condemn all baptism conform to the Pope’s kirk, and the idolatry of the
mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the
mass, the maintainers and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking
Papists, to be punished without any exception or restriction, Act 5,
Parl. 1, Act 120, Parl. 12, Act 164, Parl. 13, Act 193, Parl. 14, Act 1,
Parl. 19, Act 5, Parl. 20, King James VI., do condemn all erroneous
books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion
presently professed, or containing superstitious rites and ceremonies
Papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused, and ordains the
home-bringers of them to be punished, Act 25, Parl. 11, King James VI.,
do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to
crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other
superstitious and Papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of
true religion, and fostering of great error among the people; and
ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as
idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, King James VI.
Likeas many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God’s
true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof, in doctrine and
sacraments of the true church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof,
in her national, synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
discipline, and jurisdiction thereof; as that purity of religion, and
liberty of the church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and
confessed, according to the reformation of religion in this realm. As
for instance, the 99th Act, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl.
12, Act 160, Parl. 13, of King James VI., ratified by the 4th Act of
King Charles. So that the 6th Act, Parl. 1, and 68th Act, Parl. 6, of
King James VI., in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the
blessed evangel, whom God of his mercy had raised up, or hereafter
should raise, agreeing with them that then lived, in doctrine and
administration of the sacraments; and the people that professed CHRIST,
as he was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the
holy sacraments (as in the reformed kirks of this realm they were
presently administrate) according to the Confession of Faith, to be the
true and holy kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm. And decerns and
declares all and sundry, who either gainsay the word of the evangel
received and approved as the heads of the Confession of Faith, professed
in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first
Parliament of King James VI., and ratified in this present Parliament,
more particularly do express; or that refuse the administration of the
holy sacraments, as they were then ministrated; to be no members of the
said kirk within this realm, and true religion presently professed, so
long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ’s
body. And the subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6, of King James VI. declares,
that there is no other face of kirk, nor other face of religion, than
was presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within
this realm: “Which therefore is ever styled God’s true religion,
Christ’s true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
religion;” which, by manifold Acts of Parliament, all within this realm
are bound to profess, to subscribe the articles thereof, the Confession
of Faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said
articles, Act 4 and 9, Parl. 1, Acts 45, 46, 47, Parl. 3, Act 71, Parl.
6, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, Act 123, Parl. 12, Act 194 and
197, Parl. 14, of King James VI. And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c. on
the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all
contraveners: For instance, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 104, Parl. 7, Act 25,
Parl. 11, King James VI.; and that, notwithstanding of the King’s
Majesty’s licences on the contrary, which are discharged, and declared
to be of no force, in so far as they tend in anywise to the prejudice
and hinder of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists
and adversaries of true religion, Act 106, Parl. 7, King James VI. On
the other part, in the 47th Act, Parl. 3, King James VI. it is declared
and ordained. Seeing the cause of God’s true religion and his Highness’s
authority are so joined, as the hurt of the one is common to both; that
none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our sovereign
Lord, or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders
of the same, who shall not give their confession, and make their
profession of the said true religion: and that they who, after
defection, shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall
promise to continue therein in time coming, to maintain our sovereign
Lord’s authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify,
assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ’s
religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and,
namely, against all such, of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they
be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted, or
assist, to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of the Council of
Trent, contrary to the true preachers and professors of the word of God;
which is repeated, word by word, in the articles of pacification at
Perth, the 23rd of February, 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
April, 1573, ratified in Parliament 1587, and related Act 123, Parl. 12,
of King James VI.; with this addition, “That they are bound to resist
all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true
religion, the King’s Majesty, and the true professors.”
Likeas, all lieges are bound to maintain the King’s Majesty’s royal
person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without the which
neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established, Acts 130 and
131, Parl. 8, King James VI., and the subjects’ liberties, who ought
only to live and be governed by the King’s laws, the common laws of this
realm allenarly, Act 48, Parl. 3, King James I., Act 79, Parl. 6, King
James IV.; repeated in the Act 131, Parl. 8, King James VI.; which if
they be innovated and prejudged, “the commission anent the union of the
two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole act of the 17th
Parl. of King James VI., declares,” such confusion would ensue as this
realm could be no more a free monarchy: because, by the fundamental
laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not
only the princely authority of his Majesty’s royal descent hath been
these many ages maintained, but also the people’s security of their
lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties, and dignities preserved.
And, therefore, for the preservation of the said true religion, laws,
and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by the 8th Act, Parl. 1,
repeated in the 99th Act, Parl. 7, ratified in the 23rd Act, Parl. 11,
and 114th Act, Parl. 12, of King James VI., and 4th Act, Parl. 1, of
King Charles I., “That all Kings and Princes at their coronation, and
reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise
by their solemn oath, in the presence of the eternal God, that, enduring
the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternal God, to
the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most
holy word, contained in the Old and New Testament; and according to the
same word, shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the
preaching of his holy word, the due and right ministration of the
sacraments now received and preached within this realm, (according to
the Confession of Faith immediately preceding,) and shall abolish and
gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the
people committed to their charge, according to the will and command of
God revealed in his foresaid word, and according to the laudable laws
and constitutions received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the said
will of the eternal God; and shall procure, to the uttermost of their
power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of
their empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who
shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes.”
Which was also observed by his Majesty, at his coronation in Edinburgh,
1633, as may be seen in the order of the coronation.
In obedience to the commandment of God, conform to the practice of the
godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our
worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to
be made and subscribed by his Majesty’s subjects of all ranks; for two
causes: one was, For defending the true religion, as it was then
reformed, and is expressed in the Confession of Faith above written, and
a former large Confession established by sundry acts of lawful General
Assemblies and of Parliaments, unto which it hath relation, set down in
public Catechisms; and which hath been for many years, with a blessing
from Heaven, preached and professed in this kirk and kingdom, as God’s
undoubted truth, grounded only upon his written word. The other cause
was, For maintaining the King’s Majesty, his person and estate; the true
worship of God and the King’s authority being so straitly joined, as
that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and
fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds, and confessing
with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this
land are bound to keep the foresaid national oath and subscription
inviolable.
We Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons
undersubscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at
this time, the danger of the true reformed religion, of the King’s
honour, and of the public peace of the kingdom, by the manifold
innovations and evils, generally contained, and particularly mentioned
in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations; do hereby
profess, and before God, his angels, and the world, solemnly declare,
That with our whole heart we agree, and resolve all the days of our life
constantly to adhere unto and to defend the foresaid true religion, and
(forbearing the practice of all innovations already introduced in the
matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the
public government of the kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen,
till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in parliament) to
labour, by all means lawful, to recover the purity and liberty of the
Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid
novations. And because, after due examination, we plainly perceive, and
undoubtedly believe, that the innovations and evils contained in our
supplications, complaints, and protestations, have no warrant of the
word of God, are contrary to the articles of the foresaid Confession, to
the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this
land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament; and do sensibly tend to
the re-establishing of the Popish religion and tyranny, and to the
subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties,
laws, and estates; we also declare, That the foresaid Confessions are to
be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the foresaid novations and
evils, no less than if every one of them had been expressed in the
foresaid Confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them,
amongst other particular heads of Papistry abjured therein. And
therefore, from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our
King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement, so far as
human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of
God for this effect; we promise and swear, by the GREAT NAME OF THE LORD
OUR GOD, to continue in the profession and obedience of the foresaid
religion; and that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
contrary errors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the
uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands, all the days of
our life.
And in like manner, with the same heart, we declare before God and men,
That we have no intention nor desire to attempt anything that may turn
to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King’s greatness
and authority; but, on the contrary, we promise and swear, That we
shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to
the defence of our dread Sovereign the King’s Majesty, his person and
authority, in the defence and preservation of the foresaid true
religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual
defence and assistance every one of us of another, in the same cause of
maintaining the true religion, and his Majesty’s authority, with our
best counsel, our bodies, means, and whole power, against all sorts of
persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us
for that cause, shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to
every one of us in particular. And that we shall neither directly nor
indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn, by whatsoever
suggestion, combination, allurement, or terror, from this blessed and
loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay
or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to
conduce for so good ends; but, on the contrary, shall by all lawful
means labour to further and promote the same: and if any such dangerous
and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we, and every one of
us, shall either suppress it, or, if need be, shall incontinent make the
same known, that it may be timeously obviated. Neither do we fear the
foul aspersions of rebellion, combination, or what else our adversaries,
from their craft and malice, would put upon us; seeing what we do is so
well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the
true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the
kingdom, for the common happiness of ourselves and our posterity.
And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings,
except with our profession and subscription we join such a life and
conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant
with God; we therefore faithfully promise for ourselves, our followers,
and all others under us, both in public, and in our particular families,
and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds
of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
godliness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God
and man.
And, that this our union and conjunction may be observed without
violation, we call the LIVING GOD, THE SEARCHER OF OUR HEARTS, to
witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned
resolution, as we shall answer to JESUS CHRIST in the great day, and
under the pain of God’s everlasting wrath, and of infamy and loss of all
honour and respect in this world: most humbly beseeching the LORD to
strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires
and proceedings with a happy success; that religion and righteousness
may flourish in the land, to the glory of GOD, the honour of our King,
and peace and comfort of us all. In witness whereof, we have subscribed
with our hands all the premises.
The article of this covenant, which was at the first subscription
referred to the determination of the General Assembly, being now
determined; and thereby the five articles of Perth, the government of
the kirk by bishops, and the civil places and power of kirkmen, upon the
reasons and grounds contained in the Acts of the General Assembly,
declared to be unlawful within this kirk, we subscribe according to the
determination aforesaid.
This, together with the Solemn League and Covenant, (which see,) is
bound up with and added to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and
published by authority of the Scottish Establishment. But an eminent
member of that establishment officiating at present as a dissenting
minister in London, asserts that no licentiate or minister of the
Scottish Establishment has signed or been asked to sign this, or the
Solemn League and Covenant, for the last 150 years. This does not,
however, exonerate the religious community which still publishes these
documents authoritatively from the charge of intolerance; and all
classes of Episcopalians, including of course the Church of England, are
involved in these fearful anathemas.
CONFESSION OF AUGSBOURG, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. A confession of faith,
drawn up by Melancthon, and presented by him and Luther to the emperor
Charles V. at Augsbourg, in the year 1530. It was divided into two
parts, and was designed to support all the points of the Lutheran
reformation, and to show the heterodoxy of the Church of
Rome.—_Maimbourg, Hist. du Lutheranisme_.
The first part contained twenty-one articles. The first acknowledged and
agreed to all the decisions of the first four general councils,
concerning the Trinity. The second admitted of original sin, but defined
it differently from the Church of Rome, making it to consist only in
concupiscence. The third contained the substance of the Apostles’ Creed.
The fourth maintained, against the Pelagians, that a man cannot be
justified by the mere strength and capacity of nature; and, against the
Roman Catholics, that justification is the effect of faith, exclusive of
good works. The fifth agreed with the Church of Rome, that the word of
GOD, and the sacraments, are the means of conveying the HOLY SPIRIT, but
differed from that communion, by asserting that this Divine operation is
never present without faith. The sixth affirmed, that our faith ought to
produce good works, purely in obedience to GOD, and not in order to our
own justification. The seventh made the true Church to consist of none
but the righteous. The eighth acknowledged the validity of the
sacraments, though administered by hypocrites or wicked persons. The
ninth asserted, against the Anabaptists, the necessity of infant
baptism. The tenth acknowledged the presence of the body and blood of
CHRIST under the consecrated elements; adding, that this mysterious
presence in the holy sacrament continued with the elements only during
the time of receiving, and that the eucharist ought to be given in both
kinds. The eleventh granted the necessity of absolution to penitents,
but denied their being obliged to make a particular confession of their
sins. The twelfth condemned the Anabaptists, who affirm, that whoever is
once justified cannot fall from grace; as also the Novatians, who
refused absolution to sins committed after baptism; asserting withal,
against the Church of Rome, that a repenting sinner is not made capable
of forgiveness by any acts of penance whatever. The thirteenth required
actual faith from those who participate of the sacraments. The
fourteenth forbad those, who were not lawfully called, to teach in the
Church, or administer the sacraments. The fifteenth appointed the
observation of the festivals, and prescribed the ceremonies of the
Church. The sixteenth acknowledged the obligation of civil laws. The
seventeenth acknowledged the resurrection, heaven, and hell, and
condemned the two following errors of the Anabaptists and Fifth-monarchy
men; viz. That the punishment of the devils and the damned will have an
end, and that the saints will reign with Christ a thousand years upon
earth. The eighteenth declared, that our wills are not sufficiently
free, in actions relating to the promoting of our salvation. The
nineteenth maintained, that, notwithstanding God created man, and still
continues to preserve him, God neither is, nor can be, the author of
sin. The twentieth affirmed, that good works are not altogether
unprofitable: and the twenty-first forbad the invocation of saints.
The second part of the Augustan Confession is altogether in opposition
to the Church of Rome, referring to the seven principal abuses, on which
the Lutherans found the necessity of separating from the communion of
that Church. The first head enjoined communion in both kinds, and forbad
the procession of the holy sacrament. The second condemned the celibacy
of priests. By the third, private masses were abolished, and some part
at least of the congregation were obliged to communicate with the
priest. The fourth declared against the necessity of making a particular
confession of sins to the priest. The fifth rejected tradition. The
sixth disallowed of monastic vows: and the seventh asserted, that the
power of the Church consisted only in preaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments.
This confession of faith was signed by the Elector of Saxony, and his
eldest son, by the Marquis of Brandenbourg, by the Landgrave of Hesse,
the Prince of Hainault, and the republics of Nuremberg and Rutlingua. It
was argued before the emperor Charles V., but rejected; the Roman
Catholics having a majority of votes in the council. This was followed
by a conference between seven deputies of each party; in which, Luther
being absent, Melancthon, by his mollifying explanations, brought both
sides to an agreement in relation to fifteen of the first twenty-one
articles. But the conference broke up without adjusting all the
differences between them.
CONFESSIONAL. (See _Confession_ and _Auricular Confession_.) An enclosed
seat or recess in Roman churches where penitents make confession to the
priests.
CONFESSOR. A name given to those who confessed the doctrine of CHRIST
before heathen or persecuting judges; or to those who firmly endured
punishment for defending the faith: if they died under their torments
they were called _martyrs_. Our LORD says that he will confess before
his heavenly FATHER them that shall _confess_ him before men. (Matt. x.
32.) The Church of England can bless GOD for having honoured her with
many confessors, especially during the persecution which was, under the
usurpation of Oliver Cromwell, raised against her by Presbyterians,
Independents, and Infidels. In the time of Queen Mary, also, there were
confessors, as well as martyrs.
CONFESSOR, in the Romish Church, is a priest who receives confession.
(See _Auricular Confession_.)
CONFIRMATION. This is a Latin word which signifies _strengthening_. It
is used to express the rite in which the indwelling grace of the HOLY
GHOST is sought for those who have been made children of GOD in baptism;
to which sacrament it is, strictly speaking, a supplemental rite. This
ordinance is called _confirmation_, because they who duly receive it are
_confirmed_ or strengthened for the fulfilment of their Christian duties
by the grace therein bestowed upon them. The words which accompany
confirmation in the Eastern Churches are, “The seal of the gift of the
HOLY GHOST:” and the effect of it is well expressed in that ancient
prayer which, from the earliest times, has been used in all the Western
Churches: “Almighty and everlasting GOD, who hast vouchsafed to
regenerate these thy servants, by water and the HOLY GHOST, and hast
given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,—pour into them thy
sevenfold Spirit, the Holy Comforter from heaven;” or, “Strengthen them,
we beseech thee, with the HOLY GHOST, the Comforter.” In the Greek and
African Churches confirmation is administered with chrism, an unguent
consecrated by a bishop; in the Latin Churches with the same, at a
bishop’s hands; in the English Churches, by laying on of the bishop’s
hands, the only rite mentioned in connexion with it in the Scriptures:
“Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the HOLY
GHOST.” (Acts viii. 17.)
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirmation (there spoken of under the
term “laying on of hands”) is ranked among the chief fundamentals of
Christian doctrine, (Heb. vi. 2,) and must therefore be of perpetual
obligation. In the first ages of the Church, confirmation appears to
have been administered in all cases as soon after baptism as possible,
as it continues to be in the Greek and African Churches. But in the
Western Churches, for the last three or four hundred years, the bishops
have interposed a delay of seven years after infant baptism: which delay
in the English Churches has latterly been extended to fifteen or sixteen
years—the determination of the age being left to the bishop. At the last
revision of our Prayer Book, in 1661, confirmation was made an occasion
of requiring from those who have been baptized in infancy, a renewal, in
their own persons, of the engagements of the baptismal covenant. The
dispositions of mind required of those who would benefit by confirmation
are the same which are necessary to fit men for receiving grace in the
sacraments; namely, repentance and faith: without which, where persons
are capable of them, neither this nor any of the means of grace can
benefit those to whom they are administered.
No persons are admissible to the holy communion unless they have been
confirmed, or are ready and desirous to be confirmed.—_Rubric._
When children are well instructed in the vow made for them at baptism,
by the Church Catechism, it is then required they should take it upon
themselves, and be confirmed by the bishop: which holy rite of
confirmation, though it were not instituted by CHRIST, and so be not
properly a sacrament, yet the apostles did lay their hands on such as
had been before baptized by an inferior minister. (Acts viii. 14–17; and
xix. 6.) This custom the primitive Church imitated in the bishops laying
on their hands with holy prayers, upon persons that had been baptized;
which was believed to convey the HOLY SPIRIT to them for enabling them
to keep their vow. And this holy rite is still retained in the Eastern
and Western Churches, and in all Protestant Churches where they have
bishops. And we have an excellent office for it, containing, first, the
preparation for it by a serious admonition to all that come to it, a
solemn engagement from the parties to keep their vow, with some acts of
praise and prayer suited to the occasion. Secondly, the rite itself
consists of the ceremony, which is the laying on of the bishop’s hands,
and his benediction. Thirdly, the office is concluded with prayers;
general, as the LORD’S Prayer; and peculiar to the occasion, as the two
collects; and with a final blessing.
The person who doth confirm is a bishop, to which order the ancient
Church did always reserve the dispensing of this rite, because the
apostles only did this (Acts viii. 14); and therefore the bishops are
highly obliged to take care that all in their dioceses, who need and
desire it, may not want the opportunity of coming to it. The persons who
are to be confirmed are all that have been baptized, from the time they
come to years of discretion, or however to be able to understand the
nature of their baptismal vow, which they are here to take upon
themselves; and since we baptize infants, it is more necessary to bring
them to confirmation; and their godfathers can no way better acquit
themselves of the charge they have undertaken, than by taking care, as
the Church in this exhortation requires, that they may learn their
catechism, and understand their vow; and here solemnly, before GOD and
many witnesses, renew it in their own name. For, secondly, the bishop
doth particularly inquire, if they do here in GOD’S presence, and before
all the congregation, renew that solemn vow in their own names made at
their baptism; and if they do engage to perform and do what was promised
for them by their sureties: to which they must every one answer, with
great reverence and serious consideration, that “they do.” Thirdly, the
bishop and the priests that are present begin their devotions,
encouraging the parties who have promised this, by minding them that
they shall have “help” from him that made heaven and earth, (Psal.
cxxiv. 7,) and praising GOD for bringing these persons into so blessed a
condition. (Psal. cxiii. 2.) Finally, desiring him to hear the prayers
now to be made for them. Fourthly, there is a larger form of prayer made
by the bishop, wherein he first acknowledges GOD’S mercy in granting
them regeneration and pardon of their sins in their baptism; and now
that they are to exercise that warfare they then engaged themselves to,
he prays for a larger supply of GOD’S holy Spirit with its sevenfold
gifts (Isa. xi. 2); so that they may be made so wise as to understand
their duty, and so strong as to perform it, desiring they may by his
ministry have these gifts conveyed to them now, and, by their diligent
improving of them, keep them for ever.
Being thus prepared, the rite itself is now to be administered by the
ancient ceremony of laying the bishop’s hand on the head of each person,
used by the apostles as the means of conveying the HOLY SPIRIT (Acts
viii. 17); whence the whole office is called _laying on of hands_ (Heb.
vi. 2); (yet the Papists omit this apostolical ceremony, and use the
anointing with chrism, which came later into the Church). The bishop
also gives a solemn blessing to every one, desiring GOD to defend that
person with his heavenly grace, from forsaking his faith, or breaking
GOD’S commandments; that is, to take him for his own, and seal him with
his Spirit, so that he may ever after look on him as one of his own
children, and praying that he may daily increase in grace and grow wiser
and better, until he be fit for that heavenly kingdom which GOD hath
promised to him in baptism; and this prayer thus offered up by a holy
man, and one of the chief officers of CHRIST’S Church, shall be
effectual to the obtaining of the SPIRIT for all that have duly prepared
themselves, and do sincerely make and renew this vow. And now the bishop
concludes the office, first with the usual form, desiring GOD may be
with them, to assist them in these prayers, as they also desire he may
be with his spirit who is to offer them; calling also upon GOD, as the
common Father of all that are confirmed, and so in covenant with him: to
which is joined the proper collect, beginning with a preface, which
confesseth, that this good desire and resolution of these persons to
keep their vow came from GOD, and by him they must have grace acceptably
to perform it. And then here are petitions for them, first, that as the
bishop’s hand was over them, so the good hand of his providence
signified thereby may be ever over them to preserve them: secondly, that
the HOLY SPIRIT, now imparted to them by this holy rite, may be ever
with them, the blessed effect of which is here declared to be, that this
will make them understand GOD’S word, and enable them to obey it, so
that at the end of their lives they may be certainly saved through JESUS
CHRIST; to whom, with the whole Trinity, for these means of salvation,
we offer up our praises and acknowledgments: and to this is added a
devout collect out of the Communion Service, that GOD, who hath sealed
these his vowed servants with his Spirit, will direct, sanctify, and
govern their souls and bodies in the ways of his laws, so that they may
ever be holy, safe, and happy. Finally, the office is concluded with the
bishop’s blessing, who now in the name of GOD wishes the blessing of the
FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST may be now bestowed on you, and remain upon
you for ever. Thus our Church appoints this necessary and pious office
shall be done; and the due administration thereof would highly conduce
to make the benefits of baptism more visible, to increase knowledge and
piety in the younger sort, and to secure them from being seduced by
Papists or sectaries; it would make the Church to flourish and be at
unity, and convey mighty blessings to all that reverently and devoutly
receive it: wherefore, as the bishops are ready to do their part, let
all that want it be willing and very desirous to come, and let parents
and masters, and especially godfathers and godmothers, encourage them to
come to it, and labour to fit them for it, that it may be done to GOD’S
glory and their comfort.—_Dean Comber._
CONFIRMATION OF A BISHOP. To understand what is meant by the
confirmation of a bishop, it may be proper to state the process adopted
in England before a presbyter can be consecrated to the episcopal
office, the king having issued his _congé d’ élire_ to the dean and
chapter, and nominating, in his “letters missive,” the person whom he
thinks fit to be chosen. The dean and chapter are obliged, within twenty
days next after the receipt of this licence, to make the election, which
being accepted by the party elected, is certified both to the sovereign
and to the archbishop of the province. If the dean and chapter fail to
certify the election within twenty days after the delivery of the
“letters missive,” they incur the penalty of præmunire; and if they
refuse to elect, the king may nominate by letters patent. The election
being certified, the king grants his royal assent under the great seal,
directed to the archbishop, commanding him to confirm and consecrate the
bishop thus elected; and the archbishop subscribes it “_fiat
confirmatio_,” and grants a commission to his vicar-general for that
purpose. The vicar-general issues a citation to summon opposers, which
is affixed on the door of Bow Church, and three proclamations are made
thereof; this being certified to the vicar-general, at the time and
place appointed, the proctor for the dean and chapter exhibit the royal
assent, and the archbishop’s commission directed to the vicar-general.
After this, a long and formal process is gone through, and after six
proclamations for opposers, if none appear, they are pronounced
_contumacious_. It is then decreed to proceed to sentence. The bishop
elect takes the oaths of office, the sentence is subscribed by the
vicar-general, and the election is ratified and decreed to be good. (See
_Bishops, Election of_.)
Not only bishops, but deans of many cathedrals, were confirmed by their
diocesans; as at St. Paul’s in London, and St. Patrick’s in Dublin. See
_Oughton Ordo Judicium_ de ecclesici Cathedr. cxxvii., and _Mason’s_
Hibernia, p. 219.
CONFORMITY, DECLARATION OF. A declaration is required of all persons who
are to be licensed or instituted to an ecclesiastical charge in the
Church of England, in the following words:—“I, A. B., do declare that I
will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by
law established.” This declaration is to be made and subscribed before
the bishop or his commissary, and the making and subscription thereof is
to be testified under the episcopal seal of the bishop, and under the
hand of the bishop or his commissary. (See also _Reading in_.)
CONGÉ D’ ÉLIRE. This is a French term, and signifies _leave to choose_:
and is the king’s writ or licence to the dean and chapter of the diocese
to choose a bishop, in the time of vacancy of the see. Prior to the
reign of Henry I., the kings of England used to invest bishops with the
ring and staff, in virtue of their donative right. Henry I. so far ceded
this right as to give a _congé d’ élire_ to deans and chapters for the
election of bishops. Henry VIII. added “letters missive,” nominating the
person whom he required them to elect, under pain of præmunire; and
Edward VI. (1 Edw. VI. c. 1, 2) abolished elections by writ of _congé d’
élire_, as being “indeed no elections,” and “seeming also derogatory and
prejudicial to the king’s prerogative royal, to whom only appertaineth
the collation and gift of all archbishoprics, and bishoprics, and
suffragan bishops, within his Highness’s said realm.” The statute goes
on to enact, “That no election of any archbishop or bishop shall be made
by the dean and chapter;” but that the king by his “letters patent, at
all times when the archbishopric or bishopric be void, shall confer the
same to any person whom the king shall think meet.” This statute was
repealed by Queen Mary, and never afterwards revived. The law now rests
upon the 25 Henry VIII. c. 20, which statute was revived by Queen
Elizabeth.—_Burn._ (See _Jurisdiction_.) But in Ireland, the act of 2
Eliz. c. 4, established the same manner of appointment by the sovereign,
without election, as the English act of Edward, and so it has continued
to this day.
CONGREGATION. In its largest sense, this word includes the whole body of
Christian people, considered as assembled, not locally, but in some act
of fellowship, as when it is said, “Let the congregation of saints
praise HIM:” but the word is more commonly used for the worshippers,
being members of the true Church assembled in a particular place; a
sense in which the word is plainly used in the prayer for the Church
militant, where an especial distinction is made between _all_ GOD’S
people, or the congregation of the saints, and the particular
congregation present when the prayer is used: “To all THY people give
THY heavenly grace, and especially to this congregation here present.”
The word _congregation_ follows therefore the use of the word _Church_;
we use “_The_ Church” for the whole body of CHRIST’S people, and “_a_
Church,” or “_this_ Church,” for a particular portion of them. And as
_a_ Church is the immediate bond of union to each individual with _the_
Church, so is _a_ congregation the immediate company with which the
individual joins, and the immediate sign of his adherence to _the_
congregation of saints. Thus, in the Order of Confirmation, the preface
declares that _before the Church_ children should ratify their baptismal
vow, and they are consequently asked by the bishop whether they do this
“in the presence of GOD and _of this congregation_.” Congregation and
Church are considered by our translators convertible terms: e.g. Psal.
xxii. 22, “In the midst of the _congregation_” is rendered in Heb. ii.
12, “In the midst of the _Church_.”
CONGREGATION IN THE PAPAL COURT, means a committee of cardinals met for
the despatch of some particular business, and each congregation is
denominated from the peculiar business it has to despatch.
I. _The Pope’s Congregation_, instituted by Sixtus V.—They are to
prepare the most difficult beneficiary matters, which are afterwards to
be debated in the consistory, in the presence of the pope. This
congregation is composed of several cardinals, whose number is not
fixed. The cardinal-deacon, or, in his absence, some other cardinal
chosen by the pope _pro tempore_, presides in this assembly. The affairs
treated in it are, the erecting of new sees and cathedral churches;
re-unions, suppressions, and resignations of bishoprics, coadjutorships,
alienations of church revenues; and, lastly, the taxes and annates of
all the benefices to which the pope collates.
II. _The Congregation of the Holy Office_, or _Inquisition._ This
congregation was instituted by Pope Paul III., at the desire of Cardinal
Caraffa, who, being afterwards raised to the pontificate under the name
of Paul IV., enlarged the privileges thereof, to which Sixtus V. added
statutes, by which means this tribunal became so powerful and
formidable, that the Italians at that time used to say, “_Il sommo
pontifice Sisto non la perdonarebb’ a Christo_,” i. e. “Pope Sixtus
would not pardon Christ himself.”
This congregation generally consists of twelve cardinals, and sometimes
many more, as also of a considerable number of prelates and divines of
different orders, both secular and regular, who are called _Consulters_
and _Qualificators of the Holy Office_. This congregation takes
cognizance of heresies, and all novel opinions; as also of apostasy,
magic, witchcraft, the abuse of the sacraments, and the spreading of
pernicious books. For this purpose, an assembly is held every Wednesday
at the general of the Jacobins, and every Thursday before the pope, who
is president thereof.
The palace of the Holy Office serves likewise by way of prison for such
as are accused or suspected of the above-mentioned crimes; who, in case
they are found guilty, are delivered over to the secular arm. But at
present they seldom go further than punishing them with perpetual
imprisonment. Nor is this tribunal as rigorous and severe as in Spain,
Portugal, and other countries where the Inquisition is established. (See
_Inquisition_.)
III. _The Congregation de Propagandâ Fide._—It was instituted by Gregory
XV., and consists of eighteen cardinals, one of the secretaries of
state, an apostolical prothonotary, a referendary, an assistant or
lateral judge, and a secretary of the Holy Office. All these prelates
and officers meet in the pope’s presence, as often as occasion requires,
in order to examine whatever may be of advantage to religion, and to
consult about missions, &c.
IV. _The Congregation for explaining the Council of Trent._—At the
breaking up of that council, Pius IV. deputed certain cardinals who had
assisted in it, to put an end to all doubts which might arise concerning
its decrees. Sixtus V. fixed this congregation, and empowered it to
interpret all points both of discipline and faith. This congregation
meets once a week at the palace of the senior cardinal, the whole
assembly being composed of persons of that dignity. The president is
chosen out of the body by the pope, and is paid twelve hundred crowns of
gold yearly out of the apostolic chamber. The other cardinals have no
salaries, but think it the highest honour to assist in explaining the
most important matters relating to religion.
V. _The Congregation of the Index._—The fathers of the so-called Council
of Trent, considering the great number of pernicious and heretical books
published since the invention of printing, deputed certain cardinals,
and other divines, to examine into such books. These deputies drew up a
list of them, divided into several classes; and the council gave orders
for correcting, in a second impression, whatever these examiners had
altered or expunged. Pope Pius V. confirmed the establishment of this
congregation, and empowered it to examine all books written since the
Council of Trent, and all such as shall be published hereafter. This
congregation is composed of several cardinals, and a secretary of the
order of St. Dominic; but it seldom assembles, except on affairs of the
highest importance. (See _Indexes_.)
VI. _The Congregation of Immunities_, established by Pope Urban VIII.,
in order to obviate the difficulties and disputes which arose in the
judgments of such suits as were carried on against churchmen for various
matters, whether civil or criminal. This congregation is composed of
several cardinals, nominated by his Holiness, and takes cognizance of
all ecclesiastical immunities and exemptions. It is held in the palace
of the senior cardinal every Tuesday.
VII. _The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars._—Pope Sixtus V., in the
beginning of his pontificate, united two congregations, under the name
above-mentioned. It is composed of a certain number of cardinals at his
Holiness’s pleasure, and of a prelate, who is the secretary thereof, and
has six writers under him. This congregation has power to regulate all
such disputes as arise between bishops and the monastic orders, and
assembles every Friday for that purpose.
VIII. _The Congregation for the Examination of Bishops_, instituted by
Gregory XIV., to examine into the qualifications of all such churchmen
as are nominated to bishoprics. It is composed of eight cardinals, six
prelates, ten divines of different orders, both secular and regular,
some of whom must be doctors of the canon law. These examiners are
chosen by the pope, and assemble in his palace every Tuesday and Friday,
when any affair is to be examined. All the Italian bishops are obliged
to submit to this examination before they are consecrated; and for this
purpose they present themselves upon their knees before his Holiness,
who is seated in an easy chair, whilst the examiners, standing on each
hand of him, interrogate them on such heads of divinity and the canon
law as they think proper. Such as are raised to the cardinalate, before
they are made bishops, are dispensed from this examination; as are all
cardinal-nephews.
IX. _The Congregation of the Morals of Bishops_, instituted by Pope
Innocent XI., to inquire into the morals of churchmen recommended to
ecclesiastical dignities. It is composed of three cardinals, two
bishops, four prelates, and a secretary, who is the pope’s auditor. It
is held alternately in the palaces of the three cardinals, where they
examine very strictly the certificates of the life and manners of the
candidates. However, those who have led irregular lives, find several
ways of eluding the examination of this tribunal.
X. _The Congregation for the Residence of Bishops._—It has the power of
enjoining, or dispensing with, the residence of the Italian bishops, and
obliging all abbots to reside in their several communities. It consists
of three cardinals, three prelates, and a secretary. But, having very
little business, they assemble but seldom, and that only at the request
of such bishops or abbots as desire to be absent from their churches,
for reasons specified in their petitions.
XI. _The Congregation for such Monasteries as are to be
suppressed._—This congregation was instituted by Pope Innocent X., to
inquire into the state of the Italian monasteries, and to suppress those
whose temporalities were so far diminished, that the remainder was not
sufficient for the maintenance of six religious. It is composed of eight
cardinals and a certain number of monks, deputed by the provincials of
orders to take care of their interests. This assembly regulates the
pretensions of founders and benefactors, and their heirs, and disposes
of the remains of the temporalities of abandoned and ruined houses: it
likewise examines the petitions of such communities, or cities, as
desire to rebuild, and found anew, any monastery, for which it
despatches the proper instruments.
XII. _The Congregation of the Apostolical Visitation._—It is composed of
a certain number of cardinals and prelates, whose business it is to
visit, in the name of the pope, as archbishop of Rome, the six
bishoprics, suffragans to the metropolis of Rome.
XIII. _The Congregation of Relics._—It is composed of six cardinals and
four prelates and their business is to superintend the relics of ancient
martyrs, that are said to be frequently found in catacombs and other
subterraneous places in Rome, and to distinguish their bones, shrines,
and tombs, from those of the heathens, who were buried undistinguished
in those subterraneous caverns. After the congregation has pronounced
sentence on the validity of any relics, they are consigned to the vicar
and the pope’s sacristan, who distribute them to such as desire them.
XIV. _The Congregation of Indulgences._—This congregation, the number of
whose cardinals and prelates is not fixed, assembles in the palace of
the senior cardinal, to examine into the causes and motives of those who
sue for indulgences. The registrar of this congregation sends the
minutes and conclusions of petitions to the secretary of the briefs, who
despatches them under the fisherman’s seal.
XV. _The Congregation of Rites._—Pope Sixtus V. founded this
congregation to regulate the ceremonies and rites of the new offices of
saints, which are added to the Romish calendar, when any person is
canonized. It has authority to explain the rubrics of the mass-book and
breviary, when any difficulties are started in relation thereto; and its
power extends to pronounce sentence, from which there is no appeal, on
all disputes relating to the precedency of churches. It is composed of
eight cardinals and a secretary, who assemble once a month in the palace
of the senior cardinal.
XVI. _The Congregation for the Building of Churches._—Pope Clement VIII.
founded this congregation, to superintend the building of St. Peter’s
church, adjoining to the Vatican, and it is employed, to this day, in
repairing and beautifying it. It consists of eight cardinals and four
prelates, who assemble at the palace of the senior cardinal on the
Monday or Saturday nearest to the beginning and middle of each month.
This congregation has the peculiar privilege of altering the last wills
and testaments of those who bequeath sums to be employed in pious uses,
and to apply the money towards supporting the fabric of St.
Peter’s.—_Broughton._
CONGREGATION is also applied in England to one of the assemblies of the
university of Oxford, consisting of Regents, who transact the ordinary
business of the university.
CONGREGATIONALISTS are nearly the same as Independents. (See
_Independents_.) The chief point of difference is that the
Congregationalists hold the principle of a _communion_ of Churches.
CONGRUITY. (See _Condignity_.)
CONSANGUINITY. Alliance by blood, as _affinity_ is alliance by marriage.
Certain degrees of consanguinity are among the impediments to marriage,
both by the law of nature and by the revealed word of GOD. These
degrees, as well as those of affinity, are defined by the Church, and
are expressed in a table drawn up by Archbishop Parker, in 1563, and set
forth by authority. This table is as follows:
A Table of Kindred and Affinity, wherein whosoever are related are
forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry together.
_A man may not marry his_
1 GRANDMOTHER,
2 Grandfather’s Wife,
3 Wife’s Grandmother.
4 Father’s Sister,
5 Mother’s Sister,
6 Father’s Brother’s Wife.
7 Mother’s Brother’s Wife,
8 Wife’s Father’s Sister,
9 Wife’s Mother’s Sister.
10 Mother,
11 Step-Mother,
12 Wife’s Mother.
13 Daughter,
14 Wife’s Daughter,
15 Son’s Wife.
16 Sister,
17 Wife’s Sister,
18 Brother’s Wife.
19 Son’s Daughter,
20 Daughter’s Daughter,
21 Son’s Son’s Wife.
22 Daughter’s Son’s Wife,
23 Wife’s Son’s Daughter,
24 Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter.
25 Brother’s Daughter,
26 Sister’s Daughter,
27 Brother’s Son’s Wife.
28 Sister’s Son’s Wife,
29 Wife’s Brother’s Daughter,
30 Wife’s Sister’s Daughter.
_A woman may not marry with her_
1 GRANDFATHER,
2 Grandmother’s Husband,
3 Husband’s Grandfather.
4 Father’s Brother,
5 Mother’s Brother,
6 Father’s Sister’s Husband.
7 Mother’s sister’s Husband,
8 Husband’s Father’s Brother,
9 Husband’s Mother’s Brother.
10 Father,
11 Step-Father,
12 Husband’s Father.
13 Son,
14 Husband’s Son,
15 Daughter’s Husband.
16 Brother,
17 Husband’s Brother,
18 Sister’s Husband.
19 Son’s Son,
20 Daughter’s Son,
21 Son’s Daughter’s Husband.
22 Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband,
23 Husband’s Son’s Son,
24 Husband’s Daughter’s Son.
25 Brother’s Son,
26 Sister’s Son,
27 Brother’s Daughter’s Husband.
28 Sister’s Daughter’s Husband,
29 Husband’s Brother’s Son,
30 Husband’s Sister’s Son.
CONSECRATION. The solemn act of dedicating anything or person to a
Divine service and use.
CONSECRATION OF A BISHOP. By this we mean the separating of a person for
the holy office of a bishop, by imposition of hands and prayer.
According to a canon of the first Nicene Council, there must be four, or
at least three, bishops present at the consecration of a bishop. The
form used in the Church of England may be found in the Book of Common
Prayer. And it is stated in the preface thereto, that “no one shall be
accounted or taken to be a bishop, or suffered to execute the same
function, unless he be called, tried, and admitted thereunto according
to that form, or _hath had formerly episcopal consecration_.” The
concluding portion of this sentence recognises the validity of
consecrations given in foreign churches by any other form adopted by
those Churches. Thus a French, or an Italian, or a Greek bishop,
conforming to the rules of the Church of England, requires no fresh
consecration, but is at liberty to officiate among us.
By the eighth canon, “Whoever shall affirm or teach, that the form and
manner of making and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons,
containeth anything in it that is repugnant to the word of GOD; or that
they who are made bishops, priests, or deacons in that form are not
lawfully made, nor ought to be accounted, either by themselves or
others, to be truly either bishops, priests, or deacons, until they have
some other calling to those Divine offices; let him be excommunicated
_ipso facto_, not to be restored until he repent, and publicly revoke
such his wicked errors.”
And by the thirty-sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles, “the book of
consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and
deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., and confirmed at
the same time by authority of parliament, doth contain all things
necessary to such consecrating and ordering; neither hath it anything
that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are
consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the
second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter
shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree
all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”
And by the Act of Uniformity in the 13th and 14th Charles II., all
subscriptions to be made unto the Thirty-nine Articles shall be
construed to extend (touching the said thirty-sixth article) to the book
containing the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of
bishops, priests, and deacons, in this said act mentioned, as the same
did heretofore extend unto the book set forth in the time of King Edward
VI. (13 & 14 Charles II. c. 4, s. 30, 31.)
Here we may allude to the Nag’s Head story, one of the most flimsy, as
well as wicked, inventions of the Romanists, to invalidate the orders of
the Church of England. It refers to the consecration of Archbishop
Parker, on which depends the validity of orders in the English Church:
for if Archbishop Parker’s consecration was not good, all those who were
consecrated by him were not bishops, because he could not confer that
character upon others which he had not himself.
The Papists assert that his consecration was irregular, both as to the
place where it was performed, which they say was at the Nag’s Head
Tavern, Cheapside, and as to the manner of doing it, which they say was
by one of the bishops then present, who laid the Bible on Dr. Parker’s
head, and then pronounced the words, “Take thou authority,” &c. It is
further objected, that three of the four bishops then present were only
bishops elect, and had no sees; and that the other was a suffragan.
The story, which has long since been abundantly refuted, and which is
now given up by the best authorities among the Romanists, was as
follows: The queen issued forth her warrant, directed to the bishop of
Llandaff; to Dr. Scory, elect of Hereford; Dr. Barlow, elect of
Chichester; Dr. Coverdale, elect of Exeter; and Dr. Hodgkins, suffragan
of Bedford. All these persons met at the Nag’s Head Tavern, where it had
been usual for the dean of the Arches and the civilians to refresh
themselves, after any confirmation of a bishop; and there one Neale, who
was Bonner’s chaplain, peeped through a hole in the door, and saw all
the other bishops very importunate with Llandaff, who had been dissuaded
by Bonner to assist in this consecration, which he obstinately refusing,
Dr. Scory bid the rest kneel, and he laid the Bible on each of their
shoulders or heads and pronounced these words, “Take thou authority,”
&c., and so they stood up all bishops. This story was certainly invented
after the queen’s reign; for if it had been true, it is so remarkable,
that some of the writers of that time would undoubtedly have taken
notice of it. But Bishop Burnet has discovered the falsity of it, from
an original manuscript of the consecration of this very archbishop,
which was done in the chapel at Lambeth, on Sunday, the 17th of
December, in the first year of the queen’s reign, where Dr. Parker came
a little after five in the morning in a scarlet gown and hood, attended
by the said four bishops, and lighted by four torches; and there, after
prayers, Dr. Scory preached; and then the other bishops presented the
archbishop to him, and the mandate for his consecration being read by a
doctor of the civil law, and he having taken the oaths of supremacy, and
some prayers being said, according to the form of consecration then
lately published, all the four bishops laid their hands on the
archbishop’s head, and said, “Receive the HOLY GHOST,” &c. And this was
done in the presence of several other clergy. See Archbishop Bramhall’s
“Consecration and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justified,” with the
additions in vol. iii. of his works, Oxford, 1844.
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES. The law recognises no place as a church until
it has been consecrated by the bishop.
In the Church of England the bishop is left to his own discretion as to
the form he will use in the consecration of a church; but in the 21
Henry VIII. c. 13, which limits the number of chaplains that each person
may have, one reason assigned why a bishop may retain six chaplains is
because he must occupy that number in the consecration of churches.
The custom of solemnly setting apart, from ordinary and secular use,
whatever is appropriated to the service of Almighty GOD, has the highest
possible sanction; for many are the instances of it recorded in the Holy
Scriptures. True it is that there is no record of any such ceremonial
having been used among Christians in reference to churches, before the
fourth century, though some ritualists are of opinion that a form of
dedication was common much earlier. No sooner, however, was the sword of
persecution sheathed, and GOD permitted his Church to serve him in all
godly quietness, than such solemnities became general. Then, as Eusebius
tells us, “there was an incessant joy, and there sprung up for all a
certain celestial gladness, seeing every place, which but a short time
before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants, reviving
again, and recovering from a long and deadly distemper; temples again
rising from the soil to a lofty height, and receiving a splendour far
exceeding those which had been formerly destroyed.” And again: “after
this the sight was afforded us, so eagerly desired and prayed for by
all,—the festivals of dedications, and consecrations of the
newly-erected houses of prayer throughout the cities. After this, the
convention of bishops, the concourse of foreigners from abroad, the
benevolence of people to people, the unity of the members of CHRIST
concurring in one harmonious body. Then was it according to the
prophetic declaration, mystically indicating what would take place,
‘bone was brought to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatsoever other
matters the Divine word faithfully intimated before. There was, also,
one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul
among all, one and the same ardour of faith, one song of praise to the
Deity; yea now, indeed, complete and perfect solemnities of the prelates
and heads of the Church, sacred performances of sacred rites, and solemn
rituals of the Church. Here you might hear the singing of psalms; there,
the performance of divine and sacred mysteries. The mystic symbols of
our SAVIOUR’S passion were celebrated; and, at the same time, each sex
of every age, male and female, with the power of the mind, and with a
mind and whole heart rejoicing in prayer and thanksgiving, gave glory to
GOD, the author of all good. Every one of the prelates present also
delivered panegyrical discourses, desirous of adding lustre to the
assembly, according to the ability of each.” One such discourse,
pronounced by Eusebius himself, still remains.
In his Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives an instance of the ceremonial
thus described in the consecration, amid a full synod of bishops of the
church of Jerusalem, which Constantine had built over our SAVIOUR’S
sepulchre, A. D. 335. Socrates records a similar consecration of the
famous church of Antioch, called _Dominicum Aureum_, which was begun by
Constantine and finished by Constantius, A. D. 341. Testimony to the
prevalency of this custom is also borne by St. Athanasius, who defends
himself in his apology to Constantius, (c. 14–18,) when charged with
having used a building for public worship, before it was dedicated by
the emperor, and consecrated by himself, on the ground of necessity; for
since during Lent the congregations in the ordinary churches had been so
crowded as to prove injurious to the persons present, and anticipating
still more crowded assemblies at Easter, he thought himself justified,
under such circumstances, to use an edifice which was unconsecrated. St.
Gregory Nazianzen likewise speaks of this ceremonial as an ancient
custom παλαιὸς νόμος.
Such then were the offices connected with the consecration of churches
in primitive times. Bishops, from distant provinces, with a vast
concourse of clergy and laity, were present; an appropriate sermon or
sermons were preached; the holy eucharist was _always_ administered; in
the course of which prayers suitable to the occasion were offered. Of
these prayers one is still preserved in the writings of St. Ambrose.
On this model it was that the consecration services of the Church
Catholic were formed, each church, at first, varying in non-essentials,
as circumstances may have required.
In the English Church, various records of very early date exist relating
to the consecration of churches. Geoffrey of Monmouth, who professes to
follow Gildas, says that in the time of King Lucius (A. D. 162) pagan
temples were consecrated in Britain to the honour of the true GOD. And
we find from Bede, that the passage just quoted from Eusebius was
applicable to our own island. It is known that Bertha, wife of
Ethelbert, king of Kent, repaired or rebuilt a church, first built by
the Romans, and had it dedicated to the honour of St. Martin of Tours,
an eminent saint among the Christians of her native country. This was
the church granted by Ethelbert to Augustine, on his landing in the isle
of Thanet, A. D. 596. Some time after his arrival, Gregory the Great
sent Augustine particular instructions about the dedication of the
temples of the Anglo-Saxons; and when the bishop had his episcopal see
assigned him in the royal city, he recovered therein a church, which he
was informed had been built by the ancient Roman Christians, and
consecrated it in the name of our holy SAVIOUR, GOD and LORD, JESUS
CHRIST. From the same historian we learn, that Laurentius, Augustine’s
successor in the primacy, consecrated a church to St. Peter and St.
Paul, afterwards called St. Augustine’s, in honour of Augustine, who had
commenced building it. Mellitus, who succeeded Laurentius, consecrated
the church of the Holy Mother of GOD, built by King Eadbald, A. D. 622.
There is a detailed account of the consecration of the church of Ripon,
by Wilfrid, archbishop of York, A. D. 665, given in the Life of that
prelate, written by Eddius and Fridegode. Numerous subsequent canons are
found, bearing on the same subject. For instance, one of Archbishop
Ecgbriht’s “Excerptions,” A. D. 740, relates to the consecration of
churches. In Archbishop Wilfrid’s canons, A. D. 816, it is ordered:
“When a church is built, let it be consecrated by the bishop of its own
diocese, according to the ministerial book.”
Again, in the canons of Archbishop Corboyl, A. D. 1126, in the canons at
Westminster, A. D. 1138, and in Archbishop Richard’s canons, A. D. 1175,
similar injunctions are given.
From the constitutions of Otho, A. D. 1237, it would appear—so unfounded
is the boast of the Romanists, that the time when Popery was dominant in
England was a period of reverence and devotion never since known to her
Church—that this solemnity was then much neglected. This is evident from
the first of these canons, which, after observing that the dedication of
royal temples is known to have taken its beginning from the Old
Testament, and was observed by the holy fathers in the New Testament,
under which it ought to be done with the greater care and dignity, &c.,
goes on to enact,
“That _because we have ourselves seen, and heard by many, that so
wholesome a mystery is despised, at least neglected, by some_, (for we
have found many churches, and some cathedrals, not consecrated with holy
oil though built of old,) we, therefore, being desirous to obviate so
great a neglect, do ordain and give in charge, that all cathedrals,
conventual and parochial churches, which are ready built, and their
walls perfected, be consecrated by the diocesan bishops, to whom they
belong, or others authorized by them, within two years: and let it so be
done in a like time in all churches hereafter to be built; and lest so
wholesome a statute grow into contempt, if such like places be not
dedicated within two years from the time of their being finished, we
decree them to remain interdicted from the solemnization of masses until
they be consecrated, unless they be excused for some reasonable cause.”
In the constitutions of Othobon, A. D. 1268, there is a similar canon.
From these canons it is plain, that the office of consecration had
contracted many of those Romish superstitions which were retained until
the Reformation. Not that our reformers, when reforming the other
services of the Church, extended their labours to that of consecration.
Indeed, as that was a period, to use the words of Bishop Short, when
more churches were destroyed than built, there was no immediate use for
the service in question. This task was reserved for Bishop Andrews,
whose service was compiled, as were all the offices of the English
Church, from the formularies in use before the Reformation.
Unanswerable as was Hooker’s defence of the consecration of churches, it
was insufficient to protect Laud from the clamour of his implacable
enemies, when he consecrated St. Catherine Cree church, as bishop of
London, in 1630. And in the well-known London petition, presented to the
Long Parliament, by the notorious Alderman Pennington, about ten years
later, the consecration of churches was not forgotten to be included
“among the manifold evils, pressures, and grievances, caused, practised,
and occasioned by the prelates and their dependants.”
At the Restoration the custom revived, and the subject was again
discussed; but as there was no authorized office, (Laud, having been
prevented from drawing up a form, as he intended, in the convocation of
1640,) the preparation of one was committed to Bishop Cosin in the
convocation of 1661. When prepared it was presented to the house, and
referred to a committee of four bishops for revision, but nothing seems
ultimately to have been done about it. Since that period each bishop has
adopted any form he thought best, though perhaps the form of
consecrating churches, chapels, and churchyards, or places of burial,
which was sent down by the bishops to the lower houses of convocation,
(1712,) and altered by a committee of the whole house, is the one, not
that it is enjoined by any competent authority, now most generally
used.—_Teale._
Different rites were prepared by Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, Patrick,
bishop of Ely, and King, bishop of London.—_Palmer; Supplement_. (See
_Harrington, on the Consecration of Churches_.)
CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS. The following is the rubric with reference
to the consecration of the elements in the LORD’S supper: “When the
priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine,
that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before
the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of
consecration.” If it be asked, whether the priest is to say this prayer
standing before the table, or at the north end of it, I answer, at the
north end of it; for, according to the rules of grammar, the participle
“standing” must refer to the verb “ordered,” and not to the verb “say.”
So that, whilst the priest is “ordering the bread and wine,” he is to
stand before the table; but when he says the prayer, he is to stand so
as “that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread
before the people,” which must be on the north side. For if he stood
“before” the table, his body would hinder the people from seeing; so
that he must not stand there, and consequently he must stand on the
north side; there being, in our present rubric, no other place mentioned
for performing any part of this office. In the Romish Church indeed they
always stand “before” the altar during the time of consecration, in
order to prevent the people from being eye-witnesses of their operation
in working their pretended miracle; and in the Greek Church they shut
the chancel door, or at least draw a veil or curtain before it, I
suppose, upon the same account. But our Church, that pretends no such
miracle, enjoins, we see, the direct contrary to this, by ordering the
priest so “to order the bread and wine, that he may with the more
readiness and decency break the bread and take the cup into his hands
before the people.” And with this view it is probable the Scotch liturgy
ordered, that, “during the time of consecration, the presbyter should
stand at such a part of the holy table, where he may with the more ease
and decency use both his hands.”—_Wheatly._
The consecration of the elements being always esteemed an act of
authority, and standing being therefore a more proper posture, as well
as a more commodious one, for this purpose, the priest is here directed
to stand.—_Collis._
We do not eat our common food without first praying for a blessing on
it; which pious custom is so universal, that it is certainly a piece of
natural religion; how much more then are we obliged, before we eat and
drink this bread and wine, which CHRIST designed to set forth the
mystery of his death, to consecrate it and set it apart by a solemn
prayer; especially since CHRIST himself in the institution of this
sacred ordinance, while he was teaching his apostles how to celebrate
it, did use a form of blessing over it (Matt. xxvi. 26); which St. Paul
calls “giving thanks.” (1 Cor. xi. 24.) Wherefore all churches in the
world, from the apostles’ days, have used such a form, the ancient and
essential part of which is the words of our SAVIOUR’S institution; for,
since he makes this sacramental charge, it hath been thought fit by all
churches to keep his own words, which being pronounced by a lawful
priest, do properly make the consecration; wherefore our Church has cut
off all the later superstitious additions, by which the Roman Church
hath corrupted this form, and given us a prayer of consecration,
consisting only of the words of our SAVIOUR’S institution, and a proper
prayer to introduce it. The first part is a prayer directed to “Almighty
GOD our heavenly FATHER,” commemorating his mercy in giving his SON to
die for us, and the all-sufficient merit of his death, together with his
command for our remembering it in this sacrament; and on these grounds
desiring that, since we obey him in thus celebrating it, we may therein
receive CHRIST’S body and blood. The second part is the repetition of
the words and actions of our LORD at the institution, concerning both
the time and the manner of its institution.—_Dean Comber._
If it be here demanded, to what words the consecration of the elements
ought to be ascribed, I answer, to the prayer of the faithful offered by
the priest, and to the words of institution repeated by him. This was
the sense of the ancient Church of CHRIST, which used them both in their
eucharistical offices; and never held, that the elements were changed
from their common to a more sublime use and efficacy by the bare
repeating of the words, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” as
the Papists absurdly hold. To bring about this change must be the work
of the HOLY GHOST; and thereupon it is requisite, that we should pray to
GOD, to endue the elements with this life-giving virtue. Now the words
of institution can by no means be called a prayer: they were addressed
by our SAVIOUR to his disciples, and not to GOD: to them he said, “Take
and eat.” When we use them, they are historical, recounting what our
LORD said and did, when he ordained this sacrament. And though when he
said, “This is my body, this is my blood,” these words effectually made
them so, showing that it was his will and pleasure that they should be
taken as his sacramental body and blood; though the virtue of those
words, once spoken by CHRIST, doth still operate towards making the
bread and wine his body and blood; yet, as now used and spoken by the
priest, they do not contain in them any such power, unless they be
joined with prayer to GOD.
Our LORD himself did, besides pronouncing them, give thanks and bless
the elements. Thus our Church uses prayer, as well as the words of
institution; and doth not attribute the consecration to the one without
the other. “If the consecrated bread or wine be all spent, before all
have communicated, the priest,” it is true, is ordered by the rubric to
“consecrate more,” by repeating only the words of institution. But the
virtue of the prayer, which the Church hath last made, is to be
understood as concurring therewith; and this is only a particular
application to these particular elements. Hence comes the propriety of
saying “Amen” at the end of those words; which would not be so properly
added, unless it referred back to the preceding petitions. And that this
is the sense of the Church of England is further plain, in that she in
her rubric calls this “the prayer of consecration,” in which the words
of institution are contained; and it is addressed to Almighty GOD, &c.,
whereas the words of CHRIST were not supplicatory to GOD, but
declaratory to his disciples.
After the same manner, in the “Office of Public Baptism,” in imitation
of the custom of the ancient Christians, who dedicated the baptismal
water to the holy and spiritual use for which it was designed, our
Church not only repeats the words of institution of that other
sacrament, but likewise adds a solemn prayer, that GOD would “sanctify
the water to the mystical washing away of sin.” And, as in that
sacrament she joins the prayer of the faithful to the words of CHRIST,
so in the sacrament of the altar she thinks them both necessary to
complete the consecration.—_Archdeacon Yardley._
A prayer of consecration, or setting apart the bread and wine to the
sacred purpose in which they are about to be employed, hath been used
for that end at least 1600 years. And the mention which ours makes of
the institution of the LORD’S supper, from the words, “who in the same
night that he was betrayed,” to the conclusion, is in every old liturgy
in the world. The Romanists have put into their prayer of consecration
names of saints, and commemorations of the dead which we have thrown
out. And indeed we have left nothing that so much as needs explaining,
unless it may be useful to observe, that our SAVIOUR’S “one oblation of
himself” is opposed to the various kinds of oblations under the law;
and, “once offered,” to the continual repetition of them: though
probably a further view was to intimate, that he is not, as the Papists
pretend, really sacrificed anew in this holy ordinance.—_Abp. Secker._
The death of CHRIST, if we regard the persons for whom it was undergone,
is a “sacrifice;” if we regard him who offered it, it is a free
“oblation;” if we consider him to whom it was offered, it is a
“satisfaction;” and, in every one of these respects, it is “full,
perfect, and sufficient:” or, particularly, it is a “full satisfaction,”
a “perfect oblation,” and a “sufficient sacrifice;” not, like the legal
offerings, for the sins of one kind, or the offences of one nation or of
one person, but for the sins of all the world. Let none therefore
mistake, or imagine we are about to sacrifice CHRIST again, as the Roman
Church falsely teacheth; for that is not only needless and impossible,
but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that JESUS was
offered only “once” (Heb. ix. 26; x. 10, 12); and by that “one oblation
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (ver. 14); so that
there needs “no more offering for sin” (ver. 18).—_Dean Comber._
From these passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is plain, to use
Bishop Overall’s words, that “CHRIST can be no more offered, as the
doctors and priests of the Roman party fancy it to be, and vainly think
that, every time they say mass, they offer up and sacrifice CHRIST anew,
as properly and truly as he offered up himself in his sacrifice upon the
cross. And this is one of the points of doctrine, and the chief one,
whereof the Popish mass consisteth; abrogated and reformed here by the
Church of England, according to the express word of GOD.”
CONSERVATORIES. Public schools of music in Italy, so called because they
are intended to preserve the purity of the science and practice of
music. The _Conservatorios_ are pious foundations, kept up at the
expense of rich citizens, in which orphans, foundlings, and the children
of poor parents are boarded, lodged, and taught gratuitously. There are
separate foundations for pupils of each sex. These institutions, which
ought to provide the churches of Italy with well-instructed choristers,
and to limit their attention to this object, do in fact supply the
theatre, as well as the Church, with the most admired performers. See
_Dr. Burney’s_ Present State of Music in France and Italy, for an
account of these conservatorios.
CONSISTENTES. (English, _Co-standers_.) The last order of penitents in
the primitive Church, so called from their having the liberty, after
other penitents, energumens, and catechumens were dismissed, to stand
with the faithful at the altar, and join in the common prayers, and see
the oblation offered; but yet they might neither make their own
oblations, nor partake of the eucharist with them.—_Bingham._
CONSISTORY. A word used to denote the Court Christian, or Spiritual
Court. Every bishop has his consistory court held before his chancellor
or commissary, in his cathedral church, or other convenient place of his
diocese, for ecclesiastical causes. In the Church of England, before the
Norman Conquest, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not separated from
the civil; for the earl and bishop sat in one court, that is, in the
ancient county court.
CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF. This council assembled in 1414, by the combined
authority of the emperor and the pope. It was attended by thirty
cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty archbishops, one hundred and fifty
bishops, besides an immense number of the inferior clergy. It included
sovereign princes, electors of Germany, as well as representatives from
every country in communion with Rome. Its objects were, to put an end to
the schism, to reform the Church, and to put down the so-called heresy
of Bohemia.
During a period of nearly forty years rival popes had claimed the see of
Rome; and the whole of Christendom had been scandalized by their
intrigues, their falsehoods, and their mutual anathemas. Each side had
the support of universities and of learned divines. Each pleaded a
Divine revelation, which was said to have been communicated on behalf of
the one to St. Bridget, and of the other to St. Catherine of Sienna.
The council not only removed the two popes whose title had been
previously disallowed, but also deposed the third, who had been
legitimately appointed, and had forfeited his right by many and great
crimes. The wickedness of John XXIII. seems to have been almost without
parallel. Some charges against him were indeed suppressed, because it
was thought that the papacy itself would be endangered by their
publication; but enough was proved on unquestionable testimony to insure
unanimous consent to his deposition.
In the mean while the necessity of reformation was urged on all sides.
In the council itself, cardinals and bishops, as well as other divines,
declaimed against the ignorance and vicious lives of the clergy, which
bore testimony to the ill effects resulting from the lengthened schism;
while the German people presented a memorial demanding reformation of
the evils by which they affirmed the Church to be overrun, and that it
should take place of all other business. A vehement contest on this
subject ensued between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities,
somewhat similar to that which afterwards occurred at Trent; but in the
end the urgent duty was postponed until the election of the pope had
taken place, and then it was successfully evaded.
John Huss, who was a learned and eloquent man, of blameless life, and of
great influence, arrived at Constance soon after the meeting of the
council. He had embraced the opinions of Wickliff, and had been
especially earnest in denouncing the avarice and immoralities of the
priests, as well as the frauds practised upon the people by pretended
miracles. He was accused and thrown into prison. The emperor at first
expressed great indignation at his arrest, but having been influenced by
members of the council, he not only withdrew his protection, but deputed
the elector palatine, as vicar of the empire, to place him in the hands
of the secular magistrate. The pleas on which this breach of faith have
been defended by Roman writers are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Some endeavour to maintain that Huss did not possess the safe-conduct
until after his arrest; some, that he broke the conditions on which it
was granted; and some, that no engagement of the emperor could limit the
authority of the council. All impartial judges have long been agreed in
condemning the act as a deep and indelible disgrace to the Roman Church.
The letters of the martyr himself, as well as the language of his
defence, describe in touching and Christianly terms, the harshness and
injustice with which he was treated. Having resisted all efforts to
procure his recantation, whether by threats or persuasion, he was
condemned, and met his death with wonderful calmness and heroism, on the
7th July, 1415. The immediate effect of his condemnation, and that of
Jerome of Prague, which speedily followed, was to kindle the flames of
civil war in Bohemia, during which the names of Wickliff and Huss formed
the watchword on the one side, and that of the pope on the other. It is
said that the descendant of Sigismund, in the fourth generation,
believed himself to be suffering under the wrath of God on account of
his ancestor’s sin.
In the fourth and fifth sessions, the absolute superiority of a general
council over the pope was expressed in the form of an exact decree. It
was declared that the council holds its authority directly from Christ;
and that all persons, including those of papal dignity, are amenable to
its jurisdiction, and are liable to punishment for disobedience. No
language could be more precise than that which was employed. The same
doctrine had been previously asserted in the Council of Pisa; and was
afterwards confirmed in the Council of Basle. It was the judgment of the
constitutional party which had gradually become strong in the Roman
Church; and it was now embodied in the solemn act by which three popes
were set aside, and Martin V. substituted in their place; in the
validity of whose appointment the papal succession is inseparably bound
up. The decision of the council was gravely and deliberately adopted;
and it had the fullest support of the learned divines who were present,
such as Cardinal P. d’ Ailli, who had been chancellor of the university
of Paris, and his still more illustrious pupil and successor John
Gerson, who, beyond all other theologians, influenced and represented
the mind of that age. It has always furnished an insurmountable
difficulty to controversialists of the ultramontane school. They cannot
reject its authority without giving up the legitimacy of every pope
since Martin V.; while, on the other hand, it is plainly at variance
with the decrees of the Council of Florence.
The decrees of their fourth and fifth sessions have been strenuously
maintained by the Gallican Church, especially by Bossuet, and the very
learned men who shared his opinions in the seventeenth century; as well
as by the universities of Paris, Louvain, and Cologne.
Materials for the history of the Council of Constance are provided
abundantly by the invaluable collection of documents made by H. Von der
Hardt.
CONSUBSTANTIAL. Co-essential; of the same substance with another. Thus
we say of our blessed LORD, that he is _consubstantial_ with the FATHER,
being “of one substance with the FATHER.” The term (ὁμοούσιος) was first
adopted by the fathers in the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to express
more precisely the orthodox doctrine, and to serve as a precaution
against the subtleties of the Arians, who admitted every thing _except_
the consubstantiality, using a word similar in sound, but very different
in meaning, ὁμοιούσιος. This word is still the distinguishing criterion
between the catholic or orthodox Christian and the Arian heretic.
CONSUBSTANTIATION. The Romish divines fell into the error of
endeavouring to explain the _manner_ in which our blessed LORD is
present in the eucharist. (See _Transubstantiation_.) Luther and his
followers, while opposing the Romanists, fell into a similar error, only
insisting on a different manner of explaining the inexplicable mystery.
Luther and his followers maintained, that, after the consecration of the
elements, the body and blood of our SAVIOUR are substantially present
together with the bread and wine. This doctrine is called
_consubstantiation_. They believe that the real body and blood of our
LORD are united in a mysterious manner, through the consecration, with
the bread and wine, and are received with and under them in the
sacrament of the LORD’S supper.
CONTRITION. (See _Attrition_.) Romanists define contrition to be a
sorrow for sin, with a sincere resolution of reforming. The word is
derived from the Latin _conterere_, to break or bruise. The Psalmist
says, “A broken and a _contrite_ heart, O GOD, thou wilt not despise.”
(Psalm li. 17.)—_Conc. Trident._ § 14, c. 4.
CONVENT. A religious house; a monastery; more usually used to signify a
nunnery. For its architectural arrangements, see _Monastery_.
CONVENTICLE. A diminutive of convent, denoting properly a cabal, or
secret assembly of a part of the monks of a convent, to make a party in
the election of an abbot. It is now the legal term to denote any place
of worship used by those who depart from the Church of England.
By the 73rd canon it is thus ordained: “Forasmuch as all _conventicles_
and secret meetings of priests and ministers have ever been justly
accounted very hateful to the state of the Church wherein they live, we
do ordain that no priests or ministers of the Word of GOD, nor any other
persons, shall meet together in any private house, or elsewhere, to
consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their
motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the
impeaching or depraving of the doctrine of the Church of England, or the
Book of Common Prayer, or any part of the government or discipline now
established in the Church of England, under pain of excommunication
_ipso facto_.”
CONVERSION. A change of heart and life from sin to holiness. This
change, when it takes place in a heathen or an infidel, comprises a
reception and confession of the truths of Christianity: when it takes
place in a person already baptized and a Christian in profession, it
implies a saving and influential impression on his heart, of those
truths which are already received by the mind and acknowledged with the
lips. To the heathen and infidel conversion is absolutely and always
necessary to salvation. The baptized Christian may by GOD’S grace so
continue in that state of salvation in which he was placed in baptism,
(see _Church Catechism_,) that conversion, in this sense, is not
necessary to him: still even he, day by day, will fall into sins of
infirmity, and he will need renewal or renovation: and all these—the
daily renewal of the pious Christian, the conversion of the nominal
Christian, and the conversion of the infidel or heathen—are the work of
the Holy Spirit of GOD on the hearts of men.
Some persons have confused _conversion_ with _regeneration_, and have
taught that all men—the baptized, and therefore in fact regenerate—must
be regenerated afterwards, or they cannot be saved. Now this is in many
ways false; for regeneration, which the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself has
connected with holy baptism, cannot be repeated: moreover, not all men
(though indeed most men do) fall into such sin after baptism, that
conversion, or, as they term it, regeneration, is necessary to their
salvation; and if a regeneration were necessary to them, it could only
be obtained through a repetition of baptism, which were an act of
sacrilege. Those who speak of this supposed regeneration, uncharitably
represent the orthodox as denying the necessity both of regeneration and
of conversion; because they themselves call these by wrong names, and
the orthodox only proclaim their necessity in their true sense.
They who object to the expression _Baptismal Regeneration_, by
regeneration mean, for the most part, the first influx of irresistible
and indefectible grace; grace that cannot be repelled by its subject,
and which must issue in his final salvation. Now, of such grace our
Church knows nothing, and of course, therefore, means not by
regeneration at baptism the first influx of such grace. That the sins,
original and actual, of the faithful recipient of baptism, are washed
away, she doth indeed believe; and also that grace is given to him by
the immediate agency of the HOLY SPIRIT; yet so that the conscience thus
cleansed may be again defiled, and that the baptized person may, and
often does, by his own fault, fall again into sin, in which if he die he
shall without doubt perish everlastingly; his condemnation not being
avoided, but rather increased, by his baptismal privilege. So that, in
fact, we say not that any one is regenerated at baptism, according to
the meaning of these words in the lips of our opponents. And if they
will not admit that baptism is the Divinely appointed medium of
regeneration in our sense of that term, what grace can they imagine so
trifling as to comport with their views of that sacrament, and at the
same time so lofty and essential, as to be contemplated by CHRIST in the
solemn institution of a sacrament; and in his declarations concerning
the efficacy and necessity of that sacrament; and by the apostles, and
the whole Church, in their sense of the same matter, and their
consequent practice? What approaches most nearly to that grace of their
own imagining, which they call regeneration, is the repentance not to be
repented of, and followed by fruits of righteousness to the glory of
GOD’S grace, and to the salvation of the Christian, which we call
_conversion_ or renewal, and attribute to the same SPIRIT from whom we
receive our new life at baptism; and which we hold to be as necessary to
the salvation of one who has fallen from his baptismal purity, (and who
has not so fallen?) as we hold _baptismal_ regeneration to be, and as
they hold their _supposed_ regeneration. Except in words, then, we and
our opponents are more nearly agreed than is at first sight apparent;
and if the choice of terms be the chief point at issue, we have this to
say for the expressions which we use, that they are consentient, and
even identical, with those which are used in the Scriptures; and that
they are the same which the whole Church employed, until the days of
certain founders of sects, called after their own names at the
continental Reformation; so that they rest on the highest possible
grounds of Scripture and authority.—_Poole._ (See _Regeneration_.)
CONVOCATION (see _Synod_.) is an assembly of the bishops and other
clergy of each of the provinces of the Church of England to consult on
matters ecclesiastical. As much is in these days said of convocation,
and as many seem to think that a convocation must be holden to settle
the disputes now unhappily prevailing among the clergy, it may be
interesting if we extend this article, that we may supply our readers
with a history of convocations. It will be abridged from the account
given by Dr. Burn.
That the bishop of every diocese in England, as in all other Christian
countries, had power to convene the clergy of his diocese, and, in a
common synod or council, with them to transact such affairs as specially
related to the order and government of the churches under his
jurisdiction, is not to be questioned. These assemblies of the clergy
were as old almost as the first settlement of Christianity amongst us,
and, amidst all other revolutions, continued to be held till the time of
King Henry VIII.
What the bishop of every diocese did within his own district, the
archbishop of each province, after the kingdom was divided into
provinces, did within his proper province. They called together first
the bishops, afterwards the other prelates, of their provinces; and by
degrees added to these such of their inferior clergy as they thought
needful. In these two assemblies of the clergy (the diocesan synods and
provincial councils) only the spiritual affairs of the Church were wont
for a long time to be transacted: so that, in this respect, there was no
difference between the bishops and clergy of our own and of other
Christian churches. Our metropolitans and their suffragans acted by the
same rules here as they did in all other countries. They held these
assemblies by the same power, convened the same persons, and did the
same things in them. When the papal authority had prevailed here, as in
most other kingdoms and countries in Europe, by the leave of our kings,
and at the command of the legates sent from Rome, another and yet larger
sort of councils was introduced amongst us, of the bishops and prelates
of the whole realm. These were properly national Church councils, and
were wont to be held for some special designs, which either the pope,
the king, or both, had to promote by them.
But besides these synods common to us with all other Christian Churches,
and which were in their nature and end, as well as constitution,
properly and purely ecclesiastical, two other assemblies there were of
the clergy of this realm, _peculiar to our own state and country_; in
which the clergy were convened, not for the spiritual affairs of the
Church, but for the good and benefit of the realm, and to act as members
of the one as well as of the other. Now the occasion of these was this:
when the faith of CHRIST was thoroughly planted here, and the piety of
our ancestors had liberally endowed the bishops and clergy of the Church
with temporal lands and possessions, not only the opinion which the
political government had of their prudence and piety prompted it to take
the most eminent of them into the public councils, but the interest
which they had by that means in the state made it expedient so to do,
and to commit the direction and management of offices and affairs to
them. Hence our bishops first, and then some of our other prelates, (as
abbots and priors,) were very early brought into the great councils of
the realm, or parliament, and there consulted and acted together with
the laity. And in process of time, our princes began to have a further
occasion for them. For being increased both in number and in wealth, not
only our kings, but the people began to think it reasonable, that the
clergy should bear a part in the public burdens, as well as enjoy their
share of the public treasure. Hence our Saxon ancestors, under whom the
Church was the most free, yet subjected the lands of the clergy to the
threefold necessity of castles, bridges, and expeditions. And the
granting of aids in these cases brought on assemblies of the clergy,
which were afterwards distinguished by the name of convocations.
In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual (as well as the other clergy)
held by frankalmoigne, but yet made great part (as was said) of the
grand council of the nation; being the most learned persons that, in
those times of ignorance, met to make laws and regulations. But William
the Conqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenures of the bishops and some
of the great abbots into baronies; and from thenceforwards they were
obliged to send persons to the wars, or were assessed to the escuage,
(which was a fine or payment in money instead thereof,) and were obliged
to attend in parliament. But the body of the clergy had no baronies, and
holding by frankalmoigne, were in a great measure exempt from the
charges which were assessed upon the laity, and were therefore by some
other way to be brought under the same obligation. In order hereunto
several measures were taken, till at last they settled into that method
which finally obtained, and set aside the necessity of any other way.
First, the pope laid a tax upon the Church for the use of the king; and
both their powers uniting, the clergy were forced to submit to it. Next,
the bishops were prevailed with, upon some extraordinary occasions, to
oblige their clergy to grant a subsidy to the king, in the way of a
benevolence; and for this, letters of security were granted back by the
king to them, to insure them that what they had done should not be drawn
into example or consequence. And these concessions were sometimes made
by the bishops in the name of their clergy; but the common way was, that
every bishop held a meeting of the clergy of his diocese. Then they
agreed what they would do; and empowered first the bishops, afterwards
their archdeacons, and finally proctors of their own, chosen for that
end, to make the concession for them.
Thus stood this matter till the time of Edward the First, who, not
willing to continue at such a precarious rate with his clergy, took
another method; and, after several other experiments, fixed at last upon
an establishment, which has, to a certain extent, continued ever since,
viz. that the earls and barons should be called to parliament as
formerly, and embodied in one house; and that the tenants in burgage
should also send their representatives; and that the tenants by knight’s
service, and other soccage tenants in the counties, should send their
representatives; and these were embodied in the other house. He designed
to have the clergy as a third estate; and as the bishops were to sit
_per baroniam_ in the temporal parliament, so they were to sit with the
inferior clergy in convocation. And the project and design of the king
was, that, as the two temporal estates charged the temporalities, and
made laws to bind all temporal things within this realm; so this other
body should have given taxes to charge the spiritual possessions, and
have made canons to the ecclesiastical body: to this end was the
_præmunientes_ clause (so called from the first word thereof) in the
summons to the archbishops and bishops, by which he required them to
summon such of their inferior clergy to come with them to parliament, as
he then specified and thought sufficient to act for the whole body of
the clergy. This altered the convocation of the Church of England from
the foreign synods; for these were totally composed of the bishops, who
were pastors of the Church; and therefore the bishops only were
collected to compose such foreign synods, to declare what was the
doctrine, or should be the discipline, of the Church.
Edward I. projected making the clergy a third estate, dependent on
himself; and, therefore, not only called the bishops, whom as barons he
had a right to summon, but the rest of the clergy, that he might have
their consent to the taxes and assessments made on that body. But the
clergy, foreseeing they were likely to be taxed, alleged that they could
not meet under a temporal authority, to make any laws or canons to
govern the Church. And this dispute was maintained by the archbishops
and bishops, who were very loath the clergy should be taxed, or that
they should have any interest in making ecclesiastical canons, which
formerly were made by the sole authority of the bishops; for even if
those canons had been made at Rome, yet, if they were not made in a
general council, they did not think them binding here, unless they were
received by some provincial constitution of the bishops. The whole body
of the Church being thus dissatisfied, the archbishops and bishops
threatened to excommunicate the king: but he and the temporal estate
took it so ill that the clergy would not bear any part of the public
charge, that they were beforehand with them, and the clergy were all
outlawed, and their possessions seised into the king’s hands. This so
humbled the clergy that they at last consented to meet. And to take away
all pretence, there was a summons, besides the _præmunientes_ clause, to
the archbishop, that he should summon the bishops, deans, archdeacons,
colleges, and whole clergy of his province. From hence, therefore, the
bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and clergy, met by virtue of the
archbishop’s summons; to which, being an ecclesiastical authority, they
could not object. And so the bishops and clergy came to convocation by
virtue of the archbishop’s summons; they esteeming it to be in his
power, whether he would obey the king’s writ or not: but when he had
issued his summons, they could not pretend it was not their duty to
come. But the _præmunientes_ writ was not disused; because it directed
the manner in which the clergy were to attend, to wit, the deans and
archdeacons in person, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two
proctors. So that the clergy were doubly summoned; first, by the bishop,
to attend the parliament; and, secondly, by the archbishop, to appear in
convocation. And that the archbishop might not appear to summon them
solely in pursuance of the king’s writ, he for the most part varied in
his summons from the king’s writ, both as to the time and place of their
meeting. And lest it might be thought still (of which they were very
jealous) that their power was derived from temporal authority, they
sometimes met on the archbishop’s summons without the king’s writ; and
in such convocation the king demanded supplies, and by such request
owned the episcopal authority of convening. So that the king’s writ was
reckoned by the clergy no more than one motive for their convening. From
henceforward, instead of making one state of the kingdom, as the king
designed, the clergy composed two ecclesiastical synods, i. e. of
Canterbury and York, under the summons of each of the archbishops; and
being forced into those two synods before mentioned, they sat and made
canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and
taxes to the king. But the archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy, and that
of York, assembled each in their own province; and the king gratified
the archbishops, by suffering this new body of convocation to be formed
in the nature of a parliament. The archbishop sat as king; his
suffragans sat in the upper house as his peers; the deans, archdeacons,
and the proctor for the chapter represented the burghers; and the two
proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire. And so this body,
instead of being one of the estates as the king designed, became an
ecclesiastical parliament, to make laws, and to tax the possessions of
the Church.
But although they thus sat as a parliament, and made laws for the
Church, yet they did not make a part of the parliament properly so
called. Sometimes indeed the lords, and sometimes the commons, were wont
to send to the convocation for some of their body to give them advice in
spiritual matters: but still this was only by way of advice; for the
parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own natural
force, bind the clergy; as the laws of all Christian princes did in the
first ages of the Church. And even the convocation tax always passed
both houses of parliament, since it could not bind as a law till it had
the consent of the legislature.
Thus the case stood when the act of submission (25 Henry VIII. c. 19)
was made; by which it is enacted as followeth:—“Whereas the king’s
humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm of England, have
not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the convocation of
the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by
the king’s writ; but also submitting themselves to the king’s Majesty
have promised, _in verbo sacerdotii_, that they will never from
henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact,
promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances,
provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, in the
convocation, unless the king’s most royal assent and licence may to them
be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his Majesty do
give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf: it is therefore
enacted, according to the said submission, that they, nor any of them,
shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions
or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be
called, in their convocations in time coming (which shall always be
assembled by authority of the king’s writ); unless the same clergy may
have the king’s most royal assent and licence to make, promulge, and
execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances, provincial or
synodal; upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to
this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make
fine at the king’s will.”
It was resolved upon this statute, by the two chief justices and divers
other justices, at a committee before the lords in parliament, in the
eighth year of James I., 1. That a convocation cannot assemble at their
convocation without the assent of the king. 2. That after their assembly
they cannot confer, to constitute any canons, without licence of the
king. 3. When they upon conference conclude any canons, yet they cannot
execute any of their canons without the royal assent. 4. That they
cannot execute any after the royal assent, but with these four
limitations: (1.) that they be not against the prerogative of the king;
nor (2.) against the common law; nor (3.) against the statute law; nor
(4.) against any custom of the realm.
The clergy having continued to tax themselves in convocation as
aforesaid, these assemblies were regularly kept up till the act of the
13 Charles II. c. 4, was passed, when the clergy gave their last
subsidy: it being then judged more advantageous to continue the taxing
them by way of landtax and poll-tax, as it had been in the time of the
Long Parliament during the civil wars.
And in the year 1664, by a private agreement between Archbishop Sheldon
and the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and other the king’s ministers, it
was concluded that the clergy should silently waive the privilege of
taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money
bills prepared by the commons. And this hath made convocations
unnecessary to the Crown, and inconsiderable in themselves.
And since that time the clergy have been allowed to vote in choosing
knights of the shire, as other freeholders, which in former times they
did not.
And from that time the convocation has never passed any synodical act;
and from thenceforth, until the year 1700, for the most part they were
only called, and very rarely did so much as meet together in a full
body, and with the usual solemnity. It is true that, during the
remainder of King Charles the Second’s reign, when the office of
prolocutor was void by death or promotion, so many of the lower house
came together as were thought sufficient to choose a new one; and those
members that were about the town commonly met, during parliament, once a
week, had prayers read, and were formally continued till the parliament
was dissolved, and the convocation together with it. And in King James
the Second’s time, the writs issued out of course, but the members did
not meet. In the year 1689, after the accession of William and Mary to
the throne, a convocation was not only called, but began to sit in due
form; but their resolutions came to nothing. And from thence till the
year 1700 they were only called, but did not meet; but in that year, and
ever since, at the meeting of the parliament, the convocation of the
clergy has likewise been solemnly opened, and the lower clergy have been
permitted to form themselves into a house, and to choose their
prolocutor; nor have they been finally dismissed as soon as that
solemnity was over, but they continued from time to time till the
parliament hath broke up, or been dissolved. And now it seems to be
agreed that they are of right to be assembled concurrently with
parliaments, and may act and proceed as provincial councils, when her
Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judge it expedient.
In Ireland, the convocations of the four provinces assembled all
together in Dublin; and were formed exactly upon the model of those of
England; consisting of the upper house, consisting of the bishops; and
of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons, proctors of the
chapters, and proctors of the clergy of each diocese.—See _Wilkins’s
Concilia_, iv. 496, and for the rules and privileges of the convocation,
iv. 632.
Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to the Irish Common Prayer Book,
(xxxvii. &c.,) remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation of the Irish
clergy, formed after the model of the English convocation, assembled in
Dublin. _This seems to have been the first convocation ever held in
Ireland._ The clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or
ever to have claimed the right of taxing themselves.... In the reign of
Henry VIII. there does not seem to be any reference of ecclesiastical
matters to the convocation, nor any claim of exemption on the part of
the clergy.” [He then quotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c. 12.] “In
the second year of Elizabeth a parliament was assembled, and no mention
is made of a convocation, though acts with respect to the Church were
passed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any parliament,
yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Sussex, the lord lieutenant, for
a general meeting of the clergy, and the establishment of the Protestant
religion. This of course was an order to summon not a convocation, but
the ancient synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all
matters concerning religion.... In Ireland the provincial synod had not
been suspended, and by their consent given at three different times in
the reign of Edward, ... the clergy revived the use of the English
liturgy, and expressed their conformity to the doctrine of the English
Church.” There is, indeed, a passage in the Manuscript Collections of
Dudley Loftus, which has been adduced as proof of a convocation having
been held in 1560: “This year was held a convocation of bishops at the
queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.” But he must
have used the word _convocation_ merely “to express a meeting of the
bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology to describe
the meeting of the convocation.” See also _Ebrington’s_ Life of Ussher,
38–40. As before observed, (see _Church of Ireland_,) no provision
whatever has been made since the Irish Union, for the assembling even
formally of the convocation of the Irish province of the Church. Still
it appears (vide 11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was by no means
intended that the Irish provinces should be deprived of their
convocations. It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800, that the
archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, should be summoned to sit
in the convocation of the United Church. Mr. Pitt expressly said, in
proposing the amendment to this resolution, “that the prosperity of the
Church of Ireland never could be permanent, unless it be a part of the
Union to have, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some
provision in this respect;” i.e. convocation. “And afterwards,” he said,
“it was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article
respecting the convocation, till the Union actually took place.” This
pledge has never been redeemed.—See an article on the _United Church and
its Synods_, in the _Law Review_ for Feb. 1851.
In Scotland, by an act of parliament, 1663, an order was made for
regulating the meetings of the national synod, or, as it is called in
England, the convocation of the Church of Scotland; and an act was
passed, That this synod shall consist of the two archbishops and their
suffragans, all the deans and archdeacons, the fixed moderators, along
with one minister of every presbytery, and one commissioner from each of
the four universities: That the synod, then constituted, is to meet at
such places and times as his Majesty by proclamation shall appoint, and
is to debate, treat, consider, consult, conclude, and determine upon
such pious matters, causes, and things, concerning the doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government of this Church, as his Majesty
shall, from time to time, under his loyal hand, deliver, or cause to be
delivered, to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, president of the said
national assembly, to be by him offered to their consideration: That
unless his Majesty or his commissioner be present, no national assembly
can be held: And that no act, canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned
as an act of the national synod of the Church of Scotland, but such as
shall have been considered, consulted, and agreed upon by the president
and major part of the number above specified.—_Skinner’s Eccles. Hist.
of Scotland._
COPE. (_Cappa_, called also pallium, or pluviale.) A kind of cloak worn
during Divine service by the clergy. It reaches from the neck nearly to
the feet, and is open in front, except at the top, where it is united by
a band or clasp. It is in use in the Western Church only; and is
probably only a modification of the vestment, or chasuble. The latter,
in the Roman Church, is used by the officiating priest at mass only; the
other, by all orders of the clergy in procession, &c., on solemn
occasions. The rubrics of King Edward VI., still legally in force,
prescribe a cope or vestment for the priest administering the holy
communion, and for the bishops, when executing any public ministration
in the church; for which a vestment may be substituted either by priest
or bishop. By the 24th canon the cope only is prescribed to the priest
administering the communion, and that only in cathedral churches. But
the rubric being subsequently enacted, which refers to the regulation of
Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, the latter is more strictly to be
considered as the law of the Church. It was used in several churches and
college chapels in the 17th century, (see _Jebb’s Church Service_, p.
217,) and was in use at Durham cathedral and Westminster till the middle
of the last century. De Foe, in his anonymous Tour through England,
1762, says that “the old vestments, which the clergy before the
Reformation wore, are still used on Sundays and holidays, by the
residents.” And Dr. Collis, in his _Rubric of the Church of England
examined_, 1737, says that “no copes are worn at present in any
cathedral or collegiate church in the ministration of the holy
communion, except in the churches of Westminster and Durham.” The cope
has always been worn by officiating bishops, and by the dean and
prebendaries of Westminster at coronations, and occasionally at state
funerals.
COPIATÆ. The office of the Copiatæ, (κοπιάω, to travail,) who are called
in Latin _Fossarii_, was to superintend funerals, and to see that all
persons had a decent burial. They performed their office gratuitously
towards the poor.—_Cave._
COPTS. The Monophysite, or Jacobite, Christians of Egypt, who have been
for eleven centuries in possession of the patriarchal chair of
Alexandria, and the dominant sect among the Christians of that region,
are called Copts. They were placed in possession of the Egyptian
churches on the irruption of the Saracens in the seventh century. Their
numbers are now perhaps about 100,000. They have three liturgies, one
ascribed to St. Basil, which they use on fast days; that of St. Cyril,
which they use in Lent; and that of St. Gregory, which they use on
festivals. Their service is very much crowded with ceremonies. The
Coptic tongue, in which their worship is conducted, is to them a dead
language, and not even understood by many of their priests. Their habits
of life are ascetic, and they have many monasteries. They have a
patriarch, who resides at Cairo, but takes his title from Alexandria.
CORBEL. A bracket. A projection supporting a weight; and so
_corbel-table_, a table or horizontal projection supported by corbels.
Corbel-tables are almost confined to the Norman, Transition, and Early
English periods. Corbels in other places are of course continued; they
are often of extreme beauty.
CORDELIERS. (_Monks of the Order of St. Francis._) They wear coarse grey
cloth with a little cowl, and a rope girdle with three knots; from this
girdle they are called Cordeliers. They are the same with the Minorites;
but had the name of Cordeliers given them upon this occasion, they
having repulsed the infidels in a war which St. Louis made against them,
the king asked their name, and was answered, they were _des Gens des
Cordelies_—people with cords about them. (See _Franciscans_.)
CORONATION. The solemn religious rite by which a sovereign prince is
consecrated to his high office, in which also the queen consort in
Christian countries is usually associated with her husband, not for
office’ sake, but _honoris gratia_.
By ancient custom the coronation of the sovereign of England belongs to
the archbishop of Canterbury, and that of the queen consort to the
archbishop of York. The place is Westminster Abbey. The kings of
Scotland were crowned at Scone.