“A similar series of meetings, under regulations framed by the men’s yearly meeting, and contained in the Book of Discipline, is held by the female members, whose proceedings are, however, mainly limited to mutual edification.
“Connected with the yearly meeting is aMEETING FOR SUFFERINGS, composed of ministers, elders, and members chosen by the quarterly meetings. Its original object was to prevail upon the government to grant relief from the many injuries to which the early Friends were constantly exposed. It has gradually had the sphere of its operations extended, and is now a standing committee representing the yearly meeting during its recess, and attending generally to all such matters as affect the welfare of the body.
“There are also meetings of preachers and elders for the purpose of mutual consultation and advice, and the preservation of a pure and orthodox ministry.
“In case of disputes among Friends, they are not to appeal to the ordinary courts of law, but to submit the matter to the arbitration of two or more of their fellow-members. If either party refuses to obey the award, the Monthly Meeting to which he belongs may proceed to expel him from the Society.
“From the period of the Revolution of 1688 the Friends have received the benefits of the Toleration Act. By the statutes of 7 & 8 Wm. III. c. 34, and 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 49, their solemn affirmations are accepted in lieu of oaths; and the abrogation of the Test Act renders them eligible for public offices.
“The first assemblies of the Friends for separate public worship were held in Leicestershire in 1644. In 1652 the Society had extended itself throughout most of the northern counties, and before the Restoration, meetings were established in nearly all the English and Welsh counties, as well as in Ireland, Scotland, the West Indies, and the British provinces of North America. The Society in the United Kingdom is not now increasingits numbers. The Friends themselves account for this, in part, by the constant emigration of members to America, where the body is much more numerous than in England. But they do not hesitate to admit that much is attributable to the feebler endeavours now than formerly to gain proselytes. Since 1800 their number, if computed by the number of their meeting-houses, has diminished. In 1800 they possessed 413 meeting-houses, while the number returned to the Census in 1851 was only 371. They say, however, that this does not inevitably indicate a smaller number of professors; since, of late, there has been a considerable tendency amongst them to migrate from the rural districts, and to settle in the larger towns. Small communities are to be found in parts of France, Germany, Norway, and Australia.”
Though dissenters are frequently chosen as churchwardens, it appears by a decision of Dr. Phillimore, (1 Curteis, 447,) that a Quaker cannot be compelled to serve the office.
QUARE IMPEDIT, is a writ which lies where one has an advowson, and the parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful patron in his right to present.
QUARE INCUMBRAVIT, is a writ which lies where two are in plea for the advowson of a church, and the bishop admits the clerk of one of them within the six months; then the other shall have this writ against the bishop.
QUARE NON ADMISIT, is a writ which lies where a man has recovered an advowson, and sends his clerk to the bishop to be admitted, and the bishop will not receive him.
QUATRODECIMANI, or PASCHITES. A name given, in the second century, to some of the Christians, who would celebrate the feast of Easter on thefourteenthday of the moon, on what day of the week soever it happened.
QUEEN ANNE’S BOUNTY. (SeeAnnates.)
QUERISTER, or QUIRISTER. The same asChorister, which see.
QUIETISTS. A Christian sect, that took its origin in the seventeenth century from Michael Molinos, a Spanish priest, who endeavoured to establish new doctrines in Italy; the chief of which was, that men ought to annihilate themselves, in order to be united toGod, and remain afterwards inquietnessof mind, without being troubled for what should happen to the body; and therefore his followers took the name of Quietists, from the wordquies, rest. By that principle he pretended that no real act was either meritorious or criminal, because the soul and its faculties, being annihilated, had no part therein; and so this doctrine led people to transgress all laws, sacred and civil. The doctrine of Molinos in 1687 was by the inquisitors and pope declared false and pernicious, and his book burnt. He himself was imprisoned after he had recanted, and died in 1692. It is supposed there long remained many of this sect. Their doctrine also crept over the Alps into France; the “Maxims of the Saints explained,” written by Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambray, having some tendency that way, and having been therefore condemned by the pope in 1699.
QUINQUAGESIMA. A Sunday so called, because it is thefiftiethday before Easter, reckoned in the whole numbers:Shrove Sunday.
QUINQUARTICULAR CONTROVERSY. The controversy between the Arminians and the Calvinists on the Five Points. (SeeFive Points.)
QUIRE. (SeeChoir.)
QUOD PERMITTAT, is a writ granted to the successor of a parson, for the recovery of pasture, by the statute of the 13 Edward I. c. 24.
QUESTMEN. Persons appointed to help the churchwardens. In the ancient episcopal synods, the bishops were wont to summon divers men out of each parish to give information of the disorders of the clergy and people, and these in process of time became standing officers, called synod’s men, sidesmen, or questmen. The whole of the office of these persons seems by custom to have devolved on the churchwardens. (SeeChurchwardens.)
RANTERS. A denomination which arose in the year 1645. They set up the light of nature under the name ofChristin men. With regard to the Church, Scripture, ministry, &c., their sentiments were the same as the Seekers. The sect thus instituted is now extinct, and the name is given to the “Primitive Methodists,” as a branch of the Methodists are denominated.
RATE. (Church Rates.) The greater part of the property of this country has been bought and sold with an understanding that the church of the parish is to be kept and repaired by the owners of the property. Except for this liability, a larger sum would have been paid for the property. For those, therefore, who have thus profited by the existence of a church rate, to refuse that rate, and so appropriateto themselves what does not belong to them, is an act not only of profaneness but of dishonesty.
Rates for the repairs of the church are to be made by the churchwardens with the parishioners assembled, upon public notice given in the church.
The bishop cannot direct a commission to rate the parishioners, and appoint what each one shall pay: this must be done by the churchwardens and parishioners; and the spiritual court may inflict spiritual censures till they do. But if the rate be illegally imposed by such commission from the bishop, or otherwise, without the parishioners’ consent, yet if it be after assented to, and confirmed by the major part of the parishioners, that will make it good.
These levies are not chargeable upon the land, but upon the person in respect of the land, for the more equality and indifferency. And houses as well as lands are chargeable, and in some places houses only; as in cities and large towns, where there are only houses, and no lands to be charged.
A rate for the reparation of the fabric of the church is real, charging the land, and not the person: but a rate for ornaments is personal, upon the goods, and not upon the land.
And Sir Simon Degge saith thus: There hath been some question made, whether one that holds lands in one parish and resides in another, may be charged to the ornaments of the parish where he doth not reside; and some opinions have been, that foreigners were only chargeable to the shell of the church, but not to the bells, seats, or ornaments. But he says, he conceives the law to be clearly otherwise; and that the foreigner that holds lands in the parish, is as much obliged to pay towards the bells, seats, and ornaments, as to the repair of the church; otherwise there would be a great confusion in making several levies, the one for the repair of the church, the other for the ornaments, which he says he never observed to be practised within his knowledge. And it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the land in the parish, may be held by foreigners; and it were unreasonable in such case to lay the whole charge upon the inhabitants, which may be but a poor shepherd. The reason alleged against this charge upon the foreigners, is chiefly because the foreigner hath no benefit by the bells, seats, and ornaments; which receives an answer in Jeffrey’s case, (5 Co. 67,) for there it is resolved, that landholders that live in a foreign parish are in judgment of law inhabitants and parishioners, as well in the parish where they hold lands, as where they reside, and may come to the parish meetings, and have votes there as well as others. For authorities in the case, it is clear by the canon law, that all landholders, whether they live in the parish or out of it, are bound to contribute. And the practice, from its ease and convenience, seems now generally to go with this opinion.
Stratford.All persons, as well religious as others whatsoever, having possessions, farms, or rents, which are not of the glebe or endowment of the churches to be repaired, living within the parish or elsewhere, shall be bound to contribute with the rest of the parishioners of the aforesaid churches, as often as shall be needful, to all charges incumbent upon the parishioners concerning the church and the ornaments thereof, by law or custom, having respect unto the quantity of such possessions and rents. Whereupon, so often as shall be necessary, the ordinary shall compel them by ecclesiastical censures and other lawful means.
If a person inhabiteth in one parish, and hath land in another parish, which he occupieth himself there, he shall be charged for this land, for the reparation of the church of the parish in which the land lieth; because he may come there when he will, and he is to be charged in respect of the land. And such occupation of land maketh the person occupying a parishioner, and entitles him to come to the assemblies of the same parish, when they meet together for such purposes.
Where such lands are in farm, not the lessor, but the tenant, shall pay. For (as it was determined in Jeffrey’s case before cited) there is an inhabitant and parishioner who may be charged; and the receipt of the rent doth not make the lessor a parishioner.
It is said that the patron of a church, as in right of the founder, may prescribe, that, in respect of the foundation, he and his tenants have been freed from the charge of repairing the church.
The rectory, or vicarage, which is derived out of it, are not chargeable to the repair of the body of the church, steeple, public chapels, or ornaments; being at the whole charge of repairing the chancel.
But an impropriator of a rectory or parsonage, though bound to repair the chancel, is also bound to contribute to the reparations of the church, in case he hath lands in the parish which are not parcel of the rectory.
The inhabitants of a precinct where thereis a chapel, though it is a parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel, are nevertheless of common right contributory to the repairs of the mother-church. If they have seats at the mother-church, to go thither when they please, or receive sacraments, or sacramentals, or marry, christen, or bury at it, there can be no pretence for a discharge. Nor can anything support that plea, but that they have time out of mind been discharged (which also is doubted whether it be of itself a full discharge); or that, in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to the repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the keeping of the bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a discharge).
Every inhabitant, dwelling within the parish, is to be charged according to his ability, whether in land or living within the same parish, or for his goods there; that is to say, for the best of them, but not for both.
Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the said parish in his own occupation, is to be charged to the value of the same lands or living, or else to the value of the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.
Every farmer dwelling out of the parish, and having lands and living within the parish, in the occupation of any farmer or farmers, is not to be charged; but the farmer or farmers thereof are to be charged; in particularity, every one according to the value of the land which he occupieth, or according to the stock thereupon; that is, for the best, but not for both.
Every inhabitant and farmer occupying arable land within the parish, and feeding his cattle out of the parish, is to be charged with the arable land within the parish, although his cattle be fed out of the parish.
Every farmer of any mill within the parish, is to be charged for that mill; and the owner thereof (if he be an inhabitant) is to be charged for his hability in the same parish, besides the mill.
Every owner of lands, tenements, copyholds, or other hereditaments, inhabiting within the parish, is to be taxed according to his wealth in regard of a parishioner, although he occupy none of them himself; and his farmer or farmers also are to be taxed for occupying only.
The assessors are not to tax themselves, but to leave the taxation of them to the residue of the parish.
The law as to the power of making and levying rates for church purposes cannot be said to be definitively settled at present, as there have been conflicting decisions, and some points of great importance are nowsub judice, so far as regards the highest court of appeal in the kingdom. But at present the preponderance of authority is in favour of these two points: 1. That forthe necessary repairs of the churchthe churchwardens may and ought to make and levy a rate, even though it be opposed by a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled. 2. That any expense connected with the celebration of service in the church, even to the salaries of pew openers and organist, may be levied by rate from the whole parish, if a majority of ratepayers in vestry assembled have assented thereto.
RATIONALISM. To rationalize is to ask forreasonsout of place; to ask improperly how we are to account for certain things, to be unwilling to believe them unless they can be accounted for, i. e. referred to something else as a cause, to some existing system as harmonizing with them, or taking them up into itself. Again; since whatever is assigned as the reason for the original fact canvassed, admits in turn of a like question being raised about itself, unless it be ascertainable by the senses, and be the subject of personal experience, Rationalism is bound properly to pursue onward its course of investigation on this principle, and not to stop, till it can directly or ultimately refer to self as a witness, whatever is offered to its acceptance. Thus it is characterized by two peculiarities; its love of systematizing, and its basing its system upon personal experience, on the evidence of sense. In both it stands opposed to what is commonly understood by the wordfaith, or belief in testimony; for which it deliberately substitutes system (or, what is popularly calledreason) and sight. Rationalism is concerned withAnthropology, Faith withTheology.
READER. The office of reader is one of the five inferior orders in the Romish Church.
And in the Church of England, in churches or chapels where there is only a very small endowment, and no clergyman will take upon him the charge or cure thereof, it has been usual to admit readers, to the end that Divine service in such places might not altogether be neglected.
It is said, that readers were first appointed in the Church about the third century. In the Greek Church they were said to have been ordained by the imposition of hands: but whether this was the practice of all the Greek Churches has beenmuch questioned. In the Latin Church it was certainly otherwise. The Council of Carthage speaks of no other ceremony, but the bishop’s putting the Bible into his hands in the presence of the people, with these words, “Take this book and be thou a reader of the word ofGod, which office if thou shalt faithfully and profitably perform, thou shalt have part with those that minister in the word ofGod.” And, in Cyprian’s time, they seem not to have had so much as this ceremony of delivering the Bible to them, but were made readers by the bishop’s commission and deputation only to such a station in the Church.—Bingham.
Upon the Reformation here, they were required to subscribe to the following injunctions:—“Imprimis,—I shall not preach or interpret, but only read that which is appointed by public authority:—I shall not minister the sacraments or other public rites of the Church, but bury the dead, and purify women after their child-birth:—I shall keep the register book according to the injunctions:—I shall use sobriety in apparel, and especially in the church at common prayer:—I shall move men to quiet and concord, and not give them cause of offence:—I shall bring in to my ordinary, testimony of my behaviour, from the honest of the parish where I dwell, within one half year next following:—I shall give place upon convenient warning so thought by the ordinary, if any learned minister shall be placed there at the suit of the patron of the parish:—I shall claim no more of the fruits sequestered of such cure where I shall serve, but as it shall be thought meet to the wisdom of the ordinary:—I shall daily at the least read one chapter of the Old Testament, and one other of the New, with good advisement, to the increase of my knowledge:—I shall not appoint in my room, by reason of my absence or sickness, any other man; but shall leave it to the suit of the parish to the ordinary, for assigning some other able man:—I shall not read but in poorer parishes destitute of incumbents, except in the time of sickness, or for other good considerations to be allowed by the ordinary:—I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificer’s occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having in ecclesiastical living the sum of twenty nobles or above by the year.”
This was resolved to be put to all readers and deacons by the respective bishops, and is signed by both the archbishops, together with the bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Sarum, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester.—Strype’s Annals.
By the foundation of divers hospitals, there are to be readers of prayers there, who are usually licensed by the bishop.
READING DESK. (SeePew.) The reading desk, or reading pew, appears to have been frequently erected at the same time as the pulpit, which was ordered by the canons of 1603 to be placed in every church not already provided with one. The reading desk is only once recognised in our Prayer Book, and that in the rubric prefixed to the Commination, and is there called a readingpew; and it is remarkable that the term was first introduced there at the last revision of the Prayer Book, in 1661: it is not found in any edition printed before that time. Bishop Sparrow tells us, that, previously to the time of Cromwell, the reading pew had one desk for the Bible, looking towards the people to the body of the Church; another for the Prayer Book, looking towards the east, or upper end of the chancel. And very reasonable was this usage: for, when the people were spoken to, it was fit to look towards them, but whenGodwas spoken to, it was fit to turn from the people. And besides, if there be any part of the world more honourable in the esteem of men than another, it is fit to look that way when we pray toGodin public, that the turning of our bodies to a more honourable place may mind us of the great honour and majesty of the person we speak to. And this reason St. Augustine gives of the Church’s ancient custom of turning to the east in their public prayers, because the east is the most honourable part of the world, being the region of light, whence the glorious sun arises.
READING IN. The ceremony of reading in, which is required of every incumbent on entering upon his cure, is best described in the memorandum to be signed by the churchwardens, or other inhabitants of the parish, of its having been performed. It is as follows:—
“Memorandum, that on Sunday, the —— day of ——, in the year of ourLord——, the Reverend A. B., clerk, rector, or vicar of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, did read in his church of —— aforesaid, the articles of religion, commonly called the Thirty-nine Articles, agreed upon in convocation, in the year of ourLord1562, and did declare his unfeigned assent and consent thereto; also, that he did publicly and openly, on the day and year aforesaid, inthe time of Divine service, read a declaration in the following words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by law established,’ together with a certificate under the hand of the Right Reverend ——, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of ——, of his having made and subscribed the same before him; and also that the said A. B. did read, in his parish church aforesaid, publicly and solemnly, the Morning and Evening Prayer according to the form prescribed in and by the book, intituled ‘The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;’ and that immediately after reading the Evening Service, the said A. B. did, openly and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to all things therein contained and prescribed, in these words, viz. ‘I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book, intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’ And these things we promise to testify upon our corporal oaths, if at any time we should be duly called upon so to do. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above written.”
REAL PRESENCE. (SeeTransubstantiation,Communion,Lord’s Supper,Eucharist.) The Homily on the Sacrament expressly asserts, “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the supper of theLordthere is no vain ceremony or bare sign,no untrue figure of a thing absent: but the communion of the body and blood of ourLordin a marvellous incorporation, which, by the operation of theHoly Ghost, is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful.” In the order for the Administration of theLord’s Supper, the elements are repeatedly designated as the body and blood ofChrist, and after the reception of them we give thanks thatGod“doth vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body of [His]Son, ourSaviour Jesus Christ.” In the exhortation of the same office, mention is made of “the holy communion of the body and blood ofChrist.” “We spiritually eat the flesh ofChrist, and drink his blood.”—Ibid.“Grant us, therefore, graciousLord, so to eat the flesh of thy dearSon Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,” &c.—Prayer before Consecration.“Grant that we, receiving these thy creatures, of bread and wine, &c. ... may be partakers of his most precious body and blood.”—Consecration.The catechism, in agreement with this, defines the inward part of this sacrament to be “the body and blood ofChrist, which areverily and indeedtaken and received by the faithful in theLord’ssupper.” The 28th Article asserts, with reference to the holy communion, that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body ofChrist, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood ofChrist.”
So speaks the Church of England, which expressly rejects the Romish figment of transubstantiation. Therefore, the Church of England distinguishes between the real presence, which she so strongly asserts, and the Romish error which has led to Romish heresy.
Bishop Ridley, our great reformer, who died because he would not accept the fable of transubstantiation, said, addressing his judge, “My lord, you know that where any equivocation, which is a word having two significations, is, except distinction be given, no direct answer can be made; for it is one of Aristotle’s fallacies, containing two questions under one, the which cannot be satisfied with one answer. For both you and I agree herein, that the sacrament is the very true and natural body and blood ofChrist, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, and which sitteth at the right hand ofGodtheFather, which shall come from thence to judge both the quick and the dead, only we differin modo, in the way and manner of being; we confess all one thing to be in the sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. I, being fully byGod’sword thereto persuaded, confessChrist’snatural body to be in the sacrament,indeed by spirit and grace, because whosoever receivethworthilythatbread and wine, receiveth effectuallyChrist’sbody and drinketh his blood; that is, he is made effectually partaker of his passion; andyoumake a grosser kind of being, enclosing a natural, a lively, a moving body, under the shape or form of bread and wine. Now this difference considered, to the question I answer: that in the sacrament of the altar is the natural body and blood ofChristvere et realiter, indeed and in reality, if you take those terms,indeed and really, forspiritually by grace and efficacy; for so everyworthyreceiver receiveth the very true body ofChrist: but if you mean really and indeed, so that thereby you include a lively and a moveable body under the forms of bread and wine, then, in that sense, isnotChrist’sbody in the sacrament, really and indeed.”—Wordsworth’s Biography, iii. 237. The difference is strongly pointed out by Gloucester Ridley. “With reference to Bishop Ridley’s opinions, he and those associated with him denied the presence ofChrist’sbody in the natural substance of his human and assumpt nature, but grant the presence of the same by grace; that is, they affirmed and said, that the substance of the natural body and blood ofChristis only remaining in heaven, and so shall be until the latter day, when he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead; but by grace the same body is present here with us, as we say of the sun, which in substance never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence, when it shineth upon earth. For all grant that St. Paul’s words require, that the bread which we break should be the communion of the body ofChrist, and that the cup of blessing should be the communion of the blood ofChrist.”—Ridley.
That which is given by the priest in this sacrament is, as to its substance, bread and wine; as to its sacramental nature and signification, it is the figure or representation ofChrist’sbody and blood, which was broken and shed for us. The very body and blood ofChrist, as yet, it is not; but, being with faith and piety received by the communicant, it becomes to him, by the blessing ofGodand the grace of theHoly Spirit, the very body and blood ofChrist; as it entitles him to a part in the sacrifice of his death, and to the benefits thereby procured to all his faithful and obedient servants.—Abp. Wake.
These words (viz. “the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received”) are intended to show, that our Church as truly believes the strongest assertions of Scripture concerning this sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth, only takes more care to understand them in the right meaning: which is, that though, in one sense, all communicants equally partake of whatChristcalls his body and blood, that is, the outward signs of them, yet in a much more important sense, “the faithful” only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength derived to men from his incarnation and death, and, through faith in him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; “a member,” as St. Paul expresses it, “of his flesh and of his bones” (Eph. v. 30); certainly not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one. In appearance, the sacrament ofChrist’sdeath is given to all alike; but “verily and indeed,” in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul, becoming, by the inward virtue of his Spirit, its food and sustenance.
This real presence ofChristin the sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of Scripture language, heightened them, and went beyond them, till both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed to exalt the holy sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the more for its wonderful absurdity in those ignorant and superstitious ages: till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after ourSaviour’sbirth, it was established for a gospel-truth, by the pretended authority of the Romish Church; and even this had been tolerable in comparison, if they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief, worshipping, on their knees, a bit of bread for theSonofGod. Nor are they content to do this themselves, but, with most unchristian cruelty, curse and murder those who refuse it.
It is true we also kneel at the sacrament as they do, but for a very different purpose; not to acknowledge “any corporal presence ofChrist’snatural flesh and blood,” as our Church, to prevent allpossibility of misconstruction, expressly declares, adding, that “his body is in heaven, and not here,” but to worship him who is everywhere present, the invisibleGod. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon as in itself necessary, but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to accompany the prayers and praises which we offer up at the instant of receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, on which our partaking worthily of this ordinance, and receiving benefit from it, depend.—Abp. Secker.
At the end of the whole office (of the Communion) is added a protestation concerning the gesture ofkneelingat the sacrament of theLord’ssupper, and explaining the Church’s notion of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same. This was first added in the Second Book of King Edward, in order to disclaim any adoration to be intended by that ceremony,either unto the sacramental bread or wine then bodily received, or unto any real and essentialpresence there being, of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. But upon Queen Elizabeth’s accession this was laid aside. It appears no more in any of our Common Prayers till the last review: at which time it was again added, with some little amendment of the expressions and transposal of the sentences; but exactly the same throughout as to the sense; excepting that the wordsreal and essential presencewere thought proper to be changed forcorporal presence. Fora real presenceof the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and in her catechism [as quoted above]. This is the doctrine of our Church in relation to thereal presencein the sacrament, entirely different from the doctrine of transubstantiation, which she here, as well as elsewhere, disclaims: a doctrine which requires so many ridiculous absurdities and notorious contradictions to support it, that it is needless to offer any confutation of it, in a Church, which allows her members the use of their senses, reason, Scripture, and antiquity.—Wheatly.
REALISTS. The Realists, who followed the doctrine of Aristotle with respect to universal ideas, were so called in opposition to the Nominalists, (seeNominalists,) who embraced the hypothesis of Zeno and the Stoics upon that perplexed and intricate subject. Aristotle held, against Plato, that, previous to, and independent of, matter, there were no universal ideas or essences; and that the ideas, or exemplars, which the latter supposed to have existed in the Divine mind, and to have been the models of all created things, had been eternally impressed upon matter, and were coeval with, and inherent in, their objects. Zeno and his followers, departing both from the Platonic and Aristotelian systems, maintained that these pretended universals had neither form nor essence, and were no more than mere terms and nominal representations of their particular objects. The doctrine of Aristotle prevailed until the eleventh century, when Roscelinus embraced the Stoical system, and founded the sect of the Nominalists, whose sentiments were propagated with great success by the famous Abelard. These two sects differed considerably among themselves, and explained, or rather obscured, their respective tenets in a variety of ways.
RECANTATION. (SeeAbjuration.)
RECTOR. (SeeVicar.) A term applied to several persons whose offices are very different, as, 1. The rector of a parish is a clergyman who has the charge and care of a parish, and possesses all the tithes, &c. 2. The same name is also given to the head in some of our colleges, and also to the head-master of large schools. 3. Rector is also used in several convents for the superior officer who governs the house. The Jesuits gave this name to the superiors of such of their houses as were either seminaries or colleges.
RECUSANT. ARecusant, in general, signifies any person, whether Papist or other, who refuseth to go to church and to worshipGodafter the manner of the Church of England: aPopish Recusantis a Papist who so refuseth; and aPopish Recusant convictis a Papist legally convicted of such offence.
REDEEMER, THE. OurLordandSaviour Jesus Christ. “I know that myRedeemerliveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.” (Job xix. 25.) “The Redeemer shall come to Sion.” (Isa. lix. 20.) “Christhath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” (Gal. iii. 13.) “Redeemed with the precious blood ofChrist.” (1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) “Having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb. ix. 12. See also Job xxxiii. 23, 24; Matt. xxvi. 28; Rom. iii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. 7; Rev. v. 9.)
REDEMPTION denotes our recovery from sin and death, by the obedience and sacrifice ofChrist, who on this account is called the “Redeemer.” (Isaiah lix. 20; Job xix. 25.)—(SeeCovenant of Redemption.)
REFORMATION. The rescue of our Church from the usurped dominion of the pope, and its restoration from the corruptions of Popery to a nearer approach to primitive purity, which took place in the 16th century, is called theReformation. (SeeChurch of England, andLutheranism.) The same term is applied to the contemporaneous Protestant movement on the Continent, and in Scotland.
As regards the separation of the Church of England from the corrupt Church of Rome, it began in the reign of King Henry VIII., and was fully established in that of Queen Elizabeth.
King Henry VIII. was at first a great stickler for the see of Rome. No one discovered more zeal for it than he did in the beginning of his reign. He even wrote a book against Luther, entitled, “Of the Seven Sacraments;” and this gained him the new title of “Defender of the Faith,” which Pope Leo X. bestowed upon him by a bull, and which his successors have preserved ever since their separation from the Church of Rome. But this zeal for the see of Rome was greatly cooled, when that court refused to grant him the satisfaction he expected with regard to his intended divorce from Queen Catherine. This seems to have been Henry’s first motive of separation from that Church.
Cranmer, whom the king had raised to the see of Canterbury, in compliance with Henry’s desire, dissolved his marriage by a sentence pronounced May 23, 1533, without waiting for the sentence of the court of Rome. This step made way for another. For the parliament passed a bill, that for the future no person should appeal to the court of Rome, in any case whatever; but that they should all be judged within the realm by the prelates: that neither first-fruits, annates, or St. Peter’s pence should any more be paid; nor palls, or bulls for bishoprics, be any longer fetched from Rome: and that whoever infringed this statute should be severely punished.
Clement VII., at that time pope, threatened Henry with excommunication, in case he refused to acknowledge his fault, by restoring things to their former state, and taking back his queen. However Francis I., king of France, interposed, and, in the interview which he had with the pope at Marseilles, he prevailed with him to suspend the excommunication, till such time as he had employed his endeavours to make Henry return to the obedience of the holy see. To this purpose he sent John du Bellay, bishop of Paris, to King Henry, who gave him some hopes of his submission, provided the pope would delay the excommunication. Clement, though he could not refuse so just a request, yet limited the delay to so short a time, that, before Henry could come to any determinate resolution, the time was lapsed, and, no news coming from England, excommunication was pronounced at Rome, and set up in all the usual places.
The effects of this excommunication were very fatal to the see of Rome. The pope, who began to repent of his over-hasty proceedings, found it impossible to appease King Henry. For that monarch now threw off all restraint, and openly separated from the see of Rome. The parliament declared him supreme head of the Church of England, and granted him the annates and first-fruits, the tenths of the revenues of all benefices, and the power of nominating to all bishoprics. The parliament also passed another act, to deprive all persons charged with treason of the privilege of sanctuary. And thus ended the pope’s power in England,A. D.1534.
The king met with little or no opposition, in the prosecution of his designs, from the laity, who had the utmost aversion and contempt for the clergy, and were extremely scandalized at the vicious and debauched lives of the monks. But these latter preached with great vehemence against these innovations, and the priests prevailed with the peasants in the North of England to rise. However the mutineers accepted of a general pardon, laid down their arms, and took them up again; but being defeated, and most of their leaders executed, they were obliged to submit. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who had been the king’s tutor, and the learned Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, for refusing to acknowledge the king’s supremacy, were beheaded.
As to King Henry himself, though he abrogated the authority of the see of Rome in England, yet he constantly adhered to the doctrines and principles of that Church, and even caused some Protestants to be burned.
The ruin of the papal authority brought on a reformation in the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England. All the monasteries were dissolved, and the monks set adrift. The Bible was printed in English, and set up by public authority in all the churches; and the ceremonies of the Church were greatly altered. But King Henry, dying in 1547, left the Reformation imperfect, and as it were in its infancy.
In the succeeding reign, Seymour, duke of Somerset, regent and protector duringthe minority of Edward VI., greatly forwarded the Reformation, in which the parliament supported him with all their power. For he abolished private masses, restored the cup to the laity, took away the images out of the churches, and caused the Book of Common Prayer to be revised and corrected. In this reign the Reformation was solemnly confirmed by the legislature, and had the sanction of an act of both houses of parliament. So many alterations occasioned great disorders in the kingdom. The common people having now not so easy an opportunity of getting a livelihood, because of the great number of monks, who being driven out of the suppressed monasteries were obliged to work; this fomented the discontent, insomuch that several counties of England took up arms. But the rebels, after having been defeated in several engagements, accepted of the general pardon that was offered them.
The Reformation met with a great interruption during the reign of Queen Mary, who, being a bigoted Roman Catholic, began her reign with setting at liberty the Papists, restoring the Popish prelates to their sees, and allowing a general liberty of conscience till the sitting of the parliament, in which an act was passed, prohibiting the exercise of any other religion but the Roman Catholic. Having strengthened herself by a marriage with Philip II., king of Spain, she called a new parliament, in which Philip and herself presided. Cardinal Pole made a fine speech in it; after which, both houses suppressed the reformed religion, and restored the Church to the same state it was in before the divorce of King Henry VIII. At the same time the above-mentioned cardinal reconciled the nation to the Church of Rome, after having absolved it from all ecclesiastical censures. Great numbers, however, still adhered to the profession of the reformed religion; whom Queen Mary punished with great severity, and burnt some hundreds of them, among whom were Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, and four other bishops.
The death of Queen Mary made way for the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and, during her reign, the reformation of the Church in these kingdoms was established.
REFUGE. (SeeSanctuary.)
REFUGE, CITIES OF. In the Levitical law six cities were appointed by the command of God as cities of refuge for those who might by accident, and without malice, unhappily slay another. There they were to dwell till the death of the high priest; and if caught before they came thither, or afterwards away from the city, they might be slain by the avenger of blood. (Exod. xx. 13; Numb. xxxv. 11, &c.)
REGALE, in the French ecclesiastical law, is a right which the king had of enjoying the revenues of vacant bishoprics, till such time as the new prelate had taken and registered his oath of fidelity to the king; and of presenting to all benefices, dependent on the see, during the time of its vacancy.
Some of the French writers assert, that all the kings of France of the first race, and some of the second, have had the entire disposal of bishoprics throughout their dominions. This right, they say, was given to the kings of France, by way of recompence for their protecting the orthodox faith; and that this privilege was granted to Clovis, the first Christian king of France, after he had defeated Alaric, an Arian prince, by the first Council of Orleans. Other authors affirm, that this privilege is not founded upon grant, but comes from the right of patronage, which the king has over all the churches in his kingdom, from his feudal right over the temporalities of benefices, and from his right of protection of ecclesiastics and the goods of the Church. But, however the kings of France have desisted from the right of patronage over all the benefices of the kingdom, they still retain the right of appropriating to themselves the revenues of vacant bishoprics; and this is what they call theRegale.
This right takes place all over the kingdom, though some archbishoprics and bishoprics have pretended to an exemption from it. The abbeys were formerly subject thereto, but have been discharged.
REGENERATE. (SeeConversion,Regeneration,Renovation.) Every baptized child is calledregenerate. There have been some very unreasonable exceptions taken against this expression; as if all persons, who are baptized, were truly converted, whereas several of them prove afterwards very wicked. But this objection is grounded upon a modern notion of the word “regeneration,” which neither the ancient Fathers of the Church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew anything of. Indeed, some writers of the last [17th] century ran into this new-fangled phrase, to denote conversion, or a returning from a lapsed state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer, that I know of, ever expressed this by the word “regeneration.”Regeneration, as often as it is used in the Scripture books, signifies thebaptismalregeneration. There is but one word which answers to this in the New Testament, and that is,παλιγγενεσία; and thatπαλιγγενεσίαrefers to baptism is plain, by having the wordλουτρὸνjoined with it: “According to his mercy he saved us by thewashing of regeneration.” (Tit. iii. 5.) OurSaviourindeed made use of the like expression, before the apostle, to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom ofGod.” (John iii. 3.) But what he means by beingborn againhe explains, ver. 5, by directing it positively to baptism, “Except a man be bornof water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom ofGod.” “Regeneration,” in the language of the Fathers, constantly signifies the participation of the sacrament of baptism. The Greeks have a variety of words to express regeneration by: not onlyἀναγέννησις, which is an exact translation of it; butἀνακαίνισμος, “renovation;”ἀνάκτισις, “recreation;”ἀνανέωσις, “renewing;”ἀνάστασις, “resurrection;”μεταβολὴ, the “change;”μεταποίησις, the “refitting;”παλιγγενεσία, the being “born again;”παλιντοκία, the “begetting again:” all which expressions are used of baptism, and seldom or never of the rise after a lapse. The language of the Latin Fathers is the same. The Latin translator of Irenæus, which undoubtedly is very ancient, expresses the Greekἀναγέννησιςby “regeneration:” “baptism which is a regeneration untoGod:” and so likewise calls theἀναγεννήμενοι, the baptized, “regenerati,” the “regenerate.” St. Ambrose, speaking of baptism, expresses himself thus: “By baptism we are renewed, by which also we are born again.” St. Austin, besides innumerable other passages, within the compass of a few lines has several expressions all to this purpose: he calls baptism “the spiritual regeneration;” he says the baptized person “is born again, because he is regenerated;” and lastly he calls baptism “the sacrament of regeneration.” And in another place he moves a question, whether the baptism of the schismatical Donatists does confer regeneration or not; but never doubted whether that of the Catholics did so. But, when any of the ancients have occasion to express a returning toGodafter a state of sin, the Greeks use the wordμετάμελεια,μετάνοια, &c. &c.; the Latins,pœnitentia, conversio. The language of the schools is exactly that of the Latin Fathers in this point; they make the effect of baptism to be a “regeneration,” or a “generation to a spiritual life;” but the turning toGodafter a course of sin they call, either “penitence,” or “conversion toGod.” The most eminent divines of the Reformation use these words in the ancient sense. Peter Martyr uses “regeneration” for baptism; and calls the turning toGod, after a state of sin, the “conversion and change of a man.” Calvin, where he designs to speak with exactness, uses “regeneration” for the baptismal renovation, as in his catechism; though sometimes he uses it to signify conversion: but this is but seldom; he generally, with the ancient Latin writers, expressing this by “conversion.” When the Quinquarticular controversy arose, and long treatises were written about the methods of converting grace, the divines, who managed them, being willing sometimes to vary their expressions, to make these discourses, (dry enough in themselves,) thereby something more pleasant, began to use “regeneration” as a synonymous word with “conversion.” But in the Synod of Dort itself, though in some of the particular declarations of the divines of the several countries “regeneration” and “conversion” are used reciprocally, yet in the synodical resolutions the word “conversion” is always used. In the sermons and books written about the beginning of the late civil wars, “regeneration,” for “repentance” or “conversion,” became a very fashionable word; but sometimes oddly expressing it by “regeneration-work,” &c., they made sport for vain people. However, by frequent use, the word has come to obtain among grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern; insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the Quinquarticular controversy, and were concerned in the review of the liturgy at the Restoration, pretended to find fault with the Common Prayer Book for using the word “regeneration” in the ancient sense, which it had kept for 1600 years, in opposition to theirs, which was hardly sixty years old. And this is sufficient to justify the Common Prayer Book expression; and, I hope, to silence all objections upon this head.—Dr. Nicholls.
The sense of the Church in the office for Baptism is so plain, that no more would need to be added, but only that some with Nicodemus are apt to say, “How can these things be?” (John iii. 9;) judging it impossible that so great a matter as regeneration can be effected so soon, and by no mean an instrument as they account it: whereas the effect is to be ascribed to the Divine powerof the author, not to the intrinsic efficacy of the outward means. Yet in regard we can never blessGodheartily for a mercy, unless we believe he hath bestowed it, we must labour to remove these scruples by a fuller account of this baptismal regeneration, that we may not withhold the Divine praises, by our doubting and unbelief. The word “regeneration” is but twice, that I know of, used in Scripture: first, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Ye that have followed me in the regeneration:” where, though by altering the point, “Followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man,” &c., it may signify the resurrection; yet, as we read, it signifies the renewing of men by the gospel and baptism. Secondly, (Tit. iii. 5,) “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of theHoly Ghost,” which is a paraphrase upon that of ourSaviour, (John iii.,) “Except a man be born of water and theSpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” (ver. 5).
And because persons, come to age before their conversion, are first taught and persuaded by the word ofGod, the language of holy writ enlarges the metaphor, and saith, such are “begottenthrough the gospel” (1 Cor. iv. 15); and thenborn againorregeneratedin baptism. In like manner speak the Fathers, who do constantly and unanimously affirm, that we are regenerated in or by baptism. So that we must next inquire, wherein this regeneration doth consist?
And first, whereas both children and those of riper years are by nature dead in sin, so that they live under the guilt and power thereof, our graciousFatherdoth here in baptism seal a covenant with us, wherein he promises to pardon us; and, when this deadly load is removed, the soul receives, as it were, a new life, and takes new hopes and courage, being restored to the Divine favour, and being set free from the sad expectations of condemnation for former sin, original in infants, and both it and actual in those of riper years. Before this covenant we were dead in law, and by the pardon of our sins we are begotten again to a lively hope; and herein stands the first particular of our regeneration, namely, in the remission of sins: wherefore both Scripture and antiquity teach us, (Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16,) that baptism is the means for remission of sin; and hence they join pardon and regeneration commonly together, because this forgiveness puts us into a new estate, and an excellent condition, in comparison of that which our natural birth had left us in.
Secondly: But further, by baptism we gain new relations, and old things being done away, all things become new. Hence the Jews called their proselytes “new-born children,” because they forsook all their heathen kindred; so we, although we do not renounce our earthly parents, because they also are Christians, yet we gain new alliances; forGodhereby doth become ourFather, andJesusour Master, and all the saints both in heaven and earth our brethren; so that it is as if we were born over again, since baptism doth entitle us to this celestial kindred.
But this is not all. For, thirdly, our corrupt nature is changed in baptism, and there is a renovation effected thereby, both as to the mortification of the old affections, and the quickening of the new, by theHoly Spirit, which is hereby given to all that put no bar or impediment unto it. This was the ancients’ doctrine, who affirmed a real change to be wrought, and believed theSpiritto be therein bestowed, asGodhad promised, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,) “That he would sprinkle clean water upon them, and they should be clean from all their filthiness, and then a new heart would he give them, and put a new spirit within them.” And it is manifest, that, in the first ages of the Church, there was abundance of gifts and graces miraculously bestowed upon Christians in their baptism; and no doubt, if the catechumens of our days, who are of age, would prepare themselves as strictly by repentance, fasting, and prayer, as they of old did, they should find incomparable effects of this sacred layer, if not in as miraculous measures, yet to as real purposes; that is, they should be truly regenerated, and their hearts changed by the influence of the DivineSpirit. But some may doubt whether infants be regenerated in this sense, because they are not capable of giving any evidences of their receiving theSpirit; nor doth there any immediate effect of their regeneration appear: hence the Pelagians denied it; but they are therefore condemned by the Milevitan Council, and confuted by St. Augustine. It is confessed they can show no visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof, no more can they of their having a rational soul, for some time; and yet we know they have the power of reason within them: and since all infants are alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the ancients did, thatGod’sgrace, which is dispensed according to the capacity of the suscipient,is here given to infants to heal their nature, and that he bestowed on them such measures of his Spirit as they can receive; for the malignant effects of the first Adam’s sin are not larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam’s righteousness. (Rom. v. 15, 18.) And if it be asked, how it comes to pass then that so many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity? I answer, so do too many grown persons also; and neither infants, nor men, are so regenerated in this life, as absolutely to extinguish the concupiscence; for the flesh will still lust against the Spirit; but thenGodgives the Spirit also to lust against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17, 18.) He leaves the corruption to try and exercise us, but so that he engageth to enable us to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will improve it, and follow the dictates of his Holy Spirit; but by neglect, or wilful complying with the flesh, we may lose this grace again; our graciousFatherhath already done his part, and will do it more and more, as the child shall be capable and willing to receive it. And, if this seems strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, not with me, who saith, “The grace ofGodis equally distributed in baptism, but it may either be diminished or increased afterward, by our acts and conversation.”
The sum is, that baptism doth seal a pardon to us for all former transgression, and begets us again to the hope of eternal life; that it restores us to the favour ofGod, and gives us a new relation to him; and finally it heals our nature by theSpirithereby conveyed to us: and, though all this be upon condition of our keeping our part of the covenant, yet that makes notGod’smercy less, nor ought it to diminish any of our praises; but only it must make our prayers at present more earnest, and the child’s care more strict hereafter to make this its calling and election sure.
This is, I hope, the sense of our Church, as well as of the primitive; and if so, it will not be material to a judicious Christian for any to say, it doth not agree to some modern systems.—Dean Comber.
REGENERATION. (SeeConversionandRenovation.) A Latin word signifyingnew birth, or being born again. We are taught in the catechism that “a sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained byChristhimself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” And we are taught also that the inward and spiritual grace given to us, which by means of baptism we receive, is “a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby,” i. e. by baptism, “made children of grace.” Hence the catechism teaches every baptized child to speak of his baptism as that “wherein I was made a member ofChrist, the child ofGod, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Hence, in perfect consistency with the catechism, the minister, immediately after the administration of this sacrament to a child, addresses the congregation thus: “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body ofChrist’sChurch, let us give thanks untoAlmighty Godfor these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, thatthis childmay lead the rest ofhislife according tothis beginning.” And he returns thanks to our mercifulFather, that it hath pleased him “to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” In the office of Private Baptism of Infants, the connexion between holy baptism and regeneration is, if possible, still more expressly asserted, for the priest, with reference to the baptism performed in private, is taught to say, on the receiving of the infant into the Church, “seeing now that this child is by baptismregenerate, andgraftedinto the body ofChrist’sChurch.” In the office for the Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, the connexion between baptism and regeneration is as closely observed. To many persons this doctrine is very offensive. We believe that it is repudiated by all dissenters except the Romish, who, amidst their many errors, retain this evangelical truth. As an answer to the objections urged against this scriptural doctrine, we shall quote the words of the late Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge; we do so, because we have seldom seen the truth more briefly vindicated. The following passage is from his Works, vol. ii. p. 259.
“In the baptismal service,we thankGodfor having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that,in the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the Divine image? Hadthey asserted any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this; so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look toGodfor that total change, both of heart and life, whichlong since their days has begun to be expressedby the term regeneration.After thankingGodfor regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, ‘that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;’ and then declaring the total change to be the necessary mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ‘so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, hemaybe an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom.’ Is there (I would ask) any person that can require more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject, thetermregeneration and thething. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of theHoly Ghost,which, however, is represented as attendant on it; and, in the other place, it has a totally distinct meaning, unconnected with the subject. Now thetermthey use as theScriptureuses it, and thethingthey require as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines [ultra-Protestant divines] have included in the term regeneration; on the contrary, they do, both there and in the liturgy, insist upon a radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question is, not ‘whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification,’ but whetherGoddoes always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion,but it cannot be positively decided in the negative; because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it, in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow; and therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered only as a doubtful point; and if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the Holy Scriptures, they certainly do, ina very remarkable way, accord with the expressions in our liturgy. St. Paul says, ‘By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made todrink into oneSpirit.’ And this he says of all the visible members ofChrist’sbody. (1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, ‘They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, andthat rock wasChrist.’ (1 Cor. x. 1–4.) Yet, behold, in the very next verse he tells us that, ‘with many of themGodwas displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.’ In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: ‘As many of you,’ says he, ‘as are baptized intoChrist, have put onChrist.’ Here we see what is meant by the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being ‘baptizedintoMoses (the prepositionεἰςis used in both places): it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism; and of them universally does the apostle say, ‘they have put onChrist.’ Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?
“Again; St. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of youfor the remission of sins.’ (Acts ii. 38.) And in another place, ‘Baptism doth now save us.’ (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who are unfruitful in the knowledge of ourLord Jesus Christ, he says, ‘He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.’ (2 Pet. i. 9.)Does not this very strongly countenance theIDEA WHICH OUR REFORMERS ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OF OUR SINS AND THE REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL RITE?”
The importance of holding this doctrine, besides its being scripturally true, must be at once apparent to those who reflect, that the whole moral education of a Christian people is altered, if instead of teaching them, as we ought to do, thatGodhasgiven them a gift which they may use to their own salvation, but for losing which they will be awfully punished,—if instead of this we tell them to wait and to expect the gift of grace, before receiving which they cannot pleaseGod. The orthodox would preach to all baptized persons, telling them that they may and can serveGodif they will: the heterodox would address baptized persons as heathens, and warn them that, until they have an effectual calling, they can do nothing. It is easy to trace much of the evil which disgracesthe religion of the present day to the prevalence of the latter notion.
At the Savoy Commission, 1661, the following are among the answers of the bishops to the exceptions of ministers.
“Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.” Most proper, for baptism is our spiritual regeneration, (John iii. 5,) “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit,” &c. And by this is received remission of sins, (Acts ii. 38,) “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.” So the Creed: “our baptism for the remission of sins.”
Seeing thatGod’ssacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not “ponere obicem,” put any bar against them (which children cannot do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated byGod’s Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no.
[The form of Confirmation] supposeth, and that truly, that all children were at their baptism regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, and had given unto them forgiveness of all their sins; and it is charitably presumed, that notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their childhood, they have not totally lost what was in baptism conferred upon them.—Cardwell’s Hist. of Conferences, pp. 356, 358.
REGISTER. The keeping of a church book for registering the age of those that should be born and christened in the parish began in the thirtieth year of Henry VIII.
By Canon 70. “In every parish church and chapel within this realm shall be provided one parchment book at the charge of the parish, wherein shall be written the day and year of every christening, wedding, and burial, which have been in the parish since the time that the law was first made in that behalf, so far as the ancient books thereof can be procured, but especially since the beginning of the reign of the late queen. And for the safe keeping of the said book, the churchwardens, at the charge of the parish, shall provide one sure coffer, and three locks and keys; whereof one to remain with the minister, and the other two with the churchwardens severally; so that neither the minister without the two churchwardens, nor the churchwardens without the minister, shall at any time take that book out of the said coffer. And henceforth upon every sabbath day immediately after morning or evening prayer, the minister and the churchwardens shall take the said parchment book out of the said coffer, and the minister in the presence of the churchwardens shall write and record in the said book the names of all persons christened, together with the names and surnames of their parents, and also the names of all persons married and buried in that parish in the week before, and the day and year of every such christening, marriage, and burial; and that done, they shall lay up the book in the coffer as before. And the minister and churchwardens, unto every page of that book, when it shall be filled with such inscriptions, shall subscribe their names. And the churchwardens shall once every year, within one month after the five and twentieth day of March, transmit unto the bishop of the diocese, or his chancellor, a true copy of the names of all persons christened, married, or buried in their parish in the year before, (ended the said five and twentieth day of March,) and the certain days and months in which every christening, marriage, and burial was had, to be subscribed to with the hands of the said minister and churchwardens, to the end the same may faithfully be preserved in the registry of the said bishop; which certificate shall be received without fee. And if the minister and churchwardens shall be negligent in performance of anything herein contained, it shall be lawful for the bishop, or his chancellor, to convent them, and proceed against every of them as contemners of this our constitution.”
The Act 52 Geo. III. c. 146, (A. D. 1812,) directs that “registers of public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials, solemnized according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland ... shall be made and kept by the rector, vicar, curate, or officiating minister of every parish (or of any chapelry) where the ceremonies of baptism, marriage, and burial, have been usually, and may according to law be, performed for the time being, in books of parchment, or of good and durable paper, to be provided by his Majesty’s printer as occasion may require, at the expense of the respective parishes or chapelries; whereon shall be printed, upon each side of every leaf, the heads of information herein required to be entered in the registers” (agreeably to schedules annexed to the act). Such registers should be kept in separate books, and every minister shall enter the baptism, or burial, as soon as possible, and shall sign the same; “and in no case, unless preventedby sickness, or other unavoidable impediment, later than within seven days after the ceremony of any such baptism, or burial, shall have taken place.” (Sect. 3.)