These are both comprehended under the name of _manse_, and the rule of

the canon law is, “Sancitum est, ut unicuique ecclesiæ unus mansus

integer, absque ullo servitio, tribuatur.” This is repeated in the

canons of Egbert; and the assigning of these was of such absolute

necessity, that without them no church could be regularly consecrated.

The fee simple of the glebe is in _abeyance_, from the French _bayer_,

to expect, i. e. it is only in the remembrance, expectation, and

intendment, of law. Lord Coke says, this was provided by the providence

and wisdom of the law, for that the parson and vicar have cure of souls,

and were bound to celebrate Divine service, and administer the

sacraments, and therefore no act of the predecessor should make a

discontinuance, to take away the entry of the successor, and to drive

him to a real action whereby he might be destitute of maintenance in the

mean time.

After induction, the freehold of the glebe is in the _parson_, but with

these limitations: (1.) That he may not alienate, nor exchange, except

upon the conditions set forth in the statutes cited below; (2.) that he

may not commit waste by selling wood, &c.

But it has been adjudged that the digging of mines in glebe lands is

_not_ waste; for the court said, in denying a prohibition, “if this were

accounted waste, no mines that are in glebe lands could ever be opened.”

Glebe lands, in the hands of the parson, shall not pay tithe to the

vicar, though endowed generally of the tithes of all lands within the

parish; nor being in the hands of the vicar, shall they pay tithe to the

parson. This is according to the known maxim of the canon law, that “The

Church shall not pay tithes to the Church;” but otherwise if the glebe

be leased out, for then it shall be liable to pay tithes respectively as

other lands are. By a statute of Henry VIII., if the parson dies in

possession of glebe, and another is inducted before severance of the

crop from the ground, his executor shall have the corn, but the

successor shall have the tithes: the reason is, because, although the

executor represents the testator, yet he cannot represent him _as

parson_; inasmuch as another parson is inducted. By 13 Eliz. c. 10, the

term for leasing glebe is limited to twenty-one years, or three lives.

The 55 Geo. III. c. 147, 56 Geo. III. c. 52, 1 Geo. IV. c. 6, are acts

for “enabling spiritual persons to exchange their parsonage houses or

glebe lands.” (See also 6 Geo. IV. c. 8; 7 Geo. IV. c. 66; 1 & 2 Vict.

c. 23; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 27; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 93.)

Canon 87. _A Terrier of Glebe lands, and other Possessions belonging to

Churches._—“We ordain that the archbishops and all bishops within their

several dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lieth) that a true

note and terrier of all the glebes, lands, meadows, gardens, orchards,

houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and portions of tithes, lying out

of their parishes, (which belong to any parsonage, or vicarage, or rural

prebend,) be taken by the view of honest men in every parish, by the

appointment of the bishop, (whereof the minister to be one,) and be laid

up in the bishop’s registry, there to be for a perpetual memory

thereof.”

By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, the bishop may assign four acres of glebe to the

curate, occupying the house of a non-resident incumbent, at a fixed

rent, to be approved of by the bishop.

GLORIA IN EXCELSIS. “Glory be [to GOD] on high.” One of the doxologies

of the Church, sometimes called the angelic hymn, because the first part

of it was sung by the angels at Bethlehem. The latter portion of this

celebrated hymn is ascribed to Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, about the

year of CHRIST 139; and the whole hymn, with very little difference, is

to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions, and was established to be

used in the Church service by the fourth Council of Toledo, A. D. 633.

It is used by both the Greek and Latin Church. “In the Eastern Church,”

says Palmer, “this hymn is more than 1500 years old, and the Church of

England has used it, either at the beginning or end of the liturgy, for

above 1200 years.” It is now used at the conclusion of the Communion

Service; but in the First Book of King Edward VI. was placed near the

beginning. It is directed to be _sung_ or _said_; and ought to be sung

in all cathedrals at least, as it is still at Exeter, Durham, and

occasionally at Worcester and Windsor.

GLORIA PATRI. “Glory be to the FATHER.” The Latin title of one of the

primitive doxologies of the Church, sometimes called the lesser

doxology, to distinguish it from the _Gloria in excelsis_, or angelic

hymn. From the times of the apostles it has been customary to mingle

ascriptions of glory with prayer, and to conclude the praises of the

Church, and also sermons, with glory to the FATHER, to the SON, and to

the HOLY GHOST. The first part of the _Gloria Patri_ is traced by St.

Basil to the apostolic age. In the writings of the Fathers, doxologies

are of very frequent occurrence, and in the early Church they appear to

have been used as tests, by which orthodox Christians and Churches were

distinguished from those which were infected with heresy. The doxologies

then in use, though the same in substance, were various in form and mode

of expression. The Arians soon took advantage of this diversity, and

wrested some of them so as to appear to favour their own views. One of

the doxologies which ran in these words, “Glory be to the FATHER, _by_

the SON, _in_ the HOLY GHOST,” was employed by them in support of their

heretical opinions. In consequence of this, and to set the true doctrine

of the Church in the clearest light, the form, as now used, was adopted

as the standing doxology of the Church. (See _Doxology_.)

Of the hymns that made a part of the service of the ancient Church, one

of the most common was what is called the lesser doxology. The most

ancient form of it was only a single sentence without a response—“Glory

be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world without

end. Amen.” Part of the latter clause, “As it was in the beginning, is

now, and ever shall be,” was inserted some time after the first

composition. In the fourth Council of Toledo, an. 633, the words, “As it

was in the beginning,” &c., are omitted, but the word “honour” is added

to “glory,” according to a decree of that council; that it should be

said, “Glory and honour be to the FATHER:” forasmuch as the prophet

David says, “Bring glory and honour to the LORD,” and John the

Evangelist, in the Revelation, heard the voice of the heavenly host,

saying, “Honour and glory be to our GOD, who sitteth on the throne.”

(Rev. v. 13.) From whence they conclude, that it ought to be said on

earth as it is sung in heaven. The Mozarabic liturgy, which was used in

Spain a little after this time, has it in the very same form: “Glory and

honour be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST, world

without end. Amen.” The Catholics themselves of old were wont to say,

some, “Glory be to the FATHER, and to the SON, and to the HOLY GHOST;”

others, “with the HOLY GHOST;” and others, “in or by the SON, and by the

HOLY GHOST.” These different ways of expressing were all allowed, so

long as no heterodox opinion was suspected to be couched under them. But

when Arius had broached his heresy in the world, his followers would use

no other form of glorification but the last, and made it a

distinguishing character of their party to say, “Glory be to the FATHER,

in, or by, the SON, and HOLY GHOST:” intending hereby to denote, that

the SON and HOLY GHOST were inferior to the FATHER in substance, and, as

creatures, of a different nature from him, as Sozomen and other ancient

writers inform us. From this time it became scandalous, and brought any

one under the suspicion of heterodoxy to use it, because the Arians had

now, as it were, made it the shibboleth of their party. We may observe,

that it was a hymn of most general use, and a doxology offered to GOD in

the close of every solemn office. The Western Church repeated it at the

end of every psalm, and the Eastern Church at the end of the last

psalm.—The whole commonly running thus: “To FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST,

be all glory, worship, thanksgiving, honour, and adoration, now and for

ever, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”—_Bingham._

In this diversity there was certainly nothing either intended ill

towards the truth, or which could be directly drawn into ill

construction; but when, about the time of the Nicene Council, the Arians

began to sow their seeds of heresy touching the inequality of the three

persons, and, the better to colour their pretences, sheltered themselves

under the protection of the doxology, “the FATHER, by the SON, in the

HOLY GHOST,” formerly used, to which they constantly adhere, the Council

of Nice, to avoid all occasion of future question, held herself to that

form which came nighest to the form of baptism composed by our SAVIOUR,

and the doctrine of Christian faith; prescribing it to be punctually

observed by all such as were of the orthodox party.—_L’Estrange._

It were well if this ancient heresy were so buried as never to rise or

revive any more. But, alas! that weed was never so thoroughly rooted

out, but the seeds of it soon sprang up again, to the depraving of the

doctrine and disturbing the peace of the Church. In these later years

there hath arisen up one Socinus, a man of a subtle and crafty wit, who

hath rubbed up and revived the same heresy, by denying the Divinity and

satisfaction of our blessed SAVIOUR, and hath carried away many by his

cunning and corrupt reasoning.—_Hole._

If the reasoning of Basil be conclusive, or his opinion may be relied

upon, this hymn, _Gloria Patri_, derives its origin from the apostles.

Glorifying the FATHER, and the SON, together with the HOLY GHOST, was in

Basil’s judgment practised and prescribed by the apostles themselves.

This, he believes, was one of the “ordinances,” or “traditions,” which

St. Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping, as they had been delivered

to them by him (1 Cor. xi. 2); and exhorts the Thessalonians to hold, as

they had been taught, whether by word, or by epistle. (2 Thess. ii. 15.)

On this principle, Basil accounts for the practice of ascribing glory to

the Trinity, which in his day was universal.—In different passages of

his works we find him thus arguing: “As we have received, so must we be

baptized; as we are baptized, so must we believe; and as we have

believed, so must we glorify the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY

GHOST.”—_Shepherd._

The earliest instance that we meet with of the use of this hymn, is

found in the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the

martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp, from whence we learn that a

doxology, nearly resembling Gloria Patri, was the last words he uttered.

Polycarp was conversant with the apostles, and was consecrated bishop of

Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist. To him, among others, St. John is

said to have addressed the Revelation, in which Polycarp is entitled

“the angel of the Church of Smyrna.” With some little difference in the

phrase of their doxologies, the Christians of the three first ages

agreed in uniformly expressing the same thing. Believing and confessing,

that in the eternal GODHEAD there existed three, the FATHER, the SON,

and the HOLY GHOST, they ascribed to them all honour and

glory.—_Shepherd._

To this very day this serves for these two uses; first, as a shorter

creed, and confession of our believing in “three persons and one GOD,”

whereby we both declare ourselves to be in the communion of the Catholic

Church, and also renounce all heretics who deny this great and

distinguishing article of our faith; secondly, for a hymn of praise, by

which we magnify the FATHER for our creation, the SON for our

redemption, and the HOLY GHOST for our sanctification; and to quicken us

herein, we declare it was so “in the beginning,” for the angels sung the

praises of the Trinity in the morning of the creation; and the

patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, saints and martyrs, did thus worship

GOD from the beginning. The whole Church militant and triumphant doth it

“now,” and shall do it for “ever,” not only in this “world,” but in that

which is “without end.” Let us, therefore, with great devotion, join

with this blessed company in so good a work, and give glory to the

FATHER who granted our pardon, to the SON who purchased it, and to the

HOLY GHOST who sealed it.—_Comber._

GLOSS. A comment.

GNOSTICS. (From γνώσις, _knowledge_.) The word _Gnostic_ properly

signifies a _learned_ or _enlightened person_; and thus Clement of

Alexandria uses it to denote the _perfect Christian_, who is the true

Gnostic. But in its more common use, the term signifies a class of

heretics, who pretended to superior knowledge, and mixed up some

Christian ideas and terms with systems based on Platonism, Oriental

philosophy, or corrupt Judaism. To this class most of the earliest sects

belonged. Simon Magus may be considered as the forerunner of Gnosticism;

and in the second century there were many varieties of Gnostics—as the

followers of Basilides Saturninus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, &c. Of these

the Carpocratians alone are said to have _assumed_ the name.

The Gnostic systems held in common a belief in one supreme God, dwelling

from eternity in the _Pleroma_, or fulness of light. From him proceed

successive generations of spiritual beings—called by Valentinus _Æons_.

In proportion as these emanations are more remote from the primal

source, the likeness of his perfections in them is continually fainter.

_Matter_ is regarded as eternal, and as inherently evil. Out of it the

world was formed, not by the Supreme GOD, but by the _Demiurge_—a being

who is represented by some heresiarchs as merely a subordinate and

unconscious instrument of the Divine will, and by others as positively

malignant, and hostile to the Supreme. The Demiurge was the national God

of the Jews—the God of the Old Testament; according, therefore, as _he_

is viewed, the Mosaic economy is either recognised as preparatory, or is

rejected as evil. The mission of CHRIST was for the purpose of

delivering man from the tyranny of the Demiurge. But the Christ of

Gnosticism was neither very God nor very man. His spiritual nature,

being an emanation from the Supreme GOD, was necessarily inferior to its

original; and, on the other hand, an emanation from GOD could not dwell

in a material, and consequently evil, body. Either, therefore, _Jesus_

was a mere man, on whom the Æon _Christ_ descended at his baptism, to

forsake him again before his crucifixion; or the body with which CHRIST

seemed to be clothed was only a phantom, and all his actions were only

in appearance. (See _Docetæ_.)

The same view as to the evil nature of matter led the Gnostics to deny

the resurrection of the body. They could admit no other than a spiritual

resurrection; the object of their philosophy was to emancipate the soul

from its gross and material prison at death; the soul of the perfect

Gnostic, having already risen in baptism, was to be gathered into the

bosom of GOD, while such souls as yet lacked their full perfection, were

to work it out in a series of transmigrations.

Since matter was evil, the Gnostic was required to overcome it. But here

arose an important practical difference; for, while some sought the

victory by a high ascetic abstraction from the things of sense, the

baser kind professed to show their superiority and indifference by

wallowing in impurity and excess.—(See _Bardesanists_, _Basilidians_,

_Carpocratians_, _Marcionites_, _Ophitæ_, _Valentinians_.)

GOD. This is the name we give to that eternal, infinite, and

incomprehensible Being, the Maker and Preserver of all things, who

exists One Being in a Trinity of Persons. The name is derived from the

Icelandic _Godi_, which signifies the supreme magistrate.

Article I. “There is but one living and true GOD, everlasting, without

body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the

Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in

unity of this GODHEAD there be three persons, of one substance, power,

and eternity; the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”

The FATHER is GOD.

GOD the FATHER (John vi. 27; Gal. i. 1, 3; 1 Thess. i. 1). GOD, even the

FATHER (1 Cor. xv. 24; 2 Cor. i. 3; James iii. 9). One GOD and FATHER

(Eph. iv. 6). One GOD the FATHER (1 Cor. viii. 6); and the passages

where GOD is spoken of as the FATHER of our LORD CHRIST, the SON of the

living GOD (Matt. xvi. 16; John iii. 16; vi. 27; Rom. v. 10; viii. 3;

xv. 6).

The SON is GOD.

I. So expressly declared.

The mighty GOD (Isa. ix. 6). Make straight—a highway for our God! (xl.

3). Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever! (Ps. xlv. 6, with Heb. i.

8). I will save them by the LORD their GOD (Hosea i. 7). Immanuel, GOD

with us (Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23). The Word was GOD (John i. 1). My

LORD and my GOD! (xx. 28; see Ps. xxxv. 23). Feed the Church of GOD,

which he has purchased with his own blood (Acts xx. 28). They stoned

Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, &c. (vii. 59). CHRIST

is over all, GOD, blessed for ever! (Rom. ix. 5.) GOD was manifest in

the flesh, &c., believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Tim.

iii. 16). GOD our SAVIOUR. (Titus ii. 10). The great GOD (13). Our GOD

and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST (Gr.) (2 Pet. i. 1, with Titus ii. 13). Hereby

perceive we the love of GOD, because he laid down his life for us (1

John iii. 16). The true GOD, and eternal life (v. 20).

II. By necessary implication.

The angel Jehovah is GOD (Gen. xxxi. 11, with 13; and xxxv. 9–13, and

15; xvi. 9, with 13; Ex. iii. 2, with 4, and 6). I am Alpha and Omega—he

that overcometh—I will be his GOD (Rev. xxi. 6, 7). We must all stand

before the judgment seat of CHRIST, for,—every tongue shall confess to

GOD (Rom. xiv. 10, 11). I saw the dead, small and great, stand before

GOD, &c. (Rev. xx. 12). Many shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the

LORD their GOD, for he shall go before him (Luke i. 16, 17; with Matt.

iii. 11, and xi. 10). The LORD GOD of the holy prophets sent his angel

(Rev. xxii. 6, with 16). I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify, &c.

They tempted the most high GOD (Ps. lxxviii. 56), applied to CHRIST (1

Cor. x. 9). Behold the LORD GOD will come—behold his reward is with him

(Isa. xl. 10, with Rev. xxii. 12, 20). Behold I come quickly, and my

reward is with me—I am Alpha and Omega. Surely I come quickly, Amen!

even so, come, LORD JESUS!—To the only wise GOD, our SAVIOUR, be glory,

&c. Amen! (Jude 25).

III. From his attributes.

As he is _wisdom_ itself (Prov. viii. throughout; Luke xi. 49, with Col.

ii. 3).—As he is the _holy_ one (Ps. xvi. 10); the most holy (Dan. ix.

24, with Rev. iii. 7).—As he is the _truth_ (John xiv. 6, and Rev. iii.

7, with 1 John v. 20).—As he is _eternal_.—Eternal life (1 John i. 1, 2,

and v. 20).—From his _unchangeableness_ (Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8,

with Mal. iii. 6).—His _omnipresence_ (John iii. 13; Matt. xviii. 20;

xxviii. 20; Eph. i. 23; iv. 10).—His _omniscience_ (Rev. ii. 23; John

ii. 24, 25; v. 42). Knowing the thoughts (Matt. ix. 4; xii. 15, 25; Mark

ii. 8; Luke v. 22; vi. 8; ix. 47; xi. 17; John vi. 61, 64; xvi. 19; xxi.

17, with 1 Cor. iv. 5; this with 1 Kings viii. 39). Thou, even thou

only, (O LORD GOD,) knowest the hearts of all the children of

men.—_Omnipotence_: The works of creation. All things were made by him;

and without him was not anything made that was made (John i. 3, with Ps.

cii. 25; Col. i. 16, and Jer. x. 10, 11).—And _providence_. By him all

things consist (Col. i. 17). Upholding all things by the word of his

power (Heb. i. 3).—_Judging_ the world. The LORD JESUS CHRIST, who shall

judge the quick and the dead (2 Tim. iv. 1, &c., with Gen. xviii. 25,

and Ps. l. 6). GOD is judge himself.—Raising the dead (John vi. 40, 54;

v. 28, 29; with Deut. xxxii. 39). I, even I, am he, and there is no GOD

with me; I kill, and I make alive!—The _forgiveness_ of sins (Mark ii.

10, 11, &c., with Isa. xliii. 25). I, even I, am he that blotteth out

thy transgressions, and Mark ii. 7.

IV. As Divine worship is due, and paid to him.

Being directed by prophecy. All kings shall fall down before him (Ps.

lxxii. 11). All dominions shall serve and obey him (Dan. vii. 27). Kiss

the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way (Ps. ii. 12). He

is thy LORD, and worship thou him (xlv. 11). Let all the angels of GOD

worship him! (Heb. i. 6.) All men should honour the SON, even as they

honour the FATHER. External worship was paid by the wise men (Matt. ii.

11)—by the leper (viii. 2)—by the ruler (ix. 18)—by the seamen in the

storm (xiv. 33)—by the woman of Canaan (xv. 25)—by the blind man (John

ix. 38)—by the Marys, &c. (Matt. xxviii. 9), and by his disciples (Rev.

i. 17). At the name of JESUS every knee should bow in heaven and in

earth (Phil. ii. 10; compare this with Matt. iv. 10, Thou shalt worship

the LORD thy GOD, and him only shalt thou serve; and Neh. ix. 6, Thou,

even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, &c., and the host of

heaven worshippeth thee!).

V. As there must be faith, and hope, and trust in him.

See John iii. 15, 16; xiv. 1; xii. 44; Rom. x. 11; xv. 12; Acts xvi. 31;

Eph. i. 12, 13, with Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in

man; whose heart departeth from the LORD! but blessed are all they that

put their trust in him!

VI. As praise and thanksgiving are offered to him.

Daily shall he be praised (Ps. lxxii. 15). Unto him that loved us, and

washed us from our sins, be glory and dominion for ever and ever! (Rev.

i. 5, 6; compare Ps. cxlviii. 13). Let them praise the name of the LORD,

for his name alone is excellent. Whosoever shall call upon the name of

the LORD shall be saved. Saints, with all that in every place call upon

the name of JESUS CHRIST (1 Cor. i. 2, and Rev. v. 11–13). Worthy is the

Lamb that was slain, to receive honour, and glory, and blessing—blessing

and honour and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne,

and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever!—Salvation to our GOD, who sitteth

upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. Blessing, &c. be unto our GOD for

ever and ever. Amen! (Rev. vii. 10–12).

The HOLY GHOST is GOD.

This perhaps is only to be proved by implication and analogy.

I. In regard to title.

The Spirit of the LORD spake by me—the GOD of Israel said, the Rock of

Israel spake (2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3). That holy thing which shall be born

of thee shall be called the SON of GOD (Luke i. 35). She was found with

child of the HOLY GHOST (Matt. i. 18). Why—lie to the HOLY GHOST—thou

hast lied unto GOD (Acts v. 3, 4). Born of the Spirit (John iii. 6). Be

born of GOD (1 John v. 4). Consider, too, no man taketh this honour to

himself, but he that is called of GOD (Heb. v. 4). Pray the LORD of the

harvest that he will send forth labourers (Matt. ix. 38).—The HOLY GHOST

said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called

them.—So they, being sent forth by the HOLY GHOST, departed (Acts xiii.

2, and 4). They shall be all taught of God (John vi. 45). Not in the

words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth (1

Cor. ii. 13). Ye are the temple of GOD (1 Cor. iii. 16). Your body is

the temple of the HOLY GHOST (vi. 19). The hand of the LORD GOD fell

there upon me, and he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a

lock of mine head, and the Spirit lifted me up (Ezek. viii. 1–3).

See also the following passages, as respectively explaining each other:

Luke ii. 26, with John xiv. 16, 17, and 1 Cor. xiv. 25.—Matt. iv. 1,

with Luke xi. 4.—2 Cor. i. 3, with Acts ix. 31; John xiv. 26, &c.—1 Cor.

ii. 11, with 14.—Matt. iv. 7, with Acts v. 9.—Gen. vi. 3, with 1 Pet.

iii. 20.—Luke xi. 20, with Matt. xii. 28.—Acts iv. 24, 25, with i.

16,—and Luke i. 68, 70, with Acts xxviii. 25; and various others that

might be noticed.

That the FATHER, under whatever names he is described and addressed, is

GOD, is not disputable. That the SON is also GOD, it would seem much of

rashness to doubt; since he was foretold by prophecy before his

manifestation in the flesh, to be GOD, and appeared as GOD to the

patriarchs.—GOD the SON, the angel and guardian of his people; for

“GOD”—the Trinity in unity—“no man hath seen at any time.” That he must

be a GOD who has such titles applied to him, such Divine attributes and

offices, and to whom Divine worship is paid, the Arian allows, and the

Socinian did not always deny; but that he is another—an inferior GOD,

thus making more GODS than one, the voice of revelation expressly

contradicts.

The Divinity of the SON is in fact proved both directly and

incidentally; but the personality and Divinity of the HOLY SPIRIT are

less decisively expressed and treated of—apparently because the HOLY

GHOST was never incarnate, nor appeared in a bodily form upon earth, and

therefore we have not his frequent declarations, as we have those of the

SON, nor direct addresses to him, as we have to the FATHER, to

illustrate this point, but are left to gather the truth from the mouths

of the prophets—the holy men of GOD, who spake as they were moved by the

HOLY GHOST. From their preaching we sufficiently learn that he joined in

the work of creation—that he dwells in the temple of the body, (1 Cor.

iii. 16; vi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. vi. 16,) and the faithful are therefore

dedicated to him—that he is eternal, omnipresent, infinite in power and

knowledge—that obedience is due to him, and the sin against him

considered unpardonable—and that he is to be worshipped is implied by

the apostolic form of benediction. That the HOLY SPIRIT is a person is

proved, independently of analogous reasoning, by a clear personal

distinction between him and the FATHER and the SON.

The term GOD, when used in Holy Scripture in relation to the FATHER of

our LORD CHRIST, is evidently used in a personal sense; and in such

sense the Church also speaks of GOD the SON and GOD the HOLY GHOST. But

when it is announced that there is but one GOD, though he is the FATHER

of all, the term is used essentially, and comprehends the sacred three.

The unity of the GODHEAD is so unequivocally declared in Holy Scripture,

that we dare not deny it: but neither, it is presumed, can we safely

deny that the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST are each of them GOD,

without either impeaching the authenticity of most of the passages cited

in this article, or making the word of GOD (itself) of none effect, by

strifes of words, not to say profane and vain babblings.

GODFATHER. (See _Sponsors_.) He that holds the child at the baptismal

font, and answers for him. The custom of godfathers or sponsors is very

ancient in the Church. We find them mentioned by Tertullian, the

Apostolical Constitutions, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. There were

three sorts of sponsors: 1. For children. 2. For adult persons, who

through sickness were not able to answer for themselves. 3. For such as

could answer. The sureties for the first were obliged to be guardians of

children’s Christian education; and indeed at first they were the

parents of the children, and it was in extraordinary cases, either when

the parent could not or would not, that others were admitted to be

sureties. Sureties of the second sort were such as engaged to the Church

that the adult person, who was grown incapable to answer for himself,

did, when he was capable, desire to be baptized. But those of the third

sort, who appeared with the person to be baptized, obliged themselves to

admonish the person of his duty, as they had, before baptism, instructed

him in it. Anciently deaconnesses were the sponsors for women, and the

deacons were for the men. Parents were not forbidden to be sponsors for

their children, before the Council of Mentz, A. D. 813. In the Church of

Rome it is not lawful to marry any person to whom one stands related in

this spiritual way; and this occasions numberless disputes, and

numberless dispensations, which ring great sums of money to the

exchequer of Rome.

Rubric. “There shall be for every male child to be baptized, two

godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and

two godmothers.”

Canon 29. “No person shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to

answer as godfather for his own child; nor any godfather or godmother

shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech, than by the Book

of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf. Neither shall any person

be admitted godfather or godmother to any child at christening or

confirmation, before the said person so undertaking hath received the

holy communion.”

Rubric. “And 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.”

GOLDEN NUMBER. By referring to the astronomical tables at the beginning

of the Prayer Book, it will be seen that a large proportion of them are

simply calculations of the day on which _Easter_ will fall in any given

year, and, by consequence, the moveable feasts depending on it. In the

early Church, it is well known that there were many and long disputes on

this point, the Eastern and Western Churches not agreeing on the

particular day for the celebration of this festival. To remove these

difficulties, the Council of Nice came to a decision, from which the

following rule was framed, viz. “Easter day is always the first Sunday

after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of

March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the

Sunday after.”

To determine the time of Easter in any year, it was therefore only

necessary to find out the precise time of the above full moon, and to

calculate accordingly. Now if the solar year exactly corresponded with

the lunar, the time of the paschal moon would be liable to no variation,

and Easter would fall on the same day of every year; but as the lunar

year is really shorter than the solar, by eleven days, it follows that

the paschal moon must, for a course of years, always happen at a

different period in each successive year. If then the above rule be

observed, the time of Easter may vary from the 22nd of March to the 25th

of April, but somewhere within these limits it will always fall. Hence

the adoption by the Council of Nice of the _Metonic Cycle_, by which

these changes might be determined with tolerable accuracy. From the

great usefulness of this cycle, its numbers were usually written on the

calendar in letters of gold, from which it derived the name of _Golden

Number_.

GOOD FRIDAY. The Friday in Passion week received this name from the

blessed effects of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings, which are the ground of all

our joy, and from those unspeakable good things he hath purchased for us

by his death, whereby the blessed JESUS made expiation for the sins of

the whole world, and by the shedding of his own blood, obtained eternal

redemption for us. Among the Saxons it was called Long Friday; but for

what reason, except for the long fastings and offices they then used,

does not appear.

The commemoration of our SAVIOUR’S sufferings hath been kept from the

very first age of Christianity, and was always observed as a day of the

strictest fasting and humiliation; not that the grief and affliction

they then expressed did arise from the loss they sustained, but from a

sense of the guilt of the sins of the whole world, which drew upon our

blessed Redeemer that painful and shameful death of the cross.

The Gospel for this day (besides its coming in course) is properly taken

out of St. John rather than any other evangelist, because he was the

only one that was present at the passion, and stood by the cross while

others fled: and, therefore, the passion being as it were represented

before our eyes, his testimony is read who saw it himself, and from

whose example we may learn not to be ashamed or afraid of the cross of

CHRIST. The Epistle proves, from the insufficiency of the Jewish

sacrifices, that they only typified a more sufficient one, which the Son

of GOD did, as on this day, offer up, and by one oblation of himself

then made upon the cross, complete all the other sacrifices, (which were

only shadows of this,) and made full satisfaction for the sins of the

whole world. In imitation of which Divine and infinite love, the Church

endeavours to show her charity to be boundless and unlimited, by praying

in one of the proper collects, that the effects of CHRIST’S death may be

as universal as the design of it, namely, that it may tend to the

salvation of all, Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics.

How suitable the proper psalms are to the day, is obvious to any one

that reads them with a due attention: they were all composed by David in

times of the greatest calamity and distress, and do most of them belong

mystically to the crucifixion of our SAVIOUR; especially the

twenty-second, which is the first for the morning, which was in several

passages literally fulfilled by his sufferings, and, either part of it,

or all, recited by him upon the cross. And for that reason (as St.

Austin tells us) was always used upon that day by the African Church.

The first lesson for the morning is Genesis xxii., containing an account

of Abraham’s readiness to offer up his son; thereby typifying that

perfect oblation which was this day made by the SON of GOD; which was

thought so proper a lesson for this occasion, that the Church used it

upon this day in St. Austin’s time. The second lesson is St. John

xviii., which needs no explanation. The first lesson for the evening

contains a clear prophecy of the passion of CHRIST, and of the benefits

which the Church thereby receives. The second lesson exhorts us to

patience under afflictions, from the example of CHRIST, who suffered so

much for us.—_Wheatly._

The proper psalms and both the second lessons for Good Friday were added

at the last review: and Genesis xxii., the first morning lesson, which

was formerly read all through, limited to ver. 20.

GOOD WORKS. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and

follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the

severity of GOD’S judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to GOD

in CHRIST, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith;

insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree

discerned by the fruit.”—_Article_ XII.

Good works are inseparable from our union with CHRIST; but then as

effects of that union, not as causes or instruments. “We are created in

CHRIST JESUS unto good works.” “Ye are become dead to the law by the

body of CHRIST, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is

raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto GOD.” “As

the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no

more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches.

He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit;

for without me—separate from me—ye can do nothing.” While, however, we

regard good works as effects of our union with CHRIST, we must remember

that they are an end also, nay, the end for which we have been united to

him; and if so, a condition of the continuance of our union. “The branch

cannot,” it is true, “bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine;”

but yet its fruitfulness is the object of the care and pains which the

vinedresser bestows upon it, and therefore a condition on which it is

suffered to remain. “I am the true vine, and my FATHER is the

husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. If

a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered;

and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

And as fruitfulness in good works is a condition on which we are

suffered to continue in CHRIST, so also is it the measure according to

which fresh supplies of grace are given; “every branch that beareth

fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” “Whosoever

hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.” And yet

further, which indeed follows upon the foregoing—our works are the rule

by which GOD will judge us at the last day. These will declare, beyond

all controversy, how far we have answered the end of our new creation;

how far we have improved the talents intrusted to us; how far we are

qualified and prepared for that kingdom, into which “there shall in

nowise enter anything that defileth,” where “the people shall be all

righteous,” where “the merciful” “shall receive mercy,” where “the pure

in heart” “shall see GOD;” where the servant, who has so improved the

pound intrusted to him as to have gained five pounds, shall be appointed

to reign over five cities, and he who has gained ten pounds, shall have

authority over ten cities.

It is one great secret of holy living to remember, that holiness is to

be sought in and from CHRIST; to be wrought in us by his Spirit. We are

too prone to overlook this great truth; to forget the strength which we

have in CHRIST. We act as though, notwithstanding all that CHRIST hath

done for us and in us, Christian virtue were nothing more than moral

habits strengthened by exercise. Whereas, in truth, it takes a far

higher range. It consists in habits doubtless; but they are habits of

him who has been created anew in CHRIST JESUS; they are the habits of

him who is one with CHRIST, and partaker of the Spirit of CHRIST; who

has been planted together with CHRIST, in the likeness of his death,

that he should be also in the likeness of his resurrection; and who has

that blessed promise to cheer and encourage him in striving against sin.

“Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but

under grace.”—_Heurtley._

GOSPEL. (A word compounded of two Saxon words, _god_, “good,” and

_spell_, a “message” or “tidings,” and so answering to the Greek

εὐαγγέλιον.) GOD’S or Good Tidings—the glad tidings of the salvation

wrought for man by the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

In a stricter sense, the word means each of the four histories of our

SAVIOUR, written by the Evangelists: in a more confined sense still, it

means that portion of Scripture which is read immediately after the

Epistle in the ante-communion service, and which is taken from one of

the four Gospels. A Gospel is also read in the Baptismal Service.

In the mediæval Church there were always peculiar ceremonies used in

honour of the Gospel, as for instance, the bringing special lights even

during day-time, placing the book of the Gospels reverently on the

altar, incensing them, &c. In the Anglican Church we retain some

vestiges of this in standing whilst the Gospel is read, and preceding it

by the “Glory be to thee, O LORD,” a sentence retained traditionally

from the ancient Church.

GOSPELLER. The priest who in the Communion Service reads the Gospel,

standing at the north side of the altar. In some cathedrals one of the

clergy is so designated, and has this special duty among others to

perform. By the 24th Canon, in cathedral and collegiate churches, a

Gospeller (as well as an Epistoler) is to assist the priest, vested in a

cope. Gospellers are statutable members of the several cathedrals of the

new foundation, and an officer so called still officiates at Durham,

though the office has generally fallen into desuetude; and, contrary to

the ancient universal usage of the Church, even when many priests and

deacons are present, it is usual for but two ministers to attend at the

first part of the Communion Service: the principal minister reading the

Gospel. Strictly speaking, the deacon is the minister for the Gospel;

since, in the ordering of deacons, authority is given them to “_read the

Gospel in the Church of God_.”—_Jebb._ (See also _Epistoler_.)

GOSSIP. A sponsor for an infant in baptism, from GOD and _sib_, a Saxon

word, which signifies kindred, affinity: kin in GOD.

GOTHIC. A general term for that style of mediæval architecture of which

the pointed arch is the most prominent character. Together with

_Romanesque_ (an equally general term for that style of which the round

arch is the most prominent character) it comprehends all mediæval

ecclesiastical architecture in England. The substyles with their dates

may be roughly stated as follows:

Romanesque—

Saxon to 1060

Norman 1066–1145

Transition 1145–1190

Gothic—

Early English 1190–1245

Geometrical 1245–1315

Decorated 1315–1360

Perpendicular 1360–1550

The more minute characteristics must be sought under these several

names, and it must be obvious that the accounts given within the small

limits we can devote to the subject must be very superficial. The

subject may be pursued in a number of works now before the public, as,

first in date and not last in importance, Rickman’s “Attempt to

distinguish the Styles of Architecture in England,” and last in time,

Sharpe’s “Seven Periods of English Architecture.” The same mode of

architecture prevailed in Ireland and Scotland, with some characteristic

distinctions.

GRACE. This word is used in a variety of senses in Holy Scripture: but

the general idea, as it relates to GOD, is his free favour and love; as

it relates to men, the happy state of reconciliation and favour with

GOD, wherein they stand, and the holy endowments, qualities, or habits

of faith, hope, and love, which they possess.

“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.

The most pious of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation, often

acknowledge the necessity of assistance from GOD. David prays to GOD to

“open his eyes, to guide and direct him” (Ps. cxix. 18, 32–35); to

“create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him.” (Ps.

li. 10.) And Solomon says, that GOD “directeth men’s paths, and giveth

grace to the lowly.” Even we, whose minds are enlightened by the pure

precepts of the gospel, and influenced by the motives which it suggests,

must still be convinced of our weakness and depravity, and of the

necessity of Divine grace to regulate and strengthen our wills, and to

co-operate with our endeavours after righteousness, as is clearly

asserted in the New Testament. See the texts above cited, which

sufficiently prove that we stand in need both of a preventing and of a

co-operating grace; or, in the words of the Article, that “we have no

power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to GOD, without the grace

of GOD by CHRIST preventing us, that we may have a good will, and

working with us, when we have that good will.”

Dr. Nicholls, after quoting many authorities to show, that the doctrine

of Divine grace always prevailed in the Catholic Church, adds, “I have

spent perhaps more time in these testimonies than was absolutely

necessary; but whatever I have done is to show, that the doctrine of

Divine grace is so essential a doctrine of Christianity, that not only

the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers assert it, but likewise

that the Christians could not in any age maintain their religion without

it; it being necessary, not only for the discharge of Christian duties,

but for the performance of our ordinary devotions.” And this seems to

have been the opinion of the compilers of our most excellent liturgy, in

many parts of which both a preventing and co-operating grace is

unequivocally acknowledged; particularly in the second collect for

Evening Service, in the fourth collect at the end of the Communion

Service, and in the collects for Easter Day, for the fifth Sunday after

Easter, and for the 3rd, 9th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Sundays after

Trinity.

This assistance of Divine grace is not inconsistent with the free agency

of men (see _Free Will_): it does not place them under an irresistible

restraint, or compel them to act contrary to their will. Though human

nature is greatly depraved, yet every good disposition is not totally

extinguished, nor is all power of right action entirely annihilated. Men

may therefore make some spontaneous, though feeble, attempt to act

conformably to their duty, which will be promoted and rendered effectual

by the co-operation of GOD’S grace: or the grace of GOD may so far

“prevent” our actual endeavours, as to awaken and dispose us to our

duty; but yet not in such a degree, that we cannot withstand its

influence. In either case our own exertions are necessary to enable us

to “work out our own salvation,” but our “sufficiency” for that purpose

is from GOD. The joint agency of GOD and man in the work of human

salvation is pointed out in the following passage: “Work out your own

salvation with fear and trembling; for it is GOD that worketh in you

both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. ii. 12, 13); and

therefore we may assure ourselves that free will and grace are not

incompatible, though the mode and degree of their co-operation be

utterly inexplicable.

GRACE AT MEALS. A short prayer, invoking a blessing upon our food, and

expressive of gratitude to GOD for supplying our wants. The propriety of

this act is evident from the traditional custom of the Church, and from

the Divine command, as interpreted by this custom, (1 Thess. v. 18; 1

Cor. x. 31; 1 Tim. iv. 5,) and from the conduct of our Lord. (Mark viii.

6, 7.)

GRADUAL, or GRAIL. The antiphonary which, before the Reformation,

supplied the anthems or verses for the beginning of the Communion, the

Offertory, &c., was often called the Gradual, because some of the

anthems were chanted on the steps (_gradus_) of the ambon or pulpit.

The Gradual is also an anthem sung in the Roman Church immediately after

the Epistle.—_Jebb._

GRAVE. The resting-place of a dead body. The spoliation and desecration

of ancient sepulchres is as much an ecclesiastical offence as the

robbing of a more recent grave; but where none feel themselves

especially aggrieved, there are none to seek redress, and to bring

offenders to justice. The law upon the subject seems to stand thus: A

corpse once buried cannot legally be taken up to be deposited in another

place, without a licence from the ordinary. But in case of a violent

death the coroner may order the body to be disinterred, if it has been

buried before he has had an opportunity of taking a view for the

purposes of his inquest.

If the body, after it has been committed to the grave, be disturbed or

removed, it is a subject of ecclesiastical cognizance: yet the common

law also protects the corpse; for the taking up of dead bodies, for the

purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence, as highly indecent,

and _contra bonos mores_.

The property of things deposited with the dead, as the grave-clothes,

&c., is in him that had property therein when the dead body was wrapped

therewith, and the taking them is felony. The property in hatchments, or

other ensigns of honour, is in the heir, or the person concerned in the

hereditary distinction. (See _Burial_, and the list of acts of

parliament appended to the word _Cemetery_.)

GREEK CHURCH. (See _Church, Greek_.)

GREGORIAN CHANT. (See _Chant_.) This general designation is given to the

collection of chants compiled by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome,

about A. D. 600. These chants have continued to be in use from that time

to the present day, in the Western Church, and form the basis of our

cathedral music. It is known that Gregory merely collected, arranged,

and improved the chants which had already been used for centuries before

his time. The most learned writers on the subject suppose that they are

derived from those introduced by St. Ambrose into his church, at Milan,

about A. D. 384. Great improvements, however, having been made in the

science of music, subsequently to the time of St. Ambrose, Gregory took

advantage of those improvements, and increased the number of

ecclesiastical tones, (which somewhat resemble our modern keys,) from

four to eight, of which number the Gregorian chants, properly so called,

still consist. The four original tones are called authentic, the others

plagal. All the eight are now used in some parts of the Greek Church, as

in Russia, doubtless adopted from the West. They have been harmonized

according to the more recently discovered laws of music, and thus

harmonized possess a singular gravity, which character would alone

justify their perpetual retention in the Church as the _basis_ of church

music.

The Gregorian chant is not limited to psalm chants; it includes the

antiphons, versicles, graduals, &c., in short, all the hymns at the

various services of the Romish Church. The eight tones, (which are by

some multiplied to twelve,) are in fact so many scales, and all the

Gregorian hymns or anthems must be written in one or other of these

tones. The ancient Gregorian scale admitted no half notes, with the

exception of B flat. The Psalm chants had considerable variation in each

tone; these variations occurring in the second part of the chant: thus

one tone may have three or four cadences; which in fact form so many

separate chants. Much of the old English church music, since the

Reformation, is based upon the Gregorian chant: though none of our

standard musicians were ever servile followers of a system, which,

though very venerable, is imperfect.

It may be as well to subjoin a simple rule for ascertaining the _tones_

in which the Gregorian music is written in the old books. In the ancient

breviaries and antiphonies, &c., the word EVOVAE frequently occurs,

written under certain notes preceding the psalms appropriated to certain

offices. This word contains the vowels of the concluding words of the

Gloria Patri; viz. sEcVlOrVm AmEn: and by this is meant, that the notes

placed above it form the second part of the chant to which the following

psalm or psalms are sung: the first part being rarely written. Now to

find the _tone_ of the chant, we must take the _first_ note of the

_Evovae_, which is the _dominant_, or the _prevailing_, or _reciting_

note of the chant (not the dominant as now technically understood by

musicians): and we must take the last note of the Antiphon which follows

the Psalm at length: and these two, according to the table here

subjoined, give the _tone_ of the chant: the first part of each

variation in tone being, as before remarked, always the same; the second

part being given in the _Evovae_. The Psalm Tones must be found out in

one of the many movements of the Gregorian chant. Care must be taken not

to take the last note of the abbreviated antiphon which precedes, but of

that which follows, the psalm.

│ Final note, in the │ Dominant or reciting

│ Antiphon. │ note, in the Evovae.

1st Tone │ D │ A

2nd Tone │ D │ F

3rd Tone │ E │ C

4th Tone │ E │ A

5th Tone │ F │ C

6th Tone │ F │ A

7th Tone │ G │ D

8th Tone │ G │ C

Of these tones the odd numbers are authentic, the even plagal. The

authentic has always a relation to its plagal which follows, and has the

same final note, though a different dominant.—_Jebb._

GREY FRIARS. The Franciscans were so called from their grey clothing.

GUARDIAN OF THE SPIRITUALITIES. This is the person or persons in whom

the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any diocese resides, after the death

or translation of a bishop. If the vacant see should be an

archbishopric, then the dean and chapter are guardians. If a bishop,

then the archdeacon of the province.

GURGOILE. (See _Gargoyle_.)

HABAKKUK, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. There

is no mention in Scripture, either of the time when this prophet lived,

or of the parents from whom he was descended. But as he prophesied the

coming of the Chaldeans in the same manner as Jeremiah, it is

conjectured that he lived at the same time.

The works of Habakkuk, which are indisputably his, are contained in

three chapters. In these the prophet complains very pathetically of the

disorders, which he observed in the kingdom of Judea. God reveals to

him, that he would shortly punish them in a very terrible manner by the

arms of the Chaldeans. He foretells the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, his

metamorphosis, and death. He foretells that the vast designs of

Jehoiakim would be frustrated. He speaks against a prince (probably the

king of Tyre) who built with blood and iniquity; and he accuses another

king (perhaps the king of Egypt) of having intoxicated his friend, in

order to discover his nakedness. The third chapter is a song, or prayer

to God, whose majesty the prophet describes with the utmost grandeur and

sublimity of expression.

HADES. (From ἁ, privative, and ἰδειν, _to see_; the invisible state of

the departed.) See _Hell_.

HAGGAI, THE PROPHECY OF. A canonical book of the Old Testament. Haggai

was born, in all probability, at Babylon, from whence he returned with

Zerubbabel. It was this prophet, who, by command from GOD, exhorted the

Jews, after their return from the captivity, to finish the rebuilding of

the temple, which they had intermitted for fourteen years. His

remonstrances had their effect; and to encourage them to proceed in the

work, he assured them from GOD, that the glory of this latter house

should be greater than the glory of the former house: which was

accordingly fulfilled, when CHRIST honoured it with his presence; for,

with respect to the building, this latter temple was nothing in

comparison of the former.

We know nothing certain of Haggai’s death. The Jews pretend, that he

died in the last year of the reign of Darius, at the same time with the

prophets Zechariah and Malachi, and that thereupon the spirit of

prophecy ceased among the children of Israel. Epiphanius asserts that he

was buried at Jerusalem among the priests. The Greeks keep his festival

on the 16th of December, and the Latins on the 4th of July—_De Vita et

Morte Prophetarum._

HAGIOGRAPHA, i.e. Holy Writings. (From ἅγιος, _holy_, and γραφὴ,

_writing_.) A word of great antiquity in the Christian Church, and often

used by St. Jerome, taken from the custom of the synagogues, by which

the Old Testament was divided into three parts, viz. Moses’s law, the

Prophets, and the Hagiographa; by which last he meant the Psalms, the

Proverbs, Job, Ezra, Chronicles, Solomon’s Song, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, and

Esther. The Jews reckon the Book of Daniel and the Lamentations among

the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, for which Theodoret blames

them: but it matters not much, since they acknowledge those books, which

they call Hagiographa, to be inspired by GOD, and part of the sacred

canon, as well as those of the first and second order.

HAGIOSCOPE. In church architecture, a contrivance, whether by

perforating a wall, or by cutting away an angle of it, by which an altar

may be seen from some place in a church, or about it, from which it

would be otherwise hid. There is a most curious example at Ryhall in

Rutland, where there is (or rather was, for it is now blocked up) an

opening in the west wall of the north aisle, by which the three altars

in the chancel and two aisles were commanded by a person outside the

church, though within what seems to have been a little oratory, (now

entirely removed,) dedicated to S. Tibald.

Openings sometimes seem to command other points, and may then be well

enough called “_Squints_.” At Hannington, in Northamptonshire, for

instance, is one which seems intended to enable a person in the porch to

see the approach of the minister from Walgrave, a parish very generally

united under the same incumbency with Hannington.

HALF COMMUNION, or COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. (See _Communion_ and _Cup_.)

The withholding of the cup in the eucharist from the laity. This is the

practice of the Church of Rome, and is one of those grievous errors in

which that corrupt Church deviates from Catholicism. Not the slightest

colour can be brought in its favour, as the Romanists themselves at the

Council of Constance were forced to confess: the authority of the

primitive Church is against them, as that council acknowledges; nor can

they plead the authority of any one of the ancient liturgies. The Church

of Rome then is, in this matter, singular and schismatical.

HALLELUJAH. (See _Alleluia_.)

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. A conference appointed by James I. at Hampton

Court, in 1603, in order to settle the disputes between the Church and

the Puritans. Nine bishops, and as many dignitaries of the Church,

appeared on one side, and four Puritan ministers on the other. It lasted

for three days. Of this conference the result was a few slight

alterations in the liturgy; the baptizing of infants by women, which had

been practised in our Church for many hundred years, was forbidden;

“remission of sins” inserted in the rubric of absolution; confirmation

termed “laying on of hands;” all the thanksgivings, except the general

one, were inserted in the Prayer Book; to the catechism was annexed the

whole of the latter portion, relative to the two sacraments; and some

words were altered in the dominical lessons, with a view to a new

translation of the sacred volume.

HATCHMENT; more properly ACHIEVEMENT. In heraldry, the whole armorial

bearings of any person fully emblazoned, with shield, crest, supporters,

&c. This word is used in particular for the emblazonment of arms hung up

in churches, in memory of a gentleman of coat armour, or one of any

higher degree. There was formerly much of religion in heraldry; and as

the coat was assumed with a religious feeling, so was it at last

restored to the sanctuary, in token of thankful acknowledgment to

Almighty GOD, with whose blessing it had been borne.

HEARSE. A frame set over the coffin of any great person deceased, and

covered with a pall: also the carriage in which corpses are carried to

the grave.

HEATHEN. (From ἔθνη, _nations_, or _Gentiles_.) Pagans who worship false

gods.

HEAVEN. That place where GOD affords a nearer and more immediate view of

himself, and a more sensible manifestation of his glory, than in other

parts of the universe. That it is a _place_ as well as a _state_, is

clear from John xiv. 2, 3, and from the existence of our LORD’S body

there, and the bodies of Enoch and Elijah.

HEBDOMADARIUS. The priest whose weekly turn it was to perform the divine

offices in cathedrals and colleges. In some foreign cathedrals it is the

designation of a clergyman corresponding to our minor canons, &c. In the

Scottish universities the name was given to one of the superior members,

whose weekly turn it was to superintend the discipline of the students.

The office was effectively exercised at St. Andrew’s, at least, till of

late years.—_Jebb._

HELL. (Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic _Hele_, _Hela_, a “cavern;” “concealed

place;” “mansion of the dead.”) Two entirely different words in the

original language of the New Testament are rendered in our version by

the single word “hell.” The first of these is _Hades_, which occurs

eleven times in the New Testament, and in every case but one is

translated “hell.” Now _Hades_ is never used to denote the place of

final torment, the regions of the damned; but signifies “the place of

departed spirits,” whether good or bad,—the place where they are kept

until the day of judgment, when they shall be re-united to their bodies,

and go each to his appointed destiny. The other word, _Gehenna_,

signifies the place of torment,—the eternal abode of the wicked. At the

time when our translation was made, and the Prayer Book compiled, the

English word “hell” had a more extensive meaning than it has at present.

It originally signified to _cover over_ or _conceal_; and it is still

used in this sense in several parts of England, where, for example, to

cover a church or a house with a roof is to _hell_ the building, and the

person by whom it is done is called a _hellier_. But the word also

denoted the place of future misery, and is accordingly used in that

sense in the New Testament, as the translation of _Gehenna_; and in

consequence of the changes which our language has experienced during the

last 200 years, it is now restricted to this particular meaning. (See

_Gehenna_.)

Bearing in mind, then, that _Hades_ was translated by the word “hell,”

for want of another more exactly corresponding with the original, the

reader will perceive that the article in the Creed, “He descended into

hell,” does not refer to the place of final misery; but to that general

receptacle of all departed human souls, both penitent and impenitent,

where they are reserved in a state of comparative enjoyment or misery,

to wait the morning of the resurrection, when their bodies being united

to their souls, they will be advanced to complete felicity or woe, in

heaven or hell.

One great use of the system of catechising, as enjoined by the Church,

is the opportunity it affords of inculcating upon the people such

distinctions as these.

It was necessary that our LORD’S death should be attended with all those

circumstances which mark the death of men. CHRIST was possessed of a

human nature, both body and soul, besides his Divinity. The body of man

at death sinks to the grave; and the soul goes to _Hades_, or the place

of departed spirits. In like manner the body of our LORD was laid in the

tomb, but his soul went to the general repository of human disembodied

spirits, “the lower parts of the earth,” (Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 9, with

Ps. lxiii. 9, and Isa. v. 14,) Hades, the place of separated souls, not

Gehenna, the place of condemnation; because if it relate to the place of

either bliss or misery, it must be the former, in consistence with the

LORD’S promise to the penitent thief. (Luke xxiii. 43.)

Five different opinions have been entertained on this subject. First,

that the word “descended” is to be taken metaphorically; implying only

the efficacy of CHRIST’S death as to the souls departed. But this seems

refuted by the passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” (Ps. xvi.

10,) whereas the efficacy of our LORD’S death still continues.

Secondly, that the descent into hell signifies the suffering the

torments of the damned; and this in the stead of those who otherwise

must have endured them. But it is not to be believed that our LORD could

suffer from the “worm that never dieth”—the remorse of conscience, and a

sense of the continuance and consequences of the displeasure of GOD, and

consequent despair; or that he who overcame the powers of hell could

suffer under their vengeance. Nor, again, can he, in this article, be

said by a metaphor to have felt the torments of hell, by this meaning

only the greatest torments, because all that he felt which we know of,

was antecedent to his death, and not afterwards. The torments of hell

then cannot be here meant literally, because not supported by truth, nor

figuratively, because not applicable.

Thirdly, that the word “soul” does in this passage mean the body, and

“hell” merely the grave; and the same words, both in Hebrew and Greek,

as used respectively by the psalmist and the apostle, and translated the

“soul,” do elsewhere in the Scriptures mean the “body.” As in Numb. vi.

6; Lev. xxi. 11; and xxii. 4; and more particularly, Numb. xix. 11, and

13. And Ainsworth, whose translation is the most literal of any, so uses

the word. And again, with respect to the word “hell;” in some passages

it can mean nothing but the grave, and is so used by our translation,

when Ainsworth uses the word “hell,” as in Gen. xxxvii. 35, and xlii.

38. This mode of explication too, connected with the following article,

will fulfil the prophecy, “Thou shalt not leave my soul (body) in hell”

(the grave).

Fourthly, that by the “soul” may be understood the nobler part

distinguished from the body; or the whole person, both soul and body; or

the living soul distinguished from the immortal spirit. And by “hell,”

no place whatever, but merely the condition of men in death. But this

explanation involves an entirely novel idea as to Hades, which was

always understood as some place where the souls of men entered, whether

this is in the earth, or out of it, or in whatever unknown part; and

from which the Greeks considered those to be excluded who came to a

premature death, or whose bodies lay unburied. And in addition, the

descent into hell thus explained would be tautologous, meaning nothing

more than the being dead, which the preceding article had declared.

Fifthly, and this is apparently the best explanation, as it was always

the opinion entertained by the Church—that the “soul” was the spirit, or

rational part, of CHRIST, that which the Jews could “not kill,” and

“hell,” a place distinguished equally from earth and from heaven. The

passage may then mean, “Thou shalt not suffer my soul,” when separated

from the body, and carried to the place assigned, as other souls are, to

continue there as theirs do, but shalt, after a short interval only,

reunite it to my body. That this was an opinion general in the Church,

is proved, not only by the direct testimony of the Fathers, but by their

arguments on the subject in answer to heretics.

They all fully agreed in a real descent of the soul of CHRIST into the

place of souls departed; though they differed as to the persons whom he

descended to visit, and the end for which he went. Some of them

considered Hades, or “hell,” as the common receptacle of souls, both of

the just and the unjust, and then thought that the soul of CHRIST went

unto those only who had departed in the true faith and fear of GOD. But

to this many could not agree, not thinking that Hades could ever, in

Scripture, be taken for the place of happiness. And as to the end, those

who held the former opinion of the common receptacle, imagined that

CHRIST went unto the faithful to dissolve the power by which they were

detained, and translate them into heaven. But to this change of place or

condition many objected, conceiving that the souls of men shall not

enter into heaven till after the general resurrection.

Some there were who, conceiving that this place did not include the

blessed, imagined that the object of our LORD’S going into the place of

torment, was to deliver some of the suffering souls, and translate them

to a place of happiness. That this was done by preaching the gospel to

them, that they after death might have an opportunity of receiving him,

and then pass with him from death to life.

So that they all imagined that the soul of CHRIST descended into hell to

preach the gospel to the spirits there, but differed as to whether it

was to those who before believed, that they might now receive him; or to

those who had before rejected him, that they might yet believe on him.

But there seem insurmountable objections both to the opinion that he

preached to the faithful, for they were not “disobedient,” (as “in the

days of Noah,”) nor could they need a publication of the gospel after

the death of CHRIST, by virtue of which they were accepted while they

lived; and to that, that he preached to the wicked, for they were not

proper objects, or likely to be persuaded. The effect too of the

preaching may be denied. There is no repentance in the grave, nor any

passing the “great gulf” of separation. Again, with respect to the

faithful, it is not certain that their souls were in a place where

CHRIST would descend; or that they are now in another and better place

than they were at first; or that CHRIST did descend into such place for

such purpose; or that such effect was produced at such a time.

There is another opinion that has obtained, and perhaps more in our own

Church, that CHRIST descended into hell to triumph over Satan and his

powers in their own dominions, principally grounded on Col. ii. 11–15;

Eph. iv. 8, 9. But these passages are not conclusive; and the argument

seems inconsistent in those who object to the opinion, that the souls of

the wicked have been released, or those of the saints removed.

The sound conclusion as to the whole, and what our belief might be, is,

perhaps, first, as to fact, that the soul of CHRIST, separated from his

body by death, did go into the common place of departed spirits, in

order that he might appear, both alive and dead, as perfect man. All

that was necessary for our redemption, by way of satisfaction, was

effected on the cross. The exhibition of what was there merited, was

effected by his resurrection; and between these, he satisfied the law of

death. Secondly, as to the effect. By the descent of CHRIST into the

regions of darkness, the souls of believers are kept from the torments

which are there. As the grave and hell had no power over him, the

“head,” so neither shall it have over “the members.” By his descent he

freed us from all fear, by his resurrection and ascension he has secured

our hope; and thus through “death, destroyed him that hath the power of

death, that is, the devil.”

As he “was delivered for our offences,” so was he “raised again for our

justification.” (Rom. iv. 25.) If this had not taken place, our “faith”

would have been “vain;” we should have been “yet in our sins,” (1 Cor.

xv. 14, 17,) for as we are “buried with him in baptism, we are quickened

together with him,” (Col. ii. 12, 13,) and “begotten again to a lively

hope,” by his “resurrection from the dead;” if “by him we believe in GOD

that raised him up from the dead,” (1 Pet. i. 3, 21,) and “walk in

newness of life.” (Rom. vi. 4; viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14;

Eph. i. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 20.) Therefore, “on the third day, he rose

again from the dead, a living body,” (Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 20, 27,)

“quickened by the spirit,” (1 Pet. iii. 18,) and raised by himself,

(John x. 18; ii. 19,) as this was typified in Isaac, “received” again by

his father, as “in (or for) a figure,” (Heb. xi. 19,) and by the waved

sheaf, the dedicated “first-fruits of the harvest.” (Lev. xxiii. 10,

11.) This, too, on the third day—the “first day of the week,” the

Christian “sabbath,” (Matt, xxviii. 1; xx. 19, (thenceforward called

“the LORD’S day,” Rev. i. 10,) John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2,)

according to the deliverance of his type Jonah. (Matt. xii. 39, 40.) As

this was frequently predicted by himself, (Matt. xii. 39, 40, and xvi.

21; xvii. 9; John ii. 19, 21,) confirmed by his enemies, (Matt. xxvi.

61; xxvii. 63; Mark xv. 29,) and by the angel, (Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, 17,)

and the truth of it proved also by the precautions of his enemies,

(Matt, xxviii. 13–15,) by his showing himself to his disciples several

times, and “many days,” (John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 14; Acts xiii. 31,) as to

“witnesses chosen before of GOD,” (Acts x. 41,) appointed expressly to

bear testimony to this great truth, “unto the uttermost parts of the

earth,” (Acts i. 8, 22; ii. 24, 31, 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; v. 32; x. 40; 1

Cor. xv. 15,) as was “also the HOLY GHOST.” (Acts v. 32, and to others,

1 Cor. xv. 4–8.) Which truth, that “GOD hath raised him from the dead,”

is to be received by “all men” as an “assurance” that “GOD will judge

the world in righteousness by him.” (Acts xvii. 30–32.)

HERESIARCH. A leader in heresy.

HERESY. This word is derived from the Greek, αἵρεσις, _a choice_, and it

means an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opinions at

variance with the doctrines delivered by CHRIST and the apostles, and

received by the Catholic Church. At the same time we may remark, that it

is generally agreed that the opinion must be pertinaciously and

obstinately held, in order to constitute formal heresy. And if there be

a legitimate doubt in a controversy which of the two contrary doctrines

is stated in Scripture and received by the Church, either may be held

without heresy. It is obvious, also, that mere ignorance, or a temporary

error in ignorance, is altogether different from heresy.

In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, an act of parliament was passed to

enable persons to try heretics, and the following directions were given

for their guidance:—“And such persons to whom the queen shall by letters

patent under the great seal give authority to execute any jurisdiction

spiritual, shall not in anywise have power to adjudge any matter or

cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be

heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or _by some of the

first four general councils_, or by any other general council wherein

the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said

canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be judged or determined

to be heresy by the high court of parliament, with the assent of the

clergy in their convocation.”

Heresies began very early in the Christian Church. Eusebius fixes the

beginning of most of them to the reign of the emperor Adrian. And yet it

is certain, that Simon Magus had published his errors before that time,

and set up a sect, which gave rise to most of the ancient heresies.

The laws, both of the Church and State, were very severe against those

who were adjudged to be heretics. Those of the State, made by the

Christian emperors from the time of Constantine, are comprised under one

title, _De Hæreticis_, in the Theodosian Code. The principal of them

are, 1. The general note of infamy affixed to all heretics in common. 2.

All commerce forbidden to be held with them. 3. The depriving them of

all offices of profit and dignity. 4. The disqualifying them to dispose

of their estates by will, or receive estates from others. 5. The

imposing on them pecuniary mulcts. 6. The proscribing and banishing

them. 7. The inflicting corporal punishment on them, such as scourging,

&c., before banishment. Besides these laws, which chiefly affected the

persons of heretics, there were several others, which tended to the

extirpation of heresy: such as, 1. Those which forbade heretical

teachers to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately. 2. Those

which forbade heretics to hold public disputations. 3. Such laws as

prohibited all heretical meetings and assemblies. 4. Those which deny to

the children of heretical parents their patrimony and inheritance,

unless they return to the Church. And, 5. Such laws as ordered the books

of heretics to be burned. There were many other penal laws made against

heretics, from the time of Constantine to Theodosius _junior_ and

Valentinian III. But the few already mentioned may be sufficient to give

an idea of the rigour with which the empire treated such persons as

held, or taught, opinions contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church,

whose discipline towards heretics was no less severe than the civil

laws.

For, 1. The Church was accustomed to pronounce a formal _anathema_ or

excommunication against them. Thus the Council of Nice ends her creed

with an anathema against all those who opposed the doctrine there

delivered. And there are innumerable instances of this kind to be found

in the volumes of the _Councils_. 2. Some canons debarred them from the

very lowest privileges of Church communion, forbidding them to enter

into the church, so much as to hear the sermon, or the Scriptures read

in the service of the catechumens. But this was no general rule; for

liberty was often granted to heretics to be present at the sermons, in

hopes of their conversion; and the historians tell us, that Chrysostom

by this means brought over many to acknowledge the Divinity of CHRIST,

whilst they had liberty to come and hear his sermons. 3. The Church

prohibited all persons, under pain of excommunication, to join with

heretics in any religious offices. 4. By the laws of the Church, no one

was to eat, or converse familiarly with heretics; or to read their

writings, or to contract any affinity with them: their names were to be

struck out of the Diptychs, or sacred registers of the Church; and, if

they died in heresy, no psalmody, or other solemnity, was to be used at

their funeral. 5. The testimony of heretics was not to be taken in any

ecclesiastical cause whatever. These are the chief ecclesiastical laws

against heretics.

As to the terms of penance imposed upon relenting heretics, or such as

were willing to renounce their errors, and be reconciled to the Church,

they were various, and differed according to the canons of different

councils, or the usages of different Churches. The Council of Eliberis

(soon after A. D. 300) appoints ten years’ penance, before repenting

heretics are admitted to communion. The Council of Agde (A. D. 506)

contracted this term into that of three years. The Council of Epone (A.

D. 517) reduced it to two years only.

The ancient Christian Church made a distinction between such heretics as

contumaciously resisted the admonitions of the Church, and such as never

had any admonition given them, for none were reputed formal heretics, or

treated as such, till the Church had given them a first and second

admonition, according to the apostle’s rule.

The principal sects of heretics, which disturbed the peace of the

Church, sprung up in the first _six_ centuries: most of the heresies, in

after ages, being nothing but the old ones new vamped, or revived. The

following table may serve to give the reader a compendious view of the

most remarkable of the ancient heresies.

CENTURY I.

1. The _Simonians_, or followers of Simon Magus; who maintained that the

world was created by angels; that there is no resurrection of the body;

that women ought to be in common, &c.

2. _Cerinthians_ and _Ebionites_, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion; who

denied the Divinity of our SAVIOUR, and blended the Mosaical ceremonies

with Christianity, &c.

3. The _Nicolaites_, followers of Nicolas, deacon of Antioch; who

allowed the promiscuous use of women, &c., alluded to by St. John in

Rev. ii. 6, 15.

CENTURY II.

4. The _Basilidians_, followers of Basilides of Alexandria; who espoused

the heresies of Simon Magus, and denied the reality of our SAVIOUR’S

crucifixion, &c.

5. The _Carpocratians_, followers of Carpocrates; who, besides adhering

to the heresies of Simon Magus, rejected the Old Testament, and held

that our SAVIOUR was but a mere man, &c.

6. The _Valentinians_, followers of Valentinus; who corrupted the

Christian doctrine with the Pythagorean and Platonic notions, &c.

7. The _Gnostics_; so called from their pretences to superior

_knowledge_. The term _Gnostics_ seems to have been a general name for

many of the earliest heretics. (See _Gnostics_.)

8. The _Nazarenes_; who ingrafted the law of Moses on Christianity, &c.

9. The _Millenarians_ or _Chiliasts_; so called, because they expected

to reign with CHRIST, a thousand years, upon the earth.

10. The _Cainites_; a branch of the Valentinians, but particularly

remarkable for paying a great regard to _Cain_ and all the wicked men

mentioned in the Scripture, &c.

11. The _Sethians_; who held that Seth, the son of Adam, was the

Messiah.

12. The _Quartodecimans_; who observed Easter on the fourteenth day of

the first month, in conformity to the Jewish custom of keeping the

Passover.

13. The _Cerdonians_, followers of Cerdon; who held two contrary

principles, denied the resurrection of the body, and threw the Four

Gospels out of the canon of Scripture.

14. The _Marcionites_, followers of Marcion; who held three principles,

denied the resurrection of the body, and declaimed against marriage, &c.

15. The _Cataphrygians_, or _Montanists_; who baptized the dead, and

held Montanus to be the HOLY GHOST, &c.

16. The _Encratites_, or _Tatianists_, followers of Tatian; who boasted

of an extraordinary continency, and condemned marriage, &c.

17. The _Alogians_; so called, because they denied the Divinity of the

_Word_, and rejected St. John’s Gospel, which particularly asserts it.

18. The _Artotyrites_; so called, because they offered bread and cheese

in the eucharist.

19. The _Angelics_; so called, because they worshipped angels.

CENTURY III.

20. The _Monarchici_, or _Patripassians_, followers of Praxeas; who

denied a plurality of persons in the Trinity, and affirmed that our

SAVIOUR was GOD the Father.

21. The _Arabici_; who believed that the soul dies, or sleeps, till the

day of judgment, and then rises with the body.

22. The _Aquarians_; who used only water in the eucharist.

23. The _Novatians_; who would not allow those, who had lapsed in time

of persecution, to be restored, upon repentance, to communion.

24. The _Origenists_, followers of Origen; who, among other things, held

that the devil, and all the damned, will at last be saved.

25. The _Melchisedechians_: who held Melchisedech to be the Messiah.

26. The _Sabellians_, followers of Sabellius; who denied the Trinity,

and affirmed that the distinction of persons in the GODHEAD was merely

nominal, and founded only upon a diversity of attributes, &c.

27. The _Manicheans_, followers of Manes; who held that two opposite

principles reigned over the world, the one good, the other bad, &c.

CENTURY IV.

28. The _Arians_, followers of Arius, a priest of Alexandria; who

believed the FATHER and the SON not to be of the same nature, substance,

or essence, and that there was a time when the SON was not, &c.

29. The _Colluthians_, followers of Colluthus; who confounded the evil

of punishment with the evil of sin.

30. The _Macedonians_; who denied the Divinity of the HOLY GHOST.

31. The _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they denied the certainty of the

Divine prescience.

32. The _Apollinarians_, followers of Apollinaris; who asserted that our

SAVIOUR, at his incarnation, assumed a human body without a soul, and

that the _Word_ supplied the place of a soul, &c.

33. The _Timotheans_; who held, that our SAVIOUR was incarnate only for

the benefit and advantage of our bodies.

34. The _Collyridians_; so called, because they made a kind of goddess

of the Blessed Virgin, and offered _cakes_ to her.

35. The _Seleucians_, followers of Seleucus; who held that the Deity was

corporeal; and that the matter of the universe was co-eternal with GOD.

36. The _Priscillianists_, followers of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop;

who held all the errors of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

37. The _Anthropomorphites_; so called, because they ascribed a body to

GOD, understanding literally those passages of Scripture which speak of

GOD as having hands, eyes, feet, &c.

38. The _Jovinianists_, followers of Jovinian; who denied the virginity

of Mary.

39. The _Messalians_; who chiefly pretended to prophecy.

40. The _Bonosians_, followers of Bonosus; who held that JESUS CHRIST

was the Son of GOD only by adoption.

CENTURY V.

41. The _Pelagians_, followers of Pelagius; who denied the necessity of

Divine grace, in order to salvation, &c.

42. _Nestorians_, followers of Nestorius; who distinguished our blessed

SAVIOUR into two persons, the one Divine, the other human.

43. The _Eutychians_, followers of Eutyches; who fell into the opposite

error, and held, that there was but one nature in JESUS CHRIST.

44. The _Theopaschites_, followers of Petrus Fullo, bishop of Antioch;

so called, because they affirmed that all the three persons in the

Trinity were incarnate, and suffered upon the cross.

CENTURY VI.

45. The _Predestinarians_; so called, because they held that the

salvation or damnation of men is pre-ordained, and that no man is saved

or damned by his works.

46. The _Apthartodocetes_, or _Incorruptibilists_; so called, because

they held that our SAVIOUR’S body was incorruptible, and exempt from

passion.

47. A second sect of _Agnoëtæ_; so called, because they held that our

blessed SAVIOUR, when upon earth, did not know the day of judgment.

48. The _Monotheletes_; who held that there was but one will in JESUS

CHRIST.

These were the principal sects of heretics, which, in those early ages,

infested the Christian Church. The succeeding ages produced a great

variety of heretics likewise; as the _Gnosimachi_ and _Lampetians_, in

the seventh century; the _Agonyclites_ in the eighth; the

_Berengarians_, _Simoniacs_, and _Vecilians_, in the eleventh; the

_Bogomiles_, in the twelfth; the _Fratricelli_ and _Beguards_, in the

thirteenth; to enumerate all which would be both tedious and

uninteresting.—_Broughton._

HERETIC. Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, defines a heretic to be, “one

who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the Catholic

Church;” and the Catholic or universal Church, in the second general

council, has pronounced those to be heretics “who, while they pretend to

confess the sound faith, have separated and held meetings contrary to

our canonical bishops.”—_Conc. Const._ Can. 6.

A man may be erroneous in doctrine and yet not a heretic; for heresy is

a pertinacious adherence to an opinion when it is known that the Church

has condemned it. (See the preceding article.)

Although the Scripture only is our guide, there are certain points of

disputable doctrine on which the Church Universal has decided, e. g. the

doctrine of the Trinity; and he who refuses “to hear the Church” on

these points, is held a heretic by the Church Universal. There are

certain points on which our own Church has decided, e. g. the doctrine

of transubstantiation, and he who holds this doctrine is regarded as a

heretic by the Church of England. For those who do not defer to the

Church, to pronounce any one a heretic who professes to take the Bible

for his guide, is an inconsistency which can only be accounted for by

the existence, on the part of the offender, of a very intolerant and

tyrannical disposition.

HERMENEUTÆ. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) Persons in the ancient

Church, whose business it was to render one language into another, as

there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies

that were made to the people; an office which was very important in

those churches where the people spoke different languages, as in

Palestine, where some spoke Syriac, others Greek; and in Africa, where

some spoke the Latin, and others the Punic tongue.

HERMENEUTICS. (From ἑρμηνεύω, _to interpret_.) The principles and

practice of translation and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.—See

_Hartwell Horne’s Introduction_ and _Ernesti’s Institutes_.

HERMITAGES were cells constructed in private and solitary places, for

single persons, or for small communities, and were sometimes annexed to

larger religious houses.

HETERODOX. Contrary to the faith or doctrine established in the true

Church.

HEXAPLA. A book containing the Hebrew text of the Bible, written in

Hebrew and Greek characters, with the translations of the Septuagint, of

Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, in _six_ several columns. There was

added to it a fifth translation, found at Jericho, without the author’s

name; and a sixth, named Nicopolitanum, because found at Nicopolis:

Origen joined to it a translation of the Psalms, but still the book

retained the name of _Hexapla_, because the fifth and sixth translations

did not extend to the whole Bible; and so the same book of Origen had

but six columns in divers places, eight in some, and nine in the Psalms.

Others are of opinion that the two columns of the Hebrew text were not

reckoned; and that the translation of the Psalms was not to be

considered so as to give a new name to the book. When the edition

contained only the translations of the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion,

and Symmachus, it was called _Tetrapla_, and the name of _Octapla_ was

sometimes given to the eight versions, that is, to the collections

containing the translations of Jericho and Nicopolis. Ruffinus, speaking

of this elaborate work, affirms that Origen undertook it because of the

continual controversies between the Jews and Christians: the Jews citing

the Hebrew, and the Christians the Septuagint, in their disputes, this

father was willing to let the Christians understand how the Jews read

the Bible; and to this end, he laid the versions of Aquila, and some

other Greek translations, before them, which had been made from the

Hebrew; but few people being able to buy so great a work, Origen

undertook to abridge it, and for that purpose published a version of the

Septuagint, to which he added some supplements, taken out of

Theodotion’s translation, in the places where the Septuagint had not

rendered the Hebrew text; and which supplements were marked with an

asterisk. He added also a small line like a spit, where the Septuagint

had something that was not in the Hebrew text. The loss of the Hexapla

is one of the greatest which the Church has sustained. But a few

fragments remain, published by Montfauçon, in 1713; and by Bahrdt, (an

abridgment, and not a very skilful one, of the former,) in 1769.

HIERARCHY. (See _Bishops_.) A designation equally applied to the ranks

of celestial beings in the Jerusalem above, and to the apostolic order

of the ministry in the Church below. In reference to the latter, it is

an error to suppose that it necessarily implies temporal distinction,

wealth, splendour, or any other adjuncts with which the ministry may, in

certain times and countries, have been distinguished. These are mere

accidents, which prejudice has identified with the being of a hierarchy,

but from which no just inference can be drawn against the inherent

spiritual dignity of the Christian priesthood.

HIGH PRIEST. The highest person in the divinely appointed ecclesiastical

polity of the Jews. To him in the Christian Church answers the bishop,

the presbyter answering to the priest, and the deacon to the Levite.

HISTORIANS, ECCLESIASTICAL. Those writers who record the acts and

monuments of the Christian Church. After the evangelical historians, the

most distinguished is Hegesippus, who lived principally in the reign of

Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161–180). He wrote five books of ecclesiastical

history, called _Commentaries of the Acts of the Church_, wherein he

described the character of the holy apostles, their missions, &c., the

remarkable events in the Church, and the several heresies, schisms, and

persecutions which had afflicted it from our LORD’S death to the

writer’s own times. All the writings of Hegesippus are now lost. Next

follows Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, a pupil of Pamphilus, on which

account he is often called Eusebius Pamphili. He wrote an ecclesiastical

history in ten books, comprising a history of the Church from our LORD’S

birth to the conversion of Constantine the Great, which he compiled

chiefly from the commentary of Hegesippus. St. Jerome and Nicephorus

derive the materials of their history from Eusebius. The histories

written by Socrates, Theodoret, and Sozomen, relate to their own times

only. These are the sources from which all modern historians of the

early Church derive their materials.

HOLY-DAY. The day of some ecclesiastical festival. The rubric after the

Nicene Creed directs that “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 willingly 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

has often 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.”

HOLY GHOST. (See _Procession_.) The third Person of the adorable

Trinity.

“The HOLY GHOST, proceeding from the FATHER and the SON, is of one

substance, majesty, and glory with the FATHER and the SON, very and

eternal GOD.”—_Article_ V.

The name _Ghost_, or _Gast_, in the ancient Saxon, signifies _a spirit_,

to which the word _holy_ is applied, as signifying a communication of

the Divine holiness. Having been baptized “in the name of the FATHER,

and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST,” we cannot say with the ignorant

disciples, that “we have not so much as heard whether there be any HOLY

GHOST” (Acts xix. 2); we are therefore called upon to believe in the

HOLY GHOST as we do in the FATHER and the SON; and for our authority in

considering him to be a person as well as the others, we have not only

the analogy of faith, but sufficient evidence in holy writ.

First, he is plainly distinguishable from the others; from the FATHER,

as proceeding from him, (John xv. 26,) and from the FATHER and the SON,

in being sent by one from the other; “The Comforter, whom I,” says our

LORD, “will send unto you from the FATHER;” “If I go not away, the

Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto

you.” (John xv. 26; xvi. 7.) This was the SPIRIT promised before of the

FATHER. (Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, with John xiv. 16; Acts i. 4;

ii. 33.) He is sometimes termed “the SPIRIT of the SON,” as well as of

the FATHER, (Gal. iv. 6,) and is given by the FATHER, (Eph. i. 17,) and

sent in his SON’S name, (John xiv. 26,) as at other times by the SON.

(John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 21, 22.)

Secondly, such properties, attributes, and acts are ascribed to him as

are only applicable to a person. He is spoken of in formal opposition to

evil spirits, who are clearly represented as persons (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 2

Chron. xviii. 20, 21); and if expressions are used not exactly suitable

to our conceptions of a person, this may well be allowed without its

making him a mere quality or attribute. When GOD is said to “give” the

HOLY GHOST “to them that obey him,” (Acts v. 32,) it may be compared

with similar passages respecting the SON: “GOD so loved the world, that

he gave his only begotten SON,” &c., (John iii. 16,) in conformity to

the prophecy, “Unto us a SON is given.” (Isa. ix. 6.)

Thirdly, he is also truly GOD, as is proved from the titles given to him

by fair implication, (Acts v. 3, 4; Luke i. 35; and see 2 Sam. xxiii. 2,

3,) and the attributes of GOD, (Job xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 7; Isa.

xlviii. 16; with Acts xiii. 2; xx. 28; Mark xiii. 11; Rom. viii. 14; xv.

13, 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11,) and he is in two grand instances united to the

FATHER and the SON, in perfect equality,—the form of baptism, by which

we are admitted into the Church of GOD, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) and the

apostolic benediction, the common Christian salutation. (2 Cor. xiii.

14.)

As he is the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, “the SPIRIT of holiness,” (Rom. i. 4,)

so is he the cause of all holiness in man. That as the SON, by his

sacrifice, put us in the way of salvation, (John iii. 16,) so must the

HOLY SPIRIT co-operate in sealing “us unto the day of redemption,”

through his “sanctification,” and “belief of the truth,” (Rom. viii. 16;

2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; Gal. vi. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; Phil. i. 19; 2

Thess. ii. 13; Tit. iii. 5,) according as he has been promised. (Deut.

xxix. 4; Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; John vi. 44.) And this he does

by regenerating us at baptism, (Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 5; Gal. iv. 29;

Tit. iii. 5,) and making us the “sons of GOD,” (Rom. viii. 14–16; Gal.

iv. 6,) and thus uniting us to our “head,” (1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 12, 13;

Eph. iv. 4; 1 John iii. 24,) and by instructing us in our duty, (Prov.

i. 23; Ps. clxiii. 10; Isa. lix. 21: 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 3; 2 Cor.

iii. 3; Gal. v. 16, 25,) illuminating the understanding, (Neh. ix. 20;

Isa. xxxii. 15, 16; Ezek, xxxvi. 27; Micah iii. 8; Rom. viii. 2, 5; Eph.

i. 17, 18; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13,) disposing the will, (Heb. iii. 7, 8;

1 Pet. i. 2, 22,) settling us in the faith and love of GOD, (Rom. v. 5;

2 Cor. iv. 13; 2 Tim. i. 7,) giving us power to obey, (Zech. iv. 6; 2

Cor. iii. 17; Eph. iii. 16,) helping us in prayer, (Zech. xii. 10; Rom.

viii. 26; 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Jude 20,) and sanctifying us. (Rom. xv. 16; 1

Cor. vi. 11; Gal. v. 16.) And as his very name, “the Comforter,”

implies, he gives consolation and joy. (Acts ix. 31; Rom. xiv. 17; xv.

13; Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6.)

It is necessary, then, that we believe in the HOLY GHOST, as having been

baptized to GOD in his name; and as we would receive the apostolic

benediction, (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1,) and enjoy the kingdom of

GOD on earth, which is “righteousness, and peace, and joy,” in him.

(Rom. xiv. 17; Acts xiii. 52.)

HOLY TABLE, (ἅγια τράπεζα.) (See _Altar_.) The altar on which the

appointed memorials of the death of CHRIST, namely, the bread and wine,

are presented before GOD, as an oblation of thanksgiving, is called the

LORD’S table, or the holy table; because his worshippers do there, as

his guests, eat and drink these consecrated elements, in faith, to be

thereby fed and nourished unto eternal life, by the spiritual food of

his most precious body and blood.

HOLY THURSDAY. The day of our LORD’S ascension. (See _Ascension Day_.)

HOLY WATER. In the Romish Church, water blessed with an appropriate

service by the priest, and placed in a shallow basin, called the holy

water stoup, at the entrance of the Church. Its primary use was, that

the hands of the worshippers might be washed, and “pure hands lifted up

in prayer;” afterwards it _symbolized_ their purification from

defilement _before_ engaging in prayer. The modern Romanists forget

this, and, as if they thought that some intrinsic benefit resulted from

the physical application of the holy water, independent of its mystic

meaning, use it both on entering and _leaving_ a church.

So many superstitions had become connected with the use of holy water,

that it was discontinued at the Reformation.

HOLY WEEK. (See _Passion Week_.) The Passion week—the last week in Lent,

in which the Church commemorates the cross and passion of our blessed

and only SAVIOUR.

HOMILIES. (From ὁμιλία, a _sermon_ or _discourse_, delivered in a plain

manner, so as to be understood by the common people.) The Homilies of

the Church of England are two books of plain discourses, composed at the

time of the Reformation, and appointed to be read in churches, on “any

Sunday or holy-day, when there is no sermon.” The first volume of them

was set out in the beginning of King Edward the Sixth’s reign in 1547,

having been composed (as it is thought) by Archbishop Cranmer and

Bishops Ridley and Latimer, when a competent number of ministers of

sufficient abilities to preach in a public congregation was not to be

found. It was reprinted in 1560. The second book appeared in 1563,

having been printed the year before, (see _Strype’s Life of Parker_,) in

the reign of Elizabeth. Bishop Jewell is supposed to have had a great

share in its composition. In the first book, the homily on “Salvation”

was probably written by Cranmer, as also those on “Faith” and “Good

Works.” The homilies on the “Fear of Death,” and on the “Reading of

Scripture,” have likewise been ascribed to the archbishop. That on the

“Misery of Mankind,” which has sometimes been attributed to him, appears

in Bishop Bonner’s volume of Homilies, A. D. 1555, with the name of “Jo.

Harpesfield” attached to it. The homilies on “the Passion,” and on “the

Resurrection,” are from Taverner’s “Postills,” published in 1540.

Internal evidence arising out of certain homely expressions, and

peculiar forms of ejaculation, the like to which appear in Latimer’s

sermons, pretty clearly betray the hand of the Bishop of Worcester to

have been engaged in the homily against “Brawling and Contention;” the

one against “Adultery” may be safely given to Thomas Becon, one of

Cranmer’s chaplains, in whose works, published in 1564, it is still to

be found; of the rest nothing is known, but by the merest conjecture. In

the second book, no single homily of them all has been appropriated.

All members of the Church of England agree that the Homilies “contain a

godly and wholesome doctrine;” but they are not agreed as to the precise

_degree_ of authority to be attached to them. In them the authority of

the Fathers, of the first six general Councils, and of the judgments of

the Church generally, the holiness of the primitive Church, the

secondary inspiration of the Apocrypha, the sacramental character of

marriage and other ordinances, regeneration in holy baptism, and the

real presence in the eucharist, are asserted. To some of these

assertions ultra-Protestants of course demur.

By this approbation of the two books of Homilies it is not meant that

every passage of Scripture, or argument that is made use of in them, is

always convincing; or that every expression is so severely worded, that

it may not need a little correction or explanation: all that we profess

about them is only that they “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine.”

This rather relates to the main importance and design of them, than to

every passage in them. Though this may be said concerning them, that,

considering the age wherein they were written, the imperfection of our

language, and some inferior defects, they are two very extraordinary

books. Some of them are better writ than others, and are equal to

anything that has been writ upon those subjects since that time. Upon

the whole matter, every one, who subscribes the Articles, ought to read

them, otherwise he subscribes a blank; he approves a book implicitly,

and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing

anything concerning it. This approbation is not to be stretched so far,

as to carry in it a special assent to every particular in that whole

volume: but a man must be persuaded of the main of the doctrine that is

taught in them.—_Bp. Burnet._

The Church requires our assent and approbation to the Articles, and so

in like manner to the Rubric, to be expressed in a different degree and

manner from that in which we express our assent to the Homilies and the

Canons; the same degree of preference being given to the Articles of

religion before the Homilies, in point of doctrine, and to the Rubric

before the body of Canons, in point of practice.

The Thirty-nine Articles, for instance, being the capital rule of our

doctrine, as we are teachers in this Church; (they being this Church’s

interpretation of the word of GOD in Scripture, so far as they go;) and

designed as a bulwark against Popery and fanaticism; we are bound to a

very full and explicit acknowledgment under our hands, that we do

deliberately, and advisedly, and _ex animo_, assent to every part and

proposition contained in them. For this everybody knows to be the

meaning of clerical subscriptions, both before ordination, and as often

as the three articles of the thirty-sixth canon are subscribed by us.

In the like manner the Rubric being the standard of uniformity of

worship in our communion; the adding to which tends towards opening a

gap to Popish superstitions, and the increase of human inventions in the

service of GOD; and the subtracting from which tends towards paving a

way to a fanatical disuse and contempt of rites and ceremonies;

therefore we are obliged, not only to declare our _ex animo_

approbation, assent, and consent, to the matter of the Rubric, but are

laid under religious promises, that we will in every particular,

prescribed in and by it, conform ourselves to it as the rule of our

ministration.

And, indeed, considering that both the Articles and the Rubric are

statute as well as canon law, and have equally the sanction and

authority both of the temporal and spiritual legislatures; and

considering the condition upon which we are admitted to minister in this

established Church, which is our solemn reception of them both as our

rule; I do not see how any man can, with a good conscience, continue

acting as a minister of our Church, who can allow himself either to

depart from her doctrine as expressed in her Articles, or from her rites

and ceremonies as prescribed in the Service Book. Wherefore it is not

without reason that the thirty-eighth canon, which is entitled

“Revolters after subscription censured,” expressly denounces, that “if

any minister, after having subscribed the three articles of the 36th

canon, shall omit to use any of the orders and ceremonies prescribed in

the Communion Book, he shall be suspended; and if after one month he

reform not, he shall be excommunicated; and if after the space of

another month he submit not himself, he shall be deposed from the

ministry.”

But the case of Homilies and Canons is different from that of the

Articles and Rubric. They are indeed equally set forth by authority. The

one is as truly the doctrine, and the other is as truly the law, of the

Church. But still the regard that we are supposed to pay to them is not

equally the same. For, though we subscribe to the Homilies, yet this

subscription amounts to no more than our acknowledgment, that “they

contain a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for the times they were

written in, and fitting to be publicly taught unto the people;” and not

that we will maintain every particular doctrine, or argument, or

assertion, contained in them.

In like manner we say as to the Canons. “We receive them in general as a

good body of ecclesiastical laws. We acknowledge the wholesomeness and

fitness of them all for discipline, and order, and edification, and

proper in every respect for the times in which they were drawn up. But

we do not look upon every particular thereby enjoined as absolutely and

indispensably requisite to be practised now by us in the manner it is

enjoined, any more than we hold our approbation of every sentence or

expression in the Book of Homilies to be necessary.—_Archdeacon Sharp._

Were I asked the question, whether the clergymen of the Church of

England subscribe to the doctrines of the Homilies, as well as to the

Articles of Religion, I should, in sincerity and truth, be obliged to

reply, most undoubtedly _not_. Neither at ordination, nor upon collation

or institution to benefices, nor at any other period, is any such

subscription required of the clergy. We cannot help remarking a broad

distinction in the degree of authority attributed by our Church, to the

Liturgy, the Articles, and the Books of Homilies, respectively. To the

Liturgy, all beneficed clergymen are bound, within a limited period

after institution or collation, open and publicly, before the

congregation to which they have been appointed ministers, to declare

their unfeigned assent and consent. To the Articles, the clergy are

obliged, at various times, and on different occasions, solemnly to

subscribe. But, however venerable and valuable the Homilies

unquestionably are, we do not find them treated with any such

distinction; and, by the simple fact, that no provision is made for

their being signed, subscribed, or solemnly assented to, they are placed

in an immeasurably lower grade than the other formularies. It is,

indeed, asserted in the thirty-fifth Article, that “the Second Book of

Homilies doth contain a goodly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for

these times,” [the times in which it was prepared and published,] “as

doth the former Book of Homilies:”—and, in subscribing to the Articles,

every clergyman admits the truth of this assertion. But the assertion

itself is both limited and guarded, and is very different from that full

assurance and conviction expressed by the Church, and demanded of her

ministers, respecting both our Articles and Liturgy.... I conceive the

framers of our Articles merely to have asserted, that the Homilies,

generally speaking, contained religious and moral instruction, good, and

salutary, and necessary to be so administered under the peculiar

circumstance of their own times.—_Bishop Jebb: the Homilies considered._

It seems the author of the Homilies wrote them in haste, and the Church

did wisely to reserve this authority of correcting and setting forth

others. (See _Rubric before Offertory_.) For they have many scapes in

them in special, although they contain in general many wholesome lessons

for the people; in which sense our ministers do subscribe unto them, and

no other.—_Bp. Overall._

The authors of several of the Homilies are mentioned in Corry’s recent

edition of them, who also shows how they were intended to bear upon the

Antinomian as well as the Popish errors of the day.

HOMOIOUSIANS. Semi-Arians, who held that the nature of GOD the SON,

though not the same, was similar to that of GOD the _Father_.

HOMOOUSIANS. A name given by Arians to Catholic Christians, for holding

the doctrine of the Homoousion.

HOMOOUSION. (See _Trinity_.) This is the critical word of the Nicene

Creed, and is used to express the real Divinity of CHRIST, and that, as

derived from, and one with, the FATHER. The word was adopted from the

necessity of the case, in a sense different from the ordinary

philosophical use of it. Ὁμοούσιος properly means of the same nature, i.

e. under the same general nature, or species; i. e. is applied to things

which are but similar to each other, and are considered as one by an

abstraction of our minds. Thus Aristotle speaks of the stars being

ὁμοούσια with each other; and Porphyry, of the souls of brute animals

being ὁμοούσιαι to ours. When, however, it was used in relation to the

incommunicable essence of GOD, there was obviously no abstraction

possible in contemplating him, who is above all comparison with his

works. His nature is solitary, peculiar to himself, and one; so that,

whatever was accounted to be ὁμοούσιος with him, was necessarily

included in his individuality by all who would avoid recurring to the

vagueness of philosophy, and were cautious to distinguish between the

incommunicable essence of Jehovah and all created intelligences. And

hence the fitness of the term to denote without metaphor the relation

which the Logos bore in the orthodox creed to his eternal FATHER. Its

use is explained by Athanasius as follows: “Though,” he says, “we cannot

understand what is meant by the οὐσία of GOD, yet we know as much as

this, that God exists (εῖναι), which is the way in which Scripture

speaks of him; and after this pattern, when we wish to designate him

distinctly, we say GOD, FATHER, LORD. When then he says in Scripture, ‘I

am ὁ ὤν,’ and ‘I am Jehovah, GOD,’ or uses the plain word ‘GOD,’ we

understand by such statements nothing but his incomprehensible οὐσία,

and that he, who is there spoken of, exists (ἐστίν). Let no one then

think it strange, that the SON of GOD should be said to be ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας

τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the substance of GOD; rather, let him agree to the

explanation of the Nicene fathers, who, for the words ἐκ Θεοῦ,

substituted the ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας. They considered the two phrases

substantially the same, because, as we have said, the word GOD denotes

nothing but the οὐσία αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος. On the other hand, if the word be

not in such sense ἔκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as to be the true SON of the FATHER

according to his nature, but be said to be ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, merely as all

creatures are such as being his work, then indeed he is not ἐκ τῆς

οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, nor SON κατ’ ὑσίαν, but so called from his virtue, as

we may be who receive the title from grace.