quality, merit, and figure, these men, to cover their ambition, and to
discharge themselves from the subjection which they owed to the bishops,
procured grants from the court of Rome, to be received under the
protection of St. Peter, and to be put immediately under subjection to
the pope. This request being for the interest of the court of Rome,
inasmuch as it contributed greatly to the advancement of the papal
authority, all the monasteries were presently exempted. The chapters
also of cathedral churches obtained exemptions upon the same score.
St. Bernard, who lived at the time when this invention was first put in
practice, took the freedom to tell Pope Eugenius III. that it was no
better than an abuse, and that it was by no means defensible, that an
abbot should withdraw himself from the obedience due to his bishop; that
the Church militant ought to be governed by the precedent of the Church
triumphant, in which no angel ever said, “I will not be under the
jurisdiction of an archangel.”
In after ages this abuse was carried so far, that, for a small charge,
private priests procured exemption from the jurisdiction of their
bishop. The Council of Trent made a small reformation in this matter, by
abolishing the exemption of particular priests and friars, not living in
cloisters, and that of chapters in criminal causes.—_Sarpi’s Council of
Trent._
EXHORTATION. By this general name the addresses of the minister to the
people in the liturgy are called. While they are said, the people stand,
in sign of respectful attention, but do not repeat them after the
minister, since they are not addresses to the Almighty made in their
name, but addresses to them only.
The ancient Church, indeed, had no such exhortations as those in our
Communion Service; for their daily, or at least weekly, communions made
it known that there was then no solemn assembly of Christians without
it, and every one (not under censure) was expected to communicate. But
now, when the time is somewhat uncertain, and our long omissions have
made some of us ignorant, and others forgetful of this duty; most of us
unwilling, and all of us more or less indisposed for it; it was thought
both prudent and necessary to provide these exhortations to be read
“when the minister gives warning of the communion, which he is always to
do upon the Sunday, or some holy-day immediately preceding.”
As to the composures themselves, they are so extraordinary suitable,
that if every communicant would duly weigh and consider them, they would
be no small help towards a due preparation. The first contains proper
exhortations and instructions how to prepare ourselves; the latter is
more urgent, and applicable to those who generally turn their backs upon
those holy mysteries, and shows the danger of those vain and frivolous
excuses which men frequently make for their staying away. For which
reason it is appointed by the rubric to be used instead of the former,
whenever the minister shall observe that the people are “negligent to
come.”—_Wheatly._
The service of the Church of England is distinguished by the number and
fitness of its exhortations. These are: one at the beginning of Morning
and Evening Prayer; two in the Communion Service, when notice is given
of the holy communion; another at the time of celebration. Five in the
Baptismal Service; two in the office for receiving those into the Church
who have been privately baptized; and five in the Baptism of those of
Riper Years; one in the Confirmation Office; two in the Solemnization of
Matrimony; two in the Visitation of the Sick; one in the Churching
Service; two in the Commination Service; besides those in the Ordination
Service. These may be considered as so many sermons of the Church, which
assert her doctrines, and fully show what she expects from the faith and
practice of her children.
EXODUS. (From the Greek ἔξοδος, _going out_; the term generally applied
to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt.) The second book of the
Bible is so called, because it is chiefly occupied with the account of
that part of the sacred history. It comprehends the transactions of 145
years, from the death of Joseph in 2369 B. C. to the building of the
Tabernacle in 2114.
EXORCISMS (from ἐξορκίζω, to _conjure_) were certain prayers used of old
in the Christian churches for the dispossessing of devils. This custom
of exorcism is as ancient as Christianity itself, being practised by our
SAVIOUR, the apostles, and the primitive Church; and the Christians were
so well assured of the prevalency of their prayers upon these occasions,
that they publicly offered the heathens to venture their lives upon the
success of them.
In the form of baptism, in the liturgy of the 2 Edward VI., it was
ordered thus:—“Then let the priest, looking upon the children, say, ‘I
command thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the FATHER, of the SON, and
of the HOLY GHOST, that thou come out and depart from these infants,
whom our LORD JESUS CHRIST hath vouchsafed to call to his holy baptism,
to be made members of his body, and of his holy congregation; therefore,
thou cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy judgment,
remember the day to be at hand wherein thou shalt burn in fire
everlasting, prepared for thee and thy angels; and presume not hereafter
to exercise any tyranny towards these infants whom CHRIST hath bought
with his precious blood, and by this his holy baptism called to be of
his flock.’”
There was a custom which obtained in the early ages of the Church, which
was to exorcise the baptized person, or to cast Satan out of him, who
was supposed to have taken possession of his body in his unregenerate
state. But because, in process of time, many superstitious and
unwarrantable practices mixed with this ancient rite, especially in the
Roman Church, our Reformers wisely thought fit to lay it quite aside,
and to substitute in lieu of it these short excellent prayers: wherein
the minister and the congregation put up their petitions to Almighty
GOD, that the child may be delivered from the power of the devil, and
receive all the benefits of the Divine grace and protection, without the
ancient ceremony attending it.—_Dr. Nicholls._
Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence of the bishop of the
diocese, under his hand and seal, attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever,
to cast out any devil or devils, under pain of the imputation of
imposture or cozenage, and deposition from the ministry.”
EXORCISTS were persons ordained in the latter end of the third century,
on purpose to take care of such as were demoniacs, or possessed with
evil spirits. In the first ages of Christianity there were many persons
who are represented as possessed with evil spirits, and exorcism was
performed not by any particular set of men, but afterwards it was judged
requisite by the bishops to appropriate this office by ordination. They
are still a separate order in the Church of Rome.
EXPECTATION WEEK. The whole of the interval between Ascension Day and
Whit Sunday is so called, because at this time the apostles continued in
earnest prayer and expectation of the Comforter.
EXPIATION. A religious act, by which satisfaction or atonement is made
for some crime, the guilt removed, and the obligation to punish
cancelled. (Lev. xv. 15.)
EXPIATION, THE GREAT DAY OF. An annual solemnity of the Jews, observed
upon the 10th day of the month Tisri, which answers to our September.
The Hebrews call it _Chippur_, that is, “pardon,” because the sins of
the whole people were then expiated or pardoned. (Lev. xvi. 29, 30.) On
this occasion, the high priest laid aside his pectoral and embroidered
ephod, because it was a day of humiliation. He offered first a bullock
and a ram for his own sins and those of the priests; then he received
from the heads of the people two goats for a sin offering, and a ram for
a burnt offering, to be offered in the name of the whole multitude. It
was determined by lot, which of the goats should be sacrificed, and
which set at liberty. After this, he perfumed the sanctuary with
incense, and sprinkled it with blood. Then, coming out, he sacrificed
the goat upon which the lot had fallen. This done, the goat which was to
be set at liberty being brought to him, he laid his hands upon its head,
confessed his sins and the sins of the people, and then sent it away
into some desert place.
The great day of Expiation was a day of rest and strict fasting: they
confessed themselves ten times, and repeated the name of GOD as often:
on this day likewise they put an end to all differences, and were
reconciled to each other. Many Jews spent the night preceding the day of
Expiation in prayer and penitential exercises. It was customary for the
high priest to separate from his wife seven days before this solemnity.
Upon the vigil, some of the elders attended the high priest, and their
business was to prevent his eating too much, lest he should fall asleep.
He was likewise to swear, that he would not change the ancient rites in
any particular. On the day itself, the high priest washed himself five
times, and changed his habit as often. When the ceremony was over, the
high priest read the law, and gave the blessing to the people.—_Buxtorf,
Synag. Jud._ c. xx. _Basnage, Hist. des Juifs_, t. v. lib. vii. c. 15.
The modern Jews prepare themselves for the great day of Expiation by
prayer, and ablution. They carry wax candles to the synagogue: the most
devout have two, one for the body, and the other for the soul. The women
at the same time light up candles in their houses, from the brightness
of which, and the consistency of the tallow or wax, they form presages.
The whole day is spent in strict fasting, without exception of age or
sex. At the conclusion of the solemnity, the high priest gives the
blessing to the people; who return home, change their clothes, and sit
down to a good meal.
The Jews believe, that Adam repented, and began his penance, on the
solemn day of Expiation; that, on the same day, Abraham was circumcised,
and Isaac bound in order to be sacrificed; lastly, that on this day,
Moses descended from Mount Sinai, with the new tables of the law.
As sacrificing is now impracticable to the modern Jews, in regard that
their temple is destroyed, they sacrifice a cock on this occasion,
instead of the legal victims, in the manner following. The men take each
of them a cock in their hands, and the women a hen. Then the master of
the family walks into the middle of the room, and repeating several
verses out of the Psalms, dashes the cock thrice on the head,
pronouncing these words; “Let this cock pass as an exchange for me; let
him stand in my place; let him be an expiation for me; let death befall
this cock, but life and happiness belong to me, and all the people of
Israel. Amen.” This prayer is thrice repeated by the master of the
family; for himself, his children, and the strangers of his family. Then
they proceed to kill the cock, and throw his entrails upon the top of
the house, that the crows may come and carry them away, together with
the sins of the family, into the wilderness: this is done by way of
resemblance with the scape goat.
It is of this fast we are to understand that passage of the Acts, where
St. Luke says, that St. Paul comforted those who were with him in the
ship, “when sailing was become dangerous, because the fast was already
past.” (Acts xxvii. 9.) For tempests are very frequent in the month of
September, in which this solemnity falls, and this was much about the
time that St. Paul took his voyage to Rome.
EXTRAVAGANTS. (See _Decretals_.) A name given to those decretal epistles
of the popes after the Clementines. The first Extravagants are those of
John XXIII., successor to Clement V.; they were so named because, at
first, they were not digested, nor ranged with the other papal
constitutions, but seemed to be, as it were, detached from the canon
law; and they retained the same name when they were afterwards inserted
into the body of the canon law. The collection of decretals, in 1483,
were called the _Common Extravagants_, notwithstanding they were
likewise embodied with the rest of the canon law.
EXTREME UNCTION. Of extreme unction the Romish Council of Trent asserts,
“The holy unction of the sick was instituted by our LORD CHRIST, as
truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, as is implied,
indeed, in St. Mark; but commended and declared to the faithful by
James, the apostle and brother of the LORD. “Is any sick among you? Let
him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the LORD; and the prayer of faith
shall save the sick, and the LORD shall raise him up, and if he have
committed sins they shall be forgiven him.”” From which words, as the
Church hath learned from apostolic tradition handed down, she teaches
the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this wholesome
sacrament; for the Church has understood that the matter is oil blessed
by the bishop, for unction most aptly represents the grace of the HOLY
SPIRIT wherewith the soul of the sick man is invisibly anointed: then
that the form consists of these words, “By this anointing,” &c.
The following are the canons upon the subject passed by that council.
Canon I. If any shall say, that extreme unction is not truly or properly
a sacrament instituted by our LORD CHRIST, and declared by the blessed
apostle James; but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human
invention; let him be accursed.
Canon II. If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick does not
confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick, but that it has
ceased, as if it were formerly only the grace of healing; let him be
accursed.
Canon III. If any shall say, that the rite and usage of extreme unction,
which, the holy Roman Church observes, is contrary to the sentence of
the blessed apostle James, and, therefore, should be changed, and may be
despised by Christians without sin; let him be accursed.
Canon IV. If any shall say, that the presbyters of the Church, whom St.
James directs to be called for the anointing of the sick, are not
priests ordained by the bishops, but elders in age, in any community;
and that, therefore, the priest is not the only proper minister of
extreme unction; let him be accursed.
Here the institution of extreme unction by our LORD is implied by Mark
vi. 13, where it is said of the apostles, that “they anointed with oil
many that were sick, and healed them.” But, by-and-by, (session 22, ch.
1,) we are told that the Christian priesthood was not instituted until
our LORD’S last supper. Either, then, extreme unction is no sacrament,
or they who are no priests can administer a sacrament; for the apostles
were not priests, according to the Church of Rome, at the time spoken of
by St. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is a visible form of invisible
grace; but the passage in St. Mark speaks only of healing the body; and,
therefore, Cajetan, as cited by Catharinus, rejects this text as
inapplicable to this sacrament; and Suarez (in part iii. disp. 39, sect.
1, n. 5) says, that “when the apostles are said to anoint the sick and
heal them, (Mark vi. 13,) this was not said in reference to the
sacrament of unction, because their cures had not of themselves an
immediate respect to the soul.” Nor will this pretended sacrament derive
more assistance from the passage in St. James, in which they say that
the institution by our LORD is proclaimed and declared by that apostle,
at least if Cardinal Cajetan is any authority, who is thus cited by
Catharinus in his Annotationes, Paris, 1535, p. 191, de Sacramento
Unctionis Extremæ. “Sed et quod scribit B. Jacobus, ‘Infirmatur quis in
vobis?’ &c., pariter negat reverendissimus ad hoc sacramentum pertinere,
ita scribens, nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu, verba hæc loquuntur de
sacramentali unctione extremæ unctionis, sed magis de unctione quam
instituit Dominus Jesus exercendum in ægrotis. Textus enim non dicit,
Infirmatur quis ad mortem? sed absolutè, Infirmatur quis?” &c. But that
this rite, which they now call a sacrament, was originally applied
chiefly to the healing of the body, is manifest from the prayers which
accompanied it. “Cura quæsumus, Redemptor noster, gratia Spiritüs Sancti
_languores istius infirmi_,” and so the directions, “_in loco ubi plus
dolor imminet, amplius perungatur_.” Let the patient have most oil
applied in the part where the pain is greatest.—_Sacr. Gregor._ by
Menard, Paris, 1542, p. 252. From all which we come to the conclusion,
that the allegations of the Council of Trent on this matter must be
pronounced “not proven.” Which, if it were a mere opinion, would be of
no great consequence. But when their assertion is supported by anathema,
and every communicant in their Church bound to believe it as necessary
to salvation, it serves to show the cruelty of this Roman mother both to
her own children, and to them whom she reckons strangers. It is in vain
that the Roman writers attempt to strengthen their cause by appeals to
the Greek mysteries. The Greek mysteries and the Latin sacraments are
not synonymous. And as concerns this of unction, which (as its epithet
“extreme,” which the Romans have added, implies) is designed for persons
_in articulo mortis_, or _in exitu vitæ_, as we have it in the third
chapter, this derives as little countenance from the Greek Church as it
does from St. James. For, in the Greek Church, the service of anointing
is used to persons in any illness; and is used by them solely for
recovery from sickness, as the following prayer at the application of
the oil clearly shows. “O holy FATHER, the physician of our souls and
bodies, who didst send thine only-begotten Son, our LORD JESUS CHRIST,
to heal all diseases, and to deliver us from death, heal this thy
servant M. from the bodily infirmity under which he now labours, and
raise him up by the grace of CHRIST.”—_Perceval, Roman Schism. King’s
Greek Church._
Now that this miraculous gift (of healing all manner of diseases) is
ceased, there is no reason why the mere ceremony of anointing with oil
should continue; which yet is still used in the Church of Rome, and made
a sacrament; though it signify nothing; for they do not pretend to heal
men by it, nay, they pretend the contrary, because they never use it but
in extremity, and where they look upon the person as past recovery; and
if they do not think so, they would not use it.—_Abp. Tillotson._
EZEKIEL, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Ezekiel
was the son of Buzi, of the house of Aaron. He was carried captive to
Babylon with Jechoniah. He began to prophesy in the fifth year of this
captivity, which is the æra by which he reckons in all his prophecies.
He continued to prophesy during twenty years. He was contemporary with
Jeremiah, who prophesied at the same time in Judea. He foretold many
events, particularly the destruction of the temple; the fatal
catastrophe of those who revolted from Babylon to Egypt; and, at last,
the happy return of the Jews into their own land. He distinctly predicts
the plagues which were to fall upon the enemies of the Jews, as the
Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. He
foretells the coming of the Messiah, and the flourishing state of his
kingdom.—_Du Pin, Canon of Scripture_, b. i. c. iii. § 20.
The greatest part of this prophecy is easy, plain, and intelligible,
referring chiefly to the manners and corruption of that degenerate age.
Of all the prophets, Ezekiel abounds the most in enigmatical visions.
His style (in the opinion of St. Jerome) is neither eloquent nor mean,
but between both. He abounds in fine sentences, rich comparisons, and
shows a great deal of learning in profane matters. The beginning and end
of this book (by reason of the abstruse mysteries contained in them)
were forbidden to be read by the Jews, before thirty years of age.
Ezekiel was called to be a prophet by being carried in a vision to
Jerusalem, and there shown all the several sorts of idolatry, which were
practised by the Jews in that place. This makes the subject of the 8th,
9th, 10th, and 11th chapters of his prophecies. At the same time GOD
promised to those of the captivity, who kept themselves from these
abominations, that he would be their protector, and restore them to the
land of Israel. This is his theme in the 15th and following chapters.
The 26th, 27th, and 28th chapters contain the threatenings of GOD’S
judgments against Tyre, for insulting on the calamitous estate of Judah
and Jerusalem. To these we may add his prophecy concerning the captivity
of Zedekiah, contained in the 12th chapter; and that against Pharaoh
Hophra, king of Egypt, in the 33rd. These are the principal prophecies
of this book.—_Prideaux, Connect_. p. i. b. i.
It is said, that Ezekiel was put to death by the prince of his people,
because he exhorted him to leave idolatry. It is pretended likewise,
that his body was deposited in the same cave wherein Shem and Arphaxad
were laid, on the bank of the Euphrates. His tomb, they say, is still to
be seen: the Jews keep a lamp always burning in it, and boast, that they
have there the prophet’s book, written with his own hand, which they
read every year upon the great day of Expiation.
The Jewish Sanhedrim, we are told, once took it under their
consideration, whether they should not suppress the prophecy of Ezekiel,
on account of the obscurity of some parts of it; but that Rabbi
Chananias prevented this design, by offering to remove all the
difficulties. His proposal, they say, was accepted, and a present was
made him of three hundred tun of oil for the use of his lamp, while he
was employed in this undertaking. We may easily discover, that this is a
mere fable and an hyperbole of the Talmudists.
EZRA. One of the canonical books of Scripture is called the Book of
Ezra.
The book of Ezra was written in the latter end of the author’s life, and
comprehends the transactions of about eighty, or, as some say, a hundred
years. It includes the history of the Jews from the time of Cyrus’s
edict for their return, to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
In this book are recorded the number of those Jews who returned from the
captivity, Cyrus’s proclamation for the rebuilding of the temple, the
laying of the foundations thereof, &c. Part of this book was written in
the Chaldee language, namely, from the eighth verse of the fourth
chapter to the twenty-seventh verse of the seventh chapter; all the rest
was written in Hebrew.
FACULTY COURT belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and his officer
is called the Master of the Faculties. His power is to grant
dispensation to marry, to eat flesh on days prohibited, to hold two or
more benefices ordinarily incompatible, and such like.
FAITH. (See _Grace, Justification_.) “We are accounted righteous
before GOD, only for the merit of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,
by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we
are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very
full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of
Justification.”—_Article_ XI.
Faith, in its generic sense, either means the holding rightly the creeds
of the Catholic Church, or means that very Catholic faith, which except
a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Thus, when the priest is
directed, in the office for the Baptism of those of Riper Years, to
inquire into the faith of the candidate, he asks his assent to one of
the creeds; and, in the office for the Visitation of the Sick, he is
required to use the same test, and this of course agrees with St. Paul’s
statement: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with
the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
It should be noted, that we are justified _by_ faith, not _because of_
faith; for there is no more “merit” in our faith, than in our works.
Faith therefore is not the cause, but the condition, of our
justification, which is solely to be attributed to the bounty of GOD,
and the merits of CHRIST.—_Archdeacon Welchman._
I am sensible, says Dr. Waterland, that some very eminent men have
expressed a dislike of the phrase, of the instrumentality of faith; and
have also justly rejected the thing, according to the false notion which
some had conceived of it. It cannot, with any tolerable sense or
propriety, be looked upon as an instrument of conveyance in the hand of
the efficient or principal cause; but it may justly and properly be
looked upon as the instrument of reception in the hand of the recipient.
It is not the mean by which the grace is wrought, effected, or
conferred; but it may be, and is, the mean by which it is accepted or
received: or, to express it a little differently, it is not the
instrument of justification in the active sense of the word, but it is
in the passive sense of it. It cannot be for nothing that St. Paul so
often and so emphatically speaks of man’s being justified by faith, or
through faith in CHRIST’S blood; and that he particularly notes it of
Abraham, that he believed, and that his faith was counted to him for
justification; when he might as easily have said, had he so meant, that
man is justified by faith and works, or that Abraham, to whom the gospel
was preached, was justified by gospel faith and obedience. Besides, it
is certain, and is on all hands allowed, that, though St. Paul did not
directly and expressly oppose faith to evangelical works, yet he
comprehended the works of the moral law under those works which he
excluded from the office of justifying, in his sense of justifying, in
those passages; and further, he used such arguments as appear to extend
to all kinds of works: for Abraham’s works were really evangelical
works, and yet they were excluded. Add to this, that if justification
could come even by evangelical works, without taking in faith in the
meritorious sufferings and satisfaction of a mediator, then might we
have “whereof to glory,” as needing no pardon; and then might it be
justly said, that “CHRIST died in vain.” I must further own, that it is
of great weight with me, that so early and so considerable a writer as
Clemens of Rome, an apostolical man, should so interpret the doctrine of
justifying faith, so as to oppose it plainly even to evangelical works,
however exalted. It runs thus: “They (the ancient patriarchs) were all,
therefore, greatly glorified and magnified; not for their own sake, or
for their own works, or for the righteousness which they themselves
wrought, but through his good pleasure. And we also, being called
through his good pleasure in CHRIST JESUS, are not justified by
ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the
works which we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith by
which Almighty GOD justified all from the beginning.” Here it is
observable, that the word _faith_ does not stand for the whole system of
Christianity, or for Christian belief at large, but for some particular
self-denying principle by which good men, even under the patriarchal and
legal dispensations, laid hold on the mercy and promises of GOD,
referring all, not to themselves or their own deservings, but to Divine
goodness, in and through a mediator. It is true, Clemens elsewhere, and
St. Paul almost everywhere, insists upon true holiness of heart, and
obedience of life, as indispensable conditions of salvation or
justification; and of that one would think there could be no question
among men of any judgment or probity: but the question about conditions
is very distinct from the other question about instruments; and,
therefore, both parts may be true, viz. that faith and obedience are
equally _conditions_, and equally indispensable where opportunities
permit; and yet faith over and above is emphatically the _instrument_
both of receiving and holding justification, or a title to salvation.
To explain this matter more distinctly, let it be remembered, that GOD
may be considered (as I before noted) either as a party contracting with
man, on very gracious terms, or as a judge to pronounce judgment upon
him.
Man’s first coming into covenant (supposing him adult) is by assenting
to it, and accepting of it, to have and to hold it on such kind of
tenure as GOD proposes: that is to say, upon a self-denying tenure,
considering himself as a guilty man, standing in need of pardon, and of
borrowed merits, and at length resting upon mercy. So here the previous
question is, whether a person shall consent to hold a privilege upon
this submissive kind of tenure or not? Such assent or consent, if he
comes into it, is the very thing which St. Paul and St. Clemens call
faith; and this previous and general question is the question which both
of them determine against any proud claimants who would hold by a more
self-admiring tenure.
Or, if we next consider GOD as sitting in judgment, and man before the
tribunal, going to plead his cause; here the question is, What kind of
plea shall a man resolve to trust his salvation upon? Shall he stand
upon his innocence, and rest upon strict law; or shall he plead guilty,
and rest in an act of grace? If he chooses the former, he is proud, and
sure to be cast; if he chooses the latter, he is safe so far, in
throwing himself upon an act of grace. Now this question also, which St.
Paul has decided, is previous to the question, what conditions even the
act of grace itself finally insists upon? A question which St. James in
particular, and the general tenor of the whole Scripture, has abundantly
satisfied; and which could never have been made a question by any
considerate or impartial Christian. What I am at present concerned with
is to observe, that faith is emphatically the instrument by which an
adult accepts the covenant of grace, consenting to hold by that kind of
tenure, to be justified in that way, and to rest in that kind of plea,
putting his salvation on that only issue. It appears to be a just
observation which Dr. Whitby makes, (_Pref. to the Epist. to Galat._ p.
300,) that Abraham had faith (Heb. xi. 8) before what was said of his
justification in Gen. xv. 6, and afterwards more abundantly, when he
offered up his son Isaac; but yet neither of those instances was pitched
upon by the apostle as fit for his purpose, because in both, obedience
was joined with faith: whereas, here was a pure act of faith, without
works, and of this act of faith it is said, “it was imputed to him for
righteousness.” The sum is, none of our works are good enough to stand
by themselves before Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.
CHRIST only is pure enough for it at first hand, and they that are
CHRIST’S at second hand, in and through him. Now, because it is by faith
that we thus interpose, as it were, CHRIST between GOD and us, in order
to gain acceptance by him; therefore faith is emphatically the
instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification. Obedience is
equally a condition or qualification, but not an instrument, not being
that act of the mind whereby we look up to GOD and CHRIST, and whereby
we embrace the promises.—_Waterland on Justification._
There is not any one word which hath more significations than this hath
in the word of GOD, especially in the New Testament. It sometimes
signifies the acknowledgment of the true GOD, in opposition to
heathenism; sometimes the Christian religion, in opposition to Judaism;
sometimes the believing the power of CHRIST to heal diseases; sometimes
the believing that he is the promised Messias; sometimes fidelity or
faithfulness; sometimes a resolution of conscience concerning the
lawfulness of anything: sometimes a reliance, affiance, or dependence on
CHRIST either for temporal or spiritual matters; sometimes believing the
truth of all Divine relations; sometimes obedience to GOD’S commands in
the evangelical, not legal sense; sometimes the doctrine of the gospel,
in opposition to the law of Moses; sometimes it is an aggregate of all
other graces; sometimes the condition of the second covenant in
opposition to the first: and other senses of it also there are,
distinguishable by the contexture, and the matter treated of where the
word is used.—_Hammond, Practical Catechism_.
FAITH, IMPLICIT. (See _Implicit Faith_.)
FAITHFUL. This was the favourite and universal name uniformly used in
the primitive Church, to denote those who had been instructed in the
Christian religion, and received by baptism into the communion of the
Church. The apostolical Epistles are all addressed to “faithful men,”
that is, to those who formed the visible Church in their respective
localities; those who had made profession of the faith of CHRIST in holy
baptism.
FALD STOOL. A small desk, at which the Litany is enjoined to be sung or
said. It is generally placed, in those churches in which it is used, in
the middle of the choir, sometimes near the steps of the altar. This
word is probably derived from the barbarous Latin, _falda_, a place shut
up, a fold. (See _Litany_.)
FALDISTORY. The episcopal seat, or throne, within the chancel; but more
particularly, the bishop’s chair, near the altar, mentioned in the
Ordination Service, in which he sits, while addressing the candidates
for orders, &c.
FALL OF MAN. (See _Original Sin_.) The loss of those perfections and
that happiness which his Maker bestowed on man at his creation, for the
transgression of a positive command, given for the trial of his
obedience. This doctrine may be stated in the language of our ninth
Article:—“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the
Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault and corruption of the
nature of every man, that _naturally is engendered_ of the offspring of
Adam, whereby man is _very far_ gone (the Latin is _quam longissime_ i.
e. _as far as possible_) from original righteousness, and is of his own
nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to
the Spirit; and therefore, in every person born into this world, it
deserveth GOD’S wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth
remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the
flesh, called in Greek φρόημα σάρχος, which some do expound the wisdom,
some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is
not subject to the law of GOD. And although there is no condemnation for
them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess that
concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”
FAMILIARS OF THE INQUISITION. (See _Inquisition_.) In order to support
the cruel proceedings of the Inquisition in Spain, great privileges were
bestowed upon such of the nobility as were willing to degrade themselves
so far as to become familiars of the holy office. The king himself
assumed the title, and was protector of the order.
The business of these familiars was to assist in the apprehending of
such persons as were accused, and to carry them to prison; upon which
occasion the unhappy person was surrounded by such a number of these
officious gentlemen, that, though he was neither fettered nor bound,
there was no possibility of escaping out of their hands. As a reward of
this base employment, the familiars were allowed to commit the most
enormous actions, to debauch, assassinate, and kill with impunity. If
they happened to be prosecuted for any crime, the Inquisition took upon
itself the prosecution, and immediately the familiar entered himself as
their prisoner; after which he was at liberty to go where he pleased,
and act in all things as if he were free.
A gentleman, a familiar of the holy office at Corduba, having killed a
person, the inquisitors were so strongly solicited against him, that
they could not help condemning him pursuant to the laws. But the rest of
the gentleman familiars getting a horse ready for him, and a sum of
money, let him privately out of prison. Another, being put in prison for
having disputed on free-will and grace, (for which any other person
would have been punished with the utmost severity,) was only admonished
not to argue any more upon religion, and presently set at
liberty.—_Broughton._
FANATICISM. When men add to enthusiasm and zeal for the cause which they
believe to be the cause of truth, a hatred of those who are opposed to
them, whether in politics or religion, they fall into fanaticism, and
thus violating the law of Christian charity, are guilty of a great sin.
FARSE. An addition, used before the Reformation, in the vernacular
tongue, to the Epistle in Latin, anciently used in some churches,
forming an explication or paraphrase of the Latin text, verse by verse,
for the benefit of the people. The subdeacon first repeated each verse
of the epistle or _lectio_ in Latin, and two choristers sang the farse
or explanation. The following is an example from the Epistle with a
_farse_ for new-year’s day. “Good people, for whose salvation God
deigned to clothe himself in flesh, and humbly live in a cradle, who has
the whole world in his hands, render him sweet thanks, who in his life
worked such wonders, and for our redemption humbled himself even to
death.”—_Lectio Epistolæ, &c._ Then follows the lesson from the Epistle
of St. Paul to Titus, and then the _farse_ proceeds. “St. Paul sent this
ditty,” &c.—See _Burney’s History of Music_, ii. 256.
FASTING. (See _Abstinence_ and _Fasts_.) Abstinence from food.
By the regulations of the Church, fasting, though not defined as to its
degree, is inculcated at seasons of peculiar penitence and humiliation,
as a valuable auxiliary to the cultivation of habits of devotion and
self-denial. Respecting its usefulness, there does not appear to have
been much diversity of opinion until late years. Fasting was customary
in the Church of GOD long before the introduction of Christianity, as
may be seen in the Old Testament Scriptures. That it was sanctioned by
our SAVIOUR and his apostles, is equally plain. And that it was intended
to continue in the future Church can scarcely be questioned; for CHRIST
gave his disciples particular instructions respecting it, and in
reprobating the abuses of it among the Pharisees, never objects to its
legitimate use. He even declares, that after his ascension his disciples
should fast: “The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away
from them, and then they shall fast in those days.” (Luke v. 35.)
Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles occur several notices of
fastings connected with religious devotions. St. Paul evidently
practised it with some degree of frequency. (2 Cor. xi. 27.) He also
recognises the custom, as known in the Corinthian Church, and makes some
observations implying its continuance. From the days of the apostles to
the present time, fasting has been regarded under various modifications
as a valuable auxiliary to penitence. In former times, Christians were
exceedingly strict in abstaining from every kind of food for nearly the
whole of the appointed fast days, receiving only at stated times what
was actually necessary for the support of life. At the season of Lent,
much time was spent in mortification and open confession of sin,
accompanied by those outward acts which tend to the control of the body
and its appetites; a species of godly discipline still associated with
the services of that solemn period of the ecclesiastical year.
In the practice of fasting, the intelligent Christian will not rest in
the outward act, but regard it only as a means to a good end. All must
acknowledge that this restraint, even upon the innocent appetites of the
body, is eminently beneficial in assisting the operations of the mind.
It brings the animal part of our nature into greater subservience to the
spiritual. It tends to prevent that heaviness and indolence of the
faculties, as well as that perturbation of the passions, which often
proceed from indulgence and repletion of the body. It is thus highly
useful in promoting that calmness of mind and clearness of thought,
which are so very favourable to meditation and devotion. The great end
of the observance is to “afflict the soul,” and to increase a genuine
contrition of heart, and godly sorrow for sin. This being understood,
abstinence will be approved of _God_, and made conducive to a growth in
spiritual life.
The distinction between the Protestant and the Romish view of fasting is
this, that the Roman regards the use of fasting as a means of grace; the
Protestant, only as a useful exercise. It is _not_ a means of grace, for
it is nowhere ordained as such in the Scriptures of the New Testament;
but it is a useful preparation for the means of grace, and as such the
Scriptures have assumed that it will be resorted to by Christians.
FASTS. Those days which are appointed by the Church as seasons of
abstinence and peculiar sorrow for sin. These are the forty days of
Lent, including Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; the Ember days, the three
Rogation days, and all the Fridays in the year, (except Christmas Day,)
and the eves or vigils of certain festivals.
By Canon 72. “No minister shall, without the licence and direction of
the bishop under hand and seal, appoint or keep any solemn fasts, either
publicly, or in any private houses, other than such as by law are, or by
public authority shall be, appointed, nor shall be wittingly present at
any of them; under pain of suspension for the first fault, of
excommunication for the second, and of deposition from the ministry for
the third.”
By the rubric, the table of Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be
observed in the Year, is as followeth, (which, although not in words,
yet in substance, is the same with what is above expressed in the
aforesaid statute,) viz. “The evens or vigils before the Nativity of our
LORD, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation of
the Blessed Virgin, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost, St. Matthias,
St. John Baptist, St. Peter, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew,
St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, All Saints. And if any
of these feasts fall upon a Monday, then the vigil or fast day shall be
kept upon the Saturday, and not upon the Sunday, next before it.” (See
_Fasting_.)
That fasting or abstinence from our usual sustenance is a proper means
to express sorrow and grief, and a fit method to dispose our minds
towards the consideration of anything that is serious, nature seems to
suggest; and therefore all nations, from ancient times, have used
fasting as a part of repentance, and as a means to avert the anger of
GOD. This is plain in the case of the Ninevites, (Jonah iii. 5,) whose
notion of fasting, to appease the wrath of GOD, seems to have been
common to them with the rest of mankind. In the Old Testament, besides
the examples of private fasting by David, (Ps. lxix. 10,) and Daniel,
(Dan. ix. 3,) and others, we have instances of public fasts observed by
the whole nation of the Jews at once upon solemn occasions. (See Lev.
xxiii. 26, &c.; 2 Chron. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jer. xxxvi. 9; Zech.
viii. 19; Joel i. 14.) It is true indeed, in the New Testament, we find
no positive precept, that expressly requires and commands us to fast;
but our _Saviour_ mentions fasting with almsgiving and prayer, which are
unquestionable duties (Matt. vi. 1–18); and the directions he gave
concerning the performance of it sufficiently suppose its necessity. And
he himself was pleased, before he entered upon his ministry, to give us
an extraordinary example in his own person, by fasting forty days and
forty nights. (Matt. iv. 2.) He excused, indeed, his disciples from
fasting, so long as he, “the bridegroom, was with them;” because that
being a time of joy and gladness, it would be an improper season for
tokens of sorrow; but then he intimates at the same time, that though it
was not fit for them then, it would yet be their duty hereafter: for
“the days,” says he, “will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from
them, and then they shall fast.” (Matt. ix. 15.) And accordingly we
find, that, after his ascension, the duty of fasting was not only
recommended, (1 Cor. vii. 5,) but practised by the apostles, as any one
may see by the texts of Scripture here referred to. (Acts xiii. 2, and
xiv. 23; 1 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Cor. vi. 5, and xi. 27.) After the apostles,
we find the primitive Christians very constant and regular in the
observation of both their annual and weekly fasts. Their weekly fasts
were kept on Wednesdays and Fridays, because on the one our LORD was
betrayed, on the other crucified. The chief of their annual fasts was
that of Lent, which they observed by way of preparation for their feast
of Easter.
In the Church of Rome, fasting and abstinence admit of a distinction,
and different days are appointed for each of them. But I do not find
that the Church of England makes any difference between them. It is
true, in the title of the table of Vigils, &c. she mentions “fasts and
days of abstinence” separately; but when she comes to enumerate the
particulars, she calls them all “days of fasting or abstinence,” without
distinguishing the one from the other. The times she sets apart are such
as she finds to have been observed by the earliest ages of the
Church.—_Wheatly._
FATHERS, THE. A term of honour applied generally to all the ancient
Christian writers, whose works were in good repute in the Church, and
who were not separated from its communion or from its faith. St.
Bernard, who flourished in the twelfth century, is reputed to be the
last of the Fathers. The Christian theologians after his time, adopted a
new style of treating religious matters, and were called scholastics.
Those writers who conversed with the apostles are generally called
apostolical Fathers, as Ignatius, &c.
Of the authority of the Fathers, the Rev. Geo. Stanley Faber very justly
observes: “Among unread or half-read persons of our present somewhat
confident age, it is not an uncommon saying, that THEY _disregard the
early Fathers_; and that THEY _will abide by nothing but the Scriptures
alone_. If by _a disregard of the early Fathers_, they mean that they
allow them not individually that personal authority which the Romanists
claim for them, they certainly will not have _me_ for their opponent.
And accordingly I have shown, that in the interpretation of the
Scripture terms, _Election_ and _Predestination_, I regard the insulated
individual authority of St. Augustine just as little as I regard the
insulated individual authority of Calvin.
“But if by _a disregard of the early Fathers_, they mean that they
regard them not as evidence of the FACT of _what_ doctrines were or were
not received by the primitive Church, and from her were or were not
delivered to posterity, they might just as rationally talk of the
surpassing wisdom of extinguishing the light of history, by way of more
effectually improving and increasing our knowledge of past events; for,
in truth, under the aspect in which they are specially important to
_us_, the early Fathers are neither more nor less than so many
historical witnesses.
“And if, by _an abiding solely by the decision of Scripture_, they mean
that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal system of that
primitive Church which conversed with, and was taught by, the apostles,
they will abide by nothing save their own crude and arbitrary private
expositions of Scripture; we certainly may well admire their
intrepidity, whatever we may think of their modesty; for in truth, by
such a plan, while they call upon us to despise the sentiments of
Christian antiquity, so far as we can learn them, upon distinct
historical testimony, they expect us to receive, without hesitation, and
as undoubted verities, _their own_ more modern upstart speculations upon
the sense of GOD’S holy word; that is to say, the evidence of the early
Fathers, and the hermeneutic decisions of the primitive Church, we may
laudably and profitably contemn, but _themselves_ we must receive (for
they themselves are content to receive themselves) as well nigh certain
and infallible expositors of Scripture.”
The Apostolic Fathers are those writers of the apostolic age, whose
names are given to certain treatises still extant; though some of them
are spurious. These were Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and
Polycarp.
FEASTS, FESTIVALS, or HOLY-DAYS. Among the earliest means adopted by the
holy Church for the purpose of impressing on the minds of her children
the mysterious facts of the gospel history, was the appointment of a
train of anniversaries and holy-days, with appropriate services
commemorative of all the prominent transactions of the Redeemer’s life
and death, and of the labours and virtues of the blessed apostles and
evangelists. These institutions, so replete with hallowed associations,
have descended to our own day; and the observance of them is commended
by the assent of every discerning and unprejudiced mind, and is
sustained by the very constitution of our nature, which loves to
preserve the annual memory of important events, and is in the highest
degree reasonable, delightful, profitable, and devout.
There is something truly admirable in the order and succession of these
holy-days. The Church begins her ecclesiastical year with the Sundays in
Advent, to remind us of the coming of CHRIST in the flesh. After these,
we are brought to contemplate the mystery of the incarnation; and so,
step by step, we follow the Church through all the events of our
SAVIOUR’S pilgrimage, to his ascension into heaven. In all this the
grand object is to keep CHRIST perpetually before us, to make him and
his doctrine the chief object in all our varied services. Every Sunday
has its peculiar character, and has reference to some act or scene in
the life of our LORD, or the redemption achieved by him, or the mystery
of mercy carried on by the blessed Trinity. Thus every year brings the
whole gospel history to view; and it will be found as a general rule,
that the appointed portions of Scripture, in each day’s service, are
mutually illustrative; the New Testament casting light on the Old,
prophecy being admirably brought in contact with its accomplishment, so
that no plan could be devised for a more profitable course of Scripture
reading than that presented by the Church on her holy-days.
The objections against the keeping of holy-days are such as these. St.
Paul says, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.” This
occurs in the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, in the Epistle to the
Colossians, “Let no man judge you in respect of a holy-day,” &c. From
these it is argued, that as we are brought into the liberty of the
gospel, we are no longer bound to the observance of holy-days, which are
but “beggarly elements.” Respecting the first, it is surprising that no
one has “conscientiously” drawn from it an inference for the neglect of
the civil division of time; and in relation to both, it requires only an
attentive reading of the Epistles from which they are taken, to see that
they have no more connexion with the holy-days of the Church than with
episcopacy. The apostle is warning the Gentile Christians to beware of
the attempts of Judaizing teachers to subvert their faith. It was the
aim of these to bring the converts under the obligations of the Jewish
ritual, and some progress appears to have been made in their attempts.
St. Paul, therefore, reminds them that these were but the _shadow_ of
good things to come, while CHRIST was the _Body_. The passages therefore
have no relevancy to the question; or if they have, they show that while
Christians abandoned the _Jewish_ festivals, they were to observe _their
own_. If they were to forsake the _shadow_, they were to cleave to the
_substance_. It should moreover be remembered, that they apply to the
LORD’S day no less than other holy-days appointed by the Church. To
observe “Sabbaths,” is as much forbidden as aught else. And it is but
one of the many inconsistencies of the Genevan doctrine with Scripture,
that it enjoins a judaical observance of Sunday, and contemns a
Christian observance of days hallowed in the Church’s history, and by
gratitude to the glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of
martyrs, and the illustrious line of confessors and saints, who have
been baptized in tears and blood for JESU’S sake.
Again; if we keep holy-days, we are said to favour Romanism. But these
days were hallowed long before corruption was known in the Roman Church.
And waiving this, let it be remembered, that we are accustomed to judge
of things by their intrinsic worth, and the main point to be determined
is, whether they are _right_ or _wrong_. If they are right, we receive
them; and if they are not right, we reject them, whether they are
received by the Church of Rome or not.
Rubric before the Common Prayer. “A Table of all the Feasts that are to
be observed in the Church of England throughout the Year: All Sundays in
the year, the Circumcision of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Epiphany, the
Conversion of St. Paul, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, St.
Matthias the Apostle, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, St. Mark
the Evangelist, St. Philip and St. James the Apostles, the Ascension of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, St. Barnabas, the Nativity of St. John Baptist,
St. Peter the Apostle, St. James the Apostle, St. Bartholomew the
Apostle, St. Matthew the Apostle, St. Michael and all Angels, St. Luke
the Evangelist, St. Simon and St. Jude the Apostles, All Saints, St.
Andrew the Apostle, St. Thomas the Apostle, the Nativity of our LORD,
St. Stephen the Martyr, St. John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents,
Monday and Tuesday in Easter week, Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun week.”
Rubric after the Nicene Creed. “The curate shall then declare to the
people what holy-days or fasting days are in the week following to be
observed.”
Canon 64. “Every parson, vicar, or curate shall, in his several charge,
declare to the people every Sunday, at the time appointed in the
communion book, whether there be any holy-days or fasting days the week
following. And if any do hereafter wittingly offend herein, and being
once admonished thereof by his ordinary, shall again omit that duty, let
him be censured according to law, until he submit himself to the due
performance of it.”
Canon 13. “All manner of persons within the Church of England shall from
henceforth celebrate and keep the LORD’S day, commonly called Sunday,
and other holy-days, according to GOD’S will and pleasure, and the
orders of the Church of England prescribed on that behalf; that is, in
hearing the word of GOD read and taught, in private and public prayers,
in acknowledging their offences to GOD and amendment of the same, in
reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours where displeasure
hath been, in oftentimes receiving the communion of the body and blood
of CHRIST, in visiting of the poor and sick, using all godly and sober
conversation.”
Canon 14. “The Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly and
reverently, upon such days as are appointed to be kept holy by the Book
of Common Prayer, and their eves.”
Time is a circumstance no less inseparable from religious actions and
place; for man, consisting of a soul and body, cannot always be actually
engaged in the service of GOD: that’s the privilege of angels, and souls
freed from the fetters of mortality. So long as we are here, we must
worship GOD with respect to our present state, and consequently of
necessity have some definite and particular time to do it in. Now, that
man might not be left to a floating uncertainty, in a matter of so great
importance, in all ages and nations, men have been guided by the very
dictates of nature, to pitch upon some certain seasons, wherein to
assemble, and meet together, to perform the public offices of
religion.—_Cave’s Prim. Christianity_; and see this same sentiment, and
the subject excellently treated, in _Nelson’s Festivals and Fasts_,—the
Preliminary Instructions concerning Festivals.
This sanctification, or setting apart, of festival days, is a token of
that thankfulness, and a part of that public honour, which we owe to
GOD, for his admirable benefits; and these days or feasts set apart are
of excellent use, being, as learned Hooker observes, the 1. Splendour
and outward dignity of our religion; 2. Forcible witnesses of ancient
truth; 3. Provocations to the exercise of all piety; 4. Shadows of our
endless felicity in heaven; 5. On earth, everlasting records, teaching
by the eye in a manner whatsoever we believe.
And concerning particulars: as, that the Jews had the sabbath, which did
continually bring to mind the former world finished by creation; so the
Christian Church hath her LORD’S days, or Sundays, to keep us in
perpetual remembrance of a far better world, begun by him who came to
restore all things, to make heaven and earth new. The rest of the holy
festivals which we celebrate, have relation all to one head, CHRIST. We
begin therefore our ecclesiastical year (as to some accounts, though not
as to the order of our services) with the glorious annunciation of his
birth by angelical message. Hereunto are added his blessed nativity
itself, the mystery of his legal circumcision, the testification of his
true incarnation by the purification of his blessed mother the Virgin
Mary; his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven; the admirable
sending down of his Spirit upon his chosen.
Again, forasmuch as we know that CHRIST hath not only been manifested
great in himself, but great in other, his saints also; the days of whose
departure out of this world are to the Church of CHRIST as the birth and
coronation days of kings or emperors; therefore, special choice being
made of the very flower of all occasions in this kind, there are annual
selected times to meditate of CHRIST glorified in them, which had the
honour to suffer for his sake, before they had age and ability to know
him, namely, the blessed Innocents;—glorified in them which, knowing
him, as St. Stephen, had the sight of that before death, whereinto such
acceptable death doth lead;—glorified in those sages of the East, that
came from far to adore him, and were conducted by strange
light;—glorified in the second Elias of the world, sent before him to
prepare his way;—glorified in every of those apostles, whom it pleased
him to use as founders of his kingdom here;—glorified in the angels, as
in St. Michael;—glorified in all those happy souls already possessed of
bliss.—_Sparrow’s Rationale._
In the injunctions of King Henry VIII., and the convocation of the
clergy, A. D. 1536, it was ordered, that all the people might freely go
to their work upon all holidays usually before kept, which fell either
in the time of harvest, (counted from the 1st day of July to the 29th of
September,) or in any time of the four terms, when the king’s judges sat
at Westminster. But these holidays (in our book mentioned) are specially
excepted, and commanded to be kept holy by every man.—_Cosin’s Notes._
By statute 5 & 6 Edward VI. ch. 3, it was provided, that it should be
“lawful for every husbandman, labourer, fisherman, and every other
person of what estate, degree, or condition they be, upon the holidays
aforesaid, in harvest, or at any other time in the year when necessity
shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or work any kind of work, at their
free wills and pleasure.” This was repealed by Queen Mary, but revived
by James I. Queen Elizabeth, in the mean while, however, declared in her
“injunctions,” that the people might “with a safe and quiet conscience,
after their common prayer,” (which was then at an early hour,) “in the
time of harvest, labour upon the holy and festival days, and save that
thing which GOD hath sent.”
The moveable feasts are those which depend upon Easter, and consequently
do not occur on the same day every year. There are, besides Easter, the
Sundays after the Epiphany, Septuagesima Sunday, the first day of Lent,
Rogation Sunday, (i. e. the Sunday before the Ascension,) Ascension Day,
Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, the Sundays after Trinity, and Advent
Sunday.
FELLOWSHIP. An establishment in one of the colleges of an university, or
in one of the few colleges not belonging to universities, with a share
of its revenues.
FEUILLANS. A congregation of monks, settled towards the end of the 15th
century, by John de la Barriere; he was a Cistercian, and the plan of
his new congregation was a kind of a reformation of that order. His
method of refining upon the old constitution was approved of by Pope
Sixtus V.; the Feuillantines are nuns, who followed the same
reformation.
FIFTH MONARCHY MEN were a set of enthusiasts in the time of Cromwell,
who expected the sudden appearance of CHRIST to establish on earth a new
monarchy or kingdom.
FILIATION OF THE SON OF GOD. (See _Generation_, _Eternal_.)
FINIAL, (in church architecture,) more anciently _Crop_. The termination
of a pinnacle, spire, pediment, or ogeed hood-mould. Originally the term
was applied to the whole _pinnacle_.
FIRST FRUITS were an act of simony, invented by the pope, who, during
the period of his usurpation over our Church, bestowed benefices of the
Church of England upon foreigners, upon condition that the first year’s
produce was given to him, for the regaining of the Holy Land, or for
some similar pretence: next, he prevailed on spiritual patrons to oblige
their clergy to pay them; and at last he claimed and extorted them from
those who were presented by the king or his temporal subjects. The first
_Protestant_ king, Henry VIII., took the first fruits from the pope, but
instead of restoring them to the Church, vested them in the Crown. Queen
Anne restored them to the Church, not by remitting them entirely, but by
applying these superfluities of the larger benefices to make up the
deficiencies of the smaller. To this end she granted her royal charter,
whereby all the revenue of first fruits and tenths is vested in trustees
for ever, to form a perpetual fund for the augmentation of small
livings. This is usually called Queen Anne’s Bounty. (See _Annates_.)
FIVE POINTS (see _Arminians and Calvinism_) are the five doctrines
controverted between the Arminians and Calvinists; relating to, 1.
Particular Election; 2. Particular Redemption; 3. Moral Inability in a
Fallen State; 4. Irresistible Grace; and 5. Final Perseverance of the
Saints.
FLAGELLANTS. A name given, in the 13th century, to a sect of people
among the Christians, who made a profession of disciplining themselves:
it was begun in 1260, at Perugia, by Rainerus, a hermit, who exhorted
people to do penance for their sins, and had a great number of
followers. In 1349, they spread themselves over all Poland, Germany,
France, Italy, and England, carrying a cross in their hands, a cowl upon
their heads, and going naked to the waist; they lashed themselves twice
a day, and once in the night, with knotted cords stuck with points of
pins, and then lay grovelling upon the ground, crying out mercy: from
this extravagance they fell into a gross heresy, affirming that their
blood united in such a manner with CHRIST’S that it had the same virtue;
that after thirty days’ whipping they were acquitted from the guilt and
punishment of sin, so that they cared not for the sacraments. They
persuaded the common people that the gospel had ceased, and allowed all
sorts of perjuries. The frenzy lasted a long time, notwithstanding the
censures of the Church, and the edicts of princes, for their
suppression.
FLAGON. A vessel used to contain the wine, before and at the
consecration, in the holy eucharist. In the marginal rubric in the
prayer of consecration, the priest is ordered “to lay his hand upon
every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there is any wine to be
consecrated,” but in the same prayer he is told to take the cup only in
his hand; and the rubric before the form of administering the cup stands
thus, “the minister that delivereth the cup.” The distinction then
between the flagon and the cup or chalice will be, that the latter is
the vessel in which the consecrated wine is administered; the flagon,
that in which some of the wine is placed for consecration, if there be
more than one vessel used.
FLORID STYLE OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. The later division of the
Perpendicular style, which prevailed chiefly during the Tudor era, and
is often called the Tudor style.
FLOWERS. Strewing with flowers is a very simple and most innocent method
of ornamenting the Christian altar, which is enjoined indeed by no law,
but which is sanctioned by the custom of some churches in this kingdom,
in which also the Protestant churches in Germany agree. This way of
bringing in the very smallest of GOD’S works to praise him is extremely
ancient, and is several times alluded to by the Fathers; especially by
St. Jerome, who does not think it unworthy a place in the panegyric of
his friend Nepotian, that his pious care for the Divine worship was such
that he made flowers of many kinds, and the leaves of trees, and the
branches of the vine, contribute to the beauty and ornament of the
church. These things, says St. Jerome, were, indeed, but trifling in
themselves; but a pious mind, devoted to CHRIST, is intent upon small
things as well as great, and neglects nothing that pertains even to the
meanest office of the Church. This custom has been immemorially observed
in some English churches. It has also been the custom in some places, on
Easter morning to adorn with flowers the graves of those at least who
died within the year.
FONT. (_Fons_, a fountain.) The vase or basin at which persons seeking
regeneration are baptized. The rites of baptism in the first times were
performed in fountains and rivers, both because their converts were
many, and because those ages were unprovided with other baptisteries. We
have no other remainder of this rite but the name: for hence it is that
we call our baptisteries “Fonts,” which, when religion found peace, were
built and consecrated for the more reverence and respect of the
sacrament. These were placed at first at some distance from the church;
(see _Baptistery_;) afterwards in the church porch, and that
significantly, because baptism is the entrance into the Church mystical,
as the porch of the temple. At last they were introduced into the church
itself, being placed at the west end, near the south entrance. They were
not admitted in the first instance into every church, but into the
cathedral of the diocese, thence called “the mother church,” because it
gave spiritual birth by baptism. Afterwards they were introduced into
rural churches. Wheresoever they stood, they were always held in high
estimation by true Christians. A font preserved in the royal
jewel-house, and formerly used for the baptism of the infants of the
royal family, was of silver. In England, the fonts are generally placed
near the west door, or south-western porch.
Edm. “There shall be a font of stone or other competent material in
every church, which shall be decently covered and kept, and not
converted to other uses. And the water wherein the child shall be
baptized shall not be kept above seven days in the font.”
By Canon 81. “According to a former constitution, too much neglected in
many places, there shall be a font of stone in every church and chapel
where baptism is to be ministered, the same to be set in the ancient
usual places; in which only font the minister shall baptize publicly.”
“When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give
knowledge thereof over-night, or in the morning before the beginning of
morning prayer, to the curate. And then the godfathers and godmothers,
and the people with the children, must be ready at the font, either
immediately after the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately
after the last lesson at evening prayer, as the curate by his discretion
shall appoint. And the priest coming to the font, (which is then to be
filled with pure water,) and standing there, shall say.”—_Rubric to the
Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants, to be used in Church._
In which rubric it may be observed, that there is no note of a pewter,
crockery, wedgewood, or other such like basin within the font, to hold
the water, which the carelessness or irreverence of some has permitted
of late; but that _the font_ is to be filled with pure water: and also
that it is _then_ to be filled, and not just at the convenience of the
clerk at any time previous; the like reverence being shown herein as in
the parallel order about the elements in the other holy sacrament, “The
priest shall _then_ place upon the table,” &c.
“And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and godmothers (the
people being assembled upon the Sunday or holy-day appointed) shall be
ready to present them at the font, immediately after the second lesson,
either at morning or evening prayer, as the curate in his discretion
shall think fit.”
“Then shall the priest take each person to be baptized by the right
hand, and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his
discretion, shall ask the godfathers and godmothers the name? and then
shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying.”—_Rubrics in
the Ministration of Baptism to such as are of Riper Years._
FORMATÆ. (See _Literæ Formatæ_.)
FORMS OF PRAYER, _for Special Occasions_. Besides the great festivals
and fasts of the Church universal, there will be, in each Church,
continually recurring occasions of thanksgiving or humiliation, and some
events of importance, which ought to be thus celebrated, and for which
forms of prayer will be accordingly appointed by competent authority.
The days thus set apart in the Church of England for the celebration of
great events in our history are four: the 5th of November, the 30th of
January, the 29th of May, and the 20th of June, the reasons for which
are thus set forth in the several titles to the services enjoined on
those days:—
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving, to be used yearly upon the 5th
day of November, for the happy deliverance of King James I., and the
three estates of England, from the most traitorous and
bloody-intended massacre by gunpowder. And also for the happy
arrival of his Majesty King William on this day, for the deliverance
of our Church and nation.”
“A Form of Prayer with Fasting, to be used yearly on the 30th of
January, being the day of the martyrdom of the blessed King Charles
the First; to implore the mercy of GOD, that neither the guilt of
that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which GOD
was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of
cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited
upon us or our posterity.”
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, for having put an
end to the great Rebellion, by the restitution of the king and royal
family, and the restoration of the government, after many years’
interruption; which unspeakable mercies were wonderfully completed
upon the 29th of May, in the year 1660. And in memory thereof that
day in every year is by act of parliament appointed to be for ever
kept holy.”
“A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving to Almighty GOD, to be used in all
churches and chapels within this realm, every year, upon the 20th
day of June, being the day on which her Majesty began her happy
reign.”
When passing events, such as a pestilence, or its removal, call for
humiliation or thanksgiving, it is usual for the Crown to require the
archbishop of Canterbury to prepare a form of prayer for the occasion,
which is then sent through the several suffragan bishops to the clergy
in their respective dioceses, with the command of the archbishop and
bishop that it shall be used on certain fixed days, so long as the
occasion shall demand.
This charge would fall on each separate bishop, were the Church of
England separated from the State, and not distributed into provinces.
FORMULARY. (See _Common Prayer_, _Liturgy_.) A book containing the
rites, ceremonies, and prescribed forms of the Church. The formulary of
the Church of England is the Book of Common Prayer.
This may be a convenient place to treat of forms of prayer generally.
To the illustrious divines who conducted the reformation of our Church,
in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, any abstract objections
to a prescribed form of prayer seem never to have occurred, for these
were all the inventions of a later period. Ridiculous it would be, if we
were going to address a human sovereign, to permit one of our number to
utter in the royal presence any unpremeditated words, which might chance
at the time to come into his head; and not less ridiculous,—if it be
allowable to use such an expression under such circumstances,—would they
have thought it to permit the priest to offer at the footstool of the
KING of kings, a petition in the name of the Church, of which the Church
had no previous cognizance; to require the people to say “Amen” to
prayers they had never considered, or to offer as joint prayers what
they had never agreed to offer.
But, as has been observed, it was not upon the abstract question that
they were called to decide. In their Church, the Church of England, when
they were appointed to preside over it, they found prescribed forms of
prayer in use. They were not rash innovators, who thought that whatever
is must be wrong; but, on the contrary, they regarded the fact that a
thing was already established as an argument _a priori_ in its favour;
and therefore they would only have inquired, whether prescribed forms of
prayer were _contrary_ to Scripture, if such an inquiry had been
necessary. We say, if such an inquiry had been necessary, because the
slightest acquaintance with Scripture must at once have convinced them
that contrary to Scripture could not be that practice, for which we can
plead the precedent of Moses and Miriam, and the daughters of Israel, of
Aaron and his sons when they blessed the people, of Deborah and Barak;
when the practice was even more _directly_ sanctioned by the HOLY GHOST
at the time he inspired David and the psalmists; for what are the psalms
but an inspired form of prayer for the use of the Church under the
gospel, as well as under the law? The services of the synagogue, too, it
is well known, were conducted according to a prescript form. To those
services our blessed LORD did himself conform: and severely as he
reproved the Jews for their departure, in various particulars, from the
principles of their fathers, against their practice in this particular
never did he utter one word of censure; nay, he _confirmed_ the
practice, when he himself gave to his disciples a form of prayer, and
framed that prayer too on the model, and in some degree in the very
words, of prayers then in use. Our LORD, moreover, when giving his
directions to the rulers of his Church, at the same time that he
conferred on them authority to bind and to loose, directed them to agree
touching what they should ask for, which seems almost to convey an
injunction to the rulers of every particular Church to provide their
people with a form of prayer.
The fact that we _find_ this injunction in Scripture, renders probable
the universal tradition of the universal Church, which traces to the
apostles, or apostolic men, the four great liturgies, (which have, in
all parts of the Church, afforded the model according to which all
others have been framed,) and which affirms that the apostles instituted
a form of worship wherever they established a Church. It would be easy,
if the occasion required it, to show, from a variety of passages in holy
writ, that while much can be adduced in corroboration of this tradition,
_nothing_ but _conjecture_ can be cited against it. With respect to
those passages which, referring prayer to the influence of the HOLY
SPIRIT upon the soul of man, are sometimes brought forward as militating
against the adoption of a form, they cannot have fallen under the notice
of our reformers, since the application of them to this purpose was
never dreamt of till about 200 years ago, when men, having determined in
their wilfulness to reject the liturgy, searched for every possible
authority which might, by constructions the most forced, support their
determination; and the new interpretation they thus put upon Scripture,
may be considered as rather the plea of their wishes than the verdict of
their conviction. The adduction, indeed, of such passages for such a
purpose is a gratuitous assumption of the question in dispute, and will
not for a moment hold weight in the balance of the sanctuary. According
to the interpretation of those ancients, whose judgment is the more
valuable because (living before any controversy was raised on the
subject) they were little likely to be warped, or their opinions
determined, by the prejudices of sect, or the subtleties of system, what
these passages of Scripture mean is _this_, and simply this: that the
HOLY GHOST, who is the author and giver of every good and perfect gift,
must stir up in our hearts that spirit of devotion and holiness of
temper, without which the service we render is but the service of the
lips, and is useless, if not profane.
It is, then, to the _mind_ with which we _pray_, not to the words which
we adopt, that those passages of Scripture refer, in which we are
exhorted to pray in the Spirit. But admitting, for the sake of argument,
that where we are told that the SPIRIT will teach us to pray, the
promise is applicable to the very expressions, even this cannot be
produced as an argument against a form of prayer. For, whatever may be a
man’s imaginary gift of prayer, this is quite certain, that his thoughts
must precede his tongue; that before he speaks he must think. And not
less clear is it, that after he has conceived a thought, he may, for a
moment, restrain his tongue, and set down that thought upon paper. To
suppose that the intervention of the materials for committing his
thoughts to writing must, of necessity, drive away the HOLY SPIRIT,
would not only in itself be absurd, but it would be tantamount to a
denial of the inspiration of the written Scriptures. If the first
conceptions were of GOD and GOD’S Spirit, then, of course, they are so
still, even after they have been written;—the mere writing of them, the
mere committing of them to paper, can have nothing whatever to do with
the question of inspiration, either one way or the other. If a man,
therefore, asserts that his extemporary prayers are to be attributed to
the inspiration of the HOLY GHOST, we can at once reply that our
prayers, in our Prayer Book, are, on his own principles, quite as much
so, with this further advantage, that they have been carefully compared
with Scripture, and tested thereby. No Scriptural Christian, no one not
mad with folly, will contend that, on that account, they are less
spiritual; though, on the other hand, we may fairly doubt whether an
extemporiser is not acting in direct opposition to Scripture, for
Scripture says, (Eccles. v. 2,) “Be not rash with thy mouth to utter
anything before GOD, for GOD is in heaven, and thou upon earth:” and who
in the world is hasty to utter anything before GOD, if it be not the man
who prays to him extemporally?
Again, the bishops and divines, by whom our Church was reformed,
recognised it as the duty of the Church to excite emotions of solemnity
rather than of enthusiasm, when she leads her children to the footstool
of that throne which, if a throne of grace, is also a throne of glory.
And, therefore, when discarding those ceremonies which, not of primitive
usage, had been abused, and might be abused again, to the purposes of
superstition, they still made ample provision that the services of the
sanctuary should be conducted with decent ceremony, and orderly form,
and impressive solemnity, and in our cathedrals and the royal chapels
with magnificence and grandeur. They sought not to annihilate; they
received with the profoundest respect those ancient ceremonials and
forms of prayer which had been used in their Church from the first
planting of Christianity in this island. These ancient forms, however,
had been used in many respects, though gradually corrupted. In every
age, men had made the attempt to render them more and more conformable
to the spirit of the age, and (in ages of darkness) superstitions in
_practice_, and novelties, and therefore errors, in _doctrine_, had
crept in. Our wise-hearted reformers, intent, not on pleasing the
people, nor regaining popularity, nor on consulting the spirit of the
age, but simply and solely on ascertaining and maintaining the truth as
it is in JESUS, having obtained a commission from the Crown, first of
all compared the existing forms of worship with the inspired word of
GOD, being determined at once to reject what was plainly and palpably at
variance therewith. For example, the prayers before the Reformation had
been offered in the Latin language, a language no longer intelligible to
the mass of the people; but to pray in a tongue not understood by the
people, is plainly and palpably at variance with Scripture; and,
consequently, the first thing they did was to have the liturgy
translated into English. Having taken care that nothing should remain in
the forms of worship contrary to Scripture, they proceeded (by comparing
them with the most ancient rituals) to renounce all usages not clearly
primitive; and, diligently consulting the works of the Fathers, they
embodied the doctrines universally received by the early Church in that
book which was the result and glory of their labours, the Book of Common
Prayer. The work of these commissioned divines was submitted to the
convocation of the other bishops and clergy, and being approved by them,
and authorized by the Crown, was laid before the two houses of
parliament, and was accepted by the laity, who respectfully thanked the
bishops for their labour. And thus it is seen, that the English Prayer
Book was not composed in a few years, or by a few men; it has descended
to us from the first ages of Christianity. It has been shown by Palmer,
that there is scarcely a portion of our Prayer Book which cannot, in
some way, be traced to ancient offices. And this it is important to
note; first, because it shows that as the Papist in England is not
justified in calling his the old Church, since _ours_ is the old Church
reformed, _his_ a sect, in this country, comparatively new; so neither
may he produce his in opposition to ours as the old liturgy. All that is
really ancient we retained, when the bishops and divines who reformed
our old Church corrected, from Scripture and antiquity, our old liturgy.
What they rejected, and the Papists adhered to, were innovations and
novelties introduced during the middle ages. And it is important to
observe this, in the next place, since it is this fact which constitutes
the value of the Prayer Book, regarded, as we do regard it, not only as
a manual of devotion, but also as an interpreter of Scripture. It
embodies the doctrines and observances which the early Christians
(having received them from the apostles themselves) preserved with
reverential care, and handed down as a sacred deposit to their
posterity.
FRANCISCANS, or MINORITES. (_Fratres Minores_, as they were called by
their founder.) An order of friars in the Romish Church, and so
denominated from him they call St. Francis, their first founder in 1206,
who prescribed the following rules to them: That the rule and life of
the brother minors (for so he would have those of his order called) was
to observe the gospel under obedience, possessing nothing as their own,
and live in charity; then he showed how they should receive novices
after a year’s noviciate, after which it was not allowed them to leave
the order; he would have his friars make use of the Roman breviary, and
the converts or lay-brethren to write every day, for their office,
seventy-six Paternosters; besides Lent, he ordered them to fast from
All-saints to Christmas, and to begin Lent on twelfthtide; he forbade
them to ride on horseback, without some urgent necessity; and would have
them in their journeys to eat of whatsoever was laid before them: they
were to receive no money, neither directly nor indirectly; that they
ought to get their livelihood by the labour of their hands, receiving
for it anything but money; that they ought to possess nothing of their
own, and when their labour was not sufficient to maintain them, they
ought to go a begging, and, with the alms so collected, to help one
another; that they ought to confess to their provincial ministers those
sins, the absolution of which was reserved to them, that they might
receive from them charitable corrections; that the election of their
general ministers, superiors, &c. ought to be in a general assembly;
that they ought not to preach without leave of the ordinaries of each
diocese, and of their superiors. Then he prescribed the manner of
admonition and correction; how that they ought not to enter into any
nunnery, to be godfathers to any child, nor to undertake to go into any
foreign countries to convert infidels, without leave of their provincial
ministers; and then he bids them ask of the pope a cardinal for
governor, protector, and corrector of the whole order.
Francis, their founder, was born in 1182, at Assisi, in the province of
Umbria, in Italy, of noble parentage, but much more renowned for his
holy life. His baptismal name was John, but he assumed that of Francis,
from having learned the French language. He renounced a considerable
estate, with all the pleasures of the world, to embrace a voluntary
poverty, and live in the practice of the greatest austerities. Going
barefoot, and embracing an apostolical life, he performed the office of
preacher on Sundays and other festivals, in the parish churches. In the
year 1206, or 1209, designing to establish a religious order, he
presented to Pope Innocent III. a copy of the rules he had conceived,
praying that his institute might be confirmed by the holy see. The pope,
considering his despicable appearance, and the extreme rigour of his
rules, bid him go find out swine, and deliver them the rule he had
composed, as being fitter for such animals than for men. Francis, being
withdrawn, went and rolled himself in the mire with some swine, and, in
that filthy condition, again presented himself before the pope,
beseeching him to grant his request. The pope, moved hereby, granted his
petition, and confirmed his order.
From this time Francis became famous throughout all Italy, and many
persons of birth, following his example, forsook the world, and put
themselves under his direction. Thus this order of friars, called
Minors, spread all over Europe; who, living in cities and towns, by tens
and sevens, preached in the villages and parish churches, and instructed
the rude country people. Some of them likewise went among the Saracens,
and into Pagan countries, many of whom obtained the crown of martyrdom.
Francis died at Assisi in 1226. He never received higher orders than the
diaconate.
It is pretended that, a little before the death of St. Francis, there
appeared wounds in his hands and feet, like those of our Saviour,
continually bleeding, of which, after his death, there appeared not the
least token. He was buried in his own oratory at Rome, and his name was
inserted in the catalogue of saints.
The first monastery of this order was at Assisi, in Italy, where the
Benedictines of that place gave St. Francis the church of St. Mary,
called Portiuncula. Soon after, convents were erected in other places;
and afterwards St. Francis founded others in Spain and Portugal. In the
year 1215, this order was approved in the general Lateran council. Then
St. Francis, returning to Assisi, held a general chapter, and sent
missions into France, Germany, England, and other parts. This order made
so great a progress in a short time, that, at the general chapter held
at Assisi, in 1219, there met 5000 friars, who were only deputies from a
much greater number. There were in the middle of the last century above
7000 houses of this order, and in them above 115,000 monks: there are
also above 900 monasteries of Franciscan nuns. This order has produced
four popes, forty-five cardinals, and an infinite number of patriarchs,
archbishops, and two electors of the empire; besides a great number of
learned men and missionaries.
The Franciscans came into England during the life of their founder, in
the reign of King Henry III. Their first establishment was at
Canterbury. They zealously opposed King Henry VIII., in the affair of
his divorce; for which reason, at the suppression of the monasteries,
they were expelled before all others, and above 200 of them thrown into
gaols; thirty-two of them coupled in chains like dogs, and sent to
distant prisons; others banished, and others condemned to death. Whilst
this order flourished in England, this province was divided into seven
parts or districts, called _custodies_, because each of them was
governed by a provincial, or superior, called the _custos_, or guardian
of the district. The seven custodies were, that of London, consisting of
nine monasteries; that of York, consisting of seven monasteries; that of
Cambridge, containing nine monasteries; that of Bristol, containing nine
monasteries; that of Oxford, in which were eight monasteries; that of
Newcastle, in which were nine monasteries; and that of Worcester, in
which were nine monasteries; in all, sixty monasteries.
The first establishment of Franciscans in London was begun by four
friars, who hired for themselves a certain house in Cornhill, of John
Travers, then sheriff of London, and made it into little cells; where
they lived till the summer following, when they were removed, by John
Iwyn, citizen and mercer of London, to the parish of St. Nicholas in the
shambles. There he assigned them land for the building of a monastery,
and entered himself into the order.
FRATERNITIES, in Roman Catholic countries, are societies for the,
so-called, improvement of devotion. They are of several sorts and
several denominations. Some take their name from certain famous
instruments of piety. The more remarkable are,
1. The fraternity of the Rosary. This society owes its rise to Dominic,
the founder of the Rosary. He appointed it, they say, by order of the
Blessed Virgin, at the time when he was labouring on the conversion of
the Albigenses. After the saint’s death, the devotion of the Rosary
became neglected, but was revived by Alanus de Rupe, about the year
1460. This fraternity is divided into two branches, that of the Common
Rosary, and that of the Perpetual Rosary. The former is obliged, every
week, to say the fifteen divisions of ten beads each, and to confess,
and communicate, every first Sunday in the month. The brethren of it are
likewise obliged to appear at all processions of the fraternity. The
latter are under very strong engagements, the principal of which is, to
repeat the rosary perpetually; i. e. there is always some one of them,
who is actually saluting the Blessed Virgin in the name of the whole
fraternity. 2. The fraternity of the Scapulary, whom it is pretended,
according to the Sabbatine bull of Pope John XXII., the Blessed Virgin
has promised to deliver out of hell the first Sunday after their death.
3. The fraternity of St. Francis’s girdle are clothed with a sack of a
grey colour, which they tie with a cord; and in processions walk
barefooted, carrying in their hands a wooden cross. 4. That of St.
Austin’s leathern girdle comprehends a great many devotees. Italy,
Spain, and Portugal are the countries where are seen the greatest number
of these fraternities, some of which assume the name of arch-fraternity.
Pope Clement VII. instituted the arch-fraternity of charity, which
distributes bread every Sunday among the poor, and gives portions to
forty poor girls on the feast of St. Jerome, their patron. The
fraternity of death buries such dead as are abandoned by their
relations, and causes masses to be celebrated for them.—_Broughton._
FRATRICELLI. Certain heretics of Italy, who had their rise in the
marquisate of Ancona, about 1294. They were most of them apostate monks,
under a superior, called Pongiloup. They drew women after them on
pretence of devotion, and were accused of uncleanness with them in their
nocturnal meetings. They were charged with maintaining a community of
wives and goods, and denying magistracy. Abundance of libertines flocked
after them, because they countenanced their licentious way of living.
FREEMASONS. An ancient guild of architects, to whom church architecture
owes much, and to whom is to be attributed a great part of the beauty
and uniformity of the ecclesiastical edifices of the several well-marked
architectural æras of the middle ages.
The Freemasons at present arrogate to themselves a monstrous antiquity;
it is certain, however, that they were in existence early in the tenth
century, and that before the close of that century they had been
formally incorporated by the pope, with many exclusive privileges,
answering to those which are now involved in a patent. The society
consisted of persons of all nations and of every rank; and being
strictly an ecclesiastical society, the tone of the architecture to
which they gave their study became distinctively theological and
significant. The principal ecclesiastics of the day were ranked among
its members, and probably many of its clerical brethren were actually
and actively engaged in its practical operations. In the present day, if
the clergy would pay a little more attention to ecclesiastical
architecture, we might perhaps rather emulate than regret the higher
character of the sacred edifices of the middle ages.
FREE WILL. Since the introduction of Calvinism many persons have been
led into perplexity on this subject, by not sufficiently distinguishing
between the free will of spontaneous mental preference, and the good
will of freely preferring virtue to vice.
By the ancients, on the contrary, who were frequently called upon to
oppose the mischievous impiety of fatalism, while yet they stood pledged
to maintain the vital doctrine of Divine grace, this distinction was
well known and carefully observed.
The Manicheans so denied free will, as to hold a fatal necessity of
sinning, whether the choice of the individual did or did not go along
with the action.
The Pelagians so held free will, as to deny the need of Divine grace to
make that free will a good will.
By the Catholics, each of these systems was alike rejected. They held,
that man possesses free will; for, otherwise, he could not be an
accountable subject of GOD’S moral government. But they also held, that,
in consequence of the fall, his free will was a bad will: whence, with a
perfect conscious freedom of choice or preference, and without any
violence put upon his inclination, he, perpetually, though quite
spontaneously, prefers unholiness to holiness; and thus requires the aid
of Divine grace to make his bad will a good will.
The reader may see this point established by quotations from the Fathers
in Faber’s work on “Election,” from which this article is taken. He
shows also that the doctrine taught by Augustine and the ancients, is
precisely that which is maintained by the reformers of our Anglican
Church.
Those venerable and well-informed moderns resolve not our evil actions
into the compulsory fatal necessity of Manicheism, on the one hand; nor,
on the other hand, according to the presumptuous scheme of Pelagianism,
do they claim for us a spontaneous choice or preference of good
independently of the Divine assistance.
The simple freedom of man’s will, so that, whatever he chooses, he
chooses not against his inclination, but through a direct and conscious
internal preference of the thing chosen to the thing rejected: this
simple freedom of man’s will they deny not.
But, while they acknowledge the simple freedom of man’s will, they
assert the quality of its choice or preference to be so perverted by the
fall, and to be so distorted by the influence of original sin, that, in
order to his choosing the good and rejecting the evil, the grace of GOD,
by CHRIST, must both make his bad will a good will, and must also still
continue to co-operate with him even when that goodness of the will
shall have been happily obtained.
In the tenth Article of the English Church, it is often not sufficiently
observed, that our minutely accurate reformers do not say, that the
grace of GOD, in the work of conversion, gives us free will, as if we
were previously subject to a fatal necessity; but only that the grace of
GOD, by CHRIST, prevents us that we may have a good will, and
co-operates with us when we have that good will.
The doctrine, in short, of the English Church, when she declares that
fallen man cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength
and good works, to faith and calling upon GOD, is not that we really
prefer the spiritual life to the animal life, and are at the same time
by a fatal necessity prevented from embracing it; but it is that we
prefer the animal life to the spiritual life, and through the badness of
our perverse will, shall continue to prefer it, until (as the Article
speaks) the grace of GOD shall prevent us that we may have a good will,
or until (as Holy Scripture speaks) the people of the LORD shall be
willing in the day of his power.
FRIAR. (From _frater_, brother.) A term common to monks of all orders:
founded on this, that there is a kind of brotherhood presumed between
the religious persons of the same monastery. It is however commonly
confined to monks of the mendicant orders. Friars are generally
distinguished into these four principal branches,—1. Franciscans,
Minors, or Grey Friars; 2. Augustines; 3. Dominicans, or Black Friars;
4. Carmelites, or White Friars. From these four the rest of the orders
in the Roman Church descend. In a more particular sense the term Friar
is applied to such monks as are not priests: for those in orders are
usually dignified with the appellation of Father.
FRIDAY. Friday was, both in the Greek Church and Latin, a Litany or
humiliation day, in memory of CHRIST crucified: and so is kept in ours.
It is our weekly fast for our share in the death of CHRIST, and its
gloom is only dispersed if Christmas day happens to fall thereon.
FUNERAL SERVICES. (See _Burial of the Dead_ and _Dead_.) The office
which the English Church appoints to be used at the burial of the dead
is, like all her other offices, of most ancient date, having been used
by the Church in the East and the West from the remotest antiquity, and
having been only translated into English by the bishops and divines who
reformed our Church. But against this office, as against others, cavils
have been raised. The expression chiefly cavilled at in this service is
that with which we commit our brother’s “body to the ground, earth to
earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of the
resurrection to eternal life, through our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Now here
it will be observed, that no _certainty_ is expressed that the
individual interred will rise to the resurrection of glory. The
_certainty_ is,—that there _will_ be a resurrection to eternal
life,—while a _hope_ is first implied, and afterwards expressed, that in
this resurrection the individual buried will have a part. And who are
they who will chide the Church for hoping thus,—even though it be
sometimes a hope against hope? The Church refuses to perform the funeral
service over persons not baptized, or who have been excommunicated,
because she only performs her good offices for those who are within her
communion. More than this cannot be expected of any society. But the
only class of persons who may have died within her communion, over whom
she refuses to perform the burial service, is that of those who have
died guilty of self-murder. It is so very evident that such persons died
in impenitence and mortal sin, (unless they were insane when they did
the act,) that she is therefore obliged to exclude them. With respect to
all others, she remembers our LORD’S injunction—Judge not. He does not
say, judge not harshly—he says, judge not—judge not at all. The province
of judging belongs to GOD, and to GOD only. The Church leaves it to that
supreme and irresponsible jurisdiction to make the necessary particular
distinctions in the _individual_ application of the doctrine she teaches
_generally_. Surely those very persons who now cavil at the Church for
her charity in this respect, would be the first to cast the stone at
her, if, when they brought the body of a dead brother to the church, our
clergy should have to say, “We will not express a hope in this case,
because it does not admit of a hope;” as they must do if they were to
take upon themselves the authority to judge in each particular case. No.
Throughout the Burial Service we look to the bright side of the
question, we remember that there is a resurrection to life, and we hope
that to that resurrection each brother we inter will be admitted. And is
the Church wrong? Then let the caviller stay away. If _he_ chooses to
judge of his departed relative, and to consign him without hope to the
grave, let him bury him with the burial of an ass. We do not compel him
to attend the services of the Church,—let him, then, stay away; if he
comes, however, to the church, the Church _will_ express her hope:
Better in silence hide their dead and go,
Than sing a hopeless dirge, or coldly chide
The faith that owns relief from earthly woe.
The last line of this quotation suggests another point to which
attention must be directed, viz. the fact of our returning thanks to
Almighty GOD for having “delivered our brother out of the miseries of
this sinful world.” How, it is asked, can this be done with sincerity,
at the very time when the tears and moans of weeping friends seem to
belie the assertion? And we answer, it is because the Church assumes
that those who attend her services are under the influence of Christian
faith; and of Christian faith a most important part consists in the
belief of GOD’S especial providence. Except by GOD’S permission, the
true Christian believes that not a sparrow can fall to the ground, not a
hair on our head can perish; and the true Christian also believeth that
GOD doth not willingly afflict the children of men, but that when he
chasteneth, he doth it even as a father chasteneth his child, for our
profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. Suppose that a parent
be taken in the vigour of his strength, from a loving wife and helpless
little ones,—and this is, perhaps, the severest dispensation we can
conceive:—that the desolate and the destitute should grieve is natural.
And are they to be blamed for this? No; for at the grave of Lazarus our
blessed LORD groaned in his spirit and wept. Why, indeed, is affliction
sent? Is it not sent for this very purpose—to make us grieve? And while
affliction is impending, we may pray that it may be averted. Did not the
LORD JESUS do the same? Thrice, in his agony, he prayed that the cup of
sorrow might be removed from him; thereby affording us an example, that
we may pray for the turning away of a calamity,—though at the same time
affording us an example to say, when the prayer has not been granted,
“FATHER, not my will, but thine be done.” And if the petition, the
petition for the life of a parent or a friend, has not been granted, why
has it been unheeded by the FATHER of mercies? The faith of the true
Christian answers, even because GOD foresaw that it would be more
conducive to the everlasting welfare of the lost one, the everlasting
welfare of his desolate wife, to the everlasting welfare of his
destitute children, that he should be taken at the very time he was.
This, says the heart of faith, is mysterious in our eyes, but it is the
LORD’S doing; it is the LORD, let him do what seemeth him good. It is
thus that, in the midst of sighs and groans, the Christian spirit can
give GOD thanks while nature weeps, grace consoles, and faith assures us
that what has been done is right.
GALILEE. An appendage of some of our large churches is traditionally
known by this name, and is supposed to be connected with some purposes
of discipline, and to have borrowed its name from the words of the angel
at the sepulchre to the women, “Go your way, tell his disciples and
Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him, as
he said unto you.” (Mark xvi. 7.) The churches where a Galilee occurs
are Durham, Lincoln, and Ely; but they have little in common except the
name. That at Ely agrees with that at Durham in being at the west end of
the church, but it differs in being to all appearance a mere porch of
entrance, while that at Durham is a spacious building with five aisles
and three altars; and, so far from its use being as a porch of entrance,
the great west entrance was actually closed in the fifteenth century,
while the Galilee in all probability retained its original use. That at
Lincoln is at the south-west corner of the south transept; it is
cruciform in plan, and has over it another chamber of the like size,
once apparently arranged as a court of judicature, which favours the
idea that the Galilee had some connexion with discipline. This was
certainly the case at Durham, for there the consistory court has been
held from time immemorial: and there Cardinal Langton erected a font for
the children of persons who were excommunicate. But this was nearly 300
years after the building of the Galilee, which was certainly erected by
Hugh Pudsey in the twelfth century, that women, who were allowed to
proceed but a short distance into that particular church, might have a
place where they might frequent the Divine ordinances; and this in
itself had something of the nature of discipline. It may be worth
noticing in addition, that all the three Galilees still remaining were
erected between the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the
thirteenth century.
GALLICAN CHURCH. (See _Church of France_.)
GARGOYLE, or GURGOYLE. A water spout, usually in Gothic buildings formed
of some grotesque figure.
GEHENNA. The true origin and occasion of this word is this: there was an
idol of Moloch, near Jerusalem, in the Valley of Hinnom, to which they
offered human sacrifices. The Rabbis say, that they were wont to beat a
drum, lest the people should hear the cries of the children that were
thrown into the fire when they sacrificed them to idols. This valley was
called Geenon, from _Ge_, which signifies a valley, and Ennom, which
comes from _Nahom_, that signifies to groan; therefore hell, the place
of eternal fire, is called Gehenna. The ancient writers did not make use
of this word, and it was first used in the gospel.
GENERATION, THE ETERNAL. (See _Eternity_.) It is thus that the filiation
without beginning of the Only Begotten of the FATHER is expressed.
The distinction of a threefold generation of the SON is well known among
the learned, and is thus explained:—1. The first and most proper
filiation and generation is his eternally existing in and of the FATHER,
the eternal Λόγος of the eternal Mind. In respect of this, chiefly, he
is the _only begotten_, and a distinct person from the FATHER. His other
generations were rather condescensions, first to creatures in general,
next to men in particular. 2. His second generation was his
_condescension_, _manifestation_, _coming forth_, as it were, from the
FATHER, (though never separated or divided from him,) to create the
world: this was in time, and a voluntary thing; and in this respect,
properly, he may be thought to be first-born of every creature, or
before all creatures. 3. His third generation, or filiation, was when he
condescended to be born of a pure virgin, and to become man also without
ceasing to be GOD.—_Waterland._
The second person of the Trinity is called the SON, yea, and the “only
begotten SON of GOD,” because he was begotten of the FATHER, not as
others are, by spiritual regeneration, but by eternal generation, as
none but himself is, for the opening whereof we must know that GOD that
made all things fruitful is not himself sterile or barren; but he that
hath given power to animals to generate and produce others in their own
nature, is himself much more able to produce one, not only like himself,
but of the self-same nature with himself, as he did in begetting his
Son, by communicating his own unbegotten essence and nature to him. For
the person of the SON was most certainly begotten of the FATHER, or
otherwise he would not be his SON; but his essence was unbegotten,
otherwise he would not be GOD; and therefore the highest apprehensions
that we can frame of this great mystery, the eternal generation of the
SON of GOD, is only by conceiving the person of the FATHER to have
communicated his Divine essence to the person of the SON; and so of
himself begetting his other self the SON, by communicating his own
eternal and unbegotten essence to him; I say, by communicating of his
_essence_, not of his _person_ to him (for then they would be both the
same person, as now they are of the same essence); the essence of the
FATHER did not beget the SON by communicating his person to him, but the
person of the FATHER begat the SON by communicating his essence to him;
so that the person of the SON is begotten, not communicated, but the
essence of the SON is communicated, not begotten.
This notion of the FATHER’S begetting the SON, by communicating his
essence to him, I ground upon the SON’S own words, who certainly best
knew how himself was begotten: “For as the FATHER,” saith he, “hath life
in himself, so hath he given to the SON to have life in himself.” (John
v. 26.) To have life in himself is an essential property of the Divine
nature; and, therefore, wheresoever that is given or communicated, the
nature itself must needs be given and communicated too.
Now here we see how GOD the FATHER communicated this his essential
property, and so his essence, to the SON; and, by consequence, though he
be a distinct person from him, yet he hath the same unbegotten essence
with him; and therefore as the FATHER hath life in himself, so hath the
SON life in himself, and so all other essential properties of the Divine
nature, only with this personal distinction, that the FATHER hath this
life in himself, not from the SON, but from himself; whereas, the SON
hath it, not from himself, but from the FATHER; or, the FATHER is GOD of
himself, not of the SON; the SON is the same GOD, but from the FATHER,
not from himself, and therefore not the FATHER, but the SON, is rightly
called by the Council of Nice, GOD of God, Light of light, yea, very GOD
of very God.—_Beveridge._
What we assert is, that GOD the FATHER from all eternity communicated to
his SON his own individual nature and substance; so that the same
GODHEAD which is in the FATHER originally and primarily, is also in the
SON by derivation and communication. By this communication there was
given to the SON all those attributes and perfections which do simply
and absolutely belong to the Divine nature; there was a communication of
all the properties which naturally belong to the essence communicated;
and hence it is that the SON is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and
the like, in the same infinite perfection as his FATHER is. The natural
properties were thus communicated; but we cannot say the same of the
personal properties, it being impossible they should be communicated, as
being inseparable from the person: such are, the act of communicating
the essence, the generation itself, and the personal pre-eminence of the
FATHER, founded on that generation. These were not communicated, but are
proper to the FATHER; as, on the other hand, the personal properties of
the SON (filiation and subordination) are proper to the SON, and do not
belong to the FATHER. And although in this incomprehensible mystery we
use the term _generation_, (the Scripture having given us sufficient
authority to do so, by styling him GOD’S SON, his proper SON, and his
only begotten SON,) yet, by this term, we are not to understand a
proceeding from non-existence to existence, which is the physical notion
of generation; nor do we understand it in that low sense in which it is
agreeable to creatures; but as it is consistent with the essential
attributes of GOD, of which necessary existence is one. Nor, further,
are we in this generation to suppose any division of the essence, or any
external separation. The communication of the nature was not a separate
one, like that of finite beings, but merely internal: and, though the
SON be generated from the substance of the FATHER, (and thence be a
distinct person from him,) yet he still continues to be _in_ the FATHER,
and the FATHER _in_ him; herein differing from the production of all
created beings, that in them the producer and the produced become two
distinct individuals, which in this generation cannot be affirmed. The
term used by the Greek Fathers to express this internal or undivided
existence in the same nature, ἐμπεριχώρησις that of the Latin FATHERs,
_circumincessio_; and that distinction of the schoolmen, _generatio ab
intra_; are terms which are as expressive as any words can be of a
mystery so far above our comprehension. The FATHER and the SON by this
communication do not become two GODS, (as Adam and Seth are two men,)
but are only one GOD in the same undivided essence. The communication of
this nature neither did, nor could, infringe the unity of it, because
the Divine essence is simply one, and therefore cannot be divided; is
absolutely infinite, and therefore incapable of being multiplied into
more infinities. And this, by the way, sufficiently shows the weakness
and falseness of that charge which has been so often thrown on the
orthodox scheme of the Trinity, namely, that it is downright tritheism,
and that to maintain that the three persons are each of them GOD, is in
effect to maintain three GODS; a charge which is so far from being a
just consequence of our principles, that it is manifestly inconsistent
with them, and impossible to be true upon them. We hold the Divine
essence to be one simple, indivisible essence; we assert that the FATHER
communicated to the SON, without division, this his individual
substance; and therefore, upon these our principles, the unity of the
Divine essence must still unavoidably be preserved; and upon this scheme
the three distinct persons neither are, nor can be, (what is falsely
suggested against us,) three distinct GODS. This communication of the
Divine substance to GOD the SON was not a temporary one, but strictly
and absolutely eternal; eternal in the proper sense of that word; in the
same sense in which eternity is ascribed to the Divine nature itself;
and eternal, in the same sense as GOD the FATHER himself is
so.—_Stephens._
GENESIS. The first book of the Bible. The Hebrews call it ברשית,
_Bereschith_, which signifies, _in the beginning_; these being the first
words of the book. The Greeks gave it the name of _Genesis_, or
Generation, because it contains the genealogy of the first patriarchs
from Adam to the sons and grandsons of Jacob; or because it begins with
the history of the creation of the world. It includes the history of
2369 years, from the beginning of the world to the death of the
patriarch Joseph. Besides the history of the creation, it contains an
account of the original innocence and fall of man, the propagation of
mankind, the rise of religion, the invention of arts, the general
defection and corruption of the world, the deluge, the restoration of
the world, the division and peopling of the earth, the original of
nations and kingdoms, the history of the first patriarchs down to
Joseph, at whose death it ends.
GENTILE. (From _Gentes_.) All the people in the world, except the Jews,
were called Gentiles.
GENTLEMEN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL. The lay singers of the Royal Chapel are
so called; and their duty is to perform with the priests, in order, the
choral service there, which was formerly daily. According to the present
rule, they attend in monthly courses of eight at a time. In ancient
times this body was more numerous: Edward VI.’s chapel had thirty-two
gentlemen; Queen Elizabeth’s thirty; James I.’s twenty-three.
GEOMETRICAL. The style of Gothic architecture which succeeded the Early
English about 1245, and gave place to the Decorated about 1315.
In this style window tracery was first introduced, and it is
distinguished from the tracery of the succeeding style by the use of
simple geometrical forms, each in general perfect in itself, and not
running into one another. (See _Tracery_, and the engravings there
given.) From the use of tracery large windows naturally followed,
sometimes even extending to six or eight lights; and from these larger
openings in the walls some constructive changes followed, especially in
the greater weight and projection of the buttresses. The doors are very
often, as in the Early English, divided by a central shaft. The piers
very soon lose the detached shafts, and are rather formed of solid
clusters. In early examples the triforium is still retained as a
distinct feature; in later, it is treated as a decorative band of
panelling. Arcading is either discontinued, or increases very greatly in
richness. Vaulting hardly advances upon the simple forms of the
preceding style. All decorative features are of the very highest order
of excellence, and are far more natural than either before or after,
without losing in grace, or force, or character. There is no single
decoration peculiar to this style, but crockets first appear in it, as
also the ball-flower; on the other hand, the dog-tooth is quite given
up.
GHOST. (See _Holy Ghost_.) A spirit. The third person in the blessed
Trinity is spoken of as the HOLY GHOST. _Giving up the ghost_ means
expiring, or dying.
GIRDLE. A cincture binding the alb round the waist. Formerly it was flat
and broad, and sometimes adorned with jewels; in the Roman Catholic
Church it has been changed into a long cord with dependent extremities
and tassels. The zone is regarded as a type of purity.—_Jebb._
GLEBE. Every church is of common right entitled to house and glebe.