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