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 thetonesin 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 thetoneof the chant, we must take thefirstnote of theEvovae, which is thedominant, or theprevailing, orrecitingnote 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 thetoneof the chant: the first part of each variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second part being given in theEvovae. 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.
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. (SeeGargoyle.)
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. (Fromἁ, privative, andἰδειν,to see; the invisible state of the departed.) SeeHell.
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 fromGod, 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 fromGod, that the glory of this latter house should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was accordingly fulfilled, whenChristhonoured 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. (Fromἅγιος,holy, andγραφὴ,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 byGod, 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. (SeeCommunionandCup.) 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. (SeeAlleluia.)
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 AlmightyGod, 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. (Fromἔθνη,nations, orGentiles.) Pagans who worship false gods.
HEAVEN. That place whereGodaffords 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 aplaceas well as astate, is clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of ourLord’sbody 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 IcelandicHele,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 isHades, which occurs eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is translated “hell.” NowHadesis 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 tocover overorconceal; 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 tohellthe building, and the person by whom it is done is called ahellier. But the word also denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that sense in the New Testament, as the translation ofGehenna; and in consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (SeeGehenna.)
Bearing in mind, then, thatHadeswas 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 ourLord’sdeath should be attended with all those circumstances which mark the death of men.Christwas 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 toHades, or the place of departed spirits. In like manner the body of ourLordwas laid in thetomb, 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 theLord’spromise 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 ofChrist’sdeath 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 ourLord’sdeath 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 ourLordcould suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure ofGod, 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, ofChrist, 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 ofChristinto 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 ofChristwent unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear ofGod. 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 thatChristwent 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 ourLord’sgoing 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 ofChristdescended 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 ofChrist, 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 whereChristwould descend; or that they are now in another and better place than they were at first; or thatChristdid 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, thatChristdescended 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 ofChrist, 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 ofChristinto 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 inGodthat 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 “theLord’sday,” 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 ofGod,” (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 theHoly Ghost.” (Acts v. 32, and to others, 1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “Godhath raised him from the dead,” is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “Godwill 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 byChristand 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, orby 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 Theodosiusjuniorand 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 formalanathemaor 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 theCouncils. 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 ofChrist, 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 canonsof different councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis (soon afterA. 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 firstsixcenturies: 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.
CENTURY I.
CENTURY I.
1. TheSimonians, 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.CerinthiansandEbionites, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who denied the Divinity of ourSaviour, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies with Christianity, &c.
3. TheNicolaites, 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.
CENTURY II.
CENTURY II.
4. TheBasilidians, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of ourSaviour’scrucifixion, &c.
5. TheCarpocratians, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held that ourSaviourwas but a mere man, &c.
6. TheValentinians, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.
7. TheGnostics; so called from their pretences to superiorknowledge. The termGnosticsseems to have been a general name for many of the earliest heretics. (SeeGnostics.)
8. TheNazarenes; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.
9. TheMillenariansorChiliasts; so called, because they expected to reign withChrist, a thousand years, upon the earth.
10. TheCainites; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly remarkable for paying a great regard toCainand all the wicked men mentioned in the Scripture, &c.
11. TheSethians; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the Messiah.
12. TheQuartodecimans; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the Passover.
13. TheCerdonians, 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. TheMarcionites, followers of Marcion; who held three principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.
15. TheCataphrygians, orMontanists; who baptized the dead, and held Montanus to be theHoly Ghost, &c.
16. TheEncratites, orTatianists, followers of Tatian; who boasted of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.
17. TheAlogians; so called, because they denied the Divinity of theWord, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.
18. TheArtotyrites; so called, because they offered bread and cheese in the eucharist.
19. TheAngelics; so called, because they worshipped angels.
CENTURY III.
CENTURY III.
CENTURY III.
20. TheMonarchici, orPatripassians, followers of Praxeas; who denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that ourSaviourwasGodthe Father.
21. TheArabici; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the day of judgment, and then rises with the body.
22. TheAquarians; who used only water in the eucharist.
23. TheNovatians; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.
24. TheOrigenists, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.
25. TheMelchisedechians: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.
26. TheSabellians, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity, and affirmedthat the distinction of persons in theGodheadwas merely nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.
27. TheManicheans, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.
CENTURY IV.
CENTURY IV.
CENTURY IV.
28. TheArians, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who believed theFatherand theSonnot to be of the same nature, substance, or essence, and that there was a time when theSonwas not, &c.
29. TheColluthians, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil of punishment with the evil of sin.
30. TheMacedonians; who denied the Divinity of theHoly Ghost.
31. TheAgnoëtæ; so called, because they denied the certainty of the Divine prescience.
32. TheApollinarians, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that ourSaviour, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and that theWordsupplied the place of a soul, &c.
33. TheTimotheans; who held, that ourSaviourwas incarnate only for the benefit and advantage of our bodies.
34. TheCollyridians; so called, because they made a kind of goddess of the Blessed Virgin, and offeredcakesto her.
35. TheSeleucians, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal withGod.
36. ThePriscillianists, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop; who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.
37. TheAnthropomorphites; so called, because they ascribed a body toGod, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak ofGodas having hands, eyes, feet, &c.
38. TheJovinianists, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity of Mary.
39. TheMessalians; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.
40. TheBonosians, followers of Bonosus; who held thatJesus Christwas the Son ofGodonly by adoption.
CENTURY V.
CENTURY V.
CENTURY V.
41. ThePelagians, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.
42.Nestorians, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessedSaviourinto two persons, the one Divine, the other human.
43. TheEutychians, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite error, and held, that there was but one nature inJesus Christ.
44. TheTheopaschites, 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.
CENTURY VI.
CENTURY VI.
45. ThePredestinarians; 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. TheApthartodocetes, orIncorruptibilists; so called, because they held that ourSaviour’sbody was incorruptible, and exempt from passion.
47. A second sect ofAgnoëtæ; so called, because they held that our blessedSaviour, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.
48. TheMonotheletes; who held that there was but one will inJesus 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 theGnosimachiandLampetians, in the seventh century; theAgonyclitesin the eighth; theBerengarians,Simoniacs, andVecilians, in the eleventh; theBogomiles, in the twelfth; theFratricelliandBeguards, 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 ofEngland. 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. (Fromἑρμηνεύω,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. (Fromἑρμηνεύω,to interpret.) The principles and practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—SeeHartwell Horne’s IntroductionandErnesti’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, insixseveral 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 ofHexapla, 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 calledTetrapla, and the name ofOctaplawas 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. (SeeBishops.) 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, calledCommentaries 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 ourLord’sdeath to the writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next followsEusebius, 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 ourLord’sbirth 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 shallthendeclare 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 theLord’sday, commonly called Sunday, and other holy-days, according toGod’swill and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf: that is, in hearing the word ofGodread and taught, in private and public prayers, in acknowledging their offences toGod, 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 ofChrist, 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. (SeeProcession.) The third Person of the adorable Trinity.
“TheHoly Ghost, proceeding from theFatherand theSon, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with theFatherand theSon, very and eternalGod.”—ArticleV.
The nameGhost, orGast, in the ancient Saxon, signifiesa spirit, to which the wordholyis applied, as signifying a communication of the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of theFather, and of theSon, and of theHoly Ghost,” we cannot say with the ignorant disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be anyHoly Ghost” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in theHoly Ghostas we do in theFatherand theSon; 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 theFather, as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from theFatherand theSon, in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says ourLord, “will send unto you from theFather;” “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 theSpiritpromised before of theFather. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4; ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “theSpiritof theSon,” as well as of theFather, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by theFather, (Eph. i. 17,) and sent in hisSon’sname, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by theSon. (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. WhenGodis said to “give” theHoly Ghost“to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared with similar passages respecting theSon: “Godso loved the world, that he gave his only begottenSon,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to the prophecy, “Unto us aSonis given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)
Thirdly, he is also trulyGod, 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 ofGod, (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 theFatherand theSon, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which we are admitted into the Church ofGod, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.)
As he is theHoly Spirit of God, “theSpiritof holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,) so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as theSon, by his sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must theHoly Spiritco-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 ofGod,” (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 ofGod, (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 theHoly Ghost, as having been baptized toGodin his name; and as we would receive the apostolic benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom ofGodon earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him. (Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)
HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (SeeAltar.) The altar on which the appointed memorials of the death ofChrist, namely, the bread and wine, are presented beforeGod, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called theLord’stable, 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 ourLord’sascension. (SeeAscension 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 itsymbolizedtheir purification from defilementbeforeengaging 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 andleavinga church.
So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water, that it was discontinued at the Reformation.
HOLY WEEK. (SeePassion Week.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent, in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed and onlySaviour.
HOMILIES. (Fromὁμιλία, asermonordiscourse, 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, (seeStrype’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 towhich 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 precisedegreeof 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 ofGodin 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, andex 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 ofGod; 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 ourex animoapprobation, 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 submitnot 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 undoubtedlynot. 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. (SeeRubric 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 ofGodtheSon, though not the same, was similar to that ofGodtheFather.
HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding the doctrine of the Homoousion.
HOMOOUSION. (SeeTrinity.) This is the critical word of the Nicene Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity ofChrist, and that, as derived from, and one with, theFather. The word was adopted from the necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary philosophical use of it.Ὁμοούσιοςproperly 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 beingὁμοούσιαwith each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals beingὁμοούσιαιto ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the incommunicable essence ofGod, there was obviously no abstraction possible in contemplatinghim, who is above all comparison with his works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that, whatever was accounted to beὁμοούσιοςwith 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 eternalFather. Its use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot understand what is meant by theοὐσίαofGod, 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 sayGod,Father,Lord. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I amὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah,God,’ or uses the plain word ‘God,’ we understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensibleοὐσία, and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then think it strange, that theSonofGodshould be said to beἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance ofGod; rather, let him agree to the explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the wordsἐκ Θεοῦ, substituted theἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases substantially the same, because, as we have said, the wordGoddenotes nothing but theοὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be not in such senseἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the trueSonof theFatheraccording to his nature, but be said to beἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is notἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, norSonκατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as we may be who receive the title from grace.
Bishop Bull says thatὁμοούσιοςis 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 alsoSuicerin 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 monasticcaputium, partly from the canonicalamice, oralmutium. 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 termalmutium, oramice, 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. (SeeAmice.)—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.