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 asSave 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 RabbiElias, 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 theMessias: and that still on the day when they carry those branches, they wished to celebrate that feast at the coming of theMessias; from whence he concludes, that the people carrying those branches before ourSaviour, showed their joy, acknowledging him to be theMessias.
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, orDomus Hospitium. In ancient monasteries, the place where pilgrims and other strangers were received and entertained.
HOST. (SeeTransubstantiation.) Fromhostia, 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 ofChrist.
HOSTIARIUS. (SeeOstiarius.) The second master in some of the old endowed schools, as Winchester, is so called. Henceusher.
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 statedpublicprayer. (SeePrimer.)
HOUSEL. (Saxon.) The blessed eucharist. Johnson derives it from the Gothichunsel, a sacrifice, orhostia, 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, calledHugon’s, at which these Protestants held their first assemblies; others from the wordsHuc nos, with which their original protest commenced; others from the German,Eidgenossen, (associated by oath,) which first becameEgnotsand afterwardsHuguenots.
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. (SeeBartholomew.) 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. (SeeJesus.)
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 didA. 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 theGodheadin 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 convictionthat 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.—SeeJones’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 praisingGod, so, when one minister hath read the gospel, all the people glorifyGod. 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. theVeni Creator. (2.) Canticles, appointed to be said or sung in the daily service, and divided into verses, and pointed, like the Psalms. TheTe Deum, and theBenedictus, are so expressly called in the Prayer Book; and such by implication are theBenedicite, (called a canticle,) theMagnificat, andNunc Dimittis. (3.) Those portions of the Communion Service which are appointed to be said or sung, but not arranged like the Canticles: as theTersanctus, and theGloria 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 themizmor, or psalm, properly so called; the second to thetehikah, or jubilant song of praise; the last to theshir, or song; all of which words occur both in the titles, and the text, of the Book of Psalms. (SeeSong.)
HYPERDULIA. (SeeDuliaandIdolatry.)
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 forparticular substance, and therefore said there were threehypostases, that is, three “Persons,” according to the Latins. Where some of the Eastern people understanding the wordhypostasesin another sense, would not call the Persons threehypostases. 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 wordhypostasissignifies 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 theFatherwas 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. (SeeUnion.)
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 theFather, and of theSon, and of theHoly 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 anhypotheticalorconditionalform, 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. (SeeImages,Image Worship, andIdolatry.) Fromεἰκὼν,an image, andκλάω,to break. A name given to the image-breakers in the eighth century.Sarantapechs, orSerantampicus, a Jew, persuadedEzidus, orGizidus, 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 writesBeser,] 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 ofChrist, 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 ofChristand 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. (SeeImagesandIconoclasts.) Fromεἶδωλον,an idol, andλατρεία,worship. The worship of idols. This isone 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 ofChrist;
Images of the Trinity;
Images ofGodtheFather;
Relics of the blood, flesh, hair, and nails ofChrist;
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 toGod.
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 addressGod; 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 toGodtheSon, and to command him. She is represented as the source of all grace, while believers are taught to look onJesuswith dread. The work of redemption is said to be divided between her and ourLord.
IV. It is maintained that justification leaves the sinner subject to the wrath and vengeance ofGod.
V. That the temporal afflictions of the righteous are caused by the wrath of an angryGod.
VI. That the righteous suffer the tortures of hell-fire after death.
VII. That the sacrifice ofChriston 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. (SeeAisle.) 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 Latinala, which was used in an architectural sense to mean a side building, as we usewing. Thus Vitruvius, as quoted by Facciolati; “In ædificiisalædicuntur structura ad latria ædium, dextra, et sinistra protensæ, ut columnarum ordines, vel porticus; quas Græci quoqueπτερὰetπτέρυγαςappellant.” And thus in French, the same wordailesignifies 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 withGod, (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; thatGodregarded 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 onthe 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 ofGod, 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 ofJesus Christ, and a dove of theHoly Ghost. But the sixth general council forbade the picturingChristany 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. (SeeIconoclasts.) 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 theAve 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 ofJesus 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 factnogeneral 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 ofBritish, 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. (SeeConception, 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. (SeeAffusion.)
IMMOVEABLE FEASTS. (SeeMoveable 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 blessedLordin the holy eucharist.
This word is formed from the Latinpanis(bread), as the word incarnation is formed from the Latincaro,carnis(flesh): and asincarnationsignifies the eternal Word’s becoming flesh, or taking our nature for the purpose of our redemption; so doesimpanationsignify the Divine personJesus Christ,Godand man, becomingbread[and wine], or taking the nature of bread, for the purposes of the holy eucharist:so that, as in the one Divine personJesus Christthere were two perfect natures,Godand man; so in the eucharistic elements, according to the doctrine expressed by the wordimpanation, there are two perfect natures—one of theDivine Sonof 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 ofimpanationavowed by any sect, is that of the Lutherans. (SeeConsubstantiation.)
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 ofGodis, 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 ofChristbut those which are received as such by the Church (meaning the Church of Rome). When the Church changes her judgment,Godchanges 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 fromGodthrough 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 blessedLordhimself. 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 ofGodwhich 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 theSpirit, 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 fromappropriation, 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 ofHenry 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 beforeGod, isGod’sgracious reckoning of the righteousness ofChristto 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. (SeeFaithandJustification.)
INCARNATION. The act whereby theSonofGodassumed 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 theFather, as the only-begottenSonby nature; who was trueGodof trueGod, Light of light, by whom theFathermade 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 ofGodbeing ‘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 himselfpersonallyflesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and became theSonof 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 oneChristandSon, 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 theFather, 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 ifGodthe Word had suffered in his own nature the stripes, the nails, or the other wounds; for theGodheadcannot 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 ofGod, 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 “theFatheris incomprehensible, theSonincomprehensible, theHoly Ghostincomprehensible;” which means that theFatheris illimitable, theSonillimitable, theHoly Ghostillimitable. At the time when this creed was translated, the wordincomprehensiblewas not confined to the sense it now bears, ofinconceivable, orbeyond the reach of our understanding; but it then meant,not comprehended within limits.
INCORRUPTICOLÆ, orAphthartodocetæ, orPhantasiastæ. 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 ofChristwas corruptible or incorruptible from his conception: Severus held it corruptible; Julian of Halicarnassus held the contrary, that ourLord’sbody was not obnoxious to hunger, thirst, or weariness; and that he did but seemingly suffer such things; from whence they were calledPhantasiastæ. 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 usedbut 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 theirexperience; in which, not only a declaration of their faith in theLord 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. Theattendanceon 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 condemnedin 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 isputting 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 ofChristto the Church.” (Sess. XXV.) To understand the nature of indulgences we must observe, that “the temporal punishment due to sin, by the decree ofGod, 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 fromGodto 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 byGodhimself, 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 bullDe 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 ofChriston 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 ofChristand 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 bullUnigenitus, explains this matter more fully:—“As a single drop ofChrist’sblood 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 ofGod, 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 ofChristourLord, 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 theLord, a plenary indulgence, remission, and pardon of all their sins, to all the faithful ofChrist, 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 bullDe 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 ofChrist. We will then open to you all the gates of the rich reservoir of atonement, derived from the merits of the Mother ofGod, 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.”
Thereasonable 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 ofGod, 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 aplenaryindulgence 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 ofChristand 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 ofGod, 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.—SeeLabbe, 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 ofChristand 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 toGodthat particular satisfaction for them, in order thatGod, 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 toGod, 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 ofGod, 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 byChristto 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 obtainedfrom 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 9s.; whilst marrying one wife, after murdering another, may be commuted by the payment of £8 2s.9d.A pardon for perjury is charged at 9s.; simony, 10s.6d.; robbery, 12s.; seduction, 9s.; incest, 7s.6d.; murder, 7s.6d.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 ofGod. 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 inChrist Jesus, whomGodhath 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 inChrist; 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 ourLord Jesus Christ.” (Acts iv. 12.)
And, in the last place, as to the idea, that it is better to worshipGodin one city or country than in another, ourLordhas 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.Jesussaith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship theFather.... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship theFatherin spirit and in truth, for theFatherseeketh 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 ofJesus ChristourLord, both theirs and ours.” (1 Cor. i. 2.) The Scripture does not tell us of any particular times, in which prayer is more acceptable toGodthan at others; but they exhort us to “seek theLordwhile 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 whileGodthus offers in the Bible, forgiveness throughChrist, 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, inGod’sname, 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, teachersand people, are like those of whom ourLordsaid, “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 beneficein 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 toGod’sword 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 ofGod,) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining untoGod. 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 propercertaintyin 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?Godbe 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 seethe 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.