But donatives are not resignable to the ordinary; but to the patron, who hath power to admit.—Gibson, 822.
And if there be two patrons of a donative and the incumbent resign to one of them, it is good for the whole.—Deg.p. i. c. 14.
3. Regularly resignation must be made in person, and not by proxy. There is indeed a writ in the register, entitled,litera procuratoria ad resignandum, by which the person constituted proctor was enabled to do all things necessary to be done in order to an exchange; and, of these things, resignation was one. And Lyndwood supposeth, that any resignation may be made by proctor. But in practice there is no way (as it seemeth) of resigning, but either to do it by personal appearance before the ordinary, or at least to do it elsewhere before a public notary, by an instrument directed immediately to the ordinary, and attested by the said notary; in order to be presented to the ordinary, by such proper hand as may pray his acceptance. In which case the person presenting the instrument to the ordinary doth not resignnomine procuratorio, as proctors do; but only presents the resignation of the person already made.—Gibson, 822.Deg.p. i. c. 14.Watson, c. 4.
4. A collateral condition may not be annexed to the resignation, no more than an ordinary may admit upon condition, or a judgment be confessed upon condition, which are judicial acts.—Watson, c. 4.
For the words of resignation have always been,pure,sponte,absolute,et simpliciter; to exclude all indirect bargains, not onlyfor money, but for other considerations. And therefore, inGayton’s case, E. 24 Eliz., where the resignation was to the use of two persons therein named, and further limited with this condition, that if one of the two was not admitted to the benefice resigned within six months, the resignation should be void and of none effect; such resignation, by reason of the condition, was declared to be absolutely void.—God.277.Gibs.821. 1Still.334.
But where the resignation is made for the sake of exchange only, there it admits of this condition, viz. if the exchange shall take full effect, and not otherwise; as appears by the form of resignation, which is in the register.—Gibson, 821.
By a constitution of Othobon: Whereas sometimes a man resigneth his benefices that he may obtain a vacant see; and bargaineth with the collator, that if he be not elected to the bishopric, he shall have his benefices again; we do decree, that they shall not be restored to him, but shall be conferred upon others, as lawfully void. And if they be restored to him, the same shall be of no effect; and he who shall so restore him, after they have been resigned into his hands, or shall institute the resigner into them again, if he is a bishop, he shall be supended from the use of his dalmatic and pontificals; and if he is an inferior prelate, he shall be suspended from his office until he shall think fit to revoke the same.—Athon, 134.
5. No resignation can be valid till accepted by the proper ordinary; that is, no person appointed to a cure of souls can quit that cure, or discharge himself of it, but upon good motives, to be approved by the superior who committed it to him; for it may be he would quit it for money, or to live idly, or the like. And this is the law temporal, as well as spiritual; as appears by that plain resolution which hath been given, that all presentations made to benefices resigned, before such acceptance, are void. And there is no pretence to say, that the ordinary is obliged to accept; since the law hath appointed no known remedy if he will not accept, any more than if he will not ordain.—Gibs.822. 1Still.334.
Lyndwood makes a distinction in this case, between a cure of souls and a sinecure. The resignation of a sinecure, he thinks, is good immediately, without the superior’s consent; because none but he that resigneth hath interest in that case. But where there is a cure of souls it is otherwise; because not he only hath interest but others also unto whom he is bound to preach the word ofGod; wherefore in this case it is necessary, that there be the ratification of the bishop, or of such other person as hath power by right or custom to admit such resignation.—Gibson, 823.
Thus in the case of theMarchioness of RockinghamandGriffith, Mar. 22, 1755, Dr. Griffith being possessed of the two rectories of Leythley and Thurnsco, in order that he might be capacitated to accept another living which became vacant, to wit, the rectory of Handsworth, executed an instrument of resignation of the rectory of Leythley aforesaid, before a notary public, which was tendered to and left with the archbishop of York, the ordinary of the place within which Leythley is situate. It was objected, that here doth not appear to have been any acceptance of the resignation by the archbishop, and that without his acceptance the said rectory of Leythley could not become void. And it was held by the lord chancellor clearly, that the ordinary’s acceptance of the resignation is absolutely necessary to make an avoidance. But whether in this case there was a proper resignation and acceptance thereof, he reserved for further consideration; and in the mean time recommended it to the archbishop, to produce the resignation in court. Afterwards, on the 17th of April, 1755, the cause came on again to be heard, and the resignation was then produced. But the counsel for the executors of the late marquis declaring that they did not intend to make any further opposition, the lord chancellor gave no opinion upon the resignation, or the effect of it; but in the course of the former argument he held, that the acceptance of a resignation by the ordinary is necessary to make it effectual, and that it is in the power of the ordinary to accept or refuse a resignation.
And in the case ofHesketandGrey, H. 28 Geo. II., where a general bond of resignation was put in suit, and the defendant pleaded that he offered to resign, but the ordinary would not accept the resignation; the court of King’s Bench were unanimously of opinion, that the ordinary is a judicial officer, and is intrusted with a judicial power to accept or refuse a resignation as he thinks proper; and judgment was given for the plaintiff.
6. After acceptance of the resignation, lapse shall not run but from the time of notice given: it is true the church is void immediately upon acceptance, and the patron may present if he please; but as to lapse, the general rule that is here laiddown is the unanimous doctrine of all the books. Insomuch that if the bishop who accepted the resignation dies before notice given, the six months shall not commence till notice is given, by the guardian of the spiritualities, or by the succeeding bishop; with whom the act of resignation is presumed to remain.—Gibson, 823.
7. By the 31 Eliz. c. 6, s. 8. If any incumbent of any benefice with cure of souls shall corruptly resign the same; or corruptly take for or in respect of the resigning the same, directly or indirectly, any pension, sum of money, or other benefit whatsoever, as well the giver as the taker of any such pension, sum of money, or other benefit corruptly, shall lose double the value of the sum so given, taken, or had; half to the queen, and half to him that shall sue for the same in any of her Majesty’s courts of record.—Abridged from Burn.
On the subject of general bonds of resignation, seeSimony.
The following are the forms of resignation now in use:—
No. 1.
Act of Resignation to be executed before a Notary Public and credible Witnesses.
In the name ofGod, Amen. Before you, a notary public, and credible witnesses here present, I ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, for certain just and lawful causes me thereunto especially moving, without compulsion, fraud, or deceit, do purely, simply, and absolutely resign and give up my said ——, and parish church of ——, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances, into the hands of the Right Reverend Father inGod——, by Divine permission lord bishop ——, or of any other whomsoever, having or that shall have power to admit this my resignation. And I totally renounce my right, title, and possession of, in, and to the same, with all their rights, members, and appurtenances heretofore had, and hitherto belonging to me; I quit them, and expressly recede from them by these presents. And that this my resignation may have its full effect, I do hereby nominate and appoint ——, jointly and severally my proctors or substitutes, to exhibit this my resignation to the said right reverend father, and in my name to pray that his lordship would graciously vouchsafe to accept thereof, and to pronounce, decree, and declare the —— of ——, aforesaid, void and to be void of my person to all intents of law that may follow thereupon: and to decree, if requisite, that intimation of the said avoidance may be issued to the patron thereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this —— day of ——, in the year of ourLord185—.
Witnesses present, ——No. 2.Attestation of the Notary Public.
Witnesses present, ——No. 2.Attestation of the Notary Public.
Witnesses present, ——
No. 2.
Attestation of the Notary Public.
On the —— day of ——, in the year of ourLord185—, the Rev. ——, clerk, —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, appeared personally before me, the under-written notary public, and resigned, gave up, and surrendered his said ——, and appointed —— his proctors, jointly and severally to exhibit his resignation, hereunto annexed, to the Right Reverend Father inGod——, lord bishop of ——, and did and performed all other things as in his said resignation, hereunto annexed, is particularly specified and set forth, in the presence of witnesses attesting the same.
Which I attest, ——Notary Public.
Which I attest, ——Notary Public.
Which I attest, ——Notary Public.
Which I attest, ——
Notary Public.
No. 3.Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation.
No. 3.Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation.
No. 3.
Acceptation by the Ordinary of the Resignation.
We accept the resignation of the ——, in the county of ——, and our diocese of ——, as it is exhibited to us by ——, one of the proctors therein named, and we do declare the said —— void, and to be void of the person of the within named ——, the party resigning, to all intents of law that may follow thereupon, and do decree that an intimation of such avoidance, if requisite, be issued to the patron thereof.
Dated this —— day of ——, in the year of ourLord185—.
No. 4.Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself.
No. 4.Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself.
No. 4.
Copy of Letter to be sent to the Patron of the Benefice resigned, if it is not in the Patronage of the Bishop himself.
185—.
185—.
185—.
185—.
I am desired by the Lord Bishop of —— to inform you, that his lordship accepted the Rev. —— resignation of the —— of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——, on the —— of ——, and declared the same void.
Please to acknowledge the receipt of this notice.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient servant,
Your most obedient servant,
Your most obedient servant,
——Secretary.
——Secretary.
——Secretary.
——
Secretary.
RESPOND. Before the Reformation a short anthem was so called, which wassung after reading three or four verses of a chapter; after which the chapter proceeded.
RESPOND. A half pillar attached to a wall, to support one side of an arch, of which the other side rests on a pillar. It has its name fromrespondingoransweringto a pillar.
RESPONSE. In the Church service, an answer made by the people speaking alternately with the minister. The use of responses is not to be viewed as a mere incidental peculiarity of liturgical services, but rather as a fundamental characteristic of Divine worship. Responses were not made for liturgies, but liturgies for responses. Many of the psalms are constructed on the responsive model, because this was a prior trait of the worship of the sanctuary; and it is an error to suppose that responses were introduced because these psalms happened to be in alternate verses.God’sworship is an act in which both minister and people are concerned. This worship the Church requires to be both mental and vocal, and has ordered her ritual accordingly,—not degrading the priest to a proxy, nor the congregation to an audience; but providing for supplications and thanksgivings, which, like herself, shall be strong because united. It should be deemed a high privilege by the churchman, that he is permitted to lift up his voice in prayer, as well as in praise, “in the congregation of the saints;” that he may openly profess his confidence in theFatherof all, and his trust in the “Lamb of Godwho taketh away the sin of the world;” that he may join aloud in the “solemn litany,” and cry for grace whereby he may keepGod’sholy law for the time to come. In ages past the privilege was prized. Men were not ashamed, in primitive days, to confessChristbefore the world, and, as it were, to rend the heavens with their fervent appeals. Neither was it by an ecclesiastical fiction, but in solemn reality, that they sung, “Therefore with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven,WE LAUD AND MAGNIFY THY GLORIOUS NAME.” May the time come when such devotion shall again adorn the “spacious courts” of Zion; when the vague murmur of confession, and the languid tones of penitence, the silent creed, and the smothered prayer, shall give place to the earnest and nervous expression of spiritual concern, and the animating testimony of devout gratitude!
It was a very ancient practice of the Jews to recite their public hymns and prayers by course, and many of the Fathers assure us that the primitive Christians imitated them therein; so that there is no old liturgy which does not contain such short and devout sentences as these, wherein the people answer the priest, and which are therefore called “responses.” This primitive usage, which is now excluded not only from Popish assemblies by their praying in an unknown tongue, but also from those of our Protestant Dissenters by the device of a long extempore prayer, is still maintained in the Church of England; which allows the people their ancient right of bearing part in the service for these good reasons: First, hereby the consent of the congregation to what we pray for is declared; and it is this unity of mind and voice, and this agreement in prayer, which hath the promise of prevailing. (Rom. xv. 6; Matt. xviii. 19.) Secondly, this grateful variety and different manner of address serves to quicken the people’s devotion. Thirdly, it engages their attention, which is apt to wander, especially in sacred things; and, since they have a duty to perform, causes them to be expectant and ready to perform it. Let all those, then, who attend the public service, gratefully embrace the privilege which the Church allows them, and make their responses gravely and with an audible voice.—Dean Comber.
But it must be remembered, both here and elsewhere, when our prayers toGodare divided into such small portions as we call “versicles,” that the people are to joinmentallyin that part which the minister utters, as well as in that which they are directed to pronounce themselves. And so the minister, in like manner, must join in what the people utter, as well as in his own part. For otherwise they do not join in prayer. Besides, if this be not done, we shall frequently offer toGodthat which has but an imperfect sense. For instance, in this place, these words, “and our mouth shall show forth thy praise,” do so manifestly depend upon what the minister spake just before, that the sense of the one is not perfect without the other. It is true the Church requires, that the minister shall say the one, and the people the other portion; that is, the one portion shall be vocally uttered by the minister, and the other portion shall be vocally uttered by the people, alternately and by way of responses; but yet both the minister and the people ought mentally to offer, and to speak toGod, what is vocally offered and spoken by the other party respectively, for the reasons already given. And, that both the minister and the congregation may bethe better able to do this, they should respectively take care, that they do not confound and disturb each other by beginning their several portions too soon. The minister’s first versicle should be finished, before the people utter a word of the second; and the people should have time enough to finish the second, before the minister begins the third, &c.: so that both the minister and people may have time enough deliberately to offer every portion, and make, all of them together, one continued act of devotion. The same rule must be observed in all those psalms and hymns which are used alternately.—Dr. Bennet.(SeeVersicle.)
The Responses, orResponsals, as some writers call them, may be said to be of four kinds: First, those which consist ofAmenafter the prayers: Secondly, those which follow the versicles or suffrages: Thirdly, those which are repetitions of what the minister has said, as in the confession, some parts of the Litany, &c.: and Fourthly, the short prayers or anthems, interposed between each commandment in the Communion Service.
RESPONSORIES, or RESPONDS. These, in the unreformed ritual, are short verses from Scripture, repeated as verse and response, after the lessons at matins. Hence perhaps it is that the hymns after our lessons have sometimes incorrectly been calledresponses; a term, however, which in this sense seems nearly obsolete. It is to theseresponsoriesthat allusion is made in the Preface “concerning the Service of the Church,” in our Prayer Book. “For this cause he cut off Anthems, Responds, Invitations, and such like things as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scriptures.” Here is not meantresponses per se; for these our reformers most carefully retained; not anthems per se, as these are prescribed in their proper places; but the ancient custom was corrected, which after every three or four verses of a lesson interposed a respond, &c., so as to interrupt the service; the sequel being taken up when the respond was finished.—Jebb.
RESTORATION. The name generally given to the happy return of the Church of England to the divinely appointed ecclesiastical polity, and to their allegiance to the lawful prince, Charles II., which took place in 1660; a happy event, for which Christian people cannot be too thankful, and of which, and all the dreadful evils from which it delivered them, they cannot be too often reminded. It has been accordingly appointed by authority, that the 29th of May, in every year, shall be kept with prayer and thanksgiving to AlmightyGodfor these unspeakable mercies.
RESURRECTION. There are many passages in the Old Testament, which either obscurely hint at the resurrection, or immediately refer to it. (Job xix. 23–27; Dan. xii. 2; Isa. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea vi. 2; xiii. 14; Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.) It follows, indeed, from an acceptance of the promise of a redeemer. A redeemer was promised as a blessing to Adam and the patriarchs; but when Adam and the first patriarchs died, how was the coming of theRedeemerto be a blessing to them? The answer is given by Job: “I know that myRedeemerliveth, and that at the latter day he shall stand upon the earth; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold;” i. e. by being raised from the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is one of the great articles of the Christian faith. We believe thatJesusdied and rose again; we also believe, for so we are taught in the New Testament, that “them which sleep inJesuswillGodbring with him,” that “Christby his rising became the first-fruits of them that slept,” that “the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” that “the grave and the sea shall give up their dead,” that at this resurrection “the dead inChristshall rise first,” that theLord Jesus Christwill change “our vile body, and fashion it like unto his glorious body, according to the working of that mighty power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.” (1 Thess. iv. 14–16; 1 Cor. xv. 20–52; Rev. xx. 13; Phil. iii. 21.)
AsChrist, the “first-fruits of them that sleep,” (1 Cor. xv. 20,) arose from the dead, so shall there be also a generalRESURRECTION OF THE BODY; for he “that raised upChristfrom the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies.” (Rom. viii. 11.) A seeming difficulty, however, attends the latter case, which does not the former. The body ofChristdid not “see corruption;” but we know that in our case, “after the skin worms shall destroy the body itself,” and that “yet in our flesh shall we seeGod.” (Job xix. 26.) We must, therefore, believe that this resurrection, however apparently difficult, is not impossible, for with him by whom we are to be raised “all things are possible.” We know that by him “the very hairs of the head are all numbered;” and he “who measures the waters in the hollow of his hand,” and “comprehends the dust ofthe earth,” (Isa. xl. 12,) whose “eyes” could “see our substance,” “made in secret,” and “yet being imperfect” (Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16,) can be at no loss to distinguish the different particles of every different body, whether it be crumbled into dust, or dissipated into air, or sublimated by fire. He, too, the artificer of the body so “fearfully and wonderfully made,” (Ps. cxxxix. 14,) can be at no loss to reunite the innumerable and widely scattered atoms; for these shall not perish; and with equal ease reform the man, as he originally made him.
The union of the immortal soul to the companion made for it, (then become more pure and glorified,) after they have existed together in this transitory life, is also highly probable; nor is it less so, that this should be the case as man is an accountable agent, intended to enjoy eternal happiness, or suffer eternal misery—decreed to “receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. v. 10.) It is also typified by many things around us: the constant succession of death and revivification—the night is followed by a new day—the winter, the death of the year, is followed by the spring, and the renewal of vegetation; the “grain” sown is not requickened except it first “die,” and is buried in the ground and brought to corruption.
By this is Reason prepared to assent to Revelation; and therefore, as it has been prophesied that, notwithstanding this destruction of the body, yet in our “flesh” shall we “seeGod,” and our “eyes shall behold him” (Job xix. 26); that the “dead men shall live,” and with the “dead body, arise;” for “the earth shall cast out the dead,” (Isa. xxvi. 19,) and that they that “sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan. xii. 2,) so shall it be accomplished: “there shall be a resurrection of the dead” (Acts xxiv. 15); “the hour is coming when the dead—all that are in the grave—shall hear the voice of theSonofGod,” and “shall come forth;” the “sea” and “death and hell” (or the grave) “shall deliver up the dead which are in them” (Rev. xx. 13).
This ourLord, who calls himself “the Resurrection and the Life,” (John xi. 25,) proved to the Sadducees from the Old Testament; since he who was then theGodof their fathers “is not theGodof the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. xxii. 32.) St. Paul, too, confirms the doctrine by most powerful reasoning; declaring, that if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is “Christnot risen;” and then is their “faith” vain; and he shows, in answer to cavillers, that, asChristis risen, “the first-fruits,”—so shall “all be made alive,” exemplifying the probability and the manner of this by a familiar illustration. (1 Cor. XV. 12–23, 35–49.)
It shall be, too, a resurrection of the body, every one his own body as it “hath pleased”Godto give him: although the “natural body,” “sown in corruption,—in dishonour,—and in weakness,” shall be “raised a spiritual body,—in incorruption, in glory, and in power.” The “earthly house” shall have “a building ofGod” (2 Cor. v. 1); the “corruptible” shall “put on incorruption;” and the “mortal, immortality.” Those that do “not sleep” shall “be changed,”—“caught up in the clouds to meet theLord.” (1 Thess. iv. 17.)
We believe in this article, as the great truth it contains is for the glory ofGod’seternal government, “the hand of theLordshall be known towards his servants, and his indignation towards his enemies” (Isa. lxvi. 14); as it proves the value of the “gospel,” which has “brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. i. 10); as it consoles us under “afflictions,” which are “but for a moment:” since we know that our “Redeemerliveth;” and that we “sorrow not,” therefore, “as others which have no hope” (1 Thess. iv. 13, with 14–18); and excites us “to have always a conscience void of offence towardGodand toward men” (Acts xxiv. 16, with 15); since “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the livingGod!” (Heb. x. 31)—of “him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell!” (Matt. x. 28.) Therefore should we be “always abounding in the work of theLord; forasmuch as we know that our labour in theLordis not in vain.” (1 Cor. xv. 58.)
REVELATION. (1.) The Divine communication of the sacred truths of religion. (SeeBible,Scripture.)
(2.) The Apocalypse, or prophecy of St. John, revealing future things. This is the last book of Holy Scripture, and it contains the revelations made to St. John at Patmos. It is quoted as an inspired book by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other fathers of the first three centuries. Its authenticity and genuineness were never disputed until a prejudice was excited against it by the follies of certain Millenarians, who thought to support their conclusions by its authority. But the Church never doubted of its being a portion of Scripture, or of itsDivine origin. Indeed, few books of the New Testament have more complete evidence of canonical authority than the Book of Revelation. It treats, 1. “Of the things which were then,” (i. 19,) i. e. of the state of the Church in the time of St. John; and, 2. “Of things which should be hereafter,” or of the history of the Church, its propagation, corruption, reformation, and triumph.
REVEREND. Venerable, deserving awe and respect. It is the title given to ecclesiastics of the second and third orders, the archbishops, and the bishop of Meath, being styledmost reverend, and the bishopsright reverend. Deans arevery reverend. In foreign churches, where females are ordained to offices in the Church, abbesses and prioresses are calledreverend mothers. It was so in our own Church before the Reformation, but, since that time, the custom of consecrating females to the service ofGod, except so far as all lay persons are so consecrated at holy baptism and at confirmation, has ceased. The more zealous Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and especially during the Great Rebellion, very strongly objected to the title of reverend, as implying too much to be given to a mere creature, and because ofGodonly it may be said with propriety, “Holy and reverend is his name.” But dissenting preachers are in these days ambitious of the title, and few clergymen refuse it. The title ofreverendwas frequently given, so late as the 17th century, to the judges of England.
RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, HOLINESS. (SeeJustificationandSanctification.)
RING,in holy matrimony. Immediately after the mutual promises or stipulations in the office of matrimony, the very ancient ceremony occurs of placing a ring on the finger of the woman. The object of this is stated in the prayer following, to be “a token and pledge” of the vow and covenant just made by the parties. Ritualists have supposed, that the ring was also a pledge or earnest of that honourable maintenance and participation in “worldly goods,” which are promised in that part of the office where the ceremony takes place. It has also been considered as a sign or seal of admittance of the wife to “the nearest friendship and highest trust,” which it was in the husband’s power to give. It is probable that there is weight in all these opinions, though the former seems to be the prominent one in the view of the Church.
Various analogies and figurative applications have sprung from the ceremony of the ring, some of which are thus stated by Dean Comber and Wheatly. The matter of which this ring is made is gold, to signify how noble and durable our affection is; the form is round, to imply that our respect shall never have an end; the place of it is on the fourth finger of the left hand, where the ancients thought was a vein which came directly from the heart, and where it may be always in view; and, being a finger least used, where it may be least subject to be worn out. But the main end is to be a visible and lasting token and remembrance of this covenant, which must never be forgotten; and if in ordinary bargains we have some lasting thing delivered as an earnest or pledge and memorial, much more is it needful here; and to scruple a thing so prudent and well designed, so anciently and universally used, does not deserve our serious consideration. Indeed, although the use of the ring in marriage used to be regarded as a remnant of Popery by ultra-Protestants, it seems now to be universally tolerated.
Besides the pledge of our truth, there is a visible pledge also, namely,the ring, which being anciently the seal by which all orders were signed, and all choice things secured, the delivery of this was a sign that the party to whom it was given was admitted into the nearest friendship and the highest trust, so as to be invested with our authority, and allowed to manage our treasure and other concerns, (Gen. xli. 42,) and hence it came to be a token of love (Luke xv. 22); and was used in matrimony, not only among the Jews and Gentiles, but the Christians also; who, in Clemens Alexandrinus’s time, gave their spouse a ring, to declare her worthy of the government of the family; and thus it hath been used ever since.—Dean Comber.
The ring is, by positive institution, “a token and pledge of the covenant made” by the parties contracting marriage; and, as it is a permanent monument of the vows and promises then reciprocally made, so it ought to be a perpetual monitor, that these vows be religiously observed, and these promises faithfully performed.—Shepherd.
RING,in investitures. A ring was anciently given to bishops on their consecration, with these words, “Accipe annulum, discretionis et honoris, fidei signum; ut quæ signanda, signes; et quæ aperienda sunt, aperias; quæ liganda sunt, liges; quæ solvenda sunt, solvas.” It was worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of the right hand; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousalof the Church in her representative, the bishop.
Investiture with the ring and staff, which signified a spiritual character and office, was always claimed by the Church, though sometimes unjustly usurped by temporal princes.
RITES. (Lat.ritus.) Religious observances prescribed by competent authority.
It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few rules laid down as to ritual matters. In the Epistles there are some general rules given, that must apply in a great many cases; such as, “Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to peace” (Rom. xiv. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 40): and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus many rules are given in such general words, as, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” that, in order to the guiding of particular cases by them, many distinctions and specialities were to be interposed, to making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely ritual, the state of mankind in different climates and ages is apt to vary; and the same things, that in one scene of human nature may look grave, and seem fit for any society, may in another age look light, and dissipate men’s thoughts. It is also evident, that there is not a system of rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary, to maintain the order and decency that become Divine things. This seems to be a part of the gospel “liberty,” that it is not “a law of ordinances” (Gal. ii. 4; iv. 9; v. 1); these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of mankind. (SeeArticle 34.)
The Jewish religion was delivered to one nation, and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place: they were also to be limited in rituals, lest they might have taken some practices from their neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their rites have rendered idolatrous practices more familiar and acceptable to them. And yet they had many rites among them in ourSaviour’stime, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament: such was the whole constitution of their synagogues, with all the service and officers that belonged to them; they had a baptism among them, besides several rites added to the paschal service. OurSaviourreproved them for none of these: he went to their synagogues: and, though he reproved them for overvaluing their rites, for preferring them to the laws ofGod, and making these void by their traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And, while of the greater precepts he says, “these things ye ought to have done,” he adds, concerning their rites and lesser matters, “and not to have left the other undone.” (Matt. xxiii. 23.)
If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian liberty, that there should be room left for such appointments and alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In such rules we ought to acquiesce. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those which the gospel has limited. “We must obeyGodrather than man” (Acts v. 29); and we must in the first place “render toGodthe things that areGod’s,” and then “give to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” (Matt. xxii. 21.) So that if either Church or State have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them—that, till they break in upon the laws ofGodand the gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A mean cannot be put here; either they have no power at all, or they have a power that must go to everything that is not forbid by any law ofGod. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.—Bp. Burnet.(SeeCeremonies.)
RITUAL. A book or manual in which is given the order and forms to be observed in the celebration of Divine service, the administration of the sacraments, and, in general, all matters connected with external order, in the performance of sacred offices.
Palmer says, the English ritual resembles that of the Eastern Church in the circumstance of combining all the offices of the Church in one volume. The Euchologium, or ritual of the Greeks, now comprises the offices for morning and evening prayer, the liturgy or eucharist, baptism, litany, orders, &c. The Western Churches have more commonly divided these offices into at least four parts, entitled, thebreviary, themissalor liturgical book, theritual, and thepontifical. The ritual and pontifical correspond to that part of the English ritual which begins with the Office of Baptism. The ritual, (termed in the English churches of Salisbury and York, and elsewhere,manual,) comprised all those occasional offices of the Church which a presbyter could administer. The pontifical contained those only which a bishop could perform.
The Euchologium, or ritual of the GreekChurch, illustrated with notes by Goar, is well known and easily accessible, and furnishes abundant information with regard to all the rites of the Catholic Church in the East. The baptismal and some other occasional offices of the Jacobites or Monophysites of Alexandria, Antioch, and Armenia, and of the Nestorians, have been published by Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus.” Many of the Oriental offices for ordination, as well as all the Western, are to be found in the learned treatise of Morinus, “De Ordinationibus.” The most valuable collection of records relative to the occasional offices of the Western Churches has been published by Martene, in his work, “De antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus.” This author, with indefatigable industry, transcribed and edited a multitude of ancient manuscripts, and collected whatever had previously been published. So that there is scarcely any branch of ritual knowledge which he has not greatly elucidated.
ROCHET. A linen garment worn by bishops under the chimere. It was their ordinary garment in public during the middle ages. The word rochet, however, is not of any great antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. The chief difference between this garment and the surplice was, that it was of finer material, and that its sleeves were narrower than those of the latter; for we do not perceive in any of the ancient pictures of English bishops those very wide and full lawn sleeves which are now used, which sleeves are now improperly attached to the chimere or black satin robe.
Palmer says, the rochette is spoken of in the old “Ordo Romanus,” under the title oflinea; and has, no doubt, been very anciently used by bishops in the Western Church. During the middle ages it was their ordinary garment in public.
Dr. Hody says, that in the reign of Henry VIII., our bishops wore a scarlet garment under the rochette; and that, in the time of Edward VI., they wore a scarlet chimere, like the doctors’ dress at Oxford, over the rochette; which, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was changed for the black satin chimere used at present.—History of Convocations, p. 141. (SeeChimere.)
The chimere seems to resemble the garment used by bishops during the middle ages, and calledmantelletum; which was a sort of cope, with apertures for the arms to pass through. (SeeDu Cange’s Glossary.)
In some foreign cathedrals, the canons wore rochets, as well as other episcopal ornaments.
ROGATION DAYS. (So called fromrogare, “to beseech.”) They are three days immediately before the festival of Ascension. These litanic or Rogation days were first instituted by Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, in the fifth century. Mamertus was not the originator of litanical supplications, but was the first institutor of the Rogation fast, and the first who applied the use of litanies on these days, accompanied with public processions, which continued till the æra of the Reformation. In the Church of England it has been thought fit to continue the observance of these days as private fasts. There is no office, or order of prayer, or even single collect, appointed for the Rogation days in the Prayer Book; but among the homilies there is one designed for the improvement of these days. (SeePerambulation.) The requisitions of the Church are “abstinence” and “extraordinary acts and exercises of devotion.” Perambulations were in many parishes observed in the Rogation days. (SeePerambulation.)
ROMANISM. (SeePopeandPopery,Church of Rome,Council of Trent.) Romanism consists of the addition of certain anti-scriptural propositions to the articles of the ancient catholic faith.
In addition to what is said in the other articles referred to, we may state the tenets of Romanism in the words of Morgan, in his interesting work on the “Verities of the Church.”
1. The spiritual, and, by the Ultramontane party, the temporal, autocracy of the Bishop of Rome.
2. The compulsory celibacy of the priesthood.
3. Solitary priestly communion, or private mass.
4. The denial of the chalice, or the cup of the blood of ourLord, to the laity.
5. Compulsory auricular confession.
6. Mariolatry, or the adoration of the Blessed Virgin.
7. Hagiolatry, or the adoration of canonized saints.
8. Transubstantiation.
9. The invention of purgatory.
10. The doctrine of supererogatory merits.
11. Limitation of the Catholic Church ofChristto one episcopate.
12. The image and relic system.
13. The doctrines of papal pardons, indulgences, and dispensations.
14. The interpolation of the Apocrypha into the rule of faith.
15. Interdiction of the reading of the Scriptures, except by special permission.
(For the form of reconciling Roman Catholics to the Catholic Church of England, seeAbjuration.)
ROMAN CATHOLICS. Those Christians who follow the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome.
The doctrine of that Church may be seen in Pope Pius’s Creed, and its discipline under various articles relating to the Christians. (SeeChurch of Rome,Baptism,Eucharist, &c.,Bishops,Presbyters,Deacons, &c., &c., &c.)
We shall here unite in one point of view the several errors of the Romish Church, and its deviations from the practice of the primitive Church. These are:
1. The granting absolution before penance is performed.
2. The worship of angels, saints, relics, images, the cross, and the host in the eucharist.
3. Appeals to the bishop of Rome.
4. Admitting uncanonical books into the Scripture.
5. The absolute necessity of baptism; and the baptizing of bells.
6. The celibacy of the clergy, and their exemption from the power of the civil magistrate.
7. The exemption of children from the power of their parents.
8. Auricular confession, and confirmation made a sacrament.
9. The administering the eucharist in one kind only.
10. The abuse of excommunication, in deposing kings, and depriving magistrates of their civil rights, and burning heretics under pretence of discipline.
11. The consecration of the eucharist by muttering privately,Hoc est corpus meum, instead of public and audible prayer.
12. The use of interdicts and indulgences.
13. Offering of a lamb at Easter.
14. Original of Lent, and changing the manner of fasting.
15. Exemption of monks from the jurisdiction of the bishops.
16. Allowing of mendicants.
17. Disannulling the marriage of monks.
18. Forbidding the marriage of spiritual relations.
19. Making the marriage of cousin-germans to be incest.
20. Private and solitary mass.
21. Making the mass a sacrifice for the quick and dead.
22. Purgatory, and canonical purgation.
23. Prelatical and sacerdotal power.
24. Ordination of boys, and bishops, without a title.
25. Commutation of penance.
20. Allowing sanctuary for the worst of criminals.
27. Keeping the Scriptures and Divine service in an unknown tongue.
28. Swearing by the creatures.
29. The doctrine of transubstantiation.
30. Using unleavened bread and wafers in the eucharist.
31. Necessity of a visible head, and subjection to the pope of Rome.
The following is the return regarding Roman Catholics made in the Registrar-general’s Report of 1854.
“The Toleration Act of 1688, by which the Protestant Dissenters were relieved from many of the disabilities that previously attached to them, procured no change in the position of the Roman Catholics. They still remained subjected to the penalties inflicted by the various statutes which, since Elizabeth’s accession, had been passed for their discouragement. These were exceedingly severe. Apart from the punishments awarded for the semi-political offence of denying, or refusing to admit, the sovereign’s supremacy, the Acts of Recusancy (1 Eliz. c. 2, and 23 Eliz. c. 1) exposed them to considerable fines for non-attendance at the service of the Established Church; and by other statutes they were not permitted to establish schools in England, nor to send their children to be taught abroad—they were excluded from all civil and military offices, from seats in either house of parliament, and from the practice of the law,—they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary elections,—proselytes to Popery, and those who were the means of their conversion, were subjected to the penalties of treason,—and, by various oaths and tests, as well as by express provision, they were hindered in the exercise of their religious worship, and prevented from promulgating their doctrines. Their condition was, in fact, deteriorated in the reign of William III.—some enactments of especial rigour being sanctioned.
“Whether from the effect of these enactments, or from the natural progress of the principles of Protestantism, it is certain that at this time the number of professing Roman Catholics in England, who, in the reign of Elizabeth, were, according to Mr. Butler, a majority, or, according to Mr. Hallam, a third of the population, had considerably declined. A Report presented to William, divides thefreeholdersof England and Wales, as follows—
And the number ofpersonsof the Roman Catholic faith is said to be only 27,696. This statement, allowing for all probable deficiencies, sufficiently exhibits the great diminution which, from various causes, had occurred since the period of the Reformation.
“Not much alteration in the position of the Roman Catholics took place for nearly a century after the Revolution. As the temper of the times grew milder, many of the penal laws were not enforced; though, while the throne remained exposed to the pretensions of the Stuart family, the laws themselves continued on the Statute Book: indeed, some further measures were enacted during the agitations consequent upon the Roman Catholic Rebellion of 1715. When, however, in the person of George III., the Brunswick dynasty was firmly settled on the throne, a course of mitigating legislation was commenced, which gradually relieved the Roman Catholics from all restraints upon their worship, and from nearly all the incapacities attached to their religion. In 1778, the first remedial act was passed, repealing the provision in the 10th and 12th of William III., by which the Roman Catholics were disabled from taking lands by descent. The Gordon riots of 1780 rather aided than retarded the advance of public sentiment towards additional relief; and, in 1791, Mr. Pitt, (having obtained from the chief continental universities, unanimous opinions that the pope possessed no civil authority in England, that he cannot absolve the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance, and that the principles of the Roman Catholic faith do not excuse or justify a breach of faith with heretics,) procured the passing of another bill, by which, upon taking a form of oath prescribed, the Roman Catholics were secured against most of the penalties pronounced by former acts. They were left, however, still subjected to the Test and Corporation Acts, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices, were prohibited from sitting in either house of parliament, and were disabled from presenting to advowsons. The removal of the chief of these remaining disabilities was zealously urged upon the parliament for many years successively. In 1813 an important measure, framed with this intention, was defeated in the Commons by a majority of onlyfour: while, in 1821, a bill to the same effect passed through the lower House, but was rejected by the Peers. At length, in 1828, the Test and Corporation Acts were abrogated, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act bestowed on Roman Catholics substantially the same amount of toleration which was granted to the Protestant Dissenters.
“The number of chapels from which returns have been received at the Census Office is 570; with sittings (after an allowance for 48 chapels making no return upon this point) for 186,111. The number ofattendantson the Census Sunday (making an estimated addition for 27 chapels the returns from which were silent on this point) was:Morning, 252,783;Afternoon, 53,967;Evening, 76,880. It will be observed, that in the morning the number of attendants was more than the number of sittings: this is explained by the fact, that in many Roman Catholic chapels there is more than one morning service, attended by different individuals.”
ROOD LOFT. A gallery running along the top of the rood screen, which in parish churches usually crossed the chancel arch, on which therood(i. e. the figure of our BlessedLordon the cross) was placed, and on either side the Blessed Virgin and St. John. In large cross churches, the rood loft with its screen was usually of stone, and sometimes contained a chapel and altar within it. These more substantial rood lofts have been almost universally converted into organ lofts.
ROOD SCREEN. A screen separating the chancel from the nave, on which was formerly the rood loft.
ROOF. The following are the principal terms which occur in the description of a timber roof.
Beam.—A horizontal piece connecting the principals of each truss, and stiffening and tying them together. According to its position, it is either atie-beam, extending from wall to wall; acollar-beam, connecting the principals near the ridge; or ahammer-beam, extending horizontally from the wall, (and sometimes again from the principal rafters,) but cut off before it reaches the opposite side. It is only by its combination with other timbers, as braces, principal, and collar, that the hammer-beam serves the purpose of a beam in mechanical construction.
King-post.The middle post of each truss, resting upon the beam, and rising to the ridge.
Rafters.Timbers rising from the wall,and inclined towards each other till they meet at theridge. Theprincipal raftersare let into the beam at their lower end, and into the king-post at their upper, and together with beam, post, and braces, where they occur, form thetruss, which is the whole complication of carpentry, bearing the vertical weight of the roof, and delivering it upon the wall.
Purlin.A longitudinal piece extending from truss to truss, resting on the principal, and bearing the common rafters.
Braces.Curved pieces tenoned into the main timbers in various places and directions, and serving to stiffen and tie them together.
Wall-plate.A longitudinal piece laid on the top of the wall to receive the beams.
Wall-piece.The upright piece connecting the braces beneath a hammer-beam with the wall. This subject should be studied in the very valuable work of Mr. Brandon, “On the Open Timber Roofs of the Middle Ages.”
ROSARY, among the Roman Catholics, is a pretended instrument or help to piety, being a chaplet, consisting of five, or fifteen, decads or tens of beads, to direct the reciting so manyAve Mariasin honour of the Blessed Virgin.
Before a person repeats his rosary, he must cross himself with it: then he must repeat the Apostles’ Creed, and say aPaterand threeAves, on account of the three relations which the Virgin bears to the three persons in theTrinity. After these preliminaries to devotion, he passes on to his decads, and must observe to let himself into the mysteries of each ten by a prayer, which he will find in the books treating of the devotion of the rosary.
Some attribute the institution of the rosary to Dominic: but it was in use in the year 1100; and, therefore, Dominic could only make it more celebrated. Others ascribe it to Paulus Libycus, others to St. Benedict, others to Venerable Bede, and others to Peter the Hermit.
ROSECRUCIANS. A sect of philosophers in the early part of the seventeenth century, who combined much religious error and mysticism with their philosophical notions of transmutations, and of the chemical constitution of things. Their name is derived fromros, “dew,” which they held to be the most powerful solvent of gold; andcrux, the “cross,” which in the chemical style signifies light, because the figure of the cross exhibits at the same time the three letters in the wordlux. Now light, according to this sect, and in their absurd jargon, is the menstruum of the red dragon, i. e. the substance out of which gold is produced. The Rosecrucians then were alchemists, who sought for the philosopher’s stone by the intervention of dew and of light. These absurdities were associated with others in their system which it would be in vain to collect; but the ruling principle of their society seems to have been the imposing mystery in which they wrapped up everything which they knew, or pretended to know, as if the secrets of nature were made known to them, for the very purpose of being kept secret from all others. Of their leaders and religious fancies Mosheim gives the following summary:
At the head of the fanatics were Robert Fludd, a native of England, and a man of surprising genius; Jacob Behmen, a shoemaker, who lived at Goslitz; and Michael Mayer.
These leaders of the sect were followed by John Baptist Helmont, and his son Francis Christian Knorrius de Rosenroth, Kuhlman, Nollius, Sperber, and many others of various fame. An uniformity of opinion, and a spirit of concord, seemed scarcely possible in such a society as this; for as a great part of its doctrine is derived from certain internal feelings and flights of imagination, which can neither be comprehended nor defined, and is supported by testimonies of the external senses, whose reports are illusory and changeable, so it is remarkable that, among the more eminent writers of this sect, there are scarcely any two who adopt the same tenets and sentiments. There are, nevertheless, some common principles that are generally embraced, and which serve as a centre of union to the society. They maintain, that the dissolution of bodies, by the power of fire, is the only way through which men can arrive at true wisdom, and come to discern the first principle of things. They all acknowledge a certain analogy and harmony between the powers of nature and the doctrines of religion, and believe that the Deity governs the kingdom of grace by the same laws with which he rules the kingdom of nature; and hence it is that they employ chemical denominations to express the truths of religion. They all hold that there is a sort of divine energy, or soul, diffused through the frame of the universe, which some call Archæus, others Universal Spirit, and which others mention under different appellations. They all talk in the most obscure and superstitious manner of what they call the signatures of things,of the power of the stars over all corporeal beings, and their particular influence over the human race, of the efficacy of magic, and the various species and classes of demons. In fine, they all agree in throwing out the most crude, incomprehensible notions and ideas, in the most obscure, quaint, and unusual expressions.
RUBRICS. Rules and orders directing how, when, and where all things in Divine service are to be performed, which were formerly printed in a red character, (as now generally in an Italic,) and therefore called Rubrics, from the Latinrubrica(pro ruberica,à rubra,subaud. terra, red earth; thence anyredcolour). All the clergy of England solemnly pledge themselves to observe the rubrics.
Therubric, to which we here bind ourselves by express consent and promise, is upon a different footing from all other ecclesiastical laws. For without considering it as statute, and, as such, only upon the level with several other subsequent acts of parliament relating to our occasional ministrations, we are under this peculiar circumstance of obligation to observe it, that we have, by our subscriptions at both ordinations, by one of our vows at the altar for the order of priesthood, by our subscriptions and declarations of conformity before our ordinary, and repetition of them in the church before our congregations, and likewise by our declarations of assent and consent, as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity; I say, we have in all these several ways tied ourselves down to a regular, constant, conscientious performance of all and everything prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, according to the usage of the Church of England. And seeing it hath been the wisdom of our Church to lay us under these engagements, in order to preserve exact uniformity in the public worship and all the liturgic offices; nay, since it hath been judged proper to carry us through a train of these stipulations before we can get possession of any benefice; and to make us renew them again and again, as often as we change our preferment, or obtain any new promotion; and seeing that we have entered (as we have professed)ex animointo this covenant with the Church, and have deliberately renewed it as often as there hath been occasion; how frivolous is it for any of us to say, that the connivance, or the presumed consent, of our ordinary, or the private conveniency of ourselves or families, or the obliging of any of our parishioners, or the apparent inexpediency of adhering to the letter in some few cases, will dissolve this our obligation to conformity? Surely we must know, that these and the like allegations are quite out of the case; that, however our Church governors may dispense with our breaches of the rubric, however our people may acquiesce in them or approve of them, yet the question is, how far we are at liberty to dispense with ourselves on account of the forementioned engagements, to whichGodand the Church are made witnesses in as solemn a manner as they are to our personal stipulations at confirmation or matrimony; or whether we have not in this case precluded ourselves from all benefit of such exemption or dispensation, as might perhaps be reasonably alleged in several other merely statutable or canonical matters?
This indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this proviso; namely, that the rule prescribed be a thing practicable; which perhaps cannot be said of all rubrics in all churches, or in all places of the kingdom; nay, that it be a thing which falls within the minister’s power, so that he be not deprived of his liberty in acting, or restrained in it by the previous acts of other people, whereby that which would be practicable in itself is rendered not practicable by him. I will not positively say, that no other proviso is to be allowed of or admitted; because this cannot be determined absolutely, or otherwise than by a particular consideration of each rule or injunction under several different circumstances. But we may affirm in general, that we are under higher obligations to observe the rubric than any other ecclesiastical law whatsoever; that excepting a very few cases, or under some necessary limitations and reservations, we are bound to adhere to it literally, punctually, and perpetually; and that, whosoever among the clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth any other rule instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law so far a nonconformist, so it behoves him to consider with himself, whether, in point of conscience, he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and an eluder of his engagements to the Church.—Archdeacon Sharpe.
RURAL DEANS. The office of rural dean is an ancient office of the Church, which is mentioned as early as the time of Edward the Confessor, in one of whose laws mention is made of the dean of the bishop.
The proper authority and jurisdictionof rural deans, perhaps, may be best understood from the oath of office which in some dioceses was anciently administered to them; which was this: “I, A. B., do swear, diligently and faithfully to execute the office of dean rural within the deanery of D. First, I will diligently and faithfully execute, or cause to be executed, all such processes as shall be directed unto me from my Lord Bishop of C., or his officers or ministers by his authority. Item, I will give diligent attendance, by myself or my deputy, at every consistory court, to be holden by the said reverend father inGod, or his chancellor, as well to return such processes as shall be by me or my deputy executed; as also to receive others, then unto me to be directed. Item, I will from time to time, during my said office, diligently inquire, and true information give unto the said reverend father inGod, or his chancellor, of all the names of all such persons within the said deanery of D. as shall be openly and publicly noted and defamed, or vehemently suspected of any such crime or offence, as is to be punished or reformed by the authority of the said court. Item, I will diligently inquire, and true information give, of all such persons and their names, as do administer any dead man’s goods, before they have proved the will of the testator, or taken letters of administration of the deceased intestates. Item, I will be obedient to the right reverend father inGodJ., bishop of C., and his chancellor, in all honest and lawful commands; neither will I attempt, do, or procure to be done or attempted, anything that shall be prejudicial to his jurisdiction, but will preserve and maintain the same to the uttermost of my power.”—God. Append.
From whence it appears, that besides their duty concerning the execution of the bishop’s processes, their office was to inspect the lives and manners of the clergy and people within their district, and to report the same to the bishop; to which end, that they might have knowledge of the state and condition of their respective deaneries, they had a power to convene rural chapters.—Gibson.
Which chapters were made up of all the instituted clergy, or their curates as proxies of them, and the dean as president or prolocutor. These were convened either upon more frequent and ordinary occasions, or at more solemn seasons for the greater and more weighty affairs. Those of the former sort were held at first every three weeks, in imitation of the courts baron, which run generally in this form, from three weeks to three weeks; but afterwards they were most commonly held once a month, at the beginning of the month, and were for this reason called kalendæ, or monthly meetings. But their most solemn and principal chapters were assembled once a quarter, in which there was to be a more full house, and matters of greater import were to be here alone transacted. All rectors and vicars, or their capellanes, were bound to attend these chapters, and to bring information of all irregularities committed in their respective parishes. If the deans were by sickness or urgent business detained from there appearing and presiding in such convocations, they had power to constitute their subdeans or vicegerents. The place of holding these chapters was at first in any one church within the district where the minister of the place was toprocure for, that is, to entertain, the dean and his immediate officers. But because, in parishes that were small and unfrequented, there was no fit accommodation to be had for so great a concourse of people, therefore, in a council at London, under Archbishop Stratford, in the year 1342, it was ordained that such chapters should not be held in any obscure village, but in the larger or more eminent parishes.—Kennedy.
And one special reason why they seemed to have been formed in this realm after the manner of the courts baron is, because we find nothing of rural chapters in the ancient canon law.—Gibson.
In pursuance of which institution of holding rural chapters, and of the office of rural deans in inspecting the manners of clergy and people, and executing the bishop’s processes for the reformation thereof, we find a constitution of Archbishop Peccham, by which it is required, thatthe priests, on every Sunday immediately following the holding of the rural chapter, shall expound to the people the sentence of excommunication.
And in these chapters continually presided the rural deans, until that Otho, the pope’s legate, required the archdeacons to be frequently present at them; who being superior to the rural deans, did in effect take the presidency out of their hands: insomuch that, in Edward the First’s reign, John of Athon gives this account of it: “Rural chapters,” says he, “at this day are holden by the archdeacon’s officials, andsometimesby the rural deans.” From which constitution of Otho we may date the decay of rural chapters; not only as it was a discouragement to the rural dean, whose peculiar care the holding of themhad been; but also, as it was natural for the archdeacon and his official to draw the business that had been usually transacted there, to their own visitation, or, as it is styled in a constitution of Archbishop Langton, to their own chapter.—Gibson.
And this office of inspecting and reporting the manners of the clergy and people rendered the rural deans necessary attendants on the episcopal synod or general visitation, which was held for the same end of inspecting, in order to reformation. In which synods (or general visitation of the whole diocese by the bishop) the rural deans were the standing representatives of the rest of the clergy, and were there to deliver information of abuses committed within their knowledge, and to propose and consult the best methods of reformation. For the ancient episcopal synods (which were commonly held once a year) were composed of the bishop as president and the deans-cathedral or archipresbyters in the name of their collegiate body of presbyters or priests, and the archdeacons or deputies of the inferior order of deacons, and the urban and rural deans in the name of the parish ministers within their division; who were to have their expenses allowed to them according to the time of their attendance, by those whom they represented, as the practice obtained for the representatives of the people in the civil synods or parliament. But this part of their duty, which related to the information of scandals and offences, in progress of time devolved upon the churchwardens; and their other office of being convened to sit as members of provincial and episcopal synods, was transferred to two proctors or representatives of the parochial clergy in every diocese to assemble in convocation, where the cathedral deans and archdeacons still keep their ancient right, whilst the rural deans have given place to an election of two only for every diocese, instead of one by-standing place for every deanery.—Kennedy.
At the Reformation, in the “Reformatio Legum,” it was proposed to invest rural deans with certain legal powers, but nothing was done in this respect. In the provincial synod of convocation, held in London, April 3, 1571, it was ordained, that “the archdeacon, when he hath finished his visitation, shall signify to the bishop what clergymen he hath found in every deanery so well endowed with learning and judgment, as to be worthy to instruct the people in sermons, and to rule and preside over others; out of these the bishop may choose such as he will have to be rural deans.”
But the office was not much used till of late years, when in most dioceses it has been revived, and decanal chapters have in many places been held with much apparent advantage.
In many foreign churches, archpresbyters, or provosts, seem to have discharged much the same function as the rural deans. The title ofDeanhowever, as employed in this case, is very common in Europe. In most dioceses of Ireland the office has been immemorially operative.
RUTH, THE BOOK OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament.
This book is a kind of appendix to the Book of Judges, and an introduction to the Books of Samuel, and is therefore properly placed between them. It has its title from the person whose story is here principally related. The Jews make but one book of this and the Book of Judges, and probably the same person was the author of both. It was certainly written at a time when the government by judges had ceased, since the author of it begins with observing, that the fact came to pass in the days when the judges ruled: and he ends his book with a genealogy, which he carries down to David. Probably it was composed in that king’s time, before he was advanced to the throne.