
soldier, (who threw stones at her, and had nearly broken the holy
child’s head, which she held on her right arm,) immediately set it on
her left; and the child liked sitting on that arm so well, that, since
that accident, he has never changed his situation.—_Broughton._
IMAGE WORSHIP. All the points of doctrine or practice in which the
Church of Rome differs from the Church of England are novelties,
introduced gradually in the middle ages: of these the worship of images
is the earliest practice, which received the sanction of what the
Papists call a general council, though the second Council of Nice, A. D.
787, was in fact _no_ general council. As this is the earliest authority
for any of the Roman peculiarities, and as the Church of England at that
early period was remarkably concerned in resisting the novelty, it may
not be out of place to mention the circumstances as they are concisely
stated by Perceval. The emperor Charlemagne, who was very much offended
at the decrees of this council in favour of images, sent a copy of them
into England. Alcuin, a most learned member of the Church of England,
attacked them, and having produced Scriptural authority against them,
transmitted the same to Charlemagne in the name of the bishops of the
Church of England. Roger Hoveden, Simon of Durham, and Matthew of
Westminster, mention the fact, and speak of the worship of images as
being execrated by the whole Church. Charlemagne, pursuing his hostility
to the Nicene Council, drew up four books against it, and transmitted
them to Pope Adrian; who replied to them in an epistle “concerning
images, against those who impugn the Nicene Synod,” as the title is
given, together with the epistle itself, in the seventh volume of Labbe
and Cossart’s Councils. The genuineness of these books is admitted by
all the chief Roman writers. For the purpose of considering the subject
more fully, Charlemagne assembled a great council of _British_,
Gallican, German, and Italian bishops at Frankfort, at which two legates
from the bishop of Rome were present; where, after mature deliberation,
the decrees of the soi-disant general Council of Nice, notwithstanding
Pope Adrian’s countenance, were “_rejected_,” “_despised_,” and
“_condemned_.” The synod at Frankfort remains a monument of a noble
stand in defence of the ancient religion, in which the Church of England
had an honourable share, occupying, a thousand years ago, the self-same
ground we now maintain, of protesting against Roman corruptions of the
Catholic faith.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (See _Conception, Immaculate_.)
IMMERSION. A mode of administering the sacrament of baptism, by which
first the right side, then the left, then the face, are dipped in the
font. Immersion is the mode of baptizing first prescribed in our office
of public baptism; but it is permitted to pour water upon the child, if
the godfathers and godmothers certify that the child is weak. (See
_Affusion_.)
IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (See _Moveable Feasts_.)
IMPANATION. A term (like transubstantiation and consubstantiation) used
to designate a false notion of the manner of the presence of the body
and blood of our blessed LORD in the holy eucharist.
This word is formed from the Latin _panis_ (bread), as the word
incarnation is formed from the Latin _caro_, _carnis_ (flesh): and as
_incarnation_ signifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our
nature for the purpose of our redemption; so does _impanation_ signify
the Divine person JESUS CHRIST, GOD and man, becoming _bread_ [_and
wine_], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy
eucharist: so that, as in the one Divine person JESUS CHRIST there were
two perfect natures, GOD and man; so in the eucharistic elements,
according to the doctrine expressed by the word _impanation_, there are
two perfect natures—one of the DIVINE SON of the Blessed Virgin, and
another of the eucharistic elements; the two natures being one, not in a
figurative, but in a real and literal sense, by a kind of hypostatical
union.
It does not occur to us that there is any sect which holds this false
notion; but there are some individuals to whom it seems the true method
of reconciling those apparent oppositions, (which are of the very
essence of a mystery,) which occur in the Catholic statement of the
doctrine of the holy eucharist. The nearest approach to the doctrine of
_impanation_ avowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (See
_Consubstantiation._)
IMPLICIT FAITH. The faith which is given without reserve or examination,
such as the Church of Rome requires of her members. The reliance we have
on the Church of England is grounded on the fact, that she undertakes to
prove that all her doctrines are Scriptural, but the Church of Rome
requires credence on her own authority. The Church of England places the
Bible as an authority above the Church, the Church of Rome makes the
authority of the Church co-ordinate with that of the Bible. The Romish
divines teach that we are to observe, not how the Church proves
anything, but what she says: that the will of GOD is, that we should
believe and confide in his ministers in the same manner as himself.
Cardinal Toletus, in his instructions for priests, asserts, “that if a
rustic believes his bishop proposing an heretical tenet for an article
of faith, such belief is meritorious.” Cardinal Cusanus tells us, “That
irrational obedience is the most consummate and perfect obedience, when
we obey without attending to reason, as a beast obeys his driver.” In an
epistle to the Bohemians he has these words: “I assert that there are no
precepts of CHRIST but those which are received as such by the Church
(meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment, GOD
changes his judgment likewise.”
IMPOSITION, or LAYING ON OF HANDS. St. Paul (Heb. vi. 2) speaks of the
doctrine of laying on of hands as one of the fundamentals of
Christianity: it is an ecclesiastical action, by which a blessing is
conveyed from GOD through his minister to a person prepared by
repentance and faith to receive it. It is one of the most ancient forms
in the world, sanctioned by the practice of Jacob, Moses, the apostles,
and our blessed LORD himself. It is the form by which the bishop conveys
his blessing in confirmation.
This ceremony has been always esteemed so essential a part of
ordination, that any other way of conferring orders without it has been
judged invalid. The imposition of hands undoubtedly took its rise from
the practice of the Jewish Church, in initiating persons for performing
any sacred office, or conferring any employ of dignity or power. Thus
Joshua was inaugurated to his high office. (Numb. xxvii. 23.) Hence the
Jews derived their custom of ordaining their rabbis by imposition of
hands. The same ceremony we find used by the apostles, as often as they
admitted any new members into the ministry of the Church. For, when they
ordained the first deacons, it is recorded, that after praying “they
laid hands on them.” (Acts vi. 6.) At the ordination of Barnabas and
Paul it is said, that they “fasted and prayed and laid their hands on
them.” (Acts xiii. 3.) When St. Paul bids Timothy have regard to the
graces conferred in his ordination, he observes that these were
conferred by imposition of hands: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee,
which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the
presbytery.” (1 Tim. iv. 14.) And in his other Epistle he exhorts him to
“stir up the gift of GOD which was in him by the putting on of his
hands.” (2 Tim. i. 6.) The primitive Christians, following exactly after
this copy, never admitted any into orders but with this ceremony: so
that the ancient councils seldom use any other word for ordination than
“imposition of hands;” and the ancient writers of the Church signify,
that the clerical character, and the gifts of the SPIRIT, were conferred
by this action.
It must be observed here, that the imposition of the bishop’s hand alone
is required in the ordination of a deacon, in conformity to the usage of
the ancient Church.—_Dr. Nicholls._
This was always a distinction between the three superior and five
inferior orders, that the first were given by imposition of hands, and
the second were not.—_Dr. Burn._
IMPROPRIATION. Ecclesiastical property, the profits of which are in the
hands of a layman; thus distinguished from _appropriation_, which is
when the profits of a benefice are in the hands of a college, &c.
Impropriations have arisen from the confiscation of monasteries in the
time of Henry VIII., when, instead of restoring the tithes to
ecclesiastical uses, they were given to rapacious laymen. Archbishop
Laud exerted himself greatly to buy up impropriations.
IMPUTATION. The attributing a character to a person which he does not
really possess; thus, when in holy baptism we are justified, the
righteousness is imputed as well as imparted to us. The imputation which
respects our justification before GOD, is GOD’S gracious reckoning of
the righteousness of CHRIST to believers, and his acceptance of these
persons as righteous on that account; their sins being imputed to him,
and his obedience being imputed to them. Rom. iv. 6, 7; v. 18, 19; 2
Cor. v. 21. (See _Faith_ and _Justification_.)
INCARNATION. The act whereby the SON of GOD assumed the human nature; or
the mystery by which the Eternal Word was made man, in order to
accomplish the work of our salvation.
The doctrine of the incarnation as laid down in the third General
Council, that of Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) is as follows:—“The great and
holy synod (of Nice) said, that he ‘who was begotten of the FATHER, as
the only-begotten SON by nature; who was true GOD of true GOD, Light of
light, by whom the FATHER made all things; that he descended, became
incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose on the third day, and
ascended into the heavens.’ These words and doctrines we ought to
follow, in considering what is meant by the Word of GOD being ‘incarnate
and made man.’
“We do not say that the nature of the Word was converted and became
flesh; nor that it was changed into perfect man, consisting of body and
soul: but rather, that the Word, uniting to himself _personally_ flesh,
animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and
incomprehensible manner, and became the SON of man, not merely by will
and affection, nor merely by the assumption of one aspect or appearance;
but that different natures were joined in a real unity, and that there
is one CHRIST and SON, of two natures; the difference of natures not
being taken away by their union.... It is said also, that he who was
before all ages and begotten of the FATHER, was ‘born according to the
flesh, of a woman:’ not as if his Divine nature had taken its beginning
from the Holy Virgin ... but because for us, and for our salvation, he
united personally to himself the nature of man, and proceeded from a
woman; therefore he is said to be ‘born according to the flesh.’... So
also we say that he ‘suffered and rose again,’ not as if GOD the Word
had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other
wounds; for the GODHEAD cannot suffer, as it is incorporeal: but because
that which had become his own body suffered, he is said to suffer those
things for us. For he who was incapable of suffering was in a suffering
body. In like manner we understand his ‘death.’... Because his own body,
by the grace of GOD, as Paul saith, tasted death for every man, he is
said to suffer death,” &c.
INCENSE. The use of incense in connexion with the eucharist was unknown
in the Church until the time of Gregory the Great, in the latter part of
the sixth century. It then became prevalent in the Church, but has been
long disused by the Church of England.—_Bingham._
INCOMPREHENSIBLE. In the Athanasian Creed it is said, that “the FATHER
is incomprehensible, the SON incomprehensible, the HOLY GHOST
incomprehensible;” which means that the FATHER is illimitable, the SON
illimitable, the HOLY GHOST illimitable. At the time when this creed was
translated, the word _incomprehensible_ was not confined to the sense it
now bears, of _inconceivable_, or _beyond the reach of our
understanding_; but it then meant, _not comprehended within limits_.
INCORRUPTICOLÆ, or _Aphthartodocetæ_, or _Phantasiastæ_. Heretics who
had their original at Alexandria, in the time of the emperor Justinian.
The beginning of the controversy was among the Eutychians, whether the
body of CHRIST was corruptible or incorruptible from his conception:
Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary,
that our LORD’S body was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness;
and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were
called _Phantasiastæ_. The emperor Justinian, in the very end of his
reign, favoured these heretics, and persecuted the orthodox.
INCUMBENT. He who is in present possession of a benefice.
INDEPENDENTS. Like the Presbyterians, the Independents sprang from
Puritanism, and were originally formed in Holland, about the year 1610,
but their distinguishing doctrine seems to have been previously
maintained in England by the Brownists, who were banished, or emigrated,
in 1593.
The Independent idea of the word “Church,” says Adam, from whom this
article is abridged, is, that it is never used but in two senses—as
including the whole body of the redeemed, whether in heaven or in earth,
who are called “the general assembly,” &c. (Heb. xii. 23); and, again,
“the whole family in heaven and in earth” (Eph. iii. 15); or, as one
single congregation. Hence their distinguishing tenet is grounded upon
the notion that the primitive bishops were not overseers of dioceses,
but pastors of single independent congregations.
That which unites them, or rather which distinguishes them from other
denominations of Christians, is their maintaining that the power of
Church government and discipline is lodged neither in the bishop, nor in
a presbytery or senate of Church rulers distinct from the people, but in
the community of the faithful at large; and their disclaiming, more or
less, every form of union between Churches, and assigning to each
congregation the exclusive government of itself, as a body corporate,
having full power within itself to admit and exclude members; to choose
Church officers; and, when the good of the society requires it, to
depose them, without being accountable to classes, presbyteries, synods,
convocations, councils, or any jurisdiction whatever.
In doctrine they are strictly Calvinistic. But many of the Independents,
both at home and abroad, reject the use of “all creeds and confessions
drawn up by fallible men;” and merely require of their teachers a
declaration of their belief in the truth of the gospel and its leading
doctrines, and of their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard
of faith and practice, and the only test of doctrine, or the only
criterion of faith. And in general they require from all persons who
wish to be admitted into their communion, an account, either verbal or
written, of what is called their _experience_; in which, not only a
declaration of their faith in the LORD JESUS, and their purpose, by
grace, to devote themselves to him, is expected, but likewise a recital
of the steps by which they were led to a knowledge and profession of the
gospel.
In regard to Church government and discipline, it may be sufficient to
remark here, after what has already been said, that Independents in
general agree with the Presbyterians, “in maintaining the identity of
presbyters and bishops, and believe that a plurality of presbyters,
pastors, or bishops, in one church, is taught in Scripture, rather than
the common usage of one bishop over many congregations;” but they
conceive their own mode of discipline to be “as much beyond the
presbyterian, as presbytery is preferable to prelacy:” and, that one
distinguishing feature of their discipline is, their maintaining “the
right of the Church, or body of Christians, to determine who shall be
admitted into their communion, and also to exclude from their fellowship
those who may prove themselves unworthy members.
This their regard to purity of communion, whereby they profess to
receive only accredited, or really serious Christians, has been termed
the grand Independent principle.
The earliest account of the number of Independent congregations refers
to 1812; before that period, Independent and Presbyterian congregations
were returned together. In 1812, there seem to have been 1024
Independent churches in England and Wales (799 in England, and 225 in
Wales). In 1838, an estimate gives 1840 churches in England and Wales.
The present Census makes the number 3244 (2604 in England, and 640 in
Wales); with accommodation (after making an allowance for 185 incomplete
returns) for 1,063,136 persons. The _attendance_ on the Census-Sunday
was as follows—after making an addition for 59 chapels for which the
numbers are not given—_Morning_, 524,612; _Afternoon_, 232,285;
_Evening_, 457,162.—_Registrar’s Report_, 1851.
INDEXES. (_Prohibitory and Expurgatory._) The books generally bearing
the title of Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes, are catalogues of
authors and works either condemned _in toto_, or censured and corrected
chiefly by expunction, issued from the Church of modern Rome, and
published by authority of her ruling members and societies so empowered.
The Prohibitory Index specifies and prohibits entire authors or works,
whether of known or of unknown authors. This book has been frequently
published, with successive enlargements, to the present time, under the
express sanction of the reigning pontiff. It may be considered as a kind
of periodical publication of the papacy.
The other class of indexes, the Expurgatory, contains a particular
examination of the works occurring in it, and specifies the passages
condemned to be expunged or altered. Such a work, in proportion to the
number of works embraced by it, must be, and in the case of the Spanish
indexes of the kind, is, voluminous. For a general history of these
indexes the reader is referred to Mendham’s “Literary Policy of the
Church of Rome.”
INDUCTION. This may be compared to livery and seisin of a freehold, for
it is putting a minister in actual possession of the Church to which he
is presented, and of the glebe land and other temporalities thereof; for
before induction he hath no freehold in them. The usual method of
induction is by virtue of a mandate under the seal of the bishop, to the
archdeacon of the place, who either himself, or by his warrant to all
clergymen within his archdeaconry, inducts the new incumbent by taking
his hand, laying it on the key of the church in the door, and
pronouncing these words, “I induct you into the real and actual
possession of the rectory or vicarage of H——, with all its profits and
appurtenances.” Then he opens the door of the church, and puts the
person in possession of it, who enters to offer his devotions, which
done he tolls a bell to summon his parishioners.
INDULGENCES. One of the evil practices of the Church of Rome, of whose
doctrine upon the subject the following outline may be given:—
The conferring of indulgences, which are denominated “the heavenly
treasures of the Church,” (_Conc. Tri. Decret. Sess. XX._,) is said to
be the “gift of CHRIST to the Church.” (_Sess. XXV._) To understand the
nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due
to sin, by the decree of GOD, when its guilt and eternal punishment are
remitted, may consist either of evil in this life, or of temporal
suffering in the next, which temporal suffering in the next life is
called purgatory; that the Church has received power from GOD to remit
both of these inflictions, and this remission is called an
indulgence.”—_Butler’s Book of the Rom. Cath. Ch._ p. 110. “It is the
received doctrine of the Church, that an indulgence, when truly gained,
is not barely a relaxation of the canonical penance enjoined by the
Church, but also an actual remission by GOD himself, of the whole, or
part, of the temporal punishment due to it in his sight.”—_Milner’s End
of Controv._ p. 305. Pope Leo X., in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, whose
object he states to be “that no one in future may allege ignorance of
the doctrine of the Roman Church respecting indulgences, and their
efficacy,” declares, “that the Roman pontiff, vicar of CHRIST on earth,
can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the
faithful, whether in this life or in purgatory, indulgences, out of the
superabundance of the merits of CHRIST and of the saints (expressly
called a treasure); and that those who have truly obtained these
indulgences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for
their actual sins to the Divine justice, as is equivalent to the
indulgence granted and obtained.”—_Bulla Leon. X. adv. Luther._ Clement
VI., in the bull _Unigenitus_, explains this matter more fully:—“As a
single drop of CHRIST’S blood would have sufficed for the redemption of
the whole human race,” so the rest was not lost, but “was a treasure
which he acquired for the militant Church, to be used for the benefit of
his sons; which treasure he would not suffer to be hid in a napkin, or
buried in the ground, but committed it to be dispensed by St. Peter, and
his successors, his own vicars upon earth, for proper and reasonable
causes, for the total or partial remission of the temporal punishment
due to sin; and for an augmentation of this treasure the merits of the
Blessed Mother of GOD, and of all the elect, are known to come in aid.”
“We have resolved,” says Pope Leo XII., in his bull of indiction for the
universal jubilee, in 1824, “in virtue of the authority given us by
heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits,
sufferings, and virtues of CHRIST our LORD, and of his Virgin Mother,
and of all the saints, which the author of human salvation has intrusted
to our dispensation. During this year of the jubilee, we mercifully give
and grant, in the LORD, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of
all their sins, to all the faithful of CHRIST, truly penitent, and
confessing their sins, and receiving the holy communion, who shall visit
the churches of blessed Peter and Paul,” &c. “We offer you,” says
Ganganelli, in his bull _De Indulgentiis_, “a share of all the riches of
Divine mercy, which have been intrusted to us, and chiefly those which
have their origin in the blood of CHRIST. We will then open to you all
the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of
the Mother of GOD, the holy apostles, the blood of the martyrs, and the
good works of all the saints. We invite you, then, to drink of this
overflowing stream of indulgence, to enrich yourselves in the
inexhaustible treasures of the Church, according to the custom of our
ancestors. Do not, then, let slip the present occasion, this favourable
time, these salutary days, employing them to appease the justice of God,
and obtain your pardon.”
The _reasonable causes_, on account of which indulgences are given, are,
where “the cause be pious, that is, not a work which is merely temporal,
or vain, or in no respect pertaining to the Divine glory, but for any
work whatsoever, which tends to the honour of GOD, or the service of the
Church, an indulgence will be valid. We see, occasionally, the very
greatest indulgences given for the very lightest causes; as when a
_plenary_ indulgence is granted to all who stand before the gates of St.
Peter, whilst the pope gives the solemn blessing to the people on Easter
day;” for “indulgences do not depend, for their efficacy, on
consideration of the work enjoined, but on the infinite treasure of the
merits of CHRIST and the saints, which is a consideration surpassing and
transcending everything that is granted by an indulgence.” In some cases
“the work enjoined must not only be pious and useful, but bear a certain
proportion with the indulgence; that is, the work enjoined must tend to
an end more pleasing in the sight of GOD, than the satisfaction
remitted,” “although it is not necessary that it be in itself very
meritorious, or satisfactory, or difficult, and laborious, (though these
things ought to be regarded too,) but that it be a mean apt and useful
towards obtaining the end for which the indulgence is granted.” “As the
large resort of people,” before the gates of St. Peter, when the pope
gives his solemn blessing, “is a mean, apt and useful, to set forth
faith, respecting the head of the Church, and to the honour of the
apostolic see, which is the end of the indulgence.”—_Bellarmine de
Indulgentiis_, lib. i. c. 12. The first General Lateran Council granted
“remission of sins to whoever shall go to Jerusalem, and effectually
help to oppose the infidels.”—_Can. XI._ The third and fourth Lateran
Councils granted the same indulgence to those who set themselves to
destroy heretics, or who shall take up arms against them.—See _Labbe_,
vol. x. p. 1523. Boniface VIII. granted, not only a full and large, but
the most full, pardon of all sins to all that visit Rome the first year
in every century. Clement V. decreed, that they who should, at the
jubilee, visit such and such churches, should obtain “a most full
remission of all their sins;” and he not only granted a “plenary
absolution of all sins, to all who died on the road to Rome,” but “also
commanded the angels of paradise to carry the soul direct to heaven.”
“Sincere repentance,” we are told, “is always enjoined, or implied, in
the grant of an indulgence, and is indispensably necessary for every
grace.”—_Milner’s End of Controversy_, p. 304. But as the dead are
removed from the possibility, so are they from the necessity, of
repentance; “as the pope,” says Bellarmine, “applies the satisfactions
of CHRIST and the saints to the dead, by means of works enjoined on the
living, they are applied, not in the way of judicial absolution, but in
the way of payment (_per modum solutionis_). For as when a person gives
alms, or fasts, or makes a pilgrimage, on account of the dead, the
effect is, not that he obtains absolution for them from their liability
to punishment, but he presents to GOD that particular satisfaction for
them, in order that GOD, on receiving it, may liberate the dead from the
debt of punishment which they had to pay. In like manner, the pope does
not absolve the deceased, but offers to GOD, out of the measure of
satisfaction, as much as is necessary to free them.”—_Id._ Their object
is “to afford succour to such as have departed real penitents in the
love of GOD, yet before they had duly satisfied, by fruits worthy of
penance, for sins of commission and omission, and are now purifying in
the fire of purgatory; that an entrance may be opened for them into that
country, where nothing defiled is admitted.”—_Bull. Leo. XII._
“As the power of granting indulgences was given by CHRIST to the Church,
and she has exercised it in the most ancient times, this holy synod
teaches, and commands, that the use of them, as being greatly salutary
to the Christian people, and approved by the authority of councils,
shall be retained; and she anathematizes those who say they are useless,
or deny to the Church the power of granting them; but in this grant, the
synod wishes that moderation, agreeably to the ancient and approved
practice of the Church, be exercised; lest, by too great facility,
ecclesiastical discipline be weakened.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXV. de
Indulg._
“The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them in
the Universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some
graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment.”—_Conc. Trid.
Sess. XIV._ cap. 7. “The more weighty criminal charges against bishops,
which deserve deposition and deprivation, may be judged and determined
only by the supreme Roman pontiff.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV._ cap. 5.
“No testimony,” says Clementius, “can be produced from any father, or
any ancient Church, that either this doctrine, or the practice of such
indulgences, was known, or used, for 1200 years.”—_Exam. Conc. Trid. de
Indulg._ c. 4. Many of these indulgences can only be obtained from the
supreme pontiff; for obtaining which an office is opened at Rome, and a
table of fees, payable to the chancery of Rome, published by authority.
The pardon of a heretic is fixed at £36 9_s._; whilst marrying one wife,
after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2_s._
9_d._ A pardon for perjury is charged at 9_s._; simony, 10_s._ 6_d._;
robbery, 12_s._; seduction, 9_s._; incest, 7_s._ 6_d._; murder, 7_s._
6_d._ Now, is not this taxation a virtual encouragement to the
commission of the most shocking crimes, when absolution for them is
granted and proffered on such easy terms? This seems to be, in fact, the
establishing a complete traffic for sins, and must be accounted a great
source of corruption and depravity.
“These pardons,” says Silvester de Prierio, “are not known to us by the
authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome,
and the popes; which is greater than the authority of the
Scriptures.”—_Con. Luth. pag. Indul._ They were first sanctioned by
Urban II., as a reward for those who engaged in a crusade against the
Mahometans, for the recovery of Palestine. To these Urban promised the
remission of all their sins, and to open to them the gates of heaven.
From these extracts we may learn, that the members of the Church of Rome
did formerly, and do now, teach and believe on the subject of
indulgences; 1st, That these pardons are to be paid for; 2nd, That they
are granted through the merits of the Virgin and of the saints, as well
as through the death and sufferings of our blessed Saviour; 3rd, That
these pardons are more effectual at Rome than elsewhere, and that they
are better at the time of the pope’s jubilee than in other years.
Now in all this, such doctrines do openly and plainly contradict the
word of GOD. For in the first place, the prophet Isaiah, instead of
calling for money, says, “Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the
waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy
wine and milk, without money and without price.” (lv. 1.) Instead of
speaking like Tetzel, St. Paul says, “Being justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption that is in CHRIST JESUS, whom GOD hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” (Rom. iii. 24,
25.) And, unlike the pope, “The spirit and the bride say, Come. And let
him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.)
In the next place, the merits of saints are never said in Scripture to
be the cause of their own salvation, or of that of others; for all that
are saved are said to be saved through faith in CHRIST; which faith
produceth in them good works, as naturally as a tree produceth fruit.
St. Peter declares, that “there is none other name under heaven given
among men, whereby we must be saved, but only the name of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST.” (Acts iv. 12.)
And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worship GOD
in one city or country than in another, our LORD has plainly said, No,
in his conversation with the woman of Samaria. She said, “Our fathers
worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place
where men ought to worship. JESUS saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the
hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at
Jerusalem, worship the FATHER.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when
the true worshippers shall worship the FATHER in spirit and in truth,
for the FATHER seeketh such to worship him.” (John iv. 20–23.)
In saluting the Corinthian Church, St. Paul joins with them “all that in
every place call upon the name of JESUS CHRIST our LORD, both theirs and
ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular
times, in which prayer is more acceptable to GOD than at others; but
they exhort us to “seek the LORD while he may be found, and to call upon
him while he is near.” (Isa. i. 6.) “To-day, if you will hear his voice,
harden not your heart.” (Ps. xcv. 7, 8.) “Boast not thyself of
to-morrow, for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” (Prov.
xxvii. 1.) “Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.” (2
Cor. vi. 2.) So that while GOD thus offers in the Bible, forgiveness
through CHRIST, to all who shall repent and believe the gospel; the
Church of Rome presumes to tell her people, that it will be better for
them, while they profess to repent and believe, to pay their money; and
safer for them to come to Rome on jubilee years, or to some other place
in a jubilee month, to receive the benefits of their absolution. Surely
the people who believe all this, rather than their Bible, are like the
Jews whom Jeremiah, in GOD’S name, thus describes:—“My people have
committed two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living
waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no
water.” (Jer. ii. 13.) Or, rather, it is to be feared, that the whole
body, teachers and people, are like those of whom our LORD said, “They
be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both
shall fall into the ditch.” (Matt. xv. 14.)—_O’Donoghue._
INDULTS, in the Church of Rome, is a power of presenting to benefices,
granted to certain persons by the pope. Of this kind is the Indult of
kings, and sovereign princes, in the Romish communion, and that of the
parliament of Paris. By the Concordat for the abolition of the Pragmatic
Sanction, made between Francis I. and Leo X. in 1516, the king has the
power of nominating to bishoprics, and other consistorial benefices in
his realm. At the same time, by a particular bull, the pope granted to
the king the privilege of nominating to the churches of Bretagne and
Provence. The bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, being yielded to the
French king by the treaty of Munster, in 1648, Pope Alexander VIII. in
1664, and Clement IX. in 1668, granted the king an Indult for these
three bishoprics; and in 1668 the same Pope Clement IX. granted the king
an Indult of the same purport, for the benefices in the counties of
Rousillon, Artois, and the Low Countries.
In the year 1424, Pope Martin V. granted to the parliament of Paris this
right of presentation to benefices, which they declined to accept.
Eugenius IV. granted them the like privilege, which did not take effect
by reason of a decree of the Council of Basil, which took away all
expectative graces. Lastly, at the interview between the emperor Charles
V. and King Francis I. at Nice, in 1538, Pope Paul III., who was present
as a mediator, gave an Indult to the parliament of Paris, reviving that
formerly granted by Eugenius IV.
The cardinals, likewise, have an Indult granted them by agreement
between Pope Paul IV. and the sacred college, in 1555, which is always
confirmed by the popes at the time of their election. By this treaty or
agreement the cardinals have the free disposal of all the benefices
depending on them, without being interrupted by any prior collations
from the Pope. By this Indult the cardinals are empowered, likewise, to
bestow a benefice _in commendam_.
INFALLIBILITY. In one sense the universal Church is infallible. It has
an infallible guide in the Holy Scriptures. Holy Scripture contains all
religious truth. And the Church having the Scriptures is so far
infallibly guided. But there is no infallible guide to the
interpretation of Scripture. If it were so, then there would be an
authority above the Scriptures. Hence the wisdom of our twentieth
Article: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and
authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the
Church to ordain anything that is contrary to GOD’S word written,
neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to
another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy
writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so
besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for
necessity of salvation.”
Here the authority of the Church in subordination to Scripture is
clearly laid down. To the same effect is our twenty-first Article.
“General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment
and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as
they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit
and word of GOD,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things
pertaining unto GOD. Wherefore things ordained by them, as necessary to
salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be
declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”—_Beveridge._
But although we can have no infallible guide beyond the Scriptures, yet
there may be a proper _certainty_ in matters of faith, doctrine, and
discipline, without infallibility. This, in his “Importance of the
Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” that great divine, Dr. Waterland, shows
from the words of Chillingworth. “Though we pretend not to certain means
of not erring in interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as
are obscure and ambiguous, yet this, methinks, should be no impediment;
but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense
of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no
interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. If you ask me,
how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask
you again, can you be sure that you understand what I or any man else
says? GOD be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough
of the truth of our faith; but the privilege of not being in possibility
of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as
you to do so, and you have none at all. If you ask, seeing we may
possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing
your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun when
you do see it? A pretty sophism! That whosoever possibly may err, cannot
be certain that he doth not err. A judge may possibly err in judgment;
can he, therefore, never have assurance that he hath judged right? A
traveller may possibly mistake his way; must I, therefore, be doubtful
whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? Or can our
London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is
sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see,
are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like to your own, as
an egg to an egg, or milk to milk.
“Methinks, so subtile a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide
difference between authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing
it. The former, the doctor, together with the Article of the Church of
England, attributeth to the Church, nay, to particular Churches, and I
subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining
controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and
universal tradition and infallibility, while they proceed according to
this rule. As if there should arise an heretic that should call in
question CHRIST’S passion and resurrection, the Church has authority to
determine this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and
to excommunicate this man if he should persist in his errors.
“The ground of your error here is, your not distinguishing between
actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometricians are not
infallible in their own science; yet they are very certain of what they
see demonstrated: and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the
straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. So
though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her definitions,
whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall
proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of
her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed
according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular
decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is
true.
“Though the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in
everything she says; yet I can and must believe her in everything she
proves, either by Scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it
fundamental or not fundamental. Though she may err in some things, yet
she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental.
Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of GOD, may be certain
enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they say the
Catholic Church, much more themselves, may possibly err in some
fundamental points, is it therefore consequent they can be certain of
none such? What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some
obscure place of Aristotle, may I not, therefore, without any arrogance
or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that I understand him in some
plain places which carry their sense before them? We pretend not at all
to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty
that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain,
whether fundamental or not fundamental. That GOD is, and is a rewarder
of them that seek him; that, &c. These we conceive both true, because
the Scripture says so, and truths fundamental, because they are
necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our SAVIOUR says, _Qui non
crediderit, damnabitur_.
“I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be
in themselves truths as certain and infallible as the very common
principles of geometry or metaphysics; but that there is required of us
a knowledge of them and an adherence to them, as certain as that of
sense or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of
damnation, so that no man can hope to be in a state of salvation but he
that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of
adherence; this I have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of
dangerous and pernicious consequence.
“Though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest
degree, infallibly certain, of the truth of the things which we believe,
(for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless
our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest
degree,) yet I deny not but we ought to be, and may be, infallibly
certain that we are to believe the religion of CHRIST. For, 1. This is
most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and
reason, rather than against it. 2. This is as certain, that wisdom and
reason require that we should believe those things which are by many
degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. 3. This is as
certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things
may be said for the truth of Christianity, and what poor things they are
which may be said against it, either for any other religion, or for none
at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that the
Christian religion is true, than the contrary. And from all these
premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly
certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of the Christian
religion. There is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible,
inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity; I say, so credible,
that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they
evidently convince, that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it
deserve credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by
GOD.”—_Waterland._ _Chillingworth._
The Roman Church has no authorized doctrine of infallibility, though its
existence is practically assumed, and is bound up with the whole
catalogue of usurpations. The Council of Trent defined many minute and
unimportant matters, yet on that which involved so much, it published no
definition at all; neither pronouncing where the gift is lodged, nor
under what conditions it is exercised, nor to what subjects it extends;
nay, not even asserting that it exists at all. Suarez says that the
pope’s infallibility is a question of faith; Bellarmine, that it is not;
and Stapleton, that, though the denial of it is scandalous and
offensive, it is perhaps not heretical; while Gerson, with a very large
and learned school of Roman theologians, rejects the doctrine
altogether. And none of these opinions have been censured.
Again, if we ask whether, in point of fact, any pope has ever been a
heretic, we shall get nothing but inconsistent and contradictory
replies. Coster says, that not one has ever taught heresy, or fallen
into error; and he makes this an argument for the doctrine itself.
Pighius goes further, and says, that the pope is so confirmed in the
faith, that he could not fall into error either publicly or privately,
even if he would; while, on the other hand, there is a multitude of
Roman writers, who fully admit the heresies of Liberius, Vigilius,
Honorius, and the rest; either condemning them absolutely, or
extenuating their acts on some special ground. The Council of Pisa, A.
D. 1409, in its sentence of deposition against the rivals, pronounces
them both heretics. And so previous councils have condemned former
popes; yet the question is still in debate.
As a matter of doctrine, then, we have a long line of the greatest
theologians that the Roman Church has ever produced, denying in explicit
terms that any gift of infallibility at all was conveyed to the bishops
of Rome by the words of CHRIST. And on the question of fact we find the
very chief defenders of the pope’s prerogatives, admitting that he may
deceive men by his example, and lead them into error; and that he may
publish decrees, and insert them in the body of canon law, which yet
contradict the tradition of the Church and the truth of the gospel. The
claim of infallibility, which advances no Scripture proof, except one
perverted text; and which is maintained in the face of all these
hesitations and contradictions, these disproofs on the one side, and
injurious admissions on the other; can be nothing else but a delusion
and a fraud.—_S. Robins._
INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. (See _Church of Rome_, _Popery_.)
On this subject we give the following remarks of Bishop Beveridge:—That
the Catholic or universal Church is infallible, so as constantly and
firmly to maintain and hold every particular truth delivered in the
gospel, in one place or other of it, I think cannot well be denied; but
that any particular Church, or the Church of Rome in particular, is
infallible, we have expressly denied and opposed in the Thirty-nine
Articles, it being there expressly asserted, that “the Church of Rome
hath erred,” and that “not only in their living and manner of
ceremonies, but even in matters of faith.”
Now to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of
faith, I think the best way is to compare the doctrine maintained by
them with the doctrine delivered in these Articles. For whatsoever is
contained in these Articles, we have, or shall, by the assistance of
GOD, prove to be consonant to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and, by
consequence, to be a real truth. And, therefore, whatsoever is any way
contrary to what is here delivered, must needs be an error. And so that
besides other errors which the Church of Rome holds, be sure,
whereinsoever it differs from the doctrine of the Church of England,
therein it errs. Now to prove that the Church of Rome doth hold such
doctrines as are contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, I
shall not insist upon any particular, though never so eminent, persons
amongst them that have delivered many doctrines contrary to ours. For I
know, as it is amongst ourselves, that is not an error of our Church
which is the error of some one or many particular persons in it; so also
amongst them, everything that Bellarmine, Johannes de Turrecremata,
Gregorius de Valentia, Alphonsus de Castro, or any of the grandees of
their Church, saith, cannot be accounted as an error of their Church if
it be false; nor if it be true, as the truth of the whole Church. A
Church may be Catholic though it hath many heretics in it; and a Church
may be heretical though it hath many Catholics in it. And therefore I
say, to prove the doctrine of their Church to be erroneous, I shall not
take any notice of the errors of particular persons, but of the errors
deliberately and unanimously concluded upon, and subscribed to, and
published as the doctrine of that Church, by the whole Church itself met
together in council. For the doctrine delivered by a council cannot be
denied to be the doctrine of the whole Church there represented. As the
doctrine delivered in these Articles, because it was concluded upon in a
council of English divines, is accounted the doctrine of the Church of
England; so the doctrine concluded upon in a council of Romish divines,
cannot be denied to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. And of all
the councils they have held, that which I shall pitch upon in this case,
is the Council of Trent, both because it was the most general council
they ever held, and also because it was held about the same time at
Trent that our convocation that composed these Articles was held at
London. For it was in the year of our LORD 1562, that our convocation,
that concluded upon these Articles, was holden at London; and though the
Council of Trent was begun in the year of our LORD 1545, yet it was not
concluded nor confirmed till the fifth year of Pope Pius IV., A. D.
1563, as appears from Pope Pius III.’s bull for the confirmation of it.
So that our convocation was held within the same time that that council
was; and so our Church concluded upon truths here, whilst theirs agreed
upon errors there. Neither need we go any further to prove that they
agreed upon errors, than by showing that many things that they did then
subscribe to, were contrary to what our Church, about the same time,
concluded upon. For all our Articles are, as we may see, agreeable to
Scripture, reason, and Fathers; and they delivering many things quite
contrary to the said Articles, so many of them must needs be contrary to
Scripture, reason, and Fathers too, and therefore cannot but be errors.
And so in showing that the doctrine of the Church of Rome is, in many
things, contrary to the Church of England, I shall prove from Scripture,
reason, and Fathers, the truth of this proposition, that the Church of
Rome hath erred even in matters of faith.
Now, though there be many things wherein the Church of Rome did at that,
and so still doth at this, time disagree with ours; yet I shall pick out
but some of those propositions that do, in plain terms, contradict these
Articles.
As, first, we say, (Art. VI.,) “Scripture is sufficient, &c., and the
other books, (viz. commonly called the Apocrypha,) the Church doth not
apply them to establish any doctrine.” But the Church of Rome thrusts
them into the body of canonical Scriptures, and accounts them as
canonical as any of the rest; saying, “But this synod thought good to
write down to this decree an index of the holy books, lest any one
should doubt which they are that are received by this council. Now they
are the under-written. Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, Esdras the first and
second, which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalter
of one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the
Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch,
Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve Lesser Prophets, that is, Osee, &c., two books
of the Maccabees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the four
Gospels, &c. as ours. But if any one doth not receive all these books,
with every part of them, as they use to be read in the Catholic (viz.
the Roman) Church, and as they are contained in the ancient vulgar Latin
edition, for holy and canonical, and shall knowingly contemn the
aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”
Secondly, we say that “original sin is the fault and corruption of every
man, none excepted.” (Art. IX.) But they say, “but this synod declares
it is not their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin
Mary, the mother of GOD, in this decree, where it treats of original
sin.”
Thirdly, we say, “We are accounted righteous before GOD only for the
merit of our LORD JESUS CHRIST by faith, and so justified by faith
only.” (Art. XI.) But they say, “If any one say that a sinner is
justified by faith only, that he so understand that nothing else is
required to attain the grace of justification, and that it is no ways
necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his
own will, let him be anathema.”
Fourthly, we say, “Works before justification have the nature of sin.”
(Art. XIII.) But they, “If any one say, that all the works which are
done before justification, howsoever they are done, are truly sins, or
deserve the hatred of GOD; or by how much the more vehemently a man
strives to dispose himself for grace, by so much the more grievously
doth he sin, let him be anathema.”
Fifthly, we say, “CHRIST was alone without sin.” (Art. XV.) They say,
that the Virgin Mary also was. “If any one say, that a man being once
justified can sin no more, nor lose his grace, and therefore he who
falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that he
can avoid through his whole life all even venial sins, unless by a
special privilege from GOD, as the Church holdeth concerning the blessed
Virgin, let him be anathema.”
Sixthly, we say, “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons,
worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as relics, and also
invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded
upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of GOD.”
(Art. XXII.) But they, “Seeing the Catholic Church taught by the HOLY
GHOST out of the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the
Fathers, in holy councils, and last of all in this general synod, hath
taught that there is a purgatory, and that souls there detained are
helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the
sacrifices of the acceptable altar; this holy synod commands the
bishops, that they would diligently study, that the sound doctrine
concerning purgatory delivered from the holy Fathers and sacred councils
be, by CHRIST’S faithful people, believed, held, taught, and preached
everywhere.” And again, “This holy synod commands all bishops and
others, that have the charge and care of teaching, that according to the
use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive
times of the Christian religion, and the consent of the holy Fathers,
and the decrees of sacred councils, especially concerning the
intercession and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the
lawful use of images, they diligently instruct the faithful, teaching
that the saints, reigning together with CHRIST, do offer up their
prayers to GOD for men, and that it is good and profitable simply to
invocate or pray unto them,” &c. And that, “the bodies of the holy
martyrs, and others, that live with CHRIST, are to be worshipped,” &c.
And also, “that images of CHRIST, the GOD-bearing Virgin, and other
saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and that due
honour and veneration be given to them.” And presently, “But if any one
teach or think anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.”
Seventhly, we say, “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of GOD,
and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the
church, or to administer the sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of
the people.” (Art. XXIV.) But they, “If any one say, that the custom of
the Church of Rome, whereby part of the canon and the words of
consecration are uttered with a loud voice, is to be condemned, or that
mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, or that water
ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the cup,
for that it is contrary to CHRIST’S institution, let him be anathema.”
Eighthly, we say, “There are but two sacraments.” (Art. XXV.) They, “If
any one say, that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted
by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, or that there are more or less than seven, to
wit, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction,
orders, and matrimony, or that any of these seven is not truly and
properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”
Ninthly, we say, “Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture, and
overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “But
because CHRIST our Redeemer said, that that which he offered under the
shape of bread was truly his body, therefore it was always believed in
the Church of GOD; and, last of all, this holy synod doth now declare
it, that, by the consecration of bread and wine is made the changing of
the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of
CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance
of his blood; which change is fitly and properly called, by the holy
Catholic Church, transubstantiation.”
Tenthly, we say, “The sacrament of our LORD’S supper is not to be
worshipped.” (Art. XXVIII.) But they, “There is therefore no place of
doubting left, but that all the faithful of CHRIST, according to the
custom always received in the Catholic Church, should give to this most
holy sacrament, in the adoration of it, that worship of service which is
due to the true GOD.”
Eleventhly, we say, “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the
lay-people.” (Art. XXX.) But they, “If any one say, that, from the
command of GOD and the necessity of salvation, all and every believer in
CHRIST ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the
eucharist, let him be anathema.”
Twelfthly, we say, “The sacrifices of the mass are blasphemous fables
and dangerous deceits.” (Art. XXXI.) But they, “If any one say that in
the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered to GOD, or
that to be offered is nothing else but for CHRIST to be given to us to
eat, let him be anathema.”
There are many other things wherein the doctrine established by the
Church of Rome contradicteth ours; but these may be enough to show both
the falseness of the calumny that ignorant people put upon our Church of
England, as if it was returning to Popery, whereas the doctrine
established by our Church doth, in so many and plain terms, contradict
the established doctrine of theirs; and also it shows the truth of this
part of our doctrine, that some part of theirs is false. For seeing
whatsoever is here set down as the doctrine of our Church, is grounded
upon Scripture, consented to by reason, and delivered by the Fathers, it
cannot but be true doctrine; and seeing theirs do so frequently
contradict ours, it cannot but in such things that are so contradictory
to ours be false doctrine. And therefore we may well conclude, that even
the Church of Rome too hath erred, yea, in matters of faith, and that if
she denies it, she must add that to the rest of her errors.—_Beveridge._
Concerning the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, the
celebrated Bishop Bull observes, “We Protestants profess and prove, by
most evident arguments, that the Church of Rome hath in sundry points
erred, and is guilty of innovation. The patrons of that Church, not able
to answer those arguments of ours, tell us this cannot be; that the
Church of Rome is infallible, and cannot possibly be guilty of such
innovation. Is not this an admirable way of reasoning and disputation?
Can the Romanists produce arguments to prove that their Church cannot
err, so clear and evident as these alleged by us to demonstrate that she
hath erred? Surely no. To make this plain, if I can be infallibly
certain that my senses, rightly disposed, and all due requisites to
sensation supposed, are infallible, and cannot be deceived about their
proper objects (and if I cannot be assured of this, the apostles had no
infallible assurance of that which is the foundation of the Christian
faith, the resurrection of CHRIST, which was evidenced to them by their
testimony of sense, and that testimony pronounced infallible, Acts i. 3;
1 John i. 1, 2); then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of
Rome is not infallible, yea, that she hath grossly erred in her doctrine
of transubstantiation, teaching the bread and wine, after the words of
consecration, to be turned into the very flesh and blood of CHRIST,
which yet all my senses assure me to remain still the same in nature and
substance, that is, bread and wine. If I can be infallibly certain that
CHRIST himself is infallible, that he would not, could not, appoint an
institution that should be dangerous and scandalous to his Church, viz.
of receiving the holy eucharist in both kinds; if I can be infallibly
certain that the whole Church of CHRIST, that was under the guidance and
direction of the apostles, were not grossly deceived, and engaged by the
apostles themselves in a practice dangerous and scandalous (and of this
I may be as infallibly sure as I am of the truth of the gospel itself);
then I may be infallibly certain that the Church of Rome not only may
err, but hath grossly erred in that determination of hers, whereby she
rejects (in the Council of Constance) communion in both kinds, as a
dangerous and scandalous practice. And in the same manner we might
proceed to show the falsehood of divers other determinations of the
Church of Rome, if this paper would permit; but these are sufficient to
any person that shall consult his serious reason. Indeed, I look upon it
as a wonderful both just and wise providence of GOD, that he hath
suffered the Church of Rome to fall into such gross errors, (which
otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not
renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their
senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles
of faith. For hereby a person of the meanest capacity (so he be sincere,
and not under the prejudice of education) may evidently discern with
what a strange kind of impudence that Church arrogates to herself an
infallibility in all her determinations. And for such of our Church that
have been informed of these things, and yet shall leave our communion,
and follow the guidance of that Church upon the account of her
infallibility, I fear they are in the number of those miserable persons
described by the apostle, (2 Thess. ii. 11, 12,) who are given up to
strong delusion, that they may believe a lie, &c. That which follows in
the text I dread to mention; GOD avert it from them!”
INFANT BAPTISM. (See _Baptism, Infant_.)
INFIRMARIAN. An officer in a monastery, who had the care of the sick and
infirm. A dignitary in Nice cathedral was so called.—_Jebb._
INFINITY. An attribute of GOD. The idea of _infinity_ or _immensity_ is
so closely connected with that of _self-existence_, that, because it is
impossible but something must be infinite, independently and of itself,
therefore it must of necessity be self-existent: and because something
must of necessity be self-existent, therefore it is necessary that it
must likewise be infinite. A necessarily existent being must be
_everywhere_ as well as _always_ unalterably the same. For a necessity,
which is not everywhere the same, is plainly a consequential necessity
only, depending upon some external cause. Whatever therefore exists by
an absolute necessity in its own nature, must needs be _infinite_, as
well as _eternal_. To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to
say, that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist, the absence
of which may yet be conceived without a contradiction; which is the
greatest absurdity in the world.
From hence it follows, that the infinity of the self-existent Being must
be an infinity of _fulness_, as well as of _immensity_; that is, it must
not only be without limits, but also without diversity, defect, or
interruption. It follows, likewise, that the self-existent Being must be
a most simple, unchangeable, incorruptible Being, without parts, figure,
motion, divisibility, or any other such properties, as we find in
matter. For all these things do plainly and necessarily imply finiteness
in their very notion, and are utterly inconsistent with complete
infinity.
As to the particular manner in which the Supreme Being is infinite, or
everywhere present—this is as impossible for our finite understandings
to comprehend and explain, as it is for us to form an adequate idea of
infinity. The schoolmen have presumed to assert, that the _immensity_ of
GOD is a _point_, as his _eternity_ (they think) is an _instant_. But
this being altogether unintelligible, we may more safely affirm, that
the Supreme Cause is at all times equally present, both in his simple
essence, and by the immediate and perfect exercise of all his
attributes, to every point of the boundless immensity, as if it were
really all but one single point.—_Clarke._
INITIATED. In the early ages of the Church, this term was applied to
those who had been baptized, and admitted to a knowledge of the higher
mysteries of the gospel. The discipline of the Church at that period,
made it necessary that candidates for baptism should pass through a long
probation, in the character of catechumens. While in this preparatory
state, they were not allowed to be present at the celebration of the
eucharist; and in sermons and homilies in their presence, the speaker
either waived altogether any direct statement of the sublimer doctrines
of Christianity, or alluded to them in an obscure manner, not
intelligible to the _uninitiated_, but sufficiently clear to be
interpreted by those for whom they were intended, viz. the baptized or
_initiated_. Hence the phrase so common in the homilies of the Fathers,
“the _initiated_ understand what is said.”
INNOCENTS’ DAY. One of the holy-days of the Church. Its design is to
commemorate one of the most thrilling events in the gospel history. The
innocents were they who suffered death under the cruel decree of Herod,
who thought, by a general slaughter of young children, to have
accomplished the death of the infant JESUS. They are so called from the
Latin term _innocentes_ or _innocui_, harmless babes, altogether
incapable of defending themselves from the malice of their inhuman
persecutors. The celebration of the martyrdom of these innocents was
very ancient. It occurs on the 28th of December.
INQUISITION. A tribunal, or court of justice, in Roman Catholic
countries, erected by the popes for the examination and punishment of
_heretics_.
Before the conversion of the empire to Christianity, there was no other
tribunal, for the inquiry into matters of faith and doctrine, but that
of the bishops; nor any other way of punishing obstinate heretics, but
that of excommunication. But the Roman emperors, being converted to
Christianity, thought themselves obliged to interpose in the punishment
of crimes committed against GOD, and for this purpose made laws, (which
may be found in the Theodosian and Justinian codes,) by which heretics
were sentenced to banishment and forfeiture of estates. Thus there were
two courts of judicature against heretics, the one spiritual, the other
civil. The ecclesiastical court pronounced upon the right, declared what
was heresy, and excommunicated heretics. When this was done, the civil
courts undertook the prosecution, and punished those, in their persons
and fortunes, who were convicted of heresy.
This method lasted till after the year 800. From this time the
jurisdiction of the Western bishops over heretics was enlarged, and they
had now authority both to convict and punish them, by imprisonment, and
several acts of discipline, warranted by the canons and custom: but they
could not execute the imperial laws of banishment upon them. Matters
stood thus until the 12th century, when the great growth and power of
heresies (as they were called) began to give no small disturbance to the
Church. However, the popes could do no more than send legates and
preachers to endeavour the conversion of heretics, particularly the
_Albigenses_, who about this time were the occasion of great
disturbances in Languedoc. Hither Father Dominic and his followers
(called from him _Dominicans_) were sent by Pope Innocent III., with
orders to excite the Catholic princes and people to extirpate heretics,
to _inquire_ out their number and quality, and to transmit a faithful
account thereof to Rome. Hence they were called _Inquisitors_; and this
gave birth to the formidable tribunal of the _Inquisition_, which was
received in all Italy, and the dominions of Spain, excepting the kingdom
of Naples, and the Low Countries, where Charles V., and after him Philip
II. of Spain, endeavouring to establish it, in 1567, by the Duke of
Alva, thereby incurred the loss of the United Provinces.
This tribunal takes cognizance of heresy, Judaism, Mahometanism, and
polygamy; and the people stand in so much fear of it, that parents
deliver up their children, husbands their wives, and masters their
servants, to its officers, without daring in the least to murmur. The
prisoners are shut up in frightful dungeons, where they are kept for
several months, till they themselves turn their own accusers, and
declare the cause of their imprisonment; for they are never confronted
with witnesses. Their friends go into mourning, and speak of them as
dead, not daring to solicit their pardon, lest they should be brought in
as accomplices. When there is no shadow of proof against the pretended
criminal, he is discharged, after a tedious imprisonment, and the loss
of the greatest part of his effects.
The sentence against the prisoners of the Inquisition is publicly
pronounced, and with extraordinary solemnity. This is called _Auto da
fé_, that is, _Act_ or _Decree of Faith_. In Portugal, they erect a
theatre, capable of holding 3000 persons, on which they place a very
rich altar, and raise seats on each side in the form of an amphitheatre,
where the criminals are placed; over against whom is a high chair,
whither they are called one by one, to hear their doom, pronounced by
one of the Inquisitors. The prisoners know their doom by the clothes
they wear that day. Those who wear their own clothes, are discharged
upon payment of a fine. Those who have a _Santo Benito_, or straight
yellow coat without sleeves, charged with St. Andrew’s cross, have their
lives, but forfeit their effects. Those who have the resemblance of
flames, made of red serge, sewed upon their _Santo Benito_, without any
cross, are pardoned, but threatened to be burnt, if ever they relapse.
But those who, besides these flames, have on their _Santo Benito_ their
own picture, environed with figures of devils, are condemned to die. The
Inquisitors, who are ecclesiastics, do not pronounce the sentence of
death, but form and read an act, wherein they say, that the criminal,
being convicted of such a crime by his own proper confession, is
delivered with much reluctancy to the secular power, to be punished
according to his demerits. This writing they give to seven judges, who
attend at the right side of the altar. These condemn the criminal to be
first hanged, and then burnt: but _Jews_ are burnt alive. The public
place for execution in Portugal is called _Roussi_, whither the
Confraternity of Mercy attend, and pray for the prisoner.
The _Inquisition of Goa_, in the Indies, is very powerful, the principal
inquisitor having more respect showed him than either the archbishop or
viceroy. The criminals, sentenced by this tribunal to die, are clad much
after the same manner as in Portugal. Such as are convicted of magic,
wear paper caps in the form of sugar-loaves, covered with flames and
frightful figures of devils. All the criminals go in procession to a
church chosen for the ceremony, and have each of them a godfather, who
is answerable for their forthcoming after the ceremony is over. In this
procession the criminals walk barefooted, carrying lighted tapers in
their hands: the least guilty march foremost. After the last of them
that are to be discharged, comes one carrying a crucifix, and followed
by those who are to die. The next day after the execution, the pictures
of the executed are carried to the church of the Dominicans. The head
only is represented surrounded with firebrands, and underneath is
written the name, quality, and crime of the person executed.
The _Inquisition of Venice_, consisting of the pope’s nuncio residing
there, the patriarch of Venice, the father inquisitor, and two senators,
is nothing near so severe as those of Spain and Portugal. It does not
hinder the Greeks and Armenians from the exercise of their religion; and
it tolerates the Jews, who wear scarlet caps for the sake of
distinction. In fine, the power of this tribunal is so limited by the
states, that, in the university of Padua, degrees are taken without
requiring the candidates to make the profession of faith enjoined by the
popes; insomuch that schismatics, Jews, and those they call heretics,
daily take their degrees in law and physic there.
The _Inquisition_ of _Rome_ is a congregation of twelve cardinals, and
some other officers, and the pope presides in it in person. This is
accounted the highest tribunal in Rome. It began in the time of Pope
Paul IV., on occasion of the spreading of Lutheranism. The standard of
the Inquisition is of red damask, on which is painted a cross, with an
olive branch on one side, and a sword on the other: the motto in these
words of the 73rd psalm, _Exurge, Domine, et judica causam meam_.
INSPIRATION. (See _Holy Ghost_.) The extraordinary and supernatural
influence of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which the prophets
and sacred writers were qualified to receive and set forth Divine
communications, without any mixture of error. In this sense the term
occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 16. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of
GOD,” &c. (See _Scriptures, Inspiration of_.)
The word _inspiration_ also expresses that ordinary operation of the
SPIRIT, by which men are inwardly moved and excited both to will and to
do such things as are pleasing to GOD, and through which all the powers
of their minds are elevated, purified, and invigorated. “There is a
spirit in man; and the _inspiration_ of the ALMIGHTY giveth them
understanding.” (Job xxxii. 8.) In this latter sense the term and its
kindred verb frequently appear in the offices of the Church; as in the
petitions, “Grant, that by thy holy _inspiration_ we may think those
things that are good;” “Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the
_inspiration_ of thy Holy Spirit;” “Beseeching thee to _inspire_
continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and
concord;” and
“Come, Holy Ghost, our souls _inspire_,
And lighten with celestial fire;”
“Visit our minds, into our hearts
Thy heavenly grace _inspire_.”
INSTALLATION. The act of giving visible possession of his office to a
canon or prebendary of a cathedral, by placing him in his stall. It is
also applied to the placing of a bishop in his episcopal throne in his
cathedral church; enthronization being said to be proper to archbishops
only; but this appears a technical and unreal distinction invented in
the middle ages.
The installation of the Knights of the Garter is a religious ceremony,
performed in the Chapel of St. George, at Windsor. (See _Ashmole’s
Institution of the Order of the Garter_.) Those of the Knights of the
Bath in Henry VII.’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and of the Knights of
St. Patrick in the Cathedral of St. Patrick’s in Dublin, are, according
to the statutes of the orders, conducted upon the same model.
INSTITUTION. The act by which the bishop commits to a clergyman the cure
of a church.
Canon 40. “To avoid the detestable sin of simony, every archbishop,
bishop, or other person having authority to admit, institute, or
collate, to any spiritual or ecclesiastical function, dignity, or
benefice, shall, before every such admission, institution, or collation,
minister to every person to be admitted, instituted, or collated, the
oath against simony.”
The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by the clergyman, who
is to be instituted or collated:—
1. Presentation to the benefice or cathedral preferment, duly stamped
and executed by the patron [_or_ petition, not on stamp, _if the person
to be instituted happens to be patron of the benefice_].
The stamp duty upon presentations is now regulated by the acts 5 & 6
Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72, and it is an _ad valorem_ duty upon
the net yearly value of the preferment or benefice, such value to be
ascertained by the certificate of the ecclesiastical commissioners for
England indorsed upon the instrument of presentation.
The following is the scale of stamp duty to which presentations are
liable:—
Where the annual value is under £300 £5 stamp.
If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 10
If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 15
If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 20
and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.
In the case of collations, and also of institutions proceeding upon the
petition of the patron, the certificate of yearly value must be written
upon, and the stamp affixed to, the instrument of collation, or of
institution, respectively.
The following is the scale of duty to which collations and institutions
proceeding upon petition are liable:—
Where the annual value is under £300 £7 stamp.
If it amounts to £300 and is less than £400 12
If it amounts to £400 and is less than £500 17
If it amounts to £500 and is less than £600 22
and so on; an additional £5 being required for every £100 annual value.
In order to procure the certificate of value from the ecclesiastical
commissioners, application should be made by the secretary to the
commissioners, in the following form:—
_Application for Certificate of the Value of a Living under 5 & 6
Vict. c. 79, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 72._
TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND.
The ——, of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, and in the
patronage of ——, having become vacant on the —— day of —— last, by the
—— of the Rev. ——; and the Rev. —— being about to be —— thereto, the
ecclesiastical commissioners for England are requested to certify the
net yearly value thereof, according to the provisions of the acts 5 & 6
Vict. c. 79, and 6 and 7 Vict. c. 72.
(_Date_) ——.
(_Signature_) ——.
In answer to this application, a form of certificate will be sent from
the office of the ecclesiastical commissioners, which is to be indorsed
on the instrument of presentation, &c., and then transmitted to the same
office for signature; after which, the presentation, &c. will, on its
being taken to the Stamp Office, be properly stamped.
2. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.
3. Letters testimonial by three beneficed clergymen, in the following
form:—
To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.
We, whose names are hereunder written, testify and make known, that A.
B., clerk, A. M., (_or other degree_,) presented (_or_ to be collated,
_as the case may be_) to the canonry, &c., &c., (_or_ to the rectory or
vicarage, _as the case may be_,) of ——, in the county of ——, in your
lordship’s diocese, hath been personally known to us for the space of
three years last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his
conduct; that, during the whole of that time, we verily believe that he
lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at any time heard
anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we
know or believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the
doctrine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland; and,
moreover, we believe him in our consciences to be, as to his moral
conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the said canonry, or benefice
(_as the case may be_).
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, this —— day of ——, in
the year of our Lord 18—
C. D. rector of ——.
E. F. vicar of ——.
G. H. rector of ——.
If all the subscribers are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to
whom the testimonial is addressed, the counter-signature of the bishop
of the diocese wherein their benefices are respectively situate is
required.
4. A short statement of the title of the patron in case of a change of
patron since the last incumbent was presented.
The same subscriptions and declarations are to be made, and oaths taken,
as by a clergyman on being licensed to a perpetual curacy. (See
_Curacy_.)
If the clergyman presented, or to be collated, should be in possession
of other preferment, it will be necessary for him, (if he wishes to
continue to hold a cathedral preferment, or a benefice with the
cathedral preferment, or benefice to which he has been presented, or is
to be collated,) to look to the provisions of the act 1 & 2 Vict. c.
106, sect. 1 to sect. 14, before he is instituted, or collated.
INTENTION. _Priest’s Intention._ On this subject the following is the
eleventh canon of the Council of Trent:—“If any shall say that there is
not required in the ministers while they perform and confer the
sacraments, at least the _intention_ of doing what the Church does, let
him be accursed.”
This is a monstrous and fearful assertion, which supposes it to be in
the power of every malicious or sceptical priest to deprive the
holiest of GOD’S worshippers of the grace which is sought in the
sacraments. There is mention of this notion in Pope Eugenius’s letter
to the Armenians at the Council of Florence; but this was the first
time that a reputed general council sanctioned it. But the Church of
Rome is not content with placing all receivers of sacraments at the
mercy of the priest’s intention; and when we know how many avowed
infidels there have been found in the ranks of her priesthood, this
alone (according to her own theory) opens a fearful door to doubt and
hesitation, affecting the validity of the ordinations and
administrations within her pale since the Council of Trent; but in the
sacrament of the holy eucharist she has placed the communicants at the
mercy of the baker’s and vintner’s intention, and any malevolent
tradesman who supplies the wine and wafers to be used in the LORD’S
supper, has it in its power, according to their rubrics, to deprive
the communicants of the grace of the sacrament. For, “Si panis non sit
triticeus, vel si triticeus, admixtus sit granis alterius generis in
tanta quantitate, ut non mancat panis triticeus, vel sit alioqui
corruptus: _non conficitur sacramentum_.” “Si sit confectus de aqua
rosacea, vel alterius distillationis, _dubium est an conficiatur_.”
“Si vinum sit factum penitus acetum, vel penitus putridum, vel de uvis
acerbis seu non maturis expressum; vel ei admixtum tantum aquæ ut
vinum sit corruptum, _non conficitur sacramentum_.”—_Rubricæ Generales
Missalis Rom._
INTERCESSIONS. That part of the Litany in which, having already prayed
for ourselves, we now proceed to supplicate God’s mercy for others. The
intercessions are accompanied by the response, “We beseech thee to hear
us, good LORD.” (See _Litany_.) The different species of prayer are
alluded to by St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 1. “I exhort, therefore, that first
of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be
made for all men.” δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐντεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας.
INTERCESSOR. (See _Lord_ and _Jesus_.) One who pleads in behalf of
another. The title is applied emphatically to our blessed LORD, “who
ever liveth to make intercession for us.” The practice of the Romanists
in investing angels and departed saints with the character of
intercessors, is rejected as being unsanctioned by Catholic antiquity,
as resting on no Scriptural authority, and as being derogatory to the
dignity of our REDEEMER. (See _Invocation_, _Saints_, _Idolatry_.)
INTERDICT. An ecclesiastical censure, whereby the Church of Rome forbids
the administration of the sacraments and the performance of Divine
service to a kingdom, province, town, &c. Some people pretend this
custom was introduced in the fourth or fifth century; but the opinion
that it began in the ninth, is much more probable: there are some
instances of it since that age, and particularly Alexander III., in
1170, superciliously put the kingdom of England under an interdict,
forbidding the clergy to perform any part of Divine service unless
baptism to infants, taking confessions, and giving absolutions to dying
penitents, which was the usual restraint of an interdict; but the
succeeding popes, for reasons best known to themselves, seldom make use
of it.—_Broughton._
INTERIM. (_Lat._) The name of a formulary, or confession of faith,
obtruded upon the Protestants, after the death of Luther, by the emperor
Charles V., when he had defeated their forces. It was so called, because
it was only to take place in the _Interim_, till a general council
should decide all the points in question between the Protestants and
Catholics. The occasion of it was this: the emperor had made choice of
three divines, viz. Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumberg, Michael Helding,
titular bishop of Sidon, and John Agricola, preacher to the Elector of
Brandenburg; who drew up a project consisting of twenty-six articles
concerning the points of religion in dispute between the Catholics and
Protestants. The controverted points were, the state of Adam before and
after his fall; the redemption of mankind by JESUS CHRIST; the
justification of sins; charity and good works; the confidence we ought
to have in _God_, that our sins are remitted; the Church, and its true
marks; its power, authority, and ministers; the pope and bishops; the
sacraments; the mass; the commemoration of saints; their intercession;
and prayers for the dead.
The emperor sent this project to the pope for his approbation, which he
refused; whereupon Charles V. published the imperial constitution called
the _Interim_, wherein he declared, that “it was his will, that all his
Catholic dominions should, for the future, inviolably observe the
customs, statutes, and ordinances of the Universal Church; and that
those who had separated themselves from it, should either reunite
themselves to it, or at least conform to this constitution; and that all
should quietly expect the decisions of the general council.” This
ordinance was published in the Diet of Augsburg, May 15th, 1548. But
this device neither pleased the pope nor the Protestants; the Lutheran
preachers openly declared they would not receive it, alleging that it
reestablished Popery. Some chose rather to quit their chairs and livings
than to subscribe it; nor would the Duke of Saxony receive it. Calvin,
and several others, wrote against it. On the other side, the emperor was
so severe against those who refused to accept, that he disfranchised the
cities of Magdeburg and Constance, for their opposition.—_Broughton._
INTERMEDIATE STATE. A term made use of to denote the state of the soul
between death and the resurrection. From the Scriptures speaking
frequently of the dead sleeping in their graves, many have supposed that
the soul sleeps till the resurrection, i. e. is in a state of entire
insensibility. But against this opinion, and that the soul, after death,
enters immediately into a state of conscious happiness or misery, though
not of final reward or punishment, the following passages seem to be
conclusive: Matt. xvii. 3; Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6; Phil. i. 21;
Luke xvi. 22, 23; Rev. vi. 9. (See _Hell_.)
INTONATION, properly speaking, the recitation by the chanter, or rector
chori, of the commencing words of the psalm or hymn, before the choir
begins: as is often practised in the English choirs, with respect to the
_Venite_, the _Te Deum_, the Nicene Creed, and the _Gloria in Excelsis_.
The intonations of the Gregorian Psalm chant are regularly prescribed.
Intonation is also applied to the commencement of _each verse_ of the
Canticles (sung however by the choir) before the reciting note. The
intonations are the same as in the psalm chants; but in the latter they
are confined to the first verse of each psalm. The word is sometimes,
but inaccurately, used for the _chanting_ of the services by the priest
or minister in the musical tone proper to choirs—_Jebb._
INTROIT. In the ancient Church a psalm was sung or chanted immediately
before the collect, Epistle, and Gospel. As this took place while the
priest was entering within the septum or rails of the altar, it acquired
the name of _Introitus_ or _Introit_.
Cardinal Bona says that Introits, as used in the Roman Church, were
introduced by Pope Cœlestine (A. D. 422–432). The Introit consists of
one or more verses, generally from the Psalms, but sometimes from other
parts of Scripture. This anthem is the Introit, properly so called. Then
follows a verse from the psalm (anciently a whole psalm): then the
Gloria Patri, after which the Introit, or commencing anthem, is
repeated. The First Prayer Book of Edward VI., (A. D. 1549,) appoints
special psalms to be used as _Introits_ on all Sundays and holy-days.
These differ altogether from the Roman Introits, both in their selection
and in their construction. They are entire psalms, with the Gloria
Patri, and without any verse. The psalm or hymn now universally sung in
our churches before the Communion Service, may be said to represent the
Introit, as Bishop Bull observes. “In cathedral or mother churches there
is still a decent distinction between the two services: for before the
priest goes to the altar to read the second service, there is a short
but excellent anthem sung, in imitation whereof in the churches of
London, and in other greater churches of the country, instead of that
anthem there is part of a psalm sung.”—_Jebb._
In _Clifford’s Introduction_, (1664,) it appears that a voluntary at
that time preceded the Communion Service at St. Paul’s. Shortly after
this time, the custom arose, now universal in choirs, of singing a
Sanctus in this place: St. Paul’s, Westminster, and Canterbury were the
first to adopt it. In parish churches, a metrical psalm is usually sung
in this place, and very properly.
INVENTION OF THE HOLY CROSS. A festival kept by the Church of Rome, in
memory of the day on which they affirm our SAVIOUR’S cross was found by
the empress Helena, in the time of Constantine the Great; concerning
which the following story has been fabricated. That princess being at
Jerusalem, was informed that the cross of our SAVIOUR was buried in the
sepulchre, upon which she ordered them to dig, when they found the cross
and the nails, together with the crosses of the two thieves: but the
wood on which the inscription was made being separated from the cross,
they could not distinguish that of our SAVIOUR from the others, till
Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, found out the following expedient: he
ordered a dying woman to be brought and laid upon the crosses, two of
which gave her no manner of relief, but being set upon the third, she
perfectly recovered from the first moment she touched it, whereby they
plainly discovered that it was the same on which our SAVIOUR suffered.
The empress built a stately church in the place where the cross was
found, where she left some part of the wood richly ornamented, carrying
the rest with the nails to Constantinople.
INVESTITURE. The act of conferring a bishopric, by delivering a pastoral
staff or ring. Concerning the right of investiture, violent disputes
arose in the middle ages, between the emperors and the popes, for an
account of which the reader is referred to Mosheim, Cent. XI. part ii.
chap. 2, the account being too long for insertion here.
INVISIBLES. A distinguishing name given to the disciples of Osiander,
Flacius Illyricus, Swenkfeld, &c., being so denominated because they
denied the perpetual visibility of the Church. Palmer remarks, that the
reformed seem generally to have taught the doctrine of the visibility of
the Church, until some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of
their controversy with the Romanists, who asked them where their Church
existed before Luther, to maintain that the Church might sometimes be
invisible. This mistaken view appears in the Belgic Confession, and was
adopted by some of the Protestants; but it arose entirely from their
error in forsaking the defensive ground which their predecessors had
taken at first, and placing themselves in the false position of claiming
the exclusive title of the Church of CHRIST, according to the ordinary
signification of the term. Jurieu, a minister of the French Protestants,
has shown this, and has endeavoured to prove that the Church of CHRIST
is essentially visible, and that it never remained obscured, without
ministry or sacraments, even in the persecutions, or in the time of
Arianism. The same truth has been acknowledged by several denominations
of dissenters in Britain.
INVITATORY. Some text of Scripture, adapted and chosen for the occasion
of the day, and used in ancient times before the _Venite_, which is also
called the _Invitatory Psalm_.
The Invitatories, as given in the Roman Breviaries, are two verses,
“Adoremus Dominum, qui fecit nos,” and “qui fecit nos:” the former sung
before and after the psalm, and at the end of the 2nd, 6th, and 1Oth
verses; and the latter at the end of the 4th and 8th.—_Jebb._
INVOCATION. The commencing part of the Litany, containing the invocation
of each Person of the Godhead, severally, and of the Blessed Trinity in
Unity. This distinction is made in the margin of Nicholls’s edition of
the Common Prayer.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS. The thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea
runs thus: “It does not behove Christians to leave the Church of GOD,
and go and invoke angels, and make assemblies; which things are
forbidden. If, therefore, any one be detected idling in their secret
idolatry, let him be accursed, because he has forsaken our LORD JESUS
CHRIST, the SON of GOD, and gone to idolatry.” This plain testimony of
the fathers of the primitive Church, against the invocation and
worshipping of angels, which is denounced as idolatry, is not to be set
aside by all the ingenuity of the Roman writers.—See their attempts,
_Labbe_ and _Cossart_, i. 1526. The subtle distinctions of _Latria_,
_Dulia_, and the rest, had not entered the imagination of Theodoret when
he cited this canon as condemning the worshipping of angels, σύνοδος ἐν
Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας νόμῳ κεκώλυκε τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι
(_Comm. Coloss._ ii. 18); nor into that of Origen, who expressly says,
that men ought not to worship or adore the angels, for that all prayer
and supplication, and intercession and thanksgiving, should be made to
God alone, (_Contra Celsum_, v. § 4,) and that right reason forbids the
invocation of them.—_Ibid._ § 5.
But in the twenty-fifth session of the Popish Council of Trent, the
synod thus rules: “Of the invocation, veneration, and relics of the
saints, and the sacred images, the holy synod commands the bishops and
others who have the office and care of instruction, that according to
the custom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has been received
from the first ages of the Christian religion, the consent of the holy
Fathers, and the decrees of the sacred councils, they make it a chief
point diligently to instruct the faithful concerning the intercession
and invocation of saints, the honour of relics, and the lawful use of
images, teaching them that the saints reigning together with CHRIST,
offer to GOD their prayers for men; that it is good and useful to invoke
them with supplication, and, on account of the benefits obtained from
GOD through his SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD, who alone is our Redeemer and
Saviour, to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and assistance; but
that they who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven
are to be invoked, or who assert either that they do not pray for men,
or that the invoking them that they may pray for each of us, is
idolatry; or that it is contrary to the word of GOD, and opposed to the
honour of the one Mediator between GOD and man; or that it is folly,
either by word or thought, to supplicate them who are reigning in
heaven; are impious in their opinions.
“Also that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with
CHRIST, which were living members of CHRIST, and the temple of the HOLY
GHOST, and are by him to be raised to eternal life, and glorified, ought
to be venerated by the faithful; by means of which the faithful receive
many benefits. So that they who declare that veneration and honour are
not due to the relics of the saints, or that the honour which the
faithful pay to them and other sacred monuments is useless, and that it
is in vain to celebrate the memory of the saints for the sake of
obtaining their assistance, are utterly to be condemned, as the Church
already has condemned them, and does so at the present time.
“Moreover, that the images of CHRIST, of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and
other saints, are to be especially had and retained in the churches; and
due honour and veneration to be given to them, not because it is
supposed that there is any divinity or virtue in them on account of
which they are to be worshipped, nor because anything is to be asked of
them, nor that confidence is to be placed in images, as of old was done
by the heathens, who placed their hope in idols, but because the honour
which is shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they
represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we
uncover our heads and fall down, we worship CHRIST, and venerate the
saints, whose likeness they bear. That is what has been sanctioned by
the decrees of the councils against the opposers of images, especially
those of the second Nicene Synod.
“But let the bishops diligently teach that by stories of the mysteries
of our redemption, expressed in pictures or other representations, the
people are taught and confirmed in commemorating and carefully bearing
in mind the articles of faith, as also that great advantage is derived
from all the sacred images, not only because the people are thereby
reminded of the benefits and gifts which CHRIST has conferred upon them,
but also because the miracles of GOD by the saints, and their wholesome
examples, are submitted to the eyes of the faithful, that they may give
thanks to GOD for them, and dispose their lives and manners in imitation
of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love GOD, and to
cultivate religion.
“Canon. If any shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him
be accursed.”
The first council which decreed this invocation and intercession, is
denounced by the Romanists themselves as schismatical and heretical; it
was the Council at Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus. Nor
have all the researches of the Romish advocates availed to adduce from
the early ages one single writer, layman or ecclesiastic, who has
enjoined this practice as a duty. All that they have succeeded in
showing is, that in the course of the first five centuries several
individual writers are to be found who commend the practice as useful.
Against these we will cite the following; and from a comparison of the
passages cited on both sides, it will be clear that although,
notwithstanding the reproof of the apostle, (Col. ii. 18,) the
invocation of angels, and afterwards of saints, obtained in some places
in the Christian Church, it was always an open point which men were free
to reject or not, as they might think fit; and that, therefore, both the
Council of Copronymus in the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in
the sixteenth, were violating ecclesiastical tradition, when by their
anathemas they sought to abridge Christian liberty by confirming a
corrupt and foolish custom; especially when the caution of the apostle
Paul, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea, are taken into
consideration. It is a remarkable thing that, among all the liturgies
which Messrs. Kirke and Berrington have cited in their volume, entitled,
“The Faith of the Catholics,” Lond. 1830, amounting to eleven, only one
is to be found, and that of the Nestorian heretics, containing an
invocation to a saint for intercession:—thus showing how wide a
distinction is to be drawn between the excited expressions of individual
writers, and the authorized practice of the Church. All the other
liturgies do no more than the Roman canon of the mass; viz. 1st, assume,
generally, that the saints departed pray for the saints militant; and,
2ndly, pray to GOD to hear their intercessions. This is no more
tantamount to an invocation of the saints, than a prayer to GOD for the
assistance of the angels would be tantamount to a prayer to the angels
themselves.—_Perceval._
IRELAND. (See _Church of Ireland_.)
IRVINGITES. The followers of Edward Irving, a minister of the Scottish
establishment, who was born in 1792, and died in 1834. In 1822, he was
appointed to a Scotch presbyterian congregation, and for some years
officiated in a chapel with great applause, but was at length deposed
from his ministry by the presbytery, for holding an awful heresy
concerning our blessed LORD, whose nature he considered as peccable, or
capable of sin. He still continued, however, to act as minister of a
congregation in London. Both in Scotland and in England he had many
followers; and since his death Irvingism has found its way into Germany
and other foreign countries. The first form which his party assumed was
connected with certain notions concerning the millennium, and the
immediately impending advent of our blessed LORD: and presently after,
as precursors of the expected event, miraculous gifts of tongues, of
prophecy, of healing, and even of raising the dead, were pretended to by
his followers; though Irving himself never pretended to those more
miraculous endowments. Superadded to these notions, was a singularly
constructed hierarchy, of apostles, angels, &c. They affect the name of
Apostolicals.
The Irvingites call themselves The Catholic and Apostolic Church; and
the following sketch of the denomination was supplied by a member to Mr.
Horace Mann, and printed by him in the Census Report of 1851.
“The body to which this name is applied make no exclusive claim to it:
they simply object to be called by any other. They acknowledge it to be
the common title of the one Church baptized into Christ, which has
existed in all ages, and of which they claim to be members. They have
always protested against the application to them of the term
‘Irvingites;’ which appellation they consider to be untrue and
offensive, though derived from one whom, when living, they held in high
regard as a devoted minister of Christ.
“They do not profess to be, and refuse to acknowledge that they are,
separatists from the Church established or dominant in the land of their
habitation, or from the general body of Christians therein. They
recognise the continuance of the Church from the days of the first
apostles, and of three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, by
succession from the apostles. They justify their meeting in separate
congregations from the charge of schism, on the ground of the same being
permitted and authorized by an ordinance of paramount authority, which
they believe God has restored for the benefit of the whole Church. And
so far from professing to be another sect in addition to the numerous
sects already dividing the Church, or to be ‘the One Church,’ to the
exclusion of all other bodies, they believe that their special mission
is to reunite the scattered members of the one body of Christ.
“The only standards of faith which they recognise are the three creeds
of the Catholic Church—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene or
Constantinopolitan Creed, and that called the Creed of St. Athanasius.
The speciality of their religious belief, whereby they are distinguished
from other Christian communities, stands in this: that they hold
apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors, to be abiding ministries
in the Church, and that these ministries, together with the power and
gifts of the Holy Ghost, dispensed and distributed among her members,
are necessary for preparing and perfecting the Church for the second
advent of the Lord; and that supreme rule in the Church ought to be
exercised, as at the first, by twelve apostles, not elected or ordained
by men, but called and sent forth immediately by God.
“The congregations which have been authorized as above stated, are
placed under the pastoral rule of angels or bishops, with whom are
associated, in the work of the ministry, priests and deacons. The
deacons are a distinct and separate order of ministers, taken from the
midst of, and chosen by, the respective congregations in which they are
to serve, and are ordained either by apostles or by angels receiving
commission thereunto. The priests are first called to their office by
the word through the prophets, (“no man taking this honour to himself,”)
and then ordained by apostles; and from among the priests, by a like
call and ordination, are the angels set in their places.
“With respect to the times of worship, the holy eucharist is celebrated,
and the communion is administered, every Lord’s day, and more or less
frequently during the week, according to the number of priests in each
particular congregation; and, where the congregations are large, the
first and last hours of every day, reckoning from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M.,
are appointed for Divine worship; and, if there be a sufficient number
of ministers, there are, in addition, prayers daily at 9 A. M. and 3 P.
M., with other services for the more special object of teaching and
preaching.
“In the forms of worship observed, the prayers and other devotions to be
found in the principal liturgies of the Christian Church are introduced
by preference, wherever appropriate; and in all their services the
bishops and clergy of the Catholic Church, and all Christian kings,
princes, and governors, are remembered before God. It may also be
observed, that in their ritual observances and offices of worship
external and material things have their place. They contend that, as
through the washing of water men are admitted into the Christian
covenant, and as bread and wine duly consecrated are ordained to be used
not merely for spiritual food, but for purposes of sacramental and
symbolic agency, so also that the use of other material things, such as
oil, lights, incense, &c., as symbols and exponents of spiritual
realities, belongs to the dispensation of the gospel.
“Besides free-will offerings, the tenth of their increase, including
income of every description, is brought up to the Lord, (it being
regarded as a sacred duty that tithe should be dedicated to his service
alone,) and is apportioned among those who are separated to the
ministry.
“In England there are about 30 congregations, comprising nearly 6000
communicants; and the number is gradually on the increase. There are
also congregations in Scotland and Ireland, a considerable number in
Germany, and several in France, Switzerland, and America.”
Of late years, it is said, this denomination has made considerable
progress, so that from 1846 to 1851 the number of communicants in
England has increased by a third, while great success has been achieved
on the continent and in America. Returns from 32 chapels (chiefly in the
southern counties of England) have been furnished to the Census Office.
These contained (allowing for one chapel for which the sittings are not
mentioned) accommodation for 7437 persons. The _attendance_, on the
Census-Sunday, was, (making an estimated addition for two chapels with
regard to which no information was received,) _Morning_, 3176;
_Afternoon_, 1659; _Evening_, 2707.
ISAIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Isaiah
is the first of the four greater prophets, the other three being
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He was of royal blood, his father Amos
being brother to Azariah, king of Judah. He prophesied from the end of
the reign of Uzziah, to the time of Manasseh; by whose order, according
to a Jewish tradition, he was sawn asunder with a wooden saw. He
delivered his predictions under the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah. The first five chapters of his prophecy relate to the reign of
Uzziah; the vision of the sixth chapter happened in the time of Jotham;
the next chapters, to the fifteenth, include his prophecies under the
reign of Ahaz; and those that happened under the reigns of Hezekiah and
Manasseh are related in the next chapters, to the end.
The style of this prophet is noble, sublime, and florid. Grotius calls
him the Demosthenes of the Hebrews. He had the advantage above the other
prophets of improving his diction by conversing with men of the greatest
parts and elocution. This added a gravity, force, and vehemence to what
he said. He impartially reproved the vices and disorders of the age he
lived in, and openly displayed the judgments of GOD, which were hanging
over the Jewish nation; at the same time denouncing vengeance on those
foreign nations, which were instrumental in inflicting those judgments,
viz. the Assyrians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians,
and Arabians. He clearly foretold the deliverance of the Jews from their
captivity in Babylon, by the hand of Cyrus king of Persia; and this he
expressly mentioned an hundred years before it came to pass. But the
most remarkable of his predictions are those concerning the MESSIAH. He,
in plain terms, foretold, not only the coming of CHRIST in the flesh,
but all the great and memorable circumstances of his life and death. He
speaks, says St. Jerome, rather of things past than to come; and he may
rather be called an Evangelist, than a Prophet.
Besides the prophecies of Isaiah still extant, he wrote a book
concerning the actions of Uzziah, cited in the Chronicles; but it is now
lost. Origen, Epiphanius, and St. Jerome speak of another book, called
“The Ascension of Isaiah.” Some of the Jews ascribe to him the Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and the Book of Job.
ITALIC VERSION. The old Italic Version, or Vetus Itala, is the name
usually given to that translation of the sacred Scriptures into the
Latin language, which was generally used until the time of St. Jerome,
being distinguished for its clearness and fidelity among the many
versions then existing. It was however translated from the Greek in the
Old Testament, as well as the New; and is supposed to have been executed
in the early part of the 2nd century. St. Jerome, dissatisfied with the
ruggedness and imperfections of the old Italic, first commenced a
revision of it, which, however, he did not complete; and afterwards made
a new translation, which at first gradually, but at length universally,
obtained in the Latin Church, under the name of the _Vulgate_. Of the
old Italic Version, the Psalter and Book of Job, corrected by Jerome,
remain; and are published in the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome’s
Works. The apocryphal books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, the two
Books of Maccabees, and perhaps, as may be collected from Dr. Hody, the
remaining chapters of Esther, and the Song of the Three Children, also
belong to this translation. (See _Vulgate_ and _Psalter_.) Consult
_Walton’s Prolegomena_, and _Hodius de Bibliorum textibus originalibus_,
(who corrects Walton in one of his statements,) for a full account of
this version.
JACOBITES, or JACOBINS. Eastern Christians, so denominated from Jacob, a
Syrian, the disciple of Eutyches and Dioscorus, whose heresy he spread
so much in Asia and Africa, in the 6th century, that at last, in the
7th, the different sects of the Eutychians were swallowed up by that of
the Jacobites, which also comprehended all the Monophysites of the East,
i. e. such as acknowledged only one nature in Christ. Their Asian
patriarch resides at Caramit, in Mesopotamia; Alexandria is the see of
the African one, and he follows the errors of Dioscorus and the Cophti.
M. Simon relates that under the name of Jacobins must be included all
the Monophysites of the East, whether Armenians, Cophti, or Abyssines,
acknowledging but one nature in CHRIST; he adds, the number of the
Jacobins, properly so called, is but small, there not being above thirty
or forty thousand families of them, which principally inhabit Syria and
Mesopotamia: they are divided among themselves, one part embracing, and
the other disowning, the communion of the Church of Rome. These last are
not all united, having two opposite patriarchs, one at Caramit, and the
other at Dorzapharan; besides these two, he says, there is one of the
same opinion with the Latins, residing at Aleppo.
JAMES’S, ST., DAY, (_July 25th_,) the day on which the Church celebrates
the memory of the apostle James the Great, or the Elder. He was one of
the sons of Zebedee, and brother of St. John. He was the first of the
apostles who won the crown of martyrdom. (Acts xii. 2.)
JAMES’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLE. A canonical book of the New Testament. It
was written by St. James the Less, called also the Lord’s brother; who
was chosen by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem. The date of this Epistle
is placed by Dr. Mills in, or just before, the year 60; two years after
which the writer suffered martyrdom, under the high priesthood of
Ananus, and procuratorship of Albinus.
This general Epistle is addressed partly to the infidel, and partly to
the believing Jews. The writer’s design was to correct the errors,
soften the ungoverned zeal, and reform the indecent behaviour, of the
former; and to comfort the latter under the hardships they then did, or
shortly were to suffer, for the sake of Christianity. It is directed to
the Jews and Jewish converts of the dispersion, but no doubt was
calculated for the improvement likewise of those Jews, over whom the
apostle presided in the special character of their bishop.
This Epistle is the first of the Catholic or General Epistles, in the
canon of Scripture; which are so called, because they were written, not
to one, but to several Christian Churches.
JANSENISTS, in France, are those who follow the opinions of Jansenius, a
doctor of divinity of the university of Louvain, and bishop of Ypres. In
the year 1640, the two universities of Louvain and Douay thought fit to
condemn the loose doctrine of the Jesuits, particularly Father Molina
and Father Leonard Celsus, concerning grace and predestination. This
having set the controversy on foot, Jansenius opposed to the doctrine of
the Jesuits the sentiments of St. Augustine, and wrote a treatise upon
grace, which he entitled _Augustinus_. The treatise was attacked by the
Jesuits, who accused Jansenius of maintaining dangerous and heretical
opinions: nor did they stop here, but obtained of Pope Urban VIII., in
1642, a formal condemnation of Jansenius’s treatise. The partisans of
Jansenius gave out, that this bull was spurious, and composed by a
person entirely devoted to the Jesuits.
After the death of Urban VIII., the affair of _Jansenism_ began to be
more warmly controverted, and gave birth to an infinite number of
polemical writings concerning _Grace_. What occasioned some mirth in
these disputes was, the titles which each party gave to their writings.
One writer published _The Torch of St. Augustine_; another found
_Snuffers for St. Augustine’s Torch_. F. Veron composed _A Gag for the
Jansenists_: and the like. In the year 1650, sixty-eight bishops of
France subscribed a letter to Pope Innocent X., to obtain of him an
inquiry into, and condemnation of, the five famous propositions which
follow, extracted from Jansenius’s _Augustinus_:—
I. Some of GOD’S commandments are impossible to be kept by the
righteous, even though they are willing to observe them.
II. A man doth never resist inward grace, in the state of fallen nature.
III. In order to merit, or not merit, it is not necessary that a man
should have a liberty free from necessity. It is sufficient that he hath
a liberty free from restraint.
IV. The _Semi-Pelagians_ were heretics, because they asserted the
necessity of an inward preventing grace for every action.
V. It is a _Semi-Pelagian_ opinion to say, that JESUS CHRIST died for
all mankind, without exception.
In the year 1652, the pope appointed a congregation for examining into
the matter relating to _Grace_. In this congregation Jansenius was
condemned, and the bull of condemnation published, May 31, 1653. After
its publication at Paris, the pulpits were filled with violent outcries
and alarms against the heresy of the Jansenists. The year 1656 produced
the famous “Provincial Letters” of M. Pascal, under the name of _Louis
de Montalte_, in defence of _Messieurs de Port Royal_, who were looked
upon as the bulwark of Jansenism. The same year, Pope Alexander VII.
issued another bull, in which he condemned the five propositions of
Jansenius. The Jansenists affirm that the five condemned propositions
are not to be found in Jansenius’s treatise upon Grace, but that some
enemies of Jansenius, having caused them to be printed on a sheet,
inserted them in a book, and thereby deceived the pope.
Among the enemies of the Jansenists was a certain sect of fanatics,
called _Brothers of the Sodality of the blessed Sacrament_. They sprung
up at Caen, in 1659, and gave out that their smell was so nice, that
they could distinguish a Jansenist by the very scent, and that all the
clergy in that city, except two, were Jansenists.
At last Clement XI. put an end to the disputes about Jansenism by his
constitution of July 17, 1705; in which, after having recited the
constitutions of his predecessors in relation to this affair, he
declares, that, _to pay a proper obedience to the papal constitutions
concerning the present question, it is necessary to receive them with a
respectful silence_. The clergy assembled at Paris approved and accepted
this bull, on the 21st of August, the same year; and no one dared to
oppose it. This is the famous bull _Unigenitus_, so called from its
beginning with the words, _Unigenitus Dei Filius_.—_Broughton._
Jansenism still exists in Holland, where the archbishop of Utrecht
presides over the communion.
JANUARY, THIRTIETH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer._)
JEHOVAH. One of the names given in Scripture to Almighty GOD, and
peculiar to him, signifying the Being who is self-existent, and gives
existence to others.
The name is also given to our blessed SAVIOUR, and is a proof of his
Godhead. (Compare Isaiah xl. 3, with Matt. iii. 3, and Isaiah vi., with
John xii. 41.) The Jews had so great a veneration for this name, that
they left off the custom of pronouncing it, whereby its true
pronunciation was forgotten. It is called the Tetragrammaton,
(Τετραγράμματον,) or name of four letters, and containing in itself the
past and future tenses, as well as the present participle, and
signifies, He who _was_, _is_, and _shall be_: i. e. the Eternal, the
Unchangeable, the Faithful.
The same veneration seems to have actuated most Christian communities in
their translation of the word, rendered in Greek by Κύριος, in Latin by
_Dominus_, and in English by _Lord_. The word JEHOVAH occurs but four
times simply, and five times in composition, in our authorized
translation.
JEREMIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This
divine writer was of the race of the priests, the son of Hilkiuh of
Anathoth, in the tribe of Benjamin. He was called to the prophetic
office, when he was very young, about the thirteenth year of Josiah, and
continued in the discharge of it above forty years. He was not carried
captive to Babylon with the other Jews, but remained in Judea, to lament
the desolation of his country. He was afterwards a prisoner in Egypt,
with his disciple Baruch, where it is supposed he died in a very
advanced age. Some of the Christian Fathers tell us, he was stoned to
death by the Jews for preaching against their idolatry; and some say, he
was put to death by Pharaoh Hophra, because of his prophecy against him.
Part of the prophecy of Jeremiah relates to the time after the captivity
of Israel, and before that of Judah, from the first chapter to the
forty-fourth; and part of it was in the time of the latter captivity,
from the forty-fourth chapter to the end. The prophet lays open the sins
of the kingdom of Judah with great freedom and boldness, and reminds
them of the severe judgments which had befallen the ten tribes for the
same offences; he passionately laments their misfortune, and recommends
a speedy reformation to them. Afterwards he predicts the grievous
calamities that were approaching, particularly the seventy years’
captivity in Chaldea. He likewise foretells their deliverance and happy
return, and the recompence which Babylon, Moab, and other enemies of the
Jews, should meet with in due time. There are likewise several
intimations in this prophecy concerning the kingdom of the Messiah; also
several remarkable visions and types, and historical passages relating
to those times.
The fifty-second chapter does not belong to the prophecy of Jeremiah,
which concludes, at the end of the fifty-first chapter, with these
words: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” The last, or fifty-second
chapter, (which probably was added by Ezra,) contains a narrative of the
taking of Jerusalem, and of what happened during the captivity of the
Jews in Babylon, to the death of Jechonias. St. Jerome has observed upon
this prophet, that his style is more easy than that of Isaiah and Hosea;
that he retains something of the rusticity of the village where he was
born; but that he is very learned and majestic, and equal to those two
prophets in the sense of his prophecy.
JESUITS, or the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A society which, at one period,
extended its influence to the very ends of the earth, and proved the
main pillar of the papal hierarchy,—which wormed itself into almost
absolute power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the
ecclesiastical dictator of the world,—must be an object of some
curiosity to the inquisitive mind.
Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have been the
founder of this, _nominally_, religious order. He was born in 1491, and
became first a page to Ferdinand V., king of Spain, and then an officer
in his army. In 1521 he was wounded in both legs at the siege of
Pampeluna, when having had leisure to study a book of Lives of the
Saints, he devoted himself to the service of the Virgin; and his
military ardour becoming metamorphosed into superstitious zeal, he went
on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he
studied in the universities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and
formed a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented
to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Loyola to
inspiration, Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples were
removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self-interest: it
was proposed that every member should make a vow of unconditional
obedience to the pope, without requiring any support from the holy see.
The order was, therefore, instituted in 1540, and Loyola appointed to be
the first general.
The plan of the society was completed by the two immediate successors of
the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom excelled their master in
ability and the science of government; and, in a few years, the society
established itself in every Catholic country, acquiring prodigious
wealth, and exciting the apprehensions of all the enemies of the Romish
faith.
To Lainez are ascribed the _Secreta Monita_, or secret instructions of
the order; which were first discovered when Christian, duke of
Brunswick, seized the Jesuits’ college at Paderborn, in Westphalia, at
which time he gave their books and manuscripts to the Capuchins, who
found these secret instructions among the archives of their rector.
After this, another copy was detected at Prague, in the college of the
Jesuits.
The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for action, in
opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the concerns of the
world; and in engaging in all civil and commercial transactions,
insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons of rank, studying
the disposition of all classes, with a view of obtaining an influence
over them, and undertaking missions to distant nations, it is an
essential principle of their policy, by every means, to extend the
Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no intrigue omitted, that may prove
conducive to this purpose.
The constitution of the society is monarchical. A general is chosen for
life by deputies from the several provinces. His power is supreme and
universal. Every member is at his entire disposal, and is required to
submit his will and sentiments to his dictation, and to listen to his
injunctions, as if uttered by CHRIST himself. The fortune, person, and
conscience of the whole society are at his disposal, and he can dispense
his order not only from the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic
obedience, but even from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He
nominates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers
of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions,
decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No member can
express any opinion of his own; and the society has its prisons,
independent of the secular authority.
There are four classes of members,—the novitiates or probationers, the
approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors of the four vows.
The education of youth was always considered by them as their peculiar
province,—aware of the influence which such a measure would infallibly
secure over another generation: and before the conclusion of the
sixteenth century the Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the
youthful mind in every Roman Catholic country in Europe. They had become
the confessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of
nearly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different
periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable courts, and
took part in every intrigue and revolution.
Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon various
pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemption from tithes under a
bull of Gregory XIII., who was devoted to their interests; and, by
obtaining a special licence from the court of Rome to _trade_ with the
nations whom they professed to convert, they carried on a lucrative
commerce in the East and West Indies, formed settlements in different
countries, and acquired possession of a large province in South America,
(Paraguay,) where they reigned as sovereigns over some hundred thousand
subjects.
Their policy is uniformly to inculcate _attachment to the Order_, and by
a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of mankind, for the
purpose of securing their patronage. They proclaim the duty of opposing
princes who are inimical to the Catholic faith, and have employed every
weapon, every artful and every intolerant measure, to resist the
progress of Protestantism.
In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they obtained the
direction of the court, which for many years delivered to them the
consciences of its princes and the education of the people. Portugal
opened the door to their missions, and gave them establishments in Asia,
Africa, and America. They usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and
resisted the forces of Portugal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of
Lisbon, and even Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses.
The league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits, under
the sanction of Sixtus V., to disturb the succession to the throne of
France. The Jesuits’ college at Paris was the grand focus of the
seditions and treasons which then agitated the state, and the ruler of
the Jesuits was president of the Council of Sixteen, which gave the
impulse to the leagues formed there and throughout France. Matthieu, a
Jesuit and confessor of Henry III., was called “the Courier of the
League,” on account of his frequent journeys to and from Rome at that
disastrous period.
In Germany the society appropriated the richest benefices, particularly
those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Bernard. Catherine of
Austria confided in them, and was supplanted; and loud outcries were
uttered against them by the sufferers in Vienna, in the states of
Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and elsewhere. Their cruelties in Poland
will never be forgotten. They were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan,
Malta, Cochin, Moscow, Venice, and other places, for their gross
misconduct; and in America and Asia they carried devastation and blood
wherever they went. The great object of the persecution of the
Protestants in Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to
endow the colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the
atrocities of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted of the
friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their cause, and under
whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholomew was executed. Louis XIV.
had three Jesuit confessors, which may explain the revocation of the
edict of Nantes.
The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of princes. The
reign of Queen Elizabeth presents a succession of plots. In her
proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, that “the Jesuits had
fomented the plots against her person, excited her subjects to revolt,
provoked foreign princes to compass her death, engaged in all affairs of
state, and by their language and writings had undertaken to dispose of
her crown.”
Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against James I.
before he had reigned a year. They contrived the Gunpowder Plot. So late
as the time of George I. both houses of parliament reported, that the
evidence examined by them on the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had
satisfactorily shown that it had for its object the destruction of the
king, the subversion of the laws, and the crowning of the Popish
pretender; and they state that “Plunket was born at Dublin, and bred up
at the Jesuits’ college at Vienna.” Henry III. of France was
assassinated by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered
William, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of Louis XV.
for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, and were also
guilty of innumerable other atrocities.
The pernicious spirit and constitution of this order rendered it early
detested by the principal powers of Europe; and while Pascal, by his
“Provincial Letters,” exposed the morality of the society, and thus
overthrew their influence over the multitude, different potentates
concurred, from time to time, to destroy or prevent its establishments.
Charles V. opposed the order in his dominions: it was expelled in
England by the proclamation of James I. in 1604; in Venice, in 1606; in
Portugal, in 1759; in France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and
suppressed and abolished by Pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Our own age has
witnessed its revival, and is even now suffering from the increased
energy of its members.
JESUITESSES. An order of nuns, who had monasteries in Italy and
Flanders. They followed the Jesuit rules; and though their order was not
approved at Rome, yet they had several monasteries, where they had a
lady abbess, who took the Jesuit vows of poverty, chastity, and
obedience. They did not confine themselves to their cloisters, but went
abroad and preached. They were two English young women, who, by the
instigation of Father Gerard, set up this order, intending it for the
use of missionaries into England. This order was suppressed by a bull of
Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1630.
JESUS, is the same with the Hebrew name _Joshua_, or _Jehoshua_, i. e.
Jehovah THE SAVIOUR. As the name _Jesus_ was given to the blessed LORD
by Divine command, so was the name of the son of Nun changed by Moses
from Hoshea, (the Saviour,) to Joshua; he being a type of our blessed
LORD. (Num. xiii. 16.) (See _Christ_, _Messiah_, _Lord_.) The name that
was given by the Divine command to the SAVIOUR of the world. He is
called CHRIST (anointed), because he was anointed to the mediatorial
office, and JESUS (Saviour), because he came to save his people from
their sins.
We are to regard him, as he is our SAVIOUR. I will place salvation in
JESUS “the SAVIOUR” (Phil. iii. 20),—thus declared by prophecy (Isa.
xix. 20), and for this reason so expressly called (Matt. i. 21; Luke i.
31), and the prophecies truly fulfilled (Luke ii. 11; Acts v. 31, xiii.
23), is “the SAVIOUR of the world” (John iv. 42; iii. 17; 1 John iv.
14), “the SAVIOUR of all men” (1 Tim. iv. 10; Luke ix. 56; John xii.
47), who “came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15; Luke v.
32; Rom. v. 8; 1 John iii. 5), “the LORD and SAVIOUR” (2 Pet. ii. 20;
iii. 2), “the captain of their salvation” (Heb. ii. 10). And he is
revealed as the only way to salvation thus predicted (Isa. xxxv. 8;
xlix. 6; li. 5; lix. 16; lxiii. 1; Joel ii. 32; Matt. i. 21; Acts iv.
12; Heb. ix. 8),—so by himself declared (Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix.
9),—and by those speaking through the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT
(Luke i. 69, with 67; ii. 30, with 26, 27; Acts ii. 21; Eph. ii. 18).
He was sent by GOD for this purpose (John iii. 17; Acts v. 31, xiii. 23;
1 John iv. 14), and is declared to be “the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him” (Heb. v. 9; Isa. li. 6, 8),—that “confess”
him (Rom. x. 9), “believe on” him (Rom. x. 9; Eph. ii. 8; Acts xvi. 31;
x. 43,) and “call on the name of the LORD” (Acts ii. 21),—“to the Jews
first” (Rom. i. 16; Isa. xlv. 17; xlvi. 13; lxii. 1, 11; Jer. xxxiii.
15, 16; Zech. ix. 9; Luke i. 69, 77; Acts xi. 19; xv. 11; xiii. 23, 46),
“and also to the Greek” (Rom. i. 16),—the Gentiles (Isa. xlv. 22; xlix.
6; li. 5; lii. 10; Luke iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; Rom. iii. 29; x. 12;
xv. 16; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11.)
To “that blessed hope” we now look (Tit. ii. 13), through “the
righteousness of GOD and our SAVIOUR” (of our GOD and SAVIOUR, Gr.) (2
Pet. i. 1),—“our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST” (2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 4; iii.
6). Our salvation has been effected by the sacrifice of himself; “in him
have we redemption—the forgiveness of sins;” not purchased “with
corruptible things,” but with his own “precious blood” (Eph. i. 7; 1
Pet. i. 18, 19), for “he gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. ii. 6).
And thus having made “peace through the blood of his cross,” he has
“reconciled both”—Jews and Gentiles—“unto GOD in one body.” (Col. i. 20;
Eph. ii. 16.) (See _Bowing at the name of Jesus_.) Joshua, the successor
of Moses, is called JESUS in our translation of the New Testament, Acts
vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8. Both names are the same in the LXX. and the
Greek Testament, Ἰησοῦς.
JEWS. The general name given the descendants of Abraham, though in
strictness it originally belonged only to the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin, with the Levites settled among them, who constituted the
kingdom of Judah. It has long been synonymous with _Israelites_. On
their laws and customs the reader must consult the books of Moses. The
modern Jews have introduced many very remarkable customs. When any
person is buried, his nearest relation keeps the house a week, sitting
on the ground all the time, excepting on the sabbath day, when they go
to prayers. During this week they do no business. The husband and the
wife are to lodge asunder; and there come at least ten people, morning
and evening, to say the accustomed prayers. They pray for the soul of
the person deceased constantly that week. When the week is ended they go
to the synagogue, and light up lamps and pray, and promise to give alms
for the soul of the deceased. This charitable service is repeated at the
end of every month, and every year. It is customary for the son to say
every morning and evening the prayer for his father’s or mother’s soul.
They believe a paradise, where the blessed enjoy a beatific vision: and
a hell for wicked men, in which some shall continue for ever, others
only for a time. No Jew, unless a heretic, or nonconformist to their
Rabbins’ rules, shall continue in hell above a year. Their creed
consists of thirteen articles:—1. There is one GOD, Creator of all
things, all-perfect, all-sufficient. 2. That he is an uncompounded,
invisible essence. 3. That he is immaterial. 4. Absolutely eternal. 5.
Alone to be worshipped, without any mediators or intercessors. 6. That
there have been, and may be, prophets. 7. That Moses was the greatest
prophet. 8. That every syllable of the law was given to Moses by
inspiration; and that the traditionary expositions of the precepts were
entirely a Divine revelation given to Moses. 9. That the law is
immutable. 10. That GOD knows and governs all our actions. 11. That he
rewards the observance, and punishes the violation, of his laws. 12.
That the MESSIAH will appear, but that his coming is delayed. 13. That
GOD will raise the dead, and judge all mankind.
They _confess_ to none but GOD Almighty; and this commonly on Mondays,
and Thursdays, and all fast-days: on the great day of expiation they
repeat their confessions several times.
There are three sects of them in these times. The greatest and first of
these is that of the Rabbanim, who, besides the Scriptures, receive the
Talmud. The second is the Caraites, who receive only the Scriptures; and
the third is that of the Cuthim, of which there are very few, who admit
only the Pentateuch, or books of Moses.—_Broughton._
JOB. One of the books in the sacred canon, the first of the poetical
books of the Old Testament, and probably the most ancient work that
exists in any form. There have been many differences of opinion upon
almost all imaginable questions concerning this book, the date, the
scene, the author, whether it is to be accounted a narrative of real
events, or a Divine allegory, being warmly debated by different critics.
That Job is a real person, seems however to be determined by the mention
of him with Noah and Daniel, (of whose proper personal existence and
history there can be no doubt,) in the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel.
Into the other questions it is less important to enter.
JOHN, ST., BAPTIST’S DAY. This festival, in honour of St. John the
Baptist, is observed on the 24th of June.
JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. The day appointed for the commemoration
of “the beloved disciple.” St. John the evangelist (so called from the
Greek term which signifies the messenger of glad tidings) was a Galilean
by birth, the son of Zebedee and Salome, the younger brother of James,
but not of him who was surnamed the Just, and who was the brother of our
LORD. His brother James and he were surnamed by JESUS the Sons of
Thunder, for their peculiar zeal and fervency for his honour, which we
see manifested in St. John’s sedulous assertions of our LORD’S Divinity.
He was the most beloved by our SAVIOUR of all the disciples.
St. John exercised his ministry in Asia Minor, and having excited
enemies through preaching the doctrines of CHRIST, was carried prisoner
from Ephesus to Rome, in the year 92. Subsequently to this he was
banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Revelation. He was
afterwards recalled from his exile by Nero the emperor, and then
returned to Ephesus. His three Epistles were written with reference to
some prevailing heresies of the times; and the scope of his Gospel,
which was his last work, shows that the apostle had in view the same
deniers of the Divinity of the SAVIOUR. He survived till the reign of
Trajan, and died at the age of nearly 100 years.
St. John the Evangelist’s day is on the 27th of December.
JOHN’S, ST., GENERAL EPISTLES. Three canonical books of the New
Testament, being letters written by St. John the evangelist. (See the
last article.)
The First Epistle of St. John has always been received by the Church as
genuine. Though there is neither inscription nor direction, it appears,
by the beginning of chap. ii., to be a Catholic or General Epistle,
addressed not to one, but many Christians. It is probable he wrote it
towards the end of his life, because he mentions the opinion which then
prevailed, that the day of judgment was at hand, and Antichrist ready to
appear. He insists upon the advantages of faith in Christ; he exhorts
those to whom he writes not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false
teachers; and recommends to them good works, the love of GOD and our
neighbour, purity, and other Christian virtues. This Epistle, for matter
and style, is much like the Gospel written by the same apostle.
The two other Epistles which carry his name, have not always been so
generally received. On the contrary, some of the ancients were of
opinion that they were written by another John, called the Elder, a
disciple of the apostle’s, mentioned by Papias. However, Irenæus quotes
the second under the name of John, the disciple of our Lord. In truth,
the spirit, the sentiments, and style of these two Epistles are not only
like, but often the same as the First Epistle; which plainly bespeaks
one and the same author.
The Second Epistle of St. John is directed to the elect Lady; by which
some understand a lady named Electa; others, only some lady of dignity
and distinction; and others, an elect or chosen Church, metaphorically
styled Lady. Whoever she be, the apostle congratulates her, because her
children led a Christian life. He cautions her likewise to beware of
impostors, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh.
The Third Epistle of St. John is directed to Gaius, or Caius. Whoever he
be, (for it is controverted,) the apostle declares to him the joy he
conceived, when he heard of his piety and charity.
It is probable St. John wrote his Epistles, as well as his Gospel, from
Ephesus, after his return from the isle of Patmos.
JOHN’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament, being a
recital of the life, actions, doctrine, death, &c., of our SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST, written by St. John the apostle and evangelist. (See the
preceding article.)
St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, after his return from the isle of
Patmos, at the desire of the Christians and bishops of Asia. St. Jerome
says, he would not undertake it, but on condition they should appoint a
public fast, to implore the assistance of GOD; and that, the fast being
ended, St. John, filled with the HOLY GHOST, broke out into these words;
“In the beginning was the Word,” &c. The ancients assign two reasons for
this undertaking. The first is, because, in the other three Gospels,
there was wanting the history of the beginning of JESUS CHRIST’S
preaching till the imprisonment of John the Baptist; which therefore he
applied himself particularly to relate. The second reason was, in order
to confound the errors of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and other
heretics, who denied the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST.
Some critics have thought, that St. John’s Gospel ended at the 20th
chapter with these words, “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” &c., and
that the following chapter was added, after the death of St. John, by
the Church of Ephesus.
Clement of Alexandria calls this Gospel, “the spiritual Gospel;” and St.
Jerome says of this evangelist, that he wrote of our SAVIOUR’S Divinity
in a very sublime manner, and with a _happy temerity_. Pagan
philosophers have admired the sublimity of St. John’s Gospel. Thus, the
Platonist Amelius, having read the beginning of it, and finding it
conformable to the doctrine of Plato, cried out, “O Jupiter! this
barbarian believes with Plato, that the Word is the beginning.”
Julian the Apostate accuses St. John of introducing novelties into the
Christian religion, by making JESUS CHRIST pass for a GOD, which neither
St. Paul, nor the other evangelists, had dared to do.
It is observable, that the history of the woman taken in adultery,
related in the 8th chapter, is not to be found in all the manuscripts of
this Gospel. Grotius, and others, believed, that the story was taken
from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St.
John. Others pretend, that the Novatians had razed it out. But St.
Augustine thinks, some good orthodox people had expunged it, lest their
wives should make use of it, to prevent that chastisement which their
disloyalty might deserve.—_Broughton._
JONAH. The most ancient of the prophetic books of the Old Testament,
which contains also a part of the history of the prophet whose name it
bears. Jonah is supposed to have prophesied to the ten tribes towards
the close of Jehu’s reign, or in the beginning of Jehoahaz’s reign; but
the great subject of the book which bears his name, is the prophecy
which he was commissioned to utter against Nineveh, with his refusal to
go, his punishment, his second mission, and the repentance of the
Ninevites. The continuing of Jonah three days in the belly of the great
fish, is declared by our blessed LORD himself to have been a predictive
sign of his own burial, and of his resurrection on the third day. This
gives great additional importance to the book of Jonah.—_Broughton._
JOSHUA, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. The learned
are divided in their opinions about the author of the Book of Joshua;
the title at the head of the book being supposed, not to denote its
author, but the subject matter of it, being the history of the wars and
transactions which happened under the administration of Joshua. Some
think the 26th verse of the last chapter are an evidence, that Joshua
was the author of this book: the words are; “Joshua wrote all these
words in the book of the law of the LORD.” But this may only relate to
what is said in this chapter concerning the covenant that the people
made with GOD. For Joshua, a little before his death, having assembled
the Israelites at Sichem, and laid them under a solemn engagement to
serve only the LORD, gave them fresh laws and ordinances, and “wrote all
these words in the book of the law of the LORD.” Some allege what is
said concerning Joshua in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, (ch. xlvi.,) that
“he was the successor of Moses in prophecies,” as a proof that he wrote
a sacred book. But this may mean no more, than that he succeeded Moses
in the spirit of prophecy. The ancient Talmudists, and many of later
date, expressly ascribe this book to Joshua, and the Jews reckon him
among the first prophets, as they call them, though the book is merely
historical.
Some of the ancients, and many of the moderns, deny, that Joshua was the
author of this book. Theodoret affirms, that it was compiled a long time
after the death of Joshua, and that it was but an abstract of an ancient
commentary, called “The Book of Jasher,” or “just men,” spoken of in the
tenth chapter of this book. Others have endeavoured to show, from
particular passages of the book, that it could not be Joshua’s; as when
it is said, (ch. iv. ver. 9,) that “the twelve stones, that Joshua set
up in the midst of Jordan, remain to this day:” and, in another place,
“This place is called Gilgal to this day.” But these, and the like
passages, might have been afterwards added to the collections of Joshua.
However it be, the Hebrews, as well as the Greeks and Latins, have
distinguished this book by the title of Joshua, or Jesus. This great
personage was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim. He was first
called Oshea; but Moses changed his name to Jehoshua, or Joshua. These
names, which have all the same root, signify a _Saviour_: and Joshua was
appointed by GOD to be the successor of Moses, and to lead the
Israelites in safety, by subduing their enemies, into the promised land;
the history of which great event is the subject of the Book of Joshua;
which may be divided into three parts. The first is a history of the
conquest of the land of Canaan. The second, which begins at the twelfth
chapter, is a description of that country, and the division of it among
the tribes. The third, comprised in the two last chapters, contains the
renewal of the covenant he caused the Israelites to make, and the death
of their victorious leader and governor. The whole comprehends a term of
seventeen, or, according to others, twenty-seven years.
JUBILATE DEO. (“O be joyful in God.”) One of the psalms appointed to be
used after the second lesson in the morning service. It is the same with
the 100th Psalm in the Psalter. It was first inserted in the Prayer Book
in the Second Book of King Edward VI.
JUBILEE. A solemn season recurring at stated intervals in the Church of
Rome, chiefly marked by the indulgences then granted by the pope to all
of his communion. Boniface VIII. was the first that instituted it, in
1300, in imitation of that of the Jews, ordering it to be observed every
hundredth year. Clement VI. reduced it to fifty, Urban IV. to thirty,
and Sixtus IV. to twenty-five, where it hath continued ever since.
Besides this, the popes, upon their exaltation to the see of Rome, have
frequently celebrated a jubilee, as likewise upon other extraordinary
occasions. The ceremony observed at Rome, for the jubilee, at every
twenty-five years’ end, which they call the holy year, is this: The pope
goes to St. Peter’s church to open the holy gate, (as they call it,)
which is walled up, and only opened upon this occasion; and knocking
three times at the said gate, with a golden hammer, says these words,
_Aperite mihi portas justitiæ_, &c., “Open to me the gates of
righteousness; I will go into them and I will praise the LORD” (Psalm
cxviii. 19); whereupon the masons fall to work to break down the wall
that stopped the gate; which done, the pope kneels down before it,
whilst the penitentiaries of St. Peter wash him with holy water, and
then taking up the cross, he begins to sing _Te Deum_, and enters the
church, followed by the clergy. In the mean while, three cardinal
legates are sent to open the other three holy gates, with the same
ceremonies, which are in the churches of St. John of Lateran, of St.
Paul, and St. Mary Major; and the next morning the pope gives his
benediction to the people in the jubilee form. When the holy year is
expired, they shut up the holy gates again on Christmas eve in this
manner. The pope, after he has blessed the stones and mortar, lays the
first stone, and leaves there twelve boxes full of gold and silver
medals.
The Jewish jubilee was celebrated every fifty years. The word is derived
from _jovel_, which in Hebrew signifies the blast of a trumpet, (Josh.
vi. 4, 13); because the year of jubilee was proclaimed with trumpets.
This year was a year of general rest and universal liberty, wherein all
servants were restored to their freedom, and all sold possessions
returned to their first owners. The Jews observed these jubilees very
exactly till the Babylonian captivity, but after their return did no
longer observe it; for their doctors assure us that there were no
jubilees under the second temple. See Lev. xxv. 9, _et seq._
JUDGES, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book, of the authenticity of which
there is no doubt in the Church, though the author is unknown; some
ascribing it to Phinehas, others to Ezra or Hezekiah, though most to
Samuel.
JUNE THE TWENTIETH. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)
“JURE DIVINO.” By Divine right; an expression frequently occurring in
controversial writings, especially in relation to the ministry of the
Church.
It is evident, and generally confessed, that the right to minister in
holy things is not in every man’s power. If it were so, the very idea of
the ministry, as a distinct class of men, empowered to act “in CHRIST’S
stead,” would be broken up, and the Church would lose its character as a
_society_; for that implies the existence of officers and of
subordination. It is also confessed that in the Christian Church men are
not _born_ to the ministry, as they were under the Jewish dispensation.
Whence, then, comes that authority with which the ambassador of CHRIST
is invested? Is it _human_? Can any body of _men_ confer the power to
rule and minister in a society, the full control of which is in the
hands of the _eternal_ GOD? Most evidently not. _Human power_, or a
commission derived from human resources, is as void and inadequate in
qualifying for the functions of the ministry, as it would be in the
attempt to create a world, or to found a new rank in the hierarchy of
heaven. We are driven then, at once, to the Divine institution as the
foundation of all legitimate power in the Church.
The Head of the Church established a _ministry_, with the right and
ability to execute all its appointed functions. It was not intellectual
eminence, or high station, or influence, wealth, courage, or any other
human attribute, which brought into being “the glorious company of the
apostles;” but it was the sovereign power alone of him “in whom dwelt
all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” And was this power to be
recalled on the demise of those who were every day doomed to stripes,
imprisonments, perils, and death in a thousand shapes? No; for either
the Church for the future must fail, the sacraments be obliterated, the
“watching for souls” be abolished, or the continuation of the sacred
ministry must be demanded with all its original spiritual functions. To
the apostles, therefore, was given, (_jure divino_,) and to them alone,
the ability to perpetuate or transmit the gift which the REDEEMER had
bestowed. From them the prerogatives of episcopacy (or apostolate) were
communicated to younger men, including the transmissive or ordaining
faculty. Under these, the elders and deacons were put in trust with a
share of the original grant of ministerial power,—a power they were
themselves incapable of delegating; and by an unbroken succession, in
the line of bishops, the Divine commission has reached these latter days
of the Church.
If then, as we have shown, _Divine right_ is the only foundation on
which the ministry can stand, there is no alternative left to any one
claiming office in the Church of GOD, but to vindicate the legality of
his mission by _miracle_, or some other tangible Divine verification,
which no man can dispute; or else to bring forth such credentials as
Timothy, Titus, and the ministers ordained by them had to show, viz. the
simple evidence of the fact that the apostles, or their successors, had
imparted to them the authority they claim to possess. This every bishop,
priest, and deacon, in the Catholic Church, is prepared to do.
JURISDICTION. The power and authority vested in a bishop, by virtue of
the apostolical commission, of governing and administering the laws of
the Church within the bounds of his diocese. The same term is used to
express the bounds within which a bishop exercises his power, i. e. his
diocese.
In the Saxon times, before the Norman Conquest, there was no distinction
of jurisdiction; but all matters, as well spiritual as temporal, were
determined in the county court, called the Sheriff’s Tourn, where the
bishop and earl (or in his absence the sheriff) sat together; or else in
the hundred court, which was held in like manner before the lord of the
hundred and ecclesiastical judge.
For the ecclesiastical officers took their limits of jurisdiction from a
like extent of the civil powers. Most of the old Saxon bishoprics were
of equal bounds with the distinct kingdoms. The archdeaconries, when
first settled into local districts, were commonly fitted to the
respective counties. And rural deaneries, before the Conquest, were
correspondent to the political tithings. Their spiritual courts were
held, with a like reference to the administration of civil justice. The
synods of each province and diocese were held at the discretion of the
metropolitan and the bishop, as great councils at the pleasure of the
prince. The visitations were first united to the civil inquisitions in
each county; and afterwards, when the courts of the earl and bishop were
separated, yet still the visitations were held like the sheriff’s
tourns, twice a year, and like them too after Easter and Michaelmas, and
still, with nearer likeness, the greater of them was at Easter. The
rural chapters were also held, like the inferior courts of the hundred,
every three weeks; then, and like them too, they were changed into
monthly, and at last into quarterly meetings. Nay, and a prime
visitation was held commonly, like the prime folemote or sheriff’s
tourn, on the very calends of May.
And accordingly Sir Henry Spelman observes, that the bishop and the earl
sat together in one court, and heard jointly the causes of Church and
commonwealth; as they yet do in parliament. And as the bishop had twice
in the year two general synods, wherein all the clergy of his diocese of
all sorts were bound to resort for matters concerning the Church; so
also there was twice in the year a general assembly of all the shire for
matters concerning the commonwealth, wherein, without exception, all
kinds of estates were required to be present, dukes, earls, barons, and
so downward of the laity; and especially the bishop of that diocese
among the clergy. For in those days the temporal lords did often sit in
synods with the bishops, and the bishops in like manner in the courts of
the temporality, and were therein not only necessary, but the principal
judges themselves. Thus by the laws of King Canute, “the shyre-gemot
(for so the Saxons called this assembly of the whole shire) shall be
kept twice a year, and oftener if need require, wherein the bishop and
the alderman of the shire shall be present, the one to teach the laws of
GOD, the other the laws of the land.” And among the laws of King Henry
I., it is ordained, “first, let the laws of true Christianity (which we
call the ecclesiastical) be fully executed with due satisfaction; then
let the pleas concerning the king be dealt with; and, lastly, those
between party and party: and whomsoever the Church synod shall find at
variance, let them either make accord between them in love, or sequester
them by their sentence of excommunication.” And the bishop first gave a
solemn charge to the people touching ecclesiastical matters, opening
unto them the rights and reverence of the Church, and their duty therein
towards GOD and the king, according to the word of GOD: then the
alderman in like manner related unto them the laws of the land, and
their duty towards GOD, the king, and commonwealth, according to the
rule and tenure thereof.
The separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal courts was made
by William the Conqueror: for upon the conquest made by the Normans, the
pope took the opportunity to usurp upon the liberties of the crown of
England; for the Conqueror came in with the pope’s banner, and under it
won the battle. Whereupon the pope sent two legates into England, with
whom the Conqueror called a synod, deposed Stigand, archbishop of
Canterbury, because he had not purchased his pall from Rome, and
displaced many bishops and abbots to make room for his Normans. This
admission of the pope’s legates first led the way to his usurped
jurisdiction in England; yet no decrees passed or were put in execution,
touching matters ecclesiastical, without the royal assent; nor would the
king submit himself in point of fealty to the pope, as appears by his
epistle to Gregory VII. Yet in his next successor’s time, namely, in the
time of King William Rufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop of
Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals to Rome, but did not prevail. Upon
this occasion it was, that the king said to Anselm, that none of his
bishops ought to be subject to the pope, but the pope himself ought to
be subject to the emperor; and that the king of England had the same
absolute liberty in his dominions, as the emperor had in the empire. Yet
in the time of the next king, King Henry I., the pope usurped the
patronage and donation of bishoprics, and of all other benefices
ecclesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the king, that the patronage
and investiture of bishops was not his right, because Pope Urban had
lately made a decree, that no lay person should give any ecclesiastical
benefice. And after this, at a synod held at London, in the year 1107, a
decree was made to which the king assented, that from thenceforth no
person should be invested in a bishopric by the giving of a ring and
pastoral staff (as had been before); nor by any lay hand. Upon which the
pope granted that the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being should
be for ever _legatus natus_: and Anselm for the honour of his see
obtained, that the archbishop of Canterbury should in all general
councils sit at the pope’s foot, as _alterius orbis papa_, or pope of
this part of the world. Yet after Anselm’s death, this same king gave
the archbishopric of Canterbury to Rodolph, bishop of London, and
invested him with the ring and pastoral staff; and this because the
succeeding popes had broken Pope Urban’s promise, touching the not
sending of legates into England unless the king should require it. And
in the time of the next king, King Stephen, the pope gained appeals to
the court of Rome; for in a synod at London, convened by Henry, bishop
of Winchester, the pope’s legate, it was decreed, that appeals should be
made from provincial councils to the pope: before which time appeals to
Rome were not in use. Thus did the pope usurp three main points of
jurisdiction, upon three several kings after the Conquest, (for of King
William Rufus he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the Conqueror, the
sending of the legates or commissioners to hear and determine
ecclesiastical causes; upon Henry I., the donation and investiture of
bishoprics and other benefices; and upon King Stephen, the appeals to
the court of Rome. And in the time of King Henry II., the pope claimed
exemption for clerks from the secular power. And finally, in the time of
King John, he took the crown from off the king’s head, and compelled him
to accept his kingdom from the pope’s donation. Nevertheless all this
was not obtained without violent struggle and opposition: and this
caused the statutes of provisors to be made, in the reigns of King
Edward III. and King Richard II. The limits of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction were finally settled by the statute of 24 Henry VIII. c.
12. Jurisdiction is also applied to the power vested in certain
dignitaries, as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathedrals; and in many,
when each individual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdiction.
JUSTIFICATION. (See _Faith_ and _Sanctification_.) Justification, in the
language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous
in the sight of GOD.—_Tomline._
A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England
and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the
difference between the two Churches on this point causes an essential
and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The
definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and
Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to
preclude, it might well be thought, all possibility of misapprehension.
As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the
definition runs in terms following:
“We are accounted righteous before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD
and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, by faith; and not for our own works or
deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most
wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is
expressed in the homily of justification.
“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after
justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of GOD’S
judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST, and do
spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by
them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned
by the fruit.
“Works done before the grace of CHRIST and the inspiration of his
SPIRIT, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith
in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as
the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for
that they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done,
we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”
The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of _The
Homily of Justification_, is styled, in the first Book of Homilies
itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only CHRIST our
SAVIOUR, from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described
as more largely expressing the doctrine of justification than the
necessary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the
statement contained in it challenges our especial attention.
“Because all men be sinners and offenders against GOD, and breakers of
his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words,
and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous
before GOD: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for
another righteousness of justification, to be received at GOD’S own
hands; that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in
such things as he hath offended. And this justification or
righteousness, which we so receive of GOD’S mercy and CHRIST’S merits,
embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of GOD, for our
perfect and full justification.
“The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in
our justification: upon GOD’S part, his great mercy and grace; upon
CHRIST’S part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD’S justice, or
the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of
his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and,
upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of JESUS CHRIST,
which yet is not ours but by GOD’S working in us. So that, in our
justification, there is not only GOD’S mercy and grace, but also his
justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of GOD: and it
consisteth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the
grace of GOD doth not shut out the justice of GOD in our justification,
but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of
our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore
St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his
justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, nevertheless, is
the gift of GOD, and not man’s only work without GOD. And yet that faith
doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to
be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth
them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all
present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not
altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works,
necessarily to be done afterwards of duty toward GOD; for we are most
bounden to serve GOD, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy
Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we
may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For
all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not
able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come
freely, by the mere mercy of GOD, and of so great and free mercy, that,
whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward
their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy,
without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious
jewels of CHRIST’S body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully
paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that CHRIST
is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He,
for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the
law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian
man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their
infirmity lacked, CHRIST’S justice hath supplied.
“That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do
read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary,
Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St.
Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm,
and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, this sentence,
that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the
said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope,
charity, dread, and the fear of GOD, at any time and season. Nor, when
they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we
should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required
on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without
good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying,
that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is
spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable
to deserve our justification at GOD’S hands, and thereby most plainly to
express the weakness of man and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity
of ourselves and the might and power of GOD, the imperfection of our own
works and the most abundant grace of our SAVIOUR CHRIST; and therefore
wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto
CHRIST only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy
Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the
Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of CHRIST’S
Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true
glory of CHRIST, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever
denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a
setter-forth of CHRIST’S glory, but for an adversary to CHRIST and his
gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.”
The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of
Trent. The exposition of the Tridentine fathers, assembled in their
sixth session, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its
verboseness, and so perplexing is its incessant alternation, that we
might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in
respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given
us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix
theologising.
Omitting, then, the discussion upon which their definition is built, we
will proceed immediately to the definition itself.
“Since JESUS CHRIST, as the head into the members and as the vine into
the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified;
which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good
works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to GOD and
meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the
justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that
they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by
those works which are performed in GOD; and that, in their own time,
provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of
eternal life.
“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our
own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of GOD
either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness,
because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is
the righteousness of GOD, because it is infused into us by GOD through
the merit of CHRIST.
“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust
or glory in himself and not in the LORD; whose goodness to all men is so
great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as
their merits.”
This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension.
Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by
any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of
faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations
is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.
On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are
required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is
justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which
quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them
who are born of GOD; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth
such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man,
being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of
reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural
functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable
and gracious in the sight of GOD, in regard whereof it is termed Grace;
that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and
pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of CHRIST, we are
delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the
reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to
the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so
the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they
make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the
soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the
augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made
meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their
divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second
justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so
it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by
mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to
repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of
grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many
ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through
baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh
away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to
infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism,
without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both
actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or
temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first
justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied
further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the
second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more
increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it
by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings,
papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace
decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by
the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force
to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it
hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth
out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment
eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve,
if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses,
works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened
by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away.
This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth
cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to
justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification,
they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it
‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our
souls are ours, though we have them from GOD, and can hold them no
longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our
nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be
found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be
justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching
justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of CHRIST: and,
by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she
teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny
it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not:
only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the
righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the
_right of inheriting_: by the other, we are brought to the actual
possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting
life.’”
The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few
words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent
righteousness, which, though originally a gift of GOD, as are his soul
and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.
The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other
Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an
extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of
CHRIST; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates
it, and which itself is the gift of GOD, being forensically imputed to
him of GOD, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not;
so that he is justified _through_ faith, though not _on account of_
faith; the sole particular, _on account of_ which he is justified, being
the merit and perfect righteousness of our LORD and only SAVIOUR JESUS
CHRIST.”
Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to
Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here
given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two
schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman
Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church
denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the
doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent
righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine;
admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is
always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing
to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.”
The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith
alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification:
the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith
alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the
grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the
procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory
hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification,
and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”
It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification
as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be
denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a _peculiarity_ of
the Calvinistic system.
Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in
the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was
using this doctrine, as _the_ doctrine by which to lay low the whole
fabric of Romish superstition.
Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly
stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has
triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were
not Calvinists.
If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic
justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology
of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader
peruse with attention the following passage from his sermon on
justification.
“In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousness set down, both
in the Old and in the New Testament.
“In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousness is named in
the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for
righteousness.’ A righteousness accounted. And again, in the very next
line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do
righteousness.’ A righteousness done. In the New likewise. The former,
in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven
times, _Reputatum est illi ad justitiam_. A reputed righteousness. The
latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth
righteousness is righteous.’ A righteousness done. Which is nothing else
but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these,
the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the
other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in
philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the
judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or
infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are,
there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here
principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of
by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we
shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us,
in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set
down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet
to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne,
there to do judgment, the righteousness that will stand against the law,
our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of
darkness; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death,
despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and
happiness eternal; that is righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for,
if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and
therefore that is the true interpretation of _Jehovah justitia nostra_.
Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have
occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, _Cum Rex justus sederit
in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum?_—look how they
interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name;
and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this
name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the HOLY
GHOST would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent
before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we
speak of this righteousness, it is plain two ways. 1. By way of
position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all
along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before
us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the
Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The
terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the LORD that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison:
Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the
bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s
charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witness:
‘Our conscience bearing witness.’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed
be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and
again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all
may be ὑπόδικοι, ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before GOD.’ Yea, the very
delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the
name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety
made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things
which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part
this is still expressed, what speak they but that the sense of this name
cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousness is in
question, except we still have before our eyes this same _coram rege
justo judicium faciente_.”—_Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in
Christ’s Name._ See also _Barrow’s Sermon on Justification_. _Waterland
on Justification._ _Heurtley on Justification._ _Stanley Faber on
Justification._
KEYS, POWER OF THE. The authority existing in the Christian priesthood
of administering the discipline of the Church, and communicating or
withholding its privileges; so called from the declaration of CHRIST to
St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 19,) “And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be
bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven.” The power here promised was afterwards conferred on
St. Peter and the other apostles, when the SAVIOUR breathed on them and
said, “Receive ye the HOLY GHOST. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
(Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23.)
The power of the keys is only a ministerial power. By administering the
sacraments, they who have that power do that which conveys grace to
certain souls. But whose souls are these? The souls of faithful and
repentant men. They who are qualified will receive the outward ordinance
which conveys to them the pardon they require: but, to those who are not
qualified by repentance and faith, no blessing can be conveyed; the
blessing of the minister will return to him again.
The power of the keys must likewise refer to the authority of spiritual
rulers to “bind” their people by some ordinances, and to “loose” them
from others, when they have been abused, always excepting the two
sacraments of the gospel, baptism and the eucharist, which, instituted
by our LORD himself, are always binding. When the bishops of a Church
bind their people by an ordinance, their act is ratified in heaven: and
they who seek grace through that ordinance, receive it. Whereas, if they
loose us from an ordinance, as from many ordinances we were loosed at
the Reformation, this act again is ratified in heaven, and to observe
that ordinance becomes superstition, not religion.
Upon Peter’s confession, that JESUS was “the CHRIST, the SON of the
living GOD,” 1. He promiseth to build his Church upon the rock of that
truth, and the rock confessed in it; 2. He promiseth “the keys of the
kingdom of heaven” to Peter only, of all the apostles; meaning thereby,
that he should be the man that should first unlock the door of faith and
of the gospel unto the Gentiles, which was accomplished in Acts x. And,
3. He giveth him power of “binding and loosing,” and this power the
other disciples had in common with him. “Binding and loosing,” in the
language and style most familiarly known to the Jewish nation, (and it
can be little doubted that CHRIST speaketh according to the common and
most familiar sense of the language,) did refer more properly to things
than to persons; therefore he saith, (Matt. xvi. 19,) ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς, not
ὃν; and in Matt. xviii. 18, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε, not ὃσους. The phrase, “to
bind and to loose,” in their vulgar speech, meant, to prohibit and to
permit; or, to teach what is prohibited or permitted, what lawful, what
unlawful; as may appear by these instances—a few produced, whereas
thousands may be alleged out of their writings. “Our wise men say that
in Judah they did work on the Passover eve till noon, but in Galilee not
at all; and as for the night, the school of Shammai _bound_ it, that is,
forbade to work on it, or taught that it was unlawful; but the school of
Hillel _loosed_ it till sunrising, or taught that it was lawful to work
till sunrise.” They are speaking about washing in the baths of Tiberias
on the sabbath, and they determine how far this was lawful in these
words, “They _bound_ washing to them, but they _loosed_ sweating;”
meaning, they taught that it was lawful to go into the bath to sweat,
but not to bathe for pleasure. “They send not letters by the hand of a
Gentile on the eve of the sabbath, nor on the fifth day of the week.
Nay, on the fourth day of the week, the school of Shammai _bound_ it,
but the school of Hillel _loosed_ it.” “Women may not look in a
looking-glass on the sabbath; but if it were fastened upon a wall, Rabbi
_loosed_ the looking into it; but the wise man _bound_ it.” “R. Jochanan
went from Tsipporis to Tiberias; he saith, ‘Why brought ye me to this
elder? for what I _loose_, he _bindeth_; and what I _bind_, he
_looseth_.’” “The scribes have _bound_ leaven;” that is, they have
prohibited it. “They have, upon necessity, _loosed_ salutation on the
sabbath;” that is, they have permitted it, or taught that it was lawful.
Thousands of instances of this nature might be produced, by all which it
is clear that the Jews’ use of the phrase was of their doctors’ or
learned men’s teaching what was _lawful_ and permitted, and what was
_unlawful_ and prohibited. Hence is that definition of such men’s office
and work: “A wise man that judgeth judgment, and maketh unclean and
maketh clean, _bindeth_ and _looseth_, that is, teacheth what is clean
and unclean, what is permitted or prohibited.” And Maimonides, giving
the relation of their ordaining of elders, and to what several
employments they were ordained, saith thus, “A wise man that is fit to
teach all the law, the consistory had power to ordain him to judge, but
not to teach _bound_ and _loose_: or power to teach _bound_ and _loose_,
but not a judge in pecuniary matters; or power to both these, but not to
judge in matters of mulct,” &c. So that the ordination of one to that
function,—which was more properly ministerial, or to teach the people
their duty, as, what was lawful, what not; what they were to do, and
what not to do,—was to such a purpose, or to such a tenor as this, “Take
thou the power to _bind_ and _loose_, or to teach what is bound and
loose.” By this vulgar and only sense of this phrase in the nation, the
meaning of CHRIST using it thus to his disciples is easily understood,
namely, that he first doth instate them in a ministerial capacity to
teach what bound and loose, what to be done and what not; and this as
ministers: and thus all ministers successively, to the end of the world.
But, as they were apostles, of that singular and unparalleled order as
the like were never in the Church again, he gives them power to “bind
and loose” in a degree above all ministers that were to follow: namely,
that whereas some part of Moses’s law was now to stand in practice, and
some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited, were now to
be permitted; and some things, then permitted, to be now prohibited, he
promiseth the apostles such assistance of his SPIRIT, and giveth them
such power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand,
and what to fall, should fall; “what they bound in earth should be bound
in heaven,” &c.—_Lightfoot._
There is one thing still behind, which we must by no means omit,
especially upon this occasion, and that is, the power of governing the
Church which our LORD left with his apostles and their successors to the
end of the world; but so that he, according to his promise, is always
present with them at the execution of it. For this power is granted to
them in the very charter to which this promise is annexed; for here our
LORD gives them commission not only to baptize, but likewise to teach
those who are his disciples, to observe whatsoever he had commanded.
Whereby they are empowered both to declare what are those commands of
CHRIST which men ought to observe, and also to use all means to prevail
upon men to observe them; such as in correcting or punishing those who
violate, rewarding and encouraging those who keep them. But our
SAVIOUR’S kingdom being, as himself saith, not of this world, but purely
spiritual, he hath authorized his substitutes in the government of it to
use rewards and punishments of the same nature; even to admonish
delinquents in his name to forsake their sins; and if they continue
obstinate, and neglect such admonitions, to excommunicate, or cast them
out of his Church; and, upon their repentance, to absolve and receive
them in again. This power our SAVIOUR first promised to St. Peter, and
in him to the rest of the apostles. But it was not actually conferred
upon them till after his resurrection, when, having breathed on them, he
said unto them, “Receive the HOLY GHOST: whose soever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.” As if he should have said, “I, the SON of man, having power
upon earth also to forgive sins, do now commit the same to you; so that
whose sins soever are remitted or retained by you, are so by me also.”
From whence it is plain, both that the apostles received power to remit
and retain sins, and that CHRIST himself concurs with them in the
exercise of that power; and how he doth it, even by his HOLY SPIRIT now
breathed into them. To explain the full extent and latitude of this
power would require more time than can be allowed upon this day, whereon
it is to be exercised; and therefore I shall observe only two things
concerning it, whereof the first is, that how great soever the power be
which our LORD committed to his apostles and their successors for the
government of his Church in all ages, it is but ministerial; they act
only under him as his ministers and stewards, and must one day give an
account to him of all their actions. Yea, whatsoever power they have of
this nature, it is still his power in their hands; they derive it
continually from him, who is always present with them. And, therefore,
as they themselves need to have a care how they exert this power, or
neglect the exerting of it, so others had need take care, too, that they
neither resist nor despise it.—_Beveridge._
Bishop Jeremy Taylor expresses, with great clearness, the primitive
doctrine on this subject: “The same promise of binding and loosing
(which certainly was all that the keys were given for) was made
afterwards to all the apostles, (Matt. xviii.,) and the power of
remitting and retaining, which in reason, and according to the style of
the Church, is the same thing in other words, was actually given to all
the apostles; and unless that was the performing the first and second
promise, we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when, or whether
yet or no, the promise be performed.” And again: “If the keys were only
given and so promised to St. Peter, that the Church hath not the keys,
then the Church can neither bind nor loose, remit nor retain, which God
forbid: if any man should endeavour to answer this argument, I leave him
and St. Austin to contest it.”
The apostles knew nothing of any different power conveyed to one of
their number beyond what was common to him with the rest, as we may
reasonably conclude, since there is no record of any authority exercised
on the one side, or of obedience rendered on the other.
The proposed distinction is, indeed, utterly untenable, and the whole
testimony of antiquity is against it; yet it is maintained by some of
the chief Roman commentators. Maldonat, for instance, who is one of the
best known and most popular, in his exposition of this place, declares
the keys to have been given to Peter, that is, the power of binding and
loosing, of opening and shutting, in subordination to CHRIST alone,
while the rest of the apostles received only an inferior jurisdiction.
For this interpretation he advances no proof at all, except the mention
of the keys in the address to Peter, and the omission in what was spoken
to the rest, which he pronounces an irrefragable argument; and on the
foundation of this alleged separate gift to Peter he builds the right of
jurisdiction for his successors, extending to the supreme decision of
spiritual causes on earth, and the regulating the condition of souls in
purgatory. Cornelius Van den Steen, or à Lapide, as he is usually
called, seems to have followed the interpretation of Maldonat, and says,
that by the keys is signified the power of order and jurisdiction
granted to Peter over the whole Church; and that CHRIST explains his
meaning in the words which follow. He falls into the fallacy of
representing the term “rock” as conveying the notion of government; and
then, as if this were an unquestionably accurate representation, he goes
on to blend figures which have nothing in common, and assumes that in
this way the supreme power of the pope is adequately proved. Like his
predecessor, he vindicates the most unlimited exercise of it, whether in
enforcing obedience, or in granting dispensations, in enacting
ecclesiastical laws, pronouncing excommunications and other censures,
delivering decisions on questions of faith, with other acts which fall
under the head of binding, or those of an opposite character, which
belong to the power of loosing. In order to dispose of the difficult
fact that Christ is recorded to have given the same power of binding and
loosing to others as well, he affirms that Peter was first singled out,
to signify that the rest of the apostles were committed to his care as
his subjects, and that he was empowered to control, limit, or take away
their jurisdictions as he should see fit; though it is clear both that
the apostles exercised, in point of fact, the highest Church discipline,
and that there is not a word which implies their having done so by
delegation. He very characteristically confirms his exposition by a
synodical letter, which the great Roman annalist had given up as
spurious some years before.
Both these writers were theologians of the highest repute, the one
professor at Paris, the other at Louvain. They may be fairly taken to
express the judgment of the party at present dominant in the Roman
Church. Nothing can be more extravagant than their interpretations, or
more feebly supported by proofs; yet they are indispensable to the
position of the ultramontanes. This extreme doctrine, revived by the
Jesuits, for it was invented a century earlier, has no pretence of
confirmation from any of the primitive expositors of Scripture. They
declare, with one voice, that the keys were given to the Church in the
person of Peter. In the words of Ambrose, “what is said to Peter, is
said to the apostles.” Cyprian and Origen, Jerome and Basil, are of one
mind on this point. The statement of Augustine, repeated in a multitude
of places, is as clear as possible that the Church received the power of
the keys, and not an individual apostle. The Fathers were not writing
with any view to the present controversy; and many of their expressions,
taken separately, would give a very untrue representation of their
meaning, by making them maintain opinions which, in their time, had not
been even suggested. Thus Cyprian, in his treatise on the unity of the
Church, applies the disputed texts to Peter; but then he speaks of him
as the type of unity, the representative of a great principle; and to
guard his meaning against perversion, he states, in the plainest terms,
that the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, and had equal
participation of honour and authority. So the Fathers continually speak
of him as figuring the oneness of the Church universal. They exalt his
chair, but they are careful to explain that they are speaking, not of an
individual bishop possessing supreme authority, which was the farthest
from their thoughts, but of that one undivided episcopacy, to use
Cyprian’s well-known words, of which every bishop possesses a portion.
Dupin affirms that the Fathers are unanimous in assigning ecclesiastical
power, either to the Church generally, or to the apostles, and, after
them, to bishops; that there is not one to be found who holds it to have
been given to Peter and his successors alone; and that they have guarded
against any wrong inference which might be drawn from the promise given
to Peter, by showing that he was regarded as the representative of the
Church. He furnishes some authorities on this subject, not only from the
early Fathers, but from popes, great bishops of the Roman Church,
scholastic writers, and universities; and he adds, that the number of
passages which might be adduced is infinite. The same great writer
states strongly the importance of the question: for if, as he says, the
power of the keys belongs to the pope alone, there can be no doubt that
he has authority over the whole Church; since, upon this hypothesis,
neither the Church nor its prelates can have any other power than such
as they derive from him.
In the Council of Paris, held in the eighth century, under the emperors
Louis and Lothaire, the bishops expressly claimed this power of binding
and loosing, without any reference to the successor of St. Peter. The
Council of Constance, in its fourth session, declared, in the strongest
language, that the Church has its jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST;
and this judgment was embodied in acts of the highest significancy and
importance. The Council of Basle, in its first session, passed a decree
in exactly the same spirit, and almost in the very same words. Æneas
Sylvius, the historian of the council, and afterwards Pius II.,
expressly vindicates the text in question from the interpretation which
favours the pontifical authority. So Cardinal de Cusa, writing at the
same period, claims for the other apostles the very same power of
binding and loosing which was conveyed to Peter by the words of CHRIST.
And John Gerson refers to this very place, in maintaining the
superiority of a council to a pope. Even in the Council of Trent, we
find the Cardinal of Lorraine speaking to the same effect; and though he
may be worthless as a theologian, he is valuable as a witness. He
alleged various passages, from Augustine and others, in proof that
bishops derive their jurisdiction immediately from GOD. And, indeed, the
whole argument of the French and Spanish prelates in favour of the
divine right of episcopacy was based on the very interpretation of our
LORD’S words which the Jesuit school condemns.
The canonists bear the same testimony. Thus Van Espen, and there are few
higher authorities, delivers it as the doctrine of the Fathers on this
subject, that, while CHRIST spoke to Peter in the singular, he made
conveyance of the powers in question to all the apostles. Duaren speaks
to the same effect. He affirms that the power of binding and loosing was
given to the Church, and not to an individual.
Some even of the Roman commentators give a similar interpretation. Thus
Nicholas de Lyra says that, as the confession of Peter was the
confession of the rest, so the power given to him was bestowed on all.
D’Espence and many others give the same exposition.
The severe rebuke administered to Peter, following so closely upon his
confession, puts another difficulty in the way of those who insist on
his great personal prerogatives. Gregory de Valentia proposes, as a rule
of interpretation, that some things are to be taken as addressed to
Peter in his public, and some in his private, character. Thus he
supposes him to have been called the Rock in the former, and Satan in
the latter; but this distinction is arbitrary, and obviously invented to
serve a purpose. We shall not be more disposed to adopt the opinion of
Hilary, who would have us consider the one part of the sentence
addressed to Peter, the other to the evil spirit. But while, with the
great body of ancient doctors, we admit the sin, we may well believe
that GOD in his wisdom overruled it for good, by making it a warning
that we should not think even of this eminent apostle more highly than
we ought to think.—_S. Robins._
KINDRED. (See _Consanguinity_.)
KING’S EVIL. This disease is connected with the ecclesiastical history
of England by the power to cure it, which was for many centuries
attributed to the kings of England, and which was, from the time of
Edward the Confessor, held to be exercised as a part of the religion
attached to the person of the king. The cure, too, was always
accompanied by a religious service.
The kings of France also claimed the gift of healing, (but upon no other
occasions than at their coronation,) and the ceremony was used at the
coronation of Charles X., at Rheims. George I. made no pretensions to
this gift, and it has never been claimed by his successors.
Bishop Bull says, “that divers persons desperately labouring under the
king’s evil, have been cured by the mere touch of the royal hands,
assisted with the prayers of the priests of our Church attending, is
unquestionable, unless the faith of all our ancient writers, and the
consentient report of hundreds of most credible persons in our own age,
attesting the same, is to be questioned.”—_Sermon on St. Paul’s Thorn in
the Flesh._
In January, 1683, a proclamation was issued by the privy-council, and
was ordered to be published in every parish in the kingdom, enjoining
that the time for presenting persons for the “public healings” should be
from the feast of All-saints, till a week before Christmas; and after
Christmas until the first day of March, and then to cease till Passion
week.
The office for the ceremony was called “_The Ceremonies_,” or “_Prayers
for the Healing_.” The Latin form was used in the time of Henry VII.,
and was reprinted by the king’s printer in 1686. The English forms were
essentially the same, with some modifications. These occur in the Common
Prayer Books of the reigns of Charles I., Charles II., James II., and
Anne (and, as it appears from Mr. Stephens’s own statement, in that of
George I., in 1715). They all vary; and a new one appears to have been
drawn up for each sovereign, so late as 1719. (See _Pegge’s Curialia
Miscellanea_, 161; taken from a folio Prayer Book, 1710. Also Kennet’s
Register, 731, and Sparrow’s Articles, 165, which latter form seems to
have been used in the reign of Charles I.) In Mr. Stephens’s editions of
the Common Prayer Book, from which the foregoing article has been
abridged, the Latin form is given, (i. 997,) and the English form in
1715 (1002).
The following is the form in _Sparrow’s Collections_, printed in 1684.
AT THE HEALING.
_The Gospel written in the 16th chapter of St. Mark, beginning at the
14th verse._
JESUS appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and cast in their
teeth their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not
them which had seen that he was risen again from the dead. And he said
unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all
creatures: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned. And these tokens shall follow them
that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak
with new tongues, they shall drive away serpents, and if they drink any
deadly thing it shall not hurt them. [6]_They shall lay their hands on
the sick, and they shall recover._ So when the LORD had spoken unto
them, he was received into heaven, and is on the right hand of GOD. And
they went forth, and preached everywhere, the LORD working with them,
and confirming the word with miracles following.
_The Gospel written in the 1st chapter of St. John, beginning at the 1st
verse._
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word
was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by
it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and
the life was the light of men, and the light shined in the darkness, and
the darkness comprehended it not. There was sent from _God_ a man whose
name was JOHN. The same came as a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was
sent to bear witness of the Light. [7]_That Light was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world._ He was in the
world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He
came among his own, and his own received him not. But as many as
received him, to them gave he power to be made sons of GOD, even them
that believed on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor yet of the will of man, but of GOD. And the same
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw the glory of it, as
the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and
truth.
THE PRAYERS.
_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._
_Vers._ Christ have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Christ have mercy upon us._
_Vers._ Lord have mercy upon us.
_Resp._ _Lord have mercy upon us._
Our Father which art in Heaven. Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day
our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them
that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver
us from evil. Amen.
(_These Answers are to be made by them that come to be healed._)
_Vers._ O LORD, save thy servants.
_Resp._ _Which put their trust in thee._
_Vers._ Send help unto them from above.
_Resp._ _And evermore mightily defend them._
_Vers._ Help us, O GOD our Saviour.
_Resp._ _And for the glory of thy Name deliver us; be merciful unto us
sinners for thy Name’s sake._
_Vers._ O LORD, hear our prayer.
_Resp._ _And let our cry come unto thee._
O Almighty God, who art the giver of all health, and the aid of them
that seek to Thee for succour, we call upon Thee for thy help and
goodness mercifully to be showed unto these thy servants, that they
being healed of their infirmity, may give thanks unto thee in thy holy
Church, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.
The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love of GOD, and the
fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with us all evermore. Amen.
The same form appears at the end of _L’Estrange’s Alliance of the Divine
Offices_, 1699. It seems that in some of Queen Anne’s Prayer Books, (not
in 1715, as stated by Mr. Stephens,) the form was altered, by the
omission of the second Gospel, and the addition of certain prayers.
There seems to be little doubt that, by the mere force of imagination, a
cure was not unfrequently occasioned.
KINGS, BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called,
because they contain the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, from
the beginning of the reign of Solomon down to the Babylonish captivity,
for the space of near 600 years; taking into the account the two
preceding Books of Samuel. In the Greek Bibles, as well as in the Latin,
the two Books of Samuel are called the First and Second Books of Kings;
so that in these copies of the Bible there are four Books of Kings.
Anciently these four were but two in the Hebrew Bibles, the first
whereof was called Samuel, and the second Kings, or Kingdoms: but at
present, in the Hebrew copies, the first of these books is styled the
First and Second Book of Samuel; and the other, the First and Second of
Kings, as in our English version of the Bible.
It is probable that the two Books of Kings were composed by Ezra, who
extracted them out of the public records which were kept of what passed
in that nation.
KIRK OF SCOTLAND. (See _Presbyterians_.) The Kirk of Scotland
acknowledges as its founder the celebrated John Knox, a disciple of
Calvin. From its foundation, it adopted the doctrine and ecclesiastical
government of the Church of Geneva. In 1581, King James, with his whole
family and the whole nation, subscribed a confession of faith, with a
solemn league and covenant, obliging themselves to maintain and defend
the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government. The title of this
confession is, “A General Confession of the true Christian Faith and
Religion, according to GOD’S Word, and Acts of our Parliament,
subscribed by the King’s Majestic and his Household; with sundrie
others. To the glory of GOD, and good example of all men. At Edinburgh,
the 28th day of Januarie. The year of our LORD 1581. And in the 14th
year of his Majestie’s reign.” (See _Confessions of Faith_.)
KISS OF PEACE. (See _Pax_.) This form of salutation, as a token of
Christian affection, appears to have been an apostolic custom. (Rom.
xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14.)
It was one of the rites of the eucharistic service in the primitive
Church. It was omitted on Good Friday in remembrance of the traitorous
kiss of Judas Iscariot.—_Augusti._
KNEELING. The posture which the Church prescribes in prayer, acts of
confession, &c.
The practice of kneeling in confession, in prayer, and in adoration, is
of great antiquity; a reference to it being apparently made in Isaac’s
blessing on Jacob, (Gen. xxvii. 29,)—compared with his brother’s
subsequent conduct, (xlii. 6,) and with the edict of Pharaoh, “Bow the
knee” (xli. 43); and again in the second commandment. (Exod. xx. 5.)
David says, “Let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the “LORD
our Maker.”” (Ps. xcv. 6.) “We will go into his tabernacle, and fall low
on our knees before his footstool.” (cxxxii. 7.) Solomon “kneeled on his
knees” before the altar of the LORD, with his hands spread up to heaven.
(1 Kings viii. 54.) Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands
unto GOD, and made his confession. (Ezra ix. 5–15.) Daniel “kneeled upon
his knees three times a day,” and prayed “as he did aforetime.” (Dan.
vi. 10.) The holy martyr Stephen “kneeled down, and cried with a loud
voice,” praying for his murderers. (Acts vii. 60.) So Peter “kneeled
down, and prayed,” (Acts ix. 40,) and also St. Paul. (Acts xx. 36; xxi.
5.)
That the posture was a customary one may be inferred from the conduct of
the man beseeching CHRIST to heal his son, (Matt. xvii. 14,) and of the
rich young man, (Mark x. 17,) as also of the leper (Mark i. 40); but the
example of our blessed LORD himself, who, though without sin, yet
“kneeled down” when he prayed, (Luke xxii. 41,) cannot but recommend the
practice to every devout worshipper. Some of the early Christians so
frequently used this posture of humility, as visibly to wear away the
floor on which they kneeled; and Eusebius says of St. James the Just,
that he had, by the continual exercise of his devotions, contracted a
hardness on his knees, like that on the knees of camels. The practice
was altogether so common, that prayer itself was termed κλίσις
γονάτων—“bending the knees.” It is to be noticed, however, that the
primitive Christians, out of a peculiar regard for the LORD’S day, and
the joyful season between Easter and Whitsuntide, did (with the
exception of the penitents, who were denied this privilege) then perform
their whole devotions _standing_, instead of kneeling: and this custom
was confirmed by the Council of Nice, for the sake of uniformity. It was
from this circumstance, probably, that the Ethiopic and Muscovitish
Churches adopted the attitude of standing, generally, a custom which
they continue to this day.
Bingham remarks (book xiii. 8. 4) that though these two postures of
prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always
esteemed an instance of great negligence, or great perverseness, to
interchange them unseasonably one for the other, that is, to pray
kneeling on the LORD’S day, when the Church required standing; or
standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the Church required
men to kneel. And therefore, as the Canons of Nice and of the Council
_in Trullo_ reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon
kneeling on the LORD’S day, so others with equal severity complain of
the remissness and negligence of such as refused to kneel at other
times, when the Church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular
thing, says Cæsarius of Arles, that when the deacon cries out, “Let us
bend the knee,” the people should then stand erect as pillars in the
Church. These were but small observations in themselves, but of great
consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder
of the Church, whose great rule in all such cases is that of the
apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
In the whole of the primitive religious service there is not any
circumstance _casual_; every particular, every gesture, is
_instructive_. In the presence of GOD man fell upon his face to the
ground; and, by that act, humbly confessed his _original_: hence _bowing
to the ground_ is the formal _word_ for _worshipping_, which it was high
treason to practise toward any idol. And when, from that posture, man
raised himself to praise and to bless GOD, he raised himself no further
than the knee, still so far retaining the posture of humility; and from
this posture the _word_ to signify _blessing_ is taken. As bowing to the
ground is used to signify worshipping, _kneeling_ is used to signify
_blessing_.—_Forbes’ Thoughts on Religion._
_Posture of body_ is a thing which, how slight soever it may now be
thought to be, yet is not without its moment, if either Scripture, or
reason, or the practice of holy men, may be our judges. For if we ought
to _glorify God in our bodies_, as well as in our spirits; if we are
forbidden to bow down before a graven image, lest we should thereby be
thought by GOD to impart his honour to it; in fine, if our SAVIOUR
refused to fall down, and worship the devil, upon the account of GOD’S
challenging that honour unto himself; then must it be thought to be our
duty to make use of such a posture of body towards GOD, as may bespeak
our inward reverence, and particularly in prayer, which is one of the
most immediate acts of the glorification of him.—_Towerson on the
Creed._
St. Augustine says, “I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that
though these motions of the body be not made without a foregoing motion
of the mind, yet, again, by the outward and visible performance of them,
that more inward and invisible one, which caused them, is increased; and
so the affection of the heart, which was the cause of their being done,
is itself improved by the doing of them.”—_Aug. de Cura pro Mortuis._
In the morning and evening service, the minister or priest is directed
to kneel (with the people) at the Confession, LORD’S Prayer, and two
versicles which follow; the versicles after the Creed, (a lesser
Litany,) and the LORD’S Prayer following, and at the Collects. No
position is enjoined for the Litany; but universal custom prescribes
kneeling. In the Communion Service, the priest is to kneel only at the
general confession, at the prayer immediately following the Sanctus, and
when receiving the holy communion. The directions for the people are not
as explicit here as elsewhere; but they are directed to kneel in the
part before the sermon, with the following exceptions,—at the reading of
the Gospel (for the Epistle no posture is prescribed) and at the Creed.
After the sermon they are directed to kneel only at the confession, and
the reception of the communion.
KNELL. A bell tolled at funerals.
KORAH, SONGS OR PSALMS OF THE SONS OF. The “sons of Korah” formed one of
the three choirs of the temple, all Levites. They are sometimes called
Korhites, or Kohathites, being descended from Kohath, the second son of
Levi; Kohath’s grandson being Korah. Heman was the director of this
choir in the time of King David: but it seems not to have survived the
captivity, as the sons of Asaph are alone named by Nehemiah. Twelve
psalms are inscribed Psalms or Songs of the Sons of Korah; and are
supposed to have been specially performed by that choir, or composed by
some of its members. They are the forty-second to the forty-ninth,
eighty-fourth, eighty-fifth, eighty-seventh, and eighty-eighth.—_Jebb._
KYRIE ELEISON. The Greek of “LORD have mercy” upon us. This earnest and
pathetic appeal of the penitent heart has, from the apostolic age, been
freely incorporated into the liturgies of the Church. It is perpetually
repeated in the Greek liturgies; and in our own it is of frequent
occurrence: so frequent, indeed, that exceptions have sometimes been
taken to our forms, as tinctured with an overabundant sorrow and
self-abasement, for those who are called to be the sons of GOD. The
fault, however, is fortunately on the right side; and, as Bishop Sparrow
remarks, on the Kyrie between the commandments, if there be any that
think this might have been spared, as being fitter for poor publicans
than saints, let them turn to the parable of the publican and Pharisee
going up to the temple to pray, (Luke xviii.,) and here they shall
receive an answer. It generally precedes the LORD’S Prayer. In the
Litany, each of the three clauses is repeated severally by both minister
and people. In the First Book of King Edward VI., it was used at the
beginning of the Communion Service, and the figure iii. was prefixed to
each clause, to signify that each was to be preceded three times. The
Kyrie Eleison is generally called “_the Lesser Litany_.”
KYRIE, “O LORD,” (in Church music,) the vocative of the Greek word
signifying LORD, with which word all the musical masses in the Church of
Rome commence, that is, the above-mentioned _Kyrie Eleison_. Hence it
has come to be used substantively for the whole piece, as one may say,
_a beautiful Kyrie, a Kyrie well executed, &c._ It is sometimes applied
to the responses between the commandments in our Prayer Book.—_Jebb._
LABARUM. The celebrated imperial standard used by Constantine the Great.
Near the extremity of the shaft of a lance, sheathed in plates of gold,
was affixed, in a horizontal position, a small rod, so as to form the
exact figure of a cross. From this transverse little bar hung drooping a
small purple veil of the finest texture, interwoven with golden threads,
and starred with brilliant jewels. Above this rose the sacred monogram
of JESUS CHRIST encircled with a golden crown. Under this banner were
his victories gained. It was carried near the emperor, and defended
specially by the flower of his army. The etymology of the word is
utterly unknown.
LAITY, LAYMAN. The people (λαὸς) as distinguished from the clergy. This
distinction was derived from the Jewish Church, and adopted into the
Christian by the apostles themselves. Every one knows that the offices
of the priests and Levites among the Jews were distinct from those of
the people. And so it was among Christians from the first foundation of
the Church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they
were capable of being formed into a Church, a bishop or a presbyter,
with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius delivers
from the ancient histories of the Church.
Every true Christian Church is a body of men associated for religious
purposes, and composed of two distinct classes,—the clergy and the
laity: the clergy especially and divinely set apart for sacred offices;
the laity exercising the duties and receiving the privileges of
religion, in the midst of temporal occupations and secular affairs. But
the clergy are thus set apart, not for their own benefit only, but for
the benefit of the Church in general, of their lay brethren among the
rest; and the laity also are bound to employ their temporal
opportunities not for themselves exclusively, but for the Church in
general, and for their clerical brethren among the rest. They who
minister at the altar, minister for those who partake of the altar; and
they who partake of the altar are bound to support those who minister at
the altar; and this is one out of a thousand applications of the general
principles of communion, and of the reciprocal rights and privileges on
which it is founded.
Compacted by these reciprocal duties and privileges, but still more
truly and effectually by ordinances and sacraments, and by a divine and
mystical agency which animates all with one spirit, and sanctifies all
with one grace, clergy and laity together form but one body. The clergy
alone no more constitute the Church, either in a spiritual, in an
ecclesiastical, or in a political sense, than do the laity alone; and
the Church has no existence, no duties, no rights, no authority, except
as it is composed of both clergy and laity. It is because they forget
this that we continually hear persons speaking of the Church as it were
only an hierarchy. If regulations of any kind are proposed for the
prosperity of the Church, they start at the sound as if it meant the
aggrandizement of the clergy: if the Church is said to be in danger,
they only think of the fall of mitres and the impoverishing of
benefices. The real truth is, that the Church’s privilege and authority
belong to the whole body, whoever may be their immediate recipients and
executors; and whoever maintains them, whether he be lay or clerical,
maintains his own rights and his own patrimony.
And the part of the laity in the Church is no more purely political,
than the part of the clergy is purely spiritual. Nothing could be less
just than to deny to the laity a spiritual _character_, although they
are not appointed to spiritual _offices_. The sacraments which the
ministers distribute, and the laity partake with them, are spiritual;
the one (that is, holy baptism) originating, the other (that is, the
blessed eucharist) continuing a spiritual character in the recipients.
The minister offers up spiritual lauds and prayers for his flock. Even
external discipline has a spiritual object, and would be both absurd and
unjust, if exercised over those who are not members of the Church
spiritual as well as visible. And, finally and principally, the ever
blessed fountain and stream of a true spiritual character, without whom
no external sacrament or rite can be to any purpose, even the HOLY
GHOST, is purchased by CHRIST for his whole Church; and sent from HIM
and from the FATHER, not exclusively upon any order of men, but upon
all, from the highest order of the clergy to the least and lowest of the
laity who maintain their spiritual character. As the precious unguent
poured upon Aaron’s head, flowed not only over his own beard, but even
to the skirts of his clothing; so does that spiritual stream of a holy
character flow from the Head of the Church, not on those only whose
_office_ is _sacred_, but on those also whose _character_ is
_sanctified_; not only upon those whose part it is to govern, but on
those also who must obey in spiritual things. And so it is that the
mystical temple of CHRIST “groweth together in CHRIST, which is the
Head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by
that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in
the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”
And this is, indeed, the right clue to the interpretation of those
passages of Scripture in which all CHRIST’S people are designated as
priests, and which have been perverted into an authority for the
exercise of clerical functions by the laity. It is the spiritual
_character_, not the spiritual _office_, of every Christian, of which
St. Peter speaks, when he says, “Ye also, as living stones, are built
up, _a spiritual house, an holy priesthood_, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices unto GOD by JESUS CHRIST.” And again, “Ye are a chosen
generation, _a royal priesthood, a holy nation_, a peculiar people.” So
also when St. John says, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our
sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings _and priests_ unto GOD the
FATHER, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever:” and when Moses
declares of the Israelites, as they typified the Christian Church, “Ye
shall be unto me _a kingdom of priests_, and a _holy nation_:” they
convey an assurance to us, not of the priestly office, but of the
spiritual character and privileges of every member of the Church of
CHRIST.
And it is as partaking in this spiritual character with them that the
laity share with the clergy in many other things. They have the same
privilege of the Christian altar, and for their children the same
privilege of the Christian font: the promises of GOD to them are the
same; and spiritual benefits, both present and future, clergy and laity
share together: their duties are almost all of them in common, varying
principally in the external manner in which they are to be performed:
and even where there is the most apparent exclusion of the laity from
the ceremonial, they are by no means excluded from the authority which
sanctions the ceremonial. It would be most wicked and presumptuous for a
layman to take on himself the ordination of another, or the consecration
of the eucharist; but it would be nothing short of heresy, though a new
heresy, to deny that the bishop and the priest perform these acts with
that authority which is vested in the Church, as a society of faithful
men, lay as well as clerical. It is in the name, not of the clergy, but
of the Church, that the bishop confirms and ordains; that the minister
pronounces absolution and a blessing; that discipline is enforced, and
penitents are restored: and in all these cases the minister is the
representative and instrument, not of the clergy, nor of his individual
bishop, but of the Church at large. But it is not only in the authority
and privileges of the Church, but in its responsibility also, that the
laity are included. If a Church fall into heresy, or error of doctrine
or of practice, though the hierarchy may be the chief instigators and
movers of such error, yet the laity, still maintaining their communion,
are necessarily involved in their sin. And so, on the other hand, if the
laity fall into spiritual error, the clergy also are responsible, and
involved in the sin. It mattered not whether it were the heresy of the
Nicolaitanes, or the religious indifference of the body of a Church
which had left its first love: the candlestick was removed, not from the
clergy only in the one case, nor from the laity only in the other, but
all were swept away together. The laity among the Arians were not
excused because they left the Catholic faith in company with their
bishops; nor were those of the clergy, who, in latter days, cast off
episcopal authority because of the clamours of the people, thus
justified. GOD only can precisely judge of the degree of sin in parties
thus situated; but as a point of sound theory in religion and theology,
the clergy are concerned in the errors of their flocks; the laity are
involved in the heresies and schisms, and other ecclesiastical crimes,
of their bishops and pastors.
This mutual responsibility of clergy and laity would result even from
the principles of a civil polity, of the nature of which the Church, as
a society, necessarily partakes: but they follow still more manifestly
among the consequences of her spiritual union; and are plainly stated in
the sacred Scriptures, by the rules of which the Church is ever to be
judged. Surely nothing can be clearer than the words of St. Paul,
“Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one
member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; now ye are the body
of CHRIST, and members in particular.”
Thus we see that, in matters purely spiritual, the laity are very
seriously _responsible_ for the proceedings of the Church as carried on,
well or ill, by its appointed ministers. How greatly they are
_interested_ in the same matters, needs not to be proved at much length;
since the validity of the sacraments, the soundness of doctrine, the
catholicity of fellowship, certainly concern them quite as nearly as the
clergy themselves. But so soon as we take into consideration those
matters in which the Church partakes of the nature of a civil polity, we
find the interest of the laity in its regulations so much increased,
that sometimes they are even more nearly concerned than the clergy
themselves. A single line of George Herbert will illustrate these
principles; he says,
“The Scriptures bid us fast; the Church says now.”
Here in the Scriptural part, (the propriety and benefit of fasting,)
laity and clergy are concerned equally; but so soon as the Church exerts
its authority in the way of polity, (to determine the time,) the laity,
upon whose secular habits a religious exercise makes a greater
incursion, are by far the most concerned. The same thing holds in every
rule for the regulation of penance or communion, for the determining of
the proper recipients of baptism, the proper candidates for holy orders,
and the like. And to go a step farther; there are parts of the
ecclesiastical polity which are spiritual only by accident, and
indirectly; such as the means used in collecting funds for charitable or
religious purposes, and for the carrying on of the government of the
Church; and in these the immediate and direct interest of the laity is
altogether paramount.
These, which are the true Church principles on the subject of the clergy
and the laity, will be sufficient to answer the charge of priestcraft
against those of the clergy who enforce sound principles on this
subject; and to make those of the laity who wish to act up to the high
principles which they profess, feel that as churchmen they possess a
sacred character which must not be lightly compromised, and spiritual
privileges which they may well think worth contending for, against the
low principles of dissenters and quasidissenters.—_Poole on the
Admission of Lay Members to the Synods of the Church in Scotland._
LAMBETH ARTICLES. Certain articles so called because they were drawn up
at Lambeth, in the year 1595, by the then archbishop of Canterbury and
the bishop of London.
It appears that towards the close of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the errors
of Calvinism had spread among the clergy of the Church of England. These
errors were opposed by some of the most learned divines of Cambridge.
But the opponents of Calvinism were denounced as persons addicted to
Popery; and the heads of houses ventured to censure one divine because
he denied some points of Calvinistic doctrine, and spoke disrespectfully
of Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others. Archbishop Whitgift, and some other
bishops, were inclined to take part with the heads of houses at
Cambridge, and, adhering to the popular side, to condemn the orthodox
divines. They met together at Lambeth palace, and there Archbishop
Whitgift, Dr. Vaughan, elect of Bangor, Dr. Fletcher, elect of London,
Dr. Tyndall, dean of Ely, and the Calvinistic divines from Cambridge,
digested under the nine following heads what are called the Lambeth
Articles:
“1. GOD hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to life, and
hath reprobated certain persons unto death. 2. The moving or efficient
cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of faith, or of
perseverance, or of good works, or of anything that is in the persons
predestinated; but the alone will of GOD’S good pleasure. 3. The
predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can neither
be lessened nor increased. 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation
shall inevitably be condemned on account of their sins. 5. The true,
lively, and justifying faith, and the spirit of GOD justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away in the elect,
either finally or totally. 6. A true believer, that is, one who is
endued with justifying faith, is certified by the full assurance of
faith that his sins are forgiven, and that he shall be everlastingly
saved by CHRIST. 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not
granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. 8. No man
is able to come to CHRIST, unless it be given him, and unless the FATHER
draw him; and all men are not drawn by the FATHER, that they may come to
his SON. 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.”
These articles, asserting the most offensive of the Calvinistic
positions, were not accepted by the Church, and consequently were of no
authority, although they were employed at the time to silence those by
authority against whom argument could not prevail. The prelates who drew
them up acted without authority, for they were not assembled in a synod.
A synod is an assembly of bishops and presbyters duly convened. In this
instance there was no convention. The meeting was a mere private
conference; and the decision was of no more weight than the charge of a
bishop delivered without a consultation with his clergy, which is only
the expression of a private opinion, it may be that even of an Arian or
Sabellian; and which, though heard with respect, is only to be treated
as the opinion of an individual, until the clergy have officially
received it as orthodox: it was to be received with respect, and
examined with reference not to the authority with which it was given,
but according to its merits. There can be no greater proof of the
absence of Calvinism from the Thirty-nine Articles than the fact, that
the very persons who were condemning the orthodox for innovation, were
compelled to invent new articles before they could make our Church
Calvinistic. The conduct of the archbishop gave much offence to many
pious persons, and especially to the queen; and this attempt to
introduce Calvinism into our Church entirely failed.
LAMBETH DEGREES. The popular designation given to degrees conferred by
the archbishop of Canterbury, who has the power of giving degrees in any
of the faculties. This is supposed to be a relic of legislative
authority.
LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. A canonical book of the Old Testament. (See
_Jeremiah_.)
This book is a kind of funeral elegy on the death of the good king
Josiah, as appears from what is recorded: “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah,
and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their
lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel; and
behold they are written in the Lamentations.” This is confirmed by the
Jewish historian Josephus.
St. Jerome imagines this prophet laments the loss of Josiah, as the
beginning of those calamities which followed: accordingly he
prophetically bewails the miserable state of the Jews, and the
destruction of Jerusalem; though some are of opinion, the Lamentations
were composed after the taking of Jerusalem.
The first two chapters of this book are employed in describing the
calamities of the siege of Jerusalem. In the third, the author deplores
the persecutions he himself had suffered. The fourth turns upon the
desolation of the city and temple, and the misfortune of Zedekiah. The
fifth chapter is a kind of form of prayer for the Jews in their
dispersion and captivity. At the end of all, he speaks of the cruelty of
the Edomites, who had insulted Jerusalem in her misery.
The first four chapters of the Lamentations are in acrostic verse, and
abecedary; every verse or couplet beginning with one of the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet, in their alphabetical order.
There is a preface to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Greek, and in
the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee
Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac; and which was manifestly added by way of
Argument of the book.
LAMMAS DAY. A festival of the Romish Church, otherwise called _St.
Peter’s chains_, or _St. Peter in the fetters_, in memory of the
imprisonment of that apostle. Two derivations have been given of the
name _Lammas_. 1st, The literal sense, arising from a ludicrous notion
of the vulgar, that St. Peter was patron of the _lambs_, from our
SAVIOUR’S words to him, “Feed my lambs.” 2. From a Saxon word, meaning
“_Loaf-mass_,” it having been the custom of the Saxons to offer on this
day (August 1) an oblation of loaves made of new wheat, as the
first-fruits of their new corn.
LAMPADARY. An officer in the ancient Church of Constantinople; so
called, because it was his business to see that the lamps of the church
were lighted, and to carry a taper before the emperor, the empress, and
the patriarch, when they went to church, or in procession. The taper,
borne before the emperor, was encompassed with several golden circles
representing crowns: those carried before the empress and patriarch had
but one. These tapers were emblematical, and signified that these
illustrious personages were to enlighten the rest of the world by the
splendour of their virtues.
LANTERN. The central tower of a cross church, when it is open over the
cross. This seems always to have been the vernacular term for such a
tower. Thus, William de Chambre says of Bishop Skirlaw, “_Magnam partem
campanilis, vulgo_ lantern, _ministerii Eboracensis construxit_.”
LAPSE. When a patron neglects to present a clergyman to a benefice in
his gift, within six months after its vacancy, the benefice lapses to
the bishop; and if he does not collate within six months, it lapses to
the archbishop; and if he neglects to collate within six months, it
lapses to the Crown.
LAPSED. Those persons were so called, who in time of persecution denied
the faith of CHRIST; but again, on persecution ceasing, sought
reconciliation and Church communion.
The discipline with which such persons were visited included a long
absence from the holy eucharist, which however was not denied them in
case of extreme illness. And the maternal solicitude of the Church for
her sons was so great, that when dangerous sickness was prevalent, or
when another persecution seemed to impend, it somewhat relaxed the rule.
This is especially shown in the conduct and writings of St. Cyprian; in
whose times the case of the lapsed was brought before the Church, by
circumstances, more fully, and was also more clearly determined, than it
had been before. One of his most celebrated tracts refers especially to
their case.
Different circumstances gave to different individuals of the lapsed the
names of _Sacrificati_, _Thurificati_, and _Libellatici_. (See these
words.) The _Traditores_ were not held wholly free from the crime of the
lapsed. (See _Traditors_.)
Those who absolutely and for ever fell away were classed by the Church
as heathens, and had of course no ecclesiastical position, however low.
LATERAN COUNCILS. Under this head, to which reference has been made
under the article on _Councils_, we shall include all the councils of
the Romish Church.
_Lateran (I.)_ in the year 1123. It was convened by Pope Calixtus II.,
who presided in person. It consisted of 300 bishops. It decreed that
investiture to ecclesiastical dignities was the exclusive right of the
Church; and that the practice of secular princes giving such investiture
was an usurpation. The celibacy of the clergy was also decreed.
_Lateran (II.)_ in 1139, composed of nearly 1000 bishops, under the
presidency of Pope Innocent II. It decided on the due election of this
pope, and condemned the errors of Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia.
_Lateran (III.)_ in 1179. At this council, with Pope Alexander III. at
their head, 302 bishops condemned what they were pleased to call the
“errors and impieties” of the Waldenses and Albigenses.
_Lateran (IV.)_ in 1215, composed of 412 bishops, under Innocent III.,
had for its objects the recovery of the Holy Land, reformation of
abuses, and the extirpation of heresy.
_Lyons (I.)_ in 1245, consisting of 140 bishops, was convened for the
purpose of promoting the Crusades, restoring ecclesiastical discipline,
and dethroning Frederick II., emperor of Germany. It was also decreed at
this council that cardinals should wear red hats.
_Lyons (II.)_ in 1274. There were 500 bishops and about 1000 inferior
clergy present. Its principal object was the reunion of the Greek and
Latin Churches.
_Vienne_ in Gaul, 1311, consisting of 300 bishops, who were convoked to
suppress the Knights Templars, condemn those who were accused of heresy,
and assist the Christians in Palestine.
_Constance_, in 1414–1418. The German emperor, the pope, 20 princes, 140
counts, more than 20 cardinals, 7 patriarchs, 20 archbishops, 91
bishops, 600 other clerical dignitaries, and about 4000 priests, were
present at this celebrated ecclesiastical assembly, which was occasioned
by the divisions and contests that had arisen about the affairs of the
Church. From 1305–1377, the popes had resided at Avignon; but in 1378,
Gregory XI. removed the papal seat back to Rome: after his death, the
French and Italian cardinals could not agree upon a successor, and so
each party chose its own candidate. This led to a schism, which lasted
forty years. Indeed, when the emperor Sigismund ascended the throne, in
1411, there were _three_ popes, each of whom had anathematized the two
others. To put an end to these disorders, and to stop the diffusion of
the doctrines of Huss, Sigismund went in person to Italy, France, Spain,
and England, and (as the emperor Maximilian I. used to say, in jest,
performing the part of the beadle of the Roman empire) summoned a
general council. The pretended heresies of Wickliff and Huss were here
condemned, and the latter, notwithstanding the assurances of safety
given him by the emperor, was burnt, July 7, 1415; and his friend and
companion, Jerome of Prague, met with the same fate, May 30, 1416. The
three popes were formally deposed, and Martin V. was legally chosen to
the chair of St. Peter.
_Basle_, 1431, under the presidency of the cardinal legate Juliano
Cæsarini of St. Angelo, after holding not fewer than forty-five
sessions, terminated its labours, May 16, 1443. Its objects, which were
partly attained, were to extirpate heresies, limit the power of the
pope, effect a reformation of the clergy, and consolidate the interests
of the Church. Its decrees are not admitted into any of the Roman
collections, and are considered of no authority by the Roman lawyers.
They are, however, recognised in points of canon law in France and
Germany; and though some later concordats have modified the application
of them, they have never been formally and entirely annulled.
_Florence_, 1439–1442. It was composed of 141 bishops, the patriarch of
Constantinople, and the legates of the patriarchs of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. It effected a renunciation of schism on the part
of the Greeks, and an abjuration of heresy on the part of the Armenians.
_Lateran (V.)_ in 1512, convened by Pope Julius II., to oppose another
held by nine cardinals of high rank the year before at Pisa, with a view
to bridle his wild animosity, turbulence, and contumacy. It declared
that council schismatic, abolished the Pragmatic Sanction, and
strengthened the power of the Roman see.
_Trent_, convoked and opened by Paul III. in 1545; continued under
Julius III.; and, after numerous interruptions, brought to a close in
1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV. Its object was professedly to
reform ecclesiastical abuses, but really to counteract and crush the
Reformation. (See _Trent_.)
LATITUDINARIANS. Certain divines so called from the latitude of their
principles. The term is chiefly applied to some divines of the
seventeenth century, who were attached to the English establishment, as
such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public worship, as among the
things indifferent. They would not exclude from their communion those
who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the latitudinarian
divines commenced as Calvinists, and ended as Socinians.
LATTER-DAY SAINTS. (See _Mormonists_.)
LATRIA. (See _Dulia_.)
LAUDS. The service which followed next after the nocturn was so
designated before the Reformation. It was sometimes called matin lauds.
The lauds are now, in the reformed Church of England, merged in the
matins. The office of Lauds contains the Benedicite and the Benediction,
as that of Matins does the Te Deum. Both have psalmody and hymns.
LAUDS, in Church music, hymns of praise.
LAURA. A name given to a collection of little cells at some distance
from each other, in which the hermits of ancient times lived together in
a wilderness. These hermits did not live in community, but each monk
provided for himself in his distinct cell. The most celebrated Lauras
mentioned in ecclesiastical history were in Palestine; as the Laura of
St. Euthymius, St. Saba, the Laura of the Towers, &c. The most ancient
monasteries in Ireland were Lauras.
LAVACRUM. (See _Piscina_.)
LAY BAPTISM. (See _Baptism_.) Baptism administered by persons not in
holy orders, i. e. by laymen.
It is a first principle in the Church of GOD, that no one has a right to
execute any function of the ministry, till he has been lawfully invested
with the ministerial office. It is also confessed that the
administration of baptism is one of the functions of the ministry. It
follows, therefore, that none have a _right_ to administer baptism, but
those holding ministerial authority. Here, then, there can be no
dispute; laymen have no _right_ to baptize. But what if they _should_
baptize in spite of this virtual interdict? Is there any force or
validity in an act done in open violation of a fixed principle of the
Church? Here is the important question of the controversy—the very “pith
of the matter;” and it resolves itself into this simple inquiry:—Suppose
that a layman has no _right_ to baptize, has he also no _ability_? The
distinction between these it will be well to keep in view. A man may
have _ability_ to do an action without the _right_ to exercise that
ability, and so _vice versâ_. And again, a citizen may be in full
possession of intellectual and physical qualifications for a public
office; but without either _right_ or _ability_ to perform the
authoritative acts of such an office, till these are conferred upon him
by the superior power. Whence then does a layman derive any _ability_ to
baptize? We do not here mean the ability to perform the physical acts of
reciting the form, and pouring the water, (for these are in every one’s
power,) but that of standing as GOD’S agent in effecting “a death unto
sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;” in conferring remission of
sins, and declaring that “_hereby_,” in this very act of usurpation,
“children of wrath are made the children of grace.” How can any one, not
a lawful minister, possess ability to this extent? With all humility we
reply, that we know not, unless the sacrament work _ex opere operato_:
and thus the Romish Church is so far consistent in allowing midwives and
others to baptize. She does believe that the sacrament works _ex opere
operato_; but is it not a little singular that the extremes of
ultra-Protestantism and Romanism should here meet? If a layman should
perform the external part of ordination, confirmation, absolution,
consecration of the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion, that
this is null and void, because he has no power over the internal and
spiritual part of such offices. If baptism, therefore, be anything more
than an external ceremony, the same conclusion would seem to follow, for
anything we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. We have no proof
that CHRIST ever promised to sanction lay baptism; or that he conferred
the power of baptizing on any but the clergy; or that the apostles ever
imparted it to any other but clergy; or that CHRIST ever pledged himself
to bind or loose in heaven what laymen might bind or loose on earth. To
say the least, then, there is very great uncertainty as to the spiritual
effect of baptisms administered by those whom neither the Head of the
Church, nor his apostles, ever commissioned to baptize. This appears to
us a manifest result of the principle from which we started: and, unless
that principle be preserved, we see not how the integrity of the Church
can be maintained, or how the prerogatives and powers of the ministry
can be asserted; or why, except as a mere matter of expediency, there
should be any ministry at all. For, if it be granted that though laymen
have no _right_ to perform priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they
_can_ perform them; i. e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven,
equally with those of an empowered ministry; this is to overturn the
very foundations of apostolic order; to deprive the clergy of their
Divine commission, or to effectually neutralize it; and, finally, to
reduce their office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of a
mere literary profession, or ecclesiastical employment.
So much, then, for the legitimate consequences of the principle on which
the doctrine of the ministry rests. But when we turn to the _practice_
of the Church, we are struck with an apparent contrariety. In very early
times, the baptisms of laymen, and of degraded or schismatical priests,
were not in all cases repeated, though there were not wanting those who,
like St. Cyprian, were resolved to maintain the strictest view of their
invalidity. That such baptisms were suffered to pass in the century next
after the apostles, it would be difficult to prove; and in the
succeeding age the probability is, that they were only tolerated in
cases of extreme necessity. Still the fact is undeniable, that for more
than a thousand years lay baptisms have occurred in the Church, and in
such cases re-baptization was not always thought necessary.
How, then, could the Church vindicate herself in a procedure which
seemed subversive of one of her cardinal principles? for, at first
sight, the charge of inconsistency appears inevitable; and yet, as every
tyro knows, the ancient Church was tenacious of her rights, and exact in
her administration, almost to a proverb. To us, the key to the matter
seems to have been this. While the Church acknowledged no authority in
laymen to baptize, yet if they did go through the regular forms, the
_external part_ of the sacrament was actually performed. Hence, in all
cases, diligent inquiry was made whether the element of water was
applied, and whether this was done in the name of the sacred TRINITY. On
proof of this, the concession was made that _so far_ baptism had been
given. But while the Church allowed that laymen could perform the
_external_ part of baptism, she seems to have denied altogether that
they could communicate its _spiritual graces_; and, therefore, if we
mistake not, a lay baptism was never esteemed perfect, complete, and
without defect, i. e. valid both in its external and internal parts. A
person so baptized, on returning to the unity of the Church, or on
application for admittance to its higher privileges, was received
without the repetition of the external part of the initiatory sacrament,
but was endued with remission and the HOLY SPIRIT, by the laying on of
the bishop’s hands in confirmation, these spiritual gifts being those
which were wanting in the applicant’s lay baptism. Now, if this were so,
the Church stands clear of any charge of inconsistency; nay, more, she
exhibits her adherence to principle in the strongest light, by treating
lay baptism as a mere form of that sacrament, “without the power
thereof.” This, we think, was the ordinary practice of the Church. And
though confirmation is an ordinance distinct from baptism, yet it always
preserved a closer alliance with that sacrament than with the holy
eucharist, being anciently given either in immediate connexion with
baptism, or at a period very little subsequent to it.
So far as the irregular baptisms of heretics and schismatics were
concerned, it is incontestable that the compensating practice just
referred to was very generally adopted. And that confirmation was given,
in such cases, not only for the conferring of its own proper graces, but
also with the direct object of correcting the deficiencies of a previous
baptism, is manifest from the language of early writers. Leo, in writing
to Nicetius, bishop of Aquileia, remarks, “that such as received baptism
from heretics * * * were to be received only by invocation of the HOLY
SPIRIT, and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only
received the _form_ of baptism, without the sanctifying power of it.”
St. Augustine “supposes,” says Bingham, “that they who are thus baptized
received the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal,
sanctifying grace of the SPIRIT.” These graces, “heretics and
schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired
baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with
repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again; and then the
Church, by imposition of hands, and invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT, might
obtain for them those blessings and graces which might have been had in
baptism, &c. This was the general sense of the Church; for which reason
they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as
returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST
for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism
from those who had no power to give the HOLY GHOST. Innocent says, that
‘their ministrations were defective in this, that they could not give
the HOLY GHOST; and therefore such as were baptized by them were
imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they
might thereby obtain the grace of the HOLY GHOST.’” “This,” adds
Bingham, “was the true and only method of supplying the defects of
heretical baptism, as is evident from all the passages which speak of
the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands
and prayer, to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other
gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT, which were wanting before.” Confirmation was
therefore regarded as supplying all that was deficient in the
unauthorized baptism of heretics and schismatics; and though less is
said about the usurped baptism of orthodox laymen, yet analogy would
lead us to judge that a resort was had to the same expedient to relieve
their imperfection. Thus much we know, that the ancient Church stood
firmly on principle, and yet that laymen sometimes baptized, in direct
defiance of that principle, and in such cases the external part was
frequently not repeated; therefore, by some process, this imperfect
baptism was legalized and consummated, and we read of no other such
process than that just stated.
In the Church of England there is some diversity both of opinion and
practice with respect to lay baptisms. By some persons they are regarded
as valid; by others, as imperfect, till ratified by confirmation, or by
the use of the hypothetical form; by a third class, as totally invalid.
From the time of Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury, till
that of Archbishop Bancroft, in the reign of James I., lay baptisms were
recognised in our Church; but they were baptisms by _authorized_
persons, persons who had received episcopal licence for the act. In the
reign of Edward VI., it was ordered in the Office of Private Baptism,
that they “that be present shall call upon GOD for his grace, and say
the LORD’S Prayer, if the time will suffer, and then _one of them_ shall
name the child, and dip him in water, or pour water upon him, saying,”
&c. But the rubric now stands altered thus: “First let the minister of
the parish (or in his absence _any other lawful minister_ that can be
procured) with them that are present call upon GOD and say the LORD’S
Prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before in the
form of Public Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer.
And then the child being named by some one that is present, the minister
shall throw water upon it, saying,” &c. This would seem to show a desire
on the part of the Church to prevent laymen from baptizing, though it
attaches, of course, such great importance to this holy sacrament, that
she permits any lawful minister, i. e. any minister of the Church, to
officiate on such an occasion, even though in another man’s parish.
Having now given the reader an abstract of the state of this question,
we leave him to judge as well as he can, where lies the preponderance of
truth, and the place of greatest safety. That the lawfully ordained
ministers of CHRIST have the power and right of administering true
baptism, is incontestable. Whether any others possess the like power, we
shall know and acknowledge, when they produce their commission to “go
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of
the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.”
LAY-BROTHERS, among the Romanists, are the servants of a convent.
A _lay-brother_ wears a different habit from that of the religious: he
never enters into the choir, nor is present at the chapters. He is not
in any orders, nor makes any vow, except of constancy and obedience. He
is employed in the temporal concerns of the convent, and has the care of
the kitchen, gate, &c.
The institution of _lay-brothers_ began in the eleventh century. The
persons, on whom this title and office were conferred, were too ignorant
to become clerks, and therefore applied themselves wholly to bodily
work, in which they expressed that zeal for religion, which could not
exert itself in spiritual exercises.
In the _nunneries_ there are also _lay-sisters_, who are retained in the
convents for the service of the _nuns_, in like manner as the
_lay-brothers_ are for that of the _monks_.
LAY-CLERKS. _Clerici Laici._ Singing men so called in the Statutes of
the Cathedrals, founded or remodeled by King Henry VII. In general,
their number was commensurate with that of the Minor Canons.
_Lay-Vicars_ are sometimes incorrectly so styled.
LAY-VICARS. (See _Vicars Choral_.)
LAY-ELDERS. After Calvin had settled the presbyterian form of government
at Geneva, and that model was followed elsewhere, laymen were admitted
into a share or part of the administration of the Church, under the
denomination of _lay-elders_. This sort of officers was utterly unknown
in the Church before the sixteenth century, and is now admitted only
where the presbyterian government obtains.
LAYING ON OF HANDS. (See _Imposition of Hands_.)
LEAGUE, SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. (See _Confessions of Faith_ and
_Covenant_.) This was a compact established in 1643, to form a bond of
union between the Scottish and English Presbyterians. Those who took it
pledged themselves, without respect of persons, to endeavour the
“extirpation of Popery and prelacy, (i. e. church government by
archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans
and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness,
and whatever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
godliness.” It was opposed by the parliament and assembly at
Westminster, and ratified by the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk,
in 1645. In 1650, Charles II., under compulsion and hypocritically,
declared his approbation of it. The league was ratified by parliament in
1651, and subscription required of every member. At the Restoration it
was voted illegal by parliament.
The following is the document which is still bound up with the
Westminster Confession, as one of the formularies of the Scottish
Establishment, though the ministers are no longer obliged to sign it:—
THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT for Reformation and Defence of
Religion, the Honour and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and
Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland;
agreed upon by Commissioners from the Parliament and Assembly of
Divines in England, with Commissioners of the Convention of Estates,
and General Assembly in Scotland; approved by the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland, and by both Houses of Parliament and
Assembly of Divines in England, and taken and subscribed by them,
_Anno_ 1643; and thereafter, by the said authority, taken and
subscribed by all Ranks in Scotland and England the same Year; and
ratified by Act of the Parliament of Scotland, _Anno_ 1644: And
again renewed in Scotland, with an Acknowledgment of Sins, and
Engagement to Duties, by all Ranks, _Anno_ 1648, and by Parliament
1649; and taken and subscribed by _King Charles II._ at _Spey, June
23, 1650_; and at _Scoon, January 1, 1651_.
WE Noblemen, Barons, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers
of the Gospel, and Commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of Scotland,
England, and Ireland, by the providence of GOD, living under one King,
and being of one reformed religion, having before our eyes the glory of
GOD, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour JESUS
CHRIST, the honour and happiness of the King’s Majesty and his
posterity, and the true publick liberty, safety, and peace of the
kingdoms, wherein every one’s private condition is included: And calling
to mind the treacherous and bloody plots, conspiracies, attempts, and
practices of the enemies of GOD, against the true religion and
professors thereof in all places, especially in these three kingdoms,
ever since the reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power,
and presumption are of late, and at this time, increased and exercised,
whereof the deplorable state of the church and kingdom of Ireland, the
distressed estate of the church and kingdom of England, and the
dangerous estate of the church and kingdom of Scotland, are present and
public testimonies; we have now at last, (after other means of
supplication, remonstrance, protestation, and sufferings,) for the
preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
destruction, according to the commendable practice of these kingdoms in
former times, and the example of GOD’S people in other nations, after
mature deliberation, resolved and determined to enter into a mutual and
solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us
for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most High GOD, do swear,
I. THAT we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of
GOD, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation of
the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation
of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of GOD, and
the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring
the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and
uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government,
directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after
us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight
to dwell in the midst of us.
II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour
the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, church-government by
Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans
and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical Officers
depending on that hierarchy,) superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness,
and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the
power of godliness, lest we partake in other men’s sins, and thereby be
in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and
his name one, in the three kingdoms.
III. We shall, with the same sincerity, reality, and constancy, in our
several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives, mutually to
preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties
of the kingdoms; and to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person
and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and
liberties of the kingdoms; that the world may bear witness with our
conscience of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to
diminish his Majesty’s just power and greatness.
IV. We shall also, with all faithfulness, endeavour the discovery of all
such as have been or shall be incendiaries, malignants, or evil
instruments, by hindering the reformation of religion, dividing the king
from his people, or one of the kingdoms from another, or making any
faction or parties amongst the people, contrary to this League and
Covenant; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign
punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve, or
the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms respectively, or others having
power from them for that effect, shall judge convenient.
V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these kingdoms,
denied in former times to our progenitors, is, by the good providence of
GOD, granted unto us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both
Parliaments; we shall each one of us, according to our place and
interest, endeavour that they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and
union to all posterity; and that justice may be done upon the wilful
opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent article.
VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common
cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend
all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining
and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or
indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be
divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a
detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause which so much
concerneth the glory of GOD, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the
King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly
continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according
to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and, what we
are not able ourselves to suppress or overcome, we shall reveal and make
known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: All which we shall do
as in the sight of God.
And, because these kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations
against GOD, and his Son JESUS CHRIST, as is too manifest by our present
distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof; we profess and declare
before GOD and the world, our unfeigned desire to be humbled for our own
sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms: especially, that we have not
as we ought valued the inestimable benefit of the gospel; that we have
not laboured for the purity and power thereof; and that we have not
endeavoured to receive CHRIST in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of him
in our lives; which are the causes of other sins and transgressions so
much abounding amongst us: and our true and unfeigned purpose, desire,
and endeavour for ourselves, and all others under our power and charge,
both in publick and in private, in all duties we owe to GOD and man, to
amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a
real reformation; that the Lord may turn away his wrath and heavy
indignation, and establish these churches and kingdoms in truth and
peace. And this Covenant we make in the presence of ALMIGHTY GOD, the
Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we
shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be
disclosed; most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY
SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such
success as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and
encouragement to other Christian churches, groaning under, or in danger
of, the yoke of antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like
association and covenant, to the glory of GOD, the enlargement of the
kingdom of JESUS CHRIST, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian
kingdoms and commonwealths.
LECTURER. Long prior to the Reformation persons were appointed to read
lectures, chiefly on the schoolmen, before the universities. Hence they
were called _lecturers_. From the universities they passed into
monasteries, and eventually into parishes: either upon the settlement of
a stipend to support them, or upon voluntary contribution of the
inhabitants under the licence of the bishop. The lecture in parish
churches was nothing more than a sermon, _extra ordinem_, as being no
part of the duty of the incumbent, and therefore delivered at such times
as not to interfere with his ministrations. Although lecturers were
continued after the Reformation, and we read of Travers being evening
lecturer at the Temple in the reign of Elizabeth, the first injunction
respecting them is in the canons of James I. In the year 1604 directions
for their conduct were issued by Archbishop Bancroft; and in 1622 the
Primate Abbot enjoined that no lecturer “should preach upon Sundays and
holy-days in the afternoon, but upon some part of the catechism, or some
text taken out of the creed, LORD’S Prayer, or ten commandments.” At
this period they do not appear to have been numerous; but, about the
year 1626, their numbers were much increased by twelve persons having
been legally empowered to purchase impropriations belonging to laymen,
with the proceeds of which they were allowed to provide parishes, where
the clergy were not qualified to preach, with preaching ministers, or
_lecturers_. The power thus granted to the feoffees of the
impropriations, ostensibly for the good of the Church, was soon abused,
and made a handle of by Puritanism in the appointment of unorthodox
preachers. Dr. Heylyn, in an act sermon, preached at Oxford, first
pointed out the evil of this new society. Accordingly, in 1633,
Archbishop Laud procured a bill to be exhibited by the attorney-general
in the Court of Exchequer against the feoffees, wherein they were
charged with diverting the charity wherewith they were intrusted to
other uses, by appointing a morning lecturer, a most violent Puritan, as
Clarendon also witnesses, to St. Antholin’s church, London, where no
preacher was required; and generally nominating nonconformists to their
lectureships. These charges having been established, the court condemned
their proceedings, as dangerous to the Church and State, at the same
time pronouncing the gifts and feoffments made to such uses illegal; and
so dissolved the same, confiscating the money to the king’s use. But
this judgment does not appear to have had the desired effect; since we
find the bishop of Norwich, three years afterwards, (1636,) certifying
that lecturers were very frequent in Suffolk, and many of them set up by
private gentlemen, without either consulting the ordinary, or observing
the canons and discipline of the Church. The lecturers in the country
were also said to run riot, and live wide of discipline. In 1637,
therefore, Laud proceeded with increased rigour against them, and
obtained the king’s instructions for prohibiting all lecturers
preaching, who refused to say the Common Prayer in hood and surplice—a
vestment which, being considered by them as a rag of Popery, they
refused to wear. So there seems every reason to coincide with the bishop
of London in his charge of 1842, wherein he assigns the origin of the
disuse of the surplice in preaching to these lecturers. They also
introduced the afternoon sermon, and thus, according to Archbishop Wake,
were the first to bring into disrepute the venerable custom of
catechising. When in 1641 the revenues of archbishops and bishops, deans
and chapters, were confiscated, the advowsons and impropriations
belonging to them were employed in providing lecturers, who, under the
garb of superior sanctity, “turned religion into rebellion, and faith
into faction.” For these, their innovations, their avarice, and their
faction, lecturers have been somewhat roughly handled by Selden in his
_Table Talk_.
After the Restoration their evil influence was sufficiently guarded
against by the Act of Uniformity, which enacts that no person shall be
allowed or received as a lecturer, unless he declare his unfeigned
assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Book of Common
Prayer, and to the use of all the rites, ceremonies, forms, and orders
therein contained. It is further enacted, that prayers shall always be
said before a lecture is delivered. Archbishop Sheldon (1665) issued the
last orders concerning lectures and lecturers. The incumbent may at any
time prevent a lecturer preaching by occupying the pulpit himself.
Lecturers of parishes are now generally elected by the vestry or
principal inhabitants, and are usually afternoon preachers. There are
also lecturers in some cathedral churches, as the divinity lectureship
at St. Paul’s, now a sinecure, (see _Prælector_,) and several
lectureships have been founded by private individuals, such as Lady
Moyer’s, Mr. Boyle’s, the Bampton at Oxford, and the Hulsean at
Cambridge. The act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 59, intituled “An act for better
regulating the offices of lecturers and parish clerks,” authorizes the
bishop, with the consent of the incumbent, to require a lecturer or
preacher to perform such clerical or ministerial duties, as assistant
curate, or otherwise, within the parish, &c., as the bishop, with the
assent of the incumbent, shall think proper. The following papers are to
be sent to the bishop by a clergyman to be licensed.
1. A certificate of his having been duly elected to the office, or an
appointment under the hand and seal of the person or persons having
power to appoint; on the face of which instrument it should be shown by
whom and in what manner the office had been vacated.
2. A certificate signed by the incumbent of the church, of his consent
to the election or appointment.
3. Letters of orders, deacon, and priest.
4. Letters testimonial, by three beneficed clergymen. (See _form No. 3,
for Stipendiary Curates_, adding “and moreover we believe him in our
consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be
licensed to the said lectureship.”)
Before the licence is granted, the same subscriptions, declarations, and
oaths are to be made and taken, as in the case of a licence to a
stipendiary curacy, and the lecturer is to read the Thirty-nine
Articles.
Within three months after he is licensed, he is to read, in the church
where he is appointed lecturer, the declaration appointed by the Act of
Uniformity, and also the certificate of his having subscribed it before.
LECTURES. (See _Bampton_, _Boyle_, _Donnellan_, _Hulsean_, _Moyer_, and
_Warburton_.)
LECTURN, or LECTERN. The reading desk in the choir of ancient churches
and chapels. The earliest examples remaining are of wood, many of them
beautifully carved. At a later period it was commonly of brass, often
formed of the figure of an eagle with out-spread wings. (See _Reading
Desk_ and _Eagle_.)
The lectern in English cathedrals generally stands in the midst of the
choir facing westwards. They were formerly more common in collegiate
churches and chapels than now, as ancient ground-plans and engravings
show. In many places the fine old eagles or carved desks are thrown into
a corner and neglected.
When the capitular members read the lessons, they usually do so from the
stalls. The regularity of this custom may be doubted; its impropriety is
evident. It appears from _Dugd. Mon._ viii. 1257, ed. 1830, that in
Lichfield cathedral, all, whether canons or vicars, anciently read the
collects and lessons, not from their own stalls, but from the proper
place: the dean alone being permitted to read from his stall. At
Canterbury the canons now use the lectern.
LEGATE. A person sent or deputed by another to act in his stead, but now
confined to those who are deputed by the pope. Of these there are three
kinds.
1. _Legati a latere_, cardinals sent _from the side_ or immediate
presence, and invested with most of the functions of the Roman pontiff
himself. They can absolve the excommunicated, call synods, grant
dispensations in cases reserved to the pope, fill up vacant dignities or
benefices, and hear ordinary appeals. Otho and Othobon, sent into
England by Gregory IX. and Clement IV. in the reign of Henry III., were
of this order. The legatine constitutions, or ecclesiastical laws
enacted in national synods convened by these cardinals, may be seen in
Johnson’s collections. Cardinal Wolsey was also a legate _a latere_, and
the bulls of Leo X. and Adrian VI., investing him with that high
function, are printed by Rymer, from which we learn that he was
empowered to visit the monasteries and the whole clergy of England, as
well as to dispense with the laws of the Church for a year. Cardinal
Pole was also _legatus a latere_.
2. _Legati nati_ are such as hold the legatine commission _ex officio_,
by virtue of office, and till the latter part of the tenth century they
were the legates usually employed by the papal power. Before the
Reformation, the archbishop of Canterbury was the _legatus natus_ of
England. It is a relic of the legatine authority which enables the
primate of all England to confer degrees independently of the
universities.
3. _Legati dati_, legates _given_, or special legates, hold authority
from the pope by special commission, and are, _pro tempore_, superior to
the other two orders. They began to be employed after the tenth century,
and displayed unbounded arrogance. They held councils, promulgated
canons, deposed bishops, and issued interdicts at their discretion.
Simple deacons are frequently invested with this office, which at once
places them above bishops.
It may be added, that the functions of a legate do not commence till he
is forty miles distant from Rome. The first legate sent into England was
John, precentor of St. Paul’s, and abbot of the monastery of St. Martin.
He was deputed by Agutho, bishop of Rome, to Theodore, archbishop of
Canterbury, in 679. The first legate in Ireland was Gille, or Gillebert,
bishop of Limerick early in the twelfth century. The Roman chants were
introduced by him into Britain.
It was one of the ecclesiastical privileges of England, from the Norman
Conquest, that no foreign legate should be obtruded upon the English,
unless the king should desire it, upon some extraordinary emergency, as
when a case was too difficult for the English prelates to determine.
Hence, in the reign of Henry II., when Cardinal Vivian, who was sent
legate into Scotland, Ireland, and Norway, arrived in England on his
journey thither, the king sent the bishops of Winchester and Ely to ask
him by whose authority he ventured into the kingdom without his leave:
nor was he suffered to proceed till he had given an oath not to stretch
his commission beyond his Highness’s pleasure in any particular.
LEGENDS. (_Legenda._) By this word we are to understand those idle and
ridiculous stories which the Romanists tell concerning their saints, and
other persons, in order to support the credit of their religion.
The _Legend_ was, originally, a book used in the old Romish churches,
containing the lessons that were to be read at Divine service. Hence the
lives of saints and martyrs came to be called _legends_, because
chapters were to be read out of them at matins, and in the refectories
of the religious houses. The _Golden Legend_ is a collection of the
lives of the saints, composed by James de Varase, better known by his
Latin name of John de Voragine, or Varagnie, vicar-general of the
Dominicans, and afterwards archbishop of Genoa, who died in 1298. It was
received in the Church of Rome with great applause, which it maintained
for 200 years; but, in truth, it is so full of ridiculous and romantic
stories, that the Romanists themselves are ashamed of them.
The Romish _Breviaries_ are full of legendary stories, which are
appointed to be read on the saints’ days; which, being almost as
numerous as the days in the year, there is hardly a day free from having
idle tales mixed in its service. However, there have been considerable
reformations made in this matter, several legends having been from time
to time retrenched, insomuch that the service of the Church of Rome is
much freer from these fooleries than formerly.
But, besides these written legends, there are others which may be called
traditionary; by which we mean those idle stories which are delivered by
word of mouth, and with which every traveller is entertained in his
passage through Popish countries. We will just give the reader a
specimen of these legends from Skippon.
At Mentz, in Germany, they relate that a drunken fellow swearing he
would kill the first man he met, a crucifix coming by him, he struck at
it with his sword, which drew blood from the crucifix, and the fellow
immediately sunk up to the knees in the ground, where he stood till the
magistrates apprehended him.
At Landsberg, in Bavaria, the Franciscans show a crucifix in their
church over the altar, which, they pretend, a fellow spewed upon, and
immediately the devil carried him away through the south wall, a round
window being made where the hole was.
At Aix-la-Chapelle, in Germany, is a church of our Lady, on the south
side of which is a great pair of brass gates, one of which has a crack
in the brass, occasioned, as the legend says, thus:—When Charlemagne
began the building of this church, the devil came and asked him what he
intended; the emperor told him he designed a gaming-house, which the
devil being very well satisfied with, went away. The emperor having set
up some altar-tables, the devil came again, and inquired what these
meant; Charlemagne replied, they were only for gamesters to play on,
which encouraged the devil to give his assistance toward the building.
Accordingly, he brought a great pair of brass gates on his shoulders;
but, seeing a crucifix, he took to his heels, letting the gates fall,
one of which in the fall received the crack, which is still shown.
At Milan, they tell you that St. Ambrose, who was bishop of that city,
after a fight between the Catholics and the Arians, prayed that it might
be revealed how to distinguish the bodies of one party from the other.
His request was granted, and he found all the Catholics with their faces
upwards, and the Arians with their faces downward.
At St. Agatha, a city of Calabria, is a chapel, in which they show a
piece of a pillar, kept in a glass case, which they say shined when St.
Paul preached there. It was broken by the Turks, when they took this
place, and this piece was kept at Messina till they brought it hither.
The Jesuits would have carried it to their college, but several men,
they pretend, could not stir it; nevertheless, when it was resolved to
place it in this chapel, one man’s strength was sufficient.
We will add but one legend more. At Malta they tell this story. Three
Maltese knights were taken prisoners by the Turks, and carried before
the Grand Seignior, who endeavoured, by sending priests to them, to
convert them from the Christian religion; but they continued stedfast.
The Grand Seignior’s daughter observing them, fell in love with them,
and told her father she would endeavour their conversion. After this,
she discovered to them her affection; but they informed her of their
obligation to live chastely, and discoursed about the Christian
religion, and their order, and promised to show her the true
representation of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, they undertook to carve
a piece of wood; but none of them being skilful in that art, they prayed
for assistance, and suddenly appeared the image of the Virgin shaped
exactly like her. Upon the sight of this, the princess turned Christian,
and procuring the means of their escape, went away with them, and placed
herself in a nunnery.—_Broughton._
LEGION, THUNDERING. In the wars of the Romans, under the emperor Marcus
Antoninus, with the Marcomanni, the Roman troops being surrounded by the
enemy, and in great distress from intense thirst, in the midst of a
burning desert, a legion of Christians, who served in the army,
imploring the merciful interposition of CHRIST, suddenly a storm with
thunder and lightning came on, which refreshed the fainting Romans with
its seasonable rain, while the lightning fell among the enemy, and
destroyed many of them. The Christian legion to whose prayers this
miraculous interposition was granted, was (according to the common
account) thenceforth called _The Thundering Legion_.
LEIRE. (Probably a corruption of the old French _lieure_, for _livre_, a
book.) A Service Book. “Two great _leires_, garnished with stones, and
two lesser _leires_, garnished with stones and pearls,” are mentioned
among the furniture of the communion table of the Royal Chapel, 1565, in
Leland’s Collectania, vol. ii. pp. 691, 692, 1770.—_Jebb._
LENT. (A Teutonic word: in German, _Lenz_, the “Spring.”) The holy
seasons appointed by the Church will generally be found to date their
rise from some circumstance in the life of our LORD, some event in
Scripture history, or a desire to keep in remembrance the virtues and
piety of the saints who adorned the early Church. But the origin of the
season of Lent is not so obvious, though it is usually supposed that
Lent is observed in commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S temptation and
fasting of forty days in the wilderness. It is most probable that the
Christian Lent originated from a regard to those words of the REDEEMER,
“the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them,
and then shall they fast in those days.” We learn from the history of
the Church that the primitive Christians considered, that in this
passage CHRIST has alluded to the institution of a particular season of
fasting and prayer in his future Church. Accordingly they, in the first
instance, began this solemn period on the afternoon of the day on which
they commemorated the _crucifixion_, and continued it until the morning
of that of the _resurrection_. The whole interval would thus be only
about forty hours. But by degrees this institution suffered a
considerable change, different however at different times and places.
From the forty hours, or the two days, originally observed, it was
extended to other additional days, but with great variety in their
number, according to the judgment of the various Churches. Some fasted
three days in the week before Easter, some four, and others six. A
little after, some extended the fast to three weeks, and others to six,
and other Churches appointed certain portions of seven weeks in
succession. The result of all this was the eventual fixing of the time
at forty days, commencing on the Wednesday in the seventh week before
Easter, and excluding the intermediate Sundays. It is not, however, to
be supposed that the Church remained long in uncertainty on this point,
for it appears that the Lent of forty days can be traced to a period
very near that of the apostles. That its term of forty days was settled
at a very early period, is evident from the writings of the bishops of
those times, who refer us, in vindication of it, to the example of
Moses, Elias, and our LORD, all of whom fasted forty days. From all
this, then, we arrive at the conclusion, that though fasting is
frequently alluded to in the Scriptures as a Christian duty, yet the
_set times_ for it are to be referred solely to the authority of the
Church. It may here be remarked, that the name we apply to this season
is derived from the time of the year when it occurs. The term _Lent_, in
the Saxon language, signifies _Spring_; and, as we use it, indicates
merely the spring fast, preparatory to the rising of CHRIST from the
grave.
The Lenten fast does not embrace _all_ the days included between Ash
Wednesday and Easter, for the _Sundays_ are so many days above the
number of forty. They are excluded, because the LORD’S day is always
held as a _festival_, and never as a _fast_. These six Sundays are,
therefore, called Sundays _in_ Lent, not Sundays _of_ Lent. They are in
the midst of it, but do not form part of it. On them we continue,
without interruption, to celebrate our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.
The principal days of Lent are, the first day, Passion Week, and
particularly the Thursday and Friday in that week. The first day of Lent
was formerly called the _head of the fast_, and also by the name which
the Church retains—Ash Wednesday. In the Church of England there is a
solemn service appointed for Ash Wednesday, under the title of a
“Commination, or denouncing of GOD’S Anger and Judgments against
Sinners.” This was designed to occupy, as far as could be, the place of
the ancient penitential discipline, as is sufficiently declared in the
beginning of the office in the English Prayer Book. The last week of
Lent, called Passion Week, has always been considered as its most solemn
season. It is called the Great Week, from the important transactions
which are then commemorated; and Holy Week, from the increase of
devotional exercises among believers. The Thursday in Passion Week is
that on which we celebrate the institution of the LORD’S supper. The
Epistle for the day has been selected by the Church with a view to this
fact. On the following day we commemorate the sufferings, and
particularly the death, of our SAVIOUR CHRIST. And, from the mighty and
blessed effects of these, in the redemption of man, the day is
appropriately called Good Friday. As this day has been kept holy by the
Church from the earliest times, so has it also been made a time of the
strictest devotion and humiliation.
The general design of this institution is thus set forth by St.
Chrysostom: “Why do we fast these forty days? Many heretofore were used
to come to the communion indevoutly, and inconsiderately, especially at
this time, when CHRIST first gave it to his disciples. Therefore our
forefathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless
approaches, meeting together, appointed forty days for fasting and
prayer, and hearing of sermons, and for holy assemblies; that all men in
these days being carefully purified by prayer and alms-deeds, and
fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and other the
like exercises, might come, according to their capacity, with a pure
conscience, to the holy table.”
But if we inquire more particularly into the reasons of instituting the
Lent fast, we shall find them to be these following: First, the
apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master. For this reason, the
ancients observed these two days in which our Saviour lay in the grave,
with the greatest strictness. Secondly, the declension of Christian
piety from its first and primitive fervour. Thirdly, that the
catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism, and the penitents for
absolution; Easter being one of the settled times of baptizing the
catechumens, and absolving the penitents.
This solemn season of fasting was universally observed by all
Christians, though with a great liberty, and a just allowance for men’s
infirmities; and this was in a great measure left to their own
discretion. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and
custom was for them to observe it. On the other hand, bodily infirmity
and weakness were always admitted as a just apology for their
non-observance of it.
The manner of observing Lent, among those who were piously disposed to
observe it, was to abstain from all food till evening. Whence it is
natural to conclude, that the pretence of keeping Lent only by a change
of diet from flesh to fish, is but a mock fast, and an innovation
utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent fast was a strict and
rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their refreshment
was only a supper, and then it was indifferent whether it was flesh, or
any other food, provided it was used with sobriety and moderation. But
there was no general rule about this matter, as appears from the story
which Sozomen tells of Spiridion, bishop of Trimithus in Cyprus: that a
stranger once happening to call upon him in Lent, he, having nothing in
his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be dressed and set before
him: but the stranger refusing to eat flesh, saying he was a Christian;
Spiridion replied, For that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it;
for the word of GOD has pronounced all things clean to them that are
clean.
Lent was thought the proper season for exercising more abundantly all
sorts of charity. Thus what they spared from their own bodies, by
abridging them of a meal, was usually given to the poor. They likewise
employed their vacant hours in visiting the sick and imprisoned, in
entertaining strangers, and reconciling differences. The imperial laws
forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, which might bring
them to corporal punishment and torture, during this whole season. Lent
was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devotion; and therefore,
in many of the great churches, they had religious assemblies for prayer
and preaching every day. They had also frequent communions at this time,
at least on every sabbath and LORD’S day. All public games and
stage-plays were prohibited at this season; as also the celebration of
all festivals, birthdays, and marriages, as unsuitable to the present
occasion.
These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent fast, when it
was come to the length of forty days. But there was one week, called the
_Hebdomas magna_, or the _Great Week_ before Easter, which they observed
with a greater strictness and solemnity than all the rest. This is
usually called the _Passion Week_, because it was the week in which our
SAVIOUR _suffered_. (See _Passion Week_.)
The Christians of the Greek Church observe _four Lents_. The first
commences on the fifteenth of November, or forty days before Christmas.
The second is our Lent, which immediately precedes Easter. The third
begins the week after Whitsunday, and continues till the festival of St.
Peter and St. Paul. The number of days therefore comprised in the Lent
is not settled and determined, but they are more or less, according as
Whitsunday falls sooner or later. Their fourth Lent commences the first
of August, and lasts no longer than till the fifteenth. These Lents are
observed with great strictness and austerity. On Saturdays and Sundays
they indulge themselves in drinking wine and using oil, which are
prohibited on other days.
Lent was first commanded to be observed, in England, by Ercombert,
seventh king of Kent (A. D. 640–660). No meat was, formerly, to be eaten
in Lent, but by licence, under certain penalties. And butchers were not
to kill flesh in Lent, except for victualling of ships, &c.—_Compiled
from various authorities._
LESSONS, among ecclesiastical writers, are portions of the Holy
Scriptures read in churches at the time of Divine service. In the
ancient Church, reading the Scriptures was one part of the service of
the catechumens, at which all persons were allowed to be present in
order to obtain instruction.
The lessons in the unreformed offices are in general very short. Nine
lessons are appointed to be read at matins on Sundays, and three on
every week-day, besides a chapter, or capitular, at each of the six
daily services. But of the nine Sunday lessons, only three are from
Scripture, the six others being extracts from homilies or martyrologies.
At matins only is there anything like a continuous lesson read. The
capitula or lectioner verses at the other services, are each nothing
more than one verse (very rarely two short verses) from Scripture, and
these are seldom varied. As to the matin lessons, they do not on an
average consist of more than three verses each: for though the three
lessons are generally in sequence, the sense is interrupted by the
interposition between each lesson of a responsory, versicles, and the
Gloria Patri, so that edification is hereby effectually hindered, as is
remarked in the Preface to our Common Prayer, “Concerning the Service of
the Church.”—_Jebb._
The Church of England in the appointment of lessons observes two
different courses; one for ordinary days, and another for holy-days. On
ordinary days she begins the course of her first lessons with the book
of Genesis, in the beginning of her civil year, January; and proceeds
regularly through the greatest part of the Bible. Isaiah alone is not
read in the order in which it stands; our Church reserving the
evangelical prophet, in conformity to primitive usage, to be read in the
season of Advent. Before Isaiah, and after the other canonical
Scriptures, the Church substitutes some apocryphal lessons in the room
of the canonical Scripture that has been omitted.
But though the most part of the Bible is read through every year once,
yet some chapters of particular books, and three whole books, are left
unread for reasons that sufficiently appear.
Of Genesis, (containing 50 chapters,) 10, 11, and 36 are not read; 10
and 36, evidently, because they contain little else than genealogies.
The first nine verses of chapter 11, giving an account of a most
extraordinary display of the Divine power, the confusion of tongues at
Babel, is received into the table of lessons for holy days, viz. Monday
in Whitsun week. Of Exodus, (40 chapters,) the first 24 chapters are
read, excepting some repetitions and genealogies in the latter part of
chapter 6. From chapter 25 to the end of the book, there is little that
does not relate to the ark, and other local and temporary particulars,
except chapters 32, 33, 34, which are accordingly read. Chapters 35 and
40 are retained in the Scottish calendar. Of Leviticus, (27 chapters,)
as it treats chiefly of Jewish sacrifices, and ceremonial observances of
clean and unclean beasts and birds, lepers, &c., only 4 chapters are
read, viz. the 18, 19, 20, and 26. In the Scottish calendar the 9, 12,
16, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are retained. Of Numbers, (36 chapters,) the
first 10 chapters are omitted, which relate to the men of war, the
Levites, their services and offerings. Chapters 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29,
33, and 34 are also omitted, as containing similar subjects; the
Scottish liturgy retains chapters 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15. All
Deuteronomy (34 chapters) is read, except chapter 23, which the Scottish
calendar retains, while it rejects chapter 14. In Joshua, (24 chapters,)
the history contained from chapter 11 to 22, treating of the destruction
of several kings, and the division of the land of Canaan, is not read;
but chapters 14, 20, and 22 are retained in the Scottish calendar. The
whole of the book of Judges is read, (21 chapters,) and also that of
Ruth (4 chapters). So are also the two books of Samuel (the first,
“otherwise called the First Book of the Kings,” containing 31 chapters;
and the second, “otherwise called the Second Book of the Kings,”
containing 24 chapters). Also the two Books of Kings (the first,
“commonly called the Third Book of the Kings,” containing 22 chapters,
and the second, “commonly called the Fourth Book of the Kings,”
containing 25 chapters). Both the Books of Chronicles (the first
containing 29 chapters, and the second 36 chapters) are entirely
omitted, probably because they consist of the details of facts which are
related in the preceding historical books. In the Scottish calendar, 1
Chronicles, chap. 10, is to be read instead of the apocryphal lessons,
at morning prayer on November 23; and then from 13 to 22, with 28, 29,
and 30. Of 2 Chronicles, 1, 2, 5, 6, &c. to 36, are read, extending to
evening prayer, on December 16. Of Ezra, (10 chapters,) chapter 2, being
a catalogue of names, is omitted, as are also chapters 8 and 10, partly
for the same reason. In the Scottish calendar, chapter 7 is omitted, and
8 and 10 retained. Of Nehemiah, (13 chapters,) 3, 7, 11, and 12,
consisting of the names of the builders of the wall, genealogies, &c.,
are omitted. Of Esther, (10 chapters,) the 10th, containing only three
verses, is omitted, probably on that account. In the Scottish calendar
chapters 9 and 10 make one lesson; a rare occurrence in that calendar,
but frequent in ours. The whole of the Book of Job (consisting of 42
chapters) is read. The Book of Psalms (150) is passed over as being
otherwise used. Of Proverbs, (31 chapters,) chapter 30, the Prayer of
Agur, &c., is alone omitted; but the Scottish calendar retains it. The
book of Ecclesiastes (12 chapters) is read throughout; but the whole of
the Song of Solomon (8 chapters) is omitted; as containing mystical
descriptions not likely to edify. The Jews did not permit this book to
be read by any one under thirty years of age. The whole Book of Isaiah
is read, (66 chapters,) but not in its regular place, as before
remarked; the 1st chapter being read on the 23rd of November, and the
66th concluding the year. In the Scottish calendar it retains its proper
place. The whole of Jeremiah (52 chapters) with the Lamentations of
Jeremiah (5 chapters) are read throughout. Of Ezekiel (48 chapters) only
9 are read, viz. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 33, and 34. For the omission of
so large a portion may be assigned the reason given for the omission of
almost the whole of the Revelation. It consists in a great degree of
visions, many of which are very obscure even to the most learned. The
Scottish liturgy retains nearly the whole book. The remainder of the Old
Testament is read through regularly, viz. Daniel, 12 chapters; Hosea, 14
chapters; Joel, 3 chapters; Amos, 9 chapters; Obadiah, 1 chapter; Jonah,
4 chapters; Micah, 7 chapters; Nahum, 3 chapters; Habakkuk, 3 chapters;
Zephaniah, 3 chapters; Haggai, 2 chapters; Zechariah, 14 chapters;
Malachi, 4 chapters.
See more fully, as to the subjects of the omitted chapters, _Bennet’s
Paraphrase, Common Prayer_, Appendix; and _Shepherd, Common Prayer_.
Of the apocryphal lessons, (from ἀπὸ τῆς κρύπτης, _removed from the
place, or chest_ where the sacred books were kept; or from ἀποκρυπτω,
_to conceal or hide_; i. e. either as being kept from the people, or as
not being canonical; and see fully _Hey’s Lectures_, and _Bingham’s
Antiquities_, book xiv. ch. 3, sec. 15, 16,) those read and those
omitted are as follows:—The whole of Esdras (2 books, of 9 and 16
chapters) is omitted. The whole book of Tobit (14 chapters) is read,
except chapter 5. The whole of Judith (16 chapters) is read. The
remainder of the Book of Esther (6½ chapters) is passed over. The Wisdom
of Solomon (19 chapters) is read throughout. And the whole of the Wisdom
of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, (51 chapters,) except the
26, and part of the 25, 30, and 46. The whole of Baruch is read (6
chapters). But the Song of the Three Children, (1 chapter,) a
continuation of Daniel iii. 23, is omitted; principally, perhaps, as the
greater part of it is the “Benedicite,” &c. The History of Susannah (1
chapter) and that of Bel and the Dragon (1 chapter) are both read. The
two Books of Maccabees (16 chapters and 15 chapters) are omitted.
We fix articles of faith, and things necessary to salvation, upon the
Scriptures; we do not allow any part of the apocrypha a casting voice in
the establishment of any doctrine.—_Boys on the Thirty-Nine Articles._
The New Testament is read through three times in the year, for the
second lessons; i. e. the Four Gospels and the Acts, for the second
lessons in the morning service; and the Epistles (the Revelation of St.
John being omitted) for the second lesson in the evening service. The
Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans, beginning
respectively on the 1st day of January—the 3rd and 2nd of May—and the
31st of August—the 1st chapter of St. Luke being, on the first and third
reading, divided into two portions, and the 7th chapter of Acts on the
third reading. Of the Epistles, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1 Timothy
and of Titus, are read together; as are also the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of
St. John, on the first and second reading, but not on the third. This
order is broken into only on four Sundays in the year, i. e. the sixth
Sunday in Lent, (or Sunday before Easter,) Easter day, Whitsunday, and
Trinity Sunday, but more frequently in holy-days; for all which days
proper lessons are appointed.
The Book of the Revelation of St. John is wholly omitted, except on his
own peculiar day, when the 1st and 22nd chapters (the first and the
last) are read; and on All-saints day, when part of the 19th chapter is
read.
When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, we appear to be left in some
degree of uncertainty, whether the first lesson together with the
service for the holy-day, or that for the Sunday, is to be read. The
consequence is, says Archdeacon Sharp, (_Visit._ ch. 3, Disc. iv.,) that
the clergy differ in their practice, and use the service appropriated to
that festival, to which, in their private opinion, they give the
preference. Some choose to intermix them, using the collects appointed
to each, and preferring the first lesson for the Sunday, taken out of a
canonical book, to that for the holy-day, if it happens to be appointed
in the Apocrypha. Uniformity of practice was certainly intended by the
Church, and what now may seem to require the direction of a rubric, or
at least the decision of the diocesan, our forefathers, in all
probability, thought sufficiently plain. They knew that, prior to the
Reformation, (admitting that the practice of England corresponded with
that of the Roman and Gallican Churches,) the service for all the
holy-days now retained being “Doubles,” generally took place of that
appointed for ordinary Sundays, excepting those of Advent and Lent, with
Easter day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday. They would, therefore,
naturally read the service for the saint’s day, and omit that for the
Sunday in general. This continues to be the practice of the Roman
Church, and it was the practice of the Gallican Church for more than a
century after the æra of our Reformation. In some parts of the late
Gallican Church a change took place about the beginning of the present
century, and the service for the Sunday was appointed to supersede that
for the saint’s day. But in our Church no such alterations have been
made by lawful authority. Hence it would appear that the service for the
saint’s day, and not that for the Sunday, should be used. And
notwithstanding there exists some diversity of opinion on this subject,
yet the most general practice seems to be to read the collect, Epistle,
and Gospel for the saint’s day; and it is most consonant to that
practice to read also the first lesson appropriated to that day. This
remark I have heard made by the lord bishop of London.—_Shepherd._
When the feast day falls upon a Sunday, it was ordered in the service of
Sarum, that the Sunday service should give way to the proper service
ordained for the festival, except some peculiar Sunday only, and then
the one or the other was transferred to some day of the week
following.—_Bp. Cosin._
LETTERS OF ORDERS. (See _Orders_.) The bishop’s certificate of his
having ordained a clergyman, either priest or deacon. Churchwardens have
the power to demand a sight of the letters of orders of any one offering
to assist in the church of which they are the guardians.
LEVITICUS, a canonical book of Scripture, being the third book of the
Pentateuch of Moses; thus called because it contains principally the
laws and regulations relating to the priests, the Levites, and
sacrifices; for which reason the Hebrews call it the priests’ law,
because it includes many ordinances concerning sacrifices. The Jews term
it likewise _Vajicra_, because in Hebrew it begins with this word, which
signifies, “_and he called_.”
All the world agree, that Leviticus is a canonical book, and of Divine
authority. It, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, is generally held
to be the work of Moses. It contains the history of what passed during
the eight days of Aaron’s and his sons’ consecration, which was
performed in the year of the world 2514. The laws which were prescribed
in it upon other subjects, besides sacrifices, have no other
chronological mark, whereby we may be directed to judge at what time
they were given. Only four chapters of Leviticus are read in our Church,
as remarked in the article on _Lessons_.
LIBELLATICI. A designation of one kind of the lapsed from Christianity
in times of persecution. They are first mentioned in the Decian
persecution, and the origin of the name seems to have been this. It is
probable that the emperor had decreed that every one who was accused or
suspected of being a Christian, should be permitted to purge himself
before a magistrate, on which occasion a _libellus_ or certificate was
given him, that he had never been a Christian, or that he had abjured
the name of CHRIST. Some Christians, who were not so abandoned as to
forsake the true faith utterly, were yet weak and dishonest enough to
procure those _libelli_, or certificates, by fraudulent compromise with
the magistrate: thus avoiding, as they might hope, the sin of apostasy,
and at the same time escaping the sufferings and penalties of convicted
Christians. The Church, however, refused to sanction their deceit and
cowardice, and they were classed among the lapsed, though not considered
quite so culpable as the _Sacrificati_ and _Thurificati_.
LIBERTINES. A sect of Christian heretics, whose ringleaders were
Quintin, a tailor of Picardy, and one Copin, who about 1525 divulged
their errors in Holland and Brabant: they maintained that whatsoever was
done by men, was done by the SPIRIT OF GOD; and from thence concluded
there was no sin, but to those that thought it so, because all came from
GOD: they added, that to live without any doubt or scruple, was to
return to the state of innocency, and allowed their followers to call
themselves either Catholics or Lutherans, according as the company they
lighted amongst, were.
LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR. Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by the
laws, and sanctioned by the usage of the Church of England, are two
lights upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that CHRIST, in his
two-fold nature, is the very true Light of the world.
The laws of the Church, to which we refer, are as follows:
The rubric immediately preceding “the Order for Morning and Evening
Prayer daily throughout the Year” stands thus:—
“_And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of
the ministers thereof at all times of their ministration shall be
retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by authority
of parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward VI._”
But the rubrics are a part of the laws of the Church, framed by
convocation, and ratified by parliament; so that, if it appear that in
the second year of King Edward VI. lights were used, as in this rubric
is mentioned, no authority short of a convocation for the Church, and
for the State an act of parliament, can reverse the authority on which
lights are still used upon the altar.
Now, in the injunctions of King Edward VI., set forth in 1547, it is
expressly ordered, “_that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and
other ecclesiastical persons, shall suffer, from henceforth, no torches
nor candles, tapers, or images of wax, to be set before any image or
picture_. BUT ONLY TWO LIGHTS UPON THE HIGH ALTAR, BEFORE THE SACRAMENT,
WHICH, FOR THE SIGNIFICATION THAT CHRIST IS THE VERY TRUE LIGHT OF THE
WORLD, THEY SHALL SUFFER TO REMAIN STILL.”
Some persons who are ignorant of the history of those times, object that
this injunction is not to the purpose, because we have no high altar:
the truth is, that it is the high altar alone which is left in our
churches, all the rest being removed by authority, on account of the
idolatrous and corrupt practices which were connected with them.
It is also objected by some, who would be above falling into so great
and unhappy a mistake as to suppose that the high altar is removed from
our churches, that “the sacrament” before which, on the altar, the
lights were to remain, is taken away; for by this term, say they, was
meant the consecrated wafer, suspended in a pyx on the altar. If, then,
this is taken away, so also must the lights be taken away which were to
burn before it. But even allowing that the sacrament, in this sense, is
removed, yet the injunction gives another reason for lights, and may
surely be allowed to speak its meaning better than those who must, to
serve their turn, give to it an idolatrous meaning. The injunction does
not say that the lights are to remain before the sacrament as an
additional kind of adoration of the host, but _for the signification
that_ CHRIST _is the very true light of the world_. It would be very
illiberal to suppose that those who quarrel with the lights deny the
truth which they are thus made by authority to symbolize; but it is
really strange that they will overlook this sound reason given by the
injunction, in order to set forth a questionable reason not given, by
way of getting rid of the obnoxious lights.
But the injunction not only thus explains itself, but is interpreted by
the custom of the Church to enjoin the use of lights for the
signification that CHRIST is the very true light of the world, after the
pyx had been removed; for, from the time of Edward, there seems never to
have been a time when the lights were not retained in cathedral
churches, and wherever we might look for an authoritative interpretation
of the law. And to the present day the candles are to be seen on the
altar of almost all the cathedrals. In collegiate churches, also, they
are usually found; and so also in the chapels royal, and in the chapels
of the several colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. The use of these
ornaments in Oxford and Cambridge is a matter of special importance, for
it serves to give a singular character to the objection which some, even
of the clergy, make to the candles on the ground of novelty. Almost
every clergyman must again and again have seen on the altar of his
college chapel these appropriate and symbolical ornaments; and yet some
clergymen, when they wish to condemn them elsewhere, so far forget what
they have seen as to call them a novelty.
In how many parochial churches, or chapels of ancient chapelries, or
private chapels, in this kingdom, candles on the altar have been
retained since the times of the Puritans, we know not; in some they
certainly have been: but surely the rule of the Church being express for
their use, the custom of those whose ritual and furniture is most
carefully maintained under the eye of persons best qualified to judge in
such matters, and the guardians of the Church’s constitution, is
sufficient, _at the very least_, to serve as a witness to the rule, and
to make it clear that it is still _the_ rule, _the acknowledged_ rule,
of the Church of England.
Thus, then, the custom of the Church is with those who use, and not with
those who omit the use of, lights, although custom is an argument
brought confidently against them. And here also we may note that all the
commentators on the Prayer Book, whose judgment we would look to with
respect, agree in declaring that it is the law and the custom of the
Church of England to retain the two lights on the altar.
That their use has been, however, too much neglected, cannot be denied;
but, in fact, the disuse of lights, where they have been disused, when
it is traced to its real cause, tells almost as much in their favour as
the continued use of them where they are retained. It was not our
reformers who removed them from the altar; we have already proved that
they deliberately commanded their use: it was the Puritans, who took
their origin in the days of Queen Elizabeth, from the refugees in
Holland and Geneva during the persecutions of the bloody Queen Mary.
There they learned a less Scriptural ritual, which, working on the
saturnine dispositions of some, led eventually to the greatest extremes
of fanaticism, impiety, and crime. As some controversy has arisen on
this subject, as stated in former editions of this work, the following
observations are added on a point of very minor importance, but still
one on which correct information is interesting.
The ancient Church appears to have used lights, not only at those
services which were performed at late hours, after sunset, or, as some
have supposed, when the Christians assembled in caves of the earth, and
in the catacombs at Rome, during the times of public persecution; but in
token of public rejoicing, at festivals and other solemn occasions,
during the day-time. St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of lights as being
carried at the funerals of pious Christians, probably of higher rank, as
it occurs in his mention of the honours which were paid after death to
the emperor Constantius.—_Orat._ iv. p. 118, ed. Morell. He also speaks
of them as used at baptisms.—_Orat._ xl. p. 672. At the baptism of
Theodosius the Younger, a little later than this, an early writer says
that the crowd of noble persons bearing tapers made the earth appear as
if spangled with stars.—_Marc. Diacon. Vit. Porphyr._ c. 7. It seems
also to have been a practice at Church festivals, and solemn days kept
in memory of saints and martyrs.—_S. Paulin. Nol. Carm._ vi. 35–37.
_Greg. Nazianzen. Orat._ xxxix. and xlii.
Theodoret speaks of “the burning of incense and lights” as accompanying
“the mystical sacrifice of the holy table.”—_Quæst. in Exod._
xxv.–xxviii. _Opp._ vol. i. p. 164, ed. Schulze. And St. Jerome, more
distinctly, “In all the churches of the East, when the Gospel is about
to be read, lights are kindled, though the sun may be shining bright,
not to put the darkness to flight, but to show a sign of
rejoicing.”—_Contr. Vigilantium_, tom. i. p. 394, ed. Vallars. It seems
not at all improbable that Archbishop Theodore, coming as he did from
Tarsus, may have introduced this custom of the Eastern Church among the
Anglo-Saxons.
The mention of lamps and candlesticks among church furniture occurs in
very early times. The passage referred to in a former edition of this
work, may be found in Baluze, _Miscell._ tom. i. p. 22. The date of the
acts there recited is said to be the year in which Diocletian was consul
for the eighth time, and Maximian for the seventh, i. e. probably A. D.
296, a few years before the breaking out of the tenth persecution. The
church furniture there said to be taken from the Christians of Cirta is
set down as follows: “Two golden chalices, six silver chalices, six
silver flagons or ewers, a silver round vessel, (_cucumellum_,) seven
silver lamps, two candlestands, (_cereofala_,) seven short candlesticks
with their lights, eleven brazen lamps with the chains on which they
were hung,” and a quantity of male and female articles of clothing,
which appear to have been kept in the church-stores for distribution to
the poor. It seems not improbable that the two tall candlestands here
mentioned, and the seven short candlesticks, each contained lights used
at the reading of the Gospel; the former would be placed on the ground
at a little distance in front of the holy table, the latter on the table
itself. It was done, as Theodoret seems to show, in imitation of the
solemnities in the temple service. The lamps would be for lighting the
church after sunset.
Many records are found of the use of candlesticks and lamps in our
national Church from the time of Bede to the Norman Conquest,
particularly a remarkable list of church books and furniture, which is
to be found in the will of Leofric, bishop of Exeter, in the time of
Edward the Confessor.—For authorities see _Bishop Cosin_, _Wheatly_,
_Bishop Mant_.
Though it might admit of a question, whether the very ancient and (at
one time) universal custom of burning lights during the Communion
Office, was ever abrogated by the permanent laws of our Church, still
that custom, now plainly obsolete, is very different from retaining
candlesticks on the altar, with tapers to be lighted when they are
required. Queen Elizabeth, though opposed to superstition, yet had a
crucifix, and “two candlesticks, and two tapers burning on the altar” of
her chapel.—_Strype, Annals Ref._ 1559, p. 175; 1560, p. 200, fol. ed.
And though objections were made both by the archbishop of Canterbury and
Bishop Cox, still it would appear that these were rather directed to the
use of the crucifix; and nothing is said of the illegality of candles.
For their use on the holy table, we have the continuous sanction of
cathedrals, royal chapels, and colleges, down to the time of the
Rebellion; and it could be, and has been, very amply shown that the
replacing these articles of ecclesiastical furniture at the Restoration
was very frequent. As an instance out of many, Parry, bishop of Ossory,
in 1677, left by will a pair of large silver candlesticks gilt to Christ
Church, Dublin. Bishop Cosin, speaking of the manner in which the
communion (not _ought to be_, but) “is celebrated in our churches,” says
it “is after this manner: first of all, it is enjoined, that the table
or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth, or other decent
covering; upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer Book, the plate
and chalice, are to be placed; _two wax_ candles are to be set upon
it.”—_Nicholls on the Common Prayer_, Add. Notes, p. 34. It is difficult
to believe that, had this been unlawful, the practice should have been
so largely sanctioned by the heads of the Church, _especially by those
who revised the Prayer Book_.
After all, are candlesticks and lights mere ornaments? They are
something more; though ornamental in themselves, and in the position
they occupy, they are for use, and are properly church furniture; and
therefore no more within the contemplation of the rubric respecting
ornaments, than the stalls, desks, eagle, communion rails, organ, or any
other part of the moveable or permanent furniture of the church. There
appears no sound reason, why, when the church must of necessity be lit,
the ancient custom of lighting the chancel by means of two candlesticks
on the holy table, should not be kept up according to ancient and
unbroken usage. But if no part of the ecclesiastical furniture is to
stand in the church, except when actually in use, this rule would lead
to moveable pulpits, organs, &c. And, indeed, would be in a great
measure impracticable.—_Stephens’s Common Prayer Book._
In Christ Church cathedral in Dublin, within memory, two silver gilt
candlesticks with large wax candles in them always stood on the holy
table on Sundays and holy-days, and were lit when required at the
evening service, then celebrated at a late hour.—_Jebb._
In the _Hiereugia Anglicana_ there are a great many detailed proofs
adduced of the use of lights and candlesticks on the holy table in the
English Church, from the Reformation downwards. The authorities are all
given.
LINCOLN. (See _Use_.)
LITANY. The term “Litany” is used by ancient writers in many different
senses. At first it seems to have been applied as a general appellation
for all prayers and supplications, whether public or private. In the
fourth century it was given more especially to those solemn offices
which were formed with processions of the clergy and people. _Public_
supplications and prayers to GOD, on occasions of especial urgency, were
certainly prevalent in the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries.
(See _Rogation Days_.) These supplications were called _Litanies_ in the
Eastern Church, from whence the name passed to the West. Here they were
known as _Rogations_ or supplications, until the name of _Litany_ became
more prevalent than any other. The Church of England appears to have
received the stated Rogation or Litany days of the Gallican Church at an
early period; and, from that time to the present, she has reckoned them
among her days of fasting. Formerly, in this Church, there were
processions on all these days.
The Litany of the Church of England is not an exact transcript of any
ancient form, though composed of materials of very ancient date. It
differs essentially from the Romish Litanies by containing no
invocations to angels and departed saints. Our invocations are made to
the three persons of the sacred TRINITY, and to them alone, while the
office of Mediator and Intercessor is throughout ascribed only to our
LORD JESUS CHRIST.
In the original arrangement, the Litany formed a distinct service, not
used at the time of the other services. But by later usage it has been
united with the morning prayer, though still retaining its separate
place in the Prayer Book. Formerly there was a rubric, requiring that,
“after morning prayer, the people being called together by the ringing
of a bell, and assembled in the church, the English Litany shall be said
after the accustomed manner;” and it was also required by the 15th
canon, that “every householder dwelling within half a mile of the church
should come or send some one at the least of his household, fit to join
with the minister in prayers.” The ordinary arrangement was to hold
morning prayer at eight o’clock, the Litany and the Communion at ten.
This practice is still observed in some of the English churches; and
Bishop White, in his “Memoirs of the American Church,” remarks that when
he was in England, being on a visit to the archbishop of Canterbury, he
observed that on Wednesdays he, with the other bishops, retired to the
chapel before dinner; and on accompanying them he found that their
object was to use the Litany, in compliance with the original custom.
The Litany is usually considered as embracing four main divisions, viz.
the INVOCATIONS, DEPRECATIONS, INTERCESSIONS, and SUPPLICATIONS.—See
_Nicholls on the Common Prayer_.
The word Litany is used by the most ancient Greek writers for “an
earnest supplication to the gods, made in time of adverse fortune:” and
in the same sense it is used in the Christian Church for “a supplication
and common intercession to God, when his wrath lies upon us.” Such a
kind of supplication was the fifty-first Psalm, which begins with “Have
mercy upon me,” &c., and may be called David’s Litany. Such was that
Litany of GOD’S appointing (Joel ii. 17); where, in a general assembly,
the priests were to say with tears, “Spare thy people, O LORD,” &c. And
such was that Litany of our SAVIOUR, (Luke xxii. 42,) which kneeling he
often repeated with strong crying and tears (Heb. v. 7); and St. Paul
reckons up “supplications” among the kinds of Christian offices, which
he enjoins shall be daily used (1 Tim. ii. 1); which supplications are
generally expounded Litanies for removal of some great evil. As for the
form in which they are now made, namely, in short requests by the
priests, to which the people all answer, St. Chrysostom saith it is
derived from the primitive age. And not only the Western, but the
Eastern Church also, have ever since retained this way of praying. This
was the form of the Christians’ prayers in Tertullian’s time, on the
days of their stations, Wednesdays and Fridays, by which he tells us
they removed drought. Thus, in St. Cyprian’s time, they requested God
for deliverance from enemies, for obtaining rain, and for removing or
moderating his judgments. And St. Ambrose hath left a form of Litany,
which bears his name, agreeing in many things with this of ours. For
when miraculous gifts ceased, they began to write down divers of those
primitive forms, which were the original of our modern office: and about
the year 400 these Litanies began to be used in procession, the people
walking barefoot, and saying them with great devotion. And Mamertus,
bishop of Vienna, did collect a Litany to be so used, by which his
country was delivered from dreadful calamities, in the year 460. And
soon after, Sidonius, bishop of Arverne, [Clermont in Auvergne,] upon
the Gothic invasion, made use of the same office; and about the year
500, [511,] the Council of Orleans enjoined they should be used at one
certain time of the year, in this public way of procession; and in the
next century, Gregory the Great did, out of all the Litanies extant,
compose that famous sevenfold Litany, by which Rome was delivered from a
grievous mortality, which hath been a pattern to all Western Churches
ever since; and ours comes nearer to it than that in the present Roman
missal, wherein later popes had put in the invocation of saints, which
our reformers have justly expunged. But by the way we may note, that the
use of Litanies in procession about the fields, came up but in the time
of Theodosius in the East, and in the days of Mamertus of Vienna, and
Honoratus of Marseilles, namely, in the year 460, in the West; and it
was later councils which did enjoin the use of it in Rogation Week; but
the forms of earnest supplications were far more ancient and truly
primitive. As for our own Litany, it is now enjoined on Wednesdays and
Fridays, the two ancient fasting days of the Christians, in which they
had of old more solemn prayers; and on Sundays, when there is the
fullest assembly: and no Church in the world hath so complete a form, as
the curious and comprehensive method of it will declare.—_Dean Comber._
Epiphanius referreth this order to the apostles. The Jews in their
synagogues observed for their special days of assembling together those
that dwelt in villages, Mondays and Thursdays besides the sabbath. The
precedent of the Jews directed the Church not to do less than they did.
They made choice of Mondays and Thursdays, in regard of some great
calamities that befell their nation upon those days; and that they might
not be three days together without doing some public service to GOD. The
Church had the like reason of Wednesdays and Fridays, whereon our
SAVIOUR was betrayed and crucified; the moral reason of once in three
days, with a convenient distance from Sunday, concurring. The observance
of these days for public assemblies was universal, and the practice of
the oldest times.—_Bp. Cosin._
Next to the Morning and Evening Service in our Prayer Book stands the
Litany, or more earnest supplication for averting GOD’S judgments, and
procuring his mercy. This earnestness, it was thought, would be best
excited and expressed by the people’s interposing frequently to repeat
with their own mouths the solemn form of “beseeching” GOD to “deliver”
and to “hear” them: in which however the minister is understood to join
equally; as the congregation are in every particular specified by him.
Such Litanies have been used in the Church at least 1400 years. And they
were appointed first for Wednesdays and Fridays, these being
appropriated to penitence and humiliation, and for other fasts; but not
long after for Sundays also, there being then the largest congregation,
and most solemn worship: and our Litany is further directed to be used
at such other times as the ordinary shall think proper. Originally it
was intended for a distinct service, to come after the Morning Prayer,
as the rubric of our liturgy still directs, and before the office for
the Communion, at a proper distance of time from each: of which custom a
few churches preserve still, or did lately, some remains. But, in the
rest, convenience or inclination hath prevailed to join them all three
together, excepting that in some places there is a psalm or anthem
between the first and second; and between the second and third, almost
everywhere: besides that the latter part of the Morning Prayer is, most
of it, ordered to be omitted, when the Litany is said with it. But still
by this close conjunction many things may appear improper repetitions,
which, if the offices were separate, would not. However, as it is, they
who use extempore prayers in public have small right to reproach us on
this head. For doth it not frequently happen that, during one assembly
of theirs, different ministers praying successively, or the same
minister in several prayers, or perhaps in one only, shall fall into as
many repetitions, as are in the different parts of our liturgy, or more?
But, be that as it will, to these last all persons would easily be
reconciled, if an interval were placed, in their minds at least, between
the services; and they would consider each, when it begins, as a new and
independent one, just as if it were a fresh time of meeting together.
The Litany of our Church is not quite the same with any other, but
differs very little from those of the Lutherans in Germany and Denmark.
It is larger than the Greek, but shorter than the Roman, which is half
filled up with the names of saints invoked; whereas we invoke, first,
the three persons of the holy TRINITY, separately and jointly; then, in
a more particular manner, our Redeemer and Mediator, “to whom all power
is given in heaven and earth.” (Matt. xxviii. 18.)—_Abp. Secker._.
The posture in which the minister is to repeat the Litany, is not
prescribed in any present rubric, except that, as it is now a part of
the Morning Service for the days above mentioned, it is included in the
rubric at the end of the suffrages after the second LORD’S Prayer, which
orders “all to kneel” in that place, after which there is no direction
for “standing.” And the injunctions of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth
both appoint, that “the priests, with others of the choir, shall kneel
in the midst of the church, and sing or say plainly and distinctly the
Litany, which is set forth in English, with all the suffrages following,
to the intent the people may hear and answer,” &c. As to the posture of
the people, nothing needs to be said in relation to that, because,
whenever the priest kneels, they are always to do the same.—_Wheatly._
If the Litany be, as certainly it is, our most fervent address to GOD,
fit is it that it should be made in the most significant, that is, in
the lowest, posture of supplication.—_L’Estrange._
The Litany hath been lately brought into that absolute perfection, both
for matter and form, as not any Church besides can show the like, so
complete and full;... so that needs must they be upbraided, either with
error, or somewhat worse, whom in all parts this principal and excellent
prayer doth not fully satisfy.—_Bishop Cosin._
The Litanies in the Roman and the English unreformed Church were said on
Easter eve, St. Mark’s day, the three Rogation days, and Wednesdays and
Fridays in Lent. The Litany of the Church of England is used on
Wednesdays and Fridays, as was the Lenten practice of the West, and its
Sunday use is in conformity to the prayers resembling it, which are
found at the beginning of the directed communion offices.
In many choirs now, formerly in all, (as would appear from direct
notice,) the Litany was sung, since the Reformation, by two ministers,
(sometimes deacons,) at other times by laymen, at the faldstool in the
centre of the choir. The singing by two laymen is a manifest abuse,
reprehended by most of our ritualists; and seems to have arisen from a
misconstruction of the ancient rules, which directed it to be sung by
two of the choir: but the choir included priests and deacons, and clergy
in orders, though of the _second form_.
As to the latter part of the Litany however, the rubric, added at the
last review, is confirmatory of the ancient practice of the Church,
which assigned the performance of this part to the priest, or superior
minister. This is observed in many choirs. And at Oxford and Cambridge,
on those days when the Litany is performed before the university, the
vice-chancellor, if in orders, reads the LORD’S Prayer, and the
remaining part.—_Jebb._
The Latin Litany is performed on certain days before the university at
Oxford and Cambridge. Its musical arrangement, as retained at Oxford,
contains the most solemn harmonies known to the Church.
LITERÆ FORMATÆ. According to the rules and practice of the ancient
Church, no Christian could travel without taking letters of credence
with him from his own bishop, if he meant to communicate with the Church
in a foreign country. These letters were of several kinds, according to
the different occasions, or quality of the person who carried them. They
are generally reduced to three kinds, _commendatory_, _communicatory_,
and _dimissory_. The first were such as were granted only to persons of
quality, or to persons whose reputation had been called in question, or
to the clergy who had occasion to travel in foreign countries. The
second sort were granted to all who were in peace and communion of the
Church, whence they were also called _pacifical_ and _ecclesiastical_,
and sometimes _canonical_. The third sort were given only to the clergy,
when they were removing from one church to settle in another, and they
were to testify that the bearer had the bishop’s leave to depart, whence
they were called _dimissory_. All these went under the general name of
_formed letters_, because they were written in a particular form, with
particular marks and characters, whereby they might be distinguished
from counterfeits.—_Bingham._
LITURGIUM. (_Gr._) The name of a book, in the Greek Church, containing
the three liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and that of the
_Presanctified_, said to be composed by Pope Gregory, called _Dialogus_.
In celebrating these three liturgies, the Greeks observe the following
order. The liturgy of St. Basil, as appears by the introduction, is sung
over ten times in the year; namely, on the eve of Christmas day, on the
feast of St. Basil, on the eve of the feast of Lights, on the Sundays of
Lent, excepting Palm Sunday, on the festival of the Virgin, and on the
Great Sabbath. The liturgy of the _Presanctified_ is repeated every day
in Lent, the forementioned days excepted. The rest of the year is
appropriated to the liturgy of St. Chrysostom. (See _Liturgy_.)
LITURGY. (See _Common Prayer_, _Formulary_, and _Public Worship_.) From
the Greek word λειτουργία, _a public act_ or _duty_. This term was
originally used to denote the service or form employed in the
celebration of the eucharist. In the Eastern Churches, that service was
frequently called the “Divine” or “mystical” liturgy; while in the West,
though the term “liturgy” was used, yet the name of “missa” was more
common. At the present day, the word is employed to designate the
ordinary prescribed service of the Church, either with or without the
Communion Office. (See article on _Formularies_, where the general
question of forms of prayer is treated.) The history of liturgies may
thus be briefly stated.
When the Christians were no longer in fear of the violence and
persecutions of the heathens, and in that age when the Church came to be
settled, (that is, from the time of Constantine to that of St.
Augustine,) we find there was a liturgy in the Eastern Church.
The first Cyril of Jerusalem mentions some parts of an ancient liturgy
used in that place, both in respect to the form of baptism, and the
celebration of the eucharist.
St. Basil composed a liturgy himself, which is to be seen in the
_Bibliotheca Patrum_, and in his book _De_ SPIRITU SANCTO; and he tells
us how the service of the Church was directed by rules and rubrics.
In St. Chrysostom’s time, _Omnes unam eandemque precem concipiēbant_,
and this was not only a public prayer, but a public form; for in that
collection of his works set forth by Sir Henry Saville, we find a
liturgy of his own making, which was translated out of the Syriac by
Masius, and used generally throughout all the Greek churches.
Now, if it should be granted that premeditated prayers are not required
by GOD in our private addresses to him, yet it is plain from those
instances already mentioned, such prayers were always held necessary in
the public services of the Church; and this further appears by the form
prescribed by our SAVIOUR himself, who, when we pray, commanded us to
say, “Our FATHER,” &c.; and St. Matthew tells us, that he went away
again, and prayed the third time, saying the _same words_.
The Apostolical Canons mention some set forms of prayer, both before and
after the communion; and St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, before mentioned,
not only composed set forms themselves, but they describe set liturgies
as having been composed by St. Mark and St. James; and the adversaries
to such forms have no other plausible pretence to deny these authorities
than by alleging these liturgies to be supposititious, which is an
answer that may serve upon any occasion to evade an argument, which
cannot otherwise be answered.
St. Ambrose and Prosper tell us, there were set forms of prayers used in
the Church in their time; and they give the reason for it, _ne in
diversum intellectum nostro evagemur arbitrio_: and St. Hilary hath this
expression on the 66th Psalm, viz. Let those without the Church hear the
voice of the people praying within. Now the word _praying of the people_
must signify something more than the bare suffrage _Amen_; it must
import their joint concurrence in the actual performance of the whole
duty, which cannot be done but where the prayers are in a set form.
And these are the prayers which Isidore tells us were used in the
ancient congregations of the Christians; and it is most certain that
such were in use in that great apostate Julian’s time; for Nazianzen
informs us, that he endeavoured to establish the heathen ceremonies in
imitation of the Christian services, by appointing, not only certain
times, but set forms of prayer.
It is true, that many of the ancient liturgies were destroyed by the
persecuting heathens, yet some fragments of them still remain in the
writings of the Fathers, and are such as are used in our Church at this
day; as the words before and after the consecration of the sacrament are
to be found in St. Ambrose: the question demanded of the godfathers in
the sacrament of baptism, viz. “Whether they do, in the name of the
infant, renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities
of this wicked world,” are to be found in the same St. Ambrose, and in
Tertullian; the _Gloria Patri_, of which more hereafter, is in Sozomen;
and the supplement to that doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning,”
&c., is to be found in Irenæus.
In the sacrament of the LORD’S supper, the words pronounced by the
priest, viz. “Lift up your hearts,” and the answer, “We lift them up; it
is meet and right for us so to do,” are to be found in St. Augustine and
St. Chrysostom; and so are these words, viz. “The LORD be with you, And
with thy spirit;” and, lastly, Isidore mentions the usual conclusion of
all our collects, viz. “Through JESUS CHRIST our LORD,” &c.
In the Western Church, St. Cyprian tells us there was a liturgy, viz. in
the Church of Africa, which is usually accounted amongst the Churches of
the West; and we find some pieces of such liturgies in St. Augustine;
and not only approved by him, but by all the Fathers of that Church
assembled in a synod, as it appears by the canons which they made, and
which are mentioned both by Balsamon and Zonaras, viz. that prayers be
performed by all, and not any to be said in public, but only such as
have been composed by wise and understanding men, lest anything should
be vented against the faith, either through ignorance or want of
meditation.
Tertullian mentions a liturgy used in Rome, which was probably begun by
St. Peter, for it bears his name; and Platina tells us, that several
additions were made to it by St. Basil in his time; and in some things
this author is very particular, as that Celestine added the _Introitus_,
Gregory added the _Kyrie Eleison_, Telesphorus the _Gloria in Excelsis_,
Sixtus the First added “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Hosts,” which is
called the _Trisagion_; Gelasius the Collects, St. Jerome the Epistles
and Gospels.
The _Gloria Patri_, which has been mentioned before, was not only
appointed by the Council of Nice to encounter the Arian heresy, but it
was used long before that council, even by the apostles themselves, who
were commanded by their Master to baptize in the name of the FATHER, and
of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.
This is found in the writings of all those ancient fathers who lived
near the time of the apostles, as in Clemens, who was their scholar, and
in Dionysius of Alexandria; but the following words, which make up the
whole form of the doxology, viz. “As it was in the beginning, is now,
and ever shall be, world without end,” were not brought into the Church
till the Arian heresy began to spread, and this was about the time of
the Council of Nice.
It is true this began first in the Eastern Church, and from thence it
came to the West, where Pope Damasus [A. D. 366–384] was the first who
appointed it to be used at the end of the psalms, which made up the
greatest part of the public liturgy of that Church. The Churches of
France, Spain, and England had the like liturgies, though not exactly
the same.
Although we have no certain account what rites or forms were used here
among the Britons, yet Bede, in his ecclesiastical history, tells us,
that as soon as the gospel was planted here, there was a liturgy formed
out of the rituals of the most flourishing Churches then in the world.
For Pope Gregory advised St. Augustine not to follow the Roman office
strictly, but to take what he should approve in any Church, and
prescribe the same to the English, which he did; and this liturgy of St.
Augustine continued for some ages, till Osmond, bishop of Sarum, [A. D.
1078,] finding that new prayers and offices abounded everywhere, reduced
them all to one form, and from thence it was called _secundum usum
Sarum_.
The liturgy of the Irish Church, according to Mr. Palmer, was, during
the first ages, probably the same as that of Britain. The ancient Irish
liturgy still extant differs considerably from the Roman. It seems, he
adds, that in later times there were great varieties in the mode of
celebrating Divine worship in Ireland, which were mentioned by
Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, A. D. 1090. And which appear to have been
removed by the Synod of Arles, A. D. 1152, when the Roman rites were
established.
By the seventh statute of the Synod, or rather Council, of Cashel, 1172,
the regulations of the Irish Church were assimilated to those of
England. The use of Sarum was adopted; though it has been supposed that
the Irish use lingered for a considerable time in parts of the more
distant provinces.
As to the liturgy now used amongst us, it was reformed at the time of
the Reformation: for the offices of the Church before that time
consisting in missals, breviaries, psalteries, graduals, and
pontificals, and every religious order having peculiar rites observed
among themselves, it was thought proper that the worship of GOD should
be brought under a set form; and moreover, that nothing should be
changed merely out of an affectation of novelty, or because it had been
used in times of Popery, so as it had been practised in the primitive
times. (See next article.)
LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (See _Common Prayer_ and _Formulary_.)
This book is entitled _The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of
the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according
to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland_.
Before the Reformation, our liturgy was only in Latin, being a
collection of prayers, made up partly of some ancient forms used in the
primitive Church, and partly of some others of later original. But when
the nation, in King Henry VIII.’s time, was disposed to a reformation,
it was thought necessary both to have the service in the English or
vulgar tongue, and to correct and amend the liturgy, by purging it of
those gross corruptions which had gradually crept into it.
And, first, the convocation appointed a committee, A. D. 1537, to
compose a book, which was entitled “_The godly and pious Institution of
a Christian Man_, containing a declaration of the _Lord’s Prayer_, the
_Ave Maria_, the _Creed_, the _Ten Commandments_, and the _Seven
Sacraments_, &c.” This book was again published in 1539, with
corrections and alterations. In 1543 appeared another Primer, in
substance the same as the former, under the title of “_A necessary
doctrine and Erudition for any Chrysten Man_.” In the same year, a
committee of bishops and other divines was appointed by King Henry
VIII., to reform the rituals and offices of the Church; and the next
year the king and clergy ordered the prayers for processions and
litanies to be put into English, and to be publicly used. The English
Litany accordingly, not much differing from that now in use, was
publicly adopted in 1544. Afterwards, in 1545, came out the King’s
Primer, containing the whole Morning and Evening Prayer in English, not
very different from what is in our present Common Prayer. Thus far the
reformation of our liturgy was carried in the reign of Henry VIII.
In the year 1547, the first of King Edward VI., the convocation
unanimously declared, that the communion ought to be administered in
both kinds; whereupon an act of parliament was made, ordering it to be
administered. Then a committee of bishops and other learned divines was
appointed, to compose _An uniform order of communion, according to the
rules of Scripture, and the use of the primitive Church_. The committee
accordingly met in Windsor Castle, and drew up such a form. This order
of the communion was appointed for general use, by royal proclamation,
in 1548. This made way for a new commission, empowering the same persons
to finish the whole liturgy, by drawing up public offices for Sundays
and holy-days, for baptism, confirmation, matrimony, burial, and other
special occasions.
The committee appointed to compose this liturgy were—
1. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.
2. Thomas Goodrich, bishop of Ely.
3. Henry Holbech, bishop of Lincoln.
4. George Day, bishop of Chichester.
5. John Skip, bishop of Hereford.
6. Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Westminster.
7. Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, and afterwards of London.
8. Dr. William May, dean of St. Paul’s.
9. Dr. John Taylor, dean, afterwards bishop, of Lincoln.
10. Dr. Simon Haynes, dean of Exeter, and master of Queen’s College,
Cambridge.
11. Dr. John Redman, prebendary of Westminster, and master of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
12. Dr. Richard Cox, dean of Christ Church, Oxon., and Westminster;
afterwards bishop of Ely.
13. Mr. Thomas Robertson, archdeacon of Leicester; afterwards dean of
Durham.
Our excellent liturgy, thus compiled, was revised and approved by the
archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both provinces of Canterbury and
York, and then confirmed by the king and three estates in parliament, A.
D. 1548, second and third of Edward VI. ch. 1. In 1549, an act passed
for appointing six bishops and six other learned men, to draw up a form
for consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons. Heylin conjectures that
these were the same as those above mentioned, with the exception of
Bishop Day, who had refused to subscribe the liturgy.
But, about the end of the year 1550, exceptions were taken against some
parts of this book, and Archbishop Cranmer proposed a new review. The
principal alterations occasioned by this second review were the addition
of the _Sentences_, _Exhortation_, _Confession_, and _Absolution_, at
the beginning of the morning and evening services, which in the first
Common Prayer Book began with the LORD’S Prayer; the addition of the
_Commandments_ at the beginning of the Communion Office; the removing of
some rites and ceremonies retained in the former book, such as the use
of oil in confirmation, the unction of the sick, prayers for departed
souls, the invocation of the HOLY GHOST at the consecration of the
eucharist, and the prayer of oblation that used to follow it; the
omitting the rubric that ordered water to be mixed with the wine, with
several other less material variations, The habits, likewise, which were
prescribed in the former book were in this laid aside; and, lastly, a
rubric was added at the end of the Communion Office, to explain the
reason of kneeling at the sacrament. The liturgy, thus revised and
altered, was again confirmed by parliament, A. D. 1551, with this
declaration, that the alterations made in it proceeded from _curiosity
rather that any worthy cause_. But both this and the former act in 1548
were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary.
Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the act of repeal was set aside,
and several learned divines appointed to take another review of King
Edward’s liturgies. These (according to Camden and Strype) were—
1. Dr. Matthew Parker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.
2. Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely; one of the original
compilers.
3. Dr. William May; one of the original compilers.
4. Dr. William Bill, afterwards dean of Westminster.
5. Dr. James Pilkington, afterwards bishop of Durham.
6. Sir Thomas Smith.
7. Mr. David Whitehead.
8. Mr. Edmund Grindal, afterwards bishop of London, and archbishop of
York and Canterbury.
To these were afterwards added,
9. Dr. Edwyn Sandys, afterwards bishop of Worcester.
10. Mr. Edmund Guest, afterwards bishop of Rochester and Salisbury.
It was debated, at first, which of the two books of King Edward should
be received. At length the second was pitched upon, and confirmed by
parliament, which commanded it to be used, with one alteration or
addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and
the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences added in
the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or
otherwise.
The alteration in the Litany here mentioned was the leaving out the
deprecation, “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his
detestable enormities,” and adding these words to the petition for the
sovereign, “strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteousness
and holiness of life.” The two sentences added in the delivery of the
sacrament, were, “The body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., and “The
blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c., which were taken out of King
Edward’s First Book; whereas, in the Second Book, these sentences were
left out, and in the room of them were used, “Take, eat, or drink,
this,” with what follows; but now, in Queen Elizabeth’s book, both these
forms were united.
There are some other variations in this book from the Second of King
Edward. The first rubric, concerning the situation of the chancel, and
the proper place of reading Divine service, was altered; the habits,
enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, and forbidden by the Second,
were now restored; at the end of the Litany was added a prayer for the
sovereign, and another for the clergy. Lastly, the rubric, that was
added at the end of the Communion Office, in King Edward’s Second Book,
against our SAVIOUR’S corporeal presence in the sacrament, was left out
in this. This was done, that the aforesaid notion might remain as a
speculative opinion, not determined; it being the queen’s design to
unite the nation, as near as possible, in one faith.
In this state the liturgy continued, without further alteration, till
the first year of King James I.; when a conference was held at Hampton
Court between that prince, with Archbishop Whitgift and other bishops
and divines, on the one side, and Dr. Reynolds, with some other
Puritans, on the other: the result of which was, the adding some forms
of thanksgiving at the end of the Litany, and an addition to the
catechism in relation to the sacraments. Likewise, in the rubric at the
beginning of the Office for Private Baptism, the words “lawful minister”
were inserted to prevent midwives and laymen from presuming to baptize,
with one or two more small alterations.
But, immediately after the Restoration, King Charles II., at the request
of several of the Presbyterian ministers, issued out a commission for a
new review of the liturgy, empowering twelve of the bishops and twelve
Presbyterian divines to make such reasonable and necessary alterations
as they should jointly agree upon. Nine coadjutors were added on each
side, to supply the place of any of the twelve principal who should
happen to be absent. Their names are these:
_On the Episcopalian side._
Principals.
1. Dr. Frewen, archbishop of York.
2. Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London.
3. Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham.
4. Dr. Warner, bishop of Rochester.
5. Dr. King, bishop of Chichester.
6. Dr. Henchman, bishop of Salisbury.
7. Dr. Morley, bishop of Worcester.
8. Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln.
9. Dr. Laney, bishop of Peterborough.
10. Dr. Walton, bishop of Chester.
11. Dr. Stern, bishop of Carlisle.
12. Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter.
Coadjutors.
1. Dr. John Erle, dean of Westminster, afterwards bishop of
Worcester.
2. Dr. Peter Heylyn, prebendary of Westminster.
3. Dr. John Hackett, archdeacon of Bedford, afterwards bishop of
Lichfield.
4. Dr. John Barwick, successively dean of Durham and St. Paul’s.
5. Dr. Peter Gunning, successively master of Corpus and St. John’s,
Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chichester.
6. Dr. John Pearson, successively master of Jesus and Trinity
College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of Chester.
7. Dr. Pierce.
8. Dr. Anthony Sparrow, archdeacon of Sudbury, afterwards bishop of
Norwich.
9. Mr. Hubert Thorndike, prebendary of Westminster.
_On the Presbyterian side._
Principals.
1. Dr. Reynolds.
2. Dr. Tuckney.
3. Dr. Conant.
4. Dr. Spurstow.
5. Dr. Wallis.
6. Dr. Manton.
7. Dr. Calamy.
8. Mr. Baxter.
9. Mr. Jackson.
10. Mr. Case.
11. Mr. Clark.
12. Mr. Newcomen.
Coadjutors.
1. Dr. Horton.
2. Dr. Jacob.
3. Mr. Bates.
4. Mr. Rawlinson.
5. Mr. Cooper.
6. Dr. Lightfoot.
7. Dr. Collins.
8. Dr. Woodbridge.
9. Mr. Drake.
These commissioners had several meetings at the Savoy, but to very
little purpose; the Presbyterians reviving all the old scruples of the
Puritans against the liturgy, and adding several new ones of their own.
Baxter had the assurance to affirm, that our liturgy was too bad to be
mended, and confidently proposed to compose a new one, which he had the
insolence to offer to the bishops. Upon this the conference broke up,
without anything being done, except that some particular alterations
were proposed by the episcopal divines; which, the May following, were
considered and agreed to by the whole clergy in convocation. The
principal of these alterations were, that several lessons in the
calendar were changed for others more proper for the days; the prayers
for particular occasions were disjoined from the Litany, and the two
prayers to be used in the Ember weeks, the prayer for the parliament,
that for all conditions of men, and the general thanksgiving, were
added. Several of the collects were altered; the Epistles and Gospels
were taken out of the last translation of the Bible, being read before
according to the old translation. The Office for Baptism of those of
Riper Years, and the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea, were added. In a
word, the whole liturgy was then brought to the state in which it now
stands, and was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of
both provinces, on Friday, Dec. 20, 1661. And being brought to the House
of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily passed an act for
its establishment; and the Earl of Clarendon, then lord chancellor, was
ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy, for
their care and industry shown in the review of it.
The English liturgy was adopted in Ireland shortly after the Reformation
in England. In 1551, Edward VI. issued an injunction to Sir Anthony St.
Leger, the lord deputy there, to have the English Common Prayer Book
read in the Irish churches. The lord deputy accordingly summoned the
whole clergy, and after opposition from the primate and some of the
bishops, a proclamation was issued, and the English Prayer Book publicly
used in Christ Church, on Easter Sunday that year: having been printed
in Dublin, with these words on the title page, _After the use of the
Church of England_. No order is extant for the adoption of King Edward’s
Second Book; nor does it appear that any act was passed in Queen Mary’s
reign prohibiting the use of the First. In 1560, an Act of Uniformity,
copied from the English act, was passed, enjoining the Book of Common
Prayer as then revised in England: this act was passed with the consent
of seventeen out of nineteen prelates, that is, of the spiritual estate,
as the Irish Church was then constituted. In 1662 the English revised
liturgy was referred for consideration to the Irish bishops; on their
approval it was passed by convocation; and nearly four years after, the
Act of Uniformity was enacted by parliament.—See _Stephens’s
Introduction to the Irish Book of Common Prayer_.
The peculiar excellencies of our Church of England service are to be
traced to a variety of causes. One prominent cause is obvious and
important; namely, that our reformers most closely adhered to the model
of primitive devotion.... To approach, as near as possible, to the
Church of the apostles, and to that of the old Catholic bishops and
fathers, so long as they deemed it pure and unadulterated, was the
paramount direction of their tastes, their judgments, and their
hearts.... In the formation of our liturgy, it has been happily, and
doubtless providentially, guarded alike from excess and deficiency. It
possesses a peculiar temperament, equally remote from all extremes, and
harmoniously blending all excellencies: it is not superstitious, it is
not fanatical, it is not cold and formal, it is not rapturous and
violent; but it unites, perhaps beyond any other human composition,
sublime truth and pure spirit; the calmest wisdom and the most energetic
devotion. Under various trying circumstances it has been so signally and
repeatedly preserved, that we cannot doubt it is continued to us for
some greater purpose than it has hitherto effected. While the very
memory of many contending parties, that threatened its destruction, has
nearly passed away, it remains uninjured and unaltered; giving us to
conjecture, that it is reserved for still nobler, more extended, and
more enduring triumphs.—_Bishop Jebb._
As for the English liturgy’s symbolizing with the Popish Missal, as some
have odiously and falsely calumniated, it doth no more than our
communion, or LORD’S supper celebrated in England, doth with the mass at
Rome; or our doctrine about the eucharist doth with theirs about
transubstantiation; or our humble veneration of our GOD and SAVIOUR in
that mystery doth with their strange gesticulations and superstitions.
In all which particulars, how much the Church of England differed both
in doctrine and devotion from that of Rome, no man that is intelligent
and honest can either deny or dissemble.—_Gauden’s Tears of the Church
of England._
The Nonconformists say, the liturgy is in great part picked and culled
out of the mass-book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or
was esteemed by them, a devised or false worship; for many things
contained in the mass-book itself are good and holy. A pearl may be
found upon a dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin than to say,
that everything in the mass-book is devilish and antichristian, for then
it would be antichristian to pray unto GOD in the mediation of JESUS
CHRIST—to read the Scriptures—to profess many fundamental truths
necessary to salvation. Our service might be picked and culled out of
the mass-book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all
show and appearance of evil; though the mass-book itself was fraught
with all manner of abominations. It is more proper to say the mass was
added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of
the mass-book; for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in
the liturgies of the Church long before the mass was heard of in the
world.”—_Stillingfleet on Separation._
A man would wonder how it is possible for those, who understand wherein
the iniquity of Popery consists, to make this objection against the Book
of Common Prayer.
The Papists have corrupted Christianity by adding many unwarrantable
particulars; whereas the Protestants have rejected those unwarrantable
particulars, and retained pure Christianity. Wherefore, as the
Protestant religion is very good, although it is in some sense the same
with that of the Papists; so also may an English reformed Prayer Book be
very good, although it be in some sense the same with the Popish
liturgies. Upon supposition that the matter of fact were never so
certainly true, and that the Book of Common Prayer were taken word for
word out of the Popish liturgies, yet this is no just objection against
it. For as the Popish religion is a mixture of things good and bad; so
their liturgies are of the same kind. They contain many excellent
prayers addressed to the true and only GOD; which every good Christian
cannot but heartily approve of; though at the same time there are other
prayers addressed to angels and saints, and containing unsound matter.
So that it is possible for us to make a choice of admirable devotions
out of the Popish liturgies, if we take care to separate the good from
the bad; if we reject their superstitions, and retain what is truly
Christian.—_Bennet’s Paraph. Com. Prayer_, Appendix I.
If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because it is
comprehended in the mass-book, or in the breviary, we must, by the same
reason, infer, that our doctrine is unsound, because it is all to be
found in the councils, and in the writings of the doctors of the Romish
Church. But so the LORD’S Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and many
sentences of Scripture which are used in that missal, or in that
breviary, as also the doctrine of the TRINITY, of the incarnation,
passion, &c., which are comprehended in the councils, would all of them
be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say that our liturgy is
naught, because it hath been extracted out of the mass-book or breviary,
if that were true, yet it is just such an argument, as if men had hit
Luther and Calvin in the teeth with this, that they were superstitious,
Popish heretics, because they came the one out of a convent from among
friars, and the other out of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries,
who were all infected with Popish heresies and superstitions. And would
they not have had great cause to complain, if upon this pretence they
had been always suspected, rejected, or condemned? Therefore, as they
were reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, after their doctrine
had been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of Rome,
although they came out of her communion, let our liturgy have but the
same right done unto it; let it be examined, and that, if they please,
with exactness and the greatest rigour; but in consequence let it be
also declared innocent, if no harm be found therein, though that should
prove true, that it had been wholly taken out of the mass-book, or
breviary, which will never be found to be so. For I dare say that among
one hundred of them who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that
ever saw the missal or the breviary, or but knows so much as what the
books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they
might produce some proofs of this rash affirmation, which is so frequent
in their mouths, they would be infinitely puzzled. They would not find,
either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our
liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent
passages which set before our eyes the greatness of our guilt towards
GOD, and of his mercy in pardoning the same unto us; which passages are
placed in the very beginning of it. They would not find there that godly
exhortation to repentance, and to the confession of our sins in the
presence of GOD, which followeth immediately the reading of those
passages. Nor yet the confession of sins, nor the absolution which
followeth the same, for there is not one line of all this in the
mass-book. The ten commandments are not to be found there, nor that
prayer which is made at the end of every commandment which the minister
hath pronounced; nor the Commination, nor several prayers of the Litany,
or of the other forms. But in it they will meet with the LORD’S Prayer,
the Creeds, the songs of Zachary, Simeon, of the Blessed Virgin, and of
some others, which are word for word in the Scripture, or are extracted
out of it, and are grounded upon the same, and were in use in the
primitive Christian Church before ever the mass was hatched. Therefore
it is manifest that to say that our liturgy is either the mass, or taken
out of it, is a mere slander, proceeding from malice, or ignorance, or
both.—_Durel’s Government of the Reformed Churches—Sermon on the English
Liturgy._
LOGOS. The WORD; from the Greek ὁ Λόγος. A title given to our blessed
LORD and SAVIOUR; so designated not only because the FATHER first
created and still governs all things by him, but because, as men
discover their sentiments and designs to one another, by the
intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so GOD by his SON discovers
his gracious designs to men. All the various manifestations of himself,
whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, all the
revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us
through him; and therefore he is, by way of eminence, called the WORD of
GOD.—_Tomline._
The word appears to be used as an abstract for the concrete, as St. John
employs _Light_ for _enlightener_, _Life_ for _giver of life_; so that
the expression means _speaker_, or _interpreter_. So, (John i. 18,) “No
man hath seen GOD at any time; the Only Begotten, who is in the bosom of
the FATHER, he hath _declared_ him.” In the first verse he is described
as the WORD which “was with GOD in the beginning, and was GOD.” (See
_Jesus_ and _Lord_.)
As to the reason of this name or title of _the Word_, given by the
evangelist to our blessed SAVIOUR; he seems to have done it in
compliance with the common way of speaking among the Jews, who
frequently call the Messias by the name of the WORD of the LORD; of
which I might give many instances; but there is one very remarkable, in
the Targum of Jonathan, which renders the words of the psalmist, which
the Jews acknowledged to be spoken of the Messias, viz. _The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, &c._, thus, “_The Lord said
unto his Word_,” &c. And so likewise Philo the Jew calls him “by whom
GOD made the world, the WORD of GOD, and the SON of GOD:” and Plato
probably had the same notion from the Jews, which made Amelius, the
Platonist, when he read the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, to say,
“This barbarian agrees with Plato, ranking the WORD in the order of
principles;” meaning, that he made the WORD the principle or efficient
cause of the world, as Plato also hath done. And this title of the WORD
was so famously known to be given to the MESSIAS, that even the enemies
of Christianity took notice of it. Julian the apostate calls CHRIST by
this name: and Mahomet in his Alcoran gives this name to JESUS the SON
of Mary. But St. John had probably no reference to Plato, any otherwise
than as the Gnostics, against whom he wrote, made use of several of
Philo’s words and notions. So that in all probability St. John gives our
blessed SAVIOUR this title with regard to the Jews more especially, who
anciently called MESSIAS by this name.—_Archbishop Tillotson._
See the very learned article on the word Λόγος (under its 16th head) in
_Rose’s edition of Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon_.
LOLLARDS. A religious sect, which arose in Germany about the beginning
of the fourteenth century; so called, as many writers have imagined,
from Walter Lollard, who began to dogmatize in 1315, and was burnt at
Cologne; though others think that Lollard was no surname, but merely a
term of reproach applied to all heretics, who concealed the poison of
error under the appearance of piety. In England, the followers of
Wickliff were called, by way of reproach, _Lollards_, from the
supposition that there was some affinity between some of their tenets:
though others are of opinion that the English Lollards came from
Germany. (See _Wickliffites_.)
LOMBARDICKS. Flat tombstones, generally of granite or alabaster,
coffin-shaped, with a slightly raised cross in the centre, and a legend
running round it.
LORD, OUR LORD. The LORD JESUS CHRIST is such to us, as He is,
1. Our SAVIOUR.
I will place _salvation_ in Zion. (Isa. xlvi. 13.) Behold thy
_salvation_ cometh. (Isa. lxii. 11.) I speak in righteousness, _mighty
to save_. (Isa. lxiii. 1.) Thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he shall
_save_ his people from their sins. (Matt. i. 21.) The FATHER sent the
SON to be _the Saviour of the world_. (1 John iv. 14.) To be a Prince
and a _Saviour_. (Acts v. 31.) The author of _eternal salvation_. (Heb.
v. 9.) GOD _our Saviour_. (Tit. ii. 10.) The great GOD, and even _our
Saviour_ JESUS CHRIST. (Tit. ii. 13.) GOD hath not appointed us to
wrath; but to obtain _salvation_ by our LORD CHRIST JESUS. (1 Thess. v.
9.) That the world through him might _be saved_. (John iii. 17.) This is
a faithful saying, &c., that JESUS CHRIST came into the world to _save_
sinners. (1 Tim. i. 15.) Neither is there _salvation_ in _any other_;
for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved. (Acts iv. 12. See also Matt. i. 21; xviii. 11; Luke ii.
11; John iii. 17; iv. 42; xii. 47; Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 9; x. 9; Eph. v.
23; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Thess. i. 10; Heb. ii. 3; vii. 25; Tit. iii. 5, 6.)
2. Our Sacrifice for sin.
The Spirit—testified beforehand the _sufferings_ of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i.
11.) Behold _the Lamb of_ GOD, which taketh away (beareth) the sin of
the world. (John i. 29.) The _Lamb slain_ from the foundation of the
world. (Rev. xiii. 8.) CHRIST our passover is _sacrificed_ (slain) for
us. (1 Cor. v. 7.) CHRIST _died for our sins_ according to the
Scriptures. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) His own self bare our sins in his _own body_
on the tree. (1 Pet. ii. 24.) And hath given himself for us, an offering
and _a sacrifice_ to GOD. (Eph. v. 2.) An offering _for sin_. (Isa.
liii. 10.) Once offered to bear the sins of many. (Heb. ix. 28.) Thus it
behoved CHRIST to _suffer_. (Luke xxiv. 46.) The just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to GOD. (1 Pet. iii. 18.) Hereby perceive we the
love of GOD, because he _laid down his life for us_. (1 John iii. 16.
See also Isa. liii. 6–12; Dan. ix. 26; Luke xxiv. 26; John iii. 14, 15;
xv. 13; Acts iii. 18; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. ix. 26;
x. 5; 1 John i. 7; ii. 2.)
3. Our Redeemer.
I know that _my Redeemer_ liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter
day upon the earth. (Job xix. 25.) _The redeemer_ shall come to Zion.
(Isa. lix. 20.) CHRIST hath _redeemed_ us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) _Redeemed_ with the precious
blood of CHRIST. (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) Having obtained _eternal
redemption_ for us. (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt.
xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)
4. Our Mediator.
There is _one Mediator_ between GOD and man, the man CHRIST JESUS. (1
Tim. ii. 5.) He is _the Mediator_ of a new—a better—covenant. (Heb.
viii. 6; xii. 24.) _The Mediator_ of the New Testament. (Heb. ix. 15.)
No man cometh to the FATHER but _by me_. (John xiv. 6. See also Job ix.
2; John xvi. 23; Heb. vii. 25; xi. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)
5. Our Advocate.
We have _an advocate_ with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous. (1
John ii. 1. See also Heb. ix. 24.)
6. Our Intercessor.
He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was _no
Intercessor_; therefore _his arm_ brought salvation. (Isa. lix. 16.) He
made _intercession_ for the transgressors. (Isa. liii. 12.) He ever
liveth to make _intercession_ for them. (Heb. vii. 25. See also Rom.
viii. 34.)
7. Our Propitiation.
He is the _propitiation_ for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world. (1 John ii. 2.) Whom God hath set forth
to be _a propitiation_, through faith in his blood. (Rom. iii. 25.)
8. Our Ransom.
He is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the
pit, I have found _a ransom_. (Job xxxiii. 24.) The Son of man came—to
give his life _a ransom_ for many. (Matt. xx. 28.) _A ransom_ for all to
be testified in due time. (1 Tim. ii. 6.)
9. Our Righteousness.
_Their righteousness_ is of me, saith the LORD. (Isa. liv. 17.) _The
righteousness of_ GOD which is in faith by JESUS CHRIST to all. (Rom.
iii. 22.) The LORD _our righteousness_. (Jer. xxiii. 6. See also Isa.
lxi. 10; Dan. ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1, 29.)
10. Our Wisdom.
CHRIST JESUS, who of GOD is made unto us _wisdom_. (1 Cor. i. 17, 30.
See also Isa. ix. 6; Eph. i. 17; iii. 4.)
11. Our Sanctification.
JESUS also, that he might _sanctify the people_ with his own blood,
suffered without the gate. (Heb. xiii. 12.) _We_ are _sanctified_
through the offering of the body of JESUS CHRIST. (Heb. x. 10. See also
Mal. iii. 3; Matt. iii. 12; John xvii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 11; Eph. v.
25, 26; Heb. x. 14; 1 John i. 7.)
(Of him are ye in CHRIST JESUS, _who_ of GOD is made unto us _wisdom_,
and _righteousness_, and _sanctification_, 1 Cor. i. 30.)
12. Our LORD and our GOD.
John xx. 28.
II. As He is,
1. The MESSIAH.
_Messiah_ the prince. (Dan. ix. 25, 26.) We have found _the Messias_,
which is, being interpreted, the CHRIST (the anointed). (John i. 41.)
Anointed—to preach good tidings unto the meek. (Isa. lxi. 1.) To preach
the gospel to the poor, &c. (Luke iv. 18.)
2. The Head of the Church.
Christ is _the Head of the Church_. (Eph. v. 23.) GOD—gave him to be
_the head_ over all things to _the Church_, which is his body. (Eph. i.
22, 23. See also Ps. cxviii. 22; Matt. ii. 6; xxi. 42; John x. 14; Acts
iv. 11; Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 12–15; v.
29; Col. i. 18, 24; Heb. iii. 1; xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 6, 25.)
3. The Power of GOD.
Unto them which are called—CHRIST _the power of_ GOD. (1 Cor. i. 24.)
Declared to be the SON of GOD _with power_. (Rom. i. 4.) The brightness
of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all
things by the _word of his power_. (Heb. i. 3.) For in him dwelleth all
_the fulness_ of the GODHEAD bodily. (Col. ii. 9. See also Matt. ix. 6;
xi. 27; xxviii. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xx. 32; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. ii.
10; 2 Tim. i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. xi. 15.)
4. The Truth.
_I am the truth._ (John xiv. 6.) Grace and _truth_ came by JESUS
CHRIST,—the only begotten of the FATHER, _full_ of grace and _truth_.
(John i. 17, 14.) _The Amen_, the faithful and true witness. (Rev. iii.
14. See also Isa. xlii. 3; John viii. 14, 32; xviii. 37; 2 Cor. xi. 10;
Eph. iv. 21; 1 John v. 20; Rev. xix. 11; xxii. 6.)
5. The KING of kings, and LORD of lords.
Rev. xvii. 14; xix. 16. And see also Ps. lxxxix. 27; Dan. vii. 14, 27;
Zech. xiv. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rev. i. 5; xi. 15.
6. The LORD of Glory.
1 Cor. ii. 8; Jas. ii. 1.
7. The LORD of All.
JESUS CHRIST, he is LORD of all. (Acts x. 36.) To this end CHRIST both
died, and rose, and revived, that he might be LORD both of the _dead and
living_. (Rom. xiv. 9.) And that every tongue should confess that JESUS
CHRIST is LORD. (Phil. ii. 11. See also Josh. v. 14; Micah v. 2; John
xiii. 13; xvi. 15; Acts ii. 36; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. viii. 6; xii. 5; xv.
47; 2 Thess. i. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Col. iii. 24; Heb. i. 2; ii. 8; xiii.
20; Rev. i. 8; v. 5.)
III. Through Him we have,
1. Grace. (John i. 16; Acts xv. 11; Rom. i. 5; iii. 24; v. 2, 15–21;
xvi. 20, and similar passages. 1 Cor. i. 4; xv. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 9; xii.
9; Eph. i. 7; ii. 7; iv. 7; vi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 2, 14; 2 Tim. i. 9; 2 Pet.
iii. 18.)
2. Power. (1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Eph. vi. 8; Phil. iv. 13; Col.
i. 29; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 9, 12; Heb. ii. 14, 18; xiii. 21.)
3. Faith. (Matt. ix. 2; John vi. 45; Acts xxvi. 18; iii. 16; Rom. iii.
22, 25; v. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 5; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 22; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i.
29; iii. 9; Col. ii. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 13; iv. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John
v. 14.)
4. Forgiveness of sins. (Zech. xiii. 1; Matt. ix. 6; Luke xxiv. 47; John
i. 29; Acts ii. 38; v. 31; x. 43; xiii. 38; Rom. viii. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 10;
Eph. i. 7; iv. 32; Heb. ix. 26; 1 John ii. 12; Rev. i. 5.)
5. Justification. (Isa. liii. 11; Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24, 26; iv.
25; v. 1, 9, 16, 18; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. ii. 16, 21; iii.
8, 11, 24; Phil. iii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.)
6. Patience. (Ps. xxxvii. 7, with 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2
Thess. i. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Heb. vi. 12; x. 36; xii. 1; James v. 7, 8;
Rev. i. 9; ii. 2, 3, 19; iii. 10; xiv. 12.)
7. Light. (Isa. xlix. 6; Luke ii. 32; John i. 9; iii. 19; viii. 12; ix.
5; xii. 35, 36, 46; 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6; Eph. v. 14; 1 John ii. 8; Rev. xxi.
23.)
8. Life. (John i. 4; iii. 36; v. 21, 24; vi. 27, 33, 40; x. 10, 28; xi.
25; xiv. 6; xx. 31; Acts iii. 15; Rom. v. 15–21; vi. 8, 11, 23; viii. 2;
xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 10; Phil. i. 21; Col. iii. 4; 1 Thess.
v. 10; 2 Tim. i. 1, 10; 1 John i. 1; ii. 25; iv. 9; v. 11, 12, 20; Jude,
ver. 21.)
9. Peace. (Isa. ix. 6; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Zech. ix. 10; Luke i. 79; ii.
14; xix. 38; John xiv. 27; xvi. 33; Acts x. 36; Rom. i. 7, and the
similar passages, and v. 1; x. 15; Eph. ii. 14–17; vi. 15; Phil. iv. 7;
Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. v. 14.)
10. Blessing. (Gal. iii. 14; Eph. i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 22.)
11. All we need. (Ps. xxiii. 1; John xv. 7, 16; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Phil.
iv. 19.)
12. Joy and consolation. (Luke ii. 25; John xvi. 20; Rom. v. 11; xv. 13;
2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. ii. 1; iii. 1; iv. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16.)
13. Victory. (Rom. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 1 John iv. 4;
v. 4, 5; Rev. xii. 11.)
14. The kingdom of heaven. (Luke xxii. 28, 29; John xiv. 3; Eph. ii. 6;
v. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11; Rev. iii. 21;
xxi. 22.)
IV. Through Him we are,
1. Reconciled to GOD. (Dan. ix. 24; John xi. 52; Rom. v. 1, 10; xi. 15;
2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Eph. i. 10; ii. 13, 16; iii. 6; Col. i. 20, 21; Heb.
ii. 17; 1 John iv. 10.)
2. Made sons of GOD. (Isa. lvi. 5; Luke xii. 32; John i. 12; Gal. iii.
26; iv. 5–7; Eph. i. 5; 1 John iii. 1.)
V. Through Him we must,
1. Offer thanks. (Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; Eph. i. 6; v. 20; Col. iii. 17; 1
Thess. v. 18; Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 5.)
2. Give glory to GOD. (John xiv. 13; Rom. xvi. 27; 2 Cor. viii. 23; Eph.
iii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11.)
3. Be accepted. (Eph. i. 6.)
VI. In Him we must,
1. Have faith. (Isa. xxviii. 16; John i. 12; iii. 16; vi. 29, 47; xx.
31; Acts xvi. 31; xviii. 8; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; Rom. ix. 33; x. 9; Gal.
ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29; 2 Tim. i. 13; 1 John ii. 22; iii. 23;
v. 1, 10.)
2. Hope. (Acts xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 19; Col. i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 1.)
3. Trust. (2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 4; xi. 10; Eph. i. 12.)
4. Die. (Rom. vii. 4; viii. 10, 36; 1 Cor. iv. 9; ix. 15; xv. 31; 2 Cor.
i. 5; iv. 10, 11; vi. 9; Phil. ii. 30.)
5. Become new creatures. (2 Cor. iv. 16; v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.)
6. Have our conversation. (John xv. 16, 22; Rom. vi. 4; viii. 9; xiii.
14; 1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 10; xiii. 5; Gal. i. 10; ii. 17; v. 24;
Eph. iii. 19; iv. 15; vi. 6; Phil. i. 10, 11, 27; ii. 5, 21; iii. 18;
Col. i. 10; ii. 6; iii. 1, 16; 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12; iv. 1; 2 Tim. ii.
1–3, 19; Tit. ii. 10; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 16; Rev. vii. 14.)
VII. In His name,
1. We are exhorted. (1 Cor. i. 10; iii. 1; v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2; 1
Tim. v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 1.)
2. We must speak. (Rom. ix. 1, 2; 2 Cor. ii. 17; xii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 7.)
3. We must ask. (Matt. xviii. 19, 20; John xiv. 13; xv. 7; xvi. 23, 24;
2 Cor. xii. 8, 9; 1 John v. 14, 15.)
VIII. We must,
1. Acknowledge His power. (Isa. lxiii. 1–6; John v. 23; Rom. xiv. 11;
Phil. ii. 10, 11; Rev. v. 13.)
2. Confess His name. (Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8, 9; Acts viii. 37; Phil.
ii. 11; 1 John iv. 15; 2 John, ver. 7; Rev. ii. 13; iii. 8.)
3. And in His name do all things. (Eph. vi. 7; Col. iii. 17, 23.)
IX. In Him we are united.
Rom. viii. 17, 39; xii. 5; xvi. 7, 9–13; 1 Cor. i. 13; iii. 1; vi. 15;
vii. 22; x. 17; xii. 13, 20, 27; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Gal. i. 22; iii. 27, 28;
Eph. i. 10, 22, 23; ii. 14, 16, 21; iii. 6; iv. 12, 16, 20, 25; v. 30;
Col. i. 18, 24; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 14; 1 John i. 3; v. 20.
X. For Him we must suffer.
Matt. v. 11, 12; xvi. 24; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. v. 3; viii. 17; 1 Cor. iv.
9; 2 Cor. i. 5; iv. 10; vi. 10; vii. 4; xii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i.
12; iii. 8; Col i. 24; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; iii. 12; Heb.
x. 34; xi. 26; xiii. 13; James i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 21; iv. 13, 14,
16; Rev. i. 9; ii. 3.
XI. He judgeth all things.
John v. 22; Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v.
10; 2 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5; Jude, ver. 14, 15; Rev. xx. 12.
LORD’S DAY. The first day of the week is so designated in the Christian
Church;—it is the κυριακὴ ἡμέρα of St. John and Ignatius (see
_Schleusner_ in voc.);—and as Friday is appointed as the weekly fast, in
commemoration of our LORD’S crucifixion, so is Sunday the weekly feast,
in commemoration of his resurrection.
GOD has commanded us to dedicate _at least_ a seventh portion of our
time to him. We read in Genesis, (ii. 3,) that GOD blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it. Here we are told that the seventh day, or as we
shall presently show, one day in seven, was not only blessed, but
sanctified by GOD. Now, by sanctifying a thing or person, we understand
their being separated or set apart for a religious purpose. When
therefore the ALMIGHTY is said to sanctify a portion of time, it cannot
be in reference to himself, to whom all days, times, and seasons are
alike—equally pure, equally holy,—but in reference to man; and the
sanctifying a day must, consequently, imply a command to man to keep it
holy. That one day in seven was from the beginning dedicated to the
service of the ALMIGHTY, will receive confirmation by reference to the
chapter which immediately follows that from which the quotation just
made is taken. For there we are told that Cain and his brother Abel made
a sacrifice,—not “in the process of time” merely,—but, as it is given in
the margin of our Bibles, “at the end of the days.” The latter reading
we prefer, because, while the former conveys but an indistinct idea to
the mind, the latter is confirmed by one of the oldest versions of
Scripture, called the Septuagint. But if to this expression,—“at the end
of the days,” we attach any meaning at all, it must surely signify at
the end of the six days of labour, that is, on the seventh day,
previously sanctified by the ALMIGHTY. When, in addition to this, we
take into consideration the evil character of Cain, it seems less
probable that he should have come voluntarily forward, with a grateful
heart, to worship his Maker, than that he carelessly complied with a
custom to which he had been habituated from his childhood: he came to
_sacrifice_, as some come now to _Church_, after each interval of six
days, from habit rather than piety.
We have also another corroborating evidence in favour of this
interpretation of our text. Holy Job is generally supposed to have lived
before the time of Moses; and in the Book of Job we find mention made of
“the day on which the sons of GOD came to present themselves unto the
LORD,” _which we may fairly conclude alludes to the sabbath_. It is
remarkable, also, that we find some traces of this institution among the
heathen, for two of their oldest poets, Homer and Hesiod, speak of the
seventh as being a sacred day. It is probable that in the same manner in
which they obtained the notion of a Deity, namely, by tradition from
father to son of a revelation made to Adam and Noah, they arrived at a
knowledge which gradually died away, of this sacredness of the seventh
day.
But when we remember that this rule was given to Adam, and was, in
consequence, binding, _not_ upon a chosen few, but upon all his
descendants, it does not appear likely that any one particular day was
designated, but merely that a general rule was laid down that one day in
seven should be dedicated to direct offices of religious duties; for it
would have been impossible for men, scattered, as they were soon to be,
over all the face of the earth, to observe, all of them, the _same_ day,
since the beginning of every day, and of course of the seventh, must
have been eighteen hours later in some parts of the world than in Eden
or Palestine, or wherever we suppose the sabbath to have been first
established. A law for a single nation may be particular; a law for all
mankind must be general: the principle must be laid down and enforced;
the particulars must depend upon circumstances. Besides, although it is
easy to demonstrate that the Israelites ought to have set apart for
their religious duties one day in seven, previously to the ceremonial
institution of the sabbath on Mount Sinai, yet it is equally clear that
they did not keep the same day _before_ the delivery of the law, as they
did afterwards. For although in the 16th chapter of Exodus, _previously_
to the delivery of the law, the sabbath is spoken of as an institution
well known to the Israelites, yet as to the particular day on which it
was kept there is no mention made. It was not till AFTERWARDS that _one
certain particular_ day was appointed, (namely, _that_ on which they
came out of Egypt,) for the two-fold purpose, that _as men_ they might
commemorate the creation, and _as Israelites_ celebrate their
deliverance. Now we may reasonably infer that they would not have set
out from Egypt on the sabbath day, and that consequently their sabbath
was not observed at the same time _before_, as it was _after_, its
re-institution on Mount Sinai.
That we, then, together with every human being, are bound to dedicate
one day in seven to religious duties, is evident, because the
commandment was given, not to Moses, but to Adam; not to the Israelites,
but to all the descendants of Eve. But the observance of _that one
particular_ day sanctified to the Jews, not only to celebrate the
universal love of GOD in the creation of the world, but his special
loving-kindness to their individual nation, is not any longer obligatory
upon us, because it formed part of the ceremonial law. It remains,
therefore, now to inquire on what authority it is that we observe the
_first_ day of the week in preference to any other, or, in other words,
by whom the festival of the LORD’S day was instituted.
That we in the present age keep the first day of the week as a holy-day
dedicated to the service of our MAKER and REDEEMER is certain; the
question is, whether this was an arbitrary innovation, introduced when
our Church was corrupted by Popery, and retained at its reformation as a
useful institution, or whether it has higher claims to our respect. It
is _not_ a Popish innovation or novelty, because we find it mentioned by
our great divines in those primitive and purer ages of our Church,
before Popery or any of its doctrines were invented or dreamt of. For,
in examining such writers as lived in the age of the apostles, or those
immediately succeeding, we find them alluding to the fact, (and their
testimony is confirmed by contemporary and infidel historians,) that
Christians were _always_ accustomed to meet on the first day of the week
for the performance of their religious exercises. If we examine them
more minutely, we find that, as the Jewish sabbath was fixed to a
certain day, on account of their deliverance from Pharaoh, so the
Christians kept this festival in grateful acknowledgment of the mercies
of the REDEEMER, who, as on this day, accomplished the victory over the
grave, by rising from the dead. If we attend them yet further, we find
those who, too honest to deceive, lived too near the apostolic age to be
deceived, asserting that this festival was instituted by the apostles;
and if by the apostles, who acted under the immediate direction and
influence of the HOLY GHOST, then of course we may conclude that the
institution was Divine.
Having thus far shown what the tradition is, let us now consult our
Bibles, to ascertain whether it be confirmed or contradicted, for
without this it will be of no avail. Now, that the gospel does not
_expressly_ command the religious observance of the first day in the
week must be conceded. The apostles and Jewish Christians do not appear
to have neglected the Jewish sabbath. As long as the temple continued
standing, they kept the last day of the week as a fast; the first, as a
festival. That the apostles did keep the first day of the week as a
festival, is quite clear. St. Paul, we are told, preached at Troas, “on
the first day of the week.” When all the disciples had, as they were in
the habit of doing, “come together to break bread,” that is, to receive
the holy eucharist, which ought always to form a part of the public
service, he gave orders also to the Corinthians to make a collection for
the saints at Jerusalem, when, according to their custom, they assembled
together on the first day of the week, which day is expressly called by
St. John the LORD’S day. (Rev. i. 10.) But if the testimony of _man_ is
great, the testimony of GOD is greater. Their observance of this
festival was sanctioned by our LORD himself, by his repeated appearance
among his apostles on that day; after his resurrection it is sanctioned
by the HOLY GHOST, by the miraculous effusion of the SPIRIT upon the
apostles when they were together on the day of Pentecost, which must,
that year, have fallen upon the first day of the week. Now, take these
facts of Scripture (and others may be found) and compare them with the
universal tradition to which we have alluded, and surely we must agree
with one of the most celebrated divines who have appeared in modern
times, when speaking of the most important doctrine of our religion,
that of the Trinity, “if what appears _probably_ to be taught in
Scripture appears _certainly_ to have been taught in the primitive and
Catholic Church, such probability, so strengthened, carries with it the
force of demonstration.”
We may perceive from this, that our practice of keeping holy the first
day of the week is sanctioned by the apostles. What is our authority, if
we _except_ the high authority of the Church, for not observing the last
day of the week _also_, it were hard to say. But if the authority of the
Church is to be received, we must remember that what she teaches is,
that we are to dedicate _at least_ a seventh portion of our time to GOD.
But this we do not do, unless every moment of the Sunday is so devoted.
And yet who can do this? Therefore the Church also requires of us a
portion of Friday, and a portion of the saints’ days.
LORD’S PRAYER. The prayer which our blessed LORD himself hath taught us.
It is to be used as a model for all our devotions, our blessed LORD
saying, (Matt. vi. 9,) “_After this manner_ pray ye;” and it is to be
used in express words _whenever_ we pray, our LORD commanding us, (Luke
xi. 2,) “When ye pray, say, Our FATHER,” &c. Therefore the Church of
CHRIST hath used from the first to begin and end her services with the
LORD’S Prayer. This being the foundation upon which all other prayers
should be built, therefore, saith Tertullian, we begin with it, that so,
the right foundation being laid, we may justly proceed to our ensuing
requests. And it being the perfection of all prayer, therefore, saith
St. Augustine, we conclude our prayers with it. Let no man, therefore,
quarrel with the Church’s frequent use of the LORD’S Prayer, for the
Catholic Church ever did the same. Besides, as St. Cyprian observes, if
we would hope to have our prayers accepted of the FATHER only for his
SON’S sake, why should we not hope to have them most speedily accepted
when they are offered up in his SON’S own words?
It is objected by some persons in the present day, (for the objection
was unknown to the primitive Church,) that our SAVIOUR did not give this
as an express _form of prayer_, but only as a pattern, or direction. In
support of this they quote the passage, Matt. vi. 9, &c., in which it is
introduced, “After this manner pray ye;” not laying so much stress on
the similar passage, Luke xi. 2, &c., where our _Saviour_ expressly
says, “When ye pray, say.” On this it may be remarked, that where there
are two texts on any particular doctrine, or practice, the one worded
ambiguously, as in that of St. Matthew, “After this manner,” &c., (or as
the translation would more properly be, “Pray _thus_,” and the ambiguity
would then almost vanish,) and the other clearly expressed; as in that
of St. Luke, “When ye pray, say,” it is a settled and a natural rule of
interpretation, that the doubtful words should be explained by those
which are clear. Now he who uses these very words as a form, acts in
evident obedience to both the letter and the spirit of the one precept,
and yet not in contradiction to the other. But he who rejects this as a
form, though he may act in obedience to the spirit of the one, certainly
acts in disobedience to the letter, if not to the spirit of the other,
“When ye pray, say,” &c.
Had not our LORD given this as a settled form of prayer, he would have
been very likely to have dilated somewhat on the various subjects it
embraces—of adoration, prayer, and praise: and perhaps have introduced
illustrations according to his custom; and would not improbably have
said, “When ye pray, address yourselves in the first place to GOD who is
your heavenly FATHER, but forget not his sovereignty, and ask him to
give you,” &c. But instead of this he dictates, in both cases, a few
comprehensive sentences, convenient for all persons, and under all
circumstances, and of which the eloquent Tertullian thus rapturously
exclaims, “In this compendium of few words, how many declarations of
prophets, evangelists, and apostles are contained! How many discourses,
parables, examples, precepts of our LORD! How many duties towards GOD
are briefly expressed! Honour to the FATHER, faith, profession in his
name, offering of obedience in his will, expression of hope in his
kingdom; petition for the necessaries of life in the bread, confession
of sins in the supplication, solicitation against temptations in the
asking of protection. What wonder! GOD alone could teach how he chose to
be prayed to.” St. Cyprian says, that “it is so copious in spiritual
virtue, that there is nothing omitted in all our prayers and petitions
which is not comprehended in this epitome of heavenly doctrine.”
It is necessary to be understood that the transactions mentioned by St.
Matthew and St. Luke were not one and the same, but occurred at
different times, and on different occasions. Our LORD first introduced
this form of prayer uncalled for, in the sermon on the mount, at the
commencement of his commission, comprehending a doxology, or concluding
tribute of glory and praise. But he gave it for the second time, after
an interval of about two years and a half, as is clear from the various
events that occurred, and that are enumerated in the chapters (Luke
vii.–xi.) which form the greater part of the acts of his ministry.
It is not impossible that the disciples themselves did, on the first
occasion, regard it as conveying a general idea only in what terms GOD
should be addressed, and therefore not having used it as a common
prayer, the circumstance of our LORD’S “praying in a certain place”
induced one of his disciples, “when he ceased,” to say, “LORD, teach us
to pray, as John also taught his disciples;” alluding to a well-known
custom of the Hebrew masters, which it thus appears John had adopted, of
teaching their scholars a particular form of words in their addresses to
GOD, varying, no doubt, according to their particular sentiments. Our
LORD’S disciples here, therefore, ask of him a precise form, and that
form he gives them in compliance with their wishes, not only for their
use, but for the use of all who should embrace the profession of
Christianity—“When ye pray, say,” &c.
It is supposed by some, and there seems much reason for the idea, that
the disciple who thus asked was a new convert, and not present at the
delivery of the sermon on the mount, and that our LORD repeated the form
which he had then before given. Indeed, if that which was first given
had not been considered as a settled form, or a groundwork for it, it
would appear extraordinary that it should be repeated in so nearly the
same words, and precisely in the same order of sentences. Grotius
remarks on this subject, that so averse was our LORD, the LORD of the
Church, (_tam longe abfuit ipse Dominus ecclesiæ_,) to unnecessary
innovation, and an affectation of novelty, that he “who had not the
SPIRIT by measure,” but “in whom were all the hidden treasures of wisdom
and knowledge,” selected the words and phrases in a great degree from
forms of prayer then well known among the Jew; as in his doctrines he
also made use of proverbs and sayings well understood in that age.
The difference between the form given in the sermon on the mount and on
that second occasion is, that to the latter he does not affix the
doxology, which many indeed suppose to be an interpolation; leaving this
perhaps to be added according to the occasion and to the zeal of the
worshipper. It cannot be imagined that either the disciples of our LORD,
or of John, had hitherto neglected the duty of prayer, or that they
performed it in an uncertain or disorderly manner, as they had set forms
and hours of prayer, which all the devout Jews observed; it seems
therefore obvious that a particular form is alluded to in the case of
both, and the request to our LORD was made in pursuance of his
encouraging direction, “Ask, and ye shall have,” and was gratified by
him in compliance with the reasonable and well-known existing custom.
“Thus,” as the learned Mede says on this subject, (see his discourse on
Matt. vi. 9,) “their inadvertency” (in not understanding it the first
time as a form) “becomes our confirmation. For, as Joseph said to
Pharaoh, ‘the dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is
established by GOD,’ (Gen. xli. 32,) so may we say here, the delivery of
this prayer was doubled unto the disciples, that they and we might
thereby know the more certainly that our SAVIOUR, intended and commended
it unto his Church for a set form of prayer.”
Our blessed LORD appears afterwards to refer to the custom now adopted
by his disciples, and the well-known forms used, when he says, “And when
ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your
FATHER also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mark
xi. 25); thus pointedly referring to two of its principal features,
couched too in the same words. The apostle St. Peter seems to make the
same allusion when he says, “If ye call on the FATHER,” &c. (1 Pet. i.
17.)
Some have argued that this prayer is to be considered as temporary only,
and not of perpetual obligation, because we do not in it ask in the name
of CHRIST, according to his direction; but a transaction may be opposed
to this, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, (iv. 24,) in which it is
seen, unless the apostles and disciples had so quickly forgotten the
direction of their LORD, that prayers may be considered as offered up in
the name of CHRIST, though addressed to GOD; for there the disciples, on
the liberation of Peter and John by the Jewish council, lift up their
voice and say, “LORD, thou art GOD, which hast made heaven and earth,
and the sea, and all that in them is;” and they mention CHRIST as his
holy child JESUS. In our addresses to GOD, our heavenly FATHER, we
cannot forget him through whom we have access as to a father, being
“joint-heirs with him.”
Another objection is made, that it does not appear in Scripture that the
apostles used this prayer; but to this it may be remarked, that neither
does it appear they used any other form, and yet some form of words must
have been generally known and used by them, or how could “they lift up
their voice with one accord.” (Acts iv. 24; i. 14.)
Bishop Jeremy Taylor justly says, “That the apostles did use the prayer
their LORD taught them, I think need not much to be questioned; they
could have no other end of their desire; and it had been a strange
boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use, or a strange
levity not to do what they intended.”
The learned Bingham observes, that if there were no other argument to
prove the lawfulness of set forms of prayer in the judgment of the
ancients, the opinion which they had of the LORD’S Prayer, and their
practice pursuant to this opinion, would sufficiently do it; and he
remarks that they unequivocally looked upon it as a settled form: for
Tertullian says expressly that “our LORD prescribed a new form of prayer
for the new disciples of the New Testament, and that though John had
taught his disciples a form, yet that he did this only as a forerunner
of CHRIST, so that when CHRIST was increased, (‘he must increase, but I
must decrease,’) then the work of the servant passed over to the LORD.
Thus the prayer of John is lost, while that of our LORD remains, that
earthly things may give way to heavenly.”
In similar terms speaks Irenæus, (who had himself heard Polycarp, the
disciple of St. John,) Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St.
Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. The last says expressly, that
as the Church always used this prayer, she did it at the commandment of
CHRIST. “He said to his disciples—he said to his apostles and to us,
pray thus.” St. Chrysostom refers continually to the LORD’S Prayer, as
in common use among them by the express commandment of CHRIST, and
observes, “that the FATHER well knows the words and meaning of his SON.”
St. Cyprian says, “Let the FATHER recognise in your prayers the words of
the SON;” and he considers it as a peculiar instance of mercy, “that he
who made us taught us how to pray; that whilst we speak unto the FATHER
in that prayer and address which the SON taught us, we may the more
easily be heard.” He adds, “Since we have an Advocate with the FATHER
for our sins, we should, whenever we pray for pardon, allege unto GOD
the very words which our Advocate has taught us. We have his promise,
that whatever we shall ask in his name we shall receive: and must we not
more readily obtain our desires, when we not only use his name in
asking, but in his very words, present our request unto GOD. Our
Advocate in heaven has taught us to say this prayer upon earth, that
between his intercession and our supplications the most perfect harmony
may subsist.” The judicious Hooker observes, that “should men speak with
the tongues of angels, yet words so pleasing to the ears of GOD, as
those which the SON of GOD himself has composed, it were not possible
for man to frame.”
There was, indeed, hardly any office in the primitive Church in which
the celebration of this prayer did not make a solemn part; so that at
length it was called the _Oratio quotidiana_, the daily, the common
prayer; the _Oratio legitima_ the established prayer, or the prayer of
the Christian law; the “epitome of the gospel:” and St. Augustine even
terms it, “the daily baptism,” and a “daily purification,” “for,” says
he, “we are absolved once by baptism, but by this prayer daily.” When in
succeeding ages some of the clergy in Spain occasionally omitted it in
the daily service, they were censured by a council, as “proud contemners
of the LORD’S injunction; and it was enacted, that every clergyman
omitting it either in private or public prayer should be degraded from
the dignity of his office.” It is worthy of remark, that the heathen
writer Lucian, nearly contemporary with the apostles, makes a Christian,
in one of his dialogues, speak of the prayer which began, “Our FATHER.”
The early Fathers were even of opinion, that the making use of this
prayer was of vast efficacy to incline GOD to pardon sins of infirmity,
especially those committed through want of fervour and sufficient
attention in our other prayers. “As for our daily and slight sins,” says
St. Augustine, “without which no one can live, the daily prayer will be
accepted by GOD for pardon of them;” and the fourth Council of Toledo
enjoins it for this among other reasons. This doctrine the Papists
afterwards perverted, by their distinction of sins into venial and
mortal, and by the pure _opus operatum_ of repeating the LORD’S Prayer.
Of this abuse there is happily no shadow in the present service of our
Church, our reformers having wholly rejected and abolished the technical
repetition of it (the _Paternoster_) with chaplets and rosaries, to
which truly “vain repetitions” the Church of Rome had annexed
indulgences.
In conclusion, in whatever else the various liturgies differ, they all
agree in the constant and frequent use of this prayer. Dr. Featly says,
“the reformed Churches generally conclude their prayers before sermon
with the LORD’S Prayer, partly in opposition to the Papists, who close
up their devotions with an _Ave Maria_, partly to supply all the defects
and imperfections of their own.” And the learned Bingham pointedly
declares, “I dare undertake to prove, that for 1500 years together, none
ever disliked the use of the LORD’S Prayer, but only the Pelagians; and
they did not wholly reject the use of it neither, nor dislike it because
it was a form, but for another reason, because it contradicted one of
their principal tenets, which was, that some men were so perfect in this
world, that they needed not to pray to GOD for the forgiveness of their
own sins, but only for those of others.”
For these reasons we cannot but protest against the conclusion of the
following paragraph taken from the works of Mr. Boston, a man of
exemplary piety, but, as it would seem, of strong prejudices: “From the
whole, I think it is evident, that a prayer formed upon the model of
this excellent pattern, having the substance of the several petitions
interspersed through it, though expressed in other words, is a true
Scriptural prayer” (granted, it must be so); “and that there is no
necessity to conclude with the LORD’S Prayer” (this is less certain).
“And, therefore, I cannot but think that Papists, and many Protestants
who conclude their prayers with the very words of the LORD’S Prayer,
make a very superstitious use of it, causing people to imagine that the
bare recital of the words of the LORD’S Prayer sanctifies their other
prayers; and that no prayer can be accepted of GOD where this, I cannot
but call it vain, repetition is omitted.” It is confidently hoped that,
if what is collected in the present article be perused with attention,
the members of the Church of England will be led to exclaim, “We ‘have
not so learned CHRIST.’”
_The_ LORD’S _Prayer is to be said with an audible voice_.—It was an
ancient custom for the priest to say some parts of the liturgy
internally, (_secreto_, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, or μυστικῶς,) in an unintelligible
whisper; and in some instances the people joined in this manner, as was
the case with respect to the LORD’S Prayer and the creed. This
unreasonable practice was put an end to at the Reformation, and the
LORD’S Prayer in particular was directed to be said “with an audible
voice,” “with a loud voice;” probably that the people might sooner learn
this most essential prayer; a practice from which the ignorant may even
now find benefit.
The flaming ardency of the seven spirits, and of all the heavenly choir,
appears in the intenseness and loudness of their songs, “To him all
angels cry aloud!” They do not breathe out faint or forced hallelujahs;
their songs resemble, as St. John describes them, “the voice of many
waters,” and “the voice of mighty thunderings.” (Rev. xix. 6.) But where
are the least tokens of this seraphic ardency in our worship here on
earth? The sacrifice of this our public service, like Elijah’s, is put
in excellent order, but we ourselves “put no fire under!” On the
contrary, a voluntary coldness runs through all the parts and offices of
it, like the water poured on by Elijah, which “ran round the altar and
filled all the trenches.” And it is next to a miracle if God accepts
such cold offerings, or answers us from heaven, unless with the fire,
not of acceptance, but of vengeance.—_Bisse on the Lord’s Prayer._
_The people are to repeat it with the priest._—When the LORD’S Prayer
was directed to be said with an audible voice, it was, in the Romish
Church, said by the priest alone; but in the Greek and ancient Gallican
Churches, by the priest and people together—a custom which the Church of
England has adopted in preference to the Roman. Until the review of
1661, the minister began the prayer, and went through it alone to the
conclusion of the last petition, “but deliver us from evil,” which the
people said; in order, as Bishop Sparrow remarks, that they might not be
interrupted from bearing a part in so divine a prayer. In a rubric in
the Communion Service, near the conclusion, the manner in which the
LORD’S Prayer should be used is clearly laid down. “Then shall the
priest say the LORD’S Prayer, the people repeating after him every
petition.”
In none of the successive editions of the Prayer Book till the last
review, was there any direction for the people prefixed to the first
occurrence of the LORD’S Prayer. In King Edward’s First Book at its
second recurrence, after the creed, the latter clause, “but deliver us
from evil,” was inserted. This was altered in the Second Book of King
Edward; and the direction, “Then the minister, clerks, and people,” &c.,
inserted, as we have it now. In the Litany, the two last clauses were
marked as verse and response, till the last review. In the Communion no
direction was given for the people;—at its second occurrence, the verse
and response were marked, as in the Litany: but in the Second Book, the
people were directed to repeat after him every petition, as now. The
Scotch Prayer Book (temp. K. Chas. I.) first inserted the doxology, at
both its occurrence in Morning and Evening Prayer, and at its last in
the Communion. At the last review the doxology was inserted at its first
occurrence in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and at the end of the
Communion; and the versicular arrangement in the Litany was altered. The
notation of the verse and response, with their proper cadences, is
retained in the old choral manuals.
Wheatly remarks that “the doxology was appointed by the last review to
be used in this place, partly, he supposes, because many copies of St.
Matthew have it, and the Greek Fathers expound it; and partly because
the office here is a matter of praise, it being used immediately after
the absolution.” And again, in the Post Communion, “the doxology is here
annexed, because all these devotions are designed for an act of praise,
for the benefits received in the holy sacrament.” And in the Churching
of Women, “the doxology was added to the LORD’S Prayer at the last
review, by reason of its being an office of thanksgiving.”
In the Romish service, except in the Mass, the priest speaks the words,
“_Et ne nos_,” &c., “Lead us not into temptation,” in a peculiar tone of
voice, by which the people are apprized of its being the time for them
to answer, “But deliver us from evil.” This also is a custom at the end
of every prayer, that the people may know when to say “Amen.” In the
Mosarabic liturgy the priest says the prayer by himself, and the people
answer “Amen” to each petition.
The catechumens and the energumens, or those possessed with evil
spirits, were not suffered in the primitive Church to join in the
tremendous cry sent up by the people, but only bowed their heads in
token of assent.
It may be observed that the several paragraphs of the LORD’S Prayer are
made to begin, in our Church Prayer Book, with a capital letter, in
order, most probably, to mark accurately the places where the people
should take up their parts; and this method is adopted in the confession
in the daily service, in the creeds, the _Gloria in excelsis_, in the
Communion Service, and in the confession and deprecation in the
Commination Service on Ash Wednesday.
But it must likewise be observed, that this method does not seem to be
so closely followed in the Cambridge as in the Oxford books, the former
combining the fourth and fifth paragraphs, the seventh and eighth, and
the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth in the LORD’S Prayer; and yet in
these copies the word “and” is retained before “the power,” &c., but
dropped in the latter.
To make this matter clear, however, we subjoin the prayer as printed and
pointed in the sealed books, at the beginning of Morning and Evening
Prayer.
Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Earth, As it is in Heaven. Give us this day our
daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them, that
trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us
from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, And the Glory, For ever
and ever. Amen.
Here _and_ before _the Power_ is, in all the collated copies of sealed
books, crossed out with a pen, both in the Morning and Evening Prayer.
In the Post Communion Service, there is some difference of punctuation
and of type: e.g.
Our Father which art in heaven; Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our
daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that
trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation: But deliver us
from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power and the glory, For ever
and ever. Amen.
Here _and_ was never inserted before _The power_.
After the Creed, the punctuation is as in the first specimen, except a
colon after _temptation_, and a full stop with “Amen” after _evil_.
_Heaven_ and _Earth_ do not begin with capitals. The same in the Litany,
except there is a semicolon after _temptation_. At its first occurrence
in the Communion, the punctuation, &c. is the same as in the Post
Communion, except that there is a comma after _temptation_. A full stop
and “Amen” after _evil_.
Demosthenes said, when he was reproved for studying his orations, that
it argued his reverence for the people of Athens. So doth our study, in
making exact forms, declare our esteem for Almighty GOD.—_Comber._ And
we have this sacred form from the Wonderful Counsellor, who came out of
the bosom of his FATHER, and knew his treasures, as well as our wants;
he best could inform us what was fit for us to ask, and what most likely
for him to grant: he was to go to heaven to be our advocate there, and
he hath taught us to use this here, that there may be a harmony between
our requests and his. For which cause it ought to be united to all our
offices to make up their defects, and recommend them to “Our heavenly
FATHER,” who cannot deny us when we speak the very same words which his
dear SON hath put in our mouths, if we use them with understanding and
devotion.—_Ibid._
LORD’S SUPPER. An ancient name for the sacrament of the holy eucharist.
The name occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 20; but in that passage it is generally
supposed by the most learned divines, that reference is made to the
love-feast, kept in imitation of our LORD’S last supper, which was
previous to the original eucharist. Thus much, however, says Dr.
Waterland, is certain, that in the apostolical times the love-feast and
the eucharist, though distinct, went together, and were nearly allied to
each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. (See
_Eucharist_, _Agapæ_, and _Communion_.)
As by the sacrament of baptism we enter into the Christian covenant, so
by that of the LORD’S supper we profess our thankful continuance in it:
and therefore the first answer of our catechism concerning this
ordinance tells us, that it was appointed “for the continual remembrance
of the sacrifice of the death of CHRIST, and of the benefits which we
receive thereby.”—_Abp. Secker._
It is called the LORD’S supper because it was both instituted by our
LORD at supper, and was designed to succeed into the place of the
paschal supper of the Jews. (Matt. xxvi. 26, &c.; Mark xiv. 22; 1 Cor.
xi. 23–25, &c.)—_Abp. Wake._
LORD’S TABLE. One of the names given to the altar in Christian churches.
(See _Altar_.)
LOUD VOICE. A term in our liturgy which may be considered technical; as
not merely meaning _audible_, (though this expression is also used,) but
as being a contradistinction to the _secretò_ of the unreformed service,
and the _mystic_ voice (μυστικῶς) of the Greek Church: certain prayers
and part of the service having been repeated in an inaudible whisper.
(See _Secretò_, and _Mystic Voice_, also _Lord’s Prayer_.)
LOVE-FEASTS. (See _Agapæ_.) Feasts held in the apostolic age before the
celebration of the eucharist, and discontinued on account of the abuse
of them.
LOVE, THE FAMILY OF. A sect of enthusiasts, which arose in Holland, and
being propagated across the Channel, appeared in England about the year
1580.
These sectaries pretended to a more than ordinary sanctity, which gained
upon the affections of the common people. They affirmed, that none were
of the number of the elect, but such as were admitted into their family,
and that all the rest were reprobate, and consigned over to eternal
damnation. They held, likewise, that it was lawful for them to swear to
an untruth before a magistrate, for their own convenience, or before any
person, who was not of their society. In order to propagate their
opinions, they dispersed books, translated out of Dutch into English,
entitled, _The Gospel of the Kingdom_. _Documental Sentences._ _The
Prophecy of the Spirit of Love._ _The Publishing of Peace upon Earth,
&c._
These _Familists_ could by no means be prevailed upon to discover their
author: nevertheless it was afterwards found to be Henry Nicholas of
Leyden, who blasphemously pretended that he partook of the Divinity of
GOD, and GOD of his humanity. Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation
against these impious sectaries, and ordered their books to be publicly
burnt.
LOW SUNDAY. Upon the octave of the first Sunday after Easter day, it was
the custom of the ancients to repeat some part of the solemnity which
was used upon Easter day; whence this Sunday took the name of Low
Sunday, being celebrated as a feast, though of a lower degree than
Easter day itself.
It was also called _Dominica in albis_, [or rather, _post albas
depositas_, according to some ritualists, as Wheatly remarks,] because
it was the day on which those who had been baptized on Easter eve put
off their white garments.
LUCIFERIANS, in ecclesiastical antiquity, is the name of those
Christians who persisted in the schism of _Lucifer_, bishop of Cagliari,
the capital of Sardinia.
Lucifer lived in the fourth century, and was famous for his
extraordinary virtues and abilities. He was deputed by the pope to the
emperor Constantius, and procured the calling of a council at Milan in
the year 355, by which he himself, and the rest of the orthodox
prelates, who defended Athanasius, were condemned to banishment. He was
recalled from his exile by the emperor Julian, in 361, when, coming to
Antioch, where the church was extremely divided between the followers of
Euzoius the Arian, and of Meletius and Eustathius, orthodox bishops, he,
to put an end to the schism, ordained Paulinus bishop, whom neither of
the orthodox parties approved. Eusebius of Vercelli, whom the Council of
Alexandria had sent to heal the divisions, extremely disapproved this
ordination; whereupon Lucifer, who was of an inflexible spirit, broke
off communion with him and the other prelates, and retired to Sardinia,
where to his death he persisted in his separation, and, by this means,
gave birth to a schism, which caused a great deal of mischief to the
Church. It continued to the end of the reign of Theodosius the Great,
after which time authors make little or no mention of it.
LUKE, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,
observed on the 18th of October.
St. Luke was born at Antioch, and professed physic. It is not agreed
whether he was, by birth, a Jew, or a heathen. Epiphanius, who makes him
to be one of the seventy disciples, and consequently a Jew, thinks he
was one of those who left JESUS CHRIST upon hearing these words, “He who
eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me;”
but that he returned to the faith upon hearing St. Paul’s sermons at
Antioch. Some authors suppose he was Cleopas’s companion, and went with
him to Emmaus, when JESUS CHRIST joined them.
St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in his several journeys; but at what time
they first came together is uncertain. Some think he met St. Paul at
Antioch, and from that time never forsook him. Others believe they met
at Troas, because St. Luke himself says, “immediately we endeavoured to
go into Macedonia, from Troas.”
Some think he survived St. Paul many years, and that he died at
eighty-four years of age: but where, authors are not agreed. Achaia,
Thebes in Bœotia, Elea in the Peloponnesus, Ephesus, and Bithynia, are
severally named as the place of his death. Nor are authors better agreed
as to the manner of it. Some believe he suffered martyrdom; and the
modern Greeks affirm he was crucified on an olive-tree. Others, on the
contrary, and among them many of the moderns, think he died a natural
death.
LUKE’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. Some think
it was properly St. Paul’s Gospel, and that when St. Paul speaks of his
Gospel, he means what is called St. Luke’s Gospel. Irenæus says only,
that St. Luke digested into writing what St. Paul preached to the
Gentiles; and Gregory Nazianzen tells us, that St. Luke wrote with the
assistance of St. Paul.
This evangelist addresses his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, to
one Theophilus, of whom we have no knowledge; many of the ancients have
taken this name, in an appellative sense, for any one who loves GOD.
LUTHERANS. Those Christians who follow the opinions of Martin Luther.
This sect took its rise from the just offence which was taken at the
indulgences (see _Indulgences_) which, in 1517, were granted by Pope Leo
X., to those who contributed towards the finishing St. Peter’s church,
at Rome. It is said, the pope at first gave the princess Cibo, his
sister, that branch of the revenue of indulgences which were collected
in Saxony; that afterwards these indulgences were farmed out to those
who would give most for them; and that these purchasers, to make the
most of their bargain, pitched upon such preachers, receivers, and
collectors of indulgences, as they thought proper for their purpose, who
managed their business in a scandalous manner. The pope had sent these
indulgences to Prince Albert, archbishop of Mentz, and brother to the
Elector of Brandenburg, to publish them in Germany. This prelate put his
commission into the hands of John Tetzel, a Dominican, and an
inquisitor, who employed several of his own order to preach up and
recommend these indulgences to the people. These Dominicans managed the
matter so well, that the people eagerly bought up all the indulgences.
And the farmers, finding money come in very plentifully, spent it
publicly in a luxurious and libertine manner.
John Staupitz, vicar-general of the Augustines in Germany, was the first
who took occasion to declare against these abuses; for which purpose he
made use of Martin Luther, the most learned of all the Augustines. He
was a native of Eisleben, a town of the county of Mansfeld, in Saxony;
and he taught divinity at the university of Wittemberg. This learned
Augustine mounted the pulpit, and declaimed vehemently against the abuse
of indulgences. Nor did he stop here; he fixed ninety-five propositions
upon the church doors of Wittemberg, not as dogmatical points which he
himself held, but in order to be considered and examined in a public
conference. John Tetzel, the Dominican, immediately published 106
propositions against them, at Frankfort upon the Oder; and, by virtue of
the office of inquisitor, ordered those of Luther to be burnt; whose
adherents, to revenge the affront offered to Luther, publicly burnt
those of Tetzel at Wittemberg. Thus war was declared between the
Dominicans and Augustines, and soon after between the Roman Catholics
and the Lutheran party, which from that time began to appear openly
against the Western Church.
In the year 1518, Eckius, professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, and
Silvester Prierius, a Dominican, and master of the sacred palace, wrote
against Luther’s _Theses_, who answered them in a tract, which he sent
to the pope and the bishop of Brandenburg, his diocesan, offering to
submit to the Holy See in the points contested. But Prierius having
published a discourse full of extravagant amplifications of the pope’s
power, Luther took occasion from thence to make the papal authority
appear odious to the Germans. In the mean time, the process against
Luther going on at Rome, the pope summoned him to appear there within
sixty days: but, at the instance of the duke of Saxony, his Holiness
consented that the cause should be examined in Germany, and delegated
his legate, Cardinal Cajetan, to try it. This cardinal gave Luther a
peremptory order to recant, and not to appear any more before him unless
he complied; upon which Luther, in the night-time, posted up an appeal
to the pope, and retired to Wittemberg. Afterwards, fearing he should be
condemned at Rome, he published a protestation in form of law, and
appealed to a general council.
In the beginning of the next year, 1519, the emperor Maximilian dying,
and the Elector of Saxony, who protected Luther, being vicar of the
empire during the interregnum, that reformer’s interest and character
were greatly raised, and he was generally looked upon as a man sent from
GOD to correct the abuses which had crept into the Roman Church. In
June, the same year, there was a famous conference between Luther,
Eckius, and Carolostadius, at Leipsic; in which they agreed to refer
themselves to the universities of Erfurt and Paris. The points debated
upon were, free-will, purgatory, indulgences, penance, and the pope’s
supremacy.
In 1520, Luther sent his book _De Libertate Christianâ_ to the pope; in
which he grounds justification upon faith alone, without the assistance
of good works; and asserts, that Christian liberty rescues us from the
bondage of human traditions, and particularly the slavery of papal
impositions. Afterwards, in a remonstrance written in High Dutch, he
proceeded to deny the authority of the Church of Rome.
In June the same year, the pope resolved to apply the last remedies
which the Church makes use of against her enemies, and began with
condemning in writing forty-one propositions extracted from Luther’s
writings, giving him sixty days to recant: but Luther refusing to
comply, the pope declared him excommunicated, and sent the bull by
Eckius to the Elector of Saxony and the university of Wittemberg, who
agreed to defer the publication of it. In the mean time Luther wrote
against the bull with great warmth and freedom, and appealed once more
from the pope to a general council. Besides which, he caused a large
bonfire to be made without the walls of Wittemberg, and threw into it
with his own hands the pope’s bull, together with the decretals,
extravagants, and Clementines. This example was followed by his
disciples in several other towns.
The emperor Charles V. declared against Luther, and ordered his books to
be burnt. Upon the opening of the Diet of Worms, in 1521, Luther, with
the emperor’s permission, appeared there, and made a speech in defence
of himself and his opinions. But, when the diet found that he would
neither stand to the decisions of councils nor the decrees of popes, the
emperor gave him twenty days to retire to a place of security, and, a
month after, published his imperial edict, by which Luther was put under
the ban of the empire, as an heretic and schismatic. But the duke of
Saxony gave private orders to convey Luther to the castle of Wartburg,
where he was concealed three quarters of a year. He worked hard in this
retirement, which he called his _Isle of Patmos_, and kept up the spirit
of his party by writing new books; among which were his “Tracts” against
auricular confession, private masses, monastic vows, and the celibacy of
the clergy. About this time the university of Paris, to which he had
appealed, condemned a hundred propositions extracted out of his books;
and King Henry VIII. of England wrote against him in defence of the
seven sacraments. Luther replied both to the _Sorbonne_ and to the king
of England, but in a very rude and unmannerly way.
Soon after he broke out of his retirement, and was so hardy as to
publish a bull against the pope’s bull _In cœna Domini_, calling it the
Bull and Reformation of Doctor Luther. About this time he published part
of his translation of the Bible, in which he departed from the
_Vulgate_, so long authorized and received by the Church.
The Elector of Saxony, who all along favoured and protected Luther, now
gave him leave to reform the churches of Wirtemberg as he thought fit.
The reformer proposed likewise a regulation concerning the patrimony of
the Church; which was, that the bishops, abbots, and monks should be
expelled, and all the lands and revenues of the bishoprics, abbeys, and
monasteries, should _escheat_ to the respective princes; and that all
the convents of Mendicant friars should be turned into public schools or
hospitals. This project pleased the princes and magistrates, who began
to relish Luther’s doctrine extremely; insomuch that, at the Diet of
Wirtemberg in 1523, when Pope Adrian VI. insisted upon the bull of Leo
X. and the Edict of Worms against Luther, he could not prevail with the
princes to put them in execution, but was answered, that a general
council ought to be called, and that there ought to be a reformation of
the ecclesiastics, and especially of the court of Rome. This year,
Luther had the satisfaction to see a league contracted between Gustavus,
king of Sweden, and Frederick, king of Denmark, who both agreed to
establish Lutheranism in their dominions. And now Luther’s persuasion,
which, from the Upper Saxony, had spread itself into the northern
provinces, began to be perfectly settled in the duchies of Lunenburg,
Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania; and in the archbishoprics of
Magdeburg and Bremen; and in the towns of Hamburg, Wismar, Rostock; and
all along the Baltic, as far as Livonia and Prussia.
About this time Luther left off the habit of a monk, and dressed himself
like a doctor, refusing to be saluted with the title of _reverend
father_. Erasmus having written a book concerning free-will, (_De Libero
Arbitrio_,) Luther answered it in another, entitled _De Servo Arbitrio_.
In 1525, Thomas Münzer and Nicholas Storc, taking their leave of Luther,
put themselves at the head of the _Anabaptists_ and _Fanatics_. About
this time Luther married a nun, called Catharine Boren, exhorting all
the ecclesiastics and monks to follow his example. In 1526, Philip,
Landgrave of Hesse, turned Lutheran, who gave great life and spirit to
that party.
In March, 1529, the Diet of Spire decreed that the Catholics should not
have the liberty to change their religion; that the Lutherans should be
tolerated till the meeting of a council, but not allowed to molest the
Catholics; and that the preachers should deliver nothing in their
sermons contrary to the received doctrines of the Church. The Lutheran
princes entered a solemn _protestation_ against this decree, from whence
came the name of _Protestants_, taken up first by the Lutherans, and
afterwards received among the Calvinists.
The beginning of October, this year, was held at Marburg the conference
between Luther and Zwinglius, in relation to the eucharist; the latter
affirming that there is nothing more than bread and wine in the LORD’S
supper, which elements are the figure and representation of his body and
blood; and Luther asserting that his body and blood are really present,
but under the substance of bread and wine, and that only in the act of
receiving the sacrament; after which he did not acknowledge the
continuance of this presence. This conference broke up without coming to
any accommodation.
In 1530, the Lutherans or Protestants drew up a Confession of Faith,
which they presented to the Diet of Augsburg. (See _Augsburg, Confession
of_.)
The year after, the Protestant princes made the famous league of
_Smalcalde_, which obliged the emperor to grant the Lutherans a
toleration, till the differences in religion were settled by a council,
which he engaged himself to call in six months.
The Lutheran party gaining strength every day, and having refused the
bull for convening a council at Mantua, the emperor summoned a general
diet at Ratisbon, where a scheme of religion for reconciling the two
parties was examined: but, after they had examined and disputed for a
month together, the divines could agree upon no more than five or six
articles, concerning justification, free-will, original sin, baptism,
good works, and episcopacy; for, when they came to other points, and
especially the eucharist, the Lutherans would by no means yield to the
other party. The diet ended with a decree of the emperor, strictly
forbidding the Lutherans to tamper with any person to make them quit
their old religion, and at the same time suspending all the edicts
published against them.
Martin Luther lived to see the opening of the famous Council of Trent,
for accommodating the differences in religion; which put him upon acting
with more vigour and warmth against the Church of Rome, as foreseeing
that his opinions would be condemned there. In short, he left no stone
unturned to engage the Protestant princes to act against the council;
which measures he continued to pursue until his death, which happened in
February, 1546.
Maurice, the Elector of Saxony, having taken the field against the
emperor, and concluded a peace with him at Passaw, in 1552, it was
stipulated that the exercise of Lutheranism, as stated by the Confession
of Augsburg, should be tolerated all over the empire; which toleration
was to last for ever, in case the differences in religion could not be
accommodated within six months. And thus Lutheranism was perfectly
settled in Germany.
The Lutherans are generally divided into the _moderate_ and the _rigid_.
The _moderate Lutherans_ are those who submitted to the _Interim_,
published by the emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this
party. (See _Interim_.)
The _rigid Lutherans_ are those who would not endure any alteration in
any of Luther’s opinions. The head of this party was Matthias Flacius,
famous for writing the _Centuries of Magdeburg_, in which he had three
other Lutheran ministers for his assistants.
To these are added another division, called _Luthero-Zwinglians_,
because they held some of Luther’s tenets and some of Zwinglius,
yielding something to each side, to prevent the ill consequence of
disunion in the _Reformation_.
The Lutherans retain the use of the altar for the celebration of the
holy communion, some of the ancient vestments, and the mitre and
pastoral staff for their bishops, at least in Sweden. They likewise make
use of lighted tapers in their churches, of incense, and a crucifix on
the altar, of the sign of the cross, and of images, &c. Several of their
doctors acknowledge that such materials add a lustre and majesty to
Divine worship, and fix at the same time the attention of the people.
The Lutherans retain the observance of several solemn festivals after
their reformation. They keep three solemn days of festivity at
Christmas. In some Lutheran countries, the people go to church on the
night of the nativity of our blessed SAVIOUR with lighted candles or wax
tapers in their hands; and the faithful, who meet in the church, spend
the whole night there in singing and saying their prayers by the light
of them. Sometimes they burn such a large quantity of incense, that the
smoke of it ascends like a whirlwind, and their devotees may properly
enough be said to be wrapped up in it. It is customary, likewise, in
Germany, to give entertainments at such times to friends and relations,
and to send presents to each other, especially to the young people, whom
they amuse with very idle and romantic stories, telling them that our
blessed SAVIOUR descends from heaven on the night of his nativity, and
brings with him all kinds of playthings.
They have three holidays at Easter, and three at Whitsuntide, as well as
those before mentioned at Christmas. These festivals have nothing
peculiar in them with respect to the ceremonies observed at those times;
but with regard to some particular superstitions, they are remarkable
enough; as, for instance, that of the paschal water, which is looked on
as a sovereign remedy for sore eyes, and very serviceable in uniting
broken limbs. This paschal water is nothing more than common river
water, taken up on Easter Day, before the rising of the sun. They have
another superstitious notion with respect to their horses: they imagine
that the swimming them in the river on Easter Day, before the sun rises,
preserves them from lameness.
The other festivals observed by the Lutherans are, New Year’s Day, or
the Circumcision, a festival not near so ancient as the four above
mentioned; the festival of the Three Kings, or, otherwise, the Epiphany;
the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, or Candlemas; and Lady Day, or
the Annunciation. There is no public work nor service devoted to the
Blessed Virgin, nor are there any processions, or other ceremonies,
which are observed by the Roman Catholics on the two latter festivals.
The festival of the Sacred Trinity is solemnized on the Sunday after
Whitsunday; that of St. John Baptist, on the 24th of June; and that of
the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, on the 2nd of July, as it is by
the Roman Catholics. To conclude, the festival of St. Michael the
Archangel, or rather the ceremonies observed by the Lutherans on that
day, are the remains only of an ancient custom, which has been preserved
amongst them, although somewhat extraordinary, as the members of their
communion retain no manner of veneration for angels.
In 1523, Luther drew up a formulary of the mass and communion for the
particular service of the church of Wittemberg. Without attempting to
particularize the various parts of it, it may be observed that all the
churches where Lutheranism prevailed were obliged entirely to conform to
it. However, those orders were never punctually obeyed. Some Lutheran
countries have one ritual, and some another. There is a difference,
likewise, in their liturgies, though, as to the fundamental articles,
they all agree.—_Broughton._
LYCH-GATE, or CORPSE-GATE. From _leich_, “a dead body”—(hence
Leitchfield). A gate at the entrance of the churchyard, where the body
was placed before burial. These are of frequent occurrence in ancient
churchyards.
LYCHNOSCOPE. A narrow window near the ground, very frequently found at
the south-west end of a chancel, not infrequently at the north-west, and
sometimes, though seldom, in other parts of the church. The name was
given on the assumption, (which is now, perhaps, universally abandoned,)
that its use was to watch the pasch-light from without the church. The
theory now commonly adopted, and at least in part proved, is, that
lychnoscopes were confessionals. The last and fullest exposition and
examination of the various theories of the use of these windows may be
found in a paper by Mr. Lowe, in the first volume of the “Transactions
of the Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, and other Architectural
Societies.” In this paper their use as ventilators is suggested.
MACCABEES. There are two books of this name in the Apocrypha, both of an
uncertain order. They are called Maccabees, because they relate the
patriotic and gallant exploits of Judas Maccabeus and his brethren. The
_first_ book, which is a most valuable and authentic history, contains
the history of the Jews from the beginning of the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes to the death of Simon, a period of about thirty-four years.
The _second_ book, which is far less valuable, and less to be depended
upon, and which is in some places at variance with canonical Scripture,
contains the history of about fifteen years, A. M. 3828 to 3843, from
the commission of Heliodorus to pillage the temple, to the victory of
Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor. These two books are accounted canonical by
the Roman Catholics; but there are besides two other books, called the
_third_ and _fourth_ books of Maccabees, of very little authority, and
which were never admitted into the canon by any Church. The Books of
Maccabees are not read in the service of the Church of England.
MACEDONIANS. So called from Macedonius, a bishop of Constantinople,
deposed from his see by a council of 360, and also _Pneumatomachians_,
from πνεῦμα, (_Spiritus_,) and μάχομαι, (_pugno_,) from their
distinctive error: a sect of heretics who arose in the fourth century,
who denied the separate personality of the HOLY GHOST. They were
condemned by the second general council, (of Constantinople,) anno 381,
and against their errors the expansion of the latter portion of the
Nicene Creed was directed: “I believe in the HOLY GHOST, the LORD and
giver of life, who proceedeth from the FATHER and the SON, who with the
FATHER and the SON together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by
the prophets.”
MAGDEBURG CENTURIES. (See _Centuries_.)
MAGISTRAL. An officer in cathedral and collegiate churches and royal
chapels in Spain, generally a canon, whose duty it was to preach a
certain course of sermons. He was so called, as it was necessary for him
to be a master (or, as we should call it, bachelor) in theology. This
was a _prebenda de oppositione_, that is, it was conferred upon the
successful candidate in a public disputation so called.
MAGNIFICAT. The song of the blessed Virgin Mary, which is appointed to
be said or sung in English after the first lesson at Evening Prayer,
unless the 90th Psalm, called _Cantate Domino_, is used.
MALACHI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
The author of the Lives of the Prophets, and the Alexandrian Chronicle,
say, that Malachi was of the tribe of Zebulun, and a native of Sapha,
and that the name of Malachi was given him because of his _angelical_
mildness; which made Origen and Tertullian believe, that he was an
“angel incarnate.” He is called an “angel” by most of the Fathers, and
in the version of the Septuagint. Some think that Malachi is no other
than Ezra, or Esdras, and this is the opinion of the ancient Hebrews, of
the Chaldee Paraphrast, and of St. Jerome.
Malachi is the last of the twelve lesser prophets. He prophesied about
three hundred years before CHRIST, reproving the Jews for their
wickedness after their return from Babylon, charging them with
rebellion, sacrilege, adultery, profaneness, and infidelity, and
condemning the priests for being careless and scandalous in their
ministry. At the same time, he forgets not to encourage the “pious
remnant,” who, in that corrupt age, “feared the LORD, and thought upon
his name.”
This prophet distinctly points at the MESSIAH, who was “suddenly to come
to his temple,” and to be introduced by Elijah the prophet, that is, by
John the Baptist, who came “in the spirit and power of Elias,” or
Elijah.
The Jews pretend that, in the time of Darius, son of Hystaspis, there
was held a general assembly of the heads of their nation, to settle the
canon of their Scriptures; that Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
presided in this council, and that Esdras was their secretary. But it is
certain Daniel did not live at that time. They add, that in the last
year of Darius, died the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and
with them ceased the spirit of prophecy among the Israelites; and that
this was the sealing up of vision and prophecy, spoken of by Daniel.
The death of the prophet Malachi is placed, in the Roman martyrology, on
the 14th of January.
MANASSES, PRAYER OF. One of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament,
which is rejected as spurious even by the Church of Rome; and though in
the list of the apocryphal books contained in the sixth Article, is not
read in the service of the Church of England. It cannot be traced to a
higher source than the Vulgate version; and is evidently not the prayer
of King Munasseh, mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, 19, as it never was
extant in the Hebrew.—_Horne’s Introd._
MANICHEANS. Christian heretics, who took their name from one Manes. The
ancients do not well agree as to the time of this heretic’s first
appearance. But Spanheim says, it was in the time of Probus, a little
before Diocletian, and that his heresy was a compound of the
Pythagorean, Gnostic, and Marcionite opinions. According to the accounts
given by the Greeks, (from whom, however, the Oriental writers differ
considerably,) one Terebinthus, disciple to Scythianus, a magician,
finding that in Persia, whither he was forced to retire out of
Palestine, the priests and learned men of the country did strongly
oppose his errors and designs, retired into a widow’s house, where (it
is said) he was killed, either by angels or by demons, as he was engaged
in incantations. This woman, being heiress to the money and books of
Terebinthus, bought a slave named Cubricus, whom she afterwards adopted,
and caused to be instructed in all the sciences of Persia. This man,
after the woman’s death, changed his name, to obliterate the memory of
his first condition, and assumed that of Manes. He pretended to be the
apostle of CHRIST, and that he was the Comforter our SAVIOUR promised to
send. He promised the king of Persia that he would cure his son;
whereupon the father sent away all the physicians, and the patient died
soon after: whereupon Manes was imprisoned, but made his escape; but
being soon apprehended again, was flayed alive, and his carcass thrown
to the wild beasts.
Manes held that there were two principles, the one good, from whence
proceeded the good soul of man, and the other bad, from whence proceeded
the evil soul, and likewise the body with all corporeal creatures. He
taught his disciples to profess a great severity of life,
notwithstanding which they were able to wallow in all impurity, and he
forbade to give alms to any that were not of his own sect. He attributed
the motions of concupiscence to the evil soul; he gave out that the
souls of his followers went through the elements to the moon, and
afterwards to the sun, to be purified, and then to GOD, in whom they did
rejoin; and those of other men, he alleged, went to hell, to be sent
into other bodies. He alleged, that CHRIST had his residence in the sun;
the HOLY GHOST in the air; wisdom in the moon; and the FATHER in the
abyss of light: he denied the resurrection, and condemned marriage; he
held Pythagoras’s transmigration of souls; that CHRIST had no real body;
that he was neither dead nor risen, and that he was the Serpent that
tempted Eve. He forbade the use of eggs, cheese, milk, and wine, as
creatures proceeding from a bad principle; he used a form of baptism
different from that of the Church. He taught that magistrates were not
to be obeyed, and condemned the most lawful wars. It were next to
impossible to recount all the impious and damnable tenets of this
heresiarch, insomuch that Leo the Great said of him, that the devil
reigned in all other heresies, but he had built a fortress and raised
his throne in that of the Manicheans, who embraced all the errors and
impieties that the spirit of man was capable of; for whatever
profanation was in Paganism, carnal blindness in Judaism, unlawful
curiosity in magic, or sacrilegious in other heresies, did all centre in
that of the Manicheans.
The Manicheans were divided into hearers and the elect: of the elect,
twelve were called masters, in imitation of the twelve apostles; and
there was a thirteenth, who was a kind of pope amongst them. Authors
charge them with ascribing a body to GOD, and alleging that he was
substantially in everything, though never so base as mire, dirt, &c.,
but was separated from them by the coming of CHRIST, and by the
Manicheans eating the fruits of the earth. They likewise maintained,
that there had been a great combat between the princes of darkness and
light, wherein they who held for GOD were taken prisoners, and that he
laboured still for their redemption. Moreover, he held that the sun and
the moon were ships, that the soul of a man and of a tree were of the
same substance, and both of them a part of GOD; that sin was a
substance, and not a quality or affection, and therefore natural, and
that acquired by the fall; he likewise held a fatality, and denied
free-will. The emperors, in the fourth century, made laws against these
heretics, who renewed their opinions in Africa, Gaul, and Rome, where a
council was held against them.—But Manicheism continued to exist among
the heretics of the middle ages.—See _Burton_. _Augusti._
MANIPLE, or MANUPLE. Originally a narrow strip of linen suspended from
the left arm of the priest, and used to wipe away the perspiration from
the face: gradually it received embellishments, it was bordered by a
fringe, and decorated with needle-work. It is not improbable that its
use might be to clean the sacred vessels, as has been supposed by some,
for in the eleventh century it was given to the subdeacons as the badge
of their order. It is distinguished from the _epigonaton_ by being worn
on the left side. The maniple is not retained among the ecclesiastical
vestments of the Church of England.
MANSE. _Mansio._ The ancient name (as appears from old records) for an
ecclesiastical residence, whether parochial or collegiate. In Scotland
it was peculiarly appropriated to parsonage houses; and now designates
the residences of the ministers of the Presbyterian establishment. It
was anciently applied also to the prebendal houses there.—See _M’Ure’s
History of Glasgow_.
MANSIONARIES. The permanently resident canons in some Italian
cathedrals: in others of the same country the term was applied to
certain of the inferior clergy.
MANUDUCTOR, (_Lat._,) in the ancient Christian Church, was an officer,
who, from the middle of the choir, where he was placed, gave the signal
to the choristers to sing, marked the measure, beat the time, and
regulated the music. He was so called, because he led or guided the
choir by the motions and gesture of the hand.
The Greeks called the same kind of officer _Mesochoros_, because he was
seated in the middle of the choir.
MARANATHA. On this word, which is added by St. Paul to the word
_Anathema_, in 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Bingham, who has collected the
authorities of the Fathers, tells us that St. Chrysostom says it is a
Hebrew word, signifying _The_ LORD _is come_: and he particularly
applies it to the confusion of those who still abused the privileges of
the gospel, notwithstanding that the LORD was come among them. “This
word,” says he, “speaks terror to those who make their members the
members of an harlot, who offend their brethren by eating things offered
to idols, who name themselves by the names of men, who deny the
resurrection. The LORD of all is come down among us; and yet ye continue
the same men ye were before, and persevere in your sins.” St. Jerome
says, it was more a Syriac than a Hebrew word, though it had something
in it of both languages, signifying _Our_ LORD _is come_. But he applies
it against the perverseness of the Jews, and others who denied the
coming of CHRIST: making this the sense of the apostle, “If any man love
not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be _Anathema, the_ LORD _is come_;
wherefore it is superfluous for any to contend with pertinacious hatred
against him, of the truth of whose coming there is such apparent
demonstration.” The same sense is given by Theodoret, by Hilary the
deacon, and Pelagius, whose writings have passed under the names of St.
Ambrose and St. Jerome respectively. And it is received by Estius and
Dr. Lightfoot as the truest interpretation. So that, according to this
sense, _Maranatha_ could not be any part of the form of excommunication,
but only a reason for pronouncing _Anathema_ against those who expressed
their hatred against CHRIST, by denying his coming; either in words, as
the Jews did, who blasphemed CHRIST, and called JESUS _Anathema_ or
accursed; or else by wicked works, as those who lived profanely under
the name of Christian. But Parkhurst is rather inclined to derive it
from the Hebrew, _miharem atha_, signifying _cursed art thou_; the _m_
being changed into _n_, as was frequent among Hellenizing Jews.
MARCIONITES. Heretics of the second century, so called from Marcion. He
was born at Sinope, in Paphlagonia or Helenopontus, on the coast of the
_Pontus Euxinus_, or Black Sea, and for that reason is sometimes called
_Ponticus_. He studied the Stoic philosophy in his younger years, and
was a lover of solitude and poverty; but being convicted of uncleanness
with a virgin, he was, by his father, who was a bishop, expelled from
the Church. After this he went to Rome, where being not admitted into
Church communion, because his father had not consented to it, he in
spite embraced Cerdon’s heresy, and became the author of new heresies,
about A. D. 134. He held with Cerdon two gods, the one good, the other
bad: the latter, he said, was the author of the world, and of the law;
but the good, he said, was the author of the gospel and redeemer of the
world. He said that Christ was sent on purpose to abolish the law, as
being bad. Origen affirms, that he supposed there was a GOD of the Jews,
a GOD of the Christians, and a GOD of the Gentiles. Tertullian wrote
against him, and, more curiously than anybody else, observes the rest of
his opinions, as that he denied the resurrection of the body, condemned
marriage, excluding married people from salvation, whom he would not
baptize, though he allowed of three sorts, and that the living were
sometimes baptized for the dead. In his sect, the women commonly
administered the sacraments. Rhodon, a Greek author, quoted by Eusebius,
says, the disciples of this heresiarch added many other errors to his
tenets; that the heresiarch meeting Polycarp in the streets of Rome,
asked him whether he knew him. “Very well,” answered the good bishop, “I
know you very well to be the first-born of Satan.” Constantine the Great
published an edict against the Marcionites and the other heretics, in
366; and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, converted 10,000 of them in 420.
MARIOLATRY. (See _Angels_, _Idolatry_, _Popery_, _Virgin Mary_, _Mother
of God_.) The worship of the Virgin Mary: one of the sins of the Church
of Rome, for defending which her theologians are guilty of heresy. The
fact of the Romanists praying to the Virgin Mary is not denied. Their
manner of doing so, not merely seeking her intercession, but actually
addressing her in terms which sound very like blasphemy to those whose
religion is catholic and Scriptural, may be seen from the following
extracts made from the Psalter of Bonaventure.
Extract from the “Crown of the Blessed Virgin:”[8]
“O thou, our governor, and most benignant Lady, in right of being his
mother, command your most beloved SON, our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that he
deign to raise our minds from longing after earthly things to the
contemplation of heavenly things.”
Extract from a serious parody on the To Deum, by the same writer:
“We praise thee, Mother of GOD; we acknowledge thee to be a virgin. All
the earth doth worship thee, the spouse of the eternal FATHER. All the
angels and archangels, all thrones and powers, do faithfully serve thee.
To thee all angels cry aloud, with a never-ceasing voice. Holy, holy,
holy, Mary, mother of GOD.... The whole court of heaven doth honour thee
as queen. The holy Church throughout all the world doth invoke and
praise thee, the mother of Divine majesty.... Thou sittest with thy SON
on the right hand of the FATHER.... In thee, sweet Mary, is our hope;
defend us for evermore. Praise becometh thee; empire becometh thee;
virtue and glory be unto thee for ever and ever.”
Extract from a parody on the Athanasian Creed, by the same writer:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the right faith concerning Mary; which faith, except every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.... He
(JESUS CHRIST) sent the HOLY SPIRIT upon his disciples, and upon his
mother, and at last took her up into heaven, where she sitteth on the
right hand of her SON, and never ceaseth to make intercession with him
for us.
“This is the faith concerning the Virgin Mary, which, except every one
do believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Extract from a work by Alphonso Liguori, called “The Glories of
Mary:”[9]
“During the pontificate of Gregory the Great, the people of Rome
experienced in a most striking manner the protection of the Blessed
Virgin. A frightful pestilence raged in the city to such an extent, that
thousands were carried off, and so suddenly, that they had not time to
make the least preparation. It could not be arrested by the vows and
prayers which the holy pope caused to be offered in all quarters, until
he resolved on having recourse to the Mother of GOD. Having commanded
the clergy and people to go in procession to the church of our lady,
called St. Mary Major, carrying the picture of the holy Virgin, painted
by St. Luke, the miraculous effects of her intercession were soon
experienced: in every street as they passed the plague ceased, and
before the end of the procession an angel in human form was seen on the
tower of Adrian, named ever since the castle of St. Angelo, sheathing a
bloody sabre. At the same moment the angels were heard singing the
anthem, ‘Regina Cœli,’ ‘Triumph, O Queen,’ Hallelujah. The holy pope
added, ‘Ora pro nobis Deum,’ ‘Pray for us,’ &c. The Church has since
used this anthem to salute the Blessed Virgin in Easter time.”—_True
Devotion to the Blessed Virgin_, p. 21.
Extract from the Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI.:
“Having at length taken possession of our see in the Lateran Basilica,
according to the custom and institution of our predecessors, we turn to
you without delay, venerable brethren; and in testimony of our feeling
towards you, we select for the date of our letter this most joyful day,
on which we celebrate the solemn festival of the most Blessed Virgin’s
triumphant assumption into heaven; that she, who has been through every
great calamity our patroness and protectress, may watch over us writing
to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence to those counsels
which may prove most salutary to CHRIST’S flock.... But that all may
have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most
Blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest
hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope.”
For other quotations to the same purpose, see the very useful and
learned volume “On Roman Fallacies and Catholic Truths,” by the Rev. H.
T. Powell.
The adoration of the Virgin was first introduced in the fourth century,
and was regarded as a heresy by the Catholic Church. It commenced in
Arabia, about the year 373, and seems to have given rise to the opposite
heresy, that of the Antidicomarians, who spoke irreverently of the
Blessed Virgin. We learn that the simple and misguided persons who
adopted this new worship, made offerings of cakes to the Virgin, from
which they were called Collyridians (a word which signified the nature
of the offering). There is no evidence that they separated from the
Church or its worship, or refused to worship GOD, or regarded the Virgin
as equal with GOD. They, however, offered external worship to the
Virgin, and were, therefore, regarded as heretics. In the following
century, a reaction against the Nestorian refusal of the title
_Theotokos_ (Mother of God) to the Blessed Virgin, tended greatly to
pave the way for the Mariolatry of later times. (See _Nestorians_,
_Mother of God_.) Our great Bishop Bull observes, “We abominate the
impious imposture of those who have translated the most humble and holy
Virgin into an idol of pride and vanity, and represented her as a
vain-glorious and aspiring creature; like Lucifer, (I tremble at the
comparison,) thirsting after Divine worship and honour, and seeking out
superstitious men and women, whom she may oblige to her more especial
service, and make them her perpetual votaries. For what greater affront
than this could they have offered to her humility and sanctity? How
fulsome, yea, how perfectly loathsome to us, are the tales of those that
have had the assurance to tell us of the amorous addresses of the
Blessed Virgin to certain persons, her devout worshippers; choosing them
for her husbands, bestowing her kisses liberally on them, giving them
her breasts to suck, and presenting them with bracelets and rings of her
hair as lovetokens! The fables of the Jewish Talmudists, yea, of
Mahomet, may seem grave, serious, and sober histories, compared to these
and other such like impudent fictions. Insomuch that wise men have
thought that the authors of these romances in religion were no better
than the tools and instruments of Satan, used by him to expose the
Christian religion, and render it ridiculous, and thereby to introduce
atheism. And indeed we are sure, that the wits of Italy, where these
abominable deceits have been and are chiefly countenanced, were the
first broachers and patrons of infidelity and atheism in Europe, since
the time that Christianity obtained in it.”
In a word, such is the worship given to the Blessed Virgin by many in
the Church of Rome, that they deserve to be called _Mariani_, rather
than _Christiani_, &c.
MARK, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,
observed on the 25th of April.
St. Mark was, by birth, a Jew, and descended of the tribe of Levi. He
was converted by some of the apostles, probably by St. Peter, to whom he
was a constant companion in all his travels, supplying the place of an
amanuensis and interpreter. He was by St. Peter sent into Egypt, fixing
his chief residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabout: where he
was so successful in his ministry, that he converted multitudes both of
men and women. He afterwards removed westward, toward the parts of
Libya, going through the countries of Marmorica, Pentapolis, and others
thereabouts; where, notwithstanding the barbarity and idolatry of the
inhabitants, he planted the gospel. Upon his return to Alexandria, he
ordered the affairs of that Church, and there suffered martyrdom in the
following manner. About Easter, at the time the solemnities of Serapis
were celebrated, the idolatrous people, being excited to vindicate the
honour of their deity, broke in upon St. Mark, while he was performing
Divine service, and, binding him with cords, dragged him through the
streets, and thrust him into prison, where in the night he had the
comfort of a Divine vision. Next day, the enraged multitude used him in
the same manner, till, his spirits failing, he expired under their
hands. Some add, that they burnt his body, and that the Christians
decently interred his bones and ashes near the place where he used to
preach. This happened in the year of Christ 68.
MARK’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the
preceding article.)
This evangelist wrote his Gospel at Rome, whither he accompanied St.
Peter in the year of CHRIST 44. Tertullian, and others, pretend, that
St. Mark was no more than an amanuensis to St. Peter, who dictated this
Gospel to him. Others affirm that he wrote it after St. Peter’s death.
MARONITES. Certain Eastern Christians, so called, who inhabit near Mount
Lebanon, in Syria. The name is derived either from a town in the country
called _Maronia_, or from _St. Maron_, who built a monastery there in
the fifth century.
The _Maronites_ hold communion with the Romish Church. Pope Gregory
XIII. founded a college at Rome, where their youth are educated by the
Jesuits, and then sent to their own country. They formerly followed the
errors of the Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites; but these they
renounced for the errors of the Roman Church in the time of Gregory
XIII. and Clement VIII. The patriarch of the _Maronites_ was present in
the fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III., in 1215.
The _Maronites_ have their patriarch, archbishops, bishops, and about
150 inferior clergy, who are so oppressed by the Turks, that they are
reduced to work for their living. They keep Lent according to the
ancient rigour, eating but one meal a day, and that after mass, which is
said at four o’clock in the afternoon. Their priests are distinguished
by a blue scarf, which they wear about their caps. Married men may
become priests, but none may marry after he is in orders. They wear no
surplices, observe particular fasts and feasts, and differ in many other
things from the Church of Rome.
The patriarch of the _Maronites_ is a monk of St. Anthony, claims the
title of patriarch of Antioch, and is always called _Peter_. He has
about nine bishops under him, and resides at _Edem Canobin_, a monastery
built on a rock. They read their service both in the vulgar language and
in Latin, and, while they perform it, turn their heads sometimes on one
side, and sometimes on the other, pronouncing the word _Num_ or _Eynam_
softly, which signifies _yes_ or _yes verily_, by which they express
their assent to what they read. They have so great a veneration for
their bishops, that they often prostrate themselves before them.
As to the particular tenets of the _Maronites_, before their adhesion to
the Church of Rome, it is said, they denied the procession of the HOLY
GHOST, observed Saturday as well as the LORD’S day, condemned fourth
marriages as unlawful; held that all souls were created together, and
that those of good men do not enter into heaven till after the
resurrection; that they administered the eucharist to children, and
communicated in both kinds.
In 1180, the _Maronites_ were above 40,000 in number, and very valiant.
They did the kings of Jerusalem great service against the Saracens.
Besides several convents of _Maronite_ monks, there is one of nuns, who
are highly esteemed for their sanctity. This edifice is no more than a
church, in which the nuns are shut up close, like pigeons in their
holes, in little corners or cells, which are so low, that few of them
can stand upright, or turn themselves round in them.
MARRIAGE. (See _Matrimony_.)
MARTINMAS. A festival formerly kept on the 11th of November, in honour
of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, in France, who, after distinguishing
himself by destroying the heathen altars and images remaining in his
day, died in the year 400, having been bishop about twenty-six years.
MARTYR. One who lays down his life, or suffers death, for the sake of
religion. The word is Greek, and properly signifies a “witness.” It is
applied, by way of eminence, to those who suffer in witness of the truth
of the gospel.
The Christian Church has abounded with martyrs, and history is filled
with surprising accounts of their singular constancy and fortitude under
the most cruel torments human nature was capable of suffering. The
primitive Christians were falsely accused by their enemies of paying a
sort of Divine worship to martyrs. Of this we have an instance in the
answer of the Church of Smyrna to the suggestion of the Jews, who, at
the martyrdom of Polycarp, desired the heathen judge not to suffer the
Christians to carry off his body, lest they should leave their crucified
master, and worship him in his stead. To which they answered, “We can
neither forsake CHRIST, nor worship any other: for we worship him as the
SON of GOD, but love the martyrs as the disciples and followers of the
LORD, for the great affection they have shown to their King and Master.”
A like answer was given at the martyrdom of Fructuosus, in Spain; for
when the judge asked Eulogius, his deacon, whether he would not worship
Fructuosus, as thinking that, though he refused to worship heathen
idols, he might yet be inclined to worship a Christian martyr, Eulogius
replied, “I do not worship Fructuosus, but him whom Fructuosus
worships.”
The first martyr in the Christian Church was St. Stephen. His memory is
celebrated on the day which bears his name. In the collect for that day,
he is expressly named the “first Martyr St. Stephen,” and we are there
taught to pray GOD, that we may “learn to love and bless our
persecutors, by following this blessed martyr’s example.” The Church
loves to dwell on the memory of those who have yielded up even their
lives in a faithful attachment to their Redeemer, and who, from the
midst of the fires, could rejoice in GOD, and trust in his grace. In
that beautiful hymn, the _Te Deum_, their memory is celebrated in the
words,—“The noble army of martyrs praise thee.” And well may they be
counted “an _army_,” whether we consider their numbers or their valour;
and a “_noble_ army,” because, as true soldiers of CHRIST, these have
fought against sin with their lives in their hands, and, in the
apostolic phrase, “have resisted unto blood.”
The Church of England can boast of the only royal martyr. Our glorious
martyr, King Charles I., having been dethroned by the Presbyterians, was
murdered by the Independents.—_Broughton._
MARTYRDOM. The death of a martyr.
The same name is sometimes given to a church erected over the spot where
a martyr has suffered.
MARTYROLOGY, in the Church of Rome, is a catalogue or list of martyrs,
including the history of their lives and sufferings for the sake of
religion.
The _Martyrologies_ draw their materials from the calendars of
particular churches, in which the several festivals, dedicated to them,
are marked. They seem to be derived from the practice of the ancient
Romans, who inserted the names of heroes and great men in their _Fasti_,
or public registers.
The _Martyrologies_ are very numerous. Those ascribed to Eusebius and
St. Jerome are reckoned spurious. Bede is the first who, in the eighth
century, composed two Martyrologies, one in prose, and the other in
verse. Florus, the deacon of Lyons, in the ninth century, enlarged
Bede’s “Martyrology,” and put it almost in the condition it is at
present. Valdelbertus, a monk of the diocese of Treves, in the same
century, wrote a martyrology in verse, extracted from Bede and Florus,
and now extant in Ducherius’s _Spicilegium_. About the same time,
Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, drew up a martyrology, published by
Canisius, in his _Antiquæ Lectiones_. After these, Ado, archbishop of
Vienne, compiled a new Martyrology, while he was travelling in Italy,
where, in a journey from Rome to Ravenna, A. D. 857, he saw a manuscript
of an ancient martyrology, which had been brought thither from Aquileia.
In the year 870, Usuardus, a monk of St. Germain des Près, drew up a
much larger and more correct martyrology than those above mentioned.
This performance was well received, and began to be made use of in the
offices of the Western Church. About the beginning of the next century,
Notkerus, a monk of Switzerland, drew up another martyrology from Ado’s
materials. This martyrology, published by Canisius, had not the same
success with that of Usuardus. The churches and monasteries, which used
this last, made a great many additions and alterations in it. This gave
rise to a vast number of different martyrologies during the six
following centuries.
The moderns, at last, desirous to rectify the errors and defects of the
old martyrologies, compiled new ones. Augustinus Belinus, of Padua,
began this reform in the fifteenth century. After him, Francis Maruli or
Maurolycus, abbot of Messina, in Sicily, drew up a martyrology, in which
he has entirely changed Usuardus’s text. John Vander Meulen, known by
the name of Molanus, a doctor of Louvain, restored it, with alterations
and very learned notes. About the same time, Galesinus, apostolic
prothonotary, drew up a martyrology, and dedicated it to Gregory XIII.;
but this was not approved at Rome. Baronius’s “Martyrology,” written
some time after, with notes, was better received, being approved by Pope
Sixtus Quintus, and has since passed for the modern martyrology of the
Roman Church. It has been several times corrected, and was translated
into French by the Abbot Chatlain, canon of Notre Dame at Paris, with
notes, in the year 1709.
There are very ridiculous and even contradictory narratives, in these
several martyrologies; which is easily accounted for, if we consider how
many forged and spurious accounts of the lives of saints and martyrs,
from whence the martyrologies were compiled, appeared in the first ages
of the Church; and which the legendary writers of those times adopted
without examining into the truth of them. Those of later ages, who have
written the lives of saints and martyrs, either through prepossession,
or want of courage to contradict received opinions, have made use of a
great part of this fabulous stuff, and passed it off for genuine
history. However, some good critics of late years have gone a great way
towards clearing the lives of the saints and martyrs from the monstrous
heap of fiction they laboured under. Of this number are M. de Launoy, of
Paris, M. Baillot, in his “Lives of the Saints,” M. le Nain de
Tillemont, and others.—_Broughton._
MARY. (See _Virgin Mary_ and _Mariolatry_.)
MASORA. A term in Jewish theology, signifying tradition. It includes
notes of all the variations of words, letters, and points which occur in
the Hebrew Scriptures; an enumeration of all the letters, &c.; in short,
the minutest points of verbal criticism, and pretends to an immaculate
accuracy. The authors of it are unknown. Some attribute it to Moses;
others to Ezra; others to the Masorites of Tiberias. The probability is,
according to Bishop Walton, that the Masora was begun about the time of
the Maccabees, and was continued for many ages.—See _Bishop Walton’s
Prolegomena to his Polyglott Bible_.
MASORITES. A society of learned Jews, who had a school or college at
Tiberias. They paid great attention to the critical study of the Hebrew
Scriptures; and to them by many able scholars, as Walton, Capellus, &c.,
is attributed the invention of the vowel points now used for the
guidance of the pronunciation in reading Hebrew.
MASS. In Latin, _Missa_. This word at first imported nothing more than
the _dismissal_ of a Church assembly. By degrees it came to be used for
an _assembly_ and for Church service; and from signifying Church service
in general, it came at length to denote the _Communion Service_ in
particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called Mass. Since
the Reformation, the word has been generally confined to express the
form of celebrating the holy communion in the Romish Church. But in the
First Book of King Edward VI., the Communion Service is thus headed:
“The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the
Mass.”
Formerly there was the _missa catechumenorum_ and the _missa fidelium_,
not because they had two kinds of communion, but because the primitive
Christians dismissed their congregations at different times, first
sending away the heathens and heretics, then the catechumens and public
penitents, after having prayed; the faithful alone being suffered to
remain during the celebration of the holy communion. The practice of the
modern Romish Church contrasts strikingly with this: they not only allow
catechumens to be present at their _missa fidelium_, but also heretics
and unbelievers, and make a profit by the exhibition: in this again the
English Church more nearly resembles the primitive Church, retaining her
sensitive seclusion during the solemn service.
The mass, almost universally adopted in the churches of the Roman
obedience, is contained in the Roman Missal, and a description of this
will be now presented to the reader. Unless in very particular
circumstances, such as times of persecution, &c., mass is not said
anywhere but in a church, or place set aside for public worship. It can
be said only from morning dawn till mid-day, at least in ordinary cases,
as at Christmas, &c. The priest who says it must be fasting from the
midnight before, “out of respect for the victim of which he is to
partake;” and, in general, no priest can say more than one mass on one
day. When the priest officiates, he is attired in sacred vestments,
which are understood “to represent those with which CHRIST was clothed
in the course of his bitter passion;” and also to be the emblems of
those virtues with which the soul of a priest ought to be adorned. These
garments are intended to hide the littleness of man; to make him forget
himself while clothed in the robes of a superior character; to gain the
respect of the people, who no longer consider on that occasion what he
is, as a man, but lose sight of the individual, who is lost in the
character of JESUS CHRIST, which he represents. Mass is never said
except on an altar, fixed or portable, set aside for that particular
purpose by the solemn prayer and benediction of a bishop. The altar is
always covered with linen cloths, and generally contains relics of
saints. As the mass is commemorative of our SAVIOUR’S passion and death
upon the cross; to put the priest and people in mind of these, there is
always an image of CHRIST crucified upon the altar. There are also two
or more lighted candles, as tokens of joy, “and to denote the light of
faith.” In solemn masses incense is used, as an emblem of prayer
ascending to GOD, as the smoke ascends from the censer. Incense is also
used as a token of honour to the thing incensed. Masses are divided into
solemn or high mass, and plain or low mass; mass sung, or said; public
mass, or private mass. A _solemn_ mass, is mass offered up with all the
due solemnities, by the bishop or priest, attended by a deacon,
subdeacon, and other ministers, each officiating in his part. Such a
mass is always sung; and hence a choir of singers accompanies it, with
an organ, if possible; and, at times, other instrumental music. Mass,
when divested of all these solemnities, and in which only the priest
officiates, is a plain or _low mass_. The priest, however, may either
sing the mass, attended by the choir, or say it. Hence the difference
between mass _sung_ and _said_. Mass may be attended by a crowd of
people, or it may be said with few or none present, except the clerk, to
attend the officiating priest. When the mass is numerously attended,
all, or many, of those present may partake of the sacrifice, by
communion, or none may communicate with the priest. These differences
make the mass _public_ or _private_, and it is admitted that private
masses have become more common in latter ages. The priest who is to
celebrate, after some time previously spent in prayer and meditation, by
way of preparation for the solemn mystery, as well to recollect his
thoughts, as to specify the intention with which he offers up the mass,
whether it be for any individual, living or dead, for the whole Church,
for himself, or for the necessities of the congregation present,
proceeds, with the deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers, to put on the
sacred vestment. He then goes in procession with them from the vestry to
the altar, the acolytes carrying incense and lights, while the choir
sing the anthem and psalm, which, for this reason, is called the
_introit_. The priest, being come before the altar, stops at the foot of
it, bows, confesses generally to the Almighty GOD, and to all the
saints, that he has sinned most grievously, and that in every way, both
by thoughts, words, and deeds, and through his own most grievous fault.
This being the case, he begs all the saints of heaven, whom he has
called as the witnesses of his sins, to be also intercessors for his
pardon, and to pray to the LORD our GOD for him. The minister and
assistants then, in like manner, on behalf of the people, repeat the
same confession after the priest, acknowledging that they are altogether
an assembly of sinners, who have come to implore the Divine mercy,
because they stand in need of it. This confession is to beg of GOD
pardon for daily and unknown faults, that the awful mystery may be
celebrated with all imaginable purity. For the same reason _Kyrie
eleison, Christe eleison_, are several times repeated; being addressed
three times to GOD the FATHER, as our creator, as our protector, and as
our parent: thrice to GOD the SON, as our high priest, as our victim of
atonement, and as our brother; and, lastly, to the HOLY GHOST, as the
author of grace, the inspirer of prayer, and the sanctifier of our
souls. This being finished, the priest, without moving from his place,
begins the _Gloria in excelsis_, which is called the Hymn of the Angels,
because the first words of it were sung by the angels at our SAVIOUR’S
birth. As this is a canticle of joy and gladness, the Church, when in
mourning, in Lent, in Advent, and in masses for the dead, forbids the
use of this hymn, even in the time of mass, because the minds of the
congregation should then be wholly occupied with affections of grief,
melancholy, or sorrow, for our Saviour’s passion, for our own sins, or
the sufferings of the souls for whom she is praying. The _Gloria_ being
ended, the priest, kissing the altar, and turning towards the people
with extended arms, salutes them in these words: “_Dominus vobiscum_,”
“The LORD be with you.” The people answer, by applying the same earnest
wish to him, saying, “And with thy spirit.” The arms are extended, and
then closed, to express, by that gesture, the affection with which he
embraces his flock. The priest then goes up to the altar; bows down in
the posture of humiliation; kisses it with respect; makes mention of the
saint whose relics are there; incenses it; and having saluted the
people, immediately turns to the book, and reads the prayer of the day.
On great festivals there is only one prayer, which has always reference
to the solemnity then celebrating. Thus, at Easter, allusion is made to
the resurrection of our SAVIOUR; at Christmas, to his nativity; in
masses for the dead, mention is made of the souls prayed for; and on the
feasts of saints, we commemorate the particular virtues for which they
were each distinguished. In Lent, and penitentiary times, there are
other prayers beside that of the day, still bearing some allusion to the
circumstances of the times. The subdeacon then sings (or, in low masses,
the priest himself reads) a lesson of the Old or New Testament, called
the Epistle, because commonly taken from the Epistles of St. Paul, or of
the other apostles. This is followed by the singing of Alleluias, or
some verses of the Psalms, called the _Gradual_ or _Tract_.
In Lent, and penitential times, instead of these expressions of joy,
strains of the deepest compunction and regret only are used. These being
concluded, the book is removed to the other side of the altar, when all
the people rise up, to show, by their postures of standing, their
eagerness to hear the gospel; the priest also, as he passes from one
side of the altar to the other, bows down in the middle, and the deacon
prays on his knees that GOD would make him worthy to announce the
gospel; and, after having received the priest’s blessing, proceeds to
the place appointed for the solemn recitation of it accompanied by the
acolytes, with lights and incense. As soon as the book of the Gospel
appears, all rise up, and continue standing while it is read, to show
their readiness to perform what is there taught. In naming the
evangelist from which the Gospel is taken, the reader signs the cross
upon his forehead, his mouth, and his breast. On his forehead, to show
that he is not ashamed of CHRIST’S doctrine; on his mouth, to show his
readiness to proclaim it to others; and on his breast, to show that he
entertains a sincere affection for it in his heart. When the Gospel is
finished, the book is conveyed to the priest, who kisses it as a token
of respect. After the Gospel, follows the Nicene Creed, which is
immediately recited at the altar, while it is sung by the choir; it is
omitted on some days, particularly in masses for the dead. In low
masses, the priest himself reads the Gospel. At this part of the mass,
in parish churches, and sometimes in other places, a discourse, or
exhortation, drawn from the Gospel, is delivered to the people. Here
ends the first part of the mass.
The second part commences by the priest, from the altar, again saluting
the people, and then making an oblation to GOD, of bread and wine, which
are the matters of the sacrifice. The wine is first mixed with a little
water, to represent the water which flowed, with blood, from the side of
CHRIST,—to signify the union of the Divine and human nature in him, and
of the faithful with JESUS CHRIST. Being now about to bless these
offerings, the priest bows down his head, in a spirit of humility, then
lifts up his hands to heaven, whence every blessing must come, and makes
the sign of the cross upon the offerings, and says, “Come, thou
Sanctifier, and bless this sacrifice, which is prepared for thy holy
name.” The priest, in high masses, then incenses the oblation. After
this he proceeds to receive the offerings of the people, where the
custom of receiving offerings from them prevails: the priest then
proceeds to wash his hands, begging of GOD the necessary purity. In this
ceremony, the priest only washes the tips of his fingers, not his whole
hands, to signify, that the purity with which he ought to approach the
altar should be not only from larger and mortal sins, but even from the
most trivial offences or affections to sin, which are properly enough
represented by the extremities of the fingers; then, turning about, the
priest recommends himself to the prayers of the people. This is the last
time that the priest turns to the people, till the sacrifice is
accomplished, and the communion received. The reason of this is, that he
is now entering upon the most solemn part of the mass, which requires
his utmost attention, which must not, henceforward, be distracted by
turning away from the object; nor does the priest turn his back towards
the altar, during the presence of the sacrament upon it, lest he might
appear to act irreverently. After this follows the _Secret_, being one
or more prayers, always said in silence, corresponding to the collect of
the day, and which immediately precedes the preface, by which the second
part of the mass ends, and the third begins. At this time is also rung a
little bell, to give notice to all the people, that the priest is now
reciting the Holy Canticle. It is usual also for the people, at this
part of the mass, to bow down their heads and their breasts. With hearts
thus prepared, and minds raised above earthly things, the priest, the
ministers, and people, proceed to attend to the most awful part of the
mass, in the _Canon_ or rule for consecrating the eucharist, which is
never materially changed, whatever be the office. It is said by the
priest in a low voice, to express the silence of CHRIST in his passion,
and that all may be impressed with reverence and awe for the sacred
mysteries. It consists of five prayers. In the first, the priest prays
for all the Church; and by name, for the pope, and the bishop of the
diocese; for those whom he desires particularly to recommend, for all
the assistants, their families, &c. He makes mention of the Blessed
Virgin, the apostles, and some martyrs, in order to express the union
between the Church militant and triumphant, and to obtain the assistance
of their prayers. Then he stretches his hands over the oblation, begging
that it may become acceptable to GOD, by becoming the body and blood of
JESUS CHRIST. The third prayer contains the history of the institution
and the consecration of the elements, by the priest’s pronouncing the
words of JESUS CHRIST himself. We have already seen that the essence of
the sacrifice is contained in the consecration. As soon as the words of
the consecration are pronounced, the priest kneels down to adore JESUS
CHRIST present; and immediately elevates first the host, and then the
chalice, in memory of CHRIST’S being raised upon the cross, and that the
people also may adore him. Having laid these down on the altar, the
priest kneels again, and bows his head in a second act of adoration.
During this ceremony, the server tinkles a little bell, to awaken the
attention of the congregation. In the mean time, the people also bow
down their heads, being already upon their knees, and strike their
breasts. He then continues the third prayer, making a commemoration of
the passion, resurrection, and ascension of JESUS CHRIST, and beseeching
GOD that he would vouchsafe to receive the sacrifice favourably, as he
did those of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which were figures of it;
and that those who partake of it may be replenished with every heavenly
blessing. The attitude of the priest is changed when he comes to this
part. Hitherto he has recited the prayers of the canon in an erect
posture, with his hands mostly lifted up to heaven; but now he joins his
hands before his breast, and bows down his head to the lowest degree
that the altar will admit. In this posture of prostrate humility, he
recites the prayer, till, towards the conclusion, he kisses the altar,
and resumes his former upright posture. In the fourth prayer, the priest
recommends to God the faithful departed in general, and those in
particular for whom he intends to pray. “Be mindful, O LORD, of thy
servants, men and women, who are gone before us in the sign of faith,
and have rested in the sleep of peace.” Having said these words, the
priest, joining his hands before his breast, prays a few moments for
them, and mentions any names of persons for whom he particularly wishes
to pray, or offer up the mass. Then, extending his hands again, he
concludes his prayer in these words: “To these, O LORD, and to all the
rest in CHRIST, grant, we beseech thee, a place of refreshment, light,
and peace.” In the fifth, he mentions several saints, and beating his
breast, begs that we sinners may have some part of their glory, through
the mercy of GOD. In fine, he lifts the host over the chalice, honouring
the Blessed TRINITY, acknowledging the Divine goodness to us through
JESUS CHRIST, and, through him, offering it all honour and glory. During
the elevation, all the ministers kneel in profound adoration, and either
themselves hold tapers, or others are introduced bearing lighted
torches. Thus finishes the third part of the mass.
The fourth part begins by the priest’s breaking the long silence he has
observed since the preface, by chanting, or reciting aloud, the LORD’S
Prayer, which is followed up by a prayer for deliverance from evil, and
for peace in our days. At the conclusion of this prayer, the priest
kneels down to adore the Blessed Sacrament; he then breaks the host into
three pieces, to imitate that done by JESUS CHRIST himself, at the last
supper, and in remembrance of his body being broken on the cross: one of
the parts he drops into the chalice, to signify that the body and blood
of CHRIST are but one sacrament: he then once more begs for peace,
concord, and charity, in order to approach the spotless Lamb. For a
token of this peace, in solemn masses, the clergy embrace each other.
After this follow three prayers, by way of preparation for receiving
JESUS CHRIST. The priest, after striking his breast, and declaring
himself unworthy, proceeds to communicate himself, in both kinds, in
order to consume the sacrifice, and then administers the communion, in
the species of bread, to such of the assistants as may be disposed to
partake of the sacrifice. The prayer used by the priest is repeated
three times, and at each repetition the little bell tinkles, to excite
the attention of the congregation; and as a signal to the laity, who
intend to communicate, to approach the sacred table. Having made the
sign of the cross, the priest immediately receives the communion, and,
with his hands joined before him, stands for a little while in deep but
silent meditation upon what he has done. The priest then proceeds, by an
ablution, first of wine, and then of water, to remove from the chalice
and his own fingers all remains of the consecrated elements. The mass
concludes with a versical thanksgiving out of the Scriptures, and some
prayers for the same purpose, some of them bearing a reference to the
office of the day, and analogous to the collect; after which the priest,
or deacon in high masses, gives the people leave to depart. The priest
gives them his blessing previous to their departure, and reads the first
part of St. John’s Gospel, which bears such ample testimony to the
Divinity and incarnation of the SON of GOD, as well as his goodness in
regard to man. This constitutes the chief part, if not the whole, of the
morning service of the Church: and, in all this, the congregation in
general appear to be little interested or concerned; for though they are
“taught to assist at mass, with the same disposition that a good
Christian would have cherished at the foot of the cross,” they are left
at liberty to accompany the priest through the different parts,
according to the directions contained in their manuals, or “to exercise
their souls in other corresponding prayers;” and the consequence is,
that many, it is too apparent, do neither the one nor the other. And
though the mass is thus celebrated, at least every LORD’S day, the
present discipline of the Church requires her members to communicate
only once a year; and while comparatively few receive much oftener,
many, it is feared, are not even annual communicants. They are, indeed,
instructed, “when they do not communicate in reality, to do so in
spirit, by fervent desires of being made worthy to partake of the sacred
mysteries, acknowledging their own unworthiness, and begging of GOD a
share of those graces, which the sacrifice and sacrament so plentifully
contain.”
In Picart’s “Religious Ceremonies” we have the following explanation of
the mass, and its attendant mystical ceremonies, which is offered to the
reader as an example of the awful departure of the apostate Church from
the spirituality and simplicity of the Christian faith and worship.
1. The priest goes to the altar in reference to our LORD’S retreat with
his apostles to the garden of Olives. 2. Before he begins mass, he says
a preparatory prayer; he is there to look upon himself as one abandoned
of GOD, and driven out of paradise for the sin of Adam. 3. The priest
makes confession for himself and for the people, in which it is required
that he be free from mortal and venial sin. 4. The priest kisses the
altar, as a token of our reconciliation with GOD, and our LORD’S being
betrayed with a kiss. 5. The priest goes to the opposite side of the
altar, and thurifies or perfumes it with incense. JESUS CHRIST is now
supposed to be taken and bound! 6. The introit is said or sung,
applicable to the circumstances of our LORD’S being taken before
Caiaphas. 7. The priest says the “_Kyrie eleison_,” (“LORD, have mercy
upon us,”) in allusion to Peter’s denying our LORD thrice. 8. The
priest, turning towards the altar, says, “_Dominus vobiscum_,” the
people returning the salutation by “_Et cum spiritu tuo_,” and this
means, CHRIST looking at Peter. 9. The priest reads the Epistle relative
to JESUS being accused before Pilate. 10. The priest, bowing before the
altar, says “_Munda cor_,” and the devotion is directed to our SAVIOUR’S
being brought before Pilate, and making no reply. 11. The priest reads
the Gospel in which JESUS CHRIST is sent from Herod to Pilate; the
Gospel is carried from the right of the altar to the left, to denote the
tender of the gospel to the Gentiles, after the refusal of the Jews. 12.
The priest uncovers the chalice, and this means the stripping of our
LORD in order to be scourged. 13. The oblation of the host; the priest
then kisses the altar and offers up the host, to represent the scourging
of CHRIST. 14. The priest elevates the chalice and then covers; this
means the crowning with thorns. 15. The priest washes his fingers, as
Pilate washed his hands; declares JESUS innocent, blesses the bread and
wine, blesses the frankincense, and perfumes the bread and wine.
Can it be necessary to go further into this singular detail to say,
“that the priest, spreading out his arms on the altar, is the
representation of the cross; that he lifts the host, to express the
lifting of our LORD; that he adores (for such is the word, and the
inconceivable fact) the wafer that he holds in his fingers as the very
GOD; that he then mingles another adoration with this, and prays to the
Virgin Mary and the saints for their mediation; that he breaks the
wafer, to represent CHRIST’S giving up the ghost; that a fragment of
this wafer put into the chalice figures our LORD’S descent into hell;”
till the series of these representations, amounting in the whole to
thirty-five, is closed by a benediction representing the blessings of
the descent of the HOLY GHOST.—_O’Donoghue._
MASS, SACRIFICE OF THE. The following is the Romish doctrine on the
subject: “I profess likewise, that in the mass there is offered to GOD a
true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead:
and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly,
really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul
and Divinity, of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and that there is made a
conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the
whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the
Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess, that, under
either kind alone, CHRIST is received whole and entire, and a true
sacrament.”—_Pius’s Creed._ “Whosoever shall say, that, in the holy
sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of bread and wine remains
together with the substance of the body and blood of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST, and shall deny that wonderful and singular change of the whole
substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the
wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine still remaining,
which change the Catholic Church very fitly calls transubstantiation,
let him be accursed.”—_Con. Trid. Sess. XIII._ Can. 2.
It is, moreover, decreed, “that, after the consecration of the bread
and wine, the true God and man is truly, really, and substantially
contained under the appearance of the sensible elements.”—_Id._ c. 1.
So that “the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after
consecration, not only the sacrament, but also the true body and blood
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and are, sensually, not only in sacrament,
but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priests, and
bruised by the teeth of the faithful.”—_Con. Rom. apud Pop. Nichol.
I._ And the Fathers of the second Nicene Council pronounced, “that the
eucharist is not the mere image of CHRIST’S body and blood, but that
it is CHRIST’S body and blood, their own literal and proper physical
selves.”—_Labbe, Con._ vol. vii. p. 448. “Nor in this is there any
repugnance; that Christ, according to his natural manner of existence,
should always remain in heaven, at the right hand of his FATHER; and
that, at the same time, he should be present with us, in many places,
really but sacramentally.”—_Con. Trid. XIII._ c. 1. And “if any one
says, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered up to GOD at the
mass, or that to be offered is anything else than JESUS CHRIST given
to be eaten, let him be anathema.”—_Id. Sess. XXII._ Can. 1. “And if
any one says, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, or a bare memorial of the sacrifice which was
completed upon the cross, and that it is not propitiatory, nor
profitable to any but him that receives it, and that it ought not to
be offered for the living and for the dead, for their sins, their
punishments, their satisfactions, and their other necessities, let him
be accursed.” “For the holy synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly
propitiatory, and that by it the sins we commit, however enormous they
be, are remitted.”—_Id._ Can. 3. It was decreed by the Council of
Constance, “that, whereas in several parts of the world, some have
presumed rashly to assert, that all Christians ought to receive the
holy sacrament of the eucharist under both species of bread and wine,
and that, also, after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable
custom of the Church, justly approved of, which they damnably
endeavour to reprobate as sacrilegious. Hence it is, that this holy
general Council of Constance, assembled by the HOLY GHOST to provide
for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares,
decrees, and defines, that although CHRIST did after supper institute
this holy sacrament, and administered it to his disciples in both
kinds of bread and wine; yet this, notwithstanding the laudable
authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the Church,
has fixed, and doth fix, that this sacrament ought not to be
consecrated after supper, nor received by the faithful, except
fasting. And as this custom, for the purpose of avoiding certain
dangers and scandals, has been rationally introduced, and that
although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds
in the primitive Church, it was afterwards received under both kinds
by the officiating priest only, and by the people under the species of
bread only, it being believed most certainly, and nothing doubted,
that the entire body and blood of CHRIST are really contained as well
under the species of bread as of wine: this, therefore, being
approved, is now made a law. Likewise this holy synod decrees and
declares, as to this matter, to the reverend fathers in CHRIST,
patriarchs, lords, &c., that they must effectually punish all such as
shall transgress this decree, or shall exhort the people to
communicate in both kinds.”—_Conc. Gen. XII._ 100.
“The holy synod (of Trent) following the judgment of the Church, (as
pronounced at Constance,) and its usage, declares and teaches, that
neither laity nor unofficiating clergy are bound, by any Divine command,
to receive the sacrament of the eucharist under both species; and that
it cannot be doubted, without a breach of faith, that communion in
either kind suffices for them. For though CHRIST, at his last supper,
instituted this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,
and then delivered it to his apostles, yet that institution, and that
delivering, do not show that all the faithful, by the command of CHRIST,
are bound to receive both kinds.”—_Sess. XXI._ c. 1. “And though, in the
earlier ages, the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet the
practice, in process of time, being widely changed, the Church, for
weighty and just reasons, approved the change, and pronounced it to be a
law, which no one, without the authority of that Church, is allowed to
reject or alter.”—_Id._ c. 2. “It must be acknowledged, that the whole
and entire CHRIST, and the true sacrament, are taken under either kind;
and therefore, as to the fruit, that they who thus receive are deprived
of no necessary grace.”—_Id._ c. 3. “And if any one shall say, that all
Christians ought, by GOD’S command, or for the sake of salvation, to
receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, let him
be accursed.”—_Id._
By the 5th Canon, c. 8, Sess. XXII., of the Council of Trent, it is
expressly declared, that “we are to offer up to the honour of saints and
angels the sacrifice of the mass, in order to obtain their patronage and
intercession with GOD.”
“If any one shall deny that the body and blood of CHRIST is really and
substantially contained, together with his very soul and Divinity, in
the sacrament of the eucharist, let him be accursed.”—_Conc. Trid. Sess.
XIII._ Can. 1. Or, “If he shall say that there yet remains any substance
of the bread and wine in conjunction with the body and blood of our LORD
JESUS CHRIST, and that the conversion is not real and total, let him be
accursed.”—_Id._ Can. 2. “If any man shall deny that CHRIST is entirely
contained under either species, and in every individual portion of that
species,” (_Id._ Can. 3,) or “that CHRIST is only spiritually eaten, and
not really and substantially, let him be accursed.”—_Id._ Can. 9.
Bishop Hall’s remarks on this doctrine are as follows:—It sounds not
more prodigiously that a priest should every day make his GOD, than that
he should sacrifice him.
Antiquity would have as much abhorred the sense, as it hath allowed the
word. Nothing is more ordinary with the Fathers than to call GOD’S table
an altar; the holy elements, an oblation; the act of celebration, an
immolation; the actor, a priest.
St. Chrysostom reckons ten kinds of sacrifice; and at last, as having
forgotten it, adds the eleventh: all which we well allow. And, indeed,
many sacrifices are offered to GOD in this one: but “a true, proper,
propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead,” which the Tridentine Fathers
would force upon our belief, would have seemed no less strange a
solecism to the ears of the ancients, than it doth to ours.
St. Augustine calls it a designation of CHRIST’S offering upon the
cross; St. Chrysostom, and Theophylact after him, a remembrance of his
sacrifice; Emissenus, a daily celebration in mystery of that which was
once offered in payment; and Lombard himself, a memorial and
representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.
That which Cassander cites from St. Ambrose or Chrysostom may be instead
of all. “In CHRIST, is the sacrifice once offered, able to give
salvation. What do we, therefore? Do we not offer every day? Surely, if
we offer daily, it is done for a recordation of his death.”
This is the language and meaning of antiquity; the very same which the
Tridentine Synod condemneth in us: “If any man shall say that the
sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or
a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the cross, let him be
accursed.”
How plain is the Scripture, while it tells us that our High Priest
“needeth not daily, as those high priests” under the law, “to offer up
sacrifice; first, for his own sins, then for the people: for this he did
once, when he offered up himself!”—_Heb._ vii. 27.
The contradiction of the Trent Fathers is here very remarkable.
“CHRIST,” say they, “who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself in
a bloody sacrifice, is now this true propitiatory sacrifice in the mass,
made by himself. He is one and the same sacrifice; and one and the same
offerer of that sacrifice, by the ministry of his priests, who then
offered himself on the cross.” So then they say, that CHRIST offered up
that sacrifice then, and this now; St. Paul says he offered up that
sacrifice, and no more. St. Paul says our High Priest needs not to offer
daily sacrifice; they say these daily sacrifices must be offered by him.
St. Paul says, that he offered himself but once for the sins of the
people; they say he offers himself daily for the sins of quick and dead.
And if the apostle, in the spirit of prophecy, foresaw this error, and
would purposely forestall it, he could not speak more directly than when
he saith, “We are sanctified through the offering of the body of JESUS
CHRIST, once for all. And every high priest standeth daily ministering
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for
ever sat down on the right hand of GOD; from henceforth expecting till
his enemies are made his footstool. For, by one offering, he hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”—_Heb._ x. 10–14.
Now let the vain heads of men seek subtle evasions in the different
manner of this offering; bloody then, unbloody now. The HOLY GHOST
speaks punctually of the very substance of the act, and tells us
absolutely there is but one sacrifice once offered by him, in any kind;
else the opposition that is there made betwixt the legal priesthood and
his should not hold, if, as they, so he, had often properly and truly
sacrificed.
That we may not say they build herein what they destroy, for an unbloody
sacrifice, in this sense, can be no other than figurative and
commemorative, is it really propitiatory? “Without shedding of blood
there is no remission.” (Heb. ix. 22.) If, therefore, sins be remitted
by this sacrifice, it must be in relation to that blood, which was shed
in his true personal sacrifice upon the cross: and what relation can be
betwixt this and that but of representation and remembrance? in which
their moderate Cassander fully resteth.
In reason there must be in every sacrifice, as Cardinal Bellarmine
grants, a destruction of the thing offered: and shall we say that they
make their SAVIOUR to crucify him again? No; but to eat him: for,
“consumptio seu manducatio, quæ fit à sacerdote,” &c.; “The consumption
or manducation, which is done of the priest, is an essential part of
this sacrifice,” saith the same author; “for, in the whole action of the
mass, there is,” saith he, “no other real destruction but this.”
Suppose we, then, the true human flesh, blood, and bone of CHRIST, GOD
and man, really and corporally made such by this transubstantiation,
whether is more horrible, to crucify or to eat it?
By this rule, it is the priest’s teeth, and not his tongue, that makes
CHRIST’S body a sacrifice.
By this rule it shall be _hostia_, “a host,” when it is not a sacrifice;
and a reserved host is no sacrifice, howsoever consecrated. And what if
a mouse, or other vermin, should eat the host, (it is a case put by
themselves,) who then sacrificeth?
To stop all mouths, laics eat as well as the priest: there is no
difference in their manducation: but laics sacrifice not. And, as
Salmeron urges, the Scripture distinguisheth betwixt the sacrifice and
the participation of it: “Are not they, which eat of the sacrifices,
partakers of the altar?” (1 Cor. x. 18.) And, in the very canon of the
mass, “Ut quotquot,” &c., the prayer is, “That all we, which, in the
participation of the altar, have taken the sacred body and blood of thy
Son,” &c. “Wherein it is plain,” saith he, “that there is a distinction
betwixt the host and the eating of the host.”
Lastly, sacrificing is an act done to GOD: if, then, eating be
sacrificing, the priest eats his GOD to his GOD: “Quorum Deus venter.”
While they, in vain, study to reconcile this new-made sacrifice of
CHRIST already in heaven, with “Jube hæc perferri,” &c. “Command these
to be carried by the hands of thy holy angels to thy high altar in
heaven, in the sight of thy Divine Majesty,” we conclude that this
proper and propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, as a new, unholy,
unreasonable sacrifice, is justly abhorred by us; and we, for abhorring
it, unjustly ejected.—_Bp. Hall._
MASTER. The designation of all the heads of colleges at Cambridge, with
the exception of two, and of some at Oxford. The heads of some ancient
hospitals, as Sherburn, are so called. It is recognised by the 42nd and
43rd Canons, &c., as one of the names of governors of cathedral and
collegiate churches.
MASTER OF ARTS. The highest degree in arts, signifying one who is
competent to teach, answering to that of Doctor in other faculties;
conferred in all universities, though in a few modern instances
superseded by that of Doctor of Philosophy. In England, the Masters of
Arts form the privileged body of the ancient universities there; and
there are many offices in the Church to which none are eligible but
those who have at least taken that degree. By Canon 128, surrogates must
be M. A. at least; and by Canon 74, M. A., being beneficed, are enjoined
to wear hoods or tippets of silk or sarcenet, and square caps.
MASTER OF THE CEREMONIES. An officer in many foreign cathedrals, whose
business it is to see that all the ceremonies, vestments, &c., peculiar
to each season and festival, are observed in the choir.—_Jebb._
MASTER OF THE FACULTIES. The principal officer of the Court of
Faculties. (See _Faculties_.)
MASTERS OF THE SCHOOLS. Three Masters of Arts, in the university of
Oxford, annually elected, who preside over certain exercises of
under-graduates. Before the ancient disputations and determinations were
abolished, their office was much more onerous than at present.
MASTER OF THE SENTENCES. The name commonly given to the celebrated Peter
Lombard, bishop of Paris, one of the founders of scholastic divinity; so
called from his great work of the _Sentences_, divided into four books,
illustrative of doctrines of the Churches, in sentences, or passages
taken from the Fathers.—_Dupin._
MASTER OF THE SONG. A name for the instructor of the choristers, or
choir-master.
MASTER OF THE TEMPLE. The principal minister in the Temple Church, in
London, styled also the _Custos_; who, since the time of Henry VIII.,
has been appointed by royal letters patent, without institution or
induction. This is a post of great eminence, and has been held by many
able divines, as Hooker, Bishop Sherlock, &c.
MATINS. The ancient name for early morning prayers, which usually began
about day-break.
The hours of prayer in the Church of England, before the Reformation,
were seven in number, viz. matins, the first or prime, the third, sixth,
and ninth hours, vespers, and compline. The office of matins, or morning
prayer, according to the Church of England, is a judicious abridgment of
her ancient services for matins, lauds, and prime.
The office of matins, or morning prayer, according to the English
ritual, may be divided into three principal parts. First, the
introduction, which extends from the beginning of the office to the end
of the LORD’S Prayer: secondly, the psalmody and reading, which extends
to the end of the Apostles’ Creed: and, thirdly, the prayers and
collects, which occupy the remainder of the service.—_Palmer._
MATRIMONY. The nuptial state.
The State in England has declared that marriage may be henceforth
regarded merely as a civil contract; and, so far as the effects of the
law are concerned, they who contract marriage by a merely civil
ceremony, will undergo no disabilities, their children will not be
illegitimate, and they will themselves be regarded, to all intents and
purposes, as man and wife. Yet, although this be the case, the Church,
(in this respect opposed to the State, or rather the State having placed
itself in opposition to the Church,) at the very commencement of the
Marriage Service, declares that so many as are coupled together
otherwise than GOD’S word doth allow, are not joined together by GOD,
neither is their matrimony lawful: it is not _lawful_, that is to say,
in the eyes of GOD,—for its legality in the eyes of the State cannot be
questioned. The case is actually this: the State says, if you choose to
consider matrimony to be a _civil contract_, the law of the land will
permit you to enter into the marriage state by a _civil ceremony_: but
the Church has not as yet been silenced, and _she_ affirms, that though
the State may permit this, the word of GOD instructs us _otherwise_, and
marriage is a _religious_ contract; therefore do not avail yourselves of
the permission given by the State.
That such is the doctrine of the Church _now_, must at once be
_admitted_; and equally admitted it will be, that it was so at the
Reformation of the Church of England, and before the Reformation. But
the question is, was it one of those dogmas introduced in the Middle
Ages, such as transubstantiation, praying to the saints, worshipping
images, and certain other superstitions which distinguish the Church of
Rome from the Church of England? And we may answer at once in the
negative, because we find allusion to the sacred nature of the marriage
contract in the writings of the very earliest Christian authors. For
instance, St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, (who was afterwards
bishop of Ephesus, and died a blessed martyr,) waiting to Polycarp,
bishop of Smyrna, says expressly: “It becomes those who marry, and those
that are given in marriage, to take this yoke upon them with the consent
or direction of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to the
will of GOD, and not their own lusts.” Another early Father (Tertullian)
exclaims, “How shall I sufficiently set forth the happiness of the
marriage which the Church brings about by her procurement, which the
eucharist confirms, which angels report when done, and the FATHER
ratifies!”
In those days the members of the Church were in much the same situation
as that in which we are ourselves _now_ placed. The law of the land
regarded marriage as a civil contract, and the Church did not annul or
disallow the legality of such marriages, or solemnize them again, on the
parties becoming converts: it admitted the _validity_ of the _act_ when
_done_, though it declared it to be done unlawfully, according to GOD’S
law, and severely censured the members of the Church whenever they were
married without the sacerdotal benediction. The practice for Christians
to be married in the Church appears at first to have been universal,
except when a Christian was unequally yoked with an unbeliever; he was
then obliged to have recourse to the civil authorities, because the
Church, censuring the alliance, absolutely refused to solemnize the
marriage.
When the Church, in the time of Constantine, became allied with the
State, and religion began to cool, (the laws of the empire still
remaining the same,) some Christians began to fall off from the
primitive practice, some for one reason and some for another, and to
contract marriages according to the civil form. To correct which abuse
Charles the Great enacted in the eighth century for the Western empire,
and Leo Sapiens in the tenth century for the Eastern empire, that
marriages should be celebrated in no other way, except with the
sacerdotal blessing and prayers, to be succeeded by the reception of the
eucharist or LORD’S supper. And this continued to be the practice in our
own country until the usurpation of Cromwell, when marriage was declared
to be a merely civil contract. At the Restoration of Charles II.
marriage was again regarded as a religious ordinance, though the Church
no longer _insisted_ that the parties married should receive the
communion, (a regulation which had in practice been much disregarded,)
but contented herself with remarking in the _rubric_ succeeding the
ordinance, that “it is expedient that the new-married couple should
receive the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or at the
first opportunity after their marriage,” declaring the duty, but not
absolutely compelling its observance; and thus things continued till the
present time. Of course, all churchmen must now adhere to their
principle, that marriage is a religious contract, and that those
marriages only are lawful in the sight of GOD which are contracted in
his name and by his ordinance.
And for thus acting we have the highest authority which earth and heaven
can afford, that of our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST himself.
When he was in the flesh, marriage was regarded by Jews and Gentiles as
a mere civil contract, and that of no very binding nature. He did not on
_this_ account declare the offspring of such marriages to be
illegitimate; and yet, when appealed to, he assumed the fact as one
which the Scriptures plainly declared, that marriage was of Divine
institution. (Matt. xix. 4–9.) The Pharisees came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every cause?” Now, this was a very natural question for those to ask
who considered marriage as a mere civil contract. Wherever such is the
case, one of two things in process of time is found to follow—polygamy,
or the allowance of frequent divorce. Men soon came to reason _thus_: If
marriage be merely a bargain between two parties for mutual convenience,
why should not the bargain be dissolved when the convenience no longer
exists? and why, if a man wishes for more wives than one, should he be
prevented from _having_ them, provided the parties making the contract
agree that the first wife shall have the pre-eminence, and her children
be the heirs of the family property? It is all a matter of mere civil
convenience and expediency. The Jews thus arguing _had_ permitted
polygamy; they _did_ possess many wives, and now they entertained the
question, whether these wives might not be dismissed for almost any
cause whatever. The subject being much under discussion, they appealed
to our LORD, and how did he meet them? By arguments against the
_expediency_ of polygamy, or frequent divorce? No; but by assuming at
once, that, according to Scripture, marriage is _not_ a mere civil, but
a _religious_ contract. “Have ye not read,” he says, thus referring to
Scripture, “that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and
shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, GOD hath joined
together let no man put asunder.” The permission of divorce is out of
the jurisdiction of man, because the ordinance is of GOD. If the
contract were merely a _civil_ contract, man might legislate with
respect to it; but man may _not_ legislate for it, because it is an
ordinance of GOD—a religious, and _not_ a mere civil, contract.
And all this is the more remarkable, because our LORD, in his reply to
the Herodians, carefully distinguishes between the things of Cæsar and
the things of GOD, and on several occasions disclaims all intention to
interfere with those things which had reference merely to the civil
authority; yet, observe, when the Pharisees appeal to him on a doubtful
disputation, growing out of their allowance of divorce, he does _not_,
as on another occasion, put the question aside by asking who made him a
judge in such matters, but he instantly exercises his judicial authority
without reservation; thereby, in that very fact, declaring that GOD, not
Cæsar, or the State, is the supreme authority, to whose tribunal the
decision with respect to matrimony belongs. He pronounces the vital
principle of marriage to be the making twain one flesh, and expressly
declares that it is by GOD’S joining them together that this blending of
their nature takes effect, and that the contract, once made, is on this
account inviolable; nay, he declares it to be an exempt jurisdiction
reserved by GOD exclusively to himself, and not to be modified, or in
any respect invaded, by human authority. _Man’s_ law indeed may couple
male and female together; but as the Church declares, on the authority
of our LORD, it is their being joined together by GOD, and as GOD’S law
doth allow, that in his sight makes their matrimony lawful.
Indeed, the Scriptures from first to last envelope this union with a
sacred and mysterious solemnity. The first marriage, that of Adam and
Eve, GOD himself solemnized, even GOD, who, by that very act, instituted
the ordinance, and stamped it as Divine, and not a mere human contract.
The whole proceeding, with respect to the marriage of Adam and Eve, is
related under circumstances calculated to awaken the most solemn
attention. As to the other creatures of his hand, they were produced by
a fiat of the ALMIGHTY will, (male and female of every species,) a
corporeal and instinctive adaptation to herd together being the bounds
of their perfection. But in the case of the human species, a very
different course was observed. Man is first formed, a splendidly gifted
creature, who soon is made to feel his social wants, (by a survey of all
GOD’S creatures _mated_ except himself,) and to express, by a plaintive
reference to his own comparative destitution, how desolate he was even
in Paradise, being alone in the garden of delights; and how hopeless was
the search for a helpmeet for him throughout the whole compass of
hitherto animated nature. Then it is that GOD puts his last finish to
the visible universe by his own wonderful counsel for supplying the
deficiency. He takes from man’s own substance the material from which
his second self is to be formed; as the term employed by Moses imports,
he works upon it with the skill of a profound artificer; and having
framed and modelled out of it, after man’s own image, softened and
refined, but still retaining its Divine similitude, the grace of social
life, he himself brings her to him to be his bosom counsellor and
partner of his joys, (for cares and sorrows he, as yet, had none,)
knitting them together, and pouring on them the most precious
benedictions. Thus was the marriage first solemnized by the great GOD
himself. And even so do his ambassadors now; _they_, as an ancient
writer observes, they, as the representatives of GOD, come forth to the
persons who are to be joined together, to confirm this their sacred
covenant by the offering up of holy prayers.
By Canon 62, it is enjoined that no minister shall join persons in
marriage in any private place, but either in the churches or chapels
where one of them dwelleth, and likewise in time of Divine service. (See
_Banns_.)
An uniformity of principle prevails throughout the sacred Scriptures,
and to the sacredness of the marriage contract frequent allusions are
made. Thus Israel is said to have been _married_ to the LORD; and
idolatry (that is, the following of the gods of the heathens) is
represented as adultery, a breach of the covenant between GOD and
Israel. GOD’S reproofs to them for their infidelity are sharpened by the
recollection of their marriage relation with him. The state of believers
in this world is compared by the apostle Paul to the time that used to
elapse between the betrothing and the actual marriage among the Jews;
nay, St. Paul goes further, he alludes to this sacred contract as a type
or representation of the mysterious love of JESUS to his Church. For our
LORD forsook his heavenly FATHER, and did cleave unto our nature,
becoming one flesh with us, giving to the Church his SPIRIT for a dowry,
and heaven for a jointure, feeding her at his table, adorning her by his
grace, and protecting her by his power; and from this love of CHRIST to
his spouse, the Church, are many converts begotten unto GOD through the
gospel, and (born again of water and the HOLY GHOST) they become heirs
of glory. Thus honoured is the marriage contract, by being made an
emblem of so Divine and mysterious a mercy. It was indeed to hallow the
rite by this application that St. Paul wrote, since in the passage
referred to he was arguing against certain seducers who would have
disfigured Christianity by imputing to it the forbidding of its
disciples to marry. He shows, on the contrary, that marriage, so far
from having any discredit cast upon it by the gospel, is advanced in
honour. He describes, indeed, the ministerial office to consist in
espousing the Church to CHRIST; and St. John, in the Apocalypse, depicts
the consummation of all things as the marriage of the LAMB and his wife,
the beatific union between CHRIST and his redeemed ones, between GOD and
the Church, when the Church has been cleansed and sanctified, and become
a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.
MATTHEW, ST., THE EVANGELIST’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,
observed on the 21st of September.
St. Matthew, the son of Alpheus, was also called Levi. He was of Jewish
original, as both his names discover, and probably a Galilean. Before
his call to the apostolate, he was a publican or tollgatherer to the
Romans; an office of bad repute among the Jews, on account of the
covetousness and exaction of those who managed it. St. Matthew’s office
particularly consisted in gathering the customs of all merchandise that
came by the sea of Galilee, and the tribute that passengers were to pay
who went by water. And here it was that Matthew sat at the “receipt of
custom,” when our Saviour called him to be a disciple. It is probable,
that, living at Capernaum, the place of Christ’s usual residence, he
might have some knowledge of him before he was called.
Matthew immediately expressed his satisfaction, in being called to this
high dignity, by entertaining our Saviour and his disciples at a great
dinner at his own house, whither he invited all his friends, especially
those of his own profession, hoping, probably, that they might be
influenced by the company and conversation of Christ.
St. Matthew continued with the rest of the apostles till after our
LORD’S ascension. For the first eight years afterwards he preached in
Judea. Then he betook himself to propagating the gospel among the
Gentiles, and chose Ethiopia as the scene of his apostolical ministry;
where it is said he suffered martyrdom, but by what kind of death is
altogether uncertain. It is pretended, but without any foundation, that
Hyrtacus, king of Ethiopia, desiring to marry Iphigenia, the daughter of
his brother and predecessor Æglippus, and the apostle having represented
to him that he could not lawfully do it, the enraged prince ordered his
head immediately to be cut off.
MATTHEW’S, ST., GOSPEL. A canonical book of the New Testament. (See the
preceding article.)
St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Judea, at the request of those he had
converted. It is thought he began this work about the year 41, eight
years after our SAVIOUR’S resurrection. Irenæus thinks he wrote it
whilst St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching at Rome. It was written
(according to the testimony of all the ancients) in the Hebrew or Syriac
language, which was then common in Judea.
The true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is no longer in being anywhere, as
far as can be discovered. Those printed by Sebastian Munster, and du
Tillet, are modern, and translated into Hebrew from the Latin or Greek.
The Greek version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and which at this day passes
for the original, is as old as the apostolical times. The author is
unknown. Some ascribe it to St. Matthew himself; others, to St. James
the less, bishop of Jerusalem; others, to St. John the evangelist, or to
St. Paul, or to St. Luke, or to St. Barnabas.
MATTHIAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on
the 24th of February.
St. Matthias was an apostle of JESUS CHRIST, but not of the number of
the twelve, chosen by CHRIST himself. He obtained this high honour upon
a vacancy, made in the college of the apostles by the treason and death
of Judas Iscariot. The choice fell on Matthias by lot; his competitor
being Joseph called Barsabas, and surnamed Justus.
Matthias was qualified for the apostleship, by having been a constant
attendant upon our SAVIOUR all the time of his ministry. He was,
probably, one of the seventy disciples. After our LORD’S resurrection,
he preached the gospel first in Judea. Afterwards it is probable he
travelled eastward, his residence being principally near the irruption
of the river Apsarus and the haven Hyssus. The barbarous people treated
him with great rudeness and inhumanity; and, after many labours and
sufferings in converting great numbers to Christianity, he obtained the
crown of martyrdom; but by what kind of death is uncertain.
The observance of this festival among us has been attended with some
confusion. The Common Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth directs, that, in
Leap-years, an intercalary or additional day shall be added between the
23rd and 24th days of February. Hence St. Matthias’s day, which, in
common years, was observed on the 24th of February, was, in Leap-years,
observed on the 25th. But, in the review of our liturgy, it was thought
more proper to add a 29th day to February. So that now, there being no
variation of the days, this festival must always keep to the 24th day.
But, notwithstanding the case is so clear, some almanack-makers
continued to follow the old custom, which occasioned the day to be
variously observed. Archbishop Sancroft decided the matter by an
injunction, Feb. 5, 1683, requiring “all vicars and curates to take
notice, that the feast of St. Matthias is to be celebrated, not upon the
25th of February, (as the common almanack-makers boldly and erroneously
set it,) but upon the 24th of February for ever, whether it be Leap-year
or not, as the calendar in the liturgy, confirmed by act of uniformity,
appoints and enjoins.”
MAUNDY THURSDAY. The Thursday before Easter, being the day on which our
Lord instituted the holy sacrament of his body and blood. The name of
Maundy, Maunday, or Mandate, (_Dies Mandati_,) is said to have allusion
to the _mandate_ or new commandment which, on this day, CHRIST gave to
his disciples, that they should love one another, as he had loved them.
It has also been supposed by others, that the name arose from the
_maunds_, or baskets of gifts, which, at this time, it was an ancient
custom for Christians to present one to another, in token of that mutual
affection which our LORD so tenderly urged, at this period of his
sufferings, and as a remembrancer of that “inestimable gift” of CHRIST,
to be our spiritual food in the sacrament of his body and blood. Says a
writer of the age of Wickliff, “CHRIST made his _maundy_ and said, Take,
eat,” &c.
On this day it was customary for bishops, sovereigns, and nobles, to
wash the feet of the poor, a ceremony still observed in many places
abroad. In the Hierurgice Anglicana (p. 282, 283) is given an account of
the ceremonial observed by Queen Elizabeth. King James II. is said to
have been the last of our sovereigns who performed it. It is still the
custom on Maundy Thursday for the Lord Almoner to distribute certain
royal donations to the poor in the Royal Chapel at Whitehall. This
service consists of appropriate psalms, lessons, anthems, and special
prayers. It is performed with great solemnity. For the full particulars
see Stephens’s edition of the Common Prayer Book.
MAY, TWENTY-NINTH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)
MEANS OF GRACE. (See _Ordinances_ and _Sacraments_.) The sacraments and
other ordinances of the Church, through which grace is conveyed to souls
prepared by faith and penitence to receive it.
MEDIATOR. (See _Jesus_, _Lord_, _Christ_, _Messiah_.) A person who
intervenes between two parties at variance. Thus our blessed LORD and
SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST is the Mediator between GOD and man.
This appears from 1 Tim. ii. 5, “For there is one GOD, and one Mediator
between GOD and men, the man CHRIST JESUS.” When we call him a Mediator,
we call him so, not only as he is our Redeemer, but also as he is our
Intercessor. “For, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the FATHER,
JESUS CHRIST the righteous.” (1 John ii. 1.)—_Archdeacon Welchman._ It
is to be remembered, however, that by a mediator here the Church means,
not barely an intercessor or transactor of business between two parties,
in which sense Moses was a mediator between GOD and the Israelites with
respect to the ceremonial law; but such a mediator, intercessor, and
transactor, as can plead the merit of his own blood, offered up in man’s
stead, to reconcile an offended GOD to sinful man. In this sense CHRIST
is the only mediator between GOD and man, being both GOD and man.—_Dr.
Bennet._
It has been already proved that CHRIST partook both of the Divine and
human nature: and St. Paul expressly says, “There is one mediator,” &c.
CHRIST is represented, both in the Old and New Testament, as the only
redeemer of mankind, as the only sacrifice for the sins of the whole
world. His merits will extend to all who lived before and after the
promulgation of the gospel. “As in Adam all die, so in CHRIST shall all
be made alive.” (1 Cor. xv. 22.) “He is the LAMB which was slain from
the foundation of the world.” (Rev. xiii. 8.)—_Bp. Tomline._
MELCHITES. The name which is given to the Syriac, Egyptian, and other
Christians of the Levant; who, though not Greeks, follow the doctrines
and ceremonies of the Greek Church, and submit to the decisions of the
Council of Chalcedon. The term _Melchites_ is borrowed from the Hebrew
or Syriac word _Melec_, which signifies _king_. So that Melchites is as
much as to say Royalists, and is a term of reproach, given to the
orthodox by the Eutychians, or Jacobites, on account of their implicit
submission to the edicts of the emperors, for the publication and
reception of the above-mentioned council.
The Melchites, excepting some few points of little or no importance,
which relate only to their ceremonies and ecclesiastical discipline, are
in every respect professed Greeks. They have translations, in the
Arabian language, of the Greek rituals; but their versions are for the
most part very incorrect. In general, the Christians of the Levant are
so far from being just and correct in their translations of the Greek
authors, that they imagine they have a right to make them speak
according to their own sentiments. This is evident in the Arabic canons
of the Council of Nice, in which the Melchites find sufficient arguments
to justify their notions against those of the Jacobites; and the
Jacobites, on the other hand, by the very same canons, vindicate their
tenets against those of the Melchites.
The Melchites are governed by a particular patriarch, who resides at
Damascus, and assumes the title of Patriarch of Antioch. The great
difficulty they meet with in finding such ministers as can read Greek,
is said to be the true reason why they celebrate mass in the Arabian
language: and even those who are acquainted with the Greek tongue, yet
read the Epistle and Gospel in Arabic.
The monks among the Melchites follow the rule of St. Basil, the common
rule of all the Greek monks. They have four fine convents, distant about
a day’s journey from Damascus. They never go out of the cloister.
MELETIANS. There were in the fourth century two schisms called
_Meletian_.
1. The Meletians of Egypt had their name from Meletius, a bishop of
Lycopolis, the second of the Egyptian sees in dignity. It has been most
commonly supposed that Meletius sacrificed to the heathen gods in a
persecution about the year 301, or perhaps in the last general
persecution a few years later. But there seems to be reason for
supposing that the occasion of his schism was of an opposite kind—that
he objected to the lenity with which Peter, bishop of Alexandria,
treated those who had lapsed in the persecution; and this explanation
agrees better with the character of the sect, who rejected all from
their communion, who in time of persecution fell from CHRIST, though
they afterwards repented. Meletius proceeded to ordain bishops, and at
one time had nearly thirty of these in his communion. He was prohibited
for ever to ordain by the Council of Nice, but his followers were
admitted to communion without re-ordination. He submitted to this at
first, but afterwards resumed his practice of schismatical ordinations.
The Arians attempted to draw the Meletians into a connexion with them,
on the ground of their common enmity to the orthodox bishops of
Alexandria; and thus the schismatics whose original difference with the
Church had been limited to questions of discipline, became infected with
heresy.
2. The Meletians of Antioch were so called from Meletius, who in 360 was
appointed to the bishopric of that city. Although he owed his
appointment to the Arians, he soon showed that he was orthodox;
whereupon he was deposed and banished. He afterwards recovered his see,
but the adherents of Eustathius, who had been deposed by the Arians many
years before, refused to communicate with him; and Lucifer, bishop of
Cagliari, by ordaining Paulinus in opposition to him, contributed to
exasperate the differences of the orthodox. The schism of Antioch was
not finally healed until the year 415.
MENAION. The name which the Greeks give to the twelve volumes of their
Church Service. These volumes answer to the twelve months in the year,
each volume taking in a month. In this book is contained the offices for
the saints of every day, methodically digested.
From the Menaion is drawn the _Menologium_, (Menology,) or Greek
calendar, in which the lives of the saints in short, or their names
only, are cited. The Menaion, therefore, of the Greek answers to the
Breviary of the Latins, and the Menology to the Martyrology. (See
_Breviary_ and _Martyrology_.)
MENDICANTS, or BEGGING FRIARS. There are several orders of monks or
friars, in Popish countries, who, having no income or revenues, are
supported by the charitable contributions of others. These, from their
manner of life, are called Mendicants.
This sort of friars began in the thirteenth century, when Dominic de
Guzman, with nine more of his companions, founded the order of
_Preaching Friars_, called from their founder _Dominicans_. The other
three _Mendicant_ orders are, the _Franciscans_, _Augustines_, and
_Carmelites_.
These monks gave great disturbance to the secular clergy, by pretending
to a right of taking confessions and granting absolution, without asking
leave of the parochial priests, or even the bishops themselves. Pope
Innocent IV. restrained this licence, and prohibited the Mendicants to
confess the faithful without leave of the curé. Alexander IV. restored
this privilege to them. And Martin IV., to accommodate the dispute,
granted them a permission to receive confessions, upon condition that
the penitents, who applied to them, should confess once a year to their
proper pastor. However, this expedient falling short of full
satisfaction, Boniface VIII. ordered that the superiors of religious
houses should make application to the bishops, for their permission to
such friars as should be commissioned by their respective abbots to
administer the sacrament of penance. And upon the foot of this
constitution the matter now rests.
MENGRELIANS. Christians of the Greek religion, converted by Cyrillus and
Methodius. They baptize not their children till the eighth year, and
enter not into the Church (the men especially) till the sixtieth (others
say the fortieth) year, but hear Divine service standing without the
temple.
MENNONITES. A sect of Anabaptists in Holland, so denominated from one
Mennon Simonis of Frisia, who lived in the sixteenth century. The
Protestants, as well as the Romanists, confuted them. Mr. Stoupp
explains their doctrine thus: Mennon is not the first of the
Anabaptists; but having rejected the enthusiasms and revelations of the
first Anabaptists and their opinions, concerning the new kingdom of
JESUS CHRIST, he set up other tenets, which his followers hold to this
time. They believe that the New Testament is the only rule of our faith;
that the terms _Person_ and _Trinity_ are not to be used in speaking of
the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; that the first men were not created
just; that there is no original sin; that JESUS CHRIST had not his flesh
from the substance of his mother Mary, but from the essence of his
FATHER; that it is not lawful for Christians to swear, or exercise any
office of magistracy, nor use the sword to punish evil-doers, nor to
wage war upon any terms; that a Christian may attain to the height of
perfection in this life; that the ministers of the gospel ought not to
receive any salary; that children are not to be baptized; that the souls
of men after death rest in an unknown place.
In the mean time these Mennonites broke into several divisions, for very
inconsiderable reasons; many among them embraced the opinions of the
Socinians, or rather of the Arians, touching the Deity of CHRIST; and
they were all for moderation in religion, not thinking that they might
lawfully debar from their assemblies any man leading a pious life, and
that owned the Scriptures for the word of GOD. These were called
Galenites, and borrowed their name from a physician of Amsterdam, called
Galen. Some of them in Holland are called Collegiates, because they meet
privately, and every one in their assembly hath the liberty to speak, to
expound the Scriptures, to pray, and to sing: they that are truly
Collegiates are Trinitarians: they never receive the communion in their
college, but they meet twice a year, from all parts of Holland, at
Rhinsburg, a village about two leagues from Leyden; there they receive
the sacrament. The first that sits at table may distribute it to the
rest; and all sects are admitted, even the Roman Catholics, if they
would come.
MESSALIANS, or MASSALIANS. So called from a Chaldee word, which
signifies _to pray_, as does the Greek εὐχομαι, from which these
sectaries had also the name of _Euchites_, because they prayed
continually, and held nothing necessary to salvation but prayer: they
rejected preaching and the sacraments: they held that the supreme GOD
was visible; and that Satan was to be worshipped that he might do no
hurt: they pretended to cast out devils; and rejected almsgiving. This
heresy prevailed under Valentinian and Valens, about A. D. 370.
MESSIAH signifies the anointed. (See _Christ_, _Jesus_, and _Lord_.) It
is the title given by way of eminence to our blessed SAVIOUR, meaning in
Hebrew the same as CHRIST in Greek, and it alludes to the authority he
possesses to assume the characters of prophet, priest, and king, and so
of the SAVIOUR of the world.
CHRIST the Messiah (“anointed”) was promised by GOD, (Gen. iii. 15; xxi.
12,) and foretold by the prophets, (Gen. xlix. 10; 1 Sam. ii. 10 and 35;
Ps. ii. 2; xlv. 7; Micah v. 2, with John vii. 42; Mal. iii. 1,) as the
“redeemer” of Israel, (Job xix. 25; Isa. lix. 20; Luke xxiv. 21,) and
“the desire of all nations” (Haggai ii. 7). He who was born in the days
of Herod, of a pure virgin, and called “JESUS,” according to prophecy,
(Luke i. 31,) is that “Messiah,” “the CHRIST,” (John i. 41; Acts ii.
36,) as he declares himself to be, (John x. 24, 25,) whose coming was
then expected (Matt. ii. 1, 2; John iv. 25, 29, 42). Who was “anointed,”
not with any material and typifying “oil,” as were those who preceded
him—his types—but with “the Spirit of GOD,” (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32,
33,) “the Spirit of the LORD,” as promised, (Isa. xi. 2; xlii. 1; Matt.
xii. 18,) a spiritual unction—“the oil of gladness, above his fellows”
(Ps. xlv. 7); and thus was he consecrated to the three offices, divided
in others, being the great Prophet predicted, (Deut. xviii. 15, 18,) and
acknowledged, (John vi. 14; vii. 40,) the eternal High Priest, (Ps. cx.
4; Heb. viii. 1; x. 12, 14,) and universal King (Gen. xlix. 10; Num.
xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 6; Dan. vii. 14; Zech. xiv. 9; Matt. xxv. 34; Rev. xi.
15). And this Spirit he received as the head, (Heb. i. 9,) and conveys
to the members of his body (2 Cor. i. 21; 1 John ii. 20).
MESSIANIC. A term invented by modern critics, to signify those Psalms or
other portions of Scripture which specially relate to or personify the
Messiah.
METHODISTS, POPISH. Polemical doctors, who arose in France about the
middle of the seventeenth century, in opposition to the Huguenots, or
French Protestants.
METHODISTS. This is the distinctive appellation of the followers of the
late Mr. John Wesley, who was born in 1703, and died in 1791.
Under the general term of “Methodists” are comprehended two principal
and several subordinate sections, having totally distinct ecclesiastical
organizations. The two grand sections differ from each other upon points
of _doctrine_; one professing Arminian, and the other Calvinistic,
sentiments. The former are the followers of John Wesley, and from him
are called “Wesleyan Methodists;”—the latter were originated by the
labours of George Whitfield, but their founder’s name is not perpetuated
in their title, which is generally that of “Calvinistic Methodists.”
Each of the two grand sections is divided into several smaller sections,
differing from each other upon points of _Church government_ and
discipline: the _Wesleyan Methodists_ comprise the “Original Connexion,”
the “New Connexion,” the “Primitive Methodists,” and the “Wesleyan
Association”—the _Calvinistic Methodists_ comprise the body bearing that
specific name, and also the churches belonging to what is known as “The
Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion.”
THE ORIGINAL CONNEXION.
As at present settled, the form of Church government somewhat resembles
that of the Scottish Presbyterian Churches in the order of the courts,
in the relation they bear to each other, and in their respective
constitutions and functions. The difference is in the greater degree of
authority in spiritual matters exercised by the Wesleyan ministers, who
preside in their courts not as mere chairmen or moderators, but as
pastors. This is said by them to secure an equitable balance of power
between the two parties, lay and clerical, in these courts, and thus to
provide against abuse on either side. How far this is the case will be
more clearly seen by a description of these various courts, tracing them
upwards from the lowest to the highest,—from the Class to the
Conference.
The CLASSES were the very first of the arrangements introduced by Mr.
Wesley. They consist, in general, of about 12 persons; each class having
its appointed “leader,” (an experienced Christian layman, nominated by
the superintendent of a circuit, and appointed by a leaders’ meeting,)
whose duty is to meet his class once every week—converse with each class
member, hear from him a statement of his spiritual condition, and give
appropriate counsel. Every member of a class, except in cases of extreme
poverty, is expected to contribute at least a penny per week towards the
funds of the society. Out of the proceeds of this contribution, assisted
by other funds, the stipends of the ministers are paid. The system of
class meetings is justly considered the very life of Methodism.
The public worship of these societies is conducted in each circuit by
two descriptions of preachers, one clerical, the other lay. The clerics
are separated entirely to the work of the ministry—are members of, or in
connexion with, or received as probationers by, the Conference—and are
supported by funds raised for that purpose in the classes and
congregations. From one to four of these, called “itinerant preachers,”
are appointed annually for not exceeding three years in immediate
succession to the same circuit. Their ministry is not confined to any
particular chapel in the circuit, but they act interchangeably from
place to place, seldom preaching in the same place more than one Sunday
without a change, which is effected according to a plan generally
re-made every quarter. Of itinerant preachers there are at present about
915 in Great Britain. The lay, or “local” preachers, as they are
denominated, follow secular callings, like other of their fellow
subjects, and preach on the sabbaths at the places appointed for them in
the above-mentioned plan; as great an interval being observed between
their appointments to the same place as can be conveniently arranged.
The public services of Methodists present a combination of the forms of
the Church of England with the usual practice of Dissenting Churches. In
the larger chapels, the Church Liturgy is used; and, in all, the
sacrament is administered according to the Church of England rubric.
Independently of sabbath worship, love feasts are occasionally
celebrated; and a midnight meeting, on the last day of each year, is
held as a solemn “watch night,” for the purpose of impressing on the
mind a sense of the brevity and rapid flight of time.
At present there are 428 circuits in Great Britain. Besides preaching in
the various chapels in their respective circuits, the itinerant
preachers administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.
One or other of them, according to an arrangement amongst themselves,
meets every class in his circuit once in every quarter, personally
converses with every member, and distributes to all such as have
throughout the past three months walked orderly a _ticket_, which
authenticates their membership. One of the ministers in every circuit is
called the “superintendent,” whose duties, in addition to his ordinary
labours as a travelling preacher, are, to see that the Methodist
discipline is properly maintained,—to admit candidates into membership,
(subject to a veto by a leaders’ meeting,)—and to expel from the society
any member whom a leaders’ meeting shall pronounce guilty of any
particular offence. Appeal, however, lies from his decision to a
District meeting, and ultimately to the Conference. There is also a
“circuit steward,” whose duty is to receive from the society stewards
the contributions of class members, and to superintend their application
for the purposes of the circuit.
The CONFERENCE, the highest Wesleyan court, is composed exclusively of
ministers. It derives its authority from a deed of declaration, executed
by Mr. Wesley in 1784, by which it was provided that, after the decease
of himself and his brother Charles, 100 persons, named in the deed,
“being preachers and expounders of God’s holy word, under the care and
in connexion with the said John Wesley,” should exercise the authority
which Wesley himself possessed, to appoint preachers to the various
chapels. Vacancies in the “hundred” were to be filled up by the
remainder at an annual Conference. In pursuance of this deed, a
Conference of 100 ministers meets yearly in July, with the addition of
the representatives selected by the district meetings, and such other
ministers as are appointed or permitted to attend by the district
committees. The custom is, for all these ministers to share in the
proceedings and to vote; though all the decisions thus arrived at must
be sanctioned by the legal “hundred,” ere they can have binding force.
The Conference must sit for at least five days, but not beyond three
weeks. Its principal transactions are, to examine the moral and
ministerial character of every preacher—to receive candidates on
trial—to admit ministers into the connexion—and to appoint ministers to
particular circuits or stations. Independently of its functions under
this deed poll, the Conference exercises a general superintendence over
the various institutions of the body; including the appointment of
various committees, as, (1.) The Committee of Privileges for guarding
the interests of the Wesleyan Connexion; (2.) The Committee for the
management of Missions; (3.) The Committee for the management of Schools
for educating the children of Wesleyan ministers; (4.) The General Book
Committee (for superintending the publication and sale of Wesleyan
works); (5.) The Chapel Building Committee (without whose previous
consent in writing no chapel, whether large or small, is to be erected,
purchased, or enlarged); (6.) The Chapel Relief Committee; (7.) The
Contingent Fund Committee; (8.) The Committee of the Auxiliary Fund for
worn-out ministers and ministers’ widows; and the committees for the
various schools, theological institutions, &c.
The Conference has also assumed to itself the power of making new laws
for the government of the Connexion: provided that, if any circuit
meeting disapprove such law, it is not to be enforced in that circuit
for the space of one year. Any circuit has the power of memorializing
Conference on behalf of any change considered desirable, provided the
June quarterly meeting should so determine.
The doctrines held by the Wesleyans are substantially accordant with the
Articles of the Established Church, interpreted in their Arminian sense.
In this they follow Mr. Wesley rather than Arminius; for although the
writings of the latter are received with high respect, the first four
volumes of Wesley’s Sermons, and his Notes on the New Testament, (which
they hold to be “neither Calvinistic on the one hand nor Pelagian on the
other,”) are referred to as the standard of their orthodoxy. The
continued influence of their founder is manifested by the general
adherence of the body to his opinions on the subject of attainment to
Christian perfection in the present life—on the possibility of final
ruin after the reception of Divine grace—and on the experience by every
convert of a clear _assurance_ of his acceptance with God through faith
in Jesus Christ.
The Census Accounts show 6579 chapels in England and Wales, belonging to
this Connexion in March 1851; containing (allowance being made for
defective returns) accommodation for 1,447,580 persons. The number of
_attendants_ on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 492,714; Afternoon,
383,964; Evening, 667,850: including an estimate for 133 chapels, for
which the number of attendants was not stated.
The following table shows the principal societies and institutions for
religious objects supported by the Wesleyan Original Connexion. Others,
in part supported by Wesleyans, are mentioned in the General List at
page cxvii. of the Report.
────────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬───────
NAME OF SOCIETY OR INSTITUTION. │ DATE OF │ANNUAL
│FOUNDATION.│INCOME.
────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────
│ A.D. │ £
Contingent Fund │ 1756 │ 10,065
Auxiliary Fund │ 1813 │ 7,163
The Children’s Fund │ 1818 │ 3,280
Wesleyan Theological Institution │ 1834 │ 4,688
General Chapel Fund │ 1818 │ 3,984
Wesleyan Seamen’s Mission │ 1843 │ 160
Wesleyan Missionary Society │ 1817 │105,370
────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────
Kingswood and Woodhouse Grove School│ 1748 │ 8,048
│ 1811 │
────────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────
Education Fund │ 1837 │ 2,800
────────────────────────────────────┴───────────┴───────
In 1839 was celebrated the Centenary of the existence of Wesleyan
Methodism; and the gratitude of the people towards the system under
which they had derived so much advantage was displayed by contributions
to the large amount of £216,000, which sum was appropriated to the
establishment of theological institutions in Yorkshire and at
Richmond—the purchase of the “Centenary Hall and Mission House” in
Bishopsgate Street—the provision of a missionary ship—the discharge of
chapel debts—and the augmentation of the incomes of the Methodist
religious societies.
Of late years a considerable agitation (to be more particularly
mentioned when describing “Wesleyan Reformers”) has diminished to a
great extent the number of the members in connexion. It is stated that
by this division the Original Connexion has sustained a loss of 100,000
members.
THE METHODIST NEW CONNEXION.
For some time after Mr. Wesley’s death in 1791, considerable agitation
was observable throughout the numerous societies which, under his
control, had rapidly sprung up in every part of England. The more
immediate subjects of dispute had reference to, (1.) “the right of the
people to hold their public religious worship at such hours as were most
convenient, without being restricted to the mere intervals of the hours
appointed for service in the Established Church;” and, (2.) “the right
of the people to receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s supper
from the hands of their own ministers, and in their own places of
worship;” but the principal and fundamental question in dispute
concerned the right of the laity to participate in the spiritual and
secular government of the body. Wesley himself had, in his lifetime,
always exercised an absolute authority; and after his decease the
travelling preachers claimed the same extent of power. A vigorous
opposition was, however, soon originated, which continued during several
years; the Conference attempting various unsuccessful measures for
restoring harmony. A “Plan of Pacification” was adopted by the
Conference in 1795, and was received with general satisfaction so far as
the ordinances were concerned; but the question of lay influence
remained untouched till 1797, when the Conference conceded that the
leaders’ meetings should have the right to exercise an absolute _veto_
upon the _admission_ of new members to the Society, and that no member
should be _expelled_ for immorality, “until such immorality had been
proved at a leaders’ meeting.” Certain lesser rights were at the same
time conceded to the quarterly meetings, in which the laity were
represented by the presence of their stewards and class leaders. But
this was the extent of the concessions made by the preachers; and all
propositions for lay delegation to the Conference and the district
meetings were conclusively rejected.
Foremost amongst many who remained unsatisfied by these concessions was
the Rev. Alexander Kilham, who, singularly enough, was born at Epworth
in Lincolnshire, the birth-place of the Wesleys. Mr. Kilham, first
acquiring prominence as an assertor of the right of Methodists to meet
for worship in church hours, and to receive the sacraments from their
own ministers, was gradually led to take an active part in advocacy of
the principle of lay participation in the government of the Connexion.
Originated by a movement for a certain and specific alteration in the
_constitution_ of Wesleyan Methodism, the New Connexion differs from the
parent body only with respect to those ecclesiastical arrangements which
were then the subjects of dispute. In doctrines, and in all the
essential and distinctive features of Wesleyan Methodism, there is no
divergence: the Arminian tenets are as firmly held by the New as by the
Old Connexion; and the outline of ecclesiastical machinery—comprising
classes, circuits, districts, and the Conference—is in both the same.
The grand distinction rests upon the different degrees of power allowed
in each communion to the laity. It has been shown that, in the “Original
Connexion,” all authority is virtually vested in the preachers: they
alone compose the Conference—their influence is paramount in the
inferior courts—and even when, as in financial matters, laymen are
appointed to committees, such appointments are entirely in the hands of
Conference. The “New Connexion,” on the contrary, admits, in all its
courts, the principle of lay participation in Church government:
candidates for membership must be admitted by the voice of the existing
members, not by the minister alone; offending members cannot be expelled
but with the concurrence of a leaders’ meeting; officers of the body,
whether leaders, ministers, or stewards, are elected by the Church and
ministers conjointly; and in district meetings and the annual Conference
lay delegates (as many in number as the ministers) are present, freely
chosen by the members of the Churches.
The progress of the New Connexion since its origin has been as follows,
in the aggregate, comprising England, Ireland, and the colonies:
Year. Members.
1797 5,000
1803 5,280
1813 8,067
1823 10,794
1833 14,784
1840 21,836
1846 20,002
1853 21,384
At present (1853) the state of the Connexion, _In England and Wales_, is
reported to be as follows:
Chapels 301
Societies 298
Circuit preachers 95
Local preachers 814
Members 16,070
Sabbath schools 273
Sabbath-school teachers 7,335
Sabbath-school scholars 44,337
Returns have been received at the Census Office from 297 chapels and
stations (mostly in the northern counties) belonging to this Connexion,
containing accommodation, after an estimate for 16 defective returns,
for 96,964 persons. The number of _attendants_ on the Census Sunday was:
Morning, 36,801; Afternoon, 22,620; Evening, 39,624: including an
estimate for three chapels, the attendance in which was not stated.
In 1847 the Jubilee of the Connexion was celebrated, and it was resolved
to raise a fund of £20,000, to be appropriated to the relief of
distressed chapels, to the erection of a theological institution, the
extension of home and foreign missions, and the provision for aged and
retired ministers.
PRIMITIVE METHODISTS.
About the commencement of the present century, certain among the
“Wesleyans (and conspicuously Hugh Bourne and William Clowes) began to
put in practice a revival of those modes of operation, which had by that
time been abandoned by the then consolidated body. The Conference of
1807 affirmed a resolution adverse to such unprescribed expedients; and
the consequence of this disapprobation was the birth of the Primitive
Methodist Connexion,—the first class being formed at Standley in
Staffordshire in 1810. The following table, furnished by the Conference
itself, will show the progress made by the Connexion since that period.
───────┬──────────────┬───────────────┬─────┬───────┬───────────────────────
│ │ │Class│ Mem- │
Period.│ Chapels. │ Preachers. │Lead-│ bers. │ Sabbath Schools.
│ │ │ers. │ │
───────┼───────┬──────┼────────┬──────┼─────┼───────┼────────┬──────┬───────
│Connex-│Rented│ Tra-│ │ │ │ │Teach-│Schol-
„ │ional. │Rooms,│velling.│Local.│ „ │ „ │Schools.│ ers. │ ars.
│ │ &c. │ │ │ │ │ │ │
───────┼───────┼──────┼────────┼──────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼───────
1810│ │ │ │ │ │ 10│ │ │
1811│ │ │ 2│ │ │ 260│ │ │
1820│ │ │ 202│ 1,435│ │ 7,842│ │ │
1830│ 421│ │ 240│ 2,719│ │ 35,733│ │ │
1840│ 1,149│ │ 487│ 6,550│ │ 73,990│ │11,968│ 60,508
1850│ 1,555│ 3,515│ 519│ 8,524│6,162│104,762│ 1,278│20,114│103,310
1853│ 1,789│ 3,565│ 568│ 9,594│6,767│108,926│ 1,535│22,792│121,394
───────┴───────┴──────┴────────┴──────┴─────┴───────┴────────┴──────┴───────
These statistics refer as well to the foreign stations of the Connexion
as to England and Wales; but the deduction to be made upon this account
will not exceed two or three per cent. of the above figures. The number
of chapels, &c. returned by the Census officers was only 2871, so that
many of the above must probably be small rooms, which thus escaped the
notice of the enumerators. The number of connexional circuits and
missions is, altogether, 313, of which, 13 are in Canada, 2 in South
Australia, 1 in New South Wales, 1 in Victoria, and 3 in New Zealand.
The “Missions,” whether abroad or at home, are localities in which the
labours of the preachers are remunerated not from local sources, but
from the circuit contributions, or from the general funds of the
Connexion appropriated to missions.
The doctrines held by the Primitive Methodists are precisely similar to
those maintained by the Original Connexion, and the outline of their
ecclesiastical polity is also similar, the chief distinction being the
admission, by the former body, of lay representatives to the Conference,
and the generally greater influence allowed, in all the various courts,
to laymen.
Camp meetings, though occasionally held, are much less frequent now than
formerly: the people, it is thought, are more accessible than 50 years
ago to other agencies.
BIBLE CHRISTIANS.
The “Bible Christians” (sometimes called Bryanites) are included here
among the Methodist communities, more from a reference to their
sentiments and polity than to their origin. The body, indeed, was not
the result of a secession from the Methodist Connexion, but was rather
the origination of a new community, which, as it grew, adopted the
essential principles of Methodism.
The founder of the body was Mr. William O’Bryan, a Wesleyan local
preacher in Cornwall, who, in 1815, separated from the Wesleyans, and
began himself to form societies upon the Methodist plan. In a very few
years considerable advance was made, and throughout Devonshire and
Cornwall many societies were established; so that, in 1819, there were
nearly 30 itinerant preachers. In that year, the first Conference was
held, when the Connexion was divided into 12 circuits. Mr. O’Bryan
withdrew from the body in 1829.
In doctrinal profession there is no distinction between “Bible
Christians” and the various bodies of Arminian Methodists.
The forms of public worship, too, are of the same simple character; but,
in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, “it is
usual to receive the elements in a sitting posture, as it is believed
that that practice is more conformable to the posture of body in which
it was at first received by Christ’s apostles, than kneeling; but
persons are at liberty to kneel, if it be more suitable to their views
and feelings to do so.”
According to the Census returns, the number of chapels belonging to the
body in England and Wales in 1851 was 482; by far the greater number
being situated in the south-western counties of England. The number of
sittings, (after adding an estimate for 42 imperfect returns,) was
66,834. The attendance on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 14,902;
_Afternoon_, 24,345; _Evening_, 34,612; an estimate being made for eight
chapels the number of attendants at which was not stated in the returns.
The Minutes of Conference for 1852 present the following view:—
─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────
│ In Circuits. │ In Home │ Total.
│ │ Missionary │
│ │ Stations. │
─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
Chapels │ 293│ 110│ 403
Itinerant │ 61│ 52│ 113
Ministers │ │ │
Local Preachers │ 741│ 345│ 1,059
Members │ 10,146│ 3,716│ 13,862
─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────
THE WESLEYAN METHODIST ASSOCIATION.
In 1834 a controversy was originated as to the propriety of the proposed
establishment of a Wesleyan Theological Institution; and a minister who
disapproved of such a measure, and prepared and published some remarks
against it, was expelled from the Connexion. Sympathizers with him were
in similar manner expelled.
The “Association” differs from the “Old Connexion” only with regard to
the specific subjects of dispute which caused the rupture. The only
variations, therefore, are in constitutional arrangements, and the
principal of these are as follows:—
The Annual Assembly (answering to the Old Wesleyan Conference) is
distinguished by the introduction of the laity as representatives. It
consists of such of the itinerant and local preachers, and other
official or private members, as the circuits, societies, or churches in
union with the Association (and contributing £50 to the support of the
ministry) elect. The number of representatives is regulated by the
number of constituents. Circuits with less than 500 members send one;
those with more than 500 and less than 1,000 send two; and such as have
more than 1,000 send three. The Annual Assembly admits persons on trial
as preachers, examines them, receives them into full connexion, appoints
them to their circuits, and excludes or censures them when necessary. It
also directs the application of all General or Connexional Funds, and
appoints a committee to represent it till the next Assembly. But it does
not interfere with strictly local matters, for “each circuit has the
right and power to govern itself by its local courts, without any
interference as to the management of its internal affairs.”
As was to be expected from the reason of its origin, the Association
gives more influence to the laity in matters of Church discipline than
is permitted by the Old Connexion. Therefore it is provided, that “no
member shall be expelled from the Association except by the direction of
a majority of a leaders’ society or circuit quarterly meeting.”
According to the Minutes of the 17th Annual Assembly, the following was
the state of the Association in England and Wales in 1852, no allowance
having, however, been made for several incomplete returns:—
Itinerant preachers and missionaries 90
Local preachers 1,016
Class leaders 1,353
Members in society 19,411
Chapels 329
Preaching places, rooms, &c. 171
Sunday schools 322
Sunday-school teachers 6,842
Sunday-school scholars 43,389
The Census Returns make mention of 419 chapels and preaching rooms,
containing (after an estimate for the sittings in 34 cases of deficient
information) accommodation for 98,813 persons. The attendance on the
Census Sunday (making an allowance for five chapels, the returns from
which are silent on this point) was: _Morning_, 32,308; _Afternoon_,
21,140; _Evening_, 40,655.
WESLEYAN METHODIST REFORMERS.
In 1840, another of the constantly recurring agitations with respect to
ministerial authority in matters of Church discipline arose, and still
continues. Some parties having circulated through the Connexion certain
anonymous pamphlets called “Fly Sheets,” in which some points of
Methodist procedure were attacked in a manner offensive to the
Conference, that body, with a view to ascertain the secret authors,
(suspected to be ministers,) adopted the expedient of tendering to every
minister in the Connexion a “Declaration,” reprobating the obnoxious
circulars, and repudiating all connexion with the authorship. Several
ministers refused submission to this test, as being an unfair attempt to
make the offending parties criminate themselves, and partaking of the
nature of an Inquisition. The Conference, however, held that such a
method of examination was both Scripturally proper, and accordant with
the usages of Methodism; and the ministers persisting in their
opposition were expelled. This stringent measure caused a great
sensation through the various societies, and meetings were convened to
sympathize with the excluded ministers. The Conference, however,
steadily pursued its policy—considered all such meetings violations of
Wesleyan order—and, acting through the superintendent ministers in all
the circuits, punished by expulsion every member who attended them. In
consequence of this proceeding, the important question was again, and
with increased anxiety, debated,—whether the admission and excision of
Church members is exclusively the duty of the minister, or whether, in
the exercise of such momentous discipline, the other members of the
Church have not a right to share.
The agitation on these questions (and on some collateral ones suggested
naturally by these) is still prevailing, and has grown extremely
formidable. It is calculated that the loss of the Old Connexion, by
expulsions and withdrawals, now amounts to 100,000 members. The
Reformers have not yet ostensibly seceded, and can therefore not be said
to form a separate Connexion. They regard themselves as still Wesleyan
Methodists, illegally expelled, and they demand the restoration of all
preachers, officers, and members who have been excluded. In the mean
time, they have set in operation a distinct machinery of Methodism,
framed according to the plan which they consider ought to be adopted by
the parent body. In their own returns it is represented that they had in
1852, 2000 chapels or preaching places, and 2800 preachers.
At the time of the Census, in March 1852, the movement was but in its
infancy; so that the returns received, though possibly an accurate
account of the then condition of the body, will fail to give an adequate
idea of its present state. From these returns it seems there were at
that time 339 chapels in connexion with the movement; having
accommodation (after estimates for 51 defective schedules) for 67,814
persons. The attendance on the Census Sunday (making an allowance for
five cases where the numbers were not given) was as follows: _Morning_,
30,470; _Afternoon_, 16,080; _Evening_, 44,953.
CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.
George Whitfield, born in 1714, the son of an innkeeper at Gloucester,
where he acted as a common drawer, was admitted as a servitor in
Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1732. Being then the subject of religious
impressions, to which the evil character of his early youth lent force
and poignancy, he naturally was attracted to those meetings for
religious exercises which the brothers Wesley had a year or two before
originated. After a long period of mental anguish, and the practice, for
some time, of physical austerities, he ultimately found relief and
comfort; and, resolving to devote himself to the labours of the
ministry, was admitted into holy orders by the bishop of Gloucester.
Preaching in various churches previous to his embarkation for Georgia,
whither he had determined to follow Mr. Wesley, his uncommon force of
oratory was at once discerned, and scenes of extraordinary popular
commotion were displayed wherever he appeared. In 1737 he left for
Georgia, just as Wesley had returned. He ministered with much success
among the settlers for three months, and then came back to England, for
the purpose of procuring aid towards the foundation of an orphan house
for the colony. The same astonishing sensation was created by his
preaching as before; the churches overflowed with eager auditors, and
crowds would sometimes stand outside. Perceiving that no edifice was
large enough to hold the numbers who desired and pressed to hear him, he
began to entertain the thought of preaching in the open air; and when,
on visiting Bristol shortly after, all the pulpits were denied to him.
he carried his idea into practice, and commenced his great experiment by
preaching to the colliers at Kingswood. His first audience numbered
about 200; the second, 2000; the third, 4000; and so from ten to
fourteen and to twenty thousand. Such success encouraged similar
attempts in London; and accordingly, when the churchwardens of Islington
forbade his entrance into the pulpit, which the vicar had offered him,
he preached in the churchyard; and, deriving more and more encouragement
from his success, he made Moorfields and Kennington Common the scenes of
his impassioned eloquence, and there controlled, persuaded, and subdued
assemblages of thirty and forty thousand of the rudest auditors. He
again departed for Georgia in 1748, founded there the orphan house, and,
requiring funds for its support, again returned to England in 1751.
Up to this period, Wesley and Whitfield had harmoniously laboured in
conjunction; but there now arose a difference of sentiment between them
on the doctrine of election, which resulted in their separation.
Whitfield held the Calvinistic tenets, Wesley the Arminian; and their
difference proving, after some discussion, to be quite irreconcilable,
they thenceforth each pursued a different path. Mr. Wesley steadily and
skilfully constructing the elaborate machinery of Wesleyan Methodism;
and Whitfield following his plan of field itinerancy, with a constant
and amazing popularity, but making no endeavour to originate a sect. He
died in New England in 1769, at the age of 55.
His followers, however, and those of other eminent evangelicals who
sympathized with his proceedings, gradually settled into separate
religious bodies, principally under two distinctive appellations; one,
the “Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion,” and the other, the “Welsh
Calvinistic Methodists.” These, in fact, are now the only sections which
survive as individual communities; for most of Whitfield’s
congregations, not adopting any connexional bond, but existing as
independent churches, gradually became absorbed into the Congregational
body.
THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION.
Selina, daughter of the Earl of Ferrers, and widow of the Earl of
Huntingdon, was one of those on whom the preaching of Whitfield made
considerable impression. In 1748 he became her chaplain; and by his
advice she assumed a kind of leadership over his followers, erected
chapels, engaged ministers or laymen to officiate in them, and founded a
college at Trevecca in South Wales, for the education of Calvinistic
preachers. After her death, this college was, in 1792, transferred to
Cheshunt, (Herts,) and there it still exists.
The doctrines of the Connexion are almost identical with those of the
Church of England, and the form of worship does not materially vary; for
the liturgy is generally employed, though extemporary prayer is
frequent.
Although the name “Connexion” is still used, there is no combined or
federal ecclesiastical government prevailing. The Congregational polity
is practically adopted; and of late years, several of the congregations
have become, in name as well as virtually, Congregational churches.
The number of chapels mentioned in the Census as belonging to this
Connexion, or described as “English Calvinistic Methodists,” was 109,
containing (after an allowance for the sittings in five chapels, the
returns for which are defective) accommodation for 38,727 persons. The
attendants on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for seven
chapels, the returns from which were silent on the point) were:
_Morning_, 21,103; _Afternoon_, 4380; _Evening_, 19,159.
WELSH CALVINISTIC METHODISTS.
The great revival of religion commenced in England by Wesley and
Whitfield had been preceded by a similar event in Wales. The principal
agent of its introduction there was Howel Harris, a gentleman of
Trevecca, in Brecknockshire, who, with a view to holy orders, had begun
to study at Oxford, but, offended at the immorality there prevalent, had
quitted college, and returned to Wales. He shortly afterwards began a
missionary labour in that country, going from house to house, and
preaching in the open air. A great excitement was produced; and
multitudes attended his discourses. To sustain the religious feeling
thus awakened, Mr. Harris, about the year 1736, instituted “Private
Societies,” similar to those which Wesley was, about the same time,
though without communication, forming in England. By 1739 he had
established about 300 such societies in South Wales. At first, he
encountered much hostility from magistrates and mobs; but after a time
his work was taken up by several ministers of the Church of England; one
of whom, the Reverend Daniel Rowlands, of Llangeitho, Cardigan, had such
a reputation, that “persons have been known to come 100 miles to hear
him preach on the sabbaths of his administering the Lord’s supper;” and
he had no less than 2000 communicants in his church. In 1742, 10
clergymen were assisting in the movement, and 40 or 50 lay preachers.
The first chapel was erected in 1747, at Builth in Brecknockshire.
In the mean time, North Wales began to be in similar manner roused; and,
in spite of considerable persecution, many members were enrolled, and
several chapels built. The Rev. Thomas Charles, of Bala, one of the
founders of the British and Foreign Bible Society, was, towards the
termination of the century, a prominent instrument in effecting this
result.
The growth of the movement, both in North and South Wales, was extremely
rapid; but the process of formation into a separate body was more
gradual and slow. At first, as several of the most conspicuous labourers
were clergymen of the Established Church, the sacraments were
administered exclusively by them; but, as converts multiplied, the
number of evangelical clergymen was found inadequate to the occasion:
many members were obliged to seek communion with the various dissenting
bodies; till, at last, in 1811, 12 among the Methodist preachers were
ordained, at a considerable Conference, and from that time forth the
sacraments were regularly administered by them in their own chapels, and
the body assumed distinctly the appearance of a separate Connexion.
A _county_ in Wales corresponds with a Wesleyan “Circuit,” or to a
Scottish Presbytery. All the Church officers within a county, whether
preachers or leaders of private societies, are members of the “Monthly
Meeting” of the county. The province of this meeting is to superintend
both the spiritual and secular condition of the societies within the
county.
The “Quarterly Association” performs all the functions of the Wesleyan
“Conference,” or of the “Synod” amongst Presbyterians. There are two
meetings held every quarter; one in North Wales, and the other in South
Wales. The Association consists of all the preachers and leaders of
private societies in the Connexion. “At every Association, the whole
Connexion is supposed to be present through its representatives, and the
decisions of this meeting are deemed sufficient authority on every
subject relating to the body through all its branches. It has the
prerogative to superintend the cause of Christ among the Welsh
Calvinistic Methodists through Wales and England, to inquire into the
affairs of all the private and monthly societies, and to direct any
changes or alterations which it may think requisite.” It is at this
meeting that the ministers are selected who are to administer the
sacraments.
The ministers, among the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, are itinerant.
They are selected by the private societies, and reported to the monthly
meetings, which examine into their qualifications, and permit them to
commence on trial. A certain number only, who must previously have been
preachers for at least five years, are ordained to administer the
sacraments, and this ordination takes place at the Quarterly
Associations. The preachers are appointed each to a particular county;
but generally once in the course of a year they undertake a missionary
tour to distant parts of Wales, when they preach twice every day, on
each occasion at a different chapel. Their remuneration is derived from
the monthly pence contributed by the members of each congregation; out
of which fund a trifling sum is given to them after every sermon. In
1837, a college for the education of ministers was established at Bala,
and in 1842 another was established at Trevecca.
The doctrines of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists may be inferred from
the appellation of the body, and be said to be substantially accordant
with the Articles of the Established Church, interpreted according to
their Calvinistic sense.
The number of chapels returned at the Census as pertaining to the body
was 828; containing (after an estimate for 53 chapels which made no
return of sittings) accommodation for 211,951 persons. The _attendance_
on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 79,728; _Afternoon_, 59,140;
_Evening_, 125,244. It is computed that the body have expended in the
erection and repairs of their chapels, between the year 1747 and the
present time, a sum amounting to nearly a million sterling. From the
“_Dyddiadwr Methodistaidd_” for 1853 we learn that the number of
ministers was 207, and of preachers 234. The number of communicants was
stated on the same authority at 58,577.
The principal societies supported by the Connexion are those connected
with Home and Foreign Missions; the contributions to which amount to
about £3000 a year. The operations of the Home Mission are carried on
among the English population inhabiting the borders between England and
Wales. The Foreign Mission has a station in Brittany (north-west of
France)—the language of that country being a sister dialect of the
Welsh—and stations at Cassay and Sylhet in India, the presidency of
Bengal.
METROPOLITAN. (See _Archbishop_, _Bishop_.) The bishop who presides over
the other bishops of a province. The writers of the Latin Church use
promiscuously the words archbishop and metropolitan, making either name
denote a bishop, who, by virtue of his see, presides over or governs
several other bishops. Thus in England the archbishops of Canterbury and
York, and in Ireland the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, are
metropolitans. But the Greeks use the name only to denote him whose see
is really a civil metropolis. There are some bishops in our Church who
are metropolitans without the title of archbishop, viz. the bishops of
Calcutta and Sydney.
MICHAEL, ST., AND ALL ANGELS. A festival of the Christian Church
observed on the 29th of September.
The Scripture account of Michael is; that he was an archangel, who
presided over the Jewish nation, as other angels did over the Gentile
world, as is evident of the kingdoms of Persia and Greece; that he had
an army of angels under his command; that he fought with the dragon, or
Satan and his angels; and that, contending with the devil, he disputed
about the body of Moses.
As to the combat between Michael and the dragon, some authors understand
it literally, and think it means the expulsion of certain rebellious
angels, with their head or leader, from the presence of GOD. Others take
it in a figurative sense, and refer it, either to the contest that
happened at Rome between St. Peter and Simon Magus, in which the apostle
prevailed over the magician; or to those violent persecutions, under
which the Church laboured for three hundred years, and which happily
ceased when the powers of the world became Christian.
The contest about the body of Moses is, likewise, taken both literally
and figuratively. Those who understand it literally are of opinion, that
Michael, by the order of GOD, hid the body of Moses after his death, and
that the devil endeavoured to discover it, as a fit means to entice the
people to idolatry by a superstitious worship of his relics. But this
dispute is figuratively understood to be a controversy about rebuilding
the temple, and restoring the service of GOD among the Jews at
Jerusalem, the Jewish Church being fitly enough styled “the body of
Moses.” It is thought by some that this story of the contest between
Michael and the devil was taken by St. Jude out of an apocryphal book,
called “The Assumption of Moses.”—_Broughton._
MILITANT. (From _militans_, “fighting.”) A term applied to the Church on
earth, as engaged in a warfare with the world, sin, and the devil; in
distinction from the Church _triumphant_ in heaven. It is used in the
prefatory sentence of the prayer after the Offertory in our Communion
Service, and was first inserted in the Second Book of King Edward VI.
MILLENARIANS and MILLENNIUM. A name which is given to those who believe
that Christ will reign personally for a thousand years upon earth, their
designation being derived from the Latin words, _mille_, “a thousand,”
and _annus_, “a year.” In the words of Greswell, we may define their
doctrine and expectation, generally, as the belief of a second personal
advent or return of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, some time before the end of
the present state of things on the earth; a resurrection of a part of
the dead in the body, concurrently with that return; the establishment
of a kingdom, for a certain length of time, upon earth, of which JESUS
CHRIST will be the sovereign head, and good and holy men who lived under
the Mosaic dispensation before the gospel æra, or have lived under the
Christian, since, whether previously raised to life, or found alive in
the flesh at the time of the return, will be the subjects, and in some
manner or other admitted to a share of its privileges.
This is what is meant by the doctrine of the Millennium in general: the
fact of a return of JESUS CHRIST in person before the end of the world;
of a first or particular resurrection of the dead; of a reign of CHRIST,
with all saints, on the earth; and all this before the present state of
things is at an end, and before time and sense, whose proper period of
being is commensurate with the duration of the present state of things,
have given place to spirit and eternity in heaven.
The Millenarian, says the same learned writer, Mr. Greswell, expects the
following events, and as far as he can infer their connexion, in the
following order, though that is not, in every instance, a point of
paramount importance, or absolute certainty, on which room for the
possibility of a different succession of particulars may not be allowed
to exist.
First, a personal reappearance of the prophet Elijah, before any second
advent of JESUS CHRIST.
Secondly, a second advent of JESUS CHRIST in person, before his coming
to judgment at the end of the world.
Thirdly, a conversion of the Jews to Christianity, collectively, and as
a nation.
Fourthly, a resurrection of part of the dead, such as is called, by way
of distinction, “the resurrection of the just.”
Fifthly, the restitution of the kingdom to Israel, including the
appearance and manifestation of the Messiah to the Jews, in the
character of a temporal monarch.
Sixthly, a conformation of this kingdom to a state or condition of
society of which CHRIST will be the head, and faithful believers, both
Jews and Gentiles, will be the members.
A distribution of rewards and dignities in it, proportioned to the
respective merits or good deserts of the receivers.
A resulting state of things, which though transacted upon earth, and
adapted to the nature and conditions of a human society as such, leaves
nothing to be desired for its perfection and happiness.
Bishop Newton, in his “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” says, with
reference to the millennium, when these great events shall come to pass,
of which we collect from the prophecies, this is to be the proper order:
the Protestant witnesses shall be greatly exalted, and the 1260 years of
their prophesying in sackcloth, and of the tyranny of the beast, shall
end together; the conversion and restoration of the Jews succeed; then
follows the ruin of the Ottoman empire; and then the total destruction
of Rome and of antichrist. When these great events, I say, shall come to
pass, then shall the kingdom of CHRIST commence, or the reign of the
saints upon earth. So Daniel expressly informs us that the kingdom of
CHRIST and the saints will be raised upon the ruins of the kingdom of
antichrist (vii. 26, 27). “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall
take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end; and
the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the
whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall
serve and obey him.” So likewise St. John saith, that, upon the final
destruction of the beast and the false prophet, (Rev. xx.,) “Satan is
bound for a thousand years: and I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were
beheaded for the witness of JESUS CHRIST and for the word of GOD, which
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands: and they lived and
reigned with CHRIST a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection.” It is, I conceive, to these great events, the fall of
antichrist, the re-establishment of the Jews, and the beginning of the
glorious millennium, that the three different dates in Daniel of 1260
years, 1290 years, and 1335 years, are to be referred. And as Daniel
saith, (xii. 12,) “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335
years;” so St. John saith, (Rev. xx. 6,) “Blessed and holy is he that
hath part in the first resurrection.” Blessed and happy indeed will be
this period: and it is very observable that the martyrs and confessors
of JESUS, in Papist as well as Pagan times, will be raised to partake of
this felicity. Then shall all those gracious promises in the Old
Testament be fulfilled, of the amplitude and extent, of the peace and
prosperity, of the glory and happiness of the Church in the latter days.
“Then,” in the full sense of the words, (Rev. xi. 15,) “shall the
kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our LORD, and of his
CHRIST, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” According to tradition,
these thousand years of the reign of CHRIST and the saints will be the
seventh millenary of the world; for as GOD created the world in six
days, and rested on the seventh, so the world, it is argued, will
continue six thousand years, and the seventh thousand will be the great
Sabbatism, or holy rest of the people of GOD; “One day (2 Pet. iii. 8)
being with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day.” According to tradition, too, these thousand years of the reign of
CHRIST and the saints are the great “day of judgment,” in the morning or
beginning whereof shall be the coming of CHRIST in flaming fire, and the
particular judgment of antichrist and the first resurrection; and in the
evening or conclusion whereof shall be the general resurrection of the
dead, “small and great; and they shall be judged, every man, according
to their works!”
MINIMS. A religious order, in the Church of Rome, whose founder was St.
Francis de Paulu, so called from the place in Calabria, where he was
born in 1416.
He composed his rule in 1493, and it was approved by Pope Alexander VI.,
at the recommendation of the king of France. This pontiff changed the
name of _Hermits of St. Francis_, which these monks bore, into that of
Minims, (the _Least_,) because they called themselves in humility
_Minimi Fratres Eremitæ_, and gave them all the privileges of the
religious mendicant or begging friars. In 1507, the holy founder of this
order died, at the age of ninety-one years, and was canonized by Pope
Leo X., in 1519. His body was preserved in the church of the convent of
Plessis, until the Huguenots, in 1562, dragged it out of its tomb, and
burnt it with the wood of a crucifix belonging to the church. His bones,
however, were saved out of the fire by some zealous Catholics who mixed
with the Calvinist soldiers, and were distributed afterwards among
several churches.
This order is divided into thirty-one provinces, of which twelve are in
Italy, eleven in France and Flanders, seven in Spain, and one in
Germany. It has, at present, about 450 convents. The Minims have passed
even into the Indies, where there are some convents which do not compose
provinces, but depend immediately on the general.
What more particularly distinguishes these monks from all others, is the
observation of what they call the _quadragesimal life_, that is, a total
abstinence from flesh, and everything which has its origin from flesh,
as eggs, butter, cheese, excepting in case of great sickness. By this
means they make the year one continued Lent fast. Their habit is coarse
black woollen stuff, with a woollen girdle of the same colour, tied in
five knots. They are not permitted to quit their habit and girdle night
nor day. Formerly they went barefooted, but for these last hundred years
they have been allowed the use of shoes.
MINOR CANONS. Priests in collegiate churches, next in rank to the canons
and prebendaries, but not of the chapter, who are responsible for the
performance of the daily service. In cathedrals of the old foundation,
they are not often found, their duties being generally performed there
by priest-vicars. There are minor canons at St. Patrick’s, Hereford, and
Chichester, and formerly were at Salisbury; and at all those places
there are priest-vicars also: twelve minor canons at St. Paul’s, and
seven at Windsor, where there are only lay-vicars besides. It appears
from the original statutes of St. Patrick’s and St. Paul’s, that the
minor canons held a middle place between the canons and vicars; and that
besides their attendance on the daily service, they were required to
take the place of the major canons when required. At Hereford, they are
responsible for the reading of the daily prayers, the vicars choral for
the Litany and lessons; which seems to mark this office as being more
presbyteral than that of the vicars.
As the number of minor canons is generally but four or five, (at St.
Patrick’s statutably six, though there never have been more than four,)
it would appear as if these offices were originally instituted to supply
the place of the four junior canons, whose proper duty it was to perform
the daily service of the choir. Thus, in the _Causes Celebres_, viii.
345, on remarking on the constitution of the cathedral of Verdun, it is
stated that, “par le service de chœur, on entend l’obligation des quatre
chanonies qui sont dans les ordres sacrés, de porter la chappe, et de
faire chœur tous les jours de l’année à leur tour. Cette fonction
pénible a déja été retranchée; elle a été exercée par des chapelains,
gagés par les nouveaux chanonies,” &c. _Chaplain_ and minor canon are
convertible terms in many churches abroad, as at St. Peter’s at Rome,
where there are fifty minor canons or chaplains. (_Eustace’s Classical
Tour._) At Rouen there were eight _Moindees Chanonies_. They were
elsewhere called semi (or demi) prebendaries.
The minor canons of St. Paul and of St. Patrick form corporate bodies,
and had their common hall and collegiate buildings in ancient times.
There is also a college of vicars-choral at St. Patrick’s. At Hereford
the minor canonries are held by priest-vicars; but they have separate
estates, as minor canons, with designation, like prebendaries, for their
individual stalls.
In the cathedrals of the new foundation there are no priest-vicars, but
all the inferior clerical members are minor canons. They ought to be all
priests, and skilled in church music, according to the statutes, a
qualification required by the laws of all cathedrals. Formerly the minor
canons were more numerous than now, being commensurate to the number of
the prebendaries: e. g. twelve at Canterbury, twelve at Durham, ten at
Worcester: a number by no means too great for the due and solemn
performance of the service. They were in fact, but not in name, the
vicars of the prebendaries.—_Jebb._
MINISTER. This is the Latin term to designate that officer who is styled
deacon in Greek. The term was applied generally to the clergy about the
time of the great rebellion, since which time it has been used to denote
the preacher of any religion. Joseph Mede protested against our calling
presbyters ministers of the Church, or of such or such a parish: we
should call them, he observes, ministers of GOD, or ministers of CHRIST,
not ministers of men, because they are only GOD’S ministers, who sends
them, but the people’s pastors, to teach, instruct, and oversee them.
Were it not absurd to call the shepherd the sheep’s minister? The word
has, however, obtained such general currency, that it would be pedantic
to refuse to use it. The word seems generally to imply an assistant,
whether presbyteral or diaconal, in Divine service. Thus in the statutes
of the cathedrals of the new foundation, the minor canons and other
members of the choir are called _minister_. These represent the deacons,
readers, chanters, &c. of the ancient Church.
Some trace of the division of the service between the superior and
inferior clergy, (the priest and the deacon,) is perhaps still visible
in our liturgy. The word _minister_ is prefixed, in the order both for
Morning and Evening Prayer, to those parts of the service only where
there is exhortation, or in which the people audibly join, or which are
said kneeling, such as the General Confession, LORD’S Prayer, Apostles’
Creed, and Lesser Litany. _Minister_ also occurs in one of the rubrics
respecting the reading of the lessons, which the custom of the Church,
both Eastern and Western, has always permitted to the inferior
ministers. The word _priest_ is prefixed to the absolution, and to all
those prayers which the clergyman performs standing; such as the
versicles before the psalms, beginning at the Gloria Patri, and those
before the collects. To the collects themselves no direction is
prefixed. There are a few exceptions which may be accounted for.
MINORESS. A nun under the rule of St. Clair.
MIRACLE. An effect that does not follow from any of the regular laws of
nature, or which is inconsistent with some law of it, or contrary to the
settled constitution and course of things: accordingly, all miracles
pre-suppose an established system of nature, within the limits of which
they operate, and with the order of which they disagree.
The following statement is true beyond controversy:—Man cannot, in the
present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has a Divine
origin, unless it be accompanied with miracles. The necessary inference
of the mind is, that if an Infinite Being act, his acts will be
superhuman in their character; because the effect, reason dictates, will
be characterized by the nature of its cause. Man has the same reason to
expect that GOD will perform acts above human power and knowledge, that
he has to suppose the inferior orders of animals will, in their actions,
sink below the power and wisdom which characterize human nature. For, as
it is natural for man to perform acts superior to the power and
knowledge of the animals beneath him, so reason affirms that it is
natural for GOD to develope his power by means and in ways above the
skill and ability of mortals. Hence, if GOD manifest himself at
all—unless, in accommodation to the capacities of men, he should
constrain his manifestations within the compass of human ability—every
act of GOD’S immediate power would, to human capacity, be a miracle.
But, if GOD were to constrain all his acts within the limits of human
means and agencies, it would be impossible for man to discriminate
between the acts of the GODHEAD and the acts of the manhood. And man, if
he considered acts to be of a Divine origin which were plainly within
the compass of human ability, would violate his own reason.
Suppose, for illustration, that GOD desired to reveal a religion to men,
and wished them to recognise his character and his benevolence in giving
that revelation. Suppose, further, that GOD should give such a
revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with its
introduction were characterized by nothing superior to human power;
could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system of religion
came from GOD? Impossible! A man could as easily be made to believe that
his own child, who possessed his own lineaments, and his own nature,
belonged to some other world, and some other order of the creation. It
would not be possible for GOD to convince men that a religion was from
heaven, unless it was accompanied with the marks of Divine power.
Suppose, again, that some individual were to appear either in the
heathen or Christian world—that he claimed to be a teacher sent from
GOD, yet aspired to the performance of no miracles—that he assumed to do
nothing superior to the wisdom and ability of other men. Such an
individual, although he might succeed in gaining proselytes to some
particular view of a religion already believed, yet he could never make
men believe that he had a special commission from GOD to establish a new
religion, for the simple reason that he had no grounds more than his
fellows, to support his claims as an agent of the Almighty. But if he
could convince a single individual that he had wrought a miracle, or
that he had power to do so, that moment his claims would be established
in that mind as a commissioned agent from Heaven. So certainly and so
intuitively do the minds of men revere and expect miracles as the
credentials of the Divine presence.
This demand of the mind for miracles, as testimony of the Divine
presence and power, is intuitive with all men; and those very
individuals who have doubted the existence or necessity of miracles,
should they examine their own convictions on this subject, would see
that, by an absolute necessity, if they desired to give the world a
system of religion, whether truth or imposture, in order to make men
receive it as of Divine authority, they must work miracles to attest its
truth, or make men believe that they did so. Men can produce doubt of a
revelation in no way until they have destroyed the evidence of its
miracles; nor can faith be produced in the Divine origin of a religion
until the evidence of miracles is supplied.
The conviction that miracles are the true attestation of immediate
Divine agency, is so constitutional (allow the expression) with the
reason, that so soon as men persuade themselves they are the special
agents of GOD in propagating some particular truth in the world, they
adopt likewise the belief that they have ability to work miracles. There
have been many sincere enthusiasts, who believed that they were special
agents of Heaven; and, in such cases, the conviction of their own
miraculous powers arises as a necessary concomitant of the other
opinion. Among such, in modern times, may be instanced Emanuel
Swedenborg, and Irving, the Scotch preacher. Impostors also, perceiving
that miracles were necessary in order that the human mind should receive
a religion as Divine, have invariably claimed miraculous powers. Such
instances recur constantly from the days of Elymas down to the Mormon,
Joseph Smith.
All the multitude of false religions that have been believed since the
world began, have been introduced by the power of this principle.
Miracles believed, lie at the foundation of all religions which men have
ever received as of Divine origin. No matter how degrading or repulsive
to reason in other respects, the fact of its establishment and
propagation grows out of the belief of men that miraculous agency lies
at the bottom. This belief will give currency to any system, however
absurd; and, without it, no system can be established in the minds of
men, however high and holy may be its origin and its design.
Such, then, is the constitution which the Maker has given to the mind.
Whether the conviction be an intuition or an induction of the reason,
GOD is the primary cause of its existence; and its existence puts it out
of the power of man to receive a revelation from GOD himself, unless
accompanied with miraculous manifestations. If, therefore, GOD ever gave
a revelation to man, it was necessarily accompanied with miracles, and
with miracles of such a nature, as would clearly distinguish the Divine
character and the Divine authority of the dispensation.—_Plan of the
Philosophy of Salvation._
MIRACLES, or MIRACLE-PLAYS. (See _Moralities_.)
MISCHNA, or MISNA. A part of the Jewish Talmud. From a word which
signifies _repetition_: i. e. a secondary law. It is believed by the
Jews to be the tradition delivered, unwritten, to Moses by GOD; and
preserved only by the doctors of the synagogue till the time of Rabbi
Judas the Holy, who committed it to writing about A. D. 180. It is in
fact the canon and civil law of the Jews; treating of tithes, festivals,
matrimonial laws, mercantile laws, idolatry, oaths, sacrifices, and
purifications. The heads of the synagogue who are said to have preserved
the Mischna, were thought to have had the privilege of hearing the
_Bath-Col_, or oracular voice of God. (See _Bath-Col_.) The Mischna
contains the text; and the Gemara, which is the second part of the
Talmud, contains the commentaries; so that the Gemara is, as it were, a
glossary to the Mischna.
MISERERE. The seat of a stall, so contrived as to turn up and down,
according as it is wanted as a support in long standing, or as a seat.
Misereres are almost always carved, and often very richly; more often,
too, than any other part of the wood-work, with grotesques.
MISSAL. (See _Mass_.) In the Romish Church, a book containing the
services of the mass for the various days of the year. In the ancient
Church, the several parts of Divine service were arranged in distinct
books. Thus the collects and the invariable portion of the Communion
Office formed the book called the _Sacramentary_. The lessons from the
Old and New Testaments constituted the _Lectionary_, and the Gospels
made another volume, with the title of _Evangelistarium_. The
_Antiphonary_ consisted of anthems, &c. designed for chanting.
About the eleventh or twelfth century it was found convenient,
generally, to unite these books, and the volume obtained the name of the
Complete or Plenary _Missal_, or Book of Missæ. Of this description were
almost all the liturgical books of the Western Churches, and the
arrangement is still preserved in our own.—_Palmer’s Origines
Liturgicæ._
MISSION. A power or commission to preach the gospel. Thus our blessed
LORD gave his disciples and their successors the bishops their mission,
when he said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.”
It certainly is essential that the true ministers of GOD should be able
to prove that they have not only the power, but the right, of performing
sacred offices. There is an evident difference between these things, as
may be seen by the following cases. If a regularly ordained priest
should celebrate the eucharist in the church of another, contrary to the
will of that person and of the bishop, he would have the _power_ of
consecrating the eucharist, it actually would be consecrated; but he
would not have the _right_ of consecrating; or, in other words, he would
not have _mission_ for that act. If a bishop should enter the diocese of
another bishop, and, contrary to his will, ordain one of his deacons to
the priesthood, the intruding bishop would have the power, but not the
right, of ordaining; he would have no mission for such an act.
In fact, mission fails in all schismatical, heretical, and uncanonical
acts, because GOD cannot have given any man a right to act in opposition
to those laws which he himself has enacted, or to those which the
apostles and their successors have instituted, for the orderly and
peaceable regulation of the Church: he “is not the author of confusion,
but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. xiv. 33);
and yet, were he to commission his ministers to exercise their offices
in whatever places and circumstances they pleased, confusion and
division without end must be the inevitable result.
Mission can only be given for acts in accordance with the Divine and
ecclesiastical laws, the latter of which derive their authority from the
former; and it is conferred by valid ordination. It would be easy to
prove this in several ways; but it is enough at present to say, that no
other method can be pointed out by which mission is given. Should the
ordination be valid, and yet uncanonical, mission does not take effect
until the suspension imposed by the canons on the person ordained is in
some lawful manner removed.
Mr. Palmer, from whom the above remarks are taken, shows, in his
_Origines Liturgicæ_, that the English bishops and clergy alone have
mission in England.
MISSIONARY. A clergyman, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, deputed or
sent out by ecclesiastical authority, to preach the gospel, and exercise
his other functions, in places where the Church has hitherto been
unknown, or is in the infancy of its establishment.
MITRE. The episcopal coronet. From Eusebius it seems that St. John wore
an ornament which many have considered to be a mitre (φέταλον).
The most ancient mitres were very low and simple, being not more than
from three to six inches in elevation, and they thus continued till the
end of the thirteenth century. In the fourteenth century they gradually
increased in height to a foot or more, and became more superbly
enriched; their contours also presented a degree of convexity by which
they were distinguished from the older mitres. The two horns of the
mitre are generally taken to be an allusion to the cloven tongues as of
fire, which rested on each of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.
Mitres, although worn in some of the Lutheran Churches, (as in Sweden,)
have fallen into utter desuetude in England, even at coronations. They
were worn however at the coronations of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth.
See Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 81, et seq. In which work, however, at p.
89, there is an assertion of Dr. Milner’s, which is incorrect, viz. that
they were worn at the coronation of George III. In the detailed accounts
of that ceremony (see e. g. the Annual Register for 1761) the bishops
are described as carrying their square caps, and putting them on when
the lay peers assumed their coronets. The mitre is now merely an
heraldic decoration, and, as such, occasionally carried at funerals.
MODUS DECIMANDI. This is when lands, or a yearly pension, or some money
or other thing, is given to a parson in lieu of his tithes.
MONASTERIES. Convents or houses built for those who profess the monastic
life, whether abbeys, priories, or nunneries. (For the origin of
monasteries, see _Abbey_ and _Monk_.)
In their first institution, and in their subsequent uses, there can be
no doubt that monasteries were amongst the most remarkable instances of
Christian munificence, and they certainly were in the dark ages among
the beneficial adaptations of the talents of Christians to pious and
charitable ends. They were schools of education and learning, where the
children of the great received their education; and they were hospitals
for the poor: they afforded also a retirement for the worn-out servants
of the rich and noble; they protected the calmer spirits, who, in an age
of universal warfare, shrunk from conflict, and desired to lead a
contemplative life. But the evils which grew out of those societies seem
quite to have counterbalanced the good. Being often exempted from the
authority of the bishop, they became hotbeds of ecclesiastical
insubordination; and were little else but parties of privileged
sectaries within the Church. The temptations arising out of a state of
celibacy, too often in the first instance enforced by improper means,
and always bound upon the members of these societies by a religious vow,
were the occasion of great scandal. And the enormous wealth with which
some of them were endowed, brought with it a greater degree of pride,
and ostentation, and luxury, than was becoming in Christians; and still
more in those who had vowed a life of religion and asceticism.
The dissolution of houses of this kind began so early as the year 1312,
when the Templars were suppressed; and, in 1323, their lands, churches,
advowsons, and liberties, here in England, were given by 17 Edward II.
stat. iii. to the prior and brethren of the hospital of St. John of
Jerusalem. In the years 1390, 1437, 1441, 1459, 1497, 1505, 1508, and
1515, several other houses were dissolved, and their revenues settled on
different colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. Soon after the last period,
Cardinal Wolsey, by licence of the king and pope, obtained a dissolution
of above thirty religious houses for the founding and endowing his
colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. About the same time a bull was granted
by the same pope to Cardinal Wolsey to suppress monasteries, where there
were not above six monks, to the value of eight thousand ducats a year,
for endowing Windsor and King’s College in Cambridge; and two other
bulls were granted to Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius, where there were
less than twelve monks, to annex them to the greater monasteries; and
another bull to the same cardinals to inquire about abbeys to be
suppressed in order to be made cathedrals. Although nothing appears to
have been done in consequence of these bulls, the motive which induced
Wolsey and many others to suppress these houses, was the desire of
promoting learning; and Archbishop Cranmer engaged in such suppression
with a view of carrying on the reformation. There were other causes that
concurred to bring on their ruin: many of the monks were loose and
vicious; they were generally thought to be in their hearts attached to
the pope’s supremacy; their revenues were not employed according to the
intent of the donors; many cheats in images, feigned miracles, and
counterfeit relics, had been discovered, which brought the monks into
disgrace; the Observant friars had opposed the king’s divorce from Queen
Catharine; and these circumstances operated, in concurrence with the
king’s want of a supply, and the people’s desire to save their money, to
forward a motion in parliament, that, in order to support the king’s
state, and supply his wants, all the religious houses which were not
able to spend above £200 a year, might be conferred upon the Crown; and
an act was passed for that purpose, 27 Henry VIII. c. 28. By this act
about 380 houses were dissolved, and a revenue of £30,000 or £32,000 a
year came to the Crown; besides about £200,000 in plate and jewels. The
suppression of these houses occasioned discontent, and at length an open
rebellion: when this was appeased, the king resolved to suppress the
rest of the monasteries, and appointed a new visitation, which caused
the greater abbeys to be surrendered apace; and it was enacted by 31
Henry VIII. c. 13, that all monasteries which had been surrendered since
the 4th of February, in the twenty-seventh year of his Majesty’s reign,
and which thereafter should be surrendered, should be vested in the
king. The knights of St. John of Jerusalem were also suppressed by the
32nd Henry VIII. c. 24. The suppression of these greater houses by these
two acts produced a revenue to the king of above £100,000 a year,
besides a large sum in plate and jewels. The last act of dissolution in
this king’s reign was the act of 37 Henry VIII. c. 4, for dissolving
colleges, free chapels, chantries, &c., which act was further enforced
by 1 Edward VI. c. 14. By this act were suppressed 90 colleges, 110
hospitals, and 2374 chantries and free chapels.
Whatever were the offences of the race of men then inhabiting them, this
destruction of the monasteries was nothing less than sacrilege, and can
on no ground be justified. They were the property of the Church; and if,
while the Church cast off divers errors in doctrine which she had too
long endured, she had been permitted to purge these institutions of some
practical errors, and of certain flagrant vices, they might have been
exceedingly serviceable to the cause of religion. Cranmer felt this very
forcibly, and begged earnestly of Henry VIII. that he would save some of
the monasteries for holy and religious uses; but in vain. Ridley also
was equally anxious for their preservation. It is a mistake to suppose
that the monasteries were erected and endowed by Papists. Many of them
were endowed before most of the errors of the Papists were thought of:
and the founders of abbeys afterwards built and endowed them, not as
Papists, but as churchmen; and when the Church became pure, she did not
lose any portion of her right to such endowments as were always made in
supposition of her purity. (See Num. xviii. 32; Lev. xxv. 23, 24; Ezek.
xlviii. 14.)
Although much of the confiscated property was profligately squandered
and consumed by the Russells, the Cavendishes, &c., still, out of the
receipts, Henry VIII. founded six new bishoprics, viz. those of
Westminster, (which was changed by Queen Elizabeth into a deanery, with
twelve prebends and a school,) Peterborough, Chester, Gloucester,
Bristol, and Oxford. And in eight other sees he founded deaneries and
chapters, by converting the priors and monks into deans and
prebendaries, viz. Canterbury, Winchester, Durham, Worcester, Rochester,
Norwich, Ely, and Carlisle. He founded also the colleges of Christ
Church in Oxford, and Trinity in Cambridge, and finished King’s College
there. He likewise founded professorships of divinity, law, physic, and
of the Hebrew and Greek tongues in both the said universities. He gave
the house of Greyfriars and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital to the city of
London, and a perpetual pension to the poor knights of Windsor, and laid
out great sums in building and fortifying many ports in the Channel. It
is observable that the dissolution of these houses was an act, not of
the Church, but of the State, in the period preceding the Reformation,
by a king and parliament of the Roman Catholic communion in all points
except the king’s supremacy; to which the pope himself, by his bulls and
licences, had led the way.
Of the monasteries which had been attached to cathedrals before the
Reformation, the heads were called Priors, (which answered to dean,)
never Abbots; as the bishop was considered as virtually the abbot. The
bishop of Ely actually occupied, as he still does, the abbot’s place in
the choir, (i. e. the stall usually assigned by the dean,) as he did
since the Reformation at Carlisle, though in the latter place he had a
throne also. Christ Church monastery in Dublin, which had always been a
cathedral chapter, was also secularized at the Reformation.
MONASTERY. In architectural arrangement, monastic establishments,
whether abbeys, priories, or other convents, followed nearly the same
plan.
The great enclosure, (varying, of course, in extent with the wealth and
importance of the monastery,) and generally with a stream running beside
it, was surrounded by a wall, the principal entrance being through a
_gateway_ to the west or north-west. This gateway was a considerable
building, and often contained a chapel, with its altar, besides the
necessary accommodation for the porter. The _almery_, or place where
alms were distributed, stood not far within the great gate, and
generally a little to the right hand: there, too, was often a chapel
with its altar. Proceeding onwards the west entrance of the church
appeared. The church itself was always, where it received its due
development, in the form of a Latin cross; a cross, i.e. of which the
transepts are short in proportion to the nave. Moreover, in Norman
churches, the eastern limb never approached the nave or western limb in
length. Whether or no the reason of this preference of the Latin cross
is found in the domestic arrangements of the monastic buildings, it was
certainly best adapted to it; for the nave of the church with one of the
transepts formed the whole of one side and part of another side of a
quadrangle; and any other than a long nave would have involved a small
quadrangle, while a long transept would leave too little of another
side, or none at all, for other buildings. How the internal arrangements
were affected by this adaptation of the nave to external requirements,
we have seen under the head _Cathedral_, to which also we refer for the
general description of the conventual church.
Southward of the church, and parallel with the south transept, was
carried the western range of the monastic offices; but it will be more
convenient to examine their arrangement within the court. We enter then
by a door near the west end of the church, and passing through a vaulted
passage, find ourselves in the _cloister court_, of which the nave of
the church forms the northern side, the transept part of the eastern
side and other buildings, in the order to be presently described,
complete the quadrangle. The _cloisters_ themselves extended around the
whole of the quadrangle, serving, among other purposes, as a covered way
from every part of the convent to every other part. They were furnished,
perhaps always, with _lavatories_, on the decoration and construction of
which much cost was expended; and sometimes also with desks and closets
of wainscot, which served the purpose of a _scriptorium_.
Commencing the circuit of the cloisters at the north-west corner, and
turning southward, we have first the _dormitory_, or _dorter_, the use
of which is sufficiently indicated by its name. This occupied the whole
of the western side of the quadrangle, and had sometimes a groined
passage beneath its whole length, called the _ambulatory_, a noble
example of which, in perfect preservation, remains at Fountains. The
south side of the quadrangle contained the _refectory_, with its
correlative, the _coquina_ or _kitchen_, which was sometimes at its
side, and sometimes behind it. The refectory was furnished with a
pulpit, for the reading of some portion of Scripture during meals. On
this side of the quadrangle may also be found, in general, the
_locutorium_, or _parlour_, the latter word being, at least in
etymology, the full equivalent of the former. The _abbot’s lodge_
commonly commenced at the south-east corner of the quadrangle; but,
instead of conforming itself to its general direction, rather extended
eastward, with its own chapel, hall, parlour, kitchen, and other
offices, in a line parallel with the choir or eastern limb of the
church. Turning northwards, still continuing within the cloisters, we
come first to an open passage leading outwards, then to the
_chapter-house_, or its vestibule; then, after another open passage, to
the south transept of the church. Immediately before us is an entrance
into the church, and another occurs at the end of the west cloister.
The parts of the establishment especially connected with _sewerage_,
were built over or close to the stream; and we may remark that, both in
drainage, and in the supply of water, great and laudable care was always
taken.
The stream also turned the _abbey mill_, at a small distance from the
monastery. Other offices, such as _stables_, _brew-houses_,
_bake-houses_, and the like, in the larger establishments, usually
occupied another court; and, in the smaller, were connected with the
chief buildings in the only quadrangle. It is needless to say that, in
so general an account, we cannot enumerate exceptional cases. It may,
however, be necessary to say, that the greatest difference of all, that
of placing the quadrangle at the north instead of the south side of the
church, is not unknown; it is so at Canterbury and at Lincoln, for
instance.
The subject may be followed out in the several plans of monasteries
scattered among our topographical works, and in a paper read by Mr.
Bloxam before the Bedfordshire Architectural Society, and published in
their Report for 1850.
MONKS. The word monk, being derived from the Greek μόνος, _solus_,
signifies the same as a solitary, or one who lives sequestered from the
company and conversation of the rest of the world, and is usually
applied to those who dedicate themselves wholly to the service of
religion, in some monastery (as it is called) or religious house, and
under the direction of some particular statutes, or rule. Those of the
female sex who devote themselves in like manner to a religious life, are
called nuns. (See _Nuns_.)
There is some difference in the sentiments of learned men concerning the
original and rise of the monastic life. But the most probable account of
this matter seems to be as follows:
Till the year 250, there were no monks, but only ascetics, in the
Church. (See _Ascetics_.)
In the Decian persecution, which was about the middle of the third
century, many persons in Egypt, to avoid the fury of the storm, fled to
the neighbouring deserts and mountains, where they not only found a safe
retreat, but also more time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts
of piety and Divine contemplations; which sort of life became so
agreeable to them, that when the persecution was over, they refused to
return to their habitations again, choosing rather to continue in those
cottages and cells which they had made for themselves in the wilderness.
The first and most noted of these solitaries were Paul and Anthony, two
famous Egyptians, whom therefore St. Jerome calls the fathers of the
Christian hermits. Some indeed carry up the original of the monastic
life as high as John Baptist and Elias. But learned men generally reckon
Paul the Thebæan, and Anthony, as the first promoters of this way of
living among the Christians.
As yet there were no bodies or communities of men embracing this life,
nor any monasteries built, but only a few single persons scattered here
and there in the deserts of Egypt, till Pachomius, in the peaceable
reign of Constantine, procured some monasteries to be built in Thebais
in Egypt, from whence the custom of living in societies was followed by
degrees in other parts of the world, and in succeeding ages.
Macarius peopled the Egyptian desert of Scetis with monks. Hilarion, a
disciple of Anthony’s, was the first monk in Palestine or Syria. Not
long after, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, brought monachism into
Armenia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus. But St. Basil is generally considered
as the great father and patriarch of the Eastern monks. It was he who
reduced the monastic life to a fixed state of uniformity, who united the
Anchorets and Cœnobites, and obliged them to engage themselves by solemn
vows. It was St. Basil who prescribed rules for the government and
direction of the monasteries, to which rules most of the disciples of
Anthony, Pachomius, and Macarius, and the other ancient fathers of the
deserts, submitted. And to this day, all the Greeks, Nestorians,
Melchites, Georgians, Mingrelians, and Armenians, follow the rule of St.
Basil.
The monastic profession made no less progress in the West. Athanasius,
bishop of Alexandria, retiring to Rome, about the year 339, with several
priests, and two Egyptian monks, made known to several pious persons the
life of Anthony, who then lived in the desert of Thebais; upon which
many were desirous to embrace so holy a profession. To this effect
several monasteries were built at Rome, and this example was soon
followed all over Italy. Benedict of Nursia appeared in that country in
the early part of the sixth century, and published his rule, which was
universally received throughout the West; for which reason that saint
was styled the patriarch of the Western monks, as St. Basil was of the
Eastern.
France owes the institution of the monastic life to St. Martin, bishop
of Tours, in the fourth century; who built the monasteries of Lugugé and
Marmontier. The Council of Saragossa, in Spain, anno 380, which condemns
the practice of clergymen, who affected to wear the monastical habits,
is a proof that there were monks in that kingdom in the fourth century,
before St. Donatus went thither out of Africa, with seventy disciples,
and founded the monastery of Sirbita.
Augustine, being sent into England by Gregory the Great, in the year
596, to preach the faith, at the same time introduced the monastic state
into this kingdom. It made so great a progress here, that, within the
space of 200 years, there were thirty kings and queens who preferred the
religious habit to their crowns, and founded stately monasteries, where
they ended their days in retirement and solitude.
The monastic profession was also carried into Ireland by St. Patrick,
who is looked upon as the apostle of that kingdom, and multiplied there
in so prodigious a manner, that it was called the Island of
Saints.—_Broughton._
The monastic life soon made a very great progress all over the Christian
world. Rufinus, who travelled through the East in 373, assures us there
were almost as many monks in the deserts, as inhabitants in the cities.
From the wilderness (contrary to its original institution) it made its
way into the towns and cities, where it multiplied greatly: for the same
author informs us, that, in the single city of Oxirinca, there were more
monasteries than private houses, and above 30,000 monks.
The ancient monks were not, like the modern, distinguished into orders,
and denominated from the founders of them; but they had their names from
the places where they inhabited, as the monks of _Scetis_, _Tabennesus_,
_Nitria_, _Canopus_ in Egypt, &c. or else were distinguished by their
different ways of living. Of these the most remarkable were,
1. The anchorets, so called from their retiring from society, and living
in private cells in the wilderness. (See _Anchorets_.)
2. The Cœnobites, so denominated from their living together in common.
(See _Cœnobites_.)
All monks were, originally, no more than laymen: nor could they well be
otherwise, being confined by their own rules to some desert or
wilderness where there could be no room for the exercise of the clerical
functions. Accordingly St. Jerome tells us, the office of a monk is, not
to teach, but to mourn. The Council of Chalcedon expressly distinguishes
the monks from the clergy, and reckons them with the laymen. Gratian
himself, who is most interested for the moderns, owns it to be plain
from ecclesiastical history, that to the time of Pope Sircius and
Zosimus, the monks were only mere monks, and not of the clergy.
In some cases, however, the clerical and monastic life were capable of
being conjoined; as, first, when a monastery happened to be at so great
a distance from its proper church, that the monks could not ordinarily
resort thither for Divine service, which was the case of the monasteries
in Egypt and other parts of the East. In this case, some one or more of
the monks were ordained for the performance of divine offices among
them. Another case, in which the clerical and monastic life were united,
was, when monks were taken out of monasteries by the bishops, and
ordained for the service of the Church. This was allowed, and
encouraged, when once monasteries were become schools of learning and
pious education. In this case they usually continued their ancient
austerities; and upon this account the Greeks styled them ἱερομοναχοι,
clergy-monks. Thirdly, it happened sometimes that a bishop and all his
clergy embraced the monastic life by a voluntary renunciation of
property, and enjoyed all things in common. Eusebius Vercellensis was
the first who brought in this way of living, and St. Augustine lived
thus among the clergy of Hippo. And so far as this was an imitation of
cœnobitic life, and having all things in common, it might be called a
monastic as well as a clerical life.
The Cœnobites, or such monks as lived in communities, were chiefly
regarded by the Church, and were therefore under the direction of
certain laws and rules of government, of which we shall here give a
short account. And,
First, All men were not allowed to turn monks at pleasure, because such
an indiscriminate permission would have been detrimental both to the
Church and State. Upon this account the civil law forbids any of those
officers called _curiales_ to become monks, unless they parted with
their estates to others, who might serve their country in their stead.
For the same reason servants were not to be admitted into any monastery
without their masters’ leave. Indeed, Justinian afterwards abrogated
this law by an edict of his own, which first set servants at liberty
from their masters, under pretence of betaking themselves to a monastic
life. The same precautions were observed in regard to married persons
and children. The former were not to embrace the monastic life, unless
with the mutual consent of both parties. This precaution was afterwards
broke through by Justinian; but the Church never approved of this
innovation. As to children, the Council of Gangra decreed that if any
such, under pretence of religion, forsook their parents, they should be
anathematized. But Justinian enervated the force of this law likewise,
forbidding parents to hinder their children from becoming monks or
clerks. And as children were not to turn monks without consent of their
parents, so neither could parents oblige their children to embrace a
monastic life against their own consent. But the fourth Council of
Toledo, A. D. 633, set aside this precaution, and decreed that, whether
the devotion of their parents, or their own profession, made them monks,
both should be equally binding, and there should be no permission to
return to a secular life again, as was before allowable, when a parent
offered a child before he was capable of giving his own consent.
The manner of admission to the monastic life was usually by some change
of habit or dress, not to signify any religious mystery, but only to
express their gravity and contempt of the world. Long hair was always
thought an indecency in men, and savouring of secular vanity; and
therefore they polled every monk at his admission, to distinguish him
from seculars; but they never shaved any, for fear they should look too
like the priests of Isis. This, therefore, was the ancient tonsure, in
opposition to both these extremes. As to their habit and clothing, the
rule was the same: they were to be decent and grave, as became their
profession. The monks of Tabennesus, in Thebais, seem to have been the
only monks, in those early days, who were confined to any particular
habit. St. Jerome, who often speaks of the habit of the monks, intimates
that it differed from others only in this, that it was a cheaper,
coarser, and meaner raiment, expressing their humility and contempt of
the world, without any singularity or affectation. The father is very
severe against the practice of some who appeared in chains or sackcloth.
And Cassian blames others who carried wooden crosses continually about
their necks, which was only proper to excite the laughter of the
spectators. In short, the Western monks used only a common habit, the
philosophic pallium, as many other Christians did. And Salvian seems to
give an exact description of the habit and tonsure of the monks, when,
reflecting on the Africans for their treatment of them, he says, “they
could scarce ever see a man with short hair, a pale face, and habited in
a pallium, without reviling, and bestowing some reproachful language on
him.”
We read of no solemn vow, or profession, required at their admission:
but they underwent a triennial probation, during which time they were
inured to the exercises of the monastic life. If, after that time was
expired, they chose to continue the same exercises, they were then
admitted without any further ceremony into the community. This was the
method prescribed by Pachomius, the father of the monks of Tabennesus,
from which all others took their model.
Nor was there, as yet, any solemn vow of poverty required; though it was
customary for men voluntarily to renounce the world by disposing of
their estates to charitable uses, before they entered into a community,
where they were to enjoy all things in common. Nor did they, after
renouncing their own estates, seek to enrich themselves, or their
monasteries, by begging, or accepting, the estates of others. The
Western monks did not always adhere to this rule, as appears from some
Imperial laws made to restrain their avarice. But the monks of Egypt
were generally just in their pretensions, and would accept of no
donations but for the use of the poor. Some, indeed, did not wholly
renounce all property, but kept their estates in their own hands, the
whole yearly revenue of which they distributed in charitable uses.
As the monasteries had no standing revenues, all the monks were obliged
to exercise themselves in bodily labour to maintain themselves, without
being burdensome to others. They had no idle mendicants among them; they
looked upon a monk that did not work as no better than a covetous
defrauder. Sozomen tells us, that Serapion presided over a monastery of
ten thousand monks, near Arsinoë in Egypt, who all laboured with their
own hands, by which means they not only maintained themselves, but had
enough to relieve the poor.
The monasteries were commonly divided into several parts, and proper
officers appointed over each of them. Every ten monks were subject to
one, who was called the _decanus_, or _dean_, from his presiding over
ten; and every hundred had another officer called _centenarius_, from
his presiding over a hundred. Above these were the _patres_, or fathers
of the monasteries, called likewise _abbates_, _abbots_, from the Greek
ἄββας, which signifies _father_; and _hegumeni_ (ἡγούμενοι)
_presidents_; and _archimandrites_, from _mandru_, a sheep-fold. The
business of the deans was to exact every man’s daily task, and bring it
to the _œconomus_, or steward, who gave a monthly account thereof to the
father, or abbot. (See _Abbot_.)
To their bodily exercises they joined others that were spiritual. The
first of these was a perpetual repentance. Upon which account the life
of a monk is often styled the _life of a mourner_. And in allusion to
this, the isle of Canopus, near Alexandria, formerly a place of great
lewdness, was, upon the translation and settlement of the monks of
Tabennesus there, called _Insulæ Metanœæ_, the _Isle of Repentance_.
The next spiritual exercise was extraordinary fasting. The Egyptian
monks kept every day a fast till three in the afternoon, excepting
Saturdays, Sundays, and the fifty days of Pentecost. Some exercised
themselves with very great austerities, fasting two, three, four, or
five days together; but this practice was not generally approved. They
did not think such excessive abstinence of any use, but rather a
disservice to religion. Pachomius’s rule, which was said to be given him
by an angel, permitted every man to eat, drink, and labour, according to
his bodily strength. So that fasting was a discretionary thing, and
matter of choice, not of compulsion.
Their fastings were accompanied with extraordinary and frequent returns
of devotion. The monks of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and other parts of the
East, had six or seven canonical hours of prayer. Besides which they had
their constant vigils, or nocturnal meetings. The monks of Egypt met
only twice a day for public devotion; but, in their private cells,
whilst they were at work, they were always repeating psalms, and other
parts of Scripture, and intermixing prayers with their bodily labour.
St. Jerome’s description of their devotion is very lively: “When they
are assembled together, (says that father,) psalms are sung, and the
Scriptures read: then, prayers being ended, they all sit down, and the
father begins a discourse to them, which they hear with the profoundest
silence and veneration. His words make a deep impression on them; their
eyes overflow with tears, and the speaker’s commendation is the weeping
of his hearers. Yet no one’s grief expresses itself in an indecent
strain. But when he comes to speak of the kingdom of heaven, of future
happiness, and the glory of the world to come, then one may observe each
of them, with a gentle sigh, and eyes lifted up to heaven, say within
himself, ‘Oh that I had the wings of a dove, for then would I flee away,
and be at rest!’” In some places, they had the Scriptures read during
their meals at table. This custom was first resorted to in the
monasteries of Cappadocia, to prevent idle discourses and contentions.
But in Egypt they had no occasion for this remedy; for they were taught
to eat their meat in silence. Palladius mentions one instance more of
their devotion, which was only occasional; namely, their psalmody at the
reception of any brethren, or the conducting them with singing of psalms
to their habitation.
The laws did not allow monks to interest themselves in any public
affairs, either ecclesiastical or civil; and those who were called to
any employment in the Church, were obliged to quit their monastery
thereupon. Nor were they permitted to encroach upon the duties, or
rights and privileges, of the secular clergy.
By the laws of their first institution, in all parts of the East, their
habitation was not to be in cities, or places of public concourse, but
in deserts, and private retirements, as their very name implied. The
famous monk Anthony used to say, “That the wilderness was as natural to
a monk, as water to a fish; and therefore a monk in a city was quite out
of his element, like a fish upon dry land.” Theodosius enacted, that all
who made profession of the monastic life should be obliged by the civil
magistrate to betake themselves to the wilderness, as their proper
habitation. Baronius, by mistake, reckons this law a punishment, and
next to a persecution of the monks. Justinian made laws to the same
purpose, forbidding the Eastern monks to appear in cities; but, if they
had any business of concern to be transacted there, they might do it by
their _Apocrisarii_ or _Responsales_, that is, their proctors or
syndics, which every monastery was allowed for that purpose.
But this rule admitted of some exceptions. As, first, in times of common
danger to the faith. Thus Anthony came to Alexandria, at the request of
Athanasius, to confute the Arian heresy. Sometimes they thought it
necessary to come and intercede with the emperors and judges for
condemned criminals. Thus the monks in the neighbourhood of Antioch
forsook their cells, to intercede with the emperor Theodosius, who was
highly displeased with that city for demolishing the imperial statues.
Afterwards, indeed, this practice grew into an abuse, and the monks were
not contented to petition, but would sometimes come in great bodies or
troops, and deliver criminals by force. To repress which tumultuous way
of proceeding, Arcadius published a law, forbidding any such attempts
under very severe penalties.
As the monks of the ancient Church were under no solemn vow or
profession, they were at liberty to betake themselves to a secular life
again. Julian himself was once in the monastic habit. The same is
observed of Constans, the son of that Constantine, who, in the reign of
Honorius, usurped the empire in Britain. The rule of Pachomius, by which
the Egyptian monks were governed, has no mention of any vow at their
entrance, nor any punishment for such as deserted their station
afterwards.
In process of time, it was thought proper to inflict some punishment on
such as returned to a secular life. The civil law excludes deserters
from the privilege of ordination. Justinian added another punishment;
which was, that if they were possessed of any substance, it should be
all forfeited to the monastery which they had deserted. The censures of
the Church were likewise inflicted on deserting monks in the fifth
century.
MONOPHYSITES. (From μόνος, _only_, and φύσις, _nature_.) A general name
given to all those sectaries in the Levant who only own one nature in
our blessed SAVIOUR and who maintain that the Divine and human nature of
JESUS CHRIST were so united as to form only one nature, yet without any
change, confusion, or mixture of the two natures. (See _Eutychians_.)
MONOTHELITES. Christian heretics in the seventh century, so called from
the Greek words μόνος (_only_) and θέλημα (_will_), because they
maintained, that, though there were two natures in JESUS CHRIST, the
human and the Divine, there was but one will, which was the Divine.
The author of this sect was Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia, in
626, who first started the question, and maintained that the manhood in
CHRIST was so united to the WORD, that, though it had its faculties, it
did not act by itself, but the whole act was to be ascribed to the WORD,
which gave it the motion. Thus, he said, it was the manhood of CHRIST
that suffered hunger, thirst, and pain; but the hunger, thirst, and pain
were to be ascribed to the WORD. In short, the WORD was the sole author
and mover of all the operations and wills in CHRIST.
Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, was of the same sentiment; and the
emperor Heraclius embraced the party so much the more willingly, as he
thought it a means of reconciling some other heretics to the Church.
Pope Martin I. called a council at Rome in 649, upon the question about
the two operations and two wills. In this council, at which were present
105 Italian bishops, the doctrine of the Monothelites was generally
condemned. The emperor Constans, who looked upon this condemnation as a
kind of rebellion, caused Pope Martin to be violently carried away from
Rome, and, after most cruel usage, banished him to Chersona.
However, this heresy was finally condemned in the sixth general council,
held at Constantinople, under Constantine Pogonatus, in the year 680.
MONTANISTS. Christian heretics, who sprung up about the year 171, in the
reign of the emperor Marcus Aurelius. They were so called from their
leader, the heresiarch Montanus, a Phrygian by birth, whence they are
sometimes styled Phrygians and Cataphrygians.
Montanus, it is said, embraced Christianity in hopes of rising to the
dignities of the Church. He pretended to inspiration, and gave out that
the HOLY GHOST had instructed him in several points which had not been
revealed to the apostles. Priscilla and Maximilla, two enthusiastic
women of Phrygia, presently became his disciples, and in a short time he
had a great number of followers. The bishops of Asia, being assembled
together, condemned his prophecies, and excommunicated those who
dispersed them. Afterwards, they wrote an account of what had passed to
the Western Churches, where the pretended prophecies of Montanus and his
followers were likewise condemned.
The Montanists, finding themselves exposed to the censure of the whole
Church, formed a schism, and set up a distinct society, under the
direction of those who called themselves prophets. Montanus, in
conjunction with Priscilla and Maximilla, was at the head of the sect.
These sectaries made no alteration in the creed. They only held that the
HOLY SPIRIT made Montanus his organ for delivering a more perfect form
of discipline than that which was delivered by the apostles. They
refused communion for ever to those who were guilty of notorious crimes,
and believed that the bishops had no authority to reconcile them. They
held it unlawful to fly in time of persecution. They condemned second
marriages, allowed the dissolution of marriage, and observed three
Lents.
The Montanists became separated into two branches, one of which were the
disciples of Proclus, and the other of Æschines. The latter are charged
with following the heterodoxy of Praxeas and Sabellius concerning the
Trinity. The celebrated Tertullian was a Montanist.
MONUMENT. The memorial placed over the body of a Christian, after his
burial in consecrated ground.
The earliest monuments in England which have come down to us are,
perhaps, not older than the Norman Conquest; and the most ancient is the
simplest form. A stone coffin is covered with a single stone slab, which
is also the only recipient of whatever device may be designed to
commemorate the tenant of the narrow dwelling over which it closes. So
early as the middle of the ninth century, (840,) Kenneth, king of
Scotland, made an ordinance that such coffins should be adorned with the
sign of the cross, in token of sanctity, on which no one was on any
account to tread; and, perhaps, there were none but purely religious
emblems employed for some generations after this time. The sign of the
cross still continued for centuries the most usual ornament of tombs,
but by-and-by it became associated with others which were most of them
intended to designate the profession of him whose dust they honoured.
Hence we have the crosier and mitre, with perhaps a chalice and paten,
upon the tomb of an ecclesiastic, of an abbot, or a bishop; the knight
has a sword, and his shield at first plain, but afterwards charged with
his arms on his tomb. Sometimes an approach to religious allegory is
discovered on monuments even of these very early ages, such as, for
instance, the cross or crosier stuck into the mouth of a serpent or
cockatrice, indicating the victory of the cross and of the Church over
the devil. These, and the like devices, occurring before any attempt at
the human figure was made, are in a low relief, or indented outline.
By-and-by the human figure was added, recumbent, and arrayed in the
dress of the individual commemorated; and this figure soon rose from low
relief to an effigy in full proportions. The knight and the ecclesiastic
are now discovered so perfectly attired according to their order and
degree, that the antiquary gathers his knowledge of costume from these
venerable remains. Some affecting lessons of mortality are now forcibly
inculcated by circumstances introduced into the sepulchre; for instance,
the figure of the deceased appears nearly reduced to a skeleton, and
laid in a shroud; a few instances occur in which the corpse thus
represented is below a representation of the living person. Another
interesting intimation of the character of the deceased appears in the
crossed legs of those who had vowed a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; and
the lion is frequently found, as well as the serpent, at the feet of the
recumbent figure, perhaps in allusion to the words of the psalmist,
“Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon
shalt thou trample under thy feet.”
All this time the tomb has been gradually increasing in height and in
general splendour, the sides are adorned with figures in several
compartments, which run into niches or panels, according to the advance
of architectural design, and at last they are surmounted with an arch,
low at first and little decorated, but afterwards very elaborately
wrought into a rich canopy. Religious allegories become more complex on
the sides of the tomb, and we have instances of some which have since
been borrowed by artists of name, and perhaps accounted new by many; for
instance, it is not rare to see a representation of the soul of the
dying conveyed to heaven by angels, while the corpse lies upon the
litter, and this was a design chosen for the cenotaph of the Princess
Charlotte. The relatives of the deceased are sometimes represented by
many small statues in the niches; or armorial bearings are introduced,
sparing at first, and often, as on the tomb of Lionell Lord Wells, in
Methley church, supported on the breasts of angels. Angels also
frequently support the head of the recumbent figure, and at the feet are
sometimes one or more priests with an open book in their hands. The
space in the wall behind the tomb and beneath the canopy allows of
allegorical devices, sometimes in fresco, sometimes in mosaic. But what
most demands attention are the recumbent figures themselves, generally
with both hands raised in the attitude of prayer; or, if they be
bishops, with the right hand as if giving a blessing. The effigies of
the man and his wife appear always on the same tomb, lying side by side,
and in the same pious attitude; a frequently recurring sight, which
inspired the lines of Piers Plowman:—
“=Knyghts in ther conisance clad for the nones,
Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,
And lovely ladies ywrought leyen by her sides.=”
And surely there is a beauty and propriety in that character of
monuments for Christian men in Christian churches, which could suggest
the words,
=“Alle it semed seyntes ysacred opon erthe,”=
far greater than we recognise in the vain-glorious boastings of success
in secular pursuits, perhaps even in sinful undertakings, which cumber
church walls. It is a holier thought to remember what was sacred in the
Christian man; who, imperfect as he may have been, was yet, as he was a
Christian, in some sense a saint, and to embody it in some pious
attitude upon his tomb, than to forget everything that is Christian, and
to celebrate only the secular or the vicious.
Gorgeous as some of these tombs are, they did not satisfy the splendour
of that age, and the canopy swells into an actual chapel, sometimes in
the body of the larger church, as that of William of Wykeham, in
Winchester, and those of Cardinal Beaufort, and Bishops Waynflete and
Fox, in the same cathedral. Sometimes the chapel is a building complete
in itself, as that of the Beauchamps, at St. Mary’s church, Warwick, and
that of Henry VII. at Westminster.
MORALITIES, MYSTERIES, and MIRACLES. A kind of theatrical
representations, which were made by the monks, friars, and other
ecclesiastics of the middle ages, the vehicle of instruction to the
people. Their general character was the same, but the _miracles_ may be
distinguished as those which represented the miracles wrought by the
holy confessors, and the sufferings by which the perseverance of the
martyrs was manifested; of which kind the first specified by name is a
scenic representation of the legend of St. Catherine. The _moralities_
were certain allegorical representations of virtues or vices, always so
contrived as to make virtue seem desirable, and vice ridiculous and
deformed. The _mysteries_ were representations often of great length,
and requiring several days’ performance, of the Scripture narrative, or
of several parts of it, as, for instance, the descent of CHRIST into
hell. Of these mysteries two complete series have lately been published
from ancient manuscripts, _the Townley Mysteries_, performed by the
monks of Woodchurch, near Wakefield, and the different leading companies
of that town; and _the Coventry Mysteries_, performed with like help of
the trades in Coventry, by the Grey Friars of that ancient city. Both of
these collections begin with the creation, and carry on the story in
different pageants or scenes until the judgment-day.
It will not be supposed that these plays are free from the deformities
of every other kind of literature of the times to which they are
referred; nor that the performance of them was without a great deal more
of the coarseness of an unrefined age than would be tolerated now:
neither need it be concealed that the theology therein embodied was
sometimes rather Popish than Catholic.
On the whole it may fairly be said, that these _miracles_, _mysteries_,
and _moralities_, were wholesome for the times; and that though they
afterwards degenerated into actual abuses, yet that they are not to be
condemned without measure and without mercy.
Their history and character are interesting, not only as giving a fair
picture of the character of remote ages, but also because they seem to
be the original from which arose stage plays and oratorios.
As a specimen of these old moralities see in Dodsley’s collection of Old
Plays—_God’s Promises_, by Bale, bishop of Ossory, which dramatizes the
leading events of the Sacred History. It was printed in 1538.
MORAVIANS, or UNITED BRETHREN. A sect generally said to have arisen
under Nicholas Lewis, count of Zinzendorf, a German nobleman of the last
century, and thus called because the first converts to the system were
some Moravian families. According to the society’s own account, however,
they derive their origin from the Greek Church in the ninth century,
when, by the instrumentality of Methodius and Cyrillus, two Greek monks,
the kings of Bulgaria and Moravia, being converted to the faith, were,
together with their subjects, united in communion with the Greek Church.
Methodius was their first bishop, and for their use Cyrillus translated
the Scriptures into the Sclavonian language.
It is sometimes supposed that because the Moravians have bishops, they
are less to be blamed than other dissenting sects. But, to say nothing
of the doubt that exists with respect to the validity of their orders,
an episcopal church may be, as the Moravians and Romanists of this
country are, in a state of schism. And the very fact that the difference
between them and the Church is not great, if this be so, makes the sin
of their schism, in not conforming, yet greater.
Though the Brethren acknowledge no other standard of truth than the
sacred Scriptures, they in general profess to adhere to the Augsburg
Confession of Faith. Both in their Summary of Christian Doctrine, which
is used for the instruction of their children, and in their general
instructions and sermons, they teach the doctrine of the Trinity; and in
their prayers, hymns, and litanies address the FATHER, SON, and HOLY
GHOST, in the same manner as is done in other Christian Churches; yet
they chiefly direct their hearers to JESUS CHRIST, as the appointed
channel of the Deity, in whom GOD is known and made manifest unto man.
They dwell upon what he has done and suffered, and upon the glorious
descriptions given of him as an Almighty Saviour. They recommend love to
him, as the constraining principle of the Christian’s conduct; and their
general manner is more by beseeching men to be reconciled to GOD, than
by alarming them with the terrors of the law, and the threatenings
against the impenitent, which they, however, do not fail occasionally to
set before their hearers. They avoid, as much as possible, everything
that would lead to controversy; and though they strongly insist upon
salvation by grace alone through faith, yet they will not enter into any
explanation, or give any decided opinion, concerning particular
election. They have, therefore, been considered by high Calvinists as
leaning to Arminianism, and by others as Calvinists; but they themselves
decline the adoption of either name, and conceive that the gospel may be
preached by both. They profess to believe that the kingdom of CHRIST is
not confined to any party, community, or church; and they consider
themselves, though closely united in one body or visible Church, as
spiritually joined in the bond of Christian love to all who are taught
of GOD, and belong to the universal Church of CHRIST, however much they
may differ in forms, which they deem non-essentials.
See _Crantz’s History of the Brethren_; _Spangenberg’s Exposition of
Christian Doctrine_; _Ratio Disciplinæ Unit. Fratrum_, by Loretz, &c.
MORMONISTS, or LATTER DAY SAINTS. The Census Report published in 1854,
gives the following account of these enthusiasts. Although, in origin,
the Mormon movement is not English, but American, yet, as the new creed,
by the missionary zeal of its disciples, has extended into England, and
is making some not inconsiderable progress with the poorer classes of
our countrymen, it seems desirable to give, as far as the inadequate
materials permit, some brief description of a sect, the history of whose
opinions, sufferings, and achievements, shows, perhaps, the most
remarkable religious movement that has happened since the days of
Mahomet.
Joseph Smith, the prophet of the new belief, was born in humble life in
1805, at Sharon in the state of Vermont, from whence in 1815 he removed
with his parents to Palmyra, New York. When about 15 years old, being
troubled by convictions of his spiritual danger, and perplexed by the
multitude of mutually hostile sects, he saw, he says, while praying in a
grove, a vision of “two personages,” who informed him that his sins were
pardoned, and that all existing sects were almost equally erroneous.
This vision was repeated three years afterwards, in 1823, when an angel,
he reports, informed him that the American Indians were a remnant of the
Israelites, and that certain records, written by the Jewish prophets and
containing history and prophecy, had, when the Indians fell into
depravity, been buried in the earth at a spot which the angel indicated.
Smith was further told, that _he_ had been selected as the instrument by
which these valuable records should be brought to light; the revelations
they contained being necessary for the restoration of that purity of
creed and worship from which all the modern churches had alike departed.
Accordingly, upon the 22nd of September, 1823, Smith, the story runs,
discovered in the side of a hill, about four miles from Palmyra in
Ontario County, a stone box, just covered by the earth, in which was
deposited the “Record,”—a collection of thin plates of gold, held
together by three golden rings. Part of this golden book was sealed, but
the portion open to inspection was engraven thickly with “Reformed
Egyptian” characters. Together with the book he found two crystal lenses
“set in the two rims of a bow,” apparently resembling an enormous pair
of spectacles; this instrument he said was the Urim and Thummim used by
ancient seers.
The simple inspection of these treasures was the whole extent of Smith’s
achievements on his first discovery of them; he was not permitted by the
angel to remove them until four years afterwards, on the 22nd of
September, 1827. During the interval he received occasional instruction
from his supernatural visitant.
The news of his discovery attracted such attention, and procured him so
much obloquy, that, according to the narrative of his biographers, he
was exposed to personal violence, and was obliged to fly to
Pennsylvania, carrying his golden plates concealed in a barrel of beans.
When thus in some security, he, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, set
to work upon the translation of the unsealed portion, which, when
complete, composed a bulky volume, which he called the “Book of
Mormon”—“Mormon” meaning, he explained, _more good_, from “_mor_,” a
contraction for _more_, and “_mon_,” Egyptian for _good_. “Mormon,” too,
was the name of a supposed prophet living in the fourth or fifth
century, who, after the principal portion of the American Israelites had
fallen in battle, and the whole of them become degenerate, engraved on
plates a summary of their history and prophecies. These plates, his son,
Moroni, in the troublous times which followed, hid for safety in a hill
then called Cumora, about the year A. D. 420.
Mormons defend the authenticity of this recital, by asserting the
improbability that Smith, an illiterate person, could invent it, and,
unaided, write so large and peculiar a volume. To the objection that the
golden plates are not produced, they give Smith’s own reply to the
applications made to him by his disciples for a view—that such an
exhibition of them is prohibited by special revelation. Nevertheless, in
further proof of Smith’s veracity, three “witnesses” were found to
testify that they had actually _seen_ the plates, an angel having shown
them; and a similar testimony was borne by eight other “witnesses,”—four
of those belonging to a family named Whitmer, and three being the two
brothers and the father of Smith. The utmost that Smith did towards
allowing access by indifferent parties to the plates, was to give to one
of his inquiring followers a copy upon paper of a portion of the plates
in the original hieroglyphics, viz. the “Reformed Egyptian.” This was
submitted by the yet unsatisfied disciple to Professor Anthon of New
York, who, however, did not recognise the characters as those of any
ancient language known to him. The Mormon advocates appear to think
these evidences irresistible.—Upon the other hand, it is asserted, by
opponents of the Mormons, that about the years 1809–12, a person of the
name of Solomon Spaulding, who had been a clergyman, conceived and
executed the design of writing a religious tale, the scenes and
narrative of which should be constructed on the theory that the American
Indians were the lost ten tribes of Israel. This work, when finished, he
entitled “_The Manuscript found_;” and the purport of the fiction was,
to trace the progress of the tribes from Jerusalem to America, and then
describe their subsequent adventures in the latter country,—“Mormon” and
his son “Moroni” being prominent characters, and Nephi, Lehi, and the
Lamanites (names frequently occurring in the Book of Mormon) being also
mentioned. The MS. of this production, it is further stated, found its
way into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, who was intimately connected
with Smith from the commencement of his career.
The “_Book of Mormon_” was succeeded by a “_Book of Doctrine and
Covenants_,” being a collection of the special revelations made to Smith
and his associates upon all points connected with the course and welfare
of the Church. This was continually enlarged as further revelations,
consequent upon the varying fortunes and requirements of the body, were
received. Amongst these was one by which the “Aaronic Priesthood” was
revived—another by which baptism by immersion was commanded—a third for
the institution of “Apostles”—and others for the temporal regulation of
the Church from time to time. In these productions the peculiar
phraseology of the sacred Scriptures was profusely imitated.
It appears that at the end of about three years after Smith’s
announcement of himself as a prophet, about thirty persons were
convinced of the reality of his pretensions, and from this time forward
converts rapidly increased. Smith removed to Kirtland in Ohio, and set
up a mill, a store, and a bank.
It was not without opposition that this progress was effected. As
appears to be usual upon the rise of new religious sects, the Mormons
were accused of holding many outrageous and immoral doctrines, and,
amongst them, that of a community of wives. The popular hostility was
often violently manifested, and the “saints” were subjected to much
ill-treatment. Smith himself, in 1832, was tarred and feathered by a
midnight mob; and, in the following year, the whole of the Mormons in
Missouri (amounting to above a thousand persons) were expelled from
Independence, Jackson County, which had been described by Smith as the
Zion appointed by revelation for the resting-place of the “saints.” They
removed to Clay County, where, in 1837, they were joined by the prophet
himself, whose bank in Kirtland had failed. Meantime, the prejudice
against the Mormons followed them to their new habitation, and, in 1838,
after several sanguinary outbreaks, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum
were imprisoned, and the whole community of Mormons were expelled from
their possessions in Missouri. They took refuge in the neighbouring
state of Illinois. Here, in 1839, their prophet, who had managed to
escape from prison, joined them. They now numbered 15,000 souls.
In Illinois, they chose the village of Commerce as their residence,
which soon became converted into a considerable town, of which the
“prophet” was appointed mayor. This town they called Nauvoo, or
“Beautiful,” according to the language of the Book of Mormon. A body of
militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, was established—Smith being
“General.” In 1841, a “revelation” ordered the construction of a
splendid temple, towards which object all the Mormons were to contribute
a full tithe of their possessions. It is said that they expended on this
structure nearly a million of dollars.
In Nauvoo, the Mormons seem to have increased and prospered greatly: the
town extended fast; the temple gradually rose; and the prophet was the
absolute head of a comparatively powerful community, which hardly
recognised the ordinary laws of the state. In 1843 he became a candidate
for the presidency, and put forth a statement of his views. In 1844,
however, occurred the final catastrophe of his life. A Nauvoo paper,
having printed certain scandal of him, was, by order of the council of
the town, suppressed, and its office razed; on which, the editors
retired to Carthage, and obtained a warrant against Smith and his
brother. This warrant Smith refused to recognise: the county force
prepared to execute it; and the “saints” prepared their city for
defence. To save the town, however, Smith surrendered on the promise of
protection from the governor. This promise proved of little value; for,
on the 27th of June, 1844, a mob broke into Carthage prison, and Joseph
and Hyrum Smith were shot.
Upon the prophet’s death there were two competitors for the vacant
supremacy—Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young. The former was the earliest
associate of Smith, and professed to be acquainted with “all his
secrets;” but, as the prominent advocate of the “Spiritual Wife”
doctrine, he was looked upon with disfavour as the virtual author of
much of the suspicion and hostility with which the Mormons were
regarded. Brigham Young succeeded therefore to the post of “prophet,”
(which he still retains,) and Rigdon was expelled from the community. An
interval of scarcely interrupted progress followed, during which the
temple was completed; but in 1845 the troubles were renewed: perpetual
conflicts, in which blood was shed, occurred, and the city of Nauvoo
itself was regularly besieged. At length the Mormons, conscious of their
inability alone to cope with their antagonists, and seeing that no
confidence could be reposed upon the law for their protection, undertook
(since nothing less would satisfy their enemies) that they would
altogether quit the State—commencing their departure in the spring of
1846.
This time it was no mere temporary, neighbouring refuge which the
Mormons sought. The elders of the church, aware of the hostility to
which it would be constantly exposed in any portion of the populated
States, resolved, with equal policy and daring, to escape entirely from
the settled territory, and to seek far off, beyond the Rocky Mountains,
some secluded and unoccupied retreat in which they could, secure from
molestation, build their earthly “Zion,” and, by gathering thither from
all quarters of the world the converts to their faith, become a thriving
and a powerful community, too potent to be further interfered with. This
remarkable pilgrimage, involving the removal of some thousands of men,
women, children, cattle, and stores, over thousands of untrodden
miles—across wide unbridged rivers—by the difficult passes of
snow-capped mountains—and through deserts, prairies, and tribes of
predatory Indians—was at once commenced. A party of pioneers set out
from Nauvoo in February, 1846, when it was still winter—the waggons
crossing the Mississippi on the ice. These were to prepare the way for
the main body of the citizens, who, according to stipulation, might
remain in Nauvoo till these preparations were completed. Their departure
was, however, hastened by the fresh hostility of their opponents,
who—concluding from the progress still continued in the decorations of
the temple that the Mormons secretly intended to elude their promise and
return—attacked the town in September, 1846, and expelled the whole of
its remaining population. These then followed and overtook the
pioneering party, which, after dreadful sufferings from cold and heat,
from hunger and disease, had, finding it impossible to reach their
destination till the following year, encamped upon the banks of the
Missouri, on the lands of the Omahas and Pottawatamies. Here they had
sown the land to some extent with grain, the crops of which were to be
reaped by their successors. After a dreary winter, spent in this
location, they began their march towards their final settlement. In
April, 1847, the first detachment of 143, with 70 waggons, crossed the
Rocky Mountains; arriving at the basin of the Great Salt Lake, in the
latter portion of July, in time to sow the land for an autumn crop. The
second party started in the summer with 566 waggons and a great supply
of grain. The others followed in the course of 1848—their passage much
alleviated by the tracks prepared by their predecessors, and the
harvests left for them to gather.
The valley of the Great Salt Lake is a territory of considerable extent,
enclosed on all sides by high rocky mountains. The Lake itself is nearly
300 miles in circumference, with islands rising from its surface to an
elevation of some thousand feet: its shores are covered in some places
with the finest salt, and its water is as buoyant as the waves of the
Dead Sea. Portions of the land are desert; but a vast expanse is
wonderfully fertile, and abounds in all facilities for pasturage and
cultivation. Here the Mormons have now firmly fixed themselves, and
made, since 1848, continual progress. Further settlements have been
established, and several cities founded: that of the Great Salt Lake
itself has a plot of several acres, destined to support a temple whose
magnificence shall far exceed the splendour of the former Nauvoo
edifice. Relying on the inexhaustible resources of the region to sustain
innumerable inhabitants, the principal endeavour of the rulers is to
gather there as many immigrants as possible, professing the same faith.
They calculate that thus, established in an almost inaccessible retreat,
with numbers continually augmenting, they will soon be able to defy
external enmity, and rear upon a lasting basis their ecclesiastical
republic. Missionary agents are despatched to almost every portion of
the world to make fresh converts and facilitate their transit to
America. In England these endeavours have been followed by no slight
success: it is computed that at least as many as 30,000 persons in this
country belong to the community, and nearly 20,000 have already, it is
said, departed for the Great Salt Lake. This settlement itself has now,
by the name of “Utah,” been admitted to the United States’ Confederacy;
but it seems, from a report of the judges sent there by the recent
President, that the authority of the federal government is virtually set
at nought; the laws and their administration being always found
accordant with the pleasure of the Mormon rulers.
A printed “Creed” presents the following summary of their opinions, but
omits some rather material points:—
“We believe in God the eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and in
the Holy Ghost.
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for
Adam’s transgressions.
“We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be
saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
“We believe that these ordinances are: 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ. 2d, Repentance. 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of
sins. 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5th, The
Lord’s supper.
“We believe that men must be called of God by inspiration, and by laying
on of hands by those who are duly commissioned to preach the gospel and
administer in the ordinances thereof.
“We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive
church, viz. apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, &c.
“We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting gospel, viz. the
gift of faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, tongues and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, charity,
brotherly love, &c.
“We believe in the word of God recorded in the Bible. We also believe
the word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon and in all other good
books.
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal; and
we believe that he will yet reveal many more great and important things
pertaining to the kingdom of God, and Messiah’s second coming.
“We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in the restoration
of the ten tribes; that Zion will be established upon the Western
continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth a thousand
years; and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical
glory.
“We believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that the dead
in Christ will rise first, and that the rest of the dead live not again
until the thousand years are expired.
“We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our conscience, unmolested, and allow all men the same
privilege, let them worship how or where they may.
“We believe in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honouring, and sustaining the law.
“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, temperate, benevolent,
virtuous, and upright, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say
that we follow the admonition of Paul,—we ‘believe all things,’ we ‘hope
all things,’ we have endured very many things, and hope to be able to
‘endure all things.’ Everything virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy, and of
good report we seek after, looking forward to the ‘recompence of
reward.’”
A rather more specific outline of some points of their belief is given
by one of their “apostles.” According to him, the “saints” believe that
all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, are in a state of ruin: from
this, however, they are all delivered by the sacrifice of Christ, and
are made secure of everlasting happiness, unless they commit any
_actual_ sin. Infants, therefore, being irresponsible, will be eternally
redeemed; and such among the people of the earth as have not had the
benefit of revelation will receive a mitigated punishment. The rest, in
order to be saved from endless ruin, must comply with four
conditions:—(1.) they must _believe_ in Christ’s atonement; (2.) they
must _repent_ of their transgressions; (3.) they must receive _baptism_
by immersion for the remission of sins, administered only by one
authorized of Christ; and (4.) they must receive the _laying on of
hands_ for the gift of the Holy Ghost—_this_ ordinance also being, like
that of baptism, only to be administered by duly authorized apostles or
elders. All who comply with these conditions obtain forgiveness of their
sins and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost—enjoying, too, the gifts
of prophecy and healing, visions and revelations, and the power of
working miracles.
Among the prominent opinions, not included in these statements, are
their doctrines of the materiality of the Deity, and of the two-fold
order of the priesthood, viz. the Melchisedekian and the Aaronic. They
are also charged by their opponents with the practice and the sanction
of polygamy; and evidence is not unplentiful of their allowance of
something closely similar; and in their various publications very
peculiar doctrines on the subject of marriage are propounded. Their
standard books, however, specially denounce the crime.
In England and Wales there were, in 1851, reported by the Census
officers as many as 222 places of worship belonging to this body—most of
them however being merely rooms. The number of sittings in these places
(making an allowance for 53, the accommodation in which was not
returned,) was 30,783. The _attendance _on the Census Sunday (making an
estimated addition for 9 chapels from which no intelligence on this
point was received) was: _Morning_, 7,517; _Afternoon_, 11,481;
_Evening_, 16,628. The preachers, it appears, are far from unsuccessful
in their efforts to obtain disciples: the surprising confidence and zeal
with which they promulgate their creed—the prominence they give to the
exciting topics of the speedy coming of the Saviour and his personal
millennial reign—and the attractiveness to many minds of the idea of an
infallible church, relying for its evidences and its guidance upon
revelations made perpetually to its rulers,—these, with other
influences, have combined to give the Mormon movement a position and
importance with the working classes, which, perhaps, should draw to it
much more than it has yet received of the attention of our public
teachers.
MORTAL SIN. (See _Deadly Sin_.)
MORTIFICATION. Any severe penance observed on a religious account. The
mortification of sin in believers is a duty enjoined in the sacred
Scriptures. (Rom viii. 13; Col. iii. 5.) It consists in breaking the
league with sin; declaration of open hostility against it; and strong
resistance to it. (Eph. vi. 10, &c.; Gal. v. 24; Rom. viii. 13.)
MORTMAIN. This is where lands are given to some spiritual person or
corporation and to their successors; and because the lands were never to
revert to the donor, or his heirs, and by that means the services and
other profits due for the same were extinct, therefore it was called a
gift _mortua manu_.
The first statute against mortmain was that of Magna Charta, (9 Hen.
III. c. 36,) which declares, “that if any one shall give lands to a
religious house, the grant shall be void, and the land forfeited to the
lord of the fee.” The next was the 7 Edw. I. stat. ii., commonly called
the statute “De Religiosis,” which restrained people, at the time of
their death or otherwise, from giving or making over any lands or rents
to churches or religious houses, without the king’s leave first
obtained. This is called the statute of mortmain; but being evaded, the
13 of Edw. I. was passed, and afterwards by the 15 Rich. II. c. 5, it
was declared, “that it was within the compass of the statute of Edward
I. to convert any land into a churchyard, though it be done with the
consent or connivance of the ter-tenant, and confirmed by the pope’s
bull.
This last statute extended only to bodies corporate, and, therefore, by
the 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, it is enacted, “that if any grants of lands or
other hereditaments should be made in trust to the use of any churches,
chapels, churchwardens, guilds, fraternities, &c., to have perpetual
obits, or a continual service of a priest for ever, or for sixty or
eighty years, or to such like uses or intents, all such uses, intents,
and purposes shall be void; they being no corporations, but erected
either of devotion, or else by the common consent of the people; and all
collateral assurances made for defeating this statute shall be void, and
the said statute shall be expounded most beneficially for the
destruction of such uses as aforesaid.”
Though the prohibition by the statute of mortmain in the Magna Charta
was absolute, yet a royal charter of licence (18 Edw. III. stat. iii. c.
3) afforded relaxation of the restraint, and by the 17 Car. II. c. 3,
the following relief was granted:—“Every owner of any impropriations,
tithes, or portion of tithes, in any parish or chapelry, may give and
annex the same, or any part thereof, unto the parsonage or vicarage of
the said parish church or chapel where the same do lie or arise; or
settle the same in trust for the benefit of the said parsonage or
vicarage, or of the curate and curates there successively, where the
parsonage is impropriate and no vicar endowed, without any licence of
mortmain.
“And if the settled maintenance of any parsonage, vicarages, churches,
and chapels united, or of any other parsonage or vicarage with cure,
shall not amount to the full sum of £100 a year clear and above all
charges and reprises, it shall be lawful for the parson, vicar, and
incumbent of the same, and his successors, to take and purchase to him
and his successors lands and tenements, rents, tithes, or other
hereditaments, without any licence of mortmain.” This dispensing power
was carried so high in the reign of King James II., that by the 1 Wm.
III. sess. ii. c. 2, it was enacted, that no dispensation, by “non
obstante,” to any statute shall be allowed. By the 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 37,
and 2 & 3 Anne, c. 11, certain relaxations were again made; but by the 9
Geo. II. c. 36, further restraints were imposed, which render it
impossible for the Church of England to augment poor livings, under the
provisions of 17 Car. II. c. 3, already recited.
By 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, s. 4, grants of land for sites of schools, not
exceeding five acres, made by owners or tenants in tail are valid,
although the grantor die within twelve months.
MORTUARY, (_Mortuarium_,) in the English ecclesiastical law, is a gift
left by a man at his death to his parish church, in recompence of
personal tithes omitted to be paid in his lifetime; or, it is that
beast, or other cattle, which, after the death of the owner, by the
custom of the place, is due to the parson or vicar, in lieu of tithes or
offerings forgot, or not well and truly paid by him that is dead.
Selden tells us, it was usual anciently to bring the mortuary along with
the corpse, when it came to be buried, and to offer it to the Church as
a satisfaction for the supposed negligence and omission the deceased had
been guilty of in not paying his personal tithes; and from thence it was
called a corpse present.
A mortuary is not properly due to an ecclesiastical incumbent from any
but those of his own parish; but by custom, in some places, they are
paid to the incumbents of other parishes, when corpses are carried
through them. The bishops of Bangor, Landaff, St. David’s, &c. had
formerly mortuaries of priests, abolished by 12 Anne, stat. ii. c. 6.
And it was customary, in the diocese of Chester, for the bishop to have
a mortuary, on the death of every priest dying within the archdeaconry
of Chester, of his best beast, saddle and bridle, and best gown or
cloak, hat, and upper garment under the gown. By 28 Geo. II. c. 6,
mortuaries in the diocese of Chester were abolished, and the rectory of
Waverton attached to the see in lieu thereof. By the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 6,
mortuaries were commuted into money payments, which were regulated as
follows:—“No parson, vicar, curate, parish priest, or other, shall for
any person dying or dead, and being at the time of his death of the
value in moveable goods of ten marks or more, clearly above his debts
paid, and under the sum of £30, take for a mortuary above 3_s._ 4_d._ in
the whole. And for a person dying or dead, being at the time of his
death of the value of £30 or above, clearly above his debts paid, in
moveable goods, and under the value of £40, there shall no more be taken
or demanded for a mortuary, than 6_s._ 8_d._ in the whole. And for any
person dying or dead, having at the time of his death of the value in
moveable goods of £40 or above, to any sum whatsoever it be clearly
above his debts paid, there shall be no more taken, paid, or demanded
for a mortuary, than 10_s._ in the whole. The Welsh bishoprics and the
diocese of Chester were excepted from the operation of this statute, and
therefore subsequent acts were passed with respect to them.
MOTETT, in Church music, a short piece of music highly elaborated, of
which the subject is taken from the psalms or hymns of the Church. It
somewhat resembles our anthems. The derivation is from the Italian
_Mottetto_, a little word or sentence; originally signifying a short
epigram in verse; and afterwards applied as now defined, as the words of
the Motett properly consist of a short sentence from Holy
Scripture.—_Jebb._
MOTHER OF GOD. (See _Mariolatry_, _Virgin Mary_, _Nestorians_.) “The
Virgin Mary,” says Pearson on the Creed, “is frequently styled the
Mother of JESUS in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth,
particularly, the _Mother of her Lord_, as also, by the general consent
of the Church, because he which was born of her was GOD, the _Deipara_:
which, being a compound title, begun in the Greek Church, was resolved
into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the
_Mother of God_.”
We admit that the Virgin Mary is the mother of GOD; but we protest
against the conclusion that she is, on that account, to be treated with
peculiar honour, or to be worshipped; for this expression is used not to
exalt her, but to assert unequivocally the Divinity of her SON: He whom
she brought forth was GOD, and therefore she is a bringer forth or
mother of GOD.
The term was first brought prominently forward at the Council of
Ephesus, (A. D. 431,) the third of those four general councils, the
decisions of which are authoritative in the Church of England; and it
was adopted as a formula against the Nestorians. The Nestorian
controversy originated thus. In the year 428, Nestorius was bishop of
Constantinople, and he had brought with him from Antioch, where he had
before resided, a priest named Anastasius, his chaplain and friend; this
person, preaching one day in the church of Constantinople, said, “Let no
one call Mary mother of GOD, for she was a woman, and it is impossible
that GOD should be born of a human creature.” These words gave great
offence to many both of the clergy and laity; for they had always been
taught, says the historian Socrates, to acknowledge JESUS CHRIST as GOD,
and not to sever him in any way from the Divinity. Nestorius, however,
declared his assent to what Anastasius had said, and became, from his
high position in the Church, the heresiarch.
When the heresy had spread into Egypt, it was refuted by St. Cyril,
bishop of Alexandria, in a pastoral letter, which he published for the
direction of his people. “I wonder,” he says, “how a question can be
raised, as to whether the Holy Virgin should be called mother of GOD;
for if our LORD JESUS CHRIST is GOD, how is not the Holy Virgin, his
mother, the mother of GOD? This is the faith we have been taught by the
apostles.” He next proves that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is GOD
in his own nature, since the Nicene Creed says that the only begotten
SON of GOD, of the same substance with the FATHER, himself came down
from heaven and was incarnate; and then he proceeds, “You will say,
perhaps, is the Virgin, then, mother of the Divinity? We answer, It is
certain that the WORD is eternal, and of the substance of the FATHER.
Now, in the order of nature, mothers, who have no part in the creation
of the soul, are still called mothers of the whole man, and not of the
body only; for surely it would be a hypercritical refinement to say,
Elizabeth is mother of the body of John, and not of his soul. In the
same way, therefore, we express ourselves in regard to the birth of
EMMANUEL, since the WORD, having taken flesh upon him, is called SON of
Man.” In a letter to Nestorius himself he enters into a fuller
explanation: “We must admit in the same CHRIST two generations: first,
the eternal, by which he proceeds from his FATHER; second, the temporal,
by which he is born of his mother. When we say that he suffered and rose
again, we do not say that GOD the WORD suffered in his own nature, for
the Divinity is impassible; but because the body which was appropriated
to him suffered, so also we say that he suffered himself. So too we say
he died. The Divine WORD is in his own nature immortal. He is life
itself; but because his own true body suffered death, we say that he
himself died for us. In the same way, when his flesh is raised from the
dead, we attribute resurrection to him. We do not say that we adore the
man along with the WORD, lest the phrase ‘along with’ should suggest the
idea of non-identity; but we adore him as one and the same person,
because the body assumed by the WORD is in no degree external or
separated from the WORD.”—_Conc. Eph._ part i. v. 8. “It is in this
sense,” he says afterwards, “that the Fathers have ventured to call the
Holy Virgin mother of GOD, not that the nature of the WORD, or his
Divinity, did receive beginning of his existence from the Holy Virgin,
but because in her was formed and animated a reasonable soul and a
sacred body, to which the WORD united himself in hypostasis, which is
the reason of its being said, ‘he was born according to the flesh.’”
It was jealousy for the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and anxiety to maintain his
honour, and to assert his Divinity, which influenced the Fathers at the
Council of Ephesus, and not any special regard to the creature through
whose instrumentality he was brought into the world. And the decisions
of that council, because they can be proved to be scriptural, the Church
of England accepts. The council vindicated this title, not because it
was a high title for Mary, but because to deny it is to deny that he is
GOD whom she brought forth. The heresy of Nestorius related to the
incarnation or junction of the two natures in CHRIST, which he affirmed
not to be a _union_, but merely a _connexion_; whereas the object of the
Council of Ephesus was to assert “the real and inseparable union of the
two natures in CHRIST, and to show that the human nature, which CHRIST
took of the Holy Virgin, never subsisted separately from the Divine
person of the SON of GOD.”
To the use of the term, however, though we contend for its propriety,
divines of the Church of England are not partial, because, by the
subtilty of the Romish controversialists, it has been so used, or rather
misused, as to make it seem to confer peculiar honour and privileges
upon the Virgin Mary. The primitive Christians, like ourselves, were
contented with speaking of the Virgin as “the mother of my LORD;” and
this phrase sufficed until, as we have seen, heretics arose who
understood the word LORD in an inferior sense, and then it became
necessary to assert that GOD and LORD, as applied to our blessed
Saviour, are synonymous terms. And sound theologians will still
occasionally use the term Mother of GOD, lest Nestorianism should be
held unconsciously by persons who wish to be orthodox, and people forget
the great truth expressed by St. Paul, that “GOD purchased the Church
with his own blood;” and that CHRIST is “over all, GOD blessed for
ever.”
The Council of Ephesus caused the Nicene Creed, and several passages out
of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and many
others, to be read in council. And from them they gathered, and
therefore pronounced, that according to the Scriptures, as interpreted
by the catholic Church, Christ, though he have two natures, yet he is
but one person, and by consequence that the Virgin Mary might properly
be called Θεοτόκος, because the same person who was born of her is truly
GOD as well as man: which being once determined by an universal council
to be the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures in this point, hath
been acknowledged by the universal Church ever since, till this
time.—_Bishop Beveridge._
MOULDING. An ornamental form given to angles and edges of masonry or
wood-work, and carried uniformly along a considerable extent. The use of
mouldings must commence with the earliest attempts at ornament in
masonry or carpentry. The Saxon mouldings, so far as we can collect from
existing specimens, were extremely rude and simple; but with the Norman
mouldings the case is precisely the reverse, so far, at least, as
simplicity is concerned: for though the mouldings themselves may be
resolved into a very few forms and combinations, they were often either
treated as if themselves broken and mitred together at various angles,
as in the case of the chevron and embattled mouldings; or they were
themselves decorated with forms not of their own nature, as the
medallion, beak head, and other like mouldings, which are however,
strictly speaking, rather decorations of mouldings, than themselves
mouldings. It would far exceed our limits to describe the several
mouldings of the succeeding styles. We must be content with saying, in
general, that in the Early English they reached their greatest
complexity and depth, and that they gradually became less numerous, and
shallower, to the Perpendicular; the happy mean being reached in this,
as in almost everything else, in the Geometrical. The particular
mouldings, which may be said to be distinctive of a style, are chiefly
the ogee, in several of its forms, of the Decorated; the scroll of the
Decorated, with the later Geometric; the wide and shallow casement or
hollow of the Perpendicular. The hollows, in the Early English, usually
separate single mouldings, in the Decorated groups of mouldings. The
earlier mouldings, as Norman and Early English, generally occupy the
planes of the wall and of the soffit; the later, especially
Perpendicular, the chamfer plane only. To be at all appreciated, the
subject of mouldings must be studied in the “Oxford Glossary,” or in
Paley’s “Manual of Gothic Mouldings;” and to be mastered, it must be
pursued, pencil in hand, in our ancient ecclesiastical edifices.
MOVEABLE and IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. The feasts kept in the Christian Church
are called moveable and immoveable, according as they fall always on the
same day in the calendar in each year,—as the saints’ days; or depend on
other circumstances,—as Easter, and the feasts calculated from Easter.
The Book of Common Prayer contains several tables for calculating
Easter, and the following rules to know when the moveable feasts and
holy-days begin:
“Easter Day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after
the full moon which happens upon, or next after, the twenty-first day of
March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the
Sunday after.
“Advent Sunday is always the nearest Sunday to the feast of St. Andrew,
whether before or after.
Septuagesima │ Sunday is │Nine │Weeks before
│ │ │Easter.
Sexagesima │ „ │Eight │ „
Quinquagesima │ „ │Seven │ „
Quadragesima │ „ │Six │ „
│ │ │
Rogation Sunday │ is │Five Weeks │after Easter.”
Ascension Day │ „ │Forty Days │ „
Whit Sunday │ „ │Seven Weeks │ „
Trinity Sunday │ „ │Eight Weeks │ „
MOYER’S LECTURE. A lecture established by Lady Moyer. The following is
an extract from the will of the Lady Moyer, or, as she is therein
styled, “Dame Rebecca Moyer, late of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn,
in the county of Middlesex, widow.”
“My now dwelling-house in Bedford Row, or Jockey Field, I give to my
dear child Eliza Moyer, that out of it may be paid twenty guineas a year
to an able minister of GOD’S word, to preach eight sermons every year on
the Trinity and Divinity of our ever-blessed SAVIOUR, beginning with the
first Thursday in November, and to the first Thursday in the seven
sequel months, in St. Paul’s, if permitted there, or, if not, elsewhere,
according to the discretion of my executrix, who will not think it any
encumbrance to her house. I am sure it will bring a blessing on it, if
that work be well and carefully carried on, which in this profligate age
is so neglected. If my said daughter should leave no children alive at
her death, or they should die before they come to age, then I give my
said house to my niece, Lydia Moyer, now wife to Peter Hartop, Esq., and
to her heirs after her, she always providing for that sermon, as I have
begun, twenty guineas every year.”
There is a list of the preachers of this lecture at the end of Mr. John
Berriman’s “Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16,” (which is the
substance of the lectures he preached,) down to the year 1740–1: and in
a copy of that book in Sion College library, there is a continuation of
the list in MS., by Mr. John Berriman, to the year 1748. In the year
1757, they were preached by Mr. William Clements, librarian of Sion
College, but he did not publish them till 1797. In the year 1764, or
thereabouts, the preacher was Benjamin Dawson, LL.D., who printed them
under the title of “An Illustration of several Texts of Scripture,
particularly wherein the Logos occurs, 1765.” Dr. Thomas Morell, author
of the “_Thesaurus Græcæ, Poeseos_,” is supposed to have been the last.
Mr. Watts, librarian of Sion College, (to whom the reader is indebted
for the information here given,) heard him preach one of them in
January, 1773. One of these lectures Dr. Morell published, _without his
name_, in April, 1774. It was written against Lindsey, and entitled “The
Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity justified.” In the “Gentleman’s
Magazine for 1804,” p. 187, mention is made of a Mrs. Moyer, who “died
at Low Layton, February, 1804, the widow of Benjamin Moyer, Esq., son of
Lawrence Moyer, merchant, who succeeded as heir of his uncle, Sir Samuel
Moyer, a rich Turkey merchant, sheriff of Essex in 1698; Bart., 1701;
died, 1716. His widow Rebecca, sister of Sir William Jolliffe, Knt.,
founded the lecture for a limited number of years.” This does not,
however, appear to have been the case, no limitations being mentioned in
Lady Moyer’s will. But since there is no compulsory obligation in the
will to perpetuate the lecture, the probability is that, in course of
time, (perhaps immediately after Dr. Morell’s turn expired,) the
property fell into other hands, and the lecture was no longer continued.
MOZARABIC LITURGY. The ancient liturgy of Spain; the name Mozarabic
signifying those Christians who were mixed with, or lived in the midst
of, Arabs, or Moors. Mr. Palmer considers that this liturgy was derived
at a very early age from that of Gaul, which it much resembles. It was
abolished in 1060 in Arragon, but was not for some time afterwards
relinquished in Navarre, Castile, and Leon. Cardinal Ximenes founded a
college and chapel in Toledo for the celebration of this rite: the only
place perhaps in Spain where it is preserved.—_Palmer’s Origin. Liturg._
MOZECTA, MUZECTA, MOZZETTO. An ecclesiastical vestment, like the
bishop’s colobrium or tunicle, worn by the canons in certain cathedrals
of Sicily.—_Peiri Sicilia Sacra._
MULLION, more correctly _Monial_. The upright bars dividing a traceried
window into lights.
MUSIC, as connected with the Church service, is sometimes used in a
peculiar and technical sense, to signify the accompaniment of a band of
instrumental music, as violins and wind instruments, not the organ only.
A service _in music_ abroad is understood in this sense. These kind of
accompaniments are foreign to the genuine spirit of the Church of
England, which, as a general rule, recognises the organ only. Charles
II. introduced the foreign style of music into his chapel, which,
however, was but short-lived. Evelyn in his Memoirs, (Dec. 22, 1662,)
speaking of the service at the Chapel Royal when he was present, says,
“Instead of the ancient, grave, and solemn wind music accompanying the
organ, was introduced a concert of 24 violins between every pause, after
the French fantastical light way, better suiting a tavern or a
play-house than a church.” The only stated musical service in the Church
was that performed annually a few years since at the feast of the sons
of the clergy at St. Paul’s. The instrumental accompaniments are now
laid aside. At what are called musical festivals the service is so
accompanied.
MUSIC TABLE. A sort of Lectern, with three sides, round which the choir
were placed, in the middle of Bishop Andrewes’s chapel; as appears by
the plan given in _Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646.
MYNCHERY. A nunnery. A corruption of ministere, or minster.
MYSTERY. (From μύειν τὸ στόμα, _to shut the mouth_; hence μυστήριον,
_mystery_.) Something secret, hidden from human comprehension, or
revealed only in part. The term is applied both to doctrines and facts.
By the usage of the Church it also denotes that inscrutable union in the
sacrament of the inward and spiritual grace with the outward and visible
sign. Hence in the early Church the sacraments were denominated
“mysteries,” and the term derived a still greater force, from the
secrecy which was observed in the administration of those ordinances.
More especially, however, was the holy communion thus designated, as we
learn from the ancient Fathers, who speak repeatedly of the “sacred” and
“tremendous mysteries,” in allusion to this sacrament. With this
application, the term appears in our own Communion Office, where CHRIST
is said to have “instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of
his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death.” We are also
exhorted so to prepare ourselves, that we may be “meet partakers of
those holy mysteries;” and after their reception, thanks are rendered to
GOD, that he has vouchsafed to “feed us who have duly received these
holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body and
blood of his SON, our SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.”
MYSTERIES. (See _Moralities_.)
MYSTIC. Sacredly obscure.
MYSTIC RECITATION. Several parts of the Greek liturgy are ordered to be
said μυστικῶς, that is, in a low voice, or whisper, like the _secreto_
of the Roman offices.—_Jebb._
MYSTICAL. Having a hidden, allegorical, or secret meaning. In the
baptismal offices we read, “Sanctify this water to the mystical washing
away of sin:” from which it would be absurd to infer that the mere
physical application of water can remove sin; and yet, on the other
hand, the fact that the remission of sin is associated with baptism,
rests on Scriptural authority. There is, therefore, a secret operation
of GOD’S grace in cleansing the soul linked to the sacramental
application of water to the body; and the concurrence or co-existence of
these the Church regards as a “mystical washing away of sin.”
Again: in the Communion Office, the faithful recipients are said to be
“very [true] members incorporate of the mystical body of CHRIST.” Now,
_how_ the Church can constitute “the body of CHRIST,” will appear to any
one an inscrutable _mystery_, if he will but divest himself of the
familiarity of the terms. As to the fact, it is indisputable; but the
manner is beyond our full comprehension, partaking in some measure of
the nature of allegory, and being strictly _mystical_. It is worth while
to add, that the Church does not recognise the notion of an invisible
Church, as constituting this “mystical body,” composed of those only who
shall be finally saved; for she goes on to pray for the assistance of
GOD’S grace, “that we _may continue_ in that holy fellowship,” &c., a
petition somewhat irrelevant if such an hypothesis be adopted.
MYSTICS. A party which arose towards the close of the third century,
distinguished by their professing pure, sublime, and perfect devotion.
They excuse their fanatical ecstasies by alleging the passage of St.
Paul, “The SPIRIT prays in us with sighs and groans which cannot be
uttered.” They contend that, if the SPIRIT prays within us, we must
resign ourselves to its motions, and be guided and swayed through its
impulse by remaining in a state of mere inaction. The principles
proceeded from the known doctrine of the Platonic school, which was also
adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the Divine nature was diffused
through all human souls; or that the faculty of reason, from which
proceed the health and vigour of the mind, was an emanation from GOD
into the human soul, and comprehended in it the principles and elements
of all truth, human and divine. They denied that men could, by labour or
study, excite this celestial flame in their breasts; and therefore they
disapproved highly of the attempts of those who, by definitions,
abstract theorems, and profound speculations, endeavoured to form
distinct notions of truth, and to discover its hidden nature. On the
contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity, repose, and
solitude, accompanied with such acts as might tend to extenuate and
exhaust the body, were the means by which the hidden and internal word
was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct them in the
knowledge of Divine things. For thus they reasoned: Those who behold
with a noble contempt all human affairs; who turn away their eyes from
terrestrial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the outward senses
against the contagious influences of a material world, must necessarily
return to GOD when the spirit is thus disengaged from the impediments
that prevented that happy union; and in this blessed frame they not only
enjoy inexpressible raptures from their communion with the Supreme
Being, but are also invested with the inestimable privilege of
contemplating truth undisguised and uncorrupted in its native purity,
while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form.
The number of the Mystics increased in the fourth century, under the
influence of the Grecian fanatic, who gave himself out for Dionysius the
Areopagite, disciple of St. Paul, and probably lived about this period;
and by pretending to higher degrees of perfection than other Christians,
and practising greater austerity, their cause gained ground, especially
in the Eastern provinces, in the fifth century. A copy of the pretended
works of Dionysius was sent by Balbus to Louis the Meek, in the year
824, which kindled the holy flame of mysticism in the Western provinces,
and filled the Latins with the most enthusiastic admiration of this new
religion. In the twelfth century, these Mystics took the lead in their
method of expounding the Scriptures. In the thirteenth century they were
the most formidable antagonists of the Schoolmen; and, towards the close
of the fourteenth, many of them resided and propagated their tenets in
almost every part of Europe.
Among the Mystics of that time we may notice the Dominican John Tauler,
of Strasburg, A. D. 1361; Henry Suso of Ulm, A. D. 1365; and especially
John Ruysbroock, called Doctor Ecstaticus, A. D. 1381, who of all the
Mystics was the most dreamy and enthusiastic. Among Protestants there
have been and are many Mystics, but they have not formed a
sect.—_Mosheim._ _Gieseler._
NAG’S HEAD FABLE. (See _Consecration of Bishops_.)
NAHUM, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Nahum is
the seventh of the twelve lesser prophets; a native of Elkoshai, a
little village of Galilee, the ruins of which were still to be seen in
the time of St. Jerome. The particular circumstances of this prophet’s
life are altogether unknown.
Authors are divided as to the time when Nahum prophesied, some fixing it
to the reign of Ahaz, others to that of Manasseh, and others to the
times of the captivity. St. Jerome places it in the reign of Hezekiah,
after the war of Sennacherib in Egypt, which the prophet speaks of as a
thing passed.
The subject of Nahum’s prophecy is the destruction of Nineveh, which he
describes in the most lively and pathetic manner; and this prophecy was
verified in the siege of that city by Astyages in the year of the world
3378, before Christ 622.
NAME. (See _Christian Name_.) The Christian name is given us in baptism.
All things being prepared for the baptism of the child, the minister is
now to “take it into his hands,” and to ask the godfathers and
godmothers to “name” it. For the “Christian name” being given as a badge
that we belong to CHRIST, we cannot more properly take it upon us, than
when we are enlisted under his banner. We bring one name into the world
with us, which we derive from our parents, and which serves to remind us
of our original guilt, and that we are born in sin: but this new name is
given us at our baptism, to remind us of our new birth, when, being
washed in the laver of regeneration, we are thereby cleansed from our
natural impurities, and become in a manner new creatures, and solemnly
dedicate ourselves to GOD. So that the naming of children at this time
hath been thought by many to import something more than ordinary, and to
carry with it a mysterious signification. We find something like it even
among the heathens; for the Romans had a custom of naming their children
on the day of their lustration, (that is, when they were cleansed and
washed from their natural pollution,) which was therefore called “Dies
Nominalis.” And the Greeks also, when they carried their infants, a
little after their birth, about the fire, (which was their ceremony of
dedicating or consecrating them to their gods,) were used at the same
time to give them their names.
And that the Jews named their children at the time of circumcision, the
Holy Scriptures, (Gen. xxi. 3, 4; Luke i. 59, 60; ii. 21,) as well as
their own writers, expressly tell us. And though the rite itself of
circumcision was changed into that of baptism by our SAVIOUR, yet he
made no alteration as to the time and custom of giving the name, but
left that to continue under the new, as he had found it under the old
dispensation. Accordingly we find this time assigned and used to this
purpose ever since; the Christians continuing from the earliest ages to
name their children at the time of baptism.—_Wheatly._
NANTES, EDICT OF. An edict of toleration, promulgated by Henry IV. of
France in 1598, which restored the Protestants to all the favours which
had been granted them in former reigns, and gave them the liberty of
serving GOD according to their conscience, and a full participation in
all civil rights and privileges. This edict was, at the instigation of
the Jesuits, revoked by Louis XIV. in the year 1685.
NARTHEX. (_Gr._ and _Lat._) This name is given by ancient writers to a
part of the fabric of the Christian church. There was the exterior or
outward, and the interior or inward, _Narthex_.
The exterior narthex, which we may call the ante-temple, consisted of
the whole circumference of the outward courts, including the vestibulum
or porch, and the atrium or area before the church.
The interior narthex, or ante-temple within the church, (the only part
properly so called,) was the first section or division of the fabric,
after entering into the church, and was peculiarly allotted to the monks
and women, and used for the offices of rogations, supplications, and
night watches. Here likewise they placed the dead corpses, whilst the
funeral rites were performing. This lower part of the church was the
place of the _Energumens_ and the _Audientes_; and hither Jews,
heathens, heretics, and schismatics were sometimes allowed to come, in
hopes of their conversion by hearing the Scriptures read and sermons
preached.
Dr. Beveridge and others seem to place here the font or baptistery, as
in our modern churches. But it is certain that, for many ages, the
baptistery was a distinct place from the body of the church, and
reckoned among the _Exedræ_, or buildings adjoining to the church.
This part of the church was called _Narthex_, because being long, but
narrow, and running across the front of the church, it was supposed to
resemble a _ferula_, that is, a rod or staff; for any oblong figure was
by the Greeks called νάρθηξ, _Narthex_.
NATIONAL COVENANT. (See _Confessions of Faith_.)
NAVE. The central passage of the church, extending from the west end to
the transept or choir. The derivation of this word has been a matter of
dispute. Some very plausibly derive it from νάος, others from _navis_, a
ship, since the nave resembles the hull of a ship turned upside down;
and refer both this term and νάος also to the ancient Phœnicians, whose
original temples were said to be their vessels thus reversed. At all
events it is remarkable that both the old French _nef_, the Italian and
Spanish _nave_, and the Latin _navis_, all signify a ship as well as the
nave of a church. (See _Churches_ and _Cathedral_.)
NAVICULA; _ship_, or _ark_. A vessel formed “like the keel of a boat,”
out of which the frankincense was poured in Bishop Andrewes’ chapel, and
Queen Elizabeth’s chapel. _Canterbury’s Doom_, 1646. See _Hiereugia
Anglicana_, pp. 4, 5, and 9.
NAZARENES. Christian heretics, so called. This name was originally given
to all Christians in general, because JESUS CHRIST was of the city of
Nazareth. But afterwards it was restrained to a sect of heretics, who
affected to assume it rather than that of Christians. Their religion was
a strange jumble of Judaism and Christianity: for they were Jews by
birth, were circumcised, kept the sabbath, and other observances of the
Mosaical law; and at the same time received the New Testament as well as
the Old, acknowledged JESUS CHRIST to be the MESSIAH, and practised the
Christian baptism. Theodoret indeed pretends they honoured JESUS CHRIST
only as a just and good man; and he places the beginning of their heresy
about the time of Domitian. St. Augustine makes them the successors of
those whose obstinacy in the like opinions was condemned by the
apostolical Council of Jerusalem.
The Nazarenes (as well as the Ebionites) were descended from those
Christians, who left Jerusalem a little before the siege, and retired to
the country about Jordan, called Perea; whence they are sometimes called
Peratics. There were some of them remaining in the time of St.
Augustine. They dwelt about Pella in Decapolis, near the river Jordan,
and at Berea, a city of Lower Syria. They perfectly understood the
Hebrew tongue, in which they read the books of the Old Testament.
These heretics, keeping the mean between the Jews and the Christians,
pretended to be friends alike to both: nevertheless, the Christians
treated them as abominable heretics, and the Jews detested them more
than the other Christians, because they acknowledged JESUS CHRIST to be
the MESSIAH. Epiphanius says, they cursed and anathematized them three
times a day in their synagogues.—_Broughton._
NEHEMIAH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah
was born at Babylon during the captivity, and succeeded Ezra in the
government of Judah and Jerusalem; whither he came with a commission
from Artaxerxes Longimanus, authorizing him to repair and fortify the
city in the same manner as it was before its destruction by the
Babylonians.
Nehemiah was a Jew, and was promoted to the office of cup-bearer to the
Persian king; and the opportunities he had of being daily in the king’s
presence, together with the favour of Esther the queen, procured him the
privileges he obtained for building the city, and the settlement of his
country. When he came to Jerusalem, he finished the rebuilding of the
walls in fifty-two days, and dedicated the gates of the city with great
solemnity. Then he reformed some abuses, which had crept in among his
countrymen, particularly the extortion of the usurers, by which the poor
were so oppressed, as to be forced to sell their lands and children to
support themselves and their families. Then he returned to Persia, and
came back again with a new commission, by virtue of which he regulated
everything relating both to the state and religion of the Jews. The
history of these transactions is the subject matter of this Book of
Nehemiah.
Nehemiah died at Jerusalem, having governed the people of Judah for
about thirty years.
NEOLOGIANS. German Rationalists are so designated; from νέος, _new_, and
λόγος, _doctrine_. They are distinguished from mere deists and
pantheists, by admitting the principal facts of the Bible, though they
attempt to explain away what is miraculous, while they treat the
Scriptures with no more of reverence than they would show to any other
ancient book, and regard our LORD himself as they would regard any good
and wise philosopher.
NESTORIANS. (See _Mother of God_.) The followers of Nestorius, bishop of
Constantinople, who lived in the fifth century. They believed that in
CHRIST there were not only two natures, but two persons; of which the
one was _Divine_, even the ETERNAL WORD, and the other, which was
_human_, was the man JESUS; that these two persons had only one
_aspect_; that the union between the SON of GOD and the SON of man was
formed in the moment of the Virgin’s conception, and was never to be
dissolved; that it was not, however, an union of nature or of person,
but only of will and affection; that CHRIST was therefore to be
carefully distinguished from GOD, who dwelt in him as in his temple; and
that Mary was to be called the mother of CHRIST, and not the mother of
GOD.
This heresy was condemned by the fourth general council, that of
Ephesus, A. D. 431; in which all are anathematized who refuse to call
the Virgin Mary the mother of GOD. For a full account of this people,
see Mr. Badger’s _Nestorians and their Rituals_.
NEWEL. The central column round which the steps of a winding stair are
disposed. They are sometimes designed with considerable taste, and
carefully executed.
NICENE CREED; sometimes called the _Constantinopolitan Creed_. This
creed was chiefly composed by the orthodox fathers of the first general
Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to define the Christian faith, in opposition
to the heresy of Arius. As sanctioned by this assembly it ended with “I
believe in the HOLY GHOST.” The remainder was added by the second
general council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 381, in which the heresy
of Macedonius, with regard to the Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT, was
condemned. In the fifth century, the Western churches added to this
creed the words _filioque_, in conformity with the doctrine, that the
HOLY SPIRIT proceeds from the SON, as well as from the FATHER.
The Church for three hundred years had been content to profess in her
creed, that CHRIST was the LORD; comprehending, under this title, the
highest appellations given to him in Scripture, without stating
minutely, or scrutinizing too narrowly, a doctrine proposed rather to us
as an object of faith than of understanding. Happy had it been for the
Christian world, if this moderation of the Church had been suffered to
continue; but Arius, a discontented priest of Alexandria in Egypt,
either having conceived a different opinion, or wishing to bring himself
into notice by the assertion of a novelty, took upon him to maintain
that CHRIST was not a Divine person, in the highest sense, but a
creature, superior indeed to human nature, but not a partaker of the
supreme GODHEAD.
The publishing of this opinion raised a violent ferment and schism in
the Church. Constantine the Roman emperor summoned a council at Nice, in
Bithynia, to settle this dispute; and there, in the year 325, Arius’s
doctrine was condemned in an assembly of 300 bishops, and that creed
framed, which from the name of the city was called the Nicene Creed. And
here it is necessary to observe, that the meaning of the three creeds of
our Church, and all creeds that can be composed on gospel principles, is
nothing more than a declaration of the sense in which we accept the
profession made in our baptism. By baptism we are admitted into the
Church of CHRIST; by the command of CHRIST we are baptized “in the name
of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.” This is the
condition, by which alone we can partake of the Christian covenant; this
is the mark by which alone we are distinguished from the professors of
every other religion upon earth.
When we repeat a creed, therefore, we do no more than declare our
repeated assent to the conditions of the baptismal covenant; and it
would be sufficient to do this in the very words that CHRIST enjoins, “I
believe in the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST,” if explanations had
not been demanded, to show what we mean by this declaration. Creeds then
do not, properly speaking, contain articles of faith, but an explanation
of the sense in which we understand the primary position of our
religion. And this view of the matter will show us the reason, why no
creed is prescribed in Scripture; why all creeds ever have been, and
ever must be, the composition of men.—_Dean Vincent._
The three creeds, which are the three barriers of the faith of our
Church, extracted from the Holy Scripture in the purer ages of
Christianity, though variously expressed, are yet the same in substance;
agreeable to each other; and all agreeable to the word of GOD, and
approved all along by the Catholic Church. In these forms she calls upon
her members to declare their belief to be consonant to that of the
Church universal. The Apostles’ Creed, as the plainest and shortest
form, is appointed for common and daily use. The Athanasian, for
festivals which relate more immediately to our SAVIOUR; or which are
placed at such convenient distances from each other, as that none may be
wholly ignorant of the mysteries therein contained. And the Nicene Creed
is to be repeated whenever the eucharist is administered according to
the institution of our LORD, whose eternal generation, GODHEAD,
incarnation, sufferings, and exaltation, are therein summarily contained
and acknowledged.—_Archdeacon Yardley._
It is called “the Nicene Creed,” because it was for the most part framed
at the great Council of Nice. But because the great Council of
Constantinople added the latter part, and brought it to the frame which
we now use, therefore it is called also “the Constantinopolitan Creed.”
This creed began to be used in churches at the Communion Service
immediately after the Gospel, in the year of our LORD 339. [The
introduction of it in this place is, however, more commonly referred to
Peter the Fuller, bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 471.] Afterwards it was
established in the churches of Spain and France, after the custom of the
Eastern Church, by the Council of Toledo, and continued down to our
times. The reason why this creed follows immediately after the Epistle
and Gospel, is the same that was given for the Apostles’ Creed following
next after the lessons at morning and evening prayer. To which the canon
of Toledo hath added another reason for saying it here, before the
people draw near to the holy communion; namely, that the breasts of
those who approach to those dreadful mysteries, may be purified by a
true and right faith.—_Bp. Sparrow._
The creed is a summary of the doctrine of the gospel, and here is placed
next to it, because it is grounded upon it. In the gospel we “believe
with our heart unto righteousness;” in the creed we “confess with our
mouth unto salvation” (Rom. x. 10); for all the people ought to repeat
the creed after the minister. It doth more largely condemn all heresies
than the Apostles’ Creed: wherefore it is fitly enjoined to be recited
by all before the sacrament, to show that all the communicants are free
from heresy, and in the strictest league of union with the Catholic
Church; as also to prepare themselves for worthy receiving, by
exercising that faith, of which they have so much use at the LORD’S
table, as the Council of Toledo ordained in the year 600 [589]. So that
every one must openly profess and firmly embrace all these articles,
before he can be fit to receive; yea, and while he repeats them with his
lips, he must resolve to show forth in his life, that he doth sincerely
believe them, by strictly living according to them.—_Dean Comber._
As in the Morning Prayer, so in the Communion Service, for the same
reason, after reading the Scripture, we recite the creed: only then we
have that of the ancient Latin Church; here that of the ancient
Greek.—_Abp. Secker._
Besides the general reasons for repeating the creed, the rehearsal of
our faith before the receiving of the holy communion is founded on these
two special grounds:—1. It is meet that all should first profess the
same faith, who partake of the same mysteries; for surely, if “no
stranger, nor uncircumcised person,” could eat of the passover, that
typical sacrament, (Exod. xii. 43, 48,) much more no stranger to the
Christian faith, nor unbeliever, should partake of the real sacrament of
the LORD’S supper. 2. As the acknowledgment of the articles of our
Christian faith is part of the vow made at our baptism, so ought the
same acknowledgment to be repeated at the LORD’S supper, wherein we
renew that vow.—_Dr. Bisse._
Add to this, that every solemn confession of our faith must be looked
upon as giving glory and honour to GOD, in recognising his essence and
attributes, and the blessings which flow from those sources on mankind:
and hence it, in a peculiar manner, befits this holy service of thanks
and praise. In this we imitate the most ancient liturgies of the Church;
which, when this holy sacrament was celebrated, had an eucharistical
form, wherein GOD’S power and goodness were acknowledged in the
creation, preservation, and redemption of the world. Thus we, though in
a shorter form of undoubted authority, confess to the holy and undivided
TRINITY, and distinctly own the Divinity of each person. We commemorate
the creation of the world by “GOD the FATHER Almighty.” We acknowledge
JESUS CHRIST to be our “LORD;” to have been “begotten” from all
eternity, to be “of one substance with the FATHER,” and with him Creator
of all things: that “for our salvation he came down from heaven, was
made man, suffered, and died” for us. We commemorate his resurrection,
ascension, and sitting at GOD’S right hand: express our expectation of
his second coming; and declare that “his kingdom shall have no end.” We
confess to GOD, that he hath inspired the prophets; that he hath built a
Church on the foundation of the apostles; that he hath appointed baptism
for the remission of sins; and given us leave to “look for the
resurrection of the dead” and an happy eternity.
What more glorious hymn than this can we sing to the honour of GOD? Is
it possible to mention anything else that can so much redound to his
glory? May not this our service be well styled the eucharist, when we
thus give praise and glory to Almighty GOD for the wonderful
manifestation of his attributes, and the inestimable blessings he hath
bestowed upon us? Let not any one therefore think, that repeating the
creed is barely a declaration of his faith to the rest of the
congregation: for, besides that, it is a most solemn act of worship, in
which we honour and magnify GOD, both for what he is in himself, and for
what he hath done for us. And let us all, sensible of this, repeat it
with reverential voice and gesture; and lift up our hearts with faith,
thankfulness, and humble devotion, whenever we say, “I believe,”
&c.—_Archdeacon Yardley._
The Nicene Creed is properly sung in all choirs. Bishop Beveridge says,
“We stand at the creeds; for they being confessions of our faith in GOD,
as such they come under the proper notion of hymns or songs of praise to
him.” The rubric sanctions, that is, enjoins in choirs, the custom: and
such has been the usage of most choirs since the Reformation; an usage
kept up throughout the Western Church, according to Mr. Palmer, since
the year 1012. It is not adapted to chanting, like the Psalms. In our
Prayer Book it is divided, like the Apostles’ Creed and the Gloria in
excelsis, into three paragraphs, of which the central one has special
reference to GOD the SON.—_Jebb._
NICOLAITANS. Heretics who arose in the Christian Church during the time
of the apostles, (as appears from Rev. ii. 6, 15,) and are taken to be
the fathers of the Gnostics. Some of the ancient fathers affirm that
Nicolas, one of the seven first deacons, was the founder of this sect;
that being blamed by the apostles for keeping company with his wife,
whom he had left before to live in continence, he invented this brutal
error to excuse his proceeding, and thought that impurity was a
necessary means to attain to eternal happiness: others say that the holy
apostles, reproaching him for being jealous of his wife, who was very
handsome, he sent for her, and in a great assembly gave her leave to
marry whom she pleased: upon which some libertines framed a heresy of
their own, and unjustly called it by his name. They denied the Divinity
of CHRIST by an hypostatical union, saying, the Divine inhabited, but
was not united to, the human nature; they held that all pleasures were
good, and that it was lawful to eat meats offered to idols. Becoming too
much known by this name, they assumed that of the Gnostics, and divided
themselves into other sects, called Phibionites, Stratiotics, Levitics,
and Barborites.
NIPTER. (_Gr._ In Latin, _pediluvium_.) The ceremony of _washing feet_.
This is performed by the Greek Christians on Good Friday, in imitation
of our SAVIOUR, who on that day washed his disciples’ feet with his own
hands.
In the monasteries, the abbot represents our SAVIOUR, and twelve of the
monks the twelve apostles. Among these the steward and porter have
always a place; the former acts the part of St. Peter, and imitates his
refusal to let JESUS wash his feet; the latter personates the traitor
Judas, and is loaded with scoffs and derision. The office used on this
occasion is extant in the _Euchologium_.
NOCTURNS. Services anciently held during the night. In the Breviary, the
Psalter is divided into portions, the first of which consists of
fourteen Psalms, the second of three, and the third of three. These all
form a part of the Sunday office of matins, each of which portions is
called a nocturn. These were designed to be read at these nightly
assemblies, with other services appointed in order for the various
nights.
NOETIANS. Christian heretics in the third century, followers of Noëtus,
a philosopher of Ephesus, who pretended that he was another Moses sent
by GOD, and that his brother was a new Aaron. His heresy consisted in
affirming that there was but one person in the GODHEAD, and that the
WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT were but external denominations given to GOD in
consequence of different operations: that as creator he is called
FATHER; as incarnate, SON; and as descending upon the apostles, the HOLY
GHOST.
This heresiarch, being summoned to appear before the assembly of the
Church of Ephesus, to give an account of his doctrine, made a very
catholic profession of faith; but he had no sooner gained a dozen
followers, than he began publicly to teach and spread his opinions. He
was excommunicated by the Church of Ephesus, and after his death denied
ecclesiastical burial.
Being reprehended by his superiors, he is said to have replied, “What
harm have I done? I adore one only GOD; I own none but him. He was born,
suffered, and is dead.”
NOMINALISTS. At the restoration of the study of logic in the eleventh
century, many disputes took place, trivial in their origin, but
important on account of the colour which they gave to religious
controversy, concerning the objects of logic. Agreeing that the
essential object of logic was the discussion of _universals_, as
distinguished from _particular_ or _individual_ things, two parties were
formed on the question whether universals are _words_ and _names_ only,
or _things_ and _real essences_. Those who declared them to be only
names and words, and who of course, therefore, determined that logic was
only conversant with words, were called _Nominalists_, and basing their
philosophy on that of Aristotle, were principally supported by the
talent and authority of Roscellinus. Those who held that _universals_
were _real existences_, and so that logic was conversant with _things_
and _realities_, were called _Realists_. They supported their hypothesis
on the authority of Plato. Johannes Scotus Erigena, in the ninth
century, had taught this doctrine, but without leaving behind him any
school of avowed followers. The controversy with the _Nominalists_ was
commenced in the eleventh century, and in the thirteenth the greater
part of the schoolmen were _Realists_.
NOMINATION. This is the offering of a clerk to him who has the right of
presentation, that he may present him to the ordinary. (For form of
Nomination, see _Curacy_.)
The nominator must appoint his clerk within six months after the
avoidance, for, if he does not, and the patron presents his clerk before
the bishop hath taken any benefit of the lapse, he is bound to admit
that clerk.
But where one has the nomination, and another the presentation, if the
right of presentation should afterwards come to the queen, it has been
held, that he that has the nomination will be entitled to both, because
the queen, who is to present, is only an instrument to him who
nominates, and it is not becoming the dignity of a queen to be
subservient to another; but the nominator should name one to the lord
chancellor, who, in the name of the queen, should present to the
ordinary.
And as the presentation, so the right of nomination, may be forfeited to
the queen. It is true, if the patron, upon a corrupt agreement unknown
to the nominator, presents his clerk, this shall not be prejudicial to
the nominator within the statute of simony; but if the nominator
corruptly agrees to nominate, his right of nomination shall be forfeited
to the queen.
NONES. A term employed in the Roman calendar, inserted in all correct
editions of the Prayer Book. The nones were the fifth day of each month,
excepting in March, May, July, and October, when the nones fell on the
7th day. They were so called from their being the ninth day in each
month before the ides.—_Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer_, notes on the
Calendar, p. 270.
NONJURORS. Those conscientious men who refused to renounce their oath of
allegiance to King James II., and to transfer it to the Prince of
Orange. What was at first a necessary separation from the Church of
England, degenerated, after a time, into a wilful schism. The history of
the Nonjurors is written by Lathbury (_London_, 1845).
NORMAN. The highest development of Romanesque architecture in England,
which succeeded the Saxon at the Conquest, and admitted the pointed arch
which marks the Transition, about 1145. It must be observed, however,
that many buildings, generally called Norman, and which agree with the
Norman style in all essential particulars, except in the accident of
their being built before 1066, must, architecturally, be classed with
this style. The Norman is so absolutely distinguished from all Gothic
orders by the round arch, that it is needless to enter into its
differentials. Several of its peculiarities will be found under the
heads _Buttress_, _Capital_, _Cathedral_, _Mouldings_, _Pier_, _Pillar_.
NORTH SIDE. In the rubric immediately preceding the office for the Holy
Communion, the priest is directed to stand at the _north side_ of the
table. As this work is not a Dictionary of the English language, it
might seem beside our purpose to offer any explanation of those words,
which are sufficiently clear, though they have been perplexed by the
unreasonable scruples of some of our generation. Johnson gives the
following as one of the definitions of _side_, “any part of any body
opposed to any other part:” another is, “right or left.” The north side
then is that which is opposed to the south; viz. the left side to those
who look to the east, where the holy table is placed. By a side is meant
that which is _lateral_, as contradistinguished from that which is
_opposite_ or _vertical_. A side is the short end of the table, and so
the Scotch liturgy understood the word, “the _north side_, or _end
thereof_.” The table usually in English churches stands at the end of
the chancel: the exceptions are so few as clearly to prove a rule; and
it must be obvious to common sense, that when placed differently, the
priest’s position there should be the same relatively to the church as
if the table stood at the east; that is, at the _left side_ of those who
look towards the chancel from the body of the church. Universal custom
has been in conformity with the plain meaning of the rule; and the
priest always has stood at that which formed the north or left side of
the _square table_. Had the intention of the compilers of the liturgy
been different, the rubric would have been worded in some such way as
this, “the priest standing at the _north-west corner_, or _angle_,” or
“_left angle_.” An angle, or corner, is not a side; and could never be
so interpreted, unless the table were placed diagonally. The following
authorities are explicit.
“The design is, that the priest may be the better seen and heard, which,
as our altars are now placed, he cannot be, but at the north or south
side. And as Bishop Beveridge has shown, that whenever in the ancient
liturgies the minister is directed to stand before the table, the north
side of it is always meant.”—_Wheatly._
“This seems to have been ordered, for the purpose of avoiding the
fashion of the priest’s standing with his face towards the east, as is
the Popish practice.”—_L’ Estrange._
As to the words in the rubric preceding the Collect for the Queen, _the
priest standing as before_, Mr. Collis observes, that these mean “not
standing as he rehearsed the Commandments; for if that were designed
nothing would have been said here. But _standing as before_, namely, as
he stood at the north side of the table, before he was ordered to turn
to the people. When the Commandments are read by him, he directs himself
to the people; when he comes to the collect, he directs himself to the
Almighty by prayer.”
NOTES OF THE CHURCH. The necessity of devising some general notes of the
Church, and of not entering at once on controversial debates concerning
all points of doctrine and discipline, was early perceived by Christian
theologians. Tertullian appeals, in refutation of the heresies of his
age, to the antiquity of the Church derived from the apostles, and its
priority to all heretical communities; Irenæus, to the unity of the
Church’s doctrines, and the succession of her bishops from the apostles;
St. Augustine, to the consent of nations; St. Jerome, to the continued
duration of the Church from the apostles, and the very appellation of
the Christian name. In modern times, Bellarmine the Romanist added
several other notes, such as,—agreement with the primitive Church in
doctrine; union of members among themselves and with their head;
sanctity of doctrine and of founders; continuance of miracles and
prophecy; confession of adversaries; the unhappy end of those who are
opposed to the Church, and the temporal felicity conferred on it. Luther
assigned as notes of the true Church, the true and uncorrupted preaching
of the gospel; administration of baptism, of the eucharist, and of the
keys; a legitimate ministry, public service in a known tongue, and
tribulations internally and externally. Calvin reckons only truth of
doctrine and right administration of the sacraments, and seems to reject
succession. The learned theologians of the Church of England adopt a
different view in some respects. Dr. Field admits the following notes of
the Church: truth of doctrine; use of sacraments and means instituted by
_Christ_; union under lawful ministers; antiquity without change of
doctrine; lawful succession, i. e. with true doctrine; and universality
in the _successive_ sense, i. e. the prevalence of the Church
successively in all nations. Bishop Taylor admits, as notes of the
Church, antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of members
among themselves and with CHRIST, sanctity of doctrine.
Palmer, from whom this account is abridged, takes, as notes of the
Church, what the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, Creed gives, as the
Church’s attributes, “ONE, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic.”
NOVATIANS. A Christian sect, which sprang up in the third century;
occasioned by the jealousy which Novatian, a priest of Rome, conceived
upon seeing Cornelius raised to the episcopate of the Roman Church, to
which he himself aspired. Enraged at the disappointment, he endeavoured
to blacken the character of Cornelius, by charging him with a criminal
lenity towards those who had apostatized during the persecution of
Decius. He maintained, that such persons ought indeed to be exhorted to
repentance, but never to be absolved by the Church, reserving their
absolution to GOD alone, who had the power and authority to remit sins.
Hence he was led to deny, in general, that the Church had the power of
remitting mortal sins, upon the offender’s repentance. And at last he
went so far as to deny that apostates could ever hope for pardon even
from _God_ himself: a doctrine which so terrified some of those who had
lapsed and repented, that, in despair, they quite abjured Christianity,
and returned to Paganism.
The followers of Novatian added to this original heresy of their master
another, which was the unlawfulness of second marriages; against which
they were as severe as against apostates; denying communion for ever to
such persons as married a second time after baptism, and treating widows
who married again as adulteresses.
As these heretics pretended that the Church was corrupted by the
communion it granted to sinners, it is no wonder they rebaptized those
they gained over to their sect. In baptizing, they used the received
forms of the Church, and had the same belief concerning the FATHER, SON,
and HOLY GHOST, in whose name they baptized. St. Cyprian rejected their
baptism, as he did that of all heretics; but it was admitted by the
eighth canon of the Council of Nice.
The Novatians put on the external appearance of great piety and purity;
and though they did not refuse the title of Novatians, they assumed the
proud appellation of _Catharii_, that is, the Pure, or Puritans; and
like the Pharisees among the Jews, they would not suffer other men to
come near them, lest their purity should be defiled thereby.
The schism which Novatian had formed in the Roman Church was not
confined to Rome, nor to Italy, nor even to the West. It made its way
into the East, and subsisted a long time at Alexandria, in several
provinces of Asia, at Constantinople, in Scythia, and in Africa. The
Novatians abounded particularly in Phrygia and Paphlagonia. Constantine
seems to have favoured them a little by a law of the year 326; which
preserves to them their churches and burying-places, provided they never
belonged to the Catholic Church. But in a famous edict about the year
331, he sets them at the head of the most detestable of all heretics,
forbidding them to hold public or private assemblies, confiscating their
oratories or churches, and condemning their leaders to banishment. It is
pretended this edict had not the designed effect as to the Novatians, by
means of Acesius their bishop, who resided at Constantinople, and was in
great esteem with the emperor, on account of his virtuous and
irreproachable life. The Novatian sect was entirely extinct, or at least
reduced to a very inconsiderable party, about the middle of the fifth
century.
NOVEMBER, FIFTH OF. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)
NOVICES, in countries where monachism prevails, are those persons who
are candidates, or probationers, for a religious life. The time of their
probation is called the Noviciate; after which, if their behaviour is
approved, they are professed, that is, admitted into the order, and
allowed to make the vows, wear the habit, &c.
The novices among the Jesuits are disciplined in a very peculiar manner.
To make them the better understand the nature and extent of the
obedience they owe to their superiors, they have certain emblematical
pictures in their chambers or studies. For example: in the middle of the
canvass is a boy stooping down with a piece of timber on his shoulders,
with this motto, _fortiter_, upon it. He has a harp in his hand, to
intimate the cheerfulness of his submission. On the right hand is a
little dog in a rising posture, to show that the novice is to obey with
despatch and expedition. His breast is open, to show that his superiors
have his heart as well as his limbs at their service. His mouth is
represented shut, to show that there must be no grumbling or contesting
the point with his superiors; and his ears are stopped, to intimate that
he must submit to orders however unacceptable to that sense.
If a novice breaks through any part of this submission, he has a penance
enjoined him according to the nature of his misbehaviour. For instance,
if he discovers a haughty disposition, he is ordered to go into the
infirmary and perform the coarsest offices to the sick and decrepit. If
he refuses to do as he is bid, or murmurs at it, he is brought into the
refectory at dinner or supper time, and obliged to confess his fault
upon his knees before all the company.
NUMBERS, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. It is the
fourth book of the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses, and receives its
denomination from the numbering of the families of Israel, by Moses and
Aaron; who mustered the tribes, and marshalled the army of the Hebrews,
in their passage through the wilderness.
A great part of this Book is historical, relating several remarkable
events which happened in that journey; as, the sedition of Aaron and
Miriam; the rebellion of Korah and his companions; the murmurings of the
whole body of the people; Balaam’s prophecy; the miraculous budding of
Aaron’s rod, &c. It gives likewise a distinct account of the several
stages of journeyings through the wilderness. But the greatest part of
this Book is spent in enumerating the several laws and ordinances, not
mentioned in the preceding books; such as, the office and number of the
Levites; the trial by the waters of jealousy; the rites to be observed
by the Nazarites; the making of fringes on the borders of their
garments; the law of inheritance; of vows; of the cities of refuge, &c.
The Book of Numbers comprehends the history of about thirty-eight years,
though the most part of the things related in it fell out in the first
and last of these years, and it does not appear when those things were
done which are related in the middle of the Book.
NUMERALS. The designation of twelve priests, in the cathedral of Nola
(inferior to the canons).—_Jebb._
NUNS. Those women who devote themselves, in a cloister or nunnery, to a
religious life. (See _Monks_.)
There were women, in the ancient Christian Church, who made public and
open profession of virginity, before the monastic life, or name, was
known in the world; as appears from the writings of Cyprian and
Tertullian. These, for distinction’s sake, are sometimes called
ecclesiastical virgins, and were commonly enrolled in the canon or
_matricula_ of the Church. They differed from the monastic virgins
chiefly in this—that they lived privately in their fathers’ houses,
whereas the others lived in communities. But their profession of
virginity was not so strict as to make it criminal in them to marry
afterwards, if they thought fit.
In the following ages, the censures of the Church began to be inflicted
upon professed virgins who should marry; and these censures seem to have
grown more severe, in proportion to the esteem and value Christians set
upon celibacy and the monastic life. Yet there never was any decree for
rescinding or making null such marriages.
Some canons allowed virgins to be consecrated at twenty-five years of
age, and others at sixteen or seventeen; but time quickly showed, that
neither of these terms were so conveniently fixed as they might be.
Other canons, therefore, required virgins to be forty years old, before
they were veiled, as may be seen in the Councils of Agde and Saragossa.
And the imperial laws decreed, that, if any virgin was veiled before
that age, either by the violence or hatred of her parents, (which was a
case that often happened,) she was at liberty to marry. Hence appears a
wide difference between the practice of the ancient Christian Church in
this matter, and that of the modern Church of Rome.
As to the consecration of virgins, it had some things peculiar in it. It
was usually performed publicly in the church by the bishop. The virgin
made a public profession of her resolution, and then the bishop put upon
her the accustomed habit of sacred virgins. One part of this habit was a
veil, called the _sacrum velamen_; another was a kind of mitre, or
coronet, worn on the head. In some places the custom of shaving
professed virgins prevailed; as it did in the monasteries of Syria and
Egypt, in St. Jerome’s time: but the Council of Gangra strongly
condemned this practice, accounting that a woman’s hair was given her by
GOD as a mark of subjection. Theodosius the Great added a civil sanction
to this ecclesiastical decree: whence it appears that the tonsure of
virgins was anciently no allowed custom of the Church, however it came
to prevail in the contrary practice of later ages.
As the society of virgins was of great esteem in the Church, so they had
some particular honours paid to them. Their persons were sacred, and
severe laws were made against any that should presume to offer the least
violence to them. The emperor Constantine charged his own revenues with
the maintenance of them; and his mother Helena often entertained them
and waited upon them at her own table. The Church gave them also a share
of her own revenues, and assigned them an honourable station in the
churches, whither the most noble and religious matrons used to resort
with earnestness to receive their salutations and embraces.
The ancient names of these virgins were _Nonnæ_, _Moniales_,
_Sanctimoniales_, and _Ascetriæ_. The term _Nonnæ_ (from whence our
English word nuns) is, according to Hospinian, an Egyptian name
signifying a virgin.
In the Romish Church, when a young woman is to be professed, that is, to
be made a nun, the habit, veil, and ring of the candidate are carried to
the altar, and she herself, accompanied by her nearest relations, is
conducted to the bishop. Two ancient venerable matrons attend upon her
as bridewomen. When the bishop has said mass, the archpriest chants an
anthem, the subject of which is, that she ought to have her lamp
lighted, because the bridegroom is coming to meet her. Then the bishop
calls her in a kind of recitative, to which she answers in the same
manner. Being come before the prelate, and on her knees, she attends to
the exhortation he makes to her with regard to a religious life, and in
the mean time the choir chants the Litanies. Then the bishop, having the
crosier in his left hand, pronounces the benediction. She then rises up,
and the bishop consecrates the new habit, sprinkling it with holy water.
When the candidate has put on her religious habit, she again presents
herself before the bishop, and sings on her knees, _Ancilla Christi
sum_, &c., i. e. “I am the servant of CHRIST.” Then she receives the
veil, and afterwards the ring, by which she is married to JESUS CHRIST;
and, lastly, the crown of virginity. When she is crowned, an anathema is
denounced against all who shall attempt to break her vows. After the
communion, the prelate gives her up to the conduct of the abbess, saying
to her: “Take care to preserve pure and spotless this young woman, whom
GOD has consecrated,” &c.—_Broughton._
NUNC DIMITTIS. The first words in Latin of the Song of Simeon, “LORD,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” appointed as one of the
hymns to be used after the second lesson at even-song. It was used in
this place in the most ancient times. It is found in the Apostolical
Constitutions. And even at the present day this hymn is repeated at
evening prayer in the patriarchate of Constantinople. The hymn occurs in
the Latin office for compline, from which, and from the vesper service,
our office of Evening Prayer was compiled.
After the second evening lesson out of the Epistles of the holy
apostles, this hymn is most commonly used. The author of it is supposed
to be that holy doctor whom the Jews call Simeon the Just, son of the
famous Rabbi Hillel, a man of eminent integrity, and one who opposed the
then common opinion of the Messiah’s temporal kingdom. The occasion of
composing it was his meeting CHRIST in the temple when he came to be
offered there, wherein GOD fulfilled his promise to him, that he should
not die till he had seen the Messiah: taking JESUS therefore in his
arms, inspired with joy and the HOLY GHOST, he sang this “Nunc
dimittis:” and though we cannot see our SAVIOUR with our bodily eyes as
he did, yet he is, by the writings of the apostles, daily presented to
the eyes of our faith; and if we were as much concerned for heaven, and
as loose from the love of this world, as old Simeon was, and as we ought
to be, we might, upon the view of CHRIST in His holy word by faith, be
daily ready to sing this hymn; which was indited by the SPIRIT, recorded
in holy writ, and is adopted into the public service of all Christian
Churches, Greek and Latin, Reformed and Roman, and used to be sung in
extraordinary by divers saints and martyrs a little before their
death.—_Dean Comber._
This hymn, called from the Latin beginning of it “Nunc dimittis,”
expresses the gratitude of good old Simeon, “a just man and devout,” as
we read in St. Luke ii. 25–32, “and waiting for the consolation of
Israel; to whom it was revealed that he should not die till he had seen
the LORD’S CHRIST.” Accordingly, “he came by the SPIRIT into the temple;
and when the parents brought in the child JESUS, he took him up in his
arms, (image to yourselves the scene, I beg you,) and blessed GOD, and
said, LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,” that is, in
comfort, “according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
which thou hast prepared” to set “before the face of all people.” And
the following sentence hath a strong appearance of being designed by the
HOLY GHOST to intimate, (whether the speaker of it perceived the design
or not,) that, contrary to the expected and natural order of things,
CHRIST should first “be a light to lighten the Gentiles;” then,
afterwards, “the glory of GOD’S people Israel.” To perceive the fitness
of Simeon’s thanksgiving for our use, it needs only to be remembered,
and ever should in repeating it, that we also “have seen the LORD’S
salvation.” For though we have not yet beheld our SAVIOUR with our
bodily eyes, to that of faith he is exhibited continually in the gospel
history and sacraments: we may meet him in his Church; we may converse
with him in our private meditations. And this we should think happiness
enough for us here, whatever else we want or suffer; and be always
prepared, and always willing, to “bless GOD,” and “depart in
peace.”—_Abp. Secker._
This hymn comes very properly after the second lesson, which is always
taken out of the New Testament, wherein is contained and delivered to us
that gospel, the enjoyment and participation of which is the ground and
foundation of the whole hymn. It should be added, that this hymn is
addressed to GOD; and since it may be used as the personal address of
every devout Christian, no one should repeat it after a careless manner;
but consider to whom it is repeated, and utter the whole after a
suitable manner.—_Dr. Bennet._
NUNCIO. An ambassador from the pope to some prince or state; or a person
who attends on the pope’s behalf at a congress, or at an assembly of
several ambassadors. A nuncio, in fact, is the pope’s ambassador, as the
_internuncio_ is his envoy extraordinary. A nuncio has a jurisdiction,
and may delegate judges in all the states where he resides, except in
France, where he has no authority beyond that of a simple ambassador.
Sometimes a nuncio is invested with the functions of a _legatus natus_.
(See _Legate_.)
OATHS. “As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian
men by our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and James his apostle, so we judge that
the Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when
the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done
according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and
truth.”—_Article_ xxxix. The first oath mentioned in the Holy Scriptures
is that of Abraham, Gen. xiv. 22, 23.
The _Oath of Allegiance_ is as follows:—“I, A. B., do sincerely promise
and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance, to her
Majesty, Queen Victoria. So help me GOD.” This is taken by Protestant
dissenting ministers, when licensed by the civil magistrates; as is also
the following:
_Oath of Supremacy_:—“I, A. B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor,
detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and
position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any
authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their
subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign
prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any
jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within this realm. So help me GOD.”
OBADIAH, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. This
prophecy is contained in one single chapter, and is partly an invective
against the cruelty of the Edomites, who mocked and derided the children
of Israel, as they passed into captivity, and, with other enemies their
confederates, invaded and oppressed these poor strangers, and divided
the spoil amongst them; and partly a prediction of the deliverance and
salvation of Israel, and of the victory and triumph of the whole Church
over her enemies.
The time when this prophecy was delivered is wholly uncertain. The
Hebrews believe, that this prophet was the same with the governor of
Ahab’s house, mentioned in the First Book of Kings, who hid and fed the
hundred prophets, whom Jezebel would have destroyed. Some say he was
that Obadiah whom Josiah made overseer of the works of the temple. But
most writers make him contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and Joel.
OBIT. An office performed at funerals, when the corpse was in the church
before it was buried; it afterwards came to be performed on the
anniversary of the death of a benefactor. Thus, in many of our colleges,
the obit or anniversary of the death of the founder is piously observed.
(See _Commemoration_.) The _obiit Sundays_ (once a quarter) at St.
George’s at Windsor, were celebrated formerly with great magnificence,
and are to a certain degree still. In Kennet’s Register, p. 765, (as
quoted in the Hiereugia Anglicana, p. 211,) there is the following
notice. “1662, Sept. 10.—This day was published the service that is
performed in the King’s Free Chapel of St. George, in the castle of
Windsor, upon Obiit Sunday in the morning, (that is, the Sunday before
every quarter day,) and at the offering up of the achievements of the
deceased Knights of the Garter.
_The Rubric._ The service is the same that is appointed in the Book of
Common Prayer, until you come to the Psalm for the day of the month,
instead of which you have these proper Psalms, xxi., cxlvi., cxlvii.
After the Psalm the junior canon upon the place cometh out of his stall
with the verger before him, and readeth the lesson at the desk, which is
taken out of the forty-fourth chapter of Ecclesiasticus. After the
lesson Te Deum laudamus is sung. After the Te Deum is ended, they all
depart out of the quire in the body of the church to sermon. After
sermon is ended, the canons go to the altar, and the quire go to their
stalls, and the communion service beginneth. The Epistle is taken out of
the twenty-third chapter of Deuteronomy; the Gospel in the fifth of St.
John, beginning at the twenty-fourth and ending at the thirtieth verse.
After the sacrament (which is always on the Obiit Sunday) is ended, and
the blessing given at the altar, the canons go to their stalls, and
these following prayers are read:
_Priest._ O Lord, save the king.
Quire. _And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee._
_Collect._ O Lord, our heavenly Father and merciful Saviour, we praise
and thank thee, O Lord, &c.
God save our gracious sovereign, and all the companions of the most
honourable and noble Order of the Garter.
_Here endeth the obiit service._
The verse and response, O Lord, save the queen, &c., are used daily
after the anthem in St. George’s Chapel.—_Jebb._
OBLATION. An offering to GOD.
In the office for the holy communion we pray GOD to “accept our alms and
oblations.” The word _oblations_ was added to this prayer for the Church
militant here on earth, at the same time that the rubric enjoined, that,
if there be a communion, “the priest is then,” just before this prayer,
“to place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think
sufficient.” Hence it is clearly evident that by that word we are to
understand the elements of bread and wine, which the priest is to offer
solemnly to GOD, as an acknowledgment of his sovereignty over his
creatures, and that from henceforth they may be peculiarly his. For in
all the Jewish sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the
viands or materials of the feast were first made GOD’S by a solemn
oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man’s,
but as GOD’S provision, who, by thus entertaining them at his own table,
declared himself reconciled and again in covenant with them. And
therefore our blessed SAVIOUR, when he instituted the sacrament of his
body and blood, first gave thanks, and blessed the elements, i. e.
offered them up to GOD as the Lord of the creatures, as the most ancient
Fathers expound that passage; who for that reason, whenever they
celebrated the eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the
communion to GOD upon the altar, by this or some such short ejaculation,
“LORD, we offer thine own out of what thou hast bountifully given us.”
After which they received them, as it were, from him again, in order to
convert them into the sacred banquet of the body and blood of his dear
SON. Consonant to this, in the First Common Prayer of King Edward VI.,
the priest was ordered in this place to set the bread and wine upon the
altar. But at the second review, to conciliate the ultra-Protestants,
this ancient usage appears to have been thrown out. It was however
restored at the last review of the Prayer Book in the reign of Charles
II., when it was ordered that the bread and wine should be placed
solemnly on the table by the priest himself. Whence it appears that the
placing of the elements upon the altar before the beginning of the
morning service, by the hands of a lay-clerk or sexton, as is sometimes
the irreverent practice, is a profane breach of the aforesaid
rubric.—_Mede. Wheatly._
The English liturgy is not without a verbal oblation, which occurs at
the beginning of the prayers and commemorations. After the elements have
been placed on the table, and thus devoted to the service and honour of
GOD, the priest prays to GOD thus: “We humbly beseech thee most
mercifully to accept our alms and oblations, and to receive these our
prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty.” Here three species of
sacrifice or oblation are verbally offered: first, the “_alms_,” which
St. Paul describes as a sacrifice well-pleasing to GOD; secondly, the
“_oblations_,” namely, the creatures of bread and wine; thirdly, the
“_prayers_,” which, according to St. John, are offered with incense on
the heavenly altar, and of which the holy Fathers speak as a sacrifice
and oblation to GOD.—_Palmer._
In a more extended sense of the word, we mean by _oblations_ whatever
religious Christians offer to GOD and the Church, whether in lands or
goods. It is probable that the example of St. Paul might incite the
primitive Christians to offer these gifts to the Church; for he
appointed every one of the Corinthians and Galatians to yield something
to _God_ for the saints every LORD’S day: but this being thought too
often, therefore Tertullian tells us it was afterwards done every month,
and then _ad libitum_: but it was always the custom for communicants to
offer something at receiving the sacrament, as well for holy uses, as
for relief of the poor, which custom is, or ought to be, observed at
this day.
In the first ages of the Church, those _deposita pietatis_, which are
mentioned by Tertullian, were all voluntary oblations, and they were
received in lieu of tithes; for the Christians at that time lived
chiefly in cities, and gave out of their common stock, both to maintain
the Church, and those who served at the altar.
But when their numbers increased, and they were spread abroad in the
countries, then a more fixed maintenance was necessary for the clergy;
but still oblations were made by the people, which, if in the mother
Church, then the bishop had half, and the other was divided amongst the
clergy; but if offered in a parish church, then the bishop had a third
part, and no more.
These oblations, which at first were voluntary, became afterwards, by a
continual payment, due by custom.
It is true there are canons which require every one who approaches the
altar to make some oblation to it, as a thing convenient to be done.
And it is probable that, in obedience to the canons, it became customary
for every man who made a will before the Reformation, to devise
something to the high altar of the church where he lived, and something
likewise to the mother church or cathedral; and those who were to be
buried in the church usually gave something towards its reparations.
But at the great festivals all people were obliged to offer something,
not only as convenient, but as a duty; but the proportion was left to
the discretion of the giver; and we think, with great reason, for the
bounty of the Christians in those ages was so great, that men would
build churches on their own lands, on purpose that they might have an
equal share of those oblations with the clergy.
And this might be the occasion that the emperors Constantine and
Valentinian made laws to prohibit such excessive gifts, which in those
days were kept in store-houses built for that very purpose.
But in succeeding ages there was little occasion for such laws, for the
zeal of the people was so considerably abated, that, instead of those
repositories, the clergy had little chests to contain those gifts, till
at last they dwindled into so small a portion, that now, as a quaint
writer observes, they can scarce be felt in the parson’s pocket.
We have the authority of Bishop Patrick to show that, in the prayer
after the Offertory, the elements are specially intended by the word
_oblations_. “We humbly beseech GOD,” he says, “to accept not only our
alms, but also our oblations. These are things distinct; and the former,
_alms_, signifying that which was given for the relief of the poor, the
latter, _oblations_, can signify nothing else but (according to the
style of the ancient Church) the bread and wine presented unto
GOD.”—_Christian Sacrifice_, p. 77. But it is no less unquestionable,
(adds a note in Stephens’s edition of the Common Prayer Book, vol. i. p.
1175,) that this term was also employed to signify money, intended for
the maintenance of the clergy, for the service of God, for merciful
works of the more spiritual kind, and that it sometimes even denotes the
alms for relief of temporal necessities; and numerous authorities exist
to prove that, ecclesiastically speaking, “oblations” were not to be
confined to the sacred elements _exclusively_: although oblations are
expressly distinguished from alms.
The ecclesiastical meanings of the word oblation may be illustrated from
the coronation service of Queen Victoria. Her “first oblation” was a
pall or altar cloth of gold, and an ingot of gold: the next a sword: and
afterwards at the Offertory were two “oblations;” the first being _bread
and wine_ for the communion, which were “by the archbishop received from
the queen, (who was kneeling,) and reverently placed upon the altar, and
decently covered with a fine linen cloth:” with a prayer, “Bless, O
LORD, we beseech thee, these thy gifts, and sanctify them unto their
holy use,” &c. “Then the queen, kneeling as before, makes her second
oblation, a purse of gold;” and then follows a prayer to God “to receive
_these oblations_.”
OCTAVE. The octave is the _eighth day_ after any principal festival of
the Church. In ancient times it was customary to observe these days with
much devotion, including the whole period also from the festival to the
octave. It was thought that the subject and occasion of these high
festivals called for their being lengthened out in this manner; and the
period of eight days was chosen because the Jews celebrated their
greater feasts, some for seven days, and the feast of Tabernacles for
eight days. Such Jewish institutions being only types and shadows, the
Christians thought it fit not to have their commemorations of shorter
duration.
In our Prayer Book we retain the observance of the octaves of Christmas,
Easter, Ascension, and Whitsunday, by using, for seven days after each
of these festivals, an appropriate “Preface,” in the Communion Service,
if that sacrament is administered on any of these days. The preface for
Whitsunday is, however, only to be used for _six_ days after, because
the seventh (or octave of Whitsunday) would be Trinity Sunday, which has
a preface of its own.
The first two days of the octaves of Easter and Whitsunday have special
services, and in some cathedrals are observed with nearly the same
solemnity as the festival itself. It appears by the _Pietas
Londinensis_, published in 1714, that in the church of St. Dunstan in
the West, the holy communion was administered on every day during the
octaves of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide.—_Jebb._
OFFERING DAYS. “The four general offering days,” Bishop Cosin says, “in
the Church of England enjoined by convocation in 1536, [ought to be
1537,] were Christmas Day, St. John Baptist’s Day, St. Michael’s Day,
[Easter Day.] Which order is in some places still observed, and the king
and queen in their chapel royal, or wherever they be at church on those
days, never omit it, but arise from their seat and go in solemn manner
to present their offering upon their knees at God’s altar. And then is
read by the priest or bishop attending, the sentence here prescribed, 1
Cor. ix.”—_Jebb._
OFFERTORY. So called, because it is that part of the Communion Service
in which the _offerings_ are made. The custom of making oblations at the
communion is certainly apostolical, as appears from 1 Cor. xvi. 2: “On
the first day of the week let every one lay by him in store as GOD hath
prospered him.” Which custom continued down to the following ages, as
appears from different passages in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St.
Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and other ancient writers. Out of those offerings,
which were not always in money, but in bread, wine, corn, &c., were
taken as much bread and wine as served for the celebration of the
communion at the time; but if any persons were under public infamy, by
reason of any ill actions by them committed, their offerings were not to
be received. These offerings in the primitive times were so
considerable, that they were divided into four portions; one for the
relief of the poor; the second the bishop retained for his maintenance;
the third was for the maintenance of the church and its ornaments; and
the fourth for the clergy. The office of the Offertory was used in
Walafrid Strabo’s time, who lived in the middle of the ninth century;
and it was so long before his time, that he could not tell to whom to
ascribe its original.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Formerly, Mr. Palmer observes, this anthem was probably sung in choirs.
The sentences at the Offertory are set to varied melodies, in Marbeck’s
book, according to the licence given in King Edward VI.’s First Book,
either to sing or say them. This licence is withdrawn by the rubric as
it now stands, so altered in King Edward’s Second Book, since the saying
of the sentences by the priest is expressly enjoined. Of the old custom
a vestige is preserved in the ceremony of the installation of Knights of
the Garter, and formerly was at coronations.
OFFICIAL. The official is the person to whom cognisance of causes is
committed by such as have an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The official
of an archdeacon stands in like relation to him as the chancellor does
to the bishop.
OGEE. (_Ogive_, French.) An inflected curve; a curve formed of two
segments of a circle, one struck from one side, and the other from the
other side of the same right line. This curve occurs chiefly in
mouldings, and is principally characteristic of the Decorated style; but
it occurs in other styles also, and has several variations according to
its place and date. The word is used in French as a generic term for
pointed architecture.
OPHITÆ (from ὄφις, _a serpent_); also called _Serpentinians_. A
ridiculous sort of heretics, who had for their leader a man called
Euphrates. They entertained almost the same fantastic opinions that were
holden by the other Egyptian Gnostics concerning the _æons_, the
_eternal matter_, the _creation of the world_ in opposition to the will
of GOD, the _rulers of the seven planets_ that presided over this world,
the _tyranny of Demiurge_, and also concerning CHRIST united to the man
JESUS, in order to destroy the empire of this usurper. But besides
these, they maintained the following particular tenet (whence they
received the name of _Ophites_): “That the _Serpent_ by which our first
parents were deceived, was either CHRIST himself, or _Sophia_,
[_Wisdom_,] concealed under the form of that animal;” and in consequence
of this opinion they are said to have nourished a certain number of
serpents, which they looked upon as sacred, and to which they offered a
sort of worship, a subordinate kind of divine honours. There is some
curious information about the Ophitæ in the lately discovered work of
Hippolytus.
OPTION. An archbishop had the choice or option of any one dignity or
benefice in the gift of every bishop consecrated or confirmed by him,
which he may confer on his chaplain, or whom else he pleases. This was
styled his _option_. The privilege has been relinquished by English
archbishops since 1845, in consequence of a construction put on some
words in the cathedral act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, sect. 42). “That it
shall not be lawful for any spiritual person to sell or _assign_ any
patronage or presentation belonging to him by virtue of any dignity or
spiritual office held by him.”
Bishop Sherlock, on his appointment to the see of London in 1749, had a
dispute with Archbishop Herring as to the right of option. A compromise
took place: but the bishop printed a pamphlet on the subject in 1755. It
never was published, and but 50 copies were printed.—_Heylin’s Life of
Bishop Sherlock_, prefixed to his Works, vol. i. lx.
OPUS OPERATUM. An expression frequently occurring in discussions
respecting the efficacy of the sacraments, &c., importing a necessary
spiritual effect flowing from the outward administration, (from _the
thing done_,) irrespective of the moral qualities of the recipient. This
doctrine is alleged as one of the corruptions of the Church of Rome,
and, if carried out, would obviously equalize, in a great measure, the
benefits received by the worthy and the unworthy who approach the altar,
and would justify the administration of baptism to the heathen, &c., not
only on consent, but by the application of physical force.
In a certain sense it is unquestionably true, that all the appointed
means of grace have an effect _ex opere operato_, inasmuch as the act
itself, though inefficacious in its own nature, is an institution of
GOD, and consecrated by him as an instrument not to be made void at the
caprice of man. Thus, the preaching of the gospel is inevitably a savour
of life or of death. The administration of baptism is invariably an
admission into the Church. But that the use of an appointed ordinance
goes beyond this, and results in all cases in a moral effect on the
individual, and in the insuring of higher portions of Divine grace _ex
necessitate_, is contrary to the views of the Church, the doctrine of
Scripture, and the preservation of man’s free agency.
ORARIUM. (See _Stole_.)
ORATORIO. In Church music, a musical drama, of which the subject is
always sacred, and intended to be performed in a church. The origin of
this kind of spiritual and musical drama, which has now run into great
excesses, is found in the plan of Filippo Neri, in the early part of the
sixteenth century, to arrest the attention of those to whom he preached,
by procuring the execution of pieces of sacred music of more than common
interest before and after his sermon. This custom, which commenced in
the congregation of the Oratory, (whence the name Oratorio,) was
imitated by all the societies of the same foundation, and soon became so
popular, that the best masters, both in composition and in execution,
were found to take a part in it. The performance in the time of Filippo
Neri himself was scarcely more than a cantata, but it soon after assumed
a more perfectly dramatic form, being distributed between several
persons, and accompanied with action and scenic representation, so as to
present much of the character of a musical mystery. (See _Moralities_.)
In this way many sacred subjects were performed, such as Job and his
friends, the Good Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son.
_Oratorio_ derived its name from the Oratorio, or chapel in the church
of St. Girolamo della Carita at Rome, where Filippo Neri’s confraternity
assembles. (See _Priests of the Oratory_.)
In England, oratorios have been much used in our cathedrals. Among the
most celebrated oratorios are _the Messiah_ of Handel, and _the
Creation_ of Haydn.
ORATORY. A name given by Christians to certain places of religious
worship.
In ecclesiastical antiquity, the term houses of prayer, or _oratories_,
is frequently given to churches in general, of which there are
innumerable instances in ancient Christian writers. But in some canons
the name _oratory_ seems confined to private chapels, or places of
worship set up for the convenience of private families, yet still
depending on the parochial churches, and differing from them in this,
that they were only places of prayer, but not for celebrating the
communion; or, if that were at any time allowed to private families,
yet, at least, upon great and solemn festivals, they were to resort for
communion to the parish churches.—_Broughton._
ORATORY, PRIESTS OF THE. There are two congregations of monks, one in
Italy, the other in France, which are called by this name.
The priests of the oratory in Italy had for their founder, Philip de
Neri, a native of Florence, who, in the year 1548, founded at Rome the
Confraternity of the Holy Trinity. This society originally consisted of
but fifteen poor persons, who assembled in the church of St. Saviour _in
campo_, every first Sunday in the month, to practise the exercises of
piety prescribed by the holy founder. The pope gave leave to assemble in
the church of St. Girolamo dell Carita, from the _Oratorio_ or chapel in
which church they derived their name. Afterwards, their number
increasing, by the addition to the society of several persons of
distinction, Neri proceeded to establish an hospital for the reception
of poor pilgrims, who, coming to Rome to visit the tombs of St. Peter
and St. Paul, were obliged, for want of a lodging, to lie in the
streets, and at the doors of the churches. For this charitable purpose,
Pope Paul IV. gave to the society the parochial church of St. Benedict,
close by which church was built an hospital so large, that, in the
Jubilee year, 1600, it received 44,500 men, and 25,500 women, who came
in pilgrimage to Rome.
Philip Neri, besides this charitable foundation for pilgrims, held
spiritual conferences at Rome, in a large chamber accommodated in the
form of an oratory: in which he was assisted by the famous Baronius,
author of the “Ecclesiastical Annals.” Here were delivered lectures of
religion and morality, and the auditors were instructed in
ecclesiastical history. The assembly always ended with prayers, and
hymns to the glory of GOD; after which, the founder, and his companions,
visited the churches and hospitals, and took care of the sick. And now
it was that this religious society began to be called _Priests of the
Oratory_.
In 1574, the Florentines at Rome, with the permission of Pope Gregory
XIII., built a very spacious oratory, in which Neri continued his
religious assemblies. The pope likewise gave him the parochial church of
Vallicella, and, the same year, approved the constitutions he had drawn
up for the government of his congregation, of which St. Philip himself
was the first general.
This new institute soon made a great progress, and divers other
establishments were made on the same model; particularly at Naples,
Milan, Fermo, and Palermo. The founder having resigned the office of
general, he was succeeded therein by Baronius, who was afterwards
promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. Neri died the 25th of May, 1595,
and was canonized in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. After his death, this
congregation made a further progress in Italy, and has produced several
cardinals and eminent writers, as Baronius, Oderic Rainaldi, and others.
The priests of the Oratory in France were established upon the model of
those in Italy, and owe their rise to Cardinal Berulle, a native of
Champagne; who resolved upon this foundation, in order to revive the
splendour of the ecclesiastical state, which was greatly sunk through
the miseries of the civil wars, the increase of heresies, and a general
corruption of manners. To this end he assembled a community of
ecclesiastics, in 1611, in the suburb of St. James, where is at present
the famous monastery of Val-de-Grace. They obtained the king’s letters
patent for their establishment; and, in 1613, Pope Paul V. approved this
congregation under the title of the Oratory of JESUS.
This congregation consisted of two sorts of persons; the one, as it
were, incorporated, the other only associates. The former governed the
houses of this institute; the latter were only employed in forming
themselves to the life and manners of ecclesiastics. And this was the
true spirit of this congregation, in which they taught neither human
learning, nor theology, but only the virtues of the ecclesiastical life.
After the death of Cardinal Berulle, which happened the 2nd of October,
1629, the priests of the Oratory made a great progress in France and
other countries. This order had eleven houses in the Low Countries, one
at Liege, two in the county of Avignon, and one in Savoy, besides
fifty-eight in France. The first house, which was, as it were, the
mother of all the rest, was that of the street St. Honoré, at Paris,
where the general resided. The priests of this congregation were not,
properly speaking, monks, being obliged to no vows, and their institute
being purely ecclesiastical or sacerdotal.—_Broughton._ The Oratorians
have lately appeared in England.
ORDEAL. An appeal to the judgment of Almighty GOD, in criminal cases,
when the innocence or guilt of the accused rested on insufficient
evidence.
Among the Saxons and Normans, if any person was charged with theft,
adultery, murder, treason, perjury, &c., in these cases, if the person
neither pleaded guilty, nor could be convicted by legal evidence, it was
either in the prosecutor’s or judge’s power to put him upon the ordeal;
and provided he passed through this test unhurt, he was discharged;
otherwise he was put into the hands of justice, to be punished as the
law directed, in case he had been cast by the ordinary forms of
prosecution. For we are to observe, that this trial by ordeal was not
designed for the punishment of those in whose cases the ordinary forms
had miscarried; the intention of it was rather to clear the truth, where
it could not be otherwise discovered, and make way for the execution of
the law.
There are several sorts of this inquiry; the trial was sometimes made by
cold, and sometimes by scalding, water; sometimes by ploughshares, or
bars of iron, heated burning hot; sometimes the accused purged their
innocence by receiving the sacrament; and sometimes by eating a piece of
barley bread called the corsned.
In the trial by cold water, the persons suspected were thrown naked into
a pond, or river: if they sank they were acquitted, but if they floated
upon the river without any swimming postures it was taken for an
evidence of guilt.
When scalding water was the test, they were to plunge their arm in a
tub, or kettle, to the elbow; if this was done without any signs of
pain, or marks of scalding, the person was discharged; but if there was
the least complaint under the operation, or any scar or impression to be
seen, it was taken for proof against him. Slaves, peasants, and people
of mean condition, were put upon this water ordeal.
Persons of figure and quality were generally tried by the burning iron.
This ordeal had different circumstances in proportion to the crimes
objected. If the person was only impeached for a single crime, the iron
was to weigh but one pound: but if he was prosecuted upon several
articles, the weight of the iron was to increase proportionably; and
here the person impeached was either to hold a burning ball of iron in
his hand, and move with it to a certain distance, or else to walk
barefoot upon heated ploughshares, placed about a yard from each other.
If after this trial his hands and feet were untouched, and he discovered
no signs of feeling any pain, he was discharged by the court; but if the
matter fell out otherwise, he was remitted to the punishment of the law.
Before the person accused was brought to the ordeal, he was obliged to
swear his innocence, and sometimes receive the holy eucharist.
The Christians of this age had a strong reliance upon this way of trial,
not in the least doubting but that GOD would suspend the force of
nature, and clear the truth by a supernatural interposition. If we may
believe the records of those times, we shall find that innocent persons
were frequently rescued, in a surprising manner, perhaps by some skilful
management on the part of the authorities aware of the fact.
To proceed to some of the preliminaries of the ordeal. After the charge
was legally brought in, the person impeached was to spend three days in
fasting and prayer. At the day of the trial, which was made in the
church, the priest, appearing in the habit of his function, took up the
iron which lay before the altar, and, repeating the hymn of the Three
Children, put it into the fire. This being done, he proceeded to some
forms of benediction over the fire and iron; after which, he sprinkled
the iron with holy water, and made the sign of the cross in the name of
the Blessed TRINITY: upon which the person accused passed through the
test.
The ceremony of the scalding water ordeal was much the same. But when
the trial was to be made by cold water, the three days’ fast and the
other religious circumstances being premised, the person suspected drank
a draught of holy water, to which the priest added an imprecation in
case he was guilty: then the water, into which the presumed criminal was
to be thrown, had a sort of exorcising form of prayer said over it; by
which the element was, as it were, conjured, by the most solemn
expressions, to detect the guilty and discover the truth.
The bread called the _corsned_ was another way of trial. The person
prosecuted took an ounce of it fasting, or sometimes the same quantity
in cheese, and sometimes the holy eucharist. Immediately before this was
done, the priest read the Litany proper to the occasion, and proceeded
to another prayer, in which he desired that GOD would please to bring
the truth of the matter in question to light, and that the evil spirits
might have no power to perplex the inquiry, and prevent the discovery;
that if the person was guilty, the morsel might stick in his throat and
find no passage; that his face might turn pale, his limbs be convulsed,
and an horrible alteration appear in his whole body; but if innocent, he
desired that which the party received might make its way easily into his
stomach, and turn to health and nourishment.
Notwithstanding the commonness of this custom in England, and other
parts of Christendom, it began to be disliked at last, and fell several
times under the censure of the Church and State: thus Louis, and
Lotharius his successor, emperors of Germany, positively forbade the
ordeal by cold water. The trial likewise by scalding water, and burning
iron, was condemned by Pope Stephen V. It is probable they might think
it a rash way of proceeding, and a tempting of GOD; and that it was
unreasonable to put innocence upon supernatural proof, and pronounce a
man guilty, unless he had a miracle to acquit him. The first public
discountenance of it from the State which we meet with in England, was
in the third year of King Henry III. Most of the judges in their
circuits received an order from the king and council not to put any
person upon the trial ordeal, in regard it was prohibited by the court
of Rome. This order of the king and council, Sir Edward Coke, as Sir
Henry Spelman observes, mistakes for an act of parliament. It is true,
as that learned antiquary goes on to say, at that time of day, a public
regulation, passed in council, and sealed with the king’s seal, had the
force of a law. It must, however, be said, this prohibition does not run
to the judges of all the circuits; but, it may be, the rest of the
justices might receive the same instructions another way. And though we
meet with no express law afterwards to this purpose, yet this method of
trial, standing condemned by the canons, languished by degrees, and at
last grew quite out of practice.
ORDER. The rules or laws of a monastic institution; and afterwards, in a
secondary sense, the several monastics living under the same rule or
order. Thus the _Order of Clugni_ signifies literally the new rule of
discipline prescribed by Odo to the Benedictines already assembled in
the monastery of Clugni; but secondarily, and in the more popular sense,
the great body of monastic institutions, wherever established, which
voluntarily subjected themselves to the same rule.
ORDERS, HOLY. (See _Bishop_, _Clergy_, _Deacon_, _Ordinal_,
_Ordination_, _Presbyter_, _Priest_.) “It is evident unto all men
diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient authors, that from
the apostles’ time there have been these orders of ministers in CHRIST’S
Church; bishops, priests, and deacons. Which offices were evermore had
in such reverent estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of
them except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have
such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer,
with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful
authority. And therefore, to the intent that these orders might be
continued and reverently used and esteemed, in the united Church of
England and Ireland, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a bishop,
priest, or deacon in the united Church of England or Ireland, or
suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called,
tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter
following, or hath _had formerly episcopal consecration or
ordination_.”—_Preface to the English Ordinal._
As it is here said, in the ancient Church these three orders of
ministry, as established by CHRIST and his apostles, universally
prevailed. But, besides the bishops, priests, and deacons, there were,
in most of the Churches, other ecclesiastical persons of inferior rank,
who were allowed to take part in the ministrations of religion. These
constituted what are called the _inferior orders_, and in some of the
ancient canons they have the name of “clergy.”
There is this great difference between the three holy orders and the
others, that the former are everywhere mentioned as those degrees of men
whose ministrations were known and distinguished, and without which no
Church was looked upon as complete; but to show that the inferior orders
were never thought to be necessary in the same degree, let it be
considered, that different Churches, or the same Church in different
ages, had more or fewer of the inferior orders. In some were only
_readers_; in others, _subdeacons_, _exorcists_, _and acolyths_. The
Apostolic Canons mention only _subdeacons_, _readers_, _and singers_.
The Laodicean enumerate these, and also _exorcists and ostiaries_. But
while there was no standing rule respecting these merely ecclesiastical
orders, the three essential grades of the ministry were found in all
parts of the Church.
In the Church of England, the following are the regulations respecting
admission to Holy Orders observed in the various dioceses, as given in
Hodgson’s “Instructions.”
Persons desirous of being admitted as candidates for deacon’s orders,
are recommended to make a written application to the bishop,[10] six
months before the time of ordination, stating their age, college,
academical degree, and the usual place of their residence; together with
the names of any persons of respectability to whom they are best known,
and to whom the bishop may apply, if he thinks fit, for further
information concerning them.
The following six papers are to be sent by a candidate for deacon’s
orders, to the bishop in whose diocese the curacy which is to serve as a
title is situate, three weeks before the day of ordination, or at such
other time as the bishop shall appoint; and in due time he will be
informed by the bishop’s secretary when and where to attend for
examination.
1. Letters testimonial from his college; and in case the candidate shall
have quitted college, he must also present letters testimonial for the
period elapsed since he quitted college, in the following form, signed
by three beneficed clergymen, and countersigned by the bishop of the
diocese in which their benefices are respectively situate, if they are
not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom the candidate applies
for ordination.
2. Form of letters testimonial for orders.
“To the [11]Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of ——
[_the bishop in whose diocese the curacy conferring the title is
situate_].
Whereas our beloved in Christ, A. B., bachelor of arts, (_or other
degree_,) of —— college, in the university of ——, hath declared to us
his intention of offering himself as a candidate for the sacred office
of a deacon, and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial
of his good life and conversation; we therefore, whose names are
hereunto subscribed, do testify that the said A. B. hath been personally
known to us for the space of[12]—— last past; that we have had
opportunities of observing his conduct; that during the whole of that
time we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly, and honestly; nor
have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath he
at any time, as far as we know or believe, held, written, or taught
anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the united Church of
England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe him, in our consciences,
to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be admitted to the
sacred order of deacons.
In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names, this —— day
of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.
[13]C. D. rector of ——.
E. F. vicar of ——.
G. H. rector of ——.”
[_Countersignature._]
3. Form of notice or “Si quis,” and of the certificate of the same
having been published in the church of the parish where the
candidate usually resides, to be presented by the candidate if he
shall have quitted college.
“Notice is hereby given, that A. B., bachelor of arts, (_or other
degree_,) of —— college, Oxford, [_or_ Cambridge,] and now resident in
this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the holy office of
a deacon, at the ensuing ordination of the Lord Bishop of ——;[14] and if
any person knows any just cause or impediment for which he ought not to
be admitted into holy orders, he is now to declare the same, or to
signify the same forthwith to the Lord Bishop of ——.
We do hereby certify, that the above notice was publicly read by the
undersigned C. D., in the parish church of ——, in the county of ——,
during the time of Divine service on Sunday the —— day of last [_or_
instant], and no impediment was alleged.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.
C. D. officiating minister.
E. F. churchwarden.”
4. Certificate from the divinity professor in the university, that the
candidate has duly attended his lectures. Also a certificate from any
other professor whose lectures the candidate may have been directed by
the bishop to attend.
5. Certificate of the candidate’s baptism, from the register book of the
parish where he was baptized, duly signed, by the officiating minister,
to show that he has completed his age of twenty-three years; and in case
he shall have attained that age, but cannot produce a certificate of his
baptism, then his father or mother, or other competent person, must make
a declaration, before a justice of the peace, of the actual time of his
birth: and here it may be necessary to remark, that by an act of the 44
Geo. III. c. 43, intituled “An Act to enforce the due observance of the
canons and rubric respecting the ages of persons to be admitted into the
sacred order of deacon and priest,” it is enacted, that thenceforth no
person shall be admitted a deacon before he shall have attained the age
of three and twenty years complete; and that no person shall be admitted
a priest before he shall have attained the age of four and twenty years
complete: and that if a person shall be admitted a deacon before he
shall have attained the age of twenty-three years complete, or a priest
before he shall have attained the age of twenty-four years complete,
such admission shall be void in law; and the person so admitted shall be
incapable of holding any ecclesiastical preferment.
6. The form of a nomination to serve as a title for orders, if the
incumbent is non-resident.
To the Right Reverend ——, Lord Bishop of ——.
These are to certify your lordship, that I, C. D., rector [_or_ vicar,
&c.] of ——, in the county of ——, and your lordship’s diocese of ——, do
hereby nominate A. B., bachelor of arts, (_or other degree_,) of ——
college in the university of ——, to perform the office of curate in my
church of —— aforesaid; and do promise to allow him the yearly stipend
of —— pounds, to be paid by equal quarterly payments, [_as to amount of
stipend, see title “Stipends payable to Curates,”_] with the surplice
fees, amounting on an average to —— pounds per annum, (_if they are
intended to be allowed_,) and the use of the glebe-house, garden, and
offices, which he is to occupy (_if that be the fact; if not, state the
reason, and name where and what distance[15] from the church the curate
purposes to reside_): and I do hereby state to your lordship, that the
said A. B. does not intend to serve, as curate, in any other parish, nor
to officiate in any other church or chapel (_if such be the fact,
otherwise state the real fact_); that the net annual value of my said
benefice, estimated according to the act of parliament 1 & 2 Victoria,
c. 106, sects. 8 and 10, is —— pounds, and the population thereof,
according to the latest returns of population made under the authority
of parliament, is ——. That there is only one church belonging to my said
benefice (_if there be another church or chapel, state the fact_); and
that I was admitted to the said benefice on the —— day of —— 18—.[16]
“And I do hereby promise and engage with your lordship and the said A.
B., that I will continue to employ the said A. B., in the office of
curate in my said church, until he shall be otherwise provided of some
ecclesiastical preferment, unless, for any fault by him committed, he
shall be lawfully removed from the same; and I hereby solemnly declare
that I do not fraudulently give this certificate, to entitle the said A.
B. to receive holy orders, but with a real intention to employ him in my
said church, according to what is before expressed.”
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord 18—.
[_Signature and address of_] C. D.
_Declaration [to be written at the foot of the Nomination]._
“We the before-named C. D. and A. B. do declare to the said Lord Bishop
of ——, as follows; namely, I the said C. D. do declare that I _bonâ
fide_ intend to pay, and I the said A. B. do declare that I _bonâ fide_
intend to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in the foregoing
nomination and statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or
consideration for the use of the glebe-house, garden, and offices
thereby agreed to be assigned, and without any other deduction or
reservation whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, 18—.
[_Signatures of_] C. D.
A. B.”
6. (_a_) The form of nomination to serve as a title for orders, if the
incumbent is resident.
The same form as No. 6, so far as “quarterly payments;” then proceed as
follows:—And I do hereby state to your lordship, that the said A. B.
intends to reside in the said parish, in a house [_describe its
situation, so as clearly to identify it_], distant from my church ——
mile [_if_ A. B. _does not intend to reside in the parish, then state at
what place he intends to reside, and its distance from the said
church_]; that the said A. B. does not intend to serve, as curate, any
other parish, nor to officiate in any other church or chapel (_if such
be the fact, otherwise state the real fact_); and I do hereby promise
and engage with your lordship, and so on [_in the same form as No. 6, to
the end_].
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, 18—.
[_Signature and address of_] C. D.
The declaration to be written at the foot of the nomination is to be in
the same form as No. 6, so far as the word “statement,” after which
proceed as follows:—“Without any deduction or reservation whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, 18—.
[_Signatures of_] C. D.
A. B.”
It is proper to observe, that the following declaration is to be
subscribed previous to ordination, in the bishop’s presence, by all
persons who are to be ordained:—
“I, A. B., do willingly, and from my heart, subscribe to the thirty-nine
articles of religion of the united Church of England and Ireland, and to
the three articles in the thirty-sixth canon; and to all things therein
contained.”
N. B.—The following are the three articles referred to:
“1. That the Queen’s majesty, under GOD, is the only supreme governor of
this realm, and of all other her highness’s dominions and countries, as
well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal;
and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath,
or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or
authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within her majesty’s said
realms, dominions, and countries.
“2. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests,
and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of GOD, and
that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form
in the said book prescribed, in public prayer and administration of the
sacraments, and none other.
“3. That he alloweth the book of articles of religion, agreed upon by
the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy, in
the convocation holden at London, in the year of our LORD one thousand
five hundred sixty and two; and that he acknowledgeth all and every the
articles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty, besides the
ratification, to be agreeable to the word of GOD.”
_Oaths to be taken by those who are to be ordained, at the time of
Ordination._
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
“I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and
bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria. So help me GOD.”
THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.
“I, A. B., do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure,
as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that
princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the
see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm. So help me GOD.”
The act of parliament 59 Geo. III. c. 60, contains directions for the
use and guidance of candidates for orders who are to officiate as
clergymen in the colonies, or for her Majesty’s foreign possessions.
_Instructions as to Priest’s orders._[17]
The following papers are to be sent by a candidate for priest’s orders
to the bishop, three weeks before the day of ordination, or at such
other time as the bishop shall appoint, and in due time he will be
informed by the bishop’s secretary when and where to attend for
examination.
Where a candidate applies for priest’s orders to the same bishop who
ordained him deacon, the papers 1 and 2 only are required.
1. Letters testimonial of his sound doctrine, good life, and behaviour,
for the time elapsed since he was ordained deacon, signed by three
beneficed clergymen, and countersigned by the bishop of the diocese in
which their benefices are respectively situate, if not beneficed in the
diocese of the bishop to whom the candidate applies for ordination. (See
_Form of Testimonial, in Instructions as to Deacon’s Orders, No. 2_.)
2. Notice, or “Si quis,” and certificate of the publication thereof.
(See _Form thereof, in the Instructions as to Deacon’s Orders, No. 3_.)
In case the candidate was ordained deacon by the bishop of another
diocese, he must produce not only the papers, Nos. 1 and 2, but also the
following papers, Nos. 3, 4, and 5.
As it is not common for a deacon to be ordained priest by any other than
the bishop who admitted him to deacon’s orders, a candidate applying to
the bishop of another diocese must, in the first instance, state to him
the particular circumstances which occasion the application, the curacy
which he served, and for what period.
3. Letters of deacon’s orders.
4. A certificate of baptism.
5. Nomination, if not already licensed.
The same subscriptions and oaths are made and taken by candidates for
priest’s orders, as by candidates for deacon’s orders.
With respect to foreign Protestants, Palmer observes: “We are not bound
to condemn Presbyterian orders in every case: for instance, the
appointment of ministers by the Protestants in Germany during the
Reformation, was most probably _invalid_; and yet, considering their
difficulties, the fact of their appeal to a general council, their
expectation of reunion with the Church, and therefore the impossibility
of establishing a rival hierarchy, I think we are not bound to condemn
their appointments of ministers, as many learned and orthodox writers
have done; who, however, seem not to have observed the peculiarities of
their position, and to have supposed that they were at once definitively
separated from the Roman churches. Certain differences of opinion, then,
in reference to the question of Presbyterian ordinations, may exist
without any material inconvenience.
“That ordinations by mere presbyters are, (however _excusable_ under
circumstances of great difficulty,) in fact, _unauthorized and invalid_,
is the more usual sentiment of theologians, and is most accordant with
Scripture, and with the practice of the Catholic Church in general, and
of our Churches in particular, which do not recognise any such
ordinations.”
ORDERS OF MONKS. The several orders of monks are distinguished in this
manner by their habits. The White Friars are canons regular of the order
of St. Augustine. Grey Friars are Cistercian monks, who changed their
black habit into a grey one. The Black Friars are Benedictines.
ORDINAL. The Ordinal is that book which contains the forms observed in
the Church for making, ordaining, and consecrating, bishops, priests,
and deacons. In the liturgy established in the second year of King
Edward VI., there was also a form of consecrating and ordaining of
bishops, priests, and deacons, not much differing from the present form.
Afterwards, by the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10, it was enacted that all books
heretofore used for the service of the Church, other than such as shall
be set forth by the king’s majesty, shall be clearly abolished (s. 1).
And by the 5 & 6 Edward VI. c. 1, it is thus enacted: The king, with the
assent of the lords and commons in parliament, has annexed the Book of
Common Prayer to this present statute, adding also a form and manner of
making and consecrating of archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons,
to be of like force and authority as the Book of Common Prayer. And, by
Art. 36: “The book of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and
ordering of priests and deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward
VI., and confirmed at the same time by authority of parliament, doth
contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither
hath it anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And
therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of
that book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this
time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same
rites, we declare all such to be rightly ordered, and lawfully
consecrated and ordered.” And by Canon 8: “Whosoever shall affirm or
teach, that the form and manner of making and consecrating bishops,
priests, and deacons, containeth anything that is repugnant to the word
of GOD; or that they who are made bishops, priests, and deacons, in that
form, are not lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted either by
themselves or others to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons,
until they have some other calling to those Divine offices, let him be
excommunicated, _ipso facto_, not to be restored until he repent and
publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”
The form in which orders are conferred in our Church is this: “The
bishop, with the priests present, shall lay their hands severally upon
the head of every one that receiveth the order of priesthood; the
receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying, ‘Receive the HOLY
GHOST for the office and work of a priest, in the Church of GOD, _now
committed unto thee_ by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou
dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they
are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of GOD, and
of his holy sacraments: in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and
of the HOLY GHOST.’” In the office for the ordering of deacons, the
bishop lays on his hands, but does not use the words, “Receive the HOLY
GHOST,” &c., or grant authority to forgive or retain sins. In the office
for the consecration of bishops, the form is thus: “Then the archbishop
and bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected
bishop, kneeling before them on his knees, the archbishop saying,
‘Receive the HOLY GHOST for the office and work of a bishop in the
Church of GOD, now committed unto thee by the laying on of our hands, in
the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST. Amen. And
remember that thou stir up _the grace of_ GOD _which is given thee_ BY
_the imposition of our hands_, for GOD hath not given us the spirit of
fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.’”
Several Protestant dissenting communities have taken it upon themselves
to lay on hands when a person is elected to the dissenting ministry; but
none, that we are aware of, have ever assumed the solemn office of thus
conferring the grace of GOD by the imposition of human hands, which
would clearly be blasphemous, except there existed a commission from GOD
to do so, which commission, without the apostolical succession, cannot
be proved, unless by miracle. This form has given great offence to many
conscientious ultra-Protestants. Attempts are sometimes made to explain
the words away; but such explanations have been seldom found
satisfactory, except to those whose interest it is to be satisfied. It
is evident that they are to be understood simply, clearly,
unequivocally, to express that the grace of GOD is given by the
imposition of the bishop’s hands; and that if we speak of this as
superstitious or ungodly, we are, as may be seen from the 36th Article
and the 8th Canon, under the anathema of our Church. On the other hand,
the comfort is indescribably great to those who believe that grace
ministerial is thus conveyed in attending the ministry of the Church;
the efficacy of the ministrations of whose ministers depends not on the
merit or talent of the individual, but on the grace of GOD, of which he
is the authorized, though unworthy, dispenser.
ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH. Rites ordained by GOD to be means of grace,
such as, 1. Baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19); 2. The LORD’S supper (Matt.
xxvi. 26; 1 Cor. xi. 24, &c.); 3. Preaching and reading the word (Mark
xvi. 15; Rom. x. 15); 4. Hearing the gospel (Mark iv. 24; Rom. x. 17);
5. Public and private prayer (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 19; Matt. vi. 6; Ps. v. 1,
7); 6. Singing of psalms (Col. iii. 16; Eph. v. 19); 7. Fasting (Matt.
ix. 15; Joel ii. 12); 8. Solemn thanksgiving (Ps. ix. 14; 1 Thess. v.
18). See _Rites_.
ORDINARY. The person who has ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as of course
and of common right, in opposition to persons who are extraordinarily
appointed. In some acts of parliament we find the bishop called
ordinary, and so he is taken at the common law, as having ordinary
jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical; albeit, in a more general
acceptation, the word _Ordinary_ signifies any judge authorized to take
cognizance of causes in his own proper right, as he is a magistrate, and
not by way of deputation or delegation.
ORDINATION. (See _Orders_.) The apostles appointed bishops, priests, and
deacons, to be the standing guides and governors of the Church; and
because there should be a succession of them continued in all ages, for
the peace and preservation of those churches which they had planted,
therefore it is necessary that there should be a power lodged somewhere,
to set apart some distinct orders of men to those public offices, and
this is called ordination. Many dissenting sects hold it necessary that
there should be such a power, but they dispute where it is. Some affirm
that a man ought not to take upon him the ministry without a lawful
call, which is very true. They likewise agree that ordination ought to
be continued, and they define it to be a solemn setting apart of some
person to a church office; but they say it is only to be done by
preaching presbyters, and that those who are not set apart themselves
for the work of the ministry, have no power to join in setting apart
others for that purpose; and this form of ordination was proposed to the
parliament, in the year 1643, by an assembly of those persons, in order
to be ratified. There is another sort of people who hold that where
there are no such preaching presbyters, in such case, other persons,
sufficiently qualified and approved for their gifts and graces by other
ministers, being chosen by the people, and set apart for the ministry,
by prayer and fasting in the congregation, may exercise that office, so
that some place the power of ordination in simple presbyters, and others
in the people. There are others who maintain that ordination is not to
be justified by Scripture, and that the word itself signifies a lifting
up of hands, and is used in Scripture for giving a vote, which in all
popular assemblies is customary even at this day: from whence they infer
that the Christian churches were at first democratical, that is, the
whole congregation chose their pastor; and that by virtue of such choice
he did not pretend to any peculiar jurisdiction distinct from others,
but he was only approved by the congregation for his parts, and
appointed to instruct the people, to visit the sick, and to perform all
other offices of a minister, and at other times he followed his trade;
and that the Christians in those days had no notion how a pastor could
pretend to any succession to qualify him for the ministry, for that the
pretence of dispensing divine things by a mere human constitution was
such an absurdity that it could not be reconciled to reason.
This and many more such calumnies were cast on ordination, and the
bishops themselves were called ordination-mongers; but it was by those
who alleged that the purity of the Christian religion, and the good and
orderly government of the world, had been much better provided for
without any clergy. But we will show from Scripture, from antiquity, and
from the concurrent testimony of the Fathers, that bishops had, and
ought to have, the power of ordination.
When our SAVIOUR established the Christian Church, he made his apostles
governors thereof, and vested them with a power to ordain others to the
ministry; and, accordingly, they ordained the seven deacons, and
consecrated St. James bishop of Jerusalem, and he ordained presbyters of
that church. That Timothy, as soon as he was made bishop of Ephesus by
the great apostle of the Gentiles, but not before, had this power of
ordination, is allowed by St. Chrysostom himself, who magnified the
power of presbyters more than any of the Fathers; and he proves it thus,
viz. because St. Paul gave Timothy a caution, not to admit any one
rashly to an ecclesiastical office. It is true he likewise bid him not
to despise the gift which was given to him by prophecy, with laying on
of the hands of the company of elders; but he could not mean by those
words an assembly of ordinary presbyters, for as such they could not
have conferred any extraordinary commission, especially upon Timothy,
because he was, at that very time, a bishop, and ordained by St. Paul
himself. He had a jurisdiction over all the presbyters of Asia; for he
had power given him by that apostle to inquire into their conversation
and abilities, and then to admit them into that holy office, if he found
them qualified, and not otherwise. Titus had the same power throughout
that populous island of Crete; and these things are so plain, that they
must deny the authority of the Scriptures, who deny the power of
ordination to be originally in bishops: and therefore they have invented
a senseless objection, viz. that though Timothy and Titus were superior
to presbyters, yet their power was but temporary; for they were chosen
by the apostles at that time, upon a particular occasion, to preside in
the assemblies of presbyters, to moderate the affairs of those churches,
which power was to determine at the expiration of their commission. But
this cannot be proved by history, or any records. It is a mere
invention, contrived to make a party between those two distinct orders
of men; and it can have no foundation in Scripture, from the promiscuous
use of the words bishop and presbyter: for though it is true that the
last is used to show the humility of a bishop, yet it is as true that
the word apostle is likewise used to show his superiority. So that, in
the primitive times, bishops ordained as bishops, and not as presbyters;
for in those days, as it has been already observed, bishops and
presbyters were accounted distinct in order, whatever has of late years
been advanced to the contrary. Therefore, the objection that a bishop
and presbyter were neither distinct in order or office; that though the
apostles, and those who immediately succeeded them, exercised a large
jurisdiction, yet it was granted to them by our SAVIOUR as they were
apostles, and did in no wise concern their successors, to whom he gave
no such authority, nor any manner of superiority over their fellow
presbyters,—these, and such like, are doctrines which neither agree with
the Scripture, nor with the Fathers; they are contrary to the plain and
constant usage in the Church for 1600 years, during all which time all
Christian churches were governed by bishops.
By the 31st canon of the Church of England it is ordained: “Forasmuch as
the ancient Fathers of the Church, led by the example of the apostles,
appointed prayers and fasts to be used at the solemn ordaining of
ministers, and to that purpose allotted certain times, in which only
sacred orders might be given and conferred, we, following their holy and
religious example, do constitute and decree, that no deacons or
ministers be made or ordained, but only on Sundays immediately following
_jejunia quatuor temporum_, commonly called Ember Weeks, appointed in
ancient time for prayer and fasting, (purposely for this cause at the
first institution,) and so continued at this day in the Church of
England.” (See _Ember Days_.)
ORGAN. The greatest of all instruments of music, consisting of pipes, or
flutes, made vocal by wind, which is supplied by bellows, and acted on
by keys touched by the hands and feet. The Latin word _organum_, means
an instrument in general; (just as we now employ the word organ;) but in
the course of time it was more specially applied, in a more limited
sense, to instruments of music, and specially to that great vehicle of
sound, which is in part a combination of many instruments, and is an
orchestra in itself. The first organ was made by Ctesibius of
Alexandria, about 200 years B. C., (as appears from Athenæus, iv. 75,)
with pipes of bronze and lead, with keys, levers, and slides: the wind
from a bellows, in which the pressure of water supplied the place of the
weight now placed on the bellows. This sort of organ was called
hydraulic; and continued in use so late as the ninth century. An epigram
of Julian the Apostate, in the middle of the fourth century, describes
it as played with the _fingers_, not with the _fists_, and as having
copper pipes. (_Brunck, Analecta_ ii. 403.) St. Augustine describes it
as “_grande, et inflata follibus_.” It is also spoken of by Ammianus
Marcellinus; and exactly described by Claudian, in the fourth century;
and Cassiodorus (in the fifth century) defines it as a _tower_, made
with various pipes, inflated by bellows, and played on by the fingers,
and as having great sweetness and power. It was never used in the Greek
Church. Its first ecclesiastical use in the West is a matter of
obscurity. Bellarmine states, though on doubtful authority, that, in
660, Pope Vitalian introduced it into the church service at Rome. D.
Rimbault, in his very interesting notes to Roger North’s Memoirs of
Music, (p. 48,) says, that it was introduced into the English service by
Theodore and Adrian, emissaries of Vitalian; and from a passage in the
writings of Adhelm, bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, it appears
that the external case was gilt, (“_auratis capsis_,”) and that the
pipes were numerous: “maxima _millenis_ organa _flabris_.” All
ecclesiastical historians relate, that in 757 the Eastern emperor
Constantine Copronymus sent an organ to Pepin, which was placed, as
affirmed by M. Hamel, (Manuel des Facteurs des Orgues,) in a church at
Compiegne. In 811, ambassadors from Constantinople brought two organs to
Charlemagne. However, it is supposed that its use did not become
generally known in France till 826, when a Venetian priest introduced
what is supposed to be an hydraulic organ. In the same century, Walafred
Strabo says, Louis le Debonnaire gave an organ to Aix la Chapelle. In
994, according to Petronius, there were organs at Erfurt and Magdeburg.
In 951, Wulstan relates that Elphege, bishop of Winchester, gave an
organ to Winchester with 400 pipes, 40 keys, and (if his meaning is
clear) 26 pairs of bellows, played by two organists. (See _Turner’s
Anglo-Saxons_, book ix. c. 9.) In the tenth century, Dunstan, archbishop
of Canterbury, gave an organ to Malmesbury, described by William of
Malmesbury as having copper pipes. At the same time an organ was given
to Ramsey church, with copper pipes, “emitting a sweet melody and
far-resounding peal,” played on feast days. (See _Turner_, as before.)
In the twelfth century, an organ is mentioned in the abbey of Fécamp.
And Gervas the monk, describing Canterbury cathedral as he knew it
before the fire in 1172, says, that it had arches to carry organs.
The above notices suffice to show the error of Bingham’s statement, that
organs were not used in churches till after Thomas Aquinas’ time in
1250. Aquinas merely specifies _harps_ and _psalteries_, as not used,
“which our Church does not assume, lest she should seem to judaize.” The
south of France, as also the south of Italy, long retained Oriental
customs in their churches; thus at Lyons organs were for a long time
unemployed. Cardinal Caietan says, the organ was not used in the
primitive Church, and gives this as a reason why it is not used in the
pope’s chapel. A tenacious respect for antiquity seems to be the only
reason which forbids its use in the Greek churches: since, in some
branches of that communion, as in Russia, vocal harmony in the sacred
offices is carried to great perfection. Hospinian, an ultra-Protestant
writer, contends against the use of it, on the authority of St. Paul.
So strongly prejudiced were other writers of the ultra-Protestant school
against organs that Newte, in his preface to Dodwell on Music, after
mentioning the report of Balæus, that organs were introduced in the year
660, adds, “or rather that it may not want the mark of the beast of the
Revelation, as the Magdeburg continuators say, 666.” It is difficult to
understand the principle of the objection. The ordering of the
instrumental as well as oral music in the temple was a matter, be it
remembered, of Divine institution: thus in 2 Chron. xxix. 25. “And he
set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries,
and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the
king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: _for so was the commandment of the
Lord by his prophets_.” To be consistent, all oral song, nay, the words
of the sacred songs themselves, ought to be silenced also.
At the time of the Reformation, organs were considered as among the
vilest remnants of Popery, by all the more enthusiastic partisans of
Protestantism. And by those who carried out the principles of
ultra-Protestantism to their legitimate extent at the great Rebellion,
organs were so generally demolished, that scarcely an instrument could
be found in England at the Restoration; and foreigners were brought over
to play on some of those which were then erected. It is satisfactory to
see such prejudices wearing away. We now find those whose horror at
fasting, or at self-denials, or at turning to the east in prayer, or at
preaching in a surplice, as the Prayer Book directs, or implies, or at
bowing to the altar, or at preferring prayer to preaching, &c., is
unfeigned, and who see in these observances nothing but Popery,
nevertheless expending large sums of money to erect organs, which are
now heard to sound in their very meeting-houses. We believe the Kirk of
Scotland is alone consistent in this respect, and true to the principles
of their ultra-Protestant forefathers; the members of that Establishment
do not even yet tolerate what at the Reformation was called “a squeaking
abomination.”
The organ in the Anglican Church had been the regular accompaniment of
the choral service for some hundred years before the Reformation. It is
still used in cathedrals, collegiate and royal churches and chapels,
more frequently than abroad; where it is more employed for symphonies
than for an accompaniment, and that in general only on Sundays,
holy-days, and eves; whereas in regular English choirs it is used at
least twice daily, accompanying the psalms, canticles, and anthems, and
those parts of the service which are allowed by the rubric to be sung,
including the responses and litanies on more solemn occasions. In
ancient times (till the great Rebellion) organs were more common in the
college chapels at the universities than now. The general introduction
of organs into London parish churches, however, did not take place till
after the Restoration. Their use appears never to have been very
general, even in cathedrals, in Ireland; and in Scotland it is supposed
that they were not introduced till the 15th century.
The phrase _pair of organs_ occurs in many old books. It had its origin
probably in the two _stops_ which were common in the smaller mediæval
organs: possibly, however, to the two organs, which in the middle ages,
as now, entered into the construction of the larger instruments. These
large organs consist in reality of three or four instruments, each
having its separate sound-board and set of keys; viz. 1. The great
organ, for choruses and louder passages: 2. The choir organ, softer than
the former, used for the verse passages, &c., and the alternate chant of
the psalms; generally placed in front of the great organ; not called
from _chair_, as some suppose, (as being placed behind the organist’s
_chair_,) but from the choir: as appears from _Dugd. Mon._ ed. 1830, ii.
103, “when in the 15th century the abbot of Croyland gave two organs to
his church; the greater one being placed in the nave, the lesser in the
choir.” 3. The swell, an English invention, formerly the third manual,
played what was called the echo; which is still occasionally found
abroad. 4. The pedal organ, or that which is played by the feet. Foreign
organs have frequently four rows of manuals, and two of pedals.
It appears from Mr. Hamel’s work, already mentioned, that the organ of
the middle ages was by no means so small as is commonly imagined by
those who have been misled by ancient monuments and drawings. In the
16th century began the construction of those enormous machines, for
which Germany is so renowned: and in consequence it became customary in
the north of Europe to transfer the organ from one side of the choir to
the chancel screen, (the worst position possible,) or the west end. The
improvement of the organ has been progressively advancing ever since.
It may be considered consistent with the object of a Church Dictionary
to conclude this long article with some observation on an objection
often made to the employment in sacred music of what are wrongly called
the _imitative_ stops of the organ. In reality very few of its stops are
imitative. The organ is properly a collection of several instruments,
which a most complicated machinery enables the organist to play at the
same time. The trumpet, the bassoon, and hautboy stops, for example, are
each a set of real instruments of these names, differing from those
usually so called, only in being inflated by a bellows, not by the
mouth, and each giving but one note, and played on by keys. Thus when
the psalmist calls on us to praise him with the sound of the trumpet, it
is a _literal_ response to his summons to accompany the voice with the
stop of that name.
See _Hamel_, Manuel des Facteurs des Orgues, (comprehending _Bedos’_
great work;) and _Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, edited by Rimbault_,
already referred to; _Burney and Hawkins’s Histories of Music_; and
_Burney’s Musical Tour_.
The ORGAN mentioned in Scripture as the invention of Jubal, (Gen. iv.
21,) and in Job xxi. 12, and Ps. cl. 4, is in the Hebrew _Huggab_,
meaning, as Parkhurst supposes, a fastening or joining together. It is
supposed by Calmet (see _Music_) to have been like the ancient Pandean
pipes, a set of unequal flutes played by the mouth. As used in Gen. iv.
it seems to indicate wind instruments generally; but its form and
capacity is altogether unknown.
ORGANIST. An ecclesiastical officer, whose business it is to play upon
the organ in churches. In ancient times there was no stated organist,
the vicars choral being responsible for this duty in turn. In cathedrals
and choral foundations, he is, or ought to be, an essential member of
the collegiate body. The duty of English cathedral organists is
responsible, arduous, and of a sacred character. They are bound to
attend twice every day; and in order to be efficient, ought to be
skilful musicians, profound harmonists, versed in the knowledge of both
instrumental and vocal harmony, and endued with religious feeling. No
pains ought to be spared by the governing members of collegiate bodies
to render the office not only respectable and efficient, but religious
also.
ORIGINAL SIN. “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as
the _Pelagians_ do vainly talk); but it is the fault and corruption of
the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of
Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is
of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always
contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this
world, it deserveth GOD’S wrath and damnation. And this infection of
nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust
of the flesh, called in the Greek _phronema sarkos_, which some do
expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire
of the flesh, is not subject to the law of GOD. And although there is no
condemnation for them that believe, and are baptized,” [_renatis_, i. e.
born again, is the word used in the Latin copy,] “yet the apostle doth
confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of
sin.”—_Article_ ix. This article was intended to oppose the notion of
the School divines, who maintained that the infection of our nature is
not a mental, but a mere corporeal taint; that the body alone receives
and transmits the contagion, while the soul proceeds, in all cases,
immaculate from the hands of the Creator. Original sin they directly
opposed to original righteousness, and this they considered, not as
something connatural with man, but as a superinduced habit, or
adventitious ornament, the removal of which could not prove detrimental
to the native powers of the mind. Thus the School divines maintained, in
opposition to our Articles, that the lapse of Adam conveys to us solely
_imputed_ guilt, the corporeal infection which they admitted, not being
sin itself, but the subject matter; not _peccatum_, but _fomes peccati_.
The Lutherans taught that original sin is a corruption of our nature in
a general sense, the depravation of the mental faculties and the
corporeal appetites. The Calvinists maintain that lust and concupiscence
are truly and properly sin.
The Scriptures teach us that the sin of Adam not only made him liable to
death, but that it also changed the upright nature in which he was
originally formed, into one that was prone to wickedness; and that this
liability to death, and propensity to sin, were entailed from him upon
the whole race of mankind: “By one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned.” (Rom. v. 12.) “As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life.” (ver. 18.) “By one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners.” (ver. 19.) “Through the offence of
one, many be dead.” (ver. 15.) “By one man’s offence death reigned by
one.” (ver. 17.) “By man came death.” (1 Cor. xv. 21.) “In Adam all
die.” (ver. 22.) “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his
youth.” (Gen. viii. 21.) “There is no man that sinneth not.” (1 Kings
viii. 46.) “God made man upright, but they found out many inventions.”
(Ecc. vii. 29.) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.” (1 John i. 8.) “The heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked.” (Jer. xvii. 9.) “The flesh is
weak.” (Matt. xxvi. 41.) “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the
spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other,
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” (Gal. v. 17.) “I see
another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members.”
(Rom. vii. 23.) The general corruption of human nature, in consequence
of Adam’s disobedience, was acknowledged by the ancient Fathers of the
Christian Church. The term _Original Sin_ was first used by Augustine,
and before his time it was called the old guilt—the ancient wound—the
common curse—the old sin, &c.—_Tomline._
In Scripture this is called “the sin that dwelleth in us” (Rom. vii.
17); “the body of sin” (vi. 6); “the law of sin and death” (viii. 2);
“lust” (vii. 7); “the sin which so easily besets us” (Heb. xii. 1); “the
flesh” (Gal. v. 16); “the old man” (Eph. iv. 22); “the likeness of Adam”
(Gen. v. 3).
The corruption of nature called “original sin” is derived by
continual descent from father to son; wherewith all the powers of
the soul and body are infected, and that in all men equally. And
then, actual sin arising from hence, the understanding is blinded
with ignorance and infidelity. The memory is prone to forget the
good things which the understanding hath conceived. The will is
disobedient to the will of GOD, understood and remembered by us,
(the freedom of holiness, which it had at the first, being now
lost,) and is wholly bent to sin. The affections are ready to
overrule the will, and are subject to all disorder. And the
conscience itself is distempered and polluted.—_Usher._
Let us look into the world, let us look into ourselves, and we shall see
sufficient proofs of this original corruption; even in our infancy it
shows itself in many instances of obstinacy and perverseness; and as we
grow up it increases with our years; and unless timely checked by our
utmost care and diligence, (through the assistance of Divine grace,)
produces habits of all manner of iniquity. Let the proud deist boast of
the dignity of his nature, the sufficiency of his reason, and the
excellency of his moral attainments; but let us Christians not be
ashamed to own our own misery and our guilt; that our understandings are
darkened, our wills corrupted, and our whole nature depraved: then may
we apply to the Physician of our souls for the succours of his grace,
which alone can help and relieve us.—_Waldo._
ORIGENISTS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so called, because they
pretended to draw their opinions from the writings of the famous Origen,
a priest of Alexandria.
The Origenists made their first appearance in Italy in 397. Rufinus of
Aquileia, a priest of Alexandria, had studied the works of Origen with
so much application, that he adopted that writer’s Platonic notions for
Catholic truths. Full of these ideas, he went to Jerusalem, where Origen
had a great many partisans. There he made his court to Melania, a Roman
lady, who had embraced Origen’s opinions. Afterwards he came to Rome
with this lady, who was greatly esteemed in that city. Here he set out
with an outward show of simplicity, and pretended, after the example of
Origen, an universal contempt of all worldly things. This made him
looked upon as one who lived up to the highest Christian perfection.
Rufinus took advantage of this prejudice in his favour to propagate his
opinions, in which the credit of Melania was of great use to him. And
now he began to have a great number of followers, and to form a
considerable sect. But another Roman lady, named Marcella, having
acquainted Pope Anastasius, that Rufinus and Melania were spreading very
dangerous opinions in Rome, under the veil of piety, the holy father
examined into the fact, and forbade them to teach any more. Rufinus and
Melania submitted to the prohibition; Melania returned to Jerusalem, and
Rufinus to Aquileia. However, the opinions they had broached continued
to be maintained and defended by many learned men, who were therefore
distinguished by the name of Origenists.
The errors ascribed to the Origenists are in number nine, and are as
follows:—
1. The souls of men were holy intelligences, who enjoyed the presence of
GOD; but being tired with the Divine contemplation, they degenerated;
and as their first fervour was greatly abated, the Greeks therefore
called the soul νους, from the word νοσεω, which signifies to slacken or
grow cold.
2. Our SAVIOUR’S soul was united to the WORD, before his conception, and
before he was born of the Holy Virgin.
3. The body of our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST was first formed entire in the
Virgin’s womb; and afterwards his soul, which long before had been
united to the WORD, came and was joined to it.
4. The WORD of GOD has been successively united with all the angelical
natures; insomuch that it has been a cherub, seraph, and all the
celestial virtues, one after another.
5. After the resurrection, the bodies of men will be of a spherical
figure, and not of their present erect stature.
6. The heavens, sun, moon, and stars, are animated bodies, and have an
intelligent soul.
7. In future ages, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST will be crucified for the
salvation of the devils, as he has already been for that of men.
8. The power of GOD is not infinite, and was so exhausted in the
creation of things, that he has no more left.
9. The punishment of the devils, and of the damned, will continue only
for a certain limited time.
These nine errors are distinctly recited by the second Council of
Constantinople, at the end of a letter of the emperor Justinian against
Origen. The recital of them is immediately followed by an anathema
against Origen, and all who maintained his opinions: in which it is
remarkable, that the council excommunicated Origen near three hundred
years after his death.
The heresy of the Origenists spread widely in Egypt, and especially
among the monks. Several eminent bishops opposed them, particularly
Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who, in the year 399, assembled a
council in that city, in which the monks inhabiting the mountain of
Nitria were condemned as Origenists.
Avitus, a Spanish priest, revived the errors of the Origenists in Spain,
about the year 415; and probably it was against the followers of this
Avitus, that the Council of Toledo was held in 633.
ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH. The common feelings of our nature would suggest
the decent adornment of the house of our GOD: “Shall we,” in the words
of our homily, “be so mindful of our common base houses, deputed to so
low occupying, and be forgetful toward that house of GOD wherein be
administered the words of our eternal salvation; wherein are entreated
the sacraments and mysteries of our redemption; _the fountain of the
regeneration_ is there presented unto us; the partaking of the body and
blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST is there offered unto us; and shall we not
esteem the place where so heavenly things are handled?”
The following are the chief enactments of the Church and the State, with
reference to the ornaments of the church. By the rubric before the
Common Prayer, as also by the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 2, “Such ornaments of
the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their
ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of
England, by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of
King Edward the Sixth.”
_Reynolds._ “The archdeacons shall take care that the clothes of the
altar be decent and in good order; that the church have fit books both
for singing and reading; and at least two sacerdotal vestments.”
By the statute of _Circumspecte agatis_, 13 Edward I. st. iv. “The king
to his judges sendeth greeting:—Use yourselves circumspectly in all
matters concerning the prelates, where they do punish for that the
church is not conveniently decked: in which case the spiritual judge
shall have power to take knowledge, notwithstanding the king’s
prohibition.”
“Not conveniently decked.” For the law allows the ecclesiastical court
to have cognizance in this case, of providing decent ornaments for the
celebration of Divine service.
Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care that all things
in the church be kept in such an orderly and decent sort, without dust,
or anything that may be either noisome or unseemly, as best becometh the
house of GOD, and is prescribed in a homily to that effect.”
Canon 82. “Whereas we have no doubt but that in all churches within the
realm of England, convenient and decent tables are provided and placed
for the celebration of the holy communion; we appoint that the same
tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired in sufficient and
seemly manner, and covered in time of Divine service with a carpet of
silk or other decent stuff, thought meet by the ordinary of the place,
(if any question be made of it,) and with a fair linen cloth at the time
of the ministration, as becometh that table, and so stand, saving when
the said holy communion is to be administered.”
In ancient times, the bishops preached standing upon the steps of the
altar. Afterwards it was found more convenient to have pulpits erected
for that purpose.
And by Canon 83. “The churchwardens or questmen, at the common charge of
the parishioners, in every church, shall provide a comely and decent
pulpit, to be set in a convenient place within the same, by the
discretion of the ordinary of the place (if any question do arise); and
to be there seemly kept for the preaching of GOD’S word.”
Canon 82. “And likewise a convenient seat shall be made at the charge of
the parish, for the minister to read service in.”
Canon 58. “Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the
sacraments or other rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely
surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish. And
if any question arise touching the matter, decency, or comeliness
thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion of the ordinary.”
Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, (viz. among the
constitutions of 1570,) too much neglected in many places, we appoint,
that there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel where
baptism is to be ministered: the same to be set in the ancient usual
places. In which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”
In an act in the 27 Henry VIII. it was enacted, that money collected for
the poor should be kept in the common coffer or box standing in the
church of every parish.
And by Canon 84. “The churchwardens shall provide and have, within three
months after the publishing of these constitutions, a strong chest, with
a hole in the upper part thereof, to be provided at the charge of the
parish, (if there be none such already provided,) having three keys; of
which one shall remain in the custody of the parson, vicar, or curate,
and the other two in the custody of the churchwardens for the time
being; which chest they shall set and fasten in the most convenient
place, to the intent the parishioners may put into it their alms for
their poor neighbours. And the parson, vicar, or curate shall
diligently, from time to time, and especially when men make their
testaments, call upon, exhort, and move their neighbours, to confer and
give as they may well spare to the said chest: declaring unto them, that
whereas heretofore they have been diligent to bestow much substance
otherwise than GOD commanded, upon superstitious uses, now they ought at
this time to be much more ready to help the poor and needy, knowing that
to relieve the poor is a sacrifice which pleaseth GOD: and that also,
whatsoever is given for their comfort, is given to CHRIST himself, and
is so accepted of Him, that He will mercifully reward the same. The
which alms and devotion of the people, the keepers of the keys shall
yearly, quarterly, or oftener, (as need requireth,) take out of the
chest, and distribute the same in the presence of most of the parish, or
of six of the chief of them, to be truly and faithfully delivered to
their most poor and needy neighbours.”
Rubric. “Whilst the sentences of the offertory are reading, the deacons,
churchwardens, or other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall
receive the alms for the poor, and other devotions of the people, in a
decent basin, to be provided by the parish for that purpose.”
This offertory was anciently an oblation for the use of the priest; but
at the Reformation it was changed into alms for the poor.
Canon 20. “The churchwardens against the time of every communion shall,
at the charge of the parish, with the advice and direction of the
minister, provide a sufficient quantity of fine white bread, and of good
and wholesome wine: which wine we require to be brought to the communion
table in a clean and sweet standing pot, or stoop of pewter, if not of
purer metal.”
_Winchelsea._ “The parishioners shall find at their own charge, the
_chalice_, or _cup_, for the wine.”
Which, says Lyndwood, “although expressed in the singular number, yet is
not intended to exclude more than one, where more are necessary.”
_Winchelsea._ The parishioners, at their own charge, shall find _bells_
with _ropes_.
_Winchelsea._ The parishioners shall find, at their own charge, a _bier_
for the dead.
“If any parishes be yet unfurnished of the _Bible_ of the largest
volume, the churchwardens shall, within convenient time, provide the
same at the charge of the parish.”
By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel
shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer,
lately explained in some few points, by his Majesty’s authority
according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and
that, with all convenient speed, but, at the furthest, within two months
after the publishing of these our constitutions.”
By the 1 _Eliz_. c. 2. _The Book of Common Prayer_ shall be provided at
the charge of the parishioners of every parish and cathedral church. (s.
19.)
By the 13 & 14 _Charles II._ c. 4. “A true printed copy of the (present)
_Book of Common Prayer_ shall, at the costs and charges of the
parishioners of every parish church and chapelry, cathedral, church,
college, and hall, be provided before the feast of St. Bartholomew,
1662, on pain of £3 a month for so long time as they shall be unprovided
thereof.” (s. 2.)
Canon 80. “If any parishes be yet unfurnished of the _Book of Homilies_
allowed by authority, the churchwardens shall, within convenient time,
provide the same at the charge of the parish.”
By Canon 17. “In every parish church and chapel shall be provided one
_parchment book_ at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written
the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial within the
parish; and for the safe keeping thereof, the churchwardens, at the
charge of the parish, shall provide one sure _coffer_, with three locks
and keys, whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two
with the churchwardens severally.”
Canon 99. “The _table of degrees of marriages prohibited_ shall be, in
every church, publicly set up at the charge of the parish.”
Canon 82. “The _Ten Commandments_ shall be set, at the charge of the
parish, upon the east end of every church and chapel, where the people
may best see and read the same.”
Canon 82. “And other chosen _sentences_ shall, at the like charge, be
written upon the walls of the said churches and chapels in places
convenient.”
Lord Coke says, “Concerning the building or erecting of _tombs_,
_sepulchres_, or _monuments_ for the deceased in church, chancel, common
chapel, or churchyard, in convenient manner, it is lawful; for it is the
last work of charity that can be done for the deceased; who, whilst he
lived, was a living temple of the HOLY GHOST, with a reverent regard and
Christian hope of a joyful resurrection. And the defacing of them is
punishable by the common law, and those who build or erect the same
shall have the action during their lives, and, after their decease, the
heir of the deceased shall have the action. But the building or erecting
the sepulchre, tomb, or other monument, ought not to be to the
hinderance of the celebration of Divine service.”
Of _grave-stones_, (he says,) _winding-sheets_, _coats of arms_,
_penons_, or other _ensigns of honour_, hung up, laid, or placed in
memory of the dead, the property remains in the executors; and they may
have actions against such as break, deface, or carry them away, or an
appeal of felony.
But Sir Simon Degge says, he conceives that this must be intended, by
licence of the bishop, or consent of the parson and churchwardens.
Dr. Watson says, this is to be understood of such monuments only as are
set up in the aisles belonging to particular persons; or if they be set
up in any other part of the church, he supposes it is to be understood
that they were placed there with the incumbent’s consent.
And Dr. Gibson observing thereupon says thus:—“Monuments, coat armour,
and other ensigns of honour, set up in memory of the deceased, may not
be removed at the pleasure of the ordinary or incumbent. On the
contrary, if either they or any other person shall take away or deface
them, the person who set them up shall have an action against them
during his life, and after his death the heir of the deceased shall have
the same, who (as they say) is inheritable to arms, and the like, as to
heir-looms: and it avails not that they are annexed to the freehold,
though that is in the parson. But this, as he conceives, is to be
understood with one limitation; if they were set up with consent of the
ordinary; for though (as my Lord Coke says) tombs, sepulchres, or
monuments may be erected for the deceased, in church or chancel, in
convenient manner, the ordinary must be allowed the proper judge of that
conveniency; inasmuch as such erecting, he adds, ought not to be to the
hinderance of the celebration of Divine service. And if they are erected
without consent, and upon inquiry and inspection be found to the
hinderance of Divine service, he thinks it will not be denied that in
such case the ordinary has sufficient authority to decree a removal,
without any danger of an action at law.”
If any _superstitious pictures_ are in a window of a church or aisle, it
is not lawful for any to break them without licence of the ordinary: and
in _Pricket’s case_, Wray, chief justice, bound the offender to good
behaviour.
Besides what has been observed in particular, there are many other
articles for which no provision is made by any special law, and
therefore must be referred to the general power of the churchwardens,
with the consent of the major part of the parishioners as aforesaid, and
under the direction of the ordinary; such as the erecting _galleries_,
adding new _bells_, (and of consequence, as it seems, salaries for the
ringers,) _organs_, _clock_, _chimes_, _king’s arms_, _pulpit cloths_,
_hearse cloth_, _rushes or mats_, _vestry furniture_, and such like. The
soil and freehold of the church and churchyard is in the parson; but the
fee simple of the glebe is in abeyance. And if the walls, windows, or
doors of the church be broken by any person, or the trees in the
churchyard be cut down, or grass there be eaten up by a stranger; the
incumbent of the rectory (or his tenant, if they be let) may have his
actions for the damages. But the goods of the church do not belong to
the incumbent, but to the parishioners; and if they be taken away or
broken, the churchwardens shall have their action of trespass at the
common law.
The magnificence of the first Jewish temple was acceptable to GOD; and
the too sparing contributions of the people towards the second, was
severely reproved; and therefore no one can justly complain, that the
ornaments now made use of in our churches are too many, or expensive.
Far from us be all ornaments unbecoming the worship of a spirit, or the
gravity of a church; but it has an ill aspect when men think that well
enough in GOD’S house, which they would not endure in the meanest
offices of their own. It is not enough barely to devote churches to the
public services of religion, unless they are set apart with the solemn
rites of a formal dedication. By these solemnities the founders were
accustomed to surrender all the right they had in them, and make GOD
himself the sole owner. And whoever gave any lands or endowments to the
service of GOD, gave it in a formal writing, sealed and witnessed, (as
is now usual in common transactions,) the tender of the gift being made
upon the altar, by the donor on his knees. At the consecration of both
the tabernacle and the temple of the Jews, it pleased the Almighty to
give a manifest sign that he then took possession of them. (Ex. xl. 34;
1 Kings viii. 10, 11.)—_Wheatly._
Temples, and other utensils designed by GOD himself, are holy as related
to him by that designation. Temples, utensils, lands, &c. devoted and
lawfully separated by man, for holy uses, are holy as justly related to
GOD by that lawful separation. To say, as some do, that they are indeed
consecrated and separated, but not holy, is to be ridiculously wise by
self-contradiction, and the masterly use of the word holy contrary to
custom and terms. Ministers are more holy than temples, lands, or
utensils, as being more nearly related to holy things. And things
separated by GOD himself are more holy than those justly separated by
man. And so of days.—_Baxter._
Can we judge it a thing seemly for any man to go about the building of
an house to the GOD of heaven, with no other appearance than if his end
were to rear up a kitchen, or a parlour, for his own use? or when a work
of such a nature is finished, remaineth there nothing but presently to
use it, and so an end? Albeit the true worship of GOD be to GOD in
itself acceptable, who respecteth not so much in what place, as with
what affection he is served; and therefore Moses in the midst of the
sea, Job on the dunghill, Ezekiah in bed, Jeremy in mire, Jonas in the
whale, Daniel in the den, the Children in the furnace, the Thief on the
cross, Peter and Paul in prison, calling unto GOD were heard, as St.
Basil noteth, manifest notwithstanding it is, that the very majesty and
holiness of the place where GOD is worshipped hath in regard of us great
virtue, force, and efficacy, for that it serveth as a sensible help to
stir up devotion.—_Hooker._
The reader who desires to possess a perfect knowledge on this head, is
referred to Bingham’s “Origines Ecclesiasticæ,” or _Antiquities of the
Christian Church_, b. viii.
ORTHODOXY. (Ὀρθὸς and δοκέω.) Soundness of doctrine.
Of course the question here to be decided is, What _is_ soundness of
doctrine? If two men take Scripture for their guide, and professing to
have no other guide, come to opposite conclusions, it is quite clear
that neither has a right to decide that the other is not orthodox. On
this principle it is as uncharitable and illogical for the Trinitarian
to call the Socinian not orthodox, as it is for the Socinian to
predicate the same of the Trinitarian. But if we interpret Scripture by
the sense of the Church, then we may consistently call those orthodox
who hold the doctrines which she deduces from Scripture, and those
heterodox who do not hold those doctrines. So that orthodoxy means
soundness of doctrine, the doctrine being proved to be sound by
reference to the consentient testimony of Scripture and the Church.
Hence perhaps it is, that as those low-churchmen, who repudiate Socinian
notions, are by some called evangelicals, so high-churchmen are
designated orthodox. Both titles, if intended to be applied
_exclusively_, are applied incorrectly.
ORTLIBENSES. (_Lat._) A sect, or branch, of the ancient Vaudois or
Waldenses.
The Ortlibenses denied there was a Trinity before the nativity of JESUS
CHRIST, who, according to them, was not till that time the SON of GOD.
To these two persons of the GODHEAD they added a third, during the
preaching of JESUS CHRIST; namely, St. Peter, whom they acknowledged to
be the HOLY GHOST. They held the eternity of the world; but had no
notion of the resurrection of the body, or the immortality of the soul.
Notwithstanding which, they maintained (perhaps by way of irony) that
there would be a final judgment, at which time the pope and the emperor
would become proselytes to their sect.
They denied the death and resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. His cross, they
pretended, was penance and their own abstemious way of life: this, they
said, was the cross our SAVIOUR bore. They ascribed all the virtue of
baptism to the merit of him who administered it. They were of opinion,
that Jews might be saved without baptism, provided they embraced their
sect. They boldly asserted, that they themselves were the only true
mystical body, that is to say, the Church of CHRIST.
PACIFICATION, EDICTS OF, were decrees or edicts, granted by the kings of
France to the Protestants, for appeasing the troubles occasioned by
their persecution.
The first edict of pacification was granted by Charles IX., in January,
1562, permitting the free exercise of the reformed religion near all the
cities and towns of the realm. March 19, 1563, the same king granted a
second edict of pacification, at Amboise, permitting the free exercise
of the reformed religion in the houses of gentlemen and lords
high-justiciaries (or those that had the power of life and death) to
their families and dependants only; and allowing other Protestants to
have their sermons in such towns as they had them in before the seventh
of March; obliging them withal to quit the churches they had possessed
themselves of during the troubles. Another, called the edict of
Lonjumeau, ordering the execution of that of Amboise, was published
March 27, 1558, after a treaty of peace. This pacification was of but
short continuance; for Charles, perceiving a general insurrection of the
Huguenots, revoked the said edicts in September, 1568, forbidding the
exercise of the Protestant religion, and commanding all the ministers to
depart the kingdom in fifteen days. But, on the eighth of August, 1570,
he made peace with them again, and published an edict on the eleventh,
allowing the lords high-justiciaries to have sermons in their houses for
all comers, and granting other Protestants two public exercises in each
government. He likewise gave them four cautionary towns, viz. Rochelle,
Montauban, Cognac, and La Charité, to be places of security for them
during the space of two years. Nevertheless, in August, 1572, he
authorized the Bartholomew massacre, and at the same time issued a
declaration, forbidding the exercise of the Protestant religion.
Henry III., in April, 1576, made peace with the Protestants, and the
edict of pacification was published in parliament, May 14, permitting
them to build churches, and have sermons where they pleased. The Guisian
faction, enraged at this general liberty, began the famous league for
defence of the Catholic religion, which became so formidable, that it
obliged the king to assemble the states of the kingdom at Blois, in
December, 1576; where it was enacted, that there should be but one
religion in France, and that the Protestant ministers should be all
banished. In 1577, the king, to pacify the troubles, published an edict
in parliament, October 8th, granting the same liberty to the reformed
which they had before. However, in July, 1585, the league obliged him to
publish another edict, revoking all former concessions to the
Protestants, and ordering them to depart the kingdom in six months, or
turn Papists. This edict was followed by more to the same purpose.
Henry IV. coming to the crown, published a declaration, July 4, 1591,
abolishing the edicts against the Protestants. This edict was verified
in the parliament of Chalons; but the troubles prevented the
verification of it in the parliaments of the other provinces; so that
the Protestants had not the free exercise of their religion in any place
but where they were masters, and had banished the Romish religion. In
April, 1598, the king published a new edict of pacification at Nantes,
granting the Protestants the free exercise of their religion in all
places where they had the same in 1596 and 1597, and one exercise in
each bailiwick.
This edict of Nantes was confirmed by Louis XIII. in 1610, and by Louis
XIV. in 1652. But his letter, in 1685, abolished it entirely; since
which time the Protestants ceased to be tolerated in France till the
Revolution.—_Broughton._
PÆDO-BAPTISM. (From παῖς, _a child_, and βαπτίζω, _to baptize_.) The
baptism of children. (See _Baptism of Infants_.)
PALL, or PALLIUM. The word pallium properly signifies a cloak, thrown
over the shoulders: afterwards it came to denote a sort of cape or
tippet, and hence the ecclesiastical designation in the Western Church.
The origin of the pall, which has been generally worn by the Western
metropolitans, is disputed; but whoever considers the ancient figures of
it which are found in manuscripts, &c., will see that it was originally
only a stole wound round the neck, with the ends hanging down behind and
before. In the East the pall is called _omophorion_, and has been used,
at least, since the time of Chrysostom. It is used by all the Eastern
bishops, above the phenolion or vestment, during the eucharist; and, as
used by them, resembles the ancient pall much more nearly than that worn
by the Western metropolitans.—_Palmer._
The pall was part of the imperial habit, and originally granted by the
emperors to the patriarchs. Thus Constantine gave the use of the pall to
the bishop of Rome; and Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople, being
expelled his see, is said to have returned the pall to the emperor
Justinian; which implies his having received it from him. And the reason
of the royal consent in this manner seems to be, because it was high
treason to wear any part of the imperial habit without licence.
In after ages, when the see of Rome had carried its authority to the
highest pitch, under Pope Innocent III., that pontiff, in the Lateran
Council, A. D. 1215, decreed the pall to be a mark and distinction,
intimating the plenitude of the apostolic power, and that neither the
function nor title of archbishop should be assumed without it; and this,
not only when a bishop was preferred to the degree of archbishop, but
likewise in case of translations, when an archbishop was removed from
one see to another. It was decreed, likewise, that every archbishop
should be buried in his pall, that his successor might make no use of
it, but be obliged to apply to the pope for another. By these means the
court of Rome brought vast sums of money into its exchequer.
In the Romish Church the following is the description of the pall as
given by Romish writers. The pallium is a part of the pontifical dress
worn only by the pope, archbishops, and patriarchs. It is a white
woollen band of about three fingers’ breadth, made round, and worn over
the shoulders, crossed in front with one end hanging down over the
breast; the other behind it is ornamented with purple crosses, and
fastened by three golden needles or pins. It is made of the wool of
perfectly white sheep, which are yearly, on the festival of St. Agnes,
offered and blessed at the celebration of the holy eucharist, in the
church dedicated to her in the Nomentan Way in Rome. The sheep are
received by two canons of the church of St. John Lateran, who deliver
them into the charge of the subdeacons of the Apostolic College, and
they then are kept and fed by them until the time for shearing them
arrives. The palliums are always made of this wool, and when made they
are brought to the church of St. Peter and St. Paul, and are placed upon
the altar over their tomb on the eve of their festival, and are left
there the whole night, and on the following day are delivered to the
subdeacons, whose office it is to take charge of them. The pope alone
_always_ wears the pallium, and wherever he officiates, to signify his
assumed authority over all other particular churches. Archbishops and
patriarchs receive it from him, and cannot wear it, except in their own
churches, and only on certain great festivals when they celebrate the
mass.
An archbishop in the Romish Church, although he be consecrated as
bishop, and have taken possession, cannot before he has petitioned for,
and received and paid for the pallium, either call himself archbishop,
or perform such acts as belong to the “greater jurisdiction;” those,
namely, which he exercises not as a bishop, but as archbishop, such as
to summon a council, or to visit his province, &c. He can, however, when
his election has been confirmed, and before he receives the pallium,
depute his functions, in the matter of ordaining bishops, to his
suffragans, who may lawfully exercise them by his command. If, however,
any archbishop in the Romish Church, before he receives the pallium,
perform those offices which result immediately from the possession of
it, such as, for instance, those relating to orders and to the chrism,
&c., the acts themselves are valid, but the archbishop offends against
the canons and laws of the Church.
The pall is still retained as an heraldic ensign, in the arms of the
archbishops of Canterbury, Armagh, and Dublin, and formerly constituted
those of the archbishop of York also.
PALL is also used for a covering; as the black cloth which covers the
coffin at funerals, and sometimes for an _altar cloth_. Thus at the
coronation, the sovereign makes an oblation of a _pall_, or _altar cloth
of gold_.
PALM SUNDAY. The Sunday next before Easter, so called from palm branches
being strewed on the road by the multitude, when our SAVIOUR made his
triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
This week, immediately preceding the feast of Easter, is more especially
designed to fit us for that great solemnity; and, to that end, is to be
spent in more than ordinary piety and devotion. It was anciently called
sometimes the Great Week, sometimes the Holy Week, because it hath a
larger service than any other week, every day having a second service
appointed for it, in which are rehearsed at large the sufferings of
CHRIST, as they are described by the four evangelists; that by hearing
and reading the history of his passion, we may be better prepared for
the mystery of his resurrection; that, by his rising from the dead, we
may be quickened to newness of life. This day, which begins this holy
week, is called by the name of Palm Sunday, being the day on which our
SAVIOUR entered Jerusalem with great joy; some spreading their garments,
others cutting down branches of palm, carrying them in their hands, and
strewing them in the way, which hath been remembered with great
solemnity.—_Dr. Hole._
In the missals this Sunday is called Palm Sunday; and in many parts of
England it still retains its ancient name. On this day, till the æra of
the Reformation, the people in solemn procession carried in their hands
palms, or branches of some other tree, in commemoration of CHRIST’S
triumphal entry into Jerusalem five days before his death. The palms
were then placed on the altar by the clerks, before the time of the
celebration of the eucharist; and numerous benedictory collects were
pronounced over them by the priest.—_Shepherd._
The collect for the day puts us in mind of the tender love of GOD
towards mankind, in sending his SON, not only to take upon him our
flesh, but to suffer in it the death of the cross for our sins; to the
intent, “that all mankind should follow the example of his great
humility;” and thence teaches us to pray, “that we may both follow the
example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his
resurrection.”
The Epistle for the day presents us to this purpose with the highest and
best pattern for our imitation, even the SON of GOD, who hath done and
suffered all these great things for us.
This Gospel, with the rest that follow on each day of this holy week,
gives us an ample account of the death and passion of our blessed
SAVIOUR, together with the many circumstances that went before and came
after it.—_Dr. Hole._
PANTHEISM. (Πᾶν, _all_; Θεὸς, _God_.) A subtle kind of atheism, which
makes GOD and the universe the same, and so denies the existence and
sovereignty of any GOD over the universe. It is to be feared that much
of the mere natural religion of the present day partakes of the
character of Pantheism.
PAPA. (Πάππας, Greek.) A name originally given to the bishops of the
Christian Church, though now it is become in the West the pretended
prerogative and sole privilege of the pope, or bishop of Rome. The word
signifies no more than _father_.
Tertullian, speaking indefinitely of any Christian bishop who absolves
penitents, gives him the name of _Benedictus Papa_. Heraclas, bishop of
Alexandria, has the same title given him. St. Jerome gives the title of
_Papa_ to Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus; and, writing often to
St. Augustine, he always inscribes his epistles _Beatissimo Papæ
Augustino_.
The name _Papa_ was sometimes given to the inferior clergy, who were
called _Papæ Pisinni_, that is, _little fathers_; in comparison of whom
Balsamon calls presbyters _Protopapæ_, i.e. _chief fathers_.
The Greek Christians have continued to give the name _Papa_ to their
priests. And there is, in all Oriental cathedrals, and at Messina in
Sicily, (where Oriental customs are largely retained,) there was
formerly an ecclesiastical dignitary styled _Protopapa_, who, besides a
jurisdiction over several churches, had a particular respect paid him by
the cathedral. For, upon Whitsunday, the prebendaries went in procession
to the _Protopapa’s_ church, (called the _Catholic_,) and attended him
to the cathedral, where he sang solemn _Vespers_, according to the Greek
rituals, and was afterwards waited upon back to his own church with the
same pompous respect. The Vespers, and the Epistle and Gospel, at
Pentecost, are still sung by Greek priests.—_Pirri-Sicilia Sacra._ (See
_Pops_.)
PAPISTS. (See _Popery_ and _Roman Catholics_. For the form of
reconciling Papists to the Church of England, see _Abjuration_.)
PARABLE. The parabolical, enigmatical, figurative, and sententious way
of speaking was the language of the Eastern sages and learned men; and
nothing was more insupportable than to hear a fool utter parables: “The
legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable in the mouth of fools.”
(Prov. xxvi. 7.)
It is generally applied, as in the New Testament, to a figurative
discourse, or a story with a typical meaning; but in the Old Testament,
it sometimes signifies a mere discourse: as _Job’s parable_, which
occupies many chapters of the book of Job (xxvi.——xxxi. inclusive). The
same title is applied by its inspired composer to the seventy-eighth
Psalm, (ver. 2,) which is historical, not deeply mystical, like the
forty-ninth.
Our SAVIOUR in the Gospel seldom speaks to the people but in parables:
thereby verifying the prophecy of Isaiah, (vi. 9,) that the people
should see without knowing, and hear without understanding, in the midst
of instruction. Some parables in the New Testament are supposed to be
true histories. In others our SAVIOUR seems to allude to some points of
history in those times; as that describing a king who went into a far
country to receive a kingdom. This may hint at the history of Archelaus,
who, after the death of his father, Herod the Great, went to Rome, to
receive from Augustus the confirmation of his father’s will, by which he
had the kingdom of Judea left to him.
PARABOLANI. (_Lat._) In the ancient Christian Church were certain
officers, deputed to attend upon the sick, and to take care of them all
the time of their weakness.
At Alexandria, the Parabolani were incorporated into a society, to the
number of 500 or 600, elected by the bishop of the place, and under his
direction. But that this was not an order peculiar to the Church of
Alexandria is very evident, because there is mention made of Parabolani
at Ephesus at the time of the second council held there. (A. D. 449.)
They were called _Parabolani_ from their undertaking a most dangerous
and hazardous office, (παραβολον εργον,) in attending the sick,
especially in infectious and pestilential diseases. The Greeks used to
call those παραβολοι, who hired themselves out to fight with wild beasts
in the amphitheatre; for the word παραβαλλειν signifies exposing a man’s
life to danger. In this sense, the Christians were often called
Parabolani by the heathens, because they were so ready to expose their
lives to martyrdom. And, upon the like account, the name _Parabolani_
was given to the officers we are speaking of.
These Parabolani, being men of a bold and daring spirit, were ready upon
all occasions to engage in any quarrel that should happen in Church or
State, as they seem to have done in the dispute between Cyril the bishop
and Orestes the governor of Alexandria. Wherefore the emperor Theodosius
put them under the inspection of the Præfectus Augustalis, and strictly
prohibited them to appear at any public shows, or in the common council
of the city, or in the courts of judicature, unless any of them had a
cause of his own, or appeared as syndic for the whole body. Which shows
that the civil government always looked upon the Parabolani as a
formidable body of men, and kept a watchful eye over them, that, while
they were serving the Church, they might not do any disservice to the
State.—_Bingham._
PARACLETE. A comforter and advocate; a title applied to GOD the HOLY
GHOST. (John xv. 26.)—See _Holy Ghost_.
PARACLETICE, (_Gr._,) among the Greek Christians, is a book of anthems,
or hymns, so called, because they chiefly tend to comfort the sinner, or
because they are partly invocatory, consisting of pious addresses to GOD
and the saints.
The hymns or anthems in this book are not appropriated to particular
days, but contain something proper to be recited every day, in the mass,
vespers, matins, and other offices.
Allatius finds great fault with this book, and says there are many
things in it disrespectful to the Virgin Mary, and many things ascribed
to her against all reason and equity; that it affirms that John the
Baptist, after his death, preached CHRIST in hell; and that CHRIST
himself, when he descended into hell, freed all mankind from the
punishments of that place and the power of the devil.
PARAPET. A low wall protecting the gutter in the roof of churches or
other buildings. Early parapets are universally plain, but, with the
Decorated style, they begin to be panelled, and sometimes pierced with
various patterns, and in the Perpendicular they are very frequently
crenellated.
PARAPHRASE. (_Chaldaic._) It is commonly believed that the first
translation of the holy Bible was in Chaldee, and that the ignorance of
the Jews in the Hebrew tongue, after the Babylonish captivity, was the
occasion of that version, called the Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase,
which was neither done by one author, nor at the same time, nor made
upon all the books of the Old Testament. The first upon the Pentateuch
was done by Onkelos, a proselyte, who lived about the time of our
SAVIOUR, if we believe the Hebrew authors; the second upon the
Pentateuch is attributed to Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who is not the
same with the Theodotion, which in Greek has the same signification as
Jonathan in Hebrew; that is, the gift of GOD. The third upon the same
book is called the Targum Hierosolymitanum, or the Jerusalem paraphrase;
the author of which is not certainly known, nor the time when it was
composed. Schikard believes it to bear the same date as the Targum of
Jerusalem, which was written about 300 years after the last destruction
of the temple, burnt in the seventieth year after our LORD’S
incarnation. There are, besides these, three paraphrases upon the books
of Moses; another upon the Psalms, Job, and Proverbs; there is also one
upon the Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, but
the author not known; and we have a Chaldee paraphrase upon Joshua,
Judges, Kings, and the Prophets, by Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, who,
according to the Jews, had before written the paraphrase upon the
Pentateuch.
Several learned men believe that all the rabbins say concerning the
Chaldee paraphrase is fabulous, and that the oldest of all the
translations is that of the Septuagint: it is also added that they are
later than St. Jerome, who, having great acquaintance with the most
learned rabbins, and having written so much upon that subject, could not
fail of speaking of the Chaldee paraphrases, if there had been any such
in his time. The Jews affirm they were composed in the time of the
prophets, and they have them in so great veneration, that they are
obliged to read in their synagogue a section of Onkelos’ paraphrase,
when they have read a Hebrew text in the Bible.
PARCLOSE. Screens separating chapels, especially those at the east end
of the aisles, from the body of the church, are called _parcloses_.
PARDONS. (See _Indulgences_.) In the Romish Church, _pardons_ or
_indulgences_ are releasement from the temporal punishment of sin; the
power of granting which is supposed to be lodged in the pope, to be
dispensed by him to the bishops and inferior clergy, for the benefit of
penitents throughout the Church. In the theory of pardons, the point is
assumed, that holy men may accomplish more than is strictly required of
them by the Divine law; that there is a meritorious value in this
overplus; that such value is transferable, and that it is deposited in
the spiritual treasury of the Church, subject to the disposal of the
pope, to be, on certain conditions, applied to the benefit of those
whose deficiencies stand in need of such a compensation. A distinction
is then drawn between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin;
the former of which not only embraces penances, and all satisfactions
for sin in the present life, but also the pains of purgatory in the
next. These are supposed to be within the control and jurisdiction of
the Church; and, in the case of any individual, may be ameliorated or
terminated by the imputation of so much of the overabundant merits of
the saints, &c., as may be necessary to balance the deficiencies of the
sufferer.
The privilege of selling pardons, it is well known, was frequently
granted by the pope to monastic bodies in every part of the Church; and
the scandals and disorders consequent upon them, was one of the first
moving causes of the Reformation. Against these most pernicious and
soul-destroying errors, the Church of England protests in her
twenty-second Article: “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory,
_pardons_, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics,
and also of invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word
of GOD.”
In treating this subject we will first show what the Romish doctrine is,
and then how repugnant it is to Scripture.
As for the first, what their doctrine concerning pardons is, it is
difficult to determine; they have had so many crotchets about it, that
one can scarce tell where to find them. We shall endeavour to explain it
in these following propositions:—
First, They assert, as Bellarmine saith, that “many holy men have
suffered more for GOD and righteousness’ sake than the guilt of the
temporal punishment, which they were obnoxious to for faults committed
by them, could exact.”
Secondly, Hence they say, as Johannes de Turrecremata, “That one can
satisfy for another, or one can acceptably perform satisfactory
punishment for another,” viz. “because they suffer more than is due to
their own sins; and seeing all sufferings are satisfactory, what they
undergo more than is due to their own is satisfactory for other men’s
sins.”
Thirdly, “Seeing they who thus undergo satisfactory punishments for
others do not appoint the fruit of this their satisfaction to any
particular persons, it therefore,” as Roffensis saith, “becomes
profitable to the whole Church in common, so that it is now called the
common treasury of the Church, to wit, that from thence may be fetched
whatsoever any others lack of due satisfaction.”
Fourthly, “This common treasure,” saith Bellarmine, “is the foundation
of pardons.” So that, as he saith, “the Church hath power to apply this
treasure of satisfaction, and by this to grant our pardons.”
By this, therefore, we may have some sight into this great mystery, and
perceive what they mean by pardons. For as Laymanus the Jesuit saith, “A
pardon or indulgence is the remission of a temporal punishment due to
GOD without the sacrament, by the application of the satisfaction of
CHRIST and the saints.” Or, as Gregorius de Valentia saith, “An
ecclesiastical pardon or indulgence is a relaxation of a temporal
punishment by GOD’S judgment due to actual sins, after the remission of
the fault made without the sacrament (of penance), by the application of
the superabundant satisfaction of CHRIST and the saints, by him who hath
lawful authority to do it.” But let us hear what a pope himself saith
concerning these pardons. Leo X., in his decretal, ann. 1518, saith,
“The pope of Rome may, for reasonable causes, grant to the same saints
of CHRIST who, charity uniting them, are members of CHRIST, whether they
be in this life or in purgatory, pardons out of the superabundancy of
the merits of CHRIST and the saints; and that be used, for the living as
well as for the dead, by his apostolic power of granting pardons, to
dispense or distribute the treasure of the merits of CHRIST and the
saints, to confer the indulgence itself, after the manner of an
absolution, or transfer it after the manner of a suffrage.” So that, as
Durandus saith, “The Church can communicate from this treasure to any
one, or several, for their sins, in part or in whole, according as it
pleases the Church to communicate more or less from the treasure.” And
hence it is that we find it said in the book of indulgences or pardons,
that “Pope Sylvester and Gregory, that consecrated the Lateran Church,
gave so many pardons, that none could number them but GOD; Boniface
being witness, who said, ‘if men knew the pardons of the Lateran Church,
they would not need to go by sea to the holy sepulchre. In the chapel of
the saints are twenty-eight stairs that stood before the house of Pilate
in Jerusalem. Whosoever shall ascend those stairs with devotion hath,
for every sin, nine years of pardons; but he that ascends them kneeling,
he shall free one soul out of purgatory.’” So that it seems the pope can
not only give me a pardon for sins past, but to come; yea, and not only
give me a pardon for my own sins, but power to pardon other men’s sins,
else I could not redeem a soul from purgatory.
We have been the larger in the opening of this great Romish mystery,
because we need do no more than open it; for, being thus opened, it
shows itself to be a ridiculous and impious doctrine, utterly repugnant
to the Scriptures. For this doctrine, thus explained, is grounded upon
works of supererogation; for it is from the treasury of these good works
that the Romish Church fetches all her pardons. Now this is but a bad
foundation, contrary to Scripture, reason, and Fathers; as we have seen
in the fourteenth Article. And if the foundation be rotten, the
superstructure cannot be sound. Again, this doctrine supposes one man
may and doth satisfy for another; whereas the Scriptures hold forth
“CHRIST [as] our propitiation,” (1 John ii. 2,) “Who trode the
wine-press of his Father’s wrath alone” (Isaiah lxiii. 3). Lastly, this
doctrine supposes that a pope, a priest, a finite creature, can pardon
sins; whereas the Scripture holds forth this as the prerogative only of
the true GOD. For “who is a GOD like unto thee,” saith the prophet
Micah, “that pardoneth iniquities?” (Mic. vii. 18.) And therefore the
scribes and Pharisees, when they said, “Who can forgive sins but GOD
alone?” (Luke v. 21,) what they said, though wickedly said by them, not
acknowledging CHRIST to be GOD, and so not to have that power, yet it
was truly said in itself: for, had not CHRIST been GOD, he would have
had no more power to forgive sins than the pope.
And whatsoever the doctors of the Romish Church now hold, we are sure
the Fathers of old constantly affirmed that it was GOD only could
forgive sin. So Chrysostom saith, “For none can pardon sins but only
GOD.” Euthymius, “None can truly pardon sins, but he alone who beholds
the thoughts of men.” Gregory, “Thou who alone sparest, who alone
forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but GOD alone?” Ambrose, “For
this cannot be common to any man with CHRIST to forgive sins. This is
his gift only who took away the sins of the world.” Certainly the
Fathers never thought of the pope’s pardons, when they let such and
the like sentences slip from them. Nay, and Athanasius was so
confident that it was GOD only could pardon sin, that he brings this
as an argument against the Arians, to prove that CHRIST was GOD,
because he could pardon sin. “But how,” saith he, “if the WORD was a
creature, could he loose the sentence of GOD, and pardon sin?” It
being written by the prophets that this belongs to GOD; for “who is a
GOD like to thee, pardoning sins, and passing by transgressions?” For
GOD said, “Thou art earth, and unto earth thou shalt return.” So that
men are mortal: and how then was it possible that sin should be
pardoned or loosed by creatures? Yet CHRIST loosed and pardoned them.
Certainly had the pope’s pardons been heard of in that age, this would
have been but a weak argument. For Arius might easily have answered,
“It doth not follow, that, because CHRIST could pardon sin, he was
therefore GOD; for the pope is not GOD, and yet he can pardon sin.”
But thus we see the Fathers confidently averring, it is GOD only can
pardon sins, and therefore that the pope cannot pardon them by any
means whatsoever, unless he be GOD, which as yet they do not assert.
And so that the Romish doctrine concerning pardons is a fond thing,
repugnant to the Scriptures.—_Beveridge._
PARISH. A parish is that circuit of ground which is committed to the
charge of one parson or vicar, or other minister having cure of souls
therein. A _reputed parish_ is where there is a parochial chapel, with
all parochial rites entirely independent of the mother-church, as to
sacraments, marriages, burials, repairs, &c. (See _Chapel_.)
The word _parish_ is from the Greek word παροικία, (_paroichia_,) which
signifies _sojourning_, or living _as a stranger_ or inmate; for so it
is used among the classical Greek writers. The Septuagint translate the
Hebrew word גר, (_Ger_,) _peregrinus_, by πάροικος, (Gen. xv. 13,
&c.,) and the word מגור, (_Magor_,) _peregrinatio_, by παροικία. (Ps.
cxix. 54.)
The primitive Christians received a great part of their customs, and
also their phraseology from the Jews; who, when they travelled abroad,
and many of them were settled in any town, either built them a
synagogue, or else procured a large room, where they performed their
public worship; and all that were strangers in that place met there at
the times of public devotion. This brotherhood of Jews, which was mixed
with the inhabitants of the place, they called the παροικία, or the
_society of the sojourners_. At the beginning of Christianity, the
Christians were in the same condition with the Jews, they being
themselves either Jews, or Jewish proselytes, or living in a retired
condition, sequestered from the world, and little mixing with affairs.
Upon which account St. Peter addresses them ὡς παροικοὺς, &c., _as
strangers and pilgrims_. (1 Pet. ii. 11.) This number of strangers in
the heathen cities was called the παροικία, over which there was set, by
apostolical authority, a bishop, a προεσθώς, a _cazan_, (an inspector,)
or a _rhosh cohel_ (a head of the congregation); all which names denoted
the episcopal authority, and which in little time centred in the one
most usual name, of ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, as is plainly seen by the
Ignatian epistles. So that the ἐπίσκοπος and παροικία became relative
terms; he that had the superintendency of the congregation, whether one
or more, was called the bishop, and the congregation under his care was
called the παροικία. Hence, in the most early time of the Greek Church,
the word παροικία was used to signify, what we now call a _diocese_; and
thus, in the apostolic canons, a bishop that leaves his diocese
παροικίαν for another is to be reduced to lay-communion. Hence it is
said, “The bishop of the diocese παροικιας of Alexandria departed this
life.” And again, “the glory παροικιας of the diocese of Cæsarea.” The
Latins took up the same way of expression, from the Greek, denoting a
diocese by the word _parochia_, which mode of expression lasted till
after the time of Charlemagne.
But it is to be observed, that when the word _parochia_ signified a
diocese, the word _diocesis_ signified a parish. So in the Council of
Agatha, _presbyter dum diocesin tenet_, “whilst the presbyter is in
possession of his living.” And in the third Council of Orleans,
_diocesis_ is the same with _basilica_, a parish church. But in the
seventh or eighth century, when parish churches began frequently to be
founded in villages, the old names shifted, and _diocesis_ was used to
denote the extent of the bishop’s jurisdiction; and _parochia_, the
place where the presbyter’s care was limited.
That the word παροικία was not exclusively applied to a _parish_, and
that a bishop’s diocese was not anciently confined to a _single_ parish,
as it has been asserted by the advocates for Presbyterianism, see
Maurice’s “Defence of Diocesan Episcopacy,” and Scater’s “Original
Draught of the Primitive Church.”
How ancient the division of parishes is, may at present be difficult to
ascertain; for it seems to be agreed on all hands, that, in the early
ages of Christianity in this island, parishes were unknown, or at least
signified the same that a _diocese_ does now. There was then no
appropriation of ecclesiastical dues to any particular Church; but every
man was at liberty to contribute his tithes to whatever priest or church
he pleased, provided only that he did it to some; or if he made no
special appointment or appropriation thereof, they were paid into the
hands of the bishop, whose duty it was to distribute them among the
clergy, and for other pious purposes, according to his own discretion.
Mr. Camden says, England was divided into parishes by Archbishop
Honorius, about the year 630. Sir Henry Hobart lays it down, that
parishes were first erected by the Council of Lateran, which was held A.
D. 1179. Each widely differing from the other, and both of them perhaps
from the truth; which will probably be found in the medium between the
two extremes: for Mr. Selden has clearly shown, that the clergy lived in
common without any division of parishes, long after the time mentioned
by Camden; and it appears from the Saxon laws, that parishes were in
being long before the date of that Council of Lateran, to which they are
ascribed by Hobart.
Many parish churches were founded in great towns and villages in Italy,
Spain, and France, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, under
the cathedral church of the bishop; and though they were later in
England, yet there are some instances as early as the year 700: for
about that time Bede relates, that the bishop of Hexham consecrated a
parish church in the manor of one Pach, a Saxon earl, and not long after
for one Addi. Nay, before this he relates of Birinus, first bishop of
the West Saxons, that he built and dedicated several churches in his
diocese of Dorchester. When Egbert, archbishop of York, made his
constitutions, about the year 750, they seem to be growing up apace. By
that canon, “_Unusquisque sacerdos ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentia
ædificet_.”—_Spelman._ And he forbids that the tithes formerly paid to
the mother-church should be paid to the new-built oratories. By the time
of Edward the Confessor these parishes were grown so numerous, that
complaint was made that the clergy were impoverished thereby. After
which time the division of parishes was not much altered; for the survey
of England in Doomsday Book is not very different from our later
ones.—_Nicholls._
Before the establishment of parishes in England, the bishops sent out
their clergy (who lived with them) to preach to the people as occasion
required; but as Christianity extended, and the number of converts
increased, this method became inconvenient, and a resident clergy was
found expedient. Parishes were then formed, and churches were built, and
endowed by lords of manors and others; and hence arose the patronage of
laymen.
The cause of the great difference in the extent of different parishes is
this: that churches were most of them built by lords of the manor for
their tenants; and so the parish was of the size of the lord’s manor.
In 1520, according to a book made out by Cardinal Wolsey, the number of
parish churches is reckoned 9407, but Chamberlain makes them 9913.
Camden reckons 9284. The number of charity briefs issued was according
to an account in Burns’ “Ecclesiastical Law,” 10,489. Formerly
Archdeacon Plymley, in his charge to the clergy of Salop, 1793, says
that, from the “Liber Regis,” there were in England and Wales 5098
rectories, 3687 vicarages, and 2970 churches, neither rectorial nor
vicarial; in all 11,755 churches in the 10,000 parishes. It is scarcely
necessary to add, that both churches and parishes have much increased
since that period.
As to divisions and consolidations of parishes, see 58 Geo. III. c. 45;
59 Geo. III. c. 134; 8 & 9 Vic. c. 70. See also 3 & 4 Vic. c. 60, sec.
6.
PARSON. (_Persona ecclesiæ._) _Parson_ properly signifies the rector of
a parish church, because, during the time of his incumbency, he
represents the Church, and in the eye of the law sustains the _person_
thereof, as well in suing as in being sued, in any action touching the
same. _Parson imparsonee_ (_persona impersonata_) is he that, as lawful
incumbent, is in actual possession of a parish church, and with whom the
church is full, whether it be presentative or impropriate. The word
persona is however applied in ancient documents to others besides
parochial incumbents, that is, to ecclesiastical officers who had a
personal responsibility for the services and duties proper to their
churches. (See _Persona_.)
PARSONAGE. The parson’s residence. It is applicable both to rectories
and to vicarages, and indeed to the official residences of all
incumbents of parishes, parochial districts, or chapelries. As to giving
of lands for parsonages, see 55 Geo. III. c. 147.
PARVISE. A chamber over a church porch. The parvise was most likely
always a kind of _domus inclusa_ for some officer of the church, as, for
instance, the sacristan; and from the frequent occurrence of an altar in
the east window, we may presume that it was sometimes a temporary
lodging for a priest.
PASCH. The festival of Easter.
PASCHAL. Pertaining to the Passover. The lamb offered in this Jewish
festival being a prominent type of CHRIST, the terms _paschal_ and
paschal lamb are often used in application to the REDEEMER. An example
occurs in the proper preface for Easter Day, in the Communion Office,
thus: “Thy SON JESUS CHRIST our LORD, for he is the very _Paschal_ Lamb,
which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world,” &c.
PASSALORYNCHITES, or PATTALORYNCHIANS. Certain heretics, the followers
of Montanus, who made profession of never speaking, and for that purpose
always held their fingers upon their mouths, grounding it upon certain
words of the 140th Psalm. They began to appear in the second age; and
St. Jerome testifies, that even in his time he found some of them in
Galatia, as he travelled to Ancyra.
PASSING BELL. By the sixth canon it is enjoined, “When any is passing
out of this life, a bell shall be tolled, and the minister shall not
then slack to do his last duty. And after the party’s death (if so it
fall out) there shall be rung no more but one short peal, and one other
before the burial, and one other after the burial.”
PASSION WEEK. So we denominate the week immediately preceding the
festival of _Easter_, because in that week our SAVIOUR’S _passion_ and
death happened.
The primitive Christians called it _Hebdomas Magna_, or the _Great
Week_. No one can better describe it to us than St. Chrysostom, who
says, “It was called the Great Week, not because it consisted of longer
days, or more in number, than other weeks, but because at this time
great things were wrought for us by our LORD. For in this week the
ancient tyranny of the devil was dissolved, death was extinct, the
strong man was bound, his goods were spoiled, sin was abolished, the
curse was destroyed, paradise was opened, heaven became accessible, men
and angels were joined together, the middle wall of partition was broken
down, the barriers were taken out of the way, the GOD of peace made
peace between things in heaven and things in earth; therefore it is
called the _Great Week_. And as this is the head of all other weeks, so
the Great _Sabbath_ is the head of this week. Therefore, in this week,
many increase their labours; some adding to their fastings, others to
their watchings; others give more liberal alms, testifying the greatness
of the Divine goodness by their care of good works, and more intense
piety and holy living. As the Jews went forth to meet CHRIST, when he
had raised Lazarus from the dead, so now not only one city, but all the
world, go forth to meet him, not with palm branches in their hands, but
with alms-deeds, humanity, virtue, fastings, tears, prayers, watchings,
and all kinds of piety, which they offer to CHRIST their LORD. And not
only we, but the emperors of the world, honour this week, making it a
time of vacation from all civil business. The imperial letters are sent
abroad at this time, commanding all prisoners to be set at liberty from
their chains. For, as our LORD, when he descended into hell, set free
those that were detained by death; so the servants, according to their
power, imitating the kindness of their LORD, loose men from their
corporal bonds, when they have no power to relax the spiritual.”
It is plain from hence, that the ancient Christians paid an
extraordinary regard to this Holy Week, and that this consisted in
additional exercises of devotion, longer fastings, more liberal alms,
vacation from all civil business, and a general release of prisoners,
some particular cases of criminals only excepted.
The _Thursday_ in this week, which was the day on which CHRIST was
betrayed, was observed with some peculiar customs. In some churches, the
communion was administered in the evening after supper, in imitation of
the communion of the apostles at our LORD’S last supper. On this day the
_Competentes_, or candidates of baptism, publicly rehearsed the creed
before the bishops or presbyters in the church. And on this day it was
customary for servants to receive the communion. The modern ritualists
call this day _Maundy Thursday_. (See _Maundy Thursday_.)
The _Friday_ was called _Good Friday_, or _Pasch_ of the _Cross_, in
opposition to _Easter_, or the _Pasch_ of the _Resurrection_. On this
day, not only penitents were absolved, but a general absolution and
indulgence was proclaimed to all the people, observing the day with
fasting, prayers, and contrition.
The Saturday of this week was known by the name of the _Great Sabbath_.
It had many peculiarities belonging to it. For this was the only Sabbath
throughout the year that the Greek churches, and some of the Western,
kept as a fast; all other Saturdays, or Sabbaths, being observed as
festivals. On this day they continued to fast, not only till evening,
but till cock-crowing in the morning, which was the supposed time of our
SAVIOUR’S resurrection. And the preceding time of the night was spent in
Divine service, praying, preaching, and baptizing such of the
catechumens as presented themselves. A remnant of which custom seems
still to be kept up in the Latin offices, which prescribe the reading of
numerous chapters from the Holy Scriptures, called prophecies, with
prayers, &c. interspersed. Eusebius tells us that, in the time of
Constantine, this vigil was kept with great pomp. For that emperor set
up lofty pillars of wax, to burn as torches all over the city, so that
the night seemed to outshine the sun at noonday. The fifth Sunday in
Lent is called in the Roman office, Passion Sunday, that name being
applied to it in reference to our LORD’S prediction on that day of his
approaching passion. And some persons call the week, of which Passion
Sunday is the first day, Passion Week; and the real Passion Week they
call Holy Week. This is, however, a piece of pedantry, founded on a
mistake.
PASSOVER. (_Pesach_, Heb., which signifies _a leap_, _a passage_.)
(_Pascha_, in the LXX.) The Passover was a solemn festival of the Jews,
instituted in commemoration of their coming out of Egypt, because the
night before their departure the destroying angel, that slew the
first-born of the Egyptians, passed over the houses of the Hebrews
without entering them, because they were marked with the blood of the
lamb, which for this reason was called the paschal lamb.
PASTOR. Literally, a shepherd; figuratively, the bishop of a diocese, or
the priest of a parish, whose people are, likewise, figuratively called
their flock. It is employed in this sense in one of the prayers for the
Ember Week, and in the Ordination Services.
PASTORAL STAFF. (See _Crosier_.) It is mentioned in one of the rubrics
of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, which is still the law of the
Church, according to the present rubric as to the “ornament of the
Church,” which prescribes that the bishop shall in his public
ministrations, besides his proper vestments, have “his pastoral staff in
his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.”
PATEN. The plate on which the sacred bread in the eucharist is laid. The
original word signifies a wide open dish. It occurs in our Communion
Office, at consecration, “here the priest is to take the _paten_ into
his hands.”
PATRIARCHS. (From the Greek πατριὰ, _family_, and ἄρχων, _head_ or
_ruler_.) Patriarchs among Christians are ecclesiastical dignitaries, or
bishops, so called from their _paternal authority_ in the Church.
In the ancient Christian Church, patriarchs were next in order to
metropolitans or primates. They were originally styled archbishops, and
exarchs of a diocese. For the name archbishop was anciently a more
extensive title than now, and scarce given to any but those whose
jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishops of
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. After the setting up the patriarchal
power, the name archbishop was appropriated to the patriarchs.
The first time we meet with the name patriarch given to any bishop by
public authority of the Church, is in the Council of Chalcedon, which
mentions the most holy _patriarchs_, particularly Leo, patriarch of
great Rome. Among private authors, the first who mentions patriarchs by
name is Socrates, who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years
before the Council of Chalcedon. But though we cannot trace the name any
higher, yet the power itself was much earlier. The Romanists carry it up
to the time of the apostles. Others fix it to a little before the
Council of Nice. Others ascribe its rise to that very council. In a
matter so obscure, and so variously controverted among learned men, it
is no easy matter to determine where the right lies. But, however it be,
the fourth century affords pregnant proofs of the establishment and
growth of the patriarchal power.
The power of patriarchs was not one and the same precisely in all
churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and
countries, or the pleasure of kings or councils. The patriarch of
Constantinople grew to be a patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and
Cæsarea. And the patriarch of Alexandria had some prerogatives which no
other patriarchs besides himself enjoyed. Such was the right of
consecrating and approving every single bishop under his jurisdiction.
The general privileges of the patriarchate were these following:—First,
the patriarchs ordained all the metropolitans under them; but they
themselves were to be ordained by a diocesan synod. Secondly, they had
the power of convening all their metropolitans and provincial bishops to
a diocesan synod. Thirdly, they had the privilege of receiving appeals
from metropolitans and provincial synods, and reversing their decrees.
In the fourth place, they might inquire into the administration of
metropolitans, and censure them in case of heresy or misdemeanour. By
virtue of this power, Chrysostom deposed Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedia.
Fifthly, a patriarch had power to delegate, or send a metropolitan into
any part of his diocese, as his commissioner, to hear and determine
ecclesiastical causes in his name. Sixthly, the metropolitans did
nothing of moment without consulting the patriarchs. Seventhly, it was
the patriarch’s office to publish both ecclesiastical and civil laws,
which concerned the Church. The last privilege of patriarchs was, that
they were all co-ordinate and independent of one another. After ages, it
is true, made great alteration in this matter.
Learned men reckon up thirteen patriarchs in those early ages, that is,
one in every capital city of each diocese in the Romish empire. The
patriarchs were as follows:—
The patriarchs of Antioch and Ephesus, in Asia.
The patriarch of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia.
The patriarch of Thessalonica, in Macedonia.
The patriarch of Sirmium, in Illyricum.
The patriarchs of Rome and Milan, in Italy.
The patriarchs of Alexandria and Carthage, in Egypt.
The patriarch of Lyons, in France.
The patriarch of Toledo, in Spain.
The patriarch of York, in Britain.
The patriarch of Constantinople, styled the _Œcumenical, or Universal
Patriarch_.
All these were independent of one another, till Rome by encroachment,
and Constantinople by law, gained a superiority over some of the rest.
The subordinate patriarchs, nevertheless, still retained the title of
_exarchs_ of the diocese, and continued to sit and vote in councils.
The title of patriarch is still kept up in the Greek Church; the supreme
head of which is the patriarch of Constantinople, who pays a large sum
(sometimes ten, sometimes twenty, thousand crowns) to the Grand Seignor,
for his instalment. His revenue amounts to near forty thousand crowns a
year, arising from the sale of bishoprics and other benefices; besides
that every priest in Constantinople pays him a crown per annum. There
are about 150 bishops and archbishops dependent on this patriarch.
After the patriarch of Constantinople, the richest is the patriarch of
Jerusalem. The patriarch of Antioch is the poorest of them all. The
patriarch of Alexandria is very powerful: he assumes the title of Grand
Judge of the whole world. But what distinguishes him more than all the
rest from the patriarch of Constantinople is, his being less exposed to
the avarice and resentments of the Turks.
The patriarch of Constantinople is elected by the archbishops and
bishops, with the consent and approbation of the Grand Seignor, who
presents the new patriarch with a white horse, a black capuch, a
crosier, and an embroidered caftan. The bishop of Heraclea, as chief
archbishop, has a right to consecrate him. This prelate, dressed in
pontifical robes, conducts the patriarch to his throne, and vests him
with the cross, mitre, and other ornaments. He is attended to the church
by some of the officers of the Porte, who read over his letters patent
at the church door, with a strict charge to the people to own him as
their head, to maintain him suitably to his dignity, and to pay his
debts, under penalty of bastinado and confiscation of their effects.
The Jews had their patriarchs, who were governors set up upon the
destruction of Jerusalem. One of these had his residence at Tiberias,
and another at Babylon; who were the heads of the Jews dispersed
throughout the Roman and Persian empires. They continued in great power
and dignity till the latter end of the fourth century, about which time
the order ceased.
PATRIMONY. A name anciently given to church estates, or revenues. Thus
we find mentioned, in the letters of St. Gregory, not only the patrimony
of the Roman Church, but those likewise of the Churches of Rimini,
Milan, and Ravenna. This name, therefore, does not peculiarly signify
any sovereign dominion or jurisdiction, belonging to the Roman Church,
or the pope.
Churches, in cities whose inhabitants were but of modern subsistence,
had no estates left to them out of their own district: but those in
imperial cities, such as Rome, Ravenna, and Milan, where senators, and
persons of the first rank, inhabited, were endowed with estates in
divers parts of the world. St. Gregory mentions the patrimony of the
Church of Ravenna in Sicily, and another of the Church of Milan in that
kingdom. The Roman Church had patrimonies in France, Africa, Sicily, in
the Cottian Alps, and in many other countries. The same St. Gregory had
a lawsuit with the bishop of Ravenna for the patrimonies of the two
Churches, which afterwards ended by agreement.
PATRIPASSIANS. (_A patre passo._) A denomination that arose in the
second century. Praxeas, a man of genius and learning, denied any real
distinction between the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, and maintained that
the FATHER, sole Creator of all things, had united to himself the human
nature of CHRIST. Hence his followers were called Monarchians, because
of their denying a plurality of persons in the Deity; and also
Patripassians, because they believed that the FATHER was so intimately
united with the man CHRIST, his SON, that he suffered with him the
anguish of an afflicted life, and the torments of an ignominious death.
It does not appear that this sect formed to itself any separate place of
worship, or removed from the ordinary assemblies of Christians.
PATRON. The person who has the right to present to a benefice. The
greatest part of the benefices in England are presentative; the thanes
or lords, who built and endowed churches, having first agreed with the
bishops that they should have the privilege of presenting fit clerks to
serve and receive the profits of the churches founded by them; which
right is continued to their posterity, and those who have purchased of
them. See the 14 & 15 Vic. c. 97, for a new legislative right of
patronage to builders and endowers of new churches.
PAUL, ST., THE CONVERSION OF. A festival of the Christian Church,
observed on the twenty-fifth of January.
The Church chooses to commemorate St. Paul by his Conversion, because,
as it was wonderful in itself, and a miraculous effect of the powerful
grace of GOD, so was it highly beneficial to the Church of CHRIST: for,
while the other apostles had their particular provinces, he had the care
of all the Churches, and by his indefatigable labours contributed very
much to the propagation of the gospel throughout the world.
It is remarkable of this great apostle of the Gentiles, that, after his
conversion, he changed his name, being called before Saul, a name famous
among the tribe of Benjamin (to which he belonged) ever since the first
king of Israel, Saul, was chosen out of that tribe. The name Paul, which
he afterwards assumed, related to the Roman corporation where he was
born; though some have thought it was in memory of his converting
Sergius Paulus, the Roman governor.
Among other reasons which may be assigned for the miraculous conversion
of St. Paul, the most considerable seems to be, that this might add the
greater weight and authority to his preaching; which was necessary,
considering the great share he was to have in planting Christianity in
the world. Add to this, that St. Paul appears to have had a very honest
mind, and to have been influenced with a regard only to what he thought
truth; but being prejudiced by education, and pushed on by the heat of
his natural temper, was transported with furious zeal; and therefore GOD
was pleased to “show mercy to him,” because what he did was done
“ignorantly, in unbelief;” and in a miraculous manner to convince him of
the truth of that religion which he persecuted.
PAUL’S, ST., CROSS. (See _Cross_.)
PAULIANISTS. The Paulianists derive their name from Paulus Samosatensis,
who was elected bishop of Antioch, A. D. 260. He maintained, amongst
other errors, that our LORD was a mere man, and had not come down from
heaven. He was condemned and deposed by a council at Antioch, A. D. 272.
One of the canons of Nice required the Paulianists to be rebaptized,
because in baptizing they did not use the only lawful form according to
our SAVIOUR’S command.
PAULICIANS. Heretics in the seventh century, disciples of Constantine, a
native of Armenia, and a favourer of the errors of Manes.
As the name of Manicheans was become odious to all nations, he gave
those of his sect the title of Paulicians, on pretence that they
followed only the doctrine of St. Paul.
One of their most detestable maxims was, not to give alms to the poor,
that they might not contribute to the support of creatures who were the
work of the bad god.
The sect of the Paulicians did not spread much till the reign of the
emperor Nicephorus, who began to reign in 801. The protection of this
prince drew great numbers to their party. But the empress Theodora,
regent during the minority of Michel, published an edict, obliging them
to follow the Catholic faith, or to depart out of the empire. Many of
them chose rather to suffer death than to obey; and several, who lay
concealed, afterwards took up arms against the emperor Basil, the
Macedonian.
PAX. A small tablet of silver, or some fit material, often very
elaborately ornamented, by means of which the kiss of peace was, in the
mediæval Church, circulated through the congregation. It was introduced
when the primitive kiss of peace, which used to circulate throughout the
Christian assemblies, was discontinued on account of some appearance of
scandal which had grown out of it. In the place of this, a small tablet
of silver or ivory, or some appropriate material, having first received
the kiss of the priest, was presented by him to the deacon, and by him
again to the people, by all of whom it was kissed in order; thus
receiving and transmitting from each to all the symbol of Christian love
and unity, without any possibility of offence.
In the Syrian churches, the following seems to be the way in which the
same thing is symbolized. In a part of the prayers, which has a
reference to the birth of CHRIST, on pronouncing the words “Peace on
earth, good will towards men,” the attending ministers take the
officiating priest’s right hand between both their hands, and so pass
_the peace_ to the congregation, each of whom takes his neighbour’s
right hand, and salutes him with the word _peace_. In the Romish Church
the Pax is still used. By the Church of England it was omitted at the
Reformation as a useless ceremony. Though the _pax_ as an ornament is
found among the ornaments of the altar, preserved in many churches after
the Reformation.—See _Hiereugia Anglicana_.
PAX VOBISCUM. (_Lat._) In English, “Peace be with you.” A form of
salutation frequently made use of in the offices of the ancient
Christian Church.
First, It was usual for the bishop to salute the people, in this form,
at his first entrance into the church. This is often mentioned by St.
Chrysostom, who derives it from apostolical practice.
Secondly, The reader began the reading of the lessons with this form.
St. Cyprian plainly alludes to this, when, speaking of a new reader,
whom he had ordained to that office, he says, _Auspicatus est Pacem, dum
dedicat lectionem_; he began to use the salutation, _Peace be with you_,
when he first began to read. The third Council of Carthage took away
this privilege from the readers, and gave it to the deacons, or other
superior ministers of the church.
Thirdly, In many places, the sermon was introduced with this form of
salutation, and often ended with it.
Fourthly, It was always used at the consecration of the eucharist: and,
Lastly, At the dismission of the congregation. And, whenever it was said
by the officiating minister, the people always answered, _And with thy
spirit_.
St. Chrysostom lays open the original intent and design of this
practice. For he says, it was an ancient custom in the apostles’ days,
when the rulers of the Church had the gift of inspiration, for the
people to say to the preacher, _Peace be with thy spirit_; acknowledging
thereby that they were under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of
GOD.
In our own liturgy we use an equivalent salutation, namely. _The Lord be
with you_; to which the people answer, (as the primitive Christians
did,) _And with thy spirit_. It occurs but twice in our Prayer Book, i.
e. after the Creed at Morning and Evening Prayer. In the First Book of
King Edward it followed the versicles, immediately preceding the collect
for the day: besides being used more than once in other offices.
PECULIARS. Those parishes and places are called peculiars, which are
exempted from the jurisdiction of the proper ordinary of the diocese
where they lie. These exempt jurisdictions are so called, not because
they are under no ordinary, but because they are not under the ordinary
of the diocese, but have one of their own. They are a remnant of Popery.
The pope, before the Reformation, by a usurped authority, in defiance of
the canons of the Church, exempted them from the jurisdiction of the
bishop of the diocese. At the Reformation, by an oversight, they were
not restored to the jurisdiction of the diocesan, but remained under the
sovereign, or under such other person, as by custom or purchase obtained
the right of superintendence.
The act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 77, which constituted the ecclesiastical
commission, empowered the commissioners “to propose those parishes,
churches, or chapelries which are locally situate in any diocese, but
subject to any peculiar jurisdiction, other than the jurisdiction of the
bishop of the diocese in which the same are locally situate, shall be
only subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese within
which such parishes, churches, or chapelries are locally situate.”
(Sect. 10.) In consequence of recommendations by the commissioners,
peculiars have been abolished in most, if not all, dioceses of England.
PELAGIANS. Heretics who first appeared about the latter end of the
fourth, or beginning of the fifth, century.
Pelagius, author of this sect, was a Briton, being born in Wales. His
name, in the British language, was Morgan, which signifies sea-born;
from whence he had his Latin name Pelagius. He is said to have been a
monk by profession; but probably was no otherwise such than as those
were so called who led stricter lives than others within their own
houses. Some of our ancient historians pretend that he was abbot of
Bangor. But this is not likely, because the British monasteries
(according to a learned author) were of a later date. St. Augustine
gives him the character of a very pious man, and a Christian of no
vulgar rank. According to the same father, he travelled to Rome, where
he associated himself with persons of the greatest learning and figure.
Here he instructed several young persons, particularly Cœlestius and
Julianus; as also Timasius and Jacobus, who afterwards renounced his
doctrine, and applied themselves to St. Augustine. During this time he
wrote his “Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles,” and his Letters to
Melania and Demetrias.
Pelagius, being charged with heresy, left Rome, and went into Africa,
where he was present at the famous conference held at Carthage, between
the Catholics and Donatists. From Carthage he travelled into Egypt, and
at last went to Jerusalem, where he settled. He was accused before the
Council of Diospolis in Palestine, where he recanted his opinions; but
relapsing, and discovering the insincerity of his recantation, he was
afterwards condemned by several councils in Africa, and by a synod at
Antioch. Pelagius died somewhere in the East, but where is uncertain.
His principal tenets, as we find them charged upon his disciple
Cœlestius by the Church of Carthage, were these:
I. That Adam was by nature mortal, and, whether he had sinned or not,
would certainly have died.
II. That the consequences of Adam’s sin were confined to his person, and
the rest of mankind received no disadvantage thereby.
III. That the law qualified men for the kingdom of heaven, and was
founded upon equal promises with the gospel.
IV. That, before the coming of our SAVIOUR, some men lived without sin.
V. That new-born infants are in the same condition with Adam before his
fall.
VI. That the general resurrection of the dead does not follow in virtue
of our SAVIOUR’S resurrection.
VII. That a man may keep the commands of GOD without difficulty, and
preserve himself in a perfect state of innocence.
VIII. That rich men cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless they
part with all their estate.
IX. That the grace of GOD is not granted for the performance of every
moral act; the liberty of the will, and information in points of duty,
being sufficient for this purpose.
X. That the grace of GOD is given in proportion to our merits.
XI. That none can be called the sons of GOD, but those who are perfectly
free from sin.
XII. That our victory over temptation is not gained by GOD’S assistance,
but by the liberty of the will.
The heresy of Pelagius, notwithstanding its condemnation, made its way
into Britain, where its author was born; being conveyed thither by one
Agricola, the son of Severianus, a Pelagian bishop of Gaul. The orthodox
party were very diligent in opposing its progress, and for that purpose
requested the Gallican bishops to send over some persons of eminence to
manage the contest. Those chosen for this purpose were Germanus, bishop
of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes; who, arriving in Britain, held
a famous conference with the Pelagians at St. Alban’s, in which the
latter were put to silence, and the people gave sentence, by their
acclamations, for Germanus and Lupus. The Pelagian error respecting
original sin is noticed in our ninth Article.
PENANCE. (_Pœnitentia_, Latin.) As repentance is the principle and
inward feeling of sorrow for sin, which we are determined to forsake, so
penance is the outward profession of that sorrow. An account of penance
in the primitive Church may be seen in Bingham, and more concisely in
Coleman, from whom we shall quote in this article. Penance, in the
Christian Church, is an imitation of the discipline of the Jewish
synagogue; or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution.
Excommunication in the Christian Church is essentially the same as
expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the
offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not
materially different in the Jewish and Christian Churches. The principal
point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of
excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the
Jewish economy; but in the Christian Church it affected only his
relations to that body. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions
of the Church, nor its situation, nor constitution in the first three
centuries, was at all compatible with the intermingling or confounding
of civil and religious privileges or penalties.
The act of excommunication was, at first, an exclusion of the offender
from the LORD’S supper, and from the _agapæ_. The term itself implies
separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the
injunction of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 11, “With such an one no not _to
eat_.” From the context, and from 1 Cor. x. 16–18; xi. 20–34, it clearly
appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals, and the ordinary
intercourse of life, but to these religious festivals.
Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament; neither
are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals, but of a whole
city or people, performing certain acts of penance,—fasting, mourning,
&c. (Nehem. ix. and Jonah iii.) But these acts of humiliation were
essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from Christian
penance.
We have, however, in the New Testament, an instance of the
excommunication of an offending member, and of his restoration to the
fellowship of the Church by penance, agreeably to the authority of St.
Paul, 1 Cor. v. 1–8; 2 Cor. ii. 5–11. This sentence of exclusion from
the Church was pronounced _by the assembled body_, and in the name of
the LORD JESUS CHRIST. By this sentence, the offender was separated from
the people of the LORD, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was
reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power
of Satan, and of evil spirits. This is, perhaps, the true import of
delivering such an one up to Satan.
A similar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,
“If any man love not the LORD JESUS CHRIST, let him be anathema
maranatha.” The μαράν ἀθὰ corresponds, in sense, with the Hebrew חרם,
and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction; (which, however, is by
some supposed to be the Syro-Chaldaic מרנא אתה, expressed in the Greek
character, meaning, “The Lord cometh.”) (See _Maranatha_.) The whole
sentence implies that the Church leaves the subject of it to the LORD,
who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires
of the Corinthians is, that they should exclude him from their communion
and fellowship; so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their
body. He pronounces no further judgment upon the offender, but leaves
him to the judgment of GOD. “What have I to do to judge them that are
without?” (ver. 12,) i. e. those who are not Christians, to which class
the excommunicated person would belong. “Do not ye judge them that are
within?” i. e. full members of the Church. But them that are without GOD
judgeth; or rather _will judge_, κρινεῖ, as the reading should be. It
appears from 2 Cor. ii. 1–11, that the Church had not restored such to
the privileges of communion, but were willing to do so; and that the
apostle very gladly authorized the measure.
It is important to remark that, in the primitive Church, penance related
only to such as had been excluded from the communion of the Church. Its
immediate object was, not the forgiveness of the offender by the LORD
GOD, but his reconciliation with the Church. It could, therefore, relate
only to open and scandalous offences. _De occultis non judicat
ecclesia_—the Church takes no cognizance of secret sins—was an ancient
maxim of the Church. The early Fathers say expressly, that the Church
offers pardon only for offences committed against her. The forgiveness
of all sin she refers to GOD himself. _Omnia autem_, says Cyprian, Ep.
55, _remisimus Deo omnipotenti, in cujus potestate sunt omnia
reservata_. Such are the concurring sentiments of most of the early
writers on this subject. It was reserved for a later age to confound
these important distinctions, and to arrogate to the Church the
prerogative of forgiving sins.
The readmission of penitents into the Church was the subject of frequent
controversy with the early Fathers, and ancient religious sects. Some
contended that those who had once been excluded from the Church for
their crimes, ought never again to be received to her fellowship and
communion. But the Church generally were disposed to exercise a more
charitable and forgiving spirit.
PENANCE. In the law of England, penance is an ecclesiastical punishment
or penalty, used in the discipline of the Church of England, by which an
offender is obliged to give a public satisfaction to the Church for
scandal done by his evil example. For small offences and scandals, a
public satisfaction or penance is required to be made before the
minister, churchwardens, and some of the parishioners, as the
ecclesiastical judge shall think fit to decree. These penances may be
moderated at the discretion of the judge, or commuted for money to be
devoted to pious uses. In the case of incest or incontinency the
offender is sometimes enjoined to do public penance in the cathedral,
the parish church, or the market-place, bare-legged, bare-headed, and in
a white sheet, and to make open confession of his crime in a form of
words prescribed by the judge. This sort of punishment, however, being
contrary to the spirit of the age, and the profligate being found to
make parties to abet the offender, it has fallen into desuetude.
PENANCE, THE SACRAMENT OF. The Romanists define penance a sacrament,
wherein a person, who has the requisite dispositions, receives
absolution at the hands of the priest, of all sins committed since
baptism. (See _Auricular Confession_, _Satisfaction_, _Purgatory_,
_Absolution_.)
The Council of Trent (sess. 14, can. 1) has expressly decreed, that
every one is accursed who shall affirm that penance is not truly and
properly a sacrament instituted by CHRIST in the universal Church, for
reconciling those Christians to the Divine majesty who have fallen into
sin after baptism; and this sacrament, it is declared, consists of two
parts—the matter and the form: the matter is the act of the penitent,
including contrition, confession, and satisfaction; the form of it is
the act of absolution on the part of the priest. Accordingly it is
enjoined, that it is the duty of every man, who hath fallen after
baptism, to confess his sins once a year, at least, to a priest; that
this confession is to be secret; for public confession is neither
commanded nor expedient; and that it must be exact and particular,
including every kind and act of sin, with all the circumstances
attending it. When the penitent has so done, the priest pronounces an
absolution, which is not conditional or declarative only, but absolute
and judicial. This secret or auricular confession was first decreed and
established in the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., in
1215 (cap. 21). And the decree of this council was afterwards confirmed
and enlarged in the Council of Florence, and in that of Trent, which
ordains that confession was instituted by CHRIST; that, by the law of
GOD, it is necessary to salvation, and that it has always been practised
in the Christian Church. As for the penances imposed on the penitent by
way of satisfaction, they have been commonly the repetition of certain
forms of devotion, as Paternosters or Ave-Marias, the payment of
stipulated sums, pilgrimages, fasts, or various species of corporeal
discipline. But the most formidable penance, in the estimation of many
who have belonged to the Roman communion, has been the temporary pains
of purgatory. But, under all the penalties which are inflicted or
threatened in the Romish Church, it has provided relief by its
indulgences, and by its prayers or masses for the dead, performed
professedly for relieving and rescuing the souls that are detained in
purgatory.
The reader need scarcely be reminded how entirely opposed all this is to
the doctrine of the Church of England. The Church of Rome affirms
“penance” to be a “sacrament,” instituted by CHRIST himself, and secret
“confession” to be one of its constituent parts, instituted by the
Divine law; and she anathematizes those who contradict her:—the Church
of England denies “penance” to be a sacrament of the gospel; affirms it
to have “grown of the corrupt following of the apostles;” and “not to
have” the proper “nature of a sacrament,” as “not having any visible
sign or ceremony ordained of GOD;” and of course denies the sacramental
character of “confession.” The Church of Rome pronounces, that, by the
Divine law, “all persons” must confess their sins to the priest:—the
Church of England limits her provisions for confession to “sick
persons.” The Church of Rome pronounces that all persons are “bound” to
confess:—the Church of England directs, that the sick “be moved” to make
confession. The Church of Rome insists upon a confession of “all sins
whatsoever:”—the Church of England recommends “a special confession of
sins,” if the sick person “feel his conscience troubled with any weighty
matter.” The Church of Rome represents penance as instituted for
reconciling penitents to GOD “as often as they fall into sin after
baptism;” and imposes confession “once a year:”—the Church of England
advises it on a peculiar occasion. And the purpose of the Church of
England in so advising it evidently is the special relief of a troubled
conscience: whereas the Church of Rome pronounces it to be “necessary to
forgiveness of sin and to salvation;” and denounces with an anathema
“any one who shall say, that confession is only useful for the
instruction and consolation of the penitent.” And let it be observed, in
the first place, that as the Church of England, in her Commination
Service, speaks of the ancient ordinance of _open penance_ as “a
discipline” the restoration of which is “much to be wished,” she hereby
recognises the ancient systems essentially different from that of Rome:
namely, _a public_ expression of sorrow and repentance, to satisfy the
congregation, scandalized by the offence; not as a private purchase of
indemnity to the individual: and, in the next place, when she uses the
word _penance_, in the second exhortation in the same service, “Seeking
to bring forth worthy fruits of penance,” she but quotes the words of
John the Baptist, (St. Luke iii. 8,) and thus identifies _penance_ with
_repentance_, μετάνοια, that is, change of mind or heart. So that the
outward penance is the mere outward symbol of the inward repentance.
PENITENTIAL. A collection of canons in the Romish Church, which
appointed the time and manner of penance to be regularly imposed for
every sin, and forms of prayer that were to be used for the receiving of
those who entered into penance, and reconciling penitents by solemn
absolution; a method chiefly introduced in the time of the degeneracy of
the Church.
PENITENTIAL PSALMS. (See _Psalms_.)
PENITENTIARIES, in the ancient Christian Church, were certain
presbyters, or priests, appointed in every church, to receive the
private confessions of the people; not in prejudice to the public
discipline, nor with a power of granting absolution before any penance
was performed, but to facilitate the exercise of public discipline, by
acquainting men what sins the laws of the Church required to be expiated
by public penance, and by directing them in the performance of it; and
only to appoint private penance for such private crimes as were not
proper to be publicly censured, either for fear of doing harm to the
penitent himself, or giving scandal to the Church.
The office of penitentiary priests was abrogated by Nectarius, bishop of
Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, upon a certain accident that
happened in the church. A gentlewoman, coming to the penitentiary, made
a confession of the sins she had committed since her baptism. The
penitentiary enjoined her to fast and pray. Soon after she came again,
and confessed that, during the course of her penance, one of the deacons
of the Church had defiled her. This occasioned the deacon to be cast out
of the Church, and gave great offence to the people. Whereupon the
bishop, by the advice of a presbyter named Eudæmon, took away the
penitentiary’s office, leaving every one to his own conscience; this
being the only way to free the Church from reproach.—_Bingham._
Nectarius’s example was followed by all the bishops of the East, who
took away their penitentiaries. However, the office continued in use in
the Western Churches, and chiefly at Rome. A dignitary in many of the
foreign cathedrals is so called.
PENITENTS. (See _Penance_.) Penance in the primitive Church, as Coleman
from Augusti remarks, was wholly a voluntary act on the part of those
who were subject to it. The Church not only would not enforce it, but
they refused even to urge or invite any to submit to this discipline. It
was to be sought as a favour, not inflicted as a penalty. But the
offending person had no authority or permission to prescribe his own
duties as a penitent. When once he had resolved to seek the forgiveness
and reconciliation of the Church, it was exclusively the prerogative of
that body to prescribe the conditions on which this was to be effected.
No one could even be received as a candidate for penance, without
permission first obtained of the bishop, or presiding elder.
The duties required of penitents consisted essentially in the following
particulars:
1. Penitents of the first three classes were required to kneel in
worship, whilst the faithful were permitted to stand.
2. All were required to make known their penitential sorrow by an open
and public confession of their sin. This confession was to be made, not
before the bishop or the priesthood, but in the presence of the whole
Church, with sighs, and tears, and lamentations. These expressions of
grief they were to renew and continue so long as they remained in the
first or lowest class of penitents, entreating at the same time, in
their behalf, the prayers and intercessions of the faithful. Some idea
of the nature of these demonstrations of penitence may be formed from a
record of them contained in the works of Cyprian. Almost all the canons
lay much stress upon the sighs and tears accompanying these effusions.
3. Throughout the whole term of penance, all expressions of joy were to
be restrained, and all ornaments of dress to be laid aside. The
penitents were required, literally, to wear sackcloth, and to cover
their heads with ashes. Nor were these acts of humiliation restricted to
Ash Wednesday merely, but then especially they were required.
4. The men were required to cut short their hair, and to shave their
beards, in token of sorrow. The women were to appear with dishevelled
hair, and wearing a peculiar kind of veil.
5. During the whole term of penance, bathing, feasting, and sensual
gratifications, allowable at other times, were prohibited. In the spirit
of these regulations, marriage was also forbidden.
6. Besides these restrictions and rules of a negative character, there
were certain positive requirements with which the penitents were
expected to comply.
They were obliged to be present, and to perform their part, at every
religious assembly, whether public or private; a regulation which
neither believers nor catechumens were required to observe.
They were expected to abound in deeds of charity and benevolence,
particularly in almsgiving to the poor.
Especially were they to perform the duties of the _parabolani_, in
giving attendance upon the sick, and in taking care of them. These
offices of kindness they were expected particularly to bestow upon such
as were affected with contagious diseases.
It was also their duty to assist at the burial of the dead. The
regulations last mentioned are supposed to have been peculiar to the
Church of Africa.
These duties and regulations collectively were sometimes included under
the general term εξομολόγησις, _confession_. By this was understood not
only words, but works; both, in connexion, being the appropriate means
of manifesting sorrow for sin, and the purpose of amendment.
PENITENTS IN POPISH COUNTRIES. There are, in Popish countries,
particularly in Italy, several fraternities (as they are called) of
penitents, distinguished by the different shape and colour of their
habits. These are secular societies, who have their rules, statutes, and
churches; and make public processions under their particular cross or
banner. Of these there are more than a hundred; the most considerable of
which are as follows:—
I. White Penitents. These are of different sorts at Rome. The most
ancient is that of Gonfalon, instituted in 1264, in the church of St.
Mary Major: in imitation of which four others were established in the
church of Ara-Cœli; the first under the title of the Nativity of our
LORD; the second under the invocation of the Holy Virgin; the third
under the protection of the Holy Innocents; and the fourth under the
patronage of St. Helena. The brethren of this fraternity, every year,
give portions to a certain number of young girls, in order to their
being married. Their habit is a kind of white sackcloth, and on the
shoulder is a circle, in the middle of which is a red and white cross.
II. Black Penitents. The most considerable of these are the Brethren of
Mercy, or St. John Baptist. This fraternity was instituted in 1488, by
some Florentines, in order to assist criminals at the time of their
death, and during their imprisonment. On the day of execution, they walk
in procession before them, singing the seven Penitential Psalms, and the
Litanies; and, after they are dead, they take them down from the gibbet,
and bury them. Their habit is black sackcloth. There are others whose
business is to bury such persons as are found dead in the streets. They
wear a death’s head on one side of their habit.
III. Blue Penitents. All these are remarkable only for the different
colours of their habits.
IV. Grey Penitents. „
V. Red Penitents. „
VI. Green Penitents. „
VII. Violet Penitents. „
The Church of Rome wrongly renders our word _repentance_ by _penance_,
penance being an attendant on repentance: and she has erred in making
penance a sacrament in the same sense as baptism and the LORD’S supper.
This our Church condemns, but she speaks of the ancient discipline of
the Church in a manner which greatly shocks ultra-Protestants. We allude
to the following address in the Commination Service:—“Brethren, in the
Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, and, at the beginning of
Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin _were put to open
penance_, and punished in this world, _that their souls might be saved
in_ the day of the LORD; and that others, admonished by their example,
might be the more afraid to offend. Instead whereof (until the said
discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished) it is
thought good, that at this time (in the presence of you all) should be
read the general sentences of GOD’S cursing against impenitent sinners,
gathered out of the seven and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, and
other places of Scripture; and that ye should answer to every sentence,
_Amen_: to the intent that, being admonished of the great indignation of
GOD against sinners, ye may the rather be moved to earnest and true
repentance, and may walk more warily in these dangerous days, fleeing
from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouths the curse of
GOD to be due. (See _Penance_.)
PENTATEUCH, from two Greek words, signifying _five books_. It is the
general or collective designation of the five books of Moses. The
Samaritan Pentateuch, discovered and brought to England in the 17th
century, by the instrumentality of Archbishop Usher and others, is the
Hebrew Pentateuch written in the ancient Hebrew letters. It is supposed
by many learned men to be the actual text of the Scriptures used by the
Samaritans, when at their petition, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,
appointed one of the Jewish priests to dwell at Bethel and teach them
how they should fear the LORD. (2 Kings xvii. 28.) The copy of the
Scriptures then said to be brought by this priest, contained the _canon
of Scripture_, as it then existed; and the Samaritans never recognised
any other. By several critics the text is supposed more correct than the
Hebrew; and as an element of biblical criticism it is invaluable.
PENTECOST. (From Πεντηκοστὸς, _the fiftieth_.) A solemn festival of the
Jews, so called because it was celebrated fifty days after the feast of
the Passover. (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16.) It corresponds with the Christian
Whitsuntide, which is sometimes called by the same name.
PENTECOSTALS. These were oblations made by the parishioners to their
priest at the feast of Pentecost, which are sometimes called
Whitsun-farthings; but they were not at first offered to their priests,
but to the mother-church; and this may be the reason that the deans and
prebendaries in some cathedrals are entitled to receive these oblations,
and in some places the bishop and archdeacons, as at Gloucester.
PERAMBULATION. Perambulations, for ascertaining the boundaries of
parishes, are to be made by the minister, churchwardens, and
parishioners, by going round the same once a year, in or about Ascension
week. The parishioners may justify going over any man’s land in their
perambulations, according to usage; and it is said may abate all
nuisances in their way. There is a homily appointed to be used before
this ceremony, and Queen Elizabeth’s injunctions appointed the 103rd and
104th Psalms to be said in the course of the perambulation. (See
_Rogation Days_.) The perambulations are still kept up in several
parishes; but have lost their religious character. However, they have
been observed religiously within the memory of some old persons in
distant parts of England.
PERNOCTATIONS, watching all night,—long a custom with the more pious
Christians, especially before the greater festivals.
PERPENDICULAR. The last style of pure Gothic architecture, which
succeeded the Decorated about 1360. It is most readily distinguished by
its window tracery (see _Tracery_); but the use of the four-centred arch
(see _Arch_) is a more important character, though by no means
invariably found in this style. Other characteristics will be found
under _Capital_, _Pillar_, _Vaulting_, _Moulding_.
PERPETUAL CURATE. The incumbent of a church, chapel, or district, which
is within the boundaries of a rectory or vicarage; so called from a
curate assistant, whose office expires with the incumbency of the person
who employs him.
PERPETUALS. Twenty ministers of the choir at Lyons, so called from being
bound to perpetual service there:—like our vicars-choral.
PERSECUTION. The sufferings which are inflicted by the world upon the
Church in all ages, the most striking of which were those which are
designated in history the _Ten Persecutions_, and which raged from the
time of Nero, A. D. 64, to the accession of Constantine, under the
successive Roman emperors, Domitian, (A. D. 81–86,) Trajan, Adrian,
Aurelius, Antoninus, Severus, Maximus, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and
Maximian, under the last of whose rule the persecution raged against the
Church in East and West for the space of ten years. Each of these
periods swelled the list of the noble army of martyrs. Under Nero, the
apostles St. Peter and St. Paul suffered. St. Clement, bishop of Rome;
Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem; and Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, were put
to death in the reign of Trajan. In the persecution of Aurelius, Justin
Martyr, Athenagoras, Apollinaris, and Tatian presented their apologies,
as did Tertullian in the next persecution under Severus (200).
Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian, tells us that it were easier to
count the sands upon the seashore than to number the martyrdoms in the
persecution under Decius (249). The great St. Cyprian, bishop of
Carthage, suffered under Valerian (14th of September, 258).
Though the above ten are the most memorable of the persecutions of the
cross of CHRIST, the Church has ever been opposed by the world. Thus in
our country, during the Rebellion, the king and primate underwent
martyrdom, while thousands of faithful men suffered the loss of all
things for the name of CHRIST. And, even in this day, though physical
persecution is forbidden by the law, moral persecution is more or less
endured by every self-denying Christian, who has to bear taunts and
nicknames from ungodly men.
PERSEVERANCE, FINAL. According to the Calvinistic system, the elect
receive the grace of perseverance, so that when grace has once been
received, they cannot finally fall from it. This follows from their view
of election. But, according to the Catholic view of grace and of
election, men may fall, and fall finally, from the grace they have once
received. The reader is requested to refer to the article on _Election_;
this may be considered a continuation. Since the reformed Church of
England (with the primitive and Catholic) regards election as an
admission into the pale of the visible Church Catholic, _not_ a
necessary and infallible admission into eternal glory, she obviously
could not teach the doctrine of the assured final perseverance of every
individual among the elect; but, annexing a totally different sense to
the word _elect_ itself from that which is jointly advocated by Calvin
and by Arminius, she consistently pronounces that the elect, as she
understands the term, _may_ finally fall away, and thence may
everlastingly perish.
To this moral possibility of final apostasy the Anglican Church, as was
felt by the Calvinistic party in the conference at Hampton Court,
alludes, though she does not specifically there define the matter, in
her sixteenth Article.
“After we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given
and fall into sin; and, by the grace of GOD, we may rise again, and
amend our lives.”
Here it seems to be not obscurely intimated, that the elect, even after
they have received the HOLY GHOST, may so depart from grace given, and
may so fall into sin, that they either may, or may not, be restored by
the influential grace of GOD.
Such, accordingly, was doubtless perceived to be the case by the
Calvinistic party; for otherwise it is impossible to account for their
proposed alteration of the article, which would have made it speak the
language of assured personal final perseverance.
They moved King James, that, to the original words of the article,
“after we have received the HOLY GHOST, we may depart from grace given,
and fall into sin,” might be subjoined the following explanatory
addition, “yet neither totally nor finally.”
Had this addition been made, the seventeenth Article would doubtless
have taught the doctrine of the final perseverance of all the elect. The
wish to make it do so imported a consciousness that the reformed
Anglican Church held no such doctrine.
Nor was this consciousness ill-founded. The homily on “Falling from GOD”
as we might anticipate from its very title, distinctly asserts, in both
its parts, the moral possibility, in the elect, of finally departing
from grace given, and of thus perishing everlastingly.
The doctrine of the possibility of the elect finally falling away, says
Faber in his work on “Election,” from grace to perdition; a doctrine
which, in truth, is nothing more than the inevitable and necessary
result of that ideality of election, which, from primitive antiquity,
has been adopted by the Anglican Church, is very distinctly and very
affectingly propounded also in her admirable and sublime burial service.
“Spare us, LORD most holy, O GOD most mighty, O holy and merciful
SAVIOUR, thou most worthy Judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last
hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.”
The prayer before us is couched in the pluralizing form, and the persons
who are directed concurrently with the officiating minister to use it,
are those identical persons who, having been chosen in the course of
Divine providence, and brought by baptism into the pale of the visible
Church, have thence been declared to be the elect people of GOD.
Consequently those who, in the judgment of the Church of England, are
the elect people of GOD, are nevertheless directed to pray, that the
LORD would not suffer them, at their last hour, for any pains of death,
to fall from him.
Hence, as the English Church understands the term _elect_, it is
possible, from the very necessity of such a prayer, that those who are
elect may not only for a season fall away from GOD and be afterward
renewed by repentance, but may even fall away from him totally and
finally.
PERSON. (See _Trinity_.) On the awful subject of the persons in the
TRINITY we shall merely quote the Athanasian Creed. “The Catholic faith
is this. That we worship One GOD in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there
is One Person of the FATHER, another of the SON, and another of the HOLY
GHOST.
“But the GODHEAD of the FATHER, of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST, is
all One: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”
The application of the term “Persons” to the sacred Three has been
objected to; but it is defensible on the ground of the impossibility of
finding a phrase equally expressive, and less objectionable. Archbishop
Tillotson well says, “Because we find the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST
spoken of in Scripture as we should speak of three Persons, therefore we
call them Persons; and since the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD in Scripture hath
thought fit, in speaking of these three, to distinguish them from one
another, as we use in common speech to distinguish three several
persons, I cannot see any reason why, in the explication of this
mystery, which purely depends upon Divine revelation, we should not
speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth.” Precision in
speaking of objects of faith seems, beyond this, impossible. That the
FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST are three, distinguished from each other in
Scripture, is clear; as it is also that there is but one GOD. Why, then,
refuse the word “Persons,” used with due reverence and humility, by
which we only understand a peculiar distinction in each, making, in some
way, a difference from the other two? Indeed the objection was despised
as a bad one by even Socinus himself.
But in fact the word “Person” is used by St. Paul as applied both to the
FATHER and the SON; to the former, Heb. i. 3; to the latter, 2 Cor. ii.
10, and also iv. 6, as it should have been rendered.
The word was used, and well applied, against the opinion entertained by
the Sabellians, that there was but one real Person in the GODHEAD with
different manifestations; and the notion of three hypostases with an
individual unity in the Divine essence, was generally received in the
Church as a proper mean for avoiding the opposite heresies of Sabellius
and Arius.
The Latin Church understanding “substance” by the term _hypostasis_, as
used by the Greek Church, and denying three substances, would not
readily use that term, but adopted the word “Person,” (_Persona_,) to
characterize the three distinct subsistencies in the one Divine essence.
And hence has arisen a charge, (the word _hypostasis_ being used for
_Person_ in the Greek copies of the Creed,) that the Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds are in opposition to each other; the former asserting
that the SON “is of one substance with the FATHER,” while, according to
the latter, there is one substance of the FATHER, another of the SON,
&c. But as the word is rightly translated in our version “Person,” from
the original Latin, the objection, which is still repeated, (the passage
being quoted as if it were one “substance”—not one “Person—of the
FATHER,” &c.,) is persevered in under a mistake, if it be not a wilful
misrepresentation.—See _Bull_ and _Waterland_.
PERSONA. A term applied in ancient cathedral and collegiate churches to
those who held particular offices, not necessarily of dignity, or of
jurisdiction, but involving personal responsibility, and strict
residence. In England, at Salisbury and other cathedrals of the old
foundation, the dignitaries, as the dean, precentor, chancellor, and
treasurer, &c., were called _Personæ Principales_, or _Privilegiatæ_, as
having each a peculiar office, connected with the service of the church.
At St. Paul’s the four archdeacons were included in this title, though
somewhat incorrectly.—_Dugdale’s St. Paul’s_, p. 235. In other places,
as at York, and Beverley, the inferior priests were called Personæ.
Abroad the _Personnate_ were chiefly offices of the inferior collegiate
clergy, generally implying some individual office, as subchanter,
sacristan, &c. &c.—_Jebb._
PETER-PENCE was an annual tribute of one penny, paid at Rome out of
every family, at the feast of St. Peter. This, Ina, the Saxon king, when
he went in pilgrimage to Rome, about the year 740, gave to the pope,
partly as alms, and partly by way of recompense for a house erected in
Rome for English pilgrims. It continued to be generally paid until the
time of King Henry VIII., when it was enacted, that henceforth no person
shall pay any pensions, Peter-pence, or other impositions, to the use of
the bishop and see of Rome.
PETER’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the
twenty-ninth of June.
St. Peter was born at Bethsaida, a town situated upon the banks of the
sea of Galilee. He was originally called Simon, or Simeon, to which our
SAVIOUR, after his conversion, added the name of Cephas, which, in the
vulgar language of the Jews, signified a stone, or rock: from thence it
was derived into the Greek Πέτρος, (Petrus,) which is of the same
import. Our LORD probably intended to denote thereby the constancy and
firmness of his faith, and his activity in building up the Church.
St. Peter was a fisherman by trade, and brother of St. Andrew, who first
brought him to our SAVIOUR. He became a disciple and follower of CHRIST,
upon seeing the miracle of the great draught of fishes, and was one of
his most immediate companions. He is by the ancients styled the mouth of
the apostles, because he was the first and forwardest, on all occasions,
to profess his zeal and attachment to our SAVIOUR; for which reason our
LORD pronounced him blessed. But it does not appear that our SAVIOUR
gave any personal prerogative to St. Peter, as universal pastor and head
of the Church. He is first placed among the apostles, because, as most
think, he was first called. If he is styled “a rock,” all the apostles
are equally styled “foundations;” and the power of the keys is promised
to the rest of the apostles as well as to St. Peter.
This apostle became a great example of human frailty, in his behaviour
upon the approach of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings. It is well known, that,
for fear of being involved in the punishment with which his Master was
threatened, he disclaimed all knowledge of him, and denied him thrice.
But he soon recovered from his fall, and endeavoured by penitential
tears to wash away his guilt.
St. Peter’s first mission, after our SAVIOUR’S ascension, was to those
Christians whom Philip the deacon had converted in Samaria; where he
conferred on them the gift of the HOLY GHOST, and severely rebuked Simon
Magus, for imagining the gift of GOD could be purchased with money. Some
time after, he had a special vision from heaven, by which the Divine
goodness removed those prejudices of his education, which the Jews had
entertained against the Gentiles. In the dispute between the Jewish and
Gentile converts, he declared GOD’S acceptance of the Gentiles, and that
the yoke of the Jewish rites ought not to be laid upon them. Yet
afterwards he dissembled his Christian liberty, and thereby confirmed
the judaizing Christians in their errors; for which he stands justly
rebuked by St. Paul. Being imprisoned by Herod, he was miraculously
delivered by an angel, who knocked off his chains, and conducted him to
a place of safety.
St. Peter, afterwards, preached at Antioch, and was the first bishop of
that place. He likewise preached the gospel to the Jews dispersed in
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. Towards the latter end of his
life, he went to Rome, about the second year of the emperor Claudius,
where he laboured in establishing Christianity, chiefly among the Jews,
being the apostle of the circumcision. Here he set himself to expose the
impostures of Simon Magus, which he did successfully, by working himself
those wonders that Simon falsely boasted of. Particularly, he raised to
life a kinsman of the emperor, which the magician had attempted in vain.
And, when Simon Magus, to recover his reputation, pretended to fly up to
heaven from the hill of the Capitol, by the prayers of St. Peter his
artificial wings failed him, and falling he was so bruised, that in a
short time he died.
St. Peter suffered martyrdom about the year of Christ 69, under the
emperor Nero, whom he had provoked by his success against Simon Magus,
and by his reducing many dissolute women to a sober and virtuous life;
and it was probably in that persecution when the emperor burnt Rome, and
charged the Christians with the guilt and punishment of it. He was
crucified with his head downwards. It is said, his body was embalmed by
Marcellinus the presbyter, and buried in the Vatican, near the Triumphal
Way, where there was a church erected to his memory, now the famous
cathedral of St. Peter’s at Rome.
PEWS. These are enclosed seats in churches. Pews, according to modern
use and idea, were not known till long after the Reformation. Enclosed
pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenth
century: they were for a long time confined to the family of the patron.
There were, however, long before there were enclosed pews, appropriated
seats: and as concerning seats many disputes arise, we will mention what
the law is as to these particulars. As to seats in the body of the
church, the freehold of the soil is in the incumbent, and the seats are
fixed to the freehold; yet, because the church itself is dedicated to
the service of GOD, and the seats are built that the people may more
conveniently attend Divine service, therefore, where there is any
contention about a seat in the body of the church, upon complaint made
to the ordinary, he may decide the controversy by placing that person in
it whom he thinks fit: and this power is conferred upon him by law,
because he who has the general cure of souls within his diocese, is
presumed to have a due regard to the qualities of the contending
parties, and to give precedence to him who ought to have it. And though
the seats are built and repaired at the charge of the parish; and the
churchwardens should prescribe, that, by reason thereof, they have used
to dispose them to such persons as they thought fit, yet since of common
right the ordinary has the disposal thereof, and by the same right the
parishioners ought to repair them, therefore such prescription shall not
be allowed against his jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction extends only
to placing or displacing the inhabitants of the parish; for the ordinary
cannot grant a seat to a man and his heirs, because a seat in the church
properly belongs to some house in the parish, and not to the person, but
as owner of the house; and if such grant should be good to a man and his
heirs, they would have the seat, though they lived in another parish,
which is very unreasonable, and contrary to the original intention of
building seats in churches, which was for the inhabitants of that
parish, that they might more conveniently attend the service of the
church; and certainly if the bishop cannot make such a grant, no private
person can do it, for the reasons before mentioned.
But where there is no contention, and the ordinary does not interpose,
because there is no complaint, there the parson and churchwardens have
power to place the parishioners in seats; and in some places the
churchwardens alone have that power by custom, as in London. If a seat
is built in the body of the church, without the consent of the bishop,
the churchwardens may pull it down, because it was set up by a private
person without the licence of the ordinary; but it hath been held, that
if in removing such seat they cut the timber, or break it, an action of
trespass lies against them. This, like many other cases reported by Mr.
Noy, is not law: for the freehold of the church being in the incumbent,
when the person has fixed a seat to it, it is then become parcel of his
freehold, and consequently the right is in him, so that the breaking the
timber could not be prejudicial to the other, because he had no legal
right to the materials after they were fixed to the freehold. And
because seats in the body of the church are to be disposed by the parson
and churchwardens, therefore it was formerly held that a man cannot
prescribe for a seat there; and yet he might prescribe for the upper
part of a seat there. But now the law is settled as to this matter, viz.
that one may prescribe for a seat in the body of the church, setting
forth that he is seised of an ancient house, &c., and that he and all
those whose estate he hath therein, have, time out of mind, used and had
a seat in the body of the church for themselves and their families, as
belonging to the said house, and that they repaired the said seat; and
the reason why he must allege that he repaired it is, because the
freehold being in the parson, there must be some special cause shown for
such a prescription; but as to this matter the court distinguished
between an action on the case brought against a disturber and a
suggestion for a prohibition: for in the first case you need not allege
that you repair, because the action is brought against a wrong-doer; but
upon a suggestion for a prohibition it must be alleged that you repair,
because otherwise you shall not divest the ordinary of that right which
properly belongs to him. Tenants in common cannot make a joint
prescription to a seat in a church, but they may prescribe severally;
and if they should bring an action jointly for a disturbance, and upon
the evidence it should appear they are tenants in common, they must be
nonsuited, because such evidence will not maintain the title upon which
the action is founded, for though it is a possessory action, yet since
that possession must be maintained by a title derived out of a
prescription, they must prescribe severally. And in these prescriptions
there is not much exactness required; for if an action on the case is
brought for disturbing the plaintiff, &c., it is not sufficient for him
to allege, that he is seised in fee of a messuage, &c., (without saying
it is an ancient messuage,) and that he, and all those whose estate he
hath in the said messuage, had (without saying time out of mind) a seat
in the church, which they used to repair as often as there was occasion,
&c., this is well enough, because the action is founded on a wrong done
by one who disturbed him in his possession; in which action the
plaintiff will recover damages, if the verdict is found for him. It is
true he may libel in the spiritual court, and prescribe there for a
seat, &c.; but if the prescription is denied, a prohibition will be
granted; if it is not denied, then that court may proceed to sentence,
which, if it happen to be against the prescription, in such case also a
prohibition will lie, because the suit being upon a prescription, the
proceedings in it were _coram non judice_ in that court; but this seems
unreasonable, for it can be only to discharge the person of the costs
which he ought to pay. As to seats in aisles of churches, the law is,
that if a man has a house in a parish, and a seat in the aisle of the
church which he has repaired at his own charge, he shall not be
dispossessed by a bishop: if he should, he may have a prohibition,
because it shall be intended to be built by his ancestors, with the
consent of parson, patron, and ordinary, and appropriated by them to his
and their use; and if he is disturbed by any other person in sitting
there, he may have an action on the case against him, but then he must
prove that he repaired it: and so it was adjudged between Dawtree and
Dee, for seats in a little chapel in the north part of the chancel of
Petworth, in Sussex; for though no man can tell the true reason of
prescriptions, yet some probable reason must be alleged to gain such a
peculiar right, and none is more probable than repairing it. And this
will entitle a man to a seat in an aisle, though he lives in another
parish; and therefore, where the plaintiff set forth that he had an
ancient messuage in the parish of H., and that he and all those whose
estate he had in the said house, had a seat in the aisle in the parish
church of B.; this is a good prescription for a seat in the aisle,
because he or they might build or repair it, though it is not a good
prescription to have a seat _in nave ecclesiæ_ of another parish. As to
the chancel, the ordinary hath no authority to place any one there, for
that is the freehold of the rector; and so is the church; but he repairs
the one, but not the other, and it is for this reason that an
impropriator hath the chief seat in the chancel. But yet a man may
prescribe to have a seat here, as belonging to ancient messuage.
So much for the laws of pews: the history of their gradual introduction
into churches seems to be as follows:—
The first mention that we find made of a reading pew is in Bishop
Parkhurst’s Articles of Visitation for his diocese of Norwich, (1596,)
where it is ordered, “That in great churches, where all the people
cannot conveniently hear the minister, the churchwardens and others, to
whom the charge doth belong, shall provide and support a decent and
convenient seat in the body of the church, where the said minister may
sit or stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that all the
congregation may hear and be edified therewith; and that in smaller
churches there be some convenient seat outside the chancel door, for
that purpose.”
Before this time, the appointed place for the priest was in the choir,
or, as appointed in the Second Book of King Edward, in such place of the
church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best hear, without any
note of the provision of a pew, or any mention of “a little tabernacle
of wainscot, provided for the purpose.” The first authority for the
setting up of reading desks in all our churches, is the canon of 1603.
The earliest pew for the use of the congregation remaining, whose age is
determined by the appearance of a date, is in the north aisle of
Geddington St. Mary, Northamptonshire, and has the following
inscription:
_Churchwardens_, William Thorn,
John Wilkie,
_Minister_, Thomas Jones, 1602.
Another pew occurs in the same church, dated 1604.
From this time till the episcopate of Wren, bishop of Hereford, pews
seem to have become more universal, and only then to have found their
deserved rebuke. Among other questions in his several articles of
visitation we find the following: “Are all the seats and pews so
ordered, that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayer,
and have their faces up to the holy table?” “Are there any privy closets
or close pews in your church? Are any pews so loftily made, that they do
any way hinder the prospect of the church or chancel, so that they which
be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?”
The last question points at another objection to pews, besides their
destructive effect on the interior of a church. They seem to have
originated with the Puritans, and to have been intended to conceal the
persons sitting in them, that they might, without conviction, disobey
the rubrics and canons, providing for a decent deportment during Divine
service. The injunctions especially avoided under cover of pews, were
the order to bow at the name of JESUS, and the rule to stand at the
_Gloria Patri_.
It would, however, be equally absurd and unjust to apply such remarks to
the present times; nor shall we offer any reasons against pews instead
of open benches, except that they destroy the ecclesiastical character
of a church, that they encourage pride, that they make a distinction
where no distinction ought to exist, and that they must be erected at a
loss of 20 per cent. of church accommodation.—See the _Cambridge Camden
Society’s History of Pews_.
PHARISEES. From the Hebrew word _Pharez_, division, or separation. (In
other words, _sectarians_, or _separatists_.) The most sanctimonious
sect of the Jews, forming their religious world. They were denounced by
our LORD for their hypocrisy, that is to say, the hypocrisy of the
majority. St. Paul was originally a Pharisee: “after the most strictest
_sect_ (αἵρεσιν) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” Acts xxvi. 5.
PHILIP, ST., AND ST. JAMES’S DAY. A festival of the Christian Church,
observed on the first day of May.
I. St. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, and probably a
fisherman, the general trade of that place. He had the honour of being
first called to be a disciple of our blessed SAVIOUR. It was to Philip
our SAVIOUR proposed that question, what they should do to procure so
much bread as would feed the vast multitude that followed him? It was to
him the Gentile proselytes addressed themselves, when desirous to see
JESUS. And it was with Philip our LORD had that discourse concerning
himself before the last supper.
The Upper Asia fell to this apostle’s lot, where he took great pains in
planting the gospel, and by his preaching and miracles made many
converts. In the latter end of his life, he came to Hierapolis in
Phrygia, a city very much addicted to idolatry, and particularly to the
worship of a serpent or dragon of prodigious bigness. St. Philip, by his
prayers, procured the death, or, at least, the disappearing, of this
monster, and convinced its worshippers of the absurdity of paying Divine
honours to such odious creatures. But the magistrates, enraged at
Philip’s success, imprisoned him, and ordered him to be severely
scourged, and then put to death; which, some say, was by crucifixion;
others, by hanging him up against a pillar.
St. Philip is generally reckoned among the married apostles; and it is
said, he had three daughters, two whereof persevered in their virginity,
and died at Hierapolis; the third, having led a very spiritual life,
died at Ephesus. He left behind him no writings. The Gospel, under his
name, was forged by the Gnostics, to countenance their bad principles,
and worse practices.
II. St. James the Less is styled, in Scripture, our LORD’S brother; and
by Josephus, eminently skilful in matters of genealogy, expressly called
the brother of JESUS CHRIST: by which the ancient Fathers understand,
that he was Joseph’s son by a former wife. He was surnamed the Less, to
distinguish him from the other St. James; and that either from the
stature of his body, or the difference of his age. But he acquired a
more honourable appellation from the piety and virtue of his life; which
was that of St. James the Just, by which he is still known.
After our SAVIOUR’S ascension, St. James was chosen bishop of Jerusalem.
St. Paul, after his conversion, addressed himself to this apostle, by
whom he was honoured with the right hand of fellowship. It was to St.
James, St. Peter sent the news of his miraculous deliverance out of
prison. This apostle was principally active at the Synod of Jerusalem,
in the great controversy concerning the Jewish rites and ceremonies. He
was of a meek and humble disposition. His temperance was admirable; for
he wholly abstained from flesh, and drank neither wine nor strong drink,
nor ever used the bath. Prayer was his constant business and delight,
and by his daily devotions his knees were become as hard and brawny as
camels.
St. Paul having escaped the malice of the Jews, by appealing to Cæsar,
they resolved to revenge it upon St. James, who was accused before their
council of transgressing the Law, and blaspheming against GOD. The
scribes and Pharisees endeavoured, by flattering speeches, to engage
him, at the confluence of the paschal solemnity, to undeceive the people
concerning JESUS CHRIST; and, that he might be the better heard, they
carried him with them to the top of the temple. There they addressed him
in these words; “Tell us, O just man, what are we to believe concerning
JESUS CHRIST, who was crucified?” He answered with a loud voice; “He
sits in heaven on the right hand of the Majesty on high, and will come
again in the clouds of heaven.” Enraged at this reply, they threw him
down from the place where he stood; and being very much bruised, though
not killed, he recovered strength enough to get upon his knees, and pray
for his murderers, who loaded him with a shower of stones, till one with
a fuller’s club beat out his brains.
PHOTINIANS, or SUTINIANS. Heretics, in the fourth century, so
denominated from Photinus, bishop of Simich, a person of great
accomplishments, and who, in the first years of his administration of
that see, appeared very regular, but changed suddenly after he had
taught the people the knowledge of the true GOD, that is, attempted to
corrupt them, says Vincentius Lirinensis, by his detestable opinions and
doctrine; for, not contented with renewing the errors of Sabellius,
Paulus Samosatenus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, he added to their impieties,
that JESUS CHRIST was not only mere man, but began to be the CHRIST when
the HOLY GHOST descended upon him in Jordan.
PHYLACTERY. (φυλακτήριον.) This word is derived from the Greek, and
properly denotes a _preservative_, such as pagans carried about them to
preserve them from evils, diseases, or dangers; for example, they were
stones, or pieces of metal, engraved under certain aspects of the
planets. The East is to this day filled with this superstition; and the
men do not only wear phylacteries for themselves, but for their animals
also.
PICARDS. The name of a Christian sect, who improved the mistakes of the
Adamites to the extravagance of going naked. They sprung up in the
beginning of the fifteenth century, and were denominated from one
Picard, who set it on foot: he ordered all his proselytes to go naked,
called himself the SON of GOD, and pretended he was sent into the world
as a new Adam, by his Father, to refresh the notion, and restore the
practice of the law of nature, which, he said, consisted principally in
two things, the community of women, and going stark naked. And one of
the principal tenets of this people was, that their party were the only
free people in nature, all other men being slaves, especially those who
wore any clothes upon the score of modesty.
PIE. This was the table used before the Reformation to find out the
service belonging to each day. If the word be of Greek origin, it may be
referred to πίναξ or πινακίδιον. But the Latin word is _pica_, which
perhaps came from the ignorance of the friars, who have thrust in many
barbarous words into the liturgies. Some say pie is derived from _litera
picata_, a great black letter in the beginning of some new order in the
prayer, and among printers that term is still used, the _pica letter_.
PIER. The solid masses of masonry between arched openings, as in
bridges, and between windows and doors. This name is so often given to
the pillars in Gothic architecture, that it would be pedantic entirely
to disuse it in that sense; but it ought in strictness to be confined at
least to those wall-like square pillars, which are found in Norman
architecture; as, for instance, alternately with proper pillars in
Durham cathedral, or in the nave of Norwich.
[Illustration:
Pier, Norwich.
]
PIETISTS. A set of zealous but misguided men in Germany, the followers
of Philip James Spener, who attempted the revival of what he called
vital religion in Germany in the seventeenth century, and to that end
assembled around him those like-minded with himself, and in societies
which he formed, commonly called _Colleges of Piety_, laid the
foundations of many disorders. His disciples, as is usual, far outran
the more measured zeal of their master; and their false notions,
amounting sometimes to principles of mutiny and sedition, gave rise to a
long and bitter controversy in Germany.
PILGRIMAGE. A kind of superstitious discipline, which consists in making
a journey to some holy place, in order to adore the relics of some
deceased saint. Pilgrimages began to be made in the fourth century, but
they were most in vogue after the end of the eleventh century, when
every one was for visiting places of devotion, not excepting kings and
princes; and even bishops made no difficulty of being absent from their
churches on the same account.
PILLAR. The isolated support of an arch, including base, shaft, and
capital, in Norman and Gothic architecture. There were great variations
in the forms of pillars during the progress of ecclesiastical
architecture. The Norman pillar is often a square, pier-like mass,
relieved by attached semi-pillars, or by three-quarter shaft in retiring
angles, as in the accompanying example from Norwich; or it is a
cylindrical shaft, often fluted, or cut in zigzags or other diaper
patterns. The Early English pillar frequently consists of a central
bearing shaft, surrounded by smaller detached shafts; either set almost
close to the central shaft, sometimes even within hollows, as at York,
so as to lose the effect of their separateness, or at a very
considerable distance from the central shaft, as at Chichester and Ely.
[Illustration:
Pillar, Norwich.
]
[Illustration:
York
]
[Illustration:
Chichester.
]
[Illustration:
Ely.
]
The Geometrical pillar but seldom retains the detached shaft. Its
section is perhaps more usually a quatrefoil than any other single form;
but there are countless varieties, the mouldings always of course
following the style to which they belong. The accompanying example is
from St. Asaph. The Decorated pillar is equally various in section;
where it is moulded, the ogee usually forms part of it, but in small and
plain examples it is very frequently a simple octagon. In the
Perpendicular the pillar follows the general poverty of the style, but
it is also distinguished by the base being stilted; by the outer
mouldings being continuous, and the inner order only being carried by an
attached shaft with a capital; and by its being narrower from east to
west than from north to south. The exceptions, however, to all these
rules are so numerous, that they could only be represented by many
illustrations.
[Illustration:
St. Asaph.
]
PINNACLE. A small spire-like termination to a buttress, or to any
decorative shaft rising above the parapet. In buttresses, especially
flying buttresses, the pinnacles are of great use in resisting the
outward pressure by their weight. They do not occur in Norman
architecture; they are, in fact, a correlative of the pointed arch.
The pinnacle at the temple at Jerusalem was probably the gallery, or
parapet, or wall on the top of the buttresses, which surrounded the roof
of the temple, properly so called. Josephus tells us that the roof of
the temple was defended by pretty tall golden spikes, to hinder birds
from alighting thereon. It was not on the roof of the temple that JESUS
CHRIST was placed, but on the wall that surrounded the roof.—_Calmet’s
Dict. of the Bible, ed. Taylor._
PISCINA. Originally signified a fishpond; and in a secondary sense, any
vessel for holding or receiving water. A water drain, usually
accompanied with decorative features, near the altar, on the south side.
The piscina is often the only remaining indication of the place where an
altar has been. Some churches have double piscinas.
PISCIS, PISCICULI, and VESICA PISCIS. The fish is an hieroglyphic of
JESUS CHRIST, very common in the remains of Christian art, both
primitive and mediæval. The origin of it is as follows:—From the name
and title of our blessed LORD, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὺς Θεοῦ Ὑιὸς Σωτὴρ, JESUS
CHRIST, the SON of GOD, the SAVIOUR, the early Christians, taking the
first letter of each word, formed the name ἸΧΘΥΣ, _Piscis_, a fish. From
this name of our blessed LORD, Christians also came to be called
_Pisciculi_, fishes, with reference to their regeneration in the waters
of baptism, consecrated to that effect by our blessed LORD, the mystical
ἸΧΘΥΣ. Thus Tertullian, speaking of Christians, says, “for we, after our
LORD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST, our ἸΧΘΥΣ, are also fishes, and born in
the water; nor are we otherwise saved but by remaining in the water.”
The _Vesica Piscis_, which is the figure of an oval, generally pointed
at either end, and which is much used as the form of the seals of
religious houses, and to enclose figures of JESUS CHRIST, or of the
saints, also has its rise from this name of our blessed LORD: though
some say, that the mystical _Vesica Piscis_ has no reference, except in
its name, to a fish, but represents the almond, the symbol of virginity
and self-production. Clement of Alexandria, in writing of the ornaments
which a Christian may consistently wear, mentions the fish as a proper
device for a ring, and says, that it may serve to remind the Christian
of the origin of his spiritual life.
PIUS IV. (See _Creed_.)
PLANETA. (See _Chasuble_.)
PLENARTY, (from the word _plenus_, “full,”) signifying that a church is
full, or provided with, an incumbent.
PLURALITY. This is where the same person obtains two or more livings
with cure of souls. There are various canons of the Church against the
practice; and the authorities of the Church are taking prompt measures
to abolish it in the English Church. The statute 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, and
subsequently the 13 and 14 Vic. c. 98, made very important changes in
the law of England regarding pluralities.
PLUVIALE. Another name for the cope: so called because it was originally
a cloak, a defence from the rain. (See _Cope_.)
PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. Of this sect, who call themselves the Brethren, the
following account is taken from the Register-general’s return.
“Those to whom this appellation is applied receive it only as
descriptive of their individual state as Christians—not as a name by
which they might be known collectively as a distinct religious _sect_.
It is not from any common doctrinal peculiarity or definite
ecclesiastical organization that they have the appearance of a separate
community; but rather from the fact that, while all other Christians are
identified with some particular _section_ of the Church of GOD, the
persons known as ‘Brethren’ utterly refuse to be identified with any.
Their existence is, in fact, a protest against all sectarianism; and the
primary ground of their secession from the different bodies to which
most of them have once belonged, is, that the various tests by which, in
all these bodies, the communion of true Christians with each other is
prevented or impeded, are unsanctioned by the Word of GOD. They see no
valid reason why the Church (consisting of all true believers) which is
_really_ one, should not be also _visibly_ united, having as its only
bond of fellowship and barrier of exclusion, the reception or rejection
of those vital truths by which the Christian is distinguished from the
unbeliever. Looking at existing churches, it appears to them that _all_
are faulty in this matter; _national_ Churches by adopting a too
lax—_dissenting_ Churches by adopting a too limited—criterion of
membership. The former, it appears to Brethren, by considering as
members all within a certain territory, mingle in one body the believers
and the unbelievers; while the latter, by their various tests of
doctrine or of discipline, exclude from their communion many who are
clearly and undoubtedly true members of the universal Church. The
Brethren, therefore, may be represented as consisting of all such as,
practically holding all the truths essential to salvation, recognise
each other as, on that account alone, true members of the only Church. A
difference of opinion upon aught besides is not regarded as sufficient
ground for separation; and the Brethren, therefore, have withdrawn
themselves from all those bodies in which tests, express or virtual, on
minor points, are made the means of separating Christians from each
other.
“In the judgment of the Brethren, the disunion now existing in the
general Church is the result of a neglect to recognise the HOLY SPIRIT
as its all-sufficient guide. Instead, they say, of a reliance on his
promised presence and sovereignty as CHRIST’S vicar on earth, ever
abiding to assert and maintain his lordship in the Church according to
the written Word, men, by their creeds and articles, have questioned the
sufficiency of Scripture as interpreted to all by him, and, by their
ministerial and ritual appointments, have assumed to specify the
channels through which only can his blessings be communicated. All these
various human forms and systems are believed by Brethren to be destitute
of scriptural authority, and practically restrictive of the HOLY
SPIRIT’S operations.
“Chiefly with regard to _ministry_ are these opinions urged; the usual
method of ordaining special persons to the office, being held to be
unscriptural and prejudicial. They conceive that Christians in general
confound _ministry_ (i.e. the exercise of a spiritual gift) with _local
charges_, as eldership, &c. Such charges, they infer from Scripture,
required the sanction of apostles or their delegates, to validate the
appointment (Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5); whereas the ‘gifts’ never needed
any human authorization (Acts xviii. 24–28; Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.—xvi.;
Phil. i. 14; 1 Peter iv. 9, 10). Further, they urge that while
_Scripture warrants the Church to expect a perpetuity of ‘gifts,’_—as
evangelists, pastors, teachers, exhorters, rulers, &c.,—because they are
requisite for the work of the ministry, (Eph. iv. 7–13,)—_it nowhere
guarantees a permanent ordaining power_, without which the nomination or
ordaining of elders is valueless. _All_ believers are, it is affirmed,
true spiritual priests capacitated for worship, (Heb. x. 19–25,) and all
who possess the qualifications from the LORD are authorized to
evangelize the world or instruct the Church; and such have not alone the
_liberty_, but also an _obligation_ to employ whatever gift may be
intrusted to their keeping. Hence, in their assemblies, Brethren have no
pre-appointed person to conduct or share in the proceedings; all is open
to the guidance of the HOLY GHOST at the time, so that he who believes
himself to be so led of the SPIRIT, may address the meeting, &c. This
arrangement is considered to be indicated as the proper order in 1 Cor.
xiv.,—to flow from the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xii.,—and to be
traceable historically in the Acts of the Apostles. By adopting it, the
Brethren think that they avoid two evils, by which all existing sects
are, more or less, distinguished; the first, the evil of not employing
talents given to believers for the Church’s benefit; the second, the
evil of appointing as the Church’s teachers men in whom the gifts
essential for the work have not yet been discovered. The Brethren,
therefore, recognise no separate orders of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’—all are
looked upon as equal in position, (Matt. xxiii. 8; 1 Cor. x. 17; xii.
12–20, &c.,) differing only as to ‘gifts’ of ruling, teaching,
preaching, and the like (Rom. xii. 4–8; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, &c.). The
ordinances, consequently, of baptism, when administered, and the LORD’S
supper, which is celebrated weekly, need no special person to administer
or preside (Acts ix. 10–18; x. 48; xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi.). Another feature
of some importance is, that wherever gifted men are found among the
Brethren, they, in general, are actively engaged in preaching and
expounding, &c., _on their own individual responsibility to the Lord,
and quite distinct from the assembly_. So that, though they may
occasionally use the buildings where the Brethren meet, it is in no way
as ministers of the Brethren, but of CHRIST.
“The number of places of worship which the Census officers in England
and Wales returned as frequented by the Brethren was 132; but probably
this number is below the truth, in consequence of the objection which
they entertain to acknowledge any sectarian appellation. Several
congregations may be included with the number (96) described as
‘Christians’ only.”
PŒNULA. (See _Chasuble_.)
POLITY, ECCLESIASTICAL. By this is meant the constitution and government
of the Christian Church, considered as a society.
Scarce anything in religion (says a learned author) has been more
mistaken than the nature and extent of that power, which our blessed
SAVIOUR established in his Church. Some have not only excluded the civil
magistrates of Christian states from having any concernment in the
exercise of this power, and exempted all persons invested with it from
the civil courts of justice, but have raised their supreme governor of
the Church to a supremacy, even in civil affairs, over the chief
magistrate; insomuch that he has pretended, on some occasions, to
absolve subjects from their allegiance to their lawful princes; and
others have run so far into contrary mistakes, as either to derive all
spiritual power wholly from the civil magistrate, or to allow the
exercise thereof to all Christians without distinction. The first of
these opinions manifestly tends to create divisions in the State, and to
excite subjects to rebel against their civil governors: the latter do
plainly strike at the foundation of all ecclesiastical power; and
wherever they are put in practice, not only the external order and
discipline, but even the sacraments of the Church must be destroyed, and
its whole constitution be quite dissolved.
The nature of ecclesiastical polity will be best understood by looking
back to the constitution of the ancient Christian Church.
The Church, as a society, consisted of several orders of men. Eusebius
reckons three: viz. the Ἡγούμενοι, Πιστοὶ, and Κατηχούμενοι, i. e.
_rulers_, _believers_, and _catechumens_. Origen reckons five orders:
but then he divides the clergy into three orders, to make up the number.
Both these accounts, when compared together, come to the same thing.
Under the Ἡγούμενοι, or rulers, are comprehended the clergy, bishops,
priests, and deacons; under the Πιστοὶ, or believers, the baptized
laity; and under the Κατηχούμενοι, or catechumens, the candidates for
baptism. The believers were perfect Christians; the catechumens
imperfect. The former, having received baptism, were allowed to partake
of the eucharist; to join in all the prayers of the Church; and to hear
discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion: more
particularly the use of the LORD’S Prayer was the sole prerogative of
the believers, whence it was called Εὐχὴ πιστῶν, the prayer of
believers. From all these privileges the catechumens were excluded. (See
_Catechumens_.)
The distinction between the laity and the clergy may be deduced from the
very beginnings of the Christian Church; notwithstanding that Rigaltius,
Salmasius, and Selden pretend there was originally no distinction, but
that it is a novelty, and owing to the ambition of the clergy of the
third century, in which Cyprian and Tertullian lived. (See _Clergy_.)
The clergy of the Christian Church consisted of several orders, both
superior and inferior.
The superior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Bishops; 2. The
Presbyters; 3. The Deacons.
It has been pretended that the bishops and presbyters were the same; and
this opinion has given rise to the sect of the Presbyterians. But it is
clearly proved against them, from ecclesiastical antiquity, that bishops
and presbyters were distinct orders of the clergy. (See _Bishops_,
_Deacons_, _Presbyters_, and _Presbyterians_.)
Among the bishops there was a subordination, they being distinguished
into, 1. Primate Metropolitans; 2. Patriarchs or Archbishops; 3.
Diocesan Bishops; 4. Chorepiscopi or Suffragan Bishops. (See the
articles _Archbishops_, _Chorepiscopi_, _Diocese_, _Patriarchs_. and
_Primates_.)
The presbyters were the second order of the superior clergy, and besides
being the bishop’s assistants in his cathedral church, had the care of
the smaller districts, or parishes, of which each diocese consisted.
(See _Parishes_ and _Presbyters_.)
The deacons were the third order of the superior clergy, and were a kind
of assistants to the bishops and presbyters, in the administration of
the eucharist, and other parts of Divine service. There were likewise
deaconesses, or female deacons, who were employed in the service of the
women. Out of the order of deacons was chosen the archdeacon, who
presided over the deacons and all the inferior officers of the Church.
(See the articles _Archdeacons_, _Deacons_, and _Deaconesses_.)
The inferior orders of the clergy were, 1. The Sub-deacons; 2. The
Acolyths; 3. The Exorcists; 4. The Readers; 5. The Door-keepers; 6. The
Singers; 7. The Copiatæ, or Fossarii; 8. The Parabolani; 9. The
Catechists; 10. The Syndics; 11. The Stewards. (See _each under their
respective articles_.)
All these orders of the clergy were appointed to their several offices
in the Church by solemn forms of consecration or ordination, and had
their respective privileges, immunities, and revenues. And, by means of
this gradation and subordination in the hierarchy, the worship and
discipline of the primitive Church were exactly kept up, according to
St. Paul’s direction, “Let everything be done decently, and in order.”
How far the constitution of our own Church agrees with, or has departed
from, this plan of the ancient hierarchy, may be seen at one glance of
the eye. We have the general distinction of bishops, presbyters or
priests, and deacons. Among the first we retain only the distinction of
archbishops (with the title likewise of primates) and bishops, having no
patriarchs or chorepiscopi. And as to the inferior orders of the clergy,
as acolyths, &c., they are all unknown to the Church of England. The
Romish Church has retained most of them, but it were to be wished she
came as near to the faith and worship, as she does to the external
constitution, of the hierarchy of the ancient Church.
But, as no society can subsist without laws, and penalties annexed to
the breach of them, so the unity and worship of the Christian Church
were secured by laws both ecclesiastical and civil. The ecclesiastical
laws were, either rules and orders made by each bishop for the better
regulation of his particular diocese; or laws made, in provincial
synods, for the government of all the diocese of a province; or, lastly,
laws respecting the whole Christian Church, made in general councils, or
assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Christian world. (See
_Synods_.)
The civil laws of the Church were those decrees and edicts, made from
time to time by the emperors, either restraining the power of the
Church, or granting it new privileges, or confirming the old.
The breach of these laws was severally punished both by the Church and
State. The ecclesiastical censures, respecting offenders among the
clergy, were, chiefly, suspension from the office, and deprivation of
the rights and privileges of the order. Those respecting the laity
consisted chiefly in excommunication, or rejection from the communion of
the Church, and penance both public and private.
POLYGLOTT BIBLES, are such Bibles, or editions of the Holy Scriptures,
as are printed in various languages, at least three, the texts of which
are ranged in opposite columns. Some of these Polyglott editions contain
the whole Bible, others but a part of it. The principal Polyglotts that
have yet appeared are these following:—
1. The Bible of Francis Ximenes, cardinal of the order of St. Francis.
It was printed in 1514–17, in four languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and
Latin. From having been printed at Alcala, in Spain, anciently
_Complutum_, this is called the _Complutensian_ Polyglott. It cost
Cardinal Ximenes 50,000 ducats.
2. The Psalter of Justiniani, bishop of Nebbio, of the order of St.
Dominic. It appeared in 1516, in five languages; Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek,
Latin, and Arabic.
3. The Psalter, by John Potken, provost of the collegiate church of St.
George, at Cologne, published in 1518, in four languages—Hebrew, Greek,
Chaldee, and Latin.
4. The Pentateuch, published by the Jews, at Constantinople, in 1546, in
Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian, and Arabic; with the commentaries of Solomon
Jarchi.
5. The Pentateuch, by the same Jews, in the same city, in 1547, in four
languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, the vulgar Greek, and Spanish.
6. An imperfect Polyglott, containing only fragments of the book of
Genesis and of the Psalms; the Proverbs, the prophets Micah and Joel,
with part of Isaiah, Zechariah, and Malachi; published by John
Draconitis, of Carlostad, in Franconia, in 1563–5, in five
languages—Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, and German.
7. Christopher Plantin’s Polyglott Bible, published by order of Philip
II., king of Spain, Antwerp, in 1569, 1572. It is in eight volumes, and
in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin: with the Syriac version of the New
Testament. This is called the Antwerp Polyglott.
8. Vatablus’s Polyglott Bible, being the Old Testament in Hebrew and
Greek, with two Latin versions, one of St. Jerome, the other of Sanctus
Pagninus; and Vatablus’s notes. The editorship is attributed to R.
Stephens, by Bishop Walton. Dibdin ascribes it to Bertramus, Hebrew
professor at Geneva. It appeared at Heidelberg, in 1586.
9. A Bible in four languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German,
published by David Wolder, a Lutheran minister, at Hamburg, in 1596.
10. The Polyglotts of Elias Hutter, a German. The first, printed at
Nuremberg, in 1599, contains the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth,
in six languages; viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Latin, Luther’s
German, and Sclavonian; or French, Italian, or Saxon; the copies varying
according to the nations they were designed for.
This author published the Psalter and New Testament, in Hebrew, Greek,
Latin, and German. But his chief work is the New Testament in twelve
languages, viz. Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, French, Latin,
German, Bohemian, English, Danish, and Polish. This was printed at
Nuremberg, in 1599.
11. M. le Jay’s Bible, in seven languages, printed at Paris, in 1645.
The languages are, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin,
and Arabic.
12. Walton’s Polyglott, published in England, in 1657. In nine
languages, viz. the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Samaritan, Syrian, Arabic,
Æthiopic, Persic, and Latin; though no one book is printed in so many.
This was the most complete and perfect Polyglott ever published. It
consists of five volumes, with prolegomena, by Walton, which are in
themselves a treasure of biblical criticism, some treatises in the first
volume, several new Oriental versions in the fourth and fifth, and a
very large collection of various readings in the sixth.
13. Reineccius’, or the Leipsic Polyglott, printed at Leipsic, 1753, in
3 vols., in Latin, German, Hebrew, and Greek: a cheap and commodious
edition.
14. Bagster’s Polyglott, London, 1821, 4to and 8vo, in five languages,
Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English. Syriac.
POLYGLOTT PRAYER BOOK. The English Prayer Book was published in 1819, in
eight languages, English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, ancient and
modern Greek, and Latin.
PONTIFICAL. A book containing the offices used by a bishop, at
consecration of churches, &c. Thus the Roman Pontifical is the book of
offices for a bishop, according to the rites of the Roman Church. In
England the Pontifical is not by authority published separately from the
liturgy, so that it is never called by that name; though the offices of
confirmation and ordination, in fact, compose the English Pontifical.
For the consecration of churches and churchyards we have no office
appointed by sufficient authority. (See _Consecration of Churches_.)
PONTIFICALIA. Properly the ensigns of a pontiff’s or bishop’s office;
but the term is loosely used for any ecclesiastical dress. It is so used
in the account of Bishop Andrewes’ consecration of St. Mary’s,
Southampton, in Sparrow’s collection: “Episcopus capellam statim
ingressus niduit se pontificalibus.”
POOR MAN’S BOX; or _Poor Men’s Box_. Till the last review, it was
directed that the collection at the offertory should be put into the
_Poor Man’s Box_: a term which (in imitation of the Scotch liturgy) was
altered in the last review to a _decent basin_. It is clear, however,
from many documents, that basins of gold and silver, and other metinal
were used in the Church of England ever since the Reformation. In
Ireland the Poor Man’s Box, or _poor-box_, as it is generally called, is
still in general use. An oval box, half covered, of copper or wood, with
a long handle. The Poor Man’s Box does not seem to be the same as the
Alms’ Chest, prescribed by the 84th canon. So Wheatly observes: “not, I
presume, into that fixed in the church, but into a little box which the
churchwardens, or some other proper persons, carried about with them in
their hands, as is still the custom at the Temple Church in
London.”—_Jebb._
POPE, THE. The sovereign pontiff, or supreme head, of the Romish Church.
The appellation of Pope (_Papa_) was, anciently, given to all Christian
bishops: but, about the latter end of the eleventh century, in the
pontificate of Gregory VII., it was usurped by the bishop of Rome, whose
peculiar title it has ever since continued.
The spiritual monarchy of Rome sprang up soon after the declension of
the Roman empire; and one great, though remote, instrument, in promoting
the increase of this monarchy, so pernicious to the supreme civil power,
was, the barbarity and ignorance which from that time spread itself over
the Western parts.
Rome was chosen for the place of residence of the ecclesiastical
monarchy, because this city had the particular prerogative of being the
capital city of the Roman empire, where the Christian religion had its
first rise and increase. For what is related concerning St. Peter’s
chair is nothing but a vain pretence, which may easily be seen from
hence, that, afterwards, the bishop of Constantinople had the next place
assigned him after the bishop of Rome, only because that city was then
the place of the emperor’s residence, and called New Rome. And when
afterwards the Western empire was come to decay, and the city of Rome
had lost its former lustre, the bishop of Constantinople disputed the
precedency with the Roman bishop. It is true the emperor Phocas granted
the right of precedency to Boniface III., then bishop of Rome, who
thereupon took upon him the title of Œcumenical bishop: but this did not
imply any power or jurisdiction over the rest; for the other patriarchs
never acknowledged any. So that here are no footsteps of Divine
institution to be found, the papal power being purely human, and an
usurpation upon the rights of other sees.
The bishops of Rome did not extend their power over the Western parts
all at once; but it was introduced from time to time, by degrees, by
various artifices, and under various pretences. What chiefly contributed
to its growth was, first, the emperors choosing other places of
residence besides Rome; for, by their constant presence there, they
might easily have kept under the ambitious designs of the bishops. In
the next place, the Western empire was divided into several new
kingdoms, erected by the several barbarous and pagan nations, and these,
having been converted to the Christian faith by the direction of the
Romish Church, thought themselves obliged to pay her the profoundest
respect.
In the fifth century, the bishops on this side of the Alps began to go
to Rome, to visit the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul. This
voluntary devotion insensibly grew into a necessity. From hence it was
easy for the popes afterwards to pretend, that the bishops ought to
receive their confirmation from Rome. Besides, some other bishops and
churches, that were novices in comparison of the ancient Roman Church,
used to refer themselves to, and ask the advice of, the Church of Rome,
concerning matters of great consequence, and the true interpretation of
the canons. Hence the bishops of Rome, perceiving their answers were
received as decisions, began to send their decrees before they were
demanded. And hence they set themselves up as judges of the differences
arising between the bishops, and, encroaching on the right and
jurisdiction of the metropolitans, proceeded to suspend and depose whom
they thought fit. At the same time, by making void the decisions of the
provincial synods, they so diminished their authority, that by degrees
they were quite abolished. Add to this, that Gregory VII. forced the
bishops to take an oath of fealty to the popes, and by a decree enacted
that none should dare to condemn any one, who had appealed to the pope.
Nor did they forget to send legates or nuncios to all places, whose
business was to exercise, in the pope’s name, the same authority, which
had formerly belonged to the bishops and provincial synods. (See
_Legate_.)
It is certain that many Romish bishops, especially among those on this
side the Alps, were to a late period opposed to the pope’s authority;
which evidently appeared at the Council of Trent, where the French and
Spanish bishops insisted very strongly to have it decided, that bishops
are obliged to residence by the law of GOD; the consequence of which
was, the deriving their authority from GOD alone. The pope met with
great difficulty before he could surmount this obstacle; and therefore
it is very likely this will be the last council, since the pope will
scarce put his grandeur to the hazard and decision of such another
assembly. Not to mention that they are now of no farther use, since the
Jesuits and others have taught, that the pope is infallible, and
superior to councils. However that may be, the bishops are obliged for
their own sakes not to withdraw themselves from the pope’s jurisdiction,
since thereby they would fall under the civil power, and would be
obliged to seek protection from their sovereigns, who must be potent
princes, if they could protect them against the pope; so that they think
it wiser, of two evils to choose the least.
The spiritual monarchy of Rome could not have been established, had its
bishops continued dependent on any temporal prince; and therefore the
popes took their opportunity to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction
of the Greek emperors, whose authority was mightily decayed in Italy.
This was greatly forwarded by the dispute concerning the use of images.
For the emperor Leo Isaurus having quite ejected them out of the
churches, Pope Gregory II., who stood up for the images, took occasion
to oppose him, and stirred up the Romans and Italians to refuse to pay
him tribute; by which means the power of the Greek emperors was lost in
Italy, and these countries began to be free and independent of any
foreign jurisdiction.
The pope, having freed himself from the authority of the emperors of
Constantinople, and being in danger from the Lombards, who endeavoured
to make themselves masters of Italy, had recourse for protection to the
kings of France. Pepin, and afterwards Charles the Great, having
entirely subdued the Lombards, these princes gave to the papal chair all
that tract of land, which had been formerly subject to the Greek
emperors. To obtain this gift, it is said, the pope made use of a
fictitious donation of Constantine the Great, which, in those barbarous
times, was easily imposed upon the ignorant world. By virtue of this
grant, the popes pretended to a sovereign jurisdiction over these
countries; which the people at first refused to submit to, thinking it
very strange, that the pope, who was an ecclesiastical person, should at
the same time pretend to be a temporal prince. When, therefore, the
Romans mutinied against Leo III., he was forced to seek for assistance
from Charles the Great, who restored the pope. On the other hand, the
pope and people of Rome proclaimed Charles emperor; whereby he was put
in possession of the sovereignty of that part of Italy, which formerly
belonged to the governors of Ravenna, and the other remnants of the
Western empire; so that the popes afterwards enjoyed these countries
under the sovereign jurisdiction of the emperor, who therefore used to
be called the patron and defender of the Church, till the reign of the
emperor, Henry VI.
The popes at length began to grow weary of the imperial protection,
because the emperor’s consent was required in the election of a pope,
and, if they were mutinous, the emperors used to check them, and
sometimes turn them out of the chair. The popes, therefore, for a long
time, employed various artifices to exempt themselves from the power of
the emperors. To this end, they frequently raised intestine commotions
against them. But the reign of Henry IV. furnished them with an
opportunity of putting their designs in execution. For Pope Gregory
VII., surnamed Hildebrand, had the boldness to excommunicate this
emperor, on pretence that he made a traffic of church benefices, by
selling them to all sorts of persons, whom he installed before they had
taken orders. And, not satisfied with this, he cited the emperor before
him, to answer to the complaints of his subjects, and declared him to
have forfeited all right and title to the empire. This obliged the
emperor to renounce the right of constituting bishops. And though his
son, Henry V., endeavoured to recover what was forcibly taken away from
his father, and made Pope Paschal a prisoner, yet were the whole clergy
in Europe so dissatisfied, that he was obliged at last to resign the
same right again into the pope’s hands. This affair gave rise to the
factions of the _Guelfs_ and _Ghibelines_, the first of which were for
the pope, the latter for the emperor. The succeeding emperors found so
much work in Germany, that they were not in a condition to look after
Italy; whereby the pope had sufficient leisure to make himself
sovereign, not only over his own possessions, but over all possessions
pertaining to the Church.
But the pope, not satisfied with this degree of grandeur, quickly set on
foot a pretension of far greater consequence. For now he pretended to an
authority over princes themselves, to command a truce between such as
were at war together, to take cognizance of their differences, to put
their kingdoms under an interdict, and, if they refused submission to
the see of Rome, to absolve their subjects from their allegiance, and to
deprive them of their crowns. This has been attempted against many
crowned heads, and put in execution against some of them. And for this
abominable pretension they pleaded their fictitious decretals, (see
_Decretals_,) which grant to the popes an unlimited power over all
Christians whatever. Pope Boniface VIII. gave the world clearly to
understand his meaning, at the jubilee kept in the year 1300, when he
appeared sometimes in the habit of an emperor, and sometimes in that of
a pope, and had two swords carried before him, as the ensigns of the
ecclesiastical and civil power.
But the popes could not long enjoy this intolerable usurpation in quiet;
for it was often called in question, till they were obliged to desist in
part from their pretensions. In particular, Philip the Handsome, king of
France, gave several great blows to the papal authority. But the ensuing
schisms, and the double elections, when the opposite factions chose two
different popes at the same time, contributed most towards weakening the
power of the holy see. Hence an occasion was taken to bridle the pope’s
authority by general councils, which often proceeded so far as to depose
the holy fathers. Therefore it is not to be wondered that, since the
Council of Trent, the popes have been very averse to the calling of
general councils, and seem to have bid adieu to them for ever. To this
may be added, that the translation of the papal chair, by Clement V.,
from Rome to Avignon, where the popes constantly resided for seventy
years together, carried along with it several inconveniences, which
proved greatly prejudicial to the ecclesiastical monarchy. Among others,
the pope’s authority being founded upon this belief, that St. Peter had
been at Rome, and by his presence had communicated a particular
prerogative and holiness to that chair, it was very much questioned
whether the same could be transferred to Avignon.
But, when the ecclesiastical monarchy seemed to be come to the pinnacle
of its grandeur, when all the Western parts were either in communion
with, or in obedience to, the Church of Rome, by the influence of the
Reformation, the pope became only the spiritual head of a sect, and
eventually, as a civil power, of very slight importance.
The manner of the election of a pope is as follows: nine or ten days
after the funeral of a deceased pope, the cardinals enter the conclave,
which is generally held in the Vatican, in a long gallery, where cells
of board are erected, covered with purple cloth, one for each cardinal.
(See _Conclave_.)
The election is made by _scrutiny_, _access_, or _adoration_. The first
is, when each cardinal writes the name of him whom he votes for, in a
scroll of five pages. On the first is written by one of his servants,
that the cardinal may not be discovered by his hand, “_Ego eligo in
summum pontificem reverendum dominum meum cardinalem_.” On this fold two
others are doubled down, and sealed with a private seal. On the fourth
the cardinal writes his own name, and covers it with the fifth folding.
Then, sitting in order on benches in the chapel, with their scrolls in
their hands, they go up to the altar by turns, and, after a short prayer
on their knees, throw the scroll into a chalice upon the table, the
first cardinal bishop sitting on the right hand, and the first cardinal
deacon on the left. The cardinals being returned to their places, the
cardinal bishop turns out the scrolls into a plate, which he holds in
his left hand, and gives them one by one to the cardinal deacon, who
reads them with an audible voice, while the cardinals note down how many
voices each person has; and then the master of the ceremonies burns the
scrolls in a chafing-dish, that it may not be known for whom any one
gives his voice. If two-thirds of the number present agree, the election
is made, and he, on whom the two-thirds fall, is declared pope.
When the choice is made by _access_, the cardinals rise from their
places, and, approaching him whom they would have elected, say, _Ego
accedo ad reverendissimum Dominum_. The choice by _adoration_ is much
after the same manner, only the cardinal approaches him whom he would
have chosen with the profoundest reverence. But both the one and the
other must be confirmed by the scrutiny.
There has been another way of choosing a pope, namely, by _compromise_:
that is, when the differences have risen so high that they could not be
adjusted in the conclave, they have referred the choice to three or
five, giving them leave to elect any one, provided it were determined
within the time that a candle lighted by common consent should last.
Sometimes they have had recourse to what is called _inspiration_; that
is, the first cardinal rises up in chapel, and, after an exhortation to
make choice of a capable person, immediately, as if inspired, names one
himself: to which, if two-thirds of the cardinals present agree, he is
reckoned legally chosen.
When one of the cardinals is chosen pope, the master of the ceremonies
comes to his cell, to acquaint him with the news of his promotion.
Whereupon he is conducted to the chapel, and clad in the pontifical
habit, and there receives the adoration, or the respects paid by the
cardinals to the popes. Then, all the gates of the conclave being
opened, the new pope shows himself to the people, and blesses them,
the first cardinal deacon proclaiming aloud these words: _Annuntio
vobis gaudium magnum; Papam habemus. Reverendissimus Dominus
Cardinalis—electus est in summum Pontificem, et eligit sibi nomen._
After this, he is carried to St. Peter’s church, and placed upon the
altar of the holy apostles, where the cardinals come a second time to
the adoration. Some days after is performed the ceremony of his
coronation, before the door of St. Peter’s church, where is erected a
throne, upon which the new pope ascends, has his mitre taken off, and
a crown put upon his head, in the presence of the people. Afterwards
is a grand cavalcade from St. Peter’s church to St. John Lateran,
where the archbishop of that church presents the new pope with two
keys, one of gold the other of silver.
It is probable that, in the first ages of the Church, the Roman clergy
elected the pope; and some think the people had a share in the election.
Afterwards, Odoacer, king of the Eruli, and Theodoric, king of the Goths
in Italy, would suffer no election of a pope to be made without their
consent. But this was abolished in 502, under Pope Symmachus. The
succeeding princes, however, reserved to themselves a right to confirm
the newly elected pope, who, without this confirmation, could not take
possession of the pontificate. The tenth century saw several popes
elected and deposed at the fancy of the Roman nobility and Italian
princes. But, since the election of Celestin II., in 1443, the cardinals
have retained the power of election, independent of the Roman people, or
of any sovereign prince whatever.
It is a general maxim, in the choice of a pope, to elect an Italian;
which is done, not only because they choose rather to bestow this
dignity on a native of Italy than on a foreigner, but also because the
security and preservation of the papal chair depends, in a great
measure, on the balance which is to be kept between France and Spain:
but this is not to be expected from a French or Spanish pope, who would
quickly turn the scale, and, by granting too great privileges to his
countrymen, endeavour to exclude others from the papal chair. It is also
a sort of maxim, to choose a pope who is pretty far advanced in years,
that there may be the quicker succession, and that it may not be in the
power of a pope, during a long reign, to alter their customs, or, by
making his family too powerful, to entail, as it were, the papal chair
upon his house. They also take care that he be not too near akin to the
deceased pope, that the vacant church benefices may not be engrossed by
one family. It often happens, that one is chosen pope, of whom nobody
thought before; and this comes to pass, when the cardinals are tired out
by so many intrigues, and are glad to get out of the conclave. It is
also observed, that a pope often proves quite another man, when he comes
to sit in the chair, than that he was before, when only a cardinal.
Ever since the time of Pope Sixtus IV., that is, since the year 1471,
the popes have made it their business to enrich their families out of
the Church revenues, of which there are very remarkable instances. For
it is related that Sixtus V., during a reign of five years, bestowed
upon his family above three millions of ducats. The house of the
Barbarini, at the death of Urban VIII., was possessed of 227 offices and
Church benefices, whereby they amassed thirty millions of scudi.
Sergius III., (A. D. 904,) or Sergius IV., (A. D. 1009,) who was before
called _Os Porci_, i. e. Swine-Face, is said to have been the first pope
who changed his name upon his exaltation to the pontificate. This
example has been followed by all the popes since his time, and they
assume the names of Innocent, Benedict, Clement, &c.
When a pope is elected, they put on him a cassock of white wool, shoes
of red cloth, on which is embroidered a gold cross, a mantle of red
velvet, the rochet, the white linen albe, and a stole set with pearls.
At home, his habit is, a white silk cassock, rochet, and scarlet mantle.
In winter his Holiness wears a fur cap; in summer, a satin one. When he
celebrates mass, the colour of his habit varies according to the
solemnity of the festival. At Whitsuntide, and all festivals of the
martyrs, he officiates in red; at Easter, and all festivals of virgins,
in white; in Lent, Advent, and eves of fasting days, in violet; and on
Easter-eve, and at all masses for the dead, in black. All these colours
are typical: the red expresses the cloven tongue, and the blood of the
martyrs; the white, the joy caused by our SAVIOUR’S resurrection, and
the chastity of virgins; the violet, the pale aspect of those who fast;
and the black, grief and mourning.
The pope’s tiara, or crown, is a kind of conic cap, with three coronets,
rising one above the other, and adorned with jewels. Paul II. was the
first who added the ornaments of precious stones to his crown. The
jewels of Clement VIII.’s crown were valued, they say, at 500,000 pieces
of gold. That of Martin V. had five pounds and a half weight of pearls
in it. “Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, (says Father
Bonani,) since the pope governs the kingdom of CHRIST in quality of his
viceroy; now this kingdom is infinitely superior to all the empires of
the universe. The high priest of the Jews wore on his head and breast
the riches which were to represent the majesty of the Supreme GOD. The
pope represents that of the SAVIOUR of the world, and nothing better
expresses it than riches.” We must not omit, that the two strings of the
pontifical tiara represent the two different manners of interpreting the
Scriptures, the mystical and the literal.
The pope has two seals. One is called “the fisherman’s ring,” and is the
impression of St. Peter holding a line with a bait to it in the water.
It is used for those briefs that are sealed with red wax. The other seal
is used for the bulls which are sealed with lead, and bears the figures
of St. Peter and St. Paul, with a cross on one side, and a bust, with
the name of the reigning pope, on the other. Upon the decease of a pope,
these seals are defaced and broken by the cardinal Camerlengo, in the
presence of three cardinals.
When the pope goes in procession to St. Peter’s, the cross is carried
before him on the end of a pike about ten palms long. “Many reasons,”
says F. Bonani, “authorize this custom. It is a monument of the
sufferings of JESUS CHRIST, and of the pope’s adherence to the SAVIOUR
of the world. It is the true mark of the pontifical dignity, and
represents the authority of the Church, as the Roman fasces did that of
the consuls.” At the same time two grooms bear two fans on each side of
his Holiness’s chair, to drive away the flies. This (according to the
above-cited author) represents the seraphim covering the face of GOD
with their wings.
The custom of kissing the pope’s feet is very ancient; to justify which
practice, it is alleged, that the pope’s slipper has the figure of the
cross upon the upper leather; so that it is not the pope’s foot, but the
cross of CHRIST, which is thus saluted.
There are but few instances of the papal power in England before the
Norman Conquest. But the pope, having favoured and supported William I.
in his invasion of this kingdom, made that a handle for enlarging his
encroachments, and, in that king’s reign, began to send legates hither.
Afterwards he prevailed with King Henry I. to part with the right of
nominating to bishoprics; and, in the reign of King Stephen, he gained
the prerogative of appeals. In the reign of Henry II. he exempted all
clerks from the secular power. This king, at first, strenuously opposed
his innovation; but, after the death of Becket, who, for having
violently opposed the king, was slain by some of the royal adherents,
the pope got such an advantage over the king, that he was never able to
execute the laws he had made. Not long after this, by a general
excommunication of the king and his people, for several years, King John
was reduced to such straits, that he surrendered his kingdoms to the
pope, to receive them again, and hold them of him under a rent of a
thousand marks. In the following reign of Henry III., partly from the
profits of our best Church benefices, and partly from the taxes imposed
by the pope, there went yearly out of the kingdom to Rome £70,000
sterling. But in the reign of Edward I., it was declared by the
parliament, that the pope’s taking upon him to dispose of English
benefices to foreigners, was an encroachment not to be endured; and this
was followed by the statute of _Provisors_ against popish bulls, and
against disturbing any patron, in presenting to a benefice; which was
afterwards enacted in Ireland also.
But the pope’s power received a mortal blow in England, by the
reformation in religion, begun in the reign of Henry VIII.; since which
time, to maintain the pope’s authority here, by writing, preaching, &c.,
was, till lately, made a _premunire_ upon the first conviction, and high
treason upon the second.
POPERY. (See _Church of Rome_, _Council of Trent_, _Romanism_.) By
_Popery_ we mean the peculiar system of doctrine, by adopting which the
Church of Rome separates herself from the rest of the Catholic Church,
and is involved in the guilt of schism. The Church of Rome, or Popery,
has departed from the apostles’ doctrine, by requiring all who
communicate with her to believe, as necessary to salvation,
1st, That that man is accursed who does not kiss, and honour, and
worship the holy images.
2nd, That the Virgin Mary and other saints are to be prayed to.
3rd, That, after consecration in the LORD’S supper, the bread is no
longer bread, and the wine no longer wine.
4th, That the clergyman should be excommunicated who, in the sacrament
of the LORD’S supper, gives the cup to the people.
5th, That they are accursed who say that the clergy may marry.
6th, That there is a purgatory; that is, a place where souls which had
died in repentance are purified by suffering.
7th, That the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all churches.
8th, That obedience is due from all Churches to the bishop of Rome.
9th, That they are accursed who deny that there are seven sacraments.
From those doctrines, contrary to Scripture and the primitive Church,
have resulted these evil practices.
From the veneration of images has sprung the actual worship of them.
The invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of other saints, has given
rise to the greatest blasphemy and profaneness.
The bread in the eucharist has been worshipped as though itself were the
eternal GOD.
From the doctrine of purgatory has sprung that of indulgences, and the
practice of persons paying sums of money to the Romish bishops and
clergy, to release the souls of their friends from the fabulous fire of
purgatory.
Popery is a corrupt addition to the truth, and we can give the very
dates of the several corruptions.
_Attrition_, as distinguished from contrition, was first pronounced to
be sufficient.
The priest’s right _intention_ was first pronounced to be indispensable
to the valid participation of the sacraments, and
Judicial _absolution_ was first publicly authorized, by the Council of
Trent, A. D. 1551.
_Auricular confession_ was first enjoined by Innocent III., at the
fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.
_Apocrypha_ received as canonical first at the Council of Trent, A. D.
1547.
Compulsory _celibacy of the clergy_, first enjoined publicly at the
first Council of Lateran, A. D. 1123.
_Communion in one kind only_, first authoritatively sanctioned by the
Council of Constance, A. D. 1414.
Use of _images_ and _relics_ in religious worship, first publicly
affirmed and sanctioned in the second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.
Invocation of saints_, first taught with _authority by the fourth
Council of Constantinople, A. D. 754.
_Papal infallibility_ was utterly unknown to the third Council of
Constantinople, A. D. 680.
_Papal supremacy_, first publicly asserted by the fourth Council of
Lateran, A. D. 1215.
_Prayers in a foreign tongue_, first deliberately sanctioned by the
Council of Trent, were expressly forbidden by the fourth Council of
Lateran, A. D. 1215.
_Purgatory_ and _indulgences_, first set forth by the Council of
Florence, A. D. 1438.
The Roman _number of the sacraments_ was first taught by the Council of
Trent, A. D. 1545.
_Transubstantiation_ was first publicly insisted on by the fourth
Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215.
POPPY HEAD. The ornamental finial of a stall end. In design the poppy
heads are extremely various; but they are almost universally made to
assume the outline of the fleur-de-lis, to which not only foliage, but
figures, faces, and whole groups, are made to conform themselves.
PORCH. A part of the church in which anciently considerable portions of
the marriage service and of the baptismal services were performed. Being
commenced here they were finished in the church.
POSTILS. A name anciently given to sermons or homilies. The name sprung
from the fact that these were usually delivered immediately after
reading of the Gospel (quasi _post illa_, sc. _Evangelia_). Also,
printed expositions of Scripture, from the text being first exhibited,
and _post illa_ (after the words of the text) the explication of the
writer.
PRÆMUNIRE, in law, is either taken for a form of writ, or for the
offence whereon the writ of præmunire is granted. The writ in question
is named from its initial words _Præmunire facias_, and it is chiefly
known in ecclesiastical matters from a persecuting use to which it is
applied by the statute of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, which enacts, that if the
dean and chapter refuse to elect the person nominated by the king to the
vacant bishopric, or if any archbishop or bishop refuse to confirm or
consecrate him, they shall incur the penalties of the statutes of the
præmunire. These penalties are no less than the following:—From the
moment of conviction, the defendant is out of the king’s protection, his
body remains in prison during the king’s pleasure, and all his goods,
real or personal, are forfeited to the Crown. He can bring no action,
nor recover damages, for the most atrocious injuries, and no man can
safely give him comfort, aid, or relief.
PRAGMATIC SANCTION, THE. (From πρᾶγμα, _business_.) A rescript or answer
of the sovereign, declared by advice of his council, to some college,
order, or body of people, upon their consulting him in some case of
their community.—_Hutman._
Referring to the expression historically, the earliest Pragmatic
Sanction on record is that drawn up by Louis IX., king of France, in
1268, against the encroachments of the Church and Court of Rome. It
related chiefly to the rights of the Gallican Church, with reference to
the elections of bishops and clergy. It was superseded in 1438 by the
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., which was drawn up at Bourges. This
having re-asserted the rights and privileges claimed for the Gallican
Church under Louis IX., it accorded with the Council of Basle, at that
time sitting, in maintaining that a general council is independent of
the pope, and in asserting that all papal bulls should be null and void
unless they received the consent of the king. It withheld also the
payment of annates. (See _Annates_.) Pope Pius II. succeeded in
obtaining the abrogation of this sanction for a time. But the parliament
of Paris refused to approve the conduct of Louis XI. in setting it
aside, and he was compelled to restore it to its original influential
position. It accordingly remained in full force up to the year 1517,
when it was supplanted by the concordat, which was agreed upon between
Francis I. and Pope Julius II. Although by the concordat privileges were
given and received on both sides, yet the real advantages were on the
side of Rome; which advantages it has ever since been her constant aim
to improve.
PRAISE. A reverent acknowledgment of the perfections of GOD, and of the
blessings flowing from them to mankind, usually expressed in hymns of
gratitude and thanksgiving, and especially in the reception of the holy
eucharist—that “sacrifice of praise, and sublimest token of our joy.”
(See _Eucharist_.)
PRAXEANISTS. (See _Patripassians_.)
PRAYER. The offering up of our desires to GOD for things agreeable to
his will, in the name of CHRIST, by the aid of his SPIRIT, with
confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies. The
necessity of prayer is so universally acknowledged by all who profess
and call themselves Christians, and so clearly enjoined in Scripture,
that to insist upon this duty—this sacred and pleasant exercise to the
renewed in heart—is unnecessary. Prayer is either private or public, and
it implies faith in the particular providence of GOD. The general
providence of GOD acts through what are called the laws of nature. By
his particular providence GOD interferes with those laws, and he hath
promised to interfere in behalf of those who pray in the name of JESUS.
As we are to shape our labours by ascertaining, through the
circumstances under which we are providentially placed, what is the will
of GOD with reference to ourselves; as, for example, the husbandman, the
professional man, the prince, all labour for different things placed
within their reach, and do not labour for that which GOD evidently does
not design for them; so we are to regulate our prayers, and we may take
it as a general rule, that we may pray for that for which we may
lawfully labour, and for that only. And when we pray for what is
requisite and necessary for the body or the soul, we are at the same
time to exert ourselves. Prayer without exertion is a mockery of GOD, as
exertion without prayer is presumption. The general providence of GOD
requires that we should exert ourselves, the particular providence of
GOD that we should pray.
(For public prayer, see _Liturgy_ and _Formulary_.)
PRAYER BOOK. (See _Liturgy_ and _Formulary_.)
PREACHING. Proclaiming or publicly setting forth the truths of religion.
Hence the reading of Scripture to the congregation is one branch of
preaching, and is so denominated in Acts xv. 21. “Moses of old time hath
in every city them that _preach_ him, being _read_ in the synagogues
every sabbath day.” See Archbishop King’s valuable Treatise _On the
Inventions of Men_, in which he demonstrates the extensive sense of
_preaching_, as scripturally used; showing that all public services in
the church are, in a certain sense, preaching. The term is, however,
generally restricted to the delivering of sermons, lectures, &c.
_Article_ XXIII. “It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the
office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the
congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same.
And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen
and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them
in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the LORD’S
vineyard.”
In the same convocation in which subscription in the Thirty-nine
Articles was imposed upon the clergy, it was enjoined, with respect to
preachers: “In the first place, let _preachers_ take care that they
never teach anything in the way of preaching, which they wish to be
retained religiously and believed by the people, except what is
agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the
catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same
doctrine.”—_Canon. Eccles. Angl._ xix. A. D. 1571.
_Canon 36._ “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted
to any ecclesiastical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or
to be a lecturer or reader of divinity in either university, or in any
cathedral, or collegiate church, city, or market town, parish church,
chapel, or any other place within this realm, except he be licensed
either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese where he is to
be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two
universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first
subscribe to the three articles concerning the king’s supremacy, the
Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles (see _Orders_): and
if any bishop shall license any person without such subscription, he
shall be suspended from giving licences to preach for the space of
twelve months.”
And by the 31 Elizabeth, c. 6. “If any person shall receive or take any
money, fee, reward, or any other profit, directly or indirectly, or any
promise thereof, either to himself or to any of his friends, (all
ordinary and lawfully fees only excepted,) to procure any licence to
preach, he shall forfeit £40.”
After the preacher shall be licensed, then it is ordained as follows:
_Canon 45._ “Every beneficed man, allowed to be a preacher, and residing
on his benefice, having no lawful impediment, shall, in his own cure, or
in some other church or chapel (where he may conveniently) near
adjoining, where no preacher is, preach one sermon every Sunday of the
year; wherein he shall soberly and sincerely divide the word of truth,
to the glory of GOD, and to the best edification of the people.”
_Canon 47._ “Every beneficed man, licensed by the laws of this realm
(upon urgent occasions of other service) not to reside upon his
benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a
sufficient and licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear
it. But whosoever hath two benefices shall maintain a preacher licensed,
in the benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at
both of them usually.”
By _Canon 50_. “Neither the minister, churchwardens, nor any other
officers of the Church, shall suffer any man to preach within their
churches or chapels, but such as by showing their licence to preach
shall appear unto them to be sufficiently authorized thereunto, as is
aforesaid.”
_Canon 51._ “The deans, presidents, and residentiaries of any cathedral
or collegiate church shall suffer no stranger to preach unto the people
in their churches, except they be allowed by the archbishop of the
province, or by the bishop of the same diocese, or by either of the
universities; and if any in his sermon shall publish any doctrine either
strange or disagreeing from the word of GOD, or from any of the
Thirty-nine Articles, or from the Book of Common Prayer, the dean or
residents shall by their letters, subscribed with some of their hands
that heard him, so soon as may be, give notice of the same to the bishop
of the diocese, that he may determine the matter, and take such order
therein as he shall think convenient.”
_Canon 52._ “That the bishop may understand (if occasion so require)
what sermons are made in every church of his diocese, and who presume to
preach without licence, the churchwardens and sidesmen shall see that
the names of all preachers which come to their church from any other
place be noted in a book, which they shall have ready for that purpose,
wherein every preacher shall subscribe his name, the day when he
preached, and the name of the bishop of whom he had licence to preach.”
_Canon 53._ “If any preacher shall in the pulpit particularly, or namely
of purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other
preacher in the same church, or in any church near adjoining, before he
hath acquainted the bishop of the diocese therewith, and received order
from him what to do in that case, because upon such public dissenting
and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the
people, the churchwardens or party aggrieved shall forthwith signify the
same to the said bishop, and not suffer the said preacher any more to
occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he faithfully
promise to forbear all such matter of contention in the church, until
the bishop hath taken further order therein; who shall with all
convenient speed so proceed therein, that public satisfaction may be
made in the congregation where the offence was given. Provided, that if
either of the parties offending do appeal, he shall not be suffered to
preach _pendente lite_.”
_Canon 55._ “Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers
and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this
form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may: Ye shall
pray for CHRIST’S Holy Catholic Church,” &c. (See _Bidding Prayer_.)
PREBEND. (Lat. _Præbenda_.) The stipend which is received by a
prebendary, from the revenues of the cathedral or collegiate church with
which he is connected. It denoted originally any stipend or reward,
given out of the ecclesiastical revenues, to a person who had by his
labours procured benefit to the Church; and the gratuity which was given
either to a proctor or advocate, or any other person of the like kind.
When the cathedral churches became well endowed, they left off receiving
the income of their lands into one common bank, and dividing it among
the members, but parcelled out the lands into several shares,
appropriating them for the maintenance of each single clergyman who
resided about the cathedral, calling it _Præbenda_, or _Corpus
Præbendæ_, the _Corps of the Prebend_. Hence arose the difference
between a _prebend_ and a _canonry_. A _canonry_ was a right which a
person had in a church, to be deemed a member thereof, to have the right
of a stall therein, and of giving a vote in the chapter; but a _prebend_
was a right to receive certain revenues appropriated to his place. The
number of prebends in the several cathedral churches was increased by
the benefactions of respective founders; oftentimes out of the revenues
of the rural clergy, and oftentimes by exonerating the lands of prebends
from paying tithes to the ministers of the parishes where they
lay.—_Nicholls._
PREBENDARY. A clergyman attached to a cathedral or collegiate church,
who enjoys a _prebend_ in consideration of his officiating at stated
times in the church. (See _Dean and Chapter_.)
In Scotland, there were established by the respective founders in the
colleges of St. Salvador, at St. Andrew’s, and King’s College, Aberdeen,
certain “Prebendaries, or perpetual chaplains, to sing and serve in the
choir” of the chapel. These were, in fact, the same as chaplains in the
choral colleges of England.
PRECENTOR. The leader of a choir. The precentor in almost all cathedrals
of old foundation in England, and very generally on the continent, was
the first dignitary in the chapter, ranking next to the dean. In some
few instances the archdeacons preceded him. He superintended the choral
service, and the choristers; and in Paris the precentor of Notre Dame
had the supervision of the lesser schools in the city, as the chancellor
had of the greater. In all the new foundations, except Christ Church in
Dublin, where he is a dignitary, the precentor is a minor canon: an
anomalous and modern provision. In most ancient cathedrals the precentor
had for his badge of office a silver staff or _baculus_. In choral
colleges the precentor is a chaplain. At Llandaff and St. David’s, till
very lately, the precentor was presbyteral head of the chapter.
PRECEPTORIES were manors or estates of the Knights Templars, on which
they erected churches for religious service, and convenient houses for
habitation, and placed some of their fraternity under the government of
one of those more eminent Templars, who had been by the grand master
created “_præceptores templi_,” to take care of the lands and rents in
that place and neighbourhood: these preceptories were only cells to the
Temple, or principal house of the knights, in London. Preceptor was the
title of the head of some old hospitals.
PRECES. A general word for prayers; but it is often applied in a
technical sense to the shorter sentences, as versicles and suffrages
which are said in the way of verse and response. In the English choral
service the term is limited to those versicles (with the Gloria Patri)
immediately preceding the Psalms, beginning “O LORD, open thou our
lips.” These anciently formed a regular part of the harmonized
_services_ for cathedral choirs, which were set to music by an earlier
musician.—_Jebb._ (See _Responses_, _Versicles_, and _Service_.)
PREDESTINATION. (See _Election_; see also _Calvinism_ and
_Arminianism_.) Of predestination and election our 17th Article thus
speaks: “Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of GOD,
whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath
constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse
and damnation those whom he hath chosen in CHRIST out of mankind, and to
bring them by CHRIST to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to
honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of
GOD, be called according to GOD’S purpose, by his SPIRIT working in due
season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely;
they be made sons of GOD by adoption; they be made like the image of his
only-begotten SON JESUS CHRIST; they walk religiously in good works; and
at length, by GOD’S mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the
godly consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full
of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such
as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of CHRIST, mortifying
the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their
mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly
establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed
through CHRIST, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards
GOD: so, for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of CHRIST, to
have continually before their eyes the sentence of GOD’S predestination,
is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the devil doth thrust them either
into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less
perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive GOD’S promises
in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture:
and, in our doings, that will of GOD is to be followed, which we have
expressly declared unto us in the Word of GOD.”
Such is the barrier which the Church places between this solemn subject
and irreverent inquiries; but the Scripture doctrine of predestination
may be further stated without any forgetfulness of the spirit here
inculcated. We are told indeed by the Church, that “the godly
consideration of predestination and our election in CHRIST is full of
sweet and unspeakable comfort to godly persons” (Art. xvii.); and it is
certain that it can be full neither of profit nor of comfort, unless we
meditate upon it. And if it be among the things “hard to be understood,”
(2 Pet. iii. 16,) this is no reason why we should not try to understand
it, and, by understanding, cease to be “unlearned and unstable,” and so
take care that it shall _not_ be wrested to our destruction.
In the first chapter to the Ephesians, we find that there are certain
persons whom GOD hath chosen in CHRIST, before the foundation of the
world; having predestinated them unto the adoption of children of JESUS
CHRIST to himself, not on account of their good works, but according to
the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. i. 4, 5.) Again, in another
Epistle, we are told that GOD hath “called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in CHRIST JESUS before the world began.” (2 Tim. i.
9.) These are persons whose names are said to have been written in
heaven, in the book of life, called the LAMB’S book of life, (Rev. xx.
15; xxi. 27,) because the first among GOD’S elect is he who, being GOD
as well as man, is the Lamb of GOD, slain from the foundation of the
world (Rev. xiii. 8) as a propitiation for sins. (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10.)
Thus, then, we see that there are persons who, in the words of St. Paul,
are “vessels which GOD hath afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix.
22–24.)
And now comes the question, _Who_ are those who are thus predestinated
to the glories of the new heaven, the new earth, the new Jerusalem,
which is to come down from above? (Rev. xxi. 2.) Let St. Paul give the
answer: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called” (Rom. viii. 30):
called by the circumstances under which he providentially placed them,
either by the appearance, in the first ages, of an apostle or an
evangelist; or, as is the case with us, by the fact of our being born in
a Christian land: “and whom he called, them he also justified;”
receiving them, for CHRIST’S sake, as his own children in holy baptism,
he justified, or, for the same SAVIOUR’S sake, counted as holy, those
who as yet were not actually so: “and whom he justified, them he also
glorified.” He glorified them by regenerating them, and making them
temples of the HOLY GHOST (1 Cor. vi. 11, 19); than which what greater
glory can pertain to the sons of men?
The foregoing passage furnishes us with a description of Christians, of
baptized persons; and consequently to Christians we are to refer those
other passages which relate to GOD’S predestination: _them_ GOD hath
predestinated to glory. And as such, as GOD’S elect people,
predestinated not merely to means of grace, for this were clearly
inadequate, but to glory in the kingdom of glory, the inspired writers
were wont to address the multitude of the baptized. Thus the apostle
addresses the Church of the Thessalonians, good and bad commingled, as
“knowing” their “election of GOD.” (1 Thess. i. 4.) Thus St. Peter
speaks of “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” as “elect according to the
foreknowledge of GOD the FATHER” (1 Pet. i. 2); and he speaks of them
afterwards as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a
peculiar people;” and St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, addresses
the Hebrews, meaning those who had made profession of the Christian
faith, as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Such,
then, is our blessing, our privilege, our high hope as Christians. In
the temple of the first Jerusalem there was a variety of chambers or
mansions, employed for different purposes, though all relating directly
or indirectly to the services of the sanctuary. In the new Jerusalem,
which will itself be the temple of the universe, there will in like
manner be “many mansions” or chambers: but if so, those mansions or
chambers in the earthly Jerusalem having been intended for a variety of
different offices, we may conclude that offices of different characters
will exist in the new Jerusalem. It is very possible that we are not
only each of us predestined to heaven, but predestined also each to our
own particular place in heaven, that our very mansion is fixed. We know
that GOD has predestinated particular persons to particular offices here
on earth, long before their birth: as, for example, in the case of
Jeremiah, GOD saith, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and
ordained thee a prophet unto the nation.” And so with respect also to
St. Paul, we are told that it “pleased GOD to separate him from his
mother’s womb, that he might preach CHRIST among the heathen.” (Gal. i.
15, 16.) Nay, we find that this is really to be the case with respect to
the next world, in some cases at least; for example, when the SON of man
shall sit on the throne of his glory, the apostles shall sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28): a
particular office is allotted to them; to a particular office they are
predestinated. When the mother of Zebedee’s children prayed that her
children might sit, the one on the right hand, and the other on the
left, in our LORD’S kingdom of glory, our LORD said, “to sit on my right
hand and on my left, is not mine to give.” (Matt. xx. 23.) No. These
places are designed for certain persons who are preparing, or shall be
prepared, to fill the same. This is already fixed in the counsels of
GOD. These places, therefore, are not mine to give. They are already
given. Your place is also designated: prepare for it by doing your duty.
We know that some of the saints are predestinated to a mysterious
office, the nature of which we cannot understand, but they will judge
angels. (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.) And at the last day shall the King say unto
them that are on his right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my FATHER, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt.
xxv. 34.)
But this predestination to glory is, like our election, conditional. We
shall not only be saved, but we shall occupy a predestined post of
glory, _if_ we escape condemnation at the day of judgment; not
otherwise. The omission of all reference to the day of judgment is the
vice of the Calvinistic system. The man, condemned at the day of
judgment, will find an addition to his pangs, by knowing the glory to
which he had been predestined, had he not perverted his ways. But if our
sins are then found blotted out by the blood of the LAMB, we know that a
certain place in heaven is designed for us, for which we are shaped and
prepared by the circumstances under which we are placed while on earth.
(See _Bishop Pearson’s_ 23 and 24 _Lectiones “de Prædestinatione” in
Archdeacon Churton’s edition of his minor Works_.)
PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST, OUR LORD. (See _Generation_.) His existence
before he was born of the Virgin Mary, and even before the creation of
the world by him. The fact is stated thus by Bishop Bull in his “Defence
of the Nicene Creed:”—All the catholic doctors of the first three
centuries taught, that JESUS CHRIST, he who was afterwards so called,
existed before he became man, or before he was born, according to the
flesh, of the Blessed Virgin, in another nature, far more excellent than
the human nature; that he appeared to holy men, giving them an earnest,
as it were, of his incarnation; that he always presided over, and
provided for, the Church, which in time to come he would redeem with his
own blood; and of consequence that, from the beginning, the whole order
or thread of the Divine dispensation, as Tertullian speaks, ran through
him: further yet, that he was with the FATHER before the foundations of
the world, and that by him all things were made.
PREFACES. Certain short occasional forms in the Communion Service, which
are introduced by the priest, on particular festivals, immediately
before the anthem, beginning, “Therefore with angels and archangels,”
&c. This anthem is a song of praise, or an act of profound adoration,
equally proper at all times; but the Church calls upon us more
especially to use it on her chief festivals, in remembrance of those
events which are then celebrated. Thus, on Christmas Day, the priest
having said—“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we
should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O LORD,
Holy FATHER, Almighty, everlasting GOD,”—adds the proper preface which
assigns the reason for peculiar thankfulness on that particular day,
viz. “_Because_ thou didst give JESUS CHRIST, thine only SON, to be born
as at this time for us; who, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, was
made very man, of the Virgin Mary his mother, and that without spot of
sin, to make us clean from all sin: _therefore_, with angels, &c.” The
days for which these prefaces are provided are, Christmas, Easter,
Ascension, and seven days after each of these festivals; also
Whitsunday, and six days after; together with Trinity Sunday. The
antiquity of such prefaces may be estimated from the fact that they are
mentioned and enjoined by the 103rd canon of the African code, which
code was formed of the decisions of many councils prior to the date of
418.
The decay of devotion let fall the apostolical and primitive use of
daily and weekly communions, and the people in the later ages did not
receive but at the greater festivals: upon which custom there were added
to the general preface mentioned, before some special prefaces relating
to the peculiar mercy of that feast on which they did communicate, the
Church thinking it fit, that, since every festival was instituted to
remember some great mercy, therefore they who received on such a day,
besides the general praises offered for all GOD’S mercies, should at the
LORD’S table make a special memorial of the mercy proper to that
festival; and this seemed so rational to our reformers, that they have
retained those proper prefaces which relate to Christmas, Easter,
Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, so as to praise GOD for
the mercies of CHRIST’S birth, resurrection, and ascension, for the
sending the HOLY GHOST, and for the true faith of the holy
TRINITY.—_Dean Comber._
Our LORD himself, before he brake the bread and distributed it, gave
thanks; and the Church has thought fit to do the same thing. But,
because our LORD has not prescribed any set form for this, but used one
agreeable to the thing and the time, the Church therefore, as matters
and occasion required, has accordingly adapted peculiar forms of prayer
and thanksgiving, suited, as St. Augustine says, to the diversity of
festival days, in which different benefits are commemorated.—_Bp.
Cosin._
On the greater festivals there are proper prefaces appointed, which are
also to be repeated, in case there be a communion, for seven days after
the festivals themselves (excepting that of Whitsunday, which is to be
repeated only six days after, because Trinity Sunday, which is the
seventh, hath a preface peculiar to itself); to the end that the mercies
may be the better remembered by often repetition, and also that all the
people (who in most places cannot communicate all in one day) may have
other opportunities, within those eight days, to join in praising GOD
for such great blessings.
2. The reason of the Church’s lengthening out these high feasts for
several days is plain: the subject-matter of them is of so high a
nature, and so nearly concerns our salvation, that one day would be too
little to meditate upon them, and praise GOD for them as we ought. A
bodily deliverance may justly require one day of thanksgiving and joy;
but the deliverance of the soul by the blessings commemorated on these
times, deserves a much longer time of praise and acknowledgment. Since,
therefore, it would be injurious to Christians to have their joy and
thankfulness for such mercies confined to one day, the Church, upon the
times when these unspeakable blessings were wrought for us, invites us,
by her most seasonable commands and counsels, to fill our hearts with
joy and thankfulness, and let them overflow eight days together.
3. The reason of their being fixed to eight days is taken from the
practice of the Jews, who by GOD’S appointment observed their greater
festivals, some of them for seven, and one, namely, the feast of
Tabernacles, for eight days. And therefore the primitive Church,
thinking that the observation of Christian festivals (of which the
Jewish feasts are only types and shadows) ought not to come short of
them, lengthened out their higher feasts to eight days.—_Bp. Sparrow._
_Wheatly._
These prefaces are very ancient, though there were some of them, as they
stood in the Latin service, of later date. For as there are ten in that
service, whereof the last, concerning the Virgin Mary, was added by Pope
Urban, 1095, so it follows that the rest must be of a more considerable
antiquity. Our Church has only retained five, and those upon the
principal festivals of the year, which relate only to the persons of the
ever-blessed Trinity, and not to any saint.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Mr. Palmer remarks that “the repetition by the people of the portion of
the Preface, beginning ‘therefore with angels,’ never was the custom of
the primitive Church, and could not have been intended by those who
revised our liturgy, nor is it warranted by the nature of the Preface
itself. It has perhaps,” he adds, “arisen from the custom of printing
the latter part of the Preface in connexion with the hymn Tersanctus,
and from the indistinctness of the rubric, which, in fact, gives no
special direction for the people to join in repeating the hymn
_Tersanctus_.” It may be remarked that the _Tersanctus_ is marked as a
separate paragraph in the two books of King Edward VI.
With respect to the Preface, there is an ambiguity in our rubrics, but
none whatever in the choral usage, which is in accordance with the
universal practice of the Church. The Preface is that part recited by
the priest, beginning with “_It is very meet, right_,” &c., ending with
“evermore praising thee and saying.” It is commonly imagined that the
choir or congregation are to repeat with the priest the words,
“Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c.; but this is contrary to all
precedent. The choral communion services, and the one of Durham, all
agree in beginning the hymn at the words, “Holy, holy, holy,” &c. The
rubric merely says, “After each of which Prefaces shall immediately be
sung or said;” it does not say by whom. The direction is as
indeterminate as that of the Litany, which, like the passage in
question, is sung distributively between minister and people in
sequence.—_Jebb._
PRELATE. An ecclesiastic having jurisdiction over other ecclesiastics.
The title, though applicable to bishops, is not confined to their order.
Before the Reformation abbots were styled prelates. Archdeacons are
prelates in this sense of the word. (See _Episcopacy_, _Bishop_.)
PRELECTOR. A Lecturer. In the cathedral of Hereford, one of the
prebendaries is elected to the office of Prelector, to hold it till he
succeeds to a residentiary canonry, for which he is statutably
considered to have a claim to be a candidate. His duty is to preach on
Tuesdays, or else on any holiday which may occur during the week for a
considerable portion of the year.
PREMONSTRATENSES. (_Lat._) In French, _Prémontrés_. A religious order,
founded by St. Norbert, descended from a noble family in the diocese of
Cologne. He was educated suitably to his quality, and lived for some
time at the emperor Henry the Fifth’s court. At about thirty years of
age he was ordained deacon and priest; and, soon after, entering upon a
very strict and mortified way of living, he resigned his church
preferments, and distributed a large patrimonial estate to the poor.
Then he embraced the rule of St. Augustine, and retiring with thirteen
companions to a place called Premonstratum, in the diocese of Laon, in
Picardy, he there began his order, about the year 1119. This ground,
with the chapel of St. John Baptist, was given to St. Norbert by the
bishop of Laon, with the approbation of Louis le Gros, king of France,
who gave the Premonstratenses a charter of privileges. The place was
called Premonstratum, because it was pretended the Blessed Virgin
herself pointed out (premonstravit) this place for the principal house
of the order, and at the same time commanded them to wear a white habit.
The monks of this order were, at first, so poor, that they had nothing
they could call their own but one poor ass, which served them to carry
wood, which they cut down every morning and sent to Laon, where it was
sold to purchase bread. But, in a short time, they received so many
donations, and built so many monasteries, that, thirty years after the
foundation of this order, they had above one hundred abbeys in France
and Germany.
The popes and kings of France have granted many privileges, and been
very liberal, to the Premonstratenses. Besides a great number of saints,
who have been canonized, this order has had several persons of
distinguished birth, who have been contented with the humble condition
of lay-brothers: as, Guy, earl of Brienne; Godfrey, earl of Namur, &c.
It has likewise given the Church a great number of archbishops and
bishops.
The order of Premonstratenses increased so greatly, that it had
monasteries in all parts of Christendom, amounting to 1000 abbeys, 300
provostships, a vast number of priories, and 500 nunneries. These were
divided into 30 cyrcaries or provinces. But this number of houses is
greatly diminished; for, of 65 abbeys it had in Italy, there is not one
remaining at present; not to mention the loss of all their monasteries
in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland, and Ireland.
These monks, vulgarly called White Canons, came first into England in
the year 1146, where their first monastery, called New House, was built
in Lincolnshire, by Peter de Saulia, and dedicated to St. Martialis. In
the reign of Edward I., when that king granted his protection to the
monasteries, the Premonstratenses had twenty-seven houses in this
kingdom.
PREROGATIVE COURT. The Prerogative Court of the archbishops of
Canterbury and Armagh, is that court wherein all testaments are proved,
and all administrations granted, when a party dying within the province
has _bona notubilia_ in some other diocese than where he dies; and is so
called from having a _prerogative_ throughout the whole province for the
said purposes. (See Canons 92, 93, &c.)
PRE-SANCTIFIED. A word used by the Greek Church, who have a liturgy
called that of the _Presanctified_, because that upon those days they do
not consecrate the bread or wine, but receive the bread which was
consecrated the day before. This service is observed all Lent long,
except Saturdays and Sundays, and the Annunciation of the Blessed
Virgin, which, being festivals, are exempt from fasting; the Greeks
being of opinion that the whole communion service is not to be
celebrated on fasting days, and upon this account charging the Latin
Church with breach of the canons, because they celebrate the eucharist
in Lent time, as they do the rest of the year, Good Friday excepted; for
on that day this liturgy of the Presanctified is offered in the Latin
Church; the priest then consecrating neither bread nor wine, but making
use of the bread which was consecrated the day before, and communicating
only under one kind; for the wine he receives is only for ablution,
being unconsecrated. The Greeks do the same thing, from whence we may
conclude that they communicate only in one kind during Lent, the wine
that they then receive being not consecrated. The Communion of the Sick,
as enjoined by the First Book of King Edward, if administered on any day
of public communion, was a liturgy of the pre-sanctified; as the
elements were not consecrated in the private house, but previously in
the church.
PRESBYTER. (See _Bishop_, _Deacon_, _Priest_, _Orders_, _Clergy_.) The
name πρεσβύτερος (_elder_) is a word borrowed from the Greek translation
of the Old Testament, which commonly signifies a ruler or governor,
being, as St. Jerome observes, a name of office, not a mere indication
of a man’s age; for elders were chosen, not by their age, but by their
merits and wisdom. So that, as a senator among the Romans, and an
alderman in our own language, signifies a person of such an order and
station without any regard to age, in like manner a _presbyter_ or
_elder_ in the Christian Church is one who is ordained to a certain
office, and authorized by his quality, not his age, to discharge the
several duties of that office and station in which he is placed. In this
large and extensive sense, bishops were sometimes called _presbyters_ in
the New Testament, for the apostles themselves did not refuse that
title. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many learned men, both
ancient and modern, that presbyters were sometimes called _bishops_,
while bishops who were properly such were distinguished by other titles,
as that of _chief priests_, _apostles_, &c. Bingham shows, however, that
those who maintained the identity of the names, did not thence infer
identity of offices, but always esteemed bishops and presbyters to be
distinct officers.
We know not the exact period at which the apostles first ordained
presbyters. We do not read of their existence before A. D. 43, when the
disciples at Antioch sent their collections to the presbyters of Judea.
About A. D. 56, St. Paul sent for “the presbyters of the church” of
Ephesus; and we afterwards read of bishops or presbyters at Philippi:
and the directions to Timothy and Titus for their ordination in every
city; the exhortation of St. Peter to “the presbyters;” and of St.
James, “is any one sick among you, let him send for the presbyters of
the church;” suffice to prove the general ordination of presbyters by
the apostles.
The office of presbyters, like that of bishops, consisted in “feeding
the Church of GOD,” and overseeing it; exhorting and convincing the
gainsayers by sound doctrine. Being invested with the power of teaching,
they also possessed authority in controversies. The Church of Antioch
sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and “presbyters” on the
question of circumcision; and we find afterwards that heretics were
sometimes condemned by the judgment of presbyters, as well as by bishops
in councils. They possessed in their degree the power of remitting or
retaining sins by absolution, and by spiritual censures. They must, even
at the beginning, have had the power of baptizing and celebrating the
eucharist, of performing other rites, and offering up public prayers in
the absence of the apostles, or by their permission; and the institution
of bishops in every Church by the apostles only restrained the ordinary
exercise of these powers. We know in particular from St. James, that
presbyters had authority to visit the sick and offer prayers, anointing
them with oil for the recovery of their health. From the time of the
apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of
administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless
in cases of great necessity. The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each
Church, of regulating its affairs generally, and especially its
discipline, was shared by the bishop with the presbyters, who also
instructed and admonished the people in private. The presbyters sat on
seats or thrones at the east end of the church, and the bishop on a
higher throne in the midst of them. In some churches they laid their
hands with the bishops on the head of those who were ordained
presbyters, and in others administered confirmation.
The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have
induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly
inferior to bishops; but the Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of
faith, as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in
every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether
invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and
the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even
of the chief pastors who succeeded the apostles; and the Church has
never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever been held in truer
reverence, than under the guidance of those apostolical prelates who,
like St. Cyprian, resolved to do nothing without the consent of the
clergy, and who have sedulously avoided even the appearance of “being
lords over GOD’S heritage.” The spirit of a genuine Christianity will
lead the presbyters to reverence and obey the bishops as their fathers;
and will induce bishops to esteem the presbyters as fellow-workers
together with them, and brethren in JESUS CHRIST.—_Bingham._ _Palmer._
_Augusti._
The word _presbyter_ is substituted for _priest_ in the Scotch liturgy,
compiled in the reign of King Charles I.
PRESBYTERIANS. A Protestant sect, which maintains that there is no order
in the Church superior to presbyters, and on that account has separated
from the Catholic Church. This sect is established by law in Scotland,
where there nevertheless exists a national branch of the Catholic
Church, under canonical bishops. The establishment of a sect cannot, of
course, convert that sect into a Church: for instance, if the Socinian
sect were established in England, it would not be a whit more a Church
than it is at present. (See _Church in Scotland_.)
The Presbyterians had many endowed chapels in England, but the trustees
and ministers having become Socinians, these endowed chapels, upwards of
170 in number, are the strongholds of Socinianism and Rationalism in
this country. In England, Socinian and Presbyterian have thus become
synonymous terms. These observations do not, however, apply to the
meeting-houses in England of the Scotch Presbyterians.
The following statement is taken from the Registrar’s return:
“The Scottish Kirk adopts the Confession, Catechism, and Directory
prepared by the Westminster Assembly as its standards of belief and
worship. Its discipline is administered by a series of four courts or
assemblies. (1.) The _Kirk Session_ is the lowest court, and is composed
of the minister of a parish and a variable number of lay elders,
appointed from time to time by the session itself. (2.) The _Presbytery_
consists of representatives from a certain number of contiguous
parishes, associated together in one district. The representatives are
the ministers of all such parishes and one lay elder from each. This
assembly has the power of ordaining ministers and licensing probationers
to preach, before their ordination: it also investigates charges
respecting the conduct of members, approves of new communicants, and
pronounces excommunication against offenders. An appeal, however, lies
to the next superior court; viz. (3.) The _Provincial Synod_, which
comprises several presbyteries, and is constituted by the ministers and
elders by whom these presbyteries themselves were last composed. (4.)
The _General Assembly_ is the highest court, and is composed of
representatives (ministers and elders) from the presbyteries, royal
burghs, and universities of Scotland, to the number (at present) of 363;
of which number rather more than two-fifths are laymen.
“The National Church of Scotland has three presbyteries in England; that
of _London_, containing five congregations,—that of _Liverpool and
Manchester_, containing three congregations,—and that of the _North of
England_, containing eight congregations.
“Various considerable secessions have from time to time occurred in
Scotland from the National Church, of bodies which, while holding
Presbyterian sentiments, dissent from the particular mode in which they
are developed by the Established Kirk, especially protesting against the
mode in which Church patronage is administered, and against the undue
interference of the civil power. The principal of these seceding bodies
are,—the ‘_United Presbyterian Church_,’ and the ‘_Free Church of
Scotland_;’ the former being an amalgamation (effected in 1847) of the
‘Secession Church’ (which separated in 1732) with the ‘Relief Synod’
(which seceded in 1752); and the latter having been constituted in 1843.
“The ‘_United Presbyterian Church_’ has five presbyteries in England,
containing seventy-six congregations; of which, however, fourteen are
locally in Scotland, leaving the number locally in England 62.
“The ‘_Free Church of Scotland_’ has no ramifications, under that name,
in England; but various Presbyterian congregations which accord in all
respects with that community, and which, before the disruption of 1843,
were in union with the Established Kirk, compose a separate Presbyterian
body under the appellation of the ‘_Presbyterian Church in England_,’
having, in this portion of Great Britain, seven presbyteries and
eighty-three congregations.”
PRESBYTERIUM, or PRESBYTERY, the space in collegiate and large churches
between the easternmost stalls of the choir and the altar; answering to
the _solea_ of the ancient basilicas.
PRESENCE. (See _Real Presence_.)
PRESENTATION, (see _Patron_ and _Benefice_,) is the offering of a clerk
to the bishop by the patron of a benefice. It differs from nomination in
this, that while presentation signifies the offering a clerk to the
bishop for institution, nomination signifies offering a clerk to the
patron in order that he may be presented.
PRIEST. (See _Orders_, _Ordination_, _Presbyter_, _Sacrifice_, and
_Absolution_.) Who can deny that our word _priest_ is corrupted of
_presbyter_? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used _preoster_; whence,
by further contraction, came _preste_ and _priest_. The High and Low
Dutch have _priester_; the French, _prestre_ [now contracted into
_prêtre_]; the Italian, _prete_; but the Spaniard only speaks full,
_presbytero_.—_Joseph Mede._
The Greek and Latin words, (ἱερεύς, _sacerdos_,) which we translate
“_priest_,” are derived from words that signify holy: and so the word
_priest_, according to the etymology, signifies him whose mere charge
and function is about holy things; and therefore seems to be a most
proper word to him who is set apart to the holy public service and
worship of GOD, especially when he is in the actual ministration of holy
things. If it be objected that, according to the usual acceptation of
the word, it signifies him that offers up a _sacrifice_, and therefore
cannot be allowed to a minister of the gospel, who hath no sacrifice to
offer, it is answered, that the ministers of the gospel have sacrifices
to offer, (1 Pet. ii. 5,) “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” of prayer, praises,
thanksgiving, &c. In respect of these, the ministers of the gospel may
safely, in a metaphorical sense, be called priests; and in a more
eminent manner than other Christians, because they are taken from among
men to offer up these sacrifices for others. But besides these spiritual
sacrifices mentioned, the ministers of the gospel have another sacrifice
to offer, viz. the “unbloody sacrifice,” as it was anciently called, the
commemorative sacrifice of the blood of CHRIST, which does as really and
truly show forth the death of CHRIST, as those sacrifices under the law
did; and in respect of this sacrifice of the eucharist, the ancients
have usually called those that offer it up, priests.—_Fludyer’s Comm._
That it might not be doubted by whom the form of absolution may be
pronounced, the rubric expressly informs us, that it is the priest who
officiates. By _priest_, in Church language, is understood a person who
is advanced in the ecclesiastical orders to the dignity of a presbyter;
and no person, in any age of the Church, who was under this degree, did
ever pretend, as of right, to pronounce absolution. The penitentiaries,
in the ancient and more modern ages of the Church, were always of this
degree. It was adopted into an axiom in the canon law, “_ejus est
absolvere cujus est ligare_.” No one could pronounce absolution but he
who had power to excommunicate. In the body of that law, absolutions of
all kinds are reserved either to presbyters or bishops; and in our
provincial constitutions it is strictly enjoined, “_de pœnitentia
præcipimus quod diaconi pœnitentias dare non presumant_,” unless the
priest be away when a man is dying.—_Lyndwood._ Our Church, in the last
review of the liturgy, has chosen to put in the word _priest_ instead of
_minister_, (which was in King Edward VI.’s Second Book, and in Queen
Elizabeth’s,) to the end that no one might pretend to pronounce this but
one in priest’s orders; being sensible that some bold innovations have
been made herein, by reason of some persons misunderstanding or
misapplying the word _minister_. But the first compilers of the Common
Prayer understood the same by _minister_ as we do now by _priest_, that
being the general acceptation of the word at that time. The compilers of
the Second Book of Edward VI. (in which the Confession and Absolution
were first inserted) put into the rubric, “to be pronounced by the
minister” (or priest) “_alone_,” to avoid the imputation which the
Papists had charged some of the reformed with, for permitting absolution
to be pronounced by persons not of this order. For in the provincial
Council of Sens, A. D. 1528, which was before that of Trent, and twenty
years before the compiling our Common Prayer, we find the Protestants
found fault with for affirming, that laics and women among them might
pronounce absolution; which indeed was Luther’s opinion, but only so (as
Chemnitius explains it) that in case of extreme necessity they might use
it; which doctrine he had from the Papists themselves.—_Nicholls_; and
see his long note on the subject, if necessary, in his “Commentary on
the Common Prayer,” Evening Service.
In the diocese of Alexandria, the privilege of giving absolution to
great criminals and scandalous offenders was reserved to the patriarch;
as appears in the case of Lamponianus, an excommunicated presbyter.
“Though,” says he, “he expressed his repentance with tears, and the
people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him; only assuring
this, that if he should be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter
should receive him into communion by my order.” And in general, in the
primitive Church, the granting absolution to reconcile penitents, was
the bishop’s sole prerogative, and rarely committed to presbyters; but
never to deacons, except in cases of extreme necessity, when neither
bishop nor presbyter was at hand.—_Bingham._
The privilege was also allowed in times of persecution, to martyrs and
confessors in prison; but then they always signified what they had done
to the bishop.—See _Cave’s Prim. Ch._
At the last review of the Common Prayer Book, A. D. 1661, the
Presbyterian divines requested that “as the word _minister_, and not
priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places,
it may throughout the whole book be so used, instead of those two
words.” To which the Episcopalian commissioners replied, that “it is not
reasonable the word _minister_ should be only used in the liturgy. For
since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, and
others, such as absolution and consecration, by none under the order of
a _priest_, it is fit that some such word as priest should be used for
those offices, and not _minister_, which signifies at large every one
that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be.”
Accordingly the word “_priest_,” in its exclusive sense, and in
contradistinction to the word _deacon_, was inserted, and the sense of
the Church of England on this subject, ascertained through the objection
made by the Presbyterian divines, was adopted and ratified by the act of
parliament.
In the primitive Church, the deacons were ranked among the “sacred
orders;” and though their office has not always been so accurately
defined as that of the presbyters, or priests, yet in the Church of
England they are to most purposes considered as an inferior degree of
“_the priesthood_.” Their duties are laid down in the office of “the
Form and Manner of making Deacons;” and, “for the resolution of all
doubts,” the preface to the Book of Common Prayer has wisely directed,
that “the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall
always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall
take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same
order be not contrary to anything contained in this book.”
It has generally been customary for deacons to substitute a prayer taken
from the liturgy, which has been usually one of the collects in the
conclusion of the Communion Service; and a pious commentator (Mr. Waldo)
countenances this by saying, “a deacon, when he officiates, is never to
use it, but is to offer up some short prayer in its stead.” But this is
improperly said. For if a deacon, an officiating minister of the lowest
order, may be considered at liberty to make this alteration in breach of
the act for uniformity, where is the point at which he shall stop? What
in this case he should do seems settled by the authorities referred to
by Shepherd.
“If a deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a
prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him
no alternative. After the confession, he is to remain kneeling, and to
proceed to the LORD’S Prayer. This always appeared to me to be the
necessary and only conclusion to be drawn from the premises. Suspecting,
however, the validity of my own arguments, I requested the opinion of a
respectable divine, for whose modesty I have such regard, that I dare
describe him only as having been, for many years, the confidential and
intimate friend of Bishop Lowth. By his judgment, the opinion already
given was sanctioned and confirmed. In consequence of further inquiry, I
have since learned, that the heads of a cathedral church lately
recommended the same practice. It is the business of priest vicars, I
understand, in some cathedrals, to read morning and evening prayer; and
it once happened, that a deacon was appointed a priest vicar. When it
came to his turn to officiate, he was directed to omit the Absolution,
and after the confession to say the LORD’S Prayer.”—_Shepherd._
PRIEST’S INTENTION. (See _Intention_.)
PRIMATES, or METROPOLITANS. In the Christian hierarchy, or scheme of
Church government, are such bishops of a province, as preside over the
rest.
Some derive the original of primates or metropolitans from apostolical
constitution.—_Bingham, Orig. Eccles._ b. ii. c. 16. But it may be
doubted, whether the apostles made any such general settlement in every
province; and the records of the original of most churches being lost,
it can never be proved that they did. It is most probable, that this
order of bishops commenced not long after the apostolic age, when sects
and schisms began to break in apace, and controversies multiplying
between particular bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in
every province, to whom the decision of cases might be referred, and by
whom all common and public affairs might be directed. Or, it might take
its rise from that common respect and deference, which was usually paid
by the rest of the bishops to the bishop of the metropolis, or capital
city, of each province: which advancing into a custom, was afterwards
settled by a canon of the Council of Nice.—_Conc. Nic._ c. 6.
As to the offices and privileges of primates or metropolitans, they were
as follows. First, they were to regulate the elections of all their
provincial bishops, and either ordain, or authorize the ordination of
them: and no election or ordination of bishops was valid without their
approbation. Nor was this power at all infringed by setting up the
patriarchs above them. For, though the metropolitans were to be ordained
by the patriarchs, yet still the right of ordaining their own suffragans
was preserved to them. It is to be observed, that this power was not
arbitrary: for the primates had no negative voice in the matter, but
were to be determined and concluded by the major part of a provincial
synod.—_Conc. Chalced._ Act. 16.
Their next office was, to preside over the provincial bishops, and, if
any controversies arose among them, to interpose their authority to end
and decide them: also to hear the accusations of others, who complained
of injury done to them by their own bishops, from whom there was always
liberty of appeal to the metropolitan. But still there lay an appeal
from the metropolitan to a provincial synod, of which he was only the
president or moderator.
A third office of the metropolitans or primates was, to call provincial
synods, and preside in them. To this end, their circular letters, called
_Synodicæ_ and _Tractoriæ_, were a legal summons, which no bishop of the
province might disobey under pain of suspension, or other canonical
censure, at the discretion of the metropolitan and council.
Fourthly, it belonged to the primates to publish and disperse such
imperial laws and canons, as were made either by the emperors or the
councils, for the common good of the Church. This gave them a right to
visit, and inquire into neglects, abuses, and disorders, committed by
any bishop throughout the whole province.
Fifthly, bishops, when they travelled into foreign countries on
extraordinary occasions, used to consult the primate, and take his
_Formatæ_, or letters of commendation. This was particularly required of
the African bishops by the third Council of Carthage.
A sixth branch of the metropolitan office was, to take care of all
vacant sees within their province, by administering the affairs of the
Church, securing the revenues of the bishopric, and procuring a speedy
election of a new bishop.
Seventhly, it belonged to the metropolitans, yearly to review the
calculation of the time of Easter, and give notice to their suffragans
of it. The care of composing the cycle was, indeed, by the Nicene
fathers particularly committed to the bishop of Alexandria. But due care
not being always taken in this matter, the metropolitan in every
province was concerned to settle the time, and acquaint the whole
province with it.
The primate of Alexandria was the greatest metropolitan in the world,
both for the absoluteness of his power, and the extent of his
jurisdiction. For he was not metropolitan of a single province, but of
all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were
at least six large provinces, out of which above an hundred bishops were
called to a provincial synod.
Besides an actual primacy of power, there was likewise a primacy of
honour; that is, some bishops had the name and title of primates, but
not the jurisdiction. Of these there were three sorts. First, the senior
bishops in each province, next to the metropolitan. These primates had
no power above others, except when the metropolitans were some way
disabled, or disqualified for discharging their office, by irregularity
or suspension. In this case, their power devolved on the senior bishop
of the province.
The second sort of honorary primates were the titular metropolitans, or
bishops of such cities as had the name and title of metropolis bestowed
on them by some emperor, without the privileges, which were still
continued to the ancient metropolis of the province. Of this sort were
the cities of Chalcedon and Nice.
Thirdly, some bishops were honoured with the title of primates, in
regard to the eminency of their see, being some mother-church, or
particularly honoured by ancient prescription. This was the case of the
bishop of Jerusalem, in consideration of its being the mother-church of
the Christian world.
The division of England into two provinces, Canterbury and York, in
1152, gave occasion to the introducing primacies among us. Canterbury,
which before was the metropolis, gives to its bishop the title of
Primate of _all_ England; York, only that of Primate of England.
Accordingly, the former has some jurisdiction over all England, which
the latter has only in his own province.
The archbishop of Armagh is primate of all Ireland; of Dublin, that of
Ireland. Until the late mutilation of the Irish branch of the Church,
the archbishop of Cashel was primate of Munster; of Tuam, primate of
Connaught. The archbishop of St. Andrew’s was primate of Scotland. The
archbishop of Rheims is primate of France; of Rouen, primate of
Normandy; of Lyons, primate of Gaul; of Toledo, primate of Spain, &c.
PRIME. The service said at sunrising. (See _Canonical Hours_.)
PRIMER. (_Primarius_, Lat. A book of primary or elementary instruction.)
Dr. Burton, in his preface to King Henry VIII.’s Three Primers, shows
that the word was in use at least as far back as 1527, when a Primer of
the Salisbury use was printed: and that it was “applied to a first or
elementary book, which was put into the hands of children. The term was,
perhaps, sometimes applied to a mere spelling-book, or to any book which
was used for teaching children to read; but it seems generally to have
conveyed the notion of religious instruction. The lessons were taken
from the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Ave Maria,
or from some other common formulary, with short and easy explanations,
for the use of young beginners, or for private devotion. In course of
time, the word came to have a still more limited meaning, as applied to
offices of religion, and was analogous to the modern term Prayer Book,
with the exception that a Primer was not confined to any one definite
set of prayers, but contained different selections, according to the
choice of the compiler; though the Creed, Pater Noster, and Ave Maria,
always held a prominent place in the Primer.”
The earliest Primer printed by Dr. Burton was in Henry VIII.’s reign, in
1535: “A goodly Primer in English.” This was an improved edition of a
former one, and was one of the first overt advances towards reformation,
though containing much Romish doctrine. It contains, among a great many
other things, an exposition of the Ten Commandments, and the Creed, and
the Offices for the Seven Hours, mainly taken from the old offices. In
1537 appeared the Institution of a Christian Man, a still further
advance; published by authority of convocation. In 1539 appeared a
Primer by Bp. Hilsey of Rochester, the subject, though not the form,
being much the same as in the first-mentioned Primer. In 1545 King Henry
VIII.’s Primer appeared. The services for the Hours in this, formed the
basis for all future Primers, and were much the same as in Queen
Elizabeth’s of 1559. In Edward VI.’s reign appeared, in 1547, a reprint
of Henry VIII.’s Primer. In 1549, 1551, 1552, improved editions, with
omissions of the superstitious invocations of the Virgin Mary. Queen
Elizabeth’s first Primer, 1559, was a reprint of King Edward’s of 1551,
or rather, 1552. The next, in 1566, was altered a good deal from the
form. A second edition was published in 1575. All these had the services
of the Hours, besides Litanies, and other prayers. Some the catechism,
some the penitential psalms, &c. A Latin Form of Prayer, like the
Primer, was published by authority in 1560, and Preces Privatæ, a
distinct, though similar publication, in 1564. The last Primer which
appeared (though not under that name) was Dr. (afterwards Bp.) Cosin’s
“Collection of Private Devotions: in the practice of the ancient Church,
called the Hours of Prayer; as they were after this manner published by
authority of Queen Elizabeth, 1560, &c.” This was published in 1627, by
command of King Charles I. See Mr. Clay’s valuable edition of “_Private
Prayer_,” &c., _during the reign of Elizabeth_, edited for the Parker
Society; and _Dr. Burton’s Three Primers_.
PRIMICERIUS, or _Primmicerius_, defined by Suicer as “_qui in_ primâ
cerâ hæres scriptus,” one who is designated as the principal heir. Hence
it came to signify one who presided over any particular department; the
chief notary, for instance, was called πριμμικήριος νοταρίων: and so the
chief reader, the chief chanter, &c., in great churches. It is the title
of a dignitary in several Italian cathedrals, and is supposed to answer
to our chancellor; a name not used in Italy as that of a cathedral
officer. The precentor of Aberdeen cathedral was anciently called
Primicerius, as Kennedy states in his _Annals of Aberdeen_.
PRIMITIVE CHURCH. (See _Tradition_.) The Church as it existed in the
ages immediately after its first establishment. From its near connexion
with the apostles and other inspired men, the primitive Church enjoyed
many advantages, of which, at later periods, it was deprived. To the
earliest ages we naturally look for illustrations of obscurities in the
New Testament, for evidence and testimony of matter of fact, for sound
interpretations of doctrine, for proofs of the efficacy of the gospel,
and for examples of undaunted Christian heroism. Hence the value we are
accustomed to attach to the writings which have come down to us from the
first three centuries after CHRIST; and this value is considerably
enhanced by the fervour, the beauty, and the surpassing eloquence which
adorned the Church in that early day, and in the ages following. These
were familiarly known to the Reformers of the Church of England; and,
having taken the primitive Church as their model, and as the best
witness of Catholic principles and usages, they transfused its spirit,
not only into the liturgy, but into the whole framework and
superstructure of that venerable fabric they aimed to restore. How well
they succeeded, is evidenced in that fearless appeal which Catholics
ever make, first to the Apostolic Church, then to those who drew their
principles from it along with their infant breath, and flourished and
died in an age when inspiration itself was scarcely extinct. That Church
has nothing to dread which can lay its standards on the altar of
antiquity, and return them to her bosom, signed with the glorious
testimony of a Polycarp, an Ignatius, a Clement, and a “noble army of
martyrs;” nothing has she to dread but the possibility of declension,
and unfaithfulness to her sacred trust.
PRIOR. (See _Monk_.) The head or superior of a convent of monks, or the
second person after the abbot, corresponding nearly to the dean in
churches of secular canons.
PRIORY. (See _Monastery_.) A house occupied by a society of monks or
nuns, the chief of whom was termed a prior or prioress; and of these
there were two sorts: first, where the prior was chosen by the convent,
and governed as independently as any abbot in his abbey; such were the
cathedral priors, and most of those of the Augustine order. Secondly,
where the priory was a cell subordinate to some great abbey, and the
prior was placed or displaced at the will of the abbot. But there was a
considerable difference in the regulation of these cells; for some were
altogether subject to their respective abbots, who sent what officers
and monks they pleased, and took their revenues into the common stock of
the abbeys; whilst others consisted of a stated number of monks, under a
prior sent to them from the superior abbey, and those priories paid a
pension yearly, as an acknowledgment of their subjection, but acted in
other matters as independent bodies, and had the rest of the revenues
for their own use. The priories or cells were always of the same order
as the abbeys on which they depended, though sometimes their inmates
were of a different sex; it being usual, after the Norman Conquest, for
the great abbeys to build nunneries on some of their manors, which
should be subject to their visitation.
_Alien priories_ were cells or small religious houses in our country,
dependent on large foreign monasteries. When manors or tithes were given
to distant religious houses, the monks, either to increase the authority
of their own order, or perhaps rather to have faithful stewards of their
revenues, built convenient houses for the reception of small
fraternities of their body, who were deputed to reside at and govern
those cells.
PRISCILLIANISTS. Certain heretics whose founder was Priscillian, a
Spaniard of noble extraction, very wealthy, and endued with much wit,
learning, and eloquence. Mark, an Egyptian heretic, having sown the
errors of Gnosticism in Gaul, went into Spain, where carnal pleasure,
which was the principal article of his doctrine, procured him quickly a
great many disciples, the chief whereof was Priscillian, who covered his
vanity under the appearance of a profound humility. He taught, besides
the abominations of the Gnostics, that the soul was of the same
substance with GOD, and that, descending to the earth, through seven
heavens, and certain other degrees of principality, it fell into the
hands of the evil one, who put it into the body, which he made to
consist of twelve parts, over each of which presided a celestial sign.
He condemned the eating of the flesh of animals, and marriage as an
unlawful copulation, and separated women from their husbands without
their consent; and, according to his doctrine, man’s will was subject to
the power of the stars. He confounded the holy persons in the TRINITY,
like Sabellius, ordered his followers to fast on Sundays and Christmas
day, because he believed CHRIST had not taken true flesh upon him.
Lying, a most abominable vice, and so contrary to the GOD of truth, was
a thing tolerated amongst his followers. There was a volume composed by
them called _Libra_, because that in the twelve questions in it, as in
twelve ounces, their whole doctrine was explained. Priscillian broached
his heresy in the fourth century. He was put to death, with some of his
followers, at Treves, in 385, by order of the usurper Maximus, contrary
to the earnest instance of St. Martin, bishop of Tours. This was the
first instance of the infliction of death for heresy, and at the time
excited universal horror among Christians. St. Ambrose refused to
communicate with the bishops who had taken part in it, and a synod at
Turin excommunicated them.
PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. As the FATHER is eternal, without
beginning, so is the SON without beginning, the only begotten GOD of
GOD, Light of light, being very GOD of very GOD: in like manner the HOLY
GHOST, without beginning, has _proceeded_ from the FATHER and the SON.
This is one of the mysteries which must be always incomprehensible, from
our inability to comprehend an eternity _a parte ante_. In all
discussions relating to these subjects, we may quote to the objector the
wise words of Gregory Nazianzen: “Do you tell me how the FATHER is
unbegotten, and I will then attempt to tell you how the SON is begotten
and the SPIRIT proceeds.”
We will first give the doctrine as stated in the Articles and Creed, and
then give from Dr. Hey the history of the controversy which has long
subsisted between the Eastern and the Western Church.
Of the HOLY GHOST the fifth article says, “The HOLY GHOST, proceeding
from the FATHER and the SON, is of one substance, majesty, and glory,
with the FATHER and the SON, very and eternal GOD.”
The same doctrine is declared in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
In the Nicene Creed:
“I believe in the HOLY GHOST, who proceedeth from the FATHER and the
SON.”
In the Athanasian Creed:
“The _Holy Ghost_ is of the FATHER and of the SON, neither made nor
created nor begotten, but proceeding.”
In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place
with the followers of Macedonius with respect to the nature and
procession of the HOLY GHOST. It may be particularly mentioned, with a
view to what followed, that so soon as the years 430 and 431, in the
Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was declared that the HOLY GHOST
proceedeth from the SON as well as from the FATHER. In order to
terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a sort of
settlement or determination what should be accounted Catholic doctrine;
and, to avoid further adjustings of formularies, agreed that nothing
should from that time be _added_ to those then under consideration. It
is probable that, at that time, the question whether the HOLY GHOST
should be spoken of as proceeding from the FATHER and the SON,
(_Filioque_ is the famous word,) did not occur to men’s minds.
_Filioque_ was not in the creeds, though it was not new. The students in
the Western Church seem ere long to have contracted an opinion, that it
was proper for them to profess in a creed, that the HOLY GHOST
proceedeth from the SON; they, therefore, inserted (or, one might say,
_restored_) _Filioque_, meaning, probably, no harm; and then the Eastern
Church thought as little of complaining as the Western of offending.
Afterwards, however, contentions for worldly grandeur produced
contentions about theological truth. Rome and Constantinople were
rivals, not only for imperial but for spiritual pre-eminence. The
patriarch of Constantinople styled himself _Episcopus Œcumenicus_.
Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he
assumed; he was “_servus servorum_” scilicet Dei; but in his pretensions
to authority he was equally ambitious. The patriarch was at the head of
the Eastern Church, the pope of the Western. This rivalship made the
Churches seek occasions for blaming each other, and thus the insertion
of _Filioque_ came to be complained of as a breach of faith. It was
defended by the Western Church, because the word contained right
_doctrine_: this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the
_doctrine_: they did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still
causes a separation between the Eastern and Western Churches. One pope
(Leo III.) did once, for the sake of peace, order _Filioque_ to be put
out of the creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine which it
comprehends; but he could only prevail in those churches which were
under his immediate sanction, and that only for a time. The obstinate
resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of
_Filioque_, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly
consideration, as several of the Greek fathers have the doctrine in
their works clearly expressed.—_Hey._ (See _Holy Ghost_.)
PROCESSION. The formal march of the clergy and the people putting up
prayer.
The first processions mentioned in ecclesiastical history are those
begun at Constantinople by St. Chrysostom. The Arians of that city being
forced to hold their meetings without the town, went thither night and
morning, singing anthems. Chrysostom, to prevent their perverting the
Catholics, set up counter-processions, in which the clergy and people
marched by night, singing prayers and hymns, and carrying crosses and
flambeaux. From this period, the custom of processions was introduced
among the Greeks, and afterwards among the Latins; but they have
subsisted longer, and been more frequently used, in the Western than in
the Eastern Church. The name of _Procession_ was formerly sometimes used
for the _Litany_. (See _Litany_, _Rogation Days_.)
PROCTOR. (_Procurator_, Lat.) Proctors are officers established to
represent, in judgment, the parties who empower them (by warrant under
their hands, called a _proxy_) to appear for them to explain their
rights, to manage and instruct their cause, and to demand judgment.
The representatives of the clergy in convocation are also called
proctors.
The same name is given to university officers, whose business is to
guard the morals and preserve the quiet of the university at Oxford and
Cambridge; to present candidates in arts and music for their degrees;
and (formerly in a more special manner than at present) to superintend
their public exercises. The latter is now the prominent practice of the
proctors in the university of Dublin: the senior proctor presiding at
the Masters’ exercises, the junior at the Bachelors’. They are two in
number, and chosen annually by the several colleges in cycle.
_Procurators_ were officers in some of the ancient universities of
Europe, as in Paris; they were then four in number, elected annually,
each by one of the four _nations_ into which the students were divided:
and the rector, the deans of divinity, law, medicine, and the four
proctors, formed the standing council of the university: somewhat
analogous to the _caput_ at Cambridge. The _deans_ were the proctors of
their respective faculties. Anciently the university of Oxford was
divided into two “nations,” as they might be called, each of which was
represented by a proctor.
PROCURATION. A pecuniary sum or composition by an incumbent to an
ordinary or other ecclesiastical judge, to commute for the provision, or
entertainment, which he was formerly expected to provide for such
ordinary at the time of visitation. (See _Synodal_.)
PROFESSOR. A public teacher in a university.
PROPHECY. (From προφητεία.) The prediction of future things. (See
_Scripture, Inspiration of_, and _Miracles_.)
PROPHESYINGS. Religious exercises of the clergy in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, instituted for the purpose of promoting knowledge and piety.
The ministers of a particular division at a set time met together in
some church of a market or other large town, and there each in order
explained, according to their abilities, some portion of Scripture
allotted to them before. This done, a moderator made his observations on
what had been said, and determined the true sense of the place, a
certain space of time being fixed for despatching the whole. These
exercises being however abused, by irregularity, disputations, and
divisions, were restrained.—_Canon_ 72.
PROPHET. One who foretells future events. We have in the Old Testament
the writings of sixteen prophets; that is, of four greater prophets, and
twelve lesser prophets. The four greater prophets are, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Daniel. The Jews do not place Daniel among the prophets,
because (they say) he lived in the splendour of temporal dignities, and
a kind of life different from other prophets. The twelve lesser prophets
are, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
PROPITIATION. (See _Covenant of Redemption_, _Sacrifice_, _Atonement_,
_Satisfaction_, _Jesus_.) _Propitiation_ is originally a Latin word, and
signifies the appeasing of the wrath of GOD, or doing something whereby
he may be rendered propitious, kind, or merciful, to us, notwithstanding
that we have provoked him to anger by any sin or offence committed
against him. And the original word, ἱλασμὸς, is used by the Greeks
exactly in the same sense, as might easily be shown. But that we may
fully understand the true notion of the word, as it is here used, our
best way will be to consider how it is used in the Greek translation of
the Old Testament, made long before St. John’s time; for he, writing to
those who were generally accustomed to the words and phrases in that
translation, it cannot be supposed but he useth this, as well as other
words, in the same sense as it is used there: for otherwise they would
not so well have understood him. Now there we find that ἱλάσκεσθαι and
ἐξιλάσασθαι all along answer to the כפר, which signifies _to appease_,
_to pacify_, _to reconcile_, a person offended, to _atone_ or make him
_at one again_ with the offender. So both the Hebrew and the Greek words
are used, where it is said, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of
death, but a wise man will _pacify_ it.” And also where Jacob, having
sent a present before him to his brother Esau, that was offended with
him, saith, “I will _appease_ him with the _present_ that goeth before
me.” He calls his present מנחה, a word commonly used for offerings to
GOD. That was his propitiation, whereby his brother was reconciled to
him. So were the sacrifices of the Levitical law: they were the
Ιλασμοhὶ, the expiations, or propitiations, whereby GOD was atoned or
appeased towards him which brought them; or, as it is there expressed,
they were accepted for him, to make atonement for him. And when a man
had thus brought his offering, and the priest had therewith made
atonement for him, for the sin he had committed, then it was forgiven
him, as we often read. In all which places, both the Hebrew and Greek
words before mentioned are used; the first by Moses himself, the other
by the Seventy which translated him. And therefore we cannot doubt but
that the Greek word, coming from the same root, is here also used in the
same sense for such a propitiation, or propitiatory sacrifice, whereby
GOD is reconciled, or rendered propitious, to us, and our sins are
forgiven us; GOD accepting, as it were, of that sacrifice, instead of
the punishment which was due unto us for them.
The same appears also from several words derived from the same Hebrew
root, as כפר, which the Seventy sometimes translate λύτρα, or λύτρον,
which signifies a _ransom_, a price paid for the redemption of man’s
life, that was forfeited by any capital crime, something given in
recompence and satisfaction for the crime whereby it was done away;
sometimes ἄλλαγμα, _commutation_ or _propitiation_, as the vulgar Latin
renders it: sometimes περικάθαρμα, “_piaculum_,” or a sacrifice offered
for the purging or expiating some heinous crime; or for the diverting
some heavy judgment from one to another, as in Prov. xxi. 18, where the
wise man saith, “The wicked shall be a _ransom_ (as we translate it) for
the righteous;” that is, as he himself elsewhere explains it, “The
righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his
stead.” Sometimes they translate it Ἰξίλασμα, _propitiation_,
_expiation_. And so the Jews anciently used this word in their common
discourse; for when one of them would show the greatest love he could to
another, he would say, כפרי הנני, “Behold, let me be his expiation;”
that is, as one of their most learned writers interprets it, “Let his
iniquities be upon me, that I may bear the punishments of them,” which
will give us great light into the true notion of the word, as we shall
see anon.
Another word from the same Hebrew root is כפרים, which is commonly
used likewise for a _ransom_, _atonement_, _expiation_, _propitiation_,
or the like. As where we read of the כסף הכפרים, the atonement money,
the Seventy render it τὸ ἀργύριον τῆς εἰσφορᾶς, the tribute money that
every man was to give for the ransom of his life, when the people were
numbered—the _sin-offering of atonement_, τῆς ἐξιλάσεως, of
_propitiation_, as the Seventy translate it. The _ram of the atonement_,
in the Greek, κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοὺ, the _ram of propitiation_. In all which
places we see the word is used to denote something offered or laid down
for the pardon of a man’s sins, and so for the redemption of his life
that was forfeited by them. But that which is most observable in this
case is, that the great day, when the two goats were chosen, the one for
a sin-offering, with the blood whereof the high priest made atonement
for the people in the most holy place; and the other for the scape-goat,
upon the head whereof he confessed and laid the sins of the people, and
then sent him away into the wilderness, never to be heard of more: this
day, I say, is called יום הכפרים, the _day of atonement_, or, as the
Seventy render it, ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, and, which is the same, τοῦ
ἐξιλασμοῦ, the _day of propitiation_. To which we might also add, that
the lid or cover of the ark where the law lay, is called כפרת, which
the Seventy translate ἱλαστήριον, the _propitiatory_, we, the
_mercy-seat_.
These things, I confess, may seem something too nice and critical, but I
could not but take notice of them for the satisfaction of myself, and of
all that understand the original languages, as being of great use to our
finding out what the apostle here means by _propitiation_, according to
the common notion of the word he useth in those days, and among those to
whom he wrote; for hereby we may perceive, that, by the word
_propitiation_ here used, is meant such a sacrifice or offering made to
GOD for the sins of men, which he is pleased to accept of as a
sufficient atonement and satisfaction for the dishonour and injury that
was done him by them, so as not to require the punishments which were
due unto him for them, but to forgive them all, and to become again as
kind and propitious to the persons that offended him as if he had never
been offended by them. For he is now propitiated, he is pacified, and
reconciled to them: he receives them into his love and favour again, and
so into the same state they were in before he was displeased with
them.—_Beveridge._
PROPROCTORS. Two assistants of the proctors in the universities
nominated by them.
PROSES. There are hymns in the Roman Church which are called _Prosæ_,
Proses, a title given to composition in rhyme, in which the law of
measure and quantity established by the ancient Greeks and Romans are
neglected. These being sung after the Gradual or Tracts, were likewise
called _Sequentiæ_. Of this kind is the beautiful _Stabat Mater_. (See
_Sequences_.) The use of prosing began at the latter end of the ninth
century.—See _Burney’s History of Music_. An uncharitable inference
having been drawn from the epithet “beautiful” having been applied to
the _Stabat Mater_, as if the idolatry of that composition, in spite of
the contrary principles everywhere prevailing in this dictionary, had
been approved, it is necessary to state that the epithet has reference
only to the music.
PROTESTANT. The designation of _Protestant_ is used in England as a
general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such, however,
was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor is it the sense in
which it is still applied on the Continent. It was originally given to
those who protested against a certain decree issued by the emperor
Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529.—_Mosheim._
On the Continent it is applied as a term to distinguish the Lutheran
communions. The Lutherans are called _Protestants_: the Calvinists, the
_Reformed_. The use of the word among ourselves in a sense different
from that adopted by our neighbours abroad, has sometimes led to curious
mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his zeal to support the
Romanists, and not being sufficiently well instructed in the principles
of the Church of England, assumed it as if it were an indisputable fact,
that, being Protestants, we must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation.
Having consulted, probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, he
found that one of the tenets which distinguishes the “Protestant,” i. e.
the Lutheran, from the “Reformed,” i. e. the Calvinist, is that the
former maintains, the latter denies, the dogma of consubstantiation.
It is evident that in _our_ application of the word it is a mere term of
negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant, he only tells us that
he is _not_ a Romanist; at the same time he may be, what is worse, a
Socinian, or even an infidel, for these are all united under the common
principle of protesting against Popery. The appellation is not given to
us, as far as the writer knows, in any of our formularies, and has
chiefly been employed in political warfare as a watchword to rally in
one band all who, whatever may be their religious differences, are
prepared to act politically against the aggressions of the Romanists. In
this respect it was particularly useful at the time of the Revolution;
and as politics intrude themselves into all the considerations of an
Englishman, either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a
powerful and influential party in the state. But on the very ground that
it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and
unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ, many of our
divines object to the use of the word. They contend, with good reason,
that it is quite absurd to speak of the Protestant _religion_, since a
religion must of course be distinguished, not by what it renounces, but
by what it professes: they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of
sceptical habit, of inquiring not how much we ought to believe, but how
much we may _refuse_ to believe; of looking at what is negative instead
of what is positive in our religion; of fearing to inquire after the
truth, lest it should lead to something which is held by the Papists in
common with ourselves, and which, _therefore_, as some persons seem to
argue, no sound Protestant can hold; forgetting that on this principle
we ought to renounce the liturgy, the sacraments, the doctrine of the
TRINITY, the Divinity and atonement of CHRIST,—nay, the very Bible
itself. It is on these grounds that some writers have scrupled to use
the word. But although it is certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant
_religion_, i. e. a negative religion, yet there is no absurdity in
speaking of the Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a
Protestant _Church_; the word Church conveys a positive idea, and there
can be no reason why we should not have _also_ a negative appellation.
If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true, though a corrupt Church,
just as a felon is a man, though a bad man, it is well to have a term by
which we may always declare that, while we hold in common with her all
that she has which is catholic, scriptural, and pure, we protest for
ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word, whether
correctly or not, is in general use, and is in a certain sense
applicable to the Church of England; it is surely, therefore, better to
retain it, only with this understanding, that when we call ourselves
Protestants, we mean no more to profess that we hold communion with all
parties who are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her
creeds and formularies she designates herself not as the _Protestant_,
but as the _Catholic_ Church of this country, intends to hold communion
with those Catholic Churches abroad which have infused into their system
the principles of the Council of Trent. Protestant is our negative,
Catholic our definitive, name. We tell the Papist, that with respect to
him we are Protestant; we tell the Protestant Dissenter, that with
respect to him we are Catholic; and we may be called Protestant or
Protesting Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us,
Anglo-Catholics.
PROTEVANGELION. The name of a book attributed to St. James the apostle,
which treats of the birth of the blessed Virgin and of that of our
SAVIOUR. It was brought first from the East by Postulus in Greek, who
translated it into Latin, affirming that it is publicly read in the
Eastern Church, and formerly believed to have been written by St. James,
first bishop of Jerusalem; but the fables, of which it is full, disprove
this.
PROTHESIS. The place in a church on which the elements in the eucharist
are placed, previously to their being laid as an oblation on the altar.
Called also _credence_. The word _prothesis_ προθεσις is derived from
the temple service, in which the placing of the shewbread was called ἡ
πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, and the bread itself, οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, i. e.
the loaves set in order before the LORD.
PROTHONOTARY. A word that has a different signification in the Greek
Church from what it has in the Latin; for in the first it is the name of
one of the great officers of the Church of Constantinople, who takes
place next to the patriarch, and writes all despatches he sends to the
Grand Seignor; besides which he is empowered to have an inspection over
the professors of the law, into purchases, wills, and the liberty given
to slaves: but in the Roman Church they were formerly called
prothonotaries who had the charge of writing the acts of the martyrs,
and the circumstances of their death; a title of honour whereunto is
ascribed many privileges, as legitimatizing bastards, making apostolic
notaries, doctors of divinity, of the canon and civil law; they are
twelve in number.
PROTOPAPAS; i. e. archpriest: the head of a cathedral in the Eastern
Church, answering to our dean.
PROVERBS, THE. A canonical book of the Old Testament, containing the
Proverbs, or wise sayings, of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel.
This collection is but a part of the proverbs of that prince: for we are
told that “he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a
thousand and five.” His name is prefixed to the whole work. In the
twenty-fifth chapter it is observed, that the following Proverbs belong
to him, but that they were collected by persons appointed by Hezekiah
for that purpose. The thirtieth chapter is entitled, “The words of Agur,
the son of Jakeh.” The last chapter is inscribed, “The words of king
Lemuel.” From these different titles it is concluded, that the first
twenty-four chapters are the genuine work of Solomon; that the five next
are a collection of several of his Proverbs, made by order of King
Hezekiah; and that the two last chapters were added, and belong to
different, though unknown, authors.
The Jews are of opinion, that Solomon wrote the Canticles in his youth,
the Proverbs in his manhood, and the Ecclesiastes in the latter end of
his life. The Hebrews called this book Mische, which signifies a
proverb, or allegory; the Greeks style it Παραβολαὶ, and the Latins,
_Proverbia_; which may properly be rendered sentences or maxims. They
contain rules for the conduct of all conditions of life; for kings,
courtiers, masters, servants, fathers, mothers, children, &c. The Greek
version of this book is often very different from the Hebrew, and adds a
great many verses, that are not found in the original. In the ancient
Latin editions several verses are added, which have been left out since
the time of St. Jerome.
This proverbial manner of speaking and writing was in great use and
esteem among the Hebrews, and in all the countries of the East. Hence it
was, that the queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions,
or parables. Hiram, king of Tyre, they say, held a correspondence by
letters with Solomon, and proposed enigmatical questions to him, and
answered those that were proposed to him by Solomon.
PROVIDENCE. The superintendence which God exercises over creation. In
the very notion of a Creator this power is implied. The work of a
creature may continue after its author’s death: because the work of a
creature does not depend upon him who was the author of it, but upon
some pre-existing things which were not created by him, but merely
combined. While the pre-existing things remain in combination, the work
lasts; but when the pre-existing thing or things are removed, the work
perishes. A house survives the architect and builder, because the
pre-existing things, the stones for instance, and the mortar, remain in
combination. But the works of GOD are _not_ combinations; _they_ are
creations; things formed out of nothing. The pre-existing Being on whom
they depend is GOD, and GOD only. If GOD be removed from them they must
perish. His presence is their support. But when GOD is present, he is
present as an acting and intelligent being. Therefore we say, that what
in his wisdom he created, that by his providence he sustains.
The _general_ providence of GOD is seen in the laws of Nature. The
universe may be compared to a great machine, the whole of which has been
put into motion by the Creator, who watches over his works, and prevents
disorder and confusion. According to these laws, the earth proceeds in
its annual course, the moon observes its regular changes, the seasons
come round at their stated periods, and the tides, in all their variety,
keep their courses.
But although, to a certain extent, we perceive that there is such
regularity in the order of events, that Nature may be said to be bound
by laws; yet, as a matter of fact, we find that there is an occasional
and not unfrequent interference with those laws. This fact is expressed
in every language in which words occur equivalent to our expressions of
luck, chance, good or ill fortune. According to the laws of Nature, the
harvest follows the seed-time; but the husbandman is sometimes
disappointed in his just hopes: the race is to the swift, and the battle
to the strong, according to the laws of Nature; but accidents so
frequently occur, that we find that the race is _not_ always to the
swift, nor the battle to the strong. These deviations from the laws of
Nature, the Scriptures teach us to refer to an interference on the part
of GOD, and this interference with the laws of Nature we regard as his
_particular_ providence.
Relying on his _general_ providence, we labour and adopt the best means
for the furtherance of our ends: we plant, we sow, we endeavour to be
swift or strong. Believing in his _particular_ providence, we pray. (See
_Prayer_.)
PROVINCE. The limits of an archbishop’s jurisdiction, as the _diocese_
is the limits of the jurisdiction of a bishop: and so _provincial
constitutions_, _provincial courts_, _provincial synods_, _provincial
canons_, are the canons, synods, courts, and constitutions, which have
authority within the rule of a single archbishop.
PROVISIONS. An oppressive invention of the bishops of Rome, whereby the
right of patronage of ecclesiastical benefices was arbitrarily suspended
by the Pope, that he might present his own creatures, and make
_provision_ in the Church of England for foreign ecclesiastics. This
usurpation of the pope occasioned much discontent in the Church of
England; and at one time the evil had become so intolerable, that it
occasioned frightful disturbances. The pope (Gregory IX.) had granted a
provision on the patronage of one Sir Robert Thwinge, a Yorkshire
knight, who resented it so highly as to associate with himself some
eighty others, who had received the like treatment, by whom the persons
of foreign ecclesiastics were seized, and even the pope’s envoys
murdered. The king, Henry III., set himself to restore peace; and
Thwinge, betaking himself to Rome, was reconciled to the pope, and
recovered his right of patronage; and the pope conceded that there
should be in future no provisions, except in benefices in the patronage
of ecclesiastical persons or bodies. These he had usually found more
defenceless, and therefore over them he still exercised his usurped
authority.
PROVOST. The designation of heads of some colleges in our universities.
It was also the title given to the heads of several collegiate churches
in England, suppressed at the Reformation, and was their usual
designation in Scotland, except in cathedrals. In some foreign
cathedrals the head of the chapter is the provost, though there be a
dean besides; and in others the dean is head, the provost subordinate.
The latter was formerly the case in five out of the six of the
cathedrals in the province of Tuam: the name is still retained in some;
in others it has been exchanged for that of precentor. Archdeacon
Cotton, in his Fasti Ecclesiæ Hiberniæ, (part ii. 114,) says that the
title answered to that of chancellor. This observation seems
strengthened by the fact, that the dignity of chancellor did not
anciently exist in the province of Tuam. Maillane, in his _Dictionnaire
de Droit Canonique_, says that the provost had the care of the
temporals, the dean of the spirituals; that deans were established to
take care of the discipline of the church, and, in many chapters, became
in the course of time the first in rank. In Holland and elsewhere,
before the Reformation, the provost was sometimes a kind of archdeacon.
PSALMODY. The art or act of singing psalms. Psalmody was always esteemed
a considerable part of devotion, and usually performed in the standing
posture; and, as to the manner of pronunciation, the plain song was
sometimes used, being a gentle inflection of the voice, not much
different from reading, like the chant in cathedrals; at other times
more artificial compositions were used, like our anthems.—_Bingham._ The
word is now usually limited to the singing of the metrical psalms, but
properly it includes chanting also.
PSALMS. _The Book of Hymns._ Our word Psalm is the translation of two
very different Hebrew words. The first, _Tehillem_, properly means
_praises_, and is the title of the book. The other, _Mizmor_, means in
strictness, a poem. Psalm is derived from a Greek verb, ψάλλω, which
means to play or sing to an instrument, being very appropriate to these
sacred songs, which we know from Holy Scripture were sung to harps, and
other musical instruments. The Book of Psalms is a collection of hymns
or sacred songs in praise of GOD, and consists of poems of various
kinds. They are the production of different persons, but are generally
called “the Psalms of David,” because a great part of them was composed
by him, and David himself is distinguished by the name of the
_Psalmist_. We cannot now ascertain all the psalms written by David, but
their number probably exceeds seventy; and much less are we able to
discover with any certainty the authors of the other psalms, or the
occasions upon which they were composed; a few of them were written
after the return from the Babylonian captivity. And the ninetieth psalm,
as its title in the original in our Bible translation shows, is
attributed to Moses. There is no subject upon which learned men are so
much at variance as the authorship of the Psalms, and the meaning of
their titles. It is clear, however, that they may be divided into the
following classes: Psalms of David; Psalms or Songs of the Sons of
Korah; Psalms of Asaph; Songs of Degrees; and again into Penitential
Psalms, Hallelujah Psalms, and Historical Psalms.
The whole collection of psalms, usually divided into five books, is
eminently prophetical of the MESSIAH. The first book begins with the 1st
and ends with the 41st psalm, and the Hebrew word _LeDavid_, (_of or
concerning David_, _or by David_,) occurs before almost every psalm. The
2nd book begins with the 42nd psalm, the 3rd with the 73rd psalm, the
4th with the 90th psalm, and is continued to the 106th. The 5th and last
book opens with the 107th. The seven penitential psalms are, 6, 32, 38,
51, 102, 130, 143. These are appointed to be read in our Church on
Ash-Wednesday. For many ages they had been used in the Western churches
in token of special humiliation. (See _Alphabetical or Acrostical Psalm,
and Songs of Degrees_; _Korah, Psalms of_; _Asaph, Psalms of_; _and
Hallelujah_.)
PSALTER. The word Psalter is often used by ancient writers for the _Book
of Psalms_, considered as a separate book of Holy Scripture. It
afterwards assumed a more technical meaning, as the book in which the
Psalms are arranged for the service of the Church. The Roman Psalter,
for instance, does not follow the course of the Psalms as in Scripture;
they are arranged for the different services, in the several
accompaniments, as antiphons, &c. In our Psalter, the notice of the
divisions for the days of the month, and the pointing in the middle of
each verse, are a part of _the Psalter_, though not of the Psalms; and
some part of the Psalms unfit for recitation are omitted, as the titles,
the words _Selah_, _Higgaion_, &c., and the Hallelujahs with which many
psalms begin or end, or both. The division of the Psalms into daily
portions, as given in our Prayer Books, has been done with a view to
convenience. Something like this has long prevailed in the Church, but
without its regularity and system. Thus in Egypt, at first, in some
places, they read 60 psalms; in others, 50; and afterwards they all
agreed to recite 12 only. Columbanus, in his rule, appointed the number
of psalms to vary according to the seasons of the year, and the length
of the nights; so that sometimes 75 were sung. In the monasteries of
Armenia they repeat 99 psalms to the present day. In the Greek Church,
the Psalms are divided into _cathismata_, or portions, so that the whole
book is read through in a fortnight. Previously to the reform of our
offices, the English Church prescribed 12 psalms for the nocturn; but at
that period the number was reduced on an average to three, by the
division of the 119th, and by reckoning some other long psalms as each
more than one. Under the present arrangement the Psalms are divided into
60 portions, two of which are appointed for each day of the month.
Selections are also set forth by the American Church, which may be used
instead of the regularly appointed portions.
The Psalms are pointed as they are to be said or sung in churches; by
which is meant the colon in the middle of each verse, indicating the
pause to be made, not only in the chant, but also in the recitation, as
the words clearly imply; a direction commonly neglected by readers, to
the great prejudice of distinct enunciation.
The custom of repeating the psalms alternately, or verse by verse,
between the minister and the people, is probably designed to supply the
place of the ancient antiphon, or the responsive chanting of the psalms
by two distinct choirs. This latter practice is still retained in the
cathedrals of England, and is more primitive than the alternate reading
now prevailing in parish churches.
The Psalter, properly speaking, is a separate book from that of Common
Prayer; though bound up in the same volume, and equally subscribed to by
all the clergy. The title page of the Prayer Book announces the Book of
Common Prayer, &c., &c., _together with_ the Psalter, &c. The Prayer
Book and the Psalter were not included in the title page till the last
review. It is remarkable, that the same causes have had the same effects
in influencing the translation of the Psalter both in the Latin and the
English Church. In the former, the old Italian translation had become so
familiar to the people that St. Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was
never adopted; but the old version, corrected considerably by St.
Jerome, was used; a less correct edition by the Roman, and a more
carefully worded one by the Gallican Church. The latter was in the
course of time adopted by all the Churches in communion with Rome with a
few exceptions. In like manner, the English Psalter does not follow the
last translation, (which is in the authorized version of the Bible,) but
that of Coverdale’s Bible, corrected, which had become familiar to the
people from constant use.
PUBLIC WORSHIP. (See _Formulary, Liturgy_.) The 90th Canon ordains: “The
churchwardens or questmen of every parish, and two or three more
discreet persons to be chosen for sidesmen or assistants, shall
diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church
upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of
Divine service; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in
resorting to the church, (having no great or urgent cause of absence,)
they shall earnestly call upon them; and after due monition, (if they
amend not,) they shall present them to the ordinary of the place.”
_Article 20._ “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies” that
are not “contrary to GOD’S word.”
_Article 34._ “It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in
all places one or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers,
and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and
men’s manners; so that nothing be ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever
through his private judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break
the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to
the word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought
to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that
offends against the common order of the Church, and hurts the authority
of the magistrate, and wounds the consciences of weak brethren. Every
particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and
abolish the ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s
authority; so that all things be done to edifying.”
Canon 6. “Whoever shall affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the
Church of England by law established are wicked, antichristian, or
superstitious; or such as, being commanded by lawful authority, men who
are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience
approve them, use them, or, as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them;
let him be excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored until he
repent, and publicly revoke such his wicked errors.”
By Canon 80. “The churchwardens or questmen of every church and chapel
shall, at the charge of the parish, provide the Book of Common Prayer,
lately explained in some few points by his Majesty’s authority,
according to the laws and his Highness’s prerogative in that behalf; and
that with all convenient speed, but at the furthest within two months
after the publishing of these our constitutions.”
Every dean, canon, and prebendary, of every cathedral or collegiate
church, and all masters and other heads, fellows, chaplains, and tutors
of or in any college, hall, house of learning, or hospital, and every
public professor and reader in either of the universities, or in every
college elsewhere, and every parson, vicar, curate, lecturer, and every
other person in holy orders, and every schoolmaster keeping any public
or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in
any house or private family, as tutor or schoolmaster, who shall be
incumbent, or have possession of any deanery, canonry, prebend,
mastership, headship, fellowship, professor’s place, or reader’s place,
parsonage, vicarage, or any other ecclesiastical dignity or promotion,
or of any curate’s place, lecture, or school, or shall instruct or teach
any youth, as tutor or schoolmaster, shall at or before his admission to
be incumbent, or having possession aforesaid, subscribe the declaration
following: I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of
the Church of England, as it is now by law established (13 & 14 Charles
II. c. 4, s. 8; and 1 William, sess. 1, c. 8, s. 11). And no form or
order of common prayers, administration of sacraments, rites, or
ceremonies, shall be openly used in any church, chapel, or other place,
other than that which is prescribed in the said books. (s. 17.)
By Canon 4. “Whosoever shall affirm, that the form of GOD’S worship in
the Church of England, established by law, and contained in the Book of
Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments, is a corrupt,
superstitious, or unlawful worship of GOD, or containeth anything in it
that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated _ipso
facto_, and not restored but by the bishop of the place, or archbishop,
after his repentance and public revocation of such his wicked errors.”
By Canon 38. “If any minister, after he hath subscribed to the Book of
Common Prayer, shall omit to use the form of prayer, or any of the
orders or ceremonies prescribed in the Communion Book, let him be
suspended; and if after a month he do not reform and submit himself, let
him be excommunicated; and then if he shall not submit himself within
the space of another month, let him be deposed from the ministry.”
And by Canon 98. “After any judge ecclesiastical hath pronounced
judicially against contemners of ceremonies, for not observing the rites
and orders of the Church of England, or for contempt of public prayer,
no judge _ad quem_ shall allow of his appeal, unless the party appellant
do first personally promise and avow, that he will faithfully keep and
observe all the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, as also
the prescript form of Common Prayer, and do likewise subscribe to the
same.”
By the 13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4. “In all places where the proper
incumbent of any parsonage, or vicarage, or benefice with cure, doth
reside on his living, and keep a curate, the incumbent himself in person
(not having some lawful impediment to be allowed by the ordinary of the
place) shall once at the least in every month openly and publicly read
the Common Prayer and service in and by the said book prescribed, and
(if there be occasion) administer each of the sacraments and other rites
of the Church, in the parish church or chapel belonging to the same, in
such order, manner, and form as in and by the said book is appointed, on
pain of £5 to the use of the poor of the parish for every offence, upon
conviction by confession or oath of two witnesses, before two justices
of the peace; and, in default of payment within ten days, to be levied
by distress and sale by warrant of the said justices, by the
churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the said parish.” (s. 7.)
By the 2 & 3 Edward VI. c. 1, and 1 Elizabeth, c. 2, it is enacted as
follows: “If any parson, vicar, or other whatsoever minister, that ought
or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the same book, or
minister the sacraments, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to
minister the sacraments in such cathedral or parish church, or other
places, as he should use to minister the same in such order and form as
may be mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall, wilfully or
obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, ceremony, order,
form, or manner of celebrating the LORD’S supper, openly or privily, or
matins, even-song, administration of the sacraments, or other open
prayer, than is mentioned and set forth in the said book; or shall
preach, declare, or speak anything in the derogation or depraving the
said book, or anything therein contained, or of any part thereof; and
shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this
realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the
notorious evidence of the fact, he shall forfeit to the king (if the
prosecution is on the statute of the 2 & 3 Edward VI.) for his first
offence, the profit of such one of his spiritual benefices or promotions
as it shall please the king to appoint, coming or arising in one whole
year after his conviction, and also be imprisoned for six months; and
for his second offence be imprisoned for a year, and be deprived, _ipso
facto_, of all his spiritual promotions, and the patron shall present to
the same as if he were dead; and for the third offence shall be
imprisoned during life.”
Canon 18. “No man shall cover his head in the church or chapel in the
time of Divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let
him wear a nightcap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall
reverently kneel upon their knees, when the general confession, Litany,
or other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the
Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of
Common Prayer. And likewise when in time of Divine service the LORD
JESUS shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all
persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward
ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and
due acknowledgment that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, the true eternal SON of
GOD, is the only SAVIOUR of the world, in whom alone all the mercies,
graces, and promises of GOD to mankind, for this life and the life to
come, are fully and wholly comprised. And none, either man, woman, or
child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied
in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand
that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places
audibly with the minister the Confession, the LORD’S Prayer, and the
Creed, and making such other answers to the public prayers as are
appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall they disturb the
service or sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way; nor depart
out of the church during the time of Divine service or sermon, without
some urgent or reasonable cause.”
Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and
reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book
of Common Prayer, and their eves, and at convenient and usual times of
those days, and in such places of every church as the bishop of the
diocese or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place shall think meet for the
largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most
edified. All ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and
ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading
the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in administration of the
sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any
other respect, or adding anything in the matter or form thereof.”
And by the preface to the Book of Common Prayer: “All priests and
deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either
privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent
cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel,
being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say
the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministereth; and shall
cause a bell to be tolled thereunto, a convenient time before he begin,
that the people may come to hear GOD’S word, and to pray with him.”
PULPIT. Sermons were originally delivered from the steps of the altar,
which was sometimes called the Pulpitum, a term derived from the ancient
theatres. The _Ambones_, or pulpits of the primitive Church, were used
originally for reading the lessons only. In later times pulpits, or
elevated desks, were erected sometimes in the choir, but generally in
the nave, for the purpose of sermons. In our Church a raised desk,
called a pulpit, is ordered in every church, from which the preacher
addresses his flock. (See _Canon 83_.)
PURGATORY. A place in which souls are, by the Papists, supposed to be
purged, whether by fire or otherwise, from carnal impurities, before
they are received into heaven. The first authoritative decree concerning
purgatory is to be found in the Council of Florence, (A. D. 1439,) in
which council endeavours were made (and with momentary success) to
persuade the representatives of the Greek Church to adopt the Roman
innovations, and, amongst others, this of purgatory, which was so vague
and undefined, that the former found it necessary to ask what it was
that they meant by it. This inquiry produced the following synodical
definition of it:
“Since you have demanded to have the faith of the Roman Church expressed
concerning the truth of purgatory, we briefly reply in these writings,
‘that if any who truly repent depart from life before that by worthy
fruits of repentance they have made satisfaction for their sins of
commission and omission, their souls are purified after death, and to
the relieving these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive,
to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other pious works,
are profitable.’ ‘But whether purgatory is a fire, or a mist, or a
whirlwind, or anything else, we do not dispute.’”
When first this error was broached by _individuals_ it is not easy to
determine; but in St. Augustine’s time, A. D. 398, it appears to have
been new, as he speaks of it as a thing which “possibly may be found so,
and possibly never;” and so our English Bede, “not altogether
incredible.” Its novelty, as an article of faith, is well expressed by
Fisher, bishop of Rochester: “For some time it was unknown; but lately
known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed by some persons, by
little and little, partly from Scripture, and partly from revelations.”
This is spoken of in our twenty-second Article as “a fond thing, vainly
invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the word of GOD.” What the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is,
cannot be better explained than by the Romish doctors themselves, who
tell us in the Council of Trent, “If any one say, that, after the grace
of justification received, the fault is so pardoned to every penitent
sinner, and the guilt of temporal punishment is so blotted out, that
there remains no guilt of temporal punishment to be done away in this
world, or that which is to come in purgatory, before the passage can be
opened into heaven, let him be accursed.” And elsewhere they say, “There
is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the
suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the sacrifices of the
acceptable altar.” So that, as Bellarmine saith, “Purgatory is a certain
place, in which, as in a prison, the souls are purged after this life,
which were not fully purged in this life, to wit, that so they may be
able to enter into heaven, where no unclean thing enters in.” Thus we
see, in a few words, what the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory is.
Now that this doctrine is a “fond thing” is plain, in that, by the
confession of some of their own writers, there is little or no footing
for it in the Scriptures. Nay, if we examine it by Scripture light, we
shall find it so far from being grounded upon the Scriptures, that it is
directly contrary to them. For the Scriptures say, “The dead know not
anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is
forgotten. Also their love and their hatred and their envy are now
perished; neither have they any more a portion, for ever, in anything
that is done under the sun.” (Eccles. ix. 5, 6.) Whereas this doctrine
saith quite contrary, that, when they are dead, they have a part or
portion in the prayers of the faithful, and the sacrifices of the altar.
Again; the Scripture makes mention but of a two-fold receptacle of souls
after death, the one of happiness, the other of misery. (1 Sam. xxv. 29;
Matt. vii. 13, 14; viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22, 23.) Whereas this doctrine
brings in a third, called purgatory, betwixt heaven and hell, half
happiness and half misery. Again; the Scripture saith, “The blood of
JESUS CHRIST, his SON, cleanseth [or purgeth] us from all sin” (1 John
i. 7); but this doctrine would persuade us, there are some sins which
are to be purged away by the prayers and good works of others. To name
no more, the Scripture saith, “He that believeth shall not come into
condemnation, but pass from death to life” (John v. 24); and therefore
St. Paul saith, “I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart
and to be with CHRIST.” (Phil. i. 23.) So that St. Paul reckoned verily
upon it, that so soon as ever he was dead, he should be with CHRIST; no
sooner “absent from the body” but “present with the LORD.” (2 Cor. v.
8.) Whereas this Romish doctrine about purgatory bids him not to be so
hasty, for he might depart and yet not be with CHRIST neither; he might
pass from death, and yet not to life; he might and must be absent from
the body a good while before he be present with the LORD; he might go
from earth, yet not to heaven, but to purgatory, a place St. Paul never
dreamt of. So that this doctrine directly contradicts the Scripture. The
Scriptures say, “We shall pass from death to life;” this doctrine saith,
we shall not pass from death to life, but to purgatory: the Scriptures,
that “when we are absent from the body we are present with the LORD;”
but this doctrine, when we are absent from the body we are not present
with the LORD: the Scriptures, that “when we depart we shall be with
CHRIST;” this doctrine, that when we depart we must be in purgatory: the
Scriptures, that “we must go directly from earth to heaven;” but this
doctrine saith, that we must go about by purgatory, first going from
life to death, then from death to purgatory, and from purgatory to
heaven.
And as this doctrine herein contradicts the Scriptures, so does it
contradict the Fathers too. For Origen saith, “We, after the labours and
strivings of this present life, hope to be in the highest heavens,” not
in purgatory. And so Chrysostom, “For those that truly follow virtue,
after they are changed from this life, they be truly freed from their
fightings, and loosed from their bonds. For death, to such as live
honestly, is a change from worse things to better, from this transitory
to an eternal and immortal life that hath no end.” And Macarius,
speaking of the faithful, “When,” saith he, “they go out of their
bodies, the choirs of angels receive their souls into their proper
places, to the pure world, and so lead them to the LORD.” Whence
Athanasius saith, “To the righteous it is not death, but only a change,
for they are changed from this world to an eternal rest. And as a man
comes out of prison, so do the saints go from this troublesome life to
the good things prepared for them.” Certainly these Fathers were no
purgatorians, who so unanimously affirmed the souls of the saints to go
directly from earth to heaven, never touching upon purgatory.
To these we may add Gennadius, who assures us, that “after the ascension
of the LORD to heaven, the souls of all the saints are with CHRIST, and
going out of the body go to CHRIST, excepting the resurrection of their
body.” And to name no more in so plain a case, Prosper also tells us,
“According to the language of the Holy Scripture, the whole life of man
upon earth is a temptation or trial. Then is the temptation to be
avoided when the fight is ended; and then is the fight to be ended, when
after this life secure victory succeeds the fight, that all the soldiers
of CHRIST, who, being helped by GOD, have to the end of this present
life unwearily resisted their enemies, their wearisome travel being
ended, they may reign happily in their country.” So that they do not go
from one fight here to another in purgatory, but immediately from the
Church militant on earth to the Church triumphant in heaven. From hence
we may well conclude, that “the Romish doctrine about purgatory is a
fond thing repugnant to Scripture,” yea, and Fathers too.—_Bp.
Beveridge._
PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. This holy-day is kept in memory of the
presentation of CHRIST in the temple, and is observed in the Church of
England on the second of February. It was a precept of the Mosaic law,
that every first-born son should be holy unto the LORD, to attend the
service of the temple or tabernacle, or else to be redeemed with an
offering of money, or sacrifice. The mother, also, was obliged to
separate herself forty days from the congregation, after the birth of a
male, and eighty after that of a female; and then was to present a lamb,
if in good circumstances, or a couple of pigeons, if she was poor. All
this was exactly performed after the birth of our SAVIOUR, who came to
fulfil all righteousness; and was willing, in all particulars of his
life, that a just obedience should be paid to the public ordinances of
religion. The offering made in this case is an undesigned coincidence
attesting the poverty of his parents. This feast is of considerable
antiquity. St. Chrysostom mentions it as celebrated at his time in the
Church. It is observed as one of the scarlet days in the Universities of
Cambridge and Oxford.
PURITANS. A name assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of
Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who called themselves _pure_,
though their doctrines were so impure as to lead them on to the murder
of their archbishop and their king. A violent and popular outcry has
often been raised against the Church, because, at the Restoration, those
of the clergy who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices.
But it will be well to see how the case really stands. _Seven thousand_
English clergymen, having refused to take the covenant at the great
Rebellion, were ejected from their livings, their places being supplied
by dissenting teachers. This most honourable testimony to the clergy of
the Church of England at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the
Restoration it was required, that all those persons who had thus become
possessed of the property of the English Church, should either conform
to the regulations of the Church, or resign. Of all the Puritan clergy
then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather than
comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what? From their
rights? No; but from their usurpations. Five thousand conformed, and
still retained possession of the Church property, so that many of the
previously ejected clergy of the Church of England who hoped, at the
Restoration, to be restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and
cruelly used. This treatment of the English clergy by the Puritans is
worthy of notice, and is an instructive commentary on the spirituality
of their pretensions, and the tenderness of their consciences.
“The taking of the covenant was now pressed close through all the
parliament quarters, which brought a terrible persecution upon the loyal
clergy. Those who refused to comply were turned out of their houses, and
not suffered to compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour
forced great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and retire
to places under the king’s protection. These _vacancies_ were partly
supplied by those _Presbyterians_ who had formerly been _lecturers_ or
chaplains; partly by young unqualified students from the universities;
to which we may add, some refugees from _Scotland_ and _New England_,
who came in for their share of preferment. And some of those Puritans,
who had formerly declaimed so much against _pluralities_, were now
reconciled to the holding two or three livings. As to the honest clergy,
who refused to join the rebellion, or revolt from the Church, they were
sequestered and imprisoned, and almost every way harassed and undone.
From the year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and
fifteen clergymen turned out of their livings within the _bills of
mortality_; most of these were plundered, and their wives and children
turned out into the streets. By these barbarities in London, the reader
may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom.
They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy besides the
covenant. Some of them were sequestered and ejected upon pretence of
scandal and immorality. But, to show the iniquity of their proceeding
upon this head, it may be observed, _first_, that some of the crimes
charged upon them were capital; and, therefore, since the forfeiture of
their lives was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was
defective. _Secondly_, the depositions against them were seldom taken
upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence. _Thirdly_, many of
the complainants were apparently factious men, who had deserted the
Church and professed an aversion to the hierarchy. _Fourthly_, many of
these pretended criminals were ignorantly, if not maliciously, charged
with delivering false doctrine: for instance, some were persecuted for
preaching that _baptism washed away original sin_: and, _lastly_, many
were ousted for _malignancy_; that is, for being true to their
allegiance. In short, it is observed there were more turned out of their
livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were deprived by the
Papists in Queen Mary’s reign; or had been silenced, suspended, or
deprived by all the bishops from the first year of Queen Elizabeth to
the time we are upon.”—_Collier_, ii. 828.
PYX. The box in which Romanists keep the Host.
QUADRAGESIMA. The Latin name for _Lent_. It was formerly given to the
first Sunday in Lent, from the fact of its being _forty_ days before
Easter, in round numbers.
QUAKERS owe their origin to George Fox, in 1624. The following,
according to Mr. Burder, are their principal articles of belief.
Every one who leads a moral life, and from the sincerity of his heart
complies with the duties of natural religion, must be deemed an
essentially good Christian. An historical faith and belief of some
extraordinary facts, which the Christians own for truths, are the only
real difference between a virtuous Pagan and a good Christian, and this
faith is not necessary to salvation.
CHRIST is the true inward light, which enlightens all men. This is
performed by an immediate inspiration, and not by the outward doctrine
of the gospel, which CHRIST has preached to men as a rule of their
belief and practice; which outward preaching of evangelical truths is
not the usual and ordinary method used by GOD to enlighten mankind; but
he sends to each person interior inspirations. This interior light is
the true gospel; it is to be adored, as being CHRIST himself and GOD
himself.
Scripture is not the true rule, the real guide of Christian faith and
moral doctrine; this is a prerogative belonging only to the inward
light, which each has within himself, or which breaks forth in the
assemblies of the brethren or friends. The dead letter of the sacred
writings is not of so great authority as the preaching of the authors of
them: the particular books which make up the Scripture, were directed to
private churches or persons, and we are not interested them.
The chief rule of our faith is the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, who
interiorly teaches us; and the Scripture is only a rule subordinate to
that Spirit. An immediate inspiration is as necessary to us as to the
apostles: it teaches us whatever is necessary to salvation. The promise
which CHRIST made to his apostles, to teach them all truth by his
Spirit, and that the HOLY GHOST should always remain with them, was not
confined to the apostles only, it belongs to all the faithful; and it is
said of them all, that the unction shall teach them all things.
All true ministers of CHRIST are as infallible in what they teach, as
the prophets and apostles were; otherwise the Spirit of CHRIST would not
be infallible. All those who are filled with the gifts of the SPIRIT are
equally infallible, without which the infallibility of the HOLY GHOST
must be divided; there is no exterior way of teaching, which may help
one to judge of the truth of the doctrine which he preaches. The
immediate inspiration is sufficient to enable a minister to preach
without Scripture, or any other exterior helps. Without this particular
inspiration all those who pretend to argue upon or explain the words of
CHRIST, are false prophets and deceivers. The Church ought to have no
other ministers, but those who are called by an immediate inspiration,
which is best proved by interior miracles, of which the outward signs
were only a representation or figure. The Quakers do not preach a new
gospel, and therefore need not work miracles to prove their doctrine; a
visible succession of ministers, ordained or otherwise established, is
likewise of no use. Whoever is inwardly called to the ministerial
functions, is sufficiently qualified for that post; inward sanctity is
as essentially requisite in a true minister, as in a true member of the
Church.
Women may preach with as much authority as men, and be ministers of the
Church; for in CHRIST there is no distinction of male and female, and
the prophet Joel has foretold that women should have the gift of
prophecy as well as men.
The Scripture nowhere says, that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY
GHOST, are three persons; there are three several manifestations; but
three _persons_ would in reality be three Gods. The Scripture being
silent as to the manner of the unity and of the distinction in the
TRINITY, it is a great rashness in the Christian Churches to meddle with
deciding such intricate points. The distinction of persons in the
GODHEAD is a speculative subtlety, not calculated to mend our lives, and
very prejudicial to Christian peace and charity. To draw up an exact
profession of faith, it is necessary to adhere closely to the
expressions used in Scripture.
The true CHRIST is he who existed before he was manifested in the flesh,
and who has never been seen with the eyes of the flesh. JESUS CHRIST, as
GOD, has a heavenly humanity, of which the earthly one is but the
outward garment, the type or figure. JESUS CHRIST, the WORD and SON of
GOD, did not personally unite himself to our human nature; he only took
it as a suit of clothes, which he was to put on for a while. This human
nature was inspired, as other men, but in a superior and more particular
degree. CHRIST could not be united to a corrupt nature; his interior
birth within men, is a greater mystery than his outward nativity. The
faith in and the knowledge of CHRIST, according to the flesh, and of his
mysteries, were but the first elements fit for the infancy of
Christianity, which being over, those rudiments become useless: we now
have learned to be in CHRIST, to become new creatures, to let old things
pass away in order to make room for the new.
The expiation of our sins has not been merited by the outward spilling
of CHRIST’S blood, which was not more precious than that of any other
saint: neither has the Church been redeemed by it; but by an inward and
spiritual blood, which purifies our hearts and consciences, of which the
Scripture says, it was spilt for our justification; lastly, of which
CHRIST himself says, that he who does not drink his blood shall not have
life in him.
The Scripture does not say that CHRIST satisfied the justice of GOD for
our sins. As GOD may without any injustice forgive our sins without such
a satisfaction, it was not necessary, neither can it be reconciled with
the gratuitous remission of our sins: and moreover, GOD’S punishing his
own SON, who was innocent, is contrary to Divine justice.
CHRIST did not go up to heaven with the body which he had on earth,
which is not now in heaven at the right hand of GOD. It is an erroneous
opinion to think or believe that the body of CHRIST, which is in heaven,
occupies and fills any particular limited place: the body of CHRIST is
wherever his Spirit is; and it cannot save us, if distance of place
separates it from us: whoever preaches a doctrine opposite to these
propositions, is a false minister, and deceitful teacher: the same gift
of discernment in the examination of spirits, which was bestowed on the
apostles, remains still in the Church.
Our sins being once forgiven, it is wholly unnecessary to repent of them
any further, or to go on in asking forgiveness for them. We cannot
become GOD’S servants unless we be first purified.
Outward baptism is not an ordinance of CHRIST, or at least not to be
observed as a perpetual law. Whoever pretends that CHRIST’S order is to
be understood of water baptism adds to the text, which does not mention
water. The baptism enjoined by CHRIST is a baptism of spirit, not of
water. The water baptism was St. John’s, and has been abolished. St.
Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Water baptism was
used by the apostles only as a toleration for the weakness of the Jews,
but it can do no good to the soul. Baptism by inspersion is nowhere
mentioned in Scripture. Water baptism, and the spiritual baptism, are
two entirely different baptisms. The inward baptism alone is the true
baptism of CHRIST.
Children ought not to be baptized, since they are not capable of taking
any engagement upon themselves, or of making a profession of faith, or
of answering to GOD according to the testimony of a good conscience.
Taking or receiving the eucharist is not a perpetual obligation; it was
instituted heretofore only for those who were newly converted to the
Christian religion, or for weak Christians in the beginning of their
Christianity.
Amongst the Quakers the spirit is what they call _free_, and does not
submit to synods, nor to worldly learning, wisdom, or customs: this is
one of the chief and most essential articles of their religion. All the
members of the Church may and ought to concur to the general good of the
body; all may have the same helps from the HOLY GHOST, and feel the same
impressions of his power; all are animated and fed, like our bodily
members, by the same efficacy and in the same manner; all by consequence
ought to give a helping hand to the edification of the mystical body, as
natural members contribute to the welfare of human bodies. This they
apply to the evangelical ministry: the SPIRIT, say the Quakers, notifies
by its impulse what is wanting to the Church, and obliges those members,
upon whom he makes that impulse, to give a speedy help to the mystical
body. If it should happen that out of laziness, neglect, or distraction,
the person so moved should not be sensible of the impulse, or not give a
due attention to the defects of which the members of the mystical body
are guilty, then they ought to rouse themselves with new fervour, and by
a perfect recollection make a trial of the gifts and power of the Spirit
of life. The call to pastoral functions essentially consists in this, it
requires no pomp, no ceremony, no improvement of the mind, no
preparation, no examination, nor any of the means used in other
Christian societies, to provide churches with pastors and teachers. Yet
if after this inward trial any one be moved and forcibly drawn by the
SPIRIT to engage in the ministry, the ecclesiastical council must not
omit the formality of examining whether the person so inspired be in
reality fit for it, and ought to be admitted to that dignity; the
importance of which, in regard to himself, and to the whole Church, is
strongly represented to him, in a speech or exhortation made to that
end. This ceremony is sometimes accompanied by the letters of other
churches and societies of Quakers, recommending such or such to that
office. When installed, they are maintained by voluntary contributions
only, without any settlement, contract, or previous agreement. Each
Quaker contributes freely, according to his power, and the minister is
not to accept of their benevolence, further than is necessary for a
sober and frugal maintenance; but if he be reduced to poverty for want
of such contributions, it is lawful for him to leave the congregation
which he served; he may even, according to their historian, shake the
dust off his feet against that Church, as CHRIST ordered his apostles to
do against those who would not receive them.
The Quakers apply equally to all governments, or pretended governments,
and do not seem to make one title better than another; for, to use their
own words, they do not dispute authority with any man, nor question
forms of government, nor trouble their heads what becomes of the world.
And, in consequence of this principle, they seem to make a kind of merit
of their faithful obedience, under all the usurpations of the Rump
Parliament, Cromwell, &c.
Robert Barclay, one of the most learned of their persuasion, in his
second proposition affirms, that the light within, or the Divine inward
revelation, is, like common principles, self-evident; and therefore it
is not to be subjected either to the examination of the outward
testimony of the Scriptures, or of the natural reason of man. In his
third proposition he asserts, that the Scriptures are not the principal
ground of all truth, nor the primary rule of faith and manners, they
being only a secondary rule and subordinate to the SPIRIT; by the inward
testimony of which SPIRIT, we do alone know them: so that, by this
reasoning, the authority of the Scriptures must depend upon the inward
testimony of the SPIRIT. He affirms further, that the depraved seed of
original sin is not imputed to infants before actual transgression.
(Prop. 4.) Those who have the gift of the light within, are sufficiently
ordained to preach the gospel, though without any commission from
churches, or any assistances from human learning; whereas those who want
the authority of this Divine gift, how well qualified soever in other
respects, are to be looked upon as deceivers, and not true ministers of
the gospel. (Prop. 10.) All acceptable worship must be undertaken and
performed by the immediate moving of the HOLY SPIRIT, which is neither
limited to places, times, nor persons; and therefore all outward
significations of Divine worship, unmoved by secret inspiration, which
man sets about in his own will, and can both begin and end at his
pleasure, all acts of worship thus mis-qualified, consisting either in
prayers, praises, or preaching, prescribed, premeditated, or extempore,
are no better than superstitions, will-worship, and abominable idolatry
in the sight of GOD. (Prop. 11.) The dominion of conscience belongs only
to GOD, therefore it is not lawful for civil magistrates to punish their
subjects, either in fortune, liberty, or person, upon the score of
difference in worship or opinions: provided always that no man, under
pretence of conscience, does any injury to his neighbour, relating
either to life or estate. The Quakers are charged with other errors of a
very bad complexion, drawn especially from the writings of those who
were first of their persuasion; but these tenets the modern Quakers seem
to disown, and appear very willing to explain and reconcile their
authors to a more orthodox meaning: the truth is, they now far differ
from what they were originally, not only in principle, but even their
external demureness and rigidity seem to be abated.
The following is taken from the Report published in 1854 by the
Registrar-general.
“The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian
system. Three gradations of meetings or synods,—monthly, quarterly, and
yearly, administer the affairs of the Society, including in their
supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular polity. The
MONTHLY MEETINGS, composed of all the congregations within a definite
circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply
certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to
be _Elders_ to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or
pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally
seek to stimulate their members to religious duty. They also make
provision for the poor of the society, (none of whom are, consequently,
ever known to require parochial relief,) and secure the education of
their children. _Overseers_ also are appointed to assist in the
promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings, also, marriages are
sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for
worship.—Several monthly meetings compose a QUARTERLY MEETING, to which
they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals
are heard from their decisions.—The YEARLY MEETING holds the same
relative position to the quarterly meetings as the latter do to the
monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in
a particular country: that held in London comprehends the quarterly
meetings of Great Britain, by all of which representatives are appointed
and reports addressed to the yearly meeting. Representatives also attend
from a yearly meeting for Ireland held in Dublin. It likewise issues
annual epistles of advice and caution, appoints committees, and acts as
a court of ultimate appeal from quarterly and monthly meetings.
“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s
yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the
female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual
edification.
“Connected with the yearly meeting is a MEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed
of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its
original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from
the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It
has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a
standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess,
and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the
body.
“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of
mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and
orthodox ministry.
“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the
ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of
two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the
award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him
from the Society.
“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the
benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34,
and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu
of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for
public offices.
“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were
held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself
throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration,
meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties,
as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British
provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now
increasing its numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in
part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body
is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit
that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to
gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of
their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413
meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only
371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller
number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable
tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle
in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of
France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”
Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by
a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be
compelled to serve the office.
QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the
parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful
patron in his right to present.
QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the
advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them
within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the
bishop.
QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an
advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the
bishop will not receive him.
QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to
some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on the
_fourteenth_ day of the moon, on what day of the week soever it
happened.
QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (See _Annates_.)
QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same as _Chorister_, which see.
QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth
century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to
establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought
to annihilate themselves, in order to be united to GOD, and remain
afterwards in _quietness_ of mind, without being troubled for what
should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of
Quietists, from the word _quies_, rest. By that principle he pretended
that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul
and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this
doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The
doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared
false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned
after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long
remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into
France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon,
Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been
therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.
QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is the _fiftieth_ day
before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers: SHROVE SUNDAY.
QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and
the Calvinists on the Five Points. (See _Five Points_.)
QUIRE. (See _Choir_.)
QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the
recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.
QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient
episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each
parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people,
and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s
men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons
seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (See
_Churchwardens_.)
RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the
light of nature under the name of CHRIST in men. With regard to the
Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the
Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given
to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are
denominated.
RATE. (_Church Rates._) The greater part of the property of this country
has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the
parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except
for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property.
For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a
church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriate to themselves what
does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of
dishonesty.
Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens
with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.
The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and
appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens
and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures
till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission
from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if
it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the
parishioners, that will make it good.
These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in
respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses
as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in
cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be
charged.
A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging
the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon
the goods, and not upon the land.
And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made,
whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may
be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and
some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the
shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he
says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the
foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay
towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church;
otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the
one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he
says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is
possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may
be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the
whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The
reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly
because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and
ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for
there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are
in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish
where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish
meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the
case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they
live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the
practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with
this opinion.
_Stratford._ All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having
possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of
the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere,
shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the
aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges
incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments
thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such
possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the
ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful
means.
If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish,
which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for
the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth;
because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in
respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person
occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of
the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.
Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay.
For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an
inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the
rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.
It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may
prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have
been freed from the charge of repairing the church.
The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable
to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or
ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.
But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair
the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the
church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the
rectory.
The inhabitants of a precinct where there is a chapel, though it is a
parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are
nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the
mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither
when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry,
christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor
can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been
discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full
discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to
the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping
of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).
Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according
to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for
his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.
Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living
within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the
value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock
thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.
Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living
within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to
be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in
particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he
occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best,
but not for both.
Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and
feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable
land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.
Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that
mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged
for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.
Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments,
inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in
regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and
his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.
The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of
them to the residue of the parish.
The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes
cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been
conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are now _sub
judice_, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom.
But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two
points: 1. That for _the necessary repairs of the church_ the
churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be
opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any
expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to
the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the
whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have
assented thereto.
RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask for _reasons_ out of place; to ask
improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to
believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to
something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with
them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned
as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like
question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the
senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound
properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle,
and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a
witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized
by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its
system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it
stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the word _faith_, or
belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or,
what is popularly called _reason_) and sight. Rationalism is concerned
with _Anthropology_, Faith with _Theology_.
READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the
Romish Church.
And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only
a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge
or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that
Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.
It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the
third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained
by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the
Greek Churches has been much questioned. In the Latin Church it was
certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other
ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the
presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a
reader of the word of GOD, which office if thou shalt faithfully and
profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the
word of GOD.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much
as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers
by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the
Church.—_Bingham._
Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the
following injunctions:—“_Imprimis_,—I shall not preach or interpret, but
only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not
minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury
the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the
register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in
apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men
to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring
in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the
parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give
place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned
minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the
parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure
where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of
the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old
Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the
increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of
my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of
the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall
not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the
time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the
ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s
occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in
ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”
This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective
bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the
bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter,
Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—_Strype’s Annals._
By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of
prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.
READING DESK. (See _Pew_.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to
have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was
ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already
provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our
Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is
there called a reading _pew_; and it is remarkable that the term was
first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661:
it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow
tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had
one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the
Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper
end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the
people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but when GOD was
spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be
any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another,
it is fit to look that way when we pray to GOD in public, that the
turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the
great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St.
Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in
their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of
the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.
READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every
incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum
to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish,
of its having been performed. It is as follows:—
“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD
——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of
——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the
articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed
upon in convocation, in the year of our LORD 1562, and did declare his
unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and
openly, on the day and year aforesaid, in the time of Divine service,
read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare,
that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and
Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate
under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord
Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and
also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid,
publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the
form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common
Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and
Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England;
together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be
sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining,
and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately
after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and
publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned
assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in
these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent
to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book,
intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the
Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to
the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms
of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the
Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal
oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness
whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above
written.”
REAL PRESENCE. (See _Transubstantiation_, _Communion_, _Lord’s Supper_,
_Eucharist_.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much
we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of the LORD there is no vain
ceremony or bare sign, _no untrue figure of a thing absent_: but the
communion of the body and blood of our LORD in a marvellous
incorporation, which, by the operation of the HOLY GHOST, is through
faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the
Administration of the LORD’S SUPPER, the elements are repeatedly
designated as the body and blood of CHRIST, and after the reception of
them we give thanks that GOD “doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly
received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most
precious body of [His] SON, our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.” In the
exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion
of the body and blood of CHRIST.” “We spiritually eat the flesh of
CHRIST, and drink his blood.”—_Ibid._ “Grant us, therefore, gracious
LORD, so to eat the flesh of thy dear SON JESUS CHRIST, and to drink his
blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,”
&c.—_Prayer before Consecration._ “Grant that we, receiving these thy
creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most
precious body and blood.”—_Consecration._ The catechism, in agreement
with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and
blood of CHRIST, which are _verily and indeed_ taken and received by the
faithful in the LORD’S supper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference
to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with
faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the
body of CHRIST, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the
blood of CHRIST.”
So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish
figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England
distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts,
and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.
Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept
the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord,
you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two
significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be
made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions
under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you
and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body
and blood of CHRIST, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which
ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand of GOD the
FATHER, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the
dead, only we differ _in modo_, in the way and manner of being; we
confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner
of being there. I, being fully by GOD’S word thereto persuaded, confess
CHRIST’S natural body to be in the sacrament, _indeed by spirit and
grace_, because whosoever receiveth _worthily_ that bread and wine,
receiveth effectually CHRIST’S body and drinketh his blood; that is, he
is made effectually partaker of his passion; and _you_ make a grosser
kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the
shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the
question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural
body and blood of CHRIST _vere et realiter_, indeed and in reality, if
you take those terms, _indeed and really_, for _spiritually by grace and
efficacy_; for so every _worthy_ receiver receiveth the very true body
of CHRIST: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you
include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine,
then, in that sense, is _not_ CHRIST’S body in the sacrament, really and
indeed.”—_Wordsworth’s Biography_, iii. 237. The difference is strongly
pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s
opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence of
CHRIST’S body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature,
but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and
said, that the substance of the natural body and blood of CHRIST is only
remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall
come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body
is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never
removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams,
light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant
that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be
the communion of the body of CHRIST, and that the cup of blessing should
be the communion of the blood of CHRIST.”—_Ridley._
That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its
substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and
signification, it is the figure or representation of CHRIST’S body and
blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood of
CHRIST, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by
the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing of GOD and the grace
of the HOLY SPIRIT, the very body and blood of CHRIST; as it entitles
him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby
procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—_Abp. Wake._
These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and
indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as
truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this
sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to
understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one
sense, all communicants equally partake of what CHRIST calls his body
and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more
important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver,
eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength
derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in
him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul
expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly
not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as
that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and
spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament of CHRIST’S death is given
to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to
none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is
present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better
and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward
virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.
This real presence of CHRIST in the sacrament, his Church hath always
believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started
700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of
preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining
judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them,
and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken
most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed
to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the
more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious
ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our SAVIOUR’S
birth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority
of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if
they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping,
on their knees, a bit of bread for the SON of GOD. Nor are they content
to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and
murder those who refuse it.
It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very
different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence of CHRIST’S
natural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent all possibility of
misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in
heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the
invisible GOD. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as
in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to
accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of
receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on
which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit
from it, depend.—_Abp. Secker._
At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a
protestation concerning the gesture of _kneeling_ at the sacrament of
the LORD’S supper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of
Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second
Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended
by that ceremony, _either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily
received, or unto any real and essential_ presence there being, of
Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession
this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers
till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little
amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but
exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the words
_real and essential presence_ were thought proper to be changed for
_corporal presence_. For _a real presence_ of the body and blood of
Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this
very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her
catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in
relation to the _real presence_ in the sacrament, entirely different
from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as
elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous
absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is
needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her
members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and
antiquity.—_Wheatly._
REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with
respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the
Nominalists, (see _Nominalists_,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno
and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle
held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter,
there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or
exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind,
and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally
impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their
objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and
Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had
neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal
representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle
prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the
Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose
sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard.
These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained,
or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.
RECANTATION. (See _Abjuration_.)
RECTOR. (See _Vicar_.) A term applied to several persons whose offices
are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has
the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2.
The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and
also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in
several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The
Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were
either seminaries or colleges.
RECUSANT. A _Recusant_, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist
or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worship GOD after the
manner of the Church of England: a _Popish Recusant_ is a Papist who so
refuseth; and a _Popish Recusant convict_ is a Papist legally convicted
of such offence.
REDEEMER, THE. Our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. “I know that my
_Redeemer_ liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the
earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix.
20.) “CHRIST hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a
curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood of
CHRIST.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for
us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom.
iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)
REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and
sacrifice of CHRIST, who on this account is called the “REDEEMER.”
(Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(See _Covenant of Redemption_.)
REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the
pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer
approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is
called the _Reformation_. (See _Church of England_, and _Lutheranism_.)
The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on
the Continent, and in Scotland.
As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt
Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully
established in that of Queen Elizabeth.
King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No
one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his
reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven
Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the
Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his
successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of
Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that
court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to
his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been
Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.
Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in
compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence
pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court
of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a
bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome,
in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the
realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St.
Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for
bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed
this statute should be severely punished.
Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication,
in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to
their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king
of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope
at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication,
till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to
the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay,
bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his
submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement,
though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to
so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate
resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England,
excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual
places.
The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome.
The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it
impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all
restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament
declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the
annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices,
and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also
passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the
privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England, A.
D. 1534.
The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his
designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for
the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched
lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence
against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants
in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a
general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being
defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to
submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor,
and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to
acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.
As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see
of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and
principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be
burned.
The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the
doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the
monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was
printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches;
and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry,
dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its
infancy.
In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector
during the minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in
which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he
abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the
images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be
revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly
confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both
houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in
the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of
getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being
driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this
fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took
up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several
engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.
The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen
Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting
at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and
allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the
parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any
other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a
marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in
which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in
it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and
restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of
King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal
reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it
from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered
to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished
with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were
Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.
The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth,
and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms
was established.
REFUGE. (See _Sanctuary_.)
REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the
command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and
without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till
the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or
afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of
blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)
REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had
of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new
prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and
of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of
its vacancy.
Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the
first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of
bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given
to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the
orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first
Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince,
by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this
privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of
patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from
his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right
of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however
the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all
the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of
appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this
is what they call the _Regale_.
This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics
and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were
formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.
REGENERATE. (See _Conversion_, _Regeneration_, _Renovation_.) Every
baptized child is called _regenerate_. There have been some very
unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all
persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them
prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a
modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient
Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything
of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this
new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed
state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an
habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever
expressed this by the word “regeneration.” Regeneration, as often as it
is used in the Scripture books, signifies the _baptismal_ regeneration.
There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and
that is, παλιγγενεσία; and that παλιγγενεσία refers to baptism is plain,
by having the word λουτρὸν joined with it: “According to his mercy he
saved us by the _washing of regeneration_.” (Tit. iii. 5.) Our SAVIOUR
indeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to
Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
GOD.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by being _born again_ he
explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man
be born _of water and of the Spirit_, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of GOD.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly
signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have
a variety of words to express regeneration by: not only ἀναγέννησις,
which is an exact translation of it; but ἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;”
ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;” ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;” ἀνάστασις,
“resurrection;” μεταβολὴ, the “change;” μεταποίησις, the “refitting;”
παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;” παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:”
all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the
rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The
Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient,
expresses the Greek ἀναγέννησις by “regeneration:” “baptism which is a
regeneration unto GOD:” and so likewise calls the ἀναγεννήμενοι, the
baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of
baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which
also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages,
within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this
purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the
baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly
he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place
he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists
does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the
Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express
a returning to GOD after a state of sin, the Greeks use the word
μετάμελεια, μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins, _pœnitentia, conversio_. The
language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this
point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a
“generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning to GOD after a course
of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion to GOD.” The most
eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense.
Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning to
GOD, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin,
where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the
baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it
to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the
ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the
Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about
the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being
willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses,
(dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to
use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the
Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of
the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are
used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word
“conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the
beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or
“conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly
expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain
people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among
grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern;
insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the
Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the
liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common
Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense,
which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was
hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common
Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this
head.—_Dr. Nicholls._
The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no
more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt
to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible
that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by
no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be
ascribed to the Divine power of the author, not to the intrinsic
efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never bless GOD
heartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must
labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal
regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our
doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know
of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me
in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me,
in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the
resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the
gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing
of regeneration and renewing of the HOLY GHOST,” which is a paraphrase
upon that of our SAVIOUR, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water
and the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).
And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first
taught and persuaded by the word of GOD, the language of holy writ
enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “_begotten_ through the
gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and then _born again_ or _regenerated_ in
baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and
unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we
must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?
And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature
dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our
gracious FATHER doth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he
promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul
receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being
restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad
expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and
both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were
dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a
lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration,
namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity
teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the
means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration
commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate,
and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural
birth had left us in.
Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things
being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their
proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen
kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because
they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; for GOD hereby doth
become our FATHER, and JESUS our Master, and all the saints both in
heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over
again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.
But this is not all. For, thirdly, our corrupt nature is changed in
baptism, and there is a renovation effected thereby, both as to the
mortification of the old affections, and the quickening of the new, by
the HOLY SPIRIT, which is hereby given to all that put no bar or
impediment unto it. This was the ancients’ doctrine, who affirmed a real
change to be wrought, and believed the SPIRIT to be therein bestowed, as
GOD had promised, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,) “That he would sprinkle clean
water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and
then a new heart would he give them, and put a new spirit within them.”
And it is manifest, that, in the first ages of the Church, there was
abundance of gifts and graces miraculously bestowed upon Christians in
their baptism; and no doubt, if the catechumens of our days, who are of
age, would prepare themselves as strictly by repentance, fasting, and
prayer, as they of old did, they should find incomparable effects of
this sacred layer, if not in as miraculous measures, yet to as real
purposes; that is, they should be truly regenerated, and their hearts
changed by the influence of the Divine SPIRIT. But some may doubt
whether infants be regenerated in this sense, because they are not
capable of giving any evidences of their receiving the SPIRIT; nor doth
there any immediate effect of their regeneration appear: hence the
Pelagians denied it; but they are therefore condemned by the Milevitan
Council, and confuted by St. Augustine. It is confessed they can show no
visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof, no more can
they of their having a rational soul, for some time; and yet we know
they have the power of reason within them: and since all infants are
alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none
receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the
ancients did, that GOD’S grace, which is dispensed according to the
capacity of the suscipient, is here given to infants to heal their
nature, and that he bestowed on them such measures of his Spirit as they
can receive; for the malignant effects of the first Adam’s sin are not
larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam’s righteousness.
(Rom. v. 15, 18.) And if it be asked, how it comes to pass then that so
many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity? I answer, so do
too many grown persons also; and neither infants, nor men, are so
regenerated in this life, as absolutely to extinguish the concupiscence;
for the flesh will still lust against the Spirit; but then GOD gives the
Spirit also to lust against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17, 18.) He leaves the
corruption to try and exercise us, but so that he engageth to enable us
to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will
improve it, and follow the dictates of his Holy Spirit; but by neglect,
or wilful complying with the flesh, we may lose this grace again; our
gracious FATHER hath already done his part, and will do it more and
more, as the child shall be capable and willing to receive it. And, if
this seems strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later
definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, not
with me, who saith, “The grace of GOD is equally distributed in baptism,
but it may either be diminished or increased afterward, by our acts and
conversation.”
The sum is, that baptism doth seal a pardon to us for all former
transgression, and begets us again to the hope of eternal life; that it
restores us to the favour of GOD, and gives us a new relation to him;
and finally it heals our nature by the SPIRIT hereby conveyed to us:
and, though all this be upon condition of our keeping our part of the
covenant, yet that makes not GOD’S mercy less, nor ought it to diminish
any of our praises; but only it must make our prayers at present more
earnest, and the child’s care more strict hereafter to make this its
calling and election sure.
This is, I hope, the sense of our Church, as well as of the primitive;
and if so, it will not be material to a judicious Christian for any to
say, it doth not agree to some modern systems.—_Dean Comber._
REGENERATION. (See _Conversion_ and _Renovation_.) A Latin word
signifying _new birth_, or being born again. We are taught in the
catechism that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward
and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by CHRIST himself, as a
means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.”
And we are taught also that the inward and spiritual grace given to us,
which by means of baptism we receive, is “a death unto sin, and a new
birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the
children of wrath, we are hereby,” i. e. by baptism, “made children of
grace.” Hence the catechism teaches every baptized child to speak of his
baptism as that “wherein I was made a member of CHRIST, the child of
GOD, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Hence, in perfect
consistency with the catechism, the minister, immediately after the
administration of this sacrament to a child, addresses the congregation
thus: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is
regenerate, and grafted into the body of CHRIST’S Church, let us give
thanks unto ALMIGHTY GOD for these benefits; and with one accord make
our prayers unto him, that _this child_ may lead the rest of _his_ life
according to _this beginning_.” And he returns thanks to our merciful
FATHER, that it hath pleased him “to regenerate this infant with thy
Holy Spirit.” In the office of Private Baptism of Infants, the connexion
between holy baptism and regeneration is, if possible, still more
expressly asserted, for the priest, with reference to the baptism
performed in private, is taught to say, on the receiving of the infant
into the Church, “seeing now that this child is by baptism _regenerate_,
and _grafted_ into the body of CHRIST’S Church.” In the office for the
Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, the connexion between baptism and
regeneration is as closely observed. To many persons this doctrine is
very offensive. We believe that it is repudiated by all dissenters
except the Romish, who, amidst their many errors, retain this
evangelical truth. As an answer to the objections urged against this
scriptural doctrine, we shall quote the words of the late Mr. Simeon, of
Cambridge; we do so, because we have seldom seen the truth more briefly
vindicated. The following passage is from his Works, vol. ii. p. 259.
“In the baptismal service, _we thank_ GOD _for having regenerated the
baptized infant by his Holy Spirit_. Now from hence it appears that, _in
the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did
accompany baptism_. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did
they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart
of the baptized person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he
could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his
soul after the Divine image? Had they asserted any such doctrine as
that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur
with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their
sentiments than such an idea as this; so far from harbouring such a
thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look
to GOD for that total change, both of heart and life, which _long since
their days has begun to be expressed_ by the term regeneration. _After
thanking_ GOD _for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit_, we are
taught to pray, ‘that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto
righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole
body of sin;’ and then declaring the total change to be the necessary
mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the
residue of thy holy Church, he _may_ be an inheritor of thine
everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require
more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject,
the _term_ regeneration and the _thing_. The term occurs but twice in
the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished
from the renewing of the HOLY GHOST, _which, however, is represented as
attendant on it_; and, in the other place, it has a totally distinct
meaning, unconnected with the subject. Now the _term_ they use as the
_Scripture _uses it, and the _thing_ they require as strongly as any
person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an
adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines
[_ultra-Protestant divines_] have included in the term regeneration; on
the contrary, they do, both there and in the liturgy, insist upon a
radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is,
not ‘whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without
sanctification,’ but whether GOD does always accompany the sign with the
thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion, _but
it cannot be positively decided in the negative_; because we cannot
know, or even judge, respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the
fruits that follow; and therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered
only as a doubtful point; and if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the
Holy Scriptures, they certainly do, in _a very remarkable way, accord
with the expressions in our liturgy_. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we
are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free; and have been all made to _drink into one_ Spirit.’
And this he says of all the visible members of CHRIST’S body. (1 Cor.
xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as
well as adults, he says, ‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all
drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock
that followed them, and _that rock was_ CHRIST.’ (1 Cor. x. 1–4.) Yet,
behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of them GOD
was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place
he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you,’ says he, ‘as are
baptized into CHRIST, have put on CHRIST.’ Here we see what is meant by
the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being
‘baptized _into_ Moses (the preposition εἰς is used in both places): it
includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of
baptism; and of them universally does the apostle say, ‘_they have put
on_ CHRIST.’ Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that
prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of
these different expressions?
“Again; St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you _for
the remission of sins_.’ (Acts ii. 38.) And in another place, ‘Baptism
doth now save us.’ (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized
persons who are unfruitful in the knowledge of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, he
says, ‘_He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins_.’ (2
Pet. i. 9.) _Does not this very strongly countenance the_ IDEA WHICH OUR
REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS AND THE
REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE?”
The importance of holding this doctrine, besides its being scripturally
true, must be at once apparent to those who reflect, that the whole
moral education of a Christian people is altered, if instead of teaching
them, as we ought to do, that GOD _has_ given them a gift which they may
use to their own salvation, but for losing which they will be awfully
punished,—if instead of this we tell them to wait and to expect the gift
of grace, before receiving which they cannot please GOD. The orthodox
would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that they may and can
serve GOD if they will: the heterodox would address baptized persons as
heathens, and warn them that, until they have an effectual calling, they
can do nothing. It is easy to trace much of the evil which disgraces the
religion of the present day to the prevalence of the latter notion.
At the Savoy Commission, 1661, the following are among the answers of
the bishops to the exceptions of ministers.
“Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.” Most proper, for
baptism is our spiritual regeneration, (John iii. 5,) “Unless a man be
born again of water and the Spirit,” &c. And by this is received
remission of sins, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent and be baptized every one of
you for the remission of sins.” So the Creed: “our baptism for the
remission of sins.”
Seeing that GOD’S sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth
not “ponere obicem,” put any bar against them (which children cannot
do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is
regenerated by GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT; and the denial of it tends to
Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy,
nor material whether it be administered to children or no.
[The form of Confirmation] supposeth, and that truly, that all children
were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had
given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably
presumed, that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their
childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon
them.—_Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences_, pp. 356, 358.
REGISTER. The keeping of a church book for registering the age of those
that should be born and christened in the parish began in the thirtieth
year of Henry VIII.
By Canon 70. “In every parish church and chapel within this realm shall
be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein
shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and
burial, which have been in the parish since the time that the law was
first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be
procured, but especially since the beginning of the reign of the late
queen. And for the safe keeping of the said book, the churchwardens, at
the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, and three locks
and keys; whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two
with the churchwardens severally; so that neither the minister without
the two churchwardens, nor the churchwardens without the minister, shall
at any time take that book out of the said coffer. And henceforth upon
every sabbath day immediately after morning or evening prayer, the
minister and the churchwardens shall take the said parchment book out of
the said coffer, and the minister in the presence of the churchwardens
shall write and record in the said book the names of all persons
christened, together with the names and surnames of their parents, and
also the names of all persons married and buried in that parish in the
week before, and the day and year of every such christening, marriage,
and burial; and that done, they shall lay up the book in the coffer as
before. And the minister and churchwardens, unto every page of that
book, when it shall be filled with such inscriptions, shall subscribe
their names. And the churchwardens shall once every year, within one
month after the five and twentieth day of March, transmit unto the
bishop of the diocese, or his chancellor, a true copy of the names of
all persons christened, married, or buried in their parish in the year
before, (ended the said five and twentieth day of March,) and the
certain days and months in which every christening, marriage, and burial
was had, to be subscribed to with the hands of the said minister and
churchwardens, to the end the same may faithfully be preserved in the
registry of the said bishop; which certificate shall be received without
fee. And if the minister and churchwardens shall be negligent in
performance of anything herein contained, it shall be lawful for the
bishop, or his chancellor, to convent them, and proceed against every of
them as contemners of this our constitution.”
The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 146, (A. D. 1812,) directs that “registers of
public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized
according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland ...
shall be made and kept by the rector, vicar, curate, or officiating
minister of every parish (or of any chapelry) where the ceremonies of
baptism, marriage, and burial, have been usually, and may according to
law be, performed for the time being, in books of parchment, or of good
and durable paper, to be provided by his Majesty’s printer as occasion
may require, at the expense of the respective parishes or chapelries;
whereon shall be printed, upon each side of every leaf, the heads of
information herein required to be entered in the registers” (agreeably
to schedules annexed to the act). Such registers should be kept in
separate books, and every minister shall enter the baptism, or burial,
as soon as possible, and shall sign the same; “and in no case, unless
prevented by sickness, or other unavoidable impediment, later than
within seven days after the ceremony of any such baptism, or burial,
shall have taken place.” (Sect. 3.)
“Whenever the ceremony of baptism, or burial, shall be performed in any
other place than the parish church, or churchyard of any parish, (or the
chapel, or chapel-yard of any chapelry, providing its own distinct
registers,) and such ceremony shall be performed by any minister not
being the rector, vicar, minister, or curate of any such parish or
chapelry, the minister who shall perform such ceremony of baptism or
burial shall, on the same, or on the next day, transmit to the rector,
vicar, or other minister of such parish or chapelry, or his curate, a
certificate of such baptism or burial in the form contained in the
schedule (D.) to this act annexed, and the rector, vicar, minister, or
curate of such parish or chapelry, shall thereupon enter such baptism or
burial according to such certificate in the book kept pursuant to this
act for such purpose; and shall add to such entry the following words,
‘According to the certificate of the Reverend ——, transmitted to me on
the —— day of ——.’”
“_I do hereby certify, that I did on the —— day of —— baptize, according
to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, ——, son [or
“daughter”] of —— and ——, his wife, by the name of ——._”
_To the Rector_ [or, as the case may be,] _of ——._
“_‘I do hereby certify, that on the —— day of —— A. B. of ——, aged ——,
was buried in_ [stating the place of burial], _and that the ceremony of
burial was performed according to the rites of the United Church of
England and Ireland, by me, ——._
_To the Rector_ [or, as the case may be,] _of ——_.’” (Sect. 4.)
Sect. 5 directs, that the new registers, and also those previously
existing, shall be kept by the minister of the parish, “in a dry,
well-painted, iron chest, to be provided, and repaired as occasion may
require, at the cost of the parish; which chest shall be constantly kept
locked in some dry, safe, and secure place within the usual place of
residence of such minister, or in the parish church or chapel.”
Sect. 6 directs, that within two months after the expiration of every
year, four copies of the registers for the preceding year shall be made
on parchment by the clergyman, “or by the churchwardens, chapelwardens,
clerk, or other person duly appointed for the purpose, under, and by the
direction of, such rector, vicar, curate, or other resident or
officiating minister.” The copies are to be verified and signed by the
clergyman in a prescribed form, and his signature is to be attested by
the churchwardens or chapelwardens, or one of them. These copies are to
be sent by post to the diocesan registrars. (Sect. 7.) In case of the
minister’s neglecting to verify the copies, the churchwardens shall
certify his default to the registrar, by whom it shall be reported to
the bishop. (Sect. 9.) Any person convicted of falsifying a register, or
allowing it to be falsified, shall be subject to transportation for
fourteen years. (Sect. 14.)
Sect. 16 provides, that the act shall not affect the fees payable to any
minister for giving extracts of registers, &c.
The act of 52 Geo. III. is still in force as regards the registration of
baptisms and burials by clergymen. But as to marriages, an alteration
has been made by the acts 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 80, and 7 Will. IV., and 1
Vic. c. 22. By the former of these acts the general civil registry was
instituted. Sect. 30 orders, that the Registrar-general shall, at the
expense of the parish or chapelry, furnish the rector, vicar, or curate,
of every church and chapel in which marriages may lawfully be
solemnized, duplicate register books and forms for certified copies
thereof. Sect. 31, that every clergyman, immediately after every office
of matrimony solemnized by him, shall register in duplicate the several
particulars relating to that marriage, according to a new form, annexed
in a schedule to the act. Sect. 33, (explained by 7 Will. IV., and 1
Vic. c. 22,) that the clergyman of every church or chapel shall, in the
months of April, July, October, and January respectively, make and
deliver to the registrar of his district a true copy, certified by him
under his hand, of all the entries of marriages in the register book
kept by him for the three months preceding, to the last days of March,
June, September, and December respectively; and if there shall have been
no marriage since the last certificate, shall certify the fact under his
hand; and that one copy of each duplicate register book shall, when
filled, be delivered to the superintendent-registrar of the district.
Sect. 27 of the act of 1 Vic. provides, that for every entry in the
quarterly certified copies the clergyman shall receive sixpence from the
registrar, which sum is to be repaid to the registrar by the guardians
or overseers of his district.
By the act of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86, sect. 42, 43, any person who shall
refuse, or without reasonable cause omit, to register any marriage
solemnized by him, or which he ought to register, and every person
having the custody of any register book, who shall carelessly lose or
injure the same, or carelessly allow the same to be injured while in his
keeping, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding £50 for every such offence;
and any person who shall wilfully destroy, injure, or in any way falsify
any register book, or shall wilfully give any false certificate or
extract, shall be guilty of felony.
REGIUM DONUM MONEY. Money allowed by government to the Dissenters. The
origin of it was in the year 1723. As the Dissenters approved themselves
strong friends to the House of Brunswick, they enjoyed favour; and,
being excluded all lucrative preferment in the Church, the prime
minister wished to reward them for their loyalty, and, by a retaining
fee, to preserve them steadfast. A considerable sum, therefore, was
annually lodged with the heads of the Presbyterians, Independents, and
Baptists, to be distributed among the necessitous ministers of their
congregations.
REGULAR. In the continental churches those persons are called _regulars_
who profess to follow a certain _rule_ (_regula_) of life, and observe
the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; in contradistinction
to the _seculars_, who live comparatively in the world. The canons of
the non-monastic cathedrals were called seculars.
RELICS. In the Roman Church, the remains of the bodies or clothes of
saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death,
are devoutly preserved, in honour of their memory; kissed, revered, and
carried in procession. The respect which was justly due to the martyrs
and teachers of the Christian faith, in a few ages, increased almost to
adoration; and at length adoration was really paid both to departed
saints, and to relics of holy men or holy things. The abuses of the
Church of Rome with respect to relics are very great and flagrant, and
are justly censured in our 22nd Article.
In the early ages of the gospel, when its professors were exposed to
every species of danger and persecution, it was natural for Christians
to show every mark of respect, both to the bodies and to the memory of
those who had suffered death in its cause. They collected their remains
and buried them, not only with decency, but with all the solemnity and
honour which circumstances would allow. It was also the custom for
Christians to hold their religious meetings at the places where their
martyrs were buried, by which they seemed as it were, united with them;
and to display their attachment to their departed brethren by such
rites, as were dictated by the fervour of their devout affection, and
were consistent with the principles of their religion. It does not
appear that this boundary was ever transgressed in the three first
centuries; but in the fourth century, when the pure and simple worship
of the gospel begun to be debased by superstitious practices, we find
strong proofs of an excessive love for everything which had belonged to
those who had distinguished themselves by their exertions or their
sufferings for the truth of Christianity, and especially for any part of
their garments, hair, or bones. Augustine in Africa, and Vigilantius in
Spain, complained loudly of this culpable fondness for relics, which
they speak of as a new corruption, then first appearing in the Christian
world; but the warm disposition of Jerome led him to stand forward in
their defence with more zeal than discretion. However, this learned
Father, even while he leans to the opinion that miracles were sometimes
wrought by relics, explicitly disclaims all idea of offering them
worship. But, when superstition has once made its way into the minds of
men, it gradually gains ground; and it is difficult to set limits to it,
particularly when there is a set of persons, respected for their piety,
who are studious to encourage it. Monks carried about relics; and with
great ease, and no small advantage to themselves, persuaded that
ignorant age of their value and importance. Under their recommendation
and patronage, they were soon considered as the best preservatives
against every possible evil of soul and body; and when the worshipping
of images came to be established, the enshrining of relics was a natural
consequence of that doctrine. This led the way to absolute worship of
relics, which was now preached by the Romish clergy as a Christian duty.
Every one thought it necessary to possess a relic of some saint or
martyr, as the effectual means of securing his care and protection; and
fraud and imposition did not fail to furnish a supply proportionable to
the demand. The discovery of the catacombs at Rome was an inexhaustible
source of relics; and thus the popes themselves became directly
interested in maintaining this superstitious worship. The Council of
Trent authorized the adoration of relics; and they continue in high
esteem among the Papists of the present day. What has been already said
is amply sufficient to point out the absurdity of worshipping relics. It
is a doctrine manifestly “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture:” it is
“a fond thing,” that is, foolish and trifling, in the extreme; directly
contrary to the practice of the primitive Christians, and utterly
irreconcileable with common sense.—_Bp. Tomline._
RELIGIOUS. This was the term given in our Church before the Reformation
to persons engaged by solemn vows to the monastic life. It is still used
in this sense on the Continent, and among the Popish Recusants.
REMONSTRANTS. (See _Arminians_.) This name was given to the Arminians,
because in 1610 they presented a remonstrance to the states-general of
Holland and West Friesland, specifying their grievances.
RENOVATION. Regeneration is the joint work of water and the SPIRIT, or,
to speak more properly, of the SPIRIT only; renovation is the joint work
of the SPIRIT and the man. Regeneration comes only once, in or through
baptism. Renovation exists before, in, and after baptism, and may be
often repeated. Regeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and
is incapable of increase. Renovation is, in its very nature,
progressive. Regeneration, though suspended as to its effects and
benefits, cannot be totally lost in the present life. Renovation may be
often repeated and totally lost. Dr. Waterland distinguishes between
regeneration and renovation thus:—
1. Grown persons coming to baptism properly qualified, receive at once
the grace of regeneration; but, however well prepared, they are not
regenerate without baptism. Afterwards renovation grows more and more
within them by the indwelling of the SPIRIT.
2. As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to them instead of
repentance, which they do not want, and of actual faith, which they
cannot have: and they are capable of being born again, and adopted by
GOD, because they bring no obstacle. They stipulate, and the HOLY SPIRIT
translates them out of a state of nature into a state of grace, favour,
and acceptance. In their case, regeneration precedes, and renovation
follows after, and they are the temple of the SPIRIT till they defile
themselves with sin.
3. As to those who fall off after regeneration, their covenant state
abides, but without any saving effect, because without present
renovation: but this saving effect may be repaired and recovered by
repentance.
4. With respect to those who receive baptism in a state of hypocrisy or
impenitency, though this sacrament can only increase their condemnation,
still pardon and grace are conditionally made over to them, and the
saving virtue of regeneration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes
effect, when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.
RENUNCIATION. In holy baptism, the persons baptized, or in the case of
infants their sponsors in their name, are asked, “Dost thou renounce the
devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all
covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so
that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?” And their answer is, “_I
renounce them all_.” This renunciation is of very great antiquity, so
great indeed that its beginning cannot be traced, nor any time mentioned
when it was not used; so that it is probably of apostolic origin.
REPAIRS OF CHURCHES. Anciently the bishops had the whole tithes of the
diocese; a fourth part of which, in every parish, was to be applied to
the repairs of the church; but, upon a release of this interest to the
rectors, they were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the
churches.
And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who
receiveth this fourth part; that is, to the rector, and not to the
parishioners.
But custom (that is, the common law) transferreth the burden of
reparation, at least of the nave of the church, upon the parishioners;
and likewise sometimes of the chancel, as particularly in the city of
London in many churches there.
But, generally, the parson is bound to repair the chancel. Not because
the freehold is in him, for so is the freehold of the church; but by the
custom of England, which hath allotted the repairs of the chancel to the
parson, and the repairs of the church to the parishioners: yet so, that
if the custom hath been for the parish, or the estate of a particular
person, to repair the chancel, that custom shall be good.
As to the vicars, it is ordained by a constitution of Archbishop
Winchelsea, that the chancel shall be repaired by the rectors and
vicars, or others to whom such repair belongeth. Whereupon Lyndwood
observes, that where there is both rector and vicar in the same church,
they shall contribute in proportion to their benefice; which is to be
understood where there is not a certain direction, order, or custom,
unto which of them such reparation shall appertain.
And as rectors or spiritual persons, so also impropriators, are bound of
common right to repair the chancels. This doctrine (under the
limitations expressed in the foregoing paragraphs) is clear and
uncontested: the only difficulty hath been in what manner they shall be
compelled to do it; whether by spiritual censures only, in like manner
as the parishioners are compelled to contribute to the repairs of the
church, since impropriations are now become lay fees; or whether by
sequestrations (as incumbents, and, as it should seem, spiritual
impropriators of all kinds, may be compelled).
As to this, it is said to have been the opinion of the court of Common
Pleas, that the Spiritual Court may grant sequestration upon an
impropriate parsonage, for not repairing the chancel (M. 29. C. 2. 3
_Keb._ 829); yet by another book it is said, that the court of Common
Pleas did incline that there could be no sequestration; for, being made
a lay fee, the impropriation was out of the jurisdiction of the court
Christian, and they were only to proceed against the person, as against
another layman, for not repairing the church. (T. 22. C. 2. 2 _Vent._
35.) And by the same case as reported, (2 _Mod._ 157,) it is said that
the whole court, except Judge Atkins, were of that opinion.
On the contrary, Dr. Gibson observes, that impropriations, before they
became lay fees, were undoubtedly liable to sequestration; that the king
was to enjoy them in the same manner as the religious had done, and
nothing was conveyed to the king at the dissolution of monasteries, but
what the religious had conveyed; that is, the profits over and above the
finding of Divine service, and the repairing of the chancel, and other
ecclesiastical burdens: and the general saving (he says) in the 31 Henry
VIII. c. 13, may be well extended to a saving of the right of the
ordinary in this particular, which right he undoubtedly had by the law
and the practice of the Church, which said right is not abrogated by any
statute whatsoever. And he observes further these things: 1. That
although (as was expressly alleged in the two cases above referred to)
this power had been frequently exercised by the spiritual courts, yet no
instances do appear, before these, of any opposition made. 2. That, in
both the said instances, judgment was given, not upon the matter or
point in hand, but upon errors found in the pleadings. 3. That one
argument against the allowing the ordinary such jurisdiction was _ab
inconvenienti_, that such allowance would be a step towards giving
ordinaries a power to augment vicarages, as they might have done, and
frequently did, before the dissolution.
Where there are more impropriators than one, (as is frequently the
case,) and the prosecution is to be carried on by the churchwardens to
compel them to repair, it seemeth advisable for the churchwardens first
to call a vestry, and there (after having made a rate for the repair of
the church, and other expenses necessary in the execution of their
office) that the vestry make an order for the churchwardens to prosecute
the impropriators, at the parish expense; in which prosecution the court
will not settle the proportion amongst the impropriators, but admonish
all who are made parties to the suit, to repair the chancel, under pain
of excommunication. Nor will it be necessary to make every impropriator
a party, but only to prove that the parties prosecuted have received
tithes or other profits belonging to the rectory, sufficient to repair
it; and they must settle the proportion among themselves: for it is not
a suit against them for a sum of money, but for a neglect of the duty
which is incumbent on all of them; though it may be advisable to make as
many of them parties as can be come at with certainty.
Repairing of the chancel is a discharge from contributing to the repairs
of the church. This is supposed to be the known law of the Church, in
the gloss of John de Athon upon a constitution of Othobon, (hereafter
mentioned,) for the reparation of chancels; and is also evident from the
ground of the respective obligations upon parson and parishioners to
repair, the first the chancel, the second the church, which was
evidently a division of the burden, and by consequence a mutual
disengaging of each from that part which the other took. And therefore
as it was declared in Serjeant Davie’s case, (2 _Roll’s Rep._ 211,) that
there could be no doubt but the impropriator was rateable to the church,
for lands which were not parcel of the parsonage, notwithstanding his
obligation as parson to repair the chancel; so, when this plea of the
farmer of an impropriation, (2 _Keb._ 730, 742,) to be exempt from the
parish rate because he repaired the chancel, was refused in the
spiritual court, it must probably have been a plea offered to exempt
other possessions also from church rates.—_Gibs._ 199, 200.
If there be a chapel of ease within a parish, and some part of the
parish have used time out of mind, alone, without others of the
parishioners, to repair the chapel of ease, and there to hear service,
and to marry, and all the other things, but only they bury at the
mother-church, yet they shall not be discharged of the reparation of the
mother-church, but ought to contribute thereto; for the chapel was
ordained only for their ease.
So in the said case, if the inhabitants who have used to repair the
chapel prescribe that they have time out of mind used to repair the
chapel, and by reason thereof have been discharged of the reparation of
the mother-church, yet this shall not discharge them of the reparation
of the mother-church, for that is not any direct prescription to be
discharged thereof, but it is, by reason thereof, a prescription for the
reparation of the chapel.
If the chapel be three miles distant from the mother-church, and the
inhabitants who have used to come to the chapel, have used always to
repair the chapel, and there marry and bury, and have never within sixty
years been charged to the repair of the mother-church, yet this is not
any cause to have a prohibition; but they ought to show in the spiritual
court their exemption, if they have any, upon the endowment.
But if the inhabitants of a chapelry prescribe to be discharged _time
out of mind_ of the reparation of the mother-church, and they are sued
for the reparation of the mother-church, a prohibition lieth upon this
surmise.
If two churches be united, the repairs of the several churches shall be
made as they were before the union.
_Othobon._ The archdeacon shall cause chancels to be repaired by those
who are bound thereunto.—_Ath._ 112.
_Reynolds._ We enjoin the archdeacons and their officials, that, in the
visitation of churches, they have a diligent regard to the fabric of the
church, and especially of the chancel, to see if they want repair; and
if they find any defects of that kind, they shall limit a certain time
under a penalty, within which they shall be repaired. Also, they shall
inquire by themselves or their officials in the parish where they visit,
if there be aught in things or persons which wanteth to be corrected:
and if they shall find any such, they shall correct the same, either
then, or in the next chapter.—_Lyndw._
The fabric of the church consisteth of the walls, windows, and
covering.—_Lyndw._
Where the penalty is not limited, the same is arbitrary (saith
Lyndwood): but this cannot intend here (he says) the penalty of
excommunication; inasmuch as it concerneth the parishioners _ut
universos_, as a body or whole society, who are bound to the fabric of
the body of the church: for the pain of excommunication is not inflicted
upon a whole body together, although it may be inflicted upon every
person severally who shall be culpable in this behalf. And the same may
be observed as to the penalty of suspension which cannot fall upon the
parishioners as a community or collective body. Yet the archdeacon in
this case, if the defect be enormous, may enjoin a penalty, that, after
the limited time shall be expired, Divine service shall not be performed
in the church, until competent reparation shall be made; so that the
parishioners may be punished by suspension or interdict of the place.
But if there are any particular persons who are bound to contribute
towards the repair, and although they be able, are not willing, or do
neglect the same, such persons may be compelled by a monition to such
contribution, under pain of excommunication, that so the church may not
continue for a long time unrepaired, through their default.—_Lyndw._
But this was before the time that churchwardens had the special charge
of the repairs of the church; and it seemeth now that the process shall
issue against the churchwardens, and that they may be excommunicated for
disobedience.
_Stratford._ Forasmuch as archdeacons and other ordinaries in their
visitations, finding defects as well in the churches as in the ornaments
thereof, and the fences of the churchyard, and in the houses of the
incumbents, do command them to be repaired under pecuniary penalties;
and from those that do not obey do exact the same penalties by censures,
wherewith the said defects ought to be repaired, and thereby enrich
their own purses to the damage of the poor people; therefore that there
be no occasion of complaint against the archdeacons and other ordinaries
and their ministers by reason of such penal exactions, and that it
becometh not ecclesiastical persons to gape after or enrich themselves
with dishonest and penal acquisitions; we ordain, that such penalties,
so often as they shall be exacted, shall be converted to the use of such
repairs, under pain of suspension _ab officio_ which they shall _ipso
facto_ incur, until they shall effectually assign what was so received
to the reparation of the said defects.—_Lyndw._
By Canon 86. “Every dean, dean and chapter, archdeacon, and others which
have authority to hold ecclesiastical visitations by composition, law,
or prescription, shall survey the churches of his or their jurisdiction
once in every three years, in his own person, or cause the same to be
done.”
And by the said canon they were required, from time to time, to certify
the high commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, every year, of such
defects in any of the said churches as he or they should find to remain
unrepaired, and the names and surnames of the parties faulty therein.
Upon which certificate the high commissioners were desired by the said
canon, _ex officio mero_, to send for such parties, and compel them to
obey the just and lawful decrees of the ecclesiastical ordinaries making
such certificates. But by the 16 Car. I. c. 11, the High Commission
Court was abolished; so that the cognizance thereof now resteth solely
upon the ecclesiastical judge.
By the statute of _Circumspecte agatis_, (13 Edward I. st. iv.,) “If
prelates do punish for that the church is uncovered, or not conveniently
decked, the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge,
notwithstanding the king’s prohibition.”
“The Church.” This is intended not only of the body of the church, which
is parochial, but also of any public chapel annexed to it; but it
extendeth not to the private chapel of any, though it be fixed to the
church, for that must be repaired by him that hath the proper use of it,
for he that hath the profit ought to bear the burden.
Canon 85. “The churchwardens or questmen shall take care and provide,
that the churches be well and sufficiently repaired, and so from time to
time kept and maintained, that the windows be well glazed, and that the
floors be kept paved, plain, and even.”
If the churchwardens erect or add anything new in the church, as a new
gallery where there was none before, they must have the consent of the
major part of the parishioners, and also a licence of the ordinary.
But as to the common reparations of the fabric or ornaments of the
church, where nothing new is added or done, it doth not appear that any
consent of the major part of the parishioners is necessary; for to this
the churchwardens are bound by their office, and they are punishable if
they do it not. (See however _Rate_.)
If the major part of the parishioners of a parish, where there are four
bells, agree that there shall be made a fifth bell, and this is made
accordingly, and they make a rate for paying the same, this shall bind
the lesser part of the parishioners, although they agree not to it: for
otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder anything intended to be done
for the ornament of the church.
And although churchwardens are not charged with the repairs of the
chancel, yet they are charged with the supervisal thereof, to see that
it be not permitted to dilapidate and fall into decay; and when any such
dilapidations shall happen, if no care be taken to repair the same, they
are to make presentment thereof at the next visitation.
If a church be so much out of repair, that it is necessary to pull it
down; or so small, that it needs to be enlarged; the major part of the
parishioners, having first obtained the consent of the ordinary to do
what is needful, and meeting upon due notice, may make a rate for new
building, or enlarging, as there shall be occasion. This was declared in
the 29 Car. II. by all the three courts successively, notwithstanding
the cause was much laboured by a great number of Quakers, who opposed
the rate.
And the proper method of proceeding in such case seems to be thus:
namely, that the churchwardens first of all take care that public notice
be given in the church for a general vestry of the whole parish for that
purpose; which notice ought to be attested and carefully preserved, as
being the foundation of all the subsequent proceedings. At the time and
place of meeting, the minister and churchwardens ought to attend; and
when the parishioners are assembled, the minister is proper to preside;
and he, or one of the churchwardens, or such person as shall be
appointed by them, ought to enter the orders of the vestry, and then
have them read and signed. And agreeable thereunto, a petition to the
ordinary for a faculty (setting forth the particulars) should be drawn
up and signed by the minister, churchwardens, and parishioners present,
and approving thereof. Whereupon the ordinary will issue a monition to
cite all persons concerned to show cause why a faculty should not be
granted. Upon the return of which citation, if no cause, or not
sufficient cause, is showed, the ordinary will proceed to grant a
faculty as is desired, and as to him shall seem good.
REPENTANCE (see _Penitence_, _Penance_) signifies a sincere sorrow for
all past transgressions of GOD’S laws, an unfeigned disposition of mind
to perform the will of GOD better for the future, and an actual avoiding
and resisting of those temptations to sin by which we have been
overpowered.
REREDOS. A screen behind an altar. In large conventual churches, where
there is a space behind the high altar, this was the universal
termination of the ritual presbytery; and sometimes, as at Winchester,
St. Alban’s, and Durham, this screen was of extreme magnificence. In
smaller churches, where the reredos was not required, the altar being at
the extreme east, it is seldom found, though an arcade, or other
enrichment of the space beneath and at the sides of the east window,
sometimes occurs.
RESIDENCE. 1. _Otho._ The bishop shall provide, that in every church
there shall be one resident, who shall take care of the cure of souls,
and exercise himself profitably and honestly in performing Divine
service and administration of the sacraments.—_Athon_ 36.
The rule of the ancient canon law was, that if a clergyman deserted
his church or prebend, without just and necessary cause, and
especially without the consent of the diocesan, he should be deprived.
And agreeable hereunto was the practice in this realm; for though
sometimes the bishop proceeded only to sequestration, or other
censures of an inferior nature, yet the more frequent punishment was
deprivation.—_Gibson_, 827.
2. Regularly, personal residence is required of ecclesiastical persons
upon their cures; and to that end, by the common law, if he that hath a
benefice with cure be chosen to an office of bailiff, or beadle, or the
like secular office, he may have the king’s writ for his discharge.—2
_Inst._ 625.
For the intendment of the common law is, that a clerk is resident upon
his cure; insomuch that in an action of debt brought against J. S.,
rector of D., the defendant pleading that he was demurrant and
conversant at B. in another county, the plea was overruled; for, since
the defendant denied not that he was rector of the church of D., he
shall be deemed by law to be demurrant and conversant there for the cure
of souls.—2 _Inst._
3. By the statute of the _Articuli cleri_, (9 _Edw._ II. st. i. c. 8,)
in the articles exhibited by the clergy, one is as follows: Also barons
of the king’s Exchequer, claiming by their privilege, that they ought to
make answer to no complainant out of the same place, do extend the same
privilege unto clerks abiding there, called to orders or unto residence,
and inhibit ordinaries that by no means, or for any cause, so long as
they be in the Exchequer, or in the king’s services, they shall not call
them to judgment. “Unto which it is answered,” It pleaseth our lord the
king, that such clerks as attend in his service, if they offend, shall
be correct by their ordinaries, like as other; but so long as they are
occupied about the Exchequer, they shall not be bound to keep residence
in their churches. And this is added of new by the king’s council: “The
king and his ancestors, since time out of mind, have used that clerks
which are employed in his service, during such time as they are in
service, shall not be compelled to keep residence at their benefices;
and such things as be thought necessary for the king and commonwealth,
ought not to be said to be prejudicial to the liberty of the Church.”
By the 21 _Hen._ VIII. c. 13, commonly called the _statute of
Non-residence_: As well every spiritual person, now being promoted to
any archdeaconry, deanery, or dignity in any monastery, or cathedral
church, or other church conventual or collegiate, or being beneficed
with any parsonage or vicarage; as all and every spiritual person and
persons, which hereafter shall be promoted to any of the said dignities
or benefices, with any parsonage or vicarage, shall be personally
resident and abiding in, at, and upon his said dignity, prebend, or
benefice, or at any one of them at the least; and in case he shall not
keep residence at one of them as aforesaid, but absent himself wilfully
by the space of one month together, or by the space of two months to be
at several times in any one year, and make his residence and abiding in
any other places by such time, he shall forfeit for every such default
£10, half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any
of the king’s courts by original writ of debt, bill, plaint, or
information, in which action and suit the defendant shall not wage his
law, nor have any essoin or protection allowed. (S. 26.)
And if any person or persons shall procure at the court of Rome, or
elsewhere, any licence or dispensation to be non-resident at their said
dignities, prebends, or benefices, contrary to this act; every such
person, putting in execution any such dispensation or licence for
himself, shall incur the penalty of £20 for every time so doing, to be
forfeited and recovered as aforesaid, and such licence or dispensation
shall be void. (S. 27.)
Provided that this act of non-residence shall not extend nor be
prejudicial to any such spiritual person as shall chance to be in the
king’s service beyond the sea, nor to any person going to any pilgrimage
or holy place beyond the sea, during the time that they shall so be in
the king’s service, or in the pilgrimage going and returning home; nor
to any scholar or scholars being conversant and abiding for study,
without fraud or covin, at any university within this realm or without;
nor to any of the chaplains of the king or queen, daily or quarterly
attending and abiding in the king’s or queen’s most honourable
household; nor to any of the chaplains of the prince or princess, or any
of the king’s or queen’s children, brethren, or sisters, attending daily
in their honourable households, during so long as they shall attend in
any of their households; nor to any chaplain of any archbishop or
bishop, or of any spiritual or temporal lords of the parliament, daily
attending, abiding, and remaining in any of their honourable households;
nor to any chaplain of any duchess, marquess, countess, viscountess, or
baroness, attending daily and abiding in any of their honourable
households; nor to any chaplain of the lord chancellor, or treasurer of
England, the king’s chamberlain, or steward of his household for the
time being, the treasurer and comptroller of the king’s most honourable
household for the time being, attending daily in any of their honourable
households; nor to any chaplain of any of the knights of the honourable
order of the Garter, or of the chief justice of the King’s Bench, warden
of the ports, or of the master of the rolls, nor to any chaplain of the
king’s secretary, dean of the chapel, amner for the time being, daily
attending and dwelling in any of their households, during the time that
they shall so abide and dwell without fraud or covin, in any of the said
honourable households; nor to the master of the rolls, or dean of the
arches, nor to any chancellor or commissary of any archbishop or bishop,
nor to as many of the twelve masters of the chancery and twelve
advocates of the arches as shall be spiritual men, during so long time
as they shall occupy their said rooms and offices; nor to any such
spiritual persons as shall happen by injunction of the lord chancellor,
or the king’s council, to be bound to any daily appearance and
attendance to answer to the law, during the time of such injunction. (S.
28.)
Provided also, that it shall be lawful to the king to give licence to
every of his own chaplains, for non-residence upon their benefices;
anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 29.)
Provided also, that every duchess, marquess, countess, baroness, widows,
which shall take any husbands under the degree of a baron, may take such
number of chaplains as they might have done being widows; and that every
such chaplain may have like liberty of non-residence, as they might have
had if their said ladies and mistresses had kept themselves widows. (S.
33.) [This statute is abstracted from Burn in order to show the history
of the law regarding residence, but it was repealed by the 57 Geo. III.
c. 99, and that act also was repealed, and the whole question resettled,
in 1838, by 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106, which is abstracted towards the end of
this article.]
By the 25 _Hen._ VIII. c. 16. Whereas by the statute of the 21 Hen.
VIII. c. 13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, as well
spiritual as temporal, shall have chaplains beneficed with cure to serve
them in their honourable houses, which chaplains shall not incur the
danger of any penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the same
parliament, for non-residence upon their said benefices; in which act no
provision was made for any of the king’s judges of his high courts,
commonly called the King’s Bench and the Common Pleas, except only for
the chief judge of the King’s Bench, nor for the chancellor nor the
chief baron of the king’s Exchequer, nor for any other inferior persons
being of the king’s most honourable council: It is therefore enacted,
that as well every judge of the said high courts, and the chancellor and
chief baron of the Exchequer, the king’s general attorney and general
solicitor, for the time that shall be, shall and may retain and have in
his house, or attendant to his person, one chaplain having one benefice
with cure of souls, which may be absent from his said benefice, and not
resident upon the same; the said statute made in the said one and
twentieth year, or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary
notwithstanding.
By the 28 _Hen._ VIII. c. 13. Whereas divers persons, under colour of
the proviso in the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13., which exempteth
persons conversant in the universities for study, from the penalty of
non-residence, contained in the said act, do resort to the universities,
where, under pretence of study, they live dissolutely, nothing profiting
themselves by study at all, but consume the time in idleness and other
pastimes: It is enacted, that all persons who shall be to any benefice
or benefices promoted, as is aforesaid, being above the age of forty
years, the chancellor, vice-chancellor, commissary of the said
universities, wardens, deans, provosts, presidents, rectors, masters,
principals, and other head rulers of colleges, halls, and other houses
or places corporate within the said universities, doctors of the chair,
(readers of divinity in the common schools of divinity in the said
universities only excepted,) shall be resident and abiding at and upon
one of their said benefices, according to the intent and true meaning of
the said former act, upon such pain and penalties as be contained in the
said former act, made and appointed for such beneficed persons for their
non-residence; and that none of the said beneficed persons, being above
the age aforesaid, except before except, shall be excused of their
non-residence upon the said benefices, for that they be students or
resiants within the said universities; any proviso, or any other clause
or sentence, contained in the said former act of non-residence, or any
other thing to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.
And further, that all and singular such beneficed persons, being under
the age of forty years, resident and abiding within the said
universities, shall not enjoy the privilege and liberty of
non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless
he or they be present at the ordinary lecture and lectures, as well at
home in their houses, as in the common school or schools, and in their
proper person keep sophisms, problems, disputations, and other exercises
of learning, and be opponent and respondent in the same, according to
the ordinance and statutes of the said universities; anything contained
in the said proviso, or former act, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Provided always, that nothing in this act shall extend to any person who
shall be reader of any public or common lecture in divinity, law civil,
physic, philosophy, humanity, or any of the liberal sciences, or public
or common interpreter or teacher of the Hebrew tongue, Chaldee, or
Greek; nor to any persons above the age of forty years, who shall resort
to any of the said universities to proceed doctors in divinity, law
civil, or physic, for the time of their said proceedings, and executing
of such sermons, disputations, or lectures, which they be bound by the
statutes of the universities there to do for the said degrees so
obtained.
By the 33 _Hen._ VIII. c. 28. Whereas by the act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c.
13, it was ordained, that certain honourable persons, and other of the
king’s counsellors and officers, as well spiritual as temporal, should
and might have chaplains beneficed with cure, to serve and attend upon
them in their houses, which chaplains shall not incur the danger of any
penalty or forfeiture made or declared in the said act for non-residence
upon their said benefices; in which act no provision is made for any of
the head officers of the king’s courts of the duchy of Lancaster, the
courts of augmentations of the revenues of the Crown, the first-fruits
and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s wards and liveries, the general
surveyors of his lands, and other his Majesty’s court: It is therefore
enacted, that the chancellor of the said court of the duchy of
Lancaster, the chancellor of the court of augmentations, the chancellor
of the court of first-fruits and tenths, the master of his Majesty’s
wards and liveries, and every of the king’s general surveyors of his
lands, the treasurer of his chamber, and the groom of the stole, and
every of them, shall and may retain in his house, or attendant unto his
person, one chaplain having one benefice with cure of souls, which may
be absent from the said benefice, and non-resident upon the same; the
said statute made in the said twenty-first year of his Majesty’s reign,
or any other statute, act, or ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding.
Provided always, that every of the said chaplains so being beneficed as
aforesaid, and dwelling with any the officers aforenamed, shall repair
twice a year at the least to his said benefice and cure, and there abide
for eight days at every such time at the least, to visit and instruct
his said cure; on pain of forty shillings for every time so failing,
half to the king, and half to him that will sue for the same in any of
the king’s courts of record, in which suit no essoin, protection, or
wager of law shall be allowed.
And here the question comes to be reconsidered, How far these statutes,
taken together, do supersede the canon law, so as to take away the power
which the ordinary had before, of enjoining residence to the clergy of
his diocese? It seems to be clear, that, before these statutes, the
bishops of this realm had and exercised a power of calling their clergy
to residence: but more frequently they did not exert this power, which
so far forth was to the clergy a virtual dispensation for non-residence.
But this not exerting of their power was in them not always voluntary;
for they were under the controlling influence of the pope, who granted
dispensations of non-residence to as many as would purchase them, and
disposed of abundance of ecclesiastical preferments to foreigners who
never resided here at all. The king also, as appears, had a power to
require the service of clergymen; and consequently in such case to
dispense with them for non-residence upon their benefices. This power of
the king is reserved to him by the aforesaid act of the 21 Hen. VIII. c.
13. But it is the power of dispensation in the two former cases which is
intended to be taken away, namely, by the bishop and by the pope; and by
the said act residence is enjoined to the clergy under the penalty
therein mentioned, notwithstanding any dispensation to the contrary,
from the court of Rome or elsewhere; with a proviso nevertheless, that
the said act shall not extend nor be prejudicial to the chaplains and
others therein specially excepted. It is argued, that this act being
made to rectify what had been insufficient or ineffectual in the canon
law, and inflicting a temporal penalty to enforce the obligation of
residence, the parliament intended that the said act should be from
thenceforth, if not the sole, yet the principal, rule of proceeding in
this particular; and consequently, that the persons excepted in the act
need no other exemption than what is given to them by the act for their
non-residence. Unto this it is answered, that the intention of the act
was not to take away any power which the bishop had of enjoining
residence, but the contrary; namely, it was to take away that power
which the bishop or pope exercised, of granting dispensations for
non-residence; that is to say, the act left to them that power which was
beneficial, and only took from them that which tended to the detriment
of the Church; and consequently, that the bishop may enjoin residence to
the clergy as he might before, only he may not dispense with them as he
did before for non-residence. And indeed, from anything that appears
upon the face of the act, the contrary supposition seemeth to bear
somewhat hard against the rule, which hath generally been adhered to in
the construction of acts of parliament, that an act of parliament in the
affirmative doth not take away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that
the same shall not be taken away in any act of parliament but by express
words. It is, therefore, further urged, that the three subsequent acts
do explain this act, and by the express words thereof do establish the
aforegoing interpretation. In the first of the three it is said, that
the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain, which may be
absent from his benefice, and not resident upon the same; in the second
it is said, that persons above forty years of age residing in the
universities shall not be excused of their non-residence; and again,
that persons under forty years of age shall not enjoy the privilege of
non-residence, contained in the proviso of the said former act, unless
they perform the common exercises there, and the like, which implies,
that, if they do this, they shall enjoy such privilege; and in the third
it is said, that the persons therein mentioned may retain one chaplain,
which may be absent from his benefice, and non-resident upon the same;
and it is not to be supposed, that the parliament intended a greater
privilege to the chaplains of the inferior officers mentioned in the
said last act, than to the chaplains of the royal family and principal
nobility mentioned in the first act. Unto this the most apposite answer
seemeth to be, that it is not expressed absolutely in any of the said
three acts, that the chaplains or others therein mentioned shall enjoy
the privilege of non-residence, or may be absent from their benefices,
and not resident upon the same; but only this, that they may be absent
or non-resident as aforesaid, the said statute made in the said
twenty-first year, or any other statute or ordinance to the contrary
notwithstanding. So that they are only exempted thereby from the
restraints introduced by the statute law, but in other respects are left
as they were before. But concerning this, although it is a case likely
enough to happen every day, there hath been no adjudication.
_Peccham._ We do decree, that rectors who do not make personal residence
in their churches, and who have no vicars, shall exhibit the grace of
hospitality by their stewards according to the ability of the church; so
that at least the extreme necessity of the poor parishioners be
relieved; and they who come there, and in their passage preach the word
of GOD, may receive necessary sustenance, that the churches be not
justly forsaken of the preachers through the violence of want; for the
workman is worthy of his meat, and no man is obliged to warfare at his
own cost.
By the 13 _Eliz._ c. 20. That the livings appointed for ecclesiastical
ministers may not by corrupt and indirect dealings be transferred to
other uses, it is enacted, that no lease to be made of any benefice or
ecclesiastical promotion with cure, or any part thereof, and not being
impropriated, shall endure any longer than while the lessor shall be
ordinarily resident, and serving the cure of such benefice, without
absence, above fourscore days in any one year; but every such lease,
immediately upon such absence, shall cease and be void; and the
incumbent so offending shall for the same lose one year’s profit of his
said benefice, to be distributed by the ordinary among the poor of the
parish: and all chargings of such benefices with cure with any pension,
or with any profit out of the same to be yielded or taken, other than
rents reserved upon leases, shall be void. (S. 1.)
Provided, that every parson, by the laws of this realm allowed to have
two benefices, may demise the one of them, upon which he shall not then
be most ordinarily resident, to his curate only that shall serve the
cure for him; but such lease shall endure no longer than during such
curate’s residence without absence above forty days in any one year. (S.
2.)
H. 1724. _Mills_ and _Etheridge_. Bill by the lessee of Matthew Hawes,
clerk, setting forth his lease dated Feb. 4, 1723, of the tithes for
1724 and 1725, in the parish of Simpson, in the county of Buckingham.
The defendant pleaded, that it appears by the plaintiff’s bill, that his
lease was dated Feb. 4, 1723; then pleads the statute of the 13 Eliz. c.
20, and avers, that Matthew Hawes the lessor was absent from his
benefice eighty days and more in one year since the lease, and before
the filing of the bill; that the church of Simpson is not impropriate;
and that it is a benefice or ecclesiastical promotion with cure; and
therefore, by such non-residence, and by virtue of the said act, that
the lease was void. And the plea was allowed: and it was determined
that, there is no necessity to aver that the absence was voluntary, (for
if it was otherwise, it lay upon the plaintiff to show it,) or to aver
that the absence was eighty days together.—_Bunb._ 210.
The same plea came on E., 1726, in the case of _Quilter_ and _Lowndes_,
and allowed by the whole court.—_Bunb._ 211.
But, query, says the reporter, if this is a good plea if the rector and
lessee join; for by non-residence before sentence he only forfeits his
lease and rent, not his tithes.—_Atkinson and Prodgers_ v. _Peasley,
Bunb._ 211.
Bishops are not punishable by the statute of the 21 Hen. VIII. for
non-residence upon their bishoprics; but although an archbishop or
bishop be not tied to be resident upon his bishopric by the statute, yet
they are thereto obliged by the ecclesiastical law, and may be compelled
to keep residence by ecclesiastical censures.—_Watson_, c. 37.
Thus, by a constitution of Archbishop Langton, bishops shall be careful
to reside in their cathedrals, on some of the greater feasts, and at
least in some part of Lent, as they shall see to be expedient for the
welfare of their souls.—_Lynd._ 130.
And by a constitution of Otho: What is incumbent upon the venerable
fathers, the archbishops and bishops, by their office to be done, their
name of dignity, which is that of bishop (_episcopus_) or
superintendent, evidently expresseth. For it properly concerns them
(according to the gospel expression) to watch over their flock by night.
And since they ought to be a pattern by which they who are subject to
them ought to reform themselves, which cannot be done unless they show
them an example, we exhort them in the LORD, and admonish them, that,
residing at their cathedral churches, they celebrate proper masses on
the principal feast days, and in Lent, and in Advent. And they shall go
about their dioceses at proper seasons, correcting and reforming the
churches, consecrating and sowing the word of life in the LORD’S field.
For the better performance of all which they shall twice in the year, to
wit, in Advent and in Lent, cause to be read unto them the profession
which they made at their consecration.—_Athon_, 55.
And by a constitution of Othobon: Although bishops know themselves
bound, as well by Divine as ecclesiastical precepts, to personal
residence with the flock of GOD committed to them, yet because there
are some who do not seem to attend hereunto, therefore we, pursuing
the monition of Otho the legate, do earnestly exhort them in the LORD,
and admonish them in virtue of their holy obedience, and under
attestation of the Divine judgments, that, out of care to their flock,
and for the solace of the churches espoused to them, they be duly
present, especially on solemn days, in Lent and in Advent, unless
their absence on such days shall be required for just cause by their
superiors.—_Athon_, 118.
Canon 42. “Every dean, master, or warden, or chief governor of any
cathedral or collegiate church, shall be resident in the same fourscore
and ten days _conjunctim_ or _divisim_ in every year at the least, and
then shall continue there in preaching the word of GOD, and keeping good
hospitality, except he shall be otherwise let with weighty and urgent
causes, to be approved by the bishop of the diocese, or in any other
lawful sort dispensed with.”
“_To be approved by the bishop._”—By the ancient canon law, personal
attendance on the bishop, or study in the university, was a just cause
of non-residence; and as such, notwithstanding the non-residence,
entitled them to all profits, except quotidians.—_Gibson_, 172.
Canon 44. “No prebendaries nor canons in cathedral or collegiate
churches, having one or more benefices with cure, (and not being
residentiaries in the same cathedral or collegiate churches,) shall,
under colour of their said prebends, absent themselves from their
benefices with cure above the space of one month in the year, unless it
be for some urgent cause, and certain time to be allowed by the bishop
of the diocese. And such of the said canons and prebendaries, as by the
ordinances of the cathedral or collegiate churches do stand bound to be
resident in the same, shall so among themselves sort and proportion the
times of the year, concerning residence to be kept in the said churches,
as that some of them always shall be personally resident there; and all
those who be, or shall be, residentiaries in any cathedral or collegiate
church, shall, after the days of their residency appointed by their
local statutes or custom expired, presently repair to their benefices,
or some one of them, or to some other charge where the law requireth
their presence, there to discharge their duties according to the laws in
that case provided. And the bishop of the diocese shall see the same to
be duly performed and put in execution.”
So that, besides the general laws directing the residence of other
clergymen, these dignitaries have another law peculiar to themselves,
namely, the local statutes of their respective foundations, the validity
of which local statutes this canon supposeth and affirmeth. And with
respect to the new foundations in particular, the act of parliament of
the 6 Anne, c. 21, enacteth, that their local statutes shall be in
force, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution of the Church
of England, or the laws of the land. This canon is undoubtedly a part of
the constitution of the Church; so that if the canon interfereth in any
respect with the said local statutes, the canon is to be preferred, and
the local statutes to be in force only so far forth as they are modified
and regulated by the canon.
There doth not appear to be any difference, either by the ecclesiastical
or temporal laws of this kingdom, between the case of a rector and of a
vicar concerning residence; except only that the vicar is sworn to
reside, (with a proviso, unless he shall be otherwise dispensed withal
by his diocesan,) and the rector is not sworn. And the reason of this
difference was this: in the Council of Lateran, held under Alexander
III., and in another Lateran council held under Innocent III., there
were very strict canons made against pluralities: by the first of these
councils, pluralities are restrained, and every person admitted _ad
ecclesiam, vel ecclesiasticum ministerium_, is bound to reside there,
and personally serve the cure; by the second of these councils, if any
person, having one benefice with cure of souls, accepts of a second, his
first is declared void _ipso jure_. These canons were received in
England, and are still part of our ecclesiastical law. At the first
appearance of these canons, there was no doubt made but they obliged all
rectors; for they, according to the language of the law, had churches in
title, and had _beneficium ecclesiasticum_: and of such the canons
spoke. But vicars did not then look upon themselves to be bound by these
canons, for they, as the gloss upon the decretals speaks, had not
_ecclesiam quoad titulum_; and the text of the law describes them not as
having benefices, but as bound _personis et ecclesiis deservire_; that
is, as assistant to the rector in his church.
Upon this notion practice was founded and prevailed in England, which
eluded the canons made against pluralities. A man beneficed in one
church could not accept another, without avoiding the first; but a man
possessed of a benefice could accept a vicarage under the rector in
another church, for that was no benefice in law, and therefore not
within the letter of the canon, which forbids any man holding two
benefices.
The way then of taking a second living in fraud of the canon was this: a
friend was presented, who took the institution, and had the church
_quoad titulum_: as soon as he was possessed, he constituted the person
vicar for whose benefit he took the living, and by consent of the
diocesan allotted the whole profit of the living for the vicar’s
portion, except a small matter reserved to himself.
This vicar went and resided upon his first living, for the canon reached
him where he had the benefice; but having no benefice where he had only
a vicarage, he thought himself secure against the said canons requiring
residence.
This piece of management gave occasion to several papal decrees, and to
the following constitution of Archbishop Langton, viz. “No ordinary
shall admit any one to a vicarage, who will not personally officiate
there.”—_Lyndwood_, 64.
And to another constitution of the same archbishop, by which it is
enjoined, that vicars who will be non-resident shall be
deprived.—_Lyndwood_, 131.
But the abuse still continued, and therefore Otho, in his legatine
constitutions, applied a stronger remedy, ordaining, that none shall be
admitted to a vicarage, but who, renouncing all other benefices (if he
hath any) with cure of souls, shall swear that he will make residence
there, and shall constantly so reside: otherwise his institution shall
be null, and the vicarage shall be given to another.—_Athon_, 24.
And it is upon the authority of this constitution that the oath of
residence is administered to vicars to this day. And this obligation of
vicars to residence was further enforced by a constitution of Othobon,
as followeth: If any shall detain a vicarage contrary to the aforesaid
constitution of Otho, he shall not appropriate to himself the profits
thereof, but shall restore the same; one moiety whereof shall be applied
to the use of that church, and the other moiety shall be distributed
half to the poor of the parish and half to the archdeacon. And the
archdeacon shall make diligent inquiry every year, and cause this
constitution to be strictly observed. And if he shall find that any one
detaineth a vicarage contrary to the premises, he shall forthwith notify
to the ordinary that such vicarage is vacant, who shall do what to him
belongeth in the premises; and if the ordinary shall delay to institute
another into such vicarage, he shall be suspended from collation,
institution, or presentation to any benefices until he shall comply. And
if any one shall strive to detain a vicarage contrary to the premises,
and persist in his obstinacy for a month; he shall, besides the
penalties aforesaid, be _ipso facto_ deprived of his other benefices (if
he have any); and shall be disabled for ever to hold such vicarage which
he hath so vexatiously detained, and from obtaining any other benefice
for three years. And if the archdeacon shall be remiss in the premises,
he shall be deprived of the share of the aforesaid penalty assigned to
him, and be suspended from the entrance of the church until he shall
perform his duty.—_Athon_, 95.
So that, upon the whole, the doubt was not, whether rectors were obliged
to residence; the only question was, whether vicars were also obliged;
and to enforce the residence of vicars, in like manner as of rectors,
the aforesaid constitutions were ordained.—_Sherl._ ibid. 20–22.
Canon 47. “Every beneficed man licensed by the laws of this realm, upon
urgent occasions of other service, not to reside upon his benefice,
shall cause his cure to be supplied by a curate that is a sufficient and
licensed preacher, if the worth of the benefice will bear it. But
whosoever hath two benefices, shall maintain a preacher licensed in the
benefice where he doth not reside, except he preach himself at both of
them usually.”
And by the last article of Archbishop Wake’s directions it is required,
that the bishop shall take care, as much as possible, that whosoever is
admitted to serve any cure, do reside in the parish where he is to
serve, especially in livings that are able to support a resident curate;
and where that cannot be done, that they do at least reside so near to
the place, that they may conveniently perform all their duties, both in
the church and parish.
By the faculty of dispensation, a pluralist is required, in that
benefice from which he shall happen to be most absent, to preach
thirteen sermons every year; and to exercise hospitality for two months
yearly; and, as much as in him lieth, to support and relieve the
inhabitants of that parish, especially the poor and needy.
By the 1 Will. & Mar. c. 26. If any person presented or nominated by
either of the universities to a popish benefice with cure, shall be
absent from the same above the space of sixty days in any one year; in
such case, the said benefice shall become void.—_Abridged from Burn_.
The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106 repeals the 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, and the 57 Geo.
III. c. 99, relating to residence, and provides (s. 32) that every
spiritual person holding any benefice shall keep residence on his
benefice, and in the house of residence (if any) belonging thereto; and
if any such person shall without any such licence or exemption, as is in
this act allowed for that purpose, or unless he shall be resident at
some other benefice of which he may be possessed, absent himself from
such benefice, or from such house of residence, if any, for any period
exceeding the space of three months together, or to be accounted at
several times in any one year, he shall, when such absence shall exceed
three months, and not exceed six months, forfeit one third part of the
annual value of the benefice from which he shall so absent himself; and
when such absence shall exceed six months, and not exceed eight months,
one half part of such annual value; and when such absence shall exceed
eight months, two third parts of such annual value; and when such
absence shall have been for the whole year, three fourth parts of such
annual value.
By sect. 33, the bishop may give licence to reside out of the usual
house if it be unfit, or, if there be no house, in some convenient
house, although not within such benefice.
By sect. 34, houses purchased by governors of Queen Anne’s bounty, to be
deemed the lawful houses of residence.
By sect. 41, the incumbent is bound to keep in repair the house of
residence, whether he reside in it or not. And for neglect of this he is
to be subject to all the penalties of non-residence. For various
exceptional cases, in which non-residence may be permitted, see sections
37, 38, 43, 44, &c.
By sect. 53, it is enacted, that in every year the bishop of every
diocese is to make a return to her Majesty in council of the name of
every benefice within his diocese, and the names of the several
spiritual persons holding the same respectively, distinguishing those
who are resident and those who are not resident, and stating whether
they have exemption or not.
Sect. 59 contains strong provisions for the punishment of any one who
holds a residence belonging to a benefice which has been let to him, and
refuses to vacate after the incumbent is ordered to reside, and for
enabling the incumbent to obtain possession of his residence by summary
means.
Sect. 76 provides, that the curate under certain circumstances shall be
required to reside.
This statute contains many provisions for enabling the ordinary to
provide a residence where none exists.
RESIDENTIARY. The capitular members of cathedrals, who are bound to
reside at the cathedral church, to perform the ordinary duties there,
and to attend more immediately to its concerns. In England, all
cathedrals of the old foundations have residentiaries, (canons
residentiary, as they are usually called,) the great majority of
prebendaries being nonresidentiary. Till the late parliamentary
alterations, the greatest number of residentiaries was nine, the
smallest four, the dean being always one. The following account of
residentiaries is abridged from _Churton’s_ admirable and instructive
Life of _Dean Nowell_, (pp. 313, _et seq._)
We learn from the ancient statutes of St. Paul’s, that it was customary
in early days for all the canons or prebendaries to reside, being thirty
in number; and when, in process of time, many, by mutual connivance,
withdrew themselves to their cures or avocations elsewhere, the
remaining few bound themselves by a new oath, to reside, and attend the
duties of the Church.... At length the residentiaries were reduced to
two only.... Bishop Braybrooke, to remedy this abuse, having interposed
his authority, the matter was referred to arbitration of the Crown, by
whom, in 1399, an order was made that residence should thereafter be
kept according to the form of the Sarum Missal.... In Dean Colet’s time
the statutes were revised, and it was ordered, that as the burdens of
St. Paul’s were heavy, and the patrimony slender, there should in future
be, under the dean as head, four, and only four, canons resident;
eligible, as before, out of the senior prebendaries, offering themselves
and protesting their residence, as formerly, at one of the quarterly
feasts; when, if none came forward, some one should be invited to accept
the office, and in case of refusal, be amerced by some pecuniary fine.
The residentiaries of St. Paul’s, (p. 312,) though, in point of form,
they are elective by the dean and chapter, are virtually, however, as is
well known, in the patronage of the Crown; and upon every vacancy that
occurs, a letter missive from his Majesty recommending some clerk, who
is previously a prebendary by the collation of the bishop of London, is
as certain in its operation, as the _congè d’élire_ for the election of
a bishop: by resistance, in one case, as well as the other, a
_præmunire_ would be incurred. Archdeacon Churton adds, (p. 316,) that
“in the cathedral of Lincoln, the custom, in ancient times, was similar
to what appears to have been the rule in St. Paul’s. Of the numerous
body of prebendaries, members of that church, any one who chose it, used
to protest in chapter his intention to become a residentiary, and they
were obliged to admit him accordingly, upon taking the usual oath. A
practice so variable and uncertain as this, being found inconvenient in
many respects, it was settled and agreed in a general chapter, about
three hundred years ago, with the concurrence of the bishops, that the
number of residentiaries should be limited to four, who were to be the
four _principal persons_ (see _Persona_) of the church, as the dean,
precentor, chancellor, and subdean. An alteration not very dissimilar
took place at a later period, 1697, in the church of York; when, in
consequence of a representation from the dean and chapter, the number of
residentiaries was reduced, under a writ of privy seal, from six to
four, now, as formerly, in the nomination of the dean.”
To these observations of Archdeacon Churton may be added, that at
Chichester, the chapter called on whom they pleased to reside, generally
observing seniority. The same rule prevailed at Hereford, where the
residentiaries are still elected by the chapter. In most cathedrals
residence was _protested_ (as stated above) at one of the great
chapters. Forty days’ notice was given at Lichfield. (See _Dugdale’s
Monasticon_, ed. 1830, and _Dugdale’s St. Paul’s_.) The present number
of residentiaries at Exeter was fixed by Bishop Ward, in 1663.
From the ancient documents appended to Dugdale’s History of St. Paul’s,
it appears by more than one explicit declaration, that all the
residentiaries were required to reside together, not merely dividing the
year between them, according to the present most reprehensible
arrangement. They were allowed to serve no other church whatever. They
were required _to be all present together at all services on Sundays and
greater holidays_, and so to manage between themselves on ordinary week
days, that one at least should be present at each one of them [and it
must be remembered that the daily services were then more numerous than
now]. And if they neglected this perpetual residence, from which only
occasional absence, as to parish clergymen from their cures, was
permitted, they were not considered as entitled to their emoluments; and
their neglect is censured in the old records, in terms of the strongest
reprobation.
RESIGNATION. 1. A resignation is, where a parson, vicar, or other
beneficed clergyman, voluntarily gives up and surrenders his charge and
preferment to those from whom he received the same.—_Deg._ p. i. c. 14.
2. That ordinary who hath the power of institution, hath power also to
accept of a resignation made of the same church to which he may
institute; and therefore the respective bishop, or other person who,
either by patent under him, or by privilege or prescription, hath the
power of institution, are the proper persons to whom a resignation ought
to be made. And yet a resignation of a deanery in the king’s gift may be
made to the king; as of the deanery of Wells. And some hold, that the
resignation may well be made to the king of a prebend that is no
donative: but others, on the contrary, have held, that a resignation of
a prebend ought to be made only to the ordinary of the diocese, and not
to the king as supreme ordinary; because the king is not bound to give
notice to the patron (as the ordinary is) of the resignation; nor can
the king make a collation by himself without presenting to the bishop,
notwithstanding his supremacy.—2 _Roll’s Abr._ 358. _Watson_, c. 4.
And resignation can only be made to a superior: this is a maxim in the
temporal law, and is applied by Lord Coke to the ecclesiastical law,
when he says, that therefore a bishop cannot resign to the dean and
chapter, but it must be to the metropolitan from whom he received
confirmation and consecration.—_Gibson_, 822.
And it must be made to the next immediate superior, and not to the
mediate; as of a church presentative to the bishop, and not to the
metropolitan.—2 _Roll’s Abr._ 358.
But donatives are not resignable to the ordinary; but to the patron, who
hath power to admit.—_Gibson_, 822.
And if there be two patrons of a donative and the incumbent resign to
one of them, it is good for the whole.—_Deg._ p. i. c. 14.
3. Regularly resignation must be made in person, and not by proxy. There
is indeed a writ in the register, entitled, _litera procuratoria ad
resignandum_, by which the person constituted proctor was enabled to do
all things necessary to be done in order to an exchange; and, of these
things, resignation was one. And Lyndwood supposeth, that any
resignation may be made by proctor. But in practice there is no way (as
it seemeth) of resigning, but either to do it by personal appearance
before the ordinary, or at least to do it elsewhere before a public
notary, by an instrument directed immediately to the ordinary, and
attested by the said notary; in order to be presented to the ordinary,
by such proper hand as may pray his acceptance. In which case the person
presenting the instrument to the ordinary doth not resign _nomine
procuratorio_, as proctors do; but only presents the resignation of the
person already made.—_Gibson_, 822. _Deg._ p. i. c. 14. _Watson_, c. 4.
4. A collateral condition may not be annexed to the resignation, no more
than an ordinary may admit upon condition, or a judgment be confessed
upon condition, which are judicial acts.—_Watson_, c. 4.
For the words of resignation have always been, _pure_, _sponte_,
_absolute_, _et simpliciter_; to exclude all indirect bargains, not only
for money, but for other considerations. And therefore, in _Gayton’s
case_, E. 24 Eliz., where the resignation was to the use of two persons
therein named, and further limited with this condition, that if one of
the two was not admitted to the benefice resigned within six months, the
resignation should be void and of none effect; such resignation, by
reason of the condition, was declared to be absolutely void.—_God._ 277.
_Gibs._ 821. 1 _Still._ 334.
But where the resignation is made for the sake of exchange only, there
it admits of this condition, viz. if the exchange shall take full
effect, and not otherwise; as appears by the form of resignation, which
is in the register.—_Gibson_, 821.
By a constitution of Othobon: Whereas sometimes a man resigneth his
benefices that he may obtain a vacant see; and bargaineth with the
collator, that if he be not elected to the bishopric, he shall have his
benefices again; we do decree, that they shall not be restored to him,
but shall be conferred upon others, as lawfully void. And if they be
restored to him, the same shall be of no effect; and he who shall so
restore him, after they have been resigned into his hands, or shall
institute the resigner into them again, if he is a bishop, he shall be
supended from the use of his dalmatic and pontificals; and if he is an
inferior prelate, he shall be suspended from his office until he shall
think fit to revoke the same.—_Athon_, 134.
5. No resignation can be valid till accepted by the proper ordinary;
that is, no person appointed to a cure of souls can quit that cure, or
discharge himself of it, but upon good motives, to be approved by the
superior who committed it to him; for it may be he would quit it for
money, or to live idly, or the like. And this is the law temporal, as
well as spiritual; as appears by that plain resolution which hath been
given, that all presentations made to benefices resigned, before such
acceptance, are void. And there is no pretence to say, that the ordinary
is obliged to accept; since the law hath appointed no known remedy if he
will not accept, any more than if he will not ordain.—_Gibs._ 822. 1
_Still._ 334.
Lyndwood makes a distinction in this case, between a cure of souls and a
sinecure. The resignation of a sinecure, he thinks, is good immediately,
without the superior’s consent; because none but he that resigneth hath
interest in that case. But where there is a cure of souls it is
otherwise; because not he only hath interest but others also unto whom
he is bound to preach the word of GOD; wherefore in this case it is
necessary, that there be the ratification of the bishop, or of such
other person as hath power by right or custom to admit such
resignation.—_Gibson_, 823.
Thus in the case of the _Marchioness of Rockingham_ and _Griffith_, Mar.
22, 1755, Dr. Griffith being possessed of the two rectories of Leythley
and Thurnsco, in order that he might be capacitated to accept another
living which became vacant, to wit, the rectory of Handsworth, executed
an instrument of resignation of the rectory of Leythley aforesaid,
before a notary public, which was tendered to and left with the
archbishop of York, the ordinary of the place within which Leythley is
situate. It was objected, that here doth not appear to have been any
acceptance of the resignation by the archbishop, and that without his
acceptance the said rectory of Leythley could not become void. And it
was held by the lord chancellor clearly, that the ordinary’s acceptance
of the resignation is absolutely necessary to make an avoidance. But
whether in this case there was a proper resignation and acceptance
thereof, he reserved for further consideration; and in the mean time
recommended it to the archbishop, to produce the resignation in court.
Afterwards, on the 17th of April, 1755, the cause came on again to be
heard, and the resignation was then produced. But the counsel for the
executors of the late marquis declaring that they did not intend to make
any further opposition, the lord chancellor gave no opinion upon the
resignation, or the effect of it; but in the course of the former
argument he held, that the acceptance of a resignation by the ordinary
is necessary to make it effectual, and that it is in the power of the
ordinary to accept or refuse a resignation.
And in the case of _Hesket_ and _Grey_, H. 28 Geo. II., where a general
bond of resignation was put in suit, and the defendant pleaded that he
offered to resign, but the ordinary would not accept the resignation;
the court of King’s Bench were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary
is a judicial officer, and is intrusted with a judicial power to accept
or refuse a resignation as he thinks proper; and judgment was given for
the plaintiff.
6. After acceptance of the resignation, lapse shall not run but from the
time of notice given: it is true the church is void immediately upon
acceptance, and the patron may present if he please; but as to lapse,
the general rule that is here laid down is the unanimous doctrine of all
the books. Insomuch that if the bishop who accepted the resignation dies
before notice given, the six months shall not commence till notice is
given, by the guardian of the spiritualities, or by the succeeding
bishop; with whom the act of resignation is presumed to
remain.—_Gibson_, 823.
7. By the 31 Eliz. c. 6, s. 8. If any incumbent of any benefice with
cure of souls shall corruptly resign the same; or corruptly take for or
in respect of the resigning the same, directly or indirectly, any
pension, sum of money, or other benefit whatsoever, as well the giver as
the taker of any such pension, sum of money, or other benefit corruptly,
shall lose double the value of the sum so given, taken, or had; half to
the queen, and half to him that shall sue for the same in any of her
Majesty’s courts of record.—_Abridged from Burn._
On the subject of general bonds of resignation, see _Simony_.
The following are the forms of resignation now in use:—
No. 1.
_Act of Resignation to be executed before a Notary Public and credible
Witnesses._
In the name of GOD, Amen. Before you, a notary public, and credible
witnesses here present, I ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——,
for certain just and lawful causes me thereunto especially moving,
without compulsion, fraud, or deceit, do purely, simply, and absolutely
resign and give up my said ——, and parish church of ——, with all their
rights, members, and appurtenances, into the hands of the Right Reverend
Father in GOD ——, by Divine permission lord bishop ——, or of any other
whomsoever, having or that shall have power to admit this my
resignation. And I totally renounce my right, title, and possession of,
in, and to the same, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances
heretofore had, and hitherto belonging to me; I quit them, and expressly
recede from them by these presents. And that this my resignation may
have its full effect, I do hereby nominate and appoint ——, jointly and
severally my proctors or substitutes, to exhibit this my resignation to
the said right reverend father, and in my name to pray that his lordship
would graciously vouchsafe to accept thereof, and to pronounce, decree,
and declare the —— of ——, aforesaid, void and to be void of my person to
all intents of law that may follow thereupon: and to decree, if
requisite, that intimation of the said avoidance may be issued to the
patron thereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal
this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.
Witnesses present, ——
No. 2.
_Attestation of the Notary Public._
On the —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—, the Rev. ——, clerk,
—— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, appeared personally
before me, the under-written notary public, and resigned, gave up, and
surrendered his said ——, and appointed —— his proctors, jointly and
severally to exhibit his resignation, hereunto annexed, to the Right
Reverend Father in GOD ——, lord bishop of ——, and did and performed all
other things as in his said resignation, hereunto annexed, is
particularly specified and set forth, in the presence of witnesses
attesting the same.
Which I attest, ——
Notary Public.
No. 3.
_Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation._
We accept the resignation of the ——, in the county of ——, and our
diocese of ——, as it is exhibited to us by ——, one of the proctors
therein named, and we do declare the said —— void, and to be void of the
person of the within named ——, the party resigning, to all intents of
law that may follow thereupon, and do decree that an intimation of such
avoidance, if requisite, be issued to the patron thereof.
Dated this —— day of ——, in the year of our LORD 185—.
No. 4.
_Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it
is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself._
185—.
I am desired by the Lord Bishop of —— to inform you, that his lordship
accepted the Rev. —— resignation of the —— of ——, in the county of ——,
and diocese of ——, on the —— of ——, and declared the same void.
Please to acknowledge the receipt of this notice.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient servant,
——
Secretary.
RESPOND. Before the Reformation a short anthem was so called, which was
sung after reading three or four verses of a chapter; after which the
chapter proceeded.
RESPOND. A half pillar attached to a wall, to support one side of an
arch, of which the other side rests on a pillar. It has its name from
_responding_ or _answering_ to a pillar.
RESPONSE. In the Church service, an answer made by the people speaking
alternately with the minister. The use of responses is not to be viewed
as a mere incidental peculiarity of liturgical services, but rather as a
fundamental characteristic of Divine worship. Responses were not made
for liturgies, but liturgies for responses. Many of the psalms are
constructed on the responsive model, because this was a prior trait of
the worship of the sanctuary; and it is an error to suppose that
responses were introduced because these psalms happened to be in
alternate verses. GOD’S worship is an act in which both minister and
people are concerned. This worship the Church requires to be both mental
and vocal, and has ordered her ritual accordingly,—not degrading the
priest to a proxy, nor the congregation to an audience; but providing
for supplications and thanksgivings, which, like herself, shall be
strong because united. It should be deemed a high privilege by the
churchman, that he is permitted to lift up his voice in prayer, as well
as in praise, “in the congregation of the saints;” that he may openly
profess his confidence in the FATHER of all, and his trust in the “LAMB
OF GOD who taketh away the sin of the world;” that he may join aloud in
the “solemn litany,” and cry for grace whereby he may keep GOD’S holy
law for the time to come. In ages past the privilege was prized. Men
were not ashamed, in primitive days, to confess CHRIST before the world,
and, as it were, to rend the heavens with their fervent appeals. Neither
was it by an ecclesiastical fiction, but in solemn reality, that they
sung, “Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of
heaven, WE LAUD AND MAGNIFY THY GLORIOUS NAME.” May the time come when
such devotion shall again adorn the “spacious courts” of Zion; when the
vague murmur of confession, and the languid tones of penitence, the
silent creed, and the smothered prayer, shall give place to the earnest
and nervous expression of spiritual concern, and the animating testimony
of devout gratitude!
It was a very ancient practice of the Jews to recite their public hymns
and prayers by course, and many of the Fathers assure us that the
primitive Christians imitated them therein; so that there is no old
liturgy which does not contain such short and devout sentences as these,
wherein the people answer the priest, and which are therefore called
“responses.” This primitive usage, which is now excluded not only from
Popish assemblies by their praying in an unknown tongue, but also from
those of our Protestant Dissenters by the device of a long extempore
prayer, is still maintained in the Church of England; which allows the
people their ancient right of bearing part in the service for these good
reasons: First, hereby the consent of the congregation to what we pray
for is declared; and it is this unity of mind and voice, and this
agreement in prayer, which hath the promise of prevailing. (Rom. xv. 6;
Matt. xviii. 19.) Secondly, this grateful variety and different manner
of address serves to quicken the people’s devotion. Thirdly, it engages
their attention, which is apt to wander, especially in sacred things;
and, since they have a duty to perform, causes them to be expectant and
ready to perform it. Let all those, then, who attend the public service,
gratefully embrace the privilege which the Church allows them, and make
their responses gravely and with an audible voice.—_Dean Comber._
But it must be remembered, both here and elsewhere, when our prayers to
GOD are divided into such small portions as we call “versicles,” that
the people are to join _mentally_ in that part which the minister
utters, as well as in that which they are directed to pronounce
themselves. And so the minister, in like manner, must join in what the
people utter, as well as in his own part. For otherwise they do not join
in prayer. Besides, if this be not done, we shall frequently offer to
GOD that which has but an imperfect sense. For instance, in this place,
these words, “and our mouth shall show forth thy praise,” do so
manifestly depend upon what the minister spake just before, that the
sense of the one is not perfect without the other. It is true the Church
requires, that the minister shall say the one, and the people the other
portion; that is, the one portion shall be vocally uttered by the
minister, and the other portion shall be vocally uttered by the people,
alternately and by way of responses; but yet both the minister and the
people ought mentally to offer, and to speak to GOD, what is vocally
offered and spoken by the other party respectively, for the reasons
already given. And, that both the minister and the congregation may be
the better able to do this, they should respectively take care, that
they do not confound and disturb each other by beginning their several
portions too soon. The minister’s first versicle should be finished,
before the people utter a word of the second; and the people should have
time enough to finish the second, before the minister begins the third,
&c.: so that both the minister and people may have time enough
deliberately to offer every portion, and make, all of them together, one
continued act of devotion. The same rule must be observed in all those
psalms and hymns which are used alternately.—_Dr. Bennet._ (See
_Versicle_.)
The Responses, or _Responsals_, as some writers call them, may be said
to be of four kinds: First, those which consist of _Amen_ after the
prayers: Secondly, those which follow the versicles or suffrages:
Thirdly, those which are repetitions of what the minister has said, as
in the confession, some parts of the Litany, &c.: and Fourthly, the
short prayers or anthems, interposed between each commandment in the
Communion Service.
RESPONSORIES, or RESPONDS. These, in the unreformed ritual, are short
verses from Scripture, repeated as verse and response, after the lessons
at matins. Hence perhaps it is that the hymns after our lessons have
sometimes incorrectly been called _responses_; a term, however, which in
this sense seems nearly obsolete. It is to these _responsories_ that
allusion is made in the Preface “concerning the Service of the Church,”
in our Prayer Book. “For this cause he cut off Anthems, Responds,
Invitations, and such like things as did break the continual course of
the reading of the Scriptures.” Here is not meant _responses per se_;
for these our reformers most carefully retained; not anthems per se, as
these are prescribed in their proper places; but the ancient custom was
corrected, which after every three or four verses of a lesson interposed
a respond, &c., so as to interrupt the service; the sequel being taken
up when the respond was finished.—_Jebb._
RESTORATION. The name generally given to the happy return of the Church
of England to the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity, and to their
allegiance to the lawful prince, Charles II., which took place in 1660;
a happy event, for which Christian people cannot be too thankful, and of
which, and all the dreadful evils from which it delivered them, they
cannot be too often reminded. It has been accordingly appointed by
authority, that the 29th of May, in every year, shall be kept with
prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty GOD for these unspeakable mercies.
RESURRECTION. There are many passages in the Old Testament, which either
obscurely hint at the resurrection, or immediately refer to it. (Job
xix. 23–27; Dan. xii. 2; Isa. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea vi. 2; xiii. 14;
Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.) It follows, indeed, from an acceptance of the
promise of a redeemer. A redeemer was promised as a blessing to Adam and
the patriarchs; but when Adam and the first patriarchs died, how was the
coming of the REDEEMER to be a blessing to them? The answer is given by
Job: “I know that my REDEEMER liveth, and that at the latter day he
shall stand upon the earth; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes
shall behold;” i. e. by being raised from the dead. The doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian
faith. We believe that JESUS died and rose again; we also believe, for
so we are taught in the New Testament, that “them which sleep in JESUS
will GOD bring with him,” that “CHRIST by his rising became the
first-fruits of them that slept,” that “the dead shall be raised
incorruptible,” that “the grave and the sea shall give up their dead,”
that at this resurrection “the dead in CHRIST shall rise first,” that
the LORD JESUS CHRIST will change “our vile body, and fashion it like
unto his glorious body, according to the working of that mighty power
whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” (1 Thess. iv.
14–16; 1 Cor. xv. 20–52; Rev. xx. 13; Phil. iii. 21.)
As CHRIST, the “first-fruits of them that sleep,” (1 Cor. xv. 20,) arose
from the dead, so shall there be also a general RESURRECTION OF THE
BODY; for he “that raised up CHRIST from the dead shall also quicken our
mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11.) A seeming difficulty, however, attends
the latter case, which does not the former. The body of CHRIST did not
“see corruption;” but we know that in our case, “after the skin worms
shall destroy the body itself,” and that “yet in our flesh shall we see
GOD.” (Job xix. 26.) We must, therefore, believe that this resurrection,
however apparently difficult, is not impossible, for with him by whom we
are to be raised “all things are possible.” We know that by him “the
very hairs of the head are all numbered;” and he “who measures the
waters in the hollow of his hand,” and “comprehends the dust of the
earth,” (Isa. xl. 12,) whose “eyes” could “see our substance,” “made in
secret,” and “yet being imperfect” (Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16,) can be at no
loss to distinguish the different particles of every different body,
whether it be crumbled into dust, or dissipated into air, or sublimated
by fire. He, too, the artificer of the body so “fearfully and
wonderfully made,” (Ps. cxxxix. 14,) can be at no loss to reunite the
innumerable and widely scattered atoms; for these shall not perish; and
with equal ease reform the man, as he originally made him.
The union of the immortal soul to the companion made for it, (then
become more pure and glorified,) after they have existed together in
this transitory life, is also highly probable; nor is it less so, that
this should be the case as man is an accountable agent, intended to
enjoy eternal happiness, or suffer eternal misery—decreed to “receive
the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it
be good or bad.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) It is also typified by many things
around us: the constant succession of death and revivification—the night
is followed by a new day—the winter, the death of the year, is followed
by the spring, and the renewal of vegetation; the “grain” sown is not
requickened except it first “die,” and is buried in the ground and
brought to corruption.
By this is Reason prepared to assent to Revelation; and therefore, as it
has been prophesied that, notwithstanding this destruction of the body,
yet in our “flesh” shall we “see GOD,” and our “eyes shall behold him”
(Job xix. 26); that the “dead men shall live,” and with the “dead body,
arise;” for “the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa. xxvi. 19,) and
that they that “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan.
xii. 2,) so shall it be accomplished: “there shall be a resurrection of
the dead” (Acts xxiv. 15); “the hour is coming when the dead—all that
are in the grave—shall hear the voice of the SON of GOD,” and “shall
come forth;” the “sea” and “death and hell” (or the grave) “shall
deliver up the dead which are in them” (Rev. xx. 13).
This our LORD, who calls himself “the Resurrection and the Life,” (John
xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who
was then the GOD of their fathers “is not the GOD of the dead, but of
the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by
most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of
the dead, then is “CHRIST not risen;” and then is their “faith” vain;
and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, as CHRIST is risen, “the
first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the
probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor.
XV. 12–23, 35–49.)
It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as
it “hath pleased” GOD to give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in
corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual
body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house”
shall have “a building of GOD” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall
“put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not
sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet the LORD.”
(1 Thess. iv. 17.)
We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the
glory of GOD’S eternal government, “the hand of the LORD shall be known
towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa.
lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought
life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under
“afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our
“REDEEMER liveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which
have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have
always a conscience void of offence toward GOD and toward men” (Acts
xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living GOD!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always
abounding in the work of the LORD; forasmuch as we know that our labour
in the LORD is not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)
REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of
religion. (See _Bible_, _Scripture_.)
(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things.
This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations
made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin
Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of
the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never
disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of
certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its
authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of
Scripture, or of its Divine origin. Indeed, few books of the New
Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the
Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i.
19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2.
“Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church,
its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.
REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to
ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the
bishop of Meath, being styled _most reverend_, and the bishops _right
reverend_. Deans are _very reverend_. In foreign churches, where females
are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are
called _reverend mothers_. It was so in our own Church before the
Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to
the service of GOD, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated
at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous
Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the
Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as
implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because of GOD
only it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But
dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few
clergymen refuse it. The title of _reverend_ was frequently given, so
late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.
RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (See _Justification_ and
_Sanctification_.)
RING, _in holy matrimony_. Immediately after the mutual promises or
stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony
occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this
is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow
and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that
the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and
participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the
office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a
sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and
highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is
probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former
seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.
Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the
ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and
Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how
noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our
respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger
of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came
directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being
a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But
the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of
this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary
bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge
and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so
prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not
deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring
in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by
ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.
Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely,
_the ring_, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were
signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign
that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest
friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our
authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen.
xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was
used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the
Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse
a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus
it hath been used ever since.—_Dean Comber._
The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the
covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a
permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so
it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously
observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—_Shepherd._
RING, _in investitures_. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their
consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et
honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt,
aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was
worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the
right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of the Church in
her representative, the bishop.
Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual
character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes
unjustly usurped by temporal princes.
RITES. (Lat. _ritus_.) Religious observances prescribed by competent
authority.
It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few
rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some
general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as,
“Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom.
xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many
rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no
man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many
distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them
practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of
mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same
things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit
for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s
thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given
in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is
necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things.
This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law
of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be
varied according to the diversities of mankind. (See _Article 34_.)
The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of
it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in
rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours
round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered
idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they
had many rites among them in our SAVIOUR’S time, which are not mentioned
in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of
their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to
them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the
paschal service. Our SAVIOUR reproved them for none of these: he went to
their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their
rites, for preferring them to the laws of GOD, and making these void by
their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And,
while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have
done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to
have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)
If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems
highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that
there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the
different state of times and places should require. In such rules we
ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission
in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obey GOD
rather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render to
GOD the things that are GOD’S,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that
are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have
power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent
given them—that, till they break in upon the laws of GOD and the gospel,
we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they
have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything
that is not forbid by any law of GOD. This is the only measure that can
be given in this matter.—_Bp. Burnet._ (See _Ceremonies_.)
RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be
observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the
sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order,
in the performance of sacred offices.
Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in
the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one
volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the
offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist,
baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly
divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, the
_breviary_, the _missal_ or liturgical book, the _ritual_, and the
_pontifical_. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the
English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual,
(termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere,
_manual_,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a
presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a
bishop could perform.
The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greek Church, illustrated with notes
by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant
information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the
East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites
or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the
Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.”
Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western,
are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.”
The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional
offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his
work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable
industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and
collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is
scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly
elucidated.
ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their
ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet,
however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced
further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between
this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and
that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not
perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very
wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now
improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.
Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under
the title of _linea_; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by
bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their
ordinary garment in public.
Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a
scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI.,
they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the
rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the
black satin chimere used at present.—_History of Convocations_, p. 141.
(See _Chimere_.)
The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the
middle ages, and called _mantelletum_; which was a sort of cope, with
apertures for the arms to pass through. (See _Du Cange’s Glossary_.)
In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other
episcopal ornaments.
ROGATION DAYS. (So called from _rogare_, “to beseech.”) They are three
days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or
Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in
the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical
supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and
the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied
with public processions, which continued till the æra of the
Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to
continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no
office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the
Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one
designed for the improvement of these days. (See _Perambulation_.) The
requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and
exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in
the Rogation days. (See _Perambulation_.)
ROMANISM. (See _Pope_ and _Popery_, _Church of Rome_, _Council of
Trent_.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural
propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.
In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may
state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting
work on the “Verities of the Church.”
1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal,
autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.
2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.
3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.
4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of our LORD, to
the laity.
5. Compulsory auricular confession.
6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.
7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.
8. Transubstantiation.
9. The invention of purgatory.
10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.
11. Limitation of the Catholic Church of CHRIST to one episcopate.
12. The image and relic system.
13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.
14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.
15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special
permission.
(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of
England, see _Abjuration_.)
ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and
discipline of the Church of Rome.
The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its
discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (See
_Church of Rome_, _Baptism_, _Eucharist_, &c., _Bishops_, _Presbyters_,
_Deacons_, &c., &c., &c.)
We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the
Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive
Church. These are:
1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.
2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the
host in the eucharist.
3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.
4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.
5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.
6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the
civil magistrate.
7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.
8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.
9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.
10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving
magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence
of discipline.
11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately, _Hoc est
corpus meum_, instead of public and audible prayer.
12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.
13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.
14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.
15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.
16. Allowing of mendicants.
17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.
18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.
19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.
20. Private and solitary mass.
21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.
22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.
23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.
24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.
25. Commutation of penance.
20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.
27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.
28. Swearing by the creatures.
29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.
30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.
31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.
The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the
Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.
“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were
relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them,
procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still
remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes
which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their
discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the
punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or
refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1
Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for
non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other
statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to
send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all
civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament,
and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at
parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the
means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of
treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express
provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious
worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their
condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some
enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.
“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural
progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this
time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the
reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or,
according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably
declined. A Report presented to William, divides the _freeholders_ of
England and Wales, as follows—
Conformists 2,477,254
Nonconformists 108,676
Papists 13,856
—————————
2,599,786
And the number of _persons_ of the Roman Catholic faith is said to be
only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies,
sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes,
had occurred since the period of the Reformation.
“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place
for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times
grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the
throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the
laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further
measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman
Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III.,
the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of
mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman
Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all
the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial
act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William
III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by
descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance
of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt,
(having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous
opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he
cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and
that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify
a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill,
by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics
were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts.
They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation
Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices,
were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were
disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these
remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many
years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this
intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of only _four_:
while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower
House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and
Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same
amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.
“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the
Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels
making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number of
_attendants_ on the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27
chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was:
_Morning_, 252,783; _Afternoon_, 53,967; _Evening_, 76,880. It will be
observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the
number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman
Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by
different individuals.”
ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in
parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which the _rood_
(i. e. the figure of our Blessed LORD on the cross) was placed, and on
either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches,
the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes
contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood
lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.
ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was
formerly the rood loft.
ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the
description of a timber roof.
_Beam._—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and
stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is
either a _tie-beam_, extending from wall to wall; a _collar-beam_,
connecting the principals near the ridge; or a _hammer-beam_, extending
horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal
rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by
its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar,
that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical
construction.
_King-post._ The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and
rising to the ridge.
_Rafters._ Timbers rising from the wall, and inclined towards each other
till they meet at the _ridge_. The _principal rafters_ are let into the
beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and
together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form the
_truss_, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the
vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.
_Purlin._ A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on
the principal, and bearing the common rafters.
_Braces._ Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places
and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.
_Wall-plate._ A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to
receive the beams.
_Wall-piece._ The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a
hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very
valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle
Ages.”
ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to
piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens
of beads, to direct the reciting so many _Ave Marias_ in honour of the
Blessed Virgin.
Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then
he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say a _Pater_ and three _Aves_,
on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three
persons in the TRINITY. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes
on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of
each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the
devotion of the rosary.
Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in
use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more
celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict,
others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.
ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the
seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism
with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical
constitution of things. Their name is derived from _ros_, “dew,” which
they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; and _crux_, the
“cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure
of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the word
_lux_. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is
the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold
is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the
philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These
absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would
be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems
to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything
which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were
made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all
others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the
following summary:
At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and
a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at
Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.
These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his
son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber,
and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit
of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a
great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and
flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined,
and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports
are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more
eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the
same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common
principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of
union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by
the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true
wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all
acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature
and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the
kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of
nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to
express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of
divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe,
which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others
mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure
and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things, of
the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular
influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various
species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out
the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure,
quaint, and unusual expressions.
RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in
Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red
character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called
Rubrics, from the Latin _rubrica_ (_pro ruberica_, _à rubra_, _subaud.
terra_, red earth; thence any _red_ colour). All the clergy of England
solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.
The _rubric_, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and
promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws.
For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level
with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our
occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of
obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both
ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of
priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before
our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our
congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent,
as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these
several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious
performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of
Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And
seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these
engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship
and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to
carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get
possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again,
as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and
seeing that we have entered (as we have professed) _ex animo_ into this
covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as
there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that
the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private
conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our
parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in
some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely
we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the
case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches
of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of
them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with
ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to which GOD and
the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our
personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have
not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption
or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other
merely statutable or canonical matters?
This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to
observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this
proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which
perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places
of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the
minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting,
or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that
which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him.
I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or
admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise
than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under
several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we
are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other
ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under
some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to
it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the
clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule
instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so
it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of
conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of
his engagements to the Church.—_Archdeacon Sharpe._
RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the
Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor,
in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.
The proper authority and jurisdiction of rural deans, perhaps, may be
best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was
anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear,
diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the
deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause
to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my
Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item,
I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every
consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father in GOD, or
his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my
deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed.
Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently
inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father in GOD,
or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said
deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or
vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished
or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently
inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names,
as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will
of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased
intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father in GOD
J., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands;
neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything
that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and
maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—_God. Append._
From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution
of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and
manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report
the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of
the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power
to convene rural chapters.—_Gibson._
Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their
curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor.
These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or
at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those
of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of
the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to
three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month,
at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ,
or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were
assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house,
and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All
rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these
chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in
their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent
business detained from there appearing and presiding in such
convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or
vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one
church within the district where the minister of the place was to
_procure for_, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate
officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented,
there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of
people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford,
in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held
in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent
parishes.—_Kennedy._
And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm
after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of
rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—_Gibson._
In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the
office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people,
and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we
find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, that
_the priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the
rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of
excommunication_.
And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that
Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently
present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect
take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the
First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,”
says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, and
_sometimes_ by the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may
date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to
the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of them had been; but
also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the
business that had been usually transacted there, to their own
visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton,
to their own chapter.—_Gibson._
And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy
and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the
episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end
of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general
visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the
standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to
deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to
propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient
episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of
the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in
the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the
archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban
and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their
division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to
the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the
practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil
synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the
information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon
the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as
members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two
proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to
assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still
keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an
election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place
for every deanery.—_Kennedy._
At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest
rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this
respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April
3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished
his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found
in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be
worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over
others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be
rural deans.”
But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most
dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places
been held with much apparent advantage.
In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have
discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title of
_Dean_ however, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In
most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.
RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an
introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed
between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here
principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of
Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was
certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased,
since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass
in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a
genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in
that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.
The history recorded in this book, is that of Ruth, a Moabitish woman,
who, coming to Bethlehem, and being married to Boaz her kinsman, bare to
him Obed, who was the grandfather of David. In this story are observable
the ancient rights of kindred and redemption, and the manner of buying
the inheritance of the deceased; with other particulars of great note
and antiquity.
It is difficult to determine under what judge the history of Ruth
happened. Some place it in the government of Ehud or Shamgar; and others
about the beginning of the time when Eli judged Israel.
SABAOTH. A Hebrew word, signifying _hosts_ or _armies_. JEHOVAH SABAOTH
is the LORD of Hosts. “Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Sabaoth.”
SABBATARIANS, are so called from their keeping the seventh day of the
week as the sabbath; whilst Christians in general keep the first day of
the week, or Sunday, in memory of our SAVIOUR’S having risen that day
from the dead. On the continent they are generally, but improperly,
called Israelites. It is uncertain when they first made their
appearance; but we learn from Fuller that there were Sabbatarians in
1633.
They object to the reasons which are generally alleged for keeping the
first day; and they insist that the change of the sabbath from the
seventh to the first day of the week, did not take place till the
beginning of the fourth century, when it was effected by the emperor
Constantine, on his conversion to Christianity. A summary of their
principles, as to this article of the sabbath, by which they stand
distinguished, is contained in the three following propositions:—1. That
GOD has required the observance of the seventh, or last, day of every
week, to be observed by mankind universally for the weekly sabbath. 2.
That this command of GOD is perpetually binding on man till time shall
be no more. And 3. That this sacred rest of the seventh day sabbath, is
not changed by Divine authority, from the seventh and last to the first
day of the week; or, that the Scripture nowhere requires the observance
of any other day of the week for the weekly sabbath, but the seventh day
only, which is still kept by the Jews, to whom the law on this subject
was given. These are much more consistent in their rejection of all the
subsidiary helps of antiquity in interpreting the Scriptures, than those
Protestants who observe the first day of the week with Judaical
strictness.
SABBATH, REST. Sabbath day, the day of rest. The sabbath day, strictly
speaking, is Saturday, the observance of which is not considered
obligatory by Christians. But the term is sometimes applied to the
LORD’S day, which is regarded as a feast by the Church universal. (See
_Lord’s Day_.)
SABELLIANS, were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to
others, a bishop of Libya, who was the founder of the sect.
Sabellius flourished early in the third century, and his doctrine seems
to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was
soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author
by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263.
Sabellius taught that there was but one person in the GODHEAD; and, in
confirmation of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: as a man,
though composed of body and soul, is but one person, so GOD, though he
is FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians
reduced the three persons in the TRINITY to three characters or
relations, and maintained that the WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are only
virtues, emanations, or functions of the Deity; that he who is in heaven
is the FATHER of all things; that he descended into the Virgin, became a
child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having accomplished the
mystery of our redemption, he diffused himself upon the apostles in
tongues of fire, and was then denominated the HOLY GHOST.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the _indwelling_
scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not
precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is
chiefly founded on a false and unauthorized sense of that passage in the
New Testament, where the apostle, speaking of CHRIST, says, “In him
dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” Dr. Watts, towards the
close of his life, introduced the Sabellian heresy, and wrote several
pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the TRINITY appear to have
been, that “the GODHEAD, the DEITY itself, personally distinguished as
the FATHER, was united to the man CHRIST JESUS, in consequence of which
union or indwelling of the GODHEAD he became properly GOD.” Mr. Palmer
observes that Dr. Watts conceived this union to have subsisted before
the SAVIOUR’S appearance in the flesh, and that the human soul of CHRIST
existed with the FATHER from before the foundation of the world; on
which ground he maintains the real descent of CHRIST from heaven to
earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation, which he thought
incompatible with the common opinion concerning him. Dr. Doddridge is
supposed to have entertained the same sentiments.
SACRAMENT. (See _Seven Sacraments_.) In classical writers, observes
Bishop Kaye, in his learned treatise on Tertullian, the word
_sacramentum_ means an oath or promise ratified by a sacred or religious
ceremony: thus, the oath taken by the military was called _sacramentum_.
In strict conformity with this, its original signification, it is used
to express the promise made by Christians in baptism. From the oath the
transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was ratified. Thus
_sacramentum_ came to signify any religious ordinance, and in general to
stand for that which in Greek is expressed by the word μυστήριον
(mystery), any emblematical notion of a sacred import, any external act
having an internal or secret meaning. If the word is understood in this
extended sense, the Romanists are clearly wrong in confining the title
to only seven rites or ordinances. The first who did this was probably
the celebrated Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard, in the twelfth
century]. Certain it is that the number of seven sacraments was first
decreed by Eugenius in the fifteenth century, that the first provincial
council which confirmed the decree was one convened in the sixteenth
century, and that the first council, even pretending to be general, that
adopted it with an anathema was the Council of Trent.
This is, in fact, our dispute on this point with Rome. If the Romanists
take the word _sacrament_ in its enlarged sense, then they ought not to
confine it, as they do, to seven rites; if they take it in its strict
sense, then they ought to confine it to two, baptism and the supper of
the LORD. Taking the word in its general sense, the Church of England
directs the clergy to speak to the people of matrimony as a sacrament.
“By the like holy promise _the sacrament of matrimony_ knitteth man and
wife in perpetual love,” &c.—_Homily on Swearing_, part i. The Church of
England in this sense acknowledges other rites to be sacraments besides
baptism and the eucharist. (See below, the extract from the Homily, _Of
Common Prayer and Sacraments_.) This is a very important distinction:
“Let it be clearly understood,” says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, “it is none
of the doctrine of the Church of England that there are two sacraments
_only_, but that of those rituals commanded in Scripture, which
ecclesiastical use calls sacraments, by a word of art, two only _are
generally necessary to salvation_.”—_Taylor’s Dissuasive_, p. 240. In
like manner Archbishop Secker says, “As the word sacrament is not a
Scripture one, and hath at different times been differently understood,
our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely that the
sacraments are _two only_, but _two only necessary to salvation_;
leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name if
they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of
dignifying them with this title.”—_Secker’s Lectures_, xxxv. _Of
Baptism_. It will be seen that this is in accordance with the answer in
the catechism to the question, How many sacraments has CHRIST ordained
in his Church? the answer being not simply _two_, but “two only as
generally necessary to salvation.”
We have said that the distinction is important, for it enables us to
take high ground on this doctrine. It is not by depressing the other
ordinances of the Church which Cranmer and Taylor call sacramentals, but
by placing baptism and the eucharist in their proper place and dignity,
that we best defend the English Church on this point. If, with the
latitudinarians, we depress the proper sacraments and make baptism a
mere ceremony, and the eucharist only a more solemn form of
self-dedication or worship, our controversy becomes a childish dispute
about words. Not so if we distinguish, with the Church of England,
baptism and the eucharist from all other ordinances, because they are,
what the others are not, necessary for salvation to all men, wherever
they can be had. Other ordinances may confer grace, but baptism and the
eucharist alone unite with CHRIST himself. “By baptism we receive CHRIST
JESUS, and from him the saving grace which is proper to baptism; by the
eucharist we receive him also imparting therein himself, and that grace
which the eucharist properly bestows.” Again; baptism and the eucharist
are what none of the other ordinances are, federal rites, the one for
initiating, the other for renewing the covenant of grace, instituted for
a reciprocal communion between GOD and man, of blessings on the one part
and duty on the other; they are not merely a means to an end, but they
are actually a part of our moral and Christian holiness, piety, and
perfection; “as much a part of virtue,” says Dr. Waterland, “as the
performance of any moral duty is, as much as feeding the hungry,
clothing the naked,” &c.
From what has been said it will be seen,
1. That, in the large acceptation of the word sacrament, there are many
more sacraments than seven.
2. That, in the strict definition of the word, there are only two,
baptism and the eucharist.
But we may sum up the whole in the words which the Church of England
uses in one of the homilies: “You shall hear how many sacraments there
be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued,
and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such
purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the
number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact
signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly
commanded in the New Testament, _whereunto is annexed the promise of
forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in_ CHRIST,
there be but two, namely, baptism and the supper of the LORD. For,
_although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin_, yet by the
express word of the New Testament it hath not this promise annexed and
tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible
sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New
Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible sign in baptism and
the LORD’S supper are; and therefore absolution is no _such_ sacrament
as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers
hath this visible sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of
remission of sin as all other sacraments besides the two above-named do.
Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments
as baptism and the communion are. _But in a general acceptation, the
name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything; whereby an holy thing
is signified._ In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers
have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years
taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments, but
also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet,
and such like, not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the
same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore
St. Augustine, weighing the true signification and exact meaning of the
word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third book of Christian
doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are
most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in
both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of baptism
and the supper of the LORD. And although there are retained by order of
the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and
ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the Church, matrimony,
confirmation of children, by examining them of their knowledge in the
articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for
them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick; yet no man ought to
take these for sacraments in _such signification and meaning_ as the
sacraments of baptism and the LORD’S supper are.”—_Homily of Common
Prayer and Sacraments._
A sacrament is defined in the catechism, in the strict sense, as “an
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us,
ordained by CHRIST himself as a means whereby we receive the same, and a
pledge to assure us thereof.”
1. There must be an outward and visible sign, the solemn application of
some bodily and sensible thing or action to a meaning and purpose which
in its own nature it hath not. In common life, we have many other signs
to express our meanings, on occasions of great consequence, besides
words. And no wonder then if, in religion, we have some of the same
kind.
2. In a sacrament, the outward and visible sign must denote “an inward
and spiritual grace given unto us;” that is, some favour freely bestowed
on us from heaven, by which our inward and spiritual condition, the
state of our souls, is made better. Most of the significative actions
that we use in religion express only our duty to GOD. Thus, kneeling in
prayer is used to show our reverence towards him to whom we pray. And
signing a child with the cross, after it is baptized, declares our
obligation not to be ashamed of the cross of CHRIST. But a sacrament,
besides expressing on our part duty to GOD, expresses on his part some
grace or favour towards us.
3. In order to entitle anything to the name of sacrament, a further
requisite is, that it be “ordained by CHRIST himself.” We may indeed
use, on the foot of human authority alone, actions that set forth either
our sense of any duty, or our belief in GOD’S grace. For it is certainly
as lawful to express a good meaning by any other proper sign as by
words. But then, such marks as these, which we commonly call ceremonies,
as they are taken up at pleasure, may be laid aside again at pleasure;
and ought to be laid aside whenever they grow too numerous, or abuses
are made of them which cannot easily be reformed; and this hath
frequently been the case. But sacraments are of perpetual obligation,
for they stand on the authority of CHRIST, who hath certainly appointed
nothing to be for ever observed in his Church but what he saw would be
for ever useful.
Nor doth every appointment of CHRIST, though it be of perpetual
obligation, deserve the name of a sacrament, but those, and no other,
which are, 4. Not only signs of grace, but means also, whereby we
receive the same. None but our blessed LORD could appoint such means;
and which of his ordinances should be such, and which not, none but
himself could determine. From his word, therefore, we are to learn it;
and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when
it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to
understand either that the performance of the mere outward action doth,
by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us, or that GOD hath
annexed any such effect to that alone; but that he will accompany the
action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those
qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the
condition, we must not expect the benefit.
Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to
be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our
blessed SAVIOUR can do that for us; but means by which what he hath
merited is conveyed to us.
Nor yet are they the only means of conveying grace; for reading, and
hearing, and meditating upon the word of GOD, are part of the things
which he hath appointed for this end; and prayer is another part,
accompanied with an express promise, that, if we “ask, we shall
receive.” (John xvi. 24.) But these, not being such actions as figure
out and represent the benefits which they derive to us, though they are
means of grace, are not signs of it, and therefore do not come under the
notion of sacraments.
But, 5. A sacrament is not only a sign or representation of some
heavenly favour, and a means whereby we receive it, but also “a pledge
to assure us thereof.” Not that anything can give us a greater
assurance, in point of reason, of any blessing from GOD, than his bare
promise can do; but that such observances, appointed in token of his
promises, affect our imaginations with a stronger sense of them, and
make a deeper and more lasting, and therefore more useful, impression on
our minds. For this cause, in all nations of the world, representations
by action have ever been used, as well as words, upon solemn occasions;
especially upon entering into and renewing treaties and covenants with
each other. And therefore, in condescension to a practice which, being
so universal among men, appears to be founded in the nature of man, GOD
hath graciously added to his covenant also the solemnity of certain
outward instructive performances, by which he declares to us, that, as
surely as our bodies are washed by water, and nourished by bread broken
and wine poured forth and received, so surely are our souls purified
from sin by the baptism of repentance, and strengthened in all goodness
by partaking of that mercy which the wounding of the body of CHRIST and
the shedding of his blood hath obtained for us. And thus these religious
actions, so far as they are performed by GOD’S minister, in pursuance of
his appointment, are an earnest or pledge on his part, which was one
ancient signification of the word sacrament; and, so far as we join in
them, they are an obligation, binding like an oath on our part, which
was the other primitive meaning of the word.—_Abp. Secker._
SACRAMENTALS. (See _Sacrament_.) A name conveniently given to those
rites which are of a sacramental character,—such as confirmation and
matrimony,—but are not sacraments in the proper and strict sense, as
baptism and the holy eucharist.
SACRAMENTARY. In the Romish Church, a book containing the collects,
together with the _canon_, i. e. that part of the Communion Office which
is invariable, whatever changes might occur in the other portions of the
service.
SACRIFICE. (See _Mass, the Sacrifice of_.) An offering made to GOD. In
strictness of speech, there has been but one sacrifice, once offered,
and never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST. He suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and there,
by the one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the
whole world, was once made, and once for all. (See _Covenant of
Redemption_.) But, figuratively speaking, all Divine worship was
anciently called a sacrifice—a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; but
more especially has this term been applied to the celebration of the
eucharist. Justin Martyr, says Dr. Waterland, is the first we meet with
who speaks of the eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices.
But he does it so often, and so familiarly, that one cannot but conceive
that it had been in common use for some time before; and it is the more
likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it)
certainly was.
Irenæus, of the same [the second] century, mentions the sacrifice of the
eucharist more than once, either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, not
many years later, does the like. Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice in
the eucharist, understanding it in one particular passage of the
lay-oblation. This is not the place to examine critically what the
ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices of the eucharist. But, as
_oblation_ anciently was understood sometimes of the lay-offering, the
same may be observed of _sacrifice_; and it is plain from Cyprian.
Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal
one, which was conceived to go along with the eucharistical service, and
that was the notion of _spiritual_ sacrifice, consisting of many
particulars, and it was on the account of one, or both, that the
eucharist had the name of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by
the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a
sacrifice, on account of the grand sacrifice represented and
commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the
thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a
sacrifice, as well as an oblation: and it had a double claim to be so
called; partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and
partly as it was a representation and commemoration of the high
tremendous sacrifice of CHRIST GOD-MAN. This last view of it, being of
all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be the most
prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held forth in the
eucharist. But those who styled the eucharist a sacrifice on that
account took care, as often as need was, to explain it off to a memorial
of a sacrifice, rather than a strict or proper sacrifice, in that
precise view. Cyprian is the first who plainly and directly styles the
eucharist a sacrifice in the commemorative view, and as representing the
grand sacrifice. Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but
there was a new application of an old name, which had at the first been
brought in upon other accounts.—_Waterland._
Bishop Burnet remarks, that Christian writers called the eucharist an
_unbloody sacrifice_, as being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving;
and adds, “In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a
sacrifice: one is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made
in it, which being sanctified, are consumed in an act of religion: to
this many passages in the writings of the Fathers do relate. Another
respect in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice is, because it is a
commemoration and a representation to GOD, of the sacrifice that CHRIST
offered for us on the cross; in which we lay claim to that as to our
expiation, and feast upon it as our peace-offering, according to that
ancient notion, that covenants were by a sacrifice, and were concluded
in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny, but
that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice; but still it is a
commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory,” &c.—_Burnet._
The ancients, says Bishop Cosin, called the whole communion “the
sacrifice of praise,” as our Church doth: whereas the Romanists only
call it a sacrifice, without any other addition. But it is not the
sacrifice of CHRIST which we here speak of; for that is always pleasing
to GOD, and was absolutely perfect: but it is our own peace-offering, in
commemoration thereof, in which there have been many failings, and
therefore we desire and beg that it may be accepted in mercy.—_Dean
Comber._ In this regard, and in divers others also, the eucharist may,
by allusion and analogy, be fitly called “a sacrifice,” and the LORD’S
table “an altar;” the one relating to the other, though neither of them
can be strictly and properly so termed. It is the custom of Scripture to
describe the service of GOD under the New Testament, be it either
internal or external, by the terms which otherwise belonged to the Old:
as, immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar. So the evangelical
prophet Isaiah, foretelling the glory and amplitude of the Christian
Church, speaketh of GOD’S altar which shall be there, upon which “an
acceptable offering shall be made.” (See also Rom. xv. 16; Phil. ii. 17;
Heb. xiii. 10.) And indeed the sacrament of the eucharist carries the
name of a sacrifice, and the table, whereon it is celebrated, an altar
of oblation, in a far higher sense than any of their former sacrifices
did, which were but the types and figures of those services that are
performed in recognition and memory of CHRIST’S one sacrifice, once
offered upon the altar of his cross. The prophecy of Malachi concerning
the Church under the New Testament, (see Mal. i. 10,) applied by the
doctors of the Roman Church to their proper sacrifice, as they call it,
of the mass, is interpreted and applied by the ancient Fathers,
sometimes in general to all the acts of our Christian religion, and
sometimes in particular to the eucharist: that is, the act of our
prayers and thanksgiving for the sacrifice of CHRIST once made for us
upon the cross, as here we use in the Church of England. The Church of
England therefore herein followeth the Holy Scripture and the ancient
Fathers. (See also Heb. xiii. 16; Rev. viii 3; Ps. cxli. 2.)—_Bp.
Cosin._
Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first
know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere
sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST, but the whole sacred action
or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery
was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel
of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This
observed and remembered, I define the Christian sacrifice, _ex mente
antiquæ ecclesiæ_, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and
prayer to GOD the FATHER through JESUS CHRIST, and his sacrifice
commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first
been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object,
or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call _sacrificium
quod_. Secondly, the commemoration CHRIST’S sacrifice on the cross,
which is _sacrificium quo_, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted.
For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are
tendered up unto GOD in the name of JESUS CHRIST crucified. According
whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through JESUS CHRIST
our LORD.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a
Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in
all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say _per Iesum
Christum Dominum nostrum_, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn
service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in
the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and
received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for
us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, GOD our
FATHER might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.
What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto GOD,
as when the LAMB of GOD lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive
visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body
and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the
Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer
through JESUS CHRIST, mystically represented in the creatures of bread
and wine.
But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say,
“through the sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST, commemorated in the creatures of
bread and wine, wherewith GOD had first been agnized.” The body and
blood of CHRIST were not made of common bread and common wine, but of
bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before GOD as a
present, to agnize him the LORD and giver of all: according to that,
_Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus_: and “let no man appear before the
LORD empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I
told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call
_sacrificium quod_; and of the commemoration of CHRIST crucified, which
I call _sacrificium quo_; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed
both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to
agnize GOD the LORD of the creature in the _sacrificium quod_; then, by
invocation of the HOLY GHOST, made the symbols of the body and blood of
CHRIST in the _sacrificium quo_. So that the whole service throughout
consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and
a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to
prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.
Again, the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the
ancient Church.
It is one thing to say, that the LORD’S supper is a sacrifice, and
another to say, that CHRIST is properly sacrificed therein. These are
not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of
another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament,
a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of CHRIST’S death upon the
cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of
antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that CHRIST
in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show
in due time that the ancients never meant.
To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was
otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used;
sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the
ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein
the LORD’S supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes
the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you
shall now hear.
The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition
of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which,
though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet
shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath
been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the
differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the
reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion
of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore,
if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture,
in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.
Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a
sacrifice, in that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes,
first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is
consecrated unto GOD, are oblations or offerings; but none of them
sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are
then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings,
trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called
by that name.
Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a
sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of
beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of
anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are
still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these
sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither
is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That
therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists
of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner:
those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the
passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem
them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.
To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think,
should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made
partaker of his GOD’S table, in token of covenant and friendship with
him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of
that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking
thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation
into covenant, and fellowship with his GOD, by eating and drinking at
his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a
sacrifice (though in a larger sense) _opus quod Deo nuncupamus,
reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus_:
for to have society and fellowship with GOD, what is it else but to be
in league and covenant with him?
In a word, a sacrifice is _oblatio fæderalis_.—_Joseph Mede._
SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen
tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the
persecution was over, returned to the profession of CHRIST, they were
obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted
into the Church. It must be observed that _Sacrificati_ is their
denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who
continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See _Libellatici_ and
_Thurificati_.)
SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to
profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to GOD. Thus the
robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and
altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and
misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege
which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.
SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a
church, are committed; now corrupted to _sexton_, which see. The
sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly
the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in
both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old
cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a
vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor
canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In
Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled
_Treasurer_.—_Jebb._
SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering
to the modern vestry.
SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from
their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho,
president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the
principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his
lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve GOD in
a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his
scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards
at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of
their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state,
neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to
agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that
though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of GOD to
create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is
said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied
predestination, and taught that GOD had made man absolute master of all
his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.
SAINT. (See _Communion of Saints_, _Invocation of Saints_.) A person
either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of
the HOLY SPIRIT. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for
baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.
The word _saints_ is of the same meaning with the word _holy_; and,
therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been
already explained. Having _communion_, is being entitled to partake of
benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them.
And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the
FATHER, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his SON
JESUS CHRIST, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and
mercy is conveyed to us; with the HOLY GHOST, whose sanctifying graces
are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of
them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in
thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy
angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we
ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude
and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no
particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by
outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping GOD alone” is
commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in
Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)
With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold
communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them
every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer,
heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who
have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we
bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of
the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same
Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the
utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as
much unity in the Church as we possibly can.
Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or
transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be
rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with
any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the
way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of CHRIST; who yet, we
doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who,
through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to
do so.
And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should
show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public
instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline,
which our LORD hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all
forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care,
both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any
matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19;
Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to
those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous;
teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak,
relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.
Nor have we _communion_ only with the _saints_ on earth, but are of one
city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven.
Doubtless, they exercise that _communion_ towards us by loving and
praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to
exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we
are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can
hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking GOD for the grace
which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left
us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and
beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in
holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in
the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household of GOD” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are
departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation
and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory,
through JESUS CHRIST our LORD, Amen.” (See _Burial Office_.)—_Abp.
Secker._
SAINTS’ DAYS. (See _Feasts_.) Two of the most ancient monuments of
ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are
the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples
of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of
Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they
mention, as of course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival
of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the
commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to
imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in
everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more
particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
“Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto
you the word of GOD; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the
event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the
primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to
have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been
usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving
the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to GOD for
their examples.
But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of
one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently
good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the
frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a
distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the
returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then,
besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon
grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of
national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as
present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely
a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a
prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not
only that he would intercede with GOD on behalf of his fellow-servants,
but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no
creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the
Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful
addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a
moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no
day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the
principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop,
if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who
stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that
the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished,
and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—_Abp. Secker._
When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service
shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the
article _Lessons_.
SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given
good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have
a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to
pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of
that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we
begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture:
the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The LORD be with you,”
(Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a
like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have
been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is
the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any
heretic “GOD speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath
heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their
standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely
salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely,
as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one
faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and
people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray,
which they cannot do without GOD’S help, and therefore the minister
prays that “the LORD may be with them,” to assist them in the duty,
according to that gracious promise of our SAVIOUR, that when two or
three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And
since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to GOD,
they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in
their behalf, saying, “The LORD be with thy spirit.”—_Dean Comber._
By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man
himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May GOD be with
thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint
prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is
borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—_Dr. Bennet._
Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is
silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the
words, “The LORD be with you.” These words ought also to be pronounced
by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the
people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister
should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then
give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the
least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to
join, when the minister begins the prayers.
And because these words, “The LORD be with you,” and the reply of the
people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of
them directed and spoken, not to Almighty GOD, but only to men; namely,
by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care
should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between
these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers
themselves.—_Dr. Bennet._
In the Romish Church the _angelical salutation_, as they call it,
consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus:
_Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et
benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen._
The latter clause, _Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis
peccatoribus_, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the
last words, _nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ_, were inserted by order of
Pope Pius V.
Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the
people in mind of repeating this salutation, that GOD might prosper the
Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having
continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX.
revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.
The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was
first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent
Ferrerius. (See _Idolatry_ and _Mariolatry_.)
SALVATION (see _Covenant of Redemption_) is taken in Scripture, 1. For
deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13;
1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and
obedience, and other saving graces of the SPIRIT, which are the way to
salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3.
For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and
desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his
people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.”
(2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,”
(Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be
had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it
may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation,
and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii.
1.) “The LORD is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all
my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5.
For the person who is the SAVIOUR of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes
have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast
sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost
sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to GOD. (Rev.
xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the
LORD our GOD.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they
are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, GOD saves
men, and protects them, they say, that GOD is their salvation. Thus the
word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the
shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say,
The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a
great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in
safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the
enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—_Cruden’s
Concord._
SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine
between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant
of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians,
blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district
with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans,
and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of
worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to
propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of
the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at
Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.” (2 Kings xvii.
28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and
embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their
ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish
captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of
their idols. But though they were united in religion, they were not so
in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and
stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when
they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in
opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at
present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their
observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at
Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.
SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so
called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.
These two books are styled _Reigns_ in the Greek version, and in the
vulgar Latin, _Kings_; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of
Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that
relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First
Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened
after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was
author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad
and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists,
founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of
David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the
seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the
seer.”
The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of
the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books
of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and
the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of
Kings.
The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings,
comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and
under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived
under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years.
Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy,
and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here
an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of
his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of
GOD, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to
David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of
himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.
The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings,
contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in
relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits
of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the
State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of
David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and
the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by
GOD.
SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “_Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth_” was said, to prepare the people for the
elevation of the host.
Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s
History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might
be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a
turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of
its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade,
between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling
down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of
George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love
and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when
Mr. Herbert’s _Saints’ bell_ rung to prayers, that they might also offer
their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their
plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high
in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell.
Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before
the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, _Saucebell_, or
_Sauncebell_.”
SANCTIFICATION. (See _Justification_.) The progressive conformity of the
heart and life to the will of GOD, or our inherent righteousness, as
distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we
detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called
the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the
office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human
merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by
the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are
unnecessary members in the human frame, and that no other bodily
functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by
tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having
received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the
digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct,
while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert
that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert
that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a
righteous GOD.
We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning
the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we
grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a
thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we
are righteous the one way, by the _faith_ of Abraham; the other way,
except we do the _works_ of Abraham, we are _not_ righteous. Of the one,
St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for
righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh
righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example,
that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by
Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.
“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness
one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth:
_Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in
holiness, and the end everlasting life._
“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto GOD;’ this is the
righteousness of justification.
“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of
sanctification.
“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other
we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end
of both is everlasting life.”
In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish
cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so
greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian
virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith;
because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech,
we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always
joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or
works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of
every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which
putteth on CHRIST unto justification; and CHRIST the only garment,
which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures,
hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the
sight of GOD, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause
sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of
heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”
“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an
inherent righteousness or no, or whether GOD will accept or reward it;
but whether that must be our righteousness _coram rege justo judicium
faciente_, which is a point very material, and by no means to be
forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves,
what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as
did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good
conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools
by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make
some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned _coram
rege justo sedente in solio_, let us set ourselves there, we shall then
see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness
in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the
trial.”
“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine,
observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut
out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of GOD, to be joined
with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from
the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting
or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense,
that belongs to GOD only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The
doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly
send us to CHRIST for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us
of GOD, we embrace the promise of GOD’S mercy, and of the remission of
our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly
doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works
doth justify.’”
It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from
his original justification to his final salvation, these several states
or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.
“First in order comes the forensic righteousness of justification; a
righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the
perfect meritoriousness of CHRIST.
“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a
righteousness infused into him by the HOLY SPIRIT after he has been
justified.
“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a
righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on
incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.
“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of CHRIST, is perfect,
but not inherent.
“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness
of a _justified_ Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.
“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a
_departed_ Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both
perfect and inherent.”
SANCTIFY. (See _Sanctification_.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to
set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v.
13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)
SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2
Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites
(Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the
altar stands in the Christian church.
By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to
certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment,
except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This
custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for
the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of
refuge, by which, at GOD’S express appointment, six cities were made
cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of
burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had
undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.)
In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark GOD’S hatred of
sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were
forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom
of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those
who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See
_Asylum_.)
SANCTUS. (See _Tersanctus_.)
SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin
in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister
of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert
Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and
from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still
designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous
sect.
The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the
Registrar-general’s Return.
“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being
derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into
notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the
Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government
approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert
Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and
formed a congregation in London in 1762.
“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from
most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which
Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple _assent_ to the Divine
testimony, passively received by the understanding.’
“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by
them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as
weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s
feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.
“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the
Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for
two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number
of attendants on the Census Sunday was: _Morning_, 439; _Afternoon_,
256; _Evening_, 61.
SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See
St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the
_Synedrion_: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim
is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders
established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of
Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the
Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the
time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very
different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its kind, and
fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five
different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate
one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in
time of JESUS CHRIST. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves,
that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii.
31.)—_Calmet, ed. Taylor._ The chief council of the Jewish nation,
composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its
rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.
SARUM. (See _Use_.)
SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying _an adversary_, _an enemy_, _an
accuser_. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the
Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix.
4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest
in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.”
The LORD stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and
Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil;
for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of GOD, and the LORD
said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm
cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech.
iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the LORD
said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the
New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an
adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, CHRIST says to Peter,
(Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto
me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most
desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is
taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out
Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,)
“He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and
Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article _Devil_.)
SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke
xi. 18,) our blessed LORD represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has
other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were,
their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is
divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no
means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the
name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that
all those which are not in the religion of JESUS CHRIST, are under the
empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a
thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell,
and subdue the nations.
To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to
the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that
had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul
delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they
might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the
incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the LORD JESUS.”
When CHRIST sent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and
villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him,
saying, “LORD, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.”
(Luke x. 17, 18.) JESUS tells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall
from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv.
12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;”
and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a
period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world,
by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he
says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:”
showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the
infant Church.
SATISFACTION. (See _Atonement_, _Covenant of Redemption_, _Jesus_,
_Propitiation_.) Whatever that is, which being done or suffered by an
offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure
the favour of the Divine government, in bestowing upon the offender
pardon and happiness, may be properly called a satisfaction or atonement
made to GOD for him. In saying this, it is not intended to assert that
it is in the power of any creature to satisfy for his own sins, for this
is impossible; but only to show what we mean when we speak of his doing
it.
Such a sense of the word satisfaction, though not in strict propriety of
speech amounting to the payment of a debt, is agreeable to the use of
the word in the Roman _law_; where it signifies _to content a person
aggrieved_, and is put for some valuable consideration, substituted
instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of
that debt or offence for which such supposed satisfaction is made: which
is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the
doctrine we are about to establish, and to maintain the consistency
between different parts of the Christian scheme.
CHRIST has made satisfaction for the sins of all those who repent of
their sins, and return to GOD in the way of sincere, though imperfect,
obedience.
1. Although CHRIST was innocent, nevertheless he endured very grievous
sufferings, both in body and mind (Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 38); and he
did this spontaneously. (Heb. x. 7, 9.)
2. It is expressly asserted in Scripture, that these sufferings were
brought upon CHRIST _for the sake of_ sinful men, _in whose stead_ he is
also said to have suffered. (Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; Rom.
iii. 25; v. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Heb. vii. 27;
ix. 26; x. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)
3. The offers of pardon and eternal salvation are made in Scripture to
those that repent and return to GOD, for the sake of what CHRIST has
done and suffered: _in whom_ they are therefore declared to be accepted
by GOD, and _to whom_ they are hereupon taught to ascribe the glory of
their salvation. (John iii. 14–17; Acts x. 35, 36, 43; ii. 38; iii. 18,
19; Rom. iv. 25; Col. i. 20–22; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Eph. i. 5, 7; Heb. ii.
3; ix. 14; x. 4, 10, 14; Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 9, 10; vii. 13, 14.)
4. It is evident that, according to the gospel institution, pardon and
life were to be offered to all to whom the preaching of the gospel came,
without any exception. (Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts xiii. 38, 39; 1 John ii.
1, 2; Isa. liii. 6; John i. 29.)
5. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the epistolary part of the New
Testament, as well as from some particular passages of it, that there
was a remainder of imperfection, generally at least, to be found even in
the best Christians; notwithstanding which they are encouraged to
rejoice in the hope of salvation by CHRIST. (Phil. iii. 13; Gal. v. 17;
James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8, 10; ii. 1, 2.)
6. Whereas, so far as we can judge, the remission of sin, without any
satisfaction at all, might have laid a foundation for men’s thinking
lightly of the law of GOD, it is certain that, by the obedience and
sufferings of CHRIST, a very great honour is done to it; and mercy
communicated to us as the purchase of his blood, comes in so awful as
well as so endearing a manner, as may have the best tendency to engage
those who embrace the gospel to a life of holy obedience.
SATISFACTION, ROMISH. This lies at the bottom of much of the Romish
heresy. It directly opposes the doctrine of justification by faith only,
and is closely connected with the Romish notion of the merits of good
works. The following is the eighth chapter of the Council of Trent upon
the subject.
“Lastly, as concerns satisfaction, which of all the parts of repentance,
as it has been at all times recommended by our fathers to the Christian
people, so now, in our time, is chiefly impugned, under the highest
pretence of piety, by those who teach a form of godliness, but have
denied the power thereof; the holy synod declares that it is altogether
false, and contrary to the word of GOD, to say that sin is never
remitted by the LORD, but the entire punishment is also pardoned. For,
besides Divine tradition, clear and illustrious examples are found in
the holy books, by which this error is most plainly refuted. In truth,
even the principle of Divine justice seems to demand that they who have
sinned through ignorance before baptism should be received by him into
grace, after a different manner from those who, having been once freed
from the bondage of sin and Satan, and having received the gift of the
HOLY GHOST, have not been afraid knowingly to violate the temple of GOD,
and to grieve the HOLY SPIRIT: and it becometh the Divine mercy that our
sins should not be so remitted without any satisfaction, lest we take
occasion to think lightly of our sins, and so, injuring and insulting
the HOLY SPIRIT, we fall into worse, treasuring up unto ourselves wrath
against the day of wrath. For, beyond all doubt, these punishments of
satisfaction recall the penitents very much from sin, and restrain them,
as it were, with a bit, and make them more cautious and watchful for the
future. They cure also the remains of sins, and by actions of opposite
virtues, destroy vicious habits acquired by evil living. Nor, in truth,
was there ever any way considered in the Church more sure for the
removal of the impending punishment of GOD, than that men, with real
grief of mind, should accustom themselves to these works of repentance.
To this may be added, that while we suffer by making satisfaction for
sins, we are made like unto CHRIST JESUS, who made satisfaction for our
sins, from whom all our sufficiency is derived; and having hence, also,
a most sure covenant, that, if we suffer with him, we shall be also
glorified together. Nor, in truth, is this satisfaction which we pay for
our sins in such sort ours, that it should not be through CHRIST JESUS;
for we who of ourselves can do nothing as of ourselves, can do all
things by the assistance of him who comforteth us; so that a man hath
not whereof he may boast; but all our boasting is in CHRIST, in whom we
live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction; doing worthy
fruits of repentance, which have their virtue from him, by him are
offered to the FATHER, and through him accepted of the FATHER. The
priests of the LORD therefore ought, according to the suggestions of the
SPIRIT and their own prudence, to enjoin wholesome and suitable
satisfaction, proportioned to the quality of the crimes, and the means
of the penitents: lest, haply, they become partakers in other men’s
sins, if they connive at sin, and deal too tenderly with the penitents,
enjoining trifling works for the most grievous crimes. Let them have
also before their eyes, that the satisfaction which they impose is not
only for a defence of the new life, and a remedy for infirmity, but also
a revenge and punishment for past sins: for the ancient Fathers believe
and teach that the keys of the priests were given not only for loosing
but also for binding. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of
repentance is the tribunal of anger and punishments; just as no Catholic
has ever thought that, by our satisfactions of this kind, the force of
the merit and satisfaction of our LORD JESUS CHRIST was either obscured
or lessened in any degree: which, while our innovators are unwilling to
understand, they teach that a new life is the best repentance, that they
may destroy altogether the virtue and use of satisfaction.”
This, says Perceval in his “Romish Schism,” is a remarkable chapter. The
repeated expressions of reference to our blessed LORD, “in whom we live,
in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction when we perform worthy
fruits of repentance, which from them have power, by him are offered to
the FATHER, and through him are accepted of the FATHER,” plainly show
how keenly alive the Tridentine Fathers were to the danger of men
considering their own penances as irrespective of our LORD’S death and
mediation, against which error they thus endeavour to guard. But the
other error of making GOD, or GOD’S ministers in his behalf, through
vengeance of past sins, and not merely for the correction of the
offence, insist upon penal satisfactions from those who, with true
repentance, and with faith in CHRIST, have forsaken their sins, as
though the vicarial punishment inflicted upon the SON of GOD were not
sufficient to satisfy the Divine vengeance, is left, and must needs be
left, untouched. But how great injury this does to the full, perfect,
and sufficient sacrifice of our LORD, and how great injury also to the
character of our heavenly FATHER, there need no arguments to prove. The
passages cited by the publishers of the Tridentine decrees, (Gen. iii.,
2 Sam. xii., Num. xii. and xx.,) being all taken from the old
dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the analogy of GOD’S dealings
before and after the sufferings of our LORD will not altogether hold:
besides, they all relate to cases of open sin, in which, for the
edification of others, temporal punishment was inflicted, from which no
argument whatever can be adduced in behalf of vindictive penalties for
secret sins, which have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, with
faith in CHRIST. It would seem from certain expressions, that they
consider the practice of the virtues most opposed to the sins committed
among the vindictive penalties for sin. A strange and most unhappy light
in which to regard what the Scriptures would have us consider our
highest privileges and our choicest happiness. That the practice of the
Church of Rome is in accordance with this is placed beyond all doubt,
when it is known that the repeating a certain number of prayers is often
enjoined as a penance or punishment for sin.
SAVIOUR. (See _Jesus_.) One who delivers from danger and misery; as GOD
does by his providential care (Psalm cvi. 21; Isa. xlv. 15, 21; lxiii.
8; Jer. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10); and as does our LORD JESUS CHRIST (Luke
ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31; xiii. 23; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20).
He saves from sin (Matt. i. 21); from the thraldom of Satan (Heb. ii.
14; 1 John iii. 8); from the world (Gal. i. 4); from the sting of death
(1 Cor. xv. 55, 57); from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20,
21); from hell (1 Thess. i. 10); and brings to the enjoyment of eternal
bliss in heaven (Matt. xxv. 34; 1 Pet. i. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 11). CHRIST
_is able_ to save to the uttermost (Heb. vii. 25); and he is _willing_
to save all who come to him (Matt. xi. 28; John vi. 37).
SAVOY CONFERENCE. A conference held at the Savoy, in London, in 1661,
between the Catholic divines of the Church of England and the
Presbyterians; of which the following is a brief account: The object was
to ascertain what concessions with respect to the liturgy could
conciliate the Presbyterians, or Low Church party of that day. The
representatives of that body demanded the discontinuance of all
responses and similar divisions in the Litany; an abolition of saints’
days; an introduction of extemporaneous prayer; a change as to several
of the Epistles and Gospels, which, remaining in the old version,
contained various errors; the lengthening of the collects; the rejection
of the Apocrypha; a removal from the baptismal office of the word
_regenerated_, as applied to all baptized persons; and a similar
rejection of the giving thanks for brethren taken by GOD to himself, as
embracing all alike who were interred, both these phrases being held
incompatible with the commination. They would have the liturgy be more
particular, and the catechism more explicit. They consented to give up
the Assembly’s Catechism for the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat altered;
and they wound up their expectations with the old request, that the
cross, ring, surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament should be left
indifferent.
On the contrary, the Church commissioners maintained that bishops
already performed ordination with the assistance of presbyters; that it
was expedient to retain a certain number of holy-days for the reasonable
recreation of the labouring classes; that the surplice was a decent
emblem of that purity which became the ministers of GOD; that its high
antiquity was shown by St. Chrysostom in one of his homilies; and that
it received a sanction from several passages in the Revelation (ch. iii.
4, 5). They affirmed that CHRIST himself kept the feast of dedication, a
festival of human appointment; that the sign of the cross had been
always used “_in immortali lavacro_;” that kneeling was an ancient and
decent usage, and that the high antiquity of liturgies in the Church is
indisputable. To the demand that the answers of the people should be
confined to “Amen,” they replied, that Dissenters say more in their
psalms and hymns; if then in poetry, why not in prose? if in the Psalms
of Hopkins, why not in those of David? and if in a Psalter, why not in a
Litany? That Scripture contained all which is needful for salvation,
they deemed no more an objection to the Apocrypha than to preaching. To
read the Communion Service at the communion table was maintained to be
an ancient custom, and “let ancient customs be observed, unless reason
demands their abolition,” was the golden rule of the Council of Nice.
They could see no real advantage in compromise and concession. What
had the former alternate preaching of regular incumbents and
puritanical lecturers ever effected but the sowing of perpetual
dissensions in every parish, the aspersion of the characters and
defeating of the usefulness of regular pastors, and a distraction of
the people’s minds with different winds of doctrine, till they knew
not what to believe? In truth, it was certain that whatever
concessions might be made, so long as the love of novelty, the pride
of argumentation, the passion for holding forth, and the zeal for
proselytizing, continued to be principles in the human heart, no
concession would ever abolish sects in religion; while the Church of
England, by departing from her ancient practice, would only
compromise her dignity, and forfeit her title to due reverence. Yet,
since some fondly conceived that all parties, tired of dissension
and disturbance, were now eager to coalesce; and that to concede the
minor points of difference to the Presbyterian ministers would
afford them a plausible excuse for maintaining harmony without
violating their principles; they would not object to a revision of
the liturgy, they would even give up the ceremonies, if any shadow
of objection could be brought forward on the score of their
sinfulness or impropriety. Their antagonists, however, refused to
accept this challenge, since admitting them to be neither sinful nor
improper, they deemed it sufficient to show that a positive
obligation should not be imposed with respect to things indifferent.
On this question, which was in fact the point at issue, as the
parties could come to no agreement, the conference, like the former,
terminated in mutual dissatisfaction.—See _Cardwell’s History of the
Conferences_.
The object aimed at by those who would have lowered the terms of
conformity, was, in itself, inexpressibly inviting. It was their hope to
see the great body of professing Christians in England united in one
communion: so to annihilate that schism, which, in the judgment of both
parties, had been the great blemish of the English Church, from almost
the earliest stage of the Reformation. But, allowing every merit to the
intention, can we, at this day, refuse the praise of deeper foresight to
their opponents; who argued, that if some things were changed, in order
to please the party then applying, successive parties might arise,
making fresh demands, and inventing as good reasons for the second and
third concessions, as had been urged for the first?... If such an
ecclesiastical modification as was wished for by Judge Hale and his
associates had been adopted, general pacification could not, even then,
have been attained; and the discovery of new grounds of dissent would
have made the prospect more and more hopeless. In the mean time, the
English Church establishment would have parted with some of its most
distinguishing characteristics; those features, in particular, which are
derived from the ancient Church, would have been, in a great measure,
defaced; and of course, the principle of adhering, on all doubtful
points, to the concurrence of Christian antiquity, could have been
insisted on no longer. Had the Church of England thus deserted her
ancient ground, where, we cannot but ask, should alteration have
stopped? A practice once originated is repeated without difficulty. Can
we, then, entertain a doubt, that the successive endeavours which have
been used, at one time, to new-modify the forms of our worship; at
another, to abate the strictness of our doctrinal creed; would have been
as successful as, in our actual circumstances, they have proved
abortive? To nothing, under heaven, can we so reasonably ascribe the
defeat of all such efforts, as to the dread of disturbing what had
remained so long substantially unaltered. Had there been no room for
this feeling, other considerations might not have been available,
against the apparent plausibility of what was asked, or the persevering
ardour of the applicants. Had the work of demolition once begun, its
progress would have been both certain and illimitable; each successive
change would have been the precedent for another, yet more substantial
and vital.—_Alexander Knox, Pref. to 2nd Ed. of Burnet’s Lives._
SAXON. The earliest development of Romanesque, as applied to
ecclesiastical architecture in England, is so called. Historically this
style ought to extend from the coming of St. Augustine to the Conquest
(1066); but the intercourse of England with Normandy was so constant
before that time, that there can be no doubt we had already much Norman
architecture. It is scarcely less to be doubted that many more
ante-Conquest buildings yet remain, than are usually accounted Saxon.
The characters most relied on to determine Saxon work are the long and
short work, triangular headed doors and windows, the splaying of the
windows externally as well as internally, and the occurrence of baluster
shafts in the windows. These, however, are not constant in
well-authenticated Saxon buildings, nor do they invariably indicate a
Saxon date.
SAYING AND SINGING. The parts of the service directed to be _said or
sung_, or _sung or said_, are, the Venite, the Psalms, (in the title
page of the Prayer Book,) the Te Deum, (and by inference and analogy,)
the Canticles; the Apostles’ Creed, the Litany, the Athanasian Creed,
the Easter Anthem, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, the Gloria in
Excelsis, the psalm in the Matrimonial Service, the commencing sentences
and two anthems in the Burial Service, the Communion Service, the
communion service in the Ordination of Deacons and Priests, and the Veni
Creator in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. These two phrases have
no difference in meaning, since the Apostles’ Creed is directed to be
_sung or said_, in the Morning Service; to be _said or sung_, in the
Evening. It appears that the ecclesiastical use of the word _say_ is
two-fold: (1.) As a general term, including all methods of recitation,
with or without note, or musical inflection. In this sense it is used in
our Prayer Book, when employed _alone_. (2.) As a more technical and
restricted term, used in contradistinction to _singing_; and yet not to
_singing_ in the general sense, but in one or more of its restricted
senses.
For the word _sing_, as is well known, has more than one ecclesiastical
sense; since it includes, (1.) all that is recited, in whatever way, in
a musical tone; in which sense it is not used in the Prayer Book; (2.)
that which is chanted, like the Psalms, Athanasian Creed, and Litany;
(3.) that which is sung anthem-wise, like the Anthems, Canticles, Hymns,
and Nicene Creed. In these two last senses it is contradistinguished
from _say_ in the Prayer Book.
The phrase _sung or said_ specifies those parts of the service only, in
which, when _said_, the minister has a distinctive part, whether (1.)
leading or preceding the people in each clause; or (2.) reciting
alternate verses with them; or (3.) reciting the passage alone; but
which, when _sung_, are sung by the minister and people, or choir, all
together, without any distinctive part being assigned to him. And it may
be added, these parts may be, and usually are, sung to the organ. The
phrase never applies to those parts of the service which are always to
be repeated by the minister alone in the versicle, and by the people in
the response.
The instance given above of the communion service in the Ordination of
Priests and Bishops, is the only direction to which this rule does not
appear exactly applicable. But here, from the nature of the case, the
Communion Service is spoken of in a general way; and we are, of course,
referred to its special rubrics in their proper places. All that is
meant is this, that the service shall be performed chorally or
parochially, according as circumstances may allow or require.
With respect to the Apostles’ Creed, that is the only instance in which
the permission or injunction of the rubric to sing this part of the
service, (that is, to sing it anthem-wise, or to the organ,) has never
been acted on. This rubric was altered to its present form at the last
review; as before it had merely been directed to be _said_. The words
“or sung” seem to have been inserted in order to preserve the analogy
between this creed and the Nicene, which it resembles in its
construction.
But this is only apparent. For the _Litany_ may seem an exception to the
rule. When _said_, it is repeated alternately, as verse and response, by
the minister and people. But the regular choral usage is, not that _the
minister_, or a priest, but _two_ chanters should _sing together_ those
parts which the minister reads in a parish church, and which in some old
choral books are here called _versicles_, as far as the LORD’S Prayer
exclusive. And this, not with the common intonation and inflection used
in prayers and versicles, (which have come under the denomination of
_singing_,) but with the modulation of a regular chant; which in some
parts of the Litany (the invocation e. g.) these two chanters sing
throughout; while in others they form the first part of the chant, the
response of the choir forming the second. This particular service has
often been set to artificial music, both before and after the last
review. No notice of _Minister_ (or _Priest_) and _Answer_ are prefixed
to the former part of the Litany; while in the latter part, when there
are such notices, the suffrages are always recited by one _minister_,
and answered by the choir or people.
Now if in a choir the minister were to read, or simply intone, the
versicles of the first part of the Litany, that service would then not
be _sung_, but _said_, according to the meaning of the rubric, even
though the responses were chanted; the word _singing_ including the
_whole_ portion of the service then specified, not a part only. And this
is probably the reason why the ancient harmonized Litanies by various
composers are generally set to music in the _former part_ only; the
supplications, or latter part, being customarily sung in choirs to the
ordinary chant.
But the rubrics by no means interfere with, and indeed do not allude to,
the chanting of prayers and responses immemorially used in choirs; the
singing which the rubrics specify being a different thing from choral or
responsional recitation. The responses were, and are still, frequently
sung to the organ. But _singing_ (as used in the Prayer Book) never has
reference to a mere _response_. In fact, the word _answer_ is an
ecclesiastical term, which in choirs always implies _singing_, (in its
common and general sense,) as attention to the older documents on which
our Prayer Book was based will show.—_Jebb._
SCARF. A piece of silk or other stuff which hangs from the neck, and is
worn over the rochet or surplice. It is not mentioned in the rubric of
the English ritual, but is worn by our bishops and dignitaries of the
Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ancient
practice of the Church, according to which presbyters and bishops wore a
scarf or stole in the administration of the sacraments, and on some
other occasions. The stole has been used from the most primitive ages by
the Christian clergy. It was fastened on one shoulder of the deacon’s
alb, and hung down before and behind. The priest had it over both
shoulders, and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the
dresses of the priests and deacons distinguished from each other in
primitive times.
SCEPTICS. (From the Greek word σκέπτομαι, _to look about_, _to
deliberate_.) This word was applied to an ancient sect of philosophers
founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in
bodies except those which are essential to primary atoms, and referred
everything else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external
objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times, the
word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and
authenticity of the sacred Scriptures.
SCHISM, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, is a breaking off from
communion with the Church, on account of some disagreement in matters of
faith or discipline. The word is of Greek original, and signifies a
_fissure_ or _rent_.
We shall easily learn what the ancients meant by the unity of the Church
and schism, if we consider the following particulars:—1. That there were
different degrees of unity and schism, according to the proportion of
which a man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or divided
from it. 2. That they who retained faith and baptism, and the common
form of Christian worship, were in those respects at unity with the
Church; though, in other respects, in which their schism consisted, they
might be divided from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination of a
true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he
should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, be in perfect and
full communion with the Church; but to denominate a man a schismatic, it
was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect;
though the malignity of the schism was to be interpreted, more or less,
according to the degrees of separation he made from her. Because the
Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, or of the motives
that engaged them in error and schism, therefore she was forced to
proceed by another rule, and judge of their unity with her by their
external communion and professions.
And as the Church made a distinction between the degrees of schism, so
did she between the censures inflicted on schismatics; for these were
proportioned to the quality and heinousness of the offence. Such as
absented themselves from church for a short time (which was reckoned the
lowest degree of separation) were punished with a few weeks’ suspension.
Others, who attended only some part of the service, and voluntarily
withdrew when the eucharist was to be administered: these, as greater
criminals, were denied the privilege of making any oblations, and
excluded for some time from all the other holy offices of the Church.
But the third sort of separatists, who are most properly called
schismatics, being those who withdrew totally and universally from the
communion of the Church, and endeavoured to justify the separation;
against these the Church proceeded more severely, using the highest
censure, that of excommunication, as against the professed enemies and
destroyers of her peace and unity.
Ecclesiastical history presents us with a view of several considerable
schisms, in which whole bodies of men separated from the communion of
the Catholic Church. Such were, in the fourth century, the schisms of
the Donatists, and the many heretics that sprung up in the Church, as
the Arians, Photinians, Apollinarians, &c.; the schism of the Church of
Antioch, occasioned by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; in the
fifth century, the schism of the Church of Rome, between Laurentius and
Symmachus; in the ninth century, the separation of the Greek Church from
the Latin; but, particularly, the grand schism of the popes of Rome and
Avignon, in the fourteenth century, which lasted till the end of the
Council of Pisa, 1409.—_Bingham._
It is a causeless separation from such governors in the Church as have
received their authority and commission from JESUS CHRIST. If there be a
sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but no schism. But if
there be no sufficient ground for the separation, it is schism, that is,
a culpable separation, which was always reckoned a sin of a very heinous
nature. For St. Paul charges the Ephesians to keep the unity of the
SPIRIT in the bond of peace, because there is but one GOD, one faith,
one baptism, and one body of CHRIST. The same doctrine is taught in the
writings of the first Fathers of the Church, particularly St. Ignatius
and St. Cyprian; and schism was reputed a great sin by them, even before
the Church and State were united, and when the meetings of the
schismatics were as much tolerated by the State as the assemblies of the
Catholics. For toleration does not alter the nature of schism. Such laws
only exempt the persons of schismatics from any penal prosecution.
Donatism and Novatianism were counted as damnable schisms, under the
reigns of those emperors who granted toleration to them, as under the
reigns of those who made laws against them.—_Nelson._
SCHOOLS. The word was anciently of larger application than at present,
and signified places of instruction not only for children, but for those
of more advanced age. It was applied generally to what are now called
universities. Thus Shakspeare, in Hamlet, speaks of being at school at
Wittenberg, that is, at the university. The places in the universities
where exercises for degrees are performed, and lectures read, are still
called schools, both in England, and at least in the older universities
of Europe: and academical degrees were often called _degrees of school_.
But taking the term in its usual modern acceptation, as places of
education for the young, it may be convenient in these days to have a
concise history of schools. The following, therefore, is given from Dr.
Burn and other writers of authority:—
The determinations in the courts of law relative to schools at the time
Dr. Burn wrote, had not been delivered with that precision which was
usual in other cases. And indeed, excepting in an instance or two in the
court of Chancery, the general law concerning schools did not seem to
have been considered as yet upon full and solemn arguments. And,
therefore, he says, a liberty of animadversion is taken in some of the
following particulars, which would not be allowable in matters which had
been finally adjudged and settled.
By the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37. Whereas it would be a great hinderance to
learning and other good and charitable works, if persons well inclined
may not be permitted to found schools for the encouragement of learning
or to augment the revenues of schools already founded, it shall be
lawful for the king to grant licences to aliene, and to purchase and
hold in mortmain.
But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands,
tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or
incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public
funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to
be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or
hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless
it be _bona fide_ for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any
person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any
estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in
trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such
appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than
stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and
delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at
least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within
six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such
stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually
kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the
death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in
possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making
thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise
made shall be void.
By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private
house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or
ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as
well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest
conversation, and also for right understanding of GOD’S true religion;
and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third
articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the
second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it
containeth nothing contrary to the word of GOD, and may lawfully be
used.”
And in the case of _Cory_ and _Pepper_, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation
was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without
licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason
given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute
of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or
the prerogative royal.—2 _Lev._ 222. _Gibs._ 995.
But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a
schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman,
that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear
enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not
obligatory.
Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out
of the ancient canon law, (_Gibs._ 1099,) which, although perhaps not
perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.
The argument in _Cox’s case_ seems to contain the substance of what has
been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the
Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for
teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before
the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a
prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should
stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order,
alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both
courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable
both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not
bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still
am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of
ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition
be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching
school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court
Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing schools, reading
schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper
assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all
schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of
ecclesiastical cognizance.
By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any
person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any
schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual
place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the
diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon
conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter
sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10;
one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that
shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary
to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be
a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise
for one year.
By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a
schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm,
except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such
nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same
schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop,
bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain
that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or
maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day
so wittingly offending 40_s._; half to the king, and half to him that
shall sue.
And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public
or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in
any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before
his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do
declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as
it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the
archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every
person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be
utterly disabled, and _ipso facto_ deprived of the same, and the said
school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.
And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth
in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall
instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence
obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese,
according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall
pay 12_d._ only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall
for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail;
and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’
imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5.
(S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)
M. 9 G. II. _The King_ against _the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry_. A
mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a
clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his
diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of
the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing
him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading
prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire
into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he
had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the
arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court
held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for
though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to
assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the
laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary
qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.
And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first
visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his
licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just
cause) disallowed and rejected.”
By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making
profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon
himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be
adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as
the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.
In _Bales’s case_, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage
of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons,
the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the
suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was
his freehold.
Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, that if this be any bar to his
being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by
a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as
good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority.
And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And
in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school,
notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed,
than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only
during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and
unlimited.—_Gibson_, 1110.
By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate,
which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well
able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase
of his living, and training up of children in principles of true
religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish
where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but
only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall
not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a
public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to
allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said
public school.”
By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the
children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore
by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon
holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall
bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and
there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine
them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away
of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train
them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most
expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the
grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of
King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And
if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is
aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write,
or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon
admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him
be suspended from teaching school any longer.
“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of
Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI.,
which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools;
which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562,
and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the
younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and
substance of our reformed religion.—_Gibson_, 374.
“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. _Betcham_, and
_Barnardiston_. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be
prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to
church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that
the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.
“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially
appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared,
that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken
away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience,
and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by
sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only;
everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the
hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”
By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money,
given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been
misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by
the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great
seal, to inquire and take order therein.
Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in
fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken
of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to
touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are
to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—_Gibson_, 1110.
Thus, in the case of _The King_ against _the Bailiff’s of Morpeth_, a
mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of
under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King
Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the
Crown.
And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a
public nature, as constituted for public government, they shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if
they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to
the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor
whom he appoints, and to no other.
In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king
or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be
considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to
the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any
difference between schools and colleges in this respect.
H. 1725. _Eden_ and _Foster_. The free grammar school of Birmingham was
founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his
letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby
enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the
said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed,
and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors.
After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the
management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard
and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king,
having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors
likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a
commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The
matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards
before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre
and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court
was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid
down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty
and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder,
there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law
visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the
founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such
visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived
it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by
construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should
have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves.
And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors
are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such
governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the
legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits
(as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious
consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents
and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never
so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their
receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a
temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word _governor_ did not of
itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against
the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained
construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great
prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would
be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not
to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well
issued.—2 _P. Will._ 325.
The following case relates particularly to a church; but is equally
applicable to, and far more frequently happeneth in, the case of
schools. It is that of Waltham church, H. 1716. Edward Denny, earl of
Norwich, being seized by grant from King Edward VI., of the site and
demesnes of the dissolved monastery of Waltham Holy Cross, and of the
manor of Waltham, and of the patronage of the church of Waltham, and of
the right of nominating a minister to officiate in the said church, it
being a donative, the abbey being of royal foundation by his will in
1636, amongst other things the said earl devised a house in Waltham, and
a rent-charge of £100 a year, and ten loads of wood to be annually taken
out of the forest of Waltham, and his right of nominating a minister to
officiate in the said church, to six trustees and their heirs, of which
Sir Robert Atkins was one, in trust for the perpetual maintenance of the
minister, to be from time to time nominated by the trustees; and
directed that when the trustees were reduced to the number of three,
they should choose others. It so fell out, that all the trustees, except
Sir Robert Atkins, were dead; and he alone took upon him to enfeoff
others to fill up the number; and now the surviving trustees (of the
said Sir Robert’s appointment) did nominate Lapthorn to officiate; and
the Lady Floyer and Campion, who were owners of the dissolved monastery
and of the manor, claimed the right of nomination to the donative, and
had nominated Cowper to officiate there, and he was got into possession.
The bill was, that Lapthorn might be admitted to officiate there, and to
be quieted in the possession, and to have an account of the profits. By
the defendants it was amongst other things insisted, that the trustees
having neglected to convey over to others, when they were reduced to the
number of three, and the legal estate coming only to one single trustee,
he had not power to elect others; but by that means the right of
nomination resulted back to the grantor, and belonged to the defendants,
who had the estate, and stood in his place; or at least the court ought
to appoint such trustees as should be thought proper. By Cowper, Lord
Chancellor: It is only directory to the trustees, that when reduced to
three, they should fill up the number of trustees; and, therefore,
although they neglected so to do, that would not extinguish or determine
their right; and Sir Robert Atkins, the only surviving trustee, had a
better right than any one else could pretend to, and might well convey
over to other trustees; it was but what he ought to have done: and it
was decreed for the plaintiff with costs, and an account of profits; but
the master to allow a reasonable salary to Cowper, whilst he officiated
there.
By the 43 Eliz. c. 2, all lands within the parish are to be assessed to
the poor rate. But by the annual acts for the land tax it is provided,
that the same shall not extend to charge any masters or ushers of any
schools, for or in respect of any stipend, wages, rents, or profits,
arising or growing due to them, in respect of their said places or
employments.
Provided that nothing herein shall extend to discharge any tenant of any
the houses or lands belonging to the said schools, who by their leases
or other contracts are obliged to pay all rates, taxes, and impositions
whatsoever; but that they shall be rated and pay all such rates, taxes,
and impositions. And in general it is provided, that all such lands,
revenues, or rents, settled to any charitable or pious use, as were
assessed in the fourth year of William and Mary, shall be liable to be
charged; and that no other lands, tenements or hereditaments, revenues,
or rents whatsoever, then settled to any charitable or pious uses as
aforesaid, shall be charged.—_Burn._
The 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 49, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 24,
facilitate the granting of land as sites for schools.
From the year 1818, owing to the inquiries of the commissioners
appointed to examine into public charities, much was done with respect
to schools founded for the benefit of particular localities. At length,
in 1840, was passed the statute of 3 t& 4 Vict. c. 77, of which the
preamble states the facts as they then stood. It is as follows:—“Whereas
there are in England and Wales many endowed schools, both of royal and
private foundation, for the education of boys or youth wholly or
principally in grammar; and the term ‘grammar’ has been understood by
courts of equity as having reference only to the dead languages, that is
to say, Greek and Latin: and whereas such education, at the period when
such schools, or the greater part, were founded, was supposed, not only
to be sufficient to qualify boys or youth for admission to the
universities, with a view to the learned professions, but was also
necessary for preparing them for the superior trades and mercantile
business: and whereas, from the change of times, and other causes, such
education, without instruction in other branches of literature and
science, is now of less value to those who are entitled to avail
themselves of such charitable foundations, whereby such schools have, in
many instances, ceased to afford a substantial fulfilment of the
intentions of the founders, and the system of education in such grammar
schools ought, therefore, to be extended and rendered more generally
beneficial, in order to afford such fulfilment; but the patrons,
visitors, and governors thereof are generally unable, of their own
authority, to establish any other system of education than is expressly
provided for by the foundation, and her Majesty’s courts of law and
equity are frequently unable to give adequate relief, and in no case but
with considerable expense; and whereas, in consequence of changes which
have taken place in the population of particular districts, it is
necessary, for the purpose aforesaid, that in some cases the advantages
of such grammar schools should be extended to boys other than those to
whom by the terms of the foundation, or the existing statutes, the same
is now limited, and that in other cases some restriction should be
imposed, either with reference to the total number to be admitted into
the school, or as regards their proficiency at the time when they may
demand admission; but in this respect also the said patrons, visitors,
and governors, and the courts of equity, are frequently without
sufficient authority to make such extension or restriction: and whereas
it is expedient that in certain cases grammar schools in the same place
should be united.” The act, having recited these circumstances, proceeds
to enable her Majesty’s courts of equity, when questions relating to
these schools come before them, upon information or petition, or in
other proceedings, to establish schemes for the application of the
revenues of these schools, having regard to the intention of the
founder.
The 24th section, however, provides that nothing in the act shall
prejudice the rights of the ordinary; and it also exempts the
universities, and the more important public schools, such as Eton,
Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, &c., from the operation of the act.
The following succinct and lucid history of public education for the
poor in England was given by the bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in
his visitation charge of 1847:—
“The system of mutual instruction was first promulgated in this island
by Dr. Andrew Bell, exactly half a century from the present time; and
that invention, when generally known, drew people’s minds to the subject
of schools for the children of the poor; for it was thought, that a
method by which one person could inspect the instruction of great
numbers would reduce so materially the expense, as to render it no
longer hopeless to procure some education for all the inhabitants of the
country. In the early years of the nineteenth century, this became the
subject of earnest discussion and controversy: and with good reason; for
it seemed an obvious consequence, that a machinery by which large
numbers could be instructed together, would place in the hands of those
who directed that instruction a powerful moral engine to affect the
minds of the rising generation. The sectaries were not slow in availing
themselves of that engine; and as the religious differences of
dissenting parents were, by some, considered a reason against their
children using the catechism of the Church, it was maintained by them,
that nothing should be taught in those large seminaries except such
truths as all Christians, of every complexion and denomination, could
agree to accept. Many faithful ministers of the Church felt that they
would not be justified before God or man in abdicating one of their most
essential functions, that of watching the instruction of their young
parishioners, and they recoiled from any proposal of compromising Divine
truths; accordingly, they were found strenuously to resist that scheme.
With the view of directing the education of the poor in the principles
of the National Church, in the year 1812 was established the National
Society, an institution which has ever since, by various methods,
assisted our schools—by contributions towards their erection—by training
teachers—by imparting advice and information—and by maintaining
consistency and efficiency in an extensive and rather complicated
system. It was, I believe, about thirty years ago that this momentous
subject acquired increased importance in the public eye, by the reports
of an Education Committee of the House of Commons; and it was then first
suggested, that an object of such vast consequence as national education
claimed the direct assistance of the State, and that nothing less than
aid from the public purse could ever compass the great object of
universal instruction. But it was not until the year 1833, that the
least assistance was rendered by the government or parliament towards
that work. Schools had indeed increased in number, and the public mind
had become more and more favourable to the undertaking. But the
countenance then first given to popular education by parliament, seems
to have originated in political considerations. The population of the
country had increased with surprising rapidity; and the vast numbers of
poor congregated in towns, particularly in the manufacturing and mining
districts, left far behind them all the efforts of private benevolence.
At the same time, a fearful increase was observed in the amount of
crime; and an examination of the unhappy inmates of prisons proved that
a great majority were destitute of every kind of instruction: on the
other hand, of the educated part of the poorer classes, very few were
discovered in the criminal ranks. Such considerations showed the extreme
danger of suffering masses of the people to grow up in ignorance of
moral and religious duties, and weighed with parliament to make a grant
towards building school rooms. The amount was indeed trifling, compared
with the demand, being only £20,000 for England and Wales: but the like
sum was repeated for five successive years; and, niggardly as these
grants have been generally called, it would be ungrateful not to
acknowledge that they did cause a great extent of good throughout the
country. The money granted by the treasury being proportioned to the
sums advanced by private subscriptions, was effectual in stimulating a
large amount of individual charity, and thus called into being a
multitude of schools that could not otherwise have had existence. The
treasury grants being conveyed through the National Society to Church
schools, and through the British and Foreign Society to Dissenting
schools, to meet the sums respectively subscribed, the result was, that
no less than five-sixths of the whole were allotted to the former;
thereby giving a signal proof of the greater zeal in the cause of
education which animated Churchmen.
“However, the experience of so many years too plainly showed that the
education, if such it could be called, which was given to the poor, was
inadequate and unsatisfactory. The system of mutual instruction, though
to a certain extent useful when judiciously directed, was found not to
be capable of those wonderful effects upon which sanguine minds had
calculated. Besides, the early age at which children were generally
deprived of school instruction, through the necessities or the cupidity
of their parents, perpetually disappointed the hopes of their
intellectual proficiency. But, above all, the inadequate qualification
of the masters and mistresses of National Schools precluded all prospect
of such an education as might elevate the mind. The smallness of their
salaries, mainly depending upon precarious subscriptions, almost
excluded persons of ability and energy from situations in which those
qualities are peculiarly required. Frequently the instructors of the
rising generation were persons who had been unsuccessful in their
endeavours to obtain a livelihood in other lines of life, who had never
turned their attention to the subject of education, and were destitute
of the temper, discernment, and love of the profession, which should be
combined in a good teacher; and a few weeks’ attendance in the central
school (when funds could be found for that purpose) was seldom
sufficient to remedy previous inaptitude, or to confer appropriate
habits and address. Against these difficulties, the clergy, feeling that
upon them the responsibility was cast, long struggled with exemplary
zeal and patience; a state of things which still continues. Many are the
cases where the whole pecuniary support of a school, beyond the weekly
pence of the children, rests with the minister; and whatever is of any
value in the teaching, proceeds from himself, or the members of his
family.
“From observation of these and other defects in our system, and from a
deep sense of the duty of a Christian nation to bring up its people in
Christian principles, the National Society promulgated a new and
comprehensive plan, the object of which was to establish, in every
diocese, training schools for teachers, to combine them with seminaries
for the children of the middle classes, (who had before been
unaccountably overlooked in our schemes of national education,) and to
give permanence to these institutions by connecting them with the
cathedral establishments; while it was hoped, that all Churchmen of
influence and education might be interested in the care and promotion of
the system, by the formation of diocesan boards of education. This
important movement took place in the year 1838; and though the results,
as far as it has operated, have been beneficial to the cause of
education, yet it must be confessed, that the success of the scheme has
not equalled the anticipations of its benevolent and enlightened
projectors. The pecuniary support which it has met with has not been
hitherto sufficient to carry into execution the contemplated objects to
the required extent: the effect, however, has, on the whole, been
considerable; and the conviction universally produced on the public mind
seems to be, that without an appropriate education to be given to the
teachers, qualifying them to conduct the moral culture of the youthful
mind, all efforts at useful instruction of the poor will be illusory;
and that this is an object which must, at all risks and all cost, be
kept in view. Nevertheless, no one can fail to see the difficulty which
the circumstances of this country cast in the way of any training
system: in particular, the acquirements of the pupils being of such a
nature as will qualify them for many other employments better
remunerated than the mastership of a charity school, it is always to be
feared that the best and ablest proficients may be tempted to desert the
profession for which they have been educated, to embark in one more
lucrative and alluring.
“In the following year the government made an attempt to take into their
own hands the guidance of national education. This was to have been
effected by various steps, by the establishment of a model school, and
of a school for instructors, (or _normal school_, as it was termed,)
under the authority and direction of a Committee of the Privy Council,
who were constituted a board of education, with a great latitude of
discretion. The former rule of appropriating grants of public money in a
just proportion to voluntary donations was to be no longer observed; but
a centralized system of government inspection of schools and of the
course of instruction was announced. As these measures were proposed by
statesmen who had always avowed themselves advocates and supporters of
what is termed the British and Foreign system, as they opened a door to
the introduction of a course of education _in which religion might have
little or no share_, and as they were joyfully hailed by that party in
the country which avowed hostility to the Church, there could be little
doubt on the mind of anybody as to their tendency. Though the operation
might have been gradual, yet no long time would have passed before the
Church was deposed from one of its most important functions, and that
upon which its ulterior usefulness among the poorer classes mainly
depends—the early instruction of their youth. This must be regarded as
the great crisis of the education question, in which the sentiments of
all who had thought or interested themselves in the matter found
expression. The government plan was upheld by those who wished for
schools in which instruction might be confined, as in those of France,
to secular knowledge—as well as by those who advocated the notion of
dividing religious instruction into _general_ and _special_, and wished
to communicate the former in schools, but to exclude the latter, as
bringing into collision conflicting opinions. The prevailing judgment of
the public was indicated by petitions to parliament, of which about 3000
were against the proposals, and about 100 in their favour. The measure
was only carried in the House of Commons, with all the weight of
ministerial influence, by a majority of two, while in the Upper House
resolutions condemnatory of it were voted by a majority of no less than
111; and an address was carried up to the throne by the whole House,
praying her Majesty not to enforce a system which interfered with the
province of the Established Church. It rarely happens that upon any
question the preponderance of public opinion throughout all classes has
been expressed so decidedly, and at the same time so deliberately. Its
first result was of a very remarkable character. The distinguished and
eloquent statesman, the founder of the British and Foreign School
Society, who had signalized the whole of his public life by a zealous
and energetic advocacy of the comprehensive system of education, was so
convinced of the hopelessness of overcoming the prevalent feeling in
favour of the Church as general instructress, that he published a
pamphlet, to persuade those who had co-operated with him for thirty
years in that course to acquiesce in the decision which public opinion,
as well as parliament, had pronounced against them; and urged, with his
usual force of argument, that they would best show themselves the
sincere and patriotic advocates for the diffusion of knowledge, by
agreeing at once to a ‘Church Education Bill.’
“It is gratifying to contemplate the moderation with which the Church
used the triumph of opinion declared in her favour, and the substantial
proof which she gave of the sincerity of her zeal for intellectual
improvement. The deplorable ignorance in which multitudes were suffered
to grow up in the populous manufacturing and mining districts, and the
inadequacy of any voluntary efforts in their favour, had been used as
the great argument for devolving all care of them and their instruction
upon the State; accordingly, a special fund was immediately subscribed,
and intrusted to the National Society, for maintaining schools in those
populous districts, amounting to not less than £150,000, five times the
sum voted at the time by parliament for the whole kingdom. A disposition
was likewise shown to meet, as far as possible, the views of the
government in regard to schools whose erection had been aided by
parliamentary grants; it being agreed that they should be open to
government inspection, on condition that the inspectors of Church
schools were to be persons recommended by the archbishops of the
respective provinces.
“During the last seven years the system of inspection has been in
progress, and, I think, with singular benefit to the cause of education.
The examination of a number of schools by able and intelligent observers
(and such qualifications the inspectors eminently display) has thrown
much light upon a subject in which there must ever be some practical
difficulty. Through a comparison of different cases, it becomes evident
what methods are most successful in practice; and it can be
satisfactorily ascertained in which instances failure is attributable to
the plan, and in which to the execution. The inspectors’ reports,
comprising a mine of valuable information, will be found in the volumes
of the Committee of Council, which also communicate a variety of plans
for schoolrooms and school-houses, directions useful for building and
conducting schools, improvements introduced from time to time, and a
large body of economics conducive to the improvement of humble
education. Among all the truths which have been established upon this
interesting subject, the most important is, that the instructor should
himself have received early training, not merely that he may be
qualified to conduct the mechanical process of a school, but may have
such acquaintance with the tempers and characters of children, and such
skill in managing them, as experience alone can confer. Above all, it is
necessary that he should himself be thoroughly imbued with religious
principles, without which there is little chance of his imparting that
tone of Christian discipline which should pervade the whole of his
intercourse with the scholars. That there may not be wanting a supply of
fit and able persons to fill these stations, it is particularly
desirable that, whenever a boy is distinguished in a national school for
ability and good disposition, he should be retained beyond the usual
age, both for his own improvement and for the service of the school; and
if means can be found to constitute him a stipendiary monitor, the real
benefits of the monitorial system will be perceived, without the
objections to which it has been found liable. Such a pupil may have
further instruction after school hours, and, if his manners and conduct
correspond with his ability, may become an apprentice teacher; he will
then be qualified as a recipient of the higher instruction communicated
at a training establishment for schoolmasters, or, as it is the fashion
to call it, a normal school.”
Mr. Johnston, in his “England in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century,”
published 1851, after quoting this, proceeds to say, “The hopes which
the good bishop entertained of a continued cordiality of co-operation
between the National Society, as the organ of the Church, and the
Committee of Privy Council as the educational department of the civil
government, have not been quite fulfilled. The parliamentary grants of
public money in support of education were indeed increased, having been,
from 1839 to 1842, £30,000 a-year; in 1843 and 1844, £40,000 a-year; in
1845, £75,000; in 1846, £100,000; and in 1847 and 1848, £125,000 a-year;
but in 1846 the Committee of Privy Council began to insist upon certain
conditions of management in the Church of England schools assisted with
public money, which led to a correspondence with the National Society,
extending over a period of three years, and terminating in a resolution
of the Society not to recommend to promoters of schools to accept the
management clauses insisted upon by the Committee of Privy Council. The
correspondence on both sides is distinguished by considerable caution
and much courtesy. In several points the Committee of Privy Council
readily conceded what was required by the National Society, but in the
main points of imposing more restriction upon the promoters of schools
than the National Society thought desirable, and in refusing to allow
the bishop to exercise authority over the Church of England schools,
except in what concerned directly the religious instruction of the
pupils, the Committee of Privy Council continued to oppose the views of
the Church. The actual and officially recognised difference between the
state of affairs as regards this subject, at the time the Bishop of
Gloucester delivered his charge and at the present time (1850), is
this,—that whereas the Committee of the National Society in 1846 and
1847 agreed with the Committee of Privy Council jointly to recommend
certain management clauses to promoters of schools, they now have
declined to recommend such clauses, and this they have done on the
following grounds:—In times past the Committee of the National Society
never interfered with the constitution of schools, but left them to be
determined by the promoters. It was found, however, that in very
numerous instances the constitution chosen by the promoters was
defective. At the time mentioned the Committee of Privy Council asked
the National Society to _recommend_ certain clauses, to which the
Society assented, with this proviso—that promoters of schools should
have the same liberty of choice as had hitherto been conceded to them by
the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society. The Society,
however, found, in the beginning of 1848, that by _recommendation_ the
Committee of Privy Council meant _enforcement_, and that no new school
would be aided by the Committee of Privy Council in the building, which
would not receive one of the four management clauses; and not only that,
but the one particular clause out of the four which the Committee of
Privy Council thought best for that particular school. Upon this the
Committee of the National Society remonstrated against what they
considered an infringement of reasonable liberty, and they also remarked
upon several points in the clauses which in their opinion would be made
better by alteration. On most of these points the Committee of Privy
Council gave way; but on the question of liberty, that Committee would
not give way, and they still continue to enforce one of these management
clauses where public money is granted, and that one selected by
themselves. Therefore the Committee of the National Society declined to
continue to recommend the clauses; but they have not ceased to give the
same proportion of aid out of their funds to all cases of school
building, whether aided by the Committee of Council or not; and
therefore whether adopting one of the management clauses or not. The
actual and formal breach between the National Society and the Committee
of Privy Council has not gone beyond this. In respect to general matters
the same interchange of communication as heretofore goes on between the
government department and the National Society. The training
institutions supported by the Society are, as in times past, examined by
her Majesty’s inspectors of schools, and certificates of merit awarded
to the pupils therein. Payments are also made to these institutions out
of the parliamentary grant in pursuance of such certificates, and the
annual grant of £1000 towards the support of those institutions is still
paid by the Committee of Council.”
Thus matters stood until 1852, when the sum granted by parliament to be
applied in aid of schools by the Committee of Council was £160,000 for
the year. At the same time the lords of the council made an alteration
in the minutes governing the appropriation of aid to the building or
enlarging of Church of England schools; leaving it optional with
founders who petitioned for aid, either to take it upon such conditions
as previously existed, or upon certain new conditions. These new
conditions give the clergyman of the parish or district more direct
authority over the religious and moral instruction of the pupils than
was expressed in the previous conditions, and they enable him to
prohibit, (on religious or moral grounds,) the use of any book, and to
suspend the teacher from his functions, pending the decision of the
question by the bishop of the diocese, whose decision is to be final.
The new minutes of 1852 were not maintained by the succeeding
government. The grant for public education in 1853 was £260,000, and in
1854, £263,000, exclusive of the grant for Ireland. In 1852, by the 15 &
16 Vic. c. 49, the acts referred to in this article relating to sites of
schools, were extended ta sites for theological training colleges.
SCHOOLMEN. The title given to a class of learned theologians who
flourished in the middle ages. They derive their name from the schools
attached to the cathedrals or universities in which they lectured. Some
make Lanfranc (William the Conqueror’s archbishop of Canterbury) the
first author of scholastic theology; others, the famous Abelard; others,
his master Roscelinus; and others again his pupil Peter Lombard. But the
most distinguished of the Schoolmen lived in the next century. The
scholastic theology was the first attempt at forming a systematic
theology. Their first step towards a systematic theology was to collect
the sentences of the Fathers; the next step was to harmonize them by
reducing them to principles. This could only be done by the application
of philosophy to divinity, for philosophy unfolds the principles of
reasoning. The Schoolmen, therefore, had recourse to the reigning
philosophy, that of Aristotle; and Thomas Aquinas, in his _Secunda
Secundæ_, i. e. the second part of the second division of the “Sum of
Theology,” has given the best and clearest exposition of Aristotle’s
Ethics to be met with out of Aristotle himself. The great error of the
Schoolmen, which has occasioned the ruin of their theology, was this,
that, instead of taking the Bible only for their basis, they took the
Church for their first authority, and made the Bible only a part of the
Church’s teaching.
The doctrine of the Schoolmen, of our deserving grace of congruity, is
censured in our 13th Article.
The Schoolmen were:
1. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican friar, born in Suabia. He was educated
in the university of Paris, and was Thomas Aquinas’s master. Pope
Alexander IV. sent for him to Rome, where he officiated as master of the
sacred palace: and Urban IV. forced him to accept of the bishopric of
Ratisbon. He died at Cologne, in the year 1280. Albert wrote a great
number of books; and, in those days of ignorance, was accused of magic,
and of having a brazen head, which gave him answers.
2. Bonaventure, surnamed the _Seraphic Doctor_, born at Bagnarea, a city
of Tuscany, in 1221. He entered into the order of the Minims, in 1233,
and followed his studies in the university of Paris, where he afterwards
taught divinity, and took his doctor’s degree with St. Thomas Aquinas in
1255. Next year he was elected general of his order; and Gregory X. made
him a cardinal in 1272. He assisted at the first sessions of the General
Council of Lyons, held in 1279, and died before it was ended. His works
are very numerous, and equally replete with piety and learning.
3. Thomas Aquinas, surnamed the _Angelical Doctor_, was descended of the
kings of Sicily and Aragon, and was born in the year 1224, in the castle
of Aquin, which is in the territory of Laboré in Italy. After having
been educated in the monastery of Mount Cassino, he was sent to Naples,
where he studied Humanity and Philosophy. In 1244, he went to Cologne to
study under Albertus Magnus. From thence he went to Paris, where he took
his doctor’s degree in 1255. He returned into Italy in 1263; and, after
having taught Scholastic Divinity in most of the universities of that
country, he settled at last at Naples. In 1274, being sent for by
Gregory X., to assist in the Council of Lyons, he fell sick on the road,
and died in the monastery of Fossanova, near Terracina. Among the great
number of his works, which make seventeen volumes in folio, his _Summa_
is the most famous, being a large collection of theological questions.
4. Scotus, or John Duns Scotus, surnamed the _Subtile Doctor_, was a
Scotchman by birth, and came to Paris about the year 1300, where he took
his degrees, and taught in that city. He particularly taught the
immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. From Paris he went to
Boulogne, where he died soon after, in 1303. According to the custom of
the times, he wrote many philosophical and theological works, in which
he valued himself upon maintaining opinions contrary to those of Thomas
Aquinas. This gave rise to the opposite sects of the Scotists and
Thomists.
5. William Ocham, surnamed the _Singular Doctor_, was born in a village
of that name, in the county of Surrey, in England. He was the head of
the sect called the Nominalists. He flourished in the university of
Paris, in the beginning of the fourteenth century, and wrote a book
concerning the power of the Church and of the State, to defend Philip
the Fair against Pope Boniface VIII. He was one of the grand adversaries
of Pope John XXII., who excommunicated him for taking part with the
anti-pope Peter of Corbario. He ended his days at Munich, the court of
the Elector of Bavaria, who had received him kindly.
6. Raymond Lully, descended of an illustrious family in Catalonia, was
born in the island of Majorca in 1236. He was of the order of the
Minims, and had acquired a great knowledge of the Oriental languages. He
invented a new method of reasoning, but could not obtain leave from
Honorius IV. to teach it at Rome. Then he resolved to execute the design
he had long formed of endeavouring the conversion of the Mohammedans.
Having gone to Tunis, he had a conference with the Saracens, in which he
run the risk of his life, and escaped only upon condition he would go
out of Africa. He came to Naples, where he taught his method till the
year 1290. At Genoa he wrote several books. From thence he went to
Paris, where he taught his art. After several travels and adventures, he
returned to Majorca, from whence he went over into Africa, where he was
imprisoned by the Saracens, and so ill-treated, that he died of his
wounds. He had found out the secret of making a jargon proper to
discourse of everything, without learning anything in particular, by
ranging certain general terms under different classes.
7. Durandus, surnamed the _Most resolving Doctor_, was of St. Pourcain,
a village in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, and flourished in the
university of Paris from 1313 to 1318, in which year he was named by the
pope, bishop of Puy, from whence he was transferred to the bishopric of
Meaux, which he governed to the time of his death.
8. To these may be added, Giles, archbishop of Bourges, surnamed the
_Doctor who had a good Foundation_; Peter Aureolus, archbishop of Aix,
styled the _Eloquent Doctor_; Augustin Triumphus, of Ancona, who wrote
the _Milleloquium_ of St. Augustin; Albert of Padua; Francis Mairon, of
Digne in Provence; Robert Holkot, an English divine; Thomas Bradwardin,
an Englishman, surnamed the _Profound Doctor_, author of a treatise _de
Causa Dei_ against Pelagius; and Gregory of Rimini, author of two
commentaries on the First and Second Books of Sentences.
SCOTLAND. (See _Church in Scotland_.)
SCREEN. Any separation of one part of a church from another, generally
of light construction, tabernacle work, open arcading, or wood tracery.
The screens separating side chapels from the chancel, nave, or transept,
are usually called parcloses. (See _Rood-loft_ and _Reredos_.)
SCRIPTURE. (See _Bible_.) “Holy Scripture containeth all things
necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may
be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or
necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do
understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose
authority was never any doubt in the Church.
“_Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books._
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
Judges.
Ruth.
The First Book of Samuel.
The Second Book of Samuel.
The First Book of Kings.
The Second Book of Kings.
The First Book of Chronicles.
The Second Book of Chronicles.
The First Book of Esdras.
The Second Book of Esdras.
The Book of Esther.
The Book of Job.
The Psalms.
The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes, or Preacher.
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.
Four Prophets the Greater.
Twelve Prophets the Less.
“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example
of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to
establish any doctrine: such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus, the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do
receive, and account them canonical.”—_Article_ VI.
The Jews acknowledge the Books of the Old Testament only, which both
Jews and Christians agree were collected into one body, except the Book
of Malachi, by Ezra. They had been preserved during the Babylonish
captivity, and the collection was made by him on the return from it. He
divided the Bible, (מקרה) _mikra_, _lesson_, _lecture_, or
_Scripture_, Βίβλος, (_the Book_,) into three parts: 1. The Law,
containing the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; 2. The Prophets,
containing thirteen books; and 3. The Hagiographa, four books, making in
the whole twenty-two, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, but
which the Jews now make twenty-four.
The first (the Law) was divided into fifty-four sections, for the
several sabbaths, (with the intercalated month,) and these sections into
verses. The division into chapters, which were originally subdivided by
letters, not figures as now, is of late date, and was done to facilitate
the use of concordances.
Some Books are cited in the Old Testament which are now lost, unless the
same as others, under different names; as, 1. “The Book of Jasher”
(Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18); 2. “The Book of the Wars of the LORD”
(Numb. xxi. 14); 3. “The Book of Chronicles or Days,” containing the
annals of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, frequently cited in the
Books of Kings and Chronicles; 4. The remainder of Solomon’s “three
thousand proverbs,” and “a thousand and five songs,” and the whole of
his writings on natural history, “of trees,” “of beasts, and of fowl,
and of creeping things, and of fishes” (1 Kings iv. 32, 33); and 5.
Probably the Lamentations of Jeremiah on the death of Josiah, as this
subject seems not included in the book now extant. Some think that the
first, the Book of Jasher, is the same as the second; others, the Books
of Moses; and others think the first three are the same, and were public
records deposited in the house of GOD. It is very probable that the
references to these books, from the sense of them, were subsequent
introductions.
Hebrew was the language of the Old Testament generally, but Ezra, ch.
iv., from verse 8 to ch. vi. verse 19, and ch. vii., from verse 12 to
27, Jeremiah, ch. x. verse 11, and Daniel, from ch. ii. verse 4, to end
of ch. vii., are in Chaldee. The Books of the New Testament were written
in Greek, except, only, it has been questioned whether St. Matthew did
not write in Hebrew, or Syriac, the language then spoken in Judea; and
St. Mark in Latin; and whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was not first
written in Hebrew.
Whether the art of writing had its origin in the communication of GOD
with Moses on Mount Sinai, is doubtful. Some imagine that the passage,
Gen. xxiii. 17, is an actual abridgment of the conveyance of the field
of Ephron made to Abraham. It is certainly not improbable that the
patriarchs might have compiled records of their time, and that by
inspiration; and that Moses might collect these, as Ezra did in
after-times. And this is argued by some from a supposed difference of
style. Moses himself was expressly directed to write by way of record; a
custom which continued under the Judges and the Kings, some of the
latter of whom collected and arranged the books then existing; as it is
clear Hezekiah did the proverbs of Solomon. The prophecies of Jeremiah,
we know, were publicly read; and when Ezra made his collection, the
number of copies was great, and the difference existing between them is
supposed to form the marginal readings, amounting in all to 840. It was
after his time that translations began to be made.
The preservation of the sacred Scriptures, and of the genuineness and
integrity of the text, seems almost miraculous. It was in order to this
that the Masora was composed, by which was ascertained, with stupendous
labour, the number of verses, of words, and even of letters, contained
in the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and in every section and
subdivision; and also the words supposed to be changed, superfluous
letters, repetitions of verses and words, significations different or
analogous, mute letters, and various other particulars and mysteries.
The Targum (explanation) is the Chaldee Paraphrase; being this rather
than literal translations of the books of the Old Testament, and by
which, when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, it was explained
to the people. The first Targum was that of Jonathan, about thirty years
before CHRIST, on the greater and lesser Prophets. The next is that of
Onkelos, nearly contemporary, or something later, on the Books of Moses
only, short and simple, and the most esteemed. The Targum of Joseph the
Blind, on the Hagiographa, is more modern, in a corrupt Chaldee, and
less regarded. The Targum of Jerusalem, on the Pentateuch only, is very
imperfect, and supposed by some to be only a fragment. Besides these
there is a Targum falsely ascribed to Jonathan, on the Pentateuch,
evidently not older than the 7th century: the Targums on Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther: three Targums on Esther, and a
Targum on the Chronicles, discovered in 1680: all these are of late
date, not earlier than the 6th century. On Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah,
there is no Targum.
Most of the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible at present in existence were
collated by and for Dr. Kennicott, 250 by himself, and 350 by another,
being from 480 to 800 years old. Since this more than 400 others, of the
7th or 8th century, have been discovered. Dr. Rossi followed up Dr.
Kennicott’s work.
The first printed edition of the whole Bible was in 1488; the first
Latin translation was by Munster, in 1534. The Septuagint was probably
the first Greek version; to which followed those of Symmachus and
Theodotion, with three others by unknown authors. The Septuagint, (a
translation supposed to have been by seventy-two Jews,) called for
conciseness “the Seventy,” was made in the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, B. C. 277, at an expense of above £136,000. There are four
principal modern editions: the Complutensian, A. D. 1514–1517; the
Aldine, 1518; the Roman of Sixtus V., 1587; and Grabe’s, printed at
Oxford, 1707–1720. In 1798, Dr. Holmes began publishing an edition at
Oxford, carried on since his death by Mr. Parsons, on the plan of
Kennicott’s Hebrew Bible with the various readings in the margin.
The first edition of the New Testament in Greek was the Complutensian,
1514–1517, though not published till 1522. Next that of Erasmus, in
1516. The editions of the Stephenses (1546–1550) are admirable for their
beauty. The editions of Beza, 1565–1598, and Elzevir, 1624, are also to
be noticed. The celebrated edition, with various readings, of the Rev.
John Mill, was published at Oxford in 1707, after the labour of thirty
years, and the readings amounted to 30,000! That of Wetstein, at
Amsterdam, in 1751, with a far greater number; and that of Griesbach, at
Halle, in 1775–1777, with a select collection of these readings.
With this great number of various readings may be mentioned the increase
of parallel passages, in the English editions of the Bible; being, from
the edition 1611, when they were first introduced, to Bishop Wilson’s
Bible, A. D. 1785, from 8980 to 66,955. And these in the “Concordance of
Parallels,” published afterwards by the Rev. C. Cruttwell, the editor of
this last Bible, are probably three or four times the number.
SCRIPTURE, CANON OF. The present canon of the Roman Church was made in
the fourth session of the Council of Trent, at which, besides cardinals,
there were present no more than four archbishops and thirty-three
bishops; of which number all but eight were Italians.
These men, who were as ill qualified by their learning as by their
numbers to rule so great a question, were not even unanimous in the
conclusion which they adopted. Some contended that the books ought to be
placed in separate classes, the one to be used for piety, the other for
the establishment of doctrine, which is the rule of the English Church.
Seripando, the most learned of the cardinals present, even wrote a book
to maintain this view; while nearly half the members of the council were
opposed to the anathema by which the decree is enforced.
The main authority which has been urged in favour of the Roman canon, is
that of the Council of Carthage. It is not however agreed when this
synod was held; and, whatever date may be assigned, its decrees have no
authority beyond the province of Africa, having never been incorporated
in the universal code. To use the words of Bishop Cosin, “the question
is, whether ever any Church or ancient author, during these first ages,
can be showed to have professedly made such a catalogue of the true and
authentic books of Scripture, as the Council of Trent hath lately
addressed and obtruded upon the world: which will never be done. In the
mean while they all speak so perspicuously for our Church canon, that
there can be no denial of their agreement herein with us.”
The Apostolical Constitutions, which some writers assign to Clement,
bishop of Rome, and which were undoubtedly written very early, do not
admit in the canon those books which we call apocryphal. In the second
century we find that Justin Martyr never cites them for Scripture.
Origen and Tertullian, in the third, agree in rejecting them. In the
fourth, we have a multitude of the greatest writers, who are clearly
against the Church of Rome on this point; such as Athanasius, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and
Jerome; besides the Council of Nice at the beginning of the century, and
towards the close of it the Council of Laodicea, whose canons were
incorporated among those of the universal Church. The great Churches of
Jerusalem and Alexandria, of Antioch and Constantinople, pronounced on
the same side; and even in the Roman Church itself we have the same
testimony from Gregory I., as well as of many others who are held to be
its chief authorities. Cardinal Caietan, who died only a few years
before the meeting of the council, following St. Jerome, maintained the
distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books, and the
influence of his opinion was very considerable, even at Trent. But the
use of the Apocrypha was well known to be indispensable to Roman
theologians, and if it were not admitted to form part of Scripture, no
Divine sanction could be pleaded for purgatory, the canonization of
saints, or the worship of images and relics. In this, as well as many
other instances, the Roman Church has not scrupled to violate primitive
tradition, in order to maintain its uncatholic doctrines and practices.
SCRIPTURES, INSPIRATION OF. (See _Bible_, _Revelation_.) “All
Scripture,” we are told, “is given by inspiration of GOD.” To understand
which expression we would remark, that Divine inspiration, or the
supernatural influence of GOD upon the mind, to form it for intellectual
improvement, may be, 1. An inspiration of _superintendency_, by which
GOD preserves a writer commissioned by him to communicate his will, from
error in those points _which relate to his commission_. It does not
follow that the writer shall be preserved from error in what relates to
grammar, or natural philosophy; but he is preserved from error in all
that GOD has commissioned him to reveal. 2. An inspiration of
_suggestion_, which precedes the former, and takes place when GOD doth,
as it were, speak directly to the mind of the inspired person, making
such discoveries to it as it could not but by miracle obtain. This has
been done in various ways, by immediate impression on the mind, by
dreams and visions represented to the imagination; at other times by
sounds formed in the air, or by visible appearances.
The New Testament was written by a _superintendent_ inspiration. The
apostles were, according to CHRIST’S promise, furnished with all
necessary powers for the discharge of their office, by an extraordinary
effusion of the HOLY SPIRIT upon them at the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.
4, &c.); and a second time (Acts iv. 31).
We may assure ourselves that they were hereby competently furnished for
all those services which were of great importance for the spread and
edification of the Church, and of so great difficulty as to need
supernatural assistance.
Considering how uncertain a thing _oral tradition_ is, and how soon the
most public and notorious facts are corrupted by it, it was impossible
that the Christian religion could be preserved in any tolerable degree
of purity, without a _written_ account of the facts and doctrines
preached, by the apostles; and yet, on the other hand, we can hardly
suppose that GOD would suffer a doctrine introduced in so extraordinary
a manner to be corrupted and lost.
The discourses of CHRIST were several of them so long, and some likewise
of so curious and delicate a nature, that it is not to be imagined the
apostles should have been able exactly to record them, especially so
many years after they were delivered, and amidst such a variety of cares
and dangers, without such extraordinary Divine assistance, or without an
inspiration of superintendency.
Many of the doctrines which the apostles delivered in their writings
were so sublime and so new, that as they could not have been known at
first otherwise than by an inspiration of suggestion, so they would need
an inspiration of superintendency in delivering an accurate account of
them.
There is reason to believe, from the promise of CHRIST, that such parts
of the New Testament as were written by the apostles were written by an
inspiration of superintendency.
It is not to be thought that persons, so eminent for humility, piety,
humanity, and other virtues, as the apostles were, would have spoken of
their writings as the _words_ and the _commands of the_ LORD as the
_test of truth and falsehood_, and gloried so much in being under the
direction of the SPIRIT, if they had not certainly known themselves to
be so in their writings, as well as in their preaching; and the force of
this argument is greatly illustrated, by recollecting the extraordinary
miraculous powers with which they were honoured, while making
exhortations and pretensions of this kind, as was hinted above.
There was an ancient tradition that St. Mark and St. Luke were in the
number of the seventy disciples who were furnished with extraordinary
powers from CHRIST, and received from him promises of assistance much
resembling those made to the apostles (compare Luke x. 9, 16, 19); and
if it were so, as the arguments used to prove both the understanding and
integrity of the apostles may be in great measure applied to them, we
may, on the principles laid down, conclude that they also had some
inspiration of superintendency. But there is much reason to regard that
received and ancient tradition in the Christian Church, that St. Mark
wrote his Gospel instructed by St. Peter, and St. Luke his by St. Paul’s
assistance; which, if it be allowed, their writings will stand nearly on
the same footing with those of Peter and Paul.
It may not be improper here just to mention the internal marks of a
Divine original in Scripture. The excellence of its doctrines, the
spirituality and elevation of its design, the majesty and simplicity of
its style, the agreement of its parts, and its efficacy upon the hearts
and consciences of men, concur to give us a high idea of it, and
corroborate the external arguments for its being written by a
superintendent inspiration at least.
There has been in the Christian Church, from its earliest ages, a
constant tradition, that these books were written by the extraordinary
assistance of the SPIRIT, which must at least amount to superintendent
inspiration.
With respect to the Old Testament, the books we have inherited from the
Jews were always regarded by them as authentic and inspired. And our
blessed LORD and his apostles were so far from accusing the Jews of
superstition, in the regard which they paid to the writings of the Old
Testament, or from charging the scribes and Pharisees (whom CHRIST, on
all proper occasions, censured so freely) with having introduced into
the sacred volume mere human compositions, that, on the contrary, they
not only recommend the diligent and constant perusal of them, as of the
greatest importance to men’s eternal happiness, but speak of them as
Divine oracles, and as written by an extraordinary influence of the
DIVINE SPIRIT upon the minds of the authors. (Vide John v. 39; x. 35;
Mark xii. 24; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; v. 17, 18; xxi. 42; xxii. 29, 31, 43;
xxiv. 15; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke i. 67, 69, 70; x. 26, 27; xvi. 31; Acts iv.
25; xvii. 11; xviii. 24–28; Rom. iii. 2; xv. 4; xvi. 26; Gal. iii. 8; 1
Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. iii. 14–17; James ii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 10–12;
2 Pet. i. 19–21.) To this list may be added many other places,—on the
whole, more than five hundred,—in which the sacred writers of the New
Testament quote and argue from those of the Old, in such a manner as
they would surely not have done, if they had apprehended there were room
to allege that it contained at least a mixture of what was spurious and
of no authority.—_Lowth on Inspiration. Tillotson’s Sermons. Doddridge’s
Lectures._
The argument of the Divine inspiration of Scripture as an induction from
its adaptation to the nature of man—even as regards those parts of the
Old Testament which have been most obnoxious to cavil—is ably maintained
in the Bampton Lectures of 1817, preached by the Rev. John Miller, from
which the following is extracted:—“Although Scripture presents the most
humiliating portraiture of human nature, and that intentionally, to lead
man into a knowledge of himself, as the subject of its operation; it
should be added that the Bible does not exhibit an _unmixed_ image of
evil, inasmuch as, if it did, it would not be that exact resemblance of
the character of man, which it is now affirmed to be. Nor do I, in
subjoining this qualification, feel a consciousness either of having
carried the main proposition unreasonably far, to countenance a partial
construction, or of now adding any such inconsistent exception as may
neutralize or destroy its force.
“The representation of evil was intended, and is necessary, for the
analysis of doctrine. We hold the opinion, that a man is a being, ‘very
far gone from an original righteousness,’ in which he was created. And
it is maintained that the whole substance of Scripture so fully
justifies this doctrine as to be quite inexplicable, and therefore, as a
record of Divine wisdom, inadmissible, without it.
“It is, however, contended also, that _with_ this doctrine, found to be
involved in the substance of its histories, and harmonizing with the end
of its great provisions, Scripture commends itself, in a peculiar
manner, to our belief and acceptation, as a record which, while it
extends to the very root of our disease, and so alone points out the
true method of recovery from it, falls in thereby with the observations
of our own personal experience.
“But such involvement of a general truth by no means necessarily fixes
or defines the measure or degree of sin in individuals acting in various
stages of moral responsibility, and subject to the influences, not only
of rational motives, but (as would seem, more or less even from the
beginning) to those of an infused grace! And it may confidently be
maintained, that the two several propositions now affirmed of Holy Writ,
viz. that it gives a most humiliating view of man, and yet not one of
unmixed evil, are not only not inconsistent, but explanatory one of the
other. The one is specially profitable for ‘doctrine,’ the other for
‘instruction in righteousness.’ For Scripture not to have discovered a
full and intimate acquaintance with the extent and quality of evil
itself, would have substracted from our sure persuasion of its perfect
insight into truth. Upon the other hand, to have displayed the operation
of that evil otherwise than as it is seen practically existing in its
effects, would not have been to give that real likeness of ourselves,
which we have a claim to look for in a record offering itself to be our
faithful guide. Hence, in the first case, without the darker lineaments
of the Bible, how could we rightly have arrived at that true _doctrinal_
statement, which now affirms the general existence of an extreme
unsoundness in the constitution of human nature, if that which is in man
can only be developed adequately, or inferred correctly, through
scrutiny of the worst deeds which man has done? How, in the second—while
we consent entirely to the truth of this broad abstract statement of the
_nature_ of man—could we consent with willing minds to take our sole or
only chief instruction in the ways of righteousness, from guidance which
should represent us all as being just alike, at any or at every moment
of our lives, when we are certain that the practical appearances of evil
show very many gradations, and put on very different aspects, in the
condition of different individuals? * * * If Scripture does indeed thus
show us to ourselves, and we cannot deny the truth of the resemblance;
if it neither conceals deformity to tempt us, nor yet drives us into
extremity, so as to overwhelm us; if it neither threatens nor promises
too much, could it have proceeded either from one that did not know us,
or from one that did not love us?”
SEALED BOOKS. By the Act 13 & 14 Car. II. (which ratified the last
revision of the Prayer Book,) c. 4, sect. 28, it was enacted that the
dean and chapter of every cathedral and collegiate church, should obtain
under the great seal of England a true and perfect printed copy of the
above-mentioned Act and Prayer Book, to be kept by them in safety for
ever, and to be produced in any court of record when required; and that
like copies should be delivered into the respective courts of
Westminster, and the Tower of London: which books so to be exemplified
under the great seal, were to be examined by persons appointed by the
king, and compared with the original book annexed to the Act: these
persons having power to correct and amend in writing any error;
certifying the examination and collation under their hands and seals:
“which said books, and every one of them, shall be taken, adjudged, and
expounded to be good, and available in the law to all intents and
purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good records as this book
itself heretofore annexed,” &c.
Mr. Stephens, in his late edition of the Common Prayer Book, with notes,
has given a fac-simile text of the original black letter Prayer Books,
published after the last Review, with all the corrections of the
commissioners carefully marked. The sealed books which he collated for
this purpose, are those for the Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common Pleas,
Exchequer, St. Paul’s, Christ Church Oxford, Ely, and the Tower of
London.
SECONDARIES. A general name for the inferior members of cathedrals, as
vicars choral, &c.: the _clerici secundæ formæ_, that is, of the second
or lower range of stalls, called the _bas chœur_ in France. The priest
vicars and minor canons were sometimes included in the superior form.
Some of the lay singers at Exeter are so called. Sometimes the term was
applied to the assistant priest in course, even though not of the second
form. At Hereford the second vicar who assists in chanting the Litany is
the “_secondary_.”
SECT. (From _seco_, Lat., to cut; being analogous to the word _schism_,
derived from the Greek σχίζω, which has the same meaning.) A religious
community following some particular master, instead of adhering to the
teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus Calvinists are the sect following
Calvin; Wesleyans the sect following Wesley. We are to remember that we
are expressly forbidden in Scripture thus to call any man master: one is
our master, JESUS CHRIST, the righteous.
SECULAR CLERGY. In those Churches in which there are monasteries, the
clergy attached to those monasteries are called _Regulars_, the other
clergy are styled _Seculars_. In our Church, before the Reformation, the
number of Regulars was very great; but, since the Reformation, we have
only had Secular clergy. The canons of such cathedrals of the old
foundation as were not monastic, were called Secular.
SEDILIA. Seats near an altar, almost universally on the south side, for
the ministers officiating at the holy eucharist. They are generally
three in number, for the celebrant, epistoler, and gospeller, but vary
from one to five.
SEE. (Latin, _sedes_.) The seat of episcopal dignity and jurisdiction
where the bishop has his throne, or _cathedra_.
SELAH. An untranslated Hebrew word, recurring several times in the
Psalms, and in Habakkuk iii., on the meaning of which there are many
opinions. It is most probably a direction to raise the voice, or make
some change in the instrumental performance at certain passages, and is
merely a musical notation, connected however, as all proper musical
expression must be, with the sense.
SEMI-ARIANS. The Arian sect was divided into two principal parties: the
one of which adhering more closely to the opinion of their master,
maintained that the SON of GOD was unlike the FATHER, Ἀνόμοιας, and of
this party was Eunomius: the other party refused to receive the word
consubstantial, yet acknowledged the SON of GOD Ὁμοιούσιος, of a like
substance or essence with the FATHER, and therefore were called
Semi-Arians, that is, half Arians; this party made the majority in the
Councils of Rimini and Seleucia.
SEMI-PELAGIANS, or MASSILIENSES. A sect of heretics, who endeavoured to
find a medium betwixt the Pelagians and the orthodox; they had their
origin about 430 in France, (hence the name _Massiliens_, from Massilia,
now Marseilles). Their principal favourers were Cassianus, a disciple of
Chrysostom; Faustus, abbot of Lirinum; Vincentius, a Gallic writer, whom
St. Prosper answered, &c. Their agreement with the Pelagians was in the
power of free-will, at least as to the beginning of faith and
conversion, and to the co-operation of GOD and man, grace and nature, as
to predestination, from foreknowledge and universal grace, and the
possibility of the apostasy of the saints. Some of them also would
modify those opinions, and maintained only the predestination of infants
from a foreknowledge of the life they would lead. The great opposers of
this heresy were St. Augustine, Fulgentius, &c. The original of the
_predestinarian_ heresy in this age is denied by Jansenius and others,
as well as Protestants, and looked upon as a fiction of the
Semi-Pelagians.
SEMI-PREBENDARIES. (See _Demi-Prebendaries_.)
SEMINARIES, in Popish countries, are certain colleges, appointed for the
instruction and education of young persons, destined for the sacred
ministry. The first institution of such places is ascribed to St.
Augustine. And the Council of Trent decrees, that children, exceeding
twelve years of age, shall be brought up, and instructed in common, to
qualify them for the ecclesiastical state; and that there shall be a
seminary of such belonging to each cathedral, under the direction of the
bishop.
In the seminaries of France none are taken in but young persons, ready
to study theology, and to be ordained. And for the maintenance of these
seminaries certain benefices are allotted, or else the clergy of the
diocese are obliged to maintain them. These colleges are furnished with
halls for the public exercises, and little chambers or cells, where each
student retires, studies, and prays apart. Such is the seminary of St.
Sulpicius at Paris.
In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholics projected the
founding English seminaries abroad, that from thence they might be
furnished with missionaries to perpetuate and increase their communion.
Accordingly the college of Douay was founded in 1569, at the expense of
Philip II., king of Spain; and Dr. William Allen, an Englishman, was
made head of it. In the year 1579, a college was founded at Rome for the
same purpose, by Gregory XIII., who settled 4000 crowns _per annum_ for
the subsistence of the society. The famous Robert Parsons, an English
Jesuit, was rector of this college. King Philip founded another of these
nurseries at Valladolid in the year 1589, and one at Seville in 1593.
The same prince founded St. Omers in Artois, A. D. 1596. In the next
century more seminaries were established, at Madrid, Louvain, Liege, and
Ghent.
The two colleges of Douay and Rome received such great encouragement,
that some hundreds of priests were sent off from thence into England.
And to engage the members of these societies more firmly, they obliged
them, at their admission, to take the following oath: “I, A. B., one
bred in this English college, considering how great benefits GOD hath
bestowed upon me, but then especially when he brought me out of my own
country, so infected with heresy, and made me a member of the Catholic
Church; as also desiring with a thankful heart to improve so great a
mercy of GOD; have resolved to offer myself wholly up to Divine service,
as much as I may, to fulfil the end for which this our college was
founded. I promise, therefore, and swear, in the presence of Almighty
GOD, that I am prepared from mine heart, with the assistance of Divine
grace, in due time to receive holy orders, and to return to England, to
convert the souls of my countrymen and kindred, when, and as often as,
it shall seem good to the superior of this college.” As a further
encouragement, Pope Pius V. sent his brief to the students of these
colleges, for undertaking the mission into England. And that they might
act without clashing, and with the better harmony, he put them all under
the direction of Dr. Allen, afterwards Cardinal.
By a statute of Queen Elizabeth it is made a præmunire to contribute to
the maintenance of a Popish seminary. And by one of King James I., no
persons are to go, or be sent, to Popish seminaries, to be instructed or
educated, under divers penalties and disabilities mentioned in the
statute.
The houses of the society _De Propagandâ Fide_, established for the
preparing ecclesiastics for missionaries among infidels and heretics,
are also called seminaries. The principal of these is that at Rome,
called the Apostolic College or Seminary, or the seminary _De Propagandâ
Fide_.
SEPTUAGESIMA. The Sunday which in round numbers is 70 days before
Easter: hence the name. There being exactly 50 days between the Sunday
next before Lent and Easter day inclusive, that Sunday is termed
Quinquagesima, i. e. the 50th. And the two immediately preceding are
called from the next round numbers, Sexagesima and Septuagesima, 60th
and 70th. The Church thus early begins to look forward to Easter, the
queen of festivals. She would call back our minds from the rejoicing
season of Christmas, and, by reflections on the humiliating necessity
there was for MESSIAH’S advent, prepare us for that solemn season in
Lent; in which, if with deep contrition and lively faith we follow
CHRIST in his _sufferings_, we may rejoice with him here, and humbly
hope to reign with him hereafter in his _glory_. The observance of these
days and the weeks following, appears to be as ancient as the time of
Gregory the Great. Some of the more devout Christians observed the whole
time from the first of these Sundays to Easter, as a season of
humiliation and fasting, though the ordinary custom was to commence
fasting on Ash-Wednesday.
SEPTUAGINT. The Greek version of Scripture, which was received both by
the Jews and the primitive Christians. The first account which we have
of the origin of the Septuagint, is that which is given us by Aristeas.
It is to this effect. Ptolemy Philadelphus, by the advice of Demetrius
Phalereus, having determined to enrich his library at Alexandria with a
translation of the books of the Jewish law, sent Aristeas, his minister,
accompanied by Andrew, a person of celebrity, to Eleazar the high priest
of the Jews, that he might obtain both a copy of the original, and
persons duly qualified to render it into Greek. The request was complied
with. A copy of the Mosaic law written in golden letters was sent, with
seventy-two men, six from each tribe, to translate it. The translators,
persons skilled both in Hebrew and Greek, were honourably received by
the king of Egypt, and by him were sent to the isle of Pharos; and
there, in the space of seventy-two days, they completed their work,
mutually assisting each other, and dictating their translation to
Demetrius. This version was afterwards read in an assembly consisting of
Jewish priests and other learned men, and being stamped by their
approbation, was placed in the library of Alexandria.
This account, given us by Aristeas, is sometimes appended to the
editions of Josephus, and is also edited separately. It is worthy of
remark, that in this description nothing of the marvellous is
introduced, and it would clearly seem that the reference is to the
Pentateuch, and to that only.
Josephus, in the twelfth book, s. 1, of his “Antiquities,” for the most
part agrees with this account by Aristeas. But in the life of Moses, by
Philo-Judæus, we find both variations and additions. Agreeing with
Aristeas in his assertion, that certain learned Jews were sent from
Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the books of Moses, and that they
were lodged by Ptolemy in the isle of Pharos, he tells us in addition,
that all the translators were kept apart from each other; but that,
notwithstanding this, their translations, upon comparison, were found
exactly to correspond, as it were, by Divine inspiration. From Justin
Martyr we find, that in his time the story was that the seventy-two
translators were shut up each in a separate cell, where no intercourse
could possibly take place; but that the translations, when produced,
were found to agree not only in sense but verbally, not varying even in
a single syllable. Here we certainly find a miracle implied; and in the
time of Justin the story must have been well established, since he
mentions his having seen the cells himself. With respect to the number
of the cells, however, there must have been, as there easily might be,
some uncertainty, for Epiphanius mentions only thirty-six. But the story
had been made to shape itself according to the fact; and it was reported
in his time, that, instead of a cell being allotted to each translator,
two were shut up in each cell, who having been employed from sunrise
till the evening, translated in order, not merely the Pentateuch, but
each of the books of the Old Testament, and they so completed their
work, that there was not to be found the slightest difference in any of
the thirty-six versions; an astonishing harmony, in which a singular
miracle of Divine providence could not fail to be traced.
Now, if to these statements implicit credit be given, the question is
decided as to the miraculous origin and consequent inspiration of the
Septuagint. But to these stories there are several obvious objections.
We do not for a moment assent to the principle of that objection which
is urged by the learned and candid Dupin, who, among the Romanists, is
almost singular in opposing the Divine origin of the LXX., when he asks
why there should be seventy-two translators when twelve would have
sufficed? For this is the very spirit of rationalism: “_I_ do not see
why such should have been the case; and therefore it was _not_ the
case.” To such an objection the answer of the equally learned Dr. Brett,
among Protestants the chief vindicator of the Divine origin of the
Septuagint, is more than sufficient, when he urges that we might as well
deny that, on our authorized English version, fifty-two persons were
employed, when by twelve, or even by two, the work might have been
accomplished. Nor would he insist, with Dean Prideaux, that the stories
must be rejected, because the Septuagint is written in the Alexandrian
dialect; and that, therefore, it could not have been effected, according
to the supposition, by Jews sent from Judea; for there is no reason to
suppose that the Greek spoken in Palestine was much different from that
used in Egypt, that language having been introduced into both countries
only about fifty years before by the same people—the Macedonians.
Indeed, a comparison of the language of the New Testament with that of
the Septuagint will disarm this objection of its force. We may, indeed,
afford to give up another objection, which has very plausibly been
urged, though its character is rationalistic, viz. that to collect six
learned men from each tribe would have been difficult, if not
impossible, the ten tribes having been dispersed after the taking of
Samaria; for we know that many individuals belonging to these tribes
were incorporated with the Jews, and there may have been means still
left for distinguishing them. But, after all these allowances, there is
strong internal evidence against these stories, arising from the
difference of the manner and the style in which the several books are
translated. In some the Hebraisms are said to preserved, in others not;
some books (the Pentateuch for instance, the Proverbs, Ezekiel, Amos,
Judges, Kings, and many of the Psalms) are well executed, while the
translation of Isaiah is bad, and that of Daniel was so decidedly
incorrect, that it was rejected by Origen, and its place supplied by the
version of Theodotion. Now, is it probable that, if the Septuagint had
been, according to the accounts already given, the work of the same men,
at the same time, and acting under a miraculous inspiration, such very
material difference should exist between the several books? Our own
authorized version, though made by different persons, and though some of
the books may be more correctly rendered than others, nevertheless
preserves a uniformity of style which stamps it as being all the work of
the same age. And the fact that this is not the case with respect to the
Septuagint, is a presumption against its being the work of the same men
living at the same time. And this is a consideration which prepares us
to regard the external evidence with some suspicion. When, indeed, we
look to the external evidence, we find that the authority which was at
first assumed only for the Pentateuch is gradually assumed for all the
books of the Old Testament. In Aristeas we read of no miracle: the
miracle was evidently gradually introduced and enlarged upon, until
subsequent writers believed it to be a fact. And we are always and most
justly suspicious of a story which thus
“Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.”
Each successive writer has added to the marvellous. And we are,
therefore, justified in deducting from the account each marvellous
addition. And when we have done this, what is the result? We find the
simple fact, that, about the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and under the
direction of Demetrius Phalereus, a translation into Greek of the Mosaic
books was made by persons sent from Judea. We must indeed go a step
further, and deduct from the original statement, the assertion that the
translation was made “_by the direction_ of Demetrius Phalereus;” for
though Demetrius was in great credit at Alexandria till the death of
Soter, he was, immediately after that event, “disgraced by Philadelphus,
and perished in confinement.” We cannot, therefore, attribute more than
the original suggestion to Demetrius. But that, with this necessary
deduction, we may fairly admit this, or at least the historical fact
that it embodies, appears from the improbability of these stories having
no foundation, and from the fact that both Ælian (_Var. Hist._ iii. 17)
and Plutarch (_Opp._ t. ii. p. 189) inform us that Demetrius was
appointed by one of the Ptolemies to preside over the drawing up of a
code of laws, and had advised his sovereign to collect all the books he
could which treated of political subjects, and in which doctrines were
laid down which even their most familiar friends would not dare to
mention to kings. It derives strength also from the circumstance, that
the Samaritans contended with the Jews for the honour of being the
authors of the Septuagint; pretending that Ptolemy, having heard of the
disagreement between the two nations, caused a translation to be made of
the Samaritan copy of the Septuagint, which he preferred to the copy he
received from Jerusalem. Although this story is not corroborated, it is
not impossible that a collation of the two copies may have taken place,
care having evidently been taken to procure as good a version as
possible. It may be proper to mention, that by Clemens Alexandrinus and
by Eusebius, a quotation from an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic
philosopher named Aristobulus has been preserved, in which he affirms
that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in existence anterior
to the Septuagint, of which Plato and other Greek philosophers availed
themselves. That some small portions of the ancient Scriptures may have
been translated is far from impossible; but we cannot attach any weight
to the unsupported testimony of a person who lived only 176 years before
the Christian æra, and adduced in support of what was at the time a
favourite theory with the Jews. His testimony, however, is of some
importance, as proving that the Greek version of the Old Testament,
which was then in use, was universally referred to the age of Ptolemy
Philadelphus.
After taking into consideration all these various circumstances, all
that we can satisfactorily say of the Septuagint is, that the Mosaic
books were translated into Greek about 285 years before CHRIST, to which
the other books were added from time to time, especially when, on
occasion of the prohibition by Antiochus Epiphanes to read the law, the
prophets used to be read publicly in the synagogues, and on the
restoration of the law became “a second lesson.” It is generally
admitted that the work was completed in the main parts prior to the
middle of the second century, before the birth of our SAVIOUR; that it
was used as a sort of authorized version by the Jews of Alexandria, and
by the Hellenistic Jews in general; and that as such it is expressly
quoted nearly eighty times in the writings of the New Testament, being
indirectly referred to much more frequently. And thus, to adopt the very
beautiful and pious language of Dr. Lightfoot, “the greatest authority
of this translation appeareth in that the holy Greek of the New
Testament doth so much follow it. For as GOD useth this translation as a
harbinger to the fetching in of the Gentiles, so when it was grown into
authority by the time of CHRIST’S coming, it seemed good to his infinite
wisdom to add to its authority himself, the better to forward the
building of the Church. And admirable it is to see with what sweetness
and harmony the New Testament doth follow this translation sometimes
beside the Old, to show that he who gave the Old can and may best
expound it in the New.”—_Works_, iv. 32. See _Owen on the Septuagint:
Hodius de Bib. Textibus Originalibus_.
SEPTUM. The enclosure of the holy table, made by the altar rails.
SEPULCHRE. A niche, generally at the north side of the altar, used in
the scenic representations of our SAVIOUR’S burial and resurrection, on
Good Friday and Easter, before the Reformation, and representing our
LORD’S tomb, is called the Holy Sepulchre. It is sometimes quite plain,
sometimes gorgeously adorned; the general subjects, where it is much
decorated, being the Roman soldiers sleeping, on the base, and angels
censing at the top. There is a remarkably fine series of these in the
churches of Lincolnshire, and in Lincoln cathedral, perhaps the most
beautiful in the kingdom.
SEQUESTRATION. This is a separating the thing in controversy from the
possession of both the contending parties.
When a living becomes void by the death of an incumbent or otherwise,
the ordinary is to send out his sequestration, to have the cure
supplied, and to preserve the profits (after the expenses deducted) for
the use of the successor. Sometimes a benefice is left under
sequestration for many years together, namely, when it is of so small
value that no clergyman, fit to serve the cure, will be at the charge of
taking it by institution: in this case, the sequestration is committed
sometimes to the curate only, sometimes to the curate and churchwardens
jointly.
Sometimes the profits of a living are sequestered for neglect of duty:
but that kind of sequestration most generally known and understood,
because applicable to civil affairs, is upon the queen’s writ to the
bishop to satisfy the debts of the incumbent.
This is where a judgment has been obtained in the law courts against a
clergyman; and upon a _fieri facias_ directed to the sheriff to levy the
debt and damages, he makes his return that the defendant in a clerk
beneficed, having no lay fee. Whereupon a _levari facias_ is directed to
the bishop to levy the same of his ecclesiastical goods, and by virtue
thereof the property of the benefice shall be sequestered. In this case,
the bishop may name the sequestrators himself, or may grant the
sequestration to such persons as shall be named by the party who
obtained the writ.
There are several other circumstances mentioned in books of
ecclesiastical law, under which sequestration may take place; but it may
be stated generally that, for any damages to which an incumbent may be
made liable by civil action, the property of the benefice may also be
made answerable by the process of sequestration. But it seems that the
bishop is the party through whom this confiscation for the benefit of
the creditor must take place. The sequestration is his act, to which he
is bound by the queen’s writ; and it has been held that a bill filed in
equity against sequestrators only was insufficient for want of parties.
The bishop should be a party, for the sequestrator is accountable to him
for what he receives.
SERAPHIM denotes an order of angels who surround the throne of the LORD.
Derived from a Hebrew word, which signifies _fiery_. (See _Angels_.)
SERMONS are orations or discourses, delivered by the clergy of the
Christian Church in their religious assemblies.
In the ancient Church, immediately after the reading of the psalms and
lessons out of the Scriptures, before the catechumens were dismissed,
followed the sermon, which the bishop, or some other appointed by him,
made to the people. This, being done in the presence of the catechumens,
was therefore reckoned a part of the _Missa Catechumenorum_ or
ante-communion service. Such discourses were commonly termed _homilies_,
from the Greek ὁμιλίαι, which signifies indifferently any discourse of
instruction to the people. Among the Latins they were frequently called
_tractatus_, and the preachers _tractatores_.
Preaching, anciently, was one of the chief offices of a bishop; insomuch
that, in the African Churches, a presbyter was never known to preach
before a bishop in his cathedral church, till St. Austin’s time. In the
Eastern Church, presbyters were indeed allowed to preach before the
bishop; but this was not to discharge him of the duty, for still he
preached a sermon at the same time after them. In the lesser churches of
the city and country, the office of preaching was devolved upon the
presbyters; but deacons never were allowed to perform it. There are
numberless passages in the writings of the Fathers, which speak of
preaching as a duty indispensably incumbent on a bishop. Many canons of
councils either suppose or enjoin it. And in the imperial laws there are
several edicts of the secular power to the same purpose. Particularly in
the Theodosian code, there is one jointly made by the three emperors
Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, which bears this title, _De munere
seu officio episcoporum in prædicando verbo Dei_, “of the duty and
office of bishops in preaching the word of GOD.”
It has been a question, whether laymen were ever allowed by authority to
make sermons to the people. It is certain they did it in a private way,
as catechists, in their catechetic schools at Alexandria and other
places; but this was a different thing from public preaching in the
church. Sometimes the monks, who were only laymen, took upon them to
preach; but this was censured and opposed, as an usurpation of an office
that did not belong to them. Yet in some cases a special commission was
given to a layman to preach; as in the case of Origen, who was licensed
by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to preach and expound the Scriptures
in the church, before he was in orders. As to women, whatever gifts they
could pretend to, they were never allowed to preach publicly in the
church; agreeably to the apostolical rule, “Let your women keep silence
in the churches,” &c. But they might teach those of their own sex, as
private catechists, and to prepare them for baptism. And this was the
office of the deaconesses. The Montanists were a noted sect for giving
the liberty of preaching to women, under pretence of inspiration by the
SPIRIT; for they had their prophetesses, their women-bishops, and
women-presbyters.
Next to the persons, the manner in which the office of preaching was
executed, comes to be considered. And, first, it is observable, that
they had sometimes two or three sermons preached in the same assembly,
first by the presbyters and then by the bishop. When two or more bishops
happened to be present in the same assembly, it was usual for several of
them to preach one after another, reserving the last place for the most
honourable person. In some places they had sermons every day, especially
in Lent, and the festival days of Easter. St. Chrysostom’s homilies were
evidently preached in Lent, one day after another; and, in St.
Augustine’s homilies, there are frequent references to the sermon made
_heri_ and _hesterno die_. In many places they had sermons twice a day
for the better edification of the people. But this is chiefly to be
understood of cities and large churches. For in the country parishes
there was not such frequent preaching.
The next thing to be observed is, their different sorts of sermons, and
different ways of preaching. These are distinguished into four kinds; 1.
Expositions of Scripture. 2. Panegyrical discourses upon the saints and
martyrs. 3. Sermons upon particular times, occasions, and festivals. 4.
Sermons upon particular doctrines, or moral subjects. There are examples
of all these kinds in St. Chrysostom’s and St. Augustine’s homilies, the
two great standards of preaching in the Greek and Latin Churches. But
though most of these were studied and elaborate discourses, penned and
composed beforehand, yet some were also extempore, spoken without any
previous composition, and taken down in short-hand from the mouth of the
preacher. Origen was the first that began the way of extempore preaching
in the church. The catechetical discourses of St. Cyril are thought to
be of this kind; for at the beginning of every one almost it is said in
the title to be σχεδιασθεῖσα, which the critics translate _an extempore
discourse_. Instances of this sort were very frequent among the Fathers
of the ancient Church. And, in regard to this, they are wont frequently
to mention the assistance of the SPIRIT in composing and preaching their
sermons; by which they did not mean any kind of enthusiasm, but only the
concurrence of the Spirit of GOD with their honest endeavours, as a
blessing on their labours and studies.
Upon this account it was usual for the preacher to usher in his
discourse with a short prayer for such Divine assistance. In this sense
we are to understand St. Chrysostom, when he says, we must first pray,
and then preach. Sometimes, before they began to preach, they used the
common salutation, _Pax vobis, Peace be with you_; to which the people
answered, _And with thy spirit_. And sometimes they prefaced the sermon
with a short form of benediction, especially in times of calamity and
distress, or of happy deliverances out of them. Sometimes they preached
without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one. Nor did they
entertain their auditory with light and ludicrous matters, or fabulous
and romantic stories, such as those with which preaching so much
abounded in the age before the Reformation. Their subjects, as Gregory
Nazianzen describes the choice of them, were commonly such as these: of
the world’s creation, and the soul of man; of angels; of providence; of
the formation of man, and his restoration; of CHRIST’S first and second
coming, his passion, &c.; of the resurrection and judgment, &c.
And as they were careful in the choice of their subject, so were they in
the manner of dressing it up, and delivering it, that they might answer
the true ends of preaching. St. Augustine has laid down excellent rules
for the practice of Christian eloquence; and if we will take his
character of the ancient preachers, it was in short this: and their
discourses were always upon weighty and heavenly matters, and their
style answerable to the subject, being plain, elegant, majestic, and
nervous; fitly adapted to instruct and delight, to convince and charm
their hearers. It was no part of the ancient oratory to raise the
affections of the auditory, either by gesticulations, or the use of
external shows and representations of things in their sermons, as is now
very common in the Romish Church. As to the length of their sermons,
scarce any of them would last an hour, and many not half the time. And
among those of St. Augustine there are many which a man may pronounce
distinctly, and deliver decently, in eight minutes. They always
concluded their sermons with a doxology to the HOLY TRINITY. And it is
further observable, that the preacher usually delivered his sermon
sitting, and the people heard it standing; though there was no certain
rule about this, but the custom varied in different Churches.
It was a peculiar custom in the African Church, when the preacher
chanced to cite some remarkable text in the middle of his sermon, for
the people to join with him in repeating the close of it. St. Augustine
takes notice of this in one of his sermons, where having begun those
words of St. Paul, _The end of the commandment is_ ——, the people all
cried out, _charity out of a pure heart_. But it was a much more general
custom for the people to testify their esteem for the preacher, and
approbation of his sermon, by public applauses and acclamations in the
church. Thus we are told the people applauded St. Chrysostom’s sermons,
some by tossing their garments and waving their handkerchiefs. Many
auditors practised the art of notaries, and took down the sermons word
for word as they were delivered. Hence we possess copies of sermons
delivered extempore.—_Bingham._
The sermon in the Church of England is enjoined after the Nicene Creed,
according to ancient custom: but nowhere else; although it is mentioned
as discretionary in the marriage service, for which an exhortation,
there given, may be substituted. But evening sermons have been customary
time out of mind in some churches, as at St. Paul’s, e. g. and some
other great churches. The sermon in Queen Elizabeth’s time was preached
at the chapel royal in the afternoon, in order that it might not
interfere with St. Paul’s Cross sermon.—_Strype, Annals, Pref._ Book i.
ch. xxiii., Anno 1561.
SERVICE. “The common prayers of the Church, commonly called _Divine
service_.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._ All Divine offices
celebrated in the church constitute part of the Divine _service_: that
is, the outward worship which all God’s servants render him. The term
however is now used in a technical sense peculiar to the English Church,
to signify those stated parts of the Liturgy which are set to music, as
distinguished from those anthems, the words of which are not a matter of
settled regulation. The term is now generally restricted to the Te Deum,
and other canticles in Morning and Evening Prayer; and all the parts of
the Communion Service appointed to be sung, including also the responses
to the Commandments. The early Church musicians, however, set the whole
service to music; (and hence the term;) that is, the pieces, (or
versicles before the Psalms,) the Venite, one or more chants for the
Psalms, the Te Deum and canticles, the versicles and responses after the
Creed, the Amens, the Litany, and the Communion Office. The most perfect
service, in the enlarged and proper sense, which exists in the Church of
England, is Tallis’s, published in Dr. Boyer’s Cathedral Music, and
since republished and corrected by a second Edition. Services are as old
as the Reformation, and have ever constituted an integral part of the
choral system as observed in cathedral churches and colleges.—_Jebb._
SEVEN SACRAMENTS. (See _Sacrament_.) The Papists extend and enforce the
word sacrament to five ordinances which are not sacraments in the strict
sense. Against these our 25th Article is directed, which is as follows:
“Sacraments ordained by CHRIST be not only badges or tokens of Christian
men’s professions, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and
effectual signs of grace and GOD’S good will towards us, by the which he
doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also
strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.
“There are two sacraments ordained of CHRIST our LORD in the gospel;
that is to say, baptism and the supper of the LORD.
“Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation,
penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted
for sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the
corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in
the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of sacraments with
baptism and the LORD’S supper, for that they have not any visible sign
or ceremony ordained of GOD.
“The sacraments were not ordained of CHRIST to be gazed upon, or to be
carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as
worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but
they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as
the apostle St. Paul saith.”
Peter Lombard saying, that baptism, confirmation, the blessing of bread,
penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, are sacraments of the
New Testament, the Papists have thence gathered, and ever since held,
that there are seven sacraments instituted by CHRIST, truly and properly
so called; insomuch that, in the Council of Trent, they determined that
whosoever said there are more or less, should be accursed. Now our
Church, not much fearing their curse, hath here declared, that only two
of them, to wit, baptism and the eucharist, are properly sacraments of
the New Testament, and that the other five are not to be accounted so;
not but that, as the word _sacrament_ was anciently used for any sacred
sign or ceremony, it may, in some sense, be applied to these also; but,
as it is here expressed, those five have not the like nature of
sacraments with baptism and the LORD’S supper. They may call them
sacraments if they please; but they are not such sacraments as baptism
and the LORD’S supper are, and therefore not sacraments properly so
called. For that these two are sacraments properly so called, is
acknowledged on both sides; and therefore, whatsoever is a sacrament
properly so called, must have the like nature with them, so as to agree
with them in all those things wherein their sacramental nature
consisteth, that is, in such things wherein they two most nearly agree
with one another: for that wherein the species do most nearly agree with
one another, must needs be their general nature. Now, there are several
things wherein these two do so agree; for they are both instituted by
CHRIST. They have both external signs and symbols determined in the
gospel, which represent inward and spiritual grace unto us; yea, and
they have both promises annexed to them: whereas the other five agree
with these in none of these things, or, howsoever, none of them agree in
all of them, and, by consequence, cannot be sacraments properly so
called.
I. First, They do not agree with them in their institution from CHRIST.
That baptism and the LORD’S supper were instituted by CHRIST, they
cannot deny; but that the other were, we do.
1. As, first, for _confirmation_, which we confess was a custom
anciently used in the Church of CHRIST, and still ought to be retained,
even for children after baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they
might receive the HOLY GHOST by prayers, and the laying on of hands. But
some of the Papists themselves acknowledge, that this was never
instituted and ordained by CHRIST as the other sacraments were; neither
did the Fathers use this as any distinct sacrament of itself, but as the
perfection and consummation of the sacrament of baptism; and the chrism
or ointment which they used was only a ceremony annexed to baptism also,
as the cross and other ceremonies were.
2. And as for _penance_, which they define to be a sacrament of the
remission of sins which are committed after baptism, I would willingly
know where or when CHRIST ever instituted such a sacrament? What though
he commanded all men to repent, is every command of CHRIST the
institution of a sacrament? Or is it outward penance that is here
commanded? Or, rather, is it not inward and true repentance? And what
though CHRIST said, “Those sins that you forgive, they are forgiven;”
what matter what form, what signs of sacrament, were appointed and
instituted in these words?
3. And so for _orders_, or the ordination of ministers, we know it is a
thing instituted of CHRIST: must it needs be, therefore, a sacrament, or
instituted as a sacrament? Because CHRIST ordained that bishops,
priests, and deacons should be ordained, doth it therefore follow that
he intended and instituted their ordination as a sacrament?
4. And as for _matrimony_, we know their corrupt translation has it,
“And this is a great sacrament,” (Eph. v. 32,) instead of “this is a
great mystery,” or secret, as the Syriac and Arabic read it; and shall
their false translation of the Scripture be a sufficient ground for
CHRIST’S institution of a sacrament?
5. And, lastly, for _extreme unction_, which Bellarmine tells us “is
truly and properly a sacrament, wherein the organs of the senses, the
eyes, nostrils, lips, hands, feet, and reins, in those that are about to
die, are anointed with exorcised oil.” What institution have we for this
sacrament in the gospel? Yes, say they, the apostles anointed with oil
many that were sick, and healed them. (Mark vi. 13.) It is very good;
the apostles’ practice and example were the institution of a sacrament.
By this rule, whatsoever the apostles did must be a sacrament; and so
plucking off the ears of corn must be a sacrament too at length. But
certainly, if example must be the ground of institution, anointing the
eyes of the blind with clay and spittle must be much more a sacrament
than the anointing of the sick with oil; for it was the apostles only
that did this, but it was our SAVIOUR himself that did that. (John ix.
6.) But the apostle saith, “Is any one sick amongst you? let him call
for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him
with oil, in the name of the LORD.” (James v. 14.) It is true: but what
analogy is there betwixt this anointing of the apostles and the extreme
unction of the Papists? This was to be applied to any that were sick,
“Is any one sick amongst you?” but theirs only to such as are past all
hopes of recovery: the apostles’ was to be done by several elders; the
Papists’ only by one priest: the apostles’ was to be performed with
simple oil; the Papists’ with consecrated and exorcised oil. So that the
Papists’ extreme unction cannot possibly lay claim to any institution
from that place, as Cajetan himself acknowledged.
II. And as for external signs and symbols, analogically representing
inward spiritual grace, which constitute the very form of the sacraments
of baptism and the LORD’S supper, it is in vain to look for the like in
the other sacraments, falsely so called, as is observed in the Article
itself. For example: what is the sign in penance? Or, if there be a
sign, what is the grace that is analogically represented by it? I know
they cannot agree amongst themselves, what is the form or sign in this
sacrament? Some say the words of absolution, others absolution itself,
others imposition of hands; but whichsoever of these we take, they
cannot be such signs or symbols as are in baptism and the LORD’S supper.
For there is water, and bread, and wine, all substances; whereas these
are all actions, and so accidents. The like may be said also of
confirmation and orders, which have no such visible sign, howsoever not
appointed by CHRIST. And so for matrimony too, there is no visible sign
of any invisible grace can possibly be fastened upon it. To say that the
priest’s words, or the parties’ mutual consent, is the form or sign, is
a mere evasion: for the parties’ consent is an invisible thing, and
therefore cannot be a visible sign: the words of the priest are mere
words, which may be heard indeed, but cannot be seen, and so cannot be
any visible sign. Neither are words significative elements, as bread and
wine are, and therefore cannot be the signs of such sacraments as they
be. And for extreme unction, there is, I confess, an external sign in
it, even unction; but what analogy hath this external sign to any
internal grace? Two things, they say, are represented by it, bodily
health and forgiveness of sins; but is bodily health an inward grace?
Or, suppose it was, what similitude is there betwixt that and oil, or
unction? Forgiveness of sins, I know, is a spiritual grace; but none of
them durst ever yet undertake to show the analogy betwixt the outward
sign and this invisible grace. And seeing there is no analogy betwixt
the oil and remission of sins, that cannot be looked upon as any
sacramental sign or symbol, as water and wine are in the other
sacraments, exactly representing the inward spiritual grace that is
signified by them. To all which we might add also, that it is the nature
of a sacrament to have promises annexed to them—promises of spiritual
things. And what promises do we find in Scripture made to matrimony, to
confirmation, to orders, and the rest.
But whatsoever other things the Papists would obtrude upon us as
sacraments, it is certain that we find our SAVIOUR solemnly instituting
two, and but two, sacraments in the New Testament; to wit, these here
mentioned, baptism and the LORD’S supper. And, therefore, when the
apostle compares the law with the gospel, he instances these two
sacraments only, and none else: “And were all baptized into Moses in the
cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” (1 Cor.
x. 2, 3.) And he again joins these two together, saying, “For by one
SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink
into one spirit.” (xii. 13.) And thus do the Fathers observe how, when
one of the soldiers pierced our SAVIOUR’S side, and there came out blood
and water, (John xix. 34,) the two sacraments of the New Testament were
thereby intimated to us.—_Beveridge._
SEXAGESIMA. (See _Septuagesima_.)
SEXTON; from _Sacristan_. The sexton was originally regarded as the
keeper of the holy things devoted to Divine worship: he is appointed by
the minister or parishioners according to custom; and his salary is
according to the custom of each parish, or is settled by the parish
vestry. In the case of Olive _v._ Ingram it was held, that a woman is as
capable of being elected to this office as a man, and that women may
have a voice in the election. The duty of a sexton is to keep the church
and pews cleanly swept and sufficiently aired; to make graves, and open
vaults for the burial of the dead; to provide (under the churchwarden’s
direction) candles, &c. for lighting the church; bread and wine, and
other necessaries, for the communion, and also water for baptisms; to
attend the church during Divine service, in order to open the pew doors
for the parishioners, keep out dogs, and prevent disturbances, &c. It
has been held that if a sexton be removed without sufficient cause, a
mandamus will lie for his restitution. But where it appeared that the
office was held only during pleasure, and not for life, the court
refused to interfere. The salary, however, generally depends on the
annual vote of the parishioners.
SHAFT. The central portion of a pillar, resting on the base, and
supporting the capital. (See _Pillar_.)
SHAKERS. A party of enthusiasts left England for America in 1774, and
settled in the province of New York, where the society soon increased,
and received the ludicrous denomination of _Shakers_, from the practice
of shaking and dancing. They affected to consider themselves as forming
the only true Church, and their preachers as possessed of the apostolic
gift: the wicked, they thought, would only be punished for a time,
except those who should be so incorrigibly depraved as to fall from
_their_ Church. They disowned baptism and the eucharist, not as in
themselves wrong, but as unnecessary in the new dispensation, which they
declared was opening upon mankind; and this was the _Millennium_, in
which, however, they expected that CHRIST would appear personally only
to his saints. Their leader was Anna Leese, whom they believed to be the
woman mentioned in the Apocalypse, as clothed with the sun, and the moon
under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. The
successors of this _elect body_ have been, they say, as perfect as she
was, and have possessed, like her, unreserved intercourse with angels
and departed spirits, and the power of imparting spiritual gifts.
SHECHINAH. (_Hebr._) By this word the Hebrews meant the visible
manifestation of the Divine presence in the temple of Jerusalem. It was
a bright cloud, resting over the propitiatory or mercy-seat; from whence
GOD gave forth his oracles with an articulate voice, when he was
consulted by the high priest in favour of the people. Hence GOD is often
said in Scripture to sit upon the cherubims, or between the cherubims,
because the cherubims shadowed with their wings the mercy-seat, over
which the Shechinah resided.
The Rabbins tell us, that the Shechinah first resided in the tabernacle
prepared by Moses in the wilderness, and that it descended therein on
the day of its consecration. From thence it passed into the sanctuary of
Solomon’s temple, on the day of its dedication by that prince; where it
continued to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the
Chaldeans, and was never after seen.
The Mohammedans pretend the Shechinah was in the shape of a leopard; and
that, in time of war, when the ark of the covenant, over which it
resided, was carried into the field of battle, it raised itself up, and
sent forth such a dreadful cry, as threw the enemy into the utmost
confusion. Others of them imagine it to have had the figure of a man,
and say, that, when it was carried into the army, it stood up upon its
feet, and came forth like a vehement wind, which, rushing upon the
enemy, put them to flight.
SHEWBREAD. The name given to those loaves of bread which the Hebrew
priests placed, every sabbath day, upon the golden table in the
sanctuary. The Hebrew literally signifies _bread of faces_, these loaves
being square, and having, as it were, four faces, or four sides. They
are called _shewbread_ by the Greek and Latin interpreters, because they
were exposed to public view before the ark. The table on which they were
placed was called _the table of shewbread_.
The shewbread consisted of twelve loaves, according to the number of the
tribes. These were served up hot on the sabbath day, and at the same
time the stale ones, which had been exposed during the whole week, were
taken away. It was not lawful for any one to eat of these loaves, but
the priests only. David, indeed, compelled by urgent necessity, broke
through this restriction. This offering was accompanied with salt and
frankincense, which was burnt upon the table at the time when they set
on fresh loaves.
Authors are not agreed as to the manner in which the loaves of shewbread
were ranged upon the table. Some think there were three piles of them,
of four in each; others say, there were but two piles, of six loaves in
each. The Rabbins tell us that, between every two loaves, there were two
golden pipes, supported by forks of the same metal, whose ends rested
upon the ground, to convey air to the loaves, to hinder them from
growing mouldy.
SHRINE. The places where something sacred, or a relic, is deposited.
SHRIVE. To administer confession.
SHROVE TUESDAY. The day before Ash Wednesday, so called in the Church of
England from the old Saxon word _shrive_, _shrif_, or _shrove_, which,
in that language, signifies to _confess_; it being our duty to confess
our sins to GOD on that day, in order to receive the blessed sacrament
of the eucharist, and thereby qualify ourselves for a more religious
observance of the holy time of Lent immediately ensuing.
SICK, COMMUNION OF. (See _Communion of the Sick_.)
SICK, VISITATION OF. By Canon 76, “When any person is dangerously sick
in any parish, the minister or curate, having knowledge thereof, shall
resort unto him or her, (if the disease be not known, or probably
suspected, to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort them in their
distress, according to the order of the communion book if he be no
preacher, or if he be a preacher, then as he shall think most needful
and convenient.” And by the rubric, before the office for the Visitation
of the Sick, “When any person is sick, notice shall be given thereof to
the minister of the parish, who shall go to the sick person’s house, and
use the office there appointed. And the minister shall examine the sick
person whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with
all the world; exhorting him to forgive, from the bottom of his heart,
all persons that have offended him; and if he hath offended any other,
to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any
man, that he may make amends to the utmost of his power. And if he hath
not before disposed of his goods, let him then be admonished to make his
will, and to declare his debts what he oweth, and what is owing to him,
for the better discharge of his conscience, and the quietness of his
executors. But men should often be put in remembrance to take order for
the settling of their temporal estates, while they are in health. And
the minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons, as are
of ability, to be liberal to the poor.” (See _Absolution_, _Communion of
Sick_, _Visitation of Sick_.)
SIDESMAN. It was usual for bishops in their visitations, to summon some
credible persons out of every parish, whom they examined on oath
concerning the condition of the church, and other affairs relating to
it. Afterwards these persons became standing officers in several places,
especially in great cities; and when personal visitations were a little
disused, and when it became a custom for the parishioners to repair the
body of the church, which began about the fifteenth century, these
officers were still more necessary, and then they were called _Testes
Synodales_ or _Juratores Synodi_; some called them synods-men, and now
they are corruptly called _sidesmen_. They are chosen every year,
according to the custom of the place, and their business is to assist
the churchwardens in inquiring into things relating to the church, and
making presentment of such matters as are punishable by the
ecclesiastical laws. Hence they are also called _Questmen_; but now the
whole office for the most part is devolved upon the churchwardens,
though not universally. (See _Churchwardens_.)
SIGNIFICAVIT. The writ _de excommunicato capiendo_ was called a
_significavit_ from the word at the beginning of the writ: _Rex
vicecomiti L. salutem_. SIGNIFICAVIT _nobis venerabilis Pater, H. L.
Episcopus, &c._
ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE’S DAY. A holy-day appointed by the Church for the
commemoration of these saints, observed in our Church on the 28th
October.
The first is St. Simon, surnamed the Canaanite and Zelotes, which two
names are, in fact, the same; for the Hebrew term, _Canaan_, signifies a
zealot.
There was a sect of men called Zealots, about the time of CHRIST, in
Judea, who, out of a pretended zeal for GOD’S honour, would commit the
most grievous outrages: they would choose and ordain high priests out of
the basest of the people, and murder men of the highest and most
illustrious extraction. And it is highly probable that this Simon,
before his conversion and call, was one of this hot-headed sect; or, at
least, that there was some fire or fierceness conspicuous in his temper
that occasioned his being distinguished by that warm name. He was one of
the twelve apostles, and a relation of our blessed LORD; either his
half-brother, being one of Joseph’s sons by another wife, or a cousin by
his mother’s side.
The other saint this day commemorated, was likewise one of the twelve
apostles, and James’s brother, and consequently of the same degree of
consanguinity to our blessed SAVIOUR.
He had two surnames, viz. Thaddeus, which seems to be nothing more than
a diminutive of the term _Judas_, as it is derived from the same Hebrew
root; and Lebbeus, which is derived from another Hebrew root, signifying
little heart.
SIMONY. The corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical
benefice for money, gift, or reward. It is so called from the sin of
Simon Magus, who thought to have purchased the power of conferring the
gift of the HOLY GHOST for money (Acts viii. 19); though the purchasing
holy orders seemed to approach nearer to his offence. It is by the canon
law a very grievous offence; and is so much the more odious, because, as
Sir Edward Coke observes, it is ever accompanied with perjury; for the
presentee is sworn to have committed no simony.
Canon 40, “to avoid the detestable sin of simony,” provides this
declaration upon oath, to be taken by every person on being instituted
to a benefice; “I do swear that I have made no simoniacal payment,
contract, or promise, directly or indirectly, by myself, or by any other
to my knowledge or with my consent, to any person or persons whatsoever,
for or concerning the procuring or obtaining of this ecclesiastical
place, preferment, office, or living, nor will I at any time hereafter
perform or satisfy any such kind of payment, contract, or promise, made
by any other without my knowledge or consent: so help me GOD through
JESUS CHRIST.”
And by statute 31 Eliz. c. 6, for the avoiding of simony and corruption,
it is provided that all presentations made for such consideration as is
described in the above-quoted canon, shall be utterly void; and any
person or body politic or corporate, presenting to a benefice for such
consideration, shall forfeit two years’ value or profits of the
benefice, and the person procuring himself to be so presented shall be
for ever disabled from holding that benefice; and any person who shall
take any reward, other than the usual fees for admitting or inducting to
a benefice, shall forfeit two years’ profits of such benefice; and the
admission or induction shall be void, and the patron may present again
as if the person so inducted or admitted were naturally dead.
In the great case of the _Bishop of London_ and _Lewis Disney Ffytche_,
Esq., in the year 1780, the rectory of the parish church of Woodham
Walter in Essex being vacant, Mr. Ffytche presented his clerk, the Rev.
John Eyre, to the bishop for institution. The bishop being informed that
the said John Eyre had given his patron a bond in a large penalty to
resign the said rectory at any time upon his request, and the said John
Eyre acknowledging that he had given such a bond, the bishop refused to
institute him to the living.
Thereupon Mr. Ffytche brought a _quare impedit_ against the bishop in
the court of Common Pleas. The cause was decided against the bishop in
that court, and, subsequently, in the court of Queen’s Bench; but upon
appeal to the House of Lords, after much debate, and the opinions of the
judges being called for, the decision of the courts below was, upon the
motion of Lord Thurlow, reversed. The lords, however, divided upon the
question, and the numbers were nineteen to eighteen for reversing the
decision of the inferior law courts, all the bishops present voting in
the majority. But that decision of the House of Lords, though much
objected to by lawyers at the time, is now held to be settled law. The
ground of the decision was, that the bond to the patron to resign was a
benefit to the said patron, and therefore the presentation was void. The
law upon this matter will be found in the opinions of the judges given
to the House of Lords, in 1826, in the case _Fletcher v. Lord Sondes_.
See Bingham’s Reports, iii. 501. The decision in this case led to the
passing of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25, and was followed by the Act 9
Geo. IV. c. 94, by which bonds of resignation in certain cases are
rendered legally valid.
SIN, DEADLY SIN, AND SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. Our sixteenth Article,
headed “Of Sin after Baptism,” runs thus: “Not every deadly sin
willingly committed after baptism, is sin against the HOLY GHOST, and
unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to
such as fall into sin, after baptism. After we have received the HOLY
GHOST we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the
grace of GOD (we may) arise again, and amend our lives; and therefore
they are to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they
live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”
This Article is levelled against the doctrine of the Novatians of old,
who held every sin committed after baptism to be unpardonable. This
doctrine being revived by some of the Anabaptists, or other enthusiasts,
who sprang up at the beginning of the Reformation, it is not improbable
that the compilers of the Articles had an eye likewise upon their
heterodoxy. For, as the Papists were wont maliciously to impute the wild
doctrines of all the several sorts of enthusiasts to all Protestants, so
it was thought here convenient to defend our Church against the
imputation of any such opinion.—_Dr. Nicholls._
In the preceding Article (of the XXXIX.) notice was taken of a sect of
Christians who maintain the peccability of CHRIST; and in this we have
to argue against those who contend for the impeccability of man.—_Bp.
Tomline._
By “deadly sin” in this Article we are not to understand such sins as,
in the Church of Rome, are called “mortal,” in opposition to others that
are “venial:” as if some sins, though offences against GOD, and
violations of his law, could be of their own nature such slight things,
that they deserved only temporal punishment, and were to be expiated by
some piece of penance or devotion, or the communication of the merits of
others. The Scripture nowhere teaches us to think so slightly of the
majesty of GOD, or of his law. There is a “curse” upon every one “that
continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to
do them” (Gal. iii. 10); and the same curse must have been on us all, if
CHRIST had not redeemed us from it: “the wages of sin is death.” And St.
James asserts, that there is such a complication of all the precepts of
the law of GOD, both with one another, and with the authority of the
Lawgiver, that “he who offends in one point is guilty of all.” (James
ii. 10, 11.) So since GOD has in his word given us such dreadful
apprehensions of his wrath, and of the guilt of sin, we dare not soften
these to a degree below the majesty of the eternal GOD, and the dignity
of his most holy laws. But after all, we are far from the conceit of the
Stoics, who made all sins alike. We acknowledge that some sins of
ignorance and infirmity may consist with a state of grace; which is
either quite destroyed, or at least much eclipsed and clouded, by other
sins, that are more heinous in their nature, and more deliberately gone
about. It is in this sense that the word “deadly sin” is to be
understood in the Article; for though in the strictness of justice every
sin is “deadly,” yet in the dispensation of the gospel those sins only
are “deadly” that do deeply wound the conscience, and that drive away
grace.—_Bp. Burnet._
Every sin is in its nature deadly, since “the wages of sin is death”
(Rom. vi. 23): and every sin is committed against the HOLY GHOST, as
well as against the FATHER and the SON; but still pardonable, if it be
not that sin which is emphatically styled “the sin against the HOLY
GHOST;” and that is “blasphemy against the HOLY GHOST.” (Matt. xii. 31,
32; Mark iii. 28–30.) Of which sin St. Jerome says, that “they only are
guilty, who, though in miracles they see the very work of GOD, yet
slander them, and say that they are done by the devil; and ascribe to
the operation of that evil spirit, and not to the Divine power, all
those mighty signs and wonders which were wrought for the confirmation
of the gospel.” In relation to all other sins, we are, as Clement of
Rome observes, “to fix our eyes on the blood of CHRIST, which was shed
for our salvation, and hath obtained the grace of repentance for the
whole world.”—_Archdeacon Welchman._
And “the doors,” says Clement of Alexandria, “are open to every one, who
in truth, and with his whole heart, returns to GOD; and the FATHER most
willingly receives a son who truly repents.” This is the general tenor
of Scripture, in which all men are invited to repentance without any
discrimination or exception. And we are told, even under the Mosaic
dispensation, that “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as
white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”
(Isaiah i. 18.) And the exhortations to amendment and reformation,
contained in the Epistles, are all addressed to persons who had been
already baptized, and who had been guilty of faults or sins subsequent
to their baptism.—_Bp. Tomline._
The Church of Rome, in order to establish its dangerous doctrine of the
merit of good works, which is equally opposed to Scripture and to fact,
divides sin into two classes: _mortal_ sin, that sin which is in its
nature gross, and is committed knowingly, wilfully, deliberately; and
_venial_ sin, under which head are classed all sins of ignorance and
negligence, and such as are considered small in their nature.
It is difficult to distinguish, in some instances, between mortal sins
and venial sins. But they form two distinct classes of sin, differing
not merely in degree, but in genus or kind.
Mortal sins render the transgressors children of wrath and enemies of
GOD; but it is in regard to venial sins that the error or heresy is
propounded. It is stated that in this mortal life even holy and
justified persons fall into daily venial sins, which, nevertheless, do
not in any way affect or detract from their holy character, “and which
do not exclude the transgressor from the grace of GOD.”
It is here to be observed that we do not deny that a distinction is to
be made between sins of greater or less enormity. But the error of the
Romanist is this—that he makes the two classes of sin to differ not only
in enormity and degree, which we admit to be the case, but also in their
nature and kind. No amount of venial sins, according to Bellarmine,
would ever make a mortal sin.
We also make a distinction of sins: we call some sins deadly, and others
infirmities; we consider the commission of some sins as not inconsistent
with a state of grace, whereas by others the HOLY SPIRIT may be grieved,
done despite unto, and quenched, so that the sinner shall be spiritually
dead: he shall die a second death.
But here is the difference between us and the Romanists: although we
speak of some sins as of less, and of others as of greater enormity, we
consider every sin to be in its nature mortal; that by many little sins
a man may be damned, even as a ship may be sunk by a weight of sand as
well as by a weight of lead; and that they are not damnable to _us_,
only from the constant intercession of CHRIST. Whereas negligences and
ignorances, and sins of lesser enormity, are by the Romanists not
regarded as sins at all, in the proper sense of the word.
Hence _we_ are for ever relying directly upon CHRIST for pardon and for
mercy, while they rely upon their own merits. They appeal to the justice
of GOD; we, knowing that by his justice we must be condemned, confide in
his mercy. _They_ say that venial sin is not in itself mortal; _we_
regard all sin as mortal in itself, but rejoice to know that “if any man
sin” (any man in a state of justification, and, on that account, not
sinning habitually and wilfully) “we have an advocate with the FATHER,
JESUS CHRIST the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”
The doctrine of the Church of England leads men to CHRIST, and nails
them prostrate to the foot of the cross; whereas the Romish doctrine,
though taking men to CHRIST in the first instance, soon removes them
from the only rock of salvation, and induces them to rely upon an arm of
flesh. Our doctrine lays low in the dust all human pride, it annihilates
every notion of human merit, and exalts the SAVIOUR as our all in all;
the Romish doctrine, establishing the idea of human merit and
supererogatory works, drives some to despair, and inflames others with
spiritual pride, while it terminates in practical idolatry. Our doctrine
is primitive, catholic, and scriptural, as well as Protestant, ever
reminding us that “there is one GOD, and one Mediator between GOD and
men, the man CHRIST JESUS;” while their doctrine is mediæval,
scholastic, heretical, and opposed to the truth as it is in JESUS.
SI QUIS. (See _Orders, Ordination_.) In the Church of England, before a
person is admitted to holy orders, a notice called the “_Si quis_” (from
the Latin of the words _if any person_, occurring in the form) is
published in the church of the parish where the candidate usually
resides, in the following form: “Notice is hereby given, that A. B., now
resident in this parish, intends to offer himself a candidate for the
holy office of a deacon [or priest] at the ensuing ordination of the
Lord Bishop of ——; and if any person knows any just cause or impediment,
for which he ought not to be admitted into holy orders, he is now to
declare the same, or to signify the same forthwith to the bishop.”
This is a proper occasion, of which the conscientious layman would take
advantage, of testifying, if he knows anything which unfits the
candidate for the sacred office to which he aspires: if no objection be
made, a certificate is forwarded to the bishop, of the publication of
the _Si quis_, with no impediment alleged, by the officiating minister
and the churchwardens.
In the case of a bishop, the _Si quis_ is affixed by an officer of the
Arches on the door of Bow Church, and he then also makes three
proclamations for opposers to appear, &c.
SITTING. This posture is allowed in our Church at the reading of the
lessons in the Morning and Evening Prayer, and also of the first lesson
or Epistle in the Communion Service, but at no other time except during
the sermon. Even thus we have somewhat relaxed the rule of the primitive
Church, in which the people stood, even to hear sermons. Some
ultra-Protestant sects have irreverently used sitting as the posture of
receiving the LORD’S supper, which ought to be accounted the act of
deepest devotion. Some Arians in Poland have done this even for a worse
reason: i. e. to show that they do not believe CHRIST to be GOD, but
only their fellow-creature.
SOCIETIES. The Church itself is the proper channel for the circulation
of the Bible and Prayer Book, for the establishment of missions, and the
erection of sanctuaries; the Church acting under her bishops, and by her
representatives in synod. But, under the existing circumstances of the
Church of England, not only convocations, but diocesan synods have been
for many years suspended: had not this been the case, all our plans for
the circulation of the Scriptures, the institution of missions, and so
forth, would have been conducted by committees of the convocation, in
the name and by the avowed authority of the Church. At present we are
obliged to promote these great objects by means of voluntary
associations. A society, to be a Church society, must be confined
exclusively to members of the Church. If Dissenters are admitted to its
government, it is as much a Dissenting society as a Church society, i.
e. it ceases to be a Church society, strictly speaking, since by a
Church society we mean a society distinguished from a Dissenting
society. (See the article on _Schism_.)
But, admitting that we are to unite for religious purposes with
Churchmen only, are laymen by themselves, or laymen assisted by deacons
or presbyters, competent to organize a religious society? And on the
authority of the text, “Obey them that rule over you,” we give our
answer in the negative. There is in every Church, and every diocese of a
Church, a higher authority, to which presbyters, deacons, and laymen are
to defer: the archbishop of the province and all his suffragans, in
matters relating to the Church of the province generally; the diocesan,
in matters relating to a particular diocese. So the first Christians
always understood the passage to which we have referred. “Let no one,”
says Ignatius, the contemporary of the apostles and the disciple of St.
John, “do any of the things pertaining to the Church separately from the
bishop.” “Let presbyters and deacons,” say the Apostolic Canons,
“attempt nothing without the bishop’s allowance, for it is he to whom
the LORD’S people are committed.”—_Canon_ 39. Quotations might be
multiplied to the same effect.
We may here, then, discover another principle. In forming our
institutions we ought to have the episcopal sanction for what we do.
Indeed it seems ridiculous to call ourselves Episcopalians, and then to
act contrary to this law: though by the way, in the very first ages of
the Church, some there were who did so. “Some,” says St. Ignatius, the
disciple of St. John, to whom we have before alluded, “call him bishop,
and yet do all things without him; but these seem not to me to have a
good conscience, but rather to be hypocrites and scorners.” We ought not
to be surprised, therefore, at this inconsistency in our own age, when
even the apostolical times were not exempt from it. But here observe, it
is not the sanction of a bishop, or the sanction of two or three
bishops, that suffices, but the sanction of _the_ bishop, the diocesan.
A bishop may intrude into another man’s diocese, and thus violate the
canons of the Church, and be himself liable to canonical censures: his
example is rather to be avoided than followed. Yet it is necessary to
mention this, because some persons think that all must be right if they
obtain for a favourite society the names of one or two bishops, while
they set aside the authority of the diocesan, against whom, perhaps,
they are acting. This is in fact, when we come to examine the case,
rather a specious evasion than an observance of the system of the
Church, which would lead us to place every institution under the
government of the diocesan.
But bishops are only, like ourselves, fallible men; and therefore we are
not to suppose that the converse of this proposition must be true, that
because no society, except such as has the diocesan at its head, can be
worthy of a churchman’s support, therefore every society which _has_ a
diocesan’s sanction must have a claim upon each inhabitant of that
diocese. The Church defers to her bishops as the executive power, but
she does not regard them as irresponsible, or infallible, or despotic.
She does not intend that they should transgress Scripture, and lord it
over GOD’S heritage. To them, as well as us, the principles of the
Church are to be a guide; and they, like ourselves, may err occasionally
in the application of these principles. And in deciding whether a
society is conducted on Church principles, it is not to the diocesan,
but to the society itself, that we are to refer. And the question is,
not merely whether the diocesan belongs to it, but also whether the
society places the diocesan in his right position? We are to vindicate
the rights of the diocesan, even though the diocesan do himself neglect
them, for these rights pertain, not to him personally, but to the
Church. We are therefore to ascertain, whether he is recognised by the
society _as_ the diocesan, as the spiritual ruler presiding _of right_
over the society; so recognised as that, if he refused to sanction its
proceedings, it would retire from the field; whether it receives him out
of deference to his spiritual character, or only out of respect for his
temporal rank; where, as in this country, temporal rank, a circumstance
of minor consideration, not indeed worthy of notice, is conceded to him?
If the society does not do this, it is not one whit improved, so far as
its constitution is concerned, though a diocesan may peradventure be one
of its members. Here then we come to another principle, and we may sum
up what has been said, by asserting that a religious society, conducted
on strictly Church principles, should consist of churchmen only, and
should be under the superintendence, if instituted for general purposes,
of the archbishops, and all the bishops of both provinces of the Church
of England; if for diocesan purposes, of the diocesan; if for parochial
purposes, of the parochial clergy, who act as the bishop’s delegates.
SOCINIANS. (See _Unitarians_.) A sect of heretics, so called from their
founder, Faustus Socinus, a native of Sienna in Italy, born in 1539.
Their tenets are,
I. That the eternal FATHER was the one only GOD; that the WORD was no
more than an expression of the GODHEAD, and had not existed from all
eternity; and that JESUS CHRIST was GOD, no otherwise than by his
superiority above all creatures, who were put in subjection to him by
the FATHER.
II. That JESUS CHRIST was not a mediator between GOD and men, but sent
into the world to serve as a pattern of their conduct; and that he
ascended up to heaven only, as it were, to take a journey thither.
III. That the punishment of hell will last but for a certain time, after
which both body and soul will be destroyed. And,
IV. That it is not lawful for princes to make war.
These four tenets were what Socinus defended with the greatest zeal: in
other matters, he was a Lutheran, or a Calvinist. The truth is, he did
but refine upon the errors of all the Anti-Trinitarians who had gone
before him.
The Socinians spread extremely in Poland, Lithuania, and Transylvania.
Their chief school was at Racow, and there all their first books were
published. Their sentiments are explained at large in their catechism,
printed several times, under the title of _Catechesis Ecclesiarum
Polonicarum unum Deum patrem, illiusque filium unigenitum, uno cum
Sancto Spiritu, ex sacra scriptura confitentium_. They were exterminated
out of Poland in 1655; since which time they have been chiefly sheltered
in Holland; where, though their public meetings have been prohibited,
they find means to conceal themselves under the names of Arminians and
Anabaptists.
SOFFIT. The under-surface of an arch. In the nomenclature of mouldings,
the _soffit-plane_ is the plane at right angles with the face of the
wall, which is the direction of the soffit in its simplest form. Courses
of mouldings occupying the _soffit-plane_ and the _wall-plane_, to the
exclusion of the _chamfer-plane_, indicate Norman or Early English work.
SOLFIDIANS. Those who rest on faith alone for salvation, without any
connexion with works; or who judge themselves to be CHRIST’S because
they believe they are.
SOMPNOUR. (_Chaucer._) An officer employed to summon delinquents to
appear in ecclesiastical courts; now called an apparitor.
SON OF GOD. (See JESUS, LORD.) “The SON, which is the WORD of the
FATHER, begotten from everlasting of the FATHER, the very and eternal
GOD, and of one substance with the FATHER, took man’s nature in the womb
of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect
natures, that is to say, the GODHEAD and Manhood, were joined together
in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one CHRIST, very GOD and
very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to
reconcile his FATHER to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—_Article_ II. He is the true,
proper, and only Son of GOD; begotten “from the beginning;” “before the
foundation of the world” (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 John i. 1); as he “came down
from heaven,” (John vi. 38,) where he had “glory with the FATHER,”
“before the world was” (John xvii. 5); as he is himself called GOD,
“one” with the “FATHER,” (John x. 30,) being of the same Divine essence
communicated to him, (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 26; xiii. 3; xvi. 15; Rom.
xiv. 9,) and exercising a power above that of all created beings. (Eph.
i. 21; Heb. i. 2, 13; 1 Pet. iii. 22.) By him the world and “all things
were made,” (John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10,) “by whom are all
things,” (1 Cor. viii. 6,) for “He is before all things, and by him all
things consist.” (Col. i. 17.) “All things are put in subjection under
his feet,” and “nothing is left that is not put under him.” (Heb. ii. 8;
Ps. viii. 6; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Eph. i. 22.) Of the manner and nature of
this generation we are ignorant, and must not endeavour to be wise above
what is written. We find our LORD declared by prophecy to be a “son
begotten,” (Ps. ii. 7,) and acknowledged, by inspiration, as “the only
begotten SON.” (John iii. 16; i. 14; 1 John iv. 9.) That he is “the
image of the invisible GOD, the first-born of (or before) every
creature, for by him were all things created” (Col. i. 15, 16); and who
thus “being in the form of GOD,” “the brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person,” (Heb. i. 3,) was without “robbery equal to
GOD.” (Phil. ii. 6.) That he “is in the bosom of the FATHER,” (John i.
18,) and is “one” with him. (John x. 30.) Many similes were imagined by
the ancients to elucidate this: as the sun producing light—a fountain
its streams, &c.; but too much caution cannot be used on this subject,
lest things are conceived or uttered by us derogatory to the ineffable
nature and peculiar attributes of the Divine majesty.
He was foretold in Scripture as “the SON of GOD,” (Luke i. 35,) and
acknowledged on earth—by men inspired (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 34; xx.
31; Acts ix. 20);—by devils (Matt. viii. 29; Mark iii. 11; Luke iv.
41);—and by the world (Matt. xiv. 33; John i. 49; xi. 27,) as he shall
be in heaven (Rev. ii. 18). Therefore he addresses GOD as his “FATHER,”
(Mark xiv. 36, &c.,) and claims to himself the title from men, (John v.
18, 22–25; ix. 35 with 37,) though for this he was accused, by the Jews,
of blasphemy (John x. 36; xix. 7). He is the only SON, also, by reason
of his resurrection from the dead, there being none but him begotten by
such generation.
SONG. As applied to sacred subjects, it is one of the classes of vocal
praise mentioned in Scripture: according to the enumeration of the
apostle, (Eph. v. 19,) ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ψοαῖς πνευματικαῖς.
(Psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, or odes.) Wolfius, in his note
on Eph. v. 14, quotes an opinion of _Heumannus_, in his _Pœcile_, (ii.
lib. iii. frag. 390,) that this verse of the apostle’s, “Awake, thou
that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and CHRIST shall give thee
life,” is a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn or spiritual song: and
remarks that there is a natural rhythm in the original:
ἔγειραι ὁ καθεύσων,
καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ χριστός.
However this may be, it is to be hoped that the recent discoveries of
early Christian hymns in the Syriac language may throw light on this
subject; and here Dr. Burgess’s late translation of the hymns of Ephrem
Syrus may be consulted with advantage. The Evening Hymn of the first or
second century, preserved by St. Basil, and given in _Routh’s Reliquiæ
Sacræ_, is an interesting illustration of the ancient Christian songs.
The word _song_ in the Old Testament is in the Hebrew _Shir_. Many of
the Psalms are so denominated: sometimes simply _Shir_, at other times
_Mizmor Shir_ (Psalm-Song), or _Shir Mizmor_ (Song-Psalm). It is not,
perhaps, possible to distinguish them in style or subject from other
Psalms. The word appears by comparison of different passages of
Scripture to mean anything sung to instrumental music, as these
instruments are called in Scripture instruments of _Shir_, i. e.
accompanying vocal music. See 2 Chron. v. 13.
SONGS OF DEGREES. (See _Degrees_, and _Psalms_.)
SORTES. A method of divination borrowed by some superstitious Christians
from the heathen, and condemned by several councils. The heathen,
opening Virgil at hazard, took the first words they found as indicating
future events, and this process they called _Sortes Virgilianæ_. The
superstitious imitators of this custom used the Bible in the same way,
and called their divinations _Sortes sacræ_.
SOUTHCOTTIANS. The deluded followers of one Johanna Southcot, a servant
girl at Exeter, who, towards the close of the last century, gave herself
out as the woman in the wilderness, mentioned in the Apocalypse, and
declared that she held converse with spirits, good and bad, and with the
HOLY GHOST himself. She gave sealed papers, which were called her
“seals,” to her followers, which were to protect them from all evil of
this life and the next. In 1814, having fallen from indulgence and want
of exercise into a habit of body which gave her the appearance of
pregnancy, she announced herself the mother of the approaching Shiloh.
She died, however, and her body was opened, revealing the real cause of
her appearance; but her death and burial did not undeceive her
followers, though no resurrection of their leader has yet taken place.
SPANDRIL. The triangular portion of wall between two arches, or an arch
and the adjoining wall; or between the side of an arch and the square
panel in which it is set. The latter is a remarkable feature in
perpendicular doorways, being often richly ornamented with figures,
foliage, or heraldic shields.
SPIRE. The high pyramidal capping or roof of a tower. The earliest
spires still existing in England are Early English; and in this style,
as well as in the next, or Geometric, it is generally of the form called
a broach. In the Decorated, the broach and the parapetted spire occur
indifferently; in the Perpendicular, the latter almost exclusively,
though there is a large portion of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire
in which Perpendicular broaches are not uncommon. Many of our loftiest
spires were formerly of timber, covered with lead: such was the spire of
St. Paul’s cathedral, the highest in the kingdom; such is still the
remarkable twisted spire of Chesterfield. Several smaller spires of this
kind remain in the southern counties, but the perishableness of the
material has led to the destruction of by far the greater number of
them.
SPLAY. The slanting expansion inwards of windows, for the wider
diffusion of light. This is usually very great in Norman windows, where
the external aperture is small.
SPONSORS. In the administration of baptism, these have from time
immemorial held a distinguished and important place. Various titles have
been given them significative of the position they hold, and the duties
to which they are pledged. Thus they are called _sponsors_, because in
infant baptism they _respond_ or answer for the baptized. They are
_sureties_, in virtue of the security given through them to the Church,
that the baptized shall be “virtuously brought up to lead a godly and a
Christian life.” And from the spiritual affinity here created, by which
a responsibility almost parental is undertaken by the sureties, in the
future training of the baptized, the terms _godfather and godmother_
have taken their rise.
(For the rubrics and canons on this subject see _Godfather_.)
In the ancient Church they reckoned three sorts of sponsors: 1. For
children, who could not renounce, or profess, or answer for themselves.
2. For such adult persons, as by reason of sickness or infirmity were in
the same condition as children, incapable of answering for themselves.
3. For all adult persons in general.
The sponsors for children were obliged to answer to all the
interrogatories usually made in baptism, and then to be the guardians of
their Christian education. In most cases, parents were sponsors for
their own children; and the extraordinary cases in which they were
presented by others were such, where the parent could not or would not
perform that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented for
baptism by their masters; or children, whose parents were dead, were
brought by any charitable persons, who would take pity on them; or
children exposed by their parents, who were sometimes taken up by the
holy virgins of the Church, and by them presented unto baptism. In these
cases, where strangers became sureties for children, they were not
obliged, by virtue of their suretyship, to maintain them; but the Church
was charged with this care, and they were supported out of the common
stock. All that was required of such sponsors was, first, to answer to
the several interrogatories in baptism; and, secondly, to take care, by
good admonitions and instructions, that they performed their part of the
covenant they engaged in.
The second sort of sponsors were to answer for such adult persons as
were incapable of answering for themselves. These were such as were
suddenly struck speechless, or seized with a frenzy through the violence
of some distemper, and the like. And they might be baptized, if their
friends could testify that they had beforehand desired baptism. In which
case the same friends became sponsors for them, making the very same
answers for them that they did for children.
The third sort of sponsors were for such adult persons as were able to
answer for themselves; for these also had their sureties, and no persons
anciently were baptized without them. It was no part of the office of
these sponsors to answer to the interrogatories made in baptism: the
adult persons were to answer for themselves, according to that plain
sentence of the gospel, “He is of age, let him answer for himself.” The
only business of sponsors, in this case, was to be guardians of their
spiritual life, and to take care of their instruction and morals, both
before and after baptism. This office was chiefly imposed upon the
deacons for the men, and the deaconesses for the women.
Anciently, there was no prohibition of any sorts of men from performing
this charitable office; excepting only catechumens, energumens,
heretics, and penitents; that is, persons who as yet were never in full
communion with the Church, or such as had forfeited the privileges of
baptism and Church communion by their crimes or errors; such persons
being deemed incapable of assisting others, who stood in need of
assistance themselves. In the time of Charles the Great, the Council of
Mentz forbade fathers to be sponsors for their own children: and this
was the first prohibition of this sort.
It is observable, that anciently no more than one sponsor was required,
namely, a man for a man, and a woman for a woman. In the case of
infants, no regard was had to the difference of sex: for a virgin might
be sponsor for a male child, and a father for his children, whether male
or female. This practice was confirmed by the Council of Mentz, upon a
reason which is something peculiar: for they concluded, that, because
there is but one GOD, one faith, and one baptism, therefore an infant
ought to have but one sponsor.—_Bingham._
SQUINCH. More properly _Pendentive_. A small arch thrown across the
angle of a square tower, to receive one of the sides of an octagonal
spire or lantern. In broach spires the external slant over this arch is
also called a squinch.
STALLS. In a cathedral or collegiate church, and often in parish
churches, certain seats constructed for the clergy and other members of
the Church, and intended for their exclusive use. These stalls are
placed in that portion of the building called the _choir_, or the part
in which Divine service is usually performed.
In ancient times, all members of the cathedral, including lay clerks or
vicars, had their stalls: though the inferior members had not always
fixed stalls appropriated to each individual. Unless when the community
was very small, there was an upper and lower range of stalls, called the
_prima et secunda forma_, (or gradus,) the upper appropriated to the
canons or prebendaries, (and sometimes the priest vicars or minor
canons,) the lower to the other members. The designation of the
respective dignitaries and canons were written on their stalls; in some
few instances, those of the minor canons or priest vicars also. The
destruction of the ancient stalls, as at Canterbury, and of the lower
range of stalls, as in many places, is a barbarism much to be lamented.
The same word is also used to signify any benefice, which gives the
person holding it a seat, or stall, with the chapter, in a cathedral or
collegiate church.
STANDING. The posture enjoined by the Church at several parts of Divine
service, as, for instance, at the exhortation with which the service of
morning and evening commences, and at the ecclesiastical hymns. In the
primitive Church the sermon was listened to standing; and in some
churches the people stood praying on the LORD’S day, and during the
fifty days after Easter, because it was not then so fitting to look
downwards to the earth, as upwards to their risen and ascended Lord.
STATIONS. The weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday. Not long after
Justin Martyr’s time, the Church observed the custom of meeting solemnly
for Divine worship on Wednesdays and Fridays, which days are commonly
called the _stationary days_, because they continued their assemblies on
those days to a great length, till three o’clock in the afternoon: for
which reason they had also the name of _semi-jejunia_, or half fasts, in
opposition to the Lent fasts, which always held till evening.—_Bingham._
_Station_, in the Romish Church, denotes certain churches in which
indulgences are granted on certain days. It is also a ceremony wherein
the clergy go out of the choir and sing before an image.
STEEPLE. The tower of a church with all its appendages, as turret,
octagon, and spire. It is often incorrectly confounded with the spire.
STEPHEN’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church, observed on the
26th of December, in honour of the protomartyr, St. Stephen.
STIPENDIARIES. Members of collegiate choirs, who do not possess an
independent estate, but are paid stipends. At Christ Church in Dublin
there are both vicars choral and stipendiaries, the latter generally
succeeding to vacant vicarages. There were also formerly five
stipendiaries at Tuam; and four at the now ruined cathedral of
Enachdune.—_Harris’s Ware. Cotton’s Facti Eccl. Hib._
STOLE, or ORARIUM. A long and narrow scarf with fringed extremities,
that crossed the breast to the girdle, and thence descended in front on
both sides as low as the knees. The deacon wore it over the left
shoulder, and in the Latin Church joined under the right arm, but in the
Greek Church with its two extremities, one in front and the other
hanging down his back. The word ἄγιος was sometimes thrice embroidered
on it instead of crosses. It is one of the most ancient vestments used
by the Christian clergy, and in its mystical signification represented
the yoke of CHRIST.—_Palmer._
STOUP. A bason to receive holy water, often remaining in porches, or in
some other place near the entrance of the church, and towards the right
hand of a person entering.
SUBCHANTER. (See _Succentor_.)
SUBDEACONS. An inferior order of clergy in the Christian Church, so
called from their being employed in subordination to the deacons.
The first notice we have of this order in any writers, is about the
middle of the third century, when Cyprian lived, who speaks of
subdeacons as settled in the Church in his time. The author of the
“Constitutions” refers them to an apostolical institution, and brings in
St. Thomas the apostle, giving directions to bishops for their
ordination. But in this he is singular, it being the general opinion
that subdeacons are merely of ecclesiastical institution.
As to their office, it was to fit and prepare the sacred vessels and
utensils of the altar, and deliver them to the deacons in the time of
Divine service; but they were not allowed to minister as deacons at the
altar; no, not so much as to come within the rails of it, to set a paten
or cup, or the oblations of the people, thereon. Another of their
offices was, to attend the doors of the church during the Communion
Service. Besides which offices in the church, they had another out of
the church, which was, to carry the bishop’s letters or messages to
foreign Churches. As to their ordination, it was performed without
imposition of hands; and the ceremony consisted in their receiving an
empty paten and cup from the hands of the bishop, and an ewer and towel
from the archdeacon.
The singularity of the Church of Rome was remarkable in keeping to the
exact number of seven subdeacons; whereas in other Churches the number
was indefinite.
The employment of the subdeacons in the Romish Church is, to take care
of the holy vessels, to prepare and pour water upon the wine in the
chalice, to sing the Epistle at solemn masses, to bring and hold the
book of the Gospels to the deacon, to give it the priest to kiss, to
carry the cross in processions, and to receive the oblations of the
people. The bishop, when he confers the order of subdeacon, causes the
candidate to lay his hands on a cup and paten, both empty, saying to him
at the same time, “Videte cujus ministerium vobis traditur,” &c. “Take
care of the ministry which is committed to your charge, and present
yourself unto GOD in such a manner as may be agreeable to him.” After
which, the candidate lays his hand on the Epistles, and the bishop says,
“Receive this book, and the power of reading the Epistles in the holy
Church of GOD.” The person to be ordained must present himself clothed
in a white albe, and holding a lighted taper in his right hand. After
the litanies, &c., the bishop clothes him with the amict, saying,
“Accipe amictum, per quem designatur castigatio vocis,” that is,
“Receive the amict, which denotes the bridle of speech.” He then puts
the maniple on his left arm, telling him that it signifies the fruit of
good works; and clothes him with the dalmatica, letting him know that it
is the garment of joy.
The office of subdeacon does not subsist in the Church of England. It
is, however, mentioned in the statutes of Henry the Eighth’s
foundations, and is considered to be identical with _Epistoler_. The
four subdeacons at Hereford are lay clerks.—_Bingham._
SUBDEAN. An officer in cathedrals, who assists the dean in maintaining
the discipline of the Church. In some cathedrals of the old foundation
he was a permanent dignitary: in others, a minor canon or vicar choral,
and then his jurisdiction was merely over the inferior members. (See
_Vice Dean_.)
SUBINTRODUCTÆ. (See _Agapetæ_.)
SUBLAPSARIANS. Those who hold that GOD permitted the first man to fall
into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or that
the decree of predestination regards man as fallen, by an abuse of that
freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left to
necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by
predestination. (See _Supralapsarians_.)
SUBSTANCE. In relation to the GODHEAD, that which forms the Divine
essence or being—that in which the Divine attributes inhere. In the
language of the Church, and agreeably with holy writ, CHRIST is said to
be of the same _substance_ with the FATHER, being _begotten_, and
therefore partaking of the Divine essence; not _made_, as was the
opinion of some of the early heretics. (See _Homoousion_, _Person_, and
_Trinity_.)
SUCCENTOR. The precentor’s deputy in cathedral churches. Sometimes this
officer was a dignitary, as at York still and formerly at Glasgow,
Aberdeen, Paris, &c.; and at York he is called _Succentor Canonicorum_,
to distinguish him from the other subchanter, who is a vicar choral. In
most churches however the subchanter is a vicar or minor canon, as at
St. Paul’s, Hereford, Lichfield, St. Patrick’s, &c.
SUCCESSION, APOSTOLICAL, or UNINTERRUPTED. (See _Apostolical
Succession_.) The doctrine of a regular and continued transmission of
ministerial authority, in the succession of bishops, from the apostles
to any subsequent period. To understand this, it is necessary to
premise, that the powers of the ministry can only come from one
source—the great HEAD of the Church. By his immediate act the apostles
or first bishops were constituted, and they were empowered to send
others, as he had sent them. Here then was created the first link of a
chain which was destined to reach from CHRIST’S ascension to his second
coming to judge the world. And as the ordaining power was confined
exclusively to the apostles, (see _Episcopacy_,) no other men or
ministers could possibly exercise it: from them alone was to be obtained
the authority to feed and govern the Church of all future ages. By the
labours of the apostles, the Church rapidly spread through the then
known world, and with this there grew up a demand for an increase of
pastors. Accordingly, the apostles ordained elders or presbyters in all
churches; but the powers given to these terminated in themselves; they
could not communicate them to others. A few therefore were consecrated
to the same rank held by the apostles themselves, and to these the full
authority of the Christian ministry was committed, qualifying them to
ordain deacons and presbyters, and, when necessary, to impart their full
commission to others. Here was the second link of the chain. For
example: Paul and the other apostolic bishops were the first. Timothy,
Titus, and others, who succeeded to the same ministerial powers, formed
the second. A third series of bishops were in like manner ordained by
the second, as time advanced, and a fourth series by the third. And here
the reader will perceive what is meant by _uninterrupted succession_,
viz. a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial
commission from the apostles to their successors, by the progressive and
perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to
another. The process thus established was faithfully carried on in every
branch of the universal Church. And as the validity of the ministry
depended altogether on the legitimacy of its derivation from the
apostles, infinite care was taken in the consecration of bishops, to see
that the ecclesiastical pedigree of their consecrators was regular and
indisputable. In case that any man broke in upon the apostolical
succession, by “climbing up some other way,” he was instantly deposed. A
great part of the ancient canons were made for regulating ordinations,
especially those of bishops, by providing that none should be ordained,
except in extraordinary cases, by less than three bishops of the same
province; that strange bishops should not be admitted to join with those
of the province on such occasions, but those only who were neighbours
and well known, and the validity of whose orders was not disputed. The
care thus taken in the early ages to preserve inviolate the succession
from the apostles, has been maintained in all Churches down to the
present day. There are in existence, catalogues of bishops from our own
time back to the day of Pentecost. These catalogues are proofs of the
importance always attached by the Church to a regular genealogy in her
bishops. And they, as well as the living bishops themselves, are proofs
of the reality of an apostolical succession. It has been well remarked,
that CHRIST JESUS has taken more abundant care to ascertain the
succession of pastors in his Church, than ever was taken in relation to
the Aaronical priesthood. For, in this case, the succession is
transmitted from seniors to juniors, by the most public and solemn
action, or rather series of actions, that is ever performed in a
Christian Church; an action done in the face of the sun, and attested by
great numbers of the most authentic witnesses, as consecrations always
were. And we presume it cannot bear any dispute, but that it is now more
easily to be proved that the archbishop of Canterbury was canonically
ordained, than that any person now living is the son of him who is
called his father; and that the same might have been said of any
archbishop or bishop that ever sat in that or any other episcopal see,
during the time of his being bishop.
Such then is uninterrupted succession; a fact to which every bishop,
priest, and deacon, in the wide world, looks as the ground of validity
in his orders. Without this, all distinction between a clergyman and a
layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that heaven will ratify
the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it,
ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.
The following acute observation occurs in Morgan’s “Verities:”
The succession of Canterbury from Augustine, A. D. 597, to Tillotson,
1691, includes seventy-nine archbishops, giving each an average reign of
less than fourteen years. The view in which some persons, opposed to the
indispensability of the apostolic succession, try to place it—as a
single chain of single links, from some one single apostle, of which one
link, wanting or broken, breaks the succession—if very contrary to the
facts to be illustrated, is yet very original. Grant each apostle to
have founded twenty churches, here are at least, _ab origine_, two
hundred and forty successions apostolically commenced. Considering how
these have reproduced themselves a thousand-fold, and that each
episcopal link succeeded the last as publicly as kings their
predecessors, the “one chain” is not a very fortunate comparison.
SUFFRAGANS. The word properly signifies all the provincial bishops who
are under a metropolitan, and they are called his suffragans, because he
has power to call them to his provincial synods to give their
_suffrages_ there.
The name is also used to denote a class resembling the _chorepiscopi_,
or country bishops, of the ancient Church. (See _Chorepiscopus_.)
In the very beginning of the Reformation here, viz. an. 26 Henry VIII.
c. 14, an act passed to restore this order of men under the name of
_suffragan bishops_. The preamble recites, that good laws had been made
for electing and consecrating archbishops and bishops, but no provision
was made for suffragans, which had been accustomed here for the more
speedy administration of the sacraments, and other devout things, &c.;
therefore it was enacted that the places following should be the sees of
bishops suffragans: Bedford, Berwick, Bridgewater, Bristol, Cambridge,
Colchester, Dover, St. Germain, Guildford, Gloucester, Grantham, Hull,
Huntingdon, Isle of Wight, Ipswich, Leicester, Marlborough, Moulton,
Nottingham, Penrith, Southampton, Shaftesbury, Shrewsbury, Taunton,
Thetford. The bishop of each diocese shall by petition present two
persons to the king, whereof he shall allow one to be the suffragan, and
thereupon direct his mandate to the archbishop to consecrate him, which
was to be done after this manner: first it recites that the bishop,
having informed the king that he wanted a suffragan, had therefore
presented two persons to him who were qualified for that office, praying
that the king would nominate one of them; thereupon he nominated P. S.,
being one of the persons presented, to be suffragan of the see of
Ipswich, requiring the archbishop to consecrate him. The bishop thus
consecrated was to have no greater authority than what was limited to
him by commission from the bishop of the diocese, and was to last no
longer. This act was repealed by 1 & 2 Philip & Mary, cap. 8; but it was
revived by 1 Elizabeth, and during the reign of that sovereign we find
notices of suffragans at Dover and elsewhere. Bishop Gibson mentions Dr.
Stean, suffragan of Colchester about 1606, as among the last of these
suffragans. But, although the law has not been acted on in later times,
it is still unrepealed.
SUFFRAGE. A vote, token of assent and approbation, or, as in public
worship, the united voice and consent of the people in the petitions
offered.
The term is also used in the Prayer Book to designate a short form of
petition, as in the Litany. Thus, in the Order for the Consecration of
Bishops, we read that in the Litany as then used, after the words, “That
it may please thee to illuminate all bishops,” &c., the proper
_suffrage_ shall be, “That it may please thee to bless this our brother
elected,” &c. The versicles immediately after the creed, in Morning and
Evening Prayer, are also denominated suffrages, as in the instance
quoted by Johnson, “The _suffrages_ next after the creed shall stand
thus. _Common Prayer, Form of Thanksgiving for May 29._” (See
_Versicle_.)
The Litany in “the Ordering of Deacons” is headed _the Litany and
Suffrages_. By suffrages here seems to be meant the latter part of the
Litany, called the supplication. (See Wheatly in loc. and
_Supplications_.) In some old choral books these are called the _second
suffrages_.
SUNDAY. (See _Lord’s Day_.) The ancients retained the name Sunday, or
_Dies Solis_, in compliance with the ordinary forms of speech; the first
day of the week being so called by the Romans, because it was dedicated
to the worship of the sun. Thus Justin Martyr, describing the worship of
the Christians, speaks of the day which is called _that of the sun_.
Besides the most solemn parts of Christian worship, which were always
performed on Sundays, this day was distinguished by a peculiar reverence
and respect expressed towards it in the observation of some special laws
and customs. Among these we may reckon, in the first place, those
imperial laws, which suspended all proceedings at law on this day,
excepting only such as were of absolute necessity, or eminent charity,
such as the manumission of slaves, and the like. This was the same
respect that the old Roman laws paid to the heathen festivals, which
were exempted from all other juridical business, except in cases of
necessity or charity. Neither was it only business of the law, but all
secular and servile employments that were superseded on this day, still
excepting acts of necessity and mercy. Constantine, indeed, allowed
works of husbandry, as earing and harvest, to be done on Sundays: but
this permission was never well approved of by the Church, which
endeavoured to observe a just medium in the observation of the LORD’S
day, neither indulging Christians in unnecessary works on that day, nor
wholly restraining them from working, if a great occasion required it.
Another thing which the Christian laws took care of, to secure the
honour and dignity of the LORD’S day, was, that no ludicrous sports or
games should be followed on this day. There are two famous laws of the
two Theodosiuses to this purpose, expressly forbidding the exercises of
gladiators, stage-plays, and horse-races in the circus, to be exhibited
to the Christians. And by the ecclesiastical laws, these sorts of
diversions were universally forbidden to all Christians, on account of
the extravagances and blasphemies that were committed in them. But all
such recreations and refreshments, as tended to the preservation or
conveniency of the life of man, were allowed on the LORD’S day. And
therefore Sunday was always a day of feasting, and it was never
allowable to fast thereon, not even in Lent.
The great care and concern of the primitive Christians, in the religious
observation of the LORD’S day, appears, first, from their constant
attendance upon all the solemnities of public worship, from which
nothing but sickness, imprisonment, banishment, or some great necessity,
could detain them: secondly, from their zeal in frequenting religious
assemblies on this day, even in times of the hottest persecution, when
they were often beset and seized in their meetings and congregations:
thirdly, from their studious observation of the vigils, or nocturnal
assemblies, that preceded the LORD’S day: fourthly, from the eager
attendance on sermons—in many places, twice on this day; and their
constant resorting to evening prayers, where there was no sermon:
lastly, from the severe censures inflicted on those who violated the
laws concerning the religious observation of this day; such persons
being usually punished with excommunication, as appears from the
Apostolical Constitutions, and the canons of several councils.
In the Romish Breviary and other offices, we meet with a distinction of
Sundays into those of the first and second class. Sundays of the first
class are, Palm Sunday, Easter Day, Advent, Whitsunday, &c. Those of the
second class are the common Sundays of the year.—_Bingham._
SUPEREROGATION. In the Romish Church, works of supererogation are those
good deeds which are supposed to have been performed by saints, _over
and above_ what is required for their own salvation. These constitute an
inexhaustible fund, on which the pope has the power of drawing at
pleasure, for the relief of the Church, by the application of some
portion of this superabundant merit, to meet a deficiency in the
spiritual worth of any of its members.
On this doctrine of the Church of Rome our Church thus speaks in the
fourteenth Article:—“Voluntary works besides, over and above GOD’S
commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught
without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare, that they do
not only render unto GOD as much as they are bound to do, but that they
do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required; whereas CHRIST
saith plainly, ‘When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We
are unprofitable servants.’”
The works here mentioned are called in the Romish Church likewise by the
name of “counsels” and “evangelical perfections.” They are defined by
their writers to be “good works, not commanded by CHRIST, but
recommended;” rules which do not oblige all men to follow them, under
the pain of sin; but yet are useful to carry them on to a sublimer
degree of perfection than is necessary in order to their salvation. But
there are no such counsels of perfection in the gospel; all the rules,
set to us in it, are in the style and form of precepts; and, though
there may be some actions of more heroical virtue and more sublime piety
than others, to which all men are not obliged by equal and general
rules; yet such men, to whose circumstances and station they belong, are
strictly obliged by them, so that they should sin if they did not put
them in practice.—_Dr. Nicholls. Bp. Burnet._
SUPPLICATIONS. The following part of this Litany [beginning with the
LORD’S Prayer] we call the _Supplications_, which were first collected
and put into this form, when the barbarous nations first began to
overrun the empire about six hundred years after CHRIST: but,
considering the troubles of the Church militant, and the many enemies it
always hath in this world, this part of the Litany is no less suitable
than the former at all times whatsoever.—_Wheatly._ (See _Litany_ and
_Suffrage_.) In many choirs and at the universities this latter part of
the Litany is performed by a different minister from the former: in
apparent compliance with the rubric, which before the LORD’S Prayer
directs that the _Priest_ shall say it. And when the Litany is sung to
the organ, it is usual to sing the responses in the Supplications
without that accompaniment.
SUPRALAPSARIANS. The way in which they understand the Divine decrees,
has produced two distinctions of Calvinists, viz. Sublapsarians and
Supralapsarians. The former term is derived from two Latin words, _sub_,
below or after, and _lapsus_, the fall; and the latter from _supra_,
above, and _lapsus_, the fall. The Sublapsarians assert, that GOD had
only permitted the first man to fall into transgression, without
absolutely predetermining his fall; their system of decrees, concerning
election and reprobation, being, as it were, subsequent to that event.
On the other hand, the Supralapsarians maintained that GOD had, from all
eternity, decreed the transgression of man. The Supralapsarian and
Sublapsarian schemes agree in asserting the doctrine of predestination,
but with this difference, that the former supposes that GOD intended to
glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in
the salvation of others; and for that purpose decreed that Adam should
necessarily fall, and by that fall bring himself and all his offspring
into a state of everlasting condemnation. The latter scheme supposes,
that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of
that freedom which Adam had, into a state in which all were to be left
to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by
predestination.
SUPREMACY. Lord Chief Justice Hale says, The supremacy of the Crown of
England in matters ecclesiastical is a most indubitable right of the
Crown, as appeareth by records of unquestionable truth and authority.—1
_H. H._ 75.
Lord-Chief Justice Coke says, That, by the ancient laws of this realm,
this kingdom of England is an absolute empire and monarchy, consisting
of one head, which is the king; and of a body, consisting of several
members, which the law divideth into two parts, the clergy and laity,
both of them, next and immediately under GOD, subject and obedient to
the head.—5 _Co._ 8. 40. _Caudrey’s case_.
By the parliament of England, in the 16 Rich. II. c. 5, it is asserted,
that the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath
been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to GOD in all
things touching the regality of the same Crown, and to none other.
And in the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, it is thus recited: “By sundry and
authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and
expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been
accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having
dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same; unto whom a
body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in
terms and by names of spirituality and temporality, been bounden and
owen to bear, next unto GOD, a natural and humble obedience; he being
also furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty GOD, with
plenary, whole, and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative,
and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to
all manner of persons, resiants within this realm, in all cases,
matters, debates, and contentions, without restraint or provocation to
any foreign princes or potentates of the world; in causes spiritual by
judges of the spirituality, and causes temporal by temporal judges.”
Again, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. The realm of England, recognising no
superior under GOD but only the king, hath been and is free from
subjection to any man’s laws, but only to such as have been devised,
made, and obtained within this realm for the wealth of the same, or to
such other as, by sufferance of the king, the people of this realm have
taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst
them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance
of the same, not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince,
potentate, or prelate; but as to the customed and ancient laws of this
realm, originally established as laws of the same by the said
sufferance, contents, and custom, and none otherwise.
The Church of England declares, Can. 1, “As our duty to the king’s most
excellent Majesty requireth, we first decree and ordain, that the
archbishop from time to time, all bishops, deans, archdeacons, parsons,
vicars, and all other ecclesiastical persons, shall faithfully keep and
observe, and as much as in them lieth shall cause to be observed and
kept of others, all and singular laws and statutes made for restoring to
the Crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the state
ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign power repugnant to the
same. Furthermore, all ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, and
all other preachers, and readers of divinity lectures, shall, to the
uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely,
(without any colour of dissimulation,) teach, manifest, open, and
declare, four times every year at the least, in their sermons and other
collation and lectures, that all usurped and foreign power (forasmuch as
the same hath no establishment nor ground by the law of GOD) is for most
just causes taken away and abolished, and that therefore no manner of
obedience or subjection within his Majesty’s realms and dominions is due
unto any such foreign power; but that the king’s power, within his
realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all other his dominions
and countries, is the highest power under GOD, to whom all men, as well
inhabitants as born within the same, do by GOD’S laws owe most loyalty
and obedience, afore and above all other powers and potentates in the
earth.”
Canon 2. “Whoever shall affirm, that the king’s Majesty hath not the
same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had amongst
the Jews and Christian emperors of the primitive Church, or impeach any
part of his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the crown,
and by the laws of this realm therein established, let him be
excommunicated _ipso facto_, and not restored but only by the
archbishop, after his repentance and public revocation of those his
wicked errors.”
Canon 26. “No person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted
to any ecclesiastical function, except he shall first subscribe (amongst
others) to this article following: that the king’s Majesty, under GOD,
is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his
Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or
ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince,
person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within his Majesty’s said realms,
dominions, and countries.”
And the 37th Article declares, that “The queen’s Majesty hath the chief
power in this realm of England, and other her dominions; unto whom the
chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be
ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor
ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. But when we attribute
to the queen’s Majesty the chief government, we give not thereby to our
princes the ministering, either of GOD’S word or of the sacraments; but
that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all
godly princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they
should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God,
whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil
sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The bishop of Rome hath no
jurisdiction in this realm of England.”
By the 1 Eliz. c. 1, it is enacted as follows, viz. that no foreign
prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal,
shall use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction,
superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or
ecclesiastical, within this realm, or any other her Majesty’s dominions
or countries, but the same shall be abolished thereout for ever; any
statute, ordinance, custom, constitutions, or any other matter or cause
whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. (S. 16.)
And such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminence,
spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical
power or authority have heretofore been, or may lawfully be, exercised
or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and
for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of
errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities,
shall for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this
realm. (S. 17.)
And if any person shall by _writing_, _printing_, _teaching_, _preaching
express words_, _deed_ or _act_, advisedly, maliciously, and directly
affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority,
pre-eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of
any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate whatsoever,
heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or any other her
Majesty’s dominions or countries; or shall advisedly, maliciously, and
directly put in use, or execute, anything for the extolling,
advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such
pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority,
or any part thereof; he, his abettors, aiders, procurers, and
counsellors shall, for the first offence, forfeit all his goods, and if
he hath not goods to the value of £20 he shall also be imprisoned for a
year, and the benefices of every spiritual person offending shall also
be void; for the second offence shall incur a præmunire; and for the
third shall be guilty of high treason. (S. 27–30.)
But no person shall be molested for any offence committed only by
_preaching_, _teaching_, or _words_, unless he be indicted within one
half year after the offence committed. (S. 31.)
And no person shall be indicted or arraigned but by the oath of two or
more witnesses; which witnesses, or so many of them as shall be living,
and within the realm at the time of the arraignment, shall be brought
face to face before the party arraigned, if he require the same. (S.
37.)
If any person shall by writing, cyphering, printing, preaching, or
teaching, deed or act, advisedly and wittingly, hold or stand with, to
extol, set forth, maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction, or
power of the bishop of Rome or of his see, heretofore claimed, used, or
usurped, within this realm, or in any of her Majesty’s dominions; or by
any speech, open deed, or act, advisedly and wittingly attribute any
such manner of jurisdiction, authority, or pre-eminence to the said see
of Rome, or to any bishop of the same see for the time being; he, his
abettors, procurers, and counsellors, his aiders, assistants, and
comforters, upon purpose and to the intent so set forth, further and
extol the said usurped power, being indicted or presented within one
year, and convicted at any time after, shall incur a præmunire.—5
_Eliz._ c. 1, s. 2.
And the justices of assize, or two justices of the peace, (one whereof
to be of the quorum,) in their sessions, may inquire thereof, and shall
certify the presentment into the King’s Bench in forty days, if the term
be then open; if not, at the first day of the full term next following
the said forty days: on pain of £100. (S. 3.)
And the justices of the King’s Bench, as well upon such certificate as
by inquiry before themselves, shall proceed thereupon as in cases of
præmunire. (S. 4.)
But charitable giving of reasonable alms to an offender, without fraud
or covin, shall not be deemed abetting, procuring, counselling, aiding,
assisting, or comforting. (S. 18.)
The papal encroachments upon the king’s sovereignty in causes and over
persons ecclesiastical, yea, even in matters civil, under that loose
pretence of _in ordine ad spiritualia_, had obtained a great strength
and long continuance in this realm, notwithstanding the security the
Crown had by the oaths of fealty and allegiance; so that there was a
necessity to unrivet those usurpations, by substituting by authority of
parliament a recognition by oath of the king’s supremacy, as well in
causes ecclesiastical as civil; and thereupon the oath of supremacy was
framed.—1 _H. H._ 75.
Which oath, as finally established by the 1 Will. III. c. 8, is as
follows: “I A. B. do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and
abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position,
that princes, excommunicated or deprived by the pope or any authority of
the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any
other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction,
power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within this realm: so help me GOD.”
But, lastly, the usurped jurisdiction of the pope being abolished, and
there being no longer any danger to the liberties of the Church or State
from that quarter; and divers of the princes of this realm having
entertained more exalted notions of the supremacy, both ecclesiastical
and civil, than were deemed consistent with the legal establishment and
constitution; it was thought fit at the Revolution to declare and
express, how far the regal power, in matters spiritual as well as
temporal, doth extend; that so, as well the just prerogative of the
Crown on the one hand, as the rights and liberties of the subject on the
other, might be ascertained and secured. Therefore by the statute of the
1 W. III. c. 6, it is enacted as followeth:
“Whereas by the law and ancient usage of this realm, the kings and
queens thereof have taken a solemn oath upon the evangelists at their
respective coronations, to maintain the statutes, laws, and customs of
the said realm, and all the people and inhabitants thereof in their
spiritual and civil rights and properties; but forasmuch as the oath
itself, on such occasion administered, hath heretofore been framed in
doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws at this
time unknown; to the end therefore that one uniform oath may be in all
times to come taken by the kings and queens of this realm, and to them
respectively administered, at the times of their and every of their
coronation, it is enacted that the following oath shall be administered
to every king or queen who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this
realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or
bishops of this realm of England for the time being, to be thereunto
appointed by such king or queen respectively, and in the presence of all
persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such
their respective coronations: that is to say,
“The archbishop or bishop shall say, ‘Will you solemnly promise and
swear, to govern the people of the kingdom of England, and the dominions
thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on,
and the laws and customs of the same?’ The king or queen shall say, ‘I
solemnly promise so to do.’
“_Archbishop or bishop_: ‘Will you to your power cause law and justice
in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?’ The king and queen shall
answer, ‘I will.’
“_Archbishop or bishop_: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain
the laws of GOD, the true profession of the gospel, and Protestant
reformed religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the
bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their
charge, all such rites and privileges as by law do or shall appertain
unto them or any of them?’ The king or queen shall answer, ‘All this I
promise to do:’ after this, laying his or her hand upon the holy
Gospels, he or she shall say, ‘The things which I have here before
promised, I will perform and keep: so help me GOD:’ and shall then kiss
the book.”
By the Act of Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, 5 Anne,
c. 8, it is enacted, that after the demise of her Majesty Queen Anne,
the sovereign next succeeding, and so for ever afterwards every king or
queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great
Britain, at his or her coronation, shall in the presence of all persons
who shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise then and there present,
take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the
settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government thereof as by law established, within the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the dominion of Wales and town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed and the territories thereunto belonging.
And shall also swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain
and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the
government, worship, discipline, right, and privileges of the Church of
Scotland, as then established by the laws of that kingdom. (The
foregoing authorities are quoted from _Burn._)
By the Church of England, the sovereign is thus regarded as being over
all persons, and over all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil,
supreme. On this head an objection is raised against the Church of
England, as if her ministers derived their authority from the Crown.
This objection is thus answered by Palmer: 1. We must insist upon it
that the _principles of the Church of England_, with reference to the
authority of the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, cannot be
determined in any way by the opinions of lawyers, or the preambles of
acts of parliament. We nowhere subscribe to either one or the other. 2.
The opinion of the temporal power itself as to its own authority in
ecclesiastical affairs, and its acts in accordance with such opinions,
are perfectly distinct from the principles of the Church of England on
these points. We are not bound to adopt such opinions, or approve such
acts of temporal rulers, nor even to approve every point of the existing
law. 3. The clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the
king, A.D. 1531, did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso,
“_quantum per Christi legem licet_;” which _original condition is ever
to be supposed_ in our acknowlegment of the royal supremacy.
Consequently we give no authority to the prince, except what is
consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties,
jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, “which the law of CHRIST confers on
his Church.” 4. The Church of England believes the jurisdiction and
commission of her clergy to come from GOD, by apostolic succession, as
is evident from the ordination service, and has been _proved_ by the
Papist Milner himself (“Letters to a Prebendary,” Let. 8); and it is
decidedly the doctrine of the great majority of her theologians. 5. The
acts of English monarchs have been objected in proof of their views on
the subject. We are not bound to subscribe to those views. If their acts
were wrong in any case, we never approved them, though we may have been
obliged by circumstances to submit to intrusions and usurpations. But
since this is a favourite topic with Romanists, let us view the matter a
little on another side. I ask, then, whether the parliaments of France
did not, for a long series of years, exercise jurisdiction over the
administration of the sacraments, compelling the Roman bishops and
priests of France to give the sacrament to Jansenists, whom they
believed to be heretics? Did they not repeatedly judge in questions of
faith, viz. as to the obligation of the bull “_Unigenitus_?” Did they
not take cognizance of questions of faith and discipline to such a
degree, that they were said to resemble “a school of theology?” I ask
whether the clergy of France in their convocations were not _wholly_
under the control of the king, who could prescribe their subjects of
debate, prevent them from debating, prorogue, dissolve, &c.?
Did they not repeatedly beg in vain from the kings of France, for a long
series of years, to be permitted to hold provincial synods for the
suppression of immorality, heresy, and infidelity? Is not this liberty
still withheld from them, and from every other Roman Church in Europe? I
further ask whether the emperor Joseph II. did not _enslave_ the
Churches of Germany and Italy? Whether he did not suppress monasteries,
suppress and unite bishoprics? Whether he did not suspend the bishops
from conferring orders, exact from them oaths of obedience to all his
measures present and future, issue royal decrees for removing images
from churches, and for the regulation of Divine worship down to the
minutest points, even to the number of candles at mass? Whether he did
not take on himself to silence preachers who had declaimed against
persons of unsound faith? Whether he did not issue decrees against the
bull “_Unigenitus_,” thus interfering with the doctrinal decision of the
whole Roman Church? I ask whether this conduct was not accurately
imitated by the grand duke of Tuscany, the king of Naples, the duke of
Parma; whether it did not become prevalent in almost every part of the
Roman Church; and whether its effects do not continue to the present
day? I again ask, whether “Organic Articles” were not enacted by
Buonaparte in the new Gallican Church, which placed everything in
ecclesiastical affairs under the government? Whether the bishops were
not forbidden by the emperor to confer orders without the permission of
government; whether the obvious intention was not to place the priests,
even in their spiritual functions, under the civil powers? And, in fine,
whether these obnoxious “Organic Articles” are not, up to the present
day, in almost every point in force? I again inquire whether the order
of Jesuits was not suppressed by the mere civil powers, in Portugal,
Spain, France, Italy, &c.; whether convents, monasteries,
confraternities, friars, and monks, and nuns, of every sort and kind,
were not extinguished, suppressed, annihilated by royal commission, and
by the temporal power, in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sicily,
Spain, Portugal, &c., and in opposition to the petitions and protests of
the pope and the bishops? I again ask, whether the king of Sicily does
not, in his “Tribunal of the Monarchy,” up to the present day, try
ecclesiastical causes, censure, excommunicate, absolve? Whether this
tribunal did not, in 1712, give absolution from episcopal
excommunications; and whether it was not restored by Benedict XII. in
1728?
Is there a Roman Church on the continent of Europe, where the clergy can
communicate freely with him whom they regard as their spiritual head; or
where all papal bulls, rescripts, briefs, &c. are not subjected to a
rigorous surveillance on the part of government, and allowed or
disallowed at its pleasure? In fine, was not Gregory XVI. himself
compelled, in his encyclical letter of 1832, to utter the most vehement
complaints and lamentations, at the degraded condition of the Roman
obedience? Does he not confess that the Church is “subjected to _earthly
considerations_,” “_reduced to a base servitude_,” “the rights of its
bishops _trampled on?_” These are all certain facts: I appeal in proof
of them to the Roman historians, and to many other writers of authority;
and they form but a part of what might be said on this subject.
Romanists should blush to accuse the Church of England for the acts of
our civil rulers in ecclesiastical matters. They should remember those
words, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye,
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother’s eye.”
But it will be objected, all this was contrary at least to the
principles of the Roman Church, while English theologians, on the
contrary, exaggerate the authority of the civil magistrate in
ecclesiastical affairs. We admit unequivocally, that some of our
theologians have spoken unadvisedly on this subject. But what of that?
Can they have gone further than the whole school of Gallican writers, of
modern canonists, and reforming theologians, in the Romish Church, whose
object is to overthrow the papal power, and render the Church
subservient in all things to the State? Do Romanists imagine that we are
ignorant of the principles of Pithou and the Gallican School, of
Giannone, Van Espen, Zallwein, De Hontheim, Ricci, Eybel, Sioch,
Rechberger, Oberhauser, Riegger, Cavallari, Tamburini, and fifty others,
who were tinged with the very principles imputed to us? Do they forget
that their _clergy_ in many parts have petitioned _princes_ to remove
the _canonical law_ of celibacy? In fine, is it not well known, that
there is a conspiracy among many of their theologians, to subject the
discipline of the Church to the civil magistrate? It is really too much
for Romanists to assail us on the very point where they are themselves
most vulnerable, and where they are actually most keenly suffering. Our
Churches, though subject to some inconvenience, and lately aggrieved by
the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, contrary to the solemn
protests of the bishops and clergy, are yet in a far more respectable
and independent position than the Roman Churches. Those amongst us who
maintain the highest principles of the spiritual jurisdiction of the
Church, have reason to feel thankful that we have not yet fallen to the
level of the Church of Rome.
SUPREMACY, PAPAL. The fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215, is the
first of those called general which recognised the authority of the
Roman see as supreme over the Church. In the fifth canon the Roman
Church is said to have “a principality of power over all others, as the
mother and mistress of all Christian believers;” and all other
patriarchs are required to receive their palls from the Roman pontiff.
The titles of universal pope and universal patriarch, first used by the
bishops of Constantinople, and afterwards applied indifferently to the
bishops of Rome and Constantinople, as appears by the letters of the
emperor Constantine Pogonatus, in Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. pp. 593,
599, were titles of honour, and did not imply universal jurisdiction.
There was no allusion to it in any former general council; so that, up
to 1215, it was free for a man to think how he pleased concerning it.
And not only were men free to deny the papal supremacy, they were bound
to resist and reject it, in all places where it could not be proved to
have been from the beginning. For so it was decreed by the third general
council, which was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, “that none of the
bishops, most beloved of GOD, do assume any other province that is not,
and was not formerly, and from the beginning, subject to him, or those
who were his predecessors. But if any have assumed any church, that he
be forced to restore it, that so the canons of the fathers be not
transgressed, nor worldly pride be introduced under the mask of this
sacred function. The holy general synod hath therefore decreed, that the
right of every province, formerly, and from the beginning, belonging to
it, be preserved clear and inviolable.” This decree was passed on the
occasion of an attempt by the patriarch of Antioch to usurp authority
over the churches of the island of Cyprus, which had not been formerly
under his jurisdiction, and is worthy of notice to the members of the
Churches of England and Ireland. For as it is beyond denial, from the
conduct of the British and Irish bishops, that the Churches in these
islands knew no subjection to Rome up to the close of the sixth century,
it is certain that every exercise of jurisdiction which the bishop of
Rome practised afterwards for a time in this kingdom, was in violation
of the decrees of the Catholic Church, and that the Churches here were
merely acting in obedience to those decrees, when, after having made
trial of that cruel bondage, they were enabled to release themselves
from it. There is one other thing not unworthy of notice as concerns
this point. By the creed of Pope Pius, all communicants in the Church of
Rome are required to acknowledge as part of that “faith without which no
man can be saved,” “the holy Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, for the
mother and mistress of all Churches.” It should be known that the
Fathers assembled in the second general council, Constantinople, A. D.
381, gave the title which is here claimed for Rome to the Church of
Jerusalem, as appears from their synodical epistle. “We acknowledge the
most venerable Cyril, most beloved of GOD, to be bishop of the Church of
Jerusalem, which is the mother of all Churches.”—See _Conc._ ii. 866.
Thus then it appears, that in order to obtain communion in Rome, it is
necessary to record an opinion directly at variance with that of a
general council universally acknowledged.
The following has been abbreviated from Mr. Sanderson Robins’s very able
treatise on the Evidence of Scripture against the Claims of the Church
of Rome.
“The earlier popes knew nothing of the modern view which makes Peter and
his alleged successors to be the supreme pastors, and all other bishops
subordinate and deriving authority from them. Launoy cites no fewer than
forty who employ the term fellow-bishop, and fellow-priest; which
utterly contradicts the opinion of Bellarmine and his school. The very
formula which indicates the invasion of episcopal independence, ‘By the
grace of the apostolic see,’ is not to be traced farther back than the
middle of the thirteenth century. Yet Duval argues that because the
jurisdiction of bishops can be limited or taken away by the pope, it is
not derived immediately from Christ. The converse is the true
proposition; because it is derived immediately from Christ, it cannot be
limited or taken away by the pope.
“The interpretation which assigns supreme power to the pope as Peter’s
successor, would make him universal bishop, and leave nothing but
vicarial power to all other bishops, which is exactly the conclusion so
strenuously resisted by Gregory the Great, when he feared the growing
importance of the see of Constantinople. Bellarmine admits the title to
be antichristian and profane; but when he attempts to draw a distinction
in favour of the powers claimed for the bishop of Rome, he reasons
illogically, as Launoy has abundantly proved.
“The witness of the Bible remains, in spite of all efforts to conceal or
pervert its meaning by those who are interested in defending an adverse
system. It represents the office of CHRIST as incommunicable and
unapproachable. He is the Root, from which the branches derive life and
strength; the Shepherd, who knows his sheep, and is known of them; the
heavenly Bridegroom, to whom the Church is espoused. So, again, he is
‘the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness
of him that filleth all in all.’ When the title is ascribed to another,
there is insurmountable difficulty involved. If Peter, or the bishop of
Rome, is the head, then the Church must in the same sense be his body,
which no one ventures to say. The distinction, again, between a visible
and an invisible head has not the least show of Scripture proof, and is
no better than an invention to meet an obvious difficulty. Nor is it of
any avail to speak, as some do, of CHRIST as the essential, and Peter as
the ministerial head, because whatever relation to the Church is
represented by the figure, can exist only under the former, that is, by
the union of believers to CHRIST, which is maintained through the
ministry of the word and sacraments.
“There is an utter and hopeless disagreement, and on a point which
involves supreme government. It is no secondary question, but one, as
Dupin reminds us, which includes all ecclesiastical discipline. And yet,
whether pope is superior to council, or the reverse; and whether the
pope enjoys his prerogatives by Divine right, or ecclesiastical, has
never been defined, though the decision is above all things required. In
the Council of Trent, where the delivery of a clear, intelligible
doctrine might have been reasonably expected, there was, instead, a
prohibition of all discussion on the subject. It is not even settled
whether, by disagreement on the question, persons incur the peril of
heresy; Gerson holds the affirmative, and Bossuet sides with him, while
Duval and others maintain the negative. The truth is, that the Roman
Church has authorized two opposite conclusions, which have been enforced
as the one party or the other prevailed. It is not the mere contention
of private doctors, whose judgment might on either side be disavowed,
but it is the Church itself which speaks inconsistently by its synodical
decisions. It has, indeed, been demanded unreasonably, and sometimes
incautiously allowed, that no statements of doctrine should be
attributed to the Roman Church as authoritative, but such as are
contained in the decrees of the Council of Trent, in the creed of Pius
IV., and in the catechism. But it is to be observed, in the first place,
that the decisions of the council avowedly do not extend beyond such
points as had been brought into question by Protestants, and, at the
same time, had not been disputed among Romanists themselves, for it was
expressly enjoined that no definition should be made about any matter
controverted among ‘Catholics’ themselves. The creed and the catechism
have no more than the authority of the individual pope, by whom they
were promulgated. It is true that this office was remitted to the bishop
of Rome by the members of the council, but they possessed no such power
of delegation. They might have adopted any decree of the pope, and have
given it synodical sanction; but their consent previous to the
consideration, or even knowledge of its contents, could not afford any
weight additional to that which the pope alone could give. And, in the
next place, the index of books, the catechism, the breviary, and the
missal, possess equal authority, for they are enumerated together in the
decree passed at the close of the council; that is, they possess as much
authority as the decree of a pope could give them, and less than that
which belongs to the decree of a council which has papal confirmation.
It is true that, in the last of the articles which Pius IV. added to the
creed of the Church Catholic, there is a profession of adherence to the
decrees of general councils; but then no Romanist can tell what is and
what is not a general council. It depends on the school to which he
belongs, and on which side of the mountains he happens to live. Some
so-called general councils, as Bellarmine tells us, are received, some
are rejected, and some partly approved and partly reprobated; which, as
Leslie says truly, ‘is going through all the degrees of uncertainty.’
The chief difficulty arises from those which flatly contradict each
other, and which yet, from indispensable considerations, the Roman
Church is obliged to acknowledge; they are chiefly such as pronounce
upon this question of the supreme authority. At Pisa, and Constance, and
Basle, the superiority of a council was distinctly and absolutely
affirmed; and obedience required from all persons of whatever dignity,
including the pope. In the Council of Florence it was decreed that the
pope, as the successor of Peter, and as the vicar of CHRIST, is head of
the whole church, the father and teacher of all Christians, and that
plenary power from CHRIST was given him, in the person of St. Peter, to
feed the universal flock. The Lateran Council under Leo X. decreed that
the pope has full authority over all councils, to summon, transfer, and
dissolve them. It is to be observed, that these conflicting decisions of
great Roman councils are no more than the embodying in decrees the
opposite interpretations of that text which forms the main Scripture
authority for all papal assumptions. No Latin council is to be compared
with that of Constance for importance or dignity; and by its acts,
accepted and confirmed through the whole Western Church, it rejected the
exposition which Romanists are now trying to enforce. M. de Maistre, the
chief papal champion in the present century, disposes of the difficulty
in a very characteristic way. When pressed with the Decrees of
Constance, he says that the answer is easy: the council talked nonsense,
like the English Long Parliament, or the Constituent Assembly, or the
National Convention, &c.
“Our opponents boast that their Church is the same everywhere; but we
cross the Alps, and find the whole system of ecclesiastical doctrine
changed. The very term, ultramontane, which is universally recognised as
the distinction of a school, bears witness that diversities have not
only subsisted at different periods, but exist at the same time in
different places. The Gallican Church has, doubtless, been the
stronghold of those who deny the absolute power of the pope; but they
have had their advocates among distinguished members of the Roman
communion in all countries. Panormitan represented them in Italy,
Cardinal de Cusa in Germany, and in Spain Alphonso Tostato, of whom
Bellarmine says that he was the wonder of the world for his learning.
Nay, even in the university of Paris, and among the doctors of the
Sorbonne, we find the contest raging with the utmost violence, and the
great teachers in vehement antagonism. Sometimes we see the
representative of the pope brought into collision with the theological
professor; as when Richer maintained the prevalent opinions of his
Church against Cardinal du Perron, who, being a convert from
Protestantism, was, of course, extravagant on the other side. Then, at
the close of the century, we have Roccaberti, archbishop of Valentia,
unsparing in his condemnation of the Gallicans, and calling on the pope
to put them down. While Bossuet, on the other hand, affirms that the
doctrine which he maintained had always been held in the Church; though
he does not attempt to prove that there had not been another distinct
line of teaching.”
SURCINGLE. The belt by which the cassock is fastened round the waist.
SURETY. (See _Sponsors_.)
SURPLICE. A white linen garment, worn by the Christian clergy and other
ministers of the Church, in the celebration of Divine services, and
also, on certain days, by members of colleges, whether clerical or lay.
It is, in Latin, _superpelliceum_, a name which Cardinal Bona says was
not older than 600 years before his time, (the middle of the seventeenth
century,) and was so called from the white garment which was placed by
ecclesiastics, _super pelles_, over the garments of dressed skins worn
by the northern nations.
This habit seems to have been originally copied from the vestments of
the Jewish priests, who, by GOD’S own appointment, were to put on a
white linen ephod at the time of public service. And its antiquity in
the Christian Church may be seen from Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the
priests to purity, because a little spot is soon seen in a white
garment; but more expressly from St. Jerome, who, reproving the needless
scruples of such as opposed the use of it, says, “what offence can it be
to GOD, for a bishop or priest to proceed to the communion in a white
garment?” The ancients called this garment, from its colour, _Alba_, the
_Albe_, a word in later times applied to a surplice with close sleeves.
The surplice is white, to represent the innocence and righteousness with
which GOD’S ministers ought to be clothed. As for the shape of it, it is
a thing so perfectly indifferent, that no reason need to be assigned for
it; though Durandus has found out one: for that author observes, that,
as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight about
them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness of the
surplices used by the Christian priests signifies the freedom of the
gospel.
It is objected by dissenters from the Church of England, against the use
of the surplice, that it is a rag of Popery, and has been abused by the
Papists to superstitious and idolatrous uses. But this is no just
objection against it; for, if the surplice, or some such white garment,
was in use among the primitive Christians, the Church is justified in
following their example, notwithstanding the abuses thereof by those of
the Romish or any other communion.
Whether the surplice should be worn by the preacher in the pulpit is a
question which has given rise, of late years, to much unprofitable
controversy. On the side of wearing the surplice, it is said that the
preacher is nowhere in the Prayer Book directed to change his dress; and
therefore his dress should be, as before prescribed, the surplice. On
the other hand it has been shown that, before the Reformation, the
preachers were accustomed to wear their ordinary dress in the pulpit,
except in cathedrals and collegiate churches, which custom has come down
to us; and to adhere to inherited customs is to act on the catholic
principle. On these facts it is obvious to remark, first, that the
ultra-Protestants who are very violent against the use of the surplice
by the preacher,—are, in this instance, the Romanizers; and secondly,
that if the surplice be not worn, since no preacher’s dress is appointed
by the Church, the preacher would be more correct who should appear in
his ordinary costume. But those who are wise on either side, will, in
regard to a thing so purely indifferent, follow the customs of the place
in which they are called to officiate.
SURPLICE DAYS, or _times_. According to the 17th canon, “all masters and
fellows of colleges or halls, and all the scholars and students in
either of the universities, shall in their churches and chapels, upon
all Sundays, holy-days, and their eves, at the time of Divine service,
wear surplices according to the order of the Church of England; and such
as are graduates, shall agreeably wear with their surplices such hoods
as do severally appertain unto their degrees.” Saturday evening, it is
to be observed, as the eve of Sunday, has always been considered as
coming within this rule. The colleges in the universities of Cambridge
and Dublin construe this rule as applying to all their members; those of
Oxford, Christ Church excepted, to the foundation members only; and
there noblemen are deprived of the privilege of wearing the surplice. By
the 25th canon, the use of the surplice is prescribed daily to the dean,
masters, heads of collegiate churches, canons, and prebendaries. The
short surplice adopted in the Roman Church is a corruption, as Cardinal
Bona confesses. He says that “Stephen of Tonmay, who lived A. D. 1180,
shows that the surplice formerly reached to the feet;” and so likewise
“Honorius de Vestibus Clericorum:” and that in the course of time it was
shortened, as it appears from the Council of Basle, sess. 21, which
commanded the clergy to have surplices reaching below the middle of the
leg. He adds, that they are now so much shortened as scarcely to reach
to the knee. Hence it is evident that the Church of England retains the
correct and ancient fashion.—_Jebb._
SURROGATE. Surrogate is one who is substituted or appointed in the room
of another. Thus the office of granting licences for marriage in lieu of
banns, being in the bishop of the diocese by his chancellor, the
inconvenience of a journey to the seat of episcopal jurisdiction is
obviated by the appointment of clergymen in the principal towns of the
diocese as surrogates, with the power of granting such licences, and of
granting probates of wills, &c.
By canon 128, “No chancellor, commissary, archdeacon, official, or any
other person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall substitute in
their absence any to keep court for them, unless he be either a grave
minister and a graduate, or a licensed public preacher, and a beneficed
man near the place where the courts are kept, or a bachelor of law, or a
master of arts at least, who hath some skill in the civil and
ecclesiastical law, and is a favourer of true religion, and a man of
modest and honest conversation; under pain of suspension, for every time
that they offend therein, from the execution of their offices for the
space of three months _toties quoties_: and he likewise that is deputed,
being not qualified as is before expressed, and yet shall presume to be
a substitute to any judge, and shall keep any court as aforesaid, shall
undergo the same censure in manner and form as is before expressed.”
And by the statute of the 26 Geo. II. c. 33, No surrogate, deputed by
any ecclesiastical judge, who hath power to grant licences of marriage,
shall grant any such licence before he hath taken an oath before the
said judge, faithfully to execute his office according to law, to the
best of his knowledge; and hath given security by his bond in the sum of
£100 to the bishop of the diocese, for the due and faithful execution of
his office.
SURSUM CORDA. (_Lift up your hearts._) Cyprian, in the third century,
attests the use of the form “Lift up your hearts,” and its response, in
the liturgy of Africa. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century,
speaks of these words as being used in _all_ churches. And accordingly
we find them placed at the beginning of the Anaphora, or canon, (or
solemn prayers,) in the liturgies of Antioch and Cæsarea, Constantinople
and Rome, Africa, Gaul, and Spain. How long these introductory sentences
have been used in England it would be in vain to inquire: we have no
reason, however, to doubt that they are as old as Christianity itself in
these countries. The Gallican and Italian churches used them, and
Christianity with its liturgy probably came to the British isles from
one or other of those churches. We may be certain, at all events, that
they have been used in the English liturgy ever since the time of
Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury, in 595.
It appears that these sentences were preceded by a salutation or
benediction in the ancient liturgies. According to Theodoret, the
beginning of the mystical liturgy, or most solemn prayers, was that
apostolic benediction, “The grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the love
of GOD, and the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST, be with you all.” The same
was also alluded to by Chrysostom, when he was a presbyter of the Church
of Antioch. We find that this benediction, with the response of the
people, “And with thy spirit,” has all along preserved its place in the
East; for in the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, Antioch, and
Jerusalem, it is uniformly placed at the beginning of the _Anaphora_,
just before the form, “Lift up your hearts.” In Egypt, Africa, and
Italy, the apostolic benediction was not used at this place, but instead
of it the priest said, “The LORD be with you,” and the people replied,
“and with thy spirit.” In Spain, and probably Gaul, as now in England,
there was no salutation before the introductory sentences.
_Priest._ Lift up your hearts. │_Sacerdos._ corda.
_Answer._ We lift them up unto the│_Respons._ Habemus ad Dominum.
Lord. │
_Priest._ Let us give thanks unto │_Sacerdos._ Gratias agamus Domino
our Lord God. │Deo nostro.
_Answer._ It is meet and right so │_Respons_. Dignum et justum est.
to do. │
│ _Palmer._
SUSANNAH, THE HISTORY OF. An apocryphal book (or rather chapter) of the
Bible, containing the story of one Susannah, daughter of Chelcias, and
the wife of Joachim, of the tribe of Judah, who lived at Babylon, being
carried thither captive with her husband, probably at the same time with
Daniel, that is, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 604. The
story is well known, being allowed to be read, among other apocryphal
books, for the instruction of manners.
This history makes part of the book of Daniel in the Greek, but is not
found in the Hebrew. Many therefore have disputed, not only the
canonicalness, but even the truth of it; imagining it to be no more than
a pious fable, invented as an example of a chaste and loyal wife. Julius
Africanus was of this opinion; and St. Jerome in some places censures it
as a mere fable; though, in others, he tells us that not only the Greeks
and Latins, but the Syrians and Egyptians also, received and admitted it
as Scripture. Origen wrote expressly in defence of it. The Church of
Rome allows it to be of equal authority with the Book of Daniel.
SUSPENSION. In the laws of the Church we read of two sorts of
suspension; one relating solely to the clergy, the other extending also
to the laity. That which relates solely to the clergy is suspension from
office and benefice jointly, or from office or benefice singly; and may
be called a temporary degradation, or deprivation of both. And the
penalty upon a clergyman officiating after suspension, if he shall
persist therein after a reproof from the bishop, (by the ancient canon
law,) that he shall be excommunicated all manner of ways, and every
person who communicates with him shall be excommunicated also. The other
sort of suspension, which extends also to the laity, is suspension _ab
ingressu ecclesiæ_, or from the hearing of Divine service, and receiving
the holy communion; which may therefore be called a temporary
excommunication. Which two sorts of suspension, the one relating to the
clergy alone, and the other to the laity also, do herein agree, that
both are inflicted for crimes of an inferior nature, such as in the
first case deserve not deprivation, and such as in the second case
deserve not excommunication; that both, in practice at least, are
temporary; both also terminate either at a certain time, when inflicted
for such time, or upon satisfaction given to the judge when inflicted
until something be performed which he has enjoined; and lastly, both (if
unduly performed) are attended with further penalties; that of the
clergy with irregularity, if they act in the mean time; and that of the
laity (as it seems) with excommunication, if they either presume to join
in communion during their suspension, or do not in due time perform
those things which the suspension was intended to enforce the
performance of.
SWEDENBORGIANS. This body of Christians claims to possess an entirely
new dispensation of doctrinal truth derived from the theological
writings of Emanuel Swedenborg; and, as the name imports, they refuse to
be numbered with the sects of which the general body of Christendom is
at present composed.
Emanuel Baron Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in 1688, and died in
London in 1772. He was a person of great intellectual attainments, a
member of several of the learned societies of Europe, and the author of
very voluminous philosophical treatises. In 1745 he separated himself
from all secular pursuits, relinquished his official labours in the
Swedish State, and commenced the career which led to a religious
movement. In that year, and thenceforth, he was favoured, he reports,
with continual communications from the spiritual world, being oftentimes
admitted into heaven itself, and there indulged with splendid visions of
angelic glory and felicity. The power was given him to converse with
these celestial residents; and from their revelations, sometimes made
directly to himself and sometimes gathered by him from the course of
their deliberations, he obtained the most important of his doctrines.
His own account of the matter is thus stated in a letter to a friend:—“I
have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most
graciously manifested himself before me, his servant, in the year 1745,
and then opened my sight into the spiritual world, and gave me to speak
with spirits and angels, as I do even to this day. From that time I
began to publish the many arcana which I have either seen, or which have
been revealed to me, concerning heaven and hell, concerning the state of
man after death, concerning true Divine worship, and concerning the
spiritual sense of the Word, besides other things of the highest
importance, conducive to salvation and wisdom.”
The general result of these communications was to convince the baron
that the sacred writings have two senses—one their natural, the other
their spiritual, sense; the latter of which it was his high commission
to unfold. The natural sense is that which is alone received by other
Christian churches—the words of Scripture being understood to have the
same signification (and no other) which they bear in ordinary human
intercourse; the spiritual sense is that which, in the judgment of the
New Church, is concealed within the natural sense of these same words,
each word or phrase possessing, in addition to its ordinary meaning, an
interior significance corresponding with some spiritual truth.
The principal tenets he deduced from this interior meaning of the Holy
Word, and which his followers still maintain, are these: That the last
judgment has already been accomplished (viz. in 1757); that the former
“heaven and earth” are passed away; that the “New Jerusalem,” mentioned
in the Apocalypse, has already descended, in the form of the “New
Church;” and, that, consequently, the second advent of the LORD has even
now been realized, in a spiritual sense, by the exhibition of his power
and glory in the New Church thus established.
The usual doctrine of the Trinity is not received; the belief of the New
Church being, “that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the
person of our Lord Jesus Christ, comparatively as soul, body, and
proceeding operation are one in every individual man.”
The New Church also rejects the doctrine of justification by faith
alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ: salvation, it
inculcates, cannot be obtained except by the combination of good works
with faith. “To fear God, and to work righteousness, is to have charity;
and whoever has charity, whatever his religious sentiments may be, will
be saved.”
The resurrection, it is believed, will not be that of the material body,
but of a spiritual body; and this will not immediately pass into a final
state of being, but be subject to a kind of purgatory, where those who
are interiorly good will receive truth corresponding with their state of
goodness, and thus be fitted for heaven; while those who are interiorly
evil will reject all truth, and thus be among the lost.
The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper are administered in the
New Church. The former is believed to be “a sign and a medium, attended
with a Divine influence of introduction into the Lord’s Church; and it
means that the Lord will purify our minds from wicked desires and bad
thoughts, if we are obedient to his holy word.” The latter is believed
to be “a sign and a medium, attended with a Divine influence, for
introducing the Lord’s true children, as to their spirits, into heaven;
and it means that the Lord feeds their souls with his Divine goodness
and truth.”
The mode of worship adopted by the followers of Swedenborg resembles in
its general form that of most other Christian bodies; the distribution
of subjects in their liturgy, and the composition of their hymns and
prayers, being, of course, special; but no particular form is considered
to be binding on each society.
The general affairs of the New Church (which is the name assumed by the
Swedenborgian sect) are managed by a conference, which meets yearly,
composed of ministers and laymen in conjunction; the proportion of the
latter being determined by the size of the respective congregations
which they represent: a society of from 12 to 50 members sending one
representative, and societies of from 50 to 100 members, and those of
upwards 100 members, sending each two and three representatives
respectively. There is nothing, however, in Swedenborg’s writings to
sanction any particular form of Church government.—_Registrar-general’s
Report._
SYMBOL, or SYMBOLUM. A title anciently given to the Apostles’ Creed, and
for which several reasons have been assigned. Two of these have an
appearance of probability, viz. that (1.) which derives it from a Greek
word, signifying a _throwing_ or _casting together_, and alleges that
the apostles each contributed an article to form the creed, forming
their joint opinion or counsel in an abridged form; and (2.) the opinion
that this creed was used in times of persecution as a watchword or mark
whereby Christians (like soldiers in the army) were distinguished from
all others. This latter is the sense given in the short catechism of
Edward VI., 1552, where we read, “_M._ Why is this abridgment of the
faith termed a _symbol_? _S._ A symbol is, as much as to say, a sign,
mark, privy token, or watchword, whereby the soldiers of the same camp
are known from their enemies. For this reason the abridgment of the
faith, whereby the Christians are known from them that are no
Christians, is rightly named a symbol.”
The term symbol, importing an emblem or sensible representation, is also
applied in the holy eucharist to the sacred elements, which there set
forth the body and blood of CHRIST. (See also _Emblem_.)
SYMPHONY. In music, an instrumental composition in the form of an
overture, &c. The term is popularly applied to short introductory
movements on the organ, before anthems and other pieces; also to any
portion performed by the instrument without the voices, including
preludes, interludes, and postludes, i. e. strains _before_, in _the
midst_, and at _the end_ of psalmody, and other church music.
The word _sumphónea_ occurs in Daniel iii. 5, 7, 10, 15; being evidently
the Greek word συμφωνία, written in Hebrew or Chaldee letters, like
other words in the same sentence, as Kaitheros, κιθύρα, (harp,) sabbeca,
σαμβύκη, (sacbut,) psanterin, ψαλτήριον, (psaltery,) and which do not
occur in the older Hebrew Scriptures. It is translated in our Bible
_dulcimer_. Hardouin (in his note on Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. § 8)
considers it to mean a musical instrument. But the majority of scholars,
and of classical authorities, give as its meaning, a concert or
combination of voices or instruments.
SYNOD. This is a meeting of ecclesiastical persons for the purposes of
religion, and it comprehends the provincial synods of every
metropolitan, and the diocesan of every bishop within their limits. And
these are not of the same authority as general councils, nor do their
canons oblige the whole Christian Church, but only that nation,
province, or diocese where they were made; but if such canons are
agreeable with the Scriptures, and confirmed by general councils, they
are in force everywhere. The most famous synods have been held in
Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. It would make a very
large volume to treat particularly of those synods which have been held
in each of those places, therefore we will refer to those which were
assembled here in Britain; and as to that matter, we find that a synod
was held here at Winchester, in the time of King Edgar, in which
Archbishop Dunstan was president. In this synod the marriage of the
clergy was prohibited. There was another held at Oxford, wherein
Archbishop Langton was president, who divided the Bible into chapters;
and in this synod many constitutions were made for the better government
of the church. Another at Clarendon, under Archbishop Becket, in the
reign of Henry II., in which some decrees were made concerning the
prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the clergy. Two in the
reign of Edward VI. And here we may notice that provincial synods were
to be held twice in every year; this appears by the apostolical canons,
and likewise by those made in the Council of Nice. But this being found
too hard a task for bishops, (who were usually men in years,) especially
where the provinces were large, it was disused about the middle of the
fifth century: so that some canons were made for synods to be held once
in a year, but not abrogating the ancient custom to hold them oftener;
and this continued for many ages: but at last this came in like manner
to be neglected, and thereupon, about the middle of the fourteenth
century, another canon was made in the Council of Basil, for a triennial
synod of all the bishops of every province; and in the same council
there was another canon for every bishop to hold a diocesan synod once
in a year. And even here in Britain, by the ancient constitution of this
Church, a synod was to be held once a year, which is now discontinued,
and thus the authority of examining things through the province devolved
on the archdeacon. In a diocesan synod the bishop always presided, and
he usually summoned _septem e plebe_ in every parish in his diocese, to
whom he administered an oath to inquire into the state and condition of
each parish relating to ecclesiastical affairs, which were called
_testes synodales_, and these men made their presentments in writing, or
_viva voce_ in the synod. (See _Councils_.)
The form of holding these diocesan synods was as follows:—The clergy, in
solemn procession, came to the church assigned, at the time appointed by
the bishop, and seated themselves according to the priority of their
ordinations. Then the deacons and laity were admitted. The bishop, or in
his absence the vicar, when the office for the occasion was over, made a
solemn exhortation to the audience. Then a sermon was preached; after
which, if the clergy had any complaints to make, or anything else to
offer, they were heard by the synod. The complaints of the clergy being
over, the laity made theirs. Then the bishop proposed his diocesan
constitutions to them. After which, if nothing remained to be done, he
made a synodical exhortation, by way of injunction, to the clergy; and
all concluded with solemn prayers suited to the business. The form at
the conclusion of the first day, called _Benedictio primæ diei_, was
this: “Qui dispersos Israel congregat, ipse vos hic et ubique custodiat.
Amen. Et non solum vos custodiat, sed ovium suarum custodes idoneos
efficiat. Amen. Ut cum summo pastore Christo de gregum suarum pastione
gaudeatis in cœlo. Amen. Quod ipse parare dignetur,” &c. The
benedictions of the other days were much to the same purpose.
The common time allowed for despatching the business of these synods was
three days; and a rubric was settled, to direct the proceedings in each
of them. But, if the business could be despatched in a shorter time, the
assembly continued no longer than was necessary.
The first thing done in these diocesan synods, was the bishop’s making
his synodical inquiries, of which the ancient forms are still extant.
Next, the synodical causes were heard. Then the bishop reported to his
clergy what had been decreed in large provincial synods. And, lastly, he
published his own diocesan constitutions, which being read, and agreed
to by the synod, were from that time in force within the diocese,
provided they were not contrary to the decrees of some superior council
of the province. Of these we have several collections published in the
volumes of the English councils, and many more are still remaining in
the bishops’ registers.
These diocesan synods were continued in England till the reign of Henry
VIII., that is, till the commencement of the Reformation.
Provincial synods are still held pro forma in Ireland, by the archbishop
of Dublin, as they were by his predecessor, at the triennial visitations
of his province. The constituent number are the same as for
convocations, being the bishops of the province, deans, archdeacons,
capitular and other proctors, &c. But the synods have no power to make
canons.
SYNODALS and SYNODATICUM, by the name, have a plain relation to the
holding of synods; but there being no reason why the clergy should pay
for their attending the bishop in synod, pursuant to his own citation,
nor any footsteps to be found of such a payment by reason of the holding
of synods, the name is supposed to have grown from this duty being
usually paid by the clergy when they came to the synod. And this in all
probability is the same which was anciently called _cathedraticum_, as
paid by the parochial clergy in honour to the episcopal chair, and in
token of subjection and obedience thereto. So it stands in the body of
the canon law, “No bishop shall demand anything of the churches but the
honour of the cathedraticum, that is, two shillings” (at the most, saith
the Gloss, for sometimes less is given). And the duty which we call
synodals is generally such a small payment, which payment was reserved
by the bishop upon settling the revenues of the respective churches on
the incumbents; whereas before those revenues were paid to the bishop,
who had a right to part of them for his own use, and a right to apply
and distribute the rest to such uses and in such proportions as the laws
of the Church directed.—_Gibson._
Synodals are due of common right to the bishop only, so that, if they be
claimed or demanded by the archdeacon, or dean and chapter, or any other
person or persons, it must be on the foot of composition or
prescription.—_Id._
And if they be denied where due, they are recoverable in the spiritual
court. And, in the time of Archbishop Whitgift, they were declared upon
a full hearing to be spiritual profits, and as such to belong to the
keeper of the spiritual see vacant.—_Id._
Constitutions made in the provincial or diocesan synods were also
sometimes called synodals, and were in many cases required to be
published in the parish churches: in this sense the word frequently
occurs in the ancient directories.
TABERNACLE. Among the Hebrews, a kind of building, in the form of a
tent, set up by the express command of GOD, for the performance of
religious worship, sacrifices, &c. (Exod. xxvi., xxvii.)
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after
harvest, on the fifteenth day of the month Tisri, instituted to
commemorate the goodness of GOD, who protected the Israelites in the
wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt.
The _pyx_, or box in which the reserved host is placed on Romish altars,
is called in the Missal the _Tabernacle_.
TALMUD. (Signifying doctrine.) A collection of the doctrines of the
religion and morality of the Jews. It consists of two parts: 1. The
_Misna_, or text; literally _repetition_: that is, a repetition or
supplement to the Divine law; which they pretend was delivered to Moses
on the mount, and transmitted from him to the members of the Sanhedrim.
2. The _Gemara_, (perfection, or completion,) which is the commentary.
The origin of this work is as follows:—
Judah the Holy had no sooner completed the _Misna_, but one Rabbi Chun,
jealous of his glory, published quite contrary traditions; a collection
of which was made under the title of _Extravaganta_, and inserted with
the _Misna_, in order to compose one and the same body of law.
Notwithstanding that the collection made by Judah seemed to be a
complete work, yet two considerable faults were observed in it: one,
that it was very confused, the author having reported the opinions of
different doctors, without naming them, and determining which of these
opinions deserved the preference: the other, (which rendered this body
of canon law almost useless,) that it was too short, and resolved but a
small part of the doubtful cases and questions that began to be agitated
among the Jews.
To remedy these inconveniences, Jochanan, with the assistance of Rab and
Samuel, two disciples of Judah the Holy, wrote a commentary upon their
master’s work. This is called the Talmud of Jerusalem; either because it
was composed in Judea, for the use of the Jews that remained in that
country, or because it was written in the common language spoken there.
The Jews are not agreed about the time that this part of the _Gemara_,
which signifies _Perfection_, was made. Some believe it was two hundred
years after the destruction of Jerusalem; others reckon but a hundred
and fifty; and maintain that Rab and Samuel, quitting Judea, went to
Babylon, in the two hundred and nineteenth year of the Christian era.
However, these are the heads of the second order of doctors, called
Gemarists, because they composed the Gemara. (See _Gemara_.)
There was also a defect in the Jerusalem Talmud, for it contained the
opinions of but a small number of doctors. For this reason the
Gemarists, or commentators, began a new explication of the traditions.
Rabbi Asa, who kept a school at Sora, near Babylon, where he taught
forty years, produced a commentary upon Judah’s Misna. He did not finish
it; but his sons and scholars put the last hand to it. This is called
the Gemara, or Talmud, of Babylon, which is preferred before that of
Jerusalem. It is a very large collection, containing the traditions, the
canon law of the Jews, and all the questions relating to the Law.
In these two Talmuds is contained the whole of the Jewish religion as it
is now possessed by that people, who esteem it equal with the law of
GOD. Some Christians set a great value upon it, whilst others condemn it
as a detestable book, and full of blasphemies; but a third sort observe
a just medium between these opposite opinions.
Though the Talmud was received with general applause by the Jews, yet
there started up a new order of doctors, who shook its authority by
their doubts. These were called Sebarim, or opiniative doctors, and were
looked upon by the Jews as so many sceptics, because they disputed
without coming to a determination upon anything.
TARGUM. So the Jews call the Chaldee paraphrases, or expositions, of the
Old Testament in the Chaldee language; for the Jewish doctors, in order
to make the people understand the text of the Holy Scripture, (after the
captivity,) which was read in Hebrew in their synagogues, were forced to
explain the law to them in a language they understood; and this was the
Chaldean, or that used in Assyria.
The Targums that are now remaining were composed by different persons,
upon different parts of Scripture, and are in number eight.
1. The Targum of Onkelos upon the five books of Moses.
2. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, that is, upon
Joshua, Judges, the two Books of Samuel, the two Books of Kings, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets.
3. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law.
4. The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law.
5. The Targum on the five lesser books, called the Megilloth, that is,
Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of
Jeremiah.
6. The second Targum upon Esther.
7. The Targum of Joseph the Blind, upon the Book of Job, the Psalms, and
the Proverbs.
8. The Targum upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles.
Upon Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. Indeed, a
great part of Daniel and Ezra is written originally in Chaldee; and
therefore there was no need of a Chaldee paraphrase upon them: but
Nehemiah is written wholly in the Hebrew tongue, and no doubt anciently
there were Chaldee paraphrases upon all the Hebrew parts of those books,
though they are now lost.
The Targum of Onkelos is, without doubt, the most ancient that is now
extant. He was certainly older than Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the author of
the second Targum, who is supposed to have lived in our SAVIOUR’S time,
and who could have no reason to omit the Law in his paraphrase, but that
he found Onkelos had done this work with success before him. No Chaldee
writing, now extant, comes nearer the style of what is written in that
language by Daniel and Ezra, than the Targum of Onkelos, which is a good
argument for its antiquity. It is rather a version than a paraphrase;
for the Hebrew text is rendered word for word, and for the most part
with great exactness.
The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Prophets, is next to that of
Onkelos in the purity of its style, but not in the manner of its
composure; for Jonathan takes the liberty of a paraphrast, by enlarging
and adding to the text, and by inserting several stories and glosses of
his own, which are no reputation to the work. The Jews not only give him
the preference to all the disciples of Hillel, but equal him even to
Moses himself.
The Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, upon the Law, is none of
his, as appears by the style. Who was the true author of it, or when it
was composed, is utterly unknown. It seems to have lain long in
obscurity among the Jews themselves; for no notice was taken of it till
it was published at Venice, about a hundred and fifty years since; and
the name of Jonathan, it is probable, was prefixed to it for no other
reason than to give it the more credit, and the better to recommend it
by that specious title.
The Jerusalem Targum, upon the Law, was so called, because it was
written in the Jerusalem dialect. There were three dialects of the
Chaldean language. The first was spoken in Babylon, the metropolis of
the Assyrian empire. The second was the Commagenian, or Antiochian,
being that spoken in Commagena, Antioch, and the rest of Syria. The
third was the Jerusalem dialect, which was spoken by the Jews after the
captivity. The Babylonian and Jerusalem dialects were written in the
same character; but the Antiochian was in a different, and is the same
with what we call the Syriac. The purest style of the Jerusalem dialect
is, first, in the Targum of Onkelos, and next, in that of Jonathan; but
the Jerusalem Targum is written in a most barbarous style, intermixed
with a great many foreign words, taken from the Greek, Latin, and
Persian languages. This Targum is not a continued paraphrase, but only
upon some parts here and there, as the author thought the text most
wanted an explication; and sometimes whole chapters are omitted. It was
written by an unknown hand, and probably some time after the third
century.
The fifth Targum, which is that on the Megilloth, and the sixth, which
is the second Targum on the book of Esther, are written in the corrupted
Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect; but the author of these is unknown.
The seventh, which is upon Job, the Psalms, and the Prophets, is equally
corrupt, and said to be written by Joseph the Blind, who is as unknown
as the author of the other two. The second Targum on Esther is twice as
large as the first, and seems to have been written the last of all the
Targums, by reason of the barbarity of its style. There is also a third
Targum on Esther. The first Targum upon Esther is a part of the Targum
upon Megilloth, which makes mention of the Babylonish Talmud, and
therefore must have been written after the year of CHRIST 500. The last
Targum, upon the First and Second Books of Chronicles, was not known
till the year 1680, when Beckius, from an old manuscript, published, at
Augsburg in Germany, that part which is upon the First Book; the
paraphrase upon the Second he published three years afterwards, at the
same place.
TE DEUM LAUDAMUS. (“We praise Thee, O God,” &c.) This sublime
composition has been referred to several different authors. Some have
ascribed it to Ambrose and Augustine, others to Ambrose alone; others,
again, to Abondius, Nicetius, bishop of Triers, or Hilary of Poictiers.
In truth, it seems that there is no way of determining exactly who was
the author of this hymn. Archbishop Usher found it ascribed to Nicetius,
in a very ancient Gallican Psalter, and the Benedictine editors of the
works of Hilary of Poictiers cite a fragment of a manuscript epistle of
Abbo Floriacensis, in which Hilary is unhesitatingly spoken of as its
author; but Abbo lived five or six centuries after that prelate, and
therefore such a tradition is most doubtful. Some reasons, however,
appear to justify the opinion, that Te Deum was composed in the Gallican
Church, from which source we also derive the inestimable creed bearing
the name of Athanasius. The most ancient allusions to its existence are
found in the Rule of Cæsarius, bishop of Arles, who lived in the fifth
century, and in that of his successor Aurelian. It has been judged from
this, that the Te Deum may probably have been composed by some member of
the celebrated monastery of Lerins, which was not far from Arles; or
perhaps by Hilary of Arles, who seems to have composed the Athanasian
Creed in the fifth century. Another presumption in favour of the same
notion is deducible from the wording of this hymn. The verse,
“Vouchsafe, O LORD, to keep us this day without sin,” (“Dignare, Domine,
die isto sine peccato nos custodire,”) gives reason to think that it was
originally composed for the matin, and not for the nocturnal office, for
it appears that the day is supposed to have actually commenced. Now
Cæsarius and Aurelian both appoint Te Deum to be sung in the morning,
while Benedict directed it to be sung in the nocturnal office on
Sundays; and thence we may observe that the former appear to have
adhered closer to the intentions of the author of this hymn than the
latter: that therefore they were better acquainted with the author’s
design than Benedict; and therefore the hymn was probably not composed
in Italy, but in Gaul.
In the office of matins this hymn occupies the same place as it always
has done, namely, after the reading of Scripture. The ancient offices of
the English Church gave this hymn the title of the “Psalm Te Deum,” or
the “Song of Ambrose and Augustine,” indifferently. As used in this
place, it may be considered as a responsory psalm, since it follows a
lesson; and here the practice of the Church of England resembles that
directed by the Council of Laodicea, which decreed that the psalms and
lessons should be read alternately.
In the Roman office it is only used on Sundays and certain festivals;
but even on these omitted at certain seasons of the year. In the Church
of England it is prescribed for daily use; but the _Benedicite_ may be
substituted for it.
TEMPLARS, TEMPLERS, or KNIGHTS OF THE TEMPLE. A religious order
instituted at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the twelfth century, for
the defence of the holy sepulchre, and the protection of Christian
pilgrims. They were first called _the Poor of the Holy City_, and
afterwards assumed the appellation of _Templars_, because their house
was near the temple. The order was founded by Baldwin II., then king of
Jerusalem, with the concurrence of the pope; and the principal articles
of their rule were, that they should hear the holy office throughout
every day; or that, when their military duties should prevent this, they
should supply it by a certain number of Paternosters; that they should
abstain from flesh four days in the week, and on Friday from eggs and
milk meats; that each knight might have three horses and one squire, and
that they should neither hunt nor fowl. After the ruin of Jerusalem,
about 1186, they spread themselves through Germany, and other countries
of Europe, to which they were invited by the liberality of the
Christians. In the year 1228, this order acquired stability by being
confirmed in the Council of Troyes, and subjected to a rule of
discipline drawn up by St. Bernard. In every nation they had a
particular governor, called Master of the Temple, or of the Militia of
the Temple. Their grand-master had his residence at Paris. The order of
Templars flourished for some time, and acquired, by the valour of its
knights, immense riches, and an eminent degree of military renown. But
as their prosperity increased, their vices were multiplied; and their
arrogance, luxury, and cruelty rose at last to such a great height, that
the order was suppressed in 1312.
TEMPLE. In the Bible, this title generally refers to that house of
prayer which Solomon built in Jerusalem, for the honour and worship of
GOD. The name of temple is now properly used for any church or place of
worship set apart for the service of Almighty GOD. Thus the services of
the Church are frequently introduced by the words, “The LORD is in his
holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.” Here, by the
word “temple,” allusion is made to the church in which we have met
together to offer our prayers and praises to the MOST HIGH.
The church called the Temple Church in London, was built by the
Knights-Templars in 1185: and the circular vestibule was built after the
fashion of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem: as also the
church of the Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge, and a few others.
TERMINATOR. A sort of master of the ceremonies in some of the cathedrals
of Sicily.—_Pini’s Sicilia Sacra._
TERRIER. By Canon 87, the archbishops and all bishops within their
several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lies) a true note and
terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards, houses,
stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes lying out of their
parishes, which belong to any parsonage, vicarage, or rural prebend, to
be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the appointment
of the bishop, whereof the minister to be one; and to be laid up in the
bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof. It may be
convenient also to have a copy of the same exemplified, to be kept in
the church chest.
These terriers are of greater authority in the ecclesiastical courts,
than they are in the temporal; for the ecclesiastical courts are not
allowed to be courts of record; and yet even in the temporal courts
these terriers are of some weight, when duly attested by the registrar.
Especially if they be signed, not only by the parson and churchwardens,
but also by the substantial inhabitants; but if they be signed by the
parson only, they can be no evidence for him; so neither (as it seemeth)
if they be signed only by the parson and churchwardens, if the
churchwardens are of his nomination. But in all cases they are certainly
strong evidence against the parson. (See _Burn_, _Eccl. Law_, under this
head, for the form of a terrier, which is given at great length. It is,
however, merely an inventory of the matters enumerated in the
above-quoted canon.)
TERSANCTUS. The Latin title of the hymn in the liturgy, beginning “With
Angels and Archangels,” &c. This celebrated anthem is probably the most
ancient and universally received of all Christian songs of praise. Its
position in the established liturgies has always been (as in the Prayer
Book) a little antecedent to the prayer of consecration; and the hymn
itself does not appear in any other office than that of the Communion.
The antiquity of the _Tersanctus_, and its prevalence in the liturgies
of the Eastern and Western Churches, naturally lead to the conclusion
that it was derived from the apostolic age, if not from the apostles
themselves. It is remarked by Palmer, that no liturgy can be traced to
antiquity, in which the people did not unite with the invisible host of
heaven in chanting these sublime praises of the Most High GOD. From the
testimony of Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem, we find that the
seraphic hymn was used in the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem in the
fourth century. The Apostolical Constitutions enable us to carry it back
to the third century in the East. It is also spoken of by Gregory
Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary of Poictiers, Isidore, and
other Fathers, as having formed a part of the liturgy. In the liturgy of
Milan it has been used from time immemorial, under the name of
_Trisagion_; in Africa we learn from Tertullian, that it was customarily
used in the second century. As has already been observed, (see
_Preface_,) the preface ends just before the words “Holy, holy, holy:”
and the congregation or choir ought not to audibly join their voices
with the priest till this hymn begins.
TESTAMENT, THE OLD AND THE NEW. The title of the Old Testament is given
to those books which the Hebrews received as sacred and inspired before
the coming of our LORD, in order to distinguish them from those sacred
books which contain the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the
Christian religion, which are distinguished by the appellation of the
New Testament. The appellation of _Testament_ is derived from 2 Cor.
iii. 6, 14, in which place the word ἡ Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη and ἡ Καινὴ
Διαθήκη, are by the old Latin writers rendered _Antiquum Testamentum_
and _Novum Testamentum_. Although the appellation of New Testament is
not given by Divine command to the writings of the evangelists and
apostles, yet it was adopted in a very early age, (according to Bishop
Marsh, in the second century). The title “New Covenant” signifies the
book which contains the terms of the New Covenant, upon which GOD is
pleased to offer salvation to mankind, through the mediation of JESUS
CHRIST. But the word _Testament_ seems to have been preferred, as
implying that the Christian’s redemption is sealed to him as a son and
heir of GOD; and because the death of CHRIST as testator is related at
large and applied to our benefit. (See _Canon of Scripture_, _Bible_,
_Scripture_.)
TESTIMONIAL. A testimonial of good conduct from his college, or from
three beneficed clergymen, required of every one that seeks to be
admitted into holy orders, is among the safeguards which the Church has
appointed for the purity of her ministry. The testimonial is directed to
the bishop to whom application is made for orders, and is as follows:
“Whereas our well-beloved in CHRIST, A. B., hath declared to us his
intention of offering himself as candidate for the sacred office of [a
deacon], and for that end hath requested of us letters testimonial of
his learning and good behaviour; we, therefore, whose names are hereunto
subscribed, do testify that the said A. B., having been previously known
to us for the space of [three] years last past, hath during that time
lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and diligently applied himself to
his studies; nor hath he at any time, so far as we know or believe,
held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline
of the united Church of England and Ireland: and, moreover, we believe
him in our consciences to be a person worthy to be admitted to the
sacred order of [deacons]. In witness whereof,” &c.
It is needless to add, that no conscientious man can sign such a
document, without well weighing its terms, and the solemnity of the
occasion on which it is required.
The apostle having laid it down as a standing canon in the Church, that
“a bishop must be blameless, and have a good report of them that are
without,” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 7,) thence the Church of GOD has, in all ages,
taken especial care to require a sufficient satisfaction, that all
persons who are to be admitted into that or any other inferior order of
the clergy, have such a good report for a pious and virtuous
conversation. This Tertullian mentions as a very singular honour of the
Christian priesthood. In pursuance of which practice of the ancient
Church, our Church of England has forbidden the bishop to admit any
person into sacred orders, “except he shall then exhibit letters
testimonial of his good life and conversation, under the seal of some
college in Cambridge or Oxford, where before he remained, or of three or
four grave ministers, together with the subscription and testimony of
other credible persons, who have known his life and behaviour by the
space of three years next before.”—_Can._ 33. The same is further
provided for by our statute law: “None shall be made minister, unless he
first bring to the bishop of that diocese, from men known to the bishop
to be of sound religion, a testimonial both of his honest life, and of
his professing the doctrine expressed in the said articles,” 13 Eliz.
chap. xii.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Such as sign these testimonials have it put into their power to discover
evil men, and commend only those that are worthy: wherefore, since so
great a trust is reposed in them, they ought never to sign any
testimonial which they know to be false; yea, which they do not know to
be true; lest they become guilty of bearing false witness, and mislead
the bishop, who cannot see all things with his own eyes, nor hear all
with his own ears, and so must rely on others to direct his choice. And
let him be ever so desirous to keep out wicked pastors, an hypocrite
commended by eminent hands may deceive him; and then the dishonour of
GOD and mischief to souls, which are the sad consequence of such
misinformation, are to be charged only upon those who, for fear, favour,
or negligence, signed the false certificate; who deserve a severe
punishment in this world, if our law did allow it: however, they shall
certainly answer for it in the next world. And I heard a most reverend
and worthy prelate (Archbishop Dolben) charge his clergy, “not to impose
upon him by signing testimonials which they did not know to be true, as
they would answer it to him at the dreadful day of judgment.” Which
being duly considered will, I hope, prevent that evil custom of giving
men’s hands, out of custom or compliment, to mere strangers, or to
oblige a friend that we know doth not deserve it.—_Dean Comber._
A sham testimonial of life and manners, doth not only deceive the bishop
in a point of the nicest concernment, both with regard to his office and
his reputation, but does an injury to the Church itself, and affects the
interests and credit of the ministry at large. And therefore, to attest
worthy characters of unworthy persons, in order to bring them into a
situation where they may expose themselves and their functions, do
public mischief, and give open scandal, is destitute of any justifiable
pretence; and I wish I could add it were equally destitute of any
precedent.
I must acknowledge that human respects, and solicitations of
acquaintance, and other mere social regards, are great temptations with
people of kind dispositions, to too easy a compliance in granting this
favour; and such persons may be sometimes drawn into the signing of
testimonials, when their judgment doth not concur with their good
nature. I am loth to blame any friendly or neighbourly qualities, yet
sometimes they do deserve blame, as in this case in particular; where
they are the occasions of a mischief which much better qualities cannot
repair, or make sufficient amends for.—_Archdeacon Sharp._
TEXT. The letter of the sacred Scriptures, more especially in the
original languages. In a more limited sense, the word _text_ is used for
any short sentence out of the Scripture, quoted in proof of a dogmatic
position,—as an auctoritee, as it was formerly called,—or taken as the
subject or motto of a discourse from the pulpit. Thus Chaucer has—
“He needeth not to speken but of game,
And let _auctorites_ in GODDES name
To preching, and to scole eke of clergie.”
And so a sermon is called “_Expositio auctoritatis_.”
The custom of taking a text for a sermon is probably coeval with that of
preaching set discourses; and it is needless to remark, that the use of
texts as authority in doctrinal points is of the very essence of true
theology, and was ever the custom even of those who, professing the name
of _Christians_, denied the truth of CHRIST. Even the most abominable
and shameless heretics quoted Scripture for their worst tenets. A simple
Christian, therefore, may well be on his guard against receiving
everything for which a text is quoted, remembering that the “inspired
writings are an inestimable treasure to mankind, for so many sentences,
so many truths. But then the true sense of them must be known;
otherwise, so many sentences, so many authorized falsehoods.”
THANKSGIVING. Giving of thanks is an essential part of Divine worship,
as St. Paul expressly declares to St. Timothy, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) and has
ever formed a part of the service both of Jews and Christians. In our
own Book of Common Prayer there are many forms of thanksgiving,
particular and general: as especially the general thanksgiving, which
was added (being composed, as is conjectured, by Bishop Sanderson) at
the last review, and appointed for daily use; and the eucharistic hymn,
always used in the holy communion, sometimes with an appropriate
preface, and introduced with the versicles,
“Let us give thanks unto our LORD GOD.
“It is meet and right so to do.
“It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all
times and in all places give thanks,” &c.
But there are, besides, particular thanksgivings appointed for
deliverance from drought, rain, famine, war, tumult, and pestilence; and
there is an entire service of thanksgiving for women after child-birth,
(see _Churching of Women_,) and certain days on which we commemorate
great deliverances of our Church and nation, are marked also with a
solemn service of thanksgiving. (See _Forms of Prayer_.)
THANKSGIVING, THE GENERAL. The general thanksgiving may perhaps, to
some, appear superfluous, after we have thanked and praised GOD in the
use of the psalms and hymns. But it was inserted at the Restoration,
because others complained it was wanting.—_Abp. Secker._
After the general intercession, there follows likewise a general
thanksgiving. For though in the psalms and hymns after the lessons, with
the several doxologies interspersed, we have everywhere “set forth GOD’S
most worthy praise,” yet it seemed meet also, in a distinct and
appropriate form of thanksgiving, “to render thanks for the great
benefits we have received at his hands,” which, according to the first
exhortation, we therefore do, beginning with that original blessing,
“our creation,” then “preservation,” attended with all these secondary
benefits and “blessings of life,” “but above all,” because the greatest
of all, “our redemption,” attended with all “the means of grace and hope
of glory,” thus ascending gradually through the long scale of blessings
received at GOD’S hand, from temporal to spiritual, from the first to
the last, from our coming forth to our returning to him again.—_Dr.
Bisse._
Indeed, this is a more methodical summary of the several mercies of GOD
“to us and to all men,” than we had before: it furnishes an opportunity
of thanking him more expressly for the late instances of his
loving-kindness to the members of our own congregation; and besides, as
we cannot be too thankful to GOD, the acknowledgments, which we offered
up at the beginning of the service, are very properly repeated at the
end. For surely we ought to ask nothing of GOD, without remembering what
we have received from him: which naturally excites both our faith and
resignation, and prepares the way for that admirable collect, with which
we conclude.—_Abp. Secker._
After enumerating the blessings for which we return our humble and
hearty thanks, the form from eucharistic becomes petitionary. We beseech
GOD to make us truly sensible of his mercies, and really thankful for
them, that we may show our gratitude, and promote his glory, not only by
celebrating his praises day by day in the public assemblies of the
Church, but by walking in the paths of holiness and righteousness all
our lives. These petitions we enforce through the merits of JESUS
CHRIST; and we conclude the whole with a doxology, in which we ascribe
to the SON, with the FATHER and the HOLY GHOST, all honour and glory,
world without end. Amen.—_Shepherd._
THEOLOGAL. An officer in some foreign cathedrals, generally a canon,
often a dignitary, whose business it was to profess theology.
THEOLOGY, (From Θεὸς, _God_, and λόγος, _a discourse_.) A discourse
concerning GOD, it being the business of this science to treat of the
Deity. The heathens had their theologues or divines, as well as the
Christians; and Eusebius and Augustine distinguished the theology of the
heathens into three sorts: first, the fabulous and poetical; secondly,
natural, which was explained by philosophy and physics; the third was
political or civil, which last consisted chiefly in the solemn service
of the gods, and in the belief which they had in oracles and
divinations, together with the ceremonies wherewith their worship was
performed.
Divinity among the Christians is divided into positive and scholastical;
the first being founded upon fact and institution, having the
Scriptures, councils, and Fathers for its bottom and foundation, and,
properly speaking, this is true divinity: the other, called
scholastical, is principally supported by reason, which is made use of
to show, that the Christian theology contains nothing inconsistent with
natural light; and with this view it is that Thomas Aquinas makes use of
the authority of philosophers, and arguments from natural reason,
because he was engaged with philosophers, who attacked the Christian
religion with arguments from those topics.
THEOPHORI. (Θεὸς and φέρω.) See _Christophori_.
THOMAS’S, ST., DAY. A festival of the Christian Church observed on the
21st of December, in commemoration of St. Thomas the apostle.
THOMAS, ST., CHRISTIANS OF, who are of the Chaldæan and Nestorian sect,
notwithstanding the several attempts made to reform them, remain firm to
their ancient customs, and if they sometimes comply with the Popish
missionaries, it is but in outward appearance: when they are desired to
submit to the Church of Rome, they answer, that as St. Peter was chief
of that Church, so St. Thomas was head of theirs, and both Churches were
independent one of another, and they stand stedfast in acknowledging the
patriarch of Babylon, without minding the pope: they hold, as Moreri
relates, Nestorius’s opinion, receive no images, and do not much
reverence the cross. They hold that the souls of saints do not see GOD
before the day of judgment. They allow three sacraments, viz. baptism,
orders, and the eucharist: but even in these they do not agree, there
being several forms of baptism in the same Church: they abhor auricular
confession; and for their consecration make use of small cakes, made
with oil and salt; the wine they use is nothing but water in which they
steep raisins: they observe no age for orders, but make priests at
seven, eighteen, twenty, &c., who may marry as often as their wives die.
They administer no sacrament without their fees or reward, and, as for
marriage, they make use of the first priest they meet with. They have
all an extraordinary respect for the patriarch of Babylon, chief of the
Nestorians, and cannot abide to hear the pope named in their churches,
where, for the most part, they neither have curate nor vicar, but the
eldest presides: it is true they go to mass on Sundays, not that they
think themselves obliged in conscience to do so, or that they would sin
mortally if they did not. Their children, unless it be in case of
sickness, are not baptized till the fiftieth day. At the death of
friends, the kindred and relations keep an eight days’ fast in memory of
the deceased: they observe the times of Advent and Lent, the festivals
of our LORD, and many of the saints’ days, those especially that relate
to St. Thomas, the Dominica in Albis, or Sunday after Easter, in memory
of the famous confession which St. Thomas on that day made of CHRIST,
after he had been sensibly cured of his unbelief; another on the 1st of
June, celebrated not only by Christians, but by Moors and Pagans. The
people who come to his sepulchre on pilgrimage, carry away a little of
the red earth of the place where he was interred, which they keep as an
inestimable treasure, and believe it to be a sovereign remedy against
diseases: their priests are shaven in fashion of a cross; but Simon does
not charge them with so many errors as Meneses does, from whom this
account is taken.
THRONE. The bishop’s principal seat in his cathedral. At St. Paul’s the
bishop has two thrones; that at the end of the stalls probably
representing the episcopal throne, properly so called, which he assumed
at the more solemn part of the service; that more westerly his ordinary
seat, or stall. In old times the bishop of London often occupied the
stall usually assigned to the dean, as is still the custom at Ely and
Carlisle. The bishop’s throne in the ancient basilicas and churches was
at the apex of the apsis, a semicircle behind the altar. The marble
chair of the archbishop at Canterbury, in which he is enthroned,
formerly occupied a place behind the altar; a remnant of the old
arrangement, as appears from Darl’s Canterbury. The cumbrous pew
occupied by the doctors and university officers at St. Mary’s,
Cambridge, is called the throne.
THUNDERING LEGION. (See _Legion_.)
THURIFICATI. In times of persecution Christians who were brought to be
examined before the heathen tribunal, were permitted to escape
punishment by casting frankincense on an altar dedicated to an idol.
This was of course an act of idolatry, and amounted to open and
unreserved apostasy: some however there were who were betrayed into this
act by present fear, rather than a real wish to deny CHRIST, and who
sought afterwards, by a rigid penance, the peace of the Church. These
were called _Thurificati_. (See _Libellatici_ and _Sacrificati_.)
TIARA. The name of the pope’s triple crown. The tiara and keys are the
badges of the papal dignity, the tiara of his civil rank, and the keys
of his jurisdiction; for as soon as the pope is dead, his arms are
represented with the tiara alone, without the keys. The ancient tiara
was a round high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown;
Boniface VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.
TILES. The use of ornamented tiles in churches is at least as old as the
Norman æra, and was never discontinued till the fall of Gothic art. A
very valuable paper on the arrangement of tiles, by Lord Alwyne Compton,
will be found in the first number of the collected papers of the
Northamptonshire and other architectural societies.
TIPPET. In the 74th canon, in which decency in apparel is enjoined to
ministers, it is appointed that “All deans, masters of colleges,
archdeacons, and prebendaries, in cathedral and collegiate churches,
(being priests or deacons,) doctors in divinity, law, and physic,
bachelors in divinity, masters of arts, and bachelors of law, having any
ecclesiastical living, shall usually wear gowns with standing collars
and sleeves straight at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used at the
universities, with hoods or _tippets_ of silk or sarsenet, and square
caps.” And that all other ministers admitted, or to be admitted, into
that function shall also usually wear the like apparel as is aforesaid,
except tippets only. (See “The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical,” by
G. I. French, London, 1850.) And in the 58th canon: “It shall be lawful
for such ministers as are not graduates to wear upon their surplices,
instead of hoods, some decent _tippet_ of black, so it be not silk.” See
Mr. Gilbert French’s ingenious treatise on the Tippets of the Canons
Ecclesiastical: from which it would appear that the present black scarf
worn by some of the English clergy represents three things: 1. The
stole; 2. the chaplain’s scarf; 3. the choir tippet. The chaplain’s
scarf is a remnant of the ancient badges, or liveries, worn by the
members of noblemen’s households, their chaplains included. The choir
tippet grew out of the ancient almutium, or amice, that is, a vesture
which covered the shoulders, and included the hood: the _liripipium_, or
pendent part of the hood, sometimes hanging singly behind, (as in our
modern hoods,) sometimes in duplicate before, like the scarf. In process
of time the hood became separated from this pendent part in front, and
hence the choir tippet. It is certain that the tippet so called, often
made of sables or furs, was worn in the form of the scarf, by
dignitaries of the Church and State for many ages in England. The
_scarf_ has been called a _tippet_ immemorially in Ireland, and within
memory in many parts of England. The law of the Church therefore seems
to be this, that all ecclesiastics (whether priests _or deacons_) being
prebendaries or of higher rank in cathedral and collegiate churches, and
all priests _or deacons_ being Masters of Arts or of higher degree, may
wear either hoods or _tippets of silk_: and _all_ non-graduate ministers
(whether priests _or deacons_) may not wear hoods, but only _tippets_
not of silk. Whence the tippet is to be worn by all clergymen. The 58th
canon however is explicit as to the use of hoods by graduates. By the
constant usage of cathedrals, both hood and scarf are worn by all
capitular graduates.—_Jebb._
TITHES, in the religious application of the phrase, is a certain
portion, or allotment, for the maintenance of the priesthood, being the
tenth part of the produce of land, cattle, or other branches of wealth.
It is an income, or revenue, common both to the Jewish and Christian
priesthood.
The priests among the Jews had no share allowed them in the division of
the land, that they might attend wholly upon Divine service, and not
have their thoughts diverted by the business of tillage, or feeding
cattle, or any other secular employment. Their maintenance arose chiefly
from the first-fruits, offerings, and tithes.
The ancient Christians, it is generally thought, held the _Divine right
of tithes_, that is, that the payment of tithes was not merely a
ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation;
though Bellarmine, Selden, and others place them upon another foot. St.
Jerome says expressly, that the law about tithes (to which he adds
first-fruits) was to be understood to continue in its full force in the
Christian Church. And both Origen and St. Augustine confirm the same
opinion.
But why, then, were not tithes exacted by the apostles at first, or by
the fathers in the ages immediately following? For it is generally
agreed, that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under
the gospel. It is answered, first, that tithes were paid to the priests
and Levites, in the time of CHRIST and his apostles; and the synagogue
must be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in
the Church. Secondly, in the times of the New Testament, there was an
extraordinary maintenance, by a community of all things; which supplied
the want of tithes. Thirdly, paying tithes, as the circumstances of the
Church then stood, could not conveniently be practised; for this
requires that some whole state or kingdom profess Christianity, and the
Church be under the protection of the magistrates; which was not the
case in the apostolical times. Besides, the inhabitants of the country,
from whom the tithes of fruits must come, were the latest converts to
Christianity.
The common opinion is, that tithes began first to be generally settled
upon the Church in the fourth century, when the magistrates protected
the Church, and the empire was generally converted from heathenism. Some
think Constantine settled them by a law upon the Church; but there is no
law of that emperor’s now extant, that makes express mention of any such
thing. However, it is certain tithes were paid to the Church before the
end of the fourth century, as Mr. Selden has proved out of Cassian,
Eugippius, and others. The reader may see this whole matter historically
deduced, through many centuries, by that learned author.
The custom of paying tithes, or offering a tenth of what a man enjoys,
is not so peculiar to the Jewish and Christian law, but that we find
some traces of it even among the heathens. Xenophon has preserved an
inscription upon a column near a temple of Diana, whereby the people
were admonished to offer the tenth part of their revenues every year to
the goddess. And Festus assures us, the ancients gave tithe of
everything to their gods.
Before the promulgation of the law, Abraham set the example of paying
tithes, in giving the tenth of the spoils to Melchisedech, king of
Salem, at his return from his expedition against Chedorlaomer and the
four confederate kings. And Jacob imitated the piety of his grandfather
in this respect, when he vowed to the LORD the tithe of all the
substance he might acquire in Mesopotamia. (See _Revenues,
Ecclesiastical_.)
TITLE. (See _Orders_.) Canon 33. “It has been long since provided by
many decrees of the ancient Fathers, that none should be admitted,
either deacon or priest, who had not first some certain place where he
might use his function: according to which examples we do ordain, that
henceforth no person shall be admitted into sacred orders, except (1.)
he shall at that time exhibit to the bishop, of whom he desireth
imposition of hands, a presentation of himself to some ecclesiastical
preferment then void in the diocese; or (2.) shall bring to the said
bishop a true and undoubted certificate, that either he is provided of
some church within the said diocese where he may attend the cure of
souls, or (3.) of some minister’s place vacant either in the cathedral
church of that diocese, or in some other collegiate church therein also
situate, where he may execute his ministry; or (4.) that he is a fellow,
or in right as a fellow, or (5.) to be a conduct or chaplain in some
college in Cambridge or Oxford; or (6.) except he be a Master of Arts of
five years’ standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the
universities; or (7.) except by the bishop himself that doth ordain him
minister, he be shortly after to be admitted either to some benefice or
curateship then void. And if any bishop shall admit any person into the
ministry that hath none of these titles, as is aforesaid, then he shall
keep and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him
to some ecclesiastical living; and if the said bishop refuse so to do,
he shall be suspended by the archbishop, being assisted with another
bishop, from giving of orders by the space of a year.” The same rules
apply to the Irish portion of the united Church.
TOBIT, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture, so called. Tobit,
whose history is related therein, was of the tribe of Nephthali, and one
of those whom Salmanassar, king of Assyria, carried away captive, when
he took Samaria, and destroyed the kingdom of Israel. This happened in
the fourth year of the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, and the sixth of
Hezekiah, king of Judah. The tribe of Nephthali was indeed carried away
before by Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria; but this was not a general
captivity, there being several still left behind.
The Book of Tobit was written in Chaldee, by some Babylonian Jew, and
seems, in its original draught, to have been the memoirs of the family
to which it relates, first begun by Tobit, then continued by Tobias, and
finished by some other of the family; and afterward digested by the
Chaldee author into that form in which we now have it. It was translated
out of the Chaldee into Latin by St. Jerome, and his translation is that
which we have in the Vulgar Latin edition of the Bible. But there is a
Greek version much ancienter than this, from which was made the Syriac
version, and also that which we have in English among the apocryphal
writers, in our Bible. But the Chaldee original is not now extant. The
Hebrew copies of this book, as well as of that of Judith, seem to be of
a modern composition. It being easier to settle the chronology of this
book than that of the Book of Judith, it has met with much less
opposition from learned men, and is generally looked upon, both by Jews
and Christians, as a genuine and true history; though, as to some
matters in it, (particularly that of the angel’s accompanying Tobias, in
a long journey, under the shape of Azarias, the story of Raguel’s
daughter, the frightening away of the devil by the smoke of the heart
and liver of a fish, and the curing of Tobit’s blindness by the gall of
the same fish,) it is much less reconcilable to a rational credibility.
These things look more like poetical fictions than the writings of a
sacred historian, and afford an objection against this book, which does
not lie against the other.
This book is very instructive, full of religious and pious thoughts, and
written in a plain, natural, and easy style. Tobit lived an hundred and
two years; lost his sight at fifty-six years of age, and recovered it in
the sixtieth. Before his death, he foretold the destruction of Nineveh,
which happened under Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus, that is, under
Astyages and Nabopalasar.
TOLERATION. Johnson defines this word as “the allowance given to that
which is not approved.” The Church, as the depository and dispenser of
religious truth, cannot bring within the range of its theory the
allowance of that which it holds to be error. The Church of England
holds (see _Art._ VI.) that it is not to be required of any man, that
anything should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation, which is not read in Holy
Scripture, nor may be proved thereby. But if any man profess what is
clean contrary to that which the Church has laid down as an article of
the faith, then, in the Church’s view, he professes what is contrary to
the Scripture, and there can be no warrant for allowing that which is
contrary to the Scripture. The Church, however, while refusing any
allowance to error, may refrain from denunciation and persecution of
those who profess and maintain erroneous doctrines; and in this respect
the Church of England is conspicuously more charitable than the Church
of Rome: that Church, which dares not venture to say that she requires
nothing to be believed but that which may be found in Holy Scripture, or
may be proved thereby, nevertheless, wherever she has the power,
punishes those who refuse assent to her theories, and makes them
personally answerable for the heterodoxy of their principles. Such is
not the practice of the Church of England.
The State or political government in England, admits toleration, in the
sense of the word as defined by Johnson. Although the Church is united
with the State, and the State must be held to approve of the doctrines
of the Church, yet it allows, and to a certain extent supports,
religious teaching which the Church holds to be erroneous. Whether this
be done upon the principle that the State does not hold itself competent
to decide between truth and error in religion, but acts merely as the
head of a community, in which a variety of conflicting doctrines are
maintained, or whether it be done upon the ground of expediency, or what
Dr. Paley calls “general utility,” (see his “Moral Philosophy,” book vi.
ch. x.,) it is not necessary here to inquire.
Previously to the year 1688, the statute law (see 35 Eliz. and 22 Car.
II. c. 1) forbade the public exercise of other religions than that of
the Church of England. But the statute of 1 W.& M. c. 18, commonly
called the Toleration Act, recognised and admitted the public profession
of the religion of Protestant Dissenters, (except those who denied the
doctrine of the TRINITY,) while it confirmed all the severities, then
upon the statute book, against the religion of Papists. This act,
however, did not relieve Dissenters from the operation of the
Corporation Act, 13 Car. II. c. 1, nor from that of the Test Act, 25
Car. II. c. 2. These acts, which made it necessary that all members of
the corporations of towns, and all persons holding office under the
Crown, should receive the sacrament of the LORD’S supper according to
the usage of the Church of England, continued in force until the year
1828, when they were repealed by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 17.
By the Toleration Act of 1 W. & M. c. 18, it was provided, that no law
or statute of the realm, made against Papists or Popish recusants,
should extend to persons dissenting from the Church of England, who
should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make and
subscribe the declaration against Popery.
Section 8, provides that no person dissenting from the Church of
England, in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy
orders, nor any preacher or teacher of any congregation of dissenting
Protestants, that shall make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid,
and take the said oaths at the general or quarter sessions of the peace,
to be held for the county, town, parts, or division where such person
lives, which court is hereby empowered to administer the same, and shall
also declare his approbation of and subscribe the Articles of Religion
mentioned in the statute made in the 13th of Queen Eliz., except the
34th, 35th, and 36th, and these words in the 20th Article, viz. “_the
Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in
controversies of faith_,” shall be liable to any of the pains or
penalties mentioned in former acts.
Section 17, provides that neither this act, nor any clause, article, or
thing herein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to or
give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist or Popish recusant
whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing
the doctrine of the blessed TRINITY, as it is declared in the aforesaid
Articles of Religion.
By the 19 Geo. III. c. 44, it was recited, that certain Protestant
Dissenters had an objection to the declaration in favour of the articles
set forth in sect. 8 of the Toleration Act; and it was provided that, in
lieu of that declaration, the following might be made:—“I, _A. B._, do
solemnly declare, in the face of Almighty GOD, that I am a Christian and
a Protestant, and, as such, that I believe that the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, as commonly received among Protestant Churches,
do contain the revealed word of GOD, and that I do receive the same as
the rule of my doctrine and practice.”
In 1813, by 53 Geo. III. c. 160, the clause of the Toleration Act,
excepting those persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, was
repealed.
As to Roman Catholics, the severity of the laws against them was relaxed
in 1778, and again in 1780. Further disabilities were removed in 1793,
and at subsequent periods; but still they were excluded from parliament,
and from all important civil offices, till 1829, when the Roman Catholic
Emancipation Act was passed (10 Geo. IV. c. 7); and, in regard to all
civil and political rights and privileges, they were placed upon the
same footing as Protestants. Since then they have endeavoured, in
respect to ecclesiastical matters, to assert an independence of the
Crown of Great Britain, to which the Church of England itself does not
lay claim. This attempt has been met by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 60.
TONSURE. The having the hair clipped in such a fashion as the ears may
be seen and not the forehead, or a shaved spot on the crown of the head.
A clerical tonsure was made necessary about the fifth or sixth century.
No mention is made of it before, and it is first spoken of with decided
disapprobation.
The ancient tonsure of the Western clergy by no means consisted in
_shaven crowns_: this was expressly forbidden them, lest they should
resemble the priests of Isis and Serapis, who shaved the crowns of their
heads. But the ecclesiastical tonsure was nothing more than polling the
head, and cutting the hair to a moderate degree.
The rituals tell us, the tonsure is a mark of the renunciation of the
world and its vanities; but the hair that is left denotes with what
sobriety the person tonsured ought to use the things of this world.
[Illustration:
_fig. 1._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 2._
]
TRACERY. The system of ornamental framework in a window, or in a
compartment of panelling or screen-work. The first form of tracery was
doubtless suggested by the pierced circle often found between the heads
of two lancets, and connected with them by a single hood.[18] For some
time the form thus suggested (_fig. 1._) was rigidly adhered to; even
the number of lights being, in a great majority of cases, either two,
four, or eight, the square and cube of two, and the simple two-light
window was multiplied into itself once or twice, as in (_fig. 2._), so
that the pattern may be expressed by a geometrical series _a^1_, _a^2_,
_a^3_. Windows of three or other odd numbers of lights were less
frequent and less successful; and the reduplication was effected by
arithmetical rather than geometrical progression, the six-light windows
being of two three-light windows, with the addition of a centre piece
(see _figs. 3._ and _4._). Throughout the windows of this early style of
tracery, all is effected by simple reduplication, no attempt being yet
made to extend a single composition throughout the space to be filled.
Circles, when of a considerable size, were filled with smaller circles
(see _fig. 2._) or with cusping (_fig. 4._) designed after the same
laws. But we must omit for the future all consideration of cusping, (see
_Cusping_,) and everything but the mere pattern of the tracery.
[Illustration:
_fig. 3._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 4._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 5._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 6._
]
[Illustration:
_fig.7._
]
The exclusive use of circles led to great sameness of character, and the
first effort to avoid this was by the introduction of convex-sided
triangles, sometimes alone (_fig. 5._), sometimes enclosed in or
accompanying circles (_fig. 3_). Later still this triangle is resolved
into a three-lobed figure, of which, however, the triangle is still the
ruling form (_fig. 6._). All these characteristics belong to the earlier
class of Geometrical tracery, which is called _concentric_, because each
perfect figure is either itself a circle, or is composed of circles or
parts of circles struck from centres within the resultant figure, and
themselves in the circumference of a circle, whose centre is the centre
of the whole system. Thus in _fig. 2._ eight circles are struck either
from the same centre, or points in the circumference of a circle
concentric with the containing circle. In _figs. 3._ and _5._ the
triangles are composed of parts of circles, of which the centres are the
opposite angles, and as the triangles are equilateral, all the centres
are in the circumference of the circle whose centre is the centre of the
triangle. This may be called the first law of the concentric
Geometrical. It has two corollaries, 1. that each line forms a part of
one figure, only, and, 2. that each circle, or part of a circle,
touches, or cuts, but never flows into, another. As this law is broken,
its consequences also are reversed; and we get an _excentric_
Geometrical, in which there is no one ruling centre within the figure;
but, on the contrary, the spirit of the style consists in having curves
struck from centres alternately within and without the resulting figure,
as in the accompanying trilobate and tricuspidate triangle (_fig. 7._);
but still the lines cut or touch, and never flow into one another. In
_fig. 8._ we have lines each forming parts of two figures, which is the
same as _fig. 5._, with the omission of the lower side of each triangle,
and the consequent rejection of a centre of construction, i. e. from
_concentric_ the figure has become _excentric_. This makes a very near
approach to the flowing Decorated, which indeed it becomes by the
reversal of the last remaining rule, i. e. by suffering the curves which
are struck from circles within and without the resulting figure, and
which already form part of two figures, to flow into another, instead of
cutting or touching. By this process, _fig. 4._ is altered into the
ordinary reticulated tracery of the flowing Decorated (_fig. 9._); and
_fig. 10._, instead of _fig. 1._, becomes a normal form.
[Illustration:
_fig. 8._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 9._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 10._
]
This introduction of curves of contrary flexure is the ruling principle
of flowing tracery, and its results are far too various to be pursued
here. We must, however, observe, that in England the resulting forms
have a great tendency to become pear-shaped, i.e. with the lower end
pointed and the upper round and turned downward; whereas, on the
Continent, while our Decorated was stiffening into the Perpendicular,
their Geometrical was waving upward in their Flamboyant, which differs,
as to mere pattern of tracery, from our flowing, in having both ends of
each figure acutely pointed, and the upper point with an additional
curve upward. Our own Perpendicular is scarcely worthy to be called
tracery; its normal form is represented by mere intersections of
vertical and horizontal lines (_fig. 11._).
[Illustration:
_fig. 11._
]
[Illustration:
_fig. 12._
]
We have at present described only the component figures of tracery. The
character of windows is further altered by several other means common to
all the styles, consistent with every form here described. Thus, for
instance, tracery is grouped in these three ways: a large and prominent
centre-piece is carried by two independent arches (_fig. 2._); or it is
divided into two windows, as it were, by two main arches, of the same
curvature with the window arch (_figs. 3._ and _11._); or it fills the
whole window head with no such equal division of its parts[19] (_figs.
5., 8., 9._); or, again, it is divided into _foil_ and _foiled_ tracery,
the latter being the ordinary form, the first that of tracery, which
itself, in its principal bars, follows the direction of foils, without a
circumscribing arch (_fig. 12._); or, again, according as the surface of
the tracery bar which traces the pattern is a fillet, an edge, or a
roll, it is fillet, edge, or roll tracery; or, again, if it is only a
plate of stone, pierced, without being moulded, it is plate tracery.
Flowing tracery is convergent, or divergent, or reticulated. But the
greatest source of beauty next to cusping is the due subordination of
mouldings, which is itself sufficient to remedy the apparent sameness of
pattern in the concentric Geometrical, and which adds infinite grace to
the flowing tracery, in which, however, it is too seldom found. The
student of ecclesiastical architecture will do well to pursue the
subject of this article in Sharpe’s “Decorated Windows,” and in
Freeman’s “Essay on the Origin and Development of Window Tracery.”
TRACT, in the Roman Missal, is an anthem, generally taken from the
Psalms, following, and sometimes substituted for, the Gradual, (i.e. the
anthem after the Epistle,) during penitential seasons, as the third
Sunday in Advent, the three Sundays before Lent, Sundays, Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays in Lent, Easter Saturdays, and Easter Even, and
certain holidays. Cardinal Bona says it is so called, “a trahendo: quia
tractim et graviter, et prolixo descensu cantatur,” because it is sung
in a protracted or slow manner.—_Jebb._
TRADITION. (See _Fathers_.) The doctrine which has been delivered or
handed down from one age to another. The great deference paid by the
Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church to tradition, is so
misrepresented by the wicked, and so misunderstood by the weak, that we
quote the following passage from Palmer’s “Treatise on the Church.”
Speaking of those who calumniate us for our use of this doctrine, he
says: “The various methods which these men employ in endeavouring to
prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church, may be classed under
the following heads:
“1. Systematic misrepresentation. We do not appeal, in proof of
Christian doctrine, to the ancient Christian writers as in any way
_infallible_. Our sentiments on this head are well known; they have been
repeatedly explained. We hold that the doctrine of any Father, however
great and learned he may have been, _e. g._ that of Augustine,
Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be _rejected_ in any point where it
contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men,
and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians.
Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and
principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs that particular
Fathers have taught errors in faith or morality—that they were
credulous—that their writings are in some points obscure—that their
criticisms or interpretations of Scripture are sometimes mistaken—that
they invented scholastic doctrines and were tinged with false
philosophy—that the later Fathers were better theologians than the
earlier—that there are Fathers against Fathers, and councils against
councils, on some points. This is all calculated merely to excite
prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of the Church, by
misrepresenting our design and principle in making it. Our answer to all
these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the Fathers as inspired and
authoritative writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by
Christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they
are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Christianity,
and the external evidence of revelation is subverted.
“2. Pretended respect for religion. Under this head may be classed that
mode of argument which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the
Christian Church, under pretence that the Word of GOD alone ought to be
the rule of our faith, in opposition to all the doctrines of man; that
the Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else;
that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that it
is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence for
Scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it
according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to the
belief of all Christians from the beginning. But in asserting this
liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular
interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation; that Scripture
has no Divine meaning; that it is _not a revelation_. In short,
tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the
Scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort, or misinterpret,
and to destroy that very Scripture.
“The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the defence of the
Reformation, which infidels, Unitarians, and other enemies of the
doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as a plea for rejecting all
appeal to the doctrines of the universal Church. ‘The doctrines of the
_Reformation_,’ they say, ‘cannot be defended if this appeal is allowed;
_Popery_ must triumph.’ Excellent men! They will maintain the
Reformation at all hazards; all evidence shall be pronounced worthless
if it be opposed to the interests of that sacred cause! But what is the
end sought by all this pretended devotion? It is, that every man may be
permitted, without any check, to interpret Scripture in such a manner as
to _subvert_ all the doctrines of the Reformation, whether positive or
negative, to prove the Reformation itself needless, erroneous, bigoted,
equally absurd as the system to which it was opposed, and more
inconsistent. I charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was
there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and
unthinking, than this effort of deists and heretics to set aside
tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation. They are the
opponents of the Reformation. They are the representatives of those whom
the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines, they charge it
with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of
Popery. They have separated from its reformed institutions, as
_anti-Christians_, and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The
Reformation has no connexion with these men: its defence belongs
exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines and adhere to its
institutions, and they alone are proper judges of the mode of argument
suited to its interests.
“3. Statements directly untrue. Under this head may be included the
palmary argument employed by all sects against any appeal to the
tradition of the Church universal, namely, that it was the principle of
the Reformation to reject any such appeal; and its principle was, ‘the
Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.’ Nothing can be more untrue
than this assertion; the Reformation as a whole acknowledged and
appealed to the authority of Catholic tradition, though it denied the
infallibility of particular Fathers and councils. With equal veracity it
is asserted that the Church of England rejects tradition in her sixth
Article of Religion, when it is manifest that her object is simply to
maintain the necessity of Scriptural proof for articles of faith; while
our canons, our rituals, and the whole body of our theologians, so
notoriously uphold the authority of tradition, that it is a subject of
unmeasured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the doctrines
of the Church. The nature of these various arguments testifies
sufficiently that the doctrine of the universal Church is opposed to
those who employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on
this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual
misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The employment
of these weapons by all sects, in order to prevent any appeal to
universal tradition, proves two points. First, as the sole fundamental
principle on which they all agree is, the rejection of an appeal to the
doctrines of the Church as a check on the interpretation of Scripture,
and the assertion of an unlimited right of private interpretation; this
principle is the source of all their divisions and contradictions, and
therefore must be radically false. Secondly, the doctrine of the
universal Church from the beginning must condemn that of all modern
sects, in every point in which they differ from our Catholic and
apostolic Churches; and therefore, on every such point, they are in
error, and misinterpret Scripture, and the Church is in the right.”
TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH. (See _Ceremony_.) “It is not necessary that
traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at
all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the
diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be
ordained against GOD’S word. Whosoever, through his private judgment,
willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies
of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of GOD, and be
ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly,
(that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the
common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate,
and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
“Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change,
and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s
authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”—_Article_ XXXIV.
The word “tradition” is not here used in the same sense in which it was
used in the explanation of the sixth Article. It there signified
unwritten articles of faith, asserted to be derived from CHRIST and his
apostles: in this Article it means customs or practices, relative to the
external worship of GOD, which had been delivered down from former
times; that is, in the sixth Article, traditions meant traditional
_doctrines_, of pretended Divine authority; and in this it means
traditional _practices_ acknowledged to be of human institution.—_Bp.
Tomline._
The word means the same as is expressed immediately by the word
“ceremonies,” which is only explanatory; and which the Church afterwards
calls “rites,” supposing them the same with ceremonies.—_Dr. Bennet._
TRADITORS. Persons who in times of persecution delivered the sacred
Scriptures and other ecclesiastical records to their persecutors, were
thus called, and were subjected to severe censures.
TRANSEPT. (See _Cathedral_.)
TRANSITION. About the year 1145, the use of the pointed arch was
introduced into English architecture, and with this so many constructive
changes in the fabric, that though Norman decorations were long
retained, and even the round arch was used, except in the more important
constructive portions, a style equally distinct from Norman and from
Early English was the result, and this style is called Semi-Norman, or
Transition. Before the close of the twelfth century, the round arch had
entirely disappeared, and the Early English, or Lancet, style was fully
developed about 1190.
TRANSLATION. The removal of a bishop from the charge of one diocese to
that of another, in which case the bishop in his attestations writes
“anno _translationis_ nostræ,” not “anno _consecrationis_ nostræ.”
Also, in literature, the rendering of a work from the original into
another language. All the scriptural portions of the Prayer Book are not
derived from the translation in common use. For example, the Psalter is
from the great English Bible set forth and used in the time of Henry
VIII. and Edward VI.
TRANSLATION of festivals. In the Roman Church, when two festivals of a
certain class concur on the same day with other festivals of the same or
similar class, the celebration of one or other of these festivals is
transferred to some future day, according to rules which are given in
the Breviary and Missal. This is called a _translation_.—_Jebb._
TRANSOM. A horizontal mullion, or cross-bar, in a window or in
panelling. The transom first occurs in late Decorated windows, and in
Perpendicular windows of large size it is of universal occurrence.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The pretended miraculous conversion or change of the
bread and wine into the very body and blood of our LORD, which the
Romanists suppose to be wrought by the consecration of the priest. This
false doctrine is condemned by the Church of England in her 28th
Article. “The supper of the LORD is not only a sign of the love that
Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it
is a sacrament of our redemption by CHRIST’S death: insomuch that to
such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread
which we break is a partaking of the body of CHRIST; and likewise the
cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of CHRIST.”
Transubstantiation, (or the change of the substance of bread and wine,)
in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is
repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a
sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
“The body of CHRIST is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after
an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of
CHRIST is received and eaten in the supper is faith.
“The sacrament of the Lord’s supper was not by CHRIST’S ordinance
reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.”
Bishop Beveridge has the following remarks on this article, from
Scripture and the Fathers:
“Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whosoever worthily
receives the sacrament of the LORD’S supper doth certainly partake of
the body and blood of CHRIST, the devil thence took occasion to draw men
into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the
very body that was crucified upon the cross; and the wine after
consecration the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side. The
time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory
III., pope of Rome. The persons that were the principal abettors of it
were Damascen in the Eastern, and afterwards Amalarius in the Western
Churches. It was no sooner started in the East, but it was opposed by a
famous council at Constantinople, consisting of 338 bishops, the famous
opposers of idol worship. But afterwards, in the second Council of Nice,
it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who
confidently affirmed that, ‘after the consecration, the bread and wine
are called, are, and are believed to be, properly the body and blood of
CHRIST.’ In the West also, Amalarius having broached this opinion,
Paschasius Radbertus readily swallowed it down. But Rabanus Maurus,
Ratramnus or Bertramnus, (of whom more presently,) as also Johannes
Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against
it as a poisonous error. And, after them, Berengarius too, who was not
only written against by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, but
condemned for it in a council held at Verceli, (where the book of
Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also condemned,) and at another
council held at Rome about the same time. And though he did recant his
opinion at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, as some think,
so as never to hold it more, yet his followers would never recant what
they had learned of him. But in the Lateran Council, held A. D. 1215,
the opinion of the real or carnal presence of CHRIST was not only
confirmed, but the word _transubstantiated_ was newly coined to express
it by; that council determining that ‘there is one universal Church of
the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which JESUS CHRIST
himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the
sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and
wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into
his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of GOD; that for the
perfecting the mystery of our union, we might receive of him what he had
received of us.’ And ever since this word was thus forged by this
council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare
their minds by concerning this great mystery; still holding with the
Council of Trent, ‘that by the consecration of the bread and wine is
made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the
body of CHRIST our LORD, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of his blood; which change is aptly and properly called by the
holy Catholic Church _transubstantiation_.’ So that, according to this
opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine
only, and not the body and blood of CHRIST, are after consecration as
properly the body and blood of CHRIST, only, and not bread and wine; the
bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of
CHRIST that hung upon the cross; and the wine into the very blood that
ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.
“Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so
much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to
fall into this desperate error, so as to say the bread and wine are
really changed into the body and blood of CHRIST, because he doth really
partake of the body and blood of CHRIST, that rightly receives the bread
and the wine; that truth is no sooner delivered but this error is
presently opposed. It being no sooner declared that the bread we break
is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the
blood, of CHRIST, but it is immediately subjoined, that, notwithstanding
the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of
the bread and wine into the body and blood of CHRIST, is to be rejected
upon a fourfold account. First, because it cannot be proved by the
Scriptures. Secondly, it is repugnant to them. Thirdly, it overthroweth
the nature of the sacrament. Fourthly, it hath given occasion to many
superstitions. Of which in their order briefly.
“1. As for the _first_, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot
be proved from the Holy Scriptures, is plain from the insufficiency of
those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and
they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, and the words of institution.
In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we find our SAVIOUR saying,
‘My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’ (John vi. 55.)
And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of
his flesh, and drinking of his blood. From whence they gather, that the
bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of CHRIST; not
considering, first, that our SAVIOUR said these words at the least a
year before the sacrament of the LORD’S supper was instituted. For when
CHRIST spake these words, it is said, that ‘the passover was nigh,’
(ver. 4,) whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the
passover following; and it is very unlikely that he should preach
concerning that sacrament before it was instituted. To which we may also
add, that our SAVIOUR here saith concerning the flesh and blood here
spoken of, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the SON of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you’ (ver. 53); whereas it is manifest that a
man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life
in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament
must of necessity be damned. And, therefore, though the thing signified,
even the flesh and blood of CHRIST, is here to be understood, yet the
signs themselves of the sacrament cannot. And so this place, not
intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, cannot be a sufficient
foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into
the body and blood of CHRIST. And, secondly, suppose this place was to
be understood of the sacrament, when our SAVIOUR saith, ‘My flesh is
bread indeed, and my blood is drink indeed:’ this might prove indeed
that CHRIST’S body and blood were turned into bread and drink, but not
at all that [that] bread and drink are turned into his body and blood.
Thirdly, it is plain that in these words our SAVIOUR doth not mean any
external or bodily, but internal and spiritual, feeding upon him. So
that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, (ver. 50,) but
live for ever (ver. 51). Yea, ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ (ver. 56). So that, as Origen
observeth, ‘No wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas
it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners, as well as saints, the
worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine
in the sacrament.’ And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so
neither do the words of institution, ‘This is my body,’ prove the
transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of CHRIST. For he
that saith, because our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ the bread is
therefore changed into his body, may as well say that, because Joseph
said, ‘The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are
seven years,’ (Gen. xli. 26,) therefore the seven good kine, and the
seven good ears, were all changed into seven years. And because Daniel
said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Thou art this head of gold,’ (Dan. ii. 38,)
therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into a head of gold;
whereas it is plain that in Scripture that is often said to be a thing
which is only the sign of it: as GOD is pleased to explain himself when
he said of circumcision, ‘This is my covenant,’ (Gen. xvii. 10,) and in
the next verse, ‘And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant betwixt
me and you’ (ver. 11). And what sense the Most High explains himself by
in that sacrament we may well understand him in this. When he said,
‘This is my covenant,’ he tells us what he meant by that phrase, even
‘This is the sign of my covenant:’ and so here, when CHRIST said, ‘This
is my body,’ according to his own explication of himself before, it is
no more than if he should have said, ‘This is the sign or token of my
body.’ And therefore saith Augustine, ‘For if sacraments should not have
a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they
would not be sacraments at all; but from this resemblance they often
receive the names of the things themselves. Therefore, as after a
certain manner the sacrament of CHRIST’S body is the body of CHRIST, and
the sacrament of the blood of CHRIST is the blood of CHRIST; so the
sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.’ So that the words, ‘This is my
body,’ prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of
his body; not at all that it is really changed into his body. But that
this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the
Scriptures, is further evident in that it is contrary to them.
“2. And this is the _second_ thing here asserted of transubstantiation,
that it is ‘repugnant to the plain words of the Holy Scriptures;’ which
to prove I need go no further than to show, that the Scripture doth
still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before
consecration. And this one might think was plain enough, in the first
place, even from the words of institution themselves; for the Scripture
saith, ‘And as they were eating JESUS took bread and blessed it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.’ (Matt.
xxvi. 26.) So that that which JESUS took was bread, that which JESUS
blessed was bread, that which JESUS gave to his disciples was bread; and
therefore that of which he said, ‘This is my body,’ must needs be bread
too, as the Fathers long ago acknowledged. And truly in reason it cannot
be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun ‘this’ but
‘bread;’ for the ‘body’ of CHRIST, that cometh after it, cannot possibly
be the antecedent to it. For, according to the principles of our
adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed
into the body of CHRIST before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until
the words, ‘This is my body,’ be all pronounced; so that when the priest
saith, ‘This,’ there is no such thing as the body of CHRIST present,
that not coming in till both that and the following words too are
perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of CHRIST can by no means be
looked upon as the antecedent to this pronoun; but that it is bread and
bread only that it hath reference to. So that ‘This is my body,’ is as
much as to say, ‘This bread is my body, this bread that I have taken,
and blessed, and give unto you, is my body.’ Now, as Bellarmine himself
acknowledged, this proposition, ‘This bread is my body,’ cannot possibly
be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense
should be, ‘This bread _signifies_ my body,’ is a _sign_ or _sacrament_
of it; it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body
of CHRIST: for if it be bread, and yet the very body of CHRIST too, then
bread and the body of CHRIST would be convertible terms. So that the
very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any
rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of
which our SAVIOUR said, ‘This is my body,’ was real bread, and so his
body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence that
the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only
represented by the bread. But if this will not do, we may consider, in
the second place, the institution of the other part of the sacrament;
for it is said, ‘And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to
them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.’ (Matt.
xxvi. 27, 28.) Where these last words, ‘for this is my blood,’ &c.,
being the words of consecration; and our SAVIOUR having given them the
cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it; it could not possibly be
meant of anything else than the wine in the cup of which he said these
words. To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words
of consecration: ‘But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of
this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
my Father’s kingdom.’ (Matt. xxvi. 29.) Whence we see our SAVIOUR
himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the
_fruit of the vine_; and in saying that he will drink no more of the
fruit of the vine, plainly shows that it was the fruit of the vine which
he before drank. So that the very wine of which he said, ‘this is my
blood,’ was wine still, and the fruit of the vine; which I hope none of
our adversaries will say the very blood of CHRIST is. But, thirdly, this
may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: ‘The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
CHRIST?’ (1 Cor. x. 16); where we may take notice of two things. First,
that he here calleth the sacramental elements still ‘a cup,’ or wine,
and bread, ‘the bread which we break;’ so that it is still bread: and,
secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and
the bread broken the communion of the body, of CHRIST. Now, if the bread
be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it
cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real
body; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, ‘The blood
of CHRIST is the communion of the blood of CHRIST, and the body of
CHRIST the communion of the body of CHRIST;’ and so the body of CHRIST
must be the communion of itself, which is impossible; to which we might
also add the several places where the apostle calls the elements still
bread and wine, or the cup; as, ‘For as oft as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup.’ (1 Cor. xi. 26.) “Whosoever shall eat this bread and
drink this cup of the LORD unworthily,” &c. (Ver. 27.) ‘But let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that
cup.’ (Ver. 28.) From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at
the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of CHRIST; that which we
drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of CHRIST; and therefore,
that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of
CHRIST, is repugnant to the plain words of the Scripture.
“3. The third thing is, that it ‘overthroweth the nature of the
sacrament,’ which I need not spend many words to prove; for in a
sacrament it is required, first, that there be some outward sign
representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed
into the body of CHRIST, there is no outward sign at all in the
sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of CHRIST,
which are not signs, but the thing signified. Nay, as Augustine
observes, ‘The signs themselves are the sacraments,’ and therefore where
there is no sign there can be no sacrament. And so, by depriving this
sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a
sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament in it.
And therefore, if they will still hold, that by the words of
consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body
and blood of CHRIST, let them cease to call that holy action any longer
a sacrament, but name it ‘the body and blood of CHRIST;’ for, according
to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of
CHRIST. So that it is plain that, by this doctrine, the nature of a
sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacrament in particular
must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.
“4. The fourth and last thing here objected against this doctrine of
transubstantiation is, that it ‘hath given occasion to many
superstitions,’ which any one that ever observed their customs and
practices cannot but acknowledge. For this fond opinion possessing their
brains, that the bread is the real body of CHRIST hung upon the cross,
and pierced for their sins, oh! how zealous are they in wrapping it up
neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasures, carrying
it about in their processions; yea, and, at the length, in worshipping
and adoring it too!”
This learned and orthodox bishop proceeds to show how inconsistent this
tenet is with the teaching of the Fathers. We add a few quotations upon
the subject from other orthodox divines.
“The article next condemns the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, or
the change of the substance of bread and wine into the real substance of
CHRIST’S body and blood, in the administration of the LORD’S supper. The
idea of CHRIST’S bodily presence in the eucharist was first started in
the beginning of the eighth century, and it owed its rise to the
indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead
of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language upon
this subject, understood and urged them in their literal sense. Thus the
true meaning of these expressions was grossly perverted: but as this
conceit seemed to exalt the nature of the holy sacrament, it was eagerly
received in that ignorant and superstitious age; and was by degrees
carried farther and farther, by persons still less guarded in their
application of these metaphorical phrases. This has always been a
favourite doctrine of the Church of Rome, as it impressed the common
people with higher notions of the power of the clergy, and therefore
served to increase their influence. It met however with opposition upon
its original introduction, particularly from Bertram and John Scot; and
again at the first dawn of the Reformation, both upon the Continent and
in this country. It was objected to by the Waldenses; and there are
strong expressions against it in some parts of Wickliff’s works. Luther,
in contradiction to the other reformers, only changed transubstantiation
into consubstantiation, which means that the substance of CHRIST’S body
and blood is present in the holy sacrament with the substance of the
bread and wine; and his perseverance in this opinion was a principal
cause of the division among the reformed churches. He was opposed by
Zuingle and Calvin, but the Confession of Augsburg, which was drawn up
by Melancthon, favours consubstantiation. There is, however,
considerable doubt concerning the real sentiments of Melancthon upon
this subject, especially in the latter part of his life. Some of our
early English reformers were Lutherans, and consequently they were at
first disposed to lean towards consubstantiation; but they seem soon to
have discovered their error, for in the articles of 1552 it is expressly
said, “A faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the
real and bodily presence, as they term it, of CHRIST’S flesh and blood
in the sacrament of the LORD’S supper.” This part of the article was
omitted in 1562, probably with a view to give less offence to those who
maintain the corporal presence, and to comprehend as many as possible in
the Established Church.”—_Bp. Tomline._
In arguing against this doctrine we may first observe, that it is
contradicted by our senses, since we see and taste that the bread and
wine after consecration, and when we actually receive them, still
continue to be bread and wine, without any change or alteration
whatever. And again, was it possible for CHRIST, when he instituted the
LORD’S supper, to take his own body and his own blood into his own
hands, and deliver them to every one of his apostles? or was it possible
for the apostles to understand our SAVIOUR’S command to drink his blood
literally, when they were forbidden, under the severest penalties, to
taste blood by the law of Moses, of which not only they themselves, but
CHRIST also had been a strict observer? They expressed not the slightest
surprise or reluctance when CHRIST delivered to them the bread and wine,
which could not have been the case, had they conceived themselves
commanded to eat the real body and drink the real blood of their LORD
and Master. The bread and wine must have been considered by them as
symbolical, and indeed the whole transaction was evidently figurative in
all its parts; it was instituted when the Jews, by killing the paschal
lamb, commemorated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage by the hand
of Moses, which was typical of the deliverance of all mankind from the
bondage of sin by the death of CHRIST, “the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world;” and as the occasion was typical, so likewise
were the words used by our SAVIOUR: “This is my body which is broken,”
and “this is my blood which is shed.” But his body was not yet broken,
nor was his blood yet shed; and therefore the breaking of the bread, and
the pouring out of the wine, were then figurative of what was about to
happen, as they are now figurative of what has actually happened. He
also said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. xi. 25);
which words could not be meant in a literal sense; the cup could not be
changed into a covenant, though it might be a representation or memorial
of it. Our SAVIOUR called the wine, after it was consecrated, “the fruit
of the vine,” (Matt. xxvi. 29,) which implied that no change had taken
place in its real nature. Since then the words, “This is my body,” and
“This is my blood,” upon which the Papists pretend to support this
doctrine, were manifestly used in a figurative sense, and must have been
so understood by the apostles, to whom they were originally addressed,
we may safely pronounce that “transubstantiation, or the change of the
substance of bread and wine, in the supper of the LORD, cannot be proved
by Holy Writ.” That the early Christians understood our SAVIOUR’S words
in a figurative sense, appears from the writings of more than twenty
Fathers, without a single authority on the opposite side.—_Bp. Tomlins._
1. That transubstantiation is “repugnant to the plain words of
Scripture,” appears from St. Paul’s saying, “we are all partakers of
that one bread” (1 Cor. x. 17); and, “as often as ye eat this bread” (1
Cor. xi. 26); so that it is bread, and not CHRIST’S flesh, even when we
eat and partake thereof. Parity of reason proves the same of the wine.
2. That transubstantiation “overthroweth the nature of a sacrament” is
evident, because it supposes what we eat and drink to be, not the sign,
but the thing signified. 3. It has also “given occasion to many
superstitions.” That it has given occasion to abominable idolatry is
evident from the adoration of the host, which is grounded on it. But,
though idolatry is worse than superstition, yet it is different from it.
Wherefore, for the proof of this branch of the proposition, let it be
considered, that, in cases of imminent danger or great calamities, the
host is _exposed_ by the Papists, to appease GOD’S anger, and prevent or
remove his judgments: or reference may be had to the provisions made in
the Romish Church, in the event of any accident happening to the
consecrated elements. Our reformers were too well acquainted with these
superstitions: though, blessed be GOD, we have not instances ready at
hand.—_Dr. Bennet._
TRAVERSE. A seat of state with a canopy, formerly placed at the upper
end of the choir in the royal chapels, and temporarily in cathedrals,
for the use of the sovereign.
TREASURER. A dignitary formerly existing in all cathedrals and
collegiate churches of old foundation in England, and in Ireland and
Scotland in such churches as followed the English model. The treasurer
was not the bursar, but rather the chief sacristan. He had the care of
the plate, vestments, furniture, necessaries of Divine service; the
control of the sacristan and inferior officers, of the bells, and the
general superintendence of the fabric. In many foreign churches the
place of treasurer was discharged by a dignitary called a sacristan; but
in others, as at Glasgow, and the royal chapel, Stirling, there was a
treasurer and a sacristan, both dignitaries. In cathedrals of the new
foundation, the treasurer is merely the bursar; the canons taking this
office in annual rotation.—_Jebb._
TRENT, COUNCIL OF. (See _Roman Catholic Church_, _Popery_, _Council of
Trent_.) This important council met in 1545, and was dissolved in 1563.
Its nominal period extended over eighteen years, but its actual sessions
occupied less than five. Protestants from the days of Luther had been
urgent for the convocation of a free synod. They had reiterated the
demand at Nuremberg, and Ratisbon, and Spires. There were indeed on both
sides earnest and pious persons who were anxious that the questions at
issue should be settled by competent authority. The evil lives of the
clergy, and the general disorders of the Church, afforded another strong
reason by which many were influenced. At the same time, the endless
extortions of the papal chancery had raised disputes in every European
state, which there seemed no other hope of allaying. It was the great
object of the pope and his adherents to condemn Lutheran doctrine, and
to avoid definition on points disputed in the Roman Church. Clement VII.
had promised that a general council should be held in Italy for raising
subsidies against the Turks, and for the suppression of heresy, but he
really used his influence to prevent its assembling. On his death in
1534 his successor, Paul III., published a bull of convocation. Various
difficulties however arose, partly on account of the proposed place of
meeting, and partly through the war between the emperor and the king of
France, and interposed a delay of some years. The city of Trent in the
Tyrol, on the confines of Italy and Germany, and now in the dominions of
Austria, was at length selected, the summons was issued, and the council
was opened December 13, 1545. The meeting had been so long deferred,
that when a few ecclesiastics and others assembled, it was hardly
believed that the synod was really convened; and the importance of the
movement was not perceived until somewhat later.
The first three sessions were occupied by preliminary matters, after
which the actual business commenced. The constitution of the assembly,
as well as the form of procedure, was governed by arbitrary rules. The
legates presided as the representatives of the pope; who also appointed
the secretaries and other officers. Bishops alone were allowed to vote,
but an exception was made in the case of certain abbots and generals of
orders, for whose admission no precedent could however be alleged, but
such as would be equally availing for all presbyters. Proxies were
generally refused, although some were allowed by the sole authority of
the pope. All discussions were confined to previous congregations, and
in the sessions which followed there was no deliberation, but only the
acceptance or rejection of the proposed conclusions. The judgments of
the council were embodied partly in decrees which profess to contain the
Catholic doctrine on the points in question, partly in canons by which
the contrary opinions are anathematized as heretical.
In the fourth session, which was held April 5, 1546, somewhat less than
fifty bishops being present, it was decreed that the canon of Scripture
includes the books commonly called apocryphal, and that tradition is to
be received as of equal authority with the written Word; that the
Vulgate is to be taken for the standard text, and no interpretation
allowed but such as the Church has affixed. In the fifth session the
decree on original sin was passed; in the sixth, that on justification;
and in the seventh, that on the sacraments in general, and baptism and
confirmation in particular. In the eighth session, the removal to
Bologna was appointed, where the two following sessions were held; but
no decrees were passed, and in September, 1547, the council was
prorogued. The translation to an Italian city had been made under a bull
of Paul III., when the German bishops were urgent for reformation, and
there seemed no other escape. A disease which broke out at Trent was the
alleged excuse. In 1551 the council was again convened by Julius III.,
who had been present at a former period as legate. The eleventh and
twelfth sessions were spent in formal business; in the thirteenth the
sacrament of the eucharist was treated; in the fourteenth, the
sacraments of penance and extreme unction; in the fifteenth, a
safe-conduct was granted to the Protestants; and in the sixteenth, which
was held in April, 1552, the prorogation of the council for two years
was decreed. Paul IV. was, however, resolutely opposed to its revival,
on the ground that his authority was higher than that of a synod, which
was therefore needless; and by the threat of secular reformation he
deterred some princes from urging the reassembling of the council, which
did not take place till January, 1562, when the seventeenth session was
held under Pius IV. In the eighteenth, certain of the fathers were
appointed to prepare an index of prohibited books, and at the same time,
the safe-conduct was removed; in the eighteenth and nineteenth no
business was transacted; in the twenty-first, the communion under one
kind was enjoined for all, except the celebrant; in the twenty-second,
the sacrifice of the mass was declared to be a true and Catholic
doctrine; in the twenty-third, the subject handled was the sacrament of
order; in the twenty-fourth, the sacrament of matrimony; and in the
twenty-fifth, decrees were passed on purgatory, the invocation of
saints, the worship of relics and images, indulgences, fasting, the
index of prohibited books, the catechism, the breviary, and the missal.
After which, the decrees passed under Paul III. and Julius III. were
read, and the council was dissolved.
In reviewing the history of this remarkable assembly, it is impossible
to overlook the want of unity both in purpose and opinion among its
members. The representatives of the emperor of Germany, of the kings of
France and Spain, of the duke of Bavaria, and of other secular princes,
urgently demanded the reformation of the Church, while the partisans of
the Roman court were desirous only to suppress Protestantism. There were
none but Italians on whom the pope could entirely depend, for even the
Spanish prelates wished his power to be restrained, and that of other
bishops to be enlarged. The Germans and French demanded the restoration
of the cup, and the marriage of the clergy, while the Spaniards, who
opposed them on these points, were united with them on some others
against the Roman faction. One great party was urgent that the later
sessions should be declared a continuation of the earlier, while another
vehemently opposed the declaration; and the council never ventured to
rule the question either way. There were endless conflicts between the
bishops and the monastic orders, and of Franciscans and Dominicans, with
each other. Whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; what
is the true nature of transubstantiation; whether CHRIST offered himself
in the holy supper; whether the apostles were ordained priests at that
time or previously,—were among the topics of vehement contention. On the
subject of the great doctrine of justification by faith, the members of
the council were far from being agreed, and it is beyond denial that
some of them held the Protestant view. Even the scanty number, who
ventured to decide on the canon of Scripture, and on tradition, were at
variance among themselves. Some disputes lasted throughout the whole
period, such as whether the council should be said to represent the
universal Church; whether the legates should have the privilege of
proposing all matters for debate; and whether doctrine should precede
reformation. The question of the residence of bishops, that is, whether
it is binding by Divine ordinance, or by the law of the Church, in which
important considerations were involved, excited long and angry
conflicts. Day after day, through weeks and months of the most critical
period, the dispute was renewed. The legates themselves were divided;
and at one time the dissolution of the council seemed inevitable.
There are many controverted points on which the council gives no
information, and they are the very questions which it was most important
to decide. No one can learn from its decrees, for instance, what is the
sound doctrine about purgatory, nor in what due veneration for images
consists, nor which is the sacramental form in penance, or matrimony,
nor what is the nature of original sin, nor what is the proper
definition of a sacrament. There were some subjects debated more than
sufficiently, but left at last undecided; and there were some positions
which the council could not renounce, because this would have
contradicted the decrees of former popes and councils, and which they
could not affirm, because they were opposed by powerful members of the
existing Church.
In spite, however, of the imperfect and contradictory statements of the
Fathers of Trent, they had no hesitation in pronouncing judgment on what
they esteemed Lutheran opinions. We can indeed find no parallel for the
prodigality of their curses, unless we go back to the days of the
Donatists. They reach not only to those whom the Church of all ages has
called blessed, but to many also of the doctors most esteemed in the
Roman communion itself. If any one, for example, denies that the works
of justified persons are truly meritorious of eternal life, or that the
mass is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, or that the custom of
confessing privately to a priest has existed from the apostolic age, or
that the Church has power to change an institution of CHRIST, he falls
under the imprecation of the council. In the decree of the last session
on the invocation of saints, and the use of images and relics, an
anathema is pronounced, not only against those who teach, but those who
even think differently. And yet the synod which spoke with so much
boldness had no claim, either from numbers or character, to be taken as
the representative of the Catholic Church. In the first seven sessions
held under Paul III., when the ground was laid for maintaining all the
errors and corruptions of the Roman Church, less than sixty bishops were
present. In the thirteenth, under Julius III., when transubstantiation
and the worship of the host were defined, only forty-five bishops and
two cardinals were assembled. And in the ninth session there were only
thirty-five collected, who yet presumed to take the title of an
Ecumenical Council. In the later sessions held under Pius IV., there was
a greater number of bishops at Trent; but the chief subjects in dispute
had been ruled in the earlier periods of the council, and the deficiency
of numbers was not remedied by any subsequent confirmation. Of those who
were present, the chief part were Italians; some were bishops of
inconsiderable sees, and some mere titulars. There were among them not a
few, who subsisted on pensions granted by the pope.
The council was in no sense the free assembly to which Luther and others
had appealed, for it was guided throughout by papal influence; and, as
the Protestants complained in 1546, it was not convened in a neutral
place, while the pope, who was the great delinquent on trial, was
allowed to be the judge in his own cause. There were external causes at
work, which prevented the freedom of debate. At the very time when the
doctrine of justification was under review, a league was formed between
the pope and the emperor, for putting down the Protestants; and while
the council was debating, the bishop of Rome was sending his contingent
of troops. In the council itself, the legates assumed unreasonable
authority, and their interruptions were the subject of continual
complaint. During the later sessions, the Inquisition was in full force,
and there were persons present in the council who had been sufferers.
The assembly was overborne by Italian prelates. At one time, when very
important subjects were under discussion, there were no more than two
bishops to represent the Church of France. On another occasion, forty
bishops were sent by the Roman court for the purpose of carrying a
particular point, by outvoting the Spanish bishops, by whom it was
opposed. We find the ambassadors of secular princes expressing in the
strongest language their sense of the tyranny under which the council
was held, and by which its freedom was annihilated.
No one who considers these circumstances can wonder that the beneficial
reforms of the Church did not result, which had been so long expected
and so anxiously desired. They had been demanded, but in vain, by the
emperor, and other great princes, as well as by diets and other
assemblies of the empire. Even as late as 1563, the French ambassador
delivered a list of thirty-four articles of required reformation. After
the twenty-second session we find the Imperialists affirming that none
of the desired changes had been proposed. And just before the close of
the council, the Spanish ambassador came to the legates with a written
complaint, that the principal things for which it was assembled had been
omitted, and the rest carried with precipitation. The French envoy
filled the letters which he addressed to his court with similar
testimony. Whatever beneficial changes in the administration of Church
affairs seemed to have been made, were neutralized by the terms in which
the rights of the see of Rome were reserved, and which were vague enough
to admit every abuse, the pope himself being constituted judge in each
case, and possessing also a dispensing power.
The last session was brought hastily to a close, partly through the
diplomatic skill of the legate Morone; but chiefly on account of the
illness of the pope, because everybody knew that if he died during the
sitting of the assembly, a schism was inevitable.
The history of the council was written, in 1619, by Sarpi, and forty
years later by Cardinal Pallavicini. The former was the most learned
person of the age, a statesman and historian as well as a divine; the
latter is chiefly known as an apologist of the court and Church of Rome.
His work has been described as more injurious to papal interests than
that of his predecessor; because if the one has shown how much may be
said against the Council of Trent, the other has made it equally plain
how little can be alleged in its defence.
The decrees of the council were signed by only 255 members: four of
these were legates of the papal see; two, cardinals; three, patriarchs;
twenty-five, archbishops; one hundred and sixty-eight, bishops;
thirty-nine, deputies of absent prelates; seven, abbots; and seven were
generals of religious orders. The Greek Church and the English Church
were not represented. It was subscribed on separate schedules, by the
ambassadors of the sovereigns who still adhered to the Romish system.
The following are the anathemas of the council.
I. The sacred œcumenical and general synod of Trent, lawfully assembled
in the HOLY GHOST, and presided over by the three legates of the
apostolic see, having it constantly in view that, by the removal of
errors, the gospel, which, promised aforetime in the Holy Scriptures by
the prophets, CHRIST himself first published with his own mouth, and
then commanded his apostles to preach to every creature, as the source
of all saving truth and instruction of manners, should be preserved pure
in the Church; and clearly perceiving that this truth and this
instruction are contained in written books _and unwritten traditions_,
which traditions have been received by the apostles from the mouth of
CHRIST himself, or dictated by the HOLY SPIRIT, and by the apostles
handed down even to us, receives and reverences, conformably to the
example of the orthodox Fathers, with the same pious regard and
veneration, all the books as well of the Old as of the New
Testament—both having GOD for their author, _and the traditions relating
both to faith and practice, inasmuch as these traditions were either
delivered by word of mouth, from_ CHRIST, _or dictated by the_ HOLY
GHOST, and preserved by uninterrupted succession in the Catholic Church.
The books received by this council are, of the Old Testament, the five
books of Moses, viz. Genesis, &c., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings,
two of Chronicles, first of Esdras, second of Esdras, called Nehemias,
Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, consisting of 150,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, with Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, twelve minor prophets, viz.
Hosea, &c., the first and second of Maccabees. Of the New Testament, the
four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. Paul the
Apostle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one
to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to
the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to
the Hebrews, the Epistle catholic of St. James, the two Epistles of St.
Peter, the three Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the
Revelations of St. John.
Whosoever shell not receive these books entire with all their parts, (i.
e. the Apocrypha as well as the canonical books,) as they are used to be
read in the (Roman) Catholic Church, and are contained in the ancient
Vulgate Latin edition, for sacred and canonical, and shall knowingly and
wilfully contemn the aforesaid traditions: let him be accursed. (See
_Bible_, _Scripture_, _Apocrypha_.)
II. Moreover, in order to repress the arrogant and self-sufficient, the
council decrees, that no one, relying on his own wisdom, shall presume
to pervert and interpret Holy Scripture to his own sense, in matters of
faith and manners, pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,
contrary to the sense which hath been and is maintained by the holy
mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true meaning and
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers, even if such interpretations should never be
made public. (See _Fathers_ and _Tradition_.)
III. Whosoever shall say, that the sacraments of the New Law were not
all instituted by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, or that they are _more or less_
in number than seven; that is to say, baptism, confirmation, the LORD’S
supper, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; or that any one
of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be
accursed. (See _Seven Sacraments_.)
IV. Whosoever shall say, that by the sacraments of the New Law, grace is
not conferred _by the mere performance of the act_, but that faith alone
in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace: let him be
accursed. (See _Opus Operatum_.)
V. Whosoever shall say, that it is not requisite that the ministers,
when celebrating the sacraments, should have, at least, _the intention
of doing that which the Church doeth_: let him be accursed. (See
_Intention, Priests’_.)
VI. Whosoever shall say, that the free will of man, after the sin of
Adam, was lost and extinguished: let him be accursed. (See _Free Will_.)
VII. The formal cause of justification is the righteousness of GOD: not
that whereby he is himself righteous, but that whereby he maketh us
righteous; that with which we, being by him endowed, are renewed in the
spirit of our mind, and are not only accounted, but are truly called,
and are righteous, each of us receiving into himself righteousness,
according to the measure whereby the SPIRIT divideth to every man
severally as he will, and according to every man’s disposition and
co-operation. (See _Sanctification_.)
VIII. Whosoever shall say, that the ungodly is justified by faith alone,
so as to understand that nothing else is required to co-operate in
obtaining the grace of justification; and that it is by no means
necessary that he should be prepared and disposed by the motion of his
own will: let him be accursed. (See _Justification_.)
IX. Whosoever shall say, that in the mass there is not a true and proper
sacrifice offered up to GOD, and that the offering up is no more than
the giving us CHRIST to eat: let him be accursed. (See _Satisfaction,
Romish_.)
X. Whosoever shall say, that by these words, “This do in remembrance of
me,” CHRIST did not ordain the apostles, priests, or that he did not
appoint that they and other priests should offer up his body and blood:
let him be accursed. (See _Orders_.)
XI. Whosoever shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of
praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made
on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it is profitable
only to the partaker, and that it ought not to be offered up for the
quick and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other
necessities: let him be accursed. (See _Mass, Sacrifice of_.)
XII. Whosoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the
eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity, of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and, consequently, the whole of CHRIST, are
truly, really, and substantially contained; but shall say that they are
there only symbolically, figuratively, or virtually: let him be
accursed. (See _Real Presence_ and _Transubstantiation_.)
XIII. Whosoever shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist,
the substance of bread and wine remains, together with the substance of
the body and blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and shall deny that
wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into
the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the
species of bread and wine still remaining, which change the (Roman)
Catholic Church very fitly calleth Transubstantiation: let him be
accursed. (See _Transubstantiation_.)
XIV. Whosoever shall say, that CHRIST exhibited in the eucharist is only
spiritually eaten, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be
accursed. (See _Eucharist_.)
XV. Whosoever shall say, that in the most holy sacrament of the
eucharist, CHRIST, the only-begotten SON of GOD, is not to be adored
with the worship called _Latria_ even outwardly; nor honoured by a
peculiar festival, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according
to the praiseworthy and universal rite and usage of the holy Church, nor
exposed publicly to the people to be worshipped, and that its
worshippers are idolaters: let him be accursed. (See _Corpus Christi_.)
XVI. Whosoever shall say, that the holy eucharist ought not to be
reserved in a sacred place, but is immediately after consecration
necessarily to be distributed to those present, or that it ought not to
be carried in a respectful manner to the sick: let him be accursed. (See
_Elevation of the Host_.)
XVII. Whosoever shall say, that it is the commandment of GOD, or
necessary to salvation, that all and every faithful Christian should
receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, under both kinds: let
him be accursed. (See _Communion in One Kind_.)
XVIII. Whosoever shall say, that the holy Catholic Church hath not been
moved by just cause and reason to administer the bread only to the
laity, and even to the clergy not officiating, or that it is in error in
so doing: let him be accursed. (See _Cup_.)
XIX. Whosoever shall deny, that the whole of CHRIST, the source and
author of all grace, is received in the bread, because, as some falsely
affirm, according to CHRIST’S own institution, he is not received under
one and each kind: let him be accursed. (See _Communion in One Kind_.)
XX. Whosoever shall say, that the mass ought to be performed only in the
vulgar tongue: let him be accursed. (See _Liturgy_.)
XXI. The Catholic Church, instructed by the HOLY GHOST, and in
conformity to the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient tradition of the
Fathers, hath taught in its sacred councils, and, lastly, in this
œcumenical synod, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained
therein are assisted by the prayers of the faithful, and more especially
by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. (See _Purgatory_.)
XXII. Whosoever shall say, that after receiving the grace of
justification, any penitent sinner hath his offence so remitted, and his
obnoxiousness to eternal punishment so blotted out, as to render him no
longer obnoxious to temporal punishment, to be undergone either in this
world or in the future in purgatory, before an entrance can be opened to
the kingdom of heaven: let him be accursed. (See _Purgatory_.)
XXIII. This holy synod enjoins all bishops and others who undertake the
office of teaching, to instruct the faithful, that the saints who reign
together with CHRIST offer up their prayers to GOD for men, that it is
good and profitable to invoke them in a supplicating manner, and that,
in order to procure benefit from GOD through his SON JESUS CHRIST our
LORD, who is our only REDEEMER and SAVIOUR, we should have recourse to
their prayers, help, and assistance; and that those persons hold impious
opinions who deny that the saints enjoying eternal happiness in heaven
are to be invoked; or who affirm, that the saints do not pray for men,
or that the invoking them that they may pray ever for every one of us in
particular, is idolatry, or is repugnant to the word of GOD, and
contrary to the honour of the one Mediator between GOD and men, JESUS
CHRIST, or that it is foolish to supplicate orally or mentally those who
reign in heaven. (See _Invocation of Saints_.)
XXIV. Also the bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with CHRIST,
having been lively members of CHRIST and temples of the HOLY GHOST, and
to be raised again by him to eternal life and glory, are to be
reverenced by the faithful, as by them many benefits are bestowed by GOD
on men; so that they who affirm that reverence and honour are not due to
the reliques of saints, or that it is useless for the faithful to honour
them or other sacred monuments, and a vain thing to celebrate the memory
of the saints, for the purpose of obtaining their assistance, are wholly
to be condemned, as the Church hath before condemned and now condemns
them. The images of CHRIST, and of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and of the
other saints, are to be set up and retained, especially in churches, and
due honour and reverence to be paid unto them. (See _Image Worship_,
_Mariolatry_, and _Relics_.)
XXV. Since the power of granting indulgences hath been bestowed by
CHRIST upon the Church, and such power thus Divinely imparted hath been
exercised by her even in the earliest times; this holy synod teaches and
enjoins that the use of indulgences, as very salutary to Christian
people, and approved of by the sacred councils, be retained in the
Church, and pronounces an anathema on such as shall affirm them to be
useless, or deny the power of granting them to be in the Church. (See
_Indulgences_.)
XXVI. The holy synod exhorts and adjures all pastors, by the coming of
our LORD and SAVIOUR, that as good soldiers they enjoin the faithful to
observe all things which the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress
of all Churches, hath enacted, as well as such things as have been
enacted by this and other œcumenical councils. (See _Church of Rome_.)
XXVII. The chief pontiffs, by virtue of the supreme authority given them
in the universal Church, have justly assumed the power of reserving some
graver criminal causes to their own peculiar judgment. (See _Supremacy,
Papal_.)
XXVIII. The more weighty criminal charges against bishops which deserve
deposition and deprivation may be judged and determined only by the
supreme Roman pontiff. (See _Pope_.)
XXIX. This holy synod enjoins all patriarchs, primates, archbishops,
bishops, and all others who, by right or custom, ought to assist at a
provincial council, that in the first provincial synod that may be
holden after the conclusion of the present council, they do openly
receive all and each of the things which have been defined and enacted
by this holy synod; also that they do promise and profess true obedience
to the supreme Roman pontiff, and at the same time publicly detest and
anathematize all heresies condemned by the sacred canons, the general
councils, and especially by this present synod. (See _Popery_.)
XXX. Whosoever shall say, that the clergy in holy orders, or regulars
having made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage, and
that a marriage so contracted is valid, notwithstanding the
ecclesiastical law or vow; and that to maintain the contrary is nothing
else than to condemn matrimony, and that all may contract marriage who
do not feel themselves to have the gift of continence, even though they
should have made a vow of it: let him be accursed; since GOD denies it
not to such as rightly ask it, nor will he suffer us to be tempted above
what we are able. (See _Celibacy_.)
XXXI. Whosoever shall say, that the state of matrimony is to be
preferred to the state of virginity or single life, and that it is not
better or more blessed to continue in virginity or single life: let him
be accursed. (See _Matrimony_.)
TRENTAL. A service of thirty masses for the dead, usually celebrated on
as many different days.
TRICANALE. “A round ball with a screw coin for the water of mixture,” at
the holy communion in Bishop Andrewes’s chapel, and in Canterbury
cathedral. _Canterbury’s Dom._, 1646, and _Neale’s Hist. of the
Puritans_, vol. ii. pp. 223, 224.—_Jebb._
TRIFORIUM. Any passage in the walls of a church, but generally
restricted in its use to the passage immediately over the arches of the
great arcade, usually, in Norman and Early English, marked by an arcade
of its own. It is so called as being in most cases a triple aperture,
opening to the nave. In the Geometrical style, the Triforium is
sometimes treated as a mere decorative arcade, connected in composition
with the clerestory; and in the Decorated it sinks still lower into a
course of panels, pierced at intervals; while in the Perpendicular it
either wholly disappears, or is a mere lengthening of the mullions of
the clerestory windows.
TRINITY. (See _Person_, _God_, _Jesus_, _Christ_, _Messiah_, _Son of
God_, _Holy Ghost_.) _Of Faith in the Holy Trinity._—“There is but one
living and true GOD, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions: of
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all
things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this GODHEAD there
be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the FATHER, the
SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”—_Article_ I.
“Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he
hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole
and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
Catholic faith is this: That we worship one GOD in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
substance.”—_Athanasian Creed._
Here it is said, that in the unity of the GODHEAD there be three
persons; that is, though there be but one living and true GOD, yet there
be three persons, who are that one living and true GOD. Though the true
GOD be but one in substance, yet he is three in subsistence; and so
three in subsistence, as still to be but one in substance. And these
three persons, every one of which is GOD, and yet all three but one GOD,
are really related to one another; as they are termed in Scripture, one
is a FATHER, the other a SON, the other a HOLY GHOST. The first is
FATHER to the second, the second is SON to the first, the third is
neither FATHER nor SON, but the issue or spirit of both. The first was a
FATHER from eternity, as well as GOD; the second was GOD from eternity,
as well as a SON; the third was both HOLY GHOST and GOD from eternity,
as well as either of them. The FATHER is the first person in the Deity;
not begotten, nor proceeding, but begetting; the SON, the second, not
begetting, nor proceeding, but begotten; the HOLY GHOST, the third, not
begotten, nor begetting, but proceeding. The first is called the FATHER,
because he begot the second; the second is called the SON, because he is
begotten of the FATHER; the third is called the HOLY GHOST, because
breathed both from the FATHER and the SON.
And though these be thus really amongst themselves distinct from one
another, yet are they not distinct in the Divine nature; they are not
distinct in essence, though they be distinct in the manner of their
subsisting in it. The FATHER subsists as a Father, the SON as a Son, the
HOLY GHOST as a Spirit, and so have distinct subsistences; yet have all
the same numerical substance. We say numerical or individual substance;
for otherwise they might have all the same Divine nature, and yet not be
the same GOD. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were three distinct persons,
and had all the same human nature; yet they could not all be called one
man; because, though they had but one human nature, yet they had it
specifically, as distinguished into several individuals; not
numerically, so as to be the same individual man; and, therefore, though
they had but one specifical, they had several numerical, natures, by
which means Abraham was one man, Isaac another, Jacob a third. And upon
the same account is it, that, amongst the angels, Gabriel, Michael,
Raphael, though they have the same angelical nature, yet they are not
the same angel. But here the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST have not only
the same Divine nature “in specie,” but “in numero;” and so have not
only one and the same nature, but are one and the same GOD. The FATHER
is the self-same individual GOD with the SON; the SON is the self-same
individual GOD with the FATHER; and the HOLY GHOST is the self-same
individual GOD with them both. We say, _individual_ GOD, for the Divine
nature is not divided into several Gods, as the human is into several
men, but only distinguished into several persons, every one of which
hath the same undivided Divine nature, and so is the same individual
God. And thus it is, that in the unity of the GODHEAD there be three
persons, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST; which great mystery, though we be
not able adequately to conceive of it, yet the Scriptures give a
sufficient testimonial to it.—_Beveridge._
The sublime mystery of the TRINITY in Unity is taught by revelation—not
by reason; although it is not in contradiction to this, rightly
exercised, nor more unintelligible than many of the “things hard to be
understood” in Holy Scripture. A plurality in the GODHEAD is indicated
by the language of the very earliest revelations; which plurality is
plainly expressed under the Gospel dispensation—a sacred Three being
enumerated by mutual relation in the form of baptism, and by name in the
apostolic benediction; which Three are also frequently mentioned
together elsewhere, though not in terms so clear.
The doctrine may perhaps be gleaned as much from the economy of
creation, as from that of redemption; and herein may be observed, that
in the very commencement of the sacred history, the DEITY is mentioned
under a term of plural signification; and when man, the more eminent
work, is to be made, and is afterwards spoken of, a Divine council seems
implied: “Let _us_ make man,” &c., “the man is become as one of _us_!”
This peculiar fact seems referred to, and corroborated by, the
introduction to St. John’s Gospel; which declares that the “WORD was in
the beginning with GOD.” Again, each of the sacred Three is noticed as
acting separately in the work. With respect to the FATHER this is clear
from innumerable passages, in which the LORD GOD is mentioned as the
Creator, unless in such a Trinity be implied, which then shortly decides
the point at issue. Of the SON it is said, “all things were made by
him;” and expressly, “without him was not anything made that was made.”
(John i. 3; Col. i. 16.) And of the HOLY SPIRIT, that by him are made
and created both man and beast. (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30.) Thus is
that passage intelligible, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens
made: and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Ps. xxxiii.
6.) The mode of operation in the work of redemption has been before
noticed. To all these may be added, that the sacred THREE are mentioned
equally as sending and instructing the prophets and teachers, (Jer. vii.
25; Matt. ix. 38; x. 5; Acts xxvi. 16–18; Isa. xlviii. 16; Acts xiii. 2,
4; xx. 28,)—and equally speaking by them. (Heb. i. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 3;
Mark xiii. 11.) Each, too, gives life—raises the dead—and is joined in
the form of baptism, and Christian benediction.
The word _Elohim_ is a plural noun (Gods); and as that was the first
term used in the Divine revelation, it seems intended to indicate that
plurality—the holy TRINITY—afterwards more plainly revealed. And it is
to be noticed, that by this word (_Elohim_) was the earliest revelation
made to man. In this was the faith of the patriarchs expressed, as
particularly in Gen. xxviii. 20–22; and by this name GOD expressly
declares he appeared unto them, when by his “name JEHOVAH” he was “not
known.” (Ex. vi. 3.) Indeed this latter term seems for a time to have
been used less as a name, than as a character, of the Elohim, since it
was subsequently that it was announced as the “name”—I AM—by which the
Divine plurality was to be known in unity. (Ex. iii. 14; vi. 2.) Jehovah
GOD hath not been “seen at any time;” whereas, of the Elohim, one, at
least—the angel Jehovah in prelude to his incarnation—condescended
frequently to appear, and talk with man. The translation of Jehovah by
_Adonai_ (or Lords) is also remarkable; with the coincidence to be found
in the mode adopted by the heathen, of speaking of their gods; as in the
name of Baalim for Baal. (Judges ii. 11; Hosea xi. 2.)
That Elohim implies plurality seems evident, from the construction of
such a passage as Gen. xx. 13, where it is said, “when they, Elohim,
caused me to wander.” Again, (xxxv. 7,) when “they appeared unto him,”
at Bethel. And (Josh. xxiv. 19) “the Elohim are holy.” In Ps. lviii. 11,
the Elohim are called “judges;” in Ps. cxlix. 2; Isa. xliv. 2, and liv.
5, “makers” and “kings;” in Eccl. xii. 1, “creators;” and in Jer. xxiii.
36, “the living Gods.” Other places are mentioned by Parkhurst; as Gen.
xxxi. 53; Deut. iv. 7; v. 23, or 26; 1 Sam. iv. 8; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Isa.
vi. 8; Jer. x. 10, &c.
In perfect accordance with this is the first great commandment given
from Mount Sinai: “I am the LORD thy GOD,” (_Jehovah Elohim_,) thou
“shalt have no other gods before me;” more plainly set forth in the
baptismal “name”—the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, a “holy,
blessed, and glorious Trinity,” in inseparable Unity, and perfect
co-equality, as may be most safely concluded, from the various passages
in which the sacred THREE are mentioned in different order—the FATHER
first, in Matt. xxviii. 19,—the SON first, in 2 Cor. xiii. 14,—and the
HOLY GHOST first, in 1 Cor. xii. 4–6; Eph. iv. 4–6, and Luke i. 35.
The laws and ordinances of the Jews were peculiarly adapted to guard the
pure worship against heathen idolatry; therefore, when the legislator,
in speaking of GOD, uses a term implying plurality, which he does, with
verbs and persons singular, above thirty times, this, too, in the
Decalogue, and in the repetition of laws, and frequently prefaced by an
address, demanding attention,—“Hear, O Israel!” “Thus saith the LORD!”
it could not but be that plurality in the GODHEAD was intended to be
announced. This is strongly corroborated by such expressions as “holy
Gods,” “thy Creators,” being used by Joshua and Solomon; the one an
eminent type of CHRIST, the other inspired with learning in an
extraordinary degree.—See _Bishop Huntingford’s_ “_Thoughts on the
Trinity_,” xxii., xxiii. And we may be rather confirmed in the opinion,
by the futile attempts of the Jewish Rabbins, to make tolerable sense of
the peculiar phraseology adopted, while denying the implication of a
plurality.
The doctrine of a TRINITY, and this in Unity, is not then an arbitrary
assumption, or an attempt to be wise “above that which is written;” but
it necessarily arises out of certain Scriptural expressions and
passages, which though apparently, or to human sense, contradictory to
each other, must in reality be consistent: and the Catholic, or orthodox
system, framed on the whole of these, reconciles them in a more easy and
natural manner than any other scheme offered.
The word “Trinity,” it is confessed, does not occur in Holy Scripture;
nor does the word “Unity,” as applied to the DEITY. But neither do the
words “omnipresence” and “omniscience;” and as the use of these has
never been objected to in speaking of the attributes of Him who is
everywhere present, and “knoweth all things,” so may the others be used
with equal propriety to express the distinct existence of FATHER, SON,
and HOLY GHOST, and the simple oneness of GOD! The use is admissible, to
prevent circumlocution; and irreverence may be deprecated where language
is inefficient. The word _Trinity_ was used by the Greek and Latin
Fathers, in the middle of the second century, in a way that indicated it
was not then a novel expression; and was considered by the orthodox so
unobjectionable, as to be employed without reserve in their opposition
to the Sabellian heresy.
Indeed, the primitive Fathers appear to have indulged an idea, that
without a distinction of hypostases in the GODHEAD, it is difficult to
imagine that αὐτάρκεια, or self-sufficiency, and perfect bliss, which
seems to have arisen from a Divine society, as in Prov. viii. 22, 23,
particularly 30, and elsewhere. Indeed, the notion of a TRINITY has
prevailed immemorially, long before the term was adopted; and is found
in the heathen worship, as well as in the Church; both, no doubt, having
it from a common original.
TRINITY SUNDAY. The solemn festivals, which in the foregoing parts of
our annual service have propounded to our consideration the mysterious
work of man’s redemption, and the several steps taken to accomplish it,
naturally lead us up to, and at last conclude with, that of the Trinity.
The incarnation and nativity, the passion and resurrection of the
blessed JESUS, demonstrate how great things the SON of GOD hath
condescended to do for us. The miraculous powers with which the first
disciples were endued, and the sanctifying graces with which all the
faithful are assisted, do prove how great and how necessary a part the
“HOLY SPIRIT” bore in this work, both for publishing the salvation of
the world, and for rendering it effectual. And all agree in representing
to us the inestimable love of the “FATHER,” by whom that “SON” was sent,
and that “SPIRIT” so wonderfully and so plentifully shed abroad. Most
justly, therefore, after such informations how fit a subject this is for
our wonder and adoration, does the Church on this day call upon us to
celebrate the mystery of those “three” persons in the unity of the
GODHEAD; each of whom hath so kindly, and so largely, contributed to
this united and stupendous act of mercy, upon which the whole of all our
hopes and happiness depends.—_Dean Stanhope._
Notwithstanding on each day, and especially Sundays, the Church
celebrates the praises of the TRINITY, in her doxologies, hymns, creeds,
&c.; yet the wisdom of the Church thought it meet, that such a mystery
as this, though part of the meditation of each day, should be the chief
subject of one, and this to be the day. For no sooner had our LORD
ascended into heaven, and GOD’S Holy Spirit descended upon the Church;
but there ensued the notice of the glorious and incomprehensible
TRINITY, which before that time was not so clearly known. The Church
therefore, having solemnized in an excellent order all the high feasts
of our LORD, and after that of the descent of GOD’S Spirit upon the
apostles, thought it a thing most seasonable to conclude these great
solemnities with a festival of full, special, and express service to the
holy and blessed Trinity.—_Bp. Sparrow._
This mystery was not clearly delivered to the Jews, because they, being
always surrounded by idolatrous nations, would have easily mistaken it
for a doctrine of plurality of Gods; but yet it was not so much hidden
in those times, but that any one with a spiritual eye might have
discerned some glimmerings of it dispersed through the Old Testament.
The first chapter in the Bible seems to set forth three persons in the
GODHEAD; for, besides the “Spirit of GOD” which “moved upon the face of
the waters,” (ver. 2,) we find the great Creator (at the 26th verse)
consulting with others about the greatest work of his creation, the
making of man, of which we may be assured the WORD or SON of GOD was
one, since “all things were made by him, and without him was not
anything made that was made.” So that those two verses fully pointing
out to us the FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST, make this a very proper
lesson for the solemnity of the day. The reason of the choice of the
other first lesson is as obvious: it records the appearance of the great
JEHOVAH to Abraham, whom the patriarch acknowledges to be the “Judge of
all the earth;” and who therefore, by vouchsafing to appear with two
others in his company, might design to represent to him the “Trinity of
Persons.” But this sacred mystery is nowhere so plainly manifested as in
the second lesson for the morning, which at one and the same time
relates the baptism of the SON, the voice of the FATHER, and the descent
of the HOLY GHOST: which, though they are (as appears from this chapter)
three distinct persons in number, yet the second lesson at evening shows
they are but one in essence.—_Wheatly._
The Epistle and the Gospel are the same that were anciently assigned for
the Octave of Pentecost; the Epistle being the vision of St. John (Rev.
iv.); and the Gospel, the dialogue of our LORD with Nicodemus; and the
mention, which we find therein, of baptism, of the HOLY SPIRIT and the
gifts of it, though it might then fit the day as a repetition, as it
were, of Pentecost, so is it no less fit for it as a feast of the
blessed TRINITY. The mission of the HOLY GHOST brings with it, as
aforesaid, more light and clearness to the doctrine of the TRINITY: and
when more fit to think of the gifts of the SPIRIT, than on a solemn day
of ordination, as this is one, when men are consecrated to spiritual
offices? But, besides this, we have in the Gospel set before us all the
three persons of the sacred TRINITY, and the same likewise represented
in the vision, which the Epistle speaks of, with an hymn of praise,
“Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD Almighty,” &c.: which expressions, by
ancient interpretation, relate to the Holy TRINITY, as is above
said.—_Bp. Sparrow._
In the Roman Church the Sundays between Whitsunday and Advent are
reckoned from Pentecost: in our Church, following the old English custom
in the unreformed office, we count from Trinity Sunday.
TRISAGION. (See _Tersanctus_.)
TRUCE OF GOD. In the French, _Treve de Dieu_: in modern Latin, _Trevia_,
_Treuvia_, _Treuga_, or _Truga Dei_.
In the eleventh century, when the disorders and licences of private
wars, between particular lords and families, were a great disturbance to
the peace of the kingdom of France, the bishops took upon them to
publish injunctions, forbidding acts of violence, within certain times,
under canonical pains. These prohibitions were called _Truce of God_; a
phrase frequently to be met with in the councils held about that time.
The first regulation of this kind was in a synod, held in the diocese of
Elno in Rousillon, A. D. 1027; where it was enacted, that, throughout
that country, no person should attack his enemy, from the hour of nones
on Saturday to that of primes on Monday, that Sunday might have its
proper celebration: that no person should, at any time, attack a
religious or priest walking unarmed; nor any person going to, or
returning from, church: that nobody should attack a church, or any house
within thirty paces round it: all this under penalty of excommunication.
TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. An annual festival of the Jews, expressly enjoined
by the law of Moses, and observed upon the first day of the seventh
month, called Tisri, which was the beginning of the civil year.
This festival is expressly called a sabbath, and was a very solemn day,
on which no servile work was to be done; only provision made for their
meals, which were usually very plentiful at this time. Among other
dishes they served up a ram’s head, in memory of that ram which was
sacrificed in the room of Isaac; which they fancy was done upon this
day.
All the festivals of the Jews, it is true, were introduced by the sound
of trumpets: but this was attended with more than usual solemnity. For
they began to blow at sunrising, and continued till sunset. He who
sounded, began with the usual prayer: “Blessed be GOD, who hath
sanctified us with his precepts,” &c., subjoining these words: “Blessed
be GOD, who hath hitherto preserved us in life, and brought us unto this
time.” At the conclusion, the people said with a loud voice these words
of the Psalmist: “Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they
shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance.” And whereas, in
other places, the beginning of the year was sounded with a trumpet of
ram’s or sheep’s horn, at the temple they used two silver trumpets, and
the Levites upon that day sung the eighty-first psalm.
This festival is called a memorial of blowing of trumpets: but it is not
so easy to determine what this blowing of trumpets was a memorial of.
Maimonides will have it to be instituted to awaken the people out of
sleep, and call to repentance; being intended to put them in mind of the
great day of expiation, which followed nine days after. Basil imagined,
that by these soundings the people were put in mind of that day, wherein
they received the Law from Mount Sinai with blowing of trumpets. Others
think it more probable, that, since all nations made great shouting,
rejoicing, and feasting in the beginning of the year, at the first
new-moon, in hopes that the rest of the year by this means would prove
more prosperous, GOD was pleased to ordain this festival among his
people, in honour of himself, upon the day of the first new-moon, to
preserve them from idolatry, and to make them sensible that he alone
gave them good years. Others again imagine, that GOD marked this month
with a peculiar honour, because it was the seventh; that, as every
seventh day was a sabbath, and every seventh year the land rested, so
every seventh month of every year should be a kind of sabbatical month:
and upon that account the people might be awakened by this blowing of
trumpets, to observe this festival with the proper ceremonies. Lastly,
others explain this blowing of trumpets to be a memorial of the creation
of the world, which was in autumn. Upon this account it was that they
anciently began their years at this time, as the eastern people do at
this day. By this means they also confessed the Divine goodness in
blessing the year past, and bringing them to the beginning of a new
year, which they prayed that GOD would make happy and propitious to
them.
TUNICLE. An ecclesiastical garment mentioned in the rubrics of King
Edward VI.’s First Book, to be worn by the assistant ministers at the
holy communion. It is the same as the tunic or the dalmatic, which was
also an episcopal garment. Originally it had no sleeves; and was the
same with the Greek colobion. The sleeves were added in the west about
the fourth century; and then the vestment was called a dalmatic. The
_tunicle_ in the Roman Church is proper to subdeacons.—_Palmer. Goar._
TURRET. A small tower appended to a tower, or the angle or other part of
any component portion of a building for support, or to carry stairs, or
for ornament. Like the tower, it is often finished with a high conical
capping, which is then called a spiret or pinnacle.
TYPE. An impression, image, or representation of some model, which is
termed the _antitype_. In this sense we often use the word to denote the
prefiguration of the great events of man’s redemption by persons or
things in the Old Testament.
UBIQUITARIANS. A sect of heretics, so called because they maintained
that the body of JESUS CHRIST is (_ubique_) everywhere, or in every
place.
Brentius, one of the earliest reformers, is said to have first broached
this error, in Germany, about the year 1560. Melancthon immediately
declared against it, as introducing a kind of confusion in the two
natures of JESUS CHRIST. On the other hand, it was espoused by Flacius
Illyricus, Osiander, and others. The universities of Leipsic and
Wirtemburg in vain opposed this heresy, which gained ground daily. Six
Ubiquitarians, viz. Smidelin, Selneccer, Musculus, Chemnitius, Chytræus,
and Cornerus, had a meeting, in 1577, in the monastery of Berg, and
composed a kind of creed, or formulary of faith, in which the Ubiquity
of CHRIST’S body was the leading article. However, the Ubiquitarians
were not quite agreed among themselves; some holding that JESUS CHRIST,
even during his mortal life, was everywhere, and others dating the
Ubiquity of his body from the time of his ascension only.
ULTRA-PROTESTANT. (See _Via Media_.)
UNCTION. (See _Extreme Unction_.)
UNIFORMITY, ACTS OF. The Acts of Uniformity are 1 Eliz. c. 2, and 14
Car. II. The Irish Acts of Uniformity are also 2 Eliz. cap. 2, and 17
and 18 Car. II. See Stephens’s Edition of both the English and Irish
Prayer Book. By stat. 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 4–8, If any parson, vicar, or
other minister that ought to use the Common Prayer, or to minister the
sacraments, shall refuse to do the same, or shall use any other form, or
shall speak anything in derogation of the same book, or of anything
therein contained, he shall, on conviction for the first offence,
forfeit to the queen one year’s profit of all his spiritual promotions,
and be imprisoned for six months; for the second offence, shall be
deprived of all his spiritual promotions, and be imprisoned for a year;
and, for the third offence, shall be deprived of all his spiritual
promotions, and be imprisoned during life. And if he has no spiritual
promotion, he shall, for the first offence, be imprisoned for a year;
and, for the second, during life.
And by the same act, if any person shall in plays, songs, or by other
open words, speak anything in derogation of the same book, or anything
therein contained; or shall, by open fact, cause or procure any minister
in any place to say Common Prayer openly, or to minister any sacrament
in other form, or shall interrupt or let any minister to say the said
Common Prayer, he shall (being indicted for the same at the next
assizes) forfeit to the queen for the first offence 100 marks, and for
the second 400 marks, which, if not paid in six weeks after conviction,
he shall suffer six months’ imprisonment for the first offence, and
twelve months’ for the second, and for the third offence shall forfeit
all his goods and chattels, and be imprisoned during life.
By stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, Where an incumbent resides upon his
living and keeps a curate, the incumbent himself, (not having lawful
impediment, to be allowed by the bishop,) shall at least once a month
openly and publicly read the Common Prayer, and (if there be occasion)
administer the sacraments and other rites of the Church.
UNIGENITUS, THE BULL. The instrument issued by Pope Clement XI., in
1713, against the French translation of the New Testament, with notes,
by Pasquier Quesnel, priest of the Oratory, and a celebrated Jansenist.
The book, having occasioned considerable disputes, had already been
condemned by the court of Rome in 1708; but this step being found
ineffectual, Clement, who had privately spoken of it in terms of
rapture, declaring it to be an excellent book, and one which no person
resident at Rome was capable of writing, proceeded to condemn one
hundred and one propositions of the notes; such as—grace, the effectual
principle of all good works; faith, the first and fountain of all the
graces of a Christian; the Scriptures should be read by all, &c. This
bull, procured by Louis and the Jesuits, occasioned great commotion in
France. Forty Gallican bishops accepted it; but it was opposed by many
others, especially by Noailles, archbishop of Paris. Many of the
prelates, and other persons eminent for piety and learning, appealed, on
the subject, from the papal authority to that of a general council, but
in vain.
UNION, HYPOSTATICAL, (see _Jesus_, _Lord_, _Christ_, _Messiah_,
_Mediator_,) is the union of the human nature of CHRIST with the Divine,
constituting two natures in one person. Not _consubstantially_, as the
three persons in the GODHEAD; nor _physically_, as soul and body united
in one person; nor _mystically_, as is the union between CHRIST and
believers; but so as that the manhood subsist in the second person, yet
without making confusion, both making but one person. It was
_miraculous_. (Luke i. 34, 35.) _Complete_ and real: CHRIST took a real
human body and soul, and not in appearance. _Inseparable._ (Heb. vii,
25.)—See _Burton_.
UNITARIANS. A title which certain heretics, who do not worship the true
GOD, assume most unfairly, to convey the impression that those who
worship the one and only GOD do not hold the doctrine of the Divine
Unity. Christians worship the TRINITY in Unity, and the UNITY in
Trinity.
This name includes all, whether Arians of old, or more lately Socinians,
and other Deists, who deny the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST, and the
separate personality of the HOLY GHOST. They are not very numerous in
England, although most of the old English Presbyterian congregations
have fallen into Unitarianism.
These persons made little progress in England till the opening of the
eighteenth century, when many of the old Presbyterian ministers embraced
opinions adverse to the Trinitarian doctrine. A noticeable controversy
on the subject was begun in 1719, in the West of England, and two
Presbyterian ministers, in consequence of their participation in these
sentiments, were removed from their pastoral charges. Nevertheless, the
Presbyterian clergy gradually became impregnated, although for some time
they gave no particular expression from their pulpits to their views in
this respect. In course of little time, however, their congregations
either came to be entirely assimilated with themselves in doctrine, or
in part seceded to the Independent body. Thus, the ancient Presbyterian
chapels and endowments have, in great degree, become the property of
Unitarians, whose origin, as a distinct community in England, may be
dated from the first occurrence of such virtual transfers, viz. from
about the period just subsequent to 1730.
Persons denying the doctrine of the Trinity were excepted from the
benefits of the Toleration Act, and remained so until 1813, when the
section in that statute which affected them was abrogated by the 53 Geo.
III. c. 160, which was extended to Ireland by 57 Geo. III. c. 70. Since
that period they have been exactly in the same position as all other
Protestant Dissenters with respect to their political immunities. These
persons do not object to the form of attestation, “on the true faith of
a Christian,” though denying the principal doctrines of Christianity as
recognised by the Catholic Church.
The form of ecclesiastical government adopted by the Unitarians is
substantially “congregational;” each individual congregation ruling
itself without regard to any courts or synods.
Returns have been received at the Census Office from 229 congregations
connected with this body.
UNITED BRETHREN. (See _Moravians_.)
UNIVERSALISTS. Those who, contrary to the express word of GOD, deny the
eternal punishment of the wicked.
UNIVERSITY. _University_, as Johnson observes, originally meant a
community or corporation;—it afterwards came to be restricted to those
communities for divine and secular learning, which were originally
called _studia generalia_, _schools_, _pædagogies_, (as St. Andrew’s,)
_academies_, &c. In all of these, the four great branches of knowledge
were professed, divinity, law, medicine, and the liberal arts and
sciences. In the twelfth century, degrees were conferred, (see
_Degrees_,) first in canon and civil law, afterwards in theology and
philosophy; though all these branches of learning had long been taught.
The universities were gradually endowed with important privileges. For
ages they had been regarded in England as great and influential, with
corporate titles though not with corporate privileges. These were
formally given to them by Queen Elizabeth; under whose auspices the
third university of Dublin, endowed with like privileges, was founded.
It is foreign to the object of a Church Dictionary to notice those
corporations for mere secular learning, to which in England the title of
University, though with a novel meaning, has of late years been legally
given. The term, as formerly understood in England, Ireland, and
Scotland, as throughout Europe for ages, comprehended Divine learning as
an essential and crowning part of the system. The old universities are
connected with the Church by the closest ties. Their discipline is
recognised by the canons, (the xvi., xvii., and xxiii., for example,)
and their degrees are essential qualifications for many Church
preferments; these also are conferred under the invocation of the Holy
Trinity; all their solemn assemblies are accompanied with the prayers of
the Church; and the foundation within the universities, upon which their
influence and very existence depend, has been made with the plain and
obvious understanding that these great corporations are the nurseries of
the Church; that those who partake of their privileges are to be
educated as her generic children.
It is beyond the object of this work to give any detailed account of
their constitution. It may suffice to observe, that the English system
of having many colleges within the precincts of, and subordinate to, the
greater corporation, though forming each a minor corporation in itself,
is not peculiar to this country. Such was the system of the most ancient
universities, Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca; and of many more modern
ones, as Louvain, &c. Paris had anciently fifty-three colleges,
(including eight for the religious order,) and up to the Revolution had
twenty-three, (of which fifteen were not monastic,) several of the
secular ones having been amalgamated by Louis XIV. Besides these, each
faculty had its corporate assembly; and over all the rector, assisted by
three deans and four proctors, presided. The constitution at Louvain was
similar, where there were twenty colleges. The college system is the
best auxiliary to the university, and grew up from the obvious necessity
of securing to the younger students a proper domestic discipline, and to
the elder the means of pursuing their maturer studies.
URIM AND THUMMIM. So the Hebrews called a certain oracular manner of
consulting GOD; which was done by the high priest, dressed in his robes,
and having on his pectoral, or breastplate.
Concerning the Urim and Thummim, various have been the sentiments of
learned men. Josephus, and others after him, have maintained, that Urim
and Thummim meant the precious stones set in the high priest’s
breastplate; which, by some extraordinary lustre, made known the will of
GOD to those who consulted him. Spencer, in his dissertation on these
words, believes they were two little golden figures, shut up in the
pectoral, as in a purse, which gave responses with an articulate voice.
In short, there are as many opinions concerning the Urim and Thummim, as
there are authors that have written about them. The safest opinion seems
to be, that the words Urim and Thummim signify some divine virtue and
power annexed to the breastplate of the high priest, by which an
oracular answer was obtained from GOD, when he was consulted by the high
priest; and that this was called Urim and Thummim, to express the
clearness and perfection which these oracular answers always carried
with them; for Urim signifies _light_, and Thummim, _perfection_. These
answers were not enigmatical and ambiguous, like the heathen oracles,
but clear and evident; and never fell short of perfection, either with
regard to fulness in the answer, or certainty in the event.
The use made of the Urim and Thummim was, to consult GOD, in difficult
and momentous cases, relating to the whole state of Israel. For this
purpose the high priest put on his robes, and over them the breastplate,
in which the Urim and Thummim were; and then presented himself before
GOD, to ask counsel of him. But he was not to do this for any private
person; but only for the king, for the president of the Sanhedrim, for
the general of the army, or for some other great personage; nor for any
private affairs, but such only as related to the public interest of the
nation, either in Church or State. The place where he presented himself
before GOD, was before the ark of the covenant; where standing with his
robes and breastplate on, and his face turned directly towards the ark,
and the mercy-seat over it, upon which the Divine presence rested, he
proposed what he wanted to be resolved about; and directly behind him,
at some distance without the holy place, stood the person, upon whose
account GOD was consulted, and there, with all humility and devotion,
expected the answer that should be given.
It seems plain from Scripture, that the answer was given by an audible
voice from the mercy-seat, which was within, behind the veil. There it
was that Moses went to ask counsel of GOD in all cases; and from thence
he was answered by an audible voice. In the same way did GOD afterwards
communicate his will to the governors of Israel, as often as he was
consulted by them; only with this difference, that whereas Moses,
through extraordinary indulgence, had immediate access to the Divine
presence, and GOD communed with him, as it were, face to face, no other
person was admitted thither to ask counsel of GOD but through the
mediation of the high priest, who, in his stead, asked counsel for him
by Urim and Thummim. There are many instances in Scripture of GOD’S
being consulted this way; and the answer, in most of them, is introduced
with, “the LORD said.” And when the Israelites made a peace with the
Gibeonites, they are blamed because they did not ask counsel at the
mouth of GOD: both which phrases seem plainly to imply a vocal answer.
And for this reason it is that the holy of holies, the place where the
ark and the mercy-seat stood, from whence this answer was given, is so
often in Scripture called the oracle; because from thence the divine
oracles of GOD were delivered to such as asked counsel of him.
It is variously conjectured by learned men, when this Urim and Thummim
entirely ceased: it is certain there is no instance of it in Scripture
during the first temple; and it was wholly wanting in the second. And
hence came that saying among the Jews, that the HOLY SPIRIT spake to the
Israelites during the tabernacle, by Urim and Thummim; under the first
temple, by the prophets; and, under the second, by Bath-Col.
URSULINES. An order of nuns, founded originally by St. Angeli, of
Brescia, in the year 1537, and so called from St. Ursula, to whom they
are dedicated.
USE. In former times each bishop had the power of making some
improvements in the liturgy of his church: in process of time, different
customs arose, and several became so established, as to receive the
names of their respective churches. Thus gradually the “Uses” or customs
of York, Sarum, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, Aberdeen, &c., came to be
distinguished from each other.
The missals and other ritual books of York and Hereford have been
printed; but we have inquired in vain for the names of the bishops who
originated the unessential peculiarities which they contain. Their
rubrics are sometimes less definite than those of the Sarum “USE,” and
they contain some few offices in commemoration of departed prelates and
saints, which are not found in other missals, &c. The “Use” or custom of
Sarum derives its origin from Osmund, bishop of that see in A. D. 1078,
and chancellor of England. We are informed by Simeon of Durham, that
about the year 1083, King William the Conqueror appointed Thurstan, a
Norman, abbot of Glastonbury. Thurstan, despising the ancient Gregorian
chanting, which had been used in England from the sixth century,
attempted to introduce in its place a modern style of chanting invented
by William of Fescamp, a Norman. The monks resisted the innovations of
their abbot, and a scene of violence and bloodshed ensued, which was
terminated by the king’s sending back Thurstan to Normandy. This
circumstance may very probably have turned the attention of Osmund to
the regulation of the ritual of his church. We are informed that he
built a new cathedral; collected together clergy, distinguished as well
for learning as for a knowledge of chanting; and composed a book for the
regulation of ecclesiastical offices, which was entitled the “Custom”
book. The substance of this was probably incorporated into the missal
and other ritual books of Sarum, and ere long, almost the whole of
England, Wales, and Ireland, adopted it. When the archbishop of
Canterbury celebrated the liturgy in the presence of the bishops of his
province, the bishop of Salisbury (probably in consequence of the
general adoption of the “Use” of Sarum) acted as _precentor_ of the
college of bishops, a title which he still retains. The churches of
Lincoln and Bangor also had peculiar “Uses;” but we are not aware that
any of their books have been printed. A MS. pontifical, containing the
rites and ceremonies performed by the bishop, still (we believe) remains
in the church of Bangor; it is said to have belonged to Anianus, who
occupied that see in the thirteenth century. The church of Aberdeen in
Scotland had its own rites; but whether there was any peculiarity in the
missal we know not, as it has never been published. The breviary of
Aberdeen, according to Zaccaria, was printed in A. D. 1609 (qu. 1509?).
Independently of these rites of particular churches, the monastic
societies of England had many different rituals, which, however, all
agreed substantially, having all been derived from the sacramentary of
Gregory. The Benedictine, Carthusian, Cistertian, and other orders, had
peculiar missals. Schultingius nearly transcribes a very ancient
sacramentary belonging to the Benedictines of England; Bishop Barlow, in
his MS. notes on the Roman missal, speaks of a missal belonging to the
monastery of Evesham; and Zaccaria mentions a MS. missal of Oxford,
written in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, which is in the library
of the canons of S. Salvator at Bologna. This last must probably be
referred to some of the monastic societies, who had formerly houses in
Oxford; as the bishopric or church of Oxford was not founded till the
sixteenth century.
It may be remarked in general of all these missals and rituals, that
they differed very little; the sacramentary of Gregory was used every
where, with various small additions. However, the rites of the churches
throughout the British empire were not by any means uniform at the
middle of the sixteenth century, and needed various corrections; and
therefore the metropolitan of Canterbury, and other bishops and doctors
of the holy Catholic Church, at the request and desire of King Edward
VI., revised the ritual books; and having examined the Oriental
liturgies, and the notices which the orthodox fathers supply, they
edited the English ritual, containing the common prayer and
administration of all the sacraments and rites of the Church. And
although our liturgy and other offices were corrected and improved,
chiefly after the example of the ancient Gallican, Spanish, Alexandrian,
and Oriental, yet the greater portion of our prayers have been
continually retained and used by the Church of England for more than
1200 years.—_Palmer._
VALENTINIANS. Heretics, who sprang up in the second century, and were so
called from their leader, Valentinus.
This sect was one of the most famous and most numerous amongst the
ancients. Valentinus, who was the author of it, was an Egyptian, and
began there to teach the doctrine of the Gnostics. His merit made him
aspire to the episcopacy; but another having been preferred before him,
Valentinus, enraged at this denial and resolved to revenge himself of
the affront given him, departed from the doctrine of the Church, and
revived old errors. He began to preach his doctrine in Egypt, and from
thence coming to Rome, under the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, he there
spread his errors, and continued to dogmatize till the pontificate of
_Anicetus_, i. e. from the year 140 to 160.
Of all the Gnostics, none formed a more regular system than Valentinus.
His notions were drawn from the principles of the Platonists. The Æons
were _attributes_ of the Deity, or Platonic _ideas_, which he realized,
or made persons of them, to compose thereof a complete deity, which he
called _Pleroma_, or Plenitude; under which was the Creator of the
world, and the angels, to whom he committed the government of it. The
most ancient heretics had already established those principles, and
invented genealogies of the Æons: but Valentinus, refining upon what
they had said, placed them in a new order, and thereto added many
fictions. His system was this:
The first principle is _Bythos_, i. e. depth: it remained for many ages
unknown, having with it _Ennoia_, i. e. Thought, and _Sigê_, i. e.
Silence. From these sprung the _Nous_, or Intelligence, which is the
only son, equal to it alone, and capable of comprehending it; whose
sister is _Aletheia_, i. e. Truth. This is the first quaternity of Æons,
which is the source and original of all the rest. For Nous and Aletheia
produced the _Word_ and the _Life_; and from these two proceeded _Man_
and the _Church_. This is the second quaternity of the eight principal
Æons. The Word and the Life, to glorify the Father, produced five couple
of Æons: man and the Church formed six. These thirty Æons bear the name
of attributes and compose the Pleroma, or Plenitude of the Deity.
_Sophia_, or Wisdom, the last of these Æons, being desirous to arrive at
the knowledge of Bythos, gave herself a great deal of uneasiness, which
created in her anger and fear, of which was born matter. But the
_Horos_, or Bounder, stopped her, preserved her in the Pleroma, and
restored her to perfection. Then she produced the CHRIST and the HOLY
SPIRIT; which brought the Æons to their last perfection, and made every
one of them contribute their utmost to form the SAVIOUR. Her
_Enthymese_, or Thought, dwelling near the Pleroma, perfected by the
CHRIST, produced everything that is in the world, by its divers
passions. The CHRIST sent into it the SAVIOUR, accompanied with angels,
who delivered it from its passions, without annihilating it; and from
thence was formed corporeal matter, which was of two sorts; the one bad,
arising from the passions; the other good, proceeding from conversion,
but subject to the passions.
There are also three substances, the material, the animal, and the
spiritual. The Demiurgus, or maker of the world, by whom the Enthymese
formed this world, is the animal substance: he formed the terrestrial
man, to whom the Enthymese gave a spirit: the material part perished
necessarily; but that which is spiritual can suffer no corruption; and
that which is animal stood in need of the spiritual Saviour, to hinder
its corruption. This SAVIOUR or CHRIST passed through the womb of the
Virgin, as through a canal, and at his baptism the Saviour of the
Pleroma descended upon him in the form of a dove. He suffered as to his
animal part, which he received from Demiurgus, but not as to his
spiritual part. There are likewise three sorts of men, the spiritual,
material, and animal. These three substances were united together in
Adam; but they were divided in his children. That which was spiritual
went into Seth, the material into Cain, and the animal into Abel. The
spiritual men shall be immortal, whatever crimes they commit; the
material, on the contrary, shall be annihilated, whatever good they do:
the animal shall be in a place of refreshment, if they do good; and
shall be annihilated, if they do evil. The end of the world shall come,
when the spiritual men shall have been formed and perfected by the Nous.
Then the Enthymese shall ascend up to the Pleroma again, and be
re-united with the SAVIOUR. The spiritual men shall not rise again: but
shall enter with the Enthymese into the Pleroma, and shall be married to
the angels, who are with the SAVIOUR. The Demiurgus shall pass into the
region where his mother was, and shall be followed by the animal men,
who have lived well; where they shall have rest. In fine, the material
and animal men, who have lived ill, shall be consumed by the fire, which
will annihilate all matter.
The disciples of Valentinus did not strictly confine themselves to his
system. They took a great deal of liberty, in ranging the Æons according
to their different ideas, without condemning one another upon that
account. But what is most abominable is, that from these chimerical
principles they drew detestable conclusions as to morality: for, because
spiritual beings could not perish, being good by nature, hence they
concluded that they might freely and without scruple commit all manner
of actions, and that it was not at all necessary for them to do good;
but above all, they believed continence to be useless. We have, in
Clemens Alexandrinus, an extract of a letter of Valentinus, in which he
maintains, that GOD does not require the martyrdom of his children, and
that, whether they deny or confess CHRIST before tyrants, they shall be
saved. If they believed that good works were necessary, it was only for
animal men. Some believed that baptism by water was superfluous; others
baptized in the name of the unknown Father, of the truth the mother of
all, of him who descended in JESUS, of the light, redemption, and
community of powers. Many rejected all outward ceremonies.
In fine, the errors of the Valentinians were wholly incompatible with
the Christian doctrine. If they did not destroy the unity of GOD, they
made of him a monstrous composition of different beings. They attributed
the creation to another principle: they set up good and bad substances
by nature. JESUS CHRIST, according to them, was but a man, on whom the
celestial CHRIST descended. The HOLY GHOST was but a simple Divine
virtue. There is no resurrection of the body. Spiritual men do not merit
eternal life; it is due to them by their nature; and do what they will
they can never miss of it; as material men cannot escape annihilation,
although they live an unblameable life.
VALESIANS. Christian heretics, disciples of Valesius, an Arabian
philosopher, who appeared about the year 250, and maintained that
concupiscence acted so strongly upon man, that it was not in his power
to resist it, and that even the grace of GOD was not sufficient to
enable him to get the better of it. Upon this principle he taught that
the only way for a man to be saved was to make himself an eunuch. The
Origenists afterwards fell into the same error; but it was Valesius who
gave birth to it. The bishop of Philadelphia condemned this philosopher,
and the other Churches of the East followed his example.
The maxims of the Valesians were very cruel. They were not satisfied to
mutilate those of their sect, but they had the barbarity to make eunuchs
of strangers who chanced to pass by where they lived. This heresy spread
greatly in Arabia, and especially in the territory of Philadelphia.
VAUDOIS. (See _Waldenses_.)
VAULT. An arched roof, so constructed as to be supported by mutual
compression. Vaulting and Gothic architecture are so intimately
connected, that the latter has been defined as “the truthful elaboration
of vaulted structure;” and vaulting has been called “the final cause of
Gothic architecture, that to which all its members subserve, for which
everything else is contrived, and without which the whole apparatus
would be aimless and unmeaning.”[20] To enter into the science of
vaulting would be quite beyond our present purpose; we can only very
loosely assign the various forms of vaults to the respective styles to
which they belong.
The earliest and simplest vault is that called the _waggon vault_, i. e.
a simple semi-cylindrical vault, one side of which rests throughout on
each wall of the span to be vaulted. This vault was used by the Romans,
and for a while in our Romanesque: but it was very soon discontinued for
one in which the whole space to be vaulted was divided into equal
squares, and a semi-cylinder being supposed to be thrown over each
square in each direction, the one crossing and cutting the other, the
points at which they would cut were taken as the groins, and all below
these parts being removed, an arched way was left in either direction.
This formed a simple quadripartite vault, but as yet of very rude
construction. Some of the defects of this were remedied by supplying
ribs at the groins, which not only strengthened the vault, but also
served in a great degree to conceal its defects of form. By and by the
compartments were also separated by a rib, springing transversely over
the space to be vaulted. The introduction of bosses at the intersection
of the diagonal ribs, and the various moulding of the ribs themselves,
was as far as the Normans proceeded with this kind of vault, except that
they had various methods of bringing the apex of the intersecting
cylinders into the same plane, by stilting or depressing them, where
they were obliged to apply low vaults to rectangles with unequal sides.
In the Early English, the pointed arch was applied to the vault, as well
as to all other arched constructions, and groining ribs were never
omitted; still the transverse rib, or that separating two bays, is by no
means invariably found. The ribs were multiplied as architecture
advanced; and, during the Geometrical period, we have often, in addition
to the diagonal and transverse ribs, a rib along the apex of the vault,
both longitudinal and transverse, and sometimes two or more additional
ribs rising from the vaulting shaft to the ridge rib. In the later
Decorated, these ribs are often tied together by little cross ribs, at
various angles, and the vault thus formed is called a _lierne vault_:
this was continued into the Perpendicular period; its complexity rather
than richness gradually increasing with the multiplication of ribs and
bosses. It is a long process to arrive at the exact office of each rib;
but there is in each case a constructive reason for its adoption.
The later architects of England adopted a more gorgeous, and, in some
respects, a more scientific vault than any of those mentioned, which,
from the equal radiation of its numerous ribs over the whole surface of
the inverted conoids, of which the whole surface consists, is called fan
vaulting; a system really more simple and perfect than any of the
others, though to the eye so exceedingly elaborate.
VENIAL SIN. The Church of Rome, following the schoolmen, represents some
sins as pardonable, and others not. The first they call _venial_, the
second, _mortal_, sins. Thomas Aquinas makes seven distinctions in sin.
(See _Sin_.)
VENI, CREATOR SPIRITUS. A hymn to the HOLY GHOST. The HOLY GHOST is that
person of the Blessed TRINITY, to which the distributing of the several
offices in the Church, and qualifying the persons for them, is generally
ascribed in Scripture. (Acts xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 11.) And
upon that ground it is fit that a particular address be made to the
Spirit before the ordination, which we do by this hymn. It is said to
have been composed by St. Ambrose, and is placed among his works as an
hymn for Pentecost; and on that day it is annually used in the Roman
Church, and was so of old. It was inserted into the office for
consecrating a bishop as early as the year 1100; and with a later hand
put into the ordination of a priest about 500 (620) years ago in the
Roman Church, and so it stands there to this day. And the Protestants
have so well approved of it, that the Lutheran Churches begin their
office with the same hymn. And our reformers translated it into metre in
the larger way in King Edward the Sixth’s first ordinal. Since which
time (namely, in the review of the Common Prayer under King Charles the
Second, _Dr. Nicholls_) it hath been abbreviated, and put into fewer
words, but to the same case, as it stands foremost here.—_Dean Comber._
Though the words of these hymns have lost something from time, the
prayer is too serious, too important, ever to be forgotten. We are not
so enthusiastic as to expect an extraordinary communication of the
SPIRIT to any minister of the gospel. Neither are we so void of
spiritual feeling as to imagine that the Divine influence, which GOD
himself has promised, and an innumerable host of Christians have
displayed by their conduct, cannot touch our hearts. We do truly believe
that it is the grace of GOD, operating with our spirit, which enables us
to fulfil our duty in so arduous a situation. We may “resist and quench
the SPIRIT” (Acts vii. 51; 1 Thess. v. 19); and we may “grow in grace.”
(2 Pet. iii. 18.) From these expressions we are taught, to leave our
hearts open in the one case, and in the other to aim at greater
perfection. In both our connexion with the SPIRIT is made manifest; for,
“if we have not the Spirit of CHRIST, we are none of his.” (Rom. viii.
9.) May the SPIRIT of Divine grace “visit our minds,” and “inspire our
souls” with holy affections, that we may improve those “manifold gifts,”
which alone give stability to the Church of CHRIST, and are derived from
him, “the fountain and the spring of all celestial joy.”—_Brewster._
VENITE. The 95th Psalm. The Psalmist here calls upon us with this
arousing exhortation, “O come, let us sing unto the LORD!” and the
apostle to the same purpose wills us to “admonish one another in psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts
unto GOD.” (Col. iii. 16) Where he seems to quicken our backwardness,
and to stir us up to a due sense of the Divine favour and goodness. And
this is to be done, both outwardly with the voice, by singing unto the
LORD; and inwardly with the heart, by heartily rejoicing in GOD, who is
“the strength of our salvation.” It is by his power that our salvation
is effected, and upon his mercy alone all our hopes of it are founded,
and therefore both our heart and tongue are to become the instruments of
his praise.—_Hole._
Whenever we repeat this psalm, we should, if we wish to improve and be
edified by it, always make some such reflections as these that follow.
The wandering of the Israelites through the wilderness represents our
travelling through this world; their earthly Canaan, or promised land,
being a type or figure of heaven, of that blessed country, to which we
are all invited, and where, if it be not our own fault, we may all one
day arrive. The same Divine providence which once guided and protected
them, now watches over and defends us;—“they did all eat the same
spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink.” (1 Cor. x.
3, 4.) The manna, with which they were miraculously sustained, was an
emblem of the true “bread of life, which came down from heaven,” for the
support of our souls; and the water, which they drank out of the rock,
prefigured the graces of the HOLY SPIRIT, which we receive from the true
fountain of life; for “that rock was CHRIST,”—that is, it represented
CHRIST. Now if they, through their infidelity and disobedience,
notwithstanding all the signal favours they enjoyed, fell short of the
promised rest, and perished in the wilderness, so shall we, who are
blessed with still higher privileges, if we tread in their steps, most
assuredly fail of our eternal inheritance in the heavenly Canaan, and be
doomed to everlasting destruction. “Take heed,” therefore, “brethren,”
as the apostle justly infers, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart
of unbelief, in departing from the living GOD. But exhort one another
daily, while it is called to-day, lest any of you be hardened through
the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb. iii. 12, 13.) Let us not rest in a bare
speculative belief, but endeavour to obtain and preserve a lively faith
and hearty trust in the promises of GOD made to us in the gospel. This,
and this only, will support us in our pilgrimage here on earth, and
carry us safe to our eternal rest in heaven.—_Waldo._
According to ancient use in the Western Church, the Venite always
precedes the Morning Psalm, except on Easter Day, when another anthem is
appointed.
VERGER. (From _virgu_, a rod.) He who carries the mace before the dean
or canons in a cathedral or collegiate church. In some cathedrals the
dean has his own verger, the canons theirs: in others the verger goes
before any member of the church, whether capitular or not, when he
leaves his place to perform any part of the service. An officer of a
similar title precedes the vice-chancellor in the English universities.
VERSE. A line or short sentence, generally applied to poetry, but also
applicable to prose, as Cicero employs it. See _Facciolati in voc_.
Hence it came to mean a short sentence. It has, in an ecclesiastical
sense, these several meanings:
1. The short paragraphs, numbered for the sake of reference, into which
the Bible is at present divided, are called verses. These divisions were
introduced into the Old Testament by Rabbi Nathan, in the fifteenth
century. Those in the New were introduced by Robert Stephens in 1551.
2. The short sentence of the minister, which is followed by the response
of the choir or people, in the Latin ritual. These are marked V. & R. It
is something like the versicles in our service, but is frequently
longer.
3. A sentence or short anthem, as in the Introits of the Latin service.
4. Verse in the English choral service means those passages in the hymns
or anthems which are sung by a portion only of the choir, sometimes by a
single voice, as contradistinguished from the _full parts_, or chorus.
Thus we have full and verse anthems.
VERSICLES. Short or diminutive verses, said alternately by the minister
and people; such, for example, as the following:—
_Min._ O LORD, show thy mercy upon us;
_Ans._ And grant us thy salvation.
_Min._ O GOD, make clean our hearts within us;
_Ans._ And take not thy HOLY SPIRIT from us.
The versicles, properly so called, (with their responses,) are in most
instances passages from the Psalms, and are thus distinguished from
other suffrages, which are neither verses from the Psalms, nor form in
each petition and response a continuous sentence. In the Litany the two
versicles with their responses, “O Lord, deal not with us after our
sins,” and “O Lord, let thy mercy be showed upon us,” are distinguished
from the other suffrages (in the Litany) by having the words _Priest_
and _Answer_ prefixed; and by being each a verse from the Psalms. To
which may be added, that till the last Review, these had been always
prefaced in the English Litany, since the Reformation, by the words “the
versicles.”
VESICA PISCIS. (See _Piscis_.)
VESPERS, or EVEN-SONG, is mentioned by the most ancient Fathers, and it
is probable that the custom of holding an assembly for public worship at
this time is of the most primitive antiquity. Certainly in the fourth
century, and perhaps in the third, there was public evening service in
the Eastern Churches, as we learn from the Apostolical Constitutions;
and Cassian, in the beginning of the fifth century, appears to refer the
evening and nocturnal assemblies of the Egyptians to the time of St.
Mark the Evangelist.
VESTMENTS. (See _Ornaments_.) The _vestment_ mentioned in the rubric of
King Edward VI.’s first Prayer Book, is the same as the Chasuble. (See
_Chasuble_.)
VESTRY. (Anciently _Revestry_ or _Sacristy_.) A room attached to a
church for the keeping of the vestments and the sacred vessels. The most
usual place for the vestry was at the north side of the chancel, at the
east end. There was not infrequently an altar in the vestry; and
sometimes it was arranged with an additional chamber, so as to form a
_domus inclusa_ for the residence of an officiating priest.
And from their meeting in this room, certain assemblies of the
parishioners, for the despatch of the official business of the parish,
are called _vestries_ or _vestry meetings_. It is not, however,
essential to the validity of the meeting, that it should be held in the
vestry of the church. It may be convened in any place in the parish,
provided the parishioners have free access to it, even though the place
fixed on be private property. Notice of meeting must be given three days
previously, by affixing on or near the doors of all churches or chapels
within the parish, a printed or written notice. The incumbent is _ex
officio_ chairman of the meeting. All persons rated to the relief of the
poor, whether inhabitants of the parish or not, are entitled to attend
the vestry and vote thereat: and this right is also extended to all
inhabitants coming into the parish since the last rate for the relief of
the poor, if they consent to be rated. But no person is entitled to
vote, who shall have neglected or refused to pay any rate which may be
due, and shall have been demanded of him, nor is he entitled to be
present at any vestry meeting. A motion to adjourn the vestry for six or
twelve months, or for any time, with a view to defeat the object of the
meeting, is illegal, and therefore no such motion should be received by
the chairman.
The functions of vestries are, to take due care for the maintenance of
the edifice of the church, and the due administration of Divine service;
to elect churchwardens, to present for appointment fit persons as
overseers of the poor, to administer the property of the parish, and (if
so appointed under local acts) to superintend the paving and lighting of
the parish, and to levy rates for those purposes.
The remedy for neglect of duty by a vestry is a mandamus from the court
of Queen’s Bench, directed to the officer whose duty it would be to
perform the particular act, or in some cases by an ordinary process
against him, or by a process against the churchwardens out of the
ecclesiastical courts.
In the year 1818 was passed the 58 Geo. III. c. 69, making general
regulations for the holding of vestries, and this act was amended next
year by the 59 Geo. III. c. 85. In the same year was passed the 59 Geo.
III. c. 12, commonly called Sturges Bourne’s Act, authorizing the
formation of select vestries for the management of the relief of
paupers; but that is superseded by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.
The 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 20 is an important act relating to vestries,
commonly called Hobhouse’s Act. It authorizes, upon the petition of a
certain number of parishioners paying rates, the formation of a
representative select vestry. To 1000 ratepayers 12 representatives are
allowed; above 1000, 24; above 2000, 36; and so on, allowing 12
additional representatives for every additional 1000 ratepayers, until
the number of the select vestry reaches 120, which is the limit of
elected members. There are others _ex officio_, including the clergy of
the district. Section 40 of this act saves all ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and provides that the act shall not invalidate or avoid
any ecclesiastical law or constitution of the Church of England, save as
concerns the appointment of vestries.
A series of church-building acts, eighteen in number, were passed
between 1818 and 1848, beginning with the 58 Geo. III., and ending with
the 11 & 12 Vict. They contained clauses which provided for the
formation of select vestries in the new ecclesiastical districts
constituted by those acts. In 1851 came the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97, which
enumerates all these acts, and by section 20 not only forbids the
formation of select vestries in new districts to be formed, but
abolishes all those which had been formed under the acts enumerated.
By the Metropolitan Burials Acts of 1852, (15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, amended
and extended by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134,) new and important duties were
thrown upon vestries. It is therein provided, that, upon the requisition
in writing of ten or more ratepayers of any parish in the metropolis in
which the place or places of burial shall appear to such ratepayers
insufficient or dangerous to health, (and whether any order in council
in relation to any burial ground in such parish has or has not been
made,) the churchwardens or other persons to whom it belongs to convene
meetings of the vestry of such parish, shall convene a meeting of the
vestry, for the special purpose of determining whether a burial ground
shall be provided under this act for the parish; and public notice of
such vestry meeting, and the place and hour of holding the same, and the
special purpose thereof, shall be given in the usual manner in which
notices of the meetings of the vestry are given, at least seven days
before holding such vestry meeting; and if it be resolved by the vestry
that a burial ground shall be provided under this act for the parish, a
copy of such resolution, extracted from the minutes of the vestry, and
signed by the chairman, shall be sent to one of her Majesty’s principal
secretaries of state.
In case of such resolution as aforesaid, the vestry shall appoint not
less than three, nor more than nine persons, being ratepayers of the
parish, to be the burial board of such parish, of whom one third, or as
nearly as may be one third, (to be determined among themselves,) shall
go out of office yearly, at such time as shall be from time to time
fixed by the vestry, but shall be eligible for immediate re-appointment:
provided always, that the incumbent of the parish shall be eligible to
be appointed and re-appointed from time to time as one of the members of
the said board, although not a ratepayer of the parish; provided also,
that any member of the board may at any time resign his office, on
giving notice in writing to the churchwardens or persons to whom it
belongs to convene meetings of the vestry.
Any vacancies in the board may be filled up by the vestry when and as
the vestry shall think fit.
The board shall meet at least once in every month at their office, or
some other convenient place, previously publicly notified, and the said
board may meet at such other time as at any previous meeting shall be
determined upon; and it shall be at all times competent for any two
members of the board, by writing under their hands, to summon, with at
least forty-eight hours’ notice, the board for any special purpose
mentioned in such writing, and to meet at such times as shall be
appointed therein.
At all meetings of the board, any number not less than three members of
such board shall be a sufficient number for transacting business, and
for exercising all the powers of the board.
The board shall appoint, and may remove at pleasure, a clerk, and such
other officers and servants as shall be necessary for the business of
the board, and for the purposes of their burial ground; and, with the
approval of the vestry, may appoint reasonable salaries, wages, and
allowances for such clerk, officers, and servants, and, when necessary,
may hire and rent a sufficient office for holding their meetings and
transacting their business.
Entries of all proceedings of the board, with the names of the members
who attend each meeting, shall be made in books to be provided and kept
for that purpose, under the direction of the board, and shall be signed
by the members present, or any two of them; and all entries purporting
to be so signed shall be received as evidence, without proof of any
meeting of the board having been duly convened or held, or of the
presence at any such meeting of the persons named in any such entry as
being present thereat, or of such persons being members of the board, or
of the signature of any person by whom any such entry purports to be
signed, all which matters shall be presumed until the contrary be
proved; and the board shall provide and keep books in which shall be
entered true and regular accounts of all sums of money received and
paid, for or on account of the purposes of this act in the parish, and
of all liabilities incurred by them for such purposes, and of the
several purposes for which such sums of money are paid and such
liabilities incurred.
All such books shall, at all reasonable times, be open to the
examination of every member of such board, churchwarden, overseer, and
ratepayer, without fee or reward, and they respectively may take copies
of, or extracts from, such books, or any part thereof, without paying
for the same; and in case the members of such board, or any of them, or
any of the officers or servants of such board having the custody of the
said books, being thereunto reasonably requested, refuse to permit or do
not permit any churchwarden, overseer, or ratepayer to examine the same,
or take any such copies or extracts, every such member, officer, or
servant so offending shall for every such offence, upon a summary
conviction thereof before any justice of the peace, forfeit any sum not
exceeding five pounds.
The vestry shall yearly appoint two persons, not being members of the
board, to be auditors of the accounts of the board, and at such time in
the month of March in every year as the vestry shall appoint, the board
shall produce to the auditors their accounts, with sufficient vouchers
for all monies received and paid, and the auditors shall examine such
accounts and vouchers, and report thereon to the vestry.
The expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by the burial board of any
parish in carrying this act into execution, shall be chargeable upon and
paid out of the rates for the relief of the poor of such parish; the
expenses to be so incurred for or on account of any parish in providing
and laying out a burial ground under this act, and building the
necessary chapel or chapels thereon, not to exceed such sum as the
vestry shall authorize to be expended for such purpose; and the
overseers or other officers authorized to make and levy rates for the
relief of the poor in any parish shall, upon receipt of a certificate
under the hands of such number of members of the burial board as are
authorized to exercise the powers of the board, of the sums required
from time to time for defraying any such expenses as aforesaid, pay such
sums out of the rates for the relief of the poor, as the board shall
direct.
Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the board, with the
sanction of the vestry and the approval of the commissioners of her
Majesty’s treasury, to borrow any money required for providing and
laying out any burial ground under this act, and building a chapel or
chapels thereon, or any of such purposes, and to charge the future poor
rates of the parish with the payment of such money and interest thereon;
provided that there shall be paid in every year, in addition to the
interest of the money borrowed and unpaid, not less than one-twentieth
of the principal sum borrowed, until the whole is discharged.
The commissioners for carrying into execution an act of the session
holden in the 14th and 15th years of her Majesty, c. 23, “to authorize
for a further period the advance of money out of the consolidated fund
to a limited amount for carrying on public works and fisheries and
employment of the poor,” and any act or acts, amending or continuing the
same, may from time to time make to the burial board of any parish for
the purposes of this act any loan under the provisions of the recited
act, or the several acts therein recited or referred to, upon security
of the rates for the relief of the poor of the parish.
The money raised for defraying such expenses, and the income arising
from the burial ground provided for the parish, except fees payable to
the incumbent, clerk, and sexton of the parish, and the other fees
herein directed to be otherwise paid, shall be applied by the board in
or towards defraying the expenses of such board under this act; and
whenever, after repayment of all monies borrowed for the purposes of
this act in or for any parish, and the interest thereof, and after
satisfying all the liabilities of the board with reference to the
execution of this act in or for the parish, and providing such a balance
as shall be deemed by the board sufficient to meet their probable
liabilities during the then next year, there shall be at the time of
holding the meeting of the vestry at which the yearly report of the
auditors shall be produced, any surplus money at the disposal of the
board, they shall pay the same to the overseers, in aid of the rate for
the relief of the poor of the parish.
The vestries of any parishes which shall have respectively resolved to
provide burial grounds under this act, may concur in providing one
burial ground for the common use of such parishes, in such manner, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this act, as they shall mutually
agree; and may agree as to the proportions in which the expenses of such
burial ground shall be borne by such parishes, and the proportion for
each of such parishes of such expenses shall be chargeable upon and paid
out of the monies to be raised for the relief of the poor of the same
respective parish accordingly; and, according and subject to the terms
which shall have been so agreed on, the burial boards appointed for such
parishes respectively shall, for the purpose of providing and managing
such one burial ground, and taking and holding land for the same, act as
one joint burial board for all such parishes, and may have a joint
office, clerk, and officers, and all the provisions of this act shall
apply to such joint burial board accordingly; and the accounts and
vouchers of such board shall be examined and reported on by the auditors
of each of such parishes; and the surplus money at the disposal as
aforesaid of such board, shall be paid to the overseers of such parishes
respectively in the same proportions as those in which such parishes
shall be liable to such expenses.
For the more easy execution of the purposes of this act, the burial
board of every parish appointed under this act shall be a body
corporate, by the name of “The Burial Board for the Parish of ——, in the
County of ——,” and by that name shall have perpetual succession and a
common seal, and shall sue and be sued, and have power and authority
(without any licence in mortmain) to take, purchase, and hold land for
the purposes of this act; and where the burial boards of two or more
parishes act as, and form, one joint burial board for all such parishes
for the purposes aforesaid, such joint board shall for such purposes
only be a body corporate, by the name of “The Burial Board for the
Parishes of —— and ——, in the County of ——,” and by that name shall have
perpetual succession, and a common seal, and shall sue and be sued, and
have power and authority as aforesaid to take, purchase, and hold land
for the purposes of this act.
Every burial board shall, with all convenient speed, proceed to provide
a burial ground for the parish or parishes for which they are appointed
to act, and to make arrangements for facilitating interments therein;
and in providing such burial ground, the board shall have reference to
the convenience of access thereto from the parish or parishes for which
the same is provided; and any such burial ground may be provided either
within or without the limits of the parish, or all or any of the
parishes, for which the same is provided; but no ground not already used
as or appropriated for a cemetery, shall be appropriated as a burial
ground, or as an addition to a burial ground, under this act, nearer
than 200 yards to any dwelling house, without the consent in writing of
the owner, lessee, and occupier of such dwelling house.
For the providing such burial ground, it shall be lawful for the burial
board, with the approval of the vestry or vestries of the parish or
respective parishes, to contract for and purchase any lands for the
purpose of forming a burial ground, or for making additions to any
burial ground to be formed or purchased under this act, as such board
may think fit, or to purchase from any company or persons entitled
thereto any cemetery or cemeteries, or part or parts thereof, subject to
the rights in vaults and graves, and other subsisting rights, which may
have been previously granted therein: provided always that it shall be
lawful for such board, in lieu of providing any such burial ground, to
contract with any such company or persons entitled as aforesaid for the
interment in such cemetery or cemeteries, and either in any allotted
part of such cemetery or cemeteries or otherwise, and upon such terms as
the burial board may think fit, of the bodies of persons who would have
had rights of interment in the burial grounds of such parish or
respective parishes.
VIA MEDIA. The position occupied in the Christian world by the Anglican
Church. There are three parties at present dividing the kingdom—the
Church, the Romanist, the ultra-Protestant; of these the Church occupies
the middle, Romanism and ultra-Protestantism the extreme positions. Were
the Church withdrawn or forced from this central position, the two
extremes would soon collide in civil and religious contention and
rancour. The Church is the peace-preserving power in the home empire;
her advantages and resources in this respect are singularly her own. As
far as the Roman is a Church, she agrees with Rome: educated Romanists,
however much they regret the disunion of the sees of Rome and
Canterbury, respect her ecclesiastical and apostolic character. As far
as the renunciation of errors dangerous to salvation constitutes
Protestantism, she is thoroughly Protestant; learned and sober
Nonconformists, therefore, have always considered her as the bulwark of
the reformed religion. She possesses what Rome does not, to conciliate
the Nonconformist; she possesses what ultra-Protestantism does not, to
attract the esteem of the Roman Catholic. She has wherewith to
conciliate to herself these two extremes, totally irreconcileable with
each other. Were all religious parties in the realm to meet at this
moment to draw up a national form of Christianity consistent with both
Scripture and Catholic antiquity, the vast majority, we doubt not, would
conscientiously prefer the liturgy and articles of the Church to any
form or articles propounded by any one sect out of the Church. Without
the Church, again, ultra-Protestantism would prove but a rope of sand to
oppose the subtle machinations and united movement of the papal
hierarchy. With her, at peace with both, though not in communion with
either, these hostile schemes have as yet been prevented from committing
the nation to the horrors of intestine commotion. The statesman who
would undermine or debilitate this passive supremacy—for to all
aggressive or domineering purposes it is entirely passive—on the chance
that conflicting sects would extend to each other the mild toleration
which now under the Church all impartially enjoy, must have studied
religious passions and religious history to little profit.
The great mass of Protestant communities sends each individual to the
Bible alone; thence to collect, as it may happen, truth or falsehood, by
his own interpretation, or misinterpretation, and thence to measure the
most weighty and mysterious truths by the least peculiar and appropriate
passages of sacred Scripture. The Church of Rome sends her children
neither to the Bible alone, nor to tradition alone; nor yet to the Bible
and tradition conjointly, but to an infallible living expositor: which
expositor sometimes limits, and sometimes extends, and sometimes
contradicts, both the written word and the language of Christian
antiquity. The Church of England steers a middle course. She reveres the
Scripture: she respects tradition. She encourages investigation: but she
checks presumption. She bows to the authority of ages: but she owns no
living master upon earth. She rejects alike the wild extravagance of
unauthorized opinion, and the tame subjection of compulsory belief.
Where the Scripture clearly and freely speaks, she receives the dictates
as the voice of God. When Scripture is neither clear nor explicit, or
when it may demand expansion and illustration, she refers her sons to an
authoritative standard of interpretation, but a standard which it is
their privilege to apply for themselves. And when Scripture is
altogether silent, she provides a supplementary guidance: but a guidance
neither fluctuating nor arbitrary; the same in all times, and under all
circumstances; which no private interest can warp, and no temporary
prejudice can lead astray. Thus, her appeal is made to past ages,
against every possible error of the present. Thus, though the great mass
of Christendom, and even though the vast majority of our own national
Church, were to depart from the purity of Christian faith and practice,
yet no well-taught member of that Church needs hesitate or tremble. His
path is plain. It is not merely his own judgment, it is not by any means
the dictatorial mandate of an ecclesiastical director, which is to
silence his scruples, and dissolve his doubts. His resort is, that
concurrent, universal, and undeviating sense of pious antiquity, which
he has been instructed, and should be encouraged, to embrace, to follow,
and to revere.—_Bishop Jebb._
VIATICUM. The provision made for a journey. Hence, in the ancient
Church, both baptism and the eucharist were called _Viatica_, because
they were equally esteemed men’s necessary provision and proper armour,
both to sustain and conduct them safe on their way in their passage
through this world to eternal life. The administration of baptism is
thus spoken of by St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, as the giving to men
their viaticum or provision for their journey to another world; and
under this impression it was frequently delayed till the hour of death,
being esteemed as a final security and safeguard to future happiness.
More strictly, however, the term _viaticum_ denoted the eucharist given
to persons in immediate danger of death, and in this sense it is still
occasionally used. The 13th Canon of the Nicene Council ordains that
none “be deprived of his perfect and most necessary viaticum, when he
departs out of this life.” Several other canons of various councils are
to the same effect, providing also for the giving of the viaticum under
peculiar circumstances, as to persons in extreme weakness, delirium, or
subject to canonical discipline.
VICAR. In order to the due understanding of this office, as
distinguished from those of rector and perpetual curate, it will be
necessary to describe in this article the three several offices in their
order.
The appellation of _rector_ is synonymous with that of _parson_, which
latter term, although frequently used indiscriminately, as applicable
also to vicars and even curates, is, according to Blackstone, the most
legal, beneficial, and honourable title that a parish priest can enjoy.
Parson, in the legal signification, is taken for the rector of a church
parochial: he is said to be seised _in jure ecclesiæ_. Such an one, and
he only, is said _vicem seu personam ecclesiæ gerere_. He is called
parson (_persona_) because by his _person_ the Church, which is an
invisible body, is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate,
in order to protect and defend the rights of the Church (which he
personates) by a perpetual succession. And, as Lord Coke says, the law
had an excellent end therein, viz. that in his person the Church might
sue for and defend her right. A parson, therefore, is a corporation
sole, and has during his life the freehold in himself of the parsonage
house, the glebe, the tithe, and other dues.
But these are sometimes appropriated; that is to say, the benefice is
perpetually annexed to some spiritual corporation, either sole or
aggregate, being the patron of the living, which the law esteems equally
capable of providing for the service of the Church as any single private
clergyman. This contrivance seems to have sprung from the policy of the
monastic orders. At the first establishment of parochial clergy, the
tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division: one for
the use of the bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the church,
a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent. When
the sees of the bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were
prohibited from demanding their usual share of these tithes, and the
division was into three parts only; and hence it was inferred by the
monasteries, that a small part was sufficient for the officiating
priest, and that the remainder might well be applied to the use of their
own fraternities, (the endowment of which was construed to be a work of
the most exalted piety,) subject to the burden of repairing the church,
and providing for its constant supply. And therefore they begged and
bought for masses and obits, and sometimes even for money, all the
advowsons within their reach, and then appropriated the benefices to the
use of their own corporation. But in order to complete such
appropriation effectually, the king’s licence and consent of the bishop
must first have been obtained; because both the king and the bishop may,
some time or other, have an interest, by lapse, in the presentation to
the benefice, which can never happen if it be appropriated to the use of
a corporation which never dies, and also because the law reposes a
confidence in them that they will not consent to anything that shall be
to the prejudice of the Church. The consent of the patron also is
necessarily implied, because (as was before observed) the appropriation
can be originally made to none but to such spiritual corporation as is
also the patron of the Church; the whole being, indeed, nothing else but
an allowance for the patrons to retain the tithes and glebe in their own
hands, without presenting any clerk, they themselves undertaking to
provide for the service of the church.
The terms _appropriation_ and _impropriation_ are now so commonly used
indiscriminately, that it has become almost unnecessary to mention the
distinction between them; but _appropriation_, in contradistinction to
impropriation, means the annexing a benefice to the proper and perpetual
use of some spiritual corporation either sole or aggregate, being the
patron of a living, which is bound to provide for the service of the
church, and thereby becomes perpetual incumbent, the whole appropriation
being only an allowance for the spiritual patrons to retain the tithes
and glebe in their own hands, without presenting any clerk, they
themselves undertaking to provide for the service of the church; while
_impropriation_ is supposed to be properly used when the profits of the
benefice are held in lay hands, as being _improperly_ so. But, in truth,
the correctness of the distinction, even originally, seems doubtful:
they are used as synonymous in statutes in the times of Elizabeth, of
Mary, and of Charles II.; and even prior to the Reformation, in a
petition to parliament in the time of Henry VIII., the term used is
“impropried.” Both terms were borrowed from the form of the grant, “_in
proprios usus_,” and they are peculiar or principally confined to this
country. Blackstone says, that appropriations can be made to this day;
upon which Mr. Christian observes, “It cannot be supposed that at this
day the inhabitants of a parish, who had been accustomed to pay their
tithes to their officiating minister, could be compelled to transfer
them to an ecclesiastical corporation, to which they might be perfect
strangers,” and that “there probably have been no new appropriations
since the dissolution of monasteries.” Upon this same proposition, Mr.
Justice Coleridge observes, alluding to the opinion of Mr. Christian,
“The truth of this position has been questioned, and the doubt is not
likely to be solved by any judicial decision. But I am not aware of any
principle which should prevent an impropriation from being now legally
made, supposing the spiritual corporation already seised of the advowson
of the church, or enabled to take it by grant. The power of the king and
the bishop remain undiminished.”
This appropriation may be severed, and the church become disappropriate,
in two ways; as, first, if the patron or appropriator presents a clerk,
who is instituted and inducted to the parsonage; for the incumbent so
instituted and inducted is, to all intents and purposes, completed
parson: and the appropriation, being once severed, can never be
re-united again, unless by a repetition of the same solemnities. And
when the clerk so presented is distinct from the vicar, the rectory thus
vested in him becomes what is called a _sinecure_, because he had no
cure of souls, having a vicar under him, to whom that cure is committed.
Also, if the corporation which has the appropriation is dissolved, the
parsonage becomes disappropriate at common law; because the perpetuity
of person is gone, which is necessary to support the appropriation.
These sinecure rectories here spoken of had their origin in the
following manner: The rector, with proper consent, had a power to
entitle a vicar in his church to officiate under him, and this was often
done; and by this means two persons were instituted to the same church,
and both to the cure of souls, and both did actually officiate. So that
however the rectors of sinecures, by having been long excused from
residence, are in common opinion discharged from the cure of souls,
(which is the reason of the name,) and however the cure is said in the
law books to be in them _habitualiter_ only, yet, in strictness, and
with regard to their original institution, the cure is in them
_actualiter_, as much as it is in the vicar, that is to say, where they
come in by institution; but if the rectory is a donative, the case is
otherwise; for coming in by donation, they have not the cure of souls
committed to them. And these are most properly sinecures, according to
the genuine signification of the word.
But no church, where there is but one incumbent, is properly a sinecure.
If indeed the church be down, or the parish become destitute of
parishioners, without which Divine offices cannot be performed, the
incumbent is of necessity acquitted from all public duty; but still he
is under an obligation of doing this duty whenever there shall be a
competent number of inhabitants, and the church shall be rebuilt. And
these benefices are more properly depopulations than sinecures.
But sinecure rectors and rectories are now in the course of gradual
suppression, and will soon have entirely passed away; for it is declared
by the stat. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, that all ecclesiastical rectories,
without cure of souls, in the sole patronage of her Majesty, or of any
ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, where there shall be a
vicar endowed or a perpetual curate, shall, as to all such rectories as
may be vacant at the passing of that act, immediately upon its so
passing, and as to all others immediately upon the vacancies thereof
respectively, be _suppressed_; and that as to any such ecclesiastical
rectory without cure of souls, the advowson whereof, or any right of
patronage wherein, shall belong to any person or persons, or body
corporate, other than as aforesaid, the ecclesiastical commissioners for
England shall be authorized and empowered to purchase and accept
conveyance of such advowson or right of patronage, as the case may be,
at and for such price or sum as may be agreed upon between them and the
owner or owners of such advowson or right of patronage, and may pay the
purchase money, and the expenses of and attendant upon such purchase,
out of the common fund in their hands; and that after the completion of
such purchase of any such rectory, and upon the first avoidance thereof,
the same shall be suppressed; and that upon the suppression of any such
rectory as aforesaid, all ecclesiastical patronage, belonging to the
rector thereof as such rector, shall be absolutely transferred to, and
be vested in, the original patron or patrons of such rectory.
The office of _vicar_, as distinct from that of rector, would
sufficiently appear from what has been already said of the latter. The
vicar was originally little more than a stipendiary curate of the
present day, being a minister deputed or substituted by the spiritual
corporation, who held the revenues of the benefice, to perform the
ecclesiastical duties in their stead. Usually, though not always, he was
one of their own body; and his stipend was entirely at their discretion,
and he was removable at their caprice. The evil results of such a
practice are apparent; and an effectual attempt to arrest the evil was
made by a statute in the reign of Richard II.; but this was found to be
insufficient; and accordingly it was enacted by statute 4 Henry IV. c.
12, that the vicar should be a secular ecclesiastic; perpetual; not
removable at the caprice of the monastery; that he should be canonically
instituted and inducted; that he should be sufficiently endowed at the
discretion of the ordinary to do Divine service, to inform the people,
and to keep hospitality. It is under this latter statute, therefore,
that our vicarages in their present form came into existence, and the
endowments of them have usually been by a portion of the glebe or land
belonging to the parsonage; and a particular share of the tithes which
the appropriators found it most troublesome to collect, and which are
therefore generally called privy or small tithes, the greater or prœdial
tithes being still reserved to their own use. But one and the same rule
was not observed in the endowment of all vicarages. Hence some are more
liberally, and some more scantily, endowed; and hence the tithes of many
things, as wood in particular, are in some parishes rectorial, and in
some, vicarial tithes.
The distinction, therefore, between a rector and a vicar, at the present
day, is this, that the rector has generally the whole right to all the
ecclesiastical dues within his parish; the vicar is entitled only to a
certain portion of those profits, the best part of which are absorbed by
the appropriator, to whom, if appropriations had continued as in their
origin, he would in effect be perpetual curate with a fixed salary.
The parson, and not the patron of the parsonage, is of common right the
patron of the vicarage. The parson, by making the endowment, acquires
the patronage of the vicarage. For, in order to the appropriation of a
parsonage, the inheritance of the advowson was to be transferred to the
corporation to which the church was to be appropriated; and then the
vicarage being derived out of the parsonage, the parson, of common
right, must be patron thereof. So that if the parson makes a lease of
the parsonage, (without making a special reservation to himself of the
right of presenting to the vicarage,) the patronage of the vicarage
passeth as incident to it. But it was held in the 21 James I., that the
parishioners may prescribe for the choice of a vicar. And before that,
in the 16 James I., in the case of _Shirley_ and _Underhill_, it was
declared by the court, that though the advowson of the vicarage of
common right is appendant to the rectory, yet it may be appendant to a
manor, as having been reserved specially upon the appropriation.
And if there be a vicar and parson appropriate, the ordinary and parson
appropriate may, in time of vacation of the vicarage, reunite the
vicarage to the parsonage.
From what has been already observed of the distinction between rector
and vicar, it will be easy to anticipate what remains to be said of a
_perpetual curate_; for a perpetual curate is, in many things, in the
same position as was a vicar previous to the statute of Henry IV. before
mentioned. The fact is, that certain cases were exempted from the
operation of that statute; for if the benefice was given _ad mensam
monachorum_, and so not appropriated in the common form, but granted by
way of union _pleno jure_, it was allowed to be served by a curate of
their own house, consequently not a secular ecclesiastic; and the like
exemption from the necessity of appointing a vicar was sometimes also
granted by dispensation, or on account of the nearness of the church.
At the dissolution of the monasteries, when appropriations were
transferred from spiritual societies through the king to single lay
persons, to them also, for the most part, was transferred the
appointment of the vicars in the parishes where they were the
appropriators, and in places where, by means of exemptions, there was no
regularly endowed vicar; and as they were appropriators of the whole
ecclesiastical dues, the charge of providing for the cure was laid on
them; for neither in fact, nor in presumption of law, nor
_habitualiter_, could a lay rector as such have cure of souls; they were
consequently obliged to nominate some particular person to the ordinary
for his licence to serve the cure; and such curates thus licensed became
perpetual, in the same manner as vicars had been before, not removable
at the caprice of the appropriator, but only by due revocation of the
licence of the ordinary.
A perpetual curacy was formerly adjudged not to be an ecclesiastical
benefice, so that it was tenable with any other benefice; but now
perpetual curacies are expressly declared to be benefices within the
meaning of that word in the Benefices Pluralities Act, and a perpetual
curate is consequently liable to its restrictions in the same manner as
any other incumbent; and it has been recently determined that perpetual
curates, or their representatives, are liable to be sued in an action
for dilapidations in the same manner as other incumbents.
In some cases it might be a matter of considerable difficulty to
determine whether a place is a perpetual curacy or a chapelry only; and
the more so, since, for most practical purposes, the question would be
quite immaterial, and therefore less likely to have been judicially
determined; but as an aid in deciding certain other questions which
might arise, it might be important: and the following are the rules laid
down by Lord Hardwicke for determining whether it is a perpetual curacy
or not.
To determine this, he says, “consider it first as to the rights and
privileges appearing to belong to the chapel itself; next, as to the
right of the inhabitants within the district; thirdly, as to the rights
and dues belonging to the curate of the chapelry. If all these rights
concur to show the nature of a perpetual curacy, that must determine it.
“As to the first consideration, it appears this is a chapel belonging to
a country town. It has belonging to it all sorts of parochial rights, as
clerk, warden, &c., all rights of performing Divine service, baptism,
sepulture, &c., which is very strong evidence of itself that this is not
barely a chapel of ease to the parish to which it belongs, but stands on
its own foundation, _capella parochialis_, as it is called in Hobart;
and this differs it greatly from the chapels in London, which are barely
chapels of ease, commencing within time of memory, which have not
baptism or sepulture; all which sort of rights belong to the
mother-church, and the rector or vicar of the parish, who has the cure
of souls, has the nomination, as the rector of St. James’s or St.
Martin’s has, but they have no parochial rights, which clearly belong to
this chapel. Nor have any of the inhabitants of this chapelry a right to
bury in the parish church of Northop, and that right of sepulture is the
most strong circumstance, as appears from 3 Selden’s History, Tithes,
fol. column 1212, to show that it differs not from a parish church.
“The next circumstance to determine this question is the right of the
inhabitants, viz. to have service performed there, and baptism and
christening, and having no right to resort to the parish church of
Northop for these purposes, nor to any other place, if not here; nor are
they or have they been rateable to the parish church of Northop. It was
determined in the case of _Castle Birmidge_, Hob. 66, that the having a
chapel of ease will not exempt the inhabitants within that district from
contributing to repairs of the mother-church, unless it was by
prescription, which would then be a strong foundation, that it must be
considered as a curacy or chapelry.
“Next, as to the rights and dues of the curate. All these concur to show
it to be a perpetual curacy, and not at all at the will and pleasure of
the vicar; for the curate has always enjoyed the small tithes and
surplice fees, nor is there any evidence to show that the vicar has
received the small tithes.”
A nomination to a perpetual curacy may be by parol. “Most regularly,”
Lord Hardwicke says, “it ought to be in writing;” but, he adds, “I do
not know that it has been determined that it is necessary. A
presentation to a church need not be in writing, but may be by parol; if
so, I do not see why a nomination to a perpetual curacy may not be by
parol.”
A perpetual curate has an interest for life in his curacy, in the same
manner and as fully as a rector or vicar; that is to say, he can only be
deprived by the ordinary, and that in proper course of law; and, as Lord
Hardwicke observes, it would be a contradiction in terms to say that a
perpetual curate is removable at will and pleasure.
The ministers of the new churches of separate parishes, ecclesiastical
districts, consolidated chapelries, and district chapelries, are
perpetual curates, so that they are severally bodies politic and
corporate, with perpetual succession, and consequently may accept grants
made to them and their successors; and they are to be licensed and to be
removable in the same manner as other perpetual curates. This is also
the case with those ministers who are appointed to new districts or
parishes under the Church Endowment Act; and as licence operates to all
such ministers in the same manner as institution would in the case of a
presentative benefice, it would render voidable any other livings which
such ministers might hold, in the same manner as institution.
VICARS CHORAL. The assistants or deputies of the canons or prebendaries
of collegiate churches, in the discharge of their duties, especially,
though not exclusively, those performed in the choir or chancel, as
distinguished from those belonging to the altar and pulpit.
The vicars choral, as their name implies, were originally appointed as
the deputies of the canons and prebendaries for Church purposes; that
is, to provide for the absence or incapacity of the great body of
capitular members: the clerical vicars to chant in rotation the prayers
at matins and evening, &c., and the whole body to form a sufficient and
permanent choir for the performance of the daily service; a duty which
the canons were originally required to perform in person. The
presbyteral members were usually four, being the vicars of the four
dignitaries, _personæ principales_ (see _Persona_). Sometimes they were
five; the rest were deacons, and in minor orders, in later times chiefly
laymen.
This institution was most salutary; since, were every canon required to
have the peculiar qualifications required from vicars, viz. a practical
knowledge of ecclesiastical music, men of more essential and higher
qualities would of necessity be often excluded from the canonical
stalls. In fact, the appointment of deacons and inferior ministers to
this peculiar office, which we do not find established till the
beginning of the fourth century, (i. e. the κανονικοὶ ψαλταὶ, vide
_Bingham_, iii. 7,) bears a striking analogy to the regulation of the
Jewish temple; where some of the Levites, the deacons of the elder
Church, were newly appointed by David to the musical service....
Originally the vicars choral were commensurate with the capitular
members, each of these having a vicar, appointed by himself, and holding
his place only so long as his principal lived. The numbers have now
greatly diminished. At York, they were at one time, 36; at Lincoln, 25;
at Hereford, 20. At St. Patrick’s each vicar is still denominated from a
dignitary or prebendary, twenty-six in number; but one vicar is in many
instances the representative of two stalls; and he is designated from
both, as “the prebendary of A and B, vicar.”
In all cathedrals of the old foundation in England, and in Ireland,
where there were choirs, the vicars choral formed a minor corporation,
in some way under the control of the dean or chapter, but with separate
estates, with collegiate buildings, halls, chapels, some of which still
subsist. Those at Hereford were incorporated in the 15th century, those
at Exeter in Henry IV.’s time. At Southwell they formerly formed a
college, till the Reformation. These presidents were styled custos, or
warden, subdean, subchanter, provost, or procurator. In Ireland, but
twelve of the cathedrals have had foundations for vicars choral, as far
as any record remains, and in some of these their very sufficient
endowments had been suffered by a long course of neglect and abuse to be
diverted from their original purpose, and were a few years ago alienated
by law.—A better spirit has happily arisen of late years.—In Scotland it
does not appear that vicars choral were attached to all cathedrals.
Bishop Elphinston endowed twenty vicars choral or minor canons at
Aberdeen, in 1506; at Glasgow, vicars of the choir were founded in 1455;
Elgin cathedral modelled on that of Lincoln, in 1224, had twenty-two
vicars choral, commensurate with the chapter.
In cathedrals of the new foundation, the term vicar choral was generally
superseded by that of _Minor Canon_ for the clergy, and _Lay-clerk_ for
the laity. (See _Minor Canon_.)
The term was occasionally used in a less strict sense, to signify a
choral priest or chaplain. Thus the church of St. Nicholas in Galway was
founded in 1501, for a warden and eight vicars choral, (or singing
vicars, as they were sometimes called,) who served that church. The
corporation is styled in some ancient documents, _Wardianus et
Capitulum_. A few vicars are still maintained, who serve the church in
turn, but discharge no choral duty.
In all foreign cathedrals, there are inferior choral members, though the
designations vary much; they consist of priests, deacons, clergy of the
inferior orders, and laymen.—See _Jebb on Choral Service_.
VICAR GENERAL. An ecclesiastical officer, who assists the bishop in the
discharge of his office, as in ecclesiastical causes and visitations;
much the same as the chancellor. The archbishop of Canterbury has his
vicar general; and this is the designation of the bishop’s principal
official in Ireland, where the diocesan title of chancellor is unknown.
In the reign of Henry VIII., when the rejection of papal usurpation led
for a time to a recoil of a very Erastian character, Thomas Cromwell,
afterwards Earl of Essex, was appointed the king’s vicar general,
vicegerent, and special and principal commissary; with powers of
visitation and correction over all the spirituality; an anomalous
office, which could not exist but in times of confusion.—Vide _Collin’s
Eccl. History, and Cromwell’s Commission in_ vol. ii., _Appendix_, p.
21.
VICAR PENSIONARY. Certain clergymen appointed at a fixed stipend to
serve churches, the titles of which belonged to a collegiate foundation:
as at St. Salvador’s College, St. Andrews.—Vide _Lyons’ History of St.
Andrews_.
VICE-DEAN, or SUBDEAN. In cathedrals of the new foundation, one of the
canons is annually chosen to represent the dean in his absence; and as
such he ranks next to him in the choir and chapter.
VIDAME: _Vicedominus_. The vicegerent, or official of a bishop in
temporals. A dignitary in a few foreign cathedrals is thus called: a
sort of subdean.
VIGIL. The night or evening before certain holy-days of the Church. In
former times it was customary to have religious services on these eves,
and sometimes to spend a great part of the night in prayer and other
devotions, to qualify the soul for the better observance of the festival
itself on the morrow. These nights thus spent were called _vigils_ or
_watchings_, and are still professedly observed in the Church of
England.
This term originated in a custom of the early Christians, who fasted and
watched the whole night previous to any great festival; hence _Vigiliæ_,
Vigils, or watchings, from _Vigilo_, to watch.—As a military custom this
was most ancient. The Jews seem originally to have divided the night
into three watches; but in the New Testament we read of “the fourth
watch of the night,” (Mark vi. 48,) a custom, perhaps, introduced by
their conquerors, the Romans, who divided their night into four vigils.
The primitive Christians might have been inclined to this custom from
various references to it in the Gospel; particularly in the close of the
parable of the ten virgins; though it is not improbable that the secrecy
with which they were obliged to meet, “for fear of the Jews,” (John xx.
19,) and other persecutors, went far towards establishing it. This, like
many other innocent or necessary ceremonies, having been at length
abused, the nocturnal vigils were abolished, about the year 420, and
turned into evening fasts, preparatory to the principal festival. But it
appears that a vigil was observed on All Hallows Day, by watching and
ringing of bells all night long, even till the year 1545, when Henry
VIII., in his letter to Cranmer, as to “creeping to the cross,” &c.,
desired it might be abolished.
It is not every festival which has a vigil preceding it. Those appointed
by the Church are as follows:—
Before the Nativity of our LORD.
the Purification and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin.
Easter Day.
Ascension Day.
Pentecost.
St. Matthias.
St. John Baptist.
St. Peter.
St. James.
St. Bartholomew.
St. Matthew.
St. Simon and St. Jude.
St. Thomas.
St. Andrew.
All Saints.
It has been given as a reason why the other holy-days have no vigils
before them, that they generally happened between Christmas and the
Purification, or between Easter and Whitsuntide, seasons of joy which
the Church did not think fit to break into by fasting and
humiliation.—See fully on this subject, _Wheatly on the Common Prayer_.
VIRGIN MARY. (See _Mariolatry_ and _Mother of God_.) The mother of our
Blessed LORD and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST. What follows is from the
celebrated Bishop Bull. “She was of all the women, of all the virgins in
Israel, elected and chosen by GOD to be the instrument of bringing into
the world the long-desired MESSIAS. All the virtuous daughters of Jacob,
a good while before the revelation of our SAVIOUR, but especially in the
age when he appeared, (the time wherein they saw the more punctual and
remarkable prophecies concerning the coming of the MESSIAS fulfilled,)
desired, and were not without hopes, each of them, that they might have
had this honour done unto them. But it was granted to none of all these
holy women and virgins, but to the Virgin Mary. And therefore ‘all
generations shall call her blessed.’
“The Blessed Virgin Mary was the only woman that took off the stain and
dishonour of her sex, by being the instrument of bringing that into the
world, which should repair and make amends for the loss and damage
brought to mankind by the transgression of the first woman, Eve. By a
woman, as the principal cause, we were first undone; and by a woman, as
an instrument under GOD, a Saviour and a Redeemer is born to us. And the
Blessed Virgin Mary is that woman. Hence Irenæus, in his fifth book,
makes a comparison between the virgin Eve, (for such the ancients
believed her to be till after her transgression,) and the Virgin Mary.
‘_Seductionem illam solutam_,’ &c., i. e. ‘That seduction being
dissolved, whereby the virgin Eve designed for man was unhappily
seduced; the Virgin Mary, espoused to man, by the truth, happily
received the glad tidings from an angel. For as the former was seduced
by the speech of an angel to flee from GOD, having transgressed his
commandments: so the latter, by the word also of an angel, received the
good news, _ut portaret_ DEUM, that she should bear GOD within her,
being obedient to his word. And as the former was seduced to flee from
GOD, so the latter was persuaded to obey GOD. So that the Virgin Mary
became the comforter of the virgin Eve.’ Where the last words of the
holy martyr are grossly misinterpreted by the Latin translator, and have
given to the Papists to conclude from them, that Eve was saved by the
intercession of the Virgin Mary. A most absurd conceit, unworthy of the
learned and holy Father, or indeed of any man else of common sense; for
who knows not that Eve was past all need of intercession, before ever
the Blessed Mary could be capable of making intercession for her?
Doubtless the Greek word used by Irenæus here was παράκλητος, which, as
it signifies ‘an advocate,’ so it also as frequently signifies ‘a
comforter,’ and so ought to have been rendered here. But, you will say,
how did Eve receive comfort from the Blessed Virgin Mary? I answer, in
that gracious promise delivered by GOD himself in the sentence passed on
the serpent, after Eve’s seduction by him, where it is said, ‘that the
seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.’ Every man now knows
that the seed there spoken of is CHRIST; and, consequently, that the
individual woman, whose immediate seed he was to be, is the Blessed
Virgin Mary. The holy Virgin was the happy instrument of the saving
incarnation of the SON of GOD, who hath effectually crushed the old
serpent, the devil, and destroyed his power over all those that believe
on himself, and thereby she became the instrument of comfort to Eve and
all other sinners. This is certainly all the good Father intended by
that expression.
“The Blessed Virgin was consecrated to be a temple of the Divinity in a
singular manner. For the eternal SON of GOD, by an ineffable
conjunction, united himself to that human nature, which was miraculously
conceived and formed in her, even whilst it was within her; and so he
that was born of her, at the very time that he was born of her, was
Θεανθρωπος, GOD and Man. O astonishing condescension of the SON of GOD!
O wonderful advancement of the Blessed Virgin! and therefore we daily
sing in our Te Deum, ‘Thou art the King of Glory, O CHRIST; Thou art the
everlasting SON of the FATHER. When thou tookest upon thee to deliver
man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin’s womb.’ Upon which account, the
fathers of the third General Council at Ephesus, convened against
Nestorius, approved the title of Θιοτοκος, ‘the Mother of GOD,’ given to
the Blessed Virgin.”
A little afterwards he says, “I will mention some few instances of
extravagant honour which the Papists give, but which we of the Church of
England utterly refuse to yield to the Blessed Virgin, out of a true
zeal to the honour of GOD.
“We will not give her lavish and excessive attributes, beyond what the
Holy Scriptures allow her, and the holy men of the primitive Church
afforded her. We will call her ‘blessed,’ as the mother of our LORD in
the sense above explained. But we dare not call her ‘queen of heaven,’
‘queen of angels, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles,’ ‘source of the
fountain of grace,’ ‘refuge of sinners,’ ‘comfort of the afflicted,’
‘advocate of all Christians,’ as she is called in that Litany of our
Lady, still used in their devotions. For we have no instance of such
attributes given to the Blessed Virgin in the Holy Scriptures, and they
are too big for any mere creature.
“We will not ascribe those excellencies to her that she never had nor
could have; as a fulness of habitual grace, more grace than all the
angels and archangels of GOD put together ever had; that she was born
without original sin, and never committed any the least actual sin, and
consequently, never needed a saviour. These are wild things, which very
many of the Papists, drunk with superstition, say of her.
“We will not give her the honour of invocation, or praying to her, as
all the Papists do, for the unanswerable reasons above mentioned.
Indeed, as long as that one text of Scripture remains in our Bibles,
which we read, (1 Tim. ii. 5,) ‘There is one GOD, and one Mediator
between GOD and men, the Man CHRIST JESUS,’ we shall never be persuaded,
by any sophistry or subtle distinctions of our adversaries, to betake
ourselves to the mediation of the Blessed Virgin, much less of any other
saint. Much more do we abhor the impiety of those among the Papists, who
have held it disputable, whether the milk of the Blessed Virgin, or the
blood of her Son, be to be preferred; and at last could pitch upon no
better resolution than this, that the milk and blood should be mixed
together, and both compound a medicine for their souls.
“We abhor to divide the Divine kingdom and empire, giving one-half, the
better half, the kingdom of mercy, to the Blessed Virgin, and leaving
only the kingdom of justice to her Son. This is downright treason
against the only universal King and Monarch of the world.
“We are astonished at the doxology which some great and learned men of
the Church of Rome have not been ashamed to close their printed books
with, ‘_Laus DEO Deiparæque Virgini_:’ ‘Praise be to GOD, and the
Virgin-mother.’
“We should tremble every joint of us, to offer any such recommendation
as this to the Virgin Mary. Hear, if you can without horror, a prayer of
theirs to her. It is this: ‘O my Lady, holy Mary, I recommend myself
into thy blessed trust and singular custody, and into the bosom of thy
mercy, this night and evermore, and in the hour of my death, as also my
soul and my body; and I yield unto thee all my hope and consolation, all
my distress and misery, my life and the end thereof, that by thy most
holy intercession, and by thy merits, all my works may be directed and
disposed, according to thine and thy SON’S will. Amen.’ What fuller
expressions can we use to declare our absolute affiance, trust, and
dependence on the eternal SON of GOD himself, than they here use in this
recommendation to the Virgin? Yea, who observes not, that the will of
the Blessed Virgin is expressly joined with the will of her SON, as the
rule of our actions, and that so as that her will is set in the first
place. A plain smatch of their old blasphemous impiety, in advancing the
Mother above the Son, and giving her a commanding power over him. Can
they have the face to say, that all this is no more than desiring the
Blessed Virgin to pray for them, as we desire the prayers of one another
on earth? And yet this recommendation is to be seen in a Manual of
Prayers and Litanies, printed at Antwerp no longer ago than 1671, and
that _permissu superiorum_, in the Evening Prayers for Friday. A book it
is, to my knowledge, commonly to be found in the hands of our English
Papists; for I had it from a near relation of mine, (who had been
perverted by the emissaries of Rome, but is since returned again to the
communion of the Church of England,) who assured me that she used it
herself, by the direction of her confessor, in her private devotions.”
No instance of Divine honour paid to Mary (remarks Coleman from Augusti)
is recorded of an earlier date than the fifth century. Cyril of
Alexandria, and Proklus of Constantinople, were the first to pay these
honours to her. Festivals to her memory began to be held about the year
431, but were not generally observed until the sixth century. From this
time until the sixteenth century, they were general in all the Western
Churches, though differing in number and in rank, in the several
countries of Europe. The Greek Church observes only three great
festivals of this description.
The following is a brief enumeration of the principal festivals in
question.
1. The festival of the Purification. Candlemas, Feb. 2, instituted in
the sixth century.
2. Of the Annunciation, popularly styled Lady Day, March 25th, an early
festival, styled by St. Bernhard, _radix omnium festorum_.
3. Of the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, instituted by Urban VI. 1389.
4. Of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Aug. 15th, early instituted.
Mary was the tutelary divinity of France; and for this reason this day
was observed with peculiar care. It was also the birthday of Napoleon,
and accordingly was observed under his dynasty as the great festival of
the nation.
5. Of the Nativity of Mary, Sept. 8th, instituted in the Eastern Church
in the seventh century; in the Western, in the eleventh or twelfth.
6. Of the Naming of Mary, A. D. 1513.
7. Of Conception. This feast, according to Bellarmine, was not
necessarily dependent upon the question so fiercely discussed in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries respecting the immaculate conception.
VISITATION. This is that office which is performed by the bishop usually
once in three years, or by his archdeacon every year, by visiting the
churches throughout the diocese. It is the duty of a commissary to
summon the churchwardens and sidesmen to a visitation, but he has no
authority to summon any other persons; but if he does summon those
persons, and they, refusing to appear, should be excommunicated for this
contempt, a prohibition would be granted. (_Noy_, 122.) Two things are
requisite in these visitations: 1st, The charge. 2nd, The inquiry. The
charge consists of such things as the visitor thinks proper to impart to
the clergy; but usually it is to put them in mind of their duty, and to
persuade them to perform it. The inquiry formerly consisted of several
articles taken out of the canons; and the bishop’s visitation being
accounted an episcopal synod, there were at that time certain persons
who attended it, and who were called _Testes Synodales_, or _Juratores
Synodi_, and they were to present those who were negligent in performing
religious offices, or any irregularities amongst the clergy, both in
respect to their morals and behaviour, and likewise all dilapidations,
and generally what they found to be amiss in the diocese. The bishop at
first exercised this jurisdiction alone; it was what was implied in his
very office; and this he was to do in every parish throughout his
diocese once a year, there to examine the minister and the people, which
he might do with more ease at that time, because parish churches were
not so numerous then as afterwards. When this was disused, then
ecclesiastical persons were to be assembled in a certain place, and
inquiry was made, upon oath, concerning the state of the clergy, and at
this place they were all bound to appear.
Afterwards, when bishops came to be ministers of state, and to attend
the courts of kings, which began in the Norman reigns, then archdeacons
were vested with this jurisdiction under the bishops, and visited in
those years wherein the bishops did not. But still the bishops were to
visit once in three years, and being then the king’s barons and
statesmen, they came with very great equipage, insomuch that, by the
Council of Lateran, their number was limited according to their
qualities, viz. if the visitor was an archbishop, he was not to have
above fifty horses in his retinue; if a bishop, he was not to exceed
thirty; if a cardinal, then twenty-five; if an archdeacon, he was to
have no more than seven, and a dean but two; and if they respectively
exceeded those numbers, then no procuration was due for the maintenance
of the supernumeraries. But even this was very chargeable to the
parochial clergy, for the visitor was to be maintained at their expense
a day and night in every parish; and, therefore, it was thought fit to
turn that charge into a certain sum, which is now called procurations,
and this is paid to archdeacons in that very year wherein bishops visit,
for it is by some affirmed to be due to them _ratione officii_; and some
say it is due to them by virtue of the statute of 33 Henry VIII. c. 5,
by which these duties are made pensions. The first of these opinions is
contrary to several canons, which not only enjoin personal visitations,
but expressly forbid any procurations to be paid where the archdeacon
himself did not visit in person. But notwithstanding those canons,
custom has so far prevailed, that the archdeacons receive these fees in
the bishop’s triennials, when they do not visit in person; but instead
of that they hold two chapters about Easter and Michaelmas, and there,
by themselves or their officials, they formally inquire into the state
and condition of the Church, which inquiry is now called a visitation,
and for which they are entitled to these fees.
Visitation, as commonly understood, denotes the act of the bishop, or
other ordinary, going his circuit through his diocese or district, with
a full power of inquiry into such matters as relate to church government
and discipline. By the canon law visitations were to be once a year, but
that was intended of parochial visitations, or a personal repairing to
every church, as appears not only from the assignment of procurations,
but also by the indulgence, where every church cannot be conveniently
repaired to, of calling together the clergy and laity from several parts
into one convenient place, that the visitation of them may not be
postponed. From this indulgence and the great extent of the dioceses
grew the custom of citing the clergy and people to attend visitations at
particular places. But as to parochial visitation, or the inspection
into the fabrics, mansions, utensils, and ornaments of the church, that
care has long devolved upon the archdeacons, who, at their first
institutions in the ancient church, were only to attend the bishops at
their ordination and other public services in the cathedral, but being
afterwards occasionally employed by them in the exercise of
jurisdiction, not only the work of parochial visitation, but also the
holding of general synods or visitations, when the bishop did not visit,
came by degrees to be known and established branches of the archdiaconal
office as such, which by this means attained to the dignity of ordinary,
instead of delegated jurisdiction; and by these degrees came on the
present practice of triennial visitations by bishops; so as the bishop
is not only not obliged by law to visit annually, but is actually
restrained from it.
“By the 137th canon it is enjoined, that forasmuch as a chief and
principal cause and use of visitation is, that the bishop, archdeacon,
or other assigned to visit, may get some knowledge of the state,
sufficiency, and ability of the clergy and other persons whom they are
to visit, we think it convenient that every parson, vicar, curate,
schoolmaster, or other person licensed whatsoever, do at the bishop’s
first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, show
and exhibit unto him his letters of orders, institution, and induction,
and all other his dispensations, licenses, of faculties whatsoever, to
be by the said bishop either allowed or (if there be just cause)
disallowed and rejected, and, being by him approved, to be (as the
custom is) signed by the registrar, and that the whole fees accustomed
to be paid in the visitations in respect of the premises, be paid only
once in the whole time of every bishop, and afterwards but half of the
said accustomed fees in every other visitation during the said bishop’s
continuance.”
Gibson says, that none but the bishop or other person exercising
ecclesiastical authority by commission from him, has right _de jure
communi_ to require these exhibits of the clergy; therefore, if the
archdeacon require it, it must be on the foot of custom, the beginning
whereof, he says, has probably been encroachment, since it is not likely
that any bishop should give to the archdeacon and his official a power
of allowing or disallowing such instruments as have been granted by
himself or his predecessors. The canon last mentioned appears to be in
observance now, for it is the practice for each clergyman to exhibit
these letters of orders, &c. on his first attendance at the bishop’s
visitation, and on the first appointment to an office, &c. in any
diocese, as well as upon several other occasions.
By a constitution of Othobon it is ordained, that archdeacons visit the
churches profitably and faithfully by inquiring of the sacred vessels
and vestments, and how the service is performed, and generally of
temporals and spirituals, and what they find to want correction that
they correct diligently. And it was further ordained by this, as well as
by other constitutions, that they should not extort money by giving
sentence unjustly.
By a constitution of Archbishop Reynolds, it was enjoined that
archdeacons and their officials in the visitation of churches have a
diligent regard of the fabric of the church, and especially of the
chancel, to see if they want repair; and if they find any defects of
that kind, limit a certain time under a penalty within which they shall
be repaired.
By a constitution of Archbishop Langton, archdeacons in their visitation
are to see that the offices of the church are duly administered, and
shall take an account in writing of all the ornaments and utensils of
churches, and of the vestments and books, and shall require them to be
presented before them every year, that they may see what has been added
and what lost.
It is said that the archdeacon, although there be not a cause, may visit
once a year; and if there be a cause, he may visit oftener; and that
where it is said in the canon law, he ought to visit from three years to
three years, this is to be understood so that he shall visit from three
years to three years of necessity, but that he may visit every year if
he will.
At these archdiaconal visitations the churchwardens are to make
presentments; and though their duty in that particular has become in
practice, to a great extent, obsolete, yet it may be well to state the
law of the Church upon the subject. The following canons relate to these
presentments.
Canon 113. “Because it often cometh to pass, that churchwardens,
sidemen, questmen, and such other persons of the laity as are to take
care for the suppressing of sin and wickedness, as much as in them
lieth, by admonition, reprehension, and denunciation to their
ordinaries, do forbear to discharge their duties therein, either through
fear of their superiors, or through negligence, more than were fit, the
licentiousness of these times considered, we do ordain, that hereafter
every parson and vicar, or in the lawful absence of any parson and
vicar, then their curates and substitutes, may join in every presentment
with the said churchwardens, sidemen, and the rest above mentioned, at
the times of visitation, if they the said churchwardens and the rest
will present such enormities as are apparent in the parish; or if they
will not, then every such parson and vicar, or, in their absence as
aforesaid, their curates, may themselves present to their ordinaries at
such times, and when else they think it meet, all such crimes as they
have in charge or otherwise, as by them (being the persons that should
have the chief care for the suppressing of sin and impiety in their
parishes) shall be thought to require due reformation. Provided always,
that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for
the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation
and ease of mind from him, we do not any way bind the said minister by
this our constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he
do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any
crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be
such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called in
question for concealing the same,) under pain of irregularity.”
Canon 116. “It shall be lawful for any godly-disposed person, or for any
ecclesiastical judge, upon knowledge or notice given unto him or them,
of any enormous crime within his jurisdiction, to move the minister,
churchwardens, or sidemen, as they tender the glory of GOD and
reformation of sin, to present the same, if they shall find sufficient
cause to induce them thereunto, that it may be in due time punished and
reformed.”
Canon 119. “For the avoiding of such inconveniences as heretofore have
happened, by the hasty making of bills and presentments upon the days of
visitation and synods, it is ordered, that always, hereafter, every
chancellor, archdeacon, commissary, and every other person having
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at the ordinary time when the churchwardens
are sworn, and the archbishop and bishops, when he or they do summon
their visitation, shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the
churchwardens, questmen, and sidemen of every parish, or to some of
them, such books of articles as they or any of them shall require (for
the year following) the said churchwardens, questmen, and sidemen to
ground their presentments upon, at such times as they are to exhibit
them. In which book shall be contained the form of the oath which must
be taken immediately before every such presentment; to the intent that,
having beforehand time sufficient, not only to peruse and consider what
their said oath shall be, but the articles also whereupon they are to
ground their presentments, they may frame them at home both advisedly
and truly, to the discharge of their own consciences, (after they are
sworn,) as becometh honest and godly men.”
Canon 115. “Whereas, for the reformation of criminous persons and
disorders in every parish, the churchwardens, questmen, sidemen, and
other such church officers are sworn, and the minister charged, to
present as well the crimes and disorders committed by the said criminous
persons, as also the common fame which is spread abroad of them, whereby
they are often maligned, and sometimes troubled, by the said delinquents
or their friends; we do admonish and exhort all judges, both
ecclesiastical and temporal, as they regard and reverence the fearful
judgment-seat of the highest Judge, that they admit not in any of their
courts any complaint, plea, suit or suits, against any such
churchwardens, questmen, sidemen, or other church officers, for making
any such presentments, nor against any minister for any presentments
that he shall make: all the said presentments tending to the restraint
of shameless impiety, and considering that the rules both of charity and
government do presume that they did nothing therein of malice, but for
the discharge of their consciences.”
Canon 116. “No churchwardens, questmen, or sidemen of any parish shall
be enforced to exhibit their presentments to any having ecclesiastical
jurisdiction above once in every year where it hath been no oftener
used, nor above twice in every diocese whatsoever, except it be at the
bishop’s visitation: provided always, that, as good occasion shall
require, it shall be lawful for every minister, churchwardens, and
sidemen, to present offenders as oft as they shall think meet: and for
these voluntary presentments no fee shall be taken.”
Canon 117. “No churchwardens, questmen, or sidemen, shall be called or
cited, but only at the said time or times before limited, to appear
before any ecclesiastical judge whatsoever, for refusing at other times
to present any faults committed in their parishes, and punishable by
ecclesiastical laws. Neither shall they or any of them, after their
presentments exhibited at any of those times, be any further troubled
for the same, except upon manifest and evident proof it may appear that
they did then willingly and wittingly omit to present some such public
crime or crimes as they knew to be committed, or could not be ignorant
that there was then a public fame of them, or unless there be very just
cause to call them for the explanation of their former presentments: in
which case of wilful omission, their ordinaries shall proceed against
them in such sort as in causes of wilful perjury in a court
ecclesiastical it is already by law provided.”
Canon 118. “The office of all churchwardens and sidemen shall be reputed
to continue until the new churchwardens that shall succeed them be
sworn, which shall be the first week after Easter, or some week
following, according to the direction of the ordinary; which time so
appointed shall always be one of the two times in every year when the
minister, and churchwardens, and sidemen of every parish shall exhibit
to their several ordinaries the presentments of such enormities as have
happened in their parishes since their last presentments. And this duty
they shall perform before the newly chosen churchwardens and sidemen be
sworn, and shall not be suffered to pass over the said presentments to
those that are newly come into that office, and are by intendment
ignorant of such crimes, under pain of those censures which are
appointed for the reformation of such dalliers and dispensers with their
own consciences and oaths.”
Canon 116. “For the presentments of every parish church or chapel, the
registrar of any court where they are to be exhibited shall not receive
in one year above 4_d._, under pain, for every offence therein, of
suspension from the execution of his office for the space of a month,
_toties quoties_.”
Canon 26. “No minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the
holy communion any churchwardens or sidemen, who, having taken their
oaths to present to their ordinaries all such public offences as they
are particularly charged to inquire of in their several parishes, shall
(notwithstanding the said oaths, and that their faithful discharge of
them is the chief means whereby public sins and offences may be reformed
and punished) wittingly and willingly, desperately and irreligiously,
incur the horrible crime of perjury, either in neglecting or in refusing
to present such of the said enormities and public offences as they know
themselves to be committed in their said parishes, or are notoriously
offensive to the congregation there, although they be urged by some of
their neighbours, or by their minister, or by the ordinary himself, to
discharge their consciences by presenting of them, and not to incur so
desperately the said horrible sin of perjury.”
Canon 121. “In places where the bishop and archdeacon do, by
prescription or composition, visit at several times in one and the same
year, lest for one and the self-same fault any of his Majesty’s subjects
should be challenged and molested in divers ecclesiastical courts, we do
order and appoint, that every archdeacon or his official, within one
month after the visitation ended that year and the presentments
received, shall certify under his hand and seal, to the bishop or his
chancellor, the names and crimes of all such as are detected and
presented in his said visitation, to the end the chancellor shall
henceforth forbear to convent any person for any crime or cause so
detected or presented to the archdeacon. And the chancellor, within the
like time after the bishop’s visitation ended and presentments received,
shall, under his hand and seal, signify to the archdeacon or his
official the names and crimes of all such persons, which shall be
detected or presented unto him in that visitation, to the same intent as
aforesaid. And if these officers shall not certify each other as is here
prescribed, or after such certificate shall intermeddle with the crimes
or persons detected and presented in each other’s visitation, then every
of them so offending shall be suspended from all exercise of his
jurisdiction by the bishop of the diocese until he shall repay the costs
and expenses which the parties grieved have been at by that vexation.”
As to legal proof: in case the party presented denies the fact to be
true, the making good the truth of the presentment, that is, the
furnishing the court with all proper evidences of it, undoubtedly rests
upon the person presenting. And as the spiritual court in such case is
entitled by law to call upon churchwardens to support their
presentments, so are churchwardens obliged, not only by law, (Dr. Gibson
says,) but also in conscience, to see the presentment effectually
supported; because, to deny the court those evidences which induced them
to present upon oath, is to desert their presentment, and is little
better, in point of conscience, than not to present at all, inasmuch as,
through their default, the presentment is rendered ineffectual as to all
purposes of removing the scandal, or reforming the offender. And from
hence he takes occasion to wish that the parishioners would think
themselves bound (as on many accounts they certainly are bound) to
support their churchwardens in seeing that their presentments are
rendered effectual. In any point which concerns the repairs or ornaments
of churches, or the providing conveniences of any kind for the service
of GOD, when such defects as these are presented, the spiritual judge
immediately, and of course, enjoins the churchwarden presenting to see
the defect made good, and supports him in repaying himself by a legal
and reasonable rate upon the parish. But what he intends is, the
supporting the churchwardens in the prosecution of such immoral and
unchristian livers as they find themselves obliged by their oath to
present, as fornicators, adulterers, common swearers, drunkards, and
such like, whose example is of pernicious consequence, and likely to
bring many evils upon the parish.
It is customary for the archdeacon at his visitation, to call upon one
of his clergy to preach what is called a visitation sermon; and although
it appears that formerly it was the duty of the visitor himself to
preach this sermon, it seems to be doubtful whether the clergyman so
called upon by the archdeacon may refuse.
VISITATION OF THE SICK. In so uncertain a world, where sickness
sometimes interrupts the very joys of marriage, it is no wonder that the
sad office should be placed next to matrimony; for all people in all
conditions, of all ages and sexes, are subject to diseases continually;
so that when any person falls sick, those that are in health must
“remember them, as being themselves also in the body,” (Heb. xiii. 3, )
and liable to the same calamities; and all Christians are commanded to
visit their neighbours in this estate, and are promised they shall be
rewarded by GOD for so doing. (Ps. xli. 1, 2; Matt. xxv. 34, 36; James
i. 27; Eccles. vii. 35.) And in the primitive times they were famous for
this piece of charity. But it is especially the duty of the clergy to
visit the sick, a duty instituted and enjoined by GOD himself: “Is any
sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the LORD; and the
prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the LORD shall raise him up,
and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” (James v.
14, 15.) In which words (being the original and foundation of this
office) we may note, first, that the duty is enjoined by Divine
authority, and therefore it is not barely a point of civility, but an
act of religion, and a necessary duty which GOD requires from us.
Secondly, the time to perform it is, “when any are sick among us;” for
then the parties have most need of comfort, advice, and prayers to
support them and procure help for them, as also to prepare them for
their last and great account; and then these religious exercises will do
us most good, because sickness embitters the world and endears heaven to
us, making us pray devoutly, and hearken willingly to holy advice; so
that this happy opportunity must not be lost; nor may it be deferred
till the sick persons be very weak and nigh to death, for then they are
incapable either to join in the office, or to receive the main benefits
thereof; and the word in St. James is, “if any be infirm” (ver. 14); to
note, this should be done in the beginning of sickness, and not put off
till the physicians give men over. Thirdly, as to the manner of
performing this duty; the sick man (or his friends) must “send for” the
priest, who else may either not know of his sickness, or when it may be
seasonable to visit; and if he come unsent for, it is more than he is
obliged to do; but yet it is an act of great charity, because GOD
requires the elders of the Church shall do this duty. The sick man must
pray for himself (ver. 13); and his neighbours may pray with him and for
him (ver. 16); but neither of these sufficeth; he must send for the
minister besides, who, now the Church is settled, lives not far from
him, and he is most able to give counsel, and most likely to prevail,
because GOD requires him to perform this office, which is described in
St. James. 1. By “praying over him,” that is, beside him, in the house
where he lies sick. And since GOD enjoins prayer shall be made, and doth
not prescribe the form; as all other Churches have made proper forms, so
hath ours also composed this, which is the most full and useful office
on this occasion extant in the world. 2. In St. James’s time, and as
long as the miraculous gift of healing continued, they “anointed the
sick with oil also in the name of JESUS,” not to convey any grace to the
soul, (as the Papists now pretend to do by their extreme unction, lately
made a sacrament,) but to work a miraculous cure, which was the usual
effect in those ages. But the power and gift being now ceased, the
reformed Churches left off the oil, which was the sign, because the
thing signified was now taken away. But yet we retain all the
substantial parts of this office. 3. Here are by St. James set down “the
benefits” which may be obtained by it, which are annexed to the “prayer
of faith,” the part which was not ceremonial, and which continues still
as the benefits also shall do, namely, this shall be a means “to save
the sick;” and more particularly, 1. “The LORD shall raise him up,” that
is, if GOD see that health be good for him, the devout performing of
this office shall contribute to his recovery; or, 2. However, (because
men are mortal and must die at some time,) it shall be a means to
procure “forgiveness” of the sins he “hath committed;” not the priest
only will absolve him upon his penitent confession, but GOD will seal
his pardon, and then, whether life or death follow, the man shall be
happy. Wherefore, as we love our friends, or our own souls, all care
must be taken that this necessary and profitable office be not
neglected. The method of performing which in this Church may be thus
described: The usual office contains, 1. Supplications to avert evil, in
the salutation and short litany. 2. Prayers to procure good things, in
the LORD’S Prayer and the two collects. 3. Exhortations prescribed in
the large form of exhortation; and directions in the rubric, to advise
the sick man to forgive freely, to give liberally, to do justice in
settling his estate, and to confess his sins humbly and ingenuously unto
GOD’S minister now with him. 4. Consolations, in the absolution, the
prayer to GOD to confirm it; in the 71st Psalm, and the concluding
benedictions.
Secondly, there are added, 1. Extraordinary prayers for a sick child,
for one past recovery, for a dying person, and for one troubled in
conscience. 2. The manner of administering the communion to the
sick.—_Dean Comber._
As to the form of prayer to be used on this occasion, it is left to the
prudence of the Church; since GOD hath only in general ordered prayers
to be made, but not prescribed any particular words, therefore several
Churches have made and used several forms proper for the occasion. The
Greek Church hath a very large office in their Euchologion; which seems
to have been much corrupted by the superstitious additions of later
ages, though some of the ancient prayers may yet be discerned there. The
most ancient of the Western Church are those which bear the names of St.
Ambrose and St. Gregory; and that which Cardinal Bona cites with this
title, “Pro infirmis,” written about 900 (1040) years ago, and supposed
to be part of the old Gallican service. And upon the Reformation, the
several Protestant Churches had their several forms, which are in use
amongst them at this day. But this office of the Church of England may
be thought to excel all that are now extant in the world; and it exactly
agrees with the method of the primitive visitation of the sick in St.
Chrysostom’s time.—_Dean Comber._
VISITATORIAL POWER. Every corporation, whether lay or ecclesiastical, is
visitable by some superior; and every spiritual person being a
corporation sole, is visitable by the ordinary. There is, however, in
our ecclesiastical polity, an exception to this rule; for, by
composition, the archbishop of Canterbury never visits the bishop of
London. During a visitation, all inferior jurisdictions are inhibited
from exercising jurisdiction: but this right, from the inconvenience
attending the exercise of it, is usually conceded; so that the exercise
of jurisdiction in the inferior court is continued notwithstanding.
VOLUNTARY. A piece of music played on the organ, usually after the
Psalms, sometimes after the second lesson. This was formerly more usual
than now; and was practised in many cathedrals, where it is now laid
aside, as at St. Paul’s, and Christ Church in Dublin. In the latter
place it is transferred to another interval of the service. The name is
derived from its performance not being obligatory, but optional with
those who are in authority. Pieces of music played at other intervals of
the service are properly called symphonies. Lord Bacon approves of
voluntaries as affording time for meditation.
VULGAR TONGUE. This expression in the baptismal office stood formerly
“in the English tongue.” The alteration was made in compliance, as it
should seem, with a suggestion of Bishop Cosin, that “suppose, as it
often falls out, that children of strangers, which never intend to stay
in England, be brought there to be baptized,” it would be exceptionable
that “they also should be exhorted and enjoined to learn those
principles of religion in the English tongue.”
VULGATE. The name given to what is called the vulgar Latin translation
of the Bible. It was a name anciently applied to any popular edition;
and the Septuagint, as Dr. Hody remarks, was sometimes so called by St.
Jerome. This is the most ancient version of the whole Scriptures into
Latin now extant, and the only one which the Church of Rome acknowledges
to be authentic.
The Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated, almost word for word,
from the Greek of the Septuagint; the author of it is not known, or so
much as guessed at. It was a long time known by the name of the Italic
version, as being of very great antiquity in the Latin Church. (See
_Italic Version_.) It was commonly in use, before St. Jerome made a new
one from the Hebrew. St. Austin preferred this Vulgate before all the
other Latin versions, as rendering the words and sense of the sacred
text more closely and justly than any of the rest. It was since
corrected from the emendations of St. Jerome; and it is the mixture of
the ancient Italic version with the corrections of St. Jerome, that is
now called the Vulgate, and which the Council of Trent has declared to
be authentic. The version of St. Jerome, however, forms the main part of
the Vulgate, with the exception of some of the apocryphal books, and the
Psalter. The translation of the latter from the Hebrew was not adopted
publicly by the Western Church, though still to be found in his works.
The Psalter was twice corrected by him from the old Italic version; the
first recension was for a long time used in the Roman Church, the latter
was first adopted by the Churches of Gaul and Britain, and was finally
adopted by the Western Church by an ordinance of Pius V. The old Roman
Psalter being still, however, used at the Vatican, at St. Mark’s,
Venice, and in part of the diocese of Britain.
A revision of the Vulgate was made by order of Sixtus V., and published
at Rome in 1590. But this, though pronounced by papal authority to be
authentic, became such an object of ridicule among the learned from its
gross inaccuracies, that his successor, Gregory XIV., caused it to be
suppressed, and another _authentic_ Vulgate was published in 1592, by
Clement VIII.—_Walton’s Prolegomena. Hodius de Bibl. text. orig. Horne’s
Introd._
The Vulgate of the New Testament is, by the Romanists, generally
preferred to the common Greek text. The priests read no other at the
altar; the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the divines in
the schools. (See _Bible_.)
WAFERS. The bread which is used in the eucharist by the Romanists, and
by Lutheran Protestants in the LORD’S supper, is so designated. In the
ancient Church, so long as the people continued to make oblations of
bread and wine, the elements for the use of the eucharist were usually
taken out of them; and, consequently, so long, the bread was that common
leavened bread, which they used upon other occasions; and the use of
wafers, and unleavened bread, was not known in the Church till the
eleventh or twelfth centuries. This is now acknowledged by the most
learned writers of the Romish communion. The school divines, who
maintain that the primitive Church always consecrated in unleavened
bread, argue that we must suppose they followed the example of our
SAVIOUR, who celebrated his last supper with unleavened bread. But
ecclesiastical history, and the writings of the ancient Fathers,
unanimously testify the contrary; and it is noted by Epiphanius, as a
peculiar rite of the Ebionite heretics, that they celebrated the
eucharist with unleavened bread and water only.
How the change in this matter was made, and the exact time when, is not
easily determined. Cardinal Bona’s conjecture seems probable enough;
that it crept in upon the people’s leaving off to make their oblations
in common bread; which occasioned the clergy to provide it themselves,
and they, under pretence of decency and respect, brought it from leaven
to unleaven, and from a loaf of common bread, that might be broken, to a
nice and delicate wafer, formed in the figure of a _Denarius_, or penny,
to represent the pence, for which our SAVIOUR was betrayed; and then
also the people, instead of offering a loaf of bread, as formerly, were
ordered to offer a penny, which was either to be given to the poor, or
to be expended upon something pertaining to the sacrifice of the altar.
This alteration in the eucharistical bread occasioned great disputes
between the Eastern and Western Churches, which divided about it; for
the Western Church ran so far into an extreme, as almost to lose the
nature of the sacramental element, by introducing a thing that could
hardly be called bread, instead of that common staff of life, which our
LORD had appointed to be the representative of his body in the
eucharist. But there wanted not some discerning and judicious men, who
complained of this abuse, as soon as it began to be introduced.
The first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI. enjoins unleavened bread
to be used throughout the whole kingdom, for the celebration of the
eucharist. It was ordered to be _round_, in imitation of the wafers,
used by the Greek and Roman Churches; but it was to be _without all
manner of print_, the wafers usually having the impression either of a
crucifix or the holy lamb; and _something more large and thicker_ than
the wafers, which were of the size of a penny. This rubric, affording
matter for scruple, was set aside at the review of the liturgy in the
fifth of King Edward; and another inserted in its room, by which it was
declared sufficient, that _the bread be such as is usually eaten at the
table with other meats_. By the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, wafer
bread seems to have been again enjoined, for among other orders this was
one, “For the more reverence to be given to these holy mysteries—the
sacramental bread, &c., made and formed plain without any figure
thereupon, of the same fineness and fashion round, though somewhat
bigger in compass and thickness, as the usual bread and wafers,
heretofore called singing cakes, which served for the use of private
mass.”
WAGER. (See _Battle_ and _Ordeal_.)
WAKE. (See _Dedication_.)
WALDENSES. (See _Albigenses_.) Some difficulty exists as to the origin
and history of the sect to which this name has been attached. According
to Mosheim, the sect originated with Peter Waldo, a merchant of Lyons,
about the year 1160. They flourished chiefly in the _valleys_ of
Piedmont; and hence, rather than from Peter Waldo or Valdo, it is
supposed by some that they acquired the name of _Valdenses_ or
_Vaudois_. From the perusal of the Scriptures and other writings, and
from comparing the doctrines of Scripture with the superstitions and
practices of the age in which he lived, Waldo perceived the corruption
of the existing mediæval Church, and, in advance of his age, became a
reformer. He shared the fate of those who are so circumstanced. He had
many followers, and exposed both himself and them to suspicion and
persecution. It is probable that, in attacking error, the Waldenses
themselves sometimes became erroneous. They are accused of having
maintained the unlawfulness of oaths and of infant baptism, and of being
seditious. These charges were easily made, but writers of celebrity have
undertaken to confute them. The marvel is, that, when every attempt was
made to blacken their character, the success of their accusers was not
greater than it has proved to be. It is certain that they were austere,
if not morose, in their practice; that they prohibited wars and law
suits, penal punishments, and all attempts to acquire wealth.
Those of them who dwelt in the valleys of Piedmont in the seventeenth
century, were subjected by the Church of Rome to the most barbarous and
inhuman persecutions, especially in the years 1655, 1656, and 1696. The
most horrible scenes of violence and bloodshed were exhibited in this
theatre of papal tyranny, and the Waldenses at last owed their existence
and support to the interference of the English and Dutch governments.
WARBURTONIAN LECTURE. A lecture founded by Bishop Warburton, to prove
the truth of revealed religion in general, and the Christian in
particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New
Testament which relate to the Christian Church, especially to the
apostasy of papal Rome. To this foundation we owe the admirable
discourses of Hurd, Halifax, Bagot, Davison, and many others.
WARDEN. The head of some colleges, and the superior of some conventual
churches, in which the chapter remains, is called a warden. The head of
the collegiate church of Galway is called warden: as was the case at
Manchester, till the erection of the collegiate church there into a
cathedral.
WEDNESDAY. This day has been marked in many cases by the Church with an
especial religion. Thus it was often added to Friday as a weekly fast,
and in our own Church it is numbered among the rogation and ember days;
besides which, throughout the year the Litany is appointed to be sung or
said on Wednesday, as well as on Sunday and Friday after Morning Prayer.
WESLEYANS. (See _Methodists_.)
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. (See _Assembly of Divines_.)
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. (See _Confessions of Faith_.)
WHITSUNDAY. One of the great festivals of the Church, held in
commemoration of the descent of the HOLY GHOST on the day of Pentecost.
It occurs ten days after Holy Thursday, or Ascension Day. The reason of
this day being called Whitsunday, or more properly Whitesunday, is,
because on this day, being a remarkable time for baptism, the
catechumens, who were then baptized, as well as those who had been
baptized before at Easter, appeared in the ancient Church in white
garments. It has also been thought that the name was symbolical of those
vast diffusions of light and knowledge which were then shed upon the
apostles, in order to the enlightening of a world then in the darkness
of superstition and idolatry.
This day the HOLY GHOST came down from heaven upon his Church, as the
Epistle tells, according to the promise of the Gospel; in honour of whom
and of his gifts we keep this holy day.—_Bp. Sparrow._
As to the name, the most received opinion is, that the word is at length
“Whitesunday;” so called from the white garments worn by the persons
baptized in the ancient Church. For the administering of which
sacrament, Easter, and this, and the Sundays between, were the most
solemn seasons. Particularly on this day, the last of those Sundays,
(when that solemnity determined, and the preparation for it had been
extended to the utmost length,) as well on that account, as for the
deserved veneration due to so great a festival, vast numbers offered
themselves to be received to baptism. And, in token of their being
cleansed from all past sins, as well as for an emblem of that innocence
and purity, to which they then obliged themselves, they were clad in
white; and from the multitude of such vestments then put on, are
supposed to have given occasion for this LORD’S day being distinguished
by that name.—_Dean Stanhope._
The reason why this time was of old appointed for solemn baptism, was,
1. Because this day the apostles were baptized with the HOLY GHOST and
fire (Acts ii. 3). 2. Because this day 3000 were baptized by the
apostles (Acts ii. 41). In memory of which, the Church ever after held a
solemn custom of baptizing at this feast.—_Bp. Sparrow._
Some conclude from St. Paul’s earnest desire of being at Jerusalem at
this time, that the observation of it as a Christian festival is as old
as the apostles; but, whatever St. Paul’s design was, we are assured
that it hath been universally observed from the very first ages of
Christianity.—_Wheatly._
This day is called Pentecost, because there are fifty days betwixt the
true passover and Whitsunday. As there were fifty days from the Jews’
passover to the giving of the law to Moses in Mount Sinai, which law was
written with the finger of GOD (for from the fourteenth day of the first
month, the day of the passover, to the third day of the third month, the
day of the law’s giving, Exod. xix. 1, 16, are fifty days); so from the
true passover, which was celebrated when CHRIST was offered up for us,
are fifty days to this time, when the HOLY GHOST came down upon the
Church, to write the new law of charity in their hearts. Upon this
meditation, St. Augustine breaks out thus: “Who would not prefer the joy
and pleasure of these mysteries, before all the empires of the world? Do
you not see, that as the two seraphim cry one to another, Holy, holy,
holy,” (Isa. vi. 3,) “so the two Testaments, Old and New, faithfully
agreeing, evince the sacred truth of GOD?” It should be noted, that we
must not count the fifty days from the very day of the passover, but
from the Sunday following; and so GOD directed the Jews, (Lev. xxiii.
15,) speaking of their Pentecost or Feast of Weeks, “and ye shall count
from the morrow after the sabbath; from that day seven weeks shall be
complete.”—_Bp. Sparrow._
The first lesson for the morning contains the law of the Jewish
Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks, which was a type of ours; for as the law
was at this time given to the Jews from Mount Sinai, so also the
Christians upon this day received the new evangelical law from heaven,
by the administration of the HOLY GHOST. The first lesson for the
evening is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles to the kingdom
of CHRIST, through the inspiration of the apostles by the Spirit of GOD;
the completion of which prophecy is recorded in both the second lessons,
but especially in the portion of Scripture for the Epistle, which
contains a particular description of the first wonderful descent of the
HOLY GHOST upon the apostles, who were “assembled together in one
place,” in expectation of that blessed Spirit, according to the promise
of our SAVIOUR mentioned in the Gospel.—_Wheatly._
The same harmony of Epistle, Gospel, and collect, and lessons, and
Psalms, that has been observed upon Christmas, and Easter, and
Ascension, may with pleasure be mentioned upon this day.—_Bp. Sparrow._
It is observed as a Scarlet day at the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge; and at several cathedrals on this day, as on the two
following, the service is performed in a more solemn manner than usual,
as at Christmas and Easter.
WICLIFITES. The followers of John Wickliff. He was of Merton college in
Oxford, where he took his doctor’s degree with great reputation. He was
once sent ambassador by Edward III. to the pope. He preached against the
real presence, pilgrimages, purgatory, &c., so strenuously at Oxford,
that the monks prevailed with Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury,
to silence him. He was rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, much
favoured by the great men in his time, and is justly reckoned the first
reformer. The fame of him reached to Rome, and occasioned Pope Gregory
XI. to write to Richard II. to assist the bishops in suppressing
Wickliff and his followers. In Henry IV.’s time, his books were
condemned at Oxford; and at last, when the Council of Constance met,
about 1428, they condemned him, with this sentence: “That John Wickliff,
being a notorious heretic, and obstinate, and dying in his heresy, his
body and bones, if they may be discerned from the bodies of other
faithful people, should be taken up out of the ground, and thrown away
far from the burial of the Church.” The bishop of Lincoln executed this
sentence, and forty-one years after his burial he burnt the remains,
(which was more than the sentence commanded,) and cast them into a
neighbouring brook called the Swift. The followers of Wickliff were
called Lollards. Wickliff’s notions were: “The Scriptures ought to be in
the vulgar tongue, contain all things necessary to salvation, may be
understood by every well-disposed man: he declared against traditions,
the pope’s authority, their power over the temporalities of kings, and
pronounced the pope to be the chiefest antichrist. He taught that the
Church of Rome may err; he rejected merit of works, transubstantiation,
and owned but two sacraments; he was against images, auricular
confession, pardons, indulgences, and monastic vows; he approved the
marriage of priests.”
WILL, FREE. (See _Free Will_.)
WISDOM, THE BOOK OF. An apocryphal book of Scripture; so called, on
account of the wise maxims and useful instructions contained therein.
The Book of Wisdom is commonly ascribed to King Solomon, either because
the author imitated that king’s manner of writing, or because he
sometimes speaks in his name. It is certain Solomon was not the author
of it; for it was not written in Hebrew, nor was it inserted in the
Jewish canon, nor is the style like Solomon’s: and therefore St. Jerome
observes justly, that it smells strongly of the Grecian eloquence; that
it is composed with art and method, after the manner of the Greek
philosophers, very different from that noble simplicity, so full of life
and energy, to be found in the Hebrew books. It has been attributed by
many of the ancients to Philo, a Jew, but more ancient than he whose
works are now extant. But it is commonly ascribed to an Hellenistical
Jew, who lived since Ezra, and about the time of the Maccabees.
It may properly be divided into two parts: the first is a description
and encomium of wisdom; the second, beginning at the tenth chapter, is a
long discourse in the form of prayers, wherein the author admires and
extols the wisdom of GOD, and of those who honour him; and discovers the
folly of the wicked, who have been the professed enemies of the good and
virtuous in all ages of the world.
WORD, THE. (See _Jesus_.) The only-begotten SON of the FATHER, the
uncreated WISDOM, the second person of the most HOLY TRINITY, equal and
consubstantial with the FATHER. St. John the Evangelist, more expressly
than any other, has opened to us the mystery of the Word of GOD, when he
tells us, “In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and
the WORD was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things
were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”
The Chaldee paraphrasts, the most ancient Jewish writers extant,
generally use the name MEMRA, or WORD, where Moses puts the name
JEHOVAH. In effect, according to them, it was MEMRA who created the
world; who appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre; and to Jacob at
Bethel. It was MEMRA to whom Jacob appealed to witness the covenant
between him and Laban. The same WORD appeared to Moses at Sinai; gave
the law to the Israelites; spoke face to face with that lawgiver;
marched at the head of that people; enabled them to conquer nations, and
was a consuming fire to all who violated the law of the LORD. All these
characters, where the paraphrast uses the word MEMRA, clearly denote
Almighty GOD. This WORD therefore was GOD, and the Hebrews were of this
opinion at the time that the Targum was composed.
WORKS. (See _Good Works_, _Justification_, and _Sanctification_.) The
doctrine of our Church on the subject of works is contained in the
following articles:
“XI. _Of the Justification of Man._
“We are accounted righteous before GOD only for the merit of our _Lord
Jesus Christ_, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings;
wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome
doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the
Homily of Justification.
“XII. _Of Good Works._
“Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after
justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of
GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD in CHRIST,
and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that
by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by
the fruit.
“XIII. _Of Works before Justification._
“Works done before the grace of CHRIST, and the inspiration of his
Spirit, are not pleasant to GOD, forasmuch as they spring not of faith
in JESUS CHRIST; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as
the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that
they are not done as GOD hath willed and commanded them to be done, we
doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”
WORSHIP. Besides the usual application of this term to the supreme
homage and devotion due only to the DIVINE BEING, it is occasionally
used in the Bible and Prayer Book, to denote honour, respect, and
reverence given to men. Thus, in the 84th Psalm, it is said that “the
Lord will give grace and _worship_ (favour and dignity) to them that
live a godly life.” In Luke xiv. 10, we read that the humble guest
“shall have _worship_ in the presence of those who sit at meat with
him.” And in 1 Chron. xxix. 20, it is said, that all the congregation
“bowed down their heads, and _worshipped_ the LORD and the king.” In the
Order of Matrimony in the English Prayer Book, the husband promises to
_worship_ his wife, that is, to render to her all that respect and
honour to which she is entitled by the command of GOD, and the station
she holds.
For the better understanding of this phrase we must know, that anciently
there were two sorts of wives, one whereof was called the primary or
lawful wife, the other was called the half-wife, or concubine. The
difference betwixt these two was only in the differing purpose of the
man, betaking himself to the one or the other: if his purpose was only
fellowship, there grew to the woman by this means no worship at all, but
rather the contrary. In professing that his intent was to add by his
person honour and worship unto hers, he took her plainly and clearly to
be his wife, not his concubine. This it is, which the civil law doth
mean, when it makes a wife differ from a concubine in dignity. The
worship that grew unto her, being taken with declaration of this intent,
was, that her children became by this means free and legitimate heirs to
their father, (Gen xxv. 5, 6,) and herself was made a mother over his
family. Lastly, she received such advancement of state, as things
annexed to his person might augment her with: yea, a right of
participation was thereby given her, both in him, and even in all things
which were his; and therefore he says not only, “with my body I thee
worship,” but also, “with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” The former
branch having granted the principal, the latter granteth that which is
annexed thereto.—_Hooker._
The Jews anciently used the same phrase: “Be unto me a wife, and I,
according to the word of GOD, will _worship_, honour, and maintain thee,
according to the manner of husbands among the Jews, who _worship_,
honour, and maintain their wives.” And that no man quarrel at this
harmless phrase, let him take notice, that to _worship_ here signifies,
_to make worshipful or honorable_, as you may see, 1 Sam. ii. 30. For
where our last translation reads it, “him that honours me, I will
honour;” in the old translation, which our Common Prayer Book uses, it
is, “him that _worships_ me, I will _worship_,” that is, I will make
worshipful; for that way only can GOD be said to worship man.—_Bp.
Sparrow._
These words are objected to by our adversaries, as a great crime in our
Church, for obliging the bridegroom to make an idol of his bride, and to
declare, in the most extravagant strain of all compliments, that he
worships her. But this imputation is owing to the want of a just
consideration of the purport of the old English word “worship,” which
signifies an honourable regard, as is yet to be seen in our usual
expressions still retained in common discourse, as Your Worship,
Worshipful &c. And so King James, in the conference at Hampton Court,
told Dr. Reynolds, who made this objection. For our Church is not only
content that the wife should be endowed with a share of the husband’s
goods, but that the husband should oblige himself to promote his spouse
to the dignity of the uxorial honour, for she would not have the men
joined to concubines by this religious solemnity; and, therefore, she
ties the man to make profession, that he is willing to have the person
he marries not only to be a partner in his bed, but that she should have
all the dignity of a wife allowed her. And that is the meaning of these
words, “with my body I thee worship:” I not only give thee a right in my
body, but that in the honourable and worshipful way of a wife. For, by
the old Roman law, this was the difference between a wife and a
concubine: that the husband before marriage promised that he designed to
promote the woman he was married to, to the honour of _materfamilias_,
or mistress of the family.—_Dr. Nicholls._
The first right accruing to the wife by marriage, is honour; and,
therefore, the man says, “with my body I thee worship;” that is, “with
my body I thee honour:” for so the word signifies in this place; and so
Mr. Selden, and before him Martin Bucer, who lived at the time when our
liturgy was compiled, have translated it. The design of it is to express
that the woman, by virtue of this marriage, has a share in all the
titles and honours which are due, or belong to, the person of her
husband. It is true the modern sense of the word is somewhat different:
for which reason, I find, that at the review of our liturgy, after the
restoration of King Charles II., “worship” was promised to be changed
for “honour.” How the alteration came to be omitted I cannot discover;
but so long as the old word is explained in the sense that I have given
of it, one would think no objection could be urged against using
it.—_Wheatly._
XEROPHAGIA. (Ξηροφαγία, from ξηρός, _dry_, φάγω, _to eat_.) Fast days in
the first ages of the Christian Church, on which they ate nothing but
bread and salt, the word signifying so much as to eat dry things;
afterwards there were pulse, herbs, and fruits added. This great fast
was kept the six days of the holy week for devotion, and not by
obligation; so that the Church condemned the Montanists, who of their
own private authority, would not only oblige all people to observe the
Xerophagia of the holy week, but also other fasts that they had
established, as well as several Lents. The Essenes, whether they were
Jews or the first Christians of the Church of Alexandria, observed
Xerophagia on certain days; for Philo says, they put nothing to their
bread and water but salt and hyssop.
YEAR, ECCLESIASTICAL. (See _Advent_, _Calendar_, and _Feasts_.)
YULE. An old word signifying festival, and still in use to designate the
festival of Christmas. The _yule_ of _August_ anciently signified
Lammas. See Johnson _in voc_.
ZEALOTS. An ancient sect of the Jews, so called from their pretended
great zeal for GOD’S laws, and the honour of religion. They were a
branch of the Pharisees, though some account them a distinct sect. (See
_Pharisees_.)
The Zealots were a most outrageous and ungovernable people, and, on
pretence of asserting the honour of GOD’S laws, and the strictness and
purity of religion, assumed a liberty of questioning notorious
offenders, without staying for the ordinary formalities of law: nay,
when they thought fit, they executed capital punishments upon them with
their own hands. Thus, when a blasphemer cursed GOD by the name of any
idol, the Zealots, who next met him, immediately killed him, without
ever bringing him before the Sanhedrim. They looked upon themselves as
the true successors of Phinehas, who, out of a great zeal for the honour
of GOD, did immediate execution upon Zimri and Cozbi; which action was
so pleasing to GOD, that he made with him, and his seed after him, the
covenant of an everlasting priesthood. In imitation of Phinehas, these
men took upon them to execute judgment in extraordinary cases; and not
only by the connivance, but with the permission both of the rulers and
the people; till, in after-times, under this pretence, their zeal
degenerated into all manner of licentiousness and extravagance. And they
not only became the pests of the commonwealth at home, but opened the
door for the Romans to break in upon the Jews, to their final and
irrecoverable ruin; for they were continually encouraging the people to
throw off the Roman yoke, and assert their native liberty.
They made no scruple of robbing, plundering, and killing the principal
of the nobility, under pretence of holding correspondence with the
Romans, and betraying the liberty of their country; and, upon the merit
of this, they assumed to themselves the titles of benefactors and
saviours of the people. They abrogated the succession of ancient
families, thrusting ignoble and obscure persons into the office of the
high priesthood, that by this means they might draw over the most
infamous villains to their party. And, not contented to affront men,
they injured the majesty of heaven, and proclaimed defiance to the
Divinity itself, by breaking into and profaning the most holy place.
Many attempts were made, especially by Annas the high priest, to reduce
them to order; but neither force of arms, nor fair and gentle methods,
could prevail upon them. They persisted in these violent proceedings,
and, joining with the Idumeans, committed all manner of outrage, and
slew many of the high priests themselves; and even when Jerusalem was
besieged by the Roman army, they never left off to promote tumults and
distractions, till their intestine quarrels ended, at last, in the
sacking of the city.
ZUINGLIANS. The disciples of Zuinglius, whose opinion was that Luther’s
scheme of Reformation fell very short of the extent to which it ought to
have been carried. Under this impression, and with a view, as he termed
it, of restoring the Church to its original purity, Zuingle sought to
abolish many doctrines and rites of the Roman Catholic Church, which
Luther had retained. In some points of doctrine he also differed from
Luther, and his opinion on the real presence made a complete separation
between them. Luther held that, together with the bread and wine, the
body and blood of CHRIST were really present in the eucharist. Zuingle
held, that the bread and wine were only _signs_ and _symbols_ of the
_absent_ body and blood of CHRIST; so that the eucharistic rite was
merely a pious and solemn ceremony, to bring it to the remembrance of
the faithful. The opinions of Zuingle were adopted in Switzerland, and
several neighbouring nations. They gave rise to the most violent
animosities between their favourers and the disciples of Luther.
Frequent advances to peace were made by the Zuinglians; Luther uniformly
rejected them with sternness. He declared an union to be impossible; he
called them “ministers of Satan.” When they entreated him to consider
them as brothers, “What fraternity,” he exclaimed, “do you ask with me,
if you persist in your belief?” On one occasion, the ingenuity of Bucer
enabled him to frame a creed, which each party, constructing the words
in his own sense, might sign. This effected a temporary truce; but the
division soon broke out with fresh animosity. “Happy,” exclaimed Luther,
“is the man who has not been of the Council of the Sacramentarians; who
has not walked in the ways of the Zuinglians.”
THE END.
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.
-----
Footnote 1:
“An Ecclesiastical Biography, containing the Lives of Ancient Fathers
and Modern Divines. By Walter Farquhar Hook, D. D., Vicar of Leeds.”
Footnote 2:
Author of “The History of the Christian Church, to the Pontificate of
Gregory the Great: for general readers as well as for Students in
Theology.” 8vo, 12_s._
Footnote 3:
The Confession which was subscribed at Halyrud-house the 25th of
February, 1587–8, by the King, Lennox, Huntly, the Chancellor, and
about ninety-five other persons, hath here added, “Agreeing to the
word.” Sir John Maxwell of Pollock hath the original parchment. If the
clerk nominated shall have been ordained a less time than three years,
the testimonial may be from the time of ordination.
Footnote 4:
It is recommended that the clergyman nominating be not a subscriber to
the testimonial.
Footnote 5:
This notice must be dated on a day subsequent to the date of the
bishop’s permission.
Footnote 6:
Here the infirm persons are presented to the king on their knees, and
the king layeth his hands upon them.
Footnote 7:
Here they are again presented unto the king upon their knees, and the
king putteth gold about their necks.
Footnote 8:
Sancti Bonaventuræ Opera, tom. vi. part ii., from p. 466 to 473. Fol.
Moguntiæ, 1609.
Footnote 9:
“The Glories of Mary, Mother of God; translated from the Italian of
blessed Alphonsus Liguori, and carefully revised by a Catholic
Priest.” John Coyne, Dublin, 1833.
Footnote 10:
As the practice may not be alike in every diocese, application should
be made by a candidate to the bishop’s secretary for instructions.
Footnote 11:
It is to be observed that the proper address to an archbishop is, “To
the Most Reverend ——, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of ——;” and
the style “Grace” is to be used instead of “Lordship.” The proper
address to the bishop of Durham is, “To the Right Reverend ——, by
Divine Providence ——.”
Footnote 12:
For three years, or such shorter period as may have elapsed since the
date of the College testimonial.
Footnote 13:
It is recommended that the party giving the title be not one of the
subscribers.
Footnote 14:
The bishop in whose diocese the curacy conferring the title is
situate.
Footnote 15:
See 76th sect. of 1 & 2 Victoria, c. 106.
Footnote 16:
The concluding part of the nomination, within inverted commas, is not
to be used, except in the nomination to serve as a title for orders.
Footnote 17:
It is not usual to confer priest’s orders till the candidate has been
a deacon one whole year.
Footnote 18:
Mr. Sharpe, in his work on “Decorated Window Tracery,” goes back one
step, to the occurrence of a round window in the apex of a semi-Norman
façade, over two round head-lights. If we were in search of what
_might_ suggest tracery, we might go back still further, to the panels
often occurring, even in early Norman triforium arcades, as at
Rochester; and sometimes, as at Peterborough, in groups of three or
four, and deeply sunk.
Footnote 19:
See Sharpe’s “Decorated Window Tracery,” p. 93.
Footnote 20:
Garbet’s “Rudimentary Treatise;” a work well worth much study.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
DISCOURSES BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE DAY. 8vo.
THE NONENTITY OF THE ROMISH SAINTS, AND THE INANITY OF ROMAN
ORDINANCES. _Third Edition_, 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._
ON THE MEANS OF RENDERING MORE EFFECTUAL THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE.
_Tenth Edition_, 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._
FRIENDLY AND SEASONABLE ADVICE TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND. By
DEAN COMBER. _New Edition_, with a Preface and Notes, 18mo, 3_s._
THE THREE REFORMATIONS; LUTHERAN,—ROMAN,—AND ANGLICAN. _Third
Edition_, 8vo, 3_s._
THE DUTY OF ENGLISH CHURCHMEN, AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH AT
LEEDS. 8vo, 1_s._
50, ALBEMARLE STREET, LONDON.
_April, 1854._
MR. MURRAY’S
GENERAL LIST OF WORKS.
ABBOTT’S (REV. J.) Philip Musgrave; or, Memoirs of a Church of England
Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
ABELL’S (MRS.) Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon during the First
Three Years of his Captivity on the Island of St. Helena.
_Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
ABERCROMBIE’S (JOHN, M.D.) Enquiries concerning the Intellectual
Powers and the Investigation of Truth. _Fourteenth Edition._
Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
—— Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. _Ninth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 4_s._
—— Pathological and Practical Researches on the Diseases of the
Stomach, the Intestinal Canal, the Liver, and other Viscera of
the Abdomen. _Third Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
ACLAND’S (REV. CHARLES) Popular Account of the Manners and Customs of
India, Illustrated with Numerous Anecdotes. Post 8vo. 2_s._
6_d._
ADDISON’S (JOSEPH) WORKS. A New Edition, with a New Life and Notes. By
Rev. WHITWELL ELWIN. 4 Vols. 8vo. _In the Press._
ÆSCHYLUS. (The Agamemnon and Choephoræ). _A New Edition_ of the Text,
with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for the Use
of Students. By Rev. W. PEILE, D.D., Head Master of Repton
School. _Second Edition._ 2 Vols. 8vo. 9_s._ each.
ÆSOP’S FABLES, for Old and Young. A New Version. By Rev. THOMAS JAMES,
M.A. Illustrated with 100 Woodcuts, by JOHN TENNIEL. Post 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
AGRICULTURAL (THE) JOURNAL. Published (half-yearly) by the Royal
Agricultural Society of England. 8vo. 10_s._
AMBER-WITCH (THE). The most interesting Trial for Witchcraft ever
known. Edited by Dr. MEINHOLD. Translated from the German by
LADY DUFF GORDON. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
ARABIAN NIGHTS. A New Translation. By E. W. LANE. With Explanatory
Notes. 600 Woodcuts. Medium 8vo. 21_s._
ARAGO’S (M.) Historical Eloge on James Watt. Translated from the
French, with Notes by J. P. MUIRHEAD. Portrait. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
ARTHUR’S (LITTLE) History of England. By LADY CALLCOTT. _Seventeenth
Edition._ Woodcuts. 18mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
AUNT IDA’S Walks and Talks; a Story Book for Children. By a LADY.
Woodcuts. 16mo. 5_s._
ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS (THE); Issued by direction of the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty:—
1. A MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, for the Use of Officers in
H.M. Navy and Travellers in General. By Various Hands.
Edited by SIR J. F. HERSCHEL, Bart. _Second Edition_.
Post 8vo. 1O_s._ 6_d._
2. AIRY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GREENWICH. 1836 to
1847. Royal 4to. 50_s._ each.
3. —— APPENDIX TO THE ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1836, 1837,
1842, 8_s._ each; and 1847, 14_s._ Royal 4to.
CONTENTS.
1836.—Bessel’s Refraction Tables.
Tables for converting Errors of R.A. and N.P.D.
into Errors of Longitude and Ecliptic P.D.
1837.—Logarithms of Sines and Cosines to every Ten
Seconds of Time.
Table for converting Sidereal into Mean Solar
Time.
1842.—Catalogue of 1439 Stars.
1847.—Twelve Years’ Catalogue of Stars.
4. —— MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1840 to
1847. Royal 4to. 50_s._ each.
5. —— ASTRONOMICAL, MAGNETICAL, AND METEOROLOGICAL
OBSERVATIONS, 1848, 49, & 50. Royal 4to. 50_s._ each.
6. —— REDUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF PLANETS. 1750 to 1830.
Royal 4to. 50_s._
7. —— LUNAR OBSERVATIONS. 1750 to 1830. 2 Vols. Royal 4to.
50_s._ each.
8. BERNOULLI’S SEXCENTENARY TABLE. _London_, 1779. 4to. 5_s._
9. BESSEL’S AUXILIARY TABLES FOR HIS METHOD OF CLEARING LUNAR
DISTANCES. 8vo.
10. —— FUNDAMENTA ASTRONOMIÆ: _Regiomonti_, 1818. Folio.
60_s._
11. BIRD’S METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING MURAL QUADRANTS. _London_,
1768. 4to. 2_s._ 6_d._
12. —— METHOD OF DIVIDING ASTRONOMICAL INSTRUMENTS. _London_,
1767. 4to. 2_s._ 6_d._
13. COOK, KING, AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS.
_London_, 1782. 4to. 21_s._
14. EDWARDS ON THE COMPOSITION OF METALS FOR REFLECTING
TELESCOPES. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
15. EIFFE’S ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CHRONOMETERS. 4to.
2_s._
16. ENCKE’S BERLINER JAHRBUCH, for 1830. _Berlin_, 1828. 8vo.
9_s._
17. GROOMBRIDGE’S CATALOGUE OF CIRCUMPOLAR STARS. 4to. 10_s._
18. HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES OF HIS TIME-KEEPER. PLATES. 1767.
4to. 5_s._
19. HUTTON’S TABLES OF THE PRODUCTS AND POWERS OF NUMBERS.
1781. Folio. 7_s._ 6_d._
20. LAX’S TABLES FOR FINDING THE LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. 1821.
8vo. 10_s._
21. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS at GREENWICH. 1783 to 1819. Compared
with the Tables, 1821. 4to. 7_s._ 6_d._
22. —— DISTANCES of the MOON’S CENTRE from the PLANETS. 1822,
3_s._; 1823, 4_s._ 6_d._; 1824 to 1835. 8vo. 4_s._ each.
23. MASKELYNE’S ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF HARRISON’S WATCH.
1767. 4to. 2_s._ 6_d._
24. MAYER’S THEORIA LUNÆ JUXTA SYSTEMA NEWTONIANUM. 4to. 2_s._
6_d._
25. —— TABULÆ MOTUUM SOLIS ET LUNÆ. 1770. 4to. 5_s._
26. —— ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GOTTINGEN, from 1756
to 1761. 1826. Folio. 7_s._ 6_d._
27. NAUTICAL ALMANACS, from 1767 to 1855. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
each.
28. —— —— SELECTIONS FROM THE ADDITIONS up to 1812. 8vo. 5_s._
1834–54. 8vo. 5_s._
29. —— —— SUPPLEMENTS, 1828 to 1833, 1837 and 1838. 8vo. 2_s._
each.
30. —— —— TABLE requisite to be used with the N.A. 1766, 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
31. —— —— _Second Edition, enlarged_. 1781. 8vo. 5_s._
32. —— —— _Third Edition, corrected_. 1802. 8vo. 5_s._
33. POND’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1811 to 1835. 4to.
21_s._ each.
34. RAMSDEN’S ENGINE for DIVIDING MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENTS.
4to. 5_s._
35. —— ENGINE for DIVIDING STRAIGHT LINES. 4to. 5_s._
36. SABINE’S PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS to DETERMINE THE FIGURE OF
THE EARTH. 1825. 4to. 40_s._
37. SHEPHERD’S TABLES for CORRECTING LUNAR DISTANCES. 1772.
Royal 4to. 21_s._
38. —— TABLES, GENERAL, of the MOON’S DISTANCE from the SUN,
and 10 STARS. 1787. Folio. 5_s._ 6_d._
39. TAYLOR’S SEXAGESIMAL TABLE. 1780. 4to. 15_s._
40. —— TABLES OF LOGARITHMS. 4to. 3_l._.
41. TIARK’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS for the LONGITUDE of
MADEIRA. 1822. 4to. 5_s._
42. —— CHRONOMETRICAL OBSERVATIONS for DIFFERENCES of
LONGITUDE between DOVER, PORTSMOUTH, and FALMOUTH. 1823.
4to. 5_s._
43. VENUS and JUPITER: OBSERVATIONS of, compared with the
TABLES. _London_, 1822. 4to. 2_s._
44. WALES’ AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1777. 4to.
21_s._
45. WALES’ REDUCTION OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. 1764–1771. 1788. 4to. 10_s._ 6_d._
AUSTIN’S (MRS.) Fragments from German Prose Writers. Translated,
with Biographical Notes. Post. 8vo. 10_s._
—— Translation of Ranke’s Political and Ecclesiastical History
of the Popes of Rome. _Third Edition._ 2 Vols. 8vo. 24_s._
BABBAGE’S (CHARLES) Economy of Machinery and Manufactures.
_Fourth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
—— Table of the Logarithms of the Natural Numbers from 1 to
108000. _Fourth Edition._ Royal 8vo. 6_s._
—— Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 9_s._
6_d._
—— Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some
of its Causes. 4to. 15_s._
—— Exposition of 1851; or, Views of the Industry, the Science,
and the Government of England. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 7_s._
6_d._
BANKES’ (RIGHT HON. G.) STORY OF CORFE CASTLE, with documents
relating to the Time of the Civil Wars, &c. Woodcuts. Post 8vo.
1O_s._ 6_d._
BASSOMPIERRE’S Memoirs of his Embassy to the Court of England in
1626. Translated, with Notes, 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
BARROW’S (THE LATE SIR JOHN) Autobiographical Memoir, including
Reflections, Observations, and Reminiscences at Home and Abroad.
From Early Life to Advanced Age. Portrait. 8vo. 16_s._
—— Voyages of Discovery and Research within the Arctic Regions,
from 1818 to the present time, in search of a North-West
Passage: with Two Attempts to reach the North Pole. Abridged and
arranged from the Official Narratives. 8vo. 15_s._
—— (JOHN) Naval Worthies of Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, their
Gallant Deeds, Daring Adventures, and Services in the infant
state of the British Navy. 8vo. 14_s._
—— Life and Voyages of Sir Francis Drake. With numerous Original
Letters. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Tour in Austrian Lombardy, the Northern Tyrol, and Bavaria.
Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
BEES AND FLOWERS. Two Essays reprinted from the “Quarterly
Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._ each.
BELL’S (SIR CHARLES) Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression as
connected with the Fine Arts. _Fourth Edition._ Plates. Impl.
8vo. 21_s._
—— Mechanism and Vital Endowments of the Hand as evincing
Design. The Bridgewater Treatise. _Fifth Edition._ Plates. Post
8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
BENEDICT’S (JULES) Sketch of the Life and Works of Felix
Mendelssohn Bartholdy. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
BERTHA’S Journal during a Visit to her Uncle in England.
Containing a Variety of Interesting and Instructive Information.
_Seventh Edition._ Woodcuts. 12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— The Heiress in her Minority; or, the Progress of Character.
By Author of “BERTHA’S JOURNAL.” 2 Vols. 12mo. 18_s._
BETHUNE’S (J. E. D.) Specimens of Swedish and German Poetry.
Crown 8vo. 12_s._
BIRCH’S (SAMUEL) History of Ancient Pottery: Egyptian, Asiatic,
Greek, Roman, Etruscan, and Celtic. With Illustrations. 8vo.
(_Nearly Ready._)
BIRT’S (W. R.) Hurricane Guide. Being an Attempt to connect the
Rotatory Gale, or Revolving Storm, with Atmospheric Waves. With
Circles on Cards. Post 8vo. 3_s._
BIOSCOPE (THE); or, the Dial of Life explained. By GRANVILLE
PENN. _Second Edition._ With Plate. 12mo. 12_s._
BLAINE (ROBERTON) on the Laws of Artistic Copyright and their
Defects, for Artists, Engravers, Printsellers, &c. 8vo. 3_s._
6_d._
BLUNT’S (REV. J. J.) Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of
the Old and New Testament, an Argument of their Veracity: with
an Appendix containing Undesigned Coincidences between the
Gospels, Acts, and Josephus. _Fourth Edition._ 8vo. 9_s._
—— Principles for the proper understanding of the Mosaic
Writings, stated and applied, together with an Incidental
Argument for the truth of the Resurrection of our Lord. Being
the HULSEAN LECTURES for 1832. Post 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. With 1000 Illustrations of Borders,
Initials, and Woodcut Vignettes. _A New Edition._ Medium 8vo.
21_s._ cloth, 31_s._ 6_d._ calf, or 42_s._ morocco.
BORROWS (GEORGE) Lavengro; The Scholar—Gipsy—and Priest. With
Portrait. 3 Vols. Post 8vo, 30_s._
—— Bible in Spain; or the Journeys, Adventures, and
Imprisonments of an Englishman in an Attempt to circulate the
Scriptures in the Peninsula. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 27_s._, or _Cheap
Edition_, 16mo, 5_s._
—— Zincali, or the Gipsies of Spain; their Manners, Customs,
Religion, and Language. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._, or _Cheap
Edition_, 16mo. 5_s._
BOSWELL’S (JAMES) Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson. Including the Tour
to the Hebrides, with Notes by Sir W. SCOTT. Edited by the Right
Hon. JOHN WILSON CROKER. _A New Edition, with much additional
Matter._ Portraits. One Volume Royal 8vo. 15_s._
BRAY’S (MRS.) Life of Thomas Stothard, R.A. With Personal
Reminiscences. Illustrated with Portrait and 60 Woodcuts of his
chief works. 4to. 21_s._
BREWSTER’S (SIR DAVID) Martyrs of Science, or the Lives of
Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
4_s._ 6_d._
BRITISH ASSOCIATION REPORTS. York and Oxford, 1831–32, 13_s._
6_d._ Cambridge, 1833, 12_s._ Edinburgh, 1834, 15_s._ Dublin,
1835, 13_s._ 6_d._ Bristol, 1836, 12_s._ Liverpool, 1837, 16_s._
6_d._ Newcastle, 1838, 15_s._ Birmingham, 1839, 13_s._ 6_d._
Glasgow, 1840, 15_s._ Plymouth, 1841, 13_s._ 6_d._ Manchester,
1842, 10_s._ 6_d._ Cork, 1843, 12_s._ York. 1844, 20_s._
Cambridge, 1845, 12_s._ Southampton, 1846, 15_s._ Oxford, 1847,
18_s._ Swansea, 1848, 9_s._ Birmingham, 1849, 10_s._ Edinburgh,
1850, 15_s._ Ipswich, 1851, 16_s._ 6_d._ 8vo.
BROGDEN’S (REV. JAS.) Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual of
the United Church of England and Ireland. Being Sermons and
Discourses selected from the Works of eminent Divines of the
17th Century. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 27_s._
—— Catholic Safeguards against the Errors, Corruptions, and
Novelties of the Church of Rome. Being Sermons and Tracts
selected from the Works of eminent Divines of the 17th Century.
_Second Edition._ With Preface and Index. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36_s._
⁂ _The Second and Third Volumes may be had separately, 14s.
each._
BROOKE’S (SIR JAMES) Journals of Events in Borneo, including the
Occupation of Labuan, and a Visit to the Celebes. Together with
the Expedition of H.M.S. Iris. By CAPT. RODNEY MUNDY, R.N.
Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 32_s._
BUBBLES FROM THE BRUNNEN OF NASSAU. By an OLD MAN. _Sixth
Edition._ 16mo.
BUNBURY’S (C. J. F.) Journal of a Residence at the Cape of Good
Hope; with Excursions into the Interior, and Notes on the
Natural History and Native Tribes of the Country. Woodcuts. Post
8vo. 9_s._
BUNYAN (JOHN) and Oliver Cromwell. Select Biographies. By ROBERT
SOUTHEY. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
BURGHERSH’S (LORD) Memoir of the Operations of the Allied Armies
under Prince Schwarzenberg and Marshal Blucher during the latter
end of 1813–14. 8vo. 21_s._
—— Early Campaigns of the Duke of Wellington in Portugal and
Spain. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
BURN’S (LIEUT.-COL.) Naval and Military Technical Dictionary of
the French Language. French and English—English and French.
Crown 8vo. 15_s._
BURNES’ (SIR ALEXANDER) Journey to and Residence in the City of
Cabool. _Second Edition._ Plates. 8vo. 18_s._
BURNS’ (ROBERT) Life. By JOHN GIBSON LOCKHART. _Fifth Edition._
Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
BURR’S (G. D.) Instructions in Practical Surveying,
Topographical Plan-drawing, and on sketching ground without
Instruments. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
BUXTON’S (SIR FOWELL) Memoirs. With Selections from his
Correspondence. By his Son. _Fourth Edition._ 16mo. 7_s._ 6_d._
BYRON’S (LORD) Life and Letters. By THOMAS MOORE. Plates. 6
Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18_s._
—— Complete in One Volume. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 12_s._
—— Poetical Works. Plates. 10 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 30_s._
—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait. Royal 8vo. 12_s._
—— Poetical Works. 8 Vols. 24mo. 2_s._ 6_d._ each.
_Sold separately as follows_:
Childe Harold.
Dramas, 2 Vols.
Tales and Poems.
Miscellanies, 2 Vols.
Beppo and Don Juan, 2 Vols.
—— Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. With Portrait of Ada, and 30
Vignettes. Crown 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— (Beauties of Lord Byron’s Writings), Prose and Verse.
Selected by a Clergyman. Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
BUTTMAN’S LEXILOGUS; or, a Critical Examination of the Meaning
and Etymology of numerous Greek Words and Passages, intended
principally for Homer and Hesiod. Translated, and edited, with
Explanatory Notes and copious Indexes, by REV. J. R. FISHLAKE.
_Third Edition._ 8vo. 14_s._
—— Catalogue of Irregular Greek Verbs; With all the Tenses
extant—their Formation, Meaning, and Usage, accompanied by an
Index. Translated, with Notes, by REV. J. R. FISHLAKE. _Second
Edition._ 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
CALVIN’S (JOHN) Life. With Extracts from his Correspondence. By
THOMAS H. DYER. Portrait. 8vo. 15_s._
CALLCOTT’S (LADY) Little Arthur’s History of England.
_Seventeenth Edition._ Woodcuts. 18mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
CARÈME’S FRENCH COOKERY. Translated by W. HALL. _Second
Edition._ Plates. 8vo. 15_s._
CARMICHAEL’S (A. N.) Greek Verbs. Their Formations,
Irregularities, and Defects. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 8_s._
6_d._
CARNARVON’S (LORD) Portugal, Gallicia, and the Basque Provinces.
From Notes made during a Journey to those Countries. _Third
Edition._ Post 8vo. 5_s._
CAMPBELL’S (LORD) Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of
the Great Seal of England. From the Earliest Times to the Death
of Lord Eldon in 1838. _Third Edition._ 7 Vols. 8vo. 102_s._
_The Work may also be had as follows._
_1st Series._ From the Earliest Times to the Revolution of 1688.
3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
_2nd Series._ From the Revolution of 1688 to the Death of Lord
Thurlow in 1806. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
_3rd Series._ From the Birth of Lord Loughborough, in 1733, to
the Death of Lord Eldon, in 1838. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
——Lives of the Chief Justices of England. From the Norman
Conquest to the Death of Lord Mansfield. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
——Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._
——(GEORGE). Modern India. A Sketch of the System of Civil
Government. With some Account of the Natives and Native
Institutions. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 16_s._
——INDIA AS IT MAY BE. An Outline of a proposed Government and
Policy. 8vo. 12_s._
——(THOS.) Specimens of the British Poets. With Biographical and
Critical Notices, and an Essay on English Poetry. _Third
Edition._ Portrait. Royal 8vo. 15_s._
——Short Lives of the British Poets. With an Essay on English
Poetry. Post 8vo. 5_s._
CASTLEREAGH (THE) DESPATCHES, from the commencement of the
official career of the late Viscount Castlereagh to the close of
his life. Edited by the MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY. 12 Vols. 8vo.
14_s._ each.
_The Work was published as follows_:—
_1st Series._ The Irish Rebellion. 4 Vols.
_2nd Series._ Military and Miscellaneous. 4 Vols.
_3rd Series._ Military and Diplomatic.
Leipsig—Paris—Waterloo, &c. 4 Vols.
CATHCART’S (MAJOR-GENERAL) Commentaries on the War in Russia and
Germany, 1812–13. Plans. 8vo. 14_s._
CHARMED ROE (THE); or, The Story of the Little Brother and
Sister. By OTTO SPECKTER. Plates. 16mo. 5_s._
CLARENDON (LORD CHANCELLOR); Lives of his Friends and
Contemporaries, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. By
Lady THERESA LEWIS. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
CLARK (SIR JAMES) On the Sanative Influence of Climate, with an
Account of the Best Places for Invalids in the South of Europe,
&c. _Fourth Edition._ Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
CLAUSEWITZ’S (GENERAL CARL VON) Campaign of 1812, in Russia.
Translated from the German. Map. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
CLIVE’S (LORD) Life. By REV. G. R. GLEIG, M.A. Post 8vo. 5_s._
COLERIDGE’S (SAMUEL TAYLOR) Specimens of Table-Talk. _Fourth
Edition._ Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
—— (HENRY NELSON) Introductions to the Study of the Greek
Classic Poets. _Third Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
COLONIAL LIBRARY. [See Home and Colonial Library.]
COMBER’S (DEAN) Friendly Advice to the Roman Catholics of
England. By Rev. Dr. HOOK. Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
COOKERY (MODERN DOMESTIC). Founded on Principles of Economy and
Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. _New and
Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
CRABBE’S (REV. GEORGE) Life and Letters. By his SON. Portrait.
Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
—— and Poetical Works. Plates. 8 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 24_s._
—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait and Vignette. Royal 8vo.
10_s._ 6_d._
CUMMING’S (R. GORDON) Five Years of a Hunter’s Life in the Far
Interior of South Africa. _Third Edition._ With Woodcuts. 2
Vols. Post 8vo. 24_s._
CURZON’S (HON. ROBERT) Visits to the Monasteries of the Levant.
_Fourth Edition._ Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— ARMENIA AND ERZEROUM. A Year on the Frontiers of RUSSIA,
TURKEY, and PERSIA. Map and Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
CUNNINGHAM’S (ALLAN) Life of Sir David Wilkie. With his
Journals, and Critical Remarks on Works of Art. Portrait. 3
Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
—— Poems and Songs. Now first collected and arranged, with
Biographical Notice. 24mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— (CAPT. J. D.) History of the Sikhs. From the Origin of the
Nation to the Battle of the Sutlej. _Second Edition._ Maps. 8vo.
15_s._
—— (PETER) London—Past and Present. A Handbook to the
Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art, Public
Buildings, and Places connected with interesting and historical
associations. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 16_s._
—— Modern London. A complete Guide for Visitors to the
Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5_s._
—— Environs of London. Including a circle of 30 miles round St.
Paul’s. With Hints for Excursions by Rail,—Road,—and River. Post
8vo. _In the Press._
—— Westminster Abbey. Its Art, Architecture, and Associations.
Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
—— Works of Oliver Goldsmith. A New Library Edition, now first
printed from the last editions which passed under the Author’s
own eye. Vignettes. 4 vols. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._ each. (MURRAY’S
BRITISH CLASSICS.)
CROKER’S (RIGHT HON. J. W.) Progressive Geography for Children.
_Fourth Edition._ 18mo. 1_s._ 6_d._
—— Stories for Children Selected from the History of England.
_Fifteenth Edition._ Woodcuts. 16mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Boswell’s Life of Johnson. Including the Tour to the
Hebrides. _A New Edition._ Portraits. Royal 8vo. 15_s._
—— LORD HERVEY’S Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, from
his accession to the death of Queen Caroline. Edited with Notes.
Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo.
—— History of the Guillotine. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
CROMWELL (OLIVER) and John Bunyan. Select Biographies. By ROBERT
SOUTHEY. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
DARWIN’S (CHARLES) Journal of Researches into the Natural
History and Geology of the Countries visited during a Voyage
round the World. Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
DATES AND DISTANCES; Showing what may be done in a Tour of
Sixteen Months upon the Continent of Europe. Post 8vo. 8_s._
6_d._
DAVY’S (SIR HUMPHRY) Consolations in Travel; or, Last Days of a
Philosopher. _Fifth Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
—— Salmonia; or, Days of Fly Fishing. With some Account of the
Habits of Fishes belonging to the genus Salmo. _Fourth Edition._
Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
DENNIS’ (GEORGE) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria; or, the
extant Local Remains of Etruscan Art. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo.
42_s._
—— Summer in Andalusia. New Edition. Post 8vo. _In the Press._
DEVEREUX’S (HON. CAPT., R.N.) Lives and Letters of the Devereux
Earls of Essex, in the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and
Charles I., 1540–1646. Chiefly from unpublished documents.
Portraits. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
DE VERE’S (AUBREY) English Misrule and Irish Misdeeds. Four
Letters from Ireland, addressed to an English M.P. _Second
Edition._ Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
DODGSON’S (REV. C.) Controversy of Faith; or, Advice to
Candidates for Holy Orders. Containing an Analysis and
Exposition of the Argument by which the Catholic Interpretation
of the Baptismal Services is to be vindicated. 12mo. 8_s._
DOG-BREAKING; the Most Expeditious, Certain, and Easy Method,
whether great excellence or only mediocrity be required. By
LIEUT.-COL. HUTCHINSON. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._
DOMESTIC MODERN COOKERY. Founded on Principles of Economy and
Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. _New and
Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
DOUGLAS’S (GENERAL SIR HOWARD) Treatise on Improved Gunnery:
with Descriptions of the New Guns introduced since the War.
_Third Edition, revised._ Plates. 8vo.
—— Treatise on the Principle and Construction of Military
Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations.
_Third Edition_, with much new matter. Plates. 8vo. 21_s._
DRAKE’S (SIR FRANCIS) Life, Voyages, and Exploits, by Sea and
Land. By JOHN BARROW. _Third Edition._ Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
DRINKWATER’S (JOHN) History of the Siege of Gibraltar.
1779–1783. With a Description and Account of that Garrison from
the Earliest Periods. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
DRUMMOND’S (HENRY) Abstract Principles of Revealed Religion.
Post 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
DRYDEN’S (JOHN) Works. A New Edition, based upon Sir Walter
Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. _In Preparation._
DUDLEY’S (EARL OF) Letters to the late Bishop of Llandaff.
_Second Edition._ Portrait. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
DURHAM’S (ADMIRAL SIR PHILIP) Naval Life and Services. By CAPT.
ALEXANDER MURRAY. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
DYER’S (THOMAS H.) Life and Letters of John Calvin. Compiled
from authentic Sources. Portrait. 8vo. 15_s._
EASTLAKE (SIR CHARLES) The Schools of Painting in Italy. From
the Earliest times. From the German of KUGLER. Edited, with
Notes. _Second Edition._ Illustrated with 100 Engravings from
the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24_s._
—— Contributions to the Literature of the Fine Arts. 8vo. 12_s._
EDWARDS’ (W. H.) Voyage up the River Amazon, including a Visit
to Para. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
EGERTON’S (HON. CAPT. FRANCIS) Journal of a Winter’s Tour in
India; with a Visit to Nepaul. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
18_s._
ELDON’S (LORD CHANCELLOR) Public and Private Life, with
Selections from his Correspondence and Diaries. By HORACE TWISS.
_Third Edition._ Portrait. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21_s._
ELLESMERE’S (LORD) Two Sieges of Vienna by the Turks. Translated
from the German. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Second Campaign of Radetzky in Piedmont. The Defence of
Temeswar and the Camp of the Ban. From the German. Post 8vo.
6_s._ 6_d._
—— Life and Character of the Duke of Wellington; a Discourse.
_Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_d._
—— Campaign of 1812 in Russia, from the German of General Carl
Von Clausewitz. Map. 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
ELPHINSTONE’S (HON. MOUNTSTUART) History of India—the Hindoo and
Mahomedan Periods. _Third Edition._ Map. 8vo. 18_s._
ELWIN’S (REV. W.) Lives of Eminent British Poets. From Chaucer
to Wordsworth. 4 Vols. 8vo. _In the Press._
ENGLAND (HISTORY OF) From the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of
Versailles, 1713–83. By LORD MAHON. _Library Edition_, 6 Vols.,
8vo, 78_s._; or, _Popular Edition_, 6 Vols. Post 8vo, 36_s._
—— From the First Invasion by the Romans, down to the 14th year
of Queen Victoria’s Reign. By MRS. MARKHAM. _68th Thousand._
Woodcuts. 12mo. 6_s._
—— AS IT IS: Social, Political, and Industrial, in the Middle of
the 19th Century. By W. JOHNSTON. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
—— and France under the House of Lancaster. With an Introductory
View of the Early Reformation. 8vo. 15_s._
ERSKINE’S (CAPT., R.N.) Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of
the Western Pacific, including the Fejees and others inhabited
by the Polynesian Negro Races. Plates. 8vo. 16_s._
ESKIMAUX (THE) and English Vocabulary, for the use of Travellers
in the Arctic Regions. 16mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
ESSAYS FROM “THE TIMES.” Being a Selection from the LITERARY
PAPERS which have appeared in that Journal. Reprinted by
Permission. _5th Thousand. First and Second Series._ Fcap. 8vo.
4_s._ each.
ESSEX (THE EARLS OF) Their Lives and Letters. 1540–1646. Founded
upon Documents chiefly unpublished. By the HON. CAPT. DEVEREUX,
R.N. Portraits. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
EXETER’S (BISHOP OF) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the
Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church; with
Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on
some parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. _Second Edition._ 8vo.
16_s._
—— Sermons. Preached during the Visitation of the Bishop of
Exeter in 1845. Published by Request. 12mo. 6_s._
FAIRY RING (THE), A Collection of TALES and STORIES for Young
Persons. From the German. by J. E. TAYLOR. Illustrated by
RICHARD DOYLE. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
FALKNER’S (FRED.) Muck Manual for the Use of Farmers. A Treatise
on the Nature and Value of Manures. _Second Edition_, with a
Glossary of Terms and an Index. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
FAMILY RECEIPT-BOOK. A Collection of a Thousand Valuable and
Useful Receipts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
FANCOURT’S (COL.) History of Yucatan, from its Discovery to the
Close of the 17th Century. With Map. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
FARINI’S (LUIGI CARLO) History of the Roman State, 1815–50.
Translated from the Italian. By Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE.
Vols. 3 & 4. 8vo. 12_s._ each.
FEATHERSTONHAUGH’S (G. W.) Tour through the Slave States of
North America, from the River Potomac, to Texas and the
Frontiers of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26_s._
FELLOWS’ (SIR CHARLES) Travels and Researches in Asia Minor,
more particularly in the Province of Lycia. _New Edition._
Plates. Post 8vo. 9_s._
FERGUSON’S (ROBERT, M.D.) Essays on the Diseases of Women. Part
I. Puerperal Fever. Post 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
FERGUSSON’S (JAMES) Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored:
an Essay on Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. With 45
Woodcuts. 8vo. 16_s._
—— Peril of Portsmouth; or French Fleets and English Forts.
_Third Edition._ Plan. 8vo. 3_s._
—— Handbook of Architecture. Being a Concise and Popular Account
of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries in
the World. With a Description of the most remarkable Buildings.
With 1000 Illustrations. 8vo. _In the Press._
FEUERBACH’S Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. Translated from
the German by Lady DUFF GORDON. 8vo. 12_s._
FISHER’S (REV. GEORGE) Elements of Geometry, for the Use of
Schools. _Third Edition._ 18mo. 3_s._
—— First Principles of Algebra, for the Use of Schools. _Third
Edition._ 18mo. 3_s._
FISHLAKE’S (REV. J. R.) Translation of Buttman’s Lexilogus; A
Critical Examination of the Meaning and Etymology of numerous
Greek Words and Passages, intended principally for Homer and
Hesiod. With Explanatory Notes and Copious Indexes. _Third
Edition._ 8vo. 14_s._
—— Translation of Buttman’s Catalogue of Irregular Greek Verbs;
with all the Tenses extant—their Formation, Meaning, and Usage.
With Explanatory Notes, and accompanied by an Index. _Second
Edition._ 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
FLOWER GARDEN (THE). An Essay reprinted from the “Quarterly
Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
FORD’S (RICHARD) Handbook for Spain, Andalusia, Ronda, Valencia,
Catalonia, Granada, Gallicia, Arragon, Navarre, &c. 2 Vols. Post
8vo.
—— Gatherings from Spain. Post 8vo. 6_s._
FORSYTH’S (WILLIAM) Hortensius, or the Advocate: an Historical
Essay on the Office and Duties of an Advocate. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— History of Napoleon at St. Helena. From the Letters and
Journals of SIR HUDSON LOWE. Portrait and Maps. 3 Vols. 8vo.
45_s._
FORTUNE’S (ROBERT) Narrative of Two Visits to China, between the
years 1843–52, with full Descriptions of the Culture of the Tea
Plant. _Third Edition._ Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
FRANCE (HISTORY OF). From the Conquest by the Gauls to the Death
of Louis Philippe. By Mrs. MARKHAM. _30th Thousand._ Woodcuts.
12mo. 6_s._
FRENCH (THE) in Algiers; The Soldier of the Foreign Legion—and
the Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. Translated by Lady DUFF GORDON.
Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
GALTON’S (FRANCIS) Exploring Expedition in Tropical South
Africa. Plates. Post 8vo. 12_s._
GEOGRAPHICAL (THE) Journal. Published by the Royal Geographical
Society of London. 8vo.
GERMANY (HISTORY OF). From the Invasion by Marius, to the
present time. On the plan of Mrs. MARKHAM. _6th Thousand._
Woodcuts. 12mo. 6_s._
GIBBON’S (EDWARD) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited
with Notes by MILMAN and GUIZOT. _A New Edition._ Preceded by
the Autobiography of GIBBON. Edited with additional Notes by Dr.
WM. SMITH. With Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
each. (MURRAY’S BRITISH CLASSICS.)
—— Life and Correspondence. By DEAN MILMAN. Portrait. 8vo. 9_s._
GIFFARD’S (EDWARD) Visit to the Ionian Islands, Athens, and the
Morea. Plates. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— Deeds of Naval Daring; or, Anecdotes of the British Navy.
Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
GILLY’S (REV. DR.) Romaunt Version of the Gospel of St. John,
originally in use among the old Waldenses. Edited from the MSS.,
with Notes. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
GISBORNE’S (THOMAS) Essays on Agriculture. Post 8vo. 5_s._
GLADSTONE’S (RIGHT HON. W. E.) Prayers arranged from the Liturgy
for Family Use. _Second Edition._ 12mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Farini’s History of the Roman State. From the Italian. Vols.
3 and 4. 8vo.
GODLEY’S (JOHN ROBERT) Letters from America. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
16_s._
GOLDSMITH’S (OLIVER) Works. New Library Edition, now first
printed from the last editions which passed under the Author’s
own eye. Edited by PETER CUNNINGHAM. With Vignettes. 4 Vols.
8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._ each. (MURRAY’S BRITISH CLASSICS).
GLEIG’S (REV. G. R.) Campaigns of the British Army at Washington
and New Orleans. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Story of the Battle of Waterloo. Compiled from Public and
Authentic Sources. Post 8vo. 5_s._
—— Narrative of Sir Robert Sale’s Brigade in Afghanistan, with
an Account of the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad: Post 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
—— Life of Robert Lord Clive. Post 8vo. 5_s._
—— Life and Letters of General Sir Thomas Munro. Post 8vo. 5_s._
GOOCH (ROBERT, M.D.), On the most Important Diseases peculiar to
Women. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 12_s._
GORDON’S (SIR ALEX. DUFF) Sketches of German Life, and Scenes
from the War of Liberation. From the German. Post 8vo. 5_s._
—— (LADY DUFF), Amber-Witch: the most interesting Trial for
Witchcraft ever known. From the German. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— French in Algiers. 1. The Soldier of the Foreign Legion. 2.
The Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. From the French. Post 8vo. 2_s._
6_d._
—— Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. From the German. 8vo.
12_s._
GOSPEL STORIES FOR CHILDREN. An Attempt to render the Chief
Events of the Life of Our Saviour intelligible and profitable.
_Second Edition._ 18mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
GRANT’S (ASAHEL), Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes; confining
Evidence of their Identity, their Manners, Customs, and
Ceremonies; with Sketches of Travel in Ancient Assyria, Armenia,
and Mesopotamia; and Illustrations of Scripture Prophecy. _Third
Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
GRENVILLE (THE) LETTERS AND DIARIES; being the Public and
Private Correspondence of George Grenville, his Friends and
Contemporaries, during a period of 30 years.—Including his DIARY
OF POLITICAL EVENTS while First Lord of the Treasury. Edited,
with Notes, by W. J. SMITH. 4 Vols. 8vo. 16_s._ each.
GREEK GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS. Abridged from Matthiæ. By the BISHOP
OF LONDON. _Seventh Edition_, revised by Rev. J. EDWARDS. 12mo.
3_s._
—— Accidence for Schools. Abridged from Matthiæ. By the BISHOP
OF LONDON. _Fourth Edition_, revised by Rev. J. EDWARDS. 12mo.
2_s._
GROTE’S (GEORGE) History of Greece, From the Earliest Period to
the Accession of Philip of Macedon (B. C. 403–359). Maps. Vols.
1 to 10. 8vo. 16_s._ each. _The Work may be had as follows_:—
VOLS. I.–II.—Legendary Greece. Grecian History to the Reign of
Peisistratus at Athens.
VOLS. III.–IV.—History of Early Athens, and the Legislation of
Solon. Grecian Colonies. View of the Contemporary Nations
surrounding Greece. Grecian History down to the first
Persian Invasion, and the Battle of Marathon.
VOLS. V.–VI.—Persian War and Invasion of Greece by Xerxes.
Period between the Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars.
Peloponnesian War down to the Expedition of the Athenians
against Syracuse.
VOLS. VII.–VIII.—The Peace of Nikias down to the Battle of
Knidus (B. C. 421 to 394). Socrates and the Sophists.
VOLS. IX.–XI.—From the Restoration of the Democracy at Athens
down to the Death of Philip of Macedon (B. C. 403–359).
GUIZOT (M.), on the Causes of the Success of the English
Revolution of 1640–1688. 8vo. 6_s._; or _Cheap Edition_, 12mo,
1_s._
—— Democracy in France. _Sixth Edition._ 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._
GURWOOD’S (COL.) Despatches of the Duke of Wellington during his
various Campaigns. Compiled from Official and Authentic
Documents. _New, enlarged, and complete Edition._ 8 vols. 8vo.
21_s._ each.
—— Selections from the Wellington Despatches and General Orders.
_New Edition._ 8vo. 18_s._
—— Speeches in Parliament of the Duke of Wellington. 2 Vols.
8vo. 42_s._
GUSTAVUS VASA (History of), King of Sweden. With Extracts from
his Correspondence. Portrait. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
HALFORD’S (SIR HENRY) Popular Essays and Orations. _Third
Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
—— Nugæ Metricæ. Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._
HALLAM’S (HENRY) Constitutional History of England, from the
Accession of Henry the Seventh to the Death of George the
Second. _Sixth Edition._ 2 Vols. 8vo. 24_s._
—— History of Europe during the Middle Ages. _Tenth Edition._
Including the Supplemental Notes. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
—— Introduction to the Literary History of Europe, during the
16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. _Fourth Edition._ 3 Vols. 8vo.
36_s._
—— Literary Essays and Characters. Selected from the larger
work. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._
HAMILTON’S (WALTER) Facts to Assist the Memory in various
Sciences. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
—— Hindostan, Geographically, Statistically and Historically.
Map. 2 Vols. 4to. 94_s._ 6_d._
—— (W. J.) Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia; with
some Account of the Antiquities and Geology of those Countries.
Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 38_s._
HAMPDEN’S (BISHOP) Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of
Christianity, or the Credibility obtained to a Scripture
Revelation from its Coincidence with the Facts of Nature. 8vo.
9_s._ 6_d._
HARCOURT’S (EDWARD VERNON) Sketch of Madeira; with Map and
Plates. Post 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
HART’S (MAJOR) ARMY LIST. 8vo. (_Published Quarterly and
Annually._)
HASE’S ANCIENT GREEKS; their Public and Private Life, Manners,
and Customs. Translated from the German. By Mrs. AUSTIN. Fcap.
8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
HAY’S (J. H. DRUMMOND) Western Barbary, its wild Tribes and
savage Animals. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
HAND-BOOK OF TRAVEL-TALK; or, Conversations in English, German,
French, and Italian. Intended for Englishmen travelling abroad,
or Foreigners visiting Great Britain. 18mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
—— BELGIUM AND THE RHINE. Maps. Post 8vo. 5_s._
—— NORTH GERMANY AND HOLLAND—including Belgium and the Rhine.
Map. Post 8vo. 9_s._
—— SOUTH GERMANY—Bavaria, Austria, Salzberg, the Austrian and
Bavarian Alps, the Tyrol, and the Danube, from Ulm to the Black
Sea. Map. Post 8vo. 9_s._
—— SWITZERLAND—the Alps of Savoy, and Piedmont. Maps. Post 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._
—— FRANCE—Normandy, Brittany, the French Alps, the Rivers Loire,
Seine, Rhone, and Garonne, Dauphiné, Provence, and the Pyrenees.
Maps. Post 8vo. 9_s._
—— SPAIN—Andalusia, Ronda, Granada, Valencia, Catalonia,
Gallicia, Arragon, and Navarre. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
—— PAINTING—the German, Dutch, Spanish, and French Schools.
Translated in part from the German of KUGLER. Edited, with
Notes, by SIR EDMUND HEAD. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
24_s._
—— MADEIRA AND PORTUGAL. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo, 12_s._
—— NORTH ITALY—Florence, Sardinia, Genoa, the Riviera, Venice,
Lombardy, and Tuscany. Map. Post 8vo. 9_s._
—— CENTRAL ITALY—Part I. SOUTH TUSCANY and the PAPAL
STATES.—Part II. ROME AND ITS ENVIRONS. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
7_s._ each.
—— SOUTHERN ITALY—the Continental Portion of the Two Sicilies,
including Naples, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Vesuvius, Bay of Naples,
&c. Map. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— PAINTING—the Italian Schools. From the German of KUGLER.
Edited by Sir CHARLES EASTLAKE. With Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
24_s._
—— GREECE—the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessaly, and Macedonia.
Maps. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— TURKEY, ASIA MINOR, and CONSTANTINOPLE, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
&c. Maps. Post 8vo.
—— MALTA, EGYPT—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, the
Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— SYRIA AND THE HOLY LAND. Maps. Post 8vo. (_Preparing._)
—— DENMARK, NORWAY, AND SWEDEN. Maps. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— THE BALTIC, RUSSIA, AND FINLAND. Maps. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— ENGLAND AND WALES.—Part I. Devon and Cornwall. 6_s._
—— LONDON, PAST AND PRESENT. Being an Alphabetical Account of
all the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art,
Places, and Streets connected with Interesting and Historical
Associations. Post 8vo. 16_s._
HAND-BOOK—MODERN LONDON. A Guide to all objects of interest in
the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5_s._
—— ENVIRONS OF LONDON. Including a Circle of 30 Miles round St.
Paul’s. Maps. Post 8vo. (_Nearly ready._)
—— BRITISH MUSEUM; ITS ANTIQUITIES AND SCULPTURE. 300 Woodcuts.
Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— PICTURE GALLERIES IN AND NEAR LONDON. With Critical Notices.
Post 8vo. 10_s._
—— WESTMINSTER ABBEY—its Art, Architecture, and Associations.
Woodcuts. 16mo. 1_s._
—— HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY, Alphabetically arranged. 8vo.
(_Nearly Ready._)
—— (OFFICIAL). Giving an Historical Account of the Duties
attached to the various Civil and Ecclesiastical Departments of
the Government. Post 8vo. 6_s._
—— FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. Chiefly from English Authors. A New
Edition with an Index. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
—— ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise and Popular Account of the
Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries in the
World. With a Description of the most remarkable Buildings. By
JAMES FERGUSSON. Illustrations. 8vo. _In the Press._
—— CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND. With Plates. Post 8vo. _In the Press._
—— MEDIÆVAL ART. Translated from the French of M. Jules
Labarthe, and Edited by Mrs. PALLISER. With Illustrations. 8vo.
_In the Press._
HEAD’S (SIR FRANCIS) Rough Notes of some Rapid Journeys across
the Pampas and over the Andes. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau. By an OLD MAN. _Sixth
Edition._ 16mo. 5_s._
—— Emigrant. _Sixth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Stokers and Pokers, or the London and North-Western Railway.
Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Defenceless State of Great Britain. A series of Descriptive
Sketches, containing—1. Military Warfare. 2. Naval Warfare. 3.
The Invasion of England. 4. The Capture of London by a French
Army. 5. The Treatment of Women in War. 6. How to Defend Great
Britain. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— Paris in 1851—a Faggot of French Sticks. _Second Edition._ 2
Vols. Post 8vo. 24_s._
—— Fortnight in Ireland. _Second Edition._ Map. 8vo. 12_s._
—— (SIR GEORGE) Forest Scenes and Incidents in Canada. _Second
Edition._ Post 8vo. 10_s._
—— Home Tour through the Manufacturing Districts of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, including the Channel Islands, and the
Isle of Man. _Third Edition._ 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— (SIR EDMUND) Handbook of Painting—the German, Dutch, Spanish
and French Schools. Partly from the German of KUGLER. With
Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24_s._
HEBER’S (BISHOP) Parish Sermons; on the Lessons, the Gospel, or
the Epistle, for every Sunday in the Year, and for Weekday
Festivals. _Sixth Edition._ 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16_s._
—— Sermons Preached in England. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 9_s._
6_d._
—— Hymns Written and adapted for the weekly Church Service of
the Year. _Twelfth Edition._ 16mo. 2_s._
—— Poetical Works. _Fifth Edition._ Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 7_s._
6_d._
—— Journey through the Upper Provinces of India. From Calcutta
to Bombay, with a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces.
2 Vols. Post 8vo. 10_s._
HEIRESS (THE) in Her Minority; or, The Progress of Character. By
the Author of “BERTHA’S JOURNAL.” 2 Vols. 12mo. 18_s._
HERODOTUS. A New English Version. Translated from the Text of
GAISFORD, and Edited with Notes, illustrating the History and
Geography of Herodotus, from the most recent sources of
information. By Rev. G. RAWLINSON, COLONEL RAWLINSON, and SIR J.
G. WILKINSON. 4 Vols. 8vo. _In Preparation._
HERSCHEL’S (SIR J. W. F.) Manual of Scientific Enquiry, for the
Use of Travellers. By various Writers. _Second Edition._ Post
8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
HERVEY’S (LORD) Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, from
his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline. Edited, with
Notes, by Right Hon. J. W. CROKER. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo.
HICKMAN’S (WM.) Treatise on the Law and Practice of Naval Courts
Martial. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
HILL (GENERAL LORD) Life of. By REV. EDWIN SIDNEY. _Second
Edition._ Portrait. 8vo. 12_s._
—— (Frederic) On Crime: its Amount, Causes, and Remedies. 8vo.
12_s._
HILLARD’S (G. S.) Six Months in Italy. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16_s._
HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE UNDER THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER. With
an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. 8vo. 15_s._
—— the late War: with Sketches of Nelson, Wellington, and
Napoleon. By J. G. LOCKHART. 18mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
HOLLAND’S (REV. W. B.) Psalms and Hymns, selected and adapted to
the various Solemnities of the Church. 24mo. 1_s._ 3_d._
HOLMES’ (MRS. DALKEITH) Ride on Horseback through France and
Switzerland to Florence. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
HOLLWAY’S (J. G.) Month in Norway during the Autumn of 1852.
Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._
HONEY BEE (THE). An Essay Reprinted from the “Quarterly Review.”
Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY. Complete in 76 Parts. Post 8vo, or
bound in 37 Volumes, cloth.
CONTENTS OF THE SERIES.
THE BIBLE IN SPAIN. By GEORGE BORROW.
JOURNALS IN INDIA. By BISHOP HEBER.
TRAVELS IN THE HOLY LAND. By CAPTAINS IRBY and MANGLES.
THE SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR. By JOHN DRINKWATER.
MOROCCO AND THE MOORS. By J. DRUMMOND HAY.
LETTERS FROM THE BALTIC. By a LADY.
THE AMBER WITCH. By LADY DUFF GORDON.
OLIVER CROMWELL & JOHN BUNYAN. By ROBERT SOUTHEY.
NEW SOUTH WALES. By MRS. MEREDITH.
LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE. By JOHN BARROW.
FATHER RIPA’S MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHINA.
A RESIDENCE IN THE WEST INDIES. By M. G. LEWIS.
SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By SIR JOHN MALCOLM.
THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS. By LADY DUFF GORDON.
BRACEBRIDGE HALL. By WASHINGTON IRVING.
VOYAGE OF A NATURALIST. By CHARLES DARWIN.
HISTORY OF THE FALL OF THE JESUITS.
LIFE OF LOUIS PRINCE CONDE. By LORD MAHON.
GIPSIES OF SPAIN. By GEORGE BORROW.
THE MARQUESAS. By HERMANN MELVILLE.
LIVONIAN TALES. By a LADY.
MISSIONARY LIFE IN CANADA. By REV. J. ABBOTT.
SALE’S BRIGADE IN AFFGHANISTAN. By REV. G. R. GLEIG.
LETTERS FROM MADRAS. By a LADY.
HIGHLAND SPORTS. By CHARLES ST. JOHN.
JOURNEYS ACROSS THE PAMPAS. By SIR F. B. HEAD.
GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN. By RICHARD FORD.
SIEGES OF VIENNA BY THE TURKS. By LORD ELLESMERE.
SKETCHES OF GERMAN LIFE. By SIR A. GORDON.
ADVENTURES IN THE SOUTH SEAS. By HERMANN MELVILLE.
STORY OF BATTLE OF WATERLOO. By REV. G. R. GLEIG.
A VOYAGE UP THE RIVER AMAZON. By W. H. EDWARDS.
THE WAYSIDE CROSS. By CAPT. MILMAN.
MANNERS & CUSTOMS OF INDIA. By REV. C. ACLAND.
CAMPAIGNS AT WASHINGTON. By REV. G. R. GLEIG.
ADVENTURES IN MEXICO. By G. F. RUXTON.
PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA. By LORD CARNARVON.
LIFE OF LORD CLIVE. By REV. G. R. GLEIG.
BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. By H. W. HAYGARTH.
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF HENRY STEFFENS.
TALES OF A TRAVELLER. By WASHINGTON IRVING.
SHORT LIVES OF THE POETS. By THOMAS CAMPBELL.
HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By LORD MAHON.
LONDON & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. By SIR F. B. HEAD.
ADVENTURES IN THE LYBIAN DESERT. By BAYLE ST. JOHN.
A RESIDENCE AT SIERRA LEONE. By a LADY.
LIFE OF GENERAL MUNRO. By REV. G. R. GLEIG.
MEMOIRS OF SIR FOWELL BUXTON. By his SON.
LIFE OF OLIVER GOLDSMITH. By WASHINGTON IRVING.
HOOK’S (REV. DR.) Church Dictionary. _Seventh Edition._ 8vo.
16_s._
—— Discourses on the Religious Controversies of the Day. 8vo.
9_s._
—— Advice to the Roman Catholics. By DEAN COMBER. _A New
Edition._ With Notes. Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
—— (THEODORE) Life. From the “Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo.
1_s._
HOOKER’S (J. D.) Himalayan Journals; or, Notes of an Oriental
Naturalist in Bengal, the Sikkim and Nepal Himalayas, the Khasia
Mountains, &c. Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo. 36_s._
HOOPER’S (LIEUT.) Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski; with
Incidents of an Arctic Boat Expedition in Search of Sir John
Franklin. By LIEUT. HOOPER, R.N. Plates 8vo. 14_s._
HORACE (Works of). Edited by DEAN MILMAN. _New Edition._ With
300 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 21_s._
—— (Life of). By DEAN MILMAN. _New Edition._ With Woodcuts, and
coloured Borders. 8vo.
HORNER’S (FRANCIS) Memoirs and Letters. By his BROTHER. _Second
Edition._ Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
HOUSTOUN’S (MRS.) Yacht Voyage to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico.
Plates. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21_s._
HUMBOLDT’S (ALEX.) Cosmos; or, a Physical Description of the
World. Translated by COL. and MRS. SABINE. _Seventh Edition._ 3
Vols. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Aspects of Nature in different Lands and in different
Climates. Translated by COL. and MRS. SABINE. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
5_s._
HUTCHINSON (COLONEL) on Dog-Breaking; the most expeditious,
certain, and easy Method, whether great Excellence or only
Mediocrity be required. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._
INKERSLEY’S (THOS.) Gothic Architecture in France; Being an
Inquiry into the Chronological Succession of the Romanesque and
Pointed Styles; with Notices of some of the principal Buildings,
and an Index. 8vo. 12_s._
IRBY AND MANGLES’ (CAPTAINS) Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and
the Holy Land, including a Journey round the Dead Sea, and
through the Country east of the Jordan. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
JAMES’ (REV. THOMAS) Fables of Æsop. A New Version, for Old and
Young. With 100 Original Designs, by JOHN TENNIEL. Post 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
JAMESON’S (MRS.) Handbook to the Picture Galleries in and near
London. With Historical, Biographical, and Critical Notices.
Post 8vo. _Second Edition._ 10_s._
JAPAN AND THE JAPANESE. Described from the Accounts of Recent
Dutch Travellers. _New Edition._ Post 8vo. 6_s._
JERVIS’S (LIEUT.) Manual of Military Operations, for the Use of
Officers. Post 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
JESSE’S (EDWARD) Visits to Spots of Interest in the Vicinity of
Windsor and Eton. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— Scenes and Occupations of Country Life. With Recollections of
Natural History. _Third Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.
—— Gleanings in Natural History. With Anecdotes of the Sagacity
and Instinct of Animals. _Sixth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
JOCELYN’S (LORD) Six Months with the Chinese Expedition; or,
Leaves from a Soldier’s Note-Book. _Seventh Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
5_s._ 6_d._
JOHNSON’S (DR. SAMUEL) Life: By James Boswell. Including the
Tour to the Hebrides, with Notes by SIR W. SCOTT. Edited by the
Right Hon. JOHN WILSON CHOKER. _A New Edition_, with much
additional matter. 1 Vol. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 15_s._
—— Lives of the Poets. A New Edition. Edited and annotated. By
PETER CUNNINGHAM. 3 vols. 8vo. _In the Press._
JOHNSTON’S (WM.) England as it is: Social, Political, and
Industrial, in the Middle of the 19th Century. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
18_s._
JONES’S (REV. RICHARD) Essay on the Distribution of Wealth, and
on the Sources of Taxation. Part 1.—RENT. _Second Edition._ Post
8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
JOURNAL OF A NATURALIST. _Fourth Edition._ Woodcuts. Post 8vo.
9_s._ 6_d._
JOWETT’S (Rev. B.) St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians,
Galatians, and Romans. With critical Notes and Dissertations.
8vo. _In the Press._
JUKES’ (J. B.) Excursions in and about Newfoundland during the
Years 1839–40. Map. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21_s._
KING EDWARD VITH’S Latin Grammar; or, an Introduction to the
Latin Tongue, for the Use of Schools. _Eighth Edition._ 12mo.
8_s._ 6_d._
—— Latin Accidence; or, Elements of the Latin Tongue, for the
Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2_s._
KINNEAR’S (JOHN G.) Cairo, Petra, and Damascus, described from
Notes made during a Tour in those Countries: with Remarks on the
Government of Mehemet Ali, and on the present prospects of
Syria. Post 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
KNIGHT’S (CHARLES) Once upon a Time. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12_s._
KUGLER’S (Dr. FRANZ) Handbook to the History of Painting (the
Italian Schools). Translated from the German. Edited, with
Notes, by SIR CHARLES EASTLAKE. _Second Edition._ With Woodcuts
from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24_s._
—— (the German, Dutch, Spanish, and French Schools). Partly
Translated from the German. Edited, with Notes, by SIR EDMUND
HEAD, Bart. With Woodcuts from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. Post
8vo. 24_s._
LABORDE’S (LEON DE) Journey through Arabia Petræa, to Mount
Sinai, and the Excavated City of Petræa,—the Edom of the
Prophecies. _Second Edition._ With Plates. 8vo. 18_s._
LAMBERT’S (Miss) Church Needlework. With Practical Remarks on
its Preparation and Arrangement. Plates. Post 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
—— My Knitting Book. Woodcuts. _Two parts._ 16mo. 3_s._
—— My Crochet Sampler. Woodcuts. _Two parts._ 16mo. 4_s._
—— Hints on Decorative Needlework. 16mo. 1_s._ 6_d._
LANE’S (E. W.) Arabian Nights. Translated with Explanatory
Notes. With Woodcuts. Royal 8vo. 21_s._
LATIN GRAMMAR (KING EDWARD THE VITH’S.) For the Use of Schools.
_Eighth Edition._ 12mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
—— Accidence (KING EDWARD VI.); or, Elements of the Latin
Tongue, for the Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2_s._
LAYARD’S (AUSTEN H.) Nineveh and its Remains. Being a Narrative
of Researches and Discoveries amidst the Ruins of Assyria. With
an Account of the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan; the Yezedis,
or Devil-worshippers; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts
of the Ancient Assyrians. _Fifth Edition._ Plates and Woodcuts.
2 Vols. 8vo. 36_s._
—— Nineveh and Babylon; being the Result of a Second Expedition
to Assyria. _Fourteenth Thousand._ Plates and Woodcuts. 8vo.
21_s._ Or Fine Paper. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
—— Monuments of Nineveh. Illustrated by One Hundred Engravings.
Imperial Folio, 10_l._ 10_s._
—— Second Series. Illustrated by Seventy Plates. Imperial Folio.
10_l._ 10_s._
—— Popular Account of Nineveh. _15th Edition._ With Woodcuts.
Post 8vo. 5_s._
LEAKE’S (COL. W. MARTIN) Topography of Athens, with Remarks on
its Antiquities; to which is added, the Demi of Attica. _Second
Edition._ Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
—— Travels in Northern Greece. Maps. 4 Vols. 8vo. 60_s._
—— Greece at the End of Twenty-three Years Protection. 8vo.
6_d._
—— Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in the Morea. 8vo.
15_s._
—— Thoughts on the Degradation of Science in England. 8vo. 3_s._
6_d._
LETTERS FROM THE SHORES OF THE BALTIC. By a LADY. Post 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
—— Madras; or, First Impressions of Life and Manners in India.
By a LADY. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Sierra Leone, written to Friends at Home. By a LADY. Edited
by MRS. NORTON. Post 8vo. 5_s._
LEWIS’ (G. CORNEWALL) Essay on the Government of Dependencies.
8vo. 12_s._
—— Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire and some
of the adjoining Counties. 12mo. 4_s._ 6_d._
—— Essay on the Origin and Formation of the Romance Languages:
_Second Edition._ 8vo. 12_s._
—— (LADY THERESA) Friends and Contemporaries of the Lord
Chancellor Clarendon, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery.
With an Introduction, containing a Descriptive Catalogue of the
Pictures, and an Account of the Origin of the Collection.
Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
—— (M. G.) Journal of a Residence among the Negroes in the West
Indies. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
LEXINGTON (THE) PAPERS; or, Some Account of the Courts of London
and Vienna at the end of the 17th Century. Extracted from the
Official and Private Correspondence of ROBERT SUTTON (LORD
LEXINGTON) while Minister at Vienna, 1694–1698. Edited by HON.
H. MANNERS SUTTON. 8vo. 14_s._
LINDSAY’S (LORD) Sketches of the History of Christian Art. 3
Vols. 8vo. 31_s._ 6_d._
—— Lives of the Lindsays; or, a Memoir of the Houses of Crawford
and Balcarres. To which are added, Extracts from the Official
Correspondence of Alexander, sixth Earl of Balcarres, during the
Maroon War; together with Personal Narratives, by his Brothers,
the Hon. Robert, Colin, James, John, and Hugh Lindsay; and by
his Sister, Lady Anne Barnard. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
—— Progression by Antagonism. A Theory, involving Considerations
touching the Present Position, Duties, and Destiny of Great
Britain. 8vo. 6_s._
—— (Rev. HENRY) Practical Lectures on the Historical Books of
the Old Testament. 2 Vols. 16mo. 10_s._
LITTLE ARTHUR’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By LADY CALLCOTT.
_Seventeenth Edition._ 18mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
LIVONIAN TALES.—The Disponent.—The Wolves.—The Jewess. By the
Author of “Letters from the Baltic.” Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
LOCH’S (CAPT. G. C.) Events of the Closing Campaign in China.
Map. Post 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
LOCKHART’S (J. G.) Ancient Spanish Ballads; Historical and
Romantic. Translated, with Notes. _New Edition_, with
Illuminated Titles, Borders, &c. 4to. Or _Cheap Edition_. Post
8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Life of Robert Burns. _Fifth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
—— History of the Late War: with Sketches of Nelson, Wellington,
and Napoleon. 18mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
LONG’S (GEORGE) Essays on the Conduct of Life, and Moral Nature
of Man. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 6_s._ each.
LOUDON’S (MRS.) Ladies’ Gardener; or, Instructions in Gardening.
With Directions for Every Month in the Year, and a Calendar of
Operations. _Eighth Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
—— Modern Botany for Ladies; or, a Popular Introduction to the
Natural System of Plants. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.
6_s._
LOWE’S (SIR HUDSON) Letters and Journals, during the Captivity
of Napoleon at St. Helena. By WILLIAM FORSYTH. Portrait. 3 Vols.
8vo. 45_s._
LUSHINGTON’S (MRS.) Narrative of a Journey from Calcutta to
Europe, by way of Egypt. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
LYELL’S (SIR CHARLES) Principles of Geology; or, the Modern
Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as
illustrative of Geology. _Ninth Edition._ Woodcuts. 8vo. 18_s._
—— Manual of Elementary Geology; or, the Ancient Changes of the
Earth and its Inhabitants illustrated by its Geological
Monuments. _Fifth Edition._ Woodcuts. 8vo. _In the Press._
—— Travels in North America, 1841–2; with Observations on the
United States, Canada, and Nova Scotia. Plates. 2 Vols. Post
8vo. 21_s._
—— Second Visit to the United States of North America, 1845–6.
_Second Edition._ 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
MAHON’S (LORD) History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht to
the Peace of Versailles, 1713–83 _Third Edition_ revised. Vols.
I. to VI. _Library Edition._ 8vo. 78_s._ _Popular Edition._ Post
8vo. 36_s._
—— “Forty-Five;” or, a Narrative of the Rebellion in Scotland.
Post 8vo. 3_s._
—— History of the War of the Succession in Spain. _Second
Edition._ Map. 8vo. 15_s._
—— Spain under Charles the Second; or, Extracts from the
Correspondence of the Hon. ALEXANDER STANHOPE, British Minister
at Madrid from 1690 to 1700. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 6_s._
6_d._
—— Life of Louis Prince of Condé, surnamed the Great. Post 8vo.
5_s._
—— Life of Belisarius. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Historical and Critical Essays. Post 8vo. 5_s._
—— Story of Joan of Arc. Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
M^cCULLOCH (J. R.); Collected Edition of RICARDO’S Political
Works. With Notes and Memoir. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 16_s._
MACFARLANE’S (CHARLES) Travels in Turkey during the Years
1847–8. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28_s._
MALCOLM’S (SIR JOHN) Sketches of Persia. _Third Edition._ Post
8vo. 5_s._
MANTELL’S (GIDEON A.) Thoughts on Animalcules; or, the Invisible
World, as revealed by the Microscope. _Second Edition._ Plates
16mo. 6_s._
MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, Prepared for the Use of Officers
and Travellers in general. By various Writers. Edited by SIR J.
HERSCHEL, Bart. _Second Edition._ Maps. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
(_Published by order of the Lords of the Admiralty._)
MARKHAM’S (MRS.) History of England. From the First Invasion by
the Romans, down to the fourteenth year of Queen Victoria’s
Reign. _New and Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. 12mo. 6_s._
—— History of France. From the Conquest by the Gauls, to the
Death of Louis Philippe. _New and Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts.
12mo. 6_s._
—— History of Germany. From the Invasion by Marius, to the
present time. _New and Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. 12mo. 6_s._
—— History of Greece. With Chapters on the Literature, Art, and
Domestic Manners of the Greeks. By Dr. WM. SMITH. Woodcuts.
12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— History of Rome. 12mo. _In Preparation._
—— Sermons for Children. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._
MARKLAND’S (J.H.) Remarks on English Churches, and Sepulchral
Memorials. _Fourth Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
—— Reverence due to Holy Places. _Third Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
2_s._
MARRYAT’S (JOSEPH) History of Pottery and Porcelain, in the
15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. With a Description of the
Manufacture, a Glossary, and a List of Monograms. With Coloured
Plates and Woodcuts. 8vo. 31_s._ 6_d._
⁂ _A few copies on India Proofs, mounted on large Paper._ 4to.
5_l._ 5_s._
MATTHIÆ’S (AUGUSTUS) Greek Grammar for Schools. Abridged from
the Larger Grammar. By the BISHOP OF LONDON. _Seventh Edition._
revised by Rev. J. EDWARDS. 12mo. 8_s._
—— Greek Accidence for Schools. Abridged by the BISHOP OF
LONDON. _Fourth Edition_, revised by Rev. J. EDWARDS. 12mo.
2_s._
—— Index of Quotations from Greek Authors contained in Matthiæ’s
Greek Grammar. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
MAUREL’S (JULES) Essay on the Character, Actions, and Writings
of the Duke of Wellington. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
6_d._
MAWE’S (H. L.) Journal of a Passage from the Pacific to the
Atlantic, crossing the Andes in the Northern Provinces of Peru,
and descending the great River Maranon. 8vo. 12_s._
MAXIMS AND HINTS for an Angler, and the Miseries of Fishing. By
RICHARD PENN. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. 12mo. 5_s._ MAYO’S
(DR.) Pathology of the Human Mind. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
MELVILLE’S (HERMANN) Typee and Omoo; or, Adventures amongst the
Marquesas and South Seas. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 10_s._
MENDELSSOHN’S (FELIX BARTHOLDY) Life. By JULES BENEDICT. 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
MERRIFIELD (MRS.) on the Arts of Painting in Oil, Miniature,
Mosaic, and Glass; Gilding, Dyeing, and the Preparation of
Colours and Artificial Gems, described in several old
Manuscripts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30_s._
MEREDITH’S (MRS. CHARLES) Notes and Sketches of New South Wales,
during a Residence from 1839 to 1844. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Tasmania, during a Residence of Nine Years. With
Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
MILFORD’S (JOHN) Norway and her Laplanders in 1841; with a Few
Hints to the Salmon Fisher. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
MITCHELL’S (THOMAS) Plays of Aristophanes. With English Notes.
8vo.—1. CLOUDS, 10_s._—2. WASPS, 10_s._—3. FROGS, 15_s._
MODERN DOMESTIC COOKERY. Founded on Principles of Economy and
Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. _New and
Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
MILMAN’S (DEAN) History of Christianity, from the Birth of
Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire. 3
Vols. 8vo. 36_s._
—— History of Latin Christianity; including that of the Popes to
the Pontificate of Nicholas V. Vols. I. to III. 8vo.
—— Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as an
Evidence of Christianity. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
_New Edition_, with Additional Notes by Dr. WM. SMITH. Portrait
and Maps. 8 Vols. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._ each.
—— Life and Correspondence of Edward Gibbon. Portrait. 8vo.
9_s._
—— Life and Works of Horace. _New Edition._ With 300 Woodcuts. 2
Vols. Crown 8vo. 30_s._
—— Poetical Works. _Second Edition._ Plates. 3 Vols. Fcap. 8vo.
18_s._
—— Fall of Jerusalem. Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
—— (CAPT. E. A.) Wayside Cross; or, the Raid of Gomez. A Tale of
the Carlist War. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
MOORE’S (THOMAS) Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Plates. 6 Vols.
Fcap. 8vo. 18_s._
—— Complete in One Volume. Portrait and Vignette. Royal 8vo.
12_s._
MUCK MANUAL (The) for the Use of Farmers. A Practical Treatise
on the Chemical Properties, Management, and Application of
Manures. By FREDERICK FALKNER. _Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
6_s._
MUIRHEAD (J. P.). James Watt, an Historical Eloge. By M. ARAGO.
Translated, with Notes. 8vo, 8_s._ 6_d._
—— Correspondence of James Watt on his Discovery of the Theory
of the Composition of Water, with a Letter from his Son.
Portrait. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
MULLER’S DORIANS; The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race.
Translated by the Right Hon. HENRY TUFNELL and GEORGE CORNEWALL
LEWIS, Esq. _Second Edition._ Maps. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26_s._
MUNDY’S (CAPT. RODNEY) Events in Borneo, including the
Occupation of Labuan and Visit to the Celebes. Plates. 2 Vols.
8vo. 32_s._
MUNRO’S (GENERAL SIR THOMAS) Life and Letters. By the REV. G. R.
GLEIG. Post 8vo. 5_s._
MURCHISON’S (SIR RODERICK) Russia in Europe and the Ural
Mountains; Geologically Illustrated. With Coloured Maps, Plates,
Sections, &c. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 8_l._ 8_s._
—— Siluria; or, a History of the Oldest Rocks containing Organic
Remains. With Map and Plates. 8vo.
MURRAY’S (CAPT. A.) Naval Life and Services of Admiral Sir
Philip Durham. 8vo. 5_s._ 6_d._
MURRAY’S RAILWAY READING. Published occasionally; varying in
size and price, and suited for all classes of Readers.
[_The following are published_:]
WELLINGTON. By LORD ELLESMERE. 6_d._
NIMROD ON THE CHASE, 1_s._
ESSAYS FROM “THE TIMES.” 2 Vols. 8_s._
MUSIC AND DRESS. 1_s._
LAYARD’S POPULAR ACCOUNT OF NINEVEH. 5_s._
MILMAN’S FALL OF JERUSALEM. 1_s._
MAHON’S “FORTY-FIVE.” 3_s._
LIFE OF THEODORE HOOK. 1_s._
DEEDS OF NAVAL DARING. 2 Vols. 5_s._
THE HONEY BEE. 1_s._
JAMES’ ÆSOP’S FABLES. 2_s._ 6_d._
NIMROD ON THE TURF. 1_s._ 6_d._
OLIPHANT’S NEPAUL. 2_s._ 6_d._
ART OF DINING. 1_s._ 6_d._
HALLAM’S LITERARY ESSAYS. 2_s._
MABON’S JOAN OF ARC. 1_s._
HEAD’S EMIGRANT. 2_s._ 6_d._
NIMROD ON THE ROAD. 1_s._
WILKINSON’S ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. 12_s._
CROKER ON THE GUILLOTINE. 1_s._
HOLLWAY’S NORWAY. 2_s._
MAUREL’S WELLINGTON. 1_s._ 6_d._
CAMPBELL’S LIFE OF BACON. 2_s._
THE FLOWER GARDEN. 1_s._
LOCKHART’S SPANISH BALLADS. 2_s._ 6_d._
LUCAS ON HISTORY. 6_d._
BEAUTIES OF BYRON. 3_s._
MUSIC AND DRESS. Two Essays reprinted from the “Quarterly
Review.” Fcap. 8vo. 1_s._
NAUTICAL ALMANACK (The). (_Published by Order of the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty._) Royal 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
NAVY LIST (The Royal). (_Published Quarterly, by Authority._)
12mo. 2_s._ 6_d._
NEALE’S (E. V.) Feasts and Fasts: an Essay on the Rise,
Progress, and Present State of the Laws relating to Sundays and
other Holidays, &c. Fcap. 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
NEVILLE’S (HON. R. C.) Saxon Obsequies; illustrated by Ornaments
and Weapons discovered in a Cemetery near Little Wilbraham,
Cambridgeshire. With short Descriptions. Illustrated by 40
Plates. 4to. 84_s._
NEWBOLD’S (LIEUT.) Straits of Malacca, Penang, Malacca, and
Singapore. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26_s._
NIMROD On the Chace—The Turf—and The Road. Reprinted from the
“Quarterly Review.” Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 3_s._ 6_d._
NORTON’S (HON. CAROLINE) Letters from Sierra Leone. By a LADY,
written to Friends at Home. Edited by Mrs. NORTON. Post 8vo.
5_s._
O’BYRNE’S (W. R.) Naval Biographical Dictionary, comprising the
Life and Services of every Living Officer in H. M. Navy, from
the Rank of Admiral to that of Lieutenant. Compiled from
Authentic and Family Documents. Royal 8vo. 42_s._
O’CONNOR’S (R.) Field Sports of France; or, Hunting, Shooting,
and Fishing on the Continent. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._
OLIPHANT’S (LAURENCE) Journey to Katmandu, with Visit to the
Camp of the Nepaulese Ambassador. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
OXENHAM’S (REV. W.) English Notes for Latin Elegiacs; designed
for early Proficients in the Art of Latin Versification, with
Prefatory Rules of Composition in Elegiac Metre. _Second
Edition._ 12mo. 4_s._
PAGET’S (JOHN) Hungary and Transylvania. With Remarks on their
Condition, Social, Political, and Economical. _Second Edition._
Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24_s._
PALLISER’S (JOHN) Solitary Rambles and Adventures of a Hunter in
the Prairies. Woodcuts. Post 8vo.
PARISH’S (SIR WOODBINE) Buenos Ayres and the Provinces of the
Rio de la Plata. Their First Discovery and Conquest, Present
State, Trade, Debt, _&.c._ _Second Edition._ Map and Woodcuts.
8vo. 15_s._
PARIS’S (T. C.) Letters from the Pyrenees during Three Months’
Pedestrian Wanderings amidst the Wildest Scenes of the French
and Spanish Pyrenees. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
PARKYNS’ (MANSFIELD) Personal Narrative of Three Years’
Residence and Adventures in Abyssinia. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo.
30_s._
PEILE’S (REV. DR.) Agamemnon of Æschylus. A New Edition of the
Text, with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for
the Use of Students. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 9_s._
—— Choephoræ of Æschylus. A New Edition of the Text, with Notes,
Critical, Explanatory, and Philological, for the Use of
Students. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 9_s._
PELLEW’S (DEAN OF NORWICH) Life of Lord Sidmouth, with his
Correspondence. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
PENN’S (RICHARD) Maxims and Hints for an Angler, and the
Miseries of Fishing. To which is added, Maxims and Hints for a
Chess-player. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
—— (GRANVILLE) Bioscope; or, Dial of Life Explained. To which is
added, a Translation of St. Paulinus’ Epistle to Celantia on the
Rule of Christian Life; and an Elementary View of General
Chronology. _Second Edition._ With Dial Plate. 12mo. 12_s._
PENROSE’S (REV. JOHN) Lives of Vice-Admiral Sir C. V. Penrose,
and Captain James Trevenen. Portraits. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Sermons for Households, or Fifty-four Sermons Written for
Sunday Reading in Families. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— (F. C.) Principles of Athenian Architecture, and the Optical
Refinements exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient
Buildings at Athens, from a Survey. With 40 Plates. Folio. 5_l._
5_s._ (_Published under the direction of the Dilettanti
Society._)
PENNINGTON (G. J.) On the Pronunciation of the Greek Language.
8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._
PHILLIPS’ (John) Memoirs of William Smith, LL.D., (the
Geologist). Portrait. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— Geology of Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Coast, and the
Mountain-Limestone District. Plates 4to. Part I., 31_s._
6_d._—Part II., 52_s._ 6_d._
—— Rivers, Mountains, and Sea Coast of Yorkshire; with Essays on
the Climate, Scenery and Ancient Inhabitants of the County.
Plates. 8vo. 15_s._
PHILOSOPHY IN SPORT MADE SCIENCE IN EARNEST; or, the First
Principles of Natural Philosophy inculcated by aid of the Toys
and Sports of Youth. _Seventh Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._
PHILPOTT’S (BISHOP) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the
Theological parts of his “Book of the Roman Catholic Church;”
with Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and
on some parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. _Second Edition._
8vo. 16_s._
PHIPPS’ (HON. EDMUND) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and
Unpublished Diaries of Robert Plumer Ward. Portrait. 2 Vols.
8vo. 28_s._
POOLE’S (R. S.) Horæ Egyptiacæ: or, the Chronology of Ancient
Egypt, discovered from Astronomical and Hieroglyphic Records
upon its Monuments. Plates. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— (REV. G. A.) Handbook for the Cathedrals of England.
Containing Descriptions of each. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. _In the
Press._
POPE’S (ALEXANDER) WORKS. An entirely New Edition. Edited by the
Right Hon. JOHN WILSON CROKER and PETER CUNNINGHAM, F.S.A. 6
vols. 8vo. _In the Press._
PORTER’S (G. R.) Progress of the Nation, in its various Social
and Economical Relations, from the beginning of the Nineteenth
Century. _Third Edition._ 8vo. 24_s._
—— (MRS. G. R.) Rational Arithmetic for Schools and for Private
Instruction. 12mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
POWELL’S (REV. W. P.) Latin Grammar simplified. 12mo. 3_s._
6_d._
PRAYER-BOOK (THE), Illuminated with 1000 Illustrations of
Borders, Initials, Vignettes, &c. Medium 8vo. Cloth, 21_s._;
Calf, 31_s._ 6_d._ Morocco, 42_s._
PROGRESS OF RUSSIA IN THE EAST. An Historical Summary, continued
to the Present Time. With Map by ARROWSMITH. _Third Edition._
8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
PUSS IN BOOTS. Suited to the Tastes of Little and Grown
Children. By OTTO SPECKTER. _Second Edition._ Plates. 16mo.
5_s._
QUARTERLY REVIEW (THE). 8vo. 6_s._
RANKE’S (LEOPOLD) Political and Ecclesiastical History of the
Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Translated from the German by MRS. AUSTIN. _Third Edition._ 2
Vols. 8vo. 24_s._
—— History of Prussia; or, Memoirs of the House of Brandenburgh.
Translated from the German by SIR ALEXANDER DUFF GORDON BART. 3
Vols. 8vo. 36_s._
RAWLINSON’S (REV. GEORGE) Herodotus. A New English Version.
Translated from the Text of GAISFORD, and Edited with Notes,
illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the
most recent sources of information, embodying the chief Results,
Historical and Ethnographical, which have been arrived at in the
progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Discovery. Assisted by
COLONEL RAWLINSON, and SIR J. G. WILKINSON. 4 Vols. 8vo. _In the
Press._
REJECTED ADDRESSES (THE). By JAMES AND HORACE SMITH. With
Biographies of the Authors, and additional Notes. _Twenty-second
Edition._ Portraits. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
RICARDO’S (DAVID) Political Works. With a Notice of his Life and
Writings. By J. R. M^CCULLOCH. _New Edition._ 8vo. 16_s._
RIDE on Horseback to Florence through France and Switzerland.
Described in a Series of Letters. By A LADY. 2 Vols. Post 8vo.
18_s._
RIPA’S (FATHER) Memoirs during Thirteen Years’ Residence at the
Court of Peking, in the Service of the Emperor of China.
Translated from the Italian. By FORTUNATO PRANDI. Post 8vo.
2_s._ 6_d._
ROBERTSON’S (LORD) Leaves from a Journal, and other Fragments in
Verse. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— (REV. J. C.) History of the Christian Church, to the
Pontificate of Gregory the Great: a Manual for general Readers
as well as for Students in Theology. 8vo. 12_s._
ROMILLY’S (SIR SAMUEL) Memoirs and Political Diary. By his SONS.
_Third Edition._ Portrait. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12_s._
ROSS’S (SIR JAMES) Voyage of Discovery and Research in the
Southern and Antarctic Regions during the years 1839–43. Plates.
2 Vols. 8vo. 36_s._
ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE (THE). TRANSACTIONS. Plates. Vols.
I. to III. 8vo. 12_s._ each.
RUNDELL’S (MRS.) Modern Domestic Cookery, founded on Principles
of Economy and Practice, and adapted for Private Families. _New
and Cheaper Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
RUXTON’S (GEORGE F.) Travels in Mexico; with Adventures among
the Wild Tribes and Animals of the Prairies and Rocky Mountains,
Post 8vo. 5_s._
SALE’S (LADY) Journal of the Disasters in Affghanistan. _Eighth
Edition._ Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— (SIR ROBERT) Brigade in Affghanistan, With an Account of the
Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad. By REV. G. R. GLEIG. Post
8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
SAXON (THE) in Ireland. Being Notes of the Rambles of an
Englishman in the West of Ireland, in search of a Settlement.
_Second Edition._ Fcap. 8vo.
SCROPE’S (WILLIAM) Days of Deer-Stalking in the Forest of
Atholl; with some Account of the Nature and Habits of the Red
Deer. _Third Edition._ Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 20_s._
—— Days and Nights of Salmon Fishing in the Tweed; with a short
Account of the Natural History and Habits of the Salmon. _Second
Edition._ Woodcuts. Royal 8vo.
—— (G. P.) Memoir of Lord Sydenham, and his Administration in
Canada. _Second Edition._ Portrait. 8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
SENTENCES FROM THE PROVERBS. In English, French, Italian, and
German. For the Daily Use of Young Persons. By A LADY. 16mo.
3_s._ 6_d._
SERMONS. Preached during the Visitation of the Bishop of Exeter
in 1845. Published by Request. 12mo. 6_s._
SEWELL’S (REV. W.) Evidences of Christianity; or, Dialogues
between a Brahmin and a Christian. Fcap. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
SHAW’S (THOS. B.) Outlines of English Literature, for the Use of
Young Students. Post 8vo. 12_s._
SIDMOUTH’S (LORD) Life and Correspondence. By the HON. and REV.
GEORGE PELLEW, DEAN OF NORWICH. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
SIDNEY’S (REV. EDWIN) Life of Lord Hill. _Second Edition._
Portrait. 8vo. 12_s._
SIERRA LEONE; Described in a Series of Letters to Friends at
Home. By A LADY. Edited by MRS. NORTON. Post 8vo. 5_s._
SMITH’S (WM., LL.D.) Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
_Second Edition._ With 500 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42_s._
—— Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, abridged
from the above Work. _Second Edition._ With 200 Woodcuts. Crown
8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. With
500 Woodcuts. 3 Vols. 8vo. 5_l._ 15_s._ 6_d._
—— Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Woodcuts. Vol. I.
8vo. 36_s._ (To be completed in 2 Vols.)
—— Classical Dictionary for Schools. Compiled from the above
works. _Second Edition._ 8vo. 15_s._
—— Smaller Classical Dictionary. _Second Edition._ With 200
Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— New Latin-English Dictionary, founded on the best and most
recent authorities. 8vo. _In Preparation._
—— Edition of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
With Notes by MILMAN and GUIZOT. Portrait and Map. 8 Vols. 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._ each.
—— (WM. JAS.) Grenville Letters and Diaries, including MR.
GRENVILLE’S DIARY OF POLITICAL EVENTS, while First Lord of the
Treasury. Edited with Notes. 4 Vols. 8vo. 64_s._
—— (JAMES & HORACE) Rejected Addresses. _Twenty-second Edition._
Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 5_s._
SOMERVILLE’S (MARY) Physical Geography. _Third Edition._
Portrait. 2 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12_s._
—— Connexion of the Physical Sciences. _Eighth Edition._ Plates.
Fcap. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
SOUTHEY’S (ROBERT) Book of the Church; with Notes containing the
Authorities, and an index. _Sixth Edition._ 8vo. 12_s._
—— Lives of John Bunyan & Oliver Cromwell. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
SPECKTER’S (OTTO) Puss in Boots; or, the Story of the Marquis of
Carabas. Illustrated. _Second Edition._ 16mo. 5_s._
—— Charmed Roe; or, the Story of the Little Brother and Sister.
Illustrated. 16mo. 5_s._
STANLEY’S (EDWARD, D.D., Bp. of Norwich) ADDRESSES AND CHARGES.
With a Memoir of his Life. By HIS SON. _Second Edition._ 8vo.
10_s._ 6_d._
—— (ARTHUR P.) St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians. Edited
with Critical Notes and Dissertations, &c. 8vo. _In the Press._
ST. JOHN’S (CHARLES) Field Notes of a Sportsman and Naturalist
in Sutherland. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18_s._
—— Wild Sports and Natural History of the Highlands. Post 8vo.
5_s._
—— (BAYLE) Adventures in the Libyan Desert and the Oasis of
Jupiter Ammon. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
STAUNTON’S (SIR GEORGE) Miscellaneous Notices relating to China,
and our Commercial Intercourse with that Country. Including a
few Translations from the Chinese Language, and some
Observations on our Intercourse with that Country. _Third
Edition._ 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
STEPHENS’ (J. L.) Incidents of a First and Second Visit to
Central America and Yucatan. _New Edition._ Post 8vo. _In
Preparation._
STEVENS’ (WM., M.D.) Observations on the Healthy and Diseased
Properties of the Blood. 8vo. 15_s._
STISTED’S (MRS. HENRY) Letters from the Bye-Ways of Italy.
Plates. 8vo. 18_s._
STOTHARD’S (THOS., R. A.) Life. With Personal Reminiscences. By
Mrs. BRAY. With Portrait, and 60 Woodcuts. 4to. 21_s._
STRIFE FOR THE MASTERY. Two Allegories. With Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 6_s._
SUNLIGHT THROUGH THE MIST; or, Practical Lessons drawn from the
Lives of Good Men, intended as a Sunday Book for Children. By A
LADY. 16mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
SUTTON (HON. H. MANNERS). Some Account of the Courts of London
and Vienna, at the end of the Seventeenth Century, extracted
from the Official and Private Correspondence of Robert Sutton
(late Lord Lexington) while British Minister at Vienna, 1694–98.
8vo. 14_s._
SUVERN’S ARISTOPHANES. The Birds and the Clouds. Translated by
W. R. HAMILTON, F.R.S. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 9_s._
SWIFT’S (JONATHAN) Works. New Edition, based upon Sir Walter
Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. _In the Press._
SYDENHAM’S (LORD) Memoirs. With his Administration in Canada. By
G. POULET SCROPE, M.P. _Second Edition._ Portrait. 8vo. 9_s._
6_d._
TAIT’S (DEAN) Suggestions to the Theological Student under
present Difficulties. Post 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._
TALBOT’S (H. FOX) English Etymologies. 8vo. 12_s._
TAYLOR’S (HENRY) Notes from Life and Books. _Third Edition._ 2
Vols. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— (J. E.) Fairy Ring. A Collection of Stories for Young
Persons. From the German. With Illustrations by RICHARD DOYLE.
_Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
—— Michael Angelo considered as a Philosophic Poet. _Second
Edition._ Post 8vo. 5_s._
TENNENT’S (SIR J. E.) Christianity in Ceylon. Its Introduction
and Progress under the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and American
Missions. With an Historical Sketch of the Brahmanical and
Buddhist Superstitions. Woodcuts. 8vo. 14_s._
THEOPHILUS’ Essay upon Various Arts; forming an Encyclopædia of
Christian Art of the 11th Century. Translated with Notes, by
ROBERT HENDRIE. 8vo. 21_s._
THORNTON’S (WM. T.) Plea for Peasant Proprietors; with the
Outlines of a Plan for their Establishment in Ireland. Post 8vo.
7_s._ 6_d._
THREE-LEAVED MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; arranged so as to save the
trouble of turning the Pages backwards and forwards. Royal 8vo.
2_s._
THRESHOLD (THE) OF LIFE. A Series of Letters addressed to a Son
on his Entrance into the World. Fcap. 8vo. _In the Press._
TICKNOR’S (GEORGE) History of Spanish Literature. With
Criticisms on particular Works, and Biographical Notices of
Prominent Writers. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
TREMENHEERE’S (H. S.) Political Experience of the Ancients, in
its bearing on Modern Times. Fcap. 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— Notes on Public Subjects, made during a Tour in the United
States and Canada. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Constitution of the United States compared with our own. Post
8vo. 9_s._ 6_d._
TURNBULL’S (P. E.) Narrative of Travels in Austria, with Remarks
on its Social and Political Condition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24_s._
TWISS’ (HORACE) Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor
Eldon, with Selections from his Correspondence. Portrait. _Third
Edition._ 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21_s._
VAUGHAN’S (REV. DR.) Sermons on Various Occasions. 8vo. 12_s._
6_d._
—— Sermons preached in Harrow School. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
—— Nine New Sermons. 12mo. 5_s._
VAUX’S (W. S. W.) Handbook to the Antiquities in the British
Museum; being a Description of the Remains of Greek, Assyrian.
Egyptian, and Etruscan Art preserved there. With 300 Woodcuts.
Post 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
VENABLES’ (REV. R. L.) Domestic Manners of the Russians.
Described from a Year’s Residence in that Country. Post 8vo.
9_s._ 6_d._
VOYAGE to the Mauritius and back, touching at the Cape of Good
Hope, and St. Helena. By Author of “PADDIANA.” Post 8vo. 9_s._
6_d._
WAAGEN’S (DR.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Being an
Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Sculpture,
Manuscripts, Miniatures, &c. &c., in this Country. Obtained from
Personal Inspection during Visits to England. 3 Vols. 8vo.
WAKEFIELD’S (E. J.) Adventures in New Zealand, 1839–1844. With
some Account of the Beginning of the British Colonisation of the
Island. Map. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28_s._
WALKS AND TALKS. A Story-book for Young Children. By AUNT IDA.
With Woodcuts. 16mo. 5_s._
WARD’S (ROBERT PLUMER) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and
Unpublished Diaries and Remains. By the HON. EDMUND PHIPPS.
Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28_s._
WATT (JAMES); an Historical Eloge. By M. ARAGO. Translated, with
Notes, by J. P. MUIRHEAD. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._; or 4to. 21_s._
—— Correspondence on his Discovery of the Theory of the
Composition of Water. Edited, with Notes, by J. P. MUIRHEAD.
Portrait. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._; or 4to. 24_s._
—— The Origin and Progress of his Inventions. Illustrated by his
correspondence with his friends. Edited by J. P. MUIRHEAD. 2
vols. 8vo. Plates, 4to. _In the Press._
WELLESLEY’S (REV. DR.) Anthologia Polyglotta; a Selection of
Versions in various Languages chiefly from the Greek Anthology.
8vo. 15_s._; or 4to. 42_s._
WELLINGTON (THE DUKE OF); his Character, his Actions, and his
Writings. By JULES MAUREL. _Second Edition with Additions._
1_s._ 6_d._
—— His Despatches during his various Campaigns. Compiled from
Official and other Authentic Documents. By COL. GURWOOD, C.B.
_New, Enlarged Edition._ 8 Vols. 8vo. 21_s._ each.
—— Selections from the Wellington Despatches. 8vo. 18_s._
—— Speeches in Parliament. Collected and Arranged with his
sanction. 2 Vols. 42_s._
WILBERFORCE’S (ARCHDEACON) Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ
in its relation to Mankind. _Fourth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._
—— Doctrine of Holy Baptism, with Remarks upon the REV. W.
GOODE’S Effects of Infant Baptism. _Third Edition._ 8vo. 7_s._
6_d._
—— Sermons on the New Birth of Man’s Nature. 8vo. 8_s._
—— History of Erastianism. _Second Edition._ Post 8vo. 3_s._
WILKIE’S (SIR DAVID) Life, Journals, Tours, and Critical Remarks
on Works of Art, with a Selection from his Correspondence. By
ALLAN CUNNINGHAM. Portrait. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
WILKINSON’S (SIR J. G.) Popular Account of the Private Life,
Manners, and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. With 500
Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12_s._
—— Dalmatia and Montenegro; with a Journey to Mostar in
Hertzegovina, and Remarks on the Slavonic Nations. Plates and
Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42_s._
—— Handbook for Egypt.—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, the
Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 15_s._
—— (MATTHEW, D.D.) School Sermons, preached in the Chapel of
Marlborough College. 8vo. 9_s._
—— (G. B.) Working Man’s Handbook to South Australia; with
Advice to the Farmer, and Detailed Information for the several
Classes of Labourers and Artisans. Map. 18mo. 1_s._ 6_d._
WOOD’S (LIEUT.) Voyage up the Indus to the Source of the River
Oxus, by Kabul and Badakhshan. Map. 8vo. 14_s._
WORDSWORTH’S (REV. DR.) Athens and Attica. _New Edition._
Plates. Post 8vo. _In the Press._
—— Fac-Similes of Ancient Writings on the Walls of Pompeii.
_Second Edition._ 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
—— King Edward VIth’s Latin Grammar, for the Use of Schools.
_Seventh Edition_, revised. 12mo. 3_s._ 6_d._
—— Accidence, for the Use of Junior Classes. 12mo. 2_s._
WORSAAE’S (J. J. A.) Account of the Danes and Northmen in
England, Scotland, and Ireland. Woodcuts. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._
YOUNG’S (DR. THOS.) Miscellaneous Works, now first collected and
edited, with a Memoir of his Life. 4 Vols. 8vo. _In the Press._
* * * * *
BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
34 elect have nothing to do, in elect have nothing to do, in
order to an interest order to have an interest
171 or φενώλιον: the old brasses in or φινώλιον: the old brasses in
England England
299 adherence to the right of adherence to the rite of baptism
baptism with trine with trine
475 bishop, expelled the Church. bishop, expelled from the
After this Church. After this
537 most part of the things related the most part of the things
in it fell out related in it fell out
572 priest’s right between both priest’s right hand between both
their hands their hands
592 side the Alps began to go to side of the Alps began to go to
Rome, to Rome, to
647 the said churches as he or they of the said churches as he or
should they should
649 daily attending and dwelling in daily attending and dwelling in
any their any of their
● Moved “WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR” to the beginning of the advertising
section at the back.
● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.
● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to
individual characters (like 2^d).
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CHURCH DICTIONARY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
